Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Meirovitch - The Lure of The Mean Axes - ASME J.applied Mechanics Vol 74 May 2007
Meirovitch - The Lure of The Mean Axes - ASME J.applied Mechanics Vol 74 May 2007
Meirovitch - The Lure of The Mean Axes - ASME J.applied Mechanics Vol 74 May 2007
Leonard Meirovitch1
Department of Engineering Science and
Mechanics,
Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University,
MS 0219, Blacksburg, VA 24061
e-mail: lmeirovi@vt.edu
Ilhan Tuzcu
Department of Aerospace Engineering and
Mechanics,
The University of Alabama,
Tuscaloosa, AL 35487-0280
e-mail: ituzcu@coe.eng.ua.edu
Introduction
A variety of aerospace structures can be modeled as unrestrained flexible bodies. Examples of these are missiles, spacecraft, helicopters, and aircraft. In formulating the equations of
motion, the methodology used depended largely on the preference
of the investigators. Because some of these investigations were
carried out decades ago when computers were inadequate, there
has been a tendency to simplify the formulations to an undue
extent. At the other extreme, in relatively recent days the tendency
has been to rely on large computer codes written for purposes
other than for the problem under consideration, resulting in very
cumbersome and inefficient solutions.
Surprisingly, the literature on dynamics of unrestrained flexible
bodies is not very abundant. Using essentially a Newtonian approach extended to finite bodies, Bisplinghoff and Ashley 1 derived scalar equations of motion for flexible missiles. Making a
number of assumptions, they arrived at entirely decoupled equations for the rigid-body translations, greatly simplified equations
for the rigid-body rotations and decoupled equations in terms of
the natural modes for the elastic deformations. Among the factors contributing to the simplification of the equations of motion
we note the use of principal axes as body axes, the assumption
that the elastic deformations have a negligible effect on the mass
moments of inertia and that the independent equations for the
elastic deformation are the same as for an undamped multidegree-of-freedom system. The scalar equations of motion of Bisplinghoff and Ashley can be expressed in the compact vectormatrix form
+
V = F,
mV
+
J + *
+
* = M,
J
+ 2 = X
M
udm
r
=0
udm = 0,
udm
r
=0
this paper, the use of mean axes not only makes matters more
complicated but in some cases it can render the formulation at
odds with the physical reality.
Whatever advantages or disadvantages accrue from the use of
mean axes, the procedures used in 4,5 are essentially correct.
Unfortunately, the same cannot be said about the subsequent investigations, as at some later time the concept of mean axes was
invoked but not really used. Indeed, some later investigators
latched onto the notion of mean axes to drop most inertial coupling terms from the equations of motion while failing to enforce
the constraints embodied by Eqs. 3. In fact, some of the investigators did not even give the definition of the mean axes.
Typical of investigators regarding the mean axes, Eqs. 3, as a
vehicle to drop the coupling terms with impunity are Nydick and
Friedmann 6 and Friedmann, McNamara, Thuruthimattam and
Nydick 7, where the first is a conference presentation and the
second is basically a journal version of the first. Indeed, professing to use the mean axes, when in fact they did not, as well as
invoking a variety of other assumptions, and confining themselves
to the case of steady level cruise, they obtained the greatly simplified equations of motion
mV0x + qV0z = X mg sin ,
mV0z qV0x = Z + mg cos ,
+ C g
+ Kg
M g
j yy0q = M
T
dD =
T
T
dD + Q
rT
4
in which m is the total aircraft mass, V0x the forward velocity, V0z
the plunge velocity, q the pitch velocity, the pitch angle, j0yy the
mass moment of inertia about the pitch axis y, assumed to be
constant, X, Z, and M are associated forces and moment, including
those due to aerodynamics, M g, Cg, and Kg are generalized
mass, damping and stiffness matrices, respectively, is a vector
a skew
of generalized elastic coordinates, a modal matrix,
symmetric matrix derived from the angular velocity vector
a generalized force density vector. Equations 4
= 0 q 0T and Q
are even simpler than they may seem, and we note that the first
three are scalar equations and the fourth is a vector equation, as
they can be solved independently for the rigid-body translations,
rigid-body rotion, and elastic displacements. Indeed, first the third
of Eqs. 4 can be solved for the pitch velocity q, and hence for
the pitch angle , then the first and second can be solved for V0x
and V0z and finally the fourth can be solved for . However, there
are several problems with this proposition. In the first place, although the authors do list the definition of the mean axes, Eqs. 3,
they make no attempt to enforce the constraints imposed by them,
which can have disturbing implications. Moreover, there is no
indication that the aerodynamic forces were ever expressed in
terms of mean axes components, nor is there any hint that the
aerodynamic forces keep the equations coupled, thus preventing
independent solutions of the equations for the rigid body translations, rigid body rotations and elastic deformations.
