1 c031060

Realization of Morphing Wings: A Multidisciplinary Challenge
Srinivas Vasista,
Liyong Tong,
and K. C. Wong
University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

DOI: 10.2514/1.C031060
Morphing-wing research is growing in signicance, as it is driven by the need to improve aircraft performance.
There are many aspects to consider when designing a morphing wing, making the task a multidisciplinary challenge.
This has led to a multitude of approaches to morphing-wing research. This paper provides an overview of the eld,
drawing together these different approaches. Morphing wings canbe classied interms of shape parameters (what to
morph), performance benets (why morph), and enabling technologies (how to morph). Regarding the structural
system, the majority of morphing-wing concepts have consisted of distinguishable substructure, skin, and actuator
components. However, these components need to be integrated to such a level that all share the functions of carrying
loads and changing shape, thus blurring the distinction between these components. The trends include shifts from
using conventional mechanisms and actuators to smart-material-based systems to topology-optimized compliant-
mechanismdesigns. Furthermore, concepts foundinnature may offer potential morphing solutions, andthe working
principles of muscles and plants may be emulated in a morphing wing. The focus of this paper is on morphing for
traditionally xed-wing aircraft and on the structural system in particular.
Nomenclature
C
L
= coefcient of lift
c = chord
n
z
= normal load factor
q = dynamic pressure
S = wing reference area
I. Introduction
A
MORPHING wing is a wing that changes shape in ight in a
controlled manner to improve aircraft performance. Although
there exists a multitude of morphing-wing concepts throughout
literature, there is no formal denition as to what constitutes a
morphing wing and classifying morphing-wing concepts can be
Received8 April 2010; revision received30January 2011; accepted for publication 31 January 2011. Copyright 2011 bythe American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. Copies of this paper may be made for personal or internal use, on condition that the copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to
the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 0021-8669/12 and $10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
Ph.D. Student, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering. Student Member AIAA.
Professor, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering.
Senior Lecturer, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering. Senior Member AIAA.
Srinivas Vasista is a Ph.D. Student at the School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering at the
University of Sydney and is a recipient of an Australian Postgraduate Award and the R. W. McKenzie
Supplementary Scholarship for Aeronautical Sciences and Technologies. He completed his B.E. degree in
aeronautical (space) engineering at the University of Sydney in 2008. His main research interests include the design,
analysis, and testing of morphing wings, aircraft structures, and smart materials, as well as the development of
computational tools such as nite element analysis and structural optimization algorithms.
Liyong Tong is a Professor inthe School of Aerospace, Mechanical andMechatronic Engineering at the University
of Sydney. He received B.E. and M.E. degrees from Dalian University of Technology in 1982 and 1985 and a Ph.D.
fromBeijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics in 1988. Before joining the University of Sydney in 1995, he
worked as a Senior Research Engineer at the Cooperative Research Center for Aerospace Structures, Ltd. His
primary research interests include computational and experimental methods related to 1) analysis, testing, and
design of composite and smart structures; 2) structural stress analysis, vibration, and stability; and 3) optimization
and morphing of aerospace structures.
Dr. K. C. Wong is a Senior Lecturer of Aerospace Engineering at the University of Sydney, where he leads a small
team undertaking research on unmanned aircraft systems (UAS), with particular interests in multidisciplinary and
morphing airframe design, instrumentation, control, and system integration. He completed his B.E. in aeronautical
engineering andhis Ph.D. at the University of Sydney. UAS airframes designed and developedin his group have been
usedby several industry collaborative researchprojects. Having a strong passionto promote and developindigenous
UAS capabilities within Australia, he has worked on many national projects to explore and promote UAS
technologies and applications. Since 2009, Dr. Wong has been the President of the Association for UnmannedVehicle
SystemsAustralia (AUVS-Australia).
JOURNAL OF AIRCRAFT
Vol. 49, No. 1, JanuaryFebruary 2012
11
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

approached in many ways. The general perception of morphing is
that of smooth and continuous shape change, exibility, and the art
of mimicking birds. Thus, traditional shape change mechanisms such
as aps and ailerons lie outside the realm of morphing. The term
morphing wing has often been used synonymously with smart wing,
adaptive wing, active wing, and recongurable wing: smart, because
the wing may incorporate smart materials and has the ability to sense
external stimuli (pressure, velocity, density, temperature, etc.) [1];
adaptive, because the wing adapts to better suit the operating
conditions; active, because the wing can be actively controlled via
actuators; and recongurable because the wing geometry can be set
into different congurations. Furthermore, morphing has been
termed as real-time adaptation to enable multipoint optimized
performance [2] to broaden what morphing includes.
Anumber of reviewpapers exist in literature [15], each reviewing
and classifying morphing wings in a particular way. This paper aims
to synthesize these various approaches into a more comprehensive
set of classications and to compare the designs of selected
morphing-wing concepts in literature. The multidisciplinary nature
of morphing-wing research is introduced rst. The shape parameters,
morphing benets, structural system and enabling technologies are
then classied and a chronological listing of morphing-wing
concepts is presented. Selected morphing-wing concepts are com-
pared based on a set of criteria and the trends, challenges, and bench-
marks are discussed. Biological concepts that may be mimicked in
morphing wings have been suggested, as well as the possible future
research paths. This paper focuses on morphing concepts for xed-
wing aircraft and on the structural system in particular.
II. Morphing Wings: A Multidisciplinary Field
Conventional aircraft design requires consideration of many
different disciplines, such as ight mechanics and control, aero-
dynamics, structures and materials, and power, as shown in Fig. 1 [6].
Flight performance largely depends on aerodynamic and inertial
characteristics. The aircraft structure and its constituent materials,
which are subjected to loading, provides and maintains the required
aerodynamic shapes. The engines or powerplants generate thrust and
supply power to other systems for sensing, actuation, and control, for
example. The design of a morphing aircraft will require even greater
interdisciplinary considerations. Morphing adds a degree of
dynamism to the function of the aircraft and thus results in changing
parameters across all disciplines. Aerodynamic and structural
analyses will need to be performed simultaneously, as there is a
closed loop effect between aerodynamic forces and structural
displacements, and combined with overall aircraft performance
studies, as considered by [714].
For morphing, ight mechanics and aerodynamics may be thought
of as the disciplines in which the morphing target shapes can be
determined. Structures, materials, and power may be thought of as
the disciplines in which the ways to deliver the required shapes can be
determined.
One crucial problemof morphing-wing design is the design of the
structural system. The function of the structural system is to provide
and maintain the desired deection while carrying the external air
loads. Herein lies the problem: providing the shape change implies
large deection and low stiffness while maintaining the shape and
carrying the loads implies high stiffness and small deformation [15].
Figure 2 illustrates this required structural function using a morphing
airfoil section as an example.
The ideal morphing wing shall have the following characteristics
(refer to Sec. VI.D for benchmark values): large shape change,
smooth shape change, high loadability, good aeroelastic character-
istics, multiple shape changes, low energy requirement, low weight,
high frequency, high control authority, good scalability, few
components, and good fatigue/wear characteristics.
III. Classications
There are several different research approaches, as the morphing-
wing research eld involves multiple disciplines. This section
synthesizes the different approaches and classies the shape param-
eters (i.e., what to morph), benets (i.e., why morph), and structural
system and enabling technologies of morphing wings (i.e., how to
morph).
A. Classication of Shape Parameters
The shape of a wing is crucial to an aircrafts function and per-
formance; therefore, by altering the wings shape, different function
and performance can be achieved. The wing shape param-
eters can be classied in terms of 1) in-plane parameters and 2)
out-of-plane parameters, following a similar classication scheme to
Soa et al. [5]. The in-plane parameters are geometries pertaining to
the XY plane (DX; DY; RZ) and the out-of-plane parameters are
geometries that involve Z-direction changes (DZ; RX; RY), as
shown in Fig. 3. This classication scheme is presented in Tables 1
and 2, along with the performance benets of either increasing or
decreasing the shape parameters.
The parameters chord length, camber, thickness, leading-edge
radius, and bump comprise the airfoil section shape, which is
particularly crucial to aircraft performance. In addition, morphing of
these parameters can be considered as being large, medium, or small
in scale [19]. Scale in this context refers to the percentage change of
wing geometry with respect to overall baseline wing geometry or, in
other words, whether large, medium, or small changes are made to
Flight
Mechanics &
Control
Aero-
dynamics
Structures &
Materials
Power
D
Fig. 1 Multidisciplinary nature of morphing-wing research. Adapted
from [6].
Fig. 2 Required structural function in unmorphed and morphed phases.
12 VASISTA, TONG, AND WONG
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

the wing geometry. Changes in wing area, aspect ratio, span length,
chord length, sweep angle, taper ratio, wing location, dihedral angle,
and spanwise camber may constitute large-scale morphing, changes
in camber, thickness, and twist may constitute medium-scale
morphing; localized changes in wing geometry, such as leading-edge
radius and bump prole, may constitute small-scale morphing.
Section VI.D provides a quantication of large-scale shape change.
B. Classication of the Benets of Morphing
Morphing wings offer signicant potential benets over conven-
tional rigid wings. It has been suggested [1] that the reasons for
applying morphing technology can be divided into four categories:
1) Improve aircraft performance to expand its ight envelope.
2) Replace conventional control surfaces for ight control.
3) Reduce drag to improve range.
4) Reduce vibration or control utter to improve comfort and
safety and to reduce fatigue.
This performance benet categorization can be expanded as
follows:
1) Enable multirole capacity by making radical changes in wing
shape, including planform area, sweep angle, aspect ratio, span
length, thickness, dihedral/anhedral angle, wing location on the
fuselage, and taper.
2) Improve maneuverability as follows:
a) Increase control surface effectiveness by replacing
conventional control surfaces with smooth continuous control
surfaces that twist.
b) Increase the maximum load factor for the same wing-root
bending moment by shifting the load distribution inboard by
Fig. 3 Aircraft axes.
Table 1 In-plane shape parameters and performance benets [3,16]
Benets due to changes in parameter
Parameter Increasing Decreasing
Wing area (DX; DY) Increased lift, decreased wing loading,
takeoff speed, turn radius
Increased speed, decreased drag
Aspect ratio (DX; DY) Increased spanwise efciency,
range, loiter time,
turn rate, decreased induced drag
Improved ride comfort in turbulence, increased
speed, decreased parasitic drag, wing weight
a
,
wing-root bending moment
Chord length (DX) Increased wing area, decreased aspect ratio Increased aspect ratio, decreased wing area
Span length (DY) Increased wing area, aspect ratio Decreased wing area, aspect ratio
Sweep angle (RZ) Increased critical mach number, maximum speed,
dihedral effect, spiral mode stability, longitudinal stability,
decreased compression drag, strength of shock waves
In Supersonic Flight
Increased lift-curve slope, lateral control
b
,
decreased pitch attitude while landing,
aeroelastic effects, structural mass
a
Taper ratio (c
t
=c
r
) (DX) Improved tip stall performance, increased
wing fuel volume
a
Increased spanwise efciency when used
in conjunction with twist
c
, decreased
structural mass
a
a
Applicable to rigid-wing aircraft design only.
b
For aft sweep only, as tip stall is prevented. Forward-swept wings perform better than straight wings in tip stall.
c
Because of an elliptical spanwise lift distribution. This distribution offers the lowest drag-due-to-lift (induced drag), due to a constant downwash angle throughout the span.
Table 2 Out-of-plane shape parameters and performance benets [3,16]
Benets due to changes in parameter
Parameter Increasing Decreasing
Camber
a
(DZ; RY) Increased lift Decreased drag
Thickness (DZ) Increased lift, improved low-speed performance Improved high-speed performance, decreased drag,
chance of ow separation
Wing location
b
(DZ) High wing: increased dihedral effect, spiral mode stability Low wing: decreased landing gear length
(for wing-mounted landing gears)
c
Mid-mounted wings: decreased interference drag
Dihedral angle
d
(RX) Increased dihedral effect, spiral mode stability Increased Dutch-roll mode stability,
maneuverability
Spanwise camber (RX) Increased L=D for high angles of attack [17] Increased L=D for low angles of attack [17]
Twist (RY) Wash-in: increased lift Wash-out: increased efciency,
e
improved tip stall
performance, decreased wing-root bending moment
Taper (DZ) Increased wing fuel volume
c
Decreased wing-root bending moment
LE radius (DX; DZ) Improved low-speed performance Improved high-speed performance
Bump (DZ) Improved transonic performance [18] Improved subsonic performance [18]
Winglet cant angle (RX) Increased lift, improved low-speed performance,
decreased engine requirements during landing
and takeoff, noise during landing
Increased spanwise lift efciency
a
A common way of increasing camber is to deect the leading and trailing edges down. Lift and drag characteristics are highly sensitive to changes in camber.
b
Operational concerns such as loading cargo, cabin space, and viewing requirements from inside the cabin also affect wing location.
c
Applicable to rigid-wing aircraft design only.
d
Positive dihedral angle typically used in low-mounted-wing aircraft; negative dihedral (anhedral) angle typically used in high-mounted-wing aircraft.
e
Because of an elliptical spanwise lift distribution.
VASISTA, TONG, AND WONG 13
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

