Ae249 DLM 2015

INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO DE AERONÁUTICA MAURÍCIO DONADON / FLÁVIO SILVESTRE / ANTÔNIO GUIMARÃES
AEROELASTICITY
LECTURE NOTES
EXTENSION TO THREE DIMENSIONAL LIFTING SURFACES – DOUBLET-LATTICE METHOD
IMAGE CREDITS: BOEING
AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY

INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO DE AERONÁUTICA MAURÍCIO DONADON / FLÁVIO SILVESTRE/ ANTÔNIO GUIMARÃES
> Outline
‣ Motivation
‣ Objectives
‣ From the Navier-Stokes equations to the linearized potential equation
‣ Boundary conditions
‣ The doublet-lattice method
‣ Applications: past and future
AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 2

> Motivation
‣ The doublet-lattice method (DLM) development began in 1967 and the method
was presented to the public at the 6th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting in
January 1968 and then published in the AIAA Journal in February 1969
‣ ALBANO, E.; RODDEN, W.P. A doublet lattice method for calculating lift distributions on oscillating surfaces in
subsonic flows. In: AIAA AEROSPACE SCIENCES MEETING, 6., New York, 1968. Proceedings… New York: AIAA,
1968.
‣ ALBANO, E.; RODDEN, W.P. A doublet-lattice method for calculating lift distributions on oscillating surfaces in
subsonic flows. AIAA Journal, v. 7, n. 2, p. 279-285, 1969.
‣ Since then, the method has gained worldwide acceptance as a standard in

subsonic aeroelastic analyses in the aircraft industry

> Objectives
‣ Describe the main theoretical and computational aspects of the DLM, including
all the simplifying assumptions that give rise to the method
‣ Explain the most important modeling guidelines of the DLM
‣ Highlight the intrinsic relation between the DLM and MSC Nastran
‣ Illustrate its applications

> Navier-Stokes Equations
‣ The Navier-Stokes equations are the fundamental equations of fluid dynamics
∂ρ 
‣ Conservation of mass:
∂t
( )
+ ∇ ⋅ ρV = 0
Du ∂p ∂τ xx ∂τ yx ∂τ zx
ρ =
− + + + + ρ fx
Dt ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂z
∂p ∂τ xy ∂τ yy ∂τ zy
‣ Linear momentum: ρ
Dv
Dt
=
− +
∂y ∂x
+
∂y
+
∂z
+ ρ fy
Dw ∂p ∂τ xz ∂τ yz ∂τ zz
ρ =
− + + + + ρ fz
Dt ∂z ∂x ∂y ∂z

> Navier-Stokes Equations
D ( e + V 2 2) ∂  ∂T  ∂  ∂T  ∂  ∂T  
ρ = ρ q +  k
∂x  ∂x
+ k
 ∂y  ∂y
 + ∂z  k ∂z

( )
 − ∇ ⋅ pV

Dt 
∂ ( uτ xx ) ∂ ( uτ yx ) ∂ ( uτ zx ) ∂ ( vτ xy ) ∂ ( vτ yy ) ∂ ( vτ zy )
‣ Energy equation: +
∂x
+
∂y
+
∂z
+
∂x
+
∂y
+
∂z
∂ ( wτ xz ) ∂ ( wτ yz ) ∂ ( wτ zz )  
+ + + + ρ f ⋅V
∂x ∂y ∂z
D( ) ≡ ∂ ( ) + V ⋅∇
‣ Substantial derivative: Dt ∂t
( )
‣ State equation: p = ρ RT

> Euler Equations

‣ Different levels of fluid-dynamics equations can be derived from Navier-Stokes
equations
‣ Usually, the body forces are neglected
‣ The so-called Euler equations are obtained neglecting the viscous and the heat-
transfer-related terms
∂ρ 
∂t
( )
+ ∇ ⋅ ρV = 0

DV ‣ State equation:
‣ Linear momentum equation: ρ = −∇p
Dt p = ρ RT
D ( e + V 2 2) 
‣ Energy equation: ρ
Dt
( )
= −∇ ⋅ pV

> Euler Equations
∂ρ 
∂t
( )
+ ∇ ⋅ ρV = 0

‣ Linear momentum equation: ρ
DV
= −∇p
‣ State equation:
Dt p = ρ RT
D ( e + V 2 2) 
‣ Energy equation: ρ
Dt
( )
= −∇ ⋅ pV
‣ There are 7 unknowns and 6 equations
‣ The additional equation is the following isentropic relation:

p  cp 
γ
= constant γ = 
ρ  cv 

> Irrotational flows

 
‣ For irrotational flows, one has: ∇ ×V = 0

which is obtained if and only if: V = ∇Φ
‣ The velocity potential, Φ, is a scalar representing a new state variable


DV
ρ = −∇p
Dt

∂V   ∇p
+ V ⋅∇V = −
∂t ρ

‣ Linear momentum equation: ∂V V 2 
+ ∇  = −
∇p
∂t  2  ρ
∂ V 2  ∇p
( ∇Φ ) + ∇   = −
∂t  2  ρ
 ∂Φ V 2  ∇p
∇ + =−
 ∂t 2  ρ
∇p p( x , y , z ,t )
‣ It can be demonstrated that:
ρ
∇∫
=
1
∇∫
dλ =
dp
p0 ( t ) ρ (λ ) ρ
 ∂Φ V 2 dp  
∇ + +∫ = 0
 ∂t 2 ρ 
‣ Hence: ∂Φ V 2
+ +∫
dp
= F (t )
∂t 2 ρ
( Kelvin's or "unsteady Bernoulli's" equation )
∂Φ
‣ Far field conditions: V=
V∞ ,
∂t
=
0, dp =
V∞ 2
0 ⇒ F (t ) =
2
‣ The velocity potential redefined: φ = Φ − ∫ F (τ ) dτ = Φ −
0
t V∞ 2t
2
∂φ V 2 dp
+ +∫ =
0
∂t 2 ρ

∂ρ  
+ V ⋅∇ρ + ρ∇ ⋅ V = 0
‣ Conservation of mass: ∂t
1 ∂ρ 1
+ ∇φ ⋅∇ρ + ∇ ⋅∇φ = 0
ρ ∂t ρ
‣ Speed of sound: a =
2 dp
dρ
∂ dp 1 ∂p 1 dp ∂ρ a 2 ∂ρ
‣ The following also holds: ∫
= = =
∂t ρ ρ ∂t ρ d ρ ∂t ρ ∂t
1 ∂ρ
=
ρ ∂t
∂φ V 2
∂ φ ∂  V  ∂ dp
2 12 ∂ 2
φ ∂  V 2

‣ From
∂t
+
2
+∫
dp
ρ
0 , one has:
=
∂t 2
+  + ∫
∂t  2  ∂t ρ
=
0 − 2  2 +  
a  ∂t ∂t  2  


