Author's Accepted Manuscript

Flutter Analysis of an Articulated High Aspect Ratio

Wing in Subsonic Airflow
A.V. Balakrishnan, Amjad Tuffaha, Iylene Patino,
Oleg Melnikov
PII: S0016-0032(14)00111-2
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfranklin.2014.04.010
Reference: FI2024
To appear in: Journal of the Franklin Institute
Received date: 9 November 2011
Revised date: 12 March 2014
Accepted date: 13 April 2014
Cite this article as: A.V. Balakrishnan, Amjad Tuffaha, Iylene Patino, Oleg Melnikov,
Flutter Analysis of an Articulated High Aspect Ratio Wing in Subsonic Airflow, Journal
of the Franklin Institute, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfranklin.2014.04.010
This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a
service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The
manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting galley proof
before it is published in its final citable form. Please note that during the production process
errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply
to the journal pertain.
www.elsevier.com/locate/jfranklin
Flutter Analysis of an Articulated High Aspect Ratio
Wing in Subsonic Airow
A.V. Balakrishnan, Amjad Tuffaha, Iylene Patino and Oleg Melnikov

May 9, 2014
Abstract
We present a methodology for calculating utter speeds of a high aspect ratio ying wing articulated
with point masses in inviscid air ow. This highly exible wing conguration typically models a HALE
(High Altitude Long Endurance) UAV (Unmanned Aerial Vehicle) type aircraft. To demonstrate the pro-
cedure, we perform utter analysis on an actual articulated wing model and we investigate the dependence
of the utter speed on the number of loads mounted onto the structure and the number of panels compris-
ing the ying wing for both varying and constant span. The results show that the utter speed decreases
as more panels and point masses are incorporated into the ying wing. On the other hand, the number of
point masses mounted onto the structure has a small effect on the utter speed if the wing span is kept
constant.
1 Nomenclature
l = wing span f t
b = length of half chord f t
m = wing density lb/f t
s = position along the span of the wing f t
s
i
= ith node along the span of the structure
x = chord wise position
t = time sec
h(s, t) = plunge variable f t
(s, t) = pitch variable rad
I

= moment of inertia lb. f t

S = coupling parameter
EI = bending stiffness lb. f t
2
GJ = torsional stiffness lb. f t
2
a = location of the elastic axis relative to the chord
= air density lb/ f t
3
U = free stream velocity f t/sec
M = Mach number

This work was supported by nsf grant no. ECCS0722750

A.V. Balakrishnan, Prof., Dept. of Elec. Eng., University of California, Los Angeles CA, bal@ee.ucla.edu

A. Tuffaha, Ast. Prof., Dept. of Mathematics, The Petroleum Institute, Abu Dhabi, UAE, atuffaha@pi.ac.ae

Iylene Patino, Dept. of Elec. Eng., University of California, Los Angeles, CA, impatino@ucla.edu

Oleg Melnikov, Dept. of Mathematics, University of California, Irvine, CA, melnikov@ucirvine.edu

