Hindawi

Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Volume 2021, Article ID 6683032, 14 pages
https://doi.org/10.1155/2021/6683032

Research Article
Effect of Stiffness on Flutter of Composite Wings with High
Aspect Ratio

Shengjun Qiao ,1 Jin Jiao ,1 Yingge Ni ,1 Han Chen ,2 and Xing Liu 1

1
School of Aircraft Engineering, Xi’an Aeronautical University, Xi’an 710077, China
2
Department of Engineering Mechanics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710129, China

Correspondence should be addressed to Shengjun Qiao; [email protected]

Received 7 December 2020; Revised 2 April 2021; Accepted 8 May 2021; Published 19 May 2021

Academic Editor: Jonathan Mayo Maldonado

Copyright © 2021 Shengjun Qiao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,
which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
High aspect ratio wing (HARW) structures will deform greatly under aerodynamic loads, and changes in the stiffness will have a
great impact on the flutter characteristics of such wings. Based on this, this paper presents an effective method to determine the
effect of the stiffness on the flutter characteristics of HARWs. Based on the calculation theory of the mechanical profile of thin-
walled structures, the torsional stiffness and bending stiffness of the wing are obtained through calculation. We use the fluid-
structure coupling method to analyze the flutter characteristics of the wing, and we use our research results based on the
corotational (CR) method to perform structural calculations. The load is calculated using a computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
solver. The results show that, compared with the original wing, when the bending stiffness and torsional stiffness of the wing along
the spanwise direction increase by 8.28% and 5.22%, respectively, the amplitude of the flutter decreases by approximately 30%.
Increasing the stiffness in the range of 0.4 to 0.6 Mach has a greater impact on the flutter critical velocity, which increases by
12.03%. The greater the aircraft’s flight speed is, the more severe the stiffness affects the wing limit cycle oscillation
(LCO) amplitude.

1. Introduction to calculate the wing cross-sectional stiffness center [3–6],

which is efficient and useful in engineering designs. Others
The effect of stiffness needs to be factored into the design of a have studied the effect of the position of the elastic axis on
high aspect ratio wing (HARW). The flutter of the wing is aerodynamics [7]. Based on the optimization design, a blade
severely restricted by the bending and torsional stiffness of cross-sectional internal layout for helicopters was designed
the wing’s cross section. Through a large number of analyses to maximize the static twist actuation while satisfying the
and experimental results on a two-dimensional airfoil, it has locations of the center of the elastic axis [8, 9]. The effect of
been shown that if the torsional and bending stiffnesses of the elastic axis was investigated, with the elastic axis close to
the wing are simultaneously increased by n times, the flutter the airfoil midpoint, and the pitch amplitude increases
critical
√� velocity of the wing will be accordingly increased by slightly, while the plunge amplitude fluctuates with an ex-
n times [1]. Researchers both domestically and abroad tremum [10].
have done little research on the effect of stiffness on the In terms of flutter calculations, many use nonlinear
aeroelasticity of the wing and have not conducted any computational structure dynamics (CSD) solvers to perform
systematic research. G. Ortiz-Torres et al. [2] carried out the structural calculations, and Dang [11] used the loose
systematic research on the safety of the vertical take-off and coupling computational fluid dynamics (CFD)/CSD method
landing UAV systems. to analyze the static aeroelastic characteristics of wings with
In current stiffness computations, many researchers first an HARW. The research results show that the effect of
simplify the model using the related theory of thin-walled geometric nonlinearity on such wings cannot be ignored.
structural mechanics and then program the simplified model Similarly, taking the HARW as the research object and using
2 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