∂ρ  
+ V ⋅∇ρ + ρ∇ ⋅ V = 0
‣ Conservation of mass: ∂t
1 ∂ρ 1
+ ∇φ ⋅∇ρ + ∇ ⋅∇φ = 0
ρ ∂t ρ
∇p dp ∇ρ 2 ∇ρ
‣ Also: = = a
ρ dρ ρ ρ
1 1  ∂φ V∞ 2 V 2  1  ∂φ V 2 
∇ρ =
− 2 ∇ + + =− 2 ∇ + 
ρ a  ∂t 2 2  a  ∂t 2 
‣ But:  ∂Φ V 2 
∇ + =−
∇p
 ∂t 2  ρ


1 ∂ρ 1 
+ ∇φ ⋅  ∇ρ  + ∇ ⋅∇φ = 0
ρ ∂t ρ 
1 ∂ρ 1 ∂  ∂φ V 2 
=
− 2  + 
ρ ∂t a ∂t  ∂t 2 
1 1  ∂φ V 2 
∇ρ =− 2 ∇  + 
ρ a  ∂t 2 
‣ The equations combined with the velocity potential as the unknown:

1 ∂  ∂φ V 2   1  ∂φ V 2  
− 2  +  + ∇φ ⋅  − 2 ∇  +   + ∇ ⋅∇φ = 0
a ∂t  ∂t 2   a  ∂t 2 

1 ∂φ ∂ ( )
2  ∇ φ
2
 ∂  ( ∇ φ )
2

− 2 2 +   + ∇φ ⋅ ( ∇φ ) + ∇φ ⋅∇    + ∇ 2φ = 0
a  ∂t ∂t  2  ∂t  2 
 


1 ∂φ ∂2  ( ∇φ )  
2
∇ φ − 2  2 + ( ∇φ ) + ∇φ ⋅∇   =0
2 2
a  ∂t ∂t  2 
  
> Full Potential Equation
‣ The speed of sound can also be expressed in terms of the velocity potential:
 ∂φ ( ∇φ ) 
2
a = a∞ − ( γ − 1) 
2 2
+ 
 ∂t 2 
 
‣ Hence, the equation:

1 ∂φ ∂
2  ( ∇ φ )
2

∇ φ − 2  2 + ( ∇φ ) + ∇φ ⋅∇   =0
2 2
a  ∂t ∂t  2 
  
is exclusively a function of the velocity potential.
It is called the full potential equation.

> Full Potential Equation – Nonlinear pressure relation
‣ From the previous equations:

 ∂φ ( ∇φ ) 
2
a = a∞ − ( γ − 1) 
2 2
+ 
 ∂t 2 
 
p p∞
= γ
=
constant
ρ ρ∞γ
dp
a =
2
dρ
‣ One obtains the nonlinear pressure relation:

γ
 γ − 1  ∂φ ( ∇φ )2   γ −1
p∞ 1 − 2 
p= + 
 a∞  ∂t 2  
 

> Linearized Potential Equation
‣ Total flow = steady flow + small unsteady disturbances:
φ (=
x, y, z , t ) φ ( x, y, z ) + φ ( x, y, z , t )
p (=
x, y, z , t ) p ( x, y, z ) + p ( x, y, z , t )
ρ (=
x, y, z , t ) ρ ( x, y, z ) + ρ ( x, y, z , t )
‣ The sound speed is assumed time invariant:

a ( x, y , z , t ) = a ( x, y , z )
‣ The steady mean flow is assumed to have a uniform velocity of V∞ with

streamlines in the x direction:
φ ( x, y, z ) = V∞ x
a ( x, y, z ) = a∞

‣ Then, the following equations become valid:
∇ 2φ = ∇ 2φ + ∇ 2φ = ∇ 2φ
∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ
= 2
∂t 2
∂t
∂ ∂ ∂
( ) (  ) ( ∇φ ) ( )
2
∇
= φ + ∇=φ + ∇ φ ⋅
2
V∞
ˆ
i 2 V∞
ˆ
i
∂t ∂t ∂t
 V∞ i + ∇φ 
 ( )
2
 ( ∇φ ) 
2 ˆ
∇φ ⋅∇ 
 2 
= (
 V∞ iˆ + ∇φ ⋅∇ 

) 2


   
( )(
 V∞ iˆ + ∇φ ⋅ V∞ iˆ + ∇φ  )
(
= V∞ iˆ + ∇φ ⋅∇ 

) 2


 

‣ If only first-order terms in φ and its derivatives are kept, one obtains:
∇ 2φ =∇ 2φ
∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ
= 2
∂t 2
∂t
2 
∂ ∂ ∂ φ
∂t
2
( ) ( )
( ∇φ ) ≈ 2 V∞i ⋅ ∇φ =
ˆ
∂t
 2V∞
∂t ∂x
 ( ∇φ ) 2   φ 2 
φ
∇φ ⋅∇ 
 2 
( ) (( ) ( )) ( ) φ
 ≈ V∞ iˆ ⋅∇ V∞ iˆ ⋅ ∇=
∂
V∞ iˆ ⋅∇  V∞ =
∂
 ∞
V 2 ∂
∂ 2
   x  x
and the full-potential equation reduces to the linearized potential equation:

2  2  2 
 1  ∂ φ ∂ φ ∂ φ
∇ φ − 2  2 + 2V∞
2
+ V∞ 2
2 
=
0
a∞  ∂t ∂t ∂x ∂x 

2  2  2 
2  1  ∂ φ ∂ φ ∂ φ
∇ φ − 2  2 + 2V∞ + V∞ 2
2 
=
0
a∞  ∂t ∂t ∂x ∂x 
 V∞ 2  ∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ 1 ∂ 2φ 2V∞ ∂ 2φ

1 − 2  2 + 2 + 2 − 2 2 − 2 =
0
 a∞  ∂x ∂y ∂z a∞ ∂t a∞ ∂t ∂x
2  2  2  2  2 
∂ φ ∂ φ ∂ φ ∂ φ ∂ φ
(1 − M ∞ ) ∂x 2 + ∂y 2 + ∂z 2 − a 2 ∂t 2 − a 2 ∂t∂x =
2 1 2V ∞
0
∞ ∞

> Linearized Potential Equation – Linear pressure relation
‣ For small disturbances:
p  γ − 1 ∂φ ( )
= 1 − 2 

+
∇ φ
2
  γ −1
  ≈ 1− 
(
+
)(
γ γ − 1  ∂φ V∞iˆ + ∇φ ⋅ V∞iˆ + ∇φ
 ) 
p∞  
a∞  ∂t 2   γ − 1 a∞  ∂t
2
2 
   
