Recent Developments in The Aeroelasticity of Morphing Aircraft

Recent Developments in the Aeroelasticity of Morphing Aircraft
R.M. Ajaja1, M.S. Parancheerivilakkathila, M. Amoozgarb, M.I. Friswellc, and W. Cantwella

a
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Khalifa University of Science and Technology, Abu Dhabi, UAE
b
Department of Engineering and Technology, University of Huddersfield, Huddersfield, UK, HD1 3DH
c
College of Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, UK, SA1 8EN
Abstract
This paper presents an extensive review of the developments in the aeroelasticity of morphing
aircraft that occurred in the last decade (from 2009 to 2020). It focuses mainly on fixed-wing
aircraft and highlights some representative examples from rotary-wing aircraft. Morphing wings
are usually associated with significant changes in the aerodynamic loads, structural/elastic
properties, and inertial properties and hence the aeroelastic behavior. The change in aeroelastic
behavior can also affect the flight dynamics, stability, and control of air-vehicles. The main
motivation behind this paper is the fact that it is not fully possible to assess and quantify the
benefits of morphing technologies without accounting for aeroelastic effects. The literature on the
aeroelasticity of morphing aircraft can be split into two main themes: Aeroelastic Stability and
Aeroelastic Control respectively. The first theme (Aeroelastic Stability) includes studies
conducted on morphing concepts to ensure that they satisfy certain aeroelastic
requirements/constraints and that such requirements/constraints do not limit the potential benefits
of morphing. The second theme (Aeroelastic Control) includes studies that utilized morphing
technologies to improve aeroelastic characteristics and/or control flight loads. It is evident that in
both themes, the aeroelasticity of morphing aircraft has been analyzed using analytical, numerical,
or computational tools with a very limited number of wind-tunnel and/or flight tests. In this paper,
research activities and studies concerned are categorized according to the morphing degree of
freedom they address and the theme they fit. Aeroelastic frameworks developed for generic
morphing applications are also reviewed. In addition, various aeroelastic models used are
highlighted and discussed. Finally, trends and research gaps are identified and discussed and main
conclusions are drawn.
Keywords
Aeroelasticity; Morphing Aircraft; UAVs; Flutter; Divergence; Loads Alleviation
1
Rafic Ajaj, Assistant Professor, Khalifa University, Abu Dhabi, UAE, 127788, [email protected].
1
1. Introduction
Morphing aircraft have generated significant interest as a potential technology and future trend
to meet the ambitious goals of the EU ACARE2020 [1] and FlightPath2050 [2] documents in
reducing fuel burn, noise, and emissions. A morphing aircraft continuously adjusts its wing
geometry to enhance flight performance, control authority, and multi-mission capability [3-6] as
shown in Figure 1.
Figure 1. Morphing Aircraft optimized to perform multiple missions [4].

According to the NATO RTO technical team, morphing is the real-time adaptability of the
vehicle to enable a multi-point optimized performance [7]. Adaptive wing geometry can
potentially increases the overall system performance through load control and alleviation [5, 8-
10]. Morphing degrees of freedom can be divided into three main categories: planform morphing
(span, sweep and chord), out of plane morphing (twist, dihedral/gull, and spanwise bending), and
airfoil morphing (thickness and camber) as shown in Figure 2.
2
Figure 2. Morphing wing concepts [5].
The idea of morphing is not new. The Wright Brothers’ Flier achieved roll control by changing
the twist of the wing using an actuating cable controlled directly by the pilot [5]. The interest in
morphing aircraft as the technology of the future is not limited to small scale aircraft (Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles) but also large aircraft manufacturers, such as Boeing and Airbus, are investigating
the possibility of adding morphing technologies to their aircraft to enhance fuel efficiency and
reduce operating costs. For example, the latest version of the Boeing 777 (B777x) aircraft will
employ a folding wingtip capability to be activated only on the ground during taxiing to and from
the gates, thereby allowing the aircraft to operate from smaller airports and fit within their gate
limitations while having a large wingspan during flight.
In the literature, researchers have focused on developing wing concepts that facilitate
morphing. However, little effort has been dedicated to study the aeroelasticity of these morphing
concepts. Understanding the aeroelasticity of these concepts is essential in order to robustly
quantify their benefits and mature their technology readiness level. It can be seen throughout this
paper that the aeroelasticity of morphing wings has started to gain some momentum. The majority
of papers in the literature have performed aeroelastic studies on specific morphing wing concepts
while a very limited number of papers have focused on developing generic aeroelasticity
frameworks [11-21]. It should be noted that a number of comprehensive attempts, that review
morphing aircraft concepts and various modeling methods, exist in literature. For example,
Barbarino et al. [5] presented an extensive review on morphing technologies up to 2011. Similarly,
Li et al. [22] reviewed methods and tools that have been used in modeling and analyzing morphing
concepts. They classified morphing technology based on different parameters such as special
materials and relative techniques [23-26], geometry change [27-30] or actuator concept [31],
special actuators [32], and other applications [10, 33]. Currently, a comprehensive review on the
recent developments in the aeroelasticity of morphing aircraft doesn’t exist. It is extremely
important for the success of morphing aircraft to fill this gap by reviewing the literature and
highlighting the main trends and providing insights on future directions. This is the main motive
for preparing this comprehensive review paper.
3
Aeroelastic effects have significant influence on the design and flight performance of aircraft.
The aeroelastic phenomena refer to the interaction of aerodynamic, inertia, and elastic forces. The
first recorded aviation-related aeroelastic phenomenon occurred in 1916 on the Handley Page
PO/400 bomber due to violent tail oscillation which caused the elevators to move asymmetrically,
producing extreme distortion of the rear fuselage. Aeroelasticity plays an important role in the
airworthiness and certification of air-vehicles. In fact, during certification a defined range of load
cases and all possible aeroelastic phenomena should be considered to ensure that no critical load
value is exceeded and potentially disastrous scenarios can be avoided [34]. Aeroelastic effects are
not limited to aircraft with conventional control surfaces, but also to flight vehicles with morphing
technologies.
Morphing aircraft can offer improvements in the flight performance and reductions in weight,
noise, and emissions [35-38]. They may also improve the safety of flight through enhancement of
gust alleviation capabilities and stall characteristics [39]. The severe and rapid changes in
geometry, mass distribution, center of gravity, shear center, and aerodynamic center associated
with morphing wings have a great impact on the stability, flight dynamics, control, and
aeroelasticity of the aircraft. In addition, a number of morphing concepts have utilized flexible
skins and compliant structures, both of which have significant impact on the aeroelastic
characteristics during normal operating conditions and off-design conditions. In fact, the
aeroelasticity of a morphing aircraft must be carefully considered early in the design process. The
general form of the aeroelastic equation for an aircraft can be expressed as:
!"̈ + (&'( + ))"̇ + (&' ! , + -)" = 0 (1)
where !, (, ,, ), - are the structural inertia, aerodynamic damping, aerodynamic stiffness,

structural damping and structural stiffness matrices respectively, " are generalized coordinates
(typically model coordinates), & is density and ' is air speed.
In literature, research activities focused on the aeroelasticity of morphing aircraft can be split
into two main themes namely: Aeroelastic Stability and Aeroelastic Control. The first theme
(Aeroelastic Stability) deals with studying the aeroelastic behavior of morphing concepts to ensure
they can operate and offer their benefits with suffering from aeroelastic instabilities. The second
theme (Aeroelastic Control) utilizes morphing concepts for aeroelastic purposes mainly to control
the aeroelastic loads. This paper reviews developments in the aeroelasticity of morphing wings
that have occurred over the last ten years. This includes static and dynamic aeroelasticity of fixed
wing aircraft with some representative examples from rotary wing aircraft. Analytical, numerical,
experimental, and hybrid (includes analytical and experimental or numerical and experimental)
analysis are considered. This review does not consider flapping wings, flexible wings, and
aeroelastic tailoring. The research papers are categorized according to the morphing degrees of
freedom considered and the theme they fit. The tools and software used are also presented and
discussed. Section 2 of the paper presents the aeroelastic studies conducted on different morphing
wings. It also presents discussions and observations for each degree of freedom. Section 3 presents
generic aeroelastic frameworks developed for morphing aircraft applications. In Section 4, main
4
challenges are identified and major trends are highlighted. Finally, Section 5 presents the
conclusions and highlights future trends.
2. Literature Review
As stressed before, research activities are categorized according to the morphing degrees of
freedom: Planform, Out-of-plane, and Airfoil.
2.1 Planform Morphing
Wing planform alteration includes changes in span, sweep, and chord.
2.1.1 Span
Aircraft with large wingspans have extended range/endurance but lack maneuverability and
experience a larger root bending moments. In contrast, aircraft with a small wingspans are
maneuverable and agile, but have limited range/endurance [5]. Variable wingspan combines the
benefits of both large and small wingspans into a single aircraft, making span morphing an
emerging technology that is attractive for multi-mission UAVs. Studies in the literature have
adopted span morphing for enhanced flight performance, roll control, and flutter suppression [40,
41]. Variable wingspan technologies are usually associated with large changes in the inertia, elastic
and aerodynamic forces. Therefore, studying their aeroelastic behavior is vital for their maturity.
Figure 3 shows a number of aircraft with span morphing wing that have been built and flown in
past. It is apparent that the majority of aircraft equipped with span morphing, that has been built
recently, are small size UAVs.
Figure 3. Aircraft equipped with span morphing wings.
5
2.1.1.1 Aeroelastic stability
Huang et al. [42] presented an aeroelastic formulation with the inclusion of rigid-body motion
and a flutter analysis. Quasi-static modeling was used to develop an aeroelastic equation for a span
morphing wing, involving the rigid-body motion by combining unsteady strip aerodynamic theory
with Euler-Bernoulli beam theory. The wing was modeled as a three-segment Euler-Bernoulli
beam. The results showed that as the span increases the flutter mechanism varies from a bending-
torsional flutter to body-freedom flutter, where the rigid body motion coupled with the wing
bending motion [43-45]. In addition, the flutter speed decreased as the span increased. Similarly,
Huang and Qiu [46] developed a novel first-order state-space aeroelastic model to study the
transient aeroelastic and flutter characteristics of a variable span wing during morphing. Euler-
Bernoulli beam theory with time-dependent boundary conditions was used to establish a time-
varying structural model of the wing. The reduced-order unsteady vortex-lattice method (UVLM)
was used to calculate the aerodynamic forces. The effect of morphing speed and wingspan on the
aeroelastic behavior was investigated. The results showed that the critical flutter speed is very
sensitive to the span. During span extension, the flutter speed increased with increasing morphing
rate and decreased during the retraction process. Moreover, the transient aeroelastic response
analysis showed that morphing technology enhances the flight quality by flutter control. Gamboa
et al. [47] conducted a numerical aeroelastic analysis of a variable span morphing wing on a small
UAV. The study aimed to estimate the flutter critical speed as well as determine the mode shapes
and frequencies of natural vibration. The model was developed using ANSYS Structural APDL.
Three-dimensional lifting surface strip theory, together with the unsteady linearized potential
theory, were used to compute the flutter critical speed. The results showed that the loss of rigidity
in the overlapping section had a negative effect on the critical flutter speed. However, the flutter
analysis highlighted the safe operation of the variable span morphing wing within the intended
speed envelope, since the critical flutter condition is well above the maximum flight speed. In
addition, Murugan et al. [48] investigated the aeroelastic stability of a span morphing wing by
deriving an analytical aeroelastic model. Parametric variations introduced by a span morphing
wing were considered when deriving the structural and aeroelastic models. Thin airfoil theory and
CFD were used for the dynamic aeroelastic stability analysis. The results from the CFD analysis
showed that the lift increased nonlinearly both during and after morphing. The flutter analysis
results showed a significant reduction in flutter velocity during the morphing process, due to
changes in flow after the morphing period and also as a result of elastic, inertial and aerodynamic
variations.
2.1.1.2 Aeroelastic control

Ajaj and Friswell [40] developed a time-domain aeroelastic model to study the behavior of
rectangular uniform, cantilever compliant span morphing wings using the Rayleigh-Ritz method.
The aerodynamic loads on the wing were estimated using Theodorsen’s unsteady aerodynamic
theory. Theodorsen’s unsteady aerodynamics can be expressed as:
6
3! 3 3 3 1 (2)
1 = 2& 5−7̈ + '8̇ − 9: 8̈ < + 22&' =(>) × @−7̇ + '8 + A − 9:C 8̇D
"
4 2 2 2 2
3 9:3 3 % 7̈ 3 1 9: (3)
"
E#$ = 1" @ + D + 2& @ − '8̇ − A − C 8̈ D
4 2 8 2 2 8 2
where 1" is lift per unit span, E#$

"
is unsteady pitching moment around the elastic axis per unit
span, 3 is the chord of the wing at any location, 9: is the normalized pitch axis location with respect
to half the chord, =(>) is the frequency dependent Theodorsen’s function that accounts for
attenuation of lift amplitude and phase lag in lift response due to sinusoidal motion and 7 and 8
are the plunge displacements and pitch displacements at any spanwise locations respectively. The
influence of actuation rate, mass per unit span and the bending and torsional rigidity on the flutter
of span morphing wings were investigated. Finally, comparisons between two different span
morphing wings concepts (Zigzag wingbox [49] and GNATSpar wing [50] shown in Figure 4)
were performed. The results showed that the Zigzag wingbox concept was more promising than
the GNATSpar wing for flutter suppression. Moreover, they concluded that even though flutter
suppression can be achieved by span morphing, it is very much dependent on the morphing
mechanism employed.
a. The Zigzag wingbox [49]. b. The GNATSpar wing [50].

Figure 4. Span morphing concepts considered in [40].
Furthermore, Ajaj et al. [41] investigated the aeroelastic behavior of multi-segment (three-
segments), telescopic span morphing wings, by simplifying the wing as a linear cantilever Euler-
Bernoulli beam. The Rayleigh-Ritz method was used to derive the shape functions to model the
spanwise-out-of-plane bending and the torsion response. The estimation of aerodynamic loading
was conducted using Theodorsen’s unsteady aerodynamic theory. The effect of the extending
segment and the overlapping segment on the aeroelastic behavior of the wing was investigated.
The results showed that the extending segment has a significant effect on the aeroelastic behavior
of the wing. Finally, the feasibility of span morphing for flutter suppression was investigated.
Similarly, Li and Jinn [51] used numerical techniques to study the dynamic behavior and stability
of a variable span wing subject to supersonic aerodynamic loads. The wing was considered to be
an axially moving cantilever plate and the equations of motion were derived using Kane’s method
and piston theory. A morphing strategy was proposed to suppress the flutter that occured beyond
the critical span length, by assuming that the span length varies periodically around a mean value.
7
Flutter stability was verified by Floquet theory. Moreover, transient stability during morphing was
analyzed. The results showed that the critical speed for flutter decreased at larger span lengths and
increased with growing deploying rates due to the increased rigidity of the wing. They concluded
that varying the span length periodically with proper amplitude could enhance the flight quality of
the morphing vehicle.
2.1.1.3 Observations
There seems to be a balance between the studies that addressed aeroelastic stability and aeroelastic
control themes. For both themes, the majority of the papers are either analytical and/or numerical
and there is lack of experimental studies. The studies under both the themes used linear isotropic
beam elements for structural analysis of general and UAV wings combined with aerodynamic
loads from either CFD analysis or theoretical unsteady aerodynamic theories under subsonic
conditions. Only one study, under the control theme, used linear plate formulation combined with
piston theory for supersonic condition. None of the studies addressed the flight dynamics aspects
associated with span morphing. Furthermore, it is highly likely that as the wing span increases, the
effect of geometrical and aerodynamic nonlinearities become significant. None of the papers in
literature has accounted for such nonlinearities. Another aspect of concern is when a failure
happens in the span morphing mechanism, since the stiffness of the wing would change to some
extent, and therefore might be prone to instability. In terms of the safety, this could be very
dangerous, especially if a catastrophic failure occurs in the system. Table 1 summaries the studies
on the aeroelasticity of span morphing wings.
2.1.2 Chord
On conventional fixed-wing aircraft, chord change is usually achieved using leading/trailing
edge-flaps which are actuated by screw systems. Chord morphing can replace or augment the
performance of conventional high lift devices. Increasing the chord increases the wing area and
consequently increases the lift [52]. It is likely that the Bakshaev LIG-7 designed by the USSR in
1937 was the first aircraft capable of increasing its chord. Chord extension on this aircraft was
achieved during the take-off and landing by extending six chord wing sections from the fuselage
to 2/3 of the wingspan [3].
Chord morphing is not popular on fixed-wing aircraft due to the presence of fuel tanks, spar
and other components which present structural complexity. It appears that there is a lack of
aeroelastic studies that involves chord morphing on fixed-wing aircraft in the last decade. In
contrast, chord morphing has been utilized significantly for rotary wing applications [5]. This is
mainly because the blades of rotary wings have a single D-spar and a honeycomb filler; hence, it
is much easier to add chord morphing on rotary wings. For rotary wing aircraft, chord morphing
allows an increase in the altitude and maximum speed whilst reducing the required power from
the main rotor near envelope boundaries [53-57]. It has been observed that the frequency and
amount of actuation are the most important factors affecting the performance of the system [54-
8
57]. Figure 5 shows an experimental prototype of chord section used for a morphing rotor blade
developed by Barbarino et al.[55]. The concept consist of a cellular structure which allows chord
morphing using variation in the centrifugal force caused by change in rotor RPM.
(a) Before chord extension (arrow shows (b) After chord extension.
tension force applied to the cable).
Figure 5. Chord morphing prototype for a helicopter rotor blade [55].
As stressed earlier, this paper focuses on fixed-wing aircraft applications, therefore studies on
chord morphing for rotary wings are highlighted in Table 2 for the sake of completeness, but are
not discussed thoroughly. All studies cited here aimed to reduce the power requirement in the main
rotor and didn’t contribute to any of the aeroelastic themes. Therefore, the aeroelastic investigation
of the blade is something that needs to be studied in detail. The majority of the studies were
numerical and they used beam model for structural modelling. The aerodynamic forces were
mainly calculated using unsteady aerodynamic theories combined with air tables or CFD. One of
the studies [55] coupled numerical simulations with experiments to investigate the functionality of
the chord morphing prototype for a helicopter blade. Also, in all studies in the literature, chord
extension was analyzed in forward flight, while the aircraft might face different maneuvers and
environmental conditions. Moreover, the blade was considered to be isotropic, while blades are
normally made from composite materials with various types of elastic couplings. Such couplings
can be very important and must be modelled and considered. Advanced helicopter blades also have
tip devices to reduce noise and vibration levels. Therefore, it would be interesting to establish what
the effect of chord morphing would be on the stability, noise, and vibration of rotating blades.
9
2.1.3 Sweep
Sweep morphing extends the operational margin of an aircraft by allowing it to adapt its wing
geometry for low speed (for takeoff and landing) and high speed (fast cruise or supersonic
capability) flight phases. Sweep morphing changes the aspect ratio, and wing area, hence alters the
aerodynamic forces. The aerodynamic center and the center of gravity changes with sweep angle,
which affects the longitudinal stability of the airplane. The sweep angle also affects the lateral
stability and increases the dihedral effect [58-60]. In addition, the lift curve slope decreases as
sweep increases. Wing sweep delays the drag rise at Mach numbers close to unity [5]. In fact,
sweep morphing has been implemented on real-life fixed-wing aircraft more than any other
morphing degree of freedom. The first aircraft equipped with sweep morphing was the Bell X-5,
which was flown in 1951. It was adapted from the Messerschmitt P-1101 [61] and used a jackscrew
assembly for the actuation. The sweep mechanism for this aircraft was ineffective and led to
uncontrollable spins at stall speed. The wing was swept and translated forward simultaneously to
control the position of the aerodynamic center [60]. Sweep morphing wings became viable in mid-
1950s when the NASA Langley Research Center developed a system with pivots outboard of the
fuselage [62]. Many military aircraft in the 1960s and 1970s used a sweep morphing mechanism,
including the F-111, the Northrop Grumman F-14, the Tupolev Tu-160 Blackjack, the Su-24, the
Sukhoi Su-22, the Mikoyan Mig-23, and the Panavia Tornado [5]. Due to their significant impact
on the center of gravity, aerodynamic center, stall behavior, and bending-torsion coupling, it is
clearly vital to study the aeroelasticity of sweep morphing wings. Figure 6 shows the F-111
Aardvark aircraft at different sweep angles.
Figure 6. F-111 Aardvark aircraft flying at different sweep angles.

Similar to chord morphing, very little research has been done on the aeroelasticity of sweep
morphing during the last decade. The most reasonable justification is that morphing applications
are focusing more on small-scale UAVs that usually fly at low-subsonic speeds where sweep
10
morphing doesn’t provide major benefits. For small-scale UAVs, sweep morphing has been used
to increase agility during strike missions and for flight control through asymmetric morphing.

Sabri and Meguid [63] conducted a flutter analysis of a previously developed sweep morphing
wing [64, 65] for different morphing configurations at low speed. The unsteady aerodynamic
forces and moments were estimated using a 2D strip theory model and the structural dynamics of
the wing were obtained using the lumped mass method. The PK method was used to predict the
flutter boundary. The results showed that the designed morphing wing increased the critical flutter
velocity. Moreover, model predictions indicated that the morphing configurations increased the
aeroelastic stability of the UAV. In addition, Hui et al. [66] designed a bio-inspired morphing
discrete wing that can morph into different swept wing configurations. The wing was designed
with bionic feathers that were inspired from a pigeon’s wing structure aimed to improve the
aerodynamic performance of a UAV. They considered two morphing states: fully extended and
fully folded symmetrical morphing states. The morphing actuation system consisted of a driving
pulley, a driven pulley, an elastic belt, and a servo motor mounted at the wing root of the half-span
rectangular wing. For the aerodynamic analysis an open-source code, CFL3D was used. Wind-
tunnel experiments were carried out to investigate the aerodynamic performance of the morphing
wing. The results showed that the developed morphing UAV always maintain an optimal lift-to-
drag ratio at three different Reynolds numbers utilizing the symmetrical wing morphing. A small-
amplitude fluttering phenomenon was observed at Re of 187000 in both the fully folded and fully
extended cases.
All the studies belong to the aeroelastic stability theme. Both numerical analysis and
experimental testing were performed. The isotropic, Euler-Bernoulli formulation was used for
structural analysis whilst unsteady Theodorsen’s theory and CFD were used for aerodynamic
analysis. The experimental aeroelastic studies were limited to wind-tunnel testing only. All the
studies associated with the aeroelasticity of sweep morphing focused on small-scale UAVs flying
at low subsonic speeds. Table 3 gives a summary of studies on the aeroelasticity of sweep
morphing wings.
2.2 Out-of-plane Morphing
Out-of-plane morphing includes twist morphing and dihedral/gull/ folding wingtips/spanwise
bending.
2.2.1 Twist
Twist morphing, considered the oldest form of morphing, was implemented on the Wright
Brothers Flier for roll control. For almost 80 years, twist morphing was avoided, due to various
aeroelastic problems, however recently it has received attention, due to advances in aerospace
materials. Changing the twist distribution of a wing allows an improved flight performance and
enhanced control authority. Aircraft designers have focused on using the structural flexibility
11
favorably to avoid aeroelastic instabilities. Unlike variable sweep and span, twist morphing can
have a significant impact on the aerodynamic characteristics of the wing, without large platform
modifications. Moreover, twist morphing can increase the lift coefficient, alleviate gust and
maneuver loads and reduce drag significantly. In addition, twist is a more robust strategy for roll
control than ailerons [67]. However, it has been shown that the twist of the structure also affects
the dynamics of the wing or blade [68]. Various actuation methods and systems have been studied
to achieve twist morphing, such as shape memory alloys (SMA), piezoelectric stacks, and active
aeroelastic structures [5]. Barbarino et al. [5] concluded that twist morphing has been mainly
applied to fixed-wing aircraft, especially in fighters. Figure 7 shows a composite cellular material
morphing wing capable of twisting developed by Benjamin et al. [69].
(a) At zero tip twist. (b) At ± 10o tip twist.
Figure 7. The composite cellular material morphing wing [69].

