# 0

U

. S

. Department of Transportation Fe d eral Aviation Administration 

# Advisory Circular

Subject: Aeroelastic Stability Substantiation of Transport Category Airplanes Date: 10/27/14 ACNo:25.629-1B Initiated By: ANM-115

This advisory circular (AC) provides guidance material for acceptable means, but not the only means, of demonstrating compliance with the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations part 25 associated with the design requirements for transport category airplanes to preclude the aeroelastic instabilities of flutter, divergence, and control reversal. The precise details for analytical procedures and testing techniques are beyond the scope of this AC. However, some general information is included, with supporting discussions, for consideration when demonstrating compliance with§ 25.629 and related regulations. Revision B incorporates changes only to the portions of this AC affected by the Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop , Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions final rule. If you have suggestions for improving this AC, you may use the feedback form at the end of this AC.

# ~~ Michael Kaszycki Acting Manager, Transport Airplane Directorate Aircraft Certification Service10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

Contents Paragraph Page

ii 1 Purpose.

................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ...... 1 2 Applicability.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................. 1 3 Cancellation.

................................ ................................ ................................ .............................. 1 4 Related 14 CFR Regulatio ns.
................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 1 5 Background.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 2 6 Discussion of Requirements.

................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 3 6.1 Aeroelastic Stability Envelope.

................................ ................................ ......................... 3 6.2 Configurations and Conditions.

................................ ................................ ........................ 5 6.2.1 Nominal Configurations and Conditions.

................................ ............................. 5 6.2.2 Failures, Malfunctions, and Adverse Conditions.

................................ ................. 6 6.3 Detail Design Requirements.

................................ ................................ ............................ 7 7 Compliance.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 8 7.1 Analytic al Investigations.

................................ ................................ ................................ . 8 7.1.1 Analytical Modeling.

................................ ................................ ............................ 9 7.1.2 Types of Analyses.

................................ ................................ .............................. 10 7.1. 3 Damping Requirements.

................................ ................................ ..................... 10 7.1.4 Analysis Considerations.

................................ ................................ ..................... 12 7.2 Testing.

................................ ................................ ................................ ............................ 15 7.2.1 Structural Component Tests.

................................ ................................ ............... 16 7.2.2 Control System Component Tests.

................................ ................................ ..... 16 7.2.3 Ground Vibration Tests.

................................ ................................ ...................... 16 7.2.4 Flutter Model Tests.

................................ ................................ ............................ 17 7.2.5 Flight Flutter Tests.

................................ ................................ ............................. 1810/27/14 AC 25. 629

- 1C

Contents (continued)

iii Figures
Number Page Figure 1. Minimum Required Aeroelastic Stability Margin

................................ ........................... 4 Figure 2. Minimum Fail

- Safe Clearance Envelope

................................ ................................ ........ 5 Figure 3. Frequency versus Velocity

................................ ................................ ............................ 11 Figure 4. Damping versus Velocity

— Method 1

................................ ................................ ........... 11 Figure 5. Damping versus Velocity

— Method 2

................................ ................................ ........... 1210/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

1 1 PURPOSE
. This AC provides guidance material for acceptable means, but not the only means, of demonstrating compliance with the provisions of Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations (14 CFR) part 25 associated with the design requirements for transport category airplanes to preclude the aeroelastic instabilities of flutter, divergence, and control reversal

. The precise details for analytical procedures and testing techniques are beyond the scope of this AC

. However, some general information is included, with supporting discus sions, for consideration when demonstrating compliance with § 25.629 and related regulations

. Revision B incorporates changes to only the portions of this AC affected by the Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Ph ase, and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions final rule ( 79 FR 65508, November 4, 2014 )

.

2 APPLICABILITY.
2.1 The guidance provided in this document is directed to airplane manufacturers, modifiers, foreign regulatory authorities, and Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) transport airplane type certification engineers and their designees.
2.2 The material in this AC is neither mandatory nor regulatory in nature and does not constitute a regulation

. It describes acceptable means, but not the only means, for demonstrating compliance with the applicable regulations

. The FAA will consider other means of demonstrating com pliance that an applicant may elect to present

. While these guidelines are not mandatory, they are derived from extensive FAA and industry experience in determining compliance with the relevant regulations

. On the other hand, if we become aware of circumst ances that convince us that following this AC would not result in compliance with the applicable regulations, we will not be bound by the terms of this AC, and we may require additional substantiation or design changes as a basis for finding compliance.
2.3 Th e material in this AC does not change, create any additional, authorize changes in, or permit deviations from, regulatory requirements.

3 CANCELLATION
. This AC cancels AC 25.629

- 1A, Aeroelastic Stability Substantiation of Transport Category Airplanes , dated July 23, 1998.

4 RELATED 14 CFR REGULATION S.

• Section 25.251, Vibration and buffeting

.

• Section 25.305, Strength and deformation

.

• Section 25.335, Design airspeeds

.

• Section 25.343, Design fuel and oil loads

.10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

2 • Section 25.571, Damage

- tolerance and fatigue evaluati on of structure

.

