Flutter Analysis of a Two-Dimensional Airfoil

Containing Structural Hysteresis Noolinearities

by

Brett M. Brooking, B.Eng. (Aerospace)

A thesis submitted to the

Faculty of Graduate Studies and Research
in partial fulfilment of
the requirements for the degree of

Master of Engineering (Aerospace)

Ottawa-Carleton Institute for

Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering
Carleton University-
Ottawa, Ontario
Canada

Q copyright 1998, B. Brooking

u*m National Library
of Canada
Bibliothèque nationale
du Canada

Acquisitions and Acquisitions et

Bibliographie Services services bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395.nie Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A ON4 Ottawa ON K1A ON4
Cana& Canada
Your fi& Votre refërenw

Our fïk NNo.9 ratarence

The author has granted a non- L'auteur a accordé me licence non

exclusive licence dowing the
National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell
copies of this thesis in microfonn,
paper or electronic formats.
exclusive permettant à la
Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
la forme de microfiche/fk, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du

copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts f h m it
may be printed or otherwise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits sans son
automation.
 Aeroelastic flutter is a dangerous phenomenon where aerodymnics interact uith
the structure of an aeronautical component to produce potenùally damaging oscillations.

Small concentrated structural nodineaities c m have signïficant effects on the flutter

behaviour and c m , in particul- cause large-amplitude oscillations at lower airspeeds

than for linear systerns-

This thesis documents an investigation of one particular type of noduiearïty,

hysteresis. The effects of introducing hyneresis into an otherwise linear aeroeiastic

system are detemiined. This work was a continuation of previous work that examined the
effects of bilinear and cubic type noiilinearities in a dynamic system consisting of a two-
dimensional airfoi1 having two degrees of fieedom. This thesis first outlines a method of
characterizhg the response of the system through the use of a fuite difference
formulation to produce a time marching simulation that traces the response of the system
through tirne. A second solution method oudined is a semi-anaiytical method using a
Descnbinp Function technique to approximate the amplitude of the response of the

system based on the nonlinearïv present.

Results are presented in the form of "maps" that indicate confi,wations where
Limit Cycle Oscillations (LCO) are induced, and in the form of amplitude versus airspeed
plots for the LCO cases. The simulation and describinp function methods were fomd to

compare with reasonably good accuracy. It was found that the Descnbing Function

solution tends to becone less accurate as the assumphons of sinusoida1motion break

down.
 I would Iike to thank Peter Ba.rrîngton, of Carleton Universis., my Master's thesis
, has provided me with guidance and assistance through t h i s project. 1
s u p e ~ s o rwho
would also like to thank my CO-supervisorBen Lee of the Institute for Aerospace
ResearchoNational Research Council for his help and insight into this topic, and for the
use of the NRC facilities. I would also like to thank my third CO-supewisorDick Kind,of
Carleton University. for going to great lengths ensure this project drew to cornpletion and
not forgetting me. Thanks aiso to the people at Davis Engineering for giving me tirne.
facilities and support to complete the project. The support of d l these people is greatly
appreciated-

This thesis is dedicated to Nicole. She is my light whenever it is dark.

 TABLE OF CONTENTS

...
ABSTRACT .......................................................... i~i

1.0LNTRODUCTION ................................................... 1
1-1 Problem Definition .............................................. 1
1-2 Scope of Present Work .......................................... - 3

2.0BACKGROUND .................................................... 5
2-1 Previous Work ................................................ - 5

3.0THEORY ......................................................... 12
~.lEquationsofr\noti~n ........................................... 13
3 .1.1 Quasi-Steady Aerodynamics .............................. 18
3.1.2 Unsteady Aerodynamics ................................. 33
3.3SolutionMethods .............................................. 23
,
-
,

3.2.1 Houbolt Finite Difference Method ........................ -36

3 2.1.1 Houbolt Method Starting Procedure ................28
3-2-1-2 Houbolt's Recurrence F o d a ................... - 2 9
3.2.2 Describing Function Approach ........................... - 2 9

4OANGLYSIS ........................................................ 36
4.1 System Def-ition ............................................ - 3 6
4.3 Time Marching Simulation Solutions .............................- 3 7
3.3 Describing Function Solutions ................................... - 4 2

5.0 DISCUSSION AND COMPARISON OF RIESULTS ..................... - 4 5

5.1 Finite Difference Simulations ................................... - 4 6
5-1-1Validation ........................................... - 4 6
5-1-2 Flutter Boundaries ...................................... 48
5.1.3 Ainpeed vs Limit Cycle Amplitude ....................... - 5 0
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Description

3.1 Schematic Diagram of Two-Dimensional Airfoi1 with Two Degrees

of Freedom
32 Diagram of Restoring Moment vs. Pitch Angle for Hysteresis
Spnng
3 -3 Block Diagram of Describing Function Method in Limit Cycle
System
3 -4 Diagram of Restoring Moment vs Pitch Angle for Bilinear Spring
with Freeplay

4- 1 Sample Pitch/Heave Response for Hysteresis Nonlinearity

4.2 Damped Pitch Response for Hysteresis Nonlinearity
4.3 LCO Pitch Response for Hysteresis Nonlinearity
4.4 Damped Pitch Response for Hysteresis Nonlinearity
4.5 LCO Pitch Response for Hysteresis Nonlinearity
4.6 LCO Pitch Response for Hysteresis Nodineari:ty
4-7 Unstable Pitch Response for Hysteresis Nonlinearity
4.8 Hysteresis Spring Reversai of Pitch Direction on Slope
4.9 Hysteresis Spring Reversai of Pitch Direction on Flat
4-10 Root Locus Plot for Two Degree of Freedom Aufoii: o = 0.2
4.1 1 Pitch SprinJ Stifbess vs. Flutter Speed: o = 0.2
4.12 Describing Funcrion vs. LCO Amplitude

vii
5-1 Sinusoidal Type Pitch Response for Hysteresis Nodine-
Power Spectral Density of Pitch Response for Hysteresis
Nonlinearity
Pitch Response with Harmonic Structure for Hysteresis
Noniinearity
Power Spectral Densi- of Pitch Response for ETysteresis
Nonlinearïty
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearïty R u 06 fiom Table 1.1
Res1dts Plots for Hysteresis Nodinearity Run 10 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 14 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 15 fiom Table 4.1
Resdts PIots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 16 fiom Table 4.1
Resdts Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 100 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 2 0 1 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis NonIinearity Run 102 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis NodineanS. Run 103 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 1O4 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 105 fiom Table 4-1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 110 fiom TabIe 4-1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run I l 1 from Table 4-1
Rcsults PIots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 25 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlineariq Run 27 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 28 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearïty Run 29 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 30 from Table 3.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 3 1 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 32 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 33 Eom Table 4.1
Resuits Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 120 fiom Table 4.1
Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 121 from Table 4.1

viii
5.28 azb,c Results Plots for Hysteresis Noniinearity Run 130 £iom Table 4.1
5.29 ab,c Results PLos for Hyaeresis Nonlinearity Run 131 from Table 4.1
5-30 a,blc Results Plots for Hysteresis Nonlinearity Run 132 from T b l z 4.1
5.3 1 ab$ Results Plots for Hysteresis Nodine* Run 133 from Table 3.1
amplitude of input s i p a l to Describing Function a(t) = B + Asin(wt+e)

position of elastic axis relative to midchord position

bias of input signal to Describing Function x(t) = B + Asin(ot+B)

semi-chord

coefficient of lifi

Linear heave smictural damping coefficient per unit span, see Equation 3.2

linear pitch structurai damping coefficient per unit spul. see Equation 3.2

nonlïnear function reruming the restoring moment in pitch

h c t i o n to show nonlinearity is srnall. F(a)= v fia)

heave position

mass moment of inertia about elastic axis per unit span

linear pitch sprinp s t i a e s s

linear heave spring s t f i e s s

lifi per unit span

airfoi1 mass per unit span

slope of hysteresis nonlinearity

moment per unit span

Describing Function complex gain, n, +j n,

real component of Describing Function gain NA

imaginary component of Describing Function gain NA

Laplace Transform variable

nondimensionai Laplace Transform variable, pV/b

dynarnic air pressure, %pV2

radius of 2 ~ t i o about
n elastic axis

static offset per unit span, rn(~b-a,b)

pian form area per unit span. 2b

air strearn velocity

nondimensional heave position. hm

variable representing input signal x(t) to a Sinusoidal Describing Function

position of centre of mass fiom elastic axis relative to semi-chord

variable representing output y&) fiom Sinusoidd Describing Function

pitch angle

d m p i n g term

nondimensional pitch damping coefficien~C,/(2(I,lQE

nondimensional heave damping coefficiem CJ(2(mKdE

phase mgle

nondimensional airfoil mass ratio, m/np~'

srnall parameter indicating nonlinearity F(a) is small

nondimensional heave position, hm

air densiry

ot+8

naturd fiequency of uncoupled pitch motion when S=O

natural fiequency of uncoupled heave motion when S=O

ratio of heave to pitch fiequency, a&,

 1.0 INTRODUCTION

The work descnbed in thïs thesis was performed for the purpose of investigating

the effects of hysteretic nonlinearities on the dynamic response of an aeroelastic systeni,

and to compare results between cornputer simulations and a semî-analytic solution. The

goal was to evaluate the effectiveness of using the descrÏbed semi-analy-tical solution

rnethod to predict the flutter behaviour of this nonlinear system and determine where the

rnethod's accuracy breaks down for the hysteresis nonlinearity and why.

1.1 Problern Definition

The studied system represented a generic airfoil section that had been sirnplified

to a two-dimensional dynamic system in two degrees of fieedom - pitch and heave.

When subjected to large aerodynamic forces?i.e. airspeed, and an initial pitch angle the

dynarnic system can be shown to enter into a state of oscillation that afier the removal of

transient effects results in a system that is either stable and decays to zero, or is unstable

and diverges for a linear system. A condition of oscillation of an airfoil that c o n ~ u e to

s

grow out of control is known asfitter and is a dangerous condition that c m cause violent
damage to aircrafi muctures. The airspeed at which flutter is induced in a linear

aeroelastic system is known as the linearflutter speed.

By introducing structural nonlùiearities into the elastic response of the airfoil' the

dparnics can be reevaluated with respect to the stability of the system and may

subsequenrly include steady state oscillations that are sustainable and neither decay nor

grow beyond the bounds of the system. Typicd nonlinearities that have been anaiysed in

theoretical work include thefieeplay nonlineanty where a dead band of zero change in

restoring force occurs over a range of displaceme. cubic nodinearity where the reacaon

force versus displacement c w e is represented by a cubic function; and the hysteresis

nonlinearity where the reaction force response c u v e is dependent upon the cment state

of the system. It is uiis hysteresis type noniinearis which was snidied in the work being

presented in this thesis-

Aeroelasticity; as a topic of study, describes the interactions between aerodynamic

forces and the reaction forces of an elastic structure. Aerodynamic forces deform an

elastic structure and the deformation of the structure in tum changes the nature of the

aerodynamic forces acting on it. In a dynamic system these forces can feedback ont0

each other causing reactions that are sometimes cornplex and dinicult to predict. The

feedback nature of the dynamic system can, under certain conditions, lead to instabilities

resulting in physical damage to the structure.

In aeronautics, aeroelastic reactions become very important for components that

combine large aerodynamic forces with low structural stifbess. Specifically wing

sections and tail sections are susceptible to damage ffom aeroelastic innabilities. The
aerodynamic lifting forces can cause these relatively low stifiess components to

dynamically oscillate under loading. If the airspeed is great enough and certain stability

conditions are met the oscillations can increase to the point where failure of the part

occun. For the purposes of design, it is important to be abIe to predict when these

unstable conditions are met such that the structure can be designed to fly within the safe

operating envelope.

Traditionally most aeroeiastic cornputer based evaluations of a i r c d smcnires

are performed through the use of finite elemenr type numencal problems that use linear

models to simulate the response of the structure to the aerodynamic loading. The f i t e

element model is typically based either upon a simplified construction of simulation

elernents or on experimentally obtained vibration responses. The assumption of a linear

behaviour for the model generally models the response of the structure well but even

smdl nonlinearities. that are present in any real world smcture, can have a large

influence on the response of an aeroelastic structure.

1.2 Scope of Present Work

Cornputer code was developed to perform a finite difference method simulation

solution for the behaviour of the defined dynamic system. Simulations were performed

for a large rnatrix of airfoi1 configurations and initial conditions and the results were

The
amassed to characterize the response of each airfoi1 ~ o d ï ~ p a t i o n . semi-analfical

describing function method was also utilized to characterize the same airfoi1
configurations and initial conditions.

This thesis will present the results of the cornparisons betwen the hvo methods

for the hysteresis nonlinearity present in the pitch degree of fkeedom of the airfoil. Their

similarities are discussed and reasons for the differences and relative shortcomings are

explained The areas where the accuracy of the semi-andy-tical method breaks down are

examined and methods are proposed for predicting these conditions. Real-world

applications for the methods are discussed as well as topics for friture work
 The importance of aeroelastic analysis has been realized since the early days of

aviation. This chapter presents an overview of the work that preceded the work described

in this thesis. Previous work that lead up to the presented thesis material included

experimenral and analyticai work with both linear aerosystems and structural

nonlinearïties-

2.1 Previsus Work

The foundations of experimental and theoretical study of aeroelasticity and flutter

were laid by Theodorsen and Fung who developed methods for characterizhg flutter

throiigh experiment and theor).. Theodorsen and Garrick (1 940) performed numerous

experiments using scale mode1 wing sections in the hi& speed wind tunnels of NACA.

His experiments cIearly showed the dangers involved with uncontrolled flutter. Both

Theodorsen and Garrick and Fung (1955) used linearizing assumptions for simpli@ing

the dynamic systems they studied. W l e these assumptions provided a basis for solution

of the systems it was evident that nonlinearities were still quite important for the resulting

behaviour of the airfoil. Woolston et. al. (1957) performed analyses using an analog

cornputer for a number of structural nonlineârities including a fkee play spring, hysteresis,
 6

and cubic nonlinear restoring forces. They were able to correlate their results with wind

tunnel experiments. They made note of how the stabilis of the system was highly

dependent upon the initial displacement from equilibrium. Subsequeritly work was

presented by Shen and Hsu (1957) showing a cornparison and explanation of W-oolston*~

results using an equivalent Iinear stiffness cornparison.

Analyses of nonlinear effects in aeroelasticity have typically taken the form of

analysing either nonlhear aerodynamic forces or nonlinearïties in the structural response

of aircrafi components. Nonluiear aerodynamics usually refer to transonic flows and are

not considered within this thesis. The importance of nonlinearities in the performance of

aircraft structures was broadly- outlined by Breitbach (1977) who gives an overview of the

types of nonlinear behaviours exhibited by aircrafi structures. His analysis was denved

partly from theory and p d y from observations and experiments. He classified the

noniinear effects as either being distributed noniineuriries, the nonlinear response of the

aircrafi structure due to the many srnall nonlinearities dispersed throughout the aircraft, or

concennated nonlinearities, which are locally acting on one particular degree of fieedom

of the structure. It is the behaviour of these concentrated nonlineanties that analytic and

numerical methods such as those presented in this thesis attempt to model. Concentrated

nonlinearities in aircraft corne in the fonn o f nonlinear restoring forces on aircrafc

components such as controI surfaces. The nonlinear response of the cornponent to

displacement can be in such forms as a dead band of response in the centre of the

displacement range (fieeplay) such as might be due to a loose control cable or a preload

condition on a flap. Hysteresis effects can b e produced by the defoimation of some

 7

materials as well as by solid fkiction in control cables and hïnge bearings. A dynamic

system with one of these nonlinearities in the restoring force or moment has the

characteristic of a stifiess that varies with displacement. This stiffkess~the rate of

change of the restoring force with displacement. would normally be a constant for a Iinear

system. The resulting system cm, piven a certain set of initial conditions, reach a state of

oscillation where the system response neither decays IO rest nor grows b e o n d the bounds

of the system. These Iimit cycle osciUations &CO) can occur at speeds si-onificantly

below the flutter speed predicted by the linear approximation, and the ampiinide can be

such as to affect the flight dynamics of the aircrafr or cause damage. Breitbach stressed

the need for nonlinear analysis methods in aeroelastic investigations as he found the

nonlinearities to have serious detrimental effects on component response.

Dowell and Ilgamov (1988) provided another overview of nodinearities present

L? both aircraft structures and aerodynamics as well as an o v e ~ e w

of methods of solving

these problems and nonlinear systems in general. Dowell paid particular attention to the

aeroeIastic analysis of heIicopter rotor biades and for solution methods for nodinear

vibrations.

Laurensen and Tm (1979) performed a nonlinear andysis of missile control

surfaces with structural nonlinearitïes. They found that the effective stifkess of the

resdting system was less than that for the corresponding linear system. This result leads

to the conclusion that nonlinearïties are likely to induce flutter at a lower speed than is

indicated by a classical h e a r andysis.

 8

The describing function method is a semi-andyrica2 solution method for nonlinear

systems where the output of the system is first assumed to be harmonie, then an efecfive

stifiess for the systern is determïned. The resulting linear systern approximates the

nonlinear system such that the resulting magnitude of linear system hannonic response

for a prescribed set of conditions approaches that of the nonlinear system being modelled.

Gelb and Vander Velde (1968) gave a good description of the method and outlined how it

c m be applied to nonlinear systems. The method effective- linearizes the nonlinear

portion of the system to allow for an iterative analflical solution.

Many uses for the describing function technique for the purposes of modelling

nonlinear systems for linear anaiysis have been developed. C. L.Lee (1985) descnbed an

iterative procedure for making use of the describing function and how it was compared to

experiments and simulations for flutter analysis of large dynarnic systems. He provided a

good validation of the method for a range of nonlinearities of increasing complexity and

showed good agreement with the experimental and simulation data. mur^ (1995) used a

describing function method to solve systems with nonlineanty in the torsional degree of

freedom. Mast and Pierce (1995) made use of the technique for the analysis of nonlinear

vibrations in the field of acoustics.

Lee and T o n (1989) gave an analysis of a practical nonlinearity in a modem

fighter aircrafi. They used a describing function method to predict the flutter

characteristics of a CF-18 wing fold hinge. They showed that the nonlinearities in the

hinge could be modelled using springs with bilinear stiffnesses and fieeplay zones. They
 9

used the descnbing function m e h d to predict the speed at which flutter would ensue and

the magnitude to which the oscillations would g o w at various speeds.

An alternative to searching for a n w c a l solutions to nonlinear problems is to

solve the equations of motion using numerical rime rnarching methods. Modem

cornpuhg advances have made feasible the use of algorithms utilising millions of

iterative compter steps to simulate the response of a system to hundreds of conditions

and ~onfi~mations.
Jones and Lee (1985) showed how a single degree of fieedom

dynamic system known as D u f i g ' s equabon could be solved using a tirne marching

backward difference approach as outlined by Houbolt (1950). Houbolt outlined a method

of a step by step solution for the aircrafi structural response. He utilised a recurrence

m a h k solurion to solve for the stepwise tirne based simulatioo of the aircraft response.

Jones and Lee were able to show that solving the Dufkg's equation system through a

sirnilar numerical means was both feasible and in some areas more accurate than previous

analytical work. A similar numerical technique was later used by Lee and Leblanc (1986)

to perfom flutter analyses of two-dimensional airfoils w-ith cubic smictural

nonlineanties. They used Houbolt's scherne to investigate the flutter response of the

airfoi1 to varying initial conditions. They f o n d that different initiai pitch angles could

cause die airfoil to achieve Iimit cycle flutter at speeds below the linear flutter speed. Lee

and Desrochers (1987) used the same numencal method to investigate airfoils with

restoring forces that contained bilinear and fieeplay nodinearïties. They numerïcally

determined the speed at which different airfoi1 configurations would achieve either limit

cycle or divergent flutter for differing initial pitch angles of the airfoil. The analysis was
 IO

performed by simulating the motion of the system for each confi,guration and set of initial

conditions through a sufficient number of steps to ensure the system had reached ~eaciy

g h a 1 state of the system for each set of parameters the-

state. From o b s e n ~ the

characterized the response of the airioil. Lee and Desrochers also invesrigated the

relationships between the amplitude of the limit cycle flutter and the simulated airspeed

for various confi_grations of the airfoil and found the amplitude to be independent of the

initial conditions,

Hauenstein et. al. (1992) performed both experimental and analytical

investigations of various types of nonlinearities in the structural response of aerosurfaces.

They found that the response of the system depended greatiy upon the initiai conditions

and could range fÎom damped decay to unstable oscillations (flutter) to Limit cycle

response or chaotic motion. They drew a conclusion that the system would not

expenence a chaotic response for a single sûlictural nonlinearity.

Price, Alighanbari, and Lee (1994) performed work extending the results of Lee

and Desrochers on two-dimensional airfoil systems with bilinear and cubic restoring

forces. They solved the systems using both the numerical tirne marching method and a

semi-analytical describing fimction method. They found the describing function method

was able to predict reasonably well both the speed of the onset of flutter and the

magnitude to which a b i t cycle flutter condition would grow Pnce e t al. were also

able to show that, c o n w q to the results of Hauenstein et. al., smdl regions of chaotic

motion could be obtained using single cubic or bilinear nonlinearitïes in the aeronirface

root (Le. the mounting point for the two-dimensional airfoil)..

 II

The problem of aeroelastic flutter, as pointed out by Dowell(1988), contains a

greaat nurnber of possibiIities to observe some of the more intriguing aspects of nonlinear

motion such as chaos. Stockard et- al. (1967) showed, using a nonlinear oscillator: how

discontinuous changes in amplinide of the response of the system (amplitude jumps)

could be observed. Yang and Zhao (1988) used a harmonic baiance method compared to

experimental techniqiies to observe the response of the two-dimensional airfoil system.

They found that with a freeplay n~niinearïty~

different Iimit cycle oscillation amplitudes

could be observed for the same airfoi1 confi_muation subjected to the sarne airspeed

condition. Subsequent work by Zhao and Yang (1990) detailed their obsewations of

chaotic responses in airfoil systems with cubic nonlinearities in the pitch degree of

fkeedorn.

The anaiysis and characterization of chaotic responses within the context of the

problem being exarnined herein is beyond the scope of the present thesis. It does

however present an area for the extension of the curent work

 3.0 THEORY

The studied syçtern involves the combination of a m-Odegree of fieedom

vibrating system with an aerody-nunic forcing term that is dependent upon the value of

the pitch degree of fieedom. The two degrees of motion as shown ui Fi*me 3-1 are

rotation about the elastic axis bitch: a) and vertical motion (heave, h). The system is

elastically constrained about each of the degrees of freedon where the restoring force for

the pitch degree of fieedorn is torsion and the restoring force for the heave degree of

fteedom represents what w-ould be rhe bending of a wing in a Ehree dimensional aircrafi.

The "motion induced" forcing terms result fiom aerodynamics forces evaluated according

to simple unsteady thin airfoil theory using the assumptions of incompressible inviscid

airflow. The aerodynamic forces on the system are in turn dependent upon the value of

the pitch angie a. the heave rate ahBr, and the prescribed airspeed. Classical solution

methods exist for both a coupled two degree of fieedom linear system and for the

aerodynamic forces on a two-dimensional d o i l . Aeroelastic analysis techniques will be

presented U1this thesis to outline how the sûxctural and aerodynamic portions of the

problem are solved sirnultaneously.

The two degrees of freedom in the system are egectively coupled both due to the

s ~ ~ c t uofr sthe airfoil system and the aerodynamics. The aerodynamic response to the
pitch of the airfoi1 is lift. The change in lift causes both a change in heave and a

subsequent change in pitch due to inertiai effects. The changes in pitch and heave feed

back to a change in lifi and the resuiting system effectively couples the displacements,

forces and moments. The result is a two degree o f f eedom dyn-c system where the

forcing t e m is dependent upon the value of the pitch degree of fieedom.

This chapter will present the ecpaùons of motion that govern the described

dynamic system and develop them into a form that is suitable for solution both by

analytical methods and finite difference numencai methods. Aerodparnics are

implemented into the system fiist with an assumption of quasi-steadyaerodynarnics to

dernonstrate the method of analytic solution. A description of changes made to

implement unsteady aerodynamics is then presented.

3.1 Equations of Motion

To derive the equations of motion that govem the two degree of freedom system

we begin with the equations of motion for a 2 degrees of fieedom dymarnic syslem which

moves in the pitch and heave degrees of freedorn [Fung, 19551:

 14

where cc represents the airfoi1 pitch angle and h is the heave displacement at the elastic

axi-S. Note that the negative s i s on the Lifi term arises because h has been defined as

positive for downward motion. The structural properties of the airfoi1 are depicted in

Figure 3.1 showing the relative locations of the centre of rn- elastic a i s , and

aerodyrzarnic centre of the airfiil. The single and double dots over the variables indicate

the first and second derivative respectively with respect to time. S represents the static

offset per unit span where:

(3-lc)

and m is the airfoil mass per unit span. Ch and C, zre the structural dampin, coefficients

, is the mass moment of inertia per unit span about the

per unit span for heave and pitch, 1

elastic mis, and K,, is the heave spring stEness per unit span. Variables b, ah?and x, are

depicted in Figure 3.1 and represent the position of the midchord, and positions of the

elastic axis and centre of mass of the airfoi1 measured from the midchord respectively.

F(a)represents the nodinear function by which the pitch degree of freedom restoring

force is determined. This function acts as a nonlinear pitch degree of fieedom stifiess

detem-ning the restoring torque according to the value of the airfoi1 pitch. L(t) and M(t)

are the motion induced lifting force and moment arising f?om the aerodynamic forces

where L(t) is negative due to the positive in the downward definition of h.

Expressed in ma& f o m , the expressions are represented by:

where F(a) = F(a)-a. .4ssuming for the moment that there is a linear restonng moment in

the pitch degree of fieedom represented by the spnng constant K, and zero initial

conditions, taking the Laplace Transform yields:

Substitutïng the non-dimensional Laplace ~ a n s f o r mvariable = b p N othis equatim

becomes:
In order to non-dimensiondize the te-, the foilowkg defuiitions were used:

where o,and ocrepresent the natural fiequencies of the pirch and heavc degrees of

freedom when the static offset S from Equation 3. lc is O. Additional definitions for the

purposes of non-dimensiondizing the parameters hclude:

where iis therefore the non-dimensional heave variable and iand 6are the non-

dimensionai damping coeficients. It is dso necessary to define a non-dimensional flow

velocity:

where V is the reference velociq and a, is the nanirai fiequency of the system in the

pitch degree of fieedom. A non-dimensional naturd fiequency 6 is defmed from the

ratio of the natural fiequemies of the two degrees of fieedom according to:

Equation 3.4 thus becomes:

or, in the t h e domain:

tvhere T is the non-dimensional time variable:

Using this system of equations as the basis, solution methods can now be utilised

that approach the problem either in the time domain or in the fiequency domain. The

aendynamic side of the system also requires more refmement as it is not only dependent

upon time i but d s o upon the pitch angle a. The aerodynamics for the system c m be

approached in one of two ways. For the purposes of this thesis, an assumption of quasi-

neady aerodynamics was initially used to develop the solution method in a marner that

was easier to implement. Because of the time based nanire of the simulations, a solution

incorporating unsteady aerodynamics was then later implemented to provide for a more

accurate sohtion.

3.1.1 Quasi-Steady Aerodynamics

For the purposes of illustration only. the above systems (Equations 3 -9 and 3.10)

can be solved more easily if an assumption of quasi-steady aerodynamics is applied.

Because the mathematics involved in using this simplined definition of the aerodynamics

are more basic, the solution method will be outiined in this section using the quasi-steady
 19

aerodymamics assumption. Details on defining the system using more accurate unsteady

aerodynamics tenns mil1 be oudined in the next section and c m then be substituted into

the solution method outiined for the quasi-steady aerodynamics.

A quasi-steady aerodynamics assurnption for the response of the airfoil implies

that the aerodynamic forces acting upon the aerosurface change instantaneously with

changes in airfoi1 pitch. For the purposes of illustrating the development of the mode1 of

the system, the quasi-steady assumption is cmde but valid. For the purposes of numencai

accuracy for subsequent simulations and analytical solutions the unsteady aerodynamics

terms will be reintroduced-

Let the aerodynamic relationship of lifi (L) force and moment (M) torque to the

pitch and heave positions of the airfoil be represented by the aerodynarnic transfer rnatrïx:

niin airfoi1 theory shows that for an inviscid incompressible steady 80- the Lfi and

moment terms can be determined accordin; to:

where q is the dynamic pressure t e m and s is the planforrn area of the airfoi1 per unit

span and is equal to Zb. It should be noted that equations 3.13 and 3-14 assume that the

pitch angle makes the only contributions to lift and moment of the airfoil. In reality: the

heave rate term Ii and pitch rare term 4 wodd alter the effective angle of attack and

contribute to lifi and moment. Since the steady assumptions for this method are for

illustrative purposes, the Ioss of accuracy by neglecting the heave contribution is not

important Thus for quasi-steady aerodynamics. the t e m s of the [A] mat& in equation

3-12 become:

and equation 3.12 becomes:

assuming that the lifi c w e dope for the airfoii is CLa=Zn. If the stnicniral darnping

terms are neglected, when this equation is substituted back into equation 3.4 we then

obtain:
Non-dimensiondizing this matrix as before. it simplifies to:

where p is defmed as the non-dimensional airfoil mass ratio p = m/rrpb2 . This

expression is of the general fom:

Accordkg to the well known theory of dynamic systems (Steidel 1971 Thomson

1993), the roots of the characteristic equarion, det PG)] = 0' are the eigenvalues of the
system and they reveal whether the system is stable or unstable. Instability in chis case

indicates that the system would achieve flutter for the given configuration and initial

conditions. If det [B@J = O is Wntten out as a polynornial in and the real parts cf dl

roots (eigenvalues) of the equation are negative, then the system is considered stable and

d l vibrations will evennially damp out to zero. A solution with positive real roots and no

imaginary roots indicates a divergent solution, while roots that are complex with a

positive real component indicate an oscillatory instability, that is flutter in this case.
 37

Using this method, the stability of a systern with Iinev sprùig constants for both

degrees offieedom can be deterrnined analytically for the case of quasi-steady

aerodynamics. This solution allows one to determine the linear flutter speed for various

configurations of the airfoil as well as to examine the relationship between the stiffness of

the pitch spring and the tlutter speed.

3.1.2 Unsteady Aerodynamics

To accurately model the effects of realistic unsteady aerodynamics on the

response of the airfoil, the assumptions of quasi-steady aerodynamics in the solution

method of the previous section were replaced by unsteady aerodpamics terms. A more

accurate determination of the unsteady aerodynamic forces resulting fiom the u n ~ e a d y

motions of the airfoi1 requires the use of Wagner 'sfunction:

where fiom Fung (1955), f=l, a=0.165' b=0.0455, c=0.335, d=O.jOO for inviscid

incompressible flow- Wagner showed that the Laplace Transforrn of the expressions for

Iifi and moment are:

where if is the Laplace transform of Wagner3 function:

Equation 3.2 1 is therefore once again in the form of equation 3-12 and can be substituted

into equation 3.9 in order to solve directly for the stabïiity conditions for a given airfail

confi5guration. Note that the only term lefi that c m prevent a direct solution for the

problern is the nonlinear term, F(a) in equation 3.2 representing the pitch degree of

f?eedom restoring moment.

 24

Fung (1955) d s o gives the following expressions for Iifk and moment in the time domain:

These expressions c m be combined with equation 3.9 to obtain the equations of

motion for a two-dimensional airfoi1 in two degrees of fieedom in an inviscid

incompressible airflow. In the studied case of a nonlinear s m e s s in the pitch degree of

freedom, the pitch s t m e s s K, in equations 3.9 and 3.1 0 \vas replaced witb a h c t i o n

F(a)relating the pitch angle to the restoring moment. Solutions for soivïng the system

with this nonlinear operator are described below.

Note that the aeroelastic system has now been described in a non-dimensional

form in both the tirne domain (equations 3.9,3 .Z,j-24) and the Laplace domain
 35

(equations 3.1 0,3.2 1.3-22). Two diEerent approaches. numencal and anaiytical for

solving the equations will now be outiined.

The tirne domain equations will be solved using the Houbolt h i t e difference

method [Houbolt 19501 to give a time stepping simulation solu6on for the response of

the system to initial stimuli. The Laplace domain approach wï1I be used to provide an

analytical solution to the synem. The only factor preventing solution ofboth systems is

the nonlinear restoring moment F(a) which now replaces the linear pitch stiffbess a.
Within the Houbolr method simulation, the parameter F(a) can be evaluated at each time

step according to the instantaneous value of a as outlined in section 32.1. For the

Laplace domain equatio~sthe nonlinear term must fnt be linearized through the use of a

describing function approach as oudined in section 3-23

3.2 Solution Methods

With the aeroelastic systen characteszed in both the tirne and Laplace domains.

the nonlinear restorïng moment F(a) in the pitch degree of freedom is subnituted into

equations 3 -9 and 3.10 in place of the assumed linear pitch stifiess a.Because of the
non-constant nature of the nodinear restorïng moment F(a), directly solving for the

stability of the system as shown above?using the Laplace domain, is not feasible. Two

approaches were used to evaluate the response of the airfoil with a structural nonlinearity

and determine the stability of the system. n i e Houbolt finite difference scheme solves

for the state of the dynarnic system at successive time steps. By simulating the system for

a sufncient number of t h e steps to reach a steady state condition where all mimient
 26

effects in the system have disâppeared, the stability of the system may be explicitly

determined. Conversely, the describing function method outlined later provides an

anaiytical rnethod by which the flutter speed and amplitude of the limit cycle may be

approximated through a linearizztion of the nonlinear spring represented by F(a).

3.2.1 KouboIt E'inite Difference Methsd

The use of a backward lookïngf;nire diBrence solution allows the user to solve

the nonlinear differential equation that results fkom eq-uation3.1 0. The Houbolt finite

difference method uses a fourth order explicit finite diEerence method to evaluate the

pitch and heave parameters of the system using a time marchine scheme that effectively

tracks through Ume the response of the airfoi1 to a given stimulus. As in previous work

(Lee and Desrochers 1987, Price et. al. 1993) a fourth order Houbolt scheme was utilized.

While thïs is a relatively low order method of solution, it has been shown that higher

order methods such as eighth order Houbolt or Runge Kutta schemes provide a greater

degree of accuraccy but can be more cornplex to use as weIl as being more

computationally intensive p e e and Leblanc, 19851. Using the fouah order scheme, the

time derivatives are approximated in finite difference form as:

 27

where n represents the curent time step for which ai1 conditions are known. Thus n+l

represents the subsequent r h e s e p for which the system is being solved, and n-1 and n-2

represent solutions ai the two previous steps. The AT represents the size of the time step.

The f i t e difference expressions for j

', and En-,are similar. Substituting these
equations into equation 3.10 gives a complicated expression which c m be represented by:

where expressions for H and X can be found in Appendix A. The H matrix represents the

time domain differential equation terms in equation 3.10 and X represents the time

domain unsteady aerodynamics ternis fkom equations 3 .Z and 3.24. This equation h a .

been modified such that F[a(s)]has been replaced by F,(a;Ü) + F,(a), where a is an

estimate of a at r + A r detelmuied by linear extrapolation. The system c m therefore be

represented as:
Solving for the unknowns by inverting the P ma& gives the solution for the system at

the next (n+1) rime step.

32 1 . 1 Houbolt Method Startïng Procedure

Because Houbolt's method is a time marching backward Merence scheme, it

requires ~ avalues
t at time r = O and two t h e steps previous be lmown before the system

c m be stmed. Since the initial conditions for the systern (oi(O), &(O),a(O), j(0), :(O)-

c(0)) are required to be known in order to defme the problem, only the bvo previou tïme

steps need to be deterrnined to begin the simulation. By using a Taylor series around the

1-0 point, values for n-1 and n+l for both the first and second derivatives can be

estimated and substituted into the M matrix (See Appendix A for details). Conditions

for three consecutive time steps are then known and Houbolt's scheme can be used to

determine the next time step in the series.

 29

3-2-1-2 Houbolt's Recurrence Formula

In order to integrate withùi the M matrix terms, a recurrence formula is used.

The integai &@+Ar) cm be written as:

AT
I ( -A) = e Il (5) + - {9A(5
24
+ Ar) -
(3 -3O)
19L(~)e - 51(~ - 4 ~ ) e + k(r - AT)^ -3bAr}

See Appendix A for details. Iz(Ar) is sïmilarly expressed by substituthg d in the place of

b in equation (3 -30).

3.2.2 Describing Funciion Approach

The describing function approach is a semi-andytical method of solving nonlinear

systems by replacing the nonlinear portion of the system with a linear replacement where

the gain, or stifkess in the case of a spring, of the linearized spring is dependent upon the

amplitude of the harmonic motion. As it is Unplemented here, the nonlinear pitch spring

b c t i o n F(a) is replaced by a linear spring whose stiffness is determined such that a

sinusoidal input to either the nonlinear or the hearized spring will produce the sarne

output response,

The describing funetion method requires the assumption that the resulting motion

of the system wiIl be h m o n i c with an amplitude that may Vary only slowly. The

linearized spring is also sometimes known as an equivalent snijj%ess and allows for a

solution that in the descnbed case approximates die amplitude versus airspeed
relationship of the nonlinear system, as w-el1as the airspeed at which limit cycle flutter

will ensue. In the system described in Section 3.1 the nodinear operator is the pitch

restoring moment h c t i o n F(a) wiiich replaced the linear pitch snffness K.

The descnbing function method seeks to replace the nonlinear spring in the

system with the linearized one by fint assuming a hamonic input to the spring in terms

of the pirch angle of the airfoil of the form:

and an output r e s t o ~ moment

g of:

F(t) = N, B + n A sin(ot
P
+ 0) + nq A cos(or + 8)

where NB is the relationship beween the mean input B, and the mean output and

NA= n, +jn, : where j denotes the imaginary component of the complex variable, is the

relationship between the sinusoidal input and the fundamental harmonic output. In the

wefl known harmonic equation 3.3 1, parameter A represents the amplitude of the input

signal and B represents the DC offset or bias of the signal. In the case of the symrnetric

hysteresis loops studied here, there is no bias of the signal and both NBand B can be

neglected. The resulting formulation is a sinusoidal input describing function. These

relations form the describing function portion of the system depicted in Figure 3.3.

For the system studied here, the describing fùnction seeks to linearize the

nodinearity in the restoring moment of the pitch degree of freedorn. The input to the
 32

Applying these results for the purposes of illustration to the well knovvn, simpler

one degee of fieedom linear second-order damped oscillator_the equation of motion is

given by:

The solution c m be expressed [Gelb and Vander Velde, 19671 in the form:

Substituting from Equation 3-35?Equation 3-37 can be expressed as:

where o = a, + 8 and the describing function terms n, and n, have been defined by:

Thus the nonlinearïty has in effect been replaced by a linear proportional plus derivarive

network whose coefficients are functions of the amplitude and fiequency of the -stem.
The linearization is essentÏaiIy derived h m an averaging of the of the amplitude over

one complete cycle of the oscillation. From Equation 3.38 it c m be seen that for this type

of dynamic system the parameter n, acts in place of the spring stiffness coefficient and

the n, term comprises a darnping term. The cornplex linear gain NAdetermined fiom the

descnbing fünction therefore incorporates both stifkess and darnping tems n, and n,

respectively.

For a hysteresis nonluiearity, Gelb and Vander Velde (1968) l i a the parameters

for the describing function according to:

which is valid only where A > 6 + D/m,meanhg that the describing fûnction

approximation can o d y be used where the amplitude of the pitch oscillations lies outside

the bounds of the hysteresis loop. The parameter m represents the siope of the linear

portion of the hysteresis loop fiom the relation between pitch angle a and the restoring

moment F(a) as illustrated in Figure 3.2. In al1 cases presented here the slope was

assumed to be unity, or 1 non-dimensional moment unit per radian of pitch angle. The
parameter F is e q d to hW2 and D is equai to VI as illustrated in Figure 3.2. The

fiinctions f() is the saturation function that describes the deadband axa where:

f(t/> = -1 :J < -1
= (2/x)(sin-'y + y fiz) /if-< 1
=1 y> I

where y is a d m y variable. For illustration the values for the describing fùnction

parameters N,, I+,, and n, for the airfoil confiUrnationused in Run 14 (~=100,G=0&

AV= 1.O? AH=0.2) are ploned against oscillation amplitude A.

The feedback nature of the system is illustrated in Fi-we 3 -3 where the describing

function is the linear operator N that replaces the nonlinear operator of the hysteresis

spring F(a) in the otherwise linear dynamic airfoil system represented in Fiame 3-3 as

L(S). The method determines what sinusoidal input is required for the linearized operator

to emulate the nonlinear outpur. Thus the properties of the operator are dependent upon

the amplitude of the input signal. An iteratïve approach ro solving the system of

equations is therefore required that first guesses at the amplitude of the pitch oscillation

of a(t)?then compares the output of the system to the guess. How this rnethod was

specificaily implemented in the studied case is outlined in Chapter 4.

A similar solution method was also applied to the bilinear type nonlinearity

illusnated in Figure 3.4 for comparison with results by Lee and Desrochers (1986) and

Price et. al. (1994).

It cm be s h o w [Gelb and Vander Velde, 19681 that if there is no steady state

component to the moment about the two-dimensional airfoil and NBrepresents the bias of
 35

the input signal to llinear spring (see equation 3-37): then NBmust equal zero. In the case

of the hysteresis loops that are s p m e t r i c about the ongin of the restoring moment versus

pitch angle space B is also equal to zero and the Sinusoidal Input Describing-Function

(SIDF) formulation may be used. The system can therefore be soived in an iterative

rnanner by k s t assuming a value for pitch amplitude A and solving the equations 3.40

and 3 -41for n, and n, as a function of A. A value for NA-, +jq, whîch represents the
equivalent stifiess of the nonlinear spring, can then be substituted into the equations of

motion for the airfoil in place of F(a) and a Iinear solution detemiined. The resulting

pitch amplitude of the system is then compared to the initial estirnate, A, and revised.

The iterations are repeated untd the solution resolves to a single a m p h d e solution.
 The malysis of the studied systems consisted of cornparisons between the

numerical solution method involving ùme marching simulations, and the semi-andytical

approximation using the describing function approach. This section describes how the

theory described in Chapter 3 was implemented and the system ~onfi~gurations

to which

the solution rnethods were applied. The parameters which were examined and the

respective results are d s o presented here.

4.1 Systern Definition

The aeroelastic system that was rnodelled consisted of a two-dimensionai airfoi1

in a free Stream of air with restoring forces in both the pitch and heave degrees of

fieedorn. This system is represented schematically in Figure 3.1. Aerodynarnically: the

lifting forces were derermined fiom thin airfoil theory where the unsteady aerodynamic

forces follow the relationship described by Wagner's function (Equation 3 20).

Sû-ucturally, the restoring force in the heave direction is modelled as a linear spring and

force in the pitch degree of fieedom is the restoring s p ~ with

the r e s t o ~ g g the

shucturd nonlinearity. The nonlineanties studied included a bilinear type nonlinearity,

for validation with previous work as iIlustrated in Figure 3.4, and a hysteresis type
 37

nonlinearity as depicted in Fiame 3.2. Both types of nonlinearïties represent structural

restoring forces with discontinuities in the force versus pitch slope.

The airfi il used for the analysis was confipured such that the elasac axis was

placed at the % chord position and the centre of mass placed at the Y8 chord position

downs~eamof the elastic auis. The resdting parameters used for the a o i l structure as

defined in Fiame 3. l were:

a+,= -0.5

r, = 0.5

x,= 0.25
where r, represents the radius of , ~ a t i o nof the airfoi1 about the elastic axis. These

values were kept constant throughout the analysis and are consistent wiîh those used in

previous works. Thin airfoil theory specifies that the aerodparnic centre is located at the

% chord position. For the sake of cl- and cornparison it was decided to keep these

characteristics of the airfoi1 consistent. The damping coefficients for the system were

neglected throughout the analysis and o d y the fiequency ratio a,the mass ratio p and

non-dimensional aùspeed U were varied. For each airfoil confi,guration the airspeed was

expressed as a fiaction of the linear flutter speed U*, the airspeed at which divergence of

the system occurs if the pitch spring is linear, and was denoted as UN*.

4.2 Time Marching Simulation Solutions

Borh the simulation method and the describing function method were first used to

reproduce die results of Lee and Desrochers (1986) by hnplementing the mode1 with a
 38

bilinear spring in the pitch degree of freedom. The Houbolt finite difference method was

used to produce a time based "recording" of the airfoil response in pitch and heave in a

time marching manner. The solution method was subsequently used for Hysteresis s p ~ g

to produce t h e based response solutions as iilustrated in Figure 4.1.

~onfi~wations

The response o f the systern was simulated subject to a set of given initial

conditions, in this case maidy the initial pitch angie and airspeed were varîed' to produce

a response of the system with time in each of the degrees of fkeedom. The simulation was

computed until the sysrern response either damped out to zero, diverged beyond

acceptable bounds, or had compieted enough time steps to be certaio transient effects had

disappeared and steady state had been achieved.

The simulations were completed for the Hysteresis airfoil configurations on a

-
parametrïc b a i s for each airfoil configuration Iisted in Table 4.1 by varying the airspeed

(WU*) and initial pitch angle @,)as the set of initial conditions. The results of each

simulation were then evaluated to determine which of the three conditions resuited:

1. Damped oscillations (stable)

2. Divergent oscillations (unstable)

3. Limit cycle oscillations &CO)

For cases where LCOYsresulted, the amplitude of the steady state oscillation was

recorded. Frorn these results, diagrams showing the Butter boundaries, regions of

stability and LCO's within the airspeed UN* versus initial pitch angle a, parameter
 39

space, as well as the airspeed U/U+ verszrs LCO amplitude relationship w-ere evduated.

For the bilinear spring simulations, close cornparison of results with those fiom

the previous work c o b e d the correct implementation of the model. Al1 r e d t s agreed

w-el1wi-th the results of Lee and Desrochers with some srnail differences explicable by

slight differences in compiler irnplementahon and cornputer pladorm as discussed in

Chapter 5.

The hysteresis spring was subsequently implemented into the mode1 ming the

nomenclature outiined in Fiame 3-2 where the spring3 parameters have been

characterized by the AV, AJ3, V, and Ho,, variables. The hysteresis spring was

essentiaily a bilinear type s p ~ with

g a memory such that the parameters of the model

varied depending upon the direction of change of the pitch ( Oa / 3 c ). The spring was

rnodelled to maintain a constant pitch vs restoring moment dope of 1 non-dimensional

moment unit per radian as shown in the diagiam except when on the deadband portions of

the hysteresis at the top and bonom of the figure. Exception handling was also

implemented into the behaviour of the spring to maintain a piecewise continuous

response. The code was implemented such that a reversal in direction of pitch between

H' and H- maintains the pitch-moment dope of 1 between the V, and Vz marks. The

response of the spring was fmally modelled according to the relationship:

 a + Al32 -Hoff : a 2 H,-
For d a / & > O F(a) = (VI :H , - ~ G < H , -
(a increasing) la-AHD-Ho, :a >Hi*

where the H and V terms were defined as outlined in Fi-mire 3 2

Simulations were perforrned using hysteresis spring confi-mations vaiying the

parameters AV and AH From 1.0 to 0.1 and with vertical and horizontai offsets up to 0.5

with various combinations of d l four pararneters. The pararneters for the simulated

systems are listed in Table 4.1 - Results consisted of time based traces of the airfoi1

motions in both the pitch and heave degrees of fieedorn which were then interpreted to

provide flutter boundary maps indicating the regions of stability as well as the limit cycle

amplitude a vs flutter speed U V -

The f i t e dserence method was used for each parameter set to simulate the

response of the system to an initial perturbation, the initial pitch angle ao,to the point in

time where the transient effects were no longer affecting the system. The three stability

conditions were evaluated according to the following cntena:

1. Darnped (stable) - the oscillations of the system died out over time such

that the amplitude of the system reached approximately zero and no

 M e r motion was present. The criterion implemented was pitch

amplitude a < 0.00 1-

-7 Divergent (unstable) - the oscillations of the system grew beyond the

bounds of the simulation and the system was deerned to have become

unstable. The criterion implemented was pitch amplitude a > 100.

3- Limit Cycle Osciilations - the oscillations tended neither to damp out to

zero nor to grow to infiïty but rather became self sustainin20 at an

amplitude of some intermediate value. This resdt was detennined to be a

1imït cycle response. The criterion implemented was "rime steps" >

50000.

The results of particular interest are diose where the oscillations either enter a steady state

in the f o m of a lirnit cycle or diverge entirely to instability. It is this behaviour that is of

concem to aerospace applications as the deflection beyond anticipated amplitudes could

cause damage or failure. This flutter type behaviour c m not be predicted by linear

analysis techniques and cm oniy be present in systems containing nonlinearities.

Developing techniques to predict the effects of these nonlinearities becomes important.

For each airfoil configuration of interest, simulations were performed for a range

of non-dimensional airspeed ratios of 0.1 to 1.O. For each simulation run the steady state

response of the system was recorded with respect to the stability of the system as

specified above. Also recorded was the amplitude of the limit cycle response if the Lunit

cycle existed-
4.3 Describing Function Solutions

As outlined in Chapter 3: the descnbing function semi-analytical method provides

a means of emulating the effect of the nonlinear elernent by relating a Luiearized spring

stifiess to the output amplitude. In effect?the noniinear spring modelled in the pitch

degree of fieedom can be replaced by an appropriately linearized spring that

approximates the same amplitude of oscillations as the nonlinear spring it replaces. The

method allows for the development of a relationship between the airspeed and the

resulting effective stiffriess of the linearized s p ~ g .

The Describing Function @F) analysis technique was implemented in this project

for three purposesr

O
To provide for a means by which to compare the results of the simulation

and confimi the validity of the data.

To evaluate the Describing Function approximation with respect to its

accuracy and efficiency as a substitute for the nonlinear simulation.

. To attempt to show where semi-analytical meîhods break down and why.

To this end, the describing function was f ~ simpiemented

t as the bilinear spring

with freeplay, illustrated in Figure 3-4, as evaluated numerically by Lee and Desrochers

(1 986) and both numencaily and using DF's by Price, et. al. (1994). M e r successful

cornparison with the simulations for the bilinear spring and the DF work by Price, et. al.
 43

(1994) the method was modified to use the d e s c r i h g function parameters corresponding

to the hysteresis spring used in the finite difference simulations.

As described in Section 3 - 1 2 the system describing the two-dimensional airfoil

with unsteady aerodynamics represented in Equation 3-21 can be solved directly for

stability if the structural elements are linear. The descnbing h c t i o n method \vas

inplemented by first choosing the value of the limit cycle amplitude A. -4value for N=n,

+jn, fkom equations 3.33 and 3.34 was found and represented the Iinear pitch stifkess

K, replacing nodïnear spring F(a), in equation 3.17. When the system is simplified and

represented in the form of Equation 3.19, the system is in the form of a fiee vibration

response problem. As described in Chapter 3: the roots of the system are the solutions to

the characteristic equation det(B) = O.

The expression for [BI was determined fkom the equations for unsteady

aerodynamics by substituting Equation 3-22 into Equation 3-21and then substituting the

expressions for lift and moment into equation 3.9. The polynomial was explicitly

determined using the symbolic math processing software Mapte. The resulting

expression was solved usine the software analysis tool Matlab. Using Matiab the explicit

roots for the characteristic equation were found for the syaem using the linearized pitch

stifbess N-

The roots of the p] matrix could then plotted in a root locus plane and the speed

at which the first real root crossed the real=O line revealed the Butter speed for that pitch

stiffness. Figure 4.10 is an exarnple of a root locus result plotting the values of the roots
 44

of the characteristic equation for the given aeroelastic system as the airspeed U* is varïed.

In the case of Fi,we 4-10 the roots for the linear system where o = 0.2 are plotted -4th a

pitch stifiess term of 1.0 substituted for the nonlinear F(a) functiori. The result shows

that the system will become unstable for a non-dimensional airspeed of U* = 6.285. This

value represents the linear flutter speed for this airfoi1 ~onfi~wation.
This solution

method allows for a relationship to be established between the pitch stiffness and the

flutter speed. Fi_mire 4.1 1 is a plot of how the flutter speed varies uith pitch stiffriess for

a varies. of airfoil confi,prations. 4

The describing function approach essentially provides a means for relating the

pitch amplitude to the pitch stiffness, calculating linearized pitch stifhess N fiom A'

while the flutter analysis essentially provides for a relation between the pitch stifniess and

the flutter speed. By assuming a harmonic output for the dynamic system the nonlinear

pitch relation F(a) was replaced by the describing fûnction equivalent stifkess effectively

creating a solution method that relates the pitch amplitude to the flutter speed.

The flutter speed is solved in an iterative manner, varying the speed U for which

the dynamic system is analysed until the speed for which the system goes unstable is

found. The result is an approximate solution for the limit cycle amplitude A for the speed

U that was found.

 5.0 DISCUSSION AND COhaBARTSON OF RESULTS

The results described in the previous section were compiled for the various airfoi1

confi,wations and initial conditions. This section presents an analysis of those results as

well as cornparisons between the two solution methods. Stren,ghs and weaknesses of the

methods are discussed and improvements to the analysis suggested. The results are put

into context and their applicability to real world situations is reviewed-

The results of the pararnetric study of various airfoil configurations are plotted in

Fiagres 5.5 through 5.3 1. The 'a' figures (Fi=gre 5.5% 5.6q 5.7% ...,5.3 la) plot the

flutter map results £kom the finite difference method numerical simulations. The plots

show the parameter space of airspeed ratio, U / U f ,versw initial pitch angle, a,,. Regions

within the parameter space are indicated where for the specific airfoi1 confi~ouz-ation

damped osci1Iations occurred, 1 s t cycle oscillations (LCO) were observed, or where

unstable oscillations were induced. The x's represent a change in stability fkom damped

to LCO or vice versa. The 'b' fipures (Fiagre 55b, 56b, 57b, ... 5.2%) plot the pitch
?

restoring moment F(a) against the pitch angle a(r) indicating the geometry of the

hysteresis loop for each of the indicated cases. The 'c' figures (Figure 5.5c,5.6c, 5 . 7 ~...'~

5-3Ic) indicated the amplitude of Iirnit cycle oscillations, where they w-ere observed, as
 46

induced by the varjing airspeeds U n * . Where the describing function \vas used. the

solution from this rnethod was also included in the figure.

5.1 Finite Difference Simutations

5.1.1 Validation

As stated previously. the results of the numerical simularions were in the form of

time based histones of the pitch and heave motions of the airfoil system as illustrated for

example in Figure 4.1. Results were first obtaùled for airfoi1 ~onfi~gurations
using a

bilinear spring with freeplay and preload as explored by Lee and Desrochers (1987). A

large number of simulation plots were accessible for comparîson with their work and

present the results compared very well with theirs, with only a veq- few minor

discrepancies. For individual cases compared, Le. the same airfoi1 configuration' initial

conditions and bilinear nonlinear sprïng, in dl cases the same stability condition was mer

for a given simulation. SimilarIy, cornparisons of boundaries of lirnit cycle and divergent

flutter for given airfoil properties matched exactly. It was found that for a few

configurations for which the system was just barely stable the simulations did not reach

stability after the exact same amount of tirne. This discrepancy was easily explainable by

the sensitivity of the nonlinearities to very small changes in initiai conditions. A slightly

different implementation of the code, srnaIl hardware based differences?and possible

differences in the numerical accuracy of the methods al1 contributed to small differences

that were amplified by the nonlinearity into larger differences in the results of the

simulation m. It was not found that these differences cawed discrepancies in the overall
 47

characterizatiori of the airfoi1 system. It was rather found that there were noticeable

ciifferences in the tirne at which the system achieved stability.

-
These small discrepancies aside, the m-Omethods appeared to agree as closely as

could be determined. By utilinng a bilinear sprhg and comparing with previous w-ork.

the irnplementation of the Houbolt scheme was validated. Subsequenùy validating the

behavïour of the hysteresis spring and substituthg it into the simulation code dlow-ed the

simulation to be utilised with a high degree of confidence.

g the form of perfoming simulations of the

Validation of the hysteresis s p ~ took

motions of the spring and its response to various stimuli. The response of the spring was

analysed graphically to ensure that the pitch angle versus restoring moment response of

the operator followed the specified curve. Figure 3.2 shows the general structure of the

c w e and the difference in the path of the c u v e depending upon the direction of the

change in pitch. Exceptions in the path of the c w e were noted during certain portions of

the simulation. Attention was paid to how the s p ~ mode1

g responded to reversds in the

direction of pitch change wirhùi the "loop" portion of the hysteresis curve. It was

determined that the loop was best described by dowing the restoring moment to r e m

dong the sloped path of the cuwe when reversal occurred as depicted in Fiawe 4.8.

When reversa1 occurred on the flat portion of the cuve the response was modelled such

that the dope of m=l was maintained as depicted in Figure 4.9. The spring response was

therefore maintained piecewise continuous.

Figures 5-5b to 5.9b and Figures 5.1 Sb to 5.2% trace the path of the hysteresis

loop restoring moment for an example of each of the corresponding runs. A small
 48

arnount of under-nui c m be observed in some of the plots. This resdt is in fact just a

;ru&g of the cornero' by path of the restoring moment. This particularly occurs for

cases where the amplitude of the pitch response is large and the pitch angle is therefore

changing veq- rapidly as it moves through the area of the hysteresis loop. The finite

difference source code includes 2 smaU aigorithm to look ahead and test each s e p for

ovemin and ensure that the moment follows the curve explicitly.

5.1.2 Flutter Boundaries

Simulation results for the airfoil system were subsequently obtained for a

hysteresis sp&g with a variew of spring parameters as outlined in Chapter 4. The results

were first analysed in the f o m of plots of the stabili- charactenstics of the system for

m.rying airspeeds as shown for example in Fiame 5% This data dlowed for a

"mappingooof üie flutter boundaries indicating at what airspeeds the system achieved

stability, limit cycle oscillations, or instabiw. Results were also plotted for the

amplitudes of limit cycle~oscillationsfor the various hysteretic spring parameter values.

The flutter maps in Figures 5 5 a to 5.3 la show thaf as predicted, there lies a zone

of lirnit cycle flutter at airspeeds lower than the linear flutier speeds. The linear flutter

speed for the airfoi1 confi_pratïon was determïned using both the simulation and the

analytical solution methods. The linear flutter speed was detennined using the classical

analytical solution method by detennining the speed U* at which the system became

unstable. As described in the previous chapter, this was performed by assuming a linear

sprïng in the pitch degree of fieedom then solving the equations of motion fkom the
 49

Laplace domain for the eigenvdues of the sysrern. The linear flutter speed was found by

v q i n g the airspeed co fïnd the speed at which the system just goes unstable. indicated by

negative reaI portions of the roots. The numericd simulation method was later used to

confimi the linear flutter speed by setting the spring to be a linear spring and perfomlln;

iterative simuiations to find the speed at which the systen; became unstable. The results

were found to be nearly identical.

The flutter boundaries show the extTeme sensitivity of the nonlinear system to the

initial conditions. For example, Figures 3.2 to 4.7 show how the sarne initial conditions

will result in different stability conditions for the system depending upon the airspeed.

The pitch angle time naces fiom Run 14, depicted in Fiegres 1.2 to 4.7: demonstrate how

for the same initial conditions the stability of the system varies depending on the

Figure 5 7 a aiso shows

airspeed- The corresponding flutter rnap for t h i s c~nfi~ou~atïon,

the speeds and initial pitch mgles for which there is LCO motion. For the same initial

pitch angle of a = 6" the system would achieve a lunit cycle condition if the non-

dimensional flutter speed waç Setween 0.864 and 0-910 and between 0.943 and 1.0. The

system was stable below a speed of 0.864, but a zone of stability also existed between

0.91 0 and 0.942. From these results it can be seen that it becomes v e c difficult to

predict the stabilip of a system frein a given set of initial conditions without prefonnïng

an actual time based simulation. This behaviour is characteristic of nonlinear systems.

It was also observed that the flutter boundaries were a continuous line for most of

the ii = 0.8 nuis with a clear boundary showing the stable and LCO regions of the

parameter space. Most of the o = 0.2 runs however showed the boundary of flutter as a
 50

large area of conditions were the airfoil exhibired ~ a b i l i t yor LCO depending upon small

differences in speed U/U*' as s h o w for example in Fiagure 5.12a. This fi=ure shows the

flurter map for the given airfoil c o n f i a ~ t i o nand conditions where the x's mark each

airspeed U N * where for the same initial pitch angle the stabiliq- condition has switched

fiom stable to LCO motion or vice versa compared to the next lowest ainpeed simulated.

In ail cases the runs diverged to instability at the point Um*=l .O regardless of

configuration or initial conditions. This result is as expected since the nonlineaity tends

to reduce the stifiess of the degree of fkeedom in the region of the hysteresis loop.

Therefore there is no tendency for the system to diverge when the pi~champlitude is

much larger than the size of the hysteresis loop unless the linear flutter speed has been

achieved,

5.1.3 Airspeed vs Limit Cycle Amplitude

In addition to compiling results with respect to the stability of the dynamic system

at various speeds, for speeds at urhïcha limit cycle stability existed the amplitude of the

limit cycle was recorded. These results were then plotted to show the relationship

between the limit cycle amplitude and the Butter speed for various airfoi1 configurations

and initial conditions, as shown for exarnple in Figure 5%.The fist charactenstic for

these relationships that was noted was that for d l the airfoil confi_gurations tested in this

work?the limit cycle amplitudes were for the most part invariant with initial conditions.

This result is consistent with the results published by Lee and Desrochers (1987) and

Price et. al. (1994) for many bilinear and cubic springs. The exceptions to this case are
 51

the bifurcation diagrams in the Pnce et. ai. (1994) report where specific confi_mations of

the nonlinear spring lead to diffcrent LCO anplinides. Le. different limit cycle

amp!itudes could be achieved depending upon the initial conditions. From the resdts it

c m be seen that these Ends of amplitude jumps were present mainl- in the results of the
-
o = 0.2 farnily of results. This resuit would seem t o indicate that the results for the w=
0.8 group were the more neady sinusoidai cases without the harmonic structures observed

in the o = 0 2 cases.

Observations were also made of the type of response achieved depending upon the

shape of the hysteresis cuve. As would be expected, the response of the system becomes

the sarne as for a linear system as AH approaches zero- and the same as for a system with

a bilinear s p e nodineanty as AV approaches zero. It can be seen fkom Fi-mes 5% to

5.17~ that as the ratio AWAV approaches infinity fiom zero the difference between the

two solution rnethods for the speeds at which LCO may be induced and the linear flutter

speed becomes greater. Table 5.1 shows thm for the o = 0.8 cases the speeds at which

CC0 motion is initiated varies from U/U* = 0-816 for the M A V = I O case to UA-..* =

0.954 for the M A V = 0.1 case. For the 65 = 0.2 cases the confiCpration for which the

speed at which LCO motion was initiated was the case of AV = O, a bilinear type operator

sirnilar to that shown in Fiame 3.4, for whicti LCO was initiated at U N * = 0.236. From

the table it can be seen that there is a distinct correlation berneen the speeds of initiation

of the LCO motion and the h W h V shape of the hysteresis curve.

5.1.4 Numerical Error

The finite difference approximation to differential equations c m serve to

introduce certain errors into the solution because of the nature of their numencal

approximation. One example of this -pe of error is the introduction of whar is termed in

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) work as artifci~Zviscosig~[S&erda, 19891 or

would in this case be termed an czmj?cial damping component. This error is introducecl

because the f i t e measure of thne, Ar can not exactly descnbe the motion of the airfoil

when changes occur very rapidly. This approximation to the airfoil behaviour has the

effect of appearing to dampen the response of the system.

From the validation nins performed to determine the Iinear flutter speed for the

airfoi1 ~onfi~gurations,
the known solution of a direct analfical analysis of the linear

flutter speed was compared to the finite difference solution for the same parameter. For

the airfoi1 confi,guratïon where p = 100 and 6 = 0.8, the analytical solution to the flutter

speed is U' = 4.1 144 while the f ~ t difference

e method produced a solution of

U* = 4.1 128. The error of the finite dserence solution was therefore -0.04% and was

therefore not determined to be important for the purposes of the present analysis.

It should however be noted that the finite difference method is not an exact

solution to the problem and should not be considered absolutely correct when compared

to the describing function method. It becomes quite difficult to evaluate the error

inherent in the finite difference solution, especially for cases such as the studied nonlinear

spring where no exact solution for cornparison exists. The two studied solution methods
 53

were essentially being compared IO each other and a determination of one or the other

being considered exact was not made.

5.2 Describing Functions

As with the numerical simulations, the describing function method w-as first

applied to systems \vit& the bilinear spring with freeplay nonlinearities as reported by

Price et. al (1994). Sample systems were solved as described in the theory section and

the results were compared with both the resdts of the bilinear spring simulations and the

results published by Pnce et. a1 (1994). The solutions were found to agree quite weil

between the describing function method and the finite difference simulation method.

Subsequent to the appIication of the describing function method to the bilinear

spring this solution method was used to rnodel the systems with hysteresis nonlinearïties.

The syçtems with hysteresis springs that were modelled were symmeûic springs with AV

and AH varying from 0.1 to 1.0 and cases completed for both o = 0.8 and o = 0.2.

Fi-=es 5 3 to 5.3 l c plot the values of pitch angle a vs flutter speed U N * and where

applicable compare the describing function approximation to the numericd simulation

solution. It c m be seen from these plots that the agreement between the nvo methods is

quite good considering the approximations and assumptions that have been made in order

to provide for the semi-analytical solution.

Similar to the observations in the previous section- a correlation was also

observed between the shape of the hysteresis curve, descnbed by the W A V ratio, and

the accuracy of the describing function method compared to the finite ciifference results.
 54

Frorn Table 5.1 ,the largest discrepancies between prediction of the speed at which LCO

motion is initiared were found in the cases where the shape ratio H A V was highest.

The largest percent error between the two solution methods was found for the case where

4 V = 0: which is essentidly a bilïnear type nonlinearity- The largcst absolute difference

in the prediction of the initiation of LCO motion was for the case where hWhV = 10.

There wodd appear to therefore aiso be a correlation between the accuracy of the

descnbing function method and the shape of the hysteresis loop as described by the ratio

WAV.

The predictions for the airspeeds at which LCO oscillations initiate were found to

be in good agreement with the f i t e difference method and the semi-analytical method.

The agreement fiom Table 5.1 ranges Eorn 0.2 % to 37.5 % with the cases where o = 0.8

agreeing somewhat better than the cases where G = 0.2, It was noted earlier that the

simulation results for the = 0.8 cases appeared to be more sulusoidal, without the

harrnonics observed in the = 0.2 cases so that better agreement is to be expected for G =

0.8.

Quantifying the accuracy of the describing function for predicting the amplitude

versw airspeed relation, as predicted by the finite ciifference solution method, was

difficult due to the multiple values of LCO amplitude for many of the finite difference

results. Observations of results in Fiames 5 . 5 ~to 5.1 5c showed that the describing

h c t i o n method results generally followed the frnite difference results quite closely. The
-
o = 0.8 nui that appeared to have the largest error between the two methods is shown in

Figure 5 . 5 ~corresponding to nin 6- From Table 5.1 it was dso seen that this
 55

confiauration also had the largest error in predicting the speed at which LCO motion

uùtiated. In the ii = 0.2 family of results, the figures displayuig the larges discrepancies

between the two solution results were in Figures 5.1 Oco5.12c, and 5. 16c corresponding to

nins 100, 102 and 110 respectively. Of the three confi3~ationsFigure 5.16~appeared ro

have the largest error, although diEcult to quant if.^' due to the mdtiple amplitude

solutions. Table 5.1 indicates that these are the same hysteresis configurations thar had

the larger errors between the describing function method and h i t e difference method

predictions of the airspeed of onset of limit cycle motion.

Similady, the diEerences between the descnbing function prediction of the LCO

amplitude and the f ~ t difference

e method appeared greater for the G = 0.2 data. It was

noted that the accuracy of the describing function method solution was greatly improved

as the amplitude of the limit cycle increased greatly. This relation is expected since, as

before, the accuracy of the describing fûnction method will increase as the response

becomes more sinusoidal. As the amplitude of the limit cycle becomes large with respect

to the size of the hysteresis loop, the effects of the noniineariv become less si_gïficant

and the response becomes sinusoidal.

Because of the complications of implementïng a dml input type describing

function it was decided to restrict the describing function solutions to those hysteresis

loop configurations that were syrnmetric, i-e. no offsets- From the n u e r i c a l simulation

results for the offset hysteresis configurations as shown in Fieires 5.18 to 5.3 1, there

appeared to be little effect in terms of the general behaviour of the system. The same
 56

relationships with respect to the fkequency ratio and the shape of hysteresis loops were

observed in the offset results as were described above for the symmetnc results.

5.3 Cornparisons

The amplitude vs speed relationships detennined by the descnbing function

method followed quite closely the results of the finite difference method in the majority

of the cases. In particular the describing fuaction agreed better for the cases where ii =

0.8. This result is not surprising, considering that the time-based results fiom the

simulations indicated a purely harmonic result. Since the describing fiuiction method has

an assumption of harmonic results, the hamonic results of the simulations could be

expected to compare quite closely with the analytical approximation. From Figures 5-52

and 5 . 8 ~it was seen that as the hysteresis sprin; approached a condition of AV=O the

describing fünction method was less accurate than those where AH approached zero

(linear spring). This result c o n f i s the conclusion that the describing function merely

loses accuracy as the nonlinearity has a greater impact on the response of the systeem.

The presence of harmonic structure in the response of the system is shown in

Fi,gures 5.1 to 5.4. The sample run s h o w in Figure 5.1, from run 105, shows little or no

difference from an ordinary sinusoid and the power spectrum of the sample, as shown in

Figure 5.2 shows integer harmonies of the fundamental but of liale power and no

additional structure. Figure 5.3 however. fiom run 102- obviously bas additional

fiequencies in response. The power spectnim in Figure 5.4 shows that the sample was
 57

definitely not sinusoidd in nature. Comparing the flutter maps and describing function

method solutions for those two runs shows thar of the two, nin 102 has the "bifurcation"

iype muftiple amplitudes in the LCO amplitude plots as well as a very clutrered flutter

map. We c m infer Iiom the cornparison of these two sets of resdts that the higher

hWAV shaped hysteresis nodinearities are introducing harrnonics into the response of

the system that the describing function is fundarnentally unable to account for.

Because of the tendency of the hysteresis nonlinearities to provide "more

interesting" results for those cases where AV approaches zero, i.e. the bilinear case, it

could be observed that the bilincar case represents a good conti,vation for examining the

behaviour of the nonlinear system. Previous works has mostly utilized bilinear and cubic

functions for nonlinearities because they are more easily implemented. The quenion

arises whether by sirnpli@inp the anaiysis process they were limiting their potentiai to

find unusual behaviour such as chaotic motion. It would appear that the hysteresis loup

provides what amounts to a continuum fiom the simple sinusoidal response of a linear

system where AH approaches zero, to the much more unpredictable behaviour of the

system as AV approaches zero. The bilinear type nonlinearity therefore proves to be a

good candidate for observing musual behaviour in nodinear systems, at least when

compared to the hysteresis type nonlinearities studied here.

The question of why the describing function breaks down as the systern response

becomes iess sinusoidal is known because of the underlying ass~rllptionsof sinusoidal

behaviour in the solution method. Why the system response becomes less sinusoidal

should also be examined. For the cases where the shape of the hysteresis nodinearity
 58

affect the harmonies of the system, it can be seen that as the spring becomes Iess like the

linear case where AV = O?the "parh" of the restorinj moment with pitch angle is

deflected m e r and M e r fiom the linear- It can be sunnised that it is this deflection

that ïntroduces the harmonic structure into the system response. Thus the bilinear s p ~ g

is again shown to be a good choice for observing nonlinear systems as AH is essentially

k e d at zero and only AV is acting upon the systern. For the cases where the difference

in the fiequency ratio o S e c t e d the response of the systern, it can be assumed that since

as discussed previously the two degrees of freedom are couple& reducing the ratio of

their fiequencies could make the system more sensitive to the effects of the nonlinearity.

5.4 Applications to Aircraft Design

Whiie the accuracy of the simulations has been shown ro be quite good in a

mathematical sense, caution must be exercised in the application of these t p e s of

anaiysis methods to "real world" situations. In most cases a real aircraft wing section is

subject to more than simply two degrees of keedom and three dimensional effects are

going to keep the flutter motion of the wïng fiom being exactly as assumed in the present

model. However there are some cases whereby components such as control surfaces do

behave in a very two-dimensional rnanner. For example a flap might pivot about its

hinge and be far enough outboard for the bending of the wing to be ~ e a t e das pure heave.

The pure heaving motion of the wing as a whole is actually more of a bending motion in

a ke-dimensional situation and the pitching of the wing occurs as a twist that varies the
 59

angle of the wing section depending on its outboard position. Despite these limitations

there are still some good generalities that can be S e r r e d from the mode1 results. From

the simulations it is quite apparent that Iimit cycle flutter due to nonlinearïties in the

response of the wing is achievable at speeds subsrantially lower than the linear flutter

speed calculated using classical aeroelastic rnethods. Work by people such as WooInon

et. al. (1 957) and Breitbach (1977) have recognized this phenomenon for some time now

but adequate tools for predicting the results of these nonlinearities are still being

developed. Breitbach mentions the hysteresis nonlinearity- as being a particularly

prevalent type of concentrated nonlinearity.

While this reduction in the actual flutter speed of the aircrafi component is of

concem, both the simulation results and the descnbing function resdts point to the fact

that the amplitude of the limit cycle oscillation slowly increases with speed, building up

to the instabiiity condition. This result c m acnidly be considered a benefit in tenns of

the operation of the aircraft. As the wing flutter amplitude increases with speed, either

sensors installed in the wing or the feedback through the flight controls can be used to

wam the pilot of impending £lutter danger similar to the rnanner in which aircrafi

buffethg uid sensors warn the pilot of stall conditions.

It has been shown that these types of limit cycle oscillations c m occur at airspeeds

well below the Iinear flutter speed and care m u t therefore be taken when analyshg the

aeroelastic properties of a component to ensure that the flight speeds do not encroach

upon the speeds at which the small aeroelastic vibrations are induced. While die
 60

amplitude of the oscillations may not be lase enough to affect the flight dynamics it is

possible that they could contribute to fatigue loading on the structure.

There are some cases where die nonlineanties present in the response of an

aircrafi structure do closely resemble the motion simulated by the two-dimensional

airfoiI. Lee and Tron (1 989) were successfuliy able to mode1 the flutter characteristics on

a CF-18 control surface using a describing fuaction type solution method. They showed

how the solution method could be used to correctly predict LCO behaviour at speeds well

below the h e a r flutter speed.

The system studied in this thesis makes the assurriprion of inviscid incompressible

air flow. There are nonlinearities associated with compressible flows and shocks that are

beyond the scope of this analysis. When incompressible-flow aeroelastic analysis

techniques are applied to a structure, including analyses dealing with nonlinearities, it

shodd therefore be determïned that compressible effects c m safely be neglected.

The value of a describing function method for appIication to real-world problems

is quite good so long as the limitations of the solution method are &&en into account and

caution is exercised to ensure the underlying assumptions are still valid. Validation with

a simulation type solution method could be valuable for the purposes of checking the

semi-analyttical solution. As shown, as the effects of the nodinearity on the system

become more pronounced and the response less sinusoidal, the describing function

becomes less accurate. Thus applying it to solve problems where nodinearities are

prevalent becomes difficdt to justiS. It's greater value is perhaps for those cases where

the nonlinearities are known to be small and &eir eEects subùe.

5.4 Future Work

Several aspects of the results of this work appear appropnate for M e r study.

The h t area for continuation of this work lies with the analysis of the time based pitch

angle results from the Houbolt finite difference rnethod. Many of the snidies performed

in recent years on these =es of two-dimensional aeroelastic systems have focussed on

analysing the results for evidence of chaotic behaviour. The anaiysis tools for studying

the chaotic nature of this kind of Urne based response include power spectral densities

(PSDs), phase-plane plots and Poincaré sections. For example Pnce et. al. (1994)

analysed the responses of bilinear and cubic systems and detected chaotic behaviour in

the responses of particular configurations of each W e . It is therefore suggested that a

n a M extension of the analysis of the results already presented in this thesis is to

continue and apply chaoric analysis tools to rhese results to determine if regions of

chaotic motion are also present. A cornparison of the chaotic motion for the hysteresis

- p e nonlinearities. if found, to those previously studied would enable further cornparison

and contrast with the response of the bilinear and cubic nonlinearities. By studying and

characterizing the chaotic response of this type of nonlinear system, researchers hope to

be able to in tum characterise the system itseifand fmd new anaiytical methods of

predicting the response of the system without the need for time consuming simulations.

h o t h e r area of possibilities for continued work inchdes the application of the

describing fimction rnethod to systems whose responses are not purely sinusoidd. It has

been shown here and in other works that it is the nature of the describing function to
 62

break down when predicting higher order system responses. While ùiis is a fundamental

limitation of this solution method, a technique could be detemined to evaluate the system

befoe the describing function solution method is applied. TooIs such as PSDs and Bode

Plots codd be used to determine the sensitivip of the system to higher frequencies. The

system could then be evaluated with respect to its suitability for solution by descnbing

h c t i o n rnethod-

Al1 of the codZ,grations presented here used zero m c t u r d damping. An

investigation of the eEects of adding structural damping to the system might be studied to

approach the problem ~ o ammore redistic perspective. Since it is the goal of this type

of work to provide some usefül real-world application of these theories, adding some

structural damping to the system mi& indicate what some of the ciifferences might be

when applied to a real situation. That is to Say, al1 real-world systems have a certain

amount of darnping and in the case of aircraft components the amount of damping may

not be negligible. Pnce e t al. (1994) investigated several cases where they added

smictural damping to the system and they found that the damping tended to e h ï n a t e the

chaotic nanire of the system response. T t might then be inferred that a red-world

component that is known tg be sensitive to concentrated nonlinearities would become Iess

sensitive to those nonlinearities with the addition of damping components.

 6.0 CONCLUSIONS

From ùie work summarized and presented in this thesis, several conclusions may

be drawn-

The describing function solution method provided good agreement with the

numencal simulation solutions, except in those cases where the response of the system

strayed significantly away from a sinusoidal type motion.

There were two parameters that appeared to most a e c t the accuracy of the

describing function prediction of system behaviour. The describing function compared

leas favourably to the Houbolt finite difference method when:

the hysteresis spring ~onfi~guration

had a hi& AWAV ratio: and/or

the frequency ratio o = 0.2 rather than o = 0.8

Of the niro configuration parameters the hWAV ratio appeared to have the greater effect

on the response of the system.

The G = 0.2 famiIy of nins exhibited LCO behaviour had much lower airspeeds,

compared to the linear flutter ratio, then did the o = 0.8 set of r u s . Additionally the

Butter maps for the G = 0.2 m s were much less "ordered" than those of the 5 = 0.8
results' showinj a much greater sensitivity to the UN* flou- speed and changing back

stabilis- and LCO motion-

and forth b e ~ e e n

Because of the noted effects of the shape of the hysteresis nonlinearity on the

response of the system, it was concluded that the bilinear nonlinearïty that has been used

for many investigations of this type into nodinear system provides good opporNnities. at

leasr equal to that of the hysteresis nonlinearïq, for observing unmual behaviour-
Barrington, P., 1994, 87.462 Introduction to Aeroelasticity course notes, Dept of
Mechanicd and Aerospace Engineering, Carleton Universi~.

Bnetbach, E.,1978, "Effect of Stmcturd Noniinearïties on Aircrafi Vibration and

Flutter", AGARD Report 665, January.

Dowell, E.H., Ilgamov, M., 1988, Studies in Nonlinear Aeroelasticiry, Springer-Verlag:

New York.

Fung, Y.C., 1955, An Iniroduction ro the Theory of Aeroelasticity, John Wiley & Sons?
Inc., New York-

Gelb, A., Vander Velde, W. A., 1968, Multiple-Inpur Describing Funcriom and
hionlinear S'stems Design, McGraw-Hill: New York.

Hauenstein, A- J., Zara, 5. A., Eversman, W., Qumei, 1. K., 1992, "Chaotic and Nonlinear
Dynamic Response of Aerosurfaces with Structural Nonlinearities", AIAA-92-2547-CP,
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC, 33rd Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials
Conference

Houbolt, J. C., 1950, ''A Recurrence Matrix Solution for the Dynamic Response of
Elastic Aïrcrafc", Journal of Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 17, pp. 540-550.

Jones, D.J., Lee, B. K. K., 1985, "Tirne Marchïng Numerical Solution of t h e Dynamic
Response of Nonlinear Systerns, National Research Council of Canada, Aeronauticd
Note Na-AN-25.

K a g L, Plodan, A., 1991, LowSpeed Aerodynamics, McGraw-Hill Inc., Toronto.

Laurenson, R. M., Tm, R. M., 1980, "Flutter Analysis of Missile Control Surfaces
Contauiing Stnictural Nonlinearities", AIR4 Journal, Vol. 18, October, pp. 1245-1251.

Lee, B. H. K.,Desrochers, J.? 1987, "Flutter Analysis of a Two-Dimensional Airfoi1

Containing Structural Nonlinearities", National Research Council of Canada,
Aeronautical Report LR-6 18.
Lee, B. H. K., Gong L., Wang, Y-, 1496, "Analysis and Computation of Nonlinear
Dynarnic Response of a Two-Degree-of-Freedom System and its Application in
Aeroelasticity". AIAA Paper-96- 1248.

Lee, B. H. K.' Leblanc, P., 1986, "Flutter Analysis of a Two-Dimensional Airfoi1 -<th
Cubic Non-Linear Restoring Force"' National Research Council of Canada,
NAE-AN-36, NRC NO. 25338.

Lee, B. H. K.' Tron, A., 1989: "Effects of StmcturaI Nonlinearities on Flutier

'.
Characteristics of the CF- 18 Aircraff Journal of Aircrafi' Vol. 26: No. 8.: pp. 78 1-786.

Lee, C. L., 1985, "An Iterative Procedure for Nonlinear Flutter Analysis", Proceedings of
the 761hAM-85-0688, AL4r4/ASU/ASCE/AHS Sr>.zictures.Structural Llynamics and
Materials Conference, Apnl 15- 17.

Mchtosh, S. C. Jr., Reed, R E., Rodden, W. P., 1981, "Experimentd and Theoretical
Study- of Nonlinear Flutter?', Journal of Aircraftl Vol. 18; No. 12, pp. 1057-1063.

Moon, F. C., 198 7, Chaotic Vibration: An Inhoducrionfor AppZied Scientists and

Engineers, John Wiley: New York.

MW, H. S., 1995, "Aeroelastic Stabiliv Analysis of an M o i 1 with Structuml

Nonlinearities Using a State Space Unsteady A e r o d y n d c s Model", AIAA-95-1293-CP,
Proceedhgs of the 3 6'hALf%ASMUASCWAHS/ASC Snucrures. S~nrct ural Dynarn ics
and Materials Conference, New Orleans, LA, Apr. 10-13.

OzNeil, T., Strganac, T. W.? 1995, "AnExperïmental Investigation of Nonlinear

Aeroelastic Response", Proceedin,os of the 3 8 ALULASME/ASCUAHS/ASC Structures.
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference.

Pnce, S., Lee, B- H. K., Alighanbari, K.: 1994, "Post-Instability Behaviour of a

Two-Dimensional Airfoi1 with a Structural Nonlinearity",Journal of Aircraft, Vo 1.3 1
pp. 1395-1401.

Price: S., Alighanbari, H.,

Lee, B. H. K., 1994, "The Aeroelastic Response of a Two-
Dimensional Airfoi1 with Bilinear and Cubic Structural Nonlinearities", Proceedings of
the 3.Y"AL4AlASME/ASCUAHS/ASC Sb-uctures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference, pp 1771- 1780.

Shen, S. F., Hsu, C. C., 1957, "halytical Results of Certain Nonlinear Flutter Problemss',
Journal of the Aeronauticaz Sciences, Vol. 23, Feb., pp. 136-137.
Stockard, D. P., Johnson, T. L.,Sean' F. W., 1967, "Snidy of Amplitude Jumps".
American Journal of Physics, Vol. 35, pp. 961-963.

Suikwerda J., C.' 1989, Finite Difference Schemes and Partid Dilferenrial Eq~arions~
Wadsworth and Brooks: Pacific Grove, California-

Theodorsen, Theodore, Garrick, 1. E., 2940, "Mechanism of Flutter: A Theosetical and

Expenmental Investigation of the Flutter Problem", Nmional Advisory Cornmitteefor
Aeronazttics, NACA-TR-68 5 -

Thomson, J. M. T., Stewart, H. B., 1986, Nonlineur Dynamics and Chaos, John Wiley:
Chichester.

Thomson, W. T.? 1993, Theory of Vibration with Applications, 4th ed., Prentice Hall.
New Jersey.

White, F. M., 1986, Fluid Mechanics, 2" ed., McGraw Hill.

Woolston. D. S., Runyan, H. W., Andrews, R. E.; 1957: "An Investigation of Effects of
Certain Types of Structural Nonlineanbes on Wing and Control Surface Fluner", Jourml
of the Beronautical Sciences, Vol. 24, Jan., pp. 57-63.

Yang,2. C., Zhao, L. C., 1988, "Analysis of Limit Cycle Flutter of an Airfoi1 in
Incompressible Flo+'. Journal of Sound and Vibration' No. 123, pp. 1-13.

Zhao, L. C., Yang, 2. C.. 1990, "Chaotic Motions of an *Moi1with Non-linear Stifbess
in incompressible Flow7', Jozlrnal of Sound and Vibration,No. 138,pp. 245-251.
TABLES
Run # Refer to 1 Frequency 1 Mass 1 Hyçteresis 1 Hysteresis
I I
Vertical Horizontal

Figure 1 Ratio 1 Ratio 1 I

Vertical S t e Horizontal Size Oifset
l Offset

(refer to Figure 3 -2 for notation)

 Fiutter Speed Ratio (UIU*) for Initial LVO
Run # Refer to Frequency Shape Describing Finite Difference Difference Difference

Figure Ratio-w Ratio Function Result - UIU' %

AHIAV Result - U/U*

6 5.5~ 0.8 5 0.942 0.83 0-112 13-5
IO 5.6~ 0.8 1 0.824 0.852 -0-028 -3.3
14 5.7~ 0.8 O -2 0.942 0.922 0-02 2.2
15 58c 0.8 O-i 0-969 0.954 0-015 1.6
16 5.9~ 0.8 1O 0.801 0.816 -0.015

100 5-18c 0.2 undefined 0.187 0.1 36 0-051 37.5

101 5-19~ 0.2 5 0.366 0.4 -0.034 -8.5
102 5-20~ 0.2 2-5 0.528 0.532 -0-004 -0.8
103 5.21~ 0.2 1 0.726 0.73 -0.004 -0.5
I

1
- - - - - - - - -

1 1 11 5.27~1 0.2) 0.2) 0.93 0.91 0.031 3.3

TABLE 5.1 - FLUTTER RATIO SPEEDS AT -CH LCO MOTION WAS
- ru) ,
/
nU

v'
>'
Describina
:
$1
N
Function
1
1
FU)
Linear

J
Svstem

L ( S )

FIGURE 3.3 Block Diagram of Descnbing Function Method in Limit Cycle System
c(t)
>

FIGURE 3.4 Diagram of R e s t o ~ Moment

g vs Pitcch Angle for Bilinear
Spring with Freeplay
Non-Dimensional Heave Dis >lacement- 5
d- CV O 9 Y
>.,
z Ci-
- a
- 'c!
- C

- -*
-
- C

- N
- O!
- O

-- 00
w
- n
V

-
a
12
- Tl-
- 00
- C

-
- CV
Oc
- O
 c C r e a t e c by: 3 r a ï ï 3 r o ok i n g , C ¢ r L z ï o n University
C

CCCCCCCCCCCCCC~CcC~CCCCCCCcCCcCCcCcCcccccccc~cccccccccccccc~c~~cc~
CCCSC
PROGW-k? EVST
I M P L I C F T LOGICAL (A-Z]
C C a n s t c n ï IBLGTIM: NllnDer o f cime s t e 9 s t o declere srezSy s t c z s
C LPFEEQ: Frcquency co o u t p u c r e s x l t s
C TIMECSFK: I n i t c l t i r n t C O ellow cransienc effeccs ro
dmp out
INTEGER 13IGTIM, IPZREQ, T I Y I C U E K
C C c n s t a n t TH-RESX: Thrêsnold t o c e t e - d n e dm.ped sysien
REPL TESESU
PPAX'XETER (LBIGTIM=50000)
P-LWXETER (TH-XESE=0. O 07 !
PAEWKETXR [ IFFREQ=S)
PFM14ZTER (TIMECXEK=300 )
REAL S I I , F 12,S~DA(4},EIEGLF(131GTIP4).XZCXI(IBIGTIM)
REPL G u rDT;T,XA,.W, EL,A, 3,C, 5, ZETAAL. ZETFXI. o-wa., UST,PZ, XE-
REAI; PLPHO, DALPHO, DDPLPO, TDALPO. QDALPO, XFO, DXIO, DDXIO, TDXIO
E U , D-nJIPEf(4),DD.?LPE(4) ,DXI(4),DDXI(4)
REFJ;*8 A L O t f ( 4 ) .XI(O)
MXL V I , V2, ZlMIN, BI-WX, E2MIN, 321!C!Xr ULIN, SIPZAIK, LOFEAKr COPJ"\I%T
X A L INCR, DV, DB,VOFF, XOTF, X I X I . L O X I , EMIN. CMAX,QDXIO

37 CONVRT=O. 1 7 4 5 3 2 5 2 5 2
38 TEMPFILE="cemp"
3 9 C Find out if inieractive, or date file
40 C PRINT *, ' Zzter che name of the o u t p ~ tf i l e . '
41 C E a n D (=, 1 0 ) OÜTFILZ
42 PXINT *
43 PRINT *, ' Enter: X u t t e r Map=7 (def 1 or SFnqle ru11=2'
44 READ (*, 5 ) TYPE
45 5 FORMAT (13)
46 IF(TYPE.NE.2) TFIEN
47 TYPE=L
48 SNDIF
49 I F (TYPZ.5 0 . 2 ) THEN
50 OUTFILE="pitcnresp .d z t "
51 OPEN(YNIT=2,FILZ=OUTFILE)
52 OPEN(~NIT=IO,FILE='spring.dat')
53 PRINT *,'Enter t h e i n i t i a l A l p h a . '
54 -XAD ( * , 2 0 ) F L I S T ( l )
55 PXINT *,'Enter t h e Linear F l u t t e r Speed - Ulinl
56 RSAD ( + , 2 0 ) U L I N
112 CALL GR S E T U P ( O U T F I L E r G T I T L E , G ç U B T r X ~ B E L r Y ~ E L r T Y Z E )
113 cal1 TI& (char-the)
114 C X L DATE (TODAY)
115 PRINT *, ' Starting: ' ,CHAR-TIME, ' ' ,TODAY
116 C Assign const variables f o r this case
 -
Byster3 for

117 C VO ET-O, 25
118 C HOFF=O - 5
119 V I = (DV/2+VOFFI -COWRT
120 V2= (-DV/~LVOEZ' j -COWRT
Z2L DV=DV-COWRT
122 DE=DSTCOYJRT
123 VOFF=VOFFtCONV3T
124 KOFF=EOX*COMVX'I
125 S-SOFF=90FF
126 C Oril>- -AL330 Fs vzrled, D-ALPEO, XIO, 9x13 a r e c o r s t = O
127 FFYPFILE="picch- d z t "
125 OEZN (UNIT=LI,FILZ=F-MPFILZ 1
L29 X I F I L = = " heaye,&c "
13 0 OPZN(UNIT=LS,FILZ=XïTILE]
131 C Kasrer Loop: Loo- once Eor each i n i t i s l âzçle
132 00 90 COUNT=L, NUX.NG
133 &LPEO=ALIST {COüNT) 'CONVEIT
134 F R I T Z (*, 21) ' I ~ i t i ê lPicch Angle: ' ,1"2LHO/CC>NTqRT
135 21 FOW-%-T ( A 2 2 , ?8 - 2 )
136 STATE=I
137 C Loop for each Speed R a t i o
138 DO 90 I N G Z X = l , NUM
139 C Variable I n i t i a l i t a t i o n
1 4O SMFE-a,F(S=O
l4 1 HOFF=F' HOFF
142 H~MIN=([DV+DE! / 2 + H O F I )
143 F EïMFX=( (DV-DH) /S+HOFE')
1-4 H~X=FJIMF~X
1-43 S 2 M I N = ( - (DV+DH) /2+HOFF)
140 E'-E2kLW= ( - (DV-DH) /2fHOFF)
147 X2MPX= F-E2MAX
148 USTA3= (UKIN+-INCR* (INDEX-1 1 ) * U L I N
149 HI?ELU=- 7-
150 LO?EAEY=I.
-Ï 51 DALP-JO=O.
152 XIO=O .
153 DXIO=O.
L54 C
155 PX=-O. 5
156 W=3, 5
157 XE-= O - 25
158 DT=O - I
155 EL=I*
160 $-=O. 163
161 B=0.0455
162 C=O - 335
163
164 --D=G .3
L-r)T-2
165 ZSTPFL,=O -0
166 ZZ'rXI=O, O
167 C W R I E (=, j ' VI= ' ,Vi/CONVRT
+

168 C WRITE (", " ) ' V2= ' ,V2/CONViiT

149 C rWF-ITZ (*, * ) ' SI-=' ,XIMIN/CONVRT
170 C WRITE (+, * 1 ' E l + = ' ,XIMAX/CONVRT
171 C W X T Z ( *, * ) ' HZ-= ' ,fiIMIN/CONVRT
172 C WRITE (*, * ) ' H2+=', XIMPX/COWRT
173 C * ! ' DELTA V= ' ,DV/COWRT
' m I T E [ +,
174 C WRITE (*, * 1 ' DELTA H=' ,DH/CONVRT
175 C WRITE (", * ) ' V O X = ' ,VOFF/CONVRT
176 C WRITZ ( * ,* 1 ' HOFF= ' ,CCHOFF/CONVRT
177 C
178 C
1 7 9 C S t a r t i n g Procedure
180 CFJ;L
 -
Xyster3 f o r

S'FART1 (3L2EOrD Z P B O , X I 0 ,DXIO DDPLPO ,T X L 2 0 , QD&L?O, DDXTO ,

LTDXZO, QDXIO )

XI (1)=XIG-DT"DXIO+ (DT+=21/2- *DDXIO

XI (2)=XI0
XI (3)=XIO-DTkDXIO+ ( P Z )/ 2 - -DDXIO
DXI (1)=3XIO-DTfDDXIOf (DT**2}/2 - +TDXIG
D X I (2)
=XI0
DXI (31 =DXIO-DTf DDXIO+ (DTr*2)1 2 - T D X I O
ùDXI(I)=DDXIO-DTiTDXIO-(DTii2j/22*Q~~~0
DDXI (2)= D D X I O
DDXi(3}=DDXIO+DT*TDXIO+(DTi~2~ 12-*QDXIC

210 C End of s c z r i i n g procedure

211 IF (AL230- GT - O ) THEN
212 INCXASE=O
213 c WRITE ( * , ") INCN3-SC,T
214 ELSE
215 I N C X A SE= L
216 c KRITE ( * ,* ) INC-XASE ,T
217 ENDIF
218 C Begin looping
213 DO 30 LOOP=3, IBIGTIN

I T Y L E , INCREASE)
C
C C ~ l c u l a t eT-11 and F-12
F-I1=ZXP (-B*DT) 'F -II+DT/2T. '(9- * ( 3 D X I ( 4 ) i (O. 5-PX) +3DALE'E (4)-

232 2 -5 .' (DDXI(2)-(O. S - - U ) *DDALPH (2)+ D U P H (2)) *EXP (-2-+D*DT)

233 3 +(DDXI i l ) + ( O - 5 - K i )*DDLT,PX[l) fDFLPH(1) }*EXP(-3.+DeDT))
230 C
235 C Keep t r o c k of t h e max and min p i t c h angles for each cycle.
23 5 IF(T.GT.1.0) TBEN
 Eysïer3- f o r

2 63 ENDIF
264
-- .GT, (100- )
(EIP3A?<-LOPE-A.i<)
L;LSEIF(-QAS ) T4ZN
265 GOTO 70
266 ENDZF
267 ENDI?
268 C
2 6 9 C Xotation of a r r z ÿ s
270 DO 30 I=L,3
271 p..Lp~(I) = _ i ? L p ~ fil)
272 RECPLL (LOG-;=>!FE ( I + I )
273 DALPE (Z]=E-AL?X (1+1)
274 DDALPE (1)=DCGLPH (1-1)
273 XI (1)=XZ (I+I)
275 RECXI (LOOP) =XI (Irl)
277 D X I (Ij =DU1 ( T + I )
278 DDXL (1)=DDXI (I+1]
275 LESrl3DA(I) =L,A?Y3D.L (1-1)
280 30 CONTINUE
2 8 1 C To reach h e r e Fs cc achieve LCO
282 IF(TYPZ.NE.1) T%EN
283 30 4 0 T=3,100P-I,I?fEEQ
284 C W X T Z ( I , * ) (1-2)*9TrRZC-?LP(I)ICONVRT
285 CALI,
GR WITZ ( I 1-21 -DT,REC-ALP(11 / c o ~ ~R-CXI
T, !I / C O ~ V R T )
2 8 6 40 CONTINUE
287 1 R I N T *, ' LCO o c h i e v e c aï: Ur=', UST,2\3/ULIN, ' P i t c h znp=',
288 1 (A3.S (HIPEPL~S-LCJE-PLK)/ 2 ) /CONVRT
283 ELSZ
290 iF(STATE.NZ.2) THEN

293 C Ouïput zhe amplirude

294 WRITE (11," ) 3LPHO/COWRTr USTAR/CJLINr
295 1 (ABS(iiI%-il:r(-LOPE2K) / 2 ) /COkk$RT
296
 33INT +,' D&qp~dOskill~i-on zt: ü+=' ,üST>.~,ft~I~<, ' EL zec+ ' ,
-4
~ ~ ' LO P~€ z k = ' , ~LOpEzxr$J,pLJ
~ (~ < ('j ,
4 ) -3LpE
~ L Ç Z
9-

m
IF(STATE-Sï3.lj LELNY-

313 ENDIF
314 ST,o-TE=L
3L.5 COTO 90
31670 CONTINUE
317 C U n s t a b l e oscillziion.
318 I? (TYOS - N5.1) TEEN
319 DO 50 I=3,L00P-I,IPFXQ
320 CiLL

322 PRIbJT *,'U~stable Oscilla~iona c : U*=',CIST-AX/ZLIX

323 ELSZ
324 -
1 F (STATZ.NS 3 ) T3EK
325 C X L GR-WRITZ ( U S T m / U L I N r FLFHO /CONVXT)
326 SNDI?
327 CNDIF
328 STA:E=i
329 90 CONIINLE
330 CLOSC (2)
331 CLOSE (11)
332 CLOSE (12)
333 --
L: (TY?E-NZ.L) TXEN
334 CLOSE ( IO )
335 ZNDIF
336 c a l 1 TIIG (char-~ime)
337 C3L.L DATE t TODAY j
335 ?RIKT *, ' F i n i s h e d : ' ,CP-OJi -T X E , ' ' ,TODAY
339 c CALL 3EEPQQ(1000, 1000)
340 STOP
34 7 ZND
342
343 C Calculate and recuxn ïhe value for alpha(i-dt) and ~ i ( ~ - a i )
344 SUEIROÜTINE
STE3 (-'LP,Yr X I , D-ALPH, DDALPH, DCXI, DELFEO ,DXIO ,PL2EiOr -I I r
345 IF-12,T, T Y E , INCREASE)
346 C
448 U P H ( 4 } = I N V P ( I r1)* X ( 1 ) +INVP(1,2)*X(2)
449 XI ( 4 ) = r W P ( 2 , ~ +X) (1)+ INVP ( 2 , 2 ) " ~ ( 2 )
450 C
451 IZ'((-UP5(4).GT,PLPH(3))- P N D D ( I N C R E A S Q O ) ) THEN
4 5 2 C Change ï o increasiao
453 1" ( X P E ( 3 ) .GE.H2M-W).AND- (-ALPE(3), L - M N ) ) THEN
454 HOFF=HOTFi (DH)
455 HlVS..Y=BOFF+F -HIYIAX-F -HOFF
 H2bfS.X=HOFF+F 92QX-F -HOFF
HINIPX=F YILWX
INCREAÇS=O
WRITX (*, * ) TKC=.SE, T
ALPKAd=AL!?ii (4)
GOTO 400
ELSsIE'( (PLFE ( 3 ) -LT.Z ~ M I b i ] -( x z s[ 3 ) .GT - E l F X )) THEK
XOFF=T EOFF+ { A L P H ( 3 ) -HIMIN)
w~uxx=Zor~+r ~~v-J.J:-F-HO"
-----
7 7 Mnx=F i ~ ~ ~ n x
INCEIE~SZ=O
WRITE ( *, - INCETSE,T
ALPHAB=ALOS (4)
)

GOTO 400
ELSE
INCwnSE=O
HRITE ( *, * ) INC--?SE, T
BOZF=F-HOFF
Z2M-X=F-X2MJX
IIIY!%X=F -ZIFGX
ENDIF
ENDIF
 Eysïer3. f o r

520 EMZTF
521 C
522 RET'J'XN
523 ENS
524 C
5 2 5 C C a l c u l ê c e cnc recurn che F n i t i â l alc ces or- zze
. k d ,
&rics
526 C of a l g k c & xi
527 SCi32CGTIN3
 V2, K I I I h ' , EIMMX<,I I Z X I K , E2Ei1;, ZHÜ, DT, DV, 95, V O X , <.EOFS, COh-v~T,
2 EOFF, F-;fLM?iX, F-ii2KnX

- -
ELSf
EY-FA=V2
ENDIF
ENDIF
EETURN
END
-.
*
Z Function to c a l c u l a t e the response f o r c e s l o p e for
jiven
for a
C gioen p i c c h cnqle z i p h a - N o t e c h z t here c h e r e is
curvature,

DDF=O .
-ETURN
END

RSAD (1,310)TISLE
2EAD (1,3101 SUBTITLE
E A D (1,320)DV, DE,VOFF, HOFF,L'LIN
READ ( 1 , 3 3 0 ) NUKLWG, UMINr UM.'X/ INCR
X A D ( I . 3 4 0 ) HMU,OMEGA
KVM= (UMAX-~1x1 /INCR+I
DO 3 0 0 I=I,EiUMANG
W . D ( l , 3 5 0 ) E L I S T (1)
CONTINUE
FOWAT (A)
FORMAT (OFS.2, F8.4)
FORmT(15,F7c4,F7.4,F774)
'XRITE (2,5101 ' B ACE/gr pzramerer fils '
WRITE(2,510) ' g '
NRfTZf2,510)' g '
WRLTE(2,5lO)'@page 5'
WRITZ(2,510)'@poqe Fnout 5 '
WEIITE (2,510)' @ l i n kpzgs c f:'
W m T E ( 2 , 5 1G ) ' Gdefaulï l i n e s r y l e i '
'NRITE ( 2 , s 10) ' @ d e f a u l = linewicïh L '
'?i'XITE(2,510~'@aefault c o l o r 1'
WRITE (2,5101 ' @default c h a r size 1- 000000'
WRITE(Sr510l'gdefault Zonï 4 '
M3ITE (2,5101 ' @ d e f a u l t font source O ' - - -

m I T E (2,510)' @default symbol s i z c 1.003000'

WRITE(2,510)' E w F t h q- O r
W2ITE:2,510) ' c g 0 on'
WRïTE (2,s10)' @go I c b e l o f f '
WXITE (2,510)'@go hia8en falser
WXITE(2,510)'@go zype xy'
W X T E ( 2,5 10 ) ' @GO a u ï o s c a l e t p e AUTO'
WRITE i2,5IO ) ' @gO f i x e à p o i n t o f f I

WRITE (2,510)' @GO f i x e d p o i n t t:ype O '

WRITE(Zr5101'@q0 f i x e d p o i n t xy 0.00000@, 0.000000 '
WRIT5(2,510)'@g0 f i x e c p o i n i E o m a ~gerieral generall
WBITE(2,510)'@go fixedpoint p r o c 6, 6'
WXTE i2,SIO)' @çO a c t o s c a l e t-vpe X J T O '
ï E ' ( T Y 3 E . E Q . I ) TBEN
WITTE (2,510)' @ world xmin 0-7 l

WXTE(2,510)' @ worlc xmax 1 t

ÇvTITE (2,510)' @ world ynin -10 t

WRITS (2,513)' @ world - p a x 20 l

SNDIF
'@ view m i n 0.150000 '
-WRITE(2,51C) ~ ~',
~ K- nL- , L L51C) @ view m a x 0-850000 '
W K T Z (2,510)'@ n i e w p i n 0.150000 '
WRITE(2,510) ' @ view wax 0-850000 '
WRLTE(Zr5OO)' @ t i c l e ', GTITLE, ' ' II

WRTTS(2,5i0)' @ t i t l e font 4 1

WRITS(2,510)' @ title size 1.000000'

WRITZ(2,SlO) ' @ tirle c o l o r i I

WRITE(2,510)' @ t i t l e linewidch I '

WRITE(2,500: ' @ s u b t i t l e " ' ,GSUBT, ' '
WRITE (2,5101 ' @ subtitle font 4 T

WRITE (2,510)' @ s u b t i t l e s i z e 1,000000 l

WRITE (2,510)' @ s u b t i t l e color 1 l

WRIT3(2,510) '@ s u b t i t l e linewiath 1 l

 SNDI?
XXTE(2,510) ' e sO l i n o w i d t h Ir
WXITE (2,510)' @ sO c o l o r 1'
WRITE (2,510)'@ sO f i l 1 O'
KRITE (2,510)' @ sO f i l 1 witk c o l o r r

WRITE (2,510)' @ sO f i l 1 color I I

WRITE (2,510)' @ sO fil1 p a t i e r n O 1

hXITE (2,510)' @ sO errorbar ï p e 5 0 E r

'NRITZ (2,510)' @ sO e r r o r b a r Lenath 1.000000 '
WRITZ (2,510)' @ SC e r r o r b a r l i n e w i c t h 1 1

NRITE(2,510) ' @ sO e r r o r b a r linestyie 1 I

r m r ~ = ( 510)
2 , '(3 sO e r r o r b a r riser on 1

hXITZ(2,510) 'C sO e r r o r b a r r i s e r l i z e w i d t h I f
WRITE (2,510)' @ sO e r r o r b a r riser l i n e s ï y l e 1'
MRITE (2,510)' @ s o x y z O. 000000, 0~000000 '
WRITE (2,500;' @ sO comtent " ' , O U T F I L E , ' " '
KRITE(2,510} ' @ x e x i s tick o n r
WRITZ(2,510)'@ xaxis t i c k najor 0.1 I

WRITE {2,SlO)' (2 x a x i s tick ninor 0.05 I

WRITEi2,513) ' @ x a x i s tick o f E s e ï x 0-000000'

WRITZ(2,510) ' @ x a x i s t i c k o f f s e c y 0.000000'
WRITE (2,500)' (3 x z x i s l & e l " ',X m z L , ' '
WRITE(2,570) ' @ xaxis l a k l layout gara I

WRITC(2.510) ' @ x z x i s la821 p l a c e zuco I

WRITZ (2,510)' @ x a x i s l a b e l c h a r s i z e 1-000000'

WRITE (2,510)' @ xaxis l a b e l 5ont 4 @

WRITEi2,510) ' @ xaxis label color 1 l

WXTE(2r 510) ' @ xaxis label linewiazh I I

WRITE(2,SIO) ' @ x a x i s r i c k l a b e l on l

WRITE(2,510) ' @ x a x i s ï i c k l a b e l t ~ zuzo e 1

WXITE (2,510)' @ xaxis tickla3el s r e c 2 1

X3ITE(2,510) ' @ x a x i s t i c k l a b e l formac decimal'

WRiTE(2,510) ' @ x â x i s t i c k l a ~ e lap-end " " 1

'W3I-E (2,5101' @ xaxis t i c k l a b e l p o p e n a " " 1

WXITE (2,510)' @ xaxis t i c k l a b e l leyouz h o r i z o n t s l '

WRITE (2,510)' @ x a x i s t i c k i a b e l SKI? O 1

WEIITE(2,SIO) ' @ x a x i s t i c k l a b o l scagger O 1

WRITE(2,510j ' @ x a x i s t i c k l a b e l op bocton 1

F?XITE(2,510) ' @ xaxis t i c k l a b e l s i g n no-nial t

\?RITE(2,510)' @ x a x i s t i c k l a b e l s c a r t type a u t o '

WRITEi2,510) ' @ x a x i s t i c k l a b e l s t a r t C.OOOOOO '
KRITE (2,510)' @ xaxis t i c k l a b e i sto- type a u r o '
WRITE (2,510)' @ x a x i s t i c k l a b e l sto- 0.000000 '
WRITZ (2,510)' @ xaxis t i c k l a b e l c h a r s i z e 1.000000'
WRITE (2,510)' @ xaxis t i c k l a b e l font 4 t
 Eyscer3. f o r

864
865 -- ---
FTEIITZ~2,510) '@
VIRA IL!^, 5L0) '@
- - '@
xaxis
xaxis
ticklzbel color I
t i c k l a b e l linewicch I '
s

866 ?iXI'?E(2,3~0) xzxls zick *- n z - j c r 02 l

8 67 XXTt(2.510) '@ X Z X ~ S Y L C X m l n o r on I

8 68 X R I T E ( 2 , 5 L O ) '@xaxis zick d o f a l ï 6 7

859 WXT2(2,510)' @ xaxis ï i c k i? l

870 'iEETS(2,510)'CC xaxis ï i c k major c o l o r I 1

87L V31E(2,5101 ' @ x o x i s ï i c k r n c j o r 1 i ~ t w F b c hL '

872 W3LTZ(2,510) ' 9 xaxis r i c k nager L F ~ s c > - l 2I '
873 FRIT2;2,510)' @ xaxis iick rcinor c o l o r 2
874
.-
n X ~-Cm-
: = : î , 510) ' @ xzxis t i c k x i n o r I l ~ e w i d t h1'
r

875 W31TZ(2,510) ' @ xzxis r i c k x i x r -L - i n e s ï y l o 1'1

876 X31TZ{2,510) ' @ x c x i s tizk log a r r
677 FlRIF(2,5LCl)' E xaxFs iick S ~ Z S1,003G00 1

878 WXTE(2,510) ' @ x c x i s t i c k m l n c r s i z e 0-500000'

874 W3IT5(2,510)'@ x z x i s b a r off 1

880 WRITS(2,510) '@ x a x i s ber c o l o r L r

881 W3ITZ(Sr51O)'@ x ~ x F s bcr IinescyLe 1 1

88 2 WRITE(2,5lo) ' ( 3 x z x i s b a r Linewidtk I

883 --
LC ( T Y E - EQ-l j TEEN
1

884 FXITE (2,510)' @ xexis zick x a j o r çrid o n 7

685 hTCTt(2,510) ' @ xaxis ïFcK minor g r i d 02'
886 tLSE
887 CvXITE (2,510)'12 xaxis cick major g r i a offr
888 WRITS(2,510) ' @ xzxis rick f i n o r çrid off1
889 SNDIF
890 WRITE(2,510) ' @ xcxis cick O- boïn l

8 91 WRITZ(2,SLO) ' @ xaxis t i c k r p e aüïo 1

892 WRITZ(2,SLO) ' @ xaxis i i c k s ~ e cO 1

85 3 WRITZ(2,510) '@ yaxis t i c k on 1

89 4 WRITE (2,510)' @ yaxis t i c k mcjgr 10 1

895 WRITE[2,510) ' @ yoxis c k k minor 5 1

85 6 WRITZi2,510) ' @ yaxis ïick o f f s e t x O,OOOOOOr

847 WRfTE(2,510) '@ yaxis z I c k ofZsety 0,000000'
898 FïRITE [2,500)'@ yaxis l & e L " ',Y L 2 3 E L r
859 WRITE(2,510)'@ vzxic - b. e -l lcyout 2 a r z '
k
900 WRIT5(2,510) ' @ yaxis i a o e ~-Lace zuro '
COI WRITZ(2,510) ' @ ysxis L a ~ e lchar size 1.000000'
902 XRIT%(2,510) '@ yaxis label f o ~ 4t r
903 WRITE (2,510)'@ yaxis k b d color 1 1

904 WXITE (2,510)'@ yzxis k D e l iinewidïh I 1

905 WXITZ(2,51G) ' @ yaxis iicklzbel on 1

906 XRITE (2,510)'@ yaxis c i c k l c b e l t-ee a u ï o l

907 WXITZ(2,SIO) ' @ yaxis cFcklaDe1 ~ r e cI 1

908 WRITE(2,510) '@ yaxis ï i c k l a b e l formaï d e c i m a l '

209 WRIIE (2,5101'CC yaxis c i c k l a b e l cppena " lf '
QI0 W3ITE(2,510)'@ -v a x i s r L c k l a 3 e l prepend ""'
Qll WRITI(2,510) '@ yaxis i i c k l z b e l lcyout n o r i z o n ï a l '
912 WRITE(2,510) ' @ yaxis t i c k l a b e ? SKIP O I

913 WRITE(2,510) ' @ yaxis zicklabel sïagger G 1

914 KRITE(2,510) ' @ yaxis ~ F c k l a b e lop l e f t r

915 WRITE(2,510) 'C yaxis z i c k l a b e l sign no--al 1

916 KRITE (2,510)' C? yaxis i i c k l a b ê l s ï a z t type a u t o '

917 WRITE(2,510) ' @ yaxis r i c k l a b e l s z à r t 0.000000 '
9L8 WRITE (2,SIO) '(2 yaxis t i c k l a ~ e ls t o p t-ype auco '
919 WRITE(2,510) ' @ yâxis r i c k l a b e l s t o p 0.000000 1

920 iiFUTE(2,510) 'Ce yaxis t i c k l a b e l char s i z e 1.000000'

921 ifRITE (2,510)' (2 yzxis t i c k l a b e l font 4 1

922 WRITL(2,510) '(2 yaxis t i c k l a b e l color 1 r

923 WRITE (2,510)'@ yaxis t i c k l a b e l linewidth 1 '
924 WRITE(2,510) '@ yaxis t i c k major on 1

925 WRITE (2,510)'@ yaxis t i c k n ï n o r on 1

926 WRITE(2,510)'(3 yaxis tickdefault 6 1

927 WRITE(2,510)'@ yaxis tickin 1

 ZNDLF
WRITE (2,510)'P y z x i s t i c k op both 1

WXITE (2,510)' @ -xis t i c k t - c e zut0 1

WRITE(2,510) ' @ yaxis t i c k spec O I

WRITE(2,510) ' @ z e r o x a x i ~ c i ~ kO=

4-
1

WRITE (2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s t i c k ~ . é j o r0.05 '

WRIT5 (2,SlO;' @ z e r o x a x i s t i c k d n o r 0.025 '
WRITE (2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s tick o f 5 s e î x 0 - 000000'
WRIT5(2,510) ' @ z e r o x a x i s tick o f f s e t y 0 - 0O0OOOr
WRITt (2,510)' @ zeroxaxis 1 "" 1

WRITZ (2,5101 ' @ z e r o x a x i s l z b e l l a y o u c para t

WRITS (2,SIC) ' @ z e r o x a x i s L a b e l ? l a c e auto 1

WRITE!2,510) ' @ z e r o x s x i s label char s i z e 7.000000'

WRITE (2,510)' @ zeroxaxis label fonc 4
WRZTE (2,510)' @ - . - color I
z e r o x a x i s LCool 1
l

WRITE (2,510)' @ zeroxaxis laDe1 linewidih 1 '

WRITE(2, SIC)' @ zeroxaxis t i c k l a b e l ofE l

WRITE(2,SIC)' @
WRITE (2,510)' @ _
z e r o x a x i s t i c k l o b d t y p e auto '
z e r o x z x i s L l c k l z ~ e )l r e c 2
+ '
WRISE(2,510) ' @ z e r o x a x i s ï i c k l a b e l fo,mtaï d e c i n a l '
WRITS (2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s t i c k l a b e l append " " '
XEIITZ (2,510) ' @ zeroxaxis ticklcbel prtptnd " " '
XRITE (2,510)' @ zeroxaxis z i c k l a b e l layout horizonzcl'
WZITE (2,5L0)' E zeroxzxis i i c k l a b e l SKIP O t

KRITY (2,510)' E zeroxaxis c i c k l z b e l stagger C '

WRITE (2,310)' @ z e r o x a x i s t i c k l a b e l op b o ï t o n '
WXITE(2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s c i c k l a b e l sign 20-mal '
X X T L (2,510)' @ zeroxaxis i i c k l e b s l s t a r c rype a z ï o '
WRITE(2,510)' @ z e r o x z x i s t i c k l o b o l s t a r c û, 000000 '
WRITE (2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s c i c k l a b e l s t o g type a u ï o '
-XRITE(2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s z i c k l z b e l s t o p 0-000000 '
WXITE(2,510) ' @ z e r o x a x i s ï i c k l 2 5 e l c h z r s i z e 1.000000'
w X T E (2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s i i c k l z b e l fout 4 t

WRITE(2,510) ' @ zeroxaxis t i c k l a b e l c o l o r I I

KRITE(2,SIO)' @ zeroxaxis ï i c k l z b e l linewiat5 1 '

KRITE(2,SlO)' @ z e r o x a x i s tick m a j o r o f f r
hTITE(2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s tick m i n o r on 1

WRTTE (2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s tick default G l

KRITE (2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s t i c k in I

WRITE (2,510)' @ zeroxaxis t i c k major c o l o r 1 r

WRITE ( 2 , 5 1 0 ) ' @ z e r o x a x i s t i c k n a j o r linexlath 1'
m I T E [2,510)' @ z e r o x a x i s tick ï n a j o r l i n e s t y l e I r
WRITE (2,310)' @ zeroxaxis t i c k minor c o l o r 1 1

WRITE(2,310)' @ z e r o x a x i s t i c k rninor l i n e w i b t n I r
WRITE(2,SlO) ' @ z e r o x a x i s t i c k m i n o r l i n e s t y l e 1'
 for

zeroxaxis - .
-LLCK log off 1

zeroxaxis ~ i c ks i z o 1-000000 s
ztroxzxis
zeroxaxis 5 t r oz=
--
r i c k minor s i z e 0 .5030001
I

zsroxàxis bz-r c o l o r 1 I

zeroxzxis bâr I l n e s ï y l s I r

WRITE (2,5101 zeroxaxis Szr l i 2 e w i d ï h I r

FZITE (2,5101 ze r o x a x i s cick nzjor g r i d oz r

F7RITE ( 2 , 5 1 0 1 zeroxaxis ï i c k xlnor çrF2 on 1

WRITE f 2,510 i zsroxaxis t i c k 02 5och 1

FTRITE ( 2 ,S I 0 ) zoroxôxis ï i c k c - ~ n eauco t

KRITE (2,5101 zeroxzxiç s i c k spec 0 r

WRLTE (2,510j zeroyaxis z i c k on
W X T E :2,SIG 1 zeroyaxis -.
L L C ~n ü j o r 10
r
r

WRITE (2,5101 zeroyaxis rick ninor 5 1

%RITE (2,510)' @ zeroyaxis

PiRITL (2,510)' @ zeroyaxis -tLLck
i c k o f f s e t x 0.00C000'
- o f f s z t y 0 .0003001
KRITE (2,510)' @ zerciyaxis label M W '

PIRITE ( 2 , 5 1 0 ) '(2 zeroyaxis l a b e l I r y o u c pzrz I

WRITE (2,510)' @ zeroyaxis 1&ei -Lace auco t

WRITE(2,5LO) ' @ z e r oy a x i s l c b e i chsr s i z e 1.000000'

hXITE (2,510)' @ zero y a x i s l a b e l fonz 4 l

WRITE (2,510)' @ zeroyaxis label colar 1 f

WRITE (2,SLC } ' @ zeroyaxis lobel linewidth 1 1

WRITZ!2,510) ' @ zero y a x i s cicklaDel o f f 1

w~rr~(2,sro) zeroyaxis t i c k l a b e l ryoe auto 1

WRITE ( 2 , S i O ) ' @ zeroyaxis ricklebeL p r e c I 1

WRITE (2,510)' @ zeroyaxis t F c k l e b e 7 foxma: c e c i n z l '

WRITE (2,510)' @ zeroyaxis t i c k l a b e l append "" '
WRITF(2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k l a b e l prepend " " '
WRITE [ S r 510) ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k l a b e l layout horizonzai'
WRITE(2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis iicklâbel SKI? O r

WRITE(2,510} ' @ zeroyaxis ticklabel siagger O I

WIIITSf2,5iO}' @ zeroyaxis t i c k l a b e l cp le? 1

WRITE(2,510j ' @ zeroyaxis ï i c k l a b e l sigr? no-=al I

WRITU(2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k l a b e l s t a r t t e e zuco '

WRITZ(2,5101 ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k l a b e l s t a r t 0.000C00 '
WRIT5(2,510] ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k l a b e l s t o p ïypo zcio '
WRITE (2,510)' @ zeroyaxis ï l c k i a b e l s t o p 0.000000 t

K9TE(2,SiOj ' @ zeroyaxis ï i c k l a b e l char size 1.000000'

WRITL (2,510)' @ zero y a x i s ï i c k l a b e i Eont 4 1

XRITE[2,510) ' @ z e r o yctxis cicklabel color 1 I

NRITS(2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis cicklabel linewidch I '

XRITZ(2,510} '12 zeroyaxis t i c k major o f f t

WRITZ(2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis ~ i c kminor on

A- I

WRIT2(2,510] ' @ z e r oy a x i s t i c k aefoalt 6 I

WRITE(2,570) ' @ zeroyaxis ïick ir\, t

WRïTEf2,510)' @ zeroyzxis t i c k mzjor c o l o r 1 1

KRITE(2,510) ' @ zeroyzxis tick major l i n e w i c t h 1'

XXITEi2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis Cick major l i n e s t y i e 1'
KRITE(2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k minor c o l o r I I

KRITE(2,510) ' @ z e r oy a x i s t i c k minor l i n e w i c t h 1'

FEUTE ( 2 , 5 L O ) ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k minor linestyle 1'
XRITS(2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis ï i c k log off I

FiRITE(2,SiO) ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k SFZ? 1.000000 1

hXITE(2.510) ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k minor s i z e 0.500000'

W X T E (2,510)' @ zexoyaxis bar o f f 1

WXITE(2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis bar color 1 r

WXITZ(2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis bar l i n e s t y l e I f

~ I T (2.510)
E z e r oy a x i s bar l i n e w i d t h 1 '
KRITE(2,SlO) ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k najor g r i d o n '
WRITE(2,510) ' @ zeroyaxis t i c k minor g r i d o n '
WRITE (2,510)' @ zeroyaxis t i c k op both I

WRITE (2,510)' @ zeroyaxis t i c k t y p auto 1

 1
zeroyzx2.s t i c k sgec O
Legenc off 1

1
1sgend locqpe view
Legend laycuc O ?

leqend qa? 2 1

lqend hges I 1

r
legend length 4
1
leqend box o5f
leqend b ~ x f i l 1 off 1

. .
Legenc b c x fil1 wri? c s l c r l

l q e n d D o x fil1 r o l o r 9 '
l q e n d box fil1 p a t c s r n I'
leçend Dox c a l o r I 9

-
legend Svx l i n e w L d ï k I 1

l e g e n c box 11112scy13 -
- 1

l q e n d xl 0 - 8 t

l e g e n d y1 0 . 8 1

l e g e a a font 4 1

l e g e n d chcr s i z e I - G û S 3 0 3 '
legena I l n e s t y l e 1 1

l e g e n d linexidth I 1

l-e g e n c c o l o r L 1

1
crame OR
frame t:ee O 1

--
cyme Linescyle 1 1

1
frome l i n e w i d t h 1
frame c o l o r 1 1

frme fiLi off r

f r a n e background c o l o r O '
 IMAGE EVALUATION
TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIED -
il lN14GE. lnc
= 1653 East Main Street
--.-
-- - Rochester. NY 14609 USA
---
-
--
--
-- Phone: 716/482-0300
Fax: 7161288-5989

0 1993. Applied Image. Inc. Al1 Rights Reserved