european commission research directorates clean sky 2 ... · issued on 5th november 2015 call...

Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking

Call: H2020-CS2-CfP02-2015-01 – Q&A Release 3 (5th

November 2015) of 46

European Commission Research Directorates

Call for Proposals:

CLEAN SKY 2

RESEARCH and INNOVATION ACTION PROJECTS (CS-RIA Projects):

Questions and Answers

3rd

Release

Issued on 5th November 2015

Call Identifier

H2020-CS2-CfP02-2015-01





via a special mailbox [email protected].

All questions regarding the call and the topics published can be addressed to: [email protected] Questions received up until 15th October will be analysed. A first version of the Q/A document was released on 15th September 2015. A second version of the Q/A document was released on 2nd October 2015. A third version of the Q/A document will be released on or soon after 28th October 2015. Please note that the abovementioned dates are estimated dates. Please note that the present Q&A includes all questions and answers captured in the 1st and 2nd Q&A Release. As stated in the call, all interested parties are recommended to consult periodically the Clean Sky JU website and the Participant Portal of the European Commission for updates to this document and any corresponding updates to the call.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]





A. ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS

# Question / Answer

1 Some of the topics are RIA and others IA, could you summarize the main differences between the

two actions?

The Call follows the H2020 definitions of RIA and IA. Such definitions are presented in the General

Annexes of the Work Plan 2015-2017, under Chapter “D. Types of action: specific provisions and

funding rates” (pp.270).

2 Each call for proposal text reports “indicative funding topic value in k€”. Even if it has been

clarified that this is an indicative value it is important to know the Leader’s cost estimation.

Should the topic funding or the topic value (the double of the topic funding) be considered as the

reference? If the topic value has to be considered as a reference, does it refer to eligible cost or

cost including actual indirect costs?

The proposal’s requested funding, and the proposal’s total [eligible] costs are not an eligibility

criterion, there is no maximum JU funding per topic. However the evaluation will consider the

efficiency and adequacy of the resources and hence budget allocated to the proposal. Applicants

should ensure that their resource and budget estimations are duly justified and explained, and be

able to clearly explain any material difference when compared to the topic’s indicative value. The

topic indicative funding value has been estimated based on the best estimate of the related total

eligible costs.

3 How will “value for money” be assessed in this call for AI and for RIA?

When assessing the value for money, applicants should consider the following:

• The indicative topic funding value provided in the Call is an estimate

• Applicants must address the scope of the topic in full and submit with their proposal both

requested funding and the total eligible costs

• Applicants’ resource requirements for the proposed activity, should be detailed with due

justifications and explanations (see Part B.I. - Work Package Effort)

• The applicant’s total eligible costs of their proposal will be considered for the evaluation of

the Adequacy & Efficiency of the allocation of resources

Regarding the Adequacy & Efficiency of the allocation of resources, the following aspects should be

taken into consideration:

• The adequacy & efficiency of the allocation of resources should be based on the total

eligible costs of the proposal

• No ceiling shall apply

• The proposal should contain due justification of any exceedance of the “Gross budget”,

which should be estimated as follows:

o For RIAs:

‒ Merit of the proposal wrt resource requirements stated for the technical

content, in light of topic

‒ Total Eligible Cost should be compared to the 100/100 * the indicative





# Question / Answer

funding set for the topic as “Gross Budget”

o For IAs:

‒ Merit of the proposal wrt resource requirements stated for the technical

content, in light of topic

Total Eligible Cost should be compared to the 100/70 * the indicative funding set for the topic as

“Gross Budget”

4 One of the novelties in H2020 regards the Guarantee Fund: 5% of the maximum grant amount is

retained from JU grant value in order to better protect the action from financial risks associated

to the implementation of the action. This is a new “instrument” in Clean Sky. Will this 5% be

released?

According to H2020 rule and the model GA (Article 21.2) an amount corresponding to 5% of the

maximum grant amount (see Article 5.1), is retained by the JU from the pre-financing payment and

transferred into the ‘Guarantee Fund’. According to Article 21.4 of the model GA, the 5% will be

released at the moment of the payment of the balance.

5 Regarding the eligibility for applying in the Call, can monobeneficiaries apply?

Yes. Generally speaking, the following entities may apply:

Single entities (SMEs, large industries, RO, Academia etc.)

Consortia of legal entities

Clusters (applying as single legal entity – if with a valid PIC - or via the linked third parties option)

Single legal entities can apply based on a derogation that the Clean Sky 2 JU has from the H2020

Rules for participation. It was already the case in Clean Sky actions under FP7 for about 50% of the

proposals in CS1 and about 30% were answered by 2 members, often a SME and a University.

6 Eligibility: Third country participation: what about Ukraine and Canada?

Third Countries participation will be subject to H2020 rules, legal entities established in a third

country (not a Members State of the EU, neither a country Associated to H2020) may apply to

participate in an action, however the JU funding may be awarded only when:

the JU funding is evaluated as “essential” for the action or

existing bilateral agreement between the EU and the third country. Note: such an agreement

may constitute a basis only if it envisages specifically the funding of the third country entities

under the calls launched by the JU.

the funding of a specific third country is envisaged in the Work Plan ( N.A to the CSJU Work Plan)

7 How do I declare or define third parties in my application?

They must be identified in the Part B of the Application/Proposal Template.

8 Could Wind Tunnel Test (WTT) be funded by CfT?

Calls for tenders may be launched by the JU to procure as contracting authority services, works and

supplies . Calls for tenders are envisaged by the Regulation establishing Clean Sky 2 JU, the rules of

the JU allow the possibility to launch operational joint procurement procedures in association with

the private Members of the JU. The process is not yet in place. It is currently under discussion with

the Commission.





# Question / Answer

9 Can we take a partner into our consortium that has been selected as a Core Partner in Wave 1, but

not yet signed the Grant Agreement at the time of publication of CfP2 (and thus not been involved

in the preparation of this call)?

Legal entities (single or members of consortia or clusters) which were selected by the JU as Core

Partner in CPW01 are not eligible to apply to the 2nd CfP launched on 30th July on topics of the same

ITD/IADP. This is based on the admissibility rules laid down in the General Annexes of the Work Plan

which constitutes special conditions under H2020. The selection and appointment shall refer and be

understood to the date of the information letter sent by the JU to the selected Core Partner

coordinator unless in the negotiation phase the candidate Core Partner was withdrawn based on a

failed negotiation

10 A company would like to bid in partnership with an existing Clean Sky 2 leader (or an affiliate of

it). Would you please confirm it is possible to respond this call in partnership with the leader?

As set out in the special conditions of the General Annexes of the WP, Leaders and/or Affiliates to a

Leader cannot apply to calls in the same ITD/IADP where they are Member in whatever form as

beneficiary or third party under article 13 of GAM). The same approach is applied to the Calls for

Core Partner, Leaders that are a Member in the ITD/IADP to which the Core Partner topic is

associated cannot apply in whatever form. For the sake of clarity: this restriction does not apply in

the case that the Leader [or its Affiliate] is not involved as Member.

11 Are the costs concerning IPs, publishing and consultancies eligibile?

Please refer to the H2020 Annotated Grant Agreement, pp. 81-82.

12 Our partner is a small company which can’t afford financing the remaining part of unfunded costs

(i.e.the remaining 30% of the budget). Is it acceptable if we (large company) finance his unfunded

part of the budget?

Every participant is obliged to abide by the financial rules and they have to cover costs which are

not reimbursed and abide the no-profit rule.

The financial means to cover costs not reimbursed by the CSJU is the responsability of applicants.

The total eligible costs declared must comply with the eligibility criteria set out in the GA, including

the no-profit rule and the no double funding rule.

13 A company with less than 30 employs and Sales volume & balance sheet less than 10 MEuro per

year, is owned 50% by a large company. Is this company SME by EC criteria?

Please refer to the definition of SMEs under H2020.

14 Regarding synergies with ESIF, could we propose activities as a synergy with ESIF even in the

absence of MOU in the pipeline between CSJU and the Region?

Yes. The JU advises to inform the competent ESIF Managing Authorities about the complementary

activity proposed in the framework of the CfP application under the optional "ESIF WP" with the aim

of pre-assessing which ESIF financial instrument could be considered to request co-funding for such

activities at Regional level and at a general level to inform them of the possibility offered by the JU

to entail a discussion on synergies which could facilitate a framework for cooperation.





# Question / Answer

15 Regarding interdependencies between CS2 and ESIF, what happens when 1 WP is financed by JU

and the other by ESIF but the 1st WP failed to be funded? And vice versa.

See above: the JU will not evaluate and make any statement on synergy potential on proposals

other than those top-ranked and pre-selected for funding [subject to successful grant

implementation].

With regards to the applicants’ proposals against the CS2 CfP topics: these must include all actions

necessary to fully comply with the topic inside the “core proposal” [Parts A and B]. Any proposed

complementary activity must not be essential to fulfilment of the topic requirements, and may only

concern further expansion / broadening / deepening of the R&I actions beyond the core scope of

the published CS2 topic

Hence no interdependency will exist.

16 Regarding the FVC, what is the basis on which this check is performed?

The FVC is based on the last audited balance sheet of the Coordinator of the proposal. Please

consult the documentation made available on this item by the Commission Services.

For further information, please refer to the H2020 guidance made available via the following link:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/lev/h2020-guide-

lev_en.pdf

17 Through the guidance materials published on the participant portal, we understood that we could

decide either to join the existing Consortium Agreement of the ITD/IADP where we wish to be

involved or to proceed with an Implementation Agreement only with the Topic Manager. How do

we decide what direction to take? And if acceding to an existing CA of the ITD/IADP, do we still

need an internal CA? Could you please clarify?

The option of either acceding to the ITD/IADP CA or to sign a bilateral depends on the choice of the

ITD/IADP and on the nature of the topics. In the framework of this call, the Topic Manager will

clarify this aspect with the selected applicants. In the future calls the JU wishes to make this info

available with the topics publication.

18 Regarding the transfer of ownership to an affiliated entity, is it possible in the case of an affiliated

entity located outside Europe?

According to the GAP a prior notification for approval will be required to the be issued to the JU for

any transfer of ownership to third parties established outside EU MS or H2020 Associated

Countries. The JU will assess the case in cooperation with the concerned leader in terms of any

impact on the European competitiveness.

19

Could you please clarify whether there is a max budget per project for the Clean sky calls for

proposals?

There is no maximum budget per project as such. However, we strongly advise applicants to take

into consideration the efficient allocation of resource and “Value for Money” when defining the

financial information (budget, costs, etc) of their proposal.

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/lev/h2020-guide-lev_en.pdf






# Question / Answer

For further info, please refer to Q&As nr. 10 and 14 of the Q&A.

20

Topics of the second call for proposals include the description of “Special skills, Capabilities,

Certification expected from the Applicant(s)”. I would like to know if these skills will be

considered by the evaluators as an eligibility criteria. In other words, could any entity or

consortium succeed even if one of the expected skills is not proven?

The topics describe the requirements to which applicants need to respond. These can include

specific skills, capabilities and certifications. As such the replies from applicants will be evaluated

based on their compliance with the requirements set.

21

In case some activities object of the call (like laboratory tests or specimen manufacturing) are

subcontracted/bought like a service from a third party not making part of the consortium that is

presenting the proposal for a specific call, has this to be explicitated into the proposal? More in

details has to be explicitated into the proposal the name of the company from which the specific

service will be bought?

