UNCLASSIFIED

Defense Technical Information Center

Compilation Part Notice
ADP014182
TITLE: Towards Faster and Safer Flight Flutter Testing
DISTRIBUTION: Approved for public release, distribution unlimited
Availability: Hard copy only.

This paper is part of the following report:

TITLE: Reduction of Military Vehicle Acquisition Time and Cost through
Advanced Modelling and Virtual Simulation [La reduction des couts et des
delais d'acquisition des vehicules militaires par la modelisation avancee et
a simulation de produit virtuel]
To order the complete compilation report, use: ADA415759
The component part is provided here to allow users access to individually authored sections
of proceedings, annals, symposia, etc. However, the component should be considered within
-he context of the overall compilation report and not as a stand-alone technical report.

The following component part numbers comprise the compilation report:

ADP014142 thru ADP014198

UNCLASSIFIED
 43-1

Towards Faster and Safer Flight Flutter Testing

J.E. Cooper
Manchester School of Engineering
University of Manchester
Oxford Road
Manchester, M13 9PL
United Kingdom

Abstract

The current state of the art of flight flutter testing is reviewed, and areas where this part of the certification
procedure could be improved are discussed. It is argued that the key towards speeding up the flight flutter test
procedure, and also to reduce costs, is to reduce the number of flight test points that are required as part of the test
clearance programme. To achieve this aim, the entire modelling and testing procedure needs to be improved,
particularly with respect to non-linearities. Non-linear aeroelastic phenomena will then be able to be predicted
more accurately. Current work in a number of relevant technologies is considered in relation to flight flutter
testing. Suggestions are made as to how these aspects could be improved in order to speed up and reduce the cost
of flight flutter testing, while maintaining, if not improving, the levels of safety.

1 Introduction

Flutter is potentially the most disastrous of all aeroelastic phenomena and there have been many instances of
structural failure from the resulting unstable oscillations [1,2]. Although the first recorded incident was the
Handley Page 0/400 bomber in 1916, it was not until the mid 1930s that Von Schlippe introduced the concept of
a dedicated flight flutter test. Since then, flight flutter testing [3,4] has matured to become a critical stage in the
certification process, see figure 1, providing the final validation of the analytical predictions. All aircraft must be
demonstrated to be flutter free throughout the entire flight envelope, plus an additional safety margin. A similar
process must also be undertaken for the clearance of new types, or combinations, of stores on military aircraft.

The classical approach to flutter testing has changed little over the past half century and, as can be seen in figure
2, systematically expands the flight envelope for increasing speeds over a range of altitudes. At each flight test
point, three separate procedures are performed:

1. The aircraft is excited in some manner and the vibration response measured.
2. The data are curve-fitted using system identification methods and the modal parameters estimated.
3. The decision is made to progress to the next flight test point.

There have been 3 major international meetings held to discuss the progress of flight flutter testing, in 1958[5],
1975[6] and 1995[7]. The major technical developments that have had greatest influence on the test procedure are
shown in figure 3. In essence, the basic test philosophy had been developed by the time of the first meeting, the
second meeting demonstrated the influence of new computational and other test hardware. The third meeting
described advances in analytical methods, new forms of excitation devices and consideration of aeroservoelastic
effects. Despite these advances, the basic procedure has remained the same [87,881.

Flight flutter testing is very expensive, time consuming, and often undertaken at a time critical part of an aircraft's
development programme. The design flight envelope must be cleared as swiftly as possible so that the rest of the
flight testing (systems, etc.) may be completed. However, at no time must safety be compromised. Compared to
ground testing, it is often difficult to excite the aircraft with an adequate amount of energy, resulting in data with

Paperpresented at the RTO A VT Symposium on "Reduction of Military Vehicle

Acquisition Time and Cost through Advanced Modelling and Virtual Simulation
held in Paris,France, 22-25 April 2002, and published in RTO-MP-089.
43-2

poor signal / noise ratios due to atmospheric turbulence corrupting the data. Consequently, the quality of the
resulting curve-fits becomes worse, leading to less confidence in the estimated parameters and thus the speed
increments between flight test points must be relatively small. The number of flight test points considered is often
large. Although the test hardware, computational equipment and analysis techniques used for flight flutter testing
have improved with time, aircraft have also become progressively more complex in construction, geometry,
flexibility and aerodynamic improvements have led to thinner wings. Also, the influence of non-linear effects is
becoming greater although the industry bases most of its analysis on linear aerodynamic and structural models
that cannot predict such phenomena as Limit Cycle Oscillations (LCO). Consequently, no reduction in the time
required to clear the flight flutter envelope has materialised despite the considerable improvements in technology.
Meanwhile, costs have increased dramatically. Henshaw, McKiernon and Mairs [8] state that 75% of effort for
flutter clearance is in the modelling and analysis stage, and this results in 25% of the costs. The other 25% of the
total effort is devoted to the validation and qualification phases with an associated 75% of the total cost.

In this paper, the current state of the art of the key elements that make up flight flutter testing and also aeroelastic
computational modelling and prediction, structural and control modelling, and ground vibration testing, is
reviewed. Suggestions are made as to how recent advances in a range of research areas could be used to speed up
the whole flight flutter test process and reduce costs whilst still keeping, if not improving, the levels of safety.

2. The Changing Nature of Aircraft Design and Its Effect on Flight Flutter Testing

Recent aircraft designs have tended to differ in a number of significant ways from the designs of, say, 20 years
ago. Airframe structures are more flexible with less damping, primarily through the use on modern construction
techniques such as use of composites and diffusion bonded structures. The application of structural optimisation
methods to optimise the structure with minimum mass has led to designs with far less excess structure than
before. The design of aerodynamic surfaces has become more advanced leading to thinner wings and more
complex aerodynamic shapes. The complexity of flight control system technology has also developed, leading to
a far greater variety and number of aeroservoelastic cases that must be considered [129,132]. Likewise, the use
of new technologies such as stealth has led not only to different types of aeroelastic problem, but also a dramatic
increase in the number of flutter cases that need to be considered. Further changes in aircraft design will follow,
for instance there are a number of research programmes [9-111 world-wide investigating the use of aeroelastic
behaviour as a positive benefit rather than as a problem that requires a stiff, heavy structure to reduce its effect.

