Chapter 5

Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons

Ignazio Dimino, Gianluca Amendola,

Francesco Amoroso, Rosario Pecora and
Antonio Concilio

Additional information is available at the end of the chapter

http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

Abstract
European Union is involving increasing amount of resources on research projects that
will dramatically change the costs of building and operating aircraft in the near future.
Morphing structures are a key to turn current airplanes to more efficient and versatile
means of transport, operating into a wider range of flight conditions.
The concept of morphing may aim at a large number of targets, and its assessment strongly
depends on the final objectives and the components where it has to be deployed. Maneuver,
takeoff, landing, cruise conditions, just to cite few and very general examples, have all
their own peculiarities that drive the specifications the wing shape change has to suit on.
In general, an adaptive structure ensures a controlled and fully reversible transition from
a baseline shape to a set of different configurations, each capable of withstanding the
relative external loads. The level of complexity of morphing structures naturally
increases as a consequence of the augmented functionality of the reference system.
Actuation mechanisms constitute a very crucial aspect for adaptive structures design
because has to comply variable wing shapes with associated loads and ensure the
prescribed geometrical envelope.
This chapter provides a presentation of the state of the art, technical requirements, and
future perspectives of morphing ailerons. It addresses morphing aircraft component
architecture and design with a specific focus on the structural actuator system integra‐
tion. The approach, including underlying concepts and analytical formulations,
combines methodologies and tools required to develop innovative air vehicles. Aileron
is a very delicate region, where aeroelastic phenomena may be very important because
of the very reduced local stiffness and the complex aerodynamics, typical of the wingtip
zone. On the other side, this wing segment showed to be the one where higher cruise
benefits could be achieved by local camber variations. This target was achieved while
keeping the typical maneuver functions.

Keywords: morphing, actuation systems, distributed actuation, wind tunnel tests, ai‐
leron, lift control

© 2016 The Author(s). Licensee InTech. This chapter is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons
Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
90 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

1. Introduction

Men desired to flight since very ancient times being inspired by bird’s capability to dominate
sky. Nature offers a rich seam of inspiration for a new generation of morphing wing design
across a wide range of scales of interest to engineers going from the biggest birds to the smallest
insect. For example, birds achieve their wing morphing capability using flexible lifting
surfaces, stiffened by hollow bones attached to strong muscle. All the flying creatures of the
world show an inherent capacity to adapt, in a fraction of a second, their wing shape as the
flight condition changes. A very interesting example may be represented by the perching
sequence of an eagle. As reported in [1], birds accomplish changes in wingspan and area by
firstly flexing their wings, and then adopting a characteristic M-shape planform with the inner
wing section sweeps forward, and the outer section sweeps backwards.

It is noteworthy that “inspiration from nature” is the keywords that lie behind any morphing
idea. Many researchers and engineers around the world have been inspired by the multitasking
flight capabilities of birds, which tend to cover a broad range of mission phases ranging from
slow, near-hover flight to aggressive dives, in order to develop innovative methodologies
involved to resolve many technological problems. Just only observing birds and other flying
creature wings, it is possible to appreciate the complexity of such systems showing intrinsic
capacities to adapt instinctively and immediately to the environment. In particular, birds are
able to articulate their wings in a craning motion to vary the dihedral or sweep angles [1], wing
area, wing planform, wingspan, and other parameters. These changes allow the bird to quickly
adapt between soaring, cruising, and descending flight [1].

The morphing idea was well known by the engineering since the beginning of aviation such
as the Wright brothers who built the “first heavier than air aircraft with engine” with twisted
wing for roll control. Despite the past century of innovation in aircraft technology, the
versatility of modern aircraft remains far worse than airborne biological counterparts. The
shape modification accomplished by birds stands as one of the few examples of true morphing.
As such, the aircraft engineers worldwide are devoting extensive effort to integrate these
concepts in advanced mechanical systems in order to bring morphing technology to the
readiness level of a flight vehicle. The key purpose is to realize an innovative device capable
to adapt itself to the external environment conditions, by exhibiting an intrinsic multidiscipli‐
nary attitude involving structures, actuation, sensing, and control. In recent years, European
community funded many research program involved to improve the morphing structures
technology readiness level. SARISTU [2] (acronym of Smart Intelligent Aircraft Structures) was
probably the most advanced large-scale integrating project on morphing structures, coordi‐
nated by Airbus, aiming at achieving reductions in aircraft weight and operational costs, as
well as an improvement in the flight profile specifically related to aerodynamic performance.
Ended in 2015, the project consisted of a joint integration of different conformal morphing
concepts in a laminar wing with the aim to improve aircraft performance through a 6% drag
reduction inside the lift coefficient range usually devoted to cruise, with a positive effect on
fuel consumption. The final product of the project was the first full-scale completely morphing
wing tip prototype, ever assembled in Europe, at Finmeccanica Headquarters (Pomigliano,
 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 91
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

