Smart High Lift Devices for Next

Generation Wings
DiPaRT Loads and Aeroelastics Workshop

Aerospace Engineering
Cranfield University

S. Guo, S. Ahmed,
N. Di Matteo, R. Morishima, Q. Fu, D. Li
13th December 2012
 Morphing Wing Technology
• The existing high lift devices show a
typical wing morphing technology
• B787 and A350XWB have stepped
further to control the lift and drag
during flight and maximise the
aerodynamic efficiency.
• The spoiler is used during landing and
take-off to control the gap and overlap
of the flap.
• The LE forms a sealed droop nose
during take-off. Picture taken from: 787 Systems and Performance - Tim Nelson
• Further the flap and spoilers are used
to control wing camber during cruise.
WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4

Development of Seamless Morphing High Lift Devices for Next Generation

T 1.1
T 1.2
Wing
T 2.1
T 2.2
T 3.1
T 3.2
T 4.1
T 4.2
 Aim of SADE T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 2
DiPaRT Loads and Aeroelastics Workshop– Cranfield University, 13th December 2012
 Introduction
• The EU funded FP7 SADE consortium includes 13 European partners
(DLR, Airbus, EADS, CU…)

• The Objectives:
 Increase technological readiness of morphing structures.
 Reduce system complexity and mass.
 Enable seamless high lift devices and increase lift-over-drag in take-off
 Reduce noise emissions in approach compared to high lift systems.
 Reduce power consumption

• CU was responsible for the structure design of the smart LE and TE,
the aeroservoelastic analysis and actuation system design. WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 3
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Research Work by CU
CU is responsible for the following work in three work packages

WP 1: Integration of High Lift Device

 Aeroelastic calculation of the 3D wing with the morphing high lift devices
 Power estimations of the proposed actuation system.
WP 2:- Morphing Leading Edge
 Design of a morphing actuation mechanism integrated with LE structure
 Morphing LE structure analysis to meet the 2D target shape.
WP 3:- Morphing Flap Trailing Edge
 Design of a morphing actuation mechanism integrated with flap
WPTE
1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
 Morphing flap TE structure analysis to meet the 2D target shape
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 4
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Work Package 2

• A target shape of the morphing LE at reference

section during landing from DLR.

• The aero-load on the morphing LE was calculated

at the AoA specific to landing.

• An eccentric beam actuation mechanism (EBAM)

with specially designed disks and beam curvature
was proposed by Dr. Guo for morphing LE based
on his previous morphing wing concepts.

• By rotating the EBAM curved beam at any angle,

a specified LE morphing shape can be achieved.
WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 5
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Work Package 2

• LE structural analysis including stress and deformation

results show a satisfactory design.
• The actuation forces with (darker bars) and without
aerodynamic load are calculated.
• The actuation torque and power required for a single
morphing LE device were estimated; maximum torque
increased by 8% when aerodynamic load was applied.

500

400

Torque (Nm)
300

200

100

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 WP 60 1 70
WP 2 80WP 3 90 WP 4

Beam rotation angle T(deg)

1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
Without aerodynamic load WithT aerodynamic
1.3 T 2.3 laod
T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 6
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Work Package 3
• The morphing flap TE target shape at
ref section during landing from CIRA.

• The eccentric beam actuation

mechanism (EBAM) was applied to the
flap with a sliding TE design.

• The actuated deflection of the

morphing flap to achieve the
target shape were demonstrated.
WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 7
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Work Package 3 cont.
• Stress analysis results of the morphing flap show a valid design.
• FE model and analysis was extended to the full inboard flap with a span of 5m.
• When the EBAM curved beam rotates to 90-deg in fully morphing shape in
landing case, little actuation power is required to keep the target shape.

WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 8
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Work Package 1

• A wing structural FE model was

created.

• Under cruise load calculated by ARA

the structure model was validated in
2.5g + 1.5g load factor.

• The net load (lift - structure weight)

along the wing span in cruise case was
calculated.

• The stresses and strains were within

the limits of the selected material which
was Al 7 series. WP 1
T 1.1
WP 2
T 2.1
WP 3
T 3.1
WP 4
T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 9
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Work Package 1 cont.
• The sweep back wing produces a
negative twist under aero-load, which
affects the loading
• Static aeroelastic analysis was carried
out by interacting CFD and FE model
to calculate the final loading and
determine the geometric twist in an
iterative approach

• Started from an initial wing jig shape

designed for cruise (AoA 1.88 deg)
 the CFD model and load
 induced wing aeroelastic twist
 CFD model and load redistribution
 wing FE model and twist WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4

… T 1.1
T 1.2
T 2.1
T 2.2
T 3.1
T 3.2
T 4.1
T 4.2

 converge (root AoA 2.4 deg). T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3

T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 10
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Work Package 1 cont.
• Angle of attack varied from 0-3o
• Initially as the angle of attack was
increased the bending and thus
negative twist also increased.
• Around 2o the bending induced twist
stopped becoming the predominate
factor in the loss of lift
• The torque of the aero-load became
larger creating a greater pitching up
moment counter-acting the bending
twist.
• While the loss in lift became smaller
after 2o and the twist angle after 2.6o,
the twist was still always negative
meaning divergence was not an
issue. WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 11
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 High Lift Device Morphing in Landing and Take-off
• The lift distribution with static aeroelastic effect was also calculated for landing
and take-off flight phases. An appreciable amount of data was estimated in
order to estimate the weight and the lift.

