Final Annual Activity Report 2014
This report is provided in accordance with Articles 8 (k) and 20 (1) of the Statutes of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking annexed to the Council Regulation (EU) No 558/2014 and with Article 20 of the Financial Rules of Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking.
~ Page intentionally left blank ~
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 2
Table of Contents
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 5 2. INTRODUCTION 7 3. KEY OBJECTIVES AND ASSOCIATED RISKS 10 3.1 CLEAN SKY PROGRAMME - ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 10 3.2 CLEAN SKY 2 PROGRAMME - ACHIEVEMENT OF OBJECTIVES 16 4. RISK MANAGEMENT 18 4.1 GENERAL APPROACH TO RISK MANAGEMENT 18 4.2 JU LEVEL RISKS 19 4.3 CLEAN SKY PROGRAMME LEVEL RISKS 23 4.4 CLEAN SKY 2 PROGRAMME LEVEL RISKS 24 5. GOVERNANCE 26 5.1 GOVERNING BOARD 26 5.2 EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 28 5.3 STEERING COMMITTEES 28 5.4 SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNICAL ADVISORY BOARD/ SCIENTIFIC COMMITTEE 28 5.5 STATES REPRESENTATIVES GROUP 29 6. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES 31 6.1 CLEAN SKY PROGRAMME - REMINDER OF RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 31 6.1.1 General information 32 6.1.2 SFWA - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft ITD 34 6.1.3 GRA – Green Regional Aircraft ITD 40 6.1.4 GRC – Green Rotorcraft ITD 47 6.1.5 SAGE – Sustainable and Green Engine 52 6.1.6 SGO – Systems for Green Operations ITD 55 6.1.7 ECO – Eco-Design ITD 60 6.1.8 TE – Technology Evaluator 64 6.2 CLEAN SKY 2 PROGRAMME – REMINDER OF RESEARCH OBJECTIVES 70 6.2.1 General information 74 6.2.2 LPA – Large Passenger Aircraft IADP 75 6.2.3 REG – Regional Aircraft IADP 79 6.2.4 FRC – Fast Rotorcraft IADP 82 6.2.5 AIR– Airframe ITD 86 6.2.6 ENG – Engines ITD 91 6.2.7 SYS – Systems ITD 95 6.2.8 SAT – Small Air Transport Transverse Activity 99 6.2.9 ECO – Eco Design Transverse Activity 100 6.2.10 TE – Technology Evaluator 100 7. CALL ACTIVITIES OF THE 2 PROGRAMMES 101 7.1 CLEAN SKY PROGRAMME CALLS 101 7.1.1 Statistics 101 7.1.1 Global evaluations outcome 104 7.1.2 Redress statistics calls 1-16 106 7.1.3 Evaluations outcome call 16 107 7.1.4 Evaluation and negotiation processes 110 7.2 CLEAN SKY 2 PROGRAMME CALLS 111 7.2.1 Statistics, Evaluation Outcome, Grant Preparation Phase 111 8. SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 113 8.1 COMMUNICATION AND DISSEMINATION ACTIVITIES 113 8.2 LEGAL AND FINANCIAL FRAMEWORK 115
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 3
8.3 HR MANAGEMENT 121 8.4 HOUSING 124 8.5 ICT 124 9. INTERNAL CONTROL FRAMEWORK 126 9.1 MANUAL OF FINANCIAL PROCEDURES – FINANCIAL CIRCUITS AND WORKFLOWS 126 9.2 SPECIFIC CONTROLS ON OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE 126 9.3 EX-POST CONTROL OF OPERATIONAL EXPENDITURE 129 9.4 AUDIT OF THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS 141 9.5 INTERNAL AUDIT ACTIVITY 141 9.6 COMPLIANCE AND EFFECTIVENESS OF INTERNAL CONTROL AND COST EFFICIENCY INDICATORS 144 9.7 ELEMENTS SUPPORTING ASSURANCE 146 10. BUDGET EXECUTION AND FINAL ACCOUNTS 147 10.1 BUDGETARY IMPLEMENTATION 147 10.2 FINAL ACCOUNTS 151 10.3 IN-KIND CONTRIBUTIONS PROVIDED BY THE PRIVATE MEMBERS 153 11. INDICATORS 156 12. ANNEXES 157 12.1 ANNEX 1: DECLARATION OF ASSURANCE REFERRED TO IN ARTICLE 20.1(B) OF THE OF THE CLEAN SKY FINANCIAL RULES 157 12.2 ANNEX 2: ASSESSMENT OF THE ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORT BY THE GOVERNING BOARD OF THE CLEAN SKY 2 JOINT UNDERTAKING 159 12.3 ANNEX 3: SCOREBOARD OF KEY PERFORMANCE INDICATORS 161 12.4 ANNEX 4: FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 2014 163 12.5 ANNEX 5: MATERIALITY CRITERIA 166 12.6 ANNEX 6: LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 170
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 4
1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2014 was an even busier year than normal for the Joint Undertaking given that while the Clean Sky programme reached cruising speed, the launch of the CS2 programme was as well under preparation and targeted for mid-July. Despite the fact that the requested activity, quite sizeable, had to be performed by the existing teams with no extra resources allocated yet, a timely and successful launch was reached on 9th July 2014. This result was achieved through a real enactment of the spirit of the JTI with both the public and private arms working together and with the JU to ensure a smooth launch of the CS2 programme.
The Joint Undertaking became accustomed to managing the 2 programmes and their differing states of maturity both in the preparation phase of CS2 but also after the launch. Indeed, the programme office paid particular attention to the on-going technical activities in the ITDs in order to monitor, as closely as possible the technical roadmaps as set out in the CS Development plan. Despite the close monitoring, it can be noticed that some technical setbacks were experienced and contingency solutions needed to be investigated. The BLADE project itself is a prime example of this, where from both a technical, but also financial perspective, a joint effort was put in by the respective beneficiaries involved and the JU team to create satisfactory circumstances for a continuation of the project within the limited means available at this stage of the programme. This project will continue to need monitoring and a high level of attention by the ITD coordinators, but also the JU management and technical teams.
Significant pieces of hardware were delivered and went through tests which are important milestones before the integrated demonstrations. Among many examples, the large engine in-flight demonstration started in September 2014 as a symbol of such achievements.
The JU continued to monitor the financial implementation and encouraged the full optimisation of the available funding. A tight management of the running costs allowed to release 10 m€ to be transferred to research activities. In parallel, some potential also exists from a few projects which might not use the full budget to completion as initially allocated. Together with the industry, the JU established a ranking list of further funding requests, some based on the current technical programme while others adding new scope to the programme. This exercise, based on the scoring of technical merits and contribution to the overall objectives of the Programme, was the first of its kind carried out by the JU together with the industry. It implied close cooperation and a deeper understanding of the context and technical challenges involved in the ITDs’ work plans. Following a comprehensive check of the proposals made, the Executive Director was in a position to put forward a funding list to the Governing Board in October 2014. The entire list was agreed as a means to cater for any release of funding until the end of the CS programme. In addition, 2 ITDs, namely SFWA and SAGE benefited immediately from a re-allocation of a total of 11m € in funding (€ 10 Mill from unused running costs in addition to €1 Mill released from the Eco- Design ITD). This decision gives these 2 ITDs some perspective and real commitment from the CS programme funding to allow the industry to further plan and meet their technical targets. While further proposals remain on the list, currently unfunded, these may be revisited at appropriate moments within 2015 with the same aim of optimising the available funding.
The execution of the first grant agreements under the H2020 programme started in July 2014. Together with the financial statements for the first period the private Members
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 5
reported also the in-kind contribution provided by them for the implementation of the work plan 2014 as required by Council Regulation (EU) No 558/2014. Details on the values of the in-kind contribution of private Members for both programs – FP7 and H2020 - are presented in section 10.3 of this report. The total value of the private sector contribution for the Clean Sky programmes accumulated until end of 2014 to €486.4 Mill for FP7 and €6.4 Mill for H2020. Contributions to the Joint Technology Initiative, which are not linked to the statutory tasks of the JU, i.e. the “Additional Activities”, have been planned by the ITD and IADP leaders for 2014 and 2015 and the planned values have been approved by the Governing Board, as it is foreseen in the Regulation. As the terms of reference for the certification still need to be defined, industry leaders have reported to the JU so far only preliminary values and brief descriptions of the activities actually performed in 2014. The related presentation and annual reporting by the JU on the actual and certified values of the Additional Activities as achieved in 2014 and 2015 will therefore start from 2015. The internal control system of the JU underwent the annual cycle of audits and based on the annual report relating to the previous year, can report that further improvements were observed. The Internal control coordinator succeeded to put in place further processes for the checking and validating of the cost claims for the GAPs. In addition, the foreseen developments needed for the internal IT application handling the cost claims process for the GAMs were put in place.
Like in previous years, one of the major elements for assurance was the ex-post audit activity of the JU, which assesses the legality and regularity of the operational payments and of the in-kind contributions recognised in the financial reporting of the JU. The error rates established through the audit process 2014, confirm the achievability of the programme control objective for the accumulated residual error rate of maximum 2%. It can be seen that the quality of cost claims and certificates received from Clean Sky Members and the related validation process of the JU has improved year by year since the beginning of the programme.
The IAS planned an audit on dissemination in late 2014, but this was postponed to early 2015. In preparation for this, but also as set out in the JU’s management action plan, several steps were taken internally to improve the management of dissemination activities, which become more essential now that the final stretch of the programme is in sight.
In previous annual activity reports, the JU has had to point out the issue of understaffing. During 2014 however, the JU made significant progress on this issue and secured a further 18 posts for the Joint Undertaking. For the year 2014, this implied 13 new posts with 5 more to follow in 2015. By November 2014, 9 of these new staff members had been recruited and were in post. While the real impact of these new resources will only be felt in 2015, their arrival brought already a need to review the work distribution within the existing team – which immediately helped the Project officers’ team to re-think how it manages the volume of projects. In addition, a re-allocation of project officers was made into different areas in order to rotate the responsibilities.
Clean Sky participated in the Berlin and Farnborough Air Shows where its presence was well received. Importantly, a large conference called “Greener Aviation: Clean Sky breakthroughs and worldwide status” was organised in Brussels, with more than 140 papers presented about Clean Sky projects – a major step forward in the JU communication and
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 6
dissemination effort. The Communication strategy 2015-2018 was adopted by the Governing Board in December 2014. The start-up of the CS2 programme, while challenging in terms of timing and the fact that the CS programme continued apace at the same time, showed the ability of the JU team, together with the industry actors to define in an efficient way the needed steps to start the programme in the right direction. The Joint Technical proposal sets out the overarching targets in terms of technical objectives over the lifetime of the programme. This document was constantly updated in 2014 and resulted in the first work plan 2014-2015 being available and adopted by the first Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking Governing Board on 3rd July 2014. This enabled the first call for core partners to be launched on 9th July 2014.
Within Horizon 2020, Clean Sky 2 represents now the bulk of the aeronautical research and innovation effort funded by the European Union, with more than twice the budget of the initial programme. This is a striking demonstration of the success of this JTI instrument and the satisfactory development of the activities performed so far, periodically reviewed and assessed. The present Annual Activity Report (AAR) describes the status of the execution of the activities of the CSJU (for FP7 and H2020 programmes) performed during the year. Now 624 entities are participating in Clean Sky Programmes, either as Members or as Partners selected through calls, compared with 600 entities in 2013. In terms of volume of operational activities, a total of 74 agreements have been signed in 2014 (64 signed GAPs and 10 GAM finalized) and 302 payments executed (276 for Partners and 26 for Members – covering individual payments to 201 beneficiaries).
2. INTRODUCTION
a) The Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative
Clean Sky today epitomises a true Joint Technology Initiative. It represents a strategic and successful input to the Europe 2020 objectives: boosting private investments in research and innovation and making the best use of public research funding in a vital and growing sector. Five years into the programme, the step-change improvement potential targeted, such as up to 30% reduction in CO2 emissions and (depending on the aircraft segment) 60% reduction in noise footprint, are all within reach. Stakeholder participation is a huge success: first time participation from many SMEs and their success rate in the Calls for Proposals is over twice that of any other FP7 instrument. Industry is increasingly using Clean Sky as the centerpiece of their R&T programmes because of the flexibility of the instrument; and the JU has proven its efficiency as a management body.
b) Clean Sky Joint Undertaking under the FP7 programme
To implement the Clean Sky Programme, the European Union, represented by the European Commission and the major aeronautical stakeholders in Europe had agreed to set up a Joint Undertaking as a legal entity for the period up to 2017. The Council Regulation1 setting up
1 Council Regulation (EC) No 71/2008 O.J. L 30 4.2.2008 p.38
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 7
the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CSJU) was adopted by the Council of Ministers on 20 December 2007, and was published in the Official Journal of the European Union on 4 February 2008. The activities of the CSJU are on-going and its objective is achieved through the coordination of research activities that pool resources from the public and private sectors, and that are carried out by the main aeronautical stakeholders (private Clean Sky members) directly and by partners selected following the response to open and competitive Calls for Proposals. The total budget of CSJU equally divided between the EC and private members and divided between the EC and partners according to funding rules based on FP7, is up to € 1.6 billion.
Under the FP7 programme, Clean Sky has been organised in six Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs), each led by two founding members and active through a matrix structure:
- Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) led by Airbus and Saab; - Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) led by Alenia Aermacchi and EADS Casa; - Green Rotorcraft (GRC) led by AgustaWestland and Eurocopter; - Sustainable and Green Engines (SAGE) led by Rolls-Royce and Safran; - Systems for Green Operations (SGO) led by Thales Avionics and Liebherr Aerospace; - Eco-Design (ECO) led by Dassault Aviation and Fraunhofer Gesellschaft;
A Technology Evaluator (TE) led by Thales Avionics and DLR is at the core of CS with the purpose of assessing the environmental performance of the technologies developed in CS at sub-system, system and system of systems level.
c) Horizon2020 and Clean Sky 2: new challenges and objectives
Based on the positive outcome of Clean Sky as new instrument in FP7, the European Commission proposed in July 2013, within the European Innovation Investment Package, to continue Clean Sky in the framework of Horizon 2020: a Clean Sky 2 Regulation was built to address the Joint Technical Proposal put together by the leading companies, “founders” of Clean Sky 2 and coordinated by the JU. Regulation No 558/204 of 6 May 2014 establishing the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking was adopted by the Council on 6th of May, 2014 after consultations with the European Parliament and published on the 7th of June 2014, and repealed the original Regulation.
Clean Sky 2, will contribute to one of the key Societal Challenge ‘smart, green and integrated transport’ defined in Horizon 2020. The Clean Sky 2 Programme will serve society’s needs and strengthen global industry leadership. It will enable cutting edge solutions for further gains in decreasing fuel burn and CO2 and reducing NOX and noise emissions. It will contribute strongly to the renewed ACARE Strategic Research and Innovation Agenda (SRIA).
The Clean Sky 2 Programme will be jointly funded by the European Commission and the major European aeronautics companies, and will involve an EU contribution from the Horizon 2020 Programme budget of €1.755 bn. It will be leveraged by further activities funded at national, regional and private levels leading to a total public and private investment of approximately €4 bn.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 8
Clean Sky 2 will run for the full duration of Horizon 2020 actions, i.e. from 2014 to 2023. A phased approach will be taken to the start-up of Clean Sky 2 projects and align them closely and adequately with Clean Sky on-going projects (to be completed in the period 2014- 2016). It will be endorsed and supported by the leading European aeronautic research organisations and academia. Small and medium-size enterprises and innovative sub-sector leaders will continue to shape promising new supply chains.
The Clean Sky 2 Programme consists of four different elements:
- Three Innovative Aircraft Demonstrator Platforms (IADPs), for Large Passenger Aircraft (led by Airbus), Regional Aircraft (led by Alenia Aermacchi and Airbus Defence and Space) and Fast Rotorcraft (led by Airbus Helicopters and Agusta Westland) operating demonstrators at vehicle level; - Three Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs), looking at Airframe (led by Dassault Aviation, SAAB and Airbus Defence and Space), Engines (led by Rolls Royce, MTU and Safran) and Systems (led by Liebherr and Thales) using demonstrators at system level; - Two Transverse Activities (TAs), Eco-Design (led by Fraunhofer) and Small Air Transport (led by Piaggio Aero and Evektor) integrating the knowledge of different ITDs and IADPs for specific applications. - The Technology Evaluator (TE) (led by DLR) assessing the environmental and societal impact of the technologies developed in the IADPs and ITDs.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 9
3. KEY OBJECTIVES AND ASSOCIATED RISKS
3.1 Clean Sky Programme - achievement of objectives
Objectives for 2014 to 2017
The overall objectives for this period are: - To run all the demonstrators (ground or flight demonstrators) - To achieve the environmental targets. These objectives are linked to the multi-year commitment appropriations received by the JU in 2014, which cover the full remaining period. The two tables below give respectively the list of the demonstrators and the environmental forecasts:
DEMONSTRATORS
High Speed Smart Wing Flight Demonstrator Low Speed Smart Wing Flight Demonstrator SFWA Innovative Engine Demonstrator Flying Test Bed ('CROR engine - demo FTB') Long Term Technology Flight Demonstrator Innovative Empennage Demonstrator Static & Fatigue Full Scale Ground Demonstration Test Large scale Wind Tunnel Test Demonstration GRA Flight Simulator on ground ATR-72 Based Integrated In-Flight DEMO Innovative Rotor blades on Ground / in Flight Drag reduction on Ground / in Flight Medium helicopter electrical system demonstrator including electromechanical actuation for flight controls GRC Lightweight helicopter electromechanical actuation Electric Tail Rotor Prototype Diesel powered flight worthy helicopter Demonstrator Flightpath operational Demonstrations Rotorcraft Eco Design Demonstrators Virtual iron bird PROVEN (Ground test rig at Airbus Toulouse) SGO
In house electrical technologies demonstrators
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 10
AIR LAB, MOSAR & GRACE simulations Geared Open Rotor Demonstrator 1 Geared Open Rotor Demonstrator 2 Advanced Low Pressure System (ALPS) Demonstrator SAGE Geared Turbofan Demonstrator Turboshaft Demonstrator Lean Burn Demonstrator COPPER BIRD® ECO Thermal Bench 'Clustered technologies' parts Demonstrators
In some details, the GRA ATR72 FTD has started the preparation for characterization flight at end of 2014 and first set of tests on structural modifications in Q1-15, to be followed by the important tests on electrical architecture: this depending on the delivery of the test equipment from CS members and partners. In GRC the flight tests of the Diesel engine light helicopters are planned by mid-2015, as a complement to the ground test (initially planned as completion of the development project). In SGO the use of simulators and flight test has been revised in 2014 and a new planning and content defined for 2015-16, which is reflected in the update CSDP as well as in the Work Plans of the ITD. In ECO, both the COPPER Bird and the Thermal test Bench are now in operations, and their testing activities in 2015 are planned, with intense utilisation; consideration will be given at mid-year on the need for any extension of testing in 2016.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 11
Environmental forecasts
The following figures, summarized here for a limited number of air transport segments, are based on the initial estimates refined during 2011-2012. For a clarification of the Concept Aircraft please refer to Appendix 2 of the Clean Sky Development Plan. The ranges of potential improvements result from the groupings of technologies which are expected to reach the maturity of a successful demonstration within the Programme timeframe. All environmental benefits are related to a Year 2000 reference. They are also stated in the Work Plan 2014 - 2015.
Noise area difference Aircraft CO2 [%] NOX [%] ratio at take-off (%)
-30 to -40 -30 to -40 -60 to -70 Low Speed Bizjet
-25 to -30 -25 to -30 -40 to -50 Regional turboprop
Short/ Medium -25 to -35 -25 to -35 -30 to -40 Range / CROR
Light twin engine -15 to -30 -55 to -70 -40 to -50 rotorcraft
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 12
Besides these objectives to completion of the programme, annual objectives, both operational and administrative, were set in the Work Plan 2014-2015.
The implementation status of these objectives is summarized below.
Operational Objectives as set out in Work Plan 2014-2015 Outcome 2014 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft Natural Laminar Several CDRs approach. In progress, to be Flow “BLADE” wing demonstrator Critical completed Design Review performed Low Sweep Bizjet Vibration Control Bizjet Low Speed Vibration Control CDR Ground Test, Critical Design Review passed in November performed Green Regional Aircraft Fuselage Barrel and Largely achieved Wing Box demonstrators finalized - Fuselage Barrel: tool modification needed during manufacturing and assembly - interface wing box and dummy structures to be refined ATR72 Flying Test Bed, Flight Test Partially performed, to be completed Readiness Review performed Rotorcraft Active blades tested on ground Whirl tower tests in 2015 (wind tunnel and whirl tower preparation) Rotorcraft Diesel engine tested on ground Achieved Open Rotor Ground Demonstrator Critical Several CDRs approach. In progress, to be Design Review held completed Large 3-shaft engine Composite Fan Blade Achieved Ground test campaign performed Engine Build 2 Turboshaft Performance Achieved tests performed Power generation and electrical distribution COPPER Bird bench infrastructure mostly systems tested on ground achieved, test equipment in progress; tests started, generic architecture validation delayed Green Flight Management System tested in Achieved simulator Thermal Test Bench tests for Eco Design Test bench mostly available; tests started performed in 2014 2014 TE Environmental Assessment report Delivered. For the first time complete results (noise and emissions) were produced for both Long Range (APL3) and Short Medium Range (APL2)
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 13
Administrative Objectives Outcome 2014 as set out in Work Plan 2014-2015
A reliable financial management and Achieved. reporting to the JU's individual stakeholders A clean opinion was reported by the is ensured, in order to maintain the European Court of Auditors. confidence of the financing parties, i.e. the European Union and the industrial members and partners of CS; 90% of cost claims are formally dealt with Achieved. 90% (validated, put on hold or rejected) before end of May. Ex-ante controls performed by the CS team Achieved. on costs claimed by beneficiaries are based Following the review by external on a reliable procedure and identify all auditors, all exceptions identified in 2013 exceptions visible from a desk review of reports were dealt with appropriately by transmitted reports. the financial officers. The ex-post audits are performed according Achieved. to the plan and show a materiality of errors The residual error rate of the ex-post lower than 2% of operational expenditure. audits (EPA) 2014 is 0.82%. The accumulated residual error for the EPA 2011 to 2014 is 2%.
Furthermore, a revised Clean Sky Development Plan (CSDP) was adopted by the Governing Board in December 2014. This document updates, once a year, the strategic targets of the JU: environmental forecasts, key technologies, demonstrators contents and schedule. The main evolution concerned the addition of a flight test for the SAGE 6 (“Lean Burn”) engine, beyond the ground test, allowing to reach a TRL6 level instead of TRL5.
As regards to the monitoring of operations, the results are summarized via a dashboard on the CSJU level, for an efficient, quarterly reporting to the Governing Board.
Budget execution Deliverables (%)
(%) Delivered vs planned SFWA 91% 81% GRA 86% 65% GRC 65% 76% SAGE 89% 82% SGO 95% 92% ECO 88% 81% TE 90% 95% Total Average 86% 77% Weighted average 82%*
* The weighted average has been calculated by considering the relative share of the individual ITD budgets of the total operational annual budget.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 14
The overall budget consumption is high, which demonstrates an appropriate scheduling of annual resources: the under-execution of past years has now been solved. However, it appears that the rate of deliverables actually delivered is behind schedule. These figures take only into account finalized deliverables: it often happens that some, or many, of the missing ones have reached a high level of preparation. Missing deliverables are always carried forward to the following year. Some are linked to technical contingencies, which are reported in the technical part of this report; the main focus of the JU programme management is now to ensure that, within the limited remaining funding to completion and despite these contingencies, the demonstrators objectives will still be reached – beyond the global snapshot brought by these global figures of deliverables by ITD. This entails a dynamic management of the ITD budgets to completion, in order to optimize the global outcome of the programme.
This was done already in October 2014, with a re-allocation of budget to some projects. 11 m€ were available for further operational activities, coming mainly from savings in the running costs of the JU (10 m€) and also from an adjustment of the budget to completion in the ECO ITD (1 m€). Further needs were expressed by ITDs, either to conduct unforeseen, supplementary activities linked to contingencies, or to complement the existing projects with a follow-up to higher TRLs. These requests were scored by the JU against criteria linked to the expected benefits of each project with respect to the high-level objectives, the criticality of the requested supplement and others. A ranked list was endorsed by the Governing Board, which led to bring 6.5 m€ more to the SFWA BLADE project in order to contribute solving encountered difficulties in the realisation of the flight demonstrator for the laminar wing, and 4.5 m€ to SAGE 6, the “Lean Burn” engine, in order to allow this project to go up to a flight demonstration, initially not scheduled in the programme. Other requests are still filed, and may be addressed if and when more budget is made available (at the time when the GAPs and GAMs will be finalised).
The relatively lower budget execution in GRC deserves a particular attention (despite in this case, the deliverables rate is higher). The JU has started discussions with the concerned leader, in order to conclude on operational measures, mainly related to the optimisation of allocation of resources, in order to still be in a position to achieve most of the initial demonstration targets.
Of course, this management of the budget to completion is closely linked to the risk management, reported below.
More key performance indicators are available to the Executive Director, for a closer monitoring of all core processes of the JU. They are presented in Annex 3.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 15
3.2 Clean Sky 2 Programme - achievement of objectives
Objectives for 2014 to 2017
Over the full duration of the Programme, Clean Sky 2 aims to meet the overall high-level goals with respect to energy efficiency and environmental performance shown in the following:
Clean Sky 2 as proposed*
CO2 and Fuel Burn -20% to -30% (2025 / 2035)
NOX -20% to -40% (2025 / 2035) Population exposed to noise / Noise Up to -75% (2035) footprint impact
* Baseline for these figures is best available performance in 2014
These figures represent the additionality of CS2 versus the 2014 Horizon 2020 Start Date and allow the full completion of the original ACARE 2020 goals (with a modest delay).
High Level Objectives for Clean Sky 2 2014 - 2017 is chiefly the transitional period from Clean Sky 2 start throughout the close-out of Clean Sky. The key objectives for Clean Sky 2 include a smooth, effective and phased start to Clean Sky 2 technical activity, so as to ensure continuity in research across the two programmes where appropriate. Clean Sky 2 IADPs will use the higher-level ~TRL 4-5 results from Clean Sky ITDs as a start towards integration studies in the 2014-2017 timeframe. Together with future Clean Sky 2 ITD level outputs, these will form key inputs into the configuration and content of demonstrations during the Clean Sky 2 Programme. In some specific cases, Clean Sky ITDs will bring a small number of high-potential - but less mature - technologies up to max. ~TRL3-4 through a focused effort during 2014-2017. These will not be validated at TRL6 within Clean Sky. These technologies form good candidates for continuation in Clean Sky 2 in an ITD setting. The overall objectives for the 2014 – 2017 period for Clean Sky 2 consequently cover the following elements: - Build the membership of the JU with the 3 foreseen “waves” of Calls for Core Partners, including the first to be launched in July 2014; - Execute the Calls for Proposals in line with the Work Plan, with a target of approximately 150m€ funding to be committed over Calls in the 2014 – 2017 years of operation; - Execute the Research Agenda as defined in the Joint Technical Programme (a 10 year Roadmap for the Programme), as to be adopted in high –level form in the Clean Sky 2 Development Plan (CS2DP) and as defined and adopted in the Work plans for 2014 – 2015 and subsequent periods.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 16
Achievement of Objectives for 2014
At the overall Programme level, the progress made in 2014 can be said to have been modest in the field of executing the research agenda, but significant in setting up the mechanisms and enablers for the next stages of execution: - In 2014, over the period from July through October, all IADPs and ITDs achieved the agreement and crystallization of their initial 2014 – 2015 activity in the first Grant Agreements for Members (GAMs) - The first Call for Core Partners was launched on 9th July 2014, closing on 5th November, and the evaluation and selection of Members is on track for conclusion in 2015 within the time-to-grant period targeted - The first Call for Proposals was launched on 16th December 2014, thus demonstrating the JU was able to achieve continuity in its instruments geared towards enabling broad and deep participation across all research and innovation chain actors.
The progress made in establishing the Transverse Activities was modest, and acceleration is actively being pursued in the first half of 2015:
- For Small Air Transport (SAT), the Leaders’ participation in the relevant ITDs has been defined and described in the relevant GAMs. The first Calls were placed and the research agenda will commence from Q2 2015. Coordination from within the TA will then commence via the mechanism defined in the Statutes - For Eco-Design (ECO), the overall roadmap and the transversal coordination will be brought to a conclusion within the first half of 2015. - For the TE, the agreed CS1/CS2 Transition has led to a revised schedule with the Clean Sky 2 TE activity commencing in 2015 with a Leader-only GAM in the first half and the first selection of future participants via Calls in the second half of 2015.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 17
4. Risk management
4.1 General approach to risk management
As one major element of its Internal Control Framework, the JU assesses and manages with a dedicated process the potential risks, which may be detrimental for achieving its objectives. A Risk Register is maintained for the JU, providing information on the description of the risk, the risk type (financial, operational and reputational), the related business process and the required mitigating action.
The risk mitigating actions aim to contribute to the achievement of the following four categories of objectives: - Strategic (high-level goals, aligned with and supporting its mission) - Operations (effective and efficient use of its resources) - Reporting (reliability of reporting) - Compliance (compliance with applicable laws and regulations).
The risk assessments are performed on different management levels: - top-down assessment of the CSJU management team - bottom-up assessment of the entire CSJU team through regular process reviews - harmonised risk assessment on ITD level performed by the individual ITDs/IADPs/TAs and reported to the JU.
The following matrix shows the allocation of objectives to the levels of risk management in the JUs organisation:
Top-down Bottom-up assessment of ITDs/IADPs/TAs assessment of CSJU management risk assessment entire CSJU team team Strategic high-level goals X X Effective and efficient X X X operations Reliable reporting X X
Regularity compliance X X
Program related objectives are closely monitored through the risk management within the ITDs, for which the JU has identified its requirements in its Management Manual. ITDs’ risks, which can impact the objectives of the program, are consolidated in the CSJU Risk Register. For each Level 1 Work Package of the programme, a risk analysis is conducted by the Work Package Manager/Work area leader regarding the technical performance (achievement of the objectives) and the schedule. They are assessed in the annual reviews. Recommendations for improving this risk management at operational level have been made in most reviews (in particular to improve the consistency across ITDs/IADPs/TAs).
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 18
The JU’s Internal Audit Officer (IAO) and the Internal Audit Service of the Commission, have performed independent risk assessments in 2014, which resulted in the selection of audit topics for the coming year(s).
A summary of results from the IAO’s risk assessment is reported in the Internal Auditor's annual report, as mentioned in following subchapter 9.5.
The main risks for the JU relate to the operational objectives of the programmes and to some core management processes, which could have an impact on the implementation of the overall programme.
4.2 JU Level Risks
Critical risks:
Risk Description Action Plan Summary from Comments on mitigation of risk Work Plan 2014
The delays incurred for The criticality of the risk had not The BLADE demonstration developing the BLADE demo been foreseen at the time when the program is based on an A340 FTB, could result in missing the 2016 Work Plan was established. whose problems of availability has objective been discussed at length; the contribution of the different actors in the supply chain (both ITD associates and Partners) to the wing parts of the demonstrator is still being finalized. The project requires a constant attention to avoid more slippage. The JU is having periodic meetings with the ITD coordinators in order to monitor the remaining activities and the related budget impact.
The JU is actively following the updated roadmap for the BLADE Laminar Wing demonstrator with the aircraft industry and its full supply chain members (see also section 6.1 dealing with this issue).
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 19
Very important risks:
Risk Description Action Plan Summary from Comments on mitigation of risk Work Plan 2014-2015
The initial delay and slow ramp- Detailed roadmap secured. Having Being the Ground demonstrator up of Counter Rotating Open got the “go–no go” decision, the now confirmed end 2015, the Rotor (CROR) demo resulted in program needs implementation at preparatory phase for the flight missing the 2016 deadline in CS; engine manufacturer with constant testing has slowed down and shifted the feasible target remains the monitoring by the GB. to CS2. Ground test of the demonstrator The revised plan clearly shows the engine (SAGE2). flight tests being postponed to CS2, after 2016. A late availability of ITD aircraft Tightly monitor the work progress The updated interfacing and joint models for the Technology on this item through the Project program between the ITDs and TE Evaluator (lack of prioritization Officers and the GAMs. for the finalization of the models or lack of technical inputs) could Have preliminary models and the TE assessment was prevent the environmental implemented where needed. consolidated again in 2014, by benefits assessment to be aligning the related Grant efficiently performed. Agreements. Constant monitoring of the deliverables’ content and dates is in place, to minimize further delays in TE activities. Conflicts of priorities may Have an early warning capability In 2014, the status of critical happen within industrial through quarterly reports and alert activities related to demonstrators companies, or change of at Governing Board level. in all ITDs and members / strategy, resulting in a lack of Propose re-orientations when associates involved in critical tasks, resources available for Clean needed and possible. was reported to the GB (especially Sky and delays in the completion in March). of the activities. Further dedicated reviews are implemented on the most critical areas, as a specific action to mitigate the risk. The “share of the pie” logic Reinforce the role of steering In 2014, the JU managed the could result in a lack of focus on Committees and GB in monitoring transfer of some budget across the the major, critical activities. and solving issues. ITDs for complementary activities, Challenge the ITDs in order that with proper approval by the GB, they focus on optimising the global following an internal assessment output. and ranking of the proposals. This approach will be further enhanced for the two remaining years of CS, in order to guarantee the effective use of the available funding.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 20
Risk Description Action Plan Summary from Comments on mitigation of risk Work Plan 2014-2015
Topics failures in CS2 Core Implement the dedicated action In 2014 over a dozen preliminary Partners calls or CfPs could plan; improve the calls information meetings took place hamper the realisation of the dissemination, involve the SRG across the Member States with the demonstrators, or cause delays in better, anticipate focussed technical support of the SRG enabling a wide the execution of the planned presentations for “risky” topics. array of potential applicants to activities. understand the Call process and the Note: (due to the incipient phase of technical content of CS2. the CS2 programme this JU level With the launch of the first Call for risk has not been identified at the Core Partners in July 2014, time of establishing the Risk subsequent formal infodays and a Assessment of the Work Plan 2014) Q&A facility were implemented based on the experience gained in Clean Sky over the 16 CfPs. The preliminary analysis of this first call shows up to 32 new CS2JU Members and a 10% topic failure rate. Notwithstanding this positive outcome, the JU will take further measures to increase the participation in the future Calls, and in particular encourage more applicants and more competition. Technical setbacks in one or Re-balance the budget across ITDs As a result of the monitoring of the several ITDs may result in a and with Partners if necessary at JU, a revision of the budget significant under-spending of mid-year, according to the 2nd envelopes of individual ITDs was annual budget. quarterly reports. adopted by the GB in October 2014 to reflect the updated technical roadmap. New funding requests were accommodated as far as possible, some covering original scope while others covering new activities. There is a risk that IPR / Harmonize the dissemination plans Action is continued in 2014, confidentiality issues may result of ITDs implementing the use of the PUDF in vague information to the end- Monitor the dissemination actions for Dissemination purpose at ITD user/interested party and Have a global Clean Sky technical level, integrating it with the ITDs’ therefore compromise the JU conference in 2013 Dissemination Plans and registers reputation for disseminating the Define a template for the PUDF already in place. Further research information gathered (Plan for Use and Dissemination of harmonisation is in progress to be through the CS programme. Foreground) and PEF (Plan for implemented early 2015: it affects Exploitation of Foreground) for all the PUDF template, the ITDs organisation of the Annexes, the format of the publishable summaries for both GAMs and GAPs. All to be formalized in the next revision of the CSMM.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 21
Risk Description Action Plan Summary from Comments on mitigation of risk Work Plan 2014 -2015
There is a risk of insufficient Improve lobbying actions towards Continued actions have been taken communication from the JU and EU key players. during the year to improve the EP ITDs resulting in loss of interest Continue dissemination / lobbying awareness of CS through specific / support from industry and EU activities with Member States rep. meetings with MEPs. institutions in short-term and and national industrial associations. Clean Sky sends regular printed & long-term which could lead to digital publications on the results reduction/abandonment of and activities of the programmes, participation. with a focus on Calls. On the occasion of both ILA and Farnborough Airshows, the JU raised the awareness of industries, SMEs, universities and research centres about the CS programme’s technical achievements Continued understaffing could Get support from the Members The JU managed to secure 18 new result in a continuous backlog of according to the Statutes, and make posts for the permanent team. In grant agreements and resulting use of framework contracts to practice the new team will have a payments affecting both service providers. See chapter more effective impact on the activities progressing and budget Programme Office where the JU performance of the JU during 2015 execution of the JU both within will provide opportunity for new once they are integrated and acting the JU and in the ITDs. permanent support to the executive in the business processes of the JU. team In addition, it continued to use the services of Members where possible and that of one of the successful tenderers for external service providers. The above mentioned Same action as above. The JU ex-ante controls have been understaffing could result in Educate the members and apply the strengthened with the experience insufficient ex-ante control, recently defined procedure to make gained and as a result of lessons resulting in an error rate above sure that potential errors from learned; in addition, the JU defined the limit of 2% previous year are checked and further processes for the validation detected in cost claims. of GAP cost claims; the declining error rate detected in the ex-post audits of 2012 and 2013 indicate a positive trend of enhancing robustness of ex-ante controls; in addition the preliminary results for 2014 indicate that this trend is continuing. The lack of experience in Reinforce the information, mainly In 2014 the selected Projects from European Research Programmes through relevant Information Days Call 15 and those of Call 16, were from many Partners (SMEs) and Web conferences; reinforce the monitored by the POs to prevent could result in a difficult and late role and the awareness of Topic unjustified delay in finalization. closure process of their projects.2 Managers. From end 2014, the PSO are tasked on the monitoring of the GAPs, supporting the partners for any need, in particular for the reporting / closing phase.
2 Meanwhile this risk has been incorporated in the JU’s risk register and is reflected in the AIP 2014.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 22
Risk Description Action Plan Summary from Comments on mitigation of risk Work Plan 2014-2015
The potential introduction of Condition the CS2 funding by The JU defined some conditions for Clean Sky 2 in parallel to Clean SPD/TAs and by beneficiary to the the start date of eligibility of costs Sky could result in a scattering actual execution of CS budgets and for CS2 and further conditions of of beneficiaries’ resources and a technical progress performance for the release of delay in Clean Sky further payments to the new GAMs. demonstrator’s finalisation. This enhanced the strategic target to optimise the available annual funding. The potential introduction of Proceed as quickly as possible to 9 of the 13 staff allocated to the JU Clean Sky 2 in parallel to Clean the recruitment of the right level of were recruited by November 2014. Sky could result in an unbearable staff. Despite this, the start-up of the overload for the JU team, if not programme was successfully preceded by a staff increase as managed with the same staff level requested. as at the beginning of 2014.
4.3 Clean Sky Programme Level Risks
The ITDs manage the risks inside their projects via risk registers, using the methodology defined by the JU management although applying different formats; they discuss the evolution of the risks in the Steering Committees of the ITDs as a standard item. The overall responsibility for the risk management of each ITD lies with the ITD Co, who receives input from the ITD associates according to internally defined processes in the consortium.
