Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and

Structures
http://jim.sagepub.com/

A morphing trailing edge device for a wind turbine

Stephen Daynes and Paul M Weaver
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 2012 23: 691 originally published online 6 March 2012
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X12438622

The online version of this article can be found at:

http://jim.sagepub.com/content/23/6/691

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

Additional services and information for Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures can be found at:

Email Alerts: http://jim.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts

Subscriptions: http://jim.sagepub.com/subscriptions

Reprints: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.nav

Permissions: http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

Citations: http://jim.sagepub.com/content/23/6/691.refs.html

>> Version of Record - Apr 9, 2012

OnlineFirst Version of Record - Mar 6, 2012

What is This?

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014

Article

Journal of Intelligent Material Systems

and Structures
23(6) 691–701
A morphing trailing edge device for Ó The Author(s) 2012
Reprints and permissions:
a wind turbine sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1045389X12438622
jim.sagepub.com

Stephen Daynes and Paul M Weaver

Abstract
The loads on wind turbine components are primarily from the blades. It is important to control these loads in order to
avoid damaging the wind turbine. Rotor control technology is currently limited to controlling the rotor speed and the
blade pitch. As blades increase in length, it becomes less desirable to pitch the entire blade as a single rigid body, but
there is a requirement to control loads more precisely along the length of the blade. This can be achieved with aerody-
namic control devices such as flaps. Morphing structures are good candidates for wind turbine flaps because they have
the potential to create structures that have the conflicting abilities of being load carrying, lightweight and shape adaptive.
A morphing flap design with an anisotropic cellular structure is presented, which is able to undergo large deflections and
high strains. An aeroelastic analysis couples the work done by aerodynamic loads on the flap, the flap strain energy and
the required actuation work to change shape. The morphing flap model is manufactured, and its stiffness is measured.

Keywords
morphing trailing edge, load control, anisotropy, aeroelasticity, composites, wind turbine, variable camber

Introduction considerable interest from the rotorcraft community as

Wind turbine blade load alleviation
The aerodynamic loads on the horizontal-axis wind
turbine blades are highly variable due to a combination
of factors including wind shear, tower shadow, yawed
operation and turbulence (Hau, 2006). Precisely con-
trolling the variability in blade loading would lead to
cost benefits to the wind turbine industry if the system
used for load alleviation did not itself add significant
cost (Berg et al., 2009b). Individual or collective wind
turbine blade pitch control systems have been investi-
gated in recent years to reduce the blade stresses caused
by fluctuating loads (Bossanyi, 2003; Larsen et al.,
2005). However, it is unlikely that blade pitch control
alone can totally eliminate these loads since they are a
function of blade length. In addition, the blade pitch
response to rapidly varying loads is restricted by blade
inertia. With the continuously increasing length of wind
turbine blades, there will be even more variability in
loading along the length of the blade since the rotor
size will increase with respect to the typical size of tur-
bulent eddies.
As an alternative, or in addition, to individual blade
pitch control, blade section camber change shows
promise as a means of load alleviation (Barlas and Van
Kuik, 2010; Berg et al., 2009a; Buhl et al., 2007).The
application of control surfaces has also received
a means of controlling blade loads (Chopra, 2000;
Giurgiutiu et al., 1995; Straub et al., 2004). Being able
to control the camber of wind turbine blades has the
potential to reduce structural fatigue at higher wind
speeds and gusts through load alleviation while captur-
ing more energy at lower wind speeds.
The standard approach to manipulate air loads on
an aerofoil section is to use hinged control surfaces
such as those used as aircraft ailerons. However, the
ability of such devices to alter the geometry of an aero-
foil for load control is a compromise between aerody-
namic performance and the weight and complexity of
the mechanical design. This often results in a control
surface, which is articulated only about a single point
to reduce the weight penalty effects of the added struc-
tural mass (Campanile, 2005). Figure 1 contrasts a con-
ventional 20% chord hinged plain flap and a morphing
trailing edge of the same chord length and the same
NACA 63-418 blade section. Early attempts at design-
ing wind turbine blade control surfaces focussed on
Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol, Bristol, UK
Corresponding author:
S Daynes, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Bristol,
Bristol BS8 1TR, UK.
Email: Stephen.Daynes@bristol.ac.uk

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014

692 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 23(6)

