Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Morphing unmanned aerial vehicles

This content has been downloaded from IOPscience. Please scroll down to see the full text.

2011 Smart Mater. Struct. 20 103001

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/20/10/103001)

View the table of contents for this issue, or go to the journal homepage for more

Download details:

IP Address: 129.100.58.76
This content was downloaded on 11/11/2014 at 21:51

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001 (16pp) doi:10.1088/0964-1726/20/10/103001

TOPICAL REVIEW

Morphing unmanned aerial vehicles

Juan Carlos Gomez and Ephrahim Garcia
Sibley School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Cornell University, Ithaca,
NY 14850, USA

E-mail: jcg247@cornell.edu

Received 27 April 2011, in final form 3 July 2011

Published 30 September 2011
Online at stacks.iop.org/SMS/20/103001

Abstract
Research on aircraft morphing has exploded in recent years. The motivation and driving force
behind this has been to find new and novel ways to increase the capabilities of aircraft.
Materials advancements have helped to increase possibilities with respect to actuation and,
hence, a diversity of concepts and unimagined capabilities. The expanded role of unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) has provided an ideal platform for exploring these emergent morphing
concepts since at this scale a greater amount of risk can be taken, as well as having more
manageable fabrication and cost requirements. This review focuses on presenting the role UAVs
have in morphing research by giving an overview of the UAV morphing concepts, designs, and
technologies described in the literature. A presentation of quantitative information as well as a
discussion of technical issues is given where possible to begin gaining some insight into the
overall assessment and performance of these technologies.
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

Contents performance. The categorization used here, also interpreted

from the literature and depicted in figure 1, divides the aircraft
1. Introduction 1 themselves into structured wings (wings that have internal
2. Morphing concepts and systems 2 structure) and inflatable wings, and subdivides morphing into
2.1. Camber 2 two groups, in-plane (planform) and out-of-plane. These
2.2. Twist 7 two types contain all of the specific morphing sub-groups:
2.3. Sweep 8 telescoping, sweep, folding, camber, twist, and winglets.
2.4. Folding 9 It should be noted that this is merely used as a rough
2.5. Telescoping 11 categorization, and examples of overlap between groups can
2.6. Winglets 11 be easily found.
2.7. Unique morphing concepts 12 Morphing such as sweep and twist has existed in
3. Related work 12 a primitive capacity throughout the history of flight [1].
4. Conclusions 12 Examples include aircraft such as the F-14, F-111, B-
References 13 1B, and F-104. Recent decades saw collaborative projects
such as the Aircraft Morphing program [2] and Mission
1. Introduction Adaptive Wing (MAW) program [3]. Although not necessarily
morphing under the above definition, the Active Aeroelastic
What aircraft morphing is exactly has varying interpretations. Wing (AAW) program investigated a topic important to
However, an overarching theme is prevalent throughout the morphing: the integration of wing aerodynamics, structure,
associated literature: in this review aircraft morphing is defined and controls [5]. In 2002, Ephrahim Garcia developed the
as a method, alternative to conventional means (i.e. traditional DARPA Morphing Aircraft Structures (MAS) program, which
discrete, hinged control surfaces), of manipulating an supported morphing research endeavors by Lockheed Martin
aircraft’s external shape for modifying and enhancing flight and NextGen Aeronautics [4]. The establishment of the MAS