Risks have been addressed at 2 levels: - associated to the CSDP and associated technologies and demonstrators - associated to the Annual work plans and associated to work packages and with a view to 4 categories of targets: - technical (WP, TRL & Environmental) - schedule - costs - input and resources planned and needed
The following list presents the significant risks at ITD level, whose evolution in 2014 has had an important effect on the ITD activities and achievement of objectives; in some cases the mitigation actions have not resulted in a significant reduction of risk, either due to a lack of an effective risk mitigation strategy or unexpected changes, which were detrimental for the actions taken.
ITD Risk Comments on mitigation
ECO LCA for aeronautical Verify and monitor the execution of the LCA activities in ECO, products in order to be consistent with the scope and the budget to completion of the ITD.
GRA Content and timing of Constant monitoring of the two major demonstrators (ATR 72 flight demonstrator FTB and Cockpit ground demo), with dedicated reviews where appropriate.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 23
ITD Risk Comments on mitigation
GRC Consistency of GRC Some underspending in a few important projects in GRC and projects the request for increased funding to complement some other activities to higher TRL levels, make it necessary to verify and discuss the allocation of budget to the ITD, as cost to completion. SAGE CROR See JU Level Risks
SFWA CROR/BLADE See JU Level Risks SGO Availability of electric Based on latest SGO Annual review, this flight test is being FTB revised across 215-2016. The JU will continue to monitor the planning of the A320 FTB in SGO, in order to be consistent with the scope and the budget to completion of the ITD. TE Availability of inputs from Although specified in the interfaces between ITDs and TE, ITDs to perform both in technical content (models’ characteristics) and in assessment timing, the inputs to TE keep delaying, with Impact on the planned issue of TE Assessment Studies. This has consequences on the deadlines also at JU level and on the JU visibility. Unchanged and covered by above Very Important Risk at JU level.
4.4 Clean Sky 2 Programme Level Risks
Area Risk Description Comments on mitigation (ITD/IADP/TA) (2014 actions / decisions in italics) All Conflicts within industrial Launch Reviews planned in 2015 for each Project. companies or a change of Have an early warning capability through quarterly strategy may result in a lack of reports and alert at Governing Board level. resources available for Clean Sky 2 and delays in the Propose re-orientations when needed and possible. completion of the activities. All Technical setbacks in one or Re-balancing of the budget across ITDs/IADPs and several ITDs may result in a with Partners. significant under-spending of Action if necessary as per ED and GB mandates annual budget. possible. This could be foreseen from mid-2015. All The potential introduction of Check resources and any critical dependencies in Clean Sky 2 in parallel to Clean Launch Reviews. Condition the CS2 funding by ITD Sky may result in a lack of and by beneficiary to the actual execution of CS beneficiaries’ resources and an budgets and technical progress. overload for the CS team This could be foreseen from mid-2015. All Core Partner call may be not 1st Call has resulted in Ranked lists for 26 of 29 answered or quality of topics. Higher level of participation needed in submissions results in non- future call waves. Lessons Learnt in this call to be selection applied in 2nd and 3rd “wave”: - Ensuring open and clear topics - RoM (Rough Order of Magnitude) funding values closely monitored All Planning for cost and effort for Each IADP / ITD to deploy an individual, tailored complex, large ground and risk management and to completion plan. To be flight demonstrators (10 year monitored closely towards GAM renewal (2015 – programme) may lack accuracy 2017 period)
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 24
Area Risk Description Comments on mitigation (ITD/IADP/TA) (2014 actions / decisions in italics) IADPs and ITDs Negotiation processes with Ensure appropriate guidance to Winners and Core Partners may be lengthy, Leaders; have a close follow-up of all negotiations leading to delayed start of and early warning / escalating process for solving technical activities issues. Nego phase to be led by JU (GB Decision) IADPs and ITDs Efforts for interfaces and Have clear descriptions of work in Call texts for cooperation of partners for such activities directly related to flight worthy flight worthy hardware and hardware, including requested skills and agreements. complex flight demonstrators Deploy an individual, tailored risk management for may be initially underestimated interfaces of members and partners for large demonstrator activities Prepare more conservative back-up solutions in advance to mitigate the risk Monitor in 2016 – 2017 phase. IADPs Competences and resource to Clearly identify the required competences and successfully enable complex resources and closely monitor thru PDR/CDR and flight testing may be milestone management. Enforce consistent and insufficient robust risk management; implement early-warning system to avoid late discovery of critical path related risks. Check relevance of cost and schedule with respect to airworthiness issues at Launch Reviews (and further reviews). Monitor in 2015 – 2017 phase. All The lack of guidelines for Strategic priorities agreed in 2014 with GB. Follow inclusion of some Level 2 up on one former L2 envisaged in 2015 [MINAEE] projects may lead to an unclear as per GB discussion; decisions on any inclusion of perspective and lack of content via GB agenda and subject to requisite commitment of Members budget agreement and technical evaluation
All Costs may be overrun, and Manage priorities: abandon non crucial technology some participants may be development and integrate only the crucial ones in unable to carry on until the demonstration. completion. Consider the implementation of a contingency margin. Monitor in 2015 – 2017 phase.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 25
5. GOVERNANCE
The Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking governance is composed of three bodies: the Governing Board, the Executive Director and the Steering Committees. It is also supported by two advisory groups: the Scientific Committee and the States Representatives Group.
5.1 Governing Board
In 2014 the Governing Board was composed of 22 members: the Commission, with 50% of the voting rights, the 16 founding members of Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking and one Associate member for each of the 6 ITDs in Clean Sky Programme, representing itself and the other Associates in the same ITD. These Associates in 2014 were: Israel Aerospace Industry, Hellenic Aerospace, CIRA, Airbus Defence and Space GmbH, RUAG and MTU3.
In the meeting of 20th March 2014, the Governing Board elected Ric Parker (Rolls Royce) as the Chairperson and Bruno Stoufflet (Dassault Aviation) as Deputy Chairperson of the Governing Board. They were re-elected on the 24 October 2014 according to the provisions of the new Council Regulation4 for a period of 2 years, renewable once.
The CSJU Governing Board had 6 meetings during 2014, on: 20 March 2014 21 May 2014 3 July 2014 17 July 2014 24 October 2014 19 December 2014
During 2014 the Governing Board has adopted, approved or endorsed the following key documents in its meetings:
20th March 2014
Strategic Audit Plan 2014 of the Internal Audit Officer; Decision of the GB on the adoption by analogy of the implementing rules of the amended EU Staff Regulations.
3rd July 2014
Governing Board Rules of Procedure; Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking Financial Rules; Work Plan 2014-2015; Annual Budget 2014-2015; CS2 Additional Activities Plan;
3 MTU is also a founding leader. 4 Council Regulation (EU) No 558/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 26
Organisational Structure of CSJU; Rules for submission, evaluation, selection, award and review procedures of Calls for Core Partners; CS2 Model Grant Agreement.
17th July 2014
Call 16 outcome; Annual Accounts 2013; Clean Sky Funding Agreement revision (adopted only by the private members).
24th October 2014
Complementary funding – Budget revision nr. 3 and Proposal of the Executive Director regarding Complementary Funding of activities in Clean Sky Programme; Consortium Agreement Model; Decision of the GB on the approval of the selected members of the Scientific Committee of Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking; Decision of the GB on the adoption by analogy of the implementing rules on appraisal and reclassification of the contractual agents.
19th December 2014
GAM and GAP Models (for mono and multi-beneficiary); Clean Sky Programme Development Plan; Communication Strategy 2015-2018’ Decision of the GB regarding AIPN Delegation.
It can be noted that most of the decisions have been adopted unanimously or very close to unanimity, showing a smooth and efficient decision-making process. Each Governing Board is prepared by a "Sherpa Group" meeting, chaired by the JU. The GB acted according to its adopted Rules of Procedures.
The following 12 written procedures were successfully adopted: 2014 - 01 Call 15 outcome 2014 - 02 Provisional Accounts and Budgetary Implementation Report 2013 2014 - 03 Budget Amendment nr. 1 of 2014 2014 - 04 Decision on the validation of the in-kind contribution provided by the non-EC members of the CSJU through the execution of the Grant Agreements 2008-2013 2014 - 05 Decision on the adoption of the Final Accounts and the Budgetary Implementation Report 2013 of the CSJU 2014 - 06 Governing Board Assessment of the Annual Activity Report 2013 2014 - 07 Amendment nr. 1 to the Work Plan 2014-2015 2014 - 08 Annual Budget 2014-2015 Amendment nr. 1 and Establishment Plan 2014 - 09 CS2 List of Additional Activities planned in 2014-2015 by the Private Members of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking 2014 - 011 CS2 Rules of submission, evaluation, selection, award and review procedures of Calls for Proposals
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 27
2014 - 012 Funding Agreement between the Clean Sky 2 JU and its members other than the European Union on the financial participation to the administrative costs of the Clean Sky 2 Programme under Council Regulation (EC) No. 558/2014 2014 - 013 Decision on the validation of the in-kind contribution provided by non-EC members to the Clean Sky 2 JU through the execution of the Grant Agreements 2008- 2013
5.2 Executive Director
The Executive Director is the legal representative and the chief executive for the day-to-day management of the CSJU in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Board in line with Article 10 of the CS Statutes.
The Executive Director is supported by three managers: the Coordinating Project Officer, the Clean Sky 2 Programme Manager and the Head of Administration and Finance. One Project Officer per SPD allows the JU to play its coordination role.
The JU’s management acts on the basis of its quality system documents, which are listed in the JU’s Quality Manual. Interactions with the SPDs are mainly governed by the Management Manual.
5.3 Steering Committees
Each Integrated Technology Demonstrator (ITD) and each Innovative Aircraft Demonstration Platforms (IADP) is in charge of specific technology lines within the CS and CS2 programmes is governed by a Steering Committee, as described in article 11 of the Statutes. The Steering Committees are responsible for technical decisions taken within each ITD/IADP and in the TE and have met regularly in the course of 2014. The relevant Project Officer, supported when needed by the Coordinating Project Officer or the Executive Director, attends these meetings. The Executive Director in particular chairs the TE Steering Committee meetings.
5.4 Scientific and Technical Advisory Board/ Scientific Committee
The Scientific and Technological Advisory Board (STAB) is a body of 10 high-level scientists and engineers, all independent from CSJU stakeholders. Its purpose is to focus on the scientific and technical analysis of Clean Sky from different perspectives: besides environmental impact; technology and scientific forecast; societal aspects; economics. Chaired by David Ewins, Professor at the Bristol University and the Imperial College, it met four times in 2014: last meeting took place in July to collect and consolidate all remarks from the Annual reviews on the ITDs, and to close the activities of this committee, to be replaced by the Scientific Committee in H2020 / CS2.
The STAB provided recommendations on the necessity to focus on the mainstream of large demonstrators, on the schedule management, the strengthening of the system-level vision and the management of resources in the leading companies. Two STAB members, on average, participated in each ITD annual review, according to their expertise area, mostly
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 28
with the same distribution as in 2013, for continuity purposes, while some rotation is also organized for interfacing and cross-views. The main recommendations and general views on the technical progress issued by the STAB were forwarded by the Executive Director to the Governing Board in October 2011 for the first time; and in each year at the GB just after summer, when all ITD Annual Reviews have been performed.
As in 2013, also in 2014 the so-called “ITD interim progress reviews” involving the reviewers, the JU Project Officer, Coordinating Project Officer and Executive Director, the coordinators and when necessary the work package leaders, were held about six months after the annual review, in order to check the implementation of the recommendations and to update the reviewers on the technical progress. These interim reviews confirmed their usefulness demonstrating a satisfactory situation in most work packages, or sub-projects.
Besides this, dedicated reviews were organized when deemed necessary by the Executive Director: examples of this were specific reviews of the TE activities and the way to disseminate the TE outcomes.
The Scientific Committee (CSSC), replacing the former STAB according to the CS2 Regulation, Article 13 of the Statutes, was established in October 2014 following a call for expression of interest. The selection of the members of the CSSC aimed at a balanced representation of worldwide recognised experts from academia, industry and regulatory bodies. The first meeting of the CSSC took place in January 2015 .
5.5 States Representatives Group
The States Representative Group (SRG) is an advisory body to the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking. Article 14 of the Council regulation5 outlines that it will be consulted and, in particular review information and provide opinions on the progress made in the programme of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking and towards achievement of its targets; updates of strategic orientation; links to Horizon 2020; work plans; involvement of SMEs, monitoring of the Calls for Proposals. It shall also provide information to, and act as an interface with, the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking on the status of relevant national or regional research and innovation programmes and identification of potential areas of cooperation, including deployment of aeronautical technologies; specific measures taken at national or regional level with regard to dissemination events, dedicated technical workshops and communication activities.
It consists of one representative of each EU Member State and of each other country associated to Horizon 2020 Programme. It is chaired by one of these representatives. To ensure that the activities are integrated, the Executive Director and the Chairperson of the Governing Board or his representative attend the SRG meetings and the Chair of the SRG attends as an observer at the Governing Board.
During 2014 the SRG met four times and was represented at the Governing Board meetings. The SRG continued to have a proactive and supportive role particularly in its relations with the European Council.
5 Council Regulation (EU) No 558/2014 of 6 May 2014 establishing the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 29
The Group has been consulted during 2014 according to the new Regulation provisions with regard to the adoption of the Work Plan. The SRG has taken an active interest in the rules and conditions to be used for the selection of Core Partners and Partners through the Calls for Proposals and in order to ensure and demonstrate transparency and accountability. The SRG has received and discussed the reports of the independent observers.
The SRG has also been interested in monitoring the development of the different ITDs and the maturing of the Technology Evaluator. The States representatives have continued their supportive view on the continuation of the JTI instrument under H2020.
Following the study carried out in previous years on the role and activities of the SRG, the specific actions identified were actively pursued. These related to:
Representation from all relevant states and their attendance at meetings. Coordination with national programs. Information dissemination and Info days Review of the Work Plan and opinion provided to the Governing Board Participation to major Clean Sky events. Involvement of SRG members in Communication activities of JU; participation of the JU Communication Officer to some meetings in order to define the communication strategy.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 30
6. RESEARCH ACTIVITIES
6.1 Clean Sky Programme - reminder of research objectives
Clean Sky Programme supports research activities carried out by members other than the Union and by partners selected following open and competitive Calls for Proposals, independent evaluations and negotiations leading to the conclusion of grant agreements with partners.
CSJU aims to create a radically innovative Air Transport System based on the integration of advanced technologies and full scale demonstrators, with the target of reducing the environmental impact of air transport through reduction of noise and gaseous emissions, and improvement of the fuel economy of aircraft. The activity covers all main flying segments of the Air Transport System and the associated underlying technologies identified in the Strategic Research Agenda for Aeronautics developed by the Aeronautics Technology Platform ACARE.
Clean Sky Programme is built upon 6 different technical areas called Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs), where preliminary studies and down-selection of work will be performed, followed by large-scale demonstrations on ground or in-flight, in order to bring innovative technologies to a maturity level where they can be applicable to new generation “green aircraft”. Multiple links for coherence and data exchange will be ensured between the various ITDs. The ITDs are: The Small Fixed Wing Aircraft ITD (SFWA), focused on active wing technologies that sense the airflow and adapt their shape as required, as well as on new aircraft configurations to optimally incorporate these novel wing concepts. The Green Regional Aircraft ITD (GRA), focused on low-weight configurations and technologies using smart structures, low-noise configurations and the integration of technology developed in other ITDs, such as engines, energy management and mission and trajectory management. The Green Rotorcraft ITD (GRC), focused on innovative rotor blades and engine installation for noise reduction, lower airframe drag, diesel engine and electrical systems for fuel consumption reduction and environmentally friendly flight paths. The Sustainable and Green Engine ITD (SAGE) integrates technologies for low noise and lightweight low pressure systems, high efficiency, low NOx and low weight core, novel configurations such as open rotors or intercoolers. The Systems for Green Operations ITD (SGO) focuses on all-electric aircraft equipment and systems architectures, thermal management, capabilities for “green” trajectories and mission and improved ground operations. The Eco-Design ITD (ED) addresses the full life cycle of materials and components, focusing on issues such as optimal use of raw materials, decreasing the use of non- renewable materials, natural resources, energy, and the emission of noxious effluents and recycling.
A Technology Evaluator will be the first available European complete integrated tool delivering direct relationship between advanced technologies, still under development, and
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 31
high-level local or global environment impact. It considers inputs from both inside and outside the “Clean Sky” perimeter to deliver environmental metrics and the levels of aircraft, airport and aircraft fleet level.
As aircraft fuel economy is also influenced by a flight trajectory management strategy, CSJU has established links with the SESAR Joint Undertaking which investigates Air Traffic Management (ATM) technologies in line with the "Single European Sky" initiative of the European Commission. These links are established via the Technology Evaluator, as well as via the SGO ITD that develops the avionics equipment interfacing with ATM, and via management meetings involving the relevant staff members of the two JUs (i.e. for Clean Sky, the SGO Project Officer, up to the two Executive Directors).
In the following subchapters, the detailed description of activities and achievements by ITD and TE is provided, with indications and explanations of significant deviations compared with initial planning, where applicable.
6.1.1 General information
In 2014 the Coordinating Project Officer (CPO) continued with the monitoring of the activities at overall ITD level. The ITD Coordination meetings were maintained, about every quarter; the dates in 2014 were: 24 February; 27 May; 17 September and 13 November. The standard agenda included the status of GAMs and GAPs, the evolution of budget, the preparation and feed-back from the GB meetings (specifically the Progress status presentations based on the ITD inputs, checked by POs and integrated by the CPO); the dissemination aspects, including discussion about IPR issues; the role and contributions from ITDs in the Communication events (in 2014 it was the Farnborough Air Show and the ILA Berlin). In all GB meetings the CPO delivered a Progress status of technical progress of activities in all ITDs, as a support to the ED for the overall assessment of the CS programme. In 2014 the JU attended together with the Project Officers all the ITD Annual reviews: . TE, on 25-26 March in Karlsruhe; . ECO, on 2-3 April 2014 in Potsdam hosted by Fraunhofer . SFWA, from 9 to 11 April 2014, in Bilbao (hosted by Aernnova) . GRC, on 5-7 May in Donauworth hosted by Airbus Helicopters . SGO, on 3-5 June 2014, in Toulouse, hosted by Thales; . GRA, on 11-13 June 2014, in Capua at CIRA and in Pomigliano at Alenia. . SAGE, on 24-27 June 2014, again in Bilbao, but hosted by ITP.
During the year other dedicated technical reviews were conducted on critical items; one of the most important, across CS and CS2, was the Icing review in July, where all projects related to Icing both in CS and planned in CS2 were discussed and commented by a panel of external reviewers.
At a different level, without external experts, a significant workshop was held on LCA (Life Cycle Assessment) in October.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 32
At the end of the year, a revision of the CSDP was prepared and finalized for approval of the GB at its last meeting in 2014.
The JU staff, in particular the CPO, also attended several events delivering presentations about Clean Sky, thus contributing to the dissemination of results.
. In January at the important TRB (Transport Research Bard) Annual Meeting in Washington, a presentation on Clean Sky Green Rotorcraft project was delivered to a special panel of Rotorcraft sector coordinated by FAA. A separated meeting with FAA too place during the same period. . On the 1th April, a CS Info Day was held in Rome at CNR, and as part of the global program a presentation entitled General Overview of the Clean Sky 2 Preparations was delivered, besides the interaction with all participants about the CS2 starting phase. . On 21-24 July, at the RAeS Advanced Aero Concepts, Design and Operations in Bristol, Lead Paper entitled: Clean Sky Projects on Aircraft Design and Flight Physics. . On 6-7 October, at AirDays (Aviation Industry and Research 2014) in Lisbon, a presentation entitled Clean Sky in H2020, followed by debate with public. . On 27-29 October, at the EASN Workshop on Flight Physics and aircraft Design in Aachen (at RWTH), final paper: Main activities in Flight Physics & Aircraft Design in Clean Sky. . In Glasgow on 2-4 November , at the Greener Aeronautics Symposium, a presentation entitled: Clean Sky achievements in Green Aviation technologies. . Clean Sky presentation at Dinner debate of the MIC 2014 (Machining Innovation Network) annual event, New production technologies in Aerospace industry, on 19- 20 November in Hannover. . On 3-5 December, at IAQC More Electric Aircraft conference in Hamburg, a presentation in the plenary entitled: Clean Sky Projects on the More Electric Aircraft. . And as last public contribution, on 17-18 December at the Aviation Safety Research & Innovation: time to take-off [OPTICS conference] in Brussels, the presentation: Towards a Clean and Safe Sky.
A special workshop with EASA was organized in October, with all ITDs representatives, to discuss the new policy of EASA on research, and their potential involvement in Clean Sky activities. A follow-up of the workshop is monitored at each ITD Coordinators meeting.
The same for SESAR JU; where after a joint meeting at Directors level on 12 November, the launch of dedicated working groups on environmental assessment and on ATM / Avionic development is planned from early 2015.
At the end of 2014, with the appointment as Chief technical Officer of both programmes, the CPO has complemented the analysis of the CS/CS2 integration and transition, with more attention to the specific content of the CS2 programme, as an advice to both the Programme Manager of CS2 and to the Executive Director.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 33
6.1.2 SFWA - Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft ITD
The majority of work in 2014 was dedicated to prepare and to conduct large ground and flight test demonstrations along the main technology streams, namely the natural laminar flow wing, the smart flap for low speed applications, low speed vibration flight demonstration, the business jet innovative after body demonstrator, as well as simulator tests and, yet to be selected, flight tests for active load control for large passenger aircraft and vibration control for business jets. Further activities were dedicated to complete the preparation and conduct of wind tunnel tests related to the use of active flow control on high lift surfaces, control of buffet on wing surfaces, a specific test relevant for hybrid laminar flow control and the loads control using a gust simulator. Development and Integration of SFWA-ITD technologies The development, integration and large scale ground and flight testing of the SFWA-ITD technologies are based upon a maturation of the underlying technologies. In 2014, the majority of technologies have been advanced at technology readiness levels of TRL4. In other words, widely started in 2013, the majority of activities will focus on the integration and ground testing of principle technologies. In parallel to ground and wind tunnel testing, the assessment of the SFWA was performed and a defined set of aircraft concepts was conducted. A generic short range aircraft model and two different types of business jets models provide this virtual environment. The assessment of the technologies developed in SFWA and in the related Integrated Technology Demonstrators will be supported in the Clean Sky Technology Evaluator. Based on the recent technical progress in SFWA, SAGE and to a smaller extend in SGO, the modules for future short and long range large passenger aircraft and next generation business jets were prepared for delivery to the CleanSky Technology Evaluator during the year. A strong focus of the activities in the year was laid on technology integration, respectively the test of technologies integrated to a realistic, scaled environment in ground and wind tunnel tests as explained in the following paragraphs.
Wind tunnel tests and ground demonstrators Eight research and industry-type wind tunnel tests have been performed in 2014. Most of the models required for these tests have been designed and manufactured in the SFWA-ITD in the years, 2012 and 2013. One major ground based demonstrator has been completed in 2014, three more are in preparation for manufacturing and assembly in 2015 and 2016 BLADE flight test on stall behaviour and WTT for low speed test for flight clearance In the second quarter of 2014, a flight test campaign with the Airbus A340-300 test aircraft was conducted to acquire exact data about the stall behaviour of the aircraft with wings in slat less condition to determine and plan the boundaries of the test matrix of the campaign with the NLF wings. During the same campaign different key elements of the flight test instrumentation for the NLF wing flight tests were tested. In another test campaign the ground effect on the wing was explored for the final phase of the approach respectively the flare in slat-less configuration at high angles of attack.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 34
A major wind tunnel test in the DNW-LLF, in the frame of a Call for Proposal topic, has been conducted to validate the low speed behaviour of the BLADE-modified Airbus A340- 300 test aircraft in January 2014. The test was in particular addressing the flow separation behaviour at the outer wing at large angles of attack in combination with aileron deflections. Numerical simulations indicate a premature start of flow separation at angle of attacks well below the datum wing, leading to significant constraints in the approach speed, the required runway lengths and the low speed handling quality of the modified aircraft. Further subjects of the wind tunnel campaign are the stall behaviour of the slat-less wing at mid-board. The test campaign included almost three weeks of tests producing very important results which need to be finalized and confirmed, also addressing potential improvements in the flow separation at the outer wing by vortilons, confirmation of the mid-board wing flow separation at higher angles of attack in slat-less configuration, and the critical reduction of the effectiveness of the fin by the camera pod on the fuselage at low speed. The detailed analysis of the data was completed in summer 2014. The effectiveness of the vertical tail plane respectively the lateral control under the aerodynamic influence of the large camera pod on the fuselage of the test aircraft were tested already in autumn 2013 in the Airbus wind tunnel in Filton. Business Jet large scale after-body wind tunnel tests A second large wind tunnel test campaign is dedicated to the innovative after body / integration of advanced turbofan engines of business jets for which the design has been completed end of May 2013. After completion of the manufacturing and testing of the Turbine Powered engine Simulators (TPS), the 1/5 scale model was prepared for two major DNW-LLF campaigns of which the first one was successfully conducted in December. This first campaign was addressing the aerodynamic behaviour of the rear fuselage. The second campaign in Spring 2015 will address the noise emission respectively shielding effect of the configuration at take-off and landing. Both tests are being done with a close link to associated Call for Proposal topics.
Wind Tunnel Test to validate the mechanism of HLFC attachment line instability At the end of 2014, a low speed wind tunnel test in the ONERA F2 tunnel was prepared related to the Hybrid Laminar Flow Control (HLFC) technology with particular emphasis on the attachment line contamination. The test, which is in preparation since 2012 and was finally conducted in the early days of January 2015 features a suction panel at the leading edge of HLFC wing profile of ~2m span. The panel is designed and manufactured in cooperation with a Call for Proposal partner. CROR engine integration wind tunnel tests Based on the large number of wind tunnel test campaigns with models at different size at low and high speed, with different blade geometries, isolated engines and engines integrated to a typical and unconventional single aisle transport aircraft configuration all done in 2013 which led to the conclusion that such a propulsion system is technically feasible with no remaining potential showstopper, activities in 2014 were focussed to ensure the economic viability of a CROR powered large passenger aircraft. The number of possible engine integration options lead to a number of opportunities to increase the economic value for example by improving the design of the pylon, the part of the fuselage and empennage affected by the engine integration, the related system integration. Design drivers are primarily weight, complexity of structures and systems with respect of cost and effort and
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 35
production, maintenance and repair and to identify the solutions to meet the certification requirements. Based on the accomplishments and results achieved in 2014, two Wind tunnel tests are planned to be conducted in 2015 with Call for proposal partners. One wind tunnel test has been accomplished in 2014 with a Call for proposal partner to acquire reference data for the refraction of acoustic energy in the boundary layer adjacent to the fuselage. In reflection of the further CROR development roadmap, which is exceeding the end of CleanSky, all activities related to the preparation of a flight test demonstration of a demonstrator engine are being transferred into CleanSky 2 Large Passenger Aircraft IADP from 2015 onwards. NLF wing ground based demonstrator In parallel to the BLADE flight test, the “Phase 4” Smart laminar wing ground based demonstrator” (GBD) has been manufactured and assembled closely to completion as complex large scale test item for tests until the end of 2014. This demonstrator is featuring a full scale laminar wing leading edge section including a moveable Krueger high lift device and an anti-icing system integrated with an advanced NLF wing structural concept as part of the development of a NLF wing for large passenger aircraft with all critical systems of the leading edge. The NLF- wing structure of approximately 4 meter span including the leading edge downstream to the main spar was manufactured and assembled in Filton and Coventry with major work shares of Call for proposal partners until September. Following a catalogue of tests related to surface quality and structural integrity the rig was partially disassembled and shipped to Airbus in Bremen for the integration of the Krueger flaps and Krueger kinematics and drive system also including the electro thermal Krueger anti-icing. Note that at this stage the structural ground based demonstrator designed and build in SFWA is going to be connected and continued with the NLF wing high lift development done in the German national co-funded LUFO project, and further research and development work in the UK funded program ATI to establish and maintain high quality surfaces for the structural concept chosen for this GBD.
Integrated Active Flow Control Demonstrator (IACD) Based on the development of a highly integrated piezo actuated active flow control system optimized towards low weight and complexity an Integrated Active Flow Control Demonstrator on a generic trailing edge flap was assembled and tested in the low speed wind tunnel of the Technical University of Delft at the end of 2014. The technical concept, the geometrical layout and flow parameters of the item of approximately 2 meters span was built upon the basis of other numerical and experimental work done in SFWA with Call for Proposal Partners. The analysis of the test will be done in the first quarter of 2015.
Simulator and Wind tunnel tests for Loads Control Control In 2014 research activities related to loads control were performed to mature passive and active loads control concepts and to manage and reduce loads due to vibrations of the primary airframe structure. Activities related to loads monitoring were completed by the end of 2013.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 36
Two wind tunnel tests were successfully conducted in the ONERA test facility on the subject of active load control with a novel open loop/closed loop gust generator partly developed in an SFWA Call for Proposal project. The first test entry was done in open loop mode to acquire data of the model behaviour for gust disturbance and control surface efficiency and the second one, done closed loop in November 2014, lead to the validation of real time capabilities of the demonstrator and the determination of the available test condition for further tests. Wind tunnel tests for Research on Buffet Control In 2014, SFWA activities on research and development on buffet control were performed in three different areas: The characterization of buffet behaviour on laminar compared to turbulent airfoils, concepts and means of passive buffet control for laminar and turbulent wings and means of active buffet control for transonic turbulent wings. A wind tunnel test was conducted on the latter subject at INCAS in Bucharest on a representative 3 dimensional turbulent wing in Spring 2014. Two wind tunnel tests are currently in preparation to be conducted in early spring 2015, one to validate numerical simulations for concepts of active and passive buffet control, a second one to characterize a specific passive buffet control concept on a “Low Speed Business Jet” laminar wing for business jets a the European Trans-Sonic Wind tunnel (ETW). Innovative Business Jet Empennage and Smart Flap Demonstrator The full scale structural demonstrator design for an innovative business jet empennage was completed close to the critical design review by the end of 2014, the manufacturing of the structure is planned to start in the first quarter 2015. After having solved some issues with the kinematic and interface loads, the smart flap demonstrator for the Dassault Falcon F7X is in preparation for high speed tests in 2015 in the ONERA S1 WTT facility. The smart flap concept will be integrated to a High Speed Business Jet configuration. Preparation of the BLADE NLF-wing flight tests demonstrator The preparation of the Airbus A340-300 BLADE test aircraft was the largest activity in SFWA in 2014, accounting for more than half of activities and expenditures in this period of the project. High level key objectives for BLADE in 2014 were to accomplish o “Maturity for manufacturing” for all major wing components accomplished o Preliminary design of the Vertical Tail plane Camera and Observation Pod components completed o Start of manufacturing for all main parts respectively components Aernnova o Wing box assembly start by Aernnova
With “Maturity to manufacturing“ (MAT-C) being virtually the point of “no return” where the decision is taken to start the manufacturing of the parts based on an all aligned detailed design of all components of new and retained structures and systems, the MAT C process in BLADE stretched over a period of more than 6 months with a closure of the so called Design for Manufacturing phase at the end of September 2014. The manufacturing of tools and the first parts started in parallel in the second quarter 2014. The manufacturing of a significant batch of close to three thousand metallic parts for the fixed trailing edge, aero-
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 37
fairing, wing tip pod, diffusion zone and plastron started in November 2014 with schedule to complete the work until summer 2015. The production of the most challenging parts, the large laminar wing upper covers for the port-board respectively starboard wing side at SAAB and GKN started in October 2014. With the change of the camera pod from the on-top-of fuselage position to a location integrated to the top of the existing aircraft vertical tail plane (VTP) a substantial amount of effort was dedicated to design the structural components and all required modifications of the aircraft systems. The detailed design of the associated parts and components started in autumn 2014, manufacturing of the parts is expected to start in mid of 2015. The planning of all modifications of the datum systems to host and connect to the laminar wings, the remarkable amount of flight test instrumentation, and the issuing of related documentation is almost completed at the end of 2014. The decision was taken that the integration of the BLADE flight test instrumentation requires a complete clean up and updating of the FTI infrastructure on board of the test aircraft, the Airbus A340-300 MSN001 test aircraft, which will take place until late summer in 2015. The physical preparation of the Hangar to assemble the test aircraft with the laminar wings and other required equipment started in April 2014 and proceed close to hand over until the end of 2014, expected to be handed over in January 2015 as planned, supporting the transfer flight of the test aircraft scheduled for February 2015. In summary, the key focus of all activities in 2014 was to secure the start of the flight test activities in the year 2016. The work plan, which was updated at the end of year 2013 could be kept closely for 2014. In order to ease and ensure ‘permit to flight’ activities some of the respective design work a shift of some design to Airbus has taken place in 2014 compared to the previous plan. To improve some issues and to converge in the integrated design, detailed structural design, and geometry and interface loads the work share of Airbus was increased. This was especially true for the fuselage pod and fixed trailing edge activities. As risk mitigation means the shift of the camera pod into the VTP (vertical tail plane) was investigated in order to ensure aircraft stability and ease fulfilment of load and strength requirements; to reduce parts manufacturing was aimed for as well. Visualisation of laminar flow in a similar way and at equivalent quality as with the on-fuselage camera pod was a key objective of the investigation. The final decision to switch to the VTP solution was done in early 2014. Dedicated management process with quarterly review meetings was successfully applied in order to handle the activities of such a complex project with more than 20 partners with completely different background. Work shares of partners assigned to SFWA through CleanSky “Call for Proposals” (CfP) Knowhow and support from external partners is important for reaching the envisaged technology readiness levels in SFWA-ITD. At the end of 2014, 48 out of 100 were technically closed, 43 Call for Proposal projects are still running. In the latest and last Call 16, partners for 9 topics were selected through the evaluation process which was completed in June 2014. The scope of activities cover the development and integration of special measurement equipment into the test aircraft, design and manufacturing activities of the BLADE laminar wing articles, and, in some diversity, R&T support to assemble, prepare
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 38
and qualify the BLADE test aircraft before and during the flight test campaign. Provisions are underway to enable Call for Proposal partners with CROR related activities to continue their work in SFWA-ITD, regardless of the fact that some SFWA-ITD members may relocate their activities on CROR full scale testing into CleanSky 2. All external partners joining via Call for Proposal actions will have to start their work package in 2014 and complete the work in 2015 or 2016, respectively. Major achievements and deliverables accomplished in 2014
Preparation of the Laminar wing BLADE Airbus A340-300 working party completed (Hangar handover January 2015) Manufacturing of BLADE port side and starboard side NLF wing upper cover and leading edges started All major BLADE NLF wing components (with exception of Observation Pod in VTP, which started later) passed status “ready for manufacturing” in autumn 2014 NLF wing ground based “Leading edge system demonstrator” completed, test ongoing 3rd generation CROR blade design developed based on analysis of aero acoustic, aerodynamic and performance data performed in former wind tunnel test campaigns In-flight CROR blade deformation and CROR pylon effort measurement system definition completed In-flight PIV diagnostic concept for CROR demo-engine flight test defined; integration concept for test aircraft available Reference data on noise refraction in fuselage boundary layer accomplished Smart Flap Low Speed Business-Jet (LSBJ) wind tunnel test complete and analysed Preparation of Innovative Business Jet “Smart Flap” Critical Design Review passed Preparation of Innovative Business Jet after body wind tunnel flutter test completed Simulator tests for active load control functions large transport aircraft launched Simulator tests for vibration control tests for business jets launched Gust Generator for dynamic wind tunnel test for load control developed and tested Integrated Flow Control Demonstrator with piezo-actuator trailing edge flap assembled and tested in wind tunnel Concepts for active and passive buffet control for transonic turbulent and laminar wings matured
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 39
6.1.3 GRA – Green Regional Aircraft ITD
Year 2014 saw the finalisation of sizing of the GRA Flight and Ground integrated technology Demonstrators, supported by significant range of laboratory tests, devoted to Permit-to-Fly issuance by EASA too.
The original Programme Master Phasing Plan has been fulfilled in terms of research targets, mostly at TRLs 4 and TRL 5 as monitored and controlled through the “technology watch” plan, and furthermore implementing all Panel recommendations.
GRA ITD performance has been improved towards the ACARE targets: GRA Aircraft Simulation Model both for Reference (Year 2000 Technology) & Green (Year 2020 Technology) 90 pax and 130 pax A/C, based on 3rd activities loop, were delivered to TE
The development of green FMS (third and final release, including all green functions) was finalized and related integration tests were performed on GRA Flight Simulator (ATR-72 600 A/C configuration).
Ground Demonstration policy was implemented by phasing CS-to-CS2 transition by Demonstrators (timeframe 2014-2017), ensuring optimal use of the funding available for research too: both GRA and R-IADP started to be managed through an unique Integrated Risk Management Plan (RMP) since the former follows on from and partly builds up on the results obtained by the latter, allowing and contributing to the finalisation of research activities initiated under Regulation (EC) No 71/2008. For all timeframe 2014-2017, whereas the two Programmes are going to be implemented in parallel, CS-to-CS2 cross- fertilization will be realised through many of GRA Demonstrators to be utilised for selected technologies continued development, as proof of Programmes continuity. GRA Relevant Project Leaders, as relevant CS2 Waves Coordinators, will realise the transition (for use only) of Demonstrators per selected technologies.
To improve the effectiveness of Programme strategies, GRA adapted their own policy to the changing market requirements and requested an extra budget in order to finalize by 2015 the Cockpit Demonstrator, controlled by Airbus-DS, and the Environmental Control System equipment for flight testing, provided by Liebherr. Referring to GAM 2014-2016 value (Requests for Changes included) , in total, GRA’s utilization of resources in 2014 was around 97% of planned value vs about 67% progress in deliverables. The reason is a discrepancy between actual expenses for producing hardware and intermediate test results, reflecting real needs and risk mitigation against pre- programmed value of work and formal process of deliverables approval.
Six Projects (last six out eighty-three total) started, and first GRA Ground Demonstrator through CfP’s (“ALLEGRA”) delivered and successfully tested: full-scale Low Noise Nose Landing Gear demonstrating TRL 5.
Ninety-four Dissemination events were registered throughout the year: GRA-ITD Dissemination Plan for Use and Dissemination of Foreground (PUDF) and GRA-ITD Plan for Use and Exploitation of Foreground (PUEF) were implemented too.
