See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/373116175

The Future of Airplane Aeroelasticity

Conference Paper · January 2003

CITATIONS READS
0 3

1 author:

Eli Livne
University of Washington Seattle
177 PUBLICATIONS 2,048 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Supersonic Configurations at Low Speeds View project

Active Flutter Suppression View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eli Livne on 15 August 2023.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 The Future of Airplane Aeroelasticity

Eli Livne
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics
University of Washington, Seattle, WA 98195-2400, U.S.A
[email protected]

International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics

Amsterdam, the Netherlands, June 4-6, 2003

KEY WORDS

Aeroelasticity, Aeroservoelasticity, Aerothermoelasticity, MDO, non-conventional

configurations

ABSTRACT
Aeroelasticity is still dynamic, challenging, and a key part of cutting-edge airplane
technology. Emerging trends, as well as challenges and needs in the field of airplane
aeroelasticity are surveyed and discussed. The paper complements other overview
papers published recently for the centennial year of flight on various aspects of the
fixed-wing aircraft aeroelastic problem. It includes an extensive bibliography, and
emphasizes those aspects of aeroelastic technology development not covered
thoroughly elsewhere.

INTRODUCTION
From the perspective of almost a hundred years of aeroelasticity1-35 (if we categorize
as aeroelastic morphing the wing warping used by the Wright brothers for roll
control), and as we consider its future, a series of state-of-the-art review articles
published in the 1970s stands out as particularly interesting1-8. Airplane aeroelasticity
was already well established in the 1950s and 1960s, as reflected by successful high-
speed airplanes designed in those years. Major aeroelastic phenomena were already
quite well understood, as documented in classic textbooks9-20 and many journal and
conference publications.
What makes the 1970s special from the point of view of aeroelastic technology
development is that they heralded a new era. The finite Element method (FE) of
structural dynamics, as well as lifting surface / panel aerodynamics on interfering
wings, control surfaces, and bodies, made it possible to analyze general complex
configurations that were intractable before. Composite materials led to aeroelastic
tailoring. Active control technology added the “servo” to aeroelasticity, and analytic
and computational methods were developed to tackle aeroservoelasticity. Structural
Synthesis in the 1970s was maturing to a level that allowed design optimization of

1
general airframe structures subject to aeroelastic constraints. The 1970s also saw
rapid developments in instrumentation, telemetry, and signal processing techniques
that led to significant improvements in aeroelastic wind tunnel and flight test
methods and procedures. Most of these technologies that matured in the 1970s are
still dominant in aeroelastic technology today.
When the scope and vision in these review papers from the 1970s, and the
complexity of flight vehicles designed and built using 1970s technology are grasped,
one might reach the conclusion that no major developments in aeroelasticity have
occurred ever since, and that except for incremental improvements, aeroelasticity has
become a mature and well established field, where no new major breakthroughs are
needed or can be expected.
This indeed was a common viewpoint in the 1980s and early 1990s in certain
industry, government, and academic circles. Even though research and development
in aeroelasticity and its foundation-disciplines continued, it was not until the
publication of Ref. 36 in 1999 that the perception of aeroelasticity as mature and
somewhat stagnant was challenged head on.
As Ref. 36 had shown, Aeroelasticity is still a dynamic field facing many challenges.
These include modern aeroservoelasticity, computational aeroelasticity, nonlinear
aeroelasticity, aerothermoelasticity, impact of new sensing and actuation
technologies, and aeroelastic design optimization. Ref. 36 also included an overview
of developments and challenges in the area of rotary-wing aeroelasticity – an area
more demanding and less developed than fixed-wing aeroelasticity – and concluded
with predictions for the future. An overview of past and future of aeroservoelastric
optimization was published at the same time37. Recently, to celebrate the centennial
anniversary of the Wright Brothers’ first flight, a number of articles covering various
aspects of aeroelasticity have been invited and will soon be published in a special
issue of the Journal of Aircraft38-45. These papers include, in addition to descriptions
of past achievements, also discussions of future needs and future developments in
areas such as nonlinear aeroelasticity41, computational aeroelasticity44-45, aeroelastic
wind tunnel testing, and aeroelasticity of non-conventional configurations43.
The body of survey literature on Aeroelasticity, including recent contributions, is
considerable, and the areas these references cover are numerous. It is difficult, if not
impossible, to do justice to all important aspects of this rich and complex
multidisciplinary field within the confines of a single paper.
As we discuss the future of airplane aeroelasticity, an effort is made in the present
paper to complement recent survey papers in this area with minimum overlap. For
detailed discussion of nonlinear aeroelasticity, computational aeroelasticity,
aeroelasticity of new configurations, and aeroservoelasticity the reader is referred to
Refs. 36-45. This will allow more detailed discussion here of aspects of the field not
thoroughly covered by those recent survey papers, or other areas this author considers
to be of extreme importance.
The paper is entitled “The Future of Airplane Aeroelasticity”, but no attempt is made
here to foresee the future. Rather, the discussion focuses on challenges, needs, and
emerging trends. The hope is that with its selection of topics and its supporting
bibliography, this paper will motivate research and development in Aeroelasticity in
the coming years and inspire both researchers and practitioners already working in
this rich and important field as well as those who make their first steps.

2
TAXONOMY
CONTRIBUTING DISCIPLINES
Examination of aeroelastic problems on emerging and future flight vehicles can start
through the prism of the range of sub-disciplines involved. Elasticity, Aerodynamics,
and Dynamics are the fundamental building blocks of the classic aeroelasticity. Static
aeroelastic problems cover the interaction between a flexible structure deforming
under load and the aerodynamic loads determined by its deformed shape. They
include both response problems, such as load re-distribution, deformation in
maneuvers, control surface effectiveness, and flexibility corrections to flight
mechanics stability and control derivatives (that is, effects of aeroelastic deformation
on “slow” motions of the deformable airplane). Lifting surface divergence – the
quasi-steady exponential growth of deformation in an aeroelastic system, similar to
buckling of structural systems, is the major static aeroelastic stability problem. With
non-negligible inertia effects, the response and stability of aeroelastic systems
become dynamic. The dynamic loss of stability via exponentially growing oscillation
(flutter) and dynamic response problems, such as gust response, fatigue, ride comfort,
and response to store ejection loads, form the domain of dynamic aeroelasticity. This
can be in certain cases tightly integrated with flight mechanics of the complete
deformable airplane.
When developments in active control technology led to tightening of the interactions
between control systems (including their sensors, control computers, and actuators)
and the deformable airplane, the field of Aeroservoelasticity was born. Sensors,
control laws, actuators, and control surfaces could now respond to elastic
deformation of the vehicle, and if not properly designed, they could react in a way
that reduced stability and degraded overall dynamic behavior of the coupled system.
As more advanced and powerful control systems continue to emerge and new sensing
and actuation technologies evolve, and as airplanes become more dependent on
active controls, Aeroservoelasticity will continue to grow in importance.
In the presence of strong thermal effects, Aerothermoelasticity addresses the stability
and behavior of aeroelastic systems subject to heating of the structure, where material
properties can change and induced thermal stresses may lead to reduced effective
stiffness. Deformation of a hypersonic vehicle under aerodynamic loads can change
aerodynamic load distribution and flow field, and thus affect aerodynamic heating
and structural deformation. In preparation for the development of future hypersonic
flight vehicles, significant advances in Aerothermoelastic technology are expected in
the coming years.
To this mix of disciplines external acoustics can be added, covering the effects of
acoustic excitation on aeroelastic behavior of panels and lifting surfaces and the
effects of aeroelastic deformations on noise signatures. It has also been known for
quite awhile that acoustic excitation can in certain cases be used to affect flutter.
Similarly, propulsion interactions can be considered, such as performance of
deformable and controllable inlets and nozzles, interactions of vectored thrust with a
flexible airframe, and, in the case of hypersonic air breathing vehicles, effect of the
shape of the front of the vehicle on flow conditions at the entry to engine inlets.

3
COMPLEXITY OF DISCIPLINARY BEHAVIOR
Aeroelastic phenomena can also be classified according to the complexity of
phenomena involved in each of the contributing disciplines. Flight regimes classified
by Mach number and Reynolds Number determine the character of unsteady
aerodynamic behavior. This covers subsonic, transonic, supersonic, and hypersonic
Mach numbers as well as low and high Reynolds number flows. The degree and
extent of strong flow non-linearities, such as separation, stall, and shock motion, is
also determined by flight maneuvers and the resulting angle of attack, side-slip angle,
and angular rates of the airplane relative to the flow. Similarly, in the structures area,
linearity and non-linearity of the behavior is determined by the severity of loading
and deformation, material characteristics, as it is in the case of actuators and
complete control systems that can display nonlinear behavior due to free-play,
hystersis, dry friction, and a host of other nonlinear phenomena.
MISSIONS AND AIRPLANE CONFIGURATIONS
Different classes of airplane configurations, shaped by the missions for which they
are designed, lead many times to particular aeroelastic problems and require
particular developments in aeroelastric technology. Supersonic vehicles with their
thin low-aspect-ratio (low AR) wings and long slender fuselages can be
aeroelastically quite different from high aspect-ratio transonic airplanes with thick
supercritical airfoils. Lifting-body type hypersonic vehicles can be aeroelastically
different from conventional airplanes. High altitude long-endurance airplanes with
their slender high-AR wings and light-weight structures are aeroelastically different
from fighter aircraft which are geometrically more compact and structurally stiffer.
An extensive discussion of the aeroelasticity of past non-conventional configurations
is presented in Ref. 43. It shows how new configurations of the past drove aeroelastic
technology and were affected by it. Examples include the swept-back jet transport
with under-wing engines, the T-tail airplanes, the low aspect-ratio fighters,
supersonic bombers and transports such as the B-70 and Concorde, variable geometry
airplanes such as the F-14, F-111 and B-1, control configured vehicles such as the F-
16, forward swept wings, aeroelastically tailored vehicles, hypersonic airplanes such
as the SR-71 and the X-15, and more.
A discussion of the future of airplane aeroelasticity must include (and Ref. 43
discusses) some examination of emerging and potential future airplane configurations
and assessment of the aeroelastic challenges involved.
Analysis, design, computation, and testing
Aroelastic technology covers the analytical foundation of modeling the physical
processes involved, numerical methods for simulation, test methods using scaled
models, and finally, when a full-scale vehicle is cleared for flight, flight tests.
Developments in design and design-optimization methods have made it possible to
include aeroelastic considerations in the design process – a marked departure from
past practices, in which aeroelastic simulation and clearance were used only after a
design was almost complete and only in a “problem-fixing” mode.
Current and potential future developments in aeroelasticn analysis, simulation,
design, and testing methods will be discussed in subsequent sections.

4
THE SCIENCE AND PRACTICE OF AEROELASTICITY.
Aeroelastic “science”, aimed at understanding basic mechanisms and fundamental
phenomena, is different in nature from the practice of aeroelasticity in industry,
where real, complex flight vehicles have to be designed, analyzed, and safely cleared
for flight. Aeroelastic “science” will typically use simple models and small-scale
problems in an effort to “zoom-in” onto and thoroughly understand particular
processes, or to develop new analytical techniques and simulation tools for such
processes.
For design and clearance of real vehicles, issues of vehicle complexity, high fidelity
of modeling, reliability, speed, and cost become extremely important. It is one thing
to properly simulate a basic phenomenon and capture it in a test using a simple
model. It is completely different to design a full vehicle in a timely cost-effective
manner, covering all flight conditions, loading conditions, shape variations and all
possible aeroelastic behavior modes. While discussed in the past by industry
aeroelasticians, the number of publications on the practice of aeroelasticity pales in
comparison to the number of publications on its “science”. Improvements in the
practice of aeroelasticity, however, are crucial to the vitality and competitiveness of
the aircraft industry.
In the following sections, selected aspects of the future of airplane aeroelasticity will
be discussed, covering challenges created by new airplane configurations, mission
expansion into new flight regimes and the resulting complex processes involved,
tighter inter-disciplinary interactions, and developments in simulation, design, and
testing technology. A special emphasis will be placed on the practice of
aeroelasticity. Finally, a few comments will be made on that national and
international body of knowledge, skill, and creative mastery shaped by extensive
experience - the “art” of aeroelasticity – its state and its future.

FRONTIERS OF NUMERICAL AEROELASTIC MODELING AND

SIMULATION
The development of structural finite element and 3D aerodynamic panel / lifting
surface methods in the 1970 to a level that made it possible to model real airplanes
made an enormous impact on the field of Aeroelasticity. New configurations that did
not lend themselves to previous beam / modified strip modeling could now be design
and analyzed. Examples include low-aspect-ratio wings of general structural layout,
variable-sweep wings with possible tail / wing aerodynamic interference, T-tails, and
various wing / control surface combinations. Subsonic and supersonic flutter and gust
response could be predicted quite reliably and at reasonable model preparation and
computational costs44.
Linear Aeroelasticity capabilities based on structural finite elements and lifting
surface theory are now available in general purpose commercial codes24 as well as
many computer codes developed in-house by airplane manufacturers. Improvements
in linear unsteady aerodynamics continued in the 1980s with the development of
panel codes capable of unsteady aerodynamic modeling of combinations of lifting
surfaces and bodies, such as fuselages, nacelles, and external stores46-52.
These tools still serve as the backbone of aeroelastic analysis and design today, and
have proven reliable in the subsonic and supersonic regimes for high-speed flight at
small angles of attack, where the flow is mostly attached and no shock wave motion

5
over lifting surfaces is present. The linear codes, however, cannot capture strong
nonlinear aerodynamic behavior, and, thus, cannot model aeroelastic mechanisms
involving shock waves, separation, and nonlinear vortex interactions.
A sustained drive in the area of CFD (Computational Fluid Mechanics)-based
aeroelasticity over the last 20-25 years, progressed from Transonic Small Disturbance
(TSD) and full-potential through Euler flow simulations, and is now finally reaching
a point where complex configurations of real vehicles can be modeled and analyzed
using a variety of Navier-Stokes (N-S) solvers.
Any discussion of the future of aeroelasticity must recognize the growing power and
growing importance of Navier-Stokes steady and unsteady flow solvers, aimed at
capturing viscous and compressibility effects in general flows around complex
configurations.
Aeroelastic CFD-based results on real configurations were first obtained for static
aeroelastic cases. Dynamic aeroelasticity with N-S CFD solvers is now finally at a
point where applications to real airplane can be carried out, compared, and evaluated.
A number of representative review articles53-57 provide excellent overviews of CFD-
based aeroelasticity from the 1990s up to the present. The emerging picture of future
aeroelastic modeling for airplanes is that of a 3-level hierarchy of aerodynamic tools:
Euler and Navier-Stokes solvers as high fidelity tools, linearized panel codes for
design, systematic evaluation of thousands of load cases and flight conditions, and
for high-speed flight flutter clearance. In-between these levels of fluid modeling
fidelity are found codes based on integration of nonlinear full-potential aerodynamics
with boundary layer solvers to account for viscous effects. A tool such as the CAP-
TSDv code (Refs. 53-55), which integrates the Transonic Small Disturbance equation
with boundary layer simulation, is proving to be very valuable. It has demonstrated
capability to capture some important nonlinear aeroelastic phenomena, including
cases involving shock wave motion, such as in the case of the limit cycle oscillation
on the B-2 bomber58-59. Yet it is at least an order of magnitude less expensive
numerically, and requires much less effort to prepare the models of configurations
analyzed.
To create the high-fidelity CFD-based aerodynamic tools the industry needs,
development of Navier-Stokes solvers for aeroelastic simulation is expected to
continue, and progress in numerical analysis techniques and computing power
(including parallel computation) will allow more configurations and more cases to be
analyzed with such tools. The goal of such development is to reduce design cycle
cost and eliminate extensive physical testing of new vehicles.
Currently, model preparation and computational costs associated with N-S based
aeroelasticity are still considerable. Existing important challenges include mesh
generation and mesh deformation (generation of a mesh around a real vehicle that
will capture local effects in areas of abrupt geometric changes, and the methodology
of deforming the mesh during aeroelastic motion without unacceptable cell and mesh
topology distortion); turbulence modeling and its effect on aerodynamic simulations
(particularly in cases involving flow separation and vortex interactions); and
structure/flow behavior matching at the structure/flow boundary. Algorithmic
differences between various spatial and temporal discretization methods are still in
need of assessment and better understanding. One example includes the effect of
numerical damping on dynamic aeroelastic simulations. As Ref. 45 points out, certain
aerodynamic CFD codes developed for static aeroelasticity might have too much

6
numerical damping that can affect accuracy of dynamic aeroelastic frequency-
response motion prediction.
CFD-based aerodynamic simulations can be coupled to structural Finite Element
(FE) models that are either full-order or modally reduced. In the latter case, a set of
generalized coordinates, defined by mode shape, generalized mass and generalized
stiffness is used60-62. The structural models can be linear or nonlinear.
It is now well known41, 63-68 that nonlinear structural behavior in maneuvers can
change static and dynamic aeroelastic response considerably. As CFD modeling of
the nonlinear fluid behavior in CFD-based aeroelasticity becomes more available,
renewed attention to structural modeling issues is expected to rise. Limitations in the
structural simulation part in CAP-TSDv (Ref. 45), for example, prevented accurate
modeling of free-play in control surfaces, a feature of the structural behavior that had
to be modeled, as described in Ref. 45, by artificially reducing the structural dynamic
frequency of the control surface on its hinge. While modification of any modally-
based structural dynamic capability to account for non-linearities such as nonlinear
stiffness, free-play, or hysteresis, or even sudden structural changes (due to store
ejection, etc.) is not that difficult69, the problem of structural dynamic modeling for
the case of large deformation and large rigid body motions70-73 is more demanding.
The simulation of large-motion maneuvers can, in theory, track the motion of FE
Computational Structural Mechanics (CSM) structural nodes and CFD grid points
throughout the nonlinear simulation. This is not straight forward, however, since the
fluid mesh, when very large motions of its grid points are involved, can become too
distorted and ill-conditioned. Also the numerical convergence problems that may
arise in such simulations due to nonlinear structural behavior under loads that can
lead to local and global buckling have not been studied thoroughly yet.
Development of coupled structuree / fluid equations of motion and their
discretizations in rotating frames of references70-73 had been attempted in the past, but
usually with structural models, and especially fluid models, that were simplified.
Once such simulations are improved, however, effects of rapid angular motions or
high g maneuvers on aeroelastic behavior (via changes in frequencies due to effects
of geometric stiffness) will become analyzable.
Application to real airplanes of the FE or modal formulations in rotating coordinates
has been very limited to date. While nonlinear structural behavior has been studied
thoroughly in the case of helicopter aeroelasticity (taking into account large
deformations of rotor blades as well as high angular rates and the associated effects
of geometric stiffness) in the case of rapidly maneuvering airplanes it is still not clear
when such effects become important, if at all.
A growing need for introducing large deformation structural simulation into the
coupled aeroelastic equations of motion is due to the emergence of new airplane
configurations, such as the joined-wing, where geometric stiffness effects and
possible buckling of major surfaces must be accounted for68-69.
Finally, while it is discussed in most publications on aeroelastic CFD / CSM
integration, and thus can be found in many of the references on CFD-based
aeroelasticity selected here, it is important for the completeness of the CFD / CSM
discussion here to add a few additional references focusing directly on the “classic
problem of aeroelasticity”74 – the transformation of aerodynamic and structural
information between aerodynamic and structural meshes. No universally accepted

7
standard method is available today in an area that is at the heart of aeroelasticity.
Issues of accuracy and consistency, adaptability to a variety of CFD / CSM
discretization methods, the resulting size of the coupled structural / aerodynamic
models, and costs of preparation and simulation all have to be considered and will
continue to drive research and development75-89.
We can get a taste of things to come in the area of CFD-based aeroelasticity by
examination of some representative recent results. A complete F-16 fighter airplane
in flight was simulated at the Center for Aerospace Structures at the University of
Colorado90-92. The method used is based on a 3-field nonlinear aeroelastic simulation,
in which a structural field, a fluid field, and a third fluid-mesh field track the motion
of the vehicle together with the motion of the structural and fluid meshes. The
structural finite element model (linear) of the F-16 contains 168,799 degrees of
freedom (Fig. 1). The fluid volume mesh has 403,919 points (for a small angle of
attack Euler solution), 63,044 of which are on the surface of the airplane (Fig. 1). A
large number of aeroelastic simulations were carried out including stabilized flight
conditions at different altitudes and Mach numbers, accelerated flight conditions, and
high-G flight conditions. Results of the CFD-FE aeroelastic simulations were
correlated with measured results from flight tests carries out at the U.S. Air Force
Test Pilot School. Frequency and damping correlations as a function of Mach number
at 3000m for the first torsional mode at 1g, 3.5g, and 5g are shown in Fig. 2. The
results for the straight and level flight also include the case of accelerated flight.
Computational costs of the numerical simulations (covering 3 cycles of oscillation @
134 points per cycle for the torsional mode) are also presented in Ref. 92. On a SGI
Origin 32000 with R12000 400 MHz CPUs a typical simulation using 6 processors
takes a total of 9.6 hours, 63.3% of that devoted to the fluids model, 35.4% to the
mesh field, and 1.3% to the linear structural FE model. With 1,3,6,12, and 24
processors total CPU times were 52.3, 18.4, 9.6, 4.4, and 2.5 hours, respectively. By
now, with improvements in hardware made since the original computations were
carried out, computing times of half of those quoted are probably already attainable.
The capabilities described in Refs. 90-92 also allow N-S fluid simulation with a
variety of turbulence models including k-e, Spallart-Almaras and variational
multiscale LES. Models for viscous flows have about 3 million grid points and are
used when configurations with underwing stores are analyzed.
Another important example of CFD-based aeroelastic simulation of a realistic
complex configuration is the Boeing effort to simulate the B-1 bomber limit cycle
oscillation (LCO) found in flight and also in the wind tunnel at specific flight
conditions (Mach=0.975, angle of attack=7.38 degrees, Rec = 5.9 106)93-95.
The CFL3D N-S code was used for the simulations, with a modal representation of
the structure, and a mesh perturbation method using master (solid surface) / slave
(fluid field). A decaying function concept grid deformation method was used in place
of the common spring-analogy method for the fluid grid, thus reducing memory
requirements.
The B-1 LCO problem is particularly challenging since it involves interactions of a
leading edge vortex with the elastic wing and includes flow separation over the outer
wing. Comparisons of rigid and static aeroelastic results are shown in Fig. 3. Total
damping results as a function of angle of attack are shown in Fig. 4. The dynamic
simulations follow the measured trend in damping but do not capture the measured

8
decrease to zero damping corresponding to the development of limit cycle
oscillations (even when additional 1.1% structural damping is added to the structural
simulation model to account for the existing structural damping in the wind tunnel
model).
More work is needed to understand the characteristics of current CFD-based
aeroelastic simulation methods, improve them, and improve the practice of their
application to real problems. In the case of the B-1 more accurate time stepping may
improve correlation with test results (Ref. 95). A repetition of the simulations with
alternative turbulence models better suited for modeling dynamic vortical flows will
also lead to more insight and possible improvement. To move from the thin layer N-S
equations in CFL3D to a full N-S solution with a grid that can resolve viscous terms
in all coordinate directions would require the fluid grid to grow by one or two orders
of magnitude from the 2.5 million grid point grid used. Such an increase in problem
size, together with the associated turbulence modeling and grid adaptation issues
involved, makes the full N-S modeling a “formidable endeavor...in the foreseeable
future” (Ref. 95).
Due to significant efforts currently underway the capacity to model complex flows
around complex configurations will improve and flow phenomena associated with
nonlinear mechanisms will be better captured with growing computational efficiency.
Improvements in linear unsteady aerodynamic methods for complex configurations,
however, are no less important. Methods such as the Doublet Lattice Method for
subsonic flows, the harmonic gradient method for subsonic and supersonic flows
(such as implemented in the ZAERO suit of codes50-52), and other equivalent methods
capable of modeling combinations of wings, control surfaces, and bodies, will
continue for the foreseeable future to be used for the bulk of static aeroelastic, flutter,
aeroservoelastic, and gust response analyses. The ease and speed of model generation
combined with their low computational costs make the linear unsteady aerodynamic
methods orders of magnitude more efficient and user friendly than any CFD-based
approach (Fig. 5).
This becomes even more important when design optimization of airplane
configurations is considered. Major progress has been achieved in sensitivity analysis
and aerodynamic optimization with CFD-based codes, and aeroelastic optimization
based on CFD modeling is now emerging. Still the need to repetitively analyze large
numbers of configurations deforming (due to variations in the structure being
optimized) in a large number of ways presents such a computational challenge that it
is going to be quite awhile before CFD-based aeroelasticity is expected to become an
active part of the design optimization process in its early stages. Linear unsteady
aerodynamic techniques, however, are already part of major aeroelastic optimization
capabilities, and optimization of aeroelastic configurations covering structures,
aerodynamics, and controls using these techniques has already been demonstrated37.