0964-1726/11/103001+16$33.00 1 © 2011 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK & the USA
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
Figure 1. Categorization of many of the existing morphing concepts.
program ushered in a period with the greatest diversity and
development in morphing research.
This surge has been enabled by the use of unmanned
aerial vehicles (UAVs) as a platform for morphing testing
and development, which in turn is made possible by the
increased roles of UAVs in military and civilian applications.
With regards to required force levels, UAVs come in a much
more manageable scale than do full sized aircraft. Energy
requirements at this scale can be met by more accessible
technologies such as batteries, as opposed to the power plants
seen on full scale aircraft. UAVs are easier to handle, modify,
and maintain, which is ideal for the testing of new concepts and
systems.
Shape memory alloys and piezoelectrics are some of
the smart materials that have found their way into morphing
research. The versatility that these materials provide to
actuation systems has helped to expand morphing concepts
and capabilities in previously inconceivable ways and the
realization of these concepts is made possible through
UAV oriented development. The greater performance and
maneuverability, along with more manageable penalties for
greater risk associated with UAVs allows for the testing of
bold design concepts and new capabilities such as bird inspired
perching maneuvers, a feat unthinkable with a human pilot.
These facts have led to many morphing research projects being
sized and tailored toward the UAV field.
Morphing research is still at a very early development
stage. UAV morphing and morphing in general has yet to see
widespread testing and use, unlike the ubiquity of conventional
devices for aerodynamic control (flaps, slats, etc). This leads
to a lack of history and depth with regards to performance and
efficiency information, which in turn makes comparisons and
assessments difficult, especially when few to no quantitative
data exist. Despite this we need to strive to assess overall
performance, and make comparisons where possible. This
allows us to gain insight and ask the question ‘what we can
do versus what we should do’ with aircraft morphing, as well
2
Topical Review
as helping us to begin assessing what new capabilities can be
deemed worthy of further development.
In this review the recent and ongoing research into UAV
morphing will be discussed. A specific focus is made on the
development of various types of structures and mechanisms
that have appeared in the literature. Quantitative information
and technical assessments will also be presented where possi-
ble in order to begin understanding the relationships between
new/enhanced capabilities, performance, and advantages and
disadvantages with regards to morphing.
2. Morphing concepts and systems
This section discusses the various UAV morphing systems that
appear in the literature. The following subsections are roughly
divided according to the classifications given in figure 1.
2.1. Camber
Varying the camber in a wing can have beneficial properties
for the control of an aircraft such as during take-off and
landing when the lift distribution along a wing is required to
dramatically change. By varying the camber between the two
wings of an aircraft enhancement of stability and control can
be achieved. The following is a discussion of the developing
systems that change wing camber in various ways.
2.1.1. MFC actuator. A macro-fiber composite (MFC)
is a flexible film that consists of a layer of unidirectional
piezoceramic fibers sandwiched between layers of copper
electrodes and acrylic/Kapton, as shown in figure 2. A more
detailed description of the structure and its characteristics has
been provided by Wilkie et al [6].
Inman et al have been investigating MFCs for camber
morphing on a micro air vehicle (MAV) [7–9]. The concept
is similar to one by Paradies and Ciresa [10], but instead
of multiple MFC patches across each wingspan, only one is
used toward the wingtip as shown in figure 2. Wind tunnel
tests revealed improved drag characteristics due to having a
continuous wing surface as opposed to discrete articulated
control surfaces, a characteristic shared by many morphing
structures. Asymmetric and symmetric actuation of the MFC
patches provides roll and pitch moments of around 0.06 N m.
A second MFC concept being investigated provides bi-
directional camber morphing for thick [11] and thin [12]
airfoils. For the thick airfoil design, discussed here, a
compliant box structure allows the trailing edge to deflect in
either direction by deforming accordingly. An experimental
model, shown in figure 3, uses eight MFC patches in total. This
system showed sufficient actuator authority for shape control
under aerodynamic loads and generated an L/D of 26.7 during
wind tunnel tests at 15 m s−1 . Further research modifies this
bimorph model with unimorph actuators along the leading edge
for increased flow control [13].
The use of MFCs as presented in these two concepts
shows good promise. They are light weight, even when taking
into consideration support equipment such as high-voltage
power supplies, and are capable of achieving high actuation
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
Figure 2. Layout of an MFC actuation device [7].
Figure 3. Test model showing MFCs [11].
bandwidth and power output. They do, however, require a
sufficient amount of compliance in the structure to be effective,
which can lead to problems with aerodynamic loading and
deformations. However, as seen with the bimorph model, this
stipulation can be compensated for with thoughtful design.
2.1.2. EAP skin and MFC actuators. A dielectric
electroactive polymer (EAP) is a flexible polymer that can
generate very large strains when exposed to high voltages [14].
An EAP skin is used on an airfoil concept that has ribs
composed of MFC actuators that act as an active trailing
edge [15]. The skin is pre-strained so that it applies a
compressive axial load on the MFC ribs, enhancing the MFCs’
deflection performance. A diagram of this is depicted in
figure 4.
The test model contains a carbon fiber center spar that
connects to a detachable composite leading and trailing
edge. Several numerical and experimental tests showed that
a deflection of 30◦ would be possible. This in conjunction
with its light weight and greater actuation bandwidth makes
this concept a good alternative to conventional control surfaces.
Despite these promising results, there is a major hurdle
to overcome with the EAP skin. This skin (which is a major
part of the original concept) could not be used during testing
because it could not be sufficiently pre-loaded, and instead
rubber bands were used. Further research must be made into
attachment mechanisms that allow pre-straining of the skin,
as well as compliant electrodes that can interface with the
flexible EAP surface. Care must also be taken to ensure that
the compressive load acts exactly at the line of symmetry to
ensure equal deflection in both directions, which would seem
difficult to accomplish.
3
Topical Review
2.1.3. PBP piezoelectric actuators. Post-buckled pre-
compressed (PBP) piezoelectric actuators consist of a thin
aluminum substrate with a PZT sheet attached to the top and
bottom surfaces. Because the PZT and substrate have different
coefficients of thermal expansion, curing the bonded system
at high temperatures causes in-plane compressive stress in the
element. By applying a compressive force close to the buckling
load of the PZT, the transverse bending caused by the piezo-
induced moments can be increased [16]. The UAV shown in
figure 5 uses PBP morphing actuators designed by Vos et al
[17, 18].
Testing showed a 38% increase in roll control authority,
greater actuation bandwidth, and increased control derivatives
by a factor of 3.7 over conventional ailerons. It also exhibited
a 99.6% decrease in power consumption, primarily due to the
lower current draw of the PZT elements. This actuation system
was also 87% lighter and consisted of significantly fewer parts
than conventional ailerons for similar UAVs.
2.1.4. LIPCA wing sections. A lightweight piezocomposite
curved actuator (LIPCA) has a design inspired by THUN-
DER [20], but replaces the heavy metal layers with lighter
fiber composites [21]. The basic design, shown in figure 6,
consists of a PZT ceramic sandwiched between a carbon/epoxy
and glass/epoxy layer.
Although THUNDER actuators have been used by Jacob
et al to adaptively control the flow over the top of an
airfoil [22, 23], LIPCAs are used by Lim et al for trailing edge
deflection [24]. The top surface of the test airfoil’s tail section
is comprised of two LIPCA-C2 actuators, as shown in figure 7.
Various questions still need to be answered in this concept
such as the amount of control authority possible and scalability,
which can be addressed with flight testing. However, table
top testing has shown that the deflections are comparable to
other smart actuators such as SMA wires, and were 10–20%
greater above 150 V where the material non-linearity of the
PZT wafers began to impact the deflection response.
2.1.5. SMA wire actuators. Shape memory alloys (SMAs)
have unique thermal and mechanical properties that allow them
to deform when heated and cooled to specific levels [25].
Similarly to Abdullah [26], Strelec et al have used SMA wires
to deflect the trailing edge of an airfoil section [27]. The goal is
to morph the airfoil from the initial NACA0012 cross-section
to one that is more efficient at increased angles of attack. The
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001 Topical Review

Figure 4. Active airfoil concept with EAP skin [15].

145 mm (5.7 in.)

PBP actuators
35
m
m
(1
.3
8

Latex skin
in
.)
10
23

m
0

m
mm

(0
.3
9
(9.

in
.)
1i
n.)

Glass fiber-balsa-
Graphite- aluminum trailing
epoxy D-spar edge

Figure 5. Morphing panel and UAV with integrated panels [19].

Figure 6. KKU-BW1 configuration for an LIPCA-C2 actuator with two separate carbon/epoxy sheets [24].

optimization process. To compensate, two wires were used

at each location which brought the wire count to eight.
Despite these obstacles the final model successfully morphed
between the two predetermined airfoil configurations during
wind tunnel test runs between 8.5 and 12 m s−1 .

2.1.6. SMA actuated cellular vertebral structure. A concept

Figure 7. Airfoil with two LIPCA actuators along its top trailing half
surface [24].
final test model is shown in figure 8, with a section of the
underside removed to show the linkage system.
Due to flex in the linkage system used to connect the
SMA wires to the skin, there was a 300% increase in the
required length of the SMA wires. In addition, the available
wires had half the cross-sectional area of those used in the
that integrates SMAs into a bio-inspired vertebral structure is
being developed by Sofla et al [28, 29]. This design, which is
an alternative to another one developed by the same group [30],
consists of cylindrical elements connected through ball and
socket joints with actuation achieved through heating of SMA
strip pairs on either side of the structure in an antagonistic
manner. An airfoil with these structures is depicted in figure 9.
This system provides a great degree of camber morphing
and, with a greater number of vertebral actuators, the finer and
more complex the morphing can become. However, with a
greater number of these actuators, which have a fair number
of components to begin with, the the complexity of the system
becomes greater. Care must be taken to make sure that an SMA
strip has cooled sufficiently before operating its antagonistic

