The Belt-Rib Concept: A Structronic Approach to Variable Camber

Abstract

The belt-rib concept for lifting surfaces with variable camber evolved at DLR recently as one of the most promising solutions for the adaptive wing. With the belt-rib idea the adaptive wing issue is approached in a new way: instead of a “mechatronic” solution with hinges or linear bearings a “structronic” solution is chosen, where distributed flexibility allows the desired shape changes. The resulting system is not only easier to maintain due to the absence of wear, but also is structurally more reliable and substantially lighter.

The new concept evolves from the classical wing structure. The classical rib, which is in charge of the wing section’s stiffness, is replaced by a “belt rib,” which allows camber changes within given limits while leaving the remaining in-plane stiffness properties of the section widely unchanged.

The evolution of the belt-rib concept was accompanied by experimental tests on different prototypes. After a first development stage, in which mainly the system’s shape adaptability and the overall stiffness properties were investigated, further steps followed, focused on manufacturing, weight optimization and strength aspects.

Recent developments dealt with the construction of a model with solid-state hinges, realized as hybrid glass fiber-carbon-fiber reinforced composite structure. The model is actuated mechanically by cables, which can be replaced by multifunctional actuators—like shape memory wires—in the future.

The paper opens with an introduction about shape control of aerospace structures and variable camber in particular, in which the major advantages of a “structronic” approach with respect to classical solutions are discussed. Then the fundamentals of the belt-rib concept are sketched, with some significant results of the feasibility proof phase, followed by the description of the last developments. The conclusion summarizes the potential of a structronic approach to shape control with an outline of possible future work.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Austin, F. , M. J. Rossi , W. Van Nostrand and G. Knowles . 1994. “Static shape control for adaptive wings,” AIAA Journal, 32, pp. 1895-1901.

Barrett, R. and F. Brozoski . 1996. “Adaptive flight control surfaces, wings, rotors and active aerodynamics,” Smart Structures and Materials 1996 Conference, SPIE Paper 2717-11.

Campanile, L. F. , V. Carli and D. Sachau . 2000. “Adaptive wing model for wind channel tests,” Active Control Technology for Enhanced Performance Operation Capabilities of Military Aircraft, Land Vehicles and Sea Vehicles, Braunschweig, Germany, May 2000.

Campanile, L. F. and H. Hanselka. 1998. “Aerodynamic structure for a landing flap, an airfoil, an elevator unit or a rudder unit, with a changeable cambering,” US-Patent 6 010 098.

Campanile, L. F. and O. Seack. 2000. “Formschlüssige Verbindung für faserverstärkte Bauteile in T-förmiger Anordnung,” German patent application 100 30 200.9.

Chopra, I. 1996. “Review of current status of smart structures and integrated systems,” Smart Structures and Materials 1996 Conference, SPIE Paper 2717-01.

Cone, W. 1939. “Airplane wing construction,” US-Patent No. 2,152,029.

Frost, R. C., E. W. Gomez and R. W. McAnally. 1981. “Airfoil variable camber device and method,” US-Patent No. 4,247,066

Greff, E. 1990. “The development and design integration of a variable camber wing for long/medium range aircraft,” AIAA Journal, 94, pp. 301-312

10.

Hannah, M. O. 1930. “Expanding wing for aeroplanes,” US-Patent No. 389,987.

11.

Hilbig, H. and H. Wagner , 1984. “Variable wing camber control for civil transport aircraft,” ICAS-84 Conference, ICAS-Paper No. 84-5.2.1.

12.

Hopkins, M. , D. Henderson , R. Moses , T. Ryall , D. Zimcik , R. Spangler . 1998. “Active vibration suppression systems applied to twin tail buffeting,” Smart Structures and Materials 1998 Conference, SPIE Paper 3326-05.

13.

Jardine, A. P. , J. Bartley-Cho and J. Flanagan . 1999. “Improved design and performance of the SMA torque tube for the DARPA Smart Wing Program,” Smart Structures and Materials 1999 Conference, SPIE Paper 3674-29.

14.

Lopes, V. , G. Park , H. H. Cudney and D. J. Inman . 2000. “Structural integrity identification based on smart material and neural network,” 18th IMAC—International Modal Analysis Conference.

15.

Marchaj, C. A. 1996. “Sail performance, theory and practice,” Adlard Coles Nautical, London, Sec. 2.9

16.

Martin, C. A. , J. Bartley-Cho , J. Flanagan and B. F. Carpenter . 1999. “Design and fabrication of smart wing tunnel model and SMA control surfaces,” Smart Structures and Materials 1999 Conference, SPIE Paper 3674-27.

17.

McKinney, M. 1982. “Variable camber trailing edge for airfoil,” US-Patent No. 4,312,486.

18.

Renken, J. H. 1985. “Mission adaptive wing camber control systems for transport aircraft,” AIAA 3rd Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA-Paper 85-5006.

19.

Rocheville, H. D. 1932. “Airplane wing,” US-Patent No. 1,846,146.

20.

Rowarth, R. 1981. “Variable camber wing,” UK-Patent No. 2059368.

21.

Spillman, J. J. 1992. “The use of variable camber to reduce drag, weight and costs of transport aircraft,” Aeronautical Journal, 96, pp. 1-9.

22.

Statkus, F. D. 1982. “Continuous skin, variable camber airfoil edge actuating mechanism,” US-Patent No. 4,351,502, 1982

23.

Szodruch, J. 1985. “The influence of camber variation on the aerodynamics of civil transport aircraft,” AIAA 23rd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, AIAA-Paper No. 85-0353.