CAPTURING GLOBAL AND LOCAL BEHAVIOR

Most displacement-based structural finite element models of airplanes used for

aeroelastic analysis and design focus on the global behavior of the structure. For a
complete configuration such FE models can have 10,000s to 100,000s degrees of
freedom, and these will often be reduced to the order of thousands of degrees of

9
freedom when flutter and gust response are considered. Stress models, capable of
capturing local behavior, such as local stresses in areas of geometric discontinuity,
joints, actuator attachments, etc. have to be much larger, with adaptive meshes96 that
are refined to capture local behavior. If structural behavior of very localized nature
has to be captured, structural models capable of capturing such behavior as well as
global behavior of the complete vehicle becomes too large for today’s structural
modeling technology.
The common practice in structural modeling is to use a hierarchy of models with
different levels of detail. A coarse mesh global model of a complete configuration
will be used for load transfer computation leading to internal loads on local parts and
segments. These internal forces will, then, be used to load a fine-mesh model of the
local component, where detailed geometry and possible imperfection and damage are
taken into account. The global / local analyses have to be carried out in some
coordinated way to account for local effects on global behavior, and, of course,
global force distribution effects on local behavior. Examples include the possible
local buckling or interaction-buckling97-100 (Fig. 6) of panels, or any sub-assemblies,
including effect of support stiffness provided by the global structure, crack
propagation and residual strength where global stress distribution and effects of very
localized nature are strongly coupled101-105 (Fig. 6). The case of panel flutter106-108 is
also interesting. Usually focused on the behavior of single panels supported along
their edges in some idealized way, an analysis capable of capturing local behavior
may account for the behavior of panels and assemblies of panels supported by the
actual internal structure of a wing or a fuselage and allowed to respond together to
variation in flight conditions (stability) and to sound and boundary layer excitation.
The importance of local effects in predicting the global behavior of nonlinear flows
has already been mentioned. Small differences in the radius of a leading edge93-95
may determine when LE vortices will develop and what areas of a configuration they
will impact. In addition to the B-1 example, an interesting example is that of the
horizontal stabilizer of the F-15 fighter (Fig. 67. It was found that a “snag” in the
leading edge of the stabilizer led to an increase of flutter speed – an effect not
predicted by linear flutter analysis109.
A slight inaccuracy in modeling the shape of a supercritical airfoil or the location and
shape of a nacelle can have significant impact on the capacity to capture shock wave
motion and shock/boundary layer interactions. The importance of turbulence
modeling in unsteady aerodynamic simulations is well known, and is still a subject of
intense research and development.
Similar considerations apply to aeroservoelastic analysis, where the level of detail in
the modeling of control system components has to be carefully considered depending
on the cases analyzed110-111. As References 110-111 show, different order state space
models of the same control actuators in a fighter airplane can lead to significant
differences in modeled aeroservoelastic response of the complete vehicle. In
aerothermoelasticity, where details of heat transfer in the structure, including local
modeling of embedded active cooling systems, can affect the accuracy of the system
level behavior112-114 careful consideration of interactions between local and global
effects is also important.
Current numerical capabilities in the structures, aerodynamics, control, and heat-
transfer areas and computing power are now at a point where complete vehicles can
be modeled and a rich mix of physical mechanisms can be captured to a degree not

10
possible 30 years ago. Yet, the challenge of capturing in a practical, efficient, and
reliable analysis and design cycle both local and global behavior across the
disciplines as described above is still not met, and will continue to drive research and
development in Aeroelasticity for years to come.

APPROXIMATION AND MODEL ORDER REDUCTION

The essence of engineering has always been the capacity to do the best with the most
advanced tools and resources available. In the face of the formidable computational
challenge posed by state of the art mathematical modeling techniques Aeroelasticity
has progressed over the years due to the development of engineering approximations
methods that made analysis and design practical. Beam models followed by finite
element models and modal order reduction for structural dynamics, Strip and
Modified Strip methods for unsteady aerodynamics, followed by correction factor
techniques115-118 for lifting surface aerodynamics - all reflect a continuous effort to
find the most practical way to advance airplane design, subject to given computation
technology resources and theoretical state-of-the art limitations.
Reduced basis order reduction methods, also known as modal methods, have been the
key to the success of practical structural dynamic analysis for decades. Substructure
Synthesis methods119-126 use mode shapes of modified small substructures of a large
structural system to create a reduced order model of the complete system. In such
method special attention has to be paid to the treatment of interface degrees of
freedom, where information is transferred from one substructure to another by local
action. In modal methods adapted to problems with concentrated external loads
acting on a structure, special reduced bases are used, including Ritz vectors,
Fictitious Mass mode shapes, and combinations of Ritz vectors and natural mode
shapes127-143.
For flutter and gust response analysis, normal modes of a flying vehicle have been
traditionally used. These lead to accurate reduced-order flutter and deformation
prediction due to the distributed nature of aerodynamic loads.
When local stresses are sought, or when concentrated loads are applied, or when local
changes are made in the structure in the course of design optimization132,133, all
modally based reduced order structural modeling methods are challenged. If a
reduced basis is sought that will be capable of capturing local effects in areas of
concentrated loads, stress evaluation, and element changes, the need to add base
vectors to account for all local effects required leads quickly to reduced order models
that can be quite large. This is a severe problem especially in the case of active
control of aeroelastic systems, since modern control synthesis techniques are still
very limited in the size of the system models they can handle. Such a challenge arises
in the case of what is commonly referred to as “smart” structures, where an array of
small actuators are either embedded in a structure’s skins, spars and ribs or
distributed to act point-to-point at many locations throughout the structure. Reduced
order bases capable of capturing all important local effects and allowing accurate
stress prediction throughout the structure are still the subject of on-going research144-
145
. As efficient simulation of structural dynamic behavior in large-scale CSM models
is sought, improvements in structural order reduction methods for nonlinear structural
systems will continue to be pursued 146-149.

11
With the growing power (and model size) of CFD-based aerodynamic models an
extensive research effort was launched in search of practical reduced order
aerodynamic models for static and dynamic aeroelastic analysis and design150-186. A
number of approaches have been under investigation for more than 10 years now.
Inspired by low-frequency-modes modal order reduction commonly used in structural
dynamics, one method seeks to use “aerodynamic mode shapes” of some linearized
CFD solution as a set of base vectors for order reduction. Other methods apply
various system identification methods adopted from Systems Theory to identify a low
order model of the CFD-based aerodynamic system: Volterra series theory and
Volterra kernels identified using impulse or step inputs to the fluid system,
Kahrunen-Loeve modes (Proper Orthogonal Realization) extracted from the dynamic
response of the full order fluid system when excited by proper inputs, Balanced
Realizations of control systems State-Space theory, and other system ID methods
based on input-output relations for the system.
Reduced order model creation in all these methods is computationally intensive, even
in cases involving only a small number of full order fluid response analyses to a
small number of well-designed inputs. Yet, once such reduced order models are
created for a given configuration, dynamic simulation of many cases (corresponding
to many inputs, dynamic pressures, and initial conditions) is fast and cheap
computationally. It is expected that reduced order aerodynamic methods will see
increasing use in industry58-59,95 as part of the effort to create systems capable of
analyzing large numbers of load cases and flight conditions using CFD-based
aerodynamics. Issues that will continue to drive research and development include:
order reduction of highly nonlinear fluid dynamic models, cost of reduced order
model generation, utilization of reduced order aerodynamic methods in design187
(where major changes in configurations still take place), reduced order models for
cases involving strong local effects, and the accuracy and reliability of reduced order
models.
An example from a recent study of CFD-based aeroelastic analysis and associated
aeroelastic model order reduction182 involves an artificially flexiblized mathematical
model of a HSCT wind tunnel model configuration (Fig. 8) tested at the NASA
Langley Transonic Dynamic Tunnel (TDT). CFL3D and an Eigensystem Realization
Algorithm (ERA) are used to create a reduced order state space model of the coupled
fluid / structure system using a set of impulse responses to individual mode
excitation. The resulting model is further reduced using a set of inputs to excite the
state-space ERA system, and a Kahrunen-Loeve technique to cover the frequency
range of interest. Comparisons of coupled full-order simulations at three dynamic
pressures (each taking approximately 108 CPU hours on an Origin-3000 computer) to
reduced-order simulations are shown in Fig. 9. Generation of the Reduced order
model based on four full order coupled impulse response simulations costs about
1250 CPU hours (312 hours per mode), but that can be done in parallel, one response
per mode run on a separate processor or set of processors. Once the reduced order
model is ready, a complete root-locus plot generation (that is, running numerous
stability analyses for the same Mach number at many dynamic pressure conditions)
takes less than 5 minutes in the case of 4 modes. When more modes are included in
the dynamic model system matrices become larger and reduced-order model net
preparation time increases. Parallel computation for extracting impulse responses to
different modal excitation can reduce the elapsed time considerably. A case involving
20 modes was reduced (using K-L Proper Orthogonal Realization after the ERA step)

12
to a state space model of the order of 80. With that model, generation of root locus
curves (corresponding to increased dynamic pressures) takes less than 20 minutes. As
this case demonstrates, the generation of reduced order aeroelastic models for CFD-
based aeroelastic systems can still be very time consuming. More research in the near
future will be directed at finding ways to reduce this cost by improving the system
identification process. More efficient system input methods that excite all important
dynamics with a few inputs or a single input, more efficient time stepping for the
coupled CFD-CSD simulations, and massive use of parallel computation will be
some of the areas explored. In the case of methods based on “aerodynamic modes”,
more efficient methods for extracting modes of large scale systems are needed, and
alternative reduced base selection, similar, maybe to structural dynamics methods in
which some modes of a related structure are used, need to be examined. Note that in
the case of reduced order models for nonlinear aerodynamic response, extraction of
the reduced order models is much more expensive compared to the linear case. More
research is required in the area of nonlinear reduced order aeroelastic modeling. The
payoff, once efficient ROM are developed, is significant.

AEROELASTIC SENSITIVITY AND OPTIMIZATION USING CFD-CSD

MODELS

Aerodynamic configuration optimization has always been the key to successful

airplane design. It was only natural that once modern CFD techniques became
established, a drive to develop CFD-based aerodynamic sensitivities would start, and
be immediately combined with gradient-based optimization techniques for the design
optimization of airplane configurations.
Design oriented lifting surface analysis and techniques for gradient-based
aerodynamic optimization followed a similar path years earlier. Theoretical results
for optimal aerodynamic wing loading and wing design lead in the past to the well-
known subsonic elliptic wings and their derivatives, or to the supersonic oblique
wing188. It is interesting to note, however, that general numerical lifting surface based
aerodynamic optimization that could be integrated with general structural
optimization focused historically on the easier problem of optimal twist and camber
distribution for wings of given planform189.
The general planform shape sensitivity problem, where derivatives of aerodynamic
pressures and loads with respect to planform changes such as leading edge sweep190,
span, taper ration, location and size of control surfaces, etc. are sought, is more
difficult because variations in planform shape occur usually in areas of strong
pressure gradients (leading edges, hinge lines, etc.), and because aerodynamic mesh
motion is involved. Proper meshing of a configuration for planform shape sensitivity
studies, mesh deformation, and proper accounting for pressure singularities are then
required.
Planform shape sensitivities for general cases involving general 3-dimentional lifting
surface configurations are still at the research and development stage with linear
lifting surface theory191-194, and are extremely important in any development of future
aircraft design optimization technologies because of the key role of unsteady
aerodynamic linear modeling in aeroelastic and aeroservoelastic analysis and
synthesis of practically every airplane – an importance only expected to grow as

13
more comprehensive integrated multidisciplinary design optimization tools (MDO)
are developed37.
For CFD aerodynamics, covering its different levels of fidelity (from full potential, to
Euler, to Navier Stokes), development of aerodynamic sensitivities with respect to
configuration shape have been an active area of research for more than 20 years now,
and a variety of methods have been used, such as automatic differentiation, analytic
differentiation, complex variable methods, direct and adjoint methods, etc. (Refs.
195-218). Similar to previous developments in shape sensitivity of structural
systems219-224, CFD-based shape optimization has been tackled by differentiation of
discretized CFD models (first discretize, then differentiate) or by discretization of
differentiated equations of the flow (first differentiate, then discretize)225-231.
The challenges faced by CFD-based aerodynamic optimization are closely related to
the difficulties with CFD-based aeroelasticity. In both cases CFD meshes have to
move and deform, and the flow simulation must not deteriorate in accuracy in the
face of significant geometric changes of a configuration. Additional issues, such as
the computing speed and memory requirements of repetitive analyses, the existence
(and “smoothness”) of derivatives, are also common. CFD-based sensitivity analysis
and shape optimization does not completely avoid the problems encountered in
lifting-surface theory along edges of pressure singularity. In such region, CFD
models too require fine meshing and special attention to local details.
From CFD-based aerodynamic shape sensitivities we can now move on to coupled
CFD / CSM sensitivities. Coupled structural / aerodynamic sensitivity analysis for
static aeroelastic systems and associated static aeroelastic optimization are now
progressing from relying on linear Vortex-Lattice and panel type aerodynamic
methods to the more rigorous, and more computationally demanding, CFD based
methods. The technology will continue to progress from sizing type optimization,
where planform shape is predetermined, and only changes in the thicknesses and
cross-sectional areas of structural members are allowed, and where the CFD
contribution to the aeroelastic analysis and sensitivity is through response to
aeroelastic deformation of the configuration. An effort to develop the more
demanding shape optimization technology with configuration shape variation (both
planform and deformation) and structural shape variation (both sizes and locations of
structural members) is currently underway (Fig. 10). While structural finite element
codes with state of the art shape sensitivity and shape optimization capabilities have
been widely available for quite awhile, the integration of any aerodynamic, but
especially CFD-based aerodynamics, and structural shape optimization capabilities
into an aeroelastic shape capability is still a challenging task.
The discussion of progress in aeroelastic CFD-CSM sensitivity and optimization has
focused so far on the static aeroelastic problem. The dynamic aeroelastic optimization
problem, with sensitivities of nonlinear flutter and aeroservoelastic response to
changes in structural and aerodynamic configuration shape design variables is still in
its very early stages of methods development. To carry out coupled dynamic
structural / aerodynamic design sensitivity analysis and optimization using detailed
nonlinear dynamic structural and fluid models is a formidable problem. The
computational resources required for even one dynamic coupled CSM/CFD analysis
are significant. Establishing stability boundaries and tracking behavior histories, and
then calculating sensitivities of those repetitively, cannot yet be carried out efficiently
and is not expected to be practical in the near future. This problem presents a

14
significant challenge to the modern order reduction techniques discussed above. In
most of those order reduction techniques a reduced-order model is constructed based
on the input-output behavior of a given configuration. For such a reduced-order
model to perform well when this configuration gets significantly modified (say by
airfoil profile, sweep, and wing area changes) is still a major research challenge187.
Finally, for aerodynamic and structural sensitivity and optimization with shape
design variables, some parametrization of the shape is necessary. The issue of
consistent shape parametrization in the context of multidisciplinary design
optimization and the role of computer aided design (CAD) based shape definition is
discussed in Refs. 232-234. Future airplane analysis and design system will integrate
CAD with FE and CFD modeling and with shape optimization in a seamless way.

THE “SERVO” IN AEROSERVOELASTICITY: ACTIVE CONTROLS

Discussion in the previous sections focused on the integration of the classic building
blocks of aeroelasticity – the disciplines of dynamics, structures, and aerodynamics.
Developments in modern control systems technology have been no less impressive
than in the structures and aerodynamics technologies surveyed so far, and, indeed, the
field of aeroservoelasticity has been in a state of rapid development in the last 30
years, and is expected to progress at a rapid pace. It is now widely accepted that
aeroservoelasticity and flight mechanics are tightly connected, and that past
separation in airplane companies between aeroelasticity and flight stability & control
departments cannot be justified any more235.
A thorough review of aeroservoelasticity and aeroservoelastic design optimization is
presented in Ref. 37 including a substantial bibliography, which will not be repeated
here. Aeroservoelastic issues of past non-conventional airplane configurations and
potential future vehicles are described in Ref. 43.
The Controls discipline covers the technologies of sensing, control law synthesis /
implementation, and actuation. The important area of system identification – the
extraction of mathematical models of dynamic systems based on controlled actuation
and the processing of sensor signals – can be categorized as a separate sub-discipline,
or included in the controls synthesis and implementation sub-discipline, as, for
example, in the case of adaptive control.
As in the case of classical aeroelasticity, attitudes toward aeroservoelasticity shifted
over the years. Beginning with a focus on aeroservoelasticity as a penalty – the
elimination of undesirable interaction problems by the filtering out using notch filters
of control system signals that might interact with structural dynamic / aeroelastic
modes, or determining sensor locations on the structure to achieve the same effect - it
has now been widely recognized that aeroservoelasticity, if included in the design of
a modern airplane from the start, can offer major benefits (Fig. 11). Active control
technology can be used to stabilize flight mechanics behavior and reduce, or even
eliminate, conventional tail surfaces. Load redistribution and gust alleviation help
reduce wing structural weight and improve ride comfort. Flutter suppression can be
used to eliminate the structural weight required to prevent flutter, or, when flutter
becomes a problem on an existing airplane due to some new external stores
configuration, to stabilize the configuration actively.

15
While great progress has been made over the years in the capability to analytically /
numerically simulate aeroservoelastic behavior on active wind tunnel models and
complete vehicles, it is still a challenge to obtain early in the design process modeling
accuracy suitable for controller synthesis. And even when ground vibration test
results for a vehicle are already available, nonlinearities in structures and actuators
and inaccuracies in calculated steady and unsteady aerodynamic loads, especially in
the transonic flight regime or at high angles of attack, lead to errors in overall
damping, frequency, and dynamic response predictions. The problem becomes more
severe in the case of airplanes with tightly spaced frequencies: very flexible vehicles
where wing frequencies overlap short period or other flight mechanics frequencies, as
well as airplanes with external stores or wing supported engine nacelles. In quite a
number of recent flight / ride comfort controller syntheses for recent aircraft final
controller design had to be based on an aeroservoelastic model of the aircraft
identified by flight tests.
Current challenges in aeroservoelastic controller design and implementation include
the need to develop control synthesis techniques for systems with large numbers of
inputs and outputs (MIMO) and with large-order plant models; reliable dynamic
modeling of emerging new actuation devices; control strategies for systems that can
change dynamic behavior significantly (covering flight at different maneuvers and
flight regimes as well as changes in internal and external stores loading); integrated
control of “slow” and “fast” behavior (configuration variation for performance
improvement purposes as well as flight mechanics, gust response, and flutter
control); and, finally, control of nonlinear systems. Integrated control for vehicles
where aeroelastic / propulsive interactions might occur, such as thrust-vectored
airplanes, or hypersonic air-breathing vehicles with underbody engine inlets, is also a
considerable challenge. Control of the propulsion system, the inlet and the engine
must now be integrated with the aeroelastic control of the vehicle, both statically and
dynamically.
Given the variety of flight conditions and flight configurations as well as
uncertainties in the aeroservoelastic modeling of complex actively controlled
airplane, adaptive control has a special appeal as a way of building “intelligence” and
adaptability into aeroservoelastic control systems that will allow addressing this
variability of system characteristics and excitations by a single coherent strategy.
Adaptive control was recognized as a promising control technology for aeroelastic
application almost 30 years ago. Still, compared to the vast body of literature on
theory and applications of general adaptive control, the number of publications
discussing aeroservoelasticity is surprisingly small236-252. One reason might be the
reluctance to accept active flutter suppression as safe enough for implementation on
actual airplanes. The cost of conducting active control experiments with actual
airplanes, or wind tunnel models representative of the complexity of real airplanes,
might be another reason. Recent applications to wind tunnel models, where Neural
Networks are used for both system ID and control246, are encouraging, and,
hopefully, development of this technology will be pursued.
Developments in actuation technology and fail-safe MIMO control, allowing
redundancy and high reliability of aeroservoelastic control systems, might also lead
to the acceptance of active flutter suppression as safe and viable. This technology,
when combined with load and gust alleviation and taken into account from the early
stages of airplane design, will lead to major weight savings and performance
improvements in future flight vehicles.

16
THE NEW ACTIVELY CONTROLLED VEHICLES: MORPHING “SMART”
AIRPLANES

Advances in structural materials, structural concepts, methods of actuation, and

multi-input multi-output control systems in the last 20 years are currently motivating
research and development of a new type of shape-varying airplanes: the morphing
vehicles253-288. What it is about these new concepts that goes beyond the shape-
varying variable-sweep / variable camber / variable dihedral airplanes of the past
with their high-lift flap systems, and what advantages can the new technology offer –
these issues are not completely clear and settled yet.
At this point in time it seems that the new morphing vehicles will employ some forms
of “smooth” shape variation for camber and twist control as well as innovative
mechanisms for major planform shape, incorporate new actuation technologies (such
as those made possible by strain actuators embedded in the structure or strategically
distributed modern miniaturized actuators), use active flow control289-291 to produce
desired flow patterns in areas of geometric and flow discontinuities, and rely on
powerful high-authority modern control systems capable of adaptation and of
controlling managing many inputs and many outputs (MIMO). It is the distributed
nature of sensing and actuation made possible by new sensor, communication, and
actuation technologies, that allows control with large numbers of inputs and outputs
not practical before.
It is also evident, based on emerging literature, that the goal with the new morphing
vehicles is to allow major shape variation throughout the flight envelope of an
airplane, well beyond what could be achieved by the “old” variable-shape vehicles.
Examples include, folding and unfolding of wings, span variation, shape variation of
wing-tip winglets and aerodynamic wing-tip extensions of various types, etc.
Aeroelasticity and Aeroservoelasticity together with Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization (MDO) will play a major role in the design and analysis of variable-
shape airplanes. The integration of structures and materials technology,
aerodynamics, sensing and actuation, as well as advanced control, becomes in this
case much tighter than ever before. Such technology is a must if the new integrated
systems are to be used to their full potential. And it is through such integrated MDO
technology that it would be possible to assess the overall advantages and pay-offs of
morphing
In the near future it is expected that morphing vehicle technology development will
focus on small UAVs. Application to full size manned vehicles, at this stage, does
not seem to be imminent in the near future, except, maybe, in the case of trailing-
edge and leading-edge camber variation in areas which are not significant load
carriers.

