We are IntechOpen,

the world’s leading publisher of

Open Access books
Built by scientists, for scientists

6,800
Open access books available
183,000
International authors and editors
200M Downloads

Our authors are among the

154
Countries delivered to
TOP 1%
most cited scientists
12.2%
Contributors from top 500 universities

Selection of our books indexed in the Book Citation Index

in Web of Science™ Core Collection (BKCI)

Interested in publishing with us?

Contact [email protected]
Numbers displayed above are based on latest data collected.
For more information visit www.intechopen.com
Chapter

Research on Aeroelasticity
Phenomenon in Aeronautical
Engineering
Hoang Thi Kim Dung and Nguyen Phu Khanh

Abstract

Aeroelasticity phenomena arise when structural deformations induce changes

on aerodynamic forces due to airplane structures that are not completely rigid.
The additional aerodynamic forces cause an increase in the structural deforma-
tions, which leads to greater aerodynamic forces in a feedback process. These
interactions may become smaller until reaching a condition of equilibrium or may
diverge catastrophically if resonance occurs. Flutter is an instability aeroelasticity
phenomenon which is the most difficult to predict. In this chapter, a numerical
method and an experimental method were realized to predict aeroelastic response
and characteristic parameters of a wing structure. The numerical method was
firstly developed based on the interaction between computational fluid dynamic
and computational structural dynamic methods using a coupling system, fluid–
solid interaction (FSI), in the ANSYS software. Then, an experiment was set up in
suitable conditions to study aeroelasticity characteristics with the goal of compar-
ing the numerical results with the experimental results on the same wing structure
at low speed. After that, a developed code based on immersed boundary method
(IBM) was realized to predict aeroelasticity response and characteristic parameters
of the wing structure. AGARD 445.6 wing model was chosen for this developed
procedure at high speed. Obtained results were compared to other numerical and
experimental results.

Keywords: aeroelasticity, flutter, FSI, IBM, ANSYS

1. Introduction

Flutter is defined as the dynamic instability of aeroelasticity. Flutter is one of the

most dangerous aeroelasticity phenomena as it could lead to a destroyed structure.
The reason is the unsteady aerodynamic forces generated from elastic deformations
of the structure that are usually involved with complicated phenomena such as the
shock wave/boundary layer interaction, flow separation, nonlinear limited cycle
oscillation, and more. Flutter is determined as a critical issue determining the
reliability of the airplane wings or aircraft engine turbo-machine blades. Therefore,
in the early phase of the structural design of the air vehicle, aircraft engine turbo-
machinery, flutter problems should be calculate and predicted. However, accurate
prediction of the flutter is very challenging due to the perplexing physical phenom-
ena and the required large amount of computation [1–4].

1
Aerodynamics

Coupled aeroelastic solution procedures use strongly coupled algorithms which

contained sufficient interaction between computational fluid dynamics (CFD) and
computational structural dynamics (CSD). As computer technology progresses,
higher-order methods of CFD based on the Euler and the Navier-Stokes equations
become more attractive due to the ability of the model and its more accurately
transonic, nonlinear, and viscous effects. CFD has also advanced from two-
dimensional problems to fully three-dimensional problems with or without
coupled solution of the structural equations (CSD). The flow solvers used in
aeroelastic analysis include 3D Euler and Navier-Stokes solvers which assumed
inviscid flow.
The dynamic response of flutter characteristics of the first AGARD 445.6 wing
standard aeroelastic configuration was studied using an unsteady Navier-Stokes
algorithm in order to investigate a previously noted discrepancy between Euler
flutter characteristics and the experimental data [5]. The 3D implicit upwind
Euler/Navier-Stokes code (CFL3D Version 2.1) was previously modified for the
time-marching aeroelastic analysis of wings using the unsteady Euler equations.
A linear stability analysis and a time-marching aeroelastic analysis were used to
determine the flutter characteristics of the isolated 45° swept-back wing. The flutter
characteristics of the wing were determined using traditional V-g analysis. This
stability analysis was determined at free-stream Mach numbers of 0.96 and 1.141
using the generalized aerodynamic forces calculated by solving the Euler equations
and the Navier-Stokes equations.
Computational flutter required a fluid-structure interface as a common bound-
ary to exchange the aerodynamic loads and structural displacements at the wing
surface. But, the aerodynamic and structural grids were not coincident due to
different systems used (fluent solver for aerodynamic grids and mechanical ADPL
solver for structural grids). Therefore, the system coupling tool in ANSYS Work-
bench was used to transfer the aerodynamic pressure loads from the CFD grid
points to the CSD grid points and vice versa, which ensured a conservative transfer
of energy between the two systems [6].
Time-accurate aeroelastic simulations were carried out using the modal coupled
aeroelastic implementation for a standard experimental test case: the AGARD
445.6 aeroelastic wind tunnel model in the subsonic and transonic regions [7].
A numerical methodology coupling Navier-Stokes equations and structural modal
equations for predicting 3D transonic wing flutter was described in [8]. A modal
approach is used for the structural response. The results indicate that the first five
modes are sufficient to accurately model the wing structure response. In Ref. [9], an
unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) model was coupled with nor-
mal modes of structure to predict the flutter boundary for the AGARD 445.6 wing.
A new integrated CFD-CSD simulation for flutter calculations based on a parallel,
multiblock, multigrid flow solver for the Euler/Navier-Stokes equations using the
ANSYS software was found in [10]. Computations were performed for a three-
dimensional test case of AGARD 445.6 wing to validate and establish the usefulness
of the simulation. Immersed boundary method solved Navier-Stokes equations
for flow in couple with the Newton equation for structure movement under the
effect of friction force exerted on the structure surface to carry out fluid–structure
interaction (FSI). However, computational grids needed to be re-meshed in each
time step due to changes of the structure position in time. To overcome this
obstacle, immersed boundary method and finite volume methods were both
invoked in solving the interaction between fluid flow and moving structure [11].
This research estimated the numerical and experimental results on the wing

