Resumen
The numerical assessment of T-tail flutter requires a nonlinear description of the structural deformations when the unsteady aerodynamic forces comprise terms from lifting surface roll motion. For linear flutter, a linear deformation description of the vertical tail plane (VTP) out-of-plane bending results in a spurious stiffening proportional to the steady lift forces, which is corrected by incorporating second-order deformation terms in the equations of motion. While the effect of these nonlinear deformation components on the stiffness of the VTP out-of-plane bending mode shape is known from the literature, their impact on the aerodynamic coupling terms involved in T-tail flutter has not been studied so far, especially regarding amplitude-dependent characteristics. This term affects numerical results targeting common flutter analysis, as well as the study of amplitude-dependent dynamic aeroelastic stability phenomena, e.g., Limit Cycle Oscillations (LCOs). As LCOs might occur below the linear flutter boundary, fundamental knowledge about the structural and aerodynamic nonlinearities occurring in the dynamical system is essential. This paper gives an insight into the aerodynamic nonlinearities for representative structural deformations usually encountered in T-tail flutter mechanisms using a CFD approach in the time domain. It further outlines the impact of geometrically nonlinear deformations on the aerodynamic nonlinearities. For this, the horizontal tail plane (HTP) is considered in isolated form to exclude aerodynamic interference effects from the studies and subjected to rigid body roll and yaw motion as an approximation to the structural mode shapes. The complexity of the aerodynamics is increased successively from subsonic inviscid flow to transonic viscous flow. At a subsonic Mach number, a distinct aerodynamic nonlinearity in stiffness and damping in the aerodynamic coupling term HTP roll on yaw is shown. Geometric nonlinearities result in an almost entire cancellation of the stiffness nonlinearity and an increase in damping nonlinearity. The viscous forces result in a stiffness offset with respect to the inviscid results, but do not alter the observed nonlinearities, as well as the impact of geometric nonlinearities. At a transonic Mach number, the aerodynamic stiffness nonlinearity is amplified further and the damping nonlinearity is reduced considerably. Here, the geometrically nonlinear motion description reduces the aerodynamic stiffness nonlinearity as well, but does not cancel it.