ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  FACULTY OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

FLUTTER ANALYSIS OF TRAINER AIRCRAFT

GRADUATION PROJECT

İbrahim ÇİÇEK

Department of Aeronautıcal Engineering

Anabilim Dalı : Herhangi Mühendislik, Bilim

Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. Metin Orhan KAYA
Programı : Herhangi Program

June, 2017

i
ii
ISTANBUL TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY  FACULTY OF AERONAUTICS AND ASTRONAUTICS

FLUTTER ANALYSIS OF TRAINER AIRCRAFT

GRADUATION PROJECT

İbrahim ÇİÇEK
Student ID: 110120265

Department of Aeronautical Engineering

Anabilim Dalı : Herhangi Mühendislik, Bilim

Thesis Advisor: Prof. Dr. Metin Orhan KAYA
Programı : Herhangi Program

May, 2017

iii
iv
İbrahim ÇİÇEK, student of ITU Faculty of Aeronautics and Astronautics student ID
110120265, successfully defended the graduation entitled “ Flutter Analysis of
Trainer Aircraft” , which he/she prepared after fulfilling the requirements specified
in the associated legislations, before the jury whose signatures are below.

Thesis Advisor : Prof. Dr. Metin Orhan KAYA ..............................

İstanbul Technical University

Jury Members : Doç. Dr. Aytaç ARIKOĞLU .............................

İstanbul Technical University

Yrd. Doç. Dr. Hülya CEBECİ ..............................

İstanbul Technical University

Öğr.Gör.Dr. Hüsnü Barbaros SOYER ............................

İstanbul Technical University

Date of Submission : 29 May 2017

Date of Defense : 14 June 2017

v
vi
To everyone who can benefit from this work,

vii
viii
FOREWORD

Initially I wish to thank my consultant Prof. Dr. Metin Orhan KAYA for giving me a
chance to work on this challenging and informative subject, for all his assest and
interest. The course Aeroelasticity that he gave is remarkable for my degree subject.
His impressive courses lead me to look aeroelasticity subject and beyond. Also I would
like to thank all of my faculty lecturers, assistans and previous teachers that helped me
for my whole education. During these four years of education period informative
supports of department professors are remainded factor to my future career. Then, I
want to thank to my friends Mustafa Öztürk for his assist. Finaly I am so appreciated
with and want to thanks a lot specially to my brother Mehmet Çiçek and my family for
their relentless effort brought me to the present state.

May 2017 İbrahim ÇİÇEK

ix
x
CONTENTS
ABREVIATIONS ...................................................................................................... xii
LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................... xiii
LIST OF FIGURES .................................................................................................. xiv
SUMMARY ............................................................................................................... xv
INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1
PURPOSE OF PROJECT ............................................................................................ 1
1 LITERATURE REVIEW .................................................................................... 2
1.1 Aeroelastic Flutter ........................................................................................ 3
1.2 Flutter Speed Prediction ............................................................................... 6
2 FLUTTER ANALYSIS OF TYPICAL WING SECTION ................................ 10
2.1 Classical Flutter Analysis........................................................................... 10
2.2 Application of a Typical Wing................................................................... 16
3 FLUTTER SPEED –NUMERICAL CALCULATION ..................................... 25
3.1 Flutter Speed Determination ...................................................................... 25
3.2 Flutter Speed of Trainer Aircrafts .............................................................. 30
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS .................................................... 37
APPENDIX ................................................................................................................ 38
APPENDIX A: FIGURES .......................................................................................... 38
APPENDIX B: MATLAB CODE .............................................................................. 40
REFERENCES........................................................................................................... 43

xi
 ABREVIATIONS

ADD: Agency for Defense

Development KAI: Korean Aviation Industry

CFD: Computitional Fluid Dynamics KCAS: King County Aerial Survey

E: Young's modulus NACA: National Advisory

Committee for Aeronautics
EI: Flexural rigidity
NASA: National Aeronautics and
FEM: Finite Element Method Space Administration

FSI: Fluid Solid Interraction PSF: Pound Squared Force

G: Shear modulus TAI: Turkish Aviation Industry

GJ: Torsional rigidity ZONA: Aerospace Techonolgy

Incrinition
IAS: Indicated Air Speed

xii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 2.1 Mass distribution and mass densities of the beam element ...................... 21
Table 2.2 Sectional properties and aerodynamic chord lengths PD ST – 0314 ....... 22
Table 2.3 Shear center position w.r.t. Centroidal axis PD ST – 0314 ...................... 23
Table 2.4 Natural frequencies of wing model gathered from different sourches ..... 23
Table 2.5 Natural frequencies of the subsonic wing . case (1) ................................. 23
Table 2.6 Natural frequencies of the subsonic wing with E*=0.5E case (2a) .......... 24
Table 2.7 Natural frequencies of the subsonic wing with E*=0.1E case (2b)1........ 24
Table 3.1 Input parameter for flutter speed calculation ........................................... 28
Table 3.2 TAI HÜRKUŞ parameters ....................................................................... 31
Table 3.3 KAI KT-1 parameters............................................................................... 34
Table 3.4 PILATUS PC-21 parameters .................................................................... 36

xiii
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1 Aeroelastistic events .................................................................................. 2

Figure 1.2 F-117 Nighthawk Flutter Accident ............................................................ 4
Figure 1.3 Typical Wing Response ............................................................................. 5
Figure 1.4 F-117 Nighthawk Accident Flutter Response ............................................ 7
Figure 2.1 Wing Crossection ..................................................................................... 10
Figure 2.2 Flutter condition system response ............................................................ 15
Figure 2.3 FSI Module with Two-Way System Coupling ........................................ 17
Figure 2.4 Wing-fluid model in Fluent module ........................................................ 17
Figure 2.5 System Coupling iteration results ............................................................ 18
Figure 2.6 Finite Elements model of typical wing .................................................... 19
Figure 2.7 Aerodynamic meshes of typical wing ...................................................... 20
Figure 2.8 Fluid Model of typical wing .................................................................... 20
Figure 2.9 Bending-torsion natural frequencies of typical wing ............................... 21
Figure 3.1 Frequency and damping response of typical wing ................................... 29
Figure 3.2 TAI Hürkuş trainer aircraft ...................................................................... 30
Figure 3.3 HÜRKUŞ wing plange-pitch response .................................................... 31
Figure 3.4 KAI KT-1 trainer aircraft ......................................................................... 32
Figure 3.5 KAI KT-1 wing plange-pitch response .................................................... 34
Figure 3.6 Platus PC-21 trainer aircraft..................................................................... 34
Figure 3.7 PILATUS PC-21 wing plange-pitch response ......................................... 36

xiv
FLUTTER ANALYSIS OF TRAINER AIRCRAFT

SUMMARY
In this graduation project the flutter speeds of some trainer aircrafts wing will be
analysed. The aircraft that will be handled taken as historical trends for pilot traineers.
From previous studies the general characteristics of them taken from producers’
database and some merit references. The subject of this report is the fundemantal
flutter analysis of typical wing section. Enhancement in the general aeroelasticity
information with aerodynamics and structural load interractions will be given by the
help of the advisor’s lecture notes and reference books.

The static and dynamic aeroelasticity phenomena came after with proper design of
precios engineering. Hence material selection criterias and modifying the geometry
sizes will be taken in account. Calculations of flutter speeds and frequencies of
bending-torsional motions will be detailed. Even generally flutter is described as an
instability due to an interaction between aerodynamic, inertial, and elastic forces; the
characteristic motions in two dimention model will be clearly illustrated for general
concept, while real flutter phenomenon ocurred in finite wing model (3D).

Further analysis of wing models will be employed by Compitutional Fluid Dynamics

(CFD) sofware program,namely ANSYS Workbench. The additional calculation for
determining flutter boundary and wing modeling will be detailed. Then, the computing
software code of flutter speed in MATLAB and SIMULINK will be written for branch
of aircrafts. Iterations by optimised codes at the end of the reports is aimed to
narrowing down flutter boundary for similar aircraft classes.

xv
 INTRODUCTION

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) has become an indispensable tool in the

solution of engineering and scientific problems. The solution is made possible by the
analysis of the problems which are very difficult or even impossible with the basic
equations of the classical fluid mechanics, and by the computational fluid mechanics
which provides solutions in computer environment using numerical methods and
algorithms.

