cleansky · the panel shares the view expressed in the stakeholders’ consultation in 2012 that...
TRANSCRIPT
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx i
CLEANSKY
2nd
INTERIM EVALUATION
PANEL REPORT
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx ii
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms ............................................................................................................. iv
Signatures ..........................................................................................................................1 Executive Summary ...........................................................................................................2
1 Introduction ................................................................................................................6 1.1 Background and Implementation of the Clean Sky JU ..........................................6
1.2 Objectives and scope of the Second Interim Evaluation........................................7 1.3 Methodology of the Second Interim Evaluation....................................................7
2 Clean Sky - Overall Progress and Effectiveness..........................................................9 2.1 Progress towards environmental targets ...............................................................9
2.2 Progress towards definitions and development of demonstrators ..........................9 2.3 Coordination with FP7, SESAR and National Programmes ................................ 10
2.4 Effectiveness in promoting participation ............................................................ 10 2.5 Effectiveness of ITD and TE strategies .............................................................. 11
2.6 Clean Sky response to changing industrial strategies and research needs ............ 11 2.7 Clean Sky response to previous evaluations ....................................................... 12
2.8 Complementarity with other activities in Horizon 2020 ...................................... 13 2.9 Concluding Statements ...................................................................................... 13
3 Clean Sky Joint Undertaking - Organisation and Efficiency...................................... 14 3.1 Appropriateness of the CS legal framework and governance .............................. 14
3.2 Appropriateness of the JU internal rules and funding ......................................... 15 3.2.1 JU internal rules............................................................................................... 15
3.2.2 Efficiency of funding and budget ..................................................................... 16 3.3 Efficiency of the JU Executive Team organisation and procedures ..................... 17
3.3.1. Efficiency of the JU Executive Team .............................................................. 17 3.3.2. Efficiency of the JU organisational and control procedures ............................. 18
3.4 Efficiency of ITD organisations and procedures ................................................. 18 3.5 Efficiency of communication ............................................................................. 19
3.5.1. Internal communication .................................................................................. 19 3.5.2. External communication ................................................................................. 19
3.6 Concluding Statements ...................................................................................... 20 4 Quality ..................................................................................................................... 21
4.1 Quality of activities ............................................................................................ 21 4.2 Members’ and Partners’ quality ......................................................................... 21
4.3 Quality of Calls for Proposals ............................................................................ 21 4.4 Concluding Statements ...................................................................................... 22
5 Clean Sky ITDs and Technology Evaluator - Progress and Effectiveness ................. 23 5.1 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) .................................................................. 23
5.2 Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) ......................................................................... 30 5.3 Green RotorCraft (GRC) .................................................................................... 40
5.4 Systems for Green Operations (SGO)................................................................. 45 5.5 Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE) .............................................................. 51
5.6 EcoDesign (ED-ITD) ......................................................................................... 57 5.7 Technology Evaluator (TE) ................................................................................ 60
6 Evolution since 1st Evaluation.................................................................................. 65 6.1 Introduction ....................................................................................................... 65
6.2 Management 2010-2013 evolution ..................................................................... 66 6.3 Risks follow up from 1st Interim Assessment ..................................................... 67
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx iii
6.4 Scientific and technical comparison ................................................................... 68
6.4.1 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA-ITD) 2010 -2013 evolution ..................... 68 6.4.2 Green Regional Aircraft (GRA-ITD) 2010 -2013 evolution ............................ 68
6.4.3 Green Rotorcraft (GRC-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution ........................................ 69 6.4.4 Systems for Green Operation (SGO-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution ...................... 70
6.4.5 Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution .................. 71 6.4.6 Eco-Design (ED-ITD) ................................................................................... 74
6.4.7 Technology Evaluator (TE) ............................................................................ 74 7 List of Recommendations (for Clean Sky 1) ............................................................. 76
8 Key Issues and Overall Recommendations for Clean Sky 2 ...................................... 85 8.1 SWOT Analysis ................................................................................................. 85
8.2 Key Issues and Recommendations for CS2 ........................................................ 87 9 Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 92
10 Annexes ................................................................................................................... 96 10.1 Composition of the 1st Interim Evaluation Panel ............................................ 96
10.2 Composition of the 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel ........................................... 96 10.3 Short Bio of the 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel Members ................................ 96
10.4 Terms of Reference ........................................................................................ 98 10.5 Interviews and sources of information .......................................................... 101
10.5.1 JU Executive Team participants to interviews............................................... 101 10.5.2 ITD participants to interviews ...................................................................... 101
10.5.3 Interaction with the NSRG and STAB .......................................................... 101 10.5.4 Reference documents used in the 2nd Interim Evaluation ............................. 102
10.6 Procedure comparison among three JUs: Fuel Cell & Hydrogen (FCH),
Innovative Medicines (IMI) and Clean Sky ................................................................ 107
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx iv
List of Acronyms
ACARE Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe
AEA All Electric Aircraft
ANSP Air Navigation Service Provider
ATM Air Traffic Management
ATS Air Transport System
CDR Critical Design Review
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
CfP Call for Proposals
CROR Contra Rotating Open Rotor
CS Clean Sky
CSDP CS Development Plan
CSJU Clean Sky Joint Undertaking
EASA European Aviation Safety Agency
ED Eco-Design
ExD Executive Director
EDA Eco-Design for Airframe
EDS Eco-Design for Systems
ETP European Technology Platform
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FP6, FP7, … Framework Programme 6, 7, …
GAM Grant Agreement for Members
GAP Grant Agreement for Partners
GB Governing Board
GFS General Forum of Stakeholders
GRA Green Regional Aircraft
GRC Green Rotorcraft
GTF Geared Turbo Fan
IAS Internal Audit Service
ICAO International Civil Aviation Organization
ITD Integrated Technology Demonstrator
JTI Joint Technology Initiative
JU Joint Undertaking
KPI Key Performance Indicator
LCA Life Cycle Assessment
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx v
LNC Low Noise Configuration
LWC Low Weight Configuration
MAE Management of Aircraft Energy
MTM Management of Trajectory and Mission
NC New Configuration
NSRG National States Representatives Group
OR Open Rotor
ORA Open-Rotor Acoustics
PDR Preliminary Design Review
PO Project Officer
PPP Public Private Partnership
REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
RTD Research and Technological Development
SAGE Sustainable and Green Engines
SESAR Single European Sky ATM Research
SFWA Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft
SGO Systems for Green Operations
SME Small or Medium Sized Enterprise
SRA Strategic Research Agenda
STAB Scientific and Technical Advisory Board
TE Technology Evaluator
TRL Technology Readiness Level
WBS Work Breakdown Structure
WP Work Package
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 1
Signatures
BERTOLINI Enzo
BROUCKAERT Jean-François
(Rapporteur)
DI NUCCI, Maria Rosaria
HERRERA, Ivonne
QUENTIN, Francois
(Chairman)
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 2
Executive Summary
The report presents the results of the 2nd
Interim Evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CSJU) performed between March and September 2013.
In line with Council Regulation 071/2008, the 2nd
Interim Evaluation has assessed the quality and
efficiency of the CSJU and the progress towards the objectives. The evaluation was performed by a Panel of five independent experts (hereinafter referred to as the “Panel”) based on the Terms of
Reference, defined by the Directorate General for Research and Innovation of the European
Commission. Two experts out of five have participated in the 1st Interim Evaluation as well. Part of
the mandate was to further elaborate and adapt specific questions addressing the evaluation criteria:
effectiveness, efficiency and quality to the CSJU and the JTI technical areas (Integrated
Technology Demonstrators – ITDs). Key in the assessment was the evaluation of the technical progress achieved and its contributions towards the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in
Europe (ACARE) goals. The technical progress was made visible to the Panel thanks to visits to
most of the companies involved in the ITDs. The Panel drew recommendations for the remaining
activities under Clean Sky and - based on the lessons learnt - formulated recommendations for future public private partnerships under Horizon 2020 (Clean Sky 2).
The present evaluation is based on a number of documents provided to the Panel by the European Commission and by the CSJU, i.e. general Clean Sky information provided at the Kick-Off
Meeting, Annual Review Reports for all ITD’s and meeting presentations. The Panel built its
assessment on (a) internal documents and published information, (b) direct observations through the technical visits on site, (c), information gathered in interviews with a wide range of Clean Sky
stakeholders e.g. representatives of Members, Partners and ITD leaders, members of CS bodies e.g.
Governing Board, Scientific and Technical Board (STAB), National State Representative Group
(NSRG) as well as representatives of the CSJU Executive Office. The technical visits were essential to deepen the analysis of the technical progress within CS. The Panel recognises the added
value of such technical visits, which turned out to be extremely helpful for the assessment. Due to
time pressure, the GRC and ED ITDs were not covered by a technical visit but their assessment is based on presentations and interviews.
The structure of this report follows largely the one of the 1st Evaluation Report for consistency
reasons. The initial sections deal with the overall assessment of Clean Sky respectively in terms of
overall progress and effectiveness (Section 2), organisation and efficiency (Section 3) and quality (Section 4). The bulk of the report is then devoted to the detailed technical status of each ITD
mainly acquired through the technical visits on the sites where the research activities are actually
performed (Section 5). A separate section describes the evolution since the 1st evaluation (Section
6) followed by recommendations both for Clean Sky (Section 7) and for Clean Sky 2 (Section 8).
Following the evaluation of the CSJU performance, a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats) was performed in order to place the assessment in a broader setting, to review findings and to develop recommendations also for future activities under Clean Sky 2.
The Panel is convinced that the CSJU has successfully demonstrated the viability of the Public-
Private Partnership (PPP) concept for research in aeronautics. Indeed the Panel collected evidence that the CSJU has been effective in delivering on its main objectives and has been able to reinforce
Europe’s role for aeronautic R&D. The Panel found the research undertaken within CSJU of high
quality. Today, a number of demonstrators are already running or have been tested, and in many cases, the preliminary assessments of the environmental benefits confirm the capability of
achieving the overall targets at completion of the programme.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 3
The Panel acknowledges the work of the previous evaluation in 2010 and endorses a number of
statements and recommendations that in spite of the progress made are still fully relevant after the
2nd
Interim Evaluation. In particular,
Setting up the CSJU as an entirely new Public Private Partnership (PPP) organisation has been
a significant success on its own.
The initial ‘top-down’ work plan has been complemented by a detailed ‘bottom-up’ work plan.
The corresponding schedule foresees achieving key demonstrator targets within the Clean Sky timeframe. Furthermore, the CS timing for demonstrators seems well-synchronized with
industrial deployment strategies.
The CSJU has been highly successful in attracting a high level and wide participation from all
EU key industries and a large number of SMEs. CS has led to new collaborations and the
participation of new organisations is thus enhancing European integration.
The CSJU is successfully stimulating developments towards the ACARE environmental
targets.
The first interim evaluation identified many strengths, but also some areas for improvement. The
Panel appreciates that both the Governing Board and the CSJU have been responsive to the recommendations of the first interim review and have made much progress in implementing them.
A major improvement is the substantial technical progress that has been noted, in particular during
the technical visits on site. At the time of the 1st evaluation (2010), it was noted that the gains were
difficult to quantify because the CS programme was still in its infancy.
The main conclusions drawn by the Panel after this 2nd
assessment are further elaborated hereafter.
The Panel shares the view expressed in the stakeholders’ consultation in 2012 that the form of the
PPP with the JU as an instrument allow for multiannual continuity and visibility. This is one of the strengths of Clean Sky in FP7 as it has enabled to avoid the fragmentation typical of smaller short
term projects, and has established the appropriate pan-European structure for meeting the ACARE
goals set in Vision 2020s.
Overall the Panel considers that the Clean Sky governance is efficient in the management of the
programme and delivery of calls and projects and is convinced that the CSJU has created an
effective dialogue between industry and research around a common strategic agenda and has successfully implemented it. However, steps for reducing administrative work, increasing the
organisational efficiency and enhancing internal and external communication are still required.
Notwithstanding that the Executive Office has made significant progress in speeding up processes
and reaching operational efficiency, the Panel recommends that some further adjustments are carried out to improve efficiency. Now that the Clean Sky JU is well established, the balance of
skills between general administration and project management in the Executive Office needs to be
enforced.
Regarding the technical progress, the Panel agrees with the first review Panel that significant
delays may have accumulated in some ITDs because of the CSJU set up time. The Panel agrees that
the slow start of the CSJU can to a great extent be imputed to the lack of preparedness, both
administrative and technical, when starting the Joint Undertaking. It is noted that, since then, some of the ITDs have caught up with the planning whereas others have accumulated delays especially
when the research content was complex. For some demonstrators, those delays exceed two years.
Overall, the Panel believes that the large Clean Sky research and demonstrators portfolio is of high quality. The Panel collected evidence that the JU is perceived as the flagship for Public Private
Partnership supported aeronautic R&D in Europe. Overall the Panel was of the opinion that
alongside considerable strengths and achievements of the CSJU, there were areas that needed some further attention and where opportunities should be taken. There is no doubt about the quality and
the relevance of the technical activities carried out within Clean Sky, but the problems of resource
allocation together with “slipping” schedules may jeopardize this quality is some cases.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 4
A full set of detailed recommendations is listed at the end of this report (see Section 7). According
to the Panel, the most important recommendations are the following:
The Panel assesses the CSJU as an ambitious European initiative with the potential to
become an innovative model of a public-private-partnership. The Panel underlines that the
CSJU strongly contributes to achieving the roadmaps that have been jointly agreed between all stakeholders, considers the multi-annual approach as advantageous and
recommends this to be continued in the future.
The CSJU should seek to maximize the potential of its advisory bodies to gain support for
the remaining calls and other activities at all levels. The Panel considers information exchange between the JU and NSRG very important and recommends that the NSRG
continues to play a crucial role in ensuring coherence of national programmes with Clean
Sky. The Panel recommends that the STAB involvement be preserved and enhanced for example in drafting the future updates of the SRIA. The role of the STAB is considered
very significant, in particular in view of a follow-up of Clean Sky by Clean Sky 2.
The Panel agrees that due to the expected change in aircraft replacement strategy, the
Clean Sky targets could no longer be achieved in the original CS 2016 time frame for some
demonstrators. There is no longer any clear indication about the actual time frame for the aircraft replacement strategy; it raises the question about some contributors’ motivation to
dedicate resources for a long period of time.
Some areas of CS are addressing operations which are highly affected by particular
interests of stakeholder groups (the entry into service of the replacement aircraft for the A320 was initially foreseen for 2025, but due to the introduction of the A320Neo, has now
been postponed to a later date). An early and close interaction with airlines, air navigation
service providers, airports, etc. is recommended to ensure successful deployment. It is recommended to create a “market” advisory group to the CS Governing Board (GB) to
better align JU decisions with the market evolution and trends and to advise the GB about
the inputs the Technology Evaluator (TE) should feed back to the JU.
It is recommended to deepen the existing relationship with both the ATM focused JTI
SESAR and ACARE also at working group level to share a better view within the JU at large about the airlines, ANSPs and other stakeholder communities.
In order to facilitate the CSJU management process, the Panel endorses the
recommendations of the previous evaluation and reiterates that the Governing Board
should focus on strategic decisions and increase the level of delegation of routine management issues to the Executive Director. The executive power of the Executive
Director needs to be strengthened towards managing all programme activities.
Responsibility for the implementation of the agreed executive team maximum budget should be fully given to the Executive Director.
The Panel considers the number of the technical staff as being insufficient and
recommends a review by the Governing Board of staff requirements to ensure that the
Executive Team can exercise in full its coordinating and monitoring functions. At the same
time the Panel recommends a review of potential horizontal services to be shared with other JUs and of administrative services that could be outsourced.
The Panel considers that the existing possibilities to redistribute the budget amongst ITDs
(as the transfer occurred in 2012 between ITDs) are an initial useful step to provide budget
flexibility. The Panel is of the opinion that contingency budget can bring about transversal flexibility and regrets that there is no contingency budget at this stage. Therefore the Panel
recommends to the Governing Board to consider introducing in the future a 5-10%
contingency budget to increase flexibility.
A detailed roadmap of technical progress should be established in order to compare
achievements against the plan. This roadmap should include key decision-making points and technological milestones.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 5
The TE is not yet fully operational. It is not yet used to feed data back to the ITDs. This
feedback is considered of great importance to contribute to the consistency of the CS
activities. The sensitivity of the aircraft models and the confidentiality of the data about
performance improvement associated to technologies should be acknowledged and the benefits of establishing an additional advisory group should be considered. The reader is
referred to the recommendation of creating a “market” advisory group to the GB.
The envisaged developments involve safety-critical systems and operations. Consequently,
certification issues need to be considered already at early design and development stages.
The quality of the process of Call for Proposals is considered to be good, provides the
appropriate flexibility to adapt to individual ITD requirements and attracts a satisfactory
rate of applicants. However the Panel notes that the number of CfPs is very high in some
ITDs and is not systematically related to the size of the ITDs. Some other ITDs have
experienced delays in CfP preparations and unsuccessful topics.
Regarding the setup of potential future PPPs (i.e. Clean Sky 2) the Panel has compiled a detailed
list of recommendations (Section 8) of which the main ones are listed below:
The Panel recommends that before starting a future PPP, the Commission should ensure that
resources including a contingency budget and management tools are available and that an in-depth review of the technical programme is carried out.
The Panel recommends that the CS communication strategy allows for more efforts dedicated
to communicating the broader socio-economic and environmental impacts not only to the
aeronautical stakeholders, but also to the policy and decision makers at European and national levels. Both NSRG and STAB should be involved in these initiatives.
The Panel believes that communication between ITDs can be improved by using to a larger
extent the TE as a tool to feed back information and to discuss efficiency in technical matters.
A closer relationship with the working groups of ACARE and SESAR could also improve this
communication process. The JU team should be more involved in this process and additional resources need to be allocated to this task.
It is noted that the TRL evaluation occurs at a late stage of the Clean Sky plan. By the time the
TRL evaluation is performed, design concepts, technological developments and
implementation directions have been committed to a great cost. The Panel recommends an early evaluation of the TRL potential and its environmental benefit when a technology is
considered for Clean Sky. Lessons learnt from Clean Sky work should also be considered
regarding technologies that have been stopped.
Additionally to its higher TRL activities, Clean Sky 2 would be an appropriate framework to
implement and manage industry-led projects of the size of the former FP7 Level 2 projects. It is
important to devote a significant share of the budget to such projects, to bring technologies
from TRL 3 to TRL 4 or at best 5, without the a priori objective of contributing to a flying full
scale platform demonstrator. It is important that this type of industry-led projects is run directly by the JU without interference from higher TRL projects in Clean Sky.
This report is the result of a joint effort and the Panel wishes to acknowledge the support of the
European Commission and the CSJU for the organisation of the site visits, and to thank all companies involved and interviewees for their openness and valuable input.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 6
1 Introduction
1.1 Background and Implementation of the Clean Sky JU
The Clean Sky Joint Undertaking was established in 2008 as a Public Private Partnership between the European Commission and the Aeronautical Industry as a Community Body by Council
Regulation (EC) 071/20081 on the basis of Article 187 of the TFEU
2 and in accordance with the
Financial Regulation3. The CSJU is planned to end on December 31
st, 2017. Clean Sky is supposed
to be followed by a new Private Public Partnership (Clean Sky 2) which is now proposed by the
Commission and is undergoing discussions with the Council. The CS2 activities are supposed to
run from 2014 to 2024, therefore there will be an overlap between 2014 and 2017 with Clean Sky (CS)..
The major aim of Clean Sky is to reduce the impact of aviation on the environment while at the same time safeguarding competitiveness as well as economic growth of the aeronautical sector in
Europe and so to contribute to the targets defined by the Advisory Council for Aeronautics
Research in Europe (ACARE) for reducing emissions and noise in air transport in Europe. Clean
Sky continues to work towards objectives and targets defined in the Strategic Research Agenda of the ETP ACARE
4 and its updates.
The CSJU addresses the implementation of innovative, environmentally friendly technologies in all
segments of civil air transport, including large commercial aircraft, regional aircraft, helicopters, and in all supporting technologies such as engines, systems and materials’ life cycle.
The maximum overall value of the contributions within CSJU reaches EUR 1,600 million.
The Founding Members of the CSJU are the European Union, represented by the European Commission (EC), 12 Integrated Technology Demonstrator (ITD) leaders and 72 Associates.
The CSJU activities are subdivided into in six technology areas – ‘Integrated Technology
Demonstrators (ITDs):
Vehicle ITDs: Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) – 24% of the EC contribution,
Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) – 11% of the EC contribution,
Green Rotorcraft (GRC) – 10% of the EC contribution.
Transverse ITDs:
Systems for Green Operations (SGO) – 19% of the EC contribution,
Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE) – 27% of the EC contribution,
and an ITD that is transverse to all ITDs: EcoDesign (ED) - 7% of the EC contribution.