2
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

structure at a low speed with four different wing models such as two rectangular
and two trapezoid 3D-shape wings, each 3D-shape wing had symmetric and asym-
metric airfoil, respectively.
The subsonic aeroelastic stability of a two-dimensional panel resting on a
continuous elastic foundation was investigated in Ref. [12]. Tests were conducted
experimentally on a 104  24  0.018 in. rectangular aluminum panel in a low-
speed wind tunnel. Comparison of experiment and theory showed a good agree-
ment in flutter speed and wavelength but poor agreement in wave speed and
frequency at flutter. This discrepancy was attributed to the limitations in the test
setup as well as to the general difficulty of predicting the wave speed and frequency
as accurately as the flutter speed. Reference [13] tested the first AGARD standard
aeroelastic configuration for dynamic response, 445.6 wing, in the 16 foot transonic
dynamics tunnel at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
Langley Research Center. Several models of the wing were tested in the transonic
dynamic tunnel including full-span and semispan models over a range of Mach
number from 0.338 to 1.141. The NASA conducted experiments in wind tunnel to
estimate the aeroelastic characteristics of new and advanced flight vehicles, includ-
ing fixed-wing, rotary-wing, and space-launch configurations. Reviews and assess-
ments were made regarding available facilities, measurement techniques, and other
means and devices useful in testing. The needs and requirements for advances
and improvements in testing capabilities for future experimental research and
development programs are described [14].
In [15], aeroelastic concepts for increased aircraft performance were mentioned.
Active aeroelastic concepts as well as robust analysis concepts aiming at efficient
analysis were carried out using numerical models with uncertain or varying model
parameters. A high aspect ratio wing in wind tunnel testing conditions was consid-
ered for exploitation of fluid-structure interaction of active aeroelastic structures.
The structural flexibility was exploited by using multiple control surfaces such that
the deformed wing shape gives minimum drag for different flight conditions. Two
different drag minimization methods were carried out: one was to reduce induced
drag based on numerical optimization techniques, and another was to reduce
measured total drag using real-time optimization in the wind tunnel experiment.
An approach for the prediction of dynamic modal transient response and flutter
characteristics of structures with unknown system parameters, such as stiffness and
mass, using experimental modal parameters was remarked in [16]. A finite element
model was created by using the actual material properties of the structure to study
the correlation of the results. The computed transient responses and flutter veloci-
ties by the proposed method using experimental modal parameters observed that
material properties were not a prerequisite.
In Ref. [17], transonic flutter characteristics of AGARD 445.6 wing between the
numerical method [5] and the experimental data of NASA’s experiment were com-
pared [13]. The comparison provided the basis for developing the numerical setup
and the experimental setup to check out subsonic flutter characteristics of some
simple wing structures (e.g., a thin plate). Aeroelasticity on airplane wing, which
had supercritical airfoil, was carried out in [18]. The model wings were made from
different materials and dimensions. Hence, varied wing structures were created to
accomplish a comprehensive analysis, and the flutter velocity was also restricted to
appropriate values within the working range of experiment devices. At the same
time, infinite element method with the help of the ANSYS software was also
conducted to simulate the phenomena on the same model wings as a verification for
the precision of the experimental models.