 ∂φ 
γ  ∂φ V∞ + 2V∞ ∂x 
2
ρ∞  ∂φ V∞ 2 ∂φ 
≈ 1− 2  +  = 1−  + + V∞ 
a∞  ∂t 2  p ∞  ∂ t 2 ∂x 

 
 V∞ 2 ∂φ ∂φ 
p − p∞ ≈ − ρ∞  + + V∞ 
 2 ∂t ∂x 

> The acceleration potential

‣ The acceleration potential is defined by the equation:
V 2 ∂φ
ψ
= +
2 ∂t
‣ The linearized form is:

∂φ
ψ= ψ +ψ=
V∞ 2
2
+ψ=
1
2
( )(
V∞ iˆ + ∇φ ⋅ V∞ iˆ + ∇φ +)∂t
∂φ ∂φ
ψ
= + V∞
∂t ∂x
‣ Hence:
 V∞ 2 
− ρ∞ 
p − p∞ = +ψ 

 2 
p − p∞ p − p∞ p − p∞ 2 ρ∞  V∞ 2  2
Cp = = = =− 2 
+ψ  =−1 − 2 ψ
ρ∞V∞ 2 ρ∞ ( M ∞ a∞ ) 2 γ p∞ M ∞ 2
2 2 2 2
γ p∞ M ∞  2  V∞

> The acceleration potential
‣ It can be demonstrated that the linearized acceleration potential and the

pressure itself satisfy the linearized potential equation:
∂ 2ψ ∂ 2ψ ∂ 2ψ 1 ∂ 2ψ 2V∞ ∂ 2ψ
(1 − M ∞
2
) ∂x 2 + ∂y 2 + ∂z 2 − a 2 ∂t 2 − a 2 ∂t∂x =
0
∞ ∞
∂ 2 p ∂ 2 p ∂ 2 p 1 ∂ 2 p 2V∞ ∂ 2 p
(1 − M ∞
2
) ∂x 2 + ∂y 2 + ∂z 2 − a 2 ∂t 2 − a 2 ∂t∂x =
0
∞ ∞
giving rise to the “pressure potential” concept, which shares the exact same
meaning with the pressure itself.
‣ Elementary solutions to the linearized velocity potential equation are also

elementary solutions in terms of acceleration or pressure potential
‣ One particular elementary solution is of interest: the acceleration potential doublet

> Boundary conditions
‣ For the flow over a fight vehicle, the computational domain is defined:
‣ Interiorly, by the outer surface of the flight vehicle and its trailing wake, and
‣ Exteriorly, by the far field conditions
‣ A time variant surface in three-dimensional space can be described by the

equation:
S ( x, y , z , t ) = 0
‣ Consistent with the potential formulation, the boundary condition on the vehicle
specifies tangential flow at the surface, that is, no normal component of the flow
with respect to the surface, mathematically described by:
DS ∂S 
= + V ⋅∇=
S 0, at S ( x, y, z , =
t) 0
Dt ∂t

> Linearized boundary conditions

‣ For a thin lifting surface, one can write the surface function Sls in terms of the
position of the midplane, hm(x,y,t), and the thickness envelope, ht(x,y,t):
z − ( hm ( x, y, t ) ± ht ( x, y, t ) ) =
Sls ( x, y, z , t ) = z − h ( x, y , t ) =
0
‣ The boundary condition becomes:

∂Sls
∂t
( )
+ V∞ iˆ + ∇φ ⋅∇Sls = 0
 ∂hm ∂ht    ∂hm ∂ht   ∂hm ∂ht  

−
 ∂t
±
∂t 
(
ˆ  )
 + V∞ i + ∇φ ⋅  −  ± i − 
ˆ ±  j+k=
ˆ ˆ 0
  ∂x ∂x   ∂y ∂y  
‣ Analogously to the case of the full-potential equation, the boundary condition is

linearized about an undisturbed and uniform flow
‣ This is a severe restriction, limiting the formulation to model flow disturbances only over
slender bodies and thin wings
 ∂hm ∂ht   ∂hm ∂ht  ∂φ ∂φ ∂h ∂h

− ±  − V∞  ± + =
0 ⇒ w = = + V∞
 ∂t ∂t   ∂x ∂x  ∂z ∂z ∂t ∂x

> Linearized boundary conditions

‣ The components hm(x,y,t) and ht(x,y,t) can be treated independently in the
linearized boundary conditions
‣ Typically, ht(x,y,t) = ht(x,y)
‣ The unsteady solution due to hm(x,y,t) can be superimposed on a separate time invariant
solution using ht(x,y)
‣ The far field boundary condition of uniform flow can be automatically satisfied
by an adequate choice of sources or doublets to solve the flow on the interior
boundary: their influence dies out at infinite distances
‣ The trailing wake boundary condition states that no pressure jump can exist
across it, which requires the velocity potential to be antisymmetric across the
wake

> Küssner’s integral equation
‣ Let us consider that the motion is harmonic and the flow properties also vary
harmonically with time:
ψ = ψ eiωt
φ = φ eiωt
‣ The acceleration potential at a point (x,y,z) due to a doublet at the point (ξ,η,ζ)
is given by:
ψ = ψ eiωt
A (ω ) ∂  1  iω 
=ψ ( x, y , z )  exp  2 ( M ( x − ξ ) − R )  
ρ∞ ∂z  R  aβ 
with A (ω ) the unknown amplitude of the pressure oscillations at the given
(
frequency and R = ( x − ξ ) + β ( y − η ) + β ( z − ζ )
2 2 2 2 2 1/2
)


‣ If the point doublet is substituted by a doublet sheet distributed over the planar
surface S, the acceleration potential at (x,y,z) becomes:
β 2z  −iω 1   iω 
ψ ( x, y=
, z)
4πρ∞ ∫∫S ∆p (ξ ,η )  β 2 R 2 − R 3  exp  aβ 2 ( M ( x − ξ ) − R )  dξ dη
‣ The boundary condition is related to the velocity potential, so the following
equation needs to be recovered:
∂φ ∂φ
ψ
= + V∞
∂t ∂x
ψ = ψ eiωt ∂φ
‣ With: one obtains: =
ψ iωφ + V∞ , leading to:
φ = φ eiωt ∂x
1  −iω x  x  iωλ 
φ ( x, y, z ) = exp   ∫ exp  ψ ( λ , y, z ) d λ
V∞  V∞  −∞  V∞ 