replacing conventional control surfaces with smooth surfaces that
twist.
3) Improve range, fuel efciency, and speed as follows:
a) Optimize aerodynamic efciency over the operating range of
C
L
values by varying airfoil section properties: in particular, by
making use of variable camber by leading- and trailing-edge
deection devices.
b) Reduce drag by eliminating gaps and discontinuities in wing
shape created by conventional control surfaces by replacing them
with smoothly varying gapless control surfaces.
c) Reduce drag by eliminating actuation mechanisms of
conventional control surfaces that protrude outside the wing
contour by using internally actuated control surfaces.
d) Reduce weight by replacing conventional heavy systems
with light newsystems (depending on structural conguration and
materials used).
e) Reduce structural weight by tailoring shape to allow load
manipulation/alleviation (e.g., spanwise twist for wing-root
bending-moment reduction).
f) Reduce compression drag by preventing the formation of
transonic shock waves by using bump proles.
4) Reduce vibrations/aeroelastic effects as follows:
a) Reduce turbulent ow created by gaps and discontinuities in
wing shape created by conventional control surfaces by using
smoothly varying gapless control surfaces.
b) Control local ow by making small adjustments to the wing
surface.
Morphing may also lead to the following operational and
maintenance benets:
1) Reduce operational costs by eliminating the requirement of
multiple different single-role aircraft by using a single multirole
aircraft [4].
2) Reduce maintenance costs by reducing wear and the number of
parts by eliminating moving parts by using technologies such as
compliant mechanisms.
C. Classication of the Structural System and Enabling Technologies
The structural system of most morphing-wing concepts has been
composed of three distinct subsystems: 1) substructure, 2) skin, and
3) actuator.
1. Shape Change in Substructure and Skin Subsystems
There have been two approaches to achieving shape change in
substructure and skin: using conventional mechanisms or enabling
compliant (smooth) change. These are termed differently throughout
literature, such as robotic versus organic [3] and mechatronic versus
structronic [15], but they will be referred to as conventional
mechanisms versus compliant in this paper.
Conventional mechanisms feature relative rotation/sliding of rigid
segments/linkages with locking mechanisms. For compliant shape
change, there are two further approaches: compliant materials
following the classication scheme of Thill et al. [1], or compliant
mechanisms. Compliant materials have been classied as follows:
1) Stretchable materials (elastomeric [20], auxetic [1]).
2) Deployable materials (rollable, collapsible, foldable, inatable,
and stacked) are primarily for the alteration of the wing area.
3) Materials with directional stiffness tailoring include extreme
anisotropic material [1], bi/multistable composites [2125],
segmented structures [19], folded inner skins [19], and multilayered
skins [19].
4) Materials with variable stiffness include shape memory alloys
(SMAs) [26], shape memory polymers [27,28], shape memory
composites [27], elastic memory composites [1], shape memory
textiles [1], magnetic shape memory materials [29], exible matrix
composites [3032], and uidic exible matrix composites [33].
5) Active substructures and/or skin typically consist of exible
materials with embedded active smart materials. Compliant mecha-
nisms can be classied into lumped compliance (via pseudo-
rigid-body modeling and analysis) or distributed compliance (via
topology-optimization techniques).
2. Actuation Subsystem
The actuation subsystem has been either conventional- or smart-
materials-based. Conventional actuation includes technologies such
as electrical, hydraulic, pneumatic, passive, and hand-operated
actuators. Smart-material-based actuators include shape memory
alloys [26,34], piezoelectric materials [26,34,35], piezohydraulic
pumps [3639], ultrasonic motors [40], thermopolymer actuators
[41], magnetostrictive actuators [34,42], shape memory magnetic
actuators [29], electroactive polymers [43], electrorheological uid
[26], magnetorheological uid [26], nastic actuators [4450], and
pneumatic articial muscles [51].
3. Integrated Design
The integrated design can be a combination of conventional
mechanisms and/or compliant materials and/or compliant mech-
anisms for the substructure and skin with conventional and/or smart
actuators.
IV. Morphing-Wing Concept Listing,
Timeline, and Classication
This section lists the morphing-wing concepts chronologically, as
shown in Table 3. These concepts are classied based on shape
parameters and technologies used in the three structural subsystems,
as outlined in Sec. III. The notations in Table 3 are dened in Table 4.
V. Comparison of Selected Morphing Concepts
This section provides detail of selected morphing-wing concepts
from Table 3 in terms of aircraft application, wing size/aircraft scale,
working principle, materials, actuation systems and performance
benets. The selected concepts are also compared based on required
and resultant: shape changes and magnitude, loading, frequency and
actuation rate, and power input, as shown in Tables 512. The
selected concepts are grouped as either radically morphing wings or
leading/trailing-edge morphing.
A. Radical Shape Change
1. Lockheed Martin Morphing Unmanned Air Vehicle
(IP
1;2;3;4;5
, OP
3
, and Su
1
Sk
2;9
A
1;2
)
This morphing concept was intended for an unmanned air vehicle
(UAV) application. The intended full-scale dimensions (unfolded/
folded congurations) were a span length of 41:3=24:1 ft, height of
8:1=8:7 ft, wing area of 600=215:5 ft
2
, and weight of 21,455 lb [41].
The wind-tunnel test model featured a span of 9 ft 7.4 in (unfolded,
baseline) [87] and a weight of 1450 lb [109]. The working principle
was as follows:
Each wing is folded in a Z-shaped manner (looking aft/forward)
about two wing-fold joints parallel with the streamwise direction.
Once folded, the leading-edge (LE) segment of the inboard section
also folded to close the gap between the fuselage and the folded wing
[41]. The wing-fold joints used an embedded actuator, a skin cover
and a knuckle joint that was ngerlike so that the joint could rotate
while furnishing a smooth exterior surface for the wing fold [109]. In
addition, the design used a vacuum pump to draw the skin into a
cavity to prevent it from bunching up or otherwise interfering with
the joint folding operation [109]. In terms of materials, shape
memory polymers and an elastomeric-reinforced silicone skin were
considered for the wing-fold joint skin with graphite/epoxy nger
hinges. In terms of the actuation systems, Thermopolymer and
piezoelectric materials were tested for use as actuators [41].
Linear thermopolymer actuators were intended for the streamwise
wing folds, but electrical rotary motors were used in the wind-tunnel
test. Piezoelectric stack actuators were intended for the LE ap fold,
but a linear thermopolymer actuator was used in the wind-tunnel
test [41].
The following performance benets were anticipated. A multirole
capacity can be enabled by making radical changes in wing shape,
including planformarea, wetted area, sweep angle, aspect ratio, span
length, and wing location on the fuselage. A 22% mission radius
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

Table 3 Timeline of morphing-wing projects and concepts
a
Year(s) Morphing concept
b
Morphed shape(s) Structural system combination
1903 Wright Brothers yer [7] OP
1b;6b
Su
11
Sk
2
A
1
1920 Parker variable-camber wing [52] OP
1a
Su
2
Sk
2
A
1
1933 Burnelli variable-camber and variable-area wing [53] IP
1;3;4
, OP
1b
Su
1
Sk
2
A
1
19371941 Bakshaev telescoping-wing aircraft [54] IP
4
Su
1
Sk
1
A
1
1964 Control and propulsion uid foil [55] OP
1a
Su
6
Sk
2
A
1
1970 Variable camber and chord J-5 sailplane [56] IP
1;3;4
, OP
1a
Su
1
Sk
NS
A
NS
19791989 AFTI/F-111 MAW [5764] IP
5
, OP
1b
Su
1
Sk
2
A
1
19951999 DARPA SWP Phase I concepts [6567] OP
1b;6a
Su
2
Sk
1;2
A
2
19962001 Active aeroelastic wing [7,68] OP
1b;6a
Su
2
Sk
2
A
1
19972001 Northrop Grumman Corporation (NGC)-led Defense Advanced Research
Projects Agency (DARPA) Smart Wing Program (SWP) Phase I concepts [6974]
OP
1b;6b
Su
2
Sk
2
A
2
1999 Active hydrofoil [75] OP
1b
Su
2
Sk
2
A
2
1999 DLR, German Aerospace Center, nger concept [7679] OP
1b;6b
Su
1
Sk
1
A
1
2000 DLR beltrib concept [13,15] OP
1b;6b
Su
11
Sk
11
A
1;2
2000 FlexSys mission-adaptive compliant wing[8083] OP
1b;6b
Su
11
Sk
2
A
1;2
2000 Airfoil with inatable chambers [84] OP
1a
Su
6
Sk
2
A
1
20032006 Lockheed Martin Z-wing concept (MAS Program) [41,8587] IP
1;2;3;4;5
, OP
3
Su
1
Sk
2;9
A
1;2
20032006 NextGen aeronautics bat-wing concept (MAS Program) [8891] IP
1;2;3;4;5
Su
1
Sk
2
A
1
20032006 Raytheon morphing missile concept (MAS Program) [86] IP
2;3;4
Su
NS
Sk
NS
A
NS
2003 SMA recongurable airfoil [92] OP
1b
Su
1
Sk
2
A
2
2003 HECS wing [93] OP
5
Su
1
Sk
NS
A
NS
2004 Multisection variable-camber wing [94] OP
1a
Su
1
Sk
2
A
1
2004 Variable-gull-wing morphing aircraft [95] OP
4
Su
1
Sk
2
A
1
2004 Flexible multibody morphing UAV [96] IP
2;3;4;5
Su
1
Sk
NS
A
NS
2004 Fish-mouth actuator for transonic-bump prole [97] OP
9
Su
11
Sk
2
A
2
2004 Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University
telescoping-wing aircraft [98]
IP
2;3;4
Su
1
Sk
1
A
1
2005 Tendon-actuated compliant cellular truss for morphing wings [19] OP
5
Su
11
Sk
1;2;5
A
NS
2005 Morphing inatable wing [99] OP
1a;6a
Su
6
Sk
1;2;3;4;5
A
1;2
2006 Morphing HECS wing [17] OP
5
Su
1
Sk
2
A
1;2
2007 RoboSwift concept [100] IP
2;3;4;5
, OP
6a
Su
1
Sk
1
A
1
2007 Pneumatic telescoping wing [101] IP
2;3;4
Su
1
Sk
1;2
A
1
2007 Supekar morphing wing [102] IP
2;3;4
, OP
4
Su
1
Sk
1
A
1
2008 Statically and kinematically determinate truss morphing structure [103] OP
1b
Su
1
Sk
NS
A
1;2
2008 Antagonistic SMA-based morphing airfoil [5] OP
1a;6a
Su
1
Sk
2
A
2
2008 Bistable/multistable composite morphing-wing concepts [2125] IP
1;3;4
, OP
1b
Su
8
Sk
8
A
1;2
2008 Morphlet (morphing winglet) [104] OP
10
Su
1
Sk
2
A
1
2008 Boeing morphing winglet [105] OP
10
Su
1;10
Sk
1;10
A
1;2
2009 SMA-based morphing airfoil [106] OP
1b
Su
11
Sk
1;2
A
2
2009 Adaptive wing with SMA torsion actuators [107] OP
1b;6b;9
Su
1
Sk
2
A
2
2009 Eccentric beam concept (SLESADE) [108] OP
1b
Su
1
Sk
2
A
NS
2009 Horn concept (SSSFSADE) [108] OP
1b
Su
1
Sk
2
A
NS
2009 Kinematic chain (SLESADE) [108] OP
1b
Su
1
Sk
2
A
1
2009 Selective deformable structure (SLE and SSSFSADE) [108] OP
1b
Su
2
Sk
8
A
1
2009 Prestressed steel cables concept (SSSFSADE) [108] OP
1b
Su
11
Sk
NS
A
1
a
See Table 4 for denitions of the notations used in this table.
b
SLE denotes smart leading edge; SSSF denotes smart single-slotted ap.
Table 4 Notations used in Table 3
In-plane (IP) morphed shapes Structural system combination Su
i
Sk
j
A
k
1 Chord length Su Substructure
2 Span length Sk Skin
3 Aspect ratio A Actuator
4 Wing area ij values
5 Sweep angle 1 Conventional mechanism
6 Taper ratio 2 Compliant material: stretchable
Out-of-plane (OP) morphed shapes 3 Compliant material: rollable
1a Camber (whole airfoil) 4 Compliant material: collapsible
1b Camber (LE/TE) 5 Compliant material: foldable
2 Thickness 6 Compliant material: inatable
3 Wing location 7 Compliant material: stacked
4 Dihedral angle 8 Compliant material: stiffness change
5 Spanwise loading 9 Compliant material: tailored stiffness
6a Twist (whole airfoil) 10 Compliant material: active substrate or skin
6b Twist (LE/TE) 11 Compliant mechanism
7 Taper NS Not specied
8 LE radius k values
9 Bump 1 Conventional
10 Winglet 2 Smart-material-based
NS Not specied
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

advantage can be achieved over the best conventional aircraft that
meets the gross weight and root chord requirements. For a conven-
tional aircraft tomeet the performance of the morphing UAV, it would
need to be unreasonably large and heavy [41]. Furthermore, different
lift and drag characteristics were predicted for different ight
regimes: the unfolded conguration (loiter conguration), had a 52%
higher L=D
max
than the folded conguration (dash conguration),
and the folded conguration had 25% less drag than the un-
folded conguration at sea level, due to a smaller wetted
area [41].
Table 5 Specications of the Lockheed Martin Z-wing morphing unmanned combat air vehicle [41,87]
Criteria Requirements Results
Shape changes and magnitude 130 deg wing-fold angle resulting in the following
changes: span length: 41.324.1 ft (42% decrease);
height: 8.18.7 ft (7% increase); area: 600215:5 ft
2
(64% decrease); aspect ratio: 2.842.70 (5% decrease);
effective wing sweep change at 0:4c: 30 deg
Required shape changes achieved for scaled-model tests
Loading Wind-tunnel test: 1 g (2700 lb per wing for scaled model) 1 g load sustained
Frequency and actuation rate Low bandwidth Folding (130 deg) in 75 s (1:73 deg =s); unfolding in 75 s
(1:73 deg =s)
Power input None specied None specied
Table 6 Specications of the NextGen aeronautics morphing UAV [88,90]
Requirements Results
Shape changes and magnitude Realize large geometry changes Wind-tunnel test model: area: 1524 ft
2
(60% increase); half-span
length: 710 ft (43% increase); sweep angle change: 30 deg
Flight-test model MFX-1: area change of 40%; span change of
30%; sweep variation from 15 to 35 deg
Loading Wind-tunnel test: establish structural integrity at
2.5 g loading, morph at 1 g load
Wind-tunnel model: morphing at 1 g load achieved
Frequency and actuation rate None specied Flight-test model: morphing in under 15 s
Table 7 Specications of the AFTI/F-111 mission-adaptive wing [59,63,64]
Deection None specied LE: 1:07 deg = 20:63 deg; TE: IB 1:08 deg = 17:87 deg; MS:
0:69 deg = 19:74 deg; OB: 0:71 deg = 19:59 deg; sweep: 1658 deg
Loading None specied LE q limit: 1800 psf; TE q limit: 1800 psf, maximum deection up to 850 psf
Frequency and actuation rate None specied LE: 10 deg =s
TE: IB 30 deg =s; MS: 40 deg =s; OB: 40 deg =s
Power input None specied Refer to Sec. V.B.1
Table 8 Specications of the DLR nger concept [77,79]
Deection 15 deg (0.51 of ap c, 840 mm cambering length,
185 mm tip deection)
Aluminium model constructed: shapes (without load):
circular, beam, inverse beam; requirements achieved
for no-load deection
Loading Maximum aerodynamic load for inner section of ap for
the maneuver load case: 42; 452 N=mm
2
(refer to
[79] for loading diagram)
None specied
Frequency and actuation rate None specied None specied
Table 9 Specications of the DLR beltrib concept [13,15]
Deection 5 deg (0.61 of ap c, 600 mm cambering length,
50 mm tip deection)
5 deg
Loading Maximum static strength design (1.5 times aerodynamic
load during maneuver) at the representative ap
section: 21; 947 N=m
2
(refer to [15] for loading
diagram)
335 kg load at the tip (strength test)
Frequency and actuation rate None specied None specied
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