In the last decade, a reasonable number of papers studied the aeroelasticity of twist morphing
on fixed-wing aircraft. For example, Cramer et al. [70] introduced a lattice-based, ultralight, and
conformable heterogeneous aeroelastic structure, which allowed for aeroelastic shape deformation
when subjected to external loading. They studied passive twist morphing induced by aerodynamic
loads and active twist morphing using a torque rod actuation mechanism. The structure consisted
of a cuboctahedral lattice based on an octahedral unit cell manufactured using polyetherimide
(PEI) material. The substructure, using octahedral unit cells, was modeled using Rhino 3D CAD
software. The pressure distribution over the airfoil was determined using XFOIL. The
aerodynamic loads were applied on the structural using ABAQUS software. They conducted
experimental study where they tested the wing in a subsonic wind-tunnel at the NASA Langley
Research Center. The wind-tunnel tests showed that the lift-to-drag ratio of the heterogeneous
structure increased when compared to a homogeneous baseline structure. The global aeroelastic
bending and torsion stiffness were reduced by 46% and 43% respectively. Pecora et al. [67]
numerically investigated the benefits of roll control of a high aspect ratio wings using twist
morphing. The sailplane G103-B was used as the reference aircraft. Finite element (FE) analysis,
using MSC.Nastran, was used to develop the structural and aeroelastic models. The vortex lattice
method (VLM) was used for aerodynamic modeling. The twist morphing wing was compared to a
wing with conventional ailerons. The results showed that the asymptotic roll rate produced by twist
12
morphing is 1.6 times larger than the rate produced by a conventional aileron for linear and
quadratic twist distributions along the span. The aeroelastic stability analysis showed that twist
morphing is a more robust strategy for roll control than ailerons, in terms of the control reversal
speed. Similarly, Sleesongsom and Bureerat [71] investigated the aeroelastic and mechanical
behavior of a twist morphing wing actuated by external forces. An aeroelastic model of the wing
structure was derived. An unswept rectangular wingbox was considered for the demonstration.
The aircraft design parameters, buckling factor, lift effectiveness (the ratio of total lift force on a
flexible wing to that of its rigid counterpart), divergence, flutter, and stress were computed by
applying various actuator moments on the wing. The aeroelastic modeling was carried out using
the finite element method (FEM) and the aerodynamic loads were estimated using the Vortex Ring
Method. The results showed that the torque for the actuation had a significant impact on the
mechanical and aeroelastic behavior of the wing. The lift effectiveness of the unloaded wing
increased with a positive moment and decreased with a negative moment. The flutter speed also
exhibited the same trend as lift effectiveness. The divergence speed dropped at a higher values of
torque and peaked at lower external forces. In addition, Ajaj et al. [72, 73] developed the Adaptive
Torsion Wing (ATW) concept to achieve aeroelastic twist by varying the torsional stiffness of a
two-spar wingbox. The ATW concept changes the area enclosed between the front and rear span
of a two-spar wingbox to modify the torsional stiffness [74, 75]. A multi-disciplinary optimization
suite consisting of a Genetic Algorithm (GA) optimizer coupled with a high-end low-fidelity aero-
structural [76, 77] was used in this study. The aero-structural model comprised of the Tornado
VLM and a FE beam model. They performed quasi-steady aeroelastic studies and that large tip
twists can be achieved at large dynamic pressures. Ajaj et al. [78] conducted dynamic aeroelastic
studies on the ATW. The aeroelastic model consisted of Theodorsen’s unsteady aerodynamics
coupled with an Euler-Bernoulli beam model. They estimated the power requirement for shifting
the spar webs.. The results showed that shifting the front web was more effective as it induced a
larger twist/pitch angle, but with larger actuation requirements. The combined shift of the front
and rear web can provide the aeroelastic twist required without exceeding the flutter and
divergence boundaries.

Silva et al. [79] used a flexural-torsional testbed called a pitch and plunge apparatus (PAPA)
for the acceleration reduction in the section of a wing. This was achieved by passive and active
model-based control. The passive control system used a shape memory wire in the torsional axis
to increase the torsional stiffness. The increased torsional stiffness was achieved by increasing the
temperature of the wire through the Joule effect. Active control was achieved by the actuation of
servomechanism, and consisted of a stability-augmented system with gain scheduling and output
feedback via linear-quadratic regulator theory. The objective of the active control system was to
reduce the acceleration of the system in the flutter regime and to maintain stability. To complete
this objective, a stability augmented system (SAS) was developed. The aerodynamic loads were
estimated for a 2D typical section using Wagner’s function-based unsteady time-domain
formulation. The results showed that the aeroelastic boundaries were improved by SMA based
passive control by significantly changing the torsional stiffness of the system when the SMA wire
reached the martensitic transformation temperature. Comparisons between the SAS-based active
control and the SMA based passive control showed that the latter was more promising since it
didn’t change the flow characteristics, thus it didn’t the drag and was less intrusive. In addition,
13
Guo et al. [80] studied load alleviation and the gust response of a 200 seater aircraft equipped with
a passive twist wingtip (PTWT). FEM was used for structural analysis whilst doublet lattice
method (DLM) was used aerodynamic analysis. The dynamic response analysis to discrete (one-
cosine) gusts was also performed. The results showed that the PTWT reduced the wing root
bending moment by 14% and gust-induced wingtip deflection by 21% in the most critical flight
phases, This highlighted the effectiveness of PTWT in gust alleviation. Furthermore, they
concluded that PTWT did not have a significant influence on heave motion and normal velocity.
Finally, the PTWT reduced the rolling control effectiveness via reducing the rolling moment by
20.5%.
The studies on the aeroelasticity of twist morphing belong to both themes with the majority of the
studies dedicated for aeroelastic stability. Most of the studies were numerical simulations of
UAVs, general wings, or HALE aircraft. FE software were used for structural analysis and the
DLM, VLM, XFOIL or unsteady aerodynamics were used for aerodynamic prediction under
subsonic speeds. It should be noted that under the aeroelastic control theme, some studies [79]
performed both experimental and numerical analysis. Although some of the studies achieved large
twist angles, the effect of aerodynamic nonlinearities was neglected. Failure modes associated with
some of the passive concepts (such as the PTWT [80]) and their impacts on the aeroelastic
behavior/stability were not addressed. Table 4 gives a summary of studies on the aeroelasticity of
twist morphing wings.
2.2.2 Dihedral/Gull/Folding Wingtips/Spanwise bending
Dihedral morphing, which includes dihedral, gull, folding wingtips and spanwise bending, has
been used for a number of purposes such as drag reduction (through vorticity distribution),
improved stall characteristics, replacing/augmenting conventional control surfaces, controlling
wingspan, aircraft storage in confined spaces, and enhancing agility and maneuverability. One of
the first applications of variable dihedral wings was the IS-1 fighter, designed by Nikitin-
Shevchenko in 1932, capable of out-of-plane morphing from a biplane to a monoplane to operate
at high speed [5]. Similarly, folding wings have been used on naval aircraft such as the de
Havilland Sea Vixen and Boeing F/A18 fighters to allow storage in confined spaces on aircraft
carriers. Recently, the Boeing B777x aircraft has adopted folding wingtips to achieve a larger
wingspan during flight for enhanced flight performance. The folding wingtip capability allows the
B777x to access standard 65 m airport gates. Similarly, Airbus envisions folding wingtips as a
promising technology for drag reduction by enabling larger wingspan and for loads alleviation
through using a flared-hinge [81]. The review by Barbarino et al. [5] in 2011 showed that dihedral
morphing has been mainly implemented on UAVs. However recently, folding wingtips have been
utilized on large transport aircraft for storage and loads alleviation purposes. Wilson et al. [81]
presented a summary of published aeroelastic studies on hinged wingtips up to 2016.

Ni et al. [82] presented a time-varying aeroelastic state-space equation to study the transient
aeroelastic behavior of a folding wing during morphing. MSC.Nastran was used for structural
modelling. The wing was assumed to be made from aluminum plates. The DLM was used to obtain
14
the aerodynamic forces. The Runge-Kutta numerical integration technique was used to solve the
equations of motion and predict the transient aeroelastic response. The impact of flow velocity,
aerodynamic forces and morphing velocity/rate on the aeroelastic performance were studied. The
results showed that the aerodynamic forces play a positive role in the morphing motion. The
reaction moment decreased with increasing the flow velocity and decreasing morphing velocity.
They concluded that neither morphing velocity/rate nor the flow velocity had a significant effect
on the reaction moment. On the other hand, Li et al. [83] derived the aeroelastic equations for a
folding wing with structural nonlinearity. The nonlinear free-play structural dynamic equation was
obtained by free interface component mode synthesis in which the nonlinear internal force was
considered and continuity at the interfaces was modified. The unsteady aerodynamic rational
function approximation and the Runge-Kutta method were used to derive the nonlinear aeroelastic
equations. The DLM was used to predict the aerodynamic forces. For the folding configuration,
the aerodynamic model can be formulated by DLM as [84]:
H = I∝ J(K)L (4)
where I∝ is dynamic pressure, K is oscillating frequency, J(K) is unsteady AIC matrix, H and L
are the force vector and displacement vector for aerodynamic panels respectively. The natural
frequency and the flutter boundary estimated using the derived equation were compared with their
corresponding values from MSC.Nastran. There was good agreement between the results with an
error less than 10%. Hu et al. [85] investigated the aeroelastic characteristics of a folding wing
during morphing. The flexible multi-body dynamics approach was used to model the folding wing.
The aerodynamic influence coefficient (AIC) matrices were obtained at different folding angles
using the DLM. The structural model was built using a flexible multi-body dynamics approach
incorporating Craig-Bampton modes. The influence of morphing parameters, morphing rate, and
morphing mode (folding and unfolding) on the dynamic aeroelastic stability of the folding wing
was studied. The results showed that the dynamic aeroelastic stability of the folding wing was
different from the quasi-steady aeroelastic stability. At folding angles slightly greater than 33°, the
dynamic aeroelastic stability changed from stable to unstable. The angle at which the dynamic
aeroelastic stability flipped was highly sensitive to the folding rate. Zhang et al. [86] proposed an
aeroelastic analysis approach to investigate the aeroelastic stability of a folding wing. The
structural dynamic equation of the folding wing was derived using a fixed component mode
analysis. The DLM was used for the unsteady aerodynamic model. The aeroelastic model was
achieved by the integration of component mode analysis with the DLM. The Gramian matrix in
control theory was used to investigate the aeroelastic stability of the folding wing. The proposed
method was verified by comparing it with traditional flutter eigenvalue analysis. The flutter
analysis was carried out for a wide range of folding angles, which was modeled using
MSC.Nastran. The results showed that the flutter velocity was very sensitive to the folding angle
since it had a significant effect on both the aerodynamic and structural characteristics. As the
folding angle increased, there was a transition between unstable modes. Higher model structural
damping improved the flutter boundary to some extent. The Gramian matrix allowed the
determination of the unstable modes with the largest contribution to the velocity and flutter
mechanism. Similarly, Verstraete et al. [87] developed a methodology to investigate the unsteady
nonlinear aeroelastic behavior of a folding wing concept in different flight configurations. The
methodology was based on the co-simulation scheme in which the dynamic system is split into
15
structural and aerodynamic models. The aerodynamic model was based on the UVLM and the
structural model was based on an FEM. The fourth-order predictor-corrector method developed
by Hamming [88] was used to integrate the aerodynamic and structural equations. The results
showed that while changing from one stable configuration to another, morphing aerial vehicles
could experience flutter and this can be avoided by varying the airspeed during the morphing
process. Moreover, a decrease in the flutter speed was observed when the dihedral angle increased
until it reached an angle of 30º.
Zhao et al. [89] developed a parameterized aeroelastic model to investigate the flutter
characteristics of a folding wing with different configurations. A simple aeroelastic model was
developed by coupling a parameterized structural model (established using substructure synthesis)
with DLM. MSC.Nastran was used to verify the accuracy and robustness of the developed
aeroelastic model. The flutter characteristics of the folding wing were predicted using the
developed model. The results showed that due to the pronounced effects on the aerodynamic and
structural characteristics, the critical flutter speed of the folding wing was very sensitive to the
folding angle. The transition between unstable modes could occur as the folding angle increased.
Moreover, Zhao and Hu [90] developed a set of differential algebraic structural equations using a
floating frame approach that governed the time evolution of the folding wing during the morphing
process. The transient responses of the wing during the morphing process was computed using
established equations. By integrating the developed equations with CFD, the transient aeroelastic
analysis of the morphing wing was investigated. The developed equations can be applied to both
the fast and slow varying processes of wing folding. The transient response of a flexible wingwas
compared with the rigid wing. The results showed that without considering the gravity effect the
transient response of the flexible system was oscillating about the rigid-body motion trajectories.
On the other hand, a larger transient response was observed when gravity effects were considered.
Liska and Dowell [91] developed effective theoretical and computational methods to find the
flutter solutions of a folding-wing configuration through coupled structural and aerodynamic
models. The flutter and divergence instabilities were identified from the developed model. The
frequency and damping were determined at different fold angles and freestream velocities using
an exact method that was free from dynamic approximations and spatial discretization. Linear
elastic beam theory was used to describe the dynamic behavior of the wing. Three different
aerodynamic models (based on strip theory) were considered: steady, quasi-steady and unsteady
linear aerodynamic models. The results showed that for a much smaller fold angle, the steady and
quasi-steady models caused a change in the flutter model compared with the unsteady model. For
the unsteady model, an increase in the fold angle lowered the flutter speed initially, yet flutter did
not monotonically decrease. Matthew et al. [92] investigated the aeroelastic characteristics of a
folding wing that enabled wing area changes of up to 200%. The sensitivity of natural frequencies
and flutter instabilities to actuator stiffness, fold angle, and vehicle weight were investigated using
the FE approach. DLM was used for aerodynamic modeling. The results showed strong
interrelationships between hinge stiffness, weight of the morphing vehicle, and fold angle. The
modal analysis showed that the hinge stiffness had a significant influence on the bending modes.
The unfolded configuration bending modes became similar to the traditional wings when the hinge
stiffness was increased above the structural stiffness. For higher spring stiffness at high fold angles,
16
the bending modes were primary functions of the structural stiffness. The body freedom flutter
may be an influencing factor when the vehicle approached its empty weight. Body freedom flutter
became the dominant flutter mode at 90 degrees’ fold angle for all configurations. At higher
stiffness, as the wing fold angle increased past 90 degrees, the flutter mode changed to inner wing
torsion. Attar et al. [93] computationally modeled a folding wing structure using a 3D vortex lattice
aerodynamic model with a planar wake assumption and an exact tangent flow boundary condition.
A geometrically-nonlinear structural dynamics theory based on von Karman strains was used. A
discrete Ritz-basis derived from FE analysis and component mode synthesis was used to discretize
the structural dynamic equations of motion in space. The computational results were compared
with the results from wind-tunnel experiments designed and tested at Duke University for three
folding configurations. The computational results showed that for each folding configuration, the
limit cycle oscillations were found at flow velocities greater than the linear flutter velocity and this
result was in agreement with the experiment. Over the range of velocities tested, the theoretical
and experimental limit cycle oscillation curves for the inboard wing showed limited nonlinear
stiffening with flow velocity. Three different folding angles were considered for the outboard
wing: 0, 30 and 60 degrees. For 0 and 30 degrees folding angles, the theoretical model predicted a
similar limit cycle tip displacement for the outboard wing and at a 60-degrees angle significantly
smaller limit cycle amplitudes were observed. Wang et al. [94] developed an aeroelastic model for
the prediction of the flutter speed and frequency for a folding wing with an arbitrary number of
wing segments and a simplified geometry. The strip-theory unsteady aerodynamic model was
coupled with beam model. Three experimental models were constructed to study two-segment,
three-segment, and four-segment folding wings. The wing segments were connected using
torsional springs manufactured from sheet steel. Wind-tunnel testing was conducted at Duke
University and flutter tests were conducted for different fold angles. The results showed that for
most configurations, the theoretically predicted flutter speeds were within 10% of the
experimentally measured values. Moreover, there was a 30% increase in the flutter speed upon
increasing the folding angle.
In addition, Cooper et al. [95] proposed a wingtip for Regional Jet aircraft. The concept was
based on a chiral type internal structure, enabling controlled cant angle orientation, camber and
twist through the flight envelop. A turbofan aircraft configuration model was considered as the
baseline aircraft. The aerodynamic analysis was performed using VCFlite3D CFD code and DLM.
The structural analysis was carried out by FE analysis using Nastran. The study showed that the
chiral structure can facilitate the required shape changes in camber, twist, and cant. Moreover, the
wingtip device could provide 2% fuel saving. A similar reduction in weight due to passive gust
loads alleviation was also possible with a slight change of configuration. Mardanpour and Hodges
[96] modeled the wing of the HALE aircraft with three beams using lockable hinge connections.
The wing was morphed to a “Z” configuration for maximum energy absorption. To analyze
aeroelastic trim and stability, a computer program, NATASHA, based on a finite-state induced
flow model and geometrically exact, fully intrinsic beam equations was used. The results of the
stability analysis showed that the aircraft exhibited aeroelastic stability. There were instabilities in
the flight dynamic modes with very small non-oscillatory eigenvalues. Jung and Kim [97]
conducted a flutter analysis of a folding wing structure using plate element models. Two different
plates: aluminum, and composite plate were considered. The effect of fold angle and hinge
17
stiffness were investigated. FEM, using first-order shear deformation theory, was used for
structural analysis and DLM was used for aerodynamic analysis. The result showed that the flutter
boundaries were sensitive to the fold angles. For some fold angles, the dynamic pressure suddenly
decreased or increased when the flutter mode altered. In addition, the hinge stiffness affected flutter
stability behavior significantly. de Breuker et al. [98] presented a nonlinear aeroelastic model for
a morphing winglet that achieve morphing by three discrete modes of morphing deformations:
folding, shearing and twisting. The aeroelastic model consisted of Weissinger’s method based
high-subsonic aerodynamic model with Prandlt-Glauret correction and a corotational beam
element model that accounted for geometric nonlinearities. The aforementioned code was
embedded on a gradient-based optimization routine to optimize the winglet which was retrofitted
to a regional airliner. The aim of the optimizer was to reduce the drag over entire flight of the
airliner. The results were compared with an optimized fixed winglet. The study showed the energy
consumption of morphing winglet was reduced by a factor of two when compared with the fixed
winglet. The morphing winglet could reduce the drag and limit the root bending moment by folding
the winglet downwards and creating a washout angle over the winglet.