It is clear from 6,7 that the objective is an aeroelasticity analysis, which calls for very simple equations of motion. Yet, the
papers begin with a formulation capable of describing the dynamics and control of maneuvering flexible aircraft 8,9, a very complex problem, and proceed to strip away the elaborate formulation
reducing it to Eqs. 4. In the process of reducing the equations of
motion in terms of quasi-coordinates, the authors of 6,7 get
tripped by the misuse of mean axes. It appears that the authors of
6,7 would have been better served by beginning directly with
aeroelasticity equations rather than with the complex formulation
of Ref. 8. To indicate where 6,7, went wrong and to highlight
some possible negative implication of the use of mean axes, the
correct use of the mean axes is discussed later in this paper.
Transactions of the ASME
+
J f = Mcm,
Jf
Mq e + Kqe = Q
dL
L
d L
C
=F
+
V
R
dt V
L
L
L
d L
+
+ V
ET1 = M
V
dt
T
T F
+
+ Lu = U
t v
u v
W =
f r,t +
T
F tr r
T
i
i=1
R*PdD
R*P = R* + rT + u
mVTV + VTST + VT
2
W =
fTr,t +
F tr r
T
i
i=1
= F R + M +
T
R* + rT + udD
TudD
U
+ T
fdD +
F,
M=
i=1
10
r F ,
F r r
i
11
F=
i=1
u = ,
1
2
1
vTPv PdD = mVTV + VTST + VT
2
D
1
2
vdD
+
r +
r
TdD,
TdD
14
dD = 1
F
2
D
1
cvTvdD T
2
D
1
cTdD = TC
2
D
where
C=
cTdD
16
1
2
1
uTLudD T
2
D
1
TLdD = TK
2
D
17
where
K=
TLdD
18
L
d L
= F,
+
V
dt V
L
L
d L
+
+ V
=M
V
dt
T
d L
+ C + K = X
dt
T
TVT +
=
T
dD
19
2r + dD
T
20
and
1
r + uvdD + TJ
2
D
vTvdD
r +
dD,
15
12
in which S and J are the matrix of first moments of inertia and the
inertia matrix, respectively, of Rayleighs dissipation function
i i
i=1
=f+
U
S =
dD,
fdD
r
+
J=
13
where
where
F=
1
r +
dD + TJ
2
D
1
+ T
X=
dD
TU
21
= CTV,
R
+ ST
mV
= 2
= E1,
Tmi
Tmi F
mi
,
+
+ Lmiumi = U
mi
t vmi
umi vmi
+ J
SV
+
T j
T j F
j
,
+
+ L ju j = U
j
t v j
u j v j
+
S + F
dD + mV
=
r +
dD
SV
+
dD + VS +
=
TVT
+
Tr +
TdD
+ dD 2
r
1
T=
2
+
TdD + M
+
TV
j = 1,2, . . . ,n
23
r +
+ r
J +
i = 1,2, . . . ,nm
nm
VTf V f dm f
mf
1
+
2 i=1
T
Vmi
Vmidmi
mi
1
+
2 j=1
VTjV jdm j
mj
24
2r
T
T
TdD C K + X
22
L
L
d L
O
+
CO
= FO
VO
RO
dt VO
L
d L
T 1 L
L +
O
+V
EO
= MO
O
VO
O
dt O
O
T f
T f F
f
+
+ Lfuf = U
f
t v f
u f v f
mi + umirmi,tTCmiO + M
Vmirmi,t = CmiV M + r
+ vmirmi,t,
i = 1,2, . . . ,nm
j + u jr j,tTC jO + T
V jr j,t = C jVT + r
+ v jr j,t,
j = 1,2, . . . ,n
25
in which
OM + u f rOM ,tTOt + v f rOM ,t
V M t = V f rOM ,t = VOt + r
OT + u f rOT,tTOt + v f rOT,t
VTt = V f rOT,t = VOt + r
26
are the velocity vectors of the main rotor hub M and tail rotor hub
T, obtained by evaluating V f at M and T, respectively. Moreover,
Cmi and C j are matrices of direction cosines between the main
rotor blade body axes xmiy mizmi and the fuselage body axes x f y f z f
and the tail rotor blade body axes x j y jz j and x f y f z f due to the
spin of the rotors; both Cmi and C j depend explicitly on time. The
kinetic energy is obtained by inserting Eqs. 25 and 26 into Eq.