In case you subcontract some activities (cf rules for subcontracting, saying that one cannot

subcontract a core activity), you have to detail them in the proposal (content, duration and

estimated budget) and if the sub contractor is already known, you have to mention it and give an

explanation.

22

How can we prevent that our IP disclosed in the proposal ends up at the competition?

§4.1.2 of the “Rules for submission, evaluation, selection, award and review procedures of Calls

for Proposals” specifies that the independent evaluators must not have a relation with the

applicant or topic manager. This is indeed good practice. However, the same document does not

prevent evaluators with a relation with the competitors of the applicant to evaluate the

proposals. A proposal contains valuable industrial and commercial information and we would like

to prevent this to be seen by any potential competitor, even under NDA.

The CSJU Rules for submission, evaluation, selection and review procedures of calls for proposals are

clear and unambiguous that the evaluation is performed exclusively by independent experts.

In accordance with such rules and established practice in FP7 and H2020, the independent experts

are mandatorily requested to fill and sign a declaration of non-conflict of interests which is part of

the expert contract they sign with the CSJU and which includes also rules and a code of conduct to

respect when acting as expert. Experts that have a conflict or potential conflict of interests

[including any previous or existing interests or relationships] will be excluded by the CSJU.

Independent experts are also bound under the terms of their contract to maintain the

confidentiality of proposals to which they had access at all times and also after the end of the

evaluation process.

23 How do I get a PIC number?





# Question / Answer

We invite applicants to take a look at the slides relating to the administrative and financial steps as

explained by the JU during the info day organized in Brussels. Please find the materials presented on

the JU website via http://www.cleansky.eu/content/event/clean-sky-2-info-day-2nd-call-proposals-

brussels

24

Can a company, which is already a Leader of Clean Sky 2 (e.g. Airbus, Liebherr, SAAB), be a partner

of a consortium applying within CfP?

A company already Member of Clean Sky 2 (including its affiliates) cannot apply in CfP in the same

ITD/IADP where they’re Member.

Applicants are invited to read the Admissibility Rules as laid down in the General Annexes of the

Work Plan. Finally, please refer to Q&As nr 8 and nr 9 of the present Q&A document.

25 What is part of the direct personnel cost to be taken into account for calculating the eligible cost?

The personnel cost consists of many segments, including taxes, commuting compensation and

remunerations in the form of meal checks, company car, stock options, etc. Additionally these

segments are different from one country to another (e.g. taxes). What should we take into

account.

As mentioned in art. 6.2 of the model GA, under section A. Direct Personnel costs:

“A.1 Personnel costs are eligible, if they are related to personnel working for the beneficiary under an

employment contract (or equivalent appointing act) and assigned to the action (‘costs for employees

(or equivalent)’).

They must be limited to salaries (including during parental leave), social security contributions, taxes

and other costs included in the remuneration, if they arise from national law or the employment

contract (or equivalent appointing act).

Beneficiaries that are non-profit legal entities may also declare as personnel costs additional

remuneration for personnel assigned to the action (including payments on the basis of

supplementary contracts regardless of their nature), if:

a) it is part of the beneficiary’s usual remuneration practices and is paid in a consistent manner

whenever the same kind of work or expertise is required;

b) the criteria used to calculate the supplementary payments are objective and generally

applied by the beneficiary, regardless of the source of funding used.“

For more details, please refer to the Annotated Model Grant Agreement (page 43-45 in version 2.0.1

of 12 May 2015), especially for the distinction between basic remuneration, complement and

additional remuneration:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020-

amga_en.pdf

26 Does a weak financial capacity of one partner within the consortium influence the chances for

success of a proposal if the coordinator demonstrates sufficient financial capacity, the

contribution of the weak partner is relatively small and there is a derisking plan defined for the

http://www.cleansky.eu/content/event/clean-sky-2-info-day-2nd-call-proposals-brussels

http://www.cleansky.eu/content/event/clean-sky-2-info-day-2nd-call-proposals-brussels

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020-amga_en.pdf

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020-amga_en.pdf





# Question / Answer

case the partner has to withdraw?

Startups will score weak on the financial self-check and may have negative financial figures for

several years. Nevertheless, they may deliver nice innovations from which the aeronautics

industry may take benefit. The business created within the aeronautics market and the spill over

into other markets will help the startup to grow out of its red figures faster. As an applicant it is

hard to judge whether supporting such startups would be appreciated by the JU as a way of

increasing European competitiveness through innovation or as containing too much risk.

The JU will perform the financial viability check for the Coordinator of the Consortium only and if the

requested JU contribution for the action is >= 500.000 €.

In other cases (i.e. for entities that are not coordinators or for coordinators where the requested EU

funding is below the threshold), the financial viability will be checked only if there are justified

grounds to doubt it.

It is for the Consortium to analyze its strategy in terms of participation, capabilities, etc. and provide

the JU with the right level of information in order to correctly evaluate the proposal.

Please refer to the H2020 Guide on beneficiary registration, validation and financial viability check

(pp.12-14) for more information:

http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/lev/h2020-guide-

lev_en.pdf

27 Can a Swiss entity participate to the JU Calls? If yes, under which conditions?

The JU follow the H2020 rules. Swiss entities can participate with the status of the third country.

Please note that Swiss beneficiary will not be eligible for the JU funding. More information available

via http://www.sbfi.admin.ch/h2020/02455/index.html?lang=en



http://www.sbfi.admin.ch/h2020/02455/index.html?lang=en





B. TECHNICAL QUESTIONS

Question / Answer

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-LPA-01-04: Active technologies for acoustic and vibration comfort”

1 WP 1 focuses on the efficient solution to reduce cabin noise caused by engine vibration.

In the call description there is foreseen specific approach (AVCS). There can exist

alternatives providing similar or even better performance (Cabin noise reduction at given

frequencies, weight, system complexity). Is the proposal offering such alternative

approach considered as relevant for the call or will it be assessed automatically as not

compliant with the call?

This topic is focused on “Development and Evaluation of active technologies for acoustic

and vibration comfort” and it is relevant for the three applications considered. Other

solutions for acoustic and vibration comfort are/will be addressed as well in other projects.

2 Regarding Chapter 1 “Background”, could you please clarify the following points:

a. Reference is made to “first experience “. Insight into those experiences will help in

the identification of the challenges and the setup of a project plan that addresses

those challenges. Can any more information, possibly some references, be provide

on this experience?

b. Can any more details be provided on the particular aerodynamic excitations that

need to be addressed in WP3 ? What is the envelope of the expected excitations, and

what phases of the flight are to be addressed (cruise flight, turbulence, extension and

retraction of wing profile changing devices, …)?

c. What type of aircraft is to be addressed in this project?

d. Can we obtain any clarification/rational/background on the selected frequency range

of 5Hz-15Hz, expressed in the description of WP3.

a. Compared with vibration cancellation in cars or in industrial machinery, dynamic loads

and aircraft behavior and background noise are dissimilar

b. Current dynamic loads levels and characteristics for a business jet will be used at the

beginning and will be updated considering the future aircraft configuration (bigger

engines, lighter/more flexible aircraft structure and longer and bigger aircraft fuselage)

c. 10-15 seats Future Business Jets

d. Iit is about vibration comfort thus frequencies are between 5 Hz and 25 Hz at the most

3 Regarding Chapter 2 “Scope of Work”, how are aerodynamic excitations to be performed

for the Ground tests requested for in Task 3.5?

Ground test excitations do not need to be exactly the in-flight loads but representative and

will be performed with conventional dynamic shaker.

4 Regarding Chapter 3 “ Major Deliverables”, could you please clarify the following points:

a. Will any already available CAE/CAD models be made available at the beginning of the

project, which can serve as a basis for the Deliverables x.2?

b. Will the test aircraft manufacturer make available its proposed test plan at the

beginning of the project?





Question / Answer

a. Some CAD parts and views of the installation constraints will be provided along with

Some reduced dynamic models will be provided to perform efficiency estimations.

b. It will be discussed with the system supplier after the preliminary design review and

matured to be ready when the system will be provided.

5 Regarding Chapter 4 “Skills”, could you please confirm or deny that WP2 and WP3 have

been mixed in the text of this chapter?

Confirmed.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-LPA-01-05 - Validation of aero-vibro-acoustic model on new

aerodynamic”

1 Section 2, Task 2 of the CfP calls for specific limitations on a model, quotes the following:

"This will be the direct limitation for the size of the model which thus should be around 6

m long and 2.5 m large (height would be defined according to wind tunnel constraints)."

a. Does the Leader require that for this experimental component, the model must meet

the cited specific sizing defined in the CfP? Would it be possible to perform the tests

on a smaller model?

b. Then afterwards, will a comparison to determine Reynolds number effect be

performed in CFD during the computation stage of the research? The reason we ask

this question is that there are only a few facilities around the world capable of

properly performing the measurements on the model as defined.

a. The size given is an estimation based on the fact that the fuselage part needs to be

representative of a falcon fuselage part. This for the representativeness of the

vibration of the model.

Moreover, it is important for this project to be as closed as possible of flight Reynolds

number. The wind tunnel velocity will be lower than cruise mach number, but we

would like to have a least a full model representative in term of sizing for a good

development of the Turbulent boundary layer and good measurement of coherences.

b. This may be added by the partner, but this can’t replace a representative cockpit

model.

2 Is the topic tailored towards one or more of the facilities capable of studying acoustics on

such a large model?

We wish to know this in advance so as to better understand what are the best options: if

the Leader is seeking a specific institute to work on this problem, then either we would

need to seek a partnership with that facility, seek usage of the facility for testing

purposes, or refrain from making a proposal at all.

The partner has the choice of the facilities on which to perform the test. The facilities

needs to has low background noise as described in the CfP and permitting representative

Reynolds number.

3 The topic mentions that innovative tools for measurements for the noice fluctuation

inside the boundary layers has to be developped and «those new instrumentation tools

should at the end be applicable for flight measurement testing».





Question / Answer

Some solution, tested in flight, exist (see for instance www.le_captiflex.fr) taking

account the specific contraints for flight safety. Should these be included in the proposal?

The partner has the choice of instrumentation. If the partner has already a viable solution

for the measurement, it could be included in the proposal.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-LPA-01-08 - Drive and control system for piezoelectric AFC actuators”

1 While being stated as „RIA“ in the detailed topic description part of the full and formal

description of topics, the topic is defined as „IA“ on the Call webpage of the EC Participan

Portal and in the topic overview table in the full and formal description of topics document

on page 3. Could you please clarify what is the final type of action (i.e. RIA vs. IA)?

Apologies for this mistake. This topic is defined as RIA.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-LPA-02-09: Integrated Main Landing Gear Bay”

1 On page 81 it is mentioned the following:

“On most of the aircrafts, the Landing Gears are attached to the wings, and situated below

them. On Single Aisle & Long Range families, the Wing Main Landing Gear Bay (MLGB) is

composed of metallic parts, whereas for the new generation of Long Range aircrafts, this

MLGB contains composite parts (Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic for the pressure

bulkhead).”

Does this mean that the topic leader would like to have a “full composite solution” for future

Main Landing Gear Bay?

The material choice is not frozen and the partner will have the freedom to identify its best

proposal through a trade-off.

2 The call for proposal asks as goal 10% of recurring cost reduction and a manufacturing route

validation for high production rate (up to 50 x month).

In order to have a reference cost for setting up a concept for the main Landing Gear bay that

allows the 10% reduction of the RC, could you please provide the present Main Landing Gear

bay reference Recurring Cost.

