Home Search Collections Journals About Contact us My IOPscience

Skin design studies for variable camber morphing airfoils

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

2008 Smart Mater. Struct. 17 015025

(http://iopscience.iop.org/0964-1726/17/1/015025)

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

Download details:

IP Address: 128.111.121.42
This content was downloaded on 22/07/2015 at 20:20

Please note that terms and conditions apply.

IOP PUBLISHING SMART MATERIALS AND STRUCTURES
Smart Mater. Struct. 17 (2008) 015025 (8pp) doi:10.1088/0964-1726/17/01/015025

Skin design studies for variable camber

morphing airfoils
Farhan Gandhi1,3 and Phuriwat Anusonti-Inthra2
1
Department of Aerospace Engineering, The Pennsylvania State University, 229 Hammond
Building, University Park, PA 16802, USA
2
National Institute of Aerospace, 100 Exploration Way, Hampton, VA 23666, USA

E-mail: fgandhi@psu.edu

Received 30 June 2007, in final form 25 October 2007

Published 4 January 2008
Online at stacks.iop.org/SMS/17/015025

Abstract
This paper identifies the desirable attributes of a flexible skin of a morphing wing. The study is
conducted using airfoil camber morphing as an example. The ideal flex-skin would be highly
anisotropic, having a low in-plane axial stiffness but a high out-of-plane flexural stiffness.
Reduced skin axial stiffness allows morphing at low actuation cost. However, for some
substructure and actuation designs, a lower limit on the skin’s in-plane axial stiffness may be
required to prevent unacceptable global camber deformation under aerodynamic loads. High
flexural stiffness prevents local deformation of skin sections between supports due to
aerodynamic pressure loads, and avoids buckling of skin sections under compression as the
airfoil cambers under actuation force. For the camber morphing application the strain levels in
the flex-skin are not expected to exceed around 2%. If the axial stiffness of the flex-skin is
reduced significantly, it may be necessary to consider aerodynamic stiffness (negligible vis-à-vis
structural stiffness for classical airfoils) to accurately calculate deformation under loading. The
approach followed in the study can be used to identify specifications for the skin and then
reverse engineer and design highly anisotropic composite skins that meet the specifications.
(Some figures in this article are in colour only in the electronic version)

1. Introduction and trailing-edge camber over three spanwise segments on an

Aircraft morphing, especially wing morphing, has the potential
to greatly improve system performance over an aircraft’s
nominal operational envelope, allow a single aircraft to
perform multiple missions efficiently, and even significantly
expand its operating envelope. The morphing concepts that
have been considered have included a wide spectrum of shape
adaptations such as variations in camber, twist, span, sweep,
planform area, etc.
From the 1980s onward there has been significant invest-
ment in a number of major morphing aircraft development and
demonstration programs in the United States. These include
the Mission Adaptive Wing Program [1], the Active Aeroelas-
tic Wing Program [2], the Smart Wing Program [3, 4], and most
recently, the Morphing Aircraft Structures Program [5–7].
The Air Force/NASA/Boeing Mission Adaptive Wing Program
(1979–1988) investigated the use of smoothly varying leading-
3 Author to whom any correspondence should be addressed.
F-111 aircraft. Improvements were demonstrated in cruise
performance, maneuver performance, range increase and load
alleviation. The Air Force/NASA/Boeing Active Aeroelas-
tic Wing Program, starting in 1983, employed leading- and
trailing-edge control surfaces and a torsionally softened wing
to control the wing twist and aerodynamic shape for improved
roll performance. It was demonstrated that high control author-
ity was maintained up to low supersonic conditions. Attractive
features of this concept were the use of aerodynamic forces
to help induce the shape change and the reduced wing weight
(more efficient structural design) associated with a more flex-
ible wing. Under the DARPA/AFRL/NASA Smart Wing Pro-
gram, a team led by Northrop-Grumman Corporation used
smart materials based technologies to produce smoothly vary-
ing leading- and trailing-edge camber in place of standard
hinged control surfaces, for improved performance of military
aircraft. A limitation of the Phase 1 effort (1995–1999) was
the low bandwidth achievable with shape memory alloy-based
actuation. But in Phase 2 (1997–2001) a hingeless, smoothly