L(s, t) = lift
M(s, t) = moment
= Laplace transform variable
l
i
= the distance from pitching axis to the mass m
i
along the chord
r
i
= the radius of gyration for mass m
i
2 Introduction
Designing dependable high altitude long endurance aircrafts known as (HALE) has become essential for
reconnaissance and surveillance operations. This in turn has sparked an interest in reliable light slender
wing designs, which can sustain heavy pay loads and many days and even months of non-stop ying at very
high altitudes. The implication of using light slender material is serious when it comes to stability and utter
considerations. Such aircrafts enjoy high lift-to-drag ratios and can undergo serious deformations while in
ight, which makes them vulnerable to failure at high altitudes. We consider a special type of design
which is the Helios UAV prototype developed by NASA under the Environmental Research Aircraft and
Sensor Technology program. Since the mishap of 2004 involving the HP03 model, there has been a series
of studies concerning aeroelastic stability of ying wing congurations, following recommendations by the
Nasa technical report into the mishap [15]. The report asserted that Lack of adequate analysis methods led
to an inaccurate risk assessment of the effects of conguration changes leading to an inappropriate decision
to y an aircraft conguration highly sensitive to disturbances was a root cause of the mishap.
The Helios model is a HALE aircraft falling under the category of ying wing congurations, and
consists of several joined panels made of composite materials. The aircraft is powered by several electric
direct current throttle engines mounted under wing and uses solar energy during the day and a hydrogen-air
system during the night. The aircraft is controlled remotely from the ground by a pilot and is designed to
y at up to 100,000 ft altitude at low speeds in the range of 20-40 ft/sec. The HP03 model in particular
represents the fth generation of HALE ying wing aircrafts designed by NASA, and has a wing span of
247 ft comprising six panels (each about 41 ft long) and a chord length of 8 ft with 11.5 inches thickness,
while the exibility of the wing allows for the formation of a dihedral U shape during ight. According
to the Nasa technical report on the HP03 mishap, the aircraft experienced an increased dihedral angle in
turbulence and then underwent rapid oscillations which were possibly exacerbated by gust, resulting in
structural failure followed by a crash into the pacic ocean.
Many works in the literature have treated highly exible wing designs and their ight dynamics in detail
and have analyzed the stability, both dynamic and static, of various types of highly exible wing structures.
A detailed treatment of the modeling aspects as well as stability studies for different types of HALE aircraft
including roll and gust response can be found in [3]. In [16], the author conducts detailed analysis of the
aeroelastic response of a typical high aspect ratio wing representative of a HALE aircraft along with a
comparison with experimental wind tunnel data. The analysis relies on nite element analysis of nonlinear
beam models and ONERA codes to account for the aerodynamics. In [5, 6], Dowell and Tang carry out
a thorough theoretical and experimental study of LCO and the gust response of a high aspect ratio wing
representative of a HALE aircraft.
Flying wing congurations, which is our main focus, were considered by Patil and Hodges who have
analyzed rigid body motion instabilities and conducted a trim analysis of a particular highly exible ying
wing conguration representative of the Helios model [4]. Su and Cesnik have also studied ight dynamic
stability and response of a similar ying wing conguration in [2], using a nonlinear structure model to
consider body freedom utter and the gust response at different altitudes.
In this paper, we develop a methodology for calculating utter speeds for an articulated wing structure
comprising several elastic beams. The ying wing model under consideration corresponds to the Helios
prototype HP03 with the same conguration as in [4, 2], but our interest is mainly utter and aeroelastic
stability. In contrast to all these works in the literature which rely on available CFD codes to determine
the aerodynamic loads and FEM to solve for the structural dynamics, our approach is the more recently
developed continuum model approach [1]. In a recent paper [12], the authors conduct a comparison of
results obtained from the continuum model [1] with results obtained using the NATASHA software, for the
basic Goland beam model [9], and in particular report an agreement in utter frequencies of the rst four
modes. We intend to extend the continuum model approach [11] to address the case of the articulated ying
wing case and the effect of engine placement.
Our analysis relies on the fact that these slender ying wings have very low natural frequencies and y
at relatively low speeds [2], so that it is reasonable to assume a Mach number M = 0. The structural and
physical parameters we use are also the same as in [4, 13] and for simplicity we only consider uniformly
distributed pods (propulsive units) represented by point masses in the model along the pitch axis of the
structure. The parameters used are indeed reective of the Helios ying wing congurations, and for
instance the HP03 model which experienced the failure is comprised of 247 feet long wing with a chord
length of about 8 feet with 6 propulsive units, while earlier generations were lighter and had shorter wing
spans [15]. The model we use is a Goland elastic beam model with two degrees of freedom, plunge and
pitch, which is appropriate for high-aspect ratio wings. The model comprises a sequence of joined beams
and allows for exible movement at the joints and for a dihedral angle formation at the ends. The presence
of the pods at the joints of the connected beams necessitates modeling the structure dynamics using the
articulated beam model following Goland [10, 8, 9, 7]. As for aerodynamics, we rely on an analytical
solution of the linearized Possio equation in inviscid airow for Mach number M = 0 which yields the
lift and moment forces as functions of the plunge and the pitch. Important developments in the area of
mathematical aeroelasticity in the past few years have made it possible to consider such a continuum model
approach to utter analysis as an alternative to the CFD approach [11].
The methodology for calculating utter speed relies on the usual tracing of the root locus of a relevant
structure aeroelastic mode with the varying free stream velocity. However, the continuum model approach
involves rst solving the Possio equation for the aerodynamic forces in terms of the structure state variable,
in order to determine the structural dynamics, without discretizing any of the equations in contrast to the
dominant approach. We then proceed to identify the relevant aeroelastic structure modes, and trace their
stability with the varying speed parameter. In this context, we provide precise mathematical denitions of
the aeroelastic modes and the utter speed following earlier works in the literature [11].
The methodology was then implemented in a Matlab program which calculates the stability curve for
the relevant structure modes given physical parameters and wing specications. Computationally, the aeroe-
lastic modes are roots of a determinant function involving a number of exponential matrices matching the
number of panels comprising the wing, and the simple Matlab program traces an aeroelastic mode with the
changing speed parameter until instability occurs. As an example, we provide the results of applying this
methodology to perform utter and aeroelastic stability analysis for the particular articulated wing struc-
ture studied by Patil and Hodges [4]. We also use the results to show the dependence of utter speed on
the number of panels (beams) comprising the structure, the wing span, and the number of loads (engines)
mounted onto the structure.
We nally note that the prospect of a successful control design of subsonic wing utter in the future
will closely depend on the development of a sound theoretical framework for the analysis and prediction of
utter, which would enhance the current CFD approach.
3 The Mathematical Model of the Flying Wing
We consider a uniform beam model with two degrees of freedom, plunge/bending h(s, t) and pitch/torsion
angle (s, t) for 0 < s < l where l is the total wing span and t is the time variable. Point masses denoted m
i
are at discrete points (nodes) along the span s = s
i
, i = 0, 1, ..., n, n+1 with s
0
= 0 and s
n+1
= l (see gure
1). The beam equations are
S