The current RC will not be communicated. The partner will assess a current baseline cost and

his new proposal. The RC reduction assessment will be done together by Airbus and the

partner.

3 The maturity level to reach at the end of the project is TRL3 (that as far as we know means

no need for demonstrator)

On page 84 of the call document, it is mentioned “Analytical and experimental critical

function and/or characteristics proof of concept must be demonstrated”. Could you please

confirm that this does not mean that a demonstrator has to be manufactured for the part?

And that the demonstration can be done also analytically ?

This call for partner is only covering maturation phase. A full scale demonstrator is not

required at TRL3 level. The demonstration has to be done by analysis based on paper study

and / or low scale demonstrators pending on gaps regarding on TRL3 criteria.

http://www.le_captiflex.fr/





Question / Answer

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-LPA-02-10: Development of pultrusion manufacturing

applications”

1 1. Could you clarify what are the capacities requested for the mandatory capacity

“Pultrusion dies”?

o Existing tools?

o New tools design and realization?

2. In case of consortium, should we cover the entire route: Design, tools machining, surface

treatment, etc. or should we demonstrate that we are used to manage every step from

the design to the validation in order to supply the requested product?

1. For the 2 profiles, if the partner has the die, it can use it but it will have to manufacture a

new one (dedicated thickness and with in relation to Leader’s requirements).

2. The demonstration has to cover the capability to design, manufacture and deliver.

2 In the CFP02 Call Text page 89, in the middle of the page, you can read: “The maximum

envelop of the cross-section of the parts is 200m*200m.”

Could you confirm that it is a mistake and that the real maximum cross section is

200mm*200mm?

Yes, it is a mistake. The maximum size of the cross section is inside a section of 200mm*200mm. It is an indication, the profile sections will be included in this envelop.

3 The TR Level at the end of the project should be TRL3 so could you explain why the action is

classified as IA rather than RIA?

The topic proposes to achieve TRL3 at completion of the project. This technology is already applied / use in other sectors. The topic aims at exploring more its implementation to the Aeraunical sector than the technology in itself. This is the reason why the topic is labelled IA.

4 In the short description it is mentioned that “The objective of this study is to develop the

technology to increase the number of applications”. Does this refers to:

• developing further the current state of the art in pultrusion envisaging its wider

applicability to new applications and new markets?, OR

• demonstrating that current pultrusion technology is suitable for new applications?

Are these applications strictly within aeronautics? More specifically, within Large Passenger

Aircrafts? Are they already identified, or one should identify them?

The target is to develop the standard pultrusion (dry fiber + resin injection) for an aeronautical

application (civil aircraft). The applications are already identified, the development required is

mainly to implement the aeronautical requirements (mechanical and chemical properties of

the laminate).

5 How many different profiles (different cross-sections) are expected to develop, manufacture

and test during the project?

Accordingly with list of deliverables (D2 and D3) it seems that the topic leader expects “a

few” sections by M12 and some other representative sections by M20. Could you please

clarify?





Question / Answer

At the end of the project, the aim is to evaluate 2 kind of profiles: ‒ one of around 1.50mm thickness (“L” angle) for aircraft secondary structure (less

requirements)

‒ one of around 4.00mm thickness (“U” profile) for aircraft primary structure

Pending on the actual know-how of the applicant, we will have to go through several trials to reach this target.

6 Regarding the last mandatory capability “Capacity to produce around 300 Tons of Carbon

parts per year”, does it refer:

a) strictly to the pultrusion manufacturing capability or could it include other

complementary CFRP manufacturing processes?

b) to a capability that one must demonstrate at present or just demonstrate it will exist

upon success of this project?

It is not mandatory to demonstrate this capacity at the beginning of the project. Pending on the success of the development, we will assess the range of applications for pultrusion, and thus the CFRP volume, at the end of the 2 years.

7 The nature of the partner/entity that will uptake the project results for an

industrial/commercial level is limited to a company? Or could it be other kind of legal

entity (provided it has the capacity to deliver)?

Such entity (the one that will benefit and uptake the technology developments) shall be

clearly identified, present and active in the consortium, or could it be selected in later

stage, “profile definition” to be agreed with the Topic Leader?

There is no limitation other than the ones defined under the rules for participation

It is too early to assess the technical competences of a consortium that has yet to be fully

formed. Nevertheless, participants have the flexibility to define the way they want to

implement their project.

8 Does the TRL2 and TRL3 stated in the call text refer to the H2020 standard TRL scales?

Yes, it is common standards.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-LPA-03-04: Touch screen control panel for critical system management functions”





Question / Answer

1 Could you please clarify the following items: a) Which switches and functions of Overhead Panel in the cockpit are required to be

implemented to Touch Screen Control Panel ? (i.e. Do Circuit Breaker Panel and Radio

Control Panel need to be implemented?)

b) As a continuation of previous question, does the Overhead Circuit Breaker Panel need to

be moved to another location in the cockpit ? If the Circuit Breaker Panel moved, is the

status of the circuit breakers required to be shown on any display (i.e. Touch Screen

Control Panel or any other)?

c) Is there any specific platform (aircraft) for Touch Screen Control Panel use? If so, please

provide the platform details such as panel needs, any standards for design &

manufacturing, reference documents?

d) What are the redundancy requirements for Touch Screen Control Panel?

e) Could you please give us a brief explanation about the position & contribution of the

Topic Leader to the Touch Screen Control Display project?

a) All switches including circuit breakers but excluding Radio Control Panel

b) No, Circuit breaker panel remains on the overhead

c) No specific aircraft is targeted, however, the A350 can be taken as the baseline to support

the study. Usually, for AIRBUS aircrafts, ABD0100 is used as reference for equipment

design and development but the full application of this standard will not be requested for

this R&T study (limited set of documents, limited set of environmental tests, “light” safety

and reliability studies, …).

d) This is part of the study to define the system architecture (including redundancy) to ensure

safety, integrity and operability.

e) The Topic Leader will provide the high level requirements, contribute to the definition of

the prototypes (particularly on Graphical User Interfaces) in an iterative way jointly with

the partner and finally evaluate the prototypes.

2 Should the work be done with the aircraft manufacturer (i.e. topic leader) or with a core

partner (e.g. the one selected for JTI-CS2-2015-CPW02-LPA-03-01)?

Since both topics relate to the enhanced and disruptive cockpit demonstrators it is not clear

who would play the role of system integrator.

The work will be performed with the the aircraft manufacturer

3

Is the work for a large passenger aircraft or for a business jet or both?

The call text seems to be very much oriented to a commercial aircraft while the JTP seems to

map these activities as well to business jets.

The work is foreseen for LPA but could also be of interest for business jets.





Question / Answer

4 What is the meaning of the term “validation” in the full topic description?

Task 3 asks to propose a means of compliance for the validation of each requirement. Per

EUROCAE ED-79a, ED-80 and ED-12c validation of requirements means “the activities

required to ensure the requirements are correct and complete”. However, task 5 “system

validation” (including Validation test and analysis) seems not to be in line with this

definition. Is there a relation between the plan in task 3 and the activities in task 5?

System validation refers to product validation (against user needs) as defined in the ABD0100.

5 a) Could you please give a brief information about Disruptive Cockpit and how the

touchscreen control panel is planned to integrate to disruptive cockpit?

b) For this project is there any necessary certification like DO-160, DO-254?

c) Is there a minimum quantity of the applicants(i.e. minimum number of participant

organization) for this innovation action project?

a) This is not yet defined. However, for the Disruptive cockpit, the position of the

touchscreen control panel, the functional scope and the HMI could be modified.

b) A limited set of DO-160 environmental tests will be requested to be performed on the

prototype (EMC, vibrations, temperature, maybe more depending on the technological

choices). Full compliance to DO-254 guidelines is not required for the prototype. However,

the design will be analysed in order to identify potential hard points with regards to DO-

254.

c) There is no minimum quantity of the applicants.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-REG-01-01 : Smart-grid converter”

1 For this study, we are understand :

Main objectives

Design and develop an innovative strategy for an highly decentralized, modular

and flexible smart grid:

Based on advanced Electrical Power Distribution System (EPDS) network,

Implemented on regional aircraft.

Allowing to delete the overload capabilities of main generators and thus saving

weight for electrical machines integration.

Using local ultra/super-capacitors as energy buffers during high and rapid

transitory energy requests from some critical loads

Improving Power availability by the use of a DC/DC converter “smart-grid”

approach and an adequate “predictive” algorithm based on fuzzy-logic.

Technical Requirements

Development and prototypes manufacturing (x4) of innovative high/low voltage

DC/DC isolated "resonant cellular“ converter (<10 kW) with automatic flow

control, for innovative "smart-grid" based electrical network.

Requested power density > 0,5kW/kg

The equipment shall be modeled and tested in a simulation environment in





Question / Answer

order to pretest its functionalities and performance

The DC/DC converter shall be air-forced cooled by means of an internal fan, or

alternatively liquid cooled, should the power switches require a more effective

heat dissipation

Could you please provide more details on the expected characteristics, for this smart-grid

converter ?

1. What is the Power of the converter : < 10kW is ambiguous. What is the requested range :

7..10 kW?

2. Is Insulation input/output required ?

1. It usually depends on the number and type of loads we are gonna use on the Iron Bird

testing facility. It also depends on the number of converters the Partner is willing to

manufacture (requirement is at least 4). Generally speaking I would prefer to have higher

number of converters with lower power each, so that a more cellular topology could be

obtained. Finally, I would say that preferred range for power is 1-5 kW.

2. It is desirable. However, in common design specification an elevate insulation resistance is

normally required.

2 The software requirements specifically state that SABER simulation models shall be

supplied. For supervisory control&monitoring models an alternative simulation tool (other

than SABER) is allowed. If the applicant uses other simulation tools (other than SABER) “to

demonstrate the effectiveness of the proposed converter topology by means of accurate

simulations”, is this acceptable or is the use of SABER a hard requirement (which incurs

significant costs on the applicant for a license). If this is a hard requirement, can the CS JU

motivate the reasons for this requirement?

The use of SABER tool shall be intended as a "preferred" choice for the topic manager, based

on two reasons: 1) it's the conventional tool used to simulate electrical equipment at detailed

level (behavioral level); 2) SABER license is currently in use at the topic manager premises.

However, this is not an hard requirement and any other tool (i.e. the same used to model the

supervisory control algorithms: AMESIM, MODELICA, MATLAB, etc) can be actually used.

3 The topic call can be interpreted as consisting of the manufacturing and test of the four

converters and not the supervisory control. For example, the text in «general requirements»

states that 4 converters shall be developed that are “able to be supervised” suggesting that

the supervisor is out of scope. Similarly, the section on «hardware requirements» covers

only the converters, also feeding the idea that the supervisor is external to the project. On

the other hand, the call describes requirements on the development of supervisory control

algorithms, suggesting that the supervisor and the development of the supervisory control

algorithms are included in the scope. The WP and DLV tables are unclear about the scope.

Can you please clarify the scope of the project and of deliverable 7?





Question / Answer

The development of supervisory control logics is a mandatory and crucial requirement for the

CfP Project. The supervisor shall mainly manage the converter cells in order to obtain the

smart grid behavior for the tested network. In addition, the control logics shall also command

the inversion of converters mode in order to comply with energy management requirements.

