STATIC AEROELASTICITY

LIFT DISTRIBUTION

AEROELASTICITY
EAS 3406
2ND Semester 2013/2014

1
 Aims of this Lecture

Understanding of the concept in:

 Static Aeroelasticity
• Definition
• Divergence
 2 Dimensional
 3 Dimensional – Fixed Root Wing
 Effect of Trim
 Effect of Wing Sweep

2
 Static Aeroelasticity

 Study of flexible aircraft structures under aerodynamic loads

 Aerodynamic loads affect structural shape and vice versa
 Forces and motions are considered to be independent of time
 Only steady aerodynamics needs to be considered
 Static aeroelastic deflections – flight wing shape
 Estimation of jig shape from desired flight shape
 Loads in steady flight conditions
 Lift distribution
 Drag forces (and hence range)
 Effectiveness of the control surfaces
 Aircraft trim behaviour Aerodynamic Wing bending
 Static stability and control characteristics loads and twist
 Two critical phenomena
 Divergence
 Control reversal

3
 Static Aeroelastic Behaviour of 2D
Rigid Aerofoil with Spring Attachment

4
 Iterative Analysis-1

 Aerofoil – initial incidence θo and elastic twist θ

 Moment 1  1
M   V 2 c a10  ec  V 2e c2 a10  qe c2 a10
2  2
 Potential energy 1
U  K  2
2
 Generalised moment
Q  

  W   qec a10
2

 qec2a10
       
 Lagrange
ec2 a1
R
q ec2 a1 K
K   q ec a10
2
  0  qR0
K

 Assuming that pitching moment is not changed by twist

 Twist causes new aerodynamic moment
 Need to step between determining new load, new twist etc.

5
 Iterative Analysis-2

 1st iteration – include initial incidence and elastic twist

– potential energy term stays the same

 Moment M  qec2 a1 (0  qR0 )

(1  qR)
 New Twist Angle   qec2 a1 0  qR(1  qR)0
K

 Further Iterations
  qR 1  qR   qR    qR    qR    0
2 3 4
 Repeat above process
 
 In the limit 
qR
0
(1  qR)

 Approach analogous to coupled CFD / FE models (time marching)

6
 Single Step Analysis

 Same aerofoil as before – let incidence include unknown twist θ

 Moment M  qe c2 a1 (0  )
1
 Potential energy U K  2
2

 Generalised moment Q 
  W 


 qec2a1 (0  )   qec a (
2
 )
       
1 0

 Lagrange K  q ec2 a1 (0  )  K   q ec2 a1    q ec2 a10

q ec2 a1 qR
   0
 Twist K   q ec a1 (1  qR)
2 0

 Same result as iterative analysis – will use direct approach

7
 Divergence

 Consider elastic twist

qR ec2 a1
 0 R
(1  qR) K

 Twist increases with q

 As q → 1/R twist goes to infinity
 Physically, the wing twists off
 Aerodynamic moment overcomes the restoring moment
 “Divergence”

Elastic Twist / Initial Incidence

10

8
q
1 K q div 6

q div   2  0 4
R ec a1 1 q 2
q div 0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9
q/qw

 Langley’s “Aerodrome” failed due to divergence

 How to increase the divergence speed?
8
 Static Aeroelastic Behaviour of
Fixed Root Flexible Wing

9
 Fixed Root Rectangular Wing -1

 Rectangular wing
 Flexural axis ec aft of aero centre

 Assume linear twist y

 T
s
 Lift of incremental strip dL  qca W (0  y T )dy
s
s y s
 Total lift L   qca W (0  T )ds  qca W (s0  T ) KE = 0
0 s 2
y
s 2
 d  s
 T 
2
  T
 Potential energy 1
U   GJ   dy 
1 GJ 2
2 0  s 
GJ   dy  T s
2 0  dy  2s

 Incremental WD
s s y  s s 
W   dL ec    qca W (0  T )dyec   qec2a W  0  T  T
0 0 s  2 3 

10
 Fixed Root Rectangular Wing -2

 Total incremental WD s s y y  s s 
W   dL ec    qc2a W (0  T )dye T  qec2a W  0  T  T
0 0 s s  2 3 

 Lagrange’s equations GJT  qec2a  s0  sT  

 GJ
 2 s
  2 s0
W   s qec a qec a
3 
W T W
s  2 3   2

3qec2s 2a W
 Elastic tip twist T  0
 6GJ-2qec s a 
2 2
W

 Dynamic pressure at divergence 3GJ

qW 
ec2s 2a W
 Observations
 Reduce eccentricity or increase torsional rigidity to increase divergence speed
 If flexural axis = aerodynamic centre there is no twist and no divergence
 If flexural axis forward of aero centre then tip twist downwards - divergence
 Later two designs not usually possible for aircraft

11
 Lift Distribution Along Wing
y 3qec2s 2a W
 Combining dL  qca W (0  T )dy and T  0
s  6GJ-2qec s a  2 2
W

 Lift per unit strip becomes

dL  y   3qec2s2 a W y

 qca W  0  T   qca W 1   0
dy  s  
 
6GJ-2qec s a W s 
2 2

 In terms of the divergence speed   q  
 3  
 Total lift dL   W  y 
q
 qca W 1 
  q     q  s 
0
dy
 3    2 1     
s  
L
dL
dy  qcsa W 1   q W      qW   
dy   q   0
0
 4 1   8
Lift per strip / Lift per strip at root

  q W 
6

 As q→∞ L →∞ 4
q/qw = 0.8

q/qw = 0.5
2

q/qw = 0.2
0
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1
Distance along semi-span
12
 Effect of Trim on Static
Aeroelastic Behaviour

13
 Effect of Trim - 1

 In practice, change of airspeed will require trim to be adjusted via elevators to

maintain height
 Idealised rigid aircraft
 able to undergo heave and pitch motions
 wings the same as considered previously, symmetric aerofoil
 thrust and drag in-line
 Generalised coordinates
 heave z, wing root incidence θo, wing twist θ

14
 Effect of Trim - 2

2
 d   
s s 2
 Potential energy 1
U  2  GJ   dy  GJ   T  dy 
GJ 2
T KE = 0
0 
2 0  dy  s s

 WD through incremental distances δz, δθo and δθ

s
W  LT  z  lT 0   Wz  2  qca W (0  )dy  z  l W 0  ec 
0

 Apply Lagrange to all 3 generalised coordinates

(W)    (W)   
Qz  0   LT  W  2qcsa W  0  T  Q0  0   LT lT  2qcsa W  0  T  lW
(z)  2  (0 )  2 

2GJ   
Q  T  2qec2sa W  0  T 
s  2 3 

15
 Effect of Trim - 3

 2qcsa W qcsa W   WlT 

 Eliminate LT  
 0    
qec2sa W 2 GJ        lW  lT  
 qec sa W  2   T  
2

 
3 s   0 
 Tip twist

Tip Twist / Tip Twist (q = 0)

30

 4GJ  q 
T   WlT /(l W  lT )   1   20

 ecs  4q W   10

 Divergence speed increases 0

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
q/qw
12GJ
q  qA   4q W

Theta / Theta (q = q /2)

20

w
2 2
ec s a W 10

0
 Root incidence
0

-10

0
 WlT  q    q 
-20
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4
0    1    2qcsa W 1  
  lT  l W   q W  
q/qw

  4q W  
qW -ve incidence
 Negative incidence beyond qw
 Unlikely to get to divergence as aircraft will run out of trim first

16
 Effect of Trim on Lift Variation

 Combining expressions for θ and θo

dL  WlT  q  y     q 
 Lift per unit span   2   3  2    
4s 1  
dy   lT  lW   qW  s     4q W 

 Linear variation along wing 10

 Area under slope constant

Lift Per Unit Span

q/qw = 2.0
5
 Zero lift at root for q = qw q/qw = 0.5
 Negative lift in-board for q > qw 0 q/qw = 1.0
 ∞ slope for q = 4qw = qA
 As lift moves outboard -5
root BM increases 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7
Normalised Position on Chord
0.8 0.9 1

 For symmetric aerofoil, wing and tailplane lift constant with airspeed
 Tailplane lift LT  qST  a T 0  a E 

17
 Effect of Wing Sweep on Static
Aeroelastic Behaviour

18
 Wing Sweep

 Aircraft have swept-back wings

 Increases speed at which shock waves are formed
 Delays onset of associated drag
 Reduces effective thickness to chord ratio

 Swept forward wings

 Similar drag reduction possible
 Flow separation starts at wing root – better than swept-back where flow separation
occurs near tip and diminishing aileron performance

 Very few forward swept wing aircraft

 Static aeroelastic problems

19
 Effect of Wing Sweep on Angle of Attack

 Consider swept rectangular wing in uniform flow

 Upwards bending of wing

 Streamwise sections AC,AD,AB

 No sweep (AC)
 Bending doesn’t effect incidence
 Sweepback (AD)
 Incidence reduces as bending moves D higher than A
 Sweepforward (AB)
 Incidence increases as bending moves A higher than B

20
Effective Streamwise Angle of Incidence due to Flapping/Pitching

 Consider rigid wing with two root springs

 Span and streamwise chord
constant with sweep angle
 Consider flow over
streamwise strip

21
 Elemental Streamwise Strip

 Effective incidence depends upon

 Difference in deflection of p and r
 Geometry of p,q,r

FLAP PITCH
 Pitch nose-up θ
 Increase in incidence due to sweepback Λ c cos 
pitch    cos 
 Sweep in either direction decreases incidence c
c sin 
Flap    s in
 Flap downwards κ c
 Sweepback increases incidence / sweep forward decreases incidence
 In practice flap is upwards (- κ) so opposite effect occurs
 Flap (bending) dominates changes in effective incidence
22
 Effect of Sweep on Divergence Speed - 1

 Consider rigid – two spring wing

 Lift on incremental strip
dL  qa w cdy (0  ) cos    sin  
 Incremental WD
 y csin  
s
W    qa w cdy (0  ) cos    sin      vertical movement of lift
0  cos  4 
c cos 
s
  qa w cdy (0  ) cos    sin    moment  ve nose up
0
4

1 1
 Potential Energy U K   2  K  2
2 2

Lagrange  cs 2 c 2s sin  
K    qa w  (0  ) cos    sin     
 2 cos  4 
c2s cos 
K   qa w  0    cos    sin  
23
4
 Effect of Sweep on Divergence Speed - 2

 In matrix form

  s 2 tan  cs sin 2     s 2 cs sin  cos      s 2

cs sin  cos   
 K   qa w c     qa w c      qa w 
c  
  2 4  2 4     2 4  
 
      0
 qa w sc sin  cos 
2
 2 2

qa sc cos      qa w sc cos 
2 2

 K  w   
 4  4   4

 At divergence
  s 2 tan  cs sin 2     qa w sc2 cos 2   3 sin  cos   s
2
cs sin  cos  
   qa w  sc
2
 K   qa w c      K     0
  2 4  4  4  2 4 

 Divergence speed
2K  K 
Vdiv 
 sc2 cos 2   cs 2 tan  c2 sin 2   
a w  K   K   
 4  2 4 
24
 Effect of Sweep on Divergence Speed - 3

 Divergence speed

Normalised Divergence Speed

1.6

 Increases with 1.4

sweepback
1.2
 Decreases with
sweepforward 1

0.8
-25 -20 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20 25
Sweep Angle (deg)

 Forward Swept Aircraft

 Divergence speed becomes limiting case
 Very few aircraft with forward swept wings
 Need to use aeroelastic tailoring to counteract effect
 X29 / Sukhoi 47

25
 Summary

 Lift Distribution
 Lift distribution varies along wing due to flexibility
 Divergence Speed
 Speed at which static instability occurs
 Aerodynamic moment overcomes structural restoring force
 Trim
 Consideration of trim angle increases divergence speed compared to single wing
case
 Sweep Angle
 Wing bending and twist affect effective angle of attack
 Sweepback increases divergence speed
 Sweepforward reduces divergence speed
 Certification
 Divergence and any undue loss of stability and control should be investigated

26