‣ The normal velocity in the boundary condition is:
∂φ ∂ φ ∂ φ ∂   − ω   iωλ  
x
1 i x
 ∫ exp  ψ ( λ , y, z ) d λ 
iωt iωt
w= ⇒ we = e ⇒ w= =  exp 
∂z ∂z ∂z ∂z  V∞  V∞  −∞  V∞  
1  −iω x  x  iωλ  ∂ψ ( λ , y, z )
= exp   ∫ exp   dλ
V∞  V∞  −∞  V∞  ∂z
∂1  iω 
∆p (ξ ,η )  exp  2 ( M ( x − ξ ) − R )   d ξ dη , yielding:
1
with ψ ( x, y=
, z) ∫∫
4πρ∞ S ∂z  R  aβ 
 −iω x  x  iωλ   ∂2  1  iω  
  ∫∫ ∆p (ξ ,η ) 2  exp  2 ( M ( λ − ξ ) − R )   d ξ dη  d λ
1
w exp   ∫ exp 
4πρ∞V∞  V∞  −∞  V∞   S ∂z  R  aβ  
‣ Or:
  −iω x  x  iωλ   ∂ 2  1  iω  
exp  2 ( M ( λ − ξ ) − R )    d λ  d ξ dη
1
w ∫∫ ∆p (ξ ,η )  exp   ∫ exp    
4πρ∞V∞ S   ∂ 2
 β   
  ∞  −∞
V  ∞ 
V z  R a  


∂2
‣ Making the change of variables α= λ − ξ, and moving the 2 derivative outside
∂z
of the integral:
  −iω ( x − ξ )  x−ξ  iωα   ∂ 2  1  iω  
  2  exp  2 ( M α − R )    dα  d ξ dη
1
w= ∫∫ ∆p (ξ ,η )  exp   ∫ exp 
4πρ∞V∞ S   V∞  −∞  V∞   ∂z  R  aβ  

  −iω ( x − ξ )  ∂ 2 x −ξ
1  iωα iω  
∫−∞  R exp  V∞ + aβ 2 ( M α − R )   dα  dξ dη
1
w= ∫∫ ∆p (ξ ,η )  exp   2
4πρ∞V∞ S 
  V∞  ∂z   
  −iω ( x − ξ )  ∂ 2 x −ξ
1  iωβ 2α iω M  
∫−∞  R exp  V∞ β 2 + Maβ 2 ( M α − R )   dα  dξ dη
1
w= ∫∫ ∆p (ξ ,η )  exp   2
4πρ∞V∞ S 
  V ∞  ∂z   
  −iω ( x − ξ )  ∂ 2 x −ξ
1  iω  
∫−∞  R exp  V∞ β 2 (α − MR )   dα  dξ dη
1
w= ∫∫ ∆p (ξ ,η )  exp   2
4πρ∞V∞ S 
  V ∞  ∂z   

‣ The equation can be abbreviated as follows:
  −iω ( x − ξ )  ∂ 2 x −ξ
1  iω  
∫−∞  R exp  V∞ β 2 (α − MR )   dα  dξ dη
1
w= ∫∫ ∆p (ξ ,η )  exp   2
4πρ∞V∞ S 
  V ∞  ∂z   
1
=w
4πρ∞V∞ ∫∫ ∆p (ξ ,η ) K ( x − ξ , y −η , z, ω , M ) dξ dη
S
with the kernel K given by:

  −iω ( x − ξ )  ∂ 2 x −ξ
1  iω  
K ( x − ξ , y −η , z,ω , M )  exp 
 V∞
 2
 ∂z
∫−∞  R exp  V∞ β 2 (α − MR )   dα 
   

‣ Considering the non-dimensional normal velocity and the pressure coefficient

difference as:
w ∆p
w= , ∆C =
V∞
p
ρ∞V∞ 2 2
one obtains the non-dimensional form of the integral equation:
1
w=
8π ∫∫ ∆C (ξ ,η ) K ( x − ξ , y −η , z, ω , M ) dξ dη
S
p
‣ The integral equation was presented by Küssner in 1940
‣ The doublet-lattice method would become, almost 30 years after, a discrete

means of solving Küssner’s integral equation

> The planar doublet-lattice method
‣ In the DLM, the lifting surface is divided into trapezoidal elements known as
boxes, having their lateral edges aligned with the direction of the x axis
‣ The integration of the kernel in each box is then done by assuming a uniform
loading concentrated on the quarter-chord line, simplifying the chordwise
integration via a chordwise Dirac-delta function
‣ If the j-th box dimensions are ∆s j spanwise and ∆x j chordwise (the average
chord of the trapezoid) and the quarter-chord has a sweep angle λ j , one has
the box area ∆x j ∆s j and the quarter-chord length d j = ∆s j cos λ j , so that the
average pressure difference on the box reads:
f jd j fj
∆C p= =
∆x j ∆s j ∆x j cos λ j
,j
N
1 1 N
w≈
8π
∑ f j ∫ K ( x − ξ1/4 , y − η , ω , M ) d  =
j 1=
∑
8π j 1
∆C p , j ∆x j cos λ j ∫ K ( x − ξ1/4 , y − η , ω , M ) d 
dj dj

‣ The force per unit chord, fj, is assumed to act at the centerline of the box
quarter-chord
‣ Since the kernel was lumped to a discrete domain, with a certain number N of
loading lines, the boundary conditions also need to be satisfied in a limited
number of points as well
‣ These points are classically called the control points or collocation points
‣ They have been fixed by experience to the three-quarters of the boxes’ average chords
‣ Pistolesi was the first to introduce the ¼ - ¾ rule, in 1937
‣ Hedman (VLM) and Albano & Rodden (DLM) assume the ¼ - ¾ in their methods
‣ The normal velocity at the i-th control point is:

N
1
w=
i
8π
∑ ∆C
j =1
p, j ∆x j cos λ j ∫ K ( xi − ξ1/4 , yi − η , ω , M ) d 
dj


“… from numerical experimentation with this technique, it has become apparent that the Kutta
condition will be satisfied when each downwash point is the ¾-chord point at midspan of a box.”
Albano, E., and Rodden, W. P. (1969).
A doublet-lattice method for calculating lift distributions on oscillating surfaces in subsonic flows. AIAA Journal, 7(2), 279-285.
“Hedman’s solution was based on the Kutta-Joukowski Law and determined all of the unknown
vortex strengths by matching the distribution of downwash on the surface at collocation points
chosen at the three-quarter chord location on the centerline of each box.”
“The choice of the one- and three-quarter chords for locating the doublet and matching the
downwash had a basis in two-dimensional airfoil theory but extending the one-quarter point to a
swept line of doublets and matching the downwash at the three-quarter point of the box
centerlines was somewhat empirical.”
Rodden, W. P. (1997).
The development of the doublet-lattice method. Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural
Dynamics, Rome, Italy, June 1997.
“… it has been established by experience that the vortex and sensing points must be arranged
according to Pistolesi approximation, i.e., at the ¼ and ¾ chord points on each element in the
vortex lattice method.”
James, R. M. (1972).
On the remarkable accuracy of the vortex lattice method. Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineering, 1, 59-79.