• Section 25.629, Aeroelastic stability requirements

.

• Section 25.631, Bird strike damage

.

• Section 25.671, General (Control Systems)

.

• Section 25.672, Stability augme ntation and automatic and power

- operated systems

.

• Section 25.1309, Equipment, systems and installations

.

• Section 25.1329, Flight guidance system

.

• Section 25.1419, Ice protection

.

• Section 25.1420, Airplane and Engine Certification Requirements in Supercooled Large Drop, Mixed Phase, and Ice Crystal Icing Conditions

.

5 BACKGROUND.
5.1 Flut ter and other aeroelastic instability phenomena have had a significant influence on airplane development and the airworthiness criteria governing the design of civil airplanes

. The initial requirement for consideration of flutter was minimal in the 1931 Ai rworthiness Requirements of Air Commercial Regulations for Aircraft , Bulletin No. 7

- A

. The airplane flutter requirement specified that “no surface shall show any signs of flutter or appreciable vibration in any attitude or condition of flight.” In 1934, Bu lletin No. 7

- A was revised in view of service experience and contained advice and good practice techniques for the early airplane designer regarding flutter prevention
measures
. All airplane designs were required to have interconnected elevators, staticall y
- balanced ailerons, irreversible or balanced tabs, and, in some cases, a ground vibration test was required to be conducted.
5.2 Regulations dealing specifically with flutter, deformation, and vibration on transport category airplanes were first introduced wh en part 04 of the Civil Air Regulations (CAR) became effective in the mid

- 1940s

. The criteria related the solution of the flutter problem to frequency ratios based on model tests conducted by the Army Air Corps

. Also, based on the Army Air Corps developmen ts, part 04 imposed a design factor of 1.2 on equivalent airspeed to provide a stiffness margin for the airframe

. In addition to this empirical approach, and recognizing the advancing state

- of

- the

- art, part 04 referenced publications containing developing flutter theory.
5.3 The flutter requirement of part 04 evolved into CAR 4b.308 where developing fail

- safe philosophy continued to change the scope of flutter substantiation

. Among these developments was a revision to CAR 4b.320 in 1956 to require fail

- safe tabs and a revision to CAR 4b.308 in 1959 to require fail

- safe flutter damper installations

. The flutter requirement was extensively revised in 1964 to require compliance with the single failure criteria for the entire airplane as well as adding speci al provisions for turboprop airplanes.10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

3 5.4 Service experience indicated that single failure criteria related to flutter stability were not sufficiently objective and comprehensive to cover modern, complex, transport airplanes equipped with highly redundant sys tems

. Therefore, part 25, which was recodified from part 04b of the CAR, was amended to require that, unless combinations of failures are shown to be extremely improbable, they must be considered in design for freedom from flutter and divergence.
5.5 The devel opment of speed and attitude limiting systems has created the need for a minimum speed margin for fail

- safe aeroelastic stability substantiation

. Part 25 as amended by Amendment 25

- 77 incorporated this minimum fail

- safe speed boundary, revised the safety m argins for aeroelastic stability, and expanded the list of failures, malfunctions , and adverse conditions that needed to be addressed.
5.6 Additional regulations governing the interaction of systems with structures have been written for airplanes with advanced electronic flight control systems

. These regulations prescribe variations in the fail

- safe speed margins depending on the probability of system failure.

6 DISCUSSION OF REQUIR EMENTS
. The general requirement for demonstrating freedom from aeroelastic instabi lity is contained in § 25.629, which also sets forth specific requirements for the investigation of these aeroelastic phenomena for various airplane configurations and flight conditions. Additionally, there are other conditions defined by the sections of p art 25 listed in paragraph 4 , above, to be investigated for aeroelastic stability to assure safe flight. Many of the conditions contained in this AC pertain only to certain specific amendments of part 25. Type design changes to airplanes certified to an earlier part 25 amendment must meet the certification basis established for the modified airplane.
6.1 Aeroelastic Stability E nvelope.
6.1.1 For nominal conditions without failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions, freedom from aeroelastic instability is required to be shown for all combinations of airspeed and altitude encompassed by the design dive speed (V D ) and design dive Mach number (M D ) versus altitude envelope en larged at all points by an increase of 15 percent in equivalent airspeed at both constant Mach number and constant altitude

. Figure 1 represents a typical design envel ope expanded to the required aeroelastic stability envelope

. Note that some required Mach number and airspeed combinations correspond to altitudes below standard sea level.10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

4 Figure 1 . Minimum Required Aeroelastic Stability Margin

V E Equivalent Airspeed

Sea Level 15 % V E Constant Mach No

. 15 % V E Constant Altitude

Typical V D / M D Envelope

Maximum Design Altitude C’ C” B’