In recent years, interest in CFD programs has led to an increase in the price of such
software. ANSYS is commonly used CFD software whith its excellent multiphyisics
features. Beside it is widely used in the industrial field, its use in scientific articles and
researches. ANSYS, a reliable and economical alternative-computational fluid
dynamics software package, offers customization opportunities for probing users as an
advantage of being utilized interfreance as well as performing the required analysis.

Structural elements such as turbine blades or airplane wings moving in the fluid, along
with the development of the technology, are accompanied by a considerable amount
of aerodynamic forces, resulting in a number of problems. These forces may tend to
chained the shape of the structure. Aeroelasticity has become more important with the
increasing speed of aircraft, such as flutter, divergence and buffeting, which is the
result of the interaction of elastic structures with aerodynamic forces.

PURPOSE OF PROJECT

In this study aeroelastic modeling of a wing structure was made with the help of the
ANSYS 2 Way System Coupling method. Information about the program, Fluid-Solid
Interaction (FSI) solver is examined and sample solution is done. It is aimed to develop
the skills on the ANSYS FSI module program to be used in scientific researches and
to solve the lack of aeroelastic solutions in the literature in this regard. Flutter boundary
and critical air speed inspection will be encountered by MATLAB and SIMULINK

1
for comparıson. Theorotical calculation and program outputs will be compared for real
cases.

1 LITERATURE REVIEW

Aeroelasticity has been a problem in aircraft design since the early stage of flying. In
early 1903, Samuel Langley of the Smithsonian Institute attempted to fly twice with
the 'aerodrome' from the floating house hill in the Potomac River. However, these
efforts have failed because of the divergence of the wing, which is the result of weak
torsional stiffness. So Langley's experiments failed because of an aero-elastic problem,
and the first motorized flight occurred with the Wright Brothers' Kitty Hawk aircraft
(Souza, 2015). The Orville and Wright brothers have considered aeroelastic events in
their double-wing aircraft and are aware of the loss of thrust with the adverse
aeroelastic effect resulting from torsion of the propellers. They found that the thin and
wide propeller pellets they made for testing resulted in a significant performance loss
(Sekmen, 2016).

Figure 1.1 Aeroelastistic events

2
1.1 Aeroelastic Flutter

The aeroelastic problems were largely unknown in the early days because the aircraft
at that time were flying at low speed and had rigid structures (Teichman, 1941).
However, the problem started to become serious when aircraft speed increases and the
wing structures become less rigid. The word “aeroelasticity” is defined as the mutual
interaction of aerodynamic forces, inertial forces and elastic forces on a structure. One
of the reasons why aircraft structure is not rigidly build is because rigid structures are
usually heavier compared to less rigid structure. Heavy aircraft cost more to operate
when compared to lighter aircraft. As a result, many aircrafts are prone to experience
many aeroelastic phenomena such as buffeting, divergence and flutter. Among those
phenomena, flutter is considered the most dangerous of all (Kussner, 1936).

In engineering terms, flutter means a vibration that amplifies. Early studies showed
that flutter has nothing to do with the vibration set up by the inertia forces of the aircraft
engine (Teichmann, 1941). Flutter is a phenomenon where a structure experiences an
aerodynamically induced vibration and can be destructive. Bisplinghoff (1996)
defined flutter as the dynamic instability of a structure at a speed called the flutter
speed. Many structures such as suspension bridges and aircraft wings that are exposed
to airflow have a potential of experiencing flutter. The collapsed of the Tay Bridge in
Dundee where a train with 65 people on board plunged into the river beneath was
resulted from flutter. Another similar accident happened when Tacoma Narrow
Suspension Bridge collapsed due to the same reason. Recently, a United States Air
Force F-117 Nighthawk Stealth aircraft lost its right wing before crashing towards

3
spectators at an air show as shown in Figure 1.2. Later investigation showed it was
also caused by flutter (Farhat, 2001).

Figure 1.2 F-117 Nighthawk Flutter Accident

Aeroelastic flutter phenomenon is only possible when a structure is free to rotate about
at least two axes or has two degrees of freedom oscillation. The reason is single degree
of freedom oscillation will be damped out by the aerodynamic forces (Theodorsen,
1934). On aircraft, flutter usually occurs on the aerodynamic surfaces such as wing,
vertical and horizontal tail and or canard wing. Aircraft aerodynamics surfaces are
constructed so that they can carry the loads that are produced in flight and they are also
exposed to absorb the energy from the airflow. The aerodynamic forces that can induce
flutter are related to the dynamic pressure, or the airspeed, of the airplane. If flutter-
inducing forces are present they will increase the amplitude as the airspeed increases.
Aerodynamic surfaces structure such as the wing can be viewed as a beam connected
frequency, which relates to the stiffness of the spring. A spring with high stiffness will
vibrate at a higher frequency than a less stiff spring. This vibrating frequency is known

4
as the natural frequency of the system. In theory, flutter will usually occur at or near
the natural frequency of a structure (NASA, 1997).

Figure 1.3 Typical Wing Response

Flutter characteristics can be examined by tapping the surface at steadily faster

airspeeds, then watching how fast the vibrations damp out. The vibrations will take
longer to decay as the airspeed approaches a possible resonant condition. In this way
potential flutter can be approached safely without actually experiencing sustained
flutter (NASA, 1997). Another important fact about flutter is that it can only occur
above the flutter critical speed. Below the critical speed, the vibration of aircraft wing
that is subjected to external forces such as gust or sudden maneuver will damp out, as
the vibration will give its energy to the airflow. Above the critical speed, the vibration
tends to absorb the energy from the air stream and continue vibrating with increasing
amplitude (Bisplinghoff et al., 1996). The external disturbances will trigger a structure
to oscillate and the oscillation amplitude will increase due to the absorption of energy.
No oscillation means flutter will not occur because there is no oscillation and the flow
cannot induce its to larger amplitude.

The vibration with increasing amplitude can lead to failure of wing structures through
extreme deformation. Furthermore, the mild flutter or flutter with constant amplitude
can cause the structure to experience structural fatigue and fail eventually. Due to this

5
fact and the number of aircraft accident caused by flutter, the aviation authorities have
decided that all aircraft must undergo aeroelastic flutter analysis or the prediction of
flutter speed for safety reasons. This also motivates many researchers to study flutter
in order to get a better understanding on the phenomena. Aeroelastic flutter analysis is
not precise and it requires flight verification so that flutter will not occur within the
operational flight speed (Bin Abdulrazak, 2005).

Although the critical flutter speed is very essential in aeroelastic flutter analysis, many
have sought to predict the response of flutter nowadays. Currently the method of
obtaining the response of flutter is by using the state space, which involves
mathematical modeling. This method is capable of predicting flutter response. The
process of obtaining a mathematical model and the solution for the flutter system
seems detailed and revisable technique. Another way to predict flutter speed boundary
is that modeling structure with matrices and solving by eigenvalues and eigenvectors.
Modeled matrices represents wing mass and stiffness coefficients coupled with
aerodynamic inertia and damping coefficients. Overall matrices obtained after
ordering aerodynamic equations and section equations of motion. The corresponding
eigenvalues represents the flutter speed in terms of dynamic pressure.

1.2 Flutter Speed Prediction

The flutter speed prediction is a process of determining the flutter stability boundary
for a structure that is expose in airflow. It can be performed using K-Method, P-K
Method or G-Method. The work presented by Theodorsen and Garrick (1934) has
opened the opportunity for the solution of the flutter problem. The three methods
mentioned are capable of predicting the flutter speed for a wing section. K-method was
used by Smilg and Wesserman and is also known as the Air Material Command
method (Fung, 1969). In this method the prediction of the flutter speed is made
possible by introducing dimensionless coefficients and the artificial structural damping
coefficient into the equation of motion. The simplified equation is then solved by
obtaining its eigenvalues. K-method only requires a straightforward complex
eigenvalues analysis to be done for all values of reduced frequency k. This method
assumes the artificial damping first (Scanlan et al., 1968). Flutter speed is located at
the point where the value of the damping becomes positive. The determinant is

6
obtained by expanding the equation of motion for flutter system and simplify the
𝟏+𝒊𝒈
equation by assuming 𝛌 = . Because of the straightforward eigenvalue analysis,
𝛚𝟐

this method has the advantage of computational efficiency. The eigenvalues for the
characteristic equation of motion in equilibrium represent a point on the flutter
boundary if the corresponding value of g equals to the assumed value of g. The general
solution for the characteristic equation is given by the 2nd order polynomial. By solving
the polynomial, the roots will yield result in the form of complex numbers. The two
complex roots will represent the two modes, which are heaving and pitching modes.
From there, the values of frequencies, ω and damping, g can be computed. These series
of value of the frequency and the structural damping for torsion and heaving mode are
obtained for all values of the reduced frequency. The frequency and damping are then
plotted against the air speed. The curves plotted are known as V-g and V-ω curve. Both
P-k and G method will also yield these curves. The significant of V-g curve is that the
critical flutter speed is reached when the value of the damping is zero or at g=0 in V-
g curves as shown below.