these three main conflicting requirements of load carry-

ing, low mass and deformability into a single design.
A static aeroelastic model of a novel morphing blade
flap design is presented along with a manufactured and
tested proof-of-concept demonstrator. The work in this
article focuses on the innovative implementation of
Figure 1. Conventional hinged flap and morphing flap what could be described as ‘traditional’ technologies to
geometries; NACA 63-418 blade section with 20% chord flap at achieve structural morphing. There is significant scope
615° deflections. for continued research into the use of smart materials,
such as piezoelectric and shape-memory alloy as a
means of shape change. However, the performance of
using mechanical flap devices similar to those used in materials such as these (Huber et al., 1997) is not at a
the aerospace industry. However, the use of such stage where they can be readily used in full-scale
devices has raised concerns due to the potential increase demonstrators, which require both fast response times
in complexity as well as the potential to increase both and the ability to withstand significant aerodynamic
aeroacoustic noise and aerodynamic drag caused by loading.
discontinuities on the external blade profile (Johnson et
al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2009).
Alternatively, by using structural deformation The morphing trailing edge concept
instead of conventional mechanisms to enable shape
The blade section considered in this study has an
change, ‘morphing’ can result in designs that have no
NACA 63-418 profile (Abbott and Von Doenhoff,
surface discontinuities (Daynes et al., 2010; Wildschek
1959) with a 1.3-m chord length and a 20% chord (260
et al., 2008, 2010). Numerous morphing concepts have
mm) trailing edge flap. It is a requirement of this study
been investigated over recent years, and there are sev-
that the morphing trailing edge deflection can cause the
eral good review articles that describe recent develop-
same change in lift as a similarly sized conventional
ments. There are review articles discussing morphing
hinged trailing edge flap, which can deflect between
structures for aerospace applications (Barbarino et al.,
215° and + 15° with positive flap angles in the direction
2011; Sofla et al., 2010; Thill et al., 2008) and for wind
of the pressure surface. An actuator for a compliant
turbine applications (Barlas and Van Kuik, 2010;
flap must do work not only against aerodynamic loads,
Lachenal et al., in press).
like a conventional flap, but also against the stiffness of
the flap itself. It is important that the morphing flap
The challenge of structural morphing design has controlled deformation under both actuator
and aerodynamic loading in order for the blade profile
Of fundamental importance in the design of morphing to achieve its designed aerodynamic profiles. The
structure concepts is an awareness of the conflicting morphing flap demonstrator investigated in this work is
requirements of compliance, load carrying capability shown in Figure 2. There are three main components to
and low mass. Finding engineering solutions that the flap construction: a compliant carbon fibre rein-
address all three of these requirements simultaneously forced plastic (CFRP) upper skin, a flexible honeycomb
is a key research challenge (Campanile, 2007). The core and a flexible silicone lower skin. The 0.4-mm-
addition of an actuator to a morphing aerofoil can
have an important influence on these requirements,
particularly with regard to stiffness as well as any
dynamic effects.
Wind turbine blades are traditionally designed for
high stiffness and low mass. This results in structures
that are fit for their intended purpose but are far too
stiff to be of use as morphing structures. As already
stated, the conventional mechanical approach of using
hinged flaps leads to highly deformable, load carrying,
structures but with a significant mass penalty.
Alternatively, compliant structures can be used, which
have both low mass and are highly deformable, but
they are often hindered by their low-load-carrying
capability and vulnerability to stress concentrations. It
can also be difficult to control the shape of compliant
structures if they have a large number of degrees of Figure 2. Morphing trailing edge design showing silicone
freedom. It is the objective of this work to integrate pressure surface.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014

Daynes and Weaver
thick CFRP upper skin ensures that a smooth aerody-
namic surface is achieved. This is particularly important
on the upper surface where aerodynamic pressure loads
are typically of a larger magnitude, and surface imper-
fections can lead to premature flow separation.
One actuator push–pull rod is attached to each 250-
mm spanwise flap segment at the trailing edge. Seventeen
equally spaced PTFE U-shaped hooks are embedded
into the lower surface to transfer the loads from the
actuator rods to the honeycomb core. The PTFE hooks
are bonded to the honeycomb core to allow the actuator
rod to freely move in and out of the flap but to prevent it
from exerting load on the silicone skin whose main func-
tion is to provide a smooth, weather-tight, surface. The
flap interfaces with the rest of the blade structure via the
rear spar where the actuator rod passes through. This
rear spar separates the morphing function of the flap
with the structural function of the remaining 80% of the
blade chord. The total mass of one 250-mm flap segment
is 1.4 kg. Excluding the rear spar and actuator, the total
mass of the morphing flap model is 0.43 kg per 250-mm
flap segment. Actuation is provided by a 15-V 11-N m
servo motor with a maximum current draw of 2.5 A,
which is controlled from a PC using a USB to a pulse-
width modulation microcontroller. It is not envisaged
that this actuation solution would be robust enough to
withstand the required in-service fatigue life the flap
would experience, but it does provide sufficient torque to
demonstrate the flap model’s operation in a laboratory
environment.
Compressed air is another potential actuation solu-
tion. Hollow cored flaps have been used as actuators in
other research programmes where changing the internal
air pressure enables flap deflections to be controlled
(Madsen et al., 2010; Vos and Barrett, 2011; Vos et al.,
2011). The ‘pressure-adaptive’ designs have the benefit
of being very lightweight since there is no separate
actuator. However, in this project, an electrical solution
was thought to be a more feasible proposition for wind
turbine applications.
An important consideration related to morphing
structures is how to design structures that are rigid
enough to carry aerodynamic loads while being suffi-
ciently compliant for feasible actuation requirements.
This can lead to conflicting requirements for the desir-
able attributes of a compliant skin, which needs to be
capable of withstanding high in-plane strains with low
in-plane stiffness while having sufficient out-of-plane
stiffness to withstand localised skin buckling and aero-
dynamic pressure loads (Gandhi and Anusonti-Inthra,
2008; Joo et al., 2009; Thill et al., 2008). One successful
morphing trailing edge solution to this challenge was
investigated in the Smart Wing program where a thin
flexible silicone skin was used supported by a honey-
comb core with a composite laminate at the midplane
(Bartley-Cho et al., 2004; Kudva, 2004). The honey-
comb core acted as a support to the silicone skin
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014
693
enabling the aerofoil section to retain its shape under
aerodynamic loading.
The highly anisotropic nature of the aramid hexago-
nal honeycomb core in this design also ensures a high
out-of-plane skin stiffness, which is achieved while cre-
ating a flap with a low flexural stiffness. This anisotropy
enables the flap to deform without a large actuation
penalty. Discontinuities are placed in the honeycomb
core, in the plane of the blade section, every 20 mm in
order to create a one-dimensional camber change by
suppressing any anticlastic curvature generated by large
deformations of the hexagonal cellular structure. These
20-mm spaced cuts equate to one row in every six rows
of cells being removed. These core discontinuities enable
sufficient spanwise contraction and expansion of the
honeycomb segments, so that the global response of the
core material approximates a zero-Poisson’s ratio cellu-
lar structure. This zero-Poisson’s ratio solution was
chosen as a matter of convenience since it uses ‘off-the-
shelf’ hexagonal honeycomb. Other solutions to zero-
Poisson’s ratio (or near zero- Poisson’s ratio) cellular
structures exist including the use of overexpanded hon-
eycomb where the hexagonal unit cell is manufactured
in a ‘stretch’ form, ‘Flex-core’ from the Hexcel
Corporation (Hexcel, 2010), ‘semi re-entrant’ geome-
tries (Grima et al., 2010) and ‘hybrid’ or ‘accordion’
geometries (Olympio and Gandhi, 2007).
Aeroelastic analysis
The aeroelastic analysis in this section attempts to
describe the operation of the flap as a single structural–
mechanical–aerodynamic system. This is done by com-
bining the work contributions of the compliant flap
structure, an actuator, centrifugal forces and the aero-
dynamic loads. The coupling of the flap’s structural
deformation with the variation in aerodynamic and
centrifugal loads is important in order to quantify the
work supplied by the actuator. Being able to reduce the
amount of work that needs to be supplied by an actua-
tor by tailoring the stiffness and deformed geometry of
the structure can have a significant influence on the
overall size and mass of the morphing flap system. The
aeroelastic model presented in this section is able to cal-
culate these work contributions for any given flap geo-
metry, whether a simple hinged flap or a cambered
morphing flap. The model assumes the deformation of
the flap behaves as a one-degree-of-freedom system
and is solely a function of flap angle. This one-degree-
of-freedom assumption is supported by wind tunnel
testing where a NACA 63-418 blade section fitted with
this morphing flap design was tested at airspeeds up to
57 m/s (Daynes and Weaver, 2011). During wind tun-
nel testing, the blade section lift coefficient was not
found to change with increasing dynamic pressure, and
no flap deformation due to aerodynamic loading was
694
observed. In the aeroelastic analysis that follows the
dynamic pressure, angle of attack and pitch angle of
the blade section are modelled as fixed values.
Flap geometry definition
The first step in the aeroelastic analysis is to find an
expression that describes the deflected geometry of the
morphing flap. Using the approximation of small flap
angle deflections (sin(b) ’ b), the vertical change in
camber of the upper surface of the morphing flap can
be defined using the following third-order polynomial

