Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-v5vhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-02T13:12:14.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Low frequency behaviour of the subsonic doublet lattice method

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

L. van Zyl
L. van Zyl*
Affiliation:
Defencetek, Pretoria, South Africa
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The results of the subsonic doublet lattice method (DLM), i.e. generalised unsteady aerodynamic forces (GAFs) at a set of reduced frequencies, are often used as input to the solution of the flutter equation. Solutions of the flutter equation are usually required at many more reduced frequencies than GAFs are calculated for by the DLM and some form of interpolation is therefore required. In the p-k formulation of Rodden, Harder and Bellinger, the imaginary part of the GAFs appear as QI/k, i.e. the imaginary part of the GAFs divided by the reduced frequency. In the case of real (i.e. non-oscillatory) roots of the flutter equation, the solution is determined entirely by the steady GAFs and the limiting value of QI/k at zero frequency. This is also true of the g-method of flutter solution as the two formulations are equivalent at k = 0. Expressions are derived for calculating the limiting values of QI/k directly from the DLM, thereby making the real roots independent of the interpolation of the GAFs. The exact way in which the low frequency DLM results are interpolated has a small effect on the interpolation quality in the case of the p-k flutter equation, whereas it has a significant qualitative effect on the results of the g-method of flutter solution of Chen.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 109 , Issue 1096 , June 2005 , pp. 285 - 291
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2005 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Hassig, H.J.. An approximate true damping solution of the flutter equation by determinant iteration, J Aircr, 1971, 8, (11), pp 885–889.Google Scholar
2. Rodden, W.P., Harder, R.L. and Bellinger, E.D.. Aeroelastic addition to NASTRAN, 1979, NASA CR 3094.Google Scholar
3. Chen, P.C.. A damping perturbation method for flutter solution: the g-method, Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, 1999, Part 1, NASA/CP-1999-209136/PT 1, Hamptom, VA, pp 433–441.Google Scholar
4. Rodden, W.P., Giesing, J.P. and Kalman, T.P.. New developments and applications of the subsonic doublet-lattice method for nonplanar configurations, 1971, AGARD Conference Proceedings, CP-80–71, Part II, No 4.Google Scholar
5. Rodden, W.P., Taylor, P.F. and McIntosh, S.C.. Further refinement of the nonplanar aspects of the subsonic doublet-lattice lifting surface method, 1996, ICAS Conference Proceedings, Paper 96-2.8.2.Google Scholar
6. Rodden, W.P. and Johnson, E.H., MSC/NASTRAN Version 68 Aeroelastic Analysis User’s Guide, March 1994, MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation.Google Scholar
7. Edwards, J.W. and Wieseman, C.D.. Flutter and divergence analysis using the generalised aeroelastic analysis method, 2003 Paper presented at the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics 2003, Amsterdam, The Netherlands.Google Scholar
8. Desmarais, R.N.. An accurate and efficient method for evaluating the kernel of the integral equation relating pressure to normalwash in unsteady flow, ??date??, AIAA 82-0687.Google Scholar
9. Bisplinghoff, R.L., Ashley, H. and Halfman, R.L., Aeroelasticity, 1955, Addison-Wesley Publishing Co.Google Scholar
10. Dykman, J.R. and Rodden, W.P.. Structural dynamics and quasistatic aeroelastic equations of motion, J Aircr, 2000, 37, (3), pp 538–542.Google Scholar