Figure 1.4 F-117 Nighthawk Accident Flutter Response

Divergence oscillation will occur when the corresponding value of damping first
become positive. Mild or destructive flutter can also be known. From the V-ω curves,
the tendency of flutter to occur is shown when both the frequencies start to close in on

7
each other. The K technique is widely used and only abandon if the physical
interpretation of the result is questionable (Dowell et al., 1978).

In 1965 Irwin and Guyett presented another method to anticipate flutter speed. This
method is called the P-K method. The method is an approximate method to find the
decay rate solution (ZONA, 2001). To reduce and simplify the P-K method equation,
the structural modal damping effect is excluded identical with the K-Method. But it
can easily be included for some cases. The non-dimensional Laplace parameter is
expressed as s’ = g + ik where γ is the decay rate coefficient which is different from
the previous method. Mathematically, this method is inconsistent because the non-
dimensional parameter s’ is expressed in terms of damped sinusoidal motion. Another
reason for inconsistency is the aerodynamic forces are based on the undamped simple
Harmonic motion. Rodden (1969) later modified the method when he added an
aerodynamic damping matrix into the governing equation (ZONA, 2001).

The added aerodynamic damping matrix is represented by g in the aerodynamic forces

term. The equation is solved for complex roots s’ at several given values of the velocity
and density. The lining up process is done by matching the reduced frequency k to the
imaginary part of s’ for every structural mode (ZONA, 2001). Such a process requires
repeated interpolation of the aerodynamic forces from the range of reduced frequency
k. When all the values of damping and frequency are acquired, the V-ω and V-g curves
are plotted. The flutter boundary lies at the point where the value of damping equal to
zero on the speed axis.

G-Method is a method where the first order damping is derived from Laplace domain
unsteady aerodynamic forces. The flutter boundary is provided when the value of
damping is equal to zero. The solution for this method begins by substituting p =g+ik
into the governing equation. This will have resulted a second order linear system
equation in term of damping (ZONA, 2001). The solution only exists when the
imaginary value for damping is equal to zero. This condition can be acquired by
rewriting the 2nd order equation into the form of state space. Then, a technique of
reduced frequency sweeps is introduced. This technique seeks the condition where the
damping is zero by solving the eigenvalues. The sweeping starts from zero reduced
frequency of the unsteady aerodynamic forces with an increment value defined by the

8
user and stop at its maximum value. The frequency and damping is then obtained. Then
the V-ω and V-g curves can be plotted. The flutter condition occurs where the value
of g equal to zero on the x-axis.

Although the three methods discussed above used different approach to obtain the
plotted values of V-g and V-ω curves, they share the same goal. The goal is to locate
the point where the damping value equal to zero. K-Method uses artificial damping to
indicate the required damping for the harmonic motion. The damping values do not
represent any physical meaning except when the damping value lies at the flutter
boundary (Scanlan, et al., 1968). In terms of computational time, G-method is the last
option to choose from. This is followed by P-K method and K-Method provides the
quickest solution (Nam, 2001). In addition, the solution technique for K-method is
efficient and robust when compared with other techniques (ZONA, 2001). The
disadvantage in P-K method is that it produces a discontinuity for bending mode in the
damping curve. It is resulted from the aerodynamic lag root because the lining up
process skips the bending mode during computation. Furthermore, the aerodynamic
damping is not valid at high value of reduced frequency. At high aerodynamic forces,
this method is known to produce unrealistic roots (ZONA, 2001). The discontinuity in
damping curves does not occur in G-Method because the eigenvalue tracking is done
by applying the Predictor-Corrector Scheme. If the eigenvalue changes sharply and
creates discontinuity, the scheme will be activated to compute the damping value by
reducing the size of increment of the reduce frequency by a factor. In contrast, Both
P-K and G-Method provides smooth curves for torsion mode. K-Method disadvantage
lies in the form of difficulty tracing the eigenvalue from the reduced frequency list
when the curves loop around themselves for certain system and produce abnormal
curve (Looye, 1998). Ironically, all methods discussed above do agree on one aspect,
which is the flutter boundary. The reason is when the value of damping is equal to
zero; the flutter equation in all the methods is reduced to the same form. This is why
the critical flutter speed from the three methods is always in good agreement (ZONA,
2001).

9
2 FLUTTER ANALYSIS OF TYPICAL WING SECTION

2.1 Classical Flutter Analysis

In this section, we demonstrate the flutter analysis of a linear aeroelastic system. To

do this, a simple model is needed. In the older literature on aeroelasticity, flutter
analyses often were performed using simple, spring-restrained, rigid-wing models
such as the one shown in Fig. 2.1. These were called “typical-sectionmodels” and are
still appealing because of their physical simplicity. This configuration could represent
the case of a rigid, two-dimensional wind-tunnel model that is elastically mounted in
a wind-tunnel test section, or it could correspond to a typical airfoil section along a
finite wing. In the latter case, the discrete springs would reflect the wing structural
bending and torsional stiffnesses, and the reference point would represent the elastic
axis.

Figure 2.1 Wing Crossection

Of interest in such models are points P, C, Q, and T, which refer, respectively, to the
reference point (i.e., where the plunge displacement h is measured), the center of mass,
the aerodynamic center (i.e., presumed to be the quarter-chord in subsonic thin-airfoil
theory), and the three-quarter-chord (i.e., an important chordwise location in thin-
airfoil theory). The dimensionless parameters e and a (−1 ≤ e ≤ 1 and −1 ≤ a ≤ 1)
determine the locations of the points C and P: when these parameters are zero, the

10
points lie on the mid-chord, and when they are positive (negative), the points lie toward
the trailing (leading) edge. In the literature, the chordwise offset of the center of mass
from the reference point often appears in the equations of motion. It is typically made
dimensionless by the airfoil semi-chord b and denoted by xθ = e − a. This so-called
static-unbalance parameter is positive when the center of mass is toward the trailing
edge from the reference point. The rigid plunging and pitching of the model is
restrained by light, linear springs with spring constants kh and kθ . It is convenient to
formulate the equations of motion from Lagrange’s equations. To do this, we need
kinetic and potential energies, as well as the generalized forces resulting from
aerodynamic loading. We immediately can write the potential and kinetic energy as
below.

