Analysis of Aircraft Responses To Atmospheric Turbulence

Analyses of Aircraft Responses
to
Atmospheric Turbulence
Analyses of Aircraft Responses
to Atmospheric Turbulence
Proefschrift
ter verkrijging van de graad van doctor
aan de Technische Universiteit Delft,
op gezag van de Rector Magnicus prof.dr.ir. J.T. Fokkema,
voorzitter van het College voor Promoties,
in het openbaar te verdedigen op maandag 15 december 2003 om 13.00 uur
door
Willem Hendrik Jan Joseph VAN STAVEREN
ingenieur luchtvaart en ruimtevaart
geboren te Sittard
Dit proefschrift is goedgekeurd door de promotor:
Prof.dr.ir. J.A. Mulder.
Samenstelling promotiecommisie:
Rector Magnicus, Technische Universiteit Delft, voorzitter
Prof.dr.ir. J.A. Mulder, Technische Universiteit Delft, promotor
Prof.dr.ir. P.G. Bakker, Technische Universiteit Delft
Prof.dr.ir. P.M.J. van den Hof, Technische Universiteit Delft
Prof.dr.ir. Th. van Holten, Technische Universiteit Delft
Prof.dr.ir. J.H. de Leeuw, University of Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Prof.dr.-Ing. G. Sch anzer, Technische Universit at Braunschweig, Duitsland
Dr.ir. J.C. van der Vaart, Technische Universiteit Delft
Prof.dr.ir. M.J.L. van Tooren, Technische Universiteit Delft, reservelid
Dr.ir. J.C. van der Vaart heeft als begeleider in belangrijke mate aan de totstandkoming
van het proefschrift bijgedragen.
Published and distributed by: DUP Science
DUP Science is an imprint of
Delft University Press
P.O. Box 98
2600 MG Delft
The Netherlands
Telephone: +31 15 27 85 678
Telefax: +31 15 27 85 706
Email: info@library.tudelft.nl
ISBN 90-407-2453-9
Keywords: aerodynamics / atmospheric ight dynamics / atmospheric turbulence and
windshear / Computational Aerodynamics / CFD / elastic aircraft / xed wing aircraft /
ight test / ight dynamics / loads / panel method / parameter identication / potential
ow / simulation / system identication / unsteady aerodynamics
Copyright c _2003 by W.H.J.J. van Staveren
All rights reserved. No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be
reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, whithout
written permission from the publisher: Delft University Press
Printed in The Netherlands
Summary
The response of aircraft to stochastic atmospheric turbulence plays an important role
in aircraft-design (load calculations), Flight Control System (FCS) design and ight-
simulation (handling qualities research and pilot training). In order to simulate these
aircraft responses, an accurate mathematical model is required. Two classical models will
be discussed in this thesis, that is the Delft University of Technology (DUT) model and
the Four Point Aircraft (FPA) model. Although they are well estabilished, their delity
remains obscure. The cause lies in one of the requirements for system identication; it
has always been necessary to relate inputs to outputs to determine, or identify, system
dynamic characteristics. From experiments, using both the measured input and the mea-
sured output, a mathematical model of any system can be obtained. When considering an
input-output system such as an aircraft subjected to stochastic atmospheric turbulence, a
major problem emerges. During ighttests, no practical diculty arises measuring the air-
craft motion (the output), such as the angle-of-attack, the pitch-angle, the roll-angle, etc..
However, a huge problem arises when the input to the aircraft-system is considered; this
input is stochastic atmospheric turbulence in this thesis. Currently, during ighttests it
still remains extremely dicult to identify the entire oweld around an aircraft geometry
subjected to a turbulent eld of ow; an innite amount of sensors would be required to
identify the atmospheric turbulence velocity components distribution (the input) over the
vehicle geometry.
In an attempt to shed some more light on solving the problem of the response of aircraft to
atmospheric turbulence, the subject of this thesis, it depends on the formulation of two dis-
tinct models: one of the atmospheric turbulence itself (the atmospheric turbulence model),
and the other of the aircraft response to it (the mathematical aircraft model). As concerns
atmospheric turbulence, stochastic, stationary, homogeneous, isotropic atmospheric tur-
bulence is considered in this thesis as input to the aircraft model. Models of atmospheric
turbulence are well established. As for mathematical aircraft models, many of them have
been proposed before. However, verifying these models has always been extremely dicult
due to the identication problem indicated above. As part of the mathematical aircraft
model, (parametric) aerodynamic models often make use of (quasi-) steady aerodynamic
results, that is all steady aerodynamic parameters are estimated using either results ob-
tained from windtunnel experiments, handbook methods, Computational Aerodynamics
(CA) which comprises Linearized Potential Flow (LPF) methods, or Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) which comprises Full-Potential, Euler and Navier-Stokes methods.
ii Summary
In this thesis the simplest form of uid-ow modeling is used to calculate the time-
dependent aerodynamic forces and moments acting on a vehicle: that is unsteady Li-
nearized Potential Flow (LPF). The uid-ow model will result in a so called unsteady
panel-method which will be used as a virtual windtunnel (or virtual ighttest facility)
for the example discretized aircraft geometry, also referred to as the aircraft grid. The
application of the method ultimately results in the vehicles steady and unsteady stability
derivatives using harmonic analysis. Similarly, both the steady and unsteady gust deriva-
tives for isolated atmospheric turbulence elds will be calculated. The gust elds will be
limited to one-dimensional (1D) longitudinal, lateral and vertical gust elds, as well as
two-dimensional (2D) longitudinal and vertical gust elds. The harmonic analysis results
in frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives which will later be used to obtain
an aerodynamic model in terms of constant stability- and gust derivatives. This newly
introduced model, the Parametric Computational Aerodynamics (PCA) model, will be
compared to the two classical models mentioned earlier, that is the Delft University of
Technology (DUT) model and the Four-Point-Aircraft (FPA) model. These three para-
metric aircraft models are used to calculate both the time- and frequency-domain aerody-
namic model and aircraft motion responses to the atmospheric turbulence elds indicated
earlier. Also, using the unsteady panel-method the aircraft grid will be own through
spatial-domain 2D stochastic gust elds, resulting in Linearized Potential Flow solutions.
Results will be compared to the ones obtained for the parametric models, i.e. the PCA-,
DUT- and FPA-model.
From the results presented, it is concluded that the introduced PCA-model is the most
accurate for all considered gust elds. Compared to the Linearized Potential Flow solution
(which is assumed to be the benchmark, or the model that approximates reality closest)
the new parametric model shows increased accuracy over the classical parametric models
(the DUT- and FPA-model), especially for the aircraft responses to 2D gust elds. Fur-
thermore, it shows more accuracy in the aircraft responses to 1D longitudinal gust elds.
Although results will be presented for a Cessna Ce550 Citation II aircraft only, the the-
ory and methods are applicable to a wide variety of xed-wing aircraft, that is from the
smallest UAV to the largest aircraft (such as the Boeing B747 and the Airbus A380).
As an overview of this thesis, after the introduction given in chapter 1, a short summary
of the applied atmospheric turbulence model is given in chapter 2. Next, the theory
of steady incompressible Linearized Potential Flow is given in chapter 3. Chapter 4
continues with a similar treatment as in chapter 3, discussing unsteady incompressible
Linearized Potential Flow. Both analytical frequency-response functions (or aerodynamic
transfer functions) and numerical frequency-response functions for isolated wings will also
be discussed in this chapter. In chapter 5 the denition of specic aircraft motion per-
turbations and atmospheric turbulence inputs will be given. Chapter 6 discusses the
aircraft grid for the example aircraft. This grid will be used for both steady and unsteady
Linearized Potential Flow simulations. For aerodynamic model identication purposes, the
aircraft grid dened in chapter 6 is used in chapter 7 where the numerical symmetrical
Summary iii
aerodynamic frequency-response functions are given for the PCA-model. They are deter-
mined with respect to aircraft motions in surge and heave, and to both longitudinal and
vertical gusts. All perturbations in aircraft motion and gusts are of harmonic nature. Re-
sults of the analytical continuation of frequency-response data for time-domain models will
also be given (aerodynamic ts). Next, in this chapter the concept of frequency-dependent
stability derivatives and frequency-dependent gust derivatives for complete aircraft cong-
urations is discussed. Furthermore, the steady symmetrical aerodynamic model is dened
in this chapter. Chapter 8 treats, along the same lines as in chapter 7, the numeri-
cal asymmetrical frequency-response functions and unsteady asymmetrical aerodynamic
model for the PCA-model. The (harmonic) degrees of freedom considered are now with re-
spect to swaying aircraft motions and antisymmetrical longitudinal-, asymmetrical lateral-
and anti-symmetrical vertical gusts. In chapter 9 the aircraft grid dened in chapter 6
is own through 2D spatial-domain gust elds. First, the aerodynamic force and moment
coecients acting on the aircraft geometry are calculated assuming a recti-linear ight-
path (no aircraft motions will be considered). Next, additional theory is given for the
so-called coupled-solution, that is the aircraft equations of motion are now coupled with
the potential ow solution. Chapters 10, 11 and 12 discuss the equations of motion of
aircraft subjected to both 1D longitudinal, lateral and vertical gusts and 2D longitudinal
and vertical gusts. In chapter 10 the mathematical aircraft model for the Parametric
Computational Aerodynamics model (or PCA-model) is introduced, and it includes the
equations of motion using both aerodynamic frequency-response functions (or frequency-
dependent stability- and gust derivatives) and an aerodynamic model in terms of constant
stability- and gust derivatives. Chapters 11 and 12 will discuss the equations of motion
for parametric aerodynamic models in terms of constant stability- and gust derivatives.
The aircraft models are based on the Delft University of Technology gust-response theory,
the DUT-model (chapter 11), and Etkins Four-Point-Aircraft model (or FPA model,
chapter 12). In these chapters, the constant stability derivatives obtained in chapter 10
will be used for simulations. A comparison of results of the PCA-, the DUT- and the
FPA-model is given in chapter 13. In this chapter both time- and frequency-domain
results, given in terms of aerodynamic coecients, will be compared to the ones obtained
from a time-domain Linearized Potential Flow simulation (the LPF-solution). In this
case no aircraft motions are taken into account (the aircraft (-grid) is traveling along a
prescribed recti-linear ightpath), thus the aerodynamic response is limited to gust elds
only. Also, time-domain aircraft motion results will be compared to results obtained for the
LPF-solution. First, the PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model aircraft motion simulations
will be compared to the ones obtained for the LPF-solution. These simulations make use
of the gust-induced aerodynamic coecients obtained for a recti-linear ightpath (exclud-
ing aircraft motions). Next, the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model aircraft motion simulations
are compared to results obtained from a Linearized Potential Flow simulation which is
coupled to the equations of motion (the so-called coupled-solution, designated as the
LPF-EOM-model). This simulation, in which the aerodynamic grid will be own through
stochastic 2D longitudinal, lateral and vertical gust elds, will be the ultimate test for
the parametric models presented in chapters 10, 11 and 12. Chapter 13 is followed by
iv Summary
conclusions and recommendations in chapter 14.
Since the research conducted for this thesis involved multiple disciplines, some of them are
explained in detail for their educational value. For example, the developed panel-methods
are described as a one to one mapping of the applied software codes. Furthermore the
recipe for determining the novel PCA-model equations of motion, including its parameters,
is outlined in detail.
Contents
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Goal of this thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Outline of this thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
I Atmospheric Turbulence Modeling 7
2 The atmospheric turbulence model 9
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2 Atmospheric turbulence modeling assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 Fundamental atmospheric turbulence correlation functions . . . . . . 14
2.3 The atmospheric turbulence covariance function matrix . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.1 The general covariance function matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.3.2 A 2D spatial separation example . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
2.4 The atmospheric turbulence PSD function matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.1 The general PSD function matrix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
2.4.2 Reduced spatial frequency dimension examples . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
2.5 Atmospheric turbulence model parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
2.6 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
II Linearized Potential Flow Theory 33
3 Steady linearized potential ow simulations 35
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
3.2 Short summary of steady linearized potential ow theory . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.1 Flow equations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
3.2.2 Boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
3.2.3 Wake separation and the Kutta condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
3.2.4 A general LPF solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3 Numerical steady linearized potential ow simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.1 Body surface discretization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
3.3.2 Quadri-lateral panels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
vi Contents
3.3.3 Numerical boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
3.3.4 Wake separation and the numerical Kutta condition . . . . . . . . . 50
3.3.5 General numerical source- and doublet-solutions . . . . . . . . . . . 51
3.3.6 Velocity perturbation calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
3.3.7 Aerodynamic pressure calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.3.8 Aerodynamic loads and aerodynamic coecients . . . . . . . . . . . 61
3.4 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
4 Unsteady linearized potential ow simulations 63
4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.2 Analytical unsteady aerodynamics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
4.2.2 The Theodorsen function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.2.3 The Sears function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
4.2.4 The Horlock function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
4.2.5 The Wagner function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
4.2.6 The K ussner function . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
4.3 Numerical unsteady linearized potential ow simulations . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
4.3.2 Kinematics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78
4.3.3 Numerical boundary conditions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 79
4.3.4 Unsteady wake-separation and the numerical Kutta condition . . . . 79
4.3.5 General numerical source- and doublet-solutions . . . . . . . . . . . 81
4.3.6 Velocity perturbation calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3.7 Aerodynamic pressure calculations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89
4.3.8 Aerodynamic loads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90
4.4 Examples of numerical unsteady aerodynamic simulations . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91
4.4.2 Theodorsen function simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.4.3 Sears function simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95
4.4.4 Horlock function simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
4.4.5 Wagner function simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
4.5 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102
III A Linearized Potential Flow Application 103
5 Aircraft motion perturbations and the atmospheric turbulence inputs 105
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
5.2 Aircraft motion denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.2.1 Translational velocity perturbations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107
5.2.2 Rotational velocity perturbations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.3 Atmospheric turbulence input denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
5.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111
Contents vii
5.3.2 1D Atmospheric gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
5.3.3 2D Atmospheric gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114
5.4 (Quasi-) Steady stability derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120
5.5 Aerodynamic frequency-response data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.6 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128
6 The aircraft grid and steady aerodynamic results 131
6.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.2 Aircraft geometry denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131
6.3 Wake geometry denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
6.4 PCA-model steady-state aerodynamic results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.4.1 A PCA-model steady-state solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
6.4.2 (Quasi-) Steady stability derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
6.4.3 Stability derivatives obtained from ight tests . . . . . . . . . . . . . 139
6.5 Unsteady wake geometry denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
6.6 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
7 PCA-model symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response functions 153
7.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 153
7.2 Generation of frequency-response data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.2.1 Initial condition denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.2.2 Time-domain simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154
7.2.3 Eect of the discretization time on frequency-response data . . . . . 155
7.3 Aircraft motion frequency-response results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.3.1 Breakdown of frequency-response data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
7.3.2 Aerodynamic tting results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 164
7.4 1D Atmospheric turbulence input frequency-response results . . . . . . . . . 166
7.5 Frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
7.6 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
8 PCA-model asymmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response functions 173
8.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173
8.2 Generation of frequency-response data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.2.1 Initial condition denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.2.2 Time-domain simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 174
8.2.3 Eect of the discretization time on frequency-response data . . . . . 175
8.3 Aircraft motion frequency-response results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 176
viii Contents
8.6 Frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 183
8.7 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
IV The Mathematical Aircraft Models 189
9 Time-domain LPF solutions for 2D atmospheric gust elds 191
9.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191
9.2 The time-domain LPF solution for recti-linear ightpaths . . . . . . . . . . 192
9.2.1 The initial condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
9.2.2 Generation of 2D spatial-domain gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 192
9.2.3 The ightpath denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
9.2.4 Decomposition of the 2D spatial-domain gust elds . . . . . . . . . . 194
9.2.5 gust eld interpolations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
9.2.6 The source denition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
9.2.7 Application of wake truncation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196
9.2.8 Calculation of aerodynamic coecients in T
aero
and T
S
. . . . . . . 198
9.2.9 Eect of the discretization time on the LPF-solution . . . . . . . . . 199
9.3 The time-domain LPF solution for stochastic ightpaths . . . . . . . . . . . 199
9.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
9.3.2 The LPF-EOM solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
9.4 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
10 The Parametric Computational Aerodynamics model 205
10.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205
10.2 The trim condition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
10.3 The atmospheric turbulence PSD-functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
10.4 The parametric aircraft model for 1D gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
10.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 206
10.4.2 Calculation of the unsteady stability derivatives . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
10.4.3 Calculation of the gust derivatives for 1D gust elds . . . . . . . . . 213
10.5 The parametric aircraft model for 2D gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
10.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
10.5.2 The frequency-domain aircraft responses to 2D gust elds . . . . . . 226
10.5.3 Calculation of the gust derivatives for 2D gust elds . . . . . . . . . 231
10.6 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
11 The Delft University of Technology model 247
11.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247
11.2 Atmospheric turbulence eld denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
11.3 Aerodynamic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
11.3.1 1D Symmetrical longitudinal gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 249
Contents ix
11.3.2 1D Asymmetrical lateral gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 250
11.3.3 1D Symmetrical vertical gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 254
11.3.4 2D Anti-symmetrical longitudinal gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 260
11.3.5 2D Anti-symmetrical vertical gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 265
11.4 The atmospheric turbulence PSD-functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
11.4.1 1D gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
11.4.2 2D gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 270
11.4.3 Eective 1D PSD-functions for 2D gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
11.5 Aircraft modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
11.5.1 Aircraft equations of motion for 1D gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . 274
11.6 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 277
12 The Four Point Aircraft model 283
12.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
12.2 The FPA-model gust inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
12.2.1 Denition of the gust inputs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
12.2.2 Correlation functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 284
12.2.3 PSD-functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 289
12.3 Aerodynamic models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
12.3.1 1D Symmetrical longitudinal gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 292
12.3.2 1D Asymmetrical lateral gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
12.3.3 1D Symmetrical vertical gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
12.3.4 2D Anti-symmetrical longitudinal gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
12.3.5 2D Anti-symmetrical vertical gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
12.4 Aircraft modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
12.5 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
V Comparison of Gust Response Calculations 301
13 Comparison of results and discussion 303
13.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 303
13.2 Overview of models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
13.2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 304
13.2.2 The LPF solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
13.2.3 The LPF-EOM-solution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 305
13.2.4 The PCA-model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 306
13.2.5 The DUT-model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307
13.2.6 The FPA-model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
13.3 Aerodynamic model responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
13.3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 309
x Contents
13.3.2 Time-domain results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312
13.3.3 Frequency-domain results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 317
13.4 Aircraft motion responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
13.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
13.4.2 Time-domain results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
13.4.3 Analytical frequency-domain results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 341
13.5 LPF-EOM-model simulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
13.5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 348
13.5.2 LPF-EOM model responses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 354
13.6 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 365
VI Conclusions and Recommendations 371
14 Conclusions and recommendations 373
14.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 373
14.2 Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
14.3 Recommendations for future research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
A Abbreviations and symbols 379
B Reference frames and denitions 387
B.1 Reference frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
B.1.1 The Atmosphere-Fixed Frame of Reference T
A
. . . . . . . . . . . . 387
B.1.2 The Aerodynamic Frame of Reference T
aero
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
B.1.3 The Body-Fixed Frame of Reference T
B
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
B.1.4 The Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference T
E
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
B.1.5 The Inertial Frame of Reference T
I
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
B.1.6 The Panel Frame of Reference T
P
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
B.1.7 The Rig Frame of Reference T
rig
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
B.1.8 The Stability Frame of Reference T
S
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
B.2 Denitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
B.2.1 The Fourier-transform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
B.2.2 The calculation of frequency-response functions from the state-space
representation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 394
B.2.3 The output Power Spectral Density function matrix . . . . . . . . . 395
C Quadrilateral source - and doublet elements 397
C.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
C.2 Quadri-lateral source elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 397
C.3 Quadri-lateral doublet elements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
D Stability - and gust derivative denitions 403
Contents xi
E Aerodynamic tting procedures 413
E.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 413
E.2 Frequency-response data extraction from time-domain simulations . . . . . 414
E.3 1D Analytical continuation of frequency-response data . . . . . . . . . . . . 416
E.4 2D Analytical continuation of frequency-response data . . . . . . . . . . . . 417
E.5 PSD-function ts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 419
F Aerodynamic t parameters for 2D atmospheric turbulence inputs 421
F.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 421
F.2 Parameter tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 422
G Spatial-domain gust elds, the ightpath denition and aerodynamic
model gust inputs 425
G.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 425
G.2 The generation of spatial-domain gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
G.2.1 3D Correlated gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
G.2.2 2D Uncorrelated gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 428
G.2.3 2D Correlated gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 430
G.2.4 The numerical simulation of 2D gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 431
G.2.5 Verication of the 2D gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
G.3 Denition of the ightpath and the encountered gust elds . . . . . . . . . . 440
G.3.1 Denition of the ightpath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
G.3.2 Denition of the encountered gust elds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 440
G.4 Summary of the denition of the aerodynamic model gust inputs . . . . . . 443
G.5 Remarks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 445
H The atmospheric turbulence PSD-functions for the equations of motion449
H.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 449
H.2 2D PSD-functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 450
H.3 1D PSD-functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 451
H.4 FPA-model PSD-functions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 452
I The aircraft equations of motion 461
I.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
I.2 The non-linear equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462
I.3 The linear time-invariant equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
I.3.1 Linearization of the equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 464
I.3.2 Equations of motion in the stability frame of reference . . . . . . . . 470
I.3.3 Non-dimensional equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
I.3.4 The non-dimensional equations of motion in state-space form . . . . 473
I.4 The linearized equations of motion in the frequency-domain . . . . . . . . . 475
I.4.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 475
I.4.2 Symmetrical equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
I.4.3 Asymmetrical equations of motion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 476
xii Contents
References 481
Samenvatting 485
Acknowledgements 489
Curriculum vitae 491
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Goal of this thesis
The response of aircraft to stochastic atmospheric turbulence plays an important role in,
for example, aircraft-design (load calculations) and ight-simulation (handling qualities
research and pilot training). In order to simulate these aircraft responses, an accurate
mathematical model is required. Two classical models will be discussed in this thesis, that
is the Delft University of Technology (DUT) model and the Four Point Aircraft (FPA)
model. Although they are well estabilished, their delity remains obscure. The cause
lies in one of the requirements for system identication; it has always been necessary to
relate inputs to outputs to determine, or identify, system dynamic characteristics. From
experiments, using both the measured input and the measured output, a mathematical
model of any system can be obtained. When considering an input-output system such
as an aircraft subjected to stochastic atmospheric turbulence, a major problem emerges.
During ight tests, no practical diculty arises measuring the aircraft-systems outputs,
such as the angle-of-attack, the pitch-angle, the roll-angle, etc.. However, a huge problem
arises when the input to the aircraft-system is considered; this input is stochastic atmos-
pheric turbulence in this thesis. Currently, it still remains extremely dicult to identify
the entire oweld around an aircrafts geometry subjected to a turbulent eld of ow;
an innite amount of sensors would be required to identify the atmospheric turbulence
velocity components distribution (the input) over it. As a consequence, it is dicult, if
not impossible, to identify atmospheric turbulence models from ight tests.
In an attempt to shed some more light on solving the problem of the response of aircraft
to atmospheric turbulence, the subject of this thesis, it depends on the formulation of
two distinct models: one of the atmospheric turbulence itself (the atmospheric turbulence
model), and the other of the aircrafts response to it (the mathematical aircraft model).
Regarding atmospheric turbulence modeling, in this thesis stochastic, stationary, homo-
geneous, isotropic atmospheric turbulence is considered as input to the aircraft model.
These models of atmospheric turbulence are well established, see references [2, 35, 1].
2 Introduction
As far as mathematical aircraft models are concerned, many of them have been proposed
before, see references [4, 5, 35, 25, 30]. However, verifying these models has always been
extremely dicult due to the identication problem indicated above. As part of the mathe-
matical aircraft model, (parametric) aerodynamic models often make use of (quasi-) steady
aerodynamic results; that is all steady aerodynamic parameters are estimated using either
results obtained from windtunnel experiments, handbook methods, Computational Aero-
dynamics (CA) which comprises Linearized Potential Flow (LPF) methods, or Compu-
tational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) which comprises Full-Potential, Euler and Navier-Stokes
methods.
Using handbook methods, unsteady aerodynamic eects, such as time-delays and the eect
of lift/moment build-up or transients, are usually added to the parametric aerodynamic
modeling process later. The delity of such models obtained from these methods is usually
improved by incorporating the eects of unsteady aerodynamics, that is the eect of air-
craft motion unsteady aerodynamics is often incorporated by the use of Theodorsen and
Wagner functions. Also, the aerodynamic models delity with respect to atmospheric tur-
bulence is increased by the use of Sears and K ussner functions. Although these analytical
mathematical aerodynamic models are enhanced using such functions, they still rely on
approximations. The eect of the unsteady wake, for example, is still treated as a steady
phenomenon. Furthermore, aerodynamic interactions between aircraft components (such
as wing and stabilizer) are neglected.
Presently, however, due to the enormous capabilities in computing power, the numeri-
cal simulation of both steady and unsteady airows over complex vehicle congurations
provides a versatile, and hopefully better, tool in estimating both the steady and un-
steady aerodynamic parameters of a mathematical aerodynamic model. Simulating the
time-dependent pressure distribution over a vehicles conguration, both the aerodynamic
forces and moments acting on the vehicle can now be calculated with adequate precision
and with quite reasonable reliability. These simulations include the previously mentioned
unsteady aerodynamic eects such as time-delays, unsteady aerodynamic eects regarding
the unsteady lift/moment build-up and unsteady eects regarding aerodynamic interac-
tion between the vehicles components (such as wing, horizontal stabilizer, vertical n,
nacelles, etc.).
In this thesis (unsteady) Linearized Potential Flow (LPF) methods, or commonly known
as panel methods, are used to identify both the time-dependent aerodynamic forces and
time-dependent moments acting on the aircraft geometry. Using a time-domain approach,
the mathematical aircraft model is identied for both aircraft motion and gust-response.
Using the steady panel method as a virtual windtunnel (without any windtunnel walls
and using a true scale vehicle model), the steady Parametric Computational Aerodyna-
mics (PCA) model is identied in terms of stability derivatives. As a test for the reliability
of the Linearized Potential Flow method, the steady stability derivatives will be compared
to results obtained from ight tests.
Compared to the identication of the steady PCA-model, identifying its unsteady part
1.1 Goal of this thesis 3
with respect to aircraft motion and gusts is quite a dierent problem and it requires a
dierent approach of identication. In this case the unsteady LPF method is used as a
virtual ight test facility, allowing aircraft motions unfeasible during ight test. Initially,
from harmonic time-domain simulations, the aerodynamic frequency-response functions
with respect to both aircraft motions and elementary gust elds are obtained. Using these
PCA-model frequency-response functions, which are in fact already models in themselves,
the aerodynamic model is given in terms of frequency-dependent aerodynamic parameters,
also known as stability derivatives and gust derivatives. Ultimately, using these frequency-
dependent stability derivatives and frequency-dependent gust derivatives, the PCA-model
in terms of constant (thus independent of frequency) stability- and gust derivatives is ob-
tained.
The promising developments in Computational Aerodynamics (and Computational Fluid
Dynamics) provide the necessary tool in identifying both the steady and unsteady aero-
dynamic models. A distinct advantage over windtunnel experiments and ight tests is
the possibility to compute the contribution of every single aircraft part (such as wing,
horizontal-stabilizer, fuselage, etc.) to each aerodynamic frequency-response function (or
to the stability derivatives and gust derivatives). An advantage which greatly attributes
in understanding the shape of PCA-model frequency-responses when plotted in Nyquist-
diagrams. Another distinct advantage of Computational Aerodynamics is the possibility
to let the considered vehicle perform manoeuvres which are impossible to perform during
ight tests (such as isolated surging, swaying and heaving aircraft motions). This last
advantage is also used for the simulation of the time-dependent aerodynamic forces and
moments due to atmospheric turbulence. Contrary to responses observed during ight
tests, the elimination of aircraft motion provides the possibility to simulate aerodynamic
responses to isolated atmospheric perturbations. Results of these simulations (the LPF-
solutions) will later be compared to results obtained using the gust derivative approach.
Three parametric mathematical aircraft models are considered in this thesis. The rst
model is based on simulated aerodynamic frequency-response functions. Using these func-
tions, the constant parameter aerodynamic model is derived. This model is dened as
the PCA-model. Having identied the PCA-model frequency-response functions, and
from them the PCA-model in terms of constant stability- and gust derivatives, aircraft
responses to both one-dimensional (1D) longitudinal, lateral and vertical gusts and two-
dimensional (2D) longitudinal and vertical gusts are simulated. These simulations will
include the frequency-response in terms of Power Spectral Density (PSD) functions of the
aircrafts motion variables, as well as the aircraft motion variables time-domain response.
The (classical) second and third model are the so-called Delft Univerity of Technology
model (DUT-model) and Etkins Four-Point Aircraft model (FPA-model), respectively,
which are also based on parametric aerodynamic models which rely on constant, thus
frequency-independent, parameters. However, the aerodynamic models now rely on sta-
bility derivatives only, whith the gust derivatives given as a function of them. The stability
derivatives used in these two models are equal to those obtained for the constant parameter
4 Introduction
PCA-model. For the DUT- and FPA-model, aircraft responses to both 1D longitudinal,
lateral and vertical gusts and 2D longitudinal and vertical gusts are simulated as well.
Similar to the PCA-model, these simulations will also include the frequency-response in
terms of Power Spectral Density (PSD) functions of the aircrafts motion variables, as well
as the aircraft motion variables time-domain response.
1.2 Outline of this thesis
The outline of this thesis is provided in gure 1.1.
After a short summary of the applied atmospheric turbulence model in chapter 2, the
theory of steady incompressible Linearized Potential Flow is given in chapter 3. Chapter
4 continues with a similar treatment as in chapter 3, discussing unsteady incompressible
Linearized Potential Flow. Both analytical frequency-response functions (or aerodynamic
transfer functions) and numerical frequency-response functions for isolated wings will also
be discussed in this chapter. In chapter 5 the denition of specic aircraft motion per-
turbations and atmospheric turbulence inputs will be given. Chapter 6 discusses the
aircraft grid for the example aircraft. This grid will be used for both steady and unsteady
Linearized Potential Flow simulations. For aerodynamic model identication purposes,
the aircraft grid dened in chapter 6 is used in chapter 7 where the numerical symme-
trical aerodynamic frequency-response functions are given for the PCA-model. They are
determined with respect to aircraft motions in surge and heave, and to both longitudinal
and vertical gusts. All perturbations in aircraft motion and gusts are of harmonic nature.
Results of the analytical continuation of frequency-response data for time-domain models
will also be given (aerodynamic ts).
Next, in this chapter the concept of frequency-dependent stability derivatives and frequency-
dependent gust derivatives for complete aircraft congurations is discussed. Furthermore,
the steady symmetrical aerodynamic model is dened in this chapter. Chapter 8 treats,
along the same lines as in chapter 7, the numerical asymmetrical frequency-response func-
tions and unsteady asymmetrical aerodynamic model for the PCA-model. The (harmonic)
degrees of freedom considered are now with respect to swaying aircraft motions and an-
tisymmetrical longitudinal-, asymmetrical lateral- and anti-symmetrical vertical gusts. In
chapter 9 the aircraft grid dened in chapter 6 is own through 2D spatial-domain
gust elds. First, the aerodynamic force and moment coecients acting on the aircraft
geometry are calculated assuming a recti-linear ightpath (no aircraft motions will be
considered). Next, additional theory is given for the so-called coupled-solution, that is
the aircraft equations of motion are now coupled with the potential ow solution.
Chapters 10, 11 and 12 discuss the equations of motion of aircraft subjected to both
1D longitudinal, lateral and vertical gusts and 2D longitudinal and vertical gusts. In
chapter 10 the mathematical aircraft model for the Parametric Computational Aerody-
namics model (or PCA-model) is introduced, and it includes the equations of motion
using both aerodynamic frequency-response functions (or frequency-dependent stability-
and gust derivatives) and an aerodynamic model in terms of constant stability- and gust
1.2 Outline of this thesis 5
P S f r a g r e p l a c e m e n t s
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
1
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
2
T
h
e
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c
t
u
r
b
u
l
e
n
c
e
m
o
d
e
l
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
3
S
t
e
a
d
y
l
i
n
e
a
r
i
z
e
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
o
w
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
4
U
n
s
t
e
a
d
y
l
i
n
e
a
r
i
z
e
d
p
o
t
e
n
t
i
a
l
o
w
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
5
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
p
e
r
t
u
r
b
a
t
i
o
n
s
a
n
d
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c
t
u
r
b
u
l
e
n
c
e
i
n
p
u
t
s
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
6
T
h
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
g
r
i
d
&
s
t
e
a
d
y
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
7
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
8
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
9
T
i
m
e
-
d
o
m
a
i
n
L
P
F
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
:
2
D
a
t
m
o
s
p
h
e
r
i
c
g
u
s
t
e
l
d
s
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
1
0
T
h
e
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
r
i
c
C
o
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
m
o
d
e
l
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
1
1
T
h
e
D
e
l
f
t
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
m
o
d
e
l
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
1
2
T
h
e
F
o
u
r
-
P
o
i
n
t
-
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
d
e
l
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
1
3
C
o
m
p
a
r
i
s
o
n
o
f
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
&
d
i
s
c
u
s
s
i
o
n
C
H
A
P
T
E
R
1
4
C
o
n
c
l
u
s
i
o
n
s
&
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
a
t
i
o
n
s
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
.
1
:
T
h
i
s
t
h
e
s
i
s
o
v
e
r
v
i
e
w
.
6 Introduction
derivatives. Chapters 11 and 12 will discuss the equations of motion for parametric aero-
dynamic models in terms of constant stability- and gust derivatives. The aircraft models
are based on the Delft University of Technology gust-response theory, the DUT-model
(chapter 11), and Etkins Four-Point-Aircraft model (or FPA model, chapter 12). In
these chapters, the constant stability derivatives obtained in chapter 10 will be used for
simulations. A comparison of results of the PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model is given
in chapter 13. In this chapter both time- and frequency-domain results, given in terms
of aerodynamic coecients, will be compared to the ones obtained from a time-domain Li-
nearized Potential Flow simulation (the LPF-solution). In this case no aircraft motions are
taken into account (the aircraft (-grid) is traveling along a prescribed recti-linear ight-
path), thus the aerodynamic response is limited to gust elds only. Also, time-domain
aircraft motion results will be compared to results obtained for the LPF-solution. First,
the PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model aircraft motion simulations will be compared to
the ones obtained for the LPF-solution. These simulations make use of the gust-induced
aerodynamic coecients obtained for a recti-linear ightpath (excluding aircraft motions).
Next, the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model aircraft motion simulations are compared to results
obtained from a Linearized Potential Flow simulation which is coupled to the equations
of motion (the so-called coupled-solution, designated as the LPF-EOM-model). This
simulation, in which the aerodynamic grid will be own through stochastic 2D longitu-
dinal, lateral and vertical gust elds, will be the ultimate test for the parametric models
presented in chapters 10, 11 and 12. Chapter 13 is followed by conclusions and recom-
mendations in chapter 14.
Since the research conducted for this thesis involved multiple disciplines, some of them are
explained in detail for their educational value. For example, the developed panel-methods
are described as a one to one mapping of the applied software codes. Furthermore the
recipe for determining the novel PCA-model equations of motion, including its parameters,
is outlined in detail.
Part I
Atmospheric Turbulence
Modeling
Chapter 2
The atmospheric turbulence
model
2.1 Introduction
In this chapter the atmospheric turbulence models used in this thesis and their limitations
will be discussed. These models are given in terms of atmospheric turbulence velocity
components that can be considered as uctuations superposed on a mean wind. Since
mean wind is a problem primarily of importance for navigation and guidance, its eects
are not considered and throughout this thesis the mean wind is assumed to be zero.
The theory of atmospheric turbulence modeling is based on the work of Batchelor, see
reference [2]. This chapter summarizes the denitions of the atmospheric turbulence co-
variance function matrix and the atmospheric turbulence Power Spectral Density (PSD)
function matrix as they will be used throughout this thesis. Furthermore, it provides the
general denition of both the covariance function matrix and the PSD function matrix of
three-dimensional (3D), correlated, stationary, homegeneous, isotropic atmospheric tur-
bulence. The atmospheric turbulence models will be used to calculate aircraft responses
to random gusts in the following chapters.
The presented atmospheric turbulence model holds for high altitudes (Clear Air Turbu-
lence (CAT)).
2.2 Atmospheric turbulence modeling assumptions
Atmospheric turbulence is a random process which describes the chaotic motion of the
air. The gust velocity vector u = [u
1
, u
2
, u
3
]
T
is a function of the position vector r =
[x
1
, x
2
, x
3
]
T
in the Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference T
E
(which is dened in appendix B)
and of time t. The wind velocity vector at an arbitrary point P in T
E
is written as the
10 The atmospheric turbulence model
vectorial sum of the mean wind and the randomly uctuating atmospheric turbulence,
u
(r, t) = u
0
+u(r, t) (2.1)
or,
u
1
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t) = u
1
0
+u
1
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t) (2.2)
u
2
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t) = u
2
0
+u
2
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t) (2.3)
u
3
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t) = u
3
0
+u
3
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t) (2.4)
Both the mean wind velocity components (u
0
= [u
1
0
, u
2
0
, u
3
0
]
T
) and the atmospheric tur-
bulence velocity components ( u(r, t) = [u
1
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t), u
2
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t), u
3
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t)]
T
)
are described in the frame T
E
and are taken positive in respectively the X
E
-, Y
E
- and
Z
E
-direction of T
E
. The position P in T
E
is given by the coordinates of the position
vector r = [x
1
, x
2
, x
3
]
T
.
Since the eect of mean winds are not considered in this thesis, it is assumed that
u
1
0
= u
2
0
= u
3
0
= 0. Note that the mean wind components are independent of posi-
tion and time, hence they are both spatially- and time-averaged.
Now, the atmospheric turbulence velocity vector is written as,
u(r, t) = [u
1
(r, t), u
2
(r, t), u
3
(r, t)]
T
=
= [u
1
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t), u
2
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t), u
3
(x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t)]
T
(2.5)
The atmospheric turbulence velocity vector u, as dened in equation (2.5), is random and
describes a multivariate (u
1
, u
2
, u
3
) and multivariable (x
1
, x
2
, x
3
, t) stochastic process.
The purpose is now to obtain a general statistical description of atmospheric turbulence
by making use of either the covariance functions or the PSD functions.
When deriving the atmospheric turbulence covariance functions, the relative separation in
time , instead of absolute time t, and the relative spatial separation vector = [
1
,
2
,
3
]
T
,
instead of the absolute position vector r = [x
1
, x
2
, x
3
]
T
, will be dened. Similar to the
absolute position vector r, the spatial separation is given in T
E
.
Using the spatial separation = [
1
,
2
,
3
]
T
and time separation , the general matrix of
covariance functions, C
uu
(r, t; r +, t +) becomes,
C
uu
(r, t; r +, t +) = E
_
u(r, t) u(r +, t +)
_
= (2.6)
=
_
_
E
_
u
1
(r, t) u
1
(r + , t + )
_
E
_
u
1
(r, t) u
2
(r + , t + )
_
E
_
u
1
(r, t) u
3
(r + , t + )
_
E
_
u
2
(r, t) u
1
(r + , t + )
_
E
_
u
2
(r, t) u
2
(r + , t + )
_
E
_
u
2
(r, t) u
3
(r + , t + )
_
E
_
u
3
(r, t) u
1
(r + , t + )
_
E
_
u
3
(r, t) u
2
(r + , t + )
_
E
_
u
3
(r, t) u
3
(r + , t + )
_
_
_
where E denotes the expectation operator.
2.2 Atmospheric turbulence modeling assumptions 11
The Fourier transform, which is dened in appendix B, of the covariance function matrix,
equation (2.6), results in the PSD function matrix, S
uu
(r, t; , ),
S
uu
(r, t; , ) =
+
_
+
_
+
_
+
_
C
uu
(r, t; r +, t +) e
j(+)
d
1
d
2
d
3
d (2.7)
In equation (2.7), four integrals appear due to the four variables
1
,
2
,
3
and . The
spatial frequency vector = [
1
,
2
,
3
]
T
, with (for example)
1
=
2
1
where
1
is the
wave length in X
E
-direction, naturally arises in the Fourier transformation as the dual of
the circular frequency belonging to time separation .
As an example of an elementary two-dimensional (2D) harmonic atmospheric turbulence
eld with
1
=
2
1
and
2
=
2
2
, see gure 2.1. This elementary 2D turbulence eld is
regarded as one component of the ensemble of an innite amount of 2D turbulence elds,
modulated in amplitude by the atmospheric turbulence PSD function.
Notice that the general expression of the PSD function matrix may dier from point
to point (r) and from time to time (t), and therefore is actually a function of r and t.
The inverse Fourier transform of the PSD function matrix S
uu
(r, t; , ) results in the
covariance function matrix C
uu
(r, t; r +, t +),
C
uu
(r, t; r +, t +) =
1
(2)
4
+
_
+
_
+
_
+
_
S
uu
(r, t; , )e
+j(+)
d
1
d
2
d
3
d (2.8)
The covariance function matrix, see for example equation (2.6), is a 3x3 matrix where
each matrix-element is an ensemble average of the product of two atmospheric turbulence
velocity components separated in both space and time.
Next, several assumptions regarding the atmospheric turbulence process are made that
will lead to considerable simplications in both the covariance function matrix and the
PSD function matrix:
Assumption 1
Atmospheric turbulence is a stationary process
The most general case allows the atmospheric turbulence statistics to vary from point
to point and time to time, see equation (2.6). A fact of great practical importance
is, however, that the speed of an air particle in the atmosphere is constraint to
relatively slow uctuations in time. Now, suppose that an aircraft ies in a turbu-
lent atmosphere. It will then encounter the stochastically uctuating atmospheric
turbulence components u
1
, u
2
and u
3
. Aircraft usually y at speeds much greater
than the encountered atmospheric turbulence velocities, thus a relatively large patch
of atmospheric turbulence can be traversed in a time so short that the atmospheric
PSfrag replacements
1
=
2
1
2
=
2
2
O
E
X
E
Y
E
Z
E
Figure 2.1: An elementary 2D harmonic atmospheric turbulence eld in F
E
with
1
=
2
1
and
2
=
2
2
.
turbulence velocity components shall not change signicantly. This amounts to ne-
glecting time t in the argument of u(r, t), see equation (2.6), that is treating atmo-
spheric turbulence as a frozen pattern in the atmosphere (also known as Taylors
hypothesis, see references [1, 30]). The general expressions for the covariance func-
tion matrix and the PSD function matrix simplify to, respectively, C
uu
(r; r +) and
S
uu
(r; ).
Assumption 2
Atmospheric turbulence is homogeneous along the ightpath
At higher altitudes, atmospheric turbulence appears to occur in large patches, each
of which can reasonably be considered to be homogeneous although the atmospheric
turbulence characteristics may dier from patch to patch, see also reference [30].
Near the earths surface fairly large changes in the atmospheric turbulence velocity
components occur as a function of altitude (induced by vertical windshear). However,
for aircraft in nearly horizontal ight, homogenity of atmospheric turbulence along
the ight path is a reasonable approximation. As a consequence of this assumption,
the dependency of both the covariance function matrix and the PSD function matrix
on the position vector r vanishes. It is now possible to write the matrices C
uu
(r; r+)
and S
uu
(r; ) as C
uu
() and S
uu
(), respectively. Notice that when atmospheric
turbulence is stationary and homogeneous it is also ergodic, and therefore ensemble
averages may be replaced by time averages.
2.2 Atmospheric turbulence modeling assumptions 13
Assumption 3
Atmospheric turbulence is an isotropic process
In general, the statistical functions describing atmospheric turbulence depend on the
directions of the axes of T
E
. This especially is the case in the earths boundary layer.
When this dependency is absent, and there is evidence that this is the case at higher
altitudes, atmospheric turbulence is considered to be isotropic, i.e. all statistical
properties are independent of the orientation of the axes (T
E
), see reference [1, 30].
As a result of isotropy, the three mean-square (variance) atmospheric turbulence
velocity components are equal, or,
2
u
1
=
2
u
2
=
2
u
3
=
2
(2.9)
with
2
u
i
, i = 1 3 the variance of the atmospheric turbulence velocity components.
A typical value for the variance at higher altitude is
2
= 1
_
m
2
s
2
_
, a value used
throughout this thesis. For typical values of
2
u
1
,
2
u
2
and
2
u
3
in ground eect, see
reference [30].
Assumption 4
Atmospheric turbulence is a random process with Gaussian distribution
Although this assumption has no eect on the form of the atmospheric turbulence
covariance functions and PSD functions, this assumption is of practical importance
for the analysis of atmospheric turbulence elds and the analysis of aircraft responses
to them. However, it has been shown from experiments that atmospheric turbulence
is not necessarily Gaussian, see reference [6].
Assumption 5
Atmospheric turbulence velocity components have zero mean
The assumptions that the atmospheric turbulence process is stationairy and that
the atmospheres mean winds are not considered in this thesis, leads to,
u
1
=
u
2
=
u
3
= 0 (2.10)
with
u
i
, i = 1 3 the mean of the atmospheric turbulence velocity components.
Using the assumptions indicated above, the covariance function matrix and the PSD func-
tion matrix become,
C
uu
() =
_
C
u
i
u
j
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
= [E u
i
(
1
,
2
,
3
)u
j
(
1
,
2
,
3
)]
=
_
_
C
u
1
u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
) C
u
1
u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
) C
u
1
u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
C
u
2
u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
) C
u
2
u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
) C
u
2
u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
C
u
3
u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
) C
u
3
u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
) C
u
3
u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
_
_
=
_
_
E
_
u
1
(0) u
1
()
_
E
_
u
1
(0) u
2
()
_
E
_
u
1
(0) u
3
()
_
E
_
u
2
(0) u
1
()
_
E
_
u
2
(0) u
2
()
_
E
_
u
2
(0) u
3
()
_
E
_
u
3
(0) u
1
()
_
E
_
u
3
(0) u
2
()
_
E
_
u
3
(0) u
3
()
_
_
_
and,
S
uu
() =
_
S
u
i
u
j
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
=
_
_
S
u
1
u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
1
u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
1
u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
S
u
2
u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
2
u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
2
u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
S
u
3
u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
3
u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
3
u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
_
_
with i = 1, 2, 3, j = 1, 2, 3, = [
1
,
2
,
3
]
T
, 0 = [0, 0, 0]
T
and = [
1
,
2
,
3
]
T
.
Due to the assumptions and simplications made above, two fundamental one-dimensional
(1D) correlation functions can be dened, see references [5, 30, 4, 2] (they will be discussed
in section 2.2.1). The general covariance function matrix and the general PSD function
matrix will be summarized in sections 2.3 and 2.4, respectively.
2.2.1 Fundamental atmospheric turbulence correlation functions
The atmospheric turbulence velocity components u
1
, u
2
and u
3
, as given in section 2.2,
are parallel to the X
E
-, Y
E
- and Z
E
-axis of T
E
, respectively. It should also be noted
that with the assumptions made in section 2.2, the atmospheric turbulence velocity com-
ponents u
1
, u
2
and u
3
are written as u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
), u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
) and u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
). The
vector = [
1
,
2
,
3
]
T
is the position (or spatial separation) of an arbitrary point in T
E
with respect to the origin of T
E
, O
E
, thus relating the atmospheric turbulence velocity
components at [
1
,
2
,
3
]
T
to the turbulence velocity components present at the origin O
E
of the frame T
E
.
Due to the simplications made in section 2.2, two fundamental 1D correlation functions
can now be formulated to describe the 1D correlation between atmospheric turbulence
velocity components, see also references [4, 1, 30]. They are referred to as fundamental
as they form the basis for the derivation of the the multi-dimensional correlation func-
tions used throughout this thesis. With =

, these fundamental correlation functions

according to Dryden are dened as,
The 1D longitudinal correlation function f(),
f() =
E u
long
(0)u
long
()
2
= e

L
g
(2.11)
2.3 The atmospheric turbulence covariance function matrix 15
The longitudinal correlation function f() describes the correlation of the atmo-
spheric turbulence velocity component along the connection line of two points, with
these two points spatially separated over distance , see gure 2.2.
The 1D lateral correlation function g(),
g() =
E u
lat
(0)u
lat
()
2
= e

L
g
_
1

2L
g
_
(2.12)
The lateral correlation function g() describes the correlation of the atmospheric
turbulence velocity component perpendicular to the connection line of two points,
with these two points spatially separated over distance , see gure 2.3.
In equations (2.11) and (2.12) the variable L
g
is given. This variable is also known as the
turbulence scale length or the integral scale of turbulence. The relation between the
fundamental 1D longitudinal correlation function, f(), and the turbulence scale length
L
g
is,
L
g
=
+
_
0
f()d =
+
_
0
e

L
g
d = L
g
+
_
0
e

L
g
d

L
g
= L
g
+
_
0
e
p
dp
Bearing in mind that,
+
_
0
e
p
p
n
dp = n!
and with taking n to be zero, it follows that,
L
g
= L
g
+
_
0
e
p
dp = L
g
0! = L
g
(2.13)
Finally, it should be noted that the atmospheric turbulence velocity components covari-
ance function is calculated by multiplying the appropriate correlation function by the
variance
2
of the atmospheric turbulence velocities (see also assumption 3 in section 2.2).
2.3 The atmospheric turbulence covariance function
matrix
2.3.1 The general covariance function matrix
In section 2.2.1 the fundamental 1D correlation functions f() and g() were summarized.
They only hold for spatial separations along a straight line and they are only valid for
either separated turbulence velocity components along or perpendicular to the separation
line, see for example gure 2.4.
PSfrag replacements
u
long
(0)
u
long
()
/L
g
f(/L
g
)
(a) Longitudinal correlation
10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
PSfrag replacements
u
long
(0)
u
long
()
/L
g
f
(
/
L
g
)
(b) Longitudinal correlation function
Figure 2.2: Longitudinal correlation.
PSfrag replacements
u
lat
(0)
u
lat
()
/L
g
g(/L
g
)
(a) Lateral correlation
10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4 6 8 10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
PSfrag replacements
u
lat
(0)
u
lat
()
/L
g
g
(
/
L
g
)
(b) Lateral correlation function
Figure 2.3: Lateral correlation.
However, an aircrafts ight path is never exactly aligned with either of the three axes
of the frame T
E
. Because aerodynamic eects due to the nite dimensions of aircraft
ying through the turbulent atmosphere are of importance (see chapters 7 through 12),
the covariance function matrix C
uu
() of the atmospheric turbulence velocity components
[u
1
, u
2
, u
3
]
T
for the arbitrary spatial separation vector = [
1
,
2
,
3
]
T
is required. Based
on the two fundamental 1D correlation functions, f() and g(), Batchelor (see reference
[2]) introduced a general correlation function matrix for arbitrary spatial separations in
three dimensions. The correlation functions matrix elements are written as,
R
u
i
u
j
() =
C
u
i
u
j
()
2
=
f(
) g(
2

i

j
+g(
)
ij
(2.14)
PSfrag replacements
u
1
(0, 0, 0)
u
2
(0, 0, 0)
u
3
(0, 0, 0)
u
1
(
1
, 0, 0)
u
2
(
1
, 0, 0)
u
3
(
1
, 0, 0)
u
1
(0,
2
, 0)
u
2
(0,
2
, 0)
u
3
(0,
2
, 0)
u
1
(0, 0,
3
)
u
2
(0, 0,
3
)
u
3
(0, 0,
3
)
3
X
E
Y
E
Z
E
O
E
Figure 2.4: Limitations in spatial separation for the fundamental 1D longitudinal (f()) and
lateral (g()) correlation functions.
or, for the elements of the covariance function matrix they are written as,
C
u
i
u
j
() =
2
_
f(
) g(
2

i

j
+g(
)
ij
_
(2.15)
with in equations (2.14) and (2.15) the indices, i = 1, 2, 3 and j = 1, 2, 3,
ij
the Kronecker
delta,
2
the variance of atmospheric turbulence,
= =
_
2
1
+
2
2
+
2
3
the spatial sepa-
ration, and f and g the longitudinal and lateral correlation functions according to Dryden,
respectively. The indices i and j dene the direction of the spatial separation component
and they dene the direction of the atmospheric turbulence velocity component, so
1
,
2
and
3
are spatial separations along, respectively, the X
E
-, Y
E
- and Z
E
-axis, while u
1
,
u
2
and u
3
are the turbulence velocity components along, respectively, the X
E
-, Y
E
- and
Z
E
-axis.
PSfrag replacements
u
1
(0, 0, 0)
u
2
(0, 0, 0)
u
3
(0, 0, 0)
u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
3
P(
1
,
2
,
3
)
r =
_
2
1
+
2
2
+
2
3
X
E
Y
E
Z
E
O
E
Figure 2.5: Atmospheric turbulence velocity components for two points in F
E
, spatially separated
in three dimensions.
At rst glance, equations (2.14) and (2.15) seem complicated. However, these equations
should in fact be considered as a short-hand notation for the components of the cor-
relation function matrix and covariance function matrix, since all elements R
u
i
u
j
(), or
C
u
i
u
j
(), can be derived considering the 3D spatial separation in T
E
, see gure 2.5. For
example, consider the connection line between the Earth-Fixed Frame of References origin
O
E
and the arbitrary point P(
1
,
2
,
3
), spatially separated in three dimensions. If the
atmospheric turbulence velocity components in origin O
E
and point P are decomposed in
the direction of this connection line and perpendicular to it, the components of the corre-
lation function matrix R
u
i
u
j
() can be derived.
In section 2.3.2 a simple 2D spatial separation example is given. Components of the
covariance function matrix C
u
i
u
j
(), with i = 1, 2, 3 j = 1, 2, 3 and the spatial separation
= [
1
,
2
, 0]
T
, will be derived.
2.3.2 A 2D spatial separation example
As a simple example, a derivation of the atmospheric turbulence covariance function ma-
trix elements C
u
i
u
j
() with spatial separation in only two dimensions will be given, see
also gure 2.6. Although this example is easily derived from Batchelors theorem, see
reference [2], it is not frequently reported in the literature. For this example only spa-
tial separation in the O
E
X
E
Y
E
-plane is taken into account, the spatial separation vector
becomes = [
1
,
2
, 0]
T
. The derived PSD functions of atmospheric turbulence will be
applied in chapters 10, 11 and 12.
For the calculation of the covariance function matrix elements C
u
i
u
j
() = C
u
i
u
j
(
1
,
2
, 0),
consider the connection line between the Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference origin O
E
and
the arbitrary point P(
1
,
2
, 0), spatially separated in two dimensions. The atmospheric
turbulence covariance function matrix of interest is,
_
C
u
i
u
j
()
=
_
_
C
u
1
u
1
(
1
,
2
, 0) C
u
1
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0) C
u
1
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0)
C
u
2
u
1
(
1
,
2
, 0) C
u
2
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0) C
u
2
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0)
C
u
3
u
1
(
1
,
2
, 0) C
u
3
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0) C
u
3
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0)
_
_
(2.16)
with for a covariance function matrix element,
C
u
i
u
j
() = C
u
i
u
j
(
1
,
2
, 0) = E u
i
(0, 0, 0)u
j
(
1
,
2
, 0)
Note that the atmospheric turbulence covariance matrix is symmetrical, therefore C
u
1
u
2
() =
C
u
2
u
1
(), C
u
1
u
3
() = C
u
3
u
1
() and C
u
2
u
3
() = C
u
3
u
2
().
In gure 2.7 a top view of gure 2.6 is presented. This gure shows the atmospheric
turbulence velocity components at origin O
E
, u
1
(0, 0, 0) and u
2
(0, 0, 0), and at P(
1
,
2
, 0),
u
1
(
1
,
2
, 0) and u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0), decomposed in a direction along the O
E
P connection line
and decomposed perpendicular to the connection line O
E
P. At the origin of T
E
and the
spatially separated arbitrary point P(
1
,
2
, 0), the atmospheric turbulence velocities are
written as,
u(0) =
_
_
u
1
(0, 0, 0)
u
2
(0, 0, 0)
u
3
(0, 0, 0)
_
_
and,
u() =
_
_
u
1
(
1
,
2
, 0)
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0)
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0)
_
_
respectively.
In order to calculate the elements of the covariance function matrix, see equation (2.16), the
atmospheric turbulence velocity components of u(0) and u() are decomposed in elements
along the separation line O
E
P and in elements perpendicular to the separation line O
E
P,
see also gures 2.6 and 2.7. For the origin of the Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference O
E
, the
three atmospheric turbulence velocity components are written as,
u
1
(0, 0, 0) = u
1
long
(0, 0, 0) sin +u
1
lat
(0, 0, 0) cos
u
2
(0, 0, 0) = u
2
long
(0, 0, 0) cos +u
2
lat
(0, 0, 0) sin
u
3
(0, 0, 0) = u
3
(0, 0, 0)
PSfrag replacements
u
1
(0, 0, 0)
u
2
(0, 0, 0)
u
3
(0, 0, 0)
u
1
(
1
,
2
, 0)
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0)
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0)
2
P(
1
,
2
, 0)
r =
_
2
1
+
2
2
X
E
Y
E
Z
E
O
E
Figure 2.6: Atmospheric turbulence velocity components for two points in F
E
, spatially separated
in two dimensions in the O
E
X
E
Y
E
-plane.
For the arbitrary point P(
1
,
2
, 0) these three atmospheric turbulence velocity components
become,
u
1
(
1
,
2
, 0) = u
1
long
(
1
,
2
, 0) sin +u
1
lat
(
1
,
2
, 0) cos
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0) = u
2
long
(
1
,
2
, 0) cos +u
2
lat
(
1
,
2
, 0) sin
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0) = u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0)
with sin =

1
r
=

1
2
1
+
2
2
, cos =

2
r
=

2
2
1
+
2
2
and r =
_
2
1
+
2
2
. The atmospheric
turbulence velocity components u
1
long
and u
1
lat
are the decompositions of u
1
on the line
O
E
P and a line perpendicular to it (through origin O
E
), respectively. Similar to u
1
long
and u
1
lat
, u
2
long
and u
2
lat
are the decompositions of u
2
on the line O
E
P and a line
perpendicular to it (through point P), respectively.
The elements of the atmospheric turbulence covariance function matrix can be derived by
calculating each C
u
i
u
j
() = C
u
i
u
j
(
1
,
2
, 0) = E u
i
(0, 0, 0)u
j
(
1
,
2
, 0) = E
_
u
i
(0)u
j
()
_
.
For example, with 0 = [0, 0, 0]
T
and = [
1
,
2
, 0]
T
, the following expression for C
u
1
u
1
()
can be derived,
C
u
1
u
1
() = E
_
u
1
(0)u
1
()
_
(2.17)
= E
__
u
1
long
(0) sin +u
1
lat
(0) cos
_ _
u
1
long
() sin +u
1
lat
() cos
__
PSfrag replacements
u
1
(0, 0, 0)
u
2
(0, 0, 0)
u
3
(0, 0, 0)
u
1
(
1
,
2
, 0)
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0)
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0)
u1lat
(0, 0, 0)
u2lat
(0, 0, 0)
u1long
(0, 0, 0)
u2long
(0, 0, 0)
u1lat
(1, 2, 0)
u2lat
(1, 2, 0)
u1long
(1, 2, 0)
u2long
(1, 2, 0)
2
P(
1
,
2
, 0)
r =
_
2
1
+
2
2
X
E
Y
E
Z
E
O
E
Figure 2.7: Decomposition of atmospheric turbulence velocity components for two points in F
E
,
spatially separated in two dimensions in the O
E
X
E
Y
E
-plane, top view of gure 2.6.
= E
__
u
1
long
(0)

1
r
+u
1
lat
(0)

2
r
__
u
1
long
()

1
r
+u
1
lat
()

2
r
__
= E
_
u
1
long
(0)u
1
long
()
_
1
r
_
2
+u
1
lat
(0)u
1
lat
()
_
2
r
_
2
+
u
1
long
(0)u
1
lat
()
_
2
r
2
_
+u
1
lat
(0)u
1
long
()
_
2
r
2
__
Considering the atmospheric turbulence modeling assumptions made in section 2.2, which
resulted in the application of the fundamental 1D correlation functions f() and g(), see
equations (2.11) and (2.12), the following denitions are used to simplify equation (2.17),
E
_
u
1
long
(0)u
1
long
()
_
=
2
f()
E
_
u
1
lat
(0)u
1
lat
()
_
=
2
g()
E
_
u
1
long
(0)u
1
lat
()
_
= 0
E
_
u
1
lat
(0)u
1
long
()
_
= 0
with =
_
2
1
+
2
2
.
The covariance function C
u
1
u
1
() can now be written as,
C
u
1
u
1
(
1
,
2
, 0) =
2
_
f()
_
1
r
_
2
+g()
_
2
r
_
2
_
(2.18)
The remaining (auto) covariance functions can be derived in a similar manner, they turn
out to be,
C
u
2
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0) =
2
_
f()
_
2
r
_
2
+g()
_
1
r
_
2
_
C
u
3
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0) =
2
g()
The remaining (cross) covariance functions are,
C
u
1
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0) =
2
(f() g())

1
2
r
2
C
u
1
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0) = 0
C
u
2
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0) = 0
As an illustration , the covariance functions C
u
1
u
1
(
1
,
2
, 0), C
u
2
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0), C
u
1
u
2
(
1
,
2
, 0)
and C
u
3
u
3
(
1
,
2
, 0) are plotted in gures 2.8, 2.9, 2.10 and 2.11. Note that the variance of
the atmospheric turbulence velocity components was chosen as
2
= 1
_
m
2
s
2
_
and that the
covariance functions are plotted as a function of the non-dimensional spatial separation
1
L
g
and

2
L
g
, with L
g
the gust scale length.
Each of the covariance function matrix elements in equation (2.16) can be calculated by
using Batchelors short-hand notation for the covariance function matrix elements as given
by equation (2.15) with = [
1
,
2
, 0]
T
.
2.4 The atmospheric turbulence PSD function matrix
2.4.1 The general PSD function matrix
Similar to the atmospheric turbulence covariance function matrix, C
uu
(), the atmospheric
turbulence PSD matrix is written as,
S
uu
() =
_
S
u
i
u
j
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
=
_
_
S
u
1
u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
1
u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
1
u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
S
u
2
u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
2
u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
2
u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
S
u
3
u
1
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
3
u
2
(
1
,
2
,
3
) S
u
3
u
3
(
1
,
2
,
3
)
_
_
with i = 1, 2, 3, j = 1, 2, 3 and = [
1
,
2
,
3
]
T
.
2.4 The atmospheric turbulence PSD function matrix 23
10
5
0
5
10
10
5
0
5
10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
PSfrag replacements
1
Lg
2
Lg
C
u
1
u
1
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
,
0
)
Figure 2.8: 2D Covariance function C
u
1
u
1
(

1
L
g
,

2
L
g
, 0).
10
5
0
5
10
10
5
0
5
10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
PSfrag replacements
1
Lg
2
Lg
C
u
2
u
2
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
,
0
)
u
2
u
2
(

1
L
g
,

2
L
g
, 0).
10
5
0
5
10
10
5
0
5
10
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
PSfrag replacements
1
Lg
2
Lg
C
u
1
u
2
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
,
0
)
u
1
u
2
(

1
L
g
,

2
L
g
, 0).
10
5
0
5
10
10
5
0
5
10
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
PSfrag replacements
1
Lg
2
Lg
C
u
3
u
3
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
,
0
)
u
3
u
3
(

1
L
g
,

2
L
g
, 0).
Considering the assumptions made in section 2.2 regarding the modeling of atmospheric
turbulence, the PSD function matrix elements for 3D atmospheric turbulence are calcu-
lated by Fourier transforming the covariance function matrix elements, equation (2.15),
S
u
i
u
j
() =
+
_
+
_
+
_
C
u
i
u
j
() e
j
d (2.19)
or,
S
u
i
u
j
(
1
,
2
,
3
) =
+
_
+
_
+
_
C
u
i
u
j
(
1
,
2
,
3
) e
j(
1
1
+
2
2
+
3
3
)
d
1
d
2
d
3
(2.20)
It is customary to use the non-dimensional spatial separation

L
g
and the non-dimensional
spatial frequency L
g
in respectively the atmospheric turbulence covariance function ma-
trix and the atmospheric turbulence PSD function matrix, see also references [1, 5], and
equations (2.19) and (2.20) become,
S
u
i
u
j
(L
g
) =
+
_
+
_
+
_
C
u
i
u
j
_

L
g
_
e
jL
g

L
g
d
L
g
(2.21)
or,
S
u
i
u
j
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
,
3
L
g
) = (2.22)
=
+
_
+
_
+
_
C
u
i
u
j
_
1
L
g
,

2
L
g
,

3
L
g
_
e
j(
1
1
+
2
2
+
3
3
)
d

1
L
g
d

2
L
g
d

3
L
g
Note that S
u
i
u
j
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
,
3
L
g
) =
1
L
3
g
S
u
i
u
j
(
1
,
2
,
3
), and that,
S
u
i
u
j
(L
g
) =
+
_
+
_
+
_
C
u
i
u
j
_

L
g
_
e
j
d
L
g
=
=
+
_
+
_
+
_
C
u
i
u
j
_

L
g
_
e
jL
g

L
g
d
L
g
Similar to equation (2.15), the PSD function matrix elements can be written in a short
hand notation,
S
u
i
u
j
(L
g
) = 16
2
_
2
L
2
g
ij

i
j
L
2
g
_
_
1 + (L
g
)
2
_
3
(2.23)
or,
S
u
i
u
j
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
,
3
L
g
) = 16
2
__
2
1
L
2
g
+
2
2
L
2
g
+
2
3
L
2
g
_
ij

i
j
L
2
g
_
_
1 +
2
1
L
2
g
+
2
2
L
2
g
+
2
3
L
2
g
_
3
(2.24)
with i = 1, 2, 3, j = 1, 2, 3,
ij
the Kronecker delta,
2
the variance of atmospheric
turbulence and L
g
the turbulence scale length. Integrating equation (2.24) over all non-
dimensional spatial frequencies
3
L
g
results in the PSD function matrix elements,
S
u
i
u
j
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) =
1
2
+
_
S
u
i
u
j
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
,
3
L
g
) d (
3
L
g
) (2.25)
or in matrix form,
S
uu
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) =
_
S
u
1
u
1
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) S
u
1
u
2
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) 0
S
u
2
u
1
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) S
u
2
u
2
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) 0
0 0 S
u
3
u
3
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
)
_
(2.26)
Similarly, integrating equation (2.26) over all non-dimensional spatial frequencies
2
L
g
results in the PSD function matrix,
S
uu
(
1
L
g
) =
1
2
+
_
S
uu
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) d (
2
L
g
) (2.27)
with,
S
uu
(
1
L
g
) =
_
_
S
u
1
u
1
(
1
L
g
) 0 0
0 S
u
2
u
2
(
1
L
g
) 0
0 0 S
u
3
u
3
(
1
L
g
)
_
_
(2.28)
Finally, integrating equation (2.28) over all non-dimensional spatial frequencies
1
L
g
re-
sults in the covariance function matrix,
C
uu
(0) =
1
2
+
_
S
uu
(
1
L
g
) d (
1
L
g
) (2.29)
with,
C
uu
(0) =
_
_
2
0 0
0
2
0
0 0
2
_
_
(2.30)
2.4.2 Reduced spatial frequency dimension examples
Reduced spatial frequency dimension PSD examples are derived by integrating over non-
dimensional spatial frequencies
i
L
g
with i = 1, 2, 3. For the calculation of these PSD
matrices, the atmospheric turbulence PSD matrix elements, equation (2.24), are written
in matrix form,
S
uu
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
,
3
L
g
) = (2.31)
=
16
2
(1 +
2
1
L
2
g
+
2
2
L
2
g
+
2
3
L
2
g
)
3
_
_
2
2
L
2
g
+
2
3
L
2
g

1
2
L
2
g

1
3
L
2
g
1
L
2
g

2
1
L
2
g
+
2
3
L
2
g

2
3
L
2
g
1
L
2
g

3
2
L
2
g

2
1
L
2
g
+
2
2
L
2
g
_
_
In the following, two examples of reduced spatial frequency dimension atmospheric tur-
bulence will be given. The rst example considers 3D atmospheric turbulence in the
O
E
X
E
Y
E
-plane of the frame T
E
, while the second example considers 3D atmospheric
turbulence along the X
E
-axis of T
E
.
A 2D spatial frequency example
Integrating equation (2.31) over all non-dimensional spatial frequencies
3
L
g
results in,
S
uu
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) =
1
2
+
_
S
uu
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
,
3
L
g
) d (
3
L
g
) (2.32)
or,
S
uu
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) = (2.33)
=

2
(1 +
2
1
L
2
g
+
2
2
L
2
g
)
5/2
_
_
1 +
2
1
L
2
g
+ 4
2
2
L
2
g
3
1
2
L
2
g
0
3
2
1
L
2
g
1 + 4
2
1
L
2
g
+
2
2
L
2
g
0
0 0 3
_
2
1
L
2
g
+
2
2
L
2
g
_
_
_
As an illustration, the PSD function matrix elements S
u
1
u
1
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
), S
u
2
u
2
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
),
S
u
1
u
2
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) and S
u
3
u
3
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
), see equation (2.33), are plotted in gures 2.12,
2.13, 2.14 and 2.15, respectively. Again, the variance of the atmospheric turbulence ve-
locity components is taken to be
2
= 1
_
m
2
s
2
_
and the PSD function matrix elements are
plotted as a function of the non-dimensional spatial frequency
1
L
g
and
2
L
g
.
A 1D spatial frequency example
Integrating equation (2.33) over all non-dimensional spatial frequencies
2
L
g
results in,
S
uu
(
1
L
g
) =
1
2
+
_
S
uu
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
) d (
2
L
g
) (2.34)
or,
S
uu
(
1
L
g
) =

2
_
1 +
2
1
L
2
g
_
2
_
_
2
_
1 +
2
1
L
2
g
_
0 0
0 1 + 3
2
1
L
2
g
0
0 0 1 + 3
2
1
L
2
g
_
_
(2.35)
As an illustration, the PSD function matrix elements S
u
1
u
1
(
1
L
g
), S
u
2
u
2
(
1
L
g
) and
S
u
3
u
3
(
1
L
g
), see equation (2.35), are shown in gures 2.16, 2.17 and 2.18. The variance
of the atmospheric turbulence velocity components is again chosen to be
2
= 1
_
m
2
s
2
_
and
that the PSD function matrix elements are plotted as a function of the non-dimensional
spatial frequency
1
L
g
.
5
0
5
5
0
5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PSfrag replacements
1
L
g
2
L
g
S
u
1
u
1
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
)
Figure 2.12: The 2D PSD function S
u
1
u
1
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
).
5
0
5
5
0
5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
PSfrag replacements
1
L
g
2
L
g
S
u
2
u
2
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
)
u
2
u
2
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
).
5
0
5
5
0
5
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
PSfrag replacements
1
L
g
2
L
g
S
u
1
u
2
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
)
u
1
u
2
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
).
5
0
5
5
0
5
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
PSfrag replacements
1
L
g
2
L
g
S
u
3
u
3
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
)
u
3
u
3
(
1
L
g
,
2
L
g
).
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PSfrag replacements
1
L
g
S
u
1
u
1
(
1
L
g
)
u
1
u
1
(
1
L
g
).
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
PSfrag replacements
1
L
g
S
u
2
u
2
(
1
L
g
)
u
2
u
2
(
1
L
g
).
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
PSfrag replacements
1
L
g
S
u
3
u
3
(
1
L
g
)
u
3
u
3
(
1
L
g
).
2.5 Atmospheric turbulence model parameters 31
Classication [
m
s
]
2
[
m
2
s
2
]
light turbulence, clean air 1.22 1.49
moderate turbulence, cumulous cloud 2.43 5.90
severe turbulence, thunderstorm 4.86 23.62
Table 2.1: Classication of the atmospheric turbulence intensity given in terms of the standard
deviation and the variance, taken from reference [3].
2.5 Atmospheric turbulence model parameters
Throughout this thesis the gust scale length L
g
is chosen as L
g
= 300 [m], a value repre-
sentative for high altitude atmospheric turbulence, see references [1, 3, 30]. Furthermore,
the variance of the atmospheric turbulence velocity components is chosen to equal
2
= 1
m
2
s
2
, and by this value it is classied as less than light turbulence, see table 2.1.
2.6 Remarks
In chapters 7 and 8 (panel) aircraft models will be own through both elementary symme-
trical and elementary anti-symmetrical atmospheric turbulence elds in order to determine
the aerodynamic forces and moments acting upon them. After the aircraft model iden-
tication process is completed, the parametric aircraft models will be used to calculate
the aircrafts response to atmospheric turbulence. As presented in this chapter, the at-
mospheric turbulence PSD functions will be used as input for these parametric aircraft
models. Aircraft responses to the atmospheric turbulence models are given in chapters 10
through 13.
Part II
Linearized Potential Flow
Theory
Chapter 3
Steady linearized potential ow
simulations
3.1 Introduction
Aside the atmospheric turbulence models dened in chapter 2 a mathematical aircraft
model is required for aircraft motion simulations. This model in turn requires an aerody-
namic model describing how both aircraft motions and atmospheric turbulence velocity
components result in aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the aircraft congura-
tion. For the estimation of these aerodynamic forces and moments several methods may
be used, e.g. ight tests, windtunnel experiments, handbook methods and Computational
Aerodynamics (CA) techniques may be selected. An important disadvantage of ight tests
and windtunnel experiments is that they are both extremely costly and time-consuming.
A disadvantage of handbook methods, for example, is that they do not accurately cap-
ture aerodynamic interference phenomena, which results in incorrect aerodynamic moment
estimations, see reference [7].
Once the aerodynamic forces and moments due to all known perturbations have been cal-
culated/simulated, an aerodynamic model can be derived. This can be formulated as a
parametric model in terms of aerodynamic model parameters, i.e. stability derivatives.
One major advantage of the Computational Aerodynamics approach over other methods,
such as the use of parametric models, is that it provides the identication of the entire
oweld in both pressure and local airspeed, including the pressure acting on the cong-
uration. Integrating the on-body surface pressure distribution ultimately results in the
aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the conguration submerged in an airow.
Given sucient computer power, the aerodynamic model may also be considered as the
simulation of a discretized aircraft model submerged in a turbulent airow. Over this dis-
cretized aircraft model the ow equations are then solved resulting in aerodynamic forces
and moments acting on the aircraft. From these simulations, parametric aerodynamic
36 Steady linearized potential ow simulations
models are then obtained. From both the simulated aerodynamic forces and moments and
the known perturbations a mathematical aerodynamic model can be constructed.
For the purpose of determining the aerodynamic model parameters, a numerical simula-
tion method has been developed. The ow equations to be solved are based on Linearized
Potential Flow (LPF) formulations, see also references [11, 12]. These formulations only
hold for inviscid, irrotational, incompressible ow.
In estimating the aerodynamic forces and moments, however, the Computational Aerody-
namics approach does have its limitations, they are governed by the uid ow model.
Starting at the highest level of uid ow modeling, the basic equations of motion describing
a uid ow are the so-called Navier-Stokes equations. They include viscosity eects, com-
pressibility eects and heat transfer, and, in principle, hold for incompressible, subsonic,
transonic, supersonic and hypersonic airows. Neglecting viscosity and heat transfer phe-
nomena, the uid ows equations of motion result in the Euler equations. If the uid ow
model is limited to irrotational ow, the Full Potential equations are derived. Omitting
both the transsonic and supersonic speed range, and thus omitting the shock capturing
capability of the Full Potential equations, the uid ow model is further simplied to
the Linearized Potential uid ow equations. Finally, if airow compressibility eects are
neglected as well, the uid ow equations of motion for inviscid, incompressible ow will
result in Laplaces equation which will be used in this thesis. One of the consequences of
these assumptions is that viscous drag is not considered.
The motivation for using the Linearized Potential Flow model is that, contrary to the
Navier-Stokes, Euler and Full Potential solvers, this method does not require a volume
grid for the numerical solution of the airow. The reduction of the 3D computational do-
main into a two-dimensional (2D) one results in much less execution time (ow-solving).
Furthermore, the LPF model reduces pre-processing time (grid-generation) and post-
processing time (checking the oweld and the on-body pressure distribution). Still, this
model remains highly adequate to capture large ow features.
As mentioned earlier in chapter 1, the goal of this thesis is to compare three calcula-
tion methods for aircraft subjected to atmospheric turbulence. In chapter 10 (Parametric
Computational Aircraft Model) a parametric model model based on aerodynamic transfer
functions is given, while in chapter 11 (Single Point Aircraft Model, or DUT-model) and
chapter 12 (Four Point Aircraft Model) parametric models in terms of constant stability
derivatives are given. In chapter 13 a comparison of results is provided, including results
of a Computational Aerodynamics simulation. Both one- (1D) and 2D atmospheric tur-
bulence elds will be considered.
The present chapter provides a limited overview of the theory and application of the (nu-
merical) steady, incompressible Linearized Potential Flow model. With some alterations,
the formulations are based on references [11, 12]; the mathematical expressions will be
briey summarized while details of alterations of the original expressions are presented in
appendix C. For the LPF models numerical solution, two singularity elements are used,
3.2 Short summary of steady linearized potential ow theory 37
the quadri-lateral doublet-panel and the quadri-lateral source panel. Both the doublet-
strength () and the source-strength () are taken to be constant over a panel. Therefore,
the panel-method used in this thesis is a low-order panel method, see also references
[8, 9, 10, 11, 12]. The steady Linearized Potential Flow model, as used in this chapter,
will be extended to an unsteady Linearized Potential ow model in chapter 4.
3.2 Short summary of steady linearized potential ow
theory
3.2.1 Flow equations
In this section a short summary of the applied Linearized Potential Flow theory will be
given. The uid ow equations hold for the solution over a conguration submerged in
potential ow.
Starting with the general time-dependent dierential form of the conservation of mass in
a Cartesian coordinate system,
t
+
u
x
+
v
y
+
w
z
= 0 (3.1)
with the uids (air) density, u, v, w the uids velocity components and t time, the
continuity equation (3.1) is written for incompressible airow ( = constant) as,
u
x
+
v
y
+
w
z
= 0 (3.2)
Introducing the velocity potential (thus assuming irrotational ow) with,
x
= u

y
= v

z
= w (3.3)
or,
=
_
z
_
_
=
_
_
u
v
w
_
_
and substituting equations (3.3) in equation (3.2), Laplaces equation is derived, see also
references [11, 12].
In order to solve Laplaces equation with given boundary conditions, LPF theory is used.
In the case of steady LPF methods, the conguration of interest is at rest and is submerged
in a moving airow. The conguration may be considered as a 3D aircraft, or a 3D wing,
in a ow domain of interest. This conguration is described in an Aerodynamic Frame of
Reference T
aero
of which details are given in Appendix B. This frame of reference remains
xed to the conguration.
In gure 3.2 a conguration submerged in a uid ow is schematically depicted for a 2D
aerofoil. It is considered as a cross-section of a 3D wing to which the LPF theory is applied.
In this gure the aerofoils contour, or the congurations surface, is indicated by S
B
, while
its upper and lower wake-surfaces are indicated by S
W
upper
and S
W
lower
respectively. The
contour S
encloses the ow domain of interest and denes the outer ow region, see
reference [8, 9]. The aerofoils contour, or wings surface, denes a ctitious inner ow
region. Both the potential in the outer region, dened as , and the potential in the inner
region, dened as
i
, are assumed to satisfy Laplaces equation. For the outer ow region,
Laplaces equation becomes,
2
=

2
x
2
+

2
y
2
+

2
z
2
= 0 (3.4)
where is the outer ow regions potential and x, y and z denote Cartesian ordinates in
the frame T
aero
. For the inner ow region, Laplaces equation becomes,
i
=

2
i
x
2
+

2
i
y
2
+

2
i
z
2
= 0 (3.5)
where
i
is the inner ow regions potential and x, y and z also denote Cartesian ordinates
in the frame T
aero
. Note that the free-stream potential, designated as
= U
x +V
y +W
z (3.6)
with U
, V
and W
the undisturbed velocity components of the velocity vector Q
=
[U
, V
, W
]
T
at innity, always is a solution to both equations (3.4) and (3.5). The
velocity components U
, V
, W
are taken to be positive along the X

aero
-, Y
aero
- and
Z
aero
-axis, respectively. See also gure 3.1 where the frame T
aero
is given, including the
denition of the undisturbed velocity components [U
, V
, W
]
T
in it.
With respect to the boundary conditions, for the submerged conguration the airow
velocity is tangential to the conguration. Therefore, the airows velocity component
normal to the surface of the conguration equals zero (see also gure 3.2). This so-called
Neumann boundary condition (see references [11, 12]), is written as,
n = 0[
S
B
(3.7)
with the airows velocity components and n the congurations local normal vector
(both given in the frame T
aero
). Another boundary condition is that the potential ows
velocity disturbance created by the conguration should diminish for r =
_
x
2
+y
2
+z
2
far from the conguration in T
aero
(see also gure 3.2), or,
lim
r
_
Q
_
= 0 (3.8)
with Q
= [U
, V
, W
]
T
, the vector of undisturbed velocity components at innity.
The general solution to equations (3.4) and (3.5) is given as a combination of source ()
and doublet () strength distributions on S
B
, S
W
upper
, S
W
lower
and S
, see references
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
U
Figure 3.1: The Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F

aero
, including the undisturbed velocity com-
ponents [U
, V
, W
]
T
of Q
.
[11, 12, 8, 9]. The velocity potential solution at an arbitrarily chosen point P = (x, y, z)
yields,
(P) =
1
4
_
_
_
_
S
B
+S
W
+S
n
_
1
r
_
dS
_
S
B
+S
W
+S
_
1
r
_
dS
_
_
_
(3.9)
with S
W
containing both the upper and lower wake-surfaces, or S
W
upper
and S
W
lower
, re-
spectively. Referring to gure 3.2, the integrals appearing in equation (3.9) hold for a
sphere at innity (S
), the conguration submerged in the airow (S

B
) and the congu-
rations wake (S
W
= S
W
upper
+S
W
lower
). To simplify equation (3.9), two assumptions are
made.
Considering the sphere at innity, the local velocity there is assumed to equal the undis-
turbed or free-stream velocity Q
. It is assumed that the on-body source- and doublet-

elements inuence has decayed to zero, see also equation (3.8). Therefore, the velocity
potential at innity ((P)) is essentially equal to
= U
x+V
y +W
z, see equation
(3.6). This leads to the exclusion of the surface S
in the integral as given in equation

(3.9). However, the term
now has to be added to equation (3.9).

The second assumption is that the wakes thickness is innitesimally small, thus making
S
W
= S
W
upper
= S
W
lower
. If crossows through the congurations wake are not present
(the congurations wake for non-seperated airow follows local streamlines), the thin
wake-representation is excluded from source-distributions in the LPF model. Therefore,
only doublet-elements will represent the congurations wake.
With these two assumptions, equation (3.9) now becomes,
(P) =
1
4
_
S
B
+S
W
n
_
1
r
_
dS
1
4
_
S
B
_
1
r
_
dS +
(P) (3.10)
PSfrag replacements
S
P
[r[
n
dS
S
Wupper
S
B
S
Wlower
wake
i
Figure 3.2: General sectional idealized potential ow model, see reference [8, 9].
or,
(P) =
dist
(P) +
(P) (3.11)
where
dist
represents the disturbance potential due to both source- and doublet- distri-
butions on the conguration and to doublet-distributions on the congurations wake.
Equation (3.10) leads to the following LPF model: the conguration of interest is dis-
tributed by both sources and doublets, while the congurations wake is distributed by
doublets only. This LPF model is represented in gure 3.3 where a cross-section of a 3D
wing is given in the frame T
aero
. Equation (3.10) will form the basis for the numerical
LPF simulations.
3.2.2 Boundary conditions
Boundary conditions for the Linearized Potential ow model have already been mentioned
in section 3.2.1. The rst condition included a fundamental solution of Laplaces equation,
specifying the ow condition at innity, see equation (3.6). The second condition specied
the zero-ow through the conguration condition, see equation (3.7). The condition as
given in equation (3.8), which species the singularities disturbance inuence at innity,
is inherently fullled by using both source- and doublet-distributions on the conguration
of interest.
The condition specifying the zero-ow through the conguration, see equation (3.7), is
also known as the Neumann boundary condition. Similar to this zero-ow through the
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Z
aero
n
S
B
S
W
i
Figure 3.3: Sectional idealized potential ow model in the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
.
conguration condition, the Dirichlet boundary condition can be specied. It species
the congurations internal potential
i
(see gure 3.3),
i
= constant (3.12)
The internal potential
i
may be set to an arbitrary constant. Throughout this thesis
the Dirichlet boundary condition will be used for numerical LPF simulations, with the
internal (disturbance) potential,
dist
i
, set to zero,
dist
i
= 0 (3.13)
Referring to equation (3.10), the disturbance potential only contains the contribution of
the congurations on-body source- and doublet-distribution as well as the contribution
of the wake-doublet distribution. The wakes doublet-distribution will be discussed in the
following section.
3.2.3 Wake separation and the Kutta condition
The wake model is dened by considering two distinct conditions. First, both the wakes
location and shape have to be dened, and, secondly, the wakes doublet-distribution has
to be determined.
The congurations wake originates at prescribed on-body wake-shedding lines and it is
convected downstream to innity, see gure 3.3. The wake will be shed from lifting
surfaces trailing edges so that it will counteract the congurations induced circulation.
To counteract this induced circulation, the wakes singularity distribution will consist of
doublets only, see also section 3.2.1.
The wakes doublet-strength is determined from the Kutta condition, which prescribes
the airow to leave an aerofoils sharp trailing edge smoothly of nite velocity, see also
references [11, 12]. The Kutta condition eventually leads to a denition of the wakes
doublet-strength,
wake
=
up
te

low
te
(3.14)
where
wake
is the wakes doublet-strength, and
up
te
and
low
te
are the corresponding
aerofoils upper and lower doublet-strengths at the trailing edge, respectively. This Kutta
condition will also be applied to arbitrary 3D congurations.
3.2.4 A general LPF solution
Using the Dirichlet boundary condition, equation (3.12), and both equations (3.10) and
(3.11), a general LPF solution can be formulated. However, at this stage the number of
solutions remains innite (see references [11, 12, 8, 9]). A step closer to a unique LPF
solution is obtained by either prescribing the source- or the doublet-strength distribution.
In references [11, 12, 8, 9] a prescribed source-strength distribution is suggested for
numerical solutions,
= n Q
(3.15)
with n the congurations normal and Q
= [U
, V
, W
]
T
the vector of undisturbed
velocity components at innity. Here, contrary to references [11, 12], the congurations
normal n points out of the conguration, see gure 3.3. The motivation for using this
source-strength distribution is that it provides for most of the congurations normal
velocity component as required for the zero-ow through the conguration condition.
With this prescribed source-strength distribution a solution for the doublet-strength dis-
tribution is obtained.
Finally, considering both the Dirichlet boundary condition and the combination of the
congurations on-body source/doublet-strength distribution, a prescription of both the
shape and position of the congurations wake will lead to a unique solution of the LPF
model (including lift). In principle, both the position and shape of the wake (that is the
denition of wake-shedding lines on the conguration) will dene the airows stagna-
tion lines at the trailing edges of lift generating conguration elements, and, therefore, it
will determine the amount of the congurations circulation (or lift). The congurations
wake-doublet-strength will be related to the congurations on-body doublet-strength at
the prescribed wake-shedding lines.
In section 3.3 the numerical equivalent for the general LPF solution will be given.
3.3 Numerical steady linearized potential ow simula-
tions
3.3.1 Body surface discretization
The numerical solution of Laplaces equation requires a discretization of the continuous
surface description of the conguration over wich the airow has to be solved. From the
several software packages available, MATLAB was chosen to generate the required surface
discretization for its easy coding/debugging, pre/post-processing, well documentation and
3.3 Numerical steady linearized potential ow simulations 43
5
0
5
5
0
5
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
X
aero
[m]
Y
aero
[m]
Z
a
e
r
o
[
m
]
Figure 3.4: An example wing conguration in the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
.
accessibility for both students and engineers. The MATLAB software will also be used for
the solution of the Laplace equation and for post-processing of results.
The aerodynamic frame of reference T
aero
For the simulation of airows over an arbitrary conguration, the conguration is mod-
eled in an orthonormal right-handed Aerodynamic Frame of Reference T
aero
, of which
details can be found in appendix B. In gure 3.4 the frame T
aero
with an example wing
conguration (resembling the Cessna Ce550 Citation II wing) is given. The X
aero
-axis
is pointing aft in the vertical plane of symmetry, (for example) parallel to the airows
direction at innity Q
(eectively resulting in W
= V
= 0), the Y
aero
-axis is pointing
to the right perpendicular to the vertical plane of symmetry, and the Z
aero
-axis is point-
ing up, perpendicular to the O
aero
X
aero
Y
aero
-plane. The origin O
aero
is located at the
congurations center of gravity.
The numerical simulation of the airow requires the continuous surface description of the
conguration to be discretized in panels, with each panel having four corner points, e.g.
for conguration panel k (with k = 1 N
B
and N
B
the total number of conguration
panels) [x
1
k
, y
1
k
, z
1
k
]
T
, [x
2
k
, y
2
k
, z
2
k
]
T
, [x
3
k
, y
3
k
, z
3
k
]
T
and [x
4
k
, y
4
k
, z
4
k
]
T
in T
aero
. The
orientation of these four corner points is shown in gure 3.5. These corner points will
dene each panels collocation point and they will also be used to dene a local Panel
Frame of Reference T
P
of which details are also given in appendix B. The frame T
P
will be used to evaluate each panels contribution to the disturbance potential, see also
appendix C.
0
0.5
1
1.5
2 0
0.5
1
1.5
2 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
PSfrag replacements
n
1
2
3
4
O
aero
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
a
e
r
o
Figure 3.5: Orientation of the panel corner points [x
i
, y
i
, z
i
]
T
, with i = 1, 2, 3, 4, and the panels
normal, n, in the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
.
Collocation points
The collocation points are dened as those points of the conguration where the numerical
ow is actually solved. For each panel k, both the doublet-strength (
k
) and source-
strength (
k
) are dened in this point. Also, in these points the ow is dened with
respect to the computed pressure p
k
and both the source- and doublet-induced velocity
components [u
ind
, v
ind
, w
ind
]
T
. The doublet-strength
k
, the source-strength
k
and the
pressure p
k
are assumed to be constant over conguration panel k.
In the frame T
aero
the position of the collocation points [x
col
k
, y
col
k
, z
col
k
]
T
is dened as,
x
col
k
=
1
4
(x
1
k
+x
2
k
+x
3
k
+x
4
k
)
y
col
k
=
1
4
(y
1
k
+y
2
k
+y
3
k
+y
4
k
)
z
col
k
=
1
4
(z
1
k
+z
2
k
+z
3
k
+z
4
k
)
_
_
_
(3.16)
with k = 1 N
B
and N
B
the total number of conguration panels. In gure 3.6 a part
of the left hand side of the conguration presented in gure 3.4 is given. In this gure
the congurations collocation points are given, as well as the panel corner points for an
isolated panel.
The panel frame of reference T
P
For each individual panel with corner points [x
1
k
, y
1
k
, z
1
k
]
T
, [x
2
k
, y
2
k
, z
2
k
]
T
, [x
3
k
, y
3
k
, z
3
k
]
T
and [x
4
k
, y
4
k
, z
4
k
]
T
, a Panel Frame of Reference T
P
is established in the frame T
aero
. In
gure 3.7 this (local) reference frame is given for a part of the left hand side of the
conguration presented in gure 3.4. In gure 3.7 T
P
is also shown for an isolated panel.
The reference frame T
P
is a right-handed orthonormal frame of reference, with its origin
4
2
0
2
4
8
6
4
2
0
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
PSfrag replacements
n
Q
Panel Corner #1
Panel Corner #2
Panel Corner #3
Panel Corner #4
Collocation Point
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
a
e
r
o
PSfrag replacements
n
Q
Panel Corner #1
Panel Corner #2
Panel Corner #3
Panel Corner #4
Collocation Point
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
Figure 3.6: Position of collocation points [x
col
k
, y
col
k
, z
col
k
]
T
(left) and a magnication of a single
panels collocation point including its panel corner points #1, #2, #3 and #4 in the
Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
(right).
O
P
located in the panels collocation point [x
col
k
, y
col
k
, z
col
k
]
T
. Details of the frame T
P
are given in appendix B. For each panel, the location of its collocation point is given
by equation (3.16). The three unit vectors along, respectively, the X
P
-, Y
P
- and Z
P
-
axis of T
P
are designated in T
aero
for an isolated panel k as e
1
k
= [x
e
1
k
, y
e
1
k
, z
e
1
k
]
T
,
e
2
k
= [x
e
2
k
, y
e
2
k
, z
e
2
k
]
T
and e
3
k
= n
k
= [x
e
3
k
, y
e
3
k
, z
e
3
k
]
T
.
With respect to the congurations surface, for each panel the Z
P
-axis of T
P
always points
outwards and its orientation is determined by the four panel corner points. To determine
the orientation of this axis, rst the diagonal d
1
k
between corner points [x
1
k
, y
1
k
, z
1
k
]
T
and
[x
3
k
, y
3
k
, z
3
k
]
T
is calculated. Second, the diagonal d
2
k
between corner points [x
4
k
, y
4
k
, z
4
k
]
T
and [x
2
k
, y
2
k
, z
2
k
]
T
is calculated. The two diagonal vectors d
1
k
and d
2
k
are, respectively,
d
1
k
=
_
_
x
3
k
y
3
k
z
3
k
_
_
_
_
x
1
k
y
1
k
z
1
k
_
_
(3.17)
d
2
k
=
_
_
x
2
k
y
2
k
z
2
k
_
_
_
_
x
4
k
y
4
k
z
4
k
_
_
(3.18)
From these two diagonals the panels normal unit vector e
3
k
= n
k
= [x
e
3
k
, y
e
3
k
, z
e
3
k
]
T
,
pointing in the positive Z
P
-axis direction, is constructed by taking the vector product
between d
1
k
and d
2
k
, and normalizing it (see gure 3.8),
n
k
= e
3
k
=
d
1
k
d
2
k
d
1
k
d
2
k
(3.19)
4
2
0
2
4
8
6
4
2
0
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
PSfrag replacements
X
P
Y
P
Z
P
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
a
e
r
o
PSfrag replacements
X
P
Y
P
Z
P
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
Figure 3.7: The local Panel Frame of Reference F
P
in F
aero
(left) and a magnication of a single
panels local frame with origin at the panels collocation point (right), also in F
aero
.
Using equations (3.17) and (3.18), the panels surface area S
P
k
is dened as,
S
P
k
=
1
2
d
1
k
d
2
k
(3.20)
For each panel, the X
P
-axis of T
P
points aft and is constructed by the corner points
[x
3
k
, y
3
k
, z
3
k
]
T
and [x
4
k
, y
4
k
, z
4
k
]
T
, by the normal vector n
k
= e
3
k
= [x
e
3
k
, y
e
3
k
, z
e
3
k
]
T
and
by the collocation point [x
col
k
, y
col
k
, z
col
k
]
T
, which is the origin of T
P
. The unit vector
e
1
k
= [x
e
1
k
, y
e
1
k
, z
e
1
k
]
T
, pointing in the positive X
P
-axis direction, is constructed by rst
dening a at plane through the collocation point which, in T
aero
, has a normal vector
n
k
= e
3
k
= [x
e
3
k
, y
e
3
k
, z
e
3
k
]
T
,
K
pan
k
= x
e
3
k
x
col
k
+y
e
3
k
y
col
k
+z
e
3
k
z
col
k
(3.21)
Then, the elements x
e
1
k
and y
e
1
k
are calculated by,
x
e
1
k
=
1
2
(x
3
k
+x
4
k
)
y
e
1
k
=
1
2
(y
3
k
+y
4
k
)
Using equation (3.21), the element z
e
1
k
becomes,
z
e
1
k
=
1
z
e
3
k
_
K
pan
k
x
e
3
k
x
e
1
k
y
e
3
k
y
e
1
k
_
(3.22)
0
0.5
1
1.5
2 0
0.5
1
1.5
2 0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
PSfrag replacements
n
d
1
d
2
1
2
3
4
O
aero
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
a
e
r
o
Figure 3.8: Orientation of the panel corner points [x
i
, y
i
, z
i
]
T
, with i = 1, 2, 3, 4, the panels
diagonal vectors d
1
and d
2
, and the panels normal, n, in the Aerodynamic Frame of
Reference F
aero
.
If the absolute value of z
e
3
k
becomes too small (smaller than the order of O(5)), z
e
1
k
becomes,
z
e
1
k
=
1
2
(z
3
k
+z
4
k
)
In T
aero
, the elements of vector e
1
k
= [x
e
1
k
, y
e
1
k
, z
e
1
k
]
T
become,
x
e
1
k
= x
e
1
k
x
col
k
y
e
1
k
= y
e
1
k
y
col
k
z
e
1
k
= z
e
1
k
z
col
k
Finally, vector e
1
k
becomes the unit vector e
1
k
= [x
e
1
k
, y
e
1
k
, z
e
1
k
]
T
by normalizing it with
its length