2. NextGen Aeronautics Morphing UAV (IP
1;2;3;4;5
and Su
1
Sk
2
A
1
)
The aircraft application was a UAV with a full-scale weight of
2400 lb [109]. The wind-tunnel test model had a weight of 1200 lb
[89], and the ight-test model featured a weight of 100 lb, wing span
of 9.3 ft, and a length 6.8 ft [90]. The working principle was a bat-
wing-type wing with in-plane two-degree-of-freedom (2DOF)
morphing. A kinematic framework substructure was used that
featured joints to enable geometry changes. The framework was
attached to the fuselage at four points. The wing surface area, sweep,
and span were controlled by selectively constraining one or more
points at the wing-root attachment to the rail, and others were moved
by hydraulic actuators. Flexible skins and distributed actuators were
used. Atubular leading-edge shell component was added to increase
wing torsional stiffness [109]. A exible material (100% in-plane
strain, 400 psf loading) was used for the skin [88] and the actuation
system consisted of nine hydraulic actuators distributed across the
wing and controlled by a central computer [91].
A multirole capacity was enabled by making radical changes in
wing shape, including wing area, wetted area, sweep angle, aspect
ratio, and span length.
B. Leading- and Trailing-Edge Morphing Designs
1. AFTI/F-111 Mission-Adaptive Wing (IP
5
, OP
1b
, and Su
1
Sk
2
A
1
)
This morphing concept was applied to an F-111 strike ghter
aircraft. The chord length of the wing was 158.5 in. at the root and,
85.8 in. at the tip. The wing area was 604 ft
2
and the wing length was
242.18 in. [57].
Each LEap area was 29:8 ft
2
[63] and the trailing-edge (TE) ap
areas were 20.5, 20.9, and 17:1 ft
2
for the inboard (IB), midspan
(MS), and outboard (OB) aps, respectively [63].
Akinematically stable series of pin-jointed linkages was used that
enabled 1) translation and 2) rotation of the LE and TE [58]. One LE
segment and three independent TE segments were used along the
span per wing [63]. The LEand TEsegments deected in accordance
with four operating modes: cruise camber control for maximum
speed at any altitude and power setting, maneuver camber control for
adjusting camber shape for peak aerodynamic efciency during
maneuvering, maneuver load control for maximizing the load factor
for improved maneuvering, and maneuver enhancement with gust
alleviation to mitigate the effect of gusts [60].
Flexible epoxy berglass was used for the upper skin, and metallic
linkages were used as the substructure [58]. The actuation was
electrical-hydraulic: hydraulic uid (47 gal= min and greater than
3000 psi) was pumped to power drive units (PDUs). Two PDUs were
used per LE segment (11:3 gal= min) and two PDUs were used per
TE segment (16:6 gal= min) (total of eight PDUs per wing). PDUs
were connected to rotary actuators via torque tubes. Nine rotary
actuators were used in each LE segment, ve in the TE IB and MS
segments and four in the TE OBsegments. Rotary actuators actuated
the linkages [63].
Improved range, speed, and fuel efciency were achieved by
optimizing aerodynamic efciency over operating C
L
values by
changing the airfoil shape. There was a 40% drag benet of the
variable-camber airfoil over the xed cruise airfoil at the maximum
xed cruise airfoil C
L
value (C
L
max
cruise
=1:02) [60] and as much as a
Table 10 Specications of the DARPA SWP Phase I wind-tunnel tests 1 and 2 concepts [6567]
Deection 5 deg twist Test 1: ap only, 7.5 deg; ap and aileron, 7.5 deg;
aileron only, 5 deg; wing twist, 1.4 deg
Test 2: aileron only, 5 deg; combined aileron and wing
twist, 10 deg aileron and 4.5 deg wing twist
Loading scaled-model wind-tunnel test conditions: M=0:3,
q =120 psf (500 lb of half-span lift). Required
torque from torque tubes: 3600, 2000, and 500 in: lb
Morphing at wind-tunnel conditions achieved; static
load testing: 800 lb distributed across the wing
Frequency and actuation rate None specied 100 in: lb torque tube: <0:2 Hz (510 s);
>3000 -in: lb torque tube: <0:033 Hz (30 s)
Power input None specied Torque tube: 400 W; control surfaces: 600 W; twisting:
maximum: 200 W; holding power (1 h): 20 W
Table 11 Specications of DARPA SWP Phase II wind-tunnel test 2 concept [69,70]
Deection 25 deg down Multiple trailing-edge shapes were achieved. Spanwise
uniform deection: 20 deg; nonuniform deection:
15 deg
Loading Scaled-model wind-tunnel test conditions: M=0:8,
q =300 psf (3000 lb of full span lift)
Morphing at wind-tunnel test conditions achieved
Frequency and actuation rate Full deection: 3 Hz; dither 3 deg: 10 Hz
25 deg deection: 0.33 s (75 deg =s)
Full deection: 3.2 Hz, 80 deg =s
Power input None specied Uniform deection: 920 W; birds wing: 660 W;
bathtub: 560 W (no holding power for deections)
Table 12 Specications of the FlexSys mission-adaptive compliant wing
a
Deection None specied 10 deg deection; 8 deg twist
Loading None specied Full deection (10 deg) with 135 lb
(60 kg) TE tip load
Frequency and actuation rate None specied Full deection: 3.2 Hz, 30 deg =s
a
Data obtained from http://xsys.com/xedwingaircraft.shtml.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

100% improvement in L=D (with respect to a xed-wing aircraft)
could be attained by using variable camber at a Mach number of 0.8
and altitude of 44,000 ft [60]. Furthermore, maneuverability was
improved by increasing the maximumload factor for the same wing-
root bending moment by shifting the load distribution inboard by
replacing conventional control surfaces with smooth surfaces that
twist. The wing-root bending moment could be reduced by 1020%
for the same load factor and other structural loads (wing-box shear,
wing-box torsion, upper pivot plate strain, etc.) could be reduced by
515% [60]. Conversely, the maximum load factor could be
increased for the same wing-root bending moment from4 to 5 g (25%
increase in load factor) [60].
2. DLR Finger Concept (OP
1b;6b
and Su
1
Sk
1
A
1
)
This morphing concept was intended for the Airbus A340-300
outboard Fowler ap. The dimensions include a ap chord length
(inboard section) of 1680 mm ap span length of 10,210 mm and a
rear spar height of 151 mm [79].
Pin-jointed rib elements were used that translated and rotated
relative to each other via revolute and prismatic joints, analogous to
human nger anatomy. The skin was allowed to slide on the ribs
using roller bearings [79]. An all aluminum or all-carbon-ber
construction was possible. The carbon-ber design resulted in lower
weight for the same stiffness [79].
Linear electrical motors were used for two actuation schemes:
1) one actuator per rib connected to the rst and second rib
elements and 2) one actuator connected to a transmission beam and
wedge [79].
Improved range, speed, and fuel efciency were expected by
optimizing aerodynamic efciency over operating C
L
values by
changing the airfoil shape. A310%L=Dimprovement over a range
of C
L
values and a possible C
L
increase of 12% were expected [79].
In addition, the expected 1215% reduction in wing-root bending
moment could lead to improved maneuverability or reduced system
weight (for the same original maximum load factor).
3. DLR BeltRib Concept (OP
1b;6b
and Su
11
Sk
11
A
1;2
)
Similar to the DLR nger concept, the beltrib concept was
intended for an Airbus A340-300 outboard Fowler ap. The ap
chord length at the representative section was 1500 mm and, like the
nger concept, the ap span length and rear spar height were 10,210
and 151 mm, respectively[15]. The experimental model was 500 mm
wide [15].
The concept was intended as a replacement for the conventional
aircraft wing rib. It was a closed shell belt reinforced by in-plane
spokes. The spokes were connected to the belt by solid-state-
compliant hinges [15].
A standard lightweight material could be used for the beltrib
structural frame. High-strength materials (steel and carbon ber)
may be used for highly loaded components (beltspar connection
and actuator anchor points) [15]. For the experimental model, a
carbon-ber/epoxy structure was used with metallic hinges for the
spokebelt connection [15].
A conventional or smart system could be used. Linear actuators
could be arranged in a truss like manner between the spars, a rotary
actuator could be used at the beltspar connections, or actuators
could be embedded in the trailing-edge skin [15]. For the
experimental model, external actuation was used where a hand-
driven eccentric cam loaded the beltrib with a force between the
front spar and the front-bearing spoke [15].
The anticipated performance benets were the same as the DLR
nger concept (Sec. V.B.2).
4. NGC-Led DARPA SWP Phase I (OP
1b;6a
and Su
2
Sk
1;2
A
2
)
The application for this concept was a 16% F/A-18 ghter attack
aircraft scaled model. The dimensions were as follows: root chord
length of 32 in., wing length of 37 in. [65], wing thickness of 1.60 in.
(root) and 0.375 in. (tip), ap chord length 8.382 in. (IB) and
4.712 in. (OB), and aileron chord length 4.712 in. (IB) and 3.030 in.
(OB) [110].
SMA torque tubes were used to twist the wing, and SMA wires
were used to deect the ap and aileron control surfaces after an
initial prestrain and heating [65]. In test 1, one SMA torque tube was
connected fromroot rib to midspan rib and another SMAtorque tube
was connected frommidspan rib to tip rib. In test 2, one SMA torque
tube was connected from root rib to tip rib [65]. The SMA torque
tubes for tests 1 and 2 were machined from a single SMA solid
circular rod material using electrical discharge machining. Nichrome
wires were wrapped around torque tubes [67]. For the control
surfaces (ap and aileron), in test 1 binary SMA wires, a room-
temperature vulcanization (RTV) core/ RTV face-sheet combination
and a Torlon trailing-edge tip were used. In test 2, K-aslloy SMA
wires, an aluminumFlex-Core/ RTVface-sheet combination, and an
aluminum trailing-edge tip were used [65]. In terms of actuation, in
test 1 a 1-in.-diam torque tube delivered 1200 in: lb of torque and a
0.5-in.-diam torque tube delivered 600 in: lb of torque [65,66]. In
test a 1.25-in.-diam torque tube delivered 3600 in: lb of torque
[65,66].
Maneuverability was improved by increasing control surface
effectiveness by replacing conventional control surfaces with smooth
continuous control surfaces that twist. A7.5 deg deection of the ap
and aileron together resulted in improvements of 17.6% in lift and
17.1% in rolling moment and 5 deg wing twist resulted in
improvements of 11.5% in lift and 15.6% in rolling moment [65].
5. NGC-Led DARPA SWP Phase II (OP
1b;6b
and Su
2
Sk
2
A
2
)
The application for this concept was a 30%-scaled UAV model.
The span length was 110.57 in., length was 98.73 in., and model
weight was approximately 600 lb [69]. In test 1 an SMA-actuated
trailing edge and outboard leading edge were used [74]. In test 2 a
xed leading edge and an ultrasonic motor-eccentuator-driven
trailing edge were used. The eccentuators were bent beams that
transmitted rotary motion into linear displacement at the tip. Ten
individual trailing segments were driven by eccentuators. The
substructure was a exible honeycomb core [70].
The wind-tunnel test model was constructed from aluminum
longerons, bulkheads, spars, and ribs, and glass/epoxy skins [69] for
the control surface test 2, the design featured a exible silicone skin,
exible honeycomb core (Flex-Core), aluminum tip and center
laminate [70]. Several actuators were considered, including actively
cooled SMAs, electroactive polymers, piezohydraulic pumps,
piezoelectric inchworm motors, and magnetostrictive-based actu-
ators. The nal choice was a Shinsei SPL-801 piezodriven ultrasonic
motor (rated torque of 9:375 in: lb, rated speed of 210 rpm, power
output of 23.3 W, weight of 0.54 lb, lifetime of 100 h, and dimensions
of 2:6 2:6 1 in: [70].
The actuator was connected to a gear box, and one motor and gear
box were used per trailing-edge segment [70].
Maneuverability was improved by increasing control surface
effectiveness by replacing conventional control surfaces with smooth
continuous control surfaces that twist. The roll performance
improvement of the smart trailing edge over the conventional hinged
trailing edge was 17% at 15 deg deection and the pitching and
rolling moments also increased [74]. An improved pressure distri-
bution [74] could also improve range, speed, and fuel efciency.
6. FlexSys Mission-Adaptive Compliant Wing (OP
1b;6b
and Su
11
Sk
2
A
1;2
)
The intended applications for this concept are xed-wing aircraft
and rotorcraft. Four models were created: three wind-tunnel test
models and one ight-test model. The span lengths were 48
and
50 in. [83] for the wind-tunnel and ight-test models, respectively.
The chord length for all models was 30 in. [83]. In terms of the
working principle, traditional rigid ribs were replaced by monolithic
topology-optimized compliant-mechanism ribs.
The substructure could be made from a variety of materials
(aluminum, titanium, carbon-ber-reinforced polymers, glass-ber-
Data obtained from http://xsys.com/xedwingaircraft.shtml.

