Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

Aero-servo-elastic design of a morphing wing trailing edge system for

enhanced cruise performance
Maurizio Arena a,∗ , Antonio Concilio b , Rosario Pecora a
a
University of Naples “Federico II”, Department of Industrial Engineering (Aerospace Section), Via Claudio, 21-80125 Napoli (NA), Italy
b
CIRA – The Italian Aerospace Research Center, Via Maiorise-84081, Capua (CE), Italy

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The Adaptive Trailing Edge Device (ATED) was a sub-project inside SARISTU (Smart Intelligent Aircraft
Received 18 March 2018 Structures, 2011–2015), an L2 level project of the 7th EU Framework programme coordinated by Airbus,
Received in revised form 26 September aimed at developing technologies for realizing a morphing wing for the improvement of general aircraft
2018
performance. That study, divided into design, manufacturing and testing phases, involved universities,
Accepted 7 January 2019
Available online 15 January 2019
research centers and leading industries of the European consortium. The aim of the present work
is to predict the aero-servo-elastic impact of a full-scale morphing wing trailing edge on a CS-25
Keywords: category aircraft. Within SARISTU, many FE models were realized, taking into account the complete
Adaptive trailing edge device and complex adaptive wing structure behavior. Those numerical representations referred to the 5.5 m
Aeroelastic stability wing section that was then employed for wind tunnel tests; such segment included the winglet and was
Airworthiness representative of the outer wing segment (namely, the so-called “aileron region”). Those models were
Failure taken as reference to develop numerical representation of the considered wing that better suited the
FEM morphing
complete wing segment, from the fuselage attachment to the end of the flap region. Therefore, a scaling
process was necessary, aimed at translating the former architectures to the new geometries. This kind of
extrapolation had the advantage to take into account larger rooms to host the complex actuator system
with all its components. MSC Nastran® FE models were elaborated to estimate stiffness and inertial
distributions that allowed constructing the stick-beam mock-up of the complete structure. Several cases
of flutter analysis were investigated by an in-house code, SANDY 3.0, to verify the safety requirements
imposed by the applicable aviation regulations (paragraph 25.629, parts a and b-1). Moreover, dynamic
stability assessment was performed with respect to single and combined failures of the actuation line
and kinematic chain enabling morphing in order to support FHA (Fault and Hazard Analysis).
© 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction
1.1. Framework of the research
Looking at the current “greening” and “low-noise” research
scenario, innovative solutions for more economical and ecologi-
cal future aircraft are necessary in order to meet the challenging
requirements of the ACARE (Advisory Council for Aeronautics Re-
search in Europe) 2020 Agenda like reduced CO2 emissions and
noise levels by significant amounts. Civil aircraft flight profiles are
almost standard but aircraft may fly fast or slow, at low or high
altitude depending on a number of factors. For large commercial
vehicles, lift coefficient can range between hundredths and tenths
of units while aircraft weight reduces by a 30% as fuel burns. The
* Corresponding author.
E-mail address: maurizio.arena@unina.it (M. Arena).
best geometrical layout matches the actual current situation, fitting
specific and mutating states. Chord and span-wise wing camber
variations may allow chasing somehow that optimal shape, target-
ing to maintain aerodynamic and structural performance at high
levels. Trailing Edge modification is an attractive and simple way
to achieve that goal. An Adaptive Trailing Edge Device (ATED) could
for instance allow reducing the operational fuel consumption by
pursuing the minimal drag effect or reducing the overall design
weight by continuously re-arranging the load distribution (alleviat-
ing the tension state at the wing root). Adaptive morphing trailing
edges offer the potential to improve the fuel efficiency of commer-
cial transport aircraft, [1]. Such concepts were deeply faced within
SARISTU (Smart Aircraft Intelligent Structures), a large industrial
project funded by the European Union (2011–2015) that dealt dif-
fusely with the development and implementation of adaptive wing
systems on-board of large commercial aircraft, [2]. In detail, three
different concepts were investigated [3]: an adaptive leading edge,
for preserving the laminar flow quality and increasing the take-

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.01.020
1270-9638/© 2019 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
216 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235

Nomenclature

A /C Aircraft FEM Finite Element Model

AIC Aerodynamic influence coefficients Fy Force acting along y-axis
AR Aspect Ratio GC Gravity Center
ATE Adaptive Trailing Edge GJ Torsional stiffness
ATED Adaptive Trailing Edge Device Ka Locked actuator (torsional) stiffness
BMx Bending moment about x-axis L Lift
BM z Bending moment about z-axis MAC Mean Aerodynamic Chord
conm2 Concentrated (lumped) mass element ([29]) MT Torque
D Drag rbe2 2 nodes rigid body element ([29])
DOF Degree Of Freedom RBM Root Bending Moment
DMIG Direct matrix input at grids ([29]) Ry Rotation around y-axis
EA Stiffness to normal force Rz Rotation around z-axis
EImax Maximum bending stiffness Ty Displacement along y-axis
EImin Minimum bending stiffness Tz Displacement along z-axis
F Frequency VD Dive speed
FE Finite Element λ = |T z / R y |

Fig. 1. SARISTU technology demonstrator @ TsAGI (Moscow, RUS) (a); test-set up schematic (b), [4].

off and landing performance; an adaptive winglet for alleviating
the gust effects and modulating the aerodynamic load shape along
the wing; an adaptive trailing edge, to face the aforementioned
objectives, [4]. All these systems were designed following the reg-
ulations and prescriptions, proper of CS-25 aircraft, with the per-
spective of a real integration on-board of existing machines. This
was one of the major challenges of the SARISTU project, forcing the
choices towards widely commercial components while confining
the innovations to the global architecture and specific necessary
components like adaptive skins, able to withstand the operational
forces and exhibit extreme strains, up to several percentage units.
The higher system complexity with respect to conventional struc-
tures, together with the increased degrees of freedom (naturally
related to the augmented deformability) led to the simple con-
sideration of taking into account aeroelastic issues since the pre-
liminary design phase. Within the SARISTU program, the Adaptive
Trailing Edge Device (ATED) was manufactured and was installed
on a full-scale wing section, 5.5 m span. Two other adaptive com-
ponents were also deployed on that wing section: an Adaptive
Winglet and an Adaptive Leading Edge, [3]. The complete adap-
tive wing did then undergo an extensive wind tunnel investigation
at TsAGI facilities in Russia, Fig. 1(a), [5]. In that circumstance,
the single devices behavior was tested, also including concurrent
actions yet restrained to few cases. Tests were carried out on a full-
scale technology platform, widely representative of the outermost
region of the reference wing (5.5 m span, including the winglet ex-
tension) and equipped with the cited adaptive systems and related
power-supply, Fig. 1(b). Fig. 2 shows the ATE structural layout and
its location on the installed demonstrator. Regarding this point, it
should be clarified that the selected region was used for practi-
cal reasons: that place is in fact reserved to the ailerons, while
the flaps are located in the medium and inner part, towards the
wing root. The attained results from the preliminary design of the
adaptive trailing edge were therefore scaled to the available zone
in order to manufacture and test the preliminary prototype. In this
context, a relevant attention was given to the release of refined
drawings for the complete ATE demonstrator, spanning over the all
wing, [2].
1.2. Literature review
Within the adaptive surfaces design processes, the aeroelastic
stability assessment have attracted increasingly considerable atten-
tion by many research and industrial teams. Prof. Eli Livne began
his paper in 2003 writing that the aeroelasticity was still dynamic,
challenging, and a key part of cutting-edge airplane technology, [6].
This is true even today, especially in the ambitious scenario of re-
search that focuses on the design up to the actual implementation
of unconventional structures on the aircraft, [7,8]. Recently, several
studies have been addressed to investigate the aeroelastic behavior
of span morphing wings. An interesting review of the progress per-
formed in aerodynamic and aeroelastic analysis of flapping wings
was presented by W. Shyy, H. Aono and S.K. Chimakurthi in [9].
A variable-shaped structure in view of the fact that is charac-
terized by a higher flexibility, certainly requires a careful study
 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235 217