0. Management
Milestone status: No significant milestones have been planned for year 2014. Deliverables status:
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 40
Nr of deliverables due in 2014: 8 Nr of deliverables issued due at the end of 2014: 6 Nr of deliverables pending by the end of 2014: 2
1. Low Weight Configuration (LWC)
In 2014, further fatigue, acoustic lightning and buckling tests on large panels for second down selection have been carried out. About the In-flight demonstrator, drawings of components, subcomponents and elements for experimental activities needed for Permit to Flight have been provided for manufacturing. The manufacturing of components, subcomponents and elements for experimental activities needed for Permit to Flight has been almost completed. The first tests needed for Permit to Flight has been performed. The updated issues of the crown panel modification justifications for flight clearance have been provided. Information on sensors, flight test instrumentation and flight telemetry instrumentation for SHM to be included on panel to be tested in-flight has been updated. The manufacturing of further tools for manufacturing/assembling of in-flight Demonstrator has been performed. The crown panel Pre-Production Verification (PPV), NDI and respective destructive tests have been carried out. Crown panel for flight test has been manufactured.
About the On-Ground demonstrators, the manufacturing tools for the pressure bulkheads and for the first sectors of fuselage barrel frames have been realized. The one piece fuselage barrel Pre-Production Verification (PPV), NDI and respective destructive tests have been carried out. The pax and cargo floors manufacturing and pre-assembling have been completed. Information on sensors to be applied for SHM on fuselage barrel demonstrator has been updated. The requests for fuselage ground tests have been preliminarily issued. The inner wing box skins main moulds and stringers mandrels have been realized. The manufacturing tools for RTM ribs have been also realized. The lower stiffened panel of inner wing box have been manufactured. Further sets of drawings/CATIA models of manufacturing tools for fabrication of cockpit demonstrator components have been completed. The basic set of manufacturing tooling for Cockpit demonstrator has been realized.
Milestone status: 3 milestones have been planned and 1 has been successfully performed. 2 planned milestones have been postponed: - GRA1 - Fuselage Ground Demo Test article availability: barrel GD has been shifted due to tool modification occurred during manufacturing and assembly; wing Box GD has been delayed due to necessity of further refinement regarding the interface btw Test Article and Dummy structures; - GRA1 - TRR Full Scale Demonstrator; as consequence of the previous milestone, the TRR has been re-planned;
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 41
Deliverables status: Nr of deliverables due in 2014: 61 Nr of deliverables issued in 2014: 34 Nr of deliverables pending by the end of 2014: 27
CfP status: In 2014 no Calls have been launched by GRA LWC, all relevant planned topics having been already covered by previous or ongoing projects.
2. Low Noise Configuration (LNC)
In 2014 main activities in the frame of LNC domain were concerning: i) completion of the assessment of low-noise enabling technologies for Main and Nose Landing Gears sized to future TP 90-seat A/C; ii) application studies of wing technologies (conventional and innovative/low-noise HLD, LC&A devices) tailored to future rear-engine GTF 130-seat A/C; iii) demonstrations of some of the addressed technologies; iv) specification and preparation (i.e. demonstrators D&M) of other WT and ground demonstrations of down- selected technologies; v) first part of the overall assessment of domain project results. Such activities are hereinafter briefly recalled. Final part of the multi-disciplinary assessment of low-noise concepts for MLG and NLG architectures tailored to TP A/C through: i) further CFD/CAA analyses, feasibility studies by virtual modelling to check integration of relevant technical solutions both at gear and A/C level and iii) aero-acoustic basic 1:5 WT tests. Completion of detailed modelling (components structural design & integration, FEM, etc) of actuation/kinematics of HLDs (Krueger slat and T/E Fowler flap) and LC&A devices (small tabs and split ailerons) sized to the NLF wing of the GTF A/C. Mechanical design of 3D morphing flap based on the Smart Actuation Compliant Mechanism (SACM) concept, sized to the outboard (tapered, swept) flap of the NLF wing of the GTF A/C. This novel architecture is conceived to enable dual-morphing functions: i) controlled flap camber morphing as high-lift device and ii) actuation of T/E tab as load control device. Detailed design of 1:1 (3.6m span) prototype, sized to the O/B flap half panel, as relevant technology demonstrator to assess: i) morphing performances (i.e. target shapes matching) under simulated aerodynamic loads and ii) structure capability in withstanding static limit loads. Demonstration of the Droop Nose technology, tailored to the NLF wing of the GTF A/C, on 1:1 (3m span) mechanical prototype conceived as a technology platform integrating relevant actuation/kinematics, sensors, SMA patches, CNT-based ice protection system and synthetic jets actuators. The aim was to assess the functionality/ performance (morphing structure capability) of this L/E high-lift device, based on a smart innovative actuation concept, as well as the behaviour of other integrated technologies (IPS and SJ) under icing conditions in a climate wind tunnel. Both mechanical laboratory tests and WT tests were successful. Relevant results are currently being analysed. Demonstration of down-selected low-noise technologies (e.g. fairings, hubcaps) of the NLG sized to the TP A/C, through aero-acoustic WT tests on a full-scale mock- up reproducing the NLG installed configuration (gear, bay, doors, part of fuselage
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 42
lower surface). The concerned activities (WT model D&M and test) were carried out within project ALLEGRA (CfP GRA-02-017). Test results are under post-processing phase. Design and (partial) manufacturing of 1:2 WT model of the MLG installed configuration (gear, bay, doors, belly fairing, part of fuselage lower surface) sized to the TP A/C for the demonstration of relevant down-selected low-noise solutions (e.g. bay acoustic treatments, strut fairings), in the frame of the same aforementioned project ALLEGRA. Support, in terms of test requirements definition and WT models specification, to the activities, being carrying out in the frame of projects under CfP, relevant to other wind tunnel demonstrations of down-selected technologies. In particular: a. Demo of transonic NLF wing and of LC&A devices performances in high- speed steady conditions for GTF A/C on half-wing innovative elastic 1:3 (≈5.7m span) WT model, within project ETRIOLLA (CfP GRA-02-019) – Status: WT model manufacturing and test matrix definition in progress. b. Demo of gust load alleviation strategy for GTF A/C on 1:7 (≈2.5m span) aero-servo-elastic A/C half-model, within project GLAMOUR (CfP GRA- 02-22) – Status: WT model design (type, size, control laws engineering modelling, etc), WT gust generator devices design, and tests definition in progress. c. Demo of low-speed aerodynamic performances (high-lift in take-off and landing, S&C derivatives) and of aero-acoustic impact (assessment of noise sources and HLD low-noise solutions) of both GTF and TP configurations on 1:7 complete A/C powered WT models, respectively within projects ESICAPIA+EASIER (CfP GRA-05-007/-008) and LOSITA+WITTINESS (CfP GRA-02-020/-025) - Status: WT models design and respective text matrices definition in progress. d. Demo of finally chosen MLG low-noise configuration through full-scale aero-acoustic WT tests of the relevant installed architecture (gear, bay, doors, belly fairing, part of fuselage lower surface) within project ARTIC (CfP GRA-02-021) – Status: WT model design in progress. Preparation (tests definition, test bench requirements specification, equipment provision, etc) of ground demonstration of the LC&A system architecture tailored to the GTF A/C, through a suitable test rig inserted in a realistic HW/SW environment (aileron actuator and control electronics, primary flight control unit implementing relevant control laws, etc). Synthesis of the activities performed and assessment of main results achieved in the frame of the LNC domain project over the first part of the work programme, covering the enabling technologies development in the field of advanced aerodynamics, load control & alleviation functions and airframe noise reduction.
Work Package LNC has partially met its goals in 2014. Relevant pending activities (in some cases, however, just a matter of technical reporting) will be completed in 2015.
Milestones status: 2 (of 2) planned milestones have been postponed: - GRA2 - NLF wing 1:3 Wind Tunnel model (HW) (ETRIOLLA project under CfP): due to the complex mechanical design and manufacturing of the flexible WT model;
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 43
- GRA2 - WTT First Complete Aerodynamic Test: due to the delay in the foreseen release of the above WT model and to climatic constraint ( test on laminar flow not recommended in the spring/summer season). Deliverables status: Nr of deliverables due in 2014: 23 Nr of deliverables issued in 2014: 17 Nr of deliverables pending by the end of 2014: 5 Nr of deliverables cancelled: 1
CfP status: In 2014 no Calls have been launched by GRA LNC, all relevant planned topics having been already covered by previous or ongoing projects.
3. All Electrical Aircraft (AEA)
The Improvement/industrialization of Shared Simulation Environment (SSE), in charge of a Partner via CfP, has been completed by end of 2014. The project, in charge of a Partner via CfP, integrates simulation models of the on-board systems and is expected to be finally validated and terminated by beginning of 2015. Regarding “Application studies” number of steps has been achieved: successfully performed the TRL3 review of Electrical Environmental Control System (E-ECS). E-ECS TRL4 and Electrical Power Generation (EPG) equipment TRL5 moved to middle of 2015. progressing the Development of the SABER Simulation model of the Electrical Power Generation and Distribution of the Demo Electrical channel of the A/C demonstrator as well close to complete the building of the single channel RIG to support the Saber simulation Model activities of the Demo channel focused on the power quality tests. manufactured the innovative Electro-Mechanical Actuators (EMA) and the associated ground test benches for electrical Flight Control System actuation and Landing Gear extension and retraction. Validation of the above CfP projects results by middle of 2015.
Preparation of flight Demonstration for AEA has been advanced by performing: the completion of the Design drawings and starting of the parts manufacturing and FTI purchasing for Systems and structural modifications to be implemented on the A/C demonstrator: Electrical Environmental Control System (E-ECS) Electrical Energy Management (E-EM), New Electrical Power Generation for Demo Supply Channel, EMAs Loads and associated test Bench Test introduction on-board. FTI the Critical Design Review closure and the starting of manufacturing of Innovative Electrical Power Center and Simulated Electrical Load for Flight Demo. Validation of both the above CfP projects results by middle of 2015. Progress in the preparation of: a/c ground test requirements and procedures for the validation of the analyses as well as for on-ground verification of the demonstrator configuration.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 44
Documentation for the Flight clearance of the modified aircraft
Milestone status: No significant milestones have been planned for year 2014.
Deliverables status: Nr of deliverables due in 2014: 5 Nr of deliverables issued in 2014: 0 Nr of deliverables pending by the end of 2014: 5
CfP status: In 2014, GRA AEA did not launch any CfP, all relevant planned topics having been already covered by previous or ongoing projects.
4. Mission and Trajectory Management
The development of: green FMS (third and final release, including all green functions) ATM scenario model Advanced communication interface model was finalized and related integration tests were performed on GRA flight simulator (WP4.3) The definition of test procedure to be used in 2015 during final demonstration has been finalized.
The preparation of GRA Flight simulator in GRA TP90 configuration is ongoing and, according to plan, will be finalized beginning of 2015.
Milestones status: 1 planned milestone “GRA4 - Final Green FMS availability has been successfully achieved.
Deliverables status: Nr of deliverables due in 2014: 5 Nr of deliverables issued in 2014: 5 Nr of deliverables pending by the end of 2014: 0
CfP status: All activities related to the CfPs have been completed.
5. New Configurations
In year 2014 GRA the following activities have been performed:
Green Turboprop & Advanced Turbofan, engines dataset - 3rd Loop (SNECMA). Final Turboprop (equipped with Snecma and Rolls Royce engines) Aircraft sizing and configuration definition, Weight & Balance Analysis and performance evaluation (loop 3).
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 45
Green Turboprop final configuration definition: CAD file (Loop 3). Final Geared Turbofan (under wing configuration & rear engine installation configurations) (equipped with MTU engine) Aircraft sizing and configuration definition, Weight & Balance Analysis and performance evaluation (Loop 3). Best Green Geared Turbofan final configuration definition: CAD file (Loop 3) Update of the Specification of activities of low-speed WTT demo of the GTF A/C complete configuration Completion of the model drawings result of the Optimization of rear-fuselage power plant integration (engines pylon-nacelle shape/position), tail empennages (position & setting) and wing tip concepts in order to supply the WTT4. Trade-off between More Electric Aircraft and All Electric Aircraft for TP and GTF configurations. Evaluation of external noise for Loop 3 Reference Aircraft. Acoustic computations of the model tested in wind-tunnel (Three configurations) Final Advanced Turbofan (equipped with Snecma and Rolls Royce engines) Aircraft sizing and configuration definition, Weight & Balance Analysis and performance evaluation o (Loop 3 - ONERA). Green Features evaluation. Trade off studies for Green A/C configurations - Loop 3 Update of the Aircraft Simulation Model for the Green A/Cs 90 & 130 pax configuration to Technology Evaluator – (based on 3rd activities loop).
Milestone Status: No significant milestones have been planned for year 2014.
Deliverables status: Nr of deliverables due in 2014: 19 Nr of deliverables issued in 2014: 17 Nr of deliverables pending by the end of 2014: 2
CfP Status: In 2014 no Calls have been launched by GRA NC, all relevant planned topics having been already covered by previous or ongoing projects, in particular:
ESICAPIA/EASIER : Revision activities to take into account the start of the new Call For Proposal EASIER (concerning the aero-acoustics WTT relative to 130 pax aircraft configuration) in order to allow testing the model in two different configurations ESICAPIA /EASIER: CDR for nacelle and wing-design has been passed.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 46
6.1.4 GRC – Green Rotorcraft ITD
Main 2014 GRC deliverables and milestones are as follows: For innovative blades (GRC1): active twist specimen tests; preliminary design of 3D optimised blade shape (PDR); design of major components for full scale rotor with active Gurney flaps (PDR); For airframe drag reduction (GRC2): wind tunnel tests about passive shape optimisation and active means on the fuselage completed (TRL4); concerning optimised hub fairings aerodynamic design freeze achieved (TRL3). Comprehensive analysis completed for air intakes and exhaust nozzles integration (TRL3). For on-board energy (GRC3): equipment design specifications at preliminary design or critical design levels, agreed between integrators and suppliers at TRL3, with the Starter Generator, Thermal Energy Recovery and Electric Landing gear progressing to TRL4 For the Diesel-powered helicopter (GRC4): demonstrator engine critical design review (TRL 3); first power pack delivered for ground test article; frozen configuration and specification of the optimised helicopter. For environment-friendly flight paths (GRC5): Computational chain for the aero-acoustic analysis of helicopter and tilt-rotor procedures completed; Erica acoustics database released; Verification of Toulouse and Seo de Urgel procedures with respect to EC155 performance and FMS capabilities done; In-flight validation of Low noise optimised flight path for LPV procedure done. For eco-design for rotorcraft airframe (GRC6): design and manufacturing of moulds for demonstration articles completed; parts manufactured (partially). Concerning the GRC contribution to TE (GRC7): third annual release of rotorcraft software and data package for the TEH was delivered to the TE. Slightly behind schedule for December 2013, TEM will be delivered to the TE in the first quarter of 2014 with no negative impact to their assessment schedule. Activities performed in 2013 are detailed here after and the description is given against each work package of the ITD GRC, from GRC0 to GRC7.
0. GRC0 – ITD Management
The main activities concerning the ITD Consortium Management performed in period P6 (2013) were performed through the preparation of the Management Committees, Interim Progress, Steering Committee meetings and annual reviews: Call for Proposals: one call was planned in 2013. GRC submitted a total amount of 4 topics (including 2 resubmitted topics). Shared Information Repository: the GRC on-line repository is hosted and maintained by Agusta Westland, with the support of three CfP projects (TRAVEL, MANOEUVRES and ANCORA) and to activities on Active Gurney flap -GRC1. All documents (deliverables) are uploaded.
1. GRC1 – Innovative rotor blades
In 2013, GRC1 activities proceeded predominantly as to the initial planning, although delays were encountered on elements of programme thought technical challenges and in one case from resource limitations. The latter is being addressed. A decision was made in 2013 to take the AGF system to flight test.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 47
The Active Twist technology advanced significantly with the successful testing of the model rotor system at DLR which has since been reported. For the scale blade test section (laboratory test), work continued and testing is to commence in 2014. The work on the Optimised Passive blade continues as expected. The optimization results using different tools and methods have been generated and compared by DLR and ONERA. The detailed loft design of the blade for whirl tower testing has been started. The AGF 2D test at Twente achieved CDR as planned and the constituent parts were manufactured closely to expected schedules. Only last minute problems uncovered during final assembly /data system integration prevented testing being achieved as planned before the end of the year. The testing will take place in early 2014 (week 4). For the AGF Model rotor activity the work has been delayed due to technical complexities and to the fact that the company developing the critical AGF components was in the process of moving to a new facility. However, they achieved a notable success with the demonstration that their system would work under extremely demanding physical conditions by testing it on a whirling arm rig at representative levels of CF. Efforts are underway to minimise the timeframe implications for the remainder of the programme. The design of the AGF main rotor blade gathered momentum and a single design solution evolved by the year end, allowing a formal Design Review to be held. Resource restrictions have been a risk to this activity (designs were due to have been released from another task but were delayed), however this was being addressed by year end. The Donor blades provision (to be modified to receive the AGF components) was started. A further assessment of the performance and acoustic benefits of GRC1 technologies, along with mass and electrical power penalties, was also completed and supplied to GRC7. CfP partners were undertaken as planned and a final CFP partner (COMROTAG - CFD developments) was selected.
2. GRC2 Reduced drag of airframe and dynamic systems activities
In GRC2 (Reduced drag of airframe and dynamic systems activities) the main tasks were focused on the optimisation of the rotor hub, the fuselage and the engine installation. The aerodynamic optimisation of landing skid fairings and new aft body shapes of the EC135 fuselage concluded and wind tunnel campaign to assess the benefit has been concluded in the context of the ADHERO project, achieving an overall benefit in terms of drag reduction of about 18%. Moreover, the aerodynamic and structural design of new full scale hub fairings is concluded with the PDR successfully achieved. Concerning the reduction of airframe drag, especially for blunt aft bodies and for the tail, improved aerodynamic design of the common helicopter and tilt rotor platforms had been conducted, incorporating passive flow control systems. Concerning the common tilt rotor platform, optimization of all components was completed, thus achieving TRL3. The optimized tilt rotor geometry will be tested in wind tunnel within the partner project DREAm-TILT. Concerning engine installation tasks, aerodynamic studies and noise propagation analysis about new side air intakes integrations for the light helicopter of ECg was performed. Aerodynamic and structural designs of a new side intake have been concluded with a PDR. As far as the common tilt rotor platform is concerned, a study for evaluation of emission, engine performance and noise had been accomplished and TRL3 was achieved. The optimized engine intake geometry will be tested in wind tunnel within the partner project TETRA. In 2013 GRC2 supported GRC7 in defining the aerodynamic characteristics of fuselage and empennage of the first update of the Single Engine Light (SEL) and for the Twin Engine
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 48
Medium (TEM) helicopter models for the “Y2020 reference” and “Y2020+CS conceptual” fleets. Moreover the reference Tilt-Rotor model (TLR-R) was defined.
3. GRC3 Integration of Innovative Electrical Systems for Rotorcraft
In GRC3 (Integration of innovative electrical systems activities), analysis reports covering technologies across differing helicopter types were delivered and data from the CfPs regarding system mass and future electrical power requirements were provided to GRC7. Deliverables this period included data for SEL & TEL configurations. System power management strategies were refined and principles aligned with the evolving CfP technology developments and leading power supply technologies. High level architecture analysis, and updated requirements and solution documents were completed. Optimised electrical architectures were further refined in Electrical network simulations utilising software models provided by SGO. Delays in the provision of new software tools had shifted some anticipated deliverable to the next period. The technologies for improved electrical system efficiency were further developed, with all major projects progressing with CfP partners. The Starter Generator passed a CDR, manufacturing equipment was launched, and electrical and thermal simulation of power electronics architectures was performed. The Power Converter and Energy Storage CfPs successfully held a PDR. Some hardware revisions were necessary towards the end year resulting is some detail system redesign. Now resolved, the system will be ready for a rescheduled CDR in Q1 of period 7. The Energy Distribution & Consumer Systems analysed configurations, ensuring compatibility with evolving CfP technologies. In Thermal Energy Recovery, two demonstrators were manufactured. The Energy Recovery Management, went through a CDR, and provided a test plan and updated interface document. The EMA for Flight Control System progressed through CDR and moved to the demonstrator manufacture. The EMA for Landing Gear has been assessed using a TRL Review and concluded with a Final Report. The EMA for Rotor Brake provided benefit analysis; modelling report and completing a CDR. Delays in some test hardware provision are anticipated to require extended activities in period 7. Electrical tail rotor drive, for both conventional and fenestron tail rotors, provided innovative concepts allowing suppression of usual hydraulic systems. The open rotor solution included a CDR and a new task of definition and design concept in support of the further system development using electrical test facilities and an airframe ground test rig at AW. The fenestron system provided a Preliminary Concept, with a decision on the activity stop after the identification of a No-Go issue. The power supply for the Energy Supply System for the Piezo Actuation sought agreement on cancellation of the CDR for PPSMPAB6, replaced by continuous technical meetings. The manufacturing of the PPS began in November. The Electrical Test Bench/Copper Bird harmonization of technology continued with ICDs & Test Plans were issued, including the preparatory work for the integrated ground test demonstration with the scheming and design of equipment specific adaptation kits. The Energy Recovery test plan and an update interface document were issued and delivered to EDS. A final versions of the HEMAS test plan and the Adaptation Kit interface document were issued and delivered to the EDS.
6 Piezo Power Supply Module for Piezo Actuator Bench
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 49
Overall in 2013 GRC3 progressed against its work plan, and delivered 72% of its planned reports, due to delays in some testing activities.
4. GRC4 – Integration of a Diesel engine on a light helicopter Regarding the definition of the “Optimal Helicopter Architecture”, the study of the optimal helicopter configuration has been concluded in October after a review in Brussels with the Clean Sky 2 JU Project Officer and experts. On the Demonstrator H/C frame, due to over-costs at Partners’ level, an additional subcontract has been put in place in order to maintain the global scope of the project, which is to run the Ground Tests on a flightworthy demonstrator. This additional subcontracting enabled the partners to write the substantiations necessary to obtain the permit to fly. On GRC4 – Demonstrator frame, the main objective for the Period 6 was to start the Iron bird bench and to finish it at the end of 2013. The first rotation of the Iron bird was done at the end of October 2013, and will continue until mid of February 2014. During the Period, some technical issues arise with the newly developed Powerpack, which resulted in a limited impact on the schedule. Furthermore, the bench availability was extended in order to complete the test program at the beginning of 2014.
6. GRC5 – Environment-friendly flight paths
After the re-organization of the activities on specific and well-defined Technology Products, in 2012 GRC5 (Environment-friendly flight paths) TPs were grouped in four Technology Streams: eco-Flight Procedures, eco-Flight Planner, eco-Flight Guidance and eco- Technologies. The main activities completed in 2013 were: For eco-Flight Procedures: computational chain for the aero-acoustic analysis of helicopter and tilt-rotor procedures; Erica acoustics database; Verification of Toulouse and Seo de Urgel procedures with respect to EC155 performance and FMS capabilities; In-flight validation of Low noise optimised flight path for LPV procedure. For eco-Flight Planner: Requirements and specifications for Eco-Flight Planner; SW Platform implementation; Low emission Planning Algorithm. For eco-Flight Guidance: Development of an On-Board Software Module to Manage Low- noise Flight Paths; VFR noise abatement flight procedures defined; Pilot display development. For eco-Technologies: all the expected numerical tools for sound diagnosis and synthesis were deployed; Pollutant measurement system implemented on PZL SW-4 Helicopter; SW- 4 pollutant emission flight tests performed.
7. GRC6 – Ecodesign Rotorcraft Demonstrators
In GRC6 the manufacturing of the demonstrators has been the main topic during 2013. These demonstrators are two thermoplastic composite structures (A stiffened helicopter tail cone and co-melted panel and an aerodynamic fairing) for composite manufacturing technologies and two metallic demonstrator groups (a tail rotor gear box including a thermoplastic drive shaft and a main rotor gear box) for new treatment methods. All moulds for curing tailcone components and thermoplastic frames have been manufactured and first frames were made available. The design and manufacturing plan for the thermoplastic fairing were completed and the stamp forming tools are currently being machined. Surface
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 50
treatments on metallic parts (tail gear-box and main shaft) have been subcontracted. The assembly of the main rotor gear box and of the thermoplastic components had to be delayed until August 2014. Due to the delay of the mould manufacturing and surface treatments it should register some underspending in 2013 which will be recovered in 2014. Those tasks have been re-planned until completion, including a recovery plan, corresponding milestones/ deliverables and an updated risk analysis. The Call for proposal Defcodoor was completed in July 2013. Budget and time consumption developed as expected, the delays had no impact on the overall budget planning.
8. GRC7 – Interface with the Technology Evaluator
GRC7 had five external deliverables and four milestones relating to the delivery of the Phoenix platform V3.1 and V4.1 for the Technology Evaluator’s (TE)’s Third and Fourth Assessments respectively. The data and software packages deliverables for the Twin Engine Heavy (TEH) generic rotorcraft was delivered to the TE as planned. The Twin Engine Medium (TEM) due to industry resource availability was subject to a minor delay to its planned delivery date of December 2013, now forecast for the first quarter in 2014. The rescheduled delivery of the TEM has no impact on the TE’s fourth assessment which is due to start in June 2014. In addition, a parallel internal GRC7 activity of the Tilt Rotor Reference point (TLR-R) to prevent a generic rotorcraft bottle neck in 2016 was planned for completion in December 2013. This generic rotorcraft based on ERICA is close to completion with a minor delay that will have no impact on external GRC7 deliverables to the (TE). Progress was made with the development of SELU1 and DEL due for delivery in 2014. GRC7 milestones are based on the receipt and integration of the Phoenix V3.1 into the TE’s platform and the generation of their assessment results.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 51
6.1.5 SAGE – Sustainable and Green Engine
2014 has demonstrated an important ramp-up of execution of the SAGE ITD. Numerous hardware has been delivered throughout the SAGE projects and successful demonstrations have been performed. The first flight test of the ITD was successfully performed in SAGE 3. Complementary engine tests have been achieved in SAGE5 confirming the targeted objectives. The other SAGE projects have passed critical milestones towards demonstration whilst increasing the Technology Readiness Level of several technologies. The good level of involvement of the partners in the numerous active CfP’s in 2014 has led to some brilliant achievements, which has contributed to the success of this year for the SAGE ITD. SAGE 6 has received a complementary funding of 4,5M€ to support the flight test of the advanced lean burn system, which is an acknowledgement of the recent successes in the SAGE ITD.
SAGE 1 experienced a major change in the work breakdown structure and was split into 4 main work packages – 1.1 Fast CFD Solver; 1.2. Component Integrity; 1.3. Forced Response and 1.4. Noise. The programme of work is focused on the R&T activities in place at Universities to ensure continuation and completion of their research.
WP 1.1: Progressed well to validate the fast CFD solver tool for the Open Rotor case. Recent work has focused on validating extreme blade angles of attack against rig Z08 blade surface measurements. WP 1.2: Evaluations of CROR blade design and material options have progressed well and continued testing samples under high strain rate, whilst shear extension experiments are complete. A significant portion of the out-of-plane tension experiments are complete and will be completed in 2015. WP 1.3: Work has continued using data from both rig 145 and rig Z08 to validate prediction methods for stability, flutter and forced response. Work is underway to draft a paper on the work: “INVESTIGATION OF FLUTTER MECHANISMS OF A CONTRA-ROTATING OPEN ROTOR. WP 1.4: Both rig 145 & rig Z08 being used for method validation. Currently efficient “low fidelity” models are being validated to predict installed and full aircraft effects. Work is also being completed on very high speed results and improved methods to filter out test cell reverberation from results.
For SAGE2, a Concept Review took place in 2012 to consider the feasibility and configuration of the open rotor demonstrator. Preliminary design studies of the open rotor Integrated Powerplant Propulsion System (IPPS) were finalized in 2013. The Preliminary Design Reviews have been completed in Q1 2014. This enabled to anticipate the detailed design activities. The Critical Design Reviews (CDR) have been staged with the first one for the blades done on May 2014. In 2014, the CDR were done according to the schedule : end of 2014, 90% of the pre-CDRs/CDRs have been completed. The CDR phase will end in Q1 2015. The Long Lead Time Items (LLTI) forgings have been anticipated. All the raw material orders have been passed, some forgings have been received and the machining of the major components has started. All the assembly sequences have been defined and the civil engineering of the dedicated assembly workshop at Snecma Vernon was finalized. The Ground Test facility detailed design is in progress. The Ground Test objectives have been defined. The detailed test plan and the detailed Ground Test Sequence are currently under way.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 52
For the propeller module, the first woven preform blade has been produced. Regarding CfPs, several projects are running and new CfPs have been launched to support the Open Rotor demonstrator.
Project SAGE3 made substantial progress in 2014, delivering a series of engine tests and making good progress to support the further engine tests planned in 2015. First milestone achievement of 2014 was the first engine test of the composite fan system, incorporating the composite fan blades developed by Rolls-Royce and the composite annulus fillers developed under Call for Proposal by FACC. Indoor testing of the fan blades proceeded through a series of tests investigating blade tip clearance, performance and flutter behaviour before the engine was transferred to an outdoor test facility for crosswind and noise testing, which was successfully completed in December. In parallel with the ground testing, a second composite fan demonstration engine was built for flight test. The engine was tested in Derby before installation on the Flying Test Bed aircraft and achievement of first flight in October. A total of seven flights were flown, during which the fan was subjected to a series of dynamic flight manoeuvres, including a high power take off and rotation, and the fan performance at altitude was mapped. The fan behaved as expected throughout the campaign, a brilliant result for the programme and a significant step forward in achieving TRL6 for the composite fan technology. Low Pressure Turbine technology demonstration is planned for 2015 and ITP have taken delivery of the majority of components for the demonstrator module and completing casting, forging and machining operations. All design work is complete and the donor engine for this demonstration has been stripped, inspected and reassembled to module level ready for receipt of the demonstration LP turbine.
In 2014, SAGE4 has successfully completed manufacturing, instrumentation and assembly of the HPC, LPT and TEC module hardware. With very few exceptions, all targeted component technologies have been incorporated into the demonstrator specific hardware. The SAGE 4 partner companies carried on with the technology development for their engine modules. All technologies foreseen for demonstrator integration have proven their maturity in an exhaustive sequence of materials and component testing. As a result of these test series, technology readiness has been approved in a successfully accomplished demonstrator test readiness review held in November 2014. With the demo test approaching in year 2015, the engine test program has been detailed. Based on the released test job requests the test cycles required for technology validation have been defined and approved in the test readiness review. The instrumentation required for technology validation has been applied to the demonstrator hardware prior to module assembly. A thoroughly executed dimensional documentation of the test hardware will allow a meaningful evaluation of the inspection results during and after the test execution. LPT module assembly has been started in October 2014. Step by step, the pre-assembled rotor and stator stages have been integrated into the LPT case. LPT module assembly has been completed in December 2014 with a balancing result well within the specified imbalance limits. The fully instrumented and assembled TEC module has been provided by SAGE 4 partner GKN in October 2014. It will be joined with the LPT module and the telemetry system in order to be provided for engine assembly in February 2015. Therefore the LP telemetry unit has been equipped with the transducer modules and has performed a preparatory spinning test.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 53
SAGE 4 partner AVIO made significant progress in developing the fan drive gear system and the corresponding test facility. The design phase for the fan drive gear system has been completed and documented in a CDR report. The related technology maturation projects and the development of the test facility is progressing according to plan. All in all, the SAGE 4 project in 2014 successfully proceeded on its way to realise the defined project targets within the Clean Sky timeframe.
The aim of the project SAGE 5 is to demonstrate several innovative technologies at high temperature. First step of the demonstration has been achieved in 2013. It aimed to test the engine demonstrator at partial TET temperature (Built 1) in order to demonstrate the innovative architecture and reduce risk on core engine components prior to continue at the high TET target (build 2). A fruitful test campaign in 2013 with build 1 demonstrator allowed to demonstrate the proper behaviour of the mechanical architecture and solve some technical issues prior to follow on with performance test. These tests allowed to measure global performance of the demonstrator and to correlate engine tests with engine models. It also gives indications to improve build 2 configuration. In 2014, manufacturing of hot section technologies has been completed. The build 2 demonstrator assembly has been performed taking into account improvements implemented on build 1. First engine test occurred mid-2014. It aimed to test the engine in all operating range at ISA sea level, to confirm that the fix implemented to solve vibration issues were successful. Engine performance test has been recorded and analysed. The engine models have been updated with test data. The global target of 15% reduction in fuel consumption has been confirmed. The electrical actuator developed in the scope of the call for proposal SMART-EMA has been installed and tested. The behaviour and results were fully positive and permitted to decide to implement this innovative device on all build 2 demonstration tests. Specific instrumented parts for build 2 secondary air system and HP components performance have been manufactured. Instrumentation will start beginning 2015 leading to an extension of the test campaign in 2015.
Project SAGE 6 has passed the Critical Design Review of the Trent 1000 based demonstrator engine ALECSys (Advanced Low Emissions Combustion System) earlier in 2014 and is now preparing for the first ground testing in Q4 2015. The majority of the engine hardware has been ordered and delivery is expected through first half of 2015. Additional funding has been granted to enable flight testing of a further advanced lean burn system on the RR B747 FTB in 2016. Successful demonstration on the EFE Build 4 high temperature demonstrator in Q2 2014 allowed emissions to be fully validated across the full range of future engine cycles. The emissions reduction potential has been confirmed at high power level. The LEVER project (through CfP call 8) has started intensive commissioning of the highly innovative fuel system test rig. First fuel flow was achieved up to 24,000 lbs/hr at the end of 2014. A full annular combustor test unit in support of the engine tests has been delivered and is waiting for the combustor hardware to be completed.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 54
6.1.6 SGO – Systems for Green Operations ITD
In 2014 SGO has been focused on achieving progress on all developed technologies to prepare the major demonstrations – both in flight and on ground – which are planned between mid-2014 and mid-2016. Some of these major demonstrations have been already achieved. For all technology streams, significant steps forward have been made, as described in each work-package below and positively assessed by the external reviewers, both during the Annual Review in June and in the mid-term meeting beginning of December.
A significant evolution of the program budget distribution between members was validated, with an increase of budget associated to the development of the Electrical Environmental Control System (E-ECS) for large aircraft, which will be flight tested by 2016. A complementary funding from JU to secure the demonstrator is currently under study. With reference to the annual grant agreement, the currently estimated overall consumption of resources amounts to 95% of the planned value 2014, including the amendment applied during 2014.
For large aircraft, WP1 has completed master Validation & Verification plans of both MAE and MTM streams for cycle 2 of SGO. The update of data packages and detailed cycle 2 architecture is close to completion, being under final review.
In WP2, work on technologies for electrical and thermal energy management has moved on. Throughout 2014, further equipment and systems have been successfully delivered to the various ground and flight test rigs and supported the successful execution of different TRL reviews. However, some developments are still behind their schedules and dedicated TRL reviews had to be delayed into 2015.
Based on cycle 1 preliminary technology results and the cycle 2 workshop in January 2014, a list of improvement ideas have been created which did find their way into the cycle 2 design guideline document which has been released by Airbus in December 2014. The document describes guidelines for energy systems of more electric aircraft architectures taking into account improvement proposals on network stability and quality as well as on thermal, electrical and structural interfaces.
The work in the Method and Tools work package has progressed significantly through execution of the TRL4 gate for the model based energy system design process in October 2014.
The electrical power centre (EPDC) featuring modular power electronics has been delivered to PROVEN ground test rig early 2014 for further system testing in relevant aircraft environment. After delivery of the EPDC (though not in full and final configuration), the pre-integration phase of the remaining components has been started but is still ongoing, with a delay of about 6 months. Thus, the dedicated TRL4 milestone of the EPDC had to be shifted also by 6 months to June 2015.
The MAE Wing Ice Protection technology demonstrators for large aircraft have faced major changes in 2014 which finally led to a cancellation of both flight test technology developments (EMIPS from Saab, ETIPS from Liebherr). Saab decided in May 2014 to
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 55
withdraw from SGO WP2 activities due to other priority to SFWA development. Saab work was closed through a PDR held with Airbus in September. The associated PDR documentation was delivered in December 2014. Liebherr decided together with Airbus after the ETIPS TRL4 review mid-2014 to stop work on the technology due to too low maturity for a flight test development. Instead, a new study on an optimized architecture was launched in 2014 which will last until 2015. The Ice Detection technology passed the TRL4 milestone successfully in 2013 and in 2014 the assembly of the flight test prototype hardware has been started. The delivery of the prototype is planned in May 2015 after finalization of the qualification test early 2015.
In 2013, the work on the re-sized electrical ECS Large Aircraft flight test hardware (50kW) had begun and continued throughout 2014. The system PDR and CDR have been conducted in 2014 and the manufacturing of the demonstrator has been launched. The demonstrator should be ready for a ground test campaign in an altitude chamber in Q2/2015; its delivery to the flight test bed is planned in March 2016. In the frame of the electrical ECS work for regional aircraft, the flight test qualification of the demonstrator has been started after successful testing of the turbomachinery. TRL3 has been successfully passed mid-2014 and the delivery of the flight test demonstrator to Alenia is planned in May 2015.
In the frame of WP2 thermal management activities, a major milestone has been achieved through the delivery of the Skin Heat Exchanger demonstrator to WP4 and subsequently the successful execution of the flight test campaign for the Skin Heat Exchanger in September 2014. Two flight test campaigns have been conducted by Liebherr, Airbus and DLR onboard of the DLR A320 ATRA. After assessment of the flight test results the TRL5 and TRL6 review have been held and passed in December 2014. After adaptation of the overall Airbus strategy with respect to R&T investments and changed test priorities towards legacy programmes in 2014 and beyond, it became obvious that AVANT will not be available in CLEAN SKY Programme timeframe. Therefore the test campaigns G2 and G4 had to be cancelled. This impacted mainly the WP2 technologies of the Thermal Management Function (TMF) and the Vapour Cycle System (VCS). The VCS has been tested on the LTS test bench throughout 2014 after implementation of some optimizations into the compressor. The development of the TMF has continued in 2014 implementing a new architecture with additional functionalities (as consequence of AVANT cancellation). Through the non- availability of AVANT, the Thermal Management Function will not reach TRL4 but as mitigation a re-definition into a “pre-TRL4” gate with rapid prototyping hardware has been defined end of 2014.
In the frame of electrical engine nacelle, the test campaign of the electrical nacelle actuation system has been accomplished mid 2014 followed by the successful execution of the TRL5 review.
In 2014 several equipment and systems for electrical power generation and distribution progressed have been delivered to both large aircraft PROVEN test rig and the other aircraft COPPER Bird test rig. In November 2014 two ATUs and ATRUs have been delivered to PROVEN. Four power electronic modules (PEM) have been delivered for integration into the power centre EPDC. Due to delays of the EPDC pre-integration phase and subsequent PROVEN test campaigns, the TRL4 reviews of the PEM and the robust channel which has been delivered to PROVEN in 2013, had to be shifted to early 2015.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 56
The development of equipment for integration into COPPER Bird i.e. starter generators, digital control units, one- and bi-directional converters have been continued in 2014 but suffered partially some delays. The starter-generators and the bidirectional converters will now be delivered to COPPER Bird early 2015. The manufacturing of equipment dedicated to Alenia flight test campaign has been completed and the qualification tests have been started.
