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

net/publication/281551027

Transonic Speed Flutter Analysis of a Rectangular Wing using the OpenFOAM

Computational Fluid Dynamics Code and the Dynamic Stiffness Method

Conference Paper · September 2015

DOI: 10.4203/ccp.108.110

CITATIONS READS

0 960

2 authors:

Hassan I. Kassem J.R. Banerjee

Fraunhofer Institute for Wind Energy Systems IWES City, University of London
35 PUBLICATIONS   277 CITATIONS    181 PUBLICATIONS   5,948 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

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

Free vibration of functionally graded beams and frameworks using the dynamic stiffness method View project

CFD simulation of SARS-CoV-2 airborne transmission View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hassan I. Kassem on 07 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Civil-Comp Press, 2015
Proceedings of the Fifteenth International Conference on
Paper 0123456789 Civil, Structural and Environmental Engineering Computing,
J. Kruis, Y. Tsompanakis and B.H.V. Topping, (Editors),
Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, Scotland

Transonic Speed Flutter Analysis of a Rectangular Wing

using the OpenFOAM Computational Fluid Dynamics
Code and the Dynamic Stiffness Method

H.I. Kassem and J.R. Banerjee

School of Mathematics, Computer Science & Engineering
City University London, United Kingdom

Abstract

This paper focuses on the coupling between a high fidelity aerodynamic model for
the flow field and a relatively low fidelity model for modal analysis of the structure
of a cantilever wing. This coupled aeroelastic model is implemented in one of the
widely used open source computational fluid dynamics code called OpenFOAM. The
methodology is developed to compute the structural displacements in the time domain
based on the free vibration modes of the structure by constructing the numerical model
directly from the modal analysis. The wing is idealized as a uniform cantilever beam
and the free vibrational normal modes are computed by using the dynamic stiffness
method. For each mode a second order ordinary differential equation as a function of
the generalized coordinates is solved. A density based solver using central difference
scheme of Kurganov and Tadmor is used to model the flow field. The main case study
in this paper is focused on the well-known Goland wing (without store), ”heavy” ver-
sion. It is a rectangular wing, but has a parabolic aerofoil cross-section which was
also assumed by other investigators. Predicted results from the current analysis show
reasonable agreement with published literature. The work, described in this paper, is
at the threshold of a fully coupled problem combining the dynamic stiffness method
for composite beams and/or plates and nonlinear fluid model for transonic flow.

Keywords: aeroelasticity, computational fluid dynamics, transonic flow, Goland wing,

flutter.

1 Introduction

Aeroelasticity is the science of studying the interaction between three main forces
namely; elastic, inertia and aerodynamics. In general, the interaction between these
two or three areas is classified as aeroelastic problems. Aeroelastic research started in

1
the late 1920’s and the subject matter has matured enormously over the years and now
there are many excellent books on the subject [1, 2, 3, 4].

One of the most dangerous aeroelastic instabilities is, of course the flutter. It is
a self-excited oscillation of elastic body in fluid stream. Flutter speed defines the
speed beyond which the aircraft becomes unstable. It means that if the aircraft flies at
this speed it will have steady harmonic oscillation of constant amplitude. This point
is the most critical point because if for any reason, free stream velocity exceeds the
flutter speed, the system will have divergent oscillation and the aircraft will eventually
vibrate in a violent way which could lead to the destruction of the aircraft. The fluid
flow instead of playing its natural role to damp the structural vibration, it will feed the
system with more and more energy until divergent oscillation occurs. The complexity
of flutter analysis arises from the fact that flutter involves interaction between fluid
mechanics and structural dynamics. Therefore an accurate description of the flow
field as well as structural dynamic behaviour together with a mechanism of coupling
between the two is essential for flutter analysis.

Avoiding flutter is a mandatory requirement in any aircraft design process. The

main challenge for this problem lies in the transonic flow region. The transonic flutter
limit appears to be low in any flight range. Therefore for an aircraft the most critical
flutter point generally arises when the flow is transonic. The phenomenon is called
transonic dip which has featured in the literature many times [5, 6]. The transonic
flow field is a transition between subsonic flow and supersonic flow exhibiting shock
waves and highly non-linear behaviour.