Fig. 2. Technology demonstrator and ATE demonstrator region.

of aeroelastic performance, even greater than traditional config-

urations. Several basic theoretical schemes were implemented in
literature to study the aeroelastic phenomena of adaptive struc-
tures. A time-domain based dynamic model has been developed
by R.M. Ajaj and M. Friswell to analyse the aeroelastic behavior of
compliant span morphing wings, [10]. A sensitivity study between
two potential span morphing concepts was carried out: Zigzag
Wingbox and the GNATSpar wing, [11,12]. The study described in
[13,14] addresses flutter instability for novel morphing wing at low
speed considering different morphing wing configurations for UAV.
H. Ren and Q. Zhiping proposed a first-order state-space aeroelastic
model to forecast transient aeroelastic responses and flutter char-
acteristics of a variable-span wing during the morphing process,
[15]. In [16], both experimental and numerical activities aimed
at flutter margin evaluation were discussed for a wing demon- Fig. 3. Wing main components.
strator with a morphing composite upper surface as possible and
fast implementation on an already existing structure. J. Murua,
and outer segments – i.e., before and after the typical kink). The
R. Palocios and J. Peiro explored the effects of chord-wise flexibil-
studies concern the complete system and its effect on the aeroe-
ity on the dynamic stability of compliant airfoils approaching with
lastic behavior of the considered wing. The research is then de-
classical two-dimensional aeroelastic model, suitably modified in
veloped to include safety issues, namely emphasizing the effects
order to capture time-varying camber deformations, [17]. Impor-
of failures, affecting some actuator system reference components
tant aerodynamic and aeroelastic investigations were performed in
or involving more devices. Aero-servo-elastic studies are therefore
[18], achieving some key results for wing design with conformal
mandatory to confirm the reliability of the selected architecture
control surfaces. A fundamental issue highlighted in [9] for fur-
as a potential candidate for a real flyable application. Engineering-
ther research is need to be developed bio-inspired mechanisms for
oriented approaches were properly implemented, simulating the
the flapping wing. These mechanisms should include joints and
effects induced by variations of trailing edge actuators’ stiffness
distributed actuation to enable flapping and morphing. Most im-
on the aeroelastic behavior of the wing, also in correspondence
portantly, these mechanisms should be capable of mitigating wind
gust. In the light of these outlooks, novel variable-shaped struc- of different dynamic characteristics of the trailing edge compo-
tures were investigated by the authors to enable the controlled nent [23]. Moreover, flutter analyses were carried by considering
modification of the trailing edge shape for large civil aircraft appli- the morphing trailing edge device integrated into the full-scale
cations, [19–22]. SARISTU wind tunnel demonstrator, in order to assure the safety
of wind tunnel tests. The finite element model used for static
1.3. Aim of the work analyses was condensed into a dynamically equivalent one charac-
terized by a reduced number of degrees of freedom [24]. Referring
Literature works focus on 2D airfoil or deal with limited in- to such a condensed structural model, the present paper deals
vestigations on complete wings, yet simple-shaped like rectangular with the prediction of the aeroelastic response of the complete
planforms. In the recent past, the authors of this paper carried out wing, equipped with the Adaptive Trailing Edge, fully extending
extensive studies on dynamic aeroelastic characterization, yet con- along the inner and outer flap regions. Stiffness and inertial dis-
fined to full-scale wing sections for wind tunnel tests. In the cur- tributions of the complete wing system were then reconstructed,
rent work, moving from the previous results, the investigations are taking properly into account the presence of the movable surfaces,
expanded to a complete wing, representative of a CS-25 class air- neglected within SARISTU. For the sake of clarity, the reference
craft. The bio-mechanical concept, which will be described within wing segment, different from the ATE, was considered as a clas-
the text, adopted to induce camber variations encompassed seg- sical elastic, non-adaptive structure. The 3D sketch is reported in
mented adaptive ribs consisting of finger-like segments covered by Fig. 3, where the area of interest is highlighted. The case study
a hyperelastic skin. In the specific, the aerodynamic structure is has been modeled using extra-modes method, in which the adap-
equipped with an adaptive trailing edge deployed along its en- tive surface is treated as substructure hosted on a basic system,
tire span, and deployed along the flap region (including both inner i.e. the aircraft, [25]. A stick-equivalent model of the reference
218 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235
structure was then generated in SANDY 3.0, propertary and not
yet commercially distributed set of Fortran/Matlab routine, which
has been adopted for the definition of the coupled aero-structural
model as well as for the solution of aeroelastic stability equations
by means of theoretical modes association in frequency domain.
Doublet Lattice Method was implemented for the evaluation of
the unsteady aerodynamic coefficients: a suitable 2D paneling was
implemented for such a purpose. Linear splines were used to inter-
polate modal displacements along the centers of the aerodynamic
panels and generalized aerodynamic forces were evaluated with
reference to the airflow conditions expected during flight envelope.
Furthermore, sensitivity calculations were carried out to evaluate
the aero-servo-elastic stability of global system with respect to
single and combined failures of the actuators enabling morphing.
Numerical results showed that – in nominal working conditions
– the ATED has no impact on aircraft aeroelastic stability. Fail-
ure checks have been then performed in order to support FHA
(Fault and Hazard Analysis) specifications; catastrophic flutter in
the flight envelope occurs only in the very remote event of mul-
tiple combined system failures (more than three actuators failure
and/or failure of more than three structural elements of the ATED).
No catastrophic flutter occurs in case of single failure of any of the
ATED components.
1.4. Reference system
Looking at Fig. 3, the global (aerodynamic) reference system
(GRS) is defined as follows:
• Origin (O) at the intersection point between wing leading edge
and A/C symmetry plane (π );
• X axis passing through the intersection point (P) between A/C
symmetry plane and wing trailing edge line, oriented from O
to P;
• Y axis perpendicular to the A/C symmetry plane and oriented
towards the RH wing tip;
• Z axis perpendicular to X Y plane and upwards oriented.
2. The saristu “ATED”
2.1. ATED specifications
The trailing edge movable part covers about 10% of MAC and is
constant along the span. In the investigated architecture, morphing
is enabled by a multi-finger system driven by load-bearing actua-
tors. The realized schematic implements a synchronous mechanism
(2D-type) to provide camber variations but, within certain limits, it
can be activated differentially (twist). Such a capability is expected
to be exploited in further realizations. The actuators may be driven
in two different ways: through a classical feedforward scheme (di-
rect input from the operator) or by the result of information gained
by a widely distributed strain sensor network, filtered through a
devoted control system (a classical feedback scheme). In both the
cases, however, the command is quasi-static: in fact, the aim of
the proposed system is to compensate the aircraft weight varia-
tions following the fuel consumption, by adjusting the shape of
the aft part of the wing. An adaptive, highly deformable skin ab-
sorbs part of the external loads and insures a smooth profile, [26].
One of the most relevant features of the referred system is the ca-
pability to maintain its structural properties (i.e., the capability to
bear loads, both internal and external) while being actuated. This
property translates in two main abilities: shape adaptation under
the action of the operational forces; attained shape keeping under
the action of same forces. Such concepts drove the design of the
target Adaptive Trailing Edge. The choice of the consortium was
to size this system by the actual loads, acting on a real aircraft
in service. Once the wing was defined, the region of interest was
selected as the segment between the rear spar and the wing tip.
The most severe aerodynamic actions were identified and the rela-
tive loads computed. The adaptive structural system was then sized
to resist those loads, according to the guidance of the CS-25 reg-
ulations: research activities were carried out to substantiate the
feasibility of morphing concepts in compliance with the demand-
ing safety requirements applicable to the next generation green re-
gional aircraft. Two major differences however should be declared,
for the sake of truth: 1. the project was carried out with respect
to the selected wing region (aileron zone) because of the neces-
sity to bring the full-scale object in wind tunnel; 2. the project
considered the system to be attached directly to the wing box in-
stead of being part of the flaps. The first choice led to a more
complex problem indeed, because of the room limitation and the
growing importance of the local loads with respect to the global
ones, by moving towards the wing extremity. Within SARISTU, the
flaps were not considered part of the reference structure. In other
words, the original wing had only a fixed, non-movable trailing
edge. There, the ATED would have been installed. This work hy-
pothesis did not modify the adaptive system structural design: in
the end, a fixed part of the wing was considered instead than
a flap segment. Of course, this choice simplified a lot the work
from the point of view of cabling deployment that should have
been taken into account if a working flap had been concerned
about, and the installation process, in general. A 5-bay morphing
demonstrator was finally realized (Fig. 4): this product is herein
considered as the reference architecture to extrapolate the prop-
erties of the adaptive trailing edge throughout the full-size wing
span, Fig. 3. The structural concept is mainly made of transver-
sal spars, which ensure the longitudinal stiffness of the different
sections, and articulated ribs, which guarantee the chord-wise de-
formability, Fig. 4.
2.2. ATED architecture
The macroscopic result of the arrangement described in the
previous paragraph is a mechanical multi-box structure made of
different blocks rotating along hinge lines parallel to the trailing
edge. The ribs are segmented along the chord and enable the cam-
ber variation of the airfoil through a properly designed finger-like
mechanism; the spars connecting the ribs segments ensure the ad-
equate bending stiffness to withstand external loads and force the
ribs to morph in a conformal manner along the span (no twist
is induced by rib camber morphing). The rib layout is detailed
in Fig. 5; such component is a single-DOF mechanism: in other
words, its geometry can change according to some pre-definite ra-
tio of rotation among the different blocks. As it is shown in Fig. 5,
the smart rib is made of four consecutive parts (B0, B1, B2 and B3)
connected to each other by three hinges (A, B and C), located along
the camber line. The first block, B0, is rigidly connected to the rear
spar, while the other three elements can rotate around the connec-
tion hinges simulating a finger-like schematic. The camber-line is
then reduced to a segmented chain. This 3-DOF may be reduced
to a 1-DOF system by introducing some additional constraints:
connection rod elements (steel links, L1 and L2) are hinged on
non-adjacent blocks and force the camber line segments to rotate
according to specific gear ratios, [27].
The mechanism is driven by an actuation system that enables
morphed up and down configurations with a target deflection
range of 10 (±5) degrees. The command chain consists of an alu-
minum linear guide architecture made of a rail, a gliding element
and a carriage, and a steel leverage, made of a crank and a con-
necting plate, Fig. 6.
The system activation causes the trailing edge geometry to
change according to the prescribed shape, Fig. 7. In any configu-
 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235 219

