2001-96

Comparison of Two Static Aeroelastic Divergence

Methods in MSC.Nastran
Zhiqiang Wan, Chao Yang
Aeroelasticity Research Branch
Aircraft Design Institute
(P.O.Box: 509)
Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
37, Xue Yuan Road., Hai Dian District
Beijing, 100083, P.R.China
(E-mail: strong_hawk@sina.com)

Abstract

There are two methods to calculate static aeroelastic divergence in engineering , i.e. the
static method and the dynamic method. There is the flexibility method in the static
method, while there are the mode method and flutter method in the dynamic method. In
this paper the two methods to calculate divergence are introduced. In MSC.Nastran only
the flexibility method and the flutter method are offered; the flutter method is the mode
method in essence, which is an approximate method to calculate divergence speeds by
working out the flutter equation. In the paper, five divergence speeds of five plate wings
are calculated by using two kinds of methods offered by MSC.Nastran, the coherence of
the two kinds of methods in some conditions is obtained and the view to select the
number of the structure mode is produced by comparing and analyzing the calculating
results and the experiment results.
Key words the static aeroelastic divergence, the flexibility method, the mode method,
the flutter method

I. Introduction
1
There are two methods to calculate the static aeroelastic divergence in engineering , i.e. the static
method and the dynamic method. The flexibility method is also called the static method, and there
are the mode method and the flutter method in the dynamic method. Finally, it can be concluded
obviously that both methods can offer very satisfying results, by comparing a great numbers of
calculating result with the experience results. Using the flexibility method to calculate divergence is
recommended by engineers, nevertheless, the results calculated by the dynamic method are always
doubled. Compared with the static method, there are many advantages in using the dynamic method
because a structural flexibility matrix with very high dimension must been offered when the static
method is used, and the dimension of the matrix is the same as the number of nodes. In order to work
out the divergence matrix, not only must the eigenvalues of the matrix with high dimension be
worked out, but also fin ishing the calculation will spend much computer time. On the other hand,
only the first several orders of structural modes need to be offered when the dynamic method is used,
so the speed of calculation will be improved definitely. At the same time, the speed of divergence
can be direct worked out by using the flutter equation to calculate the flutter speed when the flutter
method is used. The flutter method is useful for calculation and analysis, nevertheless, the selected
number of the orders of the structural modes must be thought over and over because the selection
will direct affect the precision of the results. Only two kinds of method to calculate divergence are
offered in MSC.Nastran, one is the flexibility method, the other is the flutter method. In the paper
three methods to calculate divergence are introduced, the coherence of these method in some
condition is obtained, and the view to select the number of the orders of the structural modes is
produced by comparing and analyzing the calculating results and the experiment results.

1
 II. Divergence Equation of the Static Method
The equation of the static method to calculate and analyze divergence can be written as 2.3. 4
1
{[Tcszz ][C zz ][T AS ]T [ A ][Tccθz ] − [ I ]}{uc } = 0 (1)
qD
Where {uc } is the displacement vector of the grid control point; [Tcszz ] is the transformation
matrix to interpolate {u S } to {u c } , in which {u S } is the displacement vector of the stru ctural nodes
(abbreviated as nodes); [C zz ] is the structural flexibility matrix based on nodes, in which Cijzz
T
means the displacement on the node “j” when adding an unit force on the node “i”; [T AS ] is the
transpose of the transformation matrix to interpolate {u S } to {u A } , in which {u A } is the deformation
vector of the grid pressure point; [ A ] is the steady aerodynamic influence coefficient matrix;
[Tccθz ] is the transformation matrix to interpolate {uc } to {θ } , in which {θ } is the angle deformation
vector of the grid control point, and the angle relatives to flow direction; q D is the divergence
dynamic pressure; [I ] is an identity matrix.
Working out Eq.(1), and in which finding out the largest eigenvalue of
[Tcszz ][C zz ][T AS ]T [ A ][Tccθz ] , then the inverse of the eigenvalue is the lowest divergence dynamic
pressure, so the smallest divergence speed can be written as follow
2q D
VD = (2)
ρ
where ρ is the local atmosphere density.

