System Mode Shapes in the Flutter of

Compressor Blade Rows'

FRANK LANEf
New York University

ABSTRACT INTRODUCTION

The problems associated with the prohibitive number of pos-

sible system modes for a fluttering compressor or turbine blade
row are eliminated by the development that comprises the present
T H E C H I E F CONTRIBUTION of t h e research reported
herein lies in t h e establishment of a m e t h o d t h a t
permits t h e linear flutter analysis of configurations
report. T h e existence and uniqueness of extremely simple sys-
tem flutter modes are proved for blade rows consisting of identical characterized b y a large n u m b e r of identical fluttering
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502

blades equally spaced about a common rotor. These simple
system modes, if properly interpreted, have the effect of reducing
by a factor of n t h e number of degrees of freedom necessary to
analyze an w-bladed configuration. Stated differently, the system
of n blades m a y be considered, with no loss of generality whatso-
ever, in terms of a single "equivalent blade." T h e proof holds
under any type of flow and any and all types of interblade
coupling, so long as a linear analysis is permissible. Moreover,
since it is the flutter-inception point t h a t is of interest in pre-
dicting critical velocity or rotational speed, it m a y well be t h a t
the conclusions developed apply even to the onset of stall flutter.
Practical application of the method to stall-flutter calculations
would, of course, require the availability of aerodynamic stall-
flutter coefficients.
The development is carried out first under the assumption of
infinite rotor inertia or, in other words, constant rotor velocity.
This restriction is then relaxed, and the treatment is expanded to
permit torsional oscillations of the rotor itself. I t is proved that
under certain conditions the assumption of infinite rotor inertia
introduces no error whatsoever.
SYMBOLS
A = flutter matrix with infinite rotor inertia assumed
A = flutter matrix with finite rotor inertia
V = relative flow velocity at some reference radius
k = reduced frequency of flutter ( = co&/ V) at reference radius
b semichord length at reference radius
n = number of blades in row
/ = time
p = number of degrees of freedom alloted to each blade
g = generalized-coordinate vector excluding rotor deflection
q = generalized-coordinate vector including rotor deflection
qtt = generalized coordinate associated with rotor deflection
Qa = generalized coordinates associated with blade twisting
qu = generalized coordinates associated with blade bending
12 = rotor angular velocity, rad. per sec.
o) = flutter (circular) frequency
ov = argument (radians) of vth of the n nth. roots of unity
a = phase-lag angle between adjacent blades at flutter
Received September 20, 1954.
* The investigation reported in this paper was sponsored by the
Wright Air Development Center, Air Research and Development
Command, under Contract A F 33(616)-25 with the Research
Division, College of Engineering, New York University. Project
Director, Chi-Teh Wang, Professor of Aeronautical Engineering.
f Research Associate Professor of Aeronautical Engineering,
Daniel Guggenheim School of Aeronautics.
54
members and, accordingly, encumbered b y a prohibi-
tively large number of degrees of freedom. I n order
to place this development in t r u e perspective it is
necessary to outine t h e methods b y which m a n y -
bladed configurations have been flutter analyzed in
the past a n d to indicate wherein t h e present t r e a t m e n t
extends or supersedes this previous research.
W i t h t h e availability of well-established methods for
flutter analysis of single, isolated wings, t h e first a n d
most obvious method for treating multibladed systems
is to ignore all forms of interblade coupling a n d t o
proceed under t h e assumption t h a t each blade flutters
just as it would in t h e absence of all other blades.
This approach can b e considered as zeroth order a p -
proximation a n d m a y lead to unconservative estimates
of critical flutter velocity.
T u r n e r a n d Duke, 9 in an investigation of propeller
flutter, neglect aerodynamic interaction b u t dispose
of t h e interblade coupling t h a t arises from t h e physical
connection of t h e blades of a three-bladed propeller
to a common h u b b y resolving t h e propeller system
mode into " r e s o n a n t " and " a n t i r e s o n a n t " components
t h a t are t h e n shown t o be uncoupled. This, in t u r n ,
allows t r e a t m e n t of a single blade in formulating t h e
flutter problem, all under t h e assumption of zero aero-
dynamic interaction between blades. T h e cumber-
some n a t u r e of t h e analysis b y resolution into resonant
and antiresonant modes (it appears awkward even for
as few as three blades) indicates t h e unsuitability of
this approach to systems such as compressors a n d t u r -
bines with m a n y blades. Lilley 2 noted, from experi-
mental observations of t h e flutter of a series of elastic
wings arranged in cascade, t h a t adjacent blades were
approximately 180 o u t of phase when fluttering.
This phenomenon was termed "antiphase m o t i o n "
by Lilley, who recognized immediately t h a t , for t h e
case of zero stagger, a cascade fluttering in antiphase
motion is aerodynamically equivalent to a single wing
oscillating between parallel walls with its a t t e n d a n t
image system. T h e aerodynamics of t h e single wing
oscillating under t h e interference of tunnel walls h a d
been studied previously b y Reissner 4 ' 5 a n d others
and is presented in somewhat different form b y Lilley 2
 with a view toward obtaining oscillatory air forces
for the unstaggered cascade in antiphase motion.
Lilley then applied these air forces to t h e unstaggered
cascade flutter problem for the particular values of
elastic and inertial parameters corresponding to his
experimental system, under the assumed condition
t h a t the system flutter was in antiphase motion, and
the agreement between theory and experiment proved
excellent. I t is to be emphasized t h a t Lilley's observa-
tions indicated t h a t , for b o t h staggered and unstaggered
cascades, adjacent blades a t flutter were approximately
out of phase and t h a t he derived air forces and solved
the cascade flutter problem assuming antiphase motion
for only the unstaggered cascade. Previous results
for tunnel interference effect on a single oscillating
wing also, for obvious reasons, apply only to the un-
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502
staggered case. T h e importance of Lilley's work lies
in the fact t h a t he was able to assume in advance t h e
form of the system mode, based on experimental evi-
dence, and hence to determine the oscillatory air
forces (including interaction between blades) and
proceed with a solution of the flutter problem subject
to the restrictions imposed b y the antiphase assumption.
Chang and C h u 1 present a derivation of the oscilla-
tory lift and m o m e n t acting upon the blades of an un-
staggered two-dimensional cascade a t zero or very small
incidence, under the restrictive assumption t h a t all
blades oscillate in phase with one another. This as-
sumed condition permits a solution of the aerodynamics
problem by mapping techniques similar to those used
by Theodorsen 8 for the fluttering single wing. As
will appear evident from calculations to be reported
in a subsequent paper, the in-phase assumption is the
least conservative one possible with respect to the
prediction of critical flutter velocity. In fact, it will
appear t h a t critical flutter velocities predicted on t h e
basis of an assumed in-phase motion of all blades will
exceed the critical velocity of one of the blades alone,
whereas actual blade-row critical flutter velocities are
considerably less t h a n t h a t of an isolated blade.
A study of Lilley's paper suggested to the present
author the possibility of performing a general investiga-
tion of system flutter modes for multibladed systems
with the objective of predicting, or a t least restricting
in advance the form of t h e system mode which exists a t
the fluttering condition. W e content ourselves here
with a somewhat oversimplified s t a t e m e n t of t h e con-
clusions reached as a result of t h e investigation. I t is
proved t h a t a system of identical blades identically
supported and equally spaced a b o u t a common rotor,
whether this rotor be rigid or elastic and of infinite or
finite inertia, will flutter in a system mode or a t worst
in a linear combination of modes, in which all blades
oscillate with identical blade modes and in which each
blade leads or lags its neighbor b y a common phase
angle, the value of this angle constituting one portion
of the solution of the flutter problem for a particular
configuration. T h e conditions under which this state-
m e n t is proved are sufficiently general to encompass
any type of flowincompressible, subsonic, supersonic,
55
or even stalling (separating and reattaching boundary
layer)so long as a linear analysis is permissible a t
the flutter inception point. Moreover, the develop-
m e n t permits of all forms of couplingaerodynamic,
elastic, or inertialbetween blades. Incidentally, as
a consequence of this proof of existence of a simple
system flutter mode, it is shown t h a t the antiphase
motion observed b y Lilley is to be expected for t h e un-
staggered cascade a t zero incidence b u t not necessarily
for other configurations. T h e degree of departure from
exact antiphase motion in the case of nonzero stagger
or nonzero incidence, or both, m u s t be determined as a
result of t h e flutter calculation for the particular con-
figuration in question.
ANALYTICAL D E V E L O P M E N T
(1) Consequences of the Cyclic Characteristics of the
Configuration
I n order to keep the explanation from becoming too
cumbersome, the details will be developed for a system
in which just two degrees of freedom are alio ted to
each blade (one in torsion qa and one in bending qu).
T h e method is, however, equally applicable when any
number, p, of degrees is allowed per blade, and, a t
appropriate points in the development, t h e method of
extending to more coordinates per blade will be in-
dicated. T h u s we consider a cyclic system of n blades
all identical and identically supported and all equally
spaced. B y "cyclic" arrangement we mean only to
signify the usual propeller, turbine, or compressor
configuration wherein the last or nth. blade is adjacent
to t h e first blade. We denote b y qj, qj} the generalized
coordinates corresponding to the torsion and bending
modes, respectively, of t h e jth blade, with (harmonic)
time dependence removed, and we arrange the vector
of generalized coordinates in the form
2a l
2z
qj
(i)
q"
.qu"
where OJ is the flutter frequency. We assume initially
infinite rotor inertia so t h a t no coordinate is necessary
for the rotor itself. Now, under the most general con-
ditions of coupling, the final system of (2) flutter
equations will take the form
Aq = 0 (2)
wherein the matrix A m u s t be of cyclic form in its
second-order submatrices as a consequence of t h e cyclic
geometry of the configuration. T h e flutter equation is
then of the following form, in expanded notation:
 56 JOURNAL OF T H E AERONAUTICAL S C I E N C E S JANUARY, 1956

