World Scientific
  • Search
Skip main navigation

Cookies Notification

We use cookies on this site to enhance your user experience. By continuing to browse the site, you consent to the use of our cookies. Learn More

System Upgrade on Tue, May 28th, 2024 at 2am (EDT)

Existing users will be able to log into the site and access content. However, E-commerce and registration of new users may not be available for up to 12 hours.
For online purchase, please visit us again. Contact us at [email protected] for any enquiries.

Flutter Analysis of a 3D Box-Wing Aircraft Configuration by:2 (Source: Crossref)

    The aim of this paper is to present a flutter analysis of a 3D Box-Wing Aircraft (BWA) configuration. The box wing structure is considered as consisting of two wings (front and rear wings) connected with a winglet. Plunge and pitch motions are considered for each wing and the winglet is modeled by a longitudinal spring. In order to exert the effect of the wing-joint interactions (bending and torsion coupling), two ends of the spring are located on the gravity centers of the wings tip sections. Wagner unsteady model is used to simulate the aerodynamic force and moment on the wing. The governing equations are extracted via Hamilton’s variational principle. To transform the resulting partial integro-differential governing equations into a set of ordinary differential equations, the assumed modes method is utilized. In order to confirm the aerodynamic model, the flutter results of a clean wing are compared and validated with the previously published results. Also, for the validation, the 3D box wing aircraft configuration flutter results are compared with MSC NASTRAN software and good agreement is observed. The effects of design parameters such as the winglet tension stiffness, the wing sweep and dihedral angles, and the aircraft altitude on the flutter velocity and frequency are investigated. The results reveal that physical and geometrical properties of the front and rear wings and also the winglet design have a significant influence on BWA aeroelastic stability boundary.


    • 1. L. Prandtl, Induced Drag of Multiplanes, Technical Report TN182, NACA, Reproduction of Der induzierte Widerstand von Mehrdeckern (1924), pp. 309–315. Google Scholar
    • 2. J. Wolkovitch , The joined wing aircraft: An overview, J. Aircraft 23(3) (1986) 161–178. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 3. E. Livne and T. A. Weisshaar , Aeroelasticity of nonconventional airplane configurations: Past and future, J. Aircraft 40(6) (2003) 1047–1065. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 4. E. Livne , Aeroelasticity of joined-wing airplane configurations: past work and future challenges- a survey, in Proc. 42nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conf., Seattle, Washington (2001). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 5. R. Cavallaro and L. Demasi , Challenges, ideas and innovations of joined-wing configurations: An aspect from the past, an opportunity for the future, J. Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 87 (2016) 1–93. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 6. C. Bottani and J. Scanu, Preliminary design of a 250 passenger PrandtlPlane aircraft, Master of Science thesis, University of Pisa, Italy (2004). Google Scholar
    • 7. E. Torenbeek and H. Deconinck , Innovative Configurations and Advanced Concepts for Future Civil Aircraft (Von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics, 2005). Google Scholar
    • 8. A. Frediani, E. Rizzo, V. Cipolla, L. Chiavacci, C. Bottoni, J. Scanu and G. Iezzi , Development of ULM PrandtlPlane aircraft and flight tests on scaled models, in XIX AIDAA Congress, Forlì, Italy (2007). Google Scholar
    • 9. P. Jansen and R. Perez , Effect of size and mission requirements on the design optimization of non-planar aircraft configurations, in Proc. of 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis Optimization Conf., AIAA 2010-9188, Fort Worth, Texas (2010). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 10. M. Barcala, C. Cuerno-Rejado, S. del Giudice, F. Gandía-Agüera and A. A. Rodríguez-Sevillano , Experimental investigation on box-wing configuration for UAS, in 26th Bristol Int. Unmanned Air Vehicle Systems Conf., Bristol, UK (2011). Google Scholar
    • 11. A. Frediani, V. Cipolla and F. Oliviero , IDINTOS: the first prototype of an amphibious PrandtlPlane-shaped aircraft, J. Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 94(3) (2015) 100–114. Google Scholar
    • 12. G. Chiocchia, G. Iuso, E. Carrera and A. Frediani , A wind tunnel model of ULM configuration of PrandtlPlane: design, manufacturing and aerodynamic testing, in 17th National Congress AIDAA, XVII Congresso Nazionale AIDAA, Rome, Italy (2003). Google Scholar
    • 13. C. C. Rasmussen, R. A. Canfield and M. Blair , Joined-wing sensor-craft configuration design, J. Aircraft. 43(5) (2006) 1470–1478. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 14. E. Rizzo, Optimization methods applied to the preliminary design of innovative-non conventional aircraft configurations, Ph.D. thesis, University of Pisa, Italy (2007). Google Scholar
    • 15. D. Schiktanz, Conceptual design of a medium range box wing aircraft, Master of Science thesis, Hamburg University of Applied Sciences, Germany (2011). Google Scholar
    • 16. D. Scholz and R. C. Calleja , Design aspects of passenger box wing aircraft, in 3rd Symposium on Collaboration in Aircraft Design, Aircraft Design and Systems Group (AERO), Linkoping, Sweden (2013). Google Scholar
    • 17. S. A. Fazelzadeh, A. H. Ghasemi and A. Mazidi , Aeroelastic analysis of unrestrained aircraft wing with external stores under roll maneuver, J. Acoust. Vib. 21(3) (2016) 327–333. Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 18. M. Goland and N. Y. Buffalo , The flutter of a uniform cantilever wing, J. Appl. Mech. 12 (1945) 197–208. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 19. D. H. Hodges and E. H. Dowell, Nonlinear Equations of Motion for the Elastic Bending and Torsion of Twisted Non-Uniform Rotor Blades, Report for NASA, Report no. TN D-7818 (1974). Google Scholar
    • 20. S. A. Fazelzadeh, P. Marzocca, A. Mazidi and A. R. Rahmati , The effect of multiple stores arrangement on flutter speed of a shear deformable wing subjected to pull-up angular velocity, Aeronautical J. 113 (2009) 661–668. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 21. C. Karpouzian and L. Librescu , Non-classical effects on divergence and flutter of anisotropic swept aircraft wings, J. AIAA 34 (1996) 786–794. CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 22. A. Mazidi and S. A. Fazelzadeh , Flutter of a swept aircraft wing with a powered engine, J. Aerosp. Eng. 23 (2010) 243–250. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 23. Z. Qin and L. Librescu , Aeroelastic instability of aircraft wings modeled as anisotropic composite thin-walled beams in incompressible flow, J. Fluids Struct. 18 (2003) 43–61. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 24. S. Shams, H. Haddadpour, M. H. Sadr Lahidjani and M. Kheiri , An analytical method in computational aeroelasticity based on Wagner function, in 25th Int. Cong. Aeronautical Sciences, California, USA (2006). Google Scholar
    • 25. S. Shams, M. H. Sadr Lahidjani and H. Haddadpour , Nonlinear aeroelastic response of slender wings based on Wagner function, J. Thin-Walled Struct. 46 (2008) 1192–1203. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 26. R. H. Lange, J. F. Cahill, E. S. Bradley, R. R. Eudaily, C. M. Jenness and D. G. Macwilkinson , Feasibility Study of the Transonic Biplane Concept for Transport Aircraft Applications, NASA CR-132462, Lockheed-Georgia Company (1974). Google Scholar
    • 27. E. Alyanak and G. Brooks , Aeroelastic analysis of sensor-craft configurations using AVUS and NASTRAN, in Proc.48th AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition, AIAA 2010-49, Orlando, Florida (2010). Google Scholar
    • 28. P. S. Beran, N. S. Khot, F. E. Eastep, R. D. Snyder and J. V. Zweber , Numerical analysis of store-inducted limit-cycle oscillation, J. Aircraft. 41(6) (2004) 1315–1326. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 29. L. Di Palma, N. Paletta and M. Pecora, Aeroelastic design of a joined-wing UAV, in Aerospace Technology Conf. and Exposition, SAE Technical Paper 2009-01-3150 (2009). Google Scholar
    • 30. M. Kurdi, N. Lindsley and P. Bern , Uncertainty quantification of the Goland wing’s flutter boundary, in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conf. and Exhibit, South Carolina (2007). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 31. P. Pereira, L. Almeida, A. Suleman, V. Bond, R. Canfield and M. Blair , Aeroelastic scaling and optimization of a joined-wing aircraft concept, in Proc. 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conf., AIAA 2007–1889, Honolulu, Hawaii (2007). CrossrefGoogle Scholar
    • 32. H. H. Lin, J. Jhou and R. Stearman, Influence of joint fixity on the aeroelastic characteristics of a joined-wing structure, in Proc. AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Material Conf., AIAA Paper 90-0980, Long Beach, California (1990). Google Scholar
    • 33. F. Zhi-Chao, L. Zi-Qiang and L. Ji-Nan , Preliminary study on flutter scaling of high-aspect ratio wings, Int. J. Mod. Phys. 34(14) (2020). Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 34. M. Blair, R. A. Canfield and R. W. RobertsJr. , Joined-wing aeroelastic design with geometric nonlinearity, J. Aircraft. 42(4) (2005) 832–848. Crossref, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 35. R. Cavallaro, Nonlinear aeroelastic analysis of joined-wing configurations, Ph.D. thesis, University of California, San Diego, USA (2014). Google Scholar
    • 36. A. Alizadeh, Z. Ebrahimi, A. Mazidi and S. A. Fazelzadeh , Experimental Nonlinear Flutter Analysis of a Cantilever Wing/Store, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 20(7) (2020). Link, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 37. A. S. Mirabbashi, A. Mazdid and M. M. Jalili , Analytical and experimental flutter analysis of a typical wing section carrying a flexibly mounted unbalanced engine, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 19(2) (2019). Link, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 38. R. M. Ajaj, F. K. Omar, T. T. Darabseh and J. Cooper , Flutter of telescopic morphing wing, Int. J. Struct. Stab. Dyn. 19(6) (2019). Link, Web of ScienceGoogle Scholar
    • 39. M. H. Durham and R. Ricketts , Flutter of a joined-wing high altitude vehicle, Aerospace Flutter and Dynamic Council Meeting, October 19–20, Orlando, Florida, USA (1989). Google Scholar
    • 40. J. M. Van Aken, Alleviation of whirl-flutter on a joined-wing tilt-rotor aircraft configuration using active controls, NASA CR-196103, NTIS N94-36436 (1991). Google Scholar
    • 41. D. H. Lee, Aeroelastic tailoring and structural optimization of joined-wing configurations, Ph.D. thesis, Purdue University, USA (2002). Google Scholar
    • 42. D. D. Canto, N. Divoux, A. Frediani, G. L. Ghiringhelli and M. Terraneo , Preliminary design against flutter of a PrandtlPlane lifting system, XX Congresso Nazionale AIDAA, Milan, Italy (2009). Google Scholar
    • 43. N. Divoux and A. Frediani , The lifting system of a PrandtlPlane, Part 2: Preliminary study on flutter characteristics, J. Variational Anal. Aerosp. Eng. 66 (2012) 235–267. Google Scholar
    • 44. R. Bombardieri, PrandtlPlane joined-wing: Body freedom flutter, limit cycle oscillation and freeplay studies, Master of Science thesis, Pisa University, Italy (2015). Google Scholar
    • 45. R. Bombardieri, R. Cavallaro and L. Demasi , A historical perspective on the aeroelasticity of box wings and PrandtlPlane with new findings, in Proc. 57th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conf., AIAA 2016-0238, San Diego, California (2016). Google Scholar
    • 46. R. Cavallaro, R. Bombardieri, S. Silvani, L. Demasi and G. Bernardini , Aeroelasticity of the PrandtlPlane: Body Freedom Flutter, Freeplay and Limit Cycle Oscillation ( International Variational Analysis and Aerospace Engineering: Mathematical Challenges for Aerospace Design, Springer, Cham, 2016). Google Scholar
    • 47. S. Silvani, Aeroelastic analysis of Prandtl Plane joined wings configuration, Master of Science thesis, Universit’a degli Studi di Roma, Italy (2015). Google Scholar
    • 48. S. A. Fazelzadeh, D. Scholz, A. Mazidi and M. I. Friswell , Flutter characteristics of typical wing sections of a box wing aircraft configuration, in Advanced Aircraft Efficient Global Air Transport System Conf., AEGATS2018-003, Toulouse, France (2018). Google Scholar
    • 49. PARSIFAL Project, Aeroelastic analysis of the baseline PrandtlPlane, Deliverable 5.2, Prandtlplane Architecture for the Sustainable Improvement of Future AirpLanes (2020). Google Scholar
    • 50. R. C. Costen, Products of Some Generalized Functions, Report for NASA, Report No. TN D-4244 (1967). Google Scholar
    Remember to check out the Most Cited Articles!

    Remember to check out the structures