3
Aerodynamics

2. Two-way FSI method

2.1 FSI method

The generalized equations of aeroelasticity motion:

ð1Þ

ð2Þ

where:
w: structural displacement at any time instant and position.
q: generalized displacement vector.
[M]: generalized mass matrice.
[C]: damping matrice.
[K]: stiffness matrices.
ϕ: normal modes of the structure.
N: total number of modes of the structure.
F: generalized force vector, which is responsible for linking the unsteady aero-
dynamics and inertial loads with the structural dynamics.
Eq. (1) shows that there are distinct terms representing the structure, aerody-
namic, and dynamic disciplines. This equation was solved numerically by integrated
CFD-CSD tool on the ANSYS software. This method was also called the two-way
fluid-solid interaction (FSI). Aerodynamic loads were first calculated by CFD
solver. Then, these loads were used to calculate the structural response of the wing
structure through the fluid-solid interface. By using CSD solver, the structural
deflection was estimated, and the mesh in each time step was deformed. The
simulation of the two-way FSI is presented in Figure 1 [10].

Figure 1.
Two-way FSI algorithm.

4
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

Following [8], the first four modes of vibration were sufficient to accurately
model the wing structure response. So, in order to determine the time step of the
unsteady problem, a modal method was applied to estimate first the natural fre-
quency of the first four modes and then calculate the time step using the following
formula:

ð3Þ

where:
Δt: time step
f: natural frequency
The flutter velocity was estimated from the vibration of the wing tip position,
the most dangerous position of the wing [5, 8, 9, 13]. From the variation of this
position, the damping coefficient except the influence of structural damping was
measured. It means that there was an effect of aerodynamic damping coefficient on
the vibration of the wing structure. The aerodynamic damping coefficient was
calculated as follows:

ð4Þ

where:
Xi: ith peak of vibration.
n: number of periods.
ζ: aerodynamic damping coefficient.
The damping coefficient increased/decreased when the air velocity decreased/
increased. The type of vibration was distinguished from the value of damping
coefficient:

• ζ > 0: The vibration was convergent. The wing structure was stable.

• ζ < 0: The vibration was divergent. The wing structure was unstable.

• ζ = 0: The vibration was harmonic oscillation. The wing was in critical state.
The air velocity was in the flutter velocity.

2.2 Wing model

AGARD 445.6 wing with aspect ratio of 1.65, taper ratio of 0.66, and 45o sweep
angle at quarter chord line was studied as seen in Figure 2. The cross section of the
wing was NACA65A004 airfoil in the stream-wise direction. This NACA65A004
airfoil was a symmetric airfoil with a maximum thickness of 4% of the local chord.
The dimensions of the wing were root chord of 0.558 m, tip chord of 0.368 m, and
semispan of 0.762 m. The wing model used in aeroelastic experiments [13] was
constructed by laminated mahogany which was modeled as an orthotropic material
with different material properties in different directions. The properties of the
laminated mahogany are given in Table 1. The modal analysis was performed using
mechanical APDLs solver to evaluate the accuracy of the constructed model.
The AGARD 445.6 wing was modeled at a zero attack angle and at altitudes of
9.65 and 14 km, the same conditions of experimental study in [13]. The wing was

5
Aerodynamics

Figure 2.
Semispan AGARD 445.6 wing model.

Material property E11 E22 E33 G υ ρ

Value 3.151 0.416 0.416 0.439 0.310 397.5

Unit GPa GPa GPa GPa N/m2 kg/m3

Table 1.
Mechanical properties for the weakened AGARD 445.6 wing.

Figure 3.
Computational grids. (a) AGARD 445.6 wing grids. (b) Fluid computational grids.

meshed in 9257 nodes and 1350 elements (Figure 3a). The fluid domain in CFD
problem was meshed in 67,949 nodes and 279,535 elements (Figure 3b).
The free-stream air velocity was from 0.29 to 0.59 M at an altitude of 9.65 km
and from 0.47 M to 0.73 M at an altitude of 14 km.

2.3 Results

2.3.1 Modal analysis

The mode shapes are obtained from the finite element analysis of the modeled
wing. The deflection contours between the modal analysis and experiment [13]
were compared as shown in Figure 4. The natural frequencies between the devel-
oped solution, experiment [13], and other researches were also compared as shown
in Table 2. It could be concluded that the obtained results were in good agreement

6
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

Figure 4.
Comparison of the mode shapes. (a) Mode 1. (b) Mode 2. (c) Mode 3. (d) Mode 4.

with the experimental results in [4, 6, 13] within an error relative of 8%. The
frequency of the first mode was around 9.96 Hz. Following Eq. (3), the time step of
the unsteady problem was estimated about 0.005 s.