d\ h G2 #3 h dn bn Hz*1]
Ci & C2 d2 Cz d% dn On
an bn CLl h a2 b2 dn-\ bn-l qJ
Cn dn Ci d1 C2 d2 Cn-1 dn-i q_u \
dn-i bn-l dn bn Q>\ h dn-2 bn-2 qj
Cn-l dn-i Cn dn Ci dt c
n-2 dn-2 qj = 0 (3)

a2 b2 a b di h qan
c2 d2 Cz d, 4 di Ci di J .qunA

where elastic, dynamic, and aerodynamic coupling we m a y write Aj} Bjy Cj} Dj equally well in the following
m a y exist between blades, as well as within a single form:
blade.
Here at represents the total effect of the torsion mode Aj = (ai + d2a>j + anu>j~l + an-iUj ~ +
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502

in the sth blade upon the torsion mode of the (s + 1 Bj = (61 + b2ccj + bno)j-1 + W bn_!o>j-2 +
i)\h blade, bt represents the effect of the bending mode etc.
in the 5th blade upon the torsion mode of the (s + 1 (5a)
i)th blade, ct is t h e effect of the torsion mode in the sth Now since the determinant | A | is unaltered in magni-
blade upon t h e bending mode of t h e (s + 1 i)th tude b y adding to any row multiples of t h e remaining
blade, and dt is the total effect of the bending mode in rows, we form new first and second rows p / and p2 in
the sth blade upon the bending mode of the (s + 1 the following manner (p7 denotes the original j t h row
f)th blade. T h e torsion mode of t h e nth blade affects and p / the n e w j t h row).
the bending mode of the second blade in exactly the
same way t h a t the torsion mode of the first blade af- Pi' = Pi + w / _ 1 P 3 + o)jn~2pb + ... + Wjp2n-l
fects t h e bending mode of t h e third blade, and so on. (6)
P2 = P2 + 0)jn-lpi + Ujn~2pe + . . . + 0)jP2n
I t is to be noted t h a t the degrees of freedom (charac-
terized b y au in bending and qa in torsion) are taken as This leaves | A \ unaltered in magnitude and in the
the same spanwise or radialwise functions for each following form (recalling t h a t (a>j)" = 1):
blade. In other words, some single bending mode is
Aj BJ AJ B, B,
taken as the bending mode for each blade and some AJ Bj
single torsion mode is t a k e n for the torsion mode of all
blades. No assumption is m a d e beforehand, however, LJ -Oj Cj Dj DJ
CJ D,
with regard to the relative magnitude or phasing of the Uj COj CO/ CO/ Uj
occurrence of the bending and torsion modes in any one \A\ = dn bn di bi a2 b2 . Q>n1 bn-l
or in different bladesi.e., the vector solution a is ^n dn di d! c2 d2 Cn-1 dn-l
completely unrestricted.
We now proceed to show, b y a s t u d y of the deter- (Remaining rows unaltered)
m i n a n t | A | of matrix A, t h a t a great deal can be said c2 d2 Cz dz 4 d\ ... C\ d\
in advance a b o u t the resulting form of q and t h a t , in (7)
fact, t h e problem m a y be reduced from one requiring
2n degrees of freedom to one with only two degrees (in Suppose now t h a t we expand the determinant \A\ by
general the reduction is from pn to p degrees). T h e the Laplace expansion with respect to the first two rows,
s t u d y of | A | stems from an extension of the special using I A I in the form (7). We see t h a t all minors of
circulant determinant (to which | A | would reduce if the form
we allowed initially only one degree of freedom per
Aj Aj Bj Bj
blade).
8
Let o)p be the pth of the n nth roots of unityi.e., (COj) (C0,)*|
and
(wy) s
(,)*
Cj
c7 D^ Dj
(4) (C0,-) S (Uj)'1 (COJ)8 {UjY

define the scalar quantities

vanish since they are expressible as determinants with
A1 = (ai + a2ccj + azaij2 + . . . + anoijn~l) identical columns. Moreover, all nonzero minors
Bj = (6x + b2a>j + hail + . . + bnU*-') formed from the first two rows contain
(5)
Cj = (Ci + C200j + C30)/ + . . + CnCo/"1)
Dj = (di + d2ccj + dsooj2 + . . + dnCOj"-1) \Aj Bj
(8)
Cj Dj\
I t should be noted t h a t , in view of the fact t h a t

