Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T07:02:40.558Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A morphing aerofoil with highly controllable aerodynamic performance

Part of: Smart Aircraft

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 November 2016

R. Wu ,
C. Soutis ,
S. Zhong  and
A. Filippone
R. Wu
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester, UK
C. Soutis*
Affiliation:
Aerospace Research Institute, University of Manchester, UK
S. Zhong
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester, UK
A. Filippone
Affiliation:
School of Mechanical, Aerospace and Civil Engineering, University of Manchester, UK
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, a morphing carbon fibre composite aerofoil concept with an active trailing edge is proposed. This aerofoil features of camber morphing with multiple degrees of freedom. The shape morphing is enabled by an innovative structure driven by an electrical actuation system that uses linear ultrasonic motors (LUSM) with compliant runners, enabling full control of multiple degrees of freedom. The compliant runners also serve as structural components that carry the aerodynamic load and maintain a smooth skin curvature. The morphing structure with compliant truss is shown to exhibit a satisfactory flexibility and loading capacity in both numerical simulations and static loading tests. This design is capable of providing a pitching moment control independent of lift and higher L/D ratios within a wider angle-of-attack range. Such multiple morphing configurations could expand the flight envelope of future unmanned aerial vehicles. A small prototype is built to illustrate the concept, but as no off-the-shelf LUSMs can be integrated into this benchtop model, two servos are employed as actuators, providing two controlled degrees of freedom.