2.3.2 Damping analysis

At altitude 9.65 km, the Mach number of air velocity was varied from 0.29 to
0.59 (M = 0.29; 0.35; 0.41; 0.47; 0.53; 0.59). From Eq. (4), the aerodynamic
damping coefficient was calculated and presented in Figure 5a. The zero damping

7
Aerodynamics

coefficients were interpolated at Mach number 0.46. While the experimental zero
damping was 0.499 in [13], the difference between simulation results and results of
[13] was about 8%.

Mode 1 Mode 2 Mode 3 Mode 4

Modal analysis 9.96 41.5 52.95 99.99

Kolonay [4] 9.63 37.12 50.50 89.94

Erkut and Ali [6] 10.85 44.57 56.88 109.10

Yates [13] 9.6 38.1 50.7 98.5

Table 2.
Natural frequencies of modal analysis.

Figure 5.
Aerodynamic damping coefficients. (a) At altitude 9.65 km. (b) At altitude 14 km.

8
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

At altitude 14 km, the Mach numbers of air velocity were varied from 0.47 to
0.73 (M = 0.47; 0.53; 0.59; 0.65; 0.67; 0.73). From Eq. (4), the aerodynamic
damping coefficient was calculated and presented in Figure 5b. The zero damping
coefficients were interpolated at Mach number 0.58. While the experimental zero
damping was 0.678 in [13], the difference within simulation results was about 14%.

Figure 6.
Vibration of wing at altitude H = 9.65 km. (a) M = 0.29 – ζ = 0.0071. (b) M = 0.47 – ζ = 0.000125.
(c) M = 0.53 – ζ = 0.006.

9
Aerodynamics

In both the two considered altitudes (9.65 and 14 km), the numerical results
agreed well with the experimental results of [13] with a relative error about 14%.
This difference would be from the computation such as the quality of mesh and
order of model in CFD and CSD.
For more details of the stability of the wing structure, the vibrated value of the
wing tip position at three Mach numbers were plotted as shown in Figure 5.
At a Mach number smaller than the flutter value, the damping coefficient was
positive, and the wing was stable (Figure 6a).
At a Mach number near the flutter value, the damping coefficient was zero, and
the vibration was harmonic oscillation (Figure 6b).
At a Mach number greater than the flutter value, the damping coefficient was
negative, and the vibration was divergent (Figure 6c). This divergent vibration

Figure 7.
Comparison of Cp distribution at M = 1.141, α = 0°. (a) 26 % semispan. (b) 75.5 % semispan.

10
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

would create the damage of the wing such as loss of control for the flap, aileron,
fracture of wing, etc.

2.3.3 Simulation analysis

Dynamic aeroelastic analysis was a problem related to fluid-structure interaction

over a period of time. Therefore, the quality of aerodynamic grid and the time step
strongly influenced the results of aeroelastic analysis. These parameters were also
two of the most important problems in the dynamic aeroelastic analysis.
In order to evaluate the quality of aerodynamic grid, the coefficient of pressure
of AGARD 445.6 wing was first estimated at 26% semispan and at 75.5% semispan
and then was compared with Ref. [6] as shown in Figure 7. The presented results
were in good agreement with the results in Ref. [6]. It could be concluded that these
simulation settings were appropriate for solving the transonic flow.
To evaluate the time step size, three different time sizes were examined such as
0.001, 0.002, and 0.005 s. As it could be seen in Figure 8, the displacement of the
wing tip was reduced with the reduction of time step size up to 0.002 s until the
aeroelastic simulation did not change [6]. Therefore, the value 0.002 s of time step
size in the numerical solution was chosen for both aerodynamic and structural
analysis.
The limit of flutter was identified by using damping estimations for a large test
point at each Mach number. At M = 0.499, the oscillation of the displacement of the
wing tip was harmonic (Figure 9), and it was considered as a flutter point. At this
limit of flutter, the air speed was calculated as 174.26 m/s, and the density of air
was calculated as 0.432 kg/m3. These values were very close to the experimental
values: 172.46 m/s for flutter speed and 0.428 kg/m3 for density of air (Table 3).

Figure 8.
Wing-tip oscillation depends on the selected time step.

Figure 9.
Wing-tip oscillation of flutter point at M = 0.499.

11
Aerodynamics

Velocity (m/s) Density (kg/m3) Frequency at flutter (Hz)

Baskut [6] 171.84 0.3987 21.67

Yates [13] 172.5 0.42770 20.39

Simulation 174.257 0.43164 18.87

Relative error with [13] 1% 1% 7%

Table 3.
Flutter characteristics at M = 0.499.

This remark illustrated that the developed solution could be used to specify the
transonic flutter characteristics with errors less than 10%.

