Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, (2021), 34(7): 13–28

Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics

& Beihang University
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics
cja@buaa.edu.cn
www.sciencedirect.com

Morphing wing flaps for large civil aircraft:

Evolution of a smart technology across the Clean
Sky program
Rosario Pecora

Department of Industrial Engineering, Aerospace Division, University of Naples ‘‘Federico II”, 80125 Napoli, Italy

Received 29 January 2020; revised 3 August 2020; accepted 3 August 2020

Available online 15 August 2020

KEYWORDS Abstract Morphing wing structures are widely considered among the most promising technologies
Electro-mechanical actuators for the improvement of aerodynamic performances in large civil aircraft. The controlled adaptation
(EMA); of the wing shape to external operative conditions naturally enables the maximization of aircraft
Green regional aircraft; aerodynamic efficiency, with positive fallouts on the amount of fuel burned and pollutant emissions.
Mechanical systems; The benefits brought by morphing wings at aircraft level are accompanied by the criticalities of the
Morphing flap; enabling technologies, mainly involving weight penalties, overconsumption of electrical power, and
Morphing wing; safety issues. The attempt to solve such criticalities passes through the development of novel design
Smart aircraft; approaches, ensuring the consolidation of reliable structural solutions that are adequately mature
Smart structures; for certification and in-flight operations. In this work, the development phases of a multimodal
Variable camber airfoil
camber morphing wing flap, tailored for large civil aircraft applications, are outlined with specific
reference to the activities addressed by the author in the framework of the Clean Sky program.
The flap is morphed according to target shapes depending on aircraft flight conditions and defined
to enhance high-lift performances during takeoff and landing, as well as wing aerodynamic effi-
ciency during cruise. An innovative system based on finger-like robotic ribs driven by electrome-
chanical actuators is proposed as morphing-enabling technology; the maturation process of the
device is then traced from the proof of concept to the consolidation of a true-scale demonstrator
for pre-flight ground validation tests. A step-by-step approach involving the design and testing
of intermediate demonstrators is then carried out to show the compliance of the adaptive system
with industrial standards and safety requirements. The technical issues encountered during the
development of each intermediate demonstrator are critically analyzed, and justifications are pro-
vided for all the adopted engineering solutions. Finally, the layout of the true-scale demonstrator

E-mail address: rosario.pecora@unina.it

Peer review under responsibility of Editorial Committee of CJA.

Production and hosting by Elsevier

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.08.004
1000-9361 Ó 2020 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd.
This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
14
is presented, with emphasis on the architectural strengths, enabling the forthcoming validation in
real operative conditions.
Ó 2020 Chinese Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics. Production and hosting by Elsevier Ltd. This is
an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).
1. Introduction
The rapid growth of the air transport volume is currently pos-
ing relevant concerns in terms of associated environmental
impacts and eco-sustainability; as the overall number of flights
per year is expected to double in the upcoming decade, great
research efforts are demanded for the development of new
technologies addressing the greening of next-generation
aviation.
Active from 2006, the Clean Sky Green Regional Aircraft
(GRA) research program1,2 aims to mature, validate, and
demonstrate the green aeronautical technologies that best fit
the European regional aircraft expected to fly from 2025
onwards; among these technologies, extensive scope is given
to morphing and multifunctional wing architectures for highly
efficient aerodynamics, as well as for load control and allevia-
tion functionalities. With nearly 600 committed institutions
across 24 countries, Clean Sky surely represents the largest
European effort toward the consolidation of cutting-edge
and highly competitive products specifically tailored to large
civil aircraft applications.
In this challenging framework, a novel adaptive structure
was conceived to enable the in-flight camber morphing of the
wing flaps of a reference 100-seat aircraft. The driving motiva-
tion of the research was found in the convenience of replacing
a conventional double-slotted flap with a single-slotted camber
morphing flap, ensuring enhanced high-lift performances—in
terms of maximum attainable lift coefficient and stall angle—
at reduced flap deployment angles; at the same time, load con-
trol functionalities needed to be enabled in cruise by properly
cambering the flap portion that was still exposed to the aero-
dynamic flow when the flap was retracted into the wing.
Thanks to flap adaptivity, the aerodynamic efficiency of the
reference aircraft resulted in a 5% increase compared with the
case of a conventional wing, with an equivalent reduction of
fuel burned per flight and pollutant emissions.3 Apart from
the lower environmental impact, lower consumption of fuel
would have meant lower operative costs, and therefore,
remarkable profits for an average size fleet of commercial air-
craft.4,5 This is fully in line with the indubitable point that the
true potential of morphing lifting surfaces is essentially associ-
ated with their practical application to large civil airplanes,
since it is for this category of vehicles that the largest benefits
are expected to be introduced.6–9 However, as the size of the
aircraft increases, it becomes increasingly difficult to design
adaptive structures that are flexible enough to enable wing
shape morphing, and simultaneously, stiff enough to safely
withstand the significant flight loads arising in service.
The current literature is rich with examples of wing morph-
ing concepts tailored for small (generally) unmanned air-
craft,10 each one dealing with the adaptation of a specific
geometrical characteristic—from the airfoil camber11,12 to the
span or chord length13 and from the surface area14 to the twist
or dihedral angle.15 Nevertheless, few credible concepts tai-
R. Pecora
lored to commercial aircraft applications have been explored
up to the point of experimental validation. Among the solu-
tions that do exist, the morphing leading and trailing edges
developed in the framework of the SARISTU project16–21
and the adaptive compliant trailing edge designed by
FlexsysÒ22 are the sole devices that deserve to be mentioned
in force of the technological maturity they proved to possess.
The architecture of the morphing flap developed within the
Clean Sky program can be considered an evolution of SAR-
ISTU trailing edge architecture,23,24 and it is characterized
by augmented functionalities, improved system performances,
and superior readiness for flight and certification. Respecting
the FlexsysÒ solution, the adaptive flap shows two main ele-
ments of novelty. First, the flap functionality is preserved
and enhanced through camber morphing capabilities, while
the flap is totally removed from the wing and the lift control
is obtained by largely cambering the wing trailing edge accord-
ing to FlexsysÒ.
The Clean Sky approach clearly brings higher reliability to
the developed device; as in the case of morphing functionality
loss, the flap continues to work as a conventional system with
no relevant effects on aircraft operations and flight safety. Fur-
thermore, contrary to what was proposed by FlexsysÒ, the
flap camber variation was obtained by smart mechanisms
embedded into the primary structure and no structural ele-
ments need to be bent to enable the shape morphing; this
clearly represents a great advantage in terms of overall system
robustness and fatigue life.
At present, the Clean Sky adaptive flap can be considered
the most innovative and advanced morphing system of indus-
trial relevance, characterized by well-proven and recognized
levels of reliability, robustness, and technological readiness
for massive implementation on future aircraft. In this work,
the 10-year-long research path leading to the maturation of
such a challenging technology is presented.
Although carried out in the framework of the Clean Sky
program, the entire research duly considered experiences
resulting from parallel projects, where similar technologies
were addressed under the technical direction of the author
and his research group. Some of these experiences, and the
related lessons learned, have been properly highlighted to pro-
vide a more comprehensive justification of the design strate-
gies, architectural solutions, and validation methodologies
adopted for the consolidation of a truly revolutionary smart
architecture.
2. Preliminary architectural layout and proof of concept
At the beginning of the Clean Sky program, the improvement
of high-lift performances was considered a paramount task for
the development of an innovative regional aircraft character-
ized by unequaled efficiency and reduced environmental
impact, both in terms of fuel burned and noise emissions. A
common reference platform represented by an innovative
Morphing wing flaps for large civil aircraft
100-seat turboprop aircraft configuration was chosen for the
investigation of the enabling technologies, including smart
morphing architectures. The wing flap was among the first
domains of investigation, and great efforts were made to
improve flap efficiency by working on the definition of suitable
aerodynamic shapes, as well as on advanced deployment sys-
tems for optimized flap settings during takeoff and landing.
In the framework of these investigations, great attention
was paid to the adoption of morphing structures for the active
control of flap camber during flight. It was indeed proved, by
means of computational fluid dynamic analyses,3,25–28 that by
actively controlling the camber of the flap, significant aerody-
namic advantages could have been achieved in terms of wing
CLmax and stall angle increase, even with small deployment
angles of the flap. As a consequence of this, a conventional
double-slotted flap could have been replaced by an equally
(or more) efficient single-slotted flap with camber morphing
capabilities; in addition, the complex deployment systems typ-
ically required by a double-slotted flap could have been conve-
niently replaced by a simpler flap track, assuring a limited
number of settings, as the hyper-lift functionality was mainly
obtained by actively controlling the flap camber.
A preliminary investigation was then carried out to demon-
strate the practical feasibility of a structural system enabling
flap camber morphing according to reference optimized flap
shapes, and in compliance with industrial quality standards
and challenging requirements in terms of limit design loads.
To limit the project risks (and the budget) associated with this
task, the feasibility demonstration was referred to a portion of
the flap delimited by two cutting planes normal to the flap
leading edge and 0.8 m distant from each other along the flap
span. The flap segment selected as investigation domain for the
design and validation of the morphing architecture3 was char-
acterized by the real flap chord (0.62 m) and maximum thick-
ness (0.18 m), as well as a span of 0.8 m; thanks to the limited
spanwise size, the flap tapering was neglected, reducing the
complexity of a three-dimensional aero-structural design to a
bidimensional problem.
Fig. 1 Morphing flap: layout of demonstrator for proof of concept.3,27
15
To enable the controlled morphing of the flap camber, a
finger-like mechanism was conceived for the flap ribs. Each
rib (Fig. 13,27) was designed as a system of four plates (B0,
B1, B2, B3) consecutively interconnected by hinges placed
along the airfoil mean line (A, B, C). Two additional links were
included to further connect not adjacent rib plates, namely,
plate B0 to plate B2 (link L1) and plate B1 to plate B3 (link
L2). Thanks to these links, each rib resulted in a 1-degree-of-
freedom mechanism; for instance, by rotating the second plate
in relation to the first one, all the remaining plates rotate in
relation to each other according to specific gear ratios, which
are functions of the links positions. The position of the addi-
tional link represented a design variable and was properly set
to ensure the compliance of the plates’ motion with the target
morphed shapes to be implemented for the flap rib.
The active degree of freedom of each rib mechanism was
controlled by a rotary electromechanical actuator which had
the two following functions: to activate the rib mechanism
for shape morphing and to lock the mechanism to safely with-
stand the external loads. The adoption of a mechanical ampli-
fication system for the actuation torque was considered
mandatory to accomplish the above-mentioned functions
while minimizing the size of the actuators and the electrical
power demand. Referring to the picture shown in the top-left
corner of Fig. 1, for each rib, the actuation torque was trans-
ferred to a gear box installed on the rib plate B0 which con-
verted the rotation induced by the actuator shaft into the
sliding of a cursor along the chord of the flap; thanks to a
leverage system composed by two interconnected fork-
shaped beams, the sliding of the cursor was used to deflect
the rib plate B2, and consequently, to control the motion of
all the remaining plates. A careful design of the gearbox and
leverage system3 allowed for the adoption of small stepper
motors, requiring nearly 24 W for the actuation of the flap seg-
ment under limit design loads (70 kg).
The actuated rib arrangement described so far was repli-
cated three times along the span of the flap segment, and stiff-
ening elements (spars and stringers) were used to connect the
16 R. Pecora