0, 0<x\c  b
w = uð xÞb, u ð xÞ = ðcxbÞ3
b2 , c  b<x\c
where b is the flap angle in radians defined using the
point on the upper surface at the flap root and the flap
tip deflection. The flap deformation mode (Campanile
and Anders, 2005; Daynes et al., 2009) is given by u,
where c is the aerofoil chord and b is the chordwise flap
length. The chordwise x-axis has its origin at the leading
edge, the y-axis is defined as positive upwards and
downwards flap deflection angles are defined as posi-
tive. At the flap root at 80% chord there is no flap
deflection, whereas at the flap tip the deflection is given
by 2bb. The deflected shape for the morphing flap
described by the cubic polynomial in equation (1) was
selected based on the experimentally measured deflected
shapes of the upper flap surface shown in Figure 3. The
shape of the morphing flap model, for several values of
b, was measured by tracing the shape of the flap’s upper
surface onto a piece of graph paper and then finding a
polynomial curve fit to describe the shape. It was found
that equation (1) could accurately describe the shape of
the morphing flap in the range of 210° < b < 10°.
The vertical deflection of the upper surface of a con-
ventional hinged flap on the other hand can be
described using
 expressed using the same deformation mode u. For the
0, 0<x\c  b
w = uð xÞb, u ð xÞ =
c  x  b, c  b<x\c
Figure 3. Deflected geometries of the morphing flap model in
b = 5° increments from 210° to + 10°.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 23(6)
The flap root and tip have the same definitions as
the morphing flap. The formulation of flap deflection
in terms of deformation mode enables both morphing
flaps and conventional hinged flaps to be described
using the same aeroelastic model simply by modifying
the deformation mode u. For both equations (1) and
(2), the displacement of the lower aerodynamic surfaces
are also approximated by the change in the vertical dis-
placement w in the aeroelastic analysis that follows
since any discrepancy between the upper and lower sur-
faces will be comparatively small. The geometry defini-
tion presented here also omits any chordwise
displacement since this is much smaller in comparison
to out-of-plane displacement.
ð1Þ
Work done by aerodynamic loads
Once the flap geometry has been defined an expression
can then be found for the work done by aerodynamic
loads.Here a modal formulation is adopted to describe
the loads on the flap as a function of a flap angle. The
work done on the flap by the aerodynamic loads per
unit span, Wf, between two flap positions is found by
integrating the modal aerodynamic moment, Mf,
exerted on the flap with the change in the flap angle.
The modal aerodynamic moment is defined as
ðc
 
Mf = q cpu (x)  cpl (x) u(x)dx ð3Þ
0
where cpu(x) and cpl(x) are the pressure coefficients for
the upper and lower surfaces of the aerofoil, respec-
tively, and q is the dynamic pressure of the fluid flow.
The aerodynamic pressure coefficients are calculated
using XFOIL in this work (Drela and Youngren,
2001). Simplifying assumptions are made to the flap
geometry, and it is assumed that the change in geome-
try of both the upper and lower surfaces can be
case of a conventional hinged flap, the deformation
ð2Þ
mode is given by equation (2). In this case, Mf is equiv-
alent to the flap hinge moment. This is not the case for
a morphing flap, which does not pivot about a discrete
point. Instead, the variation of the modal aerodynamic
moment Mf with aerofoil deformation can be repre-
sented by linear aerodynamic operators (Campanile
and Anders, 2005; Daynes et al., 2009). These linear
operators are determined from the viscid aerodynamic
pressure distributions around the NACA 63-418 aero-
foil section calculated in XFOIL at varying flap angles.
Linear interpolations can be done between the data
sets to determine the relationships between pressure
distributions and flap angle b. The change in pressure
coefficients along the chord for the upper and lower
sides of the aerofoil can therefore be expressed as a
Daynes and Weaver 695