‣ The method leads to a matrix equation of the form:

w= D ∆C p
where:
1
Dij = ∆x j cos λ j ∫ K ( xi − ξ1/4 , yi − η , ω , M ) d 
8π dj
‣ The great challenge remains to obtain the integral of the kernel!
‣ First step:
e
cos λ j ∫ K ( xi − ξ1/4 , yi − η , ω , M ) d  = ∫ K (x −ξ
i 1/4 , yi − η , ω , M ) dη
dj −e
with η = 0 at the panel average chord and e the box semi-width


‣ With x0= xi − ξ1/4 and y=
0 yi − η , it is possible to demonstrate that:
e
K ( x0, y0 )
e
∫−e K ( xi − ξ1/4 , yi −η , ω , M ) dη =
lim ∫ 2
ε →0
−e
y0 + ε 2
dη
with the following equations valid for subsonic flows:

 −iω x0 
K ( x0, y0 ) = K1 ( x0 , y0 ) exp  
 ∞ 
V
  exp −ik u 
K1 ( x0 , y0 ) =− I1 −  M y 0  ( 1 1) 
 ( x 2 + β 2 y 2 )1/2  (1 + u 2 )1/2 
 0 0  1 
∞
exp ( −ik1u )
I1 = ∫ du
u1 (1 + u )
2 3/2
ω y0
k1 =
V∞
M ( x0 + β y0
2 2
)
2 1/2
− x0
u1 =
y0 β 2
> The planar doublet-lattice method – Laschka’s approximation

∞
exp ( −ik1u )
I1 = ∫ du
u1 (1 + u )
2 3/2


K (x y ) e
‣ Even using Laschka’s approximation, the integral ∫ y + ε dη cannot yet be 2

0, 0
2
determined analytically −e 0
‣ The solution is to determine a polynomial approximation for the numerator
‣ The first doublet-lattice codes considered a parabolic approximation:
K ( x0, y0 ) =A0 + A1η + A2η 2
‣ Hence, the exact value of K ( x0, y0 ) needs to be determined at three points (left
end, center, right end) of the doublet line, yielding:


‣ With the quadratic approximation to the numerator of the kernel, it is finally
possible to derive that:
K ( x0, y0 )   ( e − yi )  2eyi 
e 2
2e 1
lim ∫ A0 2 2 + A1  log 
dη = + 2 2 
ε →0 y0 + ε
2 2
yi − e 2  ( e + y )  yi − e 
2
−e   i  
  ( e − yi )2  2ey 2 
+ A2  2e + yi log   + i

  ( e + y )  yi − e 
2 2 2
  i  
‣ And:
1
Dij = ∆x j cos λ j ∫ K ( xi − ξ1/4 , yi − η , ω , M ) d 
8π dj
∆x j  2 e  1  ( e − yi )
2
 2eyi    ( e − yi )  2eyi 2  
2
 A0 2 2 + A1  log   + 2 2  + A2  2e + yi log   + 2 2 
8π  yi − e 2  ( e + y )  yi − e 
2
  ( e + y )  yi − e  
2
   i     i  

> The nonplanar doublet-lattice method
‣ The nonplanar DLM allows multiple lifting surfaces with arbitrary dihedral angles
to be considered
‣ A generalization of the kernel function is needed, and it was derived by several

authors (Rodden, 2011):
 −iω x0  K1T1 K 2T2* 
=K exp   2 + 4 
 V∞   r r 
=T1 cos ( γ i − γ j )
( z0 cos γ i − y0 sin γ i ) ( z0 cos γ j − y0 sin γ j )

T2* =
=r (y 0
2
+ z0 )
2 1/2
xi − ξ1/4, j , y0 =
x0 = yi − η , z0 =
zi − ζ

‣ In subsonic flows:
Mr exp ( −ik1u1 )   β 2

+ (1 + u1 ) 
Mru1 r r
 K 2 =3I 2 +  2+ 2
+ ik1M  
Mr exp ( −ik1u1 )  R (1 + u 2 ) 
3/2
R R  R 
−  I1 +
K1 =  1
 R (1 + u 2 ) 
1/2
 1  ωr
k1 =
=
R (x 0
2 2 2 1/2
+β r ) V∞
MR − x0
β = 1− M
2 2 u1 =
β 2r
∞
exp ( −ik1u )
I1 ( u1 ) = ∫ du
∞
exp ( −ik1u )
I 2 ( u1 ) = ∫
u1 (1 + u )
2 3/2
u1 (1 + u )2 5/2
du


‣ Laschka’s approximation, for u1 ≥ 0:

‣ Laschka’s approximation, for u1 < 0:


‣ Laschka’s approximation:


‣ Desmarais’s approximation (Rodden, Taylor and McIntosh Jr., 1998):


‣ Prof. Bismarck-Nasr’s exact analytical calculation:

‣ We then have:
∆x j
 −iω x0  K1T1 K 2T2* 
e
= Dij ∫
8π − e
exp   2 + 4  dη
 V∞   r r 
∆x j e K1T1 exp ( −iω x0 V∞ ) ∆x j e K 2T2* exp ( −iω x0 V∞ )
∫
8π − e r 2
dη + ∫
8π − e r 4
dη
  
Dij ( ) Dij ( )
1 2
‣ As in the case of the planar DLM, polynomial approximations are sought for the
numerators of the kernel functions in Dij (1) and Dij ( 2) :
∆x j e
p1 (η ) ∆x j e
p2 (η )
Dij ≈
8π ∫
−e
r 2
dη +
8π ∫
−e
r 4
dη
‣ However, the steady-flow solution is known exactly with Hedman’s vortex-lattice

method, and it would not be wise to use the polynomial approximation in the
steady case
‣ For this reason, the DLM includes a system of horseshoe vortices at the boxes,
allowing the calculation of the exact influence coefficients when the frequency is
zero
‣ Therefore, the polynomials need only to approximate the incremental unsteady

kernel:
∆x j e
 −iω x0   ( K1 − K10 ) T1 ( K 2 − K 20 ) T2*  (VLM )
8π −∫e
= Dij exp   2
+ 4  dη + D ij
 ∞ 
V r r 
∆x j e ( K1 − K10 ) T1 exp ( −iω x0 V∞ ) ∆x j e ( K 2 − K 20 ) T2* exp ( −iω x0 V∞ ) (VLM )
8π −∫e 8π −∫e
= d η + d η + Dij
r2 r4
    
Dij ,incr ( ) Dij ,incr ( )
1 2
∆x j e
p1 (η ) ∆x j e
p2 (η )
dη + Dij (
VLM )
Dij ≈
8π ∫
−e
r2
dη +
8π ∫
−e
r4
K10 =1 + x0 R , K 20 =−2 − ( x0 R ) ( 2 + β 2 r 2 R 2 )
CONSTANT STRENGTH
ACCELERATION-
POTENTIAL LINE OF
DOUBLETS
CONTROL POINT
RELATIVE TO LINE OF
+ DOUBLETS
CONSTANT STRENGTH
VELOCITY-POTENTIAL
HORSESHOE VORTEX
CONTROL POINT
RELATIVE TO
HORSESHOE VORTEX