homologue plates of the adjacent ribs (Fig. 1). Light aluminum

alloys were selected for all the structural components, and a
physical prototype was manufactured to prove the feasibility
and reliability of the conceived architectural concept. Two
types of tests were addressed as follows:

- Functionality tests to show that the device was able to

morph into the target aerodynamic shapes, in a controllable
and replicable manner; and
- Static tests to demonstrate the elastic behavior of the device
under the action of the limit design loads.

To prove the functionality of the device, flap morphing was

activated, and the entire shape transition was recorded with a
high-resolution camera (Fig. 2). Pictures of the morphing pro-
cess were taken, and a perfect match was obtained between the
realized section shapes (Fig. 2(b), (c)) and the target reference
ones.3 Limit design pressures were simulated by means of a
sandbag placed on the lower side of the flap prototype surface
(Fig. 3(b)). No permanent deformations were detected by
strain gauges located in the most stressed region of the device;
after the removal of the sandbags, the elastic deflection of the
flap (nearly equal to 7 cm) was fully recovered3 (Fig. 3(c)).
The recovery of the initial undeformed shape (Fig. 3(a)) was
also made possible during the loading phase by activating the
morphing function to properly adjust the shape of the camber
line. Although the test campaign produced good results for the
success of the proof of concept, the stiffness of the prototype
was judged too low for safe in-flight operations, and was there-
fore reported as a key issue to be addressed during the
advanced design phase of the device.
3. New functionalities and advanced architectural layout
As it had been proven that flap camber morphing could be
enabled by a smart architecture characterized by a good simi-
larity with standard aeronautical devices, and therefore, with
Fig. 3 Morphing flap proof of concept: Static test.
good potential for certification, a more challenging phase
started for the overall technology demonstration. In this
phase,23 the investigation domain to be considered for the
advanced design of the technological demonstrator was
enlarged to half of the outer flap segment of the reference air-
craft (Fig. 423). The size of the flap portion to be morphed had
a span (b) of 3.60 m, root chord (cr) of 1.20 m, tip chord (ct) of
0.9 m, and maximum thickness equal to 0.24 m. The bidimen-
sional simplification adopted for the proof of concept was no
longer applicable due to the tapering of the flap, and a more
complex and significant set of loads had to be considered to
properly size the components of the smart architecture.
In addition, a new functionality requirement was placed,
where the flap should have implemented two different morph-
ing modes depending on the specific flight condition. These
modes were as follows:

- Morphing mode 1: Overall camber morphing (as in the

proof of concept) to enhance aircraft high-lift performances
during takeoff and landing (flap deployed); and