(s, t) +m

h(s, t) +EIh

(s, t) = L(s, t), (1)

S

h(s, t) +I

(s, t) GJ

(s, t) = M(s, t), (2)

where s
i1
< s < s
i
and S is the coupling parameter.
Here, the forcing terms L(s, t) and M(s, t) in (1) and (2) are the lift and moment forces acting on the structure
which we discuss in the next section on Aerodynamics. The superdots denote time derivatives while primes
denote spatial derivatives in the same notation as in [10]. Moreover, the structure parameters EI, GJ and
I

denote the bending rigidity, the torsional rigidity and the moment of inertia respectively while m denotes
the mass density of the wing along the span (mass per unit length) (see table 1 below).
We allow for discontinuities at the points s
i
in

(s, t) and h

(s, t). In particular, supplementing (2) at

the nodes s
i
, we have the conditions:
m
i
r
2
i

(s
i
, t) +m
i
l
i

h(s
i
, t) GJ
_

(s
i
+, t)

(s
i
, t)
_
+u
i
(t) = 0, (3)
where the u
i
() are controls, if any, at the nodes s
i
for i = 0, ..., n+1, while r
i
is the radius of gyration and l
i
is the distance (normal) from pitch axis to the point mass m
i
along the chord at s = s
i
. We refer the reader
to [7] for detailed derivations of these boundary conditions.
On the other hand, supplementing (1) at the nodes s = s
i
, we have the condition
m
i

h(s
i
, t) +m
i
l
i

(s
i
, t) +EI
_
h

(s
i
+, t) h

(s
i
, t)
_
+u
i
(t) = 0 (4)
The boundary conditions are the free-free end conditions

(0, t) = 0 (5)

(l+, t) = 0 (6)
and
h

(0, t) = 0 h

(0, t) = 0 (7)
h

(l, t) = 0 h

(l+, t) = 0. (8)
The ying wing under consideration here has a span of 40400 ft long with pods or uniformly spaced
propulsive units 40 ft apart along the wing as in the gure shown.
Each propulsive unit or point mass weighs 60 lb. The structural parameters used are listed in table 1
above following [4]. Moreover, we only consider the symmetric case where l
i
= 0 and r
i
= 0 which means
that the pods are placed along the pitching axis.
4 The Aerodynamics
We need only consider the linearized typical-section (airfoil) aerodynamics and hence we can follow the
development in [11] closely.
Figure 1: Diagram of the Wing Baseline Geometry
Table 1: Structure Parameters
2b Chord length 8f t
GJ Torsional rigidity 0.410
6
lb. f t
2
EI Bending rigidity 2.510
6
lb. f t
2
Bending rigidity (chordwise) 3010
6
lb. f t
2
m Mass per unit length 6 lb/f t
Pitch axis location a=0.25, 25% chord
I

Centroidal mass moment of inertia about x axis (torsional) 30lb. f t

About y axis 5 lb. f t
About z axis 25 lb. f t
Air density 0.0023769 slugs/ f t
3
Thus, we begin with the downwash function (normal velocity of structure) which is given by:
w
a
(x, s, t) =
_

h(s, t) +(x ab)

(s, t) +U(s, t)
_
(9)
where ab is the location of the elastic axis, b is the half-chord and U is the far-eld air speed. Then for xed
s (point along the span), the lift and the moment forces are given by
L(s, t) = U
_
b
b
A(x, t)dx (10)
M(s, t) = U
_
b
b
(x ab)A(x, t)dx (11)
respectively, where A(x, t)s Laplace transform

A(x, ) =
_

0
e
t
A(x, t)dt, Re() >
a
( > 0) is the solution of the Possio integral equation
w
a
(x, ) =
_
b
b
P(x , )