Fig. 4. Primary Structure of 5-bay demonstrator, hidden skin.

Fig. 5. Morphing rib architecture.

Fig. 6. Doubly servo-actuated rib: redundancy design.

ration, even during the motion, the multi-box structure is able to
resist the static action of the external loads up to their extreme
values, which guided its sizing as widely discussed in [28]. The
adaptive skin is made of different parts, namely aluminum parts,
deployed on the different structural blocks, and foam elements,
positioned at the hinge regions. Metal parts are used for preserv-
ing the specified shape, while the soft elements absorb the large
deformation that the system is required to suffer (in the specific
application, experienced strain is expected to be in the range up
to 5%, i.e. 50.000 microstrain). The foam is free to move axially in
the hinge region and is constrained at the metal parts. Therefore,
it can be said to be supported on the hinges. A further foam, pro-
tective layer, runs all over the adaptive skin to preserve it from the
external environment at some extent. Because of this architecture,
it was necessary to investigate how much the internal pressure
could cause significant deformation (bubbles) that could in turn
affect the aerodynamic performance. Those studies confirmed that
such kind of effects could be neglected, [26] (see Fig. 8).
Reliable elementary methods combined with rational design
criteria and advanced FE analyses were adopted to assess the ar-
chitectural concept and the embedded actuation mechanisms. The
present study refers to quasi-static devices, or systems that are
envisaged to deploy very slowly with respect to the dynamic char-
acteristic of the whole aircraft structure. In this sense, the working
mechanism is not believed to modify the overall structural dy-
namic response. However, because different masses, stiffness con-
tributions, geometry, and, above all, added degrees of freedom are
inserted within the original structure, dynamic structural response
220 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235
Fig. 7. ATED configurations: morphed up (left) and down (right).
Fig. 8. ATED compliant skin solution [26,27].
may be critically affected by this new configuration. In particular,
aeroelastic effects may be crucial for the architecture safety. That
is the core analysis of the paper herein presented.
2.3. ATED finite element model
A FE model was generated within SARISTU project mainly to ad-
dress linear and non-linear static analyses of the morphing trailing
edge at limit and ultimate load conditions [28]. Modeling speci-
fications were compatible with FEM customary approaches; mesh
size and general properties were rationally defined in order to get
detailed and reliable distributions of stress and strains especially
around holes while optimizing the computational time required
for each analysis. The model included the primary structure (mor-
phable and un-morphable boxes), the actuation system and the
skin panels and was generated in order to run in MSC-Nastran®
environment [29]. The adaptive skin consisted of a three level
structure: an aluminum sheet, connected to the rib and modeled
with cquad4 elements a hyperelastic sheet covering the external
system surface and modeled again with cquad4; foam strips, ap-
plied along the span-wise direction at the hinges region, i.e. the
region of max deformability, guaranteeing the morphing capability
to the skin and modeled with solid elements, chexa type (Fig. 9).
All the fasteners among the skin layers and spars (also meshed
with cquad elements) were simulated by means of cbush con-
nections thus accurately accounting for the transmission of forces
between the morphing skin and the main structure of the demon-
strator [30]. The internal hinges (spherical and cylindrical) were
modeled with a usual scheme of rigid body connections based
on rbe2 elements: an independent node was placed at the ideal
centre of rotation while all the nodes along the hole’s surface host-
ing the hinge were slaved to it. At the end-nodes of the shafts,
simulated via cbar/cbeam elements, pins allowed for the relative
rotation with the connected rib block. The FE model of the actu-
ation system (mainly meshed with solid elements chexa) included
all the components of the aluminum linear guide and of the steel
actuation leverage systems, Fig. 10. The actuator shaft was fixed to
the crank through the connecting plate, and was modeled with
beam elements. The actuator was simulated with an equivalent
lumped mass located in correspondence of its centre or gravity,
Fig. 10(a). The referred arrangement considered the actuation sys-
tem as it was “frozen” in a certain configuration, Fig. 10(b). In such
a way, the motor box did not contribute to the global stiffness of
the system, while the articulation was simulated at its max rigidity
(clamped beam). This last assumption was judged as conservative
during the stress analysis process, because it leads to the high-
est value of the stresses. The former hypothesis instead, assumes
that the motor box is placed in a dedicated hollow, without con-
curring to the load bearing property of the architecture; in this
sense, it is also a conservative supposition. The final global finite
element model consisted of a large number of nodes and elements,
necessary to properly represent the trailing edge structural sys-
tem in its completeness. Apart of the actuation system and the
block-connection links, made of steel, and the “composite” skin,
the other elements are made of aluminum (Al2024-T3). The mate-
rials properties are listed in Table 1.
Global and local stress analyses were performed under the ac-
tions of distributed pressure fields on the upper and lower skin
panels. The survey of any buckling or vibration instability was per-
formed by dedicated linear-nonlinear and dynamic simulations. In
order to be more conservative, no inertial alleviation was taken in
account during the simulations. Non-linear static analysis was then
addressed to evaluate deformation and stress up to ultimate load
 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235 221