An electromechanical actuation system for a helicopter swashplate (HEMAS) is developed in cooperation with GRC ITD. In 2014 the manufacturing of the HEMAS hardware e.g. electrical motors, actuators and actuator control electronic (ACE) progressed quite good. Despite some delay of the ACE hardware, the development of demonstrator is on track for its delivery to the GRC ITD and COPPER Bird test rig in July 2015.
In the field of WP3 – Mission and Trajectory Management (MTM), 2014 has brought major progress towards the final demonstration stages planned in 2015 and 16. Some flight management functions have now reached TRL5 as planned, by evaluation in representative conditions on simulators and integrated in existing Flight Management Systems. The function covering the climb (Multi Criteria Departure Procedure) reached TRL5 in July 2014, after implementation of the function in FMS and pilot-in-the-loop tests in Thales Airlab simulator. The function covering the final approach phase (Adaptive Increased Glideslope), has been implemented in FMS as well, and tested with pilot-in-the-loop. For this function, considering the potential impact on Air Traffic Control side, some more evaluations in the frame of SESAR are on-going. Also the Wake vortex impact on aircraft separation was confirmed as an important aspect requiring further studies. Results will be available early 2016 at earliest (mainly from the associated SESAR sub-project), so the final TRL5 assessment for this function is postponed to mid-2016. The function covering the cruise phase has progressed as planned in terms of Software definition and FMS architecture adaptation, with a TRL5 planned in 2015. Flight tests of a Flight Management function allowing continuous descent in time constrained environment have been prepared, with TRL5 reached by end 2014 after testing on GRACE flight simulator (Time and Energy Managed Operations – TEMO). The system is now getting ready for flight test mid 2015 on a Cessna Citation aircraft.
Integration of new weather radar algorithms and trajectory optimisation functions into an Electronic Flight Bag platform has progressed in 2014. The TRL4 for the optimisation function has been reached, and TRL5 will be reached in 2015.
The on-board wheel actuator system has been further developed to prepare full scale dynamometer tests in 2015. In particular, the motor integration and testing have been completed. A hardware failure during the first batch of tests imposed a redefinition of the test strategy. After repair of the motor, the second batch of tests has been successfully started, and the first steps of system integration have started (power electronic and motor). In parallel, TRL4 for the control laws has been achieved.
The interface with SESAR was continued, with the provision by SGO to SESAR of an analysis document, summarizing the potential issues and open points for the MTM functions and technologies, considering the content of SESAR operational documents (OSEDs). A feedback from SESAR on this document has been received.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 57
In 2014, the work on major demonstration in WP4 was carried on leading to significant achievement. On the PROVEN electrical rig, the EPDC has been received in April 2014 (not in a full and final configuration) for a pre-integration phase of the EPDC and related equipment. This pre integration phase is still on-going and planned to be completed by end of April 2015. G3 campaign will start in 2015 and will be achieved mid-2016. Concerning the thermal test rig AVANT, the activity in 2014 focused on the definition of system rig test means. In WP4.2.5, the virtual electrical test activity supported the EPDC pre integration phase using generic models. Most of equipment models will be delivered early 2015 to be used for G3 V&V simulation activity.
Regarding flight tests, a major achievement was performed through the successful completion of Liquid Skin Heat Exchanger (LSHX) flight test campaign in September 2014. The activity now focuses on measurement evaluation to provide early 2015 validated flight test results. e-FTD perimeter in SGO has been modified due to Saab decision to end participation in the area of WIPS. However, in 2014, eWIPS PDR was assessed conclusive in this particular context, as there is a clear technical status and major actions have been identified. A PDR closure meeting will be planned in the case of project restart to further address specific points. e-FTD EPC manufacturing has been launched in 2014 and e-FTD aircraft CDR was closed in December 2014 with minor actions. 2015 will focus on manufacturing and laboratory tests. The flight test campaign will be performed in 2016.
During 2014, WP5 has used the progression of development of the different technologies in WP2 and WP3 to feed the works in the Industrial Exploitation and the Assessment domains. In the area of the Certification, the activities remained quite low. The confirmation by EASA of their low level of involvement and punctual potential contribution can explain this fact. The activities related to the impact on Design Standards has been shared between the collection of data allowing the analysis and the dissemination of reports outside the Europe in order to make a link with the broader engineering communities. The state of the art of Qualification and Design Standards applicable to technologies and systems have been identified. For each technology, a report providing the critical rules for the equipment and how they have to / might be amended with the use on new technologies, is progressing. In parallel of this, a workshop has been held in October to address the problematic of the use of new refrigerant fluids with this objective of producing a final report on this topic before mid-2015. An Aerospace Information Report on ways of dealing with electrical power regeneration has been produced in order to allow a link between Clean Sky results and the International Community. Another AIR Report has been prepared on modelling and simulation aiming for establishing a common language between partners from around the world who are involved in activities in this domain of MEA electric power systems. In the field of the General Assessment, the deliverable “ITD level Technology assessment” has been issued. This report relates at system level the benefits provided by the selected technologies and new FMS functions developed in SGO. It will contribute to issue the assessment at A/C level. This work at preliminary stage will be completed later, as planned in the DoW, to incorporate the conclusions raised after the completion of the development work in other work-packages.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 58
Communication and Dissemination activities in 2014 have accelerated in SGO, with more than 50 individual actions. One major event was the 3AF “Greener Aviation” Conference, where SGO contributed with more than 10 conferences covering all the main technology domains.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 59
6.1.7 ECO – Eco-Design ITD
Eco-Design ITD is organized in the two major areas of EDA (Eco-Design for Airframe) and EDS (Eco-Design for Systems, mostly for small aircraft). The EDA part of the Eco-Design ITD is meant to tackle the environmental issues of aircrafts currently in operation by focusing on the following challenges: To identify and maturate environmentally sound (“green”) technologies for materials and processes for aircraft production. To identify and maturate environmentally sound (“green”) technologies for materials and processes for aircraft maintenance and use. To improve the field of end-of-life aircraft operations, including reuse, recyclability and disposal (“elimination”) issues. To provide tools and guidelines for an eco-design process in order to minimize the overall environmental impact of aircraft production, use/maintenance, and disposal. In 2014 the work performed in the frame of EDA continued in line with last Eco design 3 years contract in place (2013-2015) on the following Work Packages: WP A.2 Technology Development, WP A.3 Application Studies, WP A.5/6 Ground Demonstration preparation and realisation. In WP A.2 the work was dedicated to the maturation of last batch of innovative technologies selected at the end of 2010 worth to be investigated (around 110 in total). During the year the remaining activities have been finalized in particular regarding the completion of the partners projects (GAP) linked to demonstrator validation. Progress on the general synthesis of the WP has been performed to take into account latest outcomes from WP A.2 GAPs achievements as well as technological maturation intended through demonstrator manufacturing. In WP A.3 the 3 main work packages related to Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) and eco guidelines were still active: In WP A.3.1 (Eco-statements), after the finalisation of the development of evaluation tools for LCA and eco-statement of current technologies for comparison, the work on 2014 has been devoted to accelerate data collection on new technologies (data to be processed and then loaded in the EDA LCA database) on one hand and on the demonstrator BoM/BoP (Bill of Materials / Bill of Processes) on the other hand, in order to be able to quantify the eco-improvements. At end of 2014 the status of progress for the elaboration of the EDA LCA database is around 65% and this is considered a major achievement of the programme even in view of final year of operations. The Eco-Statement activity on new technologies developed in the ITD has been started on the demonstrators and associated parts. At the end of 2014, the collection of BoM/BoPs is ongoing for the 18 demonstrators to be assessed. In WP A.3.2 (Extrapolation to industrial conditions), activities have been performed on the extrapolation of some of the technologies developed in WP A.2 to industrial
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 60
conditions. The WP has been mostly finalised end of 2014 and the final meeting will be held beginning of 2015. In WP A.3.3 (Eco design guidelines) the activity has been finalised in mid-2014 with the final meeting held in July. Outputs of the WP are in the final report, a first version of a Guidance document for Aircraft LCA and an “Eco Design Guideline Software too” are under finalisation. In WP A.5/6 the demonstration activity progressed on the defined 18 demonstrators based on 36 parts. This includes 10 airframe demonstrators, 2 cabin interior and 6 equipment demonstrators. The preparation (A.5) of the demonstration phase has been finalised in 2014 and the final reports (WP A5.1 equipped airframe and A.5.2 equipment) are close to be fully released. Three equipment demonstrators are already completed. The manufacturing of other demonstrators is on-going and close to completion for some of them, and several tests and validation activity have been initiated, together with data collection. The end of all demonstration activities is confirmed to take place at the end of September 2015. Several partners’ projects (GAPs) have been closed, contributing to all main work packages and last negotiations finalized with activity launched. The general objective of the EDS part of the Eco-Design ITD is to gain a valuable and comprehensive insight into the concept of all-electric aircrafts. It is expected that the use of electricity as the only energy medium, by removing the hydraulic fluid and by the use of on- board power-by-wire will offer significant benefits in terms of aircraft maintenance and disposal environmental impact, and will yield new possibilities in terms of energy management (e.g.: intelligent load shedding, power regeneration on actuators, sharing of Electrical Control Unit over actuator). The work performed in 2014 consisted in pursuing the common activities (WP S.1), performing the characterization of the business jet sub-systems architectures (WP S.2). In 2014, the preparation of the benches related activities (WP S.3 and WP S.4) continued and the main electrical and thermal tests (WP S.3.5 and S.4.5) were carried out. The WP S.1 common activities continued in 2014, mainly through finalisation of electrical and thermal modelling tools and progress on the “ecolonomic” models (WP S.1.1), towards the final general synthesis. The equipment development and follow-up activity has been nearly closed and at end of 2014 some equipment development is still to be finalised in 2015. A few examples are: The alternator with power electronics front ended its development in the frame of project AEGART, and is being tested at the Nottingham University. The heat pipe loop (LHP) development was closed in the frame of the AeroLHP project. The equipment has been integrated and evaluated on the thermal test bench. The closure meeting took place in December 2014. Problems were encountered on the bi-way converter leading to a significant delay. The finalisation of the development is foreseen at the beginning of 2015. The work within WP S.2 continued on 2014 at the level of the bizjet architecture trade-off (S.2.6) supported by modelling activities (S.2.5). An update of the comparison between architecture candidates has been carried out by implementing a finer analysis of mass savings. The result of the analysis showed that the
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 61
mass of the aircraft with an all-electric “oilless” architecture is now equivalent to the mass the reference aircraft. Most of the gain is coming from improving the Electrical Power Generation System (EPGS). The WP S.3 (Electrical Test Bench) integration has been carried out, but some equipment was delayed and the activity is to be finalised beginning of 2015. However, as the test bench became operational in mid-2014, some tests on the generic architecture (GA) were conducted in 2014. A test campaign for the GRA application was carried out in the second half of 2014, and in the first semester of 2015 the GA second test campaign will occur. The WP S.4 (Thermal Test Bench) activities continued in 2014. At end of 2014 the status was as follows: The tests on the business jet carbon fiber cockpit part (T12 section) and the thermal model validation have been finalised. The integration of the metallic fuselage T23 section and the test campaign for the Loop Heat Pipe project were finalised. Further tests with different architectures are planned for 2015. The thermal model validation is on-going. The rear fuselage T5 section integration/installation progressed and the tests are planned to start in the 2nd quarter of 2015. The aircraft calorimeter (ACC) has been delivered in September 2014. The integration is on-going for the Test Readiness Review in the 1st quarter of 2015. The tests and associated model validation will be conducted on the 1st semester of 2015 Several partners’ projects (GAP) have been closed, contributing to all main work packages. The technical activity of the Eco-Design ITD is foreseen to be closed by end of 2015 for both EDA and EDS. The overall activity progress should be considered in line with the scope even if some key events still need to be consolidated in the frame of the final year. Project key performance indicators are showing a personnel cost spending above the achievement in terms of milestones and deliverables. This is due to the fact the initial 2013-2015 contract was kept and some activities have been delayed due to issues regarding technology integration, validation and partner project alignment. The main technical deliverables produced in 2014 (period from 1st of January 2013 to 1st of January 2014) are available in the following table. Periodic deliverables (e.g. Annual Activity Report, reviews) are excluded from this table. Ref. Deliverable title Date D 02-46 Dissemination & Communication Plan Q2 D 02-47 2014 Dissemination & Communication Plan (update) Q4 DA 2-04a General synthesis of WP A.2 (update) Q4 DA 212-04 Metallics and surface treatments: Synthesis report Q3 DA 221-04 New processes and associated tooling: Synthesis report Q2 DA 23-05 Long Life Structure: Summary report Q2 DA 231-04 Structural Diagnostic and Prognostic: Synthesis report Q2 DA 312-03b Eco statement & eco analysis on reference technologies: Q2 final report DA 51-01b Equipped Airframe demonstration preparation: Synthesis Q2 Report
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 62
The main milestones passed on 2014 are given in the following table. Periodic events (e.g. Annual Review, Intermediate Progress Review) are not mentioned in the table. Ref. Milestone title Date MA 2-02 TRL of a single material/technology (TRL 5) (update) Q4 (GAPs still running in 2015) MA 51-0x PDR, CDR of demonstrators - Equipped airframe Q1 (Update required on some demonstrator I2) MA 312-xx End of eco-statement on reference parts (Y2000 A/C) Q2 MA 32-02 Status of feasibility in real industrial environment Q2 MA 32-03 Technical and economical impacts review Q3 MA 33-04 Workshop for guideline consolidation Q3 MS 3-01 ETB 1st Test Readiness Review (TRR) Q1
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 63
6.1.8 TE – Technology Evaluator
All TE Work Packages had activities and deliverables (or outputs) in 2014:
WP0: TE Management and Coordination WP1: TE Requirements and Architecture WP2: Models Development and verification WP3: Simulation Framework Development WP4: Assessment of impacts and Trade-off studies
In 2014 a global environmental assessment was performed as planned. Yet because of late delivery of some ITDs aircraft models, the results were provided in two steps: intermediate results in June 2014 and final ones end 2014.
In WP1, during 2014 the main activity was to update the TE technical planning until the end of the project. This planning indicates the TRL development status associated with the technologies integrated into the ITD aircraft models from 2014-2016 and its linkage and timing to the TE assessments. Part of this is also the linkage between the ITD aircraft models and demonstration activities of the ITDs.
In WP2, delays were encountered in the delivery of some ITD aircraft models (SFWA, GRC) due to difficulties in software development and delayed engine module inputs (for noise modelling in particular). Some modelling was also performed by the research establishments for “normal technology evolution” (very large aircraft), and for turboprop acoustics. A specific tool for trade-off studies dealing with business jet noise and exposed people around airports was developed. Also some new metrics were defined for both noise and emissions in particular to ease the comparison with the ACARE goals. It must be noted that in WP2 the TE consortium operates, for mission level, as a de-facto supply chain manager: all the major component conceptual models are delivered by the Aircraft ITDs.
The 2014 ITD aircraft model development scope included: SFWA LR (Long Range): further development of the PANEM model (Parametric Aircraft Noise and Emissions Model) for the long range aircraft with a SAGE 6 engine, and integration of the SGO MSC function. SFWA SMR (Short and Medium Range): further development of the PANEM model for the short medium range aircraft including a SAGE2 CROR engine and a natural laminar wing. SFWA business jet: Update of the ‘Low-Sweep’ business jet configuration. GRC: delivery of the Twin Engine Medium (TEM) emission module. GRA: delivery of an update of the GRA Simulation Model (GRASM) for loop 3 GRA 90 Turboprop and GRA 130 Geared TF aircraft.
In fact, most of these models were delivered end of 2014. Then they will be used in 2015 and the results of the assessments will be integrated in the 2015 assessment report, foreseen in June 2015.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 64
Furthermore, WP2 activities were conducted with respect to model enhancements for next assessments at airport and ATS level (including identification of candidate SESAR operational improvements for consideration at airport level, a method to estimate noise at low altitude to alleviate a limitation in one of the ITD aircraft models, and fleet/traffic forecasts for large passenger aircraft, regional aircraft, business jets and rotorcraft), to an exercise to estimate the fuel burnt and pollutants emitted during the taxi phase, and to an extended ATS-level noise assessment including the application of STAPES.
In WP3 the TE-Information System was further developed in 2014. Connection via web- service to the ATS platform was implemented. All the assessment results have now been added to the TEIS repository part for all three levels.
In WP4, end 2014, the key TE to JU output has been produced. It is the 2014 environmental assessment report named “DJU4.6-3: 2014 assessment synthesis report”. The main results presented in this report and the progress made in 2014 with respect to previous assessments are summarized in the tables hereafter
Leading up to the 2015 assessment, other key activities and deliverables were conducted, including: Detailed specification report of the mission-level assessment Detailed specification report of the airport level assessment Detailed specification report of the ATS level assessment
2014 assessment results at aircraft level
The four tables hereafter present the summary of the assessment results at aircraft level, putting in perspective the progress with respect to previous year assessments. These tables are devoted to respectively mainliners, regional aircraft, business jets and rotorcraft.
Perceived noise area noise noise area noise CO2 Nox Short Medium / Long Range noise volume reduction reduction reduction reduction reduction per reduction per reduction aircraft landing [%] landing [dB]* take-off [%] take-off [dB]* pax [%] pax [%] take off [%] 2014 85 dB/500- 85 dB/500- 75dB-85dB/500- 75 dB/500- 75 dB/500- Noise footprints and missions 500-2800NM 500-2800NM 2800NM 2800NM 2800NM 2800NM 2800NM APL2 vs RPL1 Average delta value -14% -1 17% -1,0 -34% -32% -6% 70dB-80 80dB-90 70 dB/1000- 80 dB/1000- 80 dB/1000- Noise footprints and missions dB/1000- dB/1000- 1000-7000NM 1000-7000NM 7000NM 7000NM 7000NM 7000NM 7000NM APL3 vs RPL2 Average delta value -36% -2,1 -81% -6,5 -18% -46% -36% 2012 55dB-75 dB 55dB-75 dB Noise footprints and missions (ICAO A/B 500-2800NM 500-2800NM approach procedure) APL2 vs RPL1 Average delta value -1% NA -36% NA -28% -9% NA 55dB-75 dB 55dB-75 dB Noise footprints and missions (ICAO A/B 1000-7000NM 1000-7000NM approach procedure) APL3 vs RPL2 Average delta value -10% NA -27% NA -18% -17% NA 2011 Noise footprints and missions 500-2800NM APL2 vs RPL1 Average delta value NA NA NA NA -30% NA NA Table 1: Short/medium and Long Range aircraft TE results from 2011 to 2014
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 65
In 2014 for the first time complete results (noise and emissions) were produced for both LR (APL3) and SMR (APL2). Concerning emissions, for CO2 there is a confirmation of the order of magnitude which was assessed in the previous years (34% for SMR, 18% for LR). New NOx results show a 32% improvement for SMR (laminar wing, CROR equipped), and up to 46% with LR and lean burn engine from SAGE6. Concerning noise, there is a good improvement for LR (36% reduction of perceived noise at take-off; 50% being the ACARE target), but apparently not so good results (-6%) for SMR. In fact these results aren’t significant as the APL2 is heavier (83t MTOW) than RPL1 (76t MTOW). In 2015 the modelling of a new RPL1 will implement the same weight than the APL2.
Perceived noise area noise noise area noise CO2 Nox noise volume reduction reduction reduction reduction reduction per reduction per Regional aircraft reduction landing [%] landing [dB]* take-off [%] take-off [dB]* pax [%] pax [%] take off [%] 2013 55dB-75dB/100- 55dB/100- 55dB-75dB/100- 55dB/100- 55dB/100- Noise footprints and missions 100-500NM 100-500NM 500NM 500NM 500NM 500NM 500NM TP90 2020 vs TP90 2000 -42% -5,50 -71% -13,43 -30% -34% -61% Average delta value 55dB-75dB/300- 55dB/300- 55dB-75dB/300- 55dB/300- 55dB/300- Noise footprints and missions 300-1000NM 300-1000NM 1000NM 1000NM 1000NM 1000NM 1000NM GTF130 2020 vs TF130 2000 -37% -4,30 -76% -14,00 -21% -34% -62% Average delta value 2012 55dB-75dB/100- 55dB-75dB/100- Noise footprints and missions 100-500NM 100-500NM 500NM 500NM TP90 2020 vs TP90 2000 -26% NA -48% NA -22% -41% NA Average delta value 55dB-75dB/300- 55dB-75dB/300- Noise footprints and missions 300-1000NM 300-1000NM 1000NM 1000NM GTF130 2020 vs TF130 2000 -31% NA -75% NA -21% -39% NA Average delta value 2011 55dB-75dB/100- 55dB-75dB/100- Noise footprints and missions 100-500NM 100-500NM 500NM 500NM TP90 2020 vs TP90 2000 -54% NA 69% NA -36% -56% NA Average delta value Advanced TF, Advanced TF, GTF/300- GTF/300- Noise footprints and missions 55dB-75dB/300- 55dB-75dB/300- 1000NM 1000NM 1000NM 1000NM GTF130 2020 vs TF130 2000 -37% NA -68% NA -29% -51% NA Average delta value Table 2: Regional aircraft TE results from 2011 to 2014
Table 2 provides the overview of the results for the regional aircraft pairs for the 2011 and 2012 assessments. The 2013 values were performed in that year but are taken into the 2014 assessment results. It appears that in terms of reduction of perceived noise in % the 2014 results are very good and achieve even more than the ACARE goal (-50%).
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 66
Perceived noise area noise noise area noise CO2 Nox noise volume reduction reduction reduction reduction reduction per reduction per Business Jets reduction landing [%] landing [dB]* take-off [%] take-off [dB]* pax [%] pax [%] take off [%] 2014 55dB-75dB/800- 55dB/800- 55dB-75dB/800- 55dB/800- 55dB/800- Noise footprints and missions 800-2900NM 800-2900NM 2900NM 2900NM 2900NM 2900NM 2900NM LSBJ 2020 vs LSBJ 2000 -38% -2,33 -58% -5,50 -33% -34% -32% Average delta value 2013 55dB- 55dB- 55dB/1000- 55dB/1000- 55dB/1000- Noise footprints and missions 75dB/1000- 75dB/1000- 1000-6400NM 1000-6400NM 6400NM 6400NM 6400NM 6400NM 6400NM HSBJ 2020 vs HSBJ 2000 -19% -0,60 -10% -1,13 -19% -26% -8% Average delta value 2012 55dB-75dB, 6430NM Heavy 6430NM Heavy 55dB-75dB, Noise footprints and missions heavy/light take off / light take off / light light landing take-off landing landing HSBJ 2020 vs HSBJ 2000 -31% NA -35% NA -22% -26% NA Average delta value Noise footprints and missions 800-2900NM 800-2900NM LSBJ 2020 vs LSBJ 2000 NA NA NA NA -30% -26% NA Average delta value 2011 55-75dB, 55-75dB, 1200NM (short 1200NM (short 1200NM 1200NM range half fuel), range half fuel), Noise footprints and missions light/heavy light/heavy 2900NM (long 2900NM (long load load range max fuel) range max fuel) LSBJ 2020 vs LSBJ 2000 -35% NA -68% NA -27% -28% NA Average delta value Table 3: Business jets TE results from 2011 to 2014
Table 3 provides the overview of the results for the business jet aircraft pairs for the 2011, 2012 and 2014 assessments. The 2013 values were performed in that year but are taken into the 2014 assessment results.
CO2 noise area Nox Rotorcraft reduction reduction [%] reduction [%] [%] 2014 Mission type noiseOil & areagas Oil & gas Oil & gas CO2 Nox Rotorcraft reduction reduction [%] reduction [%] TEH 2020 vs TEH 2000 NA[%] -22% -47% 2013 Mission type oil&gas oil&gas oil&gas TEH 2020 vs TEH 2000 NA -14% -38% 2012 Mission type passenger passenger passenger SEL 2020 vs SEL 2000 -47% -30% -76% Mission type EMS/police EMS/police EMS/police TELU1 2020 vs TEL 2000 -53% -27% -75% 2011 EMS/police/pas EMS/police/pas EMS/police/pas Mission type senger senger senger TEL 2020 vs TEL 2000 -55% -29% NA
Table 4: Rotorcraft TE results from 2011 to 2014
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 67
Table 4 provides the overview of the results for the rotorcraft pairs for the 2011 and 2012 assessments. The TEH 2013 values were performed in that year but are reported into the 2014 assessment results. For the TEH rotorcraft the mission used is the transportation of passengers to oil & gas platforms. For this kind of mission noise is not an important parameter (no population impacted), and therefore not assessed.
2014 assessment results at airport level
In the 2014 assessment for regional and mainliner aircraft traffic at airport level, five airports were considered to determine potential Clean Sky benefits when comparing a year 2020 fleet scenario with reference 2000 aircraft and a year 2020 fleet scenario with concept (or Clean Sky) aircraft. Preliminary results suggest that Clean Sky technologies could bring environmental benefits: reductions in fuel burn and emissions, which are between 25-35% for fuel burn and CO2 and which are between 20-40% for NOX. Noise assessments have also been performed at airport level, but they need to be consolidated in next assessments when limitations in some ITDs aircraft noise models are expected to have been alleviated.
In the next years assessment these emission and noise results will be further matured, for instance, when updated ITD aircraft models are used, when SGO technologies and possible SESAR operational improvements are incorporated, and when potential effects of increased seat capacity of concept aircraft on the number of aircraft movements have been considered.
2014 assessment results at global (ATS) level
Year 2020 global fleets containing on the one hand year 2000 technology aircraft and on the other hand year 2020 Clean Sky aircraft were compared to each other in order to determine the Clean Sky benefits.
The fleet is divided into different categories which are related to the sizes of the aircraft in terms of number of seats and ranges flown. These categories can be grouped into five fleet segments containing: 1. Regional aircraft 2. Short and Medium range aircraft 3. Long range aircraft 4. Very Large aircraft (VLA) 5. Others (about 26% of the global fleet) In order to determine the Clean Sky benefit, the fleet replacement with ITD Clean Sky concept aircraft was operated in the first four fleet segments. Segments 1 to 3 were replaced with ITD concept aircraft whereas for segment 4 a DLR internal advanced VLA aircraft model was used.
With these assumptions, Clean Sky leads to a reduction of around 20% fuel consumption and CO2 emission, overall, at global fleet level. The individual benefits for segments which Clean Sky is focusing on (Short-Medium Range, Regional…) are potentially significantly higher.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 68
Conclusion
Overall, in 2014 we can conclude that with the first issue of noise assessment results and NOx emission assessments for a number of platforms, the 2014 assessment report is more complete than ever and shows good progress towards Clean Sky’s environmental objectives as stated in the Clean Sky Development Plan (CSDP).
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 69
6.2 Clean Sky 2 Programme – reminder of research objectives
Innovative Aircraft Demonstrator Platforms (IADPs) IADPs will aim to carry out proof of aircraft systems, design and functions on fully representative innovative aircraft configurations in an integrated environment and close to real operational conditions. To simulate and test the interaction and impact of the various systems in the different aircraft types, vehicle demonstration platforms will be defined, built and demonstrated covering [major elements of] Large Passenger Aircraft, Regional Aircraft and Fast Rotorcraft. The choice of demonstration platforms is geared to the most promising and appropriate market opportunities to ensure the best and most rapid exploitation of the results of Clean Sky 2.
Large Passenger Aircraft IADP The Large Passenger Aircraft goal is high-TRL demonstration of the best technologies to accomplish the combined key ACARE goals with respect to the environment, fulfilling future market needs and improving the competitiveness of future products. The setup of the main programme objectives is to further push the value of technologies tackled in Clean Sky, e.g. the integration of CROR propulsion systems, and to add the validation of additional key technologies like hybrid laminarity for the wing, horizontal and vertical tail plane as well as an all-new next generation fuselage cabin and cockpit-navigation suite validated at integrated level with large scale demonstrators in operational conditions. The focus is on large-scale demonstration of technologies integrated at aircraft level in three distinct ‘Platforms’:
Platform 1 “Advanced Engine and Aircraft Configurations” Platform 2 “Innovative Physical Integration Cabin – System – Structure” Platform 3 “Next Generation Electrical Aircraft System, Cockpit and Avionics”
Regional Aircraft IADP Regional Aircraft IADP will bring the integration of technologies to a further level of complexity and maturity than currently pursued in Clean Sky. The goal is to integrate and validate, at aircraft level, advanced technologies for regional aircraft so as to drastically de- risk their integration on future products. The following demonstration programmes for regional aircraft a/c are currently foreseen:
2 Flying Test-beds (to minimize the technical and programme risks) using modified existing regional TP a/c with underwing mounted engines, for demonstration campaigns of: air vehicle configuration technologies; wing structure with integrated systems and propulsion integration; flight dynamics, aerodynamic and load alleviation; advanced flight controls and general systems, and avionics functionalities. 5 Large Integrated Ground Demonstrators: full-scale wing, full-scale cockpit; full-scale fuselage and cabin; all including their associated systems; flight simulator; iron bird. In addition a Nacelle ground demonstrator will be done in the Airframe ITD.
Fast Rotorcraft IADP
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 70
The Fast Rotorcraft IADP consists in principle of two concurrent demonstrators, the Tiltrotor demonstrator and the Compound Rotorcraft demonstrator along with transversal activities relevant for both fast rotorcraft concepts.
The Tiltrotor demonstrator NextGenCTR: NextGenCTR will be dedicated to design, build and fly an innovative next generation civil tiltrotor technology demonstrator, the configuration of which will go beyond current architectures of this type of aircraft.
The Compound Rotorcraft demonstrator LifeRCraft: A large scale flightworthy demonstrator embodying the new European compound rotorcraft architecture will be designed, integrated and flight tested. This demonstrator will allow reaching the Technology Readiness Level 6 at whole aircraft level in 2020.
Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs) In addition to the complex vehicle configurations, Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs) will accommodate the main relevant technology streams for all air vehicle applications. They allow the maturing of verified and validated technologies from their basic levels to the integration of entire functional systems. They have the ability to cover quite a wide range of technology readiness levels. Each of the three ITDs orientates a set of technology developments that will be brought from component level maturity up to the demonstration of overall performance at systems level to support the innovative flight vehicle configurations: Airframe comprising topics affecting the global vehicle-level design; Engines for all propulsion and power plant solutions; Systems comprising on all board systems, equipment and the interaction with the ATS Airframe ITD
Aircraft level objectives on greening, industrial leadership and enhanced mobility, and the fulfilment of future market requirements and contribution to growth cannot be met without strong progress on the airframe. A more efficient wing with natural laminar flow, optimised control surfaces and control systems will be demonstrated in Clean Sky. Also, novel engine integration strategies will have been derived and tested, and innovative fuselage structures investigated. All of these directions of progress will be enabled throughout the foreseen execution of 9 major Technology Streams: Innovative Aircraft Architecture. Advanced High Speed Airframe Novel Control Novel Travel Experience Next Generation Optimized Wing Boxes Optimized High Lift Configurations Advanced Integrated Structures Advanced Fuselage
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 71
Engines ITD
For Clean Sky 2, Engines ITD will build on the success of Clean Sky SAGE to validate more radical engine architectures to a position where their market acceptability is not determined by technology readiness. The platforms or demonstrators of these engines architectures are summarized below: Open Rotor Flight Test Ultra High Propulsive Efficiency (UHPE) demonstrator addressing Short / Medium Range aircraft market Business aviation / Short range regional Turboprop Demonstrator Advanced Geared Engine Configuration (HPC and LPT technology demonstration) Very High Bypass Ratio (VHBR) Large Turbofan demonstrator Very High Bypass Ratio (VHBR) Middle of Market Turbofan technology The Small Aero-Engine Demonstration projects related to SAT [Small air Transport]
Systems ITD
While systems and equipment account for a small part of the aircraft weight and environmental footprint, they play a central role in aircraft operation, flight optimisation, and air transport safety at different levels. Direct contributions to environmental objectives: optimised green trajectories, electrical taxiing, more electrical aircraft approach Enablers for air transport system optimisation: such as data link, advanced weather systems, trajectory negotiation, and flight management predictive capabilities. Increasing intrinsic system/component level performance to meet new aircraft needs without, and enablers for other innovations in the overall aircraft architecture. The Systems ITD in Clean Sky 2 will address these challenges through the following actions: Work on specific topics and technologies to design and develop individual equipment and systems and demonstrate them in local test benches and integrated demonstrators (up to TRL 5). Customisation, integration and maturation of these individual systems and equipment in IADPs demonstrators. This will enable full integrated demonstrations in IADPs and assessment of benefits in representative conditions. Transverse actions to mature processes and technologies with potential impact on all systems, either during development or operational use. Examples are framework and tools, simulation, incremental certification, integrated maintenance, eco-design.
Transverse Activities Some activities can be relevant for various IADPs and ITDs. These “Transverse Activities” do not form a separate IADP or ITD, but are an integral part of the other IADPs and ITDs. A dedicated budget will be reserved inside the concerned IADPs and ITDs to perform these activities. Leaders will be nominated for each Transverse Activity. So far, two Transverse Activities are agreed for Clean Sky 2: ECO-Design: life cycle optimization of the technologies, components and vehicles; Small Air Transport (SAT): airframe, engines and systems technologies for small aircraft (general aviation and utility / commuter transport up to 19 pax), extracting synergies where feasible with the other segments.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 72
The Technology Evaluator (TE) A Technology and Impact Evaluation infrastructure is an essential element within the Clean Sky PPP and will be continued. Impact Assessments such as at Airport and ATS level currently focused on noise and emissions will be expanded where relevant for the evaluation of the Programme’s delivered value. Where applicable they can include the other impacts, such as the mobility or increased productivity benefits of Clean Sky 2 concepts. The TE will also perform evaluations on aircraft “Mission Level” to assess innovative long term aircraft configurations.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 73
6.2.1 General information
2014 was the first year of operation of Clean Sky 2 after approximately 2 years of concerted preparation within which the Programme took shape:
The preparation and submission of a Joint Technical Proposal, its evaluation and the subsequent translation into a Work Plan and the first Grant Agreements The preparation of the Clean Sky 2 JU Council Regulation [558/2014] and Statutes, repealing and replacing the original Regulation 73/2008 creating the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.
The operational launch of the Clean Sky 2 Programme was established on July 9th 2014 as a consequence of the Innovation Investment Package as announced by Commission President J.M. Barroso, of which the renewed JTIs including Clean Sky 2 were an important part. Together with the formal launch of this package, and as set out in the first Clean Sky JU Amended Work Plan for 2014-2015 encompassing the CS2 Programme, the first Call for Core Partners was launched. 29 topic areas with a cumulative indicative value of 206m€ were published. At year end, the call had closed and evaluations had progresses smoothly towards an expected grant implementation phase in the first half of 2015. The Call for Core Partners, a de facto call for the new membership of the JU for the period through to 2024, marked a key evolution in the desired openness and transparency of the mechanisms enabling participation of the broadest and most capable set of research and innovation chain actors throughout the European arena: thus underpinning not only the stated environmental/societal goals of the Programme but forming a cornerstone element in the Programme’s stated goals of fostering and strengthening European industrial leadership.
At the end of the reporting period the first Clean Sky 2 Call for Proposals had also opened (with a call closure date announced for 31st March 2015). This call also marked an important accomplishment in the early days of the 10-year Programme as it demonstrated the JU’s ability to quickly move forward with calls, leaving no “gap year” between the Clean Sky CfPs completed with Call 16 in late 2013 and thus ensuring a continuity of opportunity for SME’s, academia and RTOs to find the appropriate level of participation in the Programme in its first year of operation.
Separately, 2014 saw the first Grant Agreements for Members (GAMs) awarded to the Programme’s Leaders (as defined in the Statutes Annex I), enabling the kick-off of technical activity in the IADPs and ITDs and supporting the private members’ (Leaders’) efforts to complete the early stages of definition of technical content, the required topics for calls, and the further elaboration of the 2014 – 2017 milestones and deliverables. The 3 IADPs and 3 ITDs commenced technical operations at different stages after the 9th July 2014 launch, based on the state of readiness and maturity of the work-scope definition; and with start dates for the Grant Agreements ranging between July and October 2014. The Programme’s Transverse Activities (TAs) and the TE will follow in 2015. This phased approach allowing for a completion of the management modalities will have to be agreed between the JU Executive, the IADPs/ITDs and these TAs.
It is fully expected that the Programme will see a steep ramp up in research activity from the 2nd quarter of 2015, in particular as and when the first “wave” of Core Partners join the Programme and accede to the JU as members.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 74
6.2.2 LPA – Large Passenger Aircraft IADP
Essentially build upon the positive experiences of the CleanSky SFWA project, the Large Passenger Aircraft IADP operational activities started in July 2014 in all three major work packages also called “Platforms”,
Platform 1: “Advanced Engine and Aircraft Configurations” will provide the development environment for the integration of the most fuel efficient propulsion concepts into the airframe targeting next generation short and medium range aircraft, the CROR engine and the Ultra-High Bypass Ratio (UHBR) turbofan; Platform 2: “Innovative Physical Integration Cabin – System – Structure” is aiming to develop, mature, and demonstrate an entirely new, advanced fuselage structural concept developed in full alignment towards a next generation of cabin-cargo architecture, including all relevant principle aircraft systems; Platform 3: “Next Generation Aircraft Systems, Cockpit and Avionics” ultimate objective is to build a highly representative ground demonstrator to validate a Disruptive Cockpit concept to be ready for a possible launch of a future European LPA aircraft. Although a Disruptive Cockpit is the main target of Platform 3, some of the technologies that will be worked out may find an earlier application. These technologies spin-offs would be candidate for an incremental development of the existing family of commercial airplanes. Advanced systems maintenance activities are also part of Platform 3.
The purpose and intention of the LPA technical work program in all three platforms is to prepare and conduct research and technology development with focus to mature and validated technologies with potential of high improvement potential and which have reached elevated maturity already, typically based on integrated ground and flight demonstrators of large or full scale.
Implementation of main work packages and operational start of the project Based on the LPA strategic plan as laid out in the CS2 Joint Technical Programme and the detailed Work Plan 2014-2015, the key focus of activities in 2014 were laid on the establishment and deployment of key elements of the project management and to launch the operational phase in the work packages. This was in particular including the inauguration of a program consortium with a steering committee, the deployment of a program governance structure in particular including the definition of consortium agreements and steering committee rules and procedures. With an assembly of an initial launching team of all seven contributing CS2 industries representing 14 beneficiaries and linked third parties, a preliminary LPA Project Kick-Off Meeting was held at the 9th of October in Bremen. The constitution of the LPA Steering Committee took place at the 24th of November in Brussels. The technical implementation of the technical program of LPA was done for all main LPA work packages except for WP1.5 and main parts of Platform 3 except work package WP3.6 “Maintenance”, which were reviewed substantially reshaped and then successfully presented to a panel of experts in November 2014. A detailed technical work programme for the updated work package WP1.5 “Applied Technologies for enhanced Aircraft Performance” and Platform 3 was prepared at the end of 2014 as amendment to the contract and deployment in early 2015. Activities to provide interfaces to the CleanSky 2 Transversal Activities (TA) Technology Evaluator and EcoDesign did not yield an explicit stage in 2014, as the details of the work plan of both were under development in 2014.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 75
Work package leaders were nominated for most of the other level two work packages and technical teams were established. Mainly in the third quarter of 2014, technical activities started in almost half (20 out of 44) of the associate level 3 work packages. An important activity of the technical management teams in the LPA work packages in 2014 was to define the topics for the first and second CleanSky 2 core partner call as well as the topics for the first CleanSky 2 call for proposals. The call for proposal topics which were published at the 15th of December includes three important items for Platform 1, six for Platform 2 and three for Platform 3.