4
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
Figure 8. Airfoil underside revealing SMA linkages and trailing edge deflection, respectively [27].
Figure 9. Side view of a morphing airfoil showing vertebral
structure [29].
partner, which limits the actuation bandwidth of the system.
Without this precaution plastic deformation and buckling can
occur in the SMA strips. The vertebral actuation system’s
capabilities under aerodynamic loading, stability, and control
authority have yet to be evaluated.
2.1.7. SMA springs. A design being pioneered by Dong et al
involves the use of SMA springs to directly actuate the skin of
an airfoil [31]. Multiple SMA springs designed for 10 N of
force output are placed inside nylon sleeves anchored to a steel
frame such that the sleeves dictate the amount of displacement
each SMA spring undergoes. Various aspects of the model are
shown in figure 10.
Testing showed fairly accurate actuation at the points
along the airfoil where the springs were placed. With this,
precise manipulation of the circulation around particular airfoil
sections can be achieved. However, morphing is very limited
and of a much more local nature than other smart material
oriented concepts. Also, the need for a strong load bearing
structure to anchor and support the SMA spring/nylon sleeves
considerably increases the required weight of the system.
2.1.8. SMA actuators and flexible extrados. Terriault et al
utilize SMA actuators with a flexible surface to accomplish
camber morphing [32, 33]. As depicted in figure 11, an
experimental airfoil has been developed that incorporates a
rigid surface for the leading edge, lower surface, and trailing
5
Topical Review
edge while a flexible upper surface completes the airfoils
profile. Similar to a design by Barbarino et al [34], upper
surface deflections cause airfoil profile change. In this concept
it is the combined interaction between a bias spring, SMA
element, and flexible extrados that determines the morphing.
Terriault provides a thorough discussion on this actuation
system [35].
Wind tunnel testing at Mach 0.25 on an experimental
airfoil has shown the feasibility of this system working under
aerodynamic loading [36]. One possibility being investigated
by Botez et al is to develop a closed-loop controller for
optimized wing morphing [37]. A tradeoff does exist
for this concept: although more practical with respect to
implementation, it is not as robust as other concepts that can
undergo a greater degree of shape change.
2.1.9. Torque tube actuation. Perera et al have developed a
system that uses a torque tube actuation mechanism to enable
morphing [38], similar to that developed for the DARPA Smart
Wing Project [39]. The main features are an eccentric curved
beam and trailing edge chamber that act on different sized discs
to convert rotation into trailing edge deflection. For testing
purposes Perera et al have integrated this system into a wing
model, shown in figure 12. Two torque tube actuators were
constructed and along with their corresponding servomotors
were mounted in between spars. Numerical testing showed the
system to be capable of up to 10◦ of flap deflection.
A computer model of a wing for a small UAV capable of
cruising at 40 m s−1 was tested and when placed under a 4.2 g
load (the ultimate design load factor for said UAV) gave trailing
edge deflections ranging from 9.4 to 164 mm and stresses from
4 to 266 MPa. This suggests that the torque tube actuator has
the potential to be a lightweight control surface. In situ testing
is still needed to understand many of the system’s abilities such
as achievable control authority, actuation bandwidth, and flight
response.
2.1.10. Rotating rib structure. A rotating rib structure has
been developed by Ricci et al [40, 41]. This design replaces
the conventional trailing edge with a modified version of a
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001 Topical Review

Figure 10. Test airfoil showing SMA springs, adjustable nylon sleeves, and most of the assembled airfoil. Reprinted from [31], copyright
2008, with permission from Elsevier.

Figure 11. Conceptual airfoil with extrados/intrados depicted [32].

Figure 12. Seamless aeroelastic wing and inner structure [38].

structure first developed by Monner [42], and is similar in
concept to one being developed by Reich et al [43, 44].
The rotating rib structure allows for adaptability by
enabling the camber to vary along the span of the wing, thus
differentiating itself from conventional hinged systems such
as ailerons. Linear slides, in conjunction with a linear slide
bearing used at the trailing edge tip, allow the skin to glide over
the ribs when morphing. A proof-of-concept model, shown
in figure 13, contains a fixed leading edge, main spar, and a
trailing edge actuated by four servos.
Preliminary tests showed that friction plays a greater
role than initially thought, which can have an impact on
actuation performance. Also, when compared to many of the
smart materials based concepts, the rotating rib mechanism is
considerably heavier, contains more parts and does not provide
as much control authority (considerably smaller camber angles
and smaller actuation bandwidth). Despite this, there are
factors that point toward this system being a direct replacement
for conventional ailerons. These include its scalability,
potential to be retrofitted directly into currently existing
aircraft, and the lack of gaps, which enhances aerodynamic
performance by not permitting pressure leakage at the hinge
line. This last factor is also true for most of the previously
stated concepts.