CO/ = 1 for all j as a factor. T h u s , since Aj is a factor for each of the n

 SYSTEM
different values of j (corresponding to t h e n different
nth roots of unity), we m a y express | A \ in the product
form
L4, 5,1
K n A, =K n
5 = i
with i as yet undetermined; in fact K m a y depend
upon the various a's, &'s, c's, and d's until we prove
otherwise. Now the product (9) is already of order n
in any ajy bj} cjf or dj,' hence K cannot depend upon
these elements, b u t m u s t in fact be simply a numerical
constant since | A | itself is of order n in each of the %,
bjf Cj, dj. Moreover, since the leading diagonal term of
IA | contributes (ai)n-(di)n we see immediately t h a t K
must be unity. T h u s we obtain the expansion of | A |
in the particularly simple form
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502
A, Bj
I A I = n A, = n
j = i j = i Cj Dj\
where the product extends over the n nth roots of
unity.
At this point we m a y remark t h a t the initial use of
more t h a n two degrees of freedom per blade would
have led, through similar arguments, to t h e same form
of expansion for \A\ except t h a t the factors A, would
be of order p instead of order twoi.e.,
A
Ahp
A,
\A\ = n A, = n
j = i j = i
Ajpl A,
the elements of these A7 being defined in the same man-
ner [see E q . (5)] as the Ajt Bj} Cj, Dj were defined in
the two degree of freedom per blade situation. This is
easily seen b y remarking t h a t the original p X n order
determinant would be expanded, after Laplace's
method, by the first p rows following a process such as
Eq. (6) in which, to each of the first p rows were added
linear combinations of every pth following row multi-
plied by a suitable power of co,-.
(2) Determination of Critical Flutter Velocity
Now the flutter problem consists in finding the critical
velocity V and corresponding flutter frequency co such
t h a t the determinant | A | vanishes and a nontrivial
system mode q is possible as a solution of Eq. (2). T h e
lowest velocity V which causes [ A | to vanish and
which, with the corresponding value of co, is consistent
with an initially chosen reduced frequency k ( = oob/ V)
is the critical flutter velocity. T h e nontrivial vector
or vectors q which then satisfy Eq. (2) constitute the
system flutter mode or modes. I t is to be recalled
t h a t the elements aJ} bjt cjf dj, of A involve k and, in
compressible flow, the M a c h N u m b e r M, in such a
complicated transcendental form t h a t it is necessary to
insert numerical trial values of these parameters, k and
M, into A before proceeding with the flutter problem
or, alternatively, to include an undetermined parameter
in the analysis. We will forget a b o u t M a c h Number,
MODE SHAPES 57
M, for the present development, assuming t h a t if nec-
essary, t h e entire process presented herein will be re-
peated with new trial values of M until a trial value of
M and the resulting critical flutter velocity V are con-
sistent with the free-stream sound velocity. More-
(9)
over, we mean by b (semichord) V, k, or any other pa-
rameter, the value of the parameter a t some reference
station along the blade span, since in rotating blade
systems with radially varying chord t h e usual defini-
tions of k, V, and b actually vary along a blade. Further,
we assume t h a t the velocity V is interchangeable with
the rotor velocity 0, since in general either V, 0, or
the ratio of the two will be fixed in advance.
Returning for convenience, b u t with no loss of gener-
ality, to the case wherein two degrees of freedom are al-
lowed to each blade, we continue the s t u d y of the system
flutter problem through an examination of the factored
(10) form (10) of the flutter determinant, \A\ . Obviously,
if IAI is to vanish, as it m u s t for existence of a non-
trivial flutter mode, a t least one of t h e n factors A,
m u s t vanish. Hence the scheme which suggests it-
self a t first is the following. Annihilate, in turn, each
of the n minors A, by a proper choice of k and subse-
quent solution for V (call it Vj). This m a y be per-
formed, for each A7, by the method of successive trial
values of k, known as Theodorsen's method 6 or b y t h e
method of including an undetermined parameter.
Having fixed upon a trial value of k, frequency m a y be
replaced by velocity through the relation
(11)
kV/b (12)
Then the elements of any A, become complex first de-
gree polynomials in V2, and the expansion of A, becomes
a second (in general pth) degree polynomial in V2, with
complex numerical coefficients. Separating the coef-
ficients into real and imaginary parts, for each A;-, we
get a pair of simultaneous algebraic equations in V2.
These are then solved respectively for the roots VR2,
VJ2 which, in general, will not be the same. New
trial values of k are inserted and the roots V2 m a y be
plotted versus k, until an intersection is obtained^
i.e., until some choice of k leads to a common solution.
VR2 = Vi2, for both the real and imaginary equations.
I n case several intersections occur, the solution with
the minimum value of V is used, since this will provide
the most critical condition for the particular minor A^
under consideration. T h e final critical velocity corre-
sponding to the jth minor A?, will be called Vj and the
associated k and oo, kj and ooj. T h e process is repeated
for each A^, until values of Vj} kj and co;- are available
for each of the n minors. T h e minimum V} then gives
the flutter velocity, and the associated kj provides the
flutter frequency co; through E q . (12). If one or more
of the A^ fails to lead to a physically realizable (real)
pair, Vj, CCJ then this index is merely neglected in the
comparison to determine the minimum Vj. Summariz-
ing, we have found the velocity V and the associated k
and o) which annihilate one (or possibly more t h a n one)
of the minors A; and which achieve this annihilation
with minimum velocity. This group, k, F, oo would
 58 J O U R N A L OF THE A E R O N A U T I C A L
have been t h e one arrived a t b y t h e far more cumber-
some procedure of annihilating t h e original flutter
determinant \A\ directly and choosing t h e annihilat-
ing group with minimum velocity.
A t this point a tremendous simplification suggests
itself for turbine and compressor blade systems with
large numbers of blades. For large n, the nth roots of
u n i t y approach a condition of density a b o u t the unit
circle. T h u s we replace the preceding process of pick-
ing a minimum Vj from among a large set of discrete
values b y a minimization process with respect t o t h e
root angle, a. I n other words, we set equal to zero the
general minor
A9 Bt
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502
wherein the n discrete values of t h e nth roots of u n i t y
are replaced b y t h e angle a which is temporarily as-
sumed to be continuously variable between 0 and 2-ir,
and wherein we use an extension of E q . (5a) to define
Aa, -Dai Ca, Da\
r Looking a t this point in a slightly different light, it
Aa = (ai + a2eta + ane la + aze2t<r + an + )
B9 = (ftx + b2ei<T + bne~iv + he2i + br -ie + )
Now t h e annihilation of the general minor A,,, leads to
the two equations,
PB(V\ k, a) = 0
Pi(V\ k, a) = 0
in which PR, PI are polynomials in V2 with coefficients
depending transcend en tally upon k and upon a. After
insertion of a trial value of k, Eqs. (15) m a y be solved,
respectively, for VR2(<J) and Vi2(a). W e shall show
subsequently t h a t velocity (and frequency) m a y be
expected to v a r y smoothly with t h e angle <J. T h u s ,
to each of several (say ten) values of a between 0 and
2w we find t h e value (or, possibly, values) of k which
gives consistent roots,
TV(cr) = VT2(a)
2
T h e consistent roots' V (o) and t h e corresponding
values of k = k(<r) are then plotted against a. T h e
flutter condition is found simply b y picking the mini-
m u m value of V2(ap) where <rv is one of the admissable
discrete values of a.
<TV = 2-Ku/n
T h a t is, on t h e curve (or curves, in case more t h a n one
consistent condition exists for some range of values of
a) of V2 versus a we find the minimizing value of a and
t a k e t h e nearest admissable <rv with its corresponding
Vv, & as t h e flutter condition.
T h e replacement of t h e problem of annihilation of n
determinants Av b y t h e annihilation of the general
minor Aa a t a m u c h smaller (than n) number of points
and subsequent plotting of annihilating combinations
V, k, versus a to determine t h e critical flutter condition
is justified as follows: referring to E q . (14) and remark-
ing t h a t the influence of distant blades becomes small
S C I E N C E S JANUARY, 1956
rapidly with increasing distance, we see t h a t Aa, Ba,
Ca, Da and hence also PR and Pi, take the form of finite
complex Fourier series in t h e angle cr, with rapidly de-
creasing coefficients for the higher harmonics. T h u s
it is to be expected t h a t V2(a) and k{a) will v a r y
smoothly in a despite the presence of high harmonics
(for large n). Indeed, as will be seen subsequently, if
the coupling between blades is of an aerodynamic na-
ture only, then for incompressible flow t h e infinite
Fourier series corresponding to E q . (14) are expressible
in closed form as smooth (actually analytic) functions
of a for 0 < a < 2ir. Hence the plotting process to
locate a minimum V and the replacement of t h e mini-
mizing angle a b y the nearest admissable value av
(13) should be a valid means of obtaining the critical flutter
velocity and associated frequency. If t h e high har-
monics occurred with large coefficients then t h e plot-
ting process and the replacement of the minimizing value
of the angle a b y an adjacent admissable value av would
be open to question, b u t the physical n a t u r e of the prob-
lem eliminates this difficulty.
seems reasonable to believe t h a t a blade system with n
blades, where n is large, will exhibit a critical flutter
(14)
velocity which differs only slightly from a system with
identical blades, identically supported, b u t (n + 1) in
number. This reasoning provides additional support
for our contention t h a t V(<r) will v a r y "smoothly"
(15) with cr, thereby justifying the minimization process
and the replacement of the minimizing angle a, b y its
nearest admissable value, <rv.
(3) Determination of the Flutter Mode
Having determined the critical flutter velocity and
the associated values of k, it remains to compute t h e
corresponding flutter mode q. This mode t u r n s out to
be very easily described, and in t h e case where \A\
vanishes simply (or doubly in the case of a symmetric
blade configuration) to have a very interesting physical
relation to t h e angle a or <sv. Consider t h e minor A
(16)
which is annihilated b y t h e critical velocity Vv and t h e
associated kvi forgetting, for the present, t h e possibility
of multiple degeneracyi.e., assume for t h e present
t h a t A vanishes simply and t h a t no other Ay vanishes
upon insertion of V = Vv, k = kv. T h e n
\AV Bv
0 (18)
(17) \CV Dv
and there exists a nontrivial vector (qa, qu) such t h a t
YAV / j Vqa'
= 0 (19)
Expanding the elements AVBV etc., and t h e Eqs. (19),
we find
(ai + aw,, + a3co,2 + . . . + anuvn-l)qa +
2 n-l\n =
(6i + &2w + huv +...+& o
(20)
2 n l
(ci + c2co + czu + . . . + cno)v )qa +
(di + d2oi, + dzu2 + . . . + dnuvn~l)qu = Oj
B u t these are equivalent to
 SYSTEM MODE SHAPES 59