16 ý FE kl de Contro c o ,ic M o de l I
y n\A j
GVT* fý 't 4 (Wind Tunnel Tests

T ! I
Aeroelastic I AcroscrvoelasticMdls

It
Flight Flutter Tests

Figure 1. Aircraft Certification Procedure.

 43-3

These fundamental changes in aircraft design and manufacture have increased the importance of non-linear
aeroelastic phenomena [12-14]. The non-linearities manifest themselves via structural (freeplay, stiffening
effects, large displacement effects [15]), aerodynamic (transonic effects) and control (time delays, non-linear
control laws [16]) mechanisms. One of the key phenomenon that needs to be considered is Limit Cycle
Oscillations (LCO). Although not immediately catastrophic, unlike flutter, LCO can be thought of as "only" a
fatigue or weapon aiming problem. However, in terms of the prediction of aircraft aeroelastic behaviour, and in
particular flight flutter testing, such non-linear phenomena cause significant problems [113]. The vast majority of
aeroelastic modelling and flutter clearance is undertaken using linear methods, and these techniques cannot
predict the occurrence of non-linear phenomena. Consequently, there is a danger of unforeseen non-linear
aeroelastic effects occurring during a flutter test which, at best, cause a significant delay in the flutter clearance
and, at worst, can cause an "incident" to occur [114]. A good example of this is the prediction of LCOs occurring
when different stores combinations are used on military aircraft; a large amount of flight testing is required to
establish the safe flight envelope as there is no efficient predictive alternative. [115,116]

Altitude(ft) Ceiling ) Test Point

40000
\ Constant Mach No.

20000
VD

10000 Boundary IX0,6 0

Sea Level
20300 400
Equivalent Airspeed (kts)

Figure 2. Typical Flight Clearance Envelope

Hardware Telemetry Analogue Digital

Computer Computer
Excitation Inertial Exciters Aerodynamic FOS Slotted
Vanes Rotating Vane
Analysis Spectral Flutter Margin Fast Fourier Advanced ýt Method
Methods Plotting Transform System time/frequency
Identification methods
Algorithms
Processing of By Hand Automated Interactive
Data Processing Processing
1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s

Figure 3. Major Advances in Flight Flutter Testing Methodology

43-4

3. Future Developments in Flight Flutter Testing

The last decade has seen a dramatic rise in the interest in modelling and prediction of non-linear aeroelastic
effects that can arise due to structural, aerodynamic and control non-linearities. There has also been much interest
in identifying non-linear structural models and also predicting flutter boundaries using coupled CFD / structures
codes. Other work has considered the analysis of measured flight test data in order to determine flutter
boundaries. However, these new developments have not found their way, as yet, to becoming standard use in
industry and there is still an overriding reliance upon linear models.

The goal of "Certification by Analysis" has much merit, although this author is horrified at the idea of totally
eliminating experimental testing altogether. In respect to flight flutter testing, it is foreseen that a certain amount
of testing on the ground and in the air will have to remain. Reductions in both the time and cost of flutter
clearance will be achieved by decreasing the number of test flights that are required. This goal can only be
achieved by developing more accurate aeroelastic models that can be partially achieved by deducing more
information from the data obtained during the ground tests and also during the flight test. The inclusion of more
non-linear effects than are currently used will be particularly important along with consideration of the variation
in aeroelastic behaviour across aircraft fleets and the effects of ageing. With this in mind, the following sections
review the current status of all aspects of the certification process, from aeroelastic modelling through to the flight
flutter test itself, in order to examine where possible advances can be made.

3.1 Computational Aeroelasticity

The past decade has seen a significant amount of effort [17-19,83,84] devoted towards the numerical solution of
transonic aeroelastic phenomena, not only in the prediction of transonic dip effects but also towards that of LCO.
Euler and Navier-Stokes schemes have been both weakly and strongly coupled with structural FE models. Much
work has been directed towards the consequences of dealing with two separate meshes, one fluid and the other
structural. These approaches are a major advance compared to the linear doublet / vortex lattice types of approach
that is still widely used throughout industry and enable non-linear aerodynamic effects to be modelled [82].
Results show that in order to capture all of the physics of non-linear aeroelastic systems in the transonic regime
(i.e. the displacements rather than just the frequency of the LCO) very sophisticated models need to be used. The
researchers in this field are to be applauded for the development of numerous test cases [20,70] that act as
benchmarks used to compare different approaches.

Despite the continual improvements in computational speed and memory, we are still many years, if not decades,
from achieving the goal of computing every conceivable case in a practical time scale. Rather than performing a
simulation clearance as opposed to flight testing, other techniques should be used to show where in the flight
envelope such accurate simulations are needed. Current implementations tend to concentrate upon the non-linear
aerodynamic aspects and there is a need to consider the interaction of non-linear structural elements and control
systems [85].

3.2 Wind Tunnel Testing

Wind tunnel testing is often used for new configurations in order to obtain aerodynamic data, particularly in the
transonic regime [72,79-81,75,76] in support of the CFD calculations [21], particularly in regimes such as buffet
where accurate prediction is rather problematic, and also to correct simpler aerodynamic models. There are
various areas of uncertainty when performing such tests, for instance: the constraint effects of the tunnel walls and
boundary layer, interference effects of the model support, tunnel blockage effects and scaling issues resulting
from testing at Reynolds numbers much less than those achieved in real flight. CFD calculations can be used to
provide corrections for the wind tunnel effects [74].

Wind tunnel testing is very expensive, both in the construction of scaled models and the use of transonic wind
tunnels. Effort is required in order to make the procedure more efficient, through the use of non-contact
measurement approaches and simpler models. There is a need to support some of the other technical topics
 43-5

discussed there through the provision of more benchmark test cases, particularly of aeroelastic models, and also
tests where the structure itself is non-linear [73,77,78].