Having said that, the physical (i.e. hardware) implementation of the superisory control "in an

external device" has to be intended as an option for the applicant (that's why hardware

requirements only cover the converters). Infact, at my knowledge, a kind of "distributed

system" approach can be even implemented, meaning that the supervisory logics are directly

implemented within the converters with a very high level of synchronization effort between

the converter cells. In any case, the supervisory control algorithms and logics must be fully

included in the Project in order to build and validate a smart grid network behavior.

Deliverable D2.3.4.2-7 (Installation and commissioning): means that the converters + the

supervisory controller (if external) shall be delivered and installed on Regional IRON BIRD

infrastructure for final network validation tests.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-201-CFP02-REG-02-02, Powered WT model design and manufacturing of the

FTB2 aircraft configuration for aerodynamic test in wind tunnel at low and high Reynolds

number.

1 From section 2, item 2: “The power supply can be common for both wind tunnel or different

for each wind tunnel as long as the model can use both of them. It is obviously preferred

that if possible an existing power supply system at the wind tunnel is used rather than

developing an ad-hoc one.”

Designing, assembling, testing and installing an entire power supply is unlikely to be

affordable when considered against the indicative funding value and the timescales,

especially when considering that a very complex model is also required within the budget

and that the power supply may need to be transferred between two test facilities (they’re

not particularly portable). Therefore it would greatly assist us to know which two wind

tunnel facilities will be used/are being considered in order for us to determine whether

there is a possibility of a common type of power supply system which the model could be

designed to interface with and that would therefore bring the tasks more in line with the

indicative funding value. The alternative approach of adapting the model to interface with

two different power systems has other significant difficulties which may also seriously test

the affordability and may possibly suggest that two models would be a more appropriate

and affordable solution. Could you please clarify this aspect?

Pre-selection of the wind tunnels to perform the test would be against competition rules and

would not necessarily conduct to the best technical offer. Therefore it is expected that the

consortiums answering this call proposes the wind tunnels that they consider as most

appropriate for the tests taking into account the requirements, particularly the power supply

system that they envisage. It would thus be highly desirable that the consortium includes the

wind tunnel organization themselves, either as members of the consortium or alternatively by





Question / Answer

reaching a technical cooperation agreement with them.

The option of having two models rather than one is not necessarily excluded as long as the

model specifications can be reached within the allocated budget and it can be demonstrated a

reasonable expectation on the repeatability of the results among the two of them, for which

purpose some if not all elements like model support, main balance, power supply balance

crossing system, rotary shaft balances including the associated data acquisition system, etc.,

etc., may need to be common anyway.

Question regarding all FRC topics and the accession of Partners

1 Can the Partner access the Members’ Consortium Agreement or sign a specific

Implementation Agreement with the Topic Manager or is it a case-by-case choice?

Implementation Agreement with the Topic Manager.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-FRC-01-01 - Development and demonstration of materials and

manufacturing process for ultra high reliability electric Anti-ice/De-ice thermal layers for high

strain civil rotor blades and airframe sections of tiltrotor”

1 Could you please provide with the full descriptions of the Tasks 2, 3 and 4 (page 142-143)?

For T2,T3 and T4, the description in the table covers the activity therefore more details were

not deemed necessary.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-FRC-01-03 “Development and validation of an optimised gearbox

housing structural design and manufacturing process, based on additive layer manufacturing

concept leading to a flight cleared demonstrator”

1 In Chapter 4 (Skills / Capabilities / Certification) the preferred Design Organization Approval

(DOA) and Product Organization Approvals (POA) certification is mentioned. Taking into

account the very restricted amount of organizations with DOA certification, how strictly will

be this requirement? Might it be possible to perform the design and development activities

within the DOA certification of the topic leader meeting the EN and ISO requirements?

Yes. The approach will be defined during the negotiation phase.

2 What are the gearbox's approximate dimensions and geometric aspects? Is there a drawing available for review?

Dimensions: 1000mm x 1000mm x 800mm (rough order of magnitude). No drawings of the final part are currently available.

3 What are the fit, form and functional requirements? In order to produce quality procedures.

The requirements in terms of geometrical boundary conditions and material quality and strength capability will be defined by the leader during the preliminary design phase. The request to the Applicant is to demonstrate the compliance to the requirements: this demonstration will require both non destructive tests on 100% of the produced components and destructive tests during the first article inspection..

4 What is the material type and what are the major properties required of the component?

The material choice is one of the objectives of the call for proposal. As general reference it can be assumed that currently similar parts are realized in aluminum or magnesium alloy.





Question / Answer

5 What material density is required?

No requirement for density are defined. The target will be addressed to the weight of the final component.

6 What is the required surface finish?

General references: unmachined surface on sand castings Ra = 12.5 m; unmachined surfaces

on coarse sand castings Ra = 20 m

7 Are post processing techniques acceptable?

Yes

8 Is there a defined post weld heat treatment?

The treatment after welding will be part of the investigation

9 Is there a production lead time requirement?

No, for the time being. Generally speaking, within the production start-up activities also a production cycle time effort will be evaluated

10 Will the design of the gearbox start from an existing design, or will the scope of this project involve an entirely new design from the start? How will the initial design specifications be communicated (engineering drawings, electronic CAD files, etc.)?

The design of the housing will be performed by AW. The Partners will be involved in a concurrent engineering manner in order to cope with the limitation/peculiarities of the ALM techniques. The design specification will be communicated by means of both 3D cad model and drawings

11 Are there any in service stress types (mechanical, thermal …) or magnitudes of them already known?

The design constrains/inputs will be defined during the project

12 Are rotary bending fatigue tests mandatory, or would direct axial loading of cylindrical specimens be acceptable?

The test mentioned in the call are mandatory

13 If mandatory, are the rotary bending tests cantilever bend or four-point-bend type?

The test will be performed in accordance with ISO 1143

14 Are the mechanical test required at room temperature or elevated/reduced?

At room temperature.

15 It is stated that AW will perform full scale tests. Are the project participants expected to perform large scale tests?

No

16 Will the use of the Simulia Abaqus suite of software (including /CAE, /Static, /Explicit) be suitable for the finite element modelling activities?

Yes

17 Will the use of TOSCA/Structures (and the associated Abaqus Topology Optimisation Module) for design optimisation?

Yes

18 Is the AW simulation life-cycle framework a specific software or a process? Is there any documentation available?

It is a procedure used for simulation process and data management. Currently in AW it is based on MSC SimManager Software

19 Are copies of AW procedures and standards available? Are there any other specific codes and standards partners need to comply with?





Question / Answer

All the needed procedures and standards will be discussed in detailed during the negotiation pase

20 What is the AW materials data management system?

The AW internal material characteristic database and the relevant management policies and procedures

21 Does the "development of optimisation tools" imply dedicated software development or definition of an optimisation process?

Yes

On Topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-FRC-01-05 “Design, development and flight qualification of a novel,

integrated high efficiency heat exchanger for tiltrotor transmission system oil cooling”.

1 The following dimensions (100 mm х 220 mm х 220 mm) are specified on page 173 of the

Call document. What do these dimensions limit?

‒ dimensions of the test (demonstration) specimen matrix (core)?

‒ dimensions of the test (demonstration) heat exchanger (matrix (core) with covers, oil

supply/discharge flanges/connections, cooling air supply/discharge flanges)?

‒ dimensions of the matrix (core) of finally designed heat exchanger?

‒ dimensions of finally designed heat exchanger (matrix (core) with covers, oil

supply/discharge flanges/connections, cooling air supply/discharge flanges)?

None of the provided hypotheses is correct: the given sizes refer to a reference heat

exchanger currently - normally - used on drive train rotorcrafts, dissipating the heat power

amount stated in the Call text. This is thus only a general , reference , size.

2 Is it possible to use program Unigraphics 7.5 instead of program CATIA V5 R22 for building

3D-models?

This is not allowed.

3 Can 3D-model be transferred only in simplified and non-generic format?

In general we need to transfer CatiaV5 R22 files.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-FRC-02-09: Light weight, impact resistant, canopy for fast

compound rotorcraft”

1

Regarding the Special skills, Capabilities, Certification expected from the Applicant, it is

mentioned that the DOA (Design Organization Approval) is mandatory. Could you please

clarify the reason for such mandatory requirement? Is this research program or a

development program?





Question / Answer

The purpose of this topic is to design and manufacture a canopy to be installed on a flying

research demonstrator (Fast Rotorcraft). This demonstrator must obtain a Permit to Fly from

Airworthiness Authorities and the Partner in charge of the Canopy must be able to provide to

the Topic Manager the documentation relative to canopy to get the permit to fly (compliance

with airworthiness requirements, demonstration that flying parts are produced in accordance

with the airworthy definition by using process having the suitable traceability….)

To insure these requirements without excessive burden for the Partner or the Topic Manager,

the solution is to apply methodologies and processes according to Design Organization

Approval and Production Organization Approval delivered by EASA or an internationally

recognized Airworthiness Authority.

On Topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-FRC-02-11 “Design and realization of equipped engine

compartments for a fast compound rotorcraft"

1 a) Could you please confirm that the scope of the proposal covers the entire main rotor fairing exploded in several panels and covers?

b) Is the additional support structure included? c) Is the segregation barriers engine included? Shall it be certified? d) Is the design and tooling manufacturing included? e) Could you please confirm that the topic leader will conduct the study of in and outlet

air? f) What minimum tests are being considered (bird, lightning, fire ...)? Could you please

specify the number? g) Could you please give additional information about the "ejector" (Reference,

dimensions etc.) ? h) What is the maximum temperature that the material in that zone have to bear?





Question / Answer

a) The scope of the proposal covers all the upper cowling covering the MGB and Engine zones and compartments in front of MGB and behind the Engine. It means all upper cowlings that are non-rotating. Hence, the main rotor fairing is not covered but the chimney is.

b) Cowlings will most likely require additional fixation structures (e.g. frames). It is not totally excluded to realize installation and adjustments of the cowlings directly on the H/C structure. It will be discussed in detail during the negotiation phase.

c) The segregation barriers also called firewall are not part of the present call. The cowlings have to be fireproof as it is specified in the call.

d) Yes, design and manufacturing any tooling needed for elaboration of the flyable parts and their installation and adjustment on the main airframe are part of the call. Moreover such tooling has to be provided by the partner to the topic leader.

e) The call only ask for detailed design and manufacturing. Concept definition and design will be performed by the topic leader.

f) Bird strike resistance must be validated by simulation, supported by a representative physical test. If no tests available for the architecture/material selection, new tests are required. Fire tests must be performed for all material that have not been tested yet. Lightning direct effect tests not required for cowlings. Lightning indirect effects should be

handle by design care given by the topic leader according to the technology proposed by

the partner.

g) Approximate values of the ejector : diameter = 800 mm ; length = 1400 mm / per ejector h) The composite used for cowlings must successfully pass fire tests (15min exposure for a

mean temperature of 1100°C); evidence is required. The service temperature for cowlings is a difficult topic and is highly depending on the architecture of a helicopter. Therefore the requirements for the cowlings and the designs differ a lot on our existing helicopters. The service temperature of the cowlings is depending on: - Proximity to hot spots (engine, exhaust, oil cooling in MGB compartment) - Ventilation of the whole area Additional thermal protection or means to improve the thermal resistance of the cowling may be necessary for engine cowling or compartment behind engines . For MGB area, a maximum temperature of 120°C has to be considered. For engine compartment and compartment behind engines a temperature of at least 180°C has to be considered but service temperatures can locally reach more than 250°C.

On Topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-01-08 "CROR Engine debris Middle level Impact and mechanical

test"

1 Under the section “Main characteristics of level 1 and level 2 tests” (page 255) there is a

notion of “structural” and “no structural” solutions. Could you please clarify what is the

difference between those two?

Structural means the solution is also part of the primary structure assuring primary loads path.

Non structural is add on solutions not carrying primarily loads.





Question / Answer

2 It is understood that the design variables of a shielding solution are mainly the material

system, the thickness of the panel and weather the panels will be flat or curved. Is it

expected that any of the tests would involve fuselage representative details (elements) like

frames or stringers ect and to what detail? Could these parts (if included in the test articles)

be simplified metallic components i.e. Aluminum stringer on composite skin?

Yes, fuselage representative details will be needed with high level of representatively.

3 Is it possible to use smaller dimension panels for level 2 testing? Does the debris size drive

the panel requirement and what can be the minimum impactor size for level1 and level 2

testing?

Yes the debris size drive the panel size and it is not expected to be smaller. It is important that

the applicant is able to test the small size of level 1 and the large size of the level2 with the

dimensions that are defined.

4 It is understood that experimental verification and numerical validation of shielding

solutions are sought. Could you please clarify to what extend the design of the shielding

solution should be considered? What would be the starting point for such an activity?

Adaptations of the design are required for the final impact test set up Shielding. The starting

point fro such activity will be given but can be adapted after test interpretation of results.

5 Is there any special requirement with respect to material system(s) if composite solutions

are selected? Does the material system have to be aerospace certified or low cure

temperature resins can be used as long as their behavior can be modeled adequately?

Yes the final solution must be aerospace certified so low temperature resins are not adequate.

6 On page 256, paragraph 3, reads “…, the topic manager could request material

characterisation test to be performed by the applicant in representative environmental

conditions. Objective will be to define accurately the mechanical in plane and out of plane

properties to be implemented on the simulation models.” Can you give more details on the

expected representative environmental conditions? Could that be hot-wet environment or

specific hygrothermal conditions ?

It could include specific hydrothermal conditions.

7 Does the applicant have to deliver the testing hardware as well like the gun jigs ect.?

Yes the applicant could deliver the testing hardware.

On topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-01-09, Experimental characterisation of turbulent pressure

fluctuations on a realistic Contra-Rotating Open Rotor (CROR) 2D airfoil in representative high

subsonic Mach number”

1 What is the target Reynolds number range for this test? With a slightly larger model (40cm

chord) we will be able to closely match the estimated sea level Reynolds numbers for the full

scale blades at Mach numbers of 0.5 and 0.7. Our tunnel is able to vary total pressure by +-

20% so should also be able to closely match the expected sea level value for Mach 0.2.





Question / Answer

Target Reynolds numbers are 3Mi at Mn0.5 and 4.5Mi at Mn0.7.

2 In relation to the maximum frequency of 15kHz specified in WP1.2, does this relate to a

sample rate or the highest frequency which would need to be resolved (i.e. then requiring a

minimum 30kHz sample rate)? We are considering an alternative to conventional pressure

transducers which has a maximum bandwidth of 10kHz which should be sufficient for an

increased wing chord and any shedding frequencies related to the aerofoil thickness.

15kHz is the maximum resolved frequency, so requiring a 30kHz sampling rate. Being

interested by noise emission up to 10kHz, we wish to have turbulence spectrum up to this

10kHz plus some margin to account for frequency scattering in the noise emission process, and

also to compare with other experiments available in literature with a wider

frequency/Strouhal number range; hence this 15kHz. That value may be a little reduced if

justified for higher measurement quality, but using 10kHz bandwidth sensors leading to a 5kHz

maximum resolved frequency looks too much restrictive.

On Topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-01-10 “Erosion-resistant functional coatings”

1 Which is the maximum expected size of the panels to be coated in the project?

The maximum expected size to be coated in the project is 1 square meter, if available

processing equipment allows for treatment of panels of this size.

For most of the expected testing, smaller panels will be sufficient. Panel size will be in the

order of 0.1 square meter or less.

On Topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-01-12 “Tool-Part-Interaction simulation process linked to

laminate quality”

1 Is it acceptable by the Topic Manager to use CalculiX (Freeware) for the simulation

subroutines instead of Abaqus? CalculiX can do the: Coupled poro-mechanical analysis (for

modelling the compaction of the preform in the autoclave needed in the project).

This is not advised / accepted by the Topic Leader.

2 Will the prepreg that will be used for the study be defined by the topic manager or can the proposal foresee prepreg currently in use?

The Topic Leader recommends using prepreg off the shelf from aircraft grade prepreg manufacturers. The prepreg type has yet to be specified within the project.

3 Who will manufacture the components for validating the simulation? Is is the topic Leader?

The Topic Leader will manufacture components for validation but it is necessary that the applicant can do smaller manufacturing trials for step while validations.

4 We have understood that part distortion after curing (spring-in, etc) is out of the scope of the project. Is this correct?





Question / Answer

Part distortion is not the scope of this CfP.

5 Can we put sensors in the mold of the topic Leader to perform in-situ measurements during manufacturing to correlate with simulation?

To be discussed, but the Topic Leader does not see any reason why not, if beneficial.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-01-13: Complex (composite) part ultrasonic inspection

facilitated by man-robot collaboration”

1 a) Task 2 states “The system shall be able to maintain the requirements for positioning and

orientation of the end-effector (provided by the topic manager). Does this mean that the

end-effector will be provided, or the requirements? If it’s the end-effector, then can you

provide further details on the end-effector?

b) Will the composite components (e.g.aileron) to be tested be provided by the topic

manager? If so, can you provide some information on parts of interest e.g. size.

a) For the requirements, the topic manager will state initial target values. Task 2 will focus on

control schemes of the end-effector more than of the actual end-effector design itself.

However, results from Task 2 may lead to end-effector improvements.

b) The final demonstrator is proposed to be an aileron looking like Figure 1 in the CfP with a

length of 3.5 m (can be extended up to 5 m). However, smaller components will likely be

used for NDT tests. In all cases the parts to be tested will be provided by the topic

manager.

On topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-02-08 “Ice protection system based on two-phase heat

transport technologies integrated in representative engine intake structure”

1 In the description for this call, it is stated that a two-phase heat transport system is a

‘passive’ device, i.e. the device starts to operate (due to capillary forces) when sufficient

energy is applied at the evaporator. However, it is also possible to have an ‘active’ two-

phase heat transport system which is driven by a mechanical pump instead of capillary

forces. A system with a pump has several advantages over a capillary driven system (e.g.

much smaller evaporator and smaller diameter tubing).

Could a proposal based on a mechanically pumped two-phase heat transport system be

accepted? Or is the call solely intended for a passive heat transport system?

The call is intended to be developed on the basis of devices without the need of external

energy other than heat and without the need of mechanical devices like pumps.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-02-11: Ice protection technology based on electromagnetic

induction integrated in representative leading edge structure”





Question / Answer

1 On the one hand, Task 1 mentions:

“Definition of the heated and heating elements: Definition of the configuration of heated

and heating elements in a modular way. Concurrence with structural design of composite

laminates. The definition of the structural architecture to be “iceprotected” will be defined

by the Topic Manager. The Beneficiary will provide the Design Report in accordance with the

Topic Manager specifications (Task 1), initially in a reduced size specimen for laboratory

testing, and later in a representative composite leading edge demonstrator to be developed

in Task 2.”

And Task 2 mentions: “Development and laboratory testing of the heated and heating

elements in concave structure.”

On the other hand, in the inputs and outputs list there is a list of inputs provided to the

beneficiary, where the following can be read: “Composite laminate structure characteristics

(material, mesh pattern and thickness) (at T0).”

Could you please clarify if the beneficiary should study and propose new composite laminate

structures to be heated, or the Topic Manager will provide the composite structures to be

heated and the beneficiary should focused on the proposal of the heating elements?

In some of the points along the call there are references to the definition of the heated

element. Therefore, the line between the parts that will be provided by the Topic Manager

and the work that should be done by the beneficiary is not clear.

The scope of the beneficiary includes the definition of both the heated and the heating

elements arranged in a modular way. This definition shall be such that the laminate structure

is minimally changed and if changes are needed these are agreed with the Topic leader. The

structural justification of such assembly, however, is not part of the beneficiary scope of work.

On Topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-02-12 “System development for optical fiber sensing

technology measurements for industrial aeronautical contexts: composite manufacturing plants,

structural test platforms and airborne conditions”

1 What should be included into the system of 4.75 kg?

‒ Fibre optical sensor

‒ All Electronical devices

‒ Decision Support System

‒ Power supply

‒ etc.

This weight refers to the interrogator unit including all electronic devices (light source,

detectors, synchronizers, multiplexers, acquisition& conditioning cards and power supply).

Acquisition software and processing could be in an external laptop but no problem if included

as well in the same block.

2 What is the area that the 4.75 kg system should cover? The description says it should cover

150m(in length) but does not say what the area should be.





Question / Answer

The surface to be controlled could be several m². The dimension of the interrogating unit must

be in the range of 44.5 mm high and 49 mm width.

On Topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-02-13 “Prototype Manufacturing Tooling for Single Parts

Manufacturing of the Rotorless tail for LifeRCraft”

1 Regarding the Tail Boom:

a) It is possible to have a center line diagram or equivalent for stringer position and

structural lay out to better address the proposal ?

b) Which is the AFT diameter of tail boom ?

c) Why two figures are given for tail boom length: 4500 and 5500 mm?

d) Is the boom surface ruled or beveled ?

e) How is the skin stiffened ? (h/c - honeycomb core, stringer)

If stiffened with stringer, what is the section of stringers (i.e .omega, blade etc. )

f) If stringers are concerned are they cocured with skin or cobonded?

g) Is the boom laminated as full barrel and then cut in different skins and cured with

stringers?

If yes, how many panels (skin+stringers) form the boom ?

h) Are panels cured on IML (inner mould line) or OML (outer mold line) tool ( i.e. tool side

will be on aerodynamic surface or on the inner side of panels)?





Question / Answer

a) The configuration of the tail is not yet frozen, so at this moment it is impossible to

distribute any other reference like it was already distributed. An updated info will be

distributed during the negotiation phase. The actual and reference structural concept is

the same than it is used into the latest AHg rear fuselage products( one tail boom

(connects center fus. with empennage, structural element divided in at least 2 parts); one

horizontal stabilizer and (tbd number) of vertical stabilizers).

b) The dimensions still open, but as reference in the root of the Tail Boom 1000 mm aprox,

at the end and before the tail cone (end fairing) is 350 mm aprox. During nego phase

updated dimensions will be distributed.

c) The two figures are in liaison with the approximately maximum and minimum lengths of

the tail boom. For sure that currently the final dimension of the tail boom is pending to be

frozen. During nego phase updated dimensions will be distributed.

d) As the current status of the development is focus on Composite Technologies, this

question doesn´t apply.

e) Question partially answered in a) answer. The trend into AHg is to design tail boom with

skins stiffened by honeycomb core implementation. It is our preferred option.

Nevertheless until the conceptual design will be closed everything is open. During nego

phase updated dimensions will be distributed.

f) Conceptual design open, at this moment there is no intention of stringer implementation

into the structure. If needed AHg will look for the best procedure in order to implement

them into the structure (cobonded or cocured) in order to save weights, times, resources,

energy consumption, etc…

g) No, it is not a full barrel concept. Two different shells (skins and honeycomb core). The

shells could be RH and LH or Upper and Lower. TBC after conceptual design phase. During

nego phase updated info will be distributed.

h) The tool side on aerodynamic surface desirable in all the cases. Parts cured on OML.