the loose coupling CFD/CSD method, Wang et al. [12] sectional rigidity, the cross-sectional area and material
established an efficient model for the analysis of aeroelastic needed to be equivalent, as shown in [3].
characteristics. Demasi et al. [13] established an unsteady In the stiffness calculation process, to facilitate pro-
aerodynamic model in the frequency domain and combined gramming, we used equivalent methods to process the area
the updated Lagrange (UL) method to conduct aeroelastic and material of the cross section of the wing according to the
coupling research on composite thin-walled structures. force characteristics of the structure. We equated the cross-
Some researchers have taken the delta wing as the research sectional area of the spar flange and the stringer to the
object, using the large-deformation structure model and the concentrated area and equated the materials of different
linear fluid model to conduct limit cycle oscillation (LCO) structures to the same material. Then, the moment of inertia,
phenomenon research [14–16]. Based on the structural the static distance, and the rigidity coordinates of the
dynamics equations and Navier-Stokes (N-S) equations, equivalent cross section were sequentially calculated. Finally,
Yang et al. [17] developed a fluid-structure coupling solver the stiffness calculation was performed according to the
whose purpose is to study the effect of aerodynamics be- bending and torsional stiffness calculation formulas. The
tween the structure and the aerodynamic model. Fairuz et al. simplified cross section of the wing is shown in Figure 1.
[18] used a mesh-based parallel code coupling interface According to coordinate transfer theory, stiffness center
(MPCCI) as the coupling platform and the CFD and CSD computation is conducted in the inertia axis. We define an
solvers that came with the platform to study the effect of the inertial coordinate system for the simplified wing cross
interaction between the fluid and structure on the flap wing section, in which the wing chord length direction is defined
deformation. Based on the same time step and combined as the y-axis, and the wing thickness direction is defined as
with the nonlinear finite element method, some researchers the z-axis. Thus, the inertia moment of the wing cross section
have developed an aeroelastic coupling calculation program to the inertia axis can be obtained [3].
[19]. Some researchers have introduced a coupling method
to predict the response of a three-dimensional wing. This Jy � 􏽉 z2i ϕi ti ds + 􏽘 ϕi Ai z2i ,
coupling method includes modal methods, structural modal i
equations, and N-S equations [20]. To conduct an aeroelastic
Jz � 􏽉 y2i ϕi ti ds + 􏽘 ϕi Ai y2i ,
analysis and consider the computational efficiency at the i
structural level, a 3D shell element was established by in- (1)
troducing the CR method [21–23]. Sy � 􏽉 zi ϕi ti ds + 􏽘 ϕi Ai zi ,
Although the above research results have achieved their i
expected purpose, when considering the application of these
research results in actual engineering, it is urgent to further Sz � 􏽉 yi ϕi ti ds + 􏽘 ϕi Ai yi ,
i
consider the issue of computational efficiency. To account
for computational efficiency, the CR method has been de- where φi is the reduction factor, ti is the thickness of the skin,
veloped. Currently, to conduct aeroelastic analyses of whose number is i, i is the segment number of the simplified
HARW, many researchers have developed nonlinear spar cross-sectional skin, and A is the sum area of all component
[24, 25], rod [26], and shell [27–30] elements using the CR cross sections. To calculate the cross-sectional area of the
method. Kirsch et al. [31] also developed a calculation skin, s is used here to represent the length of the cross-
program specifically for the aeroelastic analysis of flexible sectional skin of the wing.
aircraft. Barnes et al. [32] conducted a study on the effect of The centroid axis coordinate system is rotated around the
stiffness on the laminar separation flutter based on an origin; when it rotates to a certain angle, making the product
NACA0012 airfoil and considered the effect of the Reynolds of inertia equal to 0, the centroid axis coordinate system at this
number. The results show that the change in stiffness at any time is called the inertial axis coordinate system. Equation (1)
Reynolds number will have a greater impact on the laminar is the moment of the reduced cross sections in the inertia axis;
separation chatter, resulting in even more nonlinear aero- then, according to the related theory of thin-walled structural
elastic responses. After studying the effective stiffness cal- mechanics, the stiffness center of any section of the wing can
culation method and flutter calculation method separately, be calculated according to the following equation:
we also considered the serious effect of stiffness on the flutter
of HARWs. Therefore, in this paper, an effective and ⎜ 􏽉 Sy /Gtds⎞
⎟
1⎛ ⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
practical stiffness calculation method and an efficient Y� ⎜
⎜
⎝ 􏽚 S z ρds − Ω ⎟
⎠,
⎟
nonlinear flutter calculation method are used to study the Jy s
􏽉 ds/Gt
effect of stiffness on the flutter characteristics of an HARW.
(2)
An effective method to determine the effect of stiffness on
the flutter of HARWs is then proposed. 1⎛ ⎜ 􏽉 Sz /Gtds⎞
⎟
⎜
⎜
⎜ ⎟
⎟
⎟
Z� ⎜
⎝ 􏽚 Sz ρds − Ω ⎠,
⎟
Jz s
􏽉 ds/Gt
2. Stiffness Calculation
Wing stiffness centers were calculated for different cross where Ω represents twice the cross-sectional area and ρ is the
sections selected from root to tip. However, to use the distance between the centroid and tangent of each
stiffness calculation formula to calculate the wing cross- component.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 3

Stringer the wing structure. The aerodynamic force is calculated

Skin
using a CFD solver. The information exchange of the
coupling surface is realized through the FLUENT external
Y interface, which integrates self-compiled load and dis-
X Rear beam placement interpolation programs. The main process of the
Flange
Y1 O wing flutter analysis is shown in Figure 6.
ds The flutter calculation is performed based on the CFD/
O1 X1 CSD coupling method. In the calculation process, we use the
Stringer
FLUENT interface to integrate the User-Defined Function
(UDF) program to realize the transfer of node information
Figure 1: The simplified cross section of the wing. between the aerodynamic model and the structural model.
The load interpolation program is then used to transfer the
According to the geometric parameters and the number nodal loads on the aerodynamic model to the nodes of the
of spars, the wing is divided into three parts, as shown in structural model, and the displacement interpolation pro-
Figure 2. The cross-sectional shape of the spar flange is a gram is used to transfer the nodal displacements on the
rectangle, and we use W and H to denote the width and structural model to the nodes on the coupling surface of the
height of the rectangle, respectively, as shown in Figure 3. aerodynamic model. We use the boundary layer grid
The geometric parameters of the spar on the two wings are function in GEMBIT software to address the boundary layer
shown in Tables 1 and 2. The wing is a full composite wing problems. We define the distance between the wall and the
with double spars. The unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) has second layer as 0.00005 meters, and the gradient change
an aspect ratio of 12 and a wingspan greater than 17 meters, from the wall to the outer boundary of the flow field is
and the root chord length is more than twice the wing tip defined as 1.2. The CFD software FLUENT is used for the
chord length. The thicknesses of the spar at the wing root aerodynamic analysis. A coupled-implicit Spalart-Allmaras
and wing tip are 3 mm and 2 mm, respectively. The material (S-A) turbulence model is used to perform CFD, and the N-S
and thickness of the skin between two adjacent ribs are equations are used for the aerodynamic model. The time
different. From the wing root to the wing tip, the thickness of advance in the coupling process uses a loosely coupled
the skin and Poisson’s ratio of the material gradually de- method.
crease. The composite materials used on the wing are all The expression of the flutter motion equation in the
laminated composite materials. The number of layers and modal space is as follows:
fiber laying angles of the laminated composite material
between two adjacent ribs are different. Md€ + Cd_ + K d � F(t), (3)
From the wing root to the wing tip, the geometric pa-
rameters of the spar are unevenly distributed, so it is divided where M, C, and K represent the mass matrix, damping
into three parts. The material parameters of the spar are matrix, and tangent stiffness matrix, respectively, d repre-
shown in Table 3. When the geometric parameters of the sents the displacement vector, and F(t) represents the load
three-part spars were increased by 16.7%, 25%, and 25%, the vector. The damping matrix can be expressed as follows:
bending and torsional stiffness distributions of the two wings C � αr M + βr K, (4)
along the span were obtained as shown in Figures 4 and 5.
There are 12 wing ribs from wing root to wing tip. We where αr and βr represent the damping constants corre-
choose the cross-sectional position used to calculate the sponding to the mass and stiffness, respectively.
stiffness based on the cross-sectional position of the 12 ribs. Therefore, in the modal space, the flutter motion
When the geometric parameters of the spars increase si- equation can be replaced by the state equation.
multaneously according to the ratio, although the wing
Y_ � f(t, Y) � AY + BF(t), (5)
bending and torsional stiffness distributions in the span
direction are not uniform, there are relatively large changes where
in the aileron section. The torsional stiffness increment is
_
d(t)
between 7.71 × 105 and 1.72 × 108 N∗m/rad, and the ⎝
Y �⎛ ⎠
⎞,
bending stiffness increment is between 2.15 × 107 and d(t)
1.07 × 108 N/m.
⎝ −M− 1 C −M− 1 K ⎠
A �⎛ ⎞, (6)
3. Flutter Analysis I 0
The flutter calculation is performed for the wing with an
⎝ M− 1 ⎠
enlarged stiffness and compared with the original wing B �⎛ ⎞,
flutter results. The degree of the change in stiffness’s effect on 0
the flutter characteristics of the wing is studied. where q(t) is the generalized displacement and t is the time.
With this equation, we can use the fourth-order Runge-
3.1. Flutter Analysis Model. We introduce the nonlinear Kutta method to perform the calculations more conve-
model of [27] (Qiao) to perform the deformation analysis of niently; the calculation results are more accurate and can be
4 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Section A Section B Section C

Figure 2: Finite element model of the wing including spars, ribs, and stringers represented by yellow lines.

Figure 3: Cross-sectional form of the spar flange.

Table 1: Thicknesses of the spar webs/mm.

Model Section A Section B Section C
Original 3 2 2
Enlarged 3.5 2.5 2.5

Table 2: Cross-sectional dimensions of spar flanges/mm.

Section A top Section A down Sections B and C
Model
W H W H W H
Original 3 58 3 45 30 4
Enlarged 3.5 60 3.5 50 35 4

Table 3: Material parameters of the spar.

Material zone Structure name Layer angle (°) Elastic constants (MPa)
Spar web [45 −45 0 −45 90 45 0 −45 0 0 45 0]s E � 57100, G � 16200, V � 0.491
Section A
Spar flange [45 −45 0 −45 90 45 0 −45 0 0 45 0]s E � 57100, G � 16200, V � 0.491
Spar web [45 0 −45 90 45 0 −45 0]s E � 53700, G � 16200, V � 0.43
Section B
Spar flange [45 0 0 −45 90 45 0 0 0 −45 90 45 0 0 −45 0]s E � 65100, G � 13200, V � 0.378
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 5

3.0E + 09

Torsional stiffness (N∗m/rad)

2.5E + 09

2.0E + 09

1.5E + 09

1.0E + 09

5.0E + 08

0.0E + 00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Wing cross-section position number from
wing root to wing tip
Original wing
Enlarged stiffness wing
Figure 4: Torsional stiffness distribution of the two wings.

5.0E + 09
Bending stiffness (N∗m2)

4.0E + 09

3.0E + 09

2.0E + 09

1.0E + 09

0.0E + 00
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Wing cross-section position number from
wing root to wing tip
Original wing
Enlarged stiffness wing
Figure 5: Bending stiffness distribution of the two wings.

implemented more conveniently by using programs. Finally, The entire computation zone containing 291,991 nodes and
a generalized displacement calculation formula is formed. 1,724,960 elements is made of unstructured and tetrahedral
elements for the aerodynamic analysis. The dimensions of
h f1 + 2f2 + 2f3 + f4 􏼁
Yk+1 � Yk + , (7) the domain of the HARW are 100 m × 60 m × 60 m. There
6 are 28679 nodes and 38968 elements within the structural
where model.
f1 � f tk , Yk 􏼁,
3.2. Flutter Analysis of the Original Wing. Based on the
h h modal method, the flutter calculation is performed under
f2 � f􏼠tk + , Yk + f􏼡 ,
2 2 1 different flight speed conditions, and the calculation results
(8) are reflected by the history curve of generalized displacement
h h with time. By comparing the results at different flight speeds,
f3 � f􏼠tk + , Yk + f2 􏼡, the flutter characteristics of HARW are studied.
2 2
In this paper, the first four modes are extracted for the
f4 � f tk + h, Yk + hf􏼁3. flutter calculation. The frequencies of the first four modes
increase in sequence. The first, second, and fourth modes are
The finite element model and the flow field calculation bending modes, and the third is a torsion mode. The first
model of the wing are shown in Figures 7 and 8, respectively, four modes of the wing are shown in Table 4. Using the
and the coupling surface grid model is shown in Figure 9. halving method, through multiple calculations, it was
6 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

Begin

Aerodynamic analysis model

Dynamic mesh and aerodynamic analysis

Aerodynamic load interpolation

Structural geometry nonlinear analysis model

Tangent stiffness matrix

Changed the information of
grids based on UDF process

Flutter analysis

Displacement and speed

No
Maximal iterations ?

Yes

Displacement and speed

Figure 6: Nonlinear flutter analysis process.

determined that the time step used in this flutter calculation 0.5 Ma, 0.8 Ma, and 0.9 Ma are shown in Figures 12–14,
was 0.04 s [27]. Finally, the flutter calculations were con- respectively.
ducted at flighting speeds of 0.4 Ma and 0.8 Ma. The re- When the incoming flow Mach number is 0.5 Ma, the
sponse histories of the generalized displacements with time generalized displacement response of the wing over time
are shown in Figures 10 and 11. reaches a state of constant amplitude oscillation when the
It can be seen in Figures 10 and 11 that, compared with flight speed is 228.9 m/s. Therefore, the flight speed of
the flutter response of the first-order mode, the effect of 228.9 m/s is the flutter critical speed of the wing at 0.5 Ma.
other third-order modes on flutter can be ignored, and the Correspondingly, when the Mach numbers are 0.8 Ma and
first-order mode is the most important mode for the flutter 0.9 Ma, the flutter critical speeds of the wing are 155.7 m/s
analysis. With an incoming Mach number of 0.4 Ma, the and 145.8 m/s, respectively. Similarly, when the flight speed
generalized displacement response of the wing over time is less than the flutter critical speed, the generalized dis-
reaches a state of constant amplitude oscillation when the placement amplitude of the wing gradually decays over time.
flight speed is 215.3 m/s. Therefore, the flight speed of In contrast, when the flight speed is greater than the flutter
215.3 m/s is the flutter critical speed of the wing at 0.4 Ma. critical speed, the generalized displacement amplitude of the
Correspondingly, the flutter critical velocity of the wing at wing diverges with time.
0.8 Ma is 144.8 m/s. When the flight speed is less than the
flutter critical speed, the generalized displacement amplitude
of the wing gradually decays over time. In contrast, when the
4. Effect of Stiffness on the
flight speed is greater than the flutter critical speed, the Flutter Characteristics
generalized displacement amplitude of the wing diverges
Compared with the original wing, when the wing bending
with time.
stiffness and torsional stiffness of each section along the span
increase by an average of 8.28% and 5.22%, the flutter
3.3. Flutter Analysis of Wings with an Enlarged Stiffness. amplitude value decreases by approximately 30%. Under the
To study the effect of stiffness on flutter, we increased the condition that the Mach number is 0.8 Ma, the greater the
stiffness of the original wing. We still use the flutter analysis stiffness is, the greater the flutter critical speed is, and the
model in Section 3.1 to calculate the flutter of the wings with increase rate reaches 7.53% (the flutter critical speed is
an increased stiffness. The flutter results at Mach numbers of increased by 10.9 m/s).
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 7

3.2
3.0
2.8
2.6
2.4
2.2

Wing chordwise (m)

2.0
1.8
1.6
1.4
1.2
1.0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0.0
–0.2
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 5.0 5.5 6.0 6.5 7.0 7.5 8.0
Wing spanwise (m)

Figure 7: Finite element model of the wing.

Figure 8: Entire computation zone.

Figure 9: Wing surface grids.

Table 4: The first four modes of the wing.

Modal Vibration mode Frequency
1 Bending mode 8.4
2 Bending mode 32.5
3 Torsion mode 51
4 Bending mode 78.4

To finally determine the change trend of the flutter comparative analysis between the initial stiffness wing and
critical speed of the large aspect ratio composite wing from the enlarged stiffness wing flutter critical speed. The flutter
the low speed to the subsonic speed range, we performed a analysis of two large aspect ratio composite material wings
8 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

0.06 0.08

0.06
0.04

Generalized displacement (m)

Generalized displacement (m)

0.04
0.02
0.02

0.00 0.00

–0.02
–0.02
–0.04
–0.04
–0.06

–0.06 –0.08
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8
Time (s) Time (s)
Mode 1 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 4 Mode 2 Mode 4
(a) (b)
0.16

0.12
Generalized displacement (m)

0.08

0.04

0.00

–0.04

–0.08

–0.12

–0.16
0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1
Time (s)

Mode 1 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 4
(c)

Figure 10: Time response histories under 0.4 Ma. (a) VF � 206.8 m/s, (b) VF � 215.3 m/s, and (c) VF � 237.1 m/s.

was performed from a low speed to a subsonic speed. The Based on the established flutter analysis model consid-
curve of the change of the flutter critical speed of these two ering the geometric nonlinearity of the structure, the nu-
wings with the flight speed is shown in Figure 15. merical calculation of the limit cycle oscillation (LCO)
It can be seen from Figure 15 that, in the low speed to characteristics of the two wings under different flight speed
subsonic speed range, the flutter critical speed of the two conditions was performed, and the variation curve of the
wings changes slowly with the flight speed, but increasing LCO amplitude of the two wings with the flight speed is
the stiffness in the range of 0.4 to 0.6 Mach has a greater shown in Figure 16.
impact on the flutter critical velocity. The flutter critical Figure 16 shows that the overall increase in the wing
speed increased by 25.9 m/s, and the amplitude increased by stiffness from the wing root to the wing tip reduces the LCO
12.03%. As the flight speed continued to increase, the amplitude. At low flight speeds, the LCO amplitude/half-
magnitude of the reduction in the flutter critical speed of the span lengths of the two wings are relatively close; the values
two wings was increased compared with that at low speed, differ by 0.015. As the flight speed continued to increase, the
and the minimum flutter critical speed was reached at a flight difference between the LCO amplitude/half-span lengths of
speed of 0.9 Ma. In general, increasing the stiffness of the the two wings gradually increased, and the two wings
wing increases the flutter critical speed. The flutter critical reached a maximum difference of 0.048 at 0.9 Ma. The in-
speed of the two stiffness wings is closest in the range of crease in the flight speed increases the vertical displacement
0.8 Ma to 0.9 Ma, and the flutter critical speed is increased by of the wing, which is in line with reality. As the flight speed
7.53%. increases, the effect of the increasing stiffness on the LCO
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 9

0.12
0.12
0.09 0.09

Generalized displacement (m)

Generalized displacement (m)

0.06 0.06

0.03 0.03

0.00 0.00
–0.03
–0.03
–0.06
–0.06
–0.09
–0.09
–0.12
–0.12
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Time (s) Time (s)

Mode 1 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 3

Mode 2 Mode 4 Mode 2 Mode 4
(a) (b)

0.12
0.09
Generalized displacement (m)

0.06
0.03
0.00
–0.03
–0.06
–0.09
–0.12
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Time (s)

Mode 1 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 4
(c)

Figure 11: Time response histories under 0.8 Ma. (a) VF � 136.1 m/s, (b) VF � 144.8 m/s, and (c) VF � 164.5 m/s.

amplitude of the composite wing with a large aspect ratio and 5.22%, the flutter amplitude value decreases by
becomes increasingly obvious. approximately 30%. The flutter critical speed in-
creased by 25.9 m/s, and the amplitude increased by
5. Conclusions 12.03%. Reasonably increasing the wing stiffness can
effectively reduce the wing flutter, for example, in-
Under different flight speeds, the flutter characteristics of the creasing the size of the main bearing structure near
original wing and the enlarged stiffness wing were considered, the control surface.
particularly the geometrical nonlinear characteristics of the
(3) The flutter critical speed is more affected by the lower
structure. By comparing the calculation results of the flutter
flight speed, and the degree of the effect decreases
critical speed, the degree of the effect of the stiffness on the
slightly as the flight speed continues to increase. The
flutter characteristics of a high aspect ratio composite wing
flutter critical speed of the two stiffness wings is
was determined. Some useful conclusions are as follows:
closest in the range of 0.8 Ma to 0.9 Ma, and the
(1) In terms of the overall impact, the stiffness has a flutter critical speed is increased by 7.53%. With the
greater effect on the wing flutter critical speed. In- continuous increase in the flight speed, the effect of
creasing the wing stiffness overall increases the wing stiffness on the flutter of the wing is reduced, but the
flutter critical speed. effect on the LCO amplitude is greater.
(2) Compared with the original wing, when the wing (4) In the structural design process, attention should be
bending stiffness and torsional stiffness of each given to the above effects to achieve the purpose of
section along the span increase by averages of 8.28% reducing the structural quality. The research results
10 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

0.06 0.08

0.06
0.04

Generalized displacement (m)

Generalized displacement (m)

0.04
0.02
0.02

0.00 0.00

–0.02
–0.02
–0.04
–0.04
–0.06

–0.06 –0.08
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5
Time (s) Time (s)
Mode 1 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 4 Mode 2 Mode 4
(a) (b)
0.08

0.06
Generalized displacement (m)

0.04

0.02

0.00

–0.02

–0.04

–0.06

–0.08
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4
Time (s)

Mode 1 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 4
(c)

Figure 12: Time response histories under 0.5 Ma. (a) VF � 217.3 m/s, (b) VF � 228.9 m/s, and (c) VF � 248.2 m/s.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 11

0.08 0.09
0.06
Generalized displacement (m)

Generalized displacement (m)

0.06
0.04
0.03
0.02
0.00 0.00
–0.02
–0.03
–0.04
–0.06
–0.06
–0.08 –0.09

0.0 0.3 0.6 0.9 1.2 1.5 1.8 2.1 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0
Time (s) Time (s)
Mode 1 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 4 Mode 2 Mode 4
(a) (b)

0.09
Generalized displacement (m)

0.06

0.03

0.00

–0.03

–0.06

–0.09

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

Time (s)

Mode 1 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 4
(c)

Figure 13: Time response histories under 0.8 Ma. (a) VF � 142.6 m/s, (b) VF � 155.7 m/s, and (c) VF � 170.8 m/s.
12 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

0.12 0.12

0.09 0.09

Generalized displacement (m)

Generalized displacement (m)

0.06 0.06

0.03 0.03

0.00 0.00

–0.03 –0.03

–0.06 –0.06

–0.09 –0.09

–0.12 –0.12
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 0.0 0.6 1.2 1.8 2.4 3.0 3.6 4.2
Time (s) Time (s)

Mode 1 Mode 3 Mode 1 Mode 3

Mode 2 Mode 4 Mode 2 Mode 4
(a) (b)
0.12

0.09
Generalized displacement (m)

0.06

0.03

0.00

–0.03

–0.06

–0.09

–0.12
0.0 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 2.8
Time (s)

Mode 1 Mode 3
Mode 2 Mode 4
(c)

Figure 14: Time response histories under 0.9 Ma. (a) VF � 135.6 m/s, (b) VF � 145.8 m/s, and (c) VF � 159.3 m/s.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering 13

300 Shaanxi Province of China (no. 2019JQ-912), and the

Natural Science Foundation of Xi’an Aeronautical Univer-
sity (no. 2018KY1226).
Flutter critical velocity (m/s)

250

References
200 [1] G. B. Chen, C. Q. Zou, and C. Yang, Aeroelastic Design Basis,
Beihang University Press, Beijing, China, 2004, in Chinese.
[2] G. Ortiz-Torres, P. Castillo, F. D. J. Sorcia-Vazquez et al.,
150 “Fault estimation and fault tolerant control strategies applied
to VTOL aerial vehicles with soft and aggressive actuator
faults,” IEEE Access, vol. 8, pp. 10649–10661, 2020.
[3] S. H. Huo, F. S. Wang, Z. Yuan, and Z. F. Yue, “Composite wing
100 elastic axis for aeroelasticity optimization design,” Aircraft Engi-
0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1.0
neering and Aerospace Technology, vol. 85, no. 1, pp. 10–15, 2013.
Flight speed (Ma)
[4] R. J. Guyan, “Reduction of stiffness and mass matrices,”
Original wing American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Journal,
Wing with increased stiffness vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 380–385, 1965.
[5] J. Shawn and Hanegan, “Advanced flexible wing technology
Figure 15: Variation curve of the flutter critical speed with the assessment for transport applications,” Master’s Thesis,
flight speed.
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA, USA,
1995.
0.28 [6] Y. C. Liu, G. N. Huang, and L. J. Wang, “Computation of
stiffness characteristic of a high aspect ratio wing,” Airplane
Engineering, no. 4, pp. 21–24, 2006.
0.24
LCO amplitude/half-span length

[7] Z. Y. Ye, Y. J. Xie, and J. Wu, “The effects of wind-tunnel

model vibration on flow field and aerodynamics of an airfoil,”
0.20 Engineering Mechanics, vol. 26, no. 4, pp. 240–245, 2009.
[8] C. E. S. Cesnik, J. Mok, and A. S. Parikh, “Optimization design
0.16 framework for integrally twisted helicopter blades,” AIAA,
vol. 1761, no. 4, pp. 1–15, 2004.
[9] J. A. Brizuela-Mendoza, A. Rosales-Dı́az, J. Y. Rumbo-Mo-
0.12
rales, F. D. J. Sorcia-Vázquez, and M. Martı́nez-Garcı́a,
“Diseño, instrumentación y control de un helicóptero de tres
0.08 grados de libertad,” Revista Internacional de Investigación e
Innovación Tecnológica, vol. 7, no. 37, pp. 1–12, 2019.
0.04 [10] D. C. Li and J. W. Xiang, “Nonlinear aeroelastic analysis of
0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 airfoil using quasi-analytical approach,” Acta Aeronautica Et
Flight speed (Ma) Astronautica Sinica, vol. 28, no. 5, pp. 1080–1084, 2007.
[11] H. X. Dang, Z. C. Yang, and Y. Li, “Accelerated loosely-
Original wing
coupled CFD/CSD method for nonlinear static aeroelasticity
Wing with increased stiffness
analysis,” Aerospace. Sciience Technology.vol. 14, no. 4,
Figure 16: Variation curve of the LCO amplitude/half-span length pp. 918–935, 2010.
of two wings with the flight speed. [12] F. Wang, S. Huo, S. Qiao, J. Zhang, and Z. Yue, “An effective
computer modelling approach to the study of aeroelastic
provide effective key technical support for the characteristics of an aircraft composite wing with high aspect
comprehensive design of aeroelasticity and stiffness ratio,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling of Dynamical
of composite wings with large aspect ratios. Systems, vol. 21, no. 1, pp. 58–76, 2015.
[13] L. Demasi and E. Livne, “Aeroelastic coupling of geometri-
Data Availability cally nonlinear structures and linear unsteady aerodynamics:
two formulations,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 25,
The data used to support the findings of this study are in- no. 5, pp. 918–935, 2009.
cluded within the article. [14] P. J. Attar, E. H. Dowell, and J. R. White, “Modeling delta wing
limit-cycle oscillations using a high-fidelity structural model,”
Journal of Aircraft, vol. 42, no. 5, pp. 1209–1217, 2005.
Conflicts of Interest [15] R. E. Gordnier, “Computation of limit-cycle oscillations of a
delta wing,” Journal of Aircraft, vol. 40, no. 6, pp. 1206–1208,
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest. 2003.
[16] P. J. Attar and R. E. Gordnier, “Aeroelastic prediction of the
Acknowledgments limit cycle oscillations of a cropped delta wing,” Journal of
Fluids and Structures, vol. 22, no. 1, pp. 45–58, 2006.
This work was funded by the Scientific Research Foundation [17] W. Q. Yang, B. F. Song, L. G. Wang, and L. L. Chen, “Dynamic
for Doctors, the Natural Science Basic Research Plan in fluid-structure coupling method of flexible flapping wing for
14 Mathematical Problems in Engineering

MAV,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering.vol. 28, no. 6, Article

ID 04015006, 2015.
[18] Z. M. Fairuz, M. Z. Abdullah, M. Zubair et al., “Effect of wing
deformation on the aerodynamic performance of flapping
wings: fluid-structure interaction approach,” Journal of
Aerospace Engineering, vol. 29, no. 4, Article ID 04016006,
2016.
[19] M. Xu, X. M. An, and S. Chen, “CFD/CSD coupling numerical
computational methodology,” Acta Aeronautica et Astro-
nautica Sinica, vol. 27, no. 1, pp. 33–37, 2006.
[20] W. K. Gao, “Numerical simulation of 3-D wing flutter in time
domain,” Journal of Astronautics, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1151–1126,
2008.
[21] X. M. An and M. Xu, “An improved geometrically nonlinear
algorithm and its application for nonlinear aeroelasticity,”
Chinese Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, vol. 43,
no. 1, pp. 97–104, 2011.
[22] G. Y. Baghdasaryan, M. A. Mikilyan, R. O. Saghoyan,
E. Cestino, G. Frulla, and P. Marzocca, “Nonlinear LCO
“amplitude-frequency” characteristics for plates fluttering at
supersonic speeds,” International Journal of Non-linear Me-
chanics, vol. 77, pp. 51–60, 2015.
[23] C. An, C. Yang, C. Xie, and L. Yang, “Flutter and gust response
analysis of a wing model including geometric nonlinearities
based on a modified structural ROM,” Chinese Journal of
Aeronautics, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 48–63, 2020.
[24] T.-N. Le, J.-M. Battini, and M. Hjiaj, “A consistent 3D
corotational beam element for nonlinear dynamic analysis of
flexible structures,” Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics
and Engineering, vol. 269, pp. 538–565, 2014.
[25] W. Wang, X. Zhu, Z. Zhou, and J. Duan, “A method for
nonlinear aeroelasticity trim and stability analysis of very
flexible aircraft based on co-rotational theory,” Journal of
Fluids and Structures, vol. 62, pp. 209–229, 2016.
[26] S. Faroughi, H. H. Khodaparast, and M. I. Friswell, “Non-
linear dynamic analysis of tensegrity structures using a co-
rotational method,” International Journal of Non-linear Me-
chanics, vol. 69, pp. 55–65, 2015.
[27] S. Qiao, H. Gao, Y. Lyu, L. Hua, and F. Wang, “Nonlinear
aeroelastic characteristics analysis of composite wing with
high aspect ratio based on co-rotational method,” Journal of
Fluids and Structures, vol. 82, pp. 619–637, 2018.
[28] J.-M. Battini, “A modified corotational framework for tri-
angular shell elements,” Computer Methods in Applied Me-
chanics and Engineering, vol. 196, no. 13–16, pp. 1905–1914,
2007.
[29] K.-D. Kim, C.-S. Lee, and S.-C. Han, “A 4-node co-rotational
ANS shell element for laminated composite structures,”
Composite Structures, vol. 80, no. 2, pp. 234–252, 2007.
[30] F. S. Almeida and A. M. Awruch, “Corotational nonlinear
dynamic analysis of laminated composite shells,” Finite Ele-
ments in Analysis and Design, vol. 47, no. 10, pp. 1131–1145,
2011.
[31] B. Kirsch, O. Montagnier, E. Benard, and T. M. Faure, “Tightly
coupled aeroelastic model implementation dedicated to fast
aeroelastic tailoring optimisation of high aspect ratio com-
posite wing,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 94, pp. 1–21,
2020.
[32] C. J. Barnes and M. R. Visbal, “Stiffness effects on laminar
separation flutter,” Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 91,
pp. 1–14, 2019.