3.3 Structural Modelling

A vast amount of experience has been gained [22] in the use of Finite Element (FE) models for the prediction of
structural behaviour although there are still concerns regarding the accuracy of predictions of ultimate loads for
static behaviour. As regards dynamic calculations, the FE method has gradually replaced the "stick" models
traditionally used by the aerospace industry. A limitation is that the majority of modelling is based upon linear
elements, and much work is required to reliably include non-linearities such as joints into structural models. Part
of this process will rely on accurate "updating" methods that adjust (i.e. correct) the FE model based upon
vibration testing results. Although much work has been devoted to updating methodologies over the past two
decades, there are still serious issues in the applicability to real size structures. A recent Garteur exercise [23,24]
showed that much progress has been made, although the structures considered are still on a laboratory scale.

A further important issue with structural modelling is that of damping. For many years it has been assumed that it
is acceptable to use proportional damping, however, this is not always the case in real structures even if they
behave linearly. It can be shown that the proportional damping assumption can cause significant inaccuracies in
dynamic response calculations [25], and this will in turn lead to inaccuracies in the aeroelastic calculations where
damping is a very important parameter. The damping also has an important contribution to the magnitude and
phase of active control feedback [16]. More work is required towards the inclusion of accurate damping models,
initially in the measurement and modelling of non-proportional damping, and then non-linear damping.

3.4 Ground Vibration Testing

The standard approach for ground vibration testing in the aerospace industry has not changed a great deal over the
past 40 or so years. Traditionally a multi-shaker force appropriation (phase resonance) approach [26,100-102] has
been used to excite each mode individually, which enables immediate comparison with the FE model via direct
measurement of the natural frequency, mode shape and generalised mass. By exciting around the mode the
damping ratio can also be measured. The original manual approach has been replaced with automated procedures.
Although most of the modal analysis community tends to use phase separation methods as they are much quicker
and easier to implement, these methods are not so commonly used in the aerospace industry as the resulting
complex modes are difficult to compare with the FE normal modes.

There is a need to advance the test methodology to gain further information about any structural non-linearities
that may be present in the structure. It is required to determine whether non-linearities exist, what type they are,
and whereabouts on the structure they can be found. Much work has been devoted [27] to the identification of
non-linear structures, but this has resulted in a wide range of different models that have varying degrees of
usefulness as regards to the resulting FE models. Also, most experimental validations of these techniques have
only been undertaken on laboratory structures containing a few modes. One very promising approach [28,71] is
to identify any non-proportional damping and non-linearities as an addition to the usual modal model using the
so-called resonant decay method. By using a modal approach it is possible separate modes in terms of whether
they have linear or non-linear characteristics and to consider groups of modes that are coupled either due to non-
proportional damping or by non-linearities.

3.5 Aeroelastic Modelling

Having established the linear structural and unsteady aerodynamic models, it has been traditional to use one of a
number of frequency matching techniques in order to determine the flutter condition, frequency and associated
modes. The inclusion of structural and aerodynamic non-linearities does away with the ability to simply predict
the flutter point, and there are at present not many techniques that can be used to predict behaviour such as LCO
without resorting to numerical simulation of every test point. The harmonic balance method [67] has been used to
predict LCO behaviour for non-linear structural cases such as freeplay but there are limits as to the effectiveness
43-6

of this approach. There has been much work on characterising non-linear aeroelastic behaviour, and this now
needs to be extended to larger systems [118-128].

3.6 Aeroservoelastic Modelling

There are typically many control laws in any flight control system, with the inclusion of notch filters to eliminate
any undesirable behaviour. The resulting transfer function contain discrete non-linearities, not only from the
different laws, but also from time delays due to signal processing constraints[16, 29-31,37]. It is usual to model
these non-linearities with linearised approximations, which enable flutter calculations to be made in a similar
manner to a non-FCS aircraft. The number of failure cases that need to be considered also increases dramatically
when a FCS is involved [131].

In order to achieve a greater accuracy in aeroservoelastic modelling that will no doubt be needed in the future, the
use of non-linear models will have to be employed. As with aeroelastic testing, there is a danger that a large
amount of simulation will be required to investigate every case, particularly as the non-linearities will be of a
discrete nature and will include switching between a large number of different laws.

3.7 Structural Coupling Tests

For aircraft with active control systems, the coupling of the structure and the flight control must be tested [16,30-
36,130] to see how well the linearised laws compare with reality. The procedure consists of frequency sweep
excitation of the flight control system, and also the application of loads on the control surfaces with open and
closed loop control system. Although there are no airforces present, such tests are extremely important, as this is
the only chance to test whether there are coupling problems that could have disastrous consequences. This is one
testing element of the certification procedure that is not seen as changing dramatically.

3.8 Reduced Order Modelling

Despite the dramatic increases in computational power, typical aeroelastic models are very large if non-linearities
are included, even if considered in a modal sense. Consequently, a number of researchers are investigating means
of developing a reduced order modelling capability that will enable predictions to be made using much smaller
models. Such approaches will enable a wide range of design cases to be considered efficiently in order to
determine the critical cases and also to perform parameter design studies. Outputs from full aeroelastic models
are then curve-fitted in order to produce the reduced order model [103,106,107]. Examples include curve fitting
impulse responses [38] to produce a linearised model of the aerodynamic state space model [108-112], and fitting
of a Volterra series to determine the non-linear effects [391. Many investigations have considered the POD
approach[ 111].

Other work has examined the use of Normal Form Theory to model aeroelastic systems containing non-linear
structural and aerodynamic effects [40,41,104,105]. This approach enables the full non-linear behaviour to be
predicted, including the shape of the LCO. There has to be a compromise between including enough non-linear
terms to model the behaviour accurately while reducing the model to a small enough size to allow the normal
forms to be computed.

3.9 Excitation Signals and Devices.

One of the key difficulties with flight flutter testing is the noisy environment that it is performed in. Although
there have been many cases where stick raps or simply turbulence has been used as an excitation signal, some
form of excitation device must be used if good quality data is to be obtained. It is very difficult to obtain
estimates of the modal properties if the data is poor, and this is ever more the case if non-linear identification is
attempted. Since the invention of the slotted rotating cylinder flutter vane [42-44] in the early 1990s, no further
advances in excitation technology have been made apart from the suggestion of a contra-rotating propeller driven
device for stores[133]. When ground testing an aircraft, it is considered better to use multi-shaker technology in
 43-7

order to excite close difficult modes, so surely multi-exciter technology should be used in flight. A number of
issues are raised as to how to achieve this. One possibility is to use a variety of different exciters (inertial masses,
fcs, vanes) placed around the aircraft [45,46], or to use a number of aerodynamic vanes for instance attached to
combinations of stores. The positioning of both the exciters and transducers should be optimised using theoretical
models before starting the test.