6
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
Figure 13. Experimental model with rotating ribs showing the
internal structure and complete wing [41].
2.1.11. Multi-functional morphing trailing edge. A morphing
trailing edge being developed by Wildschek et al splits the
trailing edge into seamless top and bottom control surfaces that
are morphed independently [45]. The inner structure consists
of hollow segmented parts separated by bars and hinges that
allow for both compliance and aerodynamic loading. A
more in-depth discussion on the design and optimization of
compliant structures can be found in Kota et al [46, 47] and
Shili et al [48].
A demonstrator test model has been built out of carbon
reinforced plastic that is morphed through the use of an all-
electric actuation system. The model is capable of multiple
actuation modes (pitch, roll, high lift, etc) that would otherwise
require multiple systems to accomplish. These modes, along
with the conceptual design, are depicted in figure 14.
FEM analysis has shown that this morphing trailing edge
provides sufficient control authority for deflections of more
than 35◦ . In addition, its continuously morphing surface
improves control authority, and its carbon composite structure
is lighter than conventional trailing edges.
2.2. Twist
By twisting the wing and inducing ‘wash-in’ and ‘wash-
out’ the lift distribution along the span of the wing can be
manipulated. These two states can be modified and combined
for different effects on the control and stability of an aircraft.
The following sections focus on the developing systems that
exploit these properties to improve aircraft performance.
Figure 14. Inner structure and possible control modes of a multi-functional trailing edge [45].
7
Topical Review
2.2.1. Torque rods for membrane wings. Active twisting of an
MAV’s wings is being investigated by Lind et al [49, 50]. Wing
twist is accomplished in a similar way to a larger scale model
developed by Guiler et al [51], with a torque rod embedded in
each wing. MAVs of the size used in this research typically
have Mylar membrane wings, which is of particular interest
because the wing’s size (24 inch wingspan) and flexibility
make it difficult to install and use control surfaces such as
ailerons, but lend themselves easily to the use of the torque
rod system, as shown in figure 15.
Conventional MAVs of this size are known to be very
difficult to fly. Despite this, flight testing showed impressive
handling using the torque rod system [52]. Its roll control
is a good example of this: wing twisting achieved roll rates
of 1000◦ s−1 , compared to 450◦ s−1 for similar MAVs with
conventional ailerons. On top of this, the wing-twist-induced
rolls experienced almost no flight path divergence, implying an
almost pure, uncoupled roll maneuver. These improvements
are seen even in high disturbance conditions such as a gusty
day. The disturbance rejection abilities of this wing twist
system have been further investigated by Lind et al [53].
Research is being conducted into further developing the
torque rod system. One direction sees the use of multiple
torque rods to affect multiple points on the wing [54].
Numerical simulation and analysis have shown that with an
appropriate configuration multiple torque rods can increase the
roll rate by 34% and L/D by 6% over a single torque rod.
2.2.2. Threaded torque rod mechanism. A concept that uses
a threaded torque rod to induce wing twist is being developed
by Vos et al [55, 56]. The main component of the actuation
system is the threaded rod assembly. The threaded rod runs
along the span of the wing near the trailing edge and contains
five equally spaced sliding stations that guide the wing skin
in twist morphing. The proof-of-concept model also includes
ribs, shown in figure 16, that are allowed to rotate about the
spar and help to retain the airfoil shape through morphing.
Preliminary wind tunnel testing at a velocity of 15 m s−1
showed that this method of inducing twist can reduce the lift-
induced drag and increase the lift coefficient by as much as
0.7 for angles of attack up to 12◦ . This also introduces the
possibility of using the threaded rod mechanism to command
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
Figure 15. MAV with flexible membrane wings and a threaded torque rod system [49].
Figure 16. Main spar assembly and final constructed wing model with a torque rod [55].
roll control. However, this application along with the full
extent of the actuation bandwidth has not yet been explored.
It should be noted that this system is heavier and has
a greater part count than other morphing actuation systems.
Another issue is that the entire wing needs to be designed
with enough compliance to allow twisting, something that may
not be compatible with higher flow rates. Further testing is
required to analyze whether the benefits from the torque rod
system outweigh the penalties.
2.2.3. Adaptive stiffness structures. The use of active internal
structures for aeroelastic control is a research area being
supported and funded by the European 3AS program [57].
Multiple concepts have been developed under this program,
such as using pneumatic cylinders for aeroelastic control by
Cooper et al [58], which is also being independently developed
by Junkins et al [59].
A great amount of interest has gone into one particular
project that manipulates the orientation and chordwise
positions of the wing spars to affect the torsional stiffness,
8
Topical Review
position of the flexural axis, and wing twist [60, 61]. Models
for rotating rib and translating rib concepts, shown in figure 17,
have been separately built and tested [62]. The translating
rib model uses two inner spars actuated by a pneumatic ram
whose position can vary along chordwise tracks. The rotating
rib model also uses two spars, each allowed to rotate about its
respective axis.
Wind tunnel testing showed that both models are effective
enough to control wing twist and flutter response when
facing wind speeds of up to 30 m s−1 . Further research can
show whether the full benefits gained can outweigh the extra
weight and power penalties associated with these systems over
conventional control methods (ailerons, flaps, slats, etc). To
this end there is ongoing and future research being planned by
Cooper et al into the optimization of various aspects of active
rib concepts [63].
2.3. Sweep
Aircraft such as the F-14 Tomcat and B-1 Lancer have helped
in understanding the effects variable sweep has on flight
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
Figure 17. Rotating spar model showing motors and translating spar model showing a pneumatic ram [62]. Reprinted with the permission of
the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Figure 18. Batwing internal structure and MFX-1 test model [64, 67].
performance and control. The following sections describe
morphing variable sweep systems that are being applied to
UAVs.
2.3.1. NextGen batwing. A UAV utilizing a ‘batwing’
structure for wing morphing is being developed by NextGen
Aeronautics [64, 65]. This design diverges from the classic
method of pivoting a rigid wing known as a ‘swing wing’,
a method being applied to UAVs by Marmier et al [66], and
instead uses four-bar mechanisms as shown in figure 18.
A series of flight tests at altitudes of 400–600 feet and
speeds of 100–120 knots were conducted on the MFX-1 first
generation model. It successfully underwent a 40% planform
area morphing, 30% wingspan morphing, and 20◦ sweep angle
morphing in midflight [67]. Further studies have been made
on optimization of the batwing’s cell structure and actuator
placement, as well as developing control laws to efficiently
control the wing’s morphing [68, 69]. The results of this are
used in the more recent MFX-2 model.
2.3.2. Multi-joint sweep. Lind et al are working on extending
the variable sweep concept by including sweep angles at
multiple points on the wing [70]. Two actuation points are
9
Topical Review
used that act as the shoulder and elbow of the wing and result
in four morphing degrees of freedom. Carbon fiber spars run
along the leading edge and along with linear servos form the
actuation system. The test model in varying configurations is
shown in figure 19.
Numerical simulations of a model with an 80 cm wingspan
have been conducted for coordinated turns at 25 m s−1 . A
maximum turn radius of 230.54 m was seen for 13◦ inboard and
−22◦ outboard sweep (negative signifying forward sweep),
and a minimum turn radius of 99.79 m when both inboard
and outboard sweep were set to 30◦ . This demonstrates how
varying both the inboard and outboard sweep angles can affect
performance, in this case the turn radius. Simulations have
also shown that trim can be achieved for side slip angles of up
to 44◦ , which is advantageous for crosswind rejection.
2.4. Folding
Various studies have been conducted into the effects folding
wing morphing has on an aircraft [71–74]. Wing folding
can affect various aspects of flight such as climb rate, stall
characteristics, and lateral stability. The following sections
focus on UAV technology that enables this type of morphing.
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
Figure 19. Multi-joint test model under various sweep configurations [70].
Figure 20. Gull Wing MAV in various configurations [76].
2.4.1. Gull Wing. Lind et al have developed and built a series
of UAV models that incorporate a folding wing concept called
a ‘Gull Wing’ [75–77]. The wings contain a telescoping spar
connected to a hinged spar that enables the folding motion.
One of the later models in this series is shown in figure 20.
Flight testing showed that morphing the wings from 0◦ to
◦ UCAV is shown in figure 21.
30 (inboard dihedral angle) caused the glide ratio to go from
11 to around 1, which allowed the aircraft to descend at a 45◦
angle without gaining airspeed. Actively morphing the wings
from −30◦ to 0◦ during a steep dive resulted in a controlled
leveling off of the flight path. Similar results were seen for
climbs. Positive dihedral also provided an increased resistance
to Euler spins and stalling.
Due to the slow rate of actuation, around 10 s, the
morphing was only used for transitioning between flight
modes. Also, these tests only saw the wings being actuated
synchronically which gave interesting aerodynamic effects but
rendered them inapplicable for flight control.
2.4.2. Lockheed folding wing. Lockheed Martin has been
developing an unmanned combat air vehicle (UCAV) that
10
Topical Review
Figure 21. Time lapse of the Lockheed folding wing model under
different configurations [79].
utilizes wing folding to enhance multirole performance [78].
Developed under the DARPA MAS program initiated by
Ephrahim Garcia and later managed by Terrence Weisshaar,
this aircraft utilizes a seamless skin sleeve, inner support
structure, and vacuum system for the wing joints to maintain
a continuous surface throughout morphing. The leading edge
flaps are actuated to close the gap between the inboard wing
and fuselage while in the folded ‘dash’ configuration. The
Testing has shown that this model can successfully
morph and hold desired configurations under aerodynamic
loads [79, 80]. Under a 1 g aerodynamic load the model
was able to undergo 130◦ of wing folding and successfully
unfold. Further testing is needed to investigate effects during
maneuvers such as turns and rolls.
A few setbacks were experienced during the development
and construction phases. Originally a shape memory polymer
was to be used as the seamless skin material, but due to
time constraints a reinforced silicone elastomeric skin was
incorporated. Although functional for most of the testing, this
skin exhibited some minor drawbacks such as stiction to the
underlying structure.
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
Figure 22. Telescoping wing model and pneumatic spars [84]. Reprinted with the permission of the American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
Figure 23. UAV with articulated single and double winglets [86, 90]. Reproduced by kind permission of The Royal Aeronautical Society’s
Aeronautical Journal.
2.5. Telescoping
The ability to actively telescope wings allows for an aircraft to
change through a range of endurance and lift characteristics,
which can change attributes such as payload capacity and
endurance. This allows for multiple roles to be filled by one
aircraft. Technology that utilizes this morphing concept is
described in section 2.5.1.
2.5.1. Pneumatic telescopic spars. Blondeau et al are de-
veloping a pneumatic piston system for wing telescoping [81].
The design calls for a segmented wing spar consisting of
concentric circular tubes that slide past one another. A similar
concept by Santos et al uses a rack and pinion system for
actuation [82]. However, for the currently described design
shown in figure 22, ribs are attached to the pneumatic spars
and together form the telescoping actuation structure.
Testing showed that the actuation system was stable
enough to work under aerodynamic loading [83]. For wind
tunnel speeds of 30 mph and an angle of attack of 6◦ the
telescoping wing generated an L/D of 9 at 40% wing span and
14.6 at 100% span [84]. Roll moment coefficients of around
1.5 were generated with asymmetric morphing, showing roll
control potential [85]. Experimental data on a wing with the
seams between the telescopic skin sections exposed and then
covered with foil tape showed an L/D improvement of up to
10%, which shows the impact these discontinuities can have on
aerodynamic performance.
11
Topical Review
2.6. Winglets
Winglets can have various positive effects on aerodynamic
characteristics such as drag, lift, range, and handling, and can
also generate lift. The following is a discussion on the ongoing
research into actuated winglet technology.
2.6.1. Articulated winglets. Discrete, independently actuated
winglets are being developed by Friswell et al [86, 87]. The
test UAV, pictured in figure 23, is also equipped with elevons
used solely for pitch control while the winglets control yaw and
roll.
Roll, pitch, and yaw moment coefficients of around 0.028,
0.055, and 0.005 were generated during wind tunnel testing
at 10 m s−1 , keeping in mind that these numbers are non-
dimensionalized (roll, yaw with span and pitch with mean
chord length). These moments are about multiple axes and
are generated simultaneously, forming a highly coupled control
system unlike the decoupled nature of conventional control
surfaces. As a consequence, a trimmed level turn with actuated
winglets is only possible for a specific turn radius, showing that
single winglets do not possess a full control envelope.
Various studies have investigated multiple articulated
winglets [88, 89]. Wind tunnel tests conducted by Friswell
et al have shown that split articulated winglets can generate
control moments about the three principal axes, suggesting a
full flight control envelope [90]. Studies are already underway
on winglet optimization and integration of smart materials into
the actuation system [91].
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
Figure 24. (1) Nastic cells, (2) MFCs for bump flattening, and (3) PZTs for trailing edge actuation [94].
Figure 25. UAV with rotation axes at A, B, and C, and perching configurations, respectively [97, 99]. Reprinted with the permission of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
2.7. Unique morphing concepts
Due to their adaptable and versatile nature, morphing concepts
can utilize any aspect of an aircraft or combination thereof, not
just the wings. In addition, not all concepts can easily (or at all)
fit into the categories thus presented. The following sections
describe atypical morphing concepts.
2.7.1. Inflatable wings. Various morphing technologies
for inflatable wings are being developed by Jacob et al and
ILC Dover [92, 93]. These systems, shown in figure 24,
include nastic cells, actuator-induced bump flattening on the
wing surface, and trailing edge actuation devices [94, 95].
Preliminary bench testing has shown that most of these
systems, at least in their initial iterations, have difficulty
generating the required forces for wing morphing.
One inflatable wing morphing system that has seen flight
testing is wing warping [96]. This system utilizes servos
attached to the tail boom that pull nylon lines connected to the
wing tips, forming a type of pulley system. These tests showed
that the system can generate roll rates of up to 160◦ s−1 despite
being a very crude first iteration with the nylon rods exposed
to the free stream.
2.7.2. Actuated tail boom and empennage. A unique type of
aircraft morphing with radical shape change is under research
by Wickenheiser and Garcia [97]. The design, inspired by
the ARES Mars scout [98], has the tail boom and empennage
independently actuated as shown in figure 25. The wings can
also change their angle of attack, thereby permitting additional
lift through dynamic stall maneuvers. These degrees of
freedom allow for a bio-inspired maneuver known as perching,
which enables very short landing, akin to an avian maneuver.
12
Topical Review
Through numerical simulation a better understanding
of the UAV’s behavior during a perching maneuver was
gained. This, in conjunction with further testing, has led
to the successful simulation and optimization of a perching
landing [99]. Further research is also being conducted on
control schemes for the perching UAV to be implemented in
future tests [100].
3. Related work
Aircraft morphing by nature is multi-disciplinary, and as such
requires multi-disciplinary optimization techniques for further
development and refinement. This in and of itself is an
emerging and quickly developing field. Modeling algorithms
such as IAMMS [101] and others [102–104] in conjunction
with maturing optimization techniques [105–110] will be
integral in the advancement of morphing research.
Ongoing work will also incorporate concurrently de-
veloping materials and technologies such as multi-stable
composites [111–113], smart material based pumps [114],
and active polymers [115]. These technologies are being
incorporated into experimental morphing designs such as for
camber [116–118] and twist [119–121] that are very early in
their development stages. Others go as far as to combine multi-
ple morphing concepts [122–126]. It should be noted that a fair
number of these technologies are also focused on developing
skins that accommodate for aircraft morphing [127], many of
which utilize corrugated or honeycomb surfaces [128, 129].
4. Conclusions
Aircraft morphing is advancing in many innovative and previ-
ously unimagined directions. These morphing technologies are
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
in varying stages of development, with novel concepts being
conceived at a rapid pace and in varying directions.
The realization of many of these ideas is made possible
through the use of UAVs as a development and testing
platform. As the research and developments discussed in
this review show, the exploration of drastic shape change and
new capabilities is facilitated by factors such as energy, cost,
fabrication, and maintenance being more manageable for the
smaller systems at the UAV scale. UAVs also allow for a
much greater level of risk that would normally be deemed
unacceptable with human pilots.
As this emergent field continues to mature, its expansion
and progress require guidance. At the current stage of
development it is often difficult to make comparisons and
assessments, especially when few to no quantitative data exist.
As testing and development continue, a history and depth of
quantitative and qualitative information will begin to build.
This history, as well as continuing the development of models
and theories, will enable us to formulate and build a framework
for performance assessments. It is this framework that will help
us to make judicious choices on how to improve and enable
new missions with morphing.
As this framework develops, so will our understanding
of the tradeoffs between the advantages and disadvantages
associated with different morphing technologies and concepts.
We can begin appreciating these tradeoffs through the
performance currently reported in the literature, as presented
in this review. However, a deeper understanding is integral to
making value judgments between morphing and conventional
control surfaces, as well as between competing morphing
technologies, and this will come as morphing structure
technology integrates into UAV platforms.
References
[1] Jha A and Kudva J 2004 Morphing aircraft concepts,
classifications, and challenges SPIE Smart Structures and
Materials Conference (San Diego)
[2] Wlezien R, Horner G, McGowan A, Padula S, Scott M,
Silcox R and Simpson J 1998 The aircraft morphing
program 39th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference and Exhibit (Long Beach, CA)
[3] Gilbert W 1981 Mission adaptive wing system for tactical
aircraft J. Aircraft 18 597–602
[4] Wickenheiser A and Garcia E 2011 Optimal trajectory control
of morphing aircraft in perching maneuvers Morphing
Aerospace Vehicles and Structures: Aerospace Series
ed J Valasek (Chichester: Wiley) at press
[5] Pendleton E, Bessette D, Field P, Miller G and Griffin K 2000
Active aeroelastic wing flight research program: technical
program and model analytical development J. Aircr.
37 554–61
[6] Wilkie W, Bryant G and High J 2000 Low-cost
piezocomposite actuator for structural control applications
SPIE 7th Annu. Int. Symp. on Smart Structures and
Materials (Newport Beach)
[7] Bilgen O, Kochersberger K, Diggs E, Kurdila A and
Inman D 2007 Morphing wing aerodynamic control via
macro fiber composite actuators in an unmanned aircraft
AIAA Infotech @ Aerospace Conference (Rohnert Park)
[8] Bilgen O, Kochersberger K, Diggs E, Kurdila A and
Inman D 2007 Morphing wing micro-air-vehicles via
13
Topical Review
macro-fiber-composite actuators 48th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Honolulu)
[9] Bilgen O, Kochersberger K and Inman D 2009 Macro-fiber
composite actuators for a swept wing unmanned aircraft
Aeronaut. J. 113 385–95
[10] Paradies R and Ciresa P 2009 Active wing design with
integrated flight control using piezoelectric macro fiber
composites Smart Mater. Struct. 18 035010
[11] Bilgen O, Kochersberger K and Inman D 2010 Novel,
bi-directional, variable camber airfoil via macro-fiber
composite actuators J. Aircr. 47 303–14
[12] Bilgen O, Kochersberger K, Inman D and Ohanian O 2010
Macro-fiber composite actuated simply supported thin
airfoils Smart Mater. Struct. 19 055010
[13] Bilgen O, Marqui C, Kochersberger K and Inman D 2011
Macro-fiber composite actuators for flow control of a
variable camber airfoil J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct.
22 81–91
[14] Bar-Cohen Y 2002 Electro-active polymers: current
capabilities and challenges SPIE Smart Structures and
Materials Symp., EAPAD Conference (San Francisco, CA)
[15] Wickramasinghe V, Chen Y, Martinez M, Kernaghan R and
Wong F 2009 Design and verification of a smart wing for
an extremely-agile micro-air-vehicle 50th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Palm Springs, CA)
[16] Barrett R, Vos R, Tiso P and De Breuker R 2005 Post-buckled
precompressed (PBP) actuators: enhancing VTOL
autonomous high speed MAVs Proc 46th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Austin, TX)
[17] De Breuker R, Tiso P, Vos R and Barrett R 2006 Nonlinear
semi-analytical modeling of postbuckled precompressed
(PBP) piezoelectric actuators for UAV flight control Proc
47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Newport, RI)
[18] Vos R, DeBreuker R, Barrett R and Tiso P 2007 Morphing
wing flight control via postbuckled precompressed
piezoelectric actuators J. Aircr. 44 1060–9
[19] Vos R, Barrett R, De Breuker R and Tiso P 2007 Post-buckled
precompressed elements: a new class of control actuators
for morphing wing UAVs Smart Mater. Struct. 16 919–26
[20] Mossi K and Bishop R 1999 Characterization of different
types of high performance THUNDER actuators SPIE
Smart Structures and Materials Symp. (Newport Beach)
[21] Yoon K, Shin S, Park H and Goo N 2002 Design and
manufacture of a lightweight piezo-composite curved
actuator Smart Mater. Struct. 11 163–8
[22] Santhanakrishnan A, Pern N and Jacob J 2005 Optimization
and validation of a variable camber airfoil 13th
AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference (Austin,
TX)
[23] Munday D and Jacob J 2002 Active control of separation on a
wing with oscillating camber J. Aircr. 39 194–204
[24] Lim S, Lee S, Park H, Yoon K and Goo N 2005 Design and
demonstration of a biomimetic wing section using a
lightweight piezo-composite actuator (LIPCA) Smart
Mater. Struct. 14 496–503
[25] Liang C and Rogers C 1990 One-dimensional
thermomechanical constitutive relations for shape memory
materials J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 1 207–34
[26] Abdullah E, Bil C and Watkins S 2010 Testing of adaptive
airfoil for UAV using shape memory alloy actuators 27th
Int. Congr. of the Aeronautical Sciences (Nice)
[27] Strelec J, Lagoudas D, Khan M and Yen J 2003 Design and
implementation of a shape memory alloy actuated
reconfigurable airfoil J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct.
14 257–73
[28] Sofla A, Elzey D and Wadley H 2004 An antagonistic flexural
unit cell for design of shape morphing structures ASME
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
Aerospace Division: Adaptive Materials and Systems,
Aerospace Materials and Structures Conference (Anaheim,
CA)
[29] Elzey D, Sofla A and Wadley H 2003 A bio-inspired, high
authority actuator for shape morphing structures Proc.
SPIE Smart Structures and Materials: Active Materials
Behavior and Mechanics 5053 92–100
[30] Elzey D, Sofla A and Wadley H 2005 A shape memory–based
multifunctional structural actuator panel Int. J. Solids
Struct. 42 1943–55
[31] Dong Y, Boming Z and Jun L 2008 A changeable aerofoil
actuated by shape memory alloy springs Mater. Sci. Eng. A
485 243–50
[32] Georges T, Brailovski V, Morellon E, Coutu D and
Terriault P 2009 Design of shape memory alloy actuators
for morphing laminar wing with flexible extrados ASME J.
Mech. Des. 131 091006
[33] Coutu D, Brailovski V and Terriault P 2010 Optimized design