The transonic flow being non-linear poses a greater challenge over traditional linear
theories [7] which fail to predict accurately the aerodynamic properties. Therefore
solving the non-linear governing equations of fluid flow using numerical techniques
has become essential [8, 9, 10, 3]. Despite the computational cost of using CFD, it is
necessarily being used in the aeroelasticity field for greater accuracy and better flutter
prediction. This has given birth to a new field in aeroelasticity called computational
aeroelasticity which couples computational fluid dynamics (CFD) with computational
structural dynamics (CSD) [11].

In the next section a concise theoretical background is given focusing on the gov-
erning equations of the aeroelastic system. Then the numerical methods and the imple-
mented code are explained. Finally, the results of two validation cases are discussed
in detail. This work is a substantial extension of earlier research by the authors [12].
Here the earlier code is updated considerably to consider a cantilever wing and it is not
limited to model just two dimensional flow over an aerofoils. Also the latest version
of OpenFOAM-2.3.x has now been used which is computationally more efficient.

2
2 Theoretical Background
2.1 Aerodynamic Model
The governing equations of the flow used in this paper are the complete Euler equa-
tions [13, 14, 15]. If ρ, u, p and E are density, velocity, pressure and total energy
respectively, the Euler equations in vector notation will have the following form;

• Conservation of mass:
∂ρ
+ ∇ · [uρ] = 0 (1)
∂t
• Conservation of momentum:
∂(ρu)
+ ∇ · [u(ρu)] + ∇p = 0 (2)
∂t
• Conservation of total energy:
∂(ρE)
+ ∇ · [u(ρE)] + ∇ · [up] = 0 (3)
∂t

where ∇ is the nabla vector operator denoting , ∇ ≡ ∂i ≡ ∂x∂ i ≡ ( ∂x∂ 1 , ∂x∂ 2 , ∂x∂ 3 ). Thus
∂a1 ∂a2 ∂a3
for any vector a, ∇ · a is the divergence defined by ∇ · a ≡ ∂x 1
+ ∂x 2
+ ∂x 3
where
a1 , a2 and a3 are the components of a in x1 , x2 and x3 direction respectively. Also for
2
∂s
any scalar s, the gradient is ∇s ≡ ( ∂x , ∂s , ∂s ). In equation (3), E = e + |u|2 with
1 ∂x2 ∂x3
e the specific internal energy.

2.2 Aeroelastic Model

The wing is idealised as an assembly of bending-torsion coupled beam elements which
are governed by the following differential equations in free vibration, see Banerjee
[16, 17]
EIh0000 + mḧ − mxα α̈ = 0 (4)
GJα00 + mxα ḧ − Iα α̈ = 0 (5)
where h and α are the transverse displacement (heave) and torsional rotation (pitch)
respectively; EI and GJ are the bending and torsional stiffnesses; m is mass per unit
length; Iα represents the mass moment of inertia per unit length and xα denotes the
distance between the mass and elastic axes of the elements.
Note that when a non-uniform aircraft wing is idealised as a collection of bending-
torsion coupled beam elements, every element will have different mass (m), inertia
(Iα ), and stiffness properties (EI, GJ). The distance between mass axis and elastic
axis (xα ) can also vary from element to element.
Next the dynamic stiffness matrices for the beam elements [16, 18] are formulated
and assembled based on the equations of motion (4) and (5). After formulating the

3
global dynamic stiffness matrix (which will be frequency dependent) the analysis will
lead to a non-linear eigen-value problem to compute the natural frequencies and modes
of the system. The most accurate and efficient way to solve the problem is to use the
Wittrick-Williams algorithm [19], which is capable of converging upon all natural
frequencies of the system with certainty.

