CHAPTER

THE DESIGN OF SKIN PANELS FOR

MORPHING WINGS IN LATTICE
MATERIALS
8
Andrea Vigliotti*, Damiano Pasini†
The Italian Aerospace Research Centre, CIRA SCpA, Capua (CE), Italy* McGill University,
Montreal, QC, Canada†

CHAPTER OUTLINE
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................................... 231
2 Requirements for the Skin of a Morphing Wing ................................................................................ 232
3 A Methodology for Nonlinear Homogenization of Periodic Structures ................................................. 234
4 Mechanical Properties of Skin Panels in Lattice Material ................................................................. 234
4.1 Analysis of Selected Lattice Topologies ........................................................................... 237
4.2 The Design Space of the Chevron Lattice ......................................................................... 242
5 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................... 245
References ........................................................................................................................................ 245

NOMENCLATURE
1PK first Piola-Kirchoff stress tensor
FE finite element
RVE representative volume element

1 INTRODUCTION
With the aim to improve the performance and the efficiency of current aircraft design, a number of
research projects have recently addressed the implementation of morphing wing concepts [1–4].
The benefits of morphing wing over the current designs involve the aerodynamic efficiency, the struc-
tural weight, and noise emission [5,6].
Although several studies have focused on the design of the wing internal structure [7–10,10a,10b],
only a limited number of solutions have been proposed for the skin.
Morphing Wing Technologies. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-100964-2.00008-3
# 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
231
232 CHAPTER 8 THE DESIGN OF SKIN PANELS FOR MORPHING WINGS

The skin of morphing wings is the structural element that poses some of the most difficult chal-
lenges in the design of a morphing aircraft [11–15]. Whereas high compliance to reduce the actuation
energy is required in the main stretching direction, high stiffness is necessary in the out-of-plane di-
rection to maintain a given shape under the action of the aerodynamic loads. In addition, the skin should
be able to undergo in the actuation direction large recoverable deformation, in the order of 20% up to
40%, thus minimizing the deformation in the orthogonal direction. This specification requires the de-
formation in the cross-direction to be as small as possible for two main reasons, (1) to allow a fine
overall control of the wing shape, and (2) to limit the mass of the wing structure. No traditional ma-
terials, either metallic or polymeric, could fulfill the conflict existing among these design requirements,
but those with a periodic microstructure offer a viable solution. Recent techniques of rapid prototyping
allow the manufacturing of components with a lattice architecture from a variety of solid materials,
with high precision and acceptable costs [16,17]. By finely tuning their geometric parameters, the
structural performance of a lattice material can be optimized to levels that cannot be attained by other
traditional materials. The factor that contributes the most is the topology of the unit cell, which can be
tailored to maximize desired, as well as conflicting, structural objectives [18,19].
The structural analysis of a component made of a lattice material cannot overlook the geometry of
both the unit cell and the macroscopic domain. When the scale of the component is significantly larger
than the scale of the unit cell, a direct approach that involves finite element (FE) modeling at the mi-
croscopic scale would result in considerably large models. This process would be either unpractical or
unfeasible to handle [20,21]. A viable alternative is to resort to multiscale approaches that generally
assume a length scale separation between the micro (unit cell) and macro (component) geometry. In
this case, because the smaller scale physics can be considered as homogeneous by the larger scale, it is
possible to separately model each physical field after defining suitable boundary conditions that allow
information to be passed among the different scales. At the larger scale, the component is assumed to
consist of homogeneous material with mesh size independent of the unit cell size. Multiscale ap-
proaches have been proved successful in delivering accurate results while limiting the computational
effort.
In this chapter, we use a multiscale homogenization method that accounts for the geometric non-
linearity of the microstructure and derive the macroscopic constitutive relationship of a skin made out
of a lattice material. We first identify the material requirements for the skin of a morphing wing. Then
we describe the homogenization method for the analysis of the mechanical properties of lattice mate-
rials. Finally, the method is used to analyze in detail the properties of candidate lattice topologies,
which in turn generate design property charts for the selection of the most suitable cell topology
for a morphing lattice skin.

