Application of Smart Materials for Adaptive Airfoil Shape Control

Abdullah, Ermira Junita; Bil, Cees; Watkins, Simon

doi:10.2514/6.2009-1359

Cited by 30 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In [18], Marques et al experimentally achieve a 40% decrease in actuation energy required. Other notable research efforts in the area of morphing wings and morphing airfoils can be found in [19] [26]. Probst et al [27] investigated the 2-D aerodynamics of MFC morphing airfoils and the control response of such designs.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 98%

Piezoelectric Morphing versus Servo-Actuated MAV Control Surfaces

Ohanian¹,

Hickling²,

Stiltner³

et al. 2012

53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference

32
1
28
0

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A novel morphing control surface design employing piezoelectric Macro Fiber Composite (MFC) actuators is compared to a servo-actuated system. The comprehensive comparison including aerodynamics, size, weight, power, bandwidth, and reliability has revealed several observations. The conformal morphing airfoil geometry increases the lift-to-drag ratio over a servo-actuated flapped airfoil design, showing benefits in aerodynamic efficiency. The embedded MFC actuators eliminate the servo actuator volume from vehicle packaging; however, the MFC drive electronics must be taken into consideration. While the weight of the current prototype morphing system exceeds that of a traditional servo and linkage implementation, the weight is comparable and may not be prohibitive for some applications. The comparable power requirement and superior bandwidth make the morphing actuation a feasible and attractive approach for certain air vehicle designs. An order of magnitude increase in bandwidth was observed using the morphing flight control actuation. Ongoing reliability testing of the morphing specimens has demonstrated that solid-state morphing actuation has not failed within 10 5 cycles. Flight tests are planned to fully prove the benefits of the morphing actuation over a servo-actuated design. NomenclatureA = Airfoil planform area, ft 2 C d = Drag coefficient (2D), D/(0.5!V 2 A) C l = Lift coefficient (2D), L/(0.5!V 2 A) D = Drag, lb L = Lift, lb ! = Angle of Attack, degrees "= Airfoil support angle, degrees # = Air density, slug/ft 3

show abstract

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 98%

Piezoelectric Morphing versus Servo-Actuated MAV Control Surfaces
Ohanian¹,
Hickling²,
Stiltner³
et al. 2012
53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference
32
1
28
0
View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Other notable research efforts in the area of morphing wings and morphing airfoils can be found in [17][18] [19][20] [21] .…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 99%

Piezoelectric composite morphing control surfaces for unmanned aerial vehicles
Ohanian
¹
,
Karni
²
,
Olien
³

et al. 2011
SPIE Proceedings
10
0
11
0
View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors have explored the use of morphing control surfaces to replace traditional servo-actuated control surfaces in UAV applications. The morphing actuation is accomplished using Macro Fiber Composite (MFC) piezoelectric actuators in a bimorph configuration to deflect the aft section of a control surface cross section. The resulting camber change produces forces and moments for vehicle control. The flexible piezoelectric actuators are damage tolerant and provide excellent bandwidth. The large amplitude morphing deflections attained in bench-top experiments demonstrate the potential for excellent control authority. Aerodynamic performance calculations using experimentally measured morphed geometries indicate changes in sectional lift coefficients that are superior to a servo-actuated hinged flap airfoil. This morphing flight control actuation technology could eliminate the need for servos and mechanical linkages in small UAVs and thereby increase reliability and reduce drag.

show abstract

“…In the research work realized at the RMIT University in Melbourne Australia, Abdullah et al [14][15][16][17] developed firstly a numerical model of an adaptive airfoil using SMA as actuators. The actuators were placed at the front of the wing in order to modify its trailing edge.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%

A wind tunnel tested control system for a morphing wing actuation mechanism
Kammegne
¹
,
Botez
²
,
Grigorie
³

et al. 2016
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference
2
0
4
0
View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The technique of morphing takes its origin from the bird flight and allows an airplane to change its original configuration during flight depending on the flight conditions. The main objective of the morphing is to improve the mission performance in order to optimize and control the fuel consumption efficiency. The experimental results of a morphing wing concept are presented on a part of the upper surface of the wing which is flexible. The wing was equipped with an aileron which was considered as a separated wing's entity. The objective was to reduce the drag by delaying or by moving the transition point towards the trailing edge. Another project objective was to compare the aerodynamics effects of the rigid aileron with the aerodynamic effects of the morphing aileron. The shape of the wing upper surface was modified by a set of four miniature electrical actuators inserted directly inside the wing. The positions of the actuators were controlled by four different controllers. These controllers have been designed based on the actuators simulation models. Three sets of wind tunnel tests have been performed with the manufactured demonstrator. Experimental resultsrevealed a promising controller behavior. The visualization of the flow over the wing upper surface was done with the infrared measurement technique. Using the same technique, the transition region location was estimated and compared with transition location determined by the pressure sensors array installed in the wing upper surface. Nomenclature M = Mach number α = Angle of attack β = Deflection angle CRIAQ = Consortium for Research and Innovation in Aerospace in Quebec LVDT = Linear Variable Differential Transducer

show abstract

Application of Smart Materials for Adaptive Airfoil Shape Control

Cited by 30 publications

References 13 publications

Piezoelectric Morphing versus Servo-Actuated MAV Control Surfaces

Piezoelectric Morphing versus Servo-Actuated MAV Control Surfaces

Piezoelectric composite morphing control surfaces for unmanned aerial vehicles

A wind tunnel tested control system for a morphing wing actuation mechanism

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About