Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 1, No.4, pp.

253262 (2007)

TWO BETTER LOOSELY COUPLED SOLUTION ALGORITHMS

OF CFD BASED AEROELASTIC SIMULATION
Weiwei Zhang*, Yuewen Jiang and Zhengyin Ye
National Key Laboratory of Aerodynamic Design and Research,
Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xian, P. R. China 710072
* Email: aeroelastic@nwpu.edu.cn (Corresponding Author)
ABSTRACT: Two loosely coupled solution algorithms based on computational fluid dynamics (CFD) in time-domain
are presented in this paper to solve nonlinear fluid-structure interaction problems. One is an improved approximate
Runge-Kutta (IA-R-K) scheme and the other is a hybrid linear multi-step (HLM) scheme. Polynomial extrapolation of
the general aerodynamic loads is used in these two schemes. They achieve high-order accuracy by solving the flow field
only once in each time step. They do not only improve the computational efficiency but also provide working
convenience for the fluid-structure interaction solution. Their remarkable accuracy, stability and computational
efficiency are demonstrated by time-domain flutter simulation of Isogai Wing and AGARD Wing 445.6.
Keywords:

aeroelasticity, flutter, time-domain simulation, IA-R-K, HLMS

needed at every time-step. Aerodynamic loads are

computed for each time-step and then the structural
deformations produced by those loads are
computed. The aerodynamic loads around this new
structural configuration are then recomputed. This
iterative procedure is repeated until the fluid and
structure are perfectly synchronized at each timestep. So the computational cost is very high and the
unsteady flow field solver also needs to be modified
to go with the subiteration algorithm.
Loosely-coupled algorithms for the solution of nonlinear aeroelastic problems are advantageous:
among all solution methods, they are the simplest to
implement for realistic applications and the most
computationally inexpensive per time-step. There
are two kinds of methods for solving the first-order
differential equations (the governing equations of
the aeroelastic problem can be treated as first-order
differential equations). One is called single-step
method, such as the second-order Euler scheme,
fourth-order Runge-Kutta scheme, and so on. The
other one is called multi-step method, for example,
the second-order/fourth-order Adams multi-step
scheme.
For most of the single-step schemes, the
aerodynamic loads are frozen at each time-step
(Gupta, 1996; Batina, 1989; Rausch, Batina and
Yang, 1989; Ye and Zhao, 1994). Fluid flow is
solved using the current structural configuration to
give aerodynamic loads to the next structural

1. INTRODUCTION
Aeroelasticity is the interaction between
aerodynamics and a flexible body. Flutter is a
typical aeroelastic problem. Because of the needs of
flights in the transonic regime or at high angle of
attack, and because of the inefficacy of traditional
methods in solving these non-linear problems, some
non-linear fluid-structure coupled numerical
methods are developed for these non-linear
aeroelastic problems. Euler and Navier-Stokes
equations based Computational Fluid Dynamics
(CFD) techniques are suitable for solving the nonlinear aeroelastic problems since they make the
fewest assumptions about the characteristics of the
flows. Since the computational cost of the method
is very high, exploration for better computational
efficiency and quality is now a hot topic that
attracts much research efforts.
An implicit monolithic algorithm to solve the fluidstructure interaction problems has been documented
in literature (Alonso and Jameson, 1994; Liu et al.,
2001; Sadeghi and Liu, 2001). The coupling
operation is carried out in every finite cell of the
flow field. So it needs to modify the existing
unsteady flow field solvers and it is not convenient
to upgrade the subsystems.
A strongly coupled algorithm is presented in the
works of Yang, Obayashi and Nakamichi (2003)
and Allen and Djayapertapa (2002). Subiteration is
Received: 9 Apr. 2007; Revised: 7 Jun. 2007; Accepted: 9 Jun. 2007
253