Question / Answer

2 Regarding HS AND VS MAIN BOX

a) Can we assume that the main box is a build-up structure made from stiffened panels, c

spar and ribs?

In this case are panel stiffened with stringers or hc?

b) If stringers are concerned are they cocured or cobonded with skin?

c) Are c spar flanges open or closed respect to the web ?

d) Should we consider that fitting integration means to cobond a composite precured

fitting with a structural element like skin or spar?

e) Are the tools for fitting - if in composite materials - to be integrated part of this call?

If yes, what kind of process is foreseen (in terms of prepreg, rtm , infusion)?

f) At this stage, can be forecast the possibility for use monolithic cocured

multispar configuration for hs and vs main box

g) Does the quoted width of HS and VS (1000 mm) include the control surface and leading

edge?

a) Yes, that is the first approach. At this point of the project that is not defined, but yes, It

could be supposed in that way.

b) Cocured desirable. If not possible, cobonded/secondary bonded.

c) At this point of the project that is not defined.

d) Yes, perhaps, but also could be to integrate a metallic fitting into a composite preform

and cured all together.

e) The fittings are expected to be developed in metal, by usual manufacturing processes or

by ALM or SLM technologies. If it should be needed any tool for fitting manufacturing, it

should be included in the present call.

f) Yes, it would be a desirable solution, but at this point of the project that is not defined

yet.

g) Yes, the estimated dimension are in accordance with the parallelogram in which these

elements could be introduced including Control Surfaces and leading edges. The updated

values at the moment of these parallelograms are pending to be frozen but are as follows:

HS maximum maximorum (TBC):3500x1000 mm

VS maximum maximorum (TBC):2200x1000 mm

During nego phase updated dimensions will be distributed.

3 Regarding CONTROL SURFACES

a) It is possible at this stage to consider that control surface have a sandwich full depth

structure ?

b) Does fitting integration means to cobond a composite precured fitting with a structural

element like Skin or spar?

a) No. The first approach is a monolithic laminate.

b) Yes, perhaps, but also could be to integrate a metallic fitting into a composite preform

and cured all together.





Question / Answer

4 Regarding the Upper T/B (TAIL BOOM) Fairing (TBC)

Is this fairing a structural part or have only a aerodynamic shape scope ?

Yes, only aerodynamic features.

5 There is no details or dimension in the call concerning :

– leading edge of HS and VS

– Lower extensions of VS

– Fairings between HS and VS

– Lower fairing between HS and tail boom

– Fairings between VS and its Lower extension

– End cone of tail boom

Are these parts included in the proposal and if yes, which materials, configurations and

dimensions?

All the listed parts belong to the proposal. As it is known into the Aeronautical world the

fairings implementation are a weight increase in the design and development of an airframe.

As result of that, and thinking that our design is based in a light-weight concept, we are going

to try to reduce as much as possible the implementation of fairings. As It was said, the

conceptual design still open, so therefore at this moment it is impossible to ensure the

number of fairings and the dimensions of them. During nego phase updated info will be

distributed about it. Nevertheless as follows, it is provided some further info about the most

defined parts affected by this question.

The leading edge dimensions of the HS and VS are in accordance with the already provided

maximum maximorum dimension in this document (see point 2):

HS maximum maximorum leading edge (TBC) 3500 mm (in one or two semi HS-TBD)

VS maximum maximorum leading edge (TBC) 2200 mm

For both stabilizer cases the maximum maximorum chord (TBC) is aprox (1000-900 mm).

There is no lower extension of the VS, it is part of the VS structure.

End Cone see chapter 1 answer b). Aprox. Dimensions (TBC) 350x300x450 mm.

Upper Tail Boom Fairing, if needed, it will be a fairing allocated in the surrounding area of the

root of the tail to the center fuselage (TBC-TBD) and over the upper part of the tail boom.

The materials expected for the most of them, at this moment, is Composite. (TBD-TBC).

On Topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-02-14- "Prototype Tooling for Sub-Assembly, Final Assembly

and Transport of the Rotorless tail for the Compound RC"





Question / Answer

1 The questions are mainly related to the "As Is" baseline, not only in terms of manufacturing

and assembly process, tools needed in each phase of the previous said process, but also in

terms of timing (estimation) needed to set up, assemble and transport:

1) Is the current assembly process available? At least in terms of a graph view (i.e.

manufacturing flow chart or an assembly sequence) or draft drawings showing and

illustrating the assembly steps? The answer will allow a rough estimation of the tools

needed and make a “what if” analysis on the improvements which can result with the

proposed new set of tools. With the current set of information provided the efficiency

evaluation of the new tooling

2) Is there a rough estimation of the current timing/cost/human effort required, so as to

have a set of reference, key figures of the processes which the tooling will be designed for

(overall assembly lead time, human effort required during assembly and transportation,

setting up lead time) to be improved ?

3) To duly estimate shape, size and quantity of the drilling templates, it would be useful

to have details, in draft version at least, on each part which is foreseen to be assembled by

riveting joints. Are these preliminary drawings and information available?

1) Not yet. The conceptual design still opens, so therefore there is no possibility of further

info at this moment. Detailed information will be available during the negotiation phase.

The assembly should be similar than the current assembly processes for another tails of

AH rotorcraft’s, following are listed the minimum assembly modules of the Rotorless Tail,

for sure that the subassemblies will be in accordance to the design and manufacture

procedures selected (TBD-TBC):

Tail Boom Assy Module

Horizontal Stabilizer Module (including Control surfaces)

Vertical Stabilizer Module (including Control surfaces)

We would like to obtain a set of tools as much as possible eco-friendly (raw materials,

energy consumption (if needed), reduce waste products, with just one set of tool several

subassemblies and assemblies could be done; multipurpose tools concepts……. )

2) The indicative funding value can give you an idea of the effort necessary: it is based on

our own estimation considering that the EU funding rate is ~50%

3) The conceptual design still opens, so it is impossible at this moment to provide accurate

information on the subject. During nego further and more detailed information’s will be

distributed.

2 The following question is for the target TRL, which is, as per our understanding, TRL4.

For this TRL an "ugly prototype", for laboratory demonstrations, can be built. We ask if it is

confirmed and mandatory TRL4, or the applicant shall go (or may go) beyond TRL4 in order

to get a better evaluation of the proposal. Could you please clarify?





Question / Answer

The TRL 4 requirement as starting point is just for highlighting that we need technologies with

enough maturity level, that their implementation into our activities will not be an additional

risk for the project. The project needs innovative and prototype toolings but always in

accordance with the schedule and the final objective that is to have a demonstrator that

flights (so the TRL levels needed must be higher than 4-Raw Materials, concept design and

technologies implemented into the tooling development).

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-02-15 ‘Design against distortion: Part distortion prediction,

design for minimized distortion, carbon-epoxy aerospace parts”

1 In the Call for Proposal there is a possibility of commercial software (FEM, CAD) use

mentioned. In the educational/research institutions only the research type of license for

such software is usually available. Is it acceptable to use such license in CS projects or are

commercial licenses required?

The key requirement is that the deliverables (methods, models, code) are transferrable to the

Topic Manager in order to apply them to the Use Cases. Firstly, the Call also mentions the

alternative of open source software, which is perhaps more compatible with academic

research, easily modifiable, and fully transferrable. Secondly, regarding commercial, closed-

source software: in case the functionality offered by an academic license is a sub-set of the

functionality available in the commercial license used by industry, the required transfer of

deliverables should be possible. Problems can arise only if the academic license offers

functionality normally not available to industry. In that case, care must be taken to use only

functionality available to all users, academic and industrial, to make sure results are

transferable.

Disclaimer: this response does not take into consideration the legal aspects of software

licensing. Please refer to your license agreement to make sure you have the right to use the

software in the framework of Clean Sky 2.

2 The topic concerns manufacturing distortions of composite materials. The manufacturing

process may influence the distortions in quantitative and qualitative way. Is there any

specified manufacturing process for the validation of distortion compensation required (e. g.

autoclave, out-of-autoclave, RTM)? Or all of them should be feasible?

First priority should be pre-preg, cured in autoclave.

3 Is setting of a consortium advisable in case of this topic if all main activities required in it can

be carried out by one institution? Do consortium is generally better evaluated than a single

institution in CS?

Consortium must be implemented when needed to offer the better proposal. The evaluation is

based on the content of the proposal only.

4 Regarding Coupons & Use cases:

Just above the Figure 25 it is written the following:





Question / Answer

In Figure 25, part of the CfP is the Manufacturing of Validation Coupons and Distortion measurements. Outside of the CfP is the Demonstration on use cases. Then in T1, it is mentioned as part of the task the following :

In this CfP, will the applicant have to manufacture and measure the two use - cases,

defined by the TM, or the manufacturing and measuring will be done by the TM?

The minimum required is support to the TM when applying to use cases, that will be selected

from the component development done in parallel elsewhere in Clean Sky 2.

Manufacturing and measuring a small number of (additional) use-cases is strongly requested,

as it will allow a complete overview of the applied manufacturing conditions. When working

on use-cases manufactured elsewhere, obtaining all details regarding process settings and

other manufacturing conditions is often difficult. Furthermore, manufacturing and measuring

a small number of use-cases will also make dissemination of the results easier, as these uses

cases can be selected in such a way, as to contain no Intellectual Property of anyone but the

winning consortium.

If needed, use-cases of small dimensions can be selected to accommodate the manufacturing

capabilities of the winning consortium.

5 Regarding Shape and lay-up versus topology optimization: In § 1 Background, it is mentioned:

In Figure 25, it is mentioned:

In § 2 Scope of the work, it is mentioned:

In description of T2, it is mentioned:

It is not clear, if we are talking ONLY for shape and lay up optimization OR/AND

topology. Could you give us a PRECISE answer?





Question / Answer

The word “topology” indeed occurs 3 times in the published call text, this is a mistake, it

should be replaced by “lay-up and shape optimisation”.

6 In the topic description, it is mentioned:

What do you mean by "flexible solution" ?

In early stages of design, the CAD definition of a part is often not complete: in many cases, for

example, the geometry is already be defined in 3D CAD but the lay-up is defined only

approximately, in a separate document (typically a spreadsheet table). The CAD to CAE

interfacing tool will therefore need to be flexible with respect to missing part definition

data. What is called for in this Call is a real innovation in dealing with this, making use of the

facts that the toolset to be developed will anyway modify shape and layup.

7 Regarding the material for samples and coupons manufacturing:

a) Are the applicants supposed to work with prepreg material?

b) If yes, which class of carbon/polymeric prepreg? Thermoset matrix class 180°C or 120°C?

Thermoplastic matrix?


8 Regarding Manufacturing & Testing:

a) Are manufacturing processes allowed? Vacuum bagging and autoclave curing?

Out-of-autoclave prepregs? Other processes like hot plate press under vacuum?

b) Any restriction upon bagging products and tool material?

c) Any restriction upon the experimental methods used to measure geometrical

distortion?


Low-cost tooling with significant differential thermal expansion (regular steel, aluminium)

must be accounted for. No restriction on bagging products.

No restriction on distortion measurement, but some use-cases may be double-curvature and

are therefore best measured using a 3D Coordinate Measurement Machine or equivalent.

