Limit Cycle Oscillation Amplitude Tailorng Based on Describing Functions and \(\mu \) Analysis

  • Andrea IannelliEmail author
  • Andrés Marcos
  • Mark Lowenberg
Conference paper


Freeplay is a nonlinearity commonly encountered in aeroservoelastic applications which is known to cause Limit Cycle Oscillations (LCOs), limited amplitude flutter phenomena not captured by a linear analysis. Uncertainties in the models are also known to play an important role in triggering instabilities which might not be present in the nominal case, or altering their features in an unpredictable way. This paper shows the process to build a framework to study the nonlinear behavior of a typical section affected by a freeplay in the control surface and uncertainties in its parameters’ values. Starting from the definition of the nominal aeroelastic model, the nonlinear framework is implemented by means of the Describing Function (DF) method and robust analysis is introduced by means of \(\mu \) technique. In addition, it is shown an idea to perform a tailoring of the LCO graph of the system with the practical goal to limit the oscillation amplitude. Implications and advantages of using DF and \(\mu \) as primary tools are highlighted, and prowess of the methodology is showcased with an example.



This work has received funding from the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under grant agreement No 636307, project FLEXOP.


  1. 1.
    Allemang RJ, Brown DL (1982) A correlation coefficient for modal vector analysis. In: 1st International modal analysis conferenceGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Anderson MR (1998) Pilot-induced oscillations involving multiple nonlinearities. J Guid Control Dyn 21(5):786–791CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Baldelli DH, Lind RC, Brenner M (2005) Robust aeroservoelastic match-point solutions using describing function method. J Aircr 42(6):1597–1605CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bisplinghoff RL, Ashley H (1962) Principles of aeroelasticity. Wiley, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Borglund D (2004) The \(\mu \)-k method for robust flutter solutions. J Aircr 41(5):1209–1216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Conner MD, Tang DM, Dowell EH, Virgin LN (1997) Nonlinear behavior of a typical airfoil section with control surface freeplay: a numerical and experimental study. J Fluids Struct 11(1):89–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Danowsky B, Thompson PM, Kukreja S (2013) Nonlinear analysis of aeroservoelastic models with free play using describing functions. J Aircr 50(2):329–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dowell E, Edwards J, Strganac T (2003) Nonlinear aeroelasticity. J Aircr 40(5)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gelb A, Vander Velde WE (1968) Multiple-input describing functions and nonlinear system design. McGraw-Hill, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gordon JT, Meyer EE, Minogue RL (2008) Nonlinear stability analysis of control surface flutter with freeplay effects. J Aircr 45(6):1904–1916CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hodges DH, Pierce GA (2011) Introduction to structural dynamics and aeroelasticity, 2nd edn. Cambridge aerospace series. Cambridge University Press, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Iannelli A, Marcos A, Lowenberg M (2016) comparison of aeroelastic modeling and robust flutter analysis of a typical section. In: IFAC ACA, August 2016Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Iannelli A, Marcos A, Lowenberg M (2016) Modeling and robust body freedom flutter analysis of flexible aircraft configurations. In: IEEE MSC, September 2016Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Karpel M (1981) Design for active and passive flutter suppression and gust alleviation. Technical report 3482, NASAGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Khalil HK (1996) Nonlinear systems. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle RiverGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Kotikalpudi A, Pfifer H, Seiler P (2016) Sensitivity of robust flutter boundary to model uncertainties in aeroservoelastic systems. In: AIAA Scitech, January 2016Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lind R, Brenner M (2012) Robust aeroservoelastic stability analysis. Advances in industrial control. Springer, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Liu L, Dowell EH (2005) Harmonic balance approach for an airfoil with a freeplay control surface. AIAA J 43(4):802–815CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Packard A, Doyle J (1993) The complex structured singular value. Automatica 29(1)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pitt DM, Bansal P (2014) Uncertainties in control surface free-play and structural properties and their effect on flutter and LCO. In: AIAA Scitech conference, January 2014Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Shukla H, Patil M (2016) Control of limit cycle oscillation amplitudes in nonlinear aerelastic systems using nonlinear normal modes. In: AIAA Scitech conference, January 2016Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Tang D, Dowell EH, Virgin LN (1998) Limit cycle behavior of an airfoil with a control surface. J Fluids Struct 12(7):839–858CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Theodorsen T (1935) General theory of aerodynamic instability and the mechanism of flutter. Technical report 496, NacaGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wiggins P (2003) Introduction to applied nonlinear dynamical systems and chaos. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhou K, Doyle JC, Glover K (1996) Robust and optimal control. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle RiverzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andrea Iannelli
    • 1
    Email author
  • Andrés Marcos
    • 1
  • Mark Lowenberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Aerospace EngineeringUniversity of BristolBristolUK

Personalised recommendations