The type of excitation signal should also be considered. When the conventional linear or logarithmic chirp (fast
swept-sine) excitation is used, the time data between modes is effectively wasted. Some work has been
undertaken to develop both chirp [481 and random signals [49,50] that will give consistently good signal noise
ratios with effective crest factors. It would be of interest to implement some of these methods on real aircraft in
order to see how well the estimated parameters compare to those obtained using more conventional
approaches[86]. There is a need to develop a device for applying random signals in flight apart from the fcs.

3.9 Modal Parameter Identification Methods for Flight Flutter Testing

There is a wide range of different modal parameter identification methods [51] that have been used for flight
flutter testing in order to identify natural frequencies and damping ratios from the test data. These techniques
have varied in sophistication from a simple half power points analysis [44] to multiple input - multiple output
maximum likelihood algorithms [52]. The modal filter approach has been the only recent innovation in this area
[69]. All these methods have been used in a form that assumes that the system is at a constant flight condition
and is linear. Surprisingly it is unusual to make use of the mode shapes [54] which benefits the mode tracking
procedures. Also, there has been little consideration [52,53] of the differences between a conventional modal test
on the ground and a test performed in flight. The major difference is the presence of significant process noise
acting through the aircraft structure in the form of turbulence. This corruption affects the data in a different way
compared to that of the small amounts of measurement noise encountered on a ground test. Further work is
required to investigate the reported improvements in using parameter estimation methods that take this into
account. The use of techniques such as blind signal processing should be investigated to determine whether this is
a suitable means of improving the quality of flight test data. In flight non-linear identification should also be
considered.

Recent studies have investigated the use of using some form of on-line estimator [55,58,66,86,97-99] to track
changes in the modal parameters as the aircraft changes between flight conditions. The current vogue is for time-
frequency methods such as wavelets [56,57,64] or short term Fourier transforms [59], however, an on-line time
domain method is just as suitable. If it were possible to track accurately on-line frequency and damping
estimates, then this would be a key advance in extending the gap between different flight test points. Taking the
view that reaching a test point is a good indication that most (but unfortunately not all) flutters will not occur, then
an exciter could be used continuously (the methodology does not work so well for turbulent input [60]) to excite
the aircraft as the flight envelope is expanded.

An extension of the multi-shaker test is to apply force appropriation in flight. The burst appropriation approach
could also be used to identify non-proportional damping and non-linearities.

3.10 Flutter Prediction Based Upon Flutter Test Data

One of the most critical decisions during any flight test programme is the decision to move onto the next flight
test point. Traditionally this has been achieved by tracking and extrapolating the damping values and determining
whether stability is maintained. Methods such as the flutter margin and the envelope function [61,93] can be
employed to use the estimated frequency and damping values to predict the flutter speed. A notable recent
development is the use of the [t robustness methodology [62,89,94] to predict the flutter speed, along with
methods based upon neural networks [65,91,95,96,117], time domain methods [63,68] and others [90,92]. These
approaches can be combined with the on-line identification methods to produce an on-line estimate of the critical
speed that again can aid an increased gap between test points.
43-8

The above approaches are suitable for the analysis of linear systems, but cannot be used reliably when there are
non-linearities of whatever form. Procedures need to be developed to analyse data from the earliest flight test
points in order to establish what non-linearities exist and whereabouts on the structure they occur. These non-
linear models could then be used to predict points of instability and also non-linear phenomena such as LCO.

4. Discussion

The above analysis shows that there are a number of improvements that can be made so that the amount of flight
flutter test points can be reduced. From the aeroelastic (and aeroservoelastic) point of view, we are well on the
way towards improving the modelling capability in terms of non-linearities. However, this is only one step in
producing a truly predictive capability and there is a requirement to use the CFD methods in an efficient and
intelligent manner. Improvements in reduced order modelling are needed so that prediction of LCO and flutter
behaviour can be made efficiently. These efficiency gains will enable parameter studies and consideration of all
critical cases to be considered. Having defined the critical flight envelope regimes, the CFD methods can be used
to explore them in more detail. These improvements in the modelling capability will provide a greater confidence
in the aeroelastic predictions and the number of flight test points can be reduced.

As regards the actual test, further improvements need to be made in the type of excitation signals, along with
multiple excitation sources, which will improve the noise signal ratios. The possibilities of using more advanced
system identification algorithms that account for process noise should be considered, along with on-line
identification schemes with continuous excitation signals throughout the flight envelope to allow for constant
monitoring of the stability. Methodologies such as the g robustness method need further examination for the
prediction of the flutter speed, along with consideration of the confidence of the estimated parameters. Such
approaches will enable bigger steps to be taken between flight test points. Flight test data should be analysed to
determine whether there are non-linearities in the data, and the reduced order modelling approaches adapted to
produce in-flight estimates of the characteristics of any non-linear behaviour and its whereabouts in the flight
envelope.

In order to achieve the savings in flutter test time, greater effort will have to be placed in the analysis part of the
certification process. Ground Testing should not be eliminated but enhanced in order to obtain more information,
particularly non-linearities. The 75:25:25:75 distribution of effort/cost for analysis/clearance described by
Henshaw, McKiernon and Myers [8] will need to change to become something more along the lines of
90:10:10:90. Also, as the number of flight flutter test programmes decreases, along with the number of
experienced practitioners, there is a greater need for more comparative studies using benchmark data and
discussions / workshops between interested parties e.g. the recently started TTCP activity in flutter testing. To
help maintain the level of expertise, another possibility is the development of a "flight flutter test simulator"
where the flutter clearance of an aircraft could be undertaken using predefined sets of data which could contain a
variety of different problems (noisy data, non-linearities, etc.) It is dangerous to consider reducing the amount of
testing whilst reducing the expertise that could determine whether problems were likely to arise during a test
programme.