UNCERTAINTY

The need to address uncertainty in the design of any engineering system has long
been recognized as a key element of what constitutes good design292-339. Uncertainty

17
can arise due to incomplete information, errors in both analysis and design models,
and the uncertain nature of inputs and system parameters. When subject to inputs of
random nature, even a deterministic system responds with randomly varying outputs.
When the nature of the system itself is subject to uncertainty (Fig. 12), when the
system is one of a set of systems, each different in characteristics, or when the nature
of a single system varies with time in an uncertain way, the problem is more
complicated.
Measures of robustness of controlled dynamic systems, representing their sensitivity
or insensitivity to uncertainty in characteristics and inputs, and the associated robust
controls design techniques, have been the subject of significant research and
development in the area of control systems, and are now widely used292-295.
Reliability theory for engineering systems is now also well developed296-301. The
problem of how to address uncertainty in the context of optimal engineering design
has been studied for at least 20 years now, with different approaches examined301-314,
including the modeling of sources of system uncertainty as random variables, defined
by their statistical characteristics and propagated through the system to produce
statistics of system responses, or, alternatively, modeling uncertainty in system
parameters via bounds on their measures and using some form of interval analysis to
quantify the resulting bounds on system behavior. It can be argued that in many
engineering systems, especially those not produced in mass quantities, it is difficult,
if not impractical to obtain meaningful statistics of uncertainty sources, and that
interval analysis, based on bounds on those sources is more appropriate. Selected
publications describing recent developments in the area of uncertainty modeling,
analysis, and optimization of complex system can be found in the bibliography296-301
and can be used to lead the reader to the vast literature on this subject.
In aeroelasticity the traditional approach to uncertainty included a number of
elements: careful consideration of all possible flight conditions and loads (supported
by extensive analysis, vehicle analysis / test correlation, and by statistics based on
extensive testing and on experience with previous airplanes) and the application of
generous margins of safety to the resulting design in the form of increased design
loads and required sufficient damping well outside the flight envelope; tight quality
control of production, and strict maintenance procedures to insure minimal variability
of airplanes of the same model; and, finally, limitations on the operation of airplanes
imposed via flight procedures and, more recently, by building limits on airplane
maneuvering into the flight control system. The problem of airplane operations
outside of maneuvers guiding limits is a serious problem especially in the case of
fighter airplanes, whose maneuvering, whether because of aggressive pilot training or
of real warfare conditions, is, many times, unpredictabl324.
Sources of modeling errors and resulting uncertainty in aeroelastic models involve315-
317
un-modeled nonlinearity of the structure (especially in attachments, joints, and
control actuators), poorly modeled damping, errors in aerodynamic predictions,
variability of material properties (especially in the case of low-cost composite
manufacturing), different fuel loadings, variability in stiffness and inertial
characteristics of external stores, etc. Variability in aeroelastic characteristics within
a fleet of a particular airplane model is expected to grow in the case of low-cost
UAVs and in the case of morphing vehicles, unless a deliberate effort is made to
reduce this variability. Morphing airplanes, because of the presence of many
nonlinear actuators (either as separate components or embedded in the structure) can
be subject to changes over time of material, actuator, and actuator attachment

18
behavior. But even conventional airplanes during long years of service might develop
damage in composite and other parts of the structure that might affect strength and
stiffness321-322.
Aeroelastic analysis and design methods for the response to random atmospheric
gusts or to runway roughness go back to the 1950s. An interesting study of reliability
of aeroelastic panels and shells – a case where random material uncertainties and also
random in-plane loading uncertainties affect the dynamic characteristics of panels -
is described in Refs. 325-327, and it is quite straightforward to extend the
methodology used to the case of complete vehicles. More recently methods
developed for control system robustness analysis and design were applied to
aeroservoelastic systems3300-335. µ -Analysis concepts were used to measure the
“distance” of an aeroservoelastic system from instability, and to optimize
aeroservoelastic systems in the presence of major uncertainties in their structural
characteristics. In recent studies by NASA338-339 uncertainties in wing planform
geometry of a prototype wing were “propagated” through a coupled Finite-Element /
CFD aeroelastic solution to impact the results of integrated multidisciplinary
optimization of the wing, where constraints were taken into account by consideration
of the probabilities of exceedance of allowed values. The importance of these efforts
is not only due of the methods and insights they provide, but also by the
demonstration of the growing capabilities of modeling-for-uncertainty-analysis made
possible by advances in computing power and numerical methods. Progress in
uncertainty modeling, based on better understanding of sources of variability in
actively controlled future airplanes, and improvement in robust design methods for
aeroservoelastic systems, have the potential to lead in the future to more efficient,
safer designs.

MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN OPTIMIZATION

If the potential benefits of emerging sensing, control, and actuation technologies

together with emerging “control-friendly” structural concepts are to be materialized,
design synthesis tools for complex multidisciplinary aeroservoelastic system must
become available, and they must be based on modeling capable of capturing all
important modes of behavior on real vehicles340-354. Automated design optimization
makes it possible to reach efficient competitive designs – a task of extreme
importance in airplane technology, where maximum performance at minimum weight
and cost are the drivers of practically every successful design. Automated synthesis is
valuable often just for the sake of obtaining feasible designs, in cases where the mix
of design variables and constraints is so complex, that even just a feasible design
cannot be found by the intuitive “trial and error” methods of the past.
But design optimization offers more than that. When new technologies are emerging,
when it is not yet clear how to use them most effectively, optimization can be used to
study trade-offs in a consistent and rational way and to gain insight and design
experience.
For example, future aeroservoelastic design synthesis capabilities should be able to
synthesize “morphing” “smart” airplanes whose shape in flight is controlled by a mix
of conventional and different types of strain actuators. Electrohydraulic or electric
actuators can be used to deform certain parts of the structure, while strain actuators

19
can deform other areas. "Strong" actuators might be used to change the camber and
twist of the main-load carrying box of a wing, while strain actuators (with more
limited force and strain capability, but with high bandwidth) can be used to deform
the leading and trailing edges in a smooth way. Controlled deformation can be
achieved using active spars and ribs (with actuators in the flanges, or aligned along
the diagonals of truss-like webs) in combination with active skins. Even articulated
control surfaces might be improved by using conventional actuation of the large
rotations on their hinges plus controlled deformation of the surfaces through strain
actuation of their skins (both low frequency and high frequency).
The goal should be to learn what constitutes a best practical approach to the design of
adaptive airplane structure given the strengths and limitations of different actuations
technologies and different structural concepts.
In order to study the potential and limitation of new actuation technologies for full
scale airplanes, future design synthesis capabilities should include a comprehensive
set of constraints on all important behavior entities and possible failure modes.
Stresses (static and dynamic), deformations, fatigue, and local failure of the actuator
patches, power requirements, and the resulting weight and cost of amplifiers, circuits
and control system required, etc., should be taken into account in addition to
aeroelastic constraints on stability, dynamic response, structural integrity, shape, and
aerodynamic performance.
Is there a preferred mix of control devices and structural concepts that will lead to
best weight / cost / perfomance? Only a general analysis / synthesis / optimization
capability which covers all practical constraints and performance measures and can
capture with good accuracy the behavior of real adaptive structures (including
sensitivities) can provide the answers.
The problems with development of such integrated aeroservoelastic synthesis
capabilities are significant. Analysis modules representing different disciplines must
communicate in a seamless way in an environment that allows modularity. Careful
attention must be paid to the definition of the synthesis problem: objective or
objectives, constraints, design variables. Uncertainty must be taken into account in a
realistic but not over-conservative way. Local and global effects must be accounted
for. For example, to extend the life of old airframes, active control may be used in a
load alleviation mode, to reduce the stresses in parts of the structure determined by
inspections to be more sensitive from a damage tolerance perspective. This requires
dynamic simulations capable of capturing global behavior as well as crack growth in
the presence of active control.
The main problem, however, is the high computational cost of a single integrated
aeroservoelastic analysis. If emerging high-fidelity simulation is used (in the form of
coupled Navier-Stokes / advanced Finite Element for nonlinear response analysis and
sensitivity analysis in the time domain) just a single set of analyses covering a
number of flight conditions and load cases takes days to solve on the most advanced
computers available today. Even when linear aerodynamic modeling is used, the
computational cost of detailed analyses is such that only a small number of analyses
can be carried out with practical computational resources.
In Structural Synthesis220,224,355,357 this had led to the development of Approximation
Concepts, where a small number of detailed analyses along the optimization search
path is used to create computationally “cheap” approximation, and it is these

20
approximation that optimization algorithms will use for the thousands and tens of
thousands of system evaluations they need.
Given the formidable computational cost of high-fidelity aeroservoelastic analysis it
seems that an Approximation-Concepts based optimization strategy will continue to
dominate airplane design optimization for years to come, and that continued efforts in
the area of model order reduction, sensitivity analysis, and approximation techniques,
together with improvements in computer performance and parallel processing will
lead to significant improvements and growing power of such methods.

NON-CONVENTIONAL CONFIGURATIONS

Aeroelasticity should be examined against the panorama of aviation history, by

following the stories of non-conventional configurations of the past that challenged
aeroelasticity, and the challenging non-conventional new configurations made
possible by developments in aeroelastic technology. A thorough review of
aeroelasticity and its role in the development of new airplanes of the past, as well as
discussion of aeroelasticity of emerging new configurations, can be found in Ref. 43.
Swept-back wing jets with under-wing engines (Fig. 13), T-Tail configurations,
swept-forward, and oblique wings, flying wings, supersonic transports and bombers
such as Concorde and the B-70, the hypersonic SR-71 and X-15, control configured
vehicles (CCV), such as the F-16, high Aspect Ratio sailplanes and human powered
vehicles, structurally “tailored” fighters – the list of airplanes that saw significant
aeroelastic interactions and made an impact on aeroelastic technology is long and
rich.
An examination of emerging new configurations357-359 promises to make
aeroelastician of the future no less professionally-challenged than the aeroelastician
of the past. A number of configurations in various stages of research and
development merit a brief mention here (Fig. 14).
Nonlinear aeroelastic effects due to control surface free-play, several types of
nonlinearities at joints, hinges, and fold-lines, actuator nonlinearity, dry friction, stall,
shock induced separation, shock oscillation, and vortex motion, are well known and
have been the subject of research for years41 with rapid progress in recent years due
to the growing power of nonlinear structural / aerodynamic simulations. It has also
been known that panels subjected to in-plane loading exhibit nonlinear aeroelastic
behavior. Helicopter rotors – long beams subject to large deformation and inertial
effects of rotation are notoriously nonlinear.
Recently155 nonlinearity due to large deformation of simple model delta wings and
high aspect ratio fixed wings was demonstrated both analytically and experimentally.
With highly flexible, structurally-efficient, wings of airplanes such as the large
Airbus A380, structural geometric nonlinearity of the aeroelsastic behavior of such
wings might become important, and we may soon see airplanes whose dynamic
characteristics vary in flight with each maneuver depending the large deformation it
introduces63. Such behavior has been identified in simulation studies of high altititude
– long endurance (HALE) unmanned aerial vehicles (UAV). Similarly, in the Joined-
Wing and Strut-Braced Wing (SBW) configurations67,68 major wing or tail sections
can be subjected, depending on the maneuver, to axial compression. Such

21
components can become buckling-critical, and if design optimization drives them to
be as efficient as possible (that is, away from buckling only within small margins
allowed) effective stiffness, natural frequencies, and aeroelastic behavior will change
with maneuver loading, nonlinear aeroelastic behavior will have to be addressed in
the design process from the start, and the whole process of flutter clearance and
certification may become more complicated and costlier. Unmanned Combat Aerial
Vehicles (UCAVs) of the future, if designed for high maneuverability and high load
factors, may exhibit nonlinear behavior of their wings under the loads in extreme
maneuvers.
Current Uninhabited Aerial Vehicles (UAVs), emerging, and future UAVs cover a
wide range of configurations to perform the multitude of different missions UAVs
are developed for357. Long endurance / long range UAVs have highly flexible high
Aspect Ratio wings. Uninhabitted Combat Aerial Vehicles (UCAVs), currently in
various stages of development, are compact, with low AR wings and blended
wing/body configurations for high maneuverability and low radar cross section.
Small UAVs designed for quick assembly and launch in field conditions come in
many shapes and form. Packaging requirements lead to configurations with hinges,
joints, and fold lines, where nonlinear effects and variability from vehicle to vehicle
(even the same vehicle at different deployments) contribute to uncertainty.
Such uncertainty can be expected in typical configurations of the Mars Plane, now
under development for NASA. This vehicle has to be packaged into the spacecraft
that will carry it to Mars, then unfold and lock into its flight configuration for the
Mars surveying mission. Discussion of structural and systems aspects of future
airplanes from general aviation airplanes, through subsonic and supersonic transports,
and up to hypersonic vehicles can be found in Refs. 358,359.

FRONTIERS OF FLIGHT - SUPERSONIC AND HYPERSONIC VEHICLES

With the coming elimination of Concorde service by Air France and British Airways,
the first age of supersonic commercial flight comes to an end360-374. Repeated efforts
to design a modern supersonic transport all ended without commitment to the
construction of an actual vehicle. Technology in a number of areas, including
propulsion efficiency, emissions, noise, and sonic boom, was deemed not ready for
implementation in an economically viable way. In the structures area, while major
progress had been made, the drive to reduce structural weights and a host of
aeroelastic problems fueled intensive research and development effort that, in turn, is
already making an impact on the design optimization of other airplanes.
Efficient supersonic airframes have thin, low aspect-ratio wings, connected to a long
and slender fuselage along a long root. This leads to strong structural dynamic
coupling between fuselage and wing motions. Engines nacelles, placed toward the
rear of the wing can affect flutter unfavorably. Outer wing aileron (or elevon)
effectiveness suffers because of the low torsional stiffness of the thin outer wing
section, unless the structure is stiffened. Vibration levels along the fuselage, and
especially in the cockpit can affect ride-comfort and handling qualities negatively. If
Mach numbers above 2 are sustained during cruise, aerodynamic heating plays a
significant role and aerothermoelasticity will drive material selection, structural
layout, and structural sizing. Future supersonic transports are expected to rely heavily

22
on active control for static and dynamic load alleviation, configuration shape control
(for optimal L/D in flight), and ride comfort. Current work on Quiet Supersonic
Platforms (QSP)373,374 (Fig. 15),driven by funding from DARPA, and the
examination by a number of aircaft manufacturers of the economy and markets for
supersonic business jets, has led to the emergence of a number of new “quiet”
configurations, with long and slender fuselages, and engines mounted either to the
sides of the back of the fuselage or on top of the fuselage. Acoustic fatigue, for
airframe panels or control surfaces subject to engine exhaust noise, becomes an
important design consideration in such cases. In one of the configurations studied by
Northrop-Grumman a joined-wing concept is used, and joined-wing aeroelasticity, as
discussed above, will be important.
The design of future efficient supersonic transports, large and small, will depend
heavily on coupled CFD/CSM high-fidelity modeling, Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization, and integrated aeroservoelastic synthesis of structures, controls, and
aerodynamics simultaneously.
Interdisciplinary coupling becomes more complex and the need to advance the state
of the art in aeroelasticity more urgent in the case of hypersonic vehicles
development375-402. The harsh thermal and loads environment in which hypersonic
vehicles operate is a challenge to structural technology, where thermal effects affect
material selection, structural layout, and cooling methods. Accurate prediction of
stiffness variation (both global and local) due to temperature and thermal stress
effects on material property and effective stiffness, respectively, must be combined
with accurate steady and unsteady aerothermodynamic analysis. Thermal inputs to
the structure affect deformation of the vehicle. The resulting changes in the flow field
lead to changes in thermal inputs to the structure. In air-breathing configurations with
engine inlets located under the body, and where the forward part of the body is used
as the ramp that leads air into the inlet, any deformation of the body results in
perturbation to the inlet airflow. A propulsion-aeroelastic coupling develops, and
must be accounted for when overall aeroservoelastic analysis and design of the
vehicle are carried out. Typical hypersonic vehicles also have to operate subsonically,
transonically, and supersonically. Their aeroelastic and aeroservoelastic design must
cover a wide range of flight conditions, where different instabilities can occur,
depending on Mach number and dynamic pressure, and also the weight of the vehicle
as he encounters a new condition. Typical lifting-body or winged lifting-body
configurations require unsteady aerodynamic and aerothermodynamic analysis tools
capable of accurately simulating the flow around such vehicles throughout their flight
envelope. A research effort to develop CFD / FE based aeroelastic analysis and
design technology for reusable launch vehicle is currently underway, funded by
NASA and the US Air Force398.

MICRO-UAVS AND FLAPPING FLIGHT

“”Biologists have studies bird and insect flight empirically for quite some time. One
thing is clear…all these creatures use two specific mechanisms to overcome the
small-scale limitations of their wings: flexibility and flapping.” (quoted from Ref.
403). It was recognized early in the history of unsteady aerodynamic theory
development for flutter analysis that the same theory could be extended to address the

23
problem of flapping flight404. Mankind’s fascination with flapping flight had not
been abated even after a 100 year history of powerful and successful airplanes. The
desire to design and build flapping wing flight machines led to the development of a
number of toy airplanes and to a quarter scale proof-of-concept ornithopter, which
flew successfully in 1991406-408. This was followed by the development of a full-
scale engine-powered human-carrying ornithopter409.
Aeroelasticity plays a crucial role in the analysis and design of flapping wing
vehicles. A number of developments in areas of Aeroelasticity have to be integrated
to create analysis and design tools for flapping flight. These include: unsteady
aerodynamics of wing thrust and drag production, unsteady aerodynamics of attached
and separated flows, aerodynamics of Low Reynolds airfoils, coupled nonlinear
structural dynamic / nonlinear aerodynamic aeroelastic equations in the time domain,
and, optimization of flapping frequency and flapping motions phase and amplitude
relations for maximum efficiency and minimum power.
Using miniature power-plants, mechanical drives, electronics, and instrumentation,
and construction technology for miniature structures, it has now become feasible to
build very small Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) for a variety of intelligence,
observation, surveillance, communications, and detection missions. Many
configurations of micro-UAVs have been developed411-417, or are at different stages
of development, including vehicles with membrane wings. Analysis challenges
include modeling the low Reynolds number unsteady flow, structural modeling for
miniature structures, coupling of CFD and FE equations, and the generation of well
behaved grids capable of adapting to large motions and significant deformation. The
area of Micro-UAVs is currently a very active area of research and development,
where Aeroelasticity is expected to play a significant role.

TESTING

Structural dynamic testing of scaled models and full size vehicles, followed by
aeroelastic tests in the wind tunnel and in flight418-472 will continue to be an essential
part of the science and practice of aeroelasticity. It is not expected that mathematical
modeling in the foreseeable future will reach levels of accuracy and reliability that
will deem testing of actual systems unnecessary. Sources of error in the structural
modeling include damping effects, stiffness variation with loading and temperature,
un-modeled or poorly modeled nonlinearities of joint and actuator behavior for some
loading cases and operational environments, material degradation, manufacturing and
maintenance tolerances, and local effects not captured by the meshing and modeling
used mathematical models. Even though major progress has been made in CFD
simulations of complex flows and the frontiers of aeroelastic njumerical simulation
are constantly being expanded, practical reliable implementation, capable of
capturing all important mechanisms of flow unsteadiness and flow/structure
interactions, is still years away.
Examination of the current state of the art in ground and flight testing in light of its
state of the art 30 years ago reveals major progress in instrumentation,
communication, computing power, and associated system identification methods. As
we look to the future, we can expect continuous improvement in all these elements of
testing technology. New sensors, miniaturized and accurate will be available for

24
distribution in the structure in large numbers to measure motion, stress, temperature,
damage propagation, and local changes in stiffness. Their outputs, transmitted
wireless or by thin fiber-optic wires will reach powerful on-board and ground
computers, capable of real-time accurate identification of large-scale MIMO systems.
New actuators, structural and aerodynamic, will be used in large numbers (if
necessary) to excite all important dynamic behavior modes. Non-invasive
measurement technology, based on photogrammetry or other optical methods441-448, is
already making an impact on small-model structural dynamic and aeroelastic tests,
and will continue to be improved.
In the context of increased emphasis on uncertainty modeling and reliability-oriented
approach to aeroelastic flight envelope clearance, advances in testing techniques for
experiment-based uncertainty estimation are expected to
315,316,317,330,334,335,468
continue . Such efforts also focus on the uncertainty and
repeatability issues introduced by the testing itself.
With improving wind tunnel testing technology for unsteady aerodynamic testing and
the growing flexibility in model design made possible by “morphing”, “smart”
structures concepts, the direct measurement of unsteady aerodynamic loads on
models that deform to simulate vehicle motion in particular modes of interest
becomes possible449. So far, unsteady aerodynamic tests were limited to cases where
wind tunnel models are oscillated in rigid body motion or rigid control surface
rotation on its hinge. But recent tests of “smart” wings with smoothly varying camber
expanded suggest that we may be not too far away from an unsteady aerodynamic
testing technology equivalent to the established modal testing for structural
dynamics. That is, enough information from unsteady aerodynamic tests will become
available to “calibrate” CFD models, or to even carry out flutter analysis directly
with measured aerodynamic matrices. This should not be confused with
aeroelastically-scaled model tests. Deforming models whose shape of oscillation can
be controlled do not have to be scaled structurally and inertially to simulate the actual
vehicle. They only have to be capable of executing motions that simulate the motion
of the actual deformable vehicle. A recent effort to examine direct identification of
unsteady aerodynamic loads is reported in Ref. 451.
A number of significant challenges still remain in the area of ground and wind-tunnel
testing. Proper scaling laws must be developed for actively-controlled vehicles,
hypersonic vehicles, and vehicles like the joined-wing and strut-wing configuration
where internal stress distribution has to be captured for both component buckling and
aeroelastic instability simulation11,23,67,68,249,433. Even in the case of unsteady subsonic
flow at high angles of attack, we should remember, proper scaling of wind tunnel
models, and extrapolation of wind-tunnel test results to flight Reynolds numbers is
not trivial430-432. Wind tunnel wall effects must be accounted for182,488, as well as
support conditions in ground-vibration and wind tunnel tests. Support conditions are
especially important in cases where vehicle structural frequencies are low, and some
form of rigid-body-motion structural dynamic interaction is expected. Model design
and cost, and test cost must be reduced through automation, data processing and
system identification improvements.
The following quote from Ref. 457 expresses the essence of the state of the art in
flight flutter testing: “Even in the days of high speed computers and sophisticated
data measurement and analysis tools, flutter testing remains as much an art as a
science. Subcritical damping data cannot always be safely extrapolated to obtain an

25
accurate prediction for the flutter velocity. Nonlinearities in the control system or in
the aerodynamics and structures of an aircraft can critically affect the aeroelastic
behavior. Finally, the aeroelastic stability can change from positive to negative with
an increase in air speed of only a few knots, and the whole procedure is very
dangerous and time consuming”. Despite major progress in excitation techniques,
instrumentation, data processing, and system identification technology, flutter flight
testing is still dangerous, time-consuming, and expensive, and it is expected to
motivate research and development for years to come452-472. In the case of
hypersonic flight, expanding flight envelope clearance into the hypersonic range is
promising to be challenging. The problem is especially severe in the case of launch-
vehicles, where flutter tests may not be feasible at sustained critical conditions the
vehicle can only pass rapidly along its trajectory.
A final note is in place here to connect adaptive control to the state of the art in flight
flutter testing. The challenge that nonlinearity, noise, and uncertainty present to the
accurate identification of an aeroservoelastic system in flight is also a challenge to
adaptive control, where control law evolution depends on reliable identification of
the system. Active control and flutter flight testing, then, are tightly connected, and
advances in one can immediately affect the other.

THE “SCIENCE” OF AEROELASTICITY

It is easy, when the future of aeroelasticity is considered, to be captivated by the

complexity of future flight machines and the technological developments required to
address that complexity. As Ref. 43 shows, great discoveries and great contributions
in aeroelasticity were made through the work on real airplanes. Compared to the thrill
of testing real, full-size, airplanes and applying the most powerful computational
tools available to analyze them during a massive design effort, the careful,
methodical, meticulous work of basic research seems uninspiring, even boring.
Yet, it is this basic research that creates the foundation of a discipline, sheds light on
the physical processes involved, brings clarity to confusing situations, and builds the
analytical and numerical concepts that will later grow to become production tools. It
is basic research, with the simple test systems it focuses on, that lays the foundation
for national and international collaboration. Such simple test systems – benchmark
systems -fully described in scientific publications, make it possible for researchers all
over the world to duplicate reported results and test their own simulations.
Benchmarking is extremely difficult, if not impractical, when it comes to the detailed
aeroservoelastic systems industry works with. The proprietary nature of actual
airplane models, together with the complexity and potential for inconsistency and
confusion make such models not very useful for scientific work. Nor are they
necessary.
In universities, industry, and government research organizations basic research in
aeroelasticity, aeroservoelasticity, aerothermoelasticity, flight mechanics, and MDO
will continue to advance the state of the art. New generations of aeroelasticians will
be educated and trained using simple systems and manageable test and computation
challenges that capture the essence of the field.
A few, out of the many excellent basic research contributions to aeroelasticity
worldwide, are mention here. With low cost aeroelastic models of composite wings

26
and a small wind tunnel at MIT in the early 80s a series of flutter and stall-flutter
tests on tailored forward swept wings were carried out. At Duke University, using a
dedicated wind tunnel and a series of low-cost models of 2D sections-control surface
combinations and 3D low Aspect-Ratio and High Aspect Ratio wings, fundamental
mechanisms on nonlinear aeroelastic behavior were studied, including active control
in the presence of nonlinearity. Similar tests on nonlinear aeroelastic systems were
performed at Texas A&M. NASA at the Transonic Dynamic Tunnel at Langley
Research Center has contributed to the science of aeroelasticity by a number of
carefully designed and planned benchmark tests to study unsteady aerodynamics,
aeroelasticity, and active control. What is common to all these basic research efforts
is the carefully documented details of the test equipment and test results, and studies
of test / analysis correlation. Those will serve for years to come to help researchers
Basic research, of course, is not only experimental. Similar basic research
contributions in the areas of computational structures and fluids technology start with
simple models, whose simulation can be repeated by researchers, and which serve for
the tresting of new numerical techniques. The future of aeroelasticity depends on
basic research.