9 Regarding Task T2:

a) It is required by the applicant to develop a shape and layup optimization code for

minimization of part distortion. However, the layup of the composite is limited by design

rules and strength requirements (static strength, local buckling etc). How much freedom

is left for layup or shape optimization?

b) Are the applicants expected to alter the original layup of the part as this was determined

by the stress / design people? This would also affect the load carrying capability of the

part.

c) In addition, what do you mean by shape optimization ? Are the applicants expected to





Question / Answer

radically change the shape of the part or the shape of the mould?

The most that can be done is to alter the tool / mould surface to compensate for the

distortion. Therefore, could you be more specific regarding the layup / shape

optimization?

Indeed in current industrial practice, shape and lay-up are often optimised for

weight. Distortion is often accounted for only as a constraint in that optimisation: “find the

lightest lay-up BUT keep it symmetric and balanced in order to avoid warpage”. The objective

of this project is to provide designers with a view of what the part would look like if this were

turned around: “given a complex geometry, find the least distorting lay-up (ply contours,

number of plies, directions) AND optimise the shape to be cured such that tolerances will be

met after curing BUT keep a minimum of plies in certain directions to cope with the main in-

service loads”. It is likely that not all design loadcases can be included as constraints on the

optimisation and that the resulting design will be idealised, “a manufacturer’s dream”, but it is

expected that such a tool will already give new ideas to designers on how to improve a design

for manufacturing. Full muli-disciplinary optimisation can be achieved in a follow-up project.

10 In both Tasks T1 and T2:

it mentioned that the developed numerical tools will be validated against some

demonstration cases. Who will provide the design for these demonstration cases ? The topic

manager or the applicant ? Who will manufacture the moulds and the parts ? The topic

manager or the applicant ?

The minimum required is support to the TM when applying to use cases, that will be selected

from the component development done in parallel elsewhere in Clean Sky 2.

Manufacturing and measuring a small number of (additional) use-cases is strongly requested,

as it will allow a complete overview of the applied manufacturing conditions. When working

on use-cases manufactured elsewhere, obtaining all details regarding process settings and

other manufacturing conditions is often difficult. Furthermore, manufacturing and measuring

a small number of use-cases will also make dissemination of the results easier, as these uses

cases can be selected in such a way, as to contain no Intellectual Property of anyone but the

winning consortium.

If needed, use-cases of small dimensions can be selected to accommodate the manufacturing

capabilities of the winning consortium.

11 a) What are targeted types of structures (unstiffened panel/shell, stiffened panel/shell, sandwich structures, etc.) for distortion prediction and design optimization for distortion minimization?

b) What parameters are expected to be optimized during the shape optimization (e.g. stiffeners cross-section, stiffeners location, lay-up zones location, something else)?

c) Through out the call description (incl. scope of work, deliverables and milestones list) either "shape- and lay-up optimization" or "topology" optimization are mentioned. However, there is difference between these two approaches. Topology optimization provides much wider opportunities for structure optimization and is generally used to generate design concept(s). Shape optimization methods work in a subset of allowable





Question / Answer

shapes which have fixed topological properties, so is generally used to fine-tune a chosen design topology. Could you specify, what "type of optimization" is expected?

d) Are their any preferences regarding use of commercially available software or open source alternatives for distortion prediction tool? Is it obligatory to use open source software for optimization tool?

e) Will demonstration of developed optimization method&tool include only "redesign

exercise" or redesigned part manufacturing also?

a) Targeted structures are unstiffened- and stiffened parts, often with strong local thickness

variations (reinforcement for local load introduction), thickness typically between 4 and

40mm, and mostly single- or double curved.

b) First priority should be lay-up optimisation e.g. adapting ply contours, (local) ply

orientations and (local) number of plies to reduce distortion. The position of stiffeners or

load-introduction points will often be constrained. Stiffener cross-sections can be

optimisation variables.

c) The word “topology” indeed occurs 3 times in the published call text, this is a mistake, it

should be replaced by “lay-up and shape optimisation”.

d) The key requirement is that the deliverables (methods, models, code) are transferrable to

the Topic Manager in order to apply them to the Use Cases. This is why the call text lists a

few aerospace industry standard- or open source codes. Other industry standards could

also be used, such as iSight and HyperStudy for optimisation.

e) Manufacturing of a re-designed demonstrator is not a formally requested deliverable,

because the distortion prediction method is supposed to be validated. The merits of the

re-design can therefore be demonstrated through Virtual Testing. However, confirming

the prediction with a physical test can be of value, mainly for communication /

dissemination.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-AIR-02-16 Process development for composite frames

manufacturing with high production rate and low cost”

1 1. Two manufacturing processes RTM and LRI, and two frame configurations, Z and C are

mentioned in Task 1. And in Task 2 three levels for test campaign are considered.

a. Have to be tested both processes at three levels?

b. How many configurations (Z and/or C) should be manufactured at level 3-

demonstrators?

c. How many processes (RTM and/or LRI) have to be used at level 3?

2. Materials: One of the most common resin in aerospace for RTM process is RTM6-Hexcel

(epoxy monocomponent) and carbon fiber as reinforcement, is it a must to use it in the

project or are other materials also allowed?

3. Finishing operations of the demonstrator: Besides trimming to fit the final geometry, are

there any other requirement to be taken into consideration?

4. Skills: Could the 5 skills be compiled by the whole consortium or has each partner in the





Question / Answer

Consortium to fulfill all of them?

1. a. Each combination of material/process solution under evaluation in task 1 have to

be tested at coupon level (Level 1). Only material/process solution selected in task 1 has to be tested at element level (Level 2). Only material/process solution selected in task 1 (and tested in task 2 at Level 2) has to be tested at sub-component level (Level 3).

b. Only configuration solution selected in task 1 has to be manufactured at sub-component level (Level 3)

c. Only process solution selected in task 1 has to be used at sub-component level (Level 3)

2. In task 1, a trade-off is requested in terms of material/process and configuration, so also other materials are allowed as long as they are materials allowed for aeronautical applications.

3. Demonstrator has to pass the destructive characterization tests in order to verify internal quality (defects not visible to NDI) and freeze process parameters through the manufacturing and tests to be performed on the first item (PPV - Pre Production Verification). Besides this mentioned requirement and trimming to fit geometry requirement, no further finishing operations are requested.

4. The whole Consortium has to fulfill all the skills.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-ENG-01-04 - Engine Mounting System (EMS) for Ground Test

Turboprop Engine Demonstrator"

1 The milestone MS1 defines PDR at TO+1 month; on the other hand the tasks table indicates

TO+12 months for preliminary design of EMS.

a) Please elaborate, what are the expectations and requirements for the "first mount

system" design? To our understanding, this design shall be further improved to come

up eventually with the improved "optimized mount system".

b) Is the first set intended for testing and the improved design will be based on the tests

results? Anyway, the MS1 and MS2 milestones (PDR at TO+1 and CDR at TO+3) are very

aggressive and can be met only with some readily available hardware, which seems to

be in contradiction with the project research and development goals. The design

objectives for the first and second EMS sets shall be clearly defined to avoid re-design

during development.





Question / Answer

a) As a reminder, part of the strategy for this demonstration is linked to the overall

approach of a full Integrated Power Plant System. To enhance benefits of this approach,

each sub-system component must be studied in parallel. For instance, the EMS can have

an impact on the location of accessories on the Power & Accessory Gearbox.

Therefore the first mounting system is expected to rely on existing & nearly available

solutions or at least on mature concepts in order to minimize the risks on the first engine

lightning. The purpose is to have sufficient material as early as possible to substantiate

the design choices of the IPPS. Following this first step, the second EMS is expected to be

designed for an improved global solution, in particular in terms of mass, as far as the EMS

is concerned.

b) The first set is indeed expected to be delivered for ground testing. As mentioned above,

the second design is expected to bring benefits on the installation, in particular on mass

& integration. Depending on the solution that will be proposed for the first set, we may

wait for tests results or request an improved solution before testing. Depending on the

project progress and the lead time for EMS, the deadlines for the second PDR & CDR

could be adapted.

The PDR of the first set is expected very early in the program in order to match the

current time schedule of the demo. It is expected feasible if the applicant has true

competence & experience in the domain of concern.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-ENG-02-02 - Integration of Laser Beam Melting Simulation in the

tool landscape for process preparation of Additive Manufacturing (AM) for Aero Engine

applications”

1

a) What does the following statement mean: "Reduction of height of steps of the surface

contour produced by simulation" located in article D3.1?

b) What does the following statement mean: "Data transfer between detailed and global

model is realized and validated"? Does it refer to application of different process models

for macro and micro scale? If yes, is it obligatory?

c) Is the revision control system mentioned in WP8 only applicable to software versions or

will it also be used for revision control of documetation, analysis and models used?





Question / Answer

a) Additive manufacturing is a layer wise production process. Typical layer thickness are in

the range of 20-60 micrometers. Typical part sizes in build direction are larger than 20

centimeters. This means thousands of powder layers have to be melted layer by layer to

produce the final part shap. To the knowledge of the authors it is so far not possible to

simulate this process with real layer thickness for a complete part due to numerical

efficiency. Rather most known approaches combine layers for the simulation. This can lead

to large deviations between surface contour of finite element model and CAD-model

based on used finite element types and element sizes per simulation layer. In some

publications the finite element model surface looks like a staircase. Such a contour could

not be used to rebuild the part in reality based on distortion simulation results and finite

element network. In other words the contour of the finite element part surface has to be

very close to the CAD-model.

b) Yes, it refers to the use of different models for micro and macro scale resulting from above

described problem that layer thickness in simulation is often larger than in reality. I has to

be understood which errors result from this assumption. If a combination of layers in

simulation is not necessary by keeping numerical efficiency the use of two different

models is not obligatory.

c) The intend is to focus only on software versions.

2 Do you expect a solution completely obtained using open FEM or do you refer to an open (very flexible) framework where the user could introduce a generic solution developed by a generic FEM code, including commercial ones?

The proposal would benefit from using open FEM software as the barrier to find future customers is significantly reduced. If commercial FEM software is used potential customers would have to pay for both, the FEM software licence + maintenance as well as for the implementation work + maintenance of the CfP applicants. A generic framework where different FEM tools can be implemented seems in general possible but the applicants should keep in mind that the tool has to be transferred to the topic manager of the CfP who wants to use this software without the need to buy further licences.

3 The call refers to CAD based workflow but, according to our understanding, it should be a CAE based workflow, capable of showing graphically the ongoing process to the user. We don't see a CAD environment for the purpose of this call but a CAE (FEM) environment. Is this solution coherent with what you expect?

The background is following. Additive manufacturing relies on CAD files, e.g. STL-format, which are feeded into the AM machine to produce the respective part. A typical FE-mesh with e.g. simulated distortions can’t be used for previously described. Rather it becomes necessary to convert the FE-mesh based results back into a CAD-format.

4 Do you intend to demonstrate the ability of using information about distortions, both from experiments and simulations, for reengineering a predefined geometry?

The ability of reengineering should be only demonstrated for simulated distortions.

5 What do you mean with "mutual influence"?





Question / Answer

The complete statement is “mutual influence between several parts on the platform and the

build platform itself shall be included in the used model”. It is asked for the ability of the

simulation tool that interactions between closely positioned parts can be simulated. “Closely

positioned” means that there is no solid connection between two parts, their distance is lower

than e.g. 1mm and that the open space is filled with loose powder particles.

6 Should it be a numerical-experimental matching activity?

It should be demonstrated that simulation results match to experimental observations.