1
k
,
x
e
1
k
=
x
e
1
k
_
x
2
e
1
k
+y
2
e
1
k
+z
2
e
1
k
y
e
1
k
=
y
e
1
k
_
x
2
e
1
k
+y
2
e
1
k
+z
2
e
1
k
z
e
1
k
=
z
e
1
k
_
x
2
e
1
k
+y
2
e
1
k
+z
2
e
1
k
Having identied both the orientation and magnitude of the unit vectors e
1
k
and e
3
k
in
X
P
- and Z
P
-direction, respectively, the orientation and magnitude of e
2
k
follows from the
vector product between the unit vectors e
3
k
and e
1
k
,
e
2
k
= e
3
k
e
1
k
(3.23)
or with e
2
k
= [x
e
2
k
, y
e
2
k
, z
e
2
k
]
T
, the seperate elements become,
x
e
2
k
= y
e
3
k
z
e
1
k
y
e
1
k
z
e
3
k
y
e
2
k
= z
e
3
k
x
e
1
k
z
e
1
k
x
e
3
k
z
e
2
k
= x
e
3
k
y
e
1
k
x
e
1
k
y
e
3
k
Note that e
2
k
= [x
e
2
k
, y
e
2
k
, z
e
2
k
]
T
is a unit vector, so

e
2
k
e
1
k
e
3
k
= 1.
For an isolated panel k, the frame T
P
with its origin in the panels collocation point and
the orthonormal vectors e
1
k
, e
2
k
and e
3
k
, dened in the frame T
aero
, will later be used to
calculate a panels induced disturbance potential
dist
.
3.3.2 Quadri-lateral panels
For the Linearized Potential Flow model simulations, both the source- and doublet-panels
are modeled as quadri-lateral panels, so as at surfaces with four straight lines. The mo-
tivation for transforming both the conguration and wake-panels to their quadri-lateral
equivalents is that the constant strength source- and doublet-panel inuence formulae as
presented in appendix C only hold for quadri-lateral panels.
For each individual panel the four corner points are translated into a plane through its col-
location point and perpendicular to its normal. In the frame T
aero
the plane perpendicular
to the panels normal n
k
= e
3
k
= [x
e
3
k
, y
e
3
k
, z
e
3
k
]
T
is given by equation (3.21),
K
pan
k
= x
e
3
k
x
col
k
+y
e
3
k
y
col
k
+z
e
3
k
z
col
k
For each panels corner point position in T
aero
the x and y component is kept equal,
however, the z component is altered to make sure all four (quadri-lateral) panel corner
points are located in a at plane. For all four quadri-lateral panel corner points equations
similar to equation (3.21) are used to calculate their new z component. For an individual
panel the quadri-lateral panels z components become,
K
pan
k
= x
e
3
k
x
1
k
+y
e
3
k
y
1
k
+z
e
3
k
z
1
quad
k
K
pan
k
= x
e
3
k
x
2
k
+y
e
3
k
y
2
k
+z
e
3
k
z
2
quad
k
K
pan
k
= x
e
3
k
x
3
k
+y
e
3
k
y
3
k
+z
e
3
k
z
3
quad
k
K
pan
k
= x
e
3
k
x
4
k
+y
e
3
k
y
4
k
+z
e
3
k
z
4
quad
k
or,
z
1
quad
k
=
1
z
e
3
k
_
K
pan
k
x
e
3
k
x
1
k
y
e
3
k
y
1
k
_
z
2
quad
k
=
1
z
e
3
k
_
K
pan
k
x
e
3
k
x
2
k
y
e
3
k
y
2
k
_
PSfrag replacements
(a) Conguration panels
PSfrag replacements
(b) Conguration panels (magnication)
PSfrag replacements
(c) Quadri-lateral panels
PSfrag replacements
(d) Quadri-lateral panels (magnication)
Figure 3.9: Conguration panels (both top gures) and their quadri-lateral equivalents (both
bottom gures).
z
3
quad
k
=
1
z
e
3
k
_
K
pan
k
x
e
3
k
x
3
k
y
e
3
k
y
3
k
_
z
4
quad
k
=
1
z
e
3
k
_
K
pan
k
x
e
3
k
x
4
k
y
e
3
k
y
4
k
_
with z
1
quad
k
, z
2
quad
k
, z
3
quad
k
and z
4
quad
k
the new position of panel corner points #1,
#2, #3 and #4, respectively, along the Z
aero
-axis in T
aero
. Now, the quadri-lateral
panels four corner points [x
1
k
, y
1
k
, z
1
quad
k
]
T
, [x
2
k
, y
2
k
, z
2
quad
k
]
T
, [x
3
k
, y
3
k
, z
3
quad
k
]
T
and
[x
4
k
, y
4
k
, z
4
quad
k
]
T
are located in a at plane, and, obviously, the panel does not contain
any twist. In gure 3.9 an example of the dierence between conguration panels and
their quadri-lateral equivalents is given.
The contributions of a quadri-lateral source- or doublet-panel to the disturbance potential
dist
are given in references [11, 12] and they have been summarized in appendix C. These
contributions are given in the local frame T
P
, with the origin O
P
located in the collocation
point of the panel.
Similar to the conguration panels, the wake-panels are also transformed to their quadri-
lateral equivalents. The derivations of z
wake
1
quad
k
, z
wake
2
quad
k
, z
wake
3
quad
k
and z
wake
4
quad
k
are similar to the ones for z
1
quad
k
, z
2
quad
k
, z
3
quad
k
and z
4
quad
k
, respectively.
3.3.3 Numerical boundary conditions
The numerical boundary condition employed in this thesis is the Dirichlet boundary con-
dition. It requires the internal disturbance potential to equal a constant (and is selected
as zero, see reference [11]). For this purpose, each collocation point (now located inside
the conguration, slightly below the surface) is scanned and the sum of the disturbance
potential of all conguration and all wake-panels is calculated. The motivation for calcu-
lating the disturbance potential slightly below the congurations outer surface contours
is to ensure that the internal disturbance potential
dist
i
is indeed calculated. For this
purpose, the congurations collocation points are translated into the conguration,
x
col
k
= x
col
k
x
e
3
k
y
col
k
= y
col
k
y
e
3
k
z
col
k
= z
col
k
z
e
3
k
with [x
col
k
, y
col
k
, z
col
k
]
T
the position of the congurations collocation points in the frame
T
aero
according to equation (3.16), n
k
= [x
e
3
k
, y
e
3
k
, z
e
3
k
]
T
the panels normal vector
components in T
aero
, an extremely small constant (with of the order of = O(e 10))
and [x
col
k
, y
col
k
, z
col
k
]
T
the position of the congurations translated collocation point, also
in T
aero
.
3.3.4 Wake separation and the numerical Kutta condition
The wake consists of a number of quadri-lateral doublet-panels. Similar to the congura-
tions panels, they also have four corner points which are designated for an isolated wake-
panel j [x
w
1
j
, y
w
1
j
, z
w
1
j
]
T
, [x
w
2
j
, y
w
2
j
, z
w
2
j
]
T
, [x
w
3
j
, y
w
3
j
, z
w
3
j
]
T
and [x
w
4
j
, y
w
4
j
, z
w
4
j
]
T
in
T
aero
, with j = 1 N
W
and N
W
the total number of wake-panels.
The congurations wake is determined by sets of user dened wake-shedding lines. When
considering attached ows only, these wake-shedding panels are located at the trailing
edges of lift-generating conguration components or panels from which a wake is desired
(separation). In gure 3.10 the (truncated) wake of a part of the left hand side of the
conguration presented in gure 3.4 is given. The wake-shedding lines on the congura-
tion dene the position of wake-panel corner points #1 and #2. The wake-panels extend
downstream to a prescribed location dening the position of wake-panel corner points #3
and #4 along the X
aero
-axis. Throughout this thesis this downstream location is set at
100 times the span of the conguration, L
wake
= 100 b
ref
, with b
ref
a reference length
taken to be the congurations span. The position of the downstream wake-panel corner
points #3 and #4 along the Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis are set equal to the position of wake-
panel corner points #2 and #1, respectively.
Similar to the conguration panels, the wake-panels also have a collocation point and a
local frame T
P
, see section 3.3.1. The wakes local frame T
P
in T
aero
is given in gure
3.11. The wakes collocation points are dened as,
x
w
col
j
=
1
4
_
x
w
1
j
+x
w
2
j
+x
w
3
j
+x
w
4
j
_
y
w
col
j
=
1
4
_
y
w
1
j
+y
w
2
j
+y
w
3
j
+y
w
4
j
_
z
w
col
j
=
1
4
_
z
w
1
j
+z
w
2
j
+z
w
3
j
+z
w
4
j
_
_
_
(3.24)
with j = 1 N
W
.
The denition of the wake-panels local frame T
P
is similar to that of the conguration
panels local frame, see section 3.3.1.
The singularity distribution on the wake-panels consists of doublets only. Similar to the
wake doublet-strength denition in section 3.2.3, the wake panels doublet-strength
wake
is determined by specifying the wake-separation lines, thus dening the upper and lower
wake-shedding panels on the conguration, see also gure 3.12. Similar to the analyti-
cal Kutta condition given in equation (3.14), the wake-panels doublet-strength
wake
is
determined by (omitting subscripts),
wake
=
up
low
(3.25)
where
wake
is the wake-panels doublet-strength, and
up
and
low
are the correspon-
ding upper and lower conguration-panels doublet-strength at the wings trailing edge,
respectively. Although a wake-rollup option is available in this panel-method, throughout
this thesis the wake-geometry remains planar since only small disturbances in aircraft
motion and atmospheric turbulence velocity components (both with respect to airspeed
Q
) will be considered.
3.3.5 General numerical source- and doublet-solutions
Now, the conguration submerged in a uid ow is considered to be discretized in N
B
(quadri-lateral) conguration panels while the wake is divided into N
W
(quadri-lateral)
wake-panels. Assuming that all N
B
panel corner points of the discretized conguration
in T
aero
, as well as all N
W
panel corner points of the discretized wake conguration
in T
aero
, are known, a solution for the potential ow problem is derived. Furthermore,
assuming that the conguration panels contain both constant strength source and constant
strength doublet-distributions and that the wake-panels only contain constant strength
doublet-distributions, the Dirichlet boundary condition for each of the N
B
collocation
points can be evaluated. The internal disturbance potential
dist
i
at each collocation
point k (with k = 1 N
B
) now located inside the conguration, equals the sum of the
disturbance potential due to both the conguration source and conguration doublet-
panels (i = 1 N
B
) and the sum of the disturbance potential due to the wake-doublet-
panels (j = 1 N
W
). Referring also to equation (3.10), this disturbance potential
dist
i
4
2
0
2
4
8
6
4
2
0
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
PSfrag replacements
Panel Corner #1
Panel Corner #2
Panel Corner #3
Panel Corner #4
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
a
e
r
o
PSfrag replacements
Panel Corner #1
Panel Corner #2
Panel Corner #3
Panel Corner #4
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
Figure 3.10: Conguration and (truncated) wake-denition (left) and a magnication of a single
wake-panel including its panel corner points #1, #2, #3 and #4 in the Aerodynamic
Frame of Reference F
aero
(right).
PSfrag replacements
X
P
Y
P
Z
P
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
Figure 3.11: Conguration and the (truncated) wake-denition including the wakes local Panel
P
in F
aero
.
PSfrag replacements
up
low
wake
=
up
low
Figure 3.12: Calculation of the wake-doublet-strength
wake
.
equals zero,
N
B
i=1
1
4
_
bodypanel
i
_
1
r
_
dS +
N
B
i=1
1
4
_
bodypanel
i
n
_
1
r
_
dS +
+
N
W
j=1
1
4
_
wakepanel
j
n
_
1
r
_
dS = 0
collocation point k
(3.26)
with r =
_
x
2
+y
2
+z
2
in T
aero
. In equation (3.26) a single collocation point k is
evaluated and the inuence of all i = 1 N
B
conguration panels and the inuence of all
j = 1 N
W
wake-panels at that collocation point is summed, see gure 3.13.
Reference frame transformation T
P
aero
When calculating the disturbance potential of a quadri-lateral panel i on conguration
panel ks collocation point, it is determined by transforming the panel corner points of
panel i to its local frame T
P
. Also the collocation point of panel k is transformed to T
P
of panel i. The disturbance potential due to both a unit strength doublet-panel and a
unit strength source-panel is now calculated. For constant panel k, all panels i = 1 N
B
are scanned and the disturbance potential due to all conguration panels is calculated.
Similarly, the inuence of all wake-panels to the disturbance potential at collocation point
k is determined.
For the transformation from the frame T
aero
to panel is local frame T
P
, denoted as T
P
aero
,
the three unit vectors e
1
i
, e
2
i
and e
3
i
= n
i
describing panel is unit vectors of T
P
in T
aero
are used. The transformation matrix T
P
aero
is used for the transformation from reference
frame T
aero
to reference frame T
P
by,
_
_
x
P
y
P
z
P
_
_
= T
P
aero
_
_
x
aero
y
aero
z
aero
_
_
(3.27)
with [x
P
, y
P
, z
P
]
T
a vector in T
P
and [x
aero
, y
aero
, z
aero
]
T
a vector in T
aero
.
The elements of transformation matrix T
P
aero
are obtained by rst dening the (unknown)
transformation matrix T
P
aero
as,
T
P
aero
=
_
_
t
11
t
12
t
13
t
21
t
22
t
23
t
31
t
32
t
33
_
_
(3.28)
For each panel i the unknown matrix elements t
rs
, with r = 1 3 and s = 1 3, in
equation (3.28) are obtained from expressions similar to equation (3.27); each of the unit
vectors e
1
i
, e
2
i
and e
3
i
= n
i
in T
aero
will eventually be transformed to unit vectors
[1, 0, 0]
T
, [0, 1, 0]
T
and [0, 0, 1]
T
in T
P
, respectively. Starting with panel is normal vector
e
3
i
= n
i
, equation (3.27) is written as,
_
_
t
11
i
t
12
i
t
13
i
t
21
i
t
22
i
t
23
i
t
31
i
t
32
i
t
33
i
_
_
_
_
x
e
3
i
y
e
3
i
z
e
3
i
_
_
=
_
_
0
0
1
_
_
(3.29)
For the unit vectors e
2
i
and e
1
i
, equation (3.29) becomes,
_
_
t
11
i
t
12
i
t
13
i
t
21
i
t
22
i
t
23
i
t
31
i
t
32
i
t
33
i
_
_
_
_
x
e
2
i
y
e
2
i
z
e
2
i
_
_
=
_
_
0
1
0
_
_
(3.30)
and,
_
_
t
11
i
t
12
i
t
13
i
t
21
i
t
22
i
t
23
i
t
31
i
t
32
i
t
33
i
_
_
_
_
x
e
1
i
y
e
1
i
z
e
1
i
_
_
=
_
_
1
0
0
_
_
(3.31)
respectively.
From equations (3.29), (3.30) and (3.31), for each panel i the unknown matrix elements
t
rs
of T
P
aero
are calculated from,
_
_
x
e
3
i
y
e
3
i
z
e
3
i
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 x
e
3
i
y
e
3
i
z
e
3
i
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 x
e
3
i
y
e
3
i
z
e
3
i
x
e
2
i
y
e
2
i
z
e
2
i
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 x
e
2
i
y
e
2
i
z
e
2
i
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 x
e
2
i
y
e
2
i
z
e
2
i
x
e
1
i
y
e
1
i
z
e
1
i
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 x
e
1
i
y
e
1
i
z
e
1
i
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 x
e
1
i
y
e
1
i
z
e
1
i
_
_
_
_
t
11
i
t
12
i
t
13
i
t
21
i
t
22
i
t
23
i
t
31
i
t
32
i
t
33
i
_
_
=
_
_
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
_
_
(3.32)
PSfrag replacements
Collocation point panel k
Panel i
Wake-panel j
PSfrag replacements
Collocation point panel k
Panel i
Wake-panel j
Figure 3.13: Inuence of conguration panel i on conguration panel k (left), and the inuence
of wake-panel j on conguration panel k (right).
The unknown matrix elements of transformation matrix T
P
aero
, equation (3.28), are ob-
tained from equation (3.32) by,
_
_
t
11
i
t
12
i
t
13
i
t
21
i
t
22
i
t
23
i
t
31
i
t
32
i
t
33
i
_
_
=
_
_
x
e
3
i
y
e
3
i
z
e
3
i
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 x
e
3
i
y
e
3
i
z
e
3
i
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 x
e
3
i
y
e
3
i
z
e
3
i
x
e
2
i
y
e
2
i
z
e
2
i
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 x
e
2
i
y
e
2
i
z
e
2
i
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 x
e
2
i
y
e
2
i
z
e
2
i
x
e
1
i
y
e
1
i
z
e
1
i
0 0 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 x
e
1
i
y
e
1
i
z
e
1
i
0 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0 x
e
1
i
y
e
1
i
z
e
1
i
_
_
1 _
_
0
0
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
_
_
(3.33)
Aerodynamic inuence coecient matrix calculation
Now that the transformation matrix T
P
aero
is known, the Aerodynamic Inuence Coecient
matrix (AIC) is calculated. To derive the AIC matrix, unit singularity strengths
i
= 1,
i
= 1 and
wake
j
= 1 are assumed for all conguration and wake-panels. The integrals
appearing in equation (3.26) now become a function of the quadri-lateral panel geometry
only. The inuence of an i-th unit strength source-panel on an arbitrary collocation point
k is written as,
1
4
_
bodypanel
i
_
1
r
_
dS =
1
4
_
bodypanel
i
_
1
r
_
dS B
i
(3.34)
while the inuence of an i-th unit strength doublet-panel on an arbitrary collocation point
k is written as,
1
4
_
bodypanel
i
n
_
1
r
_
dS =
1
4
_
bodypanel
i
n
_
1
r
_
dS C
i
(3.35)
and the inuence of a j-th unit strength doublet wake-panel on an arbitrary collocation
point k is written as,
1
4
_
wakepanel
j
n
_
1
r
_
dS =
1
4
_
wakepanel
j
n
_
1
r
_
dS D
j
(3.36)
Evaluating the inuence of all conguration panels and all wake-panels at each congura-
tions panel collocation point, the equivalent of the Dirichlet boundary condition, equation
(3.26), for each internal collocation point is written as,
N
B
i=1
B
i
i
+
N
B
i=1
C
i
i
+
N
W
j=1
D
j
wake
j
= 0
collocation point k
(3.37)
or,
N
B
i=1
C
i
i
+
N
W
j=1
D
j
wake
j
=
N
B
i=1
B
i
collocation point k
(3.38)
or, for an arbitrary conguration collocation point k,
N
B
i=1
C
ki
i
+
N
W
j=1
D
kj
wake
j
=
N
B
i=1
B
ki
i
(3.39)
with C
ki
the disturbance velocity potential inuence of unit strength doublet conguration
panel i on conguration panel collocation point k, D
kj
the disturbance velocity potential
inuence of unit strength doublet wake-panel j on conguration panel collocation point k,
and B
ki
the disturbance velocity potential inuence of unit strength source conguration
panel i on conguration panel collocation point k, respectively.
Wake-panel doublet-strength denition
For the ease of programming, the wake-panels, dierent from reference [11], are consi-
dered as individual panels, also having unit doublet-strength. The wake-panels doublet-
strength, however, is related to the conguration panels doublet-strength and is dependent
of the doublet-strength of the upper and lower wake-shedding panels, see section 3.3.4.
The wake-panels doublet-strength is determined by equation (3.25),
wake
=
up
low
or,
up
low

wake
= 0 (3.40)
Aerodynamic inuence coecient matrix denition
Using matrix notation, equation (3.39) is written as,
_
_
C
11
C
12
C
1N
B
C
21
C
22
C
2N
B
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
C
N
B
1
C
N
B
2
C
N
B
N
B
D
11
D
12
D
1N
W
D
21
D
22
D
2N
W
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
D
N
B
1
D
N
B
2
D
N
B
N
W
E
N
W
N
B
E
N
W
N
W
_
_
_
2
.
.
.
N
B
wake
1
wake
2
.
.
.
wake
N
W
_
_
=
_
_
B
11
B
12
B
1N
B
B
21
B
22
B
2N
B
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B
N
B
1
B
N
B
2
B
N
B
N
B
O
N
W
N
B
_
_
_
2
.
.
.
N
B
O
N
W
1
_
_
(3.41)
with both matrices E
N
W
N
B
and E
N
W
N
W
dening the wake-panels strength related
to the conguration panels doublet-strength similar to equation (3.40). Both matrices
O
N
W
N
B
and O
N
W
1
are zero matrices of order N
W
N
B
and N
W
1, respectively.
Using the numerical equivalent of equation (3.15),
k
= n
k
Q
(3.42)
equation (3.41) is written as,
[AIC]
_

wake
_
= RHS (3.43)
From equation (3.43), both the unknown conguration panels doublet- strength ,
= [
1
,
2
, ,
N
B
]
T
and the unknown wake-panels doublet-strength,
wake
,
wake
= [
wake
1
,
wake
2
, ,
wake
N
W
]
T
_

wake
_
=
_
AIC
1
RHS (3.44)
3.3.6 Velocity perturbation calculations
Once the conguration panels doublet-strength
k
is known from equation (3.44), the
perturbation velocity components, designated as [q
l
k
, q
m
k
, q
n
k
]
T
in the frame T
P
, are cal-
culated. The local frame T
P
axes (X
P
, Y
P
, Z
P
) are now given as (l, m, n). The two
tangential perturbation velocities q
l
k
and q
m
k
are obtained by local dierentiation in a
direction tangential ((l, m) in T
P
) to the surface,
q
l
k
=
k
l
(3.45)
q
m
k
=
k
m
(3.46)
while the normal perturbation velocity becomes q
n
k
,
q
n
k
= (3.47)
Similar to references [11, 12], the local dierentiation is performed using local panel coor-
dinates (in T
P
), see also gures 3.14 and 3.16. In these gures the local axes of the frame
T
P
are denoted as (l, m, n). If for an arbitrary collocation point all neighboring panels
neighbor1, neighbor2, neighbor3 and neighbor4 are known, a numerical dierentiation is
performed to calculate both q
l
k
and q
m
k
. Instead of a local rst order dierentiation (as
used in references [11, 12]), similar to reference [8, 9] in this thesis rst a local second
order t of the known doublet-strengths
k
is performed. From this second order t, the
local velocity perturbations q
l
k
and q
m
k
are calculated.
For example, referring to gure 3.14, for the calculation of q
l
(omitting the subscript k for
simplicity) the local second order t along the X
P
-axis in T
P
becomes,
(s) = a
2
s
2
+a
1
s +a
0
(3.48)
with s the local independent variable tangential to the congurations surface. The local
velocity perturbation along the X
P
-axis in T
P
becomes,
q
l
=
(s)
s
= 2a
2
s a
1
(3.49)
Referring to gure 3.15, determining q
l
for collocation point #2, for the local numerical
dierentiation the local independent variable s is decomposed in distances s
1
, s
2
, s
3
and
s
4
, with s
1
the distance from collocation point #1 to panel #1s side edge, s
2
the distance
from panel #1s side edge to collocation point #2, s
3
the distance from collocation point
#2 to panel #2s side edge and s
4
the distance from panel #2s side edge to collocation
point #3. With the origin located at the collocation point of panel #1, the numerical
equivalent of equation (3.48) becomes,
1
= a
2
0
2
+a
1
0 +a
0
2
= a
2
(s
1
+s
2
)
2
+a
1
(s
1
+s
2
) +a
0
3
= a
2
(s
1
+s
2
+s
3
+s
4
)
2
+a
1
(s
1
+s
2
+s
3
+s
4
) +a
0
PSfrag replacements
Collocation Point k
Collocation point Neighbor 1
Collocation point Neighbor 3
s
1
s
2
s
3
s
4
l
m
n
Figure 3.14: The congurations local Panel Frame of Reference F
P
designated as (l, m, n), in-
cluding the denition of distances s
1
, s
2
, s
3
and s
4
for local numerical dierentiation
(estimation of q
l
).
or,
_
_
0 0 1
(s
1
+s
2
)
2
(s
1
+s
2
) 1
(s
1
+s
2
+s
3
+s
4
)
2
(s
1
+s
2
+s
3
+s
4
) 1
_
_
_
_
a
2
a
1
a
0
_
_
=
_
_
3
_
_
(3.50)
with
1
,
2
and
3
the doublet-strengths of panel #1, #2 and #3, respectively. From
equation (3.50) the unknown parameters a
2
, a
1
and a
0
, are obtained by,
_
_
a
2
a
1
a
0
_
_
=
_
_
0 0 1
(s
1
+s
2
)
2
(s
1
+s
2
) 1
(s
1
+s
2
+s
3
+s
4
)
2
(s
1
+s
2
+s
3
+s
4
) 1
_
_
1 _
_
3
_
_
(3.51)
Using equation (3.49), the local velocity perturbation q
l
in T
P
at the collocation point of
interest k is obtained by,
q
l
=
(s)
s
collocation point #2
= 2a
2
(s
1
+s
2
) a
1
Similar to the derivation of the velocity perturbation q
l
in T
P
, the velocity perturbation
q
m
is derived. Should any of the panels neighbours neighbor1, neighbor2, neighbor3 or
neighbor4 be unknown, either a left- or right-hand side numerical dierentiation (depen-
ding on the unknown neighbour panel) is performed using panel neighbours neighbor5,
neighbor6, neighbor7 or neighbor8, see gure 3.16.
PSfrag replacements
1
, Panel #1
2
, Panel #2
3
, Panel #3
Collocation Point #1
s
1
s
2
s
3
s
4
Figure 3.15: The panels doublet-strength including the denition of distances s
1
, s
2
, s
3
and s
4
for local numerical dierentiation in l (X
P
) direction of the local Panel Frame of
Reference F
P
.
PSfrag replacements
l
m
n
neighbor1
neighbor2
neighbor3
neighbor4
neighbor5
neighbor6
neighbor7
neighbor8
Figure 3.16: Neighbor panel denition for numerical dierentiation.
3.3.7 Aerodynamic pressure calculations
The aerodynamic pressure calculations are also performed in the frame T
P
. To derive
the total local velocity at an arbitrary collocation point k, rst the undisturbed velocity
at innity, which is perceived by the congurations panels, Q
= [U
, V
, W
]
T
, is
decomposed in T
P
. The decomposition of Q
in T
P
is denoted as [Q
l
, Q
m
, Q
n
]
T
,
and it is performed using the transformation from T
aero
to T
P
(T
P
aero
) as mentioned in
section 3.3.5,
_
_
Q
l
Q
m
Q
n
_
_
= T
P
aero
_
_
U
_
_
For an arbitrary collocation point k, the total local velocity Q
local
k
in T
P
is calculated by,
Q
local
k
=
_
_
Q
l
k
Q
m
k
Q
n
k
_
_
+
_
_
q
l
k
q
m
k
q
n
k
_
_
(3.52)
The non-dimensional pressure coecient C
p
k
for panel k is calculated by (see references
[11, 12, 8, 9]),
C
p
k
= 1
Q
local
k
2
Q
2
(3.53)
with Q
. Note that Q
=
_
U
2
+V
2
+W
2
=
_
Q
2
l
+Q
2
m
+Q
2
n
, since
all frames of reference are taken to be unit reference frames.
3.3.8 Aerodynamic loads and aerodynamic coecients
Once the congurations non-dimensional pressure coecient C
p
k
distribution is known,
the aerodynamic forces and moments in the frame T
aero
acting on the conguration are
calculated. The aerodynamic forces acting on conguration panel k become,
F
x
k
= C
p
k
1
2
Q
2
S
P
k
x
e
3
k
F
y
k
= C
p
k
1
2
Q
2
S
P
k
y
e
3
k
F
z
k
= C
p
k
1
2
Q
2
S
P
k
z
e
3
k
with C
p
k
the panels non-dimenional pressure coecient according to equation (3.53),
the airs density, Q
, S
P
k
the panels surface area according to equation (3.20)
and x
e
3
k
, y
e
3
k
, z
e
3
k
the panels normal components (e
3
k
= n
k
= [x
e
3
k
, y
e
3
k
, z
e
3
k
]
T
) in
T
aero
.
Panel ks contribution to the aerodynamic moments with respect to a reference point,
which is taken to be [0, 0, 0]
T
in T
aero
, becomes,
M
x
k
= F
z
k
y
col
k
F
y
k
z
col
k
M
y
k
= F
x
k
z
col
k
F
z
k
x
col
k
M
z
k
= F
y
k
x
col
k
F
x
k
y
col
k
with x
col
k
, y
col
k
and z
col
k
the components of collocation point k in T
aero
.
Both the total aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the conguration are obtained
by summation of all the conguration panels contribution to them,
F
x
=
N
B
k=1
F
x
k
F
y
=
N
B
k=1
F
y
k
F
z
=
N
B
k=1
F
z
k
and,
M
x
=
N
B
k=1
M
x
k
M
y
=
N
B
k=1
M
y
k
M
z
=
N
B
k=1
M
z
k
Finally, the non-dimensional aerodynamic force and moment coecients in T
aero
become,
C
X
=
F
x
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
C
Y
=
F
y
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
C
Z
=
F
z
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
and,
C
=
M
x
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
b
ref
C
m
=
M
y
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
c
ref
C
n
=
M
z
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
b
ref
with b
ref
and c
ref
taken to be the congurations span and mean aerodynamic chord,
respectively.
3.4 Remarks
In chapter 4 the steady Linearized Potential Flow model is extended to allow the calcula-
tion of both unsteady aerodynamic forces and moments due to arbitrary aircraft motion.
Also, it will allow the calculation of both unsteady aerodynamic forces and moments to
1D and 2D atmospheric turbulence elds.
Chapter 4
Unsteady linearized potential
ow simulations
4.1 Introduction
As a continuation of chapter 3, in this chapter the steady Linearized Potential Flow (LPF)
method is extended to the unsteady LPF method. The motivation for this extension is that
it allows the time-domain simulation of aircraft responses in terms of aerodynamic forces
and moments caused by aircraft motions and atmospheric gusts. From the time-dependent
aircraft responses, and the prescribed aircraft motions and gust inputs, parametric aero-
dynamic models are obtained, the goal of this thesis.
First a brief overview of analytical unsteady aerodynamic theory is given. The theory will
discuss an aerofoils lift due to heaving motions. Also, it will discuss the lift due to both
longitudinal and vertical atmospheric turbulence gusts.
Second, the theory of the used unsteady LPF model will be discussed. It is an extension of
the steady LPF model given in chapter 3, and it will allow the calculation of time-domain
unsteady aerodynamic forces and moments due to aircraft motions, as well as those due
to atmospheric gust elds.
Finally, the unsteady LPF method will be veried by analytical unsteady aerodynamic
results obtained by Theodorsen, Sears and Horlock, see references [24, 22, 14], respectively.
A comparison between time-domain unsteady LPF results and time-domain analytical
results by R.T. Jones, see references [16, 17], will also be made.
4.2 Analytical unsteady aerodynamics
4.2.1 Introduction
In this section a short summary of the theory of analytical unsteady aerodynamics is given
and well-known functions, such as Theodorsens function C(k) and Sears function S(k)
64 Unsteady linearized potential ow simulations
will be briey discussed, see references [24, 22]. These functions, dependent of the reduced
frequency k =
c
2Q
, describe the dynamics of an aerofoils aerodynamic lift caused by

heaving motions and vertical gusts, respectively.
Less known in the area of ight-dynamics, Horlocks function T(k) will be briey discussed
as well, see reference [14]. Similar to the Sears function, this function describes the dy-
namics of an aerofoils aerodynamic lift as a function of horizontal gust inputs. Similar
to Theodorsens and Sears function, Horlocks function is also dependent of the reduced
frequency k.
4.2.2 The Theodorsen function
For wings with an innite aspect-ratio, Theodorsen introduced the lift deciency function
C(k), see reference [24]. It describes the dynamics of an aerofoils aerodynamic lift due
to both harmonic angle-of-attack perturbations (or plunging motion, see gure 4.1) and
pitching motions, as a function of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
. The unsteady lift

holds for inviscid, incompressible, irrotational ow only. Furthermore, the function holds
for aerofoils of zero-thickness only.
Consider, as an example, harmonic plunging motions only. The unsteady aerodynamic lift
L of an aerofoil due to harmonically varying heaving motions with amplitude h is written
as, see references [24, 31],
L =
_
c
2
_
2
_
h
_
+ 2 Q
c
2
C(k)
_
h
_
(4.1)
with air density, c the (mean) aerodynamic chord, h vertical translation distance, C(k)
Theodorsens lift deciency function, Q
airspeed and k the reduced frequency.

Considering harmonic plunging motions only, that is h = h
0
e
jt
, and dening =

h
Q
,
=

h
Q
and the non-dimensional aerodynamic lift-coecient C

l
=
L
1
2
Q
2
c
, equation
(4.1) becomes,
C
l
=
c
2Q
+ 2 C(k) (4.2)
Writing Theodorsens function as the combination of its real and imaginary parts, C(k) =
F(k) + j G(k), equation (4.2) becomes, also see reference [5],
C
l
= 2F(k) +
_
2
G(k)
k
+
_
c
2Q
=
= 2
_
F(k) +
G(k)
k
c
2Q
_
+
c
2Q
=
= C
l
1
+ C
l
2
The lift-coecient C
l
2
is usually referred to as the additional mass eect and acts at the
semi-chord point of the aerofoil. The lift-coecient C
l
1
is associated with the circulation
around the aerofoil and acts at the
1
4
chord point. In terms of stability parameters, the
lift-coecient is also often given as, see reference [5],
C
l
= 2F(k) +
_
2
G(k)
k
+
_
c
2Q
= C
l
+ C
l

c
2Q
(4.3)
4.2 Analytical unsteady aerodynamics 65
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
h(t)
w
g
(t)
Q
x
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
h(t)
w
g
(t)
Q
x
Figure 4.1: An aerofoil during a harmonically varying plunging motion, h(t), in the Inertial Frame
of Reference F
I
(top), and an aerofoil encountering a harmonically varying vertical
gust, w
g
(t), in the frame F
I
(bottom). The aerofoil itself is decribed in the Aerody-
namic Frame of Reference F
aero
.
The aerodynamic derivatives C
l
and C
l

in equation (4.3) are frequency-dependent and
they are dened as,
C
l
= 2 F(k)
C
l

= 2
G(k)
k
+
Theodorsens function, C(k), is tabulated in table 4.1, and also given in gures 4.2.
4.2.3 The Sears function
For innite aspect-ratio wings a lift deciency function S(k) was introduced by Sears, see
reference [22]. It describes the dynamics of the aerodynamic lift of an aerofoil of zero-
thickness due to harmonically varying vertical gusts (see gure 4.1), as a function of the
reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
. The gust eld is given in the frame T

I
, through which the
aerofoil is traveling along the negative X
I
-axis. As a function of time the position of the
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Theodorsen function
PSfrag replacements
Re C(k)
I
m
C
(
k
)
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.3
k = 0.5
k = 0.7
k = 0.9
k
[C(k)[
(k)
(a) Theodorsens function
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Theodorsen function
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0
5
10
15
20
Theodorsen function
PSfrag replacements
Re C(k)
ImC(k)
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.3
k = 0.5
k = 0.7
k = 0.9
k
k
[
C
(
k
)
[
(
k
)
(b) Magnitude and (minus) phase of Theodorsens function
Figure 4.2: Theodorsens function C(k) (top) and both its magnitude |C(k)| and (minus) phase
(bottom).
k C(k) |C(k)| [Deg.]
1.0000e-002 9.8242e-001 -j4.5652e-002 9.8348e-001 -2.6606e+000
1.0000e-001 8.3192e-001 -j1.7230e-001 8.4958e-001 -1.1701e+001
3.0000e-001 6.6497e-001 -j1.7932e-001 6.8872e-001 -1.5092e+001
5.0000e-001 5.9794e-001 -j1.5071e-001 6.1664e-001 -1.4147e+001
7.0000e-001 5.6476e-001 -j1.2642e-001 5.7874e-001 -1.2617e+001
9.0000e-001 5.4593e-001 -j1.0785e-001 5.5648e-001 -1.1175e+001
Table 4.1: Theodorsens function C(k) including its magnitude |C(k)| and phase as a function
of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
.
aerofoil changes, although the gust eld remains frozen in terms of both magnitude and
position. Noted that, contrary to heaving motions, the vertical gust is allowed to vary
over the aerofoils chord.
The aerodynamic lift of an aerofoil in inviscid, incompressible, irrotational ow due to a
harmonically varying vertical gust w
g
, is written as, see reference [31],
L
g
= 2 Q
c
2
S(k) w
g
(4.4)
with air density, c the (mean) aerodynamic chord, w
g
the harmonically varying vertical
gust velocity, S(k) Sears function, and k the reduced frequency.
Dening
g
=
w
g
Q
and the non-dimensional aerodynamic lift-coecient, C

l
g
=
L
g
1
2
Q
2
c
,
equation (4.4) becomes,
C
l
g
= 2 S(k)
g
(4.5)
Writing Sears function as the combination of its real and imaginary parts, using the
notation as in reference [31], S(k) = F
G
(k) + j G
G
(k), equation (4.5) is written as,
C
l
g
= 2F
G
(k)
g
+ 2
G
G
(k)
k

g
c
2Q
(4.6)
Since in Sears analysis the aerofoil is not in motion, there is no additional mass eect and
the aerodynamic forces and moments are only due to circulation around the aerofoil. Also,
the aerodynamic lift always acts at the
1
4
chord point. In terms of stability parameters,
the lift-coecient is also often given as, see reference [5],
C
l
g
= 2F
G
(k)
g
+ 2
G
G
(k)
k

g
c
2Q
= C
l
g

g
+ C
l

g

g
c
2Q
(4.7)
The stability parameters C
l
g
and C
l

g
in equation (4.7) are frequency-dependent and are
dened as,
C
l
g
= 2 F
G
(k)
C
l

g
= 2
G
G
(k)
k
k S(k) |S(k)| [Deg.]
1.0000e-002 9.8217e-001 -j4.5563e-002 9.8322e-001 -2.6561e+000
1.0000e-001 8.2124e-001 -j1.6348e-001 8.3735e-001 -1.1258e+001
3.0000e-001 6.2350e-001 -j1.2562e-001 6.3602e-001 -1.1391e+001
5.0000e-001 5.2463e-001 -j4.4029e-002 5.2648e-001 -4.7972e+000
7.0000e-001 4.5608e-001 +j3.1792e-002 4.5718e-001 3.9875e+000
9.0000e-001 3.9707e-001 +j9.7239e-002 4.0880e-001 1.3760e+001
Table 4.2: Sears function S(k) including its magnitude |S(k)| and phase as a function of the
reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
.
k S
mod
(k) |S
mod
(k)| [Deg.]
1.0000e-002 9.8166e-001 -j5.5382e-002 9.8322e-001 -3.2290e+000
1.0000e-001 8.0082e-001 -j2.4465e-001 8.3735e-001 -1.6988e+001
3.0000e-001 5.5853e-001 -j3.0426e-001 6.3602e-001 -2.8580e+001
5.0000e-001 4.3930e-001 -j2.9016e-001 5.2648e-001 -3.3445e+001
7.0000e-001 3.6931e-001 -j2.6950e-001 4.5718e-001 -3.6120e+001
9.0000e-001 3.2299e-001 -j2.5059e-001 4.0880e-001 -3.7806e+001
Table 4.3: The Modied Sears function S
mod
(k) including its magnitude |S
mod
(k)| and phase
as a function of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
(x =
c
2
).
Contrary to the case where harmonic plunging motions were considered (Theodorsen),
the position of the center of gravity, or the choice of the coordinate system (in this case
the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference T
aero
), is extremely important when considering
atmospheric turbulence. Note that Sears function only holds for the origin located at
the semi-chord point. This origin is the point which prescribes a gust to phase-lead or
phase-lag in distance from it (and has zero phase-shift at the origin). If the origin is chosen
to dier from the semi-chord point, Sears function is multiplied by e
jk
2x
0
c
, resulting in
the so-called Modied Sears function S
mod
(k), see reference [13],
S
mod
(k) = S(k) e
jk
2x
0
c
with x
0
the origins location positive downstream. For the origin located at the aerofoils
leading-edge, x
0
becomes x
0
=
c
2
, and the Modied Sears function is written as,
S
mod
(k) = S(k) e
jk
(4.8)
Both the Sears function S(k) and the Modied Sears function S
mod
(k) are tabulated in
tables 4.2 and 4.3, respectively. The functions are also shown in gures 4.3.
4.2.4 The Horlock function
Similar to the analysis by Sears, see reference [22], for innite aspect-ratio wings a lift
deciency function T(k) was introduced by Horlock, see reference [14]. This function
0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Sears function
Modified Sears function
PSfrag replacements
Re S(k), S
mod
(k)
I
m
S
(
k
)
,
S
m
o
d
(
k
)
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.3
k = 0.5
k = 0.7
k = 0.9
k
[S(k)[
(k)
(a) Sears function and the Modied Sears function
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
Sears function
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
20
0
20
40
60
Sears function
PSfrag replacements
Re S(k), S
mod
(k)
ImS(k), S
mod
(k)
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.3
k = 0.5
k = 0.7
k = 0.9
k
k
[
S
(
k
)
[
(
k
)
(b) Magnitude and (minus) phase of both Sears function and
the Modied Sears function
Figure 4.3: Sears function S(k) and the Modied Sears function S
mod
(k) (x =
c
2
), (top), and
both its magnitude |S(k)|, |S
mod
(k)| and (minus) phase (bottom).
describes the dynamics of the aerodynamic lift of an aerofoil of zero-thickness due to
harmonically varying horizontal gusts, also as a function of reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
.
In gure 4.4, a (nite-thickness) aerofoil is depicted encountering harmonically varying
horizontal gusts u
g
, with spatial wave-length
x
. Contrary to gures 4.1, the frame T
I
is not given in gure 4.4, however, similar to gures 4.1 the origin of T
aero
is assumed
to travel along the negative X
I
-axis. Similar to Sears analysis, the gust eld is given in
the frame T
I
, and as a function of time it remains frozen in terms of both magnitude and
position. Note here that, contrary to surging motions, the horizontal gust is allowed to
vary over the aerofoils chord.
The lift of an aerofoil in inviscid, incompressible, irrotational ow due to a harmonically
varying horizontal gust is written as,
L
g
= 2 Q

c
2
T(k) u
g
(4.9)
with the aerofoils angle-of-attack, air density, c the (mean) aerodynamic chord, u
g
the
harmonically varying horizontal gust velocity, T(k) Horlocks function, and k the reduced
frequency. Although no characteristic length is mentioned in reference [14], for an analogy
with the analysis of Sears the term
c
2
was added in equation (4.9).
Dening u
g
=
u
g
Q
and the non-dimensional aerodynamic lift-coecient C

l
g
=
L
g
1
2
Q
2
c
,
equation (4.9) becomes,
C
l
g
= 2 T(k) u
g
(4.10)
Writing Horlocks function as the combination of its real and imaginary parts, T(k) =
X
G
(k) + j Y
G
(k), equation (4.10) is written as,
C
l
g
= 2 X
G
(k) u
g
+ 2
Y
G
(k)
k
u
g
c
2Q
(4.11)
In terms of stability parameters, the lift-coecient may also be written as,
C
l
g
= 2 X
G
(k) u
g
+ 2
Y
G
(k)
k
u
g
c
2Q
= C
l
u
g
u
g
+ C
l
u
g
u
g
c
2Q
(4.12)
l
u
g
and C
l
u
g
in equation (4.12) are frequency-dependent and
are dened as,
C
l
u
g
= 2 X
G
(k)
C
l
u
g
= 2
Y
G
(k)
k
Similar to Sears analysis, the position of the center of gravity, or the choice of the coordi-
nate system (in this case the frame T
aero
), is again extremely important when considering
atmospheric turbulence. Horlocks function only holds for the origin located at the aero-
foils semi-chord point. If the origin is chosen to dier from the semi-chord point, Hor-
locks function is multiplied by e
jk
2x
0
c
, resulting in the so-called Modied Horlock function
T
mod
(k),
T
mod
(k) = T(k) e
jk
2x
0
c
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
, X
I
Z
aero
, Z
I
Q
u(t)
time
x
x
2
u
g
(t)
[u
g
[
Figure 4.4: An aerofoil encountering a harmonically varying horizontal gust u
g
(t) for the initial
condition when F
aero
and F
I
coincide. The aerofoil itself is decribed in the Aerody-
namic Frame of Reference F
aero
.
k T(k) |T(k)| [Deg.]
1.0000e-002 1.9821e+000 -j4.0563e-002 1.9826e+000 -1.1724e+000
1.0000e-001 1.8187e+000 -j1.1354e-001 1.8223e+000 -3.5722e+000
3.0000e-001 1.6011e+000 +j2.2703e-002 1.6013e+000 8.1236e-001
5.0000e-001 1.4631e+000 +j1.9824e-001 1.4765e+000 7.7162e+000
7.0000e-001 1.3373e+000 +j3.6079e-001 1.3851e+000 1.5099e+001
9.0000e-001 1.2046e+000 +j5.0319e-001 1.3055e+000 2.2672e+001
Table 4.4: Horlocks function T(k) including its magnitude |T(k)| and phase as a function of
the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
.
with x
0
the origins location positive downstream. For the origin located at the aerofoils
leading-edge, x
0
becomes x
0
=
c
2
, and the Modied Horlock function is written as,
T
mod
(k) = T(k) e
jk
(4.13)
Both Horlocks function T(k) and the Modied Horlock function T
mod
(k), are tabulated
in tables 4.4 and 4.5, respectively. The functions are also shown in gures 4.5.
4.2.5 The Wagner function
Contrary to the harmonic analysis of Theodorsen, see reference [24], for the time-domain
a non-dimensional indicial function for the aerodynamic lift due to a step-wise increase
in angle-of-attack has been given by Wagner, see reference [26]. In gure 4.6, an example
is given for an aerofoil of zero-thickness during a step-wise change in angle-of-attack. Si-
milar to Theodorsens function, Wagners function also holds for inviscid, incompressible,
irrotational ow.
Wagners function is written as (s), with s non-dimensional time in terms of semi-chord
distance traveled by the aerofoil, s =
2Q
t
c
, and Q
the undisturbed velocity at innity, t

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Horlock function
Modified Horlock function
PSfrag replacements
Re T(k), T
mod
(k)
I
m
T
(
k
)
,
T
m
o
d
(
k
)
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.3
k = 0.5
k = 0.7
k = 0.9
k
[S(k)[
(k)
(a) Horlocks function and the Modied Horlock function
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Horlock function
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
40
20
0
20
40
Horlock function
PSfrag replacements
Re T(k), T
mod
(k)
ImT(k), T
mod
(k)
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.3
k = 0.5
k = 0.7
k = 0.9
k
k
[
S
(
k
)
[
(
k
)
(b) Magnitude and (minus) phase of both Horlocks function
and the Modied Horlock function
Figure 4.5: Horlocks function T(k) and the Modied Horlock function T
mod
(k) (x =
c
2
),
(top), and both its magnitude |T(k)|, |T
mod
(k)| and (minus) phase (bottom).
k T
mod
(k) |T
mod
(k)| [Deg.]
1.0000e-002 1.9816e+000 -j6.0382e-002 1.9826e+000 -1.7453e+000
1.0000e-001 1.7983e+000 -j2.9454e-001 1.8223e+000 -9.3018e+000
3.0000e-001 1.5363e+000 -j4.5148e-001 1.6013e+000 -1.6376e+001
5.0000e-001 1.3790e+000 -j5.2748e-001 1.4765e+000 -2.0932e+001
7.0000e-001 1.2552e+000 -j5.8555e-001 1.3851e+000 -2.5009e+001
9.0000e-001 1.1429e+000 -j6.3080e-001 1.3055e+000 -2.8895e+001
Table 4.5: The Modied Horlock function T
mod
(k) including its magnitude |T
mod
(k)| and phase
c
2Q
(x =
c
2
).
time and c the aerodynamic chord of the aerofoil. The non-dimensional lift-coecient, C
l
,
of a zero-thickness aerofoil subjected to a step-wise change in angle-of-attack, is written
as, see reference [21],
C
l
(s) =
c
2Q
(s) + 2 (s) (4.14)

with C
l
(s) the aerofoils non-dimensional lift-coecient, (s) Diracs delta function, the
magnitude of the step-wise change in angle-of-attack, (s) Wagners function, s the semi-
chord distance traveled by the aerofoil s =
2Q
t
c
, and 2 the steady-state lift-curve slope
for a zero-thickness aerofoil. The term including Diracs delta function in equation (4.14)
represents the additional mass eect, also described by Theodorsen, see reference [24].
Although known exactly, Wagners function is not provided in a closed analytical form.
The approximation by R.T. Jones, see references [16, 17], is often referred to in the litera-
ture. This approximation of Wagners function, (s), is written as a series of exponentials,
(s) 1 +
N
k=1
B
k
e
k
s
(4.15)
or, for R.T. Jones approximation of Wagners function,
(s) 1 0.165e
0.0455s
0.335e
0.3s
(4.16)
Noted that this approximation of Wagners function does not include the additional mass
eect as described by Theodorsen, see reference [24], and it only includes the circulatory
lift. R.T. Jones approximation of Wagners function is shown in gure 4.7.
For an analysis in the frequency-domain, Wagners function may be transformed to it.
Similar to Theodorsens function, a Fourier analysis of Jones approximation of Wagners
function ultimately results in a frequency-response function which holds for arbitrary si-
nusoidal angle-of-attack motions. Whereas the Jones approximation of Wagners function
only holds for a step-wise change in angle-of-attack, the transformed Jones function can
be written in terms of a frequency-response similar to Theodorsens function.
For example, equation (4.15), which holds for a step-wise change in angle-of-attack, is
transformed to the (non-dimensional) frequency-domain for sinusoidal inputs. As a func-
tion of reduced frequency, k =
c
2Q
, the Jones approximation in terms of frequency-

response, is written as a series of lag-functions,
(k) 1 +
N
k=1
B
k
jk
jk +
k
(4.17)
or, specically for R.T. Jones approximation of Wagners function,
(k) 1 0.165
jk
jk + 0.0455
0.335
jk
jk + 0.3
(4.18)
The frequency-response function as given in equation (4.18) only includes the eect of
circulatory lift. Both Theodorsens function C(k) and Jones approximation of it (k) are
shown in gure 4.8.
4.2.6 The K ussner function
Similar to the analysis of Wagners function, and contrary to the harmonic analysis of
Sears, see reference [22], for the time-domain a non-dimensional indicial function for the
aerodynamic lift due to a sharp-edged penetrating vertical gust has been given by K ussner,
see reference [20]. In gure 4.6, an example is given for an aerofoil of zero-thickness en-
countering a sharp-edged vertical gust-front. Note that the origin of the frame T
aero
is
located at the leading-edge of aerofoil. Similar to Sears function, K ussners function also
holds for inviscid, incompressible, irrotational ow only.
K ussners function is written as (s), with s non-dimensional time in terms of semi-chord
distance traveled by the aerofoil s =
2Q
t
c
and Q
the undisturbed velocity at innity, t

time and c the aerodynamic chord of the aerofoil. The non-dimensional lift-coecient C
l
of a zero-thickness aerofoil encountering a vertical gust front, is written as, see reference
[21],
C
l
(s) = 2
g
(s) (4.19)
with
g
=
w
g
Q
the magnitude of the vertical gust-induced change in angle-of-attack,

w
g
the vertical gust component, s the semi-chord distance traveled by the aerofoil and
2 the steady-state lift-curve slope for a zero-thickness aerofoil. Note that, contrary to
the Theodorsen/Wagner analysis, in this case of atmospheric turbulence responses no
additional mass eect is present in equation (4.19).
Similar to Wagners function, K ussners function is known exactly, albeit not in a closed
analytical form. An approximation of K ussners function is given by Sears and Sparks, see
reference [23]. Similar to Jones approximation of Wagners function, this approximation
of K ussners function, (s), is written as a series of exponentials similar to equation (4.15).
Sears approximation of K ussners function is written as,
(s) 1 0.5e
0.13s
0.5e
1.0s
(4.20)
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
w
g
(t)
Q
(t)
t = t
0 t = t
0
+dt
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
w
g
(t)
Q
(t)
t = t
0
t = t
0
+dt
Figure 4.6: An aerofoil during a step change in angle-of-attack (t) in the Inertial Frame of
Reference F
I
(top), and an aerofoil encountering a sharp-edged vertical gust w
g
(t),
also in the frame F
I
(bottom). The aerofoil is decribed in the Aerodynamic Frame
of Reference F
aero
.
Sears approximation of K ussners function is shown in gure 4.7.
Similar to the frequency-domain results of Jones function, a frequency-response function
of the Sears approximation of K ussners function can be obtained. As a function of reduced
frequency k =
c
2Q
the Sears approximation in terms of frequency-response, becomes,

(k) 1 0.5
jk
jk + 0.13
0.5
jk
jk + 1.0
(4.21)
The frequency-response function as given in equation (4.21) only includes the eect of
circulatory lift. Both the Modied Sears function S
mod
(k) and Sears and Sparks approx-
imation of it (k) are shown in gure 4.8.
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Wagner approximation
Kuessner approximation
PSfrag replacements
(
s
)
,
(
s
)
s =
2Q
t
c
Figure 4.7: R.T. Jones Wagner function approximation (s) for a step-wise change in angle-
of-attack and Sears & Sparks approximation of K ussners function (s), for the
penetration of a sharp-edged vertical gust, see also gures 4.6.
4.3 Numerical unsteady linearized potential ow sim-
ulations
4.3.1 Introduction
In this section, the steady LPF method, as described in chapter 3, will be extended to
allow the calculation of unsteady aerodynamic forces and moments due to arbitrary mo-
tions and atmospheric turbulence inputs. Also this unsteady LPF method assumes that
the ow is irrotational, inviscid and incompressible.
The basic formulation of the unsteady LPF method also relies on the solution of Laplaces
equation, discussed in chapter 3. By means of time-dependent boundary conditions, the
ow becomes a function of time while still using the initial ow-solver theory. Also, the
unsteady ow will be solved in the frame T
aero
and the unsteady LPF method also requires
a discretized representation of the conguration of interest using quadri-lateral panels, see
sections 3.3.1 and 3.3.2.
The extension to the steady LPF method is based on references [11, 12]. With respect to
the steady LPF formulation presented in chapter 3, the main dierences will include the
addition of an unsteady wake model. The unsteady wake will be dened in the frame T
I
in which the frame T
aero
is traveling along a pre-described ightpath. Since the ow is
solved in T
aero
, the wakes position in T
I
will be transformed to T
aero
for each discrete
4.3 Numerical unsteady linearized potential ow simulations 77
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Jones approximation
Theodorsen
PSfrag replacements
Re C(k), Re (k)
I
m
C
(
k
)
,
I
m
(
k
)
Re S
mod
(k), Re (k)
ImS
mod
(k), Im(k)
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.3
k = 0.5
k = 0.7
k = 0.9
0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
Sears approximation
Sears
PSfrag replacements
Re C(k), Re (k)
ImC(k), Im(k)
Re S
mod
(k), Re (k)
I
m
S
m
o
d
(
k
)
,
I
m
(
k
)
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.3
k = 0.5
k = 0.7
k = 0.9
Figure 4.8: Theodorsens function C(k) and Jones approximation (top) and the Modied Sears
function S
mod
(k) and Sears & Sparks approximation (bottom).
time-step. The unsteady LPF method requires some adjustments for the calculation of
the on-body pressure distribution in order to include the unsteady part of it.
Although the unsteady LPF method solution given in references [11, 12] considers arbitrary
aircraft motions, here the aircrafts response in terms of both atmospheric forces and
moments to perturbations is limited to recti-linear ightpaths. In this chapter, these
perturbations will include both surging- and heaving motions, as well as atmospheric
turbulence inputs including both longitudinal (u
g
) and vertical gusts (w
g
).
4.3.2 Kinematics
In references [11, 12] a formulation for the unsteady LPF method is given, resulting in a
solution for the time-dependent simulation of both aerodynamic forces and moments. The
method requires a denition of the ightpath along which the conguration of interest is
traveling.
In gure 4.9 both the frame T
I
and the frame T
aero
are given. The gure also includes
the denition of T
aero
s translational degrees of freedom [U(t), V (t), W(t)]
T
as well as its
rotational degrees of freedom [p(t), q(t), r(t)]
T
. The angles of rotation [(t), (t), (t)]
T
are also shown in this gure.
Since the ow over the conguration is solved in T
aero
, its position is required in T
I
. For
arbitrary motions, the position of T
aero
s origin O
aero
is given as,
R
0
(t) =
_
_
X
0
(t)
Y
0
(t)
Z
0
(t)
_
_
(4.22)
with R
0
(t) the position of T
aero
s origin in T
I
, and X
0
(t), Y
0
(t) and Z
0
(t) its components.
The instantaneous orientation of T
aero
is given as,
(t) =
_
_
(t)
(t)
(t)
_
_
(4.23)
with (t) the orientation of T
aero
, and (t), (t) and (t) its components. The motivation
for including equations (4.22) and (4.23) is that they are required for the denition of the
congurations position in T
I
. Similar to chapter 3, this position is required to model a
time-dependent wake which eminates from prescribed wake-separation lines
1
. Although
the congurations wake initially is dened in T
I
, the ow is actually solved in T
aero
.
Therefore, both the congurations position and its wake, are required in T
aero
. For a
xed arbitrary point [x, y, z]
T
in T
aero
, and with its known position [X(t), Y (t), Z(t)]
T
in
T
I
, the transformation is written as,
_
_
x
y
z
_
_
= T
_
_
X(t) X
0
(t)
Y (t) Y
0
(t)
Z(t) Z
0
(t)
_
_
(4.24)
1
Note that in chapter 3 F
aero
and F
I
always coincide
with the transformation matrices T
, T
and T
, given as,
T
=
_
_
cos (t) sin (t) 0
sin (t) cos (t) 0
0 0 1
_
_
(4.25)
T
=
_
_
cos (t) 0 sin (t)
0 1 0
sin (t) 0 cos (t)
_
_
(4.26)
T
=
_
_
1 0 0
0 cos (t) sin (t)
0 sin (t) cos (t)
_
_
(4.27)
The inverse of the transformation given in equation (4.24) is also used for unsteady LPF
simulations, and it is written as,
_
_
X(t)
Y (t)
Z(t)
_
_
=
_
_
X
0
(t)
Y
0
(t)
Z
0
(t)
_
_
+ [T
]
1
_
_
x
y
z
_
_
(4.28)
The transformation given in equation (4.28) is used to generate the unsteady wake. From
the trailing-edges of the congurations lift-generating elements the wake is shedded. The
position of these trailing-edges is known in T
aero
, and using equation (4.28), the position
of them is also known in T
I
. In section 4.3.4 the procedure of unsteady wake-shedding
will be further discussed.
4.3.3 Numerical boundary conditions
Similar to chapter 3, the boundary condition employed for unsteady LPF simulations is the
Dirichlet boundary condition. For time-domain simulations, it also requires the internal
disturbance potential to equal a constant (and is selected as zero, see references [11, 12]).
For this purpose, each collocation point (located inside the conguration, slightly below
the surface) is scanned and the sum of the disturbance potential of all conguration and
all wake-panels is calculated.
4.3.4 Unsteady wake-separation and the numerical Kutta condi-
tion
For the time-dependent simulations, initially a steady-state condition is assumed. This
condition has been described in chapter 3 and will be referred to as the trim condi-
tion. This trim condition is given using a pre-dened angle-of-attack, side-slip-angle,
angular-velocities [p, q, r]
T
and free-stream velocity Q
(or, for non-zero side-slip-angle

and angle-of-attack, its components Q
= [U
, V
, W
]
T
).
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
PSfrag replacements
O
I
X
I
Y
I
Z
I
O
aero
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
U(t)
V (t)
W(t)
p(t), (t)
q(t), (t)
r(t), (t)
ightpath
Figure 4.9: The Inertial Frame of Reference F
I
and the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
during unsteady motion, including the motion variables denitions.
For the trim condition, both T
aero
and T
I
coincide. Starting from this trim condi-
tion, the numerical time-domain unsteady LPF simulations will only consider translations
along the negative X
I
-axis of T
I
. With the free-stream velocity vector Q
dened as
Q
= [U
, 0, 0]
T
, for each consecutive time-step, t
n
= nt, with n = 0 N
time
, t the
discretization time and N
time
the number of time-steps, a number of wake-panels is shed
from the trailing edges of lift-generating conguration elements or prescribed separation-
lines.
For example, in gure 4.10 the wake-development for an aerofoil is given. At t = t
0
the
frames T
aero
and T
I
coincide. At t
1
= t the aerofoils trailing-edge has traveled along
the negative X
I
-axis over a distance equalling [X
0
[ = U
t. During this rst time-step,

the aerofoil has shed a new wake-element to counteract the aerofoils variation of circula-
tion caused by any perturbations (also known as the Kelvin condition, which states that
the time rate of change of circulation around a closed curve, including the conguration
and its wake, equals zero, see reference [11]). The aerofoils time-dependent trailing-edge
position in T
I
is known from equation (4.28). The position of the leading-edge of the newly
shed wake-element is equal to the aerofoils trailing-edge position at t
1
= t. Similarly,
the position of the trailing-edge of the new wake-element is equal to the position of the
leading-edge of the shedded wake-panel one time-step earlier (which is the leading-edge of
the steady wake for t
1
= t). For additional time-steps the wake-shedding procedure is
similar. The wake-development for additional time-steps is shown in gure 4.10.
Although the wake-development given in gure in gure 4.10 is quite straightforward, in
references [11, 12] it is suggested to place the trailing-edge of the newly shed wake-panel
closer to the aerofoils trailing-edge, see also gure 4.11. The suggestion is to place the
trailing-edge of the newly shed wake-panel within 0.2 0.3 of the distance covered by the
aerofoils trailing-edge (which equals [U
t[). Throughout this thesis, the trailing-edge

of the latest shed wake-panel is translated to a position equalling 0.25 [U
t[ from the
aerofoils trailing-edge, see also gure 4.12. Both the leading- and trailing-edges of the
previously shed wake-panels are also translated over the same distance (0.25 [U
t[)
closer to the aerofoils trailing-edge. Although the time-dependent wake-development has
been described for an aerofoil, for arbitrary three-dimensional (3D) congurations the pro-
cedure is similar. As an example, for a 3D wing the time-dependent wake-development
(omitting the steady-state wake) is given in gure 4.13.
Similar to chapter 3, the time-dependent wake consists of a number of quadri-lateral
doublet-panels. The congurations wake is also determined by sets of user dened wake-
shedding or separation lines. When considering attached ows only, the wake-shedding
panels are located at the trailing-edges of lift-generating conguration elements (or panels)
from which a wake is desired (separation). Furthermore, the time-dependent wake-panels
also have a collocation point and a local Panel Frame of Reference T
P
, see also sections
3.3.1 and 3.3.3.
The denition of the newly shed wake-panels local frame T
P
is similar to that of the
conguration panels local Panel Frame of Reference denition dened in section 3.3.1.
Furthermore, the singularity distribution on the newly shed wake-panels consists of dou-
blets only. Referring to chapter 3, the wake-panels doublet-strength
wake
is determined
by specifying the wake-separation lines, thus dening the upper and lower wake-shedding
panels on the conguration. Similar to the Kutta condition given in equation (3.14), which
requires that the vorticity at the aerofoils trailing-edge remains zero, the continuous-time-
dependent wake-panels doublet-strength
wake
(t) is also determined by,
wake
(t) =
up
(t)
low
(t) (4.29)
where
up
(t) and
low
(t) are the corresponding upper and lower conguration-panel doublet-
strength at the aerofoils trailing-edge, respectively. Contrary to chapter 3, see section
3.3.4, the wake-panel doublet-strength now becomes a function of time. According to
Kelvins condition, the wake-panels are now used to counteract any change in circulation.
In the numerical scheme, or for discrete-time simulations, the doublet-strength of the newly
shed wake-panels is now related to the corresponding upper and lower conguration-panels
doublet-strength at the aerofoils trailing-edge at the previous time-step. The numerical
equivalent of equation (4.29) becomes,
wake
(t
n
) =
up
(t
n1
)
low
(t
n1
) (4.30)
with both t
n1
= (n 1)t and t
n
= nt consecutive discrete time-steps.
4.3.5 General numerical source- and doublet-solutions
Similar to section 3.3.5, the unsteady ow-solution holds for the frame T
aero
. For the
unsteady LPF method, both the conguration and its wake are also discretized in a number
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake
t
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake
Ut Ut Ut
Ut Ut Ut
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake

Ut
Ut
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake
Ut Ut Ut Ut
Ut Ut Ut Ut
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake
Ut Ut
Ut Ut
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake
Ut Ut Ut Ut Ut
Ut Ut Ut Ut Ut
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
Figure 4.10: Wake-development and position of an aerofoil during unsteady motion in the Inertial
I
.
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Z
aero
wake

U
t
TE-position
TE-wake-shift
0.25 U
t
Figure 4.11: Shift of the trailing-edge of the latest shed wake-panel closer to the aerofoils trailing-
edge.
of quadri-lateral panels. Similar to chapter 3, the method uses N
B
conguration panels
(which include both doublet- and source-elements), and N
W
wake doublet-elements, with
N
B
the number of conguration panels and N
W
the number of wake-panels.
A steady-state solution
With reference to gure 4.12, at time t = t
0
the frames T
aero
and T
I
coincide. Referring
to chapter 3, for this steady-state condition the LPF method uses the Dirichlet boundary-
condition. This condition states that in each collocation point the sum of the perturbation
velocity potential due to both the conguration- and wake-panels equals zero (with the
conguration-panels containing both doublet- and source-elements, while the wake-panels
consist of doublet-elements only). Considering an arbitrary congurations collocation
point k, for the steady-state condition the Dirichlet boundary condition is now written as,
similar to equation (3.39),
N
B
i=1
C
ki
i
+
N
W
j=1
D
kj
wake
j
+
N
B
i=1
B
ki
i
= 0
t=t
0
(4.31)
with C
ki
the disturbance velocity potential inuence of a unit-strength conguration
doublet-panel i on the conguration-panels collocation point k, D
kj
the disturbance velo-
city potential inuence of a unit-strength wake doublet-panel j on the conguration-panels
collocation point k, and B
ki
the disturbance velocity potential inuence of a unit-strength
conguration source-panel i on the conguration-panels collocation point k, respectively.
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake
t
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake
Ut Ut Ut
Ut Ut Ut
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake

Ut
Ut
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake
Ut Ut Ut Ut
Ut Ut Ut Ut
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake
Ut Ut
Ut Ut
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
TE-position
LE-position
wake
Ut Ut Ut Ut Ut
Ut Ut Ut Ut Ut
t
0
= 0
t
1
= t
t
2
= 2t
t
3
= 3t
t
4
= 4t
t
5
= 5t
Figure 4.12: Corrected wake-development and position of an aerofoil during unsteady motion in
the Inertial Frame of Reference F
I
.
PSfrag replacements
X
I
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
Y
I
Z
I
Figure 4.13: A nite wing conguration, the planar unsteady wake along a recti-linear ightpath,
the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
and the Inertial Frame of Reference F
I
.
For the steady-state condition, the wakes doublet-strength
wake
is related to the doublet-
strength of the congurations upper (
up
) and lower panels (
low
) at the wake-separation
lines, see also equation (3.40),
up
low

wake
= 0
Furthermore, for the steady LPF method the conguration-panels prescribed source-
strength is given by equation (3.42),
k
= n
k
Q
with k = 1 N
B
, n
k
the panel ks normal and Q
the vector of free-stream ow com-

ponents at innity. In this thesis, for the steady-state condition this vector is given as
Q
= [U
, 0, 0]
T
. Finally, the solution of the unknown doublet-strength distribution on
both the conguration and wake is obtained from equation (3.43),
[AIC]
_

wake
_
= RHS
A time-dependent solution
For time-domain simulations, the conguration travels along the negative X
I
-axis of T
I
with velocity Q
= [U
, 0, 0]
T
, see gure 4.12. Similar to references [11, 12], for these un-
steady simulations at each time-step (with discretization time t) a number of wake-panels
is being shed. These new wake-panels make sure that the Kelvin condition is fulllled for
all time-steps. Basically, these newly shed wake-panels counteract the variation of circu-
lation caused by any perturbations such as aircraft motion and atmospheric turbulence
inputs. The time-dependent ow is solved in T
aero
, although the time-dependent wake
is generated in T
I
. The wake-panels corner points are transformed to T
aero
using the
transformation given in equation (4.24).
For the solution of the time-dependent doublet-strenght distribution of both the con-
guration and its wake, a formulation similar to equation (4.31) is used. Also, for the
time-domain simulation the Dirichlet boundary condition is used. This boundary condi-
tion requires that at each collocation point the sum of the disturbance velocity potential
of the congurations source- and doublet-panels, as well as the disturbance velocity po-
tential of all the wake-doublet-panels, equals zero. In the case of unsteady time-dependent
simulations, the wake-geometry includes wake-panels shed at previous time-steps. For an
arbitrary collocation point k and at time t = t
n
, the equivalent of equation (4.31) is given
as,
N
B
i=1
C
ki
i
+
n
m=0
N
W
j=1
D
kjm
wake
jm
+
N
B
i=1
B
ki
i
= 0
t=t
n
(4.32)
with C
ki
the disturbance velocity potential inuence of unit-strength doublet conguration
panel i on conguration panel collocation point k, D
kjm
the disturbance velocity potential
inuence of unit-strength doublet-wake-panel j on conguration panel collocation point
k at t = t
m
, and B
ki
the disturbance velocity potential inuence of unit-strength source
conguration panel i on conguration panel collocation point k, respectively. Similar to
equation (4.31), the congurations doublet strength at time t = t
n
is written as
i
with
i = 1 N
B
, the congurations source-strength at time t = t
n
is written as
i
with
i = 1 N
B
and the wake-panels doublet-strength at time t = t
n
is written as
wake
jm
with j = 1 N
W
, m = 0 n and with n = 0 N
time
with N
time
the number of time-
steps.
Equation (4.32) holds for time-step t = t
n
while for all previous time-steps t = t
0
t
n1
the wake-doublet-strength
wake
jm
is known from equation (4.30). For an arbitrary wake-
panel with counter j at intermediate time-step t = t
m
, this equation is written as,
wake
jm
(t
m
) =
up
(t
m1
)
low
(t
m1
) (4.33)
Using equation (4.33), for an arbitrary collocation point k and for t = t
n
, equation (4.32)
is written as,
N
B
i=1
C
ki
i
+
n
m=n
N
W
j=1
D
kjm
wake
jm
=
N
B
i=1
B
ki
n1
m=0
N
W
j=1
D
kjm
wake
jm
t=t
n
(4.34)
Similar to equation (3.42), the time-dependent source-strength (t
n
) is known. According
to references [11, 12], for an arbitrary collocation point k, the prescribed source-strength,
k
(t
n
), is generally given as,
k
(t
n
) = n
k

_
_
_
_
U(t
n
)
V (t
n
)
W(t
n
)
_
_
+ (t
n
)
_
_
x
col
k
y
col
k
z
col
k
_
_
_
_
(4.35)
with U(t
n
), V (t
n
) and W(t
n
) the translational velocity components along the
X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively, (t
n
) the vector of rotational velocity com-
ponents [p(t
n
), q(t
n
), r(t
n
)]
T
along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively, and
[x
col
k
, y
col
k
, z
col
k
]
T
the position of the k-th collocation point in T
aero
. See gure 4.9 for
the denition of both the translational and rotational velocity components.
In this thesis, only perturbations along a recti-linear ightpath are considered with con-
stant translational velocity components U(t
n
) = U
= [Q
[, V (t
n
) = 0 and W(t
n
) = 0.
Furthermore, for the estimation of stability derivatives only quasi-steady perturbations for
the rotational velocity components are considered, thus p(t
n
) = p, q(t
n
) = q and r(t
n
) = r.
If atmospheric turbulence inputs are considered along the recti-linear ightpath, equation
(4.35) is written as,
k
(t
n
) = n
k

_
_
_
_
U
0
0
_
_
+
_
_
u
g
(t
n
)
v
g
(t
n
)
w
g
(t
n
)
_
_
_
_
(4.36)
with u
g
(t
n
), v
g
(t
n
) and w
g
(t
n
) the longitudinal, lateral and vertical atmospheric turbulence
velocity components along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively. See also gure
4.14 for the denition of the atmospheric turbulence velocity components. In chapter 5, the
denition of isolated aircraft motion perturbations and isolated atmospheric turbulence
inputs is given in terms of the prescribed source-strength.
Once the prescribed time-dependent source-strength has been dened, and using equation
(3.40) for the row of latest shed wake-panels, equation (4.34) is written in a form similar
to equation (3.43),
[AIC]
_
(t
n
)
wake
(t
n
)
_
= RHS
t=t
n
(4.37)
with (t
n
) = [
1
(t
n
), ,
N
B
(t
n
)]
T
the unknown conguration doublet-strength distri-
bution at t = t
n
,
wake
(t
n
) = [
wake
1
(t
n
), ,
wake
N
W
(t
n
)]
T
the unknown wake-doublet-
strength distribution at t = t
n
and AIC the aerodynamic inuence coecient matrix
according to,
AIC =
_
_
C
11
C
12
C
1N
B
C
21
C
22
C
2N
B
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
C
N
B
1
C
N
B
2
C
N
B
N
B
D
11
D
12
D
1N
W
D
21
D
22
D
2N
W
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
D
N
B
1
D
N
B
2
D
N
B
N
W
E
N
W
N
B
E
N
W
N
W
_
_
(4.38)
PSfrag replacements
O
I
X
I
Y
I
Z
I
O
aero
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
u
g
(t)
v
g
(t)
w
g
(t)
p(t), (t)
q(t), (t)
r(t), (t)
ightpath
Figure 4.14: The Inertial Frame of Reference F
I
aero
for the aircraft motion along a recti-linear ightpath, including the atmospheric
turbulence velocity component denitions.
with both matrices E
N
W
N
B
and E
N
W
N
W
dening the wake-panels strength related to
the conguration panels doublet-strength similar to equation (3.40). Referring to equation
(3.39), the matrix elements C
ki
and D
kj
in equation (4.38) represent the disturbance
velocity potential inuence due to a unit-strength doublet conguration panel i on cong-
uration panel collocation point k, and the disturbance velocity potential inuence of the
latest shed unit-strength doublet-wake-panel j on conguration panel collocation point k,
respectively. The vector RHS in equation (4.37) is dened as,
RHS =
_
RHS
k
O
N
W
1
_
(4.39)
with k = 1 N
B
, N
B
the number of conguration panels, the vector O
N
W
1
a zero vector
with N
W
the number of wake-panels, and RHS
k
dened as,
RHS
k
=
N
B
i=1
B
ki
n1
m=0
N
W
j=1
D
kjm
wake
jm
(4.40)
with D
kjm
the disturbance velocity potential inuence of a unit-strength wake doublet-
panel j (at intermediate time-step t = t
m
) on conguration panel collocation point k, B
ki
the disturbance velocity potential inuence of unit-strength source conguration panel i on
conguration panel collocation point k, and
i
the prescribed source-strength, respectively.
The unknown conguration doublet-strength at t = t
n
, (t
n
), and the unknown wake-
doublet-strength of the latest shed wake-panels at t = t
n
,
wake
(t
n
), follows from equation
(4.37) by matrix inversion.
4.3.6 Velocity perturbation calculations
Similar to chapter 3, section 3.3.6, from the known congurations doublet-strength,
k
,
with k = 1 N
B
, the time-dependent perturbation velocity components, now designated
as [q
l
k
(t
n
), q
m
k
(t
n
), q
n
k
(t
n
)]
T
in the frame T
P
, are calculated. The procedure for calcu-
lating these velocity components is equal to the procedure given in chapter 3, section
3.3.6.
4.3.7 Aerodynamic pressure calculations
The procedure for calculating the aerodynamic pressure coecient acting on a conguration-
panel, is similar to the one presented in section 3.3.7. The aerodynamic pressure coecient
calculations are also performed in T
P
. To derive the total local velocity at an arbitrary col-
location point k, rst the conguration-panels time-dependent perceived velocity, Q
p
(t
n
),
in T
aero
is given. For arbitrary motions as well as atmospheric turbulence inputs, the
perceived velocity vector at time t = t
n
is given as,
Q
p
(t
n
) =
_
_
U
p
(t
n
)
V
p
(t
n
)
W
p
(t
n
)
_
_
=
_
_
U(t
n
)
V (t
n
)
W(t
n
)
_
_
+
_
_
x
col
k
y
col
k
z
col
k
_
_
+
_
_
u
g
(t
n
)
v
g
(t
n
)
w
g
(t
n
)
_
_
(4.41)
with U(t
n
), V (t
n
) and W(t
n
) the translational velocity components along the
X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively, (t
n
) the vector of rotational velocity compo-
nents [p(t
n
), q(t
n
), r(t
n
)]
T
along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively, the posi-
tion of the k-th collocation point in T
aero
given as [x
col
k
, y
col
k
, z
col
k
]
T
, and u
g
(t
n
), v
g
(t
n
)
and w
g
(t
n
) the longitudinal, lateral and vertical atmospheric turbulence velocity compo-
nents along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively. See also gures 4.9 and 4.14 for
the translational, rotational and atmospheric turbulence velocity component denitions.
The time-dependent perceived velocity vector Q
p
(t
n
) is decomposed in T
P
, and its de-
composition in T
P
is denoted as [Q
p
l
(t
n
), Q
p
m
(t
n
), Q
p
n
(t
n
)]
T
. The decomposition makes
use of the transformation from T
aero
to T
P
(T
P
aero
) given in section 3.3.5,
_
_
Q
p
l
(t
n
)
Q
p
m
(t
n
)
Q
p
n
(t
n
)
_
_
= T
P
aero
_
_
U
p
(t
n
)
V
p
(t
n
)
W
p
(t
n
)
_
_
For an arbitrary collocation point k, the total time-dependent local velocity Q
local
k
(t
n
) in
T
P
is calculated by,
Q
local
k
(t
n
) =
_
_
Q
p
l
k
(t
n
)
Q
p
m
k
(t
n
)
Q
p
n
k
(t
n
)
_
_
+
_
_
q
l
k
(t
n
)
q
m
k
(t
n
)
q
n
k
(t
n
)
_
_
(4.42)
The time-dependent non-dimensional pressure coecient C
p
k
(t
n
) for panel k is calculated
by, see references [11, 12, 8, 9],
C
p
k
(t
n
) = 1
Q
local
k
(t
n
)
2
Q
2
+ 2
k
(t
n
)
k
(t
n1
)
t Q
2
(4.43)
with
k
(t
n
) panel ks doublet-strength at t = t
n
,
k
(t
n1
) panel ks doublet-strength at the
previous time-step t = t
n1
, Q
=
_
U
2
+V
2
+W
2
and t the discretization

time.
Concluding this section, it should be noted that the perturbations described in equation
(4.41) will not occur simultaneously. In chapter 5, all (isolated) aircraft motion perturba-
tions and (isolated) atmospheric turbulence inputs will be dened.
4.3.8 Aerodynamic loads
Once the congurations time-dependent non-dimensional pressure coecient distribution
C
p
k
(t
n
) is known, the aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the conguration are
calculated in T
aero
. Similar to section 3.3.8, the aerodynamic forces acting on conguration
panel k become,
F
x
k
(t
n
) = C
p
k
(t
n
)
1
2
Q
2
S
P
k
x
e
3
k
F
y
k
(t
n
) = C
p
k
(t
n
)
1
2
Q
2
S
P
k
y
e
3
k
F
z
k
(t
n
) = C
p
k
(t
n
)
1
2
Q
2
S
P
k
z
e
3
k
with C
p
k
(t
n
) the time-dependent panels non-dimenional pressure coecient according to
equation (4.43), the air density, Q
, S
P
k
the panels surface area accord-
ing to equation (3.20) and x
e
3
k
, y
e
3
k
, z
e
3
k
the panel normal components (e
3
k
= n
k
=
[x
e
3
k
, y
e
3
k
, z
e
3
k
]
T
) in T
aero
.
Panel ks contribution to the time-dependent aerodynamic moments with respect to a
reference point, which is taken to be [0, 0, 0]
T
in T
aero
, becomes,
M
x
k
(t
n
) = F
z
k
(t
n
) y
col
k
F
y
k
(t
n
) z
col
k
M
y
k
(t
n
) = F
x
k
(t
n
) z
col
k
F
z
k
(t
n
) x
col
k
M
z
k
(t
n
) = F
y
k
(t
n
) x
col
k
F
x
k
(t
n
) y
col
k
with x
col
k
, y
col
k
and z
col
k
the components of the position of collocation point k in T
aero
.
The time-dependent total aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the conguration
are obtained by summation of all the conguration panels contribution to them,
F
x
(t
n
) =
N
B
k=1
F
x
k
(t
n
) F
y
(t
n
) =
N
B
k=1
F
y
k
(t
n
) F
z
(t
n
) =
N
B
k=1
F
z
k
(t
n
)
and,
M
x
(t
n
) =
N
B
k=1
M
x
k
(t
n
) M
y
(t
n
) =
N
B
k=1
M
y
k
(t
n
) M
z
(t
n
) =
N
B
k=1
M
z
k
(t
n
)
4.4 Examples of numerical unsteady aerodynamic simulations 91
Finally, the time-dependent non-dimensional aerodynamic force and moment coecients
in T
aero
become,
C
X
(t
n
) =
F
x
(t
n
)
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
C
Y
(t
n
) =
F
y
(t
n
)
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
C
Z
(t
n
) =
F
z
(t
n
)
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
and,
C
(t
n
) =
M
x
(t
n
)
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
b
ref
C
m
(t
n
) =
M
y
(t
n
)
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
c
ref
C
n
(t
n
) =
M
z
(t
n
)
1
2
Q
2
S
ref
b
ref
with b
ref
and c
ref
the congurations span and the (mean) aerodynamic chord, respec-
tively.
4.4 Examples of numerical unsteady aerodynamic si-
mulations
4.4.1 Introduction
In this section, several examples of numerical results will be given for the verication of
the unsteady LPF method used in this thesis. The example conguration for which the
numerical simulations are given is a (nite) wing with Aspect-Ratio AR = 100 with a
NACA 0002 aerofoil. For three dierent aerodynamic grids the conguration is given in
gure 4.15; a conguration with 6 span-wise elements and 10 chord-wise elements (top),
a conguration with 6 span-wise elements and 25 chord-wise elements (middle), and a
conguration with 6 span-wise elements and 50 chord-wise elements (bottom). Note that
the origin O
aero
of T
aero
is located on the wings leading-edge.
The frequency-domain aerodynamic results will be given in terms of the simulated Theodor-
sen function, the simulated (Modied) Sears function and the simulated (Modied) Hor-
lock function. Although the simulations will use a nite Aspect-Ratio wing with nite
thickness, the results are assumed to be representative for results of an aerofoil of zero
thickness. The simulations will be compared to analytical results provided by Theodorsen,
Sears and Horlock, see references [24, 22, 14] and see section 4.2.
Time-domain results will include simulated indicial responses. These responses to a step-
wise change in angle-of-attack will be compared to analytical results obtained by R.T.
Jones, see also references [16, 17].
Harmonic perturbation denitions
For all simulations the wing is traveling along the negative X
I
-axis with velocity vector
Q
= [U
, 0, 0]
T
. For the simulation of Theodorsens, Sears and Horlocks function, the
harmonic perturbations will include heaving motions, vertical gust inputs and longitudinal
gust inputs with velocities w(t
n
), w
g
(t
n
) and u
g
(t
n
), respectively. As a function of time,
an arbitrary perturbation z(t
n
) is written as,
z(t
n
) = z
max
sin( t
n
) (4.44)
with z(t
n
) either the perturbation w(t
n
), w
g
(t
n
) or u
g
(t
n
), z
max
the amplitude of the
perturbation (with
z
max
Q
<< 1), t
n
time and the perturbation circular frequency (in
[Rad/sec]). For the time-domain simulations presented in this thesis, the reduced fre-
quency k is used to dene the frequency of the perturbations. Equation (4.44) is rewritten
as,
z(t
n
) = z
max
sin
_
c
2Q
2Q
t
n
c
_
= z
max
sin
_
k
2Q
t
n
c
_
(4.45)
Equation (4.45) will be used to dene the perturbation velocity at each collocation point.
For aircraft motion perturbations, z(t
n
) is equal for all collocation points i, i = 1 N
B
,
resulting in,
z
i
(t
n
) = z
max
sin
_
k
2Q
t
n
c
_
= z
max
sin
_
k
2X
0
c
_
(4.46)
with X
0
= Q
t
n
= U
t
n
, the position of the origin of T
aero
given along the negative
X
I
-axis of T
I
and i equal to i = 1 N
B
. For atmospheric turbulence perturbations, z(t
n
)
will dier for all collocation points i, i = 1 N
B
, resulting in,
z
i
(t
n
) = z
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
c
_
(4.47)
with X
col
i
the time-dependent position of all collocation points in T
I
and i equal to i =
1 N
B
. The transformation of the position of collocation point i in T
aero
([x
col
i
, y
col
i
, z
col
i
]
T
)
to its position in T
I
([X
col
i
, Y
col
i
, Z
col
i
]
T
), is given in equation (4.28).
Frequency-response data calculations
The results provided by Theodorsen, Sears and Horlock are given in the frequency-domain.
In order to obtain frequency-domain results from the unsteady LPF method, for a number
of reduced frequencies k =
c
2Q
= [0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9]

T
the non-dimensional lift-
coecient was calculated as a function of time using harmonically varying inputs. Using
the input (the perturbation) and the output (C
L
(t), which is equal to C
Z
(t) in T
aero
),
the results are transformed to the frequency-domain for each reduced frequency k. The
procedure for transforming the time-domain results to the frequency-domain is given in
appendix E. This procedure eventually results in frequency-response data, given as
C
L
(k),
C
L
g
(k) and
C
L
u
g
(k), with =
w
Q
,
g
=
w
g
Q
and u
g
=
u
g
Q
, the non-dimensional heaving

motion perturbation, the non-dimensional vertical gust input and the non-dimensional
longitudinal gust input, respectively.
The aerodynamic frequency-response data are written in a parametric form which is similar
to the one used in equation (4.3). For example, for the time-domain the simulated lift-
coecient due to harmonic angle-of-attack perturbations is written as,
C
L
= C
L
+ C
L

c
2Q
(4.48)
L
and C
L

in equation (4.48) are frequency-dependent, and
are known from the procedure given in appendix E. The frequency-domain equivalent of
equation (4.48) is written as,
C
L
(k) = C
L
(k) + C
L

(k)
j c
2Q
= C
L
(k) + C
L

(k) jk (4.49)
with k the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
. The known stability parameters C

L
and C
L

can
now be compared to the stability parameters C
l
and C
l

as given in equation (4.3). From
both equations (4.49) and (4.3) the simulated Theodorsen function C
sim
(k) = F
sim
(k) +
j G
sim
(k) is derived.
Similarly, from the simulated frequency-response functions
C
L
g
(k) and
C
L
u
g
(k), and using
the frequency-domain equivalents of equations (4.7) and (4.12), the simulated (Modied)
Sears function, S
sim
(k) = F
G
sim
(k) + j G
G
sim
(k), and the simulated (Modied) Horlock
function, T
sim
(k) = X
G
sim
(k) + j Y
G
sim
(k), are derived.
Time-domain simulations
In this chapter, all time-domain simulations are performed over three cycles with 25 time-
steps per cycle. The discretization-time t for the simulations is taken to be a function
c
2Q
. In order to calculate t from the prescribed reduced

frequency k, the circular frequency is calculated rst from,
=
2 k Q
c
Using this expression for , the frequency f in cycles per second (or Hz) becomes,
f =
2 k Q
2 c
from which the period T [sec.] follows,
T =
2 c
2 k Q
Assuming that one period of a sine function is approximated by a number of N

samples
samples (that is N
samples
= 25), the discretization-time t [sec.] is dened as,
t =
2 c
2 k Q
N
samples
(4.50)
Thus, the discretization-time t is determined from the reduced frequency k and the
number of samples N
samples
to describe a single oscillation of the harmonically varying
aircraft motion perturbations or the atmospheric turbulence inputs.
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
50
0
50
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
PSfrag replacements
Xaero
Yaero
Z
a
e
r
o
(a) 6 10 lattice
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
50
0
50
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
PSfrag replacements
Xaero
Yaero
Z
a
e
r
o
(b) 6 25 lattice
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
50
0
50
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
PSfrag replacements
Xaero
Yaero
Z
a
e
r
o
(c) 6 50 lattice
Figure 4.15: Aspect-Ratio AR = 100 wings with a NACA 0002 aerofoil for several aerodynamic
grids, as used for LPF simulations.
4.4.2 Theodorsen function simulations
Theodorsens function C(k) describes the dynamics of the aerodynamic lift of an aerofoil
of zero-thickness due to harmonically varying heaving motions as a function of the reduced
frequency k =
c
2Q
, see also section 4.2.2. The unsteady LPF simulations are performed
using a steady-state angle-of-attack equal to
0
= 0
o
.
For the simulation of Theodorsens function the prescribed source-strength of panel i is
similar to equation (4.35) and it is given as,
i
(t
n
) = n
i
_
_
_
_
U
0
w
i
(t
n
)
_
_
_
_
(4.51)
while, similar to equation (4.41), the perceived velocity vector of panel i now becomes,
Q
p
i
(t
n
) =
_
_
U
p
i
(t
n
)
V
p
i
(t
n
)
W
p
i
(t
n
)
_
_
=
_
_
U
0
w
i
(t
n
)
_
_
(4.52)
In equations (4.51) and (4.52), the perturbation velocity w
i
(t
n
) is similar to equation
(4.46),
w
i
(t
n
) = w
max
sin
_
k
2X
0
c
_
(4.53)
with X
0
the position of the origin O
aero
of T
aero
in T
I
, and i equal to i = 1 N
B
.
Both Theodorsens function C(k) and the simulated Theodorsen function C
sim
(k) are
shown in gure 4.16. For all congurations both the simulated magnitude and the si-
mulated phase show good correlation with the analytical results. Especially for the more
dense aerodynamic grids, both the magnitude and phase of the simulated Theodorsen
function show excellent agreement with the analytical results.
4.4.3 Sears function simulations
Sears function S(k) describes the dynamics of the aerodynamic lift of an aerofoil of zero-
thickness due to harmonically varying vertical gusts as a function of the reduced frequency
k =
c
2Q
, see also section 4.2.3. The unsteady LPF simulations are performed using a
steady-state angle-of-attack equal to
0
= 0
o
. Note that (see gure 4.15) the origin of T
aero
is located at the leading-edge of the wing, resulting in Modied Sears function simulations.
For the simulation of the Modied Sears function the prescribed source-strength of panel
i is similar to equation (4.36) and it is given as,
i
(t
n
) = n
i
_
_
_
_
U
0
w
g
i
(t
n
)
_
_
_
_
(4.54)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theodorsen
Simulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Theodorsen
Simulation
PSfrag replacements
k
k
[
C
(
k
)
[
(
k
)
(a) 6 10 lattice
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theodorsen
Simulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Theodorsen
Simulation
PSfrag replacements
k
k
[
C
(
k
)
[
(
k
)
(b) 6 25 lattice
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theodorsen
Simulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
Theodorsen
Simulation
PSfrag replacements
k
k
[
C
(
k
)
[
(
k
)
(c) 6 50 lattice
Figure 4.16: Magnitude and phase of Theodorsens function, and the magnitude and phase of
the simulated Theodorsen function for an AR=100 wing, NACA 0002 aerofoil, for
several aerodynamic grids.
Q
p
i
(t
n
) =
_
_
U
p
i
(t
n
)
V
p
i
(t
n
)
W
p
i
(t
n
)
_
_
=
_
_
U
0
w
g
i
(t
n
)
_
_
(4.55)
In equations (4.54) and (4.55), the perturbation velocity w
g
i
(t
n
(4.47),
w
g
i
(t
n
) = w
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
c
_
(4.56)
with X
col
i
the position of all collocation points in T
I
B
.
Both the Modied Sears function S
mod
(k) and the simulated Modied Sears function
S
mod
sim
(k) are presented in gure 4.17. For all congurations, both the simulated magni-
tude and the simulated phase show good correlation with the analytical results. Especially
for the more dense aerodynamic grids, both the magnitude and phase of the simulated
Modied Sears function show excellent agreement with the analytical results.
4.4.4 Horlock function simulations
Horlocks function T(k) describes the dynamics of the aerodynamic lift of an aerofoil of
zero-thickness due to harmonically varying longitudinal gusts as a function of the reduced
frequency k =
c
2Q
, see also section 4.2.4. The unsteady LPF simulations are performed
using a steady-state angle-of-attack equal to
0
= 2.5
o
. Note that (see gure 4.15) the
origin of T
aero
is located at the leading-edge of the wing, resulting in Modied Horlock
function simulations.
For the simulation of the Modied Horlock function the prescribed source-strength of panel
i is similar to equation (4.36) and it is given as,
i
(t
n
) = n
i
_
_
_
_
U
+u
g
i
(t
n
)
0
0
_
_
_
_
(4.57)
Q
p
i
(t
n
) =
_
_
U
p
i
(t
n
)
V
p
i
(t
n
)
W
p
i
(t
n
)
_
_
=
_
_
U
+u
g
i
(t
n
)
0
0
_
_
(4.58)
In equations (4.57) and (4.58), the perturbation velocity u
g
i
(t
n
(4.47),
u
g
i
(t
n
) = u
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
c
_
(4.59)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
Sears
Simulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Sears
Simulation
PSfrag replacements
k
k
[
S
(
k
)
m
o
d
[
,
[
S
(
k
)
m
o
d
s
i
m
[
(
k
)
(a) 6 10 lattice
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
Sears
Simulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Sears
Simulation
PSfrag replacements
k
k
[
S
(
k
)
m
o
d
[
,
[
S
(
k
)
m
o
d
s
i
m
[
(
k
)
(b) 6 25 lattice
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
Sears
Simulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Sears
Simulation
PSfrag replacements
k
k
[
S
(
k
)
m
o
d
[
,
[
S
(
k
)
m
o
d
s
i
m
[
(
k
)
(c) 6 50 lattice
Figure 4.17: Magnitude and phase of the Modied Sears function (x =
c
2
), and the magnitude
and phase of the simulated Modied Sears function for an AR=100 wing, NACA
0002 aerofoil, for several aerodynamic grids.
with X
col
i
the position of all collocation points in T
I
B
.
Both the Modied Horlock function T
mod
(k) and the simulated Modied Horlock func-
tion T
mod
sim
(k) are presented in gure 4.18. Especially for the more dense aerodynamic
grids, both the magnitude and the phase of the simulated Modied Horlock function show
excellent agreement with the analytical results.
4.4.5 Wagner function simulations
For a verication of the unsteady LPF method in the time-domain, in this section simu-
lations of Wagners function (s) are given. Wagners function describes the response of
the aerodynamic lift of an aerofoil of zero-thickness due to a step-wise change in angle-
of-attack and it is given as a function of the semi-chord distance traveled s =
2Q
t
c
, see
also section 4.2.5. The unsteady LPF simulations are performed using a step-change in
angle-of-attack equal to
step
= 2.5
o
, with the initial angle-of-attack equal to
0
= 0
o
.
The simulated indicial-functions have been obtained using a prescribed source-strength
for conguration-panel i equal to,
i
(t
n
) = n
i
_
_
_
_
U
0
w
_
_
_
_
(4.60)
with w = Q
sin(
step
) and
step
the step-wise change in angle-of-attack. The perceived
velocity vector of panel i becomes,
Q
p
i
(t
n
) =
_
_
U
p
i
(t
n
)
V
p
i
(t
n
)
W
p
i
(t
n
)
_
_
=
_
_
U
0
w
_
_
(4.61)
In both equations (4.60) and (4.61), the perturbation velocity w is constant.
The time-domain result of the non-dimensional lift-coecient C
L
(t) is divided by the
steady-state coecient C
L
(t ) to obtain the simulated Wagner function, or
sim
(t) =
C
L
(t)
C
L
(t)
t>0
. Note that Wagners function is usually given as a function of non-dimensional
time, or in semi-chords traveled s =
2Q
t
c
, or
sim
(s). In gure 4.19 for several discretiza-
tion times t the simulated indicial responses are shown for the aerodynamic grids de-
picted in gure 4.15. Also, R.T. Jones approximation of Wagners function (see references
[16, 17]) is presented in gure 4.19. The analytical result of R.T. Jones approximation of
Wagners function is given in equation (4.16). For all congurations the simulated indicial-
functions show a good correlation with the analytical result provided by R.T. Jones for
t > 0. Also note that, contrary to the Jones approximation, the unsteady LPF method
simulates the added mass eect, resulting in large values of the simulated Wagner func-
tion
sim
(s) for s = 0.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Horlock
Simulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
10
20
30
40
Horlock
Simulation
PSfrag replacements
k
k
[
T
m
o
d
(
k
)
[
,
[
T
m
o
d
s
i
m
(
k
)
[
(
k
)
(a) 6 10 lattice
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Horlock
Simulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
10
20
30
40
Horlock
Simulation
PSfrag replacements
k
k
[
T
m
o
d
(
k
)
[
,
[
T
m
o
d
s
i
m
(
k
)
[
(
k
)
(b) 6 25 lattice
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
Horlock
Simulation
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0
10
20
30
40
Horlock
Simulation
PSfrag replacements
k
k
[
T
m
o
d
(
k
)
[
,
[
T
m
o
d
s
i
m
(
k
)
[
(
k
)
(c) 6 50 lattice
Figure 4.18: Magnitude and phase of the Modied Horlock function, and the magnitude and
phase of the simulated Modied Horlock function for an AR=100 wing, NACA 0002
aerofoil, for several aerodynamic grids.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Jones
PSfrag replacements
s
s
i
m
(
s
)
6 10
6 25
6 50
(a) t = 0.2
c
Q
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Jones
PSfrag replacements
s
s
i
m
(
s
)
6 10
6 25
6 50
(b) t = 0.1
c
Q
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1
Jones
PSfrag replacements
s
s
i
m
(
s
)
6 10
6 25
6 50
(c) t = 0.05
c
Q
Figure 4.19: Simulated indicial functions

sim
(s) for several discretization times t and several
aerodynamic grids, including Jones approximation of Wagners function.
4.5 Remarks
In this chapter, it has been shown that the unsteady LPF method captures the analytical
functions according to Theodorsen, Sears, Horlock and Wagner. The theory will now
be used to simulate aircraft responses in terms of both non-dimensional aerodynamic
forces and moments due to both arbitrary aircraft motions and atmospheric turbulence
inputs. In chapter 5, the aircraft motion perturbations will be dened, as well as both
the one- and two-dimensional atmospheric turbulence inputs. For these perturbations, the
prescribed source-strength and the conguration panels perceived velocity vector will be
given. Furthermore, the procedure for calculating both stability- and gust derivatives will
be given. These derivatives will hold for the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
.
Part III
A Linearized Potential Flow
Application
Chapter 5
Aircraft motion perturbations
and the atmospheric turbulence
inputs
5.1 Introduction
In chapters 3 and 4 the Linearized Potential Flow (LPF) method and the unsteady LPF
method for simulating the (time-dependent) aerodynamic forces and moments acting on an
arbitrary conguration have been discussed, respectively. In this chapter, the denition of
specic aircraft motion perturbations and atmospheric turbulence inputs for the simulation
of these aerodynamic forces and moments is given.
The aerodynamic response will be given in terms of non-dimensional aerodynamic force
and moment coecients. The steady aerodynamic response to stationary aircraft motion
perturbations will eventually result in the so-called steady stability derivatives. These
derivatives are valid for the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
in which the equations of
motion are modeled, see appendix I. The considered stability derivatives are given with
respect to the aircraft motion degrees of freedom, which include stationary perturbations
in airspeed, side-slip-angle, angle-of-attack, roll-rate, pitch-rate and yaw-rate. For an
assumed trim condition (see chapter 6), these steady stability derivatives are constant.
Next to the steady stability derivatives, the so-called unsteady stability derivatives are
required for the simulation of the aircrafts equations of motion. Estimating these un-
steady stability derivatives, such as C
Z