function of b using the following linear aerodynamic the morphing flap has a flexural stiffness, which must
operators be accounted for. This flexural stiffness is described
using the modal torsion modulus ks, and the associated
dcpu ð xÞ
Dcpu (x) = Db ð4Þ modal bending moment is given by
db
dcpl ð xÞ Ms = ks ðb  b0 Þ ð12Þ
Dcpl (x) = Db ð5Þ
db where b0 is the flap angle the morphing flap is manu-
where Dcpu and Dcpl are the changes in pressure coeffi- factured with. The morphing flap is manufactured with
cients for the upper and lower surfaces, respectively. a triangular cross section for simplicity of manufacture.
The use of these linear aerodynamic operators is only This results in the neutral flap angle position at b0 =
valid for non-stalled aerofoil flow regimes where the 24° in this case. The change in flap strain energy per
variation in loads can be approximated as being line- unit span, Ws, between two flap positions is given by
arly proportional to b. Using equations (4) and (5), the
pressure coefficients for the upper and lower surfaces ð2
b  b2
b2
of the aerofoil are Ws = Ms db = ks  b0 b ð13Þ
2 b1
b1
dcpu ð xÞ
cpu (x) = cp0u (x) + b ð6Þ The formulation for strain energy in equation (13)
db
assumes that the morphing flap structure behaves as a
dcpl ð xÞ linear torsion spring. The stiffness characteristics of the
cpl (x) = cp0l (x) + b ð7Þ
db manufactured morphing flap model are presented in the
where cp0u(x) and cp0l(x) are the pressure coefficients for ‘Results and discussion’ section.
a given angle of attack a when b = 0. Similar to equa-
tions (6) and (7), the modal aerodynamic moment Mf Work done by centrifugal forces
can be written as
In addition to the aeroelastic effects described, there is
M f = M f 0 + kf b ð8Þ an additional stiffening effect on the flap caused by
centrifugal forces. When the blade is rotating at a rota-
where kf is the modal aerodynamic torsion modulus tional speed O and the flap is offset from the blade
and is defined as dMf/db. This modal aerodynamic tor- pitch axis, the centrifugal force on each mass element,
sion modulus is now expressed in terms of the aerofoil dm, exerts a restoring force. This has the effect of stif-
deformation fening the rotation of the flap. First, consider the case
of the hinged flap shown in Figure 4. There is a centri-
ðc  
fugal force on the flap, which acts on a line through the
dcpu ð xÞ dcpl ð xÞ
kf = q  u(x)dx ð9Þ centre of rotation. The blade pitch axis and plane of
db db
0 rotation are approximated as passing through the
chord at x = c/4. For a mass element at a distance
And so the modal aerodynamic moment for the
x 2 c/4 behind the blade pitch axis, there is a chord-
undeformed aerofoil at zero flap deflection at a given
wise component of centrifugal force equal to (x 2 c/
angle of attack is
4)O2dm (Wayne, 1980). This chordwise force can be
ðc approximated as acting on a line at a distance (x 2 c + b)
  (b 2 g) from the flap hinge, where g is the blade pitch
Mf 0 = q cp0u (x)  cp0l (x) u(x)dx ð10Þ
angle.
0

Considering equations (8) to (10), the aerodynamic

work done on the structure per unit span, Wf, between
two flap positions, 1 and 2, can therefore be expressed as

ð2
b  b2
kf
Wf = Mf db = Mf 0 b + b2 ð11Þ
2 b1
b1

Change in flap strain energy

With conventional hinged flaps, there is no stiffness Figure 4. Blade element velocities and centrifugal moment on
associated with the deformation of the flap, whereas plain hinged flap.

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014

696 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 23(6)