A’ C B

A M D

Mach Number V D

6.1.2 The aeroelastic stability envelope may be limited to a maximum Mach number of 1.0 when M D is less than 1.0 and when there is no large and rapid reduction in damping as M D is approached.
6.1.3 Some configurations and conditions that are required to be investigated by § 25.629 and other part 25 regulations consist of failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions.
6.1.3.1 Aeroelastic stability investigations of these fail

- safe conditions need to be carried out for all approved altitudes to the gre ater airspeed defined by

— 6.1.3.1.1 The V D /M D env elope determined by § 25.335(b); or
6.1.3.1.2 An altitude

- airspeed envelope defined by a 15 percent increase in equivalent airspeed above V C at constant altitude, from sea level up to the altitude of the intersection of 1.15 V C with the extension of the constant cruise Mach number line, M C , then a linear variation in equivalent airspeed to M C + 0.05 at the altitude of the lowest V C /M C intersection; then at higher altitudes, up to the maximum flight altitude, the boundary defined by a 0.05 Mach increase in M C at constant altitude.
6.1.3.2 Figure 2 shows the minimum aeroelastic stability envelope for fail

- safe conditions, which is a composite of the hi ghest speed at each altitude from either the V D envelope or the constructed altitude

- airspeed envelope based on the defined V C and M C .10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

5 6.1.3.3 Fail

- safe design speeds, other than the ones defined above, may be used for certain system failure conditions when specif ically authorized by other rules or special conditions prescribed in the certification basis of the airplane.

Figure 2 . Minimum Fail

- Safe Clearance Envelope

Altitude

Airspeed 1

. 15 V C M D

V D + . 05 M C

6.2 Configurations and C onditions
. The following paragraphs provide a summary of the configurations and conditions to be investigated in demonstrating compliance with part 25

. Specific design configurations may warrant additional considerations not discussed in this AC.
6.2.1 Nominal Configuratio ns and C onditions. Nominal configurations and conditions of the airplane are those that are likely to exist during normal operation

. Freedom from aeroelastic instability should be shown throughout the expanded clearance envelope described in paragraph 6.1.1 above for the following :
6.2.1.1 The range of fuel and payload combinations, including zero fuel, for which certification is requested.
6.2.1.2 Configurations wi th ice mass accumulations on unprotected surfaces for airplanes approved for operation in icing conditions

. See paragraph 7.1.4.5 of this AC.
6.2.1.3 All n ormal combinations of autopilot, yaw damper, or other automatic flight control systems.10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

6 6.2.1.4 All possible engine settings and combinations of settings from idle power to maximum available thrust including the conditions of one engine stopped and windmilling, in order to address the influence of gyroscopic loads and thrust on aeroelastic stability.
6.2.2 Failures, Malfunctions, and Adverse C onditions

. The following conditions should be investigated for aeroelastic instability within the fail

- safe envelope defined in pa ragraph 6.1.3 above.
6.2.2.1 Any critical fuel loading conditions, not shown to be extremely improbable, which may result from mismanagement of fuel.
6.2.2.2 Any single failure in any flutter control system.
6.2.2.3 For airplanes not approved for operation in icing conditions, ice accumulation expected as a result of an inadvertent encounter

. For airplanes approved for operation in icing conditions, the ice accumulation
ex pected as the result of any single failure in the de

- icing system, or any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable

. See paragraph 7.1.4.5 of this AC.
6.2.2.4 Failure of any single element of the structure supporting any engine, independently mounted propeller shaft, large auxiliary power unit, or large externally mounted aerodynamic body (such as an external fuel tank).
6.2.2.5 For airplanes with engines that have propellers or large rotating devices capable of significant dynamic forces, any single failure of the engine structure that would reduce the rigidity of the rotational axis.
6.2.2.6 The absence of aerodynamic or gyroscopic forces resulting from the most adverse combination of feathered propellers or other rotating devices capable of significant dynamic forces

. In addition, the effect of a single feathered propeller or rotating device must be coupled with the failures in paragraphs 6.2.2.4 and 6.2.2.5 above.
6.2.2.7 Any single propeller or rota ting device capable of significant dynamic forces rotating at the highest likely overspeed.
6.2.2.8 Any damage or failure condition, required or selected for investigation by § 25.571. The single structural failures described in paragraphs 6.2.2.4 and 6.2.2.5 above need not be considered in showing com pliance with this pa ragraph if

— 6.2.2.8.1 The structural element could not fail due to discrete source damage resulting from the conditions described in § 25.571(e); and
6.2.2.8.2 A damage tolerance investigation in accordance with § 25.571(b) shows that the maximum extent of damage assumed for the purpose of residual10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

7 strength evaluation does not involve complete failure of the structural element.
6.2.2.9 Any damage, failure or malfunction, considered under §§ 25.631, 25.671, 25.672, and 25.1309

. This includes the condition of two or more engines stopped or windmilling for the design range of fuel and payload combinations, including zero fuel.
6.2.2.10 Any other combination of failures, malfunctions, or adverse conditions not shown to be extremely improbable.
6.3 Detail Design R equirements.
6.3.1 Main su rfaces, such as wings and stabilizers, should be designed to meet the aeroelastic stability criteria for nominal conditions and should be investigated for meeting fail