, C
m

, C
Y
, C
and C
n
, requires a time-domain
approach. These derivatives are obtained from time-domain simulations resulting in the
time-dependent response of aerodynamic force and moment coecients due to isolated,
and prescribed, harmonically varying inputs such as angle-of-attack and side-slip-angle.
For a number of reduced frequencies, the time-dependent aerodynamic force and moment
106 Aircraft motion perturbations and the atmospheric turbulence inputs
coecients will be calculated due to these inputs. From both the outputs (the aerodynamic
force and moment responses) and the inputs (the harmonically varying angle-of-attack or
side-slip-angle) for each reduced frequency the frequency-dependent steady and frequency-
dependent unsteady stability derivative is obtained using a least squares t (see appendix
E). These derivatives allow the aerodynamic forces and moments response to inputs to
be given as frequency-response data.
Next to the unsteady stability derivatives, the calculation of both steady and unsteady
gust derivatives will also be described in this chapter. These derivatives are also obtained
from time-domain simulations resulting in the time-dependent response of aerodynamic
force and moment coecients due to isolated, and prescribed, harmonically varying gust
inputs. These gust derivatives also allow the aerodynamic forces and moments response
to gust inputs to be given as a frequency-response.
As an overview of this chapter, in section 5.2 the aircraft motion perturbations are de-
scribed for the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference T
aero
. They will include stationary per-
turbations and harmonic perturbations as a function of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
.
Simulating both the stationary and the unsteady aerodynamic response to aircraft mo-
tions, the degrees of freedom considered here will include translational perturbations such
as surge, sway and heave. The stationary simulations will also include rotational pertur-
bations such as rolling, pitching and yawing motions. In addition to chapters 3 and 4, the
aircraft motion perturbations in the frame T
aero
will be dened in terms of the congura-
tion panel perceived velocity vector, Q
p
i
, and its corresponding prescribed source-strength
distribution,
i
= n
i
Q
p
i
, with n
i
the i-th panel normal vector, i = 1 N
B
, and N
B
the number of conguration panels.
In section 5.3 the (harmonic) atmospheric turbulence inputs will be dened for the frame
T
aero
. They are also given as a function of the reduced frequency k and will include at-
mospheric turbulence velocity components along T
aero
s axes, that is longitudinal gusts,
lateral gusts and vertical gusts. Both one-dimensional (1D) atmospheric turbulence (for
which the atmospheric turbulence velocity components are only allowed to vary along the
aircrafts recti-linear ightpath) and two-dimensional (2D) gust inputs (for which the at-
mospheric turbulence velocity components are allowed to vary both along the aircrafts
recti-linear ightpath and its span) will be considered. In addition to chapters 3 and
4, the atmospheric turbulence inputs in the frame T
aero
will also be dened in terms of
the conguration panels perceived velocity vector, Q
p
i
, and its corresponding prescribed
source-strength distribution,
i
= n
i
Q
p
i
.
Using the aircraft motion perturbations and atmospheric turbulence inputs given in sec-
tions 5.2 and 5.3, the aerodynamic responses due to these perturbations and inputs will
initially result in aerodynamic derivatives and aerodynamic gust derivatives (in frame
T
aero
), respectively. Using both the prescribed perturbations for aircraft motions and the
prescribed atmospheric turbulence inputs, in section 5.4 the theory for transforming the
derivatives to stability and gust derivatives is given. These stability and gust derivatives
are given for the frame T
S
. Details of both the frames T
aero
and T
S
are given in appendix
B.
5.2 Aircraft motion denitions 107
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
U
p
(t), u
g
V
p
(t), v
g
W
p
(t), w
g
p
q
r
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
U
p
(t), u
g
V
p
(t), v
g
W
p
(t), w
g
p
q
r
aero
, including the positive directions of the
perceived aircraft motion velocity vector components U
p
(t), V
p
(t) and W
p
(t), the
positive directions of atmospheric turbulence input velocity vector components u
g
, v
g
and w
g
(left), and the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
, including the positive
directions of the rotational velocity vector components p, q and r (right).
In section 5.5 the theory for calculating aerodynamic frequency-response data is given.
Furthermore, the denitions of the frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives is
provided.
5.2 Aircraft motion denitions
5.2.1 Translational velocity perturbations
In the frame T
aero
the considered translational aircraft motion perturbations include iso-
lated surging, swaying and heaving motions along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, re-
spectively. The denition of the perceived translational velocity components U
p
, V
p
and
W
p
along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively, is shown in gure 5.1.
The aerodynamic forces and moments will ultimately be dened as functions of the non-
dimensional perturbations u =
u
Q
, =
v
Q
and =
w
Q
, with u, v and w the pertur-

bation velocity components along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively, and Q
the free streams velocity magnitude with Q
[U
, 0, 0]
T
.
Stationary perturbations
The aerodynamic response to stationary aircraft motion perturbations involves surge, sway
and heave. The surging motion along the X
aero
-axis results in a perturbation velocity
vector component u which is constant for all conguration panels. The conguration
panels perceived velocity components U
p
, V
p
and W
p
along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-
axis, respectively, become for surging motions,
Q
p
i
=
_
_
U
p
i
V
p
i
W
p
i
_
_
=
_
_
Q
+u
0
0
_
_
(5.1)
with Q
the magnitude of the undisturbed (free-stream) velocity and i = 1 N

B
with
N
B
The swaying motion along the Y
aero
-axis results in the conguration panels perceived
velocity vector components U
p
, V
p
and W
p
along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, re-
spectively, according to,
Q
p
i
=
_
_
U
p
i
V
p
i
W
p
i
_
_
=
_
_
Q
cos
Q
sin
0
_
_
(5.2)
with the side-slip angle.
Finally, the heaving motion along the Z
aero
-axis results in the conguration panels per-
ceived velocity vector components U, V and W along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis,
respectively, according to,
Q
p
i
=
_
_
U
p
i
V
p
i
W
p
i
_
_
=
_
_
Q
cos
0
Q
sin
_
_
(5.3)
with the angle-of-attack.
For the surging, swaying and heaving motion, the prescribed source-strength for LPF
simulations results in
i
= n
i
Q
p
i
, with n
i
conguration panel i-th normal in T
aero
,
and Q
p
i
according to equation (5.1), (5.2) or 5.3).
Unsteady perturbations
One of the major advantages using Computational Aerodynamics (CA) techniques for the
estimation of both aerodynamic forces and moments due to prescribed perturbations is
the decoupling of motions; contrary to ight tests the unsteady aerodynamic response to
isolated perturbations along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis can be performed.
For the calculation of these unsteady aerodynamic forces and moments, recti-linear ight
is assumed; initially the Inertial Frame of Reference T
I
and the frame T
aero
coincide. As
shown in gure 5.2, the aircraft center of gravity is traveling along the negative X
I
-axis
with constant airspeed of magnitude Q
[U
, V
, W
]
T
, which equals U
with V
= W
= 0.
The time-dependent velocity components for unsteady surging motions, swaying motions
and heaving motions along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively, are now denoted
5.2 Aircraft motion denitions 109
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Y
I
Z
I
aero
I
as used for recti-linear ightpath simulations.
as u(t), v(t) and w(t). These time-dependent components are harmonic and, for example,
an arbitrary perturbation p(t) is written as,
p(t) = p
max
sin( t) (5.4)
with p
max
the perturbations amplitude, the perceived circular frequency in [Rad/sec]
and t time. Writing equation (5.4) as a function of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
, yields,
p(t) = p
max
sin
_
c
2Q
2Q
t
c
_
= p
max
sin
_
k
2Q
t
c
_
(5.5)
with c the mean aerodynamic chord. Since the aircraft is assumed to travel along the
negative X
I
-axis with constant airspeed of magnitude Q
, the position of the origin of

T
aero
in the frame T
I
is written as X
0
(t) = Q
t = U
t, and equation (5.5) becomes,

p(t) = p
max
sin
_
k
2X
0
(t)
c
_
(5.6)
Equation (5.6) is used for the denition of a conguration panel perceived velocity vector.
For the aircraft motion perturbations, the resulting conguration panels perceived time-
dependent velocity vector components U
p
(t), V
p
(t) and W
p
(t) in the frame T
aero
become
for surging motions,
Q
p
i
(t) =
_
_
U
p
i
(t)
V
p
i
(t)
W
p
i
(t)
_
_
=
_
_
Q
+u(t)
0
0
_
_
(5.7)
for the swaying motion,
Q
p
i
(t) =
_
_
U
p
i
(t)
V
p
i
(t)
W
p
i
(t)
_
_
=
_
_
Q
v(t)
0
_
_
(5.8)
and, for the heaving motion,
Q
p
i
(t) =
_
_
U
p
i
(t)
V
p
i
(t)
W
p
i
(t)
_
_
=
_
_
Q
0
w(t)
_
_
(5.9)
The perturbation velocity components u(t), v(t) and w(t) are harmonic, and for discrete-
time simulations they are given as, similar to equation (5.6),
u
i
(t
n
) = u
max
sin
_
k
2X
0
(t
n
)
c
_
(5.10)
v
i
(t
n
) = v
max
sin
_
k
2X
0
(t
n
)
c
_
(5.11)
and,
w
i
(t
n
) = w
max
sin
_
k
2X
0
(t
n
)
c
_
(5.12)
respectively, with t
n
= nt discrete-time, k =
c
2Q
the reduced frequency, X

0
(t
n
)
the time-dependent position of the origin of T
aero
, O
aero
, in the frame T
I
, i equal to
i = 1 N
B
with N
B
the number of conguration panels, and u
max
, v
max
and w
max
the
amplitude of u
i
(t
n
), v
i
(t
n
) and w
i
(t
n
), respectively. Note that the aircraft motion pertur-
bation velocity components are constant over the aircraft dimensions.
It should be noted that, contrary to the calculation of the steady aerodynamic forces and
moments, the total velocity is not kept constant for the unsteady harmonic simulations.
The harmonic velocity component perturbations u(t), v(t) and w(t) are kept small with
respect to the magnitude of the (free stream) trim airspeed Q
, that is u(t) << Q
,
v(t) << Q
and w(t) << Q
, respectively.
The denition of the unsteady perceived translational velocity components U
p
(t), V
p
(t)
and W
p
(t) along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively, is given in gure 5.1.
Similar to the steady source-strength denition for steady perturbations, for the un-
steady perturbations the prescribed source-strength for unsteady LPF simulations results
in
i
(t) = n
i
Q
p
i
(t), with n
i
conguration panel i-th normal in the frame T
aero
and
Q
p
i
(t) according to equation (5.7), (5.8) or (5.9).
5.3 Atmospheric turbulence input denitions 111
5.2.2 Rotational velocity perturbations
For the simulation of the (quasi-) steady aerodynamic forces and moments due to rotational
velocity perturbations, the aircraft conguration is again assumed to travel along a recti-
linear ightpath with velocity Q
. The translational velocity components become,

Q
p
i
=
_
_
U
p
i
V
p
i
W
p
i
_
_
=
_
_
Q
0
0
_
_
(5.13)
Including rotational eects, equation (5.13) is written as,
Q
p
i
=
_
_
U
p
i
V
p
i
W
p
i
_
_
=
_
_
Q
0
0
_
_
+
_
_
x
col
i
y
col
i
z
col
i
_
_
(5.14)
with the vector of (isolated) rotational velocity components = [p, 0, 0]
T
, = [0, q, 0]
T
,
or = [0, 0, r]
T
, and [x
col
i
, y
col
i
, z
col
i
]
T
the panel collocation point position in the frame
T
aero
with i = 1 N
B
and N
B
The denition of the rotational velocity components p, q and r along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
-
and Z
aero
-axis, respectively, is shown in gure 5.1. It should be noted that the rotational
velocity components are constant, resulting in quasi-steady aerodynamic results.
Similar to the source-strength denition for steady perturbations, for the rotational ve-
locity perturbations the prescribed source-strength for LPF simulations results in
i
=
n
i
Q
p
i
, with n
i
conguration panel i-th normal in T
aero
and Q
p
i
according to equation
(5.14).
5.3 Atmospheric turbulence input denitions
5.3.1 Introduction
For the simulation of the time-dependent aerodynamic response to isolated atmospheric
turbulence inputs, the conguration is also assumed to travel along a recti-linear ightpath,
see also gure 5.2. The aircraft center of gravity is traveling along the negative X
I
-axis
with constant speed Q
= U
, and V
= W
= 0. The atmospheric turbulence inputs

will include isolated longitudinal gusts u
g
, lateral gusts v
g
, and vertical gusts w
g
, along the
X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively. The denition of the perceived gust velocity
components u
g
, v
g
and w
g
in the frame T
aero
, is shown in gure 5.1.
The (isolated) atmospheric turbulence-elds will be harmonic and are xed in the frame
T
I
, with the aircraft traveling through them. As an example, in gure 5.3 the situation
is given for a 1D harmonic vertical gust eld with spatial wave-length
x
. At t = 0 both
the frames T
aero
and T
I
coincide. For time-steps t > 0 the aircraft is traveling along the
negative X
I
-axis encountering the prescribed harmonic gust eld. Although the situation
is depicted for a 1D harmonic vertical gust eld, it is representative for all atmospheric
turbulence inputs, both 1D and 2D, considered in this thesis.
5.3.2 1D Atmospheric gust elds
The 1D atmospheric turbulence inputs will include isolated longitudinal gusts, u
g
, lateral
gusts, v
g
, and vertical gusts, w
g
, along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively. As
an example, both a 1D vertical gust eld and a 1D lateral gust eld with spatial wave-
length
x
are presented in gure 5.4. In this gure the vertical gust w
g
and the lateral gust
v
g
are only allowed to vary along the ightpath and they are assumed constant over the
wingspan. Furthermore, it should be noted that the 1D vertical gust eld is representative
for 1D longitudinal gust elds u
g
. Also, gure 5.4 is representative for the situation at t = 0
whith both the frames T
I
and T
aero
coinciding. For a series of the spatial wave-length
values
x
, in gure 5.5 1D vertical gust elds and 1D lateral gust elds are shown.
For longitudinal gusts u
g
the resulting conguration panel perceived time-dependent ve-
locity components U
p
i
(t), V
p
i
(t) and W
p
i
(t) in the frame T
aero
become,
Q
p
i
(t) =
_
_
U
p
i
(t)
V
p
i
(t)
W
p
i
(t)
_
_
=
_
_
Q
+u
g
(t)
0
0
_
_
(5.15)
For lateral gusts v
g
these perceived velocity components become,
Q
p
i
(t) =
_
_
U
p
i
(t)
V
p
i
(t)
W
p
i
(t)
_
_
=
_
_
Q
v
g
(t)
0
_
_
(5.16)
Finally, for vertical gusts w
g
these perceived velocity components become,
Q
p
i
(t) =
_
_
U
p
i
(t)
V
p
i
(t)
W
p
i
(t)
_
_
=
_
_
Q
0
w
g
(t)
_
_
(5.17)
Similar to the aircraft motion unsteady velocity component perturbations u(t), v(t) and
w(t), the 1D atmospheric turbulence velocity components u
g
(t), v
g
(t) and w
g
(t) are har-
monic. However, contrary to the aircraft motion perturbations, these 1D atmospheric
turbulence velocity components u
g
(t), v
g
(t) and w
g
(t) vary along the aircraft ightpath
(but are constant over the wingspan) and, similar to equation (5.6), they are given as,
u
g
i
(t
n
) = u
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
(t
n
)
c
_
(5.18)
v
g
i
(t
n
) = v
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
(t
n
)
c
_
(5.19)
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
X
aero
Z
aero
x
[w
g
[
Q
t
2Q
t
3Q
t
4Q
t
t = 0
t = t
t = 2t
t = 3t
t = 4t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
X
aero
Z
aero
x
[w
g
[
Q
t
2Q
t
3Q
t
4Q
t
t = 0
t = t
t = 2t
t = 3t
t = 4t
PSfrag replacements
X
I
, X
aero
Z
I
, Z
aero
X
I
Z
I
X
aero
Z
aero
x
[w
g
[
Q
t
2Q
t
3Q
t
4Q
t
t = 0
t = t
t = 2t
t = 3t
t = 4t
Figure 5.3: An aircraft traveling through a harmonically varying vertical gust eld as a function
of time.
and,
w
g
i
(t
n
) = w
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
(t
n
)
c
_
(5.20)
respectively, with t
n
c
2Q
the reduced frequency, X

col
i
(t
n
) the
time-dependent position of all collocation points in the frame T
I
, i equal to i = 1 N
B
with N
B
g
max
, v
g
max
and w
g
max
the amplitude
of u
g
(t
n
), v
g
(t
n
) and w
g
(t
n
), respectively. It should be noted that the perceived circular
frequency can be written as =

x
Q
, with
x
=
2
x
the atmospheric turbulence input
spatial frequency along the X
I
-axis. Using this relationship, the denition of the reduced
frequency k for atmospheric turbulence simulations becomes,
k =
c
2Q
=

x
c
2
(5.21)
For time-domain simulations, the harmonic atmospheric turbulence velocity components
u
g
(t), v
g
(t) and w
g
(t) are kept small with respect to the magnitude of the free-stream trim
airspeed Q
, that is u
g
(t) << Q
, v
g
(t) << Q
and w
g
(t) << Q
, respectively.
Similar to the source-strength denition for the unsteady aircraft motion perturbations,
for the unsteady atmospheric turbulence input simulations it becomes
i
(t) = n
i
Q
p
i
(t)
with n
i
the i th conguration panel normal in the frame T
aero
and Q
p
i
(t) according to
equation (5.15), (5.16) or (5.17).
The atmospheric turbulence-induced aerodynamic forces and moments will ultimately be
dened as functions of the non-dimensional inputs u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
,
with u
g
, v
g
and w
g
the atmospheric turbulence velocity components along the X
aero
-,
Y
aero
- and Z
aero
the free stream velocity magnitude.

5.3.3 2D Atmospheric gust elds
In this thesis 2D isolated longitudinal gusts u
g
, lateral gusts v
g
, and vertical gusts w
g
, are
considered as well. The denition of the perceived gust velocity components u
g
, v
g
and
w
g
along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively, is shown in gure 5.1.
As an example, both a symmetrical 2D vertical gust eld and an anti-symmetrical 2D
vertical gust eld w
g
with spatial wave-length values
x
and
y
are depicted in gure
5.6. The vertical gust eld is allowed to vary both along the ightpath and over the
wingspan. Furthermore, it should be noted that the depicted 2D vertical gust eld is
representative for both 2D longitudinal gust elds u
g
and 2D lateral gust elds v
g
. Also,
gure 5.6 is representative for the situation at t = 0 whith both the frames T
I
and T
aero
coinciding. For a series of the spatial wave-length values
y
in gure 5.7 the magnitude of
both symmetrical and anti-symmetrical 2D vertical gust elds are shown.
The expressions for the resulting conguration panel perceived time-dependent velocity
components U
p
(t), V
p
(t) and W
p
(t) in T
aero
are similar to the ones obtained previously
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
, X
I
Y
aero
, Y
I
Z
aero
, Z
I
x
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
, X
I
Y
aero
, Y
I
Z
aero
, Z
I
x
Figure 5.4: A symmetrical harmonic 1D gust eld w
g
(top), and an asymmetrical harmonic 1D
gust eld v
g
(bottom), with both reference frames F
aero
and F
I
coinciding at t = 0.
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
, X
I
Y
aero
, Y
I
Z
aero
, Z
I
x
646 m
x
129 m
x
64 m
x
32 m
x
22 m
x
16 m
x
13 m
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
, X
I
Y
aero
, Y
I
Z
aero
, Z
I
x
646 m
x
129 m
x
64 m
x
32 m
x
22 m
x
16 m
x
13 m
Figure 5.5: Magnitude of both a symmetrical harmonic 1D gust eld w
g
(top), and an asymmet-
rical harmonic 1D gust eld v
g
(bottom), for gust elds of several spatial wave-length
values
x
, with both reference frames F
aero
and F
I
coinciding at t = 0.
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
, X
I
Y
aero
, Y
I
Z
aero
, Z
I
y
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
, X
I
Y
aero
, Y
I
Z
aero
, Z
I
y
Figure 5.6: A symmetrical harmonic 2D gust eld w
g
(top) and an anti-symmetrical harmonic
2D gust eld w
g
(bottom), with both reference frames F
aero
and F
I
coinciding at
t = 0.
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
y
= 40.00 b
y
= 4.00 b
y
= 2.00 b
y
= 1.50 b
y
= 1.00 b
y
= 0.75 b
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
y
= 40.00 b
y
= 4.00 b
y
= 2.00 b
y
= 1.50 b
y
= 1.00 b
y
= 0.75 b
Figure 5.7: Magnitude of both a symmetrical harmonic 2D gust eld w
g
(top), and an anti-
symmetrical harmonic 2D gust eld w
g
(bottom), for gust elds of several spatial
wave-length values
y
.
for 1D atmospheric turbulence, see equations (5.15), (5.16) and (5.17). For the calculation
of both the aerodynamic forces and moments, the 2D atmospheric turbulence velocity
components u
g
(t,
y
), v
g
(t,
y
) and w
g
(t,
y
) are also harmonic, with
y
=
2
y
the spatial
frequency along the Y
I
-axis. Thus, these velocity components now vary both along the
aircraft ightpath and over the wingspan. For symmetrical 2D gust elds the components
are written as,
u
g
sym
i
(t
n
,
y
) = u
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
(t
n
)
c
_
cos (
y
Y
col
i
(t
n
)) (5.22)
v
g
sym
i
(t
n
,
y
) = v
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
(t
n
)
c
_
sin(
y
Y
col
i
(t
n
)) (5.23)
and,
w
g
sym
i
(t
n
,
y
) = w
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
(t
n
)
c
_
cos (
y
Y
col
i
(t
n
)) (5.24)
while for anti-symmetrical 2D gust elds they are given as,
u
g
asym
i
(t
n
,
y
) = u
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
(t
n
)
c
_
sin(
y
Y
col
i
(t
n
)) (5.25)
v
g
asym
i
(t
n
,
y
) = v
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
(t
n
)
c
_
cos (
y
Y
col
i
(t
n
)) (5.26)
and,
w
g
asym
i
(t
n
,
y
) = w
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
(t
n
)
c
_
sin(
y
Y
col
i
(t
n
)) (5.27)
with in equations (5.22) to (5.27), t
n
c
2Q
=

x
c
2
the reduced
frequency,
x
=
2
x
the spatial frequency along the X
I
-axis and
y
=
2
y
the spatial
I
-axis. Further, both X
col
i
(t
n
) and Y
col
i
(t
n
) the time-dependent x
and y components of the position of all collocation points in T
I
, i = 1 N
B
with N
B
g
max
, v
g
max
and w
g
max
the amplitude of the
atmospheric turbulence components u
g
(a)sym
(t
n
,
y
), v
g
(a)sym
(t
n
,
y
) and w
g
(a)sym
(t
n
,
y
),
respectively. For the steady-state condition at t = 0, in gures 5.8, 5.9 and 5.10 the deni-
tion is given of both symmetrical and anti-symmetrical 2D gust elds for the longitudinal,
lateral and vertical gust-components, respectively.
Similar to the source-strength denition for the 1D atmospheric turbulence input simula-
tions, it becomes
i
(t
n
,
y
) = n
i
Q
p
i
(t
n
,
y
) with n
i
conguration panel i-th normal
in T
aero
and Q
p
i
(t
n
,
y
) similar to equation (5.15), (5.16) or (5.17) and with the now 2D
atmospheric turbulence inputs according to equations (5.22) through (5.27).
Also for the 2D atmospheric turbulence inputs, the induced aerodynamic forces and mo-
ments will ultimately be dened as functions of the non-dimensional inputs u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
, with u
g
, v
g
and w
g
the atmospheric turbulence velocity com-
ponents along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
the free stream

velocity magnitude. Similar to the 1D atmospheric turbulence inputs, the 2D atmospheric
turbulence velocity components are kept small with respect to the free stream velocity
magnitude, thus u
g
(t) << Q
, v
g
(t) << Q
and w
g
(t) << Q
.
5.4 (Quasi-) Steady stability derivatives
Throughout this thesis the aircraft equations of motion given in the Stability Frame of
Reference T
S
are used. Details of the frame T
S
are provided in appendix B, while details
concerning the aircraft equations of motion are given in appendix I. The denition of all
stability derivatives in the frame T
S
is given in appendix A.
In order to obtain the (quasi-) steady stability derivatives required for the equations of
motion, the results obtained in the frame T
aero
have to be transformed to the frame T
S
.
In this section this transformation is given for both translational and rotational perturba-
tions, resulting in the denition of the (quasi-) steady stability derivatives.
Using the theory of chapter 3 and the denitions of the (quasi-) steady aircraft motion
perturbations given in section 5.2, aerodynamic derivatives are calculated. These aerody-
namic derivatives originally hold for the frame T
aero
and they describe the aerodynamic
eects in terms of aerodynamic force and moment coecients due to isolated prescribed
aircraft motion perturbations. Aerodynamic derivatives with respect to these stationary
perturbations in (non-dimensional) airspeed ( u =
u
Q
), side-slip angle ( =
v
Q
), angle-
of-attack ( =
w
Q
), roll-rate (
pb
2Q
), pitch-rate (
q c
2Q
) and yaw-rate (
rb
2Q
) will be given.
The aerodynamic derivatives for the frame T
aero
are calculated by rst assuming an ini-
tial, or trim-, condition, for which the non-dimensional aerodynamic forces and moments
coecients,
_
C
a
X
trim
, C
a
Y
trim
, C
a
Z
trim
, C
a
trim
, C
a
m
trim
, C
a
n
trim
T
are calculated, see also chap-
ter 3 (note that the superscript
a
refers to Aerodynamic Frame of Reference T
aero
re-
sults). For a stationary prescribed isolated perturbation, the new aerodynamic coecients,
[C
a
X
, C
a
Y
, C
a
Z
, C
a
, C
a
m
, C
a
n
]
T
, are calculated. For example, consider the aerodynamic force
coecient C
a
Z
in the frame T
aero
due to an angle-of-attack perturbation =
w
Q
. The
aerodynamic derivative is calculated from,
C
a
Z
=
C
a
Z
=
C
a
Z
pert.
C
a
Z
trim
(5.28)
with C
a
Z
the aerodynamic derivative in the frame T

aero
, C
a
Z
pert.
the aerodynamic coe-
cient due to perturbation in T
aero
and C
a
Z
trim
the aerodynamic coecient for the trim
condition in T
aero
. From this aerodynamic derivative a stability derivative is obtained
which holds for the frame T
S
. See also chapter 6, where the stability derivatives for an
example aircraft are given.
If aircraft rotations along the axes of reference frames T
S
and T
aero
are left out of con-
sideration, the denition of the perturbation velocity components u, v and w (or for that
5.4 (Quasi-) Steady stability derivatives 121
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
y
[u
g
[
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
y
[u
g
[
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
y
[u
g
[
Figure 5.8: An elementary harmonic 2D longitudinal gust eld (u
g
) varying in the ightpaths
direction (top), the magnitude of an anti-symmetrical gust eld varying along the
Y
aero
-axis (middle), and the magnitude of a symmetrical gust eld varying along the
Y
aero
-axis (bottom).
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
y
/2
[v
g
[
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
y
/2
[v
g
[
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
y
/2
[v
g
[
Figure 5.9: An elementary harmonic 2D lateral gust eld (v
g
) varying in the ightpaths direction
(top), the magnitude of a symmetrical gust eld varying along the Y
aero
-axis (middle),
and the magnitude of an anti-symmetrical gust eld varying along the Y
aero
-axis
(bottom).
PSfrag replacements
X
aero Y
aero
Z
aero
y
[w
g
[
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
y
[w
g
[
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
y
[w
g
[
Figure 5.10: An elementary harmonic 2D vertical gust eld (w
g
) varying in the ightpaths di-
rection (top), the magnitude of an anti-symmetrical gust eld varying along the
Y
aero
-axis (middle), and the magnitude of a symmetrical gust eld varying along
the Y
aero
-axis (bottom).
matter u, and ) along the X
S
-, Y
S
- and Z
S
-axis of the frame T
S
, respectively, is shown
in gure 5.11. In this gure the denition of the perceived velocity components U
p
, V
p
and W
p
along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
aero
, respectively, is given
as well. The perceived velocity components include the perturbation velocity components,
see section 5.2. In gure 5.12 the denition of the rotational velocity components p, q and
r for both reference frames T
S
and T
aero
is given.
Comparing the frame T
aero
to the frame T
S
, two major dierences should be noted. The
rst is the orientation of the axes; the X
aero
- and X
S
-axes point in opposite direction,
resulting in C
X
[
F
S
= C
a
X
. Similarly, the Z
aero
- and Z
S
-axes also point in opposite di-
rection, resulting in C
Z
[
F
S
= C
a
Z
. The Y
aero
- and Y
S
-axis coincide, thus C
Y
[
F
S
= C
a
Y
.
Both frames of reference T
aero
and T
S
have their origin at the aircraft center of gravity.
The second dierence between the two reference frames is the denition of both trans-
lational and rotational velocity perturbations along their axes. Also, the translational
velocity perturbation components u, v and w along the X
S
-, Y
S
- and Z
S
-axis, respec-
tively, are in fact velocity perturbations of the frame of reference T
S
with respect to a
steady-state trim speed, while the perturbed velocity components U, V and W are actu-
ally perceived velocity components along the X
aero
-, Y
aero
- and Z
aero
-axis, respectively,
in the frame T
aero
. For example, in terms of the aircraft pressure distribution, a positive
velocity perturbation u along the X
S
-axis in T
S
will result in an equal pressure distribu-
tion caused by a positive velocity perturbation u along the X
aero
-axis in T
aero
. A similar
conclusion can be made for the translational velocity perturbation w and the rotational
velocity perturbation q. However, the aerodynamic eect in terms of the pressure distri-
bution caused by a positive velocity perturbation v along the Y
S
-axis in T
S
leads to an
opposite aerodynamic eect as compared to a positive velocity perturbation v along the
Y
aero
-axis in T
aero
, with a similar conclusion for both the rotational velocity perturbations
p and r.
As an example, in the frame T
S
the aerodynamic derivative, equation (5.28), becomes the
stability derivative according to,
C
Z
[
F
stab
= C
a
Z
(5.29)
For both symmetric and asymmetric aircraft motions, the denition of all stability deriva-
tives (which hold for the frame T
S
) in terms of the corresponding aerodynamic derivatives
(which hold for the frame T
aero
) is summarized in appendix D, see tables D.1 and D.2.
In terms of partial derivatives, the stability derivatives are dened in appendix A, how-
ever, they are also summarized in tables D.11 and D.12. Similarly, for both symmetric
and asymmetric 1D gust-inputs, the denition of the gust derivatives for the frame T
S
in
terms of the corresponding aerodynamic derivatives for T
aero
is summarized in tables D.3
and D.4. In terms of partial derivatives, the gust derivatives are dened in tables D.13
and D.14.
PSfrag replacements
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
u
v
w
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
U
p
V
p
W
p
PSfrag replacements
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
u
v
w X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
U
p
V
p
W
p
Figure 5.11: The Stability Frame of Reference F
S
, including perturbation velocity components
[u, v, w]
T
(left), and the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
, including the per-
ceived velocity components [U
p
, V
p
, W
p
]
T
(right).
PSfrag replacements
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
p
q
r
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
PSfrag replacements
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
p
q
r
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
S
(left) and the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference
F
aero
(right), including the denition of perturbation rotational velocity components
[p, q, r]
T
(right).
5.5 Aerodynamic frequency-response data
In this thesis, the aircraft time-dependent response in terms of aerodynamic coecients
due to harmonically varying perturbations is considered. These perturbations include
surge, sway and heave for the aircraft motions. For atmospheric turbulence inputs they
will include responses to both 1D and 2D longitudinal, lateral and vertical gust elds.
For all time-dependent simulations considered in this thesis the aircraft is traveling along
a recti-linear ightpath, which is chosen to be along the negative X
I
-axis of the Inertial
I
, see also gure 5.2. For these simulations the steady-state velocity
vector in T
aero
is written as Q
= [U
, 0, 0]
T
, resulting in Q
= U
, with
aircraft motion perturbations according to equations (5.10), (5.11), and (5.12). As the 1D
atmospheric turbulence inputs are concerned, the perturbations according to equations
(5.18), (5.19) and (5.20) are used, while for 2D atmospheric turbulence inputs the pertur-
bations according to equations (5.22) through (5.27) are used.
For a series of the reduced frequency k, the time-dependent response of the aerodynamic co-
ecients [C
a
X
(t), C
a
Y
(t), C
a
Z
(t), C
a
(t), C
a
m
(t), C
a
n
(t)]
T
due to prescribed harmonically vary-
ing aircraft motion perturbations and to prescribed harmonically varying atmospheric
turbulence inputs is simulated. For each isolated input (being either an aircraft motion
perturbation or a turbulence input) the so-called Aerodynamic Frequency-Response is
calculated for the aerodynamic force and moment coecients. Using the harmonically
varying input (the perturbation) and the harmonically varying output (the force or mo-
ment coecient, corrected for the result obtained for the trim condition), for each reduced
frequency k the results are transformed to the frequency-domain using a least-squares t-
routine. The procedure for transforming the time-domain results to the frequency-domain
is given in appendix E. It eventually results in frequency-dependent aerodynamic deriva-
tives.
As an example, the time-domain simulation of the response of the aerodynamic force co-
ecient C
a
Z
(t) due to a harmonically varying isolated aircraft motion perturbation along
the Z
aero
-axis (t) =
w(t)
Q
is considered. Using the procedure from appendix E, for each

considered reduced frequency the frequency-response of the aerodynamic force coecient
C
a
Z
(k) due the isolated aircraft motion perturbation (k) =
w(k)
Q
is calculated,
C
a
Z
(k) = (
a
Z
(k) (k) + (
a
Z

(k)
j(k) c
2Q
= (
a
Z
(k) (k) + (
a
Z

(k) jk (k) (5.30)
with k the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
, and both (
a
Z
(k) and (
a
Z

(k) the frequency-
dependent steady aerodynamic derivative and the frequency-dependent unsteady aero-
dynamic derivative, respectively, according to,
(
a
Z
(k) =
C
a
Z
(k)
and,
(
a
Z

(k) =
C
a
Z
c
2Q
(k)
5.5 Aerodynamic frequency-response data 127
Note that the aerodynamic derivative C
a
Z
is constant, while the aerodynamic derivative

(
a
Z
(k) is frequency-dependent. Both the frequency-dependent steady and unsteady aero-

dynamic derivatives are known from the procedure given in appendix E. The aerodynamic
frequency-response is obtained from equation 5.30),
H
a
Z
(k) =
C
a
Z
(k) = (
a
Z
(k) + (
a
Z

(k)
j c
2Q
= (
a
Z
(k) + (
a
Z

(k) jk (5.31)
A similar analysis can be performed for the aerodynamic coecients frequency-response
to both 1D and 2D atmospheric turbulence inputs. For example, the frequency-response of
the aerodynamic force coecient C
a
Z
g
due to isolated 2D vertical atmospheric turbulence
inputs,
g
(k,
y
) =
w
g
(k,
y
)
Q
, for each reduced frequency k the coecient C

a
Z
g
(k,
y
) is
written as,
C
a
Z
g
(k,
y
) = (
a
Z
g
(k,
y
)
g
(k,
y
) + (
a
Z

g
(k,
y
)
j
g
(k,
y
) c
2Q
or,
C
a
Z
g
(k,
y
) = (
a
Z
g
(k,
y
)
g
(k,
y
) + (
a
Z

g
(k,
y
) jk
g
(k,
y
) (5.32)
with k =
c
2Q
the reduced frequency,

y
=
2
y
the spatial frequency along the Y
I
-axis,
y
the spatial wave-length along the Y
I
-axis,
g
(k,
y
) =
w
g
(k,
y
)
Q
the vertical gust-induced

angle-of-attack, (
a
Z
g
(k,
y
) the frequency-dependent steady aerodynamic gust deriva-
tive and (
a
Z

g
(k,
y
) the frequency-dependent unsteady aerodynamic gust derivative.
Both the steady and unsteady aerodynamic gust derivatives are also known from the
procedure given in appendix E, and they are dened as,
(
a
Z
g
(k,
y
) =
C
a
Z
g
g
(k,
y
)
and,
(
a
Z

g
(k,
y
) =
C
a
Z
g

g
c
2Q
(k,
y
)
From equation (5.32) the aerodynamic frequency-response data is obtained,
H
a
Z
g
(k,
y
) =
C
a
Z
g
(k,
y
) = (
a
Z
g
(k,
y
) + (
a
Z

g
(k,
y
)
j c
2Q
or,
H
a
Z
g
(k,
y
) = (
a
Z
g
(k,
y
) + (
a
Z

g
(k,
y
) jk (5.33)
Similar to the denition of the constant stability derivatives for the frame T
S
, as listed
in tables D.1 and D.2, the denition of the frequency-dependent symmetrical stability
derivatives for the frame T
S
in terms of the calculated aerodynamic derivatives in T
aero
is given in table D.5. The denition of the frequency-dependent asymmetrical stability
PSfrag replacements
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
u
v
w
u
g
v
g
w
g
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
U
p
, u
g
V
p
, v
g
W
p
, w
g
PSfrag replacements
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
u
v
w
u
g
v
g
w
g X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
U
p
, u
g
V
p
, v
g
W
p
, w
g
S
, including perturbation velocity components
[u, v, w]
T
and atmospheric turbulence velocity component inputs [u
g
, v
g
, w
g
]
T
(left),
aero
, including the perceived velocity
components [U
p
, V
p
, W
p
]
T
and atmospheric turbulence velocity component inputs
[u
g
, v
g
, w
g
]
T
(right).
derivatives for T
S
in terms of the calculated aerodynamic derivatives in T
aero
is given in
table D.6, while a similar denition of the frequency-dependent gust derivatives is given
in tables D.7 and D.8 for 1D atmospheric turbulence gust elds, and tables D.9 and D.10
for 2D atmospheric turbulence gust elds.
In terms of partial derivatives, the frequency-dependent stability derivatives are also de-
ned in appendix A. They are also summarized in tables D.15 and D.16. In terms of
partial derivatives, the frequency-dependent gust derivatives are also summarized in ta-
bles D.17 and D.18 for 1D turbulence. For 2D turbulence they are summarized in tables
D.19 and D.20.
5.6 Remarks
The denition of the stationary aircraft motion perturbations will be used in chapter 6 to
calculate the stability derivatives of an example aircraft. The calculated stability deriva-
tives will be compared to results obtained from ight tests.
In chapters 7 and 8 for a series of the reduced frequency the aerodynamic frequency-
response will be calculated for this example aircraft. The data are obtained for the har-
monically varying unsteady aircraft motion perturbations and the harmonically varying
atmospheric turbulence inputs (both 1D and 2D), as dened in this chapter. These aero-
dynamic frequency-response data will also hold for the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
.
In chapter 10 the constant unsteady stability derivatives C
Z

, C
m

, C
Y
, C
and C
n
are estimated using the aerodynamic frequency-response data. With the estimation of
these (constant) unsteady stability derivatives, a complete constant-parameter aerody-
5.6 Remarks 129
namic model is obtained. This model is required for the equations of motion described in
the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
as given in appendix I, and it will be used in chap-
ters 11 and 12 for the simulation of aircraft responses to both 1D and 2D atmospheric
turbulence.
Chapter 6
The aircraft grid and steady
aerodynamic results
6.1 Introduction
In this chapter the aircraft grid (also referred to as the aerodynamic grid) of the example
aircraft geometry and its wake grid will be given. The example aircraft geometry is that
of a Cessna Ce550 Citation II aircraft. The geometry-wake conguration will be used to
calculate both the steady and the time-dependent aerodynamic forces and moments due
to harmonic aircraft motion perturbations, i.e. in u, v and w. Also, it will be used to
determine the responses to both harmonic one- (1D) and two-dimensional (2D) gust elds
(u
g
, v
g
and w
g
).
In this chapter the Linearized Potential Flow (LPF) method will primarily be used as
a virtual windtunnel. The obtained (quasi-) steady perturbations result in aerodynamic
force and moment coecient responses which will be used to determine the (quasi-) steady
stability derivatives. These derivatives will be determined for the trim condition, and they
will be referred to as the (constant parameter) Parametric Computational Aerodynmics
(PCA) model. The trim condition is taken to be recti-linear ight at an angle-of-attack
of
0
= 1.5
o
.
6.2 Aircraft geometry denition
The example aircraft geometry represents a low-winged aircraft with two turbofan engines
located aft of the wing and connected to the fuselage by pylons. The turbofan jets issuing
from the engines are not modeled and the nacelles are treated as ring-wings, thus allowing
the air to ow through the nacelles. However, since the nacelles are modeled as ring wings
they shed a wake and, therefore, they will generate both lift and drag.
The original aerodynamic grid is provided in the aircraft manufacturer rig-frame T
rig
132 The aircraft grid and steady aerodynamic results
PSfrag replacements
Figure 6.1: The aircraft geometry including its (truncated) total planar wake convected down-
stream.
(O
rig
X
rig
Y
rig
Z
rig
). The denition of the frame T
rig
is given in appendix B, see also
gure B.6. The grid was provided by the aircraft manufacturer for Euler Computational
Fluid Dynamics (CFD) simulations, however, for LPF simulations it was reduced to a
limited number of panels.
The aerodynamic calculations are performed in the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference T
aero
(O
aero
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
). The denition of this frame is given in appendix B, see also .
gure B.1.
When unsteady simulations are considered, the motion of the frame T
aero
is described in
an Inertial Frame of Reference T
I
(O
I
X
I
Y
I
Z
I
). In the steady-state, or initial, condition,
both the origin of the frame T
aero
and the origin of the frame T
I
coincide, so O
aero
= O
I
.
When time-dependent perturbations are considered, the aircrafts center of gravity travels
along the negative X
I
-axis. Details of the frame T
I
are given in appendix B.
6.3 Wake geometry denition
Before any time-domain simulations can be performed a steady-state initial condition has
to be dened, prescribing the position and size of the steady wake. The steady-state wake
is taken to be planar and no wake roll-up is modeled. Also, as described in chapter 4,
in time-stepping mode the wake remains planar, hence assuming small disturbances. Of
the considered aircraft geometry only lift generating elements are modeled as shedding a
wake.
In the case of the example aircraft conguration, the aircrafts wake geometry in itself is
quite complex, since it consists of wake segments connected to the wing, horizontal stabi-
lizer, vertical stabilizer, nacelles, pylons and fuselage, each of which will be discussed in the
following. All wake segments, being shed from lifting surfaces, are convected downstream
and are modeled to have a length of l
wake
= 100 b, or 100 times the aircraft wingspan.
The wake model for the total aircraft conguration is shown in gure 6.1.
6.3 Wake geometry denition 133
In gures 6.2 to 6.7 the details of the aircraft wake are presented. In gure 6.2 the planar
wake doublet panels connected to the trailing edge of the wing are given. Note that the
side edges of the wake doublet panels may be considered as vortex lines (since the equi-
valent of a doublet panel is a vortex ring, see references [11, 12]).
Figure 6.3 shows the fuselage wake. Similar to the wake generation of both the pylons
and the horizontal stabilizer, careful modeling is required for the wings wake connected
to the fuselage. In principle isolated wake vortex lines are present in the airow, very
near to the fuselage, if additional wake vortex elements are not modeled, see also gure
6.2. Normally, these kind of wake vortex lines only originate from wing tips. For instance,
the wing wake vortex originating at the root of the wing contains circulation opposite in
direction to the wing-tip vortex. This wing wake vortex line at the wing-fuselage junction
must be modeled carefully, see references [9, 11, 12], since it may aect the airow over
the entire aircraft conguration. To avoid the eect of this particular wing wake vortex,
the wings wake is modeled up to the fuselage and is butted to it (see the bottom view
of the fuselage wake panels being shed from the aft fuselage in gure 6.3). The doublet
strength of all added fuselage wake panels is equal to the doublet strength of the wings
wake panel element being shed at the trailing edge nearest to the wing-fuselage junction.
In gure 6.4 the planar wake connected to the trailing edge of the horizontal stabilizer
is depicted. Similar to the wings wake modeling, additional wake elements are modeled
near the vertical stabilizer. The horizontal stabilizers wake is connected to the vertical
stabilizer to prevent the occurence of isolated vortex lines near it, see gure 6.4 (bottom)
where the additional wake panels are marked. Similar to the fuselages wake strength de-
nition, the doublet strength of added vertical stabilizer wake panels is equal to the doublet
strength of the horizontal stabilizers wake panel element being shed at its trailing edge
nearest to the vertical stabilizer-horizontal stabilizer junction.
In gure 6.5 the planar wake of the vertical stabilizer is given. Just as for the wing, these
wake elements are connected to the trailing edge of the vertical stabilizer.
In gures 6.6 the pylons wake is given. The pylons are considered to act as lifting surfaces,
hence they also shed a wake. The pylons wake is connected to the trailing edges. Just as
for the wing and the horizontal stabilizer, the pylons wake is connected, or butted, to the
fuselage to prevent the occurence of isolated wake vortex lines near the fuselage. Also, in
this case the additional wake elements doublet strength is equal to the doublet strength
of the wake panel being shed closest to the fuselage.
Figure 6.7 shows the nacelles wake, connected to the nacelle trailing edges. Since these
nacelles are modeled as open ring-wings, in this case the wake is non-planar and is tubular
shaped.
Figure 6.2: The aircraft geometry including the (truncated) planar steady wake being shed from
the wings.
the fuselage.
PSfrag replacements
Extra wake for vertical n
(a) Horizontal stabilizers wake
PSfrag replacements
Extra wake for vertical n
(b) Magnication of the horizontal
stabilizers wake
the horizontal stabilizer (left). The additional (truncated) wake elements shed from
the vertical stabilizer are marked in the right gure, which is a magnication of the
left gure.
6.4 PCA-model steady-state aerodynamic results 135
the vertical stabilizer.
(a) Pylons wake (b) Magnication of the pylons
wake
Figure 6.6: The aircraft geometry including the (truncated) planar wake being shed from the
pylons and fuselage (left), and a bottom view magnication (right).
6.4 PCA-model steady-state aerodynamic results
6.4.1 A PCA-model steady-state solution
In this section a steady-state LPF solution is given for the aircraft-wake geometry dis-
cussed previously. The aircraft conguration is a discrete model of the continuous surface
description of a Cessna Ce550 Citation II. The number of body panels is N
panels
= 1966,
while the number of wake panels is N
wakepanels
= 112, which are both sucient according
to previous studies, see reference [7]. The conguration used showed a good correlation in
terms of simulated stability derivatives with other simulation methods. In gure 6.1 both
the discretized aircraft model and its wake are given.
In table 6.1 several PCA-model parameters specic for the aircraft conguration are given.
(a) Nacelles wake (b) Magnication of the nacelles
wake
Figure 6.7: The aircraft geometry including the (truncated) tubular shaped steady wake being
shed from the nacelles (left), and magnication (right).
The chosen steady-state, or initial, ight condition is given in table 6.2. It will be con-
sidered as the initial condition for all unsteady simulations throughout this thesis. The
center of gravity position (including its limits, reference [28]) are also given in gure 6.8.
The LPF boundary conditions posed on the discretized aircraft-wake geometry are deter-
mined by the initial ight condition (see also chapter 3) and they result in a steady-state
solution. For both angles-of attack
0
= 0.0
o
and
0
= 1.5
o
, the prescribed body source
distribution ( = n Q
) is given in gure 6.9 (top), while the calculated body doublet

distribution for both angles-of-attack is given in gure 6.9 (middle). For both angles-of-
attack, the non-dimensional pressure distributions are calculated from the on-body dou-
blet, and thus, airspeed distribution, and are given in gure 6.9 (bottom). Referring to
chapter 3, integrating the non-dimensional pressure distribution eventually results in the
aerodynamic force and moment coecients in the frame T
aero
, see table 6.3. These results
are also given for the aerodynamic force and moment coecients in the Stability Frame
of Reference T
S
, see table 6.4. Details of the frame T
S
are given in appendix B.
6.4.2 (Quasi-) Steady stability derivatives
In estimating the PCA-model (quasi-) steady stability derivatives, the aircraft-wake ge-
ometry is perturbed in airspeed, angle-of-attack, side-slip-angle, roll-rate, pitch-rate and
yaw-rate. These aerodynamic derivatives hold in the frame T
S
. Note that both the X
S
-
axis and Z
S
S
are taken to be positive in the opposite directions of
X
aero
and Z
aero
of the frame T
aero
, and that the Y
S
-axis and Y
aero
-axis coincide. See also
section 5.4.
In gures 6.11 to 6.16 the calculated aerodynamic force and moment coecients are
given with respect to the Stability Frame of Reference. These coecients are dened
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
5
0
5
10
MAC 2.057 [m] 6.6567 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Fuselage Station (FS) [m]

W
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
W
L
)
[
m
]
c.o.g.-range limit for W < 38060 N
c.o.g.-range limit at W = 62845 N
c.o.g. position for CA simulations
c.o.g. position for ight test
6 6.5 7 7.5 8 8.5 9 9.5 10
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
MAC 2.057 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Fuselage Station (FS) [m]

W
a
t
e
r
l
i
n
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
(
W
L
)
[
m
]
c.o.g.-range limit for W < 38060 N
c.o.g.-range limit at W = 62845 N
c.o.g. position for CA simulations
c.o.g. position for ight test
Figure 6.8: The position of the mean aerodynamic chord (MAC) in the aircraft manufacturers
rig-frame F
rig
(top), and the position of the center of gravity (including its range
limits) used for Computational Aerodynamics (CA) experiments (bottom), also in
the frame F
rig
. This data has been taken from reference [28].
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
PSfrag replacements
C
p
(a) Prescribed source strength distribution
for = 0.0
o
10
5
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
PSfrag replacements
C
p
(b) Prescribed source strength distribution
for = 1.5
o
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
PSfrag replacements
C
p
(c) Calculated doublet strength distribution
for = 0.0
o
20
15
10
5
0
5
10
15
PSfrag replacements
C
p
(d) Calculated doublet strength distribution
for = 1.5
o
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
PSfrag replacements
C
p
(e) Calculated pressure distribution C
p
for
= 0.0
o
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
PSfrag replacements
C
p
(f) Calculated pressure distribution C
p
for
= 1.5
o
Figure 6.9: The prescribed source strength distribution (top), the calculated doublet strength
distribution (middle) and the calculated non-dimensional pressure distribution C
p
(bottom), over the aircraft conguration, for = 0.0
o
(left) and = 1.5
o
(right).
as C
X
=
X
1
2
Q
2
S
, C
Y
=
Y
1
2
Q
2
S
, C
Z
=
Z
1
2
Q
2
S
, C
=
L
1
2
Q
2
Sb
, C
m
=
M
1
2
Q
2
S c
and
C
n
=
N
1
2
Q
2
Sb
. The airspeed perturbations u range from u = 5 m/s to u = +5 m/s,
while the perturbations for both the angle-of-attack and the side-slip angle range
from 10
o
to +10
o
. The roll-rate, pitch-rate and yaw-rate perturbations range from
3
to +
3
[Rad./sec.]. In these gures, all aerodynamic force and moment coecients are
plotted against their non-dimensional perturbations u =
u
Q
, , ,
pb
2Q
,
q c
2Q
and
rb
2Q
(all in [Rad.]).
In these gures, a breakdown of the contribution of isolated aircraft parts to the aerody-
namic responses is shown as well, with the sum of all aircraft part contributions to the
considered aerodynamic force and moment coecient data equalling the total aircrafts
aerodynamic response. In gures 6.10 the denition of these aircraft parts is given as
wing, horizontal stabilizer, pylons, fuselage, vertical n and nacelles.
From the results presented in gures 6.11 to 6.16, the PCA-models stability derivatives
are calculated by taking the gradient of the aerodynamic force or moment coecient to
the respective non-dimensional perturbation. For this purpose, rst, a second order func-
tion is tted locally through the aerodynamic forces or moments data-points with the
considered perturbation being the independent variable. Secondly, using this function, its
rst order derivative with respect to the independent variable (the perturbation) produces
the sought stability derivative.
The denition of all PCA-models stability derivatives is given in appendix A. The cal-
culated PCA-models symmetric and asymmetric stability derivatives are summarized in
tables 6.5 and 6.6, respectively. A breakdown of the symmetric and asymmetric stability
derivatives into aircraft part contributions is given in tables 6.10 and 6.11, respectively.
6.4.3 Stability derivatives obtained from ight tests
For comparison, the symmetric quasi-steady stability derivatives as obtained from ight
tests are given in table 6.9, taken from reference [27]. Both aircraft parameters and the
denition of the trim condition are given in tables 6.7 and 6.8, respectively. The given
parameters for the short-period data set only include the short-period stability derivatives.
Note that the center-of-gravity location during ight tests was dierent from its position
during LPF simulations, see gure 6.8, and for comparison, Parametric Computational
Aerodynamics results taking the center of gravity position equal to the one used during
the ight test, are also given in table 6.9. It should be noted that the LPF-based calculation
of the stability derivatives holds for inviscid, incompressible and irrotational ow, which
explains the dierence in magnitude of the stability derivatives presented in table 6.9.
These dierences are mainly attributed to compressibility (Mach) and viscosity (Reynolds)
eects. Especially the stability derivative C
Z
shows a good correlation with the result

obtained from LPF simulations. Although the center of gravity position during ight tests
was estimated from weight and balance sheets, see reference [28], similar to the stability
derivative C
Z
, the derivative C
m
again shows a good correlation with the result obtained

from LPF simulations. Furthermore, the stability derivative C
m
q
obtained during ight
Figure 6.10: The denition of aircraft parts wing and horizontal stabilizer (top), pylons
and fuselage (middle), vertical n and nacelles (bottom) for the Cessna Ce550
Citation II model.
6.5 Unsteady wake geometry denition 141
tests shows well correlation as well, taking into account that this derivative is actually the
sum of stability derivatives C
m

and C
m
q
. However, as expected, the stability derivative
of the aerodynamic force coecient C
X
with respect to shows a poor correlation with
the LPF model results. This poor correlation is attributed to the elimination of viscous
drag eects in the LPF model.
6.5 Unsteady wake geometry denition
Once the initial condition has been established, all wake elements have been dened, and
all ow data are known, the time-dependent aerodynamic forces and moments due to har-
monic aircraft motion and due to harmonic atmospheric turbulence can be simulated, see
also chapters 7 and 8. For identication purposes, in these chapters the time-dependent
aerodynamic force and moment coecients (C
X
, C
Y
, C
Z
, C
, C
m
, C
n
) due to harmonic
aircraft motions (surging, swaying and heaving motions) are simulated. Also, the time-
dependent aerodynamic force and moment coecients (C
X
g
, C
Y
g
, C
Z
g
, C
g
, C
m
g
, C
n
g
) due
to harmonic atmospheric turbulence are calculated. Finally, from both these harmonic
excitations and the harmonic responses the aerodynamic frequency-response functions are
calculated. From these functions the frequency dependent stability- and gust derivatives
are derived.
Using the initial conditions oweld and the prescribed perturbations on it, the aerody-
namic forces and moments are solved in the time-domain by time-stepping, as discussed
in chapter 4. Initially, at t = t
0
= 0, the frames T
aero
and T
I
coincide. When harmonic
perturbations are considered, the aircrafts center of gravity travels along a recti-linear
ightpath in the direction of the negative X
I
-axis, see gure 6.17. The position of the
center of gravity in T
I
is given as,
X
0
= Q
t
with X
0
the position of the aircraft center of gravity in T
I
, Q
the airspeed (with Q
=
[U
, V
, W
]
T
= [U
, 0, 0]
T
), and t time.
6.6 Remarks
In this chapter the aircraft geometry and its wake conguration have been described for
the (un)steady Linearized Potential Flow simulations. Also, the steady-state, or initial,
condition for all future simulations has been dened. For the trim condition, the calculated
PCA-model parameters were the (quasi-steady) stability derivatives. For several stability
derivatives the LPF/PCA results correlated well with results obtained from ight tests,
and, therefore, the LPF method will be extended to perform simulations for both unsteady
aircraft motion and atmospheric gust-response.
In chapter 7 PCA-model results will be presented of time-domain simulations for the given
aircraft-wake geometry subjected to harmonic symmetrical aircraft motion perturbations
and harmonic symmetrical atmospheric turbulence.
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
wing
horizontal stabilizer
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
u [Rad.]
[Rad.]
q c
2Q
[Rad.]
C
X
C
Z
C
m
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
u [Rad.]
[Rad.]
q c
2Q
[Rad.]
C
X
C
Z
C
m
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
0.035
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
u [Rad.]
[Rad.]
q c
2Q
[Rad.]
C
X
C
Z
C
m
Figure 6.11: The calculated aerodynamic force coecients C
X
and C
Z
and the aerodynamic
moment coecient C
m
in F
S
due to perturbations in non-dimensional airspeed
u =
u
Q
, for the trim condition

0
= 1.5
o
.
6.6 Remarks 143
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
u
[Rad.]
q c
2Q
[Rad.]
C
X
C
Z
C
m
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
u
[Rad.]
q c
2Q
[Rad.]
C
X
C
Z
C
m
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
u
[Rad.]
q c
2Q
[Rad.]
C
X
C
Z
C
m
X
and C
Z
and the aerodynamic
moment coecient C
m
in F
S
due to perturbations in angle-of-attack , for the trim
condition
0
= 1.5
o
.
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
u
[Rad.]
q c
2Q
[Rad.]
C
X
C
Z
C
m
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
u
[Rad.]
q c
2Q
[Rad.]
C
X
C
Z
C
m
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
u
[Rad.]
q c
2Q
[Rad.]
C
X
C
Z
C
m
X
and C
Z
and the aerodynamic
moment coecient C
m
in F
S
due to perturbations in non-dimensional pitch-rate
q c
2Q
, for the trim condition

0
= 1.5
o
.
6.6 Remarks 145
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
[Rad.]
pb
2Q
[Rad.]
rb
2Q
[Rad.]
C
Y
C
C
n
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
[Rad.]
pb
2Q
[Rad.]
rb
2Q
[Rad.]
C
Y
C
C
n
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
[Rad.]
pb
2Q
[Rad.]
rb
2Q
[Rad.]
C
Y
C
C
n
Figure 6.14: The calculated aerodynamic force coecient C
Y
and the aerodynamic moment co-
ecients C
and C
n
in F
S
due to perturbations in side-slip-angle , for the trim
condition
0
= 1.5
o
.
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
pb
2Q
[Rad.]
rb
2Q
[Rad.]
C
Y
C
C
n
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
pb
2Q
[Rad.]
rb
2Q
[Rad.]
C
Y
C
C
n
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
x 10
3
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
pb
2Q
[Rad.]
rb
2Q
[Rad.]
C
Y
C
C
n
Y
ecients C
and C
n
in F
S
due to perturbations in non-dimensional roll-rate
pb
2Q
,
for the trim condition
0
= 1.5
o
.
6.6 Remarks 147
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
pb
2Q
[Rad.]
rb
2Q
[Rad.]
C
Y
C
C
n
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
pb
2Q
[Rad.]
rb
2Q
[Rad.]
C
Y
C
C
n
0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
pb
2Q
[Rad.]
rb
2Q
[Rad.]
C
Y
C
C
n
Y
ecients C
and C
n
in F
S
due to perturbations in non-dimensional yaw-rate
rb
2Q
,
0
= 1.5
o
.
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
, X
I
Y
aero
Z
aero
Y
I
Z
I
Figure 6.17: The aircraft conguration, the planar unsteady wake along a recti-linear ightpath,
the frame F
aero
and the frame F
I
.
Similar to chapter 7, in chapter 8 PCA-model results will be presented of time-domain
simulations for the aircraft-wake geometry subjected to harmonic asymmetrical aircraft
motion perturbations and both harmonic asymmetrical and anti-symmetrical atmospheric
turbulence.
x
cg
= 7.158 m
y
cg
= 0 m
z
cg
= 2.695 m
span b = 15.762 m
m.a.c. c = 2.057 m
wing-area S = 30.000 m
2
Table 6.1: The aircraft center of gravity position in the frame F
rig
and aircraft geometry param-
eters for LPF/PCA simulations.
6.6 Remarks 149
Airspeed Q
= 50.0 m/sec.
Angle-of-attack
0
= 1.5 Deg.
Angle of side-slip = 0.0 Deg.
ightpath angle
0
= 0.0 Deg.
Angle of pitch
0
= 1.5 Deg.
Air-density = 1.000 kg m
3
Roll-rate p = 0.0 Rad/sec.
Pitch-rate q = 0.0 Rad/sec.
Yaw-rate r = 0.0 Rad/sec.
Table 6.2: The initial state parameters for LPF/PCA simulations.
C
X
0
C
Y
0
C
Z
0
C
0
C
m
0
C
n
0
0.0 0.0015 0.0000 0.0782 0.0000 0.0321 0.0000
1.5 0.0018 0.0000 0.2292 0.0000 0.0125 0.0000
Table 6.3: PCA-model steady aerodynamic force and moment coecients in the frame F
aero
for
= 0
o
and = 1.5
o
.
C
X
0
C
Y
0
C
Z
0
C
0
C
m
0
C
n
0
0.0 -0.0015 0.0000 -0.0782 0.0000 0.0321 0.0000
1.5 -0.0018 0.0000 -0.2292 0.0000 0.0125 0.0000
Table 6.4: PCA-model steady aerodynamic force and moment coecients in the frame F
S
for
= 0
o
and = 1.5
o
.
C
X
0
= -0.0018 C
Z
0
= -0.2292 C
m
0
= 0.0125
C
X
u
= -0.0032 C
Z
u
= -0.4592 C
m
u
= 0.0236
C
X
= 0.1692 C
Z
= -5.7874 C
m
= -0.7486
C
X
q
= -0.0900 C
Z
q
= -9.0997 C
m
q
= -14.9294
Table 6.5: The PCA-model steady symmetric stability derivatives in F
S
0
= 1.5
o
.
C
Y
0
= 0 C
0
= 0 C
n
0
= 0
C
Y
= -0.4046 C
= -0.1090 C
n
= 0.0676
C
Y
p
= -0.0733 C
p
= -0.5194 C
n
p
= 0.0010
C
Y
r
= 0.1193 C
r
= 0.1039 C
n
r
= -0.1279
Table 6.6: The PCA-model steady asymmetric stability derivatives in F
S
0
= 1.5
o
.
x
cg
= 7.2059 m (estimated)
y
cg
= 0 m
z
cg
= 3.0450 m (estimated)
span b = 15.762 m
m.a.c. c = 2.057 m
wing-area S = 30.000 m
2
Table 6.7: The aircraft center of gravity position in F
rig
and aircraft geometry parameters used
for ight test data analysis (see reference [27]).
Mass m = 6042.3 kg
Moment of inertia I
y
= 35028.9680 kg m
2
Airspeed Q
= 90.6550 m/sec
Angle-of-attack = 6.0075 Deg.
Angle of pitch
0
= 3.2659 Deg.
3
Roll-rate p = 0.0000 Rad/sec
Pitch-rate q = 0.0100 Rad/sec
Yaw-rate r = 0.0000 Rad/sec
Table 6.8: The initial state parameters used for ight test data analysis (see reference [27]).
ight test Results LPF Results
Parameter Standard deviation Parameter
C
X
0
= 0.0119
C
X
0
= 0.00303 C
X
0
= -0.0018
C
Z
0
= -0.2267
C
Z
0
= 0.02925 C
Z
0
= -0.2292
C
m
0
= 0.0138
C
m
0
= 0.00255 C
m
0
= 0.0186
C
X
u
= N.A. C
X
u
= -0.0032
C
Z
u
= N.A. C
Z
u
= -0.4592
C
m
u
= N.A. C
m
u
= 0.0358
C
X
= -0.5563
C
X
= 0.03665 C
X
= 0.1692
C
Z
= -5.8450
C
Z
= 0.02370 C
Z
= -5.7874
C
m
= -0.4763
C
m
= 0.00495 C
m
= -0.5595
C
X
q
= N.A. C
X
q
= -0.1004
C
Z
q
= N.A. C
Z
q
= -8.9342
C
m
q
(1)
= -17.6698
C
m
q
= 1.45690 C
m
q
= -14.6492
Table 6.9: The steady symmetric stability derivatives, including their standard deviation , in
F
S
obtained from ight test data analysis (taken from reference [27]), and the steady
symmetric stability derivatives in F
S
obtained from LPF simulations using the center
of gravity position as used in reference [27],
0
= 1.5
o
. (
(1)
note that C
m
q
obtained
from ight tests includes C
m

)
6.6 Remarks 151
T
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
p
a
r
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
w
i
n
g
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
p
y
l
o
n
s
f
u
s
e
l
a
g
e
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
n
a
c
e
l
l
e
s
t
o
t
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
r
n
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
s
u
m
)
C
X
u
-
1
.
7
4
7
6
e
-
0
0
2
-
7
.
1
1
1
6
e
-
0
0
5
-
4
.
9
6
3
3
e
-
0
0
3
3
.
4
8
6
1
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
0
1
7
1
e
-
0
0
2
1
.
4
6
6
1
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
1
5
9
4
e
-
0
0
3
C
Z
u
-
4
.
4
4
8
6
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
0
4
6
3
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
4
2
5
0
e
-
0
0
2
5
.
4
8
4
2
e
-
0
0
3
-
8
.
2
6
8
7
e
-
0
0
3
2
.
1
9
3
6
e
-
0
0
3
-
4
.
5
9
2
3
e
-
0
0
1
C
m
u
2
.
2
7
1
7
e
-
0
0
2
2
.
8
0
9
1
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
5
8
4
5
e
-
0
0
2
2
.
7
4
6
8
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
5
1
8
5
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
6
7
0
9
e
-
0
0
3
2
.
3
5
7
5
e
-
0
0
2
C
X
1
.
5
8
0
0
e
-
0
0
1
-
1
.
5
7
3
3
e
-
0
0
2
-
6
.
2
3
8
3
e
-
0
0
4
-
4
.
7
1
2
6
e
-
0
0
3
6
.
1
0
4
0
e
-
0
0
3
2
.
6
1
3
7
e
-
0
0
2
1
.
6
9
1
8
e
-
0
0
1
C
Z
-
4
.
5
8
6
5
e
+
0
0
0
-
4
.
0
8
5
9
e
-
0
0
1
-
5
.
9
1
1
4
e
-
0
0
2
-
6
.
4
8
4
6
e
-
0
0
1
-
1
.
8
7
5
2
e
-
0
0
3
-
8
.
2
8
2
1
e
-
0
0
2
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
e
+
0
0
0
C
m
9
.
4
9
8
9
e
-
0
0
3
-
1
.
1
2
8
5
e
+
0
0
0
-
5
.
1
8
2
8
e
-
0
0
2
5
.
1
4
9
9
e
-
0
0
1
-
1
.
0
3
4
5
e
-
0
0
2
-
8
.
2
4
4
3
e
-
0
0
2
-
7
.
4
8
6
5
e
-
0
0
1
C
X
q
-
8
.
3
2
1
2
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
6
7
9
7
e
-
0
0
1
-
4
.
3
2
8
6
e
-
0
0
3
1
.
7
1
6
2
e
-
0
0
2
9
.
9
3
1
4
e
-
0
0
2
4
.
9
0
4
6
e
-
0
0
2
-
8
.
9
9
8
4
e
-
0
0
2
C
Z
q
-
4
.
3
5
6
1
e
+
0
0
0
-
4
.
2
9
9
0
e
+
0
0
0
-
2
.
5
7
1
0
e
-
0
0
1
5
.
8
9
7
8
e
-
0
0
2
4
.
6
1
0
2
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
9
2
5
2
e
-
0
0
1
-
9
.
0
9
9
7
e
+
0
0
0
C
m
q
-
5
.
6
7
5
1
e
-
0
0
1
-
1
.
1
9
2
8
e
+
0
0
1
-
2
.
5
0
5
1
e
-
0
0
1
-
1
.
9
6
4
6
e
+
0
0
0
7
.
8
6
6
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
9
7
9
1
e
-
0
0
1
-
1
.
4
9
2
9
e
+
0
0
1
T
a
b
l
e
6
.
1
0
:
T
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
p
a
r
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
T
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
p
a
r
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
w
i
n
g
h
o
r
i
z
o
n
t
a
l
p
y
l
o
n
s
f
u
s
e
l
a
g
e
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
n
a
c
e
l
l
e
s
t
o
t
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
z
e
r
n
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
(
s
u
m
)
C
Y
-
1
.
0
4
9
1
e
-
0
0
2
-
8
.
0
1
5
5
e
-
0
0
3
3
.
5
2
9
7
e
-
0
0
4
-
1
.
2
7
1
3
e
-
0
0
1
-
2
.
4
2
8
8
e
-
0
0
1
-
1
.
6
3
9
1
e
-
0
0
2
-
4
.
0
4
5
5
e
-
0
0
1
C
-
5
.
5
8
6
7
e
-
0
0
2
-
6
.
9
3
7
8
e
-
0
0
3
-
4
.
9
6
6
2
e
-
0
0
4
-
4
.
7
8
5
8
e
-
0
0
3
-
4
.
0
6
1
0
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
5
6
6
4
e
-
0
0
4
-
1
.
0
8
9
5
e
-
0
0
1
C
n
5
.
9
5
5
4
e
-
0
0
3
3
.
2
7
4
3
e
-
0
0
3
-
2
.
2
9
8
0
e
-
0
0
4
-
3
.
8
0
8
2
e
-
0
0
2
9
.
5
1
8
9
e
-
0
0
2
1
.
5
0
9
8
e
-
0
0
3
6
.
7
6
1
7
e
-
0
0
2
C
Y
p
-
9
.
1
1
7
8
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
2
1
6
6
e
-
0
0
2
9
.
4
8
6
3
e
-
0
0
6
6
.
1
3
4
1
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
3
4
4
7
e
-
0
0
2
2
.
1
7
5
9
e
-
0
0
3
-
7
.
3
2
6
4
e
-
0
0
2
C
p
-
5
.
0
9
2
6
e
-
0
0
1
-
8
.
6
2
8
1
e
-
0
0
3
2
.
7
2
9
1
e
-
0
0
4
1
.
3
0
2
7
e
-
0
0
3
-
3
.
7
1
7
4
e
-
0
0
3
6
.
0
7
9
1
e
-
0
0
4
-
5
.
1
9
4
3
e
-
0
0
1
C
n
p
-
1
.
7
2
2
8
e
-
0
0
2
4
.
7
2
3
2
e
-
0
0
3
-
1
.
3
6
7
2
e
-
0
0
5
1
.
4
1
8
0
e
-
0
0
3
1
.
3
1
2
0
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
0
4
7
5
e
-
0
0
3
9
.
7
2
7
5
e
-
0
0
4
C
Y
r
-
3
.
9
7
7
5
e
-
0
0
2
4
.
2
0
7
2
e
-
0
0
3
-
4
.
4
7
8
1
e
-
0
0
4
-
6
.
8
5
4
9
e
-
0
0
2
2
.
3
8
7
2
e
-
0
0
1
-
1
.
4
8
2
0
e
-
0
0
2
1
.
1
9
3
4
e
-
0
0
1
C
r
6
.
1
6
4
8
e
-
0
0
2
5
.
3
2
7
6
e
-
0
0
3
3
.
4
0
7
6
e
-
0
0
5
7
.
9
7
5
2
e
-
0
0
4
3
.
6
9
7
4
e
-
0
0
2
-
8
.
7
6
0
7
e
-
0
0
4
1
.
0
3
9
1
e
-
0
0
1
C
n
r
-
1
.
0
2
6
7
e
-
0
0
3
-
1
.
7
4
3
9
e
-
0
0
3
1
.
4
0
9
9
e
-
0
0
4
-
3
.
4
0
0
4
e
-
0
0
2
-
9
.
3
9
6
2
e
-
0
0
2
2
.
7
4
1
6
e
-
0
0
3
-
1
.
2
7
8
5
e
-
0
0
1
T
a
b
l
e
6
.
1
1
:
T
h
e
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
o
f
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
p
a
r
t
s
t
o
t
h
e
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
s
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
Chapter 7
PCA-model symmetrical
aerodynamic
frequency-response functions
7.1 Introduction
In this chapter the Parametric Computational Aerodynamics (PCA) model symmetrical
aerodynamic frequency-response functions for the aircraft conguration dened in chap-
ter 6 will be given. In the time-domain the aerodynamic force and moment coecients
response (the output) due to harmonically varying aircraft motions and atmospheric tur-
bulence inputs (the input) will be calculated. From the input and the output the so-called
frequency-dependent stability derivatives are obtained for aircraft motion perturbations.
Similarly, the so-called frequency-dependent gust derivatives are obtained for atmospheric
turbulence inputs. From these derivatives, the so-called aerodynamic frequency-response
data are obtained, see also appendix E. The data will be calculated for a selected range
of reduced frequencies using the unsteady Linearized Potential Flow (LPF) simulation
method presented in chapter 4. From the aerodynamic frequency-response data the aero-
dynamic frequency-response functions are calculated. They approximate the frequency-
domain data using functions which include rational lters (this procedure is known as
analytical continuation), see also appendix E. The presented PCA-model aerodynamic
frequency-response data and the aerodynamic frequency-response functions will be given
for the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
. As a function of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
,
with [Rad/sec] the circular frequency of the considered perturbation (being either an
isolated aircraft motion perturbation or an isolated atmospheric turbulence input), Q
[m/s] the airspeed and c [m] the mean aerodynamic chord, in this chapter the aerodynamic
frequency-response functions include the response of the aerodynamic force and moment
coecients C
X
(k), C
Z
(k) and C
m
(k) due to non-dimensional aircraft motion perturbations
u(k) =
u(k)
Q
and (k) =
w(k)
Q
. Also, they will include the response due to one-dimensional

154 PCA-model symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response functions
C
X
C
Z
C
m
u(k) =
u(k)
Q
C
X
u
(k)
C
Z
u
(k)
C
m
u
(k)
(k) =
w(k)
Q
C
X
(k)
C
Z
(k)
C
m
(k)
u
g
(k) =
u
g
(k)
Q
C
X
u
g
(k)
C
Z
u
g
(k)
C
m
u
g
(k)
g
(k) =
w
g
(k)
Q
C
X
g
(k)
C
Z
g
(k)
C
m
g
(k)
Table 7.1: Symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response functions for the frame F
S
as a function
c
2Q
with respect to aircraft motions and 1D atmospheric

turbulence inputs.
(1D) atmospheric turbulence inputs given as u
g
(k) =
u
g
(k)
Q
and
g
(k) =
w
g
(k)
Q
. The
denition of the aircraft motion perturbations and the atmospheric turbulence inputs is
given in chapter 5. The aerodynamic frequency-response functions for the frame T
S
are
summarized in table 7.1.
The aerodynamic frequency-response of C
X
(k) with respect to both the aircraft motion
perturbation (k) =
w(k)
Q
and the 1D atmospheric turbulence input

g
(k) =
w
g
(k)
Q
is
left out of consideration since they show non-linear behaviour. The non-linearity of these
frequency-response functions will be further discussed in sections 7.3 and 7.4.
7.2 Generation of frequency-response data
7.2.1 Initial condition denitions
For the simulations presented in this chapter, use is made of the initial condition given in
chapter 6, which assumes steady, straight, symmetric ight with a steady-state angle-of-
attack
0
= 1.5
o
and the steady-state airspeed Q
= 50 [m/s], with Q
= [U
, 0, 0]
T
.
Also, for the presented simulations, the aerodynamic grid as dened in chapter 6 is used.
The denitions of the harmonically varying aircraft motion perturbations and the har-
monically varying atmospheric turbulence inputs are given in chapter 5.
7.2.2 Time-domain simulations
In terms of the aerodynamic force and moment coecient responses, the results of the
time-domain simulations are assumed to be due to small perturbations with respect to the
initial condition. Also, these time-domain simulations will be performed over slightly more
than two cycles to obtain a stationary aerodynamic response. From these simulations it
7.2 Generation of frequency-response data 155
was concluded that the number of two cycles for time-domain simulations was sucient
enough to obtain a stationary response by checking the minimum and maximum values of
the last cycles unsteady aerodynamic force and moment coecient responses.
During these simulations the aircraft travels along the negative X
I
-axis of the Inertial
I
. The aerodynamic response (in terms of the aerodynamic force
and moment coecients due to the prescribed perturbations) obtained from the last sim-
ulation cycle is used for the determination of the frequency-dependent stability- and gust
derivatives.
The symmetrical aircraft motion perturbations u and w are dened according to equations
(5.10) and (5.12), while the symmetrical 1D atmospheric turbulence inputs u
g
and w
g
are dened according to equations (5.18) and (5.20), respectively. The amplitude of the
aircraft motion perturbations as well as the atmospheric turbulence inputs is chosen as
1 [m/s] resulting with Q
= 50 [m/s] in small perturbations u =

u
Q
, =
w
Q
, u
g
=
u
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
.
7.2.3 Eect of the discretization time on frequency-response data
Similar to the results presented in chapter 4, the discretization-time t for the time-
domain simulations is taken to be a function of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
. In
order to calculate the discretization-time t from the prescribed reduced frequency k, the
circular frequency is calculated rst from,
=
2 k Q
c
Using this expression for , the frequency f in cycles per second (or Hz) becomes,
f =
2 k Q
2 c
from which the period T [sec.] follows,
T =
2 c
2 k Q
Assuming that a sine function is approximated by a number of N

samples
samples, the
discretization-time t is dened as,
t =
2 c
2 k Q
N
samples
(7.1)
with t given in [sec.].
Thus, the discretization-time t is determined from the reduced frequency k and the
number of samples N
samples
to describe a single oscillation of the harmonically varying
aircraft motion perturbations or the atmospheric turbulence inputs.
In gures 7.1 and 7.2 the time-domain aerodynamic force and moment coecients C
X
(t),
C
Z
(t) and C
m
(t) are presented for the last simulation cycle for a series of the reduced
frequency. For these gures the discretization-time t according to equation (7.1) is used
with N
samples
= 30.
Using the aerodynamic tting procedures given in appendix E, and the denition of the
aircraft motion perturbations and the atmospheric turbulence inputs given in chapter 5, as
a function of the discretization-time t the symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response
data are shown in gures 7.3 and 7.4. The aerodynamic frequency-response data of the
force and moment coecients C
X
, C
Z
and C
m
are given with respect to symmetrical
aircraft motions and symmetrical 1D atmospheric turbulence inputs. They are also shown
as a function of the discretization-time t given in terms of the parameter N
samples
, which
is taken to be N
samples
= 10, N
samples
= 20 and N
samples
= 30. Although the frequency-
response data do not vary signicantly in terms of magnitude, they do dier considerably
in terms of dynamics or in frequency-response. The eect of the discretization-time on
the aerodynamic frequency-response is attributed to the wake model since variations in
the aircraft circulation are counteracted by the aircrafts wake
1
.
The wake-history is given as a function of N
samples
in gures 7.5, 7.6 and 7.7 for a single
simulation cycle for reduced frequencies k = 0.05, k = 0.3 and k = 0.5. It can be seen that
the wake discretization in the vicinity of the horizontal stabilizer is too coarse for small
reduced frequencies k and discretization-times t related to N
samples
= 10. Referring to
gures 7.3 and 7.4, the eect of a coarse wake-representation near the horizontal stabilizer
on the aerodynamic frequency-responses is highly noticeable, especially for frequency-
responses for which the horizontal stabilizers contribution is dominant (as, for example,
for the aerodynamic frequency-response of C
m
with respect to longitudinal gust u
g
and
vertical gust
g
).
Providing the most dense wake discretization, thus assuming to result in the most accurate
time-domain aerodynamic results, the simulation data for N
samples
= 30 will be used
throughout this thesis. Consequently, for time-domain simulations the discretization time
t related to the N
samples
= 30 condition is used, see also equation (7.1).
For the discretization time t related to the N
samples
= 30 condition, in the following
sections the aerodynamic frequency-responses are given with respect to aircraft motion
perturbations and atmospheric turbulence inputs. The contributions of several aircraft
parts, such as the horizontal stabilizer, to these frequency-responses will be discussed.
7.3 Aircraft motion frequency-response results
7.3.1 Breakdown of frequency-response data
In gures 6.10 the denition of these parts is given. The aircraft parts considered include
the denitions wing, horizontal stabilizer, pylons, fuselage, vertical n and
nacelles. Using these denitions, a breakdown of the aerodynamic frequency-response
functions in these aircraft parts contributions is performed, similar to the breakdown of
1
Which is known as Kelvins condition, see also chapter 4
7.3 Aircraft motion frequency-response results 157
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
10
5
0
5
x 10
3
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(
t
)
C
Z
(t)
C
m
(t)
u(t) [Rad.]
u
g
(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
10
5
0
5
x 10
3
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(
t
)
C
Z
(t)
C
m
(t)
u(t) [Rad.]
ug(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.25
0.245
0.24
0.235
0.23
0.225
0.22
0.215
0.21
0.205
0.2
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(t)
C
Z
(
t
)
C
m
(t)
u(t) [Rad.]
u
g
(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.25
0.245
0.24
0.235
0.23
0.225
0.22
0.215
0.21
0.205
0.2
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(t)
C
Z
(
t
)
C
m
(t)
u(t) [Rad.]
ug(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(t)
C
Z
(t)
C
m
(
t
)
u(t) [Rad.]
u
g
(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(t)
C
Z
(t)
C
m
(
t
)
u(t) [Rad.]
ug(t) [Rad.]
Figure 7.1: Simulated time-dependent aerodynamic force and moment coecients C
X
(t), C
Z
(t)
and C
m
(t) with respect to harmonically varying u(t) and u
g
(t) for the frame F
S
,
with t related to N
samples
= 30, for the Cessna Ce550 Citation II complete aircraft
conguration, with
0
= 1.5
o
.
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 10
3
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(
t
)
C
Z
(t)
C
m
(t)
(t) [Rad.]
g
(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 10
3
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(
t
)
C
Z
(t)
C
m
(t)
(t) [Rad.]
g(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(t)
C
Z
(
t
)
C
m
(t)
(t) [Rad.]
g
(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(t)
C
Z
(
t
)
C
m
(t)
(t) [Rad.]
g(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(t)
C
Z
(t)
C
m
(
t
)
(t) [Rad.]
g
(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
X
(t)
C
Z
(t)
C
m
(
t
)
(t) [Rad.]
g(t) [Rad.]
X
(t), C
Z
(t)
and C
m
(t) with respect to harmonically varying (t) and
g
(t) for the frame F
S
,
with t related to N
samples
conguration, with
0
= 1.5
o
.
0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
CX
u
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
X
u
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
CX
ug
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
X
u
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
CZ
u
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
u
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
CZ
ug
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
u
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
u
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
mu
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
ug
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
m
u
g
(
k
)
_
Figure 7.3: Simulated symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response data in the frame F
S
with
respect to u and u
g
as a function of discretization-times t related to N
samples
= 10,
N
samples
= 20 and N
samples
conguration, with
0
= 1.5
o
.
7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
CZ
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Re
_
CZ
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
m
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
m
g
(
k
)
_
Figure 7.4: Simulated symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response data in the frame F
S
with
respect to and
g
as a function of discretization-times t related to N
samples
= 10,
N
samples
= 20 and N
samples
conguration, with
0
= 1.5
o
.
(a) k = 0.05, N
samples
= 10
(b) k = 0.05, N
samples
= 20
(c) k = 0.05, N
samples
= 30
Figure 7.5: Wake history for a single simulation cycle with reduced frequency k = 0.05 and
discretization-times t related to N
samples
= 10, N
samples
= 20 and N
samples
= 30.
(a) k = 0.3, N
samples
= 10
(b) k = 0.3, N
samples
= 20
(c) k = 0.3, N
samples
= 30
samples
= 10, N
samples
= 20 and N
samples
= 30.
(a) k = 0.5, N
samples
= 10
(b) k = 0.5, N
samples
= 20
(c) k = 0.5, N
samples
= 30
samples
= 10, N
samples
= 20 and N
samples
= 30.
contributions with respect to the steady stability derivatives, see also chapter 6.
In gures 7.8 and 7.9 the breakdown in aircraft part contributions to the aerodynamic
frequency-response data is given for a discretization-time t related to N
samples
= 30.
In these gures the aircraft congurations frequency-response is shown as well, which
is the sum of all aircraft part contributions to the considered frequency-response data.
The calculated aerodynamic frequency-response data is given for the reduced frequencies
k = 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5.
From these gures it is concluded that the aerodynamic frequency-response data of the
aerodynamic force and moment coecients C
X
, C
Z
and C
m
with respect to harmonically
varying aircraft surging motions u =
u
Q
are primarily governed by the contributions of

the wing, horizontal-stabilizer and the fuselage. The aerodynamic frequency-response data
of the aerodynamic force and moment coecients C
Z
and C
m
varying aircraft plunging motions =
w
Q
are also primarily governed by the contributions

of the wing, horizontal-stabilizer and the fuselage.
7.3.2 Aerodynamic tting results
Since the aerodynamic frequency-response data are limited to only seven reduced frequen-
cies, the data are approximated by an analytical function. For the aircraft conguration
aerodynamic frequency-response, the data are approximated using the function, see also
appendix E,
H(k) = A
0
+A
1
jk +A
2
(jk)
2
+
i=N
i=1
B
i
jk
jk +
i
(7.2)
with

H(k) the estimated analytical frequency-response function for either
C
X
u
(k),
C
Z
u
(k),
C
m
u
(k),
C
Z
(k),
C
m
(k), and A
0
, A
1
, A
2
the so-called aerodynamic stiness, aerodynamic
damping and aerodynamic inertia parameters, respectively. The parameters B
i
, i =
1 N, are the gains of the so-called aerodynamic lag-functions
jk
jk+
i
, with
i
, i =
1 N, the poles of these functions, and N the number of lag-functions, see also reference
[36]. In this thesis for all aerodynamic frequency-response functions the number of lag-
functions is chosen as N = 3.
Using the aerodynamic tting procedure given in appendix E, the unknown parameters
A
i
with i = 0, 1, 2, and both B
j
and
j
with j = 1, 2, 3, are obtained for each aerodynamic
frequency-response function. The parameters for each function are summarized in table
7.2. Note that all poles for all the aerodynamic frequency-response functions with respect
to the aircraft motions are stable.
In gures 7.10 and 7.11 all aerodynamic frequency-response data are given, including their
frequency-response data-t. The data-ts are given for an increased number of reduced
frequency points in order to check that no intermediate oscillations between the calcu-
lated frequency-response data occur. It should be noted that the aerodynamic frequency-
response function of C
X
with respect to both and
g
are not considered in this thesis,
Aerodynamic function-t coecients
Aircraft motions
A
0
A
1
A
2
C
X
u
(k) -3.1594e-003 -3.6461e-001 1.7074e-001
C
Z
u
(k) -4.5923e-001 -6.1119e-001 1.9494e-001
C
m
u
(k) 2.3575e-002 1.1704e+000 -3.9364e-001
C
Z
(k) -5.7874e+000 -4.7457e+000 7.7100e-001

C
m
(k) -7.4865e-001 -2.2633e+000 -1.4684e+000

B
1
B
2
B
3
C
X
u
(k) 3.0083e-003 -4.5716e-001 7.7958e-001
C
Z
u
(k) 1.5172e-001 -1.9360e-001 1.2446e+000
C
m
u
(k) -1.6229e-002 -1.5822e-001 -3.5033e+000
C
Z
(k) -9.7144e-001 1.6971e+000 -5.5835e-003

C
m
(k) -2.8737e-001 -5.1098e+000 1.1030e+001
1

2

3
C
X
u
(k) 1.2936e-001 6.8431e-001 9.0842e-001
C
Z
u
(k) 2.7405e-001 4.0314e-001 1.8962e+000
C
m
u
(k) 2.1144e-001 6.5135e-001 3.2574e+000
C
Z
(k) 1.2685e-001 1.4500e-001 4.6405e-001

C
m
(k) 1.4526e-001 6.1374e-001 2.7549e+000

Table 7.2: Calculated coecients for the aerodynamic function-t (given in equation (7.2)) for
longitudinal and vertical aircraft motions.
since the simulated time-dependent response of the aerodynamic force coecient C
X
(t)
due to both harmonically varying (t) and
g
(t) could not be tted using equation (E.1).
For example, for the input (t) it is written,
C
X
(t) = (
X
(k) (t) +(
X

(k)
(t) c
2Q
with

C
X
(t) the model response, (t) the time derivative of the input (t), and both
(
X
(k) and (
X

(k) the frequency-dependent steady and unsteady stability derivatives,
respectively. Since the response of C
X
to both and
g
shows a non-linear character
(due to induced drag, see also gures 7.2), the parameters (
X
(k) and (
X

(k) inaccurately
modeled the C
X
response for all reduced frequencies.
1D atmospheric turbulence inputs
A
0
A
1
A
2
C
X
u
g
(k) -3.1594e-003 -2.0746e+002 2.8256e+001
C
Z
u
g
(k) -4.5923e-001 -1.4692e+001 3.6039e+000
C
m
u
g
(k) 2.3575e-002 7.5891e+001 -1.8804e+001
C
Z
g
(k) -5.7874e+000 -1.6448e+000 -2.7660e+000
C
m
g
(k) -7.4865e-001 -1.8882e+001 1.8660e+001
B
1
B
2
B
3
C
X
u
g
(k) 1.1302e+003 -6.5091e+002 1.6767e+003
C
Z
u
g
(k) 5.3975e-002 8.5292e+001 -8.5876e+001
C
m
u
g
(k) -1.7061e+002 3.9741e+001 -1.4314e+002
C
Z
g
(k) 8.3051e+000 3.2859e+001 -5.5972e+000
C
m
g
(k) 3.0469e+001 -1.3890e+001 -1.0527e-001
1

2

3
C
X
u
g
(k) 3.4466e+000 2.9893e+000 1.6985e+001
C
Z
u
g
(k) 2.0291e-001 4.7518e+000 2.6593e+001
C
m
u
g
(k) 3.4974e+000 1.6462e+000 2.7680e+000
C
Z
g
(k) 2.5738e-001 2.2310e+001 2.5745e-001
C
m
g
(k) 9.6940e-001 2.6943e+000 7.0000e-002
both 1D longitudinal and vertical atmospheric turbulence inputs.
7.4 1D Atmospheric turbulence input frequency-res-
ponse results
Similar to section 7.3.1, a breakdown of aerodynamic results into aircraft parts contribu-
tions is performed for the aerodynamic frequency-response data with respect to both 1D
longitudinal gusts and 1D vertical gusts. Also similar to section 7.3.1, in gures 7.8 and
7.9 the breakdown in aircraft part contributions to the aerodynamic frequency-response
data is given for a discretization-time t related to N
samples
= 30, with the aerodynamic
frequency-response given for the reduced frequencies used earlier. From these gures it
is concluded that the aerodynamic frequency-response data of the aerodynamic force co-
ecient C
X
with respect to 1D harmonically varying longitudinal gusts u
g
=
u
g
Q
are
primarily governed by the contributions of the fuselage, wing and vertical-n. For this
7.5 Frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives 167
atmospheric turbulence input, the aerodynamic frequency-response data of the aerody-
namic force coecient C
Z
is primarily governed by contributions of the fuselage, wing and
pylons. Finally, for the considered gust input the aerodynamic frequency-response data
of the aerodynamic moment coecient C
m
is primarily governed by contributions of the
fuselage, horizontal stabilizer, wing, pylons and vertical n. The aerodynamic frequency-
response data of the aerodynamic force coecient C
Z
with respect to 1D harmonically
varying vertical gusts, given as =
w
Q
, are primarily governed by the contributions of

the wing and the horizontal-stabilizer, while the aerodynamic moment coecient C
m
with
respect to the input is primarily governed by contributions of the horizontal stabilizer and
fuselage.
Similar to section 7.3.2 the aerodynamic frequency-response data with respect to 1D lon-
gitudinal as well as 1D vertical gusts are approximated by equation (7.2). The frequency-
response data and the frequency-response data-t of the functions
C
X
u
g
(k),
C
Z
u
g
(k),
C
m
u
g
(k),
C
Z
g
(k) and
C
m
g
(k) are given in gures 7.10 and 7.11.
Similar to the aircraft motion results, using the aerodynamic tting procedure given in ap-
pendix E the unknown parameters A
i
j
and
j
with j = 1, 2, 3,
are calculated for each aerodynamic frequency-response function. The parameters for
each function are summarized in table 7.3. Note that also for the aerodynamic frequency-
response functions with respect to 1D atmospheric turbulence inputs, all poles are stable.
7.5 Frequency-dependent stability- and gust deriva-
tives
Once the analytical frequency-response functions have been obtained, they are decomposed
in the so-called frequency-dependent steady derivatives and frequency-dependent unsteady
derivatives. For example, consider the aerodynamic frequency-response function of the
aerodynamic force coecient C
Z
with respect to the 1D vertical atmospheric turbulence
input
g
(k) =
w
g
(k)
Q
, written as
C
Z
g
(k) with k the reduced frequency. Obviously, the
frequency-response
C
Z
g
(k) is complex valued and it is written as,
C
Z
g
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
+j Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
= (
Z
g
(k) +jk (
Z

g
(k) (7.3)
with the frequency-dependent gust derivatives (
Z
g
(k) and (
Z

g
(k) given as,
(
Z
g
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
(7.4)
and,
(
Z

g
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
(7.5)
0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
k = 0.01
Re
_
CX
u
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
X
u
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
k = 0.01
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
CX
ug
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
X
u
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
k = 0.01
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
CZ
u
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
u
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
k = 0.01
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
CZ
ug
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
u
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
k = 0.01
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
u
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
mu
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
k = 0.01
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
ug
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
m
u
g
(
k
)
_
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
Figure 7.8: Breakdown of the simulated symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response data in the
frameF
S
with respect to u and u
g
in aircraft part contributions, for the Cessna Ce550
Citation II complete aircraft conguration, with
0
= 1.5
o
.
7.6 Remarks 169
6 5 4 3 2 1 0
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
k = 0.01
Re
_
CZ
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
k = 0.01
Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Re
_
CZ
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
k = 0.01
Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
m
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
k = 0.01
Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
m
g
(
k
)
_
k = 0.01
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
Figure 7.9: Breakdown of the simulated symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response data in the
frameF
S
with respect to and
g
in aircraft part contributions, for the Cessna Ce550
Citation II complete aircraft conguration, with
0
= 1.5
o
.
The denition of the frequency-dependent steady stability derivatives and the frequency-
dependent unsteady stability derivatives is summarized in table 7.4, including the deni-
tions of the 1D frequency-dependent steady gust derivatives and the 1D frequency-dependent
unsteady gust derivatives. These frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives are
required in chapter 10 where they will be used for the frequency-domain simulations of
the equations of motions.
7.6 Remarks
In this chapter the aerodynamic frequency-response functions for symmetrical aircraft
motions and symmetrical atmospheric turbulence inputs have been given. The considered
aerodynamic frequency-response functions have been determined for the aerodynamic force
and moment coecients C
X
, C
Z
and C
m
with respect to the symmetrical aircraft motions
u(k) and (k) and the symmetrical 1D turbulence inputs u
g
(k) and
g
(k). The frequency-
response functions were obtained by approximating the aerodynamic frequency-response
0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CX
u
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
X
u
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
k = 0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
CX
ug
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
X
u
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
k = 0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
CZ
u
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
u
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
k = 0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.55 0.5 0.45 0.4 0.35
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
CZ
ug
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
u
g
(
k
)
_ Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
k = 0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
u
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
mu
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
k = 0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
ug
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
m
u
g
(
k
)
_
k = 0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
Figure 7.10: Simulated 1D symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response data in the frame F
S
with respect to u and u
g
, including the aerodynamic frequency-response data-t, for
the Cessna Ce550 Citation II complete aircraft conguration, with
0
= 1.5
o
.
7.6 Remarks 171
7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CZ
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
k = 0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
7 6.5 6 5.5 5 4.5 4 3.5 3 2.5 2
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Re
_
CZ
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Z
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
k = 0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
m
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
k = 0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0.5 1
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
Re
_
Cm
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
m
g
(
k
)
_
k = 0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
Figure 7.11: Simulated 1D symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response data in the frame F
S
with respect to and
g
, including the aerodynamic frequency-response data-t,
for the Cessna Ce550 Citation II complete aircraft conguration, with
0
= 1.5
o
.
Frequency dependent stability- and 1D gust derivatives
C
X
C
Z
C
m
u C
X
u
(k) = Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
C
Z
u
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
C
m
u
(k) = Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
u c
2Q
C
X
u
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
C
Z
u
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
C
m
u
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
C
X
(k) = Re
_
C
X
(k)
_
C
Z
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
C
m
(k) = Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
c
2Q
C
X

(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
X
(k)
_
C
Z

(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
C
m

(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
u
g
C
X
u
g
(k) = Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
C
Z
u
g
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
C
m
u
g
(k) = Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
u
g
c
2Q
C
X
u
g
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
C
Z
u
g
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
C
m
u
g
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
g
C
X
g
(k) = Re
_
C
X
g
(k)
_
C
Z
g
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
C
m
g
(k) = Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_

g
c
2Q
C
X

g
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
X
g
(k)
_
C
Z

g
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
C
m

g
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Table 7.4: Denition of the symmetrical frequency-dependent stability derivatives and the sym-
metrical frequency-dependent 1D gust derivatives for the frame F
S
given as a func-
tion of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
, as calculated from symmetrical aerodynamic

frequency-response functions.
data by analytical functions.
In chapter 8 the aerodynamic frequency-response functions for asymmetrical aircraft mo-
tions will be given. These functions will be given for both asymmetrical and anti-symmetrical
atmospheric turbulence inputs as well.
The results presented in chapters 7 and 8 will be used for the computational aerodynam-
ics model presented in chapter 10. Also, in the latter chapter both the constant unsteady
stability- and the constant unsteady gust derivatives will be calculated. In conjunction
with the constant stability derivatives calculated in chapter 6, the constant parameter
aerodynamic model is then completely determined.
Chapter 8
PCA-model asymmetrical
aerodynamic
frequency-response functions
8.1 Introduction
In this chapter the Parametric Computational Aerodynamics (PCA) model asymmetrical
aerodynamic frequency-response functions for the aircraft conguration dened in chapter
6 will be given. Also, the frequency-dependent stability derivatives are obtained with re-
spect to asymmetrical aircraft motions in terms of the side-slip-angle . Furthermore, the
gust derivatives are obtained for the asymmetrical atmospheric turbulence input
g
and
both the anti-symmetrical longitudinal u
g
and vertical
g
inputs. From these derivatives,
the aerodynamic frequency-response data are obtained, see appendix E.
The frequency-response data will be calculated over a selected range of reduced frequencies
using the unsteady Linearized Potential Flow (LPF) simulation method presented in chap-
ter 4. From the aerodynamic frequency-response data the aerodynamic frequency-response
functions are calculated. These functions approximate the frequency-domain data using
functions which include rational lters, see also appendix E.
The PCA-model aerodynamic frequency-response data and the aerodynamic frequency-
response functions presented will be given for the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
. The
aerodynamic frequency-response functions include the response of the aerodynamic force
and moment coecients C
Y
(k), C
(k) and C
n
(k) due to the non-dimensional aircraft mo-
tion perturbation =
v(k)
Q
. Also, they include the response due to the one-dimensional

(1D) atmospheric turbulence input given as
g
=
v
g
(k)
Q
. Finally, the aerodynamic frequency-

response functions include the response of the aerodynamic force and moment coecients
C
Y
(k,
y
), C
(k,
y
) and C
n
(k,
y
) due to anti-symmetrical two-dimensional (2D) atmo-
spheric turbulence inputs given as u
g
(k,
y
) =
u
g
(k,
y
)
Q
and
g
(k,
y
) =
w
g
(k,
y
)
Q
. The
174 PCA-model asymmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response functions
C
Y
C
C
n
(k) =
v(k)
Q
C
Y
(k)
C
(k)
C
n
(k)
g
(k) =
v
g
(k)
Q
C
Y
g
(k)
C
g
(k)
C
n
g
(k)
u
g
(k,
y
) =
u
g
(k,
y
)
Q
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
)
C
u
g
(k,
y
)
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
)
g
(k,
y
) =
w
g
(k,
y
)
Q
C
Y
g
(k,
y
)
C
g
(k,
y
)
C
n
g
(k,
y
)
Table 8.1: Both asymmetrical and anti-symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response functions
for the frame F
S
c
2Q
and the spatial

frequency
y
with respect to aircraft motions and both 1D and 2D atmospheric tur-
bulence inputs.
denitions of the aircraft motion perturbations and the atmospheric turbulence inputs are
given in chapter 5. The aerodynamic frequency-response functions for the frame T
S
are
summarized in table 8.1.
8.2 Generation of frequency-response data
8.2.1 Initial condition denitions
Similar to chapter 7, here use is made of the initial condition given in chapter 6. This
condition assumes steady, straight, symmetric ight with the steady-state angle-of-attack
0
= 1.5
o
and the steady-state airspeed Q
= 50 [m/s], with Q
= [U
, 0, 0]
T
. The
aerodynamic grid as dened in chapter 6 is also used here. Denitions of the harmo-
nically varying aircraft motion perturbations and the harmonically varying atmospheric
turbulence inputs are given in chapter 5.
8.2.2 Time-domain simulations
Again, the aerodynamic force and moment coecients response, as resulting from the
time-domain simulations are assumed to be caused by small perturbations with respect to
the initial condition. Also, the time-domain simulations presented in this chapter will be
performed over slightly more than two cycles in order to obtain a stationary aerodynamic
response. During these simulations the aircraft travels along the negative X
I
-axis of the
Inertial Frame of Reference T
I
. The aerodynamic response (in terms of the aerodynamic
force and moment coecients due to the prescribed disturbances) obtained from the last
8.2 Generation of frequency-response data 175
simulation cycle is used for the estimation of the frequency-dependent stability- and gust
derivatives.
The asymmetrical aircraft motion perturbation v is dened according to equation (5.11),
whereas the asymmetrical 1D atmospheric turbulence input v
g
is dened according to
equation (5.19). The anti-symmetrical 2D atmospheric turbulence inputs u
g
and w
g
are
dened according to equations (5.25) and (5.27), respectively. The amplitude of the air-
craft motion perturbation and the atmospheric turbulence inputs are chosen as 1 [m/s]
resulting with Q
= 50 [m/s] in small perturbations =

v
Q
, u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
.
8.2.3 Eect of the discretization time on frequency-response data
Similar to section 7.2.3, the discretization-time t is determined from the reduced fre-
quency k and the number of samples N
samples
to describe a single oscillation of the har-
monically varying aircraft motion perturbations as well as the atmospheric turbulence
inputs.
In gure 8.1 the time-domain aerodynamic force and moment coecients C
Y
(t), C
(t)
and C
n
(t) are presented for the last simulation cycle for a number of reduced frequencies
(k = 0.05, 0.3, 0.5). Here the used discretization-time t is according to equation (7.1)
with N
samples
= 30. From these time-domain results the frequency-dependent stability
and gust derivatives are calculated which eventually result in aerodynamic frequency-
response data, see also appendix E.
Using the aerodynamic tting procedures and both the denition of the aircraft motion
perturbations and the atmospheric turbulence inputs given in chapter 5, the asymme-
trical aerodynamic frequency-response data are shown in gures 8.2 as a function of the
discretization-time t. The aerodynamic frequency-response data of the force and moment
coecients C
Y
, C
and C
n
are given with respect to the asymmetrical aircraft motion
and the asymmetrical 1D atmospheric turbulence input
g
. They are also shown as a
function of the discretization-time t given in terms of the parameter N
samples
, which is
taken to be N
samples
= 10, N
samples
= 20 and N
samples
= 30.
Contrary to the symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response data presented in chapter
7, the asymmetrical frequency-response data do not vary signicantly in terms of magni-
tude or dynamics (or in frequency-response). The reduced-dependency of the aerodynamic
frequency-response data with respect to the discretization-time t is explained from the
aircraft parts dominating contributions to these data. Therefore, in the following sections
the aerodynamic frequency-responses are given with respect to the aircraft motion per-
turbation and the asymmetrical atmospheric turbulence input
g
. In these sections the
contributions of several aircraft parts, such as the horizontal stabilizer, to these frequency-
responses will be discussed as well.
All aerodynamic frequency-response data will be given for a discretization time t related
to N
samples
= 30, see also equation (7.1), while the reduced frequencies considered include
k = 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5.
8.3 Aircraft motion frequency-response results
In gures 6.10 the denition of isolated aircraft parts is given with the aircraft parts
considered, including the denitions wing, horizontal stabilizer, pylon, nacelles,
vertical n and fuselage.
Similar to section 7.3.1, in gures 8.3 the breakdown in aircraft part contributions is given
for a discretization-time t related to N
samples
= 30. The total aircraft congurations
frequency-response is given as well, the sum of all aircraft part contributions to the con-
sidered frequency-response data. The calculated aerodynamic frequency-response data is
given for reduced frequencies k = 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5.
From these gures it is evident that the aerodynamic frequency-response data of the
aerodynamic force and moment coecients C
Y
, C
and C
n
varying aircraft swaying motions =
v
Q
are primarily governed by the contributions of

the fuselage and the vertical n.
Also in this chapter, the aerodynamic frequency-response data are limited to a number
of reduced frequencies. The data are approximated by an analytical function given by
equation (7.2).
In gures 8.4 all total aircraft conguration aerodynamic frequency-response data are
given, including their frequency-response data-ts. The data-ts are also given for an
increased number of reduced frequency points in order to check that no intermediate
oscillations between the calculated frequency-response data occur.
Using the aerodynamic tting procedure given in appendix E, the unknown parameters
in equation (7.2), A
i
j
and
j
with j = 1, 2, 3 are calculated
for each aerodynamic frequency-response function, and they are summarized in table 8.2.
Note that all poles for all the aerodynamic frequency-response functions with respect to
aircraft motions are stable.
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
Y
(
t
)
C
(t)
C
n
(t)
(t) [Rad.]
g
(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
Y
(
t
)
C
(t)
C
n
(t)
(t) [Rad.]
g(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
3
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
Y
(t)
C
(
t
)
C
n
(t)
(t) [Rad.]
g
(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
3
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
Y
(t)
C
(
t
)
C
n
(t)
(t) [Rad.]
g(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
x 10
3
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
Y
(t)
C
(t)
C
n
(
t
)
(t) [Rad.]
g
(t) [Rad.]
0.025 0.02 0.015 0.01 0.005 0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
x 10
3
k=0.05
k=0.3
k=0.5
PSfrag replacements
C
Y
(t)
C
(t)
C
n
(
t
)
(t) [Rad.]
g(t) [Rad.]
Y
(t), C
(t)
and C
n
(t) with respect to harmonically varying (t) and
g
(t) for the frame F
S
,
with t related to N
samples
conguration, with
0
= 1.5
o
.
1 0.5 0 0.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
CY
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
1 0.5 0 0.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
CY
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
Cn
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
n
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
PSfrag replacements
k = 0
t : Nsamples = 10
t : Nsamples = 20
t : Nsamples = 30
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
Cn
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
n
g
(
k
)
_
Figure 8.2: Simulated asymmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response data for the frame F
S
with
respect to and
g
as a function of the discretization-times t related to N
samples
=
10, N
samples
= 20 and N
samples
= 30, for the Cessna Ce550 Citation II complete
aircraft conguration, with
0
= 1.5
o
.
Aircraft motion
A
0
A
1
A
2
C
Y
(k) -4.0455e-001 2.2525e+000 -1.9185e-001

C
(k) -1.0895e-001 1.3608e-002 -7.4757e-003

C
n
(k) 6.7617e-002 3.3226e-001 -7.9952e-002

B
1
B
2
B
3
C
Y
(k) -1.5404e-001 1.2892e+001 -2.7125e+001

C
(k) -2.7429e-003 1.4189e-001 -4.3750e-001

C
n
(k) -1.0537e+000 1.0576e+000 -6.1113e-001
1

2

3
C
Y
(k) 3.2653e-001 1.5678e+000 2.2792e+000

C
(k) 5.7321e-002 1.0222e+000 1.9117e+000

C
n
(k) 9.2307e-002 9.2123e-002 3.8338e+000

lateral aircraft motions.
1D atmospheric turbulence input
A
0
A
1
A
2
C
Y
g
(k) -4.0455e-001 6.8114e+001 -1.8628e+001
C
g
(k) -1.0895e-001 -4.3933e-002 5.1162e-002
C
n
g
(k) 6.7617e-002 2.6698e+000 -1.8048e+000
B
1
B
2
B
3
C
Y
g
(k) 1.9933e+002 -3.7048e+002 -4.6623e+002
C
g
(k) -7.1088e-002 -3.5733e-001 4.3788e-001
C
n
g
(k) 7.7907e-003 -1.5923e+000 -4.9390e+000
1

2

3
C
Y
g
(k) 1.4421e+000 1.8459e+000 1.0000e+002
C
g
(k) 2.3254e-001 9.8861e-001 4.3416e-001
C
n
g
(k) 1.5779e-001 7.1927e-001 3.9069e+000
1D lateral atmospheric turbulence inputs.
ponse results
Similar to section 7.4.1, a breakdown of aerodynamic results into aircraft part contributions
is performed for the aerodynamic frequency-response data with respect to 1D lateral gusts.
Also similar to section 7.4.1, in gure 8.3 the breakdown in aircraft part contributions to
the aerodynamic frequency-response data is given for a discretization-time t related to
N
samples
= 30, with the aerodynamic frequency-response given for the reduced frequencies
k = 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5.
From these gures it is concluded that the aerodynamic frequency-response data of the
Y
with respect to 1D harmonically varying lateral gusts
g
=
v
g
Q
are primarily governed by the contributions of the fuselage and vertical n.