 For landing and take-off the speeds were estimated to be 140kts and
155kts respectively.
 The fuel mass for landing was calculated by subtracting the Manufacturers
Zero Fuel Weight from the Maximum Landing Weight
 The fuel mass for take-off was estimated by taking the MZFW from the
Maximum Take Off Weight.
 The CFD for the high lift cases were calculated as several 2D cross-
sections along the span
 Having both the mass and the speeds, the angle required for each phase
WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
was calculated. It was found that during landing an angle of 5.5o Tand
1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
o
during take-off an angle of 4 was required. T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 12
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 High Lift Configuration:- Landing
• The results were run in two forms;
the analysis was run for a baseline
when the flap was undeformed and
morphed.

• The design point

 The jig angle for sufficient lift
was determined and the
aeroelastic twist induced loss of
lift was calculated.

• AoA sweep
 A range of AoA from 0o – 15o
were studied.
 The similar behaviour
WP 1
to WP
the2 WP 3 WP 4
cruise case was witnessed.
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 13
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 High Lift Configuration:- Landing
• Combining the analyses for the
different angles generated lift polars
for the two configurations.

• Little improvement was seen for low

angles of attack, however the CLmax
was greatly increased.

• The loss in lift showed the same

behaviour as the cruise
configuration. This was due to the
wing operating in the non-linear
region of the CL curve.

• The maximum twist curve however

WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
did not show the same response.
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 14
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 High Lift Configuration:- Landing cont.

• The lack in the performance was

due to stall over the flap.
• The flap angle was reduced in order
to minimise the stall.
• The results showed a small
improvement to the lift capability.
• Due to the reduced flap angle there
was an impact on the drag and thus
the stopping distance.

WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 15
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 High Lift Configuration:- Landing cont.

• The standard flap was shown to have

a different flap position to the
morphed flap

• The repositioned flap showed a

greater improvement to the lift than
the previous cases.

• The lift polar shows the improvement

over the low angles of attack however
the gain in the CLmax was lost.

• This configuration has the greatest

benefit as the lift is increased with
little impact on the drag. WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 16
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 High Lift Configuration:- Landing cont.

• The extreme case of eliminating the

stall altogether and controlling the
forces using circulation control was
studied.

• The increase in lift was as expected

with the use of such technology using
a jet momentum of only 0.07.

WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 17
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 High Lift Configuration:- Take-off
• The same flap profile as landing is
used.

• While the lift curves were shallower

than the landing case however the
greater load over the flap meant a
larger twist.

WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 18
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 High Lift Configuration:- Take-off cont.

• Morphing the flap had a better initial

effect than the landing phase.

• This was due to positioning of the

flap being closer repositioned flap
mentioned previously.

• As with previously the CLmax was

only slightly altered.

• Using the lift polar for all the designs

it is possible to calculate the loss in
lift or improvements for any angle.
WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 19
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 High Lift Configuration:- Take-off cont.

• During take-off the lift is not the only

Parameter Baseline Inboard Outboard Fully
concern, drag is also a large factor.
Initial load 533932.0 (N) 553509.9 (N) 560915.1 (N) 580493.0 (N)

Final load 515288.9 (N) 534918.6 (N) 539367.3 (N) 558992.1 (N)

% loss in lift 3.4916 % 3.3588 % 3.8415 % 3.7039 %

• The L/D for the morphed flap was
Initial twist -1.0762 (o) -1.0749 (o) -1.2159 (o) -1.2146 (o)
lower than the baseline.
Final twist -0.9809 (o) -0.9797 (o) -1.1048 (o) -1.1022 (o)

L/D 62.5 61.1 60.9 59.6 57.3 55.7 56 54.7 • Morphing the flap independently
showed interesting results.

• The outboard flap increased the lift

the greatest however drag was also
greatest.

WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
• The inboard returned the TL/D
1.1 Tto
2.1 the
T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
baseline level. T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 20
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Conclusions
• A feasible EBAM integrated with the high lift device structure has been
designed and demonstrated by experiment
• The aeroelastic effect of morphing LE and flap TE on 3D wing lift
needs to be considered in different flight phase for maximum benefit.
 An optimal flap morphing along the span can greatly improve the
efficiency.
• The benefits of morphing in landing and take-off:
 Lift increase during landing will allow lower approach speeds and shorter
runways.
 Improve the lift-to-drag ratio during take-off,
 Inevitable reduction of aeroacoustics due to the removal of the slot.
 The morphing technology can be used throughout the flight to improve
WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
aerodynamic efficiency and load distribution on the wing structure.
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 21
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Possible Future Work cont.

• Morphing technology has so far been

focused on the main lifting surface.
Extending the technology to control and
stability surfaces would be more beneficial
(Ref. a research project on seamless
aeroelastic fin of a UAV supervised by Dr
Guo).

• Flow blowing or suction technique

combined with morphing could be more
effective.

WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
Non-tangential blow T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
[AOA=12°] T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 22
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012
 Thank you for your attention.
Any questions?

WP 1 WP 2 WP 3 WP 4
T 1.1 T 2.1 T 3.1 T 4.1
T 1.2 T 2.2 T 3.2 T 4.2
T 1.3 T 2.3 T3.3 T 4.3
T 1.4
Technical Review Meeting– Location, Date – Partner / Author 23
OverviewLoads
DiPaRT and –Aeroelastics
of SADE Cranfield University,
Workshop– 13th
Cranfield
December
University,
2012 13th December 2012