ai bi a2 b2 az h \~q
C\ d\ c2 d2 c% fl>3 cn an qu
uvqa
uvqu
uv2qa
= 0 (21)
u2qu

*vn-lqa
l
U/- q j u

Or, in other words, the vector under the condition t h a t the minor A is annihilated b y
insertion of the critical flutter velocity. Now multiply
qa both Eqs. (20) through by co obtaining
<lu
uvqa (an + diuv + a2uu2 + . . + an--i(avn-l)q_a + J
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502

uvqu (bn + &ico + b2u2 + . . + bn-iwvn-l)q_u = Of

(22)
(cn + cxuv + c2u2 + . cn-navn-l)qa +
{dn + dio)p + d2uv2 + . . + dn^iuvn-l)qu = 0/
l
0)p q* (23)
l
J*v qu^
upon recalling t h a t {uv)n = 1.
is a solution of the first two of the original 2n E q s . (3) Eqs. (23) m a y be rewritten in the form

dn bn Q>\ h a2 b2 . an-i bn-l ~q

&n dn Ci dx c2 d2 . Cn-1 dn-l qu
^vq<x
uuqu
u2qa
= 0 (24)
uv2qu

uvn- lq<\
l
\j*vn~ qu]

T h u s the vector q of Eq. (22) is also a solution of the
third and fourth equations of system (3). B y multi-
plying Eq. (20) by successively higher powers of cop we
see t h a t Eq. (22) is indeed a nontrivial solution of t h e
complete original flutter equation. T h e nontriviality
follows from the existence of t h e nontrivial pair qa,
qu. Now in the case where insertion of V = Vv causes
only simple degeneracy of the matrix A, our solution
(22) is unique to within an arbitrary multiplicative
constant. Moreover t h e form of the solution (flutter
mode) is amazingly simple. qa, qu is simply the vector
solution to the homogeneous second-degree system (19)
which is easily determined once the elements of A are
available, and this represents t h e fundamental blade
mode. All other blades flutter with exactly the same
blade mode, with same magnitude of occurrence of this
mode (all the powers of coy are of unit magnitude) and
with a phase shift equal to the angle av occurring be-
tween successive blades. T h u s , as soon as we find the
angle, <rvf if A is simply degenerate upon insertion of
Vv, we can solve a second (or, in general a pth) order
system for the blade mode and immediately write down
the system mode solution with no further effort.
N e x t we consider the possibility of multiple-degener-
acy. Multiple-degeneracy of A, it should be noted,
implies t h a t upon insertion of the critical flutter veloc-
ity V = Vvi either one of the minors vanishes multiply
or several of the minors vanish simply or multiply for
a single value of k. If only one minor, A^ is annihilated
b y the flutter velocity Vv and if this minor is doubly-
degenerate (or possibly multiply-degenerate in the case
of ^>-order minors) then there exist a t most two (or
possibly more in the ^>-order case) linearly independent
solution vectors {q a , qu}. T o each of the linearly inde-
pendent blade modes there corresponds a unique
(within a multiplicative constant) system mode of pre-
cisely t h e same form as Eq. (22). Hence, in this case,
the final system flutter mode is expressible a t worst as a
linear combination of solutions of the form (22) with
different blade modes b u t equal frequencies and phase
shift between blades. If Vv, kv cause the simultaneous
vanishing of more t h a n one minor A, then to each
vanishing minor there corresponds one or more solu-
tions of the form (22). T h e final system flutter mode
will then once again be expressible as a linear combina-
tion of solutions of the form (22) with equal frequency
 60 J O U R N A L OF
b u t with t h e possibility of n o t only different blade
modes b u t also different phase shift between blades for
each of t h e component vectors.
Of special interest is t h e symmetrical blade and flow
configuration (zero stagger, zero incidence, a n d sym-
metrical elastic a n d dynamic influence) in which a t
least double-degeneracy will always occur. F o r in this
case,
a2 = any a 3 = an-h a4 =
h = bn, h = & w _i, b4 =
2 = cn> 3 cn\, c = cn2,
d2 = dn, d3 = dn-i, d =
Hence, t o a n y minor A a corresponding minor AM_
will vanish with t h e insertion of t h e velocity Vv. This
is easily seen b y introducing E q . (25) into t h e defining
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502
relations (5) for Av, By, Cp, and Dv. Under symmetry,
Av = {a,i + 2a 2 cos <rv + 2a 3 cos 2uv +
2a{yi + i)/ 2 cos [(n 1)/2](TV\
Bv = {bi + 2b2 cos <JV + 2&3 cos 2<JV +
+ 26(M+i)/2 cos [(n l)/2]ap\
etc.
and
Av = {<2i + 2a 2 cos o- + . . 2an//2
2 cos [(w
tt(n + 2)/2 & v
etc.
and obviously, if Vv causes A to vanish it will also cause
AM_ to vanish, since
cos 2-K(m/n)(n v) = cos
and
" / ( 17 It* TT-t It f*
6'( - ) = ^ f()r ^ eyen
for all integers m. Hence, if only t h e two minors A
and AM_ vanish (simply) upon insertion of F, &, then
the solution (flutter mode) will be expressible as a linear
combination of t w o modes of t h e form (22) with identi-
cal blade modes and with equal b u t opposite phase
shift between blades. This satisfies our intuitive feel-
ing a b o u t t h e symmetric case, since, with s y m m e t r y of
flow and configuration, there should be no "preferred
direction"i.e., there is no more reason w h y the jth.
blade should lead t h e (j l ) t h blade b y angle uv than
lag t h e ( j l ) t h blade b y this angle.
I t should be noted t h a t there is a possibility of t h e
occurrence of another type of degeneracy which we
shall call "quasi-multiple-degeneracy." This situation
occurs whenever | A | vanishes with two or more dif-
ferent values of k, each being associated with t h e same
value of V, a n d when this V is t h e minimum of all an-
nihilating Vs. Physically, this implies t h a t as the
critical velocity V is approached, flutter m a y occur in
either of t w o different modes, each having a different
frequency, or in some undetermined linear combination
of these two modes. Since the possibility of occurrence
of this quasi-multiple-degeneracy is rather remote, we
shall n o t dwell further upon t h e matter, except to note
t h a t there is also t h e possibility of both multiple- and
T H E A E R O N A U T I C A L S C I E N C E S J A N U A R Y , 1956
quasi-multiple-degeneracy occurring simultaneously,
with still greater complications.
Finally, t h e entire preceding discussion with regard
to flutter mode is easily generalized t o t h e case in which
p degrees of freedom are allowed to each blade. Here
the equation corresponding to (19) will possess a non-
trivial >-order blade mode, and t h e process which led
up to t h e system mode (22) is duplicated for t h e higher
order system. Hence again in t h e simply degenerate
aw_2, etc.
case, a single blade mode of p components characterizes
bn^2, etc.
(25) all blades, a n d all blades experience this mode with
etc.
equal magnitude, equal frequency, and with a common
dn^2, etc.
phase-shift angle a between adjacent blades. Multi-
ply-degenerate cases lead to flutter modes which are
expressible as linear combinations of solutions of this
type. I t is t o be emphasized t h a t multiple degeneracy
is of no consequence in t h e determination of t h e flutter
velocity Vv. Once t h e minimum Vv V(av) is found,
this is t h e critical flutter velocity, and t h e possibility
fornoddf t h a t this V m a y cause | A \ to vanish multiply does n o t
(26)
.. alter this fact.
for n odd J
(4) Significance of the Flutter Mode
Having completed the analysis of t h e multi-bladed
system in very general terms, we m a y now give an in-
2)/2R + terpretation to the results which simplifies tremendously
ina /2 ) for w even
the linear flutter analysis of a n y blade row. Examina-
tion of E q . (19) or t h e extension of E q . (19) to t h e p-
order case, shows t h a t this corresponds actually to a
situation in which we solve for t h e flutter of only one
blade when this blade is under a very special form of
2ir(m/n)v\
influence from all other blades; namely, all other blades
(27) oscillate with the same blade mode, t h e same magnitude
I of occurrence of this blade mode, and with a phase
shift of (as y e t undetermined) angle a between adjacent
blades. Since under multiple-degeneracy t h e flutter
mode is still composed of a linear combination of modes
of this type, t h e present considerations cover t h e mul-
tiply-degenerate case as well.
Keeping t h e foregoing remarks well in mind, t h e solu-
tion of t h e flutter problem for a cyclic arrangement of
m a n y blades m a y be performed as follows. Allow only
enough degrees, p, of freedom to describe satisfactorily
the motion of a single blade in flutter. Derive for one
blade t h e air forces experienced b y this blade when it
oscillates in bending and twisting a n d all other blades
oscillate in t h e same blade mode with equal magnitude
and with a phase shift of some undetermined angle a
between adjacent blades. Do t h e same for t h e kinetic
and potential energy matrices. I t is to be emphasized
t h a t no restriction is involved in this assumption and
t h a t all interblade interference is correctly accounted
for. T h e n solve t h e flutter problem for this single
"equivalent b l a d e " leaving t h e phase angle a unde-
termined. Finally, minimize t h e flutter velocity with
respect t o a t o obtain t h e critical flutter velocity a n d
replace a b y t h e closest admissable value av. If one
value of <TV minimizes V, a n d if t h e p order determinant
vanishes simply upon insertion of t h e critical Vv and av
then t h e system flutter mode m a y be written directly
 SYSTEM MODE SHAPES 61