3. Experimental method

3.1 Experimental setup

The test model was set in AF6116 (M = 0.1) subsonic wind tunnel located at
the Hanoi University of Science and Technology, which was of a blowdown type
with a closed test section (0.4  0.5  1.0 m3). The wind speed could be arbitrarily
varied up to 30 m/s, where the Reynolds number based on wing root chord was 106,
which was driven by an 8 kW electric motor.
Flutter characteristics were determined with the help of the frequency meter
and load cell, which allowed to specify the flutter frequency and root wing force,
respectively. The oscillated frequency was measured by the DT-2234C+ frequency
meter. The signal of measured frequency was averaged by five measurements. The
force applied to the wing was measured by load cell system. In the experimental
aeroelastic analysis, the flutter frequency and the flutter amplitude were measured
at different velocities ranging from 10 to 30 m/s using an oscillator generator
system.

3.2 Wing model

Two wing models with the parameter and dimension are shown in Figure 10
and Table 4. The non-structure wing had only balsa wood, while the structure wing
had balsa wood for skin and carbon rod and hard wood for the inner parts.

3.3 Results

Experimental results showed that a flutter phenomenon appeared with the

non-structure wing (broken wing in Figure 10c), but this phenomenon did not
happen with the structure wing model. It could be explained by the more durability
of structure wing than that of the non-structure wing with the testing range of
velocity. Experiments also demonstrated that the combination of multiple materials
to more durability of structure of wing could be highly effective in preventing
flutter phenomenon [18].
The measurement results of the non-structure wing were shown in Table 5.
When the attack angle increased, the velocity of first oscillation, flutter velocity,
and frequency decreased.
Figure 11 resumed the measurement of the force at the wing root in varying
velocities from zero to flutter velocity and more by using the load cell system. After
increasing the air velocity from zero to the limit of non-structure wing, the limit

12
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

Figure 10.
Experimental models. (a) Wing model. (b) Wing with support. (c). Broken wing.

Wing 1 (non-structure) Wing 2 (with structure)

Chord length 300 mm 300 mm

Root chord length 500 mm 500 mm

Tip chord length 100 mm 100 mm

Profile NACA65A004 NACA65A004

Taper ratio 0.5 0.5

Material Balsa wood Balsa wood, carbon rod, hard wood

Mass 5.1 g 11.6 g

Table 4.
Wing models.

Attack angle (0) Velocity of first oscillation (m/s) Flutter velocity (m/s) Frequency (Hz)

0 20 22 37.38

5 17.8 20.5 32.22

10 15.2 19.5 30.31

Table 5.
Flutter characteristics at different attack angles—Non-structure wing.

Figure 11.
Force at the wing root of the non-structure wing—Attack angle 10°.

13
Aerodynamics

velocity of non-structure wing was found at 19.5 m/s. The load at the wing root of
this wing at flutter velocity is shown in Figure 12. The maximum force was 5.44 N,
and the minimum force was 4.32 N.
With structure wing, different modes of vibration appeared depending on the
characteristics of the structure as remarked in [8]. With the help of the oscillator
generator system, the specific oscillation frequencies of the first four modes were
estimated as shown in Table 6.

Figure 12.
Force at the wing root of the non-structure wing—Attack angle 10° and velocity 19.5 m/s.

Mode Frequency (Hz)

Non-structure wing Structure wing

1 24.3 23.5

2 67.0 63.0

3 103.6 115.3

4 132.0 139.0

Table 6.
Specific oscillation frequency of the non-structure and structure wings.

Figure 13.
Amplitude of oscillation of the structure wing—Mode 1.

14
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

The frequencies of the first and second modes of the non-structure wing were
higher than those of the structure wing, while the frequencies of third and fourth
mode of structure wing were higher than those of non-structure wing (Table 6).
Considering both wings in the first mode of oscillation, when the force was applied
to the wing, the amplitude of the non-structure wing was higher than that of the
structure wing (Figure 13). In conclusion, the non-structure wing was easier to
resonate than the structure wing.

4. IBM method

4.1 Methodology

Fluid flow and deformation of structure were governed by the following equa-
tions with assumption of linear elastic structure [11]:

ð5Þ

ð6Þ

ð7Þ

ð8Þ

ð9Þ

ð10Þ

where:
u: fluid velocity vector
p: fluid pressure
f: force that affected on wing
Re: Reynolds number
Uc: displacement velocity
ωp: angular velocity
xc: center of gravity
θp: rotation of wing r
mp: mass of wing
Ip: inertial moment of wing
F: force created by fluid passing through the wing
T: moment created by fluid passing through the wing
To solve out these equations using IBM method, the most important was that the
velocity of fluid at fluid-solid interface was equal to the velocity of the wing. It
means that the interaction force (f) between the wing and fluid was calculated such
that the boundary condition of fluid was satisfied on the surface of the wing.
IBM method used the Cartesian grid and immersed boundary that were illus-
trated in Figure 14, in which the moving surface of wing was described by

15
Aerodynamics

Figure 14.
Cartesian grid and immersed boundary.

