CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity
The Cultural and Convention Center
METU
Inonu bulvari
Ankara, Turkey
Sponsored by:
RTA-NATO
The Applied Vehicle Technology Panel
presented by
R.M. Kolonay Ph.D.
General Electric Corporate Research & Development Center
Ankara, Turkey Oct.. 1-5, 2001

Kolonay

Presentation Outline

CRD

Introduction
- Fluid-Structure Interactions
Aeroelasticity
- Aeroelastic analysis/design in an MDA/MDO Environment

Static Aeroelasticity
Dynamic Aeroelasticity
Commercial Programs with Aeroelastic Analysis/Design
Capabilities

Kolonay

Introduction

CRD

Fluid Structure Interaction

- Any system where the fluid and structure cannot be considered independently to

predict the response of the fluid, the structure, or both.

Some Fields of Application

Aerospace Vehicles
- Aircraft, Spacecraft, Rotorcraft, Compressors, Combustors, Turbines

Utilities
- Hydroturbines, Steamturbines, Gasturbines, Piping, Transmission Lines

Civil Structures
- Bridges, Buildings

Transportations
Trains, Automobiles, Ships

Kolonay

Introduction

CRD

Fields of Application (Continued)

Medical
- Blood flow in veins, arteries, and heart

Marine
- Submarines, Off-shore Platforms, Docks, Piers

Computer Technology
- High velocity flexible storage devices

Kolonay

CRD

Introduction

Failure to recognize F-S Interaction

Tacoma Narrows Bridge #1 (Galloping Girtie)
- Chief Designer: Leon Moisseiff
- Length: 5,939 ft.
- 42 MPH winds induced vortical separated flow that lead to torsional flutter
- Piers used in second bridge
- 1992: National Historic Site (natural reef)
- Photos taken by Leonard Coatsworth

Kolonay

CRD

Introduction
Aeroelasticity (sub-set of FS Int.)

Aeroelasticity (British Engineers Cox and Pugsley credited with term) - Substantial interaction among the aerodynamic, inertial, and structural forces that act upon and within the
flight vehicle.
Aerodynamic Forces

Static AeroElasticity

Dynamic
Stability
Dynamic
Aeroelasticity
Inertial Forces

Elastic Forces

Kolonay

Mechanical
Vibration

CRD

Introduction

Early Aeroelastic Problems

S. P. Langleys Aerodome (monoplane)
- 1/2 scale flew
- October, 1903: Full scale failed, possibly due to wing torsional divergence
- 1914 Curtis made some modification and flew successfully.

Kolonay

CRD

Introduction

After Langleys failure the U.S. War Department reported -

We are still far from the ultimate goal, and

it would seem as if years of constant work ...
would still be necessary before we can hope
to produce an apparatus of practical utility
on these lines.
9 Days Later ...

Kolonay

CRD

Introduction
December 17, 1903

Kolonay

CRD

Introduction

Early Aeroelastic Problems

Hadley Page 0/400 bomber
- Bi-plane tail flutter problems (fuselage torsion coupled with elevators)
- DH-9 had similar problems
- Solution was to add torsional stiffness between right and left elevators.

Kolonay

10

CRD

Introduction

Early Aeroelastic Problems

Fokker D-8 (credited with last official kill of WW I)
- D8 had great performance but suffered from wing failures in steep dives
- Early monoplanes had insufficient torsional stiffness resulting in:
wing flutter, wing-aileron flutter
loss of aileron effectiveness
- Solution: Increase torsional stiffness, mass balancing

Kolonay

11

CRD

Introduction
Computational Aeroelasticity

Early Theoretical Developments[1],[3].

Wing divergence - Reissner (1926)
Wing flutter - Frazer and Duncan (1929)
Aileron reversal - Cox (1932)
Unsteady aerodynamics and flutter - Glauert, Frazer, Duncan,
Kussner, Theodorsen (1935)
3 DOF wing aileron flutter - Smlig and Wasserman (1942)
By Early 1930s Analytical methods existed to aid designers to
consider both static and dynamic aeroelastic phenomena
Kolonay

12

CRD

Introduction
Computational Aeroelasticity

Designs from the 40s-70s designed out Aeroelastic Effects

Accomplished by increasing structural stiffness or mass balancing (always at weight cost)
70s & 80s brought technology developments in three key areas
Structures, Controls, and Computational Methods
- Advanced composite materials enabled aeroelastic tailoring
- Fly By Wire and Digital Control Systems enabled statically unstable aircraft
- FEM, CFD, Optimization, Computational Power enabled advanced designs.

Kolonay

13

CRD

Introduction
Aeroelastic Successes
DARPA sponsored X-29 (First flight 1984)
- Aeroelastic tailored (graphite epoxy) forward swept wing
- Fly By Wire triple redundant digital and analog control system
- Germany proposed FSW designs (He 162) in WWII

Kolonay

14

CRD

Introduction
Aeroelastic Successes
Active Aeroelastic Wing USAF/NASA (AAW)
- Use control surfaces (leading and trailing edge) as tabs to twist the wing for
maneuvers
- Use TE surfaces beyond reversal
- Produces lighter more maneuverable aircraft

Kolonay

15

Introduction

CRD

Product Structural Design in an MDA/MDO Environment

Man

tion
u
b
tri

ufac

cs
dynami

Aero

ture

St

ru

netics H
ea
tT
ra
n

Sale

ility

cs

Control

Pro

duc

ibi

lity

Co
s

ess

R
o
b
ustn

Kolonay

Reli
ab

Dy

Mag
Electo-

MDA/MDO

ance

nten

Acoustics

res

am
i

etin
k
r
a

ctu

Mai

sfe

Dis

16

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity

Goal of Computational Aeroelasticity

To accurately predict static and dynamic
response/stability so that it can be accounted
for (avoided or taken advantage of) early in
the design process.

Kolonay

17

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity
Aeroelastic Equations of Motion

Mu + Bu + Ku = F ( u, u, u, t )
K Structural Stiffness
B Structural Damping
M Structural Mass
F ( u, u, u, t ) External Aerodynamic Loads

Kolonay

18

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity
Discretization of EOM
Structures K , B, M - Typically, although not necessarily, represented by Finite Elements in either physical or generalized
coordinates. Derived in a Lagrangian frame of reference.
External Loads F ( u, u, t ) - Aerodynamic loads. Representations range from Prandtls lifting line theory to full NavierStokes with turbulence modeling. Represented in physical and
generalized coordinates in a (usually) Eulerian frame of reference.

Kolonay

19

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity
Fluid-Structural Coupling Requirements
Must ensure spatial compatibility - proper energy exchange
across the fluid-structural boundary
Time marching solutions require proper time synchronization
between fluid and structural systems
For moving CFD meshes GCL[6] must be satisfied
If coupling requirements for time-accurate aeroelastic simulation are not met then dynamical equivalence cannot be
achieved. That is, regardless of the fineness of the CFD/CSM
meshes and the reduction of time step to 0, the scheme may converge to the wrong equilibrium/instability point.[5]

Kolonay

20

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity
General Modeling Comments
Use appropriate theory to capture desired phenomena
- Fluids - Navier-Stokes vs. Prandtls lifting line theory
- Structures - Nonlinear FEM vs. Euler beam theory

Model the fluid and structure with a consistent fidelity

- For a wing dont model the fluid with NS and the structure with beam theory

Kolonay

21

CRD

Computational Aeroelasticity
Aeroelastic Phenomena

Static Aeroelastic Phenomena

Dynamic Aeroelastic Phenomena

Lift Effectiveness

Flutter

Divergence

Gust Response

Control Surface Effectiveness/Reversal

Buffet

Aileron Effectiveness/
Reversal

Panel Flutter

Limit Cycle Oscillations (LCO)

Transient Maneuvers
Control Surface Buzz

Kolonay

22

CRD

Static Aeroelasticity
Static Aeroelastic Phenomena

Lift Effectiveness
Divergence
Control Surface Effectiveness/Reversal
Aileron Effectiveness/Reversal

Kolonay

23

CRD

Static Aeroelasticity

Static Aeroelastic Effects

For trimmed flight aeroelastic effects change only load distribution.
- Lift
- Drag
- Pitching Moment
- Rolling Moment

For constrained flight (wind tunnel models) aeroelastic effects

change both magnitude and distribution of loads.

Kolonay

24

Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Useful 2-D Section Definitions

L

Shear Center/Center of Twist

MAC

Aerodynamic Center
e
Shear Center/Center of Twist - Applied Shear force results in no moment or twist
- Applied moment produces no shear force or bending
Aerodynamic Center - Pitching moment independent of angle of attack
- 0.25c for subsonic, 0.5c for supersonic
Center of Pressure - Total Aerodynamic Moment equal zero (AC=SC for symm. airfoil)
e - Eccentricity
Kolonay

25

Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Effect of Swept Wing Bending on Streamwise

Aerodynamic Incidence
wash out

wash in

A-A

A-A

Flexible Wing

Flexible Wing

Rigid Wing

Rigid Wing

U
A

ASW
Kolonay

FSW

26

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

EOM
[ K ] { u } + [ M ] { u} = { F ( u ) }

(1)

{ u} - rigid body accelerations only, used for inertial relief and trim
F ( u ) - Steady aerodynamic forces can be represented as
T
T
F ( u ) = q [ G ] [ AIC ] [ G S ] { u } + q [ G ] [ AIRFRC ] { }
or
a

F ( u ) = q [ AICS ] { u } + q [ P ] {
Now (1) can be written as

[ K q AICS ] { u } + [ M ] { u} = q [ P ] { }

(2)

For Linear Aerodynamics [AIC] & [AIRFRC] depend only on Mach Number (M)
Kolonay

27

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Steady Aerodynamic Loads

T
F ( u ) = q [ G ] T [ AIC ] [ G s ] { u } + q [ G ] [ AIRFRC ] { }

q = Free stream dynamic pressure

[G]

- Spline matrix which transforms forces from Aerodynamic DOF (ADOF) to

Structural DOF (SDOF).

{Fs} = [G] {Fa}

[ G s ] - Spline matrix which transforms SDOF (displacements) to ADOF (panel slopes)

{ a } = [ Gs ] { u }
[ AIC ] - Aerodynamic Influence Coefficient Matrix. Relates forces on ADOF (panels)

due to unit perturbations of the ADOF (slopes)

[ AIRFRC ] - Unit Rigid body aerodynamic load vectors. One vector for each i

{ } - Vector of aerodynamic configuration parameters (angle of attack, elevator angle,

aileron deflection, roll rate, pitch rate etc.)

Kolonay

28

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Aeroelastic Effects on Swept Wing Forces and

Moments
0.12

0.12

0.11
0.1

0.1

CL

0.09
0.08

Coefficient of Lift

0.08

0.07
0.06

0.06

0.05

Rigid ASW
Flex ASW
Rigid FSW
Flex FSW

0.04

0.04

0.03
0.02

0.02

0.01

0
0

-2

0
0

0.002

0.001

0
-0.01

-0.001

-0.02

-0.02
-0.03

Angle of Attack
Kolonay

Induced Drag C

Pitching Moment C M

29

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Divergence of a Constrained Vehicle
When the aerodynamic stiffness q AICS becomes greater than
the structural stiffness K , the structure fails or diverges.
The divergence dynamic pressure for a restrained vehicle can
be found by solving the eigenvalue problem (static stability)

[ K q AICS ] { u } = { 0 }

(3)

Lowest eigenvalue q D represents the divergence dynamic

pressure
The eigenvector { u D } represents the divergent shape
Divergence is independent of initial angle of attack
Kolonay

30

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Affect of Sweep on Lift Effectiveness

(M=0.7)
ASW

FSW

20
0.9

18

qD

0.8

L Eq. (20)

16
0.7

14
0.6

12
0.5

10

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1
0

2
0

Dynamic Pressure (psi)

Kolonay

10

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

Dynamic Pressure (psi)

31

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Static Aeroelastic Trim Equations

Writing equation (2) in the f-set (Reference Appendix A) yields

a
[ K ff q AICS ]u f + M ff u f = P f
or

(4)

a
a
K ff u f + M ff u f = P f
Using the procedure in Appendix A for Guyan reduction equation (4) can be cast in the aset as

a
a
K aa u a + M aa ua = P a
with
a
a
a a
= K aa K G
aa
a o
a
a
a
a 1 a
P = Pa K
K
P
a
ao oo
o
K

(5)

a T T
a T
a
M
= M aa + M G + G
M + G
M G
aa
ao o
o
oa
o
oo o
Kolonay

32

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Equation (5) can now be partitioned into the r-set and the l-set to

a
a
a
M ll M lr ul
K ll K lr u l
Pl

=
a
a
u
M rl M rr ur
Pa
K rl K rr r

l
As with the inertial relief formulation

(6)

ul = Dur where D is the rigid body transfor-

mation matrix. To produce stability derivatives that are independent of the r-set (i.e. support point) an orthogonality condition is imposed in the form

M ll M lr u l
T
D I M M u = 0
rl
rr r

Using the orthogonality condition and

(7)

ul = Dur equation (6) can be cast in the fol-

lowing form

Kolonay

33

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

a
K
ll
a
K
rl

a
K
lr
a
K
rr

a
M D+M u
ll
lr l
Pl

M D + M u r = a
rl
rr

Pr
u

T
T
r

0
D M +M
D M +M
0
ll
rl
lr
rr

(8)

Equation (8) can be solved by multiplying the first row by D and adding it to the second
row. The new second row is interchanged with the third equation to yield the following
system of equations.

a
K
ll

a
K
lr

a
M D+M u
ll
lr l
P

T
T
ur =
0
D M +M
D M +M
0
ll
rl
lr
rr

u
DT Pa + Pa
T a
T a
a
a
r

l
r
D K +K
D K +K
m
ll
rl
lr
rr
r

Kolonay

(9)

34

CRD

Where

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

T

m r = D M ll D + D M lr + M rr is defined as the rigid body mass

matrix. Using a simplifying notation equation (9) becomes

a
R 11 R 12 R 13 u l

Pl

R 21 R 22 R 23 u r =
0

R 31 R 32 R 33 ur
DT Pa + Pa
l
r

(10)

Solving the first row of equation (10) for u and substituting in the second and third rows

we obtain the trim equations in the form

K 11 K 12 u 1
P1

=
{ }
K 21 K 22 u 2
P2

(11)

with
Kolonay

35

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

1 R
K 11 = R 22 R 21 R 11
12
1 R
K 12 = R 23 R 21 R 11
13
1 R
K 21 = R 32 R 31 R 11
12
1 R
K 22 = R 33 R 31 R 11
13

(12)

1 P a
P 1 = R 21 R 11
l
1 P a
P 2 = D T P la + P ra R 31 R 11
l

u1 = ur
u 2 = ur
Solving equation (11) for

u 1 and u 2 the rigid body displacements and accelerations

respectively yields
Kolonay

36

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

1 [ P K u ]
u 1 = K 11
1
12 2

(13)

1 K ]u = [ P K K 1 P ]
[ K 22 K 21 K 11
12 2
2
21 11 1
or
[ LHSA ] { u 2 } = [ RHSA ] { }

(14)

or
[ L ] { u2 } = [ R ] { }
Equation (14) is the basic equation for static aeroelastic trim analysis. There is one equation for each rigid body degree of freedom (6 DOF trim). { u

2 } is the vector of structural

accelerations at the support point and { } is a vector of trim parameters. Partitioning

equation (14) into free or unknown (subscripts f,u) values and known or set (subscripts k,s)
values and gathering all unknown values to the left yields

Note: System can be over-specified producing trim optimization problem.

Kolonay

37

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

L ff R fu u 2 f

L kf R ku u

Potential values for

L fk R fs u 2k

L kk R ks s

u 2k and are given in equation (16)

NX - longitudinal acceleration
NY - lateral acceleration
u NZ - vertical acceleration
2
PACCEL - roll acceleration
QACCEL - pitch acceleration
RACCEL - yaw acceleration

Kolonay

(15)

BASE - reference state

ALPHA - angle of attack
BETA - yaw angle
PRATE - roll rate
QRATE - pitch rate

RRATE - yaw rate

{
}- symmetric surfaces
sym
{
}- antisymmetric surfaces
anti
{
}- asymmetric surfaces
asym

(16)

38

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Rigid Trim Equations

From equation (9) considering only rigid body accelerations and

loads yields
LHSA rigid = R 33 = m r
T a
a
RHSA rigid = P 2 = D P l + P r
and the rigid trim equations as
[ LHSA rigid ] { ur } = [ RHSA rigid ] { }

Kolonay

(17)

(18)

39

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Stability Derivatives

Using equation (14) and using an identity vector for { } and

employing the rigid body mass matrix m r forces due to unit parameter values can be determined as
1

1
1
F = m r [ K 22 K 21 K 11 K 12 ] [ P 2 K 21 K 11 P 1 ]

Kolonay

Thrust/Drag

Side Force
F

z
Lift
=

M
Roll Moment

x
Pitch Moment

M
y
Yaw Moment

M
z

(17)

(18)

40

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Stability Derivatives

Based on equation (18) non-dimensional stability derivatives are

Surface Parameters Rate Parameters
F
F
x
x
C = --------C = -----D
D
qSc
qS
F
F
y
y
C
=
-------C = -----S
S
qSb
qS
F
F
z
z
C = --------C = -----L
L
qSc
qS
M
M
x
x
C = -----------C = --------l
l
2
qSb
qSb
M
M
y
y
C = --------C = -----------m
m
qSc
2
qSc
M
z
M
C = --------z
y
C = -----------qSb
y
2
qSb

(19)

Note: These are unrestrained stability derivatives (free-free)

Kolonay

41

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Example Stability Derivatives for

From equations (14) and (17)

F
F
F

x
y

z
M
x
M
y
M
z

= 0

= 1.0

= 0

1
=
0
[
m
]
[
LHSA
]
[
RHSA
]
=
PRATE

QRATE = 0

= 0
RRATE

{}

=
0

surface

(20)

Yielding C D , C S , C L , C l , C M etc.

Kolonay

42

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Stability Derivative Types
There are four varieties of flexible stability derivatives
- Unrestrained (orthogonality and inertia relief included)
- Restrained (orthogonality, no inertial relief)
- Supported (no orthogonality, but inertial relief)
- Fixed (no orthogonality, no inertial relief)

For wind tunnel comparison use either Restrained or Fixed

Make sure you know which type of stability derivatives a given

program produces

Kolonay

43

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Lift Trim Analysis
For straight and level flight i.e. { u 2 } = NZ equation (14)
produces a single equation with one free parameter (say )
LHSA NZ = RHSA
( LHSA NZ )
= ---------------------------------RHSA
or in terms of stability derivatives
m r NZ = qSC L

( m r NZ )
= -------------------------qSC L

Kolonay

44

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Aeroelastic and Rigid Trimmed Pressures
( M = 0.7, q = 5.04 psi, nz = 1g )

Aeroelastic Trim ( = 2.61 ) Eq. (14)

Kolonay

Rigid Trim ( = 1.29 ) Eq. (18)

45

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Rigid and Aeroelastic Trim Pressures vs. Span

( M = 0.7, q = 5.04 psi, nz = 1g )
2.5

Rigid Trim 0% chord

Rigid Trim 50% chord
Aeroelastic Trim 0% chord 0% span
Aeroelastic Trim 50% chord

Pressure (psi)

1.5

0.5

Kolonay

0.25

0.5

0.75

Non-Dimensional Semi-Span

1
46

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Spanwise Twist Due to Swept Wing Deformations

( M = 0.7, q = 5.04 psi, nz = 1g )

Relative Twist Angle (deg.)

0.25

0.5

0.75

-1

-2

-3

Flex Trim
Rigid Trim
Rigid

-4

% Semi-Span
Kolonay

47

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Swept Wing Aeroelastic Effects on Trimmed Displacements

max z-disp. = 5.4 in.

Aeroelastic Trimmed Displacements

Kolonay

max z-disp. = 11.4 in.

Rigid Trimmed Displacements

48

CRD

Static Aeroelasticity
Control Surface Effects

Incremental Lift
Incremental Moment

Kolonay

49

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Roll Trim Analysis (wing with aileron)

Steady state roll (PACCEL = 0) for given (aileron deflection)

LHSA

44

PACCEL = RHSA

+ RHSA PRATE
43
44
RHSA
43
PRATE = ------------------------------RHSA
44

or in stability derivative form

qSb C + C
PRATE = I
PACCEL
l
l pb
roll
------2V
for steady roll and a given
C
l
PRATE = ------------C
l pb
------2V
Kolonay

50

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Roll Rate vs. Dynamic Pressure for

= 1.0

Roll Rate (deg/sec)

70

Rigid TECS ASW

Flex TECS ASW
Rigid TECS FSW
Flex TECS FSW
Rigid LECS ASW
Flex LECS ASW
Rigid LECS FSW

50

30

Flex LECS FSW

10
0

0.5

1.5

-10

qR ASW_TE
-30

qR FSW_TE

-50

Dynamic Pressure (psi)

Kolonay

51

Static Aeroelasticity

CRD

Aileron Effectiveness
Dynamic Pressure (psi)
0

0.5

1.5

0.15

( Cl )

------------------------ Cl f
pb
----- 2V

vs. V
vs. q

Reversal V

0.1

0.05

-0.05

Reversal q

-0.1
0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Velocity (in/sec)
Kolonay

52

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Aeroelastic Effects on Roll Rate Pressures

q = 0.28 (psi)

0.012
0.010
0.009
0.007
0.006
0.004
0.002
0.001
-0.001
-0.002
-0.004
-0.006
-0.007
-0.009
-0.010

qrigid = 27 (deg/sec)

q = 0.78 (psi)

0.032
0.028
0.024
0.020
0.015
0.011
0.007
0.003
-0.001
-0.005
-0.010
-0.014
-0.018
-0.022
-0.026

qrigid = 46 (deg/sec)

q = 1.5 (psi)
p
0.052
0.046
0.039
0.033
0.026
0.019
0.013
0.006
0.000
-0.007
-0.014
-0.020
-0.027
-0.033
-0.040

qrigid = 59 (deg/sec)

M=0.7
qrigid = 16 (deg/sec)

Kolonay

qrigid = 0 (deg/sec)

qrigid = -28 (deg/sec)

53

CRD

Linear Static Aeroelasticity

Rolling Wing Deformations
M = 0.7, q = 1.5 psi

Kolonay

54

CRD

References

1. Bisplinghoff, Ashley and Halfman Aeroelasticity, Dover Publications, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, Inc., 1995.
2. Weisshaar, Fundamentals of Static and Dynamic Aeroelasticity, Purdue University
School of Aeronautics and Astronautics, West Lafayette, IN 1992.
3. Smilg, B. and Wasserman, L. S., Application of Three Dimensional Flutter Theory to
Aircraft Structures, USAAF TR 4798, 1942.
4. Neill, D.J., Herendeen, D.L., Venkayya, V.B., ASTROS Enhancements, Vol IIIASTROS Theoretical Manual, WL-TR-95-3006.
5. Bendiksen, Oddvar O., Fluid-Structure Coupling Requirements for Time-Accurate
Aeroelastic Simulations, AD-Vol.53-3, Fluid-Structure Interaction, Aeroelasticity, FlowInduced Vibration and Noise, Volume III ASME, 1997.
6. Farhat, C., Special course on Parallel Computing in CFD, AGARD-R807, October
1995.
7. MacNeal, R. H., The NASTRAN Theoretical Manual, NASA-SP-221(01), April,
1971.
8. I.E. Garrick and W.H. Reed, III Historical Development of Aircraft Flutter, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 18, No. 11, November 1981.

Kolonay

55

CRD

References

9. Grumman Aerospace Corporation, An Automated Procedure for Flutter and Strength

Analysis and Optimization of Aerospace Vehicles Volume I. Theory and Application,,
AFFDL-TR-75-137.
10. Hassig, H.J., An Approximate True Damping Solution of the Flutter Equation by
Determinant Iteration, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 8, No. 11, November 1971, pp. 885-889.
11. Neill, D.J., MSC/Flight Loads and Dynamics Training,, The MacNeal-Schwendler
Corporation, 815 Colorado Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA, August 1999.

Kolonay

56