Ramp up of technical activities in LPA Platform 1 In the first half of 2014 the planning phase of Platform 1 took place which were smoothly transferred into the operational phase (from 18th of July on), officially approved by the preliminary kick-off meeting for the LPA-IADP. Beside the refinement of the development plan for the whole period (JTP) and the work plan 2014/2015, the activities concentrated on detailing the Work- and Organisational Breakdown Structure in combination with the compilation of the Annex to the Grant Agreement. This was done in close cooperation with all relevant stakeholders, facilitated by an established weekly virtual meeting.
A special situation exists for WP1.3 for which it is planned to compose the WP consortium mainly of Partners, to be engaged from second call for Partners on. Therefore the operational work will for this WP will start in 2015.
The aforementioned activities included the identification of the first call for Core Partners (6 proposals) and Partners (3 proposals) and the compilation of the according Strategic-Topic proposals. For the second call for Core Partners the Strategic Topic content was defined and submitted.
Following the outcome of an expert evaluation in Spring 2014 the WP1.5 was completely revised in terms of scope, objectives and tasks at “iso” total budget. In November 2014 the revised WP1.5 passed successfully an expert evaluation and was subsequently introduced into all relevant documents (JTP, work plan, annex, etc.).
Ramp up of technical activities in LPA Platform 2 Within IADP LPA the work in 2014 concentrated on ramp-up activities, e.g. by detailing the planning for the project start phase and by defining major partner contributions to be included. To this end the initial issues of the work plan (Annex 1 to the GAM) have been generated covering the first two project years until end of 2015. Calls for partners have been prepared, in order to include as soon as possible the knowledge and skills of those partners, which were identified as most essential for ramping-up the research activities during 2015. For Platform 2, in total two Core-Partner Calls in CP wave#1 and six Partner Calls in CfP wave#1 were generated for publication. One Core Partner Call (JTI-CS2-CPW01-LPA-02- 01) was mainly dedicated to the architecture definition of the Next Generation Fuselage, Cabin and Systems Integrated Demonstrator (Multifunctional demonstrator), and the other Core Partner Call (JTI-CS2-CPW01-LPA-02-01) was targeting at an industrial partner with proven strong competencies and experience in aerospace equipment and systems for commercial aircraft, in particular in the field of cabin & cargo interior and system design. In 2014 the work to be performed in WP 2.1 “Integrated Product Architecture” was identified and planned. The technical ramp-up of this work package will happen in 2015 with the engagement of the Core-Partner for the start of the Multifunctional Demonstrator’s
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 76
concept phase. The 2014 technical ramp-up happened mostly in WP 2.2 “Non-Specific Design Technologies” and WP 2.3 “Technology Validation”. Within WP 2.2, the technical work started in the 6 sub-work packages which contain various technologies identified as relevant for the three Platform 2 demonstrators. In WP 2.3, the WPs 2.3.1 and 2.3.2 were ramped-up with activities regarding Testing and the concept phase for the lower Centre Fuselage Demonstrator.
Ramp up of technical activities in LPA Platform 3 In WP3.6 Maintenance first activities on Structure Health Monitoring and System Prognostics have been launched within Airbus. Basic studies on the state of the art for the preliminary SHM Use-Cases Step 1 for unscheduled maintenance improvement and the state of the art of the respective system architectures have been conducted. Derived from operational requirements it outlines the development steps to be addressed in the work in WP3.6.2 and the related call for proposal
Major milestones accomplished in 2014
Overall Project Implementation
Start of Operational work at 18th of July 2014 Formal project kick off meeting (preliminary kick off with CS2 industry launching members) at 9th of October 2014 Constitutional meeting of the LPA Steering Committee at 24th of November 2014 Revision of the demonstrator work plan for work packages WP1.5 “Applied Technologies for enhanced Aircraft Performance” and Platform 3 “Next Generation Aircraft Systems, Cockpit and Avionics”, submission of an associated update of the contract and technical work plan for 2015 following the successful passing of a technical evaluation in November 2014
Platform 1
First physical meeting with all launching members for Platform 1, Bremen. Successful technical evaluation of the Core-Partner Wave 1 topics (6 topics for Platform 1) at the Consensus Meeting, Dec. 2014, Brussels. Successful technical evaluation of the WP1.5 “Applied Technologies for enhanced Aircraft Performance” in November 2014, Brussels.
Platform 2
Definition of two strategic topics for publication in the first wave of CleanSky 2 call for Core-Partners. Definition of six topics for publication in the first wave for Partners.
Platform 3
Initiation of the WP3.6 Maintenance work package architecture definition Launch of SOA analysis on WP3.6.2 Prognostics and Condition based Maintenance
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 77
Major deliverables accomplished in 2014
Platform 1
Definition and submission of 6 topics (full proposals) for Platform 1, July 2014. For the 1st call for Core Partners Attendance of the Work Area Leaders for Core Partner topics (wave 1) at the Consensus Meeting, Dec. 2014, Brussels. For the 2nd call for Core Partners: Submission of 2 topics (topic titles) for Platform 1. For the 1st call for Partners: Submission of 3 topics (full proposals) for Platform 1, Nov. 2014. Submission of a completely revised version of the WP1.5 “Applied Technologies for enhanced Aircraft Performance”, October 2014. In detail for the work packages: o WP1.1 - Implementation of project structure for the CROR Flight test demonstrator and transition from CleanSky I activities (SFWA WP3.3). Review of demonstration objectives: the CROR FTD will have to support the TRL6 maturation level of the economically viable CROR Aircraft. Such economic viability demonstration, planned middle of 2017, may impact the technology candidates for the flight test demonstration and accordingly put a risk on the demonstration planning. - Initial definition of Non Propulsive Energy Work Package content and partner identification.
o WP1.2 Identification of the high level plan and definition of the various steps of the pyramid of testing for Engine mounted rear fuselage in order to support ramp-up of maturation up to TRL6.
o WP1.5 Identification of Technology candidates for large UHBR engine, initial definition of Large Engine target aircraft.
o WP1.6 Initial definition of project time line for in-flight demonstration of large UHBR engine and main project contributions. Launch of feasibility dossier for Flight Test Demonstrator.
Platform 2
Completion of the GAM Annex 1 2014-2015 Identification of technologies for Multifunctional Demonstrator and Cabin & cargo Demonstrator
Platform 3
Maintenance architectural concepts definition Preliminary SHM Use Case & state of the art of SHM-System architecture Report
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 78
6.2.3 REG – Regional Aircraft IADP
During 2014, the R-IADP Leaders activities started at the end of July following the positive evaluation by the CSJU of the Annex prepared for the Grant Agreement 2014-2015. The activities performed by the Leaders (Alenia Aermacchi, Airbus DS) during 2014 were aimed at: . undertaking a more detailed technical definition of activities, w.r.t the contents of JTP, in order to properly perform all of the activities that will follow: either Leaders own activities and Leaders activities aimed to the achievement of the necessary Partnership (CPs, CfPs) for the R-IADP; . enabling the interactions and interfaces with CSJU and other SPDs, either for consolidated synergies and for synergies still to be finalized . supporting the selection of Core Partners (CPW01)
The formal launch of R-IADP Leaders activities in 2014 was also achieved through a preliminary Kick-off-Meeting, held in Alenia Aermacchi at the end of November 2014, with participation of CSJU, Airbus DS and representatives of the Systems ITD.
The Grant Agreement 2014-2015 was finalized and duly signed.
WP0 – Management
Main activities performed during 2014
. Program Coordination: interface with CSJU, calls and meetings with Airbus DS, coordination of interfaces with other SPDs; . Preparation of the Specification for the subcontracting "Administrative Support"; . Finalization of the Grant Agreement 2014-2015 Annexes; . Started management of transition from GRA and Risk assessment integrated with GRA; . Preparation and organization of the (pre-)KOM; . Coordination for the preparation of deliverable D-0.1-01”Strategic Topics for CPW2”, re-planned to be issued in 2015
WP0 Milestone status
1 (of 1) milestone planned in the GA 2014-2015 was successfully achieved.
WP0 Deliverables status
Nr of deliverables due in 2014: 1 Nr of deliverables pending by the end of 2014: 1
WP1 – High Efficiency Regional Aircraft
Main activities performed during 2014
. Started the preliminary definition of Top Level Aircraft requirements (Alenia) as well as the preparation of Deliverable D-1.2-01 – “TLAR High Efficiency Regional A/C requirements (loop 0)” which is planned in the GAM to be issued at the end of February 2015
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 79
. Regional Aircraft TLR and Technology Survey applicable to FTB2 demonstrator (Airbus DS) and Deliverable D-1.2.1-01 “Regional Aircraft TLAR. CS2 FTB2 demonstrator” issued on 20/12/2014. Now in proof reading loop.
WP1 Milestone status
No milestones planned for 2014
WP1 Deliverables status
Nr of deliverables due in 2014: 1 Nr of deliverables pending by the end of 2014: 0
WP2 – Technologies Development
Main activities performed during 2014
. Initial activities for specification preparation of high level requirements of methodologies for aircraft life cycle and of innovative wing structure manufacturing tools. Issue of output document O2.1.1-01 “Wing components manufacturing tools preliminary requirements”. Initial collection of available data to be used as inputs to ECO TA for LCA evaluations. . Definition of Adaptive Wing Technologies Down-Selection Criteria with finalization of Deliverable D-2.1-01”Adaptive Wing Technologies Down-Selection Criteria” . Review of candidate technologies for Advanced Avionics and evaluation of potential collaboration with System ITD. . Review of candidate technologies for the "Electric Landing Gear System" (E-LGS), Advanced Electrical Power Generation and Distribution (A-EPGDS), Innovative Propeller and Enhanced Fuel/Inerting System with evaluation of potential collaboration with System ITD. . Preliminary Review of technologies for Innovative FCS based on preliminary conceptual studies coming from other WP 2.x and on other research projects. Evaluation of potential collaboration with System ITD. . Preparation and evaluation support to call for Core Partners
WP2 Milestone status
No milestone planned for 2014
WP2 Deliverables status
Nr of deliverables due in 2014: 1 Nr of deliverables pending by the end of 2014: 0
WP3 – Demonstrators
Main activities performed during 2014
. Preparation and evaluation support to the Call for Core Partners including requirements for the Aircraft Flight Simulator and the Iron Bird technologies integrating demonstrators design and development.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 80
Coordination between Alenia and Airbus DS about the Flight Test Program by using two Flying Test Beds; preparation of “Regional A/C Activities in CS2 Alenia / Airbus DS Complementarities Tables”
WP3 Milestone status
No milestone planned for 2014
WP3 Deliverables status
No deliverable planned for 2014
WP4 – Technologies Development and Demonstration Results
Main activities performed during 2014
. Interactions with ECO TA
WP4 Milestone status
No milestone planned for 2014
WP4 Deliverables status
No deliverable planned for 2014
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 81
6.2.4 FRC – Fast Rotorcraft IADP
General Scope The Fast Rotorcraft IADP of Clean Sky 2 consists of two separate demonstrators, the NextGenCTR tiltrotor (leader: Agusta Westland) and the LifeRCraft compound helicopter (leader: Airbus Helicopters). These two fast rotorcraft concepts aim to deliver superior vehicle productivity and performance, and through this economic advantage to users. NextGenCTR will be dedicated to design, build and fly an innovative next generation civil tiltrotor technology demonstrator, the configuration of which will go beyond current architectures of this type of aircraft. This tiltrotor concept will involve tilting proprotors mounted in fixed nacelles at the tips of relatively short wings. These wings will have a fixed inboard portion and a tilting outboard portion next to the nacelle. The tilting portion will move in coordination with the proprotors, to minimize rotor downwash impingement in hover and increase efficiency. Demonstration activities will aim at validating its architecture, technologies/systems and operational concepts. They will show significant improvement with respect to current Tiltrotors. NextGenCTR will continue to develop what has been initiated in Green Rotorcraft ITD in Clean Sky. New specific activities will also be launched in Clean Sky 2 in particular concerning drag reduction of the proprotor, airframe fuselage and wing. The new proprotor will require substantial research to reduce noise emissions. In Clean Sky, noise reduction is mainly addressed through the optimisation of flight trajectories. In Clean Sky 2 transversal subjects will cover new research areas, validating them at full scale and in real operational conditions. The LifeRCraft project aims at demonstrating the compound rotorcraft configuration, implementing and combining cutting-edge technologies from the current Clean Sky programme, and opening up new mobility roles that neither conventional helicopters nor fixed wing aircraft can currently cover. The compound concept will involve the use of forward propulsion through turbo-shaft driven propellers on short wings, complementing the main rotor providing vertical lift and hover capability. A large scale flightworthy demonstrator, embodying the new European compound rotorcraft architecture, will be designed, integrated and flight tested. This demonstrator will allow reaching the TRL 6 at full-aircraft level in 2020. The individual technologies of the Clean Sky Programme (Green Rotorcraft, Systems for Green Operations and Eco-Design ITDs) will be further matured and integrated in this LifeRCraft demonstration.
FRC scope of Activity in 2014 In 2014, the preliminary sizing and design of the two demonstrators (tiltrotor architecture, compound rotorcraft architecture) had to be initiated by the IADP Leaders. Some strategic topics had to be launched as part of the first Clean Sky 2 CfCP in order to let candidates for Core Partners positions submit proposals. Some topics had also to be launched as part of the first Clean Sky 2 CfP in order to let candidates for Partner positions submit proposals. Major Achievements in 2014 WP 0: Consortium Management In 2014, the Coordinator AH (Airbus Helicopters) proposed some dedicated management tools and procedures that are needed to organize planning and reporting activities as needed
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 82
for the regular monitoring of IADP activities, in liaison with AW (AgustaWestland) and with the JU Project Officer. WP1 – NextGenCTR - Next Generation Civil Tiltrotor Demonstrator Despite the difficulties encountered to match initial expectations of planned activities, it was possible to fully support the formal setting-up of the Fast RotorCraft IADP and make progress to enable the best possible continuation in 2015. WP1.0 – Management Demonstrator Management: full support was given to the setting-up of the Fast RotorCraft IADP including the co-leader acting as coordinator and the JU in liaison with all other company internal and external stakeholders. Activities included for example, project and consortium organisation and legal clarifications, forward planning and budgeting. A preliminary kick-off meeting was held with the JU in Brussels in September whilst an internal company wide launch meeting was held in November for the NextGenCTR Demonstrator project in anticipation of GAM signature. WP1.1 – System Integration & Demonstration Cross-checking and revision of general architecture studies performed in 2014, with a view to the prospect of upcoming Calls for Core Partners and Partners in 2015. Expert support given to a CSJU Workshop with a view to share best practices and the scoping of promising icing protection solutions. Establishment of possible technical requirements and interfaces with the CS2 Systems ITD as well as with possible engine OEMs for near future and long term NextGenCTR Demonstrator requirements. WP 1.3 – Highly Reliable, Safe & Environmentally Friendly Drive System Initial architectural and sizing studies with a view to support global general architecture studies. WP 1.7 – Technology Evaluator Interface Initial scoping of technical activities performed with a view to more formally align activities with the CS2 TE in future discussions planned in 2015.
WP2 – LifeRCraft - Compound Rotorcraft Demonstrator WP 2.1: Project Management & Integration Activities The pre-project phase was completed with the preliminary architecture and sizing of main parameters established. The demonstrator draft general specifications have been defined in Dec 2014, with two-month delay as compared to FRC-GAM objective (milestone M2.1.1- 1). During the pre-project, some preliminary CFD computations have been performed in order to assess the merits of several possible configurations and airframe shape as regards aerodynamic drag. Small wind tunnel models have also been manufactured after observing the poor prediction of flow separation by CFD on a reference configuration. Tests in the AH in-house wind tunnel started end of December and will continuein January 2015. The minimization of aerodynamic drag relies on results of airframe drag studies conducted in Clean Sky GRC and some further work to be conducted by Partners in the FRC IADP.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 83
Two strategic topics were opened in the first Call for Core Partners for contributions to the LifeRCraft. Airbus Helicopters supported the JU during Info Days which took place in Toulouse and Brussels (communication and dissemination activities). Both topics have been covered by proposals. One Core Partner proposing to design and manufacture drive system components has been selected by independent experts in Dec 2014. A second Core Partner (cluster) proposing to design and manufacture the central fuselage has been selected after an hearing taking place in Jan 2015. Eight topics (6 as IA and 2 as RIA) were defined by Airbus Helicopters and opened to competition in the first Call for Partners in December 2014. One of these topics relevant to general vehicle aerodynamics was delivered to JU in fulfillment of GAM deliverable D2.1.2-1. The late completion of the pre-project phase was due to some delay in selecting high profile senior engineers and building up the core team within the Airbus Helicopters group. The project team has been temporarily supplemented by subcontractors to limit the impact on general project schedule. The complete major interface definition will be achieved in Feb 2015 just in time for defining the statement of work with incoming Core Partners. WPs 2.2; 2.3, 2.11: Airframe, Landing System, Cabin & Mission Equipment These work packages made a late start due to delayed completion of pre-project phase and insufficient available resources. The performed work supported the definition by Airbus Helicopters of two topics which were opened to competition in the Airframe ITD in the first Call for Partners in December 2014 (due to limited call budget available in the FRC IADP): one concerning the windshield technology (WP2.2) and the other the airframe doors (WP2.11). WPs 2.4; 2.5, 2.6, 2.7, 2.9: Dynamic System (Rotors, Drive train, Powerplant, Flight controls) These work packages made a late start due to delayed completion of pre-project phase. AH examined the possibility to re-use existing components or existing technologies with some adaptation, for the sake of risk reduction (demonstration schedule) and cost limitation. This work also supported the definition of call topics in the first CfP (as mentioned in WP 2.1) concerning aerodynamics and surface design of:
main rotor hub fairings; side rotor blades (propellers); engine air intakes. The second topic (side rotor blade design) was delivered to JU in fulfillment of GAM deliverable D 2.5.1-1. The control system for yaw and propulsion which actuates the pitch of side rotors is on the critical path of the demonstration and was subject to preliminary architecture studies and feasibility tests in 2014.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 84
WP 2.8: Electrical Generation and Distribution System A preliminary electrical architecture consistent with the demonstrator configuration was defined in 2014. As based on High Voltage Direct Current implementation, it relies on results of technology and equipment developments conducted in Clean Sky GRC and SGO ITDs and some further work to be conducted by Partners in the FRC IADP. Four topics relevant to dedicated electrical components have been issued in the first Call for Partners. They were delivered to JU in fulfillment of GAM deliverable D2.8.2-1. WPs 2.10, 2.12: Avionics, Flight Control, Navigation The avionics suite was selected and principles for adaptation of the system architecture to the targeted mission requirements were defined. It is based on a state of art and serialized system (TRL8) and the system as customized for the demonstration is considered to reach TRL4 at end 2014. Concerning flight control, a flight simulator model was assembled and first simulation runs were performed to assess vehicle behavior and pilot activity during take-off and landing maneuvers. No deliverable and no milestone were planned in 2014 in these work packages. WP3 - Eco-Design interface for fast rotorcraft This work package could not be launched before end 2014 since the largest share of the industrial activity in both FRC projects will be performed by Core Partners and Partners who are yet active and still to be selected by open calls, for most of them. Both AH and AW participated to the Life Cycle Assessment workshop organized by JU on 21st October 2014, which scope encompassed both Clean Sky and Clean Sky 2. But the meeting between leaders AH and AW planned in December 2014 and aiming to jointly establish a FRC roadmap for Life Cycle Assessment had to be rescheduled beginning 2015 (milestone FRC-M3.1.1 postponed). WP4 - Technology Evaluator interface for fast rotorcraft Only very limited activity could be initiated in 2014 in this joint work package, as AW and AH had first to review separately in WP1 and WP1 respectively, how to adapt their Clean Sky TE approach to the new context of Clean Sky 2 and FRC platform. The joint meeting aimed at agreeing on a baseline and objectives for both FRC demonstrations did not take place in December Assessment and had to be rescheduled beginning 2015 (deliverable FRC- D 4.1-1postponed).
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 85
6.2.5 AIR– Airframe ITD
The Airframe ITD will target significant gains in the following areas:
Introducing innovative/disruptive configurations enabling a step-change in terms of efficiency, Developing more efficient wings, Developing fuselages with optimized usage of volume and minimized weight, cost and environmental impact, Developing an enhanced technology base in a transverse approach towards airframe efficiency to feed the demonstrators on synergetic domains (e.g.: Efficient wing technologies, hybrid laminar flow technologies, new production and recycling techniques).
Due to the large scope of technologies undertaken by the Airframe ITD, addressing the full range of aeronautical portfolio (Large passenger Aircraft, Regional Aircraft, Rotorcraft, Business Jet and Small transport Aircraft), the ITD is structured around 2 major Activity Lines: Activity Line 1: Demonstration of airframe technologies focused toward High Performance & Energy Efficiency; Related Technology Streams are noted “A” hereafter. Activity Line 2: Demonstration of airframe technologies focused toward High Versatility and Cost Efficiency. Related Technology Streams are noted “B” hereafter.
Management and interface A-0 On WP A-0.1 (Overall Management), a preliminary kickoff meeting was held on the 4th of November. The Management and Quality Manual with associated management tools have been produced and delivered. Main activities were (DAv): General Financial and Administration activities. Coordination of preparation of CPW01 and CfP W1.
On WP A.0.4 (Eco Design Management) activities for Eco Design Management have been initiated focused on (FhG): Collection of Technology description and relation to Eco-Themes and further analysis of the ITD Airframe technologies, Technology scoping, mapping and definition from the ITDs/IADPs into ED-TA technology streams, Support Eco Hybrid platform development by preparing information for ITD members.
Technology Stream A-1: Innovative Aircraft Architecture 2014 has allowed starting activities related to future powerplant integration within WP A- 1.2 (UHBR & CROR Configuration). The WP A-1.2 has been defined in terms of general scope and detailed work-package organization. Also, related call-for-proposals were launched. The 2014 activities in WP A-1.2.1 focused on UHBR engine-integration technologies related to both small and large engines. In particular, Airbus activities started with a specific focus on engine-airframe close coupling integration from aerodynamic and physical integration stand-point. In the mean-time, the Airbus activities started towards the demonstration of economic viability of a CROR Aircraft in WP A-1.2.2 in a complementary manner to the ongoing, remaining activities in Clean Sky / SFWA WP 2.2. (AIB)
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 86
Technology Stream A-2: Advanced Laminarity In WP A-2.2 (NLF Smart Integrated Wing), preparatory work was performed for the ground tests for the Natural Laminar Flow (NLF) smart integrated wing, which aims to verify and validate the chosen structure- and systems concept. (AIB)
For the benefit of WP A-2.3 (Extended Laminarity), the preparation phase for a flight test with a NLF Horizontal Tail Plan mounted on A320 in 2015 was performed in a German funded project. This work in 2014 sets the basis for the flight test preparation and the flight test which will be conducted in this ITD Airframe WP in 2015/2016. (AIB)
Technology Stream A-3: High Speed Aircraft In the frame of WP A-3.1 (Multidisciplinary wing for high & low speed), initial investigations were performed addressing high aspect ratio wing for large civil aircraft with structure efficient, stringer dominated design. (AIB)
On WP A-3.4 (Eco-Design), preparation of 1st call for partner (CfP) on “Eco-Design for Airframe – Re-use of Thermoplastics” was carried out. The general technical objective is to make available to the aerospace industry and its supply chain a set of new technologies reducing the environmental foot print of the aircraft production from the global life cycle view point by developing new processes, methods, manufacturing & recycling technologies that enable “Green” manufacturing, maintenance and disposal. (AIB)
On WP A-3.4.1.7 (VEES - Stress sensor technology for advanced joining), initial work has been performed regarding specification and design of the monitoring system for monitoring deformation, stress and damage. (FhG)
Technology Stream A-4: Novel Control In the frame of WP A-4.2 (Active Load Control), initial work started concentrating on the definition of wing concepts featuring an active winglet for load and span control. Based on this, the work in 2015 will focus on initial wing/winglet aero shape design and the definition of folding kinematics and movables concepts. (AIB)
Technology Stream A-5: Novel Travel Experience
Management and interface B-0 In WP B-0.1 (Overall Management), the main activity was (CASA): General Management and coordination activities into the AIRFRAME / HVC. General Financial and Administration activities. Coordination of preparation of CPW01 and CfP W1.
In WP B-0.2 (Small Air Transport Overall A/C Design & Configuration Management) transversal coordination activity and management of technical topics of SAT started. Main focus was on preparation and release of CP topic for CPW01 and preparation of topics for CPW02 to ensure fluent run of CS2 SAT activities. Preparation of studies on optimized installation of diesel engine and turboprop engine in SAT aircraft was launched. (SAT)
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 87
In WP B-0.3, the main activity was (AH): General Management and coordination activities into the AIR-ITD and FRC IADP. General Financial and Administration activities. Call for Core Partner activities.
Technology Stream B-1: Next generation optimized wing In the frame of WP B-1.1 (Wing for lift & incremental mission shaft integration), for the flap actuation system, based on the state-of-the-art of applied flow control technologies, developed so far in European and National research projects, the first, small activities in 2014 concentrated on the robust design of the most promising flow control technologies, capable of being integrated and tailored to the objectives set in the IADP-LPA, Platform1, this in close interaction with National funded projects (AIB)
On WP B-1.2 (More affordable composite structures), the Scope of work for CP was detailed and draft of call for CPW02 was prepared. In thermoplastic topics study started on specification of parts and materials suitable for using of thermoplastic materials for secondary small aircraft structure. This study will be followed by study on investigating and defining proper technologies. (SAT)
Technology Stream B-2: Optimized high lift configurations On WP-B 2.3 (High Lift Wing (SAT)), the activities in 2014 focused on the definition of State of the Art of generally used high lift devices at the 19 seats commuter class. Work started on research study to identify a relevant method for improving the performance parameters of small transport aircrafts primary during the take-off and landing. (SAT)
Technology Stream B-3: Advanced integrated structures In the frame of WP-3.1 (Advanced integration of systems in nacelle) the down-selection of candidate composite materials for bird strike test and for thermal cycling test started. (ALA)
In the frame of WP B-3.2 (All electrical wing), the technical activities related with general requirements for actuation system in FTB2 and SATCOM system state of the art analysis were carried out. This led to production of a Development plan (O-B-3.2.1-1) and a SATCOM System state of the art (O-B-3.2.3-2).
In the frame of WP B-3.3 (Advanced Integrated Cockpit), for LPA innovative components, the following activities were carried out: Development of the description of the Sub WP 3.3.2 “LPA Innovative structural components” where research will be focus on new enhanced material, bonded repairs, on line NDT and netshape composite structure to reduce waste and optimize industrial costs and offer innovative solutions. Preparation of 3 topics for the 1st wave CfP: 1. “New Structural bonded repair of monolithic composite airframe”. 2. “Simulation tool development for a composite manufacturing process default prediction integrated into a quality control system” 3. “New Enhanced Acoustic damping composite material”
On WP B-3.4 (More Affordable Small a/c Manufacturing), activities in 2014 defined more precisely technical content for CP, which will be invited to enter program in CPW02.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 88
Conceptual analyses of multipurpose manipulator usage in small aircraft production started and process of defining philosophy of assembly automation and no jig assembling was launched. Pre-selection of proper small assemblies of Evektor aircraft was done with the aim to demonstrate partial achievements in no jig assembling technology in 2015. Extensive research study started to identify the critical connections of metal/non-metal materials that can be found on contemporary aircrafts together with specific demands imposed to the structure and connection of the parts.
Technology Stream B-4: Advanced fuselage On WP B-4.1 (Rotor-less tail for Fast Rotorcraft) technical activities in 2014 produced inputs needed for the Materials/Structural Concept and Manufacturing Procedures Evaluation Vs. Architecture inputs from LifeRCraft. (A-H)
In the frame of WP B-4.3 (Pressurized Fuselage for Fast Rotorcraft), the following activities were carried out: Contribution in the description of the WP, on activities that will contribute to about cost avoidance, first-time-right; early assessment of part tolerances and assembly evaluation, by easy uncertainty propagation; integration of rapid simulation methods for predicting part distortion with existing Design platforms and Design Optimisation methods & tools Preparation of 1st wave CfP: “Design Against Distortion: Part distortion prediction, design for minimized distortion, metallic aerospace parts” (AIB) In addition, the first collection of reference documents for specification preparation of high level requirements has been carried out for (ALA): Methodologies for design as well methodologies and technologies for maintenance, repair and SHM, Manufacturing tools and recycling techniques. In the frame of WP B-4.4 (Low weight, low cost cabin), assessment of tasks objectives, schedule and collaboration with other Airframe members were conducted.
Main AIRFRAME Milestones High Performance & Energy Efficiency (HPE) activity line A-0.1: Preliminary kickoff meeting on the 4th of November A-0.1: CPW01 and CfP1 publications
High Versatility and Cost Efficiency (HVC) B-0.1: Preliminary kickoff meeting on the 4th of November B-0.1: AIRFRAME / HVC Internal KoM in Getafe 20th November. B-4.1: AHG LifeRCraft Demonstrator KoM in Donauworth 1st October B-4.1: AHE Rear Fuselage for LifeRCraft Demonstrator KoM in Albacete 11th December
Main AIRFRAME Deliverables High Performance & Energy Efficiency (HPE) activity line A-0.1: AIRFRAME ITD Preliminary kickoff meeting – Doc AIR-DAv-DEL(D-A-0.1- 1)-0001 Issue draft A01 delivered 19/12/2015
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 89
A-1.2: Identification of UHBR enabling integration technologies for both large and small engines (WP1.2.1) (AIB)
High Versatility and Cost Efficiency (HVC) B-0.3: D-B-0.3-3a GAM 2014-2015 Annex 1 (AW contribution) B-0.3: D-B-0.3-3b GAM 2014-2015 Annex 1 (A-H contribution)
In addition the AIRFRAME ITD team presented 6 Strategic Topics at the 1st Call for CP and 14 Topics for the 1st CfP.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 90
6.2.6 ENG – Engines ITD
Work Package 0: Engine ITD Management (RR/Snecma/MTU) 2014 has been a significant year for the Engines-ITD and its members have worked at a very high tempo all year to deliver the programme’s launch and very importantly the first grant agreement. The early part of the year saw updates of the joint technical proposal with the definition of all the work packages being updated and shared within the Clean Sky engines community. With the formal launch of the programme in July 2014, there was a significant drive to complete the work plans and provide the information to enable formal launch of the Engines programmes. This was duly achieved on the 8th August. Updates of course then followed with the grant agreement being formally signed on the 19th December at the last governing board meeting of the year. In the meantime, the preliminary Engines ITD launch meeting was held at the Rolls-Royce offices in Brussels on 7th November, an event well supported by all of the Engines leaders and the Clean Sky JU. The planning for the formal launch meeting has already commenced but will occur in 2015 once the core partners are introduced to the programme. Finally, the initial set of core partners and partner calls were issued for the Engines-ITD. The calls represent significant elements of the programme for Engines and cover a wide range of topics. The appetite from the leaders to submit call proposals was very high and the Engines ITD leaders are eagerly anticipating the results so that their programmes can be truly launched.
Work Package 2 - Ultra High Propulsive Efficiency (UHPE) Demonstrator for Short / Medium Range aircraft (Snecma) In 2014, Snecma established the detailed structure of the UHPE demonstrator project and the plan to perform this project. The structure is based on a modular approach of the whole Integrated Power Plant System (IPPS), integrating the engine itself, the inlet, nacelle and nozzles and the Engine Mounting System (EMS). This approach including the IPPS and the integration of the IPPS with the Aircraft is necessary due to the ultra-high bypass ratio of the UHPE (in the range 15-20). The organization was set in Snecma and SAFRAN as to the respective Engineering teams and the Programme teams. The teams are now operating. The build of the Engineering teams of Snecma and SAFRAN beneficiaries is currently being implemented in order to be in line to perform the 2015 activities. The strategy for partnership for the UHPE demonstrator was defined in relationship with the modular Work Breakdown Structure and SAFRAN beneficiaries. It led to the choice of the topics for Core Partner Calls Wave 1 and 2 (CPW1 &2) and Call For Partner #1 and #2 (CfPs). CPW1 and CfP#1 were launched in 2014. Airbus confirmed that there is no activity on WP2 to report for 2014. Aircelle confirmed that there is no activity on WP2 to report for 2014.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 91
Work Package 3 - Business Aviation / Short Range Regional TP Demonstrator (Turbomeca) Turbomeca confirmed that there is no activity on WP3 to report for 2014.
Work Package 4 – Adv. Geared Engine Configuration (HPC-LPT) (MTU)
In 2014, MTU successfully started its technology development activities within the Clean Sky 2 engine ITD. Besides the implementation of project teams for the two intended validation vehicles, the 2-shaft compressor rig and the engine demo, the activities have been concentrated on establishing a valid notional engine concept for the technology development within the Clean Sky 2 timeframe.
The starting point was the execution of a market survey in order to identify potential aircraft needs in the 2020-2030 timeframe and the related requirements for the propulsion systems. Subsequently the studies have been focused on a notional engine concept for a single aisle aircraft with a thrust requirement in the 20000 – 30000 lb range. Based on extensive cycle studies, various engine architecture variations have been compared with respect to their SFC (Specific fuel consumption), weight and drag characteristics. The engine configuration with minimum fuel burn under the given boundary conditions has been established in multiple predesign iteration loops.
As a result of the optimization process, the required advanced component technology level has been determined for the assumed engine entry into service date. This went along with detailed assessments of the components of the compression system as well as of the low pressure turbine as defined in the predesign iterations. The results generated in year 2014 now allow to define detailed technology roadmaps for the considered engine modules and to specify appropriate parameter ranges for the Clean Sky 2 technology demonstration vehicles.
Work Package 5 – VHBR – Middle of Market Technology (Rolls-Royce) The power gearbox is a key component which will enable the development of a very high bypass ratio and thus an improvement in aero engine cycle efficiency. This work package aims at designing a first gearbox to be tested in 2015 in a new facility in the Rolls-Royce Deutschland Dahlewitz site. This includes designing the gears, bearings, structures, carrier and an oil system that enables the management of the high quantity of heat generated in such a large gearbox. This work package also includes the supplier selection for the first gearbox test article. 2014 has been a significant year for the Power Gearbox System. During this year the engineering team responsible for the design of the first technology demonstrator has been setup, the plan to deliver the technology demonstrator has been created and the first key milestones, both within the design and supply chain have been achieved. For the first gearbox (DP1A), the Preliminary Design Review has been performed for all main modules in Q4 2014. This has enabled to start the detailed design activities to move towards the first Critical Design Review. The first Critical Design Review has been performed in November 2014 for the main gearbox components and December 2014 for the Test Hardware work package (subcontracted to EKES). These reviews did not achieve the
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 92
expected result due to maturity of the design, several issues highlighted during detailed analysis and state of the supply chain. The outstanding actions are planned to be completed by the end January 2015, with the last Critical Design Review planed in February 2015. To minimize the risks within the supply chain, first Long Lead Time Items (LLTI) forgings have been ordered. Current delivery date for the raw material is planned for Q1 2015. In order to support the gearbox supplier selection, two separate engineering teams were setup to protect the Intellectual property generated along the process. After several meetings with both suppliers and further assessment, the gearbox supplier was selected in September 2014. Design for manufacture has been conducted with the current gear supplier and the plans to deliver the first units of the gearbox have been defined jointly with Rolls-Royce Plc, currently showing a Finished Parts to Stores date in Q4 2015.
Work Package 6 – VHBR – Large Turbofan Demonstrator (Rolls-Royce) During 2014 Rolls-Royce built a substantial team of Engineers to develop the Very High Bypass Ratio (VHBR) UltraFan™ engine concept, targeting a 2025 Entry Into Service date. A baseline propulsion system design was established, sized for a future large passenger aircraft requirement set, and presented in detail to internal auditors. The system was divided into subsystems by means of a Design Structured Matrix, allowing integrated teams to be formed around specific elements of the engines functionality. Within this construct, investigations were completed into key technology enablers of the concept design, including oil heat management, gearbox architecture, engine cycle, engine structural design and nacelle. The engine design was optimised to deliver significant fuel burn enhancement compared to current and near term architectures via three major design iterations, each iteration providing an updated suite of technical attributes. Additionally, a study was completed investigating the feasibility of the application of Variable Fan Pitch technology to the concept as a potential further fuel burn enhancement.
Work Package 7 – Small Aircraft Engine Demonstrator This WP7 deals with:
WP7.1 “Lightweight and efficient Jet-fuel reciprocating engine” led by SMA, WP7.2 “Reliable and more efficient operation of small turbine engines (19 seats)”
2014 has been a year of Work Package initiation, a preparation for the 2015 activities. Several activities have been done in 2014 on SMA funds in order to prepare launching of WP 7.1 (preliminary studies, tests, program preparation…). The power density improvement of the current engine architectures (WP7.1.1) has been performed in the Clean Sky 2 frame in the second part of 2014. The WP7.1.1 preliminary phase, still in progress, is made of several baseline engine tests at higher power settings. After these tests, disassembly and expertise of parts (wear analysis …) were performed and documented.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 93
A first deliverable planned for the end of year 2014 has been achieved: piece part review after a first test campaign. These analysis and results will participate with next tests and analysis to establish technical requirements for improvements to be done later in CS2. In WP7.2, a preliminary study was performed for small turbine engine in order to prepare and release the call for Core partner. This work is led by Piaggio Aero and Evektor.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 94
6.2.7 SYS – Systems ITD
Systems and equipment play a central role in aircraft operation, flight optimizations and air transport safety: Direct contributions to environmental objectives: for example optimized green trajectories or electrical taxiing have a direct impact on CO2 emissions, fuel consumption, etc. Enablers for other innovations: in particular for innovative engines or new aircraft configurations; Enablers for air transport system optimization: improving greening aviation, mobility or ATS efficiency can only be reached through the development and the integration of on-board systems; Smart answers to market demands: systems and equipment have to increase their intrinsic performance to meet new aircraft needs without a corresponding increase in weight and volume. Starting from the Clean Sky developments through Systems for Green Operations (SGO), further maturation, demonstration and new developments are needed to accommodate the needs of the next generation aircraft. Clean Sky work on green trajectories has shown that significant improvements are possible to reduce CO2 emission, fuel consumption, and perceived noise in specific flight phases. The next step, to be developed in Clean Sky 2, is to integrate these results in a multi-criteria optimization process of the whole flight plan, to allow for: - Global optimization taking into account the whole flight and ATS constraints. - Possibility to introduce new criteria depending on specific mission or environment parameters (populated areas, weather, icing or contrail-prone situations, etc.). For example, the next generation flight management systems for fixed wing aircraft and helicopters will take into account the perceived noise as one of the flight optimization constraints. - Possibility to introduce new criteria for global optimization without redeveloping and recertifying the flight management systems. - Automation of flight in all phases to secure the environmental gains made possible by the system. In addition, the systemic improvements initiated by SESAR and NextGen will call for new functions and capabilities geared towards environmental or performance objectives, and for flight optimization in all conditions, flight safety, crew awareness and efficiency, better maintenance, reduced cost of operations and higher efficiency. The Systems ITD in Clean Sky 2 will address this through the following actions:
Work on specific topics and technologies to design and develop individual equipment and systems and demonstrate them in local test benches and integrated demonstrators (up toTRL5). The main domains to be addressed are cockpit environment and mission management, computing platform and networks, innovative wing systems, landing gears and electrical systems. Customization, integration and maturation of these individual systems and equipment in IADP demonstrators. This will enable full integrated demonstrations and assessment of benefits in representative conditions. Transverse actions will also be defined to mature processes and technologies with potential impact on all systems, either during development or operational use.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 95
ITD Systems (WP1/2/6 100.1/2/3 not yet started) . WP3 The smart integrated wing systems architecture design began in 2014 with trade-off studies and will be further elaborated and matured in 2015 and 2016, integrating Partners contribution and expertise. The system architecture investigation started, such as the technology screening. In the meantime, the first development step to replace all engine driven pumps (EDPs) by generators started, keeping hydraulic actuation as a reference. Tests are conducted to measure the performance of Electro-Hydrostatic Actuation (EHA) and identify possible improvements. In Parallel, sensors and power electronics technology bricks have been matured under national projects, and continue with the technical contribution out of the calls for proposal.
