journal article·2014-05

Wind tunnel testing of the fish bone active camber morphing concept

Benjamin KS Woods, Onur Bilgen, Michael I Friswell

Publisher page

Abstract

This work presents comparative experimental investigations into the aerodynamics of the recently proposed Fish Bone Active Camber morphing structure. This novel, biologically inspired concept consists of four main elements: a compliant skeletal core, a pre-tensioned elastomeric matrix composite skin, an antagonistic pair of tendons coupled to a non-backdriveable spooling pulley as the driving mechanism, and a non-morphing main spar. The Fish Bone Active Camber concept is capable of generating large changes in airfoil camber and is therefore proposed as a high-authority morphing solution for fixed-wing aircraft, helicopters, wind turbines, tidal stream turbines, and tilt-rotors. This testing compares a baseline airfoil employing a conventional trailing edge flap to a continuous morphing trailing edge using the Fish Bone Active Camber concept. Testing is performed in the low-speed wind tunnel at Swansea University over a range of camber deformations and angles of attack. Both approaches are capable of generating similar levels of lift coefficient; however, comparison of the drag results shows a significant reduction for the Fish Bone Active Camber geometry. While purely two-dimensional flow was not achieved due to restrictions of the tunnel, the two airfoils operated in similar flow environments, allowing for a direct comparison between the two. Over the range of angles of attack typically used in fixed and rotary wing applications, improvements in the maximum obtainable lift-to-drag ratio on the order of 20%–25% are shown.
Source: crossref · Quality: baseline

Research context

OpenAlex topics: Aeroelasticity and Vibration Control · Biomimetic flight and propulsion mechanisms · Fluid Dynamics and Vibration Analysis

SciVX discovery tags are terminology-based. OpenAlex topics are source-provided classifications.

Affiliations

College of Engineering, Swansea University, Swansea, UK

Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA

References (32)

Show source-provided references
1. Abbott I, Von Doenhoff A (1958) Theory of Wing Sections. New York: Dover Publications, pp. 190–197.
2. 10.1017/CBO978051160714110.1017/CBO9780511607141 ↗
3. 10.1177/1045389X1141408410.1177/1045389X11414084 ↗
4. Barlow JB · 1999
5. 10.1177/1045389X0404279810.1177/1045389X04042798 ↗
6. 10.2514/1.C03190810.2514/1.C031908 ↗
7. 10.2514/1.4545210.2514/1.45452 ↗
8. 10.1177/1045389X1037877710.1177/1045389X10378777 ↗
9. Burcher R · 1995
10. 10.2514/2.156110.2514/2.1561 ↗
11. 10.1177/1045389X1243862210.1177/1045389X12438622 ↗
12. Dieterich O · 2006
13. 10.2514/1.2447610.2514/1.24476 ↗
14. 10.2514/6.2000-170910.2514/6.2000-1709 ↗
15. 10.1080/1537649080190783010.1080/15376490801907830 ↗
16. Jacobs E · 1931
17. Jørgensen FE · 2002
18. Kaman CH (1948) Aircraft of rotary wing type. Patent No. 2,455,866 (filed August 19, 1946, issued December 7), USA.
19. Leishman J · 2000
20. McGowan A · 2002 · 4698 · 97
21. Menderhall W · 1994
22. 10.1177/1045389X1036971910.1177/1045389X10369719 ↗
23. Overgaard O · Transactions of the Society of Naval Architects and Marine Engineers · 1926 · 34 · 205
24. Raymer DP · 1992
25. Riebe J · 1945
26. 10.1115/1.179320810.1115/1.1793208 ↗
27. Shinners S (1998) Modern Control System Theory and Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., pp. 22–23.
28. 10.1117/12.56264510.1117/12.562645 ↗
29. 10.1177/1045389X1141112110.1177/1045389X11411121 ↗
30. 10.1115/SMASIS2012-805810.1115/SMASIS2012-8058 ↗
31. 10.2514/6.2013-190810.2514/6.2013-1908 ↗
32. 10.1177/1045389X1142421610.1177/1045389X11424216 ↗