2.3 Modal Analysis

The main concept of the modal analysis is to represent the system displacements as a
linear combination of the free vibration mode shapes, particularly the first few modes
through the use of generalized coordinates. It is instructive to look at the general form
of the equations of motion which could be represented in the matrix form as follows

[M ]{q̈} + [K]{q} = {F } (6)

In equation (6), [M ] and [K] are the mass and stiffness matrices, and {F } and {q}
are the force and displacement vectors. The main objective now is to solve equation
(6) which represents the wing motion in two degrees of freedom namely the heave and
pitch. In order to solve the equations, the modal analysis methodology is used.
In general if a combination of the first few number of modes in free vibration say
N is used, then according to modal approach , i.e. the normal mode method, the
displacement vector can be represented by

{q} = [φ]{η} (7)

where [φ] is the modal matrix in which each column is an eigenvector of the free vi-
bration analysis resulting from eigen-problem and {η} is the generalized coordinates.
Premultiplying equation (6) by [φ]T and substituting using (7) and applying the eigen-
vectors orthogonality conditions lead to a set of second order ordinary differential
equations in generalized coordinates. Each equation is represented by its mode, say
ith mode [20, 21, 22] to give

η̈i + 2ζi ωi η̇ + ωi2 ηi = Qi ; i = 1, 2, . . . , N (8)

where

Qi = {φ}Ti {F } (9)
ωi2 = {φ}Ti [K]{φ}i (10)
1= {φ}Ti [M ]{φ}i (11)

and ζi in equation (8) is modal damping which is not considered in equation (6).
The modes are normalized in a way such that the generalized mass matrix became
an identity or unit matrix. In this paper the structural system is considered as an
undamped system.

4
 It is clear from the above equations that to calculate the system displacement vector
from equation (7), modal matrix [φ] and the generalized coordinates vector {η} should
be obtained first. Determining the first N modes to formulate the modal matrix [φ]
can be accomplished by the dynamic stiffness method as described in section 2.2.
Then to get the generalized displacement vector {η}, equation (8) should be solved.
It is a second order ordinary differential equation (ODE) in time. Here, it will be
solved using numerical integration in the time domain by Runge-Kutta scheme. when
seeking solution, equation (8) should be reduced to two first order ordinary differential
equations (ODE) in y1i and y2i by using the transformation y1i = ηi and y2i = η̇i which
leads to

ẏ1i = y2i (12)

ẏ2i = Qi − 2ζi ωi y2i − ωi2 y1i (13)

The system of equations (12) and (13) should be solved for each mode i. It is an
initial value problem and therefore, the initial conditions for y1i , y2i , ẏ1i and ẏ2i needs
to be specified from the initial values of the generalized coordinates.
The general initial conditions are:

h(0) = h0 ; α(0) = α0 (14)

ḣ(0) = ḣ0 ; α̇(0) = α̇0 (15)

{η0 } = [φ]−1 {q0 } (16)

{η̇0 } = [φ]−1 {q̇0 } (17)

2.4 Fluid Structure Coupling

As mentioned before, closely coupled interaction is considered in this study. Two
levels of coupling are required for which the first one is essentially time coupling
carried out by integrating the aerodynamic forces over the wing at every time step to
calculate the force vector {F }. The second level of interaction is coupling between the
structural displacements and the fluid solver. For the case in hand where the wing cross
section is considered to be rigid (non-deformable), the wing surface displacement will
be updated at every time step according to the calculated values of the lift force and
the pitching moment about the elastic axis. By knowing h and α from equation (7) the
new location P1 for point P0 on the wing is obtained from

{P1 } = [R]{P0 } + {h} (18)

where {h} is the displacement vector in the plunging direction and [R] is the rotation
matrix involving an angle α around the elastic axis. For a wing section normal to the

5
xy-plane, the rotation matrix by an angle α in radian around a unit vector in the z
direction through the elastic axis is
 
cosα −sinα 0
[R] = sinα cosα 0 (19)
0 0 1

3 Numerical Scheme and Background Information

The previous section was a general introduction about the mathematical foundation of
the aeroelastic problem of an aircraft wing idealized as beam elements.
In this section, the implementation of enhanced models for aeroelastic study will
be introduced and discussed. This section will also highlight the main challenges in
modelling fluid-structure interaction.
There are three main elements of the current problem. First, solving the governing
equations of the fluid flow using the finite volume method. The governing equations
will be solved numerically for a finite number of control volumes representing the
flow domain (discretization). The second element is the structural model which has
already been mentioned in detail in section 2.2. The third element is coupling between
structure and fluid which was outlined in section 2.4. In this section, the main aspects
of these elements will be discussed in greater details including a description of the
developed code.