For this atmospheric turbulence input, the aerodynamic frequency-response data of the
is primarily governed by contributions of the vertical n,

wing and horizontal stabilizer. Finally, for the considered gust input the aerodynamic
frequency-response data of the aerodynamic moment coecient C
n
is primarily governed
by contributions of the fuselage and the vertical n.
Similar to section 7.4.2 the aerodynamic frequency-response data with respect to 1D lateral
gusts are approximated by equation (7.2). The frequency-response data and data-t of
the functions
C
Y
g
(k),
C
g
(k) and
C
n
g
(k) are given in gures 8.4.
Similar to the aircraft motion tting results, using the aerodynamic tting procedure given
in appendix E, equation (7.2)s unknown parameters A
i
j
and
j
with j = 1, 2, 3 are calculated for each aerodynamic frequency-response function, and
they are summarized in table 8.3. Note again that also for the aerodynamic frequency-
response functions with respect to 1D atmospheric turbulence inputs, all poles are stable.
ponse results
The aerodynamic frequency-response data of the aerodynamic force and moment coe-
cients C
Y
, C
and C
n
with respect to both (2D) anti-symmetrical longitudinal u
g
(k,
y
)
and vertical gusts
g
(k,
y
) are also considered here (see also chapter 5).
Since the number of aerodynamic frequency-response data-points is limited with respect
to the non-dimensional reduced frequencies k = 0, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 and the spatial
frequencies
y
=
2
40b
,
2
4b
,
2
2b
,
2
1.5b
,
2
1b
,
2
0.75b
, the data are approximated by the analytical
8.5 2D Atmospheric turbulence input frequency-response results 181
0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.1
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CY
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
CY
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0
0.045
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
Cn
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
n
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1
0.14
0.12
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
wing
pylons
fuselage
vertical fin
nacelles
total
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
Cn
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
n
g
(
k
)
_
Figure 8.3: Breakdown in aircraft part contributions of the simulated anti-symmetrical aerody-
namic frequency-response data with respect to and
g
in the frame F
S
for the
Cessna Ce550 Citation II complete aircraft conguration,
0
= 1.5
o
.
1 0.5 0 0.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CY
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
k = 0.0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
1 0.5 0 0.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
CY
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
k = 0.0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
k = 0.0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.14 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
g
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
k = 0.0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
Cn
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
n
(
k
)
_
Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
k = 0.0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
0.1 0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
fit
fit
data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
(k)
_
Im
_
C
(k)
_
Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
Re
_
Cn
g
(k)
_
I
m
_
C
n
g
(
k
)
_
k = 0.0
k = 0.05
k = 0.1
k = 0.2
k = 0.3
k = 0.4
k = 0.5
Figure 8.4: Simulated anti-symmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response functions with respect
to and
g
in the frame F
S
, including the aerodynamic frequency-response t, for
the Cessna Ce550 Citation II complete aircraft conguration,
0
= 1.5
o
.
function, see also appendix E,
H(k,
y
) = A
0
(
y
) +A
1
(
y
) (jk) +A
2
(
y
) (jk)
2
+
i=N
i=1
B
i
(
y
)
jk
jk +
i
(
y
)
(8.1)
with

H(k,
y
) the estimated analytical frequency-response function for either
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
Y
g
(k,
y
),
C
g
(k,
y
) or
C
n
g
(k,
y
), N the number of lag-terms, the
parameters A
0
(
y
), A
1
(
y
) and A
2
(
y
) given by,
A
0
(
y
) = A
00
+A
01
(
y
) +A
02
(
y
)
2
+A
03
(
y
)
3
+A
04
(
y
)
4
A
1
(
y
) = A
10
+A
11
(
y
) +A
12
(
y
)
2
+A
13
(
y
)
3
+A
14
(
y
)
4
A
2
(
y
) = A
20
+A
21
(
y
) +A
22
(
y
)
2
+A
23
(
y
)
3
+A
24
(
y
)
4
and the parameters B
i
(
y
) and
i
(
y
) given by,
B
i
(
y
) = B
i0
+B
i1
(
y
) +B
i2
(
y
)
2
+B
i3
(
y
)
3
+B
i4
(
y
)
4
and,
i
(
y
) =
i0
+
i1
(
y
) +
i2
(
y
)
2
+
i3
(
y
)
3
+
i4
(
y
)
4
respectively. It should be noted that the lag-functions are not required to be stable, that
is the poles of equation (8.1) are not required to be negative, since the main goal of the
aerodynamic frequency-response data-ts is the generation of data in between calculated
aerodynamic frequency-response points.
In gures 8.5 to 8.10 both the 2D aerodynamic frequency-response data and their aero-
dynamic frequency-response function ts
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
Y
g
(k,
y
),
C
g
(k,
y
) and
C
n
g
(k,
y
), are shown.
8.6 Frequency-dependent stability- and gust deriva-
tives
Similar to section 7.5, the aerodynamic frequency-response functions are decomposed
in the so-called frequency-dependent steady derivatives and frequency-dependent unsteady
derivatives. Following the procedure given in section 7.5, the frequency-dependent stability-
and gust derivatives are obtained for the asymmetrical aircraft motion and the anti-
symmetrical atmospheric turbulence inputs. The denitions of the frequency-dependent
steady stability derivatives and the frequency-dependent unsteady stability derivatives
are summarized in table 8.4, including the denitions of the 1D frequency-dependent
steady gust derivatives and the 1D frequency-dependent unsteady gust derivatives. In ta-
ble 8.5 the denitions of the 2D frequency-dependent steady gust derivatives and the 2D
frequency-dependent unsteady gust derivatives are given. These derivatives are required in
chapter 10 where they will be used for the frequency-domain simulations of the equations
of motions.
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01

PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CY
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y = 40b
y = 4b
y = 2b
y = 1.5b
y = 1b
y = 0.75b
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
Data
DataFit
DataFit
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CY
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
15
10
5
0
5
x 10
3
Data
Data (k=0)
Data
Data (k=0.5)
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CY
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
15
10
5
0
5
x 10
3
Data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CY
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
Figure 8.5: Aerodynamic frequency-response data (left top and left bottom) and its function
t (right top and right bottom) of C
Y
with respect to the anti-symmetrical gust
eld input u
g
(k,
y
),
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
) in F
S
, for the Cessna Ce550 Citation II aircraft
conguration,
0
= 1.5
o
.
0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
x 10
3

PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y = 40b
y = 4b
y = 2b
y = 1.5b
y = 1b
y = 0.75b
0.08 0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
x 10
3
Data
DataFit
DataFit
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
x 10
3
Data
Data (k=0)
Data
Data (k=0.5)
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0
2
4
6
8
10
x 10
3
Data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
Figure 8.6: Aerodynamic frequency-response data (left top and left bottom) and its function t
(right top and right bottom) of C
with respect to the anti-symmetrical gust eld input

u
g
(k,
y
),
C
u
g
(k,
y
) in F
S
, for the Cessna Ce550 Citation II aircraft conguration,
0
= 1.5
o
.
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4
x 10
3
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1

PSfrag replacements
Re
_
Cn
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y = 40b
y = 4b
y = 2b
y = 1.5b
y = 1b
y = 0.75b
12 10 8 6 4 2 0 2 4
x 10
3
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.1
Data
DataFit
DataFit
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
Cn
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
x 10
3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Data
Data (k=0)
Data
Data (k=0.5)
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
Cn
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
2
x 10
3
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
Data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
Cn
ug
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
n
eld input u
g
(k,
y
),
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
) in F
S
conguration,
0
= 1.5
o
.
0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02

PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CY
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y = 40b
y = 4b
y = 2b
y = 1.5b
y = 1b
y = 0.75b
0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
0.08
0.07
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
Data
DataFit
DataFit
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CY
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Data
Data (k=0)
Data
Data (k=0.5)
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CY
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
Data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
CY
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
Y
eld input
g
(k,
y
),
C
Y
g
(k,
y
) in F
S
conguration,
0
= 1.5
o
.
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16

PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y = 40b
y = 4b
y = 2b
y = 1.5b
y = 1b
y = 0.75b
0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
Data
DataFit
DataFit
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Data
Data (k=0)
Data
Data (k=0.5)
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
Data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
C
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
Figure 8.9: Aerodynamic frequency-response data (left top and left bottom) and its function t
(right top and right bottom) of C
with respect to the anti-symmetrical gust eld input
g
(k,
y
),
C
g
(k,
y
) in F
S
, for the Cessna Ce550 Citation II aircraft conguration,
0
= 1.5
o
.
0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.01 0.02
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03

PSfrag replacements
Re
_
Cn
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y = 40b
y = 4b
y = 2b
y = 1.5b
y = 1b
y = 0.75b
0.06 0.05 0.04 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 0.01 0.02
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Data
DataFit
DataFit
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
Cn
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y
[Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Data
Data (k=0)
Data
Data (k=0.5)
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
Cn
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
Data
PSfrag replacements
Re
_
Cn
g
(k, y)
_
I
m
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
y [Rad/m]
y
= 40b
y
= 4b
y
= 2b
y
= 1.5b
y
= 1b
y
= 0.75b
n
eld input
g
(k,
y
),
C
n
g
(k,
y
) in F
S
conguration,
0
= 1.5
o
.
8.7 Remarks 187
Frequency dependent stability- and gust derivatives
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
(k) = Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
C
(k) = Re
_
C
(k)
_
C
n
(k) = Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
c
2Q
C
Y
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
C
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
(k)
_
C
n
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
g
C
Y
g
(k) = Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
C
g
(k) = Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
C
n
g
(k) = Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
g
c
2Q
C
Y
g
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
C
g
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
C
n
g
(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Table 8.4: Denition of both the asymmetrical frequency-dependent stability - and 1D gust
derivatives for the frame F
S
, given as a function of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
,
as calculated from asymmetrical aerodynamic frequency-response functions.
8.7 Remarks
In this chapter the aerodynamic frequency-response functions for the asymmetrical aircraft
motions have geen given, similar to the ones for the asymmetrical and anti-symmetrical
atmospheric turbulence inputs. The aerodynamic frequency-response functions consid-
ered here are given for the aerodynamic force and moment coecients C
Y
, C
and C
n
with respect to the asymmetrical aircraft motion (k), the asymmetrical 1D turbulence
input
g
(k), and the anti-symmetrical 2D atmospheric turbulence inputs u
g
(k,
y
) and
g
(k,
y
). The frequency-response functions have been obtained by approximating the
aerodynamic frequency-response data by analytical functions, see also appendix E.
The results presented in chapters 7 and 8 will be used for the computational aerodynamics
model presented in chapter 10. Also, in chapter 10 both the constant unsteady stability-
and the constant unsteady gust derivatives will be calculated. In conjunction with the
constant stability derivatives calculated in chapter 6, the constant parameter aerodynamic
model is then completely determined.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
2
D
g
u
s
t
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
Y
C
C
n
u
g
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
u
g
c
2
Q
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
1 k
I
m
_
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
1 k
I
m
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
1 k
I
m
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
g
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
g
c
2
Q
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
1 k
I
m
_
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
1 k
I
m
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
1 k
I
m
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
T
a
b
l
e
8
.
5
:
D
e
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
2
D
g
u
s
t
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
F
S
g
i
v
e
n
a
s
a
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
k
=
c
2
Q
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
y
,
a
s
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
f
r
o
m
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
s
.
Part IV
The Mathematical Aircraft
Models
Chapter 9
Time-domain LPF solutions for
2D atmospheric gust elds
9.1 Introduction
This chapter treats additional theory for the time-domain Linearized Potential Flow (LPF)
simulations. Here, the unsteady LPF method will primarily be used as a virtual ighttest
facility to determine the time-dependent aerodynamic force and moment coecients act-
ing on the aircraft. The aircraft grid, as dened in chapter 6, is used again, but it is now
own through random (isolated) two-dimensional (2D) gust elds.
To set the scene for this chapter, section 9.2 discusses some aspects of LPF simulations
with respect to 2D stochastic atmospheric turbulence. Recti-linear ightpaths will be con-
sidered only in this section. The initial ight-condition is treated rst; this trim condition
is given in terms of the aircraft mass, the airspeed, the angle-of-attack, the side-slip angle,
and the angular rates p, q and r. Next, the generation of 2D spatial-domain gust elds
is shortly discussed. This discussion is followed by the denition of both the aircrafts
ightpath and the encountered symmetrical and anti-symmetrical gust elds. Further,
the gust eld interpolation procedure for the time-domain LPF simulations is given. The
application of a truncated wake to reduce simulation time is explained next. Also, the
transformation of the aerodynamic force and moment coecients (given in the Aerody-
namic Frame of Reference T
aero
) to the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
is given. Finally,
the eect of the discretization time t on the numerically obtained LPF-solution is dis-
cussed. The LPF-solution is given in terms of encountered turbulence velocity component
simulations and the aerodynamic force and moment responses in the frame T
S
.
Next, in section 9.3 the LPF simulation is coupled with the aircraft equations of motion.
Here, contrary to section 9.2, both the ightpath and the aircraft (-grid) orientation be-
come stochastic variables. For these simulations, the 2D gust-elds obtained in section 9.2
are used.
192 Time-domain LPF solutions for 2D atmospheric gust elds
Throughout this chapter, results will be given for a series of the gust scale length L
g
.
However, for the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m] only, both the one-dimensional (1D) and
2D atmospheric turbulence elds will be used for illustrations and discussion throughout
this thesis.
9.2 The time-domain LPF solution for recti-linear ight-
paths
9.2.1 The initial condition
The aircraft initial (or trim) condition is given similar to the one provided in chapter 6.
The center of gravity position of the example aircraft in the Rig Frame of Reference T
rig
,
along with other aircraft geometry parameters, is given in table 6.1.
The initial condition for which both the steady stability derivatives (see chapter 6) and
the aerodynamic frequency-response functions have been calculated (see chapters 7 and
8) is presented in chapter 6 (table 6.2), and it is also used in this chapter. However, for
the time-domain LPF simulations in this chapter the airspeed now has been increased to
Q
= 125.675 [m/s]. The motivation for altering the airspeed is to obtain an equilibrium
loading condition for which both mass and inertia data are available from references. These
data have been obtained from reference [7] and they will be used throughout this thesis. In
this reference both mass and moment of inertia data are given for the Body-Fixed Frame
of Reference T
B
and they will be used to calculate the moments of inertia for the frame
T
S
, see also appendix I, section I.3.2.
Regarding the aforementioned loading condition, for the trim condition in the frame T
S
the aerodynamic lift-coecient C
L
cancels the non-dimensional weight given as C
Z
0
in the
equations of motion (see also appendix I). The parameter C
Z
0
is dened as,
C
Z
0
=
W cos
0
1
2
Q
2
S
(9.1)
with W the aircraft weight,
0
the pitch-angle, the air-density and S the (reference) wing
surface area. From equation (9.1), and using the C
L
value obtained from LPF simulations,
the new airspeed Q
= 125.675 [m/s] was determined from the aircraft mass (taken from
reference [7]). Similar to table 6.2, the ight-condition parameters are summarized in table
9.1.
9.2.2 Generation of 2D spatial-domain gust elds
The spatial-domain longitudinal (u
g
), lateral (v
g
) and vertical (w
g
) 2D gust elds are
obtained using the theory given in appendix G. As an example, for the gust scale length
L
g
= 300 [m] and variance
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
] the vertical atmospheric turbulence velocity com-
ponent w
g
[m/s] is given in gure 9.1 using the simulation parameters (that is spatial
sampling and spatial dimensions) given in appendix G. As an illustration, for the gust
9.2 The time-domain LPF solution for recti-linear ightpaths 193
Mass m = 5535.0 kg
Airspeed Q
= 125.675 m/sec.
Angle-of-attack
0
= 1.5 Deg.
ightpath angle
0
= 0.0 Deg.
Angle of pitch
0
= 1.5 Deg.
3
Lift-coecient C
L
= 0.2292
Table 9.1: Aircrafts initial state parameters for Linearized Potential Flow simulations.
scale lengths L
g
= 500 [m], L
g
= 1000 [m] and L
g
= 1500 [m], the gust velocity component
is shown in gure 9.1 as well. These results are given for a 2000 2000 [m
2
] grid, with
the spatial sampling X
E
= Y
E
= 6 [m], X
E
= Y
E
= 10 [m], X
E
= Y
E
= 20
[m] and X
E
= Y
E
= 30 [m], for the gust scale lengths L
g
= 300 [m], L
g
= 500 [m],
L
g
= 1000 [m] and L
g
= 1500 [m], respectively (with the variance
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
]), and X
E
and Y
E
the spatial sampling along the X
E
- and Y
E
-axis of the Earth Fixed Frame of
Reference T
E
, respectively. These plots are magnications of simulations resulting from
the theory given in appendix G (for example, compare the L
g
= 300 [m] result shown in
gure 9.1 with the results given in gure G.4 where the full-scale spatial simulation of
the vertical gust velocity component w
g
is given).
For the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m], in appendix G the atmospheric turbulence velocity
components correlation functions are given as well. They are obtained from the ensemble
average of the entire 2D gust eld. Compared to the analytical correlation functions given
in chapter 2, the numerically obtained correlation functions show good agreement, see also
gures G.5 through G.12.
9.2.3 The ightpath denition
For the calculation of the LPF time-domain aerodynamic responses to 2D gust elds, thus
excluding aircraft motions, a ightpath in the frame T
E
has to be dened. As shown in
gure 4.14, for the calculation of the aerodynamic forces and moments the aircraft will
travel along the negative X
I
I
(this gure includes the atmospheric
turbulence velocity component denition for T
aero
, see also chapters 4 and 5).
The origin of the frame T
I
is now placed in the frame T
E
at an arbitrary point, chosen to
be
_
X
E
0
, Y
E
0
, Z
E
0
T
= [600, 1650, 0]
T
[m] (for the L
g
= 300 [m] gust eld). See also gure
9.2 where the reference frame T
I
is given in the frame T
E
, including the denition of the
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400 2600
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Flightpath
Corridor
PSfrag replacements
w
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
(a) L
g
= 300 [m]
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1800 2000 2200 2400 2600 2800 3000 3200 3400 3600
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Flightpath
Corridor
PSfrag replacements
w
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
(b) L
g
= 500 [m]
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4500 5000 5500 6000 6500
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Flightpath
Corridor
PSfrag replacements
w
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
(c) L
g
= 1000 [m]
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
7400 7600 7800 8000 8200 8400 8600 8800 9000 9200
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
1800
2000
Flightpath
Corridor
PSfrag replacements
w
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
(d) L
g
= 1500 [m]
Figure 9.1: Physical representations of the 2D gust eld w
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) [m/s] for the gust scale
lengths L
g
= 300 [m], L
g
= 500 [m], L
g
= 1000 [m] and L
g
= 1500 [m], including the
denitions of both the ightpath and the ightpath corridor.
aircrafts ightpath. The aircrafts recti-linear motion is described in the frame T
I
which
(during the motion) remains connected to T
E
(note that the origin (O
I
) of the frame T
I
equals
_
X
E
0
, Y
E
0
, Z
E
0
T
in the frame T
E
).
9.2.4 Decomposition of the 2D spatial-domain gust elds
Once the denition of the ightpath has been established, a ightpath corridor is de-
ned. This corridor is used for the calculation of the time-domain aerodynamic forces
and moments. Also, using the corridor (which is chosen to be 300 [m] wide), the 2D
atmospheric turbulence velocity component elds are decomposed into symmetrical - and
anti-symmetrical gust elds. The procedure for the decomposition of the 2D gust elds is
outlined in appendix G, section G.3.2.
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1500 1600 1700 1800 1900 2000
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
PSfrag replacements
w
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
X
I
[m]
Y
I
[m]
ightpath
corridor
aircraft
interpolation-grid
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1600 1610 1620 1630 1640 1650 1660 1670 1680 1690 1700
550
560
570
580
590
600
610
620
630
640
650
interpolationgrid
PSfrag replacements
w
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
X
I
[m]
Y
I
[m]
ightpath
corridor
aircraft
interpolation-grid
Figure 9.2: The 2D gust eld w
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) [m/s] for the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m], including
the denitions of the frame F
I
, the ightpath, the gust eld interpolation-grid and
the ightpath corridor (top), and a magnication of the gust eld (given as a contour
plot) including the Cessna Ce550 Citation II dimensions given in the interpolation-
grid (bottom).
The time-domain LPF simulation to 2D stochastic gust elds is now divided into responses
to symmetrical and anti-symmetrical gust elds. Similar to gure 9.1, plots for the at-
mospheric turbulence velocity components u
g
, v
g
and w
g
are shown in appendix G. The
decomposed gust elds are also given in this appendix, see gures G.13 through G.16.
9.2.5 gust eld interpolations
During the time-domain LPF simulations the aircraft is surrounded by a 2D interpolation-
grid which travels along the negative X
I
-axis while keeping the aircrafts center of gravity
close to the center of the grid, see also gures 9.2. The grid is required to generate the
gust velocity components at the aircraft congurations collocation points for each time-
step. As an example, for the aircraft encountering the simulated 2D vertical gust eld
w
g
this interpolation-grid is given in the bottom gure of gure 9.2. Using this grid,
the vertical gust velocity component w
g
is calculated at each collocation point applying
a cubic splining to the data-points in the interpolation-grid. For the gust scale length
L
g
= 300 [m], the applied grid covers 36 36 [m
2
] while its spatial sampling equals the
one used for the generation of the 2D gust elds for the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m]
(X
E
= Y
E
= 6 [m], see also appendix G).
9.2.6 The source denition
Using the local interpolation-grid dened in section 9.2.5, for the example vertical gust
component the time-dependent source-strength
k
(t
n
) (see also chapter 4) is calculated
similar to equation (4.36),
k
(t
n
) = n
k

_
_
_
_
U
0
0
_
_
+
_
_
0
0
w
g
k
(t
n
)
_
_
_
_
(9.2)
with w
g
k
(t
n
) the vertical atmospheric turbulence velocity component (being either sym-
metrical or anti-symmetrical) for each collocation point k (it should be noted that contrary
to equation (4.36) the gust velocity component w
g
is now allowed to vary along the Y
aero
-
axis as well), k = 1 N
B
with N
B
the number of body-panels, t
n
= nt discrete-time
with n the time-counter, the vector n
k
the conguration normal vector for panel k and
U
= Q
.
The prescribed source-strength for the 2D symmetrical and anti-symmetrical gust elds
u
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) and v
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) is similar to equation (9.2).
9.2.7 Application of wake truncation
For each time-step during the time-domain LPF simulations a new row of wake-elements
is generated. The inuence of the newly shed wake-elements is evaluated at each body-
panel of the aircraft grid, and therefore the CPU-time increases as time progresses (see
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
PSfrag replacements
(
s
)
,
(
s
)
s =
2Qt
c
Jones approximation AR=
K ussner approximation AR=
Jones approximation AR=6
K ussner approximation AR=6
(a) AR =
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
PSfrag replacements
(
s
)
,
(
s
)
s =
2Qt
c
Jones approximation AR=
K ussner approximation AR=
Jones approximation AR=6
K ussner approximation AR=6
(b) AR = 6
Figure 9.3: Jones Wagner function approximation (see references [16, 17]), (s), for a step-wise
change in angle-of-attack and Sears & Sparks (see reference [23]) approximation of
K ussners function, (s), for the penetration of a sharp-edged vertical gust (see also
gures 4.6 and 4.7) for the wing aspect-ratios AR= (left) and AR=6 (right).
also chapter 4). To reduce the CPU-time, a truncated wake model is used. The length of
the truncated wake is limited to three times the aircraft wingspan (ranging from the con-
guration wake-separation lines extending downstream), or l
wake
= 3b with b the aircraft
wingspan. The wake-length l
wake
was chosen by reviewing K ussners function in chap-
ter 4. The Sears approximation (see reference [23]) of K ussners lift deciency function
for sharp-edged vertical gusts, as already given in gure 4.7, is duplicated in gure 9.3.
However, here the Sears approximation is given for an increased length of the semi-chord
distance traveled s =
2Q
t
n
c
. From this gure it follows that at s = 45 K ussners function
(s) equals (45) = 0.9986. If the gust eld is considered to be a sharp-edged gust, the
eect of the unsteady wake on the lift deciency function (s) is almost negligible for
s > 45 (that is a steady response is obtained). Or, in other words, at s = 45 the wake
contains most of the history of the airow leading to the transient response given in gure
9.3. Although these ndings are only applicable for 2D airow, it is assumed that for both
three-dimensional (3D) airow and stochastic gust inputs a wake-length equalling s = 45
is sucient to describe the airows time-dependent behaviour. As an example, for the
aspect-ratio AR=6 the Sears approximation of K ussners lift deciency function is also
given in gure 9.3. For this nite-dimensional wing it appears that at s = 20 the wake
contains most of the history of the airow (that is (s) 1).
Summarizing, for the AR=(or 2D) wing the semi-chord distance traveled s = 45 results
in the truncated wake-length denition of three times the aircraft wingspan, or 3b (note
that
3b
c/2
46 for the Cessna Ce550). Similar conclusions may be drawn for aircraft
motions (see also gure 9.3 where Jones approximation for Wagners function is given,
see also chapter 4 and reference [17]). Obviously, for the nite Aspect Ratio wing (AR=6)
the truncated wake-length l
wake
equalling three times the aircraft wingspan is sucient.
9.2.8 Calculation of aerodynamic coecients in F
aero
and F
S
With the known time-dependent source-strength for the isolated gust elds (see equation
9.2), the procedure for calculating the time-dependent aerodynamic force- and moment-
coecients in the frame T
aero
is outlined in chapter 4. Similarly, the aerodynamic coe-
cients for the frame T
S
are obtained following the same lines as given in chapter 4. Using
the denition of the atmospheric turbulence velocity components and the aerodynamic
force and moment coecients in the frames T
aero
and T
S
(see also chapter 5, gure 5.13),
the time-domain aerodynamic force and moment coecients for the frame T
S
are given in
terms of the coecients obtained for the frame T
aero
, or, for example for the longitudinal
gust velocity component u
g
,
C
X
(u
g
(t)) = C
a
X
(u
a
g
(t)
C
Y
(u
g
(t)) = C
a
Y
(u
a
g
(t)
C
Z
(u
g
(t)) = C
a
Z
(u
a
g
(t)
C
(u
g
(t)) = C
a
(u
a
g
(t)
C
m
(u
g
(t)) = C
a
m
(u
a
g
(t)
C
n
(u
g
(t)) = C
a
n
(u
a
g
(t)
_
_
(9.3)
with u
g
(t) and u
a
g
(t) the denition of the longitudinal gust velocity component given in
the frames T
S
and T
aero
, respectively, and the superscript
a
denoting the coecients for
T
aero
. Similar expressions are obtained for the coecients with respect to the lateral
gust velocity component v
g
and the vertical gust velocity component w
g
. For the sake of
completeness, similar to equation (9.3) the aerodynamic coecients for the v
g
gust eld
are summarized as,
C
X
(v
g
(t)) = C
a
X
(v
a
g
(t)
C
Y
(v
g
(t)) = C
a
Y
(v
a
g
(t)
C
Z
(v
g
(t)) = C
a
Z
(v
a
g
(t)
C
(v
g
(t)) = C
a
(v
a
g
(t)
C
m
(v
g
(t)) = C
a
m
(v
a
g
(t)
C
n
(v
g
(t)) = C
a
n
(v
a
g
(t)
_
_
(9.4)
with v
g
(t) and v
a
g
(t) the denition of the lateral gust velocity component given in the
frames T
S
and T
aero
, respectively. The aerodynamic coecients for the w
g
gust eld are
summarized as,
C
X
(w
g
(t)) = C
a
X
(w
a
g
(t)
C
Y
(w
g
(t)) = C
a
Y
(w
a
g
(t)
C
Z
(w
g
(t)) = C
a
Z
(w
a
g
(t)
C
(w
g
(t)) = C
a
(w
a
g
(t)
C
m
(w
g
(t)) = C
a
m
(w
a
g
(t)
C
n
(w
g
(t)) = C
a
n
(w
a
g
(t)
_
_
(9.5)
9.3 The time-domain LPF solution for stochastic ightpaths 199
with w
g
(t) and w
a
g
(t) the denition of the vertical gust velocity component given in the
frames T
S
and T
aero
, respectively. Similar to equation (9.3), in equations (9.4) and (9.5)
the superscript
a
denotes the coecients for T
aero
.
9.2.9 Eect of the discretization time on the LPF-solution
In section 9.2.2 the generation of the spatial-domain 2D gust elds has been discussed.
Using the now known gust elds, the aircraft grid dened in chapter 6 is own through
these elds to obtain the time-dependent aerodynamic forces and moments acting upon
it. These LPF-simulations make use of the discretization time t, which is given in terms
of the aircrafts mean aerodynamic chord c and the airspeed Q
, or,
t = K
t
c
Q
(9.6)
with K
t
the LPF-simulation discretization-time factor. Note that if K
t
equals 1, for
each time-step the aircraft conguration travels along the negative X
I
-axis of T
I
over a
distance equalling 1 times the mean aerodynamic chord.
As an example, as a function of the distance traveled along the X
E
-axis in T
E
, the verti-
cal gust velocity component w
g
at the position of the center of gravity as obtained from
spatial-domain simulations is given in gure 9.4, along with the LPF-model simulations
interpolated vertical gust velocity component for the discretization-time factors K
t
= 0.5,
K
t
= 1 and K
t
= 2.
Similarly, however now given as a function of time, examples of the response of the aero-
dynamic coecients (given for T
aero
) C
a
Z
(w
g
(t)) and C
a
(w
g
(t)) are shown in gure 9.5.
Also these results are given for the discretization-time factors K
t
= 0.5, K
t
= 1 and
K
t
= 2.
From the results presented above, for all the considered discretization-time factors K
t
the time-domain responses show good agreement.
9.3 The time-domain LPF solution for stochastic ight-
paths
9.3.1 Introduction
In the previous section the procedure for determining the gust-induced aerodynamic force
and moment coecients for recti-linear ightpaths was outlined. Here, the procedure is
extended for stochastic ightpaths, that is the potential ow solution is now coupled to the
aircraft equations of motion (details of the equations of motion can be found in appendix
I). For each time-step, the solution of the potential ow method is now used to steer the
equations of motion resulting in both a new aircraft (-grid) position and a new orientation
in the reference frame T
I
. In the following, the (coupled) LPF - and Equations of Motion
(EOM) solution will be designated as the LPF-EOM-model.
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
Spatial domain simulation
LPFsimulation (interpolation)
PSfrag replacements
w
g
c
.
g
.
(
X
E
)
X
E
[m]
600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
PSfrag replacements
w
g
c
.
g
.
(
X
E
)
X
E
[m]
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
PSfrag replacements
w
g
c
.
g
.
(
X
E
)
X
E
[m]
600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
PSfrag replacements
w
g
c
.
g
.
(
X
E
)
X
E
[m]
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
PSfrag replacements
w
g
c
.
g
.
(
X
E
)
X
E
[m]
600 620 640 660 680 700 720 740 760 780 800
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
2
PSfrag replacements
w
g
c
.
g
.
(
X
E
)
X
E
[m]
Figure 9.4: The vertical gust velocity component w
g
encountered by the center of gravity obtained
from spatial-domain simulations (L
g
= 300 [m]), and obtained from LPF-model sim-
ulations (interpolation) for the discretization-time factors K
t
= 0.5 (top), K
t
= 1
(middle) and K
t
= 2 (bottom), given in F
E
(the right-hand-side gures are a mag-
nication of the left-hand-side gures).
9.3 The time-domain LPF solution for stochastic ightpaths 201
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
PSfrag replacements
C
aZ
g
(
w
g
)
C
a
g
(w
g
)
time [sec]
Kt = 0.5
Kt = 1.0
Kt = 2.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
PSfrag replacements
C
aZ
g
(
w
g
)
C
a
g
(w
g
)
time [sec]
Kt = 0.5
Kt = 1.0
Kt = 2.0
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
x 10
3
PSfrag replacements
C
a
Z
g
(w
g
)
C
a
g
(
w
g
)
time [sec]
Kt = 0.5
Kt = 1.0
Kt = 2.0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
x 10
3
PSfrag replacements
C
a
Z
g
(w
g
)
C
a
g
(
w
g
)
time [sec]
Kt = 0.5
Kt = 1.0
Kt = 2.0
Figure 9.5: Both the aerodynamic force coecients response C
a
Z
g
(w
g
) and the aerodynamic
rolling moment coecients response C
a
g
(w
g
) (given for the frame F
aero
) as a func-
tion of the discretization-time factor K
t
= 0.5, K
t
= 1 and K
t
= 2. The results
are valid for the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m]. The right-hand-side gures are a
magnication of the left-hand-side gures.
9.3.2 The LPF-EOM solution
In gure 9.6 a ow chart for calculating the LPF-EOM-model aircraft responses to 2D
gust elds is shown. Similar to the recti-linear ightpath simulations, as discussed in
section 9.2, the aircraft grid is placed into the 2D gust-eld of interest. Here, however,
the potential ow solution is coupled to the aircraft equations of motion, resulting in both
stochastic ightpaths and aircraft orientations which are given in terms of the Euler angles
[, , ]
T
. For each time-step the ow over the aircraft grid is solved (see chapter 4), re-
sulting in the aerodynamic forces and moments acting upon it. Integrating the equations
of motions results in both a new position and orientation of the aircraft grid in the ref-
erence frame T
I
. Similar to the recti-linear ightpath simulations, the aircraft responses
to either symmetrical -, asymmetrical - or anti-symmetrical gust elds will be considered
only. These gust elds are calculated (and shown) in appendix G.
The LPF-EOM-model aircraft motion responses are calculated using the Stability Frame
of Reference T
S
. For the calculation of these responses the following set of equations of
motion is used (see also appendix I, equations (I.11) and (I.12)),
u(t) = (X(t) W cos
0
(t)) /m
v(t) = (Y (t) +W cos
0
(t)) /mr(t) Q
w(t) = (Z(t) W sin

0
(t)) /m+q(t) Q
I
x
p(t) J
xz
r(t) = L(t)
I
y
q(t) = M(t)
J
xz
p(t) +I
z
r(t) = N(t)
(t) =
r(t)
cos
0
(t) = q(t)
(t) = p(t) +r(t) tg
0
_
_
(9.7)
with [u(t), v(t), w(t)]
T
the velocity component perturbations, [p(t), q(t), r(t)]
T
the rota-
tional velocity component perturbations, [(t), (t), (t)]
T
the Euler angles, m the aircraft
mass, W = mg the aircraft weight (with g the Earth gravitational acceleration), Q
the
airspeed and
0
the pitch-angle for the trim condition. Further, the aerodynamic forces
and moments, [X(t), Y (t), Z(t)]
T
and [L(t), M(t), N(t)]
T
, respectively, are obtained from
the unsteady potential ow method and they are corrected for their values for the trim
condition.
The time-dependent position of (for example) the center of gravity in the reference frame
T
I
, [X
0
(t), Y
0
(t), Z
0
(t)]
T
, is calculated using an initial position [X
init
0
(t), Y
init
0
(t), Z
init
0
(t)]
T
and [

X
0
(t),

Y
0
(t),

Z
0
(t)]
T
, or,
X
0
(t) = X
init
0
(t) +
t
_

X
0
(t) dt
Y
0
(t) = Y
init
0
(t) +
t
_

Y
0
(t) dt
Z
0
(t) = Z
init
0
(t) +
t
_

Z
0
(t) dt
_
_
(9.8)
with,
_
_
X
0
(t)
Y
0
(t)
Z
0
(t)
_
_
= [T
]
1
_
_
Q
+u(t)
v(t)
w(t)
_
_
(9.9)
and the matrices T
, T
and T
equal to the ones given in equations (4.25), (4.26) and

(4.27), respectively. Both equations (9.8) and (9.9) are used to determine the aircraft grid
position in the frame T
I
.
9.4 Remarks 203
Contrary to the recti-linear ightpath simulations (the LPF-solution), it should be noted
that for the LPF-EOM simulations the gust elds, given in the frame T
E
, are now decom-
posed in the frame T
S
for each aircraft position (and orientation) given in the frame T
I
.
The decomposition is similar to the one given in equation (9.9), and it becomes, taking
for example the vertical gust eld w
g
in T
E
,
_
_
u
S
g
v
S
g
w
S
g
_
_
= [T
]
_
_
0
0
w
E
g
_
_
(9.10)
with w
E
g
the vertical gust velocity component in the frame T
E
and u
S
g
, v
S
g
and w
S
g
the
decomposed gust velocity components for the frame T
S
.
In this thesis the LPF-EOM simulations are restricted in the aircraft motion degrees of
freedom; that is the aircraft motion responses are either symmetrical or asymmetrical. For
the simulations to both the symmetrical longitudinal - and the symmetrical vertical gust
elds, the ightpath deviations are limited to the X
I
O
I
Z
I
-plane. For the simulation with
respect to asymmetrical lateral - and both anti-symmetrical longitudinal - and vertical
gust elds, only ightpath deviations in the X
I
O
I
Y
I
-plane in T
I
are allowed.
The LPF-EOM-model aircraft responses are summarized and discussed in chapter 13.
9.4 Remarks
In terms of both aerodynamic coecient - and aircraft motion responses due to symmetri-
cal and anti-symmetrical gust elds, results of the LPF-model simulations are summarized
in chapter 13 where they will be compared to results obtained for the Parametric Com-
putational Aerodynamics (PCA) -, the Delft University of Technology (DUT) - and the
Four-Point-Aircraft (FPA) model (details of these models can be found in chapters 10, 11
and 12, respectively). The LPF-model simulation results will be given for the frame T
S
,
and they will be shown for the discretization-time factor K
t
= 2 only.
PSfrag replacements
Aircraft position and
orientation in the 2D
gust eld (T
I
)
Determine
aerodynamic forces
and moments acting
on the aircraft
Integrate equations of
motions
New aircraft position
and orientation in the
frame T
I
Figure 9.6: The LPF-EOM simulation procedure for the calculation of aircraft responses to 2D
atmospheric turbulence elds.
Chapter 10
The Parametric Computational
Aerodynamics model
10.1 Introduction
In this chapter the Parametric Computational Aerodynamics (PCA) gust-response theory
is introduced. It relies on the results presented in chapters 7 and 8 where the aerody-
namic frequency-response functions with respect to aircraft motions and both one- (1D)
and two-dimensional (2D) atmospheric gust elds have been calculated. The theory for
obtaining these functions has been presented in chapters 3 to 6.
The aircraft responses to atmospheric turbulence inputs, in this chapter, are limited to 1D
longitudinal - (u
g
), lateral - (v
g
) and vertical gust inputs (w
g
). These gusts are assumed
to be representative for gust elds being constant over the aircrafts span while they vary
over the aircrafts longitudinal axis X
S
of the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
. Also,
the aircraft responses to both 2D anti-symmetrical longitudinal - (u
g
) and vertical gusts
(w
g
) will be considered. In this case the atmospheric turbulence velocity components are
allowed to vary over the aircrafts wingspan and along the aircrafts longitudinal axis X
S
.
Similar to both the Delft University of Technology (DUT) - and the Four-Point-Aircraft
(FPA) model (which are presented in chapters 11 and 12, respectively), the PCA math-
ematical aircraft model relies on an aerodynamic model in terms of constant stability
derivatives. In this chapter these derivatives are obtained from aircraft motion frequency-
response functions with respect to 1D atmospheric turbulence inputs. From these func-
tions, the aircraft motion resonance frequencies will be used to calculate the derivatives.
Similarly, as a function of the gust scale length L
g
, both the 1D- and 2D constant gust
derivatives are also obtained from resonance frequencies. These frequencies are obtained
from aircraft motion gust-responses given in terms of Power Spectral Density (PSD) func-
tions.
For the time-domain aircraft motion simulations to the atmospheric turbulence inputs
indicated above, use will be made of the FPA-model gust inputs. Details of this model
are given in chapter 12 and appendix G. Furthermore, for these simulations use is made
206 The Parametric Computational Aerodynamics model
of stochastic 2D gust elds of which both the model characteristics and the generation
details are given in appendix G.
For the frequency-domain aircraft motion simulations use is made of parametric aircraft
models and the atmospheric turbulence input PSD-functions given in chapter 12 and ap-
pendix H.
10.2 The trim condition
In chapter 6 the numerical values for the steady (constant) stability derivatives have been
calculated. In table 6.2 the trim condition for these derivatives is given, while the numerical
values for both the steady symmetrical and asymmetrical stability derivatives are listed in
tables 6.5 and 6.6, respectively. In chapters 7 and 8 the aerodynamic frequency-response
functions with respect to both aircraft motions and atmospheric turbulence inputs are
given as well for this trim condition.
The initial condition, for which these aerodynamic frequency-response functions have been
calculated, is presented in chapter 6 (table 6.2), and it is also used in this chapter. However,
for the simulations presented in this chapter the airspeed now has been increased to Q
=
125.675 [m/s], see also chapter 9, section 9.2.1. The new airspeed Q
= 125.675 [m/s] was

calculated from the aircraft mass (taken from reference [7]) and it is given in table 10.1
along with other ight-condition parameters. In this table the mass and moments of inertia
data for both the Body Fixed Frame of reference T
B
and the frame T
S
are summarized as
well. The moments of inertia for the frame T
S
are obtained from the available data for the
frame T
B
, and they are calculated using the transformation equations given in appendix
I, section I.3.2.
10.3 The atmospheric turbulence PSD-functions
The PSD-functions for the longitudinal, lateral and vertical atmospheric turbulence ve-
locity components, u
g
, v
g
and w
g
, respectively, are summarized in appendix H. The PSD-
functions are given in terms of the non-dimensional gust velocity component u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
the gust-induced side-slip-angle
g
=
v
g
Q
and the gust-induced angle-of-attack

g
=
w
g
Q
,
and they are given for both 1D and 2D gust elds.
10.4 The parametric aircraft model for 1D gust elds
10.4.1 Introduction
In this thesis the parametric aircraft model for 1D gust elds is based on the aircraft equa-
tions of motion presented in references [29, 30, 35]. In these references the equations are
given for a constant parameter aerodynamic model, see also appendix I. The aerodynamic
model is given in terms of constant steady and unsteady stability derivatives. For both
the PCA-model symmetrical and asymmetrical equations of motion the constant steady
10.4 The parametric aircraft model for 1D gust elds 207
Mass m = 5535.0 kg
Moment of inertia I
x
|
F
B
= 19520.0 kg m
2
Moment of inertia I
y
|
F
B
= 35120.0 kg m
2
Moment of inertia I
z
|
F
B
= 51879.0 kg m
2
Product of inertia J
xz
|
F
B
= 2339.0 kg m
2
Moment of inertia I
x
|
F
S
= 19419.8 kg m
2
Moment of inertia I
y
|
F
S
= 35120.0 kg m
2
Moment of inertia I
z
|
F
S
= 51979.2 kg m
2
Product of inertia J
xz
|
F
S
= 1489.0 kg m
2
Airspeed Q
= 125.675 m/sec.
Angle-of-attack
0
|
F
B
= 1.5 Deg.
Angle of side-slip
0
|
F
B
= 0.0 Deg.
ightpath angle
0
|
F
B
= 0.0 Deg.
Angle of pitch
0
|
F
B
= 1.5 Deg.
Angle-of-attack |
F
S
= 0.0 Deg.
Angle of side-slip
0
|
F
S
= 0.0 Deg.
ightpath angle
0
|
F
S
= 0.0 Deg.
Angle of pitch
0
|
F
S
= 0.0 Deg.
3
Lift-coecient C
L
= 0.2292
Table 10.1: The aircrafts initial state parameters used for both Parametric Computational Aero-
dynamics (PCA) data analysis and simulation in the frame F
S
(original mass and
inertia data for the frame F
B
was taken from reference [7]).
stability derivatives are given in chapter 6. For the identication of the PCA-models
constant unsteady stability derivatives use is made of resonance frequencies in the aircraft
motions frequency-response functions with respect to the 1D atmospheric turbulence ve-
locity components u
g
, v
g
and w
g
.
Similarly, for the estimation of the constant unsteady gust derivatives use is made of res-
onance frequencies obtained from aircraft motion output PSD-functions for a series of
the gust scale length L
g
. In this section these derivatives are given for 1D atmospheric
turbulence elds only, that is the gust velocity components do not vary along the Y
S
-axis
of T
S
.
10.4.2 Calculation of the unsteady stability derivatives
For the estimation of the constant unsteady stability derivatives use is made of the results
presented in chapters 7 and 8. In these chapters the aerodynamic frequency-response
functions with respect to aircraft motions and 1D atmospheric turbulence elds are given.
The results of these frequency-response functions will be incorporated in the aircrafts
equations of motion in terms of frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives. Using
these derivatives, the equations of motion are given in terms of (real-valued) frequency-
dependent matrices P(), Q() and R() (see also appendix I),
P() j x = Q() x +R() u (10.1)
with for the symmetrical aircraft motions the aircraft state dened as x =
_
u, , ,
q c
Q
_
T
,
and the input dened as u =
_
u
g
(),
j u
g
() c
Q
,
g
(),
j
g
() c
Q
_
T
. For the asymmetrical
aircraft motions the aircraft state is dened as x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
, while the input is
dened as u =
_
g
(),
j
g
()b
Q
_
T
.
Calculation of the frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives
The aerodynamic frequency-response functions given in chapters 7 and 8 are now trans-
formed into frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives (these derivatives will be
used in equation (10.1)). For example, the frequency-dependent steady and unsteady sta-
bility derivatives (
Z
() and (
Z

() are calculated from the frequency-response function
C
Z
(k) according to (see also section 7.5),

C
Z
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
+j Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
= (
Z
(k) +jk (
Z

(k) (10.2)
with the frequency-dependent stability derivatives (
Z
(k) and (
Z

(k) given as,
(
Z
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
(10.3)
and,
(
Z

(k) =
1
k
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
(10.4)
respectively, with the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
, the circular frequency in [Rad/sec.],

c the mean aerodynamic chord in [m] and Q
the airspeed in [m/s]. For the symmetrical

equations of motion, however, all unsteady derivatives are dened with respect to the
reduced frequency
c
Q
. Therefore, equation (10.4) now becomes,

(
Z

(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
(10.5)
Similar to equations (10.3) and (10.5), all other frequency-dependent steady and unsteady
stability derivatives (given as a function of the circular frequency ) are calculated. Also
similar to these equations, all frequency-dependent steady and unsteady gust derivatives
are calculated. It should be noted that the frequency-dependent unsteady stability- and
gust derivatives for the asymmetrical equations of motion are dened with respect to
the reduced frequency
b
Q
, with b the aircraft wingspan in [m]. The denition of all

frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives (as used in both the symmetrical and
asymmetrical equations of motion) is summarized in tables 10.6 and 10.7.
The frequency-domain equations of motion system matrices
For the symmetrical equations of motion the matrices P(), Q() and R() in equation
(10.1) are given as,
P
s
() =
c
Q
_
(
X
u
() 2
c
(
X

() 0 0
(
Z
u
() (
Z

() 2
c
0 0
0 0 1 0
(
m
u
() (
m

() 0 2
c
K
2
Y
_
_
(10.6)
and,
Q
s
() =
_
_
(
X
u
() (
X
() C
Z
0
C
X
q
(
Z
u
() (
Z
() C
X
0

_
C
Z
q
+ 2
c
_
0 0 0 1
(
m
u
() (
m
() 0 C
m
q
_
_
(10.7)
and,
R
s
() =
_
_
(
X
u
g
() (
X
u
g
() (
X
g
() (
X

g
()
(
Z
u
g
() (
Z
u
g
() (
Z
g
() (
Z

g
()
0 0 0 0
(
m
u
g
() (
m
u
g
() (
m
g
() (
m

g
()
_
_
(10.8)
respectively, and for equations (10.6), (10.7) and (10.8) the denition of the frequency-
dependent derivatives summarized in table 10.6. In table I.5 the denition of the constant
symmetrical stability- and 1D gust derivatives for the frame T
S
is given, while in table I.1
the denition of the mass and inertia terms is provided.
Similar to the symmetrical equations of motion, for the asymmetrical equations of motion
the matrices P(), Q() and R() in equation (10.1) are given as,
P
a
() =
b
Q
_
_
(
Y
() 2
b
_
0 0 0
0
1
2
0 0
(
() 0 4
b
K
2
X
4
b
K
XZ
(
n
() 0 4
b
K
XZ
4
b
K
2
Z
_
_
(10.9)
and,
Q
a
() =
_
_
(
Y
() C
L
C
Y
p
(C
Y
r
4
b
)
0 0 1 0
(
() 0 C
p
C
r
(
n
() 0 C
n
p
C
n
r
_
_
(10.10)
and,
R
a
() =
_
_
(
Y
g
() (
Y
g
()
0 0
(
g
() (
g
()
(
n
g
() (
n
g
()
_
_
(10.11)
respectively, and for equations (10.9), (10.10) and (10.11) the denition of the frequency-
dependent derivatives summarized in table 10.7. In table I.6 the denition of the constant
asymmetrical stability- and 1D gust derivatives for the frame T
S
is given, while in table
I.3 the denition of the mass and inertia terms is provided.
Equations of motion used for frequency-domain simulations
Similar to the mathematical aircraft models presented in references [29, 30, 35], the un-
steady stability derivatives with respect to the non-dimensional airspeed perturbation u
are not taken into account. Only the constant (steady) stability derivatives with respect
to u will be used (these derivatives have been calculated in chapter 6).
Also, the unsteady stability derivative C
X

is neglected, resulting in the elimination of
the derivative (
X

(). The constant stability derivative C
X
will be retained only.

The frequency-dependent matrices given in equations (10.6) and (10.7) now become,
P
s
() =
c
Q
_
2
c
0 0 0
0 (
Z

() 2
c
0 0
0 0 1 0
0 (
m

() 0 2
c
K
2
Y
_
_
(10.12)
and,
Q
s
() =
_
_
C
X
u
C
X
C
Z
0
C
X
q
C
Z
u
(
Z
() C
X
0

_
C
Z
q
+ 2
c
_
0 0 0 1
C
m
u
(
m
() 0 C
m
q
_
_
(10.13)
while the matrix R
s
() given in equation (10.8) remains unchanged.
For the frequency-domain simulation of the symmetrical equations of motions use will be
made of equations (10.12), (10.13) and (10.8), while for the frequency-domain simulation
of the asymmetrical equations of motions use will be made of equations (10.9), (10.10)
and (10.11).
The aircraft motion Frequency-Response Functions
Since the unsteady stability derivatives with respect to the airspeed perturbation u are
neglected (as is C
X

), the constant unsteady derivatives to be determined are C
Y
, C
,
C
n
, C
Z

and C
m

. For the estimation of these constant parameters, use is made of
aircraft motion Frequency-Response Functions (FRFs). From selected aircraft motion
variable resonance peaks, the resonance frequency is determined. Using this frequency,
the sought unsteady stability derivative is obtained from the corresponding aerodynamic
frequency-response function.
The calculation of the aircraft motion FRFs is performed using equation (10.1), see also
appendix B,
P() j x = Q() x +R() u
with the matrices P(), Q() and R() according to equations (10.12), (10.13) and (10.8),
respectively, for the symmetrical equations of motion. For the asymmetrical equations of
motion these matrices are given in equations (10.9), (10.10) and (10.11), respectively.
Using the program package MATLAB, the aircraft motion FRFs are calculated.
In gures 10.10 the FRFs of the aircraft state x =
_
u, , ,
q c
Q
_
T
due to the 1D longitu-
dinal gust input u
g
are shown. In these gures results are given for the Computational
Aerodynamics model (CA-model) which makes use of both frequency-dependent stability-
and gust derivatives. In each of the state-variables responses the results clearly show
the phugoid-mode resonance frequency at
ph
= 0.1146 [Rad/sec.], with
ph
the phugoid
mode resonance frequency.
Similar to gures 10.10, in gures 10.11 the FRFs of the aircraft state x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
due to the 1D lateral gust input
g
are shown. In these gures results are shown for the
Computational Aerodynamics model (CA-model) which also makes use of both frequency-
dependent stability- and gust derivatives. The resonance peaks are attributed to the badly
damped dutch-roll mode and they are evident at the frequency
dr
= 2.2224 [Rad/sec.],
with
dr
the dutch-roll mode resonance frequency.
Finally, in gures 10.12 the FRFs of the aircraft state x =
_
u, , ,
q c
Q
_
T
due to the
1D vertical gust input
g
are shown. In these gures results are given for the Computa-
tional Aerodynamics model (CA-model) which also makes use of both frequency-dependent
stability- and gust derivatives. The resonance peak in the response of the FRF

H
q
g
()
is evident at frequency
sp
= 3.8929 [Rad/sec.], with
sp
the short-period mode resonance
frequency.
Calculation of the constant unsteady stability derivatives
The resonance frequencies of both the dutch-roll and the short-period mode are now used
to calculate the constant unsteady stability derivatives C
Y
, C
, C
n
, C
Z

and C
m

.
Using the resonance frequency for the dutch-roll mode and the frequency-response func-
tions given in chapter 8, for example the unsteady stability derivative C
Y
is calculated
from,
C
Y
(k
dr
) = C
Y
+C
Y
jk
dr
= C
Y
+
c
2b
C
dr
b
Q
= C
Y
+C
Y
dr
b
Q
(10.14)
with
C
Y
(k
dr
) the aerodynamic frequency-response for the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
=
k
dr
, C
Y
the constant steady stability derivative determined in chapter 6,

C
=
1
k
dr
Im
_
C
Y
(k
dr
)
_
the constant unsteady stability derivative obtained from the
aerodynamic frequency-response function at =
dr
and with respect to the reduced
frequency k
dr
=

dr
c
2Q
, C
Y

dr
frequency k
dr
=

dr
b
Q
, c the mean aerodynamic chord, b the aircrafts span, and Q
the airspeed. In chapter 8 the aerodynamic frequency-response functions for the swaying
motion were calculated as a function of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
, which explains
the factor
c
2b
in equation (10.14). The denition of the asymmetrical unsteady stability
derivatives C
Y
, C
and C
n
is summarized in table 10.7. See also appendix I for the

denition of the equations of motion and the denition of its parameters.
In gure 10.1 the asymmetrical frequency-dependent stability derivatives are shown, while
the constant unsteady stability derivatives are summarized in table 10.5.
The unsteady stability derivatives C
Z

and C
m

are calculated in a similar manner as
used for the calculation of the unsteady derivatives C
Y
. The symmetrical aerodynamic

frequency-response functions given in chapter 7 were calculated as a function of the reduced
frequency k =
c
2Q
. For the calculation of, for example, the unsteady derivative C

Z

, use
is made of the short-period mode resonance frequency
sp
, and it becomes,
C
Z
(k
sp
) = C
Z
+C
Z

jk
sp
= C
Z
+
1
2
C
Z

j
sp
c
Q
= C
Z
+C
Z

j
sp
c
Q
(10.15)
with
C
Z
(k
sp
) the aerodynamic frequency-response for the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
=
k
sp
, C
Z
the constant steady stability derivative determined in chapter 6,

C
Z

=
1
k
sp
Im
_
C
Z
(k
sp
)
_
sp
frequency k
sp
=

sp
c
2Q
, C
Z

sp
frequency k
sp
=

sp
c
Q
, c the mean aerodynamic chord and Q
the airspeed. In chapter 7

the aerodynamic frequency-response functions for the heaving motion were calculated
c
2Q
, which explains the factor

1
2
in equation
(10.15). The denition of the symmetrical unsteady stability derivatives C
Z

and C
m

is
summarized in table 10.6. See also appendix I for the denition of the equations of motion
and the denition of its parameters.
In gure 10.2 the symmetrical frequency-dependent stability derivatives are shown, while
the constant unsteady stability derivatives are summarized in table 10.4.
10.4.3 Calculation of the gust derivatives for 1D gust elds
Similar to the calculation of the unsteady stability derivatives, the unsteady gust deriva-
tives for 1D gust elds are calculated from resonance frequencies. These resonance frequen-
cies, however, are now obtained from aircraft motion responses using the atmospheric tur-
bulence input PSD-functions for the gust input considered. The aircraft motion frequency-
response functions are used to calculate the output PSD-function according to, see also
appendix B,
S
yy
() = [H
yu
()[
2
S
uu
() (10.16)
with S
uu
() the input PSD-function of either the (non-dimensional) 1D longitudinal,
lateral or vertical gust input, u
g
,
g
,
g
, respectively, H
yu
() the aerodynamic frequency-
response function of the output (being either the symmetrical or asymmetrical state)
and S
yy
() the output PSD-function. For all frequency-domain aircraft motion results
the aerodynamic frequency-response functions are obtained from equation (10.1). The
aerodynamic model makes use of frequency-dependent stability derivatives and frequency-
dependent gust derivatives. The denition of the unsteady gust derivatives is similar to
the ones given in equations (10.14) and (10.15), and it is summarized in tables 10.6 and
10.7. Furthermore, the frequency-dependent gust derivatives are shown as a function of
the circular frequency in gures 10.3, 10.4 and 10.5.
For a series of the atmospheric turbulence gust scale length,
L
g
= [30, 150, 300, 500, 1000, 1500]
T
the input PSD-functions for 1D non-dimensional longitudinal, lateral and vertical gusts,
S
u
g
u
g
(), S
g
() and S
g
(), respectively, are given in gures 10.6. The symmetrical
aircraft state output PSD-functions due to the longitudinal gust u
g
are shown in gures
10.7. These gures clearly show the badly damped phugoid-mode resonance peak for all
the aircraft state variables. Similar to the calculation of the unsteady stability derivatives,
the resonance frequency is used to calculate the constant unsteady gust derivatives. The
constant steady gust derivatives are taken equal to the corresponding stability derivative,
or in this case C
X
u
g
= C
X
u
, C
Z
u
g
= C
Z
u
and C
m
u
g
= C
m
u
. As a function of the gust scale
length L
g
, both the steady and unsteady gust derivatives, C
X
u
g
, C
Z
u
g
, C
m
u
g
, and C
X
u
g
,
C
Z
u
g
and C
m
u
g
, respectively, are summarized in table 10.2. In this table the phugoid-
mode resonance frequency is given as well. Due to both the phugoid-modes low damping
and its low resonance frequency, the unsteady gust derivatives are independent of L
g
.
Similar to the responses for the longitudinal gust u
g
, the asymmetrical aircraft state out-
put PSD-functions due to the lateral gust
g
are shown in gure 10.8. These results also
show a badly damped mode, that is the dutch-roll mode. For all the aircraft-state vari-
ables a resonance peak is present at approximately
dr
, with
dr
the dutch-roll modes
resonance frequency. Again, similar to the calculation of the unsteady stability deriva-
tives, the resonance frequency is used to calculate the constant unsteady gust derivatives.
The constant steady gust derivatives are taken to be equal to the corresponding stability
derivative, which are in this case C
Y
g
= C
Y
, C
g
= C
and C
n
g
= C
n
. As a function
of the gust scale length L
g
, both the steady and unsteady gust derivatives, C
Y
g
, C
g
,
C
n
g
, and C
Y
g
, C
g
and C
n
g
, respectively, are summarized in table 10.3. In this table
the dutch-roll mode resonance frequency is given as well. Quite similar to the results
obtained for the 1D longitudinal gust u
g
, due to the dutch-roll modes low damping the
unsteady gust derivatives are independent of L
g
.
Finally, the symmetrical aircraft state output PSD-functions to the vertical gust
g
are
shown in gures 10.9. Since the short-period mode is well damped, for the estimation of its
resonance frequency the output PSD-function S
qq
(, L
g
) is used. Also here the resonance
frequency is used to calculate the constant unsteady gust derivatives. The constant steady
gust derivatives are taken equal to the corresponding stability derivative, or in this case
C
X
g
= C
X
, C
Z
g
= C
Z
and C
m
g
= C
m
. As a function of the gust scale length L

g
,
both the steady and unsteady gust derivatives, C
X
g
, C
Z
g
, C
m
g
, and C
X

g
, C
Z

g
and
C
m

g
, respectively, are summarized in table 10.2 (with the unsteady gust derivative C
X

g
taken to be zero for all L
g
). In the table the short-period mode resonance frequency is
given as well. Now, due to the short-period modes relatively high resonance frequency,
the unsteady gust derivatives are dependent of L
g
(see also gures 10.6). With respect to
a mean value (taken to be the results for L
g
= 300 [m]), the variation of the unsteady gust
derivatives is relatively small (less than 1%). Therefore, the unsteady gust derivatives for
the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m] will be used for all simulations, irrespective of the true
gust scale length.
All constant steady and unsteady gust derivatives are summarized in tables 10.4 and 10.5
for the symmetric and asymmetric gust inputs, respectively. Using these derivatives, the
aerodynamic models are written as (using non-dimensional gust inputs for all the 1D
symmetrical gust elds u
g
and w
g
, and the asymmetrical 1D gust eld v
g
),
C
X
g
= C
X
u
g
u
g
+C
X
u
g
u
g
c
Q
C
Z
g
= C
Z
u
g
u
g
+C
Z
u
g
u
g
c
Q
C
m
g
= C
m
u
g
u
g
+C
m
u
g
u
g
c
Q
_
(10.17)
with u
g
=
u
g
Q
the airspeed.
The aerodynamic model for the vertical gust eld becomes,
C
X
g
= C
X
g

g
+C
X

g

g
c
Q
C
Z
g
= C
Z
g

g
+C
Z

g

g
c
Q
C
m
g
= C
m
g

g
+C
m

g

g
c
Q
_
(10.18)
with
g
=
w
g
Q
.
Similarly, the aerodynamic model for the 1D asymmetrical gust eld (v
g
) written in non-
dimensional form is given as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
g

g
+C
Y
g
b
Q
g
= C
g

g
+C
g
b
Q
C
n
g
= C
n
g

g
+C
n
g
b
Q
_
(10.19)
with
g
=
v
g
Q
, b the aircraft wingspan and Q
the airspeed.
Comparison of PCA-models
Now all constant, both steady and unsteady, stability- and gust derivatives are known for
all 1D gust inputs, the equations of motion are written as,
P
c
j x = Q
c
x +R
c
u (10.20)
with for the symmetrical equations of motion the P
c
, Q
c
and R
c
matrices equal to,
P
c
s
=
c
Q
_
2
c
0 0 0
0 (C
Z

2
c
) 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 C
m

0 2
c
K
2
Y
_
_
(10.21)
and,
Q
c
s
=
_
_
C
X
u
C
X
C
Z
0
C
X
q
C
Z
u
C
Z
C
X
0

_
C
Z
q
+ 2
c
_
0 0 0 1
C
m
u
C
m
0 C
m
q
_
_
(10.22)
and,
R
c
s
=
_
_
C
X
u
g
C
X
u
g
C
X
g
C
X

g
C
Z
u
g
C
Z
u
g
C
Z
g
C
Z

g
0 0 0 0
C
m
u
g
C
m
u
g
C
m
g
C
m

g
_
_
(10.23)
respectively, the aircraft state x =
_
u, , ,
q c
Q
_
T
, the input
u =
_
u
g
(),
j u
g
() c
Q
,
g
(),
j
g
() c
Q
_
T
, and the denition of all derivatives given in
appendix I, table I.5.
For the asymmetrical equations of motion, the matrices P
c
, Q
c
and R
c
in equation (10.20)
become,
P
c
a
=
b
Q
_
_
C
Y
2
b
_
0 0 0
0
1
2
0 0
C
0 4
b
K
2
X
4
b
K
XZ
C
n
0 4
b
K
XZ
4
b
K
2
Z
_
_
(10.24)
and,
Q
c
a
=
_
_
C
Y
C
L
C
Y
p
(C
Y
r
4
b
)
0 0 1 0
C
0 C
p
C
r
C
n
0 C
n
p
C
n
r
_
_
(10.25)
and,
R
c
a
=
_
_
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
0 0
C
g
C
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
_
_
(10.26)
respectively, the aircraft state x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
, the input
u =
_
g
(),
j
g
()b
Q
_
T
, and the denition of all derivatives also given in appendix I, table
I.6.
Using the numerical results presented in tables 10.4 and 10.5 for the symmetrical and
asymmetrical equations of motion, respectively, the Constant Parameter model (CP) Bode
plots of the state variables are given in gures 10.10, 10.11 and 10.12, as well. As is shown,
for all the state-variable frequency-response functions the results of both the CA- and the
CP-model coincide over a wide frequency-range.
As an illustration, the results of the Computational Aerodynamics Parametric stability
derivative (or CAP)-model are also shown in these gures. The CAP-model makes use
of constant stability derivatives, while the gust derivatives are kept frequency-dependent.
Also for this model, the frequency-response functions coincide over a wide frequency-range
as compared to the results obtained for the CA- and CP-model.
From these results it is concluded that for the example aircraft the aircraft motion frequency-
response functions are accurately simulated using both constant stability- and gust deriva-
tives.
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.42
0.41
0.4
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.124
0.122
0.12
0.118
0.116
0.114
PSfrag replacements
(
Y
)
(
Y
) (
()
(
()
(
n
()
(
n
()
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.111
0.1105
0.11
0.1095
0.109
0.1085
0.108
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
8.5
8
7.5
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
x 10
3
PSfrag replacements
(
Y
()
(
Y
()
(
)
(
)
(
n
()
(
n
()
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.066
0.068
0.07
0.072
0.074
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.01
0.011
0.012
0.013
0.014
0.015
0.016
PSfrag replacements
(
Y
()
(
Y
()
(
()
(
()
(
n
)
(
n
)
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
Figure 10.1: The frequency-dependent asymmetrical stability derivatives C
Y
() and C
Y
()
(top), C
() and C
() (center), and C
n
() and C
n
() (bottom).
G
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
P
h
u
g
o
i
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
r
e
s
o
n
a
n
c
e
C
X
u
g
(
L
g
)
C
X
u
g
(
L
g
)
C
Z
u
g
(
L
g
)
C
Z
u
g
(
L
g
)
C
m
u
g
(
L
g
)
C
m
u
g
(
L
g
)
L
g
[
m
]
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
]
3
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
1
1
.
1
4
6
4
e
-
0
0
1
-
3
.
1
5
9
4
e
-
0
0
3
7
.
1
4
4
9
e
-
0
0
1
-
4
.
5
9
2
3
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
4
6
9
8
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
3
5
7
5
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
1
4
8
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
5
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
1
.
1
4
6
4
e
-
0
0
1
-
3
.
1
5
9
4
e
-
0
0
3
7
.
1
4
4
9
e
-
0
0
1
-
4
.
5
9
2
3
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
4
6
9
8
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
3
5
7
5
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
1
4
8
e
-
0
0
1
3
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
1
.
1
4
6
4
e
-
0
0
1
-
3
.
1
5
9
4
e
-
0
0
3
7
.
1
4
4
9
e
-
0
0
1
-
4
.
5
9
2
3
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
4
6
9
8
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
3
5
7
5
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
1
4
8
e
-
0
0
1
5
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
1
.
1
4
6
4
e
-
0
0
1
-
3
.
1
5
9
4
e
-
0
0
3
7
.
1
4
4
9
e
-
0
0
1
-
4
.
5
9
2
3
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
4
6
9
8
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
3
5
7
5
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
1
4
8
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
3
1
.
1
4
6
4
e
-
0
0
1
-
3
.
1
5
9
4
e
-
0
0
3
7
.
1
4
4
9
e
-
0
0
1
-
4
.
5
9
2
3
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
4
6
9
8
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
3
5
7
5
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
1
4
8
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
5
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
3
1
.
1
4
6
4
e
-
0
0
1
-
3
.
1
5
9
4
e
-
0
0
3
7
.
1
4
4
9
e
-
0
0
1
-
4
.
5
9
2
3
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
4
6
9
8
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
3
5
7
5
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
1
4
8
e
-
0
0
1
G
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
S
h
o
r
t
-
p
e
r
i
o
d
l
e
n
g
t
h
r
e
s
o
n
a
n
c
e
C
X
g
(
L
g
)
C
X
g
(
L
g
)
C
Z
g
(
L
g
)
C
Z
g
(
L
g
)
C
m
g
(
L
g
)
C
m
g
(
L
g
)
L
g
[
m
]
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
]
3
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
1
3
.
6
2
2
2
e
+
0
0
0
1
.
6
9
2
0
e
-
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
e
+
0
0
0
5
.
1
0
8
8
e
+
0
0
0
-
7
.
4
8
6
5
e
-
0
0
1
3
.
0
4
5
1
e
+
0
0
0
1
.
5
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
4
7
8
2
e
+
0
0
0
1
.
6
9
2
0
e
-
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
e
+
0
0
0
5
.
1
4
5
3
e
+
0
0
0
-
7
.
4
8
6
5
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
9
9
6
6
e
+
0
0
0
3
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
1
4
5
5
e
+
0
0
0
1
.
6
9
2
0
e
-
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
e
+
0
0
0
5
.
1
5
3
4
e
+
0
0
0
-
7
.
4
8
6
5
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
9
8
4
6
e
+
0
0
0
5
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
1
.
9
8
6
7
e
+
0
0
0
1
.
6
9
2
0
e
-
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
e
+
0
0
0
5
.
1
5
6
9
e
+
0
0
0
-
7
.
4
8
6
5
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
9
7
9
3
e
+
0
0
0
1
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
3
1
.
8
6
6
4
e
+
0
0
0
1
.
6
9
2
0
e
-
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
e
+
0
0
0
5
.
1
5
9
3
e
+
0
0
0
-
7
.
4
8
6
5
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
9
7
5
5
e
+
0
0
0
1
.
5
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
3
1
.
8
3
3
8
e
+
0
0
0
1
.
6
9
2
0
e
-
0
0
1
0
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
e
+
0
0
0
5
.
1
6
0
0
e
+
0
0
0
-
7
.
4
8
6
5
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
9
7
4
5
e
+
0
0
0
T
a
b
l
e
1
0
.
2
:
T
h
e
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
1
D
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-
d
o
m
a
i
n
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
g
i
v
e
n
a
s
a
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
[
m
]
.
G
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
D
u
t
c
h
-
r
o
l
l
l
e
n
g
t
h
r
e
s
o
n
a
n
c
e
C
Y
g
(
L
g
)
C
Y
g
(
L
g
)
C
g
(
L
g
)
C
g
(
L
g
)
C
n
g
(
L
g
)
C
n
g
(
L
g
)
L
g
[
m
]
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
]
3
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
1
2
.
2
5
1
1
e
+
0
0
0
-
4
.
0
4
5
5
e
-
0
0
1
6
.
3
3
4
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
0
8
9
5
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
9
4
1
1
e
-
0
0
2
6
.
7
6
1
7
e
-
0
0
2
-
4
.
9
5
1
8
e
-
0
0
2
1
.
5
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
2
0
8
3
e
+
0
0
0
-
4
.
0
4
5
5
e
-
0
0
1
6
.
3
3
4
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
0
8
9
5
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
9
4
1
1
e
-
0
0
2
6
.
7
6
1
7
e
-
0
0
2
-
4
.
9
5
1
8
e
-
0
0
2
3
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
1
9
7
7
e
+
0
0
0
-
4
.
0
4
5
5
e
-
0
0
1
6
.
3
3
4
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
0
8
9
5
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
9
4
1
1
e
-
0
0
2
6
.
7
6
1
7
e
-
0
0
2
-
4
.
9
5
1
8
e
-
0
0
2
5
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
1
9
7
7
e
+
0
0
0
-
4
.
0
4
5
5
e
-
0
0
1
6
.
3
3
4
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
0
8
9
5
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
9
4
1
1
e
-
0
0
2
6
.
7
6
1
7
e
-
0
0
2
-
4
.
9
5
1
8
e
-
0
0
2
1
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
3
2
.
1
9
7
7
e
+
0
0
0
-
4
.
0
4
5
5
e
-
0
0
1
6
.
3
3
4
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
0
8
9
5
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
9
4
1
1
e
-
0
0
2
6
.
7
6
1
7
e
-
0
0
2
-
4
.
9
5
1
8
e
-
0
0
2
1
.
5
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
3
2
.
1
9
4
1
e
+
0
0
0
-
4
.
0
4
5
5
e
-
0
0
1
6
.
3
3
4
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
0
8
9
5
e
-
0
0
1
1
.
9
4
1
1
e
-
0
0
2
6
.
7
6
1
7
e
-
0
0
2
-
4
.
9
5
1
8
e
-
0
0
2
T
a
b
l
e
1
0
.
3
:
T
h
e
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
1
D
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-
d
o
m
a
i
n
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
g
i
v
e
n
a
s
a
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
[
m
]
.
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
5.8
5.7
5.6
5.5
5.4
5.3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
PSfrag replacements
(
Z
)
(
Z
)
(
m
()
(
m

()
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
1.6
1.4
1.2
1
0.8
0.6
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
PSfrag replacements
(
Z
()
(
Z

()
(
m
)
(
m
)
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
Figure 10.2: The frequency-dependent symmetrical stability derivatives C
Z
() and C
Z

()
(top), and C
m
() and C
m

() (bottom).
C
X
0
= 0.0 C
Z
0
= -0.2292 C
m
0
= 0.0
C
X
u
= -0.0032 C
Z
u
= -0.4592 C
m
u
= 0.0236
C
X
u
= 0.0 C
Z
u
= 0.0 C
m
u
= 0.0
C
X
= 0.1692 C
Z
= -5.7874 C
m
= -0.7486
C
X

= 0 C
Z

= -0.3980 C
m

= -4.2255
C
X
q
= -0.0450 C
Z
q
= -4.5499 C
m
q
= -7.4647
C
X
u
g
= -0.0032 C
Z
u
g
= -0.4592 C
m
u
g
= 0.0236
C
X
u
g
= 0.7145 C
Z
u
g
= 0.1470 C
m
u
g
= -0.2315
C
X
g
= 0.1692 C
Z
g
= -5.7874 C
m
g
= -0.7486
C
X

g
= 0 C
Z

g
= 5.1534 C
m

g
= 2.9846
Table 10.4: The (constant) symmetric stability- and 1D gust derivatives for the PCA-model equa-
tions of motion in the frame F
S
, with the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m].
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
12
10
8
6
4
2
x 10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.6
0.62
0.64
0.66
0.68
0.7
0.72
PSfrag replacements
(
X
u
g
(
)
(
X
u
g
(
) (
Z
u
g
()
(
Z
u
g
()
(
m
u
g
()
(
m
u
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.46
0.45
0.44
0.43
0.42
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
PSfrag replacements
(
X
u
g
()
(
X
u
g
()
(
Z
u
g
(
)
(
Z
u
g
(
)
(
m
u
g
()
(
m
u
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.24
0.23
0.22
0.21
0.2
0.19
0.18
0.17
PSfrag replacements
(
X
u
g
()
(
X
u
g
()
(
Z
u
g
()
(
Z
u
g
()
(
m
u
g
(
)
(
m
u
g
(
)
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
Figure 10.3: The frequency-dependent symmetrical gust derivatives C
X
u
g
() and C
X
u
g
() (top),
C
Z
u
g
() and C
Z
u
g
() (center), and C
m
u
g
() and C
m
u
g
() (bottom).
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.035
0.04
0.045
0.05
0.055
0.06
0.065
PSfrag replacements
(
Y
g
(
)
(
Y
g
(
)
(
g
()
(
g
()
(
n
g
()
(
n
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.11
0.1
0.09
0.08
0.07
0.06
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.015
0.016
0.017
0.018
0.019
0.02
0.021
PSfrag replacements
(
Y
g
()
(
Y
g
()
(
g
(
)
(
g
(
)
(
n
g
()
(
n
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.05
0.048
0.046
0.044
0.042
0.04
0.038
0.036
PSfrag replacements
(
Y
g
()
(
Y
g
()
(
g
()
(
g
()
(
n
g
(
)
(
n
g
(
)
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
Figure 10.4: The frequency-dependent asymmetrical gust derivatives C
Y
g
() and C
Y
g
() (top),
C
g
() and C
g
() (center), and C
n
g
() and C
n
g
() (bottom).
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
6
5.5
5
4.5
4
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
5.5
PSfrag replacements
(
Z
g
(
)
(
Z
g
(
)
(
m
g
()
(
m

g
()
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0.8
0.7
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
2.8
3
3.2
3.4
PSfrag replacements
(
Z
g
()
(
Z

g
()
(
m
g
(
)
(
m
g
(
)
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
Figure 10.5: The frequency-dependent symmetrical gust derivatives C
Z
g
() and C
Z

g
() (top),
and C
m
g
() and C
m

g
() (bottom).
C
Y
= -0.4046 C
= -0.1090 C
n
= 0.0676
C
Y
= -0.1237 C
= -0.0078 C
n
= 0.0153
C
Y
p
= -0.0733 C
p
= -0.5194 C
n
p
= 0.0010
C
Y
r
= 0.1193 C
r
= 0.1039 C
n
r
= -0.1279
C
Y
g
= -0.4046 C
g
= -0.1090 C
n
g
= 0.0676
C
Y
g
= 0.0633 C
g
= 0.0194 C
n
g
= -0.0495
Table 10.5: The (constant) asymmetric stability- and 1D gust derivatives for the PCA-model
equations of motion in the frame F
S
, with the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m].
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
(
,
L
g
)
S
g
(, L
g
)
S
g
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
(, L
g
)
S
g
(
,
L
g
)
S
g
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
(, L
g
)
S
g
(, L
g
)
S
g
(
,
L
g
)
Figure 10.6: The input PSD-functions S
u
g
u
g
(), S
g
() and S
g
() for a series of atmo-
spheric turbulence gust scale length L
g
.
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
14
10
12
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
2
10
0
10
2
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
u
(
,
L
g
)
S
u
g
(, L
g
)
S
u
g
(, L
g
)
S
u
g
qq
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u u
(, L
g
)
S
u
g
,
L
g
)
S
u
g
(, L
g
)
S
u
g
qq
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
14
10
12
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
2
10
0
10
2
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u u
(, L
g
)
S
u
g
(, L
g
)
S
u
g
,
L
g
)
S
u
g
qq
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
16
10
14
10
12
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u u
(, L
g
)
S
u
g
(, L
g
)
S
u
g
(, L
g
)
S
u
g
q
q
(
,
L
g
)
Figure 10.7: The PCA-model output PSD-functions S
u
g
u u
(), S
u
g
(), S
u
g
() and S
u
g
qq
() for a
series of atmospheric turbulence gust scale length L
g
. The aircraft model makes use
of both frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives.
10.5 The parametric aircraft model for 2D gust elds
10.5.1 Introduction
In this section the aircraft models for the response to 2D anti-symmetrical atmospheric
turbulence gust elds will be presented. The considered atmospheric turbulence velocity
components will include the 2D longitudinal anti-symmetrical gust u
g
and the 2D verti-
cal anti-symmetrical gust w
g
, only. These gust velocity components now vary along the
Y
S
S
.
The parametric aircraft models, presented in this section, are based on the aircraft equa-
tions of motion given in references [29, 30, 35], and they are also based on a constant
parameter aerodynamic model. The aerodynamic model will make use of the asymmet-
rical stability derivatives obtained earlier in section 10.4.1, while both the steady and
unsteady gust derivatives for both the longitudinal anti-symmetrical - and the vertical
anti-symmetrical gust elds will be calculated in this section. Originally, both the steady
- and unsteady gust derivatives are given with respect to the non-dimensional gust inputs
u
g
and
g
. Later in this section, these derivatives will be transformed to the so-called
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
,
L
g
)
S
(, L
g
)
S
g
pp
(, L
g
)
S
g
rr
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
(, L
g
)
S
,
L
g
)
S
g
pp
(, L
g
)
S
g
rr
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
(, L
g
)
S
(, L
g
)
S
g
p
p
(
,
L
g
)
S
g
rr
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
(, L
g
)
S
(, L
g
)
S
g
pp
(, L
g
)
S
g
r
r
(
,
L
g
)
(), S
(), S
g
pp
() and S
g
rr
() for a
g
yaw-gust (r
1
g
) and the so-called roll-gust (p
g
) derivatives, see also chapter 12 and
reference [35]. These new derivatives will allow the calculation of the time-dependent
asymmetrical aerodynamic force and moments to 2D spatial-domain gust elds.
10.5.2 The frequency-domain aircraft responses to 2D gust elds
Now consider, for example, the aircraft responses to the 2D anti-symmetrical vertical
gust eld w
g
, or
g
=
w
g
Q
. Similar to the asymmetrical equations of motion for the 1D

lateral gust eld, the frequency-domain aircraft equations of motion are written as, see
also equation (10.20),
P
c
a
j x = Q
c
a
x +R
c
a
u
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
14
10
12
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
2
10
0
10
2
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
u
u
(
,
L
g
)
S
(, L
g
)
S
(, L
g
)
S
g
qq
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
u u
(, L
g
)
S
,
L
g
)
S
(, L
g
)
S
g
qq
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
12
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
2
10
0
10
2
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
u u
(, L
g
)
S
(, L
g
)
S
,
L
g
)
S
g
qq
(, L
g
)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
18
10
16
10
14
10
12
10
10
10
8
10
6
10
4
L
g
=30 [m]
L
g
=150 [m]
L
g
=300 [m]
L
g
=500 [m]
L
g
=1000 [m]
L
g
=1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
u u
(, L
g
)
S
(, L
g
)
S
(, L
g
)
S
g
q
q
(
,
L
g
)
g
u u
(), S
(), S
() and S
g
qq
() for a
g
with the aircrafts state x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
and the matrices P
c
a
and Q
c
a
equal to
equations (10.24) and (10.25). The matrix R
c
a
is now written as,
R
c
a
=
_
_
C
Y
g
0
C
g
C
n
g
_
_
(10.27)
with the input u becoming u = 1. Equation (10.27) may also be written as,
R
c
a
=
_
_
1 0 0
0 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 1
_
_
(10.28)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
4
10
2
10
0
10
2
10
4
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0
50
100
150
200
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
H
u
u
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
u
u
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
H
u
g
()
phase
_
H
u
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
u
g
()
phase
_
H
u
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
q u
g
()
phase
_
H
q u
g
()
_
[
o
]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
5
10
0
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
100
50
0
50
100
150
200
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
H
u u
g
()
phase
_
H
u u
g
()
_
[
o
]
u
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
u
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
H
u
g
()
phase
_
H
u
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
q u
g
()
phase
_
H
q u
g
()
_
[
o
]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
4
10
2
10
0
10
2
10
4
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
50
100
150
200
250
300
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
H
u u
g
()
phase
_
H
u u
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
u
g
()
phase
_
H
u
g
()
_
[
o
]
u
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
u
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
H
q u
g
()
phase
_
H
q u
g
()
_
[
o
]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
5
10
0
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
0
50
100
150
200
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
H
u u
g
()
phase
_
H
u u
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
u
g
()
phase
_
H
u
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
u
g
()
phase
_
H
u
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
q
u
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
q
u
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
Figure 10.10: The frequency-response functions H
u u
g
(), H
u
g
(), H
u
g
() and H
q u
g
() shown
as Bode-plots for the 1D symmetrical gust input u
g
. The results are given for
the PCA-model using both frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives
(CA), using constant stability derivatives and frequency-dependent gust derivatives
(CAP), and using both constant stability- and gust derivatives (CP).
with the input u dened as,
u =
_
_
C
Y
g
C
g
C
n
g
_
_
(10.29)
Now, for the example anti-symmetrical vertical gust input case, the aerodynamic force
and moment coecients are given as,
C
Y
g
(,
y
) =
C
Y
g
(k,
y
)
g
(,
y
)
C
g
(,
y
) =
C
g
(k,
y
)
g
(,
y
)
C
n
g
(,
y
) =
C
n
g
(k,
y
)
g
(,
y
)
_
_
(10.30)
with the circular frequency, k =
c
2Q

g
(,
y
) the 2D non-
dimensional vertical gust velocity component and
C
Y
g
(k,
y
),
C
g
(k,
y
) and
C
n
g
(k,
y
) the
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
50
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
p
g
()
phase
_
H
p
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
r
g
()
phase
_
H
r
g
()
_
[
o
]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
250
200
150
100
50
0
50
100
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
H
p
g
()
phase
_
H
p
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
r
g
()
phase
_
H
r
g
()
_
[
o
]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
p
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
p
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
H
r
g
()
phase
_
H
r
g
()
_
[
o
]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
400
300
200
100
0
100
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
p
g
()
phase
_
H
p
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
r
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
r
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
g
(), H
g
(), H
p
g
() and H
r
g
() shown
as Bode-plots for the 1D asymmetrical gust input
g
frequency-response functions obtained in chapter 8.
Similar to the calculation procedure for the unsteady 1D gust derivatives given in section
10.3, in this section both the steady and unsteady gust derivatives for 2D gust elds are
calculated using the resonance frequencies for and
y
. For both the 2D longitudinal
gust eld u
g
and the 2D vertical gust eld
g
these frequencies are calculated from a
(local) resonance peak search near the dutch-roll resonance frequency
dr
for the 2D
yaw-rate PSD-function S
rr
(,
y
). In order to calculate the aircraft motion 2D output
PSD-functions, the input PSD-matrix for equation (10.20) has to be dened. It is given
as,
S
uu
(,
y
) = S
g
(,
y
) (10.31)
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
4
10
2
10
0
10
2
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
50
100
150
200
250
300
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
H
u
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
u
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
q
g
()
phase
_
H
q
g
()
_
[
o
]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
150
100
50
0
50
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
H
u
g
()
phase
_
H
u
g
()
_
[
o
]
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
q
g
()
phase
_
H
q
g
()
_
[
o
]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
4
10
2
10
0
10
2
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
100
50
0
50
100
150
200
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
H
u
g
()
phase
_
H
u
g
()
_
[
o
]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
H
q
g
()
phase
_
H
q
g
()
_
[
o
]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
8
10
6
10
4
10
2
10
0
CA
CP
CAP
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
200
150
100
50
0
50
100
CA
CP
CAP
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
H
u
g
()
phase
_
H
u
g
()
_
[
o
]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
g
()
phase
_
H
g
()
_
[
o
]
H
q
g
(
p
h
a
s
e
_
H
q
g
(
)
_
[
o
]
u
g
(), H
g
(), H
g
() and H
q
g
() shown
as Bode-plots for the 1D symmetrical gust input
g
_
_
_
C
Y
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
Y
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
Y
g
(k,
y
)
_
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
Y
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
n
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
Y
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
g
(k,
y
)
_
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
n
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
n
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
Y
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
n
g
(k,
y
)
_
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
n
g
(k,
y
)
_
C
n
g
(k,
y
)
_
_
with S
uu
(,
y
) the equations of motions input PSD-matrix,

denoting the complex con-
jungate and S
g
(,
y
) the non-dimensional vertical gust-component 2D atmospheric
turbulence PSD-function (see appendix H). Using equation (10.20), with its matrices P
c
a
,
Q
c
a
and R
c
a
according to equations (10.24), (10.25) and (10.28), respectively, the 2D air-
craft motion frequency-response functions are calculated. Together with equation (10.31),
the aircraft state-variables output PSD-functions are obtained (see also appendix B).
Using the 2D output PSD-function S
rr
(,
y
), the resonance peak search results in the
resonance frequencies
dr
and
y
dr
. From these frequencies both the constant steady and
unsteady gust derivative, for example C
Y
g
and C
Y

g
, are calculated according to,
C
Y
g
(
dr
,
y
dr
) = C
Y
g
+C
Y

g
jk
dr
= C
Y
g
+
c
2b
C
Y

g
j
dr
b
Q
= C
Y
g
+C
Y

g
j
dr
b
Q
(10.32)
with
C
Y
g
(
dr
,
y
dr
) the aerodynamic frequency-response for k =
c
2Q
= k
dr
and
y
=
y
dr
, both C
Y
g
= Re
_
C
Y
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
_
and C
Y

g
=
1
k
dr
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
_
the constant
steady - and unsteady gust derivative, respectively, as obtained from the aerodynamic
frequency-response function at =
dr
and
y
=
y
dr
and with the reduced frequency
k
dr
=

dr
c
2Q
, C
Y

g
the unsteady gust derivative with respect to the reduced frequency
b
Q
and
y
=
y
dr
, c the mean aerodynamic chord, b the aircrafts span, and Q
the airspeed.
Similar to equation (10.32), both the 2D steady and the 2D unsteady gust derivatives are
obtained for the asymmetrical aerodynamic moments. Also, similar to the
g
derivatives,
the 2D gust derivatives with respect to the ant-symmetrical non-dimensional 2D longitu-
dinal gust velocity component u
g
are obtained using the 2D frequency-response functions
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
u
g
(k,
y
) and
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
). These aerodynamic frequency-response functions are
also given in chapter 8.
The denition of the 2D gust derivatives with respect to the anti-symmetrical 2D gust
inputs u
g
and
g
is summarized in table 10.8.
10.5.3 Calculation of the gust derivatives for 2D gust elds
For the numerical calculation of the gust derivatives for the 2D longitudinal and vertical
gust elds, the procedure outlined in section 10.4.2 is followed. First, the atmospheric
turbulence velocity components 2D PSD-functions have to be calculated. These analy-
tical functions are given in appendix H, and for a series of the gust scale length parameter
L
g
they are shown in gures 10.13 and 10.14. Next, the 2D output PSD-function (the
2D yaw-rate PSD-function S
rr
(,
y
)) is calculated. From this 2D PSD-function the reso-
nance frequencies are calculated using a (local) resonance peak search near the dutch-rolls
resonance frequency
dr
. In gures 10.15 and 10.16 results of these searches are shown
for the non-dimensional 2D longitudinal - ( u
g
) and the non-dimensional 2D vertical gust
velocity component (
g
), respectively. In gures 10.17 and 10.18 the 2D gust derivatives
(both steady and unsteady) with respect to the non-dimensional gust inputs u
g
and
g
,
respectively, are given as a function of the circular frequency and the spatial frequency
y
. From these results, and using the resonance frequencies
dr
and
y
dr
, both the con-
stant steady and constant unsteady gust derivatives C
Y
u
g
, C
Y
u
g
, C
u
g
, C
u
g
, C
n
u
g
, C
n
u
g
,
C
Y
g
, C
Y

g
, C
g
, C

g
, C
n
g
and C
n

g
, are obtained.
In order to use these derivatives for time-domain simulations using spatial-domain gust
elds, both the u
g
- and
g
derivatives are now transformed to yaw-gust (r
1
g
) and roll-
gust (p
g
) derivatives, respectively. For this purpose, use is made of the gust input model
denition according to reference [35] (see also chapter 12 and appendices G and H).
Similar to this Four-Point-Aircraft (FPA) model, for both the 2D u
g
- and 2D w
g
gust
elds the atmospheric turbulence velocity components u
g
and w
g
at 0.85
b
2
locations on
the aircraft wing are required. In the following use is made of these gust inputs at the
positions 1 and 2 of the FPA-model, see also gures G.17 and G.18 for the denition
of the FPA-model gust input locations and the denition of the positive directions of the
gust inputs, respectively. The dimensional roll-gust and yaw-gust are dened as,
p
g
=
w
g
1
w
g
2
b
r
1
g
=
u
g
2
u
g
1
b
_
(10.33)
respectively, with u
g
1
the dimensional longitudinal gust velocity component at location 1
(see gure G.17), u
g
2
the one at location 2, w
g
1
the dimensional vertical gust velocity
component at location 1, w
g
2
the one at location 2 and b
= 0.85b with b the aircrafts

span. For 2D anti-symmetrical harmonic gust elds, equations (10.33) are given as,
p
g
=
w
g
(
b
2
)w
g
(
b
2
)
b
= w
g
max
sin(
y
b
2
)sin(
y
b
2
)
b
r
1
g
=
u
g
(
b
2
)+u
g
(
b
2
)
b
= u
g
max
sin(
y
b
2
)sin(
y
b
2
)
b
_
(10.34)
In non-dimensional form, equation (10.34) becomes,
p
g
b
2Q
=
w
g
max
b
2Q
sin(
y
b
2
)sin(
y
b
2
)
b
=
g
b
2

sin(
y
b
2
)sin(
y
b
2
)
b
r
1
g
b
2Q
=
u
g
max
b
2Q
sin(
y
b
2
)sin(
y
b
2
)
b
= u
g
b
2

sin(
y
b
2
)sin(
y
b
2
)
b
_
(10.35)
or,
p
g
b
2Q
=
g
b
2
K
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
= u
g
b
2
K
g
_
_
(10.36)
with,
K
g
=
sin(
y
b
2
) sin(
y
b
2
)
b
(10.37)
Using equations (10.35) through (10.37), while also using the resonance frequency
y
=
y
dr
, both the u
g
- and
g
derivatives are transformed into constant yaw-gust - and roll-
gust derivatives, respectively. The denition of the new gust derivatives C
Y
r
1
g
, C
Y
r
1
g
,
C
r
1
g
, C
r
1
g
, C
n
r
1
g
, C
n
r
1
g
, C
Y
p
g
, C
Y
p
g
, C
p
g
, C
p
g
, C
n
p
g
and C
n
p
g
is summarized in table
10.9. In tables 10.10 and 10.11 the numerical values of these gust derivatives for the PCA-
model are shown.
For the gust inputs r
1
g
and p
g
(which now represent the anti-symmetrical gust elds u
g
and w
g
, respectively) the non-dimensional aerodynamic models in terms of gust derivatives
are given as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
+C
Y
r
1
g
b
Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
C
g
= C
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
+C
r
1
g
b
Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
C
n
g
= C
n
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
+C
n
r
1
g
b
Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
_
_
(10.38)
10.6 Remarks 233
and,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
+C
Y
p
g
b
Q
p
g
b
2Q
C
g
= C
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
+C
p
g
b
Q
p
g
b
2Q
C
n
g
= C
n
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
+C
n
p
g
b
Q
p
g
b
2Q
_
_
(10.39)
respectively, with the denition of the gust derivatives used in equations (10.38) and
(10.39) summarized in tables 10.8 and 10.9. In tables 10.10 and 10.11 values for the gust
derivatives are given.
10.6 Remarks
In this chapter the Parametric Computational Aerodynamics (PCA) model has been in-
troduced. The model parameters have been calculated using a resonance peak search in
aircraft motion output PSD-functions. This identication method resulted in both steady
and unsteady gust derivatives. In chapters 11 and 12 the Delft University of Technology
(DUT) - and the Four-Point-Aircraft model will be discussed, respectively. In these chap-
ters, the aerodynamic model with respect to atmospheric turbulence is also given in terms
of gust derivatives, however, they are now dened as a function of stability derivatives.
In chapter 13 both time- and frequency-domain results for the PCA-model will be com-
pared to the LPF-solutions presented in chapter 9. These results will be given in terms
of both aerodynamic model - and aircraft motion responses. The PCA-model results will
also be compared to those obtained for the DUT- and FPA-model.
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
10
5
0
5
L
g
= 30 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
u
g
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
10
5
0
5
L
g
= 150 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
u
g
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
10
5
0
5
L
g
= 300 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
u
g
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
10
5
0
5
L
g
= 500 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
u
g
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
10
5
0
5
L
g
= 1000 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
u
g
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
10
5
0
5
L
g
= 1500 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
u
g
(
y
)
)
Figure 10.13: The 2D input PSD-function S
u
g
u
g
(,
y
) for a series of the atmospheric turbulence
scale length L
g
[m].
10.6 Remarks 235
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
8
6
4
2
0
2
L
g
= 30 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
g
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
8
6
4
2
0
2
L
g
= 150 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
g
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
8
6
4
2
0
2
L
g
= 300 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
g
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
8
6
4
2
0
2
L
g
= 500 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
g
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
8
6
4
2
0
2
L
g
= 1000 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
g
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
8
6
4
2
0
2
L
g
= 1500 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
g
(
y
)
)
Figure 10.14: The 2D input PSD-function S
g
(,
y
scale length L
g
[m].
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 30 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 150 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 300 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 500 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 1000 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 1500 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
Figure 10.15: The 2D output PSD-function S
u
g
rr
(,
y
scale length L
g
[m].
10.6 Remarks 237
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 30 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 150 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 300 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 500 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 1000 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
20
15
10
5
0
L
g
= 1500 m
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
Resonance
l
o
g
(
S
g
r
r
(
y
)
)
Figure 10.16: The 2D output PSD-function S
g
rr
(,
y
scale length L
g
[m].
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m] log() [Rad/sec]
(
Y
u
g
(
y
)
(
Y
u
g
(,
y
)
(
u
g
(,
y
)
(
u
g
(,
y
)
(
n
u
g
(,
y
)
(
n
u
g
(,
y
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
x 10
3
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
u
g
(,
y
)
(
Y
u
g
(
y
)
(
u
g
(,
y
)
(
u
g
(,
y
)
(
n
u
g
(,
y
)
(
n
u
g
(,
y
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
u
g
(,
y
)
(
Y
u
g
(,
y
)
(
u
g
(
y
)
(
u
g
(,
y
)
(
n
u
g
(,
y
)
(
n
u
g
(,
y
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
3
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
u
g
(,
y
)
(
Y
u
g
(,
y
)
(
u
g
(,
y
)
(
u
g
(
y
)
(
n
u
g
(,
y
)
(
n
u
g
(,
y
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
15
10
5
0
5
x 10
3
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
u
g
(,
y
)
(
Y
u
g
(,
y
)
(
u
g
(,
y
)
(
u
g
(,
y
)
(
n
u
g
(
y
)
(
n
u
g
(,
y
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
0.03
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
u
g
(,
y
)
(
Y
u
g
(,
y
)
(
u
g
(,
y
)
(
u
g
(,
y
)
(
n
u
g
(,
y
)
(
n
u
g
(
y
)
Figure 10.17: The frequency-dependent steady and unsteady gust derivatives C
Y
u
g
(,
y
) and
C
Y
u
g
(,
y
) (top), C
u
g
(,
y
) and C
u
g
(,
y
) (center), and C
n
u
g
(,
y
) and
C
n
u
g
(,
y
) (bottom), with respect to the anti-symmetrical gust input u
g
.
10.6 Remarks 239
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
g
(
y
)
(
Y

g
(,
y
)
(
g
(,
y
)
(

g
(,
y
)
(
n
g
(,
y
)
(
n

g
(,
y
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
g
(,
y
)
(
Y
g
(
y
)
(
g
(,
y
)
(

g
(,
y
)
(
n
g
(,
y
)
(
n

g
(,
y
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
g
(,
y
)
(
Y

g
(,
y
)
(
g
(
y
)
(

g
(,
y
)
(
n
g
(,
y
)
(
n

g
(,
y
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
g
(,
y
)
(
Y

g
(,
y
)
(
g
(,
y
)
(
g
(
y
)
(
n
g
(,
y
)
(
n

g
(,
y
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
0.06
0.05
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
g
(,
y
)
(
Y

g
(,
y
)
(
g
(,
y
)
(

g
(,
y
)
(
n
g
(
y
)
(
n

g
(,
y
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
5
0
5
10
15
x 10
3
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
(
Y
g
(,
y
)
(
Y

g
(,
y
)
(
g
(,
y
)
(

g
(,
y
)
(
n
g
(,
y
)
(
n
g
(
y
)
Figure 10.18: The frequency-dependent steady and unsteady gust derivatives C
Y
g
(,
y
) and
C
Y

g
(,
y
) (top), C
g
(,
y
) and C

g
(,
y
) (center), and C
n
g
(,
y
) and
C
n

g
(,
y
) (bottom), with respect to the anti-symmetrical gust input
g
.
Frequency-dependent stability- and 1D gust derivatives
C
X
C
Z
C
m
u C
X
u
(k) = Re
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
C
Z
u
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
C
m
u
(k) = Re
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
u c
Q
C
X
u
(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
X
u
(k)
_
C
Z
u
(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
Z
u
(k)
_
C
m
u
(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
m
u
(k)
_
C
X
(k) = Re
_
C
X
(k)
_
C
Z
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
(k)
_
C
m
(k) = Re
_
C
m
(k)
_
c
Q
C
X

(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
X
(k)
_
C
Z

(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
Z
(k)
_
C
m

(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
m
(k)
_
u
g
C
X
u
g
(k) = Re
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
C
Z
u
g
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
C
m
u
g
(k) = Re
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
u
g
c
Q
C
X
u
g
(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
X
u
g
(k)
_
C
Z
u
g
(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
Z
u
g
(k)
_
C
m
u
g
(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
m
u
g
(k)
_
g
C
X
g
(k) = Re
_
C
X
g
(k)
_
C
Z
g
(k) = Re
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
C
m
g
(k) = Re
_
C
m
g
(k)
_

g
c
Q
C
X

g
(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
X
g
(k)
_
C
Z

g
(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
Z
g
(k)
_
C
m

g
(k) =
1
2k
Im
_
C
m
g
(k)
_
Table 10.6: Denition of the symmetrical frequency-dependent stability derivatives and the sym-
metrical frequency-dependent 1D gust derivatives for the frame F
S
given as a function
c
2Q
, and as used in the aircrafts equations of motion.