Liausun et al. [99] conducted a preliminary study to determine the aeroelastic behavior and
load control of four different morphing winglet concepts: a flapping winglet, a winglet capable of
rotating around an axis along its span, a winglet whose deformation in torsion was controllable,
and a winglet equipped with a trailing edge flap. They developed fast and accurate aeroelastic
models that account for structural dynamics, aerodynamics, and flight mechanics. The models
were developed from the rational function approximation of the Roger’s formulation based
aerodynamic forces and structural reduction. The developed models were validated using high-
fidelity fluid-structure (CFD-CSM) coupled simulations. The results showed that the winglet
equipped with a trailing edge was the most suitable concept in terms of load control, especially
when used in conjunction with the aileron. This concept yielded a significant efficiency but had a
weaker impact on drag. Fonte et al. [100] investigated the load alleviation of an aircraft wing with
active morphing winglets in maneuvering conditions through nonlinear simulations. The active
winglet was equipped with two independent control surfaces with variable camber and differential
settings capability. The control surface on the winglets provided an MLA capability. The
mechanical system was capable of facing different flight static and dynamic situations by proper
control of the movable control tabs on the winglets. The load reduction on the wing and winglets
using the control tabs was investigated through a static aeroelastic analysis, using a feedforward
MLA controller. To evaluate the ability to cope with the expected morphing aero-shapes and
complete system performance, an electro-mechanical Matlab/Simulink model of the actuation
architecture was used. Symmetric and asymmetric maneuvers achieved by the sudden deflection
of the control surfaces were evaluated using the developed aeroelastic model combined with a
nonlinear simulator. The aerodynamic computations were performed by DLM. The results showed
that the proposed mechanical system was capable of wing load alleviation in different flight
conditions without compromising the aerodynamic efficiency. The MLA controller reduced the
structural loads even though it resulted in a reduction in the ailerons’ roll effectiveness. Noviello
et al. [101] investigated the influence of the combined use of morphing winglets and adaptive flap
tabs on the aeroelastic stability of a regional aircraft. The combined use of morphing winglets and
adaptive flap tabs improved the aerodynamic performance in climb and cruise conditions by 6%.
18
The flutter and divergence characteristics of the wing equipped with winglets and adaptive flap
tabs were assessed. The static and dynamic aeroelastic stability were investigated by a multi-
parametric flutter analysis in compliance with CS-25 airworthiness requirements. The proposed
kinematic systems were characterized by movable surfaces and integrated with an Electro-
Mechanical Actuation (EMA) based actuation system. For that purpose, the sensitivity analysis
was performed using MSC.Nastran based computations. This was accomplished by considering
the variations of inertial properties and the stiffness of the referred architecture. The SANDY 4.0
code was used to solve the aeroelastic stability equations and to generate the aero-structural model.
The results showed that the crucial flutter modes could be resolved using a mass balancing
procedure and were independent of the actuation line stiffness. A second trade-off flutter analysis
was conducted by considering the effect of morphing winglet tabs. The flutter modes arise in all
the stiffness and inertial configurations below the safe speed of 200 m/s. They concluded that
proper mass-balancing was required to avoid the flutter instability caused by a combined use of
winglets and morphing flaps.
Wilson et al. [81] studied the aeroelastic behavior of zero stiffness (or free hinge) flared hinge
folding wingtips on a short-range aircraft. They concluded that this approach can effectively
alleviate gust and maneuver loads with an opportunity for weight saving. However, the zero
stiffness hinge could cause flutter that can be stabilized by tip masses. The choice of hinge flare
and hinge location had a small effect on the bending moment at the wing root. Similarly, Wilson
et al. [102] proposed an aircraft comprising a wing with a wingtip device mounted about a hinge
at the tip. The wingtip operated as a device for load alleviation during flight by switching between
the flight and load alleviating configurations. The aircraft comprised a restraining assembly which
could help the wingtip device to adopt the load alleviation configuration by operating between a
restraining mode and the releasing mode. In the restraining mode, the wingtip device used a
restraining force to fix it in the flight configuration such as power-off brakes. In the releasing
mode, the wing tip device could adapt the load alleviation configuration by releasing the
restraining force on the wingtip. The study claimed that when the restraining assembly adopted
the releasing mode, the onset of the flutter could be delayed. Finally, it was observed that at load
alleviation configuration, the lift on the wing in the vicinity of the tip and beyond tip device was
reduced during the gust causing a significant reduction in the root bending moment. Cheung et al.
[103] investigated the gust load alleviation capability of a hinged folding wingtip device
experimentally through static and dynamic tests in a low-speed wind-tunnel. A numerical FEM
study using MSC.Nastran was conducted to compare the resulting predictions with wind-tunnel
results. The aeroelastic loads were predicted using the DLM within MSC.Nastran. The results
showed that gust load alleviation can be achieved by a folding wingtip with a nonzero flare angle.
The alleviation of gust loads varied with the lifting condition and the hinge spring stiffness. A 56%
reduction in peak loading was achieved. The steady aerodynamic tests showed that the folding
wingtip provided static aerodynamic stability for both the free-hinge and stiff-hinge arrangements.
Cheung et al. [104] further investigated gust load alleviation of a flexible high aspect ratio wing
with a folding wingtip using a low-speed wind-tunnel equipped with a vertical gust generator
through a range of 1-cosine gust inputs. The orientation of the folding hinge axis of the folding tip
was 10 degrees from the flow direction. They studied the overall gust load alleviation along with
19
the effect of a non-zero hinge angle and the usage of a wingtip tab. The results showed that using
a folding wingtip design reduced the wing-root bending moment by 6% relative to the locked-
hinge for shorter gust lengths and by 11% during longer gust lengths. Moreover, the wingtip tab
could control the folding tip orientation effectively in steady aerodynamic conditions and this
control surface was able to achieve a further reduction in the peak wing-root bending moment
through active control during gust encounters.
Moreover, Castrichini et al. [105] investigated the effect of a folding wingtip as a device to
reduce dynamic gust loads. The study was carried out in-flight conditions, with the introduction
of a passive nonlinear hinge spring on the folding wingtip for 1-cosine gusts. The nonlinear passive
hinge spring allowed the wingtip deflection only at larger load cases. Aeroelastic modeling was
carried out on a representative civil jet aircraft using a multi-body simulation code to investigate
the effect of such a hinged wingtip on the dynamic load behavior. Aerodynamic modeling was
carried out using the DLM and the aeroelastic analysis was carried out using a commercial
multibody code LMS Virtual Lab Motion. The results showed that the load alleviation capabilities
were influenced by the hinge moment threshold to release the wingtip by the hinge damping value.
Low hinge damping with a low threshold hinge moment allowed a rapid deflection of the folding
device due to trim loads and positive gust. This caused an increment in the wing root bending
moment. Moreover, the increase in the hinge moment threshold of the nonlinear device resulted in
higher wing root bending moments and delayed the wingtip rotation. Castrichini et al. [106] also
studied the effect of exploiting a passive nonlinear stiffness hinge spring integrated folding
wingtips on dynamic gust load reduction in flight. The dynamic gust responses for different hinge
device designs was studied using a representative civil jet aircraft aeroelastic model and a single-
degree-of-freedom model. The structural model consisted of a rigid stick structural model with
lumped masses. Aerodynamic modeling was performed using the DLM. The results obtained were
compared with the baseline model without wingtips. The results showed that the nonlinear spring
device improved the load alleviation capability compared to a linear device. Also, the nonlinear
spring device reduced the incremental wing root bending moments to lower levels relative to the
baseline model. It was proven that for a large enough range of deflection angles, significant load
alleviation is possible when the system exhibited a low overall stiffness around the trim
equilibrium point. The reduction in gust effects that was observed during higher and faster wingtip
deflections were a result of the negative stiffness contribution. Furthermore, Castrichini et al. [107]
used a folding wingtip in flight as a device to reduce the static and dynamic loads. The investigation
was carried out using a civil jet aircraft aeroelastic model, in which the wingtip device was
connected to the wing with an elastic hinge. The effect of stiffness, wingtip weight, damping and
hinge orientation on the static and dynamic (discrete gust and continuous turbulence) response
were studied. The model used to investigate the aeroelastic behavior was the modified Future Fast
Aeroelastic Simulation Technologies (FFAST) model of a representative civil jet aircraft. The
structure was modeled using a stick model with lumped masses. Aerodynamic modeling was
carried out using the DLM. The PK and PKNL methods were used to conduct the flutter analysis.
The results from the static analysis showed that the hinge orientation had a significant influence
on the response of the model. For the stream-wise hinge case, no-load alleviation effect was
observed. At lower wingtip masses and hinge spring stiffness, the greater the hinge angle with
respect to the free stream direction, the greater the load alleviation capability, due to a nose down
twist of the wingtip. The results showed that a low wingtip mass at hinge angle of 25º was
20
beneficial for aeroelastic stability, both for fixed and flexible hinges. It was observed that an
increase in span of 25%, using the folding wingtip, caused almost no increase in load for the cases
considered. In addition, Castrichini et al. [108] investigated the interaction between the aircraft
flight dynamics and the aeroelastic effect of wingtip and the semi-aeroelastic hinge (SAH). The
integrated model of flight dynamics and aeroelasticity in this study was built upon the simplified
version of the formulation proposed by Saltari et al. [109]. The DLM was used to model unsteady
aerodynamic effects. The results showed that regardless of the 25% increment in span, the free-
hinge aircraft had the same dynamic response and handling qualities as the baseline model with
no wingtip extension. Therefore, the SAH could be used to alleviate the roll damping increment
induced by a longer span and as a load reduction device. Thus enhanced aileron authority could be
achieved with a resulting weight reduction with respect to the fixed-hinge aircraft. Wilson et al.
[110] developed the AlbatrossONE, a SAH small-scale demonstrator aircraft, and conducted
extensive wind-tunnel and flight tests. The AlbatrossONE is a scaled-down short-range aircraft
with a fuselage based on Airbus A321 as shown in Figure 8a. Five wingtip configurations with
three span lengths were considered: one with no wingtips (2.6 m span), two with locked wingtips
(3.2 and 3.7 m span), and two with the wingtips free to rotate about their hinges (3.2 and 3.7 m
span). The wing skin was constructed using CFRP stiffened with Rohacell foam. The spar was
made of plywood wrapped in CFRP. The mid and outer wings are constructed using titanium by
additive manufacturing technique and that was detachable from the inner wing. The wing hinges
were also constructed using titanium. Two electric ducted fan motors were used to power the
aircraft with a maximum cruised speed of 40 m/s. The aircraft was equipped with strain gauges
and the accelerometers for the flight-testing. The flight tests showed that the wingtips were both
statically and dynamically stable. Moreover, the load alleviation capability of wingtips was
confirmed from strain gauge measurements. In addition, the near linear variation of flapping
frequency of wingtip with airspeed was confirmed by wind-tunnel tests. Figure 8b shows the SAH
wing installed in wind tunnel.
(a) The AlbatrossONE. (b) The SAH wing installed in wind tunnel.
Figure 8. SAH demonstrator, AlbatrossONE [110].
21
The majority of studies on the aeroelasticity of dihedral morphing wing belong to the aeroelastic
stability theme. Most of the works in both the themes are numerical analysis with a limited number
of experiments including a flight testing under aeroelastic control theme [110]. The FE was widely
used for structural analysis in both themes. Under the aeroelastic stability theme, there is a limited
number of studies that considered the nonlinear formulations [93, 96] for structural modeling. The
DLM, unsteady aerodynamic theories, VLM, and CFD were used to estimate the aerodynamic
loads. For both themes, most of the studies considered subsonic flight for civil aircraft with or
without a gust. Moreover, the effect of wingtip jamming or failure on the aeroelasticity of the wing
has not been addressed. The coupling between aeroelasticity and flight dynamics associated with
morphing was only addressed by a limited number of studies [108, 109]. Table 5 provides a
summary of the recent literature on the aeroelasticity of morphing dihedral/gull/folding
wingtips/spanwise bending wings.
2.3 Airfoil Morphing
This section includes thickness-to-chord variations and camber changes. The majority of work
on the aeroelasticity of airfoil morphing has focused on camber morphing with very limited effort
dedicated to thickness to chord morphing. In fact, the research effort that addressed aeroelasticity
of airfoil morphing is much larger than the those associated with out-of-plane and planform
morphing [5].
2.3.1 Thickness-to-Chord Ratio
Significant drag reduction can be achieved by varying the thickness-to-chord ratio of the wing
to delay flow transition and control flow separation. This can be done by shifting the transition
point near the trailing edge [111].

Courchesne et al. [111] investigated the aeroelastic characteristics of a morphing wing
equipped with SMAs. The wing had a laminar airfoil shape and the upper surface was made of a
Carbon-Kevlar composite material flexible skin. The electronically controlled Shape Memory
Actuators were used to morph the upper surface of the wing causing a variation in the airfoil
thickness. This caused the flow transition point to move closer to the trailing edge. The aeroelastic
analysis was carried out using MSC.Nastran for structural analysis and DLM was used for
aerodynamic predictions. The aeroelastic study aimed to determine the condition at which the wing
was stable in terms of flutter. The results showed that the flutter occurred at a Mach number equal
to 0.55. Grigorie et al. [112] took the morphing concept proposed by Courchesne et al. [111] a step
further and developed an integrated controller consisting of bi-positional controller (on-off) and a
proportional-integral controller was developed. The controller was validated using numerical
simulations, bench testing and wind-tunnel testing. An aeroelastic study was conducted to
determine the flutter conditions to be avoided during the wind-tunnel testing for validation
purposes. MSC.Nastran was used to build a 3D numerical model of the upper flexible skin of the
morphing wing. Doublet lattice panel theory was used for aerodynamic modeling and the V-g
22
method was used to estimate flutter speed. The study showed that aeroelastic instabilities for the
morphing configurations considered appeared at Mach number 0.55, which was higher than the
wind-tunnel Mach number limit speed of 0.3. Once flutter was cleared, the wind-tunnel validation
tests were conducted and they showed that the performance of the actuator controller significantly
enhanced the wing aerodynamic performance. Figure 9 shows a variable thickness airfoil with
flexible skin [113].
Figure 9. Cross-section of thickness morphing wing model [113].
Rhodes and Santer [114] presented a thickness morphing airfoil with a deployable shock
control bump for transonic shock control aiming to reduce the drag. Controlled loads were used to
model structural morphing. A commercial FE software, Samcef was used for structural analysis,
and OpenFOAM CFD code was used for aerodynamic analysis. Static aeroelasticity was included
in this work as a weak coupling between the structural and aerodynamic models. The results
showed that a drag reduction of 4.2 % was observed by deployed bump. There was a very small
contribution of static aeroelastic characteristics to the structure. A small increase in bump height
was observed during static aeroelastic analysis and which didn’t affect the shock control
capabilities. In addition, Jinks et al. [115] investigated the response of flexible active plates suitable
for shock control bumps using supersonic wind-tunnel. High-speed Schlieren Imaging was used
to capture the shock structure over the plates. Two captive linear actuators (Haydon-Kerk 25443
actuators) were used to actuate the plate during the tests which can provide a maximum
displacement of 18 mm. Schlieren Images showed a change in the shock structure as it passed over
the flexible plate. For the actuated plate, it was possible to control the position of the shock. From
the experiment, the effects of large-scale destructive panel flutter were not observed. However,
due to small variations in free stream pressure, small oscillations were observed.
All studies on the aeroelasticity of thickness-to-chord ratio belong to the aeroelastic stability
theme. The effect of thickness changes in the airfoil during the flight on the aeroelasticity of wings
was analyzed both numerically [111, 112, 114] and experimentally [112, 115]. However, most of
the studies did not consider its effect on the flight dynamics. The structure of the wing was
modelled using FE software without considering large deformation nonlinearities, and they are
mostly isotropic. The aerodynamic loads were simulated using the DLM for subsonic speeds and
CFD [114] for transonic speeds. The aeroelasticity of wings equipped with thickness morphing
mechanisms mostly considered the level flight condition, while it is necessary to check the impact
23
of flight maneuvers on the efficiency of this morphing. The majority of the studies ignored the
impact of skin flexibility on the aeroelastic behavior of the wing except one study [111]. Finally,
it must be highlighted that the number of studies concerning the aeroelasticity of flying vehicles
using thickness morphing is very limited. Table 6 provides a summary of the aeroelasticity of
thickness-to-chord morphing wings.
2.3.2 Camber
On fixed-wing aircraft, camber variation has been used to control roll, pitch, and yaw for over
100 years [116]. Moreover, camber change has been used to generate high-lift coefficients during
takeoff and landing [117]. Camber morphing is one of the most popular morphing degrees of
freedom probably due to its simplicity and effectiveness. It has been utilized for a range of
applications such as adjusting the upper surface profile to delay shockwaves to increase flight
performance in the transonic regime [118]. Similarly, camber morphing wings have been used for
gust and maneuver load alleviation allowing a significant reduction in structural weight, leading
to reduced fuel burn [119]. Other applications include active flutter suppression. It should be
highlighted that most camber morphing applications have focused on UAVs. In literature, the
aeroelasticity of camber morphing wings has attracted the greatest attention mainly because it can
be achieved with less complicated mechanisms and it requires relatively smaller actuation forces.
In general, camber morphing has a significant impact on the aerodynamic forces, but less impact
on the inertia and elastic forces when compared to other morphing degrees of freedom. Figure 10
shows a recently developed polymorphing wing capable of camber and chord morphing [120].
(a) Pre-morphing.
(b) 20⁰ flap down condition.
(c) 20⁰ flap up condition.

Figure 10. The polymorphing wing [120].
Another example of camber morphing concept is the Fishbone Active Camber (FishBAC)
developed by Woods and Friswell [121]. Figure 11 shows the FishBAC wind tunnel model [122].
24
(a) Before morphing. (b) After morphing.
Figure 11. FishBAC wind tunnel model [122].

Molinari et al. [123] introduced a camber morphing wing concept to replace conventional
ailerons. The concept is actuated using piezoelectric actuators. Numerical optimization was carried
out to achieve a shape that was aerodynamically efficient and could withstand the aeroelastic loads.
Coupled 3D aero-structural simulations, using FEM and 3D panel method, were carried out to
investigate the static and dynamic aeroelastic behavior. The aeroelasticity of wing was evaluated
at three flight conditions. The aeroelastic analysis showed the operational ability of the morphing
wing without the occurrence of flutter. Henry et al. [124] studied the optimal structural parameters
of the skin and piezoelectric actuators for a compliant morphing wing to increase the system
performance. The study aimed to optimize the design parameters to achieve the maximum rolling
moment and flutter speed while minimizing wing weight. The study showed that the performance
of the baseline was increased significantly as a result of width and thickness distribution
optimization of bi-morph piezoelectric actuators. The rolling moment was increased by 27.67%
with a 4.31% mass penalty. Moreover, the flight speed could be increased by 83.4% whilst
maintaining sufficient roll control. Tsushima et al. [125] conducted a static nonlinear aeroelastic
study on a composite morphing wing with a corrugated structure to achieve camber morphing.
They developed an aeroelastic framework consisting of FEM for structural modeling and the
UVLM for aerodynamic predictions. The developed code could be used to investigate the
aeroelastic characteristics of both isotropic and orthotropic materials. Static aeroelastic analysis
was undertaken on a tapered wing using the proposed analysis framework. The wing considered
was the base wing of the JAXA Technology Reference Aircraft (TRA) 2012A. Modification to
the base wing was done. The analysis was carried out by considering two different materials:
Aluminum Alloy and Nylon. The performance of the wing with a corrugated camber morphing
flap was compared to the wing with a hinged flap. The results showed that the wing made of
aluminum alloy gave increased lift resulting in larger vertical deflection for both the corrugated
structure and hinged flap at tested conditions when compared wing without flap deflection. For
the wing structure with nylon, along with the vertical deflections, twisting of the corrugated
structure was observed under tested conditions. Arena et al. [126] studied the numerical and
experimental validation of a morphing aileron model based on a servo-actuator as a part of the
CRIAQ-MDO505 project. The investigation focused on the functionality, wind-tunnel tests, and
ground vibration of the model. The action of the actuators was integrated within the numerical
model of the aileron. Wind-tunnel experiments were carried out to investigate the compliance of
25
the device. Structural modeling was performed using MSC.Nastran and the unsteady AIC were
obtained using the DLM. Aeroelastic stability analysis was performed in accordance with EASA
CS-25 airworthiness requirements. The functionality tests showed that flap actuation to the desired
morphed shape was reproducible. The preliminary results showed that the actual structural
configuration of the aileron is stable if assembled on a typical regional aircraft wing. There was
no critical flutter instability in the flight envelope during the aeroelastic analysis based on
symmetric and anti-symmetric modes with a spectral bandwidth of 0-60 Hz. Arena et al. [127] also
investigated the aero-servo-elastic impact on the morphing wing trailing edge (Active Trailing
Edge-ATE) of a CS-25 category aircraft as part of the SARISTU project. The stiffness and inertial
distributions of the stick-beam mockup of the complete structure were estimated using
MSC.Nastran. The unsteady aerodynamic coefficients were estimated using DLM. The flutter
analysis was carried out using SANDY 3.0 to verify the safety requirements. Finally, a dynamic
stability assessment was performed to support Fault and Hazard Analysis (FHA). The results
showed that the ATED (Active Trailing Edge Device) did not induce any kind of flutter instability.
Working on the same project, Pecora et al. [128] conducted an aeroelastic analysis of a novel
smart structure to achieve the controlled modification of the trailing edge shape. A full-size CS-
25 category aircraft wing was used in this study. The effect of variations in the stiffness of the
trailing edge actuators on the aeroelastic behavior was simulated by implementing the rational
approaches. MSC.Nastran was adopted for structural modeling and DLM was used to estimate the
AIC. The SANDY 3.0 code was used to couple the aero-structural model and to solve the
aeroelastic stability equations. The results showed that for the most practical combination of
inertial distributions and trailing-edge stiffness, flutter was avoided when the actuation chain
provides sufficient stiffness. Moreover, the proper balancing of the trailing edge could avoid flutter
instability within the flight envelope. Rea et al. [129] conducted an aeroelastic stability analysis of
a wind-tunnel model equipped with a full-scale morphing aileron driven by load-bearing electro-
mechanical actuators. The aim of their study was to prove that the concept is free from flutter up
to 1.2 times the maximum expected flow speed (85m/s) during planned wind-tunnel tests. The
aeroelastic models/tools developed by Arena et al. [127] were used. They investigated flutter speed
trends versus the stiffness of the external linear actuator. They concluded that the concept was free
from any dynamic instability up to 1.2 times the maximum airflow speed expected during testing.
They observed that at higher speeds the sources of aeroelastic instability was a typical ternary
mechanism characterized by the combination of the aileron harmonic mode and aileron tab mode
and sustained by the bending mode.
Keidel et al. [130] introduced a novel structure-actuation camber morphing concept for a flying
wing. The concept used an internal structure actuated by electromechanical actuators. The
aerodynamic coefficients were estimated using a 3D panel method, coupled with a nonlinear
extended lifting line technique. The structural analysis was conducted using MSC.Nastran. The
morphing capabilities and the wing up bending test were carried out experimentally and the
deflection of the actuators was measured using a digital image correlation (DIC) system. Wind-
tunnel testing was performed to predict the aerodynamic and aeroelastic behavior of the morphing
wing and the results were compared to the numerical results. The results showed that the design
has a flutter speed that satisfied the buckling constraint and had a static stability margin of 0.29
and 0.27 at loiter speed (15m/s) and cruise speed (30m/s) respectively [131]. Precup et al. [132]
developed an aeroelastic wing model for low-speed wind-tunnel tests at the University of
Washington as a part of the SSCI DIRECT project. The model was based on the real-time
26
continuous camber and twist shaping concepts. The model had twelve independently controlled
trailing edge control surfaces. This work followed the development of a smaller earlier VCCTEF
(Variable Camber Continuous Trailing Edge Flap) [133] aeroelastic model. For the previous work,
the setting of the angles of the individual trailing edge segments was performed manually. For the
new model, a VCCTEF flap actuator was developed and housed inside the outer mold line of the
wing. An analytical model was developed to investigate the structural dynamics and aeroelastic
characteristics of the new model and validated by modal tests and static loads. The wing was
fabricated using fiberglass and a foam core. A VICON Nexus 3D motion tracking system was used
to track the position of markers on the wing during wind-tunnel testing. A Nastran model was
developed to compare with the experiments. The prediction of lift coefficient from the Nastran
aeroelastic trim solution was in good agreement with the wind-tunnel results and Nastran captured
the linear behavior in the lift versus angle of attack plot very well. The flutter speed of the system
was much higher than the maximum speed planned for the tests. Fasel et al. [134] presented the
numerical modeling and optimization of a camber morphing Airborne Wind Energy (AWE)
aircraft. The work focused on modeling the reduced-order coupled flight dynamics and
aeroelasticity of the aircraft using Matlab Simulink. A numerical optimization framework was
used to maximize the average annual power production of the system. The numerical simulation
used was a two-way fluid-structure interaction (FSI) simulation. MSC.Nastran was used for the
structural analysis and a potential-flow based 3D panel method was used for the aerodynamic
analysis. The results showed that the use of reduction technique dramatically improved the
computational efficiency of the simulation. The performance of the AWE system, in terms of
annual power production, was evaluated. The results showed that the proposed multidisciplinary
optimization approach offers the potential to improve power production by 52% by exploiting the
interdisciplinary interactions. Furthermore, Fasel et al. [135] conducted a computational
investigation on a camber morphing wing on an AWE aircraft, using a reduced-order coupled
aeroelastic and flight dynamics model. Structural modeling was carried out using MSC.Nastran
and the aerodynamic modeling was carried out using the 3D panel method. The stringers and
actuators of the wing were modeled using beam and rod elements and the corrugated skin was
modeled using plate elements. The mesh of the wing was generated using Matlab and the mass
and stiffness matrices were obtained using Nastran. The computation model was used to simulate
the operation of a camber-morphing AWE system following circular trajectories. The results
highlighted the potential of the proposed model to evaluate the performance of the AWE system.
The developed model was suitable for aeroservoelastic optimization and it allowed the concurrent
analysis and identification of the ideal structural, aerodynamic and controls-design parameters of
the morphing wing. The camber morphing concept was applied over the whole span of the wing
which allowed the control of the spanwise lift distribution for different flight conditions to
maximize the power production. Ai et al. [136] presented the design and manufacturing of a
morphing trailing edge flap using spatially variable stiffness materials. They developed a design
optimization methodology to identify the required material stiffness variations of the 3D printed
honeycomb core structure with and without the consideration of two-dimensional static aeroelastic
effects. The optimization was carried out using a GA optimizer in Matlab. The aerodynamic loads
were estimated using XFOIL. The structural analysis was performed using Abaqus. Different
airfoil morphing profiles [137] were chosen for the optimization study. The optimization model
provided the stiffness variations in the morphing core for different morphing profiles. The results
showed that the aeroelastic effects significantly affected the structural design. For the most curved
27
airfoil profile, the aerodynamic loads significantly affected the optimization results. This showed
that a stiffer core is required to withstand the pressure loads leading to an increase in actuation
energy.
Su [138] developed an aeroelastic formulation to analyze aeroelastic behavior of arbitrary
camber deforming flexible airfoils. Orthogonal Legendre polynomials, with traditional rigid body
pitching and plunging motions, were used to describe the camberwise bending deformations of
flexible airfoils. Hamilton’s principle was used to derive the aeroelastic equations of motion. A
2D finite-state unsteady aerodynamic solver was used. The aerodynamic formulation assumed
incompressible and inviscid flow and ignored stall effects. The effect of camber flexibility on the
static and dynamic aeroelastic characteristics was assessed. The aeroelastic analysis showed that
the flexibility exhibited torsional divergence and significantly reduced the flutter boundary.
Murugan et al. [139] investigated the characteristics of the FishBAC concept (shown in Figure 12)
based camber morphing airfoil using two-level hierarchical modeling and optimization. At lower
level hierarchy, a structural analysis was performed with a 2D airfoil. The FSI using a 2D panel
method and the homogenized beam model was studied. At higher-level hierarchy the aeroelastic
analysis was performed. A FEM was developed for the camber morphing composite skin with
representative boundary conditions. A variable stiffness skin was modeled to minimize the out-of-
plane deformation by varying the fiber angle along the chord. The optimal curvilinear fiber paths
of the composite skin were performed using a multi-objective optimization framework at the
second level of hierarchy, based on a GA optimizer to obtain Pareto-optimal solutions. The FSI
study showed a strong coupling between the actuation moment, aerodynamic pressure loading,
and deformation in the spine of the airfoil. The analysis on the skin showed a significant reduction
in the out of plane deformation of skin and elastic strain energy, simultaneously. It was proved that
the actuation energy can be minimized using curvilinear fiber while simultaneously minimizing
the skin deflection due to aerodynamic loads.
(a) Morphing airfoil with internal (b) FishBAC compliant structure.