THE PRACTICE OF AEROELASTICITY

Even with the well-established linear aeroelastic analysis and test methods for
modern airplanes, and even if we assume that those are sufficient, industry still
struggles with the long cycle-time it requires to create aeroservoelastic models and
use MDO for truly integrated design. Its capacity to bring aeroservoelasticity to the
early stages of the design process, where it can make an impact, is still very limited.
The challenge is more formidable when the need for strict modeling fidelity is
recognized, and, when, as a result, large-scale Finite Element and CFD computations
are required. State of the art FE / CFD modeling is a must when it comes to new
configurations that expand the frontiers of flight. Nonlinear CFD must be used for
performance (L/D, etc.) and aeroservoelastic stability and response predictions in the
transonic regime. High-supersonic and hypersonic flight of lifting-body, wave-riders,
and other configurations requires CFD simulations capable of capturing flow fields
around complex configurations in extreme flight conditions, involving strong shocks,
heat transfer, as well as chemical and electromagnetic reaction. Detailed CFD / FE
modeling is also required in the design of quiet supersonic platforms374, or, for flow
and structural stress simulations at high angles of attack, under stall and buffeting
conditions.
To create the engineering environment that will allow rapid model generation and
multidisciplinary design optimization early in the airplane design stage industry will
continue to invest in methods development484-499. Progress in a number of areas is
required. CAD models must be parametrized for MDO application from the start and
integrate seamlessly with structural and meshing capabilities for the different FE and
CFD solvers that can serve as industry standards. A Mutidisciplinary Design
Optimization system must be modular and allow quick replacement of any
contributing module by another module performing the same tasks491-493. This goes to
the heart of aeroservoelasticity, where structure/flow interfacing is a fundamental

27
building block, and proper integration of sensors, actuators, and controllers is the key
to successful aeroservoelastic simulation and design.
Parallel computation and methods of complex-system project planning should be
used for breaking the design process into optimally scheduled tasks. Communication
between departments representing different disciplines should be improved, and a
culture change must take place, where members of a design team understand and
contribute to the multidisciplinary design effort. To accelerate model generation and
automate those parts of the modeling process that follow clear practices and rules,
Knowledge-Based engineering systems494-499 should be developed.
One of the most difficult problems industry faces in the course of design and
certification of a new airplane is the large number of load cases that have to be
considered488-489, and, in the case of fighter/attack aircraft, the large number of
external stores combinations they carry500-502. Thousands of loads cases have to be
considered in design, covering flight loads in all possible flight conditions, weight
distribution changes, ground loads, thermal inputs, etc. In the case of actively
controlled airplanes, changes in the control system done late in project development
to improve handling qualities or for other reasons, can throw the whole loads / fatigue
design work into question. Pilot action and control system dynamics, coupled with
the dynamics and aerodynamics of the airplane, affect its maneuvers, and, hence, its
deformations and stresses324. Another important problem, not usually discussed in
aeroelasticity publications, is the evaluation of mass properties early in the design
stage and creating an inertia model which represents with good accuracy the inertia
distribution of the final airplane503-508.
An efficient design environment of the future must include tools for addressing the
multiple-load-cases problem reliably and rapidly. Parallel computing and careful
planning must be employed. To deal with the enormous amounts of information
generated by such processes, advanced scanning and visualization tools must be and
will be developed. The goal in the next few years should be reduction of design cycle
times from months to weeks and better integration of all disciplines involved in
airplane design.

CONTROL SURFACE FLUTTER

Control surface flutter (Fig. 16), sensitive to actuator stiffness, damping, and control
surface mass distribution, is one of those problems that runs the risk of being
considered minor and secondary in the excitement of developing new configurations.
Yet, unfortunately, it has a major presence in the history of aeroelasticity, and, can be
a major source of aeroelastic problems in the future if not addressed carefully. The
problem is not limited to “old” articulated control surfaces. The design of new
“smooth” controls and compliant structures must strike a balance between enough
stiffness to prevent local “softness” (that would couple with the wing to produce
instability), and enough flexibility that would allow small actuators to achieve
sufficient camber changes for aerodynamic control. It is important to continue paying
close attention to actuators, control surfaces, and any part of the structure they move
The local structural effects and aerodynamic effects of controls’ motions will
continue to play an important part in aeroelasticity in the future.

28
CONCLUSION

Today, thirty years after the development of airplanes like the F-16, forty years after
Concorde, and almost 50 years after the appearance of the swept-back jet transport
airplane, the generation of aeroelasticians who brought aeroelasticity to its current
advanced state is retiring or already retired. A major effort (when we think about the
future of aeroelasticity) should be made to preserve the “art” of aeroelasticity – that
body of knowledge, skill, and creative mastery shaped by extensive experience.
Documentation of aeroelastic experiences and their lessons should be encouraged.
Test cases, accessible in terms of the resources they need to duplicate and work with,
should be prepared for students in the field. These cases should cover all major
phenomena and problems, and, ideally, allow for simulation / test correlations.
Government and industry should continue to support education, and offer internships.
The present paper and its companion papers36-45 are part of this educational effort.
The paper includes a selection of references covering all the contributing disciplines
in the field of aeroelasticity. These references should be used as guides to more
extensive bibliographies by readers interested in particular areas.
The present paper did not discuss computational aeroelasticity and nonlinear
aeroelasticity in detail. These areas are covered well by recent review articles. The
list of topics discussed in this paper includes: a “taste” of frontiers of numerical
simulation, modeling for capturing local and global behavior, order reduction of large
FE and CFD models, sensitivity analysis and coupled structures / aerodynamic
optimization with FE/CFD models, Aeroservoelasticity and Aeroservoelastic
optimization, “morphing”, “smart” airplanes, accounting for uncertainty in
aeroelastic analysis and design, multidisciplinary design optimization, aeroelasticity
of selected future non-conventional configurations, aeroelastic challenges associated
with supersonic and hypersonic flight, as well as aeroelastic contributions to flapping
flight and micro-UAVs. Developments in ground and flight testing were discussed,
followed by sections dedicated to basic research – the “science” of aeroelasticity –
and to the practice of aeroelasticity – aeroelastic clearance schedule, cost, and
reliability in airplane design. It is impossible to thoroughly cover aeroelasticity and
its derivative areas in a single paper. Hopefully, readers will find this paper useful,
and become motivated to further explore this rich and exciting field.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I am indebted to the many colleagues who helped me with information and advice
and provided me with materials for the preparation of this paper. The list includes
(not in any particular order): Earl Dowell, Daman Tang, Peretz Friedmann, Charbel
Farhat, Tom Strganac, Terry Weisshaar, Jay Kudva, Marty Brenner, Kumar Bhatia,
Moeljo Hong, Mike Love, Steve Dobbs, Joe Giesing, Daniella Raveh, Moti Karpel,
P.C. Chen, Danny Liu, Bob Lust, Hans Schweiger, Rakesh Kapania, Jonathan
Cooper, Hector Climent, Paolo Mantegazza, Juan Alonso, Wey Shyy, and Clyde
Gumbert. Support from NASA and AFOSR is gratefully acknowledged.

29
REFERENCES

1. Forsching, H., "Dynamic Aeroelastic Calculations of Aircraft Based on

Ground Vibration Test Data", Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Pergamon
Press, Oxford, Vol. 11, 1970, pp. 1-66.
2. Dat, R., “The Theoretical and Experimental Methods used in France for Flutter
Prediction”, AIAA Paper 73-329, AIAA Dynamics Specialists Conference,
Williamsburg, VA March 19-20, 1973.
3. Baldock, J.C.A., and Skingle, C.W., “Flutter Technology in the United Kingdom –
A Survey”, AIAA Paper 73-330, AIAA Dynamics Specialists Conference,
Williamsburg, VA March 19-20, 1973.
4. Kobayashi, S., “The State of the Art in Aeroelasticity of Aerospace Vehicles in
Japan”, AIAA Paper 73-331, AIAA Dynamics Specialists Conference, Williamsburg,
VA March 19-20, 1973.
5. Garrick, I.E., “Aeroelasticity – Frontiers and Beyond”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 13,
September 1976, pp. 641-657.
6. Rodden, W.P., “A Comparison of Methods used in Interfering Lifting Surface
Theory”, AGARD Report R-643, March 1976.
7. Ashley, H., “Some Observations on Four Current Subjects Related to Aeroelastic
Stability”, Israel Journal of Technology, Vol. 16, 1978, pp. 3-22.
8. Forsching, H.W., “Prediction of the unsteady airloads on oscillating lifting systems
and bodies for aeroelastic analyses”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 18, 1979,
pp. 211-269.
9. Scanlan, R.H., and Rosenbaum, R., Introduction to the Study of Aircraft Vibration
and Flutter, The MacMillan Co., New York, 1951.
10. Broadbent, E.G., The Elementary Theory of Aeroelasticity, Part III – Flutter of
Control Surfaces and Tabs, Aircraft Engineering, Vol. XXXVI, No. 303, May 1954.
11. Bisplinghoff, R. L., Ashley, H., and Halfman, R. L., Aeroelasticity, Addison
Wesley, Cambridge, Mass.,1955, also available from Dover Publications 1996.
12. Fung, Y.C., An Introduction to the Theory of Aeroelasticity, John Wiley, New
York, 1955.
13. Abramson, Norman, An Introduction to the Dynamics of Airplanes, New York,
Ronald Press Company, 1958.
14. Bisplinghoff, R.L., and Ashley, H., Principles of Aeroelasticity, John Wiley and
Sons, New York, 1962, Dover Publications, 1975.
15. AGARD Manual of Aeroelasticity, Jones, W.P., editor, North Atlantic Treaty
Organization Advisory Group for Research and Development, 1962, Volumes 1-6.
16. Bolotin, V.V., Nonconservative Problems of the Elastic Theory of Stability,
Pergamon Press, 1963.

30
17. Taylor, J., Manual of Aircraft Loads, AGARDograph 83, Pergamon Press,
1965.
18. Performance and dynamics of aerospace vehicles, by the staff of Langley
Research Center, NASA SP-258, 1971.
19. Dowell, E.H., Aeroelasticity of Plates and Shells, Noordhoff, Leyden, The
Netherlands, 1975.
20. Librescu, L., Elastostatics and kinetics of anisotropic and heterogeneous shell-
type structures, Noordhoff, Leyden, The Netherlands, 1976.
21. Dowell, E.H., and Ilgamov, M., Studies in Nonlinear Aeroelasticity, Springer
Verlag, 1988.
22. Hoblit, F.M., Gust Loads on Aircraft: Concepts and Applications, AIAA
Education Series, Washington, DC, 1988.
23. Granger, R.A., Wright, J., Dupriez, P.M., Scanlan, R., Hutin, P.M., and
Weatherhill, W., Introduction to Flutter of Winged Aircraft, Lecture Series 1992-01,
von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, December 09-13, 1991, publisahed 1992
by the von Karman InstituteChaussee de Waterloo, 72, B-1640 Rhode Saint Genese,
Belgium.
24. Rodden, W.P., and Johnson, E.H., “MSC/NASTRAN Aeroelastic Analysis
User’s Guide”, Ver. 68, MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, 1994
25. Dowell, E.H., A Modern Course in Aeroelasticity, 3rd edition, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, Dordrecht, Boston, London, 1995.
26. Lomax, T.L., Structural Loads Analysis for Commercial Transport Aircraft:
Theory and Practice, AIAA Education Series, Washington, DC, 1995.
27. Lind, R., and Brenner, M., Robust Aeroservoelastic Stability Analysis : Flight
Test Applications, Springer Verlag, 1999.
28. Maher N. Bismarck-Nasr, M.N., Structural Dynamics in Aeronautical
Engineering, AIAA, 1999.
29. K. K. Gupta, K., K., and Meek, J.L., Finite Element Multidisciplinary Analysis,
AIAA, Reston, VA, 2000.
30. Hodges, D.H., and Pierce, G.A., Introduction to Structural Dynamics and
Aeroelasticity, Cambridge University Press, 2002
31.Collar, A.R., “Aeroelastic Problems at High Speed”, Journal of the Royal
Aeronautical Society, Vol. 51, No. 1, January 1947.
32. Bisplinghoff, R.L., “Some Structural and Aeroelastic Considerations of High
Speed Flight”, Journal of the Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 23, No. 4, April 1956.
33. Garrick, I.E., “A Survey of Aerothermoelasticity”, Aerospace Engineering,
January 1963, pp. 140-147.
34. Garrick, I.E., and Reed, W.H., “Historical Development of Aircraft Flutter”,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 18, No. 11, 1981, pp. 897-912.
35. Weisshaar, T.A., “Aeroelasticity”, in Flight Vehicle Materials, Structures, and
Dynamics – Assessment and Future Directions, Volume 5, Structural Dynamics and

31
Aeroelasticity, A.K.Noor and S.L.Venneri, editors, ASME, New York, 1993, pp.
147-150.
36. Friedmann, P.P.,"The Renaissance of Aeroelasticity and Its Future", - Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 1, January-February, 1999, pp. 105-121.
37. Livne, E., “Integrated Aeroservoelastic Optimization: Status and Direction”,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1999, pp. 122-145.
38. Dugundji,J., “A Personal Perspective of Aeroelasticity during the Years 1953-
1993”, Journal of Aircraft special Aeroelasticity Issue, 2003, to be published.
39. Harris, T., and Huttsell, L., “Aeroelasticity Research Sponsored by
WPAFB(Wright Field) 1953-1993”, Journal of Aircraft special Aeroelasticity Issue,
2003, to be published.
40. Yurkovich, R., Love, M., and Sensburg, O., “Present Status of Aeroelasticity in
Flight Vehicles (1990-2000) Present Status of Aeroelasticity in Flight Vehicles
(1990-2000)”, Journal of Aircraft special Aeroelasticity Issue, 2003, to be published.
41. Dowell, E.H., Edwards, J.W., and Strganac, T., “Nonlinear Aeroelasticity”,
Journal of Aircraft special Aeroelasticity Issue, 2003, to be published.
42. Cole, S.R., Noll. T.E., and Perry III, B., “Transonic Dynamic Tunnel Aeroelastic
Testing in Support of Aircraft Development”, Journal of Aircraft special
Aeroelasticity Issue, 2003, to be published.
43. Livne, E., and Weisshaar, T.A., “Aeroelasticity of Nonconventional
Configurations: Past and Future”, Journal of Aircraft special Aeroelasticity Issue,
2003, to be published.
44. Yurkovich, R., Liu, D.,D., an d Chen, P.C., “The State of the Art of Unsteady
Aerodynamics for High Performance Aircraft”, IFASD 2001, The
CEAS/AIAA/AIAE International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics,
Madrid, Spain, May 2001,ISBN 84-931375-4-5, Volume I, pp. 47-63.
45. Schuster, D.M., Liu, D.D., and Huttsell, L.J., “Computational Aeroelasticity:
Success, Progress, Challenge”, AIAA Paper 2003-1725, AIAA Dynamics Specialists
Conference, Norfolk, VA, April 7-10, 2003, also: Journal of Aircraft special
Aeroelasticity Issue, 2003, to be published.
46. Rowe, W.S., "Comparison of Analysis Methods used in Lifting Surface Theory,"
in Computational Methods in Potential Aerodynamics, edited by L. Morino,
Springer -Verlag, 1985.
47. Dowell, E.H., Curtiss, H.C., Scanlan, R.H., and Sisto, F., "A Modern Course in
Aeroelasticity", 3rd revised and enlarged edition, Kluwer Academic Publishers,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1995 (Chapter 4).
48. Giesing, J.P., Kalman, T.P., and Rodden, W.P., "Subsonic Steady and
Oscillatory Aerodynamics for Multiple Interfering Wings and Bodies", Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 9, No. 10, October 1972, pp. 693-702.
49. Morino, L., Chen, L-T., and Suciu, E.O., "Steady and Oscillatory Subsonic and
Supersonic Aerodynamics around Complex Configurations", AIAA Journal, Vol.
13, No. 3, March 1975, pp. 368-374.
50. Chen, P.C., Lee, H.W., and Liu, D.D., "Unsteady Subsonic Aerodynamics for
Bodies and Wings with External Stores including Wake Effect", Journal of Aircraft,

32
Vol. 30, No. 5, Sept-Oct. 1993, pp. 618-628.
51. Chen, P.C., and Liu, D.D., “Unsteady Supersonic Computations of Arbitrary
Wing-Body Configurations Including External Stores,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 27,
No. 2, February 1990, pp. 108-116.
52. Chen, P.C., Liu, D.D., "Unified Hypersonic/Supersonic Panel Method for
Aeroelastic Applications to Arbitrary Bodies", Journal of Aircraft, Vo 39, No.3,
2002, pp 499-506.
53. Edwards, J.W., “Computational Aeroelasticity”, in Flight Vehicle Materials,
Structures, and Dynamics – Assessment and Future Directions, Volume 5, Structural
Dynamics and Aeroelasticity, A.K.Noor and S.L.Venneri, editors, ASME, New
York, 1993, pp. 393-436.
54. Bennett, R.M., and Edwards, J.W., “An Overview of Recent Developments in
Computational Aeroelasticity”, AIAA Paper 98-2421, 29th AIAA Fluid Dynamics
Conference, Albuquerque, NM, June 15-18, 1998.
55. Guruswamy, G.P., “Impact of Parallel Computing on High Fidelity Based
Multidisciplinary Analysis”, AIAA Paper 98-4709, 7th AIAA / USAF / NASA /
ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, Septrember 2-
4, 1998, St. Louis, MO.
56. Huttsell,L., Schuster, D., Volk, J., Giesing, J., and Love, M., “Evaluation of
computational aeroelasticity codes for loads and flutter”, AIAA Paper 2001-0569,
AIAA, Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 39th, Reno, NV, Jan. 8-11, 2001.
57. Girodrough-Lavigne, P., Grisval, J.P., Guillemot, S., Henshaw, M., Karlsson, A.,
Selmin, V., Smith, J., Teupootahiti, E., and Winzell, B., “Comparative Study of
Advanced Fluid-Structure Interaction Methods in the Case of a Highly Flexible Wing
(Results from the UNSI Program)”, IFASD 2001, The CEAS/AIAA/AIAE
International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Madrid, Spain, May
2001,ISBN 84-931375-4-5, Volume II, pp. 1-15.
58. Jacobson, S. B., Britt, R. T., Dreim, D. R., and Kelly, P. D., “Residual Pitch
Oscillation (RPO) Flight Test and Analysis on the B-2 Bomber”, AIAA Paper 98-
1805, 39th SDM Conference, Long Beach CA, April 1999.
59. Britt, R. T., Volk, J. A., Dreim, D. R., Applewhite, K.A., "Aeroservoelastic
Characteristics of the B-2 Bomber and Implications for Future Large Aircraft",
Presented in Ottawa, February 2000.
60. Raveh, D., and Karpel, M., "Structural Optimization of Flight Vehicles with
Computational-Fluid-Dynamics-Based Maneuver Loads", Journal of Aircraft, Vol.
36, No. 6, 1999, pp. 1007-1015.
61. Raveh, D., Yaniv, S., and Karpel, M., "Non-Linear Design Loads for
Maneuvering Elastic Aircraft", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 2, 2000, pp. 313-
318.
62. Raveh, D., Levy, Y., and Karpel, M., "Efficient Aeroelastic Analysis Using
Computational Unsteady Aerodynamics", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 3, 2001,
pp. 547-556
63. Oliver, M.; Climent, H.; and Rosich, F.: Nonlinear Effects of Applied Loads and
Large Deflections on Aircraft Normal Modes, RTO (NATO) Meeting Proceedings 36

33
on Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control, Ottawa, Canada, October 1999.
64. Dunn, S.A., Farrell, P.A., Budd, P.J., Arms, P.B., Hardie, C.A., and Rendo, C.J.,
“F/A-18A Flight Flutter Testing – Limit Cycle Oscillation or Flutter?”, in
Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics,
IFASD 2001, Madrid, Spain, June 2001, Associacion de Ingenieros Aeronauticos de
Espana, ISBN 84-931375-4-5, Vol. 3, pp. 193-204.
65 Patil, M., Hodges, D.H., and Cesnik, C.E.S., “Nonlinear Aeroelastic Analysis of
Complete Aircraft in Subsonic Flow”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 5, September-
October 2000, pp. 753-760.
66 Patil, M., Hodges, D.H., and Cesnik, C.E.S., “Nonlinear Aeroelasticity and Flight
Dynamics of High-Altitude Long-Endurance Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38,
No. 1, January-February 2001, pp. 88-94.
67 Livne, E., “Aeroelasticity of Joined-Wing Airplane Configurations: Past Work
and Future Challenges – a Survey”, AIAA Paper 2001-1370, 42nd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Seattle, WA april 16-19, 2001.
68. Gern, F.H., Haghshineh-Pour, A.H., Sulaeman, E., Kapania, R.K., and Haftka,
R.T., “Structural Wing Sizing for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Strut-
Braced Wing”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2001, pp. 154-163.
69 Karpel, M., and Wieseman, C.D., "Modal Coordinates for Aeroelastic Analysis
with Large Local Structural Variation", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 31, No. 2, March-
April 1994, pp. 396-403.
70.Winther, B.A., Goggin, P.J., and Dykman, J.R., “Reduced-Order Dynamic
Aeroelastic Model Development and Integration with Nonlinear Simulation”,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 5, September-October 2000, pp. 833-839
71. Buttrill, C.S., Zeiler, T.A., and Arbuckle, P.D., "Nonlinear Simulation of a
Flexible Aircraft in Maneuvering Flight," AIAA Paper No. 87-2501, Proceedings of
the 1987 Flight Simulation Technologies Conference, Monterey, California, August
17-19, 1987.
72. Olsen, J.,J., “Unified Flight Mechanics and Aeroelasticity for Accelerating,
Maneuvering, Flexible Aircraft”, North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Research and
Technoilogy Organization, Applied Vehicle Technology Panel, Specialists’ Meeting
on Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control, 18 October 1999, Ottawa, Canada
73. Nydick, I., and Friedmann, P.P., “Aeroelastic analysis of a trimmed generic
hypersonic vehicle”, AIAA Paper 98-1807, April 1998.
74. Rodden, W. P., McGrew, J.A., and Kalman, P., “Comment on “Interpolation
Using Surface Splines””, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 9, No. 12, pp. 869-871, December
1972.
75. Guruswamy, G.P., “Interaction of Fluids and Structures for Aircraft
Applications”, Computers & Structures, Vol. 30, No. ½, 1988, pp. 1-13.
76. Farhat, C., Lesoinne, M., and Maman, M., ``Mixed Explicit/Implicit Time
Integration of Coupled Aeroelastic Problems: Three-Field Formulation, Geometric
Conservation and Distributed Solution,'' International Journal for Numerical Methods
in Fluids, Vol. 21, pp. 807-835 (1995)

34
77.Alonso, J.J., Martinelli, L., Jameson, A., “Multigrid Unsteady Navier-Stokes
Calculations with Aeroelastic Applications”, AIAA 33rd Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 95-0048, Reno, NV, January 1995.
78. Alonso, J.J., Jameson, A.,"Fully-Implicit Time-Marching Aeroelastic Solutions,"
AIAA 32nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 94-0056, Reno,
NV, January 1994.
79. N. Maman and C. Farhat, ``Matching Fluid and Structure Meshes for Aeroelastic
Computations: A Parallel Approach,'' Computers & Structures, Vol. 54, No. 4, pp.
779-785 (1995)
80. Shyy, W., Udaykumar, H.S., Rao, M.M., and Smith, R.W., "Computational Fluid
Dynamics with Moving Boundaries", Taylor & Francis, Bristol PA 1996
81. Farhat, C., Lesoinne, M., and LeTallec, P., ``Load and Motion Transfer
Algorithms for Fluid/Structure Interaction Problems with Non-Matching Discrete
Interfaces: Momentum and Energy Conservation, Optimal Discretization and
Application to Aeroelasticity,'' Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering, Vol. 157, pp. 95-114 (1998)
82. M. K. Bhardwaj, R. K. Kapania, E. Reichenbach and G. P. Guruswamy, "A
Computational Fluid Dynamics/Computational Structural Dynamics Interaction
Methodology for Aircraft Wings", AIAA Journal, Vol. 36, No. 12, 1998, pp. 2179-
2186.
83. Chen, P.C., and Jadic, I., “Interfacing of Fluid and Structural Models via
Innovative Structural Boundary Element Method”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 36, No.2,
February 1998, pp. 282-287.
84. Lepage, C.Y., and Habashi, W.G., “Conservative Interpolation of Aerodynamic
Loads for Aeroelastic Computations”, AIAA Paper 2000-1449, 41st AIAA / ASME /
ASCE / AHS / ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,
Atlanta, GA, April 3-6, 2000.
85. Smith, M. J.; Hodges, D. H.; and Cesnik, C. E. S.: “Evaluation of Computational
Algorithms Suitable for Fluid-Structure Interactions”, Journal of Aircraft, vol. 37, no.
2, Mar.-Apr. 2000, pp. 282- 294.
86. Smith, M. J.; Cesnik, C. E. S.; Hodges, D. H.: “Evaluation of Some Data
Transfer Algorithms for Noncontiguous Meshes”, Journal of Aerospace Engineering,
vol. 13, no. 2, Apr. 2000, pp. 52- 58.
87. Goura, G.S.I., Badcock, K.J., Smith, J., and Hanshaw, M.J.D., “Analysis of Load
transfer Methods for Dynamic Aeroelastic Simulations”, IFASD 2001, The
CEAS/AIAA/AIAE International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics,
Madrid, Spain, May 2001,ISBN 84-931375-4-5, Volume I, pp. 39-49.
88. Liu, F., Cai, J., Zhu, Y., Tsai, H.M., and Wong, A.S.F., “Calculation of Wing
Flutter by Coupled Fluid-Structure Model”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 348, No. 2,
March-April 2001, pp. 334-342.
89. Levy, Y., “Numerical Simulation of Dynamically Deforming Aircraft
Configurations Using Overset Grids”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 2, March-
April, 2001, pp. 349-354.