III. Divergence Equation of the Dynamic Method

There are two kinds of method to calculate divergence in the dynamic method, i.e. the mode
method and the flutter method.
3.5
The equations of the flutter method to calculate and analysis divergence can be written as
{[ \ K \ ] − q D [ As ]}{q} = 0 (3)
\
where [ K \ ] is the generalized stiffn ess matrix, generally, which is a diagonal matrix; [ As ] is the
generalized steady aerodynamic influence coefficient matrix; {q} is the generalized coordinate
matrix.
In order to use the flutter equation to calculate divergence (in fact, it is the flutter method), a small
reduced frequency, k , must be supposed when resolving the flutter equation. If there is a mode
curve through the zero damp line in V-g figure, the divergence takes place, and the corresponding
4
flutter speed is the divergence speed . MSC.Nastran only offers the flexibility method and the flutter
method, but without the mode method.
6
As the flutter equation, the equation of the flutter method is
1
[ M ]{q&&} + (1 + ig )[ \ K \ ]{q} − ρV 2 [ Au ]{q} = 0
2
1
[ M ]{q&&} + (1 + ig )[ \ K \ ]{q} − ρV 2 [ Au ]{q} = 0 (4)
2
kV
{q&&} = −ϖ 2 {q} = −( ) 2 {q} (5)
b0
if Eq. (5) is substituted into Eq. (4), then the following equation can result
kV 2 1
−( ) [ M ]{q} + (1 + ig )[ \ K \ ]{q} − ρV 2 [ Au ]{q} = 0 (6)
b0 2

2
where V is the flow speed, g is the structural damp, b0 is the reference chord, [ M ] is the
generalized mass matrix, [ Au ] is the generalized unsteady aerodynamic coefficient matrix.
There are the following relationship between the generalized unsteady aerodynamic coefficient
matrix and the generalized steady aerodynamic coefficient matrix
[ Au ] = [ As ] + [ Ak ]
[ Au ] = [ As ] + [ Ak ] (7)
where [ Ak ] is the term associated with the reduced frequency in the unsteady aerodynamic
coefficient matrix, which can be omitted when the reduced frequency trends to zero because the
value of which is very small.
If there is a damp curve through the zero drag line in V-g figure, then g = 0 , and the first term of
Eq.(6) can be omitted if k is very small. If so, the flutter Eq.(6) is transformed to the Eq.(3) of the
mode method, and the result can be attained that the flutter method is the same as the mode method
in essence. The detailed solution of the flutter equations can be found in Refs. 3 and 6.

IV. Coherence of the static method

and the dynamic method

In order to show the coherence of the static method and the dynamic method, the only thing needs
to be done is to prove the coherence of the flexibility method and the mode method.
Eq. (1) may be written as follow
q D [Tcszz ][C zz ][T AS ]T [ A ][Tccθz ]{uc } = {uc }
When the above equation is multiplied by [Tsczz ] in the left of each side, the resulting set of equation
is then
q D [C zz ][TAS ]T [ A ][Tccθz ]{u c } = [Tsczz ]{u c } (8)
zz
where [T ] is the transformation matrix to interpolate {uc } to {u S } .
sc
Because of the relationship of
[Tccθz ]{u c } = {θ } = [Tcsθ z ]{u s }
and
{u s } = [Tsczz ]{u c }
Eq.(8) can be transformed to
q D [C zz ][T AS ]T [ A ][Tcsθz ]{u s } = {u s }
otherwise
[ K zz ] = [C zz ]−1
and
{u s } = [ f s ]{q}
zz
in which [ K ] is the stiffness matrix based on nodes, and [ f s ] is the vector of the structural
modes, in which f sij means the value of the j th order of mode of the i th node, so then
q D [T AS ]T [ A ][Tcsθz ][ f s ]{q} = [K zz ][ f s ]{q} (9)
T
When Eq.(9) is multiplied by [ f s ] in the left of each side, then
∂f c
q D [ f A ]T [ A ][ ]{q} = [ f s ]T [ K zz ][ f s ]{q} (10)
∂x
Based on the definitions of the generalized steady aerodynamic matrix and the generalized stiffness
matrix:
∂f c
[ As ] = [ f A ]T [ A ][ ]
∂x
and

3
 [ \ K \ ] = [ f s ]T [K zz ][ f s ]
∂f c
in which, [ f A ] is the mode matrix of the grid pressure point, [ ] is the derivative matrix of the
∂x
grid control point modes to the coordinate in chord orientation, Eq. (10) can be written as
q D [ As ]{q} =[ \ K \ ]{q} (11)
In fact, Eq. (11) is another form of the equation of the mode method. So, the flexibility method and
the mode method are coherent in theory, they can be transformed each other. With the former result
of the coherence of the mode method and the flutter method, the coherence in theory of the static
method and the dynamic method result.
Based the former describe, the following result can be found out:
1) The result of the flutter method or the mode method is the same as the flexibility method, if all
orders are selected.
2) The coherence of these two methods is based on the relationship of the
equation {u s } = [ f s ]{q} , in fact, the equivalency of the equation can be satisfied if the first
several orders of mode are used, so the satisfied result can be attained by using the only first
several orders of modes.
3) The excellent result with high precision can be gotten if only the selected modes can describe
the torsional character of wing model.
4) The mode method or the flutter method is recommended when calculating and analysis
divergence, because the mode method and the flutter method have the character of low order in
the divergence equations and little time in calculation.
5) As the former analysis in theory, the static method is the dynamic method in essence, but the
selection of the number of order of modes will affect the precision of the calculating result
when the dynamic method is used.

V. Influence of the order selection on

calculation using the dynamic method

Previous analysis demonstrates that the dynamic method and the static method have the same
essence. But the selection of the number of order of modes has very important influence on the
accuracy and precision of the results. The relationship between the eigenvectors in the static
method , {u c } , and eigenvectors in the dynamic method, {q} , is describe as follow
{uc } = λ [ f c ]{q} (12)
where [ f c ] is the mode matrix of the control points, λ is the scale constraint. Considering the
influence of the numerical error, Eq. (12) can be reformulated as follow
{uc } =[ \ λ \ ][ f c ]{q} (13)
where [ \ λ \ ] is the diagonal matrix of the scale constant, and the diagonal elements of [ \ λ \ ] should
be nearly equal.
In theory, with adequate number of order of modes, the following terms should be convergence:
the divergence speed calculating by the mode method and the flutter method, the stability estimation
fact , σ . In fact σ can be found in the following equation
n

∑ (λ
i =1
ii − λ )2
σ = (14)
nλ
where λii is the element of the ith row and the ith column in [ λ\ ] , λ is the expectation of all
\

diagonal elements of [ \ λ\ ] , n is the dimension of [ \ λ\ ] . Because MSC.Nastran cannot provide the

eigenvectors associated with the divergence eigenvalues, the validat ion of the convergence of the
stability estimation fact is not performed. In the paper, some examples are provided to validate the
consistency of two kinds of method to predict the divergence speed and to demonstrate the principle

4
to select the number of order of modes.
The divergence speeds calculated by the static method and the flutter method in MSC.Nastran were
performed for five models (Fig.1), which are noted as A, B, C, D, and E. The results were compared
with the wind tunnel test results. The detailed description is as follows.
Model A: a composite plate model, [( 45) 2 ,0] s , 0o ply orientation, 30o forward swept angle,
0.32m span along the mid chord, 0.8m width. The wing tip and root is unparallel. The leading and
tailing shapes of wing t ip are right angle.
o o
Model B: a composite plate model, [(30 ) 2 ,0 ]s , 0 ply orientation, 30 forward swept angle, 0.32m
span along the mid chord, 0.8m width. The wing tip and root is unparallel. The leading and tailing
shapes of wing tip are right angle.
Model C: an aluminum plate model, 30o forward swept angle, 0.32m span along the mid chord,
0.8m width. The wing tip and root is parallel.
o o
Model D: a composite plate model, [(30) 2 ,0]s , 0 ply orientation, 40 forward swept angle, 0.32m
span along the mid chord, 0.8m width. The wing tip and root is unparallel. The leading and tailing
shapes of wing tip are right angle.
o
Model E: a aluminium plane model, 0 forward swept angle, 0.32m span along mid chord, 0.8m
width. The wing tip and root is parallel.
Each layer of models A, B and D has the same thickness 0.13mm, the material properties of each
layer is as follows: E1= 90.3GPa , E 2= 5.92GPa , G12= 4.39GPa , γ= 0 .28 ,
ρ= 1550 k g / m 3 .
The thickness of model C is 0.56m, of which the material properties is as follows:
E= 62.472GPa , G= 23.875 GPa , γ= 0.30833 , ρ= 2700 kg / m 3 .
The thickness of model E is 0.45mm , of which the material properties is as follows:
E= 72.0GPa , G= 27.0GPa , γ = 0 .333 , ρ= 2700 k g / m 3 .
The numerical calculation results and the test results are written in Tab.1.
As show in tab.1, when using more than 3 orders of modes in the flutter method to predicted
divergence speed, the results begin to be convergence because 3 orders of modes can demonstrate
the primary vibration performance of wing. The static method and the flutter method are valid and
consistent with wind tunnel test. In fact, even though both the flexibility method and the flutter
method are coherent in theory, there is something different between the results of the static method
and the flutter method because of the interpolation error.

VI. Conclusion

From the above comparison and analysis, the following conclusions can be found.
1) The Static method and the dynamic method are consistent in theory and numerical analysis, and
both can provide satisfy ing results.
2) The order selection of modes in the dynamic method has important influence on the accuracy
and precision of results. For plane wing model, only using 3 orders of modes can provide the same
accurate result as the static method.
3) The consistence of calculating results and wind tunnel tes t result shows that MSC.Nastran is
validated.

Reference
1
Guibin, chen, “Earlier Study of Aeroelastic Tailoring of Composite Forward Swept Wing,”
Aeroelasticity Research Branch in BUAA , 1994.
2
Shuquan, Lu., “Aeroelasticity Textbook,” NUAA, 1991.
3
De, Guan., “Aeroelasticity Manual,” Aeronautic Industry Publishing House, 1994.
4
William P. Rodden and Erwin H. Johnson., “MSC.Nastran Aeroelastic Analysis User’s Guide
V68,” 1994.
5
Gang, Zheng,. “Static Aeroelasticity Analysis Using the Mode M ethod,” HJB951366,1995.
6
Zhiqiang, Wan,. “Theory Manual of the Flutter Analysis Software FLUTTER,” A eroelasticity
Research Branch in BUAA , 1999.

5
 Tab.1: Comparison between the experiment results and the calculating results
using the flexibility method and the flutter method
( k = 0.001 , v d is the divergence speed )

Model A Model B Model C Model D Model E

v d (m/s) v d (m/s) v d (m/s) v d (m/s) v d (m/s)
The experiment results 17.57 No Divergence 12.70 22.18 Hasn’t done
The Static method 17.12 No Divergence 13.80 22.89 21.64
Using 1 order of modes 19.89 No Divergence 14.73 26.34 No Divergence
Using 2 orders of modes 20.09 No Divergence 14.78 26.43 No Divergence
Using 3 orders of modes 17.08 No Divergence 13.70 23.26 22.89
The flutter method

Using 4 orders of modes 17.06 No Divergence 13.70 23.10 22.69

Using 5 orders of modes 17.08 No Divergence 13.70 23.12 22.68
Using 6 orders of modes 17.08 No Divergence 13.70 23.12 22.67
Using 7 orders of modes 17.09 No Divergence 13.70 23.13 22.67
Using 8 orders of modes 17.08 No Divergence 13.70 23.12 22.66
Using 9 orders of modes 17.09 No Divergence 13.70 23.13 22.83
Using 10 orders of modes 17.07 No Divergence 13.70 23.15 22.51

Third mode Second mode Third mode Second mode Third mode Second mode

A B C

6
 Third mode Second mode Second mode Third mode

D E

Fig.1 The shape and the node lines of the five models