Around 2% of the budget is devoted to the Technology Evaluator (TE) with the aim of assessing
environmental impact and benefits of technologies arising from individual ITDs.
Most of the research, technological development and demonstration activities are carried out by the
Members of Clean Sky. The Members’ activities are formally covered by Grant Agreements for
1 COUNCIL REGULATION (EC) No 71/2007 of 20 December 2007 setting up the Clean Sky Joint
Undertaking. OJ L 30/1-20, 4.2.2008;
see: http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2008:030:0001:0020:EN:PDF 2 TFEU: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union; Article 187 (ex-Article 171 of the EC Treaty):
The Union may set up joint undertakings or any other structure necessary for the efficient execution of Union
research, technological development and demonstration programmes. 3 Council Regulation (EC, Euratom) 1605/2002 of 25 June 2002 on the Financial Regulation applicable to the
general budget of the European Communities. 4 http://www.acare4europe.com/
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 7
Members (GAM). There is one amendment to the GAM per year and per ITD which specifies work
plan, resources and budget. Subcontractors are selected by Members through Calls for Tender.
A part of the Clean Sky programme using 25% of the EC contribution is performed by Partners selected through Calls for Proposals (CfP). In the evaluation period there have been on average
three CfP calls per year with on average 38 topics per call and 1.7 Partners per proposal. Including
Call 15, the average value for the 579 topics published is 665,000 €. Successful CfPs lead to the signature of Grant Agreement for Partners (GAP). The average GAP duration is 20 months.
The ITD and TE activities are coordinated and integrated by the CS JU Executive Team led by the
Executive Director (ExD). The CSJU supervisory body is the Governing Board (GB) with
representatives from the European Commission, ITD leaders and one Associate per ITD. The GB receives technical advice from the Scientific and Technical Advisory Board (STAB). For each ITD,
a Steering Committee is in charge of supervision and monitoring of the activities. The General
Forum provides the platform for involving all participants of CS Members and Partners. These bodies are complemented by the National State Representative Group (NSRG) which advises the
CSJU and liaises with the national programmes.
1.2 Objectives and scope of the Second Interim Evaluation
The present report is the result of the work of the Independent Expert Group (hereinafter referred to
as the “Panel”), appointed to assist the Commission in carrying out the second interim evaluation of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking (CS JU). The evaluation performed by the Panel is based on the
Terms of Reference (see Annexes, Section 10.3) defined by the European Commission.
The objective of this second interim evaluation is to assess the progress and achievements of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking as described in the Terms of Reference. The evaluation addressed the
following criteria:
Effectiveness: The progress towards meeting the objectives set, including how all parties in the
public-private partnerships live up to their financial and managerial responsibilities and keep
an open non-discriminatory attitude towards a wide community of stakeholders.
Efficiency: The extent to which the JUs are managed and operate efficiently.
Research Quality: The extent to which the JUs enable world-class research that helps propel
Europe to a leadership position globally, and how JUs engage with a wider constituency to open the research to the broader society.
An important part of the mandate was to further elaborate and adapt specific questions addressing
the above criteria to the CSJU and ITDs so as to draw recommendations for the remaining activities under CS1 and - based on the lessons learnt - formulate recommendations for CS 2.
Following the evaluation of the CSJU performance, a SWOT analysis (Strengths, Weaknesses,
Opportunities and Threats) was performed in order to place the assessment in a broader setting, to review findings and to develop recommendations also for future activities under CS 2.
1.3 Methodology of the Second Interim Evaluation
The methodology followed by the Panel was based on the Terms of Reference, which provided a
set of predefined questions under the evaluation criteria. These questions were subsequently
supplemented by an additional set of “horizontal” as well as specific questions referring to the ITDs, which addressed the specificities of the different actors within the CSJU, and the Panel
agreed on a list of people to be interviewed (see Annexes, Section 10.3). The Panel undertook a
detailed review of the relevant documents. The documents surveyed can be found in Section 10.5.4..
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 8
The evaluation was performed by the Panel from the 5th of March until the 31
st of October 2013
with a combination of remote work, conference calls, six Panel meetings and several site visits. The
arrangement of technical visits to the companies and facilities within several ITDs represented a novel aspect of this 2
nd Interim Evaluation. Visits allowed the Panel to collect detailed technical
information and to see a representative selection of the demonstration hardware realised so far.
The scope of the technical visits varied due to resources constraints. A first two-day visit was organized at Airbus, Thales and Liebherr in Toulouse, France (May 23-24, 2013) in relation to the
activities within the SFWA, SGO and TE ITDs. All members of the Panel attended this meeting.
A second visit was organized at Rolls-Royce in Derby, UK (June 18, 2013) as a one-day meeting
and was attended by two members of the Panel. Detailed technical presentations were given to the Panel members about SAGE 1, 3 and 6, and the demonstration hardware was presented during a
visit of the workshop. Since no detailed presentations were given about SAGE 2, 4, and 5, one
member of the Panel attended as an observer the SAGE annual review meeting held in Trollhättan, Sweden (June 24-28, 2013).
Finally, another two day meeting was organized at Alenia-Aermacchi in Pomigliano d’Arco, Italy
(July 4-5, 2013) and attended by two members of the Panel for the assessment of the GRA ITD. In all these meetings, the activities related to the TE ITD were addressed, so that only the GRC and
ED ITDs were not covered by a technical visit and their assessment is based on presentations and
interviews. This choice was made by the Commission for reasons of budget resources and time
pressure.
The Panel built its assessment on (a) internal documents and published information, (b) direct
observations and (c), information gained in interviews with a wide range of Clean Sky
stakeholders, including representatives of Members, Partners and ITD leaders, members of CS bodies such as Governing Board, Scientific and Technical Board (STAB), National State
Representative Group (NSRG) as well as representatives of the CS JU Executive Office (see list in
Section 10.3.1 and 10.3.2).
This report is the result of a joint effort and the Panel wishes to acknowledge the support of the European Commission and the CSJU for the organisation of the site visits, and to thank all
companies involved and interviewees for their openness and valuable input.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 9
2 Clean Sky - Overall Progress and Effectiveness
2.1 Progress towards environmental targets
The ACARE (Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe) performance targets for
2020 have been set in 2001 as reduction of CO2 by 50%, of NOx by 80%, noise by 50% and to make substantial contribution in reducing the environmental impact of the manufacture,
maintenance and disposal of aircraft and related products, for the overall air transport system
(ACARE Strategic Research Agenda, SRA, 2002). In 2007, the CS contribution to the ACARE goals was set as -10 to 20% CO2, - 10% NOx and -10dB noise by completion of the project in 2017
(see Clean Sky proposal 2007).
CS has experienced difficulties to monitor the 2007 indicative targets. These targets were not always consistent across the range of technologies. The product objectives were not clearly defined
down to CS specific technologies. The CS Development Plan (CSDP) provides a structured way to
monitor and assess the achievement of the environmental goals. Three complementary measures are used. These are the maturity of technologies in terms of Technology Readiness Levels (TRL),
the concept aircraft and demonstration programmes. The TRL monitors the maturity of
technologies within each ITD. The CS environmental benefits are measured by comparing the existing aircraft (baseline reference Y2000 and Y2020) and a virtual concept aircraft incorporating
CS technologies as defined by the aircraft ITDs. By the end of Clean Sky 1, the demonstration
programmes will allow to provide evidence of integration of several technologies and to indicate
the potential benefits in a relevant operational environment.
The Panel notes that the ACARE goals set for 2050 are:
75% reduction of CO2,
90% reduction of NOx, and
65% reduction of noise relative to 2000.
R-2.1 – CS1 and CS2 related: The current progress is reported in relation to CS objectives. The
Panel recommends a more transparent traceability between the ACARE goals and CS specific contribution.
R-2.2: The Panel encourages the Partners and Project Managers to provide more clarity and
consistency in the figures presented as well as on the assumptions taken for the evaluation of the
environmental targets in relation to the ACARE goals.
2.2 Progress towards definitions and development of demonstrators
At this stage, all demonstrators have been defined in terms of detailed concepts. Some of the ground or flight demonstrations have already been achieved with success. For some of other
demonstrators, unexpected difficulties emerging from the definition phase have led to re-
scheduling. Regarding the technical progress, the Panel agrees with the observation of the first interim review
that significant delays may have accumulated in some ITDs because of the CSJU set up time. The
Panel agrees that the slow start of the CSJU can to a great extent be imputed to the lack of
preparedness, both administrative and technical, when starting the Joint Undertaking. It is noted that, since then, some of the ITDs have caught up with the planning whereas others have
accumulated delays especially when the research content was complex. For some demonstrators,
those delays are exceeding two years.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 10
Overall, the Panel considers that the technical development of the demonstrators is making
satisfactory progress. The reader is referred to Section 5 for the detailed description of
demonstrator progress within each ITD.
2.3 Coordination with FP7, SESAR and National Programmes
In essence, Clean Sky is targeting high TRL level activities in order to finally achieve demonstrator
vehicles or hardware. In this sense, it is understandable that there is a certain amount of overlap
with FP7 Level 2 projects, which are aiming at developing the underlying technologies at lower
TRL level. However, the boundaries between activities carried out within FP7 Level 2 programmes and Clean Sky are not clearly defined or explained. It is difficult to assess where
Level 2 projects stop and where Clean Sky starts. The Panel recognises that Clean Sky is intended
to bring those Level 2 technologies to a higher TRL level but the issues of double work and duplicating funding should be monitored (see R-SAGE.6 for example).
Regarding the coordination with SESAR, many interdependencies exist with several ITDs.
Concerning flight management for example, and as a transversal ITD, SGO has direct and indirect interfaces with GRA, GRC, SFWA, TE and of course SESAR. However, the initial link with
SESAR was not optimal. Delays on information from SESAR to CS have been identified and have
affected progress for example from SESAR to SGO MTM. This problem has been improved in
2012 and common reviews between programmes have been performed. The purpose of these reviews has been to identify potential overlaps in the themes related to flight management.
Important interfaces are reported to the general board and trans-ITD workshops on common themes
are organized. The interfaces are considered as being managed in an adequate manner.
Many interdependencies are also seen among ITDs and with other national and EC activities. The
Panel recommends incorporating current interface management practices into a specific interface
management function. Moreover, formal exchange of information should be established among the
CS, SESAR and other research programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020). This step will speed up research work and avoid a potential duplication of work. The Panel appreciates that Clean Sky is re-using
existing hardware developed under previous Framework Programmes.
R-2.3: It is recommended to deepen the existing relationship with both SESAR and ACARE aimimg - at working group level- to reach a better view within the JU at large about the airlines, ANSPs
and other stakeholder communities.
Regarding the link between Clean Sky and national research programmes, the Panel notes that the NSRG not only acts as an advisory group, but also represents an important interface with the
relevant stakeholders in their respective countries and in liaising with the national programmes -
where available - and in dissemination activities. It is also noted that - if compared with analogous
bodies in the other JUs (see Appendix 10.4) - the NSRG has had a proactive role in the Clean Sky initiatives. However, it was evident from interviewees’ comments that there is some regret that the
advisory role of the NSRG mostly focuses on the Call for Proposal process and that industry (and
the JU executive office) hardly consults them on other matters. The Panel received information that the NSRG would appreciate an early insight in the activity plans in order to better promote results
which are not confidential.
R-2.4: The Panel believes that information exchange between the JU and NSRG is very important and recommends that the NSRG continues to play a crucial role in ensuring coherence of national
programmes with Clean Sky.
2.4 Effectiveness in promoting participation
The Panel considers the participation of SMEs and the increase of new entrants in the JU and the
CfP procedures and regulations as satisfactory and appreciates the clear industry commitment to the programme.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 11
The procedures, according to which the single entity applying is eligible for 50% or 75% and
depending on the legal status (for example industry or SME), appears adequate5.
The Panel notes that the average funding rate in Calls is 65.6% and considers satisfactory that the applicants’ success rate is approximately 35%. The calls and the JU appear to be successful in
attracting new players and the Panel notes that approximately 50% of the partners are new.
Although CS-JU is not perceived as SME-friendly, for SMEs the participation in CS is obviously attractive, especially for the opportunity to enter in the supply chain. The Panel appreciates that
SMEs account for 38% of participants in CfP and absorb 36% of the budget. There is a number of
SMEs also amongst the associates.
R-2.5: The Panel appreciates that Clean Sky does not require a consortium as a condition for participation to calls for proposals; even a single entity can apply and that there are a number of
mono-beneficiaries also amongst SMEs. It however recommends making the high participation of
SMEs and of new players more visible (seeing also 3.5 Efficiency in Communication).
2.5 Effectiveness of ITD and TE strategies
At this stage, all ITD strategies are defined; most of them are considered relevant and effective. The effectiveness of the strategies is depending on the capability of the ITD to adapt to the
changing market requirements. The reader is also referred to Section 5 (ITD progress).
TE still requires a further maturity gain before playing its full role in the assessment of the environmental benefits. The Panel believes that TE approach has a very high potential for being
adopted in other sectors to assess environmental benefits.
R-2.6: The Panel recognises that TRL concept has been refined during CS and recommends the
CSJU to disseminate the results across the R&D community.
R-2.7 – Lessons learnt for CS 2: The Panel recommends that a TRL check is performed before a technology is considered as a valid candidate for a CS project. This will avoid delays and
difficulties due to uncertain and/or low TRL.
R-2.8 – CS1 and CS2 related: The visit provided evidence of very good cooperation between
research development activities and flight test preparations. Detailed reviews have been conducted
including multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel in flight test. Moving from the example of the good GRA flight test preparation, the Panel recommends to ITDs to make greater
efforts to communicate and disseminate best practices and encourages them to extract from
successful cases of other ITDs useful lessons for own future activities.
2.6 Clean Sky response to changing industrial strategies and research needs
The main change occurring in Europe during Clean Sky was probably the postponement of the new air transport short-range aircraft far into the 2020’s. As a consequence some key technologies are
less under pressure to reach TRL 6 by 2017.
Changes and adaptations have been related to address technological setbacks, cancellation of
technologies, introduction of new technologies from on-going technological developments, reduction of TRL scope, delays in test rig building, Intellectual Property Rights issues and
withdrawal of some partners. Decision-making needs to consider trade-offs between most
promising technologies, its industrial applicability, schedule and budget. There are activities that
5 In case of a consortium, both funding criteria apply and the resulting funding is an average of the two
percentages, weighted by the actual contributions of each partner.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 12
have been deleted in the updated GAM, the rationale and consequences are not justified with
sufficient detail.
R-2.9 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The traceability and evolutions of the GAM should be better documented to establish and assess its overall compliance and performance. Further, this
traceability should track changes in the GAM and its impact. This action ensures the ability of the
programme to adapt to new challenges and opportunities.
2.7 Clean Sky response to previous evaluations
An adequate procedure to analyse and implement recommendations from the 1st Interim Evaluation
was presented to the Panel. Most of the recommendations targeting the JU and the Governing Board concerning implementation bottlenecks have been realised or are under implementation.
However, the completion of a number of recommendations is still pending or is on-going. The
Panel estimated that the CSJU and ITDs have implemented more than half of the recommendations
from 1st interim evaluation.
The Table below shows an overview of recommendations and the status of their implementation.
Table 1: Status of implementation of the recommendations
Category Overview Closed In
progress No action Comment
GB 7 recommendations 3 3 1 Limited staff still
no action
Future PPP 3 recommendations 3 In progress with
H2020 definition
Schedule and risk
management
13 recommendation 11 2 No formal review
on GAPs, No contingency
plan moved to CS2
Call & GAP 5 recommendations 1 2 1 No action due to
lack of resources.
No full
responsibility of
implementation to
ExD
Policy 2 recommendations 1 1 1 is relevant to the
EC
Management 7 recommendations 5 1 1 No extra staff
Communication 3 recommendations 1 2
Assessment 3 recommendations 2 1
Coordination 5 recommendations 3 2 1 NSGR
coordination still
needs to be
improved
Diverse 2 recommendation 2
Total 50 28 17 5
The Panel appreciates the systematic process for evaluation and implementation. It is also noticed that the implementation of the recommendations requires time and additional efforts.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 13
2.8 Complementarity with other activities in Horizon 2020
Clean Sky 2 industry-led projects (equivalent to FP7 Level2 collaborative projects).
Clean Sky has demonstrated the ability to run projects of the size of FP 7 Level 2 research projects.
The CSJU is well organised and has developed efficient processes in order to run collaborative research projects. They involve Research Establishments, SMEs and Universities.
R-2.10: Additionally to its higher TRL activities, Clean Sky 2 would be an appropriate framework to implement and manage industry-led projects of the size of the former FP7 Level 2 projects. It is
important to devote a significant share of the budget to such projects, to bring technologies from
TRL 3 to TRL 4 or at best 5, without the a priori objective of contributing to a flying full scale
platform demonstrator.
R-2.11: It is important that this type of industry-led project is run directly by the JU without
interference from higher TRL projects in Clean Sky.
R-2.12: These projects should use the Technology Evaluator to provide inputs during the
evaluation phase and to assess environmental impact and efficiency at the end of the projects.
2.9 Concluding Statements
The Panel is convinced that - in spite of initial delays due to the slow start – the JU has marked
satisfactory progress towards meeting the objectives set and has manifested an open non-
discriminatory attitude towards a wide community of stakeholders. In particular, there has been
an effective strategy (e.g. methods, processes and tools) in launching and managing the Calls for
proposals, in selecting the best proposals, managing successfully “level 2 like” projects and
promoting participation of SMEs and increasing the rate of new entrants in the JU and the CfP.
The existing links with both SESAR and ACARE need being enhanced and it is important to
reach a better view within the JU at large about the airlines, ANSPs and other stakeholders.
Also the technical development of the demonstrators is making satisfactory progress. The Panel
believes that by the end of Clean Sky 1, the demonstration programmes will allow to provide
evidence of integration of several technologies and to indicate the potential benefits in a relevant
operational environment.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 14
3 Clean Sky Joint Undertaking - Organisation and Efficiency
In considering the appropriateness of the organisation and the efficient use of resources, in line
with the terms of reference of the second interim evaluation, several aspects were analysed. These
include the clarity of the overall legal framework and the modalities for the implementation of the JU programme, the governance structure and processes, the robustness of the monitoring and
control system – including the level of supervision/control within the JU and the appropriateness of
the available capabilities to monitor progress – the use of funding and the communication and
dissemination strategy.
3.1 Appropriateness of the CS legal framework and governance
The Clean Sky JU as a public-private-partnership between the European Union, represented by the
Commission (public partner) and Industry consisting of 12 ITD leaders and 72 Associates (private
partners) represents a suitable vehicle for stimulating aeronautic research and development in Europe. The Panel considers the JU legal framework as set out in its Statutes to be appropriate. In
the review period, the CS JU has increased its efficiency and has implemented most of the 1st
Interim review recommendations.
The Clean Sky JU governance, based on three bodies (Governing Board, Scientific Technical Advisory Board, Executive Director with the support of the Clean Sky Executive Office) and
supported by external advisory bodies (National States Representatives Group and Stakeholder
Forum) appears well-suited to achieve the Clean Sky objectives.
The Panel reviewed the governance documents regarding the Clean Sky JU, interviewed members
of various bodies and committees, considered their roles appropriate and found all governance
bodies well integrated and working efficiently. On the whole, the Panel rates the present CSJU governance form as appropriate and efficient. The STAB and NSRG mandates are clear within the
governance structure and their current configuration appears adequate for these mandates. The
governance structure represents a valid model to be continued also in the future.
The Governing Board (GB) is working well. The industrial governance structure has proven to be sound and efficient. Criticism has been expressed about the fact that the role of Associates in the
governance has been limited and fragmented and the possibility for strengthening their role has
been voiced. The Panel analysed this issue and concluded that the role and achievements of associates are sufficiently considered as the Associate Member is supposed to seek advice from the
other Associates and hence they are adequately represented in the Governing Board. The Panel
regards amendments as not necessary.
The Steering Committee for ITD: There are several activities addressing coordination among ITDs. The Panel collected evidence that potential synergies between ITDs are not fully exploited. For
example, coordination with SAGE and modelling activities between TE and other ITDs are
necessary to ensure timely results.
The Scientific Technical Advisory Board (STAB): The STAB is part of the governance structure,
but its role is primarily advisory and not in decision making. The Panel notes that the STAB can
count on highly qualified members that (pro)actively participate in the Clean Sky activities, especially in the review and monitoring process. The Panel appreciates that members of the STAB
participate in annual and various other reviews and that each STAB member is associated with at
least two ITDs and checks the quality of the reports they deliver and that they have produced since
2012 a synthesis of the annual reviews outcomes. The Panel values the STAB working groups on socio-economic implications and follows with interest the recent development of a matrix with
various criteria addressing innovation, environment, competitiveness, etc.