D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

reinforced polymers, and metal-matrix composites) [82]. The upper-
surface skin was constructed from aluminum and a polymer. The
lower-surface skin material was the same as the upper surface, but
with an additional composite-reinforced panel added, extending
from65 to 75%of the model chord, allowing the panel to expand and
contract during ap deection. The leading edge was machined from
7075-T6 aluminum [83]. A variety of actuators (electrical, smart
materials, etc.) could be used [82].
Performance benets of improved range, speed, and fuel ef-
ciency could be achieved by optimizing aerodynamic efciency over
operating C
L
values by changing the airfoil shape. A 51% L=D
improvement for 6 deg LE deection, a 25% increase in C
L
, and a
lowdrag envelope (a C
D
value of 0.006 for C
L
values ranging from0
to 1.5) were achieved [80]. For rotorcraft, morphing the leading edge
of a rotor blade once per revolution can result in 1215% gain in
speed and maneuverability and a 10% increase in payload [81].
Furthermore, weight and maintenance costs could be saved, due to
the monolithic design of the substructure.
The details of the morphing-aircraft concepts provided in this
section are discussed in terms of benchmarks in the following
section.
VI. Discussion
A. Historical Trends
Wing morphing dates back to the origin of aviation in 1903, as the
Wright brothers yer used wing warping (twist) for control. In 1920
Parker [52] designed a variable-camber wing that featured a exible
steel and wood construction that morphed passively under aero-
dynamic loads. By the mid-1930s, aircraft payload and speed
requirements increased and the exible wing was superseded by a
stiff structure for withstanding large forces and for the prevention of
aeroelastic phenomena [7]. Control surfaces thus became the
discrete, mechanical, and discontinuous devices that are used today.
Attempts at morphing from the 1930s to the 1990s were conven-
tionally mechanical in nature, such as the Bakshaev telescoping
wing, Republic XF-91 Thunderceptor, and B-1 Lancer [3].
There has been a large effort in the last 15 years to achieve smooth
shape change. The paradigm shifted from using conventional
actuators and substructures, as in the AFTI/F-111 Mission Adaptive
Wing (MAW) program (19791989) [5764], to using lightweight
high-energy-density smart materials as actuators. This became
evident in the DARPA SWP Phases I and II (19952001) [6567]
where smart materials were developed and implemented in scaled-
model aircraft wings. This also continued into the DARPAMorphing
Aircraft Structures (MAS) Program (20032006). There is still a
large ongoing research effort around the world today in the devel-
opment of smart materials and their implementation in morphing
wings.
Another trend in the last decade trend has been to use topology-
optimized compliant mechanisms in morphing wings, such as in the
FlexSys mission-adaptive compliant wing [80]. This is discussed
further in Sec. VI.C.
B. Aircraft Type/Scale and Shape Parameters
Morphing has been attempted on a multitude of aircraft types from
wide-bodied airliners to miniature UAVs. Morphing in airliner
applications includes leading- and trailing-edge deections and twist
(A340-300 outboard Fowler-ap used in the DLRnger [77,79] and
beltrib concepts [13,15] and smart leading-edge and smart single-
slotted Fowler-ap concepts in the SADE (Smart High Lift Devices
for Next Generation Wings) program[108]), transonic-bump proles
(DLR sh-mouth actuator [97]), and winglet morphing (Boeing and
Airbus concepts). Morphing in strike ghter applications includes
leading- and trailing-edge morphing in the AFTI/F-111 MAW [57
64] and wing twist, ap, and aileron deection in the DARPA SWP
Phase I (F/A-18) [6567]. Morphing in UAVapplications includes
leading- and trailing-edge morphing in Phase II of the DARPA SWP
[6974,110], as well as making changes in sweep, aspect ratio, area,
wing location, and span in the DARPA MAS concepts. Radical
morphing has been attempted on UAVs, rather than strike ghters or
airliners, possibly due to the smaller size and weight of UAVaircraft.
In addition, there have been recent attempts to morph to non-
traditional shapes such as the hyperelliptic cambered-span (HECS)
wing [17,19,95]. Radical morphing has also been applied to
miniature UAVs, such as in the variable-gull-wing aircraft and the
University of Floridas high-bandwidth morphing demonstrator
[111]. Furthermore, a vast amount of research has been conducted in
morphing rotor blades for rotorcraft applications, particularly on
high-frequency trailing-edge morphing [34,112].
It is clear that the magnitude of morphing (in terms of percent of
wing size) is smaller in larger aircraft and morphing is limited to
small portions of the wing as opposed to making changes to the entire
wing. It is easier to make larger shape changes as the aircraft
application decreases in size.
Out of all the wing shape parameters, morphing of the camber has
been the most attempted and has been most commonly achieved by
making trailing and leading-edge deections. There are many
reasons for this trend:
1) A signicant challenge exists for achieving out-of-plane shape
changes; thus, research is required.
2) Variable camber can result in signicant performance benets;
in particular, L=D optimization.
3) The major load bearing structure in the wing is the central wing
box, rather than the leading- and trailing-edge structures.
4) The leading and trailing edges are relatively free from
constraints such as fuel tanks, wing stores, engine mounts, etc.
5) Traditional rigid leading- and trailing-edge ribs can be replaced
by adaptive wing ribs and independent nonuniform morphing of
these ribs can result in twist.
6) Smoothly morphing leading and trailing edges can be used as
more effective control surfaces in comparison with current
segmented discrete ailerons, aps, elevators, rudders, etc.
7) Morphing of the leading- and trailing-edge ribs can be restricted
to 2-D planar motion, thus simplifying the ensuing analysis.
For these reasons, variable camber by morphing leading and
trailing edges has been the most feasible shape parameter to morph.
Making in-plane shape changes is possibly more feasible than
making out-of-plane changes, which is evident by the fact that in-
plane variable sweep designs date back to the 1950s. The major wing
load is the transverse lift load, and thus out-of-plane changes would
need to work against these large forces, requiring powerful actuators
and a strong structure.
C. Enabling Technologies
The use of smart materials in morphing wings is prevalent
throughout literature: in particular, shape memory alloys and
piezoelectric materials. Shape memory alloys as standalone actuators
are most commonly used in wire (tendon) and torque tube form,
shape memory polymers have been tested in sheet form as wing skin
material, and piezoelectric materials are more commonly used in
high-frequency applications such as rotary-wing aircraft and for
controlling local ow. However, at the current state of smart
materials, they offer limited potential as standalone actuators, due to
limited scalability, force-deection characteristics, and required
power. Shape memory alloys generally have low-frequency char-
acteristics, due to heating and cooling times (as in, for example, the
DARPASWPPhase I tests [70]). In the cyclic testing of the Lockheed
Martin Z-wing model, breaking of the nichrome wires surrounding
the shape memory polymer skin led to an elastomeric skin being used
instead [41]. Aside from this, they are still being implemented as in
the case of the SMA-actuated winglet [105]. Piezoelectric actuators
typically have small deections (~m) and require a high voltage
(hundreds to thousands of volts) [26]. For comparisons of the
performance of smart materials and a critique on their current state,
refer to works such as [34,112]. Smart materials, however, offer
greater potential when used as components of actuation schemes.
Examples include piezohydraulic actuators where piezoelectric
materials canbe usedas pumps or valves andultrasonic motors driven
by rings of piezoelectric wafers. In addition, it is likely that
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

transmission systems or gears will be required to achieve the required
force-displacement values. Examples include the gearboxes and
eccentuator beams used in the DARPASWP Phase II [70], as well as
thetransmissionbeamandwedgeusedintheDLRnger concept [79].
Inspecting Table 3, common structural system combinations
include using a exible elastomeric skin with a conventional
mechanical substructure with either smart or conventional actuators.
In most cases, a smoothly contoured morphing wing was achieved by
simply using a stretchable elastomeric material as the wing skin to
maintain a smooth aerodynamic cover. Thill et al. [1] state that the
importance of a compliant and stiff morphing skin has been
recognized but not many satisfactory solutions have been proposed.
Gandhi and Anusonti-Inthra [113] suggest that ideal morphing skins
will be highly anisotropic.
Compliant-mechanism design is being pursued in order to
eliminate backlash, wear, weight, and maintenance problems asso-
ciated with conventional mechanisms. Compliant-mechanism
design can be classied as either lumped or distributed in com-
pliance. Lumped compliant mechanisms tend to be more intuitive in
design, such as the use of solid-state hinges in the DLR beltrib
concept [15]. However, topology-optimization techniques and nite
element analyses are generally required to achieve highly distributed
compliance. Topology optimization has been approached in two
general ways: the load-path approach using a framework of beam
elements [114] or the continuous-density-based approach (SIMP
[115117] and level-set methods [118120]).
Biomimetics is growing in popularity as more researchers are
turning to nature to nd effective ways of morphing. As mentioned
previously, morphing wings can be considered as biologically
inspired ight; researchers have identied the different shapes that
birds can change their wings into and have tried to imitate this.
However, research in biomimetics has gone deeper to determine how
organisms change their shape, such as through muscles, tendons, and
ligaments in animals and cell pressure in plants. This is discussed
further in Sec. VII.
D. Challenges and Benchmarks
Many challenges need to be overcome for the successful
realization of morphing wings. Soa et al. [5] state that there is a
challenge to minimize the large weight penalty for low-speed/small-
shape morphing planes. Reich and Sanders [121] assert that there is a
requirement for 1) distributed high-power density actuation,
2) structural mechanization, 3) exible skins, and 4) control law
development. Jha and Kudva [3] assert that the challenges lie in
1) determining the optimal design congurations (shapes),
2) designing a load-capable skin and skin-substructure attachment
with fatigue and hysteresis considerations, 3) designing more
powerful and high-energy-density actuators, 4) designing a skin/
cover that maintains the required aerodynamic shapes, 5) accom-
modating conventional control surfaces in a morphing wing,
6) minimizing human input for the control of the morphing regions of
the wing, 7) redesigning engines to be optimized in conjunction with
the morphing wing and 8) integrating all the wing systems.
Moorhouse et al. [122] suggest that a change is needed in the philos-
ophy of how structures are designed, as they need to be designed
from the start with desirable deformation characteristics. They also
suggest that the distribution of sensors and actuators needs to be
optimized in addition to structural properties, and the scalability of
adaptive structures needs to be understood. They also state that there
is a challenge to enable large-scale shape change and that designs
other than the traditional box beamneed to be considered. Thill et al.
[1] claim that environmental analyses such as the effects of fatigue
and chemicals have been largely ignored. Campanile and Sachau
[15] state that there is a challenge to create a lightweight shape-
adaptable airfoil. Iannucci and Fontanazza [6] suggest that there
should not be a neat distinction between the structural and actuation
systems (i.e., a hybrid concept), so that what is envisaged to carry the
loads is also capable of changing its own shape.
Although a multidisciplinary effort is required, one of the key
problems (i.e., changing shape while bearing large forces) is a
structural problem, and hence the design of the structural system
(substructure, skin, and actuator) is also of primary importance.
There is yet to be a morphing concept that meets the ideal
characteristics listed in Sec. II, and the structural system must meet
these requirements. The remainder of this section aims to provide a
quantitative discussion on the benchmarks by comparing traditional
aircraft data and morphing wing results in terms of large shape
change, multiple shape changes, high loadability, high actuation rate
and frequency, low power, low weight, and materials.
1. Large Shape Change
The DARPA MAS program recognized radical shape change as
that of 50% more area or span and chord length [123], and such
changes, along with sweep changes on the order of 30 deg, were
achieved in the Lockheed Martin and NextGen Aeronautics
concepts. Ramrakhyani et al. [19] state that there is a need for
research into 50% wing area change and 200% aspect ratio increase.
Referring to Sec. V.B, the leading- and trailing-edge deections
range from 5 deg (beltrib concept) to 25 deg (DARPA SWP
Phase II) with an average of approximately 15 deg, and the
cambering length is on the order of 25 to 50% of the chord length.
The total leading- and trailing-edge morphing area of the AFTI/
F-111 MAW is approximately 30% of the wing reference area.
The leading- and trailing-edge morphing designs can be compared
with current aircraft technologies. From the data in Table 13, typical
trailing-edge ap deections range from 28 to 61 deg for a different
variety of ap types. The trailing-edge ap area ranges from 6.54 to
15.47%. The leading-edge droop-nose deection is on the order of
35 deg for ghter aircraft. The area ranges from 6.10 to 12.10%
across ghter aircraft and wide-bodied airliners. Aileron deection is
on the order of 20 deg. Also fromTable 13, the typical total ap and
aileron area is on the order of 25% of the total wing area. Further-
more, a nominal gure of the area increase due to ap deployment is
21% as in the Boeing 747 [125].
Large shape change may thus constitute 50% area change, 200%
aspect ratio increase, and 30 deg sweep change with leading- and
trailing-edge ap areas and deections being on the order of 25 to
30% and 40 deg, respectively, comparable with that of current
aircraft.
2. Multiple Shape Changes
Traditional aircraft typically feature 1DOF shape change in the
deployment of aps and ailerons. That is, the aps can only extend
and retract along the ap tracks or pivots, and ailerons can only rotate
about the pivot. The Lockheed Martin design is similar in that it can
only adopt two shapes, albeit radically different: that of the folded
and unfolded congurations [41]. The NextGen Aeronautics design
features 2DOF morphing and can adapt to several different shapes
[88]. The DARPA SWP Phase II model featured 10 individual
trailing-edge segments that resulted in multiple trailing-edge shapes,
including linear deection, birds wing and bathtub [70]. Benchmark
values may thus constitute 2DOF for large-scale morphing, with the
number of DOF increasing as the morphing scale decreases.
3. High Loadability
From Table 14, current aircraft have design normal limit load
factors (n
z
) ranging from 2.5 for wide-bodied airliners to 3.8 for
small general aviation aircraft and up to 9 for ghter aircraft. From
this given maximumload factor, weight, and reference wing area, the
average pressure acting on the wing at the maximum load factor can
be ascertained. The average pressure is on the order of 3 to 5 kPa for
small general aviation aircraft, 15 to 19 kPa for wide-bodied airliners,
and 30 to 33 kPa for military ghter aircraft.
A1g loadingappears tobe a benchmark load value for preliminary
testing of morphing wings, as used in the DARPASWP Phases I and
II [69]. In addition, morphing without failure at 1 g aerodynamic
loads was considered a success criterion for the Lockheed Martin Z
wing UAV wind-tunnel test in the MAS program [87]. The NextGen
Aeronautics design was tested for structural integrity at 2.5 g and
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