- safe criteria by considering stiffness changes due to discrete damage or by reasonable p arametric variations of design values.
6.3.2 Control surfaces, including tabs, should be investigated for nominal conditions and for failure modes that include single structural failures (such as actuator disconnects, hinge failures, or, in the case of aerodynam ic balance panels, failed seals), single and dual hydraulic system failures and any other combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable

. Where other structural components contribute to the aeroelastic stability of the system, failures of those components should be considered for possible adverse effects.
6.3.3 Where aeroelastic stability relies on control system stiffness and/or damping, addition al
co nditions should be considered.
6.3.3.1 The actuation system should continuously provide, at least, the minimum stiffness or damping required for showing aeroelastic stability without regard to probability of occurrence for

— 6.3.3.1.1 More than on e engine stopped or win dmilling;
6.3.3.1.2 Any discrete single failure resulting in a change of the structural modes of vibration (for example, a disconnect or failure of a mechanical element, or a structural failure of a hydraulic element such as a hydraulic line, an actuat or, a spool ho using or a valve); and
6.3.3.1.3 Any damage or failure conditions considered under §§ 25.571, 25.631 , and 25.671.
6.3.3.2 The actuation system minimum requirements should also be continuously met after any combination of failures not shown to be extremely improbable (occurr ence less than 10 - 9 per flight hour)

. However, certain combinations of failures, such as dual electric or dual hydraulic system failures, or any single failure in combination with any probable electric or10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

8 hydraulic system failure (§ 25.671), are not normal ly considered extremely improbable regardless of probability calculations

. The reliability assessment should be part of the substantiation documentation

. In practice, meeting the above conditions may involve design concepts such as the use of check valves and accumulators, computerized pre

- flight system checks and shortened inspection intervals to protect against undetected failures.
6.3.4 Consideration of freeplay may be incorporated as a variation in stiffness to assure adequate limits are established for wear of components such as control surface actuators, hinge bearings, and engine mounts in order to maintain aeroelastic stability margins.
6.3.5 If balance weights are used on control surfaces, their effectiveness and strength, including that of their support struct ure, should be substantiated.
6.3.6 The automatic flight control system should not interact with the airframe to produce an aeroelastic instability

. When analyses indicate possible adverse coupling, tests should be performed to determine the dynamic characterist ics of actuation systems such as
servo
- boost, fully powered servo

- control systems, closed

- loop airplane flight control systems, stability augmentation systems, and other related powered

- control systems.

7 COMPLIANCE. Demonstration of compliance with aeroelas tic stability requirements for an airplane configuration may be shown by analyses, tests, or some combination thereof

. In most instances, analyses are required to determine aeroelastic stability margins for normal operations, as well as for possible failur e conditions

. Wind tunnel flutter model tests, where applicable, may be used to supplement flutter analyses

. Ground testing may be used to collect stiffness or modal data for the airplane or components

. Flight testing may be used to demonstrate compliance of the airplane design throughout the design speed envelope.
7.1 Analytical I nvestigations
. Analyses should normally be used to investigate the aeroelastic stability of the airplane throughout its design flight envelope and as expanded by the required speed margins

. Analyses are used to evaluate aeroelastic stability sensitive parameters such as aerodynamic coefficients, stiffness and mass distributions, control surface balance requirements, fuel management schedules, engine/store locations, and control syste m characteristics

. The sensitivity of most critical parameters may be determined analytically by varying the parameters from nominal

. These investigations are an effective way to account for the operating conditions and possible failure modes that may have an effect on aeroelastic stability margins, and to account for uncertainties in the values of parameters and expected variations due to in

- service wear or failure conditions.10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

9 7.1.1 Analytical M odeling

. The following sections discuss acceptable, but not the only , methods and forms of modeling airplane configurations and/or components for purposes of aeroelastic stability analysis

. The types of investigations generally encountered in the course of airplane aeroelastic stability substantiation are also discussed

. The basic elements to be modeled in aeroelastic stability analyses are the elastic, inertial, and aerodynamic characteristics of the system

. The degree of complexity required in the modeling, and the degree to which other characteristics need to be include d in the modeling, depend upon the system complexity.
7.1.1.1 Structural M odeling

. Most forms of structural modeling can be classified into two main categories: (1) modeling using a lumped mass beam and (2) finite element modeling

. Regardless of the approach taken for structural modeling, a minimum acceptable level of sophistication, consistent with configuration complexity, is necessary to satisfactorily represent the critical modes of deformation of the primary structure and control surfaces

. The model should ref lect the support structure for the attachment of control surface actuators, flutter dampers, and any other elements for which stiffness is important in prevention of aeroelastic instability

. Wing

- pylon mounted engines are often significant to aeroelastic s tability and warrant particular attention in the modeling of the pylon, and pylon

- engine and pylon

- wing interfaces

. The model should include the effects of cut

- outs, doors, and other structural features that may tend to affect the resulting structural effe ctiveness