A(, )d, |x| < b (12)

A(x, ) = 0, |x| > b (13)

Physically, A(x, t) at any xed point s along the wing span corresponds to the pressure jump across the wing
and is reasonably assumed to be proportional to the acceleration potential of the disturbance ow [1].
The spatial Fourier transform of the kernel P is given by
_

e
ix
P(x, )dx =
1
2
1
b
U
+i
_
M
2

2
b
2
U
2
+2
b
U
M
2
i +(1M
2
)
2
(14)
while from (9) we have
w
a
(x, ) =
_

0
e
t
w
a
(x, t)dt
=
_

h(s, ) +x

(s, ) +

(s, )(U ab)
_
(15)
with

h(s, ),

(s, ) denoting the Laplace transforms of h(s, t) and (s, t) respectively, while the initial
conditions are set to zero. A convenient and generally accepted normalization here is to dene k =b/U
(reduced frequency) so that we may take b = 1. Therefore, the Possio equation can be reintroduced in new
variables dened on 1 < x < 1 as
w
a
(b x, ) =
_
1
1

P( x

, k)

A(

, )d

, | x| < 1 (16)
where the new kernel

P is dened as

P( x, k) = P(b x, ) and the new variable

A( x, ) = b

A(b x, ).
We shall use an existing solution of the Possio equation for M = 0 as function of the plunge and pitch
to feed into the structural equations, following [11].
In order that we obtain the actual solution

A given the downwash w

a
dened in (15), we take advantage
of the nature of the dependence of w
a
(b x, ) on the variable x and the linearity of the problem. Observe
that it is enough that we solve the Possio integral equation (16) for

A when w
a
= f
i
and i = 1, 2 where
f
1
( x) = 1, | x| < 1
f
2
( x) = x, | x| < 1.
We then let

A
1
and

A
2
denote the solutions of the Possio equation (16) corresponding to left hand side of f
1
and f
2
respectively, for every > 0. Therefore, we have

A(

, ) =
_

h(s, )

A
1
(

, ) +b

A
2
(

, )

(s, ) +

A
1
(

, )

(s, )(U ab)
_
(17)
Dening the w
i j
functions by
w
11
(M, ) =
_
1
1

A
1
(, )d (18)
w
12
(M, ) =
_
1
1

A
2
(, )d (19)
w
21
(M, ) =
_
1
1

A
1
(, )d (20)
w
22
(M, ) =
_
1
1

A
2
(, )d. (21)
then substituting (17) into (10) and (11), the lift and moment forces in Laplace domain can be expressed in
terms of the w
i j
functions as

L(s, ) = bU
2
_
k
b
w
11

h(s, ) +(kw
12
+(1ak)w
11
)

(s, )
_
(22)

M(s, ) = U
2
b
2
_
k
b
(w
21
aw
11
)

h(s, ) +(kw
22
+(1ak)w
21
akw
12
a(1ak)w
11
)

(s, )
_
.
(23)
The w
i j
can be calculated explicitly for M = 0 using solutions to the Possio equation (16) and are given in
[11] as explicit functions. Unfortunately, closed form solutions of the Possio equation for 0 < M < 1 are
still an open problem [1], but for the low speed conguration that we are considering, it is reasonable to use
the M = 0 solutions.
5 Aeroelastic Modes and Stability
We are now ready to consider the problem of stability of the aeroelastic system. We begin by taking Laplace
transforms in (1) and (2), setting all initial conditions to zero. Thus, we have

2
S

(s, ) +
2
m

h(s, ) +EI

(s, ) =

L(s, ), s
i
< s < s
i+1
(24)

2
S

h(s, ) +
2
I

(s, ) GJ

(s, ) =

M(s, ), s
i
< s < s
i+1
. (25)
Laplace transforming (3), we have

2
_
r
2
i
m
i

(s
i
, ) +l
i
m
i

h(s
i
, )
_
GJ
_

(s
i
+, )

(s
i
, )
_
= 0 (26)
or,
GJ

(s
i
+, ) = GJ

(s
i
, ) +
2
_
r
2
i
m
i

(s
i
, ) +l
i
m
i

h(s
i
, )
_
. (27)
Similarly, Laplace transforming (4) yields
EI

(s
i
+, ) = EIh

(s
i
, )
2
m
i
_

h(s
i
, ) +l
i

(s
i
, )
_
(28)
while the boundary conditions (5)(8) become

(0, ) = 0 (29)

(l+, ) = 0 (30)
and

(0, ) = 0

h

(0, ) = 0 (31)

(l, ) = 0

h

(l+, ) = 0. (32)
We should note that due to these boundary conditions, the conditions (27) and (28) at s = 0 become
GJ