1 1
EP = 𝑘ℎ ℎ2 + 𝑘𝜃 𝜃2 (2.1)
2 2

1 1 2
EK = 𝑚𝑣c 2 + 𝐼c θ̇
2 2
1 2 1 2
2
= 𝑚(ℎ + 𝑏 𝑥θ 2 2
θ̇ + 2𝑏𝑥θ ℎθ̇ ) + 𝐼c θ̇
2 2

1 1 2 1 2
EK = m(h2 + 2bxθ hθ̇ ) + Ic θ̇ + IP θ̇ (2.2)
2 2 2

where 𝑰𝐏 = 𝑰𝐜 + 𝒎𝒃𝟐 𝒙𝛉 𝟐

The generalized forces associated with the degrees of freedom h and θ are derived

easily from the work done by the aerodynamic lift through a virtual displacement of
the point Q and by the aerodynamic pitching moment about Q through a virtual rotation
of the model. Hence, the virtual work of the aerodynamic forces is;

W = L [ h + b(12 + a) θ]+ M0.25c  θ (2.3)

11
Where M0.25c is the moment about quarter chord of airfoil and the generalized forces
become

Qh = −L

1
Q = M0.25c + b( + a)L (2.4)
2

It is clear that the generalized force associated with h is the negative of the lift, whereas
the generalized force associated with θ is the pitching moment about the reference

point U. Lagrange’s equations are specialized here for the case in which the kinetic
energy T depends on only 𝐪̇ 𝟏 𝐪̇ 𝟐 … therefore

d ∂T ∂T ∂U
( )− + = Qi (i = 1, 2, ... n) (2.5)
dt ∂q̇ i ∂qi ∂qi

Here, n = 2, q1 = h, and q2 = θ

Then the equations of motion become;

𝑚(ℎ̈ + 𝑏𝑥θ θ̈ ) + 𝑘𝑘ℎ ℎ = −L (2.6)

𝐼𝑃 θ̈ + 𝑚𝑏𝑥θ ḧ +𝑘θ θ = M (2.7)

12
In classical flutter analysis we it is assumed that the motion is simple harmonic as
represented by

h =𝐡̅ 𝒆−𝒊𝝎𝒕

̅ 𝒆−𝒊𝝎𝒕
θ=𝛉

then corresponding lift and drag force are

L=𝐋̅ 𝒆−𝒊𝝎𝒕

̅ 𝒆−𝒊𝝎𝒕
M= 𝐌

Substituting these time-dependent functions into the equations of motion, we obtain a

pair of algebraic equations for the amplitudes of h and θ in the form

̅ + mω2h𝐡̅ = −𝐋̅
−ω2m𝐡̅ − ω2mbxθ𝛉

−ω2mbxθ𝐡̅ − ω2 IP𝛉 ̅=𝐌

̅ + IPω2θ𝛉 ̅

And recalling from aerodynamic forces equations those couplin each other:

𝐡̅
𝐋̅ = −𝛑𝛒∞𝐛𝟑𝛚𝟐 [ 𝐥 𝐡 ( 𝐤, 𝐌∞ ) ̅]
+ 𝐥 𝛉( 𝐤, 𝐌∞ ) 𝛉 (2.8)
𝒃

𝐡̅
̅ = 𝛑𝛒 𝐛𝟒𝛚𝟐 [ 𝐦 𝐡 ( 𝐤, 𝐌∞ )
𝐌 ̅]
+ 𝐦 𝛉( 𝐤, 𝐌∞ ) 𝛉 (2.9)
∞
𝒃

13
Substituting these lift and moment amplitudes into Eqs. 2.8-2.9 and then rearranging,

we obtain a pair of homogeneous, linear, algebraic equations for h and θ, given by

𝒎 𝝎 𝟐 ̅
𝒉 𝒎𝒙𝜽
{ [𝟏 − ( 𝒉 ) ] + 𝒍𝒉 (𝒌, 𝑴∞ )} 𝒃 + [𝝅𝝆 ̅ =0
+ 𝒍𝜽 (𝒌, 𝑴∞ )] 𝒉 (2.10)
𝝅𝝆∞ 𝒃𝟐 𝝎 ∞𝒃
𝟐

𝒎 𝒙𝜽 ̅
𝒉 𝑰 𝝎 𝟐
[𝝅𝝆 ̅=0
+ 𝒎𝒉 (𝒌, 𝑴∞ )] 𝒃 + {𝝅𝝆 𝑷 𝒃𝟒 [𝟏 − ( 𝝎𝜽) ] + 𝒎𝜽 (𝒌, 𝑴∞ )} 𝜽 (2.11)
∞ 𝒃𝟐 ∞

The coefficients in these equations that involve the inertia terms are symbolically
simplified by defining the dimensionless parameters used previously; namely

𝐦
𝛍= 𝟐 (mass ratio)
𝛑𝛒∞ 𝐛

𝑰𝑷
r =√ 𝟐 ( mass radius of gyration about P)
𝒎𝒃

Using these parameters allows us to rewrite the previous two homogeneous equations
in a simpler way:

𝝎 𝟐 𝒉 ̅
̅=0
{𝝁 [𝟏 − ( 𝝎𝒉 ) ] + 𝒍𝒉 } 𝒃 + (𝝁𝒙𝜽 + 𝒍𝜽 )𝜽 (2.12)

𝒉 ̅ 𝝎 𝟐
̅=0
(𝝁𝒙𝜽 + 𝒎𝒉 ) + {𝝁𝒓𝟐 [𝟏 − ( 𝜽 ) ] + 𝒎𝜽 } 𝜽 (2.13)
𝒃 𝝎

At this step in the flutter analysis for solving these algebraic equations for the flight
condition(s) for which the presumed simple harmonic motion is valid. This result
corresponds to the flutter boundary. If it is presumed that the configuration parameters

m, e, a, IP, ωh, ωθ , and b are known, then the unknown quantities h̅, θ̅, ω, ρ∞, M∞, and

k describe the motion and flight condition. Because Eqs. 2.11-2.12 are linear and

14
homogeneous in h̅/b, and θ̅, the determinant of their coefficients must be zero for a
nontrivial solution for the motion to exist. This condition can be written as

ωh 2
μ [1 − σ 2 ( ) ] + lh μ x θ + lθ
ω
| 2
|=0 (2.14)
ω
μxθ + mh μr2 [1 − ( θ ) ] + mθ
ω

The determinant in this relationship is called the “flutter determinant.” Note that
𝜔ℎ
the parameter 𝜎 = was introduced so that a common term that is explicit in ω
𝜔𝜃
𝝎𝜽
is available , namely, . Thus, expansion of the determinant yields a quadratic
𝛚
𝜔𝜃 2
polynomial in the unknown 𝜆 = ( ) To complete the solution for the flight
ω
condition at the flutter boundary, it must be recognized that four unknowns remain:
𝜔𝜃 𝑚 𝑏𝜔
,𝜇= , 𝑀∞ and 𝑘 = (reduced frequency).
ω 𝜋𝜌∞ 𝑏 2 𝑈

Figure 2.2 Flutter condition system response

15
The one equation available for their solution is the second-degree polynomial
characteristic equation from setting the determinant equal to zero. However, because
the aerodynamic coefficients are complex quantities, this complex equation represents
two real equations, wherein both the real and imaginary parts must be identically zero
for a solution to be obtained. This means that two of the four unknowns must be
specified. A procedure to solve for and map the flutter boundary is outlined as follows:
1. Specify an altitude, which fixes the parameter μ.
2. Specify an initial guess for 𝑀∞ of, say, zero.
3. Recalling that setting the flutter determinant equal to zero yields a quadratic
equation in λ, use a root-finding application1 to find the value of k at which the
imaginary part of one of the two roots for λ vanishes, which is kF . This can be
carried out easily with computerized symbolic manipulation software such as
MATLAB, MathematicaTM or Maple TM.
𝜔𝜃
4. Set =√λ(𝑘𝐹 ) using the root for which λ(kF) is real.
𝜔𝐹
𝑏𝜔𝐹 𝑈𝐹
5. Determine UF = and M∞𝐹 =
𝑘𝐹 𝑐∞

6. Repeat steps 3–5 with the value of M∞F obtained in step 5 until converged values
are obtained for M∞F , kF , and UF for flutter at a given μ.
7. Repeat the entire procedure for various values of μ (i.e., an indication of the
altitude for a given aircraft) to determine the flutter boundary in terms of, say,
altitude versus M∞F , kF , and UF.

2.2 Application of a Typical Wing

In Finite Element method analysis the Fluid Solid interraction problems encountered
initialy with modeling sutructural model coupling with fluid flow. To do this, 2 Way
System Coupling Method will be used in ANSYS Workbench. Firstly, Transient
Structural Module drawed in workspace then Fluid Flow and System Coupling
modules followed by. It can be seen ın figure below that their needs to be connected
to share same geometry and model outputs to couple for iterations.

16
 Figure 2.3 FSI Module with Two-Way System Coupling

After designing FSI workshop the Structural module inputs setted by giving
aluminium materal properties and fluctuating force property. Then, in Fluent case air
choosen as fluid flow with inlet and boundary conditions. To enable System coupling
gathering transfer data from both module dynamic mesh must be encountered on wing
surface which is defined in Transient Structural and Fluent as fluid-solid interference
and interface respectively with named selection.