The total mass of the morphing flap model aft of the per unit span, Wa, can now be expressed as the sum of
rear spar, mt, is 1.72 kg per metre span. As an initial the work done by the aerodynamic loads on the struc-
comparison, it is assumed that the hinged flap in this ture Wf, the work done by centrifugal loads on the
study has the same mass distribution. The chordwise structure Wi and the change in strain energy in the flap
distribution of this mass per unit span is approximated Ws between two known flap positions
as a linear distribution from the flap root to the trailing    b
edge   kf + ks + ki 2 2
Wa = Wf +Ws + Wi = Mf 0  ks b0 + Mi0 b + b
2 b1
2mt ðc  xÞ
dm = dx ð14Þ ð18Þ
b2
Therefore, the modal centrifugal moment, Mi, can The actuator force (load) is related to actuator work
be found by integrating over the flap section: by
ð ð2
b
c
e
Mi = ðb  g ÞO2 x  ð x  c + bÞ Wa = e F db = ðF1 + F2 Þðb2  b1 Þ ð19Þ
4 2
flap b1
ðc
2mt ðb  g ÞO 2
c
where e is a constant that relates actuator stroke with
dm = x  ðc  xÞðx  c + bÞdx
b2 4 flap angle and F is the actuator force per unit span.
cb
The load–stroke ratio, for example, can be tailored
ð15Þ between an actuator and the flap using mechanisms
This expression can be generalised for both the such as bell cranks to change the mechanical advan-
hinged and morphing flaps with the same chordwise tage. Such mechanical advantage can be included in
mass distribution by adopting the modal formulation this aeroelastic formulation through the modification
of the constant e.
ðc
2mt ðb  gÞO2 c
If the flap is left free to float, with the actuator
Mi = x  ðx  cÞu(x)dx = Mi0 + ki b switched off (F1 = 0), it will seek an equilibrium deflec-
b2 4
cb tion angle such that the sum of the aerodynamic, cen-
ð16Þ trifugal and structural bending moments are zero. The
equilibrium deflection angle of the free flap, denoted by
where Mi0 is the modal centrifugal moment, which is b1, can be found from
constant for a given g, and ki is the modal centrifugal
torsion modulus associated with flap deflection. It Mf + Ms + Mi = Mf 0 + kf b1 + ks ðb1  b0 Þ + Mi0 + ki b1 = 0
should be noted that in following analysis the calcula- ks b0  Mf 0  Mi0
tion of the work done on the flap by centrifugal forces ) b1 = ð20Þ
kf + ks + ki
is only valid for a particular angle of attack a and blade
pitch angle g. Additional centrifugal forces exerted on The required actuator force F2 to achieve a given
the flap due to the pitch axis moving out of the plane of flap deflection b2 can now be found using equations
rotation are assumed negligible. There will be also addi- (18) to (20). For a hinged flap, there is no associated
tional forces acting on the flap due to dynamic effects; structural bending moment since the flap is modelled as
however, such dynamic analysis is beyond the scope of a zero stiffness structure, so the stable flap position
this current work. Cyclic variations in gravitational occurs when the modal aerodynamic moment is in equi-
loads exerted on the flap with blade rotation are also librium with the modal centrifugal moment.
assumed to be negligible.
The corresponding work done by centrifugal loads Manufactured demonstrator
on the flap per unit span, Wi, between two flap posi-
tions, 1 and 2, can now be found by integrating equa- The objective of the manufactured flap model is to
tion (16) with respect to b investigate the manufacturing feasibility and stiffness
characteristics of the anisotropic flap concept. An
ð2
b   b2 experimental set-up was devised to perform initial
ki
Wi = Mi db = Mi0 b + b2 ð17Þ investigations into the actuator force–displacement per-
2 b1
b1 formance required to deflect the flap model in a ‘bench
top’ environment.
Calculation of actuator work and forces The morphing flap test rig with the 250-mm span
The task of the actuator is to achieve flap deflection model flap mounted vertically is shown in Figure 5. The
through a prescribed range of angles against external test rig consists of a rectangular aluminium frame with
aerodynamic loading, structural stiffness and centrifu- the rear spar of the flap model clamped to the upper hor-
gal loading. The energy input required by the actuator izontal member. For simplicity of manufacture, the

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014

Daynes and Weaver
Figure 5. Morphing flap model installed in the test rig.
geometry of the aft 20% of the NACA 63-418 aerofoil
section is approximated as a triangular cross section with
the direction of the honeycomb cells normal to the
suction surface and at an angle relative to the pressure
surface. The actuator rod passes from the flap model
through this horizontal aluminium member and is con-
nected to the moving cross-head of an Instron 1-kN
load–displacement test machine instead of the servo
motor shown in Figure 2. Mounting the flap model verti-
cally aids simple and direct installation of the flap model
onto the test machine. The lower horizontal member is
securely bolted to the test machine in order to avoid the
test rig moving when an actuator load is applied to the
flap model. The flap was cycled 610° at up to 68°/s (0.4
Hz) – this was the maximum speed of the test machine.
Results and discussion
Aerodynamic performance
The lift characteristics of both the hinged and morph-
ing flaps are presented in this section using a numerical
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014
697
example. The numerical example considered is typical
of a generic 90 m diameter wind turbine operating at
higher wind speeds and higher rotational speeds. It is
assumed that the forces on a blade section can be calcu-
lated using two-dimensional aerofoil characteristics.
This is a common assumption in a wind turbine blade
element theory. The velocity components at a radial
position r = 34 m along the blade can be expressed in
terms of wind speed, flow factors and rotational speed
(see Figure 4). Consider a blade section at pitch angle
g = 8.4° relative to the plane of rotation. The blade
section rotates at an angular velocity O = 2 rad/s, the
wind speed is UN = 25 m/s and a is the inflow factor.
The blade section has a tangential velocity Or with the
tangential velocity of the wake given by a’Or. The val-
ues of a and a’, which provide maximum possible effi-
ciency to the wind turbine, are (Burton et al., 2001)
 2
1 U‘
a= and a9 = að1  aÞ = 0:03 ð21Þ
3 Or
Resolving the velocity components in Figure 4
results in a relative velocity V = 72 m/s and an angle
of attack a = 5°. This corresponds to a freestream
dynamic pressure of q = 3.18 kPa and a Reynolds
number of Re = 6.44 3 106 at sea level in standard
atmospheric conditions.
It is a requirement of this study that the change in lift
produced by deflecting the morphing flap must equal
the change in lift of a conventional hinged flap with flap
angles in the range of 215° < b < 15°. The lift coeffi-
cient of an aerofoil under non-stalled conditions can be
approximated with a single linear relationship
dcl
cl = cl0 + b ð22Þ
db
where cl is the section lift coefficient and cl0 is the sec-
tion lift coefficient at zero degrees flap angle at a given
angle of attack. The change in camber at the trailing
edge is determined by equation (1) for the morphing
flap, whereas the geometry for the hinged flap is deter-
mined by equation (2). In this study, only plain hinged
flaps are compared with the morphing flap design.
Overhanging hinge flaps are frequently used in aero-
space applications since they typically have much lower
aerodynamic hinge moments compared to plain flaps
since they can be more easily aerodynamically and
mass balanced (Phillips, 1949; Purser, 1944). However,
the hinge line on such flap designs is difficult to seal
and the protrusion of the flap overhang into the airflow
is likely to contribute to increased drag and aeroacous-
tic noise. For these reasons, only simple plain flaps are
considered here as acceptable flap geometries for wind
turbine applications.
For any non-zero flap angle, a plain hinged flap may
produce a different amount of lift than this morphing
698 Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 23(6)