‣ In place of the original parabolic approximation to the numerator used by Albano

& Rodden in 1969, Rodden, Taylor and McIntosh Jr. (1998) proposed a quartic
approximation
‣ For the quartic approximation, five points need to be used to calculate the
coefficients (-e, -e/2, 0, e/2, e)
‣ The determination of the coefficients is somewhat tedious but totally analogous

to the case of the quadratic approximation
‣ The quartic approximation to the kernel function allows either an increase in

accuracy for a specific box scheme, or a reduction in the number of boxes for a
specified accuracy



‣ In summary, we have:
w= D ∆C p
‣ The matrix D may be called the normalwash factor matrix
‣ Its inverse allows the direct solution of the most common problem, when the
normalwashes are known but the corresponding pressure coefficient difference
distribution is not:
∆C p= D−1w= A w
‣ The matrix A is called the aerodynamic influence coefficient (AIC) matrix

∆C p , w ∈  N ×1
D, A ∈  N ×N


‣ We still need another look at the vector of normal velocities (normalwashes);
each of its elements is obtained by the linearized boundary condition equation:
∂hi ∂hi
=
wi + V∞
∂t ∂x
‣ For harmonic motion, which is the case of interest:

wi = wi eiωt
hi = h i eiωt
iωt ∂h i iωt
iωt
wi and h i =
wi w=ie iω h i e + V∞ e ωb
∂x k=
refer to the control point ∂h i V∞
(at 3/4 of the average =wi iω h i + V∞
∂x (Reduced Frequency)
chord of the i -th box) wi ωb h i ∂ ( h i b )
=
w = i +
V∞ b ∂ ( x b )
i
V∞
∂h i
wi = ikh i + = ikh i + h i '
∂x
‣ How is the normalwash vector used?

=
w ikh + h '
∆C
= p A ( ikh + h ')
‣ For instance, if a planar wing undergoes a rigid pitching motion of amplitude 1

deg about x = xaxis, one would have:
hi = h i eiωt
π
hi = − ( xi − xaxis )
180
π ( xi − xaxis ) π
hi = − , hi ' = −
180 b 180
π ( xi − xaxis ) π
wi = ikh i + h i ' = −ik −
180 b 180
The unsteady pressure distribution on a wing undergoing rigid pitching motion is dependent
upon the pitch axis location!

‣ How are the complex pressure coefficient differences interpreted?
∆C
= p A ( ikh + h ')
‣ Since A is a complex matrix when the reduced frequency is nonzero, each box
pressure coefficient difference can have a different phase when compared with
other boxes and when compared with the phase of the motion at the same box
∆C p e ( A ( ikh + h ') e (
i ωt +φ0 ) i ωt +φ0 )
=
(
Re ∆C p e (
i ωt +φ0 )
) (
= Re A ( ikh + h ') e (
i ωt +φ0 )
)
‣ The interpretation is that, for a time history of the control points’ displacements
given by: i(ωt +φ )
Re he ( 0
)
the pressure coefficient differences time history is given by:
(
Re ∆C p e (
i ωt +φ0 )
) (
= Re A ( ikh + h ') e (
i ωt +φ0 )
)
‣ Integral coefficients can also be calculated in the doublet-lattice method, e.g.,

the lift coefficient of the aircraft or the pitching moment coefficient of a wing
‣ The coefficients will also be complex, meaning that they may not be in phase with the
motion and that their magnitude can differ when compared with the steady flow
coefficients
‣ IMPORTANT: The AIC matrix is a function of:

‣ the reduced frequency
‣ Mach number
‣ the box discretization scheme
‣ the geometry of the model

> Applications of the doublet-lattice method: past and future
‣ The DLM:
‣ Is an aerodynamic finite element method for modeling oscillating interfering lifting
surfaces in subsonic flows
‣ Has proved to be versatile: it can treat multiple nonplanar surfaces and can be applied to
problems with control surfaces without difficulties
‣ Is in use worldwide for flutter and aeroelastic dynamic response analyses of aircraft at
subsonic speeds
‣ Has been refined in the past to contain better approximations, allowing faster convergence
and increased accuracy at higher-frequency dynamics
‣ Is available in one of the most commonly used computer programs for aeroelastic
calculations: MSC Nastran
‣ The DLM cannot:

‣ Deal with transonic or supersonic flows
‣ Model viscous effects

‣ Most of the DLM applications occur in an industrial context, not unveiled to the
general public
‣ Some academic applications will be illustrated next


‣ SILVA, R. G. A. A study on correction methods for aeroelastic analysis in transonic
flow. 2004. 233 f. Tese (Doutorado em Engenharia Aeronáutica e Mecânica) -
Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos


‣ k = 0.3602


‣ k = 0.3602


‣ k = 0.3602


‣ RESCHKE, C. Integrated flight loads modelling and analysis for flexible transport
aircraft. 2006. 131 p. Dissertation (Doctoral Degree) - Institut Flugmechanik und
Flugregelung der Universitat Stuttgart, Stuttgart.


‣ GUIMARÃES NETO, A. B. Dinâmica e controle de aeronaves flexíveis com modelagem
aerodinâmica pelo método Doublet-Lattice. 2008. 177 f. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso
(Graduação em Engenharia Aeronáutica) - Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos
Campos.
‣ Validation of DLM-2008 code: simple rectangular wing in 1-rad pitch about the leading edge
‣ Mach 0.50


Campos.
‣ Validation of DLM-2008 code: AGARD standard swept wing in 1-rad angle of attack
‣ Mach 0.80


Campos.
‣ DLM-2008 code: Rockwell B-1 Lancer DLM model
‣ Mach 0.60


Campos.
‣ DLM-2008 code: Rockwell B-1 Lancer DLM model
‣ Mach 0.60, steady case, CL = 0.34


‣ AMARAL, R. F. Estudo de métodos de correção para regime transônico em análise
de estabilidade aeroelástica. 2010. 159 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia
Aeronáutica e Mecânica) - Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos
Campos.


‣ AMARAL, R. F. Estudo de métodos de correção para regime transônico em análise
de estabilidade aeroelástica. 2010. 159 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia
Aeronáutica e Mecânica) - Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos
Campos.