Figure 2.4 Wing-fluid model in Fluent module

17
The System coupling details settled after entering all inputs to both module (i.e.
Transient Structural and Fluid Flow). Then Analysis settings conducted regarding to
step end time and system simulation time. Finaly, all workshap checked again with
updating option. After solving workbench in long time for each iteration the system
output reports visualisied by result section as shown below.

Figure 2.5 System Coupling iteration results

A Typical discretization of the aircraft wing (FEM model and Aerodynamic model)
are shown in Figs 2.2 and 2.3. The numerical data used for the actual wing and also
for the wings with reduced stiffness parameters are as shown below. The following
properties of the tapered wing are used for the analysis:
Length = 7.115m
Mean chord =1.45m
Profile = NACA 2411
Young’s Modulus of elasticity = E = 70 * 109 N/m2
Poisson’s ration = ν = 0.33
Shear Modulus of rigidity = G = 26.3 * 109 N/m2
Density of the material = ρs = 2700 kg/m3
Density of air = ρ = 1.225 kg/m3

18
Case (1): Actual wing
Young.s Modulus of elasticity = E = 72 * 109 N/m2
Poisson.s ratio = ν = 0.3
Shear Modulus of rigidity = G = 27.69 * 109 N/m2

Case (2a): With reduced stiffness parameter

E* = 0.5E and G* = 0.5G
Young.s Modulus of elasticity = E* = 36 * 109 N/m2
Poisson.s ratio = ν = 0.3
Shear Modulus of rigidity = G* = 13.85 * 109 N/m2

Case (2b): With reduced stiffness parameter

E* = 0.1E and G* = 0.1G
Young.s Modulus of elasticity = E* = 7.2 * 109 N/m2
Poisson.s ratio = ν = 0.3
Shear Modulus of rigidity = G* = 2.769 * 109 N/m2,

Figure 2.6 Finite Elements model of typical wing

19
Figure 2.7 Aerodynamic meshes of typical wing

Figure 2.8 Fluid Model of typical wing

20
 Figure 2.9 Bending-torsion natural frequencies of typical wing

Station Element C/S Area Density Mass/unit

Number length [m] x10-6 [m2] [kg/m3] length
[kg/m]
1 0.350 12871.0 9309.30 119.82
2 0.315 12037.0 7803.98 93.94
3 0.285 12318.0 9609.27 118.37
4 0.300 11400.0 9784.31 111.54
5 0.325 15438.0 7654.20 118.16
6 0.315 7348.1 7968.55 58.55
7 0.325 6826.9 49346.43 336.88
8 0.325 6470.2 41645.03 269.45
9 0.325 5314.3 44344.80 235.66
10 0.325 5110.9 40029.30 204.58
11 0.325 4947.1 34392.09 170.14
12 0.325 4817.5 29235.08 14.84
13 0.325 4153.8 26966.23 112.01
14 0.325 3939.4 22792.80 89.79
15 0.325 3455.0 17246.97 59.58
16 0.350 3259.6 9963.28 32.47
17 0.350 3132.6 6385.20 20.00
18 0.300 3153.5 6178.57 19.48
19 0.210 2803.0 9275.77 25.99
20 0.350 2557.7 6660.95 17.04
21 0.370 2009.6 7063.66 14.20
22 0.370 2119.7 6485.07 13.75
Table 2.1 Mass distribution and mass densities of the beam element

21
Total wing mass = 762.6 kg

Station Element Izz Iyy J Chord

Number length [m] x10-4 [m4] x10-4 [m4] x10-4 [m4] length
[m]
1 0.350 4.0477 35.3980 70.3185 2.402
2 0.315 3.2949 29.8140 45.8763 2.326
3 0.285 3.1249 29.5620 25.7400 2.256
4 0.300 2.8388 23.3110 15.0045 2.191
5 0.325 3.7622 23.3330 9.0301 2.120
6 0.315 1.5680 11.6677 7.1700 2.047
7 0.315 1.4159 10.4640 5.6790 1.975
8 0.325 1.2581 9.3388 5.2815 1.902
9 0.325 0.9428 6.8012 4.3770 1.828
10 0.325 0.8215 6.4647 3.8130 1.754
11 0.325 0.7414 6.0293 3.3300 1.680
12 0.325 0.6706 5.4199 2.7525 1.606
13 0.325 0.5127 4.1906 2.3640 1.532
14 0.325 0.4474 3.6573 2.0250 1.458
15 0.325 0.3453 2.8600 1.6335 1.384
16 0.350 0.2958 2.3924 1.3110 1.307
17 0.350 0.2537 2.0252 1.0515 1.227
18 0.300 0.2295 1.8596 0.8730 1.153
19 0.210 0.1901 1.5036 0.7470 1.095
20 0.350 0.1525 1.2544 0.5865 1.031
21 0.370 0.1036 0.7833 0.4125 0.949
22 0.370 0.9409 0.6224 0.2940 0.865
Table 2.2 Sectional properties and aerodynamic chord lengths PD ST – 0314

Station Element ZG x10-3 YG x10-3

Number length [m] [m] [m]
1 0.350 -355.430 36.300
2 0.315 -432.248 -137.681
3 0.285 -379.560 -199.990
4 0.300 -434.200 -278.100
5 0.325 -161.000 -9.200
6 0.315 -1.648 39.906
7 0.315 -9.040 11.800
8 0.325 -6.333 7.034
9 0.325 -8.275 -3.881
10 0.325 -19.418 -0.664
11 0.325 -18.830 -3.497

22
 12 0.325 -10.425 13.077
13 0.325 -16.588 -4.718
14 0.325 -14.829 -5.609
15 0.325 -6.369 -12.955
16 0.350 -0.028 -10.495
17 0.350 -2.468 8.142
18 0.300 2.517 -8.635
19 0.210 1.100 -7.300
20 0.350 -1.173 -6.608
21 0.370 -0.851 -5.770
22 0.370 -1.952 -5.314

Table 2.3 Shear center position w.r.t. Centroidal axis PD ST – 0314

The above numerical data are used for the analysis of the subsonic wing. The wing is
visualized as a collection of stepped profile elements, each having its respective
properties as shown in the above tables. The natural frequencies obtained for the wing
for each case are given below.

Type and Mode Present analysis Stick model 3D model results

number results [Hz] results [Hz] [Hz]
1 bending 7.331 7.119 7.087
2 bending 21.227 20.786 20.481
3 bending 49.800 48.538 47.781
4 bending 127.767 - -
1 torsion 57.168 56.500 56.338
2 torsion 123.302 - -
3 torsion 183.103 - -
4 torsion 388.522 - -
Table 2.4 Natural frequencies of wing model gathered from different sourches

Type and %Error b/w %Error b/w

Mode Program and Program and
number stick model 3D model
1 bending 2.89 3.33
2 bending 2.07 3.51
3 bending 2.53 4.05
4 bending - -
1 torsion 1.17 1.45
2 torsion - -
3 torsion - -
4 torsion - -
Table 2.5 Natural frequencies of the subsonic wing . case (1)

23
 Type and Program ANSYS % Error b/w
Mode Results [Hz] Results [Hz] Program &
number ANSYS
1 bending 5.180 5.03 -2.98
2 bending 15.009 14.60 -2.80
3 bending 35.930 34.10 -5.36
4 bending 103.49 102.20 -1.26
1 torsion 40.420 39.90 -1.30
2 torsion 90.132 92.35 2.40
3 torsion 128.800 129.67 0.67
4 torsion 274.580 266.00 -3.22
Table 2.6 Natural frequencies of the subsonic wing with E*=0.5E case (2a)

Type and Program ANSYS % Error b/w

Mode Results [Hz] Results [Hz] Program &
number ANSYS
1 bending 2.31 2.24 -3.12
2 bending 6.71 6.50 -3.23
3 bending 16.07 15.20 -5.72
4 bending 44.56 43.32 -2.86
1 torsion 18.07 17.89 -1.00
2 torsion 39.13 38.80 -0.85
3 torsion 57.62 57.99 0.63
4 torsion 122.79 119.15 -3.05
Table 2.7 Natural frequencies of the subsonic wing with E*=0.1E case (2b)