morphing at 1 g [88]. In addition, the NextGen Aeronautics design
featured a skin capable of withstanding 100% in-plane strain and
carrying 400 psf (19.2 kPa) transverse load [88]. The AFTI/F-111
MAW design had a ap-deployment dynamic pressure limit of
1800 psf (86.2 kPa) and maximum TE ap-deection dynamic
pressure limit of 850 psf (40.7 kPa) [63]. The resulting outboard-ap
hinge moment at 15 deg deection, 820 psf dynamic pressure and
Mach number of 0.9 was 90 10
3
in: lb (10:17 10
3
Nm).
Furthermore, as an example of the typical ghter aircraft structural
limits, the AFTI/F-111 MAWhad a wing-root bending-moment limit
of 15:5 10
6
in: lb (1:75 10
6
Nm), wing-root shear limit of
125 10
3
lb (556 10
3
N) and wing-root torsion limits of 4:1
10
6
and 2:54 10
6
in: lb (4:6 10
5
and 2:9 10
5
Nm) [64].
Amorphing aircraft should be capable of withstanding a minimum
load factor of 2.5 for safe maneuvering, though for ghter
applications this number should be on the order of 7 to 9. The
transverse pressure load capability and structural limits should be in
accordance with that of traditional aircraft.
4. High Actuation Rate and High Frequency
The Lockheed Martin radical morphing design achieved out-of-
plane morphing at 1:73 deg =s [87] and similarly, the NextGen
Aeronautics design achieved morphing at over 2 deg =s [90]. For the
leading- and trailing-edge morphing designs, maximum full-
deection frequency ranges from0.033 Hz (DARPASWPPhase I) to
3.2 Hz (DARPA SWP Phase II [70]) and actuation rate ranges from
less than 1 to 80 deg/s [70]. The high-frequency ultrasonic motor in
the DARPA SWP Phase II model allows for high operating
frequencies and actuation rates. In comparison, the F-16Cfeatures an
aileron deection rate of 52 deg =s [124]. Gern et al. [126] state that
90 deg =s is a typical control surface deection rate of high-
performance ghters.
It is clear that leading- and trailing-edge morphing, constituting
medium-scale morphing, requires much higher actuation rates than
large-scale morphing.
5. Low Power
The power input ranges from 200 W with 20 W holding power
(DARPA SWP Phase I) to 920 W and no holding power (DARPA
SWP Phase II) [70]. The weight of the Phase II model was 600 lb
(272.2 kg) [69], and thus the measure of power for aircraft scale
(required power divided by aircraft weight) is 3:38 W=kg for
uniform 15 deg deection. The use of the eccentuator transmission
scheme in the Phase II model allows for no holding power, unlike the
continuously activated SMA torque tubes and wires in the Phase I
model [70]. Refer to Gern et al. [126] and Lockyer et al. [72] for
further details on power requirements for morphing wings.
6. Low Weight
There has been little detail published on the weights of the
morphing components of the concepts reviewed in Sec. V. From
Table 15, the wing weight of civil and military transport aircraft is, on
average, 11% of the maximum takeoff weight and 24% of the empty
aircraft weight. The average wing weight ranges from 44.9 to
74:4 kg=m
2
. The ight controls comprise between 1.5 and 4%of the
empty aircraft weight and the hydraulic and pneumatic system
weight ranges from 1.0 to 3.5% of the empty aircraft weight. The
average wing weight of ghter aircraft is on the order of 7 psf
(34:2 kg=m
2
) [128]. A morphing wing with system weights on par
with these gures is ideal and the penalty above these gures should
be minimized. However, if morphing increases the wing structural
weight, but the ight performance results in an overall net benet, the
morphing technology is appropriate. It should be noted that the
benets must be considered at a collective overall systems level (i.e.,
aircraft performance) and not at the subsystem level [2].
7. Materials
For a wing with passively morphing materials, it is likely that a
50% biaxial strain-capable material is required for a morphing wing
with 50%area change capability. This capability currently exists as a
100% maximum in-plane strain stretchable material was used in the
NextGen Aeronautics design. Furthermore, Kikuta [20] suggests that
Tecoex 80 A is a possible viable material with 307% maximum
strain. For wings with actively morphing materials, it is likely that
displacement amplication devices will be required, due to relatively
low strain levels (8% maximum for shape memory alloys and
typically 0.5% for piezoelectric materials).
The materials used will have to support the loads encountered by
aircraft. Traditional aircraft are typically of metal or composite
construction with high strengths. Aluminium 2024-T3, as a typical
example, has an ultimate tensile strength on the order of 440 MPa and
an elongation on the order of 18% at failure.
The NextGen
Aeronautics skin could withstand 400 psf (19.2 kPa). This gure is
the typical average loading for commercial wide-bodied airliners, as
indicated in Table 14.
Table 13 Control surface data
a
of small general aviation aircraft, wide-bodied airliners and ghter aircraft [124]
LE aps TE aps Aileron
Aircraft S, m
2
Type Area, m
2
Area,
% S
De, deg Type Area, m
2
Area,
% S
De, deg Area, m
2
Area,
% S
De, deg
182 S 16.30 N/A N/A N/A N/A P-L 1.97 12.09 38 1.70 10.43 20= 15
Warrior III 10.67 N/A N/A N/A N/A Pl. 1.36 12.75 40 1.23 11.53 N/S
Baron 58 18.51 N/A N/A N/A N/A S-1 1.98 10.70 28 1.06 5.73 20
B767 283.30 Sl. 28.30 9.99 N/S S-1, S-2 36.88 13.02 36, 61 11.58 4.09 30= 15, 20
A340-300 361.60 Sl. N/S N/S N/S Fow. N/S N/S 32 N/S N/S 25
B747-400 541.16 Kr., Sl. 43.85 8.10 N/S S-3 78.69 14.54 30 20.90 3.86 N/S
Aero L159 18.80 N/A N/A N/A 0 S-2 2.68 14.26 44 1.69 8.99 N/S
F/A-18 C/D 37.16 Dr 4.50 12.11 35 Pl. 5.75 15.47 47 2.27 6.11 N/S
F-22 78.00 Dr 4.76 6.10 35 Fron 5.10 6.54 20= 35 1.98 2.54 25
a
. N/Ais not applicable, N/S is not specied, Sl is slat; Kr is Krueger; Dr is droop nose; P-Lis para lift; Pl is plain; Sis slotted ap, 1 is single, 2 is double, 3 is triple, Fowis Fowler ap,
and Fron is aperon.
Table 14 Weight and load data for small general aviation aircraft,
wide-bodied airliners, and ghter aircraft [124]
Aircraft S, m
2
Weight,
a
kg n
z
Avg pressure,
b
Pa
Cessna 182 S 16.30 1,406 3.8
c
3,216
Piper Warrior III 10.67 1,106 3.8
c
3,864
Baron 58 18.51 2,495 3.6
c
4,760
B767 283.30 181,435 2.5
c
15,707
A340-300 361.60 275,002 2.5
c
18,652
B747-400 541.16 362,875 2.5
c
16,445
Aero L159 18.80 8,000 8.0 33,396
F/A-18 C/D 37.16 16,651 7.5 32,968
F-22 78.00 27,216 9.0 30,806
a
Either maximumtakeoff weight (MTOW) or maximumweight for attack conguration.
b
Calculated by multiplying weight and load factor and dividing by wing area. It should be
noted that this is not the maximumpressure acting on the wing, but has only been used as
a means of comparing the different aircraft types.
c
Estimated from Federal Aviation Administration regulations.
Aluminum 2024-T3 data sheet available online at http://www.matweb.

com/search/DataSheet.aspx?MatGUID=57483b4d782940faaf12964a1821fb61
[retrieved 17 Feb. 2010].
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

Shape memory alloy and polymer frequency and actuation
characteristics need to be improved (current level of less than 1 Hz) to
meet actuation rate and frequency benchmarks. This challenge is
being addressed by researchers as, for example, ADATechnologies,
Inc., is aiming to increase heat transfer and thermal conductivity of
shape memory polymers by using nanoparticle-reinforced shape
memory polymers [129]. In addition, the voltage requirements of
piezoelectric actuators need to be reduced for successful integration
into aircraft.
VII. Biological Inspirations
It is prudent to take inspiration from nature to address the current
challenges. Muscles and plants possess properties that are highly
desired in morphing-wing designs and these principles are discussed
in this section.
A. Muscle Function and Design
1. How Muscles Work
Macroscopic changes in muscle length result from accumulated
microscopic changes. Skeletal muscles are bundles of muscle cell
bers and each muscle ber contains many cylindrical-shaped
structures called myobrils. A myobril consists of two different
types of protein laments: myosin (thick) laments and actin (thin)
laments. A unit of alternating thick and thin elements is called a
sarcomere, which can be considered as the basic building block of a
muscle. The thick and thin laments are arranged in a comblike
manner in the longitudinal direction of the myobril, and many thin
laments surround the thick laments to formthe cross section of the
sarcomere [130]. Contraction occurs according to the sliding-
lament theory [131,132], where golf-club-shaped cross-bridges
form from thick myosin laments and attach to thin actin elements,
pulling (sliding) the laments past each other. Although this process
occurs on the microscopic level (the sarcomere length is typically
23 m, and the stroke of the cross-bridge is typically 67 nm), the
multiple cross-bridges forming and detaching quickly over
the millions of individual sarcomeres results in macroscopic change.
The formation and detachment of cross-bridges is a chemical process
involving calcium ions, and muscle contraction occurs in three
modes (concentric, isometric, and eccentric). The four basic require-
ments for successful locomotion are power generation, stability,
maneuverability, and energy conservation [130].
2. Muscle Design
There is a large variety of muscle designs to meet different
requirements. As such, there is a broad range in force generating and
shortening capabilities in muscles: maximum strain varies from 2 to
200%, maximum isometric stress varies from 8 to 2200 kN=m
2
,
maximum contraction speed varies from 0.35 to 38 muscle lengths
per second, and frequency varies from less than 1 to 1000 Hz [130].
Body size inuences muscle function, as larger animals tend to have
lower-frequency requirements than smaller animals. There are two
basic design options: 1) modify the design of sarcomeres and
2) modify the arrangement of sarcomeres.
3. Design of Sarcomeres
Sarcomere design varies among animals in terms of length and the
ratio of actin to myosin laments. Sarcomere length varies from
23 m (squid tentacles and most vertebrates) to 20 m (crab
clawmuscles). The ratio of actin to myosin laments varies from2:1
to 7:1 [130].
Force production depends on length of sarcomere and velocity of
contraction. The force due to length is determined by the amount of
actin and myosin lament overlap in which the maximum cross-
bridges are formed for this length. The force due to velocity is
determined by the probabilities for cross-bridge attachment and
detachment. Together, force-length and force-velocity relationships
determine the maximum output work and power [130].
4. Arrangement of Sarcomeres
Sarcomeres are arranged to meet functional demands while
accounting for volume and length constraints set by skeletal
dimensions. Sarcomeres are arranged in both series and parallel and
the force-deection characteristics for both arrangements are shown
in Fig. 4. There is a force advantage with a parallel arrangement
and a deection (and contraction rate) advantage with a series
arrangement [130].
Furthermore, skeletal muscles are attached to the skeleton by
elastic tendons and the ratio of muscle (active) length to elastic
tendon (passive) length also affects output characteristics.
5. Neural Control
Muscles are composed of several different motor units with
different functions. A motor neuron via its axon innervates a distinct
set of muscle bers. All muscle bers belonging to a single unit have
an identical biochemical makeup. Individual motor units are classed
in terms of size, contraction rate, and fatigue resistance. A typical
muscle contains a mix of different motor units and the central
nervous system tailors function to demand, i.e., specic motor units,
each for a different purpose, are controlled individually. For example,
during slow incremental loading tasks, slow, small, and fatigue-
resistant motor units are called rst, followed by faster, larger, and
less-fatigue-resistant motor units [130]. In addition, muscle function
is inuenced by amplitude and phase of neural control input. For
example, frogs legs use phase relationships between control
input (signal) and movement (kinematics) to yield optimal power
output [130].
Table 15 Component weights of small jet transport, large jet transport, and military transport aircraft [127]
Wing weight Flight controls Hydraulic and pneumatic
Aircraft S, m
2
MTOW, kg Empty, kg kg % MTOW % empty Avg,
a
kg=m
2
kg % empty kg % empty
F-28 76.4 28,123 15,198 3,414 12.1 22.5 44.9 637 4.2 184 1.2
BAC-111 93.2 45,200 23,479 4,453 9.9 19.0 47.8 751 3.2 631 2.7
737-200 125.0 47,174 26,060 5,064 10.7 19.4 40.5 1,055 4.0 379 1.5
707-320 280.0 141,521 56,779 12,994 9.2 22.9 46.4 970 1.7 706 1.2
L-1011 321.1 195,045 103,879 21,501 11.0 20.7 67.0 2,299 2.2 1,996 1.9
747 541.2 351,534 151,303 40,252 11.5 26.6 74.4 3,123 2.1 2,298 1.5
C-133B 248.3 129,727 54,624 12,276 9.5 22.5 49.4 628 1.2 692 1.3
C-141A 300.0 143,381 58,350 15,541 10.8 26.6 51.8 1,564 2.7 981 1.7
C-5A 576.0 330,215 146,355 37,096 11.2 25.3 64.4 3,146 2.1 1,958 1.3
a
Wing weight per unit wing area.
Fig. 4 Force-deection characteristics of sarcomeres arranged in
parallel and series. Adapted from [130].
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