Fig. 4 Advanced design of the morphing flap demonstrator:

Fig. 2 Morphing flap proof of concept: Functionality test. investigation domain and tab deflections.23
Morphing wing flaps for large civil aircraft
- Morphing mode 2: Tab-like morphing comprising
upwards/downwards rotation of the flap tab in the range
[ 10°,+10]. The tab is the segment of the flap that is still
exposed to the aerodynamic flow when the flap is stowed
(dark colored flap portion in Fig. 4). Thanks to this addi-
tional morphing mode, wing load control functionality is
enabled to maximize the wing aerodynamic efficiency dur-
ing cruising.
The bimodal morphing requirement demanded a radical
change in the finger-like rib architecture defined for the proof
of concept as a single-degree mechanical system could not
allow for two independent motions of the rib.
The actuation strategy developed for the proof of concept
was preserved to enable the overall camber morphing during
the takeoff and landing phases. The rib was always character-
ized by four consecutive segments (B0, B1, B2, B3) hinged along
the camber line at the positions marked by points A, B, and C
in Fig. 5.23 As in the proof of concept, blocks B0 and B2 were
further connected through a link, denoted by L in Fig. 5, which
made B0, B1, and B2 move as a single degree-of-freedom mech-
anism. The last block, B3, was connected to block B2 only, and
no further link was introduced to slave its rotation to the
motion of the other blocks.
Two rotary electromechanical actuators (A1, A2; Fig. 5)
were adopted to morph the rib; the first actuator (A1) con-
trolled the motion of the first three blocks, while the second
(A2) controlled the rotation of the last block around hinge
C. The torque of each actuator was duly amplified by opti-
mized mechanisms (M1, M2; Fig. 5) playing the same role as
the gearboxes used in the proof of concept. According to the
geometrical characteristics of the constitutive components,
the amplification factor (mechanical advantage) of each mech-
anism reached the maximum value of 3 along the entire shape-
morphing process. In morphing mode 2, the amplification
mechanism M1 was locked and actuator A1 powered off; actu-
ator A2 was activated, and the torque amplification mechanism
M2 induced the upwards/downwards deflection of the flap tab
(i.e., block B3). During morphing mode 1, both actuators were
simultaneously activated; the torque of actuator A1 was used
to move amplification mechanism M1, which in turn, made
block B2 rotate in relation to hinge B; as B0, B1, and B2 com-
prise a single degree-of-freedom mechanism (due to link L), the
rotation of B2 around B implied the rotation of B1 around A
according to specific gear ratios depending on the position of
the link L, and ultimately, on the target morphed shapes to
be realized. To realize those shapes, actuator A2 was synchro-
Fig. 5 Bimodal morphing rib mechanisms.23
17
nized to actuator A1, controlling the deflection of the flap tip
according to the positions assumed by blocks B0, B1, and B3.
Apart from the macroscopic difference represented by the
double actuation line, the bimodal morphing rib was charac-
terized by a more compact and robust layout than that con-
ceived for the proof of concept. The rib blocks were
thickened along the flap span direction to properly host all
the amplification mechanisms and leverages required to morph
the architecture. This design choice led to significant improve-
ments in the assembly phase of the flap device, as no interfer-
ence occurred between the longitudinal stiffening elements and
the components of the actuation transmission. In contrast,
elastic deflections of the rib under external loads were dramat-
ically reduced thanks to a more rational design of link L,
which was placed closer to the rib central plane to avoid unde-
sired bending effects at its supports and shaped to increase the
overall stiffness of the rib architecture.
As in the proof of concept, segmented spars and stringers
were adopted to realize a multi-box arrangement, elastically
stable under bending and torsion; the multi-box architecture
was characterized by seven bays, each delimited by a smart
rib (Fig. 623). The chordwise length of the first and last blocks
of each rib was reduced along the span to properly fit the
tapered planform of the flap; the chord of the central blocks
hosting all the mechanisms for rib morphing (blocks B1 and
B2; Fig. 5) was instead kept constant, allowing for a more effi-
cient installation of the actuators’ transmission line.
Four actuation groups were placed in the first, third, fifth,
and seventh bays of the flap; each group was composed of
two actuators driving the shape morphing of the ribs delimit-
ing the bay. The actuator type (see Table 1) was selected based
on tradeoff studies aiming at finding the best solution in terms
of provided torque versus power demand, overall volume, and
weight.
Eight controllers (LTiÒ Servo One Junior29) were installed
in the first four bays of the leading edge to drive the actuators.
Encoders for relative rotation measurement were placed
around hinges A, B, and C (Fig. 5) of the first, fourth, and last
ribs along the span; their output was used in feedback to drive
the actuators during morphing, as well as to preserve the com-
manded flap shape in case of undesired changes induced by
external perturbations (including excessive elastic deforma-
tions due to the aerodynamic pressure).
All the structural components of the advanced demonstra-
tor were realized in light aluminum alloy, mainly referring to
high precision numerical control machining processes. Both
ribs and longitudinal stiffening components were properly
shaped to enable the installation of a segmented skin solution
characterized (on both the upper and lower sides) by four large
panels sliding on each other like armadillo shells (Fig. 7(a)23).
Silicon rubber seals23 were introduced to prevent airflow leak-
ages in flight and reduce the friction between adjacent skin
panels. Advanced multi-body simulations of the flap morphing
kinematic were launched to properly define the shape of the
seals, as well as to check for the absence of clashes between
adjacent subcomponents in relative motion.
The adoption of a segmented skin solution was influenced
by the experiences gained in two relevant research projects run-
ning in parallel with Clean Sky—the CRIAQ-MDO50530–33
and SARISTU.19,23 In these projects, the same design team
involved in the advanced demonstration of the morphing flap
was responsible for the structural design and validation of two
18 R. Pecora

Fig. 6 Morphing flap, layout of advanced technological demonstrator.23

Table 1 Main characteristics of selected actuator.

Kollmorgen brushless motor KBMS-14 Ò
N_sm 2.11
Continuous stall torque lb_sin 18.67
Peak stall torque N_sm 5
lb_sin 44.25
Maximum speed r/min 8000
Weight kg 2.5
Voltage V 50
Peak current A 3.25
Saturation power W 81.25

