Adaptive Structural Core for Morphing Panels

Resolve Bottlenecks,
Find Innovative Solutions
Generate Solutions

Solution Overview

Problem

Morphing panel structures in aerospace applications face challenges in resisting out-of-plane bending while maintaining flexibility for in-plane deformation, as existing solutions do not effectively balance structural support with aerodynamic requirements.

Innovation Solution

An adaptive structural core comprising a repeating pattern of core members with actuator attachment points and McKibben or non-hydraulic actuators that are fluidically continuous, allowing for controlled deformation and stiffness adjustment through cooperative and antagonistic actuation.

Engineering Contradictions & Design Principles

VSEngineering Contradiction Analysis

1Strength

If traditional rigid structural cores are used, then out-of-plane bending resistance is improved, but in-plane deformation capability deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveout-of-plane bending resistanceVSAvoidin-plane deformation capability
Core Design Contradiction:
StrengthVSAdaptability or versatility

Solution Approach 1:

The structural core is divided into discrete unit cells arranged in a repeating pattern, with individual actuators controlling each cell's geometry. This segmentation allows localized deformation in-plane while maintaining overall structural rigidity out-of-plane through the collective behavior of multiple cells.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #1Segmentation

Solution Approach 2:

The core structure transitions from a static rigid configuration to a dynamic reconfigurable system using McKibben actuators that can actively change the geometry of unit cells. This enables the structure to adapt its stiffness and shape in-plane while preserving out-of-plane strength through controlled morphing.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #15Dynamics

2Adaptability or versatility

If flexible materials are used to enable in-plane deformation, then adaptability is improved, but out-of-plane strength deteriorates

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvein-plane deformation capabilityVSAvoidout-of-plane bending resistance
Core Design Contradiction:
Adaptability or versatilityVSStrength

Solution Approach 1:

The structure employs a composite approach combining rigid core members forming the unit cell framework with flexible actuation elements. This composite architecture provides out-of-plane stiffness through the rigid framework while enabling in-plane deformation through the flexible actuator-driven geometry changes.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #40Composite materials

Solution Approach 2:

The unit cell structure serves multiple functions simultaneously: it provides structural support for out-of-plane loads through its rigid framework, while also enabling in-plane morphing through actuator-controlled geometry changes. This multi-functionality resolves the contradiction between strength and adaptability.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #6Universality (Multi-functionality)

3Manufacturing precision

If multiple discrete actuators are used for each core cell, then deformation control precision is improved, but device complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improvedeformation control precisionVSAvoidactuator configuration complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Manufacturing precisionVSDevice complexity

Solution Approach 1:

Multiple actuator control functions are merged into a coordinated system where actuators are arranged in antagonistic pairs within each unit cell. This merging approach maintains precise deformation control through differential actuation while reducing overall system complexity by using a repeating pattern of standardized cell-actuator assemblies.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #5Merging (Combining)

Solution Approach 2:

The system controls deformation by changing the pressure parameters of pneumatic McKibben actuators rather than using complex mechanical linkages. This parameter-based control (pressure modulation) simplifies the actuation mechanism while maintaining precise control over unit cell geometry and overall structure morphing.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #35Parameter changes

4Use of energy by moving object

If continuous tubing is used for fluidic actuators, then energy efficiency is improved, but manufacturing complexity increases

Engineering Contradiction:
Improveenergy efficiencyVSAvoidactuator assembly complexity
Core Design Contradiction:
Use of energy by moving objectVSEase of manufacture

Solution Approach 1:

The continuous fluidic tubing is nested through the repeating unit cell structure, with tubing routed through actuator attachment points and core nodes in a systematic pattern. This nesting approach enables efficient fluid distribution across multiple cells while maintaining manufacturability through modular assembly of standardized components.

Inventive Principle:
Principle #7Nested doll (Nesting)

Data Source

PatentEP3441304B1Adaptive structural core for morphing panel structures
Publication Date: 2021.11.03 THE BOEING CO
  • EP3441304B1 patent drawingFigure 1~6
  • EP3441304B1 patent drawingFigure 6A~6F
  • EP3441304B1 patent drawingFigure 6G~6I

AI summary

An adaptive structural core includes a plurality of core members arranged in a repeating pattern, a plurality of actuator attachment points provided on the plurality of core members and at least one actuator engaging the plurality of actuator attachment points.