5. Conclusions

The current status of all elements in aeroelastic / aeroservoelastic modelling and flight flutter testing has been
reviewed with the aim of determining how flutter testing can be performed in less time and cost while
maintaining, if not improving, safety. Modelling capabilities should be improved to include all forms of non-
linearity and Ground Testing improved to aid this. Improvements in reduced order modelling will be required in
order to make efficient use of the CFD based simulations. Flutter test procedures and analysis should be extended
to allow for on-line updating of the stability and also non-linear identification to predict phenomenon such as
LCO from the flight data. The world-wide flutter test community should ensure that expertise is not lost through
loss of personnel and should strive towards the development of benchmark flight flutter test data sets.
 43-9

6. References IFASD = International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics

SDM = Structures Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference

1. Collar A R, "50 Years of Aeroelasticity" Aerospace v5 n2 1978 pp 12 - 20

2. Garrick IE & Reed W H, "Historical Development of Aircraft Flutter" J.Aircraft v 18 n 1 1981 pp 897 - 912.
3. Kehoe M.W., "A Historical Preview of Flight Flutter Testing" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566 Advnanced
Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data Analysis. Paper 1. 1995.
4. Wright J.R., "Flight Flutter Testing" Lecture Series on Flutter of Winged Aircraft. Von Karman Institute
1991.
5. NASA SP-385 Flight Flutter Testing Symposium. Washington. 1958.
6. NASA SP-415 Flight Flutter Testing Techniques, Dryden Flight Research Centre. 1975
7. AGARD CP 566 Advanced Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data Analysis. Rotterdam. 1995.
8. Henshaw MJ, McKeirnon D & Mairs C, "Flutter Prediction for Complex Configurations" AGARD Conf Proc
507 Numerical Unsteady Aerodynamic and Aeroelastic Simulation Aalborg. 1997 paper 12.
9. Flick PM & Love MH, "The Impact of Active Aeroelastic Wing Technology on Conceptual Aircraft Design"
RTO MP-36" Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control" Paper 10. 1999
10. Schweiger J & Krammer J, "Active Aeroelastic Aircraft and its Impact on Structure and Flight Control
Systems Design" RTO MP-36 " Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control" Paper 11. 1999
11. McGowan AM, Horta LG, Harrison JS & Raney DL, "Research Activities within NASA's Morphing
Program" RTO MP-36" Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control" Paper 13. 1999
12. Dunne S.A., Farell P.A, Budd P.J., Arms, P B, Hardie CA & Rendo CJ., "F/A-18A Flight Flutter Testing -
Limit Cycle Oscillation or Flutter ?" IFASD 2001. V3 pp 193-204.
13. Lee BHK, "Recognising Non-Linear Phenomena in Flight Flutter Testing" Canadian Aeronautics and Space
Journal v45 nI 1999 pp 17-24.
14. Girard M, "Flutter Testing in the 90's (The GBU-24 Saga)" IEEE Aerospace Conf 1998 pp 39-50.
15. Oliver, M., Climent, H., & Rosich F., "Non Linear Effects of Applied Loads and Large Deformation on
Aircraft Normal Modes" RTO MP-36" Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control" Paper 21. 1999
16. Koenig K., "Pretension and Reality of Flutter Relevant Tests" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566 Advanced
Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data Analysis. Paper 17. 1995.
17. AGARD Conf. Proc. 507. Transonic Unsteady Aerodynamics and Aeroelasticity San Diego 1991.
18. AGARD Report 822. Numerical Unsteady Aerodynamic and Aeroelastic Simulation" Aalborg. 1997.
19. Lacabanne M & Zwaan RJ, "Technical Evaluation Report on Numerical Unsteady Aerodynamic and
Aeroelastic Simulation" Aalborg. 1997
20. Ruiz-Calacera et al. "A New Compendium of Unsteady Aerodynamic Test Cases for CFD: Summary of AVT
WG003 Activities" IFASD 1999 pp 1 - 12.
21. Cross AGT, "The Use of Computational Fluid Dynamics on Support of Wind Tunnel Testing" I.MechE
S555/002/98 Aerospace Application of Computational Methods Versus Testing. pp 7 -20 1998
22. Morris AJ, Dullaway N, Attwall P & Vignjevic R, "Augmenting the Role of Finite Element Structural
Analysis in Airworthiness Assessment I.Mech.E S555/004/98. 98 Aerospace Application of Computational
Methods Versus Testing. pp 31 -41 1998
23. Goge D & Link M, "Parametric Updating of Finite Element Models by Minimizing Response Residuals at
Resonances" COST Int Conf on Structural System Identification 2001. pp 419 - 430
24. Friswell M I & Mottershead J E, "Physical Understanding of Structures by Model Updating" COST Int Conf
on Structural System Identification 2001. pp 81- 98
25. Naylor S, Wright JR & Cooper JE, 'Identification of Non-Proprotionally Damped Structures using a Force
Appropriation Technique' 23rd Int Seminar on Modal Analysis 1998
26. Wright JR, Cooper JE & Desforges MJ ,' Normal Mode Force Appropriation - Theory and Application'
Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing v31 n2 1999 pp 217-240
27. Worden K & Tomlinson G R, "Non-Linearity in Structural Dynamics" loP. 2001.
28. Naylor S, Cooper JE & Wright JR, 'Modal Parameter Estimation of Non-Proportionally Damped Systems Using
Force Appropriation' 15 th International Modal Analysis Conference 1997
43-10