(0+, ) =
2
_
r
2
0
m
0

(0, ) +l
0
m
0

h(0, )
_
(33)
EI

(0+, ) =
2
m
0
_

h(0, ) +l
0

(0, )
_
, (34)
and at s = l,
0 = GJ

(l+, ) = GJ

(l, ) +
2
(r
2
n+1

(l, ) +l
n+1

h(l, ))m
n+1
(35)
0 = EI

(l+, ) = EI

(l, )
2
m
n+1
(

h(l, ) +l
n+1

(l, )). (36)
Fixing , we have here a two-point boundary value problem for a system of ordinary differential equa-
tions with s as the independent variable. We may now invoke state space theory. Thus, let

Y(s, ) =
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_

h(s, )

(s, )

(s, )

(s, )

(s, )

(s, )
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
for 0 < s < l. After substituting the expression for

L and

M in (22) and (23) given in terms of the state
variables

h and

, the system of equations (24)-(25) can be expressed using the state equation

(s, ) = A()

Y(s, ), s
i
< s < s
i+1
where

A() is given by

A() =
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
w
1
0 0 0 w
2
0
0 0 0 0 0 1
w
3
0 0 0 w
4
0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
and
w
1
=
1
EI
_

2
m+Ubw
11
_
(37)
w
2
=
1
EI
_

2
S+bU
2
((1ak)w
11
+kw
12
)
_
(38)
w
3
=
1
GJ
_

2
S+b
2
U(w
21
aw
11
)
_
(39)
w
4
=
1
GJ
_

2
I

+b
2
U
2
(w
21
+kw
22
a(1ak)w
11
ak(w
21
+w
12
))
_
. (40)
Let Q be the 63 matrix
Q =
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 0 0
0 1 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 1
0 0 0
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
,
and let
E
i
=
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
1 0 0 0 0 0
0 1 0 0 0 0
0 0 1 0 0 0

2
m
i
EI
0 0 1

2
l
i
m
i
EI
0
0 0 0 0 1 0

2
l
i
m
i
GJ
0 0 0

2
r
2
i
m
i
GJ
1
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
, i = 0, 1, ..., n+1.
where E
i
is the transition matrix across a given node s
i
, relating the state at s
i
+ to that at s
i
as determined
by equations (27) and (28). In other words, Y(s
i
+) = E
i
Y(s
i
).
Then, at s
1
we have

Y(s
1
, ) = e
s
1
A()
E
0
Q
_
_

h(0, )

(0, )

(0, )
_
_
due to the boundary conditions (29) and (31) and the transition equations (33) and (34).
In general, the state Y(s) across the s
i
nodes can be expressed as

Y(s
i
, ) = e
A()(s
i
s
i1
)

Y(s
i1
+, )

Y(s
i
+, ) = E
i

Y(s
i
, ), i = 1, ..., n

Y(l, ) = e
A()(ls
n
)

Y(s
n
+, )

Y(l, ) = E
n+1

Y(l, ).
We now denote by P the 36 matrix:
P =
_
_
0 0 1 0 0 0
0 0 0 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 1
_
_
.
Hence, by the boundary conditions (30) and (32) prescribed at the end s = l, we must have
PE
n+1
e
A()(ls
n
)
E
n
e
A()s
n
s
n1
....E
1
e
A()s
1
E
0
Q
_
_

h(0, )

(0, )

(0, )
_
_
=
_
_

(l, )

(l, )

(l, )
_
_
=
_
_
0
0
0
_
_
. (41)
If we let
d(M, ,U) = det
_
PE
n+1
e
A()(ls
n
)
E
n
e
A()s
n
s
n1
....E
1
e
A()s
1
E
0
Q
_
, (42)
then (41) implies that
d(M, ,U) = 0, (43)
which generalizes a similar result in [10], without point masses. Note that if m
i
= 0 we have E
i
= I,
i = 0, 1, ..., n, n +1. For xed M, the roots of (43) are the aeroelastic modes, and the corresponding
solution

Y(, ) yields the mode shapes.
5.1 Structure Modes
The structure modes are obtained by setting U =0 in (43), and solving for the roots of d(M, , 0) =0. Note
that M plays no role here, since we are assuming a xed M = 0 which is again appropriate for low speed
ying wings.
Free-Free Structure Modes:
If we specialize to the case of no controls and no point masses, so that m
i
= 0 and set U = 0 and S = 0,
we obtain
d(M, , 0) =
1
2