Lagrangian points (rounded points) and fixed points in fluid were called Eulerian
points. Parameters of Lagrangian points were noted as capitalization.
Discrete partial derivative of velocity over time in Eq. (5) with denote interme-
diate velocity at zero force of Lagrangian point, Ûk, force F of Lagrangian points
were estimated as follows:

ð11Þ

where:
k: time step.
Uk+1: identified from the moving surface of wing, so this velocity was known
as U(b).
Force was created from displacement and affected on the fluid element. Force
was calculated using the following interpolation formula:

ð12Þ

where:
x: coordinate of Eulerian point.
N: set of Lagrangian points round Eulerian point l.
xl: coordinate of Lagrangian point.
∆Ul: volume of effect corresponding to Lagrangian point l.
δh: 3D delta function identified as follows:

ð13Þ

ð14Þ

16
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

1 1 3
8  qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
> 5 3j r j 1 3ð1 jrjÞ2 ≤ jrj ≤
6 2 2
>
>
>
>
>
φðrÞ ¼ 1 1 3jrj2 jrj ≤ 1
< qffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
(15)
>
> 3 2
: 0 jrj ≥ 3
>
>
>
>
2

Three-step Runge–Kutta method was applied to solve Navier-Stokes equations

and Newton equations as follows:

• Step 1: Calculate the instantaneous velocity at Eulerian points with no

immersed boundary surface, i.e., f = 0:

ð16Þ

where:
k: step calculation of Runge-Kutta method (k = 1, 2, 3)
αk: coefficient of kth step calculation
γk: coefficient of kth step calculation
ζk: coefficient of kth step calculation
υ: kinematic viscosity
Apply this instantaneous velocity to calculate Lagrangian velocity on the surface
of the wing:

ð17Þ

This Lagrangian velocity was combined with wing velocity, U(b)xl, which was
calculated from the dynamic equation of wing, to calculate forces of Lagrangian
points (F) following Eq. (11). Then, apply this force of Lagrangian points to Eq. (12)
to calculate force of Eulerian points (f).

• Step 2: Solve out Navier-Stokes Eqs. (5) using calculated forces of Eulerian
points to estimate the effect of flutter of the wing into the velocity field around
the wing:

ð18Þ

To satisfy the continuity equation, a temporary pressure was described:

ð19Þ

• Step 3: Solve Eq. (17), and calculate velocity and pressure at kth step of the
Runge-Kutta method:

ð20Þ

17
Aerodynamics

ð21Þ

From the estimated forces at Lagrangian points, translational and angular

movements of the wing were carried out by solving Eqs. (7) and (9):

ð22Þ

ð23Þ

After calculating the velocity of center of gravity (Uck) and angular velocity of
wing (ωpk), coordinates of Lagrangian points were estimated by the same
expressions.

4.2 Wing model

Four different wing models were carried out in order to analyze the effect of the
wing structure. There were two rectangular and two trapezoid 3D-shape wings, and
each 3D-shape wing had symmetric (NACA65A004) and asymmetric (supercriti-
cal) airfoil, respectively. The wings had the same area of 450 cm2 and the same
semispan-wise length of 30 cm. Therefore, the rectangular wing had a chord length
of 7.5 cm, while the trapezoidal wing has no sweep angle, and the leading edge line
had a tip chord length of 5 cm and root chord length of 10 cm. The wings were made
of aluminum (Figure 15).
Experiments were performed using a low-speed blowdown wind tunnel, which
belongs to the Department of Aerospace Engineering at the Hanoi University of
Science and Technology, Vietnam. This wind tunnel had a maximum free-stream
velocity in empty test section of 30 m/s that corresponded to Reynolds number 106.
The wind tunnel was operated continuously by an 8 kW electric motor. The turbu-
lence level in test section was slightly less than 1%. Free-stream velocity was kept
constant in test section within 2%. Total pressure of free-stream and dynamic
pressures were measured by pitot tube within 2%. Ambient temperature was
measured within 1%. Both experimental and numerical researches were
performed at air velocity of 20 m/s and attack angle of 5°.

Figure 15.
Wing models. (a) Rectangular wing. (b) Trapezoidal wing.