Italy), Figure 1. The innovative seamless morphing wing incorporates a gapless morphing
leading edge, a morphing trailing edge, and an adaptive winglet.

Figure 1. Assembly of the SARISTU morphing wing consisting of different morphing devices [2].

Morphing technology is now approaching the high maturity practices for the integration on
real aircraft. How to adapt is a problem regarding sensing, actuation, and control laws, which
are very critical. Hence, although an animal’s wings may be able to change shape in a complex
manner, the total number of independently controlled degrees of freedom may not be high.
This indicates that a smart structure is built upon relatively simple principles. It will be
actuated in one point and, by means of movable structural elements with limited DOF; the
movement is transmitted to the whole structure so that the wing will be built to adapt at loading
rather than to resist it.

1.1. Actuation systems for morphing applications

The state of the art of high-lift actuation systems of aircraft control surfaces predominantly
consists of mechanical transmission shafts moved by rotary or linear hydraulic actuators with
common control valves. These architectures assure a synchronous, safe, and reliable deploy‐
ment of all HLD (High Lift Device) but with limited flexibility [3]. The main functionality of
the high-lift devices is to provide lift increment at low-speed condition (take/off and landing)
so that the clean wing is optimized for the cruise speed regime. There are a lot of HLD on wing
aircraft such as plain flaps to fowler flaps with single, double, and even the most complex triple
slots (Boeing 747). The design and optimization of high-lift systems are one of the most complex
tasks in aircraft design. It involves a close coupling of aerodynamics, structures, and kinemat‐
ics. The evolutionary trend of the HLD has been strongly driven by the dramatic improvement
in aerodynamic tools optimization and in computational systems for complex structure
simulations (multi-body kinematics). At the early stage, the research of aerodynamics high-
92 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

lift performance (CLmax) was achieved by means of multi-slotted experimentally validated two-
dimensional flap design. These systems allowed to achieve satisfactory performance with
penalties in structural complexity and weight and, therefore, in costs that were not sustainable
in the current applications. Later on, the improvement in computation fluid dynamics has
permitted to carefully optimize flap systems in two-dimensional flow with a clear advantage
for fowler mechanism that allowed to reach higher values of maximum lift due to the effect of
an increased lifting surface. Such fowler mechanism, on the other side, required even more
complex kinematic actuation system due to a combination of two movements: one translation
and a rotation. The fowler flap deployment mechanisms were designed using linear or curved
tracks in conjunction with revolute joint for the rotation, but unfortunately, the high-lift values
achieved were compensated by the relatively high weight penalties introduced by such
systems. The reason for such high weight drawbacks was due to very intensive loads to be
withstood by track bearings with also subsequent high maintenance costs. More recently, the
research for aerodynamic efficiency and reduced weight penalties and complexity has been
fostered by large utilization of multi-body system optimization that permitted the develop‐
ment of lighter and more efficient kinematic mechanism such as multi-link system. Such
devices permit to match even very complex aerodynamic requirements with relatively
structurally efficient system. As a matter of fact, today it seems very difficult to further improve
in terms of an optimum balance among aerodynamic, structural weight, and complexity in the

Figure 2. Evolutionary trend in high-lift systems [4].

 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 93
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

current system, namely A350 or Boeing 767, this appears evident by the flattening of the curve
in Figure 2.

From the previous graph, it is evident that today’s high-lift system are moving toward the
development of innovative mechanisms with continuous curvatures, leading to the removal
of gaps in order to obtain the same performance with the less deflections. In other words, this
means implementing morphing concepts, as highlighted in the graph reported in Figure 3.

Figure 3. Simplification of the high-lift actuation systems over the last few decades.