10.6 Remarks 241
Frequency-dependent stability- and 1D gust derivatives
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
(k) = Re
_
C
Y
(k)
_
C
(k) = Re
_
C
(k)
_
C
n
(k) = Re
_
C
n
(k)
_
b
Q
C
Y
(k) =
c
2bk
Im
_
C
Y
(k)
_
C
(k) =
c
2bk
Im
_
C
(k)
_
C
n
(k) =
c
2bk
Im
_
C
n
(k)
_
g
C
Y
g
(k) = Re
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
C
g
(k) = Re
_
C
g
(k)
_
C
n
g
(k) = Re
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
g
b
Q
C
Y
g
(k) =
c
2bk
Im
_
C
Y
g
(k)
_
C
g
(k) =
c
2bk
Im
_
C
g
(k)
_
C
n
g
(k) =
c
2bk
Im
_
C
n
g
(k)
_
Table 10.7: Denition of the asymmetrical frequency-dependent stability derivatives and the
asymmetrical frequency-dependent 1D gust derivatives for the frame F
S
given as
a function of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
, and as used in the aircrafts equations

of motion.
F
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
2
D
g
u
s
t
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
C
Y
C
C
n
u
g
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
u
g
b
Q
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
c
2
b
k
I
m
_
C
Y
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
c
2
b
k
I
m
_
C
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
c
2
b
k
I
m
_
C
n
u
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
g
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
R
e
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
g
b
Q
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
c
2
b
k
I
m
_
C
Y
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
c
2
b
k
I
m
_
C
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
=
c
2
b
k
I
m
_
C
n
g
(
k
,
y
)
_
T
a
b
l
e
1
0
.
8
:
D
e
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-
d
e
p
e
n
d
e
n
t
2
D
g
u
s
t
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
F
S
g
i
v
e
n
a
s
a
f
u
n
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
r
e
d
u
c
e
d
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
k
=
c
2
Q
a
n
d
t
h
e
s
p
a
t
i
a
l
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
y
,
a
n
d
a
s
u
s
e
d
i
n
t
h
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
s
e
q
u
a
t
i
o
n
s
o
f
m
o
t
i
o
n
.
10.6 Remarks 243
Constant 2D gust derivatives
C
Y
C
C
n
r
1
g
b
2Q
C
Y
u
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
C
u
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
C
n
u
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
r
1
g
b
2
2Q
2
C
Y
u
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
C
u
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
C
n
u
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
p
g
b
2Q
C
Y
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
C
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
C
n
g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
p
g
b
2
2Q
2
C
Y

g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
C

g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
C
n

g
(k
dr
,
y
dr
)
2
K
g
b
Table 10.9: Denition of the PCA-models constant yawing and rolling gust derivatives (with
K
g
=
sin(
y
dr
b
2
)sin(
y
dr
b
2
)
b
) for both the 2D longitudinal - and the 2D vertical

gust elds, for the frame F
S
.
G
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
D
R
D
R
l
e
n
g
t
h
r
e
s
o
n
a
n
c
e
r
e
s
o
n
a
n
c
e
C
Y
r
1
g
(
L
g
)
C
Y
r
1
g
(
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
(
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
(
L
g
)
C
n
r
1
g
(
L
g
)
C
n
r
1
g
(
L
g
)
L
g
[
m
]
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
]
y
[
R
a
d
/
m
]
3
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
1
2
.
1
1
7
1
e
+
0
0
0
6
.
5
2
4
6
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
4
4
2
8
e
-
0
0
1
3
.
9
6
7
1
e
-
0
0
3
5
.
2
4
7
6
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
2
3
9
6
e
-
0
0
3
-
2
.
8
6
8
8
e
-
0
0
4
-
6
.
1
0
7
1
e
-
0
0
3
1
.
5
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
1
1
7
1
e
+
0
0
0
3
.
2
8
1
0
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
9
3
3
e
-
0
0
1
5
.
0
8
5
0
e
-
0
0
3
5
.
1
9
0
7
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
6
9
5
3
e
-
0
0
3
-
2
.
7
8
9
6
e
-
0
0
4
-
5
.
8
5
4
9
e
-
0
0
3
3
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
1
1
7
1
e
+
0
0
0
3
.
1
1
2
0
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
9
1
7
e
-
0
0
1
5
.
1
7
9
7
e
-
0
0
3
5
.
1
8
8
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
7
0
0
3
e
-
0
0
3
-
2
.
7
8
6
3
e
-
0
0
4
-
5
.
8
4
1
3
e
-
0
0
3
5
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
1
1
7
1
e
+
0
0
0
3
.
0
5
7
6
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
9
1
2
e
-
0
0
1
5
.
2
1
1
7
e
-
0
0
3
5
.
1
8
8
3
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
7
0
0
7
e
-
0
0
3
-
2
.
7
8
5
3
e
-
0
0
4
-
5
.
8
3
6
8
e
-
0
0
3
1
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
3
2
.
1
1
7
1
e
+
0
0
0
3
.
0
5
7
6
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
9
1
2
e
-
0
0
1
5
.
2
1
1
7
e
-
0
0
3
5
.
1
8
8
3
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
7
0
0
7
e
-
0
0
3
-
2
.
7
8
5
3
e
-
0
0
4
-
5
.
8
3
6
8
e
-
0
0
3
1
.
5
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
3
2
.
1
1
7
1
e
+
0
0
0
3
.
0
5
7
6
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
3
9
1
2
e
-
0
0
1
5
.
2
1
1
7
e
-
0
0
3
5
.
1
8
8
3
e
-
0
0
2
-
1
.
7
0
0
7
e
-
0
0
3
-
2
.
7
8
5
3
e
-
0
0
4
-
5
.
8
3
6
8
e
-
0
0
3
G
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
D
R
D
R
l
e
n
g
t
h
r
e
s
o
n
a
n
c
e
r
e
s
o
n
a
n
c
e
C
Y
p
g
(
L
g
)
C
Y
p
g
(
L
g
)
C
p
g
(
L
g
)
C
p
g
(
L
g
)
C
n
p
g
(
L
g
)
C
n
p
g
(
L
g
)
L
g
[
m
]
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
]
y
[
R
a
d
/
m
]
3
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
1
2
.
3
3
0
5
e
+
0
0
0
6
.
7
5
8
7
e
-
0
0
2
3
.
3
2
5
4
e
-
0
0
2
-
2
.
7
9
6
1
e
-
0
0
2
-
5
.
1
4
6
3
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
4
8
4
7
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
3
3
9
2
e
-
0
0
2
9
.
3
0
8
4
e
-
0
0
3
1
.
5
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
2
8
6
2
e
+
0
0
0
2
.
8
4
9
5
e
-
0
0
2
3
.
4
2
4
1
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
5
1
7
0
e
-
0
0
2
-
5
.
0
8
9
4
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
5
8
9
1
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
2
8
4
0
e
-
0
0
2
9
.
8
9
4
4
e
-
0
0
3
3
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
2
8
6
2
e
+
0
0
0
2
.
6
5
5
5
e
-
0
0
2
3
.
4
6
5
3
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
5
9
4
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
5
.
0
8
7
7
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
6
1
2
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
2
8
1
7
e
-
0
0
2
9
.
9
2
8
8
e
-
0
0
3
5
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
2
2
.
2
8
6
2
e
+
0
0
0
2
.
6
0
9
1
e
-
0
0
2
3
.
4
7
6
6
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
6
1
3
8
e
-
0
0
2
-
5
.
0
8
7
4
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
6
1
9
3
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
2
8
1
2
e
-
0
0
2
9
.
9
3
7
1
e
-
0
0
3
1
.
0
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
3
2
.
2
8
6
2
e
+
0
0
0
2
.
5
6
3
5
e
-
0
0
2
3
.
4
8
8
2
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
6
3
2
3
e
-
0
0
2
-
5
.
0
8
7
0
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
6
2
5
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
2
8
0
7
e
-
0
0
2
9
.
9
4
5
1
e
-
0
0
3
1
.
5
0
0
0
e
+
0
0
3
2
.
2
8
6
2
e
+
0
0
0
2
.
5
6
3
5
e
-
0
0
2
3
.
4
8
8
2
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
6
3
2
3
e
-
0
0
2
-
5
.
0
8
7
0
e
-
0
0
1
2
.
6
2
5
9
e
-
0
0
2
-
3
.
2
8
0
7
e
-
0
0
2
9
.
9
4
5
1
e
-
0
0
3
T
a
b
l
e
1
0
.
1
0
:
T
h
e
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
s
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
o
b
t
a
i
n
e
d
f
r
o
m
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
-
d
o
m
a
i
n
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
s
.
T
h
e
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
h
o
l
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
D
u
t
c
h
-
R
o
l
l
s
(
D
R
)
r
e
s
o
n
a
n
c
e
f
r
e
q
u
e
n
c
y
.
10.6 Remarks 245
1
D
g
u
s
t
e
l
d
s
2
D
g
u
s
t
e
l
d
s
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
C
X
u
g
C
X
u
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
r
1
g
C
Y
r
1
g
C
Y
p
g
C
Y
p
g
-
0
.
0
0
3
2
+
0
.
7
1
4
5
+
0
.
1
6
9
2
-
0
.
4
0
4
6
+
0
.
0
6
3
2
-
0
.
2
3
9
2
+
0
.
0
0
5
2
+
0
.
0
3
4
7
-
0
.
0
3
5
9
C
Z
u
g
C
Z
u
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
C
g
C
g
C
r
1
g
C
r
1
g
C
p
g
C
p
g
-
0
.
4
5
9
2
+
0
.
1
4
7
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
+
5
.
1
5
3
4
-
0
.
1
0
9
0
+
0
.
0
1
9
4
+
0
.
0
5
1
9
-
0
.
0
0
1
7
-
0
.
5
0
8
8
+
0
.
0
2
6
1
C
m
u
g
C
m
u
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
C
n
r
1
g
C
n
r
1
g
C
n
p
g
C
n
p
g
+
0
.
0
2
3
6
-
0
.
2
3
1
5
-
0
.
7
4
8
6
+
2
.
9
8
4
6
+
0
.
0
6
7
6
-
0
.
0
4
9
5
-
0
.
0
0
0
3
-
0
.
0
0
5
8
-
0
.
0
3
2
8
+
0
.
0
0
9
9
T
a
b
l
e
1
0
.
1
1
:
T
h
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
g
u
s
t
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
r
i
c
C
o
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
(
P
C
A
)
m
o
d
e
l
(
m
e
a
n
s
n
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
)
.
T
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
a
r
e
v
a
l
i
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
f
r
a
m
e
F
S
,
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
Chapter 11
The Delft University of
Technology model
11.1 Introduction
In the previous chapter the aerodynamic model with respect to one-dimensional (1D)
and two-dimensional (2D) gust elds has been identied using results obtained from Li-
nearized Potential Flow (LPF) simulations. These results have been summarized for the
so-called Parametric Computational Aerodynamics (PCA) model which relies on constant
gust derivatives. For the 1D gust elds the atmospheric turbulence velocity components
u
g
, v
g
and w
g
were included only. For these elds the gust derivatives have been ob-
tained from numerical LPF experiments assuming that these gust velocity components do
not vary over the aircrafts span. Also, the gust derivatives for 2D gust elds have been
obtained. The 2D gust elds included the longitudinal atmospheric turbulence velocity
component u
g
and the vertical atmospheric turbulence velocity component w
g
, only. Ob-
viously, contrary to the 1D case, these gust elds do vary over the aircrafts span.
In this chapter the aerodynamic model for the gust inputs indicated above is given ac-
cording to the Delft University of Technology (DUT) theory (see references [33, 34]). Also
for this model a separation is made in the gust inputs considered, that is 1D gust elds
for the longitudinal u
g
, lateral v
g
and vertical w
g
gust velocity components, and 2D gust
elds for the longitudinal u
g
and vertical w
g
gust velocity components.
Similar to the PCA-model results presented earlier, a distinction is made between sym-
metrical and asymmetrical turbulence inputs. Symmetrical gust velocities will give rise to
symmetrical aircraft responses whereas asymmetrical turbulence will cause asymmetrical
aircraft responses, thus assuming small disturbance theory and therefore decoupling of
symmetric and asymmetric aircraft motions is allowed. Also in this chapter the symme-
trical and asymmetrical aircraft responses will be treated separately, thus assuming linear
aircraft responses.
248 The Delft University of Technology model
11.2 Atmospheric turbulence eld denitions
For the DUT-model the 2D stochastic gust elds are considered as a superposition of
innitely many elementary elds of ow, see references [33, 34] and see chapter 5. In each
of these elementary elds, the gust velocity varies sinusoidally along the X
E
-axis as well as
along the Y
E
-axis of the Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference T
E
(which is dened in appendix
B). The elementary 2D velocity elds are written as,
u
g
(x, y) = u
g
max
Re
_
e
j(
x
x+
y
y)
_
v
g
(x, y) = v
g
max
Re
_
e
j(
x
x+
y
y)
_
(11.1)
w
g
(x, y) = w
g
max
Re
_
e
j(
x
x+
y
y)
_
with u
g
, v
g
and w
g
the longitudinal, lateral and vertical gust components in T
E
, res-
pectively, u
g
max
, v
g
max
and w
g
max
the amplitude of the 2D gust elds,
x
the spatial
frequency along the X
E
-axis of T
E
,
y
E
-axis of T
E
and
[x, y, (z = 0)]
T
the position in T
E
.
The 1D gust elds are obtained from the 2D gust elds with
y
set to 0. Equation (11.1)
is then reduced to,
u
g
(x) = u
g
max
Re
_
e
j(
x
x)
_
v
g
(x) = v
g
max
Re
_
e
j(
x
x)
_
(11.2)
w
g
(x) = w
g
max
Re
_
e
j(
x
x)
_
Equation (11.2) is used for the calculation of symmetrical gust inputs. In the following, an-
other interpretation is given for the expressions given in equations (11.1). As an example,
the expression for u
g
in equation (11.1) is therefore written as,
u
g
(x, y) = u
g
max
Re
_
e
j(
x
x+
y
y)
_
= u
g
max
Re (cos (
x
x) +j sin(
x
x)) (cos (
y
y) +j sin(
y
y))
= u
g
max
(cos (
x
x) cos (
y
y) sin(
x
x) sin(
y
y))
= u
g
1
(x, y) u
g
2
(x, y) (11.3)
According to the expressions given in equation (11.3) the elementary 2D gust eld can be
considered as the superposition of two separate elds in which each of the gust velocity
component varies sinusoidally along the X
E
- as well as along the Y
E
-axis of T
E
,
u
g
1
(x, y) = u
g
max
cos (
x
x) cos (
y
y) (symmetric)
u
g
2
(x, y) = u
g
max
sin(
x
x) sin(
y
y) (anti symmetric)
_
(11.4)
11.3 Aerodynamic models 249
The characteristic dierence between the two elds u
g
1
(x, y) and u
g
2
(x, y) is that the
rst is symmetrical with respect to the vertical O
E
X
E
Z
E
-plane in the frame T
E
and the
second is anti-symmetrical with respect to this plane. Similarly, the v
g
- and w
g
-elds can
be separated in these symmetrical and anti-symmetrical gust elds,
v
g
1
(x, y) = v
g
max
cos (
x
x) cos (
y
y) (anti symmetric)
v
g
2
(x, y) = v
g
max
sin(
x
x) sin(
y
y) (symmetric)
_
(11.5)
w
g
1
(x, y) = w
g
max
cos (
x
x) cos (
y
y) (symmetric)
w
g
2
(x, y) = w
g
max
sin(
x
x) sin(
y
y) (anti symmetric)
_
(11.6)
For the aircraft trim condition assumed in this thesis, which is nominally steady straight
level ight, the aircraft plane of symmetry coincides with the O
E
X
E
Z
E
-plane. As a conse-
quence the symmetric parts u
g
1
(x, y), v
g
2
(x, y) and w
g
1
(x, y) of the elementary elds can
only cause symmetric deviations from steady ight. For the symmetrical aircraft motions
the spatial frequency
y
is set to zero. According to equation (11.5), the v
g
2
(x, y)-eld
can be omitted when considering symmetrical aircraft responses. Only the u
g
and w
g
gust
elds will be considered for the simulation of symmetrical aircraft motions.
The three anti-symmetric parts u
g
2
(x, y), v
g
1
(x, y) and w
g
2
(x, y) given in equations (11.4),
(11.5) and (11.6) of the elementary gust elds will be used for the simulation of asymme-
trical aircraft motions.
The DUT-model atmospheric turbulence velocity-component (u
g
, v
g
and w
g
) Power Spec-
tral Density (PSD) functions are summarized in chapter 2 and appendix H. For the gust
velocity components considered in this chapter, they are also summarized in section 11.4.
11.3 Aerodynamic models
11.3.1 1D Symmetrical longitudinal gust elds
For the DUT-model 1D symmetrical longitudinal gust velocity component u
g
the aerody-
namic force and moment coecients are given as, (see references [33, 34, 30]),
C
X
g
= C
X
u
g
u
g
(11.7)
C
Z
g
= C
Z
u
g
u
g
(11.8)
C
m
g
= C
m
u
g
u
g
(11.9)
with u
g
=
u
g
Q
. The steady gust derivatives C

X
u
g
, C
Z
u
g
and C
m
u
g
are expressed in terms
of stability derivatives, see also reference [30], while the unsteady gust derivatives with
respect to

u
g
c
Q
, that is C
X
u
g
, C
Z
u
g
and C
m
u
g
, are neglected for the DUT-model. The gust
derivatives with respect to the non-dimensional gust velocity component u
g
are dened
as,
C
X
u
g
= C
X
u
C
Z
u
g
= C
Z
u
C
m
u
g
= C
m
u
_
_
(11.10)
with C
X
u
, C
Z
u
and C
m
u
the aircrafts stability derivatives.
11.3.2 1D Asymmetrical lateral gust elds
For the 1D asymmetrical gust elds, the lateral gust velocity component v
g
is considered
only. According to the DUT-model, for the linearized aircraft model the aerodynamic
force and moments coecients are given as, see also references [33, 34, 30],
C
Y
g
= C
Y
g
+C
Y
g
b
Q
(11.11)
C
g
= C
g
+C
g
b
Q
(11.12)
C
n
g
= C
n
g
+C
n
g
b
Q
(11.13)
with
g
=
v
g
Q
and

g
=
v
g
Q
. The gust derivatives C

Y
g
, C
Y
g
, C
g
, C
g
, C
n
g
and C
n
g
are expressed in terms of stability derivatives, see also reference [30]. The asymmetrical
gust derivative C
Y
g
is written as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
+
1
2
C
Y
r
(11.14)
with C
Y
and C
Y
r
the stability derivatives. It should be remarked, that only the contri-
bution of the vertical tailplane to C
Y
r
is taken into account.
In summary, the DUT-models 1D lateral gust derivatives are dened as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
g
= C
C
n
g
= C
n
_
(11.15)
with C
Y
, C
and C
n
the stability derivatives. The unsteady gust derivatives with

respect to the time derivative of the non-dimensional gust velocity component
g
, written
as

g
b
Q
, are dened as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
+
1
2
C
Y
r
v
C
g
= C
+
1
2
C
r
v
C
n
g
= C
n
+
1
2
C
n
r
v
_
_
(11.16)
with C
Y
, C
, C
n
, C
Y
r
, C
r
and C
n
r
the aircrafts stability derivatives (with the subscript
v denoting the vertical tailplanes contribution to the stability derivative). Since the
derivation of these unsteady gust derivatives is not always provided in the literature, it is
given in the following denition using a frequency-domain approach.
Denition 11.1 The denition of the constant unsteady gust derivatives with respect to
asymmetrical 1D lateral gusts
g
=
v
g
Q
according to equation (11.16), holds for wing-

fuselage/vertical stabilizer congurations only. These unsteady gust derivatives only de-
pend on vertical-tailplane contributions.
Derivation
In the following the denition of both the steady and unsteady gust derivatives, C
Y
g
and C
Y
g
,
respectively, will be derived. This derivation is representative for the calculation of the steady gust
derivatives C
g
and C
n
g
, and for the unsteady gust derivatives C
g
and C
n
g
.
For the derivation of the unsteady gust derivatives with respect to asymmetrical 1D lateral gust inputs,
the denition of both the steady and unsteady stability derivatives has to be determined rst.
For example, consider the aerodynamic force response along the Y
S
-axis of the Stability Frame of
Reference F
S
of a wing-fuselage-vertical-n conguration to a steady swaying aircraft motion, see
also gure 11.1. In this gure the swaying motion is given in terms of the steady side-slip-angle ,
with the wing-fuselage combination inducing a sidewash, given as . The vertical tailplanes perceived
angle-of-attack (see also reference [29]) is dened as
v
= (). The minus sign in the expression
for
v
is due to the sign convention used for the normal force gradient of the vertical tailplane C
Y
v
.
The perceived angle-of-attack
v
is the local angle-of-attack of the vertical tailplane measured in
the X
S
OY
S
-plane and counted positive if the airow hits the tailplane from the left, see also gure
11.1. For the present analysis, it is assumed that the positions of the aerodynamic center of the
wing/fuselage conguration and the center of gravity coincide.
For the derivation of the steady and unsteady stability derivatives, the aerodynamic force along the
Y
S
-axis of the frame F
S
, is written as,
Y = C
Y
w+f
1
2
Q
2
S +C
Y
v
1
2
Q
2
v
S
v

v
or in non-dimensional form with C
Y
=
Y
1
2
Q
2
S
,
C
Y
= C
Y
w+f
+C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S

v
(11.17)
with Y the dimensional aerodynamic force along the Y
S
-axis in F
S
, air-density, Q
the airspeed,
S the aircrafts (reference) wing surface area, S
v
the aircrafts vertical n surface area, C
Y
w+f
the wing/fuselages aerodynamic stiness term, C
Y
v
the vertical ns aerodynamic stiness term
taken with respect to S
v
, Q
v
the airspeed at the vertical tailplanes aerodynamic center (taken as
Q
v
= Q
), =
v
Q
the side-slip-angle at the aircrafts center of gravity (or, using the assumption
indicated above, at the wing/fuselages aerodynamic center), v the aircraft motions swaying velocity
and
v
the perceived angle-of-attack at the vertical tailplanes aerodynamic center.
Assuming that the sidewash angle is solely induced by the wing/fuselage conguration, while also
assuming that it reaches its maximum value at the center of gravity, for unsteady swaying motions the
perceived angle-of-attack
v
is given by the side-slip-angle and by the sidewash angle reaching the
vertical tailplane after =
l
v
Q
[secs.], with l
v
the vertical tail-length ([m]). In the frequency-domain
the perceived angle-of-attack
v
() is given as,
v
() =
_
e
j
l
v
Q
_
=
_

e
j
l
v
Q
_
=
_
1

e
j
l
v
Q
_
(11.18)
assuming that the sidewash is solely dependent of the side-slip-angle . Substituting equation
(11.18) into equation (11.17), after some elaboration the aerodynamic Frequency-Response Function
(FRF)
C
Y
() is obtained,
C
Y
() = C
Y
w+f
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

e
j
l
v
Q
_
(11.19)
Using a rst-order Taylor polynomial approximation for the time-delay (e
j
1 j), thus
assuming to be small, the aerodynamic FRF given in equation (11.19) becomes,
C
Y
() = C
Y
w+f
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

_
1 j
l
v
Q
__
=
_
C
Y
w+f
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

_
_
_
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
l
v
Q
j
=
_
C
Y
w+f
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

_
_
_
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
l
v
Sb
_
b
Q
j
= C
Y
+C
Y
b
Q
j
with b the wingspan, and,
C
Y
= C
Y
w+f
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

_
(11.20)
and,
C
Y
= C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
l
v
Sb
(11.21)
Similar to the expressions for C
Y
and C
Y
given in equations (11.20) and (11.21), respectively, both

the steady and unsteady stability derivatives C
, C
, C
n
and C
n
are derived.
The following step in obtaining the steady and unsteady gust derivatives, requires the denition of
the stability derivatives with respect to the yaw-rate r. These quasi-steady derivatives are obtained
using the following expression for the vertical tailplanes perceived angle-of-attack given in terms of
the non-dimensional yaw-rate
rb
2Q
v
=
rb
2Q
l
v
b/2
(11.22)
The non-dimensional aerodynamic force coecient C
Y
is now written as,
C
Y
= C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S

v
= C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
rb
2Q
l
v
b/2
from which the stability derivative C
Y
r
is derived,
C
Y
r
= 2 C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
l
v
Sb
(11.23)
Similar expressions are obtained for the stability derivatives C
r
and C
n
r
. Note that only vertical
tailplane contributions to the stability derivatives C
Y
r
, C
r
and C
n
r
were considered.
For the derivation of the steady and unsteady gust derivatives, now consider a discrete 1D lateral gust
g
=
v
g
Q
coming from the right, see gure 11.2 (see also chapter 5 for the denition of the positive
direction of the lateral gust velocity component v
g
in the frame F
S
). Upon reaching the wing/fuselage
congurations aerodynamic center (with its position assumed to coincide with the aircrafts center
of gravity) the lateral gust will induce a sidewash which is also denoted by . After an instant in
time , equalling =
l
v
Q
[secs.], the sidewash reaches the vertical tailplane causing a change in

the aerodynamic force on it. The lateral gust in itself will reach the vertical tailplane after an equal
amount of time. The aerodynamic force along the Y
S
S
is now written as Y
g
, or,
Y
g
= C
Y
w+f
1
2
Q
2
S
g
C
Y
v
1
2
Q
2
v
S
v

v
g
while in non-dimensional form the aerodynamic force coecient along the Y
S
S
is
written as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
w+f
g
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S

v
g
with C
Y
g
=
Y
g
1
2
Q
2
S
the lateral gust induced non-dimensional aerodynamic force coecient in F
S
,
g
=
v
g
Q
the lateral gust-induced side-slip-angle at the center of gravity (or, using the assumption
indicated above, at the wing/fuselage conguration aerodynamic center) and
v
g
the lateral gust-
induced side-slip-angle at the vertical tailplane aerodynamic center. For the frequency-domain the
latter becomes,
v
g
() =
g
e
j
e
j
g
=
_
1

_
e
j
g
=
_
1

_
e
j
l
v
Q

g
with the circular frequency given in [Rad/sec.].
The aerodynamic force coecient C
Y
g
is now written as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
w+f
g
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

_
e
j
l
v
Q

g
The aerodynamic FRF
C
Y
g
g
() is dened as,
C
Y
g
g
() = C
Y
w+f
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

_
e
j
l
v
Q
Similar to the derivation of the stability derivatives, this aerodynamic FRF is now expanded using a
rst-order Taylor polynomial approximation for the time-delay,
C
Y
g
g
() = C
Y
w+f
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

__
1 j
l
v
Q
_
=
_
C
Y
w+f
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

_
_
+
_
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

_
_
l
v
Q
j
=
_
C
Y
w+f
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

_
_
+
_
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
l
v
Sb
_
1

_
_
b
Q
j
= C
Y
g
+C
Y
g
b
Q
j
with,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
= C
Y
w+f
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
S
_
1

_
and,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
l
v
Sb
_
1

_
= C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
l
v
Sb
C
Y
v
_
Q
v
Q
_
2
S
v
l
v
Sb
=
1
2
C
Y
r
+C
Y
with the denitions of the stability derivative C

Y
and C
Y
r
according to equations (11.21) and (11.23),
respectively, which are the theoretical vertical tailplane contributions to the stability derivatives C
Y
and C
Y
r
, see also reference [29].
Similar expressions for the gust derivatives for the aerodynamic moments along the X
S
-
axis and Z
S
-axis of T
S
are obtained.
In this derivation of the DUT-models steady and unsteady gust derivatives only a wing-
fuselage/vertical tailplane conguration has been considered. Also, all aircraft parts aero-
dynamics were considered steady, that is only aerodynamic stiness terms were used in all
derivations. Furthermore, no aerodynamic interference eects have been included in the
gust derivatives derivations.
11.3.3 1D Symmetrical vertical gust elds
The aerodynamic forces and moment coecients with respect to the vertical gust velocity
component w
g
are given as (see references [33, 34, 30]),
C
X
g
= C
X
g
+C
X

g

g
c
Q
(11.24)
C
Z
g
= C
Z
g
+C
Z

g

g
c
Q
(11.25)
PSfrag replacements
Q
Q
local
l
v
aerodynamic center
X
S
Y
S
(> 0)
(> 0)
=
v
v
= ( )
Figure 11.1: Relation between the side-slip-angle , the sidewash-angle and the vertical
tailplane angle-of-attack
v
.
PSfrag replacements
Q
Q
local
l
v
aerodynamic center
X
S
Y
S
v
g
(t) (> 0)
v
g
(t
lv
Q
) (> 0)
(> 0)
vg
(t)
vg(t
lv
Q
)
Q
(t
lv
Q
)
Figure 11.2: Denition of the vertical tailplane side-slip-angle
v
g
due to the 1D lateral atmo-
spheric turbulence velocity component v
g
.
C
m
g
= C
m
g
+C
m

g

g
c
Q
(11.26)
with
g
=
w
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
. Both the steady and unsteady gust derivatives C

X
g
, C
X

g
,
C
Z
g
, C
Z

g
, C
m
g
, C
m

g
, are expressed in terms of stability derivatives, see also reference
[30]. For the DUT-model, the gust derivatives with respect to the non-dimensional gust
velocity component
g
=
w
g
Q
are dened as,

C
X
g
= C
X
C
Z
g
= C
Z
C
m
g
= C
m
_
(11.27)
with C
X
, C
Z
and C
m
the stability derivatives. The gust derivatives with respect to

the time derivative of the non-dimensional gust velocity component
g
, written as

g
c
Q
,
are dened as,
C
X

g
= C
X

C
X
q
C
Z

g
= C
Z

C
Z
q
C
m

g
= C
m

C
m
q
_
_
(11.28)
with C
X

, C
Z

, C
m

, C
X
q
, C
Z
q
and C
m
q
the aircrafts stability derivatives. Although the
denition of the unsteady gust derivatives given in equations (11.28) are used for complete
aircraft congurations, see reference [30], they actually only hold for wing-stabilizer con-
gurations. Since the derivation of these unsteady derivatives is also not always provided
in the literature, it is given in the following denition using a frequency-domain approach.
Denition 11.2 The denition of the constant unsteady gust derivatives with respect to
symmetrical 1D vertical gusts
g
=
w
g
Q
according to equation (11.28), holds for wing-

stabilizer congurations only. These unsteady gust derivatives only depend on horizontal
tailplane contributions.
Derivation
In the following the denition of both the steady and unsteady gust derivatives C
Z
g
and C
Z

g
,
respectively, will be derived. This derivation is representative for the steady gust derivatives C
X
g
and C
m
g
, and for the unsteady gust derivatives C
X

g
and C
m

g
.
For the derivation of the unsteady gust derivatives with respect to symmetrical 1D vertical gust inputs,
the denition of both the steady and unsteady stability derivatives has to be determined rst.
Similar to the derivation of the asymmetrical stability derivatives, now, for example, consider the
aerodynamic force response along the Z
S
S
of a wing-stabilizer conguration to
a steady heaving aircraft motion, see also gure 11.3. The heaving motion is given in terms of the
steady angle-of-attack . In this case, the wing induces a downwash, given as , at the horizontal
tailplane. The horizontal tailplanes perceived angle-of-attack (see also reference [29]) is dened as
h
= +i
h
, with i
h
the horizontal stabilizers inclination (which is set to zero, i
h
= 0 [
o
]). The
tailplanes perceived (or local) angle-of-attack
h
is measured in the X
S
OZ
S
-plane and counted as
positive if the airow hits this tailplane from the bottom, see also gure 11.3. For the present analysis,
it is assumed that the positions of the aerodynamic center of the wing and the center of gravity coincide.
For the derivation of the steady and unsteady stability derivatives, the aerodynamic force along the
Z
S
S
is written as,
Z = C
Z
w
1
2
Q
2
S +C
Z
h
1
2
Q
2
h
S
h

h
or in non-dimensional form,
C
Z
= C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S

h
(11.29)
with C
Z
=
Z
1
2
Q
2
S
, Z the dimensional aerodynamic force in F
S
, air-density, Q
the airspeed,
S the (reference) wing surface area, S
h
the horizontal tailplane surface area, C
Z
w
the wing aero-
dynamic stiness term, C
Z
h
the horizontal stabilizer aerodynamic stiness term taken with respect
to S
h
, Q
h
the airspeed at the horizontal tailplane aerodynamic center (similar to Q
v
, taken as
Q
h
= Q
), =
w
Q
the angle-of-attack at the aircraft center of gravity (or, using the assumption
indicated above, at the wing aerodynamic center), w the aircraft motion heaving velocity and
h
the
perceived angle-of-attack at the horizontal tailplane aerodynamic center.
Assuming that the downwash angle is solely induced by the wing, while also assuming that it reaches
its maximum value at the center of gravity, for unsteady heaving motions the perceived angle-of-attack
h
is given in terms of the angle-of-attack and the downwash angle reaching the horizontal tailplane
after =
l
h
Q
[secs.], with l
h
the horizontal tail-length (given in [m]). In the frequency-domain the
perceived angle-of-attack
h
() is given as,
h
() = e
j
l
h
Q
e
j
l
h
Q
=
_
1

e
j
l
h
Q
_
(11.30)
assuming that the downwash angle is solely dependent of the angle-of-attack . Substituting
equation (11.30) into equation (11.29), yields after some elaboration the aerodynamic Frequency-
Response Function (FRF)
C
Z
() is obtained,
C
Z
() = C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

e
j
l
h
Q
_
(11.31)
Similar to the derivation of the asymmetrical steady and unsteady stability derivatives with respect to
swaying motions, a rst-order Taylor polynomial approximation is used for the time-delay (e
j
1 j). The aerodynamic FRF given in equation (11.31) becomes,

C
Z
() = C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

_
1 j
l
h
Q
__
=
_
C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

_
_
+
_
C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
l
h
Q
j
=
_
C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

_
_
+
_
C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
l
h
S c
_
c
Q
j
= C
Z
+C
Z

c
Q
j
with c the mean aerodynamic chord, and,
C
Z
= C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

_
(11.32)
and,
C
Z

= C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
l
h
S c
(11.33)
Similar to the expressions for C
Z
and C
Z

given in equations (11.32) and (11.33), respectively, both
the steady and unsteady stability derivatives C
X
, C
X

, C
m
and C
m

are derived.
The following step in obtaining the steady and unsteady gust derivatives is the denition of the
stability derivatives with respect to the pitch-rate q. Similar to the yaw derivatives, these quasi-
steady derivatives are obtained using the following expression for the horizontal tailplane perceived
angle-of-attack given in terms of the non-dimensional pitch-rate
q c
Q
h
=
q c
Q
l
h
c
(11.34)
The non-dimensional aerodynamic force coecient C
Z
is now written as,
C
Z
= C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S

h
= C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
q c
Q
l
h
c
from which the stability derivative C
Z
q
follows,
C
Z
q
= C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
l
h
S c
(11.35)
Similar expressions are obtained for the stability derivatives C
X
q
and C
m
q
. Note that only horizontal
tailplane contributions to the stability derivatives C
X
q
, C
Z
q
and C
m
q
were considered.
For the derivation of the steady and unsteady gust derivatives, now consider a wing-stabilizer cong-
uration with the aerodynamic stiness terms given as C
Z
w
and C
Z
h
for the wing and horizontal
stabilizer, respectively. Also consider a discrete symmetrical vertical gust
g
=
w
g
Q
. This gust reaches

the wing rst resulting in an increase of (for example) the aerodynamic force coecient C
Z
g
. Upon
reaching the wing, the vertical gust will induce a change in the downwash angle . After an instant
in time , equalling =
l
h
Q
[secs.] with l
h
the horizontal tail-length and Q
the airspeed, the

downwash reaches the horizontal tailplane causing a change in the aerodynamic force on it, see also
gure 11.4. The vertical gust in itself will reach the horizontal tailplane after an equal amount of
time. Also for this analysis it is assumed that the positions of the aerodynamic center of the wing and
the center of gravity coincide. The aerodynamic force along the Z
S
-axis of F
S
is written as,
Z
g
= C
Z
w
1
2
Q
2
S
g
+C
Z
h
1
2
Q
2
h
S
h

h
g
with Z
g
the vertical gusts induced dimensional aerodynamic force in F
S
and
h
g
the vertical gust-
induced angle-of-attack at the horizontal tailplanes aerodynamic center. For the frequency-domain
the latter is written as,
h
g
() =
g
e
j
e
j
g
=
_
1

_
e
j
g
=
_
1

_
e
j
l
h
Q

g
with the circular frequency given in [Rad/sec.]. The non-dimensional aerodynamic force along the
Z
S
S
is now written as, with C
Z
g
=
Z
g
1
2
Q
2
S
,
C
Z
g
() = C
Z
g
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

_
e
j
l
h
Q

g
and the aerodynamic FRF
C
Z
g
g
() dened as,
C
Z
g
g
() = C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

_
e
j
l
h
Q
Similar to the derivation of the steady and unsteady stability derivatives, this aerodynamic FRF is now
expanded using a rst-order Taylor polynomial approximation for the time-delay (e
j
1 j),
that is,
C
Z
g
g
() = C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

_
_
1 j
l
h
Q
_
= C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

_
l
h
Q
j
=
_
C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

_
_
+
_
C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
l
h
S c
_
1

_
_
c
Q
j
= C
Z
g
+C
Z

g
c
Q
j
with c the mean aerodynamic chord, and,
C
Z
g
= C
Z
= C
Z
w
+C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
S
_
1

_
and,
C
Z

g
= C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
l
h
S c
_
1

_
= C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
l
h
S c
C
Z
h
_
Q
h
Q
_
2
S
h
l
h
S c
= C
Z

C
Z
q
PSfrag replacements
Q
Q
local
l
h
aerodynamic center
X
S
Z
S
(> 0)
(> 0)

h
= (> 0)
h
=
Figure 11.3: Relation between the angle-of-attack , the downwash angle and the horizontal
tailplanes angle-of-attack
h
(with the horizontal stabilizer angle of incidence i
h
=
0 [
o
]).
with the denitions of the stability derivative C
Z

and C
Z
q
according to equations (11.33) and (11.35),
respectively, which are the theoretical horizontal tailplane contributions to the stability derivatives C
Z

and C
Z
q
, see also reference [29].
Similar expressions for the gust derivatives for the aerodynamic force along the X
S
-axis
and the aerodynamic moment about the Y
S
-axis are obtained, see also equation (11.28 ).
In this derivation of the DUT-models steady and unsteady gust derivatives only a wing-
horizontal tailplane conguration has been considered. Also, both the wing and horizontal
tailplanes aerodynamics were considered steady, that is only aerodynamic stiness terms
were used in all derivations. Furthermore, no aerodynamic interference eects have been
included in the gust derivatives derivations. Finally, similar to the derivation of the
unsteady gust derivatives with respect to 1D lateral gusts, the aerodynamic forces and
moment are linearized using a rst-order Taylor polynomial approximation for the time-
delay.
11.3.4 2D Anti-symmetrical longitudinal gust elds
For the 2D anti-symmetrical gust elds, in this section the 2D anti-symmetrical gust
velocity component u
g
is considered. The asymmetrical aerodynamic force and moments
caused by these gust elds will be discussed here.
PSfrag replacements
Q
Q
local
l
h
aerodynamic center
X
S
Z
S
w
g
(t) (> 0)
w
g
(t
lh
Q
) (> 0)
(> 0)
hg
(t)
wg(t
l
h
Q
)
Q
(t
l
h
Q
)
Figure 11.4: Denition of the horizontal tailplane angle-of-attack
h
g
due to the 1D vertical
atmospheric turbulence velocity component w
g
(with the horizontal stabilizer angle
of incidence i
h
= 0 [
o
]).
For the derivation of the asymmetrical aerodynamic force and moments, the longitudinal
2D atmospheric turbulence velocity component u
g
2
(x, y)-eld is used according to equation
(11.4),
u
g
2
(x, y) = u
g
max
sin(
x
x) sin(
y
y)
In the following the 2D longitudinal gust velocity component in the O
E
X
E
Y
E
-plane
(Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference T
E
) will be referred to as u
g
(x, y). Omitting the in-
dex 2 of the anti-symmetrical gust eld u
g
2
(x, y), it is written as,
u
g
(x, y) = u
g
sin(
y
y) (11.36)
with,
u
g
= u
g
max
sin(
x
x)
and
x
E
-axis,
y
E
-
axis, x and y the positions in the frame T
E
and u
g
max
the 2D longitudinal gust eld
amplitude.
Due to variations of u
g
(x, y) along the Y
E
-axis, both a rolling- and yawing moment will
act on the aircraft, see also gure 11.5. For the derivation of the DUT-models aerody-
namic moments, only the wings contribution to the aerodynamic rolling moment L
g
and
the aerodynamic yawing moment N
g
along the X
S
- and the Z
S
S
,
respectively, will be taken into account. The aerodynamic sideforce Y
g
along the Y
S
-axis
of the frame T
S
due to the atmospheric turbulence velocity component u
g
(x, y) is assumed
negligible in the current model.
The calculation of, for example, the rolling moment coecient C
g
is based on the as-
sumption that the additional lift due to the considered atmospheric turbulence velocity
component can be determined by means of strip-theory. A wings chordwise strip of width
dy at a distance y from the plane of symmetry contributes to the increment of the rolling
moment according to, see also gure 11.5,
dL
g
= c
(y)
1
2
_
[Q
+u
g
(x, y)]
2
Q
2
_
c(y) y dy
= c
(y)
1
2
_
2u
g
(x, y) Q
+ (u
g
(x, y))
2
_
c(y) y dy (11.37)
with c
(y) the aerofoil lift-coecient, c(y) the aerofoil chord-length, air-density, and y
the distance taken from the aircraft plane of symmetry in T
S
.
Assuming that (u
g
(x, y))
2
is suciently small (that is [u
g
(x, y)[ << [Q
[), and using

equation (11.36), after some elaboration equation (11.37) becomes,
dL
g
= c
(y) Q
g
sin(
y
y) c(y) y dy
The rolling moment L
g
due to the 2D gust eld u
g
(x, y) becomes,
L
g
=
b
2
_
b
2
dL
g
= 2
b
2
_
0
dL
g
= 2Q
g
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy
The rolling moment is now given in terms of the non-dimensional coecient C
g
,
C
g
=
L
g
1
2
Q
2
Sb
=
4
Sb
u
g
Q
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy
Next, the non-dimensional rolling moment coecient C
g
, using the gust derivative C
u
g
(
y
b
2
),
is written as,
C
g
= C
u
g
(
y
b
2
) u
g
(11.38)
with,
u
g
=
u
g
Q
and,
C
u
g
(
y
b
2
) =
4
Sb
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy (11.39)
For suciently small values of
y
b
2
, that is for large spatial wave lengths of u
g
(x, y) along
the Y
E
/Y
S
-axes, the gust velocity u
g
(x, y) varies approximately linear along the wingspan.
For these small values of
y
b
2
, u
g
(x, y) can be approximated by replacing sin(
y
y) by
y
y,
u
g
(x, y) = u
g

y
y
This gust velocity distribution corresponds to the additional velocity due to a constant
yaw-rate r, or,
u = ry
When further elaborating the expression for C
u
g
, use is made of this similarity. The
rolling moment acting on the wing due to a constant yaw-rate r can also be calculated by
means of strip-theory. Due to a yawing motion, a wing element of width dy located at a
distance y from the plane of symmetry contributes to the increment of the rolling moment
according to,
dL = c
(y)
1
2
_
[Q
+ u]
2
Q
2
_
c(y) y dy
= c
(y)
1
2
_
2u Q
+ (u)
2
_
c(y) y dy (11.40)
or with u = ry, and assuming u << Q
resulting in (u)
2
0 (thus assuming
small yaw-rates),
dL = c
(y)
1
2
2Q
ry c(y) y dy = c
(y) Q
r c(y) y
2
dy
The total rolling moment acting on the wing due to a yawing motion becomes,
L =
b
2
_
b
2
dL = 2
b
2
_
0
dL = 2Q
r
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) y
2
dy = C
r
w
rb
2Q
1
2
Q
2
Sb
or for the rolling moment coecient C
=
L
1
2
Q
2
Sb
,
C
=
2Q
r
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) y
2
dy
1
2
Q
2
Sb
= C
r
w
rb
2Q
with, after some elaboration, the contribution of the wing to the stability derivative C
r
,
C
r
w
=
8
Sb
2
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) y
2
dy (11.41)
The expression given in equation (11.41) for C
r
w
is now related to C
u
g
given in equation
(11.39), or,
C
u
g
(
y
b
2
) = C
r
w
b
2
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) y
2
dy
Introducing the non-dimensional function h(
y
b
2
) according to,
h(
y
b
2
) =
b
2
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) y
2
dy
(11.42)
the aerodynamic moment coecient C
u
g
is written as,
C
u
g
(
y
b
2
) = C
r
w
h(
y
b
2
) (11.43)
According to reference [30], in an identical manner the aerodynamic moment along the
Z
S
S
acting on the wing due to the longitudinal gust velocity u
g
(x, y)
is derived. This moment is written as,
N
g
= C
n
g
1
2
Q
2
Sb
with,
C
n
g
= C
n
u
g
(
y
b
2
) u
g
and,
C
n
u
g
(
y
b
2
) = C
n
r
w
h(
y
b
2
) (11.44)
with h(
y
b
2
) supposedly according to equation (11.42), and,
C
n
r
w
=
8
Sb
2
b
2
_
0
c
d
(y) c(y) y
2
dy (11.45)
However, when deriving the gust derivative C
n
g
= C
n
u
g
(
y
b
2
), while following the same
lines of derivation for the gust derivative C
g
= C
u
g
(
y
b
2
), contary to reference [30] it has
to be concluded that the expression for the function h(
y
b
2
) should equal,
h(
y
b
2
) =
b
2
b
2
_
0
c
d
(y) c(y) sin(
y
y) y dy
b
2
_
0
c
d
(y) c(y) y
2
dy
(11.46)
with c
d
(y) the aerofoil drag-coecient (see also gure 11.5). Since the denition of the
non-dimensional function h(
y
b
2
) is inconclusive in reference [30], its denition accor-
ding to reference [34] will be used throughout this thesis. Following this reference, the
approximation of equation (11.42) is written as,
h(
y
b
2
) =
b
2
b
2
_
0
sin(
y
y) y dy
b
2
_
0
y
2
dy
(11.47)
which in closed form becomes, see reference [34],
h(
y
b
2
) = 3
sin
_
y
b
2
_
y
b
2
_
cos
_
y
b
2
_
_
y
b
2
_
2
(11.48)
According to reference [34] the motivation for using the approximation of h(
y
b
2
) (as
given in equation (11.47)) follows from the assumption that for small
y
values the c
c-
distribution has a neglible eect on it. However, no comments are made on the validity of
equation (11.47) with respect to c
d
c-distributions.
In the following section the gust derivatives with respect to the 2D vertical gust velocity
component w
g
are given. In this section other denitions of the function h(
y
b
2
) will be
discussed.
11.3.5 2D Anti-symmetrical vertical gust elds
For the 2D anti-symmetrical gust elds, in this section the 2D anti-symmetrical gust veloc-
ity component w
g
is considered. Similar to section 11.3.4, the asymmetrical aerodynamic
force and moments caused by these gust elds will be discussed here.
For the derivation of the asymmetrical aerodynamic force and moments, the vertical 2D
atmospheric turbulence velocity component w
g
2
(x, y)-eld is used according to equation
(11.6), or,
w
g
2
(x, y) = w
g
max
sin(
x
x) sin(
y
y)
Similar to the denition of u
g
(x, y), in the following the 2D vertical gust velocity compo-
nent in the O
E
X
E
Y
E
-plane will be referred to as w
g
(x, y). Omitting the index 2 of the
anti-symmetrical gust eld w
g
2
(x, y), it is written as,
w
g
(x, y) = w
g
sin (
y
y) (11.49)
with,
w
g
= w
g
max
sin (
x
x)
and
x
E
-axis,
y
E
-
axis, x and y the positions in T
E
and w
g
max
the 2D vertical gust eld amplitude.
PSfrag replacements
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
u
g
(x, y)
w
g
(x, y)
c
(y)
c
d
(y)
y
dy
c(y)
Q
Figure 11.5: The contribution to the rolling- and yawing moment of a right-hand wing chord-wise
strip, due to 2D longitudinal (u
g
(x, y)) and due to 2D vertical (w
g
(x, y)) gusts.
Due to variations of w
g
(x, y) along the Y
E
-axis, both a rolling- and yawing moment will
act on the aircraft, see also gure 11.5. Although the 2D vertical anti-symmetrical gust is
given as w
g
(x, y) in gure 11.5, in the following the non-dimensional gust-induced angle-
of-attack
g
(x, y) =
w
g
(x,y)
Q
is used.
Similar to the derivation of the aerodynamic force and moments due to the 2D anti-
symmetrical longitudinal gust elds u
g
, also in this case the wings contribution to the
aerodynamic rolling moment L
g
and the aerodynamic yawing moment N
g
along the X
S
-
and the Z
S
S
, respectively, will be taken into account only. The
aerodynamic sideforce Y
g
along the Y
S
S
due to the gust-induced
angle-of-attack
g
(x, y) is assumed negligible.
Similar to the rolling moment coecient due to the 2D anti-symmetrical longitudinal
gust elds, the calculation of this coecient due to 2D anti-symmetrical vertical gust
elds is based on the assumption that the additional lift due to the vertical gust velocity
component can be determined by means of strip-theory. A wing chordwise strip of width
dy at a distance y from the plane of symmetry contributes to the increment of the rolling
moment according to, see also gure 11.5,
dL
g
= c
(y) (
trim
+
g
(x, y)) +c
1
2
Q
2
c(y) y dy
c
(y)
trim
+c
1
2
Q
2
c(y) y dy
= c
(y)
g
(x, y)
1
2
Q
2
c(y) y dy (11.50)
with c
(y) the aerofoil lift-curve slope,

trim
the angle-of-attack during steady ight, c
0
the aerofoil lift-coecient for zero angle-of-attack, c(y) the local aerofoil chord-length,
air-density, Q
the airspeed and y the distance taken from the aircrafts plane of symmetry
in the frame T
S
.
Using equation (11.49), after some elaboration equation (11.50) becomes,
dL
g
= c
(y)
g
sin(
y
y)
1
2
Q
2
c(y) y dy
with
g
=
w
g
max
Q
sin(
x
x).
The rolling moment L
g
due to the 2D gust eld, given as
g
(x, y), becomes,
L
g
=
b
2
_
b
2
dL
g
= 2
b
2
_
0
dL
g
= Q
2
g
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy
and it is now given in terms of the non-dimensional coecient C
g
,
C
g
=
L
g
1
2
Q
2
Sb
=
2
Sb

g
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy
Next, the non-dimensional rolling moment coecient C
g
, using the gust derivative C
g
(
y
b
2
),
is written as,
C
g
= C
g
(
y
b
2
)
g
(11.51)
with,
C
g
(
y
b
2
) =
2
Sb
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy (11.52)
For suciently small values of
y
b
2
, that is for large spatial wave lengths of
g
(x, y)
along the Y
E
/Y
S
-axes, the gust-induced angle-of-attack
g
(x, y) varies approximately lin-
ear along the wingspan. For these small values of
y
b
2
,
g
(x, y) can be approximated by
replacing sin(
y
y) by
y
y,
g
(x, y) =
g

y
y
This angle-of-attack distribution corresponds to the additional angle-of-attack due to a
constant roll-rate p, or,
=
py
Q
When further elaborating the expression for C
g
, use is made of this similarity. The
rolling moment acting on the wing due to a constant roll-rate p can also be calculated by
means of strip-theory. Due to a rolling motion, a wing element of width dy located at a
distance y from the plane of symmetry contributes to the increment of the rolling moment
according to,
dL = c
(y) (
trim
+ ) +c
1
2
Q
2
c(y) y dy
c
(y)
trim
+c
1
2
Q
2
c(y) y dy
= c
(y)
1
2
Q
2
c(y) y dy (11.53)
or with =
py
Q
,
dL = c
(y)
1
2
Q
2
py
Q
c(y) y dy
The total rolling moment acting on the wing due to a rolling motion becomes,
L =
b
2
_
b
2
dL = 2
b
2
_
0
dL = 2
1
2
Q
2
p
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) y
2
dy = C
p
w
pb
2Q
1
2
Q
2
Sb
or for the rolling moment coecient C
=
L
1
2
Q
2
Sb
,
C
=
Q
2
p
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) y
2
dy
1
2
Q
2
Sb
= C
p
w
pb
2Q
with, after some elaboration, the wings contribution to the stability derivative C
p
be-
comes,
C
p
w
=
4
Sb
2
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) y
2
dy (11.54)
The expression given in equation (11.54) for C
p
w
is now related to C
g
given in equation
(11.52), or,
C
g
(
y
b
2
) = C
p
w
b
2
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) y
2
dy
With the non-dimensional function h(
y
b
2
) according to,
h(
y
b
2
) =
b
2
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy
b
2
_
0
c
(y) c(y) y
2
dy
(11.55)
the aerodynamic moment coecient C
g
is written as,
C
g
(
y
b
2
) = C
p
w
h(
y
b
2
) (11.56)
Similar to the denition of C
u
g
, according to reference [30] in an identical manner the
aerodynamic yawing moment along the Z
S
S
acting on the wing due
to the vertical gust velocity induced angle-of-attack
g
(x, y) is derived. This moment is
written as,
N
g
= C
n
g
1
2
Q
2
Sb
with,
C
n
g
= C
n
g
(
y
b
2
)
g
and,
C
n
g
(
y
b
2
) = C
n
p
w
h(
y
b
2
) (11.57)
and,
C
n
p
w
=
4
Sb
2
b
2
_
0
c
d
(y) c(y) y
2
dy (11.58)
When deriving the gust derivative C
n
g
= C
n
g
(
y
b
2
), while following the same lines of
derivation for the gust derivative C
g
= C
g
(
y
b
2
), the expression for the function h(
y
b
2
)
now equals,
h(
y
b
2
) =
b
2
b
2
_
0
c
d
(y) c(y) sin(

y
y) y dy
b
2
_
0
c
d
(y) c(y) y
2
dy
(11.59)
with c
d
(y) the aerofoil drag-coecient (see also gure 11.5).

Since the denition of the non-dimensional function h(
y
b
2
) in reference [30] is also in-
conclusive with respect to the derivation of the gust derivatives with respect to 2D anti-
symmetrical vertical gusts, its denition according to reference [34] given in equation
(11.47) will be used throughout this thesis.
11.4 The atmospheric turbulence PSD-functions
11.4.1 1D gust elds
The PSD-functions for the 1D atmospheric turbulence velocity components u
g
, v
g
and w
g
are given in chapter 2. They are given here as a function of the spatial frequency
x
(or
in chapter 2 given as
1
), see also reference [30].
In appendix H similar PSD-functions are given for use in conjunction with the aircraft
equations of motion. These functions now, however, are given for the non-dimensional
gust inputs u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
, while they are also given as a function of

the circular frequency =
x
Q
[Rad/sec], with
x
=

Q
the spatial frequency along

the X
E
E
.
As a function of the circular frequency , the PSD-functions are summarized as,
S
u
g
u
g
() = 2
2
L
g
Q
1
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
(11.60)
S
g
() =
2
L
g
Q
1 + 3
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_
2
(11.61)
S
g
() =
2
L
g
Q
1 + 3
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_
2
(11.62)
for the non-dimensional gust velocity components u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
,
respectively, with
2
=
1
Q
2
.
11.4.2 2D gust elds
Similar to the PSD-functions for the 1D atmospheric turbulence velocity components,
for the 2D atmospheric turbulence velocity components u
g
, v
g
and w
g
these functions
are also given in chapter 2. They are given as a function of the spatial frequencies
x
and
y
(or in chapter 2 given as
1
and
2
, respectively), see also reference [30]. As a
function of the non-dimensional spatial frequencies
x
L
g
and
y
L
g
the 2D PSD-functions
are summarized as,
S
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
2
u
g
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+ 4
2
y
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
5/2
(11.63)
S
v
g
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
2
v
g
1 + 4
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
5/2
(11.64)
11.4 The atmospheric turbulence PSD-functions 271
S
w
g
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) = 3
2
w
g
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
5/2
(11.65)
for the atmospheric turbulence velocity components u
g
, v
g
and w
g
, respectively, and with
2
u
g
=
2
v
g
=
2
w
g
the atmospheric turbulence variance (given in [m
2
/s
2
]) and with L
g
the
atmospheric turbulence scale length (in [m]).
Also similar to the 1D PSD-functions, in appendix H these functions are given for use
in conjunction with the aircraft equations of motion. They are summarized for the non-
dimensional gust inputs u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
, while they are also given as

a function of the circular frequency =
x
Q
[Rad/sec] and the spatial frequency

y
along the Y
E
E
. Similar to the 2D PSD-functions given in equations
(11.63), (11.64) and (11.65), these functions are shown in equations (H.1), (H.2) and
(H.3), respectively. For the sake of completeness, for the non-dimensional gust velocity
components u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
these PSD-functions are summarized as,

S
u
g
u
g
(,
y
) =
2
L
2
g
Q
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ 4 (
y
L
g
)
2
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
5/2
(11.66)
S
g
(,
y
) =
2
L
2
g
Q
1 + 4
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
5/2
(11.67)
and,
S
g
(,
y
) = 3
2
L
2
g
Q
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
5/2
(11.68)
respectively, with
2
=
1
Q
2
.
For the DUT-model the cross PSD-function according to equation (H.4) is not considered,
thus neglecting the correlation between the 2D atmospheric turbulence velocity compo-
nents u
g
and v
g
.
11.4.3 Eective 1D PSD-functions for 2D gust elds
In section 11.3 the aerodynamic moment coecients with respect to the 2D anti-symmetrical
gust elds u
g
and w
g
have been derived. It was shown that the aerodynamic moments
C
g
and C
n
g
are dependent of the spatial frequencies
x
and
y
.
In the expressions given in section 11.3, only
x
can directly be related to time; an
aircraft traveling with an airspeed Q
through an elementary eld of turbulent ow with

the spatial frequency
x
undergoes the changes of u
g
, v
g
and w
g
with a circular frequency
, that is,
=
x
Q
The inuence of the spatial frequency

y
on the aerodynamic coecients C
g
and C
n
g
is now given in more detail for both the anti-symmetrical u
g
- and w
g
gust elds. As an
example the aerodynamic rolling moment due to u
g
(x, y) is considered here.
In the turbulent atmosphere all values of
y
may be considered to occur simultaneously.
It is possible, however, to evaluate the mean or eective value of the amplitude of C
g
due
to u
g
(x, y) as a function of the spatial frequency
x
. This mean value of C
g
, caused by
the contributions of all values of the spatial frequency
y
, is determined with the aid of
the 2D PSD-function of the gust velocity at a given
x
. Using the aerodynamic moment
coecient according to equation (11.38),
C
g
= C
u
g
(
y
b
2
) u
g
the PSD-function of the aerodynamic moment coecient C
g
is dened as,
S
C
g
C
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
, B) =
_
C
u
g
(
y
b
2
) u
g
_
_
u
g
C
u
g
(
y
b
2
)
_
= C
2
u
g
(
y
b
2
) S
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
with

denoting the complex conjungate, B =
b
2L
g
, S
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) the PSD-function
similar to equation (11.63), however, now with the gust velocity component variance
2
u
g
=

2
u
g
Q
2
. Using equation (11.43) for the coecient C
u
g
(
y
b
2
) and equation (11.63)
for S
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
), the PSD-function for S
C
g
C
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
, B) is written as,
S
C
g
C
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
, B) = C
2
r
w
h
2
(
y
b
2
)
2
u
g
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+ 4
2
y
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
5/2
with the function h(
y
b
2
) given in equations (11.47) and (11.48).
The so-called Eective 1D PSD-function is calculated by integration over all non-dimensional
spatial frequencies
y
L
g
,
S
C
g
C
g
(
x
L
g
, B) =
1
2
S
C
g
C
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
, B) d (
y
L
g
)
=
1
_
0
S
C
g
C
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
, B) d (
y
L
g
) =
or,
S
C
g
C
g
(
x
L
g
, B) =
2
u
g
C
2
r
w
_
0
h
2
(
y
b
2
)
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+ 4
2
y
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
5/2
d(
y
L
g
)
11.4 The atmospheric turbulence PSD-functions 273
This 1D PSD-function is a function of the non-dimensional spatial frequency
x
L
g
and
the non-dimensional parameter B =
b
2Lg
, and it is now written as,
S
C
g
C
g
(
x
L
g
, B) = C
2
r
w
I
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
, B)
with,
I
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
, B) =
2
u
g
_
0
h
2
(
y
b
2
)
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+ 4
2
y
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
5/2
d(
y
L
g
) (11.69)
The term I
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
, B) is considered as an Eective 1D PSD-function for the 2D atmo-
spheric turbulence velocity component u
g
.
Similarly, the PSD-function for the yawing moment coecient due to u
g
can be written
as,
S
C
n
g
C
n
g
(
x
L
g
, B) = C
2
n
r
w
I
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
, B)
Similar to the derivation of the aerodynamic moment coecient PSD-functions
S
C
g
C
g
(
x
L
g
, B) and S
C
n
g
C
n
g
(
x
L
g
, B) due to the atmospheric turbulence velocity com-
ponent u
g
, the corresponding PSD-functions with respect to the vertical gust (w
g
) induced
angle-of-attack
g
are derived. They are summarized as,
S
C
g
C
g
(
x
L
g
, B) = C
2
p
w
I
g
(
x
L
g
, B)
and,
S
C
n
g
C
n
g
(
x
L
g
, B) = C
2
n
p
w
I
g
(
x
L
g
, B)
where the Eective 1D PSD-function I
g
is given as,
I
g
(
x
L
g
, B) = 3
2
_
0
h
2
(
y
b
2
)

2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
5/2
d(
y
L
g
) (11.70)
The Eective PSD-functions I
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
, B) and I
g
(
x
L
g
, B) given in equations (11.69)
and (11.70), respectively, are approximated by the following general expressions (see re-
ference [34]),
I
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
, B) = I
u
g
u
g
(0, B)
1 +
2
3

2
x
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
1

2
x
L
2
g
_ _
1 +
2
2

2
x
L
2
g
_ (11.71)
and,
I
g
(
x
L
g
, B) = I
g
(0, B)
1 +
2
6

2
x
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
4

2
x
L
2
g
_ _
1 +
2
5

2
x
L
2
g
_ (11.72)
respectively. As a function of the circular frequency , equations (11.71) and (11.72) are
given as,
I
u
g
u
g
(, B) =
L
g
Q
I
u
g
u
g
(0, B)
1 +
2
3
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_
1 +
2
1
_
L
g
Q
_
2
__
1 +
2
2
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_ (11.73)
I
g
(, B) =
L
g
Q
g
(0, B)
1 +
2
6
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_
1 +
2
4
_
L
g
Q
_
2
__
1 +
2
5
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_ (11.74)
The parameters I
u
g
u
g
(0, B), I
g
(0, B) and
1
to
6
are obtained using the t procedure
given in appendix E, section E.5. As a function of B =
b
2L
g
, the parameters I
u
g
u
g
(0, B)
and I
g
(0, B) are summarized in table 11.1. Similarly, as a function of B the parameters
1
,
2
and
3
are given in table 11.2, while, the parameters
4
,
5
and
6
are shown in table
11.3.
11.5 Aircraft modeling
11.5.1 Aircraft equations of motion for 1D gust elds
In this section the DUT-model linearized equations of motion are given (see also appendix
I), which make use of the following aerodynamic model for the 1D gust-induced aerody-
namic force and moment coecients,
C
X
g
= C
X
u
g
u
g
+C
X
g
+C
X

g

g
c
Q
(11.75)
C
Z
g
= C
Z
u
g
u
g
+C
Z
g
+C
Z

g

g
c
Q
(11.76)
C
m
g
= C
m
u
g
u
g
+C
m
g
+C
m

g

g
c
Q
(11.77)
and,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
g
+C
Y
g
b
Q
(11.78)
C
g
= C
g
+C
g
b
Q
(11.79)
C
n
g
= C
n
g
+C
n
g
b
Q
(11.80)
for the 1D non-dimensional symmetrical and the 1D non-dimensional asymmetrical gust
elds, respectively.
The equations of motion are written similar to equation (10.20),
P
c
j x = Q
c
x +R
c
u (11.81)
11.5 Aircraft modeling 275
with for the symmetrical equations of motion the matrices P
c
, Q
c
and R
c
equal to,
P
c
s
=
c
Q
_
2
c
0 0 0
0 (C
Z

2
c
) 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 C
m

0 2
c
K
2
Y
_
_
(11.82)
Q
c
s
=
_
_
C
X
u
C
X
C
Z
0
C
X
q
C
Z
u
C
Z
C
X
0

_
C
Z
q
+ 2
c
_
0 0 0 1
C
m
u
C
m
0 C
m
q
_
_
(11.83)
and,
R
c
s
=
_
_
C
X
u
g
C
X
g
C
X

g
C
Z
u
g
C
Z
g
C
Z

g
0 0 0
C
m
u
g
C
m
g
C
m

g
_
_
(11.84)
respectively. In equation (11.81), the aircrafts state and the input are x =
_
u, , ,
q c
Q
_
T
,
and u =
_
u
g
,
g
,

g
c
Q
_
T
, respectively. The denition of all stability- and gust derivatives
is given in appendix I, table I.5. The 1D symmetrical gust derivatives are dened as, see
also section 11.3, C
X
u
g
= C
X
u
, C
Z
u
g
= C
Z
u
, C
m
u
g
= C
m
u
, C
X
g
= C
X
, C
Z
g
= C
Z
,
C
m
g
= C
m
, C
X

g
= C
X

C
X
q
, C
Z

g
= C
Z

C
Z
q
and C
m

g
= C
m

C
m
q
.
Similar to the symmetrical equations of motion, the asymmetrical equations of motion are
written as equation (11.81) with the matrices P
c
, Q
c
and R
c
now according to,
P
c
a
=
b
Q
_
_
C
Y
2
b
_
0 0 0
0
1
2
0 0
C
0 4
b
K
2
X
4
b
K
XZ
C
n
0 4
b
K
XZ
4
b
K
2
Z
_
_
(11.85)
Q
c
a
=
_
_
C
Y
C
L
C
Y
p
(C
Y
r
4
b
)
0 0 1 0
C
0 C
p
C
r
C
n
0 C
n
p
C
n
r
_
_
(11.86)
and,
R
c
a
=
_
_
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
0 0
C
g
C
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
_
_
(11.87)
respectively, with the aircrafts state x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
and the input u =
_
g
,
j
g
b
Q
_
T
,
and the denition of all stability- and gust derivatives given in appendix I, table I.6. The
1D asymmetrical gust derivatives are dened as, see also section 11.3, C
Y
g
= C
Y
, C
g
=
C
, C
n
g
= C
n
, C
Y
g
= C
Y
+
1
2
C
Y
r
v
, C
g
= C
+
1
2
C
r
v
and C
n
g
= C
n
+
1
2
C
n
r
v
.
The 1D PSD-functions for the non-dimensional gust velocity components u
g
and
g
are
summarized in equations (11.60) and (11.62), respectively, while for the non-dimensional
gust velocity component
g
it is given in equation (11.61).
In this section the DUT-model asymmetrical linearized equations of motion are given for
the 2D anti-symmetrical gust elds u
g
and
g
. The non-dimensional aerodynamic force
and moment coecients due to these inputs are written as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
u
g
u
g
+C
Y
g
(11.88)
C
g
= C
u
g
u
g
+C
g
(11.89)
C
n
g
= C
n
u
g
u
g
+C
n
g
(11.90)
For the asymmetrical equations of motion given in equation (11.81), the matrices P
c
, Q
c
are equal to the ones given in equations (11.85) and (11.86), respectively, with the aircraft
state x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
. However, the matrix R
c
is now dened as,
R
c
a
=
_
_
C
Y
u
g
(
y
b
2
) C
Y
g
(
y
b
2
)
0 0
C
u
g
(
y
b
2
) C
g
(
y
b
2
)
C
n
u
g
(
y
b
2
) C
n
g
(
y
b
2
)
_
_
(11.91)
with the input u = [ u
g
,
g
]
T
, and the frequency-dependent gust derivatives C
u
g
(
y
b
2
),
C
n
u
g
(
y
b
2
), C
g
(
y
b
2
) and C
n
g
(
y
b
2
), according to equations (11.43), (11.44), (11.56)
and (11.57), respectively (note that the frequency dependent gust derivatives C
Y
u
g
(
y
b
2
)
and C
Y
g
(
y
b
2
) are set to zero). The equations of motion are then used in conjunction with
the input PSD-functions given in equations (11.66) and (11.68) for the 2D non-dimensional
gust velocity components u
g
and
g
, respectively.
However, for the response to 2D atmospheric turbulence, the DUT-model, in this thesis,
uses constant gust derivatives, see sections 11.3.4 and 11.3.5. For this constant parameter
model the matrix R
c
is dened as,
R
c
a
=
_
_
0 0
0 0
+C
r
w
C
p
w
+C
n
r
w
C
n
p
w
_
_
(11.92)
Given the matrices in equations (11.85), (11.86) and (11.92), they are now used for the
equations of motion dened in equation (11.81). In conjunction with the Eective 1D
11.6 Remarks 277
input PSD-functions given in equations (11.73) and (11.74) for the non-dimensional gust
velocity components u
g
and
g
, respectively, the aircraft responses to these 2D gusts are
calculated.
11.6 Remarks
In this chapter the DUT-model has been discussed. This model relies on several assump-
tions which are summarized as, see also references [33, 34, 30],
1. The aircraft initial (or trim) condition is a recti-linear ightpath.
2. A linearized aircraft model is used, thus the deviations from the ightpath dened
in assumption 1, remain small, see also appendix I.
3. The symmetrical, asymmetrical and anti-symmetrical gust inputs to the aircraft
model are suciently small to allow the aircraft model linearization, see also as-
sumption 2.
4. Given the assumptions 1, 2 and 3, the equations of motions are decoupled in the
symmetrical and asymmetrical equations of motion, see also appendix I.
5. For the 1D non-dimensional gust input u
g
=
u
g
Q
the aerodynamic eect of its time

derivative is neglected.
6. For the 2D non-dimensional gust inputs u
g
=
u
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
, aerodynamic
stiness terms are used in the aerodynamic model only, thus neglecting unsteady
aerodynamic eects such as lags or transients in the aerodynamic coecient force -
and moment buildup.
7. Only the contribution of the wing to the gust derivatives with respect to 2D lon-
gitudinal and 2D vertical gusts, u
g
and
g
, respectively, are taken into account.
8. The side-force coecient derivatives with respect to 2D longitudinal and 2D vertical
gusts, u
g
and
g
, respectively, are usually neglected. However, they are retained in
this thesis.
9. In the derivation of the gust derivatives with respect to 2D longitudinal and 2D
vertical gust elds, the spatial frequency
y
is assumed suciently small to allow
the linearization sin(
y
y)
y
y.
10. Using assumption 9, the relation between the spatial frequency-dependent 2D gust
derivatives and stability derivatives is governed by the non-dimensional function
h(
y
b
2
).
11. The non-dimensional function h(
y
b
2
) is described by equation (11.47), see reference
[34].
In the following chapter the Four-Point-Aircraft (FPA) model will be discussed. Also for
this model 1D longitudinal, 1D lateral and 1D vertical gust inputs will be considered, along
with both 2D anti-symmetrical longitudinal and 2D vertical gust inputs. The FPA-model
will rely on similar assumptions made for the DUT-model.
In chapter 13 both time- and frequency-domain results for the DUT-model will be com-
pared to the LPF-solutions presented in chapter 9. These results will be given in terms of
both aerodynamic model and aircraft motion responses. The DUT-model responses will
also be compared to those obtained for the PCA- and the FPA-model.
11.6 Remarks 279
B =
b
2L
g
I
u
g
u
g
(0,B)
2
u
g
I
g
(0,B)
g
5.0000e-001 7.8586e-001 5.3816e-001
4.5000e-001 7.0282e-001 4.8444e-001
4.0000e-001 6.1606e-001 4.2741e-001
3.5000e-001 5.2632e-001 3.6753e-001
3.0000e-001 4.3464e-001 3.0550e-001
2.5000e-001 3.4252e-001 2.4234e-001
2.0000e-001 2.5205e-001 1.7953e-001
1.5000e-001 1.6625e-001 1.1924e-001
1.4000e-001 1.5001e-001 1.0774e-001
1.3500e-001 1.4204e-001 1.0209e-001
1.3000e-001 1.3417e-001 9.6507e-002
1.2500e-001 1.2642e-001 9.0997e-002
1.2000e-001 1.1878e-001 8.5565e-002
1.1500e-001 1.1127e-001 8.0217e-002
1.1000e-001 1.0390e-001 7.4958e-002
1.0500e-001 9.6669e-002 6.9794e-002
1.0000e-001 8.9587e-002 6.4730e-002
9.5000e-002 8.2663e-002 5.9775e-002
9.0000e-002 7.5908e-002 5.4933e-002
8.5000e-002 6.9329e-002 5.0213e-002
8.0000e-002 6.2939e-002 4.5622e-002
7.5000e-002 5.6748e-002 4.1169e-002
7.0000e-002 5.0768e-002 3.6862e-002
6.5000e-002 4.5012e-002 3.2711e-002
6.0000e-002 3.9494e-002 2.8727e-002
5.5000e-002 3.4229e-002 2.4920e-002
5.0000e-002 2.9235e-002 2.1304e-002
4.7500e-002 2.6844e-002 1.9571e-002
4.5000e-002 2.4528e-002 1.7892e-002
4.2500e-002 2.2289e-002 1.6267e-002
4.0000e-002 2.0130e-002 1.4699e-002
3.7500e-002 1.8054e-002 1.3190e-002
3.5000e-002 1.6064e-002 1.1742e-002
3.2500e-002 1.4163e-002 1.0359e-002
3.0000e-002 1.2355e-002 9.0416e-003
2.7500e-002 1.0644e-002 7.7943e-003
2.5000e-002 9.0345e-003 6.6198e-003
2.2500e-002 7.5309e-003 5.5218e-003
2.0000e-002 6.1386e-003 4.5040e-003
1.7500e-002 4.8632e-003 3.5709e-003
1.5000e-002 3.7116e-003 2.7275e-003
1.2500e-002 2.6914e-003 1.9795e-003
1.0000e-002 1.8117e-003 1.3338e-003
7.5000e-003 1.0838e-003 7.9880e-004
5.0000e-003 5.2225e-004 3.8543e-004
2.5000e-003 1.4789e-004 1.0936e-004
Table 11.1: Parameters
I
u
g
u
g
(0,B)
2
u
g
and
I
g
(0,B)
g
as a function of B =
b
2L
g
.
B =
b
2L
g
1

2

3
5.0000e-001 6.6336e-001 3.2648e+000 3.2516e+000
4.5000e-001 6.2241e-001 2.0522e+000 2.0274e+000
4.0000e-001 5.7267e-001 1.4896e+000 1.4473e+000
3.5000e-001 5.1319e-001 1.1797e+000 1.1134e+000
3.0000e-001 4.4581e-001 9.9298e-001 8.9838e-001
2.5000e-001 3.7478e-001 8.7001e-001 7.4759e-001
2.0000e-001 3.0406e-001 7.7869e-001 6.3398e-001
1.5000e-001 2.3530e-001 6.9985e-001 5.4168e-001
1.4000e-001 2.2174e-001 6.8424e-001 5.2464e-001
1.3500e-001 2.1496e-001 6.7636e-001 5.1621e-001
1.3000e-001 2.0820e-001 6.6840e-001 5.0784e-001
1.2500e-001 2.0143e-001 6.6035e-001 4.9949e-001
1.2000e-001 1.9466e-001 6.5220e-001 4.9117e-001
1.1500e-001 1.8789e-001 6.4393e-001 4.8287e-001
1.1000e-001 1.8111e-001 6.3552e-001 4.7456e-001
1.0500e-001 1.7433e-001 6.2695e-001 4.6623e-001
1.0000e-001 1.6753e-001 6.1820e-001 4.5788e-001
9.5000e-002 1.6071e-001 6.0926e-001 4.4950e-001
9.0000e-002 1.5387e-001 6.0009e-001 4.4105e-001
8.5000e-002 1.4700e-001 5.9066e-001 4.3251e-001
8.0000e-002 1.4009e-001 5.8093e-001 4.2387e-001
7.5000e-002 1.3314e-001 5.7085e-001 4.1508e-001
7.0000e-002 1.2613e-001 5.6035e-001 4.0608e-001
6.5000e-002 1.1905e-001 5.4937e-001 3.9683e-001
6.0000e-002 1.1189e-001 5.3781e-001 3.8726e-001
5.5000e-002 1.0463e-001 5.2557e-001 3.7729e-001
5.0000e-002 9.7254e-002 5.1254e-001 3.6685e-001
4.7500e-002 9.3519e-002 5.0568e-001 3.6143e-001
4.5000e-002 8.9749e-002 4.9857e-001 3.5585e-001
4.2500e-002 8.5940e-002 4.9119e-001 3.5011e-001
4.0000e-002 8.2090e-002 4.8350e-001 3.4419e-001
3.7500e-002 7.8193e-002 4.7549e-001 3.3806e-001
3.5000e-002 7.4244e-002 4.6709e-001 3.3170e-001
3.2500e-002 7.0237e-002 4.5826e-001 3.2506e-001
3.0000e-002 6.6163e-002 4.4892e-001 3.1809e-001
2.7500e-002 6.2011e-002 4.3899e-001 3.1072e-001
2.5000e-002 5.7772e-002 4.2835e-001 3.0289e-001
2.2500e-002 5.3431e-002 4.1687e-001 2.9449e-001
2.0000e-002 4.8976e-002 4.0441e-001 2.8543e-001
1.7500e-002 4.4386e-002 3.9076e-001 2.7558e-001
1.5000e-002 3.9635e-002 3.7561e-001 2.6471e-001
1.2500e-002 3.4679e-002 3.5844e-001 2.5247e-001
1.0000e-002 2.9455e-002 3.3842e-001 2.3824e-001
7.5000e-003 2.3876e-002 3.1421e-001 2.2113e-001
5.0000e-003 1.7771e-002 2.8301e-001 1.9917e-001
2.5000e-003 1.0733e-002 2.3660e-001 1.6659e-001
1
,
2
and
3
in the approximated PSD-function of the horizontal gust
velocity, as a function of B =
b
2L
g
.
11.6 Remarks 281
B =
b
2L
g
4

5

6
5.0000e-001 5.2763e-001 7.2143e-001 7.9609e-001
4.5000e-001 4.5593e-001 1.5885e+000 1.6130e+000
4.0000e-001 4.2619e-001 3.1844e+000 3.1991e+000
3.5000e-001 3.2906e-001 4.3069e-001 3.6085e-001
3.0000e-001 2.7704e-001 4.4478e-001 3.4771e-001
2.5000e-001 2.3376e-001 4.4479e-001 3.3236e-001
2.0000e-001 1.9420e-001 4.3740e-001 3.1713e-001
1.5000e-001 1.5517e-001 4.2204e-001 2.9958e-001
1.4000e-001 1.4718e-001 4.1764e-001 2.9537e-001
1.3500e-001 1.4316e-001 4.1525e-001 2.9317e-001
1.3000e-001 1.3911e-001 4.1273e-001 2.9090e-001
1.2500e-001 1.3505e-001 4.1007e-001 2.8856e-001
1.2000e-001 1.3095e-001 4.0727e-001 2.8616e-001
1.1500e-001 1.2684e-001 4.0433e-001 2.8369e-001
1.1000e-001 1.2270e-001 4.0124e-001 2.8115e-001
1.0500e-001 1.1853e-001 3.9799e-001 2.7852e-001
1.0000e-001 1.1432e-001 3.9456e-001 2.7581e-001
9.5000e-002 1.1007e-001 3.9094e-001 2.7300e-001
9.0000e-002 1.0578e-001 3.8710e-001 2.7006e-001
8.5000e-002 1.0143e-001 3.8302e-001 2.6698e-001
8.0000e-002 9.7028e-002 3.7865e-001 2.6373e-001
7.5000e-002 9.2555e-002 3.7397e-001 2.6027e-001
7.0000e-002 8.8007e-002 3.6894e-001 2.5659e-001
6.5000e-002 8.3378e-002 3.6351e-001 2.5266e-001
6.0000e-002 7.8661e-002 3.5765e-001 2.4845e-001
5.5000e-002 7.3848e-002 3.5130e-001 2.4394e-001
5.0000e-002 6.8928e-002 3.4439e-001 2.3909e-001
4.7500e-002 6.6423e-002 3.4071e-001 2.3651e-001
4.5000e-002 6.3884e-002 3.3684e-001 2.3382e-001
4.2500e-002 6.1308e-002 3.3277e-001 2.3100e-001
4.0000e-002 5.8691e-002 3.2848e-001 2.2803e-001
3.7500e-002 5.6029e-002 3.2392e-001 2.2489e-001
3.5000e-002 5.3317e-002 3.1908e-001 2.2155e-001
3.2500e-002 5.0550e-002 3.1390e-001 2.1799e-001
3.0000e-002 4.7723e-002 3.0835e-001 2.1417e-001
2.7500e-002 4.4830e-002 3.0237e-001 2.1007e-001
2.5000e-002 4.1865e-002 2.9592e-001 2.0564e-001
2.2500e-002 3.8819e-002 2.8889e-001 2.0084e-001
2.0000e-002 3.5678e-002 2.8119e-001 1.9558e-001
1.7500e-002 3.2424e-002 2.7263e-001 1.8973e-001
1.5000e-002 2.9034e-002 2.6295e-001 1.8312e-001
1.2500e-002 2.5477e-002 2.5182e-001 1.7550e-001
1.0000e-002 2.1715e-002 2.3874e-001 1.6655e-001
7.5000e-003 1.7673e-002 2.2273e-001 1.5558e-001
5.0000e-003 1.3214e-002 2.0166e-001 1.4110e-001
2.5000e-003 8.0286e-003 1.6977e-001 1.1907e-001
4
,
5
and
6
in the approximated PSD-function of the horizontal gust
velocity, as a function of B =
b
2L
g
.
Chapter 12
The Four Point Aircraft model
12.1 Introduction
In this chapter the Four-Point-Aircraft (FPA) model will be described. It is based on
the theory outlined in reference [35]. The model makes use of a discretized aircraft on
which four points are specied. The atmospheric turbulence velocity components at these
points are used to dene the FPA-model gust inputs. Using the gust inputs at the speci-
ed points, the FPA-model input correlation functions are dened and, using the Fourier
transform, the input Power Spectral Density (PSD) functions are calculated from them.
Similar to chapters 10 and 11, the aircraft responses to atmospheric turbulence inputs are
limited to 1D longitudinal - (u
g
), lateral - (v
g
) and vertical gust inputs (w
g
). Also, the
aircraft responses to both 2D anti-symmetrical longitudinal - (u
g
) and vertical gusts (w
g
)
will be considered.
12.2 The FPA-model gust inputs
12.2.1 Denition of the gust inputs
With reference to gure 12.1, in the following use is made of the atmospheric turbulence
g
, v
g
and w
g
at the FPA-model four-point positions 0, 1, 2,
and 3 for the denition of the models gust inputs. The dimensional translational gust
inputs are dened as, see also reference [35],
u
g
= u
g
0
v
g
= v
g
0
w
g
=
1
3
(w
g
0
+w
g
1
+w
g
2
)
_
_
_
(12.1)
284 The Four Point Aircraft model
while for the dimensional rotational gusts they are dened as,
p
g
=
w
g
1
w
g
2
b
q
g
=
w
g
3
w
g
0
l
h
r
1
g
=
u
g
2
u
g
1
b
r
2
g
=
v
g
0
v
g
3
l
v
_
_
(12.2)
with u
g
0
the longitudinal gust velocity component, v
g
0
the lateral gust velocity component
and w
g
0
the vertical gust velocity component all at the aircraft center of gravity. Further,
u
g
1
the longitudinal gust velocity component at location 1 (see gure 12.1), u
g
2
the one
at location 2 and v
g
3
the lateral gust velocity component at location 3. Next, w
g
1
, w
g
2
and w
g
3
the vertical gust velocity components at locations 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Finally, b
= 0.85b with b the wingspan in [m], l

h
the horizontal tail-length in [m] and l
v
the vertical tail-length in [m] (with l
v
taken to be l
v
= l
h
).
For the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
the positive directions of the gust inputs u
g
,
v
g
, w
g
, p
g
, q
g
, r
1
g
and r
2
g
are shown in gure 12.2. Besides the gust input w
g
, its time
derivative is required as well,
w
g
=
dw
g
dt
(12.3)
Similar to the DUT-model, the time derivative of the longitudinal gust u
g
is not taken
into account. Contrary to the DUT-model, however, the time derivative of the lateral gust
v
g
is also not taken into account.
12.2.2 Correlation functions
In this section the correlation functions will be presented for each atmospheric turbulence
input, both symmetric and asymmetric. The correlation functions are calculated from the
four points gust velocity components at, for example t = 0, and their values at t = ,
with t time and the separation time, see also gure 12.3. As an example, consider the
gust input p
g
,
p
g
=
w
g
1
w
g
2
b
For an arbitrary instant in time, the autocorrelation function C

p
g
p
g
() only becomes a
function of the time-separation , and it is dened as,
C
p
g
p
g
() = Ep
g
(t) p
g
(t +) (12.4)
=
1
b
2
E(w
g
1
w
g
2
)(w
g
1
w
g
2
)
=
1
b
2
_
Ew
g
1
w
g
1
+Ew
g
2
w
g
2
Ew
g
1
w
g
2
Ew
g
2
w
g
1
with w
g
1
and w
g
2
the vertical gust velocity components at locations 1 and 2 for
time t = 0 and w
g
1
and w
g
2
the vertical gust velocity components at locations 1 and
12.2 The FPA-model gust inputs 285
2 for time t = . The four points 0, 1, 2 and 3 in gure 12.3 have the
coordinates (x
1
, 0, 0)
T
, (x
1
,
b
2
, 0)
T
, (x
1
,
b
2
, 0)
T
and (x
1
l
v
, 0, 0)
T
, respectively, while the
points 0 , 1 , 2 and 3 in gure 12.3 have the coordinates (x
1
+ Q
, 0, 0)
T
,
(x
1
+ Q
,
b
2
, 0)
T
, (x
1
+ Q
,
b
2
, 0)
T
and (x
1
+ Q
l
v
, 0, 0)
T
, respectively. The
separation vectors
ij
in gure 12.3 become,
11
= (Q
, 0, 0)
T
12
= (Q
, b
, 0)
T
21
= (Q
, b
, 0)
T
22
= (Q
, 0, 0)
T
Recalling the covariance matrix given in equation (2.15),
Eu
i
u
j
= C
u
i
u
j
() =
2
_
f(
) g(
2

i

j
+g(
)
ij
_
(12.5)
with the indices, i = 1, 2, 3 and j = 1, 2, 3,
ij
the Kronecker delta,
2
the variance of
atmospheric turbulence,

= =
_
2
1
+
2
2
+
2
3
the spatial separation, and f and g the
one-dimensional (1D) fundamental longitudinal and lateral correlation function according
to Dryden, respectively (see also equations (2.11) and (2.12)), the covariance function
C
p
g
p
g
() is calculated. Also, in equation (12.5)
i
is the i-th element of the separation
vector , and given that the vertical gust velocity component w
g
is considered only, in
the covariance matrix equation i = j = 3 with both u
i
and u
j
becoming u
3
(which
corresponds to the vertical gust velocity component w
g
). Therefore, the autocovariance
function C
p
g
p
g
() becomes,
C
p
g
p
g
() =
2
b
2
[C
33
(Q
, 0, 0) C
33
(Q
, b
, 0)]
or using equation (2.12),
(b
)
2
2
2
C
p
g
p
g
() = g(
1
) g(
3
)
or,
C
p
g
p
g
() =
2
2
(b
)
2
g(
1
) g(
3
) (12.6)
with the non-dimensional seperations (now given as
1
and
3
) equal to,
1
L
g
=
1
=
L
g
3
L
g
=
3
=
_
Q
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
L
g
_
2
Similar to equation (12.6), the covariance functions for the other four-point model turbu-
lence inputs are derived. They are summarized as,
C
u
g
u
g
() =
2
f(
1
)
C
v
g
v
g
() =
2
g(
1
)
C
w
g
w
g
() =
2
_
1
3
g(
1
) +
4
9
g(
2
) +
2
9
g(
3
)
_
C
q
g
q
g
() =

2
l
2
h
2g(
1
) g(
4
) g(
5
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
() =
2
2
(b
)
2
f(
1
) K
1
f(
3
) (1 K
1
) g(
3
)
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
() =

2
l
2
v
2g(
1
) g(
6
) g(
7
)
C
w
g
q
g
() =

2
3l
h
g(
5
) g(
1
) + 2g(
8
) 2g(
2
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
() =

2
b
2K
2
[g(
2
) f(
2
)]
C
v
g
r
2
g
() =

2
l
v
g(
1
) g(
7
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
() =

2
b
l
v
K
3
[g(
9
) f(
9
)] +K
2
[f(
2
) g(
2
)]
with
2
the atmospheric turbulence variance (taken to be
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
]), l
v
[m] the vertical
tail-length, l
h
[m] the horizontal tail-length, b
= 0.85b [m] with b [m] the wingspan, the

time-separation [sec.], and,
K
1
=
_
Q
L
g
_
2
_
Q
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
2L
g
_
2
K
2
=
_
Q
L
g
__
b
2L
g
_
_
Q
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
L
g
_
2
K
3
=
_
Q
L
g
l
v
L
g
__
b
2L
g
_
_
Q
L
g
l
v
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
L
g
_
2
and the non-dimensional separations according to,
2
L
g
=
2
=
_
Q
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
2L
g
_
2
4
L
g
=
4
=
L
g
+
l
h
L
g
5
L
g
=
5
=
L
g
l
h
L
g
6
L
g
=
6
=
L
g
+
l
v
L
g
7
L
g
=
7
=
L
g
l
h
L
g
8
L
g
=
8
=
_
Q
L
g
l
h
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
2L
g
_
2
9
L
g
=
9
=
_
Q
L
g
l
v
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
2L
g
_
2
with the f and g functions the Dryden longitudinal and lateral correlation functions,
respectively (see also chapter 2),
f() = e

L
g
g() = e

L
g
_
1

2L
g
_
and the dimensional separations [m] either
1
[m] to
9
[m], Q
[m/s] the airspeed and

L
g
[m] the gust scale length. The dimensional covariance functions are shown in gures
12.4 as a function of the non-dimensional distance traveled
Q
L
g
for a series of the gust
scale length: L
g
= [30, 150, 300, 500, 1000, 1500] [m], and the variance
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
]. These
results have been calculated for the time-separation discretization = 1
c
Q
[sec] (with
c the mean aerodynamic chord in [m]), [sec.], equal to = [N N ] and
N = 60000.
The kinks in some of the correlation functions are the result of the FPA representation.
They occur at that value of Q
/L
g
for which the tail arrives at the position occupied
=
l
h
Q
or =
l
v
Q
seconds earlier by the center of gravity (also known as the so-called

gust penetration eect).
PSfrag replacements
b
= 0.85 b
l
h
, l
v
0 1 2
3
Figure 12.1: The Four-Point-Aircraft model including the denitions of b
, l
h
and l
v
.
PSfrag replacements
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
u
g
v
g
w
g
p
g
q
g
r
g
Figure 12.2: The frame F
S
, including the denition of the FPA-model atmospheric turbulence
velocity component inputs [u
g
, v
g
, w
g
]
T
and the rotational inputs [p
g
, q
g
, r
g
]
T
.
PSfrag replacements
Q
11

21
w
g
_
X
E
,
b
2
, 0
_
w
g
_
X
E
+Q
,
b
2
, 0
_
0 1 2
3
0
X
S
Y
S
Figure 12.3: Illustration of the seperation vectors
11
and
21
as used in the denition of the

correlation functions (taken from reference [35]).
12.2.3 PSD-functions
The FPA-model gust input PSD-functions are obtained by Fourier transforming the co-
variance functions dened in section 12.2.2. The functions are obtained using MATLABs
Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), or,
S[k] =
N1
n=0
C[n] e
j
2kn
N
with S[k] the PSD-function estimate (or Periodogram), k the frequency-counter, C[n]
the covariance function and n the time-separation counter as in = n . As a function
of the circular frequency [Rad/sec.] the numerically calculated PSD-functions S
u
g
u
g
(),
S
v
g
v
g
(), S
w
g
w
g
(), S
p
g
p
g
(), S
q
g
q
g
(), S
r
1
g
r
1
g
(), S
r
2
g
r
2
g
(), S
w
g
q
g
(), S
v
g
r
1
g
(), S
v
g
r
2
g
()
and S
r
1
g
r
2
g
() are given in gures 12.5 for a number of the gust scale length: L
g
=
[30, 150, 300, 500, 1000, 1500] [m], and the variance
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
], with,
k
=
2 k
N
(12.7)
and k = 0 N1. Also, 2N+1 equals the number of samples of the covariance functions
(with N taken to be N = 60000 for the shown results) and [sec.] the time-separation
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
) 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0
5
10
15
20
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
Figure 12.4: The covaraiance functions for dimensional gust inputs, C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
), C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
),
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
), C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
), C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
) and C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
), for a series of the gust
scale length L
g
.
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0
5
10
15
20
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.01
0
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
) 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
L
g
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
Figure 12.4: (Continued) The correlation functions for dimensional gust inputs, C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
),
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
), C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
), C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
) and C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
), for a series of the gust
scale length L
g
.
discretization (taken to be = 1
c
Q
, with c the mean aerodynamic chord in [m]). The

motivation for the choice of both N and is such that the PSD-function frequency-
response ranges from at least
min
= 0.01 [Rad/sec.] to at least
max
= 100 [Rad/sec.].
Similar to the covariance functions, these PSD-functions are also given in dimensional form.
For the non-dimensional FPA-model gust inputs u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
,
g
=
w
g
Q
,
p
g
b
2Q
,
q
g
c
Q
,
r
1
g
b
2Q
and
r
2
g
b
2Q
the non-dimensional PSD-functions become,

S
u
g
u
g
() =
1
Q
2
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
g
() =
1
Q
2
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
g
() =
1
Q
2
S
w
g
w
g
()
S p
g
b
2Q
p
g
b
2Q
() =
_
b
2Q
_
2
S
p
g
p
g
()
S q
g
c
Q
q
g
c
Q
() =
_
c
Q
_
2
S
q
g
q
g
()
S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
() =
_
b
2Q
_
2
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
()
S r
2
g
b
2Q
r
2
g
b
2Q
() =
_
b
2Q
_
2
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
()
S
g
q
g
c
Q
() =
c
Q
2
S
w
g
q
g
()
S
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
() =
b
2Q
2
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
S
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
() =
b
2Q
2
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
2
g
b
2Q
() =
_
b
2Q
_
2
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
_
(12.8)
12.3 Aerodynamic models
12.3.1 1D Symmetrical longitudinal gust elds
Similar to the DUT-model, for the FPA-models 1D symmetrical longitudinal gust velocity
component u
g
the aerodynamic forces and moment coecients are given as, (see also
reference [35]),
C
X
g
= C
X
u
u
g
(12.9)
C
Z
g
= C
Z
u
u
g
(12.10)
C
m
g
= C
m
u
u
g
(12.11)
with u
g
=
u
g
Q
, and C
X
u
, C
Z
u
and C
m
u
the aircraft stability derivatives.
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
(
)
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
w
g
w
g
()
S
p
g
p
g
()
S
q
g
q
g
()
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
() 10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
v
g
v
g
(
)
S
w
g
w
g
()
S
p
g
p
g
()
S
q
g
q
g
()
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
w
g
w
g
(
)
S
p
g
p
g
()
S
q
g
q
g
()
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
() 10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
w
g
w
g
()
S
p
g
p
g
(
)
S
q
g
q
g
()
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
6
10
5
10
4
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
w
g
w
g
()
S
p
g
p
g
()
S
q
g
q
g
(
)
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
() 10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
w
g
w
g
()
S
p
g
p
g
()
S
q
g
q
g
()
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
)
Figure 12.5: The PSD-functions for dimensional gust inputs, S
u
g
u
g
(), S
v
g
v
g
(), S
w
g
w
g
(),
S
p
g
p
g
(), S
q
g
q
g
() and S
r
1
g
r
1
g
(), for a series of the gust scale length L
g
.
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
6
10
5
10
4
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
)
Real
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Real
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
2
1.5
1
0.5
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
8
6
4
2
0
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
()
R
e
a
l
_
S
w
g
q
g
(
)
_
I
m
a
g
_
S
w
g
q
g
(
)
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Real
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
()
Real
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
R
e
a
l
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
(
)
_
I
m
a
g
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
(
)
_ Real
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Real
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
x 10
3
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
()
Real
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
R
e
a
l
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
(
)
_
I
m
a
g
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
(
)
_
Real
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
4
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
8
6
4
2
0
x 10
5
L
g
= 30 [m]
L
g
= 150 [m]
L
g
= 300 [m]
L
g
= 500 [m]
L
g
= 1000 [m]
L
g
= 1500 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
()
Real
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
R
e
a
l
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
)
_
I
m
a
g
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
)
_
Figure 12.5: (Continued) The PSD-functions for dimensional gust inputs, S
r
2
g
r
2
g
(), S
w
g
q
g
(),
S
v
g
r
1
g
(), S
v
g
r
2
g
() and S
r
1
g
r
2
g
(), for a series of the gust scale length L
g
.
12.3.2 1D Asymmetrical lateral gust elds
For the 1D asymmetrical gust elds, the lateral gust velocity component v
g
is considered
only. According to the FPA-model, for the linearized aircraft model the aerodynamic force
and moments coecients are given as, see also reference [35],
C
Y
g
= C
Y
g
+C
Y
r
2
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
(12.12)
C
g
= C
g
+C
r
2
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
(12.13)
C
n
g
= C
n
g
+C
n
r
2
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
(12.14)
with
g
=
v
g
Q
, and C
Y
, C
and C
n
the stability derivatives. Also, r

2
g
=
v
g
0
v
g
3
l
v
with v
g
0
the lateral gust velocity component at the center of gravity, v
g
3
the lateral gust
velocity component at location 3 of the FPA-model (see gure 12.1) and l
v
the vertical
tail-length in [m]. The gust derivatives C
Y
r
2
g
, C
r
2
g
and C
n
r
2
g
are equal to the vertical
tailplanes contribution to the stability derivatives C
Y
r
, C
r
and C
n
r
, respectively (see also
table 6.11).
12.3.3 1D Symmetrical vertical gust elds
The aerodynamic forces and moment coecients with respect to the vertical gust velocity
component w
g
, are given as (see also reference [35]),
C
X
g
= C
X
g
+C
X
q
q
g
c
Q
+C
X

g
c
Q
(12.15)
C
Z
g
= C
Z
g
+C
Z
q
q
g
c
Q
+C
Z

g
c
Q
(12.16)
C
m
g
= C
m
g
+C
m
q
q
g
c
Q
+C
m

g
c
Q
(12.17)
with
g
=
w
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
and C
X
, C
X

, C
Z
, C
Z

, C
m
, C
m

, C
X
q
, C
Z
q
and C
m
q
the aircraft stability derivatives. The stability derivative C
X

is set to zero for this model.
12.3.4 2D Anti-symmetrical longitudinal gust elds
For the 2D anti-symmetrical longitudinal gust elds, the longitudinal gust velocity com-
ponent u
g
is considered only. The gust input is given as a yawing gust input, that is r
1
g
.
For the linearized aircraft model the aerodynamic force and moments coecients are given
as, see also reference [35],
C
Y
g
= C
Y
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
(12.18)
C
g
= C
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
(12.19)
C
n
g
= C
n
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
(12.20)
with r
1
g
=
u
g
2
u
g
1
b
, u
g
1
the longitudinal gust velocity component at location 1 (see
gure 12.1), u
g
2
= 0.85b with b the aircrafts span in [m].