6. Muscle Robustness
As a nal note to muscle systems, biological materials are tough
and use energy-release mechanisms to avoid crack propagation in
which individual sarcomeres are sacriced. As a result, only broken
sarcomeres need to be replaced and not the whole structure [130].
B. Plant Movement
Plants possess many qualities that are required by morphing
structures. Plants can bear large loads (they can remain upright
against their own weight) and are capable of movement (sunowers
can bend toward the light, and Venus Flytraps can snap shut). Like
muscles, these abilities are explained at the cellular level and are
primarily due to pressure contained within plant cells [133]. Pressure
in plant cells provides structural stiffness, much like an inatable
structure, thus enabling the plant to support large loads. Uneven
change in pressure among adjacent cells causes the plant to move.
For example, pressurized uid causes the cells to swell, and
nonuniform expansion causes the plant to distort its shape [45].
Although each cell deformation is small, there is a multitude of cells
and the cumulative result is large shape change. The ability of plant
cells to take in and release uid in the cells is a result of biochemical
active ionic transportation processes.
C. Relevance to Morphing Wings
It is clear that animals and plants feature highly sophisticated and
efcient ways of enabling motion and bearing loads, and their
working principles may provide a solution to the current morphing
challenges. Muscles possess many characteristics that are sought by
the morphing-wing designer. Through their modular designs,
muscles 1) are highly distributed actuation systems, 2) are scalable
because they appear throughout the animal kingdom and have a
broad range in force generating and shortening capabilities, 3) have
extremely high control authority, 4) can perform multiple functions
through tailored muscle bers and motor units, 5) can be repaired
easily, 6) have similar basic requirements as morphing wings (power
generation, stability, maneuverability, and energy conservation),
7) have similar body-size-based frequency-deection requirements
to morphing wings, 8) have evolved and grow and function around
volume and length constraints (morphing-wing structures also have
constraints such as fuel tank space, engine location, etc.), and 9) are
integrated and work efciently with passive elastic structures such as
tendons, and thus the system is a combination of passive and active
elements.
Furthermore, the structural system of plants consists of highly
integrated and almost indistinguishable substructure and actuator
subsystems, as the uid provides stiffness (thus having a substructure
function) and movement (thus having an actuation function). This
dual functionality is highly desired in a morphing wing.
Researchers have tried to mimic muscles through materials such as
electroactive polymers [43] and actuators such as pneumatic articial
muscles [1]. The principles of plant movement have been used by
researchers in the eld of adaptive structures. Philen et al. [32]
developed a exible matrix composite actuator that actuated based on
internal uid pressure and was controlled by an electroosmotic
transport mechanism. Shan et al. [33] have designed uidic exible
matrix composites in which uid is allowed to ow in and out of a
tube made from a exible matrix composite material. When the tube
is full of uid the system has a high stiffness and when the tube is
empty the systemhas a lowstiffness, thus making the tube a variable-
stiffness structure. Aclosed/open (high/low) modulus ratio as high as
56 times was achieved [33]. Researchers in the eld of nastic
structures are aiming to mimic the biological processes that enable
the transportation of water in and out of plant cells with the aim of
designing high-energy-density actuators [4450]. Maute et al. [134]
developed a two-level macro/micro optimization procedure in which
on the macroscopic level the integration of nastic material in the
structure is optimized and on the microscopic level the layout of the
vascular uid channels is optimized to tailor the stress and strain
generation to the desired macroscopic properties. In addition, Higgs
et al. [135] conducted buckling analyses of pneumatically stiffened,
reinforced composite beams. Furthermore, unit-cell designs have
been explored as Ramrakhyani et al. [19] developed a tendon-
actuated morphing unit cell and Lin et al. [136] developed a
morphing trailing-edge substructure using a compliant-mechanism
unit-cell approach.
VIII. Future Research Paths
To summarize the preceding sections, the current problems were
stated, the target morphing values were suggested, and it was
proposed that the challenges may be overcome and the benchmark
values may be attained through the use of biological concepts. This
section describes the research required to realize this idea into a
functional morphing wing. The suggestions for applying muscle-
function and plant-movement principles to morphing wings are
outlined as follows:
1) Use uid/air pressure to control stiffness of the structure and
vary pressure to change shape.
2) Use a modular unit-cell design with basic building blocks that
enable work output.
3) Use topology optimization or other optimization schemes to
determine the design of building blocks and arrangement of building
blocks to meet required functions.
4) Enable multifunctionality by using muscle-ber/motor-unit
equivalents for a combination of, say, large slowdeection and small
fast deection. These are elaborated in the remainder of this section.
It is envisaged that the design of the unit cell will be achieved
through a topology-optimization compliant-mechanism synthesis
for pressure input loads to harness the omnidirectional nature of
pressure into a desired output. The optimization scheme will most
likely have to account for solid, uid, and void regions (such as a
three-phase optimization scheme [137,138]) in a 3-Ddesign domain.
The appropriate objective function(s) will have to be determined,
such as maximizing a single output displacement, mechanical
efciency, mechanical advantage, geometric advantage, minimizing
displacement error, etc. Using a combination of unit cells with
designs obtained via different objective functions may lead to
multifunctionality. The appropriate valve type and location must also
be determined. Valve type depends on the size of the cell, and for
microcells, biochemical transport gates or microelectromechanical
system(MEMS) valves will be required. The valve location will need
to be optimized such that the uid ow and cell expansion/
contraction complement each other. This will require multi-
disciplinary optimization considering uidstructure interactions. It
is important that the valve is not parasitic to the cell.
The arrangement of the cells will have to be optimized also. This
may be achieved by determining equivalent properties (Youngs
modulus, deection, output force, etc.) of the unit cells (once they
have been designed) and implementing them into an optimization
algorithm with constraints such as number of cells, volume, weight,
etc. Determination of the arrangement can be thought of as topology
optimization on one level above unit-cell optimization.
A suitable pump component needs to be ascertained. Possible
options include piezoelectric and magnetostrictive-based pumps,
MEMS pumps and biochemical pumps (for the microscale). The
overall hydraulic system architecture needs to be determined. A
suitable working uid also needs to be determined: one that is light
and has high incompressibility. The incompressibility associated
with liquids may lead to higher efciency, though there may be a
weight penalty. Conversely, air suffers from higher levels of
compressibility, but is light and can be extracted from compressed
engine air, as in [84]. Furthermore, a system is required that controls
the valves and pumps, thus allowing uid to ow in and out of the
specic cells required to create the desired shape change.
Application of muscle-function and plant-movement principles in
morphing wings involve signicant materials and structural
challenges. Traditionally, material design and structural design have
been undertaken as separate disciplines. Materials are designed to
meet certain criteria such as modulus of elasticity, ultimate tensile
strength, elongation before failure, etc., and the structural designer
chooses and uses certain materials of a particular form (rod, tube,
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

sheet, etc.) in a certain arrangement to withstand the given loading
conditions. An alternative approach is to combine materials and
structural design, resulting in a multidisciplinary design and possibly
a truly tailored concept. This viewis supported by Sanders et al. [73],
who state that the challenge is really one of designing and
synthesizing the material and fabricating the structure to realize the
anticipated performance gains.
A key question that can be posed at this stage is on what level
(materials level or structural level) should the working principles of
muscles and plants be applied. These principles can be applied at
either level, as shown in Fig. 5. As materials, the unit cells will have to
be on the microscale and the overall arrangement may take different
forms (sheet, tube, rod, or even new unconventional forms) that may
be used as replacement components of the traditional wing structure
(spars, ribs, stringers, etc.). Onthe structural level, the unit cell will be
on a larger, physically tangible scale and will directly form the
structure. The feasibility of both approaches needs to be determined.
For either approach, it is likely that the ideal structural conguration
will be different to the traditional box-beam architecture.
Aside from the challenges of implementing muscle and plant
working principles, there is still much research required over mul-
tiple disciplines before functional morphing wings can be realized.
The materials research required includes improving frequency
characteristics of shape memory materials, improving the efciency
of smart materials, developing high-strength/high-strain materials,
improving the scalability of smart materials, developing controllable
variable-stiffness materials, possibly on the microscale, and
ascertaining the reliability of new materials working in aircraft
environments.
The structures research required include developing structural
models of new materials; designing a structural system with non-
distinct and integrated substructure, skin, and actuator subsystems;
designing a structural system that can deliver large shape change;
developing variable-stiffness structural systems; and nding
optimum arrangements of materials using structural optimization
tools.
The aerodynamics research required include determining loads
and coupling with structural analysis for uidstructure interaction
simulations, determining optimum wing shapes for given ight
conditions, and using aerodynamic forces to aid with actuation.
The ight mechanics and control research required includes
deriving dynamic laws and equations for morphing-wing ight,
developing control systems that sense ight conditions, determining
the correct shapes and morph to this shape within the error limit.
IX. Conclusions
A review of morphing-wing research has been presented with the
aim of classifying the shape features, benets, structural system and
enabling technologies in a synthesized manner. A morphing-wing
timeline has been presented, selected concepts have been compared
and emerging trends have been described. The challenges were
overviewed and quantied and it was also suggested that principles
used in nature may be adopted and implemented in morphing wings.
It is clear that morphing-wing research is growing in popularity
and signicance. There are many approaches and considerations
involved in morphing-wing design. There is a need to move away
from leading- and trailing-edge morphing to radical multishape
morphing in order to achieve signicant performance benets. There
is yet to be a structural system that can deliver this efciently,
although many individual enabling technologies hold promise.
Finding a suitable combination of such technologies in a biologically
inspired unit-cell approach requires a multidisciplinary effort from
the unit-cell level up to the entire aircraft level and may result in the
realization of morphing wings.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank the nancial support fromthe U.S.
Air Force Ofce of Scientic Research via the Asian Ofce of
Aerospace Research and Development (grant no. FA2386-09-1-
4127) and Australian Research Council (Discovery projects
DP0774596 and DP110104123). Srinivas Vasista is a recipient of
the Australian Postgraduate Award and the R. W. McKenzie Supple-
mentary Scholarship in Aeronautical Sciences and Technology and
is grateful for the support of the Commonwealth Government of
Australia and the R. W. McKenzie Centre for Aeronautical Sciences
and Technology.
References
[1] Thill, C., Etches, J., Bond, I., Potter, K., and Weaver, P., Morphing
Skins, The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 112, No. 3, 2008, pp. 117138.
[2] McGowan, A.-M. R., Vicroy, D. D., Busan, R. C., and Hahn, A. S.,
Perspectives on Highly Adaptive or Morphing Aircraft, RTO
Applied Vehicle Technology Panel (AVT) Symposium, RTO-MP-AVT-
168, Evora, Portugal, 2024 April 2009.
[3] Jha, A. K., and Kudva, J. N., Morphing Aircraft Concepts,
Classications, and Challenges, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 5388,
2004, pp. 213224.
doi:10.1117/12.544212
[4] Rodriguez, A. R., Morphing Aircraft Technology Survey, 45th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, AIAA
Paper 2007-1258, 811 Jan. 2007.
[5] Soa, A. Y. N., Meguid, S. A., Tan, K. T., and Yeo, W. K., Shape
Morphing of Aircraft Wing: Status and Challenges, Materials and
Design, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2010, pp. 12841292.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.09.011
[6] Iannucci, L., and Fontanazza, A., Design of Morphing Wing
Structures, 3rd SEAS DTC Technical Conference, Edinburgh,
Scotland, U.K., 2008.
[7] Pendleton, E., Back to the FutureHow Active Aeroelastic Wings
are a Return to Aviations Beginnings and a Small Step to Future Bird-
Like Wings, RTO AVT Symposium on Active Control Technology for
Enhanced Performance Operational Capabilities of Military Aircraft,
Land Vehicles and Sea Vehicles, RTO MP-051, Braunschweig,
Germany, 811 May 2000.
[8] Chwalowski, P., Samareh, J. A., Horta, L. G., Piatak, D. J., and
McGowan, A.-M. R., Efcient Multidisciplinary Analysis Approach
for Conceptual Design of Aircraft with Large Shape Change, RTO
Applied Vehicle Technology Panel (AVT) Symposium, RTOAVT-168,
Evora, Portugal, 2024 April 2009.
[9] Grohmann, B. A., Maucher, C., Prunhuber, T., Jnker, P., Dieterich, O.,
Enenkl, B., et al., Multidisciplinary Design and Optimization of
Active Trailing Edge for Smart Helicopter Rotor Blade, Mechanics of
Advanced Materials and Structures, Vol. 15, No. 3, 2008, pp. 307
324.
doi:10.1080/15376490801907830
[10] Maute, K., and Reich, G. W., Integrated Multidisciplinary Topology
Optimization Approach to Adaptive Wing Design, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 43, No. 1, 2006, pp. 253263.
doi:10.2514/1.12802
[11] Molinari, G., Quack, M., Dmitriev, V., Morari, M., Jenny, P., and
Ermanni, P., AMultidisciplinary Approach for Wing Morphing, 21st
International Conference on Adaptive Structures and Technologies,
University Park, PA, 46 Oct. 2010.
[12] Bae, J.-S., Kyong, N.-H., Seigler, T. M., and Inman, D. J., Aeroelastic
Considerations on Shape Control of an Adaptive Wing, Journal of
Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 16, Nos. 1112,
2005, pp. 10511056.
Fig. 5 Application of muscle and plant working principles on the
a) material level and b) structural level.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