as given by Eq. (22). If the ^-order determinant ordinates (with harmonic time dependence, elw\ re-
vanishes multiply or if several distinct values of <JV moved) corresponding to the torsional and flexural
give the same minimum value of F f o r the same k, then, degrees of freedom in the jth blade. Now we arrange
while the system flutter mode cannot be written down the complete flutter mode vector (call it q) in the form
expressly, still it is known to be expressible as a linear
combination of a finite number of easily determined
linearly independent vectors of the form (22). T h e qal
occurrence of quasi-multiple-degeneracy does not affect
the critical velocity V, b u t does again complicate the q*
flutter mode prediction. qu2
(28)
Finally, it should be remarked t h a t a phase shift per
blade of angle <rv, where (et<rv) is one of the nth roots
of unity, is consistent with t h e physical n a t u r e of an n-
bladed system, for it is easily seen t h a t any blade is
"in phase with itself" as it certainly m u s t be in actual- qun
ity. This suggests a further simplification in the prob-
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502

lem of obtaining the interference air forces for a blade where, once again, harmonic time dependence has been
row with a large number of blades. We merely assume removed and t h e q's are simply complex amplitudes.
t h a t any blade has an "interference effect on itself" as T h e complete, final system of flutter equations will
though it were located n blades away from itself, and then be expressible in the simple form
this allows us to express the entire interference for all
Aq = 0 (29)
blades in the form of a complex infinite Fourier series
in the undetermined angle a, with coefficients depend- w h e r e in A h a s t h e f o l l o w i n g f o r m :
ing upon the blade number multiplied b y t h e gap. In
7 8 V 8 rj . . 8 V
effect we replace the finite number of blades n by an
a ai 6i a2 b2 .. . an bn
infinite number, and hope t h a t the resulting Fourier
series will be recognizable in closed form. In the case 0 C\ dx c2 d2 Cn dn
a dn bn ai 6i .. 0"n-\ bn-l
of a cascade with or without stagger and with zero or
very small flow deflection in incompressible flow, it is A = na Cn dn C\ d! .. cn-\ dn-l
(30)
an-i bn-l dn bn an-i bn-2
indeed the case t h a t the Fourier series m a y be replaced
j8 Cn-1 dn-i Cn d n Cn-2 dn-2
b y a comparatively simple single function of a, valid
for 0 < a < 2T. This will be described in detail in a
subsequent report.
Oi d2 b2 d\ bi
(5) Extension to the Case Where the Rotor May Oscillate $ C2 d2 C\ di
in the Rotary Direction
T h e justification for writing A in the form (30) follows
We now extend our considerations of blade system immediately from the physical arrangement of the
flutter modes to the situation in which the blade row is blades upon a rotor. T h e form of the submatrix ob-
mounted upon a rotor of finite m o m e n t of inertia. We tained b y deleting the first row and first column is a
assume t h a t the rotor is rigidly constrained to remain direct consequence of t h e fact t h a t the blades are ar-
in its plane of rotation (no axial deflection) b u t t h a t it is ranged cyclically about the rotor and the nth blade
capable of rotary deflection and t h a t , through the effect affects the first blade in precisely the same manner as
of the rotor shaft and of other components mounted on the first blade affects the second, and so on. I t is to be
this shaft, we can a t t r i b u t e to the rotor a certain spring noted t h a t A allows for all types of coupling, aerody-
constant and a damping constant which govern re- namic, elastic, and dynamic, between the blades and
spectively the resistance to angular deflection and rate for t h e influence of the blades upon the rotor and of the
of deflection. This makes it necessary to introduce an rotor upon the blades. T h e first element y in t h e
additional degree of freedom q1 corresponding to the principal diagonal of A includes the rotor inertia, the
rotor deflection angle. Let effective rotor spring constant and the effective rotor
damping constant. T h e alternating form (6, 77, 8,
<Z = feiat
rj, . . .) of the remainder of the first row follows from the
and then drop the bar (-) in further considerations as fact t h a t the bending mode in all blades affects the rotor
we have done tacitly in E q . (1). qaettat is the instan- equally, and t h e torsion mode in all blades affects the
taneous angle through which the rotor is deflected away rotor equally. Likewise, the first column { a, /3, a, /3
from its equilibrium rotating position tit and is con- . . . } reflects t h e fact t h a t t h e rotor deflection affects
sidered positive in the same sense as 12. all blade bending modes identically and affects all
Once again we restrict our detailed considerations to blade torsion modes identically. N o t e t h a t no assump-
the case where two degrees of freedom are allowed to tions are implied in the form of A other t h a n the re-
each blade, and again the extension to more degrees is striction to identical blades, identically supported and
trivial. Again, let qj, qj denote the generalized co- equally spaced.
 62 JOURNAL OF T H E AERONAUTICAL S C I E N C E S JANUARY, 1956

W e now proceed in a m a n n e r similar, b u t not identi- p2 = P2 + P4C0J,-1 + P6CO-2 + pgCOy~ + P2nUv

cal, to t h a t pursued in the case where t h e rotor inertia Pz' = P3 + P5C0,,-1 + P7CO~2 + p9C0
3
" + + P2n+IMV
was assumed infinite. Letting co denote the z^th of v = 1,2,3, ... (n - 1 )
the n n t h roots of unity, (33)
U/j/ K/ (31) (The value of \A\ is unchanged b y substituting the
new rows p 2 ' and p 3 ' for the original rows p2 and p3,
and defining Av, Bv, Cv, Dv as beforei.e.,
since we have merely added to the original rows, linear
Av = (ai + a2co + a^co,- 1 + a%wv2 + aw_ico-2 + . . .) ] combinations of succeeding rows). Now making use of
Bv = (bi + b2o)v + bnuv 1 + &3co2 + &_:iw ! the fact t h a t co/ = 1 for all v and
etc. +
v = 0,1,2, . . . . (n - 1) = 0
YJ tO*
(32) p = 0 P = i
for v j * 0
we leave the value of the determinant | A | of matrix A (34)
for v T^ n
unchanged b y forming new second and third rows as
follows (pj denotes an original row and p / , the altered we m a y write the determinant \A\ of matrix A in the
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502

row): form

7 8 V 8 V 8 V . 8 V
Av Bv A Bv A, B
0 A, Bv co C0 co,2 co/ co/"1 cV^1

0 cv Dv c, cv D.
00v 00v co/ co,2 ' ' ' CO/"1 CO j ,

a an bn dl h a2 h . aM_i bn-l
13 ^n dn C\ di Ci di Cn-l dn-i (35)
a an~i bn-l
P Cn1 dn-i