29. Becker J & Vaccaro V., "Aeroservoelastic Design, Test Verification and Clearance of an Advanced Flight
Control System" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566 Advanced Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data Analysis. Paper 22.
1995.
30. Vaccaro V & Becker J., "Ground Structural Coupling Testing and Model Updating in the Aeroservoelastic
Qualification of a Combat Aircraft" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566 Advanced Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data
Analysis. Paper 23. 1995.
31. Noll T E, Perry B & Kehoe M W, "A Quarter Century of NASA Wind-Tunnel and Flight Experiments
Involving Aeroservoelasticity" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566 Advanced Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data
Analysis. Paper 14. 1995
32. Wray WW, "F22 Structural Coupling Lessons Learned" RTO MP-36" Structural Aspects of Flexible
Aircraft Control" Paper 2. 1999
33. Baker, ML, Goggin PJ & Winther BA, "Aeroservoelastic Modeling, Analysis and Design Techniques for
Transport Aircraft" RTO MP-36" Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control" Paper 3. 1999
34. Becker, J. , Caldwell, B. & Vaccaro V., "The Interaction of Flight Control System and Aircraft Structure"
RTO MP-36" Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control" Paper 4. 1999
35. Vaccaro V., Caldwell B. & Becker J., "Ground Structural Coupling Testing and Model Updating in the
Aeroservoelastic Qualification of a Combat Aircraft" RTO MP-36" Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft
Control" Paper 5. 1999
36. Luber W & Becker J., "An Integrated Design Procedure for Aircraft Structure Including the Influence of
Flight Control System on Aircraft Flutter" RTO MP-36 "Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control"
Paper 6. 1999
37. Dimitriadis, G. & Cooper J.E., "Characterisation of Nonlinear Aeroserovelastic Behaviour" RTO MP-36
"Structural Aspects of Flexible Aircraft Control" Paper 8. 1999
38. Prudhomme S, Ebdon D & Pacheco T, "On the use of POD and ERA Techniques for Unsteady Aerodynamics
Identification" IFASD 2001 pp 249 - 256.
39. Silva WA et al. "Reduced Order Modelling - Cooperative Research and Development at NASA Langley"
IFASD 2001 pp 15 9 - 1 7 4 .
40. Sedhaghat A, Cooper JE, Wright JR and Leung AYT, "Limit Cycle Oscillation Prediction for Non-linear
Aeroelastic Systems", Aeronautical Journal, v106 n 1056 Jan 2002 pp 27 - 32.
41. Sedhaghat A, Cooper JE, Wright JR and Leung AYT, "Limit Cycle Oscillation Prediction for Aeroelastic
Systems with Continuous Non-linearities," AIAA-2000-1397, AIAA, Atlanta, 2000.
42. Schippers P & Persoon A J, "Flight Flutter Testing of a Turbo-Prop Aircraft using External Excitation
Devices" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566 Advanced Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data Analysis. Paper 3. 1995.
43. Shirley B M & Anderson E L, "US Air Force / DEI Flutter Exciter Test Program" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566
Advanced Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data Analysis. Paper 4. 1995.
44. Dickenson M. "CF-18 Flight Flutter Test Techniques" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566 Advanced Aeroservoelastic
Testing and Data Analysis. Paper 11. 1995.
45. Desforges MJ, Cooper JE & Wright JR, "Force Appropriation for Flutter Testing" IFASD1995 Paper 72
46. William C, Cooper JE & Wright JR, "Force Appropriation for Flight Flutter Testing using SMART Devices"
SDM 2002.
47. Burrows, AP, Wright JR & Coote JA, "Optimal Excitation for Aircraft Testing" I.MechE J. Aerospace
Engineering. 1995
48. Burrows AP, Worden K & Wright J R, "On the use of Rising Falling Chirp Excitation for Vibration Testing"
J. Sound and Vibration v192 n2 1996 pp 599 - 604
49. Cooper J.E. & Wright J.R "On the Optimisation of Random Signals with Minimum Rate for Flight Flutter
Testing" IFASD. 1997. pp 299-306.
50. De Fonseca. P, Cooper JE & Swivers J, "Optimal Random Excitation" Proc Int Seminar on Modal Analysis
1996 pp 9 0 3 - 9 1 3 .
51. Cooper J E, "Parameter Estimation Methods for Flight Flutter Testing" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566 Advanced
Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data Analysis. Paper 10. 1995.
52. Van der Auweraer & Guillaume P, "A Maximum Likelihood Parameter Estimation Technique to Analyse
Multiple Input - Multiple Output Flutter Test Data" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566 Advanced Aeroservoelastic
Testing and Data Analysis. Paper 12. 1995.
 43-11