0964-1726/08/015025+08$30.00 1 © 2008 IOP Publishing Ltd Printed in the UK

Smart Mater. Struct. 17 (2008) 015025
D-Spar Axis of Symmetry
b Figure 2. Internal substructure of the airfoil section aft of the spar.
Figure 1. (a) NACA 0012 airfoil with rigid leading-edge D-spar and
(b) compliant section extending aft of the D-spar to the trailing edge.
contoured, structurally compliant, trailing edge control surface
actuated using high-bandwidth piezoelectric motors was tested
in the wind tunnel. Spanwise and chordwise shape control was
demonstrated and performance improvements in terms of in-
creased rolling and pitching moments for lower control surface
deflections were quantified. The most recent DARPA/AFRL
Morphing Aircraft Structures Program was also the most am-
bitious, by far. Under this program, NextGen Aeronautics de-
veloped a wing capable of changing the aspect ratio by 200%,
area by 70% and span by 40% using a system that allows con-
tinuous morphing and independent control of sweep and area.
A second Lockheed Martin team developed an aircraft wing
that can fold and be locked in two positions.
In Germany, starting in the mid-1990s, a consortium
headed by the German Aerospace Research Center (DLR)
undertook the Adaptive Wing Project, whose objective
was to achieve a variable wing camber and an adaptive
‘bump’ to alleviate shock, by applying adaptive structural
systems [8–10]. These technologies were meant to improve
the aerodynamic performance of transonic wings of civilian
aircraft over variations in altitude, Mach number and aircraft
weight.
The major demonstration programs listed above as well as
numerous smaller efforts at various universities and research
groups have highlighted and led to a broad understanding of the
critical issues associated with aircraft morphing. For example,
the challenge of designing structures that are sufficiently rigid
to carry the aerodynamic loads, yet compliant enough to limit
the required actuation forces to reasonable values, is clearly
appreciated. Considerable experience has been gained in the
use of distributed and optimally placed actuators, based on
smart materials. Similarly, the community has developed
insight on issues such as integration of actuation mechanisms
into the wing structure, power efficiency, weight efficiency and
control system design.
A significant challenge, that has perhaps received more
limited attention, is the development of flexible skins for
morphing wings. General requirements on the skin properties
are understood to include high strain capability and moderate
to low stiffness to avoid high actuation requirements. However,
skin design has generally been a somewhat ad hoc and
sometimes iterative process. In the Smart Wing Program
a flexible silicone skin was used on the variable camber
wing, supported underneath by a honeycomb flexcore [3, 4].
In the Morphing Aircraft Structures Program the NextGen
2
F Gandhi and P Anusonti-Inthra
Stringers
Ribs Trailing
Edge
Figure 3. Rib sections with stringers connecting them.
Aeronautics concept required the skin to undergo very large
shear strain. Once again the skin was of an elastomeric silicone
material, but it was supported with an underlying metallic
ribbon structure to provide out-of-plane stiffness to withstand
airloads [6].
The present study systematically brings into focus several
design considerations for the flexible skin of a variable
camber morphing airfoil. Through parametric analyses
the requirements on skin in-plane and out-of-plane stiffness
are examined, vis-à-vis actuation force, local and global
deformation under aerodynamic loading, and local buckling
of skin sections under compression. An assessment is also
provided of the strain capability requirements for camber
morphing.
2. Analysis
The present study examines skin requirements for a variable
camber airfoil section. The baseline airfoil is assumed to
have an NACA 0012 profile and a chord of 0.45 m. A very
rigid D-spar, the primary load carrying member, extends from
the leading edge of the airfoil to 30% chord (figure 1(a)), as
is typical in many helicopter main rotor blades. The rigid
D-spar does not undergo any deformation in the chordwise
direction, and consequently, only the section aft of the D-
spar is analyzed, assuming it to be clamped at the rear end
of the spar (figure 1(b)). This section aft of the spar is
assumed to have an internal substructure as shown in figure 2.
The substructure comprises four vertebrae-like units connected
serially at the axis of symmetry. While the specifics of the
substructure would vary from design to design, its purpose is
to support the skin which provides the aerodynamic shape, and
additionally, for a morphing airfoil, transfer actuation loads
to the skin. The substructure in figure 2 could extend along
the span of the wing/rotor blade, or alternatively, form rib
Smart Mater. Struct. 17 (2008) 015025 F Gandhi and P Anusonti-Inthra