of an active extrados structure for an experimental
morphing laminar wing Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 14 451–8
[34] Barbarino S, Ameduri S, Lecce L and Concilio A 2009 Wing
shape control through an SMA-based device J. Intell.
Mater. Syst. Struct. 20 283–96
[35] Georges T, Brailovski V, Coutu D and Terriault P 2007
Design diagram for linear SMA actuators integrated in a
morphing wing structure Int. Conf. on Shape Memory and
Superelastic Technologies (Tsukuba)
[36] Coutu D, Brailovski V, Terriault P and Fischer C 2007
Experimental validation of the 3D numerical model for an
adaptive laminar wing with flexible extrados 18th Int. Conf.
of Adaptive Structures and Technologies (Ottawa)
[37] Popov A, Grigorie T, Botez R, Mebarki Y and
Mamou M 2010 Modeling and testing of a morphing wing
in open-loop architecture J. Aircr. 47 917–23
[38] Perera M, He Y and Guo S 2010 Structural and dynamic
analysis of a seamless aeroelastic wing 51st
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Orlando, FL)
[39] Bartley-Cho J, Wang D, Martin C, Kudva J and West M 2004
Development of high-rate, adaptive trailing edge control
surface for the smart wing phase 2 wind tunnel model
J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 15 279–91
[40] Ricci S and Terraneo M 2005 Conceptual design of an
adaptive wing for a three-surfaces airplane 46th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Austin, TX)
[41] Ricci S, Scotti A and Terraneo M 2006 Design, manufacturing
and preliminary test results of an adaptive wing camber
model 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Newport,
RI)
[42] Monner H, Hanselka H and Breitbach E 1998 Development
and design of flexible fowler flaps for an adaptive wing
SPIE Smart Structures and Materials Conf.: Industrial and
Commercial Applications of Smart Structures Technologies
(San Diego, CA)
[43] Reich G, Wojnar O and Albertani R 2009 Aerodynamic
performance of a notional perching MAV design 47th
Aerospace Sciences Mtg (Orlando, FL)
[44] Lukens J, Reich G and Sanders B 2008 Wing mechanization
design and analysis for a perching micro air vehicle 49th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Schaumburg)
[45] Wildschek A, Grunewald M, Maier R, Steigenberger J,
Judas M, Deligiannidis N and Aversa N 2008
Multi-functional morphing trailing edge device for control
of an all-composite, all-electric flying wing aircraft 26th
Congr. Int. Council of the Aeronautical Sciences (ICAS)
(Anchorage, AK)
[46] Kota S, Hetrick J, Osborn R, Paul D, Pendleton E, Flick P and
Tilmann C 2003 Design and application of compliant
14
Topical Review
mechanisms for morphing aircraft structures Proc. SPIE
5054 24–33
[47] Lu K and Kota S 2003 Design of compliant mechanisms for
morphing structural shapes J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct.
14 379–91
[48] Shili L, Wnjie G and Shujun L 2008 Optimal design of
compliant trailing edge for shape changing Chin. J.
Aeronaut. 21 187–92
[49] Garcia H, Abdulrahim M and Lind R 2003 Roll control for a
micro air vehicle using active wing morphing AIAA
Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference (Austin, TX)
[50] Abdulrahim M, Garcia H and Lind R 2005 Flight
characteristics of shaping the membrane wing of a micro
air vehicle J. Aircr. 42 131–7
[51] Guiler R and Huebsch W 2005 Wind tunnel analysis of a
morphing swept wing tailless aircraft 23rd AIAA Applied
Aerodynamics Conference (Toronto)
[52] Abdulrahim M, Garcia H and Lind R 2004 Flight testing a
micro air vehicle using morphing for aeroservoelastic
control 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Palm Springs, CA)
[53] Boothe K, Fitzpatrick K and Lind R 2005 Controllers for
disturbance rejection for a linear input-varying class of
morphing aircraft 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference
(Austin, TX)
[54] Stanford B, Abdulrahim M, Lind R and Ifju P 2007
Investigation of membrane actuation for roll control of a
micro air vehicle J. Aircr. 44 741–9
[55] Vos R, Gurdal Z and Abdalla M 2010 Mechanism for
warp-controlled twist of a morphing wing J. Aircr.
47 450–7
[56] Vos R, Gurdal Z and Abdalla M 2008 A novel mechanism for
active wing warping 49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
(Schaumburg)
[57] Schweiger J and Suleman A 2003 The european research
project ‘active aeroelastic aircraft structures’
CEAS/AIAA/NvVL Int. Forum for Aeroelasticity and
Structural Dynamics (Amsterdam)
[58] Amprikidis M and Cooper J 2005 Development of an adaptive
stiffness attachment for an all-moving vertical tail 46th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Austin, TX)
[59] Majji M, Rediniotis O and Junkins J 2007 Design of a
morphing wing: modeling and experiments AIAA
Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit
(Hilton Head, SC)
[60] Amprikidis M and Cooper J 2003 Development of smart spars
for active aeroelastic structures 44th AIAA/ASCE/AHS
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
(Norfolk, VA)
[61] Cooper J 2006 Adaptive stiffness structures for air vehicle
drag reduction Proc. Multifunctional Structures/integration
of Sensors and Antennas Mtg (RTO-MP-AVT-141, Paper
15)
[62] Amprikidis M and Cooper J 2004 Experimental validation of
wing twist control using adaptive internal structures 45th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Palm Springs, CA)
[63] Siddaramaiah V and Cooper J 2006 On the use of adaptive
internal structures to optimize wing aerodynamic
distribution 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Newport,
RI)
[64] Anderson G and Cowan D 2007 Aeroelastic modeling,
analysis and testing of a morphing wing structure 48th
AIAA/ASME/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference (Honolulu, HI)
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
[65] Bowman J, Sanders B, Cannon B, Kudva J, Joshi S and
Weisshaar T 2007 Development of next generation
morphing aircraft structures 48th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Honolulu, HI)
[66] de Marmier P and Wereley N 2003 Morphing wings of a small
scale UAV using inflatable actuators for sweep control 44th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference (Norfolk)
[67] Flanagan J, Strutzenberg R, Myers R and Rodrian J 2007
Development and flight testing of a morphing aircraft, the
NextGen MFX-1 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
(Honolulu, HI)
[68] Johnson T, Frecker M, Abdalla M, Gurdal Z and
Lindner D 2008 Nonlinear analysis and optimization of
diamond cell morphing wings J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct.
20 815–24
[69] Gandhi N, Jha A, Monaco J, Seigler T, Ward D and
Inman D 2007 Intelligent control of a morphing aircraft
48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Honolulu, HI)
[70] Grant D, Abdulrahim M and Lind R 2006 Flight dynamics of
a morphing aircraft utilizing independent multiple-joint
wing sweep AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference and Exhibit (Keystone)
[71] Grant D and Lind R 2007 Effects of time-varying inertias on
flight dynamics of an asymmetric variable-sweep morphing
aircraft AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference
and Exhibit (Hilton Head, SC)
[72] Wiggins L, Stubbs M, Johnston C, Robertshaw H,
Reinholtz C and Inman D 2004 A design and analysis of a
morphing hyper-elliptic cambered span (HECS) wing 45th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Palm Springs, CA)
[73] Manzo J and Garcia E 2010 Demonstration of an in situ
morphing hyperelliptical cambered span wing mechanism
Smart Mater. Struct. 19 025012
[74] Abdulrahim M and Lind R 2005 Control and simulation of a
multi-role morphing micro air vehicle AIAA Guidance,
Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit
(San Francisco, CA)
[75] Abdulrahim M and Lind R 2006 Using avian morphology to
enhance aircraft maneuverability AIAA Atmospheric Flight
Mechanics Conference and Exhibit (Keystone)
[76] Abdulrahim M 2005 Flight performance characteristics of a
biologically-inspired morphing aircraft AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Mtg and Exhibit (Reno)
[77] Abdulrahim M and Lind R 2004 Flight testing and response
characteristics of a variable gull-wing morphing aircraft
AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and
Exhibit (Providence, RI)
[78] Bye D and McClure P 2007 Design of a morphing vehicle
48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Honolulu, HI)
[79] Ivanco T, Scott R, Love M, Zink S and Weisshaar T 2007
Validation of the Lockheed Martin morphing concept with
wind tunnel testing 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
(Honolulu, HI)
[80] Love M, Zink P, Stroud R, Bye D, Rizk S and White D 2007
Demonstration of morphing technology through ground