. Reduced stiffness should be considered in the modeling of airplane structural components that may exhibit some change in stiffness under limit design flight conditions

. Structural models include mass distributions as well as representations of s tiffness and possibly damping characteristics

. Results from the models should be compared to test data, such as that obtained from ground vibration tests, in order to determine the accuracy of the model and its applicability to the aeroelastic stability in vestigation.
7.1.1.2 Aerodynamic M odeling

. 7.1.1.2.1 Aerodynamic modeling for aeroelastic stability requires the use of unsteady, two

- dimensional strip or three

- dimensional panel theory methods for incompressible or compressible flow

. The choice of the appropriate technique depends on the complexity of the dynamic structural motion of the surfaces under investigation and the flight speed envelope of the airplane

. Aerodynamic modeling should be supported by tests or previous experience with applications to similar configurati ons.
7.1.1.2.2 Main and control surface aerodynamic data are commonly adjusted by weighting factors in the aeroelastic stability solutions

. The weighting factors for steady flow (k=0) are usually obtained by comparing wind tunnel test results with theoretical data

. Special attention should be given10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

10 to control surface aerodynamics because viscous and other effects may require more extensive adjustments to theoretical coefficients

. Main surface aerodynamic loading due to control surface deflection should be considered.
7.1.2 Types of A nalyses.
7.1.2.1 Oscillatory (flutter) and non

- oscillatory (divergence and control reversal) aeroelastic instabilities should be analyzed to show compliance with § 25.629.
7.1.2.2 The flutter analysis methods most extensively used involve the modal analysis wit h unsteady aerodynamic forces derived from various two

- and three

- dimensional theories

. These methods are generally for linear systems

. Analyses involving control system characteristics should include equations describing system control laws in addition to the equations describing the structural modes.
7.1.2.3 Airplane lifting surface divergence analyses should include all appropriate rigid body mode degrees

- of

- freedom since divergence may occur for a structural mode or the short period mode.
7.1.2.4 Loss of control effect iveness (control reversal) due to the effects of elastic deformations should be investigated

. Analyses should include the inertial, elastic, and aerodynamic forces resulting from a control surface deflection.
7.1.3 Damping R equirements.
7.1.3.1 There is no intent in thi s AC to define a flight test level of acceptable minimum damping.
7.1.3.2 Flutter analyses results are usually presented graphically in the form of frequency versus velocity (V

- f, figure 3 ) and damping versus velocity (V

- g, figure 4 and figure 5 ) curves for each root of the flutter solution.10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

11 Figure 3 . Frequency versus Velocity

Frequency

Velocity V D 1

. 15 V D ( 5 )

( 1 )

( 4 ) ( 3 )

( 2 )

7.1.3.3 Figu re 4 details one common method for showing compliance with the requirement for a proper margin of damping

. It is based on the assumption that the structural damping available is 0.03 (1.5% critical viscous damping) and is the same for all modes as depicted by the V

- g curves shown in figure 4

. No significant mode, such as curve s (2) or (4), should cross the g=0 line below V D or the g=0.03 line below 1.15 V D . An exception may be a mode exhibiting damping characteristics similar to curve (1) in figure 4 , which is not critical for flutter

. A divergence mode, as illustrated by curve (3) where the frequency approaches zero, should have a divergence velocity not less than 1.15 V D .
Figure 4 . Damping versus Velocity

— Method 1

V D Velocity ( 1 )

( 3 )

( 2 )
( 5 ) Damping g

0

. 03 ( 4 )

0 1

. 15 V D10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

12 7.1.3.4 Figure 5 shows another common method of presenting the flutter analy sis results and defining the structural damping requirements

. An appropriate amount of structural damping for each mode is entered into the analysis prior to the flutter solution

. The amount of structural damping used should be supported by measurements ta ken during full scale tests

. This results in modes offset from the g=0 line at zero airspeed and, in some cases, flutter solutions different from those obtained with no structural damping

. The similarity in the curves of figure 4 and figure 5 are only for simplifying this example

. The minimum acceptable damping line applied to the analytical results as shown in figure 5 corresponds to 0.03 or the modal damping available at zero airspeed for the particular mode of interest, whichever is less, but in no case less than 0.02

. No significant mode should cross this line bel ow V D or the g=0 line below 1.15 V D .
Figure 5 . Damping versus Velocity

— Method 2

V D Minimum Acceptable Damping Line Velocity ( 1 )

( 3 )

( 2 )

( 5 ) Damping g

0

- 0

. 03 ( 4 )

1

. 15 V D

7.1.3.5 For analysis of failures, malfunctions or adverse conditions being investigated, the minimum acceptable damping level obtained analytically would be determined by use of either method above, but with a substitution of V C for V D and the fail

- safe envelope speed at the analysis altitude as deter mined by paragraph 6.1.3 above.
7.1.4 Analysis C onsiderations

. Airframe aeroelastic stability analyses may be used to verify the design with respect to the structural stiffness, mass, fuel (including in