The gust derivatives C
Y
r
1
g
, C
r
1
g
and C
n
r
1
g
are equal to the wings contribution to the
stability derivatives C
Y
r
, C
r
and C
n
r
, respectively (see also table 6.11).
12.3.5 2D Anti-symmetrical vertical gust elds
For the 2D anti-symmetrical vertical gust elds, the vertical gust velocity component w
g
is considered only. The gust input is now given as a rolling gust input, that is p
g
. For the
linearized aircraft model the aerodynamic force and moments coecients are given as, see
also reference [35],
C
Y
g
= C
Y
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
(12.21)
C
g
= C
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
(12.22)
C
n
g
= C
n
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
(12.23)
with p
g
=
w
g
1
w
g
2
b
, w
g
1
the vertical gust velocity component at location 1 (see gure
12.1), w
g
2
= 0.85b with b the aircrafts span in [m]. The

gust derivatives C
Y
p
g
, C
p
g
and C
n
p
g
are equal to the wings contribution to the stability
derivatives C
Y
p
, C
p
and C
n
p
, respectively (see also table 6.11).
12.4 Aircraft modeling
Similar to section 11.5.1, in this section the FPA-models linearized equations of motion
are given (see also appendix I). The FPA-models aircraft equations of motion make use of
the following aerodynamic model for the 1D gust-induced aerodynamic force and moment
coecients,
C
X
g
= C
X
u
u
g
+C
X
g
+C
X
q
q
g
c
Q
(12.24)
C
Z
g
= C
Z
u
u
g
+C
Z
g
+C
Z

g
c
Q
+C
Z
q
q
g
c
Q
(12.25)
C
m
g
= C
m
u
u
g
+C
m
g
+C
m

g
c
Q
+C
m
q
q
g
c
Q
(12.26)
12.4 Aircraft modeling 297
and,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
g
+C
Y
r
2
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
(12.27)
C
g
= C
g
+C
r
2
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
(12.28)
C
n
g
= C
n
g
+C
n
r
2
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
(12.29)
for the 1D non-dimensional symmetrical and 1D non-dimensional asymmetrical gust elds,
respectively. Similar to reference [35], the contribution of

g
in equations (12.27), (12.28)
and (12.29) is left out of consideration.
The equations of motion are written similar to equations (10.20) and (11.81),
P
c
j x = Q
c
x +R
c
u (12.30)
with for the symmetrical equations of motion the matrices P
c
, Q
c
and R
c
equal to,
P
c
s
=
c
Q
_
2
c
0 0 0
0 (C
Z

2
c
) 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 C
m

0 2
c
K
2
Y
_
_
(12.31)
Q
c
s
=
_
_
C
X
u
C
X
C
Z
0
C
X
q
C
Z
u
C
Z
C
X
0

_
C
Z
q
+ 2
c
_
0 0 0 1
C
m
u
C
m
0 C
m
q
_
_
(12.32)
and,
R
c
s
=
_
_
C
X
u
C
X
0 C
X
q
C
Z
u
C
Z
C
Z

C
Z
q
0 0 0 0
C
m
u
C
m
C
m

C
m
q
_
_
(12.33)
respectively. In equation (12.30) the aircraft state and the input are dened as x =
_
u, , ,
q c
Q
_
T
, and u =
_
u
g
,
g
,

g
c
Q
,
q
g
c
Q
_
T
, respectively. The denition of the stability
derivatives is given in appendix I, table I.5.
Similar to the symmetrical equations of motion, the asymmetrical equations of motion are
also written as equation (12.30) with the matrices P
c
, Q
c
and R
c
now according to,
P
c
a
=
b
Q
_
_
C
Y
2
b
_
0 0 0
0
1
2
0 0
C
0 4
b
K
2
X
4
b
K
XZ
C
n
0 4
b
K
XZ
4
b
K
2
Z
_
_
(12.34)
Q
c
a
=
_
_
C
Y
C
L
C
Y
p
(C
Y
r
4
b
)
0 0 1 0
C
0 C
p
C
r
C
n
0 C
n
p
C
n
r
_
_
(12.35)
and,
R
c
a
=
_
_
C
Y
C
Y
r
2
g
0 0
C
r
2
g
C
n
C
n
r
2
g
_
_
(12.36)
respectively, with the aircraft state x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
and the input u =
_
g
,
r
2
g
b
2Q
_
T
.
The denition of the stability derivatives is given in appendix I, table I.6.
The 1D PSD-functions for the non-dimensional gust velocity components u
g
,
g
,
q
g
c
Q
,
g
and
r
2
g
b
2Q
are summarized in equation (12.8).

In this section the FPA-model asymmetrical linearized equations of motion are given for
the 2D anti-symmetrical gust elds u
g
and
g
. The non-dimensional aerodynamic force
and moment coecients due to these elds are written as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
+C
Y
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
(12.37)
C
g
= C
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
+C
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
(12.38)
C
n
g
= C
n
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
+C
n
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
(12.39)
For the asymmetrical equations of motion given in equation (12.30), the matrices P
c
, Q
c
are equal to ones given in equations (12.34) and (12.35), respectively, with the aircraft
state x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
. The matrix R
c
is dened as,
R
c
a
=
_
_
C
Y
r
1
g
C
Y
p
g
0 0
C
r
1
g
C
p
g
C
n
r
1
g
C
n
p
g
_
_
(12.40)
with the input u =
_
r
1
g
b
2Q
,
p
g
b
2Q
_
T
, and the gust derivatives C
Y
r
1
g
= C
Y
r
w
, C
r
1
g
= C
r
w
,
C
n
r
1
g
= C
n
r
w
, C
Y
p
g
= C
Y
p
w
, C
p
g
= C
p
w
and C
n
p
g
= C
n
p
w
.
The PSD-functions for the non-dimensional gust inputs
r
1
g
b
2Q
and
p
g
b
2Q
are summarized in
equation (12.8).
12.5 Remarks 299
12.5 Remarks
The assumptions made in the derivation of the FPA-model equations of motion are similar
to those presented in chapter 11.
In chapter 13 both time- and frequency-domain results for the FPA-model will be compared
to the LPF-solutions presented in chapter 9. These results will be given in terms of both
aerodynamic model and aircraft motion responses. The FPA-model results will also be
compared to those obtained for the PCA- and the DUT-model.
Part V
Comparison of Gust Response
Calculations
Chapter 13
Comparison of results and
discussion
13.1 Introduction
This chapter discusses the aircraft responses of the Linearized Potential Flow (LPF) so-
lution for recti-linear ightpaths, the Parametric Computational Aerodynamics (PCA),
the Delft University of Technology (DUT) and the Four-Point-Aircraft (FPA) models.
Comparisons will be made in terms of both time- and frequency-domain results of the
aerodynamic force and moment coecients. Furthermore, comparisons will be made in
terms of aircraft motion results. Also these responses will be given for both the time-
and frequency-domain. The LPF-EOM-solution results for stochastic ightpaths will be
discussed as well, however, they are given for time-domain aircraft motion responses only.
These results are assumed to be the benchmark, that is they resemble reality the closest.
In section 13.2 an overview of the models is given, while in section 13.3 the aerodynamic
responses are discussed for the recti-linear ightpath LPF-solution and the PCA-, DUT-
and FPA-models. Next, in section 13.4, the models aircraft motion responses are given.
Section 13.5 is dedicated to the LPF-EOM-model. Here, its time-domain aircraft re-
sponses are compared to the ones obtained for the recti-linear ightpath LPF-solution
and the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-models.
For all models, the responses to symmetrical longitudinal - (u
g
), asymmetrical lateral -
(v
g
), symmetrical vertical - (w
g
), anti-symmetrical longitudinal - (u
g
) and anti-symmetrical
vertical gust velocity component (w
g
) will be shown and discussed. The presented results
hold for the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m] only.
304 Comparison of results and discussion
13.2 Overview of models
13.2.1 Introduction
Apart from the LPF-(EOM-) solutions, the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-methods make use of
parametric aerodynamic models in terms of constant stability- and gust derivatives. The
calculation of the steady stability derivatives has been performed in chapter 6, while the
calculation of the unsteady stability derivatives is given in chapter 10. These derivatives
will be used for all models (except the LPF-solution). As the steady and unsteady gust
derivatives are concerned, they are calculated (or dened) in chapters 10, 11 and 12 for
the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model, respectively, while the gust input denitions are sum-
marized in appendix G for all models.
With respect to the mathematical aircraft models, they are decoupled resulting in two
sets of equations of motion: that is the symmetrical and asymmetrical linearized equa-
tions of motion, see also appendix I. In the frequency-domain both the symmetrical and
asymmetrical equations of motion were written as, see also chapters 10 through 12,
P j x = Q x +R u (13.1)
or, since the matrix elements in equation (13.1) are constant, the time-domain equations
of motion are written as,
P
dx
dt
= Q x +R u (13.2)
For the symmetrical equations of motion the matrices P and Q in equation (13.2) are
given as,
P
s
=
c
Q
_
2
c
0 0 0
0 (C
Z

2
c
) 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 C
m

0 2
c
K
2
Y
_
_
(13.3)
Q
s
=
_
_
C
X
u
C
X
C
Z
0
C
X
q
C
Z
u
C
Z
C
X
0

_
C
Z
q
+ 2
c
_
0 0 0 1
C
m
u
C
m
0 C
m
q
_
_
(13.4)
respectively. For these equations the aircraft state equals x =
_
u, , ,
q c
Q
_
T
, while (for
now) the matrix P in equations (13.1) and (13.2) is given as,
R
s
=
_
_
C
X
g
C
Z
g
0
C
m
g
_
_
(13.5)
with as input vector the scalar u = 1.
13.2 Overview of models 305
Similar to the symmetrical equations of motion, for the asymmetrical ones the matrices
P, Q and R in equation (13.2) are given as,
P
a
=
b
Q
_
_
C
Y
2
b
_
0 0 0
0
1
2
0 0
C
0 4
b
K
2
X
4
b
K
XZ
C
n
0 4
b
K
XZ
4
b
K
2
Z
_
_
(13.6)
Q
a
=
_
_
C
Y
C
L
C
Y
p
(C
Y
r
4
b
)
0 0 1 0
C
0 C
p
C
r
C
n
0 C
n
p
C
n
r
_
_
(13.7)
and,
R
a
=
_
_
C
Y
g
0
C
g
C
n
g
_
_
(13.8)
respectively. For the asymmetrical equations of motion the aircrafts state equals x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
, while, similar to the symmetrical equations of motion, the input-
vector also becomes the scalar u = 1.
The aerodynamic coecients C
X
g
, C
Z
g
and C
m
g
in equation (13.5), and their asymme-
trical counterparts C
Y
g
, C
g
and C
n
g
in equation (13.8) will be discussed in the following
sections. First the LPF-solution aerodynamic coecients will be briey discussed. Next,
for the PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model these coecients will be given as parametric
aerodynamic models in terms of constant gust derivatives and gust inputs.
13.2.2 The LPF solution
In chapters 3, 4 and 9 the LPF theory has been discussed for recti-linear ightpaths (no
aircraft motions are considered). Application of the theory has eventually resulted in the
time-domain aerodynamic response of the aircraft grid dened in chapter 6. The results
were given in terms of the time-domain response of the aerodynamic coecients C
X
g
(t),
C
Y
g
(t), C
Z
g
(t), C
g
(t), C
m
g
(t) and C
n
g
(t) for both symmetrical and anti-symmetrical gust
elds. These elds are generated in appendix G and are based on the theory provided
in chapter 2. In section 13.3 the LPF-model time-domain response will be compared
to the parametric aerodynamic model results obtained for the PCA-, the DUT- and the
FPA-model.
13.2.3 The LPF-EOM-solution
Similar to the recti-linear ightpath LPF simulations, in chapters 3, 4 and 9 the LPF-EOM
theory has been discussed. The LPF-solution, which is now coupled to the equations
of motion, also makes use of the aircraft grid dened in chapter 6 and the gust elds
generated in appendix G. In section 13.5 the LPF-EOM-model time-domain aircraft
motion responses will be compared to the ones obtained for the recti-linear ightpath
LPF-solution. Aircraft motion results will be compared to the ones obtained for the
PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model.
13.2.4 The PCA-model
For the PCA-model, the symmetrical gust inputs (u
g
and w
g
), the asymmetrical gust
input (v
g
) and the anti-symmetrical gust inputs (u
g
and w
g
) will be considered only. For
these inputs the aerodynamic model is written as (using non-dimensional gust inputs for
the symmetrical gust inputs u
g
and w
g
),
C
X
g
= C
X
u
g
u
g
+C
X
u
g
u
g
c
Q
C
Z
g
= C
Z
u
g
u
g
+C
Z
u
g
u
g
c
Q
C
m
g
= C
m
u
g
u
g
+C
m
u
g
u
g
c
Q
_
(13.9)
with u
g
=
u
g
Q
the airspeed. For the aerodynamic

model with respect to the vertical gust input, it becomes,
C
X
g
= C
X
g

g
+C
X

g

g
c
Q
C
Z
g
= C
Z
g

g
+C
Z

g

g
c
Q
C
m
g
= C
m
g

g
+C
m

g

g
c
Q
_
(13.10)
with
g
=
w
g
Q
and the gust derivatives shown in equations (13.9) and (13.10) summarized
in tables 13.1 and 13.2.
Similarly, the aerodynamic model with respect to the asymmetrical gust input (v
g
) written
in non-dimensional form is given as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
g

g
+C
Y
g
b
Q
g
= C
g

g
+C
g
b
Q
C
n
g
= C
n
g

g
+C
n
g
b
Q
_
(13.11)
with
g
=
v
g
Q
and b the wingspan.

For the anti-symmetrical gust elds u
g
and w
g
, use is made of the gust inputs r
1
g
and
p
g
, respectively (see also chapter 12 and appendices G and H). For these elds the non-
dimensional aerodynamic models are written as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
+C
Y
r
1
g
b
Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
C
g
= C
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
+C
r
1
g
b
Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
C
n
g
= C
n
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
+C
n
r
1
g
b
Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
_
_
(13.12)
13.2 Overview of models 307
and,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
+C
Y
p
g
b
Q
p
g
b
2Q
C
g
= C
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
+C
p
g
b
Q
p
g
b
2Q
C
n
g
= C
n
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
+C
n
p
g
b
Q
p
g
b
2Q
_
_
(13.13)
respectively, with the gust derivatives given in equations (13.11), (13.12) and (13.13)
summarized in tables 13.1 and 13.2. The PCA-model gust derivatives were calculated in
chapter 10 from resonance frequencies in aircraft motion output Power Spectral Density
(PSD) functions.
The aerodynamic model denition given above is used in equations (13.5) and (13.8), and
it will allow the calculation of both time- and frequency-domain aircraft motion respon-
ses. For the time-domain aircraft motion simulations use is made of the 2D spatial-domain
gust elds calculated in appendix G. For the frequency-domain aircraft motion responses
(which are given in terms of the aircraft state PSD-functions), the input PSD-functions are
summarized in appendix H. For the one-dimensional (1D) non-dimensional gust inputs
u
g
,
g
and
g
, the PCA-model makes use of the 1D PSD-functions given in equations
(H.7), (H.8) and (H.9), respectively. For the two-dimensional (2D) non-dimensional gust
inputs
r
1
g
b
2Q
and
p
g
b
2Q
, the PCA-model makes use of the PSD-functions summarized in
equation (H.12).
13.2.5 The DUT-model
Similar to the PCA-model, for the DUT-model the 1D symmetrical gust inputs (u
g
and
w
g
), the 1D asymmetrical gust input (v
g
) and the 2D anti-symmetrical gust inputs (u
g
and w
g
) will be considered only.
For the 1D gust inputs the aerodynamic model is written as (using non-dimensional gust
inputs),
C
X
g
= C
X
u
g
u
g
C
Z
g
= C
Z
u
g
u
g
C
m
g
= C
m
u
g
u
g
_
_
(13.14)
with u
g
=
u
g
Q
and Q
the airspeed. Note that no unsteady gust derivatives are used

with respect to the u
g
gust eld.
The aerodynamic model with respect to the vertical gust input becomes,
C
X
g
= C
X
g

g
+C
X

g

g
c
Q
C
Z
g
= C
Z
g

g
+C
Z

g

g
c
Q
C
m
g
= C
m
g

g
+C
m

g

g
c
Q
_
(13.15)
with
g
=
w
g
Q
and the denition of the gust derivatives used in equations (13.14) and
(13.15) summarized in tables 13.1 and 13.2. These gust derivatives are now given in terms
of stability derivatives.
Similarly, the aerodynamic model with respect to the 1D asymmetrical gust input (v
g
)
written in non-dimensional form is given as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
g

g
+C
Y
g
b
Q
g
= C
g

g
+C
g
b
Q
C
n
g
= C
n
g

g
+C
n
g
b
Q
_
(13.16)
with
g
=
v
g
Q
and b the wingspan.

g
and w
g
, the non-dimensional aerodynamic models
are written as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
u
g
u
g
C
g
= C
u
g
u
g
C
n
g
= C
n
u
g
u
g
_
_
(13.17)
and,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
g

g
C
g
= C
g

g
C
n
g
= C
n
g

g
_
_
(13.18)
respectively, with the gust derivatives given in equations (13.16), (13.17) and (13.18) also
summarized in tables 13.1 and 13.2.
The denition of the aerodynamic models presented in this section are also used in equa-
tions (13.5) and (13.8) to calculate both time- and frequency-domain aircraft responses.
Similar to the PCA-model, for the time-domain aircraft motion responses use is made of
the 2D spatial-domain gust elds calculated in appendix G. Also, for the frequency-domain
aircraft motion responses (which are given in terms of the aircraft state PSD-functions),
the input PSD-functions are summarized in appendix H. For the 1D non-dimensional gust
inputs u
g
,
g
and
g
, the DUT-model also makes use of the 1D PSD-functions given in
equations (H.7), (H.8) and (H.9), respectively. For the 2D non-dimensional gust inputs u
g
and
g
, the DUT-model makes use of the Eective 1D PSD-functions dened in chapter
11, see equations (11.73) and (11.74), respectively.
13.2.6 The FPA-model
Also for the FPA-model, the 1D symmetrical gust inputs (u
g
and w
g
), the 1D asymmetrical
gust input (v
g
) and the 2D anti-symmetrical gust inputs (u
g
and w
g
) will be considered
only. For the 1D longitudinal gust input the aerodynamic model is equal to the one given
in equation (13.14). The aerodynamic model with respect to the symmetrical vertical gust
input (w
g
) becomes,
C
X
g
= C
X
g

g
+C
X

g

g
c
Q
+C
X
q
g
q
g
c
Q
C
Z
g
= C
Z
g

g
+C
Z

g

g
c
Q
+C
Z
q
g
q
g
c
Q
C
m
g
= C
m
g

g
+C
m

g

g
c
Q
+C
m
q
g
q
g
c
Q
_
(13.19)
13.3 Aerodynamic model responses 309
with the gust inputs dened in chapter 12 and summarized in appendix G. The denition
of the gust derivatives used in equation (13.19) is summarized in tables 13.1 and 13.2.
Similar to the DUT-model gust derivatives, the FPA-model gust derivatives are also given
in terms of stability derivatives.
The aerodynamic model with respect to the 1D asymmetrical gust input (v
g
) written in
non-dimensional form is given as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
g

g
+C
Y
r
2
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
g
= C
g

g
+C
r
2
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
C
n
g
= C
n
g

g
+C
n
r
2
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
_
(13.20)
with the gust inputs dened in chapter 12 and summarized in appendix G.
g
and w
g
, use is made of the gust inputs r
1
g
and
p
g
, respectively (see also chapter 12 and appendices G and H). For these elds the non-
dimensional aerodynamic models are written as,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
C
g
= C
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
C
n
g
= C
n
r
1
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
_
_
(13.21)
and,
C
Y
g
= C
Y
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
C
g
= C
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
C
n
g
= C
n
p
g
p
g
b
2Q
_
_
(13.22)
with the gust derivatives given in equations (13.20), (13.21) and (13.22) summarized in
tables 13.1 and 13.2.
The denition of the aerodynamic models presented in this section are also used in equa-
tions (13.5) and (13.8) to calculate both the time- and frequency-domain aircraft motion
responses. Also for the FPA-model the time-domain aircraft motion responses are calcu-
lated using the 2D spatial-domain gust elds given in appendix G. For the frequency-
domain aircraft motion responses (which are given in terms of the aircraft state PSD-
functions), the gust input PSD-functions are summarized in appendix H. All FPA-model
non-dimensional input PSD-functions are summarized in equation (H.12).
13.3 Aerodynamic model responses
13.3.1 Introduction
In this section the time-domain aerodynamic-model responses are given to both the sym-
metrical and anti-symmetrical gust elds dened in appendix G. The aircrafts aero-
dynamic response will be given in terms of the non-dimensional force- and moment-
coecients due to isolated gust elds, i.e. C
X
g
(t), C
Y
g
(t), C
Z
g
(t), C
g
(t), C
m
g
(t) and
1
D
g
u
s
t
e
l
d
s
2
D
g
u
s
t
e
l
d
s
M
o
d
e
l
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
C
X
u
g
C
X
u
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
C
X
q
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
r
2
g
C
Y
r
1
g
/
C
Y
r
1
g
C
Y
p
g
/
C
Y
p
g
C
Y
u
g
C
Y
g
P
C
A
-
0
.
0
0
3
2
+
0
.
7
1
4
5
+
0
.
1
6
9
2
-
0
.
4
0
4
6
+
0
.
0
6
3
2
-
0
.
2
3
9
2
+
0
.
0
0
5
2
+
0
.
0
3
4
7
-
0
.
0
3
5
9
D
U
T
C
X
u
0
C
X
C
X
C
X
q
C
Y
C
Y
+
1 2
C
Y
r
v
C
Y
r
w
C
Y
p
w
F
P
A
C
X
u
0
C
X
C
X
C
X
q
C
Y
C
Y
r
v
C
Y
r
w
C
Y
p
w
C
Z
u
g
C
Z
u
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
q
g
C
g
C
g
C
r
2
g
C
r
1
g
/
C
r
1
g
C
p
g
/
C
p
g
C
u
g
C
g
P
C
A
-
0
.
4
5
9
2
+
0
.
1
4
7
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
+
5
.
1
5
3
4
-
0
.
1
0
9
0
+
0
.
0
1
9
4
+
0
.
0
5
1
9
-
0
.
0
0
1
7
-
0
.
5
0
8
8
+
0
.
0
2
6
1
D
U
T
C
Z
u
0
C
Z
C
Z
C
Z
q
+
1 2
C
r
v
r
w
p
w
F
P
A
C
Z
u
0
C
Z
C
Z
C
Z
q
C
r
v
C
r
w
p
w
C
m
u
g
C
m
u
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
C
m
q
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
C
n
r
2
g
C
n
r
1
g
/
C
n
r
1
g
C
n
p
g
/
C
n
p
g
C
n
u
g
C
n
g
P
C
A
+
0
.
0
2
3
6
-
0
.
2
3
1
5
-
0
.
7
4
8
6
+
2
.
9
8
4
6
+
0
.
0
6
7
6
-
0
.
0
4
9
5
-
0
.
0
0
0
3
-
0
.
0
0
5
8
-
0
.
0
3
2
8
+
0
.
0
0
9
9
D
U
T
C
m
u
0
C
m
C
m
C
m
q
C
n
C
n
+
1 2
C
n
r
v
C
n
r
w
C
n
p
w
F
P
A
C
m
u
0
C
m
C
m
C
m
q
C
n
C
n
r
v
C
n
r
w
C
n
p
w
T
a
b
l
e
1
3
.
1
:
T
h
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
g
u
s
t
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
r
i
c
C
o
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
(
P
C
A
)
m
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
d
e
n
i
t
i
o
n
o
f
t
h
e
m
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
D
e
l
f
t
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
(
D
U
T
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
o
u
r
-
P
o
i
n
t
-
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
(
F
P
A
)
m
o
d
e
l
(
m
e
a
n
s
n
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
)
.
T
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
a
r
e
v
a
l
i
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
F
r
a
m
e
o
f
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
F
S
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
1
D
g
u
s
t
e
l
d
s
2
D
g
u
s
t
e
l
d
s
M
o
d
e
l
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
C
X
u
g
C
X
u
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
C
X
q
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
r
2
g
C
Y
r
1
g
/
C
Y
r
1
g
C
Y
p
g
/
C
Y
p
g
C
Y
u
g
C
Y
g
P
C
A
-
0
.
0
0
3
2
+
0
.
7
1
4
5
+
0
.
1
6
9
2
-
0
.
4
0
4
6
+
0
.
0
6
3
2
-
0
.
2
3
9
2
+
0
.
0
0
5
2
+
0
.
0
3
4
7
-
0
.
0
3
5
9
D
U
T
-
0
.
0
0
3
2
0
+
0
.
1
6
9
2
+
0
.
0
4
5
0
-
0
.
4
0
4
6
-
0
.
0
0
4
3
-
0
.
0
3
9
8
-
0
.
0
9
1
2
F
P
A
-
0
.
0
0
3
2
0
+
0
.
1
6
9
2
0
-
0
.
0
4
5
0
-
0
.
4
0
4
6
+
0
.
2
3
8
7
-
0
.
0
3
9
8
-
0
.
0
9
1
2
C
Z
u
g
C
Z
u
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
q
g
C
g
C
g
C
r
2
g
C
r
1
g
/
C
r
1
g
C
p
g
/
C
p
g
C
u
g
C
g
P
C
A
-
0
.
4
5
9
2
+
0
.
1
4
7
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
+
5
.
1
5
3
4
-
0
.
1
0
9
0
+
0
.
0
1
9
4
+
0
.
0
5
1
9
-
0
.
0
0
1
7
-
0
.
5
0
8
8
+
0
.
0
2
6
1
D
U
T
-
0
.
4
5
9
2
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
+
4
.
1
5
1
9
-
0
.
1
0
9
0
+
0
.
0
1
0
7
+
0
.
0
6
1
6
-
0
.
5
0
9
3
F
P
A
-
0
.
4
5
9
2
0
-
5
.
7
8
7
4
-
0
.
3
9
8
0
-
4
.
5
4
9
9
-
0
.
1
0
9
0
+
0
.
0
3
7
0
+
0
.
0
6
1
6
-
0
.
5
0
9
3
C
m
u
g
C
m
u
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
C
m
q
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
C
n
r
2
g
C
n
r
1
g
/
C
n
r
1
g
C
n
p
g
/
C
n
p
g
C
n
u
g
C
n
g
P
C
A
+
0
.
0
2
3
6
-
0
.
2
3
1
5
-
0
.
7
4
8
6
+
2
.
9
8
4
6
+
0
.
0
6
7
6
-
0
.
0
4
9
5
-
0
.
0
0
0
3
-
0
.
0
0
5
8
-
0
.
0
3
2
8
+
0
.
0
0
9
9
D
U
T
+
0
.
0
2
3
6
0
-
0
.
7
4
8
6
+
3
.
2
3
9
2
+
0
.
0
6
7
6
-
0
.
0
3
1
7
-
0
.
0
0
1
0
-
0
.
0
1
7
2
F
P
A
+
0
.
0
2
3
6
0
-
0
.
7
4
8
6
-
4
.
2
2
5
5
-
7
.
4
6
4
7
+
0
.
0
6
7
6
-
0
.
0
9
4
0
-
0
.
0
0
1
0
-
0
.
0
1
7
2
T
a
b
l
e
1
3
.
2
:
T
h
e
c
a
l
c
u
l
a
t
e
d
g
u
s
t
d
e
r
i
v
a
t
i
v
e
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
a
r
a
m
e
t
r
i
c
C
o
m
p
u
t
a
t
i
o
n
a
l
A
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
s
(
P
C
A
)
m
o
d
e
l
a
n
d
t
h
e
i
r
n
u
m
e
r
i
c
a
l
v
a
l
u
e
s
f
o
r
b
o
t
h
t
h
e
D
e
l
f
t
U
n
i
v
e
r
s
i
t
y
o
f
T
e
c
h
n
o
l
o
g
y
(
D
U
T
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
o
u
r
-
P
o
i
n
t
-
A
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
(
F
P
A
)
m
o
d
e
l
(
m
e
a
n
s
n
o
t
a
p
p
l
i
c
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
t
h
e
m
o
d
e
l
)
.
T
h
e
r
e
s
u
l
t
s
a
r
e
v
a
l
i
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
F
r
a
m
e
o
f
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
F
S
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
C
n
g
(t). For these simulations, the aircraft travels along the negative X
E
-axis of the
Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference T
E
, see also gures 9.1 and 9.2, while no aircraft motions
are considered.
For the symmetrical aerodynamic responses, the 2D symmetrical gust elds with respect
to the atmospheric turbulence velocity components u
g
and w
g
are considered only. These
aerodynamic responses are considered to be representative for 1D gust elds, that is both
the longitudinal and vertical turbulence velocity components are assumed to be constant
over the aircraft wingspan.
Similarly, for the asymmetrical aerodynamic responses, the 2D asymmetrical gust eld
with respect to the lateral atmospheric turbulence velocity component v
g
is considered.
The aerodynamic response to this input is also considered to be representative for a 1D
lateral gust eld v
g
(the gust velocity component is constant over the aircraft wingspan).
Finally, the asymmetrical aerodynamic response to both the 2D anti-symmetrical gust
elds u
g
and w
g
will be given. In this case both the u
g
- and w
g
-elds vary over the
aircraft wingspan.
The PCA-, DUT- and FPA-models aerodynamic responses will be compared to the LPF-
solution, with the LPF-solution considered to be the benchmark, or the results that match
reality the closest.
13.3.2 Time-domain results
In appendix G the denition of the gust inputs is summarized for all models. From both
the spatial-domain gust elds, also dened in appendix G, and the denition of the gust
inputs, the time-history of them is calculated. The non-dimensional translational gust
inputs u
g
(t) =
u
g
(t)
Q
,
g
(t) =
v
g
(t)
Q
,
g
(t) =
w
g
(t)
Q
are shown in gure 13.1, while in gure

13.2 their time derivatives are given. Furthermore, in gure 13.3 the non-dimensional
rotational gust inputs
p
g
b
2Q
(t),
q
g
c
Q
(t),
r
1
g
b
2Q
(t) and
r
2
g
b
2Q
(t) are shown, while in gure 13.4

the gust inputs
p
g
b
2Q
(t) and
r
1
g
b
2Q
(t) are given for the PCA-model only.

The gust inputs shown in gures 13.1 through 13.4 are used to calculate the gust-induced
time-domain aerodynamic force and moment coecients C
X
g
(t), C
Y
g
(t), C
Z
g
(t), C
g
(t),
C
m
g
(t) and C
n
g
(t) presented in section 13.2.
In gures 13.5 through 13.7 the aerodynamic model response in terms of the coecients
C
X
g
, C
Z
g
and C
m
g
with respect to the symmetrical longitudinal gust eld u
g
is shown.
The PCA-model response for C
X
g
( u
g
(t)) accurately follows the LPF-solution, while the
DUT- and FPA-model responses do not. This is a consequence of the use of the unsteady
gust derivative C
X
u
g
in the PCA-model (both the DUT- and the FPA-model do not in-
clude unsteady gust derivatives for the u
g
-elds).
For all models C
Z
g
( u
g
(t)) responses it follows that they almost coincide with the LPF-
solution. Apparantly, the unsteady gust derivative as used in the PCA-model, that is
C
Z
u
g
, does not improve accuracy.
0 5 10 15
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
PCA,DUT,FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
u
g
(
t
)
g
(t)
g
(t)
time [secs.]
0 5 10 15
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
PCA,DUT,FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
u
g
(t)
g
(
t
)
g
(t)
time [secs.]
0 5 10 15
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
0.005
0.01
0.015
0.02
0.025
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
u
g
(t)
g
(t)
g
(
t
)
time [secs.]
Figure 13.1: The non-dimensional translational gust inputs, u
g
(t),
g
(t) and
g
(t), for the para-
metric aerodynamic models.
0 5 10 15
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
PCAmodel
PSfrag replacements
u
g
(
t
)
g
(t)

g
(t)
time [secs.]
0 5 10 15
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
PCA,DUTmodel
PSfrag replacements
u
g
(t)
g
(
t
)

g
(t)
time [secs.]
0 5 10 15
0.1
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
u
g
(t)
g
(t)
g
(
t
)
time [secs.]
Figure 13.2: The time derivative of the non-dimensional translational gust inputs,

u
g
(t),

g
(t)
and
g
(t), for the parametric aerodynamic models.
0 5 10 15
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
x 10
3
PCA,DUT,FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
p
g
b
2
Q
(
t
)
q
g
c
Q
(t)
r
1
g
b
2Q
(t)
r
2
g
b
2Q
(t)
time [secs.]
0 5 10 15
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
3
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
p
g
b
2Q
(t)
q
g
c
Q
(
t
)
r
1
g
b
2Q
(t)
r
2
g
b
2Q
(t)
time [secs.]
0 5 10 15
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 10
3
PCA,DUT,FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
p
g
b
2Q
(t)
q
g
c
Q
(t)
r
1
g
b
2
Q
(
t
)
r
2
g
b
2Q
(t)
time [secs.]
0 5 10 15
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
x 10
3
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
p
g
b
2Q
(t)
q
g
c
Q
(t)
r
1
g
b
2Q
(t)
r
2
g
b
2
Q
(
t
)
time [secs.]
Figure 13.3: The non-dimensional rotational gust inputs,
p
g
b
2Q
(t),
q
g
c
Q
(t),
r
1
g
b
2Q
(t) and
r
2
g
b
2Q
(t),
for the parametric aerodynamic models.
Similar to the discussion with respect to the C
X
g
( u
g
(t)) responses, for the C
m
g
( u
g
(t))
responses it follows that the use of the unsteady gust derivative C
m
u
g
does improve the
response compared to the LPF-solution. It follows from gure 13.7 that the PCA-model
response is more high-frequent as compared to the ones obtained for the DUT- and FPA-
model. This is a consequence of the usage of the unsteady gust derivative C
m
u
g
.
In gures 13.8 through 13.10 the aerodynamic model response in terms of the aerody-
namic coecients C
Y
g
, C
g
and C
n
g
with respect to the asymmetrical lateral gust eld
v
g
is given. It is shown that all model responses show very good agreement with those
obtained for the LPF-solution.
In gures 13.11 through 13.13 the aerodynamic model response in terms of the aerody-
namic coecients C
X
g
, C
Z
g
and C
m
g
with respect to the symmetrical vertical gust eld
w
g
is shown. For the C
X
g
(
g
(t)) results all model responses are almost equal, however
they all show bad agreement with the LPF-solution. This is attributed to the non-linear
0 5 10 15
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
PCAmodel
PSfrag replacements
p
g
b
2
Q
(
t
)
r
1
g
b
2Q
(t)
time [secs.]
0 5 10 15
0.08
0.06
0.04
0.02
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
PCAmodel
PSfrag replacements
p
g
b
2Q
(t)
r
1
g
b
2
Q
(
t
)
time [secs.]
Figure 13.4: The time derivative of the non-dimensional rotational gust inputs,
p
g
b
2Q
(t) and
r
1
g
b
2Q
(t), for the PCA-model.

behaviour of the coecient C
X
with respect to angle-of-attack perturbations, see also
gure 6.12. Furthermore, it is also attributed to the omission of the unsteady gust deriva-
tive C
X

g
for the PCA-model and setting the stability derivative C
X

to zero for the gust
derivatives belonging to the DUT- and FPA-model.
Both the C
Z
g
(
g
(t)) and C
m
g
(
g
(t)) results are almost equal for all models and show
excellent agreement with those obtained for the LPF-solution, which is attributed to the
usage of unsteady gust derivatives. For all models these derivatives show good agreement,
see also table 13.2.
Next, the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model results are compared to the ones obtained for the
LPF-solution. The results are shown for the 2D longitudinal gust eld u
g
. The FPA-model
responses are representative for those of the DUT-model and the latter are therefore omit-
ted in the gures. In gures 13.14 through 13.16 the aerodynamic model response in terms
of the aerodynamic coecients C
Y
g
, C
g
and C
n
g
with respect to the anti-symmetrical lon-
gitudinal gust eld u
g
is shown. For the C
Y
g
( u
g
(t)) results, the PCA-model shows the
best agreement with the LPF-solution. This is attributed to the use of the unsteady gust
derivative in the PCA-model leading to a more high frequent model-response. Also, it
appears that the aerodynamic stiness term C
Y
u
g
/C
Y
r
1
g
is underestimated for both the
DUT- and FPA-model. It should be noted, however, that the aerodynamic force response
to 2D anti-symmetrical turbulence C
Y
g
( u
g
(t)) is usually neglected in the DUT- and FPA-
model, see references [30, 34, 35]. However, they are retained in this thesis.
For the C
g
( u
g
(t)) results, all models show excellent agreement with those obtained for
the LPF-solution. This is attributed to the aerodynamic stiness term C
u
g
/C
r
1
g
, which
is of similar magnitude for all parametric models.
Similar to the C
Y
g
( u
g
(t)) results, for the C
n
g
( u
g
(t)) responses the PCA-model shows the
best agreement with the LPF-solution. This is attributed to the use of the unsteady gust
derivative in the PCA-model leading to a more high frequent model-response.
Finally, the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model results are compared to the LPF-solution for
the 2D vertical gust eld w
g
. Also now the FPA-model responses are representative for
those of the DUT-model and the latter are therefore again omitted in the gures. In
gures 13.17 through 13.19 the aerodynamic model response in terms of the aerodynamic
coecients C
Y
g
, C
g
and C
n
g
with respect to the anti-symmetrical vertical gust eld w
g
is shown. For the C
Y
g
(
g
(t)) results, the PCA-model shows the best agreement with the
LPF-solution. This is attributed to an apparently correct sign of the PCA-model gust
derivative C
Y
p
g
, and the use of the unsteady gust derivative C
Y
p
g
leading to a more high
frequent model-response. Also here it should be noted, however, that the aerodynamic
force response to 2D anti-symmetrical turbulence C
Y
g
(
g
(t)) is usually neglected in the
DUT- and FPA-model, see references [30, 34, 35]. However, similar to aerodynamic force
C
Y
g
( u
g
(t)), they are again retained in this thesis.
For the C
g
(
g
(t)) results, all models show excellent agreement with the responses ob-
tained for the LPF-solution. This is attributed to the aerodynamic stiness term C
p
g
,
which is of similar magnitude for all parametric models.
For the C
n
g
(
g
(t)) results the PCA-model shows the best agreement with those obtained
for the LPF-solution. This is attributed to a more accurate estimation of the gust deriva-
tive C
n
p
g
and the use of the unsteady gust derivative C
n
p
g
in the PCA-model, leading to
a more high frequent model-response. The DUT- and the FPA-model gust derivative, or
aerodynamic stiness term, C
n
p
g
is underestimated.
As a concluding remark, it follows that the PCA-model gust derivatives were calculated for
the complete aircraft conguration. The DUT- and FPA-model gust derivatives, however,
are dened as a function of stability derivatives using the contribution of specic aircraft
parts (such as wing, vertical n, etcetera) to them.
13.3.3 Frequency-domain results
The time-domain results presented in the previous section can easily be transformed into
the frequency-domain by means of the Fast Fourier Transform. In this section the analy-
tical PSD-functions of the aerodynamic coecients will be compared to their numerically
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
50
0
.
51
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
X
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
50
0
.
51
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
X
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
50
0
.
51
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
X
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
50
0
.
51
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
X
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
5
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
f
o
r
c
e
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
X
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
D
U
T
-
(
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
u
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
5 0 5
1
0
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Z
g
( u
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
5 0 5
1
0
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Z
g
( u
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
5 0 5
1
0
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Z
g
( u
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
5 0 5
1
0
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Z
g
( u
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
6
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
f
o
r
c
e
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
Z
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
D
U
T
-
(
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
u
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
20246
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
m
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
20246
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
m
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
20246
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
m
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
20246
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
m
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
7
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
m
o
m
e
n
t
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
m
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
D
U
T
-
(
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
u
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
2 0 2 4 6 8
1
0
1
2
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Y
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
2 0 2 4 6 8
1
0
1
2
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Y
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
2 0 2 4 6 8
1
0
1
2
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Y
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
2 0 2 4 6 8
1
0
1
2
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Y
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
8
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
f
o
r
c
e
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
Y
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
D
U
T
-
(
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
50
0
.
51
1
.
52
2
.
53
3
.
5
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
50
0
.
51
1
.
52
2
.
53
3
.
5
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
50
0
.
51
1
.
52
2
.
53
3
.
5
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
50
0
.
51
1
.
52
2
.
53
3
.
5
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
9
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
m
o
m
e
n
t
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
D
U
T
-
(
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
5 0
0
.
5 1
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
n
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
5 0
0
.
5 1
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
n
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
5 0
0
.
5 1
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
n
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
5 0
0
.
5 1
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
n
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
1
0
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
m
o
m
e
n
t
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
n
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
D
U
T
-
(
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
202468
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
X
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
202468
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
X
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
202468
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
X
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
202468
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
X
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
1
1
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
f
o
r
c
e
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
X
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
D
U
T
-
(
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
2
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
0
.
0
5 0
0
.
0
5
0
.
1
0
.
1
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Z
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
2
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
0
.
0
5 0
0
.
0
5
0
.
1
0
.
1
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Z
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
2
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
0
.
0
5 0
0
.
0
5
0
.
1
0
.
1
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Z
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
2
0
.
1
5
0
.
1
0
.
0
5 0
0
.
0
5
0
.
1
0
.
1
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Z
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
1
2
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
f
o
r
c
e
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
Z
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
D
U
T
-
(
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
2
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
m
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
2
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
m
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
2
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
m
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
2
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
50
0
.
0
0
5
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
1
5
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
2
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
m
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
1
3
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
m
o
m
e
n
t
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
m
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
D
U
T
-
(
r
i
g
h
t
t
o
p
)
a
n
d
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
,
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
5 0
0
.
5 1
1
.
5 2
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Y
g
( u
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
5 0
0
.
5 1
1
.
5 2
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Y
g
( u
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
5 0
0
.
5 1
1
.
5 2
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Y
g
( u
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
1
4
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
f
o
r
c
e
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
Y
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
u
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
101234
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
101234
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
101234
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
g
( u
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
1
5
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
m
o
m
e
n
t
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
u
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
2 0 2 4 6 8
x

1
0
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
n
g
( u
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
2 0 2 4 6 8
x

1
0
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
n
g
( u
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
2 0 2 4 6 8
x

1
0
5
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
n
g
( u
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
1
6
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
m
o
m
e
n
t
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
n
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
u
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
20246
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Y
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
20246
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Y
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
20246
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
Y
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
1
7
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
f
o
r
c
e
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
Y
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1 0 1 2 3 4
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1 0 1 2 3 4
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1 0 1 2 3 4
x

1
0
3
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
g
(
g
( t ) )
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
1
8
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
m
o
m
e
n
t
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
50
0
.
51
1
.
52
2
.
5
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
n
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
50
0
.
51
1
.
52
2
.
5
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
n
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1
.
5
0
.
50
0
.
51
1
.
52
2
.
5
x

1
0
4
L
P
F

S
i
m
u
l
a
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
C
n
g
(
g
(t))
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
1
9
:
T
h
e
s
i
m
u
l
a
t
e
d
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
e
r
o
d
y
n
a
m
i
c
m
o
m
e
n
t
c
o
e
c
i
e
n
t
C
n
g
(
t
)
i
n
F
S
f
o
r
t
h
e
P
C
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
t
o
p
)
,
t
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
(
l
e
f
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
a
n
d
a
l
l
m
o
d
e
l
-
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
s
u
m
m
a
r
i
z
e
d
(
r
i
g
h
t
b
o
t
t
o
m
)
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
g
(
t
)
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
C
e
s
s
n
a
C
e
5
5
0
C
i
t
a
t
i
o
n
I
I
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
c
o
n
g
u
r
a
t
i
o
n
,
0
=
1
.
5
o
.
obtained PSD-function counterparts (or Periodograms) obtained from time-domain data.
The Periodograms are calculated by, see also reference [30],
S
yy
[k] = Y
[k] Y [k]/N (13.23)

with Y [k] the discrete Fast Fourier Transform of the time-domain array y[n],

denoting
the complex conjungate of Y [k], S
yy
[k] the numerical PSD-function (or Periodogram) of
y[n], k the frequency counter (with k = [0, 1, 2 N 1], N the number of samples in the
time-domain array and n the time-domain counter (t
n
= nt, with t the discretization
time and n = [0, 1, 2 N 1]). The discrete Fourier transform is dened as,
Y [k] =
N1
n=0
y[n] e
j
2kn
N
(13.24)
with
k
the discrete circular frequency in [Rad/sec.],
k
=
2k
Nt
(13.25)
and k = 0, 1, 2, ,
N
2
1.
In gures 13.20 through 13.24 the analytical PSD-functions of the aerodynamic force and
moment coecients are compared to the numerically obtained Periodograms. The ana-
lytical PSD-functions are calculated according to, taking for example the FPA-models
PSD-function of the aerodynamic force coecient C
Z
g
due to the non-dimensional sym-
metrical vertical gust velocity component
g
=
w
g
Q
,
S
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
() =
_
C
Z
g
()
_
C
Z
g
() (13.26)
with the output C
Z
g
similar to the coecient given in equation (13.19). For the frequency-
domain this becomes,
C
Z
g
() = C
Z
g

g
() +C
Z

g
j
g
c
Q
() +C
Z
q
g
q
g
c
Q
() (13.27)
Elaborating equation (13.26), while making use of equation (13.27), results in the ana-
lytical PSD-function S
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
(). It becomes a function of the auto input PSD-functions
S
g
() =
g
()
g
() and S q
g
c
Q
q
g
c
Q
() =
_
q
g
c
Q
()
_
q
g
c
Q
(), and the cross PSD-

functions S
g
q
g
c
Q
() =
g
()
q
g
c
Q
() and S q
g
c
Q
g
() =
_
q
g
c
Q
()
_

g
(). Input PSD-
functions with respect to
j
g
c
Q
will also appear in the expression for S
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
(), for
example S q
g
c
Q

g
c
Q
() =
_
q
g
c
Q
()
_
j c
Q
g
(), see also appendix B. Similar PSD-function
expressions for other aerodynamic coecients can be derived. For all aerodynamic mo-
dels, the analytical PSD-functions are calculated making use of the analytical aerodynamic
force and moment denitions given in section 13.2.
From gure 13.20 it follows that the analytical PSD-functions S
u
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
(), S
u
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
()
and S
u
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
() due to 1D longitudinal gusts almost coincide for the DUT- and FPA-
model. The PCA-model analytical PSD-functions, however, are considerably dierent
than the ones for the DUT- and FPA-model. The major dierences occur for the PSD-
functions S
u
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
() and S
u
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
(). Similar to the time-domain aerodynamic coe-
cient discussion, the dierence in the frequency-domain PCA-model responses is explained
by the use of the unsteady gust derivatives. Also shown in gure 13.20, it follows that the
Periodograms for the LPF-solution follow the PCA-model responses best.
In gure 13.21 the PSD-functions and Periodograms S
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
(), S
g
C
g
C
g
() and
S
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
() due to 1D lateral gusts are given. Similar to the time-domain discussion, it
follows that uptill a fairly high frequency ( = 10 [Rad/sec.]) all model responses al-
most coincide. Similar obeservations are made for the PSD-functions and Periodograms
S
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
(), S
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
() and S
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
() due to 1D vertical gusts shown in gure 13.22.
In gures 13.23 the PSD-functions and Periodograms S
u
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
(), S
u
g
C
g
C
g
() and
S
u
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
() due to 2D longitudinal gusts are shown. Similar to the time-domain observa-
tions, it follows that the DUT- and FPA-model results coincide. Major dierences occur,
however, with respect to the PCA-model. It is shown that the PSD-functions for the DUT-
and FPA-model are underestimated for both S
u
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
() and S
u
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
(). With respect
to the PSD-function S
u
g
C
g
C
g
(), the frequency-domain PCA-model responses show good
agreement with those obtained for both the DUT- and FPA-model (as can be expected
looking at gure 13.15). Also as expected, the LPF-solutions Periodograms show good
agreement with all the PCA-model responses.
Finally, in gures 13.24 the PSD-functions and Periodograms S
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
(), S
g
C
g
C
g
() and
S
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
() are shown. Similar to the time-domain observations, it follows that the DUT-
and FPA-model results coincide. Major dierences occur again, however, with respect
to the PCA-model. It is shown that the PSD-functions for the DUT- and FPA-model
are overestimated for S
u
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
() and that they are underestimated for S
u
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
(). The
PCA-model responses show excellent agreement with the DUT- and FPA-model for the
PSD-function S
u
g
C
g
C
g
() (as can be expected looking at gure 13.18). Also as expected,
the LPF-solution Periodograms show good agreement with the PCA-model responses.
13.4 Aircraft motion responses
13.4.1 Introduction
In this section the aircraft motion responses will be given for both the time- and frequency-
domain. For the time-domain responses use is made of the gust inputs calculated from
the spatial-domain gust-elds given in appendix G. Assuming a recti-linear ightpath, the
calculated aerodynamic coecient responses given in section 13.3 are used to simulate the
13.4 Aircraft motion responses 335
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
14
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
u
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
(
)
S
u
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
()
S
u
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
u
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
()
S
u
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
(
)
S
u
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
u
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
()
S
u
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
()
S
u
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
(
)
[Rad/sec.]
Figure 13.20: The aerodynamic coecient C
X
g
, C
Z
g
and C
m
g
PSD-functions for the 1D sym-
metrical longitudinal gust input u
g
given for the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m].
Results are given for the LPF-solution, as well as for the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-
model.
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
(
)
S
g
C
g
C
g
()
S
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
()
S
g
C
g
C
g
(
)
S
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
()
S
g
C
g
C
g
()
S
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
(
)
[Rad/sec.]
Y
g
, C
g
and C
n
g
PSD-functions for the 1D asym-
metrical lateral gust input
g
g
= 300 [m]. Results
are given for the LPF-solution, as well as for the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model.
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
(
)
S
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
()
S
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
()
S
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
(
)
S
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
g
C
X
g
C
X
g
()
S
g
C
Z
g
C
Z
g
()
S
g
C
m
g
C
m
g
(
)
[Rad/sec.]
X
g
, C
Z
g
and C
m
g
PSD-functions for the 1D symmet-
rical vertical gust input
g
g
= 300 [m]. Results
are given for the LPF-solution, as well as for the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model.
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
14
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
u
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
(
)
S
u
g
C
g
C
g
()
S
u
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
14
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
u
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
()
S
u
g
C
g
C
g
(
)
S
u
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
15
10
14
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
u
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
()
S
u
g
C
g
C
g
()
S
u
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
(
)
[Rad/sec.]
Y
g
, C
g
and C
n
g
PSD-functions for the 2D anti-
symmetrical longitudinal gust input u
g
g
= 300
[m]. Results are given for the LPF-solution, as well as for the PCA-, DUT- and
FPA-model.
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
14
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
(
)
S
g
C
g
C
g
()
S
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
()
S
g
C
g
C
g
(
)
S
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
()
[Rad/sec.]
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
15
10
14
10
13
10
12
10
11
10
10
10
9
10
8
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
LPFsimulation
PSfrag replacements
S
g
C
Y
g
C
Y
g
()
S
g
C
g
C
g
()
S
g
C
n
g
C
n
g
(
)
[Rad/sec.]
Y
g
, C
g
and C
n
g
PSD-functions for the 2D anti-
symmetrical vertical gust input
g
g
= 300 [m].
Results are given for the LPF-solution, as well as for the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-
model.
aircraft motion responses. The results will be given in terms of aircraft state time-histories
with respect to the encountered gust elds. For the frequency-domain, the aircraft motion
responses are given in terms of the aircraft motion state variable PSD-functions and their
variances.
For the calculation of these responses, use is made of the equations of motion written in
state-space form. Previously, see equation (13.2), the time-domain equations of motion
have been written as,
P
dx
dt
= Q x +R u
which are transformed into the state-space form,
dx
dt
= A x +B u
with A = P
1
Q the system-matrix, B = P
1
R the input-matrix, x the aircraft state and
u the gust input vector. The additional equation required to calculate the state-space
systems response is the output equation,
y = C x +D u
with C the output-matrix and D the direct-matrix. In the following, the response of the
aircraft-state is considered only. Therefore, the C matrix becomes the identity matrix of
order 4 (four states are present in both the symmetrical and asymmetrical aircraft equa-
tions of motion) while the D-matrix is the zero-matrix of order 4 m with m the number
of gust inputs.
For the calculation of time-domain aircraft motion responses use is made of gust inputs
obtained from the spatial-domain gust-elds given in appendix G. For the calculation
of the analytical frequency-domain aircraft motion responses the input PSD-functions
summarized in section 13.2 are used. The denition of the gust inputs is also summarized
in appendix G.
13.4.2 Time-domain results
In gures 13.25 the aircraft motion responses due to the longitudinal gust velocity com-
ponent u
g
are given. It is shown that the responses of the DUT-, FPA- and PCA-model
are well correlated with the LPF-solution responses. The oset in the aircraft motion res-
ponses is also due to the value of the aerodynamic coecients at t = 0, see the responses
of C
X
g
(u
g
(t)), C
Z
g
(u
g
(t)) and C
m
g
(u
g
(t)) in gures 13.5 through 13.7, respectively.
Next, in gures 13.26 the aircraft motion responses due to the lateral gust velocity compo-
nent v
g
are given. It is shown that the responses of all models correlate very well in both
phase and magnitude, as can be expected since the aerodynamic coecients C
Y
g
(
g
(t)),
C
g
(
g
(t)) and C
n
g
(
g
(t)) shown in gures 13.8 through 13.10, respectively, showed excel-
lent agreement for all models.
Also, in gures 13.27 the aircraft motion responses due to the vertical gust velocity com-
ponent w
g
are given. Except for the speed-response u(t), it is shown that all model
responses correlate very well in both phase and magnitude. The bad correlation of the
speed-response is attributed to the omission of the gust derivative C
X

g
for the PCA-
model, and the omission of C
X

in the DUT- and FPA-model.
For the asymmetrical equations of motion, the aircraft motion responses due to 2D long-
itudinal anti-symmetrical gust elds are given in gure 13.28. The PCA-model results
show excellent agreement with the LPF-solution results, whereas the agreement of the
FPA-model results is bad, see also gures 13.14 through 13.16 where the aerodynamic
coecients C
Y
g
( u
g
(t)), C
g
( u
g
(t)) and C
n
g
( u
g
(t)) are shown, respectively.
Finally, in gure 13.29 the aircraft motion responses due to the 2D anti-symmetrical
vertical gust velocity component w
g
are given. Also here the PCA-model responses show
excellent agreement with the LPF-solution results. The FPA-model responses show less
good agreement, especially for the side-slip-angle and yaw-rate.
13.4.3 Analytical frequency-domain results
In this section the frequency-domain aircraft motion responses are given in terms of PSD-
functions and calculated variances. To obtain these functions, rst the aircraft motion
Frequency-Response Functions (FRFs) are calculated using standard routines in MAT-
LAB (such as mv2fr.m). Next, the output PSD-functions are calculated using the theory
provided in appendix B, section B.2. From these PSD-functions the variance is calculated
using the following equation,
2
y
=
1
2
+
_
S
yy
() d =
1
+
_
0
S
yy
() d (13.28)
with
2
y
the variance, S
yy
() the PSD-function and the circular frequency in [Rad/sec.].
The variances are calculated uptill the frequency
end
=
Q
c
61.1 [Rad/sec.].
In gure 13.30 the input PSD-function S
u
g
u
g
() and the output PSD-functions of the
PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model with respect to the 1D gust input u
g
, S
u
g
u u
(),
S
u
g
(), S
u
g
() and S
u
g
q c
Q
q c
Q
() for the gust scale length L

g
= 300 [m] are given. While
the model input PSD-functions are almost equal, compared to the other models for high
frequencies the PCA-model output PSD-functions dier considerably. This is attributed to
the use of the unsteady gust derivatives C
X
u
g
, C
Z
u
g
and C
m
u
g
. In table 13.3 the calculated
variances of the input u
g
and the outputs u, , and
q c
Q
are summarized for all models.

The variances of all models show excellent agreement, except for
2
. Apparently, the ef-

fect of the use of the PCA-model unsteady gust derivatives C
X
u
g
, C
Z
u
g
and C
m
u
g
is small.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
20
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
0
1
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u( u
g
(t))
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
q
c
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
20
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
81
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
( u
g
(t))
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
q
c
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
20
0
.
0
0
2
0
.
0
0
4
0
.
0
0
6
0
.
0
0
8
0
.
0
1
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
( u
g
(t))
q
c
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1012345
x

1
0
5
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
q c
Q
( u
g
(t))
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
2
5
:
T
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
u
,
a
n
d
q
c
Q
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
g
u
s
t
-
e
l
d
u
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1 0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
(
g
( t ) )
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1 0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
4
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
(
g
( t ) )
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
p b
2 Q
(
g
( t ) )
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1 0 1 2 3
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r b
2 Q
(
g
( t ) )
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
2
6
:
T
h
e
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
,
p
b
2
Q
a
n
d
r
b
2
Q
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
g
u
s
t
-
e
l
d
v
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1012345
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u(
g
(t))
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
q
c
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
10
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
5
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
g
(
t
)
)
(
g
(t))
g
(
t
)
)
q
c
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
10
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
(
g
(t))
q
c
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1012345
x

1
0
4
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
q c
Q
(
g
(t))
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
2
7
:
T
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
u
,
a
n
d
q
c
Q
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
-
e
l
d
w
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1 0 1 2 3 4
x

1
0
4
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
( u
g
( t ) )
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
2 0 2 4 6
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
( u
g
( t ) )
p
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x

1
0
4
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
p b
2 Q
( u
g
( t ) )
r
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
2 0 2 4 6
x

1
0
5
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
r b
2 Q
( u
g
( t ) )
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
2
8
:
T
h
e
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
,
p
b
2
Q
a
n
d
r
b
2
Q
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
g
u
s
t
-
e
l
d
u
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
10123
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
(
g
(t))
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
20
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
6
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
(
g
(t))
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
20246
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
pb
2Q
(
g
(t))
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
2
4
6
8
1
0
1
2
1
4
1012345
x

1
0
4
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
rb
2Q
(
g
(t))
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
2
9
:
T
h
e
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
,
p
b
2
Q
a
n
d
r
b
2
Q
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
-
e
l
d
w
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
Next, in gure 13.31 the input PSD-function S
g
() and the output PSD-functions of
the PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model with respect to the 1D gust input
g
, S
(),
S
(), S
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
() and S
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q

g
= 300 [m] are given.
Both the models input - and output PSD-functions coincide over a wide frequency range,
as can be expected since the model time-domain responses showed excellent agreement.
In table 13.4 the calculated variances of the input
g
and the outputs , ,
pb
2Q
and
rb
2Q
are summarized for all models. The variances of all models show excellent agreement as
was already expected from the time-domain aircraft motion results.
Also, in gure 13.32 the input PSD-function S
g
() and the output PSD-functions of
the PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model with respect to the 1D gust input
g
, S
g
u u
(),
S
(), S
() and S
g
q c
Q
q c
Q

g
= 300 [m] are given. Both
the models input - and output PSD-functions are almost equal, as was also already ex-
pected from the time-domain aircraft-responses. In table 13.3 the calculated variances of
the input u
g
and the outputs u, , and
q c
Q
are summarized for all models. Similar to

the PSD-functions, the variances of all models show excellent agreement.
For the asymmetrical equations of motion, the frequency-domain aircraft motion responses
due to 2D longitudinal anti-symmetrical gust elds are given in gure 13.33. Here, the
input PSD-functions S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
() and the Eective input PSD-function I

u
g
(), and the
output PSD-functions of the PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model with respect to the 2D
gust input r
1
g
=
r
1
g
b
2Q
(PCA- and FPA-model) and the 2D gust input u

g
(DUT-model),
S
r
1
g
, u
g
(), S
r
1
g
, u
g
(), S
r
1
g
, u
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
() and S
r
1
g
, u
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q

g
= 300
[m] are shown. Except for the side-slip-angle - and the yaw-rate response, all model res-
ponses show good agreement. It is shown that the side-slip response is overestimated
for the FPA-model (compared to the PCA-model results), while the yaw-rate response
is too low-frequent in nature for the FPA-model, see also gure 13.28. In table 13.4 the
calculated variances of the inputs
r
1
g
b
2Q
and u
g
and the outputs , ,
pb
2Q
and
rb
2Q
are
summarized for all models. The variances of the DUT- and FPA-model show excellent
agreement. They both dier considerably, however, with respect to the PCA-model vari-
ances as was already expected from the frequency-domain aircraft motion results.
Finally, in gure 13.34 the input PSD-functions S p
g
b
2Q
p
g
b
2Q
() and the eective input PSD-

function I
g
(), and the output PSD-functions of the PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model
with respect to the 2D gust input p
g
=
p
g
b
2Q
(PCA- and FPA-model) and the 2D gust

input
g
(DUT-model), S
p
g
,
g
(), S
p
g
,
g
(), S
p
g
,
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
() and S
p
g
,
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
() for the gust

scale length L
g
= 300 [m] are given. Similar to aircraft motion results with respect to the
longitudinal anti-symmetrical gust eld, all model responses show good agreement except
for the side-slip-angle - and the yaw-rate response. It is shown that the side-slip response
is now underestimated for the FPA-model (compared to the PCA-model results), while
the yaw-rate response is over-estimated, see also gure 13.29. In table 13.4 the calculated
variances of the inputs
p
g
b
2Q
and
g
and the outputs , ,
pb
2Q
and
rb
2Q
are summa-
rized for all models. The variances of the DUT- and FPA-model show good agreement.
They dier, however, with respect to the PCA-model variances as can already be from
the frequency-domain aircraft motion results.
13.5 LPF-EOM-model simulations
13.5.1 Introduction
In this section the aircraft responses for the LPF-EOM-model are given. For this model,
the potential ow solution is now coupled to the aircraft equations of motion. Although
the responses are calculated for both symmetrical and anti-symmetrical gust elds used
earlier, the aircraft grid is now allowed to travel along stochastic ightpaths.
Results are given for the non-dimensional aerodynamic force and moment coecients
acting on the aircraft, that is C
X
, C
Y
, C
Z
, C
, C
m
and C
n
. These results will only be
given for the LPF-solution (for recti-linear ightpaths) and the LPF-EOM-solution (for
stochastic ight-paths). For the symmetrical aircraft motions, as an example the LPF-
solution coeents due to the symmetrical vertical gust eld are treated rst. They are
written as,
C
LPF
X
(t)
g
= C
X
u
u(t) +C
X
(t) +C
X
q
q c
Q
(t) +C
LPF
X
g
(t)
g
C
LPF
Z
(t)
g
= C
Z
u
u(t) +C
Z
(t) +C
Z

(t)
c
Q
+C
Z
q
q c
Q
(t) +C
LPF
Z
g
(t)
g
C
LPF
m
(t)
g
= C
m
u
u(t) +C
m
(t) +C
m

(t)
c
Q
+C
m
q
q c
Q
(t) +C
LPF
m
g
(t)
g
(13.29)
with the steady - and unsteady stability derivatives determined in chapters 5 and 10,
the LPF-solution gust induced aerodynamic force and moment coecients C
LPF
X
g
(t)
g
,
C
LPF
Z
g
(t)
g
and C
LPF
m
g
(t)
g
shown in gures 13.11, 13.12 and 13.13, respectively, and the
LPF-solution aircraft motion responses u(t), (t), (t) and
q c
Q
(t) shown in gures 13.27.

The coecient denitions for symmetrical longitudinal gust elds are similar to the ones
given in equation (13.29).
For the asymmetrical aircraft motions, as an example the LPF-solution coeents due to
the anti-symmetrical vertical gust eld is written as,
C
LPF
Y
(t)
g
= C
Y
(t) +C
Y
(t)
b
Q
+C
Y
p
pb
2Q
(t) +C
Y
r
rb
2Q
(t) +C
LPF
Y
g
(t)
g
C
LPF
(t)
g
= C
(t) +C
(t)
b
Q
+C
p
pb
2Q
(t) +C
r
rb
2Q
(t) +C
LPF
g
(t)
g
C
LPF
n
(t)
g
= C
n
(t) +C
n
(t)
b
Q
+C
n
p
pb
2Q
(t) +C
n
r
rb
2Q
(t) +C
LPF
n
g
(t)
g
(13.30)
13.5 LPF-EOM-model simulations 349
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
(
)
S
u
g
u u
()
S
u
g
()
S
u
g
()
S
u
g
q c
Q
q c
Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
u
g
u
u
(
)
S
u
g
()
S
u
g
()
S
u
g
q c
Q
q c
Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
u
g
u u
()
S
u
g
)
S
u
g
()
S
u
g
q c
Q
q c
Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
u
g
u u
()
S
u
g
()
S
u
g
)
S
u
g
q c
Q
q c
Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
u
g
u u
()
S
u
g
()
S
u
g
()
S
u
g
q
c
Q
q
c
Q
)
Figure 13.30: Both the 1D input PSD-function S
u
g
u
g
PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model with respect to the 1D gust input u
g
, S
u
g
u u
(),
S
u
g
(), S
u
g
() and S
u
g
q c
Q
q c
Q

g
= 300 [m].
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
(
)
S
()
S
()
S
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
S
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
()
S
)
S
()
S
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
S
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
()
S
()
S
)
S
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
S
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
()
S
()
S
()
S
gp
b
2
Q
p
b
2
Q
)
S
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
()
S
()
S
()
S
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
() S
gr
b
2
Q
r
b
2
Q
)
g
PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model with respect to the 1D gust input
g
, S
(),
S
(), S
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
() and S
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q

g
= 300 [m].
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
(
)
S
g
u u
()
S
()
S
()
S
g
q c
Q
q c
Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
()
S
g
u
u
(
)
S
()
S
()
S
g
q c
Q
q c
Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
()
S
g
u u
()
S
)
S
()
S
g
q c
Q
q c
Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
()
S
g
u u
()
S
()
S
)
S
g
q c
Q
q c
Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
g
()
S
g
u u
()
S
()
S
()
S
g
q
c
Q
q
c
Q
)
g
PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-model with respect to the 1D gust input
g
, S
g
u u
(),
S
(), S
() and S
g
q c
Q
q c
Q

g
= 300 [m].
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
1
g
b
2
Q
r
1
g
b
2
Q
)
,
I
u
g
(
)
S
r
1
g
, u
g
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
(), I
u
g
()
S
r
1
g
,
u
g
)
S
r
1
g
, u
g
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
(), I
u
g
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
()
S
r
1
g
,
u
g
)
S
r
1
g
, u
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
(), I
u
g
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
()
S
r
1
g
,
u
g
p
b
2
Q
p
b
2
Q
)
S
r
1
g
, u
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
(), I
u
g
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
()
S
r
1
g
, u
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
S
r
1
g
,
u
g
r
b
2
Q
r
b
2
Q
)
Figure 13.33: The input PSD-functions S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
() and the eective input PSD-function

I
u
g
(), and the output PSD-functions of the PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-
model with respect to the 2D gust input r
1
g
=
r
1
g
b
2Q
(PCA- and FPA-model)

and the 2D gust input u
g
(DUT-model), S
r
1
g
, u
g
(), S
r
1
g
, u
g
(), S
r
1
g
, u
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
and S
r
1
g
, u
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q

g
= 300 [m].
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S
p
g
b
2
Q
p
g
b
2
Q
)
,
I
g
(
)
S
p
g
,
g
()
S
p
g
,
g
()
S
p
g
,
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
S
p
g
,
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S p
g
b
2Q
p
g
b
2Q
(), I
g
()
S
p
g
,
)
S
p
g
,
g
()
S
p
g
,
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
S
p
g
,
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S p
g
b
2Q
p
g
b
2Q
(), I
g
()
S
p
g
,
g
()
S
p
g
,
)
S
p
g
,
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
()
S
p
g
,
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S p
g
b
2Q
p
g
b
2Q
(), I
g
()
S
p
g
,
g
()
S
p
g
,
g
()
S
p
g
,
g
p
b
2
Q
p
b
2
Q
)
S
p
g
,
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
15
10
10
10
5
10
0
PCAmodel
DUTmodel
FPAmodel
PSfrag replacements
end
[Rad/sec.]
S p
g
b
2Q
p
g
b
2Q
(), I
g
()
S
p
g
,
g
()
S
p
g
,
g
()
S
p
g
,
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
() S
p
g
,
g
r
b
2
Q
r
b
2
Q
)
Figure 13.34: The input PSD-functions S p
g
b
2Q
p
g
b
2Q
() and the eective input PSD-function

I
g
(), and the output PSD-functions of the PCA-, the DUT- and the FPA-
model with respect to the 2D gust input p
g
=
p
g
b
2Q
(PCA- and FPA-model)

and the 2D gust input
g
(DUT-model), S
p
g
,
g
(), S
p
g
,
g
(), S
p
g
,
g
pb
2Q
pb
2Q
() and
S
p
g
,
g
rb
2Q
rb
2Q

g
= 300 [m].
with the asymmetrical steady - and unsteady stability derivatives also determined in chap-
ters 5 and 10, the LPF-solution gust induced aerodynamic force and moment coecients
C
LPF
Y
g
(t)
g
, C
LPF
g
(t)
g
and C
LPF
n
g
(t)
g
shown in gures 13.17, 13.18 and 13.19, respec-
tively, and the LPF-solution aircraft motion responses (t),
pb
2Q
(t) and
rb
2Q
(t) shown in
gures 13.29. The coecient denitions to asymmetrical lateral gust elds and to anti-
symmetrical longitudinal gust elds are similar to the ones given in equation (13.30).
The LPF-EOM-model aerodynamic coecients are determined using the theory given in
chapter 9. For comparison with the LPF-solution coecients, they are corrected for their
values calculated for the trim condition.
In this section the LPF-EOM-model aircraft motion responses will be compared to the
ones obtained for the LPF-solution as well. For the sake of completeness, the PCA-,
DUT- and FPA-model aircraft motion responses will be given as well, however they will
not be discussed (for their discussion, see section 13.4). For the discussion of both the
LPF-solution - and LPF-EOM-model responses, it should be borne in mind that,
1. Contrary to the LPF-solutions planar wake, the LPF-EOM-models wake becomes
three dimensional since it is created along the stochastic ightpath.
2. Since the LPF-EOM-models ightpath is stochastic, for the asymmetrical aircraft
motions the encountered gust elds will dier from those encountered during recti-
linear ightpaths. Since deviations from the recti-linear ightpaths remained small
during simulations, the dierence in encountered gust elds remained small as well
(for the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m]).
3. The encountered gust elds (which are given in the frame T
E
) are transformed to
the frame T
S
for the LPF-EOM-model simulations. Since the Euler angles [, , ]
T
remained small during simulations ([, , ]
T
<< [1, 1, 1]
T
), the gust eld of interest
in T
E
always remained dominant, even when it was decomposed in the frame T
S
.
13.5.2 LPF-EOM model responses
Responses to symmetrical longitudinal gust elds
In gure 13.35 the response of the aerodynamic coecients C
X
, C
Z
and C
m
to the sym-
metrical longitudinal gust eld u
g
is shown for both the LPF-solution and the LPF-
EOM-model. The model responses show good correlation, both in phase and magnitude.
However, for initial time-steps the LPF-solution responses show bad agreement with the
LPF-EOM-model responses. This is attributed to the unrestrained simulation used for the
LPF-EOM-model. Whereas the LPF-solution is constrained to a rectilinear ightpath, the
LPF-EOM-model responses are free, resulting in an oset by the aircraft motions of the
aerodynamic forces and moments. Once the LPF-solutions transient has expired, both the
LPF-solution and the LPF-EOM-model responses show good agreement. From these re-
sponses it may be concluded that the parametric aerodynamic model, as given in equation
(13.29), is accurate.
Next, in gure 13.36 the aircraft motion responses to the symmetrical longitudinal gust
eld u
g
are shown. As expected, the LPF-solutions transient response of the gust induced
coecients C
X
, C
Z
and C
m
result in aircraft motions dissimilar to the ones obtained for
the LPF-EOM-model. It should be noted, however, that the PCA-model responses show
good correlation with the ones for the LPF-EOM-model, especially for the non-dimensional
speed perturbation - ( u), the pitch-angle - () and the non-dimensional pitch-rate (
q c
Q
)
responses.
Responses to asymmetrical lateral gust elds
Y
, C
and C
n
to the asym-
metrical lateral gust eld v
g
is shown for both the LPF-solution and the LPF-EOM-model.
Here, the model responses show good correlation, both in phase and magnitude, and it
may be concluded that the parametric aerodynamic model, as given in equation (13.30),
is accurate.
Next, in gure 13.38 the aircraft motion responses to the asymmetrical lateral gust eld v
g
are shown. From the aerodynamic coecient responses shown in gure 13.37, it is expected
that the aircraft motion responses for both the LPF-solution and the LPF-EOM-model
show good correlation. Especially for the side-slip-angle (), the non-dimensional roll-
rate (
pb
2Q
) and the non-dimensional yaw-rate (

rb
2Q
) the results show good agreement.

Apparantly, the (sometimes) larger amplitude of the LPF-EOM-model rolling moment
coecient C
leads to considerable dierences in the roll-angle () as time progresses.

Here, it may also be concluded that the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model accurately simulate
the aircraft motion responses to asymmetrical lateral gust elds.
Responses to symmetrical vertical gust elds
X
, C
Z
and C
m
to the symme-
trical vertical gust eld w
g
is shown for both the LPF-solution and the LPF-EOM-model.
The model responses show good correlation, both in phase and magnitude. Similar to
the coecient responses to the symmetrical longitudinal gust eld, also here the LPF-
solution contains transient responses: for initial time-steps the LPF-solution responses
show less agreement with the LPF-EOM-model responses. Also here this is attributed
to the free simulation of the LPF-EOM-model. Once the LPF-solutions transient has
expired, both the LPF-solution and the LPF-EOM-model responses show good agreement.
From these responses it may be concluded that the parametric aerodynamic model, as
given in equation (13.29), is inaccurate for the aerodynamic force coecient C
X
(the
model may be enhanced including a contribution according to C
X

(t)
c
Q
). For both
the aerodynamic force coecient C
Z
and the aerodynamic moment coecient C
m
the
parametric aerodynamic is accurate.
Next, in gure 13.40 the aircraft motion responses to the symmetrical vertical gust eld w
g
are shown. Similar to the aircraft motion responses to the symmetrical longitudinal gust
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
3
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
X
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
C
Z
( u
g
(t))
C
m
( u
g
(t))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 10
3
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
X
( u
g
(t))
C
Z
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
C
m
( u
g
(t))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
3
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
X
( u
g
(t))
C
Z
( u
g
(t))
C
m
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
Figure 13.35: The time-domain aerodynamic coecient responses C
X
, C
Z
and C
m
for the sym-
metrical longitudinal gust eld u
g
g
= 300 [m].
Results are given for both the LPF- and LPF-EOM-solution.
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
1
.
5
0
.
5 0
0
.
5 1
1
.
5 2
x

1
0
4
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u ( u
g
( t ) )
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
q
c
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
0
.
8
0
.
6
0
.
4
0
.
2 0
0
.
2
0
.
4
0
.
6
0
.
8 1
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
( u
g
( t ) )
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
q
c
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
( u
g
( t ) )
q
c
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x

1
0
5
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
q c
Q
( u
g
( t ) )
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
3
6
:
T
h
e
L
P
F
-
,
P
C
A
-
,
D
U
T
-
,
F
P
A
-
a
n
d
L
P
F
-
E
O
M
-
m
o
d
e
l
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
u
,
a
n
d
q
c
Q
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
g
u
s
t
-
e
l
d
u
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
8
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
8
x 10
3
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
Y
(
g
(
t
)
)
C
(
g
(t))
C
n
(
g
(t))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
x 10
3
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
Y
(
g
(t))
C
g
(
t
)
)
C
n
(
g
(t))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
x 10
3
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
Y
(
g
(t))
C
(
g
(t))
C
n
(
g
(
t
)
)
Y
, C
and C
n
for the asym-
metrical lateral gust eld v
g
g
= 300 [m]. Results
are given for both the LPF- and LPF-EOM-solution.
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1 0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
(
g
( t ) )
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
1 0
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
4
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
(
g
( t ) )
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
p b
2 Q
(
g
( t ) )
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
1 0 1 2 3
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r b
2 Q
(
g
( t ) )
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
3
8
:
T
h
e
L
P
F
-
,
P
C
A
-
,
D
U
T
-
,
F
P
A
-
a
n
d
L
P
F
-
E
O
M
-
m
o
d
e
l
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
,
p
b
2
Q
a
n
d
r
b
2
Q
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
a
t
e
r
a
l
g
u
s
t
-
e
l
d
v
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
eld u
g
, as expected, the LPF-solutions transient response of the gust induced coecients
C
X
and C
m
result in aircraft motions dissimilar to the ones obtained for the LPF-EOM-
model. Especially the non-dimensional speed perturbation ( u) - and the pitch-angle ()
responses show less agreement with the LPF-EOM model responses. It should be noted,
however, that the PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model responses show good correlation with the
ones for the LPF-EOM-model, especially for the angle-of-attack - () and the pitch-angle
() responses.
Responses to anti-symmetrical longitudinal gust elds
Y
, C
and C
n
to the anti-
symmetrical longitudinal gust eld u
g
is shown for both the LPF-solution and the LPF-
EOM-model. Here, the model responses show excellent correlation, both in phase and
magnitude, and it may be concluded that the parametric aerodynamic model, as given in
equation (13.30), is extremely accurate.
Next, in gure 13.42 the aircraft motion responses to the anti-symmetrical longitudinal
gust eld u
g
are shown. From the aerodynamic coecient responses shown in gure 13.41,
it is also here expected that the aircraft motion responses for both the LPF-solution and the
LPF-EOM-model show good correlation. For all aircraft motion variables, the side-slip-
angle (), the roll-angle (), the non-dimensional roll-rate (
pb
2Q
) and the non-dimensional

yaw-rate (
rb
2Q
) the results show good agreement. Here, it may also be concluded that the
PCA-model accurately simulates the aircraft motion responses to anti-symmetrical longi-
tudinal gust elds. The FPA/DUT-model responses show less agreement with the LPF-
EOM-model responses, especially for the side-slip-angle - () and the non-dimensional
yaw-rate (
rb
2Q
) responses.
Responses to anti-symmetrical vertical gust elds
Y
, C
and C
n
to the anti-
symmetrical vertical gust eld w
g
is shown for both the LPF-solution and the LPF-EOM-
model. For the rolling moment coecient C
the model responses show excellent agree-

ment, both in phase and magnitude. Both the aerodynamic force coecient C
Y
and the
yawing moment coecient C
n
show excellent agreement in phase, however, they show less
agreement in terms of magnitude. This dierence in magnitude cannot be explained by
contributions of the arising lateral gust velocity component (LPF-EOM-model) to the aero-
dynamic force and moment coecients. Since the vertical gust eld is anti-symmetrical,
the, for example, arising lateral gust velocity component at the left wingtip cancels the
one at the right wingtip. Therefor, it may be concluded that the parametric aerodynamic
model, as given in equation (13.30), is less accurate for the aerodynamic coecients C
Y
and C
n
. The inclusion of stability derivatives with respect to the time-derivative of the
non-dimensional roll- and yaw-rate, that is for example C
Y
p
, C
Y
r
, etc., may result in a
more accurate parametric aerodynamic model.
Next, in gure 13.44 the aircraft motion responses to the anti-symmetrical vertical gust
eld w
g
are shown. From the aerodynamic coecient responses shown in gure 13.43, it
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
5
4
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 10
3
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
X
(
g
(
t
)
)
C
Z
(
g
(t))
C
m
(
g
(t))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
X
(
g
(t))
C
Z
(
g
(
t
)
)
C
m
(
g
(t))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.002
0
0.002
0.004
0.006
0.008
0.01
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
X
(
g
(t))
C
Z
(
g
(t))
C
m
(
g
(
t
)
)
X
, C
Z
and C
m
for the sym-
metrical vertical gust eld w
g
g
= 300 [m]. Results
are given for both the LPF- and LPF-EOM-solution.
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
1012345
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u(
g
(t))
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
q
c
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
0
.
0
5
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
10
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
5
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
g
(
t
)
)
(
g
(t))
g
(
t
)
)
q
c
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
0
.
0
3
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
10
0
.
0
1
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
(
g
(t))
q
c
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
1012345
x

1
0
4
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
u
(
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
q c
Q
(
g
(t))
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
4
0
:
T
h
e
L
P
F
-
,
P
C
A
-
,
D
U
T
-
,
F
P
A
-
a
n
d
L
P
F
-
E
O
M
-
m
o
d
e
l
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
u
,
a
n
d
q
c
Q
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
-
e
l
d
w
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
3
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
Y
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
C
( u
g
(t))
C
n
( u
g
(t))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
4
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
Y
( u
g
(t))
C
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
C
n
( u
g
(t))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
1
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
x 10
4
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
Y
( u
g
(t))
C
( u
g
(t))
C
n
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
Y
, C
and C
n
for the 2D
anti-symmetrical longitudinal gust eld u
g
g
= 300
[m]. Results are given for both the LPF- and LPF-EOM-solution.
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
101234
x

1
0
4
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
/
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
( u
g
(t))
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
20246
x

1
0
3
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
/
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
( u
g
(t))
p
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
1012345
x

1
0
4
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
/
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
pb
2Q
( u
g
(t))
r
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
20246
x

1
0
5
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
/
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
(
u
g
(
t
)
)
rb
2Q
( u
g
(t))
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
4
2
:
T
h
e
L
P
F
-
,
P
C
A
-
,
D
U
T
-
,
F
P
A
-
a
n
d
L
P
F
-
E
O
M
-
m
o
d
e
l
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
,
p
b
2
Q
a
n
d
r
b
2
Q
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
2
D
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
l
o
n
g
i
t
u
d
i
n
a
l
g
u
s
t
-
e
l
d
u
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
13.6 Conclusions 365
is also here expected that the aircraft motion responses for both the LPF-solution and
the LPF-EOM-model show good correlation in phase. For all aircraft motion variables,
the side-slip-angle (), the roll-angle (), the non-dimensional roll-rate (
pb
2Q
) and the
non-dimensional yaw-rate (
rb
2Q
) the results show good agreement in phase indeed. As

expected, the roll-rate responses (
pb
2Q
) show excellent agreement. Here, it may also be

concluded that the PCA-model accurately simulates the aircraft motion responses to anti-
symmetrical vertical gust elds. The FPA/DUT-model responses show less agreement
with the LPF-EOM-model responses, especially for the side-slip-angle - () and the non-
dimensional yaw-rate (
rb
2Q
) responses.
13.6 Conclusions
From the results presented in this chapter, it is shown that the here introduced PCA-model
is the most accurate for all considered gust elds; compared to the LPF-(EOM)-solution,
the new parametric model shows more accuracy over the other models (the DUT- and
the FPA-model), especially for aircraft responses to anti-symmetrical gust elds. Further-
more, it showes more accuracy for symmetrical longitudinal gust elds as well.
Also, it may be concluded that the parametric aerodynamic models given in equations
(13.29) and (13.30) are adequate. However, they may be enhanced by adding the stability
derivative C
X

, and stability derivatives with respect to both
pb
2
2Q
2
and
rb
2
2Q
2
.
Although the introduced PCA-model produces the most accurate results, it requires con-
siderably more eort to compute the steady and unsteady gust derivatives (as compared
to the DUT- and the FPA-model). However, once the PCA-model gust derivatives have
been obtained, they are easy to implement into the equations of motion as these are not
fundamentally dierent for all aircraft models considered here.
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
x 10
4
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
Y
(
g
(
t
)
)
C
(
g
(t))
C
n
(
g
(t))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
3
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
Y
(
g
(t))
C
g
(
t
)
)
C
n
(
g
(t))
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
4
LPF model
LPFEOM model
PSfrag replacements
time [secs.]
C
Y
(
g
(t))
C
(
g
(t))
C
n
(
g
(
t
)
)
Y
, C
and C
n
for the 2D
anti-symmetrical vertical gust eld w
g
g
= 300
[m]. Results are given for both the LPF- and LPF-EOM-solution.
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
1 0 1 2 3
x

1
0
3
t
i
m
e
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
/
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
(
g
( t ) )
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
0
.
0
6
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
2 0
0
.
0
2
0
.
0
4
0
.
0
6
t
i
m
e
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
/
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
(
g
( t ) )
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
2 0 2 4 6
x

1
0
3
t
i
m
e
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
/
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
p b
2 Q
(
g
( t ) )
r
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
0
0
.
5
1
1
.
5
2
2
.
5
3
3
.
5
4
1 0 1 2 3 4 5
x

1
0
4
t
i
m
e
L
P
F
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n

P
C
A
m
o
d
e
l

F
P
A
/
D
U
T
m
o
d
e
l

L
P
F
E
O
M
s
o
l
u
t
i
o
n
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
s
.
]
g
(
t
)
)
g
(
t
)
)
p
b
2
Q
g
(
t
)
)
r b
2 Q
(
g
( t ) )
F
i
g
u
r
e
1
3
.
4
4
:
T
h
e
L
P
F
-
,
P
C
A
-
,
D
U
T
-
,
F
P
A
-
a
n
d
L
P
F
-
E
O
M
-
m
o
d
e
l
a
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
a
i
r
c
r
a
f
t
m
o
t
i
o
n
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
,
p
b
2
Q
a
n
d
r
b
2
Q
d
u
e
t
o
t
h
e
2
D
a
n
t
i
-
s
y
m
m
e
t
r
i
c
a
l
v
e
r
t
i
c
a
l
g
u
s
t
-
e
l
d
w
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
s
c
a
l
e
l
e
n
g
t
h
L
g
=
3
0
0
[
m
]
.
1D symmetrical gust input u
g
PCA-model DUT-model FPA-model
2
u
g
6.3192e-005 6.3192e-005 6.3215e-005
2
u
2.7181e-003 2.6968e-003 2.6968e-003
6.6179e-008 5.8893e-008 5.8897e-008
5.9054e-003 5.8594e-003 5.8594e-003
2
q c
Q
2.1409e-008 2.1223e-008 2.1223e-008

1D symmetrical gust input
g
g
6.2977e-005 6.2977e-005 6.1417e-005
2
u
2.2078e-004 2.1073e-004 2.2237e-004
5.9303e-005 5.9157e-005 5.8040e-005
4.9864e-004 4.7602e-004 5.0083e-004
2
q c
Q
1.0646e-008 1.0389e-008 9.4762e-009

Table 13.3: The PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model calculated symmetrical gust input variances
2
u
g
and
2
g
and the calculated symmetrical aircraft motion variables variances
2
u
,
2
and
2
q c
Q
, for the gust scale length parameter L

g
= 300 [m].
2D anti-symmetrical gust input u
g
2
u
g
,
2
r
1
g
b
2Q
2.6748e-006 2.7323e-006 2.6748e-006
1.5323e-008 2.1948e-008 2.1319e-008
1.2354e-004 1.6981e-004 1.6536e-004
2
pb
2Q
1.5039e-008 2.1633e-008 2.0577e-008
2
rb
2Q
2.9408e-009 4.0689e-009 3.9613e-009

1D asymmetrical gust input
g
g
6.2977e-005 6.2977e-005 6.3012e-005
1.0530e-004 1.0391e-004 1.0437e-004
1.1955e-004 1.1063e-004 1.1797e-004
2
pb
2Q
2.0894e-006 1.9787e-006 2.0390e-006
2
rb
2Q
8.9401e-007 8.6999e-007 8.7611e-007

2D anti-symmetrical gust input
g
g
,
2
p
g
b
2Q
2.5875e-006 2.6346e-006 2.5875e-006
1.2599e-006 1.0191e-006 9.9345e-007
1.0601e-002 9.9418e-003 9.6863e-003
2
pb
2Q
1.3261e-006 1.3295e-006 1.2719e-006
2
rb
2Q
2.5303e-007 2.3501e-007 2.2893e-007