[Remaining rows unchanged from original

form (30)]
valid for v 1,2, . . . (n 1)

T h e zero elements in the first column of each of the and third rows of E q . (35) contain
second and third rows follow directly from relation (34)
Bt
and from the m a n n e r (33) in which the new second and
third rows were formed. N o t e t h a t E q . (35) is not
valid for v = 0 or v = n since Eq. (34) does not hold as a common factor, for any fixed value of v. Since
in these cases. Now we consider t h e Laplace expansion this is true for v = 1,2,3, . . (n 1) we see t h a t \A\
of | A | b y its second and third rows, using the form (35) contains the (n 1) factors
for \A\. W e see immediately t h a t all minors of the
v = 1,2.3 . . {n - 1)
form A, = (36)
A
Av Av B. B
N o w we perform operation (33), only with v = 0
CO/ co/ co/ co
i.e., we form new second and third rows as follows (re-
and
calling t h a t coo = oo n = 1)
cv c, D, D
co/ co/ co/ oov P2 = P2 + PA + P6 + + Pin
(37)
PZ = PZ + P5 + Pi + ... + P2n + 1
vanish due to t h e fact t h a t they are expressible in terms
of determinants with identical columns. T h e only T h e resulting expression for \A\ [which again is un-
nonzero minors which m a y be formed from the second changed b y the process (37) ] is

7 8 V 8 V 8 rj 8 7}
na Ao Bo Ao Bo Ao Bo .. . Ao Bo
n(3 Co Do Co Do Co Do ... Co Do
a an bn ai h a>2 b2 an-i bn-i
A = (38)
13 ^n dn C\ dl 2 di Cnl U"nl

Oi
rerr Lainitlg rows unaltered from original form
(30)
 SYSTEM MODE SHAPES 63

where A0 = ai + a2 + a3 + . . + an velocity and frequency we proceed exactly as for the

n n n infinite-inertia-rotor case with t h e reservation t h a t the
Bo = E K Co = Cr, 2 ^ 0 = <*r (39) root angle, av for v 0 becomes exceptional. We m a y
r = 1 r = 1 r = 1 elaborate somewhat on this point. In order for flutter
This time we expand \A\, in the form (38), b y its first (a nontrivial solution vector q) to occur, the determi-
three rows. Noting t h a t a n y third order minors formed n a n t \A\ m u s t be annihilated b y some combination of
from the first three rows vanish if they have two identi- velocity V and flutter frequency co (or, alternatively, V
cal columns, we see t h a t the only nonzero minors of and k). This is completely equivalent to the annihila-
order three contain tion of one or more of the factors

7 8 V Ao, Ai, A2, Aw_i

na A0 Bo (40)
T h u s we determine, for each factor AoAiA2 . . ., the V
n/3 Co Do
and k which annihilate this factor (picking the combina-
as a factor. tion with minimum V in case more t h a n one pair, V,
T h u s we have shown t h a t A I is expressible in the k, annihilates any factor) and remark t h a t the flutter
factored form condition is given b y the pair, V, k, with minimum V.
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502

Obviously, if the pair with minimum V corresponds to

\A\ = KAo n A, (41) one of the minors A [v = 1,2,3, . . (n 1)] and if the
= 1 pair k, V which annihilates
where K m a y contain any of the elements (aif bi} cit dif
A0 Bo\
7, a, /3, 8, 7]) of \A\ until we prove otherwisei.e., Ao =
Co Do\
all we have shown thus far is t h a t each of the factors in
the product (41) is indeed a factor of \A\. B u t every exhibits larger velocity V t h a n this minimum Vv, then
term in Eq. (41) is of (total combined) order (2n + 1 ) the flutter frequency and critical velocity for the finite-
in the elements (aif bif ch dif 7, 8, a, @, rj) of A and, inertia-rotor are identical to the frequency and velocity
likewise each term in the complete expansion of | A | is for t h e flutter condition of the infinite-inertia-rotor.
of order (2n + 1) in these elements. T h u s K m u s t Stated differently, if for a given rotor and blade system
be a constant, independent of these elements. Now we solve for t h e flutter velocity and frequency in two
we note t h a t the leading diagonal of | A | contributes ways, once assuming infinite rotor inertia and once
the term taking proper account of rotor inertia, spring constant,
damping and rotor-blade coupling, then we will find
7(ai)W
exactly the same critical flutter conditions (frequency
to the expansion of \A\, and the coefficient of y(ai)n and velocity) for the two cases, provided t h a t A0 is not
{dxY in Eq. (41) is simply K. Thus the factor with minimum annihilating velocity in t h e
infinite inertia case and A0 is not the factor with mini-
K = 1 m u m annihilating velocity in the finite inertia case. If
and we have finally A0 were the factor (under the infinite-inertia-rotor as-
(n - 1
sumption) with minimum annihilating velocity a n d / o r
Ao the factor with minimum annihilating velocity in t h e
\A\ =i n A,
more exact case of finite rotor inertia, then obviously
we can no longer state t h a t the critical flutter velocities
or
and frequencies would be equivalent in t h e two cases.
y/n 8 rj Now for t h e systems with large numbers of blades
L4 = n a Ao B0\ (42)
P Co Do
n (and finite rotor inertia) we m a y proceed in a manner
similar (but not identical) to t h a t followed in the in-
From t h e factored form (42) of | A | we m a y draw a finite-inertia-rotor t r e a t m e n t . Recognizing t h a t the
host of conclusions concerning t h e solution of the flutter ^ t h roots of unity become dense about the unit circle
problem for a blade row m o u n t e d on a rotor of finite as n becomes large, once again we annihilate the general
mass. First we note t h a t as the rotor inertia becomes minor
infinitely large, | 71 > 00} and we have simply
Av Ba
A, =
B, Ca Da
(43)
N- = 7
V =
n 0|
D,
where
Hence as | 71 - > o the problem reduces to the form
A, = (01 + a^a + ane-' + a^1" +
treated earlier. Atcr 1 \

Next we see t h a t the product (42) contains ' 'rotor- % Zta

Ba = (&x + b2e" + bne- + he +
t e r m s " only in the first factor, all other factors de-
pending only upon the blades. Moreover, these latter bn^e-^+ ..)
etc.
factors are identical to those of the infinite-inertia-
rotor case. In the determination of critical flutter (Again, recalling t h e smoothness of V(<r), k(a), we
 64 J O U R N A L OF T H E A E R O N A U T I C A L S C I E N C E S J A N U A R Y, 1 9 5 6

need annihilate A^ a t only a relatively small number of satisfies t h e second and third equations of t h e original
values of a\) T h e annihilating values of V{a) and flutter equation system (29). Moreover, we see from
k(a) are plotted against a in t h e range 0 < a < 2T and Eq. (34) t h a t q, as given b y E q . (46), satisfies t h e first
the minimum of t h e discrete set of velocities V(<TV) = of Eqs. (29) as welli.e.,
Vvf is recorded. N o t e t h a t we do not a d m i t a0 (or an)
as a possible minimizing value of a nor do we state a t qj J2 to/ + quV J2 0 (47)
this point t h a t t h e above-mentioned minimum is t h e P = 0 p = 0
flutter velocity. T h e reason for these statements is, of Multiplying Eqs. (45) through b y co a n d recalling t h a t
course, t h e presence of t h e factor A0 in t h e expansion
of | A | and t h e fact t h a t A0 does n o t fall into t h e cate- (oj.r = 1
gory of Aa as a -> 0. Thus, to complete t h e determina- we see t h a t
tion of flutter velocity we find t h e velocity, V, a n d re-
(an + accp + a2o)u2 + a^vz + . .)qa +
duced frequency k, which annihilate Ao (picking t h e
pair V, k with minimum V if more t h a n one annihilat- (bn + hwv + b2u2 + bdcopd + . .)qu 0
(48)
ing pair exists) a n d compare with the minimum Vv. (cn + CiO)v + c2u2 + czuvz + . .)qa +