Additionally, flap mechanisms must be reliable and fail-safe. In order to not violate safety
needs, the driving idea is to elude a multitude of links and joints in series, where high load
concentrations are located; because the failure of any one of which could either locks up the
flap, make it collapse. There are many type of flap mechanism that are largely investigated in
[4, 5]. The actuation scheme of the Airbus A340 and its extraction device are depicted in Figures
4 and 5. The central hydraulic power control unit (PCU) supplies the power necessary to deflect
the flap panels on each wing. A mechanical transmission shaft transmits the mechanical power
to the rotary actuators, which move the flaps on the tracks. This shaft system consists of
gearboxes necessary for larger direction changes as well as system torque limiters, wing tip
brakes, universal joints, plunging joints, and spline joints to accommodate wing bending and
temperature effects. The high-lift system is controlled and monitored by two slat-flap control
computers (SFCC) using sensor information from several analogue and discrete sensors. This
type of mechanical transmission shaft system consists of a high number of components with
different part numbers and requires high design-engineering and installation effort.
94 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

Figure 4. Global scheme of the inboard and outboard A340 flap actuation system [3].

Figure 5. A340 flap mechanism based on the link/track architecture [5].

In contrast to the previous mechanism, the flap deployment system of the Boeing 767 (Figure
6) is based on a limited number of links in order to create an articulated quadrilateral or more
complex hexagonal chain.

Figure 6. Boeing 767 flap system: cruise position (a) and landing configuration (b) [5].

Recent development programs at Airbus and Boeing extend the functional capabilities of the
flap systems. The A350 XWB as well as the B787 high-lift systems design will incorporate
additional functionalities that provide aircraft performance optimization. Additional func‐
 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 95
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

tionality is achieved with an evolution of the traditional mechanical transmission shaft system
and additional active components [6]. The A350's flaps are a very simple “drop-hinge” design
with a single slot between the trailing edge of the spoiler and the leading edge of the flap. As
the flap extends, the spoilers deflect downwards to control the gap and optimize the high-lift
performance of flap. It constitutes a multipurposes high-lift system with augmented function‐
alities, and furthermore, it is a lightweight structures thanks to its low complexity link-based
kinematic. This can be summarized in the next Figures 7 and 8.

Figure 7. A350 XWB (Extra-Wing Body) flap in cruise condition [6].

Figure 8. A350 XWB (Extra-Wing Body) with A/B and tab deflection for roll control maneuver [6].

Moreover, for the first time, the flap system will have the both the capability for differential
inner and outer settings as well as a variable camber function. The design is composed of a
gearbox with a motor installed between the outer and inner flap that enables a differential
control of the relative angle in order to shift inboard the resultant lift for a less bending moment.
Furthermore, both inner and outer flaps can be moved together during the cruise to optimize
the wing's camber for each phase of the flight and use the polar of drag to its most efficient
configuration [6].

It remains to discuss if, as the complexity level of the actuation mechanism seems to reduce,
the promise of morphing aircraft will become feasible within the next few years. If so, how
morphing devices will be actuated?

The next technological challenge, envisaged in the context of more or all-electric aircraft, will
be to replace the heavy conventional hydraulic actuators with a distributed spanwise arrange‐
96 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

ment of smaller electromechanical actuators (EMAs). This will bring several benefits at the
aircraft level: firstly, fuel savings. Additionally, a full electrical system reduces classical
drawbacks of hydraulic systems and overall complexity, yielding also weight (-15%) and
maintenance benefits. Lack of supply buses, improved torque control, enhanced efficiency,
removal of fluid losses and flammable fluids are only some of the benefits that can be achieved.
On the other hand, a general limit of electro-mechanic actuators is the possibility of jamming
failures that can lead to critical aircraft failure conditions. Figure 9 shows a practical compar‐
ison between the aircraft torque shaft configuration and a distributed actuation arrangement
suitable for a morphing trailing edge device.

Figure 9. Distributed concept versus concentrated actuation concept.