. WP4 The Nose Landing Gear (NLG) development activities focused on Electro-Hydraulic Actuation (EHA) in the first place, where several trade studies have been be carried out to define project baseline configuration. Different sub-systems and technologies have been traded-off in order to confirm the feasibility and the viability of the project. The preliminary design started and full system and equipment design activities will run in 2015. The following Preliminary Design Review (PDR) is planned for the first half of 2015, followed by the detailed design phase. The Tiltrotor landing gear system activities started in the second half of the year jointly with IADP Rotorcraft leader AgustaWestland by the definition of the complete system and the preliminary concept and design phases. Technological choices are not all frozen yet, and system overall design will be evolving until mid-year 2015. . WP5 The Innovative Electrical Network (IEN) perimeter has been worked deeper before handling further discussion with A/F and/or partners. A preliminary study is needed to sort out the most promising topologies and to propose/agree the one to be studied more in details. A very preliminary document has been internally released to quickly define the required input (requirement, needs) & to perform the trade of, but also to define & agree the methodology which will be followed during the project. In parallel, discussions with potential partners were led to refine and agree the common work in Clean Sky 2.
. WP7 WP 7.1 Efficient operation of small aircraft with affordable health monitoring system Study for selection of the system component among the small aircraft systems to be involved in the health monitoring demonstration. WP 7.2 More electric / Electronic technologies for small aircraft
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 96
Preliminary study on small aircraft electrical power generation and distribution architecture with preliminary specification to be used in the preparation of CfP. WP 7.3 Fly by wire architecture for small aircraft Preliminary study of FbW architecture for small aircraft with preliminary specification to be used in preparation of CfP. WP 7.4 - Affordable SESAR operation, modern cockpit and avionic solutions for small a/c Activities in 2014 put more precisely technical content for CP, which will be invited to enter program in CPW2. Based on the Leaders agreement and to fulfil target of WP were agreed topic “Affordable SESAR operation, modern cockpit and avionics solutions for small aircraft” with aim to equip category of small aircraft with affordable avionics system enabling cost-effective operation while still keeping the high level of flight safety and dispatch reliability. WP 7.5 - Comfortable and safe cabin for small aircraft The activities in 2014 focused on defining the strategies of selection, development and application of new passive multifunctional materials and active insulation materials. Research studies on regulations and technical standards of clima, noise and overall assessment comfort started. Work on relevant thermal comfort factors started. Simultaneously, external environment and its influence on the inner compartment of the passenger cabin were taking into account. Started work on research study of seat crash safety for small aircraft. Major milestones accomplished in 2014
WP0 – ITD Management ITD Systems Kick-Off
WP7 – Small Air Transport Release of call “More advanced and efficient small turbine engines for SAT market” in CPW1 Preparation of calls content for CPs for CPW2
Major deliverables accomplished in 2014
WP0 – ITD Management Topics definition for CP Topics definition for CfPs to be launched in 2015
WP4 – Nose Landing Gear Trade Study Results for NLG Installation
Note: The list of deliverables and milestones presented here is a provisional list and may be updated at the moment of the signature of the Grant Agreement for the Members.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 97
Implementation
The activities in the Systems ITD were performed following the general principles of the Clean Sky 2 membership and participation. Thales and Liebherr, as the ITD Leaders, performed the main activities related to the technology development and demonstration in the ITD. Significant part of the work will be performed by Core Partners, supporting the ITD leader in its activities. Finally, another part of the activities will be performed by Partners through Calls for Proposals for dedicated tasks. Thales and Liebherr, as the ITD Leaders, signed the Grant Agreement for Members (GAM) in order to perform the work. This GAM covers all the work of the Members in this ITD. The Core Partners are selected through open Calls for Core Partners and the retained applicants will accede to the existing Grant Agreement for Members. Partners will be selected at a later stage through Calls for Proposals and will sign the Grant Agreement for Partners. They will be linked to the ITD activities through the Consortium Agreement. The following topics were opened for the first call for Core Partners:
JTI-CS2-2014-CPW01-SYS JTI-CS2-2014-CPW01-SYS-02-01 Power Electronics and Electrical Drives
JTI-CS2-2014-CPW01-SYS-03-01 Model, Tools, Simulation and Integration
Detailed
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 98
6.2.8 SAT – Small Air Transport Transverse Activity
The activities in 2014 consisted mainly of the initializing work on the definitions for the first set of technology developments and demonstrators, and selection of the first Core Partners. The high level objectives, definitions and requirements for those demonstrators were set. The planning of CS2 programme technical activities were matured and clarified.
Four topics have been written: . one for ITD engines, for a the development and validation – up to TRL 6 – of a demonstration engine for SAT applications, whilst achieving a 15% improvement of fuel efficiency and a parallel reduction of operating costs by 10%. The project will also investigate future compressor and combustor technologies which are foreseen for an entry into service (EIS) 2030 onwards. It will specifically develop and advance technologies for the power turbine and exhaust system, gas generator, low noise propulsive system and reduction gearbox. All technologies will be tested on module and finally on system level in a full engine test. . one for ITD systems for a new affordable cockpit and avionics systems, enabling cost- effective operation while still keeping the high level of flight safety and dispatch reliability. The existing solutions for other aircraft categories are not directly usable or easily modifiable due to the size, weight, and cost constraints of this class of aircraft. . two for ITD airframes, one covering more affordable composite aero structures with focus on cost effective existing materials and improvement of production technologies for a later full composite wing production and the other one looking for more affordable manufacturing and assembling of metallic and hybrid structures of the small aircraft. The technologies synergy shall be beneficial on manufacturing time and cost reduction and with improving quality of the future small aircraft.
Once Core partners will be selected, a new work plan will be defined.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 99
6.2.9 ECO – Eco Design Transverse Activity
Eco design TA initiated in 2014 the process to set-up the transversal action to be developed across the CS2 program. Most of the activity was dedicated to management.
A first relevant event in the period was a workshop organized in April by the leader Fraunhofer with the aim to discuss interests with all SPD leaders.
A second follow up workshop has been held in June to progress in the preparation and to start to better focus SPD requirements.
A complementary workshop organized by the JU in October on LCA further consolidated the initial frame of collaboration mainly in the frame of EDAS.
The Eco TA started then to work with SPD leaders to the preparation of the technical annexes toward a GAM in both Eco TA and SPDs (i.e, LPA, Airframe) contexts.
Eco TA GAM is aimed mainly to coordination and EDAS tasks. Technologies (VEES) are intended to be mostly developed in the framework of SPDs.
Only SPD GAMs have been then processed, to start some technology activity, instead the Eco TA GAM has been postponed to 2015.
Technical activity mainly on technology scoping and work units set-up will start in 2015. No coordination committee was launched.
6.2.10 TE – Technology Evaluator
In 2014, there are no activities to report for the Technology Evaluator, which will be put in place in 2015 once the ITD and IADPs are well established and their objectives consolidated.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 100
7. CALL ACTIVITIES OF THE 2 PROGRAMMES
7.1 Clean Sky Programme Calls
At least 200 M Euro of the EU funding to the CSJU must be allocated to Partners selected via Calls for Proposals. Topics are defined by each ITD. They serve the dual purpose of widening the participation to Clean Sky to other organisations and to identify R&D performers called in to participate to the mainstream activities of Clean Sky. Partners selected via Calls for Proposals are being funded in compliance with the upper funding limits set in the Rules of Participation of the 7th Framework Programme. Activities to be carried out by Partners selected via Calls are an essential part of the core R&D activities of Clean Sky and have to lock in with the activities carried out by CSJU private members. What is peculiar for Clean Sky Calls for Proposals is that the content of the activities is much more focused, i.e. they are topics and not research themes, with limited duration and specific targeted results expected (at higher Technology Readiness Levels). The topics are prepared by the Topic managers of the ITDs and checked by the Project Officers at the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking. Another difference from collaborative research calls is that the budget is defined by the topic value, and not by the maximum funding: this is to allow a wider participation from all types of entities, independently from the actual eligibility for funding. Furthermore, a single entity can present proposals, with no need for a consortium to be created. Differently from Collaborative research, there is always one winner per topic, provided suitable proposals are submitted and positively evaluated.
7.1.1 Statistics
Definitions of terms used in the statistics subchapter:
Partner: represents an entity selected by way of competitive calls for proposals (a company, University, Research Organisation or SME); a Partner may apply and be selected in several different topics by submitting its proposals). It can play the role of Proposal Coordinator or Participant in the Consortium/Beneficiary of the GAP (Grant Agreement of Partners). The number of partners is always smaller than the number of participants.
Coordinator: represents the coordinating entity of the proposal submitted/selected.
Participant/Beneficiary: represents an entity participating in a submitted/selected proposal.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 101
Clean Sky Programme Calls for Proposals results, from Call 1 to Call 16.
Total cost: 452.70 M€ Total funding: 339.7 M€ Average funding rate: 66.4% Number of topics: 655 Number of proposals received: 1656, out of which: Ineligible proposals: 131 Cancelled proposals:1 Out of scope: 6 Below threshold:568 Above threshold: 444 Number of winning proposals:506 Number of topics successfully applied to: 492 Total number of participant/applicants: 3188 Number of winning participants: 987 Number of topics (projects) successfully completed:191 Number of topics (projects) still running: 274 Number of topics (projects) under negotiation: 21 Number of failed projects (during negotiation or project’s life): 6 Average number of proposal received per topic:2,53 Average number of winning participants by topic: 2,0 Number of partners: 549 (NB: there are less partners than “winning participants”, because of multi-winning entities in several topics launched in different calls) Average SME share: 35.87% in funding Average Academia share: 25.46 % in funding.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 102
The details relating to each of the 16 Calls launched by Clean Sky under Framework Programme 7 are shown in the following figure:
Response to the Calls for Proposals (1 to 16)
In these 16 calls published, the total max funding value is about 340 M€. A total of 130 topics were published in 2013 in the Call 14 (2013-01), Call 15 (2013-02) and Call 16 (2013-03), displayed in the table above, even if Call 16 (2013-03) has been evaluated in 2014. The average response in the years was 2,53 proposals per topic, i.e. more than 1650 proposals in total for 655 topics (estimated figure over the 16 calls). The average number of winning participants for topic has been 2,0. The success rate of topics in the average is 75%, due to the low performance of call 14 that achieved a low success rate since few proposals were submitted for evaluation. A possible cause is that some of the SAGE ITD topics were submitted for publication at a very late stage, preventing a proper preparation of the related dissemination and the organization of dedicated information sessions (either physical or webinar). Therefore, the rate of participation was below the JU’s expectations and lower than for most of the other topics launched in the same call. Consequently, the quality of the proposals submitted was in some case not at an adequate level. The JU has taken all available actions to improve participation, such as more accurate description of some topics, a still wider dissemination and a dedicated, early communication with potential applicants for the most critical topics. Several Info Days have been organized with successful participation. In addition, for call 15 and 16 a new instrument, such as the Webinar teleconference, was introduced for several topics in order to improve participation.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 103
The topics of call 15 and 16 that have been disseminated through webinars have had a success rate of 100%. The monitoring of the members’ involvement in calls for proposals continued in 2014 and the amount allocated to members through the CfP was more than 8 m€. The JU had calls for a value of 211,9 m€ in order to allocate at least 200 m€ to new partners (and non-members) of the JU. The rebalance will take place at a global level taking the entire funding of 800 m€ including running costs, interest on the JU’s bank account, members and CfP budget into consideration. The JU does not foresee a risk not to achieve a satisfactory result by the end of the programme – for all participants to the programme.
7.1.1 Global evaluations outcome
The diagram below provides the statistics per country in terms of participants for all the proposals submitted from call 1 to 16.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 104
The diagram below provides statistics per country in terms of coordinators and participants of winning proposals for up to call 16. The chart shows also the role in the calls (coordinators or participants).
This diagram below indicates the funding per country in Calls 1 to 16 (winning proposals) in million euros.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 105
The next diagram shows the number and percentage of winning proposals in Calls 1 to 16 per type of entity (SMEs, Universities, Research Organisations and Large companies).
7.1.2 Redress statistics calls 1-16
In calls 14 to 16 published in 2013, there were no redress cases.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 106
7.1.3 Evaluations outcome call 16
In the following table some aggregated information on call 16 are reported. Call 16 was a call launched in December of 2013, as consequence, the submission of the proposal and the evaluation phase took place in 2014. The number of topics launched was 30 but only 23 were successful.
Call Submitted Proposals Evaluation Results Reference Reserve Submitted Eligible % of Above Submitted % List Proposals proposals proposals threshold for Success retained funding rate SP1-JTI- 72 67 93% 43 23 34% 20 CS-2013- 03
The following diagram illustrates statistics in terms of winning proposals per country in Call 16.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 107
The next diagram provides statistics in terms of winning coordinators per country in call 16.
The diagram below provides statistics per country in terms of participating Partners in winning proposals (excluding the Coordinators).
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 108
The diagram below shows the funding per country in call 16.
The last diagram shows the number and percentage of winning proposals in call 16 per type of entity.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 109
7.1.4 Evaluation and negotiation processes
To ensure a high degree of transparency, the CSJU invited, an independent observer for call 16, like for the previous ones. The observer had full access to all stages of the evaluation and to consensus meetings. His evaluation reports are available on the website (http://www.cleansky.eu). Since Call 5, a dedicated Negotiation Kick-off meeting involving the winners of the topics and the related topic managers is held by the JU after about 4 weeks after evaluation, in order to expedite the dialogue between the future partner and the topic manager, and the preparation of all documents needed for the signature of the Grant Agreement for partners.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 110
7.2 Clean Sky 2 Programme Calls
7.2.1 Statistics, Evaluation Outcome, Grant Preparation Phase
. Call for Core Partners
In 2014, the first Call for Core Partners (CPW01) was launched on the 9th of July and closing on 5th November 2014 (open for a total duration of 3.9 months). As the Evaluation Phase took place in the December 2014-January 2015 timeframe, and the negotiations phase is not yet closed at the time of this report, no statistics are available at this point. As depicted hereafter, 29 topics were launched for a total indicative funding value of 205.5 M€. Overall 50 proposals were submitted by core partner candidates.
SPD No. of topics Indicative Funding (in M€) IADP Large Passenger Aircraft [LPA] 8 53.0 IADP Regional Aircraft [REG] 3 18.0 IADP Fast Rotorcraft [FRC] 2 14.0 ITD Airframe [AIR] 6 43.5 ITD Engines [ENG] 8 64.5 ITD Systems [SYS] 2 10.0 Small Air Transport Transverse Area 0 0.0 [SAT] Eco-Design Tranverse Area [ECO] 0 0.0 Technology Evaluator [TE2] 0 0.0 Total 29 205.5 CPW01 Overview of the number of topics and associated indicative topic funding value per SPD
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 111
. Call for Proposals
In 2014, the first Call for Proposals was launched on the 16th December. This Call was open until the 31st March 2015.
As depicted hereafter, 53 topics were launched for a total indicative funding value of 48 M€.
SPD No. of topics Indicative Funding Available (in M€) IADP Large Passenger Aircraft [LPA] 12 14.9 IADP Regional Aircraft [REG] 1 0.5 IADP Fast Rotorcraft [FRC] 8 4,4 ITD Airframe [AIR] 14 9.6 ITD Engines [ENG] 10 13.4 ITD Systems [SYS] 8 5.2 Small Air Transport Transverse Area 0 0 [SAT] Eco-Design Tranverse Area [ECO] 0 0 Technology Evaluator [TE2] 0 0 Total 53 48.0 CFP01 Overview of the number of topics and associated indicative funding value per SPD
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 112
8. SUPPORT ACTIVITIES
8.1 Communication and Dissemination Activities
In 2014 the Communication activities were managed according to the Communication Strategy adopted by the Governing Board, and updated when necessary. The last update was in December 2014. On the basis of this strategy, a detailed Action Plan is drafted every year, identifying objectives, target audiences, messages and tools.
Ensuring that key figures in the European institutions are aware of the activities and achievements of Clean Sky is a particular priority, especially regarding the wide participation of diverse European actors and the programme’s progress in realising its environmental objectives. In 2014 this involved regular, constructive, and positive communication: meetings and events with the European Commission, the European Parliament, and the EU Member States. In addition to this there has been a noticeable growth of interest in the Clean Sky JU overall due to the continuing developments in the Clean Sky 2 Programme.
A particular advocacy effort to raise the awareness of MEPs regarding Clean Sky 2 was made in 2014. This led to some 20 meetings with the Executive Director. The meetings were followed up with detailed briefings, mailing on relevant publications, and invitations to key events.
The content and key features of Clean Sky 2 are now part of any communication activity, given the high expectations from target audiences, both on the political side as well as from potential industrial and scientific stakeholders. The press has reported widely across Europe on the launching and main features of Clean Sky 2.
Press coverage spreads across different EU Member States including Spain, France, Germany, Belgium, UK and others. US-based weekly Aviation Week features Clean Sky news regularly. There is some digital coverage such as Euractiv in Brussels, covering the Clean Sky Stand at le Bourget. In addition to Clean Sky features in printed media, Clean Sky wrote pieces and op leads for publications and magazines such as The European Files: Industrial Strategy in Europe, Pan European networks, European energy innovation and International airports. A quarterly press clipping is made and submitted at each Clean Sky Governing Board.
The other key priorities in 2014 were: brand building and visibility, positive reputation, demonstration of successful outcomes, expanding networks and improving our printed and digital communication efforts.
Throughout all of 2014 Clean Sky was actively involved in the European Commission’s communication campaign for Horizon 2020 by sharing messages and, providing information on national events. Clean Sky 2 was part of the successful event organised by the Commission and all the Joint Technology Initiatives to mark the beginning of the extended JU programmes on 9 July 2014, which was attended by the President of the Commission and several Commissioners.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 113
The following large events took place in 2014: A dozen Clean Sky 2 Information Days across Europe, Clean Sky at ILA Berlin in May 2014, and Clean Sky at Farnborough Air Show in July 2014.
Clean Sky’s participation at both ILA Berlin and Farnborough Air Show deserve a special mention. At ILA Berlin, Clean Sky organised a conference dedicated to Clean Sky 2 designed to attract applicants to the programme. At Farnborough Air Show, Clean Sky presented a demonstration stand in close cooperation with the Integrated Technology Demonstrator (ITD) leaders and the support of the European Commission. Clean Sky displayed objects that represent cutting–edge technology developed to help meet the ACARE 2020 environmental goals. The hardware included an open rotor mock-up and actual blade, a composite blade for large range planes, a noise simulator, the laminar wing demonstrator mock-up, a model of a helicopter diesel engine, and equipment related to the more electric aircraft concept. All the hardware had already been tested and evaluated and will be part of the performing aircraft of tomorrow. The stand received hundreds of visitors, including members, industry professionals, and members of the public.
In addition to large events and air shows, Clean Sky delivered presentations at the events below: thus contributing to the dissemination of technological results.
. In January at the important TRB (Transport Research Bard) Annual Meeting in Washington, a presentation on Clean Sky Green Rotorcraft project was delivered to a special panel of Rotorcraft sector coordinated by FAA. A separated meeting with FAA too place during the same period.
. On the 1th April, a CS Info Day was held in Rome at CNR, and as part of the global program a presentation entitled General Overview of the Clean Sky 2 Preparations was delivered, besides the interaction with all participants about the CS2 starting phase. . On 21-24 July, at the RAeS Advanced Aero Concepts, Design and Operations in Bristol, Lead Paper entitled: Clean Sky Projects on Aircraft Design and Flight Physics. . On 6-7 October, at AirDays (Aviation Industry and Research 2014) in Lisbon, a presentation entitled Clean Sky in H2020, followed by debate with public. . On 27-29 October, at the EASN Workshop on Flight Physics and aircraft Design in Aachen (at RWTH), final paper: Main activities in Flight Physics & Aircraft Design in Clean Sky. . In Glasgow on 2-4 November , at the Greener Aeronautics Symposium, a presentation entitled: Clean Sky achievements in Green Aviation technologies. . Clean Sky presentation at Dinner debate of the MIC 2014 (Machining Innovation Network) annual event, New production technologies in Aerospace industry, on 19- 20 November in Hannover. . On 3-5 December, at IAQC More Electric Aircraft conference in Hamburg, a presentation in the plenary entitled: Clean Sky Projects on the More Electric Aircraft. . And as last public contribution, on 17-18 December at the Aviation Safety Research & Innovation: time to take-off [OPTICS conference] in Brussels, the presentation: Towards a Clean and Safe Sky.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 114
In addition to the events before, Clean Sky was at the centre of the organisation and communications of the ITD Annual reviews:
. TE, on 25-26 March in Karlsruhe; . ECO, on 2-3 April 2014 in Potsdam hosted by Fraunhofer . SFWA, from 9 to 11 April 2014, in Bilbao hosted by Aernnova . GRC, on 5-7 May in Donauworth hosted by Airbus Helicopters . SGO, on 3-5 June 2014, in Toulouse, hosted by Thales; . GRA, on 11-13 June 2014, in Capua at CIRA and in Pomigliano at Alenia. . SAGE, on 24-27 June 2014, again in Bilbao, but hosted by ITP.
Regarding digital and printed communications, the Clean Sky website www.cleansky.eu has seen its content improved and updated more regularly, and traffic has steadily increased. “Skyline” magazine, which is published three times per year, and the electronic monthly E- news have seen their dissemination lists enlarged and optimized by adding all the participants to the many participants to the Clean Sky 2 information days. This has enabled the expansion of our news and activities to other networks, thus improving visibility and brand support.
The Communication Officer is supported by a trainee, a part-time web master and a part- time consultant assistant in specific tasks.
8.2 Legal and financial framework
Clean Sky 2 legislative framework
Regulation No 558/2014 of 6th May 20147 establishing the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking was adopted by the Council on 6th May 2014 and entered into force on 7th June 2014 by repealing and replacing Regulation n° 71/2008. The new Regulation sets the new legal framework for the operations of the CSJU and its governance under its Statutes (Annex I to the Regulation).
Commission Delegated Regulation No 624/2014 establishing a derogation from Regulation (EU) No 1290/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the rules for participation and dissemination in ‘Horizon 2020 was adopted on 14th February 20148. This delegated act allows the application by single legal entities to the calls for proposals launched by the CSJU in derogation to the minimum conditions for participation under the H2020 rules for participation.
The Financial Rules of Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking were adopted by the Board on 3rd July 2014 and set the new financial framework applicable to the operations of the CSJU. The rules are based on the article 209 model Financial Regulation established by the Commission with some adaptations to the CSJU directly based on its founding Regulation
7 L 169/77 of 7th June 2014 8 L 174/15 of of 13th June 2014.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 115
No 558/2014 9 such as the direct discharge procedure before the European Parliament and the Council which has been confirmed by the legislator in continuity with Clean Sky regime under the repealed legal basis.
A set of Board decisions related to the set-up of the Governance and functioning of the CSJU were adopted by the Board as listed under chapter 4 of this AAR document. Other specified hereunder were put in place by the JU to ensure the smooth transition into a new programme under a new Regulation: - Instrument of acceptance of the Statutes by Members other than the Union - Appointment of Board Members and Alternates - Clean Sky 2 Programme Funding Agreement with the Private Members - Commission’s Delegation Agreement to CSJU and transfer of funds agreement
A set of legal documents needed for the publication of the Call for Core Partners and Calls for proposals were adopted in 2014 namely: - Rules for submission of proposals, selection, evaluation and award for Calls for Core Partners approved by Board; - Rules for submission of proposals, selection, evaluation and award for calls for proposals approved by Board. - Template ITD/IADP Consortium Agreement endorsed on the GB in October.
Model GAM/GAP under H2020
The H2020 model GA was adapted to the derogations in place and specificities of the CSJU and its Programme via a process of consultation with the Commission and the private Members. According to the H2020 Rules for Participation, the Commission holds the prerogative of approving the model grant agreements, therefore the Board was not called to the official approval of the models but to its endorsement prior to the Commission approval where appropriate, and its publication on the H2020 Portal. The Commission consulted also the Member States which did not raise any substantial objections to the adaptations brought to the texts. The CSJU played a very active negotiation role which resulted in the adoption of: - Clean Sky 2 model grant agreement for Members was endorsed by the Board on 3rd July 201410. A first revised version (CS2 model GAM - amendment n° 1) was endorsed by the Board on 19th December 201411. The modifications were needed to include the horizontal changes applied by the Commission at H2020 model GA level. - Clean Sky 2 model grant agreement for Partners (mono-beneficiary and multi- beneficiaries) which were endorsed by the Board also on 19th December 201412.
The above models are applied to the actions under Clean Sky 2 Programme (H2020), for the sake of certainty it should be highlighted that in accordance with the Regulation n° 558/2014 the Clean Sky on-going actions under the Seventh Framework Programme will continue to be ruled under the contractual framework and models adopted under Regulation No 71/2008.
9 Ref. CS-GB-2014-03-07 10 CS-GB-2014-03-07 doc10 Model Grant Agreement 11 CS-GB-2014-12-19 Doc 8a GAM and GAP 8b mono 8c multi 12 Idem
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 116
Intellectual Property Rights
The CSJU has filed a request of registration of its logo as Community Trademark (CTM) in order to better protect its well-known brand in R&I in aeronautics and the activities carried out by its private Members under the Programmes at EU level. The official registration as “CTM” No 012669446 was awarded by OHIM on 5th August 2014. A preliminary assessment was carried out to request an international extension of the “CTM” in some international countries.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 117
Procurement Procedures, contracts signed in the year 2014 (>15.000 EURO)13
Name of Amount Reference No Type of contract Area Selection procedure contractor (EUR) HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 32.828 14/2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 16.867 15/2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 14.031 16 /2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 21.586 17/2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 21.586 18/2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 21.586 19/2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 20.030 48/2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 Negotiated procedure under Article 104 of Farnborough 15.041 2014/049 Order Form Communication the Financial Regulation and of Article International Ltd. 134.1 (b) of RAP EU Turn Lot 3/EU- Specific Contract implementing Framework Specific Contract Communication 36.000 Turn/02/2014 contract No CSJU.2013.OP.01
HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 69/2014 Purchase Order Start People 20.297 IMI.2011.SC.137 Communication Order Form under Framework contract No TMAB Business 2014/079 Order Form 66.374 CSJU.2013.OP.01 Events NV/SA CSJU.2013.RP.01 External Support in Restricted procedure with JU Members Airbus Defence & – Service Contract programme management based on Article 75.5 of the Clean Sky JU 82.000 Space S.A.U. Amendment n° 1 Financial Rules Lot 1/BearingPoint Specific Contract External Support in Specific Contract implementing Framework BearingPoint 35.525
13 It can be recalled that all of this was accomplished with one statutory Legal Officer and one interim Legal Officer.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 118
Name of Amount Reference No Type of contract Area Selection procedure contractor (EUR) Limited/01/2014 programme management contract No CSJU.2013.OP.01 Limited HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 22.215 95/2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 EU Turn Lot 3/EU- Specific Contract implementing Framework Specific Contract Communication 32.000 Turn/03/2014 contract No CSJU.2013.OP.01
CSJU.2013.RP.01 External Support in Restricted procedure with JU Members – Amendment n° 1 Service Contract programme management based on Article 75.5 of the Clean Sky JU CIRA 82.000 CIRA Financial Rules External Support in Restricted procedure with JU Members Airbus Defence & CSJU.2014.RP.01 Service Contract programme management based on Article 75.5 of the Clean Sky JU 82.000 Space S.A.U. Financial Rules External Support in BearingPoint Lot 1/BearingPoint Specific Contract implementing Framework Specific Contract programme management Limited 20.240 Limited/02/2014 contract No CSJU.2013.OP.01
Grant Management Tool Specific Contract (GMT) development, 4/5/6/7/8 – 2014 Specific Contract implementing Framework contract No NETSAS 205.510 maintenance, training and CSJU.2013.OP.02 hosting HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 150 /2014 Purchase Order Start People 30.759 IMI.2011.SC.137 HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 20.506 169 /2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 34.492 172 /2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 External Support in Restricted procedure with JU Members CSJU.2013.RP.01 Service Contract programme management based on Article 75.5 of the Clean Sky JU CIRA 82.000 –Amendment n° 2 Financial Rules HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 30.759 176 /2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137 HR Interim Services Purchase Order under Framework Contract 21.365 178/2014 Purchase Order Start People IMI.2011.SC.137
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 119
Name of Amount Reference No Type of contract Area Selection procedure contractor (EUR) Audits and other Specific Contract implementing Framework IMI-2011-SC-100- Specific Contract assurance engagements Contract No. IMI-2011-SC-100 KPMG AG 27.376 Clean Sky 2014/14
IMI-2011-SC-101- Audits and other Specific Contract implementing Framework PKF Little John Specific Contract 35.184 Clean Sky 2014/13 assurance engagements Contract No. IMI-2011-SC-101 LLP Communication Negotiated procedure under Article 104 of 19.775 2014/205 Order Form the Financial Regulation and of Article SIAE
134.1 (b) of RAP IT Services - Specific Contract implementing Framework 57.866 JTI/IT/2010/NP/01 Specific Contract communication Contract No. JTI-IT-2010-NP/01 RealDolmen NV -Lot 1-SP04 Lot 1: Managed IT Services 2014 IT Services - Order Form under Framework Contract No. 2014/239 Order Form RealDolmen NV 39.322 communication JTI/IT/2010/OP/01-Lot 1 Communication Order Form implementing Framework TMAB Business 2014/292 Order Form 48.918 contract No CSJU.2013.OP.01 Events NV/SA External Support in Restricted procedure with JU Members on CSJU.2014.RP.01 Airbus Defence & Service Contract programme management Article 75.5 of the Clean Sky JU Financial 82.000 - Amendment N° 1 Space S.U. Rules Communication Specific Contract Lot Specific Contract TMAB Business implementing Framework contract No 42.940 3/TMAB/01/2014 Events NV/SA CSJU.2013.OP.01 Grant Management Tool (GMT) development, Specific Contract implementing Framework WP N° 5 – 2014 Specific Contract NETSAS 15.200 maintenance, training and contract No CSJU.2013.OP.02 hosting Lot 3/EU- EU Turn Specific Contract Specific Contract implementing Framework Turn/04/2014 52.450 contract No CSJU.2013.OP.01 Communication
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 120
8.3 HR Management
Clean Sky 2 JU made significant progress during 2014 to secure the needed additional posts which it had requested with the launch of the CS2 programme (including the longer standing request for the CS programme). On 17th July 2014, the Governing Board (pending an EC approval) agreed to the full 18 new positions requested. This brings the total staff number to 42 posts from 2015. It is composed of 36 temporary agents and 6 contract agents. All but 5 of these were available posts for the JU from this decision. Of the 13 new posts allocated to 2014, 9 were already recruited and in post by the year end. 7 were already recruited and in post by the year end. 3 further vacancies had also already been launched and were ongoing at 31/12/14. The remaining vacancies will be launched in early 2015. The average time to select candidates in 2014 was 3 months. The average time to recruit in 2014 was 4 months. This figure also includes the compulsory legal notice, which might represent significant delays depending on the successful candidate’s contract of employment.
The JU programme office is divided in three parts: the operational team dealing with monitoring the technical activity and performance of the SPDs; the Administrative and Financial team dealing with the administration of the projects, financing and reporting obligations and setting up and providing the adequate logistics for the JU (including meetings’ management ; and the 3 staff reporting directly to the Executive Director, namely the Accounting officer, the Internal Auditor/Quality Management officer and the Communications Officer.
While the increased staffing level was secured, it is foreseen that the effect of this will be seen from the beginning of 2015 onwards only, as the new staff were integrated and trained during the last quarter of 2014. For this reason, the performance of the JU in some areas (see KPIs relating to Time to grant and time to pay) was not yet at the levels expected. This risk was already set out in the AIP 2014. In addition to the usual workload of the small JU team, the addition of the launching of the CS2 programme with the same staffing level proved quite challenging.
The JU is pleased to report that the new CS2 programme was successfully launched on time and the JU has 6 grant agreements signed (out of which 4 were pre-financed by year end) together with 2 open calls launched in 2014.
In order to demonstrate the volume of work performed within the JU, a few key figures are shown below:
The team of 7 Project officers, 2.5 Financial Officers, 2 Legal Officers were responsible for:
Finalised negotiations for GAPs: 67 Signed GAPs in 2014: 64 Amendments of grant agreements: - GAPs= 103 finalized and 84 new requests processed - GAMs = 10 finalized Payments to Partners: 276 Payments to Members: 26 (covering individual payments to 210 beneficiaries) GAPs under negotiation at the end of 2014: 20
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 121
Number of info days held during 2014: 2 Number of evaluation days during 2014 (both programmes): 10
In November 2014, the team increased with the arrival of the recruited staff, but given that these needed time to integrate and be trained on the JU processes, the impact on the overall work produced did not significantly alter the number of files processed. From 2015, this increase in staffing will surely contribute to speeding up the processing of many files.
Lastly, the JU administrates all of its running costs internally, e.g. salaries, mission costs, utility invoices, experts reimbursements (over 979 individual payments).
Snapshot of future workload for Clean Sky and Clean Sky 2 Programmes:
Number of grant agreements to be established for Partners: Calls 1 to 16: 15 GAPs are still in negotiation (currently dealt with by 6 Project officers who already have on average 55 on-going grant agreements for Partners each to manage; the TE Project Officer does not have GAPs). - Number of Grant Agreements for Partners foreseen to be amended based on past experience: 100. Total number of interim or final reports from Partners to be treated: 579 for the currently existing GAPs - this number is growing as more GAPs are signed. 240 for grants presently in negotiation or for still ongoing calls. The number is based on 96 grants under negotiation and topics to be launched at 2.5 periods per GAP.
Total reports foreseen: 892
Number of grant agreements to be amended and monitored for Members:
CS Programme: 4 annual and 3 multiannual amendments (annexes 1A and 1B), which entail a total number of 210 beneficiaries 7 annual reports for a total number of 210 beneficiaries. CS2 Programme:
6 multiannual grant agreements which entail a total number of 69 beneficiaries. 6 annual reports for a total number of 69 beneficiaries.
Lean management efforts:
Since the beginning of its autonomy, the JU’s management has assessed the potential for saving posts and increasing efficiency through establishing leaner processes to the extent possible. The JU shares the IT infrastructure maintenance and support costs with 4 other JUs residing in the same building by using a common IT helpdesk and support contract. In addition, the JUs share and run common facilities such as meeting rooms and mail collection.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 122
The JU handles crucial HR processes, like recruitment procedures, departures of staff, performance evaluation and the entire administration of the existing team of more than 24 people, through an HR assistant, who is at the same time Assistant to the Executive Director. The pool of 3 secretaries has been reduced to 2 staff by allocating the tasks relating to calls support and administration to one former secretary. The Internal Auditor is performing a coordination and management role for the increasingly heavy burden of the ex-post audit process. In addition this function is combined with the role of quality management officer for the JU.
By organising its staff and tasks in the way described, the JU is saving 4.5 posts, which would normally be covered individually in a similar structure. In 2014, the JU worked together with the other JUs in the building to analyse the possibilities for further synergies of resources. It was estimated that a saving of 2 posts overall is made possible by the current way of working and by continuing to investigate and use common efforts on issues of common interest. These can include monitoring of external relations with EU institutions, events services (possibly outsourcing if deemed economically viable) and shared HR recruitment processes and rules definition and implementation. Indeed in 2014, Clean Sky continued to benefit from the HR IT platform which other JUs had set up and used. Due to the consistency and harmonisation of some HR rules, this platform could be widely used at very little expense, but also saving the HR officer in terms of time for managing holidays and other absences.
Staff movements in 2014:
In 2014, all 18 of the Temporary Agents posts available from the initial Governing Board decision and all 6 contractual agents’ positions were filled during the year. In January the Contractual Agent FG IV (Ex-Post Audit Officer) was recruited, followed by the Temporary Agent AD7 (Communication Officer) and the Temporary Agent AD9 (Project Officer) in February. In addition the Contractual Agent FG II (Secretary) joined the JU team in April. Also, in the course of the year the recruitment for the following positions was launched following an adaptation of the job description for the position and in order to better meet the JU requirements: the Temporary Agent AD7 (Project controller) in May and the Contractual Agent FG IV (Ex-Post Audit Officer) in November. Furthermore, in December the JU has launched the first recruitment for Project officers in order to establish a reserve list which could then be used, once the establishment plan is adopted14, by the Governing Board after the adoption of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking Council Regulation.
External service provider – Interim agency (Start People):
During 2014 CSJU made use of in total 9 interim staff in order to give assistance to the Project Officers and Administration and Finance teams when need. The functions covered were:
2 Administrative Assistants (one for preparing CS2 and one for CS –full time)
14 The legislative financial statement for the CS2 Joint Undertaking includes an increase of the number of posts allocated to the JU in 2014 from 24 to 37 positions.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 123
3 Project Support Officers to help the Project Officers in the management of projects and the calls for proposals (partially during the year). 1 Budget officer (partially during the year). 1 Legal Officer (full time) 1 IT Assistant (partially during the year). 1 Ex-post audit Officer (partially during the year).
Trainees:
Clean Sky 2 JU has recruited one trainee in 2014 to support the Communication officer.
8.4 Housing
During 2014, CSJU continued to use its allocated space on the 4th floor of the White Atrium jointly with the FCH JU. Furthermore, in the anticipation of the new staff to be recruited, the CSJU expanded its premises to the 3rd floor and will share this space with the BBI JU. New common meeting facilities for all the JUs located on the 1st floor were installed. The costs associated with works for the expansion and set-up of the common meeting rooms have been shared between the JUs. The 5 JUs are sharing day-to-day management of the premises as necessary.