24
3 FLUTTER SPEED –NUMERICAL CALCULATION

3.1 Flutter Speed Determination

The all calculations referenced by K. Niranjana and Ziaullah Sherif. Their precious
governing equations regulated for coding in MATLAB sosftware program. Then, the
outputs compared with Flutter Compression application which is available in
SIMULINK Aerospace Module. Considering a binary aeroelastic system
withfrequency-independent aerodynamics, whose equation of motion, after
determining the kinetic and potential energy and incremental work terms;

𝒄𝒔𝟐 𝒔𝟒 𝒂𝟐
( − 𝒄𝒙𝒇 ) 𝒄𝒂𝒘 𝟑 𝟎
𝟓 𝟒 𝟐 𝒒𝟏̈ 𝒒𝟏̇
𝒎 𝟒 𝟐 { } + 𝝆𝑽 [−𝒄𝟐 𝒆𝒂𝒘 𝟒
𝒒𝟐̈
𝟑
−𝒄 𝑴ᶿ̈ 𝒔𝟑 ] {𝒒 ̇ }
𝒔 𝒄 𝒔𝟑 𝒄𝟑 𝟐 𝟐 𝟐
(
[𝟒 𝟐 − 𝒄𝒙 𝒇 ) ( − 𝒄 𝒙𝒇 + 𝒄𝒙𝒇 )] 𝟖 𝟐𝟒
𝟑 𝟑
−𝒄𝒂𝒘 𝟒
𝟎 𝟒𝑬𝑰 𝟎 𝒒𝟏
𝟖 𝟎 (3.1)
+ 𝝆𝑽𝟐 𝟑 + [ 𝟎 ] {𝒒 } = { }
𝟐
−𝒄 𝒆𝒂𝒘 𝑮𝑱 𝟐 𝟎
( [𝟎 𝟔 ] )

Rewriting the equation (3.1) in a simplified form as

𝒂𝟏𝟏 𝒂𝟏𝟐 𝒒𝟏̈ 𝒃𝟏𝟏 𝒃𝟏𝟐 𝒒𝟏̇ 𝒄𝟏𝟏 𝒄𝟏𝟐 𝒆𝟏𝟏 𝟎 𝒒𝟏 𝟎 (3.2)
[𝒂 𝒂𝟐𝟐 ] {𝒒𝟐̈ } + 𝑽 [𝒃𝟐𝟏 ] { } + (𝑽𝟐 [𝒄 𝒄𝟐𝟐 ] + [ 𝟎 ]) {𝒒 } = { }
𝟐𝟏 𝒃𝟐𝟐 𝒒𝟐̇ 𝟐𝟏 𝒆𝟐𝟐 𝟐 𝟎

Assume a solution of the form;

𝒒𝟏 𝒒𝟏
{𝒒 }= {𝒒 } 𝒆−𝒊𝝀
𝟐 𝟐

Also making the substitutions

XV2 = 𝒆𝟏𝟏 and 𝒆𝟐𝟐 = µ𝒆𝟏𝟏= µ XV2

25
Where μ is the ratio between the two spring stiffness’s and X is an unknown that has
to be found. The non-trivial solution of the equations is defined as;

𝒂𝟏𝟏 𝝀𝟐 + 𝒃𝟏𝟏 𝑽𝝀 + (𝒄𝟏𝟏 + 𝝀)𝑽𝟐 𝒂𝟏𝟐 𝝀𝟐 + 𝒃𝟏𝟐 𝑽𝝀 + 𝒄𝟏𝟐 𝑽𝟐

| |= 𝟎
𝒂𝟐𝟏 𝝀𝟐 + 𝒃𝟐𝟏 𝑽𝝀 + 𝒄𝟐𝟏 𝑽𝟐 𝒂𝟐𝟐 𝝀𝟐 + 𝒃𝟐𝟐 𝑽𝝀 + (𝒄𝟐𝟐 + μ 𝐗)𝑽𝟐
(3.3)

Solving the above determinant gives the quartic equation

𝒃𝟒 𝝀𝟒 + 𝒃𝟑 𝝀𝟑 + 𝒃𝟐 𝝀𝟐 + 𝒃𝟏 𝝀 + 𝒃𝟎 = 𝟎 (3.4)

Where 𝒃𝟎 , 𝒃𝟏 , 𝒃𝟐 , 𝒃𝟑 , 𝒃𝟒 are the functions of the parameters in Equation (3.3). The

roots of the equation are in two complex conjugate pairs, namely

(3.5)
𝛌𝟏,𝟐 = − 𝛇𝟏 𝛚𝟏 ± 𝐢𝛚𝟏 √𝟏 − 𝛇𝟏 𝟐

(3.6)
𝛌𝟑,𝟒 = − 𝛇𝟐 𝛚𝟐 ± 𝐢𝛚𝟐 √𝟏 − 𝛇𝟐 𝟐

Where

𝛇𝟏 , 𝛇𝟐 are the damping ratios of flapping and pitching wing respectively

𝛚𝟏 , 𝛚𝟐 are the frequencies of flapping and pitching wing respectively

At the flutter speed, since one of the damping ratios becomes zero, then one of the root
pairs becomes 𝛌 = ±𝐢𝛚

Substituting Equation (10) λ =+ iω into the quartic Equation (3.4) gives

26
 𝒃𝟒 𝝀𝝎𝟒 − 𝒊𝒃𝟑 𝝎𝟑 − 𝒃𝟐 𝝀𝝎𝟐 + 𝒊𝒃𝟏 𝝎 + 𝒃𝟎 = 𝟎 (3.7)

Substituting Equation (3.6) λ = - iω into the quartic Equation (3.4) gives

𝒃𝟒 𝝀𝝎𝟒 + 𝒊𝒃𝟑 𝝎𝟑 − 𝒃𝟐 𝝀𝝎𝟐 − 𝒊𝒃𝟏 𝝎 + 𝒃𝟎 = 𝟎 (3.8)

Now, by adding Equations (3.7) and (3.8) gives

𝒃𝟒 𝝀𝝎𝟒 − 𝒃𝟐 𝝀𝝎𝟐 + 𝒃𝟎 = 𝟎 (3.9)

Now, by subtracting Equations (3.7) and (3.8) gives

𝒊𝒃𝟑 𝝎𝟑 − 𝒊𝒃𝟏 𝝎 = 𝟎 (3.10)

Hence the frequency at the flutter condition is given by

𝒃𝟏 (3.11)
𝝎=√
𝒃𝟑

Equation (3.11) can be substituted into the quadratic part of Equations (3.9)

𝒃𝟒 𝒃𝟏 𝟐 − 𝒃𝟏 𝒃𝟐 𝒃𝟑 − 𝒃𝟎 𝒃𝟑 𝟐 = 𝟎 (3.12)

From equation (3.12) which the flutter speed may be obtained since the parameters in
the equation are functions of V. Knowing the matrix terms in Equation (3.2) it is
possible to determine directly the critical flutter speeds and frequencies of a binary
aeroelastic system using the following procedure we can obtain critical velocity.

27
Expanding the determinant in Equation (3.2) gives the fourth-order characteristic
polynomial of Equation (3.3). Where;

𝒃𝟒 = 𝒂𝟏𝟏 𝒂𝟐𝟐 − 𝒂𝟐𝟏 𝒂𝟏𝟐 (3.13)

𝒃𝟑 = (𝒂𝟏𝟏 𝒃𝟐𝟐 + 𝒃𝟏𝟏 𝒂𝟐𝟐 − 𝒂𝟐𝟏 𝒃𝟏𝟐 − 𝒂𝟏𝟐 𝒃𝟐𝟏 )𝑽 (3.14)

𝒃𝟐 = [(μ𝒂𝟏𝟏 +𝒂𝟐𝟐 )𝒙 + (𝒂𝟏𝟏 𝒄𝟐𝟐 + 𝒃𝟏𝟏 𝒃𝟐𝟐 + 𝒄𝟏𝟏 𝒂𝟐𝟐 − 𝒂𝟐𝟏 𝒄𝟏𝟐 − 𝒃𝟏𝟐 𝒃𝟐𝟏
− 𝒄𝟐𝟏 𝒂𝟏𝟐 )]𝑽𝟐
(3.15)
𝟐
𝒃𝟐 = (𝒑𝟏 𝒙 + 𝒑𝟎 )𝑽