35
90. Farhat, C., Geuzaine, P., and Brown, G., ``Application of a Three-Field
Nonlinear Fluid-Structure Formulation to the Prediction of the Aeroelastic
Parameters of an F-16 Fighter,'' Computers and Fluids, Vol. 32, pp. 3-29 (2003)
91. Farhat, C., Pierson, K., and Degand, C. ``Multidisciplinary Simulation of the
Maneuvering of an Aircraft,'' Engineering with Computers, Vol. 17, pp. 16-27 (2001)
92. Geuzaine, P., Brown, G., Harris, C., and Farhat, C., “Aeroelastic Dynamic
Analysis of a Full F-16 Configuration for Various Flight Conditions”, AIAA Journal,
Vol. 41, No. 3, March 2003, pp. 363-371.
93. Hartwich, P.M., Dobbs, S.K., Arslan, A.E., and Kim, S.C., “Navier-Stokes
Computations of Limit-Cycle Oscillations for a B-1 Like Configuration”, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 2, March-April 2001, p. 239-247.
94. Ericsson, L.E., “Comment on “Navier-Stokes Computations of Limit-Cycle
Oscillations for a B-1 Like Configuration””, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 3, May-
June 2002, p. 519.
95. Hartwich, P.M., Dobbs, S.K., Arslan, A.E., and Kim, S.C., “Reply to Comment
on “Navier-Stokes Computations of Limit-Cycle Oscillations for a B-1 Like
Configuration””, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 3, May-June 2002, p. 519-520.
96. Li, L.Y., and Bettess, P., “Adaptive Finite Element Methods: A Review”, Applied
Mechanics Review, Vol. 50, No. 10, October 1007, pp. 581-591.
97. Ragon, S.A., Gurdal, Z., and Starnes, J.H. Jr., “Optimization of Composite Box
Beam Structures Including the Effects of Subcomponent Interaction”, AIAA Paper
94-1410, April 1994.
98. Ragon, S.A., and Gurdal, Z., “Effects of Geometric Nonlinearities on the
Response of Optimized Box Structures”, AIAA Paper 93-1412, April 1993.
99. Shin, Y. and Livne, E., “Analytic Shape Sensitivities and Approximations of
Global / Local Buckling Constraints in Stressed Skin Structures”, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 36, No. 4, July-August 1999, pp. 697-709.
100. Tzong, G.; Baker, M.; Yalamanchili, K.; and Giesing, J.: Aeroelastic Loads and
Structural Optimization of a High Speed Civil Transport Model. AIAA Paper 94-
4378, Sept. 1994.
101. Wang, L., Chow, W.T., Kawai, H., and Atluri, S.N., “Residual Strength of
Aging Aircraft with Multiple Site Damage / Multiple Element Damage”, AIAA
Journal, Vol. 36, No. 5, pp. 840-847, 1998.
102. Kawai, H., Wang, L., Pipkins, D.S., Sullivan, K., O’Donoghue, P., and Atluri,
S.N., “Automation of Global-Intermediate-Local Analysis based on Feature-Based
Modeling Techniques and trhe Finite Element Alternating Method”, Computer
Modeling & Simulation in Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1999, pp. 37-42.
103. Pipkins, D.S., Wang, L., Kawai, H., and Atluri, S.N., “Multi-Disciplinary
Optimization with Damage Tolerance Constraints”, SAWE Paper No. 2412, Socienty
of Weights Engineers.
104. Yu, S., and Newman, B., “Load and Control Effects on Crack Growth in
Flexible Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 1, January-February 2002, pp.
148-157.

36
105. Nees, C.D., and Canfield, R.A., “Methodology for implementing fracture
mechanics in global structural design of aircraft”, AIAA Paper 96-1429,
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials
Conference and Exhibit, 37th, Salt Lake City, UT, Apr. 15-17, 1996
106. Richards, E.J., and Mead, D.J., “Noise and Acoustic Fatigue in Aeronautics”,
John Wiley & Sons, Inc., London, New York, Sydney, 1968, pp. 317-397.
107. Dowell, E.H., Aeroelasticity of Plates and Shells, Noordhoff International
Publishing, Leyden, the Netherlands, 1975.
108. Mei, C., Abdel-Motagly, K., and Chen, R., “Review of Nonlinear Panel Flutter
at Supersonic and Hypersonic Speeds”, Applied Mechanics Reviews, 1998.
109. Shelton, J.D., and Tucker, P.B., “Minimum Weight Design of the F-15
Empennage for Flutter”, AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, April 1975.
110. Brenner, M.J., “Actuator and Aerodynamic Modeling for High-Angle-of-Attack
Aeroservoelasticity”, AIAA Paper 93-141`9, 34th AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS /
ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, LaJolla, CA, April
19-22, 1993.
111. Brenner, M.J., “Aeroservoelastic Modeling and Validation of a Thrust-
Vectoring F/A-18 Aircraft”, NASA Technical Paper 3647, September 1996.
112. Thornton, E.A., and Dechaumphai, P., “Coupled Flow, Thermal, and Structural
Analysis of Aerodynamically Heated Panels”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 25, No. 11,
1988, pp. 1052-1059.
113. Dechaumphai, P., Thornton, E.A., and Wieting, A.R., “Flow-Thermal-Structural
Study of Aerodynamically Heated Leading Edges”, Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Voil. 26, No. 4, 1989, pp. 201-209.
114. Ko, W.L., and Olona, T., “Effect of Element Size on the Solution Accuracies of
Finite Element Heat Transfer and Thermal Stress Analyses of Space Shuttle Orbiter”,
NASA TM-88292, August 1987.
115. Giesing, J.P., Kalman, T.P., and Rodden, W.P., “Correction Factor Techniques
for Improving Aerodynamic Prediction Methods”, NASA CR-144967, 1976.
116. Rodden, W.P., “My First Half-Century as an Aeroelastician or How I avoided
Getting One Year of Experience Fifty Times”, IFASD 2001, The CEAS/AIAA/AIAE
International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Madrid, Spain, May
2001,ISBN 84-931375-4-5, Volume I, pp. 69-75 (see p. 75).
117. Baker, M.L., Yuan, K., and Goggin, P.J., “Calculation of Corrections to Linear
Aerodynamic Methods for Static and Dynamic Analysis and Design”, AIAA Paper
98-2072, Proceedings of the 39th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Long Beach, CA, April 1998.
118. Palacios, R., Climent, H., Karlsson, A., and Winzell, B., “Assessment of
Strategies for Correcting Linear Unsteady Aerodynamics Using CFD or Test
Results”, IFASD 2001, The CEAS/AIAA/AIAE International Forum on
Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Madrid, Spain, May 2001,ISBN 84-931375-
4-5, Volume I, pp. 195-210.

37
119. Karpel, M., and Newman, M., “Accelerated Convergence for Vibration Modes
using the Substructure Coupling Method and Fictitious Masses”, Israel Journal of
Technology, Vol. 13, May 1975, pp. 55-62.
120. Meirovitch, L., Computational Methods in Structural Dynamics, Sijthoff &
Noordhoff, Alphen aan den Rijn, The Netherlands, 1980, Chapter 11.
121. F. Bourquin, “Analysis and comparison of several component mode synthesis
methods on one- dimensional domains”, Numerische Mathematik, 58 (1990), pp. 11–
34.
122. P. Seshu, Substructuring and component mode synthesis, Shock and Vibration,
4 (1997), pp. 199–210.
123. Craig, R.R., Jr., “Coupling of Substructures for Dynamic Analyses: an
Overview”, AIAA Paper No. 2000-1573, AIAA Dynamics Specialists Conference,
Atlanta, GA, April 5, 2000.
124. J. K. Bennighof, M. F. Kaplan, and M. B. Muller, “Extending the frequency
response capabilities of automated multi-level substructuring”, AIAA Paper 2000-
1574, April 2000.
125. M. F. Kaplan, Implementation of Automated Multilevel Substructuring for
Frequency Re- sponse Analysis of Structures, PhD thesis, The University of Texas at
Austin, Department of Aerospace Engineering & Engineering Mechanics, Austin,
TX, 2001.
126. A. Kropp and D. Heiserer, Efficient broadband vibro-accoustic analysis of
passenger car bodies using an FE-based component mode synthesis approach, in
Proceedings of the Fifth World Congress on Computational Mechanics (WCCM V)
July 7-12, H. A. Mang, F. G. Rammerstorfer, and J. Eberhardsteiner, eds., Austria,
2002, Vienna University of Technology. ISBN 3-9501554-0-6
127. Arnold, R.R., Citerley, R.L., Chargin, M., Galant, D., “Application of Ritz
Vectors for Dynamic Analysis of Large Structures”, Computers and Structures, Vol.
21, No. 5, pp. 901-908, 1985. Vol. 21, No. 3, pp. 461-467, 1985.
128. Leger, P., Wilson, E.L., and Clough, R.W., “The Use of Load Dependent
Vectors for Dynamic and Earthquake Analysis”, Earthquake Engineering Research
Center, College of Engineering, University of California, Berkeley, California,
Report No. UCB/EERC-86/04, March 1986.
129. Kline , K.A., “Dynamic Analysis using a Reduced Basis of Exact Modes and
Ritz Vectors”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 24, No. 12, December 1986, pp. 2022-2029.
130. Sandridge, C.A., and Haftka, R.T., “Modal Truncation, Ritz Vectors, and
Derivatives of Closed-Loop Damping Ratios”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 14, No. 4, 1991, pp. 785-790.
131. Karpel, M., and Raveh, D., “The Fictitious Mass Element in Structural
Dynamics”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 34, No. 3, 1996, pp. 607-613.

38
132. Livne, E., and Blando, G.D., “Reduced Order Design-Oriented Stress Analysis
Using Combined Direct and Adjoint Solutions”, AIAA Journal, to be published at the
beginning of 2000.
133. Livne, E., and Blando, G.D., “Design-Oriented Frequency Response of
Structural Dynamic Systems using Combined Direct and Adjoint Reduced-Order
Approximations”, AIAA Journal, 2003, to be published.
134. Cornwell, R.E., Craig, R.R., Jr., and Johnson, C.P., “On the Application of the
Mode-Acceleration Method to Structural Engineering Problems”, Earthquake
Engineering and Structural Dynamics, Vol. 11, No. 5, 1983, pp. 679-688.
135. Blleloch, Paul, “Calculation of Structural Dynamic Forces and Stresses Using
Mode Acceleration”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 12, No. 5, 1988, pp. 760-762.
136. Haftka, R.T., and Yates, E.C., Jr., "Repetitive Flutter Calculations in Structural
Design", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 13, No. 7, July 1976, pp. 454-461.
137. Karpel., M., "Reduced-order models for integrated aeroservoelastic
optimization", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1999, pp. 146-155.
138. Karpel, M., and Presente, E., “Structural Dynamic Loads in Response to
Impulsive Excitation”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 4, July-August 1995, pp.
853-861.
139. Karpel, M., and Brainin, L., “Stress Considerations in Reduced-Size Aeroelastic
Optimization”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 4, April 1995, pp. 716-722.
140. Karpel, M., Moulin, B., and Love, M.H., “Modal-Based Structural Optimization
with Static Aeroelastic and Stress Constraints”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 34, No. 3,
May-June 1997, pp. 433-440.
141. Karpel, M., "Efficient Vibration Mode Analysis of Aircraft with Multiple
External Store Configurations'', Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 25, No. 8, 1988, pp. 747-
751.
142. Karpel, M., Moulin, B., and Feldgun, V., “Component Mode Synthesis of a
Vehicle System Model Using the Fictitious Mass Method”, AIAA Paper 2003-1606,
44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, April 2003.
143. M. Karpel, M., Moulin, B., Anguita, L., Maderuelo, C., and Climent, H.,
“Flutter Analysis of Aircraft with External Stores Using Modal Coupling”, AIAA
Paper 2002-1597, April 2002.
144.. Karpel, M., and Moulin, B., “Models for Aeroservoelastic Analysis with Smart
Structures”, AIAA Paper 2002-1290, 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, April 2002.
145. Jackson, T., and Livne, E., “Design- Oriented Structural Modeling for Integrated
Aeroservoelastic Design Optimization of Strain Actuated Flight Vehicles”, AIAA
Paper 2003-1575, April 2003.
146. Noor,A.K., “Recent Advances in Reduction Methods for Nonlinear Problems”,
Computers and Structures, 10 (1981), pp 31-44.
147 Noor, A.K., “Recent advances and applications of reduction methods”,
Applied Mechanics Reviews, 47(5) 125-146, May 1994.

39
148. Shalev, D., and Unger, A., "Nonlinear Analysis Using a Modal Based Reduction
Technique", Journal of Composite Structures, May 1994.
149. Kanok-Nukulchai, W., and Lin, S.F., "Nonlinear Analysis Using Ritz Vector
Reduced Basis", Computers & Structures, Vol. 44, No. 1/2, pp. 117-124, 1992.
150. Ballhaus, W. F., and Goorjian, P. M., “Computation of Unsteady Transonic
Flows by Indicial Methods,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 2, 1978, pp.117-124.
124. Lee-Rausch E. M. and Batina J. T., “Wing Flutter Boundary Prediction Using
Unsteady Euler Aerodynamic Method,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1995, pp.
416-422.
151. Hall, K.C., “Eigenanalysis of Unsteady Flows About Airfoils, Cascades, and
Wings”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 32, No. 12, 1994, pp. 2426-2432.
152. Florea, R., and Hall, K.C., “Reduced Order Modeling of Unsteady Flows about
Airfoils”, in: Aeroelasticity and Fluid Structure Interaction Problems, AD-Vol. 44,
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, P.P.Friedmann and J.C.I.Chang, editors,
New York, 1994, pp. 49-68..
153. Dowell, E.H., “Eigenmode Analysis in Unsteady Aerodynamics: Reduced Order
Models”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 34, No. 8, 1996, pp. 1578-1583.
154. Baker, M., “Model Reduction of Large, Sparse, Discrete Time Systems with
Applications to Unsteady Aerodynamics”, Ph.D. Dissertation, University of
California, Los Angeles, CA, May 1996.
155. Tang, D., and Dowell, E.H., “Limit Cycle Oscillations of Delta Wings in
Subsonic Flow”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 31, No. 11, November 1999, pp. 1355-1362.
156. Baker, M.L., Mingori, D.L., and Goggin, P.J., “Approximate Subspace Iteration
for Constructing Internally Balanced Reduced-Order Models of Unsteady
Aerodynamic Systems”, Proceedings of the 37th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Salt Lake City, April
1996, pp. 1070-1085.
157. Dowell, E.H., Hall, K.C., and Romanowski, M.C., “Eigenmode Analysis in
Unsteady Aerodynamics: Reduced Order Models”, Applied Mechanics Review, Vol.
50, No. 6, 1997, pp. 371-386.
158. Silva W. A., “Discrete-Time Linear and Nonlinear Aerodynamic Impulse
Responses for Efficient CFD Analysis,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Faculty of the Dept. of
Applied Sciences, College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, VA, Oct. 1997.
159. Kim, T., “Frequency-Domain Karhunen-Loeve Method and Its Application to
Linear Dynamic Systems,’’ AIAA Journal, Vol. 36, No 11, pp. 2117-2123, Nov
1998.
160. Reisenthel, P.H., and Bettencourt, M.T., “Data-based aerodynamic modeling
using nonlinear indicial theory”, AIAA Paper 99-0763, AIAA, Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, 37th, Reno, NV, Jan. 11-14, 1999.
161. Reisenthel, P.H., and Bettencourt, M.T., “Extraction of nonlinear indicial and
critical state responses from experimental data”, AIAA Paper 99-0764, AIAA,
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 37th, Reno, NV, Jan. 11-14, 1999.

40
162. Dowell, E.H., Hall, K.C., Thomas, J.P., Florea, R., Epureanu, B.I., and Heeg, J.,
“Reduced-Order Models in Unsteady Aerodynamics”, AIAA Paper 99-1261, April
1999.
163. Beran, P.S., Huttsell, L.J., and Buxton, B.J., “Computational Aeroelasticity
Techniques for Viscous Flow”, CEAS / AIAA / ICASE / NASA Langley
International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Williamsburg, VA,
USA, June 22-25, 1999.
164. Florea, R., Hall, K. C., and Dowell, E. H., “Eigenmode Analysis and Reduced
Order Modeling of Unsteady Transonic Potential Flow around Airfoils”, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 3, May-June, 2000, pp. 454-462.
165. Beran P., Silva W., “Reduced-order modeling - New approaches for
computational physics,” AIAA, 39th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno,
NV, January 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-0853.
166. Rule, J.A., Richard, R.E., and Clark, R.L., “Design of an Aeroelastic Delta
Wing Model for Active Flutter Control”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 24, No. 5, September-October 2001, pp. 918-924.
167. Tang, D., Kholodar, D., Juang, J.-N., and Dowell, E.H., “System Identification
and Proper Orthogonal Decomposition Method Applied to Unsteady Aerodynamics”,
AIAA Journal, Vol. 39, No. 8, 2001, pp. 1569-1576.
168. Silva, W.A., and Raveh, D., “Development of Unsteady Aerodynamic State-
Space Models From CFD-Based Pulse Responses”, 42nd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Seattle, Washington, AIAA 2001-1213, April 16-19, 2001.
169. Marzocca, P., Librescu, P., and Silva, W.A., “Volterra Series Approach for
Nonlinear Aeroelastic Response of 2-D Lifting Surfaces”, 42nd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Seattle, Washington, AIAA 2001-1459, April 16-19, 2001.
170. Silva, W.A., Beran, P.S., Cesnik, C.E.S., Guendel, R.E., Kurdila, A., Prazenica,
R.J., Librescu, L., Marzocca, P., and Raveh, D., E., “Reduced-Order Modeling:
Cooperative research and Development at the NASA Langley Research Center”,
IFASD 2001, The CEAS/AIAA/AIAE International Forum on Aeroelasticity and
Structural Dynamics, Madrid, Spain, May 2001,ISBN 84-931375-4-5, Volume II, pp.
159-174.
171. Raveh, D.E., Levy, Y., and Karpel, M., “Efficient Aeroelastic Analysis Using
Computational Unsteady Aerodynamics”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 3, May-
June 2001, pp. 547-556.
172. Raveh, D.E., “Reduced Order Models for Nonlinear Unsteady Aerodynamics”,
AIAA Journal, Vol. 39, No. 8, August 2001, pp. 1417-1429.
173. Cowan, T.J., Arena Jr., A.S., and Gupta, K.K., “Accelerating Computational
Fluid Dynamics Based Aeroelastic Predictions Using System Identification”, Journal
of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 1, January-February 2001, pp. 81-87.
174. Dowell, E. H., and Hall, K. C., “Modeling of Fluid/Structure Interaction”,
Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, Vol. 33, 2001, pp. 445-490.

41
175. Thomas, J. P., Dowell, E. H., Hall, K. C., “Three-Dimensional Transonic
Aeroelasticity Using Proper Orthogonal Decomposition Based Reduced Order
Models’’, AIAA-2001-1526.
176. Kim, T., and Bussoletti, J.E., “An Optimal Reduced-Order Aeroelastic
Modeling Based on a Response-Based Modal Analysis of Unsteady CFD Models”,
AIAA Paper 2001-1525, 42nd AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS / ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Seattle, WA, April 2001.
177. Kim, T., “An Efficient Response-Based Modal Analysis for Dynamic Systems
with Multiple Inputs”, AIAA 2001-1380, 42nd AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS / ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Seattle, WA, April 2001.
178. Thomas, J.P., Dowell, E.H., and Hall, K.C., “Three-Dimensional Transonic
Aeroelasticity Using Proper Orthogonal Decomposition Based Reduced Order
Models”, AIAA Paper 2001-1526, 42nd AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS / ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Seattle, WA, April 2001.
179. Dowell, E.H., Thomas, J.P., and Hall, K.C., “Transonic Limit Cycle Oscillation
Analysis Using Reduced Order Aerodynamic Models”, AIAA Paper 2001-1212, 42nd
AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS / ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Seattle, WA, April 2001.
180. LeGresley, P., Alonso, J. J., “Investigation of Non-Linear Projection for POD
Based Reduced Order Models for Aerodynamics”, 39th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting & Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2001-0926, Reno, NV, January 2001.
181. Silva, W. A., Bartels, R. E., “Development of Reduced-Order Models for
Aeroelastic Analysis and Flutter Prediction Using the CFL3Dv6.0 Code’’, AIAA-
2002-1596.
182. Hong, M.S., Kuruvila, G., Bhatia, K.G., Sengupta, G., and Kim, T., “Evaluation
of CFL3D for Unsteady Pressure and Flutter Predictions”, AIAA Paper 2003-1923,
Norfolk, VA, April 2003.
183. Lucia, D.J., Beran, P.S., and Silva, W.A., “Aeroelastic System Development
Using Proper Orthogonal Decomposition and Volterra Theory “, 44th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Norfolk, Virginia, AIAA 2003-1922, April 7-10, 2003.
184. Silva, W.A., Piatak, D.J., and Scott, R.C., “Identification of Experimental
Unsteady Aerodynamic Impulse Responses” , AIAA Dynamics Specialists
Conference, Norfolk, Virginia, AIAA 2003-1959, April 7-10, 2003.
185. LeGresley, P.A., and Alonso, J. J., “Dynamic Domain Decomposition and Error
Correction for Reduced Order Models”, 41st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting &
Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2003-0250, Reno, NV, January 6-9, 2003.
186. Raveh, D. E., “Identification of CFD-Based Unsteady Aerodynamic Models for
Aeroelastic Analysis”, 44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Norfolk, Virginia, AIAA 2003-1407, April 7-
10, 2003.
187. LeGresley, P.A, and Alonso, J.J., “Airfoil Design Optimization Using Reduced
Order Models Based on Proper Orthogonal Decomposition”, Fluids 2000 Conference
and Exhibit, AIAA-2000-2545, Denver, CO, June 19-22, 2000.