If t h e velocity which annihilates Ao exceeds t h e mini- (dn + dio)p + d2uv2 + dzuvz + . .)qu = 0]
m u m Vv then Vv is indeed t h e critical flutter velocity, Hence E q . (46) is a solution of t h e fourth a n d fifth of
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502

and t h e flutter frequency follows from t h e reduced fre- Eqs. (29). Continuing t h e process-(i.e., multiplying
quency k corresponding to t h e minimizing av. If t h e (45) b y successively higher powers of o)p}we see t h a t
velocity Vo which annihilates A0 is less t h a n t h e mini- Eq. (46) is indeed a solution of t h e entire system of
m u m of t h e velocities Vv then V0 is t h e flutter velocity flutter Eqs. (29) under t h e condition t h a t Av(v 9^ 0) is
and t h e corresponding k = ko gives t h e flutter fre- annihilated b y t h e critical flutter velocity a n d fre-
quency. quency.
U p t o this point we have said nothing about flutter Moreover, since we have stipulated simple degener-
modes q which correspond to t h e flutter conditions acy, E q . (46) is unique within a multiplicative con-
noted above. W e proceed now to show t h a t these stant.
modes bear a striking resemblance t o t h e modes ob- Now t h e solution (46) is of t h e same form as t h a t ob-
tained under t h e restriction of infinite rotor inertia. tained under t h e assumption of infinite rotor inertia
Suppose first t h a t t h e vanishing of one of t h e Av[v = with t h e exception of t h e additional rotor deflection
1,2, . . (n 1)] leads to t h e critical flutter condition component which is zero. T h a t is, if t h e critical flutter
and suppose t h a t this A vanishes simply upon insertion condition for t h e system with rotor of finite inertia
of t h e critical k, V ( = kv) Vv) a n d t h a t no other factor corresponds to t h e vanishing of one of t h e minors
of | A | vanishes with these k, V. Then, with t h e Av(v 9^ 0) then t h e flutter mode is one in which all
critical Vv, kv inserted blades oscillate with identical blade mode {qa, qu} a t
equal magnitudes a n d with a (nonzero) constant phase
0 lag angle o\,(= 2-irv/n) between successive blades.
Cv
Moreover, t h e rotor does n o t oscillate b u t remains un-
and there exists a nontrivial vector \qa, qu\ such t h a t affected. W e can give extra evidence in support of
Av B this conclusion, based on E q . (34). T h e rotor m a y be
(44)
DJ \su\ influenced b y t h e blades through some linear combina-
tion of blade torsional a n d flexural displacements,
Expanding E q . (44), we m a y write, velocities, a n d accelerations, a n d hence through some
(ai + a2co + azu2 + . . . + anwvn-l)qa + linear combinations of qa} qu to which velocity a n d ac-
(&i + b2wv + 630?/ + + bnuvn-l)qu = Of celeration m a y be reduced under harmonic motion.
2 n l (45) Now, since all blades affect t h e rotor in the same w a y
(d + C203v + CZ0)y + . . " cnwv - )q_a +
2 and since t h e blades display a constant nonzero phase
(di + d2co + d%uv + . . . + dnuvn-l)qu = 0)
lag for t h e condition where t h e rotor deflection van-
Now we see from E q . (45) t h a t t h e vector ishes, we see t h a t t h e net torque exerted upon t h e rotor
by t h e blades a t a n y instant m u s t vanishi.e.,
r
q<*
qu Torque = eiat E (TaqJ + TuqJ)
= 1
uvqa n 1 n 1
uvqu = T&Jat E W + Tuqueiat E (*>)>
3 = 0 j = 0
u2qa (46)
= 0 for v ^ 0, v ^ n
2
uv <Lu
(49)
This adds support to our somewhat surprising discov-
ery t h a t q1 = 0 in t h e case where critical flutter corre-
l sponds to t h e vanishing of some A with v ^ 0. N o w
i*
l
1uJ if t h e critical V and k cause t h e simultaneous annihila-
 SYSTEM
tion of two or more Av(v ^ 0) or cause one Au(v ^ 0)
to vanish multiply, then we know t h e flutter mode
m u s t be expressible as a linear combination of vectors
of the form (46) and hence t h e rotor still exhibits no
deflection.
We next discuss t h e flutter mode for t h e condition
where Ao = 0 leads to the critical flutter velocityi.e.,
where the V which annihilates Ao is t h e minimum anni-
hilating velocity. Now if t h e critical velocity and re-
duced frequency are inserted, then Ao = 0 and there
exists a nontrivial three-component vector \qQ, qa, qu\
such t h a t
y/n 8 V -qal
a Ao Bo Ice = 0 (50)
Co Do_ Au_
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502
Expanding Eq. (50) we see t h a t t h e components g",
Qm u, which we have shown m u s t exist, satisfy t h e rela-
tions
yqn + n8qa + nr)qu = 0
aqQ + (ai + a2 + a 3 + . . + an)qa +
(6i + h + h + + bn)qt 0 (51)
0(f + (ci + c2 + cz + . . + cn)qa + sible a t worst as some (in general undeterminable)
(dt + d2 + dz + . . + dn)qu = 0
Hence the vector
Q degeneracy, the existence of two equal, minimum anni-
q_u
(52)
where {qn, qa) qu} is t h e solution of E q . (50), satisfies
all (2n + 1) of the original flutter Eqs. (29) and, in
case of simple degeneracy, is the unique solution of
Eq. (29) to within an undetermined multiplicative
constant. Now the solution vector (52) displays in
general a nonzero rotor oscillation qQ and a blade sys-
tem mode with zero phase lag. T h a t is, all blades os-
cillate with identical blade mode qa, qu a t equal magni-
tude (with equal frequency) and all blades are exactly
in phase. Moreover, the rotor is no longer unaffected
by the blades, b u t undergoes an oscillation of amplitude
\(t\ a t the same frequency as t h a t of the blade oscilla-
tion. T h e fact t h a t a nonzero rotor oscillation ac-
companies the in-phase blade mode is consistent with
other considerations, since with a = 0, sums of the t y p e
(49) are no longer zero, b u t r a t h e r add u p to n, the num-
ber of blades. T h u s all blades exert equal torque upon
the rotor with equal frequency and in phase with one
another. Obviously under these conditions, t h e rotor
will in general experience a nonzero oscillation. T h u s
we see t h a t the only difference between the flutter
problem for a system with rotor of finite inertia and
t h a t for a system with infinite-inertia rotor lies in the
MODE SHAPES 65
zero-phase mode. If t h e zero-phase mode is not criti-
cal in either case, then the results in t h e two cases are
identical. If t h e zero-phase mode is critical in the in-
finite-inertia-rotor case then the zero-phase mode oc-
curs with no rotor oscillation. I t is difficult to gener-
alize in advance, b u t if it should t u r n out, in practice,
t h a t t h e zero-phase mode is seldom or never critical in
either t h e infinite-rotor-inertia or the finite-rotor-
inertia case, then there would be little or no need to
deal with t h e rotor a t alli.e., infinite inertia could be
assumed a t t h e s t a r t and no need would exist for the
determination of the elements (7, 8, rj, a, f3). This,
however, is merely conjecture and, it m u s t be empha-
sized, is not to be assumed until definite evidence is
available to the effect t h a t Ao = 0 and A0 = 0 are
seldom or never t h e critical conditions.
T h e occurrence of multiple degeneracy will be men-
tioned only briefly since the considerations involved
are similar to those for t h e infinite-rotor-inertia condi-
tion. Again we define t r u e multiple degeneracy as the
condition where one pair V, k causes several (Ao, A) to
vanish or one of these minors to vanish multiply.
Under these conditions t h e flutter mode will be expres-
linear combination of modes of the form (46) or (52).
If none of the vanishing minors is Ao, then the flutter
mode will exhibit no rotor oscillation. Quasi-multiple
hilating velocities V corresponding to two different re-
duced frequencies, leads to the possibility of flutter in
either of two different frequencies a t the single critical
flutter velocity.
Now it is i m p o r t a n t to note t h a t all steps performed
up to this point m a y be generalized to the case where we
allow p r a t h e r than two degrees of freedom per blade.
Once again \A\ is of circulant-type form with respect
to its ^ t h order minors except for t h e first row and first
column which t a k e the respective forms
(7, &u 82, . 8P, di, . . 8P> 8h . .
[7, ah a2, . Ctp, Oil, . . aP) a\,
Again t h e replacement of rows 2,3 . . (p + 1) b y rows
composed of t h e original row plus multiples of oov times
each pth following row leads to a form analogous to
form (35) while leaving t h e value of \A\ unaltered.
Again we expand \A\ b y factors consisting of {n 1)
t h order minors and one (p + l ) t h order minor. T h e
solution for the critical flutter conditions and modes fol-
lows in exactly the same way as for the case with p 2,
and t h e general conclusions with respect to the resulting
flutter mode are unchanged.
I n summarizing our findings for t h e case of a blade
row mounted on a rotor of finite inertia we m a y state
the following surprising conclusion. If t h e velocity
Vo which annihilates A0 exceeds the smallest of the
velocities Vv which annihilate the A(v ^ 0) and if the
velocity Vo which annihilates Ao also exceeds t h e smal-
lest Vvi then (1) t h e assumption of infinite rotor inertia
causes no error whatsoever, (2) flutter frequency and
velocity are t h e same for t h e infinite-inertia and finite-
 66 JOURNAL OF THE A E R O N A U T I C A L
inertia rotor conditions, (3) t h e blade mode and the
phase lag between adjacent blades are t h e same for the
two conditions, and (4) t h e rotor undergoes no oscilla-
tory deflection (g a = 0). On the other hand, if either
Vo or Vo is less t h a n the minimum Vvi then t h e infinite-
inertia assumption leads to an error. If Vo is less t h a n
the minimum Vv b u t Vo is not less t h a n the minimum
Vv then the actual flutter mode (for finite rotor inertia)
corresponds to the combination Vy ku (which was not
critical in the infinite-rotor-inertia case) and flutter
occurs with zero rotor oscillation, blade mode corre-
sponding to A, and phase lag <rv between blades. If
Vo is less t h a n the minimum Vv then flutter (for the
finite-rotor-inertia system) occurs with a nonzero rotor
deflection (q ^ 0) and with a blade mode correspond-
ing to the matrix for which Ao is the determinant.
Downloaded by OLD DOMINION UNIVERSITY on June 1, 2014 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/8.3502
Moreover flutter occurs with all blades in phase (a- =
0).
I t is interesting to state one of our results in a slightly
different way: if the system leads to a critical flutter
mode with nonzero lag between blades under the as-
sumption of infinite rotor inertiai.e., V0 > Vv for
some vthen there exists a finite value of rotor inertia
such t h a t for any value of inertia larger t h a n this finite
value the assumption of infinite inertia is exact. We
can show this as follows:
r i. T/ ^ T/ u i ^o annihilates A0
Let Vo > Vv where < T7 ., M ^
( Vv annihilates A
i.e., Vv is critical under the assumption of infinite rotor
inertia. Now as | y | becomes large
Ao - * 7A0
Hence Vo (the velocity which annihilates Ao) approaches
I n t e r a c t i o n of a S h o c k W a v e w i t h a T h e r m a l B o u n d a r y L a y e r
(Continued from page 22)
make it desirable to operate the test section a t reduced
pressure. Since an alternative approach to the prob-
lem appears quite promising no serious effort has been
made to resolve these difficulties.
The principal mechanism b y which the thermal layer
disturbs a shock is a change in t h e local speed of sound.
In a sense the change in density which accompanies
heating a t constant pressure is extraneous to the prob-
lem. Prof. Walker Bleakney has suggested t h a t the
change in sound speed be produced by allowing gases
of different molecular weight to diffuse through one
another. I n fact, the differential equations for dif-
fusion and h e a t conduction are the same. A zone of
nonuniform gas concentration suitable for experiments
analogous to those with a hot or cold plate could be
generated b y allowing one gas to diffuse slowly through
the air above a porous surface for a short time before
the shock wave arrives. A light gas corresponds to a
hot region and a heavy gas to a cold one. Of t h e
gases readily available hydrogen has the greatest sound
S C I E N C E S JANUARY, 1956
Vo. T h u s , there exists some finite value 70 such t h a t
for | 71 > | 7o|, Vo > Vv and Vv is critical.
A final remark m a y be helpful in the actual process of
plotting V(o) or V2(a) for the case of finite rotor iner-
tia. While Ao = 0 does not actually fall into the scheme
of t h e finite-rotor-inertia case, still, the evaluation of
the velocity and reduced frequency, Vo and ko, which
annihilate A0, provides useful end-points on t h e curves
V{<r) and k(a) for plotting purposes.
REFERENCES
1
Chang, Chieh-Chien, and Chu, Wen-Hwa, Aerodynamic
Characteristics of an Oscillating Cascade, Air Research and De-
velopment Command, USAF, (AF 33(038) 12919), September 1,
1952.
2
Lilley, G. M., An Investigation of the Flexure-Torsion Flutter
Characteristics of Airfoils in Cascade, Report No. 60, The College
of Aeronautics, Cranfield, May, 1952.
3
Mendelson, A., Effect of Centrifugal Force on Flutter of Uni-
form Cantilever Beams at Subsonic Speeds with Application to Com-
pressor and Turbine Blades, NACA T N 1893, June, 1949.
4
Reissner, E., Wind Tunnel Corrections for the Two-Dimensional
Theory of Oscillating Airfoils, Cornell Aeronautical Laboratory
Report No. SB-318-S-3, April 22, 1947.
5
Reissner, E., Boundary Value Problems in Aerodynamics of
Lifting Surfaces in Non-Uniform Motion, Bulletin of the Ameri-
can Mathematical Society, Vol. 55, No. 9, pp. 825-850, Septem-
ber, 1949.
6
Scanlan, R. H., and Rosenbaum, R., Introduction to the Study
of Aircraft Vibration and Flutter, First Edition, p. 266, The
MacMillan Company, New York, 1951.
7
Sisto, F., Flutter of Airfoils in Cascade, Doctoral Dissertation,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1952.
8
Theodorsen, T., General Theory of Aerodynamic Instability
and the Mechanism of Flutter, NACA T R 496, 1934.
9
Turner, M. J., and Duke, J. B., Propeller Flutter, Journal of
the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 6, pp. 323-336, June,
1949.
velocity and sulfur hexaflouride the lowest. T h e corre-
sponding extremes of surface temperature would then
be 4400K. and 54K. An experimental model has
been constructed and we hope to report on the results
in a subsequent article.
REFERENCES
1
Lighthill, M. J., Reflection at a Laminar Boundary Layer of a
Weak Steady Disturbance to a Supersonic Stream, Neglecting
Viscosity and Heat Conduction, Quart. Jour, of Mech. and Appl.
Math., Vol. 3, P a r t 3, p. 303, September, 1950.
2
Adams, M. C , On Shock Waves in Inhomogeneous Flow,
Journal of the Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 16, No. 11, pp. 685-
690, November, 1949.
3
Ribner, H. S., and Moore, F. K., Unsteady Interaction of Dis-
turbances with a Shock Wave, 1953 Heat Trans, and Fluid Mech.
Inst., also, NACA T N 2864 and 2879.
4
Chang, C. T., On the Interaction Between Weak Fluctuating
Fields of Sound, Vorticity, and Temperature with an Oscillating
Shock, The Johns Hopkins University, Department of Aero-
nautics, Preliminary Report, 1953.
5
Hess, R. V., The Interaction of a Shock Wave with a Thermal
Boundary Layer, Unpublished.