𝒃𝟏 = [(μ𝒃𝟏𝟏 +𝒃𝟐𝟐 )𝒙 + (𝒃𝟏𝟏 𝒄𝟐𝟐 + 𝒄𝟏𝟏 𝒃𝟐𝟐 − 𝒃𝟐𝟏 𝒄𝟏𝟐 − 𝒄𝟐𝟏 𝒃𝟏𝟐 )]𝑽𝟐

𝒃𝟏 = (𝒒𝟏 𝒙 + 𝒒𝟎 )𝑽𝟑 (3.16)

𝒃𝟎 = [μ𝒙𝟐 + (𝒄𝟐𝟐 + μ𝒄𝟏𝟏 )𝒙 + 𝒂𝟏𝟏 𝒂𝟐𝟐 − 𝒂𝟐𝟏 𝒂𝟏𝟐 ]𝑽𝟒

𝒃𝟎 = (𝒓𝟐 𝒙𝟐 + 𝒓𝟏 𝒙 + 𝒓𝟎 )𝑽𝟒 (3.17)

Input Parameter Value

Mass axis is at the semi-chord Xm = 0.5c 0.725m
Flexural axis is at Xf = 0.48c from the leading edge. 0.696m
Semi-span s 5.1m
Chord c 1.45m
Mass per unit area m 100 kg/m2
Lift slope curve αw 2π
Non dimensional pitch damping derivative Mθ -1.2
Material used in for wing production Aluminium
Torsional Rigidity GJ 2*106 Nm2
Flexural Rigidity EI 5*106 Nm2
Table 3.1 Input parameter for flutter speed calculation

28
Dimensionless frequency ω/ωα and damping PR/ωα of the aeroelastic modes of the

typical section, estimated using steady-state aerodynamic operators and plotted versus

reduced airspeed U/bωα. System parameters are xα = 0.05, rα = 0.5, ωh/ωα = 0.5, (2m/

πρ∞bS) = 10, e/b = 0.4, ∂CL/∂α = 2π. Where solid curves—with aerodynamic damping

and dashed curves—without aerodynamic damping.

With the frequency independent aero elastic equation, the flutter velocity is calculated
by substituting all the baseline parameter of experiment wing. The two roots of this
resultant equation are two critical flutter speeds.

Figure 3.1 Frequency and damping response of typical wing

V1= 171.083 m/s, V2= 467.34 m/s

The flutter boundary region is between two velocities which the system is unstable.
Obviously the lowest speed is the one that is of interest, since any aircraft will probably
have been destroyed long before the second critical condition has been reached. Since
is impossible to predict, the velocity V1=171.083 m/s is chosen for analysis.

29
3.2 Flutter Speed of Trainer Aircrafts

TAI HÜRKUŞ

Figure 3.2 TAI Hürkuş trainer aircraft

The TAI Hürkuş (Free Bird) is a tandem two-seat, low-wing, single-engine, turboprop
aircraft being developed by Turkish Aerospace Industries (TAI) as a new basic trainer
and ground attack aircraft for the Turkish Armed Forces. The aircraft is named after
Vecihi Hürkuş, a World War I and Turkish Independence War veteran pilot, a Turkish
aviation pioneer and the first Turkish airplane manufacturer.

General characteristics

 Crew: 2

 Length: 11.17 m (36.66 ft)

 Wingspan: 10.38 m (34.06 ft)

 Height: 3.70 m (12.15 ft)

 Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68T

 Propellers: 5-bladed Hartzell Propeller HC-B5MA-3

30
 Performance

 Maximum Cruise Speed: 574 km/h (357 mph; 310 KCAS)

 Stall speed: 143 km/h (89 mph; 77 KCAS)

 Maximum Range: 1478 km (918 mi; 798 nmi) at 15000 ft (4572 m)

 Maximum Endurance: 4.25 hours at 15000 ft (4572 m)

 Service ceiling: 10577 m (34700 ft)

 Maximum Rate of climb: 22 m/s (4370 ft/min) at sea level

 Total Take-Off Distance: 1605 ft (489 m) at sea level

 Total Landing Distance: 1945 ft (593 m) at sea level

 g limits: +7/-3.5 g

Figure 3.3 HÜRKUŞ wing plunge-pitch response

PARAMETERS VLAUE
Altitude 34000 ft
Cruise Dynamic Pressure, Q 205.4 PSF
Flutter Dynamic Pressure, QF 147.1 PSF
Mach, M 0.75
Flutter Speed, VF 166,132 m/s
Table 3.2 TAI HÜRKUŞ parameters

31
 KAI KT-1

Figure 3.4 KAI KT-1 trainer aircraft

The KAI KT-1 Woongbi (Hangul: KT-1) is a Korean single-engined turboprop, basic
training aircraft. It was jointly developed by KAI and the Agency for Defence
Development (ADD). The KT-1 is the first completely indigenous Korean aircraft ever
developed.

General characteristics

 Crew: two in tandem

 Length: 10.3 m (33.7 ft)

 Wingspan: 10.3 m (33.7 ft)

 Height: 3.7 m (12.7 ft)

 Wing area: 16.01 m2 (172.3 sq ft)

 Empty weight: 1910 kg (4210 lb)

 Loaded weight: 2540 kg (5600 lb)

32
  Max. takeoff weight: 3311 kg (7300 lb)

 Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-62, 950 hp (708 kW)

Performance

 Maximum Cruise Speed: 574 km/h (310 knots, 357 mph) (IAS)

 Stall Speed (landing configuration): 130km/h

 Maximum Range: 1688 km (720 nmi, 828 mi) at 7620 m (25000 ft), max
internal fuel

 Service ceiling: 11580 m (38000 ft)

 Maximum rate of Climb (@ sea level): 16.2 m/s (3180 ft/min)

 Maximum Endurance: 3 h

 Total Take-Off Distance (@ sea level): 440m

 Total Landing Distance (@ sea level): 650 m

 g limits +7/ -3.5 g

33
 Figure 3.5 KAI KT-1 wing plunge-pitch response

PARAMETERS VLAUE
Altitude 38000 ft
Cruise Dynamic Pressure, Q 147.8 PSF
Flutter Dynamic Pressure, QF 147.1 PSF
Mach, M 0.7
Flutter Speed, VF 162,211 m/s
Table 3.3 KAI KT-1 parameters

PILATUS PC-21

Figure 3.6 Platus PC-21 trainer aircraft

34
The Pilatus PC-21 is a single-turboprop, low wing swept monoplane advanced trainer
with a stepped tandem cockpit manufactured by Pilatus Aircraft of Switzerland.

General characteristics

 Crew: Two (student & instructor)

 Length: 11.233 m (36 ft 11 in)

 Wingspan: 9.108 m (29 ft 11 in)

 Height: 3.749 m (12 ft 4 in)

 Wing area: 15.221 m² (163.848 ft²)

 Empty weight: 2270 kg (5005 lb)

 Max. takeoff weight: 3100 kg (aerobatic) / 4250 kg (utility) (6834 lb

(aerobatic) / 9370 lb(utility))

 Powerplant: 1 × Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-68B Turboprop engine, 1200

kW (1600 shp)

Performance

 Maximum speed: 685 km/h (370 knots, 428 mph)

 Stall speed: 170 km/h (92 knots, 106.25 mph) gear and flaps up (20 km/h less
with flaps and gear down)

 Range: 1333 km (720 nm, 828 miles)

 Service ceiling: 11580 m (38000 ft)

 Rate of climb: 20.32 m/s (4000 ft/min)

35
 Wing loading: 208 kg/m² (42.7 lb/ft²)

 Power/mass: 0.39 kW/kg (0.23 hp/lb)

 g limits: + 8.0 g to – 4.0 (aerobatic) / + 5.0 g to – 2.5 g (utility)

Figure 3.7 PILATUS PC-21 wing plunge-pitch response

PARAMETERS VLAUE
Altitude 38000 ft
Cruise Dynamic Pressure, Q 193 PSF
Flutter Dynamic Pressure, QF 148.1 PSF
Mach, M 0.8
Flutter Speed, VF 161,88 m/s
Table 3.4 PILATUS PC-21 parameters

36
 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

During all study of this project analysi of wing models made initially by ANSYS
Workbench Fluid Solid Interraction (FSI) method and then calculated by MATLAB
SIMULINK Aerospace Module numerically. The concern of this study is that
improving analysis for optimizing flutter speed calculation for branch of aircrafts. By
seeing results given above it can be asserted that natural frequency and mode shapes
of proposed wings are calculated both numerically and by finite element methods. That
is the results listed for three trainer aircrafts for real cases. There will be many methods
to analyse wing flutter behaviours. However the intended outputs taken from different
external sourches depends on analysis approach and program inputs. The present work
establishes a procedure for the design of wings based on flutter analysis. The results
show that the external stores have a significant effect on wing flutter. It is found that
flutter speed of the present wing-external store configuration is sensitive to the flight
altitude and aircraft types. Results are expressed in terms of pound squared force (PSF)
for implying force acting on wing structres. The flutter speed outputs shows for trainer
aircrafts it can be clearly said that the flutter boundary begins from 130 m/s to 180 m/s
as critical speed interval.