8.5 ICT
For ICT in CSJU the year 2014 was characterised primarily by expansion. With the new Clean Sky 2 Programme to be supported, more staff and facilities were required. The executive office expanded from one to two floors in the current building which necessitated a complete re-fit of the new floor with ICT facilities. A technical room was installed with a cooling system and network switches etc. to provide the connectivity needed for all the new work stations. Telephones, computer and printers were purchased and installed. Network cabling was specified and installed through the entire floor and along with high capacity WiFi. Meeting rooms on that floor were equipped with projectors and ICT facilities.
Moreover, in a combined effort with the other JUs in the building, the ground floor was equipped as a meeting centre. Here, four large meeting rooms were equipped with ICT facilities including rotatable ceiling mounted projectors, WiFi and permanent sound systems with wireless microphones. These facilitates have been greatly appreciated and have already saved a lot of time and money by avoiding the need to rent and equip hotel rooms or other venues for large meetings.
Induction training on ICT matters was organised for new staff and spontaneous appreciation was received from several new staff members for the way in which the ICT facilities were organised for them. This allowed new staff to be productive from an early stage.
From 1 January 2014 CSJU deployed a new Human Resources Platform to manage several aspects of staff resources. This software application replaced earlier more manual processes for time recording, holiday management and recruitment. This has been of enormous benefit because the management burden would have become excessive without it. The new process is less susceptible to human error and more auditable.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 124
Deploying it was of exceptional benefit in 2014 due to the large number of recruitments performed, both for new positions and replacements. The new system is paperless and allows candidates to submit their applications on-line. The applications are then received in a consistent and structured form with statistics and an audit trail. With vacancies typically attracting several hundred applications each the advantages are obvious.
The disk capacity of the in-house servers, jointly owned by the JUs, was expanded to cater for the expanded programs of the incumbent JUs and also in anticipation of two new JTIs moving into the building (BBI & S2R). The co-location of a large number of JTIs creates a cluster which will enable more synergies, savings and cooperation in our activities.
In 2014 CSJU launched its first Call for Proposal evaluation in the Single Evaluation Platform (SEP) of the Commission. This was for the final call of the Clean Sky Programme. Prior to that SEP was used only for call publication. Therefore staff training was required.
Later in 2014 the first Call for Core Partners and the first Call for Proposals under H2020 were also launched in SEP. This required quite detailed analysis and some adaptation of the IT systems to cater for the specific requirements both of Clean Sky and the unique features of a Core Partner call.
The evaluation of the core partner call was also conducted in SEP in late 2014 with appropriate adaptations to the system. Clean Sky is making use of the remote evaluation options available in SEP to save both time and money in the running of evaluations.
The year 2014 saw the first ever electronic signature of contracts by CSJU. The evaluators for the core partner call were contracted entirely electronically via an on-line system. This is a harbinger of the future where most grant agreements will also become paperless both in contract and on-going management.
For ICT services, the framework contracts signed four years ago expired at the end of 2014. Therefore, during the course of 2014 a new procurement for the next 4 years was conducted. This was not simply a re-publication of the previous contract scope. The ICT requirements were re-analysed to take account of the new JTI mandates of greater size and longer duration, the options now available under EC ICT framework contracts that the JUs have joined, the planned arrival of two new JTIs in our building and lessons learned from the previous 4 years. The procurement was successfully concluded to have the new contract for unified ICT services in place by 1 January 2015.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 125
9. INTERNAL CONTROL FRAMEWORK
9.1 Manual of financial procedures – financial circuits and workflows
The Executive Director adopted the last version the Manual of financial procedures (v 0.2) on the 25th September 2013. During 2014 the JU has further revised the Manual of Financial Procedures, to ensure the improvement of the checklists, delegations of authority and back- up system and to provide clarity and consistency between financial procedures. The addition of the newly recruited Financial Controller as authorising officer by delegation and financial verifier officer helped to better distribute the number of files dealt with by management through the adoption of the Executive Director’s Decision nr. 129. It is envisaged that this further support will continue to reinforce the ex-ante controls provided by the JU and to ensure absolute segregation of duties.
9.2 Specific controls on operational expenditure
The so-called ‘GMT’ tool or ‘Grant Management Tool’ was used to process the 2013 GAM cost claims. GMT provides a reliable depository and workflow for the processing of the financial and technical reports of the ITDs’ GAMs. In particular, through the GMT application, both the financial and the technical validation have to be carried out before the costs claims of the beneficiary can be validated by the JU. This linking of the two sides of the validation process (technical and financial) provides an intrinsic means, as part of the process, to have a close cooperation between the different aspects of the ITD GAM reporting to the JU. Further functionalities of GMT enable a better follow up of the status of the validation of the costs claims, the possibility to partially validate or reject costs as well as a common exchange tool to liaise with the beneficiaries during the reporting process. Finally, the validation workflow in GMT could enhance the internal supervision of the approvals taken. Consequently to the new developments of GMT completed in 2014, the JU made significant progress on the validation of partial payments and in-kind contributions processes which are now performed through the system, providing an overall increased level of efficiency for these particular procedures. Following the award of the framework contract for the GMT in November 2013 (maximum value of 0.5 M Euro), the IT provider started to deliver in 2014 several development features according to the tender specifications. In March 2014 the first package delivered (for an amount of 97 K Euro) included key specifications identified from the tender directly related to the validation process, the user manual for both internal and external users, training for internal users, a security audit, the maintenance and the hosting of the database. In July 2014 a second specific contract was signed for an amount of 206 K Euro which includes: a new release of GMT with enhanced and safer technology; new functionalities for planning, monitoring of operational and financial data; enhanced functionalities for the technical validation; a specific module for ex post audit; remaining specifications from the tender; training for internal and external users; hosting and maintenance of the database.
In November 2014 the CSJU took the decision to use the enhanced version of GMT for managing the reporting of the costs in CS2 building on the experience gained for CS. This
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 126
GMT 2 will be adapted to the specificities of CS2 as well as the financial requirements of H2020. The outcome of the implementation of the above mentioned developments in GMT will give the CSJU the opportunity to positively address some important recommendations issued in the Accountant Officer’s Validation of the Accounting Systems of CSJU - Financial systems for processing operational expenditures. Some of these recommendations have already been closed in 2014 through the developments delivered. Financial controls In accordance with its GAMs, the JU expects to receive the technical and financial reports within 60 days of year end for year n-1. The JU, together with the ITD coordinators made progress on the timely delivery of reports to the JU compared to previous years. However, after the first review of reports, many cost claims needed to be complemented with more information (e.g. consistency of usage of resources reports, more complete technical explanations etc.). In addition the JU financial officers had many instances where further clarifications from the CFS auditors were needed to have a complete overview of the cost claims. The JU plans to organise workshops in January and October 2015, when the H2020 rules will be explained to the CS2 beneficiaries. Over 100 participants including beneficiaries of both programmes are expected to attend the workshops.
2014 was the third year where the JU had at its disposal the results of the ex-post audits launched in 2011, 2012 and 2013. It therefore had to integrate the results of these audits, where there were recoveries in favour of the JU, into its work between March and May 2014 in order to have a clear picture for establishing the final accounts 2013. This involved close cooperation between the ex-post audit team and the financial officers. This was a successful cooperation as 98% of the recoveries needed were cashed before the final accounts were established (see the following Ex-post control of operational expenditure subchapter). The JU management also held meetings with Project Officers and Financial officers in order to discuss the outcome of their validation exercise of the Clean Sky GAMs – this was also documented.
Operational controls:
The Annual Reviews of each of the ITDs were the most important events in the year for the ITDs to present and explain the status of technical progress, use of resources, achievements and implementation of the recommendations from the previous Annual Review as formulated by the external reviewers and the JU. The outcomes of the Intermediate Annual Reviews, held at end of the previous year, were also taken into account.
The Project Officers, besides the continuous monitoring and the approval of the deliverables and of the annual reports, were involved in the ITD Steering Committees and participated to the most significant technical meetings like Preliminary Design Reviews, Critical Design Reviews, other Technical reviews, and technical visits to both members and Partners, when planned.
Periodic monitoring of ITDs was performed through the Quarterly Progress Reports (QPRs) (according to the Management Manual) and the Mid-Year Assessment (taking place at the time of Q2, anticipated to end of May); the QPRs provide information on the progress of
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 127
activities with respect to the Milestones and Deliverables planned for the period, and the associated Resources spent. The Project Officers judged the content of the reports, together with the Financial Officers and the Project Controller. A summary of the QPRs for all ITDs were presented to the Governing Board after the internal assessment, up to the applicable quarter preceding the GB. This KPIs were usually presented at the end of the Technical Progress section, as a means to comment the situation of effort spent vs. achievements.
The check point at Mid-Year remains a fundamental element of the assessment of progress of operational activities, as the ITDs must state the actual situation of project execution and the consistency of actuals achieved against plan for the year, confirming the expected efforts and targets for the end of the current year; when the deviation is significant, an amendment to the GAM can be required. The POs played an essential role in revising the ITDs’ statements.
With a view to Partners’ activities (GAPs), the POs followed the evaluation of calls for proposals, the approval of ranking of selected proposals, the negotiation phase until the signature of the Grant Agreement for Partners. Specific care is then dedicated to the monitoring of execution of the projects. An increased attention was paid to the role of the Topic Managers in the management of GAPs, with increased interaction between the Project Officers, the Topic Managers and the Partners coordinators. For the last calls issue in CS, the JU organised Kick-Off meetings for the selected Partners at start of negotiation, as well as technical reviews of the on-going projects.
In 2014 the role of the STAB (Scientific and Technological Advisory Board) continued in the assessment of technology and strategy of the different ITDs; some of the STAB members were again acting as external reviewers in the ITDs’ Annual reviews. The interaction with ITDs about transversal issues, like CFPs (topics, evaluation, GAP management), content of Management Manual, preparation of documents for GAMs; budget revisions; and technical reviews, is dealt with at the ITD Coordination Group (refer to the CPO chapter above), which meets at least quarterly, just before the GB Sherpa Group, with involvement of all ITD Coordinators and Project Officers.
The case of unreported GAPs
The JU continued in 2014 to implement the monitoring process of the unreported GAPs A series of reminder letters were sent to beneficiaries who had not reported within the deadlines set in the GAPs. A total of 22 letters were sent out. From this, the JU had a response rate of 41%. The remaining unanswered letters received a second letter (the so- called ‘Breach of contractual obligations’ letter); if appropriate, a further letter for ‘Termination of the Grant Agreement’ was sent out. In total, the JU has proposed to terminate 6 grant agreements as a result of these letters. In all cases, actions have been taken to report. The JU expects this process to be further improved once the GAP coordinator will be recruited in 2015. The JU has implemented the automatic reminders to satisfy the target of closing GAPs as soon as the project has ended in accordance with the provisions of the GAP. Another automatic reminder system was defined, concerning the deliverables to be produced by the Partner; in this case the deadlines of the planned deliverables are extracted from the GAP data, and use to generate reminder messages to the Partner and in copy to the Topic
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 128
Manager and the PO, sent by e-mail, on a monthly basis. The messages are sent firstly one month before the expected date, then just after the date is passed.
9.3 Ex-post control of operational expenditure
The results of the Ex-post audit (EPA) process represent a significant element of the Internal Control System of the JU. The main objectives of the ex-post audits are:
- Through the achievement of a number of quantitative targets, assess the legality and regularity of the validation of cost claims performed by the JU’s management - Provide an adequate indication on the effectiveness of the related ex-ante controls - Provide the basis for corrective and recovery activities, if necessary The overall target is to limit the residual error in the operational expenditure and the related recognized in-kind contribution to less than 2%.
I. Scope of EPA exercise 2014 On the basis of the Clean Sky Ex-post audit Strategy, as adopted by the CS Governing Board, one new audit exercise has been launched in the year 2014 and several remaining audits from the previous years, 2012 and 2013, have been finalized:
Table 1a:
audits launched in 2014 number of audited total value number of audits cost claims Audited value of total costs 43.895.806 5 26 Audited value of JU contribution 21.947.903 audits launched in 2014 with final results in EPA 2014 Audited value of total costs 40.281.976 3 21 Audited value of JU contribution 20.140.988
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 129
Table 1b:
audits launched before 2014 number of audited total value number of audits cost claims Audited value of total costs 43.274.660 19 38 Audited value of JU contribution 22.297.496 audits launched before 2014 with results in EPA 2014 Audited value of total costs 37.697.749 14 22 Audited value of JU contribution 19.478.895 Significant progress has been achieved in closing audits stemming from the years 2012 and 2013. The remaining part of still open audits representing an audited value of Mill Euro 5.6 will be finalised in 2015.
From the audits launched in 2014 an audited value of Mill Euro 3.6 (8.2%) is not included in the final results but will form part of the EPA exercise 2015.
Based on the results of the pre-final and final audit reports, recovery of overpayments including the financial impact of extrapolation of systematic errors has been performed and completed until June 2015. A recovery rate of 97,4% has been achieved until the date of this report.
Final representative and residual error rates have been calculated and are considered by the Executive Director in his final annual assurance declaration 2014, see Annex 1.
II. Details of the 2014 audit sample and coverage The sample considered in the ex-post audit exercise 2014 and included in the calculation of the error rates 2014 is composed of four parts15:
(A) 1 remaining audits stemming from the EPA exercise 2012 not included in error rates 2012 or 2013 (B) 4 remaining audits stemming from the EPA exercise 2013 on GAPs not included in 2013 error rates (C) 9 remaining audits stemming from the EPA exercise 2013 on GAMs not included in 2013 error rates (D) 3 audits launched in August 2014
15 The following description of the sample refers only to audits with sufficiently final audit results, which are included in the calculation of the error rates. The sample of audits launched is higher in numbers and values.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 130
Table 1c:
Audit exercise Totals GAMs 2011 GAMs 2012 GAMs 2013 GAPs 2010 GAPs 2011 GAPs 2012 ( A) out of 4 remaining audits from EPA exercise 2012 not included in 2012 error rates (Batch 7 & 8) audited value 127.811,30 127.811,30 number of cost claims 1 1 number of audits 1 (B) out of 5 remaining audits from EPA exercise 2013 (Batch 9 &10) on GAPs audited value 1.260.041,25 75.000,00 189.912,00 995.129,25 number of cost claims 4 1 2 1 number of audits 4 (C) out of 10 remaining audits from EPA exercise 2013 (Batch 11&12) on GAMs audited value 36.309.896,34 29.460.975,60 6.848.920,74 number of cost claims 17 11 6 number of audits 9 (D) out of 5 audits launched in August 2014 (Batch 13&14) on GAMs audited value 40.281.975,75 7.999.294,00 18.700.896,45 13.581.785,30 number of cost claims 21 1 10 10 number of audits 3 total audited value 77.979.724,64 37.588.080,90 25.549.817,19 13.581.785,30 75.000,00 189.912,00 995.129,25 number of cost claims 43 13 16 10 1 2 1 number of audits 17
The sample consisted of validated cost claims from GAMs stemming from the years 2008 to 2013 and from GAPs related to projects finalised from 2010 to 2012. For the calculation of the audit coverage, the accumulated audited value covered by the EPA exercises 2011 to 2014 is compared to the accumulated total amount of validated cost claims at the date of the financial year 2014.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 131
Table 2a:
Accumulated audit coverage based on audits finalized for the reporting period 2014:
audits finalized (GAMs and GAPs) Euro audited value from EPA exercise 2011 44.266.850,86 audited value from EPA exercise 2012 39.495.743,74 audited value from EPA exercise 2013 40.528.612,74 audited value from EPA exercise 2014 77.979.724,64 Total audited value of the years 2011 to 2014 (a) 202.270.931,98 Total audit population (b) 781.353.412,75 Coverage (a) / (b) 25,89%
The sample was established according to the methodology described in the ex-post audit strategy considering the following elements:
Most significant cost claims (all CCs until a certain coverage starting from the biggest ones) Representative sample selected at random (by counting) Risk based sample (1 beneficiary has been selected on the basis of a risk assessment, but results were not final for the EPA exercise 2014).
The audits launched in the year 2014 pertained to the selection of beneficiaries of the year 2013, which had to be postponed because of (1) clashes with on-going audits of the Commission at the same beneficiaries or (2) constraints at the audit firms in terms of conflict of interest or shortage of resources. As presented in table 1, a specific sample for GAPs had been launched in the year 2013 from which several remaining audits have been included in the results of the EPA exercise 2014. The following data can be summarized to describe the audits performed so far on GAPs:
Table 2b:
Accumulated audit coverage for GAPs of all EPA exercises based on audits finalized:
audits on GAPs finalized Euro audited value from EPA exercise 2012 760.537,50 audited value from EPA exercise 2013 3.397.199,68 audited value from EPA exercise 2014 1.260.041,25 Total audited value of the years 2012 to 2014 (a) 5.417.778,43 Total audit population (b) 67.178.035,67 Coverage (a) / (b) 8%
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 132
III. External audit firms under contract Audits have been assigned to the external auditors in line with the EPA framework contract in batches. In 2014 specific contracts have been signed with 2 individual audit firms for 2 batch assignments.
Table 3a:
Audit Firms Number of audit Number of cost Audited value engagements claims (Euro) KPMG Germany 2 16 24.415.728
PKF Litteljohn UK 3 10 19.480.077
Total 5 26 43.895.805
The 17 audits with final audit results, included in the EPA exercise 2014, had been assigned as follows:
Table 3b:
Audit Firms Number of audit Number of cost Audited value engagements claims (Euro) KPMG Germany 8 25 32.691.815
PKF LittleJohn 9 18 45.287.909 UK
Total 17 43 77.979.724
IV. Quantitative audit results (indicators):
Status of audits:
From the audits launched, the following summaries reflect the status at the time of this report:
Table 4:
Status of audits launched in 2014 Number Share of total launched Total number launched 5 Draft audit reports received (1.version) 5 100% Pre-final reports received 3 60% Final reports received 3 60%
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 133
Table 5:
share of Status of audits launched in 2012 and 2013 number total launched Total number launched and remaining open for EPA 2014 18
Draft audit reports received (1.version) 18 100%
Pre-final reports received 14 78%
Final reports received 9 50%
V. Adjustments and detected error rates:
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 134
Table 6: Audit exercises - Total audited Detected error rate Detected error Representative Representa-tive Systematic Total unaudited cost claims individual and accumulated value/requested Adjustment in favour Adjustment in in favour of the rate in favour of error rate in favour error rate in favour error rate in of audited beneficiaries until 2014 contribution total adjustment of the beneficiary favour of CSJU beneficiary CS JU of the beneficiary of CSJU favour of JU (E )
Results audit exercise 2011 44.266.850,86 -1.569.365,79 1.117.319,63 -2.686.685,42 2,52% -6,07% 2,52% -6,07% -4,94% 43.363.736,30
Results audit exercise 2012 (detected results incl. non 39.495.743,74 -1.373.270,95 415.011,09 -1.788.282,04 1,05% -4,53% -1,74% 65.276.835,18 representative)
Results audit exercise 2012 (representative results excl. 32.898.244,96 -365.833,96 414.470,94 -780.304,90 1,26% -2,37% -2,09% 54.809.095,66 risk based items)
Results audit exercise 2013 (detected results incl. non 40.528.612,74 -1.174.807,79 139.842,40 -1.314.650,19 0,35% -3,24% -2,72% 35.691.805,19 representative) Results audit exercise 2013 (representative results excl. 30.916.364,23 -623.430,37 136.911,25 -760.341,62 0,44% -2,46% 0,44% -2,46% -2,08% 33.929.403,24 risk based items) Results audit exercise 2014 (detected results incl. non 77.979.724,64 35.020,20 518.880,34 -483.860,14 0,67% -0,62% -0,70% 149.043.223,29 representative) Results audit exercise 2014 (representative results excl. 77.979.724,64 35.020,20 518.880,34 -483.860,14 0,67% -0,62% 0,67% -0,62% -0,70% 149.043.223,29 risk based items) Accumulated results all audit exercises 202.270.931,98 -4.082.424,33 2.191.053,45 -6.273.477,79 1,08% -3,10% -2,24% 293.375.599,96 (detected results incl. non representative) Accumulated results all audit exercises 186.061.184,69 -2.523.609,92 2.187.582,15 -4.711.192,08 1,18% -2,53% 1,18% -2,53% -2,18% 281.145.458,49 (representative results excl. risk based items)
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 135
The (ex-post) detected error rate is an indicator of the quality of the ex-ante controls as it gives an estimate of errors that remain undetected after the ex-ante controls have been performed.
The accumulated (ex-post) detected error rate 16in favour of the CSJU identified so far in the audited population is 3.10% (see table 6). The rate represents a weighted average of the individual rates detected. 17 The corresponding rate for the individual audit exercise of the year 2014 is currently at 0.62%.
The representative error rate, which indicates the error rate applicable on the entire population of cost claims before corrective measures, at the moment amounts to 2.53% for the accumulated audit results of all EPA exercises performed so far; the individual annual result for the year 2014 remains at the same level as the detected error, since in the EPA results of the year 2014 no risk based audit has been included.
The comparatively low error rates for the EPA exercise 2014 have been caused by some very positive results of audits covering several very significant cost claims. It also shows the preventive effect of the audit process, as these beneficiaries have been selected for a second time.
The (ex-post) residual error rate indicates the “net-errors” that remain in the total population after implementing corrective actions resulting from the ex-post controls including extrapolation of systematic errors to non-audited cost claims. The residual error rate is calculated according to the following formula:
Taking into account the systematic adjustments proposed by the auditors in the audits included in the EPA exercise 2014 the following residual error rates are calculated:
Table 7a:
Calculation of residual error rate (ResER%): Accumulated 2008 to 2014
Total population (Euro) (P) = 781.353.412,75
Audited population (Euro) (A)= 186.061.184,69 total non-audited cost claims of audited beneficiaries (Euro) (E ) = 280.764.539,05 Representative error rate (RepER%) = 2,53% Systematic error rate (RepERsys%) = 2,18% ResER% = 1,14%
16 Errors actually detected in the audited sample related to the total amount of the sample 17 According to the CSJU Audit Strategy, the average representative error rate is calculated as simple average of all individual rates detected. In our view, the result of this simple average error rate is misleading. Using a non-weighted average of all error rates discovered in each of the cost claims, irrespective of the value of the total amounts involved, would require a sufficiently big sample size and population to arrive at a meaningful representative result.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 136
The result for the year 2014 infers a residual error rate of 0.23%.
Table 7b:
Calculation of residual error rate (ResER%): 2014
Total population (Euro) (P) = 179.395.819,75
Audited population (Euro) (A)= 77.979.724,64
total non-audited cost claims of audited beneficiaries (Euro) (E ) = 148.662.303,85 Representative error rate (RepER%) = 0,62% Systematic error rate (RepERsys%) = 0,69% ResER% = 0,23%
The results established in the year 2014 indicate a further reduction of the total accumulated residual error rate (for GAMs and GAPS) compared to the previous year from 2.50% to 1.15%. The comparatively low level of the residual error rate achieved for the reporting period 2014 is due to the positive development of the representative and detected error rate, as mentioned above. In addition, high correction effects could be reached for audited beneficiaries with a significant level of unaudited cost claims through the extrapolation exercises.
The specific result of the audit batches related to audits on GAPs indicates a residual error rate of 0.99% (compared to 1.22% until end of 2013) as presented in the following table:
Table 7c:
Calculation of residual error rate (ResER%): GAPs EPA 2012 , 2013 and 2014
Total population (Euro) (P) = 67.178.035,67
Audited population (Euro) (A)= 5.417.778,34
total non-audited cost claims of audited beneficiaries (Euro) (E ) = 6.835.277,83 Representative error rate (RepER%) = 1,22% Systematic error rate (RepERsys%) = 1,31% ResER% = 0,99%
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 137
VI. Extrapolation The extrapolation of systematic errors for the audit exercise 2014 has been launched during the months February to May 2015 for all beneficiaries, for which audits have identified a net systematic error rate of all cost claims included in the individual audit of a specific beneficiary exceeding 1% (in favour of the JU), see section IV. Implementation of audit results.
VII. Materiality
The following materiality thresholds have been agreed with the audit firms:
- Overall materiality for qualification of the auditors opinion: 2% of total audited value of cost claims included in the audit report - Reporting materiality for adjustments to be listed in the audit reports: Euro 150 - Sampling approach: - First sample layer: Selection of significant cost items in all cost categories (i.e. individual items with a value equal or above 10 % of the total costs declared in the individual cost claim (Form C)) - Second sample layer: In addition, a random, statistical or judgemental sample of the residual amounts will be drawn and tested. As a final result for the EPA exercise 2014, 10 out of 17 final opinions have been qualified by the auditors because of material adjustments (over 2%18 of respective total declared costs audited).
VIII. Implementation of audit results
Overpayments identified in audited cost claims through the ex-post audits carried out in the year 2014 have been recovered during the year 2014 and 2015 directly from the audited beneficiaries. Likewise, the financial effect of the extrapolation of systematic errors detected in the ex-post audits 2014 on unaudited cost claims has been recovered. The related effects on the recognised in-kind contribution has been reflected in the annual accounts. Similar to previous years, the JU managed to recover overpayments identified in the EPA exercise 2014 to a large extent (97,36%) until the closure of the JU’s Final Accounts 2014.
18 The percentage of the detected errors being considered for qualifying the opinion does not distinguish errors in favour of the JU and in favour of the beneficiary. Hence, opinions are also qualified in cases of errors in favour of beneficiaries above the threshold.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 138
Table 8:
Total corrective action for EPA exercise 2014 - implementation launched and achieved (in cash):
Audited value Adjustments related recovery of recovery rate recovery of recovery rate (of audited in favour of overpayment overpayment - for overpayment- for and unaudited CSJU per overpayment - overpayment - cost claims) audit reports achieved in launched launched cash achieved in cash Euro Euro Euro Euro (%) Euro (%)
227.022.947,93 -3.845.725,05 -1.927.017,11 -1.918.513,25 99,56% -1.876.149,93 97,36%
99.6% of the corrections required for the implementation of the audit results have been launched. For the most part, this has been achieved through sending debit notes to the audited beneficiaries and recovering the funds paid in excess; in some cases the JU retained already during the ex-ante validation of unaudited cost claims of audited beneficiaries the financial effect of the identified systematic errors, thus correcting the systematic error already before authorizing the payments.
IX. Assessment of the ex-post audit results The final results of the ex-post audit exercises 2011 to 2014 pertain to validated cost claims for GAMs and GAPs of the years 2008 to 2013. As described in the materiality criteria in the Annex of the AAR, the control objective of the JU is to ensure for the CS program, that the residual error rate, which represents the remaining level of errors in payments made (and in-kind contribution recognized) after corrective measures, does not exceed 2% of the total expense incurred until the end of the program. Up to now, the accumulated audit coverage of the validated financial statements pertaining to GAMs and GAPs for the years 2008 to2013 is close to 26%. The indicators established from the samples covered in 4 audit exercises carried out in the years 2011 to 2014 reflect a representative error in favor of the JU in the validated operational expense of 2.53% (compared to 3.91% for the accumulated exercises 2011 to 2013). For the annual audit exercise 2014 alone, the representative error rate in favor of the JU is 0.62% (compared to 2.46% for the year 2013). The comparatively low error rate for the EPA exercise 2014 has been caused by some very positive results of audits covering very significant cost claims. It also shows the preventive effect of the audit process, as these beneficiaries have been selected for a second time. Hence, the positive trend stated in the years before has been more than confirmed in 2014.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 139
Under the assumption, that audit results are properly implemented, which means overpayments in audited cost claims are recovered, systematic errors are corrected in unaudited cost claims of audited beneficiaries and book values of overstated in-kind contribution is corrected in the JU’s accounts, it appears justified to consider for assurance purposes the error rate after cleaning mechanisms have taken place, i.e. the residual error rate: The accumulated residual error stemming from the audit exercises 2011 to 2014 remaining after cleaning the population from detected and extrapolated systematic errors amount to 1.14%, the corresponding residual error rate for the EPA exercise 2014 only is 0.23%. The population of GAPs is covered by two specific samples (8%), which resulted in a representative error rate of 1,22%. The related residual error rate established only for grant agreements with Partners went down compared to the previous year and lies presently at 0.99% (previous year: 1.22%). The results do not indicate a significant risk for undetected overpayments to Partners. The corrective measures for all audit batches, carried out in the years 2011 to 2014, have been nearly fully implemented. The recovery process for 99.6% of the detected overpayment has been launched and 97.4% of the related total value has been corrected, mainly through payments received from beneficiaries on the JUs bank account, but also through anticipation of the correction during the ex-ante validation of cost claims of audited beneficiaries (before execution of payments). Hence, the results of the residual error rates can be considered as a relevant indicator for the remaining error in the population of validated cost claims or respectively in the operational expense (including the in-kind contribution) as reflected in the Annual Accounts of the JU. Due to the specific situation of the CSJU with its named beneficiaries receiving 75% of the entire operational funds, and with a view to the comparatively high share of systematic errors detected so far (RepERSys% = 2.18% versus RepER% = 2.53% ), the potential for excluding errors from non-audited cost claims in the future is high. With a view to the stable population of beneficiaries (named beneficiaries for GAMs) until the end of the CS program, we expect a continued decrease in detected errors in the following years through experience made by the beneficiaries. By sharing the information on systematic and non-systematic errors detected in the EPA process with the Financial Officers of the JU in a timely way, the quality of the ex-ante validation of cost claims for GAMs is continuously improved. Although the annual results for 2014 may be exceptionally positive, we consider this development also as a consequence of the above described potential for preventing errors.
The results of the EPA process 2014 reflect the legality and regularity of the validation process for GAM execution 2008 to 2013. Thus, they do not directly relate to the entire expenditure incurred by the JU until the end of year 2014. However, the JU’s EPA strategy is implemented through an ongoing process, which produces accumulated results applicable to the entire expense incurred for the CS program until a certain point of time. At present we have results for payments incurred ( and where applicable in-kind contribution recognized) for GAMs and GAPs 2008 to 2013. The EPA coverage and identified error rates have to be evaluated with a view to the multiannual EPA strategy, which is an ongoing process and which will further evolve during the entire duration of the program.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 140
Under this multi-annual aspect, we consider the accumulated results of the EPA process 2011 to 2014 relevant and appropriate to provide assurance for the operational expenditure as recognised in the Final Accounts 2014.
9.4 Audit of the European Court of Auditors
In 2014, the JU was audited by the European Court of Auditors as set out in the Statutes. The results of these audits were published in the Court’s Report on the Annual Accounts 201319. In its Statement of Assurance, the Court issued to the CSJU a positive opinion on the reliability of the annual accounts and on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions.
In its comments, the Court mentions in the report the utilisation rate for commitment appropriations was 90,6 %, while the rate for payment appropriations was 87,7 %. The lower rate for payment appropriations, although better than in 2012 (75 %), still reflects delays in the implementation of the budget.
The Court also states, that the JU continued to improve its management, administrative, financial and accounting procedures. The “Grant management tool (GMT tool)” was completed by introducing the adjustments to cost claims.
Findings and comments raised by the Court during the 2 audit visits performed until June 2014, in particular regarding ex-ante controls for grant payments, have been taken up by the JU and actions have been developed to further improve the procedures of the JU and enhance controls.
In respect of the Court’s recommendation regarding monitoring and reporting of research results the JU has continued to develop the related process to be implemented by the ITDs and has updated its monitoring tools and receiving consolidated results from the private members in this regard including their dissemination plans. The JU receives meanwhile consolidated results from the private members including their dissemination plans and reports. For publishing summaries of GAP projects the JU is using the Commission system CORDA. GAM annual report summaries from 2013 are available on the JU website. The JU considers the protection, dissemination and transfer of research results a priority of the CS Programme’s management, aiming to further align its processes with the regulatory requirements as outlined in the FP7 Decision of the European Parliament20.
9.5 Internal Audit Activity
The Internal Audit function of CSJU is carried out by the Internal Audit Service of the Commission (IAS) and the Internal audit Officer of Clean Sky JU (IAO). According to Article 73 of the Clean Sky Financial Rules (CSFR), the internal auditor shall advise the CSJU on dealing with risks, by issuing independent opinions on the quality of
19 Report on the Annual Accounts of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking for the financial year 2013, dated 21.10.2014 20 Decision No 1982/2006 of the European Parliament and the Council of 18 December 2006 concerning the Seventh Framework Programme
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 141
management and control systems and by issuing recommendations for improving the conditions of implementation of operations and promoting sound financial management.
Internal Audit Service (IAS):
In the year 2014 the IAS finalised an audit on the financial aspects of grant management started at the end of 2013. Further, a risk assessment of standard business processes has been performed by the IAS in order to establish the IAS strategic audit plan for CSJU for the years 2015 to 1017. The results of the risk assessment and the selection of audit topics for future audits had not been finalised until the end of 2014.
Based on the audit of the topic “Grant Management – Financial implementation”, the IAS has issued 2 very important recommendations, which were responded by the JU through a dedicated action plan. The recommendations concerned (1) the ex-ante validation guidelines and checklists for the approval of financial statements of beneficiaries (Members and Partners) and (2) the approval process of project deliverables for Partners with a view to the role of the Topic Managers. By the end of 2014 the agreed actions have been implemented for both recommendations.
At the time of this report, the IAS has not issued an annual internal audit report for the year 2014 on the implementation of agreed actions stemming from previous years’ audits and risk assessments. Until now, the IAS has not indicated critical residual risk levels regarding the JUs main business processes and internal controls. According to the JUs’ own assessment the major part of the very important actions has been implemented.
Internal Audit Officer (IAO):
The IAO of the JU has summarised her main activities in the IAO’s Annual Report 201421.
Similar to the previous years, the IAO has provided in 2014 consultancy services in order to advise the JU’s management on further improving the processes and enhancing the necessary controls in the following areas:
- Ex-ante validation process for operational expense - Management of the ex-post audit exercises 2013 and 2014 - Risk assessment of the JU - Preparation of the CSJU regulatory framework for CS2 - Accounting policy for in-kind contribution - EPA approach for H2020
A risk assessment has been performed by the IAO at the end of 2014 and areas with high residual risks have been pointed out to the management of CSJU.
Due to the limited volume of assurance work performed, no overall opinion has been issued by the IAO on the status of the Internal Control framework of the JU.
21 Annual Report 2014 of the Internal Audit Officer, dated 25.01.2015
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 142
The annual report of the IAO also summarises the status of the agreed upon actions to mitigate very important management risks identified in previous risk assessments and audits.
As a result and following the risk assessment carried out in 2014, the IAO concluded that the following processes still present significant residual risk levels of the JU:
Strategic planning and management of interfaces between ITDs, IADPs and TA regarding FP7 and H2020 activities In-kind contribution reporting for H2020 activities Management of the Calls for Core Partners and integrated approach for amending the GAMs of Leaders Management of the performance monitoring of Members and the resulting requirements for a revision of the budget allocation Coordination between ex-ante validation of cost claims and ex-post audit activities through an integrated approach in GMT Antifraud measures Comprehensive reference system, which constitute the framework of rules and procedures of the JU Management of the action plans for risk mitigation stemming from audits, evaluations and self-assessments Quality of the ex-post audit process in terms of staff allocation and usage of the GMT database.
The JU management is aware of the above risk areas and is in the process of developing mitigating actions. The results of the risk assessment have been considered in the Internal Audit Planning 2015 of the IAO. More details are provided in the IAO’s Annual Report 2014.
Independence of the IAO:
Due to repeated involvement in management tasks, the IAO disclosed to management and GB a lack of objectivity in respect of some specific activities and operations of the JU, for which the IAO took over direct operational responsibility. The activities concerned were:
- ex-post audit process including implementation of results and accounting - validation of cost claims 2008 to 2012 - design of in-kind contribution procedure for H2020 - exceptions and non-compliance reporting - management assurance process - quality management
Instead of assurance audits, consultancy services are provided by the IAO in order to develop the concerned processes further and establish the necessary controls until the objectivity related to these processes is ensured again. With a view to the assessment of the internal control system of the JU, the risk resulting from the temporary lack of audit coverage through the IAO is limited, because other auditors like the European Court of Auditors (ECA) or the Internal Audit Service of the Commission (IAS) could or actually do cover a significant part of the concerned processes.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 143
9.6 Compliance and effectiveness of Internal Control and cost efficiency indicators
During 2014, the JU complied with its internal control standards to the maximum possible considering the additional workload of preparing and launching a new programme with the same number of staff as already foreseen (understaffed for) managing one programme. The delay in the approval of the establishment plan until end of July 2014 did not provide adequate reliability to the JU executive team for launching all recruitments in a timely way as it would have liked. Despite this, 9 out of 13 posts were filled (and had started working) by 1st November 2014. The main control objectives, which were not met during the year 2014 concerned (1) the timely production of grant agreements following the open calls for Partners (time to grant), and (2) keeping the deadlines for payments (time to pay). This was mainly due to the mentioned resources constraints and the additional workload. However, the JU also identified some weaknesses in coordinating activities with some topic managers for closing negotiations or for solving delays in technical roadmaps, which also delayed the starting of some GAPs. A newly defined procedure relating to GAP cost claim processing was established in order to ensure coherence amongst financial officers for their processing of ex-ante checks on cost claims of Partners. In addition, one of the newly recruited staff is the financial controller, whose tasks comprise of a dedicated input into the challenging process of simultaneous financial programming and reporting for the two programmes. In addition, an assessment of financial systems and circuits was launched in late October 2014 by a task force led by the financial controller which provided further assurance to the Executive Director with regard to the underlying systems and business processes concerning financial processing. The accounting officer also participated in this sub-group. Finally, the JU updated the implementation of the recommendations arising from the accounting officers’ last validation exercise. This is attached to the report of the Head of Administration and Finance/Internal control coordinator for 2014 as provided to the Executive Director. With regard to HR aspects of the internal control standards, the JU continued its effort to have reclassification put in place following its staff and career development policy. The JU implemented the first reclassifications of contract agents in 2014. Further exercises are planned from 2015 for temporary agents. Furthermore, Art. 17 CSFR requires that the Executive Director shall put in place the Internal Control System suited to the performance of its duties supported by a risk analysis which takes into account their cost-effectiveness. Even though the use of a harmonised set of common indicators for all the JUs will be required and put in place only in the AAR 2015, it was deemed relevant and possible for the CSJU to anticipate this requirement already in the AAR 2014 by presenting the costs and benefits of the Ex-post audit (EPA) process (described in the section 9.3 of the present document).
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 144
a) EPA process - cost efficiency indicator 2014
Costs of EPA process 2014 (1) € 690.354 Audited value 2014 (2) € 77.979.725
EPA 2014 indicator (3)=(1)/(2) 0,89% (1) The EPA costs 2014 estimation is based on:
a. the annual time of the JU staff involved in the EPA process (Ex-post and finance unit involved actors) for €182.854. b. The total annual costs of audit fees related to the number of cost claims finalised for €507.500.