18
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

For the experimental study, 160 pressure taps were applied on the wing model
(Figure 15). These pressure taps were connected to an external digital manometer
via stainless and silicon tubes. Each pressure tap was measured one time with

Figure 16.
Instant displacement of wings. (a) NACA65A004 – Rectangular wing. (b) NACA65A004 – Trapezoidal
wing. (c) Supercritical – Rectangular wing. (d) Supercritical – Trapezoidal wing.

19
Aerodynamics

waiting time of 5 s (average of about 1000 instant values) using the Keyence
pressure measurement. The standard deviation of the Keyence pressure measure-
ment errors was within 0.001 Pa. Moreover, flutter of wing was captured with
help of high performance camera.

4.3 Results

The results of IBM method were analyzed at three different instants (Figure 16):

• Time T0: initial time when distortion did not occurred

• Time T1: time between maximum deformation and non-deformation

• Time T2: time of maximum distortion

The wing deformation was maximum at the tip of the wing and decreased
gradually into the root of the wing over time. However, the normal stress was found
to have an opposite tendency in comparison with deformation. The maximum
normal stress was observed at the root of the wing, while the minimum normal
stress was found at the tip of the wing (Figures 17 and 18). It could be explained by
the fixed support with fuselage at the root of the wing and free support at the tip of
the wing [13]. These remarks were in well agreement with the experimental results
within a relative error less than 10% (Table 7).

Figure 17.
Instant normal stress—Rectangular wing.

20
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

At T0 instant, the normal stress had important value near the wing tip. During
flutter behaviors of wing, this important normal stress propagated from the tip of
the wing to the root of the wing. The maximum value of the normal stress was
found out at the root of the wing and at T2 instant.
With the same airfoil, the rectangular wing was found to be more distorted and
have higher maximum deformation and higher maximum normal stress than the
trapezoid wing. Thus, 3D-shape wing contributed significantly to the deformation
of wing when aeroelasticity phenomenon occurred (Table 7).
With the same 3D-shape wing, the maximum deformation and maximum nor-
mal stress of NACA65A004 rectangular wing were higher than those of the rectan-
gle supercritical wing. Meanwhile, the maximum deformation and maximum
normal stress of NACA65A004 trapezoidal wing were less than those of the super-
critical trapezoidal wing. It could be concluded that the 3D shape of wing played an
important role in the durability of the structure (Table 7).

Figure 18.
Instant normal stress—Trapezoidal wing.

Wing IBM method (mm) Experiment method (mm) Relative error (%)

NACA65A004-rectangular 0.119 0.131 9.7

NACA65A004-trapezoidal 0.030 0.033 8.6

Supercritical-rectangular 0.035 0.039 9.9

Supercritical-trapezoidal 0.034 0.037 9.2

Table 7.
Maximum deformation of the wing tip.

21
Aerodynamics

5. Conclusions

The flutter phenomenon of AGARD 445.6 wing was determined by (a) a modal
approach for a structural response; (b) an aerodynamic damping coefficient to
predict the appearance of flutter phenomenon; (c) a strongly coupled FSI method to
predict the aeroelastic response for subsonic and transonic flutter characteristics;
(d) an experiment method to predict the aeroelastic response for subsonic flutter
characteristics with wing structure; (e) and an IBM method to improve the inter-
face between the fluid and solid of aircraft wing.
In brief, the major results could be summarized as follows:

• Experimental results were in good agreement with numerical results within a

relative error less than 10%.

• During aeroelasticity phenomenon, deformation of the wing tip was maximum

while it was minimum at the wing root. The tendency of normal stress was in
contrast with deformation. The minimum normal stress was observed at the
wing tip, while the maximum normal stress was observed at the wing root;

• Geometry of wing (3D shape, airfoil) had a significantly contribution to the

deformation of wing when aeroelasticity phenomenon occurred.

For further research of aeroelasticity in the future, both experimental and

numerical researches at low and high speed should be performed.

Acknowledgements

A part of this work was supported by the Ministry of Science and Technology in
Vietnam through the bilateral and multilateral research project HNQT/SPĐP/12.19.

Appendices and nomenclature

w structural displacement at any time instant and position

q generalized displacement vector
[M] generalized mass matrice
[C] damping matrice
[K] stiffness matrices
ϕ normal modes of the structure
N total number of modes of the structure
F generalized force vector
Xi ith peak of vibration
n number of period
ζ aerodynamic damping coefficient
M Mach number
u fluid velocity vector
p fluid pressure
f force that affected on wing
Re Reynolds number
Uc displacement velocity
ωp angular velocity