37
APPENDIX

APPENDIX A: FIGURES

(a) (b)

(c)
(d)

(e)
(f)

38
(g) (h)

(j)
(i)

(k) (l)

39
 (m) (n)

(p)
(o)

APPENDIX B: MATLAB SIMULINK CODE

40
FLUTTER_CODE
% Pgm_G1_Calcs
% Sets up the aeroelastic matrices for binary aeroelastic model,
% performs eigenvalue solution at desired speeds and determines the
frequencies
% and damping ratios
% plots V_omega and V_g trends
% Initialize variables
clear; clf
% System parameters
s =4; % semi span
c = 1.45; % chord
m = 100; % unit mass / area of wing
kappa_freq = 10; % flapping freq in Hz
theta_freq = 5; % pitch freq in Hz
xcm = 0.5*c; % position of centre of mass from nose
xf = 0.48*c; % position of flexural axis from nose
e = xf/c-0.25; % eccentricity between flexural axis and aero centre
(1/4 chord)
velstart = 10; % lowest velocity
velend = 180; % maximum velocity m/s
velinc =0.1; % velocity increment
a = 2*pi; % 2D lift curve slope
rho = 1.225; % air density
Mthetadot =-1.1; % unsteady aero damping term
M = (m*c^2-2*m*c*xcm)/(2*xcm); % leading edge mass term
damping_Y_N = 1; % =1 if damping included =0 if not included
if damping_Y_N == 1
% structural proportional damping inclusion C = alpha *M +
beta * K
% then two freqs and damps must be defined
% set dampings to zero for no structural damping

z1 = 0.0; % critical damping at first frequency

z2 = 0.0; % critical damping at second frequency
w1 = 2*2*pi; % first frequency
w2 = 14*2*pi; % second frequency
alpha = 2*w1*w2*(-z2*w1 + z1*w2)/ (w1*w1*w2*w2);
beta = 2*(z2*w2-z1*w1) / (w2*w2-w1*w1);
end

% Set up system matrices

% Inertia matrix
a11=(m*s^3*c)/3 + M*s^3/3; % I kappa
a22= m*s*(c^3/3 - c*c*xf + xf*xf*c) + M*(xf^2*s); % I theta
a12 = m*s*s/2*(c*c/2 - c*xf ) - M*xf*s^2/2; %I kappa theta
a21 = a12;
A=[a11,a12;a21,a22];

% Structural stiffness matrix

k1 = (kappa_freq*pi*2)^2*a11; % k kappa heave stiffness
k2 = (theta_freq*pi*2)^2*a22; % k theta pitch stiffness
E = [k1 0; 0 k2];

icount = 0;
for V = velstart:velinc:velend % loop for different velocities
icount = icount +1;
if damping_Y_N == 0; % damping matrices
C = [0,0; 0,0]; % =0 if damping not included

41
 else % =1 if damping included
C = rho*V*[c*s^3*a/6,0;-c^2*s^2*e*a/4,-c^3*s*Mthetadot/8] +
alpha*A + beta*E; % Aero and structural damping
end

K = (rho*V^2*[0,c*s^2*a/4; 0,-c^2*s*e*a/2])+[k1,0; 0,k2]; %aero /

structural stiffness
Mat = [[0,0; 0,0],eye(2); -A\K,-A\C]; % set up 1st order
eigenvalue solution matrix
lambda = eig(Mat); % eigenvalue solution

% Natural frequencies and damping ratios

for jj = 1:4
im(jj) = imag(lambda(jj)); re(jj) = real(lambda(jj));
freq(jj,icount) = sqrt(re(jj)^2+im(jj)^2); damp(jj,icount) =-
100*re(jj)/freq(jj,icount);
freq(jj,icount) = freq(jj,icount)/(2*pi); % convert frequency to
hertz
end
Vel(icount) = V;
end
% Plot frequencies and dampings vs speed figure(1)
subplot(2,1,1); plot(Vel,freq,'k'); vaxis = axis; xlim = ([0
vaxis(2)]);
xlabel ('Air Speed (m/s) '); ylabel ('Freq (Hz)'); grid

subplot(2,1,2);
plot(Vel,damp,'k')
xlim = ([0 vaxis(2)]); axis([xlim ylim]);
xlabel ('Air Speed (m/s) '); ylabel ('Damping Ratio (%)'); grid

42
 REFERENCES
[1] Bin Abdulrazak, N. (2005). Flutter Modeling and Simulation of Wing
Section Using Bondgraph Techique. Islamabad.
[2] Bisplinghoff, R. L., Ashley, H., & Halfman, R. L. (1996). Aeroelasticity.
New York: Dover Publication.
[3] Earl, D. (1995). A Modern Course in Aeroelasticity Fifth Revised and
Enlarged Edition. Durham, NC: Springer.
[4] Fung, Y. C. (1993). An Introduction to Theory of Aeroelasticity. New
York: Dover Publication.
[5] Garrick, I. E. (1936). Propulsion of a Flapping and Oscillating Airfoil.
NACA.
[6] Karabay, K. (2014). Openfoam Programı Yardımı ile Aeeroelastik
Analiz. İstanbul.
[7] Kaya, M. O. (2016). Aeroelastisite Ders Notları. İstanbul.
[8] Kerki, T. (2011). Sıkıştırılamaz Akışa Maruz Bir Kanadın Doğrusal
Olmayan Aeroelastik Analizi. İstanbul.
[9] Kussner, H. G. (1936). Comprehensive Report on the Unsteady Lift of
Wings. Luftfahrt Forshung.
[10] Logan, D. L. (2007). A First Course in the Finite Element Method.
Toronto: Thomson.
[11] Niranjana, K. S. (2016, March). Flutter Speed Prediction for an
Aircraft Wing Using Frequency Independent Aeroelastic Equation.
International Journal of Research in Aeronautical and Mechanical
Engineering, pp. 61-74.
[12] Njuguna, J. (2007, August). Flutter Prediction, Suppression and
Control in Aircraft. Structural Control and Health Monitoring.
[13] Özgümüş Özdemir, Ö. (2012). Dynamic and Aeroelastic Analysis of A
Helicopter Blade with an Actively Controlled Trailing Edge Flap in Forward
Flight. İstanbul.
[14] Querk, S. S., & Liu, G. R. (2003). Finite Element Method: A Practical
Course. Butterworth-Heinnemann.
[15] S.Mukherjee, D. (1997). Dynamic Characterization SARAS Wing and
Empennage. Manju: NAL Project Document.
[16] Sekmen, K. (2016). Harici Yük Taşıyan Bir Kanadın Aeroelastik
Analizi. İstanbul.
[17] Souza, V. C. (2015). Aeroelastic Behaviour of a Typical Aerofoil
Section with Shape Memory Allow Spring. Brasil: University of Toledo.
[18] Stephen, S. H. (1995). CFD-Based Aeroservoelastic Predicitons on a
Benchmark Configuration Using the Transpiration Method. Oklahoma:
Oklahoma State University.
[19] Theodorsen, T. (1934). General Theory of Aerodynamic Instability
and the Mechanism of Flutter. NACA.
[20] Yenigelen, E. (2013). Flutter of a Two-Segment Folding Aircraft
Wing. İstanbul.

43