42
188. Miele, A., Theory of Optimum Aerodynamic Shapes”, Academic Press, New
York, 1965.
189. Carlson, H.W., and Walkley, K.B., “Numerical Methods and a Computer
Program for Subsonic and Supersonic Aerodynamic Design and Analysis of Wings
with Attainable Thrust Corrections”, NASA CR-3808, August 1984.
190. Li, W.-L., and Livne, E., “Design-Oriented Leading-Edge Thrust Force
Prediction for Supersonic Lifting Surfaces”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 4, July-
August 1997, pp. 457-464.
191. Carson Yates, E., Jr., “Aerodynamic Sensitivities From Subsonic, Sonic, and
Supersonic Unsteady, Nonplanar Lifting-Surface Theory”, NASA TM-100502,
September 1987.
192. Livne, E., and Li, W-L., "Aeroservoelastic Aspects of Wing / Control Surface
Planform Shape Optimization", AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 2, February 1995, pp.
302-311.
193. Li, W-L., and Livne, E., “Analytic Sensitivities and Approximations in
Supersonic and Subsonic Wing / Control Surface Unsteady Aerodynamics”, Journal
of Aircraft, Vol. 34, No. 3, pp. 370-379, May-June 1997.
194. Li, W. -L., and Livne, E. “Design Oriented Leading Edge Thrust Force
Prediction for Supersonic Lifting Surfaces”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 4, pp.
457-464, July-August 1997.
195. Newman, P. A.: Preparation of Advanced CFD Codes for Use in Sensitivity
Analyses and Multidisciplinary Design Optimization. J. Borggaard, J. Burkardt, M.
Gunzberger, and J. Peterson, Eds.: Optimal Design and Control, Birkhauser, Boston,
1995, pp. 241-274.
196. Newman, P. A.; Hou, G. J.-W.; and Taylor, A. C., III: Observations
Regarding Use of Advanced CFD Analysis, Sensitivity Analysis, and Design Codes
in MDO. N. Alexandrov, and Y. Hussaini, Eds.: Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization - State of the Art, SIAM, Philadelphia, 1997, pp. 263-279.
197. Newman III, J. C.; Newman, P. A.; Taylor III, A. C.; and Hou, G.J.-W.:
Efficient Nonlinear Static Aeroelastic Wing Analysis. Computers & Fluids, Vol. 28,
No. 4-5, 1999, pp. 615-628.
198. Newman III, J. C.; Taylor III, A. C.; Barnwell, R. W.; Newman, P. A.; and Hou,
G.J.-W.: Overview of Sensitivity Analysis and Shape Optimization for Complex
Aerodynamic Configurations. J. Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 1, Jan.-Feb., 1999, pp. 87-96.
199. Reuther, J. J., Alonso, J. J., Martins, J. R. R. A., S. C. Smith, “A Coupled Aero-
Structural Optimization Method for Complete Aircraft Configurations”, 37th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, AIAA Paper 99-0187, Reno, NV, January
1999.
200. Anthony A. Giunta, ``Sensitivity Analysis for Coupled Aero-Structural
Systems”, NASA TM-1999-209367, August 1999
201. Anderson, W.K., Newman III, J.C., Whitfield, D.L., and Nielsen, E.J.,
"Sensitivity Analysis for the Navier-Stokes Equations on Unstructured Meshes Using
Complex Variables," AIAA J., Vol. 39, No. 1, 2000, pp. 56-63.

43
202. Martins, J. R. R. A., Kroo, I. M., Alonso, J. J., A Method for Sensitivity
Analysis using Complex Variables, 38th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting &
Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2000-0689, Reno, NV, January 2000.
203. Jameson, A., and Vassberg, J.C., “Computational Fluid Dynamics for
Aerodynamic Design: Its Current and Future Impact”, AIAA 2001-0538, 39th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, January 8-11, 2001, Reno, NV.
204. Jameson, A., “A Perspective on Computational Algorithms for Aerodynamic
Analysis and Design”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences Vol. 37, 2001, pp. 197-243.
205. Maute, K., Nikbay, M., and Farhat, C., “Coupled Analytical Sensitivity Analysis
and Optimization of Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Aeroelastic Systems”, AIAA
Journal, 39(11): 2051-2061, November 2001.
206. Martins, J. R. R. A., Alonso, J.J., Reuther, J. J., “Aero-Structural Wing Design
Optimization Using High-Fidelity Sensitivity Analysis”, CEAS Conference on
Multidiciplinary Analysis and Optimization. Cologne, June 2001, Germany.
Submitted for publication, Aircraft Design Journal.
207. Martins, J. R. R. A., Alonso, J. J., “Stability and Convergence of Algorithms
That Use the Complex-Step Derivative Approximation”, 39th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2001-0921, Reno, NV, January 2001.
208. Gumbert, C. R., Hou, G. J. -W., and Newman, P. A.: "Simultaneous
Aerodynamic and Structural Design Optimization (SASDO) of a 3-D Wing",
Proceedings, 15th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Anaheim, June
2001, AIAA Paper 2001-2527.
209. Martins, J.R.R.A., Alonso, J.J., and Reuther, J.J., “High-Fidelity Aero-
Structural Design Optimization of a Supersonic Business Jet”, AIAA Paper 2002-
1483, 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference, Denver, CO, April 22-25, 2002.
210. Jameson, A., Martinelli, L., and Vassberg, J.C., “Using Computational Fluid
Dynamics For Aerodynamics- A Critical Assessment”, 23rd International Congress of
Aeronautical Sciences, September 8-13, 2002, Toronto, Canada.
211. Burg, C.O.E., and Newman III, J.C., "Computationally Efficient, Numerically
Exact Design Space Derivatives via the Complex Taylor's Series Expansion
Method," Computers and Fluids, Vol. 32, No. 3, 2002, pp. 373-383.
212. Jameson, A., “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization Using the Adjoint Method”,
Lecture Series at the Von Karman Institute, Febuary 6, 2003, Brussels, Belgium.
213. Jameson, A., and Kim, S., “Reduction of the Adjoint Gradient Formula in the
Continous Limit”, 41th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, January 2003,
Reno, NV.
214. Leoviriyaki, K., and Jameson, A., “Aerodynamic Shape Optimization of Wings
including Planform Variations”, 41th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit,
January 2003, Reno, NV.
215. Shankaran, S., and Jameson, A., “Aerodynamic and Aeroelastic Applications of
a Parallel, Multigrid, Unstructured Flow Solver”,41th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting & Exhibit, January 2003, Reno, NV.

44
216 Taylor III, A.C.; Green, L.L.; Newman, P.A.; and Putko, M.M.: “Some
Advanced Concepts in Discrete Aerodynamic Sensitivity Analysis”. To appear in
AIAA J, 2003.
217. Gumbert, C. R.; Hou, G. J.-W; and Newman, P. A.: “High-Fidelity
Computational Design for 3-D Flexible Wings: Part I- Simultaneous Aero-Structural
Design Optimization (SASDO)”, Submitted (2002) to Journal of Optimization and
Engineering, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
218. K. Maute, M. Nikbay and C. Farhat, ``Sensitivity Analysis and Design
Optimization of Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Aeroelastic Systems by the Adjoint
Method,'' International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering, Vol. 56, pp.
911-933 (2003)
219. Kodiyalam, S., Vanderplaats G.N. and Miura, H., "Structural Shape
Optimization with MSC/NASTRAN", AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS 31st Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Long Beach, CA, pp.
150-160, April 1-4, 1990
220. Haftka, R.T., and Gurdal, Z., Elements of Structural Optimization, Third revised
and expanded addition, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, The Netherlands,
1992.
221. Leiva, J.P., and Watson, B.C., 'Shape Optimization in the Genesis Program',
Optimization in Industry II, Banff, Canada, Jun 6-100, 1999.
222. Bendsoe, M.P., “Optimization of Structural Topology, Shape, and Material”,
Springer Verlag, 1995.
223. Maute, K., Nikbay, M., and Farhat, C., “Concetual Layout of Aeroelastic Wing
Structures by Topology Optimization”, AIAA Paper 2002-1480, 43rd AIAA / ASME
/ ASCE / AHS / ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference,
Denver, CO, April 2002.
224. Vanderplaats, G.N., “Structural Design Optimization Status and Direction”,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 1, January-February 1999, pp. 11-20.
225 Borggaard, J., and Burns, J.,” A PDE Sensitivity Equation Method for Optimal
Aerodynamic Design”, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 136, pages 366-384,
1997.
226. Godfrey, A.G. and Cliff, E.M, "Direct Calculation of Aerodynamic Force
Derivatives: A Sensitivity-Equation Approach", AIAA Paper 98-0393, January 1998,
Reno, NV.
227. Turgeon, E., Pelletier, D. and Borggaard, J., “A General Continuous Sensitivity
Equation Formulation for Complex Flows”, in Proceedings ofthe 8th AIAA / USAF /
NASA / ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Design , AIAA Paper
Number 2000-4732, 2000
228. Borggaard, J. and Verma, A., On Efficient Solutions to the Continuous
Sensitivity Equation Using Automatic Differentiation, SIAM Journal of Scientific
Computing, Vol 22, No 1, pp. 39–62, 2001.
229. Godfrey, A.G. and Cliff, E.M., “Sensitivity Equations for Turbulent Flows”,
Proceedings of the AIAA 2001 Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA

45
Paper Number 2001-1060, January 2001
230. Nadarajah, S.; Jameson, A., "A Comparison of the Continuous and Discrete
Adjoint Approach to Automatic Aerodynamic Optimization," AIAA 38th Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA-2000-0667, Reno, NV, January 2000.
231. Nadarajah, S.; Jameson, A., " Studies of the Continuous and Discrete Adjoint
Approaches to Viscous Automatic Aerodynamic Shape Optimization," AIAA 15th
Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, AIAA-2001-2530, Anaheim, CA, June
2001.
232. Samareh, J.A., and Bhatia, K.G., “A Unified Approach to Modeling
Multidisciplinary Interactions”, AIAA Paper 2000-4704.
233. Samareh, Jamshid A., "Survey of Shape Parameterization Techniques for High-
Fidelity Multidisciplinary Shape Optimization," AIAA Journal, May 2001, pp. 877-
884.
234. Samareh, J. A.: "Status and Future of Geometry Modeling and Grid Generation
for Design and Optimization," J. Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 1, Jan.-Feb. 1999, pp.97-104.
235. Schwanz, R.C., “Consistency in Aircraft Structural and Flight Control
Analysis”, AGARD CP-228, April 1977
236. Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control, NATA Research and
Technology Organization, RTO-MP-36, AC/323(AVT)TP/17, RTO Meeting
Proceedings 36, published May 2000, ISBN 92-837-0014-7.
237. Harvey, C., “A Time Domain Method for Sensor Combination for Adaptive
Flutter Suppression”, U.S. Air Force Wright Aeronautical Labs, AFWAL-TR-84-
3120, 1985.
238. Harvey, C.A., Johnson, T.L., and Stein, G., “Adaptive Control of Wing / Store
Flutter”, U.S. Air Force Flight Dynamics Lab, AFFDL-TR-79-3081, 1979.
239. Larimore, W.E., and Mehra, R.K., “Technical Assessment of Adaptive Flutter
Suppression Research”, AFWAL-TR-84-3052, 1984.
240. Peloubet, R.P., Bolding, R.M., and Penning, K.B.., “Adaptive Flutter
Suppression Wind Tunnel Demonstration”, AFWAL-TR-87-3053, 1987.
241. Peloubet, R.P., Haller, R.L., and Bolding, R.M., “On-Line Adaptive Control of
Unstable Aircraft Wing Flutter”, Proceeedings of the 29th IEEE Conference on
Decision and Control, Honolulu, HI, 1990, pp. 643-651.
242. Pak, C.-G., Friedmann, P.P., and Livne, E., “Digital Adaptive Flutter
Suppression and Simulation using Approximate Transonic Aerodynamics”, Journal
of Vibrations and Control, Vol. 1, 1995, pp. 363-388.
243. Eversman, W., and Danda Roy, I., "Active flutter suppression using
multi-input/multi-output adaptive least mean square control," Journal of Aircraft, 34
(1997) 244-250.
244. Danda Roy, I., and Eversman, W., "Adaptive flutter suppression of an unswept
wing," Journal of Aircraft, 33 (1996) 775-783
245. Blue, P., and Balas, G.J., “Linear parameter-varying control for active flutter
suppression”, AIAA Paper 97-3640, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference, New Orleans, LA, Aug. 11-13, 1997.

46
246. Zeng, Y., and Singh, S.N., “Output feedback variable structure adaptive control
of an aeroelastic system”, AIAA Paper 98-4209, AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and
Control Conference, Boston, MA, Aug. 10-12, 1998.
247. Andrighettoni, M., and Mantegazza, P., “Multi-Input.Multi-Output Adaptive
Active Flutter Suppression for a Wing Model”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 35, No. 3,
May-June 1998, pp. 462-469.
248. Bernelli-Zazzera, F., Mantegazza, P., Mazzoni, G., and Rendina, M., “Active
Flutter Suppression Using Recurrent Neural Networks”, Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 23, No. 6, 2000, pp. 1030-1036.
249. Friedmann, P.P., and Guillot, D.M., “Fundamental Aeroservoelastic Study
Combining Unsteady Computational Fluid Mechanics with Adaptive Control”,
Journal of Guidance, Navigation, and Control, Volume 23 Number 6 November 2000,
pp. 1117-1126.
250. Pado, L.E., “Active Control of Wind-Tunnel Model Aeroelastic Response Using
Neural Networks”, Volume 23 Number 6, November 2000, pp. 1100-1108.
251. Xing, W., and Singh, S.N., “Adaptive Output Feedback Control of a Nonlinear
Aeroelastic Structure”, Volume 23 Number 6, November 2000, pp. 1109-1116.
252. Nam, C., Chen, P.C., Liu, D.D., Urnes, J., and Yurkovich, R.,”Adaptive
Reconfigurable Control Based on a Reduced Order System Identification for Flutter
and Aeroservoelastic Instability Suppression”, AIAA Paper 2001-1523, 42nd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Seattle, WA April 2001.
253. Crawley, E.F., “Intelligent Structures for Aerospace: A Technology Overview
and Assessment”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 8, August 1994, pp. 1689-1699.
254. Austin, F., Rossi, M.J., Van Nostrad, W., Knowles, G., and Jameson, A., “Static
Shape Control of Adaptive Wings”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 32, No. 9, 1994, pp. 1895-
1901.
255. Heeg, J., Scott, R.C., and McGowan, A-M.R., “Aeroelastic Research: Using
Smart Structures Concepts”, in: Aeroelasticity and Fluid Structure Interaction
Problems, AD-Vol. 44, American Society of Mechanical Engineers, P.P.Friedmann
and J.C.I.Chang, editors, New York, 1994, pp. 161-173.
256. McGowan, A.R., Heeg, J., and Lake, R., “Results of Wind-Tunnel Testing from
the Piezoelectric Aeroelastic Tailoring Investigation”, in Proceedings of the 37th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Salt Lake City, April 1996.
257. Crowe, C.R., and Sater, J.M., “Smart Aircraft Structures”, AGARD Symposium
on Future Aerospace Technology in the Service of the Alliance, CP-600, Vol. I,
Paris, 1997.
258. Weisshaar, T.A., “Aereoservoelastic Control Concepts with Active Materials”,
AD-Vol. 44, Aeroelasticity and Fluid Structure Interaction Problems, ASME,
Friedmann, P.P., and Chang, J.C.I., editors, pp. 125-146.
259. Friedmann, P.,P., “The Promise of Adaptive Materials for Alleviating
Aeroelastic Problems and Some Concerns”, Proc. of the Innovation in Rotorcraft
Technology Meeting, June 24-25, 1997, London. U.K., pp. 10.1-10.16, published by
the Royal Aeronatical Society.

47
260. Loewy, R.G., “Recent Developments in Smart Structures with Aeronautical
Applications”, Journal of Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 5, October 1997, pp.
11-41.
261. Maclean, B.J., Carpenter, B.F., Draper, J.S., and Misra, M.S., "A Shape
Memory Actuated Compliant Control Surface", SPIE, Vol. 1917, "Smart Structures
and Intelligent Systems", 1993, pp. 809-818.
262. Hauch, R.M., Jacobs, J.H., Dima, S., and Ravindra, K., "Reduction of Vertical
Tail Buffet Response Using Active Control", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 3,
May-June 1996, pp. 617-622.
263. Kudva, J.N., Appa, K., Jardine, K., Martin, A.P., and Carpenter, B.F.,
“Overview of Recent Progress on the DARPA / USAF Wright Laboratory Smart
Materials and Structures Development - Smart Wing Program”, Proceedings of SPIE
Smart Structures and Materials 1997: Industrial and Commercial Applications of
Smart Structures Technologies, edited by J.M. Sater, Vol. 3044, International Society
for Optical Engineering, Bellingham, WA 1997, pp. 24-32.
264. Appa, K., Ausman, J., and Khot, N.S., "Feasibility Assessment and
Optimization Study of Smart Actuation Systems for Enhanced Aircraft Maneuver
Performance, US Air Force Flight Dynamics Directorate, Wright Laboratory, Report
WL-TR-97-3083, July 1997.
265. Appa, K., Ausman, J., and Khot, N.S., "Smart Actuation Systems for Enhanced
Aircraft Maneuver Performance, US Air Force Air Vehicles Directorate, Air Force
Research Laboratory, Report AFRL-VA-WP-TR-1999-3047, October 1998.
266. Kudva, J.N., et. Al. "Overview of the DARPA / AFRL / NASA Smart Wing
Program", Paper 3674-26, SPIE Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials,
Newport Beach, CA, March 1-4, 1999.
267. Welzien, R.W., Horner, G.C., McGowan, A.R., Padula, S.I., Scott, M.A., Silcox,
R.H., Simpson, R.H., “The Aircraft Morphing Program,” AIAA 98-1927, April 1998.
268. McGowan, A.R., Washburn, A.E., Horta, L.G., Bryant, R.G., Cox, D.E., Siochi,
E.J., Padula, S.L., Holloway, N.M., “Recent Results for NASA’s Morphing Project,”
SPIE Paper 4698-11, 9th International Symposium on Smart Structures and Materials,
March 2002, San Diego, California
269. Jardine, A.P., et. al., "Improved Design and Performance of the SMA Torque
Tube for the Smart Wing Program", Paper 3674-29, SPIE Symposium on Smart
Structures and Materials, Newport Beach, CA, March 1-4, 1999.
270. Martin, C.A., et. al. "Design and Fabrication of Smart Wing Model and SMA
Control Surfaces", Paper 3674-27, SPIE Symposium on Smart Structures and
Materials, Newport Beach, CA, March 1-4, 1999.
271. Scherer, L.B., et. al. "DARPA / AFRL / NASA Smart Wing Second Wind
Tunnel Test Results", Paper 3674-28, SPIE Symposium on Smart Structures and
Materials, Newport Beach, CA, March 1-4, 1999.
272. Sunar, M., and Rao, S.S., “Recent advances in sensing and control of flexible
structures via piezoelectric materials technology”, Applied Mechanics Reviews, Vol.
52, No. 1,pp. 1-16, Jan 1999.

48
273. Kudva, J.N., and Lockyer, A.J., "Exploiting Smart Technologies for Military
Aircraft Applications: Perspectives on Development of a Smart Air Vehicle", AIAA
Paper 99-1511, 40th AIAA/ASCE/ASME/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference,, AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Forum, St.
Louis, MO, April 1999.
274. Nam, C., Chen, P.C., Liu, D.D., and Cattopadhyay, A., "ASTROS with Smart
Structures and ASE Modules: Application to Flutter Suppression and Gust-Load
Alleviation", AIAA Paper 2000-1365, 41st AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS / ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 2000.
275. Hanagud, S., Bayon de Noyer, M. , Luo, H., Henderson, D., and Nagaraja, K. S.,
"Tail buffet alleviation of high performance twin tail aircraft using piezo-stack
actuators" , AIAA Paper 99-1320, 40th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, St. Louis, MO, Apr. 12-15, 1999; p.
1054-1064.
276. Sater, J.M., Crowe, C.R., Antcliff, R., and Das, A., “Smart Air and Space
Structures”, Chapter 6 in Structures Technology for Future Aerospace Systems,
edited by A.K.Noor, AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics , Reston, VA
2000.
277. Breitbach, E.J., Anhalt, C., Monner, H.P., “Overview of Adaptronics in
Aeronautical Applications”, IFASD 2001, The CEAS/AIAA/AIAE International
Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Madrid, Spain, May 2001, ISBN
84-931375-5-3, Volume II, pp. 413-424.
278. Schweiger, J., and Sensburg, O., “A Critical Review of Efforts and
Achievements to Improve Aircraft Performance or Efficiency by Active Structures
Concepts”, IFASD 2001, The CEAS/AIAA/AIAE International Forum on
Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Madrid, Spain, May 2001, ISBN 84-931375-
5-3, Vol. II, pp. 447-461.
279. Kudva, J.N. “Overview of the DARPA/AFRL/NASA Smart Wing Program,”
SPIE Conference on Industrial and Commercial Applications of Smart Structures
Technologies, SPIE, Vol. 3674, Newport Beach, CA., February 1998, pp. 21-30.
280. Sahoo, D. and Cesnik, C. E. S. "Roll Maneuver Control of UCAV Wing Using
Anisotropic Piezoelectric Actuators," Proceedings of the 43rd Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Material Conference, Denver, Colorado, April 2225, 2002, AIAA
Paper 2002-1720.
281. Cesnik, C.E.S., and Brown, E.L., “Modeling of High Aspect Ratio Active
Flexible Wings for Roll Control”, AIAA Paper 2002-1719, 43rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Denver, CO, April 2002.
282. Lee, H.-T., Kroo, I.M., and Bieniawski, S., “Flutter Suppression for High
Aspect Ratio Flexible Wings Using Microflaps”, AIAA Paper 2002-1717, 43rd AIAA
/ ASME / ASCE / AHS / ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Denver, CO, 22-25 April 2002.
283. E. Anderson and J. Lindler, “Smart Material Actuator with Long Stroke and
High Power Output”, AIAA Paper 2002-1354, 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference.

49
284. Amprikidis, M., Cooper, J.E., and Sensburg, O., “Experimental Investigation of
an All-Movable Vertiucal Tail Model", Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, Norfolk Virginia, April 2003.
285. Amprikidis, M., Cooper, J.E., "Development of Moving Spars for Active
Aeroelastic Structures ", SPIE Smart Materials Conference, San Diego, March 2003.
286. Amprikidis, M., and Cooper, J.E.,"Development of Smart Spars for Active
Aeroelastic Structures ", AIAA / ASME / ASCE / ASC / AHS Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference, Norfolk Virginia, April 2003.
287. Amprikidis, M., and Cooper, J.E.,"Adaptive Internal Structures for Active
Aeroelastic Aircraft ", NATO Research and Technology Organization, RTO AVT
Meeting On Novel Vehicle Concepts And Emerging Vehicle
Technologies, Brussels, April 2003.
288. E. Loth, “smart mesoflaps for control of shock boundary layer interactions”,
AIAA AIAA Paper 2000-2476, Fluids 2000 Conference and Exhibit, Denver, CO,
June 19-22, 2000.
289. Gad-el-Hak, M., “Flow Control: The Future”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No.
3, May-June 2001, pp. 402-418.
290. Choi, J., Jeon, W.-P., and Choi, H., “Control of Flow Around an Airfoil Using
Piezoceramic Actuators”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 40, No. 5, May 2002, pp. 1008-1010.
291. Seifert, A., Darabi, A., and Wygnanski, I., “Delay of Airfoil Stall by Perodic
Excitation”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 33, No. 4, 1996, pp. 691-698.
:292. Doyle, J.C., “Analysis of Feedback System with Structured Uncertainties,”
IEEE Proceedings, Part D, Vol. 129, No. 6, 1982, pp. 242-250.
293. Ly, U., VanSteenwyk, B. and Schoemig, E., "Robust Control Design Using
Parameter Optimization Techniques," Control and Dynamic Systems: Advances in
Theory and Applications, Vol. 56, Part 2 of 2, 1993, Academic Press, pp. 395-442.
294. Green, M., and Limebeer, D.J.N., Robust Linear Control”, Prentice Hall,
Englewood Cliffs, 1995.
295. Dahleh, M.H., and Diaz-Bobillo, I.J., “Control of Uncertain Systems”, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, 1995.
296. Benaroya, H., “Stochastic Differential Equations: A selective Overview for
Structural Dynamic Applications”, AIAA Paper 84-0907.
297. Ibrahim, R.A., Parametric Random Vibrations”, Research Studies Press Ltd.,
John Wiley, New York, 1985.
298. Haugen, E.B., “Probabilistic Mechanical Design”, John Wiley, New
York, 1980.