53. Emmett PR, Cooper JE & Wright JR, "Improved Frequency Domain Modal Parameter Identification"
IFASD, 1995 paper 55.
54. Cooper J.E, Desforges M.J., Emmett P R & Wright J R, "Advances in the Analysis of Flught Flutter Test
Data" AGARD Conf. Proc. 566 Advanced Aeroservoelastic Testing and Data Analysis. Paper 13. 1995.
55. Farhat C, Harris C & Rixwn DJ, "Expanding a Flutter Envelope using Accelerated Flight Data" AIAA
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conf. 2000 .
56. Sahasrabudhe V, Thompson PM, Klyde DH & Mathis S. "Flutter Detection using Wavelet Based Time
Varying Transfer Functions" Proc AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conf 2000 pp 384-394.
57. Lind R, Brenner M & Freudinger LC, "Wavelet Applications for Flight Flutter Testing" NASA 1999-61885
58. Lo W, Shih C & Yan C, "An On-Line Flutter Analysis System" AIAA Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conf. 2000 .
59. Dimitriadis G & Cooper J E, "On-line Flight Flutter Testing" COST Int Conf on Structural System
Identification 2001. pp 583 - 592.
60. Cooper JE, Desforges MJ, & Wright JR, "The On-line Envelope Function - A Guide to Aeroelastic Stability"
IFASD 1993 pp 9 8 1 - 9 9 8
61. Dimitriadis G & Cooper J.E., "Flutter Prediction from Flight Flutter Test Data" AIAA J.Aircraft v38 n2
pp 3 5 5 - 3 6 7 2001.
62. Lind R, "Flight Testing with the Flutterometer" IFASD 2001 pp 237 - 248.
63. Torii H & Matsuzaki Y, "New Flutter Prediction Method based on ARMA model II Application to
Supersonic Wind Tunnel Testing" Japan Soc Aeronautical and Space Sciences J. v38 n7 2000. ppl9l- 195
64. Lind R, Brenner M & Freudlinger LC., "Wavelet Applications for Flutter Testing" IFASD1999 pp393-402.
65. Cooper J.E & Crowther W J., "Flutter Speed Prediction During Flight Flutter Testing using Neural Networks"
IFASD 1999 pp 255-263.
66. Rixen DJ, Farhat C & Peterson LD, "Simulation of the Continuous Parametric Identification of an
Accelerating Aeroelastic System" 37th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meet. 1999.
67. Luber W, "Flutter Prediction on a Combat Aircraft Involving Backlash and Actuator Failures on Control
Surfaces" IFASD. 1997. pp 173-182.
68. Torri H & Matsuzaki Y, "Flutter Boundary Prediction Based on Nonstationary Data Measurement" AIAA
J.Aircraft 1997 v34 n3 pp 427-432.
69. Shelley SJ & Pickrel CR, "New Concepts in Flight Flutter Parameter Estimation" 1 5 th Int Modal Analysis
Conference pp 4 9 0 -4 9 6 1997.
70. Girodroux-Lavigne et al. 'Comparative Study of Advanced Fluid-Structure Interaction Methods in the Case of
a Highly Flexible Wing (Results from the UNSI Program)' IFASD 2001 v2 pp 1 - 16.
71. Naylor S, Wright JR & Cooper JE, 'Identification of a Non-Proportionally Damped Truss Structure' Testing'
IFASD 1999 pp 847-856.
72. Granasy P, Matsushita M & Saitoh K, 'Non-Linear Aeroelastic Phenomena at Transonic Region' IFASD
1997 v3 pp 379 - 388
73. Lacabanne M & Humbert M, 'An Experimental Analysis of the Aeroelastic Behaviour with a Freeplay in a
Control Surface' IFASD 1997 v3 pp 239 - 246.
74. Brink-Spalink J & Bruns JM, 'Correction of Unsteady Aerodynamic Influence Coefficients using
Experimental or CFD Data' IFASD 2001 v2 pp 175 - 182.
75. Nakamichi J & Kheirandish HR, 'Nonlinear Flutter Simulation of NAL Non-Powered SST Experimental
Airplane and Related Wind Tunnel Tests' IFASD 2001 v3 pp 571-580.
76. Edwards JW, Schuster DM, Spain CV, Keller DF & Moses RW, 'MAVRIC Flutter Model Transonic Limit
Cycle Oscillation Test' IFASD 2001 v3 pp 581 - 595.
77. Holden M, Brazier R & Cal A, 'Effects of Structural Non-Linearities on a Tailplane Flutter Model' IFASD
1995 paper 60.
78. Dowell EH, Kholder D & Tang D, 'Non-Linear Aeroelastic Response of a Typical Airfoil Section with
Control Surface Freeplay' 41st SDM 2000 AIAA-2000-1621.
79. Cole SR & Garcia JL, 'Past, Current and Future Capabilities of the Transonic Dynamics Tunnel from an
Aeroelasticity Perspective' 41st SDM 2000 AIAA-2000-1767.
80. Florance JR & Rivera JA, 'Contributions of Transonic Dynamics Tunnel to Airplane Flutter Clearance' 41s
SDM 2000 AIAA-2000-1768.
43-12

81. Edwards J, Schuster D, Spain C, Keller D & Moses R, 'MAVRIC Flutter Model Transonic Limit Cycle
Oscillation Test' 42nd SDM 2001 AIAA-2001-1291
82. Palacios R, Climent H, Karlsson A & Winzell B, 'Assessment of Strategies for Correcting Linear Unsteady
Aerodynamics using CFD or Test Results' IFASD 2001 v2 pp 195-210.
83. Thomas J, Dowell EH & Hall K, 'Nonlinear Inviscid Aerodynamic Effects on Transonic Divergence, Flutter
and Limit Cycle Oscillations' 4 2 nd SDM 2001 AIAA-2001-1209.
84. Tang L, Bartels R, Chen P & Liu D, 'Simulation of Transonic Limit Cycle Oscillations Using a CFD Time
Marching Method' 4 2 nd SDM 2001 AIAA-2001-1290
85. Schulze S, 'Simulation of Nonlinear Airfoil Control Surface Flutter at Subsonic Speeds using Classical
Unsteady Aerodynamics and an Euler Method' IFASD 1999 pp 53-70.
86. Lind RC, Brenner MJ & Freudinger LC, 'Improved Flight Test Procedures for Flutter Clearance 'IFASD
1997 v3 pp 291 - 298.
87. Ramsay RB, 'Flutter Certification and Qualification of Combat Aircraft' IFASD 1995 paper 92.
88. Lo W, Shih C & Yan C, 'An On-line Flutter Analysis System' 41st SDM 2000 AIAA-2000-1830.
89. Lind RC & Brenner MJ, 'A Worst Case Approach for OnLine Flutter Prediction'IFASD1997 v2 pp79-86.
90. Denegri CM, 'Correlation of Classical Flutter Analysis and Nonlinear Flutter Response Characteristics'
IFASD 1997 v2 pp 141-148.
91. Denegri CM & Johnson MR, 'Limit Cycle Oscillation Prediction using Artificial Neural Networks' IFASD
1999 pp 71-80.
92. Prudhomme. S, Blondeau C, Humbert M & Bucharles A, 'An Unsteady Aerodynamics Identification
Procedure for Flutter Prediction' Testing' IFASD 1999 pp 235-244.
93. Pitt DM,'Flutter Margin Determination for SDOF Aeroelastic Instabilities' IFASD200lv2pp321-332.
94. Lind RC, 'Flight Testing with the Flutterometer' IFASD 2001 v3 pp 237 - 248.
95. Lecce L, Pucci M & Pecora M, 'Flutter Speed Prediction Using the Artificial Neural Network Approach'
IFASD 1995 paper 13.
96. Wong YS, Lee BHK & Wong TKS, 'Parameter Estimation in Flutter Analysis by Wavelet and Neural
Networks' Testing' IFASD 1999 pp 245-254.
97. Hermans L, Van der Auweraer H & Abdelghani M, 'Identification of Structural Models During System
Operation with Application to Flutter Data Analysis' IFASD 1997 v3 pp 323-330.
98. Dimitiadis G & Cooper JE, 'A Time Frequency Stability Analysis of Non-Linear Aeroelastic Systems'
IFASD 2001 v2 pp 237-248
99. Brenner M, 'Nonstationary Dynamics Data Analysis with Wavelet SVD Filtering' 4 2nd SDM 2001 AIAA-
2001-1586
100. Sinapius JM & Lake RC, 'Computer Controlled Normal Mode Testing' IFASD 1999 pp 89-100.
101. Degener M, 'Ground Vibration Testing for Validation of Large Aircraft Structural Dynamics' IFASD
1995 paper 70.
102. Gravelle A, Lubrina P & Fargette P, 'Application of Phase Separation Methods to an Actual Airplane
GVT' IFASD 1995 paper 71.
103. Silva WA, 'Reduced Order Models Based on Linear and Non-Linear Aerodynamic Impulse Responses'
Testing' IFASD 1999 pp 369-380.
104. Grzedzinski J, 'Flutter Calculations of an Aircraft with Non-Linear Structure Based Upon Centre
Manifold Reduction' IFASD 1995 paper 61.
105. Sedaghat A, Cooper JE, Leung AYT & Wright JR, 'LCO Prediction for Aeroelastic Systems with
Continuous Non-Linearities' 41st SDM 2000 AIAA-2000-1397.
106. Beran PS & Pettit CL, 'Reduced Order Modelling for Flutter Prediction' 41st SDM 2000 AIAA-2000-
1446.
107. Dowell EH, Thomas J & Hall K, 'Transonic Limit Cycle Oscillation Analysis Using Reduced Order
Aerodynamic Models' 42nd SDM 2001 AIAA-2001-1212
108. Silva W & Ravel D, 'Development of Unsteady Aerodynamic State Space Models from CFD Based Pulse
Responses' 42nd SDM 2001 AIAA-2001-1213.
109. Pettit C & Beran P, 'In-Situ Subspace Evaluation in Reduced Order Modelling' 42nd SDM 2001 AIAA-
2001-1231
 43-13