structure and flexible skin.
Figure 12. Variable camber airfoil employing FishBAC concept [139].
Li et al. [140, 141] conducted a nonlinear aeroelastic study of a camber morphing composite
wing. The wing had a morphing trailing edge actuated by curved beams. The wing was modeled
using the FE code MSC.Patran/Nastran software and an experimental wing model was constructed.
Impact test was carried out on the experimental model and the results were used to validate the FE
models. A nonlinear aeroelastic equation was developed to investigate the effect of freeplay
28
nonlinearity between discs attached to wing skins and curved beams. The AIC were estimated
using the DLM [140] and Roger’s approximation [140, 141]. The DMAP language based on
MSC.Nastran was used to generate the stiffness matrices, damping, and generalized structural
mass. A Matlab code was developed to solve the aeroelastic equations. The effect of morphing
stiffness on the critical flutter speed was studied. The results showed that the aeroelastic responses
of nonlinear systems increased the divergence speed when the velocity was higher than the critical
flutter speed and reduced the divergence speed at low velocity. Limit cycle oscillation and
supercritical Hopf bifurcation were detected as well [140]. In addition, they concluded that
freeplay nonlinearity could reduce the critical flutter speed resulting in supercritical Hopf
bifurcation [141]. Murua et al. [142] conducted a numerical study to investigate the effect of the
chordwise flexibility on the dynamic stability of compliant airfoils. The time-varying camber
deformations were studied using a classical aeroelastic model. Unsteady thin airfoil theory was
used to obtain the aerodynamic forces and the FEM was used for the corresponding compliant
airfoil stiffness and inertia. The flutter speed was computed using the V-g and state-space stability
methods. The study considered three physical degrees of freedom: one elastic (camber
deformation) and two rigid bodies (plunge and pitch motions). The results showed that the camber
mode alone caused flutter at a constant reduced frequency due to the lock-in phenomenon between
camber motion and the shed wake. For the rigid body cases, there was a significant dip in the
flutter boundary of the compliant airfoil. Seber and Sakarya [143] conducted a nonlinear FE
modeling and static aeroelastic analysis of an adaptive camber wing using MSC.Patran and
MD.Nastran. The wing consisted of cutout ribs, guide-slide assemblies at the trailing edge section,
pushrods, and servo-actuators. During morphing, the guide-slide assemblies allowed the trailing
edge part of the cutout rib by means of pushrods. A previously designed hingeless control surface
was integrated into the wing in FE analysis. The higher-order panel code PAN AIR was used to
calculate the steady-state aerodynamic loads and an in-house code SAMOA was used to account
for aeroelastic coupling. An iterative process with linearized influence coefficients was used to
calculate the actuation force magnitude during morphing. The results showed that the induced drag
and root bending moment can be reduced by elliptical and linear washouts that are created by
spanwise camber variations. The static aeroelastic analysis indicated that at the majority of the
guide-slide assemblies, the magnitude of actuation force increased to overcome the aerodynamic
loading and maintain the section camber. At the outboard guide-slide assembly, the aerodynamic
loads acted favorably and reduced the magnitude of actuation force due to the largest washout.
Bilgen et al. [144] presented a variable camber morphing airfoil actuated by a Piezoceramic
actuator known as the Macro-Fiber Composite (MFC). The airfoil consisted of a pair of optimized
pinned boundary conditions, two cascading active surfaces and optimized locations of the
geometric features. The pinned boundary conditions allowed for the smooth and variable
deformation of the camber line. A single substrate that wraps around the airfoil shape was used to
achieve the continuity in the airfoil. This work focused on the theoretical static-aeroelastic
response characterization. The boundary conditions and the geometric parameters of the airfoil
were optimized using a parametric FSI study. XFOIL was used to obtain the aerodynamic
coefficients and the pressure distribution over the airfoil and ANSYS (FEM) were used to compute
the structural deformations. The proposed airfoil achieved a higher lift coefficient and slightly
lower lift-to-drag ratio when compared to the baseline variable camber airfoil (with solid-state
internal hinges and 9.0% chord thickness). Bilgen et al. [145] also presented a 2D theoretical static-
aeroelastic model and optimization of a previously designed [146] variable camber morphing
29
airfoil actuated via surface-bonded piezoceramic materials. The morphing of the airfoil was
achieved by employing two cascading bimorph actuators (MFCs) in the top and bottom surfaces
of the airfoil which was pinned at the trailing edge. A GA optimization technique was used to
determine the structural parameters (mainly the substrate features) of the airfoil. A carbon
nanotube-reinforced composite was assumed as the substrate. Aeroelastic modeling was carried
out using XFOIL and ANSYS. A Matlab code was used to solve the FSI interaction problem by
iterating between the XFOIL and ANSYS. The results presented in this study covered a velocity
range of 10-30m/s and Reynolds numbers over the range 118000-353000. At low velocity, the
flow-induced deformations were small due to low dynamic pressure and at high velocity the flow-
induced deformations were more noticeable.
Previtali and Ermanni [147] designed a camber morphing wing made of composite materials
using a previously designed compliant rib [148]. The wing consisted of eleven compliant ribs and
five actuation stations. The actuation stations were placed between two ribs and a single rib was
placed near the constraint. A linear actuator was used to actuate the wing structure. Both the 2D
and 3D aerodynamic properties and 3D structural behavior were presented. For the 2D
aerodynamic analysis, XFOIL was used and the data were processed using Matlab. The 3D
aerodynamic simulations were based on the nonlinear extended lifting line theory (ELLT). The
structural analysis was carried out using nonlinear FEM simulations in MSC.Nastran. The quasi-
static aeroelastic calculation was carried out by considering a change in pressure coefficient,
absolute displacement, lift coefficient and drag coefficient as parameters. The calculation was
performed at 5⁰ angle of attack and a speed of 30 m/s. The results showed that the aerodynamic
performance could be improved with low actuation forces and a limited rolling moment can be
obtained. The aeroelastic analysis of the variation of parameters was small for the speeds
considered. Varello and Lamberti [149] studied the static aeroelastic response of a straight wing
with highly-deformable airfoil cross-section via the coupled Carrera Unified Formulation-XFLR5
(CUFXFLR5) approach. Refined structural one-dimensional models were developed based on the
Carrera Unified Formulation (CUF). The 3D panel method was used for the aerodynamic analysis,
and the wing was modeled as a clamped beam using FEM. The variations of the equilibrium
aeroelastic response and wing aerodynamic parameters in terms of in-plane cross-section
deformations and displacements were assessed. The results showed that when the wing has
significant flexibility, the variation in the aerodynamic loading has a significant influence on the
in-plane cross-section deformation. The in-plane distortion effect is higher at higher free stream
velocity. Berci et al. [150] conducted a preliminary multidisciplinary design and optimization of a
wing with deformable airfoil suitable for a small UAV using a multi-fidelity model-based strategy.
Using a coupled aeroelastic formulation, both the shape of the airfoil and the passively adaptive
structure were optimized for the best aerodynamic performance under aero-structural constraints.
To calculate all the constraints, a linear semi-analytical model was utilized. To obtain the high-
fidelity counterparts, a nonlinear numerical model was used in which static aerodynamic load and
drag of the flexible airfoil were estimated using XFOIL. Then using a tuning technique, the low-
fidelity responses were corrected with few high-fidelity responses. A gradient-based GA and
pattern-search algorithm were employed to solve the optimization problem. The results showed
that there were clear advantages of the flexible airfoil in terms of the aerodynamic performance
with respect to a chordwise rigid wing without significant degradation in aeroelastic stability.
Moreover, improved gust response alleviation and wing weight reduction were also obtained.
Perara and Guo [151] investigated the dynamic and aeroservoelastic behavior of a seamless
30
aeroelastic wing (SAW) for a small UAV. A torque tube actuation mechanism (TTAM) and a
sliding trailing edge of the wing skins were the two innovative features of the SAW control section.
These two features allowed the wing to exhibit local camber changes and twist into a favorable
shape. A full scale swept-back rectangular wing model was developed. An experimental model of
the wing was developed for the demonstration. The FEM modeling and the structural and
aeroelastic analysis of SAW were carried out using MSC.Patran/Nastran. The effective stiffness
of the actuation system was evaluated using vibration analysis. Moreover, the deflection analysis
was carried out to investigate the structural integrity. The results showed that a large sweep angle
reduced the aeroelastic stability, due to coupling between wing bending and torsion. The results of
the dynamic response analysis showed that the actuation system integrated with the SAW skin
structure was stable under transient loads. The deflection analysis showed that the stress level was
relatively low, even at 4.2g ultimate load factor for the two-layer glass/epoxy laminate skin. Mao
et al. [152] developed an efficient and feasible method to study the static aeroelastic characteristics
of a morphing trailing edge. The aerodynamic forces were calculated using a geometrically-exact
VLM which gives equal importance to both efficiency and accuracy. Firstly, a typical model of an
active morphing trailing edge driven by a piezoelectric patch was chosen and built. Then, the static
aeroelastic analysis of the morphing trailing edge was carried out. Finally, the results were
compared with those offered by a traditional wing with a rigid trailing edge using the traditional
linear VLM. By geometrically exact VLM the thin-airfoil camber line is divided into M equally
distributed subpanels and the M vortex points were placed at quarter-point of each panel. The total
lift and moment for a camber morphing wing with a torsion spring installed were expressed as:
)
(5)
1 = N I∝ O='( 3PQR( ∆Q(
(*+
)
(6)
E = N I∝ O='( . ((U( − U, ) 3PQR( − (V( − V, ) sinR( )∆Q(
(*+
where ='( is the aerodynamic pressure coefficient distribution at Zth panel. ∆Q( is the length of the
Zth panel, R( is the local downwash angle, O reference wing area and U, and V, are the coordinate
position of the torsion spring. The results of geometric deformation showed that the geometrically-
exact VLM is better-suited for describing the aerodynamic nonlinearity of the morphing trailing
edge. Considering the deflection angle of the trailing edge, torsion mode, trailing edge deflection
mode and angle of attack, the wing system showed a bifurcation but did not show divergence.
Liu et al. [153] developed a method for analyzing the static aeroelastic deformation of the
flexible skin used on a continuous variable camber morphing wing. The changes in the
aerodynamic characteristics of the airfoil and design parameters of the skin due to the static
aeroelastic deformation of the flexible skin were discussed. To solve the fluid-solid coupled
problem, a weak coupling method was used. The panel method using XFOIL was used for the
aerodynamic analysis and Ansys was used for structural modeling. The results showed that the
upper surface flexible skin bubbled under the air loads. The formed bubble had a powerful effect
on the aerodynamic pressure near the surface of the local deformation. The aerodynamic
31
characteristics were significantly affected by the static aeroelastic deformation of the flexible skin.
At small angles of attack, the lift coefficient decreased and the drag coefficient increased. As the
angle of attack increased, the effect of the flexible skin on aerodynamic characteristics of an airfoil
became smaller. In addition, the drag coefficient of the airfoil and the deformation in the flexible
skin increased sharply at speeds beyond a certain value. Rivero et al. [154] developed a 3D FSI
routine for the FishBAC concept that coupled a 2D viscous corrected panel method (XFOIL) with
a 3D Lifting-Line theory analysis to create a viscous corrected 3D wing aerodynamic solver. A
previously developed multi-component Mindlin-Reissner plate model based composite analysis
routine was then coupled with this aerodynamic model for the FishBAC morphing device. The
Rayleigh-Ritz method was used to solve the differential equations in structural modeling. The
developed FSI model showed good agreement with the other aerodynamic, structural and FSI
tools. In addition, the results highlighted the FishBAC’s ability to improve aerodynamic
performance at a wide range of operating conditions. Airoldi et al. [155] presented a passively
actuated morphing structural concept which could obtain a high-lift configuration. A composite
chiral honeycomb core was used to achieve camber variations. A flexible skin was considered as
the cover for the rib. FEM by Abaqus was used for structural analysis and XFOIL and DLM were
used for the aerodynamic analysis. The results showed that the performance is achieved without
triggering dynamic aeroelastic problems. Airoldi et al. [156] also presented numerical models
referred to a morphing actuated aileron. This study focused on the investigation of static aeroelastic
effect due to the interaction of the aerodynamic loads with the flexibility of the airfoil structure. A
rib was modeled that consisted of an internal part made of a composite chiral honeycomb covered
by a flexible skin. The structure and skin had adequate combination of flexural stiffness and in-
plane compliance. For the actuation, the skin was divided into several sections that can be
compressed or elongated by a system of forces acting on the skin plane, assuming that the actuation
was attained by SMA actuator or shape memory polymers (SMP) actuator. Abaqus was used for
structural modeling and the aerodynamic modeling was carried out by a steady 2D discrete vortex
method. The results showed that the morphing system could attain significant variations in the lift
coefficient and exploited the fluid-structure interaction to reduce the actuation energy. Moreover,
the chiral rib could undergo significant displacement with the capability of sustaining the air loads
applied to the skin.