3.1 The Fluid Solver ”rhoCentralFoam”

The main purpose of this work is to predict the transonic flutter. In the transonic
regime the flow is highly non-linear and unsteady. Moving and oscillating shock
waves are naturally the dominant features of transonic flow field. In order to pre-
dict such complex flow field with high fidelity, a special technique will be applied to
solve the governing equations outlined in section 2.1.
In this paper a density based solver called rhoCentralFoam is used. It is imple-
mented in an open source CFD code, OpenFOAM. The implementation of rhoCen-
tralFoam reveals some of the advantages of Riemann solver [15]. This solver has been
validated in different high speed compressible flow cases [23]. The density based
solver, rhoCentralFoam uses central difference schemes based on Kurganov and Tad-
mor formulation introduced in 2000 [24]. It was implemented in OpenFOAM by
Greenshields et al. in 2009 [15]. It is a semi-discrete, non-staggered central scheme.

3.2 Dynamic Mesh

Solving a particular case involves a moving solid object within a fluid medium and it
is necessary to devise some special strategy to include the movement. In this respect,

6
finite volume methods are usually used for solving fluid dynamics governing equa-
tions at fixed cells in space (control volumes). When the solid objects start to move
there will be a relative velocity between the boundaries and the mesh cells. There
are two approaches to solve this problem. The first approach relies on calculating the
movement of the mesh according to its boundary displacement but maintaining the
same number of grid cells. The second approach is to calculate the new position of
each grid cell with the possibility of removing or adding new cells as required. These
two techniques already implemented in OpenFOAM are particularly useful [25, 26].
In the current study, the first approach is used which basically solves Laplace equa-
tion for the grid displacement at every time step [25, 26]. A diffusion coefficient for
the mesh movement is the only parameter that should be specified by the user. Before
describing the governing equation of moving grid it is useful to examine the main dif-
ferences between static and dynamic mesh. Basically it is the relative speed between
the boundary and the mesh which has a direct relation with the flux through each
finite volume cell. Ignoring this relative speed could lead to numerical error in the
solution. Preventing this numerical problem requires applying the space conservation
law (SCL) which states [25, 13]
Z I
d
dV − n · vs dS = 0 (20)
dt V S

where V is an arbitrary moving volume, n is the unit vector normal to the surface and
vs is the surface speed.
Now attention is turned to the Laplace displacement mesh motion solver in Open-
FOAM, which solves for independent displacement vector d defined by
r(t + ∆t) = r(t) + d (21)
where r is the point position vector. Thus Laplace equation for mesh motions with k
as diffusion coefficient is
∇ · (k∇d) = 0 (22)
Equations (20) and (22) illustrate the main difference between static mesh solvers and
dynamic mesh solvers in OpenFOAM. Also a special boundary condition for mov-
ing walls velocity associated with dynamic mesh solver has to be used. It is called
movingWallVelocity which makes the normal flux to the wall equal to zero.
In order to couple the structural dynamics with the fluid flow solver, a new bound-
ary condition is developed called elasticDisplacement. The main function of elas-
ticDisplacement boundary condition is to calculate the force and moment over the
wing and calculate the corresponding displacement according to the free vibration
natural modes of the system.

4 Results and discussion

In this section two cases will be investigated to test the source code. Both cases are for
Goland wing. The first case is forced pitch oscillation and the second one is the elastic

7
response case to predict the transonic flutter. A wide range of operating conditions is
modelled to display the potential of the method presented in this study. It worth noting
that the Goland wing considered here is much heaver version of the original Goland
wing. It was introduced by Eastep and Olsen to be suitable as transonic flutter case
study [27]. The properties of this wing are given included in Table 1.