The simultaneous need for monitoring target morphed shapes, actuation forces, and flight
controls along with the counter-effects of aerodynamic loads under aircraft operating condi‐
tions suggests the use of a ground-based engineering tool for the physical integration of
systems. The most suitable to optimize and validate such systems including electromechanical
component such as actuators and flight controls is the “Iron Bird.” The basic scheme of an Iron
Bird suitable for the integration of different morphing systems is depicted in Figure 10. It
includes different morphing devices installed on an aeroelastically reasonable aircraft wing
box as well as the basic equipment needed to carry out “hardware in the loop simulations.”
Such a concept may be used to demonstrate advanced control technologies in a modular multi-
level design that provides the robustness and the flexibility of a real aircraft integration.
Manufacturing, assembly, and integration issues including electrical and flight control may
be extensively addressed in relation to the actual configuration of the aircraft. It is the perfect
tool to confirm the characteristics of all system components or to discover an incompatibility
that may require modifications during early development stages, and thereby, it accelerates
the transition to test in a relevant environment. Additionally, failures and mitigation actions
introduced in the systems can be studied in full detail and recorded for analysis using such a
dedicated testbed.
 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 97
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

Figure 10. Representative scheme of an Iron Bird tool suitable for testing morphing devices.

The “Iron Bird” for testing morphing wing architectures enables test engineers to evaluate the
real-time capabilities of morphing devices with the purpose of:

• demonstrating maturity, reliability, and integrated performance of morphing devices that

otherwise could only be achieved with more expensive costly and less safe methods such
as wind tunnel tests or flight tests;
• optimizing morphing wing architecture by testing both compliant and rigid-body mecha‐
nism-based morphing concepts and their related actuation, sensor, and control systems by
monitoring aircraft weight and cost savings;
• investigating aircraft safety-related aspects by simulating system failures, such as jamming,
runaways one engine loss, strong cross-wind, aeroelastic effects to validate fault tree
analyses, and hazard assessments;
• including operational loads that apply hinge moment forces to the aircraft morphing
surfaces, representative of the aerodynamics forces applied during the simulated flight test
and driven by the flight simulation model;
• detailing cable routing and pathways;
• validating the electrical consumption of each actuation system, in stationary and dynamic
conditions, and the required command to A/C surface in each test case.

2. Design of a morphing aileron

The design of a camber morphing aileron is following detailed as a reference case study for
research into the subject. The aileron main functionalities such as roll maneuver are not
modified. Conversely, with augmented capabilities integrated, the morphing aileron is
98 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

deployed in cruise, through a symmetric deflection, to obtain a near optimum wing geometry
enabling optimal aerodynamic performance. The design approach, including underlying
concepts and analytical formulations, combines design methodologies and tools required to
develop such an innovative control surface.

2.1. Multi-box structure design

Inner and medium wing regions where flap systems are generally located are growingly
receiving considerable attention in research. That successful development was worth to be
further investigated in order to understand its applicability to the whole wing span. It does
then mean to verify the applicability of those concepts to the aileron region. This region plays
a fundamental role for the aircraft roll control while is subjected to the external loads. Thus,
during the preliminary design phase, it is important to consider some specific critical aspects:
(i) The aileron constitutes a primary control surface, which is safety critical. Failure is a
catastrophic event for the aircraft; (ii) the morphing capability is added to the conventional
aileron which remains free to rotate around its main hinge axis; (iii) the aileron region
constitutes a delicate zone from aero-elastic point of view; (iv) morphing will introduce normal
modes driving flutter instability; (v) the wing tip region is characterized by very reduced space
leading to a difficult integration of actuator and kinematic. This section details the design
phases of the morphing aileron, spanning from preliminary numerical verifications to wind
tunnel tests. The general morphing architecture and design process resemble the same
philosophy developed for the SARISTU trailing edge. The device is aimed at working in cruise
to modify a limited chord segment of the aileron, so to accomplish the aircraft weight variations
following fuel consumption. However, during classical maneuver, this morphing part remains
rigid and the aileron works in the usual manner. Such complex adaptive system has to meet
specific requirements in terms of the aerodynamic target shape, stiffness distribution, and
morphing controllability. In light of these considerations, an articulated mechanism was
developed, in which each component have a predominant utility, but at the same time have
to cooperate with the others in withstanding loads, distributing stress and driving the
architecture in a controlled way from the baseline configuration to the target shapes (morphed
down and morphed up). The proposed architecture was designed according to transport
regional aircraft specifications. The morphing aileron is mainly composed of: (i) five segment‐
ed rib connected by means of rotational hinges positioned on the camber line creating a
kinematic chain assuring enough structural robustness and transmitting deformation; (ii)
spanwise stiffening elements such as spars and stringers in a multi-box arrangements; (iii)
three servo-rotary actuators which drive the mechanism; (iv) a segmented skin (“armadillo-
like” configuration) with silicon gap fillers to avoid discontinuities between adjacent parts and
to ensure low friction sliding during morphing.