innovative morphing devices tailored for large civil aircraft
application—a morphing camber aileron34–38 (CRIAQ-
MDO505) and an adaptive wing trailing edge39–43 (SAR-
ISTU). While, for the morphing aileron, a segmented skin
solution was considered, the morphing trailing edge was
equipped with a compliant skin architecture made of stretch-
able panels. In more detail, the change of shape induced by
morphing was accommodated by the sliding of adjacent skin
panels for the aileron and by the elastic deformation (exten-
sion/compression) of the upper and lower skin panels for the
wing trailing edge. The deformation of the skin panels was
enabled by a smart multi-material system made of stiff metallic
shells joined to soft foam strips in an accordion-like arrange-
ment; the metallic shells were incorporated to assure adequate
bending and shear stiffness to withstand aerodynamic pres-
sure, while the foam strips accommodated the relevant defor-
mations induced by the cambering of the trailing edge.44,45 A
layer made of hyper-elastic silicon-based polymer was glued
onto the metallic shells and foam strips to ensure adequate
protection from environmental factors.
Each skin arrangement had advantages and disadvantages.
The compliant skin solution ensured clean and smooth aerody-
namic surfaces, while the adoption of skin segments led to
small steps and discontinuities with degradation of aerody-
namic performances due to premature flow separation. In con-
trast, from the manufacturing, assembly, and maintenance
standpoints, the segmented skin solution resulted in more con-
venience due to its greater simplicity, strength against debris
impacts, and ease of repair in case of damage. Therefore, look-
ing at the implications for aircraft operations, the segmented
skin solution was preferable, while the compliant skin solution
represented the optimal candidate to enhance the aerodynamic
performance of the overall architecture. Thanks to the exten-
sive wind tunnel campaigns carried out during both projects,
it was possible to collect a wide set of results and make some
extrapolations to the morphing flap to properly select which
skin arrangement would be more suitable.
Due to the high incidence angles at which the flap had to
work, it was observed that the presence of small gaps along
the upper/lower skin would not significantly alter the aerody-
namic performances of the device; in more detail, the maxi-
mum high-lift coefficient of the wing with continuous flap
skin was estimated to be only 0.2% higher than that obtained
in the case of segmented skin. This figure was judged as an
acceptable performance loss, fully compensated for by the
large operative advantages associated with the segmented skin
solution. In addition, power consumption issues were duly
taken into account, and they played a decisive role in the
choice of the segmented skin as the optimal cover solution
for the flap architecture: Nearly 35% of the available actuation
Morphing wing flaps for large civil aircraft 19

Fig. 7 Skin arrangements for adaptive camber surfaces.

power was required to deform the compliant skin according to

the target morphed shapes of the flap; conversely, the motion Table 2 Design values for relative rotations between adjacent
of the segmented skin occurred without any demand for addi- rib blocks.
tional power respectto that needed to morph the underlying Relative rotation Angle of rotation(°)
structure. Following the same approach as for the proof of between:
concept, the advanced demonstrator was also subjected to Morphing mode 1 Morphing mode 2
functionality and static tests, although more accurate and Rib blocks B0 and B1 3 0
sophisticated experimental protocols were implemented, build- Rib blocks B1 and B2 10.5 0
ing on the experiences gained during CRIAQ-MDO505 and Rib blocks B2 and B3 3 +10; 10
SARISTU projects.

4. Functionality test of the advanced technological demonstrator installed on an exhibition support and secured to an external
safety rig (Fig. 8 (a)); the test protocols outlined in Table 3
were followed.46
Functionality tests were carried out to demonstrate that the
Test protocols 1 and 2 were repeated 20 times, and at each
flap could reproduce target morphed shapes in a controlled
cycle (Fig. 8 (b)), the measured angles were fully compliant
and repeatable manner. The target morphed shapes were con-
with the design targets at both the inner and outer flap sections
sidered successfully fitted if the angles between adjacent rib
(Fig. 9). Moreover, the recordings related to the encoders at
blocks—obtained upon actuator activation—matched the
the flap root and tip sections (Fig. 9) matched perfectly, prov-
design values pertinent to each morphing mode (Table 2) with
ing the successful implementation of morphing mechanics
a precision of 0.5°. The first and the last ribs of the flap were
along the flap span (absence of undesired morphing-induced
equipped with additional high precision encoders measuring
twist or shape alteration along the span).
the relative rotations between blocks B0 and B1 and blocks
B2 and B3; it was considered irrelevant to place an additional
5. Static test of the advanced technological demonstrator
encoder between B1 and B2, since B0, B1, and B2 had a single
degree-of-freedom as a result of the cross-link L (Fig. 5).
The encoders were equipped with digital displays for real- The static test was carried out to demonstrate the flap’s capa-
time reading of the measured rotations. The flap was then bility of withstanding limit loads expected in service without
20
Fig. 8 Functionality test of morphing flap: test article and morphing activation sequence.
Table 3 Functionality test protocols.
Test protocol, functionality test morphing mode 1
1 Flap power: on;
2 Control switch to morphing mode 1;
3 Actuation up to the target configuration;
4 Actuators stop and acquisition of rib blocks relative rotations;
5 Actuation reverse, up to the baseline configuration;
6 Actuators stop, flap power off, check of the encoders displays for
full rotation recovery.
permanent deformations, failures or buckling. Due to the rel-
evance of the total load to be applied (1.5 tons26,46), numerical
analyses were preliminarily carried out to virtually simulate the
test; analysis outcomes were used to accomplish the following:
- Safely address the experimental campaign, being prepared
to detect (potentially dangerous) deviations between the
actual and the expected structural behavior of the device;
- Properly individuate the most stressed regions of the proto-
type for a rational installation of the deformation sensors; and
- Verify the adequacy of the test rig and whiffle tree used to
apply the loads.
Relying on the result of the pre-test analyses, the sensor
expected to record the maximum strain (maximum strain sen-
sor, MSS) was located on the mechanical link (marked with
L in Fig. 5) between blocks B0 and B2 of the second rib. To
demonstrate the recovery of the full elastic deflection, Linear
Variable Differential Transducers (LVDT) were installed to
measure the displacement at the flap tip. The sensor expected
to record the maximum deflection (maximum deflection sensor,
MDS) was that located at the tip of the second rib. In Fig. 10
(a), the test setup is outlined with indications on the MSS and
MDS positions, the main elements of the load transmission
system, and the clamping plates adopted to constrain the flap
in correspondence of the joints to the deployment tracks.
As a final stage, the test protocol of Table 4 was imple-
mented. Load steps of 100 kg, with a loading speed of 10 kg/
R. Pecora
Test protocol, functionality test morphing mode 2
1 Flap power: on;
2 Control switch to morphing mode 2;
3 Actuation up to the tip down configuration;
4 Actuators stop and acquisition of rib blocks relative rotations;
5 Actuation reverse, up to the baseline configuration;
6 Actuation up to the tip up configuration;
7 Actuators stop and acquisition of rib blocks relative rotations;
8 Actuation reverse up to the baseline configuration;
9 Actuators stop, flap power off, check of the encoders displays for
full rotation recovery.
s, were considered adequate to avoid any dynamic amplifica-
tion. A pause of 10 s at the achievement of each load step
was set to check the acquired data; load levels were measured
through a load cell installed between the hydraulic jack and the
whiffle tree (Fig. 10(a)).
No failures occurred during the tests. The applied load
value and MDS/MSS recorded data are plotted against time
in Fig. 10(b). The maximum recorded deformation and dis-
placement were in good agreement with numerical expecta-
tions, and the full recovery of elastic deformations/
deflections occurred once the test article was unloaded.
By using the potentiometers embedded in each of the con-
trollers installed in the lead edge, it was possible to measure
the power absorption of each actuator during the loading
phase. At the limit load condition, the overall power adsorbed
by the actuation system was equal to 350 W, with the greatest
amount consumed by the first actuator located in the third bay
(16%, Fig. 11). This occurrence was perfectly in line with the
point that, under limit load conditions, the torque induced
by the whiffle three reached a peak corresponding to at the
third rib, demanding more effort from the actuators located
in the third bay. The overall power consumption of 350 W
was well below the saturation value of the entire actuation sys-
tem (650 W = 8  81.25, see Table 1); this practically demon-
strated the goodness and robustness of the implemented design
as a relevant amount of actuation torque could still be deliv-
ered to control the flap shape under limit design load
conditions.
Morphing wing flaps for large civil aircraft 21

Fig. 9 Functionality test of the morphing flap: measured rotations at flap root/tip encoders (first 10 cycles, morphing modes 1 and 2).