24 and carrying out the indicated operations. A cursory examination of Eqs. 25 and 26 will reveal that the fuselage, main
rotor and tail rotor are all inertially coupled and so are the equations of motion. Furthermore, it is futile to look for mean axes
capable of changing this fact. Clearly, the use of mean axes for the
fuselage alone, which is the least critical part of a helicopter,
cannot be justified.
Although we expressed the fuselage stiffness in terms of a stiffness operator matrix L f , this was merely symbolic because it is
not feasible to generate a differential operator for such a complex
structure as the fuselage. In practice, it is necessary to express the
fuselage stiffness, in the context of a spatial discretization process,
by means of a stiffness matrix generated by the finite element
method. A typical main rotor blade can be modeled as a thin beam
undergoing torsion about the longitudinal axis xmi and bending
about axes y mi and zmi. Denoting the displacement vector for blade
mi by umi = xmi uymi uzmiT, the corresponding stiffness operator
matrix can be shown to have the form 11
Lmi =
where
Pmixmi =
GJmixmi
xmi
xmi
2
2
EI
x
zmi
mi
2
2
xmi
xmi
Lmi
miCmiO +
2
M zmi
In deriving Eqs. 22, a reference frame embedded in the undeformed body was used to define the rigid-body and elastic motions, as well as the forces, moments and distributed forces. This
choice seems only natural. As can be expected, the equations for
the rigid-body translations, rigid-body rotations and elastic deformations are all coupled. There seems to be a belief that a different
choice of reference frame is able to reduce the coupling, and
hence the complexity of the formulation. We wish to examine this
proposition.
The inertial terms can be simplified to some extent by choosing
the body axes as the principal axes with the origin at the mass
center. In this case, we have
rdD = 0,
r
rTdD = J0
29
udD
28
2
2
EIymixmi 2
Pmixmi
2
xmi
xmi
xmi
xmi
xmi
27
= 0,
dD =
r udD =
udD
r
r dD = * = 0
30
Inserting Eqs. 29 and 30 into the second half of Eqs. 22, the
dynamical part of the state equations reduces to
+
J
=
dD
+F
dD + mV
+
= 2
mV
+
r +
+ r
dD
J +
+
TV
r +
TdD + M
+
T
TdD
TVT
=
2r + dD 2
T
T
TdD
C K + X
31
= 0,
ij j
j=1
ij* j = 0,
32
i = 1,2,3
j=1
33
where
34
are 6 n 6 and 6 6 matrices and ind = 12 . . . n6 and
dep = n5n4 . . . nT are n 6-dimensional and six-dimensional
vectors of independent and dependent components, respectively.
Then, regarding the original n-dimensional vector as a constrained vector, we can write
T
= c =
ind
I
=
ind = Tind
B1A
dep
in which
T=
35
36
B1A
T
+
ind = 2
mV
dD + mV
+F
T
ind
+
J
dDT
ind
T
ind
r
T
dD
+ T
T
ind + Tind + r
ind
ind
J +
TdDT + M
r + T
ind
ind
+ TT
TV
T T
T dD
*
+
TT
ind
ind
TVT TT
= T T
2TT
2r + TinddD
T
T dD C* K* + X* 37
TT
ind
ind
ind
in which
J=
r
T
r + T
ind + Tind dD
* = T T
T,
At this point, we must discuss two important issues, one concerning the number of elastic degrees of freedom of the formulation and the other, a more important one, whether mean axes
should be used at all. We recall that the dimension of the independent coordinate vector ind is n 6, so that using the mean axes as
a reference frame, there are only n 6 elastic degrees of freedom.
This is in contrast with the widespread notion that there are fully
n elastic degrees of freedom. A paradox arises when mean axes
are used and the flexibility is modeled by a number of shape functions smaller than or equal to six, as in these cases the number of
elastic degrees of freedom is either negative or zero, which is a
physical impossibility. Moreover, either explicitly or implicitly,
the aerodynamic forces depend on the velocities V, , and ,
which, according to the formulation leading to Eqs. 31, are in
terms of components along body axes embedded in the undeformed body. Consistent with this, F, M, and X are in terms of the
same body axes. Clearly, if the velocities V, , and are referred
to the mean axes as stated in Nydick and Friedmann 6 and
Friedmann et al. 7, then the aerodynamic forces in Eqs. 4 must
also be expressed in terms of components along the same mean
axes. Yet, there is no indication in Refs. 6,7 that the aerodynamic
forces were ever transformed from the original body axes to the
mean axes, which raises additional doubts about the validity of the
formulation. Hence, if one insists on using the mean axes as a
reference frame, then one must fully understand the implications
and honor the constraints consistently throughout. Merely invoking the use of mean axes to eliminate terms without enforcing the
constraints to both motions and forces makes for an erroneous
formulation and results. In view of this, one must question the use
mean axes in the first place. Indeed, from Eqs. 37 we conclude
that the use of mean axes only results in added complications with
no visible benefits.
In the case of helicopters, the equations of motion, Eqs. 23,
are not only significantly more complex than those for aircraft but
they also depend explicitly on time. Clearly, the use of mean axes
for helicopters is hard to comprehend.
Finally, one must wonder why it was necessary to begin with
such a complete and rigorous formulation as Eqs. 11 of Ref. 8
and strip it down beyond recognition see Eqs. 4 of the present
paper.
C* = TTCT,
K* = TTKT,
X * = T TX
38
Conclusions
References
1 Bisplinghoff, R. L., and Ashley, H., 1962, Principles of Aeroelasticity, Wiley,
New York, Chap. 9.
2 Meirovitch, L., 1970, Methods of Analytical Dynamics, McGraw-Hill, New
York reprinted in 2003 by Dover.
3 Meirovitch, L., and Nelson, H. D., 1966, On the High-Spin Motion of a
Satellite Containing Elastic Parts, J. Spacecr. Rockets, 311, pp. 15971602.
4 Canavin, J. R., and Likins, P. W., 1977, Floating Reference Frames for Flexible Spacecraft, J. Spacecr. Rockets, 1412, pp. 724732.
5 Dusto, A. R., Brune, G. W., Dornfield, G. M., Mercer, J. E., Pilet, S. C.
Rubbert, P. E., Schwanz, R. C., Smutney, P., Tinoco, E. N., and Weber, J. A.,
1974, A Method for Predicting the Stability Characteristics of an Elastic
Airplane, Vol. 1-FLEXSTAB Theoretical Description, Report No. NASA
CR-114712.
6 Nydick, I., and Friedmann, P. P., 1999, Aeroelastic Analysis of a Generic
Hypersonic Vehicle, Proceedings of the CEAS/AIAA/ICASE/NASA Langley
International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, NASA/CP1999205/36/PT2, Williamsburg, VA, pp. 777810.