Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T09:59:48.761Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimisation of composite wind-tunnel wing models for frequency, flutter and divergence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 July 2016

J.M. Taylor ,
R. Butler  and
C. Harrison
J.M. Taylor
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Bath, UK
R. Butler
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Bath, UK
C. Harrison
Affiliation:
Department of Mechanical EngineeringUniversity of Bath, UK
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A comparison has been made between the composite beam designs produced by minimum mass optimisation using two different sets of constraints. The first approach constrained the design to have a given separation between fundamental bending and fundamental torsional natural frequencies; the second constrained the design to have a given flutter and divergence speed. The beams are modelled as a series of elements, stepped in thickness at discrete nodes, with the Dynamic Stiffness Method being used for calculation of their natural frequencies. The aeroelastic constraints are obtained from the Fortran program CALFUN. The results show that for similar flutter and divergence speeds, the optima produced using aeroelastic constraints have a slightly lower mass (up to 4% lower) and a less ‘hard’ flutter onset. However, the time taken to produce these optima is significantly longer (in excess of 2 orders of magnitude). A preliminary study discusses the merits of a combined optimisation method where frequency constrained optimisation is used to provide a near-optimum starting point for flutter and divergence constrained optimisation. In addition, a wind-tunnel model of one of the optima has been manufactured and subject to both modal analysis and wind-tunnel tests to validate the flutter speed calculations. This shows that when using strip theory, CALFUN predicts a conservative value of flutter speed for this design. Further investigation has shown CALFUN's lifting surface theory to be more accurate for low aspect ratio models.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 103 , Issue 1020 , February 1999 , pp. 105 - 112
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 1999 

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. Shirk, M.N., Hertz, T.J. and Weisshaar, T.A. Aeroelastic tailoring — theory, practice and promise, J Aircr, 1986, 23, (1), pp 6–18.Google Scholar
2. Weisshaar, T.A. and Foist, B.L. Vibration tailoring of advanced composite lifting surfaces, J Aircr, 1985, 22, pp 254–269.Google Scholar
3 Hollowell, S.J. and Dugundji, J. Aeroelastic flutter and divergence of stiffness coupled, graphite/epoxy cantilevered plates, J Aircr, 1984, 21, (1), pp 69–76.Google Scholar
4 Georghiades, G.A., Guo, S.J. and Banerjee, J.R. Flutter analysis of composite wings using an exact dynamic stiffness matrix method, 36th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, New Orleans, 1995, pp 3019–3027.Google Scholar
5 Meirovitch, L. and Seitz, T.L. Structural modelling for optimisation of low aspect ratio composite wings, J Aircr, 1995, 32, (5), pp 1114–1123.Google Scholar
6 Georghiades, G.A. and Banerjee, J.R. Flutter prediction for composite wings using parametric studies, AIAA J, 1997, 35, (4), pp 746–748.Google Scholar
7 Butler, R. and Banerjee, J.R. Optimum design of bending-torsion coupled beams with frequency or aeroelastic constraints, Computers and Structures, 1996, 60, (5), pp 715–724.Google Scholar
8 Taylor, J.M. and Butler, R. Optimum design and validation of flat composite beams subject to frequency constraints, AIAA J, 1997, 35, (3), pp 540–545.Google Scholar
9 Butler, R., Lillico, M., Banerjee, J.R. and Guo, S. Optimum Design of High Aspect Ratio Wings subject to Aeroelastic Constraints, 36th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, New Orleans, 1995, pp 558–566.Google Scholar
10 Tsai, W.S. and Hahn, T.H. Introduction to Composite Materials. Technomic Publishing Company, Westport, 1980.Google Scholar
11 Datoo, H.M. Mechanics of Fibrous Composites, Elsevier Applied Science, Essex, England, 1991.Google Scholar
12 Banerjee, J.R. and Williams, F.W. Exact dynamic stiffness matrix for composite timoshenko beams with applications, J Sound and Vibration, 1996, 194, (4), pp 573–585.Google Scholar
13 Banerjee, J.R. Use and Capability of CALFUN - A Program for Calculation of Flutter Speed using Normal Modes, Proceedings of the International ASME Conference on Modelling and Simulation, Athens, Greece, 1984, pp 0121–131.Google Scholar
14 Dowell, E.H., Curtis, H.C., Scanlan, R.H. and Sisto, F. A Modern Course in Aeroelasticity. Sijthoff and Noordhoff, Netherlands, 1980.Google Scholar
15 VMA ENGINEERING, DOT Design Optimisation Tools User Manual, Goleta, CA, 1993.Google Scholar
16 Ewins, D.J. Modal Testing: Theory and Practice. Research Studies Press, Taunton, England, January 1995.Google Scholar
17 Davies, D.E. Theoretical determination of subsonic oscillatory air-force coefficients, Aeronautical Research Council, R&M 3804, 1976.Google Scholar
18 Theodorsen, T. General Theory of instability and mechanisms of flutter, NACA Tech Report 496, 1934.Google Scholar