doi:10.1177/1045389X05059965
[13] Campanile, L. F., and Anders, S., Aerodynamic and Aeroelastic
Amplication in Adaptive Belt-Rib Airfoils, Aerospace Science and
Technology, Vol. 9, No. 1, 2005, pp. 5563.
doi:10.1016/j.ast.2004.07.007
[14] Raulli, M., and Maute, K., Optimization of Fully Coupled
Electrostatic-Fluid-Structure Interaction Problems, Computers and
Structures, Vol. 83, Nos. 23, 2005, pp. 221233.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2004.08.003
[15] Campanile, L. F., and Sachau, D., The Belt-Rib Concept: A
Structronic Approach to Variable Camber, Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 11, No. 3, 2000, pp. 215224.
doi:10.1106/6H4B-HBW3-VDJ8-NB8A
[16] Roskam, J., Airplane DesignPart III: Layout Design of Cockpit,
Fuselage, Wing and Empennage: Cutaways and Inboard Proles,
Airplane Design, Vol. 3, DARcorporation, Lawrence, KS, 2002.
[17] Manzo, J. E., Analysis and Design of a Hyper-Elliptical Cambered
Span Morphing Aircraft Wing, M.S. Thesis, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY, 2006.
[18] Barbarino, S., Ameduri, S., Lecce, L., and Concilio, A., Wing Shape
Control through and SMA-Based Device, Journal of Intelligent
doi:10.1177/1045389X08093825
[19] Ramrakhyani, D. S., Lesieutre, G. A., Frecker, M., and Bharti, S.,
Aircraft Structural Morphing Using Tendon-Actuated Compliant
Cellular Trusses, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 42, No. 6, 2005, pp. 1615
1621.
doi:10.2514/1.9984
[20] Kikuta, M. T., Mechanical Properties of Candidate Materials for
Morphing Wings, M.S., Thesis Virginia Polytechnic Institute and
State University, Blacksburg, VA, 2003.
[21] Friswell, M. I., and Inman, D. J., Morphing Concepts for UAVs, 21st
International Unmanned Air Vehicles Systems Conference, Bristol,
England, U.K., 2006.
[22] Mattioni, F., Gatto, A., Weaver, P. M., Friswell, M. I., and Potter, K. D.,
The Application of Residual Stress Tailoring of Snap-Through
Composites for Variable Sweep Wings, 47th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/
AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Confer-
ence, AIAA Paper 2006-1972, Newport, RI, 14 May 2006.
[23] Mattioni, F., Weaver, P. M., Potter, K. D., and Friswell, M. I., The
Analysis of Cool-Down and Snap-Through of Cross-Ply Laminated
Used as Multistable Structures, Twentieth ABAQUS UK User Group
Conference, Manchester, England, U.K., 2006.
[24] Mattioni, F., Weaver, P. M., Potter, K. D., and Friswell, M. I., The
Application of Thermally Induced Multistable Composites to
Morphing Aircraft Applications, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 6930,
2008, Paper 693012.
doi:10.1117/12.776226
[25] Diaconu, C. G., Weaver, P. M., and Mattioni, F., Concepts for
Morphing Airfoil Sections Using Bi-Stable Laminated Composite
Structures, Thin-Walled Structures, Vol. 46, 2008, pp. 689701.
doi:10.1016/j.tws.2007.11.002
[26] Srinivasan, A. V., and McFarland, M., Smart Structures: Analysis and
Design, Cambridge University Press, New York, 2001.
[27] Ratna, D., and Karger-Kocsis, J., Recent Advances in Shape Memory
Polymers and Composites: A Review, Journal of Materials Science,
Vol. 43, No. 1, 2008, pp. 254269.
doi:10.1007/s10853-007-2176-7
[28] Liu, C., Qin, H., and Mather, P. T., Review of Progress in Shape-
Memory Polymers, Journal of Materials Chemistry, Vol. 17, No. 16,
2007, pp. 15431558.
doi:10.1039/b615954k
[29] Kiang, J., and Tong, L., Modelling of Magneto-Mechanical
Behaviour of Ni-Mn-Ga Single Crytals, Journal of Magnetism and
Magnetic Materials, Vol. 292, 2005, pp. 394412.
doi:10.1016/j.jmmm.2004.11.481
[30] Ocalan, M., High Flexibility Rotorcraft Driveshafts Using Flexible
Matrix Composites and Active Bearing Control, M.S. Thesis,
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, 2002.
[31] Shan, Y., Philen, M., Bakis, C. E., Wang, K. W., and Rahn, C. D.,
Nonlinear-Elastic Finite Axisymmetric Deformation of Flexible
Matrix Composite Membranes Under Internal Pressure and Axial
Force, Composites Science and Technology, Vol. 66, 2006, pp. 3053
3063.
doi:10.1016/j.compscitech.2006.01.002
[32] Philen, M., Shan, Y., Prakash, P., Wang, K. W., Rahn, C. D., Zydney,
A. L., and Bakis, C. E., Fibrillar Network Adaptive Structure with
Ion-Transport Actuation, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
Structures, Vol. 18, No. 4, 2007, pp. 323334.
doi:10.1177/1045389X06066097tions
[33] Shan, Y., Philen, M., Lot, A., Suyi Li, Bakis, C. E., Rahn, C. D., et al.,
Variable Stiffness Structures Utilizing Fluidic Flexible Matrix
Composites, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures,
Vol. 20, No. 4, 2009, pp. 443456.
doi:10.1177/1045389X08095270
[34] Chopra, I., Review of State of Art of Smart Structures and Integrated
Systems, AIAA Journal, Vol. 40, No. 11, 2002, pp. 21452187.
doi:10.2514/2.1561
[35] Niezrecki, C., Brei, D., Balakrishnan, S., and Moskalik, A.,
Piezoelectric Actuation: State of the Art, Shock and Vibration
Digest, Vol. 33, No. 4, 2001, pp. 269280.
doi:10.1177/058310240103300401
[36] Mauck, L. D., and Lynch, C. S., Piezoelectric Hydraulic Pump
Development, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
doi:10.1106/HC2A-ABR9-21H8-2TJB
[37] Keller, C. A., Novel Concepts in Piezohydraulic Pump Design,
M.S., Thesis Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, 2004.
[38] Chapman, E. G., Herdic, S. L., Keller, C. A., and Lynch, C. S.,
Development of Miniaturized Piezo-Hydraulic Pumps, Proceedings
of SPIE, Vol. 5762, 2005, pp. 299310.
doi:10.1117/12.605967
[39] Yoo, J.-H., Sirohi, J., Wereley, N. M., and Chopra, I., A
Magnetorheological Hydraulic Actuator Driven by a Piezopump,
Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 5056, 2003, pp. 444456.
doi:10.1117/12.483497
[40] Lih, S.-S., Bar-Cohen, Y., and Grandia, W., Rotary Ultrasonic Motors
Actuated by Traveling Flexural Waves, Proceedings of SPIE,
Vol. 3041, 1997, pp. 912917.
doi:10.1117/12.275717
[41] Bye, D. R., and McClure, P. D., Design of a Morphing Vehicle, 48th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASCStructures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference, AIAA Paper 2007-1728, Honolulu, HI, 23
26 April 2007.
[42] CEDRAT Technologies, Magnetostrictive Actuators [online
article], 2007 http://www.cedrat.com/leadmin/user_upload/cedrat_
groupe/Technologies/Actuators/Magnetic%20actuators%20&%20
motors/che_AMA/Magnetostrictive_Actuators.pdf [retrieved
1 March 2010].
[43] Bar-Cohen, Y., Electroactive Polymer (EAP) Actuators as Articial
Muscles: Reality, Potential, and Challenges, SPIE, Bellingham, WA,
2004.
[44] Homison, C., Coupled Transport/Hyperelastic Model for High
Energy Density Nastic Materials, M.S. Thesis, University of
Pittsburgh, Pittsburgh, PA, 2006.
[45] Matthews, L., Sundaresan, V. B., Giurgiutiu, V., and Leo, D.,
Bioenergetics and Mechanical Actuation Analysis with Membrane
Transport Experiments for Use in Biomimetic Nastic Structures,
Journal of Materials Research, Vol. 21, No. 8, 2006, pp. 2058
2067.
doi:10.1557/jmr.2006.0250
[46] Sundaresany, V. B., and Leo, D. J., Chemo-Mechanical Model for
Actuation Based on Biological Membranes, Journal of Intelligent
doi:10.1177/1045389X06061129
[47] Sundaresan, V. B., Homison, C., Weiland, L. M., and Leo, D. J.,
Biological Transport Processes for Microhydraulic Actuation,
Sensors and Actuators B (Chemical), Vol. 123, No. 2, 2007, pp. 685
695.
doi:10.1016/j.snb.2006.10.009
[48] Sundaresan, V. B., and Leo, D. J., Controlled Fluid Transport Using
ATP-Powered Protein Pumps, Smart Materials and Structures,
Vol. 16, No. 2, 2007, pp. S207S213.
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/16/2/S02
[49] Freeman, E., and Weiland, L. M., High Energy Density Nastic
Materials: Parameters for Tailoring Active Response, Journal of
Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 20, No. 2, 2009,
pp. 233243.
doi:10.1177/1045389X08092276
[50] Piyasena, M. E., Newby, R., Miller, T. J., Shapiro, B., and Smela, E.,
Electroosmotically Driven Microuidic Actuators, Sensors and
Actuators B (Chemical), Vol. 141, No. 1, 2009, pp. 263269.
doi:10.1016/j.snb.2009.05.014
[51] Davis, S., Tsagarakis, N., Canderle, J., and Caldwell, D. G.,
Enhanced Modelling and Performance in Braided Pneumatic Muscle
Actuators, International Journal of Robotics Research, Vol. 22,
Nos. 34, 2003, pp. 213227.
doi:10.1177/0278364903022003006
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

[52] Parker, H. F., The Parker Variable Camber Wing, NACA, Rept. 77,
1920.
[53] Burnelli, V. J., Aircraft, U.S. Patent, 1,917,428, 11 July 1933.
[54] Shavrov, V. B., The History of Aircraft Construction in the USSR,
Mashinostroenie, Moscow, 1994.
[55] Kiceniuk, T., Control and Propulsion Fluid Foil, U.S. Patent,
3,118,639, 21 Jan. 1964.
[56] Stinton, D., The Design of the Airplane, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2001.
[57] Painter, W. D., and Caw, L. J., Design and Physical Characteristics of
the Transonic Aircraft Technology (TACT) Research Aircraft,
NASA, TM-56048, Jan. 1979.
[58] Statkus, F. D., Continuous Skin, Variable Camber Airfoil Edge
Actuating Mechanism, U.S. Patent, 4,351,502, 28 Sept. 1982.
[59] Larson, R. R., AFTI/F-111 MAW Flight Control System and
Redundancy Management Description, NASA, TM-88267,
Feb. 1987.
[60] AFTI/F-111 Mission Adaptive Wing Brieng to Industry, U.S. Air
Force Wright Aeronautical Labs., Rept. AFWAL-TR-88-3082,
Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, Oct. 1988.
[61] Webb, L. D., McCain, W. E., and Rose, L. A., Measured and
Predicted Pressure Distributions on the AFTI/F-111 Mission Adaptive
Wing, NASA, TM-100443, Nov. 1988.
[62] Powers, S. G., Webb, L. D., Friend, E. L., and Lokos, W. A., Flight
Test Results froma Supercritical Mission Adaptive Wing with Smooth
Variable Camber, NASA, TM-4415, Nov. 1992.
[63] 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, TM-4370, April 1992.
[64] Thornton, S. V., Reduction of Structural Loads Using Maneuver Load
Control on the Advanced Fighter Technology Integration (AFTI)/
F-111 Mission Adaptive Wing, NASA, TM-4526, Sept. 1993.
[65] Kudva, J. N., Martin, C. A., Scherer, L. B., Jardine, A. P., McGowan,
A. R., Lake, R. C., Sendeckyj, G., and Sanders, B., Overview of the
DARPA/AFRL/NASA Smart Wing Program, Proceedings of SPIE,
Vol. 3674, 1999, pp. 237248.
doi:10.1117/12.351562
[66] Martin, C. A., Bartley-Cho, J., Flanagan, J., and Carpenter, B. F.,
Design and Fabrication of Smart Wing Wind Tunnel Model and SMA
Contoured Surfaces, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 3674, 1999, pp. 237
248.
doi:10.1117/12.351562
[67] Jardine, A. P., Bartley-Cho, J., and Flanagan, J., ImprovedDesign and
Performance of the SMA Torque Tube for the DARPA Smart Wing
Program, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 3674, 1999, pp. 260269.
doi:10.1117/12.351564
[68] Pendleton, E., Bessette, D., Field, P. B., and Miller, G. D., Active
Aeroelastic Wing Flight Research Program: Technical Program and
Model Analytical Development, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 37, No. 4,
2000, pp. 554561.
doi:10.2514/2.2654
[69] Kudva, J. N., Overviewof the DARPASmart Wing Project, Journal
of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2004,
pp. 261267.
doi:10.1177/1045389X04042796
[70] Bartley-Cho, J. D., Wang, D. P., Martin, C. A., Kudva, J. N., and West,
M. N., Development of High-rate, Adaptive Trailing Edge Control
Surface for the Smart Wing Phase 2 Wind Tunnel Model, Journal of
Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2004,
pp. 279291.
doi:10.1177/1045389X04042798
[71] Martin, C. A., Hallam, B. J., Flanagan, J. S., and Bartley-Cho, J.,
Design, Fabrication and Testing of a Scaled Wind Tunnel Model for
the Smart Wing Project, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
doi:10.1177/1045389X04042797
[72] Lockyer, A. J., Martin, C. A., Lindner, D. K., Walia, P. S., and
Carpenter, B. F., Power Systems and Requirements for Integration of
Smart Structures into Aircraft, Journal of Intelligent Material
Systems and Structures, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2004, pp. 305315.
doi:10.1177/1045389X04042800
[73] Sanders, B., Crowe, R., and Garcia, E., Defense Advanced Research
Projects agencySmart Materials and Structures Demonstration
Program Overview, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
doi:10.1177/1045389X04042793
[74] Scherer, L. B., Martin, C. A., Sanders, B., West, M., Florance, J.,
Wieseman, C., Burner, A., and Fleming, G., DARPA/AFRL Smart
Wing Phase 2 Wind Tunnel Test Results, Proceedings of SPIE,
Vol. 4698, 2002, pp. 6475.
doi:10.1117/12.475104
[75] Lagoudas, D. C., Garner, L. J., Rediniotis, O. K., and Wilson, N.,
Modeling and Experiments of the Hysteretic Response of an Active
Hydrofoil Actuated by SMA Line Actuators, Proceedings of the
NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Smart Structures: Require-
ments and Potential Applications in Mechanical and Civil
Engineering, Kluwer Academic, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1999,
pp. 153162.
[76] Heyland, D., Rosemann, H., Sachau, D., Strohmeyer, D., and Vo, R.,
The Adaptive Wing Project (DLR): Survey on Targets and Recent
Results from Active/Adaptive Structures Viewpoint, Proceedings of
the Tenth International Conference on Adaptive Structures and Tech-
nologies, Technomic Publishing, Lancaster, PA, 1999, pp. 178185.
[77] Monner, H. P., Sachau, D., and Breitbach, E., Realization of a
Spanwise Differential and Constant Camber Variation for an Adaptive
Wing, Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on
Adaptive Structures and Technologies, Technomic, Lancaster, PA,
1999, pp. 186193.
[78] Anhalt, C., Breitbach, E., and Sachau, D., A Concept of a
Shapevariable Fowler Flap on Transport Aircraft, RTO AVT
Symposiumon Active Control Technology for Enhanced Performance
Operational Capabilities of Military Aircraft, Land Vehicles and Sea
Vehicles, Braunschweig, Germany, 811 May 2000.
[79] Monner, H. P., Realization of an optimized wing camber by using
formvariable ap structures, Aerospace Science and Technology,
Vol. 5, No. 7, 2001, pp. 445455.
doi:10.1016/S1270-9638(01)01118-X
[80] Kota, S., Hetrick, J., Osborne, R. F., Paul, D., Pendleton, E., Flick, P.,
and Tilmann, C., Design and Application of Compliant Mechanisms
for Morphing Aircraft Structures, Proceedings of SPIE, Vol. 5054,
2003, pp. 2433.
doi:10.1117/12.483869
[81] SBIR/STTR, Air Force SBIR/STIR Innovation Story: Mission
Adaptive Compliant Wing, U.S. Air Force Research Labs.,
Rept. AFRL/VAO-06-418, 2006.
[82] Kota, S., and Hetrick, J., Adaptive Compliant Wing and Rotor
System, U.S. Patent 7384016 B2, 10 June 2008.
[83] Kota, S., Osborne, R. F., Jr., Ervin, G., Maric, D., Flick, P., and Paul,
D., Mission Adaptive Compliant WingDesign, Fabrication and
Flight Test, RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel (AVT)
Symposium, RTO MP-AVT-168, Evora, Portugal, 2024 April 2009.
[84] Dorsett, K. M., and Stewart, C. S., Inatable Structures to Control
Aircraft, U.S. Patent, 6,015,115, 18 Jan. 2000.
[85] Love, M. H., Zink, P. S., Stroud, R. L., Bye, D. R., and Chase, C.,
Impact of Actuation Concepts onMorphing Aircraft Structures, 45th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, AIAA Paper 2004-1724, Palm Springs, CA,
1922 April 2004.
[86] Weisshaar, T. A., Morphing Aircraft TechnologyNew Shapes for
Aircraft Design, Multifunctional Structures/Integration of Sensors
and Antennas Meeting, RTO MP-AVT-141, Vilnius, Lithuania, 2
4 Oct. 2006.
[87] Ivanco, T. G., Scott, R. C., Love, M. H., Zink, S., and Weisshaar, T. A.,
Validation of the Lockheed Martin Morphing Concept with Wind
Tunnel Testing, 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA Paper 2007-
2235, Honolulu, 2326 April 2007.
[88] Bowman, J., Sanders, B., Cannon, B., Kudva, J. N., Joshi, S., and
Weisshaar, T., Development of Next Generation Morphing Aircraft
Structures, 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/AC Structures, Struc-
tural Dynamics and Materials Conference, AIAA Paper 2007-1730,
Honolulu, 2326 April 2007.
[89] Andersen, G. R., Cowan, D. L., and Piatak, D. J., Aeroelastic
Modeling, Analysis and Testing of a Morphing Wing Structure, 48th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, AIAA Paper 2007-1734, Honolulu, 23
26 April 2007.
[90] Flanagan, J. S., Strutzenberg, R. C., Myers, R. B., and Rodrian, J. E.,
Development and Flight Testing of a Morphing Aircraft, the NextGen
MXF-1, 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics, and Materials Conference, AIAA Paper 2007-1707,
Honolulu, 2326 April 2007.
[91] Gandhi, N., Jha, A. K., Monaco, J., Seigler, T. M., Ward, D., and
Inman, D. J., Intelligent Control of a Morphing Aircraft, 48th AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and
Materials Conference, AIAA Paper 2007-1716, Honolulu, 23
26 April 2007.
[92] Strelec, J. K., Lagoudas, D. C., Khan, M. A., and Yen, J., Design and
Implementation of a Shape Memory Actuated Recongurable
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