110. Kim T & Bussoletti J, 'An Optimal Reduced Order Aeroelastic Modelling Based on a Response Based
Modal Analysis of Unsteady CFD Models' 42nd SDM 2001 AIAA-2001-1525
111. Thomas J, Dowell EH & Hall K, 'Three Dimensional Transonic Aeroelasticity using Proper Orthogonal
Decomposition Based Reduced Order Models' 4 2nd SDM 2001 AIAA-2001-1527
112. Raveh D & Mavris D, 'Reduced Order Model Based Upon CFD Impulse and Step Responses' 4 2nd
SDM 2001 AIAA-2001-1527
113. Dreim DR, Jacobson SB & Britt RT, 'Simulation of Non-Linear Transonic Aeroelastic Behaviour on the
B-2' Testing' IFASD 1999 pp 511-522.
114. Dunn SA, Farrell, PA, Budd PJ, Arms PB, Hardie CA & Rendo CJ, 'F/A-18A Flight Flutter Testing -
Limit Cycle Oscillation or Flutter ?' IFASD 2001 v3 pp 193 - 204.
115. Alonso A, ' EF-18 BPG-2000 Stores Clearance Program' IFASD 2001 v3 pp 205 - 216.
116. Denegri CM, 'Limit Cycle Oscillation Flight Test Results of a Fighter with External Stores' 41" SDM
2000 AIAA-2000-1394.
117. Denegri CM & Johnson MR, 'Statistical Data Evaluation for Limit Cycle Oscillation Prediction using
Artificial Neural Networks' 41st SDM 2000 AIAA-2000-1398.
118. Dessi D, Mastroddi F & Morino L, 'Singular Perturbation Technique for Non-linear Aeroelastic Analysis'
Testing' IFASD 1999 pp 523-542.
119. Lui L, Wong YS & Lee BHK, 'Application of the Centre Manifold Theory in Non-Linear Aeroelastic
Analysis' Testing' IFASD 1999 pp 533-542.
120. Mastroddi F & Bettoli A. 'Non-Linear Aeroelastic System Identification via Wavelet Analysis in the
Neighbourhood of a Limit Cycle' Testing' IFASD 1999 pp 857-866.
121. Dessi L, Mastroddi F & Morino L, 'A Fifth Order No-Reconstruction Multiple Scale Solution for Hopf
Bifurcation' IFASD 1997 v3 pp 355 - 362.
122. Matsushita H, Mosehilde E, Christiansen LE, Lehn-Schioler & Granasy P, 'Examination of the Two
Degree of Freedom Non-Linear Math Model for Transonic Flutter' IFASD 2001 v2 pp287 - 294
123. Liu L, Lee BHK & Wong YS, 'Dynamical Analysis of Nonlinear Aeroelastic Systems with Hysteresis'
IFASD 2001 v2 pp 307 - 320.
124. Angutia L, Maderuelo C, Climent H & Karpel M, 'Efficient Flutter Analysis of Aircraft with Multiple
External Stores' IFASD 2001 v2 pp 333 - 346.
125. Dowell EH, Trickey ST & Virgin LN, 'Characterising Stability and Responses in a Non-Linear System'
41"t SDM 2000 AIAA-2000-1329.
126. Hodges D & Patil M, 'On the Importance of Aerodynamic and Structural Geometric Non-Linearities on
Aeroelastic Behaviour of High Aspect Ratio Wings' Prediction' 41"t SDM 2000 AIAA-2000-1448.
127. Wong YS, Lui L & Lee BHK, 'Frequency and Amplitude Prediction of Limit Cycle Oscillations of an
Airfoil' Containing Concentrated Structural Non-Linearities' 4 2nd SDM 2001 AIAA-2001-1293
128. Alighanbari H & Lee BHK,'Analysis of Non-Linear Aeroelastic Signals' 4 2 nd SDM2001AIAA-2001-
1657
129. Britt RT, Jacobson SB & Arthurs TD, 'Aeroservoelastic Analysis of the B-2 Bomber' IFASD 1997 v2 pp
25 1-260.
130. Bonnet JC & Humbert M, 'A Flexible Aircraft Iron Bird for Aeroservoelastic Studies with Hardware in
the Loop' IFASD 2001 v3 pp 135 - 144.
131. Becker J, Caldwell B, Vaccaro V & Carano L, 'Procedure for the Selection of Structural Coupling
Critical Configuration for Flight Clearance' IFASD 2001 v3 pp 169 - 180.
132. Brenner MJ, 'Aeroservoelastic Uncertainity Model Identification from Flight Data' IFASD 2001 v3 pp
299-310.
133. Van Zyl LH, 'A New Concept For a Flight Flutter Excitation System' IFASD 2001 v3 pp 229 - 236.