R-3.1.1: The Panel recommends that the STAB contributions needs to be preserved and enhanced for example in drafting the future updates of the SRIA. Their role – also for a CS2 – is considered
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 15
significant and it is recommended to ensure that high quality individuals are willing to be involved
as it is the case in Clean Sky.
The National States Representative Group (NSRG): The Panel notes that the NSRG not only acts as an advisory group, but also represents an important interface with the relevant stakeholders in
their respective countries and in liaising with the national programmes - where available - and in
dissemination activities. It is also noted that - if compared with analogous bodies in the other JUs (see Appendix 10.6) - the NSRG has had a proactive role in the Clean Sky initiatives.
R-3.1.2: Notwithstanding the valuable involvement of the advisory bodies, there is still room for a
greater and more pro-active involvement of the STAB and NSRG. The CS-JU should seek to
maximize the potential of its advisory bodies to gain support for the remaining calls and other activities at all levels.
R-3.1.3 - Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel believes important that a constant feedback on
National Programmes to the JU takes place and that in the future the NSRG maintains a strong role and continues to exchange experiences, to advise and provide recommendations to the JU
Executive team.
The General Forum of Stakeholders (GFS)
The General Forum of Stakeholders is working well and appears efficient; it plays an important
role for partners with no direct access to the ITD steering committee. The Panel endorses plans to reshape the GFS with workshops and working groups.
3.2 Appropriateness of the JU internal rules and funding
The first interim evaluation criticised that the Community Body status of the CSJU entails rules and uses procedures not common to industrial practice. These rules and procedures were alleged to
be constraining and inhibiting for achieving the Clean Sky objectives. In general the JU has stepped
up its efficiency over the review period, especially through implementation of most of the 1st
interim review recommendations. The Panel notes that important steps have been taken to reduce red tape and to introduce some elements of flexibility. However, there is still room for
improvement.
3.2.1 JU internal rules
The Panel notes that there have been improvements in the JU internal rules and procedures (in line
with the developments proposed within the 2008 review and the first interim review in 2010) to
enable Clean Sky to reach its full potential. Since the last evaluation some flexibility has been
achieved. However, the Panel considers that more flexibility in the JU internal rules and procedures are necessary to enhance Clean Sky efficiency. This regards especially attributing more autonomy
to the executive director and granting a certain budgetary flexibility.
The Panel also shares the view expressed in the stakeholders’ consultation in 2012 that the PPP in form of a joint undertaking is an appropriate instrument that allows multi-year continuity and
visibility. This is one of the strengths of Clean Sky in FP7 as it has enabled to avoid the
fragmentation typical of smaller short term projects, and has given the appropriate setting for meeting the ACARE goals set in Vision 2020s.
R-3.2.1: The Panel underlines that the Clean Sky JU also contributes to achieving the roadmaps
that have been jointly agreed between all stakeholders, considers the multi-annual approach as
advantageous and recommends this to be continued in the future.
The previous interim evaluation recommended reviewing the level and type of GAM-related
decisions which could be delegated to the JU Executive Director and recommended that the GB
should focus on strategic decisions and delegate routine management to the Executive Director. It was found important to strengthen the executive power of the Director especially towards ITDs.
The Panel shares this view and believes that too little progress has been made to that extent.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 16
The previous interim review underlined that amendments to the GAMs are negotiated every year,
even though activities covered by GAMs are multi-annual. They remarked that annual budget
process provokes certain rigidity in the CS multi-annual work plan, worsened by the fact that the annual budget tends to become frozen well before the start of the year. The Panel shares this view.
R-3.2.2: The Panel regrets that concerning the negotiation of a multi-annual GAM, there continues
to be a need for more flexibility in the management of GAMs. In general, the Panel recommends more discretionary power for the Executive Director in management matters and believes that
GAM budget transfers should be initiated, negotiated and implemented by the Executive Director.
This step would help speeding up the implementation of necessary decisions since it would no
longer be necessary to involve the Governing Board..
R-3.2.3: The Panel is aware that recommendations have been issued concerning completeness and
timing of the strategic planning (CSDP) and alignment with annual planning (AIP) and annual
amendments of the GAMs. In this context a specific finding has been raised by the Internal Audit Service (IAS) concerning subsequent changes of topics compared to the approved AIP. The Panel
endorses plans to delegate a number of decisions and functions from the GB to the ED for the
approval of such changes to ensure the required flexibility for the JU to adapt the lists of topics to the actual needs during the year.
3.2.2 Efficiency of funding and budget
The three different levels of engagement and commitment through Founding Members, Associates
and Partners have demonstrated their feasibility. The Panel shares the view that the present funding procedure is adequate, though not entirely efficient. The Panel regrets that there is still little budget
flexibility to shift budget from one ITD to another and that a qualified majority is needed. Also the
limited flexibility to shift funds to later years can be considered as an obstacle to increase efficiency. This applies for both members’ activities within the ITD programme, and partners’
activities through CfPs.
Budgetary constraints can be problematic when delays occur and there are no straightforward
mechanisms to shift unfinished tasks from one year to another. The Panel notes that in the initial phase of the JU there has been under-spending, which has now been recovered. Now, certain
flexibility is available and there are possibilities to shift budget according to the so called ”3-years
rule”.
R-3.2.4.: The Panel considers that the existing possibilities to redistribute the budget amongst ITDs
(as the transfer occurred in 2012 between ITDs) are an initial useful step to provide some budget
flexibility. The Panel is of the opinion that contingency budget can bring about transversal flexibility and regrets that there is no contingency budget. Therefore the Panel recommends to the
Governing Board to consider introducing a 5-10% contingency budget to increase flexibility.
Concerning the planning processes of the JU’s grant management, the Panel notes that the IAS has
put forwards recommendations concerning the JU’s control of the multi-annual and annual budgeting. The IAS requested the JU to ensure the overall budget re-allocation at programme level
including its timely approval by the GB and to complete the information provided in the GAMs on
budget distribution. The Panel understands that re-allocation of the budget to completion has been established by the JU and has been approved by the GB. The Panel endorses this recommendation
and considers these actions necessary to improve the efficiency of the process.
The private stakeholders in Clean Sky contribute financially to the running costs of the JU and the
management costs. This creates considerable administrative burden as all Members are invoiced. In addition, Associates are expected to contribute to the management costs of the ITD leaders, without
being able to charge their own management costs. These bottlenecks need to be addressed and
straightforward solutions looked for.
The Panel is aware that the procedures in use to verify that Members’ in-kind contributions to CS
match the cash contribution from the EC. The verification is carried out at three levels, by audits
inside the Members’ organisations, by a CS audit on the basis of the documents provided and by an ex-post audit of Members’ expenses against the specified GAM activities.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 17
R-3.2.5: The Panel is of the opinion that the verification of in-kind contribution is still a laborious
and time-consuming issue to manage and to negotiate and that the current procedure is not
efficient. Therefore it recommends steps to simplify the procedure.
R-3.2.6 - Lessons learnt for CS2: It has been critically remarked that the Clean Sky Financial
Regulations only allow for either 20% flat rate without justification or real overheads and that
there is nothing in between. For CS 2 it is recommended to verify whether there are more efficient solutions.
3.3 Efficiency of the JU Executive Team organisation and procedures
3.3.1. Efficiency of the JU Executive Team
There is an authorised ceiling of 24 members of staff. Of these there are eight project officers; 75%
of staff dealing with operational activity (technical and financial); six staff on horizontal support,
e.g. Executive Director, Head of Administration, secretary, Internal Auditor etc. The direct management of the research programme is carried out by eight project officers. Of the estimated
442 projects, 342 GAP (Grant Agreement for Partners) and 7 GAM (Grant Agreement for
Members) each Project officers appears to manage 1 GAM and 60 GAPs on average. Given the
complexity of the process, the high technical level of the work and the large number of projects this is commendable. The Panel recognises the heavy work load of the JU Executive Team by JU
management tasks, CfPs, grant agreements, reviews, and ITD monitoring.
These figures suggest that the JU - when measured by projects managed per project officer - is very efficient. There is however a patent imbalance between technical and administrative staff, and this
may cause excessive indirect costs which can be partly explained by the small size of the
organisation and an apparent need for autonomous services in administration, legal affairs, human resources, accountancy, information technology, auditing, procurement, etc. Considering that there
are other JUs also located in the same premises of the CSJU it is hard to justify this extent of
autonomy. The Panel is of the opinion that savings could be achievable by sharing services with
other JUs6.
R-3.3.1: Notwithstanding that the Executive Office has made significant progress in speeding up
processes and reaching operational efficiency, the Panel recommends that some further
adjustments will be carried out to improve efficiency. Now that the Clean Sky JU is well established, the balance of skills between general administration and project management in the
Executive Office needs some readjustment.
R-3.3.2: The Panel considers the number of the technical staff as being insufficient and recommends a review by the Governing Board of staff requirements to ensure that the Executive
Team can exercise in full its coordinating and monitoring functions. At the same time the Panel
recommends a review of potential services to be shared with other JUs and of administrative
services that could be outsourced.
R-3.3.3: The Clean Sky Executive Office should seek further ways of reducing bureaucracy and
ensure that it has the optimal organisational structure for the tasks ahead.
R-3.3.4: Although participation and success rate of the applications indicate that the performance of the JU in administration of the programme, project management and programme design and
implementation is adequate and capable, the Panel notes that the “Time to grant” is still rather
high (240 days from call publication to GAP; 360 days on average for grants signed in 2012) and
recommends this to be shortened.
6 There are already services that are shared as logistics (building and the IT infrastructure). There is a regular
coordination between Internal Audit Functions of the three JUs (IMI, FCH and CS; see Appendix 10.6) in place for issues of horizontal nature (e.g. audit methodology, approach towards the Court of Auditors). Audit
services are also shared between JUs when it is the most cost-efficient solution (e.g. common framework
contract on Ex-Post audits, joint engagements, etc.).
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 18
3.3.2. Efficiency of the JU organisational and control procedures
The Panel considers the organisational and control structure of the JU Executive Team to be adequate to fulfil its objectives. The Panel appreciates that a Management Manual describing
internal rules and procedures has been operated for years.
Concerning the internal control system and quality management, the Panel understands that the process structure of the internal control system and quality management including steering the JU
(CS strategy, annual objectives, AIP, quality management, budget, accounts, risk management,
financial reporting, etc.); Programme Management, Management of the executive team,
Communication Management and Quality Management (process management, ICS, periodic progress reviews, KPIs, management of exceptions, ex-post audits) and Audits Management
represents a complex, valid instruments of internal control and quality system contributing to an
efficient management.
R-3.3.5: The Panel recognises the value of the adopted system of 16 internal control standards
representing a robust system for an efficient and effective management, notes that there is a
satisfactory alignment of strategic and annual planning and recommends its systematic
implementation.
The Panel understands that the Clean Sky Internal Audit Officer has a focus on advisory services,
risk assessment, ex-post audit process and that the AO has “internal” advisory function and
partially management role. The Panel is convinced by the arguments of the CSJU stressing the high added value of an internal audit function and considering this a more efficient solution than
outsourcing.
The Panel shares the view expressed in the stakeholders consultation of 2012 that programme activities and CfPs should be implemented on a multi-annual basis and that a mechanism has to be
implemented to shift funds and activities from one year to the next one. The preferred solution
would be multi-annual financial commitments comparable to L1 and L2 projects in collaborative
research.
R-3.3.6: The Panel appreciates the intention of the JU (as in the GB meeting of 22.3.2013) to
launch trainings for Topic Managers and endorses endeavours to increase the monitoring from the
Project Officers and the administration team, to make sure that delays and problems in execution of the projects are tackled as soon as possible. These steps are important ones to address
bottlenecks currently limiting the overall efficiency.
R-3.3.7: The Panel appreciates that in the evaluation period ex-post audits of financial statements of CS JU beneficiaries have been implemented and recommends that the efforts undertaken to
reduce the error rates will be continued. It values that the JU has put efforts in improving its ex-
ante validation process and has provided extensive guidance to its beneficiaries concerning the
eligibility of costs for the Clean Sky projects.7
3.4 Efficiency of ITD organisations and procedures
The Clean Sky structure, with six separate Integrated Technology Demonstrators (ITDs) covering
Green Rotorcraft, Regional Aircraft, Eco-Design, Engines, Smart fixed Wing and Green Operations, each led by two “industry” leaders has proven to be effective.
7 To date, 65 audits have been launched, out of which 52 have been finalised. Audit results have been implemented (i.e.
overpayments were recovered) with more than 96%. The residual error rate, reflecting the remaining errors in favour of the JU - after corrective measures have been taken place- passed from 4.22% in 2011 to 1.29% in 2012, resulting in an accumulated rate of 2.77.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 19
However, the Panel notes that management processes and tools differ from ITD to ITD. There is no
evidence of harmonized management approaches, including resource allocations, milestone
achievements, deliverable measurements and budget spending. These issues will be further analysed under Section 5.
R-3.4.1: The Panel appreciates that the monitoring and control tools are mature and implemented.
The Panel recommends harmonised progress activity reports and technical evaluation reports across ITDs. In particular, progress reports should contain achieved progress against plans, and
achieved deliverables against planned deliverables. The Panel recommends technical evaluation
reports to follow the EC standard. This standard is useful in terms of evaluating in a systematic
manner technical and management aspects.
3.5 Efficiency of communication
In general, the Panel commends the JU Executive Team for the adoption of a “Communication and
Dissemination” strategy, but considers communication and dissemination as key issues deserving even more attention.
3.5.1. Internal communication
Communication between and within the JU Executive Team and ITDs appears to be satisfactory. Apart from channels such as the ITD Steering Committees, there are direct links between ITD
leaders and the JU project officers which have proved crucial in identifying in a timely manner
difficult issues and interfaces.
General communication with all stakeholders is achieved through the General Forum, which is especially helpful for partners without a direct access to ITD Steering Committees. Communication
between ITDs is still limited and should be enhanced.
R-3.5.1: Cooperation and exchange between ITDs appear to be still limited and should be enhanced. Models and tools produced across ITDs should be analysed in the view of potential
complementarities. The TE interface with other ITDs deserves careful attention to ensure timely
results.
R-3.5.2 - Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel believes that communication between ITDs can be
improved by using to a larger extent the TE as a tool to feed back information and to discuss
efficiency matters. A closer relationship with the working groups of ACARE and SESAR could also
improve this communication process. The JU team should be more involved in this process and additional resources need to be allocated to this task.
3.5.2. External communication
The Panel appreciates that achievements have been made in the “Communication and Dissemination” strategy and notes that a number of publications have been released. However it
regrets that there are no adequate metrics to document and measure outreach and satisfaction rate.
The Panel values that Clean Sky has been involved in the organisation/participation in major events
including also Clean Sky SME Day in May 2013 and the Paris Air Show in June 2013. However, the Panel believes that more structured outreach activities and promotion are needed in non-
scientific/technical media. The Panel is of the opinion that there is a need for a communication
strategy with overarching goals for increasing awareness levels and perception of Clean Sky amongst all target groups in order to reach new players and SMEs and involve them in the
development process.
R-3.5.3: The Panel believes that raising the profile of Clean Sky and the importance of being a PPP are key aspect of CS’s communications objectives. The Panel endorses the recommendations
of the previous interim evaluation and reiterates that CS should improve its visibility to the
interested public.
R-3.5.4: The Panel appreciates the effort on the part of the Executive Office to communicate call topics and disseminate the Clean Sky initiatives via publications. However the Panel felt that, as
there have been more successes stories coming out of the projects, these could form the basis for
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 20
intensified dissemination targeted to a broader range of stakeholders, including policymakers
within the Member States.
R-3.5.5: The technical information on the website should be improved, with more active involvement and input from the ITDs. Moreover it is deemed necessary to find forms for
communicating the activities and assessment of the TE.
R-3.5.6: The Panel recommends that the CS communication strategy puts more dedicated efforts for communicating the broader socio-economic and environmental impacts not only to the
aeronautical stakeholders, but also to the policy and decision makers at the European and national
levels. The NSRG and STAB should be involved in these initiatives.
The Panel appreciates that the JU plans to meet some Permanent Representations of Member States, in cooperation with the NSRG members and understands that the European Parliament is a
major target, in particular in the preparation of CS2. Nonetheless a strategy how to address
institutional actors and MEPs appears to be missing and is deemed necessary.
The Panel believes that in this process the NSRG should be actively involved and should activate
organisations and multipliers within their specific countries. Additionally, the members’ network
could provide local insight and implementation for specific campaign measures.
R-3.5.7: The Panel commends that Clean Sky has been successful in attracting a high level of
interest from companies, well above the average participation of industrial entities in collaborative
projects in FP7. However the Panel notes that although there is a remarkably high participation of
SMEs, Clean Sky is still perceived as “big industry and big technology” and therefore recommends that success stories involving SMEs should be communicated on the website and in dedicated
publications.
3.6 Concluding Statements
Overall the Panel believes that the Clean Sky governance is efficient in the management of the
programme and delivery of calls and projects and considers the present governance structure a
valid model to be continued also in the future. However, efforts for increasing the organisational
efficiency, reducing the administrative burden and enhancing internal and external
communication are still required. The Panel recommends strengthening the resources of the JU
alongside with the streamlining of the potential services which could be shared with other JUs.
Communication and dissemination efforts are satisfactory; however it is deemed necessary that
the CS communication strategy puts more dedicated efforts for communicating the broader
socio-economic and environmental impacts not only to the aeronautical stakeholders, but also to
the policy and decision makers at the European and national levels. The NSRG and STAB
should be involved in these initiatives.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 21
4 Quality
4.1 Quality of activities
For the 1st Interim Review of Clean Sky, the Panel stated that “no in-depth assessment of the
overall quality of the activities was attempted by the Panel”. The assessment was based on specific technical examples for each ITD which were presented to the Panel. These examples provided
evidence of the high quality of activities.
For this 2nd
Interim Evaluation, a major change was the arrangement of technical visits on site, with at least a full day meeting (or more) of technical presentations. Those site visits have been
appreciated by the Panel, as they provided specific technical information and the possibility to
discuss - in the workshop - with engineers who directly participated in the product development.
The current assessment of the quality of the research activities is therefore based on a much more empirical base. Section 5 reports in detail the status of technical progress which could be assessed
in this manner for each ITD.
Technical presentations, documentation and technical visits provided evidence of excellent specific technical achievements in many cases. The technical presentations provided evidence of the
complexity of certain tasks in the demonstrator developments. Many promising technologies were
presented by the ITDs in terms of software and hardware. There is evidence that the CSJU has contributed to progress beyond the state-of-the-art in Aeronautics.
R-4.1: The Panel recognises the added value of technical visits and technical presentation
meetings which provide more insight and allow a deeper analysis and enable an objective
assessment. The Panel considers this as a key instrument to assess the quality of the technical developments and recommends to make site visits an integral part of the review process.
There is no doubt about the quality and the relevance of the technical activities carried out within Clean Sky. However, problems of resource allocation together with “slipping” schedules may end
up jeopardizing this quality is some cases.
R-4.2 - Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends to all participants to carry out a realistic risk analysis and establish early mitigation plans. For large ITDs it is recommended to adopt
systematically an industrial project management methodology from the very beginning of the
project.
In some areas, the Panel noted that the CSJU could benefit from advances in other industries e.g.
ED-Design would profit from developments in the automotive industry.
Overall, the Panel believes that the large Clean Sky research and demonstrators portfolio is of high
quality and in some cases excellent. The Panel collected evidence that the JU is perceived as a
flagship for Public Private Partnership supported aeronautical R&D.
4.2 Members’ and Partners’ quality
The members and partners are of high quality as are the major players in the European aeronautical
industry. They possess the critical mass needed to achieve the ambitious CS objectives. The Panel
appreciates that there is a wide diversity in terms of stakeholders, including industry, academia, research organisations, and SMEs and that a good fraction of them are coming from domains other
than aeronautics.
However, it is noticed that some partners have not attributed strong priority to CS work causing delays on specific developments, in most cases by not allocating the required resources.
4.3 Quality of Calls for Proposals
The CSJU provided information about topics and outcome from the evaluation of the CfPs. The proposals are evaluated in terms of specific criteria: technical excellence, innovative character,
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 22
adequacy and quality of the respondents and contribution to European competitiveness. These
proposals are evaluated by internal ITD experts and external experts. Good examples of high
quality developments produced by CfPs and used within ITDs were provided during the review.
The quality of the process is good, provides the appropriate flexibility to adapt to individual ITD
requirements and attracts a satisfactory rate of applicants.
However the Panel notes that:
The number of CfPs is very high in some ITDs and is not systematically related to the size of
the ITDs: Eco-Design, for example, has launched a high number of CfPs. Other ITDs have
experienced delays in CfP preparations and unsuccessful topics e.g. SGO and SAGE.
R-4.3: In case of a large number of proposals for a specific ITD, the Panel recommends a flexible
distribution of responsibilities in order to optimise the associated work load within the JU.
The Panel is aware that there have been some complaints about the rigidity of the topic description
received by the applicants and for not allowing enough room for innovation.