Fig. 10 Static test of morphing flap.

6. Toward the full technological demonstration of a multi-modal
camber morphing flap
The advanced demonstration represented a relevant milestone
in the maturation process of the addressed technology; the
promising results of the experimental campaigns, in combina-
tion with the increasing appeal of the proposed architecture for
an effective installation on large aircraft, paved the way to fur-
ther research activities oriented to a more comprehensive
assessment of the morphing flap from the perspective of in-
flight tests and operations. The assessment was thought neces-
sary to overcome the limitations of the advanced demonstra-
tion while further improving the architecture of the device in
the direction of a ready-to-fly industrial product.
First, the entire outer flap segment of the reference wing
should have been addressed to properly face design, produc-
tion, and testing issues at the integral component level. Second,
important changes to the already consolidated architecture
should have been made to increase the industrial interest on
the smart system; ways for improvements were essentially
found in the exploration of the following topics:
- Reduction of installed power thanks to the adoption of a
lower number of actuators;
- Minimization of spare parts and simplification of the
assembly process;
- Overall weight reduction; and
- Minimization of the operational risks in case of actuation
system failures.
22
Table 4 Static test protocol.
Test protocol, functionality test morphing mode 1
1 Flap power: on; check the flap configuration to match the
baseline one;
2 Check whiffle tree links;
3 Increase jack load up to i  100 kg (with i = 1), loading speed
equal to 10 kg/s;
4 Pause of 10 s, data acquisition check (strain, displacements);
5 Repeat 4 and 5 until the maximum load of 1.3 tons is reached;
6 Decrease jack load up to (1200 j  100) kg (with j = 0),
unloading speed equal to 10 kg/s;
7 Pause of 10 s, data acquisition check (strain, displacements);
8 Repeat 7 and 8 for j = 0:12.
The Airgreen2 project, which is still running in the frame-
work of the second phase of the Clean Sky program
(CleanSky2-REG IADP2,47), represented the first opportunity
to optimize the morphing flap system by addressing all the
above-mentioned issues.
Here, an overview of the flap layout resulting from the Air-
green2 project is presented; the device is currently at the exec-
utive design stage and is expected to be produced and tested in
the next couple of years. Starting from the general layout of
the advanced technological demonstrator, design changes were
first introduced to enhance the robustness and efficiency of
ribs’ mechanisms and reduce the number of required actuators.
Fig. 11 Static (limit) deflection of the morphing flap and absorbed power trend.
R. Pecora
The smart function of the ribs, namely their capability to drive
morphing as an inner movable articulation of the flap struc-
ture, was preserved; the ribs’ architecture and the associated
mechanics were modified to improve the reliability and effi-
ciency of morphing through a more compact and robust
design. The generic rib was composed of four consecutive
and entirely redesigned blocks (B1, B2, B3, B4; Fig. 12) con-
nected by three frictionless hinges (A, B, C) located along
the airfoil camber line.
Blocks are allowed to rotate in relation to each other, mak-
ing the airfoil camber line morph. Blocks B1 and B3 are inter-
connected by means of a suitably shaped beam (L) with two
hinges at the edges; an internal leverage (M1) is hosted by
block B2 and interconnects blocks B2 and B4. This leverage
is activated by an external rotary actuator acting along the
shaft (A1) and amplifies the actuator’s torque.
The rotation induced around A1 makes the leverage M1
move, and therefore, changes the relative position of block
B2 in relation to block B4; at the same time, blocks B1 and
B3 are forced to follow the movement because they are mutu-
ally interconnected with the remaining blocks. The position of
the link L and the pivots of leverage M1 were selected in such a
way that, upon the rotation of shaft A1, all the rib blocks
rotate around hinges A,B,C according to specific angles com-
pliant with the external morphed shapes to be achieved. A sec-
ondary leverage (M2) links B4 (flap tip) to B3 and is driven by
the rotation of the actuator acting around the shaft A2. The
secondary leverage, hosted by block B3, amplifies the torque
Morphing wing flaps for large civil aircraft 23

Fig. 12 Smart rib mechanisms (Airgreen2 improved layout48).

Fig. 13 Detail of actuation torque amplification mechanisms (Airgreen2 improved layout48).