20 elements

Figure 4. Forces applied on the airfoil to induce camber.

sections with the skin supported by stringers between the ribs

(see figure 3). The type of substructure shown in figures 2
or 3 would be preferable to a honeycomb or foam flexcore
supporting the skin as it would provide access to the distributed
actuation systems/linkages required for morphing. In fixed-
wing aircraft the interior of the wing is often used for fuel
storage—another reason for the skin not to have a continuous
foam or honeycomb support. It should be noted that due to Figure 5. Finite element discretization of substructure and skin using
its geometry the substructure itself, without the skin, has a frame elements with axial and bending degrees of freedom (each
relatively low chordwise bending stiffness. Consequently, the section discretized into 20 elements).
substructure provides little resistance to the cambering of the
airfoil and the skin itself plays an important role in this regard.
To produce camber of the airfoil section actuation forces
are applied at the ends of the substructure, as shown in figure 4,
so as to generate a chordwise bending moment. While an
actuation mechanism has not been specified, simple push–
pull rods connected to the ends of the substructure, and to
some kind of rotary actuator in the D-spar, could conceivably
perform the function. The use of some other actuation
mechanism that applies actuation loads in a more distributed
fashion (rather than just at the ends of the substructure)
is possible as well. The results and conclusions on skin
design, it should be noted, are based on the cambering of the
airfoil, and would not change significantly if different actuation
mechanisms are used to produce the same camber.
The finite element method is used to analyze the portion Figure 6. Aerodynamic pressure coefficient of the NACA 0012
of the airfoil aft of the D-spar (shown in figures 2 and 4). ( M = 0.6, α = 5◦ ).
The substructure, comprising the serially arranged vertebrae-
like units, and the skin are assumed to be an integral compliant
structure (no hinges or sliding joints). Both the substructure of V∞ corresponding to a sea level Mach number of 0.6 is used,
and the skin are modeled using frame elements, allowing for and the airfoil angle of attack is fixed at 5◦ ( M = 0.6, α = 5◦ ).
axial as well as bending deformations. Each ‘segment’ of From the aerodynamic surface pressure the aerodynamic loads
the substructure and skin is modeled using 20 frame elements acting at the nodes of every skin element can be determined.
(see figure 5). With such a large number of elements per The displacement field, w, induced by these aerodynamic loads
skin section, local deformations between the support points is calculated using equation (2),
due to the aerodynamic surface pressure loading, or due to the
tendency of portions of the skin to buckle under compressive K s w = Faero (w) (2)
loading, can be observed.
where K s is the structural stiffness matrix and Faero (w) is the
Aerodynamic loading of the airfoil section is calculated
numerically using a linear-strength vortex panel method [11]. global load vector due to the aerodynamic loads (obtained
Figure 6 shows the variation of pressure coefficient, Cp , on by assembling the elemental aerodynamic load vectors). In
the NACA 0012 airfoil upper and lower surfaces at a 5◦ angle addition to the angle of attack and Mach number, the
of attack. The resulting aerodynamic pressure, p , on the skin aerodynamic loads depend on the deformation, w. The method
surface can then be calculated from this pressure coefficient used to solve the nonlinear equation (2) is described in full
using equation (1): detail in appendix A. For the purpose of discussion, if the
deformation dependent aerodynamic loads are expressed using
p = 12 ρV∞
2
Cp . (1) a Taylor series expansion in the form

In equation (1), ρ is the air density and V∞ is the free-stream ∂ Faero

Faero (w) = Faero
o
+ w (3)
velocity. For all of the simulation results in this paper a value ∂w

3
Smart Mater. Struct. 17 (2008) 015025
o
with Faero representing, nominally, the loads of the baseline
airfoil, then ∂ Faero /∂w represents an aerodynamic stiffness
contribution. If equation (3) were introduced in equation (2),
∂ Faero
K s w = Faero
o
+ w or
∂w
  (4)
∂ Faero
Ks − w = Faero
o
. Figure 7. Calculation of the equivalent flap angle for the cambering
∂w
It is evident, then, that the total system stiffness comprises
structural and aerodynamic components. For conventional
airfoils the structural stiffness, K s , is dominant, and the
aerodynamic contribution is insignificant. However, it is seen
in section 3 that if the structural stiffness of a morphing airfoil
is reduced sufficiently, the aerodynamic contribution may no
longer be negligible.
The deformation due to the actuation loads can be
calculated without the effects of aerodynamic loads as follows:
K s u = Fact (5)
where Fact is the global load vector due to the actuation loads,
and u is the displacement field due to only the actuation loads.
The solution to equation (5) is obtained by simply inverting the
structural stiffness matrix. In the calculation of the response
to actuation forces the influence of the aerodynamic loads is
accounted for in an approximate manner by considering only
the aerodynamic stiffness term. Thus,
∂ Faero
K s v = Fact + v or
∂v
  (6)
∂ Faero
Ks − v = Fact
∂v
where v is the displacement field due to the actuation
loads with the influence of the aerodynamic stiffness, and
the aerodynamic stiffness, ∂ Faero /∂v , is obtained using an
approach similar to that given in appendices A and B. Since
the aerodynamic stiffness ∂ Faero /∂v is itself a function of the
displacement field, v , the solution to equation (6) must be
obtained using an iterative procedure similar to that presented
in appendix A.
The simulation results provided in the following section
are based on a substructure made of aluminum (Young’s
modulus = 70 GPa) and having a cross-sectional thickness
of 1.5 mm. The ‘nominal’ or ‘reference’ skin is arbitrarily
assumed to be an aluminum skin of 0.5 mm thickness. The
axial and flexural stiffness values of this skin are considered as
a baseline. In this paper, the skin axial and flexural stiffness
are then independently varied from the baseline values, over
large ranges, and are essentially treated as design variables.
For the results presented in the following section, the skin axial
stiffness is varied from 10−3 to 10+3 of the nominal value, and
the flexural stiffness is varied from 10−1 to 10+5 of the nominal
value. While the axial and flexural stiffness of an isotropic
skin do not vary independently, an anisotropic composite skin
could, in principle, be designed to yield a desired combination
of axial and flexural stiffness.
The airfoil camber produced due to actuation or
aerodynamic loading can be quantified in different ways
4
F Gandhi and P Anusonti-Inthra
30% chord Trailing-edge
Undeformed(Baseline) Airfoil flap undergoing same
tip deflection
Trailing-edge
deflection
Morphed (Cambered) Airfoil
Equivalent Flap Angle
airfoil.
including vertical tip deflection or equivalent flap angle. In
the present study the latter is used, and figure 7 shows how it is
calculated. Essentially the vertical tip deflection produced by
the camber is equated to the vertical tip deflection of a 30%
chord trailing-edge flap and the corresponding flap angle is
then used as a measure of the camber.
3. Results and discussion
Figure 8 shows the airfoil camber deformation under
aerodynamic loading ( M = 0.6, α = 5◦ ), as a function of skin
axial and flexural stiffness. Results are presented both with
and without the inclusion of aerodynamic stiffness (figures 8(a)
and (b), respectively). In both figures it is seen that as the
axial stiffness decreases, the camber deformations under the
aerodynamic loading can become very large. Further, for
moderate to high values of skin axial stiffness, aerodynamic
stiffness does not have an important influence, but for low
values of skin axial stiffness, the results differ. For low
skin axial stiffness the camber deformations predicted in the
absence of aerodynamic stiffness are greater (these areas have
been highlighted in figures 8(a) and (b) to emphasize the
differences). So the variation in aerodynamic loading with
deformation (which manifests itself as aerodynamic stiffness)
should be considered in that range. Figures 9(a) and (b) show
the camber deformations of the airfoil under aerodynamic
loading. For nominal values of skin axial and flexural stiffness
the airfoil shows virtually no camber deformation (figure 9(a)),
but when the skin axial stiffness is decreased substantially
(by two orders of magnitude in figure 9(b)) an airfoil camber
deflection of 3.2◦ is observed. The aerodynamic pressure
distributions on the upper and lower surfaces of the airfoil
cause the section to camber upward. Figure 10 shows the
deformations of the airfoil for the nominal value of skin axial
stiffness but for a reduction in skin flexural stiffness by a
factor of 5. For this reduced skin flexural stiffness, it is
observed that sections of the skin between support points
undergo local flexural deformation due to the aerodynamic
surface pressure (compare with figures 9(a) and (b) where no
such local deformations were observed for the nominal value
of skin flexural stiffness). From the results in figures 8–10
it is evident that lower limits must be imposed on both the
axial and the flexural stiffness of the skin—the first to prevent
excessive airfoil global camber deformation, and the second
to prevent local bending or ‘bubbling’ of the skin sections
between support points.
It is to be noted that as long as the skin is intermittently
(and not continuously) supported, the flexural stiffness
Smart Mater. Struct. 17 (2008) 015025 F Gandhi and P Anusonti-Inthra
Skin Flexural stiffness (relative to nominal)

deg
0.066 Deg.

(a) Nominal skin axial stiffness

Skin Axial stiffness (relative to nominal)

(a) Aerodynamic Stiffness considered
(b) Skin axial stiffness reduced by a factor of 100
Skin Flexural stiffness (relative to nominal)

deg Figure 9. Airfoil camber deformation under aerodynamic loading.

Local skin flexural deformations

Figure 10. Local flexural deformations of the skin between the

support points due to aerodynamic pressure loading on the suction
Skin Axial stiffness (relative to nominal) surface. Skin axial stiffness—nominal value, skin flexural
(a) Aerodynamic Stiffness NOT considered stiffness—reduced by a factor of 5.

Figure 8. Airfoil camber deformation under aerodynamic loading

( M = 0.6, α = 5◦ ); the highlighted areas emphasize the significant
differences in deformation with and without the aerodynamic
stiffness term [ ∂ F∂w
aero
], where the skin axial and flexural stiffnesses are
low.

constraint will have to be considered. However, if the
substructure were to be designed differently such that it
provided a greater chordwise bending stiffness, the constraint
on the skin axial stiffness may no longer be as critical.
This may appear to be an unattractive proposition as a stiff
substructure would suggest greater actuation force requirement
to camber the airfoil. However, this does not have to be the
case if the actuators are cleverly integrated into the substructure
design and themselves contribute to the chordwise bending
stiffness under external aerodynamic loads. On activation,
however, they would not provide a high chordwise bending
stiffness and allow easy camber morphing at low actuation
effort. As an example, figure 11 shows the substructure
of a controllable camber airfoil design proposed in [12].
Several compliant mechanism units are arranged sequentially
along the chord aft of the spar. The vertical members are
active members—antagonistically operated piezoelectric stack
actuators. The inclined members are passive links. As the
top stack actuators contract and the bottom ones synchronously
Piezostack
actuator
contracting
Piezostack
actuator
elongating
Figure 11. Substructure and actuation concept of a variable camber
rotor airfoil (representation of concept in [12]).
elongate, the junction point between the two translates upward,
causing the passive links to deform as shown. The top
skins stretch, the bottom skins contract, and the deformation
of each unit additively produces camber deformation of the
airfoil. The particularly interesting feature about this design
is that in the absence of activation, the airfoil has a high

5
Smart Mater. Struct. 17 (2008) 015025
Figure 12. Airfoil camber deformation for a small applied
(actuation) load of 200 N-m/m-span.
chordwise bending stiffness under external aerodynamic loads.
For the aerodynamic pressure loads to camber the airfoil, the
individual units would have to deform as seen in the figure,
a deformation requiring the translation of the junction points
between the actuators. In the absence of an applied voltage
to the piezoelectric stack actuators it is very difficult for the
aerodynamic loads to cause the translation of the junction
points, as this would require the aerodynamic loads to extend
and compress the piezoelectric stacks. In such a design, the
lower limit on the skin axial stiffness (seen in figures 8, due to
global camber deformation under aerodynamic loads), would
not be applicable.
Figure 12 shows the airfoil camber deformations as a
function of skin axial and flexural stiffness, for a small applied
(actuation) load of 200 N-m/m-span. Aerodynamic stiffness
effects are considered in these results. As in figures 8(a)
and (b), larger airfoil camber is obtained under actuation when
the skin axial stiffness is reduced. Also shown on figure 12
are boundaries that separate the feasible regions of the design
space from the infeasible ones. The hatched line on the
figure corresponds to a value of 1◦ camber deformation under
aerodynamic loading (an arbitrarily selected value). To the
left of that line (for lower skin axial stiffness), the camber
under aerodynamic loading would exceed 1◦ . If the acceptable
camber deformations under aerodynamic loading were smaller,
the boundary would move right. The shaded region at the
bottom of the figure corresponds to skin flexural stiffness
values that are so low that local skin ‘bubbling’ would occur
under the aerodynamic pressure. Increasing the skin flexural
stiffness, for example by an order of magnitude from the
reference or nominal value, does not appear to reduce the
camber deformation obtained under the actuation loading. On
the other hand, it can ensure that local skin bubbling would not
occur, even if the support points were farther apart. In fact, if
the boundaries shown on figure 12 are respected, the camber
deformation due to actuation load would be below 2◦ , a very
modest value. It should be noted that although the camber
deformation of the airfoil (due to actuation or aerodynamic
loads) is a chordwise bending deformation, it is sensitive to
6
F Gandhi and P Anusonti-Inthra
-26.915 Deg.
Figure 13. Airfoil camber deformation due to an extremely large
actuation load. The skin on the lower surface is seen to undergo
buckling-type deformation under compressive loads.
the skin axial stiffness—not the skin flexural stiffness. This is
because as the airfoil undergoes chordwise bending (camber)
the upper and lower skins actually stretch or shrink.
To increase the camber deformation under actuation a
larger actuation load can be applied; however, the larger
actuation load may cause the skin to buckle. Figure 13 shows
an airfoil camber deformation of 26.9◦ (downward) when an
extremely large actuation load (1200 N-m/m-span) is applied.
Notably, for such a large loading and camber deformation,
sections of the lower skin that are in compression are observed
to undergo buckling-type deformation. This is even after
the skin flexural stiffness was increased by a factor of 10
relative to the nominal, and buckling would have been more
severe without such an increase. While it is not expected that
the airfoil would be subjected to such extreme actuation, the
purpose of figure 13 is to illustrate (in a somewhat exaggerated
manner) that a skin buckling constraint may well need to be
imposed.
In addition to constraints based on airfoil global camber
deformation under aerodynamic loading and skin local
bubbling under aerodynamic loading, new constraints due to
buckling of the skin sections under compressive loading are
considered. Figures 14(a) and (b) show the airfoil camber
deformations under a moderate actuation loading (400 N-
m/m-span, figure 14(a)) and a high actuation loading (800 N-
m/m-span, figure 14(b)). Clearly, while the aerodynamic
constraints remain unchanged in figures 12, 14(a) and (b), the
boundary corresponding to skin buckling becomes increasingly
prominent as the actuation level increases. Comparing the
figures, it is observed that for a reduced skin axial stiffness the
Smart Mater. Struct. 17 (2008) 015025
Figure 14. Airfoil camber deformation under: (a) a moderate
actuation loading (400 N-m/m-span) and (b) a high actuation loading
(800 N-m/m-span).
maximum airfoil camber deformation achievable is under 2◦
for a low applied actuation (figure 12), but increases to around
3◦ for a moderate applied actuation (figure 14(a)) and to
approximately 6◦ for a higher applied actuation (figure 14(b)).
These quoted deformations are for a skin axial stiffness
reduced by a factor of 50 relative to the baseline, and a skin
flexural stiffness increased by a factor of 600.
Figure 15 shows the strains in the upper and lower skins
for low and moderate actuation levels (200 N-m/m-span and
400 N-m/m-span, respectively). As expected, the skin in
the region aft of the spar and up to 70% chord (where the
actuation load is applied) is highly strained, and the region
between 70% and the trailing edge is hardly strained at all.
Also, the upper skin is in extension and the lower skin has
a compressive strain due to the trailing-edge–down applied
actuation moment. The results in figure 15 correspond to
skins with axial stiffness reduced by a factor of 50 and
flexural stiffness increased by a factor of 600 (relative to the
baseline). For a moderate 400 N-m/m-span actuation load level
producing an airfoil camber of around 3◦ , the peak strains
in the skin are seen to be approximately 0.7%. Similarly,
7
F Gandhi and P Anusonti-Inthra
400 N-m/m span
Upper skin
Lower skin
200 N-m/m span
Stain
level
x/c
Figure 15. Strains in the upper and lower skins for different
actuation loading levels.
for a higher 800 N-m/m-span actuation load producing an
airfoil camber of around 6◦ , the peak strains in the skin are
approximately 1.5% (results not shown, since it is observed
that the peak strain is linearly dependent on the actuation
load). Thus, materials capable of tolerating up to 2% strain
may be quite adequate for flex-skins in camber morphing
applications.
4. Conclusions
From the results presented in this paper it can be concluded
that ideal skins for morphing aircraft will be highly anisotropic.
Camber morphing was used as the example, and it is observed
that a low skin axial stiffness allows the airfoil to camber easily,
requiring lower actuation force. However, if the substructure
is relatively compliant to keep the required actuation forces
low, and the skin axial stiffness itself contributes to the airfoil
chordwise bending stiffness, this imposes a limit on how
much the skin axial stiffness can be reduced. Reducing
the skin axial stiffness below a limit was seen to result in
unacceptable global camber deformation under the external
aerodynamic loads. Thus, the ideal situation may be to
reduce the skin axial stiffness to the point beyond which
the aerodynamic deflections are no longer acceptable, and
no further. This axially softened skin would result in
larger camber deformation under actuation force (relative to
a ‘baseline’ skin). The actual actuation force required then
depends on the magnitude of the camber deformation desired.
A high flexural stiffness of the skin is required for two reasons.
First, it would prevent skin sections between supports from
undergoing local bending deformations due to the aerodynamic
pressure loading. Second, it would prevent sections of the
skin in compressive loading from undergoing buckling. The
results also show that for skins that are very compliant, the
aerodynamic stiffness effects may no longer be negligible and
it may be necessary to consider them in the calculation of the
airfoil deformation.
Smart Mater. Struct. 17 (2008) 015025 F Gandhi and P Anusonti-Inthra