2 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SKIN OF A MORPHING WING

In a morphing wing, the airfoil skin has to undergo membrane deformation in the skin-plane, and with-
stand the aerodynamic pressure in the out-of-plane direction [12,14]. Fig. 1A describes the main re-
quirements of a morphing wing: in camber changes, which impose surface deformation of opposite
sign; and in span changes, where the upper and the lower surfaces undergo deformation of the same
 2 REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SKIN OF A MORPHING WING 233

Reference configuration
u=v=0

Morphing section

Camber change
Y
ΔL > 0

u=0 u=0
ΔL < 0
x

Cord change
ΔL > 0

ΔL > 0 v = const.
(A) (B)
FIG. 1
(A) Camber and span variations achieved via wing morphing. (B) Reference boundary conditions used to
determine the material properties of the skin.

sign. As a result, the skin should withstand large tensile and compressive recoverable deformations. In
addition, to reduce both the power requirements and the impact of the actuation forces on the rest of the
wing structure, very high compliance in the direction of actuation is required for the material of the
skin. Another requirement of the actuation is that the skin should have small in-plane Poisson’s ratio,
a behavior that reduces the loads transmitted to the rest of the wing in the cross-directions.
In summary, the main design requirements for the skin microstructure of a morphing wing can be
specified as:

1. Small microscopic deformation, within the elastic limit of the solid material to allow repeated
actuations;
2. High in-plane compliance in the direction of actuation to minimize the actuator’s power and overall
structural mass of the wing;
3. Large recoverable macroscopic elastic deformation to allow the shape changes required by the
aerodynamics;
4. High bending stiffness to ensure no shape variation occurs under the action of the aerodynamic
pressure;
5. Minimal structural mass for the skin panel;
6. Zero in-plane Poisson’s ratio to avoid the occurrence of undesired forces in the span-wise direction,
and to reduce the overall structural mass of the wing.
234 CHAPTER 8 THE DESIGN OF SKIN PANELS FOR MORPHING WINGS

As a reference case, we consider a plate subjected to the boundary conditions shown in Fig. 1B; here the
macroscopic strain and stress fields of the plate are uniform and given by.1
ΔLY
G22 ¼ ¼ const
LY
(1)
G11 ¼ G21 ¼ G12 ¼ 0
P33 ¼ P23 ¼ P32 ¼ P13 ¼ P31 ¼ 0
where Pij and Gij are, respectively, the components of the macroscopic first Piola-Kirchoff (1PK) stress
tensor and of the macroscopic displacement gradient.
The above requirements are generally in conflict and unachievable to meet for any homogeneous
material. In fact, a polymeric rubber, which is naturally very compliant, could satisfy criteria 1, 3 and 1,
but very likely unable to satisfy the other criteria. Another option is given by composite materials that
can provide a high level of anisotropy; nevertheless, their tolerance to large deformation is rather
limited.

3 A METHODOLOGY FOR NONLINEAR HOMOGENIZATION OF PERIODIC

STRUCTURES
In this section, we describe the method that enables the evaluation of the macroscopic constitutive re-
sponse of a lattice. The scheme relies on the analysis of a representative volume element (RVE) of a
lattice, subjected to a given macroscopic deformation field and to periodic boundary conditions. The
components of the macroscopic stress tensor are found by calculating the derivative of the deformation
energy density of the RVE with respect to the components of the macroscopic deformation gradient.
The following briefly summarizes the main step, while a complete description can be found in Refs.
[21,22].
A lattice material consists of ordered periodic arrangement of cells obtained by replication of a unit
cell along independent tessellation vectors (Fig. 2). In this context, the unit cell is the minimal entity
that is capable of generating the entire lattice after replication along the tessellation vectors. Possible
RVEs are made out of any m  n array of contiguous unit cells, where m and n are integers. For the
linear case, it can be shown that the estimated macroscopic lattice stiffness is independent from m
and n [21]. This applies also to the nonlinear case as long as no bifurcation point is crossed on the load
path of the lattice. In the presence of bifurcations, the choice of the RVE influences the behavior of the
material model and a detailed analysis should be a priori performed to select the suitable RVE.
To evaluate the equilibrium configuration of the RVE subjected to a given macroscopic deforma-
tion, we introduce the following kinematic assumptions:

1. The periodic directions of the lattice change according to the macroscopic displacement gradient;
2. The lattice remains periodic during deformation.

Assumption (1) applies only to the periodic directions, and no further restrictive hypothesis is made on
the displacement of the internal points of the RVE, whose configuration is determined by imposing the

We recall that the displacement gradient and the first Piola-Kirchoff tensor are not symmetric, thus Gij 6¼ Gji and Pij 6¼ Pji.
1
 3 NONLINEAR HOMOGENIZATION OF PERIODIC STRUCTURES 235

a1
3 a1 2

2 1 a2

4 a2 1 3

(A) (B)
FIG. 2
Sample topologies. The unit cell elements are marked in thick line, a1 and a2 are the tessellation vectors; the RVE
boundary is marked with dashed lines. (A) Hexagonal lattice and (B) triangulated lattice.

equilibrium. The above assumptions are equivalent to consider that either the size of the RVE negli-
gible with respect to the size of the macroscopic domain, or the typical length of the lattice elements is
negligible with respect to the local wavelength of the macroscopic strain field. In other words, we con-
sider the RVE as a material point of our macroscopic continuum. Therefore, in this formulation, we
completely decouple the length scale of the macroscopic and the microscopic domains.
To find the deformation work, we consider a FE model of the RVE. Let s the array of the nodal
degrees of freedom of our RVE; by means of the FE model of the RVE, we can calculate the corre-
sponding array of the nodal forces, F(s). Applying the principle of virtual work, the first variation of the
total strain energy from a variation of the macroscopic strain is given by:
Z
dW ¼ Pij dGij dV ¼ FT ds (2)
VRVE

where Pij and Gij are, respectively, the components of the macroscopic 1PK stress tensor and of the
macroscopic displacement gradient; ds is the variation of the nodal displacements corresponding to
dGji. Assuming Pij and Gij are uniform over the RVE, we obtain the macroscopic stress tensor as
1 ∂W 1 T ∂s
Pij ¼ ¼ F (3)
VRVE ∂Gij VRVE ∂Gij

As we can observe, all the boundary nodes of the RVE are necessarily corresponding along the periodic
vectors, while the internal nodes do not have any corresponding node in the RVE. For instance, in
Fig. 2A, it results r3 ¼ r2 + a1 and r4 ¼ r2 + a2, and node 1, which is internal, had no corresponding node
along any periodic direction of the RVE. Similarly in Fig. 2B, it results r2 ¼ r1 + a1, and r3 ¼ r1 + a2,
and, in this case, we do not have any internal node. It follows that the position of all the nodes of the unit
cell can be expressed through the position of some independent nodes and the periodic directions as
follows:
ri ¼ r0j + ka1 + ha2 (4)
236 CHAPTER 8 THE DESIGN OF SKIN PANELS FOR MORPHING WINGS

with k , h 2 {1, 0, 1}, and k ¼ h ¼ 0 for the internal nodes. Let Δai be the change in the ith direction,
and we can easily write the displacement of each node of the unit cell as
si ¼ s0j + kΔa1 + hΔa2 (5)
Collecting all the DoFs of the UC in the array s, we can write the following equation in a compact
matrix form
s ¼ B0 s0 + B1 Δa (6)
where the entries of the matrices B0 and Ba are 1, 0, or 1, and do not change during the deformation; s0
is the array that collects all the independent DoFs of the unit cell; and Δa collects the components of Δai
and is defined as
Δa ¼ ½Δa11 , Δa12 , Δa21 , Δa22 T (7)
where the first index refers to the periodic direction and the second index refers to the Cartesian com-
∂ui
ponent. If Gij ¼ are the components of the macroscopic displacement gradient, the following holds:
∂Xj
Δaki ¼ Gij akj (8)
After collecting the components of the gradient in the array G ¼ [G11, G12, G21, G22] , we can express
T

the change in the periodic directions as a function of the components of the displacement gradient as.
Δa ¼ Ba G (9)
where the matrix Ba collects the components of the tessellation vectors rearranged as.
2 3
a11 a12 0 0
6 0 0 a11 a12 7
Ba ¼ 6
4 a21 a22 0 0 5
7 (10)
0 0 a21 a22

thus we can express all the DoFs of RVE directly as a function of the DoFs of the independent nodes and
of the components of the displacement gradient as.
s ¼ B0 s0 + BG G (11)
where BG ¼ B1Ba, which depends only on the topology of the RVE. Eq. (11) expresses the kinematics
of the RVE, and relates the macroscopic displacement gradient G to the nodal displacements of the
RVE. The deformed shape of the RVE can be found after the DoFs of the independent nodes, s0, have
been determined, a step that can be done by the periodic equilibrium condition on the RVE.
From assumption (2), we can write the equation for the equilibrium of the RVE under the action of
the surrounding elements, in terms of the nodal forces of the RVE. In particular, for the hexagonal
lattice the following holds:
F1 ¼ 0
(12)
F2 + F3 + F4 ¼ 0
Similarly, for the triangulated lattice, we can write the following periodic equilibrium equation:
F1 + F2 + F3 ¼ 0 (13)
 4 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SKIN PANELS IN LATTICE MATERIAL 237

It is possible to show [14] that for an arbitrary lattice the periodic equilibrium equation can be written in
terms of the B0 matrix as.
BT0 FðsÞ ¼ 0 (14)

and by means of Eq. (11) as follows:

BT0 FðB0 s0 + BG GÞ ¼ 0 (15)

The above equation expresses the equilibrium of the unit RVE under the action of the surrounding cells,
for a uniform deformation field. Given G, Eq. (15) can be solved by means of Newton Raphson
Iterations.
Recalling the statement of the virtual work, we can obtain the following expression for the mac-
roscopic stress tensor and its Jacobian:
P ¼ BTG FðsÞ (16)
 T  
∂P ∂s ∂F ∂s
¼ B0 + BG B0 + BG (17)
∂G ∂G ∂s ∂G
∂s
Where is given by the equation that follows, where ()+ denotes the Moore-Penrose pseudo inverse
∂G   +
∂s ∂F ∂F
¼  BT0 B0 BT0 BG (18)
∂G ∂s ∂s
The methodology described in this section enables the modeling of a component in lattice material by
means of displacement-based FE analyses. For a given displacement gradient G, at each integration
point of the macroscopic structure, Eqs. (16) and (17) can be used to evaluate the 1PK tensor and
its Jacobian for any given G.
In the formulation described above, all boundary conditions are on the components of G, which
ensures the existence of a solution. Nonetheless, it is also possible to pose the inverse problem, which
is to consider boundary conditions given on the P tensor and solve for G. In the following sections, we
consider mixed boundary conditions, where certain components of P and G are prescribed, and others
are free. In this case, the solution still can be found by solving a nonlinear problem by means of the
Newton-Rhapson method, which iterates on the not prescribed components of G, and defines the re-
sidual on the components of P, whose values are constrained. In this case special, proper care should
apply, as bifurcation points might appear because of local buckling of the lattice elements.

4 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SKIN PANELS IN LATTICE MATERIAL

4.1 ANALYSIS OF SELECTED LATTICE TOPOLOGIES
In this section, we focus on the selection of lattice topologies suitable for the design of the skin of a
morphing wing. In particular, we consider a honeycomb topology, where the horizontal and the in-
clined sides can have different measures and the angle between the two is arbitrary (Fig. 3A), and
the chevron lattice (Fig. 3B).
With reference to the lattices in Fig. 3, the kinematic and the equilibrium conditions can be formu-
lated as shown in Table 1, where a1 and a2 are the periodic directions of the lattice.
238 CHAPTER 8 THE DESIGN OF SKIN PANELS FOR MORPHING WINGS

FIG. 3
Sample topologies: (A) hexagonal lattice and (B) chevron lattice. The thick lines represent unit cell elements; while
a1 and a2 are the tessellation vectors; ri is the coordinate vector of the node i; L1 and L2 are, respectively, the
length of the horizontal and inclined members; γ is the angle between the horizontal and the inclined members.

Table 1 Compatibility and Periodic Equilibrium Conditions

Hexagonal Lattice Chevron Lattice

Compatibility s3 ¼ s1 + G a1 s7 ¼ s1 + G a1 (19)
s4 ¼ s1 + G a2 s6 ¼ s1 + G a2
s4 ¼ s3 + G a1  G a2
Periodic equilibrium F2 ¼ 0 F2 ¼ 0 (20)
F1 + F3 + F4 ¼ 0 F5 ¼ 0
F1 + F6 + F7 ¼ 0
F3 + F4 ¼ 0
G is the displacement gradient, ai are the periodic vectors defined in Fig. 3, si are the nodal displacements and Fi are the nodal forces.

As previously observed, compatibility equations allow us to express the displacements of all the
nodes of the RVE in terms of G and the displacement of a subset of the nodes of the RVE, which
we call independent nodes. A possible choice of the independent nodes are nodes 1 and 2 for the hex-
agonal lattice (Fig. 3A), and 1, 2, 3, and 5 for the chevron (Fig. 3B). Because the number of equilibrium
equations is always equal to the number of the independent nodes, the problem is closed, and given the
components of the displacement gradient, we can determine the corresponding configuration of
the RVE.
In this study, we restrict our attention to honeycomb, extruded planar topologies, as shown in Fig. 4.
We observe that the size of the lattice in direction X3, represents the thickness of the skin panel and
therefore is a macroscopic parameter; on the other hand, the in-plane dimensions of the lattice, i.e.,
the length and the thickness of its elements, are microscopic parameters, specified at a length scale
smaller than the macroscopic dimension of the panel. Let Li be the typical length of the walls in
the plane of the plate, t the wall thickness in the same plane, and z the out-of-plane height of the walls
 4 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SKIN PANELS IN LATTICE MATERIAL 239

FIG. 4
Sample lattices: (A) classical hexagonal honeycomb, (B) auxetic hexagonal honeycomb, (C) chevron honeycomb.
Auxetic lattices are obtained from the classic ones by setting γ 2 ]π/2 , π[. Note that the two hexagonal
configurations coexist in the chevron lattice.

corresponding to the macroscopic thickness of the plate. For these conditions, we assume the following
relation holds: t ≪ Li ≪ z. In this work, the lattice walls are modeled as three-dimensional plates. Thus
for the macroscopic deformation modes that remain in the plane of the skin panel, the strain energy is
essentially stored as pure bending of the walls, whereas for the deformation modes out of the plane
X1  X2, which correspond to the macroscopic bending of the plate, the strain energy is stored as mem-
brane shear of the walls.
An essential parameter of a morphing skin panel is its bending stiffness, which is proportional to the
thickness of the plate. In our case, the skin panel is structured rather than uniform; therefore as an in-
dicator of its macroscopic bending stiffness, we select the macroscopic shear stiffness of the lattice in
the out-of-plane directions X1  X2; that is, we consider the components of the macroscopic material
∂P3i
stiffness tensor, Eq. (17), such that with i , j 2 {1, 2}.
∂G3j
240 CHAPTER 8 THE DESIGN OF SKIN PANELS FOR MORPHING WINGS

To compare the performance of the lattices in Fig. 4, we prescribed their bending stiffness to be
equal. This means that the macroscopic thickness of their skin in the X3 direction, z, is given and sat-
1 ∂P3i z
isfies ¼ χ ∗oop ¼ 1  106 . In addition, to compare the structural efficiency of each design, we
Es ∂G3j L1
P11 P22
consider P∗11 ¼ z and P∗22 ¼ z, (with Es Young’s modulus of the cell wall), respectively, as mea-
Es Es
sures of the required actuation forces and the actuation work. L1 is also prescribed. Hence, P∗ is an
actual measure of the actuation tension for panels of given shear stiffness. In addition, with the above
definition of P∗, the actuation energy per unit surface of the skin panel is given by the following.
Z
W ¼ Es z P∗22 dG22 (21)

We now compare the mechanical responses of the topologies shown in Fig. 4 under uniaxial stretching.
The lattices under investigation are assumed with prescribed L1 ¼ 103 m, L2/L1 ¼ 0.5, Es ¼ 70 GPa,
L1
¼ 30. Table 2 reports their stiffness in the initial configuration for alternative macroscopic constraint
t
conditions. The first column shows the lattice stiffness in direction X2 under uniaxial stress, i.e., the
lattice is free to deform in the other directions upon deformation applied in direction X2. The stiffness
of the lattices is small, and they have similar values. The second column reports the stiffness under
planar uniaxial strain, i.e., the lattice deformation is prevented in direction X1 upon deformation applied
in direction X2, and the lattice is not constrained in direction X3. In these conditions, the hexagonal
lattices are from two to three orders of magnitude stiffer, whereas the stiffness of the chevron lattice
is unchanged. In particular, the initial Poisson’s ratio of the chevron lattice is zero, which corresponds
to the decoupling of the loads in the directions X1 and X2. In contrast, the hexagonal lattices the Pois-
son’s ratio have a finite value, which prevents deformation in direction X1 and brings an increase in the
lattice stiffness. The third column of the table reports the direct cross term for the plane X1  X2 of the
initial material stiffness matrix, i.e., the marginal stress increment in direction X1 corresponding to the
deformation in direction X2. This term is an effective measure of the coupling between the directions X1
and X2 for a uniaxial stretch of the lattice. For hexagonal lattices, this term has magnitude of the same
order, or larger, than that of the direct stiffness in direction X2. On the other hand, it is zero for the
chevron lattice, where the direction X1 and X2 are decoupled. The last two columns in Table 2 report

Table 2 Initial Stiffness Terms Normalized With Respect to the Young’s Modulus, Es,
of the Solid Material
∂P22 1 ∂P22 1 ∂P11 1 ∂P32 1 ∂P31 1
With With With With With
∂G22 Es ∂G22 Es ∂G22 Es G32 Es ∂G31 Es
P11 5 0 G11 5 0 G11 5 0 G11 5 0 G11 5 0

Classical 2.30 106 8.25 104 8.17 102 8.88 103 1.48 102
hexagonal
Auxetic 2.28 105 1.64 102 1.63 102 2.94 102 4.47 103
hexagonal
Chevron 3.29 106 3.29 106 0 2.05 102 6.41 103
 4 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SKIN PANELS IN LATTICE MATERIAL 241

FIG. 5
Normalized stress-strain relations for the lattices under investigation. Normalized stress in direction 2, P*22, is
shown in solid line, while normalized stress in direction 1, P*11, is shown in solid line. Each plot includes the
deformed shape of the RVE in compression and in tension for the largest value of the deformation. For each
topology, the value of the tension has been evaluated for configurations where the skin thickness, z, has been
 
∂Pi3 ∂P3i
selected to yield a given macroscopic shear stiffness in direction 3, given by χ ¼ min , with i and
∂Gj3 ∂G3j
∗
j 2 {1, 2}. This choice allows us to compare the effective actuation power, which is given by the area under the P22
curve, for skin panels with given bending stiffness.

the macroscopic shear stiffness of the lattice for out-of-plane deformation X1  X2; the values represent
the bending stiffness of the skin panel.
To compare the skin performance for given bending stiffness, we impose a reference thickness for
all lattices, a condition that results in prescribing the out-of-plane bending stiffness. As shown in
Fig. 5A and B, the hexagonal lattice, because of its nonzero Poisson’s ratio, is very compliant under
uniaxial stress, whereas its stiffness is quite high for uniaxial stretch. P11, the reaction force in the di-
rections orthogonal to the applied stretch, has the order of magnitude of the applied tension, or even
larger for the case of the classical hexagon. The chevron lattice, however, is very compliant with re-
action tensions essentially negligible even for very large deformation. Therefore, we can conclude that
the chevron lattice is particularly promising in the design of a material for morphing wings.
242 CHAPTER 8 THE DESIGN OF SKIN PANELS FOR MORPHING WINGS

4.2 THE DESIGN SPACE OF THE CHEVRON LATTICE

In this section, we analyze in detail the response of the chevron lattice for different configurations and
explore its design property space. We assume L1 is given and let L2/L1 2 [0.25, 4], and consider two
values of the initial angle between the members, namely γ ¼ 15 degrees and  γ ¼ 30 degrees.

∂P13 ∂P23
We first plot in Fig. 6A the out-of-plane stiffness of the plate, χ ¼ min , . As we can
∂G13 ∂G23
observe for small value of L2/L1 the stiffness of the material is controlled mainly by the length of the
horizontal member, thus it is constant. For larger values of L2/L1, however, as the length of the inclined
member increases, the lattice becomes increasingly compliant for the out-of-plane shear in direction 2,
and the overall shear stiffness of the plate drops. As a result, the reference thickness of the skin has to
increase so as to ensure that the normalized macroscopic bending stiffness of the plate remains constant
and equal to χ∗.

7 0.4
γ = 15 γ = 15
6 γ = 30 γ = 30
0.3
5
× 10−3

4 0.2
ρ
Es

3
X

0.1
2

1 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
(A) L2/L1 (B) L2/L1

γ = 15
0.8
γ = 30
ρ*= ρ z ×10−3

0.6
Lx

0.4

0.2

0
0 1 2 3 4
(C) L2/L1

FIG. 6
Shear stiffness and normalized relative density for given parameters of the chevron lattice.
 
∂P13 ∂P23 ðL1 + 2L2 Þt
χ ¼ min , is the minimum out-of-plane shear stiffness of the material; ρ ¼ is the
∂G13 ∂G23 2L1 L2 sin γ
geometric relative density of the material, ρ∗ is the effective relative density corrected to account for the material
shear stiffness.
 4 MECHANICAL PROPERTIES OF SKIN PANELS IN LATTICE MATERIAL 243

Fig. 6B shows the plot of the geometric relative density of the lattice material corresponding to the
ratio between the volume occupied by the solid material and the volume of the RVE. Fig. 6C shows the
z
effective relative density of the plate, defined as ρ∗ ¼ ρ , where ρ is the geometric relative density of
L1
z
the material. It is governed by the geometrical parameters of the unit cell only, and is a correction
L1
term that accounts for the shear stiffness of the lattice material; it is defined such that the volume of the
solid material per unit surface of the skin panel is given by ρ∗ L1. Even if the geometric relative density
of the lattice material decreases when the aspect ratio of the unit cell increases (Fig. 6B), the effective
relative density of the skin material (Fig. 6B) increases because it is necessary to increase the panel
thickness to compensate for the reduction of the macroscopic shear stiffness (Fig. 6A). It is also inter-
esting to observe that the combined variations of the shear stiffness and relative density of the material
are such that after a certain value of L2/L1, they yield the same effective relative density, regardless of γ.
In fact, the curves for γ ¼ 15 an γ ¼ 30 merge after L2/L1  3.
Figs. 7A and 8A show the normalized actuation force per unit area necessary to obtain a 40% uni-
axial deformation of the skin, both in extension and in compression. The chevron lattice becomes

0.3 γ = 15 5
γ = 30
4
× 10−3

0.2
3
P11
P22
Es Lx

γ = 15
P22 z

2
0.1 γ = 30
1

0 0
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
(A) L2/L1 (B) L2/L1

γ = 15
0.1 γ = 30

0.08
max( )

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 1 2 3 4
(C) L2/L1

FIG. 7
Normalized actuation stress, actuation ratio, and maximum deformation of the solid material under tensile
macroscopic applied strain. Curves obtained for different parameters of the chevron lattice for an actuation
corresponding to 40% tension.
244 CHAPTER 8 THE DESIGN OF SKIN PANELS FOR MORPHING WINGS

0 0 γ = 15
γ = 30
–1
× 10−3

–0.05
–2

P11
P22
Es Lx
P22 z

–0.1 –3

γ = 15 –4
–0.15 γ = 30
–5
0 1 2 3 4 0 1 2 3 4
(A) L2/L1 (B) L2/L1

γ = 15
0.1 γ = 30

0.08
max( )

0.06

0.04

0.02

0
0 1 2 3 4
(C) L2/L1

FIG. 8
Normalized actuation stress, actuation ratio, and maximum deformation of the solid material under compressive
macroscopic applied strain. Curves obtained for given parameters of the chevron lattice for an actuation
corresponding to 40% compression.

progressively more compliant as L2/L1 increases, because the bending stiffness of the inclined member
decreases as its length, L2, increases. Nevertheless, the net actuation force increases because it is nec-
essary to increase the skin thickness to ensure that χ∗ remains constant. This behavior is more evident
for γ ¼ 30 degrees, although an increment is also observed for γ ¼ 15 degrees.
Figs. 7B and 8B show the ratio between the applied force, P22, and the reaction force in direction 1,
at 40% deformation in extension and in compression, respectively. For small values of L2/L1, the re-
action forces are very small both for γ ¼ 30 degrees and γ ¼ 15 degrees. Yet, as the inclined member
becomes slenderer, the equilibrium at the joints between the horizontal and the inclined members be-
comes unstable; a bifurcation point appears and induces a finite joint rotation, which in turn leads to a
loss of lattice neutrality.
Figs. 7C and 8C show the maximum nominal deformation developed in the solid material of the
lattice. This quantity specifies the allowable limit of macroscopic deformation for the skin, and it offers
a means of comparison with the elastic limit of the solid material. The lattice is capable of undergoing
macroscopic deformation as large as 40%, while maintaining the microscopic deformation of the ma-
terial below 5%. This demonstrates that the Chevron lattice is very effective, the best among those
considered in this study, in transforming in plane stretches into bending and large rotation of the lattice
members, keeping actuation forces and solid material deformation quite low.
 REFERENCES 245

5 CONCLUSIONS
This chapter has focused on design challenges posed by the selection of a suitable material for the
manufacturing of the skin of a morphing wing. A preliminary analysis of the requirements showed that
no existing material is capable of simultaneously fulfilling all of the contrasting requirements of a
morphing skin. A potentially viable solution has been identified in lattice materials. Lattice materials
are characterized by an ordered periodic microstructures obtained by replicating a unit cell along in-
dependent tessellation vectors. By properly selecting the topology of the unit cell and the solid material
of the lattice, it is possible to manufacture extremely stiff and strong materials, and to obtain unusual
macroscopic properties.
In this chapter, we have focused in particular on the properties of the chevron lattice by explo-
ring its design space. This work has shown that no single selection of the lattice parameters maxi-
mizes concurrently all the design objectives for a morphing wing skin. Rather, an optimal solution
is to be found by establishing priorities on the relative importance of conflicting design objectives.
For example, large values of L2/L1 ensure low actuation energy and small strain in the solid mate-
rial (see Figs. 7A, C and 8A, C). On the other hand, they also produce a heavier skin and larger
forces in the cross-direction. Furthermore, there is no ideal angle for the inclined members. Lower
values of γ improve the compliance, but heavier lattices or stronger coupling between the actuation
and the constraint directions are possible by controlling the value of L2/L1. To summarize, the final
concept for the skin needs to take into account the actual properties of the solid material, the over-
all geometrical dimensions of the wing, and the strength of the structure surrounding the mor-
phing flap.

REFERENCES
[1] S. Barbarino, O. Bilgen, R.M. Ajaj, M.I. Friswell, D.J. Inman, A review of morphing aircraft, J. Intell. Ma-
ter. Syst. Struct. 22 (9) (2011) 823–877.
[2] S. Barbarino, E.L. Saavedra Flores, R.M. Ajaj, I. Dayyani, M.I. Friswell, A review on shape memory alloys
with applications to morphing aircraft, Smart Mater. Struct. 23 (6) (2014) 063001.
[3] J.C. Gomez, E. Garcia, Morphing unmanned aerial vehicles, Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (10) (2011) 103001.
[4] I. Kuder, A.F. Arrieta, W.E. Raither, P. Ermanni, Variable stiffness material and structural concepts for
morphing applications, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 63 (2013) 33–55.
[5] J.N. Kudva, Overview of the DARPA smart wing project, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 15 (4) (2004)
261–267.
[6] E. Stanewsky, Adaptive wing and flow control technology, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 37 (7) (2001) 583–667.
[7] I.-R. Dayyani, S. Ziaei-Rad, M.I. Friswell, The mechanical behavior of composite corrugated core coated
with elastomer for morphing skins, J. Compos. Mater. 48 (13) (2014) 1623–1636.
[8] W. Raither, M. Heymanns, A. Bergamini, P. Ermanni, Morphing wing structure with controllable twist
based on adaptive bending-twist coupling, Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (6) (2013).
[9] A. Spadoni, M. Ruzzene, Numerical and experimental analysis of the static compliance of chiral truss-core
airfoils, J. Mech. Mater. Struct. 2 (5) (2007) 965–981.
[10] A. Spadoni, M. Ruzzene, Static aeroelastic response of chiral-core airfoils, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct.
18 (10) (2007) 1067–1075.
[10a] R. Pecora, F. Amoroso, M. Magnifico, I. Dimino, K. Concilio, Kinematic rib-based structural system
for innovative adaptive trailing edge, in: Proceedings of SPIE–The International Society for Optical
Engineering, vol. 9801, 2016, Article number 980107.
246 CHAPTER 8 THE DESIGN OF SKIN PANELS FOR MORPHING WINGS

[10b] I. Dimino, G. Diodati, A. Concilio, A. Volovick, L. Zivan, Distributed electromechanical actuation system
design for a morphing trailing edge wing, in: Proc. SPIE 9801, Industrial and commercial applications
of smart structures technologies 2016. SPIE Smart Structures/NDE, Las Vegas, Nevada, 2016, 980108.
https://doi.org/10.1117/12.2219223.
[11] Y.J. Chen, F. Scarpa, I.R. Farrow, Y.J. Liu, J.S. Leng, Composite flexible skin with large negative Poisson’s
ratio range: numerical and experimental analysis, Smart Mater. Struct. 22 (4) (2013) 045005.
[12] K. Olympio, F. Gandhi, L. Asheghian, J. Kudva, Design of a flexible skin for a shear morphing wing,
J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 21 (17) (2010) 1755–1770.
[13] A.Y.N. Sofla, S.A. Meguid, K.T. Tan, W.K. Yeo, Shape morphing of aircraft wing: Status and challenges,
Mater. Des. 31 (3) (2010) 1284–1292.
[14] C. Thill, J. Etches, I. Bond, K. Potter, P. Weaver, Morphing skins, Aeronaut. J. 112 (1129) (2008) 117–139.
[15] N.M. Wereley, F. Gandhi, Flexible skins for morphing aircraft, J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 21 (17) (2010)
1697–1698.
[16] S. Hengsbach, A.D. Lantada, Direct laser writing of auxetic structures: Present capabilities and challenges,
Smart Mater. Struct. 23 (8) (2014) 085033.
[17] M. Vaezi, H. Seitz, S. Yang, A review on 3D micro-additive manufacturing technologies, Int. J. Adv.
Manuf. Technol. 67 (5–8) (2013) 1721–1754.
[18] V.S. Deshpande, M.F. Ashby, N.A. Fleck, Foam topology: Bending versus stretching dominated architec-
tures, Acta Mater. 49 (6) (2001) 1035–1040.
[19] L.J. Gibson, M.F. Ashby, G.S. Schajer, C.I. Robertson, The mechanics of two-dimensional cellular mate-
rials, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A Math. Phys. Eng. Sci. 382 (1782) (1982) 25–42.
[20] A.K. Noor, Continuum modeling for repetitive lattice structures, Appl. Mech. Rev. 41 (7) (1988) 285–296.
[21] A. Vigliotti, V.S. Deshpande, D. Pasini, Non linear constitutive models for lattice materials, J. Mech. Phys.
Solids 64 (1) (2014) 44–60.
[22] A. Vigliotti, D. Pasini, Linear multiscale analysis and finite element validation of stretching and bending
dominated lattice materials, Mech. Mater. 46 (2012) 57–68.