4
(1+coshl cosl)sinhl = 0 (44)
where
= (w
1
)
1/4
=

w
4
w
1
=

2
m
EI
w
4
=

2
I

GJ
.
The determinant factorizes into two factors and we distinguish the zeros of each factor. The zeros of
1+coshl cosl = 0 are the bending modes and the zeros of sinhl = 0 are the torsion modes.
Setting = i, the bending mode frequencies are given by

n
=
_
x
n
l
_
2
_
EI
m
where x
n
are the roots of
1+cosx
n
coshx
n
= 0
and are also ordered by increasing magnitude. On the other hand, the torsion modes are
w
n
=
n
l

GJ
I

, n = 1, 2, ...
The corresponding mode shapes are obtained by solving (43) and obtaining the corresponding

Y(, ):

Y(s, ) = e
A()s
Q
_
_

h(0, )

(0, )

(0, )
_
_
.
We should note that = i = 0 is a root of (43) but the corresponding mode shape has zero elastic energy
and is classied as a rigid-body mode.
6 Root Locus/Flutter Speed
To determine aeroelastic stability, we start with the structure modes which were determined above by setting
U = 0 in (43). For U > 0, which is our main concern, the roots of (43) (aeroelastic modes) continue to be
countable and can be located by tracing the root locus using a computer program, taking advantage of the
fact that this determinant function for each U is analytic in (omitting the line 0). Moreover, for each
, d(M, ,U) is analytic in U and we may invoke the implicit function theorem, which implies that the
roots are analytic functions of U,
n
(U). Thus, if
n
(0) denote the zeros of d(M = 0, ,U = 0) which are
the same structure modes for S = 0, then
Re(
n
(0)) = 0;
n
(0) = i
n
and since the modes are not coupled we may use the usual terminology of bending modes and torsion
modes. For S = 0, the modes are coupled but for small S which is characteristic of the beams to which
we shall limit ourselves, the coupling is small enough so that we may still talk in terms of (predominately)
bending modes and torsion modes [4]. Note that these modes are ordered by increasing magnitude.
The utter speed U
F
is then dened as the minimum speed at which any of the modes
n
exhibit utter
[11]. In other words U
F
= inf{U : Re(
n
(U)) = 0}.
7 Flutter Analysis and Results
We now use the above methodology to carry out utter analysis for the ying wing conguration of gure 1
with the parameters listed in table 1. In particular, we trace the root locus for the rst bending, second bend-
ing modes as well as the rst and the second torsion modes with the varying free stream speed parameter
Figure 2: Flutter Analysis Flow Chart
U. This again entails nding the root of the determinant in (43) using a root nding algorithm which uses
the particular structure mode as an initial value and marching with the speed parameter U, until the real part
of the root changes sign from negative to positive. Using a simple program in Matlab, this strategy was
implemented to nd the root locus for the relevant modes. The program computations are completed in few
seconds on a 2.8 GHz Intel(R) Core (TM)i7 2640M processor with 4 GB of RAM, and the program allows
for any choice of parameters, number of panels (beams) or number and mass of equally spaced loads at the
junctions between the beams.
In the rst part of the study, we implemented the program with the parameters in table 1, to examine
the variation of the utter speed for the rst and second bending and torsion modes with the number of
panels comprising the wing (all else constant). In particular, we increase the span each time by adding an
additional 40 ft long beam, along with a 60 lb point mass at the junction, starting with a single 40 ft Goland
beam with no loads.
While we considered the simple case of equally spaced loads and similar beams, the program can be
easily modied to address variation in panel sizes and unequal spacing. The justication of this study is
motivated by the different Helios models with later models comprising additional panels and loads.
The result of the implementation shows that the rst and the second bending modes exhibit utter at
a critical speed which decreases each time an additional 40 ft panel and an additional 60 lb point mass
mounted at the panel junction are added. Figures 3 and 5 show this relationship with the number of 40 ft
panels comprising the wing plotted on the horizontal axis and the utter speed on the vertical axis. The
number of loads (point masses) in each case is equal to the number of panels +1, since a load is mounted
on each junction.
The utter speed goes from 134 ft/s to as low as 10 ft/sec as the above described variation is imple-
mented. However, table 2 and gure 5 contain an outlier, which is the bending mode for a 120 ft wing
consisting of three 40 ft panels articulated with two 60 lb loads, where there was no evidence of utter. The
result in this particular case in fact coincides with the rst torsion mode, as it happens that the second bend-
ing structure mode and the rst torsion mode are quite close at this conguration as seen in gure 15, which
shows all the natural frequencies of the structure with the varying number of (panels) beams comprising the
structure.
An example of the root locus which captures the real part of the Aeroelastic bending modes, versus
the free stream velocity is shown in gures 7 and 8 for the case of 240 ft ying wing with 5 point masses
uniformly placed along the wing. The utter speeds are 22.83 and 34.54 ft/s. This case is of particular
interest since it reects approximately the Helios HP03 model which underwent the mishap in 2003 [15].
The bending mode frequencies in Hertz as well as the normalized frequencies k =b/U correspond-
ing to the utter point are also plotted in gures 4 and 6 as functions of the wing span along with the
frequency and show a decreasing pattern. As expected, these frequencies are low falling in the range of
0.10.35.
For structures comprising three 40 ft beams or less, the torsion modes do not exhibit utter in the speed
range examined, but torsion utter occurs at relatively higher speeds for wing spans above 160 ft. Tables 4
and 5 show utter speeds and frequencies for 1st and 2nd torsion modes. Figure 12 shows the root locus of
an 80 ft wing consisting of 2 beams and one point mass for the rst torsion mode while gure 14 shows the
root locus for a 240 ft wing consisting of 6 beams and 5 point masses.
In the second part of the study, we consider a wing of xed span of 240 ft with a varying number of
beams and loads (60 lb point mass) at the junctions, starting with the basic 240 ft beam with no loads, then
two 120 ft beams with one load in the middle, and so on. This variation in the number of loads and beams
in the 240 ft wing causes the utter speed to decrease slightly, for the particular symmetric case considered
here as seen in gures 9 and 10. The effect becomes noticeable with about 5% change after incorporating
10 additional loads as seen in gures 9 and 10. Figures 11 and 12 depict how the utter frequencies change
as the number of panels and loads comprising the 240 ft wing in the case of the rst and second bending
modes. The gures also shows the natural frequencies for the 240 ft wing and how they change with the
number of beams and loads comprising the wing. Tables 2 and 3 list utter speeds and utter frequencies
for a ying wing with varying number of panels and point mass loads.
8 Conclusion
Algorithms based on continuum aeroelastic models are found to be effective in performing utter analysis
and can enhance the current CFD approach. The particular methodology presented for computing utter
speeds and performing stability utter analysis for an articulated ying wing in inviscid air ow [11] was
applied to a specic articulated structure model appropriate in describing HALE UAV type aircrafts with
highly exible wings and has given reliable results.
The algorithm depends on a continuum model formulation of both structure and aerodynamics and was
implemented using a Matlab Program which computes the root locus for any given mode of the structure.
We implemented the program to examine the variation of utter speed and utter frequency with the
number of panels and loads mounted onto the wing, for parameters and congurations capturing the He-
lios aircraft prototypes. The results conrm that utter is exhibited at low speed range (under 40 ft/sec)
Table 2: Flutter Speed and Frequency (1B)
Number of 40 ft Panels Structure 1st Bending Mode Flutter Speed (ft/s) Normalized Flutter Frequency (k)
1 ( No point masses) 9.026 134.0 0.2923
2 2.128 69.54 0.1470
3 0.9285 46.10 0.1207
4 0.5177 34.41 0.1070
5 0.3296 27.45 0.0994
6 0.2281 22.83 0.0949
7 0.1672 19.55 0.0918
8 0.1278 17.09 0.0897
9 0.1008 15.19 0.0882
10 0.0816 13.67 0.087
11 0.0673 12.44 0.0861
12 0.0565 11.42 0.0856
13 0.0481 10.55 0.0858
Table 3: Flutter Speed and Frequency (2B)
Number of 40 ft Panels Structure 2nd Bending Mode Flutter Speed (ft/s) Normalized Flutter Frequency (k)
1 ( No point masses) 24.88 112.7 0.8888
2 5.865 103.1 0.2499
3 2.560
4 1.427 52.22 0.1362
5 0.9085 41.59 0.1211