Airfoil, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures,
Vol. 14, Nos. 45, 2003, pp. 257273.
doi:10.1177/1045389X03034687
[93] Wiggins, L. D., III, Structural Design and Analysis of a Kinematic
Mechanism for a Morphing Hyper-Elliptic Cambered Span (HECS)
Wing, M.S. Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State
University, Blacksburg, VA, 2003.
[94] Poonsong, P., Design and Analysis of Multi-Section Variable
Camber Wing, M.S. Thesis, University of Maryland, College Park,
MD, 2004.
[95] Abdulrahim, M., and Lind, R., Flight Testing and Response
Characteristics of a Variable Gull-Wing Morphing Aircraft, AIAA
Guidance, Navigation, and Control Conference and Exhibit, AIAA
Paper 2004-5113, Providence, RI, 1619 Aug. 2004.
[96] Hong, C. H., Cheplak, M., Choi, J. Y., and Mavris, D. N., Flexible
Multi-Body Design of a Morphing UCAV, AIAA 3rd Unmanned
Unlimited Technical Conference, Workshop and Exhibit, AIAA
Paper 2004-6595, Chicago, 2023 Sept. 2004.
[97] Campanile, L. F., Keimer, R., and Breitbach, E., The Fish-Mouth
ActuatorDesign Issues and Test Results, Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures, Vol. 15, Nos. 910, 2004, pp. 711
719.
doi:10.1177/1045389X04044452
[98] Mason, W. H., Robertshaw, H. H., and Inman, D. J., Recent
Experiments in Aerospace and Design Engineering Education, 42nd
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 2004-
0415, Reno, NV, 58 Jan. 2004.
[99] Jacob, J. D., and Smith, S., Design and Flight Testing of Inatable
Wings with Warping, SAE Transactions, Vol. 2005-01, Society of
Automotive Engineers, New York, 2005, pp. 13061315.
[100] Morphing Wings Make for Swift Flight, Control and Automation,
Vol. 18, No. 4, 2007, p. 2.
[101] Samuel, J. B., and Pines, D., Design and Testing of a Pneumatic
Telescoping Wing for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2007, pp. 10881099.
doi:10.2514/1.22205
[102] Supekar, A. H., Design, Analysis and Development of a Morphable
Wing Structure for Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Performance
Augmentation, M.S. Thesis, University of Texas at Arlington,
Arlington, TX, 2007.
[103] Baker, D., and Friswell, M. I., Determinate Structures for Wing
Camber Control, Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 18, No. 3,
2009, Paper 035014.
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/18/3/035014
[104] Ursache, N. M., Melin, T., Isikveren, A. T., and Friswell, M. I.,
Technology Integration for Active Poly-Morphing Winglets
Development, ASME Conference on Smart Materials, Adaptive
Structures and Intelligent Systems, Ellicott City, MD, ASME
International, Paper 2008-496, 2830 Oct. 2008.
[105] Sankrithi, M. M. K. V., and Frommer, J. B., Controllable Winglets,
U.S. Patent 2008/0308983 A1, 18 Dec. 2008.
[106] Barbarino, S., Pecora, R., Lecce, L., Concilio, A., Ameduri, S., and
Calvi, E., A Novel SMA-Based Concept for Airfoil Structural
Morphing, Journal of Materials Engineering and Performance,
Vol. 18, No. 5, 2009, pp. 696705.
doi:10.1007/s11665-009-9356-3
[107] Icardi, U., and Ferrero, L., Preliminary Study of an Adaptive Wing
with Shape Memory Alloy Torsion Actuators, Materials and Design,
Vol. 30, No. 10, 2009, pp. 42004210.
doi:10.1016/j.matdes.2009.04.045
[108] Monner, H. P., SADE (Smart High Lift Devices for Next Generation
Wings) News [online article], 2009, http://www.smr.ch/sade/
sade_public/Publications_les/SADE_Newsletter_2009_1.0.pdf [re-
trieved 25 Feb. 2010].
[109] Weisshaar, T. A., New Aircraft Systems ConceptsTowards New
Horizons in Aeroelasticity [online article], Purdue University, West
Lafayette, IN, 2008, https://engineering.purdue.edu/AAE/Academics/
Courses/aae556/2008/aircraft%20systems%20concepts [retrieved
25 Feb. 2010].
[110] Sanders, B., Cowan, D., and Scherer, L., Aerodynamic Performance
of the Smart Wing Control Effectors, Journal of Intelligent Material
Systems and Structures, Vol. 15, No. 4, 2004, pp. 293303.
doi:10.1177/1045389X04042799
[111] Voracek, D., Adaptive Structures, Aerospace America, Vol. 45,
No. 12, Dec. 2007, p. 74.
[112] 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
[113] Gandhi, F., and Anusonti-Inthra, P., Skin Design Studies for Variable
Camber Morphing Airfoils, Smart Materials and Structures, Vol. 17,
No. 1, 2008, Paper 015025.
doi:10.1088/0964-1726/17/01/015025
[114] Lu, K. J., and Kota, S., Design of Compliant Mechanisms for
Morphing Structural Shapes, Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures, Vol. 14, No. 6, 2003, pp. 379391.
doi:10.1177/1045389X03035563
[115] Rozvany, G. I. N., Zhou, M., and Birker, T., Generalized Shape
Optimization Without Homogenization, Structural and Multi-
disciplinary Optimization, Vol. 4, No. 3, 1992, pp. 250252.
doi:10.1007/BF01742754
[116] Sigmund, O., On the Design of Compliant Mechanisms Using
Topology Optimization, Mechanics of Structures and Machines,
Vol. 25, No. 4, 1997, pp. 493524.
doi:10.1080/08905459708945415
[117] Bendsoe, M. P., and Sigmund, O., Topology Optimization: Theory,
Methods, and Applications, SpringerVerlag, Berlin, 2003.
[118] Allaire, G., Jouve, F., and Toader, A.-M., Structural Optimization
Using Sensitivity Analysis and a Level-Set Method, Journal of
Computational Physics, Vol. 194, No. 1, 2004, pp. 363393.
doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2003.09.032
[119] Wang, M. Y., Wang, X., and Guo, D., A Level Set Method for
Structural Topology Optimization, Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 192, Nos. 12, 2003, pp. 227
246.
doi:10.1016/S0045-7825(02)00559-5
[120] Luo, Z., Tong, L., Wang, M. Y., and Wang, S., Shape and Topology
Optimization of Compliant Mechanisms Using a Parameterization
Level Set Method, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 227,
No. 1, 2007, pp. 680705.
doi:10.1016/j.jcp.2007.08.011
[121] Reich, G. W., and Sanders, B., Introduction to Morphing Aircraft
Research, Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 44, No. 4, 2007, p. 1059.
doi:10.2514/1.28287
[122] Moorhouse, D., Sanders, B., von Spakovsky, M., and Butt, J.,
Benets and Design Challenges of Adaptive Structures for Morphing
Aircraft, The Aeronautical Journal, Vol. 110, No. 3, 2006, pp. 157
162.
[123] Wilson, J. R., Morphing UAVs Change the Shape of Warfare,
Aerospace America, Vol. 42, No. 2, Feb. 2004, pp. 2829.
[124] Janes All the Worlds Aircraft 2005-2006, Janes All the Worlds
Aircraft, 96th ed., Janes Information Group, Surrey, England, U.K.,
2005.
[125] Jenkins, D. R., Boeing 747-100/200/300/SP, Airliner Tech Series,
Vol. 6, Specialty Press, North Branch, MN, 2000.
[126] Gern, F. H., Inman, D. J., and Kapania, R. K., Computation of
Actuation Power Requirements for Smart Wings with Morphing
Airfoils, AIAA Journal, Vol. 32, No. 12, 2006, pp. 24812486.
doi:10.2514/1.20367
[127] Kroo, I., and Shevell, R., Sample Aircraft Weight Statements,
Aircraft Design: Synthesis and Analysis [online textbook],
Stanford Univ., Stanford, CA, 2006 http://adg.stanford.edu/aa241/
AircraftDesign.html [retrieved 17 Feb. 2010].
[128] Brandt, S. A., Stiles, R. J., Bertin, J. J., and Whitford, R., Sizing,
Introduction to Aeronautics: A Design Perspective, 2nd ed., AIAA,
Reston, VA, 2004, p. 348.
[129] ADASelected for UAVWings Research [online article] United Press
International, 3 Feb. 2010, http://www.upi.com/Business_News/
Security-Industry/2010/02/03/ADA-selected-for-UAV-wings-research/
UPI-78241265236265/ [retrieved 15 March 2010].
[130] Meijer, K., Moreno, J. C., and Savelberg, H. H. C. M., Biological
Mechanisms as Models for Mimicking: Sarcomere Design, Arrange-
ment and Muscle Function, Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired
Technologies, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2006, pp. 4156.
[131] Huxley, A. F., and Niedergerke, R., Interference Microscopy of
Living Muscle Fibers, Nature, Vol. 173, 1954, pp. 971973.
doi:10.1038/173971a0
[132] Huxley, A. F., and Hanson, J., Changes in Cross-Striations of Muscle
During Contraction and Stretch and Their Structural Interpretation,
Nature, Vol. 173, 1954, pp. 973976.
doi:10.1038/173973a0
[133] Stahlberg, R., and Taya, M., Nastic Structures: the Enacting and
Mimicking of Plant Movements, Biomimetics: Biologically Inspired
Technologies, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 2006, pp. 473493.
[134] Maute, K., Dunn, M. L., Bischel, R., Howard, M., and Pajot, J. M.,
Multiscale Design of Vascular Plates, Proceedings of the
International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
ASME International, New York, 2005, pp. 365374.
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

[135] Higgs, W. A. J., Tong, L., and Steven, G. P., Lateral Buckling
Behavior of Pneumatically Stiffened, Reinforced Composite Beams in
Bending, AIAA Journal, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2001, pp. 303307.
doi:10.2514/2.1305
[136] Lin, J., Tong, L., Wong, K. C., and Kiang, J., Designing Adaptive
Wing Structure Using Unit Cell Design Approach via Topology
Optimization, 2009 APISAT Asia-Pacic International Symposium
on Aerospace Technology, JSASS Paper 2009-5611, Gifu, Japan, 4
6 Nov. 2009.
[137] Sigmund, O., and Clausen, P. M., Topology Optimization Using a
Mixed Formulation: An Alternative Way to Solve Pressure Load
Problems, Computer Methods in Applied Mechanics and Engineer-
ing, Vol. 196, Nos. 1316, 2007, pp. 18741889.
doi:10.1016/j.cma.2006.09.021
[138] Panganiban, H., Jang, G.-W., and Chung, T.-J., Topology
Optimization of Pressure-Actuated Compliant Mechanisms, Finite
Elements in Analysis and Design, Vol. 46, No. 3, 2010, pp. 238246.
doi:10.1016/j.nel.2009.09.005
D
o
w
n
l
o
a
d
e
d

b
y

W
I
C
H
I
T
A

S
T
A
T
E

U
N
I
V
E
R
S
I
T
Y

o
n

M
a
y

2
3
,

2
0
1
3

|

h
t
t
p
:
/
/
a
r
c
.
a
i
a
a
.
o
r
g

|

D
O
I
:

1
0
.
2
5
1
4
/
1
.
C
0
3
1
0
6
0

1 c031060

Încărcat de

Informații document

Titlu original

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

1 c031060

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Realization of Morphing Wings: A Multidisciplinary Challenge

University of Sydney, Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

Professor, School of Aerospace, Mechanical and Mechatronic Engineering.

Data obtained from http://xsys.com/xedwingaircraft.shtml.

Aluminum 2024-T3 data sheet available online at http://www.matweb.

S-ar putea să vă placă și