Keywords

morphingadaptive aerofoilmultiple degrees of freedomlinear ultrasonic motor
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 121 , Issue 1235 , January 2017 , pp. 54 - 72
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Kota, S., Osborne, R. F. Jr., Ervin, G., Maric, D., Flick, P. and Paul, D. Mission adaptive compliant wing-design, fabrication and flight test. RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel (AVT) Symposium, RTO MP-AVT-168, Evora, Portugal, 20-24 April 2009.Google Scholar
2. Barbarino, S., Bilgen, O., Ajaj, R.M., Friswell, M.I. and Inman, D.J. A review of morphing aircraft. J Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, August 2011, 22, (9), pp 823–877.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Thill, C., Etches, J., Bond, I., Potter, K. and Weaver, P. Morphing skins. Aeronautical J, March 2008, 112, (1129), pp 117–139.Google Scholar
4. Campanile, L.F. and Sachau, D. The belt-rib concept: A structronic approach to variable camber. J Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, March 2000, 11, (3), pp 215–224.Google Scholar
5. Campanile, L.F. and Anders, S. Aerodynamic and aeroelastic amplification in adaptive belt-rib airfoils. Aerospace Science and Technology, January 2005, 9, (1), pp 55–63.Google Scholar
6. Kota, S., Hetrick, J.A., Osborn, R., Paul, D., Pendleton, E., Flick, P. et al. Design and application of compliant mechanisms for morphing aircraft structures. Proceedings of SPIE Smart Structures and Materials, August 2003, 5054, pp 24–33.Google Scholar
7. Woods, B.K., Bilgen, O. and Friswell, M.I. Wind tunnel testing of the fish bone active camber morphing concept. J Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, April 2014, 25, (7), pp 772–785.Google Scholar
8. Schroeder, T.A. and Wayman, C.M. The two-way shape memory effect and other “training” phenomena in Cu-Zn single crystals. Scripta Metallurgica, March 1977, 11, (3), pp 225–230.Google Scholar
9. Trease, B. and Kota, S. Design of adaptive and controllable compliant systems with embedded actuators and sensors. J Mech Design, October 2009, 131, (11), p 111001.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Rediniotis, O.K., Wilson, L.N., Lagoudas, D.C. and Khan, M.M. Development of a shape-memory-alloy actuated biomimetic hydrofoil. J Intelligent Materials Systems and Structures, January 2002, 13, (1), pp 35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Georges, T., Brailovski, V., Morellon, E., Coutu, D. and Terriault, P. Design of shape memory alloy actuators for morphing laminar wing with flexible extrados. J Mech Design, September 2009, 131, (9), p 091006.Google Scholar
12. Koreanschi, A., Gabor, O.Ş., Ayrault, T., Botez, R.M., Mamou, M. and Mebarki, Y. Numerical optimization and experimental testing of a morphing wing with aileron system, 24th AIAA/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference, 2016, p 1083.Google Scholar
13. Gabor, O.Ş., Koreanschi, A., Botez, R.M., Mamou, M. and Mebarki, Y. Numerical simulation and wind tunnel tests investigation and validation of a morphing wing-tip demonstrator aerodynamic performance. Aerospace Science and Technology, June 2016, 53, pp 136–153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Gabor, O.S., Koreanschi, A. and Botez, R.M. Optimization of an unmanned aerial system'wing using a flexible skin morphing wing. SAE Int J Aerospace, September 2013, 6, (2013-01-2095), pp 115–1121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Gabor, O.S., Simon, A., Koreanschi, A. and Botez, R.M. Aerodynamic performance improvement of the UAS-S4 Éhecatl morphing airfoil using novel optimization techniques. Proceedings of the Institution of Mech Engineers, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering, June 2016, 230, (7), pp 1164–1180.Google Scholar
16. Gabor, O.Ş., Simon, A., Koreanschi, A. and Botez, R.M. Improving the UAS-S4 Éhecal airfoil high angles-of-attack performance characteristics using a morphing wing approach. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering, Jan 2016, 230, (1), pp 118–131.Google Scholar
17. Smith, R.C. Smart Material Systems: Model Development, 2005, Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, US.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
18. Lockyer, A.J., Marchtin, C.A., Lindner, D.K., Walia, P.S. and Carpenter, B.F. Power systems and requirements for integration of smart structures into aircraft. J Intelligent Materials Systems and Structures, April 2004, 15, (4), pp 305–315.Google Scholar
19. Tieck, R.M., Mohanchandra, K.P. and Carman, G.P. Smart material actuators for airfoil morphing applications. Proceedings of SPIE Smart Structures and Materials, July 2004, 5390, pp 235–246.Google Scholar
20. Bartley-Cho, J.D., Wang, D.P., Marchtin, C.A., Kudva, J.N. and West, M.N. Development of high-rate, adaptive trailing edge control surface for the smart wing phase 2 wind tunnel model. J Intelligent Materials Systems and Structures, April 2004, 15, (4), pp 279–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Jacobs, E. N. Airfoil Section Characteristics as Affected by Protuberances, NACA Report No. 446, 1932.Google Scholar
22. Mack, S., Brehm, C., Heine, B., Kurz, A. and Fasel, H.F. Experimental investigation of separation and separation control on a laminar airfoil, 4th AIAA Flow Control Conference, June 2008, pp 23–26.Google Scholar
23. Gross, A. and Fasel, H.F. Numerical investigation of separation for airfoils at low Reynolds numbers, 40th Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit, June 2010, p 4736.Google Scholar
24. Koreanschi, A., Sugar-Gabor, O. and Botez, R.M., Numerical and experimental validation of a morphed wing geometry using Price-Païdoussis wind tunnel testing. Aeronautical J, May 2016, 120, (1227), pp. 757–795.Google Scholar
25. Giguere, P. and Selig, M.S. Freestream velocity corrections for two-dimensional testing with splitter plates. AIAA J, July 1997, 35, (7), pp 1195–1200.Google Scholar
26. Pankhurst, R.C. and Holder, D.W. Wind-Tunnel Technique: An Account of Experimental Methods in Low- and High-Speed Wind Tunnels. 1952, Pitman. Bath, England.Google Scholar
27. Abbott, I.H., Von Doenhoff, A.E. and Stivers, L.S. Summary of airfoil data. National Advisory Commitee for Aeronautics. Report, 1945.Google Scholar
28. Wolken-Möhlmann, G., Knebel, P., Barth, S. and Peinke, J. Dynamic lift measurements on a FX79W151A airfoil via pressure distribution on the wind tunnel walls. J Physics: Conference Series, July 2007, 75, (1), p 1.Google Scholar