‣ GUIMARÃES NETO, A. B.; SILVA, R. G. A. Aerodynamic correction technique for
the vortex and doublet lattice methods based on the displacement of panel
control points. In: INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON AEROELASTICITY AND
STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, 2011, Paris. Proceedings… [S.l.: s.n.], 2011.
‣ AGARD wing 445.6 weakened model #3: DLM model


‣ GUIMARÃES NETO, A. B.; SILVA, R. G. A. Aerodynamic correction technique for
the vortex and doublet lattice methods based on the displacement of panel
control points. In: INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON AEROELASTICITY AND
‣ AGARD wing 445.6 weakened model #3: flutter results


‣ GUIMARÃES NETO, A. B. Flight dynamics of flexible aircraft using general body
axes: a theoretical and computational study. 2014. 450 f. Thesis of Doctor in
Science in Flight Mechanics – Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos
Campos.
‣ GNBA (Generic Narrow-Body Airliner) basic geometry (left) and DLM model (right)


Campos.
‣ GNBA: interpolated CFD pressure coefficient difference disturbances


Campos.
‣ GNBA: interpolated CFD pressure coefficient differences for nominal cruise angle of attack


‣ GUIMARÃES NETO, A. B. Flight dynamics of flexible aircraft using general body axes: a
theoretical and computational study. 2014. 450 f. Thesis of Doctor in Science in Flight
Mechanics – Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos.
‣ GNBA: level-flight trimmed condition calculated with the use of DLM aerodynamics

‣ ITA: current developments

‣ Flight dynamics of the X-HALE aircraft: DLM model of the four-panel configuration


‣ Flight dynamics of the X-HALE aircraft: DLM model of the six-panel configuration


‣ Flight dynamics of the X-HALE aircraft: 20 m/s level-flight trimmed condition for the four-
panel configuration, calculated with the use of DLM aerodynamics


‣ Flight dynamics of the X-HALE aircraft: 20 m/s level-flight trimmed condition for the six-
panel configuration, calculated with the use of DLM aerodynamics


‣ ITA: DLM-2014 MATLAB code
‣ Has an input file with the same format as that of MSC Nastran
‣ Calculates and exports AIC matrices

‣ The future of DLM:

‣ Higher-fidelity CFD solutions are becoming less computationally demanding and are facing
an increased application in aeroelastic stability and response analyses
‣ However, it is known that possibly thousands of flutter runs are needed in the certification
process of modern aircraft, a number that is a function of the number of configurations
that the aircraft can assume
‣ This characteristic renders higher-fidelity CFD solutions impractical for production flutter
analysis, not only because of their computational cost, but also because of the greater
complexity in model preparation

‣ The future of DLM:

‣ Dealing with AIC matrices is very much convenient in terms of production flutter analyses
processes, since the AIC matrices are independent of the structural and the inertia model
of the aircraft
‣ Correction procedures introduce in the DLM linearized higher-fidelity data obtained from
wind-tunnel tests or CFD runs, producing modified AIC matrices to be used in cases
spanning the whole flutter-clearance envelope of the aircraft; higher-fidelity aerodynamic
tools shall then be used for the most critical cases only
‣ In this context, it is reasonable to expect that the corrected DLM will continue to be
extensively used in the aeronautical industry in at least the next 10 years
‣ The DLM use will potentially be discontinued when highly-flexible aircraft are under
analysis, due to the geometric nonlinearities violating the assumption of small
disturbances; currently available results already show that the unsteady vortex-lattice
method (UVLM) together with model reduction approaches shall become a reasonable
higher-fidelity replacement for the DLM


‣ YURKOVICH, R. Status of unsteady aerodynamic prediction for flutter of high-
performance aircraft. Journal of Aircraft, v. 40, n. 5, p. 832-842, 2003

> References
‣ DLM:
ALBANO, E.; RODDEN, W.P. A doublet lattice method for calculating lift distributions on oscillating surfaces in subsonic
flows. In: AIAA AEROSPACE SCIENCES MEETING, 6., New York, 1968. Proceedings… New York: AIAA, 1968.
ALBANO, E.; RODDEN, W.P. A doublet-lattice method for calculating lift distributions on oscillating surfaces in
subsonic flows. AIAA Journal, v. 7, n. 2, p. 279-285, 1969.
AMARAL, R. F. Estudo de métodos de correção para regime transônico em análise de estabilidade aeroelástica. 2010.
159 f. Dissertação (Mestrado em Engenharia Aeronáutica e Mecânica) - Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São
José dos Campos.
BISMARCK-NASR, M.N. Structural dynamics in aeronautical engineering. Reston: AIAA, 1999. 297 p. (AIAA education
series). ISBN 1-56347-323-2.
BISMARCK-NASR, M.N. Kernel function occurring in subsonic unsteady potential flow. AIAA Journal, v. 29, n. 6, p. 878-
879, 1990.
BISPLINGHOFF, R. L.; ASHLEY, H.; HALFMAN, R. L. Aeroelasticity. Mineola: Dover, 1996. 860 p.
BLAIR, M. A Compilation of the mathematics leading to the Doublet-Lattice method. Wright-Patterson Air Force Base,
1994. 156 p. (WL-TR-95-3022).

> References
‣ DLM:
DEYOUNG, J. Historical evolution of vortex-lattice methods: vortex-lattice utilization. Washington, DC: NASA, 1976.
(NASA SP-405).
GIESING, J. P.; KÁLMÁN, T. P.; RODDEN, W. P. Correction factor techniques for improving aerodynamic prediction
methods. Washington, DC: NASA, 1976. (NASA-CR-144967).
GIESING, J. P.; KÁLMÁN, T. P.; RODDEN, W. P. Subsonic unsteady aerodynamics for general configurations. Dayton:
Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, 1971. 2 v. (AFFDL-TR-71-5).
GUIMARÃES NETO, A. B. Dinâmica e controle de aeronaves flexíveis com modelagem aerodinâmica pelo método
Doublet-Lattice. 2008. 177 f. Trabalho de Conclusão de Curso (Graduação em Engenharia Aeronáutica) - Instituto
Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos.
GUIMARÃES NETO, A. B.; SILVA, R. G. A. Aerodynamic correction technique for the vortex and doublet lattice methods
based on the displacement of panel control points. In: INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON AEROELASTICITY AND
GUIMARÃES NETO, A. B.; SILVA, R. G. A.; PAGLIONE, P. Control-point-placement method for the aerodynamic
correction of the vortex-and the doublet-lattice methods. Aerospace Science and Technology, v. 37, p. 117-129, Aug.
2014. DOI: 10.1016/j.ast.2014.05.007.