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 1, No. 4 (2007)

flutter period can still achieve stable results. But the

predictor-corrector procedure of implicit scheme
needs to solve the aerodynamic loads two times at
each time-step. Not only is the computational cost
two times higher than that of an explicit scheme, it
is also less convenient to operate when compared
with an explicit scheme.
In order to take full advantage of the efficiency,
accuracy, stability, and operational convenience of
loosely coupled algorithms, two kinds of fluidstructure coupled solution method are presented in
this paper. They are Improved Approximate RungeKutta (IA-R-K) scheme and hybrid multi-step
scheme (HLM). These two loosely coupled
schemes are not inferior to the implicit strongly
coupled scheme or the fully monolithic schemes in
terms of computation accuracy and numerical
stability. As a matter of fact, they have the
advantages of high computational efficiency and
operational convenience because only single-step
flow field solving is needed at each time step. Some
computational transonic flutter results demonstrate
the efficiency, accuracy and stability of the two
methods. Fig. 1 shows the categories of the fluidstructure interaction solution methods and the
positions of the two methods developed in this
paper.

configuration. This is simply repeated for each

time-step. Hence, the fluid and structure are not
synchronized in time, and there is always a phase
lag between the structure and flow. Farhat,
Lesoinne and other researchers developed some
single-step schemes for solving the fluid-structure
interaction problem (Farhat and Lesoinne, 2000;
Farhat, Kristoffer and Geuzainec, 2006; Piperno
and Farhat, 2001), such as improved serial
staggered scheme (ISS) and improved parallel
staggered scheme (IPS). They achieved secondorder time accuracy by adding computation of halfstep at each time-step. So ISS or IPS scheme needs
to compute the flow field two times at each timestep. Convergent results can be achieved by using
70100 real time-steps per flutter period for ISS or
150200 real time-steps per flutter period for IPS.
Some conventional single-step scheme needs no
less than 1000 real time-steps per flutter period.
Multi-step scheme is a suitable method for solving
fluid-structure interaction problems. Different from
the single-step scheme, the high-order accuracy
results of the n+1 step is constructed by the
computed results of several forward steps. Only one
time computation of the function is needed for
getting a high-order time accuracy explicit multistep scheme. So the efficiency is greater than that of
single-step schemes for problems with complex
functions, such as the CFD based fluid-structure
interaction computation. Because the aerodynamic
loads only need to be computed once, the unsteady
flow field solver can be used as a module to solve
fluid-structure
interaction
problem
without
modifications.
Cunningham, Batina and Bennett (1988) used linear
multi-step scheme in Computational Aeroelasticity
Program-Transonic Small Disturbance (CAP-TSD).
But the results showed that the stability of the
explicit multi-step scheme is not very goodabout
300 time-steps per flutter period is used to calculate
AGARD wing 445.6. According to our
computational experience, about 100 time-steps are
needed to maintain the numerical stability of the
aeroelastic response. The implicit linear multi-step
scheme was used by Robinson, Batina and Yang
(1990) to improve the stability in time domain.
Predictor-corrector procedure was used to solve the
implicit function, explicit scheme was used in the
predictor step and implicit scheme was used in the
corrector step. The stability is much higher than that
of the explicit scheme. Our computational
experience shows that 3050 real time-steps per

Monolithic algorithm

Conventional scheme

Single - step ISS/IPS scheme

IA - R - K scheme (present)
Loosely coupled algorithm
Explicit scheme

Mult - step Implicit scheme

Hybrid scheme (present)

Strongly coupled algorithm

Fig. 1

Categories of the fluid-structure interaction

solution methods.

2. GOVERNING EQUATIONS
A convenient and economical representation of the
dynamic characteristics of a flexible structure is the
concept of the generalized coordinates. In this
concept, the physical deformations of an elastic
structure are represented by a generalized
coordinate transformation, where the generalized
coordinates are given by eigen modes or assumed
modes of the structure. In general, the eigen modes
are most prefered. The time dependent deformation
vector is:
254

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 1, No. 4 (2007)