299. Madsen. H.O., Krenk, S., and Lind, N.C., Methods of Structural Safety, Prentice
Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1986.

300. Ben-Haim, Y., and Elishakoff, I., Convex Models of Uncertainty in Applied
Mechanics, Elsevier, Amsterdam - Oxford - New York - Tokyo, 1990.

50
301. Elishakoff, I., “On the Uncertainty Triangle”, Shock and Vibration Digest,
22(10), 1, 1990.
302. Elishakoff, I., Haftka, R.T., Fang, J., “Structural Design Under Bounded
Uncertainty - Optimization with Anti-Optimization”, Computers and Structures, Vol.
53, No. 6, pp. 1401-1405, 1994.
303. Ryan, R., and Townsend, J., “Application of Probabilistic Analysis / Design
Methods in Space Programs”, AIAA Journal of Sp[acecraft and Rockets, Vol. 31,
No. 6, pp. 1038-1043, Nov. 1994.
304. Rao, S.S., Sawyer, J.P., “Fuzzy Finite Element Approach for the Analysis of
Imprecisely Defined Systems”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, No. 12, December 1995, pp.
2364-2370.
305. Elishakoff, I., “Three versions of the finite element method based on concepts of
either stochasticity, fuzziness, or anti-optimization”, Applied Mechanics Reviews,
Vol. 51, No. 3, pp. 209-218, Mar 1998.
306. Oberkampf, W.L., Helton, J.C., and Sentz, K., “Mathematical Representation of
Uncertainty”, AIAA Paper 2001-1645, Non-deterministic Approached Forum, 16-19
April 1991, Seattle, WA 2001.
307. Wojtkiewicz, S.F., Eldred, M.S., Field, R.V., Jr., Urbina, A., and Red-Horse,
J.R., “Uncertainty Quantification in Large Computational Engineering Models”,
AIAA Paper 2001-1455, 42nd AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS / ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Seattle, WA, April 2001.
308. Shin, Y. S. and Grandhi, R.V., "A Global Structural Optimization Technique
using an Interval Method," Journal of Structural and Multidisiplinary Optimization,
Vol. 22, No. 5, December 2001, pp.351-363.

309. Penmetsa, R. and Grandhi, R.V., "Uncertainty Propagation using Possibility

Theory and Function Approximations," submitted to International Journal of
Mechanics of Structures and Machines, November 2001.

310. Eldred, Michael S., Giunta, A. A., Wojtkiewicz Jr., S. F., Trucano, T. G.,
"Formulations for Surrogate-based Optimization Under Uncertainty," conference
paper, 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and
Optimization, Atlanta, GA, September 4-6, 2002.

311. Frangopol, D.M., “Editorial: Progress in probabilistic mechanics and structural

reliability”, Computers & Structures , Volume 80, Issue 12, May 2002, Pages 1025-
1026.

312. Soundappan, P., Nikolaidis, E., Haftka, R.T., Grandhi, R.V., and Canfield, R.A.,
“Comparison of Evidence Theory and Bayesian Theory for Uncertainty Modeling,”
Journal of Reliability Engineering and Structural Safety, (submitted for publication),
October 2002

313. Romero, V.J., “Characterization, Costing, and Selection of Uncertainty

Propagation Methods for Use with Large Computational Physics Models”, AIAA
Paper 2001-1653, 42nd AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS / ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Seattle, WA, April 2001.

51
314. Pettit, C.L. and Grandhi, R.V., "Preliminary Weight Optimization of a Wing
Structure for Gust Response and Aileron Effectiveness Reliability," AIAA Journal of
Aircraft, (accepted for publication), October 2002.

315. Hasselman, T. K., and Chrostowski, J. D., “Effects of Product and

Experimental Variability on Model Verification of Automobile Structures”,
Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis Conference, Orlando Florida,
1997, Vol. I, pp. 612-620, Society of Experimental Mechanics, Inc.
316. Cafeo, J. A., Dogget, S., Feldmaier, D. A., Lust, R. V., Nefske, D. J., Sung, S.
H., “A Design-of-Experiments Approach to Quantifying Test-to-Test Variability for
a Modal Test”, Proceedings of the 15th International Modal Analysis Conference,
Orlando Florida, 1997, Vol. I, pp. 598-604, Society of Experimental Mechanics, Inc.
317. S. Potter and R. Lind, ``Uncertainty Models from Ground Vibration Testing,''
NASA TechBriefs, December 2001.
318. Gray, P.M., and Riskalla, M.G., "Development of Probabilistic Design
Methodology for Composite Structures", Federal Aviation Administration,
DOT/FAA/AR-95/17, WAshington, DC, August 1997.
319. Long, M., and Narciso, J.D., "Probabilistic Design Methodology for
Composite Aircraft Structures", Federal Aviation Administration,
DOT/FAA/AR-99-2, Washington DC, June 1999.
320. Rouchon, J., "Certification of Large Airplane Composite Structures, Recent
Progress and New Trends in Compliance Philosophy, Proceedings of the 17th
ICAS Congress, Vol. 2, AIAA, Washington DC, 1990, pp. 1439-1447.
321. Lin, K.Y., Rusk, D.T., and Du, J., "Equivalent Level of SAfety Approach to
Damage Tolerant Aircraft Structural Design", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39,
No. 1, January-February 2002, pp. 167-174.
322. Rusk, D.T., Lin, K.Y., Swartz, D.D., and Ridgeway, G.K., "Bayesian
Updating of Damage Size Probabilities for Aircraft Structural Life-Cycle
Management", Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 4, July-August 2002, pp.
689-696.
323. Bae, H., Grandhi, R. and Canfield, R.A., “Sensitivity Analysis of Structural
Response Uncertainty Propagation Using Evidence Theory”, AIAA Paper 2002-
5558,
9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization.
324. Noll, T.E., Austin, E., Donley, S., Graham, G., Harris, T., Kaynes, I., Lee,
B.H.K., and Sparrow, J., “Impact of Active Controls Technology on Structural
Integrity”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 30, No. 6, Nov.-Dec. 1993, pp. 985-992 (includes
325. Liaw, D.G., and Yang, H.T., “Reliability of Initially Compressed Uncertain
Laminated Plates in Supersonic Flow”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 29, No. 6, 1991, pp. 952-
960.
326. Liaw, D.G., and Yang, H.T., “Reliability of Uncertain Laminated Shells Due to
Buckling and Supersonic Flutter”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 29, No. 10, 1991, pp. 1698-
1708.
327. Liaw, D.G., and Yang, H.T., “Reliability and Nonlonear Supersonic Flutter of
Uncertain Laminated Plates”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 31, No. 12, December 1993, pp.
2304-2311.

52
328. Mavris, D.N., DeLaurentis, D.A., Bandte, O., Hale, M., “A Stochastic Approach
to Multidisciplinary Aircraft Analysis and Design”, AIAA Paper 98-0912, 1998.
329. Mavris, D.N., DeLaurentis, D.A., and Soban, D., “Probabilistic Assessment of
Handling Qualities Characteristics in Preliminary Aircraft Design”, AIAA Paper 98-
0492, 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, January 1998.
330. Lind, R., and Brenner, M.,” Robust Flutter Margins of an F/A-18 Aircraft from
Aeroelastic Flight Data” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No.
3, May-June 1997, pp. 597-604.
331. Karpel, M., Moulin, B., and Idan, M., “Robust Aeroservoelastic Design with
Structural Variations and Modeling Uncertainties”, Journal of Aircraft, accepted for
publication.
332. Moulin, B., Idan, M., and Karpel, M., “Aeroservoelastic Structural and Control
Optimization Using Robust Design Schemes”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 25, No. 1, January 2002, pp. 152-159.
333. Moulin, B., Idan, M., and Karpel, M., “Robust control design for uncertain
aeroservoelastic systems using reduced order models”, AIAA Paper 2001-1583,
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference and Exhibit, Seattle, WA, April 2001.
334. Brenner, M.J., “Aeroservoelastic Uncertainty Model Identification from Flight
Data”, NASA TM 2001-210397, July 2001.
335. Potter, S., and Lind, R., “Developing Uncertainty Models for Robust Flutter
Analysis Using Ground Vibration Test Data”, NASA TM-2001-210392, April 2001.
336. Jensen, H.A., “On the Structural Synthesis of Uncertain Systems Subjected to
Environmental Losads”, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 20, 2000, pp.
37-48.
337. Turgeon, E., Lacasse, D., Pelletier, D. and Borggaard, J., “Adaptivity,
Sensitivity and Uncertainty: Towards Standards in CFD”, in Proceedings of the 39th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper Number 2001-0140,
2001.
338. Putko, M.M.; Taylor III, A.C.; Newman, P.A.; and Green, L.L.: “Approach for
Input Uncertainty Propagation and Robust Design in CFD Using Sensitivity
Derivatives. Special Section on Quantifying Uncertainty in CFD, J. Fluids
Engineering, Vol. 124, No. 1, March 2002, pp. 60-69.
339. Gumbert, C.R., Newman, P.A. and Hou, G,J-W., “Effect of Random Geometric
Uncertainty on the Computational Design of a 3-D Flexible Wing”, 20th AIAA
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, St. Louis, MO, June 24-26, 2002.
340. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., “Multidisciplinary Design Optimization”, Chapter
4 in Flight Vehicle Materials, Structures, and Dynamics – Assessment of Future
Directions, Vol. 6, A.K. Noor and S.L. Venneri, editors, ASME, New York, 1995.
341. Lecina, G., and Petiau, C., "Advances in Optimal Design with Composite
Materials", in: Computer Aided Optimal Design: Structural and Mechanical Systems,
C.A. Mota Soares (ed.), Springer-Verlag, 1987.
342. Bindolino, G., Lanz, M., Mantegazza, P., and Ricci, S., "Integrated Structural
Optimization in the Preliminary Aircraft Design", ICAS-90-5.7.3, ICAS Proceedings,

53
17th Congress of the International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences, Stockholm,
Sweden, September 1990, pp. 1366-1378.
343. Bindolino, G., Ricci, S., Mantegazza, P., “Integrated Servostructural
Optimization in the Design of Aerospace Systems”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No.
1, January-February 1999, pp. 167-175.
344. Neill, D.J, Johnson, E.H. and Canfield, R., "ASTROS - A Multidisciplinary
Automated Structural Design Tool," Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 27, No. 12, December
1990, pp. 1021-1027.
345. Climent, H., and Johnson, E.H., "Aeroelastic Optimization Using
MSC/NASTRAN", Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and
Structural Dynamics, Strasburg, France, May 1993, pp. 1097-1116.
346. Eschenauer, H.A., Schuhmacher, G., and Hartzheim, W., "Multidisciplinary
Design of Composite Aircraft Structures by Lagrange", Computers&Structures, Vol.
44, No. 4, pp. 877-893, 1992.
347. Johnson, E.H., “Tools for Structural Optimization”, in Structural Optimization:
Status and Promise, edited by M.P.Kamat, AIAA Progress in Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Volume 150, Washington, DC, 1993, pp. 851-864.
348. Duysinx, P., and Fleury, C., “Optimization Software: View from Europe”, in
Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, edited by M.P.Kamat, AIAA Progress
in Aeronautics and Astronautics, Volume 150, Washington, DC, 1993, pp. 807-850.
349. Miura, H., and Neill, D.J., “Applications to Fixed-Wing Aircraft and
Spacecraft”, in Structural Optimization: Status and Promise, edited by M.P.Kamat,
AIAA Progress in Aeronautics and Astronautics, Volume 150, Washington, DC,
1993, pp. 705-742.
350. Volk, J.A., and Ausman, J.D., “Integration of a generic flight control system
into ASTROS”, AIAA Paper 96-1335, AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit, 37th, Salt Lake City,
UT, Apr. 15-17, 1996.
351. Chen, P.C., and Sarhaddi, D., “Integration of a steady/unsteady wing-body
aerodynamic module into ASTROS”, AIAA Paper 98-1867,
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Long Beach, CA, Apr. 20-23, 1998,
352. Chen, P.C., Jha, R., and Sarhaddi, D., “A Variable Stiffness Spar (VSS)
approach for aircraft maneuver enhancement using ASTROS”, AIAA Paper 99-1471.
353. Love, M.H, Barker, D.K., Egle, D.D., Neill, D.J., and Kolonay, R.M.,
"Enhanced Maneuver Airloads Simulation for the Automated Structural
Optimization- System-ASTROS, 38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures",
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Kissimmee, Florida, April 7-10,
1997.
354. Many Authors, Aerodynamic Design and Optimisation of Flight Vehicles in a
Concurrent Multidisciplinary Environment”, NATO Research and Technology
Organization, RTO-MP-35, AC/323(AVT)TP/15, RTP Meeting Proceedings 35,
Publ,ished June 2000, ISBN 92-837-1040-1

54
355. Schmit, L.A., "Structural Optimization - Some Key Ideas and Insights," in New
Directions in Optimum Structural Design, edited by Atrek, E., Gallagher, R.H.,
Ragsdell, K.M., and Zienkiewicz, O.C., John Wiley and Sons, 1984.
356. Schmit, L.A., "Structural Analysis - Precursor and Catalyst", in Recent
Experiences in Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization", NASA CP-2327, Part
1, 1984, pp. 1-17.
357. Gallington, R.W., Berman, H., Entzminger, J., Francis, M.S., Palmore, P., and
Stratakes, J., “Unmanned Aerial Vehicles”, Chapter 6 in Future Aeronautical and
Space Systems, edited by A.K.Noor, and S.L.Venneri, AIAA, Reston, VA, 1997.
358. Noor, A.K., and Venneri, S.L., Future Aeronautical and Space Systems, AIAA
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 172, Reston, VA 1997.
359. Noor, A.K. (editor), Structures Technology for Future Aerospace Systems,
AIAA Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 188, Reston, VA 2000.
360. Rech, J., and Leyman, C., “A Case Study by Aerospatiale and British Aerospace
on the Concorde”, AIAA Case Study Series, AIAA, ISBN: 1-56347-308-9.
361. J. M. McKay, E. E. Kordes and J. H. Wykes, Flight Investigation of XB-70
Structural Response to Oscillatory Aerodynamic Shaker Excitation and Correlation
with Analytical Results, NASA-TN-D-7227, April 1973.
362. Wykes, J.H., and Kordes, J.H.,” Analytical Design and Flight Tests of a Mode
Suppression System on the XB-70 Airplane, Parts I and II”, Aeroelastic Effects from
a Flight Mechanics Standpoint, AGARD CP-46, March 1970, pp. 23-1 – 23-18.
363. Wilson, R.J., Love, B.J., and Larson, R.R., “Evaluation of Effects of High
Altitude Turbulence Encounters on the XB-70 Airplane”, NASA TN D-6457, 1971.
196.
364. Turner, M.J., and Bartley, J.B., “Flutter Prevention in Design of the SST”, in
Dynamic Response of Structures, Herrmann, G., and Perrone, N., editors, Pergamon
Press, New York, 1972, pp. 95-113.
365. Bhatia, K.G., and Wertheimer, J., “Aeroelastic Challenges for a High Speed
Civil Transport”, AIAA Paper 93-1478, AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS / ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, San Diego, CA, 1993.
366. Durham, H.M., Cole, S.R., Cazier, F.W., Jr., Keller, D.F., Paker, E.C., and
Wilkie, W.K., “Experimental Transonic Flutter Characteristics of Supersonic Cruise
Configurations”, AIAA Paper 90-0979, 1990.
367. Isogai, K., “Study on Transonic Flutter Characteristics of an Arrow Wing
Configuration”, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics,
CEAS, Confederation of European Aerospace Socieities, Rome, June 1997, Vol. II,
pp. 87-95.
368. Tamayama, M., Saitoh, K., Matsushita, H., and Nakamichi, J., “Measurements
of Unsteady Pressure Distributions and Dynamic Deformations on an SST Elastic
Wing Model”, International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics,
CEAS, Confederation of European Aerospace Socieities, Rome, June 1997, Vol. III,
pp. 231-238.

55
369. Iwamiya, T., “NAL SST Project and Aerodynamic Design of Experimental
Aircraft”, Proceedings of the 4th ECCOMAS Computational Fluid Dynamics
Conference, Wiley, Chichester, UK, 1998, pp. 580-585.
370. Fujita, T., Ito, Y., Nakahashi, K., and Iwamiya, T., “Computational Fluid
Dynamics Evaluation of National Aerospace Laboratory Experimental Supersonic
Airplane in Ascent”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 2, March-April 2002, pp. 359-
364.
371. Stone, S.C., Henderson, J.L., Nazari, M.M., Boyd, W.N., Becker, B.T., Bhatia,
K.G., Giles, G.L., and Wrenn, G.A., “Evaluation of Equivalent Laminated Plate
Solution (ELAPS) in HSCT Sizing”, AIAA Paper 2000-1452, April 2000.
372. Rainey, D.L., Jackson, E.B., Buttrill, C.S., and Adams, W.M., “The Impact of
Structural Vibrations on Flying Qualities of a Supersonic Transport”, AIAA Paper
2001-4006, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Montreal, Canada,
August, 1991.
373. Wilson, J.R., “The New Shape of Supersonics”, Aerospace Ameruca, June
2002, pp. 26-33.
374. Alonso, J.J., Kroo, I.M., and Jameson, A., “Advanced Algorithms for Design
and Optimization of Quiet Supersonic Platforms”, AIAA Paper 2002-0144, 40th
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, January 2002.
375. Schleicher, R.L., "Structural Design of the X-15", Journal of the Royal
Aeronautical Society 67 (10): 618-636, Oct., 1963.
376. Kordes, E.E., Reed, R.D., and Dawdy, A.L.,"Structural Heating Experiences on
the X-15 Airplane", NASA TM X-711, 1962.
377. Jordan, G.H., McLeod, N.J., and Guy, L.D, "Structural Dynamic Experiences of
the X-15 Airplane", NASA TN D-1158, 1962.
378. Kortes, E.E., and Noll, R.B., "Flight Flutter Results for Flat Rectangular
Panels", NASA TN D-1058, 1962.
379. Hoff, N.J., (editor), High Temperature Effects in Aircraft Structures, Pergamon
Press, New York, 1958.
380. Hedgepeth, J., and Widmayer, E., Jr., “Dynamic and Aeroelastic Problems of
Lifting Re-Entry Bodies”, Aerospace Engineering, January 1963, pp. 148-153.
381. Laidlaw, W.R., and Wykes, J.H., “Potential Aerothermoelastic Problems
Associated With Advanced Vehicle Design”, Aerospace Engineering, January 1963,
pp. 154-164.
382. Jenkins, J.M., and Quinn, R.D., “A Historical Perspective of the YF-12 Thermal
Loads and Structures Program”, NASA TM-104317, May 1996.
383. Goforth, A.,E.,” Flutter analysis of the Linear Aerospike SR-71 Experiment
(LASRE)”, AIAA Paper 96-1197, AIAA Dynamics Specialists Conference, Salt
Lake City, UT, April 1996.
384. Runyan, H.L., and Goetz, R.C., “Space Shuttle – A New Arena for the
Structural Dynamicist”, in Dynamic Response of Structures, G.Hermann and
N.Perrone, editors, Pergamon Press, New York, 1972.

56
385. Rodden, W.P., and Johnson, E.H., “Aerothermoelastic Stability of a Wing”,
Section 8.13, “MSC/NASTRAN Aeroelastic Analysis User’s Guide”, Ver. 68,
MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, 1994, pp. 551-558.
386. Thornton, E.A., “Thermal Structures for Aerospace Applications”, AIAA
Education Series, AIAA, 1996.
387. Dogget, R.V., “NASP aeroservoelasticity studies”, NASA TM-104058, NTIS
N91-27127, 1991.
388. Cazier, F.W., Jr., Ricketts, R.H., Dogget, R.V., Jr., “Structural dynamic and
Aeroelastic considerations for hypersonic vehicles”, AIAA Paper 91-1255, April
1991.
389. Rodgers, J.P., “Aerothermoelastic Analysis of a NASP-Like Vertical Fin”,
AIAA Paper 92-2400, Proc. Of the 33th AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Dallas, TX, April 1992.
390.Gupta, K.K., and Peterson, K.L., “Multidisciplinary Aeroelastic analysis of a
generic hypersonic vehicle”, NASA TM 4544, 1993, NTIS N94-27868
391. Heeg, J, Zeiler, T.A., Pototzky, A.S., and Spain, C.V., “Aerothermoelastic
Analysis of a NASP Demonstrator Model”, AIAA Paper 93-1366,
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/ AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, La Jolla, CA, April 1993, pp. 617-627.
392. Ricketts, R.H., Noll, T., Whitlow, W., and Huttsell, L., “An Overview of
Aeroelasticity Studies for the National Aero-Space Plane”, NASA TM-107728, 1993,
NTIS N93-23422, also AIAA Paper 93-1313, Proc. Of the 34th AIAA / ASME /
ASCE / AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, La Jolla,
CA, April 1993, pp. 152-162.
393. Spain, C., Zeiler, T.A., Bullock, E., and Hodge, J.S., “A Flutter Investigation of
All Movable NASP-like Wings at Hypersonic Speeds”, AIAA Paper 93-1315, Proc.
Of the 34th AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference, La Jolla, CA, April 1993.
394. Spain, C., Zeiler, T.A., Gibbons, M.D., Soistmann, D.L., Pozefsky, P., DeJesus,
R.O., and Brannon, C.P., “Aeroelastic Character of a National Aerospace Plane
Demonstrator Concept”, AIAA Paper 93-1314, Proc. Of the 34th AIAA / ASME /
ASCE / AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, La Jolla,
CA, April 1993, pp. 163-170.
395. Heeg, J., and Gilbert, M.G., “Active Control of Aerothermoelastic Effects for a
Conceptual Hypersonic Aircraft”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 30, 1993, pp. 453-458.
396. Raney, D.L., McMinn, J.D., and Pototzky, A.S., “Impact of Aeroelastic-
Propulsive Interactions on Flight Dynamics of Hypersonic Vehicles”, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 2, March-April 1995, pp. 355-362.
397. R. Lind, “Linear Parameter-Varying Modeling and Control of Structural
Dynamics with Aerothermoelastic Effects”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and
Dynamics, Vol. 25, No. 2, July-August 2002, pp. 733-739.