- flight fuel management), automatic flight control system characteristics, and altitude and Mach number variations within the design flight envelope

. The complete airpl ane should be considered as composed of lifting surfaces and bodies, including all primary control surfaces that can interact with the lifting surfaces to affect flutter stability

. Control surface flutter can occur in any speed regime and has historically been the most common form of flutter

. Lifting surface10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

13 flutter is more likely to occur at high dynamic pressure and at high subsonic and transonic Mach numbers

. Analyses are necessary to establish the mass balance and/or stiffness and redundancy requirement s for the control surfaces and supporting structure and to determine the basic surface flutter trends

. The analyses may be used to determine the sensitivity of the nominal airplane design to aerodynamic, mass, and stiffness variations

. Sources of stiffness variation may include the effects of skin buckling at limit load factor, air entrapment in hydraulic actuators, expected levels of in

- service freeplay , and control system components that may include elements with nonlinear stiffness

. Mass variations inclu de the effects of fuel density and distribution, control surface repairs and painting, and water and ice accumulation.
7.1.4.1 Control S urfaces

. Control surface aeroelastic stability analyses should include control surface rotation, tab rotation (if applicable), s ignificant modes of the airplane, control surface torsional degrees

- of

- freedom, and control surface bending (if applicable)

. Analyses of airplanes with tabs should include tab rotation that is both independent and related to the parent control surface

. Con trol surface rotation frequencies should be varied about nominal values as appropriate for the condition

. The control surfaces should be analyzed as completely free in rotation unless it can be shown that this condition is extremely improbable

. All conditi ons between stick

- free and stick

- fixed should be investigated

. Freeplay effects should be incorporated to account for any influence of in

- service wear on flutter margins

. The aerodynamic coefficients of the control surface and tab used in the aeroelastic s tability analysis should be adjusted to match experimental values at zero frequency

. Once the analysis has been conducted with the nominal, experimentally adjusted values of hinge moment coefficients, the analysis should be conducted with parametric variat ions of these coefficients and other parameters subject to variability

. If aeroelastic stability margins are found to be sensitive to these parameters, then additional verification in the form of model or flight tests may be required.
7.1.4.2 Mass B alance.
7.1.4.2.1 The mag nitude and spanwise location of control surface balance weights may be evaluated by analysis and/or wind tunnel flutter model tests

. If the control surface torsional degrees of freedom are not included in the analysis, then adequate separation needs to be maintained between the frequency of the control surface first torsion mode and the flutter mode.
7.1.4.2.2 Control surface unbalance tolerances should be specified to provide for repair and painting

. The accumulation of water, ice, and/or dirt in or near the trailin g edge of a control surface should be avoided

. Fre e play between the balance weight, the support arm, and the control surface should not be allowed

. Control surface mass properties (weight and static unbalance) should be confirmed by measurement before grou nd vibration testing.10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

14 7.1.4.2.3 The balance weights and their supporting structure should be substantiated for the extreme load factors expected throughout the design flight envelope

. In the absence of a rational investigation, the following limit accelerations, app lied through the balance weight center of gravity, should be used:

• 100g normal to the plane of the surface

.

• 30g parallel to the hinge line

.

• 30g parallel to the plane of the surface and perpendicular to the hinge line

. 7.1.4.3 Passive F lutter D ampers
. Control surface passive flutter dampers may be used to prevent flutter in the event of failure of some element of the control surface actuation system or to prevent control surface buzz

. Flutter analyses and/or flutter model wind tunnel tests may be used t o verify adequate damping

. Damper support structure flexibility should be included in the determination of adequacy of damping at the flutter frequencies

. Any single damper failure should be considered

. Combinations of multiple damper failures should be
ex amined when not shown to be extremely improbable

. The combined freeplay of the damper and supporting elements between the control surface and fixed surfaces should be considered

. Provisions for in

- service checks of damper integrity should be considered

. Se e paragraph 6.3.3 above for conditions to consider where a control surface actuator is switched to the role of an active or passive damping element of the flight control system.
7.1.4.4 Intersecting L ifting S urfaces

. Intersecting lifting surface aeroelastic stability characteristics are more difficult to predict accurately than the characteristics of planar surfaces such as wings

. This is due to difficulties both in correctly predicting vibration modal characteristics and in assessing those aerodynamic effects that may be of second order importance on planar surfaces, but are significant for intersecting surfaces

. Proper representation of modal deflections an d unsteady aerodynamic coupling terms between surfaces is essential in assessing the aeroelastic stability characteristics

. The in

- plane forces and motions of one or the other of the intersecting surfaces may have a strong effect on aeroelastic stability; therefore, the analysis should include the effects of steady flight forces and elastic deformations on the in

- plane effects.
7.1.4.5 Ice A ccumulation

. Aeroelastic stability analyses should use the mass distributions derived from ice accumulation up to and includin g those that can accrete in the applicable icing conditions in part 25, Appendices C and O