6 0.6287 34.54 0.1112
7 0.4608 29.54 0.1045
8 0.3522 25.8 0.0988
9 0.2778 22.92 0.0963
10 0.2248 20.00 0.0937
11 0.1856 18.75 0.0917
12 0.1558 17.20 0.0902
13 0.1327 15.90 0.0893
Table 4: Flutter Speed and Frequency (1T)
Number of 40 ft Panels Structure 1st Torsion Mode Flutter Speed (ft/s) Normalized Flutter Frequency (k)
5 1.814 55.98 0.1468
7 1.296 39.69 0.1215
8 1.134 43.59 0.1300
10 0.9069 58.42 0.1485
11 0.8245 38.02 0.1222
12 0.7557 34.82 0.1168
13 0.6976 32.1 0.1125
Table 5: Flutter Speed and Frequency (2T)
Number of 40 ft Panels Structure 2nd Torsion Mode Flutter Speed (ft/s) Normalized Flutter Frequency (k)
4 4.535 86.48 0.2325
7 2.591 69.77 0.1774
8 2.267 61.74 0.1637
10 1.814 56.72 0.1554
for wings more than 200 ft long with several loads (The Nasa technical report [15] mentions that Helios
HP03-2 aircraft which experienced the failure was ying at a speed of 37 ft/sec just before it experienced
the malfunction). The next necessary step in the analysis should involve incorporating the dihedral angle
formation into the model and the algorithm in order to further enhance the aeroelastic analysis of Helios
type aircrafts. Moreover, ner root nding algorithms of complex valued functions can further improve
the program and better separate the modes especially for higher aspect ratio wings where the bending and
torsion modes can become more difcult to separate. To further support the continuum approach and give
credibility to the results, a comparison with the CFD data for the same case study would be helpful, as was
done with the single Goland beam case in [13].
References
[1] BALAKRISHNAN, A.V. ; Aeroelasticity: The Continuum Theory, Springer, New York, 2012.
[2] SU, W. & CESNIK, C. E. S.; Dynamic Response of Highly Flexible Flying Wings, 47th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference 1 - 4 May
2006, Newport, Rhode Island.
[3] SU, W.; Coupled Nonlinear Aeroelasticity and Flight Dynamics of Fully Flexible Aircraft; Ph.D
Thesis, University of Michigan, 2008.
[4] PATIL, M. & HODGES, D.; Flight Dynamics of Highly Flexible Flying Wings, In Proceedings of the
International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Munich, Germany, June 2005.
[5] TANG, W. D. & DOWELL, E.; Experimental and Theoretical Study on Aeroelastic Response of High-
Aspect-Ratio Wings, AIAA JOURNAL, VOL. 39, NO. 8, 2001, PP. 14301441.
[6] TANG, W. D. & DOWELL, E.; Experimental and Theoretical Study of Gust Response for High-
Aspect-Ratio Wings, AIAA JOURNAL VOL. 40, NO. 3, MARCH 2002.
[7] RUNYAN, R.L. & WATKINS, C.E.; Flutter of a uniform wing with an arbitrarily placed mass ac-
cording to a differential equation analysis and a comparison with experiment, NASA TECHNICAL
REPORT, NACA TN 1848, 1949.
[8] GOLAND, M. & LUKE, Y.L.; A Study of the Bending Torsion Aeroelastic Modes for Airplane Wings,
J. OF AERONAUTICAL SCIENCES, VOLUME 16, NO. 7, JULY 1949, PP. 389396.
[9] GOLAND, M. & LUKE, Y.L.; The Flutter of a Uniform Wing with Tip Weights, J. OF APPL. MECH.,
VOLUME 15, NO. 1, MARCH 1948, PP. 1320.
[10] BALAKRISHNAN, A.V.; Dynamics and Control of Articulated Anisotropic Timoshenko Beams. IN
H. S. TZOU AND L.A. BERGMAN, EDS, DYNAMICS AND CONTROL OF DISTRIBUTED SYSTEMS.
CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY PRESS, 1998, PP. 121-201.
[11] BALAKRISHNAN, A. V. & ILIF, K. W.; A Continuum Aeroelastic Model for Inviscid Subsonic Wing
Flutter, JOURNAL OF AEROSPACE ENGINEERING, JUNE 2007.
[12] MARDANPOUR, P., HODGES, D.H., NEUHART, R. & GRAYBEAL, N.; Effect of Engine Placement
on Aeroelastic Trim and Stability of Flying Wing Aircraft, AIAA, 2012.
[13] SOTOUDEH, Z., HODGES, D.H. & CHANG, C.S.; Validation Studies for Aeroelastic Trim and Sta-
bility Analysis of Highly Flexible Aircraft. JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT 47(4), P. 12401247, 2010.
[14] PATIL, M.J., HODGES, D. & CESNIK, C. E. S.; Nonlinear aeroelastic analysis of complete aircraft
in subsonic ow. JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT 37(5):753 NO. 760, SEPOCT 2000.
[15] NOLL, T. E., BROWN, J. M., PEREZ-DAVIS, M. E., ISHMAEL, S. D., TIFFANY, G. C. & GAIER,
M.; Investigation of the Helios Prototype Aircraft Mishap, VOLUME 1, MISHAP REPORT, NASA
REPORT, JAN. 2004.
[16] JAWORSKI, J.; Nonlinear Aeroelastic Analysis of Flexible High Aspect Ratio Wings Including Corre-
lation With Experiment, PH.D. THESIS, DUKE UNIVERSITY, 2009.
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11