around A2 and makes B4 rotate around hinge C, implementing
the tab-like morphing. During morphing mode 1,48,49 the sec-
ondary leverage is fixed since only shaft A1 is activated. In con-
trast, shaft A1 is locked during morphing mode 2.48,49
Leverages M1 and M2 were optimized to increase the
mechanical advantage provided by the inner mechanisms of
the advanced demonstrator rib. The optimization process con-
sisted of parametric kinematic analyses defining the leverage
components’ number, shape, and position as functions of the
mechanical advantage to be implemented by the overall mech-
anism.48 At the end of the process, the most convenient layout
for each leverage was characterized by six components, com-
prising a crank, two ternary links, and three binary links,
arranged as reported in Fig. 13. All the items were connected
by cylindrical hinges; the crank and ternary links were doubly
supported on rib-block plates to avoid out-of-plane rotations
during the kinematic evolution of the inner mechanisms. The
input actuation torque at the crank was used to start the
motion of the chain of links; the last link of the chain was con-
nected to the rib block to be rotated (B3 for mechanism M1, B4
for mechanism M2) and generated the output torque, enabling
the rotation of the rib block about its hinge axis. The mechan-
ical advantage (output torque/input torque) ultimately
depended on links relative rotation centers,48 and their posi-
tions were properly tailored to ensure high actuation authority.
In Fig. 14, the rotation of the actuated rib blocks (hB3, hB4) and
the mechanical advantage of mechanisms M1/M2 are plotted
as functions of the crank rotations. For mechanism M1, the
minimum mechanical advantage was equal to 6; as hB3 became
greater than 13°, the mechanical advantages rapidly increased
in line with the demand for higher torque to properly counter-
act the external aerodynamic loads generated by the aug-
24
mented camber of the flap. Similarly, for mechanism M2, the
mechanical advantage was equal to its minimum value (nearly
5) when the flap tab (rib block B4) was in neutral position; as
the tab was deflected upwards ( 10°hB4 < 0°) or downwards
(0°<hB4  10°), the mechanical advantage rapidly increased,
providing adequate actuation authority against the aerody-
namic loads induced by tab rotation.
A multi-box arrangement was considered to transfer the
morphing capabilities of the ribs to the overall flap structure.
Each box was characterized by a single-cell configuration
delimited by homologous blocks of consecutive ribs along
the span and by spars along the chord. Thanks to the greater
morphing authority of the ribs, their pitch was set equal to
580 mm (Fig. 15), leading to two ribs less than those that
would have been required if the pitch of the advanced demon-
strator had been used. In addition, the spars were set to be con-
tinuous along the span of the flap and no longer segmented by
the ribs, as happened for the advanced demonstrator; this led
to a more robust structural arrangement in bending as well as
to a reduced number of spare parts.
A through-shaft solution was selected to enable the actua-
tion of three rib blocks with a single motor (R1, R2; Fig. 16).
The segmentation of the shaft along the span was obtained
through elastic joints, ensuring the correct torque transmission
in the presence of high bending-induced deformations. Har-
monic DriveÒ (HD) gear reducers (in green in Fig. 16) were
installed to amplify the torque supplied by the motors. The
HD model CPL-17-2A48 was selected based on its overall vol-
ume and performance.
When the brushless motor is on, the main shaft transfers
the rotational speed to the HD gearbox installed on each
rib-block plate. Following the action of the HD, the rotational
speed of the shaft is reduced, and the torque is amplified to
nearly 200 times the nominal value.
The crank of each leverage (M1 and M2 in Fig. 12) is
directly connected to the low-speed (high-torque) shaft that
comes out of the HD device. The kinematic chains of each
rib are then activated, and the full morphing system changes
its shape.
Thanks to the rational sizing of the transmission lines, only
six motors were required to morph the full-scale prototype
(Fig. 15); even if larger than the advanced demonstrator, the
prototype required fewer actuators, which were in turn charac-
terized by reduced dimensions and weight (Table 5).
Fig. 14 M1 and M2: Mechanical advantages versus crank rotation (Airgreen2 improved layout48).
R. Pecora
The segmentation of the rear transmission line in three dif-
ferent portions, covering bays 1 and 2, bays 4 and 5, and bays 7
and 8, allowed for an equivalent segmentation of the flap trail-
ing edge into three different tabs with independent actuation
In case of synchronous actuation of the tabs, morphing mode
2 would have been implemented; by properly distributing the
actuator rotation along the three transmission lines, it was pos-
sible to achieve a third morphing mode characterized by differ-
ential deflections of the tabs, in this way, implementing new
shapes for the flap trailing edge for enhanced load control
functionalities in cruise. This additional functionality marked
the transition from a bimodal camber morphing flap to a more
sophisticated architecture with multimodal morphing capabil-
ities. To minimize the operational risk of the conceived layout,
careful attention was paid to the behavior of the actuation sys-
tem in the case of in-flight power shutdown. As for the
advanced demonstrator, for the improved flap architecture,
the torque provided by the actuators was also necessary to
keep the flap structure in equilibrium under the action of exter-
nal loads. In the case of power shutdown, no relevant torque
would have been delivered by the actuators, and the entire
structure would have collapsed well below the design limit
load.
To solve this important safety issue, permanent magnetic
brakes of the PMBÒ series 10050 were mounted on the shaft
of each actuator. The working principle of the brakes is
drafted in Fig. 17.
With current off to the electric coil, the permanent magnet
provided ongoing magnetic flux to engage the armature plate
with the brake’s inner and outer friction faces. The load
attached to the hub armature plate was held without power
consumption. When the current was applied to the coil, the
permanent magnet flux path was counteracted, reducing the
magnetic force at the friction face contact points to zero. This
allowed the diaphragm spring to pull the armature plate away
from the magnet case, such that the load could rotate freely
only while the power was applied to the coil.50
The adoption of such devices implied a significant change in
the operations of the flap; the need for electrical current was
indeed limited only to the flight phases in which morphing
modes had to be activated. Whereas no morphing had to be
implemented, the brakes in power off mode were used to main-
tain the flap shape, counteracting the external loads without
the support of extra torque coming from the actuation system.
Morphing wing flaps for large civil aircraft 25

Fig. 15 Morphing flap arrangement (Airgreen2 improved layout).

Fig. 16 Through shaft transmission lines (Airgreen2 improved layout48,49).