R-4.4: It is proposed that the topics include the possibility to present a more innovative approach leading same results than the one described in the topic.
The technical quality and the relevance of the CfPs have not been analysed in detail by the
Panel. Technical ITD reviews do not analyse the quality of CfP in a systematic manner. Still, the Panel believes that the technical quality regarding the objectives of the research and the
relevance of the content regarding the research pursued by the ITD can be improved in some
instances. In some cases it also appeared that developments starting at very low TRL (1-2)
were proposed as CfPs to be launched at a late stage of projects. This weakens credibility and could be interpreted as a means of using underspent budgets.
R-4.5: It is recommended that the technical ITDs reviews include a systematic CfP review to monitor and contribute to the high quality of the CfP. This would establish a clear connection
between CfP topic and ITDs activities thus improving the focusing of the technical activities.
R-4.6: The Panel notes that, in some cases, the inappropriate choice of subcontractors has led to
poor results relative to the project they are related to. The Panel therefore recommends the JU to
investigate possible ways of improving the selection process of subcontractors.
4.4 Concluding Statements
There is no doubt about the quality and the relevance of the technical activities carried out
within Clean Sky. However, problems of resource allocation together with “slipping” schedules
may end up jeopardizing this quality is some cases.
Overall, the Panel believes that the large Clean Sky research and demonstrators portfolio is of
very high quality. The Panel collected evidence that the JU is perceived as a flagship for Public
Private Partnership supported aeronautical R&D.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 23
5 Clean Sky ITDs and Technology Evaluator - Progress and
Effectiveness
5.1 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA)
The SFWA Objectives
The objective of the “Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft” ITD flying demonstrator is to develop and
validate up to TRL 6 innovative technologies which were at TRL 2 or 3 level at the time of the CS
launch in order to demonstrate a step improvement in the area of fuel consumption and noise emissions. To this end the SFWA ITD integrates innovative wing and airframe concepts of
different types. The objective to bring most of these technologies up to TRL6 maturity (last stage
of technology maturity before development phase) will allow trade-offs between technologies and technology insertion risk management to be performed prior to insertion of these technologies on a
large scale new aircraft development programme.
The SFWA Structure and Research Programme
The SFWA ITD programme is quite complex. It consists of major components and technology
streams. The three major components paths are: Smart Wing Technology (SFWA1); New
Configuration (SFWA2), linked to interfaces and technology assessment and Flight Demonstration (SFWA3). Currently, this ITD addresses eight “technology streams” as shown in the Figure below.
Figure 5.1.1. SFWA and technology streams
Natural Laminar flow: The objective is to achieve TRL 6. The major technologies are
aerodynamic wing design, structural concepts and actuation (leading edge Kruegers), anti-icing, surface quality, trailing edge for both high speed and low speed operations, health
monitoring. The work to be performed includes development, integration, manufacturing
process demonstration, maintainability demonstration and flight test demonstration.
Hybrid laminar Flow: it is considered as a fall back solution in case of disappointing results for
the Natural Laminar Flow projects.
Fluidic Control Surfaces: it is designed to enhance high lift performance. It uses innovative
concepts to generate high lift of leading edge and trailing edge. Numerical studies have been
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 24
produced. Computational fluid analysis and wing tunnel were presented in the reviewed
documents (e.g. wind tunnel test on a passive leading edge device).
Load Control Functions and Architectures (TS5): it focuses on design and evaluation in wind
tunnel. It covers active load control with sensors and control surfaces, passive methods using
structural and aero design, vibration and damage control.
Buffet Control: it is focused on design and wind tunnel tests. Developments use passive and
active devices relevant for turbulent and laminar flows. Test campaigns aim to demonstrate the
achievement of TRL4 by using several study concepts and possibly a large scale model.
CROR, engine integration: it is designed to test interactions between engine and airframe in
flight. The flying test bed selected is an A340. It is a complete design; integration and test projects include wind tunnel and flight tests.
Integration of Innovative Turbofan engine to Bizjets: It is the integration of a rear fuselage
section with rear mounted engines. The project will address design and ground tests. A full scale model was planned to demonstrate acoustics, thermal and vibration characteristics.
Advanced Flight Test instrumentation: it is designed to support the testing phases of the Flight
Demonstrators. Two approaches are used: i) low risk integrating sensors with high TRL that do not compromise the demonstrator and ii) novel sensors with the potential to improve
significantly the demonstrator in terms of new knowledge. There is a need for a new
technology in this field enabling fine measurements during the test phases. The technologies
need to be selected and brought to TRL 6.
The original plan included nine technology streams. The innovative control surfaces technology
stream has been merged with the other technology streams. These technology streams contribute to the following key activities:
Smart Wing Technologies encompassing development, integration and flight test demonstration on a large scale. The topics addressed by this activity are: Natural Laminar Flow, Hybrid Laminar
Flow and Active and Passive load control. This activity addresses also the innovative enabling
materials and innovative manufacturing technologies required to provide TRL 6 validated solutions
for each of the topics.
Innovative Power Plant Integration is focused on technology integration and the objective is to
provide large scale flight demonstration. This activity addresses impact of airframe flow field on propeller design (acoustics, aerodynamics, vibrations) and impact of Open Rotor configuration on
airframes (certification, structure, vibration modes, noise).
Innovative empennage design concentrates on the validation of a structural rear empennage concept for noise shielding engine integration on business jets; eight leaders are contributing with seven
associated partners.
The structure of the programme is complex because it covers vertical components paths (SFWA1,
2 and 3) and technology streams. A matrix was prepared in 2011 to formalize structure, functions
and management distribution between SFWA work packages and technology streams. In addition a correlation matrix was prepared to indicate input and output from each task.
Key deliverables:
The five major demonstrators planned are:
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 25
High speed smart wing flight demonstrator (BLADE) based on an A340-300 to validate low
drag solutions for wings. Two different technologies will be tested simultaneously with two
different wing tips (8 meters long).
Figure 5.1.2. High Speed Flight Demonstrator (BLADE), Low Speed Demonstrator (Ground
and Flight) and Innovative Empennage Ground Demonstrator
Low speed smart wing demonstrator including a smart flap large scale ground demonstrator
and a low speed vibration control flight test demonstrator.
Innovative empennage ground demonstrator to validate the noise shielding function on a
business jet configuration.
Figure 5.1.3. Long Term Technology Flight Demonstrator and CROR engine demonstration
Innovative engine demonstrator flying test bed on A340-600 of a CROR engine
Long term technology flight demonstrator tested in service on an operational aircraft: A300
Beluga to test in service maintainability and performance of airframe surfaces.
Contribution to ACARE’s goals:
The SFWA ITD is key to provide significant contribution to the CS objectives, thereby
contributing to the ACARE’s objectives. For example, the Smart Wing projects are intended to provide CO2 and NOx reduction by 10% by using Natural Laminar Flow contributing for 7% and
the associated weight reduction contributing to 3%; -15 to -20% fuel burn through integration of
the CROR. The ITD is determinant for the success of the TE because it provides all figures at airframe level and the associated models.
Airbus and its main partners have a precise understanding of each technology potential contribution
to the aircraft performance. This is a core competence of airframers and it is a very sensitive
element of the aircraft economical performance as well. As such, it is highly confidential. As it represents a key contribution to the TE to CS global challenges, some attention should be paid to
this matter. The sensitivity of the subject should be taken into account. In order to enhance the TE
efficiency, it is deemed necessary to integrate all the inputs from the various ITDs to perform the evaluation and propose adequate choices. The detailed figures which were discussed informally are
attractive and show that the technologies under investigation are potentially promising.
The performance assessment process is shown in Figure 5.1.4. provided by Airbus. The Large Aircraft ITD takes into account all contributions from all relevant projects. The Panel notes some
inconsistencies in the calculation of environmental targets within ITDs and SESAR (e.g. SFWA
ITD presentation dated 10 April 2013 and Clean Sky Development plan version V2.01). The reader is referred to Recommendation R2.2.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 26
Figure 5.1.4. Example of SFWA calculation of environmental targets.
ITD status at the end of May 2013.
SFWA is late and has encountered unexpected difficulties and potential cost overruns which have
led so far to several programme content and schedule redefinitions. The master schedule had to be
adapted and the objectives had to be reviewed and occasionally down-sized to allow some achievement within the Clean Sky time frame and to remain within the limits of the budget
allocation for Clean Sky. The figure 5.1.5 below shows delays of 32 months in some areas at the
level of the High Speed BLADE and CROR Flight Tests demonstrators. Figure 5.1.5 and 5.1.6
show that the others demonstrators - despite being late - are scheduled to deliver results before the termination of CS by the end of 2016.
At the time of the visit in Toulouse, the maturity of the action plan to achieve a set of objectives within the budget and the CS global schedule were improving. However it was not yet stabilised
and de-risked. The situation was improving in terms of stability, but remained somewhat “fluid”.
The probability of achieving a satisfying status of the technologies by the end of CS1, despite down-sizing, looks quite good. The CROR integration is probably the least advanced project of all:
the flight test of the CROR engine is not possible within CS1 for reasons due to the CROR engine
definition and schedule (see the SAGE assessment) and also due to SFWA and the un-anticipated difficulties for flight testing.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 27
Figure 5.1.5. High-Speed Demonstrator Passive (BLADE) status May 2012 reported to be
delayed more than 2 months since Oct 2010 while CROR Flight Demo is shifted to CS2
(Source: presentation at the Toulouse site visit).
Figure 5.1.6: Major demonstrators planning (Source: presentation at the Toulouse site visit)
Recommendations:
The Panel regrets that, at the time the ITD content was defined back in 2006/7, the consequences of
flight tests were not taken into account with the proper involvement of the flight test experts. Some
risks were not correctly evaluated:
certification difficulties to flight test the technologies on safety critical functions of the flying
test beds;
risks during the flight tests and the potential associated brand image damages to AIRBUS were
not correctly assessed and induced a lot more work, schedule slippage and costs increases;
test equipment, tools and test methodologies and processes were underestimated due to the
scale of the innovation gap compared to the State of the Art practices.
As a consequence, time had to be spent on these topics creating delays and additional costs.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 28
R-SFWA.1: The Panel recommends that flight tests should be taken into account at the very
beginning of the ITD. It is to be recognised as a necessary step, overlooked at the project launch
but very much needed to ensure project success.
The Panel assumes that competition related corporate games played by the engine manufacturers
compounded with lack of key resources on some critical work packages and due to priorities allocated to aircraft programmes might have led to unexpected and abrupt change of content in
some projects. The ITD had to adapt itself to this situation. Because the “downstream” research
addressed by CS is close to programme competition it is not surprising to have such situation.
Globally, the disruption was put under control despite the magnitude of the shock and the impact on the project.
Some partners were weaker than expected and the screening process to validate their participation taking into account their capabilities was not effective enough and led to schedule slippage
(particularly in the certification domain). This issue raises the question of an effective participant
screening and selection which should be discussed at the JU level.
Due to the size and complexity of the ITD, the complete bottom up evaluation of the ITD is a one
year long processes running Airbus project management methodologies. It was launched late
(2012) but it is the warranty of a better control and a better involvement of all contributing parties. It should have been carried out already in 2008 at the CS launch. This issue raises the question of
adequate programme management methodologies.
R-SFWA.2: For large ITDs, it is recommended to adopt systematically an industrial project
management methodology from the very beginning of the project.
The CS objective is to develop mature technologies ready for insertion in a programme. Airbus has recognised that a first task was to define with precision the meaning of the TRL maturity stages
because of domain specific characteristics in aerospace.
Involving EASA and FAA at this stage of developing breakthrough technologies was considered as
mandatory. The relationship is working well, enables a safe progress and will allow “light
certification” validated for flight tests. It has taken some time to bring all the parties together and to establish the working protocols.
R-SFWA.3: It is recommended to secure robust commitment from the participants to find ways to
prevent a lack of attention and of focus from the participating companies and to secure adequate resource allocation by all.
The level of commitment and the relevance of the resources allocation plans have to be checked and validated by the CSJU. It is not a development programme and it should not be managed the
same way. However, being close to development, the required resources are significant in terms of
size and in critical specialist domains.
The level of risk mid 2013 has not yet been reduced enough and the granularity issue is still too
high. More efforts are planned to reduce the size of the risks and to restrain any negative impact on
the schedule.
Some key partners have underestimated the level of risks of their packages, leading the overall
project to some difficulties.
R-SFWA.4: It is recommended at the pre-design phase level to run an assessment of risks on the
work package contents.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 29
Clean Sky is a research programme with the associated risks. ITD leaders should not contemplate
to put an obligation of results on their partners as it is the case in any development programme.
However, due to the high TRL level of CS projects, significant resources are required in terms of competences. Some partners may consider CS as a low priority venture and allocate insufficient
resources causing delays and reduction of scope.
R-SFWA.5: The Panel recommends the JU to focus on minimising this potential risk, and to
entrust the GB the responsibility of motivating the potentially defaulting partners.
R-SFWA.6: Downstream research leading technologies to TRL6 maturity should achieve the following steps: performance readiness, engineering readiness, operational readiness (main
tenability, stability …), manufacturing readiness. The Panel believes this recommendation is
applicable to all large ITDs.
The main lesson learnt from SFWA is that research aiming at bringing technologies at TRL 6
should take into account complexities and difficulties very close to those encountered in development programmes. Moreover, because it is research there are risks. As remarked in a
presentation, “The more innovative, the more efficient is a new technology, the higher are the
potential value to the programme and the higher are the associated risks”.
CS is addressing TRL 6 technologies which can lead to significant performance improvement at
Aircraft level. Being subject to risks, these projects can encounter delays, reduction of scope or
even dead ends.
SFWA concluding statements:
The SFWA ITD can be considered as the reference for the Clean Sky ambitions. It is managing
some very critical technologies, potentially contributing to breakthrough performance
improvement for aircraft and to a step change in achieving ACARE’s goals. New tools, new
methodologies, new certification processes have been investigated and developed to allow
progress towards TRL6. The JU and its governance bodies should review with special attention
all the issues encountered during the past years in SFWA and draw all the lessons from this first
phase of Clean Sky in order to avoid any repetition in CS2. ITDs need to be flexible not only
technically but also in terms of budget.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 30
5.2 Green Regional Aircraft (GRA)
The GRA Objectives
Green Regional Aircraft shall deliver low weight, using smart structures, as well as low external
noise configurations, and the integration of technology developed in other ITDs, such as engines,
energy management and new system architectures.
The GRA Structure and Research Programme
GRA addresses five technological domains, performed with well organised links with the relevant
ITDs of Clean Sky: Low Weight Configurations (GRA1), linked to ED-Design, Low Noise Configurations (GRA2), All Electric Aircraft (GRA3), linked to ED-Design and Systems for green
Operation (SGO), Mission & Trajectory Management (GRA4), linked to SGO and New
Configurations (GRA5), linked to TE and SAGE (Fig 5.2.1.).
Figure 5.2.1. The GRA programme, showing the main interfaces with other ITDs
GRA includes many industrial organisations, SME, Research Centres and Universities. In addition,
the involvement in the CfPs has been very significant with 163 winners and 16 Countries involved.
GRA Contribution to ACARE Goals
The overall objective of Clean Sky (CS) is to develop technologies, that would allow to fly
Aircrafts, including all aspects of the Industry, enabling to maintain present performance, while drastically reducing emissions and noise as compared to the standards of the year 2000.
The specific product contribution to Regional A/C Y2020 expected to be delivered was -40% CO2,
-60% NOX and -20% dB. CS has experienced difficulties to monitor the 2007 indicative targets.
These targets were not always consistent across the range of technologies. The product objectives were not clearly defined down to CS specific technologies. The CS Development Plan (CSDP)
provides a structured way to monitor and assess achievement of the environmental goals. Three
complementary measures are used. These are the maturity of technologies in terms of Technology Readiness Levels (TRL), the concept aircraft and demonstration programmes. The TRL monitors
the maturity of technologies within each ITD. The CS environmental benefits are measured by
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 31
comparing the existing aircraft (baseline reference Y2000 and Y2020) and a virtual concept aircraft
incorporating CS technologies as defined by the aircraft ITDs. The demonstration programmess
will allow to provide evidence of integration of several technologies and to determine the true potential benefit in a relevant operational environment.
A realistic selection for GRA was performed with resized ATR72-500 and Embraer E-190. The 90 Pax Turboprop and 130 Pax are adapted to Y2000 reference, and CS green aircraft concept 2020.
Aircraft models are prepared by GRA and provided to the Technology Evaluator (TE). The TE uses
the GRA aircraft model to perform the environmental forecast for CO2, NOX and noise at aircraft,
mission and ATS level.
The current objectives for GRA 90 Pax (passengers) and GRA130 Pax are respectively -25 to -30%
& -27% to -35% for CO2 & NOX. The noise objective for GRA 90 is -1 to -3.3 source noise reductions and -1 to -2 operational measure (for single operation with respect to Area %). The
noise objective for GRA 130 is -4 to -7 source noise reduction and -1 to -2 operational measure (for
single operation with respect to Area %).
RGRA-1 – CS1 and CS2 related: The current progress is reported in relation to CS objectives. The
Panel recommends a more transparent traceability between ACARE goals and CS specific
contribution.
Regarding the three complementary measures, the technical visit to Alenia provided concrete
evidence of TRL progress, environmental benefits related to the GRA aircraft and preparations towards demonstration. The Panel received evidence of a technology roadmap for each technology
of GRA, TRL gate reviews and TRL progress. At the beginning of the CS GRA programme, most
of the technologies started with TRL2-3; by 2013 TRL 4-5 have been achieved. This is considered
as good progress given the complexity of the technological challenges and the slow start of the overall CS.
Aircraft simulation models of the GRA ITD (GRASM) for the aircraft concept have been prepared
and delivered to the TE. The GRASM of Green 90 Pax and 130 Pax provide a solid basis for the preparation of reference aircraft and evaluation of the environmental benefits of the green concept
aircraft. Good interaction and technical reviews among partners have been performed to prepare
demonstration activities.
Agenda of the Meeting at Alenia in Pomigliano d’Arco 4th
-5th
July 2013
The Agenda of the Meeting, which took two solid days and involved several engineers of the
Alenia set up, including some from the other Alenia Factories (more than 20 engineering staff in total), is provided in the Annex. The meeting showed evidence for real commitment and priority
from the ITD leader and partners.
RGRA-2 – CS1 and CS2 related: The visit provided evidence of very good cooperation between
research development activities and flight test preparations. Detailed reviews have been conducted
including multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel in flight test. It is recommended to other ITDs to learn from the good GRA flight test preparations.
Although in the meeting the status of all five technology projects was presented and briefly
discussed, by far the major attention was given to Low Weight Structure and to a somewhat lesser extent All Electrical Aircraft, as agreed with Alenia representatives a the 2d meeting in Brussels
(10 April 2013).
Assessment on the Status of GRA ITD
1. Low Weight Structure (in the Workshop)
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 32
This technology is essentially based on using composites and no metal for the structure of the
aircraft (fuselage, cockpit, wings). The actual composition of the material has not been revealed,
because it is an Alenia - Industrial Partner Patent. It is black, probably made by fibre reinforced graphite (as for the re-entry protection of the nose of the space shuttle and for the first wall
structure of the JET Tokamak). The required thickness (variable for different part of the structure)
is build up by wrapping at 3 different angles (0° - 45° -90°) tapes of 0.1mm thick, typical 10 layers to reach the basis structure of 1mm thickness.
An extended set of well planned tests have been performed on this structural material, with panels
size over one meter side.
Some key tests were performed at the presence of the Panel members, namely: a. hail test (diameter up to 2.75 inc., velocity 30m/s, up to an energy of 86J ). No indentation
was noticed and ultrasonic test showed no damage to the internal structure;
b. a drop test was also performed, up to 30J of energy; even in this case no external or internal damage was noticed.
However this material exhibited a drawback: vibrations and therefore noise in the simulation of flying conditions. This problem was successfully solved by inserting a thin damping layer in the
middle of the structural material.
The structural panel requires reinforcements and this is achieved by inserting shaped stringers of
the same material (Fig 5.2.2).
Figure 5.2.2. Structural illustration of a section of the fuselage using the new composite material
The body of the aircraft (reference ATR72) is made up by the fuselage, the cockpit and the wing,
eventually all using the composite material briefly described above. The Panel visitors spent quite a considerable amount of time in the workshop, following the process of manufacturing the section
(5m long, 3.5m diameter) of the fuselage and of large section of the wings. Each section is ‘cured’
in an autoclave, where the stringers are pre-cured and assembled on the Panel concerned before the
structure in cured in the autoclave. The fuselage sections are then closed with two end structures (prepared with a curing process outside of the autoclave). The ‘closed’ fuselage section is then
pressure tested.
A panel of 5m length and 1.5m width is shaped to replace a standard Al section (Fig 5.2.3.). This modified ATR72 will then ready for ground (2014) and eventually for flying tests (September
2015).