Table 13.4: The PCA-, DUT- and FPA-model calculated anti- and asymmetrical gust input vari-
ances
2
u
g
or
2
r
1
g
b
2Q
,
2
g
, and
2
g
or
2
p
g
b
2Q
, given along with the calculated asym-

metrical aircraft motion variables variances
2
,
2
,
2
pb
2Q
and
2
rb
2Q
to the 2D
anti-symmetrical gust input u
g
, the 1D asymmetrical gust input
g
and the 2D anti-
symmetrical gust input
g
, for the gust scale length parameter L
g
= 300 [m].
Part VI
Conclusions and
Recommendations
Chapter 14
Conclusions and
recommendations
14.1 Introduction
The response of aircraft to atmospheric turbulence plays an important role in aircraft
design (load calculations), Flight Control System design and ight simulation (Handling
Qualities research and pilot training). To simulate these aircraft responses, an accurate
mathematical aircraft model is required.
Since it remains extremely dicult to obtain (experimental) data of aircraft responses
to atmospheric turbulence, while also considering that this input to the aircraft is al-
most unknown, the validation of mathematical aircraft models is arduous. Therefore, in
this thesis a virtual ighttest facility was developed to simulate the aircraft responses to
known stochastic two-dimensional (2D) gust elds. Results of these virtual ighttests,
i.e. the LPF-solution for recti-linear ightpaths and the LPF-EOM-solution for stochas-
tic ightpaths, were compared to those obtained for the parametric models discussed in
this thesis. For this verication, the LPF-EOM-model results were considered to be the
benchmark. That is they resemble reality the closest.
For the two classical parametric aircraft models discussed in this thesis, i.e. the Delft Uni-
versity of Technology (DUT) - and the Four Point Aircraft (FPA) model, their aircraft
responses correlated with the ones obtained for the LPF- and LPF-EOM-solutions. How-
ever, the classical models showed substantial deciencies when the aircraft responses to
anti-symmetrical gust elds were considered. The novel Parametric Computational Aero-
dynamics (PCA) model introduced in this thesis, however, produced more accurate results
to these gust elds.
In section 14.2 the conclusions of this thesis are summarized, with reference to the chapters.
See gure 1.1 for a thesis overview. Next, in section 14.3, recommendations for future
research are given.
374 Conclusions and recommendations
14.2 Conclusions
From the results presented in this thesis (which are summarized in chapter 13), it
is concluded that the introduced PCA-model is the most accurate for all considered
gust elds. Compared to the LPF-EOM-solution, for both the aerodynamic - and
aircraft motion responses to two-dimensional (2D) gust elds, this new parametric
aircraft model showed higher accuracy over the other parametric models (that is the
classical DUT- and FPA-model). Furthermore, in its aerodynamic response, the new
model showed more accuracy for one-dimensional (1D) longitudinal gust elds.
The unsteady Linearized Potential Flow (LPF) method (or unsteady panel-method)
used in chapter 4, reproduced the classical analytical solutions obtained by Horlock,
Sears and Theodorsen. These functions describe the 2D aerofoil frequency-domain
dynamics of the aerodynamic lift due to harmonically varying longitudinal gusts, ver-
tical gusts and heaving motions, respectively. Furthermore, the method reproduced
the time-domain Jones solution for an aerofoils step-wise change in angle-of-attack.
Horlocks function can be used to account for the dynamics of an aerofoils lift due to
longitudinal gusts. This function only holds for aerofoils with the origin located at
the semi-chord point of it. If the origin is chosen to dier from the semi-chord point,
Horlocks function should be multiplied by e
jk
2x
0
c
, resulting in the Modied Horlock
function T
mod
(k) = T(k) e
jk
2x
0
c
, with x
0
the origins location positive downstream.
For the origin located at the aerofoil leading-edge, x
0
becomes x
0
=
c
2
and the
Modied Horlock function is written as T
mod
(k) = T(k) e
jk
. See also chapter 4.
For complete aircraft congurations, the (un)steady LPF method described in chap-
ters 3 and 4 required a considerable wake modeling eort.
The steady stability derivatives C
Z
, C
m
and C
m
q
obtained from LPF simulations
showed excellent agreement with those obtained from ighttest data analysis. See
chapter 6.
The in chapter 8 and appendix E introduced procedure for the tting of the 2D
aerodynamic frequency-response data
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
Y
g
(k,
y
),
C
g
(k,
y
) and
C
n
g
(k,
y
) produced excellent results. For both more dense circu-
lar - and spatial frequency arrays, the obtained function t parameters resulted in
accurate representations of the frequency-response data.
For 1D vertical gusts
g
=
w
g
Q
care should be taken when using the DUT-model

denition of the constant symmetrical unsteady gust derivatives, see reference [30].
Usually these derivatives are given in terms of stability derivatives, that is C
Z

g
=
C
Z

C
Z
q
and C
m

g
= C
m

C
m
q
. For wing-stabilizer congurations, the denition
of these gust derivatives is correct. However, for complete aircraft congurations
(that is including the fuselage, nacelles, pylons, et cetera), this denition of the
unsteady gust derivatives does not hold. See also chapter 11.
Similarly, for the 1D lateral gust
g
=
v
g
Q
care should be taken when using the

DUT-model denition of the constant asymmetrical unsteady gust derivatives, see
reference [30]. These unsteady derivatives are usually given in terms of stability
derivatives as well, that is C
Y
g
= C
Y
+
1
2
C
Y
r
, C
g
= C
+
1
2
C
r
and C
n
g
= C
n
+
1
2
C
n
r
. For wing-fuselage-n congurations the denition of these gust derivatives is
correct, however, for complete aircraft congurations (that is including the nacelles,
pylons, et cetera) this denition of the unsteady gust derivatives does not hold. See
also chapter 11.
For the PCA-model, the constant unsteady gust derivatives with respect to both
1D and 2D gusts, i.e. u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
, were obtained using

resonance peaks in the output Power Spectral Density (PSD) functions of aircraft
motion variables. A consequence of this identication method is that these unsteady
derivatives now become a function of the gust scale length L
g
and the aircraft mass
properties. This pitfall of the PCA-model identication method can be overcome by
the use of aerodynamic frequency-response functions which are independent of the
atmospheric turbulence scale length L
g
and the aircraft mass properties. See also
chapter 10.
The aerodynamic frequency-response data for aircraft motions and 1D gust inputs
can be accurately represented by the function approximation H(k) = A
0
+A
1
(jk) +
A
2
(jk)
2
+
i=N
i=1
B
i
jk
jk+
i
, with H(k) the aerodynamic frequency-response function, A
0
,
A
1
, A
2
the aerodynamic stiness, damping and inertia parameters, respectively, k
the reduced frequency, j =

1, B
i
the gains of the lag-terms,
i
the poles of the
lag-terms and N the number of lag-terms. For PCA-model identication purposes
it is recommended to use this function for the estimation of the constant unsteady
stability- and gust derivatives. See also chapter 7.
The use of the function h(
y
b
2
) according to equation (11.47) for the determination
of the Eective 1D input PSD-functions I
u
g
u
g
(, B) and I
g
(, B), see equations
(11.73) and (11.74), respectively, produced excellent agreement with the FPA-model
input PSD-functions S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
() and S p
g
b
2Q
p
g
b
2Q
() (see equation (12.8)). See also

chapter 13.
Contrary to the recommendation given in references [35, 30], the unsteady derivatives
with respect to the longitudinal gust u
g
, i.e. C
X
u
g
, C
Z
u
g
and C
m
u
g
, should always
be used in the equations of motion. Omitting these gust derivatives will lead to
an underestimation of the symmetrical aerodynamic force and moment. See also
chapter 13.
Although the PCA-model produced more accurate results, the calculation of its gust
derivatives required considerably more eort as compared to the calculation of them
for the DUT- and FPA-model. However, once the PCA-model gust derivatives had
been obtained, they were easy to implement into the equations of motion (since for
all models these equations are not fundamentally dierent). See also chapter 13.
14.3 Recommendations for future research
It is recommended to extend the used atmospheric turbulence model to three-
dimensional (3D) correlated atmospheric turbulence (including
z
). For large air-
craft including a T-tail this may be of importance since the correlation between,
for example, the vertical gust velocity component at the wings aerodynamic center
with it at the position of the horizontal tailplanes aerodynamic center becomes less.
Therefore, the application of solely time-delays (as were used in the derivation of
the DUT-model unsteady gust derivatives) may not be applicable at all, and, as a
consequence, the denition of this models derivatives cannot be used. Using CFD
or Computational Aerodynamics methods, and the introduced model-identication
procedure (the PCA-model), all frequency-dependent gust derivatives can be deter-
mined. However, they will now become a function of the spatial-frequency
z
as
well.
The aircraft conguration used in this thesis is not representative for larger series of
civil aircraft. Therefore, it is recommended to perform a similar study for aircraft
with wing-mounted engines ( such as the Airbus A3**- and the Boeing B7*7-series).
In this thesis the engines of the example aircraft were modeled as ring-wings and
the eect of jets was not modeled. It is recommended to investigate the eect of
jet-plumes on the aerodynamic response of aircraft subjected to atmospheric tur-
bulence. Especially for the example aircraft considered in this thesis, the eect of
jets may result in a straightening of the airow at the horizontal tailplane position
resulting in a reduced dependency of the downwash with respect to angle-of-attack
perturbations. Thus, for high engine throttle settings, the stabilizing eect of the
horizontal tailplane may be reduced despite of the increased dynamic pressure (that
is an increase of Q
h
).
Since for higher Mach-numbers aerodynamic lags will increase, it is recommended
to extend the LPF method for compressible ow. For the transonic speed range it
is recommended to use Full Potential, Euler or Navier-Stokes methods.
In this thesis the atmospheric turbulence elds were assumed to be frozen. It is
suggested that for large aircraft non-stationary atmospheric turbulence is used. The
motivation is twofold. First, because of the size of the aircraft, the gust velocity
components reaching the horizontal or vertical tailplane may be quite dierent than
the ones that reached the main wing some time earlier. Second, an increase in
aircraft size usually leads to an increased wing size as well, which, in its turn, may
result in smoothed gust velocity components reaching the tailplanes.
It is recommended to extend the PCA-model for elastic aircraft. Since it has been
shown that for large circular frequencies both the frequency-dependent steady -
and unsteady gust derivatives become increasingly dependent of it, the additional
structural modes could interact with the (rigid) aircraft motions resulting in shifted
14.3 Recommendations for future research 377
resonance frequencies. Furthermore, it has been shown that for large circular fre-
quencies the energy content of the gust induced aerodynamic forces and moments
(see gures 13.20 through 13.24) is higher than it is for the DUT- and FPA-model.
Therefore, the extended PCA-model will show increased elastic mode responses as
compared to those obtained for the (extended) DUT- and FPA-models.
The major drawback of the introduced PCA-model is that the gust derivatives have
become dependent of the gust scale length L
g
and the aircraft mass properties. This
dependency may be overcome by the use of aerodynamic transfer functions. To im-
plement these functions, they should be transformed to state-space realizations rst,
and then be added to the equations of motion. Also, it is then recommended to t
the aerodynamic frequency-response data by the function H(k) = A
0
+
i=N
i=1
B
i
jk
jk+
i
(thus eliminating the aerodynamic damping and mass terms).
In order to decrease CPU-time, the (exploration phase) panel-method codes should
be translated in a faster programming language.
A code, similar to the one used for the LPF-EOM-model, should be developed for a
real-time ight simulation application. The parametric mathematical aircraft model
could then be replaced by a Computational Aerodynamics module.
It is recommended to collect experimental data to validate the simulation models
presented in this thesis.
Appendix A
Abbreviations and symbols
Abbreviations
1D One-dimensional
2D Two-dimensional
3D Three-dimensional
CA Computational Aerodynamics
CAD Computer Aided Design
CAT Clear Air Turbulence
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
c.o.g. center of gravity
DATCOM DATa COMpendium
D(N)BC Dirichlet (Neumann) Boundary Condition
DUT Delft University of Technology
EOM Equations of Motion
FCS Flight Control System
FPA Four Point Aircraft
FRF Frequency-Response Function
LCO Limit Cycle Oscillation
LPF(-EOM) Linearized Potential Flow (coupled with the Equations Of Motion)
LTI Linear Time Invariant
mac mean aerodynamic chord
N.A. Not Available, Not Applicable
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
NASTRAN NAsa STRuctural ANalysis
NLR Nationaal Lucht- en Ruimtevaartlaboratorium
(National Aerospace Laboratory, The Netherlands)
PCA Parametric Computational Aerodynamics
PSD Power Spectral Density
UAV Uninhabited Aerial Vehicle
380 Abbreviations and symbols
Symbols
a speed of sound
a.c. aerodynamic center
A =
b
2
S
wing aspect ratio
b wing span
B moment of momentum, angular momentum
C
p
pressure coecient
p
1
2
Q
2
c local wing chord

c mean aerodynamic chord
C
D
=
D
1
2
Q
2
S
3D drag-coecient
c
d
=
d
1
2
Q
2
c
2D drag-coecient
c.g. center of gravity
c
=

1
2
Q
2
c
, sectional 2D lift-coecient
C
=
L
1
2
Q
2
Sb
, rolling moment coecient
C
L
=
L
1
2
Q
2
S
, lift-coecient
C
l
=
L
1
2
Q
2
c
, 2D lift-coecient
c
=
dc
d
2D lift-coecient slope
C
L
=
dC
L
d
3D lift-coecient slope
C
p
=
C
pb
2Q
r
=
C
rb
2Q
=
C
c
m
=
m
1
2
Q
2
c
2
, 2D moment-coecient
C
m
=
M
1
2
Q
2
S c
, 3D moment-coecient
c
m
a.c.
moment-coecient about the aerodynamic center, 2D ow
C
m
a.c.
moment-coecient about the aerodynamic center, 3D ow
C
m
f
contribution of the fuselage to C
m
C
m
h
contribution of the horizontal tailplane to C
m
C
m
nac
contribution of the nacelles to C
m
C
m
p
contribution of the pylons to C
m
C
m
q
=
C
m
q c
Q
C
m
u
=
1
1
2
Q
S c
M
u
C
m
v
contribution of the vertical tail to C
m
C
m
w
contribution of the wing to C
m
C
m
0
C
m
in steady ight
C
m
=
C
m
C
m

=
C
m
c
Q
c
n
=
n
1
2
Q
2
c
381
C
n
=
N
1
2
Q
2
Sb
, yawing moment coecient
C
n
p
=
C
n
pb
2Q
C
n
r
=
C
n
rb
2Q
C
n
=
C
n
C
X
=
X
1
2
Q
2
S
C
X
q
=
C
X
q c
Q
C
X
u
=
1
1
2
Q
S
X
u
C
X
0
C
X
in steady ight
C
X
=
C
X
C
Y
0
C
Y
in steady ight
C
Y
=
Y
1
2
Q
2
S
C
Y
p
=
C
Y
pb
2Q
C
Y
r
=
C
Y
rb
2Q
C
Y
=
C
Y
C
Z
=
Z
1
2
Q
2
S
C
Z
q
=
C
Z
q c
Q
C
Z
u
=
1
1
2
Q
S
Z
u
C
Z
0
C
Z
in steady ight
C
Z
=
C
Z
C
Z

=
C
Z
c
Q
d = c
d
1
2
Q
2
c drag 2D ow
D = C
D
1
2
Q
2
S drag 3D ow
D
b
=
d
ds
b
=
b
Q
d
dt
D
c
=
d
ds
c
=
c
Q
d
dt
g Earth gravitational acceleration
h altitude
i unit vector along the X-axis
i
h,p
angle of incidence of the horizontal tail or engine(s)
I
x
=
_ _
y
2
+z
2
_
dm
I
xy
=
_
xy dm
I
xz
=
_
xz dm
I
y
=
_ _
x
2
+z
2
_
dm
I
z
=
_ _
x
2
+y
2
_
dm
j unit vector along the Y -axis
J
xy
=
_
xy dm
J
xz
=
_
xz dm
J
yz
=
_
yz dm
k unit vector along the Z-axis
k reduced frequency
k frequency-counter
k
x
=
_
I
x
m
k
y
=
_
I
y
m
k
z
=
_
I
x
m
k
xz
=
J
xz
m
K
X
=
k
x
b
K
Y
=
k
y
b
K
Z
=
k
z
b
K
XZ
=
k
xz
b
2
= c
1
2
Q
2
c, 2D ow
l
f
fuselage length
l
h
= x
h
x
w
horizontal tail-length
l
v
= x
v
x
w
vertical tail-length
L = C
1
2
Q
2
Sb, rolling moment

L = C
L
1
2
Q
2
S, lift
m = c
m
1
2
Q
2
c
2
m mass
m meters
M = C
m
1
2
Q
2
S c, pitching moment
M =
a
Q
, Mach number
/ moment-vector
n time-counter
n = c
n
1
2
Q
2
c
N = C
N
1
2
Q
2
S, normal force coecient

N = C
n
1
2
Q
2
Sb, yawing moment

O origin of reference frames
p static pressure
p angular velocity about the X
B
- or X
S
-axis
Q
magnitude of the airspeed vector Q
the airspeed vector [U
, V
, W
]
T
q =
1
2
Q
2
, dynamic pressure
q angular velocity about the Y
B
- or Y
S
-axis
r angular velocity about the Z
B
- or Z
S
-axis
Re Reynolds number
s semi-chord travelled s =
2Q
t
n
c
s Laplace variable s = j for harmonic motions
S wing area
t time
u =
du
Q
component of Q
along the X-axis

u change in the component of Q
along the X-axis

u
g
longitudinal gust velocity component
u
i
induced velocity vector component along the X-axis
383
V
component of Q
along the Y -axis

v change in the component of Q
along the Y -axis

v
g
lateral gust velocity component
v
i
induced velocity vector component along the Y -axis
W
component of Q
along the Z-axis

w change in the component of Q
along the Z-axis

w
g
vertical gust velocity component
w
i
induced velocity vector component along the Z-axis
W aircraft weight
x x-coordinate
x
a.c.
x-coordinate of the a.c. of the wing
x
c.g.
x-coordinate of the c.g.
x
h
x-coordinate the a.c. of the horizontal tailplane
x
v
x-coordinate the a.c. of the vertical tailplane
x
w
x-coordinate the a.c. of the wing with fuselage and nacelles
X = C
X
1
2
Q
2
S
X
A
X-axis of T
A
X
aero
X-axis of T
aero
X
B
X-axis of T
B
X
E
X-axis of T
E
X
I
X-axis of T
I
X
P
X-axis of T
P
X
rig
X-axis of T
rig
X
S
X-axis of T
S
y y-coordinate
y
a.c.
y-coordinate of the a.c. of the wing
y
c.g.
y-coordinate of the c.g.
y
h
y-coordinate the a.c. of the horizontal tailplane
y
v
y-coordinate the a.c. of the vertical tailplane
y
w
y-coordinate the a.c. of the wing with fuselage and nacelles
Y = C
Y
1
2
Q
2
S
Y
A
Y -axis of T
A
Y
aero
Y -axis of T
aero
Y
B
Y -axis of T
B
Y
E
Y -axis of T
E
Y
I
Y -axis of T
I
Y
P
Y -axis of T
P
Y
rig
Y -axis of T
rig
Y
S
Y -axis of T
S
z z-coordinate
z
a.c.
z-coordinate of the a.c. of the wing
z
c.g.
z-coordinate of the c.g.
z
h
z-coordinate the a.c. of the horizontal tailplane
z
v
z-coordinate the a.c. of the vertical tailplane
z
w
z-coordinate the a.c. of the wing with fuselage and nacelles
Z = C
Z
1
2
Q
2
S
Z
A
Z-axis of T
A
Z
aero
Z-axis of T
aero
Z
B
Z-axis of T
B
Z
E
Z-axis of T
E
Z
I
Z-axis of T
I
Z
P
Z-axis of T
P
Z
rig
Z-axis of T
rig
Z
S
Z-axis of T
S
Greek symbols
angle-of-attack
0
angle-of-attack in steady ight
h,v,w
angle-of-attack of the horizontal, the vertical tailplane or the wing
angle-of-sideslip
ightpath angle
0
ightpath angle in steady ight
e
eective dihedral
downwash angle
damping ratio of an oscillation
angle of pitch, angle between the X
r
-axis and the horizontal plane
0
angle of pitch in steady ight
eigenvalue
b
=
m
Sb
c
=
m
S c
air density
sidewash angle
standard deviation (with the variance equal to
2
)
time-constant or time-delay
angle of roll
velocity potential
track angle
angle of yaw
circular frequency
total angular velocity about the center of gravity
385
Reference frames
T
A
Atmosphere-Fixed Frame of Reference T
A
(O
A
, X
A
, Y
A
, Z
A
)
T
aero
Aerodynamic Frame of Reference T
aero
(O
aero
, X
aero
, Y
aero
, Z
aero
)
T
B
Body-Fixed Frame of Reference T
B
(O
B
, X
B
, Y
B
, Z
B
)
T
E
Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference T
E
(O
E
, X
E
, Y
E
, Z
E
)
T
I
Inertial Frame of Reference T
I
(O
I
, X
I
, Y
I
, Z
I
)
T
P
Panel Frame of Reference T
P
(O
P
, X
P
, Y
P
, Z
P
)
T
rig
Rig Frame of Reference T
rig
(O
rig
, X
rig
, Y
rig
, Z
rig
)
T
S
Stability Frame of Reference T
S
(O
S
, X
S
, Y
S
, Z
S
)
Subscripts
0 initial value, steady ight condition
A atmosphere reference frame
aero aerodynamic reference frame
a aerodynamic
a.c. aerodynamic center
B body reference frame
c.g. center of gravity
E earth reference frame
f fuselage
h horizontal tailplane
I inertial reference frame
i initial, interference
ind induced
n nacelle
P panel reference frame
p pylon
rig aircraft (rig) reference frame
S stability reference frame
v vertical tailplane
w wing
x along the X-axis
y along the Y -axis
z along the Z-axis
Superscripts
complex conjungate
DUT
Delft University of Technology model
FPA
Four Point Aircraft model
LPF
Linearized Potential Flow model
PCA
Parametric Computational Aerodynamics model
T
transpose of a vector or matrix
1
inverse of a matrix
Other symbols
estimated
rst time derivative
partial derivative
Appendix B
Reference frames and
denitions
B.1 Reference frames
B.1.1 The Atmosphere-Fixed Frame of Reference F
A
The Atmosphere-Fixed Frame of Reference T
A
(O
A
X
A
Y
A
Z
A
) is a right-handed frame of
reference which is convected with the (uniform) mean wind while keeping its predened
axes orientations. The X
A
-axis is pointing, for example, to the North, the Y
A
-axis is
pointing to the East perpendicular to the X
A
-axis, and the Z
A
-axis is pointed towards
the center of the Earth or aligned with the gravity vector g, see also reference [1]. The
Z
A
-axis is oriented perpendicular to the O
A
X
A
Y
A
-plane.
B.1.2 The Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
In Computational Aerodynamics (CA) the right-handed orthogonal Aerodynamic Frame
of Reference T
aero
(O
aero
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
) is used. It is depicted in gure B.1 with the
X
aero
-axis pointing aft (downstream) in the conguration plane of symmetry, the Y
aero
-
axis pointing to the right perpendicular to the plane of symmetry, and the Z
aero
-axis
pointing upwards. The origin of T
aero
is located at the center of gravity. In unsteady
motion the frame T
aero
remains connected to the airframe and does not change its position
relative to the aircraft. Considering a symmetrical steady-state initial condition, in this
thesis the X
aero
-axis is chosen to be parallel to the airow at innity Q
= [U
, V
, W
]
T
with V
= W
= 0.
The frame T
aero
is closely correlated with the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
; both the
Y
aero
-axis and the Y
S
-axis always coincide, while both the X
aero
-axis and the X
S
-axis
have an opposite orientation, similar to the Z
aero
-axis and the Z
S
-axis. Also, both the
origins of T
aero
and T
S
are located at the aircraft center of gravity.
388 Reference frames and denitions
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
Figure B.1: An aircraft geometry in the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
, angle-of-attack
= 10.0
o
.
B.1.3 The Body-Fixed Frame of Reference F
B
The Body-Fixed Frame of Reference T
B
O
B
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
is a right-handed orthogonal axis-
system with the origin located at the aircraft center of gravity. The frame T
B
remains
xed to the aircraft, also in perturbed motion. The choice of the direction of the axes is
arbitrary, the most commonly used axes-system is depicted in gure B.2. The X
B
-axis is
located in the plane of symmetry, in a direction xed relative to the aircraft, and points
forward. The Y
B
-axis is directed perpendicular to the plane of symmetry O
B
X
B
Z
B
, and
is taken positive to the right. The Z
B
-axis is perpendicular to the O
B
X
B
Y
B
-plane, and
therefor, the positive Z
B
-axis points downwards in normal, upright, ight.
B.1.4 The Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference F
E
The orthogonal Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference, T
E
(O
E
, X
E
, Y
E
, Z
E
), is a right-handed
orthogonal frame of reference. It is xed with respect to Earth with its origin, O
E
, at a
prescribed location. The X
E
-axis points, for example, to the North, the Y
E
-axis points
B.1 Reference frames 389
PSfrag replacements
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
PSfrag replacements
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
PSfrag replacements
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
PSfrag replacements
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
Figure B.2: An aircraft geometry in the Body-Fixed Frame of Reference F
B
, angle-of-attack
= 10.0
o
.
East (perpendicular to the X
E
-axis) while the Z
E
-axis is pointed perpendicular to the
O
E
X
E
Y
E
-plane. The Z
E
-axis is always pointed downwards to the Earth center. The
O
E
X
E
Y
E
-plane is a plane tangential to the Earth surface, see also gure B.3.
B.1.5 The Inertial Frame of Reference F
I
The Inertial Frame of Reference T
I
(O
I
X
I
Y
I
Z
I
) is a right-handed orthogonal frame of
reference. It is used for unsteady Computational Aerodynamic simulations. At the start of
an unsteady simulation this frame of reference coincides with the frame T
aero
. For a recti-
linear ightpath, the origin of the frame T
aero
, O
aero
, travels along the negative X
I
-axis
during unsteady simulations. During these simulations, the Inertial Frame of Reference
T
I
(O
I
X
I
Y
I
Z
I
) remains xed with respect to Earth. Both the frames T
I
and T
aero
are
PSfrag replacements
X
E
Y
E
Z
E
O
E
Figure B.3: The Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference F
E
.
depicted in gure B.4.
B.1.6 The Panel Frame of Reference F
P
For Computational Aerodynamics the Panel Frame of Reference T
P
is often used. The
frame T
P
(O
P
X
P
Y
P
Z
P
) is a right-handed orthogonal frame of reference with its origin
located at the panel centroid (or collocation point), see gure B.5. All four corner points
of a panel are located in the (O
P
X
P
Y
P
)-plane. See also appendix C where this frame of
reference is used to dene the inuence of both a quadri-lateral source and a quadri-lateral
doublet panel at an arbitrary point in T
P
is given.
B.1.7 The Rig Frame of Reference F
rig
For the description of an aircraft congurations outer (or wetted) surface, the right-
handed orthogonal aircraft manufacturer Rig-Frame of Reference T
rig
(O
rig
X
rig
Y
rig
Z
rig
)
is used. The X
rig
-axis points aft in the plane of symmetry, (O
rig
X
rig
Z
rig
), the Y
rig
-axis
is pointed to the right perpendicular to the (O
rig
X
rig
Z
rig
)-plane, while the Z
rig
-axis is
pointed upwards, see gure B.6. The origin O
rig
is situated at some prescribed point
(dependent of the manufacturer) in the O
rig
X
rig
Z
rig
plane of symmetry and is, in this
thesis, located outside the actual airframe.
B.1 Reference frames 391
PSfrag replacements
X
aero
Y
aero
Z
aero
X
I
Y
I
Z
I
Figure B.4: The Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F
aero
I
.
PSfrag replacements
(x
1
, y
1
, 0)
(x
2
, y
2
, 0)
(x
3
, y
3
, 0)
(x
4
, y
4
, 0)
X
P
Y
P
Z
P
Quadri-lateral panel
Figure B.5: A Quadri-lateral element in the Panel Frame of Reference F
P
.
PSfrag replacements
X
rig
Y
rig
Z
rig
PSfrag replacements
X
rig
Y
rig
Z
rig
PSfrag replacements
X
rig
Y
rig
Z
rig
PSfrag replacements
X
rig
Y
rig
Z
rig
Figure B.6: An aircraft geometry in the rig-frame F
rig
.
B.1.8 The Stability Frame of Reference F
S
The Stability Frame of Reference T
S
(O
S
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
) is a right-handed orthogonal axis-
system with the origin located at the aircraft center of gravity. The reference frame is
xed to the aircraft, also in perturbed motion. By denition the frame T
S
is also a
body-xed frame of reference T
B
, but the X
S
-axis now has a prescribed direction. This
aerodynamic frame of reference is given in gure B.7 with the X
S
-axis pointing forward,
parallel to the airow at innity, the Y
S
-axis pointing to the right and, perpendicular to
the O
S
X
S
Y
S
-plane, the Z
S
-axis is pointing downwards.
In this thesis the frame T
S
is closely correlated with the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference
T
aero
; both the Y
S
-axis and the Y
aero
-axis always coincide, while both the X
S
-axis and
the X
aero
-axis have an opposite orientation, similar to the Z
S
-axis and the Z
aero
-axis.
Also, both the origins of the frames T
S
and T
aero
are located at the center of gravity.
B.2 Denitions 393
PSfrag replacements
X
S
| Q
Y
S
Z
S
PSfrag replacements
X
S
| Q
Y
S
Z
S
PSfrag replacements
X
S
| Q
Y
S
Z
S
PSfrag replacements
X
S
| Q
Y
S
Z
S
Figure B.7: An aircraft geometry in the Stability Frame of Reference F
S
, angle-of-attack =
10.0
o
.
B.2 Denitions
B.2.1 The Fourier-transform
In this thesis the Fourier-transform is widely used. Throughout this thesis, the one-
dimensional (1D) Fourier-transform, X() = T x() is used, and is dened as,
T x() = X() =
+
_
x()e
j
d
where x() a (random) signal in, for example, the time-domain, X() the Fourier-transform
of x(), , for example, time and the circular frequency.
The inverse Fourier-transform, x() = T
1
X(), is dened as,
T
1
X() = x() =
1
2
+
_
X()e
+j
d
The n
th
-dimensional Fourier-transform of x(), X() = T
n
_
x()
_
, with = [
1
,
2
,
3
, ,
n
]
T
and = [
1
,
2
,
3
, ,
n
]
T
, is dened as,
T
n
_
x()
_
= X()
=
+
_
+
_
+
_

+
_
x()e
j
d
=
+
_
+
_
+
_

+
_
x(
1
,
2
,
3
, ,
n
)
e
j(
1
1
+
2
2
+
3
3
++
n
n
)
d
1
d
2
d
3
d
n
The n
th
-dimensional inverse Fourier-transform is dened as,
T
n
X() = x()
=
1
(2)
n
+
_
+
_
+
_

+
_
X()e
+j
d
=
1
(2)
n
+
_
+
_
+
_

+
_
X(
1
,
2
,
3
, ,
n
)
e
+j(
1
1
+
2
2
+
3
3
++
n
n
)
d
1
d
2
d
3
d
n
B.2.2 The calculation of frequency-response functions from the
state-space representation
In this thesis both the symmetrical and asymmetrical equations of motion are given as,
P() j x = Q() x +R() u (B.1)
B.2 Denitions 395
with P(), Q() and R() frequency-dependent system matrices, x the system state and u
the system inputs. If the matrix-elements in equation (B.1) are independent of frequency,
the time-domain equations of motion are given as,
P
dx
dt
= Q x +R u (B.2)
or,
dx
dt
= A x +B u (B.3)
with A = P
1
Q the system-matrix and B = P
1
R the input-matrix. The additional
equation required to calculate the state-space system frequency-response is the output
equation,
y = C x +D u
with C the output-matrix and D the direct-matrix. In this section the output PSD-
functions are assumed to be equal to the ones for the aircraft state; therefore, the output-
matrix C becomes the identity-matrix of order 4 (four states are present in both the
symmetrical and asymmetrical aircraft equations of motion) while the direct-matrix D is
the zero-matrix of order 4 m with m the number of inputs.
The output frequency-response functions are calculated using standard routines in MAT-
LAB (such as mv2fr.m), according to,
H
yu
() = C (jI A)
1
B +D (B.4)
with the circular frequency [Rad/sec.] and I the identity-matrix. Using equation (B.4),
the output PSD-functions are calculated from the theory given in section B.2.3.
Note that if the matrix-elements of the system matrices A and B are frequency-dependent,
that is A = A() and B = B(), respectively, the output frequency-response functions
are also calculated using MATLAB routines (using the script-le mv2fr.m as well). The
output frequency-response functions now become,
H
yu
() = C (jI A())
1
B() +D (B.5)
with A() = P()
1
Q() the frequency-dependent system-matrix, B() = P()
1
R()
the frequency-dependent input-matrix and the circular frequency [Rad/sec.].
B.2.3 The output Power Spectral Density function matrix
Consider a Multi-Input Multi-Output (MIMO) system in terms of the frequency-response
matrix H
yu
() (see equation (B.4)) according to,
H
yu
() =
Y
i
()
U
j
()
=
_
_
H
y
1
u
1
() H
y
1
u
2
() H
y
1
u
n
()
H
y
2
u
1
() H
y
2
u
2
() H
y
2
u
n
()
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
H
y
m
u
1
() H
y
m
u
2
() H
y
m
u
n
()
_
_
(B.6)
with the circular frequency in [Rad/sec.], i = 1 m and m the number of outputs,
j = 1 n and n the number of inputs, and Y
i
() and U
j
() the Fourier-transforms of
the i
th
output and the j
th
input, respectively.
The MIMO system frequency-response to correlated stationary random inputs in terms
of the output Power Spectral Density (PSD) function matrix S
yy
() is given by (see also
references [5, 30]),
S
yy
() = Y ()
Y ()
T
= H
yu
()
S
uu
() H
yu
()
T
(B.7)
with H
yu
()
and H
yu
()
T
denoting the complex-conjungate and the transpose of the
frequency-response matrix H
yu
(), respectively, Y () = [Y
1
(), Y
2
(), , Y
m
()]
T
, the
input PSD-function matrix S
uu
() according to,
S
uu
() = U()
U()
T
=
_
_
S
u
1
u
1
() S
u
1
u
2
() S
u
1
u
n
()
S
u
2
u
1
() S
u
2
u
2
() S
u
2
u
n
()
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
S
u
n
u
1
() S
u
n
u
2
() S
u
n
u
n
()
_
_
(B.8)
with U() = [U
1
(), U
2
(), , U
n
()]
T
, and the output PSD-function matrix S
yy
()
according to,
S
yy
() = Y ()
Y ()
T
=
_
_
S
y
1
y
1
() S
y
1
y
2
() S
y
1
y
m
()
S
y
2
y
1
() S
y
2
y
2
() S
y
2
y
m
()
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
S
y
m
y
1
() S
y
m
y
2
() S
y
m
y
m
()
_
_
(B.9)
The cross PSD-function matrices S
uy
() and S
yu
() are dened as (see also references
[5, 30]),
S
uy
() = U()
Y ()
T
=
_
H
yu
()S
uu
()
_
T
(B.10)
and,
S
yu
() = Y ()
U()
T
= H
yu
()
S
uu
() (B.11)
respectively.
Appendix C
Quadrilateral source - and
doublet elements
C.1 Introduction
In this thesis Linearized Potential Flow theory is used to obtain the (time-dependent)
aerodynamic forces and moments acting on aircraft congurations. For this purpose, the
calculation of the Aerodynamic Inuence Coecient (AIC) matrix elements is required. In
this appendix the applied formulae for calculating these AIC matrix elements are provided.
These formulae dene both the inuence of a quadri-lateral source panel and a quadri-
lateral doublet panel at an arbitrary point in the Panel Frame of Reference T
P
. Details of
this reference frame can be found in appendix B. Although the formulae presented in this
appendix have been taken from references [11, 12], the applied formula for the doublet
inuence has been adjusted for this thesis.
C.2 Quadri-lateral source elements
The quadri-lateral source panel with its straight line boundaries is depicted in gure C.1.
The induced potential (x, y, z) at location (x, y, z)
T
of such a quadri-lateral source panel
with constant strength source and with the panel elements corner points designated as
(x
1
, y
1
, 0), (x
2
, y
2
, 0), (x
3
, y
3
, 0) and (x
4
, y
4
, 0) in the frame T
P
, is written as, see reference
[11, 12],
(x, y, z) =

4
__
(x x
1
)(y
2
y
1
) (y y
1
)(x
2
x
1
)
d
12
ln
_
r
1
+r
2
+d
12
r
1
+r
2
d
12
_
+
(x x
2
)(y
3
y
2
) (y y
2
)(x
3
x
2
)
d
23
ln
_
r
2
+r
3
+d
23
r
2
+r
3
d
23
_
+
(x x
3
)(y
4
y
3
) (y y
3
)(x
4
x
3
)
d
34
ln
_
r
3
+r
4
+d
34
r
3
+r
4
d
34
_
398 Quadrilateral source - and doublet elements
+
(x x
4
)(y
1
y
4
) (y y
4
)(x
1
x
4
)
d
41
ln
_
r
4
+r
1
+d
41
r
4
+r
1
d
41
__
[z[
_
tan
1
_
m
12
e
1
h
1
z r
1
_
tan
1
_
m
12
e
2
h
2
z r
2
_
+tan
1
_
m
23
e
2
h
2
z r
2
_
tan
1
_
m
23
e
3
h
3
z r
3
_
+
+tan
1
_
m
34
e
3
h
3
z r
3
_
tan
1
_
m
34
e
4
h
4
z r
4
_
+
+ tan
1
_
m
41
e
4
h
4
z r
4
_
tan
1
_
m
41
e
1
h
1
z r
1
___
(C.1)
with,
d
12
=
_
(x
2
x
1
)
2
+ (y
2
y
1
)
2
(C.2)
d
23
=
_
(x
3
x
2
)
2
+ (y
3
y
2
)
2
(C.3)
d
34
=
_
(x
4
x
3
)
2
+ (y
4
y
3
)
2
(C.4)
d
41
=
_
(x
1
x
4
)
2
+ (y
1
y
4
)
2
(C.5)
and,
m
12
=
y
2
y
1
x
2
x
1
(C.6)
m
23
=
y
3
y
2
x
3
x
2
(C.7)
m
34
=
y
4
y
3
x
4
x
3
(C.8)
m
41
=
y
1
y
4
x
1
x
4
(C.9)
and,
r
k
=
_
(x x
k
)
2
+ (y y
k
)
2
+z
2
(C.10)
e
k
= (x x
k
)
2
+z
2
(C.11)
h
k
= (x x
k
) (y y
k
) (C.12)
with k = 1, 2, 3, 4, and [x, y, z]
T
an arbitrary point in the frame T
P
.
The induced velocity components (u, v, w) are obtained by dierentiating the velocity
potential ,
(u, v, w) =
_
x
,

y
,

z
_
(C.13)
C.2 Quadri-lateral source elements 399
PSfrag replacements
P
(x
1
, y
1
, 0)
(x
2
, y
2
, 0)
(x
3
, y
3
, 0)
(x
4
, y
4
, 0)
X
P
Y
P
Z
P
(x, y) = constant
Figure C.1: Quadri-lateral constant strength source element in the Panel Frame of Reference F
P
.
which are, see reference [11, 12],
u =

4
_
y
2
y
1
d
12
ln
_
r
1
+r
2
d
12
r
1
+r
2
+d
12
_
+
y
3
y
2
d
23
ln
_
r
2
+r
3
d
23
r
2
+r
3
+d
23
_
+
+
y
4
y
3
d
34
ln
_
r
3
+r
4
d
34
r
3
+r
4
+d
34
_
+
y
1
y
4
d
41
ln
_
r
4
+r
1
d
41
r
4
+r
1
+d
41
__
(C.14)
v =

4
_
x
1
x
2
d
12
ln
_
r
1
+r
2
d
12
r
1
+r
2
+d
12
_
+
x
2
x
3
d
23
ln
_
r
2
+r
3
d
23
r
2
+r
3
+d
23
_
+
+
x
3
x
4
d
34
ln
_
r
3
+r
4
d
34
r
3
+r
4
+d
34
_
+
x
4
x
1
d
41
ln
_
r
4
+r
1
d
41
r
4
+r
1
+d
41
__
(C.15)
w =

4
_
tan
1
_
m
12
e
1
h
1
z r
1
_
tan
1
_
m
12
e
2
h
2
z r
2
_
+tan
1
_
m
23
e
2
h
2
z r
2
_
tan
1
_
m
23
e
3
h
3
z r
3
_
+
+tan
1
_
m
34
e
3
h
3
z r
3
_
tan
1
_
m
34
e
4
h
4
z r
4
_
+
+ tan
1
_
m
41
e
4
h
4
z r
4
_
tan
1
_
m
41
e
1
h
1
z r
1
__
(C.16)
C.3 Quadri-lateral doublet elements
Similar to the quadri-lateral source panel, the quadri-lateral doublet panel with its straight
line boundaries is depicted in gure C.2. The induced potential of such a quadri-lateral
doublet panel with constant strength doublet and with the panel elements corner points
designated as (x
1
, y
1
, 0), (x
2
, y
2
, 0), (x
3
, y
3
, 0) and (x
4
, y
4
, 0) in the frame T
P
is written
as, see reference [11, 12],
(x, y, z) =

4
_
tan
1
_
m
12
e
1
h
1
z r
1
_
tan
1
_
m
12
e
2
h
2
z r
2
_
+tan
1
_
m
23
e
2
h
2
z r
2
_
tan
1
_
m
23
e
3
h
3
z r
3
_
+
+tan
1
_
m
34
e
3
h
3
z r
3
_
tan
1
_
m
34
e
4
h
4
z r
4
_
+
+ tan
1
_
m
41
e
4
h
4
z r
4
_
tan
1
_
m
41
e
1
h
1
z r
1
__
(C.17)
with m
12
, m
23
, m
34
and m
41
as given in equations (C.6) to (C.9); e
k
, k = 1, 2, 3, 4 as
given in equation (C.11); h
k
, k = 1, 2, 3, 4 as given in equation (C.12) and r
k
, k = 1, 2, 3, 4
as given in equation (C.10).
Contrary to references [11, 12], the factor

4
is used in equation (C.17), instead of the
factor +

4
.
Again, the induced velocity components (u, v, w) are obtained by dierentiating the ve-
locity potential , see equation (C.13),
(u, v, w) =
_
x
,

y
,

z
_
which are, see reference [11, 12],
u =

4
_
z (y
1
y
2
) (r
1
+r
2
)
r
1
r
2
r
1
r
2
[(x x
1
) (x x
2
) + (y y
1
) (y y
2
) +z
2
]
+
+
z (y
2
y
3
) (r
2
+r
3
)
r
2
r
3
r
2
r
3
[(x x
2
) (x x
3
) + (y y
2
) (y y
3
) +z
2
]
+
+
z (y
3
y
4
) (r
3
+r
4
)
r
3
r
4
r
3
r
4
[(x x
3
) (x x
4
) + (y y
3
) (y y
4
) +z
2
]
+
+
z (y
4
y
1
) (r
4
+r
1
)
r
4
r
1
r
4
r
1
[(x x
4
) (x x
1
) + (y y
4
) (y y
1
) +z
2
]
_
(C.18)
C.3 Quadri-lateral doublet elements 401
PSfrag replacements
P
(x
1
, y
1
, 0)
(x
2
, y
2
, 0)
(x
3
, y
3
, 0)
(x
4
, y
4
, 0)
X
P
Y
P
Z
P
(x, y) = constant
Figure C.2: Quadri-lateral constant strength doublet element in the Panel Frame of Reference
F
P
.
v =

4
_
z (x
2
x
1
) (r
1
+r
2
)
r
1
r
2
r
1
r
2
[(x x
1
) (x x
2
) + (y y
1
) (y y
2
) +z
2
]
+
+
z (x
3
x
2
) (r
2
+r
3
)
r
2
r
3
r
2
r
3
[(x x
2
) (x x
3
) + (y y
2
) (y y
3
) +z
2
]
+
+
z (x
4
x
3
) (r
3
+r
4
)
r
3
r
4
r
3
r
4
[(x x
3
) (x x
4
) + (y y
3
) (y y
4
) +z
2
]
+
+
z (x
1
x
4
) (r
4
+r
1
)
r
4
r
1
r
4
r
1
[(x x
4
) (x x
1
) + (y y
4
) (y y
1
) +z
2
]
_
(C.19)
w =

4
_
[(x x
2
) (y y
1
) (x x
1
) (y y
2
)] (r
1
+r
2
)
r
1
r
2
r
1
r
2
[(x x
1
) (x x
2
) + (y y
1
) (y y
2
) +z
2
]
+
+
[(x x
3
) (y y
2
) (x x
2
) (y y
3
)] (r
2
+r
3
)
r
2
r
3
r
2
r
3
[(x x
2
) (x x
3
) + (y y
2
) (y y
3
) +z
2
]
+
+
[(x x
4
) (y y
3
) (x x
3
) (y y
4
)] (r
3
+r
4
)
r
3
r
4
r
3
r
4
[(x x
3
) (x x
4
) + (y y
3
) (y y
4
) +z
2
]
+
+
[(x x
1
) (y y
4
) (x x
4
) (y y
1
)] (r
4
+r
1
)
r
4
r
1
r
4
r
1
[(x x
4
) (x x
1
) + (y y
4
) (y y
1
) +z
2
]
_
(C.20)
with r
k
, k = 1, 2, 3, 4, as given in equation (C.10).
Appendix D
Stability - and gust derivative
denitions
This appendix contains the denitions of the stability- and gust derivatives given in chapter
5. These derivatives are valid for the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
.
In tables D.1 to D.10, the denition of the stability- and gust derivatives are given in
terms of transformations from the Aerodynamic Frame of Reference T
aero
to the frame
T
S
.
In tables D.11 to D.20 the denition of the stability- and gust derivatives is given in terms
of partial derivatives.
Details of the frames T
S
and T
aero
can be found in appendix B.
404 Stability - and gust derivative denitions
C
X
C
Z
C
m
u C
X
u
= C
a
X
u
C
Z
u
= C
a
Z
u
C
m
u
= +C
a
m
u
C
X
= C
a
X
C
Z
= C
a
Z
C
m
= +C
a
m
c
2Q
C
X

= C
a
X

C
Z

= C
a
Z

C
m

= +C
a
m

q c
2Q
C
X
q
= C
a
X
q
C
Z
q
= C
a
Z
q
C
m
q
= +C
a
m
q
Table D.1: Denition of the symmetrical stability derivatives for F
S
in terms of the calculated
symmetrical aerodynamic derivatives for F
aero
.
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
= C
a
Y
= +C
a
C
n
= +C
a
n
b
2Q
C
Y
= C
a
Y
= +C
a
C
n
= +C
a
n
pb
2Q
C
Y
p
= C
a
Y
p
C
p
= +C
a
p
C
n
p
= +C
a
n
p
rb
2Q
C
Y
r
= C
a
Y
r
C
r
= +C
a
r
C
n
r
= +C
a
n
r
Table D.2: Denition of the asymmetrical stability derivatives for F
S
asymmetrical aerodynamic derivatives for F
aero
.
405
C
X
C
Z
C
m
u
g
C
X
u
g
= C
a
X
u
g
C
Z
u
g
= C
a
Z
u
g
C
m
u
g
= +C
a
m
u
g
u
g
c
2Q
C
X
u
g
= C
a
X
u
g
C
Z
u
g
= C
a
Z
u
g
C
m
u
g
= +C
a
m
u
g
g
C
X
g
= C
a
X
g
C
Z
g
= C
a
Z
g
C
m
g
= +C
a
m
g

g
c
2Q
C
X

g
= C
a
X

g
C
Z

g
= C
a
Z

g
C
m

g
= +C
a
m

g
Table D.3: Denition of the symmetrical gust derivatives for F
S
in terms of the calculated sym-
metrical aerodynamic derivatives for F
aero
.
C
Y
C
C
n
g
C
Y
g
= C
a
Y
g
C
g
= +C
a
g
C
n
g
= +C
a
n
g
b
2Q
C
Y

g
= C
a
Y
g
C
g
= +C
a
g
C
n
g
= +C
a
n
g
Table D.4: Denition of the asymmetrical gust derivatives for F
S
asymmetrical aerodynamic derivatives for F
aero
.
C
X
C
Z
C
m
C
X
u
= C
a
X
u
C
Z
u
= C
a
Z
u
C
m
u
= +C
a
m
u
u
C
X
u
= C
a
X
u
C
Z
u
= C
a
Z
u
C
m
u
= +C
a
m
u
C
X
= C
a
X
C
Z
= C
a
Z
C
m
= +C
a
m
C
X

= C
a
X

C
Z

= C
a
Z

C
m

= +C
a
m

Table D.5: Denition of the frequency-dependent symmetrical stability derivatives for F
S
in
terms of the calculated frequency-dependent symmetrical aerodynamic derivatives
for F
aero
.
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
= C
a
Y
= +C
a
C
n
= +C
a
n
C
Y
= C
a
Y
= +C
a
C
n
= +C
a
n
Table D.6: Denition of the frequency-dependent asymmetrical stability derivatives for F

S
in
terms of the calculated frequency-dependent asymmetrical aerodynamic derivatives
for F
aero
.
C
X
C
Z
C
m
C
X
u
g
= C
a
X
u
g
C
Z
u
g
= C
a
Z
u
g
C
m
u
g
= +C
a
m
u
g
u
g
C
X
u
g
= C
a
X
u
g
C
Z
u
g
= C
a
Z
u
g
C
m
u
g
= +C
a
m
u
g
C
X
g
= C
a
X
g
C
Z
g
= C
a
Z
g
C
m
g
= +C
a
m
g
C
X

g
= C
a
X

g
C
Z

g
= C
a
Z

g
C
m

g
= +C
a
m

g
Table D.7: Denition of the frequency-dependent symmetrical gust derivatives for F
S
in terms
of the calculated frequency-dependent symmetrical aerodynamic gust derivatives for
F
aero
, for 1D gust elds.
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
g
= C
a
Y
g
C
g
= +C
a
g
C
n
g
= +C
a
n
g
C
Y
g
= C
a
Y
g
C
g
= +C
a
g
C
n
g
= +C
a
n
g
Table D.8: Denition of the frequency-dependent asymmetrical gust derivatives for F
S
in terms
of the calculated frequency-dependent asymmetrical aerodynamic gust derivatives for
F
aero
, for 1D gust elds.
407
C
X
C
Z
C
m
C
X
u
g
(
y
) = C
a
X
u
g
(
y
) C
Z
u
g
(
y
) = C
a
Z
u
g
(
y
) C
m
u
g
(
y
) = +C
a
m
u
g
(
y
)
u
g
C
X
u
g
(
y
) = C
a
X
u
g
(
y
) C
Z
u
g
(
y
) = C
a
Z
u
g
(
y
) C
m
u
g
(
y
) = +C
a
m
u
g
(
y
)
C
X
g
(
y
) = +C
a
X
g
(
y
) C
Z
g
(
y
) = +C
a
Z
g
(
y
) C
m
g
(
y
) = C
a
m
g
(
y
)
g
C
X
g
(
y
) = +C
a
X
g
(
y
) C
Z
g
(
y
) = +C
a
Z
g
(
y
) C
m
g
(
y
) = C
a
m
g
(
y
)
C
X
g
(
y
) = C
a
X
g
(
y
) C
Z
g
(
y
) = C
a
Z
g
(
y
) C
m
g
(
y
) = +C
a
m
g
(
y
)
g
C
X

g
(
y
) = C
a
X

g
(
y
) C
Z

g
(
y
) = C
a
Z

g
(
y
) C
m

g
(
y
) = +C
a
m

g
(
y
)
S
in terms
of the calculated frequency-dependent symmetrical aerodynamic gust derivatives for
F
aero
, for 2D gust elds.
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
u
g
(
y
) = +C
a
Y
u
g
(
y
) C
u
g
(
y
) = C
a
u
g
(
y
) C
n
u
g
(
y
) = C
a
n
u
g
(
y
)
u
g
C
Y
u
g
(
y
) = +C
a
Y
u
g
(
y
) C
u
g
(
y
) = C
a
u
g
(
y
) C
n
u
g
(
y
) = C
a
n
u
g
(
y
)
C
Y
g
(
y
) = C
a
Y
g
(
y
) C
g
(
y
) = +C
a
g
(
y
) C
n
g
(
y
) = +C
a
n
g
(
y
)
g
C
Y
g
(
y
) = C
a
Y
g
(
y
) C
g
(
y
) = +C
a
g
(
y
) C
n
g
(
y
) = +C
a
n
g
(
y
)
C
Y
g
(
y
) = +C
a
Y
g
(
y
) C
g
(
y
) = C
a
g
(
y
) C
n
g
(
y
) = C
a
n
g
(
y
)
g
C
Y

g
(
y
) = +C
a
Y

g
(
y
) C

g
(
y
) = C
a

g
(
y
) C
n

g
(
y
) = C
a
n

g
(
y
)
S
in terms
of the calculated frequency-dependent asymmetrical aerodynamic gust derivatives
for F
aero
, for 2D gust elds.
C
X
C
Z
C
m
u C
X
u
=
C
X
u
C
Z
u
=
C
Z
u
C
m
u
=
C
m
u
C
X
=
C
X
C
Z
=
C
Z
C
m
=
C
m
c
2Q
C
X

=
C
X
c
2Q
C
Z

=
C
Z
c
2Q
C
m

=
C
m
c
2Q
q c
2Q
C
X
q
=
C
X
q c
2Q
C
Z
q
=
C
Z
q c
2Q
C
m
q
=
C
m
q c
2Q
Table D.11: Denition of the constant symmetrical stability derivatives for F

S
.
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
=
C
Y
=
C
C
n
=
C
n
b
2Q
C
Y
=
C
Y

b
2Q
=
C

b
2Q
C
n
=
C
n

b
2Q
pb
2Q
C
Y
p
=
C
Y
pb
2Q
p
=
C
pb
2Q
C
n
p
=
C
n
pb
2Q
rb
2Q
C
Y
r
=
C
Y
rb
2Q
r
=
C
rb
2Q
C
n
r
=
C
n
rb
2Q
Table D.12: Denition of the constant asymmetrical stability derivatives for F

S
.
C
X
C
Z
C
m
u
g
C
X
u
g
=
C
X
u
g
C
Z
u
g
=
C
Z
u
g
C
m
u
g
=
C
m
u
g
u
g
c
2Q
C
X
u
g
=
C
X
u
g
c
2Q
C
Z
u
g
=
C
Z
u
g
c
2Q
C
m
u
g
=
C
m
u
g
c
2Q
g
C
X
g
=
C
X
g
C
Z
g
=
C
Z
g
C
m
g
=
C
m
g

g
c
2Q
C
X

g
=
C
X

g
c
2Q
C
Z

g
=
C
Z

g
c
2Q
C
m

g
=
C
m

g
c
2Q
Table D.13: Denition of the constant symmetrical gust derivatives for F

S
.
409
C
Y
C
C
n
g
C
Y
g
=
C
Y
g
C
g
=
C
g
C
n
g
=
C
n
g
b
2Q
C
Y
g
=
C
Y
g
b
2Q
g
=
C
g
b
2Q
C
n
g
=
C
n
g
b
2Q
Table D.14: Denition of the constant asymmetrical gust derivatives for F

S
.
C
X
C
Z
C
m
C
X
u
=
C
X
u
C
Z
u
=
C
Z
u
C
m
u
=
C
m
u
u
C
X
u
=
C
X

u c
2Q
C
Z
u
=
C
Z

u c
2Q
C
m
u
=
C
m

u c
2Q
C
X
=
C
X
C
Z
=
C
Z
C
m
=
C
m
C
X

=
C
X

c
2Q
C
Z

=
C
Z

c
2Q
C
m

=
C
m

c
2Q
Table D.15: Denition of the frequency-dependent symmetrical stability derivatives for F

S
.
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
=
C
Y
=
C
C
n
=
C
n
C
Y
=
C
Y

c
2Q
=
C

c
2Q
C
n
=
C
n

c
2Q
Table D.16: Denition of the frequency-dependent asymmetrical stability derivatives for F

S
.
C
X
C
Z
C
m
C
X
u
g
=
C
X
u
g
C
Z
u
g
=
C
Z
u
g
C
m
u
g
=
C
m
u
g
u
g
C
X
u
g
=
C
X
u
g
c
2Q
C
Z
u
g
=
C
Z
u
g
c
2Q
C
m
u
g
=
C
m
u
g
c
2Q
C
X
g
=
C
X
g
C
Z
g
=
C
Z
g
C
m
g
=
C
m
g
C
X
g
=
C
X
g
c
2Q
C
Z
g
=
C
Z
g
c
2Q
C
m
g
=
C
m
g
c
2Q
C
X
g
=
C
X
g
C
Z
g
=
C
Z
g
C
m
g
=
C
m
g
C
X

g
=
C
X

g
c
2Q
C
Z

g
=
C
Z

g
c
2Q
C
m

g
=
C
m

g
c
2Q

S
, for 1D
gust elds.
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
u
g
=
C
Y
u
g
C
u
g
=
C
u
g
C
n
u
g
=
C
n
u
g
u
g
C
Y
u
g
=
C
Y
u
g
b
2Q
u
g
=
C
u
g
b
2Q
C
n
u
g
=
C
n
u
g
b
2Q
C
Y
g
=
C
Y
g
C
g
=
C
g
C
n
g
=
C
n
g
C
Y
g
=
C
Y
g
b
2Q
g
=
C
g
b
2Q
C
n
g
=
C
n
g
b
2Q
C
Y
g
=
C
Y
g
C
g
=
C
g
C
n
g
=
C
n
g
C
Y

g
=
C
Y

g
b
2Q

g
=
C

g
b
2Q
C
n

g
=
C
n

g
b
2Q

S
, for 1D
gust elds.
411
C
X
C
Z
C
m
C
X
u
g
(
y
) =
C
X
u
g
(
y
) C
Z
u
g
(
y
) =
C
Z
u
g
(
y
) C
m
u
g
(
y
) =
C
m
u
g
(
y
)
u
g
C
X
u
g
(
y
) =
C
X
u
g
c
2Q
(
y
) C
Z
u
g
(
y
) =
C
Z
u
g
c
2Q
(
y
) C
m
u
g
(
y
) =
C
m
u
g
c
2Q
(
y
)
C
X
g
(
y
) =
C
X
g
(
y
) C
Z
g
(
y
) =
C
Z
g
(
y
) C
m
g
(
y
) =
C
m
g
(
y
)
g
C
X
g
(
y
) =
C
X
g
c
2Q
(
y
) C
Z
g
(
y
) =
C
Z
g
c
2Q
(
y
) C
m
g
(
y
) =
C
m
g
c
2Q
(
y
)
C
X
g
(
y
) =
C
X
g
(
y
) C
Z
g
(
y
) =
C
Z
g
(
y
) C
m
g
(
y
) =
C
m
g
(
y
)
g
C
X

g
(
y
) =
C
X

g
c
2Q
(
y
) C
Z

g
(
y
) =
C
Z

g
c
2Q
(
y
) C
m

g
(
y
) =
C
m

g
c
2Q
(
y
)
S
, for 2D
gust elds.
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
u
g
(
y
) =
C
Y
u
g
(
y
) C
u
g
(
y
) =
C
u
g
(
y
) C
n
u
g
(
y
) =
C
n
u
g
(
y
)
u
g
C
Y
u
g
(
y
) =
C
Y
u
g
b
2Q
(
y
) C
u
g
(
y
) =
C
u
g
b
2Q
(
y
) C
n
u
g
(
y
) =
C
n
u
g
b
2Q
(
y
)
C
Y
g
(
y
) =
C
Y
g
(
y
) C
g
(
y
) =
C
g
(
y
) C
n
g
(
y
) =
C
n
g
(
y
)
g
C
Y
g
(
y
) =
C
Y
g
b
2Q
(
y
) C
g
(
y
) =
C
g
b
2Q
(
y
) C
n
g
(
y
) =
C
n
g
b
2Q
(
y
)
C
Y
g
(
y
) =
C
Y
g
(
y
) C
g
(
y
) =
C
g
(
y
) C
n
g
(
y
) =
C
n
g
(
y
)
g
C
Y

g
(
y
) =
C
Y

g
b
2Q
(
y
) C

g
(
y
) =
C

g
b
2Q
(
y
) C
n

g
(
y
) =
C
n

g
b
2Q
(
y
)
S
, for 2D
gust elds.
Appendix E
Aerodynamic tting procedures
E.1 Introduction
In this appendix the aerodynamic tting-routines used for transforming time-domain
results to simulated aerodynamic frequency-response data (or the so-called frequency-
response) is given. Also, the tting-routines for the analytical expressions of the frequency-
response data are given. The results are the analytical aerodynamic frequency-response
functions, or the so-called frequency-response functions (FRFs), for short.
Aerodynamic frequency-response functions were obtained as a function of the reduced fre-
quency k =
c
2Q
, see chapters 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8. To this end, the aerodynamic response in

terms of both aerodynamic forces and moments (outputs) due to harmonically varying in-
puts were simulated using (Unsteady) Linearized Potential Flow in the time-domain. The
inputs considered are aircraft motion perturbations and one- (1D) and two-dimensional
(2D) atmospheric turbulence inputs.
For a number of reduced frequencies, k = [k
1
, , k
M
]
T
, aerodynamic frequency-response
data is calculated from both the harmonic input and the harmonic output. Since the
time-domain simulations are extremely time-consuming, the number of reduced input-
frequencies was limited. By using the aerodynamic frequency-response data, next the
aerodynamic frequency-response function is estimated. This analytical function is also
known as a t of the aerodynamic frequency-response data, and the procedure for ob-
taining this t will be referred to as analytical continuation of frequency-response data.
Also, in this appendix the t-procedure is given for Power Spectral Density (PSD) func-
tions. This approximation (or t) of PSD-functions is given in a form such that it allows
the PSD-function to be transformed to the product of a frequency-response function mul-
tiplied by its complex-conjungate.
414 Aerodynamic tting procedures
E.2 Frequency-response data extraction from time-do-
main simulations
For frequency-domain system identication purposes, the time-domain response of an
output to a time-domain harmonically varying input is considered. Writing the input as
u(t) and the output as y(t) a frequency-domain representation in terms of attenuation and
phase-shift is obtained. The attenuation and phase-shift can be represented as a complex
number which, in this thesis, is designated as the aerodynamic frequency-response data-
set. In the following, the procedure for estimating the aerodynamic frequency-response
data for the aerodynamic lift due to angle-of-attack perturbations
C
L
(k) is given as an
example.
Consider the output of an unknown system such as the response of an aerofoil lift-coecient
C
L
(t) due to harmonically varying angle-of-attack perturbations
(t) =
max
sin( t), for arbitrary circular frequencies . In this thesis, however, all
aerodynamic responses are given as a function of the reduced frequency k =
c
2Q
, thus
making,
(t) =
max
sin
_
c
2Q
2Q
t
c
_
=
max
sin
_
k
2Q
t
c
_
with Q
the magnitude of the airow at innity,

max
the amplitude of the angle-of-
attack perturbation, and c the mean aerodynamic chord. The frequency-response of the
unknown system is computed using both the harmonically varying input (t) and the
output corrected for its trim condition value,

C
L
(t) = C
L
(t) C
L
trim
. Knowing as a
function of time both the input, (t), and the output,

C
L
(t) (as obtained from Unsteady
LPF simulations), in this thesis a mathematical model for the time-domain lift-coecient
is assumed as, (with the estimated lift-coecient written as

C
L
(t)),
C
L
(t) = (
L
(k) (t) +(
L

(k)
(t) c
2Q
(E.1)
with

C
L
(t) the model response, (t) the time derivative of the input (t), and both
(
L
(k) and (
L

(k) the frequency-dependent steady and unsteady aerodynamic parame-
ters, respectively. Note that in the case of this example for reduced frequency k = 0, the
frequency-dependent aerodynamic parameter (
L
equals C
L
which is the lift-curve slope.

The parameter C
L
may be obtained from either windtunnel-experiments or ight tests.

Both the aerodynamic parameters (
L
and (
L

are a function of the reduced frequency,
k and they follow from a least-squares t using equation (E.1). As mentioned before,
the estimation of these unknown model parameters rst requires a modication of the
simulated time-domain response of C
L
(t) by correcting it for its mean value C
L
trim
, or
C
L
(t) = C
L
(t) C
L
trim
. Next, the error between the simulated data and the model data
is dened as,
(t) =

C
L
(t)

C
L
(t) (E.2)
E.2 Frequency-response data extraction from time-domain simulations 415
or, using equation (E.1),
(t) =

C
L
(t) (
L
(k) (t) (
L

(k)
(t) c
2Q
(E.3)
Estimation of the unknown parameters (
L
(k) and (
L

(k), requires a denition of a cost-
function designated as J,
J =
T
_
0
(t)
2
dt =
T
_
0
_
C
L
(t) (
L
(k) (t) (
L

(k)
(t) c
2Q
_
dt (E.4)
with T the total simulation time. In this thesis the time-dependent harmonic response is
calculated over a number of periods. Once a stationary harmonic response has been ob-
tained, the last cycle of this response is used for the estimation of the frequency-dependent
parameters. With T
cycle
the period of the harmonic simulations, the integral in equation
(E.4) should extend from T T
cycle
to T, or,
J =
T
_
TT
cycle
_
C
L
(t) (
L
(k) (t) (
L

(k)
(t) c
2Q
_
dt (E.5)
Now, taking the partial derivatives of equation (E.4) with respect to the unknown model
parameters (
L
and (
L

,
J
C
L
and
J
C
L

, respectively. Setting these partial derivatives
to zero, the following equations are obtained,
J
(
L
= 2
T
_
TT
cycle
_
C
L
(t) (
L
(k) (t) (
L

(k)
(t) c
2Q
_
(t) dt = 0
J
(
L

= 2
T
_
TT
cycle
_
C
L
(t) (
L
(k) (t) (
L

(k)
(t) c
2Q
_
(t) c
2Q
dt = 0
or, in matrix notation,
_
_
T
_
TT
cycle
(t)
2
dt
T
_
TT
cycle
(t)
(t) c
2Q
dt
T
_
TT
cycle
(t)
(t) c
2Q
dt
T
_
TT
cycle
_
(t) c
2Q
_
2
dt
_
_
_
_
C
L
(k)
C
L

(k)
_
_
=
_
_
T
_
TT
cycle
C
L
(t) (t)dt
T
_
TT
cycle
C
L
(t)
(t) c
2Q
dt
_
_
(E.6)
From equation (E.6) for all reduced frequencies, k, the unknown parameters (
L
(k) and
(
L

(k) are calculated by matrix-inversion. Using these results, the equivalent of equation
(E.1) is now written as,
C
L
= (
L
(k) +(
L

(k)
c
2Q
(E.7)
or writing for
c
2Q
its frequency-domain equivalent

j c
2Q
= jk , the sought aerodynamic

frequency-response data
C
L
(k) is written as,

C
L
(k) = (
L
(k) +jk (
L

(k) (E.8)
Since the number of reduced frequencies is limited, the aerodynamic frequency-response
data
C
L
(k) are approximated by an analytical function. The theory of this analytical

continuation of frequency-response data is given in section E.3.
Also, it should be noted that all simulations are performed in discrete-time, resulting in a
discrete-time equivalent form for equation (E.6),
_
_
N
t
i=1
[i]
2
N
t
i=1
[i]
[i] c
2Q
N
t
i=1
[i]
[i] c
2Q
N
t
i=1
_
[i] c
2Q
_
2
_
_
_
_
(
L
(k)
(
L

(k)
_
_
=
_
_
N
t
i=1
C
L
[i] [i]
N
t
i=1
C
L
[i]
[i] c
2Q
_
(E.9)
with [i] the discrete-time angle-of-attack,
[i] c
2Q
the discrete-time non-dimensional time

derivative of the angle-of-attack, C
L
[i] the discrete-time lift coecient, i = 1 N
t
the
time-counter for the last harmonic cycle of the discrete-time simulation, and N
t
the number
of samples in the last cycle. Using matrix-inversion, the unknown model parameters are
known.
The above procedure holds for the determination of all aerodynamic frequency-response
data considered in this thesis.
E.3 1D Analytical continuation of frequency-response
data
Since the aerodynamic frequency-response data are only given for a limited number of
reduced frequencies, k = [k
1
, , k
M
]
T
, an analytical frequency-response function is tted
through the available data using the frequency-response function,
H(k) = A
0
+A
1
jk +A
2
(jk)
2
+
i=N
i=1
B
i
jk
jk +
i
(E.10)
with

H(k) the estimated analytical frequency-response function, and A
0
, A
1
, A
2
the so-
called aerodynamic stiness, aerodynamic damping and aerodynamic inertia pa-
rameters, respectively. The parameters B
i
, i = 1 N, are the gains of the so-called
aerodynamic lag-functions
jk
jk+
i
, with
i
, i = 1 N, the poles of the lag-functions,
E.4 2D Analytical continuation of frequency-response data 417
and N the number of lag-functions, see also reference [36]. The error between the sim-
ulated aerodynamic frequency-response data, H(k), and the response of the estimated
analytical frequency-response function,

H(k), is dened as,
E(k) =

H(k) H(k) (E.11)
The error, equation (E.11), is minimized using the cost-function J, which is dened as,
J =
k=k
M
k=k
1
_
Re
_
H(k) H(k)
_
+Im
_
H(k) H(k)
__
2
(E.12)
with the reduced frequency-vector k = [k
1
, , k
M
]
T
, and M the number of reduced
frequencies. Additional weighing of the frequency-response data leads to the cost-function
J
1
,
J
1
=
k=k
M
k=k
1
W
_
Re
_
H(k) H(k)
_
+Im
_
H(k) H(k)
__
2
(E.13)
with W the vector of weighing parameters, W = [W
1
, W
M
, ]
T
, and M the number of
reduced frequencies.
The parameter vector P = [A
0
, A
1
, A
2
, B
1
, B
2
, B
3
,
1
,
2
,
3
]
T
is obtained by minimizing
J
1
(see equation (E.13)) using MATLAB optimization function fmins.m.
As a nal note for this section, the aerodynamic frequency-response data may also be
approximated by a function omitting the aerodynamic damping-term, A
1
, and the aero-
dynamic inertia-term, A
2
, resulting in the function,
H(k) = A
0
+
i=N
i=1
B
i
jk
jk +
i
(E.14)
For the estimation of the aerodynamic stiness-term A
0
, the parameters B
i
, i = 1 N,
and the poles
i
, i = 1 N, a similar procedure is followed as given in the above.
E.4 2D Analytical continuation of frequency-response
data
In this thesis the aerodynamic frequency-response of aerodynamic forces and moments due
to 2D atmospheric turbulence is also considered.
For example, consider the aerodynamic frequency-response of the non-dimensional rolling
moment coecient C
in T
S
due to (non-dimensional) anti-symmetrical vertical 2D at-
mospheric turbulence
g
(k,
y
) =
w
g
(k,
y
)
Q
, given as
C
g
(k,
y
). For all conguration col-
location points, the turbulence-input
g
(k,
y
) =
w
g
(k,
y
)
Q
is written as (see also equation

(5.27)),
g
asym
i
(t
n
,
y
) =
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
col
i
(t
n
)
c
_
sin(
y
Y
col
i
(t
n
))
with t
n
c
2Q
=

x
c
2
x
=
2
x
the
spatial frequency along the X
I
-axis,
y
=
2
y
I
-axis,
both X
col
i
(t
n
) and Y
col
i
(t
n
) the time-dependent x and y components of the position of
all collocation points in the Inertial Frame of Reference T
I
, i = 1 N
B
with N
B
the
number of conguration panels, and
g
max
the amplitude of the atmospheric turbulence
component
g
asym
(t
n
,
y
).
For each reduced frequency k and each spatial frequency
y
, the aerodynamic frequency-
response
C
g
(k,
y
) is calculated using the procedure given in section E.2. For all spatial
frequencies
y
the frequency-response data are now calculated using the reference-input
for the center of gravity,
g
c.g.
(t
n
) =
g
max
sin
_
k
2X
0
(t
n
)
c
_
with X
0
(t
n
) the time-dependent position of the origin of T
aero
, O
aero
, in the frame T
I
.
For arbitrary frequency-response data H(k,
y
), the aerodynamic frequency-response func-
tion

H(k,
y
) is approximated by,
H(k,
y
) = A
0
(
y
) +A
1
(
y
) (jk) +A
2
(
y
) (jk)
2
+
i=N
i=1
B
i
(
y
)
jk
jk +
i
(
y
)
(E.15)
with N the number of lag-terms, and parameters A
0
(
y
), A
1
(
y
) and A
2
(
y
) given by,
A
0
(
y
) = A
00
+A
01
(
y
) +A
02
(
y
)
2
+A
03
(
y
)
3
+A
04
(
y
)
4
A
1
(
y
) = A
10
+A
11
(
y
) +A
12
(
y
)
2
+A
13
(
y
)
3
+A
14
(
y
)
4
A
2
(
y
) = A
20
+A
21
(
y
) +A
22
(
y
)
2
+A
23
(
y
)
3
+A
24
(
y
)
4
and parameters B
i
(
y
) and
i
(
y
) given by,
B
i
(
y
) = B
i0
+B
i1
(
y
) +B
i2
(
y
)
2
+B
i3
(
y
)
3
+B
i4
(
y
)
4
and,
i
(
y
) =
i0
+
i1
(
y
) +
i2
(
y
)
2
+
i3
(
y
)
3
+
i4
(
y
)
4
respectively.
E.5 PSD-function ts 419
The parameter-matrix P is dened as the matrix of unknown parameters in equation
(E.15),
P =
_
_
A
00
A
01
A
02
A
03
A
04
A
10
A
11
A
12
A
13
A
14
A
20
A
21
A
22
A
23
A
24
B
10
B
11
B
12
B
13
B
14
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B
i0
B
i1
B
i2
B
i3
B
i4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
B
N0
B
N1
B
N2
B
N3
B
N4
10

11

12

13

14
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
i0

i1

i2

i3

i4
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
N0

N1

N2

N3

N4
_
_
(E.16)
This matrix is estimated using a cost-function J
2
, similar to equation (E.13), although both
the frequency-response data and the frequency-response function now become a function
of
y
as well,
J
2
=
k=k
M
k=k
1
y
=
y
L
y
=
y
1
W
_
Re
_
H(k,
y
) H(k,
y
)
_
+Im
_
H(k,
y
) H(k,
y
)
__
2
(E.17)
with

H(k,
y
) the analytical frequency-response function, H(k,
y
) the frequency-response
data, the reduced frequency-vector k = [k
1
, , k
M
]
T
, the spatial frequency-vector
y
=
[
y
1
, ,
y
L
]
T
, M the number of reduced frequencies, L the number of spatial frequencies,
and W the matrix of weighing parameters, W = [W
ij
, i = 1 M, j = 1 L]
T
. The
parameter-matrix P is obtained by minimizing J
2
using MATLAB optimization function
fmins.m.
E.5 PSD-function ts
In this thesis the approximation (or t) of PSD-functions is given in a form such that it
allows the PSD-function to be transformed to the product of a frequency-response func-
tion multiplied by its complex-conjungate. Given as a function of the circular frequency
([Rad/sec]), the PSD-function data S
yy
() are approximated by the analytical PSD-
function t

S
yy
(). For example, consider the scalar output y PSD-function approximation
due to the scalar input u,

S
yy
(). The Single-Input-Single-Output (SISO) system output
PSD-function t is written as, see also appendix B,
S
yy
() =

H
yu
()

H
yu
() S
uu
() =

H
yu
()

H
yu
() S
uu
() =
H
yu
()
2
S
uu
()
with

S
yy
() the output PSD-function t,

H
yu
() the estimated frequency-response func-
tion,

H
yu
() the complex-conjungate of the estimated frequency-response function, and
S
uu
() the input PSD-function. For known input PSD-functions such as white noise
(S
uu
() = S
ww
() = 1) the estimated output PSD-function is written as,
yy
() =

H
yu
()

H
yu
() =

H
yu
()

H
yu
() (E.18)
with

S
yy
() the estimated output PSD-function corrected for the input PSD-function. In
this thesis the corrected estimated output PSD-function is approximated by the ratio of
products of elementary functions,
yy
() =

S
yy
(0)
n
k=1
_
1 +
2
num
k

2
_
m
l=1
_
1 +
2
den
l
2
_
(E.19)
with

S
yy
(0) the estimated output PSD-function value for = 0, both
2
num
k
and
2
den
l
nu-
merator and denominator parameters, respectively, and n and m the number of elementary
functions used for the numerator and denominator polynomials, respectively. Using both
equations (E.18) and (E.19), the frequency-response function given in equation (E.18) is
written as,
H
yu
() =
_
yy
(0)
n
k=1
1 +
num
k
j
m
l=1
1 +
den
l
j
(E.20)
with j =

1. For each PSD-function t the parameters
2
num
k
, with k = 1 n, and
2
den
l
, with l = 1 m, are required to be positive. With this constraint, the rational
lter given in equation (E.20) is both real in its parameters and stable. This analytical
frequency-response function will be used for time-domain simulations presented in this
thesis.
The PSD-function parameters
2
num
k
and
2
den
l
in equation (E.19) are estimated dening
an error function,
E() =

S
yy
() S
yy
() (E.21)
with

S
yy
() the estimated PSD-function and S
yy
() the known PSD-function data (cor-
rected for the input PSD-function). Using a cost-function J, similar to equation (E.13),
J =
=
M
=
1
(E())
2
=
=
M
=
1
_
yy
() S
yy
()
_
2
with M the number of circular frequency-points, the unknown lter coecients
2
num
k
and
2
den
l
are obtained using MATLAB optimization function fmins.m.
Appendix F
Aerodynamic t parameters for
2D atmospheric turbulence
inputs
F.1 Introduction
In this appendix the numerical values of the parameters of the two-dimensional (2D)
function-ts with respect to 2D anti-symmetrical atmospheric turbulence are given. They
will include the parameters for the aerodynamic frequency-response functions
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
Y
g
(k,
y
),
C
g
(k,
y
)and
C
n
g
(k,
y
). The parameters of all ts only
hold for the trim condition dened in chapter 6.
The analytical function-ts have been discussed in appendix E, and the general approxi-
mating frequency-response function is given as, see also equation (E.15),
H(k,
y
) = A
0
(
y
) +A
1
(
y
) (jk) +A
2
(
y
) (jk)
2
+
i=N
i=1
B
i
(
y
)
jk
jk +
i
(
y
)
with N = 3 the number of lag-terms, and parameters A
0
(
y
), A
1
(
y
) and A
2
(
y
) given
by,
A
0
(
y
) = A
00
+A
01
(
y
) +A
02
(
y
)
2
+A
03
(
y
)
3
+A
04
(
y
)
4
A
1
(
y
) = A
10
+A
11
(
y
) +A
12
(
y
)
2
+A
13
(
y
)
3
+A
14
(
y
)
4
A
2
(
y
) = A
20
+A
21
(
y
) +A
22
(
y
)
2
+A
23
(
y
)
3
+A
24
(
y
)
4
and coecients B
i
(
y
) and
i
(
y
) with i = 1 3, given by,
B
i
(
y
) = B
i0
+B
i1
(
y
) +B
i2
(
y
)
2
+B
i3
(
y
)
3
+B
i4
(
y
)
4
422 Aerodynamic t parameters for 2D atmospheric turbulence inputs
A
00
A
01
A
02
A
03
A
04
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
) 3.7152e-005 1.8720e+000 9.6985e-002 -3.1327e+000 3.0923e+000
C
u
g
(k,
y
) -4.0504e-005 -4.0579e-001 -1.0086e-001 2.9920e+000 -2.7981e+000
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
) -4.3174e-008 2.1435e-003 2.6176e-004 -3.3836e-003 2.6923e-002
C
Y
g
(k,
y
) -5.1333e-006 2.5735e-001 -1.6254e-002 3.8472e-001 -6.3045e-001
C
g
(k,
y
) -3.1649e-004 -3.9759e+000 -8.4058e-001 2.7304e+001 -2.6072e+001
C
n
g
(k,
y
) -1.9262e-005 -2.5849e-001 -4.8798e-002 1.5101e+000 -1.3944e+000
A
10
A
11
A
12
A
13
A
14
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
) -1.1411e-001 -2.0241e-001 -7.0084e-001 -7.3376e-001 5.1534e+000
C
u
g
(k,
y
) -2.9822e-004 -2.6963e-003 -2.7507e-001 6.8418e-001 -1.8069e-001
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
) -1.9511e-002 -5.1642e-001 -1.2406e+000 6.6871e-001 5.2422e-001
C
Y
g
(k,
y
) 4.8930e-003 8.8408e-001 -1.0434e+000 3.3686e-001 -1.8774e+000
C
g
(k,
y
) 4.7923e-001 -1.0185e+000 8.5750e+000 -1.2214e+000 1.4741e+001
C
n
g
(k,
y
) -8.9859e-004 -2.2392e-001 8.4731e-002 1.3529e-001 1.5273e-001
A
20
A
21
A
22
A
23
A
24
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
) -1.7900e-001 1.1252e+000 -2.0654e+000 5.4169e+000 -1.2216e+001
C
u
g
(k,
y
) 7.3920e-004 -1.2903e-001 6.5948e-001 -9.9159e-001 4.4843e-002
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
) 2.8035e-002 -9.0963e-002 7.1509e-001 -9.3869e-001 1.0637e+000
C
Y
g
(k,
y
) -3.7277e-002 6.2522e-002 -5.7261e+000 5.5062e-001 1.0400e+001
C
g
(k,
y
) 8.3538e-001 8.8978e-001 5.5153e-001 6.9167e+000 -7.2679e+000
C
n
g
(k,
y
) 6.5638e-004 2.2701e-001 -3.0168e-001 1.2109e-001 -3.2110e-001
Table F.1: Calculated coecients for the aerodynamic function-ts with respect to anti-
symmetrical 2D atmospheric turbulence,
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
Y
g
(k,
y
),
C
g
(k,
y
)and
C
n
g
(k,
y
), as given in equation (E.15).
and poles,
i
(
y
) =
i0
+
i1
(
y
) +
i2
(
y
)
2
+
i3
(
y
)
3
+
i4
(
y
)
4
respectively.
F.2 Parameter tables
In the following the parameter values for all aerodynamic frequency-response functions
with respect to 2D anti-symmetrical atmospheric turbulence elds are summarized in
tables.
F.2 Parameter tables 423
B
10
B
11
B
12
B
13
B
14
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
) -3.0313e-002 -1.1737e+000 1.3596e+000 -1.0421e+000 -2.7345e+000
C
u
g
(k,
y
) 2.4008e-002 -5.6848e-004 -4.0470e-002 1.2034e-002 -1.6769e-001
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
) -5.7761e-003 1.7976e-001 2.5743e-001 1.2767e+000 -4.8594e-001
C
Y
g
(k,
y
) -3.7678e-003 -1.9132e-001 -7.0485e-002 1.0917e-001 -2.2891e+000
C
g
(k,
y
) 1.4955e+000 6.8332e+000 1.2670e+001 3.9993e+001 7.2258e+000
C
n
g
(k,
y
) 1.5988e-002 2.4204e-001 7.6877e-003 -1.5557e-001 3.8032e-001
B
20
B
21
B
22
B
23
B
24
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
) -1.9697e-001 -8.4394e-001 -7.4701e-001 -1.0472e+000 -1.4216e+000
C
u
g
(k,
y
) -2.3897e-002 -8.2244e-003 8.9490e-002 9.9361e-002 -6.3074e-001
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
) 3.3575e-002 2.6892e-002 2.6409e-001 -1.2168e-001 7.4817e-001
C
Y
g
(k,
y
) 2.5256e-003 2.8252e-001 4.3688e-001 -4.1756e+000 4.6520e+000
C
g
(k,
y
) -9.9278e-002 2.6429e+000 -2.7820e+000 -5.3637e+000 3.5003e+000
C
n
g
(k,
y
) -1.1781e-001 6.9875e-002 -2.2094e-001 3.8694e-001 -4.9666e-001
B
30
B
31
B
32
B
33
B
34
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
) 2.3173e-002 -2.5485e-001 2.4924e-001 4.7421e+000 -1.5676e+001
C
u
g
(k,
y
) 2.0316e-004 -2.7689e-001 4.6052e-001 2.8101e-001 -7.6655e-001
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
) 4.7515e-003 -4.9359e-001 -2.4842e-001 -1.3054e+000 2.6388e+000
C
Y
g
(k,
y
) -6.1338e-003 -8.5915e-001 4.5056e-001 -1.6411e+000 3.6413e+000
C
g
(k,
y
) 4.4526e-001 4.6611e+000 -2.1274e+000 -8.0935e+000 2.3806e+000
C
n
g
(k,
y
) 1.0183e-001 4.0390e-002 -2.2763e-001 -3.5457e-002 -2.5102e-001
Table F.2: Calculated lag term coecients for the aerodynamic function-ts with respect to anti-
symmetrical 2D atmospheric turbulence,
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
Y
g
(k,
y
),
C
g
(k,
y
)and
C
n
g
(k,
y
424 Aerodynamic t parameters for 2D atmospheric turbulence inputs
10

11

12

13

14
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
) 6.0118e-001 -2.6689e-001 -8.3662e-002 1.5039e+000 -8.3364e-001
C
u
g
(k,
y
) 4.4298e-002 1.7206e-001 1.4478e+000 -7.8679e-001 2.1165e-001
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
) 4.5627e-001 3.6885e-001 -1.8137e-001 2.7475e-001 6.6800e-001
C
Y
g
(k,
y
) -2.2495e-002 -4.4450e-001 -2.1966e+000 -7.6975e-001 -3.8563e-001
C
g
(k,
y
) -1.6924e+000 -4.3145e+000 8.5159e-003 5.0297e+000 -3.2872e+000
C
n
g
(k,
y
) 1.1981e-001 2.2258e-001 2.8597e-002 -6.1494e-001 2.2625e-002
20

21

22

23

24
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
) -9.1623e-001 1.4164e+000 -2.5701e+000 -2.8658e-001 2.5327e+000
C
u
g
(k,
y
) 4.3484e-002 2.3956e-001 7.6863e-001 5.8756e-002 2.4994e+000
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
) 8.7284e-001 -1.9588e+000 4.6070e+000 6.5116e+000 3.2866e+000
C
Y
g
(k,
y
) -6.6314e-003 -1.0487e+000 1.0646e+000 2.9802e-002 1.4324e+000
C
g
(k,
y
) 6.9021e+000 -2.2395e+000 2.3387e+001 -8.1407e+001 1.7826e-002
C
n
g
(k,
y
) 1.5364e-001 -1.4999e-001 4.5420e-001 -2.3866e-001 -4.2164e-001
30

31

32

33

34
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
) -4.1847e-001 1.6882e+000 1.0543e+001 -1.2482e+001 2.8930e+000
C
u
g
(k,
y
) -1.7626e+000 1.8964e+000 2.9387e-003 -3.9593e+000 6.6853e+000
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
) -6.8509e-001 6.7211e-002 -1.3079e+000 1.1371e+000 1.2064e+000
C
Y
g
(k,
y
) 2.8428e-001 -5.0467e-001 2.1801e+000 -2.1744e+000 3.0339e-001
C
g
(k,
y
) 1.0261e+000 -7.6505e-001 2.2602e+000 -6.9922e-001 -2.7531e+000
C
n
g
(k,
y
) 1.6054e-001 5.2404e-002 -5.2520e-002 -7.3141e-001 1.6805e+000
Table F.3: Calculated poles for the aerodynamic function-ts with respect to anti-symmetrical 2D
atmospheric turbulence,
C
Y
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
n
u
g
(k,
y
),
C
Y
g
(k,
y
),
C
g
(k,
y
)and
C
n
g
(k,
y
Appendix G
Spatial-domain gust elds, the
ightpath denition and
aerodynamic model gust inputs
G.1 Introduction
In this appendix the theory for generating spatial-domain two-dimensional (2D) gust elds
will be discussed rst. Starting from the theory for the simulation of the three-dimensional
(3D) correlated gust velocity components (see also chapter 2), these 2D gust elds are
derived for the longitudinal gust u
g
, the lateral gust v
g
and the vertical gust w
g
. These
elds are given as a function of the position in the Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference T
E
,
that is u
g
(X
E
, Y
E
), v
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) and w
g
(X
E
, Y
E
), with X
E
and Y
E
the position along
the X
E
- and Y
E
-axis of T
E
, respectively (note that these gust velocity components are
constant along the Z
E
-axis of T
E
). The theory for generating these gust elds relies on the
assumptions made in chapter 2. Results for both uncorrelated - and correlated gust elds
will be given in this appendix. Also, the 2D gust elds will be veried by comparing the
calculated gust velocity components covariance functions to the theoretical ones according
to Dryden as given in chapter 2.
Next in this appendix the denition of the ightpath for the aircraft ying through the 2D
gust elds is given, along with the denition of both the symmetric and anti-symmetric 2D
gust elds. These elds are decompositions of the true gust elds encountered along the
ightpath and they are used as inputs for the time-domain aerodynamic models presented
in this thesis.
Finally, in this appendix the denition of the aerodynamic model gust inputs is given.
426 Spatial-domain gust elds, the ightpath denition and aerodynamic model gust inputs
G.2 The generation of spatial-domain gust elds
G.2.1 3D Correlated gust elds
For the generation of gust elds in the spatial-domain, use is made of the theory given in
chapter 2. For the frame T
E
the atmospheric turbulence PSD-matrix for correlated gust
g
, v
g
and w
g
is given in equation (2.24), and it is now written as,
S
uu
(L
g
) =
_
_
S
u
g
u
g
(L
g
) S
u
g
v
g
(L
g
) S
u
g
w
g
(L
g
)
S
v
g
u
g
(L
g
) S
v
g
v
g
(L
g
) S
v
g
w
g
(L
g
)
S
w
g
u
g
(L
g
) S
w
g
v
g
(L
g
) S
w
g
w
g
(L
g
)
_
_
(G.1)
with u = [u
g
, v
g
, w
g
]
T
, L
g
= [
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
,
z
L
g
], with
x
L
g
the non-dimensional spatial
frequency along the X
E
E
,
y
L
g
the non-dimensional spatial frequency
along the Y
E
-axis of T
E
,
z
L
g
the non-dimensional spatial frequency along the Z
E
-axis of
T
E
and L
g
the gust scale length in [m]. It should be noted that the atmospheric turbulence
PSD-matrix for the correlated gust velocity components given in equation (G.1) is real in
both the auto- and cross-spectra.
For the simulation of the spatial-domain atmospheric turbulence velocity components,
use is made of three independent noise sources (here produced using MATLABs noise
generator randn.m). The noise sources are the input for the system of which the frequency-
response matrix H(L
g
) is dened according to,
S
uu
(L
g
) = H
(L
g
) S
ww
(L
g
) H
T
(L
g
) = H
(L
g
) H
T
(L
g
) (G.2)
with H
(L
g
) the complex conjungate of H(L
g
), H
T
(L
g
) the transpose of H(L
g
)
and S
ww
(L
g
) the constant (white-) noise input PSD-matrix of intensity one (I) with I
the identity matrix. The frequency-response matrix H(L
g
) is given as (see also reference
[1]),
H(L
g
) =
_
_
H
11
(L
g
) 0 0
H
21
(L
g
) H
22
(L
g
) 0
H
31
(L
g
) H
32
(L
g
) H
33
(L
g
)
_
_
(G.3)
or when used for equation (G.2),
_
_
H
11
(L
g
) 0 0
H
21
(L
g
) H
22
(L
g
) 0
H
31
(L
g
) H
32
(L
g
) H
33
(L
g
)
_
_
_
_
H
11
(L
g
) H
21
(L
g
) H
31
(L
g
)
0 H
22
(L
g
) H
32
(L
g
)
0 0 H
33
(L
g
)
_
_
=
=
_
_
S
u
g
u
g
(L
g
) S
u
g
v
g
(L
g
) S
u
g
w
g
(L
g
)
S
v
g
u
g
(L
g
) S
v
g
v
g
(L
g
) S
v
g
w
g
(L
g
)
S
w
g
u
g
(L
g
) S
w
g
v
g
(L
g
) S
w
g
w
g
(L
g
)
_
_
(G.4)
G.2 The generation of spatial-domain gust elds 427
with,
H
11
(L
g
) =
_
S
u
g
u
g
(L
g
)
H
21
(L
g
) =
S
u
g
v
g
(L
g
)
_
S
u
g
u
g
(L
g
)
H
31
(L
g
) =
S
u
g
w
g
(L
g
)
_
S
u
g
u
g
(L
g
)
(G.5)
H
22
(L
g
) =
S
v
g
v
g
(L
g
)
S
2
u
g
v
g
(L
g
)
S
u
g
u
g
(L
g
)
H
32
(L
g
) =
S
w
g
v
g
(L
g
)
S
u
g
v
g
(L
g
) S
u
g
w
g
(L
g
)
S
u
g
u
g
(L
g
)
H
22
(L
g
)
H
33
(L
g
) =
_
S
w
g
w
g
(L
g
) H
2
31
(L
g
) H
2
32
(L
g
)
For the frequency-domain, the gust velocity components U
g
(L
g
), V
g
(L
g
) and W
g
(L
g
)
_
_
U
g
(L
g
)
V
g
(L
g
)
W
g
(L
g
)
_
_
=
_
_
H
11
(L
g
) 0 0
H
21
(L
g
) H
22
(L
g
) 0
H
31
(L
g
) H
32
(L
g
) H
33
(L
g
)
_
_
_
_
W
n
u
g
(L
g
)
W
n
v
g
(L
g
)
W
n
w
g
(L
g
)
_
_
(G.6)
or,
U
g
(L
g
) = H
11
(L
g
) W
n
u
g
(L
g
) (G.7)
V
g
(L
g
) = H
21
(L
g
) W
n
u
g
(L
g
) +H
22
(L
g
) W
n
v
g
(L
g
) (G.8)
W
g
(L
g
) = H
31
(L
g
) W
n
u
g
(L
g
) +H
32
(L
g
) W
n
v
g
(L
g
) +H
33
(L
g
) W
n
w
g
(L
g
)(G.9)
with in equations (G.6), (G.7), (G.8), (G.9), W
n
u
g
(L
g
), W
n
v
g
(L
g
) and W
n
w
g
(L
g
)
the independent frequency-domain noise-matrices. Although 3D gusts (as a function of
the non-dimensional spatial frequencies L
g
= [
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
,
z
L
g
]) are not considered
in this thesis, these noise-matrices can be obtained using a 3D Fourier-transform of the
spatial-domain white-noise matrices w
n
u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
,
Z
E
L
g
_
,
w
n
v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
,
Z
E
L
g
_
and w
n
w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
,
Z
E
L
g
_
. See appendix B for details with respect to
the 3D Fourier-transform.
The frequency-domain gust velocity components U
g
(L
g
), V
g
(L
g
) and W
g
(L
g
) are
transformed into the spatial-domain using the inverse 3D Fourier-transform, resulting in
the correlated spatial-domain gust velocity components u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
,
Z
E
L
g
_
, v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
,
Z
E
L
g
_
and w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
,
Z
E
L
g
_
, with
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
and
Z
E
L
g
the non-dimensional positions along the X
E
-,
Y
E
- and Z
E
E
, respectively.
In sections G.2.2 and G.2.3 examples of 2D uncorrelated - and correlated gust elds will be
given, respectively. In section G.2.4 numerical simulation results for both 2D uncorrelated
and correlated gust elds will be given.
G.2.2 2D Uncorrelated gust elds
For the generation of uncorrelated 2D gust elds use is made of the theory given in chapter
2 and section G.2.1. Now, the gust velocity components u
g
, v
g
and w
g
are only allowed to
vary along the X
E
- and Y
E
E
, and for each position in the O
E
X
E
Y
E
-
plane they are assumed constant along the Z
E
-axis of T
E
. For the frame T
E
equation
(2.33) is now written as,
S
uu
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) = (G.10)
=

2
(1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
)
5/2
_
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+ 4
2
y
L
2
g
0 0
0 1 + 4
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
0
0 0 3
_
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
_
_
with u = [u
g
, v
g
, w
g
]
T
and u
g
, v
g
and w
g
the longitudinal, lateral and vertical atmospheric
turbulence velocity components, respectively,
x
L
g
the non-dimensional spatial frequency
along the X
E
E
,
y
L
g
the non-dimensional spatial frequency along
the Y
E
-axis of T
E
, L
g
the gust scale length in [m] and
2
the variance of the atmospheric
turbulence velocity components in [
m
2
s
2
].
For the gust velocity components u
g
, v
g
and w
g
, the Power Spectral Density (PSD) func-
tions become, respectively,
S
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
2
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+ 4
2
y
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
5/2
(G.11)
S
v
g
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
2
1 + 4
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
5/2
(G.12)
and,
S
w
g
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) = 3
2

2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
5/2
(G.13)
with S
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) the 2D PSD-function for the longitudinal gust u
g
, S
v
g
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
the 2D PSD-function for the lateral gust v
g
, and S
w
g
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) the 2D PSD-function
for the vertical gust w
g
.
Use is made of equations (G.11), (G.12) and (G.13) for the generation of the spatial-domain
2D gust elds u
g
, v
g
and w
g
. Following the procedure given in reference [1], these gust
elds are obtained using 2D white-noise matrices (see also section G.2.1) w
n
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
with
X
E
L
g
the non-dimensional position along the X
E
E
and
Y
E
L
g
the
non-dimensional position along the Y
E
-axis of T
E
. The noise-matrices w
n
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
are
generated for each (isolated) atmospheric turbulence velocity component u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
,
v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
and w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
and they are designated as w
n
u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
, w
n
v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
and w
n
w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
, respectively.
In generating the 2D gust elds, the 2D noise-matrices are
Fourier-transformed resulting in the frequency-domain matrices W
n
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
),
W
n
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) and W
n
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) (see appendix B for details with respect to
the 2D Fourier-transform). Next, the frequency-domain noise-matrices are multiplied by
the square-root of the atmospheric turbulence velocity component spectra, or (see also
equations (G.7), (G.8) and (G.9) ),
U
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
_
S
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) W
n
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) (G.14)
V
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
_
S
v
g
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) W
n
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) (G.15)
and,
W
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
_
S
w
g
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) W
n
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) (G.16)
with U
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
), V
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) and W
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) the 2D frequency-domain
transformations of the longitudinal, lateral and vertical atmospheric turbulence velocity
components u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
, v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
and w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
, respectively.
The sought spatial-domain 2D gust elds u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
, v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
and
w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
are obtained from the 2D inverse Fourier-transform of equations (G.14),
(G.15) and (G.16), respectively, or,
u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
= T
2
U
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) (G.17)
v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
= T
2
V
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) (G.18)
and,
w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
= T
2
W
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) (G.19)
G.2.3 2D Correlated gust elds
Similar to section G.2.2, the 2D spatial-domain gust elds for correlated atmospheric
turbulence velocity components are calculated in this section. The 2D gust elds dened
here are similar to the ones dened in the previous section, however, it is now assumed
that the longitudinal gust u
g
and the lateral gust v
g
are correlated.
For 2D correlated gust velocity components, the input PSD-matrix is now given as,
S
uu
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) = (G.20)
=