(2) The audited value as included in the annual EPA 2014 exercise.
b) EPA process - benefits of control
The estimation of the control benefits goes beyond of what can be expressed in monetary terms, however, considering the importance of the EPA process for the JU, it is clear that in 2014 the ex-post audits have been duly implemented and processed with a stabilised positive trend of the achieved error rate levels (as assessed during the EPA exercise 2014, the residual error rate being well below the targeted 2%). Furthermore, the cost of such control mechanism in 2014, as indicated above is below 1% of the total audited value, providing relevant assurance as regards the efficiency of the operational expenditure transactions and the overall sound financial management of the JU.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 145
9.7 Elements supporting assurance
Besides the dedicated supervisory activities of the Executive Director, the main elements supporting the assurance are:
- the Certificate of the Accounting officer
- The implementation of the recommendations arising from the validation of the JU’s accounting systems made by the Accounting Officer
- the reporting of the Head of Administration and Finance (who is also the Internal control coordinator of the JU)
- the reporting of the Coordinating project officer as reflected in this report
- the reporting of the CS2 Programme Manager as reflected in this report
- the reporting on the results of the ex-post audit process in the year 2014 (and before) and the related implementation
- the information received from the Data Protection Officer
- the results of audits the European Court of Auditors to date
- the reporting of the Internal Audit Officer and the Internal Audit Service of the Commission
- the overall risk management performed in 2014 as supervised by the Executive Director
- the key performance indicators in place
- the dedicated ex-ante controls of the JU’s operational expenditure
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 146
10. BUDGET EXECUTION AND FINAL ACCOUNTS
10.1 Budgetary Implementation
General comments on savings in Running costs and their re-allocation to operational activities in the CS programme:
The JU constantly monitors the multi-annual spend of running costs but also operational budget for the FP7 programme and will continue in this vein for the H2020 programme in accordance with the principle of sound financial management. Based on the results of 2008-2013, the JU took various steps in 2014 to discuss and understand, from an operational point of view the various issues in the ITDs which could explain their performance in terms of CA and PA. In 2013, the JU proposed that a decision to revise the budgetary envelope of the ITDs should be taken in the second half of 2014. Indeed the review of CS Programme running costs implementation showed that an estimated amount of €10 Mill could be instead allocated to operational activities as set out in the regulation. Furthermore, interest gained on the JU bank account as well as the cancellation of GAP projects (due to unsuccessful negotiations or less than 100% final execution of the allocated funding) makes it possible to re-allocate some additional funding for the GAM activities. The JU programme office performed a programme review of activities and in late 2013 offered the possibility to ITDs, where appropriate, to request either complementary funding for the same scope of technical activity or additional funding for new scope of activity. This exercise led to lengthy discussions which resulted in a list of proposed new funding options across ITDs. The funding list and the order of priority were agreed by the Governing Board in October 2014 based on a proposal from the Executive Director. As a consequence, the JU was able to propose a second revision22 of the overall budgetary envelopes by ITD to the Governing Board in October 2014 (see also the Budget implementation report section of the Provisional Accounts 2014). This saving in running costs was achieved through this close monitoring by the JU and was met with a positive acknowledgement by the members of the JU. Budget management in general: Since 2014, the JU manages in parallel the two Programmes Clean Sky (under 7th Framework Programme) and Clean Sky 2 (under H2020 Framework Programme) with a corresponding amount of commitment appropriations (€229.2 Mill23). Compared to 2013, this represented a 8% decrease of available commitment appropriations (as the Clean Sky 2 Programme started mid-2014). Of this, it executed 94%24 through new financial commitments which represents the best performance of the JU in terms of budget execution.
The available payment appropriations decreased by 3% compared to the previous year to 153.6m €. Of this amount, 90% was paid out during 2014. As for the financial commitments, this represents the best execution rate of payments for the JU so far.
22 Govervning Board decision reference “CS-GB-2014-24 Doc6a Compl funding Budg rev nr 3- Backgr note & Doc6b Proposal of ED Compl funding” 23 This figure excludes the unused CA carried over from previous years but not needed in 2014. 24 Excludes the appropriations which were foreseen to be unused at year end
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 147
At a glance, a breakdown of the areas of commitment and payment is illustrated.
Breakdown by type of expenditure (committed) 1% 2% 1% Staff Expenditure
Infrastructure
Operational Expenditure - CS 50% GAP 45% Operational Expenditure - CS GAM
Operational Expenditure - CS2 GAM
Breakdown by type of expenditure (paid)
2% 1% Staff Expenditure
15% Infrastructure
30% Operational Expenditure - CS GAP Operational Expenditure - CS GAM Operational Expenditure - 51% CS2 GAM
Facts and figures by title of the budget:
Title 1 & 2 Budget (m €) Executed (m €) % rate CA 6.4 6.3 98.7 PA 6.4 5.1 80.3
Title 1 & 2: The running costs of the JU had a very high rate (98.7% CA) of use in 2014 showing a reliable budgetary planning for this part of the JU budget. Staff expenditure
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 148
budget (Chapter 11) was mainly used for the statutory staff of the JU, although other external support was also hired in by the JU to cope with the increased workload (Chapter 12 used). The JU also performed procurement for services of its members to provide support to the JU team. In addition, new procurement for the next wave of development of the GMT (for the Clean Sky Programme GAM management part) and GMT2 (for the Clean Sky 2 Programme GAM management part) application was completed and the additional set of work packages were defined and contracted. ***
Title 3 Budget (m €) Executed (m €) % rate CA 92.2 87.8 95.2 PA 122.2 112.9 92.5
Title 3 - Clean Sky Programme (FP7): The operational costs relating to the ITD grant agreements for Members (Chapters 30-36) show a high rate of commitment (98%). This represents the excellent follow-up and communication between the JU and the industries for budget execution forecast versus the planned operational activities. Two ITDs have signed multi-annual grant agreements: GRA for the period 2014-2016 and ECO (already signed last year) for the period 2013-2015). The other ITDs signed annual grant- agreements for one year in 2014. The payment execution for the Members has also reached 98% and represents the payment of interim/final payments of the grant agreements 2013 as well as the pre-financing paid on the 2014 activities.
In addition, The JU programme office performed a programme review of activities and in late 2013 offered the possibility to ITDs, where appropriate, to request either complementary funding for the same scope of technical activity or additional funding for new scope of activity. This exercise led to lengthy discussions which resulted in a list of proposed new funding options across ITDs.
On the payments side, the payment execution rate for 2014 comes up to 92.5% versus 88.3% in 2013. The execution rate for the Calls for Proposals payment decreased from 99% in 2013 to 83.7% in 2014. However the JU increased the GAPs activity in terms of number of payments processed and in terms of value paid compared to 2013 (274 payments executed in 2014 including pre-financing payments and 199 cost claims (105 in 2013) and for a total amount of €41.8 Mill (€40.8 Mill in 2013). In addition, the JU de-committed the amounts not needed directly within 2014 in order not to carry these forward as automatic carry forward. This allows a clearer picture of the actual budget consumption at year end for calls and for the GAM.
***
Title 4 Budget (m €) Executed (m €) % rate CA 103.0 95.3 92.5 PA 25.0 20.5 81.8
Title 4 – Clean Sky 2 Programme (H2020): The first grant agreements for Leaders 2014- 2015 were signed in December 2014 with the following SPDs: LPA, REG, FRC, AIR, ENG and SYS. A provisional budgetary envelope was allocated for some transverse areas activities
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 149
for 2015. The amount of payment appropriations of €25 Mill aimed to pay the first pre- financing payment of the grant agreements for Leaders 2014-2015. As some grant agreements were not signed by year end by the beneficiaries, some pre-financing payments were not executed resulting in an execution of 82%. The first CS2 Call for Partners was launched in December 2014. The negotiation phase started in May 2015. Therefore, the first commitments and pre-financing payments for Partners are planned in the 3rd Quarter 2015 and are budgeted in 2015 only.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 150
10.2 Final Accounts
The main tables of the Final Accounts 2014 of the CSJU are included in the Annex 4 of this report. They comprise of the Balance Sheet, the Statement on Financial Performance, the Statement of changes in Net Assets and the Cash Flow Analysis. A detailed explanation to assets and liabilities of the JU and to the economic result of the year 2014 is provided in the Notes to the Final Accounts, which form part of the Final Accounts document itself.
Economic Outturn
The Statement on Financial Performance presents the economic result of the CSJU in the reporting period (01.01.2014 – 31.12.2014).
The most substantial component are the operational expenses incurred in-cash and in-kind for implementing the aeronautical research programmes funded by the JU. The operating expenses (“administrative expenses”) cover the running costs of the JU.
Due to the specific accounting rules applied by CSJU the funds received from the Commission and from the other members of the JU are shown as Contributions received from members in the Net Assets of the Balance Sheet and not as revenue in the economic outturn.
The Non-exchange revenues represent adjustments for contributions from members previously recognised in the Net Assets due to subsequent changes in already validated cost claims (e.g. through ex-post audits) and miscellaneous administrative revenues.
The financial income mainly comprises of interest earned by the JU on Commission funds, which is added to the global budget envelop of the two CS programmes in line with the CS Financial Rules.
Balance Sheet
The balance sheet reflects the financial position of the CSJU as of 31.12.2014. Assets, comprise mainly of cash in bank balances, pre-financing incurred for the execution of the grant agreements and fixed assets; liabilities include the “Net Assets” on the one side, and current liabilities like amounts payable, accruals and provisions on the other side.
The bank balances of the JU decreased compared to 2013 (2013: 24,7 M Euro, 2014: 20,2 M Euro).
The increase in fixed asset is due to the further development costs of the grant management tool (GMT) and the purchase of new IT equipment and furniture for the expansion of the offices.
The balance of the Net Assets at the end of the reporting period present the accumulated contribution received by the JU from its members (Commission, industry and research organisations), which has not been spent yet for funding the research program.
The Net Assets in the Balance Sheet of the JU’s Final Accounts 2014 show a negative balance of 66,1 M Euro.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 151
The main element derives from the non-validated member in-kind contribution. The reported 2014 operational expenses are already booked on the economic outturn while only the in-kind contribution approved by the Governing Board is recognised in the Net Assets of the CSJU. The cost claims related to 2014 and some of them related to the previous periods have not been validated by management at the date of the preparation of the Final Accounts which are recognised in the economic outturn but not yet in the Net Assets.
The in-kind contributions for those cost not yet approved by the Governing Board are reflected in the liabilities of the Balance sheet as “contributions to be validated”. Following validation of cost claims by management and approval by the Governing Board later in 2015, these in-kind contributions will be transferred to the Net Assets of the CSJU.
Another element of the negative net assets is the EU cash contribution which shows negative balance. The JU calls in the cash contribution according to its payment needs. All the 2014 operational expenses are already included in the economic outturn, while in 2014 the JU had to pay (and requested from the EU as cash contribution) only the pre-financing for the 2014 GAMs. The remaining cash contribution related to the 2014 operational expenses will be requested in 2015.
The negative Net Assets do not indicate any risk of solvency, but are the consequence of the accounting method applied according to the specific accounting rules and guidance provided by the Commission for Joint Undertakings.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 152
10.3 In-kind contributions provided by the private members
In-kind contributions (IKC) are provided by CSJU members through the execution of projects. To the extent that project costs are born by the members and not funded in cash by the JU, members contribute in-kind to the CS programme.
According to the provisions of Council Regulation No 71/2008 under FP7 the private members of the JU contribute resources (in-kind) equal to the EU contribution (50%) excluding those allocated through calls for proposals in order to carry out the research activities of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking.
Under Horizon 2020 programme the total in-kind contribution from the private members shall be of at least Euro 2,193,750,000 and consists of two elements:
(a) in-kind contributions to operational activities (IKOP): in-kind contributions by private members and their affiliated entities consisting of the costs incurred by them in implementing indirect actions less the contribution of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking and any other Union contribution to those costs.
(b) additional activities (IKAA): in-kind contributions of at least Euro 965,250 000 consisting of the costs incurred by private members in implementing additional activities outside the work plan of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking contributing to the objectives of the Clean Sky Joint Technology Initiative.
The in-kind contributions to operational activities (IKOP) are linked to the work plan of the JU and co-financed by the Joint Undertaking. These contributions reflect the involvement of the private sector within the Joint Undertaking. These contributions are recognised as contributions from owners under the net assets heading of the balance sheet of the JU.
The in-kind contributions from additional activities (IKAA) are not part of CSJU work programme and not co-financed by the Joint Undertaking. The IKAA contributions contribute to the overall Joint Technology Initiative, but they are not linked to the statutory tasks of the JU. Consequently the IKAA contributions, contrary to the IKOP contributions, are not recognised in the accounts of the JU. Information about the IKAA contributions is disclosed in the Annual Report of CSJU.
The in-kind contributions are subject to evaluation and acceptance by the CS Governing Board25. This follows a dedicated process involving JU management and Governing Board including the following main steps:
25 The GB has the following tasks in the context of the IKC:
Art 8 (2) (i) Statutes: “approve the additional activities plan … on the basis of a proposal from the private Members and after having consulted, where appropriate , an ad hoc advisory group.”
Art 4 (3) CS Regulation: “Receive the declarations on the value of the IKC (IKOP and AA) from the Leaders and Core Partners by 31st January each year. “
Art 8 (2) (j) Statutes “..Provide opinion on the declaration referred to in Art 4.3…”
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 153
FP7 programme:
As soon as cost claims are transmitted to the JU, related in-kind contributions are shown in the liabilities of the JU’s accounts as Contribution from members to be validated. An assessment of the contribution is performed during the ex-ante validation of cost claims carried out by the JU management. According to the applicable funding scheme, the in-kind contributions stemming from FP7 grant agreements of the Clean Sky programme represent 50% of the total eligible costs incurred by the JU’s Members. Hence, the contribution is by default valued according to the FP7 eligibility criteria. The validation process of the JU management is mainly based on the Certificates provided by the auditors of the Members, but also on the thorough review of the cost claims carried out by the JUs Financial Officers and Project Officers. All in-kind contributions validated by the JU management are presented for final approval to the GB.
After the acceptance (positive opinion) by the Governing Board the in-kind contributions are shifted in the JU’s balance sheet from the liabilities to the net assets as Contributions received from members.
The state of play of the provided contributions for Grant agreements with Members (GAM)26 under FP7 programme until the closure of the financial year 2014 is as follows (2008-2014 aggregated figures):
Validated contribution per ITD:
ITD Total private contributions validated since CSJU inception ED 33.255.344,96 GRA 57.087.428,54 GRC 42.044.568,03 SAGE 96.435.706,47 SFWA 120.368.146,62 SGO 88.414.701,58 TE 10.818.444,27 TOTAL 448.424.340,47
H2020 programme:
The validation of the in-kind contribution stemming from H2020 grants follows in principle the same approval process as stated above for FP7. However, due to the different funding scheme and provisions in the H2020 grant agreements, the valuation criteria do not necessarily follow the H2020 eligibility criteria but are mainly based on the Members
26 There is no IKC contribution requirement for Grant agreements with Partners (GAP)
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 154
individual cost accounting methodologies. Guidance has been provided to the Clean Sky 2 JU Member and a related procedure will be finalized, including the terms of reference for the certification process, the different options for evaluation and the tasks of the JU’s management and Governing Board.
The state of play of the reported contributions for Grant agreements with Members under H2020 programme (started in July 2014):
IAPDs EC contribution IKOP AIRFRAME 1.252.940,25 974.057,46 ENGINES 3.619.131,30 2.921.360,24 FAST ROTORCRAFT 988.386,29 1.217.065,40 LARGE PASSENGER AIRCRAFT 901.674,93 700.490,28 REGIONAL AIRCRAFT 239.487,93 300.427,81 SYSTEMS 591.459,41 300.136,19 TOTAL 7.593.080,11 6.413.537,37 Ratio H2020 private contribution/total project costs 45,79%
The IKOP reported under H2020 Programme is based on reports received from Members and is still uncertified; therefore the full amount is in the status “pending validation” (booked as “liability to be validated”). The certification of the IKOP will follow the certification of the eligible costs in the Certificates on financial statements, which are due at the end of the grant agreement, i.e. for the current H2020 Grant Agreements for Member in March 2016.
For the year 2014 the Additional Activities performed by the Members corresponded to an estimated value of €81 Mill. The activities included herein comprise of
- Preparation of test aircrafts/platforms including infrastructure for flight testing - Development and testing of advanced component technologies, modeling, control systems and materials systems for the engine demonstrator program - Development of accompanying manufacturing methods and techniques, e.g. for laminar wings - Development of supporting technologies, e.g. research and technology development of architectures, technology bricks and other enablers for systems and airframe - Aircraft architecture design process - New manufacturing and assembly techniques - Composite manufacturing processes - Activities concerning the innovative passenger cabin - Configuration optimization tools - Development of various technologies/materials lowering operating and life cycle cost - CR Open rotor related complementary activities - Landing Gears complementary activities - Preparation of simulated environment for integration of early developments
Since the specific guidance on the definition and evaluation of the Additional Activities and the Terms of Reference for the certification is currently being established by the JU in cooperation with the Commission and the scope of IKAA stemming from Core Partners has not yet been decided between the Leaders, Core Partners and the JU, the JU will report the certified values and more details on the content of the 2014 IKAA together with the amounts reported for 2015 in the AAR 2015.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 155
11. INDICATORS
A number of key performance indicators has been used by the JU’s management during the year 2014 in order to monitor achievement of targets and objectives by the JU’s team and by the ITDs.
A summary of KPIs and their year-end results for 2014 is presented in a table in Annex 3.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 156
12. ANNEXES
12.1 Annex 1: Declaration of assurance referred to in Article 20.1(b) of the of the Clean Sky Financial rules
I, Eric Dautriat, Executive Director of Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking, in my capacity as authorizing officer hereby state that I have reasonable assurance that, unless otherwise specified in any reservations related to defined areas of revenue and expenditure: - the information contained in this report presents a true and fair view; - the resources, both financial and human, assigned to the activities described in this report have been used for their intended purpose and in accordance with the principle of sound financial management, and - the control procedures put in place give the necessary guarantees concerning the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions; - this reasonable assurance is based on my own judgement and on the information at my disposal, such as: - the results of my supervisory activities
- the Certificate of the Accounting officer
- The implementation of the recommendations arising from the validation of the JU’s accounting systems made by the Accounting Officer
- the reporting of the Head of Administration and Finance (who is also the Internal control coordinator of the JU)
- the reporting of the Coordinating project officer as reflected in this report - the reporting of the CS2 Programme Manager as reflected in this report - the reporting on the implementation and the results of the ex-post audit process in the year 2014 and before
- the information received from the Data Protection Officer - the results of audits the European Court of Auditors to date
- the reporting of the Internal Audit Officer and the Internal Audit Service of the Commission - the overall risk management performed in 2014 as supervised by the Executive Director - the key performance indicators in place
- the dedicated ex-ante controls of the JU’s operational expenditure
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 157
Additional comments:
- The short remaining margin for finalising the BLADE demonstration program could result in missing the 2016 deadline for this important demonstrator. The project is under the constant monitoring of the SFWA Coordinators and the JU, involving all actors including the ITD associate and Partners who are contributing to the program.
- With reference to the management of the programme implementation, I have enhanced the monitoring ability of the JU through the management manual and annual reviews and separately have successfully proposed a re-allocation between ITDs of their programme financial envelopes;
- The balance sheet of the JU as at 31.12.2014 shows a negative balance of the Net Assets, which is due to the accounting policies applied in line with the Commission guidance and which will be adjusted as soon as the validation of financial statements of beneficiaries is finalised;
- Based on the quantitative and qualitative results established through the ex-post audit exercises performed in previous years, controls have been enhanced to improve the effectiveness of the underlying processes for validating cost claims by the JU team (ex-ante). Together with increased guidance provided by the JU to its members and CFS auditors regarding the eligibility of costs and the expectation from the JU towards the CFS auditors’ role and tasks, this has contributed to further reduce errors in the year 2014 and to achieve the multiannual control objective of the JU. The final results of the ex-post audit exercise 2014 confirm the positive trend of the accumulated residual error rate achieving the target of staying below 2%.
- As stated in the report the inadequate staffing level of the JU has delayed the timely administration of the programme. During 2014, the staffing level was increased by November. However, the impact of this increase will only begin to be felt from 2015 onwards.
I am not aware of anything not reported here which could harm the interests of the Joint Undertaking.
The information provided is, to the best of my knowledge, accurate and exhaustive.
Eric Dautriat
(Signed)
Executive Director Clean Sky 2 JU
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 158
12.2 Annex 2: Assessment of the Annual Activity Report by the Governing Board of the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
GOVERNING BOARD OF CLEAN SKY 2 JOINT UNDERTAKING ASSESSMENT OF THE ANNUAL ACTIVITY REPORT 2014
The Governing Board of Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking took note of the Annual Activity Report 2014 (Authorising Officer's report), the provisional version of which was made available on 25th February 2015, and the final version on 5th June 2015.
The Board is of the opinion that this document sets out the relevant highlights of the implementation of the 2014 activities of the Joint Undertaking from both an operational and administrative point of view.
The progress of technical activities is in line with the Clean Sky and Clean Sky 2 Programmes objectives. The achievement of milestones in 2014 has largely been achieved; several demonstrators were run on ground or in flight and adequate measures have been implemented to monitor the remaining open issues. The optimisation of the global outcome of the Clean Sky Programme, through some rea-allocation of funds to prioritized activities, was agreed upon a proposal from the Executive Director, including a shift from running costs to operational activities.
In 2014, the JU processed the highest number of reports, (which in turn led to the closure of the highest number of GAP projects) compared to previous years.
The risk management is appropriate, for technical and financial risks, and reported to the Board. In particular, the Board takes note of the schedule risks identified for some demonstrators and supports the JU’s management to follow the detailed roadmap defined with the industry.
As regards the Technology Evaluator, the Board takes note of the high-level results which demonstrates that most of the environmental objectives are on their way to be fulfilled once the demonstrators are completed.
The JU has fulfilled its monitoring tasks through the implementation and usage of dedicated key performance indicators for the achievement of strategic research and management objectives.
Regarding the financial implementation of grant agreements, the Board acknowledges the further progress made by the JU to improve the effectiveness of all beneficiaries’ reporting. The further developments of the GMT application for Grant Agreement for Members reporting have proven to assist the JU and the ITD coordinators to more efficiently manage their resources. In 2014, a decision was made to develop a new version of GMT to manage the costs reporting of the Clean Sky 2 programme.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 159
Ex-post audits have been duly implemented and processed. The Board takes note of the stabilised positive trend visible in the achieved error rate levels assessed in the ex-post audit exercise 2014 (the 2014 residual error rate being well below the targeted 2%). The target of limiting the accumulated errors for the entire Clean Sky programme below 2% is considered as achievable. Further actions to maintain the applied preventive and remedial measures will be supported by the Board.
The Board takes note of the overall improvement of budget execution in commitment and payment appropriations and supports a continuing trend in this direction.
Done in Brussels, 23 June 2015
Ric Parker
(Signed)
Chairman of the Governing Board Clean Sky 2 JU
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 160
12.3 Annex 3: Scoreboard of key performance indicators
Indicator Indicator Description of Target set in AIP Result 2014 ID short name indicator 2014 Ind 1.4.A SME share - share of SME >35% 35.01% value funding in total Partners funding27 Ind 1.4.B SME share - number of SME >40% 34.93% numbers participation versus total number of beneficiaries Ind 1.4 C SME share in number of SME >40% 42.25% CFPs - participation in numbers CFP versus total number of applicants Ind 2.5.1 B Topics success percentage of >90% 77 % rate topics resulting in signature of GAP Ind 2.5.4 B Redress Number of <5% 0% procedures - redress requests all Ind. 2.5.4 D Selection of percentage of no target in AIP 93% proposals eligible proposals selected for evaluation ind 2.5.6 A Finalising of Percentage of 50% of GAPs for 43.1% GAPs contracts signed period after call in less than 8 closure months after the call closure Ind. 2.7.1 A AIP execution percentage of >90% 100% by members - resources resources consumption versus plan (members only) Ind 2.7.1 B AIP execution percentage of >90% 82% by members - deliverables deliverables available versus plan (members only) Ind 2.9 C Budget percentage of >85% 73% execution - payments made payments within the operational deadlines
27 The share of SME funding in total funding (including Partners and Members) is 12.23%.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 161
Indicator Indicator Description of Target set in AIP Result 2014 ID short name indicator 2014 Ind 2.11 A Dissemination Number of 3*ITD: 21 >100 of results publications from ITDs registered at JU level Ind 3.7.3 A Budget percentage of no target in AIP 81.0% execution - payments made payments within the running costs deadlines
Ind 5.3 A Ex-post audits Percentage of >20% 16% - coverage operational (accumulated) expenses covered by ex-post audits
Ind 5.3 D Ex-post audits Representative <2% accumulated - error rates and residual error representative rates resulting error rate: -2.53% from audits at the beneficiaries per accumulated year and residual error accumulated for rate: -1.14% the programme. residual error rate EPA 2014: -0.23%
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 162
12.4 Annex 4: Financial Statements 2014
STATEMENT ON FINANCIAL PERFORMANCE Ref. 2014 2013 REVENUES NON-EXCHANGE REVENUES Other revenue 3.4.1 3.986.365,64 3.842.966,05 Exchange gains 2.703,46 0,00 TOTAL NON-EXCHANGE REVENUES 3.989.069,10 3.842.966,05
OPERATIONAL EXPENSES Operational expenses funded by CSJU in cash 3.4.2 139.747.726,94 152.332.937,34 Operational expenses contributed in kind by members 95.652.537,52 103.773.662,84 TOTAL OPERATIONAL EXPENSES 235.400.264,46 256.106.600,18
OPERATING EXPENSES 3.4.3 Administrative expenses Staff expenses 2.559.915,49 2.438.942,76 Depreciation & amortisation of fixed assets 107.161,40 75.338,78 Rent of building 618.162,29 249.384,29 Rent of furniture 0,00 0,00 Office suppliers & maintenance 77.831,39 14.515,49 Communication & publications 395.931,34 293.711,02 Transport expenses 3.315,92 3.623,55 3.4.3.1 Recruitment costs 7.569,49 1.371,18 Training costs 2.975,25 11.740,21 Missions 206.696,04 176.516,61 Experts and related expenditures 544.047,05 905.262,36 IT costs - external service 109.767,18 117.051,12 Other external service provider 1.054.687,31 1.452.512,94 Provisions for other liabilities 0,00 0,00 Total administrative expenses 5.688.060,15 5.739.970,31 Other operating expenses Exchange losses 3.4.3.2 1.956,42 26,70 Total other operating expenses 1.956,42 26,70 TOTAL OPERATING EXPENSES 5.690.016,57 5.739.997,01
OPERATING RESULT (237.101.211,93) (258.003.631,14)
FINANCIAL INCOME Bank interest on pre-financing from EU 66.600,55 185.699,01 3.4.4.1 Interest on late payment (income) 0,00 0,00 Interests on pre-financing given to Members 32.190,66 12.862,46 Total financial income 98.791,21 198.561,47
FINANCIAL EXPENSES Financial expenses 3.4.4.2 40211,69 0,00 Total financial expenses 40.211,69 0,00
FINANCIAL RESULT 58.579,52 198.561,47
ECONOMIC RESULT OF THE YEAR (237.042.632,41) (257.805.069,67)
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 163
BALANCE SHEET ASSETS 31/12/2014 31/12/2013 A. NON CURRENT ASSETS Tangible fixed assets (net) 106.987,73 71.098,51 3.3.1 Intangible fixed assets (net) 247.622,99 208.813,14 TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS 354.610,72 279.911,65 B. CURRENT ASSETS Short-term pre-financing 41.027.687,83 14.014.675,82 Short-term pre-financing Clean Sky JU 41.027.687,83 14.014.675,82 Short-term receivables 2.941.113,07 3.695.849,37 Short term receivables - recoveries from members and partners 3.3.2 2.510.921,37 3.239.683,00 Other short term receivables 13.070,37 21.393,92 Deferred charges and accrued income 417.121,33 434.772,45 Cash and cash equivalents 20.176.791,28 24.769.712,62 TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS 64.145.592,18 42.480.237,81
TOTAL ASSETS 64.500.202,90 42.760.149,46
LIABILITIES 31/12/2014 31/12/2013 C. NET ASSETS Contributions received from Members (EU & industry) 652.482.122,52 524.447.608,99 Contributions in kind received from Members (Industry) 448.424.340,47 365.726.978,60 3.3.3 Contributions used during previous years (929.987.297,05) (672.182.227,38) Contributions used during the year (EOA) (237.042.632,41) (257.805.069,67) TOTAL NET ASSETS (66.123.466,47) (39.812.709,46)
D. CURRENT LIABILITIES Members contribution to be validated 44.293.777,56 33.356.975,06 Accounts payable and accrued charges 85.519.389,22 48.929.963,53 Amounts payable - consolidated entities 3.741.150,20 134,21 Amounts payable - beneficiaries and suppliers 32.718.025,21 23.886.891,47 Amounts payable - staff 0,00 249,50 3.3.4 Other payables 0,00 107.562,58 Accrued charges 49.060.213,81 24.935.125,77
Provision for risks and charges - short term 810.502,59 285.920,33 Provision for risks and charges - short term 810.502,59 285.920,33
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES 130.623.669,37 82.572.858,92
TOTAL LIABILITIES 64.500.202,90 42.760.149,46
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 164
Statement of changes in net assets 2014
Changes in Net Assets and Liabilities EURO EURO Net Assets Balance as of 31st December 2013 (39.812.709,46) Contributions received from members during the year 2014: EC Clean Sky Programme (FP7) (cash) 98.585.440,00 EC Clean Sky 2 Programme (H2020) (cash) 26.262.093,00 Other members Clean Sky Programme (FP7) (cash) 2.142.584,48 Other members Clean Sky 2 Programme (H2020) (cash) 1.044.396,05 Other members contributions in kind from 2008-2013 validated in 2014 82.697.361,87 Total contributions in 2014 210.731.875,40 Economic Outturn for 2014 (237.042.632,41) Balance as of 31st December 2014 (66.123.466,47)
Cash-flow analysis
Cash Flows from operating activities Surplus/(deficit) from operating activities (237.042.632,41) Adjustments Depreciation and amortisation 107.161,40 Increase/(decrease) in Provisions for risks and liabilities 524.582,26 (Increase)/decrease in Stock (Increase)/decrease in Short term pre-financing (27.013.012,01) (Increase)/decrease in Short term Receivables 754.736,30 Increase/(decrease) in Long term liabilities Increase/(decrease) in Payables and Accruals 36.589.425,69 (Gains)/losses on sale of Property, plant and equipment Extraordinary items Net Cash Flow from operating activities (226.079.738,77)
Cash Flows from investing activities Acquisition of tangible and intangible fixed assets (181.860,47) Proceeds from tangible and intangible fixed assets 0,00 Extraordinary items 0,00 Net Cash Flow from investing activities (181.860,47)
Financing activities In cash contributions from Members (EC & Industry) 128.034.513,53 In kind expense contribution from Members 95.652.537,52 Reduction in members' contributions due to rejected and negative claims (2.018.373,15) Extraordinary items 0,00 Net Cash Flow from financing activities 221.668.677,90
Net increase/(decrease) in cash and cash equivalents (4.592.921,34) Cash and cash equivalents at the beginning of the period 24.769.712,62 Cash and cash equivalents at the end of the period 20.176.791,28
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 165
12.5 Annex 5: Materiality criteria
This annex provides a detailed explanation on how the CSJU defines the materiality threshold as a basis for determining significant weaknesses that should be subject to a reservation to the annual declaration of assurance of the Executive Director.
Deficiencies leading to reservations should fall within the scope of the declaration of assurance, which confirms:
- A true and fair view provided in the AAR and including the Annual Accounts - Sound financial management applied - Legality and regularity of underlying transactions
Because of its multiannual nature, the effectiveness of the CSJU’s controls can only be fully measured and assessed at the final stages of the program’s lifetime, once the ex-post audit strategy has been fully implemented and systematic errors have been detected and corrected.
The control objective is to ensure for the CS program, that the residual error rate, which represents the level of errors which remains undetected and uncorrected, does not exceed 2% of the total expense recognised until the end of the program (see explanations to the weighted average residual error rate underneath). This objective is to be (re)assessed annually , in view of the results of indicators for the ex-ante controls and of the results of the implementation of the ex-post audit strategy, taking into account both the frequency and importance of the errors found as well as a cost-benefit analysis of the effort needed to detect and correct them.
Notwithstanding the multiannual span of the control strategy, the Executive Director of the CSJU is required to sign a statement of assurance for each financial year. In order to determine whether to qualify this statement of assurance with a reservation, the effectiveness of the control systems in place needs to be assessed not only for the year of reference but also with a multiannual perspective, to determine whether it is possible to reasonably conclude that the control objectives will be met in the future as foreseen. In view of the crucial role of ex-post audits, this assessment needs to check in particular, whether the scope and results of the ex-post audits carried out until the end of the reporting period are sufficient and adequate to meet the multiannual control strategy goals.
Effectiveness of controls
The basis to determine the effectiveness of the controls in place is the cumulative level of error expressed as percentage of errors in favour of the CSJU, detected by ex-post audits measured with respect to the amounts accepted after ex-ante controls.
However, to take into account the impact of the ex-post audit controls, this error level is to be adjusted by subtracting:
- Errors detected and corrected as a result of the implementation of audit conclusions - Errors corrected as a result of the extrapolation of audit results to non-audited cost claims issued by the same beneficiary
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 166
This results in a residual error rate, which is calculated in accordance with the following method:
1) REPRESENTATIVE ERROR RATE
As a starting point for the calculation of the residual error rate, the representative error rate will be established as a weighted average error rate identified for an audited representative sample.
The weighted average error rate (WAER) will be calculated according to the following formula:
(er) WAER%= ------= RepER% A
Where:
(er) = sum of all individual errors of the sample (in value). Only the errors in favour of the JU will be taken into consideration. n = sample size
A = total amount of the audited sample expressed in €.
2) RESIDUAL ERROR RATE
The formula for the residual error rate below shows, how much error is left in the auditable population after implementing the outcome of ex-post controls. Indeed, the outcome of ex- post controls will allow for the correction of (1) all errors in audited amounts, and (2) of systematic errors on the non-audited amounts of audited beneficiaries (i.e. extrapolation).
(RepER% * (P-A) – (RepERsys% * E) ResER% = ------P
Where:
ResER% = residual error rate, expressed as a percentage.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 167
RepER% = representative error rate, or error rate detected in the representative sample, in the form of the Weighted Average Error Rate, expressed as a percentage and calculated as described above (WAER%).
RepERsys% = systematic portion of the RepER% (the RepER% is composed of complementary portions reflecting the proportion of systematic and non-systematic errors detected) expressed as a percentage.
P = total amount of the auditable population of cost claims in €
A = total amount of the audited sample expressed in €.
E = total non-audited amounts of all audited beneficiaries. This will consist of all non- audited cost statements for all audited beneficiaries (whether extrapolation has been launched or not).
This calculation will be performed on a point-in-time basis, i.e. all the figures will be provided as of a certain date for the specific annual audit exercise actually performed. However, in order to arrive at a meaningful residual error rate for the entire cumulative period covered by ex-post audits during the execution of the CS program, the weighted average residual error rate (WAvResER%) shall be calculated for the whole duration of the program until the end of each audit period according to the standard formula for a weighted average (sum of weighted terms (=term multiplied by weighting factor in relation to the population in value (p)) divided by the total number of terms) as follows: n
∑ (Res ERi*pi ) i=1 WAvResER% = ------n
∑ pi i =1
The control objective is to ensure, that the residual error rate of the overall population (recognised operational expense) is below 2% at the end of the CS program. If the residual error rate is less than 2%, no reservation would be made. If the residual error rate is between 2 and 5% an additional evaluation needs to be made of both quantitative and qualitative elements in order to make a judgment of the significance of these results. An assessment needs to be made with reference to the achievement of the overall control objective considering the mitigating measures in place. In case the residual error rate is higher than 5%, a reservation needs to be made and an additional action plan should be drawn up. These thresholds are consistent with those retained by the Commission and the Court of Auditors for their annual assessment of the effectiveness of the controls systems operated by the Commission. The alignment of criteria is intended to contribute to clarity and consistence within the FP7 program. In case it turns out, that an adequate calculation of the residual error rate during or at the end of the program is not possible, for reasons not involving control deficiencies but due to e.g. a limited number of auditable cost claims, the likely exposure to errors needs to be estimated
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 168
quantitatively by other means. The relative impact on the Declaration of Assurance would be then considered by analyzing the available information on qualitative grounds and considering evidence from other sources.
Adequacy of the scope
The quantity and adequacy of the (cumulative) audit effort carried out until the end of each year is to be measured by comparing the planned with the actual volume of audits completed. The data is to be shown per year and cumulated, in line with the current AAR presentation of error rates.
The Executive Director should form a qualitative opinion to determine whether deviations from the plan are of such significance that they seriously endanger the achievement of the control objective for the program. In such case, he would be expected to qualify his annual statement of assurance with a reservation.
A multiannual control strategy requires a multiannual perspective to assurance
It is not sufficient to assess the effectiveness of controls only during the period of reference to decide, whether the statement of assurance should be qualified with a reservation, because the control objective is set in the future. The analysis must also include an assessment of the likely performance of the controls in subsequent years and give adequate consideration to the risks identified and the preventive and remedial measures in place. This would then result in an assessment of the likelihood that the control objective will be met in the future.
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 169
12.6 Annex 6: List of abbreviations
AAR: Annual Activity Report AB: Annual Budget AIR: Airframe ITD ACARE: Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe ATM: Air Traffic Management CA: Commitment Appropriations CDR: Critical Design Review CfP: Call for Proposal CfT: Call for Tender CROR: Counter Rotating Open Rotor CSJU (JU): Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking CSSC: Clean Sky Scientific Committee DAR: Draft Audit Report EC: European Commission EDA: Eco-Design for Airframe ECO: Eco-Design EPA: Ex-Post Audit ENG: Engines ITD FMS: Flight Management System FO: Financial Officer FRC: Fast Rotorcraft IADP GAM: Grant Agreement for Members GAP: Grant Agreement for Partners GRA: Green Regional Aircraft GRC: Green Rotorcraft IAO: Internal Audit Officer ICT: Information and Communication Technology ITD: Integrative Technology Demonstrator IADP: Innovative Aircraft Demonstrator Platform JTP: Joint Technical Programme LPA: Large Passenger Aircraft SRG: National States Representatives Group MAE: Management of Aircraft Energy PA: Payment Appropriations PDR: Preliminary Design Review PO: Project Officer REG: Regional Aircraft IADP QPR: Quarterly Progress Report SAGE: Sustainable and Green Energy SAT: Small Air Transport Transverse Activity SESAR: Single European Sky Air Traffic Management Research SFWA: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft SGO: Systems for Green Operation SPD: System & Platform Demonstrator SYS: Systems ITD TA: Transversal Activity TE: Technology Evaluator ToP: Type of Action
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 170
TRL: Technology Readiness Level TP: Technology Products WP: Work Package
CS-GB-2015-06-23 Doc9 Final AAR 2014 171