7 What do you mean with "control system"?

The complete statement is “revision control system”. It is expected that the software development is a continuous process with continuous updates and new revisions. The user of the software should be able to restore older software version at any time to repeat calculations.

8 Should training be done at MTU offices?

Yes

On Topic "JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-ENG-02-03 Integration of a property simulation tool for integrated

virtual design & manufacturing of forged discs/rotors for aero engine applications"

1 Could you please provide more information regarding the specific requirement about the

simulation tool (i.e. the developed simulation tool will need to couple with DEFORE or

ABAQUS or any other FE package?).

It is recommended to couple the mentioned property simulation tool with a commercially

available FE package (e.g. DEFORM, FORGE, ABAQUS etc.)

2 Is the forged materials supplied by the Topic Leader or is the applicant expected to forge

the DA 718 fr validating the developed model?

The material to be forged is not going to be supplied by the Topic Leader. The applicant is in

charge of forging stock procurement and forging.

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-ENG-03-01 - Industry focused eco-design”

1 This project deals about supplier data gap (2. Scope of work / Task 2: Methodology

development / 4th bullet point).

Does a specific budget have to be prepared in order to include time spent by suppliers for

data collection? This might serve for collecting specific data and create generic data. Or

would this part be managed by topic Leader and other aerospace industries?

Rolls-Royce can support collecting data from the supply chain for this aspect of the project - if

that is what is needed. However, the proposal needs to include a plan and a budget that

covers all the work and activities that the proposing organising sees as being necessary to

address this aspect of the project.

On JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-ENG-03-02 Topic: “Jet Noise Reduction Using Predictive Methods”

1 • Will Hydra source code be given by the Topic Leader as input of the project ?





Question / Answer

• In order to validate the DES methods implemented, will it be possible to use the Topic

Leader hardware computation facilities (HPC) ?

• The HYDRA code will be made available to the partner to use with their computing

facilities, providing that the relevant non-disclosure agreements can be put in place.

• The partner will not be able to use the topic leader’s computer facilities. It is assumed that

the partner will already have adequate computing facilities through significant previous

experience in such CFD programming, preferably in the aerospace industry.

On Topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-ENG-03-04: “Development of coupled short intake / low speed fan

methods and experimental validation”

1 The fan model for which a test setup has to be designed and which shall be tested in a wind

tunnel is specified to run at tip speeds up to 1500ft/s and has a diameter of 46”. But there is

no indication about the required power level.

The required power is a very important piece of information for the evaluation of the

suitability of a facility and pre-existing hardware and ultimately for us to decide whether we

shall respond to the call or not. Could this information be provided?

The rig requirement is likely to exceed 5MW. Of course this will depend on the scaling factor

of the fan model that is finally decided but we would anticipate a requirement between 5 and

7 MW.

2

Could you please provide information on how the scaled fan unit is to be powered:

a) Will the unit be supplied by the topic leader with its own electric motor, which the

facility needs to interface with, or a drive shaft coupling, or something else

perhaps? The position and type of interface will make a substantial difference to the

technical solution to be proposed.

b) Could you please provide an indication of the likely thrust of the fan unit?

a) It is envisaged that the rig will interface with the facility via a drive shaft coupling. The

facility will need to provide the motor and transmissions. The facility will also need to

provision cross-wind, for example via a pylon to rotate the rig within the tunnel.

b) There has been some subsequent analysis since the original specification which has

improved understanding of the rig scale. At the upper scale the rig is bounded by motor

power and proximity to wall. The current understanding is as follows: fan diameter ~ 24”,

tip speed up to 1600ft/s, fan thrust up to 4000lbs (at 1 bar). The rig intake will need to be

always more than 3 fan diameters from the tunnel side walls to mitigate wall effects.

3 In the latest issue of the Q&A it is stated that, due to further analysis, the current

understanding of the test unit specifications has changed from an earlier quoted fan

diameter of 46” to ~24”. Seeing as the scale of the fan unit has now been reduced, have the

power requirements also been revised downwards and if so what are they?

The power requirements have not been revised downwards.

Current of understanding of the test regime indicates that with a Fan diameter of ~24” the

power requirement will still be in the region 5-7MW.





Question / Answer

On Topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-SYS-02-10: Analysis of centrifugal compressor instabilities

occurring with vaneless diffusor, at low mass flow momentum”

1 The topic asks for the design of a centrifugal compressor run at low mass inflows. In order to

be able to propose a sensible experimental campaign, could you please clarify the following

points:

1. The make and model of the equivalent (vaned?) centrifugal compressor that this is

intended to replace; or

2. The overall pressure ratio range and the ‘low’ mass flow range the new design

should be designed to operate at.

Applicants are not asked to design or redesign a compressor, the topic is to understand the

phenomena and build a methodology for surge inception on an existing vaneless compressor.

However data about the compressor may be relevant to properly assess the means to be used

during the experimental campaign which is required in the call.

The compressor under study is driven by a turbine, hence to ensure the proper rotation rate of

the compressor, the candidate will have to be able to provide at the inlet of the turbine

stabilized compressed air of 400 g/s @ 4 bar (absolute)

The compressor itself will

- suck air from ambient (maximum mass-flow rate 400 g/s)

- compressed air to about 1.2 to 1.8 bar (absolute).

- will be running at a speed between 35000 and 70000 rpm

- size of the compressor wheel around 100 mm

2 In the Call for Proposals, page 469, it is stated “An effort would be necessary on vaneless

diffuser cases, even if the scientific production is getting bigger this last decade [7][8][9].”.

However, on page 472 the list of references ends with reference 7 and there are no

references 8 and 9. Could you please provide a correction to the call for proposals with this

missing information?





Question / Answer

The following references were missing in the description of topic:

[8] Dazin A., Cavazzini G., Pavesi G., Dupont P.,Caignaert G., Bois G. & Ardizzon G. , 2009, Rotating Instability in a radial vaneless diffuser, Part. 1: High speed stereoscopic PIV measurements, 8th European Conference on Turbomachinery, Graz, March 2009

[9] Ferrara G., Ferrari L. & Baldassarre L., 2004, Rotating stall in a centrifugal compressor Vaneless Diffuser: Experimental Analysis of Geometrical Parameters Influence on Phenomenon Evolution, International Journal of rotating machinery, 10(6): 433-442

[10] Jansen W., 1964, Rotating stall in a radial vaneless diffuser, ASME Paper 64-FE-6, Transactions of the ASME Journal of Basic Engineering, 750-758

[11] Senoo Y. & Kinoshita Y., 1977, Influence of inlet flow conditions and geometries of centrifugal vaneless diffuser on critical flow angle for reverse flow, Transactions of the ASME Journal of Fluids Engineering, 98-103

[12] Tsujimoto Y., Yoshida Y., and Mori Y., 1996, Study of vaneless diffuser rotating stall based on two-dimensional inviscid flow analysis, Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 118, no. 1, pp. 123–127

[13] Ljevar S., de Lange H.C., van Steenhoven A.A., 2006, Two dimensional Rotating Stall Analysis in a wide vaneless diffuser, International Journal of Rotating Machinery, Volume 2006, pp. 1-11

3 Could you please provide the order or magnitude, or ball park figure, of the operating range

for the centrifugal compressor.

We assume that the inlet conditions are the aircraft cruise conditions (please provide the

aircraft ceiling or lowest pressure to be seen at the compressor inlet) and that the outlet

conditions are cabin pressure plus some overpressure to go through the air conditioning

losses (please provide a ball park figure for this).

The call for proposals stresses that the operating range is the low mass flow momentum

one. Could the topic manager please provide a ball park figure for this low mass flow in

the form of ‘maximum mass flow = x kg/s, the compressor should be able to operate at

e.g. 10% of x’?

This information is required to determine the size of the experimental rig so this is

appropriate for this specific application.

The compressor under study is driven by a turbine, hence to ensure the proper rotation

rate of the compressor, the candidate will have to be able to provide at the inlet of the

turbine stabilized compressed air of 400 g/s @ 4 bar (absolute), the exhaust air pressure of

the turbine is 1 bar absolute

The compressor itself will

- suck air from ambient (1 bar @ 20°C) and maximum mass-flow rate is 400 g/s, lowest

mass-flow rate in the operating map is 150 g/s

- compressed air to about 1.2 to 1.8 bar (absolute).

- will be running at a speed between 35000 and 70000 rpm

- size of the compressor wheel around 100 mm

On Topic JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-SYS-02-12: Eco Design : Optimization of SAA chromium free sealing





Question / Answer

process

1 Could you specify Task 2.1, please? How the influence of each sealing solution component

on the corrosion resistance should be defined?

There is an interconnection with Task 2.2 and unfortunately, it is not clear to us how you

suppose those Tasks to be separated.

The aim of task 2.1 is to identify the role of the 5 components for solution 1 and the 3

components for solution 2, in the mechanisms involved in corrosion protection. And in that

way identify if all components are mandatory. When that will be defined, concentration of

mandatory components will be optimized in task 2.2.

2 Do you require a partner to analyse coatings by both SEM and FIB methods?

Yes

3 Do you require a partner to characterize TSAA layer before sealing, e.g. according to MIL-A-

8625F?

This is not mandatory

4 In the call topic document its is mentioned the following: “The Topic manager will provide

all the samples required for the study” in the Topic proposal”.

I would like to make sure that you mean the samples of all alloys and for all Tasks, not only

demonstrators. Could you please clarify?

All samples will be provided for all alloys for all tasks : coupons and demonstrators

5 Task 4 “Industrial scale-up” says:

“At the end of the project, the optimized sealing process will be implemented in an

industrial scale (1000L) and applied on demonstrators (wheels, valve bodies…)”

• Could you provide an estimated dimension of the demonstrators?

• Do you require to implement the whole surface treatment process in 1000L baths line or

only in the sealing step?

• Demonstrators could be:

o Wheels: diameter 170mm, length 92mm

o Scrolls: diameter 200mm, width 105mm

o Valve body: internal diameter 99mm, external diameter 100mm, length 106mm

• For the demonstrators, the whole surface treatment (anodizing and sealing process) shall

be implement in an industrial scale (e.g. 1000L).

On topic “JTI-CS2-2015-CFP02-SYS-03-03 Database of dynamic material properties for selected

materials commonly used in aircraft industry”





Question / Answer

1

At page 517 of the call for proposal it is mentioned: “Result evaluation will be

performed and output will be provided in terms of stress/strain curves suitable as

inputs for various FE dynamic analysis systems.”

Question: Is it asked, as results, to give just the stress/strain curves for each material

or also the “Model of the material dynamic fracture? In other words what are the

input (material characteristics) of the simulation FE dynamic analysis tool necessary to

be put into the database?

So far, use of material inputs in form of stress/strain curves dependent on strain rate

without any model of the material dynamic fracture is requested in a call. There is

intention to cover mainly area of dynamic yielding stress and plastic behavior on material

curve. Nevertheless, material dynamic fracture model creation might be offered by

applicant as an additional activity.

2 Regarding the Due Date reported in the call for proposal in section 2 and section 3

there is inconsistency.

Question: Could you please clarify the due dates in order to have consistency between

tasks Due Date (of call for proposal section 2), Deliverables & Milestones Due Date (of

call for proposal section 3) and schedule?

Schedule, tasks, deliverables and milestones are indicative information. Applicant can

provide their own proposal in terms of schedule, tasks, deliverables and milestones

keeping the objectives of the call.

european commission research directorates clean sky 2 ... · issued on 5th november 2015 call...

Documents