2
(1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
)
5/2
_
_
1 +
2
x
L
2
g
+ 4
2
y
L
2
g
3
x
y
L
2
g
0
3
y
x
L
2
g
1 + 4
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
0
0 0 3
_
2
x
L
2
g
+
2
y
L
2
g
_
_
_
For the (spatial) frequency-domain, the gust velocity components U
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
),
V
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) and W
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) are now calculated from equations similar to equa-
tions (G.7), (G.8) and (G.9), or,
U
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) = H
11
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) W
n
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) (G.21)
V
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) = H
21
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) W
n
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) + (G.22)
H
22
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) W
n
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
W
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) = H
33
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) W
n
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) (G.23)
with W
n
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
), W
n
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) and W
n
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) the independent
frequency-domain noise-matrices. These noise-matrices are obtained using a two-dimen-
sional Fourier-transform of the spatial-domain white-noise matrices w
n
u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
,
w
n
v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
and w
n
w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
. In equations (G.21), (G.22) and (G.23), the deni-
tion of the transfer-functions H
11
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
), H
21
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
), H
22
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) and
H
33
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) now becomes,
H
11
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
_
S
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
H
21
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
S
u
g
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
_
S
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
H
22
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
S
v
g
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
S
2
u
g
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
S
u
g
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
H
33
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
_
S
w
g
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
Similar to section G.2.2, the sought spatial-domain 2D gust elds u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
, v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
and w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
are obtained from the 2D inverse Fourier-transform of equations (G.21),
(G.22) and (G.23), respectively.
G.2.4 The numerical simulation of 2D gust elds
For the numerical simulation of the atmospheric turbulence elds, the atmospheric tur-
bulence parameter values were chosen as L
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
]. For the gener-
ation of these gust elds the non-dimensional spatial sampling was chosen as
X
E
L
g
=
Y
E
L
g
= 0.02, while for the non-dimensional spatial dimensions they were chosen as
X
E
L
g
=
_
0,
X
E
L
g
, , 25
_
T
and
Y
E
L
g
=
_
0,
Y
E
L
g
, , 25
_
T
. The spatial sampling and the
spatial dimensions were determined such to allow the simulation of both the low-frequent
and high-frequent components for all turbulence velocities.
The non-dimensional spatial frequencies
x
L
g
and
y
L
g
are calculated from both the
non-dimensional spatial sampling and the number of elements in the spatial dimensions,
or,
x
L
g
=
2[0 : (N
x
1)/2]
N
x
X
E
L
g
y
L
g
=
2[0 : (N
y
1)/2]
N
y
Y
E
L
g
with N
x
the number of samples along the X
E
-axis and N
y
the number of samples along
the Y
E
-axis. Using the non-dimensional spatial frequencies, for the uncorrelated gust
elds the PSD-function matrix according to equation (G.10) is calculated, while for the
correlated gust elds it is calculated using equation (G.20).
In this thesis the white-noise matrices are generated using MATLABs noise-generator
(randn) which provides normally distributed random-number matrices (with intensity
equal to one), and they are given as w
n
u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
, w
n
v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
and
w
n
w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
. However, for the numerical simulations they are now divided by the
square-root of the non-dimensional spatial samplings,
_
X
E
L
g
and
_
Y
E
L
g
. The noise-
input matrices become,
w
n
u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
=
w
n
u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
_
X
E
L
g
_
Y
E
L
g
w
n
v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
=
w
n
v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
_
X
E
L
g
_
Y
E
L
g
w
n
w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
=
w
n
w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
_
X
E
L
g
_
Y
E
L
g
with their Fourier-transform equivalents becoming,
W
n
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
W
n
u
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
_
X
E
L
g
_
Y
E
L
g
W
n
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
W
n
v
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
_
X
E
L
g
_
Y
E
L
g
W
n
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
) =
W
n
w
g
(
x
L
g
,
y
L
g
)
_
X
E
L
g
_
Y
E
L
g
Using these noise-inputs, the 2D frequency-domain transformations of the uncorrelated
longitudinal, lateral and vertical atmospheric turbulence velocity components are calcu-
lated according to equations (G.14), (G.15) and (G.16), respectively. For the 2D frequency-
domain transformations of the correlated longitudinal, lateral and vertical atmospheric
turbulence velocity components use is made of equations (G.21), (G.22) and (G.23), re-
spectively. Finally, for the numerical simulations of the spatial-domain 2D gust elds
u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
, v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
and w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
, use is made of equations (G.17), (G.18)
and (G.19).
For the non-dimensional spatial sampling
X
E
L
g
= 0.02 (or X
E
= 6 [m]) and the non-
dimensional spatial sampling
Y
E
L
g
= 0.02 (or Y
E
= 6 [m]) results of the ight path
corridors numerically obtained u
g
, v
g
(uncorrelated with u
g
), v
g
(now correlated with u
g
)
and w
g
gust elds are shown in gures G.1, G.2, G.3 and G.4, respectively. These corridor
results are slices of data obtained for rectangular computational grids. These original
results were determined for dimensional positions in T
E
, resulting in a grid spanning
7500 meters by 7500 meters (or (25 L
g
) (25 L
g
) [m
2
]) along the X
E
- and Y
E
-axis
of T
E
. The number of grid-points along both the X
E
- and Y
E
-axis were chosen to be
N
X
= N
Y
= N = 1251. The presented results hold for the atmospheric-turbulence
model-parameters values L
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
].
Note that for the 2D numerical Fourier transform (and its inverse) MATLABs Fast Fourier
Transform (fft2.m and ifft2.m) were used.
G.2.5 Verication of the 2D gust elds
The verication of the (both correlated and uncorrelated) spatial-domain 2D gust elds
u
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
, v
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
and w
g
_
X
E
L
g
,
Y
E
L
g
_
is performed by calculating the covariance-
functions C
u
g
u
g
(
E
L
g
), C
v
g
v
g
(
E
L
g
) and C
w
g
w
g
(
E
L
g
) of the simulated gust elds, with
E
the
one-dimensional (1D) spatial separation. In the following they will be compared to the
analytical covariance-functions presented in chapter 2.
From each atmospheric turbulence velocity component matrix (for example, see equations
(G.17), (G.18) and (G.19)), these functions are calculated as a function of the spatial
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
u
g
[m/s]
u
g
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
Figure G.1: The simulated 2D gust eld u
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) [m/s] for the ightpath-corridor, L
g
= 300
[m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
].
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
v
g
[m/s]
v
g
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
Figure G.2: The simulated (uncorrelated) 2D gust eld v
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) [m/s] for the ightpath-
corridor, L
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
].
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
v
g
[m/s]
v
g
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
Figure G.3: The simulated (correlated with u
g
) 2D gust eld v
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) [m/s] for the ightpath-
corridor, L
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
].
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
w
g
[m/s]
w
g
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
Figure G.4: The simulated 2D gust eld w
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) [m/s] for the ightpath-corridor, L
g
= 300
[m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
].
separation along the X
E
E
, and the spatial separation along the Y
E
-
axis of T
E
.
For the calculation of the discrete covariance-functions, the following equation is used,
C
ab
_
E
L
g
_
=
1
N 1
n=N
n=1
a[n] b[n +m], m = 0 N 1 (G.24)
with C
ab
_
E
L
g
_
the discrete covariance-function, a and b either the atmospheric turbulence
g
, v
g
or w
g
,

E
L
g
the non-dimensional spatial separation

E
x
L
g
= m
X
E
L
g
or

E
y
L
g
= m
Y
E
L
g
with X
E
and Y
E
the spatial discretizations, the counters n = 1 N,
m = 0 N 1, and N the number of samples in the time-arrays a and b. For the
spatial discretizations and the number of samples the following numerical values were
used: X
E
= 6 [m], Y
E
= 6 [m], and N = 1251.
Now consider for example the auto-covariance-function C
u
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
. For each position
along the Y
E
-axis of T
E
, the covariance-function C
u
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
is calculated for spatial
separations along the X
E
-axis of T
E
, resulting in an ensemble of covariance-functions
as a function of
Y
E
L
g
. Similarly, the auto-covariance-function C
u
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
is calculated
for spatial separations along the Y
E
-axis of T
E
, resulting in an ensemble of covariance-
functions as a function of
X
E
L
g
.
For the uncorrelated gust velocity components u
g
, v
g
and w
g
(see section G.2.2), the nu-
merically obtained (cross-) covariance-functions are compared to the analytical functions
given in chapter 2. In gure G.5 the ensemble-average of C
u
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
is given, together
with the standard-deviation of the covariance-function, while also the ensemble-average of
C
u
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
is given, also together with its standard-deviation. Both covariance functions
C
u
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
and C
u
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
show good agreement with the analytical longitudinal and
lateral Dryden correlation functions f and g given in chapter 2 (note that since it was
assumed that the variance of all gust-speeds equals
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
], the covariance-functions
and correlation-functions are interchangeable assuming zero-mean atmospheric turbulence
velocity components).
Similar to gure G.5, for the uncorrelated gust velocity components v
g
and w
g
in gures
G.6 and G.7 the auto-covariance-functions C
v
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
and C
v
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
, and the auto-
covariance-functions C
w
g
w
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
and C
w
g
w
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
are given, respectively. Also here these
functions show good agreement with the analytical longitudinal and lateral Dryden correla-
tion functions f and g given in chapter 2. Figures G.8 and G.9 show the cross-covariance-
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
u
g
u
g
_
Ex
L
g
_
C
u
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
u
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
C
u
g
u
g
_
Ey
L
g
_
Figure G.5: The simulated correlation functions C
u
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
(for the longitudinal separation,
left) and C
u
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
(for the lateral separation, right). The atmospheric turbulence
velocity-component u
g
is uncorrelated with the gust velocity-components v
g
and w
g
.
Results were obtained from the 2D L
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
] gust elds.
functions C
u
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
and C
u
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
, and C
v
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
and C
v
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
, respectively.
Also here the results show good agreement with the analytical cross-covariance-functions,
which are in fact zero for all 1D spatial-separations since no correlation between the
longitudinal atmospheric turbulence velocity component u
g
and the lateral atmospheric
turbulence velocity component v
g
is considered.
For the correlated gust velocity component v
g
(which is now correlated to u
g
), the numer-
ically obtained (cross-) covariance-functions are also compared to the analytical functions
given in chapter 2.
Similar to gure G.6, for the correlated gust velocity component v
g
in gure G.10 the
auto-covariance-functions C
v
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
and C
v
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
are given. Also these covariance-
functions show good agreement with the analytical longitudinal and lateral Dryden cor-
relation functions f and g given in chapter 2. Figures G.11 and G.12 show the cross-
covariance-functions C
u
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
and C
u
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
, and C
v
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
and C
v
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
, re-
spectively. Also here the results coincide with the analytical cross-covariance-functions
(which are also zero for all 1D spatial-separations since for the presented 1D results no
correlation between the longitudinal atmospheric turbulence velocity component u
g
and
the lateral atmospheric turbulence velocity component v
g
is considered).
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
v
g
v
g
_
Ex
L
g
_
C
v
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
v
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
C
v
g
v
g
_
Ey
L
g
_
v
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
left) and C
v
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
velocity-component v
g
is uncorrelated with the gust velocity-components u
g
and w
g
.
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
] gust elds.
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
w
g
w
g
_
Ex
L
g
_
C
w
g
w
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
w
g
w
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
C
w
g
w
g
_
Ey
L
g
_
w
g
w
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
left) and C
w
g
w
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
velocity-component w
g
g
and v
g
.
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
] gust elds.
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
u
g
v
g
_
Ex
L
g
_
C
u
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
u
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
C
u
g
v
g
_
Ey
L
g
_
u
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
left) and C
u
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
velocity-component u
g
is uncorrelated with the gust velocity-components v
g
and w
g
.
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
] gust elds.
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
v
g
u
g
_
Ex
L
g
_
C
v
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
v
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
C
v
g
u
g
_
Ey
L
g
_
v
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
left) and C
v
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
g
g
and w
g
.
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
] gust elds.
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
v
g
v
g
_
Ex
L
g
_
C
v
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
v
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
C
v
g
v
g
_
Ey
L
g
_
v
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
left) and C
v
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
g
is now correlated to the atmospheric turbulence velocity-
component u
g
. Results were obtained from the 2D L
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
]
gust elds.
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
u
g
v
g
_
Ex
L
g
_
C
u
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
u
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
C
u
g
v
g
_
Ey
L
g
_
u
g
v
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
left) and C
u
g
v
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
g
is now correlated to the atmospheric turbulence velocity-
component u
g
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
]
gust elds.
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
v
g
u
g
_
Ex
L
g
_
C
v
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
10 5 0 5 10
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
Theoretical
Simulation
Simulation +/ sigma
PSfrag replacements
E
x
/L
g
E
y
/L
g
C
v
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
C
v
g
u
g
_
Ey
L
g
_
v
g
u
g
_
E
x
L
g
_
(longitudinal separation, left)
and C
v
g
u
g
_
E
y
L
g
_
(lateral separation, right). The atmospheric turbulence velocity-
component v
g
is now correlated to the atmospheric turbulence velocity-component
u
g
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
] gust elds.
G.3 Denition of the ightpath and the encountered
gust elds
G.3.1 Denition of the ightpath
The 2D gust elds described in sections G.2.2 and G.2.3 are given for the frame T
E
. For
the aircrafts responses to these gust elds the time-domain simulations require a ightpath
denition. Therefore, for these simulations a corridor in the O
E
X
E
Y
E
-plane was selected,
with the ightpath dened in the middle of it. It was chosen such that all time-domain
simulations start at the position
_
X
E
0
, Y
E
0
, Z
E
0
T
= [600, 1650, 0]
T
[m] in T
E
. The 300
meter wide ightpath corridor is also given in gures G.1, G.3 and G.4. The corridor (or
slice of the 2D gust elds) will be used to simulate the time-domain aircrafts aerodynamic
forces- and moments-coecients response. It is assumed that the aircraft travels along
the recti-linear ightpath (in the direction of the positive X
E
-axis of T
E
) and no aircraft
motions are considered.
G.3.2 Denition of the encountered gust elds
The slices of the 2D gust elds generated in section G.2.3 are used to simulate the time-
domain aircrafts aerodynamic forces- and moments-coecients response. With respect to
the previously dened ightpath, see section G.3.1, the gust elds in T
E
are decomposed
into symmetrical- and anti-symmetrical parts. For the calculation of these parts, both the
denition of the ightpath and the denition of the corridor (or slice) is used.
Now, the gust elds are separated into sections positioned to the left and right of the
ightpath. For example, consider the vertical (w
g
(X
E
, Y
E
)) gust eld given in the bottom
G.3 Denition of the ightpath and the encountered gust elds 441
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
u
s
g
[m/s]
u
a
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
u
s
g
[m/s]
u
a
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
Figure G.13: Decomposition of the 2D gust eld u
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) [m/s] into the symmetrical part
u
s
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) (left), and the anti-symmetrical part u
a
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) (right), including
the denition of the ightpath-corridor, L
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
] gust elds.
gure of gure G.4. Using the gust eld sections located to the left and right of the
ightpath, both the symmetrical and the anti-symmetrical gust elds are calculated by,
w
s
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) =
1
2
_
w
l
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) +w
r
g
(X
E
, Y
E
)
_
w
a
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) =
1
2
_
w
l
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) w
r
g
(X
E
, Y
E
)
_
with w
s
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) the symmetrical gust eld, w
a
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) the anti-symmetrical gust eld,
w
l
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) the left-hand-side gust eld of the corridor with respect to the ightpath and
w
r
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) the right-hand-side gust eld of the corridor with respect to the ightpath.
For the longitudinal (u
g
(X
E
, Y
E
)), lateral (v
g
(X
E
, Y
E
)) and vertical (w
g
(X
E
, Y
E
)) gust
elds the results of this decomposition are given in gures G.13, G.15 and G.16, respec-
tively. For the sake of completeness, the uncorrelated v
g
gust eld is given in gure G.14.
It should be noted that the sum of the gust elds symmetrical and anti-symmetrical parts
results in the (corridor) gust elds given in gures G.1, G.2 G.3 and G.4.
The symmetrical and anti-symmetrical gust elds given in gures G.13, G.15 and G.16
will be used as inputs for the LPF-model. Note that next to the aircrafts response to
longitudinal (u
g
) and vertical (w
g
) gusts, the response to correlated lateral gusts v
g
will
be calculated.
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
v
s
g
[m/s]
v
a
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
v
s
g
[m/s]
v
a
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
Figure G.14: Decomposition of the 2D (uncorrelated) gust eld v
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) [m/s] into the sym-
metrical part v
s
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) (left), and the anti-symmetrical part v
a
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) (right),
including the denition of the ightpath-corridor, L
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
]
gust elds.
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
v
s
g
[m/s]
v
a
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
v
s
g
[m/s]
v
a
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
Figure G.15: Decomposition of the 2D (correlated) gust eld v
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) [m/s] into the symmet-
rical part v
s
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) (left), and the anti-symmetrical part v
a
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) (right),
including the denition of the ightpath-corridor, L
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
]
gust elds.
G.4 Summary of the denition of the aerodynamic model gust inputs 443
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
w
s
g
[m/s]
w
a
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
1400 1600 1800 2000 2200 2400
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
1600
PSfrag replacements
w
s
g
[m/s]
w
a
g
[m/s]
X
E
[
m
]
Y
E
[m]
ightpath
corridor
Figure G.16: Decomposition of the 2D gust eld w
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) [m/s] into the symmetrical part
w
s
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) (left), and the anti-symmetrical part w
a
g
(X
E
, Y
E
) (right), including
the denition of the ightpath-corridor, L
g
= 300 [m] and
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
] gust elds.
G.4 Summary of the denition of the aerodynamic
model gust inputs
For the calculation of the Parametric Computational Aerodynamics (PCA-), the Delft
University of Technology (DUT-) and the Four Point Aircraft (FPA-) model time-domain
gust-responses, the gust inputs to these models are summarized here. The inputs for all
aerodynamic models are dened for the Stability Frame of Reference T
S
(see also chapter
5).
In the following use is made of the atmospheric turbulence velocity components u
g
, v
g
and
w
g
at the positions 0, 1, 2, and 3 of the FPA-model, see also gures G.17 and
G.18 for the denition of the FPA-models gust input locations and the denition of the
positive directions of the gust inputs, respectively. The gust elds velocity components
at the points 0, 1, 2, and 3 are obtained from the interpolation procedure given
in chapter 9.
Starting with the FPA-model, the translational gust inputs are dened as,
u
FPA
g
= u
g
0
v
FPA
g
= v
g
0
w
FPA
g
=
1
3
(w
g
0
+w
g
1
+w
g
2
)
_
_
_
(G.25)
while for the rotational gusts they are dened as,
p
FPA
g
=
w
g
1
w
g
2
b
q
FPA
g
=
w
g
3
w
g
0
l
h
r
FPA
1
g
=
u
g
2
u
g
1
b
r
FPA
2
g
=
v
g
0
v
g
3
l
v
_
_
(G.26)
with u
g
0
the longitudinal gust velocity component, v
g
0
the lateral gust velocity component
and w
g
0
the vertical gust velocity component all at the center of gravity. Further, u
g
1
the
longitudinal gust velocity component at location 1 (see gure G.17), u
g
2
the one at
location 2 and v
g
3
the lateral gust velocity component at location 3. Next, w
g
1
, w
g
2
and w
g
3
the vertical gust velocity components at locations 1, 2 and 3, respectively.
Finally, b
= 0.85b with b the aircrafts span, l

h
the horizontal tail-length in [m] and l
v
the
vertical tail-length in [m] (note that l
h
= l
v
). The positive directions of the gust inputs
u
FPA
g
, v
FPA
g
, w
FPA
g
, p
FPA
g
, q
FPA
g
, r
FPA
1
g
and r
FPA
2
g
are given in gure G.18. Besides the
gust input w
FPA
g
, the time-derivative of it is required, or,
w
FPA
g
=
dw
g
0
dt
(G.27)
Next, the PCA-model gust input denition is similar to the one for the FPA-model, how-
ever, the vertical-gust input w
PCA
g
is dened as,
w
PCA
g
= w
g
0
and the PCA-model gust input denition is summarized as,
u
PCA
g
= u
g
0
v
PCA
g
= v
g
0
w
PCA
g
= w
g
0
p
PCA
g
=
w
g
1
w
g
2
b
r
PCA
1
g
=
u
g
2
u
g
1
b
u
PCA
g
=
du
g
0
dt
v
PCA
g
=
dv
g
0
dt
w
PCA
g
=
dw
g
0
dt
p
PCA
g
=
dp
g
dt
r
PCA
1
g
=
dr
1
g
dt
_
_
(G.28)
Finally, the DUT-model gust input denition is similar to the one for the PCA-model,
and it is summarized as,
u
DUT
g
= u
g
0
v
DUT
g
= v
g
0
w
DUT
g
= w
g
0
p
DUT
g
=
w
g
1
w
g
2
b
r
DUT
1
g
=
u
g
2
u
g
1
b
v
DUT
g
=
dv
g
0
dt
w
DUT
g
=
dw
g
0
dt
_
_
(G.29)
G.5 Remarks 445
PSfrag replacements
b
= 0.85 b
l
h
, l
v
0 1 2
3
Figure G.17: The Four Point Aircraft model including the denitions of b
, l
h
and l
v
.
From the denition of the ightpath (given in section G.3.1) and the denition of the
2D atmospheric gust elds (given in section G.3.2), the aerodynamic models gust inputs
are calculated. For the calculation of the numerical time-derivative of the gust inputs,
use is made of a second order function which is tted locally through the input-data
rst (with time being the independent variable). Secondly, using this function, its rst
order derivative with respect to the independent variable (time) produces the sought time-
derivative.
For the FPA-model, in gure G.19 the gust inputs u
FPA
g
, v
FPA
g
, w
FPA
g
, u
FPA
g
, v
FPA
g
,
w
FPA
g
, p
FPA
g
, q
FPA
g
, r
FPA
1
g
and r
FPA
2
g
, are given for the dened ightpath and for the gust
elds provided in gures G.1, G.3 and G.4. For comparison, in gure G.20 the gust inputs
w
FPA
g
and w
DUT
g
for the FPA- and the DUT-model, respectively, are shown.
G.5 Remarks
The spatial-domain simulations of the 2D longitudinal, lateral and vertical gust elds were
calculated in the Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference T
E
. For the aircraft responses to these
gust elds use is made of the Inertial Frame of Reference T
I
and the Aerodynamic Frame
of Reference T
aero
.
Comparing these reference frames it should be noted that the X
E
- and X
I
-axes point in
opposite direction, which also holds for the Z
E
- and Z
I
-axes. Although these axes point
in opposite directions, it should be noted that the encountered gust elds generated in T
E
are not transformed to T
I
in terms of the sign of the gust elds (for example, the positive
vertical gust velocity component in T
E
points towards the Earths surface, while this gust
velocity component in T
I
becomes negative).
PSfrag replacements
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
u
g
v
g
w
g
p
g
q
g
r
g
Figure G.18: The Stability Frame of Reference F
S
, including the denition of both the FPA-
models atmospheric turbulence velocity component inputs [u
g
, v
g
, w
g
]
T
and the
rotational inputs [p
g
, q
g
, r
g
]
T
.
G.5 Remarks 447
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
.5
1
.5
0
.5 0
0
.5 1
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
g
[ m / s e c . ]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
p
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
q
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
1
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
2
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
]
0
5
1
0
1
5
2
.5
1
.5
0
.5 0
0
.5 1
1
.5
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
v
g
[ m / s e c . ]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
p
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
q
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
1
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
2
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
]
0
5
1
0
1
5
1 0 1 2 3
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
w
g
[ m / s e c . ]
p
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
q
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
1
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
2
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
]
0
5
1
0
1
5
0
.1
0
.0
8
0
.0
6
0
.0
4
0
.0
2 0
0
.0
2
0
.0
4
0
.0
6
0
.0
8
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
p
g
[ R a d / s e c . ]
q
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
1
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
2
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
]
0
5
1
0
1
5
1
0
2 0 2 4 6 8
1
0
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
p
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
q
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
1
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
2
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
u
g
[ m / s e c .
2
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
]
0
5
1
0
1
5
3
0
2
5
2
0
1
5
1
0
5 0 5
1
0
1
5
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
p
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
q
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
1
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
2
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
v
g
[ m / s e c .
2
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
]
0
5
1
0
1
5
1
5
1
0
5 0 5
1
0
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
p
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
q
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
1
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
2
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
w
g
[ m / s e c .
2
]
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
]
0
5
1
0
1
5
0
.0
8
0
.0
6
0
.0
4
0
.0
2 0
0
.0
2
0
.0
4
0
.0
6
0
.0
8
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
p
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
q
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
1 g
[ R a d / s e c . ]
r
2
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
]
0
5
1
0
1
5
0
.1
5
0
.1
0
.0
5 0
0
.0
5
0
.1
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
p
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
q
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
1
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
2 g
[ R a d / s e c . ]
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
]
0
5
1
0
1
5
0
.1
0
.0
5 0
0
.0
5
0
.1
0
.1
5
P
S
f
r
a
g
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
s
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
]
p
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
q
g
[ R a d / s e c . ]
r
1
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
r
2
g
[
R
a
d
/
s
e
c
.
]
u
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
v
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
w
g
[
m
/
s
e
c
.
2
]
t
i
m
e
[
s
e
c
]
F
i
g
u
r
e
G
.
1
9
:
T
h
e
F
P
A
-
m
o
d
e
l
s
g
u
s
t
i
n
p
u
t
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
S
t
a
b
i
l
i
t
y
F
r
a
m
e
o
f
R
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
F
S
:
u
F
P
A
g
,
v
F
P
A
g
,
w
F
P
A
g
,
u
F
P
A
g
,
v
F
P
A
g
,
w
F
P
A
g
,
p
F
P
A
g
,
q
F
P
A
g
,
r
F
P
A
1
g
a
n
d
r
F
P
A
2
g
,
f
o
r
t
h
e
d
e
n
e
d
i
g
h
t
p
a
t
h
a
n
d
f
o
r
t
h
e
g
u
s
t
e
l
d
s
g
i
v
e
n
i
n
g
u
r
e
s
G
.
1
,
G
.
3
a
n
d
G
.
4
.
0 5 10 15
3
2
1
0
1
2
3
FPAmodel
DUTmodel
PSfrag replacements
w
g
[
m
/
s
]
time [sec]
Figure G.20: Both the FPA- and DUT-models gust inputs w
FPA
g
and w
DUT
g
, respectively, for
the dened ightpath and for the gust eld given in gure G.4.
Appendix H
The atmospheric turbulence
PSD-functions for the
equations of motion
H.1 Introduction
In chapter 2 the denition of the Power Spectral Density (PSD) functions for the two-
dimensional (2D) atmospheric turbulence velocity components is given. For the longitu-
dinal velocity component u
g
, the lateral velocity component v
g
and the vertical velocity
component w
g
, the PSD-functions were given as a function of the non-dimensional spatial
frequencies
1
L
g
and
2
L
g
(with
1
L
g
and
2
L
g
the non-dimensional spatial frequencies
along the X
E
- and Y
E
-axis of the Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference T
E
, respectively, see
also equation (2.33)). Similarly, the PSD-functions for the 1D gust-components u
g
, v
g
and
w
g
as a function of the non-dimensional spatial frequency
1
L
g
were provided as well (see
also equation (2.35)).
For the calculation of the aircrafts response to atmospheric turbulence, the PSD-functions
are given in this appendix for the non-dimensional atmospheric turbulence velocity com-
ponents u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
and
g
=
w
g
Q
. Also, they are now given as a function of

the circular frequency =
x
Q
[Rad/sec] and the spatial frequency

y
[Rad/m], with
x
=

Q

E
E
, and
y
the spatial
E
-axis of T
E
. The gust-components PSD-functions hold for the
ightpath corridor dened in appendix G.
In sections H.2 and H.3 the 2D atmospheric turbulence PSD-functions and the one-
dimensional (1D) atmospheric turbulence PSD-functions are summarized, respectively.
In section H.4 the FPA-models gust input PSD-functions are summarized. Details of the
FPA-model can be found in chapter 12.
450 The atmospheric turbulence PSD-functions for the equations of motion
H.2 2D PSD-functions
Similar to equation (2.33), the 2D PSD-function for the non-dimensional longitudinal gust
g
is dened as,
S
u
g
u
g
(,
y
) =
2
L
2
g
Q
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ 4 (
y
L
g
)
2
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
5/2
(H.1)
while for the 2D PSD-function with respect to the non-dimensional lateral gust velocity
g
, it is given as,
S
g
(,
y
) =
2
L
2
g
Q
1 + 4
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
5/2
(H.2)
and, nally, for the 2D PSD-function with respect to the non-dimensional vertical gust
velocity component
g
, the following holds,
S
g
(,
y
) = 3
2
L
2
g
Q
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
5/2
(H.3)
For the 2D cross PSD-function with respect to u
g
and
g
, it is then,
S
u
g
g
(,
y
) = 3
2
L
2
g
Q
_
L
g
Q
_
(
y
L
g
)
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
+ (
y
L
g
)
2
_
5/2
(H.4)
It should be noted that the integral of equations (H.1), (H.2) and (H.3) over the circular
frequency and the spatial frequency
y
results in the variance
2
. Taking, for example,
equation (H.3) we nd,
2
=
1
(2)
2
+
_
+
_
g
(,
y
) d
y
d (H.5)
with
2
the variance of all gust-components according to
2
=
1
Q
2
.
The auto PSD-functions given in equations (H.1), (H.2), (H.3), and the cross PSD-function
given in equation (H.4), are shown in gures H.1. These (one-sided) PSD-functions are
given as a function of both the circular frequency (ranging from = 0 to =
Q
c
[Rad/sec], with c the mean aerodynamic chord) and the spatial frequency
y
(ranging from
y
= 0 to
y
=
2
0.75b
[Rad/m], with b the aircrafts span). The number of logarithmically
scaled discretization points for and
y
are N
= 500 and N
y
= 550, respectively.
H.3 1D PSD-functions 451
H.3 1D PSD-functions
The 1D gust-components PSD-function is calculated from the 2D gust-components PSD-
function (see equations (H.1), (H.2) and (H.3)), according to,
S
yy
() =
1
2
+
_
S
yy
(,
y
) d
y
(H.6)
with y either u
g
,
g
or
g
. For the non-dimensional longitudinal gust-component u
g
, the
integration of equation (H.1) over all
y
results in the 1D PSD-function,
S
u
g
u
g
() = 2
2
L
g
Q
1
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
(H.7)
while for the non-dimensional lateral gust-component
g
, the integration of equation (H.2)
over all
y
results in the 1D PSD-function,
S
g
() =
2
L
g
Q
1 + 3
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_
2
(H.8)
Finally, for the non-dimensional vertical gust-component
g
, the integration of equation
(H.3) over all
y
yields in the 1D PSD-function,
S
g
() =
2
L
g
Q
1 + 3
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_
1 +
_
L
g
Q
_
2
_
2
(H.9)
For the cross PSD-function given in equation (H.4), the integral in equation (H.6) results
in,
S
u
g
g
() = 0 (H.10)
The analytical one-sided PSD-functions according to equations (H.7), (H.8), (H.9) and
(H.10), are given in gures H.2. In these gures the one-sided numerically obtained 1D
PSD-functions calculated from the integral over all
y
(see equation (H.6)) of the 2D
PSD-functions given in equations (H.1), (H.2), (H.3) and (H.4) are provided as well. The
numerical 1D PSD-functions were calculated using both the range of the circular frequency
and the range of the spatial frequency
y
given in section H.2.
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
l
o
g
(
S
u
g
u
g
(
y
)
)
log(S
g
(,
y
))
log(S
g
(,
y
))
S
u
g
g
(,
y
)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
log(S
u
g
u
g
(,
y
))
l
o
g
(
S
g
(
y
)
)
log(S
g
(,
y
))
S
u
g
g
(,
y
)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
log(S
u
g
u
g
(,
y
))
log(S
g
(,
y
))
log(S
g
(,
y
))
S
u
g
g
(
y
)
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3
2
1
0
1
2
8
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
PSfrag replacements
log(
y
) [Rad/m]
log() [Rad/sec]
log(S
u
g
u
g
(,
y
))
log(S
g
(,
y
))
l
o
g
(
S
g
(
y
)
)
S
u
g
g
(,
y
)
Figure H.1: Starting from the left top gure in clockwise direction, the 2D atmospheric
turbulence-component PSD-functions S
u
g
u
g
(,
y
), S
g
(,
y
), S
g
(,
y
) and
the cross PSD-function S
u
g
g
(,
y
), for the atmospheric turbulence scale length
L
g
= 300 m, and variance
2
=
1
Q
2
.
H.4 FPA-model PSD-functions
The FPA-models input PSD-functions are calculated from the models gust input covari-
ance functions given in chapter 12. These functions are summarized here as,
C
u
g
u
g
() =
2
f(
1
)
C
v
g
v
g
() =
2
g(
1
)
C
w
g
w
g
() =
2
_
1
3
g(
1
) +
4
9
g(
2
) +
2
9
g(
3
)
_
C
p
g
p
g
() =
2
2
(b
)
2
g(
1
) g(
3
)
C
q
g
q
g
() =

2
l
2
h
2g(
1
) g(
4
) g(
5
)
H.4 FPA-model PSD-functions 453
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
9
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
Analytical
Integral over 2D results
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec]
S
u
g
u
g
(
)
S
g
()
S
g
()
S
u
g
g
()
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
Analytical
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
g
(
)
S
g
()
S
u
g
g
()
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
x 10
17
Analytical
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
g
()
S
g
()
S
u
g
g
(
)
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
8
10
7
10
6
10
5
10
4
10
3
Analytical
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
g
()
S
g
(
)
S
u
g
g
()
Figure H.2: Starting from the left top gure in clockwise direction, the 1D atmospheric
turbulence-component PSD-functions S
u
g
u
g
(), S
g
(), S
g
(), and the cross
PSD-function S
u
g
g
(), for the atmospheric turbulence scale length L
g
= 300 m,
and variance
2
=
1
Q
2
.
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
() =
2
2
(b
)
2
f(
1
) K
1
f(
3
) (1 K
1
) g(
3
)
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
() =

2
l
2
v
2g(
1
) g(
6
) g(
7
)
C
w
g
q
g
() =

2
3l
h
g(
5
) g(
1
) + 2g(
8
) 2g(
2
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
() =

2
b
2K
2
[g(
2
) f(
2
)]
C
v
g
r
2
g
() =

2
l
v
g(
1
) g(
7
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
() =

2
b
l
v
K
3
[g(
9
) f(
9
)] +K
2
[f(
2
) g(
2
)]
with
2
the atmospheric turbulences variance (taken to be
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
]), l
v
[m] the vertical
tail-length, l
h
[m] the horizontal tail-length, b
= 0.85b [m] with b [m] the aircrafts span,

the time-separation [sec.], and,
K
1
=
_
Q
L
g
_
2
_
Q
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
2L
g
_
2
K
2
=
_
Q
L
g
__
b
2L
g
_
_
Q
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
L
g
_
2
K
3
=
_
Q
L
g
l
v
L
g
__
b
2L
g
_
_
Q
L
g
l
v
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
L
g
_
2
and the non-dimensional separations according to,
1
L
g
=
1
=
L
g
2
L
g
=
2
=
_
Q
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
2L
g
_
2
3
L
g
=
3
=
_
Q
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
L
g
_
2
4
L
g
=
4
=
L
g
+
l
h
L
g
5
L
g
=
5
=
L
g
l
h
L
g
6
L
g
=
6
=
L
g
+
l
v
L
g
7
L
g
=
7
=
L
g
l
h
L
g
8
L
g
=
8
=
_
Q
L
g
l
h
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
2L
g
_
2
9
L
g
=
9
=
_
Q
L
g
l
v
L
g
_
2
+
_
b
2L
g
_
2
with the f and g functions the Dryden longitudinal and lateral correlation functions,
respectively (see also chapter 2),
f() = e

L
g
g() = e

L
g
_
1

2L
g
_
with the dimensional separation [m] either
1
[m] to
9
[m], Q
[m/s] the airspeed and

L
g
[m] the gust scale length. The covariance functions are shown in gures H.3 as a func-
tion of the non-dimensional distance traveled
Q
L
g
for the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m]
and the variance
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
]. These results have been calculated for the time-separations
discretization = 1
c
Q
[sec] (with c the mean aerodynamic chord in [m]) with the time-
separation, [sec.], equal to = [N N ] and N = 60000.
The FPA-models gust input PSD-functions are obtained by Fourier transforming the
covariance functions using MATLABs Fast Fourier Transform (FFT), or,
S[k] =
N1
n=0
C[n] e
j
2kn
N
with S[k] the PSD-functions estimate (periodogram), k the frequency-counter, C[n] the
covariance function and n the time-separation counter as in = n . As a function of
the circular frequency [Rad/sec.] the numerically calculated PSD-functions S
u
g
u
g
(),
S
v
g
v
g
(), S
w
g
w
g
(), S
p
g
p
g
(), S
q
g
q
g
(), S
r
1
g
r
1
g
(), S
r
2
g
r
2
g
(), S
w
g
q
g
(), S
v
g
r
1
g
(), S
v
g
r
2
g
()
and S
r
1
g
r
2
g
() are given in gures H.4, with,
k
=
2 k
N
(H.11)
with k = 0 N 1, 2N + 1 the number of samples of the covariance functions (with N
taken to be N = 60000) and [sec.] the time-separations discretization (taken to be
= 1
c
Q
, with c the mean aerodynamic chord in [m]). The motivation for the choice of
both N and is such that the PSD-functions frequency-response ranges from at least
min
= 0.01 [Rad/sec.] to at least
max
= 100 [Rad/sec.]. Similar to the covariance
functions, the PSD-functions are also given in dimensional form.
For the non-dimensional FPA-model gust inputs u
g
=
u
g
Q
,
g
=
v
g
Q
,
g
=
w
g
Q
,
p
g
b
2Q
,
q
g
c
Q
,
r
1
g
b
2Q
and
r
2
g
b
2Q
the non-dimensional PSD-functions are according to,

S
u
g
u
g
() =
1
Q
2
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
g
() =
1
Q
2
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
g
() =
1
Q
2
S
w
g
w
g
()
S p
g
b
2Q
p
g
b
2Q
() =
_
b
2Q
_
2
S
p
g
p
g
()
S q
g
c
Q
q
g
c
Q
() =
_
c
Q
_
2
S
q
g
q
g
()
S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
1
g
b
2Q
() =
_
b
2Q
_
2
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
()
S r
2
g
b
2Q
r
2
g
b
2Q
() =
_
b
2Q
_
2
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
()
S
g
q
g
c
Q
() =
c
Q
2
S
w
g
q
g
()
S
g
r
1
g
b
2Q
() =
b
2Q
2
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
S
g
r
2
g
b
2Q
() =
b
2Q
2
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
S r
1
g
b
2Q
r
2
g
b
2Q
() =
_
b
2Q
_
2
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
_
(H.12)
Details of the FPA-model can be found in chapter 12.
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
) 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
) 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
x 10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
5
0
5
10
15
20
x 10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
) 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
x 10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
Figure H.3: The covariance functions for dimensional gust inputs, C
u
g
u
g
(
Q
L
g
), C
v
g
v
g
(
Q
L
g
),
C
w
g
w
g
(
Q
L
g
), C
p
g
p
g
(
Q
L
g
), C
q
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
) and C
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
), for the gust scale length
L
g
= 300 [m] and the variance
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
].
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
5
0
5
10
15
20
x 10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
x 10
3
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
) 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
x 10
3
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
6
4
2
0
2
4
6
x 10
3
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
) 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
Q
Lg
C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
)
Figure H.3: (Continued) The covariance functions for dimensional gust inputs, C
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
),
C
w
g
q
g
(
Q
L
g
), C
v
g
r
1
g
(
Q
L
g
), C
v
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
) and C
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
Q
L
g
), for the gust scale
length L
g
= 300 [m] and the variance
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
].
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
(
)
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
w
g
w
g
()
S
p
g
p
g
()
S
q
g
q
g
()
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
() 10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
v
g
v
g
(
)
S
w
g
w
g
()
S
p
g
p
g
()
S
q
g
q
g
()
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
4
10
3
10
2
10
1
10
0
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
w
g
w
g
(
)
S
p
g
p
g
()
S
q
g
q
g
()
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
() 10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
5
10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
w
g
w
g
()
S
p
g
p
g
(
)
S
q
g
q
g
()
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
()
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
6
10
5
10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
w
g
w
g
()
S
p
g
p
g
()
S
q
g
q
g
(
)
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
() 10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
6
10
5
10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
u
g
u
g
()
S
v
g
v
g
()
S
w
g
w
g
()
S
p
g
p
g
()
S
q
g
q
g
()
S
r
1
g
r
1
g
(
)
Figure H.4: The PSD-functions for dimensional gust inputs, S
u
g
u
g
(), S
v
g
v
g
(), S
w
g
w
g
(),
S
p
g
p
g
(), S
q
g
q
g
() and S
r
1
g
r
1
g
(), for the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m] and the
variance
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
].
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
6
10
5
10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
(
)
Real
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Real
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
x 10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
10
8
6
4
2
0
x 10
3
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
()
R
e
a
l
_
S
w
g
q
g
(
)
_
I
m
a
g
_
S
w
g
q
g
(
)
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Real
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
1
0.5
0
0.5
1
x 10
3
L
g
= 300 [m]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
1
2
3
4
5
x 10
3
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
()
Real
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
R
e
a
l
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
(
)
_
I
m
a
g
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
(
)
_ Real
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Real
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
x 10
4
L
g
= 300 [m]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
2
4
6
8
10
x 10
3
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
()
Real
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_ R
e
a
l
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
(
)
_
I
m
a
g
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
(
)
_
Real
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
()
_
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
0
1
2
3
x 10
5
L
g
= 300 [m]
10
2
10
1
10
0
10
1
10
2
8
6
4
2
0
x 10
6
L
g
= 300 [m]
PSfrag replacements
[Rad/sec.]
[Rad/sec.]
S
r
2
g
r
2
g
()
Real
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
w
g
q
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
1
g
()
_
Real
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
Imag
_
S
v
g
r
2
g
()
_
R
e
a
l
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
)
_
I
m
a
g
_
S
r
1
g
r
2
g
(
)
_
Figure H.4: (Continued) The PSD-functions for dimensional gust inputs, S
r
2
g
r
2
g
(), S
w
g
q
g
(),
S
v
g
r
1
g
(), S
v
g
r
2
g
() and S
r
1
g
r
2
g
(), for the gust scale length L
g
= 300 [m] and the
variance
2
= 1 [
m
2
s
2
].
Appendix I
The aircraft equations of
motion
I.1 Introduction
Throughout this thesis the linearized equations of aircraft motion are used according to
reference [29]. These equations are summarized in this appendix.
First, the non-linear equations of motion will be given for the Body-Fixed Frame of Ref-
erence T
B
(O
B
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
).
Next, using some simplifying assumptions, from the non-linear equations of motion the
linearized equations of motion are derived for both the frame T
B
and the Stability Frame
of Reference T
S
(O
S
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
). These assumptions are, see also reference [29],
1. The steady-state ight-condition is assumed to be steady, straight, symmetric ight
(in this thesis also given as the initial or trim condition).
2. Only small perturbations from the steady-state ight-condition are allowed.
3. The aircraft mass is constant in the time interval during which the aircraft motion
is studied.
4. The aircraft is a rigid body in the motion under consideration. Elastic aircraft are
not considered in this thesis.
5. The mass-distribution of the aircraft is symmetric relative to the X
B
OZ
B
-plane.
6. The rotation of the Earth in space, as well as the curvature of the Earth surface, is
neglected.
The linearized equations of motion will eventually result in two independent sets of equa-
tions, i.e. the symmetric linear aircraft model and the asymmetric linear aircraft model.
462 The aircraft equations of motion
The symmetric linear aircraft model describes the behaviour of the aircraft in the aircraft
plane of symmetry, i.e. longitudinal, vertical and rotational (with the rotation vector
perpendicular to the plane of symmetry) aircraft motions are considered only. The sym-
metrical inputs include symmetrical longitudinal gusts (u
g
) and symmetrical vertical gusts
(w
g
).
The asymmetric linear aircraft model describes the behaviour of the aircraft perpendicu-
lar to the aircraft plane of symmetry, i.e. lateral and rotational (with the rotation vector
located in the plane of symmetry) aircraft motions are considered only. The asymmetrical
inputs include anti-symmetrical longitudinal gusts (u
g
), symmetrical lateral gusts (v
g
) and
anti-symmetrical vertical gusts (w
g
).
See chapter 5 for the denition of the gust inputs u
g
, v
g
and w
g
.
Finally, the frequency-domain equations of motion are given for both the symmetric and
the asymmetric linear aircraft model. These frequency-domain aircraft models are similar
to the Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) aircraft models given in reference deriv[29]. However,
these models will now incorporate the frequency-dependent stability derivatives obtained
from aerodynamic frequency-response functions as derived in chapters 7 and 8.
I.2 The non-linear equations of motion
The general form of the non-linear equations of motion for rigid aircraft are given in the
frame T
B
O
B
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
, with its origin located in the center of gravity, and they are given
in the form, see reference [29],
F
x
= W sin +X = m( u + qw rv)
F
y
= +W cos sin +Y = m( v + ru pw)
F
z
= +W cos cos +Z = m( w + pv qu)
M
x
= L = I
x
p + (I
z
I
y
) qr J
xz
( r +pq)
M
y
= M = I
y
q + (I
x
I
z
) rp + J
xz
_
p
2
r
2
_
M
z
= N = I
z
r + (I
y
I
x
) pq J
xz
( p rq)
_
_
(I.1)
with [u, v, w]
T
the aircraft center of gravity translational velocity components along the
X
B
-, Y
B
- and Z
B
-axis, respectively, [p, q, r]
T
the rotational velocity components along the
X
B
-, Y
B
- and Z
B
-axis, respectively, [F
x
, F
y
, F
z
]
T
the force components along the X
B
-, Y
B
-
and Z
B
-axis, respectively, [/
x
, /
y
, /
z
]
T
the moment components along the X
B
-, Y
B
-
and Z
B
-axis, respectively, [X, Y, Z]
T
the aerodynamic force components along the X
B
-,
Y
B
- and Z
B
-axis, respectively, [L, M, N]
T
the aerodynamic moment components along the
X
B
-, Y
B
- and Z
B
-axis, respectively, W the aircraft weight, m the aircraft mass and ,
the aircraft attitude angles. For the frame T
B
(O
B
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
), the moments and product
I.2 The non-linear equations of motion 463
of inertia, I
x
, I
y
, I
z
, J
xz
, are given as,
I
x
=
_
m
_
y
2
+z
2
_
dm
I
y
=
_
m
_
x
2
+z
2
_
dm
I
z
=
_
m
_
x
2
+y
2
_
dm
J
xz
=
_
m
xz dm
_
_
(I.2)
with the assumption that the aircraft mass distribution is symmetrical with respect to the
X
B
OZ
B
-plane (which leads to J
xy
= J
yz
= 0).
In this thesis the attitude of an aircraft is dened by the three Euler-angles of the frame T
B
relative to the Earth-Fixed Frame of Reference T
E
, and they are dened as [, , ]
T
, or
the yaw-angle, the pitch-angle and the roll-angle, respectively. These angles are the result
of three subsequent rotations of the frame T
B
, starting from the attitude of the Earth-
Fixed Frame of Reference and ending up with the desired attitude of the aircraft in three
dimensional (3D) space. In the original situation, see gure I.1, the reference frames T
B
(O
B
1
X
B
1
Y
B
1
Z
B
1
) and T
E
coincide. Starting from this situation, T
B
is rotated about the
Z
B
1
-axis over the yaw-angle , see gure I.2, resulting in the body-axes O
B
2
X
B
2
Y
B
2
Z
B
2
.
Next, T
B
is rotated about the Y
B
2
-axis over the pitch-angle , see gure I.3, resulting
in the body-axes O
B
3
X
B
3
Y
B
3
Z
B
3
. Finally, T
B
is rotated about the X
B
3
-axis over the
roll-angle , see gure I.4, resulting in the body-axes O
B
4
X
B
4
Y
B
4
Z
B
4
.
The Euler angles [, , ]
T
are used to calculate the weight-components given in equation
(I.1). The decomposition of an aircraft weight along the axes of T
B
is given as (see also
gure I.5),
W
x
= W sin
W
y
= W cos sin
W
z
= W cos cos
_
_
_
(I.3)
To complete the non-linear equations of motion given in equation (I.1), the kinematic
relation between the rotational velocity components [p, q, r]
T
and the time derivatives of
the Euler-angles [

,

, ]
T
is given in matrix notation (see also gure I.6),
_
_
p
q
r
_
_
=
_
_
sin 0 1
+cos sin cos 0
+cos cos sin 0
_
_
_
_

_
_
(I.4)
with the inverse relation given as,
_
_

_
_
=
_
_
0 +
sin
cos
+
cos
cos
0 +cos sin
1 +sin tg +cos tg
_
_
_
_
p
q
r
_
_
(I.5)
From equations (I.1) and (I.5) the Linear Time-Invariant (LTI) equations of motion are
derived.
PSfrag replacements
O
X
B
1
= X
E
Y
B
1
= Y
E
Z
B
1
= Z
E
Figure I.1: The attitude of an aircraft (F
B
) relative to Earth (F
E
), initial position of a body-xed
frame of reference.
PSfrag replacements
O
X
B
1
X
B
2
Y
B
1
Y
B
2
Z
B
2
= Z
B
1
B
E
), rotation about the Z
B
axis.
I.3 The linear time-invariant equations of motion
I.3.1 Linearization of the equations of motion
When the steady condition is characterized by the subscript 0, steady, straight ight is
characterized by the following conditions,
u
0
= 0 u
0
,= 0 p
0
= 0 p
0
= 0
v
0
= 0 v
0
= 0 q
0
= 0 q
0
= 0
w
0
= 0 w
0
,= 0 r
0
= 0 r
0
= 0
and,
0
= 0
0
,= 0 X
0
,= 0 L
0
= 0
I.3 The linear time-invariant equations of motion 465
PSfrag replacements
O
X
B
1
X
B
2
X
B
3
Y
B
1
Y
B
3
= Y
B
2
Z
B
1
Z
B
3
B
E
), rotation about the Y
B
axis.
PSfrag replacements
O
X
B
1
X
B
2
X
B
4
= X
B
3
Y
B
1
Y
B
3
Y
B
4
Z
B
1
Z
B
3
Z
B
4
B
E
), rotation about the X
B
axis.
PSfrag replacements
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
O
X
E
Y
E
Z
E
X
B
2
Y
B
3
Z
B
3
W
x
W
y
W
z
W W cos
Figure I.5: Symmetric and asymmetric components of the aircraft weight.
PSfrag replacements
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
O
X
E
Y
E
Z
E
X
B
2
Y
B
3
Z
B
3
p
q
r

Figure I.6: Symmetric and asymmetric components of motion, relation between p, q, r and

,

,
.
0
= 0
0
,= 0 Y
0
= 0 M
0
= 0

0
= 0
0
= 0 Z
0
,= 0 N
0
= 0
A state of aircraft motion perturbed slightly from this steady ight condition is described
by,
u = u
0
+du
v = dv
w = w
0
+dw
p = dp
q = dq
r = dr
=
0
+d
=
0
+d
= d
X = X
0
+dX
Y = dY
Z = Z
0
+dZ
L = dL
M = dM
N = dN
Substitution of the above expressions in the non-linear equations of motion given in equa-
tion (I.1), results in,
W sin(
0
+d) +X
0
+dX = m( u + dq(w
0
+dw) dr dv)
+W cos(
0
+d) sin d +dY = m( v + dr(u
0
+du) dp(w
0
+dw))
+W cos(
0
+d) cos d +Z
0
+dZ = m( w + dp dv dq(u
0
+du))
dL = I
x
p + (I
z
I
y
) dq dr J
xz
( r +dp dq)
dM = I
y
q + (I
x
I
z
) dr dp + J
xz
_
dp
2
dr
2
_
dN = I
z
r + (I
y
I
x
) dp dq J
xz
( p dr dq)
_
_
(I.6)
The kinematic relations now become,
= dq
sin d
cos(
0
+d)
+dr
cos d
cos(
0
+d)
= dq cos d dr sin d
= dp +(dq sin +dr cos d ) tg (
0
+d)
Neglecting the products of small variables, while also assuming that cos d = 1, cos d =
1, sin d = d and sin d = d, and considering that in the rst force equation (X) and
the third force equation (Z) the components of the aircraft weight are cancelled in the
equilibrium state by the aerodynamic forces X
0
and Z
0
, nally the linearized equations of
motion become,
W cos
0
d +dX = m( u + dq w
0
)
+W cos
0
d +dY = m( v + dr u
0
dp w
0
)
W sin
0
d +dZ = m( w dq u
0
)
dL = I
x
p J
xz
r
dM = I
y
q
dN = I
z
r J
xz
p
=
dr
cos
0
= dq
= dp +dr tg
0
_
_
(I.7)
Next, assuming that small asymmetric aircraft motions and small asymmetric inputs have
no inuence on the symmetric aerodynamic forces X and Z and the symmetric aero-
dynamic moment M, as well as small symmetric aircraft motions and small symmetric
inputs have no inuence on the asymmetric aerodynamic force Y and the asymmetric
aerodynamic moments L and N, the aerodynamic forces and moments are decomposed in
a Taylor series,
dX = X
u
du +X
w
dw +X
w
w +X
q
dq +
i=N
s
i=1
X
u
i
du
i
dY = Y
v
dv +Y
v
v +Y
p
dp +Y
r
dr +
j=N
a
j=1
Y
u
j
du
j
dZ = Z
u
du +Z
w
dw +Z
w
w +Z
q
dq +
i=N
s
i=1
Z
u
i
du
i
dL = L
v
dv +L
v
v +L
p
dp +L
r
dr +
j=N
a
j=1
L
u
j
du
j
dM = M
u
du +M
w
dw +M
w
w +M
q
dq +
i=N
s
i=1
M
u
i
du
i
dN = N
v
dv +N
v
v +N
p
dp +N
r
dr +
j=N
a
j=1
N
u
j
du
j
_
_
(I.8)
with N
s
the number of symmetrical inputs u
i
(in this thesis being symmetrical atmospheric
turbulence inputs), and N
a
the number of asymmetrical inputs u
j
(being now asymmetrical
atmospheric turbulence inputs).
In equations (I.8) only the rst order aerodynamic derivatives of the Taylor expansion are
retained, that is the derivatives

2
X
u
2
,

2
X
v
2
,

2
X
w
2
,

2
X
uv
, etc. are neglected, see also reference
[29].
The combination of equations (I.7) and (I.8) results in the linearized equations of motion,
which hold for small perturbations with respect to a steady, straight, symmetric ight-
condition, and they are summarized as,
W cos
0
d +X
u
du +X
w
dw +X
w
w +X
q
dq +
i=N
s
i=1
X
u
i
du
i
= m( u + dq w
0
)
+W cos
0
d +Y
v
dv +Y
v
v +Y
p
dp +Y
r
dr +
j=N
a
j=1
Y
u
j
du
j
= m( v + dr u
0
dp w
0
)
W sin
0
d +Z
u
du +Z
w
dw +Z
w
w +Z
q
dq +
i=N
s
i=1
X
u
i
du
i
= m( w dq u
0
)
L
v
dv +L
v
v +L
p
dp +L
r
dr +
j=N
a
j=1
L
u
j
du
j
= I
x
p J
xz
r
M
u
du +M
w
dw +M
w
w +M
q
dq +
i=N
s
i=1
M
u
i
du
i
= I
y
q
N
v
dv +N
v
v +N
p
dp +N
r
dr +
j=N
a
j=1
N
u
j
du
j
= I
z
r J
xz
p
=
dr
cos
0
= dq
= dp +dr tg
0
If the aircraft is aerodynamically symmetric with respect to the X
B
OZ
B
-plane, only air-
craft motions about a condition of steady, straight, symmetric ight (the trim condition)
are considered, and the perturbations and the subsequent deviations from the trim condi-
tion remain small enough to permit linearization of the equations of motion, the linearized
equations of motion result in two independent sets of equations, i.e. the symmetric linear
aircraft model and the asymmetric linear aircraft model.
For the symmetric aircraft motions the equations become,
Wcos
0
d +X
u
du +X
w
dw +X
w
w +X
q
dq +
i=N
s
i=1
X
u
i
du
i
= m( u +dq w
0
))
Wsin
0
d +Z
u
du +Z
w
dw +Z
w
w +Z
q
dq +
i=N
s
i=1
Z
u
i
du
i
= m( w dq u
0
)
M
u
du +M
w
dw +M
w
w +M
q
dq +
i=N
s
i=1
M
u
i
du
i
= I
y
q
= dq
_
_
(I.9)
For the asymmetric aircraft motions the equations become,
Wcos
0
d +Y
v
dv +Y
v
v +Y
p
dp +Y
r
dr +
j=N
a
j=1
Y
u
j
du
j
= m( v +dr u
0
dp w
0
)
L
v
dv +L
v
v +L
p
dp +L
r
dr +
j=N
a
j=1
L
u
j
du
j
= I
x
p J
xz
r
N
v
dv +N
v
v +N
p
dp +N
r
dr +
j=N
a
j=1
N
u
j
du
j
= I
z
r J
xz
p
=
dr
cos
0
= dp +dr tg
0
_
_
(I.10)
I.3.2 Equations of motion in the stability frame of reference
In the previous sections the equations of motion have been given for the frame T
B
O
B
X
B
Y
B
Z
B
. In this section the equations are given for the frame T
S
(O
S
X
S
Y
S
Z
S
).
The denition of these reference frames is given in appendix B.
In principle the frame T
S
also is a body-xed frame of reference, however, by choice of
the orientation of the X
S
-axis, the airspeed u
0
in T
S
becomes u
0
= Q
and w
0
= 0, with
Q
the aircraft speed during steady, straight, symmetric ight (the trim condition).
Additionally, the angle-of-attack during the trim condition is zero,
0
= atan
_
w
0
Q
_
= 0,
resulting in
0
=
0
, with
0
the ightpath angle for the initial or trim condition. The new
orientation of the reference frame T
S
has consequences for the magnitude of the moments
and product of inertia, see also reference [29].
Following the same lines as given in reference [29], the symmetric equations of motion
become,
Wcos
0
+X
u
u +X
w
w +X
w
w +X
q
q +
i=N
s
i=1
X
u
i
u
i
= m u
Wsin
0
+Z
u
u +Z
w
w +Z
w
w +Z
q
q +
i=N
s
i=1
Z
u
i
u
i
= m( w q Q
)
M
u
u +M
w
w +M
w
w +M
q
q +
i=N
s
i=1
M
u
i
u
i
= I
y
q
= q
_
_
(I.11)
while the asymmetric equations of motion become,
Wcos
0
+Y
v
v +Y
v
v +Y
p
p +Y
r
r +
j=N
a
j=1
Y
u
j
u
j
= m( v +r Q
)
L
v
v +L
v
v +L
p
p +L
r
r +
j=N
a
j=1
L
u
j
u
j
= I
x
p J
xz
r
N
v
v +N
v
v +N
p
p +N
r
r +
j=N
a
j=1
N
u
j
u
j
= I
z
r J
xz
p
=
r
cos
0
= p +r tg
0
_
_
(I.12)
Both the moments and product of inertia for T
S
, as used in equations (I.11) and (I.12),
are obtained from the following transformation, see reference [29],
I
x
[
F
S
= I
x
[
F
B
cos
2
0
+ I
z
[
F
B
sin
2
0
J
xz
[
F
B
sin(2
0
)
I
y
[
F
S
= I
y
[
F
B
I
z
[
F
S
= I
x
[
F
B
sin
2
0
+ I
z
[
F
B
cos
2
0
+ J
xz
[
F
B
sin(2
0
)
J
xz
[
F
S
=
1
2
_
I
x
[
F
B
I
z
[
F
B
_
sin(2
0
) + J
xz
[
F
B
cos(2
0
)
_
_
(I.13)
with
0
the aircraft trim angle-of-attack in T
B
, I
x
[
F
S
, I
y
[
F
S
, I
z
[
F
S
and J
xz
[
F
S
the
moments and product of inertia in T
S
, and I
x
[
F
B
, I
y
[
F
B
, I
z
[
F
B
and J
xz
[
F
B
the moments
and product of inertia in T
B
, as given in equation (I.2).
I.3.3 Non-dimensional equations of motion
In this section the non-dimensional linear equations of motion will be given.
For the symmetrical equations of motion, the force-equations are divided by the term
1
2
Q
2
S while the moment-equation is divided by the term

1
2
Q
2
S c, with the air-

density, Q
the aircraft airspeed for the trim condition, S the wing-surface area and c
the mean aerodynamic chord.
Similar to the symmetrical equations of motion, for the asymmetrical equations of motion
the force-equation is divided by the term
1
2
Q
2
S while the moment-equations are now

divided by the term
1
2
Q
2
Sb, with b the aircraft span.

The non-dimensional symmetric equations of motion are written as, see reference [29],
2
c
D
c
u = C
Z
0
+C
X
u
u +C
X
+C
X

D
c
+C
X
q
D
c
+
+
i=N
s
i=1
C
X
u
i
u
i
2
c
(D
c
D
c
) = C
X
0
+C
Z
u
u +C
Z
+C
Z

D
c
+C
Z
q
D
c
+
+
i=N
s
i=1
C
Z
u
i
u
i
2
c
K
2
Y
D
c
q c
Q
= C
m
u
u +C
m
+C
m

D
c
+C
m
q
D
c
+
+
i=N
s
i=1
C
m
u
i
u
i
D
c
=
q c
Q
(I.14)
with C
Z
0
=
W cos
0
1
2
Q
2
S
, C
X
0
=
W sin
0
1
2
Q
2
S
, and the denition of all other parameters used
in equations (I.14) summarized in table I.1. The non-dimensional inputs u
i
are either
the non-dimensional 1D longitudinal gust-component u
g
=
u
g
Q
, its non-dimensional time

derivative

u
g
c
Q
, the non-dimensional 1D vertical gust-component

g
=
w
g
Q
or the latter
non-dimensional time derivative

g
c
Q
. In tables I.2 and I.5 the denition of the symmetrical

stability derivatives and the symmetrical gust derivatives are given. It should be noted
that the unsteady derivatives are given with respect to
c
Q
,

u
g
c
Q
and

g
c
Q
, instead of
c
2Q
u
g
c
2Q
and

g
c
2Q
.
With
0
=
0
(since now
0
= 0), the non-dimensional asymmetric equations of motion
are written as, see reference [29],
2
b
_
D
b
+ 2
rb
2Q
_
= C
L
+C
Y
+C
Y
D
b
+C
Y
p
pb
2Q
+
+C
Y
r
rb
2Q
+
j=N
a
j=1
C
Y
u
j
u
j
4
b
_
K
2
X
D
b
pb
2Q
K
XZ
D
b
rb
2Q
_
= C
+C
D
b
+C
p
pb
2Q
+C
r
rb
2Q
+
+
j=N
a
j=1
C
u
j
u
j
4
b
_
K
2
Z
D
b
rb
2Q
K
XZ
D
b
pb
2Q
_
= C
n
+C
n
D
b
+C
n
p
pb
2Q
+C
n
r
rb
2Q
+
+
j=N
a
j=1
C
n
u
j
u
j
1
2
D
b
=
1
cos
0
rb
2Q

1
2
D
b
=
pb
2Q
+
rb
2Q
tg
0
(I.15)
with C
L
=
W cos
0
1
2
Q
2
S
=
W cos
0
1
2
Q
2
S
, and the denition of all other parameters used in equa-
tions (I.15) summarized in table I.3. The non-dimensional inputs u
j
are either the non-
dimensional 1D lateral gust-component
g
=
v
g
Q
or its non-dimensional time derivative
g
b
Q
. In tables I.4 and I.6 the denition of the asymmetrical stability derivatives and the
asymmetrical gust derivatives are given. It should be noted that also for the asymmetri-
cal equations of motion, the unsteady derivatives are given with respect to

b
Q
and

g
b
Q
,
instead of

b
2Q
and

g
b
2Q
.
Also it should be noted that in this thesis the initial ight-condition (or trim condition) is
always assumed to be level ight, that is the ightpath angle
0
= 0 [Rad.], thus resulting
for the kinematic expressions in equations (I.15) in,
1
2
D
b
=
rb
2Q
1
2
D
b
=
pb
2Q
The assumption that

0
= 0 [Rad.] also results in C
L
=
W
1
2
Q
2
S
.
I.3.4 The non-dimensional equations of motion in state-space form
In this thesis, similar to reference [29], both the symmetrical and asymmetrical equations
of motion, equations (I.14) and (I.15), respectively, are often written in the form,
P
dx
dt
= Q x +R u (I.16)
For the symmetrical aircraft motions, the matrices P, Q and R in equation (I.16) are given
as (denoted as P
s
, Q
s
and R
s
),
P
s
=
c
Q
_
2
c
C
X

0 0
0 (C
Z

2
c
) 0 0
0 0 1 0
0 C
m

0 2
c
K
2
Y
_
_
and,
Q
s
=
_
_
C
X
u
C
X
C
Z
0
C
X
q
C
Z
u
C
Z
C
X
0

_
C
Z
q
+ 2
c
_
0 0 0 1
C
m
u
C
m
0 C
m
q
_
_
and,
R
s
=
_
_
C
X
u
i
C
Z
u
i
0
C
m
u
i
_
_
respectively, with in equation (I.16) the aircraft state dened as x =
_
u, , ,
q c
Q
_
T
, and
the input u = u
i
. It should be noted that the fourth equation of equations (I.14) is now
given as the third equation in equation (I.16).
For the asymmetrical aircraft motions, the matrices P, Q and R in equation (I.16) are
given as (with the ightpath angle
0
= 0 [Rad.], and the matrices P, Q and R denoted
as P
a
, Q
a
and R
a
),
P
a
=
b
Q
_
_
C
Y
2
b
_
0 0 0
0
1
2
0 0
C
0 4
b
K
2
X
4
b
K
XZ
C
n
0 4
b
K
XZ
4
b
K
2
Z
_
_
and,
Q
a
=
_
_
C
Y
C
L
C
Y
p
(C
Y
r
4
b
)
0 0 1 0
C
0 C
p
C
r
C
n
0 C
n
p
C
n
r
_
_
and,
R
a
=
_
_
C
Y
u
j
0
C
u
j
C
n
u
j
_
_
respectively, with in equation (I.16) the aircraft state dened as x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
,
and the input u = u
j
. It should be noted that the fourth equation of equations (I.15) is
left out of consideration since it merely has value for navigational aspects. Furthermore,
the third equation of equations (I.15) is now given as the second equation in equation
(I.16).
For both the symmetrical and asymmetrical equations of motion, the nal state-space form
in terms of the system-matrix A and the input-matrix B is obtained by premultiplying
equation (I.16) by the inverse of matrix P,
x = P
1
Q x +P
1
R u = A x +B u (I.17)
with A the system-matrix and B the input-matrix.
I.4 The linearized equations of motion in the frequency-domain 475
I.4 The linearized equations of motion in the frequency-
domain
I.4.1 Introduction
In the previous section the matrices P, Q and R in equation (I.16) were considered to
be constant, that is independent of the circular frequency [Rad./sec.]. However, in this
section most of the matrix-elements in equation (I.16) are considered to be a function of
the circular frequency [Rad./sec.]. Similar to equation (I.16), for the frequency-domain
the equations of motion are written as,
P() j x = Q() x +R() u (I.18)
with for the symmetrical motions the aircraft state dened as x =
_
u, , ,
q c
Q
_
T
, and
the input dened as u = u
i
. For the asymmetrical motions the aircraft state is dened as
x =
_
, ,
pb
2Q
,
rb
2Q
_
T
, while the input is given as u = u
j
.
For the symmetrical aircraft motions, the frequency-dependent matrix-elements of the
matrices P(), Q() and R() in equation (I.18) are with respect to the airspeed pertur-
bation u, i.e. (
X
u
(), (
Z
u
(), (
m
u
(), (
X
u
(), (
Z
u
() and (
m
u
(). Also, the frequency-
dependent matrix-elements are with respect to the angle-of-attack perturbation , i.e.
(
X
(), (
Z
(), (
m
(), (
X

(), (
Z

(), and (
m

() (the stability derivatives with re-
spect to the pitch-rate q are assumed constant). Finally, the aerodynamic derivatives with
respect to the symmetric (gust-) input u
i
are considered to be frequency-dependent as
well, see also chapters 5 to 12.
For the asymmetrical aircraft motions, the frequency-dependent matrix-elements of the
matrices P(), Q() and R() in equation (I.18) are with respect to the side-slip angle
, i.e. (
Y
(), (
(), (
n
(), (
Y
(), (
() and (
n
() (the stability derivatives with

respect to both the roll-rate p and the yaw-rate r are assumed constant). Finally, the
aerodynamic derivatives with respect to the asymmetric (gust-) input u
j
are considered
to be frequency-dependent as well, see also chapters 5 to 12.
The denition of the frequency-dependent stability- and gust derivatives is given in ap-
pendix D. However, it should be noted that the unsteady derivatives are now with respect
to
u c
Q
(instead of
u c
2Q
),
c
Q
(instead of
c
2Q
),

b
Q
(instead of

b
2Q
), etc..
I.4.2 Symmetrical equations of motion
For the symmetrical equations of motion, the now frequency-dependent matrices P, Q and
R in equation (I.18) become, respectively,
P
s
() =
c
Q
_
(
X
u
() 2
c
(
X

() 0 0
(
Z
u
() (
Z

() 2
c
0 0
0 0 1 0
(
m
u
() (
m

() 0 2
c
K
2
Y
_
_
(I.19)
and,
Q
s
() =
_
_
(
X
u
() (
X
() C
Z
0
C
X
q
(
Z
u
() (
Z
() C
X
0

_
C
Z
q
+ 2
c
_
0 0 0 1
(
m
u
() (
m
() 0 C
m
q
_
_
(I.20)
and,
R
s
() =
_
_
(
X
u
i
()
(
Z
u
i
()
0
(
m
u
i
()
_
_
(I.21)
I.4.3 Asymmetrical equations of motion
For the asymmetrical equations of motion, the now frequency-dependent matrices P, Q
and R in equation (I.18) become, respectively,
P
a
() =
b
Q
_
_
(
Y
() 2
b
_
0 0 0
0
1
2
0 0
(
() 0 4
b
K
2
X
4
b
K
XZ
(
n
() 0 4
b
K
XZ
4
b
K
2
Z
_
_
(I.22)
and,
Q
a
() =
_
_
(
Y
() C
L
C
Y
p
(C
Y
r
4
b
)
0 0 1 0
(
() 0 C
p
C
r
(
n
() 0 C
n
p
C
n
r
_
_
(I.23)
and,
R
a
() =
_
_
(
Y
u
j
()
0
(
u
j
()
(
n
u
j
()
_
_
(I.24)
Dimensional Dimension Divisor Non-dimensional
parameter parameter
t [t]
c
Q
s
c
=
Q
c
t
d
dt
[t]
1
Q
c
D
c
=
c
Q
d
dt
=
d
ds
c
d
2
dt
2
[t]
2
Q
2
c
2
D
2
c
=
c
2
Q
2
d
2
dt
2
=
d
2
ds
2
c
u [][t]
1
Q
u =
u
Q
w [][t]
1
Q
=
w
Q
q [t]
1
Q
c
q c
Q
u [][t]
2
Q
2
c
D
c
u =
u
Q
c
Q
=

u c
Q
w [][t]
2
Q
2
c
D
c
=
w
Q
c
Q
=
c
Q
q [t]
2
Q
2
c
2
D
c
q c
Q
= q
c
2
Q
2
m [m] S c
c
=
m
S c
I
Y
[m][]
2
S c c
2
c
K
2
Y
=
I
Y
S c
3
k
y
[] c K
Y
=
k
y
c
X [m][][t]
2 1
2
S c c
Q
2
c
2
C
X
=
X
1
2
Q
2
S
Z [m][][t]
2 1
2
S c c
Q
2
c
2
C
Z
=
Z
1
2
Q
2
S
M [m][]
2
[t]
2 1
2
S c
2
c
Q
2
c
2
C
m
=
M
1
2
Q
2
S c
Table I.1: Non-dimensional parameters used in the non-dimensional symmetrical equations of
motion.
C
X
C
Z
C
m
u
1
1
2
Q
S

X
u
=
C
X
u
1
1
2
Q
S

Z
u
=
C
Z
u
1
1
2
Q
S c

M
u
=
C
m
u
1
1
2
Q
S

X
w
=
C
X
1
1
2
Q
S

Z
w
=
C
Z
1
1
2
Q
S c

M
w
=
C
m
c
Q
1
1
2
S c

X
w
=
C
X
c
Q
1
1
2
S c

Z
w
=
C
Z
c
Q
1
1
2
S c
2

M
w
=
C
m
c
Q
q c
Q
1
1
2
Q
S c

X
q
=
C
X
q c
Q
1
1
2
Q
S c

Z
q
=
C
Z
q c
Q
1
1
2
Q
S c
2

M
q
=
C
m
q c
Q
u
i
1
1
2
Q
S

X
u
i
=
C
X
u
i
1
1
2
Q
S

Z
u
i
=
C
Z
u
i
1
1
2
Q
S c

M
u
i
=
C
m
u
i
u
i
c
Q
1
1
2
S c

X
u
i
=
C
X
u
i
c
Q
1
1
2
S c

Z
u
i
=
C
Z
u
i
c
Q
1
1
2
S c
2

M
u
i
=
C
m
u
i
c
Q
Table I.2: Denition of the constant symmetrical stability- and input derivatives for F
S
.
Dimensional Dimension Divisor Non-dimensional
parameter parameter
t [t]
b
Q
s
b
=
Q
b
t
d
dt
[t]
1
Q
b
D
b
=
b
Q
d
dt
=
d
ds
b
d
2
dt
2
[t]
2
Q
2
b
2
D
2
b
=
b
2
Q
2
d
2
dt
2
=
d
2
ds
2
b
v [][t]
1
Q
=
v
Q
p [][t]
1
2Q
b
pb
2Q
r [t]
1
2Q
b
rb
2Q
v [][t]
2
Q
2
b
D
b
=
v
Q
b
Q
=

b
Q
p [t]
2
2Q
2
b
2
D
b
pb
2Q
=
pb
2
2Q
2
r [t]
2
2Q
2
b
2
D
b
rb
2Q
=
rb
2
2Q
2
m [m] Sb
b
=
m
Sb
I
X
[m][]
2
Sb b
2
b
K
2
X
=
I
X
Sb
3
I
Z
[m][]
2
Sb b
2
b
K
2
Z
=
I
Z
Sb
3
J
XZ
[m][]
2
Sb b
2
b
K
XZ
=
J
XZ
Sb
3
k
x
[] b K
X
=
k
x
b
k
z
[] b K
Z
=
k
z
b
Y [m][][t]
2 1
2
Sb b
Q
2
b
2
C
Y
=
Y
1
2
Q
2
S
L [m][]
2
[t]
2 1
2
Sb
2
b
Q
2
b
2
C
=
L
1
2
Q
2
Sb
N [m][]
2
[t]
2 1
2
Sb
2
b
Q
2
b
2
C
n
=
N
1
2
Q
2
Sb
Table I.3: Non-dimensional parameters used in the non-dimensional asymmetrical equations of
motion.
C
Y
C
C
n
1
1
2
Q
S

Y
v
=
C
Y
1
1
2
Q
Sb

L
v
=
C
1
1
2
Q
Sb

N
v
=
C
n
b
Q
1
1
2
Sb

Y
v
=
C
Y

b
Q
1
1
2
Sb
2

L
v
=
C

b
Q
1
1
2
Sb
2

N
v
=
C
n

b
Q
pb
2Q
2
1
2
Q
Sb

Y
p
=
C
Y
pb
2Q
2
1
2
Q
Sb
2

L
p
=
C
pb
2Q
2
1
2
Q
Sb
2

N
p
=
C
n
pb
2Q
rb
2Q
2
1
2
Q
Sb

Y
r
=
C
Y
rb
2Q
2
1
2
Q
Sb
2

L
r
=
C
rb
2Q
2
1
2
Q
Sb
2

N
r
=
C
n
rb
2Q
u
j
1
1
2
Q
S

Y
u
j
=
C
Y
u
j
1
1
2
Q
Sb

L
u
j
=
C
u
j
1
1
2
Q
Sb

N
u
j
=
C
n
u
j
u
j
b
Q
1
1
2
Sb

Y
u
j
=
C
Y
u
j
b
Q
1
1
2
Sb
2

L
u
j
=
C
u
j
b
Q
1
1
2
Sb
2

N
u
j
=
C
n
u
j
b
Q
Table I.4: Denition of the constant asymmetrical stability- and input derivatives for F
S
.
Stability derivatives
C
X
C
Z
C
m
u C
X
u
=
C
X
u
C
Z
u
=
C
Z
u
C
m
u
=
C
m
u
u c
Q
C
X
u
=
C
X

u c
Q
C
Z
u
=
C
Z

u c
Q
C
m
u
=
C
m

u c
Q
C
X
=
C
X
C
Z
=
C
Z
C
m
=
C
m
c
Q
C
X

=
C
X
c
Q
C
Z

=
C
Z
c
Q
C
m

=
C
m
c
Q
q c
Q
C
X
q
=
C
X
q c
Q
C
Z
q
=
C
Z
q c
Q
C
m
q
=
C
m
q c
Q
1D gust derivatives
C
X
C
Z
C
m
u
g
C
X
u
g
=
C
X
u
g
C
Z
u
g
=
C
Z
u
g
C
m
u
g
=
C
m
u
g
u
g
c
Q
C
X
u
g
=
C
X
u
g
c
Q
C
Z
u
g
=
C
Z
u
g
c
Q
C
m
u
g
=
C
m
u
g
c
Q
g
C
X
g
=
C
X
g
C
Z
g
=
C
Z
g
C
m
g
=
C
m
g

g
c
Q
C
X

g
=
C
X

g
c
Q
C
Z

g
=
C
Z

g
c
Q
C
m

g
=
C
m

g
c
Q
Table I.5: Denition of the constant symmetrical stability- and 1D gust derivatives for F
S
.
Stability derivatives
C
Y
C
C
n
C
Y
=
C
Y
=
C
C
n
=
C
n
b
Q
C
Y
=
C
Y

b
Q
=
C

b
Q
C
n
=
C
n

b
Q
pb
2Q
C
Y
p
=
C
Y
pb
2Q
p
=
C
pb
2Q
C
n
p
=
C
n
pb
2Q
rb
2Q
C
Y
r
=
C
Y
rb
2Q
r
=
C
rb
2Q
C
n
r
=
C
n
rb
2Q
1D gust derivatives
C
Y
C
C
n
g
C
Y
g
=
C
Y
g
C
g
=
C
g
C
n
g
=
C
n
g
b
Q
C
Y
g
=
C
Y
g
b
Q
g
=
C
g
b
Q
C
n
g
=
C
n
g
b
Q
Table I.6: Denition of the constant asymmetrical stability- and 1D gust derivatives for F
S
.
References
[1] Robinson, P.A., The modeling of turbulence and downbursts for ight simulators,
UTIAS report No. 339, University of Toronto, 1991.
[2] Batchelor, G.K., Theory of homogeneous turbulence, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge, 1953.
[3] Van Gool, P.C.A., Rotorcraft Responses to Atmospheric Turbulence, Delft University
Press, 1997.
[4] Houbolt, J.C. and Steiner, R. and Pratt, K.G., Dynamic Response of Airplanes to
Atmospheric Turbulence Including Flight Data on Input and Response, NASA TR-R-
199, 1964.
[5] Etkin, B., Dynamics of Atmospheric Flight, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1972.
[6] Van de Moesdijk, G.A.J., The Description of Patchy Atmospheric Turbulence, Based
on a Non-Gaussian Simulation Technique, Delft University of Technology, Department
of Aerospace Engineering, Report VTH-192, February 1975.
[7] Van der Spek, J.A., Aerodynamic Model Identication, a CFD Approach, Masters
Thesis, Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace Engineering, Control and
Simulation Division, 1998.
[8] Maskew, B., Prediction of Subsonic Aerodynamic Characteristics; A Case for Low-
Order Panel Methods, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 19, No. 2, February 1982.
[9] Maskew, B., Program VSAERO Theory Document, NASA Contractor Report 4023,
NASA, 1987.
[10] Ashby, D.L., Dudley, M.R., Iguchi, S.K., Browne, L., Katz, J., Potential Flow Theory
and Operation Guide for the Panel Code PMARC, NASA Technical Memorandum
102851, NASA, 1991.
[11] Katz, J., Plotkin, A., Low-Speed Aerodynamics, From Wing Theory to Panel Meth-
ods, McGraw-Hill, Inc., 1991.
[12] Katz, J., Plotkin, A., Low-Speed Aerodynamics, Cambridge University Press, 2001.
482 References
[13] Giesing, J.P., Rodden, W.P., Stahl, B., Sears Function and Lifting Surface Theory
for Harmonic Gust Fields, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 7, No. 3, May-June 1970.
[14] Horlock, J.H., Fluctuating Lift Forces on Aerofoils Moving Through Transverse and
Chordwise Gusts, Journal of Basic Engineering, Transactions of the ASME, December
1968.
[15] Isaacs, R., Airfoil Theory for Flows of Variable Velocity, Journal of Aeronautical
Sciences, Vol. 12, 1945.
[16] Jones, R.T., Operational Treatment of the Non-Uniform Lift Theory in Airplane
Dynamics, NACA Technical Note 667, 1938.
[17] Jones, R.T., The Unsteady Lift of a Wing of Finite Aspect Ratio, NACA Report 681,
1940.
[18] K arm an, von, Th., Sears, W.R., Airfoil Theory for Non-Uniform Motion, Journal of
the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 5, No. 10, August 1938.
[19] Katz, J., Maskew, B., Unsteady Low-Speed Aerodynamic Model for Complete Air-
craft Congurations, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 25, No. 4, April 1988.
[20] K ussner, H.G., Zusammenfassender Bericht uber den instation aren Auftrieb von
Fl ugeln, Luftfahrtforschung, Bd. 13, 1936.
[21] Leishman, J.G., Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics, Cambridge Aerospace Series,
Cambridge University Press, 2000.
[22] Sears, W.R., Some Aspects of Non-Stationary Airfoil Theory and Its Practical Ap-
plication, Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, 1940.
[23] Sears, W.R., Sparks, D.O., On the Reaction of an Elastic Wing to Vertical Gusts,
Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 9, No. 2, 1941.
[24] Theodorsen, T., General Theory of Aerodynamic Instability and the Mechanism of
Flutter, NACA Technical Report No. 496, 1935.
[25] Van der Vaart, J.C., The Calculation of the R.M.S. Value of an Aircrafts Normal
Acceleration due to Gaussian Random Atmospheric Turbulence, Delft University of
Technology, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Report VTH-213, March 1976.
[26] Wagner, H., Uber die Entstehung des Dynamischen Auftriebes von Tragugeln,
Z.F.A.M.M., Vol. 5, No. 1, February 1925.
[27] Juliana, S., Cessna Citation II Aircraft Aerodynamic Model Parameter Identication,
M.Sc. Thesis, Delft University of Technology, August 2001.
[28] Anon., U.S. Airplane Flight Manual Model C550, Model 550 Citation II Weight and
Balance Data Sheets, Cessna Aircraft Company, Aircraft Division, Wichita, Kansas,
USA.
References 483
[29] Mulder, J.A., van Staveren, W.H.J.J., van der Vaart, J.C., Flight Dynamics, Lecture
Notes AE3-302, Delft University of Technology, Department of Aerospace Engineering,
2000.
[30] Mulder, J.A., van der Vaart, J.C., Aircraft Responses to Atmospheric Turbulence,
Lecture Notes AE4-304, Delft University of Technology, Department of Aerospace En-
gineering, 1995.
[31] Bisplingho, R.L., Ashley, H., Halfman, R.L., Aeroelasticity, Addison-Wesley Pub-
lishing Co., Cambridge, Mass., USA, 1957.
[32] Broek, van den, P.Ph., Brandt, A.P., Vliegeigenscahppen II, DUT report D-34, Delft
University of Technology, 1984.
[33] Gerlach, O.H., Calculation of the Response of an Aircraft to Random Atmospheric
Turbulence, Part I, Symmetric Motions, DUT report VTH-138, Delft University of
Technology, 1966.
[34] Gerlach, O.H., Baarspul, M., Calculation of the Response of an Aircraft to Random
Atmospheric Turbulence, Part II, Asymmetric Motions, DUT report VTH-139, Delft
University of Technology, 1968.
[35] Etkin, B., The Turbulent Wind and its Eect on Flight, UTIAS report No. 44, 1980.
[36] Lind, R., Brenner, M., Robust Aero-Servo-Elastic Stability Analysis, Springer-Verlag,
printed in Germany, 1999.
484 References
Samenvatting
Vliegtuig responsies ten gevolge van atmosferische turbulentie spelen een belangrijke rol
in het vliegtuig-ontwerp (het bepalen van belastingen), het ontwikkelen van regelsystemen
en vlucht simulatie (bijvoorbeeld in het onderzoek naar vliegeigenschappen en de training
van piloten). Het simuleren van deze vliegtuig responsies vereist een nauwkeurig mathe-
matisch model. In dit proefschrift zullen twee klassieke methoden worden beschouwd,
een methode ontwikkeld aan de Technische Universiteit Delft (het DUT-model) en het
zogenaamde vier punts model (Four Point Aircraft model of FPA-model). Hoewel deze
methoden in het verleden vaak zijn toegepast, blijft de nauwkeurigheid van deze modellen
in het ongewisse. De oorzaak hiervan ligt bij een van de vereisten voor systeem identi-
catie; het is van fundamenteel belang dat zowel de ingangsignalen als de uitgangsignalen
bekend zijn voor het te identiceren systeem. Gebruik makend van deze experimenteel
vergaarde signalen is het mogelijk een mathematisch model op te stellen voor willekeurige
systemen. Voor het opstellen van een dergelijk model, zoals een vliegtuig vliegend door
stochastische atmosferische turbulentie, kunnen echter enige problemen ontstaan. Wan-
neer het ingangsignaal stochastische atmosferische turbulentie betreft, ontstaat het pro-
bleem hoe de turbulentie aangrijpt op het vliegtuig. Het meten van de vliegtuigresponsie
in termen van de gemeten invalshoek, langshellinghoek, rolhoek, en dergelijke, blijkt in
de praktijk een overkomelijk probleem te zijn. Echter, het probleem ligt nu bij het meten
van de aan het vliegtuig toegekende ingangen of verstoringen; in dit proefschrift zijn deze
stochastische atmosferische turbulentie velden. Het meten van de stroming rondom een
vliegtuig tijdens vliegproeven blijft hedentendage een probleem. Het vergt een oneindig
aantal sensoren om de stroming rondom het vliegtuig te bepalen, met tot gevolg dat de
verdeling van de atmosferische turbulentie snelheids componenten rondom het vliegtuig in
de praktijk ook niet te identiceren zal zijn.
In een poging meer duidelijkheid te verschaen met betrekking tot de responsie van een
vliegtuig ten gevolge van atmosferische turbulentie, het onderwerp van dit proefschrift,
zullen in eerste instantie twee verschillende modellen worden gedenieerd. Het eerste
model heeft betrekking op de modellering van atmosferische turbulentie, terwijl het tweede
betrekking heeft op de mathematische beschrijving van het vliegtuig onderhevig aan at-
mosferische verstoringen. Voor wat betreft de modellering van atmosferische turbulentie
zal in dit proefschrift gebruik gemaakt worden van een stochastisch, stationair, homogeen,
isotroop atmosferisch turbulentie model. Dit in de literatuur vaak gebruikte model zal wor-
486 Samenvatting
den toegepast om de vliegtuig responsie te bepalen. Vervolgens zullen in dit proefschrift
enige mathematische vliegtuigmodellen worden besproken. Vele van dergelijke modellen
zijn in de literatuur voorgesteld, echter, de veriering ervan blijft problematisch vanwege
het eerder genoemde identicatie probleem van de atmosferische turbulentie snelheids com-
ponenten. Als onderdeel van het mathematisch vliegtuig model, maakt het (parametrisch)
aerodynamisch model daarvan deel uit. In de literatuur maakt dit model vaak gebruik
van zogenaamde (quasi-) stationaire aerodynamische resultaten; dat wil zeggen dat de
stationaire aerodynamische parameters worden bepaald met behulp van windtunnel ex-
perimenten, handboekmethoden, Computational Aerodynamics (CA) welke onder andere
gebruik maken van gelineariseerde potentiaal stroming modellen, of Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) methoden welke gebruik maken van volledige potentiaal, Euler en Navier-
Stokes modellen.
In dit proefschrift zal het meest eenvoudige model voor stroming simulaties worden toege-
past om de op een vliegtuig werkende tijdsafhankelijke aerodynamische krachten en mo-
menten te bepalen. Het model gaat uit van niet-stationaire gelineariseerde potentiaal
theorie. Dit model resulteert in een zogenaamde panelen-methode welke toegepast zal
worden als een virtuele windtunnel (of een virtuele vliegproef faciliteit) voor een gedis-
cretizeerd vliegtuig (of vliegtuig grid). De toepassing van de methode zal uiteindelijk
resulteren in stationaire en niet-stationaire stabiliteitsafgeleiden. Deze afgeleiden worden
bepaald met behulp van harmonische simulaties. Eveneens worden de stationaire en niet-
stationaire remousafgeleiden bepaald voor gesoleerde atmosferische turbulentie velden
(of remous velden). Enkel een-dimensionale longitudinale, laterale en vertikale remous
velden zullen worden beschouwd, naast twee-dimensionale longitudinale en vertikale re-
mous velden. De harmonische analyse resulteert in frequentie-afhankelijke stabiliteits- en
remousafgeleiden welke gebruikt zullen worden ter bepaling van een aerodynamich model
in termen van constante parameters (constante stabiliteits- en remousafgeleiden). Het
nieuw gentroduceerde model (het Parametric Computational Aerodynamics model, of
PCA-model) zal vergeleken worden met het Delft University of Technology model (DUT-
model) en het Four Point Aircraft model (FPA-model). Deze drie parametrische modellen
zullen toegepast worden voor het bepalen van zowel de tijds- als frequentiedomein vlieg-
tuigresponsies. De vliegtuigresponsies zullen zowel de responsie van het aerodynamisch
model als de vliegtuigbewegingen bevatten ten gevolge van de eerder gemoemde remous
velden. Naast de parametrische modellen zullen ook vliegtuigresponsies gegeven worden
welke zijn verkregen door middel van toepassing van de niet-stationaire gelineariseerde
potentiaal stroming methode. Voor deze toepassing zal het vliegtuig grid gevlogen worden
door twee-dimensionale stochastische remous velden, resulterend in Linearized Potential
Flow model oplossingen. Resultaten van deze simulaties zullen vergeleken worden met die
verkregen uit de PCA-, DUT- en FPA-modellen.
Uit de gepresenteerde resultaten valt te concluderen dat het gentroduceerde PCA-model
het meest nauwkeurig is voor de beschouwde remous velden. Vergeleken met de Linearized
Potential Flow oplossing (welke gezien wordt als het model dat de werkelijkheid het meest
benadert) produceert het nieuwe parametrische model resultaten welke nauwkeuriger zijn
Samenvatting 487
dan die verkregen met behulp van de klassieke parametrische modellen (het DUT- en FPA-
model), en in het bijzonder voor de vliegtuig responsies ten gevolge van twee-dimensionale
remous velden. Tevens is het model meer nauwkeurig in het bepalen van de vliegtuig
responsies ten gevolge van een-dimensionale longitudinale remous velden.
Hoewel enkel resultaten gegeven zullen worden voor de Cessna Ce550 Citation II, zijn
de aangegeven theorie en methoden toepasbaar op vliegtuigen van verscheidene grootte,
dat will zeggen van de kleinste onbemande vliegtuigen (UAVs) tot de grootste straalver-
keersvliegtuigen (zoals de Boeing B747 en de Airbus A380).
Aangezien het in dit proefschrift samengevat onderzoek meerdere disciplines bevat, worden
enkele in detail besproken. Zo zullen, bijvoorbeeld, de ontwikkelde panelen-methoden
uitvoerig worden beschreven in een volgorde welke ook is toegepast in de ontwikkelde
software. Bovendien zal de procedure voor het bepalen van de model parameters van het
nieuwe PCA-model uitvoerig worden weergegeven.
488 Samenvatting
Acknowledgements
Although the list of persons to express my gratitude to will not be complete, I would like
to thank a number of people by name for providing support over the past years.
First of all, I would like to thank my promotor Prof.dr.ir. J.A. Mulder for giving me the
opportunity to do this research. Bob, thank you for your advice and your ongoing support
over the past years.
Next, without whose help this thesis would have looked considerably dierent, my grati-
tude is extended to Dr.ir. J.C. van der Vaart. Hans, thank you for meticulously reading
through all the drafts of this thesis (yes, I know, I always handed them in late, my apolo-
gies).
Also, for their support I would like to thank my colleagues and friends at the Disciplinary
Group of Control and Simulation, Max Baarspul, Florin Barb, Samir Bennani, Richard
Bennis, Chu Qi Ping, Cor Dam, Herman Damveld, Sinar Juliana, Alwin Kraeger, Peter
Kraan, Henk Lindenburg, Gertjan Looije, Bertine Markus, Andries Muis, Max Mulder,
Rene van Paassen, Adri Tak, Tom van der Voort and Kees van Woerkom. Furthermore, I
would like to thank Steven Hulsho, Martin Laban, Paolo Lisandrin and Leo Veldhuis for
the numerous discussions we had on computational aerodynamic simulations, and Ronald
Slingerland for his valuable inputs.
A special thanks to my friends Sunjoo Advani, Paul van Gastel, Paul van Gool, Coen van
der Linden, Elischewah Basting and Marco Soijer. Thank you for your ongoing interest
into my research and for the good times we spent together.
In the past years I was fortunate to have several students under my supervision, con-
tributing to the Group research eort. In this period I was extremely lucky to work
with very talented persons, of whom I would like to mention in particular: Bert Beuker,
Bart Groenenboom, Marjolein Hermans, Erwin Kipperman, Joao-Pedro Mortagua, Chris-
tiaan Schoemaker, Jorrit van der Spek and Bauke Tilma. With Samir Bennani, Marjolein
Hermans and Jorrit van der Spek we started the AMICAE-project (Aerodynamic Model
Identication using Computational Aerodynamic Experiments) which ultimately resulted
in the modeling of elastic aircraft, the Aero-Servo-Elasticity (ASE) project. This project
490 Acknowledgements
would not have existed without the help of Herman Damveld and Jan Hol, both true NAS-
TRAN gurus. With Herman Damveld aboard in the Disciplinary Group of Control and
Simulation/SIMONA, the ASE-project really got kick-started. Also, at the time, the ASE
project would not have been initiated if Joao-Pedro Mortagua did not have the courage
to start it with us (muito obrigado amigo).
Also, I have to mention my remote friends at the National Aerospace Laboratory (NLR).
First of all, Louis Erkelens and Wim de Boer. Thank you for the interest you have
shown into my research and into my position at the DUT in the past years, I sincerely
appreciated it. I also thank the both of you for the NLRs nancial support. My grati-
tude is also extended to Bart Eussen, Michel Hounjet and Jos Meijer. Thank you for all
the discussions we had on ight-dynamics, unsteady aerodynamics, complex curve-tting
and the modeling of elastic aircraft. Furthermore, a special thanks to friends from the
U.S.A., that is Gary Balas (University of Minnesota), Martin Brenner (NASA) and Rick
Lind (NASA/University of Florida) for educating me in the eld of aeroelasticity, ight-
dynamics and control related topics.
When we started the AMICAE-project I was fortunate to have a friend in the USA who,
on request and without hesitation, sent me numerous publications regarding Linearized
Potential Flow simulations (publications which were very dicult to obtain in The Nether-
lands). Thank you Claudette Rietveld-Holden, you are a fantastic teacher, you are a fan-
tastic friend.
Finally, I would like to thank my father, my mother, my sisters Barbara and Annemarie,
my brother-in-law Bas Maring, my relatives and my friends, for their support and patience
during my research.
This thesis is dedicated to my parents.
Jan-Willem van Staveren
Alphen aan den Rijn, November 7, 2003
Curriculum vitae
Jan-Willem van Staveren was born on August 6th, 1966, in Sittard, The Netherlands.
From 1979 to 1984 he attended the Albanianae Scholengemeenschap in Alphen aan den
Rijn where he obtained the Atheneum- certicate.
In 1984 he started his studies at the Delft University of Technology, Faculty of Aerospace
Engineering. In October, 1991, at the Disciplinary Group for Stability and Control, he
obtained the M.Sc. degree in Aerospace Engineering for his study on the modeling of air-
craft subjected to atmospheric turbulence and the design of control-systems to suppress
the aircraft motion responses to it. This research was conducted under the supervision of
Prof.dr.ir. J.A. Mulder and Dr.ir. J.C. van der Vaart.
In November, 1991, he joined the Disciplinary Group for Stability and Control as a Ph.D.-
candidate, researching the modeling of aircraft subjected to atmospheric turbulence, the
subject of this thesis.
From 1991 he has been co-responsible for the graduate course Aircraft Responses to At-
mospheric Turbulence at the Faculty of Aerospace Engineering.
492 Curriculum vitae

Analysis of Aircraft Responses To Atmospheric Turbulence

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis of Aircraft Responses To Atmospheric Turbulence

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analyses of Aircraft Responses

, these fundamental correlation functions

the undisturbed velocity components of the velocity vector Q

are taken to be positive along the X

Figure 3.1: The Aerodynamic Frame of Reference F

), the conguration submerged in the airow (S

. It is assumed that the on-body source- and doublet-

in the integral as given in equation

now has to be added to equation (3.9).

, describe the dynamics of an aerofoils aerodynamic lift caused by

. The unsteady lift

airspeed and k the reduced frequency.

and the non-dimensional aerodynamic lift-coecient C

. The gust eld is given in the frame T

and the non-dimensional aerodynamic lift-coecient, C

and the non-dimensional aerodynamic lift-coecient C

the undisturbed velocity at innity, t

(s) + 2 (s) (4.14)

, the Jones approximation in terms of frequency-

the undisturbed velocity at innity, t

the magnitude of the vertical gust-induced change in angle-of-attack,

the Sears approximation in terms of frequency-response, becomes,

(or, for non-zero side-slip-angle

t. During this rst time-step,

t[). Throughout this thesis, the trailing-edge

the vector of free-stream ow com-

and t the discretization

= [0.01, 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9]

, the non-dimensional heaving

. The known stability parameters C

. In order to calculate t from the prescribed reduced

Assuming that one period of a sine function is approximated by a number of N

Figure 4.19: Simulated indicial functions

, with u, v and w the pertur-

the free streams velocity magnitude with Q

the magnitude of the undisturbed (free-stream) velocity and i = 1 N

, the position of the origin of

t, and equation (5.5) becomes,

the reduced frequency, X

, that is u(t) << Q

and w(t) << Q

. The translational velocity components become,

= 0. The atmospheric turbulence inputs

the reduced frequency, X

the free stream velocity magnitude.

the free stream

the aerodynamic derivative in the frame T

is considered. Using the procedure from appendix E, for each

is constant, while the aerodynamic derivative

(k) is frequency-dependent. Both the frequency-dependent steady and unsteady aero-

, for each reduced frequency k the coecient C

the reduced frequency,

the vertical gust-induced

) is given in gure 6.9 (top), while the calculated body doublet

Fuselage Station (FS) [m]

Fuselage Station (FS) [m]

shows a good correlation with the result

again shows a good correlation with the result obtained

the airspeed (with Q

, for the trim condition

, for the trim condition

. Also, they will include the response due to one-dimensional

with respect to aircraft motions and 1D atmospheric