57
398. Thuruthimattam, B.J., Friedmann, P.P., McNamara, J.J., and Powell, K.G.,
“Moeling Approaches to Hypersonic Aerothermoelasticity with Application to
Reusable Launch Vehicles”, AIAA Paper 2003-1967, 44th AIAA / ASME / ASCE /
AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, April 2003,
Norfolk, VA.
399. Thornton, E.H., Thermal Structures and Materials for High Speed Flight”,
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, Reston, VA, 1992.
400. Hamilton, H.H., II, Weilmuenster, K.J., Horvath, T.J., and Berry, S.A.,
“Computational / Experimental Aeroheating Predictions for X-33 Phase II Vehicle”,
AIAA Paper 98-0869, 36th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, January 1998.
401. Prabhu, D.K., Loomis, M.P., Venkatapathy, E., Polsky, S., Papadopoulos, P.,
Davies, C.B., and Henline, W.D., “X-33 Aerothermal Environment Simulations and
Aerothermodynamic Design”, AIAA Paper 98-0868, 36th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, Reno, NV, January 1998.
402. Kleb, W.L., Wood, W.A., Gnoffo, P.A., and Alter, S.J., “Computational
Aeroheating Predictions for X-34”, AIAA Paper 98-0879, 36th Aerospace Sciences
Meeting, Reno, NV, January 1998.
403. T. J. Mueller and J. D. DeLaurier, "An Overview of Micro Air Vehicle
Aerodynamics," Fixed and Flapping Wing Aerodynamics for Micro Air Vehicle
Applications, Thomas J. Mueller, ed., Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics,
AIAA, Vol. 195, 2001, pp. 1-9.
404. Garrick, I.E., “Propulsion of a Flapping and Oscillating Aerofoil”, NACA
Report 567, 1936.
405. Brooks, A.N., MacCready, P.B., Lissaman, P.B.S., and Morgan, W.R.,
“Development of a Wing Flapping Flying Replica of the Largest Pterosaur”, AIAA
Paper 85-1446, 1985.
406. DeLaurier, J.D., “An Aerodynamic Model for Flapping Wing Flight”,
Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 97, April 1993, pp. 125-130.
407. DeLaurier, J.D., and Harris, J.M.,.”A Study of Mechanical Flapping Wing
Flight”, Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 97, No. 968, October 1993, pp. 277-286.
408. DeLaurier, J.D., “The Development of an Efficient Ornithopter Wing”,
Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 97, May 1993, pp. 153-162.
409. R. F. Larijani and J. D. DeLaurier, "A Nonlinear Model for the Study of
Flapping Wing Flight," Fixed and Flapping Aerodynamics for Micro Air Vehicle
applications, Part II: Flapping and Rotary Wing Aerodynamics, Thomas J. Mueller,
ed., Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, Vol. 195, 2001, pp.399-428.
410. Mueller, T.J., editor, Fixed and Flapping Aerodynamics for Micro Air Vehicle
applications, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, AIAA, Vol. 195, 2001.
411. Michelson, R.C., and Reece, S., “Update on Flapping Wing Micro Air Vehicle
Research”, 13th Bristol International RPV Conference, Bristol, England, 30 March –
1 April 1998.
412. Shyy, W., Berg, M. and Ljungqvist, D., “Flapping and Flexible Wings for
Biological and Micro Air Vehicles,” Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 35,
(1999) pp.155-205.

58
413. Shyy, W., Klevebring, F., Nilsson, M., Sloan, J., Carroll, B. and Fuentes, C. “A
Study of Rigid and Flexible Low Reynolds Number Airfoils,” Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 36, (1999) pp.523-529.
414. Shyy, W., Jenkins, D.A. and Smith, R.W., “Study of Adaptive Shape Airfoils at
Low Reynolds Number in Oscillatory Flows,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, (1997)
pp.1545-1548.
415 Smith, R.W. and Shyy, W., “Computation of Aerodynamic Coefficients for a
Flexible Membrane Airfoil in Turbulent Flow,” Physics of Fluids, Vol. 8, (1996)
pp.3346-3353.
416. Smith, R.W. and Shyy, W., “Computation of Unsteady Laminar Flow Over a
Flexible Two-Dimensional Membrane Wing,” Physics of Fluids, Vol. 7, (1995)
pp.2175-2184; similar content entitled, “Coupled Computations of a Flexible
Membrane Wing and Unsteady Viscous Flow,” presented at the 26th AIAA Fluid
Dynamics Conference, Paper No. 95-2261, June 19-22, (1995).
417. Smith, R.W. and Shyy, W., “A Computational Model of Flexible Membrane
Wings in Steady Laminar Flow,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 33, (1995) pp.1769-1777.
418. De Vries, G., and Beatrix, C., “Les procédés géraux de mesure des
caractéristiques vibratoires des structures linéaires faiblement amorties” Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 9, 1968, pp. 1-39.
419. Kehoe, M.W., “Aircraft Ground Vibration Testing at NASA Ames-Dryden
Flight Research Facility”, NASA TM-88272, 1987.
420. Hanagud, S., Meyyappa, M., and Craig, J.I., “Identification of Structural
Dynamic Systems”, in Recent Trends in Aeroelasticity, Structures, and Structural
Dynamics, P. Hajela, editor, University of Florida Press, Gainsville, FL, 1987.
421. Allemang, R.J., and Brown, D.L., “Structural Dynamic Testing and
Instrumentation”, in Flight Vehicle Materials, Structures, and Dynamics, Vol. 5:
Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity, edited by A.K. Noor, and S.L. Venneri, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1993, ISBN 0-7918-0663-4.
422 Ewins, D.J., “Modal Testing: Theory and Practice”, Research Studies, Somerset,
England, U.K., 1994.
423. McConnell, K.G., “Vibration Testing: Theory and Practice”, John Wiley, New
York, 1995.
424. Friswell, M.I., and Mottershead, J.E., “Finite Element Model Updating in
Structural Dynamics”, Kluwer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1996.
425. Natke, H.G., “Problems of Model Updating Procedures: A Perspective
Resumption”, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1998, pp.
65-74.
426. Horta, L.G., and Kvaterrnik, R.G., “A Historical Perspective on Dynamics
Testing at the Langley Research Center”, AIAA Paper 2000-1739, AIAA Dynamics
Specialists Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 2000.
427. Pappa, R.S., Lassiter, J.O., and Ross, D.P., “Structural Dynamics Experimental
Activities in Ultra-Lightweight and Inflatable Space Structures”, NASA TM-2001-
210857, May 2001.

59
428. Fargette, P., Fullekrug, U., Gloth, G., Levadoux, B., Lubrina, P., Schaak, H.,
and Sinapius, M., “Tasks for Improvement in Ground Vibration Testing of Large
Aircraft”, IFASD 2001, The CEAS/AIAA/AIAE International Forum on
Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Madrid, Spain, May 2001,ISBN 84-931375-
6-1, Vol. III, pp. 121-133.
429. Pappa and T. Jones,; J. Black,; A. Walford,; S. Robson,; M. Shortis,
“Photogrammetry Methodology Development for Gossamer Spacecraft Structures”,
AIAA Paper 2002-1375, 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference
430. Mabey, D.G., “A Review of Scale Effects in Unsteady Aerodynamics”, Progress
in the Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 28, 1991, pp. 273-321.
431. Mabey, D.G., Welsh, B.L., and Pyne, C.R., “A Review of Rigid Body Response
on Sting Supported Models at High Angles of Incidence”, Progress in the Aerospace
Sciences, Vol. 28, 1991, pp. 133-170.
432. Ericsson, L.E., and Beyers, M.E., “Comment on “Moving-Wall Effect on
Unsteady Boundary Layer””, ””, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 4, July-August
2002, p. 720..
433. Friedmann, P. P. and Presente, E., “Active Control of Flutter in Compressible
Flow and Its Aeroelastic Scaling”, Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol.
24, No. 1, January-February 2001, pp. 167-175.
434. Ricketts, R.H., “Experimental Aeroelasticity in Wind Tunnels – History, Status,
and Future in Brief”, in Flight Vehicle Materials, Structures, and Dynamics, Vol. 5:
Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity, edited by A.K. Noor, and S.L. Venneri, The
American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1993, ISBN 0-7918-0663-4.
435. Cole, S.R., and Garcia, J.L., “Past, Present, and Future Capabilities of the
Transonic Dynamic Tunnel from an Aeroelasticity Perspective”, AIAA Paper 2000-
1767, April 2000.
436. Piatak, D.J., and Cleckner, C.S., “Oscillating Turntable for the Measurement of
Unsteady Aerodynamic Phenomena”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 40, No. 1, January-
February 2003, pp. 181-188.
437. Miller, C.G., “Langley Hypersonic Aerodynamic/Aerothermodynamic Testing
Capabilities – Present and Future”, AIAA Paper 90-1376, June 1990.
438. Micol, J.R., “Hypersonic Aerodynamic / Aerothermodynamic Testing
Capabilities at Langley Research Center: Aerothermodynamic Research Complex”,
AIAA Paper 95-2107, June 1995.
439. Berry, S.A., Horvath, T.J., DiFulvio, M., Glass, C., and Merski, N.R., “X-34
Experimental Aeroheating at Mach 6 and 10”, AIAA Paper 98-0881, 36th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, January 1998.
440.DeAngelis, V.M., and Fields, R.A., “Techniques for Hot Structures Testing”,
NASA TM 101727, November 1990.
441. Burner, A.W., Radeztsky, R.H., and Liu, T., “Videometric Applications in Wind
Tunnels”, NASA TR-1250, NASA Langley Research Center, August 1997.
442. Burner, A.W., “Model Deformation Measurement at NASA Langley Research
Center”, NASA TR-1202, NASA Langley Research Center, September 1997.

60
443. Watzlavick, R.L., Crowder, J.P., and Wright, F.L., “Comparison of Model
Attitude Systems: Active Target Photogrammetry, Precision Accelerometer, and
Laser Interferometer”, AIAA Paper 96-2252, 19th AIAA Advanced Measurement and
Ground Testing Technology Conference, 1996.
444. Kuttenkeuler, J., “Optical Measurement of Flutter Mode Shapes”, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 5, September-October 2000, pp. 846-849.
445. Burner, A.W., and Liu, T., “Videogrammetric Model Deformation Measurement
Technique”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 4, July-August 2001, pp. 745-754.
446. Burner, A.W., Liu, T., Garg, S., Dhee, T.A., and Taylor, N.J., “Aeroelastic
Deformation Measurements of Flap, Gap, and Overhang on a Semispan Model”,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 6, November-December 2001, pp. 1147-1154.
447. Ryall, T.G., and Fraser, C.S., “Determination of Structural Modes of Vibration
Using Digital Photogrammetry”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 1, January-
February 2002, pp. 114-119.
448. Chandrasekhara, M.S., and Wilder, M.C., “Heat Flux Gauge Studies of
Compressible Dynamic Stall”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 41, No. 5, May 2003, pp. 757-
762.
449. Livne, E., “Controlled-Motion Models for Wind Tunnel Unsteady Aerodynamic
Loads Identification on Deforming Configurations: A Multidisciplinary Challenge”,
AIAA Paper No. 2000-1485, 41st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Atlanta, GA, April 2000.
450 Juang, J.-N., “System Identification”, in Flight Vehicle Materials, Structures, and
Dynamics, Vol. 5: Structural Dynamics and Aeroelasticity, edited by A.K. Noor, and
S.L. Venneri, The American Society of Mechanical Engineers, New York, 1993,
ISBN 0-7918-0663-4.
451. Juang, J.-N., Kholodar, D., and Dowell, D.H., “System Identification of a
Vortex Lattice Aerodynamic Model”, AIAA Journal, Vol. 40, No. 6, June 2002, pp.
1187-1196.
452. “Flutter testing techniques”, the proceedings of a conference held at the Dryden
Flight Research Center in Edwards, California, October 9-10, 1975, NASA SP-415,
1976.
453 Kehoe, M.W., “Aircraft flight flutter testing at the NASA Ames-Dryden Flight
Research Facility”, NASA TM 100417, NTIS N88-20301
454. Stearman, R.O., Powers, O.J., Schwartz, J., and Yurkovich, R., “Aeroelastic
System Identification of Advanced Technology Aircraft Through Higher Order
Signal Processing”, in Proceedings of the 9th International Modal Analysis
Conference, Florence, Italy, April 1991, pp. 1607-1616.
455. Kehoe, M.W., “A Historical Overview of Flight Flutter Testing”, NASA TM
4720, October 1995.
456. Brenner, M.J., Lind, R.C., and Voracek, D.F., “Overview of recent flight flutter
testing research at NASA Dryden”, NASA Technical Memorandum 4792, 1997.
457. Dimitriadis, G., and Cooper, J.E., “Flutter Prediction from Flight Flutter Test
Data”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 2, March-April 2001, pp. 355-367.

61
458. C. William, J. Cooper and J. Wright, “Force Appropriation for Flight Flutter
Testing Using smart Devices”, AIAA Paper 2002-1652, 43rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference
459. Dimitriadis, G., and Cooper, J.E., “On-line flight Flutter Testing", COST
Structural System Identification conference -Kassal, Germany 2001.
460. W.J., Crowther, and Cooper,J.E., “Flight Flutter Testing Using Neural
Networks”, Proc I.MechE Pt G, J.Aerospace Engineering, Vol. 215, 2001, pp 37 –
47.
461. Staszewski, W., and Cooper, J.E., ”Wavelet Approach to Flutter Data Analysis”,
AIAA Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39,No. 1, pp. 125-132, 2002.
462. Lind, R., “Flight Test Evaluation of Flutter Prediction Methods”, Journal of
Aircraft, accepted for publication.

463. Lind, R., “Flight Testing the Flutterometer”, Journal of Aircraft, accepted for
publication.

464. Torii, H., and Matsuzaki, Y., “Flutter Margin Evaluation for Discrete Time
Systems”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 38, No. 1, 2001, pp. 42-47.

465. Johnson, J.D., Lu, J., Dhawan, A.P., and Lind, R.,” Real-Time Identification of
Flutter Boundaries using the Discrete Wavelet Transform”, Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 25, No. 2, March-April 2002, pp. 334-339.

466. Lind, R., “Match-Point Solutions for Robust Flutter Analysis”, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 1, January-February 2002, pp. 91-99.

467. Lind, R., Snyder R., and Brenner, M., “Wavelet Analysis to Caracterize
Nonlinearities and Predict Limit Cycles of an Aeroelastic System”, Mechanical
Systems and Signal Processing, Vol. 15, No. 2, March 2001,pp. 337-356.

468. Lind, R., and Brenner, M., “Flutterometer: An On-Line Tool to Predict Robust
Flutter Margins”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 6, November-December 2000, pp.
1105-1112.

469. Brenner, M., and Lind, M., “Wavelet-Processed Flight Data for Robust
Aeroservoelastic Stability Margins”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
Vol. 21, No. 6, November-December 1998, pp. 823-829.

470. Lind, R., Freudinger, L., and Voracek, D., “Comparison of Aeroelastic
Excitation Mechanisms”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 35, No. 5, September-October
1998, pp. 830-832.

471. Lind, R., and Brenner, M., “Incorporating Flight Data into a Robust Aeroelastic
Model”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.~35, No.~3, May-June 1998, pp.~470-477.

62
472. Lind, R., and Brenner, M, ”Robust Flutter Margins of an F/A-18 Aircraft from
Aeroelastic Test Data”, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 20, No. 3,
May-June 1997, pp. 597-604.

473. Hollowell, S.J., and Dugundji, J.,”Aeroelastic Flutter and Divergence of

Stiffness Coupled Graphite / Epoxy Cantilevered Plates”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol.
21, No. 1, January 1984, pp. 69-76.
474. Landberger, B., and Dugundji, J., “Experimental Aeroelastic Behavior of
Unswept and Forward Swept Graphite/Epoxy Wings”, Journal of Aircraft, Viol. 22,
No. 8, August 1985, pp. 679-686..
475. Chen, G.-S., and Dugundji, J., “Experimental Aeroelastic Behavior of Forward
Swept Graphite/Epoxy Wings with Rigid Body Modes”, AIAA Paper 86-0971, 27th
AIAA / ASME / ASCE / AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, San Antonio, Texas, May 1986.
476. Heeg, J., “Flutter Supression Via Piezoelectric Actuation”, N92-15070, NASA
Technical Memorandum TM-104120, 1991.
477. Conner, M.D., Tang, D.M., Dowell, E.H., Virgin, L.N., “Nonlinear Behavior of
a Typical Airfoil Section with Control Surface Freeplay: A Numerical and
Experimental Study”, Journal of Fluids and Structures, Vol. 11, 1997, pp. 89-109.
478. Tang, D. Conner, M.D., and Dowell, E.H., “Reduced-Order Aerodynamic
Model and Its Application to a Nonlinear Aeroelastic System”, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 35, No. 2, March-April 1998, pp. 332-338.
479. Vipperman, J.S., Barker, J.M., Clark, R.L., and Baslas, J.S., “Comparison of µ
and H2 Synthesis Controllers on an Experimental Typical Section”, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 22, No. 2, 1999, pp. 278-285.
480. Kim, K., and Strganac, T.W., “Aeroelastic Studies of a Cantilever Wing with
Structural and Aerodynamic Nonlinearities”, AIAA Paper 2002-1412, 43rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, Denver, CO, April 2002.
481. Platanitis, G., and Strganac, T.W., “Control of a Wing Section with Structural
Nonlinearities Using Leading Edge and Trailing Edge Control Surfaces”, AIAA
Paper 2002-1718, 43rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Denver, CO, April 2002.
482. Tang, D., and Dowell, E.H., “Experimental and Theoretical Study on
Aeroelastic Response of High-Aspect-Ratio Wings”, AIAA Journal, Voil. 39, No. 8,
August 2001, pp. 1430-1441.
483. Tang, D. Li, A., and Dowell, E.H., "Experimental and Theoretical Study on
Rolling Effectiveness of Multiple Control Surfaces", AIAA Journal, Vol.
41, No. 2, February 2003.
484. Many authors, “Aeroelastic considerations in the preliminary design of aircraft”,
AGARD Conference Proceedings No. 354, North Atlantic Treaty Organization
Advisory Group for Research and Development, Neuilly sur Seine, France, 1983.

63
485. Schmidt, W., and Sacher, P.W., “Applications of CFD Codes and
Supercomputers to Aircraft Design Activities”, AGARD Report 794, Integrated
Airframe Design Technology, AGARD-R-794, published December 1993.
486. Jameson, A., “Reengineering the Design Process Through Computation”,
Journal of Aircraft, vol. 36, 1999, pp 36-50.
487. Jameson, A., “A Perspective on Computational Algorithms for Aerodynamic
Analysis and Design”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 37, 2001, pp. 197-243.
488. Bhatia, K.G., “Airplane Aeroelasticity: Practice and Potential”, AIAA Paper
2001-0430, January 2001, also: Journal of Aircraft, 2003, special Aeroelasticity
issue.
489. Love, M., “Identification of Critical Flight Loads”, AIAA Paper 2003-1893,
44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference
490. Radovcich, N., and Layton, D., “The F-22 structural/aeroelastic design process
with MDO examples”, AIAA Paper 98-4732, AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO
Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, 7th, St. Louis, MO,
Sept. 2-4, 1998.
491. Siegel, J.M., Jr., Parthasarathy, V., Kingsley, G.M., Dionne, P.J., Harrand, V.J.,
and Luker, J.J. , “Application of a Multi-Disciplinary Computing Environment
(mdice) for loosely coupled fluid-structural analysis”, AIAA Paper 98-4865,
AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and
Optimization, 7th, St. Louis, MO, Sept. 2-4, 1998.
492. Kingsley, G., Siegel, J.M., Jr., Harrand, V.J., Lawrence, C., and Luker, J.J.,
“Development of a multi-disciplinary computing environment (mdice)”, AIAA Paper
98-4738, AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis
and Optimization, 7th, St. Louis, MO, Sept. 2-4, 1998.
493. Sheta, E.F., Harrand, V.J., Thompson, D.E., and Strganac, T.W.,
“Computational and Experimental Investigation of Limit Cycle Oscillations of
Nonlinear Aeroelastic Systems”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 39, No. 1, January-
February 2002, pp. 133-141.
494. Jain, L.C. (ed.), “Knowledge-based Intelligent Techniques in Industry”, CRC
Press, Boca Raton, 1999.
495. Sriram, R.D., “Intelligent Systems for Engineering: a Knowledge-Based
Approach”, Springer, London, New York, 1997.
496. Adelman, L. and Riedel, S.L., “Handbook for evaluating knowledge-based
systems : conceptual framework and compendium of methods”, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 1997.
497. Krishnamoorthy, C.S., and Rajeev, S., “Artificial intelligence and expert
systems for engineers’, CRC Press, Boca Raton, 1996.
498. Grose, D.L., “Reengineering the Aircraft Design Process”, AIAA Paper 94-
4323, 1994.
499. Rogers, J.L., “Tools and Techniques for Decomposing and Managing Complex
Design Projects”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 36, No. 1, January-February 1999, pp.
266-274.

64
500. Ferman, M.A., “A Rapid Method for Flutter Clearance of Aircraft with External
Stores”, AFFDL-TR--74, Vol. 1, September 1973.
501. Chipman, R.R., and Malone, J.B., “Application of Optimization Techniques to
Wing / Store Flutter Prediction”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 15, No. 11, 1978, pp. 786-
793.
502. Many Authors, Specialists Meeting on Wing-With-Stores Flutter, AGARD
Conference Proceedings No. 162, AGARD-CP-162, 1975.
503. Pincha, P.J., “Algorithmic Mass Factoring of Finite Element Model Analyses”,
SAWE Paper 1451, Society of Allied Weights Engineers, 1982
504.. Pincha, P.J., “Algorithmic Mass Factoring of Finite Element Model Analyses:
An Update: Grid – Density Sensitivity”, SAWE Paper 1524, Society of Allied
Weights Engineers ,1983.
505. Mitchell, P.M., “Advanced Finite Element Weight Estimation Process on the
High Speed Civil Transport”, SAWE Paper 2169, Society of Allied Weights
Engineers. 1993
506. Kelm, R., Lapple, M., and Grabietz , M., “Wing Primary Structure Weigh
SAWE Paper No. 2283, 1995t Estimation of Transport Aircrafts in the Pre-
Development Phase”, SAWE Paper No. 2283, Society of Allied Weights Engineers,
1995.
507. Schmidt, A., Lapple, M., and Kelm, R., ”Advanced Fuselage Weight Estimation
for the New Generation of Transport Aircraft”, SAWE Paper No. 2406, Society of
Allied Weights Engineers, 1997
508. Kelm, R., and Grabietz, M.,”Aeroelastic effects on the weight of an aircraft in
the pre-design phase”, SAWE Paper No. 2407, Society of Allied Weights Engineers,
1997.

Figure 1: CFD Surface Mesh and Structural FE mesh for the F-16 (courtesy, C.Farhat,
University of Colorado, Boulder, CO, Ref. 92)

65
 Figure 2: Damping and Frequency correlations for a torsion mode. F16 in flight. 1g
and 5g maneuvers, including accelerated flight. (courtesy: C. Farhat, University of
Colorado, Ref. 92)

Wing Tip
Deflection Total
Pressure
≈32 in.)
(≈
Coefficient

Rigid Static -0.175

Case Aeroelastic -0.500

CFL3D Navier-Stokes Case
M∞= 0.975 -0.925
α = 7.38 deg.
Rec= 5.9 million
-1.300
137x281x65 C-O Grid

Figure 3: The B-1 LCO Case (courtesy: Boeing, Ref. 93)

66
 0 . 12

0 . 10

0 . 08
D am p in g (g )

0 . 06

E x p0e. 04
ri m e n t (s t ru c t. d a m p in g : g = 0 . 0 1 1 )

C o m p u t a t io n ( 4 m o d e s , n o s t r u c t . d a m p in g )
0 . 02
C o m p u t a t io n ( 1 m o d e , n o s t ru c t . d a m p in g )

0 . 00
0 .0 2 .0 4 .0 6 .0 8 .0 10 .0

A n g le - o f - A t t a c k ( d e g . )

Figure 4: The B-1 LCO Case: Damping Trends (courtesy: Boeing, Ref. 93)

Δηi ( ξ ) Domain of influence

dξ
Δξ i

Control point at centriod

Body Box

Body-like
components

Δηi
Domain of influence
Δξi ( η ) dη

Wing-like components Wing Box

Control point
at 99% Chord
Fig. 5: Paneling for shape sensitivities of unsteady linear panel-aerodynamics on a
fighter airplane (courtesy: ZONA Technologies)

67
crack
Interaction
buckling

crack

Figure 6: Local buckling and damage tolerance failure mechanisms in a fighter

aircraft wing (Ref. 99)

Figure 7: The Dogtooth “snag” on the F-15’s horizontal stabilizer. The effect on
flutter is not captured by linear theories.

68
Figure 8: Structural modes and CFD grid zoning for the HSCT aerodynamics wind
tunnel model (courtesy: Boeing, Ref. 182)

Figure 9: Comparison of full order fully coupled simulations with reduced order
simulations for the flexiblized HSCT wing model (courtesy: Boeing, Ref. 182)

69
Figure 10: Coupled shape/sizing optimization with CFD/FE models (courtesy: J.J.
Alonso, Stanford University)

70
Figure 11: “Truly” integrated aeroservoelastic optimization.

Figure 12: Uncertainty propagation in uncertain systems (taken from Ref. 313)

71
Figure 13: Past non-conventional configurations

Figure 14: Selected new potential configurations

72
 Figure 15: Quiet supersonic platforms (NASA and Northrop-Grumman)

Figure 16: Elevon flutter accident on the F-117 (1997)

73
View publication stats