and wind tunnel tests 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
(Honolulu, HI)
[81] Blondeau J, Richeson J and Pines D 2003 Design,
development and testing of a morphing aspect ratio wing
using an inflatable telescopic spar 44th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/
AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials
Conference (Norfolk)
15
Topical Review
[82] Mestrinho J, Felicio J, Santos P and Gamboa P 2010 Design
optimization of a variable-span morphing wing 2nd Int.
Conf. on Engineering Optimization (Lisbon)
[83] Blondeau J and Pines D 2004 Pneumatic morphing aspect
ratio wing 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
(Palm Springs, CA)
[84] Blondeau J and Pines D 2007 Design and testing of a
pneumatic telescopic wing for unmanned aerial vehicles
J. Aircr. 44 1088–99
[85] Henry J, Blondeau J and Pines D 2005 Stability analysis for
UAVs with a variable aspect ratio wing 46th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Austin, TX)
[86] Bourdin P, Gatto A and Friswell M 2006 The application of
variable cant angle winglets for morphing aircraft control
24th Applied Aerodynamics Conference (San Francisco,
CA)
[87] Bourdin P, Gatto A and Friswell M 2008 Aircraft control via
variable cant-angle winglets J. Aircr. 45 414–23
[88] Shelton A, Tomar A, Prasad J, Smith M and Komerath N 2006
Active multiple winglets for improved
unmanned-aerial-vehicle performance J. Aircr. 43 110–6
[89] Smith M, Komerath N, Ames R, Wong O and Pearson J 2001
Performance analysis of a wing with multiple winglets 19th
Applied Aerodynamics Conference (Anaheim)
[90] Bourdin P, Gatto A and Friswell M 2010 Performing
co-ordinated turns with articulated wing-tips as multi-axis
control effectors Aeronaut. J. 114 35–47
[91] Ursache N, Melin T, Isikveren A and Friswell M 2007
Morphing winglets for aircraft multi-phase improvement
7th AIAA Aviation Technology, Integration and Operations
Conference (Belfast)
[92] Kheong L and Jacob J 2008 In flight aspect ratio morphing
using inflatable wings 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference
(Reno)
[93] Simpson A, Coulombe N, Jacob J and Smith S 2005
Morphing of inflatable wings 46th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Austin, TX)
[94] Cadogan D, Smith T, Uhelksy F and MacKusick M 2004
Morphing inflatable wing development for compact
package unmanned aerial vehicles 45th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Palm Springs, CA)
[95] Cadogan D, Smith T, Lee R, Scarborough S and
Graziosi D 2003 Inflatable and rigidizable wing
components for unmanned aerial vehicles 44th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Norfolk)
[96] Jacob J, Simpson A and Smith S 2005 Design and flight
testing of inflatable wings with wing warping SAE World
Aerospace Congress (Dallas, TX)
[97] Wickenheiser A and Garcia E 2006 Longitudinal dynamics of
a perching aircraft J. Aircr. 43 1386–92
[98] Qualls G 2010 ARES: A Proposed Mars Scout Mission http://
marsairplanelarcnasagov/platformhtml accessed 24 August
2010
[99] Wickenheiser A and Garcia E 2008 Optimization of perching
maneuvers through vehicle morphing J. Guid., Control
Dyn. 31 815–23
[100] Hurst A, Wickenheiser A and Garcia E 2009 Control of an
adaptive aircraft with a morphing input 50th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Palm Springs, CA)
[101] Reich G, Bowman J, Sanders B and Frank G 2006
Development of an integrated aeroelastic multibody
morphing simulation tool 47th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Newport, RI)
Smart Mater. Struct. 20 (2011) 103001
[102] Samareh J, Chwalowski P, Horta L, Piatak D and
McGowan 2007 An Integrated
aerodynamic/structural/dynamic analyses of aircraft with
large shape changes 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
(Honolulu, HI)
[103] Skillen M and Crossley W 2008 A matlab-based
object-oriented process architecture for rapid generation of
unconventional wing finite element models 49th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Schaumburg)
[104] Raymondson C, Baker M, Doyle S, Young S and
Tejtel D 2008 Geometry manipulation by automatic
parameterization (GMAP) 12th AIAA/ISSMO
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference
(Victoria)
[105] Namgoong H, Crossley W and Lyrintzis A 2006 Morphing
airfoil design for minimum aerodynamic drag and actuation
energy including aerodynamic work 47th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Newport, RI)
[106] Inoyama D, Sanders B and Joo J 2008 Topology optimization
approach for the determination of the
multiple-configuration morphing wing structure J. Aircr.
45 1853–62
[107] Secanell M, Suleman A and Gamboa P 2006 Design of a
morphing airfoil using aerodynamic shape optimization
AIAA J. 44 1550–62
[108] Rusnell M, Gano S, Perez V, Renaud J and Batill S 2004
Morphing UAV Pareto curve shift for enhanced
performance 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference
(Palm Springs, CA)
[109] Boria F, Stanford B, Bowman W and Ifju P 2009 Evolutionary
optimization of a morphing wing with wind tunnel
hardware-in-the-loop 47th Aerospace Sciences Mtg
Including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition (Orlando, FL)
[110] Joshi S, Tidwell Z, Crossley W and Ramakrishnan S 2004
Comparison of morphing wing strategies based upon
aircraft performance impacts 45th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference (Palm Springs, CA)
[111] Mattioni F, Weaver P, Potter K and Friswell M 2008 The
application of thermally induced multistable composites to
morphing aircraft structures SPIE Smart Structures and
Materials and Nondestructive Evaluation and Health
Monitoring (San Diego, CA)
[112] Mattioni F, Weaver P and Friswell M 2009 Multistable
composite plates with piecewise variation of lay-up in the
planform Int. J. Solids Struct. 46 151–64
[113] Schultz M 2008 A concept for airfoil-like active bistable
twisting structures J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 19 157–69
[114] Sneed R, Smith R, Cash M and Anderson E 2007
Smart-material based hydraulic pump system for actuation
16
Topical Review
of a morphing wing 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference
(Honolulu, HI)
[115] Manzo J and Garcia E 2008 Methodology for design of an
active rigidity joint J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 20 311–27
[116] Gano S and Renaud J 2002 Optimized unmanned aerial
vehicle with wing morphing for extended range and
endurance 9th AIAA/ISSMO Symposium and Exhibit on
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization (Atlanta, GA)
[117] Sanders B, Eastep F and Forster E 2003 Aerodynamic and
aeroelastic characteristics of wings with conformal control
surfaces for morphing aircraft J. Aircr. 40 94–9
[118] Barbarino S, Pecora R, Lecce L, Concilio A, Ameduri S and
Calvi E 2009 A novel SMA-based concept for airfoil
structural morphing J. Mater. Eng. Perform. 18 696–705
[119] Cesnik C and Brown E 2003 Active warping control of a
joined-wing airplane configuration 44th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference (Norfolk)
[120] Cesnik C and Brown E 2002 Modeling of high aspect ratio
active flexible wings for roll control 43rd
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference (Denver, CO)
[121] Ramrakhyani D, Lesieutre G, Frecker M and Bharti S 2005
Aircraft structural morphing using tendon-actuated
compliant cellular trusses J. Aircr. 42 1615–21
[122] Hong C, Cheplak M, Choi J and Mavris D 2004 Flexible
multi-body design of a morphing UCAV 3rd AIAA
Unmanned Unlimited Technical Conference, Workshop and
Exhibit (Chicago, IL)
[123] Subbarao K, Supekar A and Lawrence K 2009 Investigation of
morphable wing structures for unmanned aerial vehicle
performance augmentation AIAA Infotech@Aerospace
Conference (Seattle, WA)
[124] Neal III D, Farmer J and Inman D 2006 Development of a
morphing aircraft model for wing tunnel experimentation
47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Newport, RI)
[125] Traub L, Snyder R and Pellino T 2010 Preliminary
experimental investigation of a morphable biplane: The
X-Wing J. Aircr. 47 1068–73
[126] Leite A, Vale J, Lau F and Suleman A 2009 Development of
morphing strategies for flight demonstrator RPV 50th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Palm Springs, CA)
[127] Thill C, Etches J, Bond I, Potter K and Weaver P 2008
Morphing skins Aeronaut. J. 112 117–39
[128] Olympio K and Gandhi F 2007 Zero-ν cellular honeycomb
flexible skins for one-dimensional wing morphing 48th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Honolulu, HI)
[129] Bubert E, Kothera C and Wereley N 2008 Design and
fabrication of a passive 1-D morphing aircraft skin 49th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference (Schaumburg)