22
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

xc center of gravity
θp rotation of wing
mp mass of wing
Ip inertial moment of wing
F force that created by fluid go pass through the wing
T moment that created by fluid go pass through the wing
X coordinate of Eulerian point
N set of Lagrangian points round Eulerian point l
xl coordinate of Lagrangian point
∆Ul volume of effect corresponded to Lagrangian point l
δh 3D delta function
αγζ coefficient of step Runge-Kutta calculation
υ kinematic viscosity
E11 normal stress following x-coordinates
E22 normal stress following y-coordinates
E33 normal stress following z-coordinates
G shear stress
ρ density
Cp coefficient of pressure
α attack angle

Author details

Hoang Thi Kim Dung1* and Nguyen Phu Khanh2

1 School of Transportation Engineering, Hanoi University of Science and

Technology, Hanoi, Vietnam

2 Faculty of Vehicle and Energy Engineering, Phenikaa University, Hanoi, Vietnam

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

© 2020 The Author(s). Licensee IntechOpen. This chapter is distributed under the terms
of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/
by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,
provided the original work is properly cited.

23
Aerodynamics

References

[1] Edwards JW. Computational fluid-structure method. In: Proceeding

Aeroelasticity Challenges and of 14th Asia Congress of Fluid
Resources. NASA Technical Report. Mechanics. Vol. 1. 2013. pp. 144-148
N89-19264; 1989
[11] Hoang TKD, Pham VS, Tran NK,
[2] Liu DD, Sarhaddi D, Piolenc FM. Nguyen DC, Nguyen PK. Aeroelastic
Flutter Prevention Handbook: analysis on wing structure using
A Preliminary Collection. Technical immersed boundary method. In: Lecture
report WL–TR–96–3111, Wright Notes in Mechanical Engineering.
Laboratory; 1996 Springer; 2018. pp. P783-P792. DOI:
10.1007/978-981-10-7149-2_55
[3] Ramsey JK. NASA Aeroelasticity
Handbook Volume 2: Design Guides
[12] Dugundji J, Dowell E, Perkin B.
Part 2. Technical Paper NASA/TP—
Subsonic Flutter of Panels on
2006-212490/VOL2/PART2, NASA
Continuous Elastic Foundations -
Glenn Research Center; 2006
Experiment and Theory. ASRL
Technical Report No.74 4; 1962
[4] Kolonay RM. Unsteady aeroelastic
optimization in the transonic regime
[Thesis]. Purdue University; 1996 [13] Yates EC. AGARD standard
aeroelastic configurations for dynamic
[5] Lee-Rausch EM, Batina JT. response I-wing 445.6. AGARD Report
Calculation of AGARD Wing 445.6 765; 1988
Flutter using Navier-Stokes
Aerodynamics. AIAA Paper No. [14] Ricketts RH. Experimental
93–3476; 1993 Aeroelasticity - History, Status and
Future in Brief. NASA Technical
[6] Başkut E, Akgül A. Development of a Memorandum 102651; 1990
closely coupled procedure for dynamic
aeroelastic analyses. Scientific Technical [15] Heinze S. Aeroelastic Concepts
Review. 2012;62(2):30-39 for Flexible Aircraft Structures
[Thesis]. Royal Institute of Technology;
[7] Pahlavanloo P. Dynamic Aeroelastic 2007
Simulation of the AGARD 445.6 Wing
using Edge. Technical report FOI-R– [16] Achuthan CP, Shanthini G,
2259—SE; 2007 Shivaprasad MV, Chandra N,
Manjuprasad M. Dynamic response and
[8] Chen X, Zha G-C, Yang M-T. flutter prediction of structures with
Numerical simulation of 3-D wing unknown system parameters using
flutter with fully coupled fluid- experimental modal parameters.
structural interaction. AIAA Paper Innovative Systems Design and
2006–0697; 2006 Engineering. 2011;2(4):23-39

[9] Liu F, Cai J, Zhu Y, Tsai HM, [17] Nguyen PK, Mori K, Hoang TKD,
Wong ASF. Calculation of wing flutter Nguyen VH, Nguyen HA. Research on
by a coupled fluid-structure method. simulation and experiment of dynamic
Journal of Aircraft. 2001;38(2):334-342 Aeroelastic analysis on wing structure.
Applied Mechanics and Materials. 2015;
[10] Hoang TKD, Nguyen PK, Tran NM. 798:541-545. DOI: 10.4028/www/
Study of wing flutter by a coupled scientific.net/AMM.798.541

24
Research on Aeroelasticity Phenomenon in Aeronautical Engineering
DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.91748

[18] Tran NK, Dang DC, Dao DH,

Nguyen PK, Hoang TKD. Experimental
research on the effect of wing structure
on aeroelasticity phenomenon. Applied
Mechanics and Materials. 2019;889:
403-409. DOI: 10.4028/www.scientific.
net/AMM.889.403

25