Property Value
Chord, c 1.829 m
Semispan, s 6.096 m
Thickness to chord ratio, 0.04
Mass, M 534.7 kg/m
Bending stiffness, EI 9.789 × 106 N m2
Torsional stiffness, GJ 0.989 × 106 N m2
Mass moment of inertia, Iα 129.5 kgm

Table 1: Goland Wing Properties

4.1 Case A: Pitching Goland wing

The first test case (case A) is a pitching rigid Goland wing in transonic flow free
stream (Mach 0.92) with 0.5◦ amplitude and 3.0 Hz frequency. These conditions were
selected based on the operating conditions reported in Refs. [28, 29, 30] which are
used to compare the present results.
The mesh was generated using GMSH software [31] instead of using one of Open-
FOAM meshing utilities. Figures 1 and 2 show the complete mesh and the mesh on
the wing surface. The computational domain is 10c × 6c × 5c with 169, 380 grid
cells. Despite the fact that the used mesh is coarse compared to previous studies for
this case [28, 29, 30], the predicted results show excellent agreement, see Figure 3.
The figure shows the moment coefficient versus the lift coefficient. CAPTSD is three-
dimensional, transonic, small-disturbance solver based on potential-flow equations
and ENS3DAE is inviscid Euler solution [29]. OpenFOAM in Figure 3 represents
the present study and Fluent is a commercial software. Fluent results are for inviscid
Euler solution using unstructured mesh reported by [28].

4.2 Case B: Flutter Analysis

In this case, the modal analysis was used to calculate the wing displacement as de-
scried in section 2.3. In order to apply the modal analysis and run the developed code,
the free vibration modes should be computed first according to the wing properties in
table 1. CALFUN-B code [16] was used to obtain the natural modes which is based
on the dynamic stiffness method descried in section 2.2. Figure 4 shows the normal-

8
 Figure 1: H-mesh type around Goland wing

Figure 2: Goland Wing Surface Mesh

0.02
OpenFOAM
ENS3DAE [29]
CAPTSD [29]
0.01 Fluent [28]
CM

-0.01

-0.02
-0.04 -0.02 0 0.02 0.04
Cl

Figure 3: Moment Coefficient verses Lift Moment

9
ized natural modes of the Goland wing idealised as a cantilever beam. The computed
natural frequencies are compared against some previous studies in Table 2.

ω1 = 12.6 rad/s

ω2 = 23.4 rad/s
Bending Torsion
ω3 = 65.1 rad/s ω4 = 85.0 rad/s

0 0.25 0.5 0.75 10 0.25 0.5 0.75 1

Normalized Spanwise Distance Normalized Spanwise Distance

Figure 4: Free Vibration Modes for Goland Wing

CALFUN-B Beran NASTRAN Chung

[29] (1D Beam)[32] [32]
1st Mode 2.01 1.97 1.95 1.93
2nd Mode 3.73 4.05 4.08 3.92
3rd Mode 10.36 9.65 - -
4th Mode 13.53 13.4 - -

Table 2: Frequency Results (Hz)

Next step is to model the dynamic response based on the computed modes to pin-
point the flutter velocity for a range of Mach numbers. For each test case non-matched-
point flow conditions were used which means that the Mach number and velocity
boundary conditions selected independently. Then based on fixed density, tempera-
ture and specific heat ratio values (standard-day, sea-level condition), pressure and the
other the thermophysical properties were calculated [28, 29, 30].
Each case was modelled for fixed rigid wing first, until convergence is achieved and
then the results were used as initial condition for the flow field. Finally, the structure
was perturbed with initial velocity at the wing tip. Figure 5 shows the predicted flutter
boundary compared with numerical results from literature[27, 30, 33]. It confirms the
validity of the present results. The four points in Figure 5 predicted by the OpenFOAM
were based on around 15 different simulation at these four Mach numbers and wide
range of free stream velocities.

10
 250 Theodorsen [27]
Doublet Lattice[27]
MSC/NASTRAN(FE)[30]
Flutter Speed, Uf (m/s)

CAPTSDv-NLS(Beam)[30]
200 CAPTSDv-NLS(FE)[30]
ZONA6[33]
OpenFOAM

150

100

0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95

Mach Number, M∞

Figure 5: Flutter boundary for Goland Wing

A selective few responses at M∞ = 0.8 are highlighted in Figures 6, 7 and 8. Figure

6 shows the generalized displacement of sub-critical response which is dominated by
the first mode. After increasing the velocity gradually and keeping the Mach number
fixed, a self-sustained oscillating response obtained around V∞ = 110 m/s, see Figure
7. Also it is clear from Figure 7 that the first mode is dominating the response. Finally,
Figure 8 shows the heave response near the wing tip at different free stream velocities
which clearly demonstrate the changes in both phase and amplitude of the dynamic
response.

5 Conclusions

In this paper the main aspects of computational aeroelasticity are discussed. The
newly implemented code in OpenFOAM for coupling the fluid-structure interaction
based on free vibration natural modes of an aircraft wing is discussed. One case is for
forced pitching wing which has been investigated in detail and the predicted results are
compared against numerical results from the literature. A second case for elastic wing
based on the newly developed code has been investigated. The free vibration natural
modes were computed using the dynamic stiffness method. Also the computed natural
frequencies were compared with published values in the literature. These case studies
are carefully assessed and verified. Results from the implemented code showed good
agreement with numerical predictions found in the literature. In the future work, a
wider range of Mach number will be investigated.

11
 0.01
Mode1
Mode2
Generalized Displacement, q

Mode3
Mode4
0.005

-0.005

-0.01
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Non-Dimensional Time, τ

Figure 6: Damped Response. M∞ = 0.8, V∞ = 80m/s

0.02
Mode1
Mode2
Generalized Displacement, q

Mode3
Mode4
0.01

-0.01

-0.02
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Non-Dimensional Time, τ

Figure 7: Near flutter point Response. M∞ = 0.8, V∞ = 110m/s

12
 0.03
80 m/s
100 m/s
0.02 110 m/s
120 m/s
Heave Displacement, h

0.01

-0.01

-0.02

-0.03
0 50 100 150 200 250 300
Non-Dimensional Time, τ

Figure 8: Heave Response of the tip, M∞ = 0.8

References
[1] R. Bisplinghoff, H. Ashley, R. Halfman, Aeroelasticity, Dover Books on Aero-
nautical Engineering Series. Dover Publications, 1996.
[2] Y.C. Fung, An Introduction to the Theory of Aeroelasticity, Dover Phoenix
Edition: Engineering. Dover Publications, Incorporated, 2002.
[3] R. Clark, D. Cox, H. Curtiss, E. Dowell, J. Edwards, K. Hall, D. Peters, R. Scan-
lan, E. Simiu, F. Sisto, A Modern Course in Aeroelasticity, Solid Mechanics and
Its Applications. Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2006.
[4] W. Rodden, Theoretical and Computational Aeroelasticity, Crest Publishing,
2011.
[5] K. Isogai, “On the Transonic-Dip Mechanism of Flutter of a Sweptback Wing”,
AIAA Journal, 17(7): 793–795, July 1979.
[6] K. Isogai, “Transonic dip mechanism of flutter of a sweptback wing. II”, AIAA
Journal, 19(9): 1240–1242, Sept. 1981.
[7] O.O. Bendiksen, “Review of unsteady transonic aerodynamics: Theory and ap-
plications”, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 47(2): 135–167, Feb. 2011.
[8] O.O. Bendiksen, G. Seber, “Fluidstructure interactions with both structural and
fluid nonlinearities”, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 315(3): 664–684, Aug.
2008.
[9] R.M. Bennett, J.W. Edwards, “An overview of recent developments in computa-
tional aeroelasticity”, AIAA paper, (98-2421), 1998.
[10] G.P. Guruswamy, “A review of numerical fluids/structures interface methods for
computations using high-fidelity equations”, Computers & structures, 80(1):
31–41, 2002.
[11] D.M. Schuster, D.D. Liu, L.J. Huttsell, “Computational aeroelasticity: success,

13
 progress, challenge”, Journal of Aircraft, 40(5): 843–856, 2003.
[12] H.I. Kassem, X. Liu, J.R. Banerjee, “Flutter Analysis using a Fully Coupled
Density Based Solver for Inviscid Flow”, in B.H.V. Topping, P. Ivnyi, (Edi-
tors), ”Proceedings of the Twelfth International Conference on Computational
Structures Technology”. Civil-Comp Press, Stirlingshire, UK, Paper 146, 2014.
doi:10.4203/ccp.106.146
[13] J.H. Ferziger, M. Perić, Computational methods for fluid dynamics, Volume 3,
Springer Berlin, 1996.
[14] H.K. Versteeg, W. Malalasekera, An Introduction to Computational Fluid Dy-
namics: The Finite Volume Method, Pearson Education Limited, 2007.
[15] C.J. Greenshields, H.G. Weller, L. Gasparini, J.M. Reese, “Implementation of
semi-discrete, non-staggered central schemes in a colocated, polyhedral, finite
volume framework, for high-speed viscous flows”, International journal for
numerical methods in fluids, 63(1): 1–21, 2010.
[16] J.R. Banerjee, “A FORTRAN routine for computation of coupled bending-
torsional dynamic stiffness matrix of beam elements”, Advances in Engineering
Software, 13(1): 17–24, Jan. 1991.
[17] J.R. Banerjee, X. Liu, H.I. Kassem, “Aeroelastic stability analysis of high aspect
ratio aircraft wings”, Journal of Applied Nonlinear Dynamics, 3(4): 413–422,
2014.
[18] J.R. Banerjee, “Explicit frequency equation and mode shapes of a cantilever
beam coupled in bending and torsion”, Journal of Sound and Vibration, 224(2):
267–281, 1999.
[19] W. Wittrick, F. Williams, “A general algorithm for computing natural frequen-
cies of elastic structures”, The Quarterly Journal of Mechanics and Applied
Mathematics, 24(3): 263–284, 1971.
[20] J. Alonso, A. Jameson, “Fully-implicit time-marching aeroelastic solutions”,
AIAA paper, (94-0056), 1994.
[21] F. Liu, J. Cai, Y. Zhu, H.M. Tsai, A.S. F. Wong, “Calculation of Wing Flutter by
a Coupled Fluid-Structure Method”, Journal of Aircraft, 38(2): 334–342, Mar.
2001.
[22] R. Kamakoti, Y. Lian, S. Regisford, A. Kurdila, W. Shyy, “Computational aeroe-
lasticity using a pressure-based solver”, CMES- Computer Modeling in Engi-
neering and Sciences, 3(6): 773–789, 2002.
[23] L.F.G. Marcantoni, J.P. Tamagno, S.A. Elaskar, “HIGH SPEED FLOW SIMU-
LATION USING OPENFOAM”, in Mecánica Computacional Vol XXXI, pages
2936–2959. Asociación Argentina de Mecánica Computacional, 2012.
[24] A. Kurganov, E. Tadmor, “New High-Resolution Central Schemes for Nonlinear
Conservation Laws and ConvectionDiffusion Equations”, Journal of Computa-
tional Physics, 160(1): 241–282, 2000.
[25] H. Jasak, Z. Tukovic, “Automatic mesh motion for the unstructured finite volume
method”, Transactions of FAMENA, 30(2): 1–20, 2006.
[26] H. Jasak, “Dynamic Mesh Handling in OpenFOAM”, 43rd AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, pages 1–10, 2008.

14
 [27] F.E. Eastep, J. Olsen, “Transonic Flutter Analysis of a Rectangular Wing with
Conventional Airfoil Sections”, AIAA Journal, 18(10): 1159–1164, Oct. 1980.
[28] G.H. Parker, Dynamic Aeroelastic Analysis of Wing/Store Configurations, PhD
thesis, Air Force Institute of Technology, Dec. 2005.
[29] P.S. Beran, N.S. Khot, F.E. Eastep, R.D. Snyder, J.V. Zweber, “The Dependence
of Store-Induced Limit-Cycle Oscillation Predictions on Modelling Fidelity”,
Mar. 2003.
[30] P.S. Beran, T.W. Strganac, K. Kim, C. Nichkawde, “Studies of Store-Induced
Limit-Cycle Oscillations Using a Model with Full System Nonlinearities”, Non-
linear Dynamics, 37(4): 323–339, Sept. 2004.
[31] C. Geuzaine, J.F. Remacle, “Gmsh: A 3-D finite element mesh generator with
built-in pre-and post-processing facilities”, International Journal for Numerical
Methods in Engineering, 79(11): 1309–1331, 2009.
[32] C. Chung, S. Shin, “Worst case flutter analysis of a stored wing with struc-
tural and aerodynamic variation”, in AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference, Orlando, Florida.[Links], 2010.
[33] M. Kurdi, N. Lindsley, P. Beran, “Uncertainty quantification of the Goland wings
flutter boundary”, in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Ex-
hibit, pages 20–23. AIAA Hilton Head, SC, 2007.

15

View publication stats