. This includes10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

15 any accretions that could develop on control surfaces

. The analyses need not consider the aerodynamic effects of ice shapes

. For airplanes approved fo r operation in icing conditions, all of the part 25, Appendix C icing conditions and the Appendix O icing conditions for which certification is sought are applicable

. For airplanes excluded from § 25.1420, no evaluation of Appendix O icing conditions is re quired

. For airplanes not approved for operation in icing conditions, all of the Appendix C and O icing conditions are applicable since the inadvertent encounter discussed in paragraph 6.2.2.3 of this AC can occur in any icing condition

. For all airplanes, the ice accumulation determination should take into account the ability to detect the ice and, if appropriate, the time required to leave the icing condition.
7.1.4.6 Whirl F lutter.
7.1.4.6.1 The evaluation of the aeroelastic stability should include investigations of any significant elastic, inertial, and aerodynamic forces, including those associated with rotations and displacements in the plane of any turbofan or p ropeller, including propeller or fan blade aerodynamics, powerplant flexibilities, powerplant mounting characteristics, and gyroscopic coupling.
7.1.4.6.2 Failure conditions are usually significant for whirl instabilities

. Engine mount, engine gear box support, or s haft failures that result in a node line shift for propeller hub pitching or yawing motion are especially significant.
7.1.4.6.3 A wind tunnel test with a component flutter model, representing the engine/propeller system and its support system along with correlative vibration and flutter analyses of the flutter model, may be used to demonstrate adequate stability of the nominal design and failed conditions.
7.1.4.7 Automatic Control S ystems

. Aeroelastic stability analyses of the basic configuration should include simulation of any control system for which interaction may exist between the sensing elements and the structural modes

. Where structural/control system feedback is a potential problem, the effects of servo

- actuator characteristics and the effects of local deformation of the servo mount on the feedback sensor output should be included in the analysis

. The effect of control system failures on the airplane aeroelastic stability characteristics should be investigated

. Failures that significantly affect the system gain and /or phase and are not shown to be extremely improbable should be analyzed.
7.2 Testing
. The aeroelastic stability certification test program may consist of ground tests, flutter model tests, and flight flutter tests

. Ground tests may be used for assessment of10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

16 component stiffness and for determining the vibration modal characteristics of airplane components and the complete airframe

. Flutter model testing may be used to establish flutter trends and validate aeroelastic stability boundaries in areas where unstead y aerodynamic calculations require confirmation

. Full

- scale flight flutter testing provides final verification of aeroelastic stability

. The results of any of these tests may be used to provide substantiation data, to verify and improve analytical modeling procedures and data, and to identify potential or previously undefined problem areas.
7.2.1 Structural Component T ests

. Stiffness tests or ground vibration tests of structural components are desirable to confirm analytically predicted characteristics and are ne cessary where stiffness calculations cannot accurately predict these characteristics

. Components should be mounted so that the mounting characteristics are well defined or readily measurable.
7.2.2 Control S ystem C omponent T ests

. When reliance is placed on stiff ness or damping to prevent aeroelastic instability, the following control system tests should be conducted

. If the tests are performed off the airplane, the test fixtures should reflect local attachment flexibility.
7.2.2.1 Actuators for primary flight control sur faces and flutter dampers should be tested with their supporting structure

. These tests are to determine the actuator/support structure stiffness for nominal design and failure conditions considered in the fail

- safe analysis.
7.2.2.2 Flutter damper tests should be conducted to verify the impedance of damper and support structure

. Satisfactory installed damper effectiveness at the potential flutter frequencies should, however, be assured

. The results of these tests can be used to determine a suitable, in

- service mai ntenance schedule and replacement life of the damper

. The effects of allowable in

- service freeplay should be measured.
7.2.3 Ground Vibration T ests.
7.2.3.1 Ground vibration tests (GVT) or modal response tests are normally conducted on the complete conforming airplane

. A GVT may be used to check the mathematical structural model

. Alternatively, the use of measured modal data alone in aeroelastic stability analyses, instead of analytical modal data modified to match test data, may be acceptable provided the accuracy and c ompleteness of the measured modal data is established

. Whenever structural modifications or inertia changes are made to a previously certified design or a GVT validated model of the basic airplane, a GVT may not be necessary if these changes are shown not to affect the aeroelastic stability characteristics.
7.2.3.2 The airplane is best supported such that the suspended airplane rigid body modes are effectively uncoupled from the elastic modes of the airplane

. Alternatively, a suspension method may be used that coup les with the10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

17 elastic airplane provided that the suspension can be analytically de

- coupled from the airplane structure in the vibration analysis

. The former suspension criterion is preferred for all ground vibration tests and is necessary in the absence of vibration analysis.
7.2.3.3 The excitation method needs to have sufficient force output and frequency range to adequately excite all significant resonant modes

. The effective mass and stiffness of the exciter and attachment hardware should not distort modal respon se
. More than one exciter or exciter location may be necessary to ensure that all significant modes are identified

. Multiple exciter input may be necessary on structures with significant internal damping to avoid low response levels and phase shifts at poi nts on the structure distant from the point of excitation