Fig. 9. FEM details: skin–rib interface (up), spars (low, left) and morphing rib (low, right).

Fig. 10. FEM actuation details.

Table 1 ness sake, a general description of SANDY 3.0 software [23,36,37]

Morphing system materials. has been provided at the appendix of this paper.
Material E (GPa) ρ (kg/m3 ) ν Items
Steel 17-4 PH 210 7800 0.3 Actuation system 3.1. ATED equivalent structural model: evaluation of stiffness and
components; Rib block inertial properties
links
Al 2024-T3 70 2780 0.33 Ribs; Spars
In order to perform fast sensitivity aeroelastic analyses, a sim-
Hyperelastic layer 0.0017 10 0.33 Skin
Foam 0.0037 10 0.33 Skin plified structural model of the trailing edge system was generated
referring to a stick-equivalent representation [25]. Relevant stiff-
ness and inertial properties were extracted from the refined FE
model adopted for static stress analyses and roughly described in
condition, defined as limit loads multiplied by the reserve factor of
Section 2.3 [23,27].
1.5. The absence of any structural instability up to limit load con-
Block 0 characteristics were evaluated with respect to its elastic
dition was then proven by means of linear buckling analysis [27,
axis, y, which was evaluated by means of an iterative procedure
28].
characterized by seven main steps [37,38]:

3. Aeroelastic model generation
A stick-equivalent model of the reference structure was then
generated in SANDY 3.0, an in-house developed code, that was
used for the definition of the coupled aero-structural model as well
as for the solution of aeroelastic stability equations by means of
theoretical modes association in frequency domain. For complete-
1. A trial position of the elastic axis was at first assumed; the FE
model of Section 2.3 was modified by adding support nodes
in correspondence of the intersection between the elastic axis
and the rib planes;
2. At each rib station, rbe2 elements were added to the model to
slave all the rib boundary nodes to the support node defined
at previous step;
222 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235

Fig. 11. Detail of FE Block 0 model. (For interpretation of the colors in the figure(s), the reader is referred to the web version of this article.)

3. The first support node along the span was constrained in all – z-axis normal to xy plane and upwards oriented.
6 dofs while an unitary torque moment, M T , was applied in • y is the generic coordinate along the y-axis.
correspondence of the last support node along the span; • GJ( y ) is the torsional stiffness distribution.
4. Static analysis was performed in MSC-Nastran® and the fol- • EImin ( y ) is the vertical bending stiffness distribution (stiffness
lowing displacements were evaluated: to bending across xy plane).
T zi : displacement of the master (support) node of the i-th rib • EImax ( y ) is the lateral (fore and aft) bending stiffness distribu-
along the axis z (vertical displacement, induced by M T ); tion (stiffness to bending across yz-plane).
R yi : rotation of the master node on the i-th rib along elastic • EA( y ) is the distribution of the normal stiffness, exhibited with
axis y (torsion induced by M T ); respect to forces acting along the elastic axis.
5. Ratios λi = | T zi / R yi | were evaluated at each rib location thus • M T and R y ( y ) are respectively an arbitrary torque moment
providing the mean offset of the actual elastic line with re- acting around the elastic axis ( y-axis) at its free-end and the
spect to its supposed position; rotation induced by M T around the y-axis of the cross section
6. At each rib location, the master node defined at step 1 was at the co-ordinate y.
shifted chord-wise by the amount λi ; • BM X and R x ( y ) are respectively an arbitrary bending moment
7. Steps from 3 to 6 were iterated until all ratios λi resulted prac- acting around the x-axis at the elastic axis free-end and the
tically negligible. rotation induced by BM x around the x-axis of the cross section
at the coordinate y.
The elastic axis obtained for of Block 0 is represented in Fig. 11 by • BM z and R z ( y ) are respectively an arbitrary bending moment
a dashed line. acting around the z-axis at the elastic axis free-end and the
Once the B0 elastic axis was determined, stiffness distributions rotation induced by BM z around the z-axis of the cross section
were determined through the classical equations of the De Saint- at the coordinate y.
Venant’s theory:
• F y and T y ( y ) are respectively an arbitrary force acting along
the elastic axis ( y-axis) at its free-end and the displacement
MT induced by F x along the y-axis of the cross section at the co-
GJ( y ) = (1) ordinate y.
d
dy
[ R y ( y )]
BM x R y ( y ), R x ( y ), R z ( y ) and T y ( y ) were evaluated by means of lin-
EImin ( y ) = (2)
d
[ R x ( y )] ear static analysis performed in MSC-Nastran® . As usual for slen-
dy
der bodies, the shear stiffness was not taken in account; for high
BM z aspect ratio wings (AR > 10) the aeroelastic effects due to shear-
EImax ( y ) = (3)
d
dy
[ R z ( y )] induced displacements are indeed negligible with respect to those
due to bending- and torsion-induced displacements [25].
Fy The stiffness distributions evaluated along the ATED demonstra-
EA( y ) = (4)
d
dy
[ T y ( y )] tor span were then extrapolated along the outboard region of the
wing, assuming a polynomial interpolation of the characteristic pa-
where: rameters like GJ (torsional stiffness), EI (bending stiffness) and EA
(axial stiffness), Figs. 12–15.
• x, y , z are the axes of the Cartesian reference system charac- The inertial properties, namely masses and moments of iner-
terized by: tia, were then compute referring to properly sliced portions (bays)
– origin at the root of the B0 elastic axis (at the inner rib of the FEM described in Section 2.3. Because the movable part
location of the item); of the ATE, including the blocks B1, B2 and B3, is not tapered,
– y-axis coincident with the item elastic axis and positively an extension of the 5-bay model was considered along the outer
oriented towards the item tip; wing region without altering the ATED chord. On the other hand,
– xy-plane for the elastic axis, normal to the B0 plane and for what regards the block B0, the extension along the span was
parallel to the plane, tangent to the B0 mean line; done while considering its chord as homothetically variable along
M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235 223

Fig. 12. Torsional stiffness, Block 0.

Fig. 13. Vertical bending stiffness, Block 0.

Fig. 14. Fore & Aft bending stiffness, Block 0.

Fig. 15. Axial stiffness, Block 0.

224 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235
Fig. 16. Block 0 design extrapolation.
Fig. 17. Mass condensation at gravity center.
the span, Fig. 16. For each block portion, the lumped masses/in-
ertias were considered to be applied to the gravity centre of each
block, via conm2 elements, Fig. 17. The total masses of each block,
for the demonstrator and the outboard region, are listed in Ta-
ble 2.
3.2. Wing equivalent structural model: evaluation of stiffness and
inertial properties
Stiffness and inertial properties of the equivalent beam, rep-
resentative of the wing-box and winglet, were determined with
reference to a global FE model, developed by project’s partners
to address the elastic behavior of the reference wing where the
ATED had to be installed on, Fig. 18(a). Three lumped mass prop-
erties were evaluated for each bay, associated to the leading edge,
Fig. 18. Wing and winglet reduced models.
Table 2
Mass properties.
ID block Demonstrator mass (kg) Outboard region mass (kg)
B0 16.30 128.50
B1 4.80 13.50
B2 4.00 11.20
B3 6.10 17.10
Global mass (kg) 31.20 170.30
the wing-box and the trailing edge, respectively. At the occur-
rence, trailing edge mass was split in two separate contributions,
for the fixed and the movable parts. After having computed the
mass properties by the FE data, these numbers were assigned
to conm2 elements located at the centres of gravity of the bay
components, Fig. 18(b). The evaluation of the wing-box (/winglet
box) elastic axes and of the spanwise stiffness distributions was
carried out by following the same procedure illustrated in Sec-
tion 3.1 [23]. As usual for kinked wings, the elastic line was ap-
proximated with a straight axis, Fig. 18; the deviation between
the elastic line and the assumed straight axis showed however
a good correlation index, R 2 = 0.7611, just after few iterations,
Fig. 19.
3.3. Generation of the stick-beam model
The set of inertial and stiffness properties evaluated in the pre-
vious paragraph were used to properly define equivalent beam
models representing the right wing, winglet and the adaptive trail-
ing edge. The equivalent beam models were generated in SANDY
3.0 environment and properly linked to each other in order to
adequately represent the stiffness of the components joints. The
obtained equivalent beam representation is depicted in Fig. 20.
In the schematic representation, the concentrated masses were
associated to the closest grid of the attained model. The left
half of the model was obtained by a simple mirroring process;
right and left wings elastic axis were linked to a central node,
via DMIG elements, [29], simulating the stiffness of the wing-
fuselage interface. Another DMIG element was used also to connect
the winglet and the wing-box elastic axes The lumped mass and
the plunge inertia of the aircraft body, was simulated by a fur-
ther conm2 element, placed on the abovementioned central node.
The end-points of the morphing trailing edge hinge lines were
then linked to the elastic axis of the wing by 2-node elastic el-
ements (cbeam). Pin flags were imposed at the end-nodes to per-
mit rotations around the hinge lines. A torsional spring simulated
the presence of the actuator system at the B1 hinge axis, while
2-nodes DMIG elements involving rotational degrees of freedom
only ([ K ]456 ) were used to represent the connections B1–B2 and
B2–B3, Fig. 21.
 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235
Fig. 19. Elastic axis determination, wing-box.
Fig. 20. Equivalent structural model of the wing.
3.4. Aerodynamic model and modes interpolation
The aerodynamic model, Fig. 22, was implemented in SANDY
3.0 with reference to the standard mesh criteria and procedures
usually recommended for the application of the doublet lattice
method (DLM), [31–35]. The middle plane of the wing was meshed
into 8 macro-panels for the left and wing side, respectively. These
macro-panels were further meshed into elementary boxes, whose
density was higher for the movable trailing edge to better esti-
mate the generalized aerodynamic forces due to its motion [36].
Modal displacements at the center of each aerodynamic box were
obtained by means of linear and surface spline functions, attached
to support-nodes of the structural model; in Fig. 23. The cou-
Fig. 22. Aerodynamic model (thick lines represent panels’ boundaries).
225
Fig. 21. Zoom on root station of left ATED, items assembling.
pled structural/aerodynamic model adopted for aeroelastic stability
analyses has been depicted.
4. Flutter analysis
Having set the aeroelastic model, and disposing of a reliable
tool for the related analysis, several cases of flutter investigations
were performed in order to verify the safety requirements, im-
posed by the applicable aviation regulations in specific operation
conditions, [42]:
• System fully operative;
• System in failure condition.
4.1. Assumptions and investigation cases
Flutter analyses were carried out in SANDY 3.0 environment un-
der the following assumptions:
• PK-continuation method, [25], with rationalization of general-
ized aerodynamic forces, [43,44], for the evaluation of modal
frequencies and damping trends versus flight speed;
• Theoretical elastic modes association in the frequency range
0–50 Hz (elastic modes being pertinent to free-free aircraft,
with only plunge and roll motions allowed as depicted in
Fig. 24);
• Modal viscous damping (conservatively) equal to 0.01 for all
the elastic modes;
226 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235

Fig. 23. Aeroelastic model.

Fig. 24. A/C rigid modes analysis.

• Sea-level altitude, for the considered aircraft, flight speed 

15
1 ∼ 1
range set at 0–250 m/s (≈1.15 V D 1 ); = (7)
Ki KG
• Flight speed range set at 0–V D in case of actuators malfunc- i =1

tion and other system failures. By placing:

The harmonic frequency of the trailing edge was set by ma- Ki = K , ∀i (i = 1 : 15) (8)
nipulating the stiffness of the torsional spring, used to simulate it was possible to build the geared elasto-kinematic matrix.
the adaptive trailing edge actuators. In order to get a given fre- The blocks 2 and 3 follow the B1 rotation according to specific
quency f , the torsional stiffness K a of the actuators, was imposed kinematic gear ratios [13]. A sketch of those connections is shown
equal to: in Fig. 25, where:

K a = (2π f )2 · I (5) • β is the block B i rotation;

• δ R is the rigid rotation of B i +1 with respect to B i ;
where I stands for the inertia of the complete ATE around its • N = δ R /β is the geared ratio of B i +1 with respect to B i ;
hinge line. The experimental frequency of the so-called “morphing • δe is the elastic rotation of B i +1 with respect to B i ;
mode” frequency resulted around 30 Hz. The generalized stiffness
The total rotation δ of B i +1 with respect to x-axis is therefore
was then:
equal to:

K G = (2π · 30)2 · 0.6123 = 22075.147 N/m (6) δ = β + δ R + δe (9)

The virtual adaptive trailing edge consists of 15 servo-actuated The deformation energy of the spring K is:
ribs. Each actuator was simulated by a torsional rigid spring: such 1
local stiffness (i.e. the stiffness of the single block) was given by u= K δe2 (10)
2
considering the layout series of the connections:
being for (9):

δe = δ − β − δ R = δ − β − N β = δ − β(1 + N ) (11)
1
V D indicates the dive speed of the aircraft. The exact value of the dive speed
has been omitted for confidentiality reasons. the (10) gives:
 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235 227

Fig. 25. Conceptual scheme of the elastic geared connection.

Fig. 27. Outer trailing edge symmetric harmonic, f = 5.89 Hz.

    
∂u
(1 + N )2 −(1 + N ) β
Fig. 26. Outer left trailing edge fundamental mode, f = 0 Hz.
∂β =K (13)
∂u
∂δ
−(1 + N ) 1 δ

1  2 This matrix has been determined according to design approach of

u= K δ − β(1 + N )
2 spring-tabs applied to elevator controls of large airplanes, largely
1 1 discussed by H.W. Phillips in [45]. Adjacent blocks have geared ro-
= K δ 2 − K δβ(1 + N ) + K β 2 (1 + N )2 (12) tations due to the single-degree-of-freedom system layout. There-
2 2
fore, connections between the stick beam models of each block
and the stiffness matrix of the elastic geared connection is finally were made by DMIG elements built according to the geared elasto-
obtained, as: kinematic matrix description.

Fig. 28. Outer trailing edge antisymmetric harmonic, f = 5.91 Hz.

228 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235

Fig. 29. V–g plots, [0; 50 Hz], [0; 250 m/s].

4.2. Preliminary verifications of the numerical model
To simulate the actuator failure, it was assumed that the “mor-
phing mode” frequency should be equal to 0 Hz: in such a case,
in fact, the first adaptive trailing edge harmonic should coincide
with a rigid rotation around its hinge line. Fig. 26 represents the
outer left trailing edge symmetric harmonic assuming to release
the Block 1 from the fixed system, showing also a zoom on the
trailing edge mode shape. For the sake of brevity, the equivalent
result relating to the right side is not reported. Such prelimi-
nary analysis made it possible to verify the quality of the nu-
merical model in line with the design requirements. In this case,
a rigid mode that evolves according to the design geared ratio
of trailing edge is identified: this ratio grows from Block 1 to
Block 3.
Relying upon a good representation of the condensed structure
as well as the kinematic chain, other fast calculations have been
addressed to outline the reliability of the simplified way to repli-
cate the actuator. Referring to Equation (5), a torsional stiffness
value corresponding to a frequency of about 6 Hz, was performed
to get a more accurate view of the morphing mode shape, which
would not be well captured instead at its real frequency of about
30 Hz, because of a greater modal density. In Figs. 27 and 28, the
outer trailing edge symmetric and antisymmetric harmonic modes
are respectively shown.
 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235 229

Fig. 29. (continued)

4.3. Trade-off – flutter analysis The analyses were aimed at estimating the minimum condition
of instability (catastrophic condition) for the entire aircraft. Behav-
The robustness of the system was then assessed with reference ior prediction in failure cases was performed, according to FHA
also to combined failure conditions. Even if not prescribed by air- (Fault and Hazard Analysis) standard industrial specifications, [46,
worthiness regulations, multiple failures were anyway investigated 47]. ATED functions have been qualitatively examined to identify
due to the deeply unconventional arrangement of the control sur- potential risks resulting from operational malfunction. The severity
face. Flutter cases analyzed are summarized below: of these hazards was determined and placed in specific classes, in-
dicative of the maximum tolerable probability of occurrence, [48].
(a) Baseline: fully operative system; In Fig. 29, the trends of modes frequencies and damping versus
(b) Links failure at a single station; flight speed (V–g plot) have been reported with reference to the
(c) Actuator group failure at a single station; mentioned conditions. The system exhibited a good robustness
(d) Actuator group and links failure at a single station; margin: actually, even in the case of combined failures, it proved to
(e) Actuator group and links failure at two stations; be stable, Fig. 29(d)–(e). The actuator and links failures were simu-
(f) Actuator group and links failure at three stations. lated by imposing a null torsional stiffness (K a = 0) and removing
230 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235

Fig. 29. (continued)

the adjunct DMIG condensation matrix. The stability diagram re-
ferred to the case of a failure investing the actuator chain and the
links at first three stations of left ATED is reported in Fig. 29(f).
In this case, flutter reveals at a speed equal to about 130 m/s.
The unconventional modes related to the multi-box structural ar-
rangement as well as to local failure of actuation systems, show
a relevant participation level in critical coupling mechanisms in-
volving lower frequencies modes such as wing bending (mode 1).
An accurate analysis of the cross modal participation factors into
flutter mode was then performed in order to isolate the principal
eigenvectors that were involved in the detected dynamic instabil-
ity, [49,50], Fig. 30. It came out that the detected phenomenon
was mainly related to the coupling of two modes (binary flutter).
They were the normal shapes number 12 and number 14, induc-
ing a bending-torsion response (Fig. 31). Flutter dynamics resulted
indeed more complex: also mode 5 is partially involved in the in-
stability.
5. Conclusions
The adaptive structures concept is of great interest in the aero-
nautical field because of several benefits, which can lead to. Im-
provements in terms of aerodynamic efficiency and manoeuvra-
bility were proved by many international studies. In the modern
ambitious research scenario, the aeroelastic study is acquiring a
dominant aspect in the design phase, being the structural com-
plexity of morphing systems much more complex. The develop-
ment of novel structural architectures, implementing and integrat-
 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235
Fig. 30. Flutter dynamic, modal cross-participation factor.
ing innovative materials and actuation systems is mandatory for
succeeding in these critical tasks. Conventional high lift systems,
such as flaps or slats, are the common way to modify aircraft
wing geometry during take-off and landing in order to provide ad-
ditional lift at low speed. However, they have limited efficiency
due to the geometric discontinuities, require high installation ef-
forts and offer no functional flexibility in cruise, as, for instance,
differential surface deflection. A novel architecture enabling wing
trailing edge camber morphing was addressed with reference to
large aircraft applications (EASA CS-25 category). The conventional
monolithic box arrangement was replaced by a multi-box solu-
tion characterized by conventional spars and segmented adaptive
ribs. Single-degree-of-freedom mechanisms, driven by load-bearing
electro-mechanical actuators, were implemented to change the
wing trailing edge shape by controlling the adaptive ribs indi-
vidually. A compliant multi-layer skin was used to accommodate
Fig. 31. Main mode shapes.
231
the large deformation induced by ribs kinematics while providing
enough stiffness to properly withstand external aerodynamic loads.
Starting from a FE model of the ATE demonstrator, its structural
properties have been rationally extended to the virtual outboard
region of a large aircraft. Dynamic condensation led to a reduced
model with fewer degrees of freedom, based on the generation of
stick-beam equivalent scheme and DMIG matrices. The condensed
dynamic model of flapped region was then assembled to the stick
one, representative of the CS-25 wing. Several numerical compu-
tations were performed in compliance with CS-25 airworthiness
requirements in order to verify the absence of the flutter criti-
calities up to 1.15V D in nominal conditions and V D in case of
a single failure. Obtained results showed that ATED is not respon-
sible for any flutter instability as regards the directional analysis.
Moreover, failure checks were performed to support FHA specifica-
tions; a catastrophic event verifies only in case of three consecu-
tive stations failure. The next target will be to predict the aeroe-
lastic behavior of the system in the case of actuators jamming.
Both single and multiple jamming cases could be resulted prac-
tically not so critical from the aeroelastic standpoint: the increase
in generalized stiffness, in fact, could cause the rise in frequency
of unconventional elastic modes, which could be also out of the
spectral range of interest for flutter investigation. Instead, the ex-
pectation is to face a pure static problem: the stiffness increase
can modify the load distribution and cause the failure of some
actuation systems in turn leading to unstable coupling mecha-
nisms involving lower frequencies modes as the wing bending and
other low-generalized mass secondary modes. Anyway, the results
achieved allow for highlighting in this preliminary design stage,
a high level of robustness of the innovative synchronous system.
These outcomes could extremely encourage and provide motiva-
tions for further investigations of twist morphing technology for
232 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235

Fig. 31. (continued)

 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235
Fig. 31. (continued)
high-aspect-ratio wings, implementing additional active load con-
trol functionalities.
Conflict of interest statement
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Acknowledgements
Part of the research herein reported has moved from re-
sults achieved within the European Union Seventh Framework
Programme (FP7/2007–2013) under Grant Agreement n◦ 284562
(SARISTU). The authors would like to thank all the partners in-
volved in the design of the morphing trailing edge device (ATED),
this paper inspires to.
Appendix A. SANDY Software v3.0: general description
SANDY 3.0 is a proprietary non-commercial code which has
been developed and upgraded by M. Pecora and R. Pecora within
the last twenty-five years with the intent of providing an excel-
lent and reliable tool for static and dynamic aeroelastic and aero-
servo-elastic analysis of aircraft. Rational approaches and validated
numerical methods, compliant with the CS-25 and CS-23 EASA
standards, have been implemented in a multidisciplinary compu-
tational environment, able to accomplish the following main tasks:
• Generation of A/C dynamic model (structural and inertial mod-
els);
• Generation of A/C aerodynamic model;
• Generation of accurate transfer matrices, interfacing between
dynamic and aerodynamic models;
• Evaluation of A/C static and dynamic acceleration and loads
response due to flight and ground manoeuvres and/or gust;
• Evaluation of A/C static and dynamic acceleration and loads
response to movable lifting surfaces deflections imposed by
mechanical and/or electro-mechanical control circuits;
• Evaluation of divergence, control reversal and flutter speeds.
The computational tools and the numerical methods therein im-
plemented, assure fast analyses aimed also at investigating the in-
fluence of several design parameters on the A/C aeroelastic behav-
ior. In other terms, the code permits a fast sensitivity aeroelastic
analysis with respect to variations of some A/C components struc-
tural and dynamic properties, including also the integrated control
circuits. The highly efficient computational structure is based on
intercommunicating routines, running in a common software en-
vironment (Visual Fortran/Matlab) and properly organized in three
macro-modules:
• Dynamic module;
233
• Aerodynamic module;
• Aeroelastic module.
The dynamic module includes a generator of A/C structural and in-
ertial models and an internal FE solver for the evaluation of A/C
modal parameters. In order to perform reliable modeling in rea-
sonable time, only two typologies of elements are available:
• Simple one-dimensional elements (beam, rod, rigid-link,
spring);
• DMIG (Direct Matrix Input at Grids) elements for a correct
evaluation of stiffness and inertial properties of those parts re-
quiring a more sophisticated representation.
DMIG elements may be imported from commercial FE softwares
(e.g., MSC-NASTRAN® [15]); the same applies to A/C modal param-
eters (mode shapes, frequencies, generalized masses, and damping)
that, moreover, may be imported from GVT experimental data. In
addition to the A/C structure normal modes, the dynamic module
allows for including extra-modes correlated to the movable sur-
faces, in order to simulate loads alleviation systems, based on the
use of those devices in feed-back with A/C kinematic parameters
(acceleration, velocity, displacement), and/or perform fast instabil-
ity analyses in presence of powered or fly-by-wire controls.
The aerodynamic module is characterized by a generator of
aerodynamic models, coupled to an internal solver for the eval-
uation of modal pressure distributions by means of consolidated
numerical methods, like the Doublet Lattice Method (DLM). More
in detail, the module provides the capability of generating three-
dimensional compressible aerodynamic models, and the possibility
of performing local corrections in the pressure distributions to take
into account the effects of the movable surfaces aerodynamics (as
recommended by FAA AC 25.629-1A paragraph 6).
The aeroelastic module is constituted of routines for:
• Interpolating modal displacements on the aerodynamic lattice
(matching routines implementing 3D-spline methodologies);
• Evaluating generalized aerodynamic pressures/forces and
steady/unsteady aerodynamic influence coefficients;
• Solving the aeroelastic equations describing the A/C response
and the instabilities identification.
The developed tool allows for managing multi-parametric anal-
ysis in a more fluent way compared to commercial standards,
thus leading to relevant computational time savings. Engineering-
oriented results can be achieved by solving the classic aeroelas-
tic equations respect to the speed (dynamic pressure) in order
to find the best combination between crucial design parameters
like for example balancing ratio or control line stiffness. Soft-
ware performance has been actually positively tested during the
aeroelastic certification process of a wide set of commercial air-
234 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235
craft with respect to the stability demonstration at both theoretical
and experimental levels [36–38]. A wide use has been found by
the authors with special regards to the design of unconventional
structures, motivating therefore them to expand the potentiality
of such routine to very complex aeroelastic issues. The numeri-
cal processing of data referring to a multi-block structure required
the adaptation of the software to new design requirements. Re-
liable procedures for quick consideration of all-move systems are
necessary in the current research framework, increasingly aimed
at executive design and demonstration in the wind tunnel and
in flight. The morphing device is often treated as a substructure
and the aircraft (A/C) as the basic system on which the device
is installed. The dynamic sub-structures approach based on extra-
modes definition can be well adopted when using experimental
modes, [39]. The sub-structures generation is useful also in or-
der to reduce the impact on already performed analysis due to
the several changes that may occur during the design of an air-
craft. Substructures contribute to the aeroelastic response of the
global system is expressed in terms of generalized parameters per-
tinent to additional and strategically defined modes capturing the
substructure dynamics, [40]. Particular attention has been given to
explore the feasibility to investigate the A/C flutter taking into ac-
count typical nonlinearities in correspondence of control surface:
free-play, the bilinear stiffness due to the presence of spring tab or
the distributed non-linearity due to the mechanical joints, [41].
References
[1] D.A. Burdette, J.R.R.A. Martins, Design of a transonic wing with an adaptive
morphing trailing edge via aerostructural optimization, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 81
(October 2018) 192–203.
[2] www.saristu.eu (Official web site of the SARISTU project).
[3] P.C. Woelcken, M. Papadopoulos, Smart intelligent aircraft structures (SARISTU),
in: Proceedings of the Final Project Conference, Springer, 2015.
[4] A. Concilio (Ed.), Adaptive Trailing Edge Device (ATED), Exploitation of Morph-
ing – Workshop, Fraunhofer Institute – ENAS, Chemnitz, Germany, December
2014.
[5] S. Kuzmina, et al., Wind tunnel testing of adaptive wing structures, in: Morph-
ing Wing Technologies Large Commercial Aircraft and Civil Helicopters, 2017,
pp. 715–754.
[6] E. Livne, Future of airplane aeroelasticity, J. Aircr. 40 (6) (2003) 1066–1092.
[7] S. Kota, P. Flick, F. Collier, Flight testing of the FlexFloil™ adaptive compliant
trailing edge, in: 54th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, San Diego, United
States, January, 2016.
[8] J. Hetrick, R. Osborn, S. Kota, P. Flick, D. Paul, Flight testing of mission adap-
tive compliant wing, in: 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Ma-
terials and Co-located Conferences, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-1709.
[9] W. Shyy, et al., Recent progress in flapping wing aerodynamics and aeroelastic-
ity, Prog. Aerosp. Sci. 46 (7) (2010) 284–327.
[10] R.M. Ajaj, M.I. Friswell, Aeroelasticity of compliant span morphing wings, Smart
Mater. Struct. 27 (10) (2018), https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665X/aad219.
[11] R.M. Ajaj, E.I. Saavedra Flores, M.I. Friswell, G. Allegri, B.K.S. Woods, A.T. Isikv-
eren, W.G. Dettmer, The Zigzag wingbox for a span morphing wing, Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 28 (1) (2013) 364–375, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2012.12.002.
[12] R.M. Ajaj, E.I. Saavedra Flores, M.I. Friswell, F.A. DiazDelaO, Span morphing us-
ing the compliant spar, J. Aerosp. Eng. 1 (13) (2014), https://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000442.
[13] F. Sabri, S. Meguid, A. Lakis, Modeling, flutter response of a flexible morph-
ing wing for UAV, in: 53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference, Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Ma-
terials and Co-located Conferences, https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2012-1707.
[14] F. Sabri, S.A. Meguid, Flutter boundary prediction of an adaptive morphing
wing for unmanned aerial vehicle, Int. J. Mech. Mater. Des. 7 (4) (2011)
307–312, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10999-011-9169-z.
[15] H. Ren, Q. Zhiping, Transient aeroelastic responses and flutter analysis of a
variable-span wing during the morphing process, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 26 (6)
(2013) 1430–1438.
[16] A. Koreanschi, M.B. Henia, O. Guillemette, F. Michaud, Y. Tondji, O. Sugar Gabor,
R.M. Botez, M. Flores Salinas, Flutter analysis of a morphing wing technology
demonstrator: numerical simulation and wind tunnel testing, INCAS Bull. 8 (1)
(2016) 99–124.
[17] J. Murua, R. Palacios, J. Peiró, Camber effects in the dynamic aeroelasticity of
compliant airfoils, J. Fluids Struct. 26 (4) (2010) 527–543.
[18] B. Sanders, F.E. Eastep, E. Forster, Aerodynamic and aeroelastic characteristics
of wings with conformal control surfaces for morphing aircraft, J. Aircr. 40 (1)
(2003) 94–99.
[19] G. Amendola, et al., Morphing aileron, in: Morphing Wing Technologies Large
Commercial Aircraft and Civil Helicopters, 2017, pp. 547–582.
[20] M. Arena, et al., Numerical and experimental validation of a full scale servo-
actuated morphing aileron model, Smart Mater. Struct. 27 (10) (2018), https://
doi.org/10.1088/1361-665X/aad7d9.
[21] M. Arena, et al., Flutter clearance investigation of camber-morphing aileron tai-
lored for a regional aircraft, J. Aerosp. Eng. 32 (2) (2019), https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)AS.1943-5525.0000973.
[22] F. Nicassio, et al., Low energy actuation technique of bistable composites for
aircraft morphing, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 75 (2018) 35–46.
[23] R. Pecora, M. Magnifico, F. Amoroso, E. Monaco, Multi-parametric flutter
analysis of a morphing wing trailing edge, Aeronaut. J. 118 (1207) (2014)
1063–1078.
[24] A. Concilio, I. Dimino, R. Pecora, An adaptive trailing edge for large commercial
aircraft, in: ECCOMAS Congress 2016 VII European Congress on Computational
Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, Crete Island, Greece, June, 2016.
[25] E.G. Broadbent, Flutter and Response Calculations in Practice, AGARD Manual
on Aeroelasticity, vol. 3, NASA, 1963.
[26] O. Schorsch, C. Nagel, A. Lühring, Morphing skin: foams, in: Morphing
Wing Technologies Large Commercial Aircraft and Civil Helicopters, 2018,
pp. 207–230.
[27] R. Pecora, et al., KRISTINA: kinematic rib-based structural system for innova-
tive adaptive trailing edge, in: Industrial and Commercial Applications of Smart
Structures Technologies, Las Vegas, United States, March, 2016.
[28] R. Pecora, et al., Structural design of an adaptive wing trailing edge for en-
hanced cruise performance, in: 24th AIAA/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference,
San Diego, United States, January, 2016.
[29] MSC MD-NASTRAN® , Software package, Reference manual, 2006.
[30] E.F. Bruhn, Analysis and Design of Flight Vehicle Structures, Tri State Offset
Company, 1973.
[31] R.L. Bisplinghoff, H. Ashley, R.L. Halfman, Aeroelasticity, Dover Publications Inc.,
New York, 1996.
[32] C. Reschke, Flight loads analysis with inertially coupled equations of motion,
in: AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, San Francisco, CA, United
States, August, 2005.
[33] E. Albano, W.P. Hodden, A doublet-lattice method for calculating lift distribu-
tions on oscillating surfaces in subsonic flows, AIAA J. 7 (2) (1969) 279–285.
[34] M.R. Waszak, D.K. Schmidt, Flight dynamics of aeroelastic vehicles, J. Aircr.
25 (6) (1988) 563–571.
[35] R. Zhang, Z. Wu, C. Yang, Dynamic stiffness testing-based flutter analysis of a
fin with an actuator, Chin. J. Aeronaut. 28 (5) (2015) 1400–1407.
[36] R. Pecora, M. Pecora, L. Lecce, Flutter certification of SKYCAR aircraft: rational
analysis and flight tests, in: Proceedings of the 3rd CEAS Air&Space Conference,
Venice, Italy, September, 2011.
[37] R. Pecora, F. Amoroso, L. Lecce, Effectiveness of wing twist morphing in roll
control, J. Aircr. 49 (6) (2012) 1666–1674.
[38] R. Pecora, et al., Preliminary aeroelastic assessment of a large aeroplane
equipped with a camber-morphing aileron, in: Proceedings of SPIE – The In-
ternational Society for Optical Engineering, 2017.
[39] M. Pecora, R. Pecora, Application of the extra-modes method to the aeroelastic
analysis of morphing wing structures, in: Morphing Wing Technologies Large
Commercial Aircraft and Civil Helicopters, 2017, pp. 429–450.
[40] M. Belardo, M. Pecora, N. Paletta, Flutter analysis with hydraulic servos – a
technique for modeling actuator dynamics, in: SAE 2013 AeroTech Congress
and Exhibition, AEROTECH, 2013.
[41] F.M. Picardi, N. Paletta, M. Belardo, M. Pecora, Fast automatic procedure for
flutter-clearance assessment when in the presence of significant structural
damage, J. Aerosp. Eng. 27 (6) (2014).
[42] European Aviation Safety Agency, Certification Specifications and Acceptable
Means of Compliance for Large Aeroplanes – CS-25, Amendment 11, July 2011.
[43] R. Rosenbaum, A.A. Vollmecke, Simplified Flutter Prevention Criteria for Per-
sonal Type Aircraft, Report no. 45, NACA, 1955, Airframe and Equipment Engi-
neering.
[44] D.E. Raveh, Y. Levy, M. Karpel, Efficient aeroelastic analysis using computational
unsteady aerodynamics, J. Aircr. 38 (3) (2001) 547–556.
[45] H.W. Phillips, Application of Spring Tabs to Elevator Control, Report no. 797,
NACA, 1944.
[46] M. Arena, et al., Aeroelastic analysis of an adaptive trailing edge with a smart
elastic skin, in: AIP Conference Proceedings, 2nd International Conference on
Energy Engineering and Smart Materials, ICEESM, Lyon, France, July, 2017.
[47] M. Arena, et al., Modal stability assessment for a morphing aileron subjected
to actuation system failures: numerical analysis supported by test evidence,
in: Proceedings of 7th International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, ICMAE, London, UK, July, 2016.
[48] I. Dimino, A. Concilio, R. Pecora, Safety and reliability aspects of an adaptive
trailing edge device (ATED), in: 24th AIAA/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference,
AIAA SciTech, San Diego, United States, January 2016.
 M. Arena et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 86 (2019) 215–235 235

[49] Li Wesley, Pak Chan-gi, Application of approximate unsteady aerodynamics for [50] Chan-gi Pak, Shun-fat Lung, Reduced uncertainties in the flutter analysis of the
flutter analysis, in: 51st AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dy- aerostructures test wing, in: 27th Congress of the International Council of the
namics, and Materials Conference, 2010. Aeronautical Sciences, ICAS, Nice, France, June, 2010.