The geometrical external contour of the aileron constitutes the first step for its structural design.
The rib mechanism uses therefore a three segment polygonal line to approximate the camber
of the airfoil and to morph it into the desired configuration, while keeping approximately
unchanged the airfoil thickness distribution. Each aileron articulated ribs (Figure 11) has been
assumed to be segmented into three consecutive blocks (B0, B1, and B2) connected to each
 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 99
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

other by means of hinges displayed on the airfoil camber line (A and B) in a “finger-like”
configuration. Moreover, non-consecutive rib plates are connected by mean of a link (L) that
forces the camber line segments to rotate according to specific gear ratio and makes each rib
equivalent to a single-DOF mechanism.

Figure 11. Morphing rib architecture: (a) blocks and links, (b) hinges.

The ribs’ kinematic was transferred to the overall aileron structure by means of a multi-box
arrangement (Figure 12). Each spanwise box of the structural arrangement is characterized by
a single-cell configuration delimited along the span by homologue blocks of consecutive ribs,
and along the chord by longitudinal stiffening elements (spars and/or stringers). Upon the
actuation of the ribs, all the boxes are put in movement thus changing the external shape of
the aileron; if the shape change of each rib is prevented by locking the actuation chain, the
multi-box structure is elastically stable under the action of external aerodynamic loads. A four-
bay (five-rib) layout was considered for an overall (true-scale) span of 1.5 meters. AL2024-T351
alloy was used for spars, stringers, and rib plates, while 17-4PH steel was used for ribs’ links.
Off-the-shelf airworthy components were properly selected for the bearing and bushings at
the hinges and coupled to torsional springs to recover any potential free-play.

2.2. Actuation system design

The actuation system peculiarity resided in the fact that it is an un-shafted distributed servo-
electromechanical arrangement deployed to achieve the aileron shape transition from the
baseline configuration to a set of design target shapes in operative conditions moreover it is
self-contained within the structure assuring a smooth surfaces exposed to the flow without
fairing. The only kinematic mechanism that satisfies the target specifications is the oscillating
glyph. The internal structure room defines the geometrical parameters which are directly
related to the kinematic transmission ratio also defined as mechanical advantage (MA);
furthermore, it is necessary to identify the number of actuators required to morph the aileron
in particular due to small sizes near the tip, the last two bays could not be equipped with the
kinematic. In Figure 12, it is shown that the first three ribs are drive by three individual
actuators while the passive segment is slaved to the actuated one.
100 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

Figure 12. Internal view of the aileron with actuated and passive segment highlight.

A lightweight and compact leverage was investigated to activate the morphing aileron through
EMAs. The deployment kinematics is based on a “direct-drive” actuation moving a beam
rigidly connected to block B2 of Figure 11. The actuation beam transmits the actuation torque
to the third segment of the rib, thus making it to rotate with respect to its original position. In
particular, during morphing, the block B2 rotates around an instantaneous rotation centre. The
instantaneous rotation center is here intended as the point in the moving plane around which
all other points are rotating at a specific instant of time. As illustrated in Figure 13(a), the
trajectories of the points in the third block are all circles centered in this point. The determi‐
nation of point V coordinates allows for the estimation of the actuation torque needed to
withstand the aerodynamic loads acting on the morphing rib structure.

Figure 13. Circular trajectories of sample points (E, F, and G) during morphing (left) and position of hinges A, V, and B
(right).
 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 101
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

With reference to the Figure 14, the rotational motion of the actuation beam is provided by the
crank rotation β which moves the carriage along its guide. A force F is thus generated by the
contact between the carriage and the rail. By connecting the actuator shaft to the crank hinge
O and the beam to the third rib segment (B2), the actuation torque is transmitted firstly to the
crank and secondly to the rib rotating around the V in order to counterbalance the external
moment Mrib#3.

Figure 14. Oscillating glyph connected to the third rib segment of the morphing aileron [7].

The aileron shape can be, in this way, adaptively controlled to realize camber variations. The
target morphing angles were derived as corresponding to a rigid rotation of a plain control
surface comprised between -7° and +7°. The mechanical advantage of the mechanism (MA)
can be written as follows:

LOAD M F × BL BL
MA = = rib # 3 = = (1)
DRIVER M att F × BR BR

where the Mrib#3 is the external moment due to aerodynamic loads estimated with respect to
the hinge V, while Matt is the actuation torque provided by the actuator in order to equilibrate
the system. F is the force that the crank produces by means of the cursor, BL is the force arm,
and BR is the crank projection along the guide. Equation (2) shows that the mechanical
advantage only depends on the geometrical characteristics of the system. By combining
geometrical terms, it follows:

L
cot j = cot b (2)
R × sin b

This equation allows calculating the actuator shaft rotation (β) needed to achieve a given
morphing angle (ϕ) of the rib block and hence of the entire mechanism. After estimating MA,
102 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

it is possible to identify the actuation torque that actuator shall supply. Accordingly, the value
of the force F shall be known in order to verify that the stress arising in the carriage moving
into the rail, does not exceed design allowable. The actuation rod is then subjected to the
simultaneous action of the force F and the external moment Mrib#3, both producing bending
stress. This indicates that actuation system design requires a trade-off between the mechanical
advantage and the geometrical constraints limiting the actuator shaft rotation and L/R ratio.
In order to mitigate the maximum counterbalancing load acting on the guide to equilibrate the
aerodynamic moment, a fork-shaped crank coupled with a double sided linear guide was
preferred, as shown in Figure 15.

Figure 15. Actuation system final architecture with high rigidity linear guide.

The VLM method was adopted to evaluate aerodynamic pressure distribution along the
aileron in correspondence of each considered flight attitude (namely wing angle of attack,
flight altitude, and speed) and aileron geometrical configuration. The obtained loads were
considered for structural sizing and validation. A linear static analysis of the isolated actuation
system mechanism by means of a FE simulation was, in a first approximation, performed. The
aim of the numerical simulation was to verify if the static force acting on the linear guide was
below the allowable value prescribed by the producer. In the real operative condition, the
linear guide, being free to move, is not subjected to stress in the direction of motion. Force is
transmitted in the vertical (with respect to the guide axis) and, partially, normal direction (with
respect to the guide plane). For the current application, the actuator system was sized, referring
to the jamming condition, considered as the most critical. In fact, as visible in Figure 16, the
larger extent of the constraints (additional clamps) is expected to lead to higher stresses, locally
(in the contact region) and distributed (overall). The actuation beam is then simultaneously
loaded with the external aerodynamic moment, the vertical static force and a horizontal
component (linked to the jamming), producing a pure bending with a higher stress level rather
than the free guide. This effect was simulated by means of a perfect bonding between the rail
and slider. The reaction force acting on the linear guide for a given aerodynamic moment was
firstly evaluated and then compared to the expected actuation torque (Figure 17) multiplying
by the crank length.
 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 103
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

Figure 16. Stress contour on the linear guide element (max stress ~400 MPa).

Figure 17. Beam displacement contour (a, left); guide reaction loads of 177 N and 179 N (b, right).

The finite element model of the entire aileron was then carried out. The FE model is represen‐
tative of the three-dimensional drawings (CAD) of the entire aileron demonstrator. It includes
main structural components such as segmented ribs and spars, actuation system leverage, and
skin panels. Solid elements (CTETRA) were used for the mesh of the primary structure and
the actuation leverage; meanwhile, beam elements (CBEAM) were used for modelling all the
joints (fasteners, hinges, pins, and so on). FE model general data are recapped in Table 1.

FE model general data

Number of elements 2.138 E+6

Number of nodes 1.393 E+6

Estimated DOFs 3.638 E+6

Total estimated volume (m3) 6.785 E+6

Total estimated mass (kg) 21.00

Moment of inertia about aileron hinge-line (kg m )

2
0.403

Table 1. FE model characteristics.

104 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

The aileron primary structure is composed of ribs, actuation kinematic chains, spars, and skin.
Aileron leading edge was not modelled for stress analysis purposes; however, it was consid‐
ered only to properly evaluate the interface loads transmitted by the aileron to the wing box.
In Figure 18, a global view of the aileron FE model is depicted, while in Figure 19(a) and (b),
details of rib and spars meshes are shown.