. Excitation may be sinusoidal, random, pseudo

- random, transient, or other short duration, non

- stationary
means
. For small surfaces, the effect of test sensor mass on response frequency should be taken into consideration when analyzing the test results.
7.2.3.4 The minimum modal response measurement should consist of acceleration (or velocity) measurements and relative phasing at a sufficient number of points on the airplane structure to accurately describ e the response or mode shapes of all significant structural modes

. In addition, the structural damping of each mode should be determined.
7.2.4 Flutter Model T ests.
7.2.4.1 Dynamically similar flutter models may be tested in the wind tunnel to augment the flutter analys is

. Flutter model testing can substantiate the flutter margins directly or indirectly by validating analysis data or methods

. Some aspects of flutter analysis may require more extensive validation than others, for example, control surface aerodynamics, T

- t ails, and other configurations with aerodynamic interaction and compressibility effects

. Flutter testing may additionally be useful to test configurations that are impractical to verify in flight test, such as fail

- safe conditions or extensive store config urations

. In any such testing, the mounting of the model and the associated analysis should be appropriate and consistent with the study being performed.
7.2.4.2 Direct substantiation of the flutter margin (clearance testing) implies a high degree of dynamic simil itude

. Such a test may be used to augment an analysis and show a configuration flutter free throughout the expanded design envelope

. All the physical parameters that have been determined to be significant for flutter response should be appropriately scaled

. These will include elastic and inertia properties, geometric properties, and dynamic pressure

. If transonic effects are important, the Mach number should be maintained.10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

18 7.2.4.3 Validation of analysis methods is another appropriate use of wind tunnel flutter test ing

. When the validity of a method is uncertain, correlation of wind tunnel flutter testing results with a corresponding analysis may increase confidence in the use of the analytical tool for certification analysis

. A methods validation test should simulat e conditions, scaling, and geometry appropriate for the intended use of the analytical method.
7.2.4.4 Trend studies are an important use of wind tunnel flutter testing

. Parametric studies can be used to establish trends for control system balance and stiffness, f uel and payload variations, structural compliances, and configuration variations

. The set of physical parameters requiring similitude may not be as extensive to study parametric trends as is required for clearance testing

. For example, an exact match of th e Mach number may not be required to track the effects of payload variations on a transonic airplane.
7.2.5 Flight F lutter T ests.
7.2.5.1 Full

- scale flight flutter testing of an airplane configuration to V DF /M DF is a necessary part of the flutter substantiation

. An exce ption may be made when aerodynamic, mass, or stiffness changes to a certified airplane are minor, and analysis or ground tests show a negligible effect on flutter or vibration characteristics

. If a failure, malfunction, or adverse condition is simulated du ring a flight test, the maximum speed investigated need not exceed V FC /M FC if it is shown, by correlation of the flight test data with other test data or analyses, that the requirements of § 25.629(b)(2) are met.
7.2.5.2 Airplane configurations and control system configurations should be selected for flight test based on analyses and, when available, model test results

. Sufficient test conditions should be performed to demonstrate aeroelastic stability throughout the entire flight envelope for the selected configur ations.
7.2.5.3 Flight flutter testing requires excitation sufficient to excite the modes shown by analysis to be the most likely to couple for flutter

. Excitation methods may include control surface motions or internal moving mass or external aerodynamic exciters or flight turbulence

. Use the appropriate method of excitation for the modal response frequency being investigated

. The effect of the excitation system itself on the airplane flutter characteristics should be determined prior to flight testing.
7.2.5.4 Measuremen t of the response at selected locations on the structure should be made in order to determine the response amplitude, damping, and frequency in the critical modes at each test airspeed

. It is desirable to monitor the response amplitude, frequency, and damp ing change as V DF /M DF is approached

. In demonstrating that there is no large and rapid damping reduction as V DF /M DF is approached, an endeavor should be10/27/14 AC 25.629

- 1B

19 made to identify a clear trend of damping versus speed

. If this is not possible, then sufficient test points should be undertaken to achieve a satisfactory level of confidence that there is no evidence of an adverse trend.
7.2.5.5 An evaluation of phenomena not presently amenable to analyses, such as shock effects, buffet response levels, vibration levels, and control surface buzz, should also be made during flight testing.Advisory Circular Feedback

If you find an error in this AC , have recommendations for improving it, or have suggestions for new items/subjects to be added, you may let us know by (1) emailing this form to 9 -AWA- AVS

AIR500-Coord@faa.gov or (2) faxing it to the attention of the Aircraft Certification Service Di rectives Management Officer at (202) 267-3983.

Subject: Date:
Please check all appropriate line items:
☐ An error (procedural or typographical) has been noted in paragraph on page
.
☐ Recommend paragraph on pa ge be changed as follows:

☐ In a future change to this AC, please cover the following subject: ( Briefly describe what you want added.)

☐ Other comments:

☐ I would like to discuss the above. Please contact me.

Submitted by: Date: