AIAA JOURNAL

Aerostructural Performance of Distributed Compliance

Morphing Wings: Wind Tunnel and Flight Testing

Giulio Molinari
ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Andres F. Arrieta
Purdue University, West Lafayette, Indiana
Michel Guillaume
Zurich University of Applied Sciences (ZHAW), 8401 Winterthur, Switzerland
and
Paolo Ermanni
ETH Zurich, 8092 Zurich, Switzerland
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073

DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
The aerodynamic and structural performance of a morphing wing concept, based on fully compliant structures and
actuated by closed-loop controlled solid state piezoelectric actuators, is investigated numerically and experimentally.
The morphing wings are designed for a 1.75-m-span unmanned aerial vehicle operating at up to 30 ms, following
lightweight aeronautical construction principles. The goal of providing roll controllability exclusively through
morphing is achieved with a concurrent aerostructural optimization, considering static and dynamic aeroelastic
effects. The aeroelastic response of the wings is experimentally assessed through wind tunnel tests, performed at
different speeds, angles of attack, and actuation levels. The test campaign confirms the ability to achieve lift and
rolling moment variations while maintaining a high aerodynamic efficiency, and the results closely match the
numerical predictions. An 8-min flight test is performed by replacing the unmanned aerial vehicle wings with the
morphing system, demonstrating the capabilities of the concept in its operational environment. This experimental
assessment confirms the performance of the design, its robustness, and the possibility of implementing the morphing
concept and the required high-voltage control system in small unmanned aerial vehicles. Ultimately, the results show
the possibility of replacing the conventional ailerons of similarly sized airplanes with the proposed solution, achieving
significant efficiency improvements while guaranteeing controllability.

I. Introduction
S TATE-OF-THE-ARTwings are designed to be rigid, and the adap-
tivity required to provide additional functionality is commonly
achieved by means of moveable components and surfaces. These
elements are very effective for obtaining the desired aerodynamic
response, normally represented by a variation of the local lift coef-
ficient. However, due to the unavoidable presence of gaps between
panels, the discrete and abrupt changes in curvature caused by the rigid
movements of the surfaces, and the inability of achieving continuous
variations of the airfoil shape along the wingspan, these solutions cause
a significant drag increment. Smooth shape changes of the entire wing,
on the other hand, offer the possibility of achieving variations of the
aerodynamic forces with limited drag penalties. Furthermore, given
the limited increment in shape drag and induced drag produced by
morphing, it is conceivable to exploit the shape adaptation of lifting
surfaces throughout the various phases and over the whole duration of
the flight [1,2]. A noteworthy example of this approach is represented
by the Mission-Adaptive Wing (MAW) developed during the Fighter
Technology Integration for the F-111A fighter (AFTI/F-111A) project,
Presented as Paper 2015-0269 at the 23rd AIAA/AHS Adaptive Structures
Conference, Kissimmee, Fl, 59 January 2015; received 29 January 2016;
revision received 6 May 2016; accepted for publication 2 June 2016;
published online 25 August 2016. Copyright 2016 by Giulio Molinari.
Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
with permission. Copies of this paper may be made for personal and internal
use, on condition that the copier pay the per-copy fee to the Copyright
Clearance Center (CCC). All requests for copying and permission to reprint
should be submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the ISSN 0001-
1452 (print) or 1533-385X (online) to initiate your request.
*Postdoctoral Research Assistant, Institute of Design, Materials and
Fabrication; molinari@mavt.ethz.ch (Corresponding Author).
Assistant Professor, School of Mechanical Engineering and Ray W.
Herrick Laboratories, 585 Purdue Mall. Member AIAA.
Head of the Centre for Aviation.
Professor, Institute of Design, Materials and Fabrication. Member AIAA.
Article in Advance / 1
which relied on smooth variations of the wing camber to alter its
aerodynamic properties: wind tunnel experiments and flight tests
demonstrated the possibility of increasing the aerodynamic efficiency
throughout the various flight conditions encountered in the course of a
mission [3,4]. Additional benefits attainable with this technique
include augmented maneuverability, load control, and gust alleviation
[5]. In more recent years, the Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency (DARPA)/U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Smart
Wing projects [6,7] and the investigation and tests performed by
FlexSys [8] have highlighted once more the aerodynamic potential
offered by morphing, additionally demonstrating the possibility to
perform the required shape changes through the use of compliant
mechanisms, reducing the complexity, the parts count, the wear, and
the mass of the resulting system.
Among the various devices that can be used to introduce
mechanical energy in compliant systems, a very promising class is
represented by actuators based on smart materials. When these solid
state transducers are used as actuators, they convert a source of energy
to the mechanical domain, thereby actively generating stresses and
strains. Their monolithic nature is key to allow integration within the
structure, resulting in a distribution of the active material over large
surfaces or volumes. Owing to this high degree of integration, they
can perform load-carrying tasks, thus improving the structural
efficiency of the resulting design. Furthermore, by being distributed,
they introduce mechanical energy over a large area (or volume) and
hence do not require local reinforcements for load-introduction
purposes. Miniaturization is also easily achieved, because the actua-
tion capabilities are intrinsic to the material.
The main disadvantage of smart materials-based actuators is
related to their limitations in terms of achievable active strain,
blocking stress, or actuation frequency. Their actuation character-
istics vary widely according to the physical principle they are based
upon but, as of now, no solution is capable of excelling in all three
aspects. This limitation is reflected in the characteristics of state-of-the-
art compliant morphing wing designs relying on these transducers to
 2 Article in Advance
achieve active deformations and in the limited number of
demonstrators that reached sufficient maturity to enable wind tunnel
and flight tests. The following paragraphs aim to briefly summarize the
key characteristics and design philosophies of these demonstrators.
Morphing structures relying on shape-memory alloys [913] are
inherently characterized by comparatively long time scales, owing to
the slow response time characteristic of the smart materials-based
actuators. They are thus not well suited to replace primary flight con-
trols; however, they can be used to adapt to different, slowly changing
flight conditions. Morphing systems actuated by electroactive
polymers (EAPs) target radically different applications [14,15]: this
membrane-type actuator is often used to fulfill the dual task of covering
the internal structure of the wing (hence becoming part of the aero-
dynamic surface) and of providing mechanical energy. Such systems
present a difficult design problem, given the large stiffness mismatch
between EAP-based actuators and conventional lightweight load-
carrying materials.
Impedance matching of ceramic piezoelectric actuators and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
lightweight structures is comparatively simpler, due to the higher
stiffness of the ceramics. Morphing techniques aiming to achieve
active twist, for the specific case of rotor blades, is to some extent
simplified by the extreme slenderness of these structures in compari-
son to airplane wings. Past investigations [16,17] have shown the
possibility of achieving appreciable twist angles of these compliant
structures by means of comparatively large amounts of active
materials applied to common rotor-blade structural designs. The
resulting morphing capabilities permit the reduction of cyclic loads
and vibrations, and therefore are of definite interest for the fields
of rotorcrafts and wind turbines [18,19], despite the differences in
operational parameters and design criteria between these two
applications.
Application of piezoelectric actuators to aeronautical structures,
aiming to vary the twist or the shape of airplane wings with the goal of
improving maneuverability or aerodynamic efficiency, is hampered by
the extremely small active strain achievable by these devices. To
achieve sufficient deformations, the majority of projects exploit stroke
amplification techniques, consequently reducing the attainable forces.
As a result, they are applied to small-scale, slow-flying vehicles, whose
deformable structures are characterized by the highest possible com-
pliance. Barrett et al. [20] used a piezoelectric bender actuator to twist
and bend the all-moving control surfaces of a model airplane charac-
terized by low wing loading. Pinkerton and Moses [21] aimed to
change the thickness of the wing profile by displacing, with a piezo-
electric bender actuator, a latex membrane covering the upper surface
of the airfoil. Bender actuators were also used as active compliant
hinges for the control surfaces of the model airplane developed by
Eggleston et al. [22], with the gap between the front load-carrying
section and the rear moveable surface covered by an elastomeric skin.
This approach was brought to an extreme by Vos et al. [23]: their
concept featured a narrow trailing-edge plate connected with the
leading-edge D-nose by cantilever piezoelectric actuators. Once more,
the wing surface was an elastomeric skin, stretched from the rear of the
D-nose to the trailing edge.
Another approach was pursued by Bilgen et al. [24] and by
Paradies and Ciresa [25]: their morphing wing demonstrators were
characterized by an airfoil with virtually zero thickness. The former
study relied on a single composite plate with a reflex mean line,
whereas the latter added a closed section at the front of the wing.
Actuation was provided by Macro-Fiber Composite (MFC) piezo-
electric elements in unimorph configuration. Extreme compliance of
the morphing section was a characteristic of the morphing unmanned
aircraft developed by Bilgen et al. [26]: the passive D-nose of the
wing surfaces and tail empennage was followed by a 25.4-m-thick
metal plate (forming the rear part of the profiles) that is actively
deformed by piezoelectric elements in bimorph configuration. The
demonstrator managed to perform some flights but manifested unac-
ceptable control delays and hysteresis, caused by lack of actuation
controllers, and suboptimal high voltage supply and control circuits.
Another design by Bilgen et al. [27], featuring finite airfoil thickness
over its entire chord, relied on two sets of bimorph actuators,
respectively located on the lower and upper side of the profile, to
/ MOLINARI ET AL.
provide active deformation of the rear section. A flexible wingbox akin
to a four-bar mechanism, located at the front of the compliant section,
permitted shape changes and carried spanwise loads. A similar design
was proposed by Pankonien [28], relying once more on a compliant
four-bar mechanism connecting two 25.4-m-thick metal plates,
forming the upper and lower side of the profile, that are actively
deformed by unimorph piezoelectric actuators. This secondary spar
enabled active deformation of the rearward section of the airfoil and
connected the assembly to the rigid front section of the wing. Being a
modular component, each active rib could be actuated independently
from the others, and the continuity of the wing surface in the spanwise
direction was obtained through an elastomeric skin supported by 3-D
printed honeycomb. A final evolution of the concept from Bilgen and
Friswell [29] featured optimized skin thickness and actuators position;
the compliant wingbox was replaced by a solid monolithic spar glued
to the lower side of the wing, permitting movements of the unsupported
upper surface.
The introduced concepts highlight the compromises that designers
accepted to compensate for the limitations of the smart-material-based
actuators. Most designs aimed at maximizing the amplitude of the
deformation achieved by the compliant elements. Large deflections are
obtained by maximizing the compliance, transforming the compliant
control surfaces and in some cases the entire wing into a thin plate,
and by replacing load-bearing skins with soft membranes. Similarly,
by not imposing a particular shape to be achieved by the active
deformation, the internal structure guiding the active deformation of
the wing is removed, leading to the absence of a structural path for
external loads other than the actuators themselves. A consequence of
this approach is the limited stiffness of the resulting design, leading
to potential static and dynamic instability problems. (Most of the
aforementioned designs have been tested by the respective authors at
speeds in the range of 1016.5 ms, with the exceptions represented
by the comparatively stiff design proposed by Bilgen [29] reaching
22.8 ms and by the design studied by Pankonien [28] experiencing
skin flutter at 12 ms when using the honeycomb-supported elasto-
meric skin.) Furthermore, these design choices jeopardize the aero-
dynamic potential offered by airfoils and nullify the advantageous
lightweight structural characteristics of closed profiles. Moreover,
designing without consideration for the load-carrying capabilities and
for the aerodynamic performance significantly affects the primary
functionalities of the resulting compliant wings, limiting the appli-
cability of these concepts to technology demonstrators.
These reasons motivated the study presented by Molinari et al. [30],
aimed at designing and manufacturing a selectively compliant wing
relying on piezoelectric smart materials as actuators. The design meth-
odology proposed in the aforementioned investigation can identify
the combination of design variables, describing the morphing wing
structure, that maximizes its resulting aerodynamic performance while
satisfying load-carrying and aeroelastic stability criteria. A 3-D static
aeroelastic analysis tool is used to assess the behavior of the wing under
the influence of aerodynamic forces and with the activation of the
actuators. In this way, the optimization considers and solves the crucial
tradeoff between load-carrying capability and compliance [19]. A pair
of morphing wings, designed with the aim of achieving sufficient roll
authority to allow the controllability of a model airplane at flight speeds
up to 30 ms, was manufactured and mechanically tested.
The primary goal of the work presented in this contribution is to
evaluate experimentally, through wind tunnel and flight tests, the
aerodynamic performance of the manufactured morphing wings. Of
primary interest is the assessment of the compliant wings ability to
achieve sufficient roll control authority by means of active morphing.
In Sec. IV, the experimental results, obtained at various conditions in
the wind tunnel, are compared with the performance of the original
wings based on conventional ailerons. In addition, the ability of
the wing to achieve variations in lift is evaluated. In this maneuver,
the compliant surfaces on both wings are deflected symmetrically,
similar to conventional flaps. This investigation assesses the possi-
bility of improving the aerodynamic efficiency at different flight
conditions by actively changing the airfoil shape as opposed to
varying the aircraft pitch attitude. This maneuver was not considered
in the optimization objectives; therefore, the resulting performance
 Article in Advance
Main spar
Rigid skin
Stringers
Wingbox
Compliant section
Fig. 1 Wing-morphing concept, based on distributed compliance ribs and embedded actuators.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
benefits are obtained in an off-design condition and thus highlight the
potential of morphing.
A second goal of this contribution is to validate the numerical
methods used to evaluate, during the optimization phase, the response
of the coupled 3-D aerodynamic and structural systems. A stereoscopic
digital image correlation system is used to measure the displacement
field of the wing surface during wind tunnel experiments. The
validation of the fluid-structure analysis code is performed by com-
paring the numerical predictions, both in terms of active and passive
displacements and in terms of aerodynamic performance, with the
experimental results obtained from the wind tunnel tests.
A final demonstration of the capabilities of the developed
morphing system is obtained by means of flight tests. The original
wings with conventional ailerons of the model airplane were
replaced with the proposed morphing system, and the resulting
performance was measured in the operative environment of the model
airplane. Additionally, this operation shows the possibility of inte-
grating the necessary high voltage supply and control system in the
small-scale unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) used for the experiment
and, crucially, demonstrates the technological maturity achieved by
the entire morphing system.
The paper is organized as follows: Sec. II introduces the morphing
concept, the multidisciplinary optimization methodology, and the
optimized design of the adaptive wing. The wind tunnel test setup is
described in Sec. III, and the experimental aerodynamic results are
presented in Sec. IV. Section V investigates the aeroelastic behavior
of the wing, permitting to assess the accuracy and validity of the
numerical predictions. Finally, Sec. VI discusses the integration of
the morphing wings and of the auxiliary equipment on the airframe
and presents the results obtained through the flight test.
II. Morphing Wing
The compliant morphing concept, depicted in Fig. 1 and briefly
described in this section, was previously introduced and studied
numerically by Molinari et al. [30]. It is based on chordwise deforma-
tions of the wing shape, a very effective technique for altering the
local lift coefficient. In comparison with other typologies of wing
morphing (e.g., wing twist and planform changes) the inertia of
the displaced components is lower, potentially allowing for higher
actuation speeds, given the same mechanical power, and therefore
higher bandwidth. This is an aspect of considerable importance when
using such devices as the primary controls of a plane.
Because the goal of this investigation is to demonstrate the
capabilities of this morphing mechanism, a pair of adaptive wings
based on the proposed concept was designed for a model airplane,
with the aim of replacing its original wings with conventional
The model is a Seagull SEA3160, scale rendition of a Pilatus PC-6, with a
span of 1.61 m and weight of 3.8 kg.
/ MOLINARI ET AL. 3
Compliant ribs
Piezoelectric bi-morph layup
Flexible skin
Corrugated
flexible skin
x y
z
ailerons. The compliant wings were manufactured with a length of
0.8 m (leading to a total wingspan of 1.75 m when mounted on the
plane, due to the presence of the fuselage), and a wing chord of 0.3 m,
which is slightly larger than the original wings (1.61 m span,
0.292 m chord).
The details of the presented concept are summarized in the
following sections.
A. Structural Concept
The morphing wing concept used for the study is a semi-
monocoque construction, with the majority of its components
realized in glass- and carbon-fiber reinforced plastic (CFRP). These
design choices, typical of lightweight aeronautical constructions,
were performed to achieve high structural efficiency for the wing.
In accordance with these principles, the front part of the wings
consists of a D-nose wingbox. This component is not subjected to
active deformations and has the task of carrying spanwise loads
(mainly bending and torsion).
On the other hand, the rear part of the wing is actively deformed
to achieve camber morphing. Shape changes are enabled by ribs
that, unlike conventional rigid designs, are compliant in their plane.
Their truss-like topology is determined by a numerical optimization,
resulting in a structure that guides the active deformations while
simultaneously withstanding external loads. Actuation energy is
provided by piezoelectric MFC elements operating in bimorph
configuration. Two compliant ribs surround each group of six
piezoelectric actuators (two pairs on the upper side and one pair on
the lower side of the airfoil). Overall, each wing features three rib
actuators set, for a total of 18 MFCs (Smart Material M-8557-P1).
Owing to their mechanical properties and their appreciable
thickness, comparable to the respective characteristics of the wing
skin laminate, these elements contribute significantly to the load-
carrying capabilities of the wing. As a result, they behave as truly
multifunctional devices, providing the necessary actuation and
simultaneously fulfilling structural functions.
The final component constituting the wing is the corrugated skin
located on the underside of the profile, close to its trailing edge. This
part allows changes in the length of the airfoil perimeter, enabling
achievement of aerodynamically advantageous shapes. Owing to its
extreme compliance in chordwise extension and bending around the
y axis (with the reference system as defined in Fig. 1), it does not
hinder the intended morphing deformation. The stiffness in spanwise
extension and in bending around the x axis, resulting from the
corrugated geometry, provides load-carrying capability, transfers the
pressure loads to the adjacent ribs, and distributes the active defor-
mation provided by the actuators along the span. From an aerody-
namic point of view, numerical and experimental studies on similar
corrugations applied over the entire airfoil [31,32] showed only
limited increases in parasitic drag. Furthermore, during normal flight
 4 Article in Advance
conditions, the airflow in the region of the corrugation is subjected to
a favorable pressure gradient, limiting the likelihood of boundary-
layer growth and separation and thereby reducing the aerodynamic
impact of this element. Aiming to minimize the possible detrimental
effects, this component was produced with the minimum possible
corrugation radius (2.5 mm, manufacturing limit) and with the
maximum corrugation depth (180 deg) to maximize the ratio between
stiffness in the compliant and rigid directions.
B. Optimized Design
The ideal topology and structure featured by the obtained com-
pliant ribs, defining the aeroelastic response of the wing, was deter-
mined by means of a numerical optimization [30]. The topology of
the truss-like structure of the compliant ribs is parameterized using a
Voronoi graph-based representation [33], chosen for 1) its properties
of returning feasible designs for practically any combination of
design parameters, 2) its stability characteristics, and 3) its suitability
to a large number of optimization techniques owing to its real, scalar
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
input parameters.
With the aim of reducing the complexity of both the optimization
and the manufacturing phase, all the compliant ribs share the same
geometry. Similarly, the undeformed outer shape was fixed to the
geometry of a NACA 0012 airfoil, to allow direct comparisons with
other conventional and morphing solutions.
The goal of the multidisciplinary study is to maximize the
achievable rolling moment coefficient** at the speed of 30 ms and at
the angle of attack that results in a wing lift coefficient (cL ) of 0.5 in
symmetric flight, while simultaneously keeping to a minimum the
increase in drag caused by this maneuver. Additionally, the wing
design must satisfy structural and aeroelastic criteria. Its structure
must be able to withstand, without buckling, the limit loads generated
during a pull-up maneuver at the maximum achievable lift coefficient
of 1.10 and dive speed of 30 ms, and the loads resulting from a roll
maneuver at cL
0.5 performed at the dive speed. Furthermore, its
flutter speed must be greater than 1.2 times the dive speed.
The two objectives maximum controllability in roll and mini-
mum drag increment are combined by linear scalarization, and the
constraints are imposed by means of linear and quadratic penaliza-
tion terms.
The compliance of the morphing structure mandates the use of an
analysis method capable of assessing the aeroelastic behavior of the
wing. This is achieved by means of a bidirectional weakly coupled
technique [30,33]: the commercial software MSC Nastran is used
as the structural solver, and the airflow is resolved by means of
singularity-based three-dimensional (3-D) aerodynamic methods,
namely an inviscid 3-D panel method [34,35] for the first iterations,
followed by a nonlinear extended lifting-line technique to account
for viscous phenomena. Coupling between the two disciplines is
achieved by exchanging boundary conditions: pressure fields
obtained from the aerodynamic solver are imposed to the structural
mesh, and the resulting displacements are used to update the
aerodynamic model. This technique permits simulation of the static
aeroelastic behavior of the wing, therefore enabling the evaluation of
the aerodynamic performances of interest and the assessment of the
structural response. Finally, an analysis method based on stationary
aerodynamics and assumed mode shapes [36] is used to estimate the
flutter speed of the structure. Despite the limitations resulting from
these simplifications, it is deemed relevant to include flutter criteria in
the optimization, because the structural compliance required for
achieving large shape changes might lead to flutter-prone designs.
The result of the optimization, performed using covariance matrix
adaptation evolution strategy (CMA-ES) [37], is the rib design shown
in Fig. 2 and the structure represented in Fig. 3. The resulting design
has a flutter speed of 36 ms (indicating that the flutter constraint
is binding) and amply satisfies the structural (buckling) criteria.
Concerning the rolling maneuver, the predicted rolling moment
**The achievable rolling moment coefficient is defined as croll

Mroll 0.5 V 2 Sb, with as the air density, S as the wing surface, and b as the
wingspan.
/ MOLINARI ET AL.
Fig. 2 Optimized compliant rib. Idealized optimization model (dashed
line) and as manufactured, with interrupted rib corrugations (black
continuous line) and GFRP corrugated skin (gray continuous line).
coefficient, obtained at a speed of 30 ms and at a lift coefficient of
0.5, is croll
29.8 103 . This value is within the range of rolling
moment coefficients achieved by full-size passenger aircraft relying
on conventional ailerons, typically between 0.006 and 0.04 [38]. As a
result, the authority in roll is expected to be sufficient to guarantee the
controllability of the aircraft.
III. Wind Tunnel Evaluation
The wind tunnel test campaign is performed with the aims of
experimentally evaluating the aerodynamic and aeroelastic behavior
of the wing and of assessing the validity of the tools used in the
numerical analysis and optimization.
From an aerodynamic point of view, the characteristics that are
investigated in the tests and compared with the numerical predictions
are as follows:
1) the ability of the morphing structure to produce a rolling
moment sufficiently high to guarantee the controllability of the
airplane in roll (the primary goal of the study);
2) the capability to actively vary the lift at constant angle of attack,
by deflecting the actuators in both wings in the same direction
(similarly to conventional flaps);
3) the possibility of improving the wing efficiency by means of
active shape deformations; and
4) the effect of the corrugation on the total drag of the wing.
From a structural standpoint, the aims of the wind tunnel experi-
ments are to evaluate the amplitude of the active deformation when
subjected to airflow at different speeds, and to assess the absence of
flutter at the design speed.
To evaluate these parameters, experimental tests were performed at
different speeds and following different sequences of actuation and
angle of attack variation. Two basic sequences were followed. The
first test type is a sweep in angle of attack at a rate of 0.5 deg s with
constant actuation level. The second test type is a finite series of
angles of attack (e.g., from 5 to 7.5 deg at steps of 2.5 deg), in which
the actuation level is varied at each step. This choice was performed
with the aim of mitigating the effects of experimental uncertainties,
such as the unavoidable drift in the measurements of the wind tunnel
balance.
It should be noted that the reference line for the angle of attack of
the wing is orthogonal to the (comparatively) rigid wing spar, which
in turn is parallel to the segment connecting the leading edge to the
trailing edge of the undeformed profile. As a result, the angle of attack
is unaffected by compliant deflections of the trailing edge.
A. Wind Tunnel Setup
The large, low-speed wind tunnel of the ETH Zurich was used to
perform the aerodynamic experiments. This wind tunnel is charac-
terized by an irregular octagonal test section, with a width of 3 m, a
height of 2.1 m, and a length of 4 m, depicted schematically in Fig. 4.
The wing is positioned vertically in the wind tunnel, mounted in
the so-called reflection-plane configuration; in this particular case,
the floor of the wind tunnel represents the plane of symmetry. A six-
degrees-of-freedom balance of internal design [39], based on
piezoelectric load cells, captures the forces and moments acting on
the wing, while the wind tunnel speed is assessed by means of a static
pressure sensor ahead of the test chamber convergent. Pressure,
forces, and moments are sampled at 100 Hz by means of an HBM
MGCplus data acquisition system.
The turbulence level (T) in the test chamber [39] ranges between
0.68% rms at 10 ms and 0.62% rms at 30 ms, and the tests were
performed at speeds of 10, 20, and 30 ms. Considering the chord of
 Article in Advance
a) Demonstrator, cutout view
Fig. 3 Compliant adaptable wing.
3000
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
2100
Wing
Rotary table
6 DOF
external balance
Fig. 4 Wind tunnel experimental setup.
the wing c
0.3 m, the resulting Reynolds numbers (Res) are
185,500, 371,000, and 556,500, respectively.
The wing was tested at various angles of attack, and, in order to
absolutely guarantee safe operations of the wing (and therefore of the
wind tunnel), the maximum and minimum incidence was reduced at
higher speeds to limit the loads on the wing. At 10 ms, the extreme
angles of attack were 15  15 deg, at 20 ms the bounds were
lowered to 10  15 deg, and at 30 ms the limits were further
reduced to 5  7.5 deg.
To measure the displacement field of the wing surface, a stereo-
scopic digital image correlation (DIC) system was used. Two 9
megapixel charge-coupled device (CCD) cameras (Allied Vision
Prosilica GT3400) captured pictures of the wing upper surface, where
a speckle pattern was applied. Correlation between the left and the
right images, performed using Correlated Solutions VIC3-D soft-
ware, determines the position and displacement of the wing surface,
measured on a grid of 290 99 points (respectively in spanwise and
chordwise directions). The maximum standard deviation (1) in both
the in-plane and out-of-plane directions is estimated by the software
to be in the order of 1 105 m.
B. Tunnel Corrections
Wall correction methods were applied to account for the different
flow conditions found in an enclosed section test, in contrast to the
ideal case of an unbounded airstream.
Following the approach presented by Barlow et al. [40], the wall
corrections for solid and wake blockage effects were performed
(described in greater detail in Appendix A.1). Owing to the small
blockage caused by the wing, characterized by a cross-sectional area
of less than 0.5% of the wind tunnel test section, the effects of the
solid and wake blockage corrections are extremely limited: the
increment in velocity reaches a peak value of 0.31%.
The measured angle of attack (M ) and the measured drag (cDM ) of
the wing are affected by the interaction of the downwash with the
/ MOLINARI ET AL. 5
b) Assembled demonstrator
wind tunnel walls. This phenomenon can be accounted for, and the
corrections (described in Appendix A.2) contribute to an increase in
angle of attack
M up to 0.59 deg and to an increase in drag
cD
cD cDM up to 11.8 103 .
C. Equalization of Experimental and Numerical Test Conditions
The experimental results of the wind tunnel were compared with
numerical assessments, performed using the aeroelastic analysis
technique presented by the authors in Molinari et al. [30] and
summarized in Sec. II.B. The aims are to evaluate the capabilities of
morphing and to experimentally validate the aeroelastic analysis
technique used in the design and optimization. To account for the
turbulence level in the wind tunnel, the transition parameter n of the
en transition method was adjusted according to Mack [41], using the
formula
n
8.43 2.4 lnT (1)
with T representing the turbulence levels in the wind tunnel (obtained
from literature, as mentioned in Sec. III.A). The presence of the
corrugation was simulated by imposing a forced transition at its
location on the lower side of the airfoil, due to the inability of the
chosen aerodynamic solver XFOIL [42] to resolve the flow within the
semicircular cavities. The rest of the wing surface was covered with a
self-adhesive paper sheet, imprinted with the speckle pattern for the
DIC. Consequently, the surface roughness of the wing was uniform
and of limited magnitude, and therefore its effects on the flow were
not further considered.
A second correction, performed on the numerical model to account
for the conditions experienced in the wind tunnel, is related to the
symmetry of the experiment. In the wind tunnel, the wall at the root of
the wing simulates a symmetry condition; rolling maneuvers, in
which the ailerons are deflected anti-symmetrically, are therefore
impossible to reproduce faithfully. To account for this phenomenon,
which leads to higher discrepancies for wings of low aspect ratio, the
numerical model was modified to simulate the case of both ailerons
being symmetrically deflected. Consequently, the rolling moment
coefficient measured in the wind tunnel for the currently investigated
wings is overestimated on average by 17%. In both the wind tunnel
experiment and the numerical simulations, the achievable rolling
moment is computed from the wing-root bending moments. For
every angle of attack, the rolling moment is calculated by subtracting
the wing-root bending moment obtained with a downward deflection
of the actuators from the root bending moment obtained with an
upward deflection, Mroll
Maildown
bend Mailup
bend .
From an electro-mechanical perspective, the piezoelectric actua-
tors were operated at a reduced voltage range (500 V to 1050 V
instead of the nominal 500 V to 1500 V) for reliability reasons.
Furthermore, during one of the tests, a piezoelectric element failed
with an electrical breakdown (in detail, the element on the
The discrepancy was estimated numerical simulations, performed with
the aeroelastic analysis method introduced in Sec. II.B.
 6 Article in Advance / MOLINARI ET AL.

intermediate station, closest to the trailing edge and located on the
upper side of the wing). Due to the inability of repairing this element,
it was disconnected from the high voltage circuit and its electrical
terminals were shorted. To account for this structural modification,
the finite element model used for the calculations was modified
accordingly and used for the experiments in which only 17 piezo-
electric patches were operative. In the following graphs, an asterisk in
the legend denotes a test performed with the failed piezoelectric
element.
IV. Aerodynamic Results
A. Lift Variation by Means of Active Morphing
Measurement of the lift produced by the wing with the actuators at
different activation levels allowed for assessing the morphing
capabilities in terms of active variation of lift coefficient. Similar to a
conventional flap, morphing the compliant section results in an
increase or decrease of the generated lift, without requiring a change
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
way to the active lift coefficient variations, the authority of the
proposed solution decreases at higher speeds and is lower than the
numerical predictions, in particular for the slow-speed case. At higher
speeds, the discrepancy between numerical predictions and experi-
mental results is smaller, albeit more pronounced than the dis-
crepancy in lift coefficient variation. In this respect, the errors can
arise from the three-dimensionality of the airflow, which leads to a lift
distribution different from the one predicted by the numerical
method. It is important to note that the nonlinear extended lifting-line
theory is not ideally suited for wings of such small aspect ratio but is
nevertheless able to produce sufficiently accurate results.
Of primary interest is also the comparison with the wings originally
supplied with the model airplane (labeled as conv. ailerons in Fig. 6).
These wings are characterized by a comparatively large conventional
aileron, spanning 54% of the wingspan and 21.5% of the chord
(0.395 m 0.063 m). Actuation is provided by a conventional servo
actuator, whose control throw was set for the highest rate (upward and
downward deflection of the control trailing edge of 12 mm, as per

in the angle of attack of the wing and therefore of the entire airplane.
Figure 5a represents the lift curves for the wing at different speeds,
with the actuators inactive, and fully activated upward and down-
ward. The resulting active variation of the lift coefficient cL

cactdown cactup at different angles of attack is shown in Fig. 5b.
L L
Comparing the lift coefficient variation at different speeds, the
effect of the aeroelastic interaction becomes evident: due to the
increase in aerodynamic loads at higher speeds, the authority is
reduced. The numerical predictions become closer to the experi-
mental results when operating at higher speeds and therefore at higher
Reynolds numbers. A possible source of discrepancies might be
found in the simplifications inherent in the chosen fluid dynamic
analysis method: the nonlinear extended lifting line is not able to
accurately resolve three-dimensional viscous phenomena, because
by design the viscous calculations are two-dimensional and per-
formed in the airfoil plane. At low Reynolds numbers, the boundary
manufacturer specifications). With these settings, the ailerons are able
to produce a sustained roll rate of 190 degs at 26 ms during flight,
an extremely high level of maneuverability. (In comparison, the roll
rate of an F4U World War II fighter plane is 84 degs at 103 ms [43];
modern jet fighters achieve roll rates of 250 degs.) In spite of the
lower level of rolling moment produced by the morphing wings, more
than sufficient maneuverability is achieved (the ratio between peak
rolling moments for compliant and conventional wings at 10 ms is
0.661). It must be noted that, with the complete utilization of the rated
actuation capability (500 to 1500 V) instead of the reduced voltage
0.045
0.04
Roll
Rolling moment coefficient c

layer growth and therefore its effects become more pronounced, 0.035
resulting in the development of complex 3-D viscous effects.
0.03
In addition, Fig. 5b shows how, with increasing angles of attack,
the achievable cL is reduced. The reason for this behavior is once 0.025
more related to viscous aerodynamic phenomena: high angles of
0.02
attack lead to a large unfavorable pressure gradient toward the rear 10 m/s, exp.
of the profile. This situation is exacerbated by the introduction of 0.015 10 m/s, num. sym.
additional curvature by means of morphing. The result is a thickening 20 m/s, exp.*
20 m/s, num. sym.*
of the boundary layer on the suction side that alters the effective 0.01 30 m/s, exp.*
aerodynamic shape of the profile, thus reducing the efficacy of the 30 m/s, num. sym.*
0.005 conv. ailerons, 10 m/s
additional curvature. conv. ailerons, 20 m/s
0
15 10 5 0 5 10 15
B. Rolling Moment Variations by Means of Active Morphing Angle of attack , deg
The effects of varying the wing actuation level on the generated Fig. 6 Effects of active morphing on the rolling moment coefficient:
rolling moment coefficient can be assessed from Fig. 6. In a similar Active variation in rolling moment coefficient versus angle of attack.

0.35
10 m/s, no act.
1 10 m/s, exp., act. up
10 m/s, exp., act. dn 0.3
0.8 20 m/s, no act.
L

20 m/s, exp.*, act. up

Change in lift coefficient c

0.6 20 m/s, exp.*, act. dn 0.25

30 m/s, no act.
Lift coefficient cL

0.4 30 m/s, exp.*, act. up

30 m/s, exp.*, act. dn 0.2
0.2
0 0.15
0.2 10 m/s, exp.
0.4 0.1 10 m/s, num.
20 m/s, exp.*
0.6 20 m/s, num.*
0.05
0.8 30 m/s, exp.*
30 m/s, num.*
1 0
15 10 5 0 5 10 15 15 10 5 0 5 10 15
Angle of attack , deg Angle of attack , deg
a) Lift coefficient versus angle of attack at different actuation b) Active variation in lift coefficient versus angle of attack
levels
Fig. 5 Effects of active morphing on the lift coefficient.
 Article in Advance
1 1
0.8
0.6
0.4
Lift coefficient cL
0.2
0 0
0.2
0.4
0.6 10 m/s, covered
10 m/s, not covered
0.8
20 m/s, covered
1 20 m/s, not covered
15 10 5 0 5 10 15
Angle of attack , deg
a) Lift versus angle of attack
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
Fig. 7 Effects of the corrugation on the aerodynamic performance.
used during the test for reliability (500 to 1050 V), the performance of
the morphing wing would be increased by approximately 29%,
yielding performance levels much closer to the ones of the original
wings.
C. Effects of the Corrugation
The wind tunnel tests permitted the assessment of the aerodynamic
impact of the corrugation on the lift and drag performance of the
wing. The aerodynamic behavior of this element is simulated only in
a simplified way in the nonlinear extended lifting line-based fluid
dynamics analysis, namely the boundary layer on the lower side of
the wing is forced to transition to turbulent at the position of the
corrugation, and the corrugation is modeled as a flat element. This
approach is dictated by the inability of XFOIL (and thus of the
nonlinear extended lifting line) to solve the airflow around an element
as complex as the profile with the corrugation. As a consequence, the
impact of this element on the aerodynamic performance could not be
fully assessed through the numerical studies.
As shown in Fig. 7a, the presence of the corrugation has a marginal
impact on the lift coefficient at zero angle of attack: a decrease in cL
of approximately 0.045 can be measured when the corrugation is
temporarily covered with a flat metal foil. The stall behavior appears
identical for the case with the corrugation covered and uncovered.
Figure 7b allows to assess the magnitude of the additional drag
caused by the corrugation. Compared to the profile with the corru-
gation covered, the wing with the corrugation visible to the airflow
has a higher zero-lift drag (cD0 ), increasing it by 11.2% at 10 ms
and by 11.4% at 20 ms. At higher lift coefficients, the impact of
the corrugation becomes less evident. In contrast, at negative lift
coefficients, its effects remain visible: being located in a zone with
adverse pressure gradients, it has the potential of significantly
affecting the boundary layer growth.
To prevent these phenomena, the corrugation could be covered. A
possible candidate is an elastomeric sheet, pre-stretched in the
chordwise direction and bonded to the crests of the corrugation to
enable it to follow the airfoil shape when subjected to concave
curvatures. A second alternative is the utilization of extremely
anisotropic corrugations, covered by reversible electrically bonded
sheets [44,45].
D. Effects of Morphing on the Wing Efficiency
One important aerodynamic assessment that can be performed on
the morphing wing is the ability to vary the lift while maintaining
high levels of aerodynamic efficiency (ratio between lift and drag).
Figure 8a represents the lift coefficient versus the drag coefficient
(drag polar) for the morphing wing at a speed of 10 ms and at
It must be noted that all the graphs for the wing with the corrugation
consider the zero angle of attack as the one producing zero lift.
/ MOLINARI ET AL. 7
0.8
0.6
0.4
Lift coefficient cL
0.2 10 m/s, covered
= 185'500
10 m/s, not covered
20 m/s, covered
= 371'000
0.2 20 m/s, not covered
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14
Drag coefficient cD
b) Drag polar
different actuation levels. The curve was obtained by varying the
angle of attack at discrete steps (from 15 to 15 deg with steps of
2.5 deg), with subsequent variations of the actuation level at every
angle of attack. In this occasion, the wing was operated with all the
piezoelectric elements but limiting the actuation voltage between
500 and 750 V for reliability reasons.
The effect of morphing is mostly a movement of the operating
point along the drag polar of the unactuated profile. Figure 8b shows
that some actuated configurations, characterized by jcL j > 0.4, have
a higher efficiency than the undeformed wing (points highlighted
with a different background). For every angle of attack, the optimal
actuation level therefore could be identified and used during the
flight, allowing for an increase in efficiency with respect to the
undeformed profile. The benefits become more relevant in regions
characterized by relatively high lift coefficients, because the sym-
metric profile performs at its best, by design, at cL
0.
V. Aeroelastic Results
During the wind tunnel experiments, the displacement field of the
entire wing surface was recorded using a DIC system. Of primary
interest is the out-of-plane displacement caused by both active and
passive aeroelastic deformations. Figure 9 compares graphically the
peak-to-peak active deformation of the numerical and the experimental
models, obtained by activating the piezoelectric elements with negative
and positive voltages of 500 V and 1050 V, without the presence of
the airflow.
For clarity and ease of interpretation, the vertical displacement was
evaluated along a line, in the spanwise direction, at 11.25 mm from
the trailing edge. Figure 10a shows the active displacement achieved
at different airspeeds, with the airfoil at an angle of attack of 0 deg. In
this curve, the effects of manufacturing imperfections can be seen in
the asymmetry of the displacement obtained at a speed of 0 ms with
respect to the wing half span (0.4 m). The probable cause is a thick
bond line between the fourth compliant rib (counting from the root)
and the skin, locally increasing the stiffness and resulting in lower
active displacements. The aeroelastic effects are also clearly visible,
with higher speeds leading to a decrease in the active displacement
obtainable with morphing.
Variations of the angle of attack have an impact on the achievable
active deflection, shown in Fig. 10b: the numerical calculations, and
the experimental results for negative angles of attack, show a marked
increase in the achievable displacement. The reason for this behavior is
explained in Sec. IV.A: the boundary layer on the corrugation, especially
when subjected to unfavorable pressure gradients (i.e., at negative angles
of attack) becomes thicker, effectively reducing the curvature perceived
by the potential flow. This, in turn, reduces the local pressure difference
across the upper and lower side of the profile, allowing for larger dis-
placements. An interesting phenomenon warrants further investigations:
the predicted displacement is lower than the achieved displacement at
 8 Article in Advance / MOLINARI ET AL.

15

no act.

Aerodynamic efficiency
act. up 100% 10
0.5 act. up 80%
L

act. up 60%
Lift coefficient c

act. up 40% act. up 100%

act. up 20% act. up 80%
0 no act. act. up 60%
act. dn 20% act. up 40%
act. dn 40% 5 act. up 20%
act. dn 60% no act.
act. dn 20%
0.5 act. dn 80% act. dn 40%
act. dn 100% act. dn 60%
act. dn 80%
act. dn 100%
1 0
0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 1 0.5 0 0.5 1
Drag coefficient c Lift coefficient c
D L
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073

a) Drag polar with active morphing, 10 m/s b) Efficiency (lift to drag ratio) as a function of the lift coefficients
with active morphing, 10 m/s
Fig. 8 Effects of active morphing on the wing efficiency.

Fig. 9 Peak-to-peak vertical active displacements comparison, without airflow. Wing viewed from above.

x 103 x 103
7.5
8 7
Average vertical displacement, m

6.5
Vertical displacement w, m

6 6

5.5
5
5
4
4.5
3
4
2 0 m/s, num. 0 m/s, exp. 0 m/s, num. 0 m/s, exp.
3.5
10 m/s, num. 10 m/s, exp. 10 m/s, num. 10 m/s, exp.
1 20 m/s, num. 20 m/s, exp. 3 20 m/s, num. 20 m/s, exp.
30 m/s, num.* 30 m/s, exp.* 30 m/s, num.* 30 m/s, exp.*
0 2.5
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 15 10 5 0 5 10 15
Spanwise position y, m Angle of attack , deg
a) Active deflection at = 0 deg as a function of the span, b) Average active deflection as a function of angle of attack,
at different airspeeds at different airspeeds
Fig. 10 Active displacement of the rearmost section of the wing (at 11.25 mm from the trailing edge).

higher flight speeds, but the resulting estimated variation in lift
coefficient (Fig. 5b) is higher than the measured one.
Finally, the passive aeroelastic effects can be assessed by eval-
uating the average displacement of the trailing edge at different
speeds and angles of attack (Fig. 11). The capability of the aeroelastic
analysis method of properly considering the fluid-structure interac-
tions is highlighted by the close match between predicted and
experimentally measured deflections.
VI.
By operating the demonstrator in a realistic environment, its actual
capabilities and functionality can be evaluated. This assessment
requires the installation of the high voltage power and control
electronics onboard the UAV; completely untethering the experiment
is clearly a necessary requirement. The robustness, reliability, and
dependability of both mechanical and electronic designs become
critical aspects, because real-world conditions are harsher than the
laboratory installation.
Quantitative information on the airplane behavior was gathered
during the flight by acquiring and storing data related to the airplane
attitude and control inputs. Despite the impossibility of performing
direct performance comparisons with the original wings due to
Flight Test different wing surfaces, moments of inertia, and the presence of fail-
safe equipment, the acquired data showcases the capabilities and the
potential of the proposed morphing technique.
 Article in Advance / MOLINARI ET AL. 9

3
x 10 B. Equipment Integration
1.5
10 m/s, num. To provide the required electrical energy to the piezoelectric actuators
20 m/s, num. and to control their operations, a high voltage morphing control system
Average vertical displacement, m

1 30 m/s, num. was developed and integrated in the plane. This device can account and
10 m/s, exp. compensate for the nonlinear hysteretic behavior of the piezoelectric
20 m/s, exp.
0.5 actuators through a closed-loop feedback controller based on measure-
30 m/s, exp.
ments of the active strain [30], and it achieves a bandwidth of ap-
proximately 5 Hz with an amplitude reduction of 1.2 dB. These
0 capabilities were not achievable with off-the-shelf solutions, which are
characterized by limited power outputs, in turn leading to the impos-
0.5 sibility of actuating a large number of piezoelectric elements at a
sufficiently fast rate. The details of the proposed implementation and the
assessment of its performance are outside the scope of this paper and
1
will be presented in a subsequent technical publication.
To measure the airspeed, a pitot tube is installed on the plane
1.5 (shown in Fig. 12). This component is mounted, together with the
15 10 5 0 5 10 15
pressure sensor, on the right wingtip. Finally, an aerodynamic fairing
Angle of attack , deg
based on a stretched solid of revolution covers these components and
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073

Fig. 11 Passive average displacement of the rearmost section of the wing
(at 11.25 mm from the trailing edge) as a function of angle of attack, at
different airspeeds.
A. Fail-Safe Devices
To prevent catastrophic consequences in the event of electronic,
electrical, or mechanical failure of the morphing system, a fail-safe
mechanism was developed. Two auxiliary ailerons of conventional
design and actuation can provide additional controllability in roll.
These elements, fitted to the plane for its maiden flight, were used
primarily for the takeoff and landing phases, which are potentially
critical due to the limited available altitude and slow speed.
The removable auxiliary ailerons, described in greater detail in
Appendix B and the figure therein, are mounted at the tip of the compliant
wings to generate maximum rolling moments. With the same purpose, the
moveable surface is very large in comparison to conventional ailerons,
occupying 50% of the chord. The addition of a width of 250 mm on each
side of the wing brings the planes overall span to 2.25 m.
Pitot tube
Pressure sensor
Fig. 12 Auxiliary ailerons (wingtip): pitot tube assembly.
completes the wingtip.
An inertial measurement unit (IMU), fitted on the UAV, recon-
structs the attitude, speed, and position of the plane. By storing these
parameters, together with information related to the control inputs,
the entire mission can be precisely recorded. These operations are
performed by the miniaturized autopilot system 3DR Pixhawk,
featuring three-axis accelerometers and gyroscopes, a magnetometer,
a barometric pressure sensor, and a GPS unit. Additionally, the air-
speed is measured by the pitot tube, calibrated during the wind tunnel
experiments described in Sec. III. Data fusion and attitude recon-
struction is performed by an extended Kalman filter, programmed in
the off-the-shelf autopilot. Real-time transmission of the telemetry
data, a feature initially planned mainly to monitor the airspeed during
the flight, was not possible, because the wireless transmitter caused
significant interference to the strain gauge amplification and sensing
circuit. This equipment was mounted in the payload bay of the plane,
as shown in Fig. 13a.
C. Flight Test
The assembly and integration phase led to the final configuration
of the airplane, shown in Fig. 13b, completed with fail-safe ailerons,
high voltage morphing control system, and onboard data acquisition
equipment. Because of the large number of added components,
the total mass grew from 3.8 to 7.3 kg. Despite this significant mass
increase, the stall speed increased only by 15%, from 11.3 to
13.1 ms (well within the capabilities of the airframe), owing to the
larger wingspan. The flight controls in the tail empennage were left
unaltered, because they demonstrated high authority in previous
flights performed with the original wings.
During the 8-min-long flight, a number of maneuvers were performed
to assess the responsiveness of the airplane, both with and without the
auxiliary ailerons activated. The plane reached speeds up to 28.5 ms

a) Electronics bay: high voltage generation and control, attitude b) Overall view of the UAV, complete with all the equipment
determination, telemetry, and command required for the flight
Fig. 13 Morphing wing airplane.
 10 Article in Advance
and sustained load factors of 3.37g, both conditions within the design
limits. The onboard footage, provided as supplementary material to this
paper, showed complete absence of vibrations of the wing components;
additionally, it highlighted how the compliant section maintained the
commanded deflections throughout all flight conditions.
Controllability in roll was sufficient to permit a safe flight, even with
the auxiliary ailerons switched off. As the maximum achievable rolling
moment coefficient decreases with increasing roll rates, due to roll
damping, its peak is attained in the initial instant of the maneuver,
assuming instantaneous deflection of the control surfaces. The inability
to achieve instantaneous deflections, together with the impossibility of
directly measuring angular accelerations (the gyroscopes in the IMU
measure angular rates) and the quick roll dynamics of the plane,
prevent direct assessment of the rolling moment coefficient.
The presence of the auxiliary ailerons, increasing the roll damping
due to their comparatively large surface and long moment arm,
significantly reduces the roll rate with respect to the clean config-
uration. Nevertheless, using exclusively the morphing surfaces, the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
airplane achieved a maximum sustained roll rate of 17.6 degs at a
speed of 21.55 ms (Fig. 14a shows the relevant telemetry data for a
segment of the flight), compared with a roll rate of 36.25 degs at a
speed of 18.8 ms obtained by simultaneously using both the
morphing surfaces and the auxiliary ailerons (Fig. 14b).
Owing to the performance provided by the morphing wings, the
flight was carried out without difficulties, reaching bank angles up to
80 deg in a controlled manner. Removal of the auxiliary ailerons
would have increased even further the maneuverability obtainable
exclusively by wing morphing, thanks to the lower rotational inertia
of the airplane and the reduced roll damping.
The ability to operate and perform reliably in the considered range
of speeds is a clear indication of the capabilities and maturity of the
solution.
The experimental validation emphasized additional benefits
offered by the proposed design. Assembling the fail-safe ailerons,
based on conventional, discrete machine elements (bearings, hinges,
shafts, couplings, etc.), revealed the ubiquitous presence of mechan-
ical plays. Redesign and remanufacturing of the components with
tighter tolerances were required to achieve a satisfactory level of
performance. Addressing this issue was furthermore not always
40
20
0
Roll
20
40
Bank angle,
60
Roll rate, /s
80
Roll control input
0.5
0 0
0.5
30
Airspeed, m/s
25
20
15
03:21 03:23 03:25 03:27 03:29 03:31 03:33 03:35
Time, mm:ss
a) Performance obtained exclusively with morphing b) Performance with auxiliary ailerons enabled
(auxiliary ailerons disabled)
Fig. 14 In-flight measurements, roll behavior.
/ MOLINARI ET AL.
possible: despite the reduced number of components in the actuation
linkage, the aileron tip had approximately 2 mm of play, ultimately
caused by the off-the-shelf servo motor.
Conversely, the morphing system, manufactured with the same
accuracy and tolerances as the first parts for the fail-safe ailerons
(replaced due to the aforementioned looseness), showed zero play
and did not require any further adjustment. This characteristic,
intrinsic to compliant structures actively deformed by distributed
solid state actuators, enables long-term operations without requiring
programmed maintenance. Owing to the absence of reciprocally
moving parts, there is virtually no wear, hence no need to compensate
for slacks and plays in the system, to replace worn-out components,
or to lubricate the various elements. Operations in harsh environ-
ments (e.g., in presence of abrasive dust) does not affect the morphing
system, whereas a conventional solution would require significant
modifications or increased maintenance.
VII. Conclusions
This article presents the results of wind tunnel, mechanical, and
flight tests performed on a morphing wing concept based on compliant
mechanisms and actively deformed by piezoelectric actuators.
The working principle of the concept is introduced, and the
characteristics of its constitutive elements are described. The ideal
design of the wings compliant structure is the result of a numerical
multidisciplinary optimization, aimed at maximizing the control-
lability in the roll axis exclusively by means of active morphing.
A campaign of experimental assessments is performed to demonstrate
the capabilities of the morphing concept and to validate the aero-servo-
elastic design tools developed for the optimization: wind tunnel tests,
executed at different combinations of speeds, angles of attack, and
actuation levels, permitted to measure the resulting aerodynamic forces
and moments. Wall correction methods, accounting for downwash
effects, and solid and wake blockage, are presented and used to correct
the wind tunnel measurements. The performance of the morphing wing
is assessed, leading to the following conclusions:
1) Active deformations lead to rolling moment coefficients
between 0.03 at 10 ms and 0.021 at 30 ms, despite operating at a
reduced actuation voltage range (23% lower than the rated maxi-
mum) to mitigate the possibility of failure in the piezoelectric
40
20
0
Roll
20
40 Bank angle,
60 Roll rate, /s
Roll control input
0.5
0.5
30
Airspeed, m/s
25
20
15
03:52 03:54 03:56 03:58 04:00 04:02 04:04 04:06
Time, mm:ss
 Article in Advance
actuators. A higher rolling moment coefficient could be achieved if
the full actuation capabilities of the piezoelectric actuators could have
been exploited, as confirmed by the numerical simulations performed
with the validated aeroelastic analysis tool. In comparison, the
original wings based on conventional ailerons reached a rolling
moment coefficient of 0.044 at the same conditions. The closeness of
the obtained values indicates that the roll rates achievable with the
morphing wing without fail-safe ailerons is of a similar order as the
one achievable by the conventional wings, which can achieve a
sustained roll rate of 190 degs at 26 ms.
2) By activating the embedded actuators, variations in lift coefficient
up to cL
0.269 at 10 ms and
0 deg can be achieved. These
lift coefficient variations are equivalent to a change of angle of attack up
to 1.9 deg. Increased speeds reduce the achievable lift coefficient
variation by 15% at 20 ms and by 28% at 30 ms.
3) Conformal shape changes do not penalize the drag of the wing,
and they mostly result in a movement of the operating point along the
drag polar of the unactuated profile. This result is obtained for a
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
maneuver not included in the optimization, highlighting the flexibility
offered by morphing.
Concerning the aerodynamic efficiency, higher gains are expected
by considering the entire aircraft: the contribution of other elements
of the plane, such as the fuselage and the tail empennage, to the
aerodynamic resistance is dependent on the angle of attack. Owing to
the possibility, enabled by the morphing wings, of varying the lift
without changing the incidence of the airplane, the vehicle can
be flown at the ideal angle of attack, minimizing the total drag by
means of this additional degree of freedom. This capability further
highlights the potential benefits achievable with morphing, even for
aircraft operating in a reduced number of flight conditions.
Experimental measurements were also decisive to evaluate the
impact of the corrugation on the aerodynamic behavior of the wing,
not easily quantifiable with numerical techniques. The tests
highlighted a moderate increment in zero-lift drag with respect to a
completely smooth airfoil and a marginal increase in lift at constant
angle of attack, with no repercussions on the stall behavior. This
could be addressed by covering the corrugation with a pre-stretched
elastomeric film, restoring a smooth aerodynamic surface.
Simultaneous to the aerodynamic measurements performed during
the wind tunnel test campaign, a stereoscopic DIC technique was
used to identify the shape of the wing under the influence of the
airflow and of the active deformation. The combined measurements
enabled the assessment of the accuracy (compatibly with the tech-
niques used) and confirmed the validity of both aerodynamic and
structural methods used in the multidisciplinary analysis and
optimization.
Backed by the test results and following the fitting of the wings and
of the auxiliary fail-safe ailerons on the UAV demonstrator, a flight
test was performed. This demonstrated, under realistic operating
conditions, the capacity of producing control moments widely
sufficient to guarantee the controllability and maneuverability of the
plane exclusively through morphing, and showed unequivocally the
potential of the proposed morphing wing design.
The morphing system, for the dimensions, speeds, and operating
conditions considered in this study, therefore can be regarded as
having reached a high Technology Readiness Level, because its
functionality and performance were proven in an operational envi-
ronment. The benefits it enables are improved aerodynamic effi-
ciency, reduced manufacturing complexity, lower maintenance, and
better suitability to harsh environments. In comparison with conven-
tional solutions, relying on discrete elements and multiple elec-
tromechanical servo motors to achieve similar functionality, the
proposed morphing system is expected to provide advantages also in
terms of overall mass, given the possibility of miniaturizing the high
voltage power supply and control systems.
It is possible to envision the utilization of the proposed morphing
concept also for rotor-blade applications, adequately sized for the
On the scale from 1 to 9 defined by the European Commission and the U.
S. DoD, with 9 being the most mature technology, the TRL level would be 7,
System prototype demonstration in an operational environment.
/ MOLINARI ET AL. 11
different design criteria and load cases experienced. For the specific
case of wind turbine blades, different onflow conditions are caused
by turbulent wind fields and the presence of wind shear. These
variations [46] can be actively compensated through morphing,
owing to the amplitude of the obtained deflections and to the
actuation bandwidth, resulting in a reduction in peak and fatigue
loads [47].
Appendix A: Wind Tunnel Corrections
As described in Sec. III.A, the wind tunnel test campaign was
performed using the reflection-plane method [48], with the floor of
the wind tunnel representing the plane of symmetry. All corrections
are thus performed accordingly, and the geometrical parameters are
updated to reflect this assumption.
A1 Solid and Wake Blockage
The increment in velocity and dynamic pressure caused by the
blockage is accounted for with the correction terms
V
V M 1  T  q
qM 1  T 2 (A1)
with the subscript M indicating the measured values. The total
blockage T is the sum of solid and wake blockage:
K1 1 v S
T
sb  wb
 cDM (A2)
C 32 4C
The body shape factor constant K 1
1.006 and the factor related to
the shape of the wind tunnel test section and to the model span to wind
tunnel width ratio 1
0.855 are obtained from Barlow et al. [40].
Further parameters are the wing volume v, the wing surface S, the
wind tunnel test section cross-sectional area C, and the measured drag
coefficient cDM .
A2 Interaction with Walls
The measured angle of attack M and the measured drag cDM of the
wing are affected by the interaction of the downwash with the wind
tunnel walls, according to the formulas
S

M  c (A3)
C L
S 2
cD
cDM  c (A4)
C L
with the factor
0.1174 related to the wing geometry, wind tunnel
geometry, and ratio of model span to tunnel width, as stated by
Barlow et al. [40].
Appendix B: Details of Fail-Safe Devices
Similar to the wing, the auxiliary ailerons are manufactured with
composite materials and feature a lightweight construction (Fig. A1).
The skin is manufactured in CFRP fabric; due to the limited entity of
the loads acting on this part, it features cutouts for weight-reduction
purposes, covered by a thin plastic film. Three ribs are located in the
D-nose of the wing to accommodate the mounting beam and transfer
the loads. These elements are manufactured with the same sandwich
construction as the wing leading-edge ribs. A C-shaped spar sepa-
rates the leading edge from the intermediate section, where two
additional ribs of sandwich construction form the hinges between the
fixed part and the moveable section. The moveable part features two
ribs, connected to the ribs in the intermediate part by means of two
hinge pins (Fig. A1a). These are manufactured out of aluminum,
covered by a Teflon sleeve to reduce friction, and kept from sliding
outwards by spring-type cotter pins. To remove plays in the hinge
assembly, an additional rib, manufactured with a 0.9-mm-thick
CFRP fabric sheet, is installed in the fixed section in contact with the
 12 Article in Advance
Hinge pin
Hinge pin
Servo
Mounting
beam Overlapping skin
a) Isometric view, auxiliary aileron
Fig. A1 Structure and components of the auxiliary ailerons.
inner side of each trailing-edge rib (indicated with a dashed line in
Fig. A1a). Actuation is provided by an off-the-shelf electronic servo
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
motor (Futaba S3072HV), displacing the moveable part by means of
a servo rod connecting the servo arm to the aileron horn protruding in
the airflow (Fig. A1b). The total displacement of the aileron tip
reaches up to 22.5 mm, guaranteeing abundant roll authority.
The fail-safe ailerons are mounted on the morphing wings by
sliding a CFRP beam in a hole bored in the wing leading edge ribs.
The beam transfers shear forces and bending moments, whereas the
rotation is prevented by an extension of the leading edge skin,
overlapping the wing skin by 1 cm. Outward sliding (in the spanwise
direction) of the auxiliary ailerons is prevented by a polymer-based
braided cable, spanning the entire width of the plane and tightly
connecting both ailerons.
From a structural point of view, the morphing wings were designed
to operate without fail-safe ailerons and are tested accordingly. The
addition of the auxiliary ailerons, however, significantly increases the
loads, in particularly the critical root bending moment. To achieve the
required load-carrying capability, the lift struts of the original wings
were therefore retrofitted to the morphing wings.
Acknowledgments
This work is supported by ETH Research Grant CH104 083.
The authors would like to thank the ETH Research Commission and
the Marie Curie Actions Co-fund Program for support; A. F. Arrieta
was partially funded through an ETH Postdoctoral Fellowship. The
Digital Image Correlation equipment was purchased through the
Swiss National Science Foundation REquip Grant 206021_150729.
References
[1] Ajaj, R., Keane, A., Beaverstock, C., Friswell, M., and Inman, D.,
Morphing Aircraft: The Need for a New Design Philosophy, Seventh
Ankara International Aerospace Conference, AIAC Paper 2013-054,
Middle East Technical Univ., Ankara, Turkey, Sept. 2013, pp. 17.
[2] Weisshaar, T. A., Morphing Aircraft TechnologyNew Shapes for
Aircraft Design, NATO RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel
Specialists Meeting on Multifunctional Structures/Integration of
Sensors and Antennas, Tech. Rept. MP-AVT-141-O1, Aeronautics and
Astronautics Department, Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN, Oct. 2006.
[3] Harshberg, G., AFTI/F-111 Mission Performance, AFTI/F-111
Mission Adaptive Wing Second Briefing to Industry, U.S. Air Force
Wright Aeronautical Laboratories, Dayton, OH, July 1988.
[4] Steers, L., MAW Flight Test Overview, AFTI/F-111 Mission Adaptive
Wing Second Briefing to Industry, Air Force Wright Aeronautical
Laboratories, Dayton, OH, July 1988.
[5] Smith, J. W., Lock, W. P., and Payne, G. A., Variable-Camber Systems
Integration and Operational Performance of the AFTI/F-111 Mission
Adaptive Wing, NASA Tech. Rept. TN-4370, April 1992.
[6] Kudva, J. N., Jardine, A. P., Martin, C. A., and Appa, K., Overview of
the ARPA/WL Smart Structures and Materials Development-Smart
Wing Contract, Proceedings of SPIE, edited by Crowe, C. R.,
Vol. 2721, 1996, pp. 1016.
doi:10.1117/12.239124
[7] Scherer, L. B., Martin, C. A., Sanders, B. P., West, M. N., Pinkerton-
Florance, J. L., Wieseman, C. D., Burner, A. W., and Fleming, G. A.,
DARPA/AFRL Smart Wing Phase 2 Wind Tunnel Test Results,
/ MOLINARI ET AL.
Servo arm
Aileron horn Servo rod
b) Side view, auxiliary aileron
Structures and Materials, edited by McGowan, A.-M. R., Vol. 4698,
SPIE, San Diego, CA, July 2002, pp. 6475.
[8] Kota, S., Osborn, R., Ervin, G., Maric, D., Flick, P., and Paul, D.,
Mission Adaptive Compliant WingDesign, Fabrication and Flight
Test, NATO RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel Symposium, RTO-
MP-AVT-168-18, Evora, Portugal, April 2009, pp. 119.
[9] Strelec, J. K., Lagoudas, D. C., Khan, M. A., and Yen, J., Design and
Implementation of a Shape Memory Alloy Actuated Reconfigurable
Airfoil, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 14,
Nos. 45, 2003, pp. 257273.
doi:10.1177/1045389X03034687
[10] Ruggeri, R., Arbogast, D., and Bussom, R., Wind Tunnel Testing
of a Lightweight One-Quarter-Scale Actuator Utilizing Shape Memory
Alloy, 49th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA, Reston, VA, April 2008,
pp. 110.
[11] Pitt, D., Dunne, J., White, E., and Garcia, E., SAMPSON Smart
inlet SMA Powered Adaptive Lip Design and Static Test, 19th AIAA
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA, Reston, VA, June 2001,
pp. 1620.
[12] Calkins, F., Butler, G., and Mabe, J., Variable Geometry Chevrons for
Jet Noise Reduction, 12th AIAA/CEAS Aeroacoustics Conference
(27th AIAA Aeroacoustics Conference), AIAA, Reston, VA, May 2006,
pp. 810.
[13] Mabe, J., Calkins, F., and Butler, G., Boeings Variable Geometry
Chevron, Morphing Aerostructure for Jet Noise Reduction, 47th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materi-
als Conference, AIAA Paper 2006-2142, May 2006.
[14] Wickramasinghe, V., Chen, Y., Martinez, M., Wong, F., and Kernaghan,
R., 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, Vol. 20, AIAA,
Reston, VA, May 2009, Paper 125007.
[15] Jordi, C., Michel, S., and Fink, E., Fish-Like Propulsion of an Airship
with Planar Membrane Dielectric Elastomer Actuators, Bioinspiration
& Biomimetics, Vol. 5, No. 2, June 2010, Paper 026007.
doi:10.1088/1748-3182/5/2/026007
[16] Chen, P. C., and Chopra, I., Hover Testing of Smart Rotor with
Induced-Strain Actuation of Blade Twist, AIAA Journal, Vol. 35, No. 1,
1997, pp. 616.
doi:10.2514/2.74
[17] Rodgers, J. P., and Hagood, N. W., Preliminary Mach-Scale Hover
Testing of an Integral Twist-Actuated Rotor Blade, Smart Structures
and Materials 1998: Smart Structures and Integrated Systems,
Vol. 3329, July 1998, pp. 291308.
doi:10.1117/12.316901
[18] Barlas, T. K., and van Kuik, G. A. M., Review of State of the Art
in Smart Rotor Control Research for Wind Turbines, Progress in
Aerospace Sciences, Vol. 46, No. 1, 2010, pp. 127.
doi:10.1016/j.paerosci.2009.08.002
[19] Lachenal, X., Daynes, S., and Weaver, P. M., Review of Morphing
Concepts and Materials for Wind Turbine Blade Applications, Wind
Energy, Vol. 16, No. 2, March 2013, pp. 283307.
doi:10.1002/we.v16.2
[20] Barrett, R. M., Gross, R. S., and Brozoski, F. T., Design and Testing of a
Subsonic All-Moving Adaptive Flight Control Surface, AIAA Journal,
Vol. 35, No. 7, July 1997, pp. 12171219.
doi:10.2514/2.217
[21] Pinkerton, J. L., and Moses, R. W., A Feasibility Study to Control
Airfoil Shape Using THUNDER, Tech. Rept., NASA TM-4767,
Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA, Nov. 1997.
 Article in Advance
[22] Eggleston, G., Hutchison, C., Johnston, C., Koch, B., Wargo, G., and
Williams, K., Morphing Aircraft Design Team, Tech. Rept., Virginia
Tech, Blacksburg, VA, May 2002.
[23] Vos, R., Breuker, R. D., Barrett, R. M., and Tiso, P., Morphing Wing
Flight Control via Postbuckled Precompressed Piezoelectric Actuators,
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 4, July 2007, pp. 10601068.
doi:10.2514/1.21292
[24] Bilgen, O., Kochersberger, K., Diggs, E., Kurdila, A., and Inman, D.,
Morphing Wing Aerodynamic Control via Macro-Fiber-Composite
Actuators in an Unmanned Aircraft, AIAA Infotech@Aerospace Con-
ference and Exhibit, AIAA, Reston, VA, May 2007, pp. 116.
[25] Paradies, R., and Ciresa, P., Active Wing Design with Integrated Flight
Control Using Piezoelectric Macro Fiber Composites, Smart Materials
and Structures, Vol. 18, No. 3, Mar 2009, Paper 035010.
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/18/3/035010
[26] Bilgen, O., Butt, L. M., Day, S. R., Sossi, C. A., Weaver, J. P., Wolek, A.,
Mason, W. H., and Inman, D. J., A Novel Unmanned Aircraft with
Solid-State Control Surfaces: Analysis and Flight Demonstration,
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 24, No. 2,
Sept. 2012, pp. 147167.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF HONG KONG on August 29, 2016 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.J055073
doi:10.1177/1045389X12459592
[27] Bilgen, O., Kochersberger, K. B., Inman, D. J., and Ohanian, O. J.,
Novel, Bidirectional, Variable-Camber Airfoil via Macro-Fiber
Composite Actuators, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 1, Jan. 2010,
pp. 303314.
doi:10.2514/1.45452
[28] Pankonien, A. M., Smart Material Wing Morphing for Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles, Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI,
2015.
[29] Bilgen, O., and Friswell, M. I., Piezoceramic Composite Actuators for
a Solid-State Variable-Camber Wing, Journal of Intelligent Material
Systems and Structures, Vol. 25, No. 7, Aug. 2013, pp. 806817.
doi:10.1177/1045389X13500575
[30] Molinari, G., Quack, M., Arrieta, A. F., Morari, M., and Ermanni, P.,
Design, Realization and Structural Testing of a Compliant Adaptable
Wing, Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 24, No. 10, Oct. 2015,
Paper 105027.
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/24/10/105027
[31] Thill, C., Etches, J. A., Bond, I. P., Potter, K. D., and Weaver, P. M.,
Composite Corrugated Structures for Morphing Wing Skin Applica-
tions, Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 19, No. 12, Dec. 2010,
Paper 124009.
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/19/12/124009
[32] Xia, Y., Bilgen, O., and Friswell, M. I., The Effect of Corrugated Skins
on Aerodynamic Performance, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures, Vol. 25, No. 7, Feb. 2014, pp. 786794.
doi:10.1177/1045389X14521874
[33] Molinari, G., Arrieta, A. F., and Ermanni, P., Aero-Structural
Optimization of Three-Dimensional Adaptive Wings with Embedded
Smart Actuators, AIAA Journal, Vol. 52, No. 9, Sept. 2014, pp. 1940
1951.
doi:10.2514/1.J052715
[34] Filkovic, D., Graduate Work, Tech. Rept., Univ. of Zagreb, Faculty of
Mechanical Engineering and Naval Architecture, Zagreb, Croatia, 2008.
/ MOLINARI ET AL. 13
[35] Katz, J., and Plotkin, A., Low-Speed Aerodynamics, 2nd ed., Cambridge
Aerospace Series, Cambridge Univ. Press, New York, Feb. 2001,
pp. 404409.
[36] Hodges, D. H., and Pierce, G. A., Introduction to Structural Dynamics
and Aeroelasticity, Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, England, U.K.,
2002, pp. 143147.
[37] Deb, K., Pratap, A., Agarwal, S., and Meyarivan, T., A Fast and Elitist
Multiobjective Genetic Algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions on
Evolutionary Computation, Vol. 6, No. 2, April 2002, pp. 182197.
doi:10.1109/4235.996017
[38] Rossow, V., Inviscid Modeling of Aircraft Trailing Vortices, NASA
Symposium on Wake Vortex Minimization, edited by Gessow, A. E.,
Vol. NASA SP-40, NASA, Washington, D.C., 1976, pp. 454.
[39] Institut fr Aerodynamik, Anleitung zum Betrieb der Sechskompo-
nentenwaage und des Windkanals, Tech. Rept. 29 233/22, ETH
Zurich, Zurich, 1978.
[40] Barlow, J. B., Rae, W. H., and Pope, A., Low-Speed Wind Tunnel
Testing, 3rd ed., John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1999, p. 713.
[41] Mack, L. M., Transition and Laminar Instability, Tech. Rept. 77-15,
Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, CA, May 1977.
[42] Drela, M., XFOIL: An Analysis and Design System for Low Reynolds
Number Airfoils, Low Reynolds Number Aerodynamics, Proceedings
of the Conference, Vol. 54, edited by Mueller, T. J., Springer-Verlag,
Notre Dame, IN, June 1989, pp. 112.
doi:10.1007/978-3-642-84010-4_1
[43] U.S. Naval Air Station, Final Flight Report of Production Inspection
Trials on Model F4U-1 Airplane (Contract NOa(s)-198), Tech. Rept.,
Patuxent River, MD, Oct. 1944.
[44] Previtali, F., Molinari, G., Arrieta, A. F., Guillaume, M., and Ermanni,
P., Design and Experimental Characterisation of a Morphing Wing
with Enhanced Corrugated Skin, Journal of Intelligent Material
Systems and Structures, Vol. 27, No. 2, Jan. 2016, pp. 278292.
doi:10.1177/1045389X15595296
[45] Previtali, F., Delpero, T., Bergamini, A., Arrieta, A. F., and Ermanni, P.,
Multi-Functional Extremely Anisotropic Structural Element, Extreme
Mechanics Letters, Vol. 3, 2015, pp. 8288.
doi:10.1016/j.eml.2015.02.001
[46] Troldborg, N., Computational Study of the Ris-B1-18 Airfoil with a
Hinged Flap Providing Variable Trailing Edge Geometry, Wind
Engineering, Vol. 29, No. 2, 2009, pp. 89114.
doi:10.1260/0309524054797159
[47] Barlas, T., van Wingerden, J. W., Hulskamp, A., and van Kuik, G.,
Closed-Loop Control Wind Tunnel Tests on an Adaptive Wind Turbine
Blade for Load Reduction, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and
Exhibit, AIAA, Reston, VA, Jan. 2008, pp. 111.
[48] Swanson, R. S., and Toll, T. A., Jet-Boundary Corrections for Reflection-
Plane Models in Rectangular Wind Tunnels, Tech. Rept. NACA-TR-
770, Langley Field, VA, Jan. 1943.
F. N. Coton
Associate Editor