Figure 18. Aileron FE model.

Figure 19. (a) Aileron rib solid mesh (CTETRA), (b) spar solid mesh (CTETRA).

Main mechanical properties of the materials adopted for the aileron components are listed in
the next table (Table 2).

Material (isotropic) E (GPa) ρ (kg/m3) v Items

Steel C50 220 7850 0.3 Beam of the actuation system, linear
guide features, crank, and rib links

Al 2024-T351 70 2768 0.33 All other items

Table 2. Aileron components material.

 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 105
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

All the components of the actuation system were connected to each other by means of several
pins which were simulated using CBEAM elements (Figure 20(a) and (b)).

Figure 20. Connection pins between linear guides items (a) and detail of the local connection among the actuation kine‐
matic parts (b).

Static analysis results have been here reported with reference to the limit load and ultimate
load (1.5 times the limit load). In Figure 21, the global magnitude of the displacements
exhibited by the aileron at limit load condition is shown. The maximum value (21.8 mm) is
located at the trailing edge in proximity of the first bay.

Figure 21. Global aileron displacement distribution at LL condition.

The stress distribution is characterized by concentrated peak around hinges and high solici‐
tation of the actuation beam which is the most loaded components. Concerning the actuation
levers, it is showed the typical stress distribution in bending; stress peaks greater than 350 MPa
were found close to un-chamfered notches (Figure 22(a)). In addition, it is depicted (Figure
22(b)) the elements with stress level higher than 320 MPa. In this case, showing the most
106 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

stressed elements is localized in a small area around the holes of the linkage between beam
and spar and in proximity of the linear guides.

Figure 22. Global VM stress distribution on actuation beam at LL (a) and element stress distribution above threshold
values of 320 MPa (b).

3. Prototyping and wind tunnel tests

On the basis of the numerical outcomes, the executive drawings of the prototype were
produced and the aileron was then manufactured. Main structural parts are machined, while
linear guides and actuators are components off-the-shelf (COTS). In the subsequent pictures,
the segmented rib architecture, the actuation kinematic chain, and the final manufactured
prototype (after painting) are shown. The morphing aileron was then integrated in a wing box
and tested in wind tunnel at NRC (National Research Council of Ottawa, Canada), in the
framework of the research program CRIAQ MDO505 involving Italian and Canadian univer‐
sity and research centre cooperation [8]. The aileron deflections are shown in Figure 26, and
the integrated wing prototype is reported in Figure 27. The preliminary results obtained during
wind tunnel tests were computed for baseline and morphed down configurations: lift versus
angle of attack (CL − α). (Figure 28); drag versus angle of attack (CD − α) (Figure 29); drag
polars (CL − CL) (Figure 30). The first one shows a typical linear trend. The curve slope (CLα)
remains unchanged and clearly by a morphing aileron deflection (from baseline to 6°), the
camber increase (high α0L and the curve moves in parallel upwards. The CD − α curve trend is
reported in Figure 29 for both unmorphed and morphed down configurations. The tendency
shows that the minimum drag coefficient shift on the left as the morphing deflection increase
leading to high CD0. Finally, the drag polars are depicted in Figure 30. In this case, when a
morphing deflection occur, the polar cross in correspondence of a pivot point for high CL while
it moves on the right side of the Cartesian plane for low CL. This means that it is possible to
identify an envelope curves which is the optimum one (dotted red line) (Figures 23–25).
 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 107
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

Figure 23. Aileron manufacturing with detail on hinges and rib.

Figure 24. Detail on aileron actuation system.

Figure 25. Photograph of the aileron prototype.

108 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

Figure 26. Morphing aileron at various deflections.

Figure 27. Complete CRIAQ wind tunnel test article including a morphing aileron [8].

Figure 28. Lift coefficient versus angle of attack curve.

 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 109
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

Figure 29. Drag coefficient versus angle of attack curve.

Figure 30. Drag polars with the envelope curve.