conclude the design activities of the prototype for the full

Table 5 Main characteristics of actuator selected for full-scale
demonstration of multimodal morphing flap technology.
demonstrator.50
Kollmorgen brushless motor KBMS-10 Ò 7. Conclusions
Continuous N_sm 1.45
stall torque lb_sin 12.83 Active from 2006, the Clean Sky GRA program aims to
Peak stall N_sm 4.66
mature, validate, and demonstrate the green aeronautical tech-
torque lb_sin 41.24
nologies best fitting the European regional aircraft that will fly
Maximum r/ 7050
speed min from 2025 onwards; among these technologies, large room is
Weight kg 1.22 given to morphing and multifunctional wing architectures for
Voltage V 40 highly efficient aerodynamics, as well as load control and alle-
Peak current A 2.0 viation functionalities. In this challenging framework, a novel
Saturation W 40 adaptive structure was conceived to enable the in-flight camber
power morphing of the wing flaps of a reference 100-seat aircraft; the
driving motivation of the research was found in the conve-
nience of replacing a conventional double-slotted flap with a
single-slotted camber flap, ensuring enhanced high-lift and
Apart from the crucial contribution to the safety of flight in cruise performances through multimodal camber morphing
the case of electrical system failures, the adoption of brakes led capabilities.
to relevant power savings for normal operations, which To comply with tight industrial requirements, the adaptive
summed up to those obtained through the enhancement of structure of the flap was rationally designed as a smart
the actuation system authority and ribs mechanics efficiency. arrangement of conventional mechanical systems characterized
The obtained power savings combined with the significant by metallic components in relative motion. This design choice
reduction of system weight and complexity (/number of parts) was made in full contrast to the widespread scientific opinion
resulting from the rational rearrangement of the load-carrying that morphing had to be conveniently implemented by means
structure were considered more than adequate to successfully of imposed elastic deformations of flexible structural compo-
26
Fig. 17 Permanent magnetic brake functions.
nents, integrating smart materials like shape memory alloys or
polymers. The adoption of controlled deformation (compliant)
structures was deemed inadequate for the specific end applica-
tion. To modify the flap shape, cyclic deformations of the
structure would have been necessary under the action of the
significant aerodynamic loads typical of a CS-25 category air-
craft; a short fatigue life of the morphing flap was then
expected, with prohibitive impacts on reference aircraft opera-
tions and maintenance plans. Smart materials with super-
elastic properties, although considered very efficient for over-
coming fatigue issues, would have dwarfed the maturity of
the overall system and its readiness for certification due to
the lack of industrial production standards and consequent
uncertainties on design allowables. Conversely, the mechanical
solution based on metallic robotic ribs driving the shape adap-
tation of the flap proved highly promising in light of the small
impacts on consolidated industrial manufacturing processes,
aircraft operations, and compliance with airworthiness
requirements. Similar considerations applied to the flap skin
arrangement, where light metallic alloys and a modular seg-
mented layout, replicating the multi-block segmentation of
the finger-like ribs, were preferred to a compliant solution
accommodating morphing-induced displacements through
the deformation of super-elastic elements. Practically, the
finger-like rib concept led to the definition of a multi-box
structural arrangement where each box was covered by a skin
segment. Flap shape adaptivity was basically implemented by
replacing the conventional mono-cell structure with a complex
mechanism characterized by active degrees of freedom; under
these circumstances, the actuation system becomes a crucial
component of the adaptive structure, working to suppress
and control the active degrees of freedom. Therefore, an inte-
grated design process was followed to define actuators, actua-
tion transmission lines, and components of the adaptive
structure, thus properly accounting for their mutual influence.
Starting from the conceptual definition of the overall morph-
ing system, the design process was rationally supported by
experimental validation; at each design stage, technology
demonstrators were manufactured and tested to down select
the most promising arrangements to be further refined in the
next design phase. In this way, the morphing flap technology
experienced a gradual and well-sustained maturation process
R. Pecora
up to the consolidation of a full-scale prototype for final func-
tionality tests in real operative conditions.
Starting from highly mature technological solutions, effec-
tive from the functionality and robustness standpoints, new
research lines are envisaged to further enhance the morphing
flap with reference to the broader spectrum of requirements
posed by a cost-effective and sustainable integration at the air-
craft level. Therefore, a rational re-engineering of the flap’s
constitutive elements is expected to be addressed to bridge
the gap between a reliable integrated smart system and an
affordable, cost-competitive aeronautical component. Along
this process, advanced research lines will be activated and
mainly oriented to the following:
 Reducing the weight of the system by switching to hybrid
solutions prevalently based on advanced/recyclable com-
posite materials;
 Reducing the mechanical complexity of the system by
decreasing the number of constitutive parts; along this
direction, the convenience of additive manufacturing to
replace entire sub-assemblies with integral components that
are geometrically challenging for conventional manufactur-
ing processes like forging and milling will be explored;
 Simplifying the device manufacturing and assembly
through the adoption of rational design solutions for fast
series production (increase of components commonality,
simplifications of joining mechanisms and sequence);
 Reducing the effects of the device on aircraft maintenance
and repair procedures by facilitating the visual inspection
of the inner components and embedded electromechanical
systems; and
 Reducing the effects of the device on aircraft maintenance
and repair procedures via the integration of a smart health
monitoring system checking for the integrity of the struc-
tural components and operativity of all installed equipment
related to actuation, shape sensing, and shape control.
Declaration of Competing Interest
The authors declare that they have no known competing
financial interests or personal relationships that could have
appeared to influence the work reported in this paper.
Morphing wing flaps for large civil aircraft
Acknowledgements
The researches described in this paper have been carried out in
the framework of the Clean Sky Green Regional Aircraft ITD
(Low Noise Configuration Domain) and Airgreen2 projects.
The activities have gratefully received funding respectively
from the Cleans Sky and the Clean Sly 2 Joint Undertaking,
under the European Union FP7 and H2020 research and inno-
vation programs, Grant Agreements No. CSJU-GAM-GRA-
2008-001 and No. 807089 — REG GAM 2018 — H2020-
IBA-CS2-GAMS-2017.
The author wishes to thank the colleague Francesco Amor-
oso and all the outstanding Ph.D. students who significantly
contributed to the development of the morphing flap technol-
ogy (Marco Magnifico, Maria Chiara Noviello, Maurizio
Arena, Francesco Rea).
A special thanks goes to the Aircraft Division of Leonardo
Company, that provided the valuable technical guidelines for
the consolidation of an industrially relevant product.
References
1. Clean Sky .Clean Sky program. [Internet].[cited 2020 Jan 10];
Avaiable from:http:// www.cleansky.eu.
2. Clean Sky .Clean Sky2 program . [Internet].[cited 2020 Jan 10];
Avaiable from: http:// www.cleansky2.eu.
3. Pecora R, Amoroso F, Amendola F, et al. Validation of a smart
structural concept for wing-flap camber morphing. Smart Struct
Systems 2014;14(4):659–78.
4. Pecora R, Amoroso F, Magnifico M. Toward the bi-modal
camber morphing of large aircraft wing flaps: The CleanSky
experience. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for
Optical Engineering, 2016.
5. Martins JRRA. Fuel burn reduction through wing morphingEncy-
clopedia of aerospace engineering,green aviation. New York: Wiley;
2016. p. 75–9.
6. Kan Z, Li D, Xiang J, et al. Delaying stall of morphing wing by
periodic trailing-edge deflection. Chin J Aeronaut 2020;33
(2):493–500.
7. Concilio A, Dimino I, Lecce L, et al. Morphing wing techologies,
large commercial aircraft and civil helicopters. Amsterdam: Else-
vier; 2017.
8. Browman J, Sanders B, Weisshaar T. Evaluating the impact of
morphing technologies on aircraft performance. Reston: AIAA;
2002, Report No.:AIAA-2002-1631.
9. Kamiliya JH, Ai Q, Azarpeyvand M. Experimental and numerical
investigation of aerodynamic performance for airfoils with mor-
phed trailing edges. Renewable Energy 2018;127:355–67.
10. Li D, Zhao S, Da RA, et al. A review of modelling and analysis of
morphing wings. Prog Aerosp Sci 2018;100:46–62.
11. Baker D, Friswell MI. The design of morphing aerofoils using
compliant mechanisms. Proceedings of 19th international confer-
ence on adaptive structures and technologies. 2008 October 6-9;
Ascona, Switzerland, 2008.
12. Bilgen O, Kochersberger KB, Inman DJ, et al. Novel, bi-
directional, variable camber airfoil via macro-fiber composite
actuators. Proceedings of the 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
structures, structural dynamics and materials conference. 2009 May
4-7; Palm Springs, USA. Reston: AIAA; 2009.
13. Bishay P, Burg E, Akinwunmi A, et al. Development of a new
span-morphing wing core design. Design 2019;3(1):12.
14. Browman J, Sanders B, Canon B, et al. Development of next
generation aircraft structures. Proceedings of the 48yh AIAA/
ASME/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics and materials
27
conference. 2017 April 23-26; Honolulu, USA. Reston: AIAA;
2017.
15. Ismail NI, Zulkifili AH, Abdullah MZ, et al. Optimization of
aerodynamic efficiency for twist morphing MAV wing. Chin J
Aeronaut 2014;27(3):475–87.
16. Wölcken C, Papadopoulos M. Smart Intelligent Aircraft Struc-
tures (SARISTU), Part I (Enhanced Adaptive Droop Nose for a
morphing Wing). Amsterdam: Springer; 2016.
17. Tong XX, Ge WJ, Sun C, et al. Topology optimization of
compliant adaptive wing leading edge with composite materials.
Chin J Aeronaut 2014;27(6):1488–94.
18. Vasista S, Riemenschneider J, Keimer R, et al. Morphing wing
droop nose with large deformation: ground tests and lessons
learned. Aerospace 2019;6(10):111.
19. Wölcken C, Papadopoulos M. Smart Intelligent Aircraft Struc-
tures (SARISTU), Part II (The Adaptive trailing edge). Amster-
dam: Springer; 2016.
20. Wölcken C, Papadopoulos M. Smart Intelligent Aircraft Struc-
tures (SARISTU), Part III (WingTip Morphing Trailing
Edge). Amsterdam: Springer; 2016.
21. Wildschek A, Grünewald M, Maier R, et al. Multi-functional
morphing trailing edge device for control of all-composite, all-
electric flying wing aircraft. Proceedings of the 26th congress of
International Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS). 2008
September 14-19; Anchorage, USA, 2008.
22. Flexsys. flexibly engineering the ‘‘IMPOSSIBLE” [Internet].[cited
2020 Jan 10].Avaiable from:http:// www.flxsys.com.
23. Pecora R, Amoroso F, Magnifico M, et al. KRISTINA: Kine-
matic rib-based structural system for innovative adaptive trailing
edge. Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical
Engineering, 2016.
24. Pecora R, Concilio A, Dimino I, et al. Structural design of an
adaptive wing trailing edge for enhanced cruise perfor-
mances. Reston: AIAA; 2016, Report No.: AIAA 2016-1317.
25. Pecora R, Barbarino S, Concilio A, et al. Design and functional
test of a morphing high-lift device for a regional aircraft. J Intell
Mater Syst Struct 2011;22(10):1005–23.
26. Pecora R, Amoroso F, Arena M, et al. Experimental validation of
a true-scale morphing flap for large civil aircraft applications.
Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical
Engineering, 2017.
27. Pecora R. Multi-modal morphing wing flaps for next generation
green regional aircraft: the CleanSky challenge. Proceedings of the
ASME 2018 conference on Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures
and Intelligent Systems (SMASIS).2018 September 10-12; San
Antonio, USA. New York, 2018.
28. Moens F. Augmented aircraft performance with the use of
morphing technology for a turboprop regional aircraft wing.
Biomimetics 2019;4(3):1–20.
29. LTI.KEBALTI Automation by innovation [Internet].[cited 2020
Jan 10].Avaiable from:http:// www.lti-motion.com.
30. Koreanschi A, Sugar GO, Guillame BGP, et al. Optimization and
design of an aircraft’s morphing wing-tip demonstrator for drag
reduction at low speeds, Part II - Experimental validation using
Infra-Red transition measurement from Wind Tunnel tests. Chin J
Aeronaut 2017;30(1):164–74.
31. Communier D, Botez RM, Wong T. Experimental validation of a
new morphing trailing edge system using Price – Paı̈doussis wind
tunnel tests. Chin J Aeronaut 2019;30(6):1353–66.
32. Popov AV, Grigorie TL, Botez RM, et al. Modeling and testing of
a morphing wing in open-loop architecture. J Aircraft 2010;47
(3):917–23.
33. Botez RM, Koreanschi A, Gabor OS, et al. Numerical and
experimental transition results evaluation for a morphing wing
and aileron system. Aeronaut J 2018;122(1251):747–84.
34. Amendola G, Dimino I, Concilio A, et al. Preliminary design of an
adaptive aileron for the next generation regional aircraft. J Theor
Appl Mech 2017;55(1):307–16.
28
35. Amendola G, Magnifico M, Pecora R, et al. Distributed actuation
concepts for a morphing aileron device. Aeronaut J 2016;120
(1231):1365–85.
36. Amendola G, Dimino I, Amoroso F, et al. Experimental charac-
terization of an adaptive aileron: lab tests and FE correlation.
Proceedings of SPIE - The International Society for Optical
Engineering, 2016.
37. Arena M, Pecora R, Amendola G, et al. Numerical and exper-
imental validation of a full-scale servo-actuated morphing aileron
model. Smart Struct Syst 2018;27(10) 105034.
38. Arena M, Noviello MC, Rea F, et al. Modal stability assessment
for a morphing aileron subjected to actuation system failures:
numerical analysis supported by test evidenceProceedings of 2016
7th international conference on mechanical and aerospace engineer-
ing, ICMAE 2016. 2016 July 18-22; London, UK. p. 437–42.
39. Dimino I, Diodati G, Concilio A, et al. Distributed electrome-
chanical actuation system design for a morphing trailing edge
wing. Proceedings of SPIE 9801, industrial and commercial
applications of smart structures technologies, 2016.
40. Dimino I, Flauto D, Diodati G, et al. Actuation system design for
a morphing wing trailing edge. Recent Patents Mech Eng 2014;7
(2):138–48.
41. Dimino I, Concilio A, Schueller M, et al. An adaptive control
system for wing TE shape control. SPIE international conference
on smart structures. 2013 March 10-14; San Die-go, USA, 2013..
42. Dimino I, Concilio A, Pecora R. Safety and reliability aspects of
an Adaptive Trailing Edge Device (ATED). 24th AIAA/AHS
adaptive structures conference, AIAA SciTech. 2016 Jan 4-8; San
Diego, USA. Reston: AIAA; 2016.
R. Pecora
43. Pecora R, Magnifico M, Amoroso F, et al. Multi-parametric
flutter analysis of a morphing wing trailing edge. Aeronaut J
2014;118(1207):1063–78.
44. Schorsch O, Luhring A, Nagel C, et al. Polymer based morphing
skin for adaptive wings. 7th ECCOMAS thematic conference on
smart structures and materials SMART 2015.2015 June 3-6;
Azores, Portugal, 2015.
45. Arena M, Nagel C, Pecora R, et al. Static and dynamic
performance of a morphing trailing edge concept with high-
damping elastomeric skin. Aerospace 2019;6(2):22.
46. Noviello MC, Rea F, Arena M, et al. Actuation and control of a
novel wing flap architecture with bi-modal camber morphing
capabilitiesProceedings of 7th international conference on mechan-
ical and aerospace engineering (ICMAE). p. 426–31.
47. Ameduri S, Concilio I, Dimino I, et al. Airgreen2: Adaptive wing
technology maturation, challenges and perspectives. Proceedings
of SMASIS 2018 - smart materials, adaptive structures and
intelligent systems conference. 2018 September 21-23; San Antonio,
USA, 2018.
48. Rea F, Amoroso F, Pecora R, et al. Exploitation of a multifunc-
tional twistable wing trailing-edge for performance improvement
of a turboprop 90-seats regional aircraft. Aerospace 2018;5(4):122.
49. Rea F, Amoroso F, Pecora R, et al. Structural design of a
multifunctional morphing fowler flap for a twin-prop regional
aircraft. Proceedings of SMASIS 2018 - smart materials, adaptive
structures and intelligent systems conference. 2018 September 21-
23; San Antonio, USA, 2018..
50. SEPAC. [Internet].[cited 2020 Jan 10].Avaiable from:http:// www.
sepac.com.