E n +1 = E n + (k 1 + 2k 2 + 2k 3 + k 4 ) / 6
k = t ( A E + B F(E ,t ))
n
n
1
=

+
+ B F((E n + k 1/ 2), ( t + t/ 2)))
k
t
A
E
k
/
2
(
(
)
2
n
1
k = t ( A (E + k / 2) + B F((E + k / 2), ( t + t/ 2 )))
n
2
n
2
3
k 4 = t ( A (E n + k 3 ) + B F((E n + k 3 ), ( t + t )))

w (x , y, z, t ) = w x i + w y j + w z k
N

(x, y, z) (t )
i

(1)

i =1

where N is the finite number of structural modes

and i (t ) is the ith generalized coordinate
corresponding to the mode shape i (x, y, z ) .
The aeroelastic governing equations based on the
mode coordinates are as follows:
..
.
M + G + K = F

(4)
In the Eq. (4), the function F(E, t ) needs to be
calculated four times at each physical time-step.
F(E, t ) is not explicit. It is solved by CFD based
unsteady flow field solver. In addition, the
boundary conditions are difficult to deal with for
unsteady flows. So the function such as
F((E n + k1 / 2 ), ( t + t / 2 )) cannot be easily obtained.
The operation of conventional single-step
scheme
freezes
the
aerodynamic
parts
F at each physical time-step. That is to say, the
F((E n + k1 / 2 ), ( t + t / 2 ))
,
functions
F((E n + k 2 / 2 ), ( t + t / 2 )) and F ((E n + k 3 ), ( t + t )) are
replaced by the function F (E n , t ) at each physical

(2)

where

F = p( x , y, z, t ) i ( x , y, z )ds = q C p ( x , y, z, t ) i ( x , y, z )ds
i s
s

M, G, K, and F are mass matrix, damping matrix,

stiffness matrix and generalized forces vector
respectively; q is the dynamic pressure of the free
stream; p and Cp are unsteady pressure and
unsteady pressure coefficient which are solved by
the CFD based flow field solver.
T

Defining the structural state-vector E = , , the

structural equations in state space can be shown as
follows:

E = f (E, t ) = A E + B F(E, t )

where

A=

O
M 1K

I
1

,B=

time-step. So only one time calculation is needed at

each physical time-step and serial staggered
computation of the fluid and structure is realized. In
this paper, this scheme is called conventional
approximate Runge-Kutta scheme (CA-R-K). For
most of the flutter problems, the aerodynamic part
F is almost of the same order of the structural part.
Therefore, however high the time accuracy order of
the structural part and the unsteady flow field
solving procedure are, the coupled time accuracy
will always be first-order.
For aeroelastic problems, aerodynamic loads are a
continuous function of time, which means without
any break or jump in the stationary responses. We
use the following method to predict aerodynamic
loads F in each physical time-step.
At every time-step, F is treated as a single variable
function of time t. The improved approximate
4-step Runge-Kutta (IA-R-K) time marching
method is used to solve equation (3).

(3)
O
M 1 .

After the unsteady flow field solver and the

technique of structural dynamic analysis are
prepared, the solution of fluid-structure interaction
will be to integrate the aeroelastic governing
equation (3).
3. IMPROVED APPROXIMATE RUNGEKUTTA SCHEME

For the first-order differential equation, E = f (E, t ) ,

standard fourth-order Runge-Kutta scheme is
widely used because of its high-order time accuracy
and good stability properties.
For the aeroelastic governing equation (3), it can
also be integrated by the standard R-K scheme:

E n +1 = E n + (k 1 + 2k 2 + 2k 3 + k 4 ) / 6
k = t ( A E + B F ( t ))
n
1
=

k
t
(
A
(E
2
n + k 1 / 2) + B F ( t + t / 2))
k = t ( A (E + k / 2) + B F ( t + t / 2))
n
2
3
k 4 = t ( A (E n + k 3 ) + B F ( t + t ))
255

(5)

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 1, No. 4 (2007)

F ((E n + k1( 2 ) / 2 ), ( t + t / )) F( t + t / 2 )
1
3
= (3F( t 2t ) 10F( t t ) + 15F( t )) + O t
8

F((E n + k 3 ), ( t + t )) F( t + t )
= F( t 2t ) 3F( t t ) + 3F( t ) + O t 3

Fn +1 = 2Fn Fn 1

( )

( )

Substituting equation (9) into equations in (8), we

obtain the second-order hybrid linear multi-step
scheme.
(6)

E = E + t (3 f f )
n
n
n 1
n +1
2

t
t
= E n + (3A E n A E n 1 ) + (3B Fn B Fn 1 )
2
2

t
E n +1 = E n + ( f n + f n +1 (E n +1 , t + t ))
2

= E n + t (A E n + A E n +1 ) + t (3B Fn B Fn 1 )

2
2

F ( t + t / 2) and F ( t + t ) in the last three steps are

computed by second-order rearward extrapolation
using F ( t ) , F ( t t ) and F ( t 2t ) as shown in
equations in (6). The accuracy of the IA-R-K
scheme is obviously higher than that of the CA-R-K
scheme, which freezes the aerodynamic loads per
time-step. At the same time, the former only needs
to compute the aerodynamic forces once at each
time-step, which enhances operational convenience
of this fluid-structure coupled solution. The
following numerical results show its accuracy.

(10)
Similarly, by a fourth-order extrapolation using four
points:
Fn +1 = 4Fn 6Fn 1 + 4Fn 2 Fn 3

4. HYBRID LINEAR MULTI-STEP SCHEME

= En +

(11)

we obtain the fourth-order hybrid linear multi-step

scheme:

Equation (3) can be integrated by the standard

second-order explicit Adams linear multi-step
scheme (EALM).
E n +1 = E n +

(9)

E
n +1

E n +1

t
(3 f n f n 1 )
2

t
(3A En A En 1 ) + t (3B Fn B Fn 1 )
2
2

(7)
It can also be integrated by the second-order
implicit Adams linear multi-step scheme (IALM)
using predictor-corrector procedure.

t
(55 f n 59 f n 1 + 37 f n 2 9 f n 3 )
24
t
= En +
(55A E n 59A E n 1 + 37 A E n 2 9A E n 3 )
24
t
+
(55B E n 59B E n 1 + 37B E n 2 9B E n 3 )
24
t
(9 f n +1 (E n +1 , t + t ) + 19 f n 5 f n 1 + f n 2 )
= En +
24
t
(9A E n +1 + 19A E n 5A E n-1 + A E n 2 )
= En +
24
t
(55B Fn 59B Fn 1 + 37B Fn 2 9B Fn 3 )
+
24
= En +

(12)
The corrector-step of equation (10) shows that with
the introduction of the extrapolation of the
generalized aerodynamic loads, the implicit scheme
of the aerodynamic parts in Eq. (8) turns out to be
an explicit scheme of the same order. The structural
parts retain the characteristics of an implicit scheme
and therefore, the fluid-structure interaction
solution method presented in this paper is called
implicit-explicit hybrid linear multi-step scheme
(HLM), in which only one time aerodynamic
solution is needed at each time-step.
The error analysis of the HLM scheme is as
follows:

E = E + t (3 f f )
n
n
n 1
n +1
2

t
t
= E n + (3A E n A E n 1 ) + (3B Fn B Fn 1 )
2
2

t
E n +1 = E n + ( f n + f n +1 (E n +1 , t + t ))
2

= E n + t (A E n + A E n +1 ) + t (B Fn + B Fn +1 (E n +1 , t + t ))

2
2

(8)
Equation (7) shows that one-time aerodynamic
solution is needed for the explicit scheme and
Eq. (8) shows that two-time aerodynamic solution is
needed for the implicit scheme at each physical
time-step.
For the corrector step of Eq. (8), the aerodynamic
loads of the n+1th time-step ( Fn+1 ) is extrapolated
by Fn1 and Fn .
256

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 1, No. 4 (2007)

In the same way, we obtain the local truncation

error of the corrector-step from equations in (12).

t
A
E
n + 1 = E n + 2 t E n + E n + 1 + 2 3B Fn B Fn 1

A
t

= E + t E + E +

n n 2 3 f n f n 1 +
n
2

[3(A E n + B Fn ) (A E n 1 + B Fn 1 )

3A E + A E
n
n 1

t
A

= E + t 2E +
3f f

n
n
n
n 1
2
2

t
+
3A E + A E
3f f

n
n 1
n
n 1
2

t
A

)
=E +
2 A E + t (3 f f
n
n 1
n 2
n
2

+ 3f f
3A E + A E

n
n 1
n
n 1

3
1

=E +
+ t f t f
A E + E
n
n 1 2
n 2
n 1
n
2

+ 3f f

n
n 1

R n ,t =

(16)
Thus it can be seen that the truncation error of
equations in (12) is a fifth-order one. So the scheme
is of fourth-order accuracy.

5. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The new fluid-structure coupled solution algorithms

are demonstrated for the Isogai Wing at Mach 0.8
and AGARD Wing 445.6 at Mach 0.901. The
advantages of the two schemes introduced in this
paper are shown by comparing them with other
schemes in both the aeroelastic responses and
critical flutter velocities analysis.
Fig. 2 shows the flutter velocity boundary compared
with the results of Alonso and Jameson (1994) and
Liu et al. (2001) to demonstrate the correctness of
the
two-dimensional
aeroelastic
simulation
program. For the Isogai Wing, the dimensionless
flutter velocity is about 0.810 at Mach 0.8. Keeping
the free stream conditions unchanged, the
aeroelastic responses of the wing are computed
using the CA-R-K, IA-R-K, EALM, IALM and
HML schemes and various time-steps. t is the
time-step; Tflutter is the flutter period; and N is the
number of samples in each flutter period,
N = Tflutter / t . Fig. 3 to Fig. 6 compare the
aeroelastic responses by various schemes and
various time-steps.

(13)
Assuming that E(t) is approximated by including up
to the third derivative, thus:
4 2 '' 8 3 '''
t E + t E + .....
2
6
2
3
t
t

E n = E n 1 + tE ' +
E '' +
E '''
2
6

t 2 '''
f n = E n + E ' n 1 + tE '' +
E
2

( )

9
251 5 (5)
At 5 E ( 4) ( t n ) + O t 6
t E ( t n ) +
24
720

E n +1 = E n 1 + 2tE ' +

(14)

E' , E'' , E''' and E (i) are

the first-order derivative,

second- order derivative, third-order derivative and
ith-order derivative of E( t n 1 ) respectively.
Considering E n = E( t n ), E n 1 = E( t n 1 ) , the local
truncation error of equations in (10) can be
expressed as:
R n ,t = E( t n +1 ) E n +1
4
8
= E n 1 + 2tE ' + t 2 E '' + t 3 E '''
2
6

2
3

t
t
E n 1 + tE ' +
E '' +
E '''
2
6

t
7
2 ''
3 '''
+
At E + At E
2
12
3
'
''
+ 2E + 3tE + t 2 E '''
2

5 3 ''' A 3 ''
=
t E t E +O t 4
12
2

5
This paper
Liu et al.
Alonso&Jameson

4.5

(degree)

4
3.5
3
2.5
2

( )

1.5
1

(15)

0.5

Thus it can be seen that the local truncation error of

equations in (10) is of a third-order. So the scheme
has second-order accuracy.

0
0.7

Fig. 2
257

0.75

0.8

0.85

Ma

0.9

0.95

Flutter boundary of Isogai Wing.

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 1, No. 4 (2007)

CA-R-K
IA-R-K
Second order EALM
Second order IALM
Second order HLM
Forth order EALM
Forth order IALM
Forth order HLM

/ rad

0.01

0.005

/ rad

0.015

N=100
N=200
N=600

0.005
0

-0.005
10

20

-0.005
0

30

40

50

0.01
0.005

10

0.005

/ rad

(a) CA-R-K

40

60

/rad

20

N=30
N=100
N=200

0.005

30

40

50

th

30

40

50

60

-0.005
0

Fig. 6

-0.005
0

10

20

30

40

50

(b) IA-R-K

Fig. 4

60

N=75
N=200
N=600

-0.005
0

10

20

30

40

50

30

40

50

30

40

50

(a) 2nd order EALM

60

N=30
N=200
N=600

0.005

-0.005
0

10

20

nd

(b) 2 order IALM

60

N=30
N=200
N=600

0.005

-0.005
0

10

20

nd

(c) 2 order HLM

10

20

(c) 4 order HLM

60

Responses solved by the forth-order Linear

Multi-step scheme.

The comparisons above show that accuracy of the

CA-R-K scheme is very low, with more than 1000
time-steps per flutter period required for results of
high accuracy. Accuracy of the IA-R-K scheme is
very high, much higher than that of the secondorder scheme. The IA-R-K scheme inherits the
characteristics of good stability of the standard R-K
scheme30 time-steps per flutter period give
satisfactory results.
In comparing schemes of the same category,
accuracy of the fourth-order scheme is obviously
higher than that of the second-order scheme.
However, its stability is inferior to that of the
second-order scheme. In fact, fewer time-steps are
needed to obtain numerical stability.
A comparison of the three linear multi-step schemes
demonstrates that explicit schemes have the lowest
stability. Stable responses can only be achieved
when N>70 for the second-order EALM scheme
and N>90 for the fourth-order EALM scheme. The
IALM and HML schemes show better stability
about 30 time-steps per flutter period for the
second-order schemes and 50 time-steps per flutter
period for the fourth-order schemes are sufficient to
ensure numerical stability. In order to illustrate the
stability characteristics, Fig. 7 shows the unstable

Responses solved by the CA-R-K scheme and

IA-R-K scheme.

0.005

/ rad

th

(b) 4 order IALM

/rad

20
N=40
N=200
N=600

-0.01

/rad

60

-0.005

-0.005

Fig. 5

0.01

50

0.005

N=40
N=200
N=600
N=3600

-0.015 0

40

N=40
N=200
N=600

60

Responses solved by various schemes (N=200).

0.015

/ rad

20

/rad

Fig. 3

10

30

th

(a) 4 order EALM

60

Responses solved by the second-order Linear

Multi-step scheme.
258

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 1, No. 4 (2007)

costs of computing 20 flutter periods by various

time-steps. For the same time-step, time costs of the
HML/IA-R-K schemes are almost half of those of
the IALM schemes which needs computations of
the flow field twice per time-step.

responses of the upper limit time-step solved by

various schemes.
In Table 1, various schemes are compared for their
accuracy in predicting flutter velocity. The findings
are in line with the aeroelastic responses discussed
in the above paragraphs. Table 2 shows the time

0.01

/ rad

/ rad

0.01

-0.01

-0.01
0

20

40

60

(a)2nd order EALM(N=67)

10

15

(b)4th order EALM(N=90)

0.02
0.01

/ rad

/ rad

0.01

-0.01

-0.01

-0.02
0

(c)2nd order IALM(N=27)

10

20

40

60

(d)4th order IALM(N=38)

0.02
0.01

/ rad

/ rad

0.01

-0.01
0

Fig. 7

-0.01

(e)2nd order HLM(N=27)

-0.02

10

10

(f)4 th order HLM(N=38)

15

Unstable responses of the upper limit time-step for various schemes.

Table 1 Flutter velocities of Isogai Wing computed by various schemes and various N.

ND

40

75

100

200

600

1800

3600

CA-R-K

0.68

0.72

0.74

0.77

0.796

0.806

0.81

IA-R-K

0.814

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.813

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.812

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

ORDER EALM

4TH ORDER EALM

ND

ORDER HLM

0.82

TH

ORDER HLM

0.815

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

0.81

2ND ORDER IALM

4TH ORDER IALM

0.83
0.816

0.815
0.81

0.81
0.81

0.81
0.81

0.81
0.81

0.81
0.81

0.81
0.81

Table 2 Time costs of computing 20 flutter periods by various time-steps.

N

/COMPUTING

FLUID FIELD ONE TIME PER TIME-

STEP(MIN)

CA-R-K, IA-R-K, EALM, HLM, CSS, CPS

t / COMPUTING FLUID FIELD TWO TIMES
STEP(MIN)
IALM, ISS, IPS

PER TIME-

40

75

100

200

600

1800

3600

120

145

153

213

346

473

480

241

291

305

424

673

930

1155

259

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 1, No. 4 (2007)

The schemes presented in this paper are also used to

compute 3D transonic flutter problem. Fig. 8 shows
the computed flutter boundary of AGARD Wing
445.6 compared with the experimental data (YATES,
1987). Fig 9 shows the typical responses at different
velocities for Mach 0.901. The computed
dimensionless flutter velocity is about 0.398 and the
dimensionless flutter frequency is about 0.3912.
Given the same free stream conditions (Mach
0.901, V *f = 0.398 ), the aeroelastic responses of the

Present methods(Dt=0.002)
Farhat and Lesoninne(Dt=0.002)
Lee-Rausch and Batina(Dt=0.0001)
Gupta(Dt=0.000425)
Experiment

0.8

0.7

0.6

Vf

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

wing are computed by using various schemes and

various time-steps as shown in Fig. 10. They also
demonstrate the superiority of the IA-R-K/HLM
scheme over the other schemes in terms of accuracy
and stability as the conclusions from the results of
Isogai Wing. It is noted that the dimensional
coupling time-step t corresponds to sampling the
flutter period in 26 points (N=26), corresponds to
sampling the period of the first torsional mode of
the wing in 10 points (in 25 points by ISS/IPS
scheme (Farhat and Lesoinne, 2000)). Fig. 11
shows some typical numerical unstable responses
solved by various schemes. They show that
numerical instability is induced when the number of
samples per period of the highest order structural
mode is the least.

1.1

(a) Flutter velocity index

Present method(Dt=0.002)
Farhat and Lesoninne(Dt=0.002)
Lee-Rausch and Batina(Dt=0.0001)
Gupta(Dt=0.000425)
Experiment

0.8

0.6

0.7

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.1

CA-R-K(N=1040)
IA-R-K(N=35)
Second order EALM(N=83)
Second order HLM(N=35)
Forth order EALM(N=104)
Forth order HLM(N=52)

(b) Flutter frequency index

Fig. 8

Flutter boundary of AGARD Wing 445.6.

4E-05

2E-05

2E-05

1
2
3
4

-2E-05
0

0.2

0.4

(a) Vf*= 0.389

0.6

0.8

-2E-05

2E-05

-4E-05

-2E-05
0

0.2

0.4

(b) Vf*= 0.398

0.6

0.8

0.1

0.2

t/s

0.3

0.4

0.5

Fig. 10 Time responses computed by various schemes

and various time-steps (M=0.901, VF*=0.398).

5E-05
0

-5E-05
0

Fig. 9

0.2

0.4

(c) V f*= 0.406

0.6

0.8

t/s

Time responses of AGARD Wing 445.6

(M=0.901).

260

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 1, No. 4 (2007)

1
2
3
4

4E-05

This work was supported by the National Natural

Science Foundation (10432040, 10572120) and the
Doctorate Creation Foundation of Northwestern
Polytechnical University (CX200402). The authors
would also like to thank Prof. Lingcheng Zhao and
Prof Yongnian Yang.

2E-05

2E-05

-2E-05

-2E-05

-4E-05

-4E-05
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

(a) 2 nd order EALM(N=52)

0.01

0.02

0.03

(b) 4 th order EALM(N=70)

0.04

t/s

1
2
3
4

4E-05

REFERENCES

2E-05

2E-05

0.08

t/s

1
2
3
4

4E-05

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1
2
3
4

4E-05

1. Alonso JJ and Jameson A (1994). Fully-implicit

time-marching aeroelastic solutions. AIAA
940056.
2. Batina JT (1989). Unsteady Euler airfoil
solutions using unstructured dynamic meshes.
AIAA 890115.
3. Christian A and Lesmana D (2002). Numerical
simulation of transonic flutter suppression by
active control. AIAA 20022713.
4. Cunningham HJ, Batina JT and Bennett RM
(1988). Modern wing flutter analysis by
computational fluid dynamic methods. Journal
of Aircraft 25:963968.
5. Farhat C, Kristoffer G. van der Zeeb and
Geuzainec P (2006). Provably second-order
time-accurate
loosely-coupled
solution
algorithms
for
transient
nonlinear
computational
aeroelasticity.
Computer
Methods
in
Applied
Mechanics
and
Engineering 195:19732001.
6. Farhat C and Lesoinne M (2000). Two efficient
staggered algorithms for the serial and parallel
solution of three-dimensional nonlinear
transient aeroelastic problems. Computer
Methods
in
Applied
Mechanics
and
Engineering 182:499515.
7. Gupta KK (1996). Development of a finite
elament aeroelastic analysis capablility. Journal
of Aircraft 33(5):9951002.
8. Liu F, Cai J, Zhu Y, Wong ASF and Tsai HM
(2001). Calculation of wing flutter by a coupled
fluid-structure method. Journal of Aircraft
38(2):334342.
9. Piperno S and Farhat C (2001). Partitioned
procedures for the transient solution of coupled
aeroelastic problems-Part II: energy transfer
analysis and three-dimensional applications.
Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and
Engineering 190:31473170.

-2E-05

-2E-05

-4E-05

-4E-05
0

0.02

0.04

0.06

(c) 2 nd order HLM(N=26)

0.08

t/s

0.02

0.04

0.06

(d) 4 th order EALM(N=35)

0.08

t/s

Fig. 11 Unstable responses of the upper limit time-step

for various schemes.

6. CONCLUSIONS
This research shows that the present loosely
coupled schemes (IA-R-K and HLM) for solving
aeroelastic problem in time domain are not inferior
to implicit strongly coupled scheme or fully
monolithic schemes in terms of computation
accuracy and numerical stability. At the same time,
the two schemes presented in this paper achieve
high order accuracy by solving the flow field only
one time at each time step. These characteristics not
only improve computational efficiency but also
provide convenience for the fluid-structure
interaction solution. The unsteady flow solver as a
module can be used to solve the aeroelastic problem
without any modifications. It also makes it
convenient to upgrade the computation structural
subsystem or fluid subsystem.
The error of the HLM scheme is analyzed
theoretically. The numerical results validate the
accuracy and efficiency from both the convergences
of aeroelastic responses and flutter velocities. The
numerical stability of the IA-R-K or HLM schemes
is also very strong. To achieve satisfactory results,
only 3050 samples per flutter period are needed.
The IA-R-K and HLM schemes presented in this
paper provide high efficiency, high-order accuracy,
strong stability and simple operation.

261

Engineering Applications of Computational Fluid Mechanics Vol. 1, No. 4 (2007)

10. Rausch RD, Batina JT and Yang TY (1989).

Euler flutter analysis of airfoils using
unstructured dynamic meshes. AIAA 8913834.
11. Robinson BA, Batina JT and Yang TY (1990).
Aeroelastic analysis of wing using the Euler
equations with a deforming mesh. NASA TM102733.
12. Sadeghi M and Liu F (2001). Investigation of
non-linear flutter by a coupled aerodynamics
and structural dynamics method. AIAA
20010573.
13. Yang Guowei, Obayashi Shigeru and
Nakamichi Jiro (2003). Aileron buzz simulation
using an implicit multiblock aeroelastic solver.
Journal of Aircraft 40(3):580589.
14. Yates EC (1987). AGARD Standard Aeroelastic
Configurations
for
Dynamic
Response
candidate configuration I-Wing 445.6. NASA
TM-100492.
15. Ye ZY and Zhao LC (1994). Nonlinear flutter
analysis of wings at high angle of attack.
Journal of Aircraft 31(4):973974.

262