Aeroelastic Test and Validation

48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference<br>15th AIAA 2007-1764
23 - 26 April 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii
F-22 Aeroelastic Design and Test Validation
William D. Anderson∗
Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company, Marietta, GA, 30068-0988
and
Sean Mortara†
USAF ASC/YFSA (X-F-22 SPO), Wright Patterson AFB, OH, 45433-7424
The Aeroelastic Design and Test Validation of the F-22 is presented. Emphasis is placed
on the various elements of the aeroelastic analysis design process and the ground and flight
verification testing conducted on the F-22. Covered are early aeroelastic design issues, and
the process to address them leading to a successful aeroelastic design of the F-22. The
analysis/aeroelastic design process used a balanced mix of parametric and aeroelastic design
optimization tools. Covered also is an overview/description of the ground and flight-testing
conducted to verify the flutter characteristics of the aircraft, final analysis leading to the
certification of the F-22, and considerations for force management. The aeroelastic stability
process is an integral part the Aircraft Structural Integrity Program (ASIP) for the F-22.
Consequently, the presentation of the aeroelastic analysis, design and testing is presented in
the general organization of ASIP, which is a systematic approach to ensure aircraft
structural integrity. Summarized is the process to implement airframe structural integrity
during the F-22 Engineering and Manufacturing Development (EMD), with emphasis on
flutter and aeroelastic stability.
Nomenclature
ASE = aeroservoelastic
ASIP = Aircraft Structural Integrity Program
A/V = Air Vehicle
EMD = Engineering Manufacturing and Development Program
ETR = Engineering Test Request
DADT = Durability and Damage Tolerance
FES = Flutter Excitation System
FEM = Finite Element Model
FTR = Flight Test Request
GVT = Ground Vibration Test
LCO = Limit Cycle Oscillation
MDO = Multidisciplinary Design Optimization
MOI = Moment of Inertia/Control Surface Inertia Data
SCT = Structural Coupling Test
SIC = Structural Influence Coefficient Test
TOD = Tech Order Data
TIS = Test Information Sheet
VL = Design Limit Speed
[A(k)] = unsteady aerodynamic coefficient matrix
[C] = system viscous damping matrix
∗
LM Fellow (Manager, F-22 Flutter and Dynamics, from 1992 to 2002), F-22 Structures IPT, 86 South Cobb Drive,
Marietta, GA, 30061-0988, and AIAA Fellow.
†
Lead Dynamics Engineer, Airframe Structures, 2725 C Street Area B Bldg 553.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright © 2007 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
Hi(s) = ith control system transfer function
[K] = system stiffness matrix
[M] = system mass matrix
b = reference semi-chord
c = control surface chord
i = imaginary
f = frequency
gs = structural damping coefficient
p = eigen value
q = dynamic pressure
V = airspeed
ω = control surface rotational frequency
ρ = density
I. Introduction
THE F-22 aircraft is a new weapons system designed and built by the combined efforts of Lockheed Martin and
Boeing to replace the F-15. The aircraft is a single seat highly maneuverable air superiority all-weather tactical
fighter with fully integrated fly-by-wire flight controls. It is powered by two Pratt & Whitney F119-PW-100
augmented turbofan engines which are designed for efficient supersonic cruise capability and equipped with two-
dimensional vectoring nozzles. The aircraft is designed for both internal and external store carriage. Four hard points
on the wing are designed to carry additional weapons and/or external fuel tanks.
Initial design concepts for the F-22 Engineering & Manufacturing Development (EMD) were well established by
the YF-22 prototype program that culminated in a successful flight test demonstration during the fall of 1990 and
early winter of 1991. With the award of the EMD contract in mid 1991 to what was then the Lockheed, General
Dynamics, Boeing, and Pratt & Whitney team, beginning with the prototype design, flutter analysis was initiated
during the fall of 1991 and was continuously updated for numerous model changes through the Critical Design
Review (CDR) in the spring of 1995.
Design changes continued to evolve as improvements and deficiencies were identified during manufacturing and
ground and flight testing of the aircraft. Manufacturing problems and cost drove the design of the horizontal
stabilizer from the baseline configuration to a redesigned Producibility Investment Plan (PIP) configuration. The tail
boom design was changed from the EMD “waffle-grid” to a more conventional box-structure design. Other changes
were made to the rudder, aileron, flaperon and fin rear spar to correct for static test discoveries. These and other
design changes are reflected in the four aeroelastic stability analysis models included for final certification.
The initial F-22 development challenge was to achieve target weight while meeting increased vehicle
performance requirements. The performance requirements for the F-22 include substantial improvements over
current fighter aircraft in many areas that affect combat effectiveness and performance. Notable improvements are
found in super-cruise, low observables, agility, integrated avionics systems, and reliability, maintainability, and
supportability. These improvements make the aircraft far more effective than current generation fighters, but require
changes such as internal weapons carriage and operational self-sufficiency that had the potential to increase weight
and/or to expose the program to development risk.
The Structures Team aggressively pursued minimum-weight structural concepts. Structures Policies and
Analysis Methods were put in place to support aggressive policies that had the goal of minimizing weight without
compromising structural integrity. The prototype experience and extended flight-testing of the YF-22 provided
unprecedented data for the early definition of accurate vehicle loads and environments, and thus, the potential to
avoid unnecessary conservatism and its associated weight. To achieve a minimum weight design for flutter, a
comprehensive analysis approach, including aeroelastic tailoring, was used extensively during the aeroelastic design
of the aircraft.
For the F-22, the flutter and aeroelastic design, analysis and testing phases are laid out in the F-22 ASIP Master
Plan. The ASIP Master Plan defines an approach in accordance with MIL-STD-1530A1 (as tailored). It includes the
plan to implement the airframe structural criteria and requirements in accordance with the Structures Team policies.
The ASIP plan continues to develop and mature with the airframe. The purpose of the ASIP Master Plan is to define
and document the specific approach for accomplishment of ASIP tasks throughout the life cycle of the airplane.
There is a flutter/aeroelastic stability subtask in each of the five (5) basic ASIP tasks. This paper focuses on
2
flutter/aeroelastic stability criteria, design and design analysis, and testing associated with ASIP Tasks I thru III for
control of aeroelastic stability; with some emphasis on Force Management associated with ASIP Tasks IV and V.
Several baseline structural materials and design approaches that promised significant payoffs, including
tolerances associated with Hot Isostatic Pressurized (HIP) titanium castings in fracture critical applications,
composite pivot shaft, and loose-fit fastener holes for interchangeable and replaceable panels; posed interesting
challenges to aeroelastic design, analysis, and testing,. Also, to achieve a minimum weight design for flutter,
aeroelastic tailoring supplemented with parametric type analyses were used extensively during the aeroelastic design
of the aircraft.
II. Aeroelastic Stability Design Information Task

The Design Information task encompasses those efforts required to apply existing theoretical, experimental,
applied research, and operational experience to specific criteria for materials selection and structural design.
Elements of this task include the development of the ASIP Master Plan, Structural Design Criteria, and DADT
Control Plan; selection of Materials; and definition of the Design Service Life and Usage. The objective is to ensure
that the appropriate criteria and planned usage are applied to the F-22 design so that the specific operational
requirements will be met. Key elements for aeroelastic stability included criteria development, usage and envelope
definitions, structural arrangement and materials, and aeroelastic stability analysis and verification methods. The
background and development of each of these are discussed.
A. Criteria, Specifications and Design Requirements

The structural design requirements for the F-22 were established in a tailored specification based on AFGS-
872212, a document that preceded the current Joint Services Specification Guide (JSSG), and detailed structural
criteria for the air vehicle were developed and provided in the F-22 Structural Design Criteria Report3. These formed
the basis for the structural design of the F-22 and contain design criteria for all structures disciplines including
flutter, divergence, and aeroservoelastic stability. Figure 1 provides an overview of the plan for flutter and
aeroelastic stability thru final Team
certification. The initial ASIP Aero Team Actuator Stores
Mass
Data FEM Data Data
task includes the criteria and Data
• Analysis • Stiffness • Mass Matrix • Stiffness • Geometry
specification, and the – Doublet Matrix • Delta Ms • Response • Mass
requirements for and the source Lattice
– Zona 51
• Delta Ks • Actuator • Stiffness
Bench Test
of each of the data required, • L3 Press. Model
identifying the analysis tools to • Flutter Model Criteria /
Spec
be used in the second task, and Aeroelastic Flutter ASE
wind tunnel, bench test and other Tailoring Analysis Analysis
testing requirements. Design
A set of structural policy (Circa 1991)
V&V & Final Certification
documents were developed Requirements to Team:
Verification Testing: Final Certification:
which included a policy on FEM YF-22 Design • Airframe Stiffness
• Correlation &
• Actuator Stiffness • SICs
development and generation, and and Ground
• Free play • MOI Analysis Updates
& Flight • Final Analysis
policies critical to the use of the Testing • Control Law Filters • Stiffness & Free play
• Certification
• Geometry • GVTs
FEM for flutter analysis and • Etc. • Flight Flutter Documentation
• Final Reports
aeroelastic tailoring. This
included requirements on grid Figure 1. Flutter Development/Certification Overview.
point and element numbering,
sign conventions, control loop geometry etc., and importantly, a procedure for verifying control loop stiffness for
consistency with flutter’s definition prior to release of the FEM to the F-22 structural team.
The specification criteria for flutter and aeroelastic stability are summarized below in terms of or for classical
flutter, damping, transonic buzz and LCO, aeroservoelasticity, and design for failures. Note the requirements in the
tailored specification were significantly condensed in a “Single Spec” that was implemented in 1998 to replace the
tailored specification.
Classical Flutter:
The Air Vehicle, including for any single probable failure, shall be free from flutter or other aeroelastic
instabilities to 1.15 VL at constant altitude and at constant Mach.
Damping:
3
The minimum damping of any potentially critical flutter mode (within the permissible flight envelope) shall
be greater than the lesser of 0.03 or 1 percent above the GVT measured mode damping.
Transonic Buzz and LCO:
Control surfaces shall be free from buzz or LCO. Freedom from LCO is defined as, if any LCO occurs, it
shall not produce sustained oscillations or predicted oscillations greater than +/- 10% of limit hinge moment
or +/- 0.12 gs at the pilots station at
Table 1. Single (Probable) Hydraulic System Failure Conditions.
maximum freeplay.
Aeroservoelastic Stability: AILERON FLAPERON HORIZONTAL RUDDER
FAILURE
Any potential aeroservoelastically (Simplex Act) (Simplex Act) (Dual System) (Simplex Act)
critical mode shall have a gain SINGLE FAILURES LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT LEFT RIGHT
margin of 6 dB, and separately a Left FLCS Branch X 1 SYS

phase margin of +/-60 degrees.
Note as all flutter critical structural Right FLCS Branch X 1 SYS X
load paths on the F-22 are designed to LEFT Utility Branch X 1 SYS
fracture critical criteria, the only probable
Right Utility Branch X 1 SYS
failures that remain for flutter are
associated with hydraulic system failures, Left Rudder Branch X 1 SYS X
and leading edge flap bird-strike. Table 1 Left Hydro System X X 1 SYS 1 SYS
defines the single system failures that may
occur on the F-22 for which the above Right Hydro System X X 1 SYS 1 SYS X
flutter speed margin criteria apply.
B. Structural Arrangement & Materials

Another key role of the initial effort was to define the structural arrangement and the materials that were to be
used. The basic structural arrangement and materials selected are illustrated in Fig. 2. The approximate percentage
by structural weight for each material used on the F-22 is also shown. Nearly all external skins are made of
composites, and a large part of the supporting substructure is composite. The ailerons, flaperons, and rudders are
bounded composite assemblies. The horizontal is all-composite including the pivot shaft. Two-thirds of the wing
spars are composite with every third spar being titanium. The high use of composite materials led to the ability and
the need to implement
aeroelastic tailoring at the Structural Percentage by Weight
ply level, and
Aluminum
consequential weight Ti Other
15.4% Thermoplastics
savings. A significant (6-2-4-2, etc.) 0.5%
quantity of titanium and
aluminum was also used Ti 6-4 25.4% Misc
in the design of the F-22, 14.7%
including the use of Titanium Epoxy 6.6%
titanium HIP castings. 38.5%
BMI 17.5%
The structural
arrangements for the
wings and vertical tails are Ti 62222
multi-spar designs. The 4%
Composites
ailerons and flaperons Ti Cast 24.6%
were initially all 7.1%
composite full depth
Steel
honeycomb structure. 6.8%
However, fairly early in
the design their design
was changed to a Figure 2. F/A-22 Structural Arrangement and Materials.
composite ribbed box
structure with integral all composite full depth honeycomb trailing edges. The structural arrangement of the rudders
is an all composite ribbed structural box also with full depth honeycomb trailing edges. The initial horizontal design
was an all composite full depth honeycomb core design with an all composite integral spar/pivot shaft. Because of
manufacturing issues, at Aircraft 41, the design was changed to a ribbed box structure and with full depth
honeycomb core edges, while retaining the composite spar/pivot shaft.
4
The actuator installations on the rudder and horizontal were of conventional design with the actuator to rudder
attachment on the inboard side of the rudder and the actuator to horizontal attachment below the pivot shaft. The
actuator installations on the ailerons and flaperons, rather than a conventional “shoebox” to react loads, use a tieback
link that runs from the hinge line to the head end of the actuator to react actuator loads, and with a vertical link at the
head end of the actuator to react hinge moment couple load into the wing.
The tail-boom was initially a titanium “waffle grid” design and was change to a more conventional box structure
at Aircraft 52. Other than the use of significant quantity of composites, the fuselage is a fairly conventional design.
The fin is attached to the aft fuselage/forward tail-boom with to shear joints that carry shear and bending. The wing
is similarly attached to the fuselage at seven (7) chord-wise locations.
III. Aeroelastic Design Analysis and Development Tests

The Design Analysis and Development Tests task consists of determining the environments in which the
airframe must operate and performing analyses and tests based on these environments to design and size the
airframe to meet the strength, damage tolerance, durability and aeroelastic stability requirements.
For aeroelastic stability, the design philosophy adopted and utilized was to produce a design based on strength
considerations and then establish stiffness increments required to provide satisfactory aeroelastic characteristics to
achieve an overall minimum weight design that would satisfy the aeroelastic design criteria. Consequently, during
the design process the FEM, as provided to the Flutter group, generally reflected a design that was based on
strength, with a resulting stiffness capability of undetermined adequacy for flutter. Using this FEM, Flutter
conducted comprehensive analyses to establish minimum weight stiffness requirements for the vehicle, while
maintaining the strength capability provided in the model. Stiffness requirements for flutter reflected minimum
weight solutions which were
based on extensive use of
parametric and design
optimization analysis.
In addition to analysis, a
series of development test
were identified and conducted
to provide data to support
assuring the success of the
aeroelastic design.
A. Vehicle Level FEM

A vehicle-level
interdisciplinary integration
and control FEM was
developed to guide, support
and integrate the ASIP design
analysis and test tasks. The
vehicle-level FEM, see Fig. 3,
is a mathematical model of the Figure 3. Air Vehicle Finite Element Model.
principal load paths, stiffness,
and mass distribution (mass distributions were provided separately from the FEM) for the major structural
components. The FEM also includes all interacting elements of the functional subsystems (e.g.: the canopy, engines,
radome, avionics rack supports, doors, control surfaces and actuators, landing gears, etc.).
Structural analyses using the vehicle-level FEM result in calculated global structural effects. The FEM is the
basis of all analyses that evaluate vehicle-level structural effects (e.g.: dynamic external loads, wing deflection and
twist, internal loads, interface loads, dynamics, flutter and divergence, survivability, etc.). Boundary conditions for
other FEMs that provide additional detail at the component or element level are derived from the vehicle-level
model. Vehicle-level FEMs were developed for each major configuration change as the design evolved. The FEM
development adhered to the policies for FEM generation critical for flutter which allowed for rapid integration and
application of the vehicle level FEM to the aeroelastic analysis/design task with each FEM update during the design.
5
B. Flutter and Divergence Analysis
The design for flutter safety is governed by the F-22 Air Vehicle Specification, and the F-22 Structural Design
Criteria Document developed in the initial task. As part of the second task, the F-22 Team conducted state of the art
flutter analyses for a complete set of subsonic and supersonic Mach numbers for matched atmospheric conditions.
Symmetric and antisymmetric flutter was analyzed by considering half an airplane. For asymmetric conditions, the
entire airplane was represented.
As previously discussed, Fig. 1 provides an overview of the entire flutter development/analysis/certification
process. The airplane stiffness or elastic characteristics are obtained using an auxiliary FEM designed for the
aeroelastic analysis and directly derived from the controlling air vehicle FEM. The approach was to start with a
strength based finite element model and via aeroelastic tailoring, add/change stiffness at the ply level for composites
or add material thickness or area for metals to obtain the required flutter speed or damping margin on the critical
flutter or hump modes. In addition, control loop stiffness parametric analyses were performed to define control loop
stiffness and many other design sensitivity studies were conducted. The analysis addressed classical flutter, limit
cycle oscillation (LCO), and transonic buzz, including the effects of freeplay. The analysis defined the stiffness
increments, control loop stiffness and freeplay requirements, and structural arrangement changes necessary to
provide required flutter margin with failures, and to provide freedom from transonic buzz and acceptable LCO
characteristics.
For the analysis of the complete airplane, the flutter equation is modalized with 80 or more natural vibration
modes, including rigid body modes. The method of solution of the flutter equation, in general, is the p-k method4.
For parametric studies, the variation of flutter speed with a particular parameter is determined by solving the flutter
equation directly for flutter speed and frequency, or for the minimum damping, speed and frequency in a hump
mode; i.e., without computing a complete V-f-g diagram for each value of the parameter.
C. Basic Flutter Analysis Method

As noted above, the governing equation of motion for all aeroelastic analysis is based on the standard p-k flutter
solution method represented by the following equation. This equation forms the basic of all flutter, aeroelastic, and
aeroservoelastic stability analysis conducted on the F-22.
{p2[M] V2/b2 + p[C] V/b + (1+igs) [K] – 1/2 ρ V2 [A(k)] – Σ Hi(s)} {q} = {0}
The FEM is used to generate the stiffness matrix. The distributed inertia characteristics are represented by small
discrete masses. Large, relatively rigid masses are represented by a mass at, and moments of inertia about, their
centers of gravity, and correctly supported to the airframe. Subsonically, the unsteady aerodynamics is formulated
by the Doublet Lattice Method5, and supersonically, the Harmonic Gradient Method6 (Zona51) is used.
The above equation is also the basis for all flutter and hump mode derivatives used in the aeroelastic design
optimization/tailoring process as well as all flutter and aeroservoelastic stability analyses. For transonic
aerodynamics, empirical data were largely used; supported by analysis applying ENSAERO7 which uses a time
marching solution approach. Wind Tunnel tests were run from which steady pressures from a loads pressure model
were obtained. These data were used to develop corrections to the unsteady analytical aerodynamics. In addition, a
component Tri-Sonic Flutter Model was tested. Aeroservoelastic stability analysis was conducted using the p-k
method, and a state-space representation of the control law’s to predict gain and phase margins.
D. Aeroelastic Tailoring
The F-22 Aeroelastic Tailoring/MDO Analysis Process8 used aeroelastic design optimization at the ply level for
composites and at thickness or area level for metals and consisted of the following:
• Defining a set of Constraints and Objectives
– Flutter Speeds
– Hump Mode Damping
– Ply Stacking
– Strength
– Etc.
• Defining a set of Design Variable (800+ Design Variables used)
• Computing Sensitivities/Derivatives such as the derivative of flutter speed or of hump mode damping with
respect to a design variable
• And then performing optimization to achieve the objective of a minimum weight design for flutter with the
known constraints.
6
Key elements of the Aeroelastic Tailoring process included:
• Along with derivatives, parametric analysis to develop understanding of controlling parameters.
• Tools to make rapid selection/definition of design variables.
• Meaningful constraint definitions tightly coupled to design.
• Ability to compute accurate design sensitivities for flutter speeds and damping.
• Ability to rapidly update the air vehicle FEM and mass data both for sensitivity analysis and aeroelastic resize
analysis.
• Optimizer capable of handling many design variables, sensitivities, and constraints.
The aeroelastic optimization procedure was used to establish changes in skin ply properties and internal
structural (ribs, spars, etc.) properties which would maximize flutter speeds with minimum weight additions. Thus,
many additional FEM models representing resized designs were generated, and corresponding revised stiffness
requirements based on the optimization studies were provided to designers at the conclusion of each major
optimization cycle.
E. Design History/Design Iteration Summary

In way of background, two prototype (YF-22A) aircraft were designed, constructed, and flight-tested during the
F/A-22 Demonstration/Validation phase. After down-selection of the F-22 in April 1991, the EMD program began
in August 1991. The Configuration 638 airframe was that described in the EMD technical proposal. Completion of
Design Phase I configuration trade studies and preliminary design in Dec 1991 resulted in Configuration 639.
Further refinements to the structural arrangement and equipment installations during 1992 resulted in Configurations
640 (June 1992) and 641 (Dec 1992). At Preliminary Design Review (PDR), Configuration 641 was established.
The ensuing design effort through Critical Design Review (CDR) established Configuration 645 (Feb 1995).
Changes since CDR have not affected the basic configuration. A/V 4001 and 4002 were built to Configuration 642;
all others are to Configuration 645. Analysis methods and the analyses resulting from the application of the
structural requirements/criteria were summarized for USAF reviews at PDR and at CDR. Analysis reports were
prepared at the design and verification/certification levels.
Figure 4 provides a history
‘91 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
of the extensive aeroelastic FEM Models
analysis conducted during the Block I Multiple Aeroelastic Sizing
Updates Performed with
design of the F-22 in terms of • Model 638 3 updates
each FEM update
• Model 639 1 update
the multiple FEMs used to • Model 640 3 updates
update the aeroelastic analysis • Model 641 2 updates
as the design progressed, and • Model 642 3 updates
• Model 644 3 updates
importantly for aeroelastic
• Model A645
tailoring/sizing analysis to Block II
assure the aircraft was • Model A645A
designed to meet all aeroelastic Requirements Updates
stability requirements. Figure 4 • Control Loop
• Skin Sizing
also shows the multiple design • Backup Structure
requirements updates that were • Freeplay
released during the design of Test Data / Correlation
the F-22, the wind tunnel • L-3 W/T Pressure Model Steady Aero Correlation used to update Unsteady
• Flutter Model Flutter Correlation
testing conducted to verify the • Actuator Bench Test Failure Modes Stiffness
unsteady aerodynamics used in
the flutter analysis, and the
actuator bench tests that were Figure 4. Multiple Team FEM and Aeroelastic Analysis/Design
conducted to verify/determine Requirements Updates.
the dynamic stiffness characteristics of the flight control actuators. The focus of this paper is on the design (and
testing) of/for the clean wing aircraft configuration. Little attention, particularly in the design area, is given to
external stores in this paper.
All the initial aeroelastic analyses were conducted on FEMs starting with the 638 FEM and culminating with the
A645 FEM. These FEMs were used by stress, loads, and flutter to track the progress of the design, and to assure all
analysis was being conducted with the latest structural configuration. As a late loads issue resulted in a
late/significant structural redesign of the aircraft, a Block II Aircraft configuration was defined. The aircraft
(S/N4001 and A/V4002) were designated Block I aircraft, represented by the A645 FEM, and aircraft A/V4003 and
up were designated Block II aircraft, represented by the A645A FEM Model. Figure 5 shows the interaction of the
7
various disciplines involved in the flow of
• Airframe Design
data during the aeroelastic sizing process. Airframe Integration / Coordination
The design was an integrated and A&I • Design Scheduling
coordinated effort between the Structures Team
Analysis and Integration Tri-Company
• Structural
Team, the Tri-Company Airframe IPTs, and Structures Criteria,
• Design Airframe
the Airframe Analysis and Integration Team. Layouts IPTs A&I Policy &
Methods
Each company had design and • Structural Team
• Air Vehicle Loads
manufacturing responsibility for various • Sizing Design Drawings • Team Finite Element Model
elements of the structure or systems critical • Detail Design Schedule • Air Vehicle Aeroelastic Analysis
• Inputs from all Disciplines • Aeroelastic Optimization
for flutter. The Lockheed Martin Structures – Manufacturing • Stiffness & Freeplay Requirements
Flutter and Dynamics team had sole – Maintainability • Filters for ASE
– Weights
responsibility for air vehicle aeroelastic – Aero/Thermo
• Materials & Processes
• Structural Development Tests
stability and panel flutter, while the then – Structures
• Internal Loads
– Etc.
General Dynamics Team had responsibility • Sub-optimization • Allowables
for aeroservoelastic stability. Except for the • Vibration & Acoustics
Requirements & Sonic Fatigue
main weapons bay door, each team member Figure 5. Structural & Aeroelastic Airframe/Vehicle Design
had responsibility for aeroelastic stability of Team.
any doors for which they had design
responsibility. During design process, significant coordination was required to assure aeroelastic stability
requirements properly communicated.
To help facilitate this, as the design evolved, aeroelastic design requirements were updated and communicated to
the team. The central portion of Fig. 4 shows the several aeroelastic design requirements releases to the team and
their release dates which occurred during the four year design effort of the F-22. These are collected into the
following four major categories:
• Control loop stiffness requirements,
• Skin sizing requirements which primarily refers to load carrying skin covers on the main box of the ailerons,
flaperons, stabilizers, fins, and
rudders,
• Backup structure requirements
which refer primarily to the
stabilizer backup structure stiffness, ~ 245 Lbs for Flutter
and
• Control surface freeplay
requirements.
Figure 6 shows the areas of the F-22 that
were impacted by flutter. Design Impacted by Flutter
Control Loop Stiffness &
F. Initial Aeroelastic Design Freeplay Requirements
Issues/Resolution (Substructure & Actuator Design)
Classical flutter modes involved wing Skin & Spar Sizing for Bending
bending torsion, fin and rudder, and And/or Torsion Stiffness
At Ply Level for Composites
horizontal and empennage coupling. Hump
modes primarily included coupling between Figure 6. F/A-22 Structural Design – Flutter Design Impacts
the horizontals and flaperons, and with the Overview.
engines. For transonic buzz, all control
surfaces were susceptible except for the horizontal. The rudder was the most critical surface for transonic buzz. LCO
was also a critical concern, and involved all the classical flutter modes at the edge of envelope (all surfaces
including horizontal) with increased freeplay present. Drivers for both transonic buzz and LCO include control
surface inertia & stiffness and control loop stiffness and freeplay. Aeroservoelastic stability is driven by large
control surfaces coupling with vertical and roll/lateral modes of the fuselage thru the flight control system.
During the initial design, the following flutter critical modes were identified:
• A Complex Coupled Fin-Rudder Horizontal Mode @ 32 Hz
• A Basic Wing Bending/Torsion Mode @ 13 to 15 Hz
• A Horizontal Rotation Mode @ 32 to 34 Hz
• A High Frequency Fin Tip Mode at 52+ Hz
8
• Also, the ailerons, flaperons, and rudders were identified to be potentially critical to transonic buzz, and the
leading edge flap was critical to actuator stiffness and freeplay.
Flutter Boundaries Figure 7 is a summary of the flutter
VL 1.15 VL
Potential for boundaries for each of these critical modes
Transonic Buzz / LCO based on the early design/design analysis
(All surfaces except
52 Hz High Frequency conducted in the early part of ASIP Task II.
Horizontal - Rudder most
Fin / Rudder Tip Mode
critical)
It shows each of the modes and the region of
criticality on an Altitude – Mach plot,
Region of Potential
Hump Modes
including the regions of criticality for
transonic buzz. Also, all the surfaces were
Altitude identified as being control loop stiffness
30+ Hz Rudder
Rotation Modes critical, and therefore susceptible to freeplay
0 effects.
30+ Hz Horizontal Figure 8 shows the results from initial
Rotation Modes
Wing Bending design trades on the high frequency fin
/ Torsion Mode
Increased Flutter
and LCO Criticality
rudder mode at 52 Hz. A large number of
Mach trades were conducted including aeroelastic
Figure 7. Flutter Critical Modes – Early EMD Configuration. tailoring. The parametric trades showed that
by lowering the upper hinge six (6) inches
Flutter Boundaries VL 1.15 VL
completely eliminated the flutter
Design Trades & Tailoring: mechanism; whereas the other paths studied,
• 0.25 increase in t/c – Stabilized Mode but including t/c increase, tip chord reduction
did not eliminate mechanism. Adverse
Aero Impact and aeroelastic tailoring, offered little hope
• Upper hinge bearing lowered 6 inches – for an effective solution. The change to
Eliminated flutter mechanism.
• 35 % Tip chord reduction – Favorable for
lower the upper hinge was therefore
all fin-rudder modes & loop stiffness. incorporated into the design. This showed
Altitude Adverse LO Impact. the importance of considering configuration
• Aeroelastic Tailoring - Difficult to
improve mode with tailoring alone as an aeroelastic design tool.
0 Figure 9 shows the benefit of aeroelastic
Early Strength Design
tailoring on increasing the flutter speed of
the 30 Hz coupled fin rudder torsion mode.
0.25 increase in t/c By using aeroelastic tailoring, the flutter
Mach speed was significantly increased while
Figure 8. Initial Trades & Design Optimization Results - 52 Hz allowing for a reduction in control loop
Coupled Fin / Rudder Tip Mode. stiffness. Other attempts using more simple
parametric analysis proved to be ineffective
in controlling this mode without a
Flutter Boundaries
significant weight penalty and control loop
VL 1.15 VL
stiffness increase.
For the Horizontal Rotation Mode @ 32
to 34 Hz, the primary mode stability drivers
included control loop stiffness, control
surface moment of inertia (MOI), tail boom
Initial Strength Design torsion-plunge coupling, actuator access
with Initial Control
Loop Stiffnesses door effective stiffness, and skin stiffness
Altitude distribution. The actuator access door
effective stiffness was quite variable due to
0 maintainability requirements for loose (high-
clearance-fit) fasteners.
Aeroelastic Tailored To control this flutter mode, design
Design with Reduced changes were implemented to minimize the
Control Loop Stiffnesses
Mach MOI of the horizontal tail, to improve
Aeroelastic Tailoring very effective control loop stiffness, and to address the
effectiveness of actuator removable access
Figure 9. Initial Trades / Design Optimization Results - 30 Hz panel. With the access panel on bottom of
Coupled Fin / Rudder Mode. tail boom (the original location), and with
9
the panel not fully effective, the resultant tail boom pitch-plunge coupling was destabilizing to this mode. Parametric
trades showed moving the access panel to the inboard side of tail boom eliminated this adverse coupling. A design
change was therefore implemented to relocate the access panel to the inboard side of the tail boom. This was another
example of the importance of using configuration change to control of aeroelastic stability.
Transonic buzz was another major
M = 1.2, V = 220 KEAS, Vtrue = 1163 ft/sec
area of concern during the aeroelastic 0.7
design of the F/A-22. The initial
approach taken was to design to an LEGEND:
Aileron
empirical value of local reduced
0.6 Flaperon
frequency of ωc/V > 0.40, where the Rudder
Rudder Most Critical
Reduced
frequency, ω, is calculated for each Frequency,
control surface accounting for
aerodynamics and equivalent control ωc/V 0.5 Buzz Empirical Based
Design Requirement
loop stiffness based on the Den Hartog
ωc/V > 0.40
approach9 that accounts for control 0.4
surface freeplay including the Flaperon @ max Freeplay
maximum and adhering to the criteria in Rudder @ max Freeplay
Section A. Figure 10 presents a plot of Aileron @ max Freeplay
0.3
the reduced frequency for the aileron, 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
flaperon, and rudder as a function of the % Loop Stiffness – Keffective/Knominal
equivalent control loop stiffness. Shown Figure 10. Design for Transonic Buzz and LCO – Empirically Based.
also are the minimum stiffness at
maximum freeplay for each control surface. This
criterion is satisfied when the reduced frequency of
the surface is predicted to be above 0.4 at the
minimum predicted stiffness at maximum freeplay.
The F-22 was designed to satisfy this criterion.
G. Flutter Model Tests

Wind tunnel component model flutter tests
included models for subsonic, transonic, and
supersonic flutter testing. Subsonic flutter testing
provided model data for correlation with well-
understood clean wing configuration unsteady
aerodynamics and for the preliminary evaluation of
flutter critical external store configurations. The
flutter model testing was used to validate unsteady
aerodynamics and component flutter mechanisms
defined by analysis. Figure 11. Vertical Fin in 4x4 Tunnel.
The tests were conducted in June 1994 in the
National Technical Systems (NTS) 4X4 Tri-Sonic
Blow down Wind Tunnel located at the Rye Canyon Mach
Research & Development Test Center in Valencia,
California. Hard flutter points were determined using Dynamic
Pressure
the component type flutter models. The components
tested included a cantilevered fin-rudder, a boom Magnitude
mounted horizontal, and a cantilevered wing with
Accelerometer
aileron. The wing was tested clean and with pylon Response
Flutter
mounted tanks and missiles. As the models were

typically destroyed during hard flutter, multiple
identical models were fabricated and tested for each
surface.
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Figure 11 shows the cantilever fin/rudder Time ~ Seconds
installed in the test section of the 4x4 tunnel. Figure
Figure 12. 4x4 Flutter Run Test Time History.
12 shows a typical test run time-history of Mach,
10
dynamic pressure, and rudder tip acceleration response.
Note: flutter of the surface occurs near the end of the 1000 Mach 1.41
run. Figure 13 is a time history plot of just the rudder Q=2710 psf at Flutter
Freq = 240 Hz Single Degree of
tip accelerometer response for another such run, and Freedom Flutter
again shows the rudder to flutter at near the end of the 500
Rudder Accel ~gs

run. Figure 14 shows the fin and rudder after 2 such
flutter events. In one case, the outer 1/3 of the fin was 0
lost as well as one side of the rudder skins. The other
case, as can be seen, resulted in total fin failure. These
flutters were not unexpected, as the plan was to obtain 500
hard flutter points. What was unexpected was the

Increasing Q
dynamic pressure and associated reduced frequency at -1000
which they occurred.
The flutter model test showed single degree of 0 5 10 15 20
flutter/transonic buzz of the rudder at a reduced Time ~ Seconds
frequency of ωc/V = 0.66, significantly above the Figure 13. 4x4 Flutter Run – Rudder Tip Accel Respnse.
design criteria value ωc/V = 0.40. To redesign the
fin/rudder to the 0.66 reduced frequency value would Rudder Tip
have been a major impact, if not impossible. As it was Failure Total Fin
Failure
unclear whether a scale effect could be present in these
results, it was decided to apply ENSAERO, a fully
couple dynamic and Navier Stokes unsteady
aerodynamics analysis code developed at NASA Ames,
for analysis of the wind tunnel model both at model
scale and at full scale. The analysis was first correlated
to the wind tunnel results at model scale. The identical
case was run at full scale, resulting in ωc/V = 0.47 at
buzz. With this result, and the then current empirically
based analysis, the decision was made to proceed with
the then current design and go into flight test with that
configuration, with the full realization of the risk
involved. Figure 14. Rudder Tip and Fin Failures after Flutter
Runs.
H. Design Requirements and Impacts
Table 2 documents the
control surface stiffness and Table 2. Control Loop Stiffness and Freeplay Requirements, Impacts, and
freeplay requirements Drivers.
established to satisfy the flutter Required Allowable
Loop Freeplay Stiffness /
and aeroelastic stability criteria Loop
SURFACE Requirement (Degrees) Freeplay
Stiffness
for the aircraft. It shows the (in-Lb/Rad)
Impact**
Installed At Life
Driver
loop stiffness required for each
Pins 21.4e6 0.0183 0.060 Classical
control surface, the weight Horizontal Weight = 79 lbs
Bearings (Single System) 0.0270 0.069 Flutter & LCO
increment that was required to
Buzz
achieve the loop stiffness over Rudder 5.86e6 Weight = 42 lbs 0.0344 0.175
LCO
and above a strength design, Flaperon 5.4e6 Weight = 6 lbs 0.1060 0.300
Classical
the allowable freeplay both in Flutter & LCO
Buzz
terms of initial and at life, and Aileron 1.6e6 0.0810 0.274
LCO
the design driver whether it Actuator #1 3.58e6
Number of slices
0.82
Classical
was classical flutter, LCO, & Backup Stiffness Flutter & LCO
Leading Actuator #2 1.72e6 Backup Stiffness 1.21 LCO
Buzz, or a combination.
Edge Actuator #3 1.46e6 Backup Stiffness 1.38 LCO
Other features incorporated Flap
Actuator #4 1.41e6 Backup Stiffness 1.38 LCO
into the design to address
Actuator #5 1.29e6 Backup Stiffness 1.38 LCO
freeplay were inverse taper
pins, expandable bolts, and Fin See Rudder Weight = 60 lbs n/a See Rudder
roller bearings in freeplay
11
critical areas of the rudder, aileron and flaperons control paths.
Table 3 provides the structural weight
increments for flutter for other areas of the Table 3. Structural Weight Increments for Flutter.
structure that were not directly in the WEIGHT
STRUCTURE
control loop. The increments in Table 3 COMPONENT
AFFECTED
INCREMENT
(lbs/airplane)
are increments for flutter on the CDR
‘strength’ FEM, which did include sizing
Vertical Fin Skins 15.0
for flutter from prior design cycles. Also,
potential for divergence of the fin leading
Skins
edge was a concern. In addition, control Rudder Spar Caps & Webs 16.0
surface inertia limits were established for Rib Caps & Webs
each control surface. These included
Horizontal Skins 12.0
weight, center of gravity (chord wise and
span wise) and moment of inertia,
Flaperon Skins & Fittings 15.0
depending on the surface. These limits
were established both as manufacturing
limits and for repair.
Table 4. Structural Filter for Aeroservoelastic Stability – Design.
Table 4 summarizes the flight control
system filters incorporated into the initial STRUCTURAL CONTROL AXIS CONTROL
FILTER ADDED TO PATH
design to address aeroservoelastic
stability. Filters were added in nearly all Roll Rate Directional Lateral
of the flight control paths, and several
Pitch Rate
filters were later modified as a result of Pitch Rate Longitudinal
Proportional Path
ground and flight test discoveries. Pitch Rate
Pitch Rate Longitudinal
Integral Path
I. Flutter Analysis Updates Nz Longitudinal
Nz Proportional
Path
The flutter analysis was updated as the
Nz Integral
input inertia and stiffness data were Nz Longitudinal
Path
updated (See Fig. 4) and as results of Stability Axis
Roll Rate Lateral
static wind-tunnel tests, pressure Roll Rate
distribution tests, and flutter model tests Yaw Rate Lateral

Stability Axis
Yaw Rate
became available. The analysis was also
updated with each major aeroelastic
tailoring sizing update.
Analyses were conducted for both the clean wing aircraft and for the aircraft with external stores. The analysis
included freeplay and aeroservoelastic effects. A sufficient number of internal and external loading configurations,
sensitivity conditions, and failure conditions were analyzed to assure the required margins for flutter safety of the
airplane were satisfied. The analysis is documented in several reports including the final flutter analysis certification
set of reports.
As noted earlier, because of manufacturing problems with the initial horizontal tail design, the horizontal tails
were redesigned via a PIP, and a B645A FEM was generated to address the aircraft structural and aeroelastic
analyses conducted for these redesigned horizontal stabilizers. This analysis was used to support flight flutter testing
of the redesigned horizontal stabilizers.
J. Design Development Flutter Tests

Development tests to support the aeroelastic design of the F-22 consisted of Prototype Air Vehicle flight and
ground testing, wind tunnel testing, fibroid lined pin development wear testing, stub horizontal shaft testing, and full
scale actuator bench testing.
1. Prototype Air Vehicle (PAV) Flight Test
As part of EMD flight testing of the YF-22A/PAV prototype was conducted to obtain loads and environmental
design data applicable to F-22, and flutter data using Flutter Excitation System (FES) tests. The PAV testing was
conducted to obtain data for aeroelastic analysis validation for F-22 EMD, to evaluate suitability of the flutter
excitation system for EMD flight test, and to evaluate the effects of horizontal tail journal bearing friction on flight
flutter testing.
Definitive flutter data was only obtained sub-sonically due to schedule constraints. Thus there was little flight
data obtained on horizontal bearing friction effects, but significant effects were identified during ground vibration
12
testing of the YF-22. Also, the lack of YF-22 transonic and supersonic data put emphasis on analysis and the need
for a transonic/supersonic flutter model for the F-22 and to address the horizontal bearing friction flutter testing
issue by analysis. As a result of this analysis, low friction bearings were installed on the EMD flight flutter test
aircraft. The PAV testing and associated ground testing did identify 11 corrections or improvements required for the
Flutter Excitation System (FES) for EMD. These were applied to the design of EMD Flutter Excitation System.
2. Other Flutter Related Development Tests
Other development tests to obtain design data for flutter included the following:
• Wind tunnel design loads tests to measure forces, static pressures, and dynamic pressure data. The static
pressure data were used to develop corrections to the theoretical unsteady aerodynamics used in the flutter
analysis.
• Actuator fabroid lined attachment pin wear testing was conducted by Boeing to support pin development to
satisfy at life freeplay requirements.
• Stub horizontal shaft/control arm stiffness and freeplay test to verify the shaft torsional stiffness and the
integrity of the shaft to horn connection.
• And as part of full scale testing, actuator bench impedance tests.
IV. Full-Scale Testing

The objective of ASIP Task III is to assist in determining the structural adequacy of the vehicle design through a
series of ground and flight tests. As part of this task, flutter analyses were updated as the input inertia, stiffness, and
aero data were finalized. A final update, before flight flutter testing incorporated the results of selected component
structural influence coefficients (SIC), inertia, and vibration tests, actuator impedance test, as well as the vehicle
SIC, ground vibration, and servo-elastic tests. For the F-22 the updates were based on correlation of the model
stiffness and dynamic data with these test data. This was accomplished for both Block I (A/V 4001), and Block II
(A/V 4003). Additionally, correlation analysis was performed against SIC and component and ground vibration test
(GVT) data for the pylon (with and without 600 gallon fuel tanks) and the fire missile adapter, (with and without
missiles).
Flutter related full-scale tests
consisted of ground vibration tests,
Preliminary
control surface stiffness and free Specifications, Criteria
Flutter and ASE
Basis of TISs, ETRs,
and Analysis Methods AOLs, and Inspections
play tests, actuator impedance tests, Analysis and Reports
control surface mass properties

tests, structural influence Horizontal Aircraft Control Surf Actuator Control Loop Store MOI &
coefficient tests, store/pylon Stab. SIC
(TIS ST0960)
SIC
(TIS ST0960)
Inertia
(ETRs)
Impedance
(ETR HB9205)
Stiff & F.P.
(TIS ST0950)
Cant Pylon
GVT (ETRs)
stiffness vibration tests, and flight
flutter tests. These were conducted
Air Vehicle (Clean Wing Structural
in accordance with a series of Update Vibration
Predictions
GVT & Ext Stores) Coupling
(TIS ST0930) (TIS FQ0900)
ETRs, FTRs, and TISs as outlined
in Fig. 15. Shown is the relation Vibration Correlation
between the preliminary analysis, & Update Flutter &
FES Ground ASE Analysis
the ground and flight testing Test
Interim Limitations
and Letter Reports
requirements in terms of ETRs and (TIS ST0940) Update Flutter, Buzz
& LCO Predictions
TISs, the ground and flight testing,
the correlation and final analysis, Flight Flutter
Tests
Final Limitations,
and the certification reports. (TIS ST0010
Certification Reports
and FSMP and IAT Updates
& ST0080)
Flutter analyses, to support
initial flight flutter testing using Figure 15. Flutter Verification / Certification Process.
A/V 4001, were conducted using
the A645 FEM. This aircraft had a limited flight envelope due strength shortcomings both due to the Block I design,
and as a result of the manufacturing problems with the initial horizontal stabilizers. When A/V 4003 came on-line, it
became the primary flight flutter test aircraft and the testing with this aircraft was supported by analysis conducted
using stiffness data derived from the A654A FEM.
Flight flutter verification testing was conducted on three fully instrumented flight test vehicles, A/V 4001 (first
Block 1 airframe), A/V 4003 (first Block 2 airframe) and A/V 4008. In addition, A/V 4002 was used for limited
external store flutter testing and for structural coupling testing. Other aircraft, as discussed below, were used for
select ground tests.
13
Figure 16 shows the flutter
instrumentation/accelerometer locations used on
the flutter test aircraft. The basic flutter
instrumentation consisted of 63 accelerometers
on the airframe and engines, with 11 of these on
the left vertical fin and rudder to provide
supplemental buffet response data. Loads and
accelerometer instrumentation was included on
the openable doors. In addition, each flight
control actuator was instrumented for overload
protection, and there were a number of
measurements to define/record the state of the
flutter excitation system. In all, approximately
180 measurements were dedicated to/required for
flutter testing. A/V 4001, 4003, and 4008 had a
full complement of this instrumentation, whereas
A/V 4002 was instrumented with a subset of the
instrumentation shown.
Before first flight of A/V 4001, certain
ground tests were performed. These tests allowed
an initial flight demonstration with a very
restricted envelope. After these initial flights, the
aircraft was positioned in a ground test frame for
Loads Calibration and Controls Proof and
Operations and SIC testing. Also conducted were
the ground vibration and stiffness and freeplay
tests required for interim clearance. A/V4003
was used for final flutter verification testing for Figure 16. Basic Accelerometer Instrumentation for Clean
aircraft with the early horizontal tail design. It Wing Aircraft Flutter Testing.
was fully instrumented for loads, flutter, and
vibroacoustics; and was also subjected to a 96 97 98 99 00 01 02 03 04 05
similar series of ground tests except for controls Ground Testing

Actuator Bench Test Nominal & Failure Mode Stiffness
proof and operations tests. SIC Test
The following summarizes each of the A/C 4001
A/C 4003
ground and flight tests, the supporting analysis, Stiffness And Freeplay
and the correlation analysis conducted on the F- A/C 4001
A/C 4003
22 as part of this ASIP Task III effort. It covers A/C 4009
Flight and Ground Operations Tests including A/C 4008
A/C 4006
Actuator Impedance Tests, Control Surface Mass Ground Vibration Tests
Properties Tests, Structural Influence Coefficient A/C 4001 Test 1
A/C 4001 Test 2
Tests, Control Surface Stiffness and Freeplay A/C 4003 Test 1
Tests, Ground Vibration Tests, Structural A/C 4005 Test 1
A/C 4008 Test 1
Coupling Tests, and Flight Flutter Tests. Figure Structural Coupling
17 presents a schedule of the full-scale ground A/C 4001
and flight testing conducted. Note: as discussed A/C 4002
A/C 4003
above, analyses were updated as data from these A/C 4008
tests became available. Flight Testing
A/C 4001 Block I
A/C 4002 Block I
A. Lab and Ground Tests A/C 4003 Block II
A/C 4008 Block II
1. Actuator Impedance Tests
Bench tests were conducted to measure Figure 17. Full Scale Flutter Ground and Flight Testing
aileron, rudder, and horizontal stabilizer actuator Schedule.
impedances on two actuators each to validate the
actuator impedance characteristics. The testing utilized an enhanced fatigue test machine and, as the actuators were
very stiff, a unique laser measurement system which led to the success of the test. The single system aileron and
rudder actuators were tested in hydraulic system failed and un-failed modes. The dual system horizontal stabilizer
14
actuators were tested in single-system-failed modes. The flaperon actuators were not tested due to similarity with the
aileron and rudder actuators. The tests were conducted in accordance with an ETR HB9205. Variations in hydraulic
fluid temperature, mean load, oscillatory load, and stroke position were tested. The actuator stiffness in the
failed/compensator mode was less than predicted for several of the test conditions resulting in implementing a flight
manual requirement to slow to a speed < VL after any single hydraulic system failure condition and also to slow to
final approach speed when the compensator depleted ICAW enunciates (FLAP FLUT, SURF FLUT). Results of the
test are documented in a letter report and in the final flutter certification analysis report, and the test is described in
an AIAA publication10.
2. Control Surface Mass Properties Tests
Mass properties tests of the control surfaces on EMD aircraft were conducted utilizing a Space Electronics KSR-
2200 Instrument measuring machine to measure control surface weight, center of gravity, and mass moments of
inertia (MOI data). These data are used to verify control surface mass properties used in vibration and flutter
analyses, and to verify that the mass characteristics of the control surfaces as manufactured are within acceptable
limits. The MOI data for the specific flight test aircraft involved in flutter testing were used to assure the mass data
in correlation analyses were consistent with the control surface mass properties on the flutter test aircraft.
Variability Reduction Improvement (VRI) plans were established for control/measurement of mass properties
data on production control surfaces. These plan call for testing all control surfaces except the leading edge flap. The
plan is for one-hundred percent testing to continue until sampling can be justified in accordance with the sampling
plans. An MOI screening procedure has been implemented on the rudder, aileron, and flaperons which only require
a detail MOI test if screening limitations are exceeded. Procedures are also being implemented that will require full
MOI of a surface if a field repair is calculated to cause MOI limits to be exceeded and that surface had only been
screened in manufacturing, or it had had a significant repair history.
3. Structural Influence Coefficient Tests
Structural Influence Coefficients (SIC) test were performed as part of the Loads Calibration Tests of Aircraft
4001 and 4003. The purpose of the SIC tests were to measure the structural deflections due to predefined applied
loads. From these data, force/deflection slopes (SICs) are obtained. Data were gathered for both vehicle distributed
and for point loads on the wings, leading edge flaps, ailerons, flaperons, vertical tails, rudders, and horizontal tails.
Deflection data obtained during the loads calibration testing was also used. A total of 25 distributed and 41 point
load cases were run and deflections were
measured at 252 locations. From the load and
deflection data, the aircraft SICs were
determined and correlated with the finite element
model used for vibration and flutter analyses.
Based on this correlation, the FEM was refined
to match the test results, and new vibration and
flutter predictions were made. This correlated
FEM was also used to generate updated SICs for
loads analysis. SIC tests were performed
separately on the horizontal stabilizers used on
the test aircraft. Also, SIC tests were run on the
new PIP production internally ribbed horizontal
stabilizers which were installed on Flight Test
Aircraft Serial Number 4008.
The test results, and comparison with
predictions are documented in several reports
and as part of the final certification
documentation set. Figure 18 presents a typical
comparison of measured and predicted
deflections for a one loading condition. These
type plots, dubbed ‘worm’ plots, were used to
visually compare the data.
4. Control Surface Stiffness & Freeplay Tests
Control surface stiffness and freeplay tests of
select EMD aircraft were performed to measure Figure 18. Typical SIC Test / Analysis Comparison –
the control loop, backup structure stiffness, and ‘Worm’ Plot.
the freeplay of the control surfaces. The results
15
of the tests were used to verify that the design objectives for control loop stiffness and freeplay were achieved and to
refine analytical models to update prediction of aircraft vibration modes and flutter characteristics.
The test itself was also used to verify the freeplay inspection procedure for the fleet and was conducted in
accordance with a TIS ST0950. Stiffness and freeplay testing was conducted on Aircraft 4001, 4003, 4006, 4008 and
4009. On Aircraft 4001, tests were conducted with solid rods of known stiffness as well as with nominal actuators so
that the backup structure stiffness and the total control loop stiffness could be measured. Results from this testing are
included in the final flutter certification documentation set. One objective of the stiffness and freeplay test was to
test more than one aircraft, with one of those aircraft being 4003. This was part of the process to adjust the freeplay
on that aircraft to maximum levels of freeplay for maximum freeplay flutter testing. Figure 19 shows typical test
results for a nominal freeplay condition and for a condition where the freeplay had been set to maximum. The test
was also used to verify the procedure for field inspections at maximum freeplay values. Freeplay inspection
procedures for production aircraft are documented in reports and in Tech Order data (TOD) as part of ASIP Task IV.
0.2
0.15
Raw Test Data Unloading
Unloading 0.1
0.1 Regression Lines
Raw Test Data
Angular Deflection, deg

Angular Deflection, deg
Freeplay Centerline
0.05 Loading Regression Lines
Freeplay Intercepts 0
Freeplay Centerline Loading
0
Freeplay Intercepts
-0.1
-0.05
Freeplay = 0.2937 deg
Freeplay = 0.0995 deg
-0.1 -0.2
-0.15
-0.3
Loading Loading
-0.2
Unloading
-0.4
-0.25 Unloading
Actuator in Tension (-) Actuator in Compression (+) Actuator in Tension (-) Actuator in Compression (+)
-2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 -2.5 -2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5
Moment, 104 in-lbs Moment, 104 in-lbs
Figure 19a. 4003 Left Flaperon – Pins at Nominal Figure 19b. 4003 Left Flaperon – Pins set at
Freeplay. Maximum Freeplay.
5. Ground Vibration Tests

Ground Vibration Tests (GVTs) were conducted to measure/verify the structural dynamic characteristics of the
airplane including mode shapes, frequencies, and damping. The measured data were compared and correlated with
the analytical predictions to permit update of
dynamic models and flutter predictions.
GVTs were conducted on Aircraft 4001,
4003, 4005, and 4008 in the clean wing
configuration, and on other EMD aircraft
when required to investigate special cases
where changes in weight or configuration may
have impacted the dynamic characteristics of a
test aircraft. Figure 20 shows a typical GVT
setup. GVTs for external stores were also
performed on Aircraft 4003 for the weapons
configuration with the EMD pylon and Fire-
Missile-Adapter (FMA), and on A/V 4002 and
4005 for the 2-tank ferry configuration. The
4002 GVT was not a full GVT in that the FES
system was used for excitation and the flutter
test accelerometers were used to measure the
Figure 20. Typical F-22 Ground Vibration Test Setup.
aircraft responses. It provided data to permit
16
flutter clearance of the A/V 4002 2-tank configuration for flying qualities testing.
A GVT was also conducted before First Flight of A/V 4001 using the FES for excitation. Special software to
extract modal data was written for this test. The aircraft was on its gear with struts blocked, and response was
measured by on-board instrumentation. For the initial normal full aircraft GVTs, the test aircraft, complete with all
systems and instrumentation, was mounted on a soft suspension system such that the fundamental frequencies of the
suspended airplane were below one Hertz. Electromagnetic shakers with low mass armatures were used to excite the
modes of all lifting surfaces, the fuselage, and the empennage. In addition, component GVTs were performed on
certain doors, launchers, pylons, stores, and avionic components. All significantly different aircraft loading options,
both internal and external, were examined to acquire resonant frequencies and mode shapes of all aircraft
configurations that were flight tested. For a full aircraft GVT, typically approximately 26 basic aircraft modes were
surveyed. In addition to these, and the test on doors and internal and external stores, tests were also conducted on the
control surfaces without preload to obtain data on the effects of amplitudes in the presence of freeplay on basic
control surface modes
SDRC modal analysis and test software was used for random testing and a Lockheed Martin developed software,
called Xpert, was used for sine tuning and sine dwell testing. Modal damping was obtained primarily from quick-
stop decays. Excitation was primarily provided with 250 pound force Helmholtz Dickie electromagnetic shakers.
For full aircraft testing, up to 12 shaker locations were used on the basic aircraft. These included vertical and lateral
at the nose of the fuselage, vertical at fore and aft wing tip locations, vertical on the outboard aft of the ailerons and
flaperons, vertical at the horizontal tip and mid-span trailing edge locations, and normal to the surface at the fin tips,
and at the rudder tip and root. 300+ piezoelectric accelerometers were mounted externally to the aircraft structure to
provide response measurements for the modal descriptions. The control surfaces and fins were preloaded thru
bungees to eliminate freeplay effects during testing. For early testing, the aircraft was supported on a soft suspension
system. For later testing, the aircraft were supported on the gear, with the struts locked, and the tires partially
deflated.
Two (2) GVTs were conducted on Aircraft 4001, one in September 1998 with ‘repaired’ horizontal tails, and
another in Mar, 1999 with ‘replacement’ horizontal tails. Two (2) were also conducted on Aircraft 4003, one in
June, 2000 for the clean wing aircraft, and another in Mar 2001 for external missiles. A single GVT was conducted
on Aircraft 4002 in December 2003, one on Aircraft 4005 in February 2004, and one on Aircraft 4008 in February
2005. Also, two (2) cantilever pylon ground vibration tests were conducted. One with missiles in September 2000,
and another with a 600 gallon tank in May 2002. A third cantilever pylon GVT was conducted in September 2005.
These were each documented in their respective reports.
Data from these tests were used to correlate the analytical models of the full airplane, as well as the models of
the components. Correlations of the dynamic models used in the flutter and aeroelastic stability analysis were
conducted. The changes made to the Finite Element Models (FEMs) were passed on to the individual IPTs to help
verify their modeling techniques. A final correlation was conducted which included combined correlation with the
SIC and GVT data.
6. Structural Coupling Tests
A number of the Structural Coupling tests were conducted to verify the aeroservoelastic stability characteristics
of the F-22 aircraft. Excitation of aircraft structure via control surface movement is sensed by the VMS
accelerometers and gyros and fed to the control laws. This represents a closed loop system that has a potential for
instability. Coupling between the control surfaces and VMS sensors through the structure is termed “structural
coupling". To determine the presence of structural coupling instabilities, the aircraft dynamic model with VMS
gyros and accelerometers properly located are analyzed in conjunction with the flight control system. As discussed
in Task III, to preclude structural coupling instability, notch filters are included in the appropriate paths in the
control laws. These filters provide the required stability margins by lowering the loop gains at frequencies that
correspond to the offending structural modes. Testing is/was done whenever significant changes in structure or mass
are/were made to the aircraft since this may alter structural modes.
Testing consisted of several distinct aircraft structural coupling tests/test configurations. A formal report was
released to document the structural coupling test results. Tests were conducted on Block I aircraft, A/V 4001, clean
wing, in May 1997 and in Sept 1998; A/V 4002, clean wing, in May 1999 and for the 2-Tank Ferry configuration in
Nov-Dec 2003, and again in Jan 2004. Structural coupling tests were conducted on Block II aircraft, A/V 4003 clean
wing, in June 2000, A/V 4003 with external missiles in March 2001, and again on A/V 4003 for the 2-Tank Ferry in
June 2004. Tests were also conducted on Block II aircraft, A/V 4008 with new production horizontals in Feb 2005
for the clean wing configuration, and in Oct-Nov 2005 for the 2-Tank Ferry Configuration with the new production
PIP horizontals and with new PIP pylons.
17
The results from these tests are used to correlate the aeroservoelastic stability analyses, to verify the adequacy of
the structural filters, and to determine the need for any filter changes. To include aerodynamic effects for flight
conditions, analyses were/are conducted with the ground test correlated dynamic model and with matched condition
unsteady aerodynamics. At high angle of attack, the aero forces were de-rated. As a result of these tests, analysis,
and flight test discoveries, some filter changes were incorporated. The results of these efforts are documented as part
of the final flutter certification documentation set for the F-22.
7. Correlation of Analytical Models to Ground Tests
The initial ground test data were used for initial correlation of the analytical models for update of vibration and
flutter predictions to support flight test and envelope releases. The majority of the correlation effort was performed
using a program called GENESIS which balances changes to defined structural properties to best match the
frequencies, mode shapes, and/or structural deflections. Initial and updated correlated flight test models were used to
re-analyze the F-22. New vibration calculations were made and new flutter runs were performed to obtain updated
predictions for proceeding with the flight test verification program. Final correlations were used to develop
‘correlated’ models for the production representative FEMs. The updated models were used to update flutter
predictions, and with the measured flight test data, were used for final flutter certification.
8. Flight Flutter Tests
The objectives of the flight flutter testing were to verify that the F-22 was free from flutter and other dynamic or
aeroelastic instabilities throughout the structural design envelope of the aircraft; to measure sub-critical damping and
frequencies of critical aeroelastic modes; and to measure sub-critical damping and frequency values and magnitude
of any sustained oscillations, with control surfaces set at maximum freeplay values at test /flight conditions of near
zero hinge moment near maximum dynamic pressure where potential for limit cycle oscillation (LCO) exists, and/or
at conditions where potential for transonic buzz exists.
The scope of the F-22 flight flutter test program focused heavily on evaluation of aeroelastic response data to
obtain frequency and damping of critical aeroelastic/flutter modes. Flight flutter verification testing was conducted
on three fully instrumented flight test vehicles, A/V 4001 (first Block 1 airframe), A/V 4003 (first Block 2 airframe)
and A/V 4008. In addition, A/V 4002 was used for limited 2-tank external store flutter testing required to clear an
initial flying qualities envelope. A/V 4003 was used for final clean wing and 2-tank flutter clearance, for maximum
freeplay flutter testing, and for the full subsonic envelope 2-tank flutter testing. It was also used to clear a ‘soda
straw’ envelope for external combat flight test. A/V 4008 replaced A/V 4003 and was used for flutter, loads, and
vibroacoutics flight testing of the new production horizontal stabilizers including 2-tank testing with PIP pylon, and
for completing the maximum freeplay testing including that for the new PIP production horizontals.
The flutter testing utilized a flutter excitation system (FES). The FES, with control surface frequency sweeps and
discrete frequency bursts, was used to excite the aeroelastic modes of interest on the F-22. The flutter excitation
system developed specifically for the F-22, is capable of sine dwell called bursts, sine sweeps, repeated sine bursts,
and random. The system is capable of symmetric, antisymmetric, and single surface excitation. All primary flight
control surfaces can be excited in pairs or singularly. Control of excitation is by a pilot selectable predefined
‘excitation’ page, or the pilot can manually program or reprogram the setup. The FES contained an overload
protection system that would automatically shut the system off in the event that preset load or other response limits
were exceeded. The amplitude was programmable for all excitation types. The frequency, number of cycles in a
burst, number of repeated bursts, and time between bursts were programmable. The sweep rate, frequency range,
and type (log or linear) were programmable. The frequency range and duration for random excitation were
programmable.
Basic clean wing flutter testing to VL, doors closed and open, consisted of completing approximately 1190 TIS
points. TIS points included Mach, altitude, elevated-g turns, and sideslip conditions, as well as FES excitation
conditions covering control surfaces, symmetry, and excitation mode (sweep, random, or burst). Conditions or
selections such as frequency, number of cycles in a burst, number of repeated bursts, time between bursts, sweep
rate, etc were not in the TIS point count. TIS points also included testing at maximum freeplay/zero hinge moment
conditions. Special flight test maneuvers were developed to drive the hinge moments to zero for sufficient time to
allow for flutter excitation. The development of these maneuvers and the associated maximum freeplay flight flutter
testing is covered in a separate publication11. The clean wing flight flutter Mach/altitudes test points, excluding
maximum freeplay testing, consisted of 69 closed door points, 31 main weapons bay door open points, 32 side
weapons bay door open points, and 38 other miscellaneous door open points. For each door closed point, a specific
FES excitation page is defined.
The initial flight envelope clearance was based upon analysis supported by wind tunnel tests and the GVT
results. Flutter testing was conducted in a build-up fashion to expand the envelope. Testing was typically done in
blocks that included flutter, loads, and flying qualities test conditions. Configurations tested include clean, doors
18
open, and external stores configurations. In EMD, external store testing was limited to the “Soda Straw” envelope
with external missiles and to subsonic only for the 2-tank ferry configuration. Any other external store testing will
be post-EMD. The flutter testing utilizes a flutter excitation system (FES), and is conducted per a TIS ST0010.
This TIS was continually updated to reflect the results of updated analysis based on correlation with ground test
results, the flutter testing discoveries, flight test program needs, and due to at least two major TIS point scrubs.
The flight test program focused heavily on evaluation of aeroelastic response data to obtain frequency and
damping of critical aeroelastic/flutter modes. Flight testing included an initial flutter investigation to confirm that
the aircraft is free of flutter and other aeroelastic instabilities. Structural response data were measured following
FES inputs and were monitored for safety of flight using Symvionics, Inc.IADS Software in the Ridley Mission
Control Room at Edwards Air Force Base, and transmitted in near real time to Room 1060 in Marietta, GA. In
Marietta the data were processed and displayed in near real time using RTDAS12 and analyzed using the
Pseudorandomdec analysis procedure to extract frequencies and dampings. The Pseudorandomdec analysis
procedure was initially developed by Lockheed for application to flutter testing on the F-117, and was incorporated
into the data analysis software systems both in Marietta and at EAFB. It is an adaptation of the Randomdec
method13 to discrete frequency multiple burst excitations.
The analysis was done in near real time, and direct comparisons of measured and predicted frequencies,
dampings and mode shapes were made using special flutter analysis and display software written in LAB VIEW.
Data from this testing were used to further refine the analytical models that predict airplane vibration modes and
flutter characteristics. Analytical predictions were correlated with flight test measured data, and the correlated
models were used to verify that the F-22 is free from flutter and other dynamic instabilities for the full flight
envelope, including failure effects, with
12
required margins.
Frequency, Cycles per Second
During clean wing testing, a total of 18 11

structural modes were excited and tracked.
To minimize testing, only the modes 10
deemed to be critical or necessary for
9
correlation and/or mode tracking at a
particular Mach/altitude point, are excited at 8
that condition. The FES developed for the F-
22 proved successful in exciting the critical 7 Wing at zero Root
structural modes of the F-22. Measured sub- Bending Moment
6
critical frequencies and damping compare
favorably with those of the analytical 5
predictions. For door open testing, 0
frequency and damping values were
obtained using random air turbulence to -0.05
excite the doors. Summaries of the measured
-0.10
data, along with how they compare with
Damping, g
analytical predictions, are available in final -0.15

reports. These data showed reasonable
correlation of the critical modes. As an -0.20
example, Figure 21 is a comparison of flight -0.25
test measured data and predicted wing
bending frequencies and damping versus -0.30
airspeed for a 1.2 Mach condition. In this
case the data shows a sensitivity to wing -0.35
root freeplay, where the wing root bending Airspeed
moment goes to zero in the 650 to 700 knot Figure 21. Example of Flight Test and Predicted Frequency and
region. Damping versus Airspeed, Mach=1.2.
9. PIP Redesigned Horizontal Tail Tests
For the redesigned ribbed horizontal tails, a series of tests were conducted. These included a structural influence
coefficient (SIC) test of both the right and left redesigned horizontals, and a clean wing aircraft ground vibration test
with the new design tails installed on Aircraft 4008, the flight test aircraft with the new tails. Following this, flight
flutter testing was conducted on A/V 4008 per TISs ST0080 and ST0010 and included regression testing, envelope
expansion, and flutter testing with one horizontal and one flaperon set to maximum freeplay.
19
10. Interpretation and Evaluation of Results
All test results were reviewed and compared to analytical predictions, and an appropriate level of correlation
analysis was conducted. Models were updated if necessary based on flight and ground test results. These updates
were applied to the final flutter analyses. Flutter test results and the final flutter analysis for the clean wing aircraft
and for the aircraft with two (2) external inboard tanks are documented in six final flutter analysis report volumes.
The results showed the aeroelastic design of the F-22 was a success in that the test results compared favorably with
predictions, and no aeroelastic stability problems were encountered in testing to VL. The maximum freeplay test
results, in spite of the earlier wind tunnel test results, indicated the design for freeplay may be conservative, and that
some relief in freeplay limits may be possible.
V. Summary and Conclusions

The F-22 presented many aeroelastic design challenges. Covered are early aeroelastic design issues, the process
to address them leading to a successful aeroelastic design of the F-22, an overview of the ground and flight-testing
conducted to verify the flutter characteristics of the aircraft, and considerations for force management.
Several critical aeroelastic modes were identified and were successfully addressed. This required an integrated
approach using parametric analysis, and aeroelastic design optimization. Parametric analysis was essential to
identifying hinge and access panel location changes, and aeroelastic tailoring/design optimization was used
extensively to define ply and substructure changes. The MDO process was successfully applied and was an
invaluable tool to achieve a minimum weight aeroelastic design for the F/A-22.
A rigorous process was used to establish freeplay allowables for the F/A-22 for control of LCO and Buzz in
place of Mil-Std criteria. Also, flutter model results coupled with integrated structural dynamic unsteady CFD
analysis (ENSAERO) showed significant Reynolds Number effects for transonic buzz, with the wind tunnel being
very conservative. Maximum freeplay limits were verified by dedicated flight testing using maneuvers developed to
obtain zero mean hinge moment at critical flight conditions for sufficient time to allow for flutter excitation.
Maximum freeplay test results indicate the design for freeplay may be conservative, and that some relief in
freeplay limits may be possible.
Multiple filters were developed and incorporated to address aeroservoelastic stability. (Filters were
added/modified due to ground and flight test discoveries).
The clean wing aeroelastic design has been verified by flight test and the results are favorable. The aeroelastic
stability final certification analysis and documentation for the clean wing aircraft and for external tank carriage have
been completed.
Acknowledgments
W. D. Anderson thanks the following: Dr. Nick Radovcich for his support and technical leadership and for his
giving the freedom to freely pursue sound technical solutions to the aeroelastic design of the F-22; the technical
leads, including Don Ketter, Doug Piette, David Layton, and Don Bubna, and the entire F-22 Flutter Staff in
Marietta that participated in making the aeroelastic design, testing, and certification efforts a success; Don Lange
and Lew Jurey, F-22 CTF Technical Leads, for valuable assistance in planning and test execution; Jim Pendergast,
David Denner, and Sean Mortara, the F-22 SPO Technical Leads, who provided valuable direction and support over
the course of the F-22 EMD Program; and Dr. Robert Moore of ASD of WPAFB who provided valuable technical
assistance in the early phases of the program.
References
1
Aircraft Structural Integrity Program, MIL-STD-1530A.
2
Aircraft Structures, General Specification for, AFGS-87221A, 8 June 1990.
3
F-22 Air Vehicle Structural Design Criteria Report, F-22 Program Report 5PPYA005K, May 2005.
4
Hassig, H. J., “An Approximate True Damping Solution of the Flutter Equation by Determinant Iteration”, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol 8, No. 11, November 1971, pp. 885-889.
5
Kalman, T. P., Rodden, W. P., and Giesing, J. P., “Application of Doublet Lattice Method to Nonplanar Configurations in
Subsonic Flow”, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 8 No. 6, June 1971, pp. 406-413.
6
Chen, P. C., and Liu, D. D., “Harmonic Gradient Method for Unsteady Supersonic Flow Calculations”, Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 22, No. 5, May 1985.
7
Guruswamy, G. P., and Byun, C., “Fluid-Structural Interactions Using Navier-Stokes Flow Equations Coupled with Shell
Finite Element Structures”, AIAA-93-3087.
8
Radovcich, N. A., and Layton, D. A., “The F-22 Structural/Aeroelastic Design Process with MDO Examples”, AIAA-1998-
4732.
20
9
Den Hartog, J. P., Mechanical Vibrations, 4th ed., Dover Publications Inc., Mineola, NY, 1985, Chap. 8.
10
Layton, D. A., and Gaines, V. G., “F-22 Actuator Dynamic Stiffness (Impedance) Testing”, 48th AIAA/ASME/
ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2007 (to be published).
11
Anderson, W. D., Mortara, S. A., “Maximum Control Surface Freeplay, Design and Flight Testing Approach on the F-22”,
th
48 AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2007 (to be published).
12
Davis, R. A., RT-DAS User’s Guide, Lockheed Martin Document 73HA-006-99, Marietta, GA, January 1999.
13
Cole, H. A., Jr., “On-Line Failure and Damping Measurement of Aerospace Structures by Random Decrement Signatures”,
NASA CR 2205, Washington, D. C., March 1973.
21

Aeroelastic Test and Validation

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

Aeroelastic Test and Validation

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference<br>15th AIAA 2007-1764

23 - 26 April 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii

F-22 Aeroelastic Design and Test Validation

II. Aeroelastic Stability Design Information Task

A. Criteria, Specifications and Design Requirements

margin of 6 dB, and separately a Left FLCS Branch X 1 SYS

flutter speed margin criteria apply.

B. Structural Arrangement & Materials

III. Aeroelastic Design Analysis and Development Tests

A. Vehicle Level FEM

C. Basic Flutter Analysis Method

E. Design History/Design Iteration Summary

G. Flutter Model Tests

mounted tanks and missiles. As the models were

Rudder Accel ~gs

hard flutter points. What was unexpected was the

roller bearings in freeplay

distribution tests, and flutter model tests Yaw Rate Lateral

J. Design Development Flutter Tests

IV. Full-Scale Testing

control surface mass properties

similar series of ground tests except for controls Ground Testing

Angular Deflection, deg

5. Ground Vibration Tests

During clean wing testing, a total of 18 11

analytical predictions, are available in final -0.15

V. Summary and Conclusions

You might also like