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 33
Figure 5.2.3. The Panel in composite material, to replace an aluminium Panel of an ATR72 for
the flying tests planned by 2015
The Panel visitors could see sections of the wing Panels, where the thickness is built up with more than 10 layers, typically 26 layers. This is certainly required for the wing structure, however, no
flight tests, within GRA Clean Sky, are planned.
The expected advantages/benefits of using the composite approach should be the following:
Reduced Fuselage weight by 6%
Reduced recurring man-hours (for maintenance)
No corrosion
No scheduled Inspections
No fatigue
Extended service operation life
Marketing appeal, evolving technology…
From what has been seen, both in the presentations and mainly in the workshop tests and
manufacturing processes, the Panel believes that the GRA ITD should be able to achieve the benefits mentioned above. The table of Fig 5.2.4. clearly indicates the full scale demonstrator for
ground test and the planned Flight tests to be performed by the end of 2015, when GRA Clean Sky
(1) will come to an end.
Figure 5.2.4. Programme for the ground (2014) and flying tests (2015) for the new composite
structure for the body of GRA
Among the benefits it is important to stress the ‘No fatigue’, since fatigue is usually what limit the
life of any engineering device. Tests have been performed on relevant samples with a crack, up to
90.000 cycles without any evident damage (no crack propagation).
JTI CleanSky 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel
Visit to AleniaAermacchi (Pomigliano D’Arco - Naples)
Confidential
12
Fixed secondary structure Upper rail InstallationFixed secondary structure Upper rail Installation
Due to the disassembling of the crown panel, the existing fixed secondary
structure on the frame and stringer, between stringer 4 LH/RH, will be
removed. To reinstall them it is necessary to add new intercostals (see
following figures) and plate support in accordance to the new crown panel
configuration.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 34
2. All Electrical Aircraft
In the context of Clean Sky an ‘all electrical aircraft’, is one in which all onboard systems are
operated by electricity, while the propulsion comes from internal combustion engines (bleed-less
type), that reduces significantly the fuel burn and consequently the emissions (CO2 and NOX). The AEA concept encompasses:
Bleed-less engines
Electrical environment control systems
No centralized hydraulic system
Electrical wing ice protection system
Electrical actuator for flight control and landing gear systems
High power, high speed electrical generation
High voltage DC electrical distribution
Electrical energy start
The expected benefits of the AEA concept include:
Improved engine performance
Mass reduction (due to the elimination of hydraulic bleed systems)
Improved on board systems utilization
Improved reliability
Reduced maintenance
However the designers should consider the increase of mass and size of the electrical equipment,
which could be the main drawback of an AEA.
In the past there have already been hybrid conventional and electrical systems such ad POA (Power Optimized Aircraft) and MOET (More Open Electrical Aircraft), facing already the problem of
weight, but now the challenge is to eliminate completely any non electrical power and energy
supply.
Figure 5.2.5. Activities concerning a GRA - all electrical aircraft (AEA) concept major affected
on-board systems
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 35
The design of an AEA should be performed according to the following guidelines:
Simplification of the architecture
Multi-purpose power electronics motor controller
Higher power to weight ratio for power electronics
Reduction of electrical load analysis budget at the aircraft level
High power distribution centre integration
Smart management of generators overload capability
While the AEA benefits have been basically demonstrated for large aircrafts, this is not the case for Regional Aircrafts, and this is the present goal of Alenia and Partners. The on board systems
involved are synthetically described in Fig 5.2.5.
The Electrical Power Generation and the Distribution System (EPGDS) design has been completed
and manufacture of components is well advanced. The reference aircraft is a GRA 90pax, with two
propeller engines: two electrical motors/per engine (110 Kw/generator), are installed, providing
redundancy in emergency. Power distribution is at 270 VDC (Fig 5.2.6.). The main drawback using AEA for GRA is the weight (weight of EPDGDS is 430Kg for a 400 litres volume). A mode of
operation is been optimised, by allowing to reduce the power supplied to some selected loads,
when an overloading is requested elsewhere. However activities are still on at the THALES member to design an integrated generator which should allow to reach a 40% reduction in weight
(by working on the DC network, by reducing the speed ratio, by limiting the overload capability
and by using new magnetic materials).
FUTURE A/C CONFIGURATION (AEA 90-PAX TP)EPGDS architecture
AEA EPGDS architecture proposal for Future Green Regional Aircraft:
5
JTI Clean Sky 22ndnd Interim Evaluation Panel Interim Evaluation Panel -- Visit to Alenia Aermacchi (Pomigliano D’Arco Visit to Alenia Aermacchi (Pomigliano D’Arco -- Naples)Naples)Confidential
Figure 5.2.6. The EPGDS architecture for AEA 90-Pax TP configuration
The Electric-Environmental Control System (E-ECS) is the most demanding user of power in the
AEA configuration, because the suppression of conventional air sources supply implies the need of an electrically-driven air source. The results of architectural studies leads to an optimum scheme,
because it requires slightly more power installation (100 KW), but has a lower weight (512 Kg). E-
ECS ground and flying tests, will verify system behaviour in different operating conditions.
The Hybrid-Wing Ice Protection System (H-WIPS) has been studied for the ATR 90-pax wing
profile chooses a hybrid solution in order to reduce the electrical power demand. However a fully
electrothermal architecture is also under study, but the resulting high weight and large volume led
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 36
to abandon this approach and no further activities are planned for Clean Sky GRA at present.
However, ways to improve the efficiency of the de-icing method are still on going activities.
Flight Control Systems-Electro-Mechanical Actuators (FCS-EMA), new technologies to overcome
weight and reliability problems are now considered, by using brushless motors, more robust
electronics and new anti-jamming systems. These activities will be performed by a partner (CESA) selected through a Call for Proposal, who will develop also an anti-jamming system for EMA.
Electro-Mechanical Actuator for main Landing Gear (EMA-LG)
Electro-Mechanical actuation for LG extension-retraction is under evaluation in several research programmes.
The electro-mechanical braking for LG is currently in use on flying aircraft, such B787,
Bombardier, etc. Alenia is considering the Main Landing Gear (MLG) actuator for the Regional Aircrafts in the
framework of the Clean Sky initiative, aiming to bring the technology to TRL 5. For this purpose, a
CfP was launched in 2011 for the design, manufacturing and testing of an EMA, capable of operating the MLG of the reference Turbo-Prop Regional A/C (the project is named ARMLIGHT).
Main features of the project are: single DC brushless motor, anti-jamming system, no weight
increase as compared with the current systems, higher reliability and lower maintenance needs.
Ground and flying tests, for the electrical integration only, are planned in 2014-2015. No further information was provided/ requested during the meeting.
3. Other significant activities 3.1. LW/AEA Technologies to assess environmental impact
GRASM Activities validation
The success of Clean Sky will be eventually measured on the ‘numbers’ of the key parameters
defining the environmental impact of the new generation of A/C, designed and manufactured using the new technologies developed by the Clean Sky ITDs.
It is therefore of great interest the environmental impact studies performed by Alenia on the
evaluation of the reduction of CO2, NOX (fuel consumption) and noise level on GRA Green Y2020 A/C. This is even more interesting because TE ITD performed the same exercise (not only for
GRA) obtaining similar results, with the methods of analysis appropriate to TE, but with the input
of models proposed by GRA.
The Panel considers this approach as a good validation rather than double work as this validation
has been carried out by independent teams.
In fact the objectives of GRA Simulation Models (GRASM) are to:
Provide TE with effective tools to perform the Clean Sky assessment relevant for the
environmental impact (noise and emission) at Mission level, at Airport level and at the
Global level (i.e. on the evaluation of global fleet operation),
Complement internal GRA analyses: preliminary design assessment, trade-off between
configurations, design low noise take off and approach trajectory paths,
Provide validated Trajectory Path (TP) model to perform optimised trajectory and
optimisation studies.
Assessment of AEA/LW technologies at the A/C level
In order to highlight the improvement of performance towards the ACARE objectives, concerning
GRA, a comparison has been made between a Reference Turboprop A/C configuration with 2000
Year Technology (ATR72-500 – 95 pax) and a GRA – Green Turboprop A/C configuration (2020 Year Technology – 95 pax).
The 2020 Year Technology, include the outcome of the development of the GRA – ITD, namely:
Low Weight domain activities (composite material for the structure, load alleviation, etc) and All Electrical Aircraft domain activities (EPGDS, ECS, ICE Protection, Wire architecture, etc).
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 37
The Table of Fig 5.2.7. show the results of the comparison of fuel consumption (CO2 and NOX
abatement), which reveal a saving of 24% in fuel consumption, close to the target values (25-30%).
The improvement concerning noise reduction is expressed in the reduction of the impact area: 50% at take-off and 25% at approach (Fig 5.2.8.), have to be considered a very good achievement. Near
future work in this area will include a sensitivity analysis, to highlight the more beneficial
technologies.
Figure 5.2.7. Main results of the evaluation, using the Alenia GRASM, of the weight and
emission reduction using the new technologies
The GRA models (GRASMs) have been provided to the Technology Evaluator (TE) and similar
preliminary results have been obtained (see TE – ITD assessment).
Figure 5.2.8. Main results for the noise reduction evaluation, using the model above
3.2. Low Noise Configuration
Low Noise Configuration activities refer to design/modelling and technology maturation for a
Regional Aircraft 130-seats, a Regional Aircraft 90-seats and a Low Noise Landing Gear. These imply computational studies and experimental activities, including Advanced Aerodynamics, Aero-
elasticity, Aero-Structures and Systems. Mainstream Technologies relate to Wing Optimisation
Aerodynamics, Load Control, Load Alleviation, Low Noise High-Lift Devices and Low-Noise landing Gear. Technical solutions involve Natural Laminar Flow, Active control of wing movables,
Wing Aeroelastic Tailoring, etc.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 38
Tests are planned during 2015, just at the end of GRA Clean Sky activities: no flying tests are
considered, only Wind Tunnel tests. Most of the computer design work has been done on the
wings, aiming at obtaining natural laminar flow. An aerolastic finite element model has been studied. The wings are fitted with a morphing flap. Mechanical prototypes have been designed,
manufactured and tested, showing their functionality in matching the target shape, while
withstanding simulated aerodynamics loads. Two prototypes were shown to us during the visit to the workshops, one mechanically operated and the other operated electrically. A CAD model of the
130-seat A/C is shown in Fig 5.2.9. A model for gust load alleviation has been produced by
Politecnico of Turin. The structural material of the aircraft is of composite structures, similar to the
ones briefly described in the Low Weight section of this Report. A similar analysis has been performed for the Green Regional 90-seats A/C.
Figure 5.2.9. CAD Model & CFD Pressure distribution at high-lift condition
A detailed structural/mechanical CAD model has been constructed to study the optimum configuration for a Low Noise Landing Gear, Main LG and Nose Landing Gear. Following the
computer studies to evaluate the sources on noise, two models (in ‘ALLEGRA’ and ‘ARTIC’
Projects by CfP) will be constructed and tested in two independent Wind Tunnels, respectively in the Pininfarina WT and in the DNW-LLF WT. The testing facility will be equipped with sensors to
measure the noise in various locations and in a number of operational positions of the LG. Final
tests are planned to be completed, as for most of the GRA ground and flying tests, for selected solutions before the end of GRA Clean Sky activities, i.e. within 2015 (ref. 2012 CSDP).
3.3. Mission and Trajectory Management
The aim of the Mission and Trajectory Management (MTM) is to study, in coordination with SGO (System for Green Operation) avionics solutions enabling the Aircraft to reduce its environmental
impact. However no flight tests are considered, but only tests with the GRA Flight Simulator.
The institutions involved are Thales Avionics, University of Bologna, CIRA and ELSIS. The main interfaces are with SGO, in the various phases of the project development. The main commitment
of GRA is to develop Green FMS (Flight Management System), while SGO should care about the
down selection and the functional requirement definition of the Green FMS. The green functions are: Green Cost Index (release 8/2012), for the optimization of the cruise
speed, Optimum Flight Level Selection, to provide the best cruise altitude (release 5/2013),
Continuous Descent Path, in order to reduce CO2 emissions and Noise level (expected release
12/2013). The aim of the GRA Flight Simulator is to assess in real time/pilot in the loop environment the
benefit of the green functions.
Two configurations were foreseen: a) basic configuration (ATR), completed in May 2012, b) upgrade configuration (GRA TP90 pax) to be completed by 12/2013.
Two flights from Venice to Napoli have already been performed (ATR72), with the aim to verify
the GCI cruise speed function.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 39
The final assessment will start next year (by using a Flight Simulator modified for GRA TP90 pax).
The final release of Green FMS will contain the following functions: GCI for optimum cruise
speed, OFL, for optimum cruise altitude, CDA, for optimum descent path. Benefits are expected in terms of CO2, while NOX reduction benefits are expected by the engine performance. Finally, only
limited benefits are expected from the perceived noise, because descent optimisation is at high
altitude (3000-5000 feet).
GRA concluding statements:
The GRA ITD has a comprehensive task, dealing with the Aircraft Body (with the exclusion of
the engine), All Electrical Aircraft Devices, Mission and Trajectory Management, and finally
with the evaluation of the benefits for the environment as defined by ACARE. The Panel was
pleased to see concrete evidence of progress in innovative technology developments, concrete
contribution towards ACARE targets and to note that in the environmental assessment
performed at this stage of GRA development, both GRA ITD and TE show similar quantitative
results.
The key issue is the reduction of weight by using composite materials. The R&D on new
structure design and composite materials is supported by a wide range of laboratory tests; full
scale ground demonstrators are planned to be concluded with a variety of flying tests within
2015. Flying tests require extensive preparation in terms of new technology and its suitability for
an existing regional aircraft. An important aspect addressed in an appropriate manner by GRA
is the combination of experienced production and R&D personnel involved in detailed planning
and appropriate reviews for preparation of demonstration activities.
The two days visit to the Alenia premises was instrumental to convince the Panel, that the GRA
ITD will be completed on time, with more than satisfactory results.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 40
5.3 Green RotorCraft (GRC)
The GRC Objectives
GRC focuses on the integration of technologies and demonstration of rotorcraft platforms
(helicopters and tilt-rotor aircrafts) to drastically reduce emissions and noise while maintaining present performance.
The GRC Structure and Research Programme
The Programme combines seven technology subprogrammes and one management package, namely:
GRC0 - ITD Management
GRC1 - Innovative rotor blades
GRC2 - Reduced drag of airframe & dynamic systems
GRC3 - Integration of innovative electrical systems
GRC4 - Installation of a Diesel engine on a light helicopter
GRC5 - Environment-friendly flight paths
GRC6 – Eco-Design Demonstrators (Rotorcraft)
GRC7 - Technology Evaluator for Rotorcraft (interface & preparation)
A strong point of this ITD is the apparent strong link with other ITDs and the inclusion within GRC
of specific sub-programmes linked to other ITD’s (GRC5, 6, and 7):
SAGE
o Agreement with SAGE 5 for sharing new turboshaft characteristics (GRC5) o Involvement of SAGE 5 in GRC7 / TE
SGO
o Link with Aircraft Energy (MAE) for HEMAS and for starter generators (GRC3)
o Link with MTM for Rotorcraft specific trajectories and missions (GRC5) o Models for GRC3 Architecture studies
o Electromechanical Main Rotor Actuator (GRC3)
Eco Design
o with EDA for LCA and technologies (GRC6) o Interface with EDS for electrical test bench adaptation of rotorcraft requirements
(GRC3)
o To highlight weight impact resulting from their research for incorporation into GRC7
conceptual rotorcraft
Technology Evaluator (GRC7)
o Benefit assessment on the SEL (Single Engine Light) & TEL (Twin Engine Light)
model helicopter accomplished and delivered to TE June 2012
o Team work with GRC4 completed. Diesel Engine Light platform deliverable Q4/2013 o Input for CleanSky reference rotorcraft for LCA to be defined (GRC6)
GRC Contribution to ACARE Goals
The environmental objectives derived from the ACARE objective and specific to the GRC ITD are
the following:
Turboshaft engine Diesel piston engine
CO2 -25% -40%
NOX -60% -50%
Noise -10 EPNdB or -50%
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 41
These are average figures based on the individual gains expected for each platform (light
helicopters with single or twin engines, medium or heavy helicopters, tilt-rotor or Diesel). As of today, the evaluation carried out within GRC7 and TE confirms those objectives. In
particular, for the single engine light helicopter (SEL), the evaluation shows a reduction of 30% for
CO2 and 47% for noise compared to the targets of -25% CO2 and -50% noise respectively, thanks to the new technologies developed within GRC. However, the evaluation of NOx reduction is not yet
available.
This evaluation will be complemented by the evaluation of the other helicopter models in order to obtain an average result for all helicopter categories considered within CS. Still, it has to be noted
that the two helicopter models evaluated so far represent about 65% of the forecasted world fleet in
2020. This gives hope that GRC will attain its environmental objectives at project completion.
The Panel considers this a very positive achievement. However, the evaluation of the
environmental objectives in terms of NOx, CO2 and noise are often based on a number of assumptions which are sometimes unclear or not sufficiently justified, and the final numbers
sometimes lack consistency.
R-GRC.1: The Panel encourages the Partners and Project Managers to provide more clarity and consistency in the figures presented as well as on the assumptions taken for the evaluation of the
environmental targets in relation with the ACARE goals.
Assessment on the Status of the GRC ITD
The present assessment is based on a number of documents received from the European
Commission and a number of meetings. No technical visits or attendance to review meetings were
scheduled for this ITD.
During the meeting of April 10, a short presentation of about ten slides covered the main aspects
like master schedule, budget, technical progress, risk status, management and impact assessment. It is clear that the ITD is well run at overall level. IPR and confidentiality as well as interaction with
other ITDs seem to be adequately addressed.
There is a delay of +/- 12 months in GRC 1/2/3; the others ones are on track, but no impact is
expected on completion of targets. Although there has been substantial technical progress, the
project tends to shift to the right. The budget is late in spending, and there is a discrepancy with
regard to the forecasted spending in general. However, the objectiveness of the risk assessment has to be noted. Statistics were presented about the CfP’s, but there has been little detailed information
about the topics.
The Panel emphasizes the need to increase momentum, prioritizing work, proceed with planning,
cope with problems of resources and to ensure available resources. However these issues could not
be assessed in sufficient detail (from a 90 min presentation during the meeting on April 10). The Panel recognises the added value of technical visits or technical presentation meetings which would
have given more insight (see R-4.1), some annual technical review reports are less positive
As requested by the Panel, additional material was provided by the Project Officer. A summary slide was provided with the link with other previous European projects. It is positive that GRC
builds on and integrates results from previous Framework Programme projects (mainly on FP6
OPTIMAL, GOAHEAD, NICETRIP, etc), but it is noted that delay on deliveries from FRIENDCOPTER has had a negative impact.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 42
R-GRC.3 - Lessons learnt for CS2: The link with previous or ongoing Framework Programmes
should be clearly stated in order to avoid overlap and possible double funding. This
recommendation is valid for all ITDs.
As requested by the Panel, the deliverables for two chosen sub-projects (GRC 1 - Gurney Flaps and
GRC4 - Diesel Engine) were provided but only for Gurney Flaps (2 of light content) and not for
Diesel Engine because all deliverables are confidential.
Some changes in the initial workplan occured and since 2010 the following actions have been
implemented:
o Alignment of technologies towards market opportunities, as per anticipated to date
o Shaping activities to clarify both outcomes with respect to Clean Sky objectives and to implement system-analysis approach, and an improved maturity of results (GRC5 for
instance)
o Clarification of interfaces between GRC and other ITDs (mainly Eco-Design) o Implementation of good practices described in the CSMM (TRL maturity assessment
for instance)
The overall technical progress was presented in 2 slides of general overview and the active Gurney
flaps (GRC1) and the Diesel engine (GRC4) were presented as the two “flagships” of this ITD. The
Panel member appreciated the fact that an additional 50 slides (not presented during the meeting
but of pure technical content) were provided as additional material to the general presentation.
Good work has been done in preparing presentations and a strong involvement of the Project
Officer was noted. A clear comparison was presented between previous planning and current planning and reviewers´ comments from the last meeting were discussed. However, there is a need
for more consistency in the figures presented in relation to target reductions. (see R-GRC.1)
GRC1 - Rotor blades
Design activities are continuing for model and full scale demonstrator blades with Active Gurney
Flaps. The CDR for 2D wind tunnel test of AGF was passed in February 2013. The PDR for model
scale AGF actuation system was held in January. A new CfP was launched to select partners to support CFD modelling of AGF and analysis of test results.
An overall delay of 12 months is quoted to be without any impact on completion. Major changes
are under review to increase the maturity at completion and to recover delays: in particular for
Active Gurney Flaps: inclusion of flight tests to increase maturity from 5 to 6, and budget increase
by transfer of budget from activities with low maturity target (laminar cover blades for instance and
Active blade devices based on Piezoelectric).
GRC2 - Drag reduction
The second wind tunnel testing campaign has been conducted for the 1/5 scale EC135 wind tunnel
model (ADHeRo) featuring optimised landing skids. The final wind tunnel test campaign at ONERA for active devices (synthetic and pulsed jets) on aft fuselage confirmed drag reduction up
to 36% and almost reached TRL 4. The optimisation of the Tilt-Rotor sponsons and landing gear
were successfully achieved. The kick-off of the CfP project ROD (PoliMi) for wind tunnel tests on
the common H/C platform was held at the end of February 2013. The design and manufacturing is completed for the remotely controlled movable horizontal stabiliser for the GOAHEAD model.
Instrumentation and calibration have started.
GRC3 - Electrical Systems
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 43
The concept configuration in terms of mass and electrical data has been supplied to GR7.
Technology progress has been demonstrated by formal design reviews in several areas: PDR closed
for EMA for Flight Control, EMA for Rotor Brake, Electrical Conventional Tail Rotor, and Starter Generator; PDR closure pending on Piezo Power Supply; and CDR closed for EMA for Landing
Gear. Definitions and test plans supplied for equipments on the ETB.
GRC4 - Diesel Engine
The partner consortium has been selected in 2010 (highest project in value: 9,3 M€) and the kick-
off took place in 2011. On the optimal helicopter, the engine definition is almost finished (end of
March 2013) and the helicopter architecture activities will continue in 2013. On the demonstrator
helicopter, engine tests have started end of February 2013, and iron bird preparation is on-going, tests scheduled to start in September 2013.
GRC5- Flight Path
A thorough review took place in 2012, leading to a complete change of the WBS to make an efficient use of resources, and align activities towards CS targets (mainly in terms of visibility and
understanding).
On the technical side, the H/C procedure optimization activities are on track, the T/R performance during operations has been shared with TRAVEL partner, the low noise path optimizer has been
validated (TRL4), the first low-pollutant tilt-rotor missions have been computed (estimated 7%
CO2 reduction), preliminary in-flight tests of “tunnel-in-the-sky” display have been performed, and
finally, ground tests of pollutant measurement system achieved with MAEMRO and EMICOPTER.
GRC6 - Eco Design
The final design and manufacturing concept of the thermoplastic composite structure is on-going
until mid 2013 but processes have to be adapted while tooling design and tooling manufacturing are to be started in the second half of 2013. Suppliers and joining process have been selected for
the thermoplastic tail-cone. The tooling design has been finalized and the manufacturing has started
beginning of 2013. Regarding the Tail Gearbox, the Zn-Ni coating of parts is finished since April
2013 and the manufacturing of Mg parts since June 2013. For the intermediate gearbox, the parts manufacturing and data collection is in progress and the supplier for TPC-shaft has been selected.
GRC7 Techno Evaluator
There is evidence of significant efforts to feed TE with the right inputs, and of mitigation of technical difficulties by reducing the number of deliveries and focusing on the most representative
models (SEL for instance).
Work is completed for the PhoeniX platform v3.1 and the Twin Engine Heavy (TEH) is ready for delivery to the TE ITD. Work has commenced on the PhoeniX platform v4.1 – Twin Engine
Medium (TEM-B). Both platforms include engine models from SAGE5 by Turbomeca and the
benefits of GRC 6 – Eco Design Demonstrators are to be incorporated as well. Finally, TE’s second
assessment for GRC is completed.
GRC concluding statements:
GRC focuses on the integration of technologies and demonstration of rotorcraft platforms
(helicopters and tilt-rotor aircrafts) to drastically reduce emissions and noise while maintaining
present performance. The Active Gurney flaps and the Diesel Engine were presented as the two
“flagships” of this ITD.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 44
Regarding the achievement of the ACARE goals, as of today, the evaluation carried out within
GRC7 and TE confirms those objectives. In particular, for the single engine light helicopter
(SEL), the evaluation shows a reduction of 30% for CO2 and 47% for noise compared to the
targets of -25% CO2 and -50% noise respectively, thanks to the new technologies developed
within GRC. The Panel considers this a very positive achievement. However, the evaluation of
NOx reduction is not yet available and the evaluation still has to be complemented by the
evaluation of the other helicopter models in order to obtain an average result for all helicopter
categories considered within CS.
The work plan shows delays in some areas but no impact is expected on completion of targets as
appropriate mitigation plans have been put in place. It is clear that the ITD is well run at overall
level. Some of the ground tests have been completed already and the ambition of GRC is to
include flight tests as well towards the end of the programme to achieve a nominal TRL6 level.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 45
5.4 Systems for Green Operations (SGO)
Overall developments
SGO focuses on developments in two independent pillars: the Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE) and the Management of Trajectory and Mission (MTM). Firstly, MAE supports the
development of all-electric equipment system architectures. This allows a more fuel-efficient use of
secondary power. Secondly MAE investigates the generation of electrical energy and its distribution to electrical aircraft systems. MTM aims at developing technologies to reduce
emissions and noise addressing the way aircraft manage its trajectory either in flight or ground.
SGO had a slow start and strategic re-planning was performed in 2010. The initial plan was considered aggressive and with a lower technological maturity than originally expected. There is an
overall delay of 12 months with no impact in the final CS completion date. The Panel agrees with
the remarks from technical reviews about activities being shifted towards the end of the CS project
with consequent fewer margins in the schedule. It is appreciated that measures and priority is given to developments related to the main demonstration.
R-SGO.1: – CS1 related: The Panel recommends carefully monitoring and implementing and early
warning mechanism to critical activities, success factors of SGO.
R-SGO.2: – lesson learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends that administrative and project
management procedures are set-up before the start of technical work.
The Grant Agreement for Members (GAM, 2013) highlights that technical content has been adapted and it is below the initial ambitious expectations. Changes and adaptations have been
related to address technological setbacks, cancellation of technologies, introduction of new
technologies from on going technological developments, reduction of TRL scope, delays in test rig
building, Intellectual Property Rights issues and withdrawal of some partners. Decision-making needs to consider trade-offs between most promising technologies, its industrial applicability,
schedule and SGO budget. There are activities that have been deleted in the updated GAM, the
rational and consequences are not justified with sufficient detail.
R-SGO.3: – lesson learnt for CS2: The traceability and evolutions on GAM should be better
documented to establish and assess its overall compliance and performance. Traceability should
track changes and their impact. This action enhances the ability of the programme to adapt to new
challenges and opportunities.
The SGO programme has two cycles of validation and maturation of technologies and sub-
architectures were planned. The first cycle is for demonstrations of sufficiently mature
technologies. The second cycle is dedicated to demonstration of technologies investigated within CS. Demonstrations for mature technologies include large scale ground hardware tests rigs and
flight tests.
Recognised stakeholders of the domain are involved in the ITD: Airframers, system suppliers and research organisations. A total budget of approx. 300M€ is allocated to this ITD and a significant
part has been allocated to partners about 25%. In the period SGO made available 2.5m EURO to
the JU. By 2013, 78% of the budget has been consumed which is considered average in comparison
to other ITDs.
As a transversal ITD, SGO has direct and indirect interfaces with GRA, GRC, SFWA, TE as well
as SESAR. Specific reviews have been performed together with SESAR to identify potential
overlaps in the themes related to flight management. Deficiencies in receiving documentation from SESAR have been identified. Important interfaces are reported to the general board and trans-ITD
workshops on common themes are organized. The interfaces are considered as being managed in
an adequate manner.
R-SGO.4 – lesson learnt for CS2: Many interdependencies are seen among ITDs and with other national and EC activities. The Panel recommends incorporating current interface management
practices into a specific interface management function. Moreover, formal exchange of information
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 46
should be established among the CS, SESAR and other research programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020).
Implementing this recommendation would speed up research work and avoid of potential
duplication of work.
Most of the work packages have been active in the review period; some technical achievements and
challenges include:
Aircraft solutions and definitions (WP1) completed the validation and verification master plan.
A good TRL roadmap has been prepared. It is remarked that the TRL approach has been demanding and more complex than initially expected. The Panel appreciates a SGO efforts and
positive link currently established with SESAR.
In the Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE, WP2) equipment is under final preparation
and/or delivered for demonstrator testing. For example a prototype of the skin heat exchanger
is under final preparation. Design of the electrical power distribution centre has been completed and manufacturing was launched. Tests campaigns and assessments include icing
tunnel tests, TRL gate reviews, critical design reviews. Examples of these developments were
presented during the technical visit.
The Mission and Trajectory Management (MTM, WP3) progress includes advance versions of
multidisciplinary optimization framework GATAC (Green Aircraft Trajectories under ATM
constrains) and developments of Flight Management green functions. GATAC facilitates multi-
objectives optimization and minimization of conflicting objectives e.g. fuel burn vs. flight time and NOX. This software supports theoretical identification of trajectories with minimum
environmental impact. The review of documentation showed that GATAC has passed TRL 4.
However, the capabilities have been delivered late, future GATAC refinements are expected
within CS. The FMS functions passed TRL 3 and delays are reported for TRL 5 and 6.
Large-scale demonstration (WP4) consists of ground and flight demonstration activities.
Evidence of progress towards demonstration has been provided. The technical visits provided
evidence of progress related to the electrical ground tests, definition of scenarios for pilot in the
loop interactions for demonstration of the green functions.
Aircraft assessment and exploitation (WP5) started by the end of 2011. After a slow start, it is
remarked that 2012 has been used establishing a private collaborative web-site, agreement on
targeted benefits and on criteria for appropriate technology selection. A mix of criteria is
applied e.g. TRL maturity, manufacturing readiness level, avoidance of confidentiality issues, high impact in terms of certification, standardization and certification. It is remarked that
environmental benefits are not among the criteria identified in the documentation provided to
the Panel.
SGO contribution to ACARE goals
The SGO ITD contributes to the ACARE 2020 targets by improvements in energy and mission
management, new trajectories and system reduction and improved on-ground operations. ACARE
targets have been decomposed to specific SGO objectives in terms of fuel burn saving and noise improvements. These reductions are calculated per flight phase and per mission. The expected
contribution from SGO is a -5 to -9% CO2 reduction, -2 to -5dB (approach and landing) and -2 to -
3dB (take-off and climb) noise improvements (GAM 2013 only mentions large a/c). MAE targets -
2% fuel burn saving for large aircraft while MTM overall targets -3 to -6 CO2 reduction and -2 to -5 dB. SGO contributions are expressed per flight phases e.g. climb, cruise optimisations, take-off
reductions.
The CS objectives are broken down into individual objectives for each technology. The direct contribution of SGO to improve the environment can be expressed in terms of weight savings,
energy efficiency, suppression of hydraulic fluids and other. Some contributions are expressed in a
qualitative manner e.g. weight benefit. SGO developments are delivered and integrated in vehicle ITDs. Then, SGO environmental CO2 and noise benefits can only be validated at aircraft level. It is
difficult to track down the environmental benefits down to specific technology. Environmental
improvements are calculated at aircraft, mission and global level. It is difficult to associated single
technologies contribution. Good evidence is provided on contribution to environmental targets in
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 47
line with the technical progress. The documentation provides evidence that some technologies
seem to require significant effort in development and appear to contribute to a limited extent to CS
environmental targets. R-SGO.5 – lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends to include metrics such as weight saving, energy efficiency, maintenance environmental impacts (e.g. reduction of hydraulic fluids)
and expected efforts to maturation and manufacturing individually per technology to assess the
benefit for CS1 and potential candidate for CS2.
R-SGO.6: SGO benefits are expressed per flight phase. It makes difficult a comparison across
ITDs regarding the most promising technologies. Therefore, the Panel agrees with technical
reviews about alignment of SGO environmental benefits metrics to other ITDs.
A clear dashboard presenting Technology Readiness Level (TRL) advances and roadmap was presented for specific technologies. This dashboard is used to monitor the technology maturity.
Good evidence is provided of maturation of technologies e.g. ice protection systems and
environmental control systems from TRL3 to TRL4. Example of validation exercises were presented e.g. icing tunnel test. Flight management functions developed in MTM present progress
towards TRL4.
The developments and progress presented have a strong focus on technological developments and
less attention is given to the interaction with other key stakeholders outside SGO and certification,
which is essential to achieve the desired environmental improvements. More involvement of end-
users, consequences of technology acquisition, operation, maintenance and costs is needed.
R-SGO.7 – CS1 and CS2 related: The Panel recommends a thorough preparation for the
transition to the new developments proposed by Clean Sky. The compatibility of CS with end users
expectations needs to be addressed.
SGO technical visit – progress evidence
The technical visit provided evidence of hardware and software developments and progress
towards demonstration related to the Airbus PROVEN, Liebherr GETI test benches and Thales
AIRLAB simulator. PROVEN test bench will be used to test power distribution and electrical load management. The GETI test platform can be adapted to represent and simulate different aircraft
and to analyse performance in terms of electrical and thermal loads. The AIRLAB simulator is used
to test flight management functions for different flight phases. Other test benches are planned within SGO e.g. AVANT test facility.
R-SGO.8: Demonstration activities for some equipment are foreseen in a single test platform. Back-up plans in case of delays in the test platform need to be addressed.
Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE) presentation reflects utilization of results from previous
EC projects such as More Open Electrical Technology (MOET, FP6) and Power Optimized Aircraft (POA, FP5). The ITD further mature and develops additional technology and
improvements e.g. the overall system weights from MOET have been reduced. Evidence is
provided about the validation and evaluation activities. These activities will be performed through ground physical or virtual testing rigs or flight-testing. The demonstration starts when the
technology reaches certain maturity.
The MAE technologies include electrical equipment, thermal management equipment and load
management functions. The MTM includes green flight management system, robustness to weather
and electrical taxiing.
SGO targets a high number of technologies and associated tools (about 35 to 40 technologies) and
several demonstration campaigns. Critical paths for each demonstration are periodically reviewed
and potential risks are identified and managed in an appropriate manner. The planned electrical Flight Test Demonstrator (eFTD) was presented as shown in figure 5.4.1.below. This eFTD will
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 48
enable test of wing ice protection electro-thermal or electromechanical with their associated ice
detection system driven by electrical compressors.
Figure 5.4.1. Example of electrical Flight Demonstrator
The visit to PROVEN test bench provides concrete evidence of developments towards the ground
demonstration. PROVEN as illustrated on Figure 5.4.2. below is an open full scale electrical test
bench. PROVEN will be used to test e.g. electrical networks with high voltage and power convertors.
The technical visit to the test rig PROVEN provided evidence of how the electrical equipment will be tested in different electrical configuration. This test bench is dedicated to research projects, but
it is possible to adapt its level of representativeness. The control room will be used to monitor
status, power centre distribution site, the electrical drive to simulate a generator, programmable
loads to simulate the aircraft configuration in various flight phases, integrate some equipment representative from ECS. It is possible to see how the tests are foreseen. There are possibilities to
record test and to analyse problems. Ground tests for electrical technologies such as starter
generator and electrical power distribution.
15
WP4 – Ground Demonstration: Test Rig PROVEN
PROVEN is an open and modular full scale Electrical test bench, which allows to
integrate various electrical equipment's in various network configurations.
Electrical networks with high voltage DC bus bars, generation channels and
power converters will be tested at Airbus Toulouse.
Actuators
Mobile Loads
Control room
Electrical drives Programmable loads
Power centres
Actual loads
Figure 5.4.2. PROVEN large electrical test bench
The AirLab is a technical operational laboratory. This simulation environment within Thales to validate Flight Management Functions (FMS) green functions was presented to the Panel. A
demonstration of specific green functions at different flight phases was provided. The functional
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 49
concept for optimization of the Noise Abatement Departure Procedure (NADP) with Multi-Criteria
Departure Procedure for take-off was explained. The Panel was informed that this functionality has
been implemented in the flight management and could see how the “ED” functionality works in the mock-up in the AirLab for specific flight phases, e.g. initial climb.
The Adaptive Increased Glideslope is another FMS functionality presented to the Panel. This
functionality is seen as complementary to the Continuous Descent Approach (CDA). CDA is addressed by SESAR; during the technical visit the Panel was informed that technical review with
SESAR has been performed to ensure alignment between CS and SESAR developments. The
airlines will be able to select a function optimised in terms of reduction of noise and fuel burn. An
example of acoustic assessments for approach at Charles de Gaulle airport was presented to the Panel. The Panel was informed that Airbus pilots have been involved in the TRL3 assessment in
the AirLab experimentations. All flight management functions have passed TRL3. The
development and validation of FMS function required external realistic inputs such as weather information. A weather data repository and weather simulation engine provided by the SIMET CfP
is currently linked to the FMS. SIMET includes worldwide weather data for the 2007-2009 period
(analysis and forecast), graphical interface and simulation capabilities (see Figure 5.4.3.).
Fuel
Noise
NOx
Contrails
CO2
Cruise T/O Climb Descent Approach
Green
departure
Green
cruise
A-IGS
Preamble Scope
Cockpit Implementation
Cockpit Implementation
AI GS Control
Panel
Concept defined by Airbus and implemented in Airlab
Airlab experimentations o HMI tested on fixed base simulator (Airlab)
o Standard A321 autopilot used
o Simulated MMR
o Airbus flight test crew in nominal operation
Acceptance of the A-IGS concept
First benefits evaluation
Figure 5.4.3. Advanced Increased Glideslope (A-IGS) and FMS green function
The visit to Liebherr Aerospace enabled the members of the Panel to discuss and see MAE developments related to the Electrical Environmental Control Systems (E-ECS), the Wing Ice
Protection Systems (WIPS), Cooling technologies and Thermal management and GETI (Gestion
dynamique de la puissance Electrique et de la gestion Thermique) test platform. Examples of Liebherr technological involvement were discussed with the Panel, e.g. Vapour Cycle System, the
electro thermal wing ice protection system and the E-ECS. The Panel appreciated E-ECS good
overview and technological roadmap. Its scope is from model definition, components developments, ground and flight-test for large, regional and bizjet aircraft. For the bizjet no flight
test is planned. TRL3 has been achieved for the overall modelling. The major key technologies
were validated. Specific adaptations have been developed for regional aircraft e.g. constraints in
terms of space and flight envelope are taken into account. Special architecture has been developed for regional a/c e.g. an optimized ECS architecture. Since
2012 development of different components and key technologies common between regional a/c and
large aircraft has started. An ice wing protection system was presented to the Panel. The presentation included pictures of actual hardware a leading edge. Ground tests included a full
demonstration in icing wing tunnel at NASA facilities. Thermal management validates components
as well as system architecture. A first vapour cycle system prototype has been developed. Ground demonstration for key components such as the high cooling vapour systems and validation of
thermal management architecture are foreseen at the GETI test platform. The visit to the GETI
facility allowed the Panel to see real hardware pieces and preparations for demonstrations.
Assessment test were conducted while the Panel was visiting the facility.
SGO concluding statements:
The transversal ITD SGO develops technologies addressing More Electrical Aircraft and
Management of Trajectory and Mission. The Panel observed concrete examples of technologies,
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 50
architectures and software tools as well as preparations towards demonstration activities. In
general, flight and ground demonstrations are foreseen for MAE technologies while ground
demonstrations are foreseen for MTM technologies. The documentation, presentations and
demonstrations during the technical visits provided good evidence of the SGO contribution to the
ACARE goals in terms of weight, fuel savings and noise reduction.
The Panel appreciates that the SGO technologies take into account results from previous FP
projects and develop them further. SGO mature technologies have been adapted to regional and
large aircraft ITDs. Many technologies are expected to achieve TRL 5 or TRL 6 e.g. the green
take-off function and Electrical Environmental Control System. Still, the Panel notes that not all
technologies will achieve TRL 6 e.g. advance weather algorithms.
The assessment of TRL has been more challenging than expected. Currently, TRL monitoring
and risk management tools have been implemented in a satisfactory manner. Lessons learnt
from this assessment process can be transferred to other domains.
SGO has a lot of interfaces internally within CS and externally e.g. with SESAR. Deficiencies in
receiving documentation from SESAR have been identified. Specific reviews between SESAR
and CS are carried out and members seem satisfied with the level of interaction achieved. Close
involvement of EASA is still an open issue. More coordination with TE and SESAR is advised
regarding models e.g. noise models and noise assessments to ensure complementarity and
synergies.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 51
5.5 Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE)
The SAGE Objectives
The purpose of the Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE) ITD is to assess, design, build and test up to five full-scale engine demonstrators for various types of aircraft.
The proposed engine ITD contains 5 testing vehicles, distinguished by application (helicopter,
regional, narrow-body and wide-body) and by engine architecture (2-shaft, 3-shaft, open-rotor). These demonstration vehicles are using the competencies and facilities of all the European aero-
engine manufacturers complemented with those of related research establishments, academia and
SMEs.
The proposed demonstrations will prepare new solutions for the complete range of the market, with
engines for the narrow body fleet, high thrust engines for wide body aircraft, regional aircraft
engines and helicopter engines. For fixed-wing aircraft, a particular focus will be put on the novel
engine architectures (open-rotor and geared-fan engine).
The primary focus of engine demonstration is ground test to deliver proven architectures for
advanced engines and mature “ready to use” technologies.
The SAGE Structure and Research Programme
The SAGE ITD is divided into 6 main sub-projects:
SAGE1, Geared Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Demonstrator,
SAGE2, Geared Contra-Rotating Open Rotor Demonstrator,
SAGE3, Large 3-Shaft Light-Weight Turbofan Demonstrator,
SAGE4, Geared Turbofan Demonstrator,
SAGE5, Turboshaft Demonstrator
SAGE6, Lean Burn Combustion
SAGE Contribution to ACARE Goals
The successful validation of these technologies will then facilitate the early introduction of innovative new products to significantly reduce the environmental impact of air transport.
The impact on the achievement of the ACARE targets, relative to the ACARE baseline, in the
context of ongoing major research programmes is shown in the Table below.
Engine Sector Environmental Targets and Achievements
CO2 NOx Noise (EPNdB)
Cumulative
2000 Baseline Baseline Baseline Clean Sky -14 % to –20 %
TRL 6 -60 % to –80 %
TRL 6 -16 to –20
TRL 6 ACARE -20 % -80 % -20
* NOx baseline is roughly consistent with 80% of CAEP2
** Noise baseline is roughly ICAO Stage3 – 10 EPNdB
Assessment on the Status of the SAGE ITD
The present assessment is based on a number of documents received from the European
Commission and a number of meetings, among which technical visits or review meetings.
SAGE 1 (Geared Pusher Open Rotor – Rolls-Royce, UK)
A strategic change was made by RR to reduce activities in SAGE1 to the benefit of new activities
on Lean Burn Combustion for which SAGE 6 was created. RR confirmed that there would be no demonstrator for SAGE1 within Clean Sky. Activities are now concentrated on technology areas
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 52
relevant to the design of CROR systems, such as aero-acoustics, some mechanical design and
manufacture of key components, and participation in EASA/industry studies of safety issues and
airworthiness requirements. The OR Demonstrator Engine preliminary concept design is available. A first analysis of extensive
rig test data suggests that ACARE Noise goals can be met, which the Panel considers as an
achievement that has to be underlined. Performance levels are close to predictions and shared with SFWA-AI for A/C level assessment. Aero-acoustic design methods and tools have to be further
developed and ORA design and manufacturing technology acquisition has to go on.
SAGE 2 (Geared Pusher Open Rotor – Safran/Snecma)
A strategic change was also made by Snecma to abandon the initial direct drive architecture to the
profit of the geared engine architecture. The engine demonstrator concept phase was completed mid-2012. The selection of the geared configuration and of the gas generator from the M88 engine
is set. However, the choice of the donor engine results in a number of additional technical
challenges, in particular, the design of the power turbine due to the strong temperature gradient
caused by the dual flow of the core engine.
R-SAGE.1 – lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel questions the appropriateness of designing a new
CROR engine demonstrator, based on the non-optimal choice of an existing gas generator. It is understood that this is a cost and time limiting solution. There are doubts whether the final
demonstrator is going to be fully representative of a future CROR engine. Therefore the Panel
recommends strengthening the validity of the design in view of more representative demonstrators.
The Engine Demonstrator preliminary design phase is on-going (Demonstrator modules
architecture selection and Engine demonstrator performance). However, some of the so-called
design-to-demo assumptions remain unclear. Engine technologies risks abatement plan is on-going (Propeller blades: Wind tunnel tests / Full scale composite blade manufacturing for tests, PCM:
Mechanical analysis & Component tests).
Despite the very challenging design of the Power Gear Box (PGB), no component tests are
scheduled, which remains a major risk of failure of the demonstrator. There are several other areas
of the engine where there are significant technical challenges and risks – for example, the pitch
change mechanism, the control system, the dynamic behaviour of the rotating parts, etc.
The problems which may be encountered are likely to cause delays, which could impact
significantly on the time finally available for the engine tests. Overall, the difficulty of holding the project to the current plan is considerable and the time frame to demonstrator is extremely tight, if
not unrealistic.
R-SAGE.2: It is highly recommended to explore the possibilities of testing the gearbox (with
AVIO) in order to reduce the associated risk.
SAGE 3 (Advanced Large 3-shaft Turbofan - Rolls-Royce, UK)
The activities carried out in the frame of SAGE 3 are considered to be well on track with a first
engine test (of a series of 3) already completed in January 2013.
Advanced Dressings (Fig. 5.5.1) demonstrations are completed with nearly 100 hours of engine running time. Composite Fan test preparations are ongoing, a complete set of composite fan blades
(Fig. 5.5.2) and annulus fillers have been delivered and were shown to the Panel during the visit of
June 18.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 53
Figure 5.5.1. Advanced light weight dressings on fan case (RR-UK).
Figure 5.5.2. First large size composite fan blade (RR-UK). Intercase rig testing is completed with successful series of tests investigating structural stiffness
and strength, culminating in ultimate load test.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 54
The LP turbine module design passed the PDR and the whole engine design assessments is
continuing. Ground demonstration is foreseen in 2013 and flight demonstration in 2014.
Early CfPs are starting to close, delivering components such as variable fuel pump, high temperature electronics, etc, but are not going to be tested on the demonstrator engine.
SAGE 4 (Advanced Geared Turbofan - MTU)
The first GTF engine has been certified and the donor engine is available as technology platform
for Clean Sky testing. The SAGE4 ground demonstration test programme is scheduled for the first
quarter of 2015.
The detailed design is executed according to plan; the fourth design review has been passed in June 2013 (middle of detail design phase).
Manufacturing trials for special processes and component rig tests have been started (e.g. tests of
abrasive behaviour of blade – stator sealings). The demonstrator test concept is currently established with the programme partners; the test
concept review has been held in April 2013.
Although it is presented as the flagship of SAGE 4, the Power Gear Box remains the main concern.
A CfP has been launched to manufacture a test rig and the winner is a consortium led by the
University of Pisa. Besides the time schedule to manufacture the rig and test the gear box, which is
very tight, a new issue appeared at the beginning of this year: AVIO has been bought by GE, a major competitor to Pratt & Whitney, manufacturer of the donor engine. There is, therefore, a risk
of jeopardizing the tests. However, as the decision has been taken not to test this new AVIO
gearbox in the demo engine, the planned engine demonstrator running would presumably be unaffected but this issue needs clarification.
R-SAGE.3: The conditions of access to the future Gearbox test rig by third parties needs to be
clarified.
R-SAGE.4: The planning and technology features of the SAGE 4 demonstrator need to be clarified
and confirmed.
R-SAGE.5 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The possible influence on programmes of changes in the
structure of industry should be kept under review by CleanSky officials, with the aim of identifying opportunities to prevent or to minimise adverse effects.
Some activities on advanced rub system, electromechanical machining of blisks, SLM VGV
mechanism were stopped and new activities like non-contact blade vibration monitoring were introduced. Work on TiAL for the LPT seems to show overlap with Level 2 projects like E-Break
or ENOVAL.
R-SAGE.6 –Lessons learnt for CS2: In general, the boundaries between activities carried out
within FP7 Level 2 programmes and CleanSky are not clearly defined or explained. The Panel
recognises that CleanSky is intended to bring those Level 2 technologies to a higher TRL level but the issues of duplicate work and duplicate funding should be monitored.
SAGE 5 (Advanced Turboshaft – Safran/Turbomeca)
This sub-project seems to be the most advanced one with the first turboshaft engine demonstrator running and tests being completed at the end of April 2013. The official celebration of the first
rotation of the TECH800 turboshaft demonstrator took place on the 26th
of April 2013 in Pau
(France), in the presence of Siim Kallas, Commissioner for Transport and Vice-President of the European Commission, Eric Dautriat, Executive Director of Clean Sky, Jean-Paul Herteman,
Chairman and CEO of Safran and Olivier Andries, Chairman and CEO of Turbomeca (Fig. 5.5.3.).
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 55
Partial rig test activities have been carried out:
• Dynamic rotor test has been completed in January 2013.
• HP turbine test for build2 has been performed end 2012 (earlier than expected). Demonstrator Parts Design activities for build 2 are completed.
Demonstrator Parts Manufacturing Activities are on-going:
• Raw part for build 2 has been ordered Engine assembly for build 1 is completed.
First rotation for build 1 has started in February 2013.
Figure 5.5.3. The TECH800 turboshaft demonstrator at Safran/Turbomeca.
This very well managed project encountered its initial major technical difficulty with those first
engine tests. Although all the rig tests on the separate components have been successfully
completed, severe vibrations were encountered during the initial running of engine Build 1, started
early this year. A committee of experts has been set up to investigate the situation and to identify a solution.
There are no problems on the other components: the Build 1 combustion chamber will withstand
the temperature of Build 2 engine tests and it has been decided to cancel the second combustion chamber manufacture.
The collaboration with GRC 7 was presented; twelve (!) engine models will be delivered: three references (year 2000, year 2020, with and without CS) for four types of helicopters.
Another issue raised during the SAGE 5 review is the future of unsuccessful - and only partially
successful - CfPs. All CfPs within Sage 5 but one (the inlet guide vane electrical actuator which
will be too late for the tests) were not necessary for the demo; most of them concerned “nice to have” types of technology. Several are completed by now and there is no follow on expected. This
raises two questions: the future of these CfPs and the way to improve the choice of sub-contractors,
as already mentioned (see Recommendations R-6.2.2, R-4.5 and R-4.6).
SAGE 6 (Lean Burn Combustion – Rolls-Royce, UK)
SAGE 6 addresses lean burn combustion for large engines allowing a drastic reduction of NOX
emissions, an objective clearly in line with the general environmental objectives of Clean Sky. The requirement for the Lean Burn ALECSYS demonstrator engine has been issued for stakeholder
review, the related definition document is worked with feedback from sub-systems. Full Annular
Rig testing with latest set of injectors was successful. A formal Stage 1 Exit review with the Rolls-
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 56
Royce audit team was carried out in May 2013, further reviews are on track to hold first engine
pass to test end of 2014.
An important development in the structure of SAGE 6 is the addition of WP 6.9 covering the testing of the lean burn system on the Rolls-Royce EFE (Environmentally Friendly Engine) core
vehicle. This can provide the increased temperature and pressure at combustion chamber entry
which will exist in future large engines and allow measurement of emissions at these conditions. Satisfactory results from these EFE tests will then be followed by the whole engine demonstration
on the ALECSYS (modified Trent 1000 donor engine). Unfortunately, however, turbine damage
due to an unresolved incident on EFE is currently causing delay, and the corresponding risk is not
yet clear. Another issue in lean burn development is the possibility of adding flight testing to SAGE 6, at an
additional cost of 17 M€ (plus 7 M€ already given). Flight work is not currently included in the
SAGE 6 programme, though if all goes well in ground testing it might be possible to accommodate it within the timeframe of Clean Sky 1.
No formal proposal for such flight work, and its extra funding, has yet been made and it appears to
the Panel that the time between the end of ALECSYS ground test and the suggested FTB dates seems too short to allow any change on the combustor (as an example a delay of six month is
necessary to re-manufacture the injectors).
R-SAGE.7: Any proposal for a lean burn flight test within Clean Sky time scale has to be clarified in terms of schedule and financing.
SAGE concluding statements:
The purpose of the Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE) ITD is to assess, design, build and
test up to five full-scale engine demonstrators distinguished by application (helicopter, regional,
narrow-body and wide-body aircrafts) and by engine architecture (2-shaft, 3-shaft, open-rotor).
These demonstration vehicles are using the competencies and facilities of all the European aero-
engine manufacturers complemented with those of related Research establishments, academia
and SMEs.
The main novelties in the SAGE ITD are the start of engine demonstrator tests (SAGE 3 – Large
Turbofan and SAGE 5 – Advanced Turboshaft) and the availability of new hardware including
the composite fan blades (RR) for the large turbofan, composite blades (Snecma) for CROR and
the intermediate casing (GKN) for the turbofan. Another important achievement is the noise
issue of CROR engines, which could be significantly mitigated by appropriate design of blades.
Confidence is now expressed by both SAGE 1 and SAGE 2 leaders that CROR powerplants can
achieve the reductions in external noise levels (in EPNdB) desired in future civil aircrafts. The
Panel regards all these achievements as encouraging outcomes of the CleanSky work so far.
However, delays in the work plan are still threatening the programmes although mitigation
plans are being adopted. Changes in the industry structure in Europe may also threaten the
programmes and the consequence of the acquisition of Clean Sky Partners by non-European
competing firms should be considered. The high number of CfPs is promoting involvement of a
large number of SMEs at European level and widening participation of companies from other
industrial sectors. However, the low success rate of those CfPs in some areas remains a concern.
Finally, further consideration should be given to the detailed process of estimating the benefits
of the CleanSky programme in relation to contributions from other relevant programmes, and to
how the benefits can most clearly and accurately be conveyed to authorities outside the specialist
scientific/technical community.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 57
5.6 EcoDesign (ED-ITD)
The ED objectives:
ED focuses on the reduction of the environmental impact during the on-ground phases of the aircraft life cycle: design and production, maintenance and withdrawal. It aims to develop
technologies for these three phases to allow a drastic reduction of waste. The objective is to reduce
the environmental impact while maintaining the European Industry competitiveness. ED addresses aircraft and Helicopters, but does not address reduction of fuel consumption. The concept of the
ITD is well illustrated by Figure 5.6.1. below. The final eco-statement is an extrapolation of green
technologies to real industrial conditions to evaluate its environmental impact and benchmark against current technologies.
A/C Reference parts
Bill of Materials & Processes
A/C Material &
Process cakes
LCA on Reference
parts
Technologies Eco-Statement(current & innovative)
Combination for A/C
extrapolation
A/C Level Eco-Statement
(current & innovative)
Composite
10%
Miscellaneous:
Copper, bronze,
synthetic
5%
Titanium
3%
Steel
1%
Aluminium
81%
Material & Process Technologies
Figure 5.6.1. ED concept and main results
The ED Structure and Research Programme:
The ITD is composed of two streams of research managed in parallel: Design for Aircraft
Application (EDA) and Eco-Design for small aircraft Systems (EDS).
The EDA stream focuses on all relevant phases: design, manufacturing, maintenance and aircraft
disposal. This stream is developing tools and investigating technologies to assess their potential
contribution to the objectives (refer to figure 5.6.2 left side). The Life Cycle Assessment relies on software tools such as GaBi LCA database extension that support design for environment and
Atalys. The design model is based on a survey of green design in different industrial branches
(shipbuilding, railway and car industries (EDA T33-02-03). The most promising technologies are
evaluated and further developed to reach maturity. Figure 5.6.2 (right side) illustrates the process managed by the EDA stream of the ITD.
DatabasesCommercial (GaBi,
Ecoinvent, etc.)Aerospace
(CS EDA developed)
ToolsExpert
GaBi ATALYS
InterfaceNon-expert Non-expert
SoA where more than 150 tasks were
highlighted, that corresponds to 235 “single
technologies”State of the art
Clustering and
downsizing
Trade-off based
on a scoring129 Technologies
Scoping Technology Development
T0+27
T0+60
T0+6
Downsizing in which EDA consortium members
were encouraged to identify their company's
favourites
Clustering where WP 2.1 and 2.2 technologies
were grouped to stress EDA key topics and to
focus the ground demonstration on these key
areas
Figure 5.6.2. Databases for Life Cycle Assessment (left side) and process for selection of the
most promising technologies
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 58
The EDS stream focuses on enabling the removal of all hydraulic driven equipment on board small
aircraft and helicopters by replacing them by electrical systems. The small aircraft domain has been selected because it is easier to address by developing high TRL technologies from the state of the
art at CS launch. This stream is addressing technologies with a dual focus on functionality and
thermal contribution. Test beds have been designed for both purposes: thermal simulation and functional integration.
Expected deliverables:
EDA is working on ten structure partial demonstrators, two cabin interior partial demonstrators and six equipment demonstrators.
EDS is focusing on a small aircraft common electrical platform with an electrical ground test
facility and a thermal test bench facility. This is performed in cooperation with GRC and GRA by
sharing the COPPER Bird test rig.
ED contribution to ACARE’s goals:
The ITD contribution is related to the reduction of the environmental impact during the on-ground
phases of the aircraft life cycle The EDA stream targets are -20% reduction of process emission,
full compliance with REACHregulations and -15% reduction in energy consumption. Concerning the EDS stream, the contribution is taken into account at the vehicle ITD level. Environmental
contributions include weight benefits and energy management target is a reduction of fuel
consumption by 2% and removal of hydraulic noxious fluids. .
ED is designing tools and enabling technologies to mature from low TRL to high TRL. There is no
explicit evidence of the ITD contribution to the objectives of CS, however the EDS contribution is
used as an input into the “Aircraft ITDs” and then fed into the TE, thereby providing proof of the ITD contribution. The EDA contribution is still difficult to assess and work should be done to
clarify and make more transparent the contribution of the ITD. The process used by the ITD is
shown in figure 5.6.3. Whilst most of the input to TE comes from the vehicle ITDs, the EDA results are fed directly into the TE.
Figure 5.6.3. EDA feeding process of TE.
The ITD status:
This ITD proceeds well in a structured and organized manner. The level of activity, the remaining amount of funding and the current schedule are consistent and will allow a complete execution of
the programme within the allocated period of time.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 59
This ITD was not selected for a dedicated analysis. All the information was provided in written
form and during a briefing on April the 10th.
The ITD organisation:
The ITD is lead by DASSAULT AVIATION and the FRAUNHOFER Institute. Eight leaders are managing key packages. Most of the relevant key stakeholders in the industry are involved. A high
number of partners (in total 110) are involved and provide the content of individual work packages
related to Calls for Proposals issued by the JU.
Key findings and remarks:
The Panel got the impression that:
The amount of funding dedicated to the ITD is quite modest in comparison to most of the other
ITDs (57.13M€). The ambition and scope of the ITD is quite large and diverse (EDA and
EDS).
The domain of research of EDA has not been investigated in depth during the past decade in
the different FPs. There is little material in terms of existing practices in Aerospace.
111 technologies are investigated within EDA. The review of each technology was not possible
in the allocated timeframe, however a sample was required from the ITD leaders and selected
by them: “Replacement of Chemical Machining by Mechanical Machining”. Surprisingly,
these technologies have been used for decades and are well understood. The trade-off results which were provided raise a question mark about the contribution of this specific study to real
research.
R-ED.1: The Panel recommends reviewing the relevance of the high number of technologies reviewed by the ITD EDA stream. The size of the ITD stream is too small to encompass so many
technologies and bring them successfully to TRL 6.
R-ED.2: It is recommended to check that EDA is taking into account lessons learnt by other
domains such as automotive and by the emerging deconstruction eco-system.
EDS is working on relevant topics providing potential contribution to the ITD’s objectives.
However, it is not clear how the EDS results are taken into account into the TE and how it can be used to provide data to assess trade-offs and make choices. A number of important integration tests
are conducted on the different test beds; it is important to make sure that the coordination with
SGO and GRA is excellent at operational level.
R-ED.3: Taking into account the content of EDS, it is recommended to ensure consistency and
check gaps or overlaps with SGO and GRA/ GRC ITDs related to electricity. There are synergies
and potential cross fertilization opportunities.
ED concluding statements:
The ED ITD is focused on a very critical domain for Aerospace. Until now this domain has been
insufficiently taken into consideration by research studies in the different Framework
Programmes, namely to improve the environmental impact of Aircraft design, manufacturing,
maintenance and withdrawal.
The ITD is well managed and its contribution is notable. However, the JU should better define
the concept of the ITD and indentify the potential contribution from other State of the Art
domains to Aerospace (e.g. railways, automotive, etc.) in order to build a consistent and coherent
approach for the domain. Clean Sky 2 offers an opportunity to launch a top-down design phase
to address the domain by taking into account inputs from other areas.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 60
5.7 Technology Evaluator (TE)
The TE Objectives
The TE objectives are clearly described in the document CLEAN SKY Aeronautics & Air transport
JT1 Proposal – March 2007. As a summary:
The Technology Evaluator will provide a core activity of the project integrating the technical
content across the JTI. The TE will be realised through a simulation suite that can evaluate the
merit of R&T activities in the ITDs in relation to the ACARE targets (see Fig 5.7.1.).
Figure 5.7.1. Technology Evaluator Input /Output scheme
The translation of the impact of innovative airframe, engines, systems and eco-design
technologies into overall ATS performance, with respect to the environmental challenges, is
the general objective of the Technical Evaluator of Clean Sky. TE also will provide feedback to
the ITDs at different levels: aircraft design, aircraft operations and global ATS (see Fig 5.7.2..
Figure 5.7.2. Technology Evaluator feedback to ITDs
TE development and assessments will be a continuous effort during nearly all Clean Sky
duration, with delivery of several upgraded versions. A new significant version should be
delivered on a yearly basis, following new achievements in technology ITDs, for which constant support will be delivered.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 61
Thus, TE has the important role to assess and to ensure visibility on the environmental impacts of
new technologies developed in CS ITDs towards ACARE environmental goals in terms of aircraft
emissions and noise. In addition, TE can perform trade-offs studies addressing interdependenc of impacts or other issues as requested by ITDs.
The TE management activities are subdivided into administrative and technical, carried out by two
organisations. The division of work between ITDs and TE seems clear. The ITDs are responsible for developing technologies up to a sufficient TRL and integrating these technologies into ITD
aircraft concepts.
The overall budget of 31M€ is shared between the 12 ITD leaders and 5 TE associates (17 TE
Members). It is identified that universities and research institutions have around 70% of the budget while industrial partners each have very low participation. By the end of 2009 under spending was
identified. By the end of 2010 under spending was again about 15%, with a discrepancy of about
15% between work not executed versus planned.
R-TE.1 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel considers that budget allocation and involvement of
ITD leaders should be reinforced. This would help ensuring ownership on the results of TE
assessment and implementation of corresponding improvement measures.
The efforts to produce the aircraft models were greater than anticipated. In 2011 a delay of six
months was due to late delivery of conceptual aircraft models from the ITDs. In particular Counter
Rotating Open Rotor (CROR) model was incomplete (simplified data base for emissions – no noise
data). The 2011 spending versus planned showed under spending around 10% of the planning budget, this fact was due to lack of participation of key partners. The first assessment results were
issued by the beginning of 2012. At mission level activities, the plan was to include twelve
conceptual aircraft types. However, only four types had been assessed completely (noise and emissions). At airport level, it was remarked that because the noise of CROR powered aircraft
could not been taken into account, the figures could not been representative.
Life Cycle Assessment (LCA) reference aircraft is of great importance in understanding the impact
of new technologies. However, the work mainly refers to materials, energy, so it is unclear which ITD was responsible for generation of aircraft models for the LCA.
R-TE.2: The Panel has not identified clear quantifiable targets for Life Cycle Assessment (LCA).
The Panel recommends that methods and metrics to assess LCA benefits are addressed by CS present or future research.
The information required from aircraft ITDs is defined in TE requirements and architecture WP1.
The metrics and outputs to indicate CS benefits in relation to ACARE goals have been determined. TE assumes an extrapolation from Y2000 to Y2020 with normal traffic forecast. The analysis of
benefits is performed by a gap analysis between two cases, a case with and a case without CS
technologies. However, the actual integration of CS technologies in future aircraft depends on
aircraft manufacturers decisions, airlines and certification aspects.
R-TE.3 - CS1 and CS2: The Panel believes that more formal involvement of certification
authorities and decision makers is needed. Their direct feedback in the TE evaluation is needed to
take into account the necessary steps to move forward the Clean Sky developments into actual implementation in future aircraft systems.
Initially TE was supposed to be an independent tool that was receiving the initial data for the ITDs
and building an overall assessment. Currently, the updated aircraft concepts are delivered as “black boxes” only inputs to TE are specified. Due to confidentiality issues and disclosure of property data
among organisations not all data within each “black box” is provided as visible. The Panel
considers that the evolution is negative, in the sense is that a lot of components are provided as
“black boxes”; from the ITDs, the degree of independence is quite limited and does not allow room for manoeuvre. TE is not a position to define the boundary conditions. This has an impact on the
ability to verify the validity and the accuracy of the models.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 62
R-TE.4 – CS1 and CS2 related: The resolution, granularity and assumptions included in the
aircraft models have a potential impact on verification of their representativeness and accuracy. It
is important that aircraft models are as transparent as possible referring to known standards of providing sufficient information.
Particular attention should be provided for the dissemination of results. This dissemination should
communicate tangible results without creating unrealistic expectations on CS deliveries.
The results of TE
Annual reports about the activities of TE have been delivered for 2008, 2009, 2010 and 2011.
However, only the Annual Report 2012, delivered in early 2013, provides a large enough set of
figures showing environmental impacts of concept aircraft models involving new technologies developed by the ITDs. These results were presented to the Panel during two meetings (10/4/2013
in Brussels and 24/5/2013 in Toulouse). We have been really impressed by these presentations,
because we saw, for the first time, a real proof has been given of the beneficial effects of the newly developed Clean Sky technologies for the future of the aviation industry and the public (see Fig
5.7.3., source: CEAS conference 2013).
Figure 5.7.3. TE Assessment Results 2012 – Showing Strong Progress to the Programme
Goals
The ultimate objective of Clean Sky (eventually including CS2 activities) is for TE to prove CS
contributions to the achievement of the ACARE goals: abatement of CO2 (-50%) of NOX (-80%), of Noise (-50%) and Green design (‘ecolonomic’ life cycle of the aircraft). The technical
discussions on the results reported to the Panel in 2013, indicate that developing further the present
ITD technologies and, may be, introducing additional new technologies, Clean Sky together with other initiatives (e.g. SESAR and other research programmes) can contribute to achieve the
ACARE goals.
The results have been obtained by implementing Conceptual Aircraft Models, making use of the
models provided by the vehicle ITDs. The vehicle ITDs conceptual aircraft models (SFWA, GRC and GRA) includes the effects from the transversal ITDs (SAGE and SGO). Three aircraft models
are used: a Y2000 reference aircraft, a concept aircraft Y2020 without CS improvements and a
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 63
Y2020 ITD conceptual aircraft with CS technologies. The vehicle ITDs deliver to the TE every
year updated a/c models. The updated a/c models include the most promising technologies
including different key information such as TRL and environmental potential. The TE assessment consists in flying the conceptual ITD aircraft in a sound technical manner in various scenarios at
mission level (one aircraft), at local fleet level (airport) and at ATS level (global fleet).
R-TE.5 – CS1 and CS2 related: It seems that TE consists of three computing platforms (aircraft, airport and global). The Panel considers that work is needed in the creation of an integrated TE
framework and how this framework can be developed and used beyond CS. This recommendation
will help to evaluate technologies associated to environmental improvements in a harmonised and
systematic manner.
The Panel members were informed that the TE results could be used by the ITDs to support the
decision which technologies must be pushed to a higher TRL. However, the Panel does not identify
indications of significant use of the feedback to the ITDs, as suggested in Fig 5.7.2. and in responses provided (ref. first list of possible questions to the ITD TE n2_FM). The Panel is of the
opinion that a clarification is necessary about the meaning of the TE feedback to ITDs shown in the
Clean Sky 2007 Proposal (page 159).
Concrete examples of 2012 assessment results were provided during the technical visit. The work
is performed by three complementary computational platforms. The overall TE results (aircraft
level) for 2012 are shown in Fig 5.7.3.. Three categories of aircraft are considered: Business JET (2
types), Regional (2 types), Large Commercial (3 types). The resulting environmental impact (CO2, NOx, Noise) is compared with the objectives set in the Clean Sky Development Plan. In most cases
the TE evaluation results, are short of the CSDP objectives, but just. In few cases (NOx for
Regional GRA 90 and GRA 130, and both CO2 and NOx for Long Range Turbofan) the TE evaluated performance are better. Information to understand the real reasons of these discrepancies,
although minor in most cases, has not been provided in the documentation made available to the
Panel members.
The noise mainly comes from the engine. The improvement of noise level, is measured in decibels or in reduction of the Noise surface area, which shows improvements between 30% and 45% in different flying conditions. The table of figure 5.7.3 qualifies noise reduction as reduction of the
surface area only. There should be also a dB reduction, which is not included because the data were
not provided for all the concerned ITDs. The Panel has been assured that from the next TE assessment on, all dB values will be also available, enabling comparison with ACARE targets and
CSDP objectives.
The Global TE planning suggests that model development and validation, as prepared inside the TE
(airports, scenarios, metrics…), will extend until the end of 2014, while the assessment of impacts
and trade-off studies will extend through 2016, when TE will deliver its final assessment based on latest aircraft models delivered by ITDs. The Panel appreciates that TE work includes the use of a
TE information system to keep traceability of the aircraft models, new technologies included, TRL
status applied in these models and results from TE assessments. There is concern regarding future updates of TE information system when no deliveries are foreseen after 2014 (the planning in the
documentation provided to the Panel seems to be wrong). The initial models have been run and the
plan is to update them each year.
R-TE.6: The duration of the TE information system needs to be aligned to the duration of TE
assessments. This is to record latest assessment results and their impact.
The aircraft model in 2012 included natural laminar airflow, CROR engine and specific SGO technologies. The different aircraft manufacturers hold details on aircraft models. It has been
noticed that TRL varies from TRL1 until TRL4.
R-TE.7: Low TRL technologies are included in aircraft models. However, the purpose of the TE is to assess the impact of mature and most promising technologies.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 64
At mission level, results from SFWA were presented and take-off profile follows ICAO procedure.
Considering only take-off results a reduction of 37% avg noise area was identified. At airport level,
Amsterdam airport was presented as demonstration case for emission and noise levels. At ATS level short range aircraft have the biggest effect on fuel burn.
Overall results from TE assessment for future business jet (compared with present Falcon aircraft),
future regional (compared with ATR-72 and Embraer E-190), future large (compared with A320 and A330) aircraft and rotorcraft (from generic light single engine to generic heavy) were
discussed. Benefits in terms of CO2, NOX and Noise were identified. These benefits indicate
progress in all ITDs. Nevertheless, it is noticed that only results of two out of five rotorcraft
categories were covered in the 2012 assessment.
R-TE.8 – CS1 and CS2 related: The airport and global (ATS) level needs to include SESAR and
NextGen effects in the ATM system developments.
The Panel appreciates that it is essential that the models have sufficient acceptance, validation and consider certification aspects and be preferably on ECAS or ICAO based models. (2010, 2011
review reports). It is unclear:
if other models e.g. those developed within the broader FP7 or noise models developed
within SESAR are considered for potential use in TE (TEAMPLAY). The Panel was informed that Clean Sky and SESAR JU have initiated common meetings to harmonise
modelling facilities. For Clean Sky TE, the goal is to be able to better insert SESAR-
driven new ATM operations in TE’s scenarios.
other relevant initiatives of FP6 and FP7 projects are used to provide a potential estimate
for configuration and propulsion (e.g. DREAM, NACRE) or avionics configurations (e.g. SCARLETT).
TE concluding statements:
The Panel observed real progress in the TE assessment. TE has a critical role of assessing the
environmental impact of the CS technologies by flying the conceptual aircrafts in various
operating scenarios. The Panel could greatly appreciate real figures of ITDs environmental
benefits and contribution to ACARE targets. However, the conceptual aircrafts have been
delivered as black boxes hampering the initial role of TE as an independent instrument.
Consequently, future TE developments must shift towards a more open definition and validation
of conceptual aircraft models.
The TE assessment provides an opportunity for ITDs in their decision making to focus on most
promising technologies. TE has experienced some delays due information not timely available
from ITDs. The Panel identifies a lack of use of the feedback mechanism that ensures use of the
TE results within the vehicle ITDs. The Panel recommends a more active use of TE assessment
results and the ITDs can define and follow-up the effect of the corresponding action.
Finally, the frequent interactions with TE officials in the course of the preparation of the Panel
report, have allowed clarifying the concept of noise reduction. Up to now noise reduction has
been qualified as a reduction of the noise surface area, while, to compare with the ACARE goals
a dB reduction should also be evaluated. This has not been included so far, because the data for
this additional evaluation were not provided for all concerned ITDs. The Panel has been assured
that as of the next yearly TE assessment, all the dB values will be also made available by the
ITDs, thus enabling the TE to perform the expected comparison with the ACARE targets and
CSPD objectives.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 65
6 Evolution since 1st Evaluation
6.1 Introduction
Both expert Panels in charge with the CS Interim Evaluation in 2010 and 2013 have been
confronted with delays and budget problems, in particular and to a large extent the 2010 Report. These are certainly very important issues that can have some impact on the technical and scientific
results. However even the most efficient organisation and the best planning with no delays or
overspending have a rather limited value unless organisational results go hand in hand with scientific and technical achievements. These should lead to technologies which are suitable, at
Aircraft level, at Airport level and at Air Transport System level, to allow design and eventually
manufacture of aircrafts, with reduced fuel consumption, CO2 and NOx emissions and noise level
up to the values requested by ACARE in 2020. By paradox, it would be much better to make available these technologies with some delays and at some extra cost, in place of providing on time
and within the planned costs, technologies not sufficiently thought out and tested. In the evaluation
period, suitable planning steps have been accomplished and overall good technical progress has been achieved. However, it should be noted that the original ambitions had to be adapted to the
programme timeline and available resources.
R-6.1.1 – CS1: Clean Sky has many ground and visual demonstrations as the programme reaches its end. Attention should be paid to the most critical and success factors for the programme. A
thorough monitoring and a clear prioritization on available resources vs. remaining work vs.
technology environmental benefit toward demonstration are deemed necessary.
R-6.1.2 – Lessons learnt for CS2: It is noted that TRL evaluation occurs at a late stage of the CS plan. By the time the TRL evaluation is performed, design concepts, technological developments
and implementation directions have been committed to a great cost. The Panel recommends an
early evaluation of TRL potentials and their environmental benefits when a technology is considered for CS. Useful lessons should be drawn also from CS work on technologies that were
not successful and have been stopped.
The Panel has verified through documentation review, meetings and site visits that technological
developments are making significant progress. Therefore, in the following comparison, priority is given to the evaluation of scientific and technical progress towards the goals of Clean Sky, i.e.
significant reduction of CO2 and NOx emissions and noise level, which is the very reason why
Clean Sky has been set up in the first place.
The 2010 assessment was based on extensive presentations (in Brussels) of the status of
development of the management and technical activities of the CSJU, six ITDs and TE by members
of the staff operating in the premises of the CS Partners.
The 2013 assessment could the benefit, in addition, from visits to the Partner’s facilities, so that the
actual progress in the ITD’s development could be really seen, and a fruitful exchange of views and
discussions between the Evaluation Panel members and the company’s engineers could take place.
R-6.1.3 – CS1: The main objective of CS is to accelerate the introduction and development of environmental friendly technologies in the next generation vehicles. While it is important to review
overall management documentation and progress of technical activities, it is particularly crucial to
perform a verification of actual developments at Partners sites. For future evaluations, the Panel recommends to include technical site visits. A representative selection of technical visits can
provide new ways of understanding developments and helps reconciling technical evidence and
lessons learnt across ITDs.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 66
6.2 Management 2010-2013 evolution
Since the previous evaluation, the CS Executive Office has been able to implement management
tools and to take appropriate measures to identify and mitigate risks. Managerial tools such as strategic risk management at JU level and broken down to ITDs have been established and used.
The CSJU developed and maintains a detail road map for each technology including TRL
monitoring. The Panel is informed that low TRL activities are limited to less than 15%. The definition and use of TRL has been more difficult than planned, in terms of understanding and
consistency across technologies and ITDs.
The Panel appreciates that a systematic review of 2010 recommendations has been accomplished and that most of the recommendations have been implemented. The overall impression is that the
Clean Sky consortium as a whole is focusing its activities and steering towards their demonstration.
However, it is considered critical that the recommendations of the first interim review for a
contingency budget could not be implemented. The current review noted that ITDs make use of the full time frame and many activities are shifted towards the end of the programme.
R-6.2.1 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends to implement contingency plans in terms
of budget and demonstration activities.
The 2010 interim evaluation recommended a review of the remaining CfP activities to be covered.
The review of the documentation revealed that a sample review was performed and some topics
were not closely related to the demonstrators. The topics of the call are regularly checked with the EC in order to avoid potential overlaps with FP7. However, the review of the documentation
showed that some projects were cancelled due to an overlap with national programmes.
R-6.2.2: The Panel recommends the streamlined coverage of CfP towards ITDs objectives and
endorses the overall regular review of the CfP programme within the CS prioritising at this stage demonstration activities.
Clean sky has been successful in involving SMEs in the CfPs and ITDs. It is noted however that
this success increases the workload. CS is entering the final critical phase where CS success is demonstrated through ground or flight demonstrations. The resources available within the JU are
still considered limited to manage ITDs, CfPs and additional tasks.
R-6.2.3: The Panel is concerned that many demonstrations activities have been shifted towards the
end of Clean Sky and recommends ensuring the adequate deployment of resources within the ITDs
The initial link with SESAR was not optimal. There have been delays in passing on information
from SESAR to CS which have been identified to affect progress for example from SESAR to SGO
MTM. This problem has been improved in 2012 and common reviews between programmes have been performed.
In the evaluation period, dissemination work has been improved through participation in various air
shows and through the establishment and implementation of a Communication and Dissemination Strategy. Still, there are possibilities for further increasing the CS visibility, which have been
indicated in the Panel´s Recommendations R.3.5.1-3.5.7. Regarding scientific impact, a strategic
plan identifying high impact journals and conferences and a specific plan how to address these
media is recommended.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 67
6.3 Risks follow up from 1st Interim Assessment
The following risks, already identified after the 1st Interim Assessment are considered to be still an
issue requiring continuous monitoring to minimize their escalation and undesired impact on ITDs and/or TE performance:
IPR confidentiality and TE performance:
The Panel has found evidence that IPR confidentiality is an issue which cannot be eliminated by
CSJU processes. Addressing TRL 6 technologies involve pre-competition confidentiality risks in very sensitive and highly competitive areas such as Engines and Airframes.
To avoid difficulties related to IPR confidentiality and to conflicts of interest related to
competition, the Panel recommends setting up an Airframers Advisory group -potentially enlarged to the Engine manufacturers - to advise the GB about market conditions and trends.
This group would also manage the inputs from the TE to provide the JU and the GB with
recommendations and proposals for different options.
Risk of insufficient communication between the JU and the ITD: The actions decided by the JU have significantly mitigated this risk. However the limited resources of the JU management team are still a limiting factor.
Insufficient staff resources to cover JU operational needs: The Panel believes that the actions taken by the JU have mitigated most of the risk. However a
priority is allocated to administrative tasks. The Panel believes that improvements are possible but
with additional resources dedicated to technical tasks and formulated specific recommendations (see R-3.3.1 and R-3.3.2).
Lack of formalization of interfaces at ITD level: The Panel believes that the actions put in place by the JU have been effective. The interfaces are
clarified; however the matrix methodology used to fix the issue is cumbersome and does not allow
flexibility and adaptation. For this reason, many actions have been implemented, e.g. SGO. Interfaces are defined in the contract annexes as deliveries of hardware or software. Direct contacts
and participation in WP meetings, cross participation to annual reviews and trans-ITDs workshops
on common themes are arranged.
Topic failure in CfPs could hamper the realization of the demonstrators:
The Panel believes that the risks that a Work Package selected after a CfP fails and may potentially impact a demonstrator performance, cost or schedule is very low. However, the Panel has noticed
that some Work Packages selected after CfPs are providing weak results (see R-4.4 and R-4.5).
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 68
6.4 Scientific and technical comparison
This section is dedicated to the description and the evaluation of the progress within the six ITDs
and TE. It is important to stress that the visits to the facilities of most of the key players, the technical discussions between the company’s engineers and the Panel, have been the key factor for
understanding and appreciating the work of Clean Sky and the tremendous progress over the past
two years.
6.4.1 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA-ITD) 2010 -2013 evolution
1
st Interim Evaluation (2010)
The objective of SFWA1 is to mature passive and active flow control technologies. In the presentation to the Panel, pictures of an impressive 2x2 m test/trial wing Panel demonstrated
progress in design of a smart wing.
The objective of SFWA2 is to integrate these technologies on the overall aircraft level by preparation of ground demonstrators, by continuing feasibility studies to integrate CROR engines,
with respect to noise and vibration.
The objectives of SFWA3 ‘flight demonstration’ are large scale flight tests of passive and active flow and load control solutions at high speed.
The above activities are still at the detailed planning stage and the Panel expressed explicitly the
position that the accomplishment of demonstration targets are of prime importance for the overall
Clean Sky success.
2d Interim Evaluation (2013)
The SFWA project has suffered from serious delays. A complete rescheduling was underway when
the Panel reviewed the ITD. The result of the bottom up analysis was presented to the Panel. The
Innovative Power Plant project is delayed beyond into CS2 because of engine definition and flight
test issues.
R-6.4.2: The Panel recommends to freeze the objectives and plans as soon as possible and to
monitor from close the technical status of SFWA projects to make sure that no further delays happen. The ITD has probably overcome the most important risks, however, according to Airbus,
there are still some potential difficulties.
6.4.2 Green Regional Aircraft (GRA-ITD) 2010 -2013 evolution
1st Interim Evaluation (2010)
GRA is addressing technologies and procedures allowing future regional aircraft to achieve weight
reduction, better aerodynamic efficