Structural weight reduction is one of the main strategies explored nowadays to reduce manufacturing costs, impacting environmental costs. However, this structural weight reduction is often related to a reduction of material and may affect the structural mechanics of the system. Elasticity problems such as flutter can appear in lightweight structures. Therefore, this work presents a refined two-dimensional (2D) equivalent model for predicting the linear and nonlinear aeroelastic response of a cantilever wing based on a NACA0012 airfoil. The study aims to overcome the limitations of traditional 2D approaches, such as representing the wing by a single airfoil section at 75% span, which often leads to significant inaccuracies in flutter analysis. A 3D aeroelastic simulation framework is developed using Finite Element Method (FEM) analysis and unsteady Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes (URANS) computations. Based on the FEM results, a 2D model is developed, accounting for flexural and torsional dynamics considering the first vibration modes. Special attention is given to the elastic axis location, whose variation is shown to significantly influence the aeroelastic response. The 2D model is then validated against 3D simulations through parametric studies across a range of torsional stiffness values, capturing both flutter onset and limit-cycle oscillations. Results show that the proposed 2D model, when properly calibrated, replicates key 3D behaviors with significant reductions in computational cost, making it a reliable and efficient tool for preliminary aeroelastic assessments.
WMO. The global climate 2011-2020: a decade of accelerating climate change.
2.
NappTAFewSSoodA, et al.The role of advanced demand-sector technologies and energy demand reduction in achieving ambitious carbon budgets. Appl Energy2019; 238: 351–367.
3.
StaplesMDMalinaRSureshP, et al.Aviation CO2 emissions reductions from the use of alternative jet fuels. Energy Policy2018; 114: 342–354.
4.
YilmazNAtmanliA. Sustainable alternative fuels in aviation. Energy2017; 140: 1378–1386.
5.
NojoumiHDincerINatererGF. Greenhouse gas emissions assessment of hydrogen and kerosene-fueled aircraft propulsion. Int J Hydrogen Energy2009; 34(3): 1363–1369.
6.
OrdoukhanianEMadniAM. Blended wing body architecting and design: current status and future prospects. Procedia Comput Sci2014; 28: 619–625.
7.
ZhuLLiNChildsPRN. Light-weighting in aerospace component and system design. Propuls Power Res2018; 7(2): 103–119.
8.
KotaSOsbornRErvinG, et al.Mission adaptive compliant wing – design, Fabrication and flight test mission adaptive compliant wing. Rtompavt, 2006.
9.
VieiraDRBravoA. Life cycle carbon emissions assessment using an eco-demonstrator aircraft: the case of an ecological wing design. J Clean Prod2016; 124: 246–257.
10.
TimmisAJHodzicAKohL, et al.Environmental impact assessment of aviation emission reduction through the implementation of composite materials. Int J Life Cycle Assess2015; 20(2): 233–243.
11.
BillahKYScanlanRH. Resonance, Tacoma narrows bridge failure, and undergraduate physics textbooks. Am J Phys1991; 59(2): 118–124.
12.
PatilMJHodgesDHCesnikCES. Characterizing the effects of geometrical nonlinearities on aeroelastic behavior of high-aspect-ratio wings. In: International forum on aeroelasticity and structural dynamics. Virginia, USA: Williamsburg, 1999.
13.
NovielloMCDiminoIConcilioA, et al.Aeroelastic assessments and functional hazard analysis of a regional aircraft equipped with morphing winglets. Aerospace2019; 6(10): 104.
14.
MardanpourPHodgesDHNeuhartR, et al.Engine placement effect on nonlinear trim and stability of flying wing aircraft. J Aircr2013; 50(6): 1716–1725.
15.
PatilMJHodgesDH. On the importance of aerodynamic and structural geometrical nonlinearities in aeroelastic behavior of high-aspect-ratio wings. J Fluids Struct2004; 19(7): 905–915.
16.
GuoHYanYXiaH, et al.The prediction and correction method of aircraft static aeroelastic effects: a review of recent progress. Actuators2022; 11(11): 309.
17.
van SchoorMCvon FlotowAH. Aeroelastic characteristics of a highly flexible aircraft. J Aircr1990; 27(10): 901–908.
18.
TsushimaNSaitohKArizonoH, et al.Structural and aeroelastic studies of wing model with metal additive manufacturing for transonic wind tunnel test by NACA 0008 example. Aerospace2021; 8(8): 200.
19.
WuBWangQLiaoH, et al.Flutter derivatives of a flat plate section and analysis of flutter instability at various wind angles of attack. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod2020; 196: 104046.
20.
GjerekBDrazumericRKoselF. Flutter behavior of a flexible airfoil: multiparameter experimental study. Aerosp Sci Technol2014; 36: 75–86.
21.
BaxevanouCAChaviaropoulosPKVoutsinasSG, et al.Evaluation study of a Navier–stokes CFD aeroelastic model of wind turbine airfoils in classical flutter. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod2008; 96(8–9): 1425–1443.
22.
LeeNLeeSChoH, et al.A computational study of wall effects on the aeroelastic behavior of spanwise flexible wings. Int J Aeronaut Space Sci2019; 20(3): 596–610.
23.
RameshKMuruaJGopalarathnamA. Limit-cycle oscillations in unsteady flows dominated by intermittent leading-edge vortex shedding. J Fluids Struct2015; 55: 84–105.
24.
DinulovićMBenginAKrstićB, et al.Flutter optimization of carbon/epoxy plates based on a fast tree algorithm. Aerospace2024; 11(8): 636.
25.
LiPZhangDPengW, et al.Static aeroelastic instability analysis of an inverted plate in ground effect and comparison with a wind-tunnel test. J Fluids Struct2023; 116: 103790.
26.
ZhangXKheiriMXieW-F. Nonlinear dynamics and gust response of a two-dimensional wing. Int J Non Linear Mech2020; 123: 103478.
LottatiI. Flutter and divergence aeroelastic characteristics for composite forward swept cantilevered wing. J Aircr1985; 22(11): 1001–1007.
29.
DowellEHScanlanRHSistoF, et al.A modern course in aeroelasticity. J Mech Des N Y2005; 116: 261–262.
30.
TangDMYamamotoHDowellEH. Flutter and limit cycle oscillations of two-dimensional panels in three-dimensional axial flow. J Fluids Struct2003; 17(2): 225–242.
31.
SuciptoTBerciMKrierJ. Gust response of a flexible typical section via high- and (tuned) low-fidelity simulations. Comput Struct2013; 122: 202–216.
32.
ShehabMAbualigahetLOmariM, et al.Chapter eight - artificial neural networks for engineering applications: a review. In: ElsheikhAHAbd ElazizME (eds). Artificial Neural Networks for Renewable Energy Systems and Real-World Applications. Charlotte Cockle: Academic Press, 2022, pp. 189–206.
33.
TorregrosaAJGarcía-CuevasLMQuinteroP, et al.On the application of artificial neural network for the development of a nonlinear aeroelastic model. Aerosp Sci Technol2021; 115: 106845.
34.
KurtulusDF. Ability to forecast unsteady aerodynamic forces of flapping airfoils by artificial neural network. Neural Comput Appl2009; 18(4): 359–368.
35.
TorregrosaAJGilAQuinteroP, et al.A reduced order model based on artificial neural networks for nonlinear aeroelastic phenomena and application to composite material beams. Compos Struct2022; 295: 115845.
36.
WangY-RMaY-H. Application of deep learning models to predict panel flutter in aerospace structures. Aerospace2024; 11(8): 677.
37.
BhatnagarSAfsharYPanS, et al.Prediction of aerodynamic flow fields using convolutional neural networks. Comput Mech2019; 64(2): 525–545.
38.
WuYDaiYYangC, et al.Effect of trailing-edge morphing on flow characteristics around a pitching airfoil. AIAA J2023; 61(1): 160–173.
39.
WangZDuLZhaoJ, et al.Flow-induced vibrations of a pitching and plunging airfoil. J Fluid Mech2020; 885: A36.
40.
BattherJLeeS. Numerical investigation of a pitching airfoil undergoing dynamic stall using delayed detached eddy simulations. Comput Fluids2022; 249: 105691.
41.
GilATiseiraAQuinteroP, et al.Prediction of the non-linear aeroelastic behavior of a cantilever flat plate and equivalent 2D model. Aerosp Sci Technol2021; 113: 106685.
42.
TangDDowellEH. Experimental aeroelastic models design and wind tunnel testing for correlation with new theory. Aerospace2016; 3(2): 12.
43.
SodjaJRoiznerFDe BreukerR, et al.Experimental characterisation of flutter and divergence of 2D wing section with stabilised response. Aerosp Sci Technol2018; 78: 542–552.
44.
VindigniCRMantegnaGOrlandoC, et al.A refined aeroelastic beam finite element for the stability analysis of flexible subsonic wings. Comput Struct2025; 307(Jan): 107618.
45.
Mozaffari-JovinSFirouz-AbadiRDRoshanianJ. Flutter of wings involving a locally distributed flexible control surface. J Sound Vib2015; 357: 377–408.
Mozaffari-JovinSFirouz-AbadiRDRoshanianJ. L1 adaptive aeroelastic control of an unsteady flapped airfoil in the presence of unmatched nonlinear uncertainties. J Sound Vib2024; 578: 118334.
48.
BisplinghoffRLAshleyHGolandM. Principles of aeroelasticity. J Appl Mech1963; 30(1): 160.
49.
LiuYLiPJiangK. Comparative assessment of transitional turbulence models for airfoil aerodynamics in the low Reynolds number range. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod2021; 217: 104726.
50.
LadsonCL. Effects of independent variation of mach and reynolds numbers on the low-speed aerodynamic characteristics of the NACA 0012 airfoil section. [Online]. Available: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19880019495 (1988, Accessed: 29 Jan 2025).
51.
RodríguezILehmkuhlOBorrellR, et al.Direct numerical simulation of a NACA0012 in full stall. Int J Heat Fluid Flow2013; 43; 194.
52.
McalisterKWCarrLWMccroskeyWJ. Dynamic stall experiments on the NACA 0012 airfoil. J Appl Phys1978; 107(9): [Online]. Available: https://ntrs.nasa.gov/citations/19780009057 (Accessed: 29 Jan 2025).
53.
GengFKalkmanISuikerASJ, et al.Sensitivity analysis of airfoil aerodynamics during pitching motion at a Reynolds number of 1.35×105. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod2018; 183: 315–332.
54.
TorregrosaAGilAQuinteroP, et al.Prediction of flow induced vibration of a flat plate located after a bluff wall mounted obstacle. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod2019; 190: 23–39.
55.
BlevinsRDPlunkettR. Formulas for natural frequency and mode shape. J Appl Mech1979; 47: 461–462.
56.
CiarletPG, “The Finite Element Method for Elliptic Problems: Studies in Mathematics and its Applications” Vol. 4, North Holland Publisher Company.
57.
FungYC. An introduction to the theory of aeroelasticity. Dover Publications: Courier Dover Publications, 2008.
WilcoxDC. Simulation of transition with a two-equation turbulence model. AIAA J1994; 32(2): 247–255.
61.
MorgadoJVizinhoRSilvestreMAR, et al.XFOIL vs CFD performance predictions for high lift low Reynolds number airfoils. Aerosp Sci Technol2016; 52: 207–214.
62.
KhanSABashirMBaigMAA, et al. Comparing the effect of different turbulence models on the CFD predictions of NACA0018 airfoil aerodynamics. CFD Lett. 2020; 12(3).
63.
ChemengichSJKassabSZLotfyER. Effect of the variations of the gap flow guides geometry on the savonius wind turbine performance: 2D and 3D studies. J Wind Eng Ind Aerod2022; 222: 104920.
64.
AbbruzzeseGGómezMCordero-GraciaM. Unstructured 2D grid generation using overset-mesh cutting and single-mesh reconstruction. Aerosp Sci Technol2018; 78: 637.
65.
TranTTKimDH. A CFD study into the influence of unsteady aerodynamic interference on wind turbine surge motion. Renew Energy2016; 90: 204–228.