Burdette and Martins [119] optimized the wing size and shape using a high fidelity
aerostructural model. Several aerostructural optimizations were carried out to demonstrate the
performance benefits of the morphing trailing edge. The MACH (MDO for Aircraft Configurations
with High fidelity) framework was used for the aerodynamic and structural analysis. The ADflow
was used as the aerodynamic solver while the Toolkit for Analysis of Composite Structures
(TACS) was used for the structural analysis. Examining the fuel burn reduction was carried out by
structural weight reduction achieved through adaptive maneuver load alleviation. The results
showed that the cruise fuel burn could be reduced by more than 5% through the addition of the
morphing trailing edge along the aft 40% of the wing. They also studied a smaller morphing device
positioned along the aft 30% of the wing and concluded that the efficiency in reducing fuel burn
increased as the size of the morphing device increased. Arena et al. [157] developed an innovative
morphing aileron to increase both the in-cruise load control and the structural stability of a regional
aircraft. The objective was to determine the aeroservoelastic impact of a true-scale prototype on a
32
regional aircraft. The aeroelastic models/tools developed by Arena et al. [107] were used here. The
results from the antisymmetric aeroelastic analysis showed that flutter occurred at 202.4 m/s (81%
of the 1.2 dive speed of the aircraft, VD) in the control line failure condition. In this case, a typical
coupling between the aileron fundamental mode with the wing bending mode generated the
instability. The symmetric aeroelastic analysis showed that flutter started to occur at 61% of 1.2
VD. Fichera et al. [158] designed and tested a high bandwidth actuator for camber morphing in
which the actuator controled both the aeroelastic behavior and flight mechanics of the model.
Camber morphing was achieved using a lightweight High-Bandwidth Morphing Actuator
(HBMA) that used a tailored piezoelectric patch in a sandwich configuration with a linear trailing
edge slider. Static loading tests were carried out by hanging weights on the trailing edge and the
results were compared with the Abaqus FE model. The test proved that the actuator was able to
morph the camber producing a maximum static deflection of its tip equal to 15 mm, and to develop
an equivalent torque of 0.1 Nm. Dynamic tests were carried out (stepped sign model tests) using
the Siemens PLM system and showed that the bandwidth of HBMA was greater than 20 Hz and
that was suitable for controlling first modes of most low-speed aeroelastic models. HBMA fulfilled
the aeroelastic requirements in terms of bandwidth, deflection, and torque provided. In addition,
Standford [159] conducted a Common Research Model (uCRM) aeroservoelastic optimization
study for a transport wingbox using the VCCTEF to provide quasi-steady MLA. The weight of the
wingbox, subjected to buckling, stress and hinge moment constraints, was minimized using the
flap actuation design variables and patch-wise structural design variables. The open loop and
closed loop maneuver loads were considered for the load alleviation and flutter suppression, but
the flap actuation was not considered for the open-loop loads. The wing structure was modeled
using shell FEs through a combination of discrete Kirchhoff triangles (DKT) and linear strain
triangles (LST). Aerodynamic modeling was carried out using the VLM. The results showed that
the VCCTEF was capable of substantial aeroelastically-feasible reductions in the structural weight.
The open-loop case, using low values for flutter margin (unsteady cases) or safety factor (steady
cases), allowed large mass reductions. Soneda et al. [160] investigated the aero-structural
characteristics of a corrugated morphing wing to obtain preferred lift distributions considering
necessary actuation energies. A 3D aero-structural analysis tool, with an actuation system, was
developed by combining a VLM aerodynamic model with a nonlinear FEM structural solver using
MSC.Marc. The actuation system was modeled by considering a simple mechanism with wires
and servomotors which could induce large deformations in the corrugated morphing structures.
The analysis was performed at uniformly-distributed design points. Response surfaces were
created by radial basis function interpolation whilst gradient based methods were used to calculate
the optimal setting of the parameters. The optimization results represented by the response surfaces
were in good agreement with the aero-structural analysis results. Magar et al. [161] studied the
vibration suppression and gust load alleviation through camber morphing of a thin plate profile
representing a wing airfoil. The plate was designed using Arc-Miura origami design [162]. The
parameters associated with the origami design were optimized to have high sensitivity in
chordwise fold angle and a maximum camber of 10% chord. A linear controller was designed to
achieve desired camber variation for vibration suppression. The morphing was achieved as a
parabolic camber change. The quasi-steady thin airfoil theory was used for aerodynamic analysis.
The system parameters were taken from the author’s previous work [163]. The results showed that
the desired vibration suppression was obtained at a 5% camber for the tested conditions. Also, a
33
1% change in the camber could achieve the gust load alleviation. In addition, the proposed system
was effective to control pitch and plunge degrees of freedom when excited with gust.
Most of the studies belong to aeroelastic stability theme with a very limited number under
aeroelastic control. For both themes, the majority of studies are numerical analysis using FE
software for structural modeling with beam [136, 138, 139] and plate models [125, 154] being the
most popular. The DLM [126-129, 132, 140, 141, 155, 157] and panel method (2D and 3D) [130,
134-136, 139, 143-145, 147, 149, 150, 153-156], VLM [152, 159, 160], nonlinear lifting line
theory [124], CFD [119] and thin airfoil theory [161] were used for aerodynamic modeling. The
flow regime considered is mainly subsonic expect few studies that considered transonic flight
conditions [119]. However, it is very important to take into account the nonlinear stall condition,
transonic or supersonic conditions as they will have a different effect on the aeroelastic behavior
of the concept, and might limit their usage. For both themes, the effect of the camber on
aeroelasticity has mostly focused on the cruise condition with just a few considering maneuver
flights (for aeroelastic stability) [123, 130]. Table 7 provides a summary of the work discussed
above on the aeroelasticity of wings with camber morphing.
3. Aeroelastic Frameworks
A number of researchers have focused on developing generic aeroelastic frameworks that can
handle different/multiple morphing degrees of freedom. de Breuker et al. [11] developed a
polymorphing framework to investigate the aeroelastic characteristics of a morphing wing. The
objective of the developed framework was to maintain the ability of the wing to morph into any
arbitrary shape, whilst reducing the number of design variables. This was achieved by discretizing
the wing into an arbitrary number of segments. Then, morphing was carried out using inter-rib and
intra-rib mechanisms. The inter-rib mechanism operated across a wing segment whereas the intra-
rib mechanism acted between two adjacent wing segments. As a result of these two morphing
mechanisms the wing could achieve any shape with four morphing modes (wing sweep, wing
twist, wing extension, and wing folding). The wing was assumed to be made of aluminum. The
3D structure of the wing was modeled using Timoshenko beam elements and the Weissinger
method with Prandtl-Glauert compressibility correction was used as the aerodynamic model. They
were coupled to obtain the aeroelastic solution. The functionality of the developed framework was
demonstrated for folding and sweep morphing modes. The results showed that the developed
framework was capable of predicting the actuation energy as well as the structural and
aerodynamic performance. The actuation moment required to fold the outer part of the wing
increased with increasing folding angle, due to an increase in aerodynamic loading. The results of
sweep morphing showed that as the sweep changes from swept forward to straight configurations,
the trimmed angle of attack reduced. The angle of attack increased when the wing configuration
changed from straight to a swept forward condition, due to the reduction in the wing surface area
perpendicular to the flow when the configuration changes. This phenomenon is caused by the
aeroelastic effects during sweep morphing. Werter and de Breuker [12] developed an aeroelastic
framework which was suitable for the optimization and analysis of general morphing wings. This
34
was carried out using a two-level design approach. At the first level, the morphing wing model
was developed and used as the input for the generic morphing optimization and the aeroelastic
framework in the second level. At the second level, the aeroelastic framework was used to optimize
the morphing configuration and the morphing parameters. Aeroelastic modeling was carried out
using the potential flow coupled Timoshenko beam model. The aerodynamic flow around the wing
was modeled using VLM. The aeroelastic framework developed was suitable for a morphing wing
designed with a general distribution of camber, sweep, fold, span and twist morphing for minimum
root bending moment and drag. The developed model consisted of induced and parasitic drag
models, and static and dynamic models, and was able to estimate the required energy for morphing.
The framework was applied to three different flight speeds of a UAV. The results showed that the
tradeoff between the induced and parasitic drag depended on the flight speed. At high speeds,
parasitic drag was dominant and at low speed, induced drag was dominant. In addition, Yang et
al. [13] developed an aeroelastic framework for the generic design of morphing wings. The VLM
was used for aerodynamic modeling and the FEM was used for structural modeling. For
demonstration, the framework was applied to a regional aircraft jet wing (span 40m, aspect ratio
12, taper ratio 0.5, and LE sweep 10 deg.) for three morphing conditions: camber morphing only,
twist and camber morphing and twist only at high speed (low CL) and low speed (high CL). The
twist morphing example showed that at the low Mach number cases, the wingtip loading and
consequently the root bending moment was higher than the high Mach number cases. To overcome
this issue, large additional twist morphing at the tip was required. For the twist and camber
condition, a relatively small change in the twist was required. The camber morphing alone example
showed that large amounts of morphing are needed at low Mach numbers. To reduce the root
bending moment, a large TE flap angle was required over the in-board areas to shift the spanwise
loading in-board. The combination of the twist and camber morphing needed less effort than the
twist or camber only morphing conditions in terms of LE and TE morphing angles.
Sun et al. [14] developed an aeroelastic optimization framework for morphing a regional
aircraft wings. An inverse design based on the VLM was used to develop the optimization scheme.
The structural analysis and optimization were carried out using the FEM by discretizing the
wingbox beam into a number of elements. The study was conducted for a wing capable of changing
its mean camber and twist. To determine the wing twist required to achieve a minimum weight
wing design and stiffness distribution, a gradient approach based static aeroelastic optimization
was developed. The morphing control strategy was discussed using an ATW structure scheme.
The analysis results showed that for flat and thin wall cross-sections of the wingbox, the torsional
stiffness varied linearly with moving deflections of the control surfaces. Preidikman et al. [15]
developed a co-simulation computational framework to investigate the aeroelastic behavior of
different aeronautical systems. The developed framework was used to investigate highly flexible
structures subjected to low-subsonic flow undergoing complex motions in space. The extended
version of the UVLM based nonlinear aerodynamic model was coupled with a nonlinear structural
model based on a segregated formulation of Lagrange’s equations. The Lagrange’s equations were
obtained with the Floating Frame of Reference Formalism. The structural model constructed
allowed hybrid combinations of different models, such as models based on the FEM, the assumed-
modes technique, and rigid-body dynamics. The developed framework was used to study the
aeroelastic analysis of a joined-wing aircraft, a morphing wing and a micro-air-vehicle (MAV)
inspired by biology. The results from the flapping aerial vehicle showed that the predicted results
were in good agreement with the experiments conducted by other researchers [164] with 14%
35
lower lift prediction. The other morphing wing considered was a seagull wing. The analysis
showed that the flutter speed decreased linearly from 29.66 m/s to 18m/s as the dihedral angle
changed from 0º to 45º. The joined-wing aircraft considered for the framework implementations
was based on the SensorCraft concept [165]. The critical speed (flutter speed) obtained for the
joined-wing aircraft configuration was 156 m/s. Unlusoy and Yaman [16] coupled an in-house
developed PK algorithm with the commercially FEM software MSC.Patran to investigate
morphing effects on the aeroelastic behavior of UAV wings. The Theodorsen’s unsteady model
was used for aerodynamic analysis. To investigate the effect of morphing on aeroelasticity,
different morphing concepts were integrated into a UAV wing structure. The effect of span
extension, sweep and planform area changes by chord extension, during cruise, loiter and climb
flight conditions were investigated. The results showed that the effect of changes in planform area
on flutter and divergence was not clearly identified. The highest flutter speed was obtained at the
cruise configuration where the planform area was smaller than at climb and loitering
configurations. An increment in span reduced the flutter speed dramatically, but this was not
feasible in terms of structural dynamics. The change in the sweep of the wing had a positive effect
on the flutter speed. A change in divergence and flutter speeds as high as 305% and 138 % was
observed during the transition between take-off, climb, cruise and loiter phases. Molinari et al.
[17] presented a design methodology for the aero-structural optimization of morphing airfoils for
adaptive wings. A multidisciplinary static aeroelastic tool was developed, based on a two-
dimensional panel method coupled with FE structural analysis and boundary layer models. The
developed tool was capable of accounting for the interactions between aerodynamics, actuators,
and structures. Figure 13 shows the working principle of static aeroelastic tool. The aerodynamic
analysis was carried out using the 2D panel-based method with coupled boundary layer models,
based on the C++ translation of XFOIL. MD.Nastran was used for the structural analysis. To
evaluate the validity of the developed methodology, a camber morphing concept based on
Dielectric Elastomer (DE) actuators was adopted. The trailing edge section was composed of a
deformable plate with two segments of different thicknesses, connected to the rear spar of the
wing-box. When the actuation force was applied, the first segment of the plate acted as the main
control surface and the second segment acted as the trim tab to achieve the camber change. The
length ratio between the complete movable surface and the trim tab, the chord-wise position of the
rear wing-box spar and the thickness of both parts were the optimization parameters. The DE-
based actuator patches were attached to the outer surface of the trailing edge section and when
actuated the DEs expanded along the planar direction. This induced stresses in the underlying
section and thus deformation occurred. The result showed that the concurrent optimization of the
structural and aerodynamic parameters of an airfoil was more feasible and yield higher
performance compared with the sequential (conventional approach) aerodynamic and structural
optimization. This was because the sequential approach did not consider aero-structural coupling.
36
Figure 13. A Static Aeroelastic Framework [17].
Gamboa et al. [18] presented a multidisciplinary optimization tool to design a morphing wing.
The tool was developed by coupling the structural morphing model with an aerodynamic shape
optimization code, which was used to obtain a set of optimal wing shapes for minimum drag at
different speeds. The aerodynamic shape optimization code was suitable for preliminary wing
design. The optimization code used a coupled viscous 2D panel method formulation with a
sequential quadratic programming optimization algorithm and a nonlinear lifting-line algorithm.
Structural modeling was carried out using the FEM. The aerodynamic optimization highlighted a
reduction in the wing drag of up to 30% and even greater levels could be obtained by morphing
the wing with the concept presented. In addition, Tsushima et al. [19] developed two different
aeroelastic frameworks (2D and 3D) with different fidelities for morphing wings with corrugated
structures. One coupled XFOIL or a CFD code, “UTCart” developed by the Rinoie and Imamura
Laboratory of the University of Tokyo, with nonlinear beam theory for aeroelastic analysis. The
other used unsteady vortex-lattice aerodynamic loads and corotational shell FEM to study the
aeroelastic characteristics of morphing wings involving large deformations. The study also
numerically evaluated the difference in individual aerodynamic and structural solutions of the
frameworks presented. The capability and feasibility of such a corrugated morphing under
aerodynamic loads were demonstrated. The results showed that for the high aspect ratio case, the
simple 2-D analysis framework with UTCart could provide sufficiently accurate aerodynamic
characteristics for morphing wings with corrugated structures. Figure 14 shows the algorithm of
the 3D aeroelastic framework.
37
Figure 14. Algorithm of 3D aeroelastic analysis framework [19].
Cavagna et al. [20, 21] proposed a design framework called NeoCASS+ for morphing aircraft,
particularly for active camber morphing concepts. The framework could be used directly from
conceptual design to perform multi-fidelity analysis. The NeoCASS+ scheme was based on three
components: The NeoCASS (Next generation Conceptual Aero-Structural Sizing Suite) [166, 167]
which provided the structural sizing, aeroelastic analysis, and optimization capabilities, an
aerodynamic optimization module, and a design tool called MorfeO (MOrphing aiRFoil dEsign
and Optimization) for the optimal structural configuration morphing wings and to design the
internal structure. The entire process was linked to the Class/Shape function Transformation
(CST), a compact airfoil representation technique that was based on the approach proposed by
Kulfan [168]. The CST allowed the deformation of the global shape of the airfoil without affecting
its local regularity. The proposed framework was capable of quickly generating the full aeroelastic
model of the aircraft. The active camber morphing concept was particularly emphasized and the
effect of continuous spanwise and chordwise camber variation on trimmed configurations relevant
to the load distribution and/or lift-to-drag ratio was evaluated.
3.1 Observations
The majority of aeroelastic frameworks used VLM [13, 14], panel method [17-19],
Weissinger’s method [11, 12], or theoretical models [16] for aerodynamic predictions. For
structural analysis, FEM [13, 16-19], nonlinear [11, 12, 19] and linear beam[14] formulations were
used. Most of the developed frameworks are for non-maneuver flight conditions, while it is
necessary to investigate the interaction between aeroelasticity and flight dynamics of the flying
vehicle in various maneuvers.
38
In terms of morphing degrees of freedom, some aeroelastic framework considered twist [11,
12, 14], span [11, 12, 16, 18] , dihedral [11, 12] and camber [12, 14, 16-18]. None of the existing
frameworks considered thickness-to-chord or chord morphing concepts. It should be noted that
some frameworks can take into account multiple morphing degrees of freedom such as [11-14, 16,
18] while other frameworks considered single degree of freedom only such as [15, 17, 19-21].
Moreover, most of the frameworks ignored the effect of gust, turbulence, and stall conditions;
while these are very important, especially for load reduction morphing mechanisms, such as
wingtips. In addition, all the studies considered subsonic flow regime except one study [13]
considered both subsonic and transonic flow conditions. Table 8 summarizes the developed
frameworks for the aeroelastic analysis of aircraft equipped with morphing devices.
4. Discussions and Trends

It can be clearly seen that using morphing technologies to suppress flutter and for load
alleviation is likely to continue and grow in the near future. For instance, Airbus considers flared-
hinge folding wingtips for load alleviation to be a promising technology and has dedicated a
significant research effort to it. Furthermore, Airbus has recently built a flying demonstrator to test
and validate this technology [102]. Similarly, other studies have utilized wingtip devices to reduce
wing root bending moment and to alleviate gust and maneuver loads. The same trend exists for
other morphing degrees of freedom, such as utilizing span morphing wings for flutter suppression
and camber morphing wing for gust and maneuver load alleviation and to eliminate aeroelastic
instabilities. The trend is not limited to active morphing concepts but also work has been done on
utilizing passive morphing concepts for aeroelastic purposes. For instance, the PTWT is utilized
for load and gust alleviation [80] under subsonic speed with gust. Also, a study by Castrichini et
al. [106] investigated a passive negative stiffness nonlinear hinge for a folding wingtip to improve
the gust loads alleviation capability. This implies that utilizing morphing technologies for
aeroelastic purposes is likely to increase the need to develop robust aeroservoelasticity tools
capable of handling different types of structural, aerodynamic and control nonlinearities.
4.1 Morphing skin and flexible structures/materials

Most of the morphing concepts have used flexible/compliant skins. This includes latex sheets,
elastomeric matrix composites (EMC), elastomeric silicone materials, and Carbon-Kevlar
composite materials. These types of skin have a significant effect on the aerodynamic shape of the
wing and on its structural properties. Most of these flexible skins exhibit nonlinear behavior that
must be considered in aeroelastic modeling. Moreover, pretensioning the flexible skin reduces
their impact on the aeroelastic behavior of the wing/concept. A very limited number of studies
have accounted for the effect of flexible morphing skins on the aeroelastic behavior of morphing
aircraft. For instance, the work by Ajaj et al. [40] investigated the aeroelasticity of compliant span
morphing wings covered by an elastomeric skin, without accounting for the effect of skin. In
contrast, the study by Liu et al. [153] considered the static aeroelastic deformation of the flexible
skin on a continuous variable camber-morphing wing. It seems that the literature lacks
comprehensive aeroelastic tools capable of handling flexible/compliant morphing skins with
unconventional properties.
4.2 Impact of actuation system/rates/forces
39
The actuation loads, rates, and types of actuation systems used for a morphing concept can
have a significant effect on the aeroelastic behavior [71]. Most studies assessed the aeroelasticity
of morphing wings/airfoils in quasi-static conditions (i.e. before and after morphing) and not
during morphing. This is mainly because of the additional complexity associated with the time-
dependent wing geometry [153]. A limited number of studies considered the effect of morphing
rates. For example, Ajaj and Friswell [40] and Ajaj et al. [41] investigated the effect of morphing
rate on the aeroelastic behavior of span morphing wings. Similarly, Li and Jin [51] investigated
the morphing rate on the flutter speed of a span morphing wing under supersonic aerodynamic
conditions. Ren and Zhipping [46] investigated the effect of morphing speed and wingspan on
aeroelastic behavior. Sleesongsom and Bureerat [71] studied the impact of actuation on the
aeroelastic behavior of a twist-morphing wing. Ni et al. [82] investigated the effect of morphing
rate on the aeroelastic performance of a folding wing. Cheung et al. [104] studied the effect of
actuation frequency on the wing root bending moment of a folding wingtip. Hu et al. [85] presented
the effect of morphing rate and morphing modes (folding and unfolding) on the dynamic
aeroelastic stability of the folding wing. Matthew et al. [92] investigated the influence of actuator
stiffness on the flutter instabilities of a folding wing and Li et al. [140] presented the influence of
morphing stiffness on the critical flutter speed of a camber morphing wing. In addition, Perara et
al. [151] studied the effective stiffness of the TTAM on the dynamic and aeroservoelastic behavior
of a camber morphing wing using vibration analysis.
Very few studies have considered the influence of the type of actuation system on the
aeroelasticity of morphing wings. For example, Li et al. [140] numerically investigated the
influence of the actuation beam on the critical flutter speed of a camber morphing wing. The results
showed that the exclusion of actuation beams in the FE model reduced the critical flutter speed
from 45.1 m/s to 42.2 m/s. In addition, Perara et al. [151] numerically studied the presence of the
servomotor for the actuation of a camber morphing wing on the bending and torsional frequency.
The results showed that the servomotor has little influence on the bending frequency. On the other
hand, the torsional frequency is increased due to the presence of the servomotor.
4.3 Type of study

Most of the research papers in the literature are either analytical or numerical studies. A
representative example is Liska and Dowell [91] who presented an aeroelastic model and an
analytical solution methodology to find the flutter solutions for a two-segment uniform folding
wing. Very few studies conducted mechanical and wind-tunnel testing and validation such as Attar
et al. [93], Wang et al. [94], Keidel et al. [130], Ai et al. [136], Arena et al. [126] and Li et al.
[140]. Studies that involved flight-testing are extremely rare in the literature. A representative
example is Wilson et al. [110] who conducted extensive wind-tunnel and flight tests to assess the
load alleviation capability of the SAH. In addition, all of the studies in the literature did not account
for uncertainties that may exist. These uncertainties include the modeling errors, underlying
assumptions, sensors, and measurement noise.
4.4 Effect of nonlinearities

The majority of aeroelastic studies on morphing wings are linear. Few studies considered
structural nonlinearities, whilst studies that account for aerodynamic nonlinearities are very rare.
40
An example of structural nonlinearity is the nonlinear plate elements used in [83] to study
aeroelasticity of a folding wing. Examples on aerodynamic nonlinearities include Gamboa et al.
[18] who considered a nonlinear lifting-line algorithm, Previtali and Ermanni [147] and Mao et al.
[152] who used the nonlinear ELLT to investigate the aeroelasticity of camber morphing wings.
4.5 2D airfoils, 3D wings or Full aircraft?

The number of aeroelastic studies on 3D morphing wings exceeds those that focused on 2D
morphing airfoils. Most of the work on 2D morphing airfoils is associated with camber morphing
such as the work done by Su [138], Murua et al. [142], and Bilgen et al. [144, 145]. The choice
between 2D airfoils or 3D wings depends mainly on the degree of freedom and the morphing
concept used. This has a significant effect on the structural and aerodynamic tools used and on the
accuracy of the results.
It is evident from the literature that most of the studies focused on the aeroelasticity of
morphing wings (airfoils and 3 dimensional wings) without considering the contribution of the
entire aircraft and the coupling between aeroelasticity and flight mechanics. One reason behind
such a trend is to simplify the aeroelastic analysis. Another reason is that most of the morphing
concepts studied in literature are at the proof of concept stage and an aeroelastic model of the full
aircraft is not vital at such a low maturity stage. Examples of studies that considered the full aircraft
include the work done by Castrichini et al. [105-107], Fonte et al. [100], and Noviello et al. [101].
4.6 Type of aircraft

In the past, the aeroelasticity of morphing wings was studied on fighters, such as the F/A-18
in the Active Aeroelastic Wing (AAW) program [169, 170] and the F-16 in the Active Flexible
Wing (AFW) program [171]. However, most of the recent studies focused on UAVs for a number
of reasons such as low risks and costs. Moreover, UAVs are good testbeds to investigate morphing
technologies and are subject to less stringent airworthiness/certification regulations. In addition,
UAVs are more likely to be designed with multi-mission capabilities making morphing wings
more suitable for this class of air-vehicle. It should be noted that a number of studies considered
general wings without specifying the type of aircraft and their designated missions. Commercial
transport aircraft have also been used in literature, especially for concepts related to dihedral
morphing (folding wingtips) [81, 102].
4.7 Flight speeds

It can be clearly seen that the majority of studies on the aeroelasticity of morphing wings have
focused on low subsonic speeds with a very limited number of studies focusing on transonic speeds
[13, 95, 114, 119] and supersonic speeds [51, 115]. This is mainly because the current trend is to
apply morphing on small UAVs which tend to fly at low subsonic speeds. Furthermore, transonic
aeroelasticity can lead to extremely complex flows due to the presence of shockwaves, which
necessitate high-fidelity aerodynamic models to accurately capture the underlying physics.
41
4.8 Types of actuation system
Most of the research activities have focused on active morphing concepts. Few studies have
focused on the aeroelasticity of passive morphing wings, such as the passive twist wingtip [80],
SMA-based passive control for twist morphing [79], the “Z” configuration for HALE aircraft [96].
Some studies have focused on semi-active morphing wings but this is very rare. A representative
example, is the SAH proposed by Castrichini et al. [108] where during cruise, the SAH allows the
wingtip to remain in place using a blocking mechanism. When triggering events, such as a gust is
detected, the wingtip is actively released and the tip device then acts as a passive load alleviation
system that is purely driven by inertial and aerodynamic forces. After the gust load event is
finished, an actuator brings the wingtip back to the initial position.
4.9 Aerodynamic and structural solvers

At low-subsonic speeds, the most popular aerodynamic methods/solvers are UVLM, DLM,
and Theodorsen Unsteady Aerodynamic Theory/Strip Theory. In addition, XFOIL (the 2D panel
method) and the 3D panel method were widely used. Different CFD codes, including DLR CODE
and Star CCM+ pack, were also used. The nonlinear lifting line theory, higher-order panel code
PAN AIR, two dimensional (2D) finite-state inflow theory, the Vortex Ring Method and
Weissinger method have also been used. For the transonic flow conditions, the VLM and a finite-
volume CFD solver ADflow were used whilst the piston theory was used for supersonic speeds.
For structural modeling, it can be seen that beam (such as the Euler-Bernoulli, Timoshenko
beam, nonlinear models), plate, and shell models have been used to represent morphing structures.
Beam was the most popular model used. Different fidelity levels were used in structural modelling
ranging for low-fidelity equivalent models to high-fidelity detailed models using FEM solvers.
The most used FEM software is MSC.Nastran/Patran followed by Abaqus and Ansys.
4.10 Degrees of freedom

Camber morphing has received the greatest attention compared to other morphing degrees of
freedom. This is mainly because of the high effectiveness of camber in changing the aerodynamic
forces and moments. In addition, morphing concepts to facilitate camber change are somewhat
less complex when compared to morphing concepts for other degrees of freedom and they usually
have low actuation requirements. Unlike other degrees of freedom, camber morphing provides
benefits over a wide range of flight conditions and missions.
Following camber morphing, dihedral morphing (folding wing/wingtips, gull, spanwise
bending) has received significant attention. It offers a number of advantages, such as drag
reduction (through vorticity distribution), improved stall characteristics, and the ability to control
wingspan. There seems to be significant interest in this degree of freedom (folding wingtip) for
large transport aircraft (Airbus and Boeing) and for HALE UAVs (spanwise bending).
Both span morphing and twist morphing wings have received the same level of attention
behind dihedral morphing. Finally, thickness-to-chord ratio, sweep, and chord morphing have
received very little attention.
42
5. Conclusions
An extensive review of the aeroelasticity of morphing wings for fixed-wing aircraft has been
presented. The review has focused on research activities performed during the last decade. The
main conclusions and observations can be summarized as follows:
• Most of the studies were numerical/computational with a limited number of mechanical and
wind-tunnel tests. Flight testing was extremely rare.
• The aeroelasticity of camber morphing received the greatest level of attention when compared
to other morphing degrees of freedom.
• Most of the studies focused on UAVs and were limited to low subsonic speeds.
• There is a lack in modeling and accounting for the effect of morphing skins that usually exhibit
highly nonlinear behavior.
• The sensitivity of the aeroelastic behavior of morphing wings to the type of actuation system
has not been adequately addressed.
• Structural nonlinearities were considered, however aerodynamic and control nonlinearities
have been given little attention, due to the associated complexity.
• Scalability of the aeroelastic properties and the behavior of morphing wing concepts have not
been studied in the literature.
• Studies that couple flight dynamics with aeroelasticity (unrestrained bodies) are very rare in
literature.
• A number of morphing aeroelastic frameworks have been developed. Some frameworks
focused on single dof (monomorphing) whilst others considered multiple dofs (polymorphing)
• There is a lack of comprehensive aeroelastic frameworks that can handle different types of
nonlinearity together.
• None of the studies accounted for the different uncertainties that might exist when studying
the aeroelasticity of morphing wings. This includes uncertainties in modeling, design
parameters, flight conditions, and experimental data.
• Most studies have focused on quasi-static morphing scenarios (before morphing and after
morphing) but the number of studies that consider dynamic situations (during morphing) has
increased especially for span morphing.
• Most of the aerodynamic models used are based on low-fidelity methods. In contrast, the
structural analysis for aeroelastic studies is more mature, where a variety of models have been
used ranging from the low-fidelity, Euler-Bernoulli beam models, to the high-fidelity, very
detailed FE models.
• Although failure of morphing wings can have a significant effect on the aeroelastic margins,
this has not been yet addressed. In addition, different types of failure should be considered,
such as flexible skin cracking, and actuation jamming.
• Most of the studies in the literature belong to the aeroelastic stability theme (i.e. to ensure that
the morphing concepts satisfy certain aeroelastic requirements/constraints and that such
requirements/constraints do not limit the potential benefits of morphing).
43
Declaration
• Funding: This work did not receive any funding.
• Conflicts of interest/Competing interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
[1] P. Argüelles, M. Bischoff, P. Busquin, B. Droste, R. Evans, W. Kröll, and J. Lagardere, "European
Aeronautics: a vision for 2020 Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE),"
2001.
[2] M. Darecki, C. Edelstenne, T. Enders, E. Fernandez, P. Hartman, J. Herteman, M. Kerkloh, I. King,
P. Ky, and M. Mathieu, "Flightpath 2050: Europe’s vision for aviation maintaining global
leadership and serving society’s needs." Publications Office of the European Union, Luxembourg,
2011. https://doi.org/10.2777/50266.
[3] T. A. Weisshaar, "Morphing aircraft technology-new shapes for aircraft design," PURDUE UNIV
LAFAYETTE IN 2006.
[4] S. Joshi, Z. Tidwell, W. Crossley, and S. Ramakrishnan, "Comparison of morphing wing stategies
based upon aircraft performance impacts," in 45th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures,
Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference, p. 1722, 2004. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-
1722.
[5] S. Barbarino, O. Bilgen, R. M. Ajaj, M. I. Friswell, and D. J. Inman, "A review of morphing
aircraft," Journal of intelligent material systems and structures, vol. 22, pp. 823-877, 2011. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X11414084.
[6] R. M. Ajaj, C. S. Beaverstock, and M. I. Friswell, "Morphing aircraft: The need for a new design
philosophy," Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 49, pp. 154-166, 2016. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2015.11.039.
[7] A.-M. R. McGowan, D. D. Vicroy, R. C. Busan, and A. S. Hahn, "Perspectives on Highly adaptive
or morphing aircraft," presented at the NATO RTO AVT-168 Symposium, Lisbon, Portugal, 2009.
[8] Q. Ai, M. Azarpeyvand, X. Lachenal, and P. M. Weaver, "Aerodynamic and aeroacoustic
performance of airfoils with morphing structures," Wind Energy, vol. 19, pp. 1325-1339, 2016.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1002/we.1900.
[9] L. F. Campanile and S. Anders, "Aerodynamic and aeroelastic amplification in adaptive belt-rib
airfoils," Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 9, pp. 55-63, 2005. doi:
[10] X. Lachenal, S. Daynes, and P. M. Weaver, "Review of morphing concepts and materials for wind
turbine blade applications," Wind energy, vol. 16, pp. 283-307, 2013. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1002/we.531.
[11] R. De Breuker, M. M. Abdalla, and Z. Gürdal, "A generic morphing wing analysis and design
framework," Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, vol. 22, pp. 1025-1039, 2011.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X11414958.
[12] N. Werter and R. De Breuker, "A framework for the aeroelastic analysis and design of generic
morphing wings," in 23rd AIAA/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference, 2015.
doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2015-0268.
[13] J. Yang, J. E. Cooper, R. K. Nangia, and J. C. Simpson, "Optimization framework for design of
morphing wings," in 14th AIAA aviation technology, integration, and operations conference, 2014.
44
[14] R. Sun, D. Yan, R. K. Nangia, and J. E. Cooper, "Optimization design for aero-elastic morphing
wings," in 2017 9th International Conference on Modelling, Identification and Control (ICMIC),
pp. 25-30, 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.1109/ICMIC.2017.8321654.
[15] S. Preidikman, B. Roccia, M. Verstraete, L. Ceballos, and B. Balachandran, "A Computational
Aeroelastic Framework for Studying Non-conventional Aeronautical Systems," in International
Symposiu on Multibody Systems and Mechatronics, pp. 325-334, 2017.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67567-1_31.
[16] L. Ünlüsoy and Y. Yaman, "Aeroelastic behaviour of UAV wings due to morphing," Aircraft
Engineering and Aerospace Technology, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1108/aeat-12-2014-0217.
[17] G. Molinari, M. Quack, V. Dmitriev, M. Morari, P. Jenny, and P. Ermanni, "Aero-structural
optimization of morphing airfoils for adaptive wings," Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
Structures, vol. 22, pp. 1075-1089, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X11414089.
[18] P. Gamboa, J. Vale, F. Lau, and A. Suleman, "Optimization of a morphing wing based on coupled
aerodynamic and structural constraints," AIAA journal, vol. 47, pp. 2087-2104, 2009. doi:
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2007-1890.
[19] N. Tsushima, H. Arizono, K. Soneda, T. Yokozeki, T. Imamura, and W. Su, "Structural and
Aerodynamic Models for Aeroelastic Analysis of Corrugated Morphing Wings," in AIAA Scitech
2020 Forum, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-0215.
[20] L. Cavagna, A. DE GASPARI, S. Ricci, and L. Riccobene, "NeoCASS+, a conceptual design and
simulation framework for morphing aircraft," in 3rd CEAS Air & Space Conference and 21st
AIDAA Congress, Venezia, Italia., pp. 922-933, 2011.
[21] L. Cavagna, A. De Gaspari, L. Riccobene, and S. Ricci, "NeoCASS+, A Conceptual Design and
Simulation Framework for Morphing Aircraft," Aerotecnica Missili & Spazio, vol. 92, pp. 52-60,
2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03404663.
[22] D. Li, S. Zhao, A. Da Ronch, J. Xiang, J. Drofelnik, Y. Li, L. Zhang, Y. Wu, M. Kintscher, and H.
P. Monner, "A review of modelling and analysis of morphing wings," Progress in Aerospace
Sciences, vol. 100, pp. 46-62, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2018.06.002.
[23] S. Daynes and P. M. Weaver, "Stiffness tailoring using prestress in adaptive composite structures,"
Composite Structures, vol. 106, pp. 282-287, 2013. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2013.05.059.
[24] S. Barbarino, E. S. Flores, R. M. Ajaj, I. Dayyani, and M. I. Friswell, "A review on shape memory
alloys with applications to morphing aircraft," Smart materials and structures, vol. 23, 2014. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/23/6/063001.
[25] I. Dayyani, A. Shaw, E. S. Flores, and M. Friswell, "The mechanics of composite corrugated
structures: A review with applications in morphing aircraft," Composite Structures, vol. 133, pp.
358-380, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compstruct.2015.07.099.
[26] J. Sun, Q. Guan, Y. Liu, and J. Leng, "Morphing aircraft based on smart materials and structures:
A state-of-the-art review," Journal of Intelligent material systems and structures, vol. 27, pp. 2289-
2312, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X16629569.
[27] Z. Min, V. K. Kien, and L. J. Richard, "Aircraft morphing wing concepts with radical geometry
change," The IES Journal Part A: Civil & Structural Engineering, vol. 3, pp. 188-195, 2010. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1080/19373261003607972.
[28] A. Sofla, S. Meguid, K. Tan, and W. Yeo, "Shape morphing of aircraft wing: Status and
challenges," Materials & Design, vol. 31, pp. 1284-1292, 2010. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.matdes.2009.09.011.
[29] S. Vasista, L. Tong, and K. Wong, "Realization of morphing wings: a multidisciplinary challenge,"
Journal of aircraft, vol. 49, pp. 11-28, 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031060.
45
[30] M. Sinapius, H. Monner, M. Kintscher, and J. Riemenschneider, "DLR’s morphing wing activities
within the European network," Mechanics, vol. 10, pp. 416-426, 2014. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.piutam.2014.01.036
[31] I. K. Kuder, A. F. Arrieta, W. E. Raither, and P. Ermanni, "Variable stiffness material and structural
concepts for morphing applications," Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 63, pp. 33-55, 2013. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2013.07.001.
[32] N. Hu and R. Burgueño, "Buckling-induced smart applications: recent advances and trends," Smart
Materials and Structures, vol. 24, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/24/6/063001.
[33] S. Daynes and P. M. Weaver, "Review of shape-morphing automobile structures: concepts and
outlook," in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part D: Journal of Automobile
Engineering, pp. 1603-1622, 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0954407013496557.
[34] J. R. Wright and J. E. Cooper, Introduction to aircraft aeroelasticity and loads vol. 20: John Wiley
& Sons, 2008, ISBN:978-0470-85840-0.
[35] E. Pendleton, P. Flick, D. Paul, D. Voracek, E. Reichenbach, and K. Griffin, "The X-53 a summary
of the active aeroelastic wing flight research program," in 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, 2007.
[36] S. B. Cumming, M. S. Smith, A. Ali, T. T. Bui, J. Ellsworth, and C. A. Garcia, "Aerodynamic flight
test results for the adaptive compliant trailing edge," in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics
Conference, 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-3855.
[37] M. S. Smith, T. T. Bui, C. A. Garcia, and S. B. Cumming, "Longitudinal aerodynamic modeling of
the adaptive compliant trailing edge flaps on a GIII aircraft and comparisons to flight data," in
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-3703.
[38] N. Nguyen, U. Kaul, S. Lebofsky, E. Ting, D. Chaparro, and J. Urnes, "Development of variable
camber continuous trailing edge flap for performance adaptive aeroelastic wing," presented at the
SAE AeroTech Congress & Exhibition, Seattle, WA; United States, 2015.
doi:https://doi.org/10.4271/2015-01-2565.
[39] N. Tsushima, H. Arizono, T. Yokozeki, and W. Su, "Nonlinear aeroelasticity of morphing wings
with corrugated structures," in AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019.
[40] R. M. Ajaj and M. I. Friswell, "Aeroelasticity of compliant span morphing wings," Smart materials
and structures, vol. 27, p. 105052, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665x/aad219.
[41] R. M. Ajaj, F. K. Omar, T. T. Darabseh, and J. Cooper, "Flutter of Telescopic Span Morphing
Wings," International Journal of Structural Stability and Dynamics, vol. 19, 2019. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1142/s0219455419500615.
[42] C. Huang, Y. Chao, W. Zhigang, and T. Changhong, "Variations of flutter mechanism of a span-
morphing wing involving rigid-body motions," Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 31, pp. 490-
497, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2017.12.014.
[43] E. Widmayer Jr, "Some low-speed studies of the effects of wing location on wing-deformation-
body-freedom flutter," 1952.
[44] T. A. Weisshaar and T. A. Zeiler, "Dynamic stability of flexible forward swept wing aircraft,"
Journal of Aircraft, vol. 20, pp. 1014-1020, 1983. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1982-1325.
[45] M. Love, P. Zink, P. Wieselmann, and H. Youngren, "Body freedom flutter of high aspect ratio
flying wings," in 46th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, 2005. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2005-1947.
[46] R. Huang and Z. Qiu, "Transient aeroelastic responses and flutter analysis of a variable-span wing
during the morphing process," Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 26, pp. 1430-1438, 2013. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2013.07.047.
46
[47] P. Gamboa, P. Santos, J. Silva, and P. Santos, "Flutter analysis of a composite variable-span wing,"
in 4th international conference on integrity, reliability and failure, Funchal, pp. 23-27, 2013
[48] S. Murugan, J. H. Fincham, M. Friswell, and D. Inman, "Aeroelastic Modeling of Morphing
Aircraft Wings," in 4th Aircraft Structural Design Conference, Belfast (UK), 2014
[49] R. Ajaj, E. S. Flores, M. Friswell, G. Allegri, B. Woods, A. Isikveren, and W. Dettmer, "The Zigzag
wingbox for a span morphing wing," Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 28, pp. 364-375,
2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2012.12.002.
[50] R. Ajaj, M. Friswell, M. Bourchak, and W. Harasani, "Span morphing using the GNATSpar wing,"
Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 53, pp. 38-46, 2016. doi:
[51] W. Li and D. Jin, "Flutter suppression and stability analysis for a variable-span wing via morphing
technology," Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 412, pp. 410-423, 2018. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsv.2017.10.009.
[52] D. Perkins, J. Reed, and E. Havens, "Morphing wing structures for loitering air vehicles," in 45th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics & Materials Conference, p. 1888,
2004. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2004-1888.
[53] O. Léon, E. Hayden, and F. Gandhi, "Rotorcraft operating envelope expansion using extendable
chord sections," in Proceedings of American Helicopter Society 65th Annual Forum, p. 29, 2009
[54] O. Léon and F. Gandhi, "Rotor power reduction using multiple spanwise-segmented, optimally-
actuated trailing-edge flaps," in 35th European Rotorcraft Forum 2009, Hamburg, Germany, 2009
[55] S. Barbarino, F. Gandhi, and S. D. Webster, "Design of extendable chord sections for morphing
helicopter rotor blades," Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, vol. 22, pp. 891-
905, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X11414077.
[56] M. Khoshlahjeh, E. Sung Bae, and F. Gandhi, "Helicopter performance improvement with variable
chord morphing rotors," in Proceedings of the 36th European Rotorcraft Forum, Paris, France,
2010.
[57] M. Khoshlahjeh and F. Gandhi, "Extendable chord rotors for helicopter envelope expansion and
performance improvement," Journal of the American Helicopter Society, vol. 59, pp. 1-10, 2014.
doi: https://doi.org/10.4050/JAHS.59.012007.
[58] J. A. Shortal and B. Maggin, "Effect of sweepback and aspect ratio on longitudinal stability
characteristics of wings at low speeds," NATIONAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR
AERONAUTICS LANGLEY FIELD VA LANGLEY …1946.
[59] L. W. Hunton and J. K. Dew, "Measurements of the Damping in Roll of Large-scale Swept-forward
and Swept-back Wings," 1947.
[60] R. Kress, "Variable sweep wing design," in Aircraft Prototype and Technology Demonstrator
Symposium, p. 1051, 1983. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1983-1051.
[61] R. PERRY, "Variable-sweep aircraft-A case history of multiple re-innovation," in 3rd Annual
Meeting, p. 983, 1966. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1966-983.
[62] E. C. Polhamus and A. D. Hammond, "Aerodynamic Research Relative to Variable-Sweep
Multimission Aircraft," Langley Research Center, NASA, 1967.
[63] F. Sabri and S. Meguid, "Flutter boundary prediction of an adaptive morphing wing for unmanned
aerial vehicle," International Journal of Mechanics and Materials in Design, vol. 7, p. 307, 2011.
doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10999-011-9169-z.
[64] A. Sofla, S. Meguid, and K. Tan, "Novel morphing wing design using antagonistic shape memory
alloy actuation," in ASME 2010 International Mechanical Engineering Congress and Exposition,
pp. 33-36, 2011. doi:https://doi.org/10.1115/IMECE2010-38851.
[65] F. Sabri, S. Meguid, A. Lakis, and K. Tan, "Aeroelastic behaviour of a novel morphing wing using
shape memory alloys," in International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics, Paris,
2011
47
[66] Z. Hui, Y. Zhang, and G. Chen, "Aerodynamic performance investigation on a morphing unmanned
aerial vehicle with bio-inspired discrete wing structures," Aerospace Science and Technology, vol.
95, p. 105419, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.105419.
[67] R. Pecora, F. Amoroso, and L. Lecce, "Effectiveness of wing twist morphing in roll control,"
Journal of aircraft, vol. 49, pp. 1666-1674, 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C000328.
[68] M. Amoozgar, S. A. Fazelzadeh, M. I. Friswell, and D. H. Hodges, "Aeroelastic Stability Analysis
of Tailored Pretwisted Wings," AIAA Journal, vol. 57, pp. 4458-4466, 2019. doi:
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J058575.
[69] B. Jenett, S. Calisch, D. Cellucci, N. Cramer, N. Gershenfeld, S. Swei, and K. C. Cheung, "Digital
morphing wing: active wing shaping concept using composite lattice-based cellular structures,"
Soft robotics, vol. 4, pp. 33-48, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.1089/soro.2016.0032.
[70] N. B. Cramer, D. W. Cellucci, O. B. Formoso, C. E. Gregg, B. E. Jenett, J. H. Kim, M. Lendraitis,
S. S. Swei, G. T. Trinh, and K. V. Trinh, "Elastic shape morphing of ultralight structures by
programmable assembly," Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 28, 2019. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665x/ab0ea2.
[71] S. Sleesongsom and S. Bureerat, "Effect of actuating forces on aeroelastic characteristics of a
morphing aircraft wing," in Applied Mechanics and Materials, pp. 308-317, 2011.
doi:https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.52-54.308.
[72] R. Ajaj, M. Friswell, W. Dettmer, G. Allegri, and A. Isikveren, "Performance and control
optimisations using the adaptive torsion wing," The Aeronautical Journal, vol. 116, pp. 1061-1077,
2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1017/S000192400000748X.
[73] R. Ajaj, M. Friswell, and E. S. Flores, "On the effectiveness of active aeroelastic structures for
morphing aircraft," The Aeronautical Journal, vol. 117, pp. 1167-1176, 2013. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1017/S0001924000008769.
[74] R. Ajaj, M. Friswell, W. Dettmer, A. Isikveren, and G. Allegri, "Conceptual modeling of an
adaptive torsion wing structure," in 52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference 19th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference 13t,
p. 1883, 2011. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-1883.
[75] R. Ajaj, M. Friswell, D. Smith, A. Isikveren, and G. Allegri, "Roll control of a UAV using an
adaptive torsion structure," in 52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural
Dynamics and Materials Conference 19th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference 13t,
p. 1834, 2011. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-1834.
[76] D. Smith, A. Isikveren, R. Ajaj, and M. Friswell, "Multidisciplinary design optimization of an
active nonplanar polymorphing wing," in 27th International Congress of The Aeronautical Sciences
(ICAS), 2010
[77] R. Ajaj, M. Friswell, D. Smith, and A. Isikveren, "A conceptual wing-box weight estimation model
for transport aircraft," The Aeronautical Journal, vol. 117, pp. 533-551, 2013. doi:
[78] R. M. Ajaj, M. I. Friswell, W. G. Dettmer, G. Allegri, and A. T. Isikveren, "Dynamic modelling
and actuation of the adaptive torsion wing," Journal of intelligent material systems and structures,
vol. 24, pp. 2045-2057, 2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X12444493.
[79] G. C. Silva, F. J. Silvestre, M. V. Donadon, O. S. Santos, A. B. Guimarães Neto, R. G. A. da Silva,
T. d. S. S. Versiani, P. J. Gonzalez, and R. M. Bertolin, "Active and Passive Control for
Acceleration Reduction of an Aeroelastic Typical Wing Section," Journal of Vibration and Control,
vol. 24, pp. 2673-2687, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1077546317728147.
[80] S. Guo, D. Los Monteros, J. Espinosa, and Y. Liu, "Gust alleviation of a large aircraft with a passive
twist wingtip," Aerospace, vol. 2, pp. 135-154, 2015. doi:
https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace2020135.
48
[81] T. Wilson, A. Azabal, A. Castrichini, J. Cooper, R. Ajaj, and M. Herring, "Aeroelastic behaviour
of hinged wing tips," presented at the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural
Dynamics, IFASD 2017, Como -Italy, 2017.
[82] Y. Ni, C. Hou, X. Wan, and M. Zhao, "Transient Aeroelastic Responses of Folding Wing in
Morphing Motion," in International Conference on Advances in Mechanical Engineering and
Industrial Informatics, AMEII 2015, Zhengzhou, Henan, China, 2015.
[83] P. Li, Y. Ni, C. Hou, X. Wan, and M. Zhao, "Nonlinear Aeroelastic Modeling of a Folding Wing
Structure," Journal of Physics: Conference Series, vol. 1215, 2019. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1088/1742-6596/1215/1/012009.
[84] W. Rodden, J. Giesing, and T. Kalman, "New method for nonplanar configurations," in AGARD
Conference Proceedings., 1971
[85] W. Hu, Z. Yang, and Y. Gu, "Aeroelastic study for folding wing during the morphing process,"
Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 365, pp. 216-229, 2016. doi:
[86] W. Zhang, S. Lv, and Y. Ni, "Parametric aeroelastic modeling based on component modal synthesis
and stability analysis for horizontally folding wing with hinge joints," Nonlinear Dynamics, vol.
92, pp. 169-179, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-017-3956-5.
[87] M. L. Verstraete, B. A. Roccia, D. T. Mook, and S. Preidikman, "A co-simulation methodology to
simulate the nonlinear aeroelastic behavior of a folding-wing concept in different flight
configurations," Nonlinear Dynamics, vol. 98, pp. 907-927, 2019. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11071-019-05234-9.
[88] B. Carnahan, H. Luther, and J. O. Wilkes, Applied Numerical Methods. New York: Wiley, 1969
[89] Y. Zhao and H. Hu, "Parameterized aeroelastic modeling and flutter analysis for a folding wing,"
Journal of Sound and Vibration, vol. 331, pp. 308-324, 2012. doi:
[90] Y. Zhao and H. Hu, "Prediction of transient responses of a folding wing during the morphing
process," Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 24, pp. 89-94, 2013. doi:
[91] S. Liska and E. H. Dowell, "Continuum aeroelastic model for a folding-wing configuration," AIAA
Journal, vol. 47, pp. 2350-2358, 2009. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.40475.
[92] M. P. Snyder, B. Sanders, F. E. Eastep, and G. J. Frank, "Vibration and flutter characteristics of a
folding wing," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 46, pp. 791-799, 2009. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.34685.
[93] P. J. Attar, D. Tang, and E. H. Dowell, "Nonlinear aeroelastic study for folding wing structures,"
AIAA journal, vol. 48, pp. 2187-2195, 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.44868.
[94] I. Wang, S. C. Gibbs, and E. H. Dowell, "Aeroelastic model of multisegmented folding wings:
theory and experiment," Journal of aircraft, vol. 49, pp. 911-921, 2012. doi:
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C031589.
[95] J. Cooper, I. Chekkal, R. Cheung, C. Wales, N. Allen, S. Lawson, A. Peace, R. Cook, P. Standen,
and S. Hancock, "Design of a morphing wingtip," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 52, pp. 1394-1403, 2015.
doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C032861.
[96] P. Mardanpour and D. H. Hodges, "Passive morphing of flying wing aircraft: Z-shaped
configuration," Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 44, pp. 17-30, 2014. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2013.09.020.
[97] Y. Y. Jung and J. H. Kim, "Aeroelastic Behavior of Morphing Wing in Flutter Regions," Applied
Mechanics and Materials, vol. 284-287, pp. 442-445, 2013. doi:
https://doi.org/10.4028/www.scientific.net/AMM.284-287.442.
[98] R. De Breuker, M. Abdalla, and Z. Gürdal, "Design of morphing winglets with the inclusion of
nonlinear aeroelastic effects," The Aeronautical Journal, vol. 115, pp. 713-728, 2011. doi:
49
[99] C. Liauzun, D. Le Bihan, J.-M. David, D. Joly, and B. Paluch, "Study of morphing winglet concepts
aimed at improving load control and the aeroelastic behavior of civil transport aircraft," Journal
Aerospace Lab, 2018.
[100] F. Fonte, G. Iannaccone, N. Cimminiello, I. Dimino, and S. Ricci, "Active Load Control of a
Regional Aircraft Wing Equipped With Morphing Winglets," in ASME 2018 Conference on Smart
Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems, 2018.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1115/SMASIS2018-8167.
[101] M. C. Noviello, I. Dimino, F. Amoroso, and R. Pecora, "Preliminary Assessment of Morphing
Winglet and Flap Tabs Influence on the Aeroelastic Stability of Next Generation Regional
Aircraft," in ASME 2018 Conference on Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent
Systems, 2018. doi:https://doi.org/10.1115/SMASIS2018-8138.
[102] T. Wilson, M. Herring, J. Pattinson, J. Cooper, A. Castrichini, A. Rafic, and H. Dhoru, "An aircraft
wing with a moveable wing tip device for load alleviation," 2019, U.S. Patent Application No.
16/067,221.
[103] R. C. Cheung, D. Rezgui, J. E. Cooper, and T. Wilson, "Testing of a Hinged Wingtip Device for
Gust Loads Alleviation," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 55, pp. 2050-2067, 2018. doi:
[104] R. C. Cheung, D. Rezgui, J. E. Cooper, and T. Wilson, "Testing of folding wing-tip for gust load
alleviation in high aspect ratio wing," in AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019.
[105] A. Castrichini, V. Hodigere Siddaramaiah, D. Calderon, J. E. Cooper, T. Wilson, and Y. Lemmens,
"Nonlinear folding wing tips for gust loads alleviation," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 53, pp. 1391-1399,
2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C033474.
[106] A. Castrichini, J. E. Cooper, T. Wilson, A. Carrella, and Y. Lemmens, "Nonlinear negative stiffness
wingtip spring device for gust loads alleviation," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 54, pp. 627-641, 2017.
[107] A. Castrichini, V. H. Siddaramaiah, D. Calderon, J. Cooper, T. Wilson, and Y. Lemmens,
"Preliminary investigation of use of flexible folding wing tips for static and dynamic load
alleviation," The Aeronautical Journal, vol. 121, pp. 73-94, 2017. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1017/aer.2016.108.
[108] A. Castrichini, T. Wilson, F. Saltari, F. Mastroddi, N. Viceconti, and J. Cooper, "Aeroelastics Flight
Dynamics Coupling Effects of the Semi-Aeroelastic Hinge Device," Journal of Aircraft, pp. 1-9,
2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C035602.
[109] F. Saltari, C. Riso, G. D. Matteis, and F. Mastroddi, "Finite-element-based modeling for flight
dynamics and aeroelasticity of flexible aircraft," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 54, pp. 2350-2366, 2017.
[110] T. Wilson, J. Kirk, J. Hobday, and A. Castrichini, "Small scale flying demonstration of semi
aeroelastic hinged wing tips," presented at the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural
Dynamics, IFASD 2019 Savannah, Georgia, USA, 9-13 June , 2019
[111] S. Courchesne, A. Popov, and R. Botez, "New aeroelastic studies for a morphing wing," in 48th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition, 2010. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-56.
[112] L. Grigorie, A. Popov, R. Botez, M. Mamou, and Y. Mébarki, "Controller and aeroelasticity
analysis for a morphing wing," in AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference, 2011.
[113] A. V. Popov, M. Labib, J. Fays, and R. M. Botez, "Closed-loop control simulations on a morphing
wing," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 45, pp. 1794-1803, 2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.37073.
[114] O. Rhodes and M. Santer, "Aeroelastic optimization of a morphing 2d shock control bump," in
53rd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference
50
20th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference 14th AIAA, p. 1577, 2012.
[115] E. R. Jinks, P. J. Bruce, and M. J. Santer, "The Use of Actuated Flexible Plates for Adaptive Shock
Control Bumps," in 53rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, p. 1241, 2015.
[116] M. J. Abzug and E. E. Larrabee, Airplane stability and control: a history of the technologies that
made aviation possible vol. 14: Cambridge University Press, 2005, ISBN:0521021286.
[117] D. Raymer, Aircraft design: a conceptual approach: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc., 2012, ISBN:1600869114.
[118] E. Stanewsky, "Adaptive wing and flow control technology," Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol.
37, pp. 583-667, 2001. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0376-0421(01)00017-3.
[119] D. A. Burdette and J. R. Martins, "Design of a transonic wing with an adaptive morphing trailing
edge via aerostructural optimization," Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 81, pp. 192-203,
2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.08.004.
[120] S. P. MUHAMMED, "A compliant polymorphing wing for small UAVs," Chinese Journal of
Aeronautics, 2020. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.027.
[121] B. K. S. Woods and M. I. Friswell, "Preliminary investigation of a fishbone active camber concept,"
in Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems, pp. 555-563, 2012.
[122] B. K. Woods, O. Bilgen, and M. I. Friswell, "Wind tunnel testing of the fish bone active camber
morphing concept," Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, vol. 25, pp. 772-785,
2014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X14521700.
[123] G. Molinari, M. Quack, A. F. Arrieta, M. Morari, and P. Ermanni, "Design, realization and
structural testing of a compliant adaptable wing," Smart Materials and Structures, vol. 24, p.
105027, 2015. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-1726/24/10/105027.
[124] A. C. Henry, G. Molinari, J. R. Rivas-Padilla, and A. F. Arrieta, "Smart morphing wing:
optimization of distributed piezoelectric actuation," AIAA journal, vol. 57, pp. 2384-2393, 2019.
doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J057254.
[125] N. Tsushima, T. Yokozeki, W. Su, and H. Arizono, "Geometrically nonlinear static aeroelastic
analysis of composite morphing wing with corrugated structures," Aerospace Science and
Technology, vol. 88, pp. 244-257, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.03.025.
[126] M. Arena, F. Amoroso, R. Pecora, G. Amendola, and I. Dimino, "Numerical and experimental
validation of a full scale servo-actuated morphing aileron model," Smart Materials and Structures,
vol. 27, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/1361-665x/aad7d9.
[127] M. Arena, A. Concilio, and R. Pecora, "Aero-servo-elastic design of a morphing wing trailing edge
system for enhanced cruise performance," Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 86, pp. 215-
235, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2019.01.020.
[128] R. Pecora, M. Magnifico, F. Amoroso, and E. Monaco, "Multi-parametric flutter analysis of a
morphing wing trailing edge," The Aeronautical Journal, vol. 118, pp. 1063-1078, 2014. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1017/s000192400000974x.
[129] F. Rea, R. Pecora, F. Amoroso, M. Arena, M. C. Noviello, and G. Amendola, "Aeroelastic Stability
Analysis of a Wind Tunnel Wing Model Equipped with a True Scale Morphing Aileron,"
International Journal of Mechanical Engineering and Robotics Research, vol. 6, pp. 440-450, 2017.
doi: https://doi.org/10.18178/ijmerr.6.6.440-450.
[130] D. Keidel, G. Molinari, and P. Ermanni, "Aero-structural optimization and analysis of a camber-
morphing flying wing: Structural and wind tunnel testing," Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures, vol. 30, pp. 908-923, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X19828501.
[131] S. A. Brandt, J. J. Bertin, R. J. Stiles, and R. Whitford, Introduction to aeronautics: a design
perspective, 2nd & 3rd ed. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2004
51
[132] N. Precup, M. Mor, and E. Livne, "An Active Variable Camber Continuous Trailing Edge Flapped
Wing Wind Tunnel Model for Aeroelastic" In-Flight" Shape Optimization Tests," in 2018
Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 2018.
[133] E. Livne, N. Precup, and M. Mor, "Design, construction, and tests of an aeroelastic wind tunnel
model of a variable camber continuous trailing edge flap (VCCTEF) concept wing," in 32nd AIAA
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, 2014. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2014-2442.
[134] U. Fasel, D. Keidel, G. Molinari, and P. Ermanni, "Aeroservoelastic Optimization of Morphing
Airborne Wind Energy Wings," in AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019.
[135] U. Fasel, P. Tiso, D. Keidel, G. Molinari, and P. Ermanni, "Reduced-order dynamic model of a
morphing airborne wind energy aircraft," AIAA journal, vol. 57, pp. 3586-3598, 2019. doi:
https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J058019.
[136] Q. Ai, P. M. Weaver, and M. Azarpeyvand, "Design and mechanical testing of a variable stiffness
morphing trailing edge flap," Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures, vol. 29, pp.
669-683, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1177/1045389X17721028.
[137] Q. Ai, H. Kamliya Jawahar, and M. Azarpeyvand, "Experimental investigation of aerodynamic
performance of airfoils fitted with morphing trailing edges," in 54th AIAA aerospace sciences
meeting, p. 1563, 2016. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2016-1563.
[138] W. Su, "Development of an Aeroelastic Formulation for Deformable Airfoils Using Orthogonal
Polynomials," AIAA Journal, pp. 2793-2807, 2017. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J055665.
[139] S. Murugan, B. Woods, and M. Friswell, "Hierarchical modeling and optimization of camber
morphing airfoil," Aerospace Science and Technology, vol. 42, pp. 31-38, 2015. doi:
[140] D. Li, S. Guo, and J. Xiang, "Modeling and nonlinear aeroelastic analysis of a wing with morphing
trailing edge," in Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of
Aerospace Engineering, pp. 619-631, 2013. doi:https://doi.org/10.1177/0954410012438341.
[141] D. Li, S. Guo, Y. He, and J. Xiang, "Nonlinear aeroelastic analysis of a morphing flap,"
International Journal of Bifurcation and Chaos, vol. 22, p. 1250099, 2012. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1142/S021812741250099X.
[142] J. Murua, R. Palacios, and J. Peiró, "Camber effects in the dynamic aeroelasticity of compliant
airfoils," Journal of Fluids and Structures, vol. 26, pp. 527-543, 2010. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfluidstructs.2010.01.009.
[143] G. Seber and E. Sakarya, "Nonlinear modeling and aeroelastic analysis of an adaptive camber
wing," Journal of aircraft, vol. 47, pp. 2067-2074, 2010. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.C000312.
[144] O. Bilgen, M. Friswell, K. Kochersberger, and D. Inman, "Surface actuated variable-camber and
variable-twist morphing wings using piezocomposites," in 52nd AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC
Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference 19th AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive
Structures Conference 13t, 2011. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2011-2072.
[145] O. Bilgen, E. I. Saavedra Flores, and M. I. Friswell, "Optimization of surface-actuated
piezocomposite variable-camber morphing wings," in ASME 2011 Conference on Smart Materials,
Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems, pp. 315-322, 2011.
doi:https://doi.org/10.1115/smasis2011-4971.
[146] O. Bilgen, K. B. Kochersberger, D. J. Inman, and O. J. Ohanian III, "Novel, bidirectional, variable-
camber airfoil via macro-fiber composite actuators," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 47, pp. 303-314, 2010.
doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.45452.
[147] F. Previtali and P. Ermanni, "Performance of a non-tapered 3D morphing wing with integrated
compliant ribs," Smart materials and structures, vol. 21, 2012. doi: https://doi.org/10.1088/0964-
1726/21/5/055008.
52
[148] A. Hasse, I. Zuest, and L. F. Campanile, "Modal synthesis of belt-rib structures," Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part C: Journal of Mechanical Engineering Science, vol.
225, pp. 722-732, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1243/09544062JMES2329.
[149] A. Varello, A. Lamberti, and E. Carrera, "Static aeroelastic response of wing-structures accounting
for in-plane cross-section deformation," International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Sciences,
vol. 14, pp. 310-323, 2013. doi: https://doi.org/10.5139/ijass.2013.14.4.310.
[150] M. Berci, V. Toropov, R. Hewson, and P. Gaskell, "Multidisciplinary multifidelity optimisation of
a flexible wing aerofoil with reference to a small UAV," Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, vol. 50, pp. 683-699, 2014. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00158-014-1066-2.
[151] M. Perera and S. Guo, "Structural and dynamic analysis of a seamless aeroelastic wing," in 51st
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference 18th
AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Conference 12th, 2010.
[152] S. Mao, C. Xie, L. Yang, and C. Yang, "Static Aeroelastic Characteristics of Morphing Trailing-
Edge Wing Using Geometrically Exact Vortex Lattice Method," International Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, vol. 2019, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.1155/2019/5847627.
[153] L. Liu, W. Yin, F. Dai, Y. Liu, and J. Leng, "Static aeroelastic deformation of flexible skin for
continuous variable trailing-edge camber wing," in Active and Passive Smart Structures and
Integrated Systems 2011, 2011. doi:https://doi.org/10.1117/12.880323.
[154] A. E. Rivero, J. E. Cooper, and B. Woods, "Numerically Efficient Three-Dimensional Fluid-
Structure Interaction Analysis for Composite Camber Morphing Aerostructures," in AIAA Scitech
2020 Forum, 2020. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2020-1298.
[155] A. Airoldi, M. Crespi, G. Quaranti, and G. Sala, "Design of a morphing airfoil with composite
chiral structure," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 49, pp. 1008-1019, 2012. doi:
[156] A. Airoldi, G. Quaranta, A. Beltramin, and G. Sala, "Design of a morphing actuated aileron with
chiral composite internal structure," Advances in aircraft and spacecraft science, vol. 1, p. 331,
2014. doi: https://doi.org/10.12989/aas.2014.13.5.331.
[157] M. Arena, R. Palumbo, R. Pecora, F. Amoroso, G. Amendola, and I. Dimino, "Flutter clearance
investigation of camber-morphing aileron tailored for a regional aircraft," Journal of Aerospace
Engineering, vol. 32, 2018. doi: https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)as.1943-5525.0000973.
[158] S. Fichera, I. Isnardi, and J. E. Mottershead, "High-bandwidth morphing actuator for aeroelastic
model control," Aerospace, vol. 6, p. 13, 2019. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/aerospace6020013.
[159] B. K. Stanford, "Static and dynamic aeroelastic tailoring with variable-camber control," Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, pp. 2522-2534, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.G000413.
[160] K. Soneda, T. Yokozeki, T. Imamura, and N. Tsushima, "Aero-structural Analysis of Corrugated
Morphing Wing with Spanwise Camber Change," in AIAA Scitech 2020 Forum, 2020.
[161] K. T. Magar, K. Fuchi, A. M. Pankonien, R. V. Beblo, and G. W. Reich, "Active Control of Origami
Inspired Camber Morphing Airfoil for Gust Load Alleviation," in ASME 2018 Conference on
Smart Materials, Adaptive Structures and Intelligent Systems, 2018.
[162] J. M. Gattas, W. Wu, and Z. You, "Miura-base rigid origami: parameterizations of first-level
derivative and piecewise geometries," Journal of Mechanical design, vol. 135, 2013. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.4025380.
[163] K. S. Thapa Magar, G. W. Reich, A. M. Pankonien, and B. Smyers, "Active Gust Alleviation using
Artificial Hair Sensors and Feedforward Control," in AIAA Guidance, Navigation, and Control
Conference, p. 1485, 2017. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-1485.
53
[164] S. N. Fry, R. Sayaman, and M. H. Dickinson, "The aerodynamics of hovering flight in Drosophila,"
Journal of Experimental Biology, vol. 208, pp. 2303-2318, 2005. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1242/jeb.01612.
[165] R. Cavallaro and L. Demasi, "Challenges, ideas, and innovations of joined-wing configurations: a
concept from the past, an opportunity for the future," Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 87, pp.
1-93, 2016. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2016.07.002.
[166] L. Cavagna, S. Ricci, and L. Travaglini, "Structural sizing and aeroelastic optimization in aircraft
conceptual design using NeoCASS suite," in 13th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis
Optimization Conference, pp. 1-26, 2010. doi:https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2010-9076.
[167] L. Cavagna, S. Ricci, and L. Travaglini, "NeoCASS: an integrated tool for structural sizing,
aeroelastic analysis and MDO at conceptual design level," Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 47,
pp. 621-635, 2011. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paerosci.2011.08.006.
[168] B. M. Kulfan, "Universal parametric geometry representation method," Journal of aircraft, vol. 45,
pp. 142-158, 2008. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/1.29958.
[169] R. Clarke, M. Allen, R. Dibley, J. Gera, and J. Hodgkinson, "Flight test of the F/A-18 active
aeroelastic wing airplane," in AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference and exhibit, 2005.
[170] E. W. Pendleton, D. Bessette, P. B. Field, G. D. Miller, and K. E. Griffin, "Active aeroelastic wing
flight research program: technical program and model analytical development," Journal of Aircraft,
vol. 37, pp. 554-561, 2000. doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/2.2654.
[171] G. D. Miller, "Active flexible wing (AFW) technology," ROCKWELL INTERNATIONAL LOS
ANGELES CA NORTH AMERICAN AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS1988.
54
Appendix
Table 1. Studies on span morphing.
Reference [40] [41] [42] [46] [47] [48] [51]
Year 2018 2019 2018 2013 2013 2014 2018
DoF Span Span Span Span Span Span Span
Actuation Rack & pinion Rack & pinion N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Skin Fiber-reinforced Fiber-reinforced elastomeric N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
elastomeric skin skin & Zero-Poisson’s ratio
& Zero-Poisson’s honeycomb core
ratio honeycomb
core
Purpose Flutter Flutter suppression N/A N/A N/A N/A Flutter
suppression suppression
Aircraft General General General General UAV General General
Analysis type Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation
Model type Half -wing Half -wing Half wing-body Half -wing Half -wing Half -wing Half-wing
Structure model 2D typical section Euler-Bernoulli beam Euler-Bernoulli beam & Euler- FE software Euler-Bernoulli Linear plate
R.B. modes Bernoulli beam
beam
Structure Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Composite Isotropic
Aerodynamic Unsteady Unsteady Theodorsen’s Unsteady Theodorsen’s VLM CFD pack Unsteady Piston theory
model Theodorsen’s theory theory Theodorsen’s
theory theory & CFD
Type of study Aeroelastic Aeroelastic stability Aeroelastic stability Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Aeroelastic
stability stability & stability stability stability
response.
Flow regime Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Supersonic
Flight condition Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise
Parameters Morphing Actuation rate Rigid-body modes for body Morphing Rigidity at Morphing process Periodically
mechanism freedom flutter speed interface varying
55
morphing
motion
56
Table 2. Studies on chord morphing.
Reference [53] [54] [55] [56] [57]
Year 2009 2009 2011 2010 2014
DoF Chord Chord Chord Chord Chord
Actuation N/A N/A Rotor speed N/A N/A

Skin Isotropic with a slit N/A Silicon rubber Isotropic with a slit Isotropic with a slit
at trailing edge at trailing edge at trailing edge
Purpose Reduction in main Reduction in Reduction in Reduction in main Reduction in main

rotor power main rotor power main rotor power rotor power rotor power
Aircraft Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter Helicopter
Analysis type Simulation Simulation Simulation & Simulation Simulation
experiment
Model type Rotor with blades Rotor with blades Blade Rotor with blades Rotor with blades
Structure model Beam formulation 2D FE software 2D Beam formulation

Structure Moderate deflection Rigid Cellular structure Rigid Moderate deflection
Aerodynamic Unsteady-Airfoil CFD VLM CFD Unsteady-Airfoil
model tables tables
Type of study Aerodynamic Aerodynamic Skin deformation Aerodynamic Aerodynamic
performance performance performance performance
Flow regime Subsonic-stall Subsonic-stall Subsonic-stall Subsonic-stall Subsonic-stall
Flight condition Forward flight Forward flight Forward flight Forward flight Forward flight
Parameters Amount of chord Actuation Chord extension Amount of chord Amount of chord
extension frequency value extension extension
57
Table 3. Studies on sweep morphing.
Reference [63] [66]
Year 2011 2019
DoF Sweep Sweep
Actuation SMA Pulley & servomotor
Skin N/A Bionic feathers
Purpose N/A Flight performance
Aircraft UAV UAV

Analysis type Simulation Simulation & Experiment
Model type Half wing Full aircraft
Structure model Euler-Bernoulli beam N/A
Structure Isotropic Isotropic
Aerodynamic model Unsteady Theodorsen’s CFD

theory
Type of study Aeroelastic stability Aeroelastic stability
Flow regime Subsonic Subsonic
Flight condition Cruise Cruise

Parameters Planform configuration Actuation
58
Table 4. Studies on twist morphing.
Reference [67] [70] [71] [72, 73] [78] [79] [80]
Year 2012 2019 2011 2012, 2013 2012 2017 2015
DoF Twist Twist Twist Twist Twist Twist Twist
Actuation Electro- Servomotor & N/A N/A N/A Servomechanism N/A
mechanical Torque rod
Skin Composite PEI (Ultem) film N/A Aluminum 2024- Aluminum 2024- N/A Composite
T3 T3
Purpose Roll control Control Aircraft control Aerodynamic Roll control Flutter Load alleviation
efficiency efficiency & roll suppression
control
Aircraft HALE Blended wing- General UAV UAV General Civil
body
Analysis type Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation & Simulation
Experiment
Model type Half wing Full wing Wing section Half wing Half wing Wing section Whole aircraft
Structure model FE software FE software FE software FE model Lagrangian N/A FE software

mechanics
Structure Composite Anisotropic Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Carbon fiber Composite
Aerodynamic Quasi-steady XFOIL& VLM Vortex ring Tornado VLM Unsteady Unsteady time Unsteady DLM
model method Theodorsen’s domain
theory formulation
Type of study Flight dynamics Static Aeroelastic & Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Aeroelastic
aeroelasticity mechanical response response stability response
characteristics
Flow regime Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic & gust
Flight condition Roll Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise
Parameters Twist value Modularity of the Actuation force Actuation Actuation speed Active & Passive Passive twist
structure & forces control wingtip
architecture
Table 5. Studies on dihedral/gull/folding Wingtips/spanwise bending.
59
Reference [81] [82] [83] [ [[ [89] [90]
8 88
5 67
] ]]
Year 2016 2015 2019 2 22 2012 2013
0 00
1 11
6 89
DoF Wingtip Folding wing Folding wing F FF Folding wing Folding wing
o oo
l ll
d dd
i ii
n nn
g gg
w ww
i ii
n nn
g gg
Actuation N/A N/A N/A N NN N/A N/A
/ //
A AA
Skin N/A N/A N/A N NN N/A N/A
/ //
A AA
Purpose Load alleviation N/A N/A N N N/A N/A
/ N /
A / A
A
Aircraft Civil Civil Civil C G G General General
i e e
v n n
il e e
r r
a a
l l
Analysis type Simulation Simulation Simulation S S S Simulation Simulation
i i i
m m m
60
u u u
l l l
a a a
ti ti ti
o o o
n n n
Model type Full wing Half wing Half wing H H F Half wing Half wing
a a u
lf lf ll
w - w
i w i
n i n
g n g
g
Structure model FE software FE software FE software & free- M F L Plate substructures Craig–Bampton with
play u E i floating frame method
lt s n
i o e
b ft a
o w r
d a E
y r u
d e l
y & e
n f r
a r -
m e B
i e e
c - r
s p n
l o
a u
y ll
i i
n b
h e
i a
n m
61
g
e
Structure Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic I II Isotropic Isotropic

s ss
o oo
tr tr
tr
o oo
p pp
i ii
c cc
Aerodynamic model DLM DLM DLM D DU DLM CFD
L LV
M ML
M
Type of study Aeroelastic response Aeroelastic response Aeroelastic response A A A Aeroelastic stability Aeroelastic response
e e e
r r r
o o o
e e e
l l l
a a a
s s s
ti ti ti
c c c
r s s
e t t
s a a
p b b
o il il
n it it
s y y
e &
r
e
s
p
o
62
n
s
e
Flow regime Subsonic & gust Subsonic Subsonic S S S Subsonic Subsonic
u u u
b b b
s s s
o o o
n n n
i i i
c c c
Flight condition Cruise Cruise Cruise C C C Cruise Cruise
r r r
u u u
i i i
s s s
e e e
Parameters Flared hinge & hinge Morphing velocity Clearance & free-play M M F Fold angle Morphing process
stiffness of the folding segment o o o
r d l
p a d
h l a
i d n
n a g
g m l
r p e
a i
t n
e g
&
f
o
l
d
i
n
g
a
n
63
g
l
e
64
Reference [91] [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98]
Year 2009 2009 2010 2012 2015 2014 2013 2011
DoF Folding wing Folding wing Folding wing Folding wing Wingtip Folding wing Folding wing Winglet
Actuation N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Passive (aero & N/A Inter & intra-rib
thrust) mechanisms
Skin N/A N/A N/A N/A Aluminum alloy N/A N/A Flexible
Purpose N/A Flight Flight N/A Flight Flight N/A Drag reduction
performance performance performance performance & limit the root
bending moment
Aircraft General General General General Turbo-fan HALE General General
aircraft
Analysis type Simulation Simulation Simulation & Simulation & Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation
Experiment Experiment
Model type Half wing Half aircraft Half wing & Half wing Wing section Full wing Half wing Half wing
fuselage
Structure model Plate FE software Nonlinear plate Beam FE pack Nonlinear large FEM Beam model
substructures deflection beam
Structure Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic & Isotropic
Composite
Aerodynamic Unsteady DLM 3D VLM Unsteady CFD & DLM Unsteady Peter’s DLM Weissinger’s
model Theodorsen’s Theodorsen’s method
theory theory
Type of study Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Load alleviation Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Static
stability stability stability & stability stability & response aeroelasticity
response response
Flow regime Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Transonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic
Flight condition Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise, climb &
descent
Parameters Unsteadiness of Fold angle & Fold angle Fold angle & Morphing angle Thrust & fold Fold angle & Folding, shearing
aerodynamics hinge stiffness number of angle hinge stiffness & winglet twist
& fold angle folding angle
segments
65
Reference [99] [100] [101] [103] [104] [105] [106] [107]
Year 2018 2018 2018 2018 2019 2016 2016 2017
DoF Winglet Winglet Wingtip & flap tabs Wingtip Wingtip Wingtip Wingtip Wingtip
Actuation N/A EMA EMA N/A N/A N/A Piezoelectric N/A

Skin Composite Conformal skin Conformal skin N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Purpose Load control Load alleviation Load alleviation Load alleviation Load Load alleviation Load alleviation Load alleviation
& aeroelastic alleviation
behavior
Aircraft Civil Civil regional Civil regional Civil Civil Civil Civil Civil
Analysis type Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation & Experiment Simulation Simulation Simulation
Experiment
Model type Full aircraft Full aircraft Full aircraft Half wing Half wing Full aircraft Full aircraft Full aircraft
Structure model FE software FE software FE software FE software N/A Multi body FE software & FE software
dynamics nonlinear hinge
Structure Composite Composite Composite Isotropic N/A Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic
Aerodynamic DLM DLM DLM DLM N/A DLM DLM DLM

model
Type of study Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Aeroelastic stability Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Aeroelastic response Aeroelastic stability
response response response response response & response
Flow regime Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic & gust Subsonic & Subsonic & gust Subsonic & gust Subsonic & gust
gust
Flight condition Cruise Symmetric & Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise
anti-symmetric
Maneuver
Parameters Winglet Winglet Layout, mass, stiffness Hinge stiffness Wingtip Nonlinearity in Hinge nonlinearity Wingtip deflection
deflection deflection & actuator damping of hinge hinge & mass, hinge
movable parts orientation stiffness & damping
66
67
Reference [ [110]
1
0
8
]
Year 2 2019
0
1
9
DoF W Wingtip
i
n
g
ti
p
Actuation N Lock & clutched actuator
/
A
Skin N CFRP stiffened with Rohacell foam
/
A
Purpose F Aerodynamic efficiency & load
li alleviation
g
h
t
p
e
r
f
o
r
m
a
n
c
e
&
l
68
o
a
d
a
ll
e
v
i
a
ti
o
n
Aircraft C Demonstrator UAV
i
v
il
Analysis type S Experiment & flight test
i
m
u
l
a
ti
o
n
Model type F Full aircraft
u
ll
a
ir
c
r
a
ft
Structure model F N/A
E
s
o
ft
69
w
a
r
e
Structure I Isotropic & composite
s
o
tr
o
p
i
c
Aerodynamic model D N/A
L
M
Type of study A Load alleviation
e
r
o
e
l
a
s
ti
c
r
e
s
p
o
n
s
e
Flow regime S Subsonic
u
b
s
o
n
70
i
c
&
g
u
s
t
Flight condition C Cruise
r
u
i
s
e
Parameters F Fold angle
r
e
e
h
i
n
g
e
w
i
n
g
ti
p
71
Table 6. Studies on thickness-to-chord morphing.
Reference [111] [112] [114] [115]
Year 2010 2011 2012 2015
DoF Thickness Thickness Thickness Thickness
Actuation SMA SMA N/A Linear actuators
Skin N/A N/A 7075 (T6) grade N/A
aluminum
Purpose Drag reduction Drag reduction Drag reduction N/A
Aircraft General General General General
Analysis type Simulation Simulation & Simulation Experiment
Experiment
Model type Half wing Half wing Cross-section Plate
Structure model FE software FE software FE pack N/A
Structure Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic
Aerodynamic model DLM DLM CFD N/A

Type of study Aeroelastic Aeroelastic Static Aeroelastic
stability stability aeroelasticity response
Flow regime Subsonic Subsonic Transonic Supersonic
Flight condition Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise
Parameters Skin flexibility Flight speed Thickness change Actuation
72
Table 7. Studies on camber morphing.
Reference [119] [ [ [ [ [ [ [
1 1 1 1 1 1 1
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
3 4 5 6 8 7 9
] ] ] ] ] ] ]
Year 2018 2015 2 2 2 2 2 2
0 0 0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1 1 1
9 9 8 4 9 7
DoF Camber Camber C C C C C C
a a a a a a
m m m m m m
b b b b b b
e e e e e e
r r r r r r
Actuation N/A Piezoelectric P N S E S E
i / e l e l
e A r e r e
z v c v c
o o t o t
e a r a r
l c o c o
e t m t m
c u e u e
t a c a c
r t h t h
i o a o a
c r n r n
i i
c c
a a
l l
Skin N/A Composite C C MN N C
o o u / / o
m r l A A m
p r t p
o u i o
73
s g - s
i a s i
t t e t
e e g e
d m
e
n
t
Purpose Flight Performance Flight performance R F F F F
o l F l l l
l i l i i i
l g i g g g
c h g h h h
o t h t t t
n p t p p p
t e p e e e
r r e r r r
o f r f f f
l o f o o o
r o r r r
m r m m m
a m a a a
n a n n n
c n c c c
e c e e e
e
Aircraft Civil General G G C C C c
e e i i i i
n n v v v v
e e i i i i
r r l l l l
a a
l l
Analysis type Simulation Simulation S S S S S S
i i i i i i
m m m m m m
u u u u u u
l l l l l l
a a a a a a
74
t t t t t t
i i i i i i
o o o o o o
n n n n n n
&
E
x
p
e
r
i
m
e
n
t
Model type Full aircraft Full wing H H F F F H
a a u u u a
l l l l l l
f f l l l f
w w w w w w
i i i i i i
n n n n n n
g g g g g g
Structure model FE software FE software F N F F F F
E o E E E E
s n s s s s
o l o o o o
f i f f f f
t n t t t t
w e w w w w
a a a a a a
r r r r r r
e p e e e e
l
a
t
e
75
Structure Isotropic Composite C C I I I C
o o s s s o
m r o o o m
p r t t t p
o u r r r o
s g o o o s
i a p p p i
t t i i i t
e e c c c e
d
&
c
o
m
p
o
s
i
t
e
Aerodynamic model CFD CFD N U D D D D
o V L L L L
n L MMMM
l M
i
n
e
a
r
l
i
f
t
i
n
g
l
i
76
n
e
Type of study Aeroelastic response Aeroelastic response S A S A A A
t e t e e e
a r a r r r
t o t o o o
i e i e e e
c l c l l l
a a a a a a
e s e s s s
r t r t t t
o i o i i i
e c e c c c
l r l s s s
a e a t t t
s s s a a a
t p t b b b
i o i i i i
c n c l l l
i s i i i i
t e t t t t
y y y y y
&
a
e
r
o
e
l
a
s
t
i
c
s
t
a
b
77
i
l
i
t
y
Flow regime Transonic Subsonic S S S S S S
u u u u u u
b b b b b b
s s s s s s
o o o o o o
n n n n n n
i i i i i i
c c c c c c
Flight condition Cruise Cruise & maneuver C C C C C C
r r r r r r
u u u u u u
i i i i i i
s s s s s s
e e e e e e
Parameters Application of morphing device Deformation & actuation D C S A A A
e o t c c c
f m i t t t
o p f u u u
r o f a a a
m s n t t t
a i e o o o
t t s r r r
i e s j f j
o & , a a a
n c d m i m
& o a m l m
a r m i u i
c r p n r n
t u i g e g
u g n & ,
a a g t m
t t & r a
i e f a s
d a i s
78
o p i l &
n a l i s
r u n t
a r g i
m e e f
e o d f
t f g n
e a e e
r c s s
s t t s
u i
a f
t f
o n
r e
s
s
&
i
n
e
r
t
i
a
Reference [130] [132] [134, 135] [136] [138] [139] [140, 141] [142]
Year 2019 2018 2019 2018 2017 2015 2013 2010
DoF Camber Camber Camber Camber Camber Camber Camber Camber
Actuation Electromechanical Servo actuator Electromechanic Servo actuator N/A Servo Eccentric curved beam N/A
al
Skin N/A Fiberglass Corrugated Composite N/A Composite Composite N/A
Purpose Flight performance & Flight Flight N/A N/A Flight Flight performance Flight
control performance performance performance performance
79
Aircraft UAV Civil AWE wing General General General General General
Analysis Simulation & Simulation & Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation
type Experiment Experiment
Model type Full wing Half wing Full wing Half wing Cross-section Cross-section Half wing Cross-section
Structure FE software FE software with FE software Beam Beam Beam FE software FE software
model large deformation
Structure Isotropic Composite Composite Composite Isotropic Isotropic Composite Isotropic
Aerodynam 3D panel DLM 3D panel XFOIL & 2D viscous Unsteady XFOIL & 2D DLM 2D Peter’s for
ic model panel Peter’s viscous panel flexible airfoil
Type of Static aeroelasticity Static Flight dynamics Static aeroelasticity Static Static Static aeroelasticity & Aeroelastic
study aeroelasticity & aeroelasticity aeroelasticity aeroelastic stability stability
stability & aeroelastic
stability
Flow Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic
regime
Flight Cruise with pitch & roll Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise
condition maneuver
Parameters Deformation, actuation Deformation & Deformation & Structure stiffness, Camber Ply angle & Actuation nonlinearity Trailing edge
& internal structure actuation control strategies deformation & deformation camber stiffness & elastic
actuation flexibility deformation axis position
Reference [1 [144, 145] [147] [149] [1 [1 [1 [153]

4 5 5 5
3] 0] 1] 2]
Year 2 2011 2012 2013 2 2 2 2011
0 0 0 0
1 1 1 1
0 4 0 9
DoF C Camber Camber Camber C C C Camber
a a a a
m m m m
80
b b b b
er er er er
Actuation S Piezoelectric (MFC) SMA N/A N T Pi N/A
er / T e
v A A z
o M o
a el
ct e
u ct
at ri
or c
Skin N N/A Composite N/A N C N Flexible skin
/ / o /
A A m A
p
o
si
te
Purpose Fl Flight performance Flight performance Flight performance Fl N Fl N/A
ig ig / ig
ht ht A ht
p p p
er er er
fo fo fo
r r r
m m m
a a a
n n n
c c c
e e e
Aircraft G General General General U U G General
e A A e
n V V n
er er
al al
Analysis type Si Simulation Simulation Simulation Si Si Si Simulation
m m m m
ul ul ul ul
at at at at
81
io io io io
n n n n
&
E
x
p
er
i
m
e
nt
Model type H Cross-section Half wing Cross-section C W C Cross-section
al ro in ro
f ss g ss
w - se -
in se ct se
g ct io ct
io n io
n n
Structure model F FE software FE software 1D CUF formulation D F D FE pack
E is E is
s cr p cr
of et a et
t iz c iz
w e k e
ar d d
e
Structure Is Isotropic Composite Isotropic Is C Is Isotropic
ot ot o ot
ro ro m ro
pi pi p pi
c c o c
si
te
Aerodynamic model H Panel method 3D panel method 3D panel method P N V XFOIL
ig a / L
h- n A M
or el
d m
82
er et
p h
a o
n d
el
m
et
h
o
d
Type of study St Static aeroelasticity Static aeroelasticity Static aeroelasticity St A St Static aeroelasticity
at at er at
ic ic o ic
a a el a
er er as er
o o ti o
el el c el
as as re as
ti ti s ti
ci ci p ci
ty ty o ty
& n
st se
a
bi
lit
y
Flow regime S Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic S S S Subsonic
u u u u
b b b b
s s s s
o o o o
ni ni ni ni
c c c c
Flight condition C Cruise Cruise Cruise C C C Cruise
ru ru ru ru
is is is is
e e e e
83
Parameters C Camber deformation Camber deformation & 3D Camber deformation C St A Air loads
a coupling effects between the a if er
m morphing & the structure m fn o
b b es d
er er s y
d d of n
ef ef a a
or or ct m
m m u ic
at at at fo
io io io r
n n n m
& ul
s at
h io
a n
p
e
R [ [155] [ [157] [158] [159] [160] [

ef 1 1 1
e 5 5 6
r 4 6 1
e ] ] ]
n
c
e
Y 2 2012 2 2018 2019 2016 2020 2
e 0 0 0
a 2 1 1
r 0 4 8
D C Camber C Camber Camber Camber Camber C
o a a a
F m m m
b b b
er er er
84
A P N/A S Servo actuator Piezoelectric actuator SMA Servomotor & wires L
ct ul M in
u le A e
a y & ar
ti & S a
o te M ct
n n P u
d a at
o ct io
n u n
s at
o
rs
S S Flexible skin F N/A Composite & Aluminum Elastomeric Aluminum N
k il le /
i ic xi A
n o bl
n e
s s
ki ki
n n
P F Flight performance F Structural stability, Load & roll control Control aeroelastic behavior & Load alleviation & flutter Load control N
u li li & Flight performance flight mechanics suppression /
r g g A
p ht ht
o p P
s er er
e f f
o o
r r
m m
a a
n n
c c
e e
A U General G Civil General Civil UAV G
ir A e e
c V n n
r
85
a er er
ft al al
A S Simulation S Simulation Simulation & Experiment Simulation Simulation S
n i i i
al m m m
y ul ul ul
si at at at
s io io io
t n n n
y
p
e
M W Wing section C Full wing Cross-section Half wing Full wing C
o in r r
d g o o
el s ss ss
t e - -
y ct s s
p io e e
e n ct ct
io io
n n
S M FE pack F FE software FE pack FE software FE pack P
tr in E it
u dl p c
ct in a h
u - c &
r R k pl
e ei u
m ss n
o n g
d er e
el pl s
at y
e st
e
m
p
ar
86
a
m
et
er
s
S C Isotropic Is Isotropic Composite & Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic Is
tr o ot ot
u m r r
ct p o o
u o pi pi
r si c c
e te
A X XFOIL & DLM X DLM N/A VLM VLM Q
e F F u
r O O a
o I I si
d L L -
y & st
n 3 e
a D a
m li d
ic ft y
m in th
o g in
d li ai
el n rf
e oi
th l
e th
o e
r o
y r
y
T A Aeroelastic response A Aeroelastic stability Load tests Static aeroelasticity & Load control A
y er er aeroelastic stability er
p o o o
e d el el
o y a a
f n st st
87
st a ic ic
u m re re
d ic s s
y & p p
a o o
er n n
o s s
el e e
a
st
ic
re
s
p
o
n
s
e
s
F S Subsonic S Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic Subsonic S
lo u u u
w b b b
r s s s
e o o o
gi ni ni ni
m c c c
e
F C Cruise C Cruise N/A Cruise Cruise C
li r r r
g ui ui ui
h s s s
t e e e
c
o
n
d
it
io
n
88
P A Actuation A Mass balancing ratio, actuation line Actuation capability Camber deformation Actuation energy C
a ct ct stiffness & actuator jamming a
r u u m
a at at b
m io io er
et n n c
e T h
r o a
s r n
q g
u e
e
Table 8. Studies on aeroelasticity frameworks for morphing.

Refer [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20, 21]
ence
Year 2011 2015 2014 2017 2017 2017 2011 2009 2020 2011,2013
DoF Shear, Shear, Twist, Twist Dihed Span Camb Camb Camber Camber
twist, twist, cambe & ral & er er &
span span, r& cambe cambe span
& foldin span r r
foldin g&
g cambe
r
Aircr Gener UAV Civil Gener Gener UAV Gener UAV General General
aft al region al al & al
al MAV
Mode Full Full Full Half Full Full Full Full Wing section Wing section
l type wing wing wing wing wing wing wing wing
Struc Nonli Nonli FEM Linear Lagra FE FE FE FE software & nonlinear beam N/A
ture near near beam nge softw softw softw
model beam beam based are are are
nonlin
ear
formu
lation
89
Struc Isotro Isotro Isotro Isotro Isotro Isotro Comp Comp Isotropic & composite N/A
ture pic pic pic pic pic pic osite osite
Aero Weiss Weiss VLM VLM UVL Unste 2D Visco UVLM, XFOIL & UTCart N/A
dyna inger’ inger’ M ady panel us 2D
mic s s Theod panel
model metho metho orsen’
d d s
theory
Type Static Static Aeroe Static Aeroe Aeroe Static Static Aeroelastic response Aeroelastic response
of aeroel aeroel lastic aeroel lastic lastic aeroel aeroel
study asticit asticit respo asticit stabili stabili asticit asticit
y y& nse & y ty & ty y y
aeroel aerod respo
astic ynami nse
stabili c
ty charac
teristi
cs
Flow Subso Subso Subso Subso Subso Subso Subso Subso Subsonic Subsonic
regim nic nic nic & nic nic nic nic nic
e transo
nic
Flight Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise Takeo Cruise Cruise Cruise Cruise
condi ff,
tion climb,
cruise
&
loiter
90
List of Acronyms
AAW Active Aeroelastic Wing
ACARE Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe
AFW Active Flexible Wing
AIC Aerodynamic Influence Coefficient
ATE Active Trailing Edge
ATED Active Trailing Edge Device
ATW Adaptive Torsion Wing
AWE Airborne Wind Energy
CFRP Carbon fiber Reinforced Polymer
CUF Carrera Unified Formulation
CUFXFLR5 Carrera Unified Formulation-XFLR5
DE Dielectric Elastomer
DIC Digital Image Correlation
DKT Discrete Kirchhoff Triangle
DLM Doublet Lattice Method
ELLT Extended Lifting Line Theory
EMA Electro-Mechanical Actuation
EMC Elastomeric Matrix Composite
FE Finite Element
FEM Finite Element Method
FFAST Future Fast Aeroelastic Simulation Technology
FHA Fault and Hazard Analysis
FishBAC FishBone Active Camber
FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction
GA Genetic Algorithm
HALE High Altitude Long Endurance
HBMA High Bandwidth Morphing Actuator
LST Linear Strain Triangles
MACH Mdo for Aircraft Configuration with High fidelity
91
MAV Micro-air-vehicle
MFC Macro Fiber Composite
MLA Maneuver Load Alleviation
MP Mathematical Programming
NATASHA Nonlinear Aeroelastic Trim And Stability of Hale Aircraft
PAPA Pitch And Plunge Apparatus
PEI Polyetherimide
PTWT Passive Twist Wingtip
RTO Research and Technology Organization
SAH Semi-Aeroelastic Hinge
SAS Stability Augmented System
SAW Seamless Aeroelastic Wing
SMA Shape Memory Alloys
SMP Shape Memory Polymers
TACS Toolkit for Analysis Composite Structures
TRA Technology Reference Aircraft
TTAM Torque Tube Actuation Mechanism
UAV Unmanned Aerial Vehicle
UVLM Unsteady Vortex-Lattice Method
VCCTEF Variable Camber Continuous Trailing Edge Flap
VLM Vortex Lattice Method
92
Nomenclature
! structural inertia matrix
" aerodynamic damping matrix
# aerodynamic stiffness matrix
$ structural damping matrix
% structural stiffness matrix
& air density
' air speed
( generalized coordinates (typically model coordinates)
) lift
* moment
)! lift per unit span
!
*"# unsteady pitching moment around the elastic axis per unit span
+ chord
,- normalized pitch axis location with respect to half the chord
.(0) frequency dependent Theodorsen’s function
2 plunge displacement
3 pitch displacement
4∝ dynamic pressure
5 oscillating frequency
6(5) unsteady AIC matrix
7 force vector
8 displacement vector
.%& aerodynamic pressure coefficient distribution at 9th panel
∆;& length of the 9th panel
<& local downwash angle
= reference wing area
>' , @' coordinate position of the torsion spring
Superscripts
93
∙ first time derivative
∙∙ second time derivative
94

Recent Developments in The Aeroelasticity of Morphing Aircraft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recent Developments in The Aeroelasticity of Morphing Aircraft

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recent Developments in The Aeroelasticity of Morphing Aircraft

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Recent Developments in the Aeroelasticity of Morphing Aircraft

R.M. Ajaja1, M.S. Parancheerivilakkathila, M. Amoozgarb, M.I. Friswellc, and W. Cantwella

Aeroelasticity; Morphing Aircraft; UAVs; Flutter; Divergence; Loads Alleviation

Figure 1. Morphing Aircraft optimized to perform multiple missions [4].

where !, (, ,, ), - are the structural inertia, aerodynamic damping, aerodynamic stiffness,

Figure 3. Aircraft equipped with span morphing wings.

2.1.1.2 Aeroelastic control

where 1" is lift per unit span, E#$

a. The Zigzag wingbox [49]. b. The GNATSpar wing [50].

Figure 6. F-111 Aardvark aircraft flying at different sweep angles.

2.1.3.1 Aeroelastic stability

(a) At zero tip twist. (b) At ± 10o tip twist.

Figure 7. The composite cellular material morphing wing [69].

2.2.1.1 Aeroelastic stability

2.2.1.2 Aeroelastic control

2.2.2.1 Aeroelastic stability

2.2.2.2 Aeroelastic control

2.3.1.1 Aeroelastic stability

Figure 9. Cross-section of thickness morphing wing model [113].

(b) 20⁰ flap down condition.

(c) 20⁰ flap up condition.

2.3.2.1 Aeroelastic stability

(a) Morphing airfoil with internal (b) FishBAC compliant structure.

2.3.2.2 Aeroelastic control

4. Discussions and Trends

4.1 Morphing skin and flexible structures/materials

4.2 Impact of actuation system/rates/forces

4.3 Type of study

4.4 Effect of nonlinearities

4.5 2D airfoils, 3D wings or Full aircraft?

4.6 Type of aircraft

4.7 Flight speeds

4.9 Aerodynamic and structural solvers

4.10 Degrees of freedom

Analysis type Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation Simulation

Actuation N/A N/A Rotor speed N/A N/A

Purpose Reduction in main Reduction in Reduction in Reduction in main Reduction in main

Structure model Beam formulation 2D FE software 2D Beam formulation

Purpose N/A Flight performance

Aircraft UAV UAV

Model type Half wing Full aircraft

Structure model Euler-Bernoulli beam N/A

Structure Isotropic Isotropic

Aerodynamic model Unsteady Theodorsen’s CFD

Flow regime Subsonic Subsonic

Flight condition Cruise Cruise

Structure model FE software FE software FE software FE model Lagrangian N/A FE software

Structure Isotropic Isotropic Isotropic I II Isotropic Isotropic

Actuation N/A EMA EMA N/A N/A N/A Piezoelectric N/A

Aerodynamic DLM DLM DLM DLM N/A DLM DLM DLM

Aerodynamic model DLM DLM CFD N/A

Reference [1 [144, 145] [147] [149] [1 [1 [1 [153]

R [ [155] [ [157] [158] [159] [160] [

Table 8. Studies on aeroelasticity frameworks for morphing.

You might also like