> References
‣ DLM:
HEDMAN, S. G. Vortex lattice method for calculation of quasi steady state loadings on thin elastic wings. Stockholm:
Aeronautical Research Institute of Sweden 1966. 18 p. (FFA Report 105).
KATZ, J.; PLOTKIN, A. Low-speed aerodynamics. 2.ed. Cambridge: University Press, c2001. 613 p. (Cambridge
aerospace series, v. 13). ISBN 0-521-66552-3.
PALACIOS, R. et al. Assessment of strategies for correcting linear unsteady aerodynamics using CFD or test results. In:
CEAS/AIAA INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON AEROELASTICITY AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, 2001, Madrid. Proceedings…
New York: AIAA, 2001.
PISTOLESI, E. Betrachtungen über die gegenseitige beeinflussung von tragflügelsystemen. 1937. apud DEYOUNG, J.
Historical evolution of vortex-lattice methods: vortex-lattice utilization. Washington, DC: NASA, 1976. p. 1-9. (NASA-
SP-405).
RODDEN, W. P. The development of the doublet-lattice method. In: INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON AEROELASTICITY
AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, 19., Rome, 1997. Proceedings… Reston: AIAA, 1997.
RODDEN, W. P. Theoretical and computational aeroelasticity. Burbank: Crest Publishing, 2011. 829 p. ISBN 978-0-692-
01241-3.

> References
‣ DLM:
RODDEN, W. P.; BELLINGER, E. D.; GIESING, J. P. Errata and Addenda to “Application of oscillatory aerodynamic theory
to estimation of dynamic stability derivatives”. Journal of Aircraft, v. 21, n. 1, p. 92-93, 1984.
RODDEN, W. P.; GIESING, J. P. Application of oscillatory aerodynamic theory to estimation of dynamic stability
derivatives. Engineering notes. Journal of Aircraft, v. 7, n. 3, p. 272-275, 1969.
RODDEN, W. P.; GIESING, J. P.; KÁLMÁN, T. P. Refinement of the nonplanar aspects of the subsonic doublet-lattice
lifting surface method. Journal of Aircraft, v. 9, n. 1, p. 69-73, 1972.
RODDEN, W. P.; JOHNSON, E. H. MSC/NASTRAN Aeroelastic Analysis User’s Guide. Los Angeles: MacNeal-Schwendler
Corporation, 1994.
RODDEN, W. P.; TAYLOR, P. F.; MCINTOSH Jr., S. C. Further refinement of the subsonic doublet-lattice method. Journal
of Aircraft, v. 35, n. 5, p. 720-727, 1998.
RODDEN, W. P. et al. Further convergence studies of the enhanced doublet-lattice method. Journal of Aircraft, v. 36,
n. 4, p. 682-688, 1999.
SENGUPTA, G. Reduction of cycle time for CFD-based flutter prediction. In: INTERNATIONAL FORUM ON
AEROELASTICITY AND STRUCTURAL DYNAMICS, 2009, Seattle. Proceedings… [S.l.: s.n.], 2009. p. 21-25. Paper 118.

> References
‣ DLM:
SILVA, R. G. A. A study on correction methods for aeroelastic analysis in transonic flow. 2004. 233 f. Tese (Doutorado
em Engenharia Aeronáutica e Mecânica) - Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José dos Campos.
VAN ZYL, L. H. Convergence of the subsonic doublet lattice method. Journal of Aircraft, v. 35, n. 6, p. 977-979, 1998.
VAN ZYL, L. H. Robustness of the subsonic doublet lattice method. The Aeronautical Journal, v. 107, n. 1071, p. 257-
262, 2003.
YURKOVICH, R. Status of unsteady aerodynamic prediction for flutter of high-performance aircraft. Journal of Aircraft,
v. 40, n. 5, p. 832-842, 2003.

> References
‣ Other:
GUIMARÃES NETO, A. B. Flight dynamics of flexible aircraft using general body axes: a theoretical and computational
study. 2014. 450 f. Thesis of Doctor in Science in Flight Mechanics – Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica, São José
dos Campos.
HESSE, H.; PALACIOS, R. Reduced-order aeroelastic models for dynamics of maneuvering flexible aircraft. AIAA
Journal, v. 52, n. 8, p. 1717-1732, 2014.
MURUA, J.; PALACIOS, R.; GRAHAM, J. M. R. Applications of the unsteady vortex-lattice method in aircraft
aeroelasticity and flight dynamics. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, v. 55, p. 46-72, 2012.
RESCHKE, C. Flight loads analysis with inertially coupled equations of motion. In: AIAA ATMOSPHERIC FLIGHT
MECHANICS CONFERENCE AND EXHIBIT, 2005, San Francisco. Proceedings… Reston: AIAA, 2005. Paper 2005-6026.
RESCHKE, C. Integrated flight loads modelling and analysis for flexible transport aircraft. 2006. 131 p. Dissertation
(Doctoral Degree) - Institut Flugmechanik und Flugregelung der Universitat Stuttgart, Stuttgart.

Ae249 DLM 2015

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ae249 DLM 2015

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INSTITUTO TECNOLÓGICO DE AERONÁUTICA MAURÍCIO DONADON / FLÁVIO SILVESTRE / ANTÔNIO GUIMARÃES

EXTENSION TO THREE DIMENSIONAL LIFTING SURFACES – DOUBLET-LATTICE METHOD

IMAGE CREDITS: BOEING

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY

‣ From the Navier-Stokes equations to the linearized potential equation

‣ The doublet-lattice method

‣ Applications: past and future

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 2

‣ Since then, the method has gained worldwide acceptance as a standard in

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 3

‣ Explain the most important modeling guidelines of the DLM

‣ Illustrate its applications

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 4

> Navier-Stokes Equations

‣ The Navier-Stokes equations are the fundamental equations of fluid dynamics

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 5

> Navier-Stokes Equations

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 6

> Euler Equations

‣ Usually, the body forces are neglected

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 7

> Euler Equations

‣ There are 7 unknowns and 6 equations

‣ The additional equation is the following isentropic relation:

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 8

> Irrotational flows

‣ The velocity potential, Φ, is a scalar representing a new state variable

> Irrotational flows

> Irrotational flows

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 11

> Irrotational flows

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 12

> Irrotational flows

‣ The equations combined with the velocity potential as the unknown:

> Full Potential Equation

‣ Hence, the equation:

is exclusively a function of the velocity potential.

It is called the full potential equation.

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 14

> Full Potential Equation – Nonlinear pressure relation

‣ From the previous equations:

‣ One obtains the nonlinear pressure relation:

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 15

> Linearized Potential Equation

‣ Total flow = steady flow + small unsteady disturbances:

‣ The sound speed is assumed time invariant:

‣ The steady mean flow is assumed to have a uniform velocity of V∞ with

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 16

> Linearized Potential Equation

‣ Then, the following equations become valid:

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 17

> Linearized Potential Equation

and the full-potential equation reduces to the linearized potential equation:

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 18

> Linearized Potential Equation

 V∞ 2  ∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ ∂ 2φ 1 ∂ 2φ 2V∞ ∂ 2φ

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 19

> Linearized Potential Equation – Linear pressure relation

‣ For small disturbances:

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 20

> The acceleration potential

‣ The linearized form is:

AUGUST 2015 AEROELASTICITY 21