4. Conclusions

A self-contained morphing concept applied to a safety critical hinged control surface was
presented in this chapter. In particular, a morphing aileron was investigated as an extension
of an adaptive trailing edge in order to improve of L/D ratio and at the same time to preserve
the conventional aileron functionality. The resulting morphed geometry, called “morphing
110 Recent Progress in Some Aircraft Technologies

aileron,” ensures an augmented functionality with respect to a conventional “rigid” aileron.

The device is able to rigidly rotate around main hinge axis and in addition will enable camber
morphing. Being a safety critical surface, the structural design of a complete morphing aileron
is rarely addressed in the literature. Such an original work provides thus evidence and
arguments that contribute to the knowledge of morphing systems. Potentially suitable for
static or dynamic purposes, the morphing aileron is an extension of the morphing trailing edge
technology to the wing tip where small deflections could bring significant aerodynamic
benefits. It has been designed for a symmetrical deflection during cruise in order to compensate
A/C weight variation due to fuel burned. In such a manner, it is aimed to increase aerodynamic
efficiency (reduce drag) in off design points. Additionally, the deflection of a morphing aileron
it is expected to redistribute the spanwise wing distribution in order to reduce wing root
bending moment. On the other hand, by increasing actuator bandwidth, it can be tailored to
reduce peak stress from gust.

In order to deflect a “finger-like” rib architecture, a compact electromechanical actuation based

on double-sided guides and a fork-shaped crank has been designed. Advanced finite element
model in order to validate the structure at limit and ultimate loads have been carried out setting
all the details necessary to produce a laboratory demonstrator. This one was assembled and
tested, proving the effective functionality of the concept. Finally, wind tunnel tests assessing
the aerodynamic trend of such innovative architectures have been reported. The idea herein
described leads the way to further researches aimed at enhancing the TRL of the concept. To
this aim, some remarks should be done on the most critical aspects of the current device. In
particular, future steps may be: (i) an embedded sensing network for enhanced control in order
to assure the achievement of the target aero-shapes; (ii) actual shapes evaluation and compar‐
ison with expected aero-shapes; (iii) aerodynamic benefits comparison between rigid and
morphing aileron; (iv) morphing aileron-related (wing and A/C) performance benefits
estimations; (v) enhanced design with topology optimization; (vi) segmented skin aerody‐
namics comparison with a tailored complaint skin technology; (vii) high-speed simulations
and tests.

Author details

Ignazio Dimino1*, Gianluca Amendola1, Francesco Amoroso2, Rosario Pecora2 and

Antonio Concilio1

*Address all correspondence to: [email protected]

1 CIRA, The Italian Aerospace Research Centre, Adaptive Structures Division, Capua, Italy

2 University of Napoli, “Federico II”, Industrial Engineering Dept, Aerospace Division, Na‐
poli, Italy
 Morphing Technologies: Adaptive Ailerons 111
http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/63645

References

[1] Valasek, J., “Morphing Aerospace Vehicles and Structures,” John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.,
United States (2012)

[2] Wölcken, P.C., Papadopoulos, M., “Smart Intelligent Aircraft Structures (SARISTU)”,
Proceedings of the Final Project Conference, Springer, Germany (2015). ISBN:
978-3-319-22413-8.

[3] Recksiek, M., “Advanced High Lift System Architecture with Distributed Electrical Flap
Actuation,” AST 2009, March 29–30, Hamburg, Germany.

[4] Dreßler, U., Take-off and landing configurations, DaimlerChrysler Aerospace, March
1999.

[5] Rudolph, P.K.C., “High-Lift System on Commercial subsonic Airlines,” NASA Report 4746,
September 1996.

[6] Derrien, J.C., “Electromechanical Actuator (EMA) Advanced Technologies for Flight
Controls,” Presented at 28th International Congress of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS
2012).

[7] Dimino, I., Flauto, D., Diodati, G., Concilio, A., Pecora, R., “Actuation System Design for
a Morphing Wing Trailing Edge,” Recent Patents on Mechanical Engineering, Volume 7,
2014, pp. 138–148.

[8] Kammegne, M.J.T., Botez, M.R., Mamou, M., Mebarki, Y., Koreanschi, A., Gabor, O.S.,
Grigorie, T.L., “Experimental Wind Tunnel Testing of a New Multidisciplinary Morphing
Wing Model”, Proceedings of the 18th International Conference On Mathematical
Methods, Computational Techniques and Intelligent Systems (MAMECTIS 2016).