See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274942230

Study of bending-torsion flutter in a four

degree-of-freedom wing model

Conference Paper · September 2011

CITATIONS READS

0 62

2 authors:

Mikael Andersen Langthjem Yoshihiko Sugiyama

Yamagata University Osaka Prefecture University
43 PUBLICATIONS 547 CITATIONS 120 PUBLICATIONS 1,368 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Energy Harvesting based on Bio-inspired Fluid-Structure Interaction View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Mikael Andersen Langthjem on 14 April 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 「フラッターの制御と利用」に関する第1回シンポジウム
                            2011年9月

Study of bending-torsion flutter in a four degree-of-freedom wing model

Mikael A. LANGTHJEM1 , Yoshihiko SUGIYAMA2

ABSTRACT
The paper is concerned with a four-degrees-of-freedom wing model, consisting of two rigid plates, coupled
by bending and torsion springs. The model thus has two bending modes and two torsional modes. The
equations of motion are derived via Lagrange’s equations. A simple aerodynamic load model, where
the lift forces are proportional to the angle of attack, is employed. The aerodynamic forces provide
couplings between the torsional modes and the bending modes. In order to assess the stability properties
an eigenvalue analysis is carried out and numerical results are presented.

Key Words: Bending-torsion flutter, wing model, Lagrange’s equations of motion

1. Introduction

Typically, flutter of aircraft wings is characterized by a coupling between bending vibra-

tion modes and torsional vibrations modes. This has been studied extensively through a
variety of models. The simples of these - which can be found in almost any textbook on
aeroelasticity (e.g. [1, 2, 3]) - is concerned with a cross section of a wing, modeled as a
rigid body supported by a translational and a rotational spring. This model is attractive
since it has just two degrees of freedom, enabling a full understanding of the dynamic
characteristics. A more realistic model represents the wing as a beam, taking both bend-
ing and torsion into account. Mathematically, this model is much more complicated as it
involved two coupled partial differential equations. Yet it is much more realistic since it
allows flutter in pure bending modes or pure torsion modes, besides the combined modes.
Despite the long history of wing flutter it is desirable to obtain a deeper understanding
of the coupling between bending and torsion. Wings contain a so-called torsion box,
design to limit the torsion. In this paper we consider the simplest possible model of this
structural part which will allow pure bending flutter, pure torsion flutter, and bending-
torsion flutter, representing the torsion box by two rigid plates, coupled by bending and
torsion springs.
The paper is organized as follows. In Section 2 the aerodynamic forces are discussed,
followed by a derivation of the equations of motion. These equations are made nondimen-
sional and then written on matrix form in Section 3. In Section 4 the stability analysis is
described. Numerical results are presented in Section 5. Finally, some concluding remarks
are made in Section 6.
1
Faculty of Engineering, Yamagata University (E-mail: mikael@yz.yamagata-u.ac.jp)
2
Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, Osaka Prefecture University (E-mail: sugi3fy4@mx5.canvas.ne.jp)

- 76 -
 「フラッターの制御と利用」に関する第1回シンポジウム
                            2011年9月

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 1. Sketch of the four degree-of-freedom two-plate wing model. (a) With only the torsional
degrees of freedom θ1 and θ2 activated. (b) With only the bending degrees of freedom φ1 and
φ2 activated. With all four degrees of freedom activated.

2. The Lagrange equations of motion

The wing model is placed in a rectangular coordinate system as shown in Fig. 1. Assume
that the flight direction is in the negative x-direction; that is, air flows (with mean flow
speed U ) in the positive x-direction. Assume also that the fuselage of the aircraft coincides
with the x-axis. In the equilibrium state (U = 0), let the corner coordinates (x, y) of the
inner plate be at (−a, 0), (b, 0), (−a, ℓ1 ), and (b, ℓ1 ), and let those of the outer plate be
at (−a, ℓ1 ), and (b, ℓ1 ), (−a, ℓ1 + ℓ2 ), and (b, ℓ1 + ℓ2 ). Let the torsional degrees of freedom
be the angles θ1 and θ2 , and let the bending degrees of freedom be φ1 and φ2 ; see Fig. 1.
The aerodynamic forces are represented by simple, lumped lift forces. Let F1 act on
the inner plate at the point (−ξ, γ1 ), and F2 on the outer plate at the point (−ξ, γ2 ).
Assuming that these forces always act perpendicular to the plates, they are given by
Fi = Fi (− sin θi , − sin θi , cos θi cos φi ), i = 1, 2. (1)
F1 and F2 are assumed to be proportional to the angle of attack and are thus given by
{ }
ρ 2 1
F1 = −C U θ1 − φ̇1 γ1 (a + b)ℓ1 , (2)
2 U
{ }
ρ 2 1
F2 = −C U θ2 − (φ̇1 ℓ1 + φ̇2 γ2 ) (a + b)ℓ2 , (3)
2 U
where C is a proportionality constant and ρ the density of air.
It can be seen already at this point that the aerodynamic model based on (1)-(3) will
imply a coupling between the two torsional degrees of freedom θ1 and θ2 and the two
bending degrees of freedom φ1 and φ2 .

- 77 -
 「フラッターの制御と利用」に関する第1回シンポジウム
                            2011年9月

We consider the wing in a transient state where the all the springs are stretched a small
angle due to the aerodynamic forces. The kinetic energy is then
∫ ℓ1 ∫ b
( 2 2 )
T = m x θ̇1 + y 2 φ̇21 + 2xy θ̇1 φ̇1 dxdy (4)
0 −a
∫ ∫
ℓ2 b ( )
+ m ℓ21 φ̇21 + y 2 φ̇22 + x2 θ̇22 + 2ℓ1 y φ̇1 φ̇2 + 2ℓ1 xφ̇1 θ̇2 + 2xy φ̇2 θ̇2 dxdy
0 −a
where m is the mass per unit plate area. Over-dots denote differentiation with respect to
time t. By evaluating the integrals we get
{
T = m 13 ℓ1 (a3 + b3 )θ̇12 + 13 ℓ31 (a + b)φ̇21 − 21 ℓ21 (a2 − b2 )θ̇1 φ̇1 (5)
+ℓ21 ℓ2 (a + b)φ̇21 + 31 ℓ32 (a + b)φ̇22 + 31 ℓ2 (a3 + b3 )θ̇12
}
+ℓ1 ℓ22 (a + b)φ̇1 φ̇2 − ℓ1 ℓ2 (a2 − b2 )φ̇1 θ̇2 − 12 ℓ22 (a2 − b2 )φ̇2 θ̇2 .
The potential energy is related to the energy stored in the four rotational springs only,
and is given by
∑ { }
V = 12 2i=1 ki φ2i + gi θi2 . (6)
Here ki and gi are spring constants. A dissipation function for rotational dashpot dampers
can be defined as
∑ { }
D = 21 2i=1 ci φ̇2i + di θ̇i2 . (7)
Lagrange’s equations of motion are given by
( )
d ∂L ∂L ∂D
− + = Qj , j = 1, . . . , 4, (8)
dt ∂ q̇j ∂qj ∂ q̇j
where the Lagrangian function L = T − V .
Let (q1 , q2 , q3 , q4 ) = (φ1 , φ2 , θ1 , θ2 ). The generalized forces are given by
∑ ∂rk
Qj = Fk · , (9)
k
∂qj
where
r1 = (−ξ cos θ1 , γ1 cos φ1 , −xi sin θ1 + γ1 sin φ1 ) (10)
r2 = (−ξ cos θ2 , ℓ1 cos φ1 + γ2 cos φ2 , −ξ sin θ2 + ℓ1 sin φ1 + γ2 sin φ2 )
Evaluating (8) we obtain the four equations of motion as
m(a + b)[2ℓ21 ( 31 ℓ1 + ℓ2 )φ̈1 + ℓ1 ℓ22 φ̈2 − 12 ℓ21 (a − b)θ̈1 − ℓ1 ℓ2 (a − b)θ̈2 ] (11)
{ }
+c1 φ̇1 − 21 CρU (a + b)ℓ1 (γ12 + ℓ1 ℓ2 )φ̇1 + ℓ2 γ2 φ̇2
+k1 φ1 + 21 CρU 2 (a + b)ℓ1 (γ1 θ1 + ℓ2 θ2 ) = 0,

m(a + b)[ℓ1 ℓ22 φ̈1 + 32 ℓ31 φ̈2 − 21 ℓ22 (a − b)θ̈2 ] + c2 φ̇2 (12)
{ }
− 21 CρU (a + b)ℓ2 γ2 ℓ1 φ̇1 + γ2 φ̇2 + k2 φ2 + 12 CρU 2 (a + b)ℓ2 γ2 θ2 = 0,

m[− 21 (a2 − b2 )ℓ21 φ̈1 + 23 ℓ1 (a3 + b3 )θ̈1 ] + d1 θ̇1 (13)

+ 21 CρU (a + b)ℓ1 γ1 ξ φ̇1 + [g1 − 1
2
CρU 2 (a + b)ℓ1 ξ]θ1 = 0,

m[−ℓ1 ℓ2 (a2 − b2 )φ̈1 − 12 ℓ21 (a2 − b2 )φ̈2 + 32 ℓ2 (a3 + b3 )θ̈2 ] + d2 θ̇2 (14)
+ 21 CρU (a + b)ℓ2 ξ{ℓ1 φ̇1 + γ2 φ̇2 } + [g2 − 12 CρU 2 (a + b)ℓ2 ξ]θ2 = 0.

- 78 -
 「フラッターの制御と利用」に関する第1回シンポジウム
                            2011年9月

3. Nondimensionalization

We introduce the following nondimensional quantities:

√
3
k0 U 1 2 ℓ1
ω0 = , τ = ω0 t, u = , χ = Cρ(ℓ 1 ω0 ) , (15)
mℓ21 (a + b) ℓ1 ω0 2
k0
ω0 ω0 ki gi
c̃i = ci , d˜i = di , k̃i = , g̃i = , i = 1, 2,
k0 k0 k0 k0
ℓ2 a b ξ γi
ℓ̃ = , ã = , b̃ = , ξ˜ = , γ̃i = , i = 1, 2.
ℓ1 ℓ1 ℓ1 ℓ1 ℓ1
Here k0 is a reference stiffness parameter. In the following we will again drop the tildes
introduced above and consider all variables in their nondimensional from. The nondimen-
sional versions of (11) - (14) can then be written on matrix form as
 (1 )   ′′ 
2 3 +ℓ ℓ2 − 12 (a − b) −ℓ(a − b) 
 φ 
   1′′  
 1 ℓ
2 2 3
3
ℓ 0 − 2 ℓ (a − b)  φ2
1 2

 − (a − b)   θ1′′  (16)
0 (a + b2 − ab)
2 2
0  
2 3  θ2′′ 
−ℓ(a − b) − 12 ℓ2 (a − b) 0 2
ℓ(a2 + b2 − ab)
 3
  
′
c1 − χu(γ12 + ℓ)(a + b) −χuγ2 ℓ(a + b) 0 0   φ 
   ′  1

 −χuγ 2 ℓ(a + b) c 2 − χuγ 2
2
ℓ(a + b) 0 0  φ 2
+
χuγ1 ξ(a + b) 0 d1 0    θ1′ 
χuξℓ(a + b) χuℓξγ2 ℓ(a + b) 0 d2  θ2′ 
  
k1 0 χu2 γ1 (a + b) χu2 ℓ(a + b) 
 φ 

 0 k2 2   1

 0 χu ℓγ 2 (a + b)  φ 2
+   θ1  ,
0 0 g1 − χu2 ξ(a + b) 0  
0 0 0 2g − χu2 ξℓ(a + b)  θ  2

where a dash denotes differentiation with respect to the nondimensional time τ .

4. Stability analysis

4.1. Divergence
Divergence is a static type of instability; the critical (divergence) flow speed can thus
be obtained by setting all time-dependent terms in (16) equal to zero. This gives the
determinant criterion
 
 k1 0 χu2 γ1 (a + b) χu2 ℓ(a + b) 
 
 0 k2 0 χu 2
ℓγ (a + b) 
 2  = 0, (17)
 0 0 g1 − χu ξ(a + b)
2
0 
 
 0 0 0 g2 − χu2 ξℓ(a + b) 
which yields
k1 k2 {g1 − χu2 ξ(a + b)}{g2 − χu2 ξℓ(a + b)} = 0. (18)
Thus the divergence flow speed is given by
{ √ √ }
g1 g2
udiv = min , . (19)
χξ(a + b) χξℓ(a + b)

- 79 -
 「フラッターの制御と利用」に関する第1回シンポジウム
                            2011年9月

From (18) and (19) it can be seen that the divergence instability occurs in the torsional
modes alone. This is consistent with what one intuitively would expect.

4.2. Flutter
For brevity we write (16) on the form

Mv′′ + C(u)v′ + K(u2 )v = 0. (20)

To convert (20) into a first order differential equation system we introduce the vector
wT = {v v′ }T . This gives
[ ]
′ 0 I
w = Aw, with A = . (21)
−M−1 K −M−1 C
Next we assume that w(τ ) = w0 exp(λτ ), with λ = α + iω. Inserting this assumption into
(21) gives the standard eigenvalue problem λw0 = Aw0 .
The vibrations of the wing are said to be stable at a certain flow speed u∗ if all real
parts of the eigenvalues α < 0 for 0 ≤ u ≤ u∗ . Flutter sets in at the flow speed u∗ if (at
least) one eigenvalue is characterized by α > 0 and ω ̸= 0 for u > u∗ . [The divergence
instability discussed in the previous subsection occurs when at least one eigenvalue is
characterized by α > 0 and ω = 0 for u > u∗ .]

5. Numerical examples

The eigenvalue analysis in the two numerical examples to follow were carried out using
the standard solvers in Matlabr . The nondimensional parameters are set as follows.
The length ratio ℓ = 1, a = 0.25, and b = 0.25. The placement of the forces are specified
by γ1 = 0.5, γ2 = 0.5, and ξ = 0.125. The aerodynamic load factor χ = 1.0. The damping
parameters are all set equal; c1 = c2 = d1 = d2 = 0.10.
In the first of the two examples the torsion stiffness parameters have the values g1 = 1.0,
g2 = 0.50, while the bending stiffness parameters have the values k1 = 0.1, k2 = 0.05.
The eigenvalue curves for this case are shown in Fig. 2. Flutter is initiated at u ≈
0.55. Although the torsion and bending modes are coupled, the flutter vibration will be
dominated by the bending modes, due the low stiffness values k1 and k2 .
In the second example the stiffness values are interchanged; that is, g1 = 0.10, g2 = 0.05,
and k1 = 1.0, k2 = 0.5. Here, as illustrated by Fig. 3, flutter is initiated at u ≈ 0.15. In
this case the flutter vibtations will be dominated by the torsional modes.

6. Concluding remarks

We have presented a simple model of a wing in airflow, with four degrees-of-freedom,

based on two rigid plates, coupled by bending and torsion springs. In this paper we
have considered only the simplest possible model of the aerodynamic load. But due to
the simplicity of the basic structural model, it opens the possibility for detailed studies of
large-amplitude vibrations with realistic aerodynamic load models, based, for example, on
panel/discrete vortex methods. Yet before further complications are introduced it would
be better to understand the present simple model fully, through extensive parameter
studies. Such work is ongoing.

- 80 -
 「フラッターの制御と利用」に関する第1回シンポジウム
                            2011年9月

α 1.5 ω 5

1
3

0.5 2

1
0
0

-0.5
-1

-2
-1

-3
-1.5
-4

-2 -5
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 (a) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 (b)
u u
Figure 2. (a) Real (α) and (b) imaginary (ω) parts of the eigenvalues as functions of the flow
speed u, for the stiffness parameters g1 = 1.0, g2 = 0.50, k1 = 0.1, k2 = 0.05.

α 3
ω 2

2
1.5

1
1

0 0.5

-1 0

-2 -0.5

-3 -1

-4 -1.5

-5 -2
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 (a) 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 (b)
u u
Figure 3. Same as Fig. 2, but for the stiffness parameters g1 = 0.1, g2 = 0.05, k1 = 1.0, k2 = 0.5.

References
[1] Bisplinghoff, R. L., Ashley, H., Halfman, R. L., Aeroelasticity. Dover Publications,
New York 1996.
[2] Bolotin, V. V., Nonconservative Problems of the Theory of Elastic Stability. Perga-
mon Press, Oxford 1963.
[3] Fung, Y. C., An Introduction the The Theory of Aeroelasticity. Dover Publications,
New York 1993.

- 81 -
View publication stats