Appendix A deflection of the trailing edge, ζ , as given in equation (B.3).

This section outlines solution procedure for solving a nonlinear w = φζ. (B.3)
equation of the following form:
Then the perturbation matrix can be written as
K s w = Faero (w) or K s w − Faero (w) = 0. (A.1)
∂ Faero ∂ Faero ∂ζ
= . (B.4)
Equation (A.1) is nonlinear and can be solved using an iterative ∂w ∂ζ ∂w
method. First, let us assume that the displacement field,
The vector ∂ Faero /∂w can be obtained using the
w, is
perturbation method, and the row vector ∂ζ /∂w can be
wi+1 = wi + wi (A.2)
calculated from equation (B.3) as follows:
where wi is the initial guess values for the displacement
field and wi is the changes required for wi+1 to satisfy the ∂ζ
= (φ T φ)−1 φ T . (B.5)
nonlinear equation. Substituting equation (A.2) into (A.1) ∂w
yields Thus the perturbation matrix for any displacement field, w,
can be approximated by using perturbation of the trailing edge
K s wi + K s wi − Faero (wi + wi ) = 0 or
 displacement, ζ , and a known mode shape, φ , as follows:
∂ Faero  (A.3)
K s wi + K s wi − Faero (wi ) − wi = 0 ∂ Faero ∂ Faero T −1 T
∂w wi = (φ φ) φ . (B.6)
∂w ∂ζ
where ∂ Faero /∂w is the perturbation of the aerodynamic force
due to a change in displacement field, and calculation of this
matrix is given in appendix B. Equation (A.3) can be used to References
solve for wi as follows: [1] Hall J 1989 Executive summary AFTI/F-111 mission adaptive
  −1 wing Tech. Rep. WRDC-TR-89-2083 Wright Research
∂ Faero  Development Center, Wright–Patterson Air Force Base
wi = K s − {Faero (wi ) − K s wi }. (A.4) [2] Pendleton E W, Bessette D, Field P B, Miller G D and
∂w wi Griffin K E 2000 Active aeroelastic wing flight research
program: technical program and model analytical
Then the displacement field is updated using equation (A.2). development J. Aircr. 37 554–61
[3] Kudva J 2004 Overview of the DARPA smart wing project
For the next iteration the aerodynamic force vector, Faero , and
J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 15 261–7
the perturbation matrix, ∂ Faero /∂w, have to be reevaluated at [4] Bartley-Cho J D, Wang D P, Martin C A, Kudva J N and
the updated displacement field. The whole process repeats West M N 2004 Development of high-rate, adaptive trailing
until wi at the trailing edge is less than a small number close edge control surface for the smart wing phase 2 wind tunnel
model J. Intell. Mater. Syst. Struct. 15 279–91
to zero. [5] Bowman J, Sanders B, Cannon B, Kudva J, Joshi S and
Weisshaar T 2007 Development of next generation aircraft
Appendix B structures Proc. 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conf.
(Honolulu, HI, April 2007)
The perturbation of the aerodynamic force due to a change in [6] Andersen G R, Cowan D L and Piatak D J 2007 Aeroelastic
displacement field, ∂ Faero /∂w, is calculated in this section. modeling, analysis and testing of a morphing wing structure
The displacement field, w, that is used to calculate the Proc. 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics and Materials Conf. (Honolulu, HI,
perturbation matrix is defined as displacement due to actuation April 2007)
force, u , without any aerodynamic loads. [7] Love M H, Zink P S, Stroud R L, Bye D R, Rizk S and
White D 2007 Demonstration of morphing technology
K s u = Fact (B.1) through ground and wind tunnel tests Proc. 48th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
where K s is the structural stiffness matrix and Fact is the Materials Conf. (Honolulu, HI, April 2007)
[8] Bein Th, Hanselka H and Breitbach E 2000 An adaptive spoiler
global load vector due to the actuation loads. Let ζ be the to control the transonic shock Smart Mater. Struct. 9 141–8
vertical deflection of the trailing edge; the mode shape of this [9] Campanile L F and Sachau D 2000 The belt-rib concept: a
displacement field, u , can be represented by structronic approach to variable camber J. Intell. Mater. Syst.
Struct. 11 215–24
u [10] Campanile L F, Keimer R and Breitbach E J 2004 The
φ= . (B.2) ‘fish-mouth’ actuator: design issues and test results J. Intell.
ζ Mater. Syst. Struct. 15 711–9
[11] Katz J and Plotkin A 1991 Low-Speed Aerodynamics: From
This mode shape, φ , will be used to calculate the perturbation Wing Theory to Panel Methods (New York: McGraw-Hill)
matrix by assuming that the airfoil displacement field, w, [12] Gandhi F, Frecker M and Nissly A 2008 Design optimization
can be approximated by the mode shape, φ , and the vertical of a controllable camber rotor airfoil AIAA J. 46 142–53