Table 1. Lift coefficient components calculated using XFOIL
(Re = 6.44 3 106).
Hinged Morphing
cl0 (a = 5°) (–) 0.374
dcl/db (/°) 0.076 0.051
flap due to their differing geometries (see Table 1). To
make a fair comparison between the hinged and morph-
ing flaps the morphing flap angles are scaled by 0.051/
0.076 = 0.7, so the same change of lift is produced by
each flap type. This means the morphing flap tip can
deflect out-of-plane 30% less compared to a hinged flap
and still result in the same change in lift coefficient. The
main reason for the greater control effectiveness of the
morphing flap is due to the increased trailing edge angle
(see equations (1) and (2)). The hinged flap has a con-
stant angle b between the flap root and the trailing
edge. However, by differentiating equation (1), it can be
seen that the angle of the morphing flap at the trailing
edge is 3b.
The changes in the lift coefficients with the angle of
attack for both flaps are shown in Figure 6. The morph-
ing flap angles are scaled by 0.7 compared to the equiv-
alent hinged flap angles. The results show that the
linear analysis implemented in this work is valid for
angles of attack in the range of 210° < a < 10° and for
the hinged flap angle in the range of 210° < b < 10°
where the aerofoils are not stalled.
Two cyclic speeds were tested: 0.025 Hz representing a
quasi-static test and the maximum speed of the test
machine at 0.4 Hz. The tests were also performed with
the morphing flap model detached to verify that the
inertia of the test machine’s grip was not influencing
the results. Little difference was observed between the
two test speeds. From the gradient of the results in
Figure 7, it is possible to approximate the modal tor-
sion modulus per unit span ks as 2.38 Nm/°/m. Both
test cases demonstrate a hysteretic response in the
force–displacement results. This hysteresis is due to
friction between the carbon actuator rod and the PTFE
restraints, which are bonded into the core. PTFE was
used for the restraints due to its extremely low coeffi-
cient of friction to minimise any hysteresis.
Once the stiffness of the morphing flap is deter-
mined, the flap actuator requirements can be quantified
and compared to the requirements of the plain hinged
flap. The angle of attack, a, is set at 5° in the numerical
example that follows representing a typical operating
condition. The various moments and stiffnesses are
given in Table 2. The aerodynamic contributions, kf

Actuator requirements
The experimental force–displacement characteristics of
the flap are shown in Figure 7. The constant e, which
relates actuator stroke with flap angle in equation (19),
was experimentally found to be 1.0 mm/°. Force–dis-
placement tests are conducted with the test machine
programmed to operate cyclically with b ranging 610°.
Figure 7. Experimental actuator force–displacement
characteristics for morphing flap; the direction of the loops is
clockwise.

Table 2. Moment contributions and free flap angles for both

the hinged and morphing flap
(q = 3.18 kPa, a = 5°).

Flap type Hinged Morphing

Mf0 (Nm/m) 23.81 8.91

kf (Nm/°/m) 1.56 2.72
Mi0 (Nm/m) 20.07 20.02
ki (Nm/°/m) 0.50 0.16
ks (Nm/°/m) 0.00 2.38
Figure 6. Lift polars of blade sections with hinged and b0 (°) N/A 24.0
morphing flaps (Re = 6.44 3 106). b1 (°) 211.5 23.5

Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014

Daynes and Weaver
Figure 8. Pressure distributions and deformation modes of
hinged and morphing flaps (a = 5°, Re = 6.44 3 106).
and Mf0, are calculated using equations (9) and (10),
respectively. The modal bending moment, Ms, is calcu-
lated using equation (12), and Mi is calculated using
equation (16). Table 2 shows that the magnitude of the
aerodynamic terms is more dominant than the centrifu-
gal terms, which could be neglected as the first
approximation.
Table 2 also shows that the term Mf0 is found to be
much larger for the plain hinged flap. The reason for
this can be seen in Figure 8 where the flap deformation
modes and the pressure distribution along the two flaps
are shown. The deflection of the morphing flap is
biased towards the trailing edge where the pressure dif-
ference between the upper and lower aerodynamic sur-
faces diminishes to zero. The deflection of the hinged
flap, on the other hand, linearly varies from 80% chord
to the trailing edge. This combination of pressure dis-
tribution (solid black line) and flap deformation mode
leads to smaller modal aerodynamic moments on the
morphing flap. However, the modal aerodynamic tor-
sion modulus, kf, is larger for the morphing flap. The
reason for this can also be seen in Figure 8 where there
is a large pressure difference, between the upper and
lower surfaces, near the trailing edge when the morph-
ing flap is deflected (solid green lines). The larger
changes in pressure distributions upon flap deflection
for the hinged flap are closer to 80% chord where they
do not result in a large moment (solid red lines). The
modal torsion modulus, ks, is an additional factor for
the morphing flap, which will also contribute to actua-
tor work requirements.
As with Mf0, the magnitude of the modal centrifugal
moment Mi0 is also larger for the hinged flap although
Mi0 is of opposite sign. The modal centrifugal torsion
modulus, ki, is also larger for the hinged flap. These
results are as expected since both flaps have the same
mass distribution (equation (14)) with the deflection of
the morphing flap biased towards the trailing edge
where the mass of the flap reduces to zero.
The actuator work results for the same numerical
example are given in Figure 9. The points of minimum
energy correspond to the free flap deflections b1
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014
699
Figure 9. Actuator work requirements for hinged and
morphing flaps (a = 5° and q = 3.18 kPa).
(equation (20)). The large modal aerodynamic moment
Mf0 of the plain hinged flap results in a more negative
free flap deflection. Even though kf is larger and ks is
non-zero for the morphing flap, less actuator work is
required to achieve a full positive flap deflection:
b2 = 10° for the case of the hinged flap and b2 = 7°
for the morphing flap. At full positive flap deflection,
Wa = 8.3 J/m for the hinged flap and 5.1 J/m for the
morphing flap. This result shows that the morphing
flap can potentially have a smaller actuator compared
to a simple plain flap of similar aerodynamic perfor-
mance. However, the aeroelastic analysis presented
here has the limitation of being linear and not model-
ling energy losses in the system such as friction.
It should be noted that the comparison between the
two flap designs presented here is only valid for plain
hinged flaps. Plain flaps can often have hinge moments,
which are too large to give acceptable control forces.
Hinged flap designs that include features such as ‘hinge
overhang’ and mass balancing can have a large decrease
in their flap hinge moments, which can in fact be close
to zero under certain operating conditions (Sears,
1943). The hinge moment characteristics, and subse-
quent actuator requirements, of such mechanical
‘balanced’ flap designs will also surpass the morphing
flap design presented here. However, as mentioned pre-
viously, the degraded aerodynamic performance, likely
increase in aeroacoustic noise and the surface disconti-
nuities associated with these flap designs mean that
they were not considered further in this work.
Conclusions and future work
Research into morphing structures is receiving interest
in order to further improve the control surface perfor-
mance over that achieved by mechanical designs. Some
700
of the potential advantages include lighter, simpler
structures with reduced drag due to less aerodynamic
surface steps and gaps. The anisotropic core flap struc-
ture presented in this work and the associated analysis
represent a promising concept in the long-term devel-
opment of adaptive control surfaces for both wind tur-
bine and wider aerospace applications.
A full-sized model of the morphing trailing edge
device was manufactured and actuated in a laboratory
environment. The flap consists of an aramid honey-
comb core with a CFRP skin on one surface and a sili-
cone skin on the other. The flap has integrated CFRP
rods, which are connected to servo motor actuators.
Many design variables were considered including skin
and core materials, actuator integration and actuator
spacing. The final design consisted of actuators being
spaced every 250 mm in the spanwise direction in order
to distribute loading in the flexible structure.
A morphing flap model has been actuated from
210° to 10° at up to 0.4 Hz, requiring actuator
loads ranging from 285 to 150 N, respectively, for a
250 mm wide flap section.
An aeroelastic model was presented, which combines
the aerodynamic loads on the flap, the flap’s own stiff-
ness, centrifugal loads and the required actuator work.
The aeroelastic model developed is generic and can eas-
ily be adapted for different flap designs. For the NACA
63-418 blade section studied, the model shows that the
morphing flap can have a tip deflection 30% less and
still produce the same change in lift compared to a
hinged plain flap of equal chord length.
However, many challenges are still ahead in terms of
coupled fluid–structure interaction, design, optimisa-
tion and manufacture of shape adaptive concepts as
well as showing that there are cost benefits using such
technologies in relation to the overall cost of wind
energy. Future work includes the following:
 Further developing shape adaptive flap designs
suitable for wind turbine applications.
 In-service considerations such as maintenance
requirements, operating environment, life-span,
cost, failsafe modes and so on.
 Further wind tunnel model development of
morphing flap concepts and non-linear aeroelas-
tic models.
Funding
This work as part of the ‘Morphing composites for wind tur-
bine flap applications’ project was funded by Vestas Wind
Systems.
References
Abbott IH and Von Doenhoff AE (1959) Theory of Wing Sec-
tions. 2nd ed. New York: Dover Publications, pp.536–537.
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014
Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 23(6)
Barbarino S, Bilgen O, Ajaj RM, et al. (2011) A review of
morphing aircraft. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures 22(9): 823–877.
Barlas TK and Van Kuik GAM (2010) Review of state of the
art in smart rotor control research for wind turbines. Prog-
ress in Aerospace Sciences 46(1): 1–27.
Bartley-Cho JD, Wang DP, Martin CA, et al. (2004) Devel-
opment of high-rate, adaptive trailing edge control surface
for the smart wing phase 2 wind tunnel model. Journal
of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures 15(4): 279–
291.
Berg DE, Wilson DG, Barone MF, et al. (2009a) The impact
of active aerodynamic load control on fatigue and energy
capture at low wind speed sites. In: European wind energy
conference, Marseille, France. 16–19 March
Berg DE, Wilson DG, Resor BR, et al. (2009b) Active aero-
dynamic blade load control impacts on utility-scale wind
turbines. In: AWEA windpower conference & exhibition,
Chicago, IL. 4–7 May
Bossanyi EA (2003) Individual blade pitch control for load
reduction. Wind Energy 6(2): 119–128.
Buhl T, Bak DC, Gaunaa M, et al. (2007) Load alleviation
through adaptive trailing edge control surfaces: ADAPW-
ING overview. In: European wind energy conference,
Milan, Italy. 7–10 May
Burton T, Sharpe D, Jenkins N, et al. (2001) Chapter 3: aero-
dynamics of horizontal-axis wind turbines. In: Tony B,
David S, Nick J, Ervin B (eds.) Wind Energy Handbook.
Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, pp.46–61.
Campanile LF (2005) Initial thoughts on weight penalty
effects in shape-adaptable systems. Journal of Intelligent
Material Systems and Structures 16(1): 47–56.
Campanile LF (2007) Chapter 4: lightweight shape-adaptable
airfoils: a new challenge for an old dream. In: David W,
Ian B, Paul W, Michael F (eds.) Adaptive Structures: Engi-
neering Applications. 1st ed. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons
Ltd, p.97.
Campanile LF and Anders S (2005) Aerodynamic and aeroe-
lastic amplification in adaptive belt-rib airfoils. Aerospace
Science and Technology 9(1): 55–63.
Chopra I. (2000) Status of application of smart structures
technology to rotorcraft systems. Journal of the American
Helicopter Society 45(4): 228–252.
Daynes S and Weaver PM (2011) Adaptive trailing edge for
load alleviation on wind turbine blades. In: 22nd interna-
tional conference on adaptive structures and technologies
(ICAST), Corfu, Greece. 10–12 October
Daynes S, Nall SJ, Weaver PM, et al. (2010) Bistable
composite flap for an airfoil. Journal of Aircraft 47(1):
334–338.
Daynes S, Weaver PM and Potter KD (2009) Aeroelastic
study of bistable composite airfoils. Journal of Aircraft
46(6): 2169–2173.
Drela M and Youngren H (2001) XFOIL 6.94 User Guide.
Cambridge, MA: Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Gandhi F and Anusonti-Inthra P (2008) Skin design studies
for variable camber morphing airfoils. Smart Materials
and Structures 17(1): 015025.
Giurgiutiu V, Chaudhry Z and Rogers CA (1995) Engineering
feasibility of induced strain actuators for rotor blade active
vibration control. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems
and Structures 6(5): 583–597.
Daynes and Weaver
Grima JN, Oliveri L, Attard D, et al. (2010) Hexagonal hon-
eycombs with zero Poisson’s ratios and enhanced stiffness.
Advanced Engineering Materials 12(9): 855–861.
Hau E (2006) Wind Turbines: Fundamentals, Technologies,
Application, Economics. 2nd ed. Berlin: Springer, ch. 6,
pp.163.
Hexcel (2010) HexWebÒ Nonmetallic Flex-Core Honeycomb
Product Data. Stamford, CT: Hexcel Corporation, pp.1–4.
Available at: http://www.hexcel.com
Huber JE, Fleck NA and Ashby MF (1997) Selection of
mechanical actuators based on performance indices. Pro-
ceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series A: Mathe-
matical, Physical and Engineering Sciences 453(1965):
2185–2205.
Johnson SJ, Van Dam CP and Berg DE (2008) Active load con-
trol techniques for wind turbines. SAND2008–4809, Sandia
National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, pp.1–124.
Joo JJ, Reich GW and Westfall JT (2009) Flexible skin devel-
opment for morphing aircraft applications via topology
optimization. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and
Structures 20(16): 1969.
Kudva JN (2004) Overview of the DARPA smart wing proj-
ect. Journal of Intelligent Material Systems and Structures
15(4): 261–267.
Lachenal X, Daynes S and Weaver PM (in press) Review of
morphing concepts and materials for wind turbine blade
applications. Wind Energy.
Larsen TJ, Madsen HA and Thomsen K (2005) Active load
reduction using individual pitch, based on local blade flow
measurements. Wind Energy 8(1): 67–80.
Madsen HA, Andersen PB, Andersen TL, et al. (2010) The
potentials of the controllable rubber trailing edge flap
(CRTEF). In: European wind energy conference, Warsaw,
Poland. 20–23 April
Olympio KR and Gandhi F (2007) Zero-n cellular honey-
comb flexible skins for one-dimensional wing morphing.
In: 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures,
structural dynamics and materials conference, Waikiki, HI.
23–26 April
Downloaded from jim.sagepub.com at Monash University on December 5, 2014
701
Phillips WH (1949) Appreciation and prediction of flying qua-
lities. National Advisory Council for Aeronautics 927: 1–45.
Purser PE (1944) Analysis of available data on control sur-
faces having plain-overhand and frise balances. National
Advisory Council for Aeronautics L4E13: 1–48.
Sears RI (1943) Wind-tunnel data on the aerodynamic char-
acteristics of airplane control surfaces. National Advisory
Committee for Aeronautics WTRL-663: 1–219.
Sofla AYN, Meguid SA, Tan KT, et al. (2010) Shape morph-
ing of aircraft wing: status and challenges. Materials and
Design 31(3): 1284–1292.
Straub FK, Kennedy DK, Stemple AD, et al. (2004) Develop-
ment and Whirl Tower Test of the SMART Active Flap
Rotor. San Diego, CA: SPIE Industrial and Commercial
Applications of Smart Structures Technologies.
Thill C, Etches JA, Bond IP, et al. (2008) Morphing skins.
The Aeronautical Journal 112(1129): 117–139.
Vos R and Barrett R (2011) Mechanics of pressure-adaptive
honeycomb and its application to wing morphing. Smart
Materials and Structures 20(9): 094010.
Vos R, Barrett R and Romkes A (2011) Mechanics of
pressure-adaptive honeycomb. Journal of Intelligent Mate-
rial Systems and Structures 22(10): 1041–1055.
Wayne J (1980) Helicopter Theory. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press, pp.405–406.
Wildschek A, Grünewald M, Maier R, et al. (2008) Multi-
functional morphing trailing edge device for control of all-
composite, all-electric flying wing aircraft. In: 26th con-
gress of international council of the aeronautical sciences
(ICAS), Anchorage, AK. 14–19 September
Wildschek A, Havar T and Plötner K (2010) An all-compo-
site, all-electric, morphing trailing edge device for flight
control on a blended-wing-body airliner. Proceedings of
the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of
Aerospace Engineering 224(1): 1–9.
Wilson DG, Berg DE, Barone MF, et al. (2009) Active aero-
dynamic blade control design for load reduction on large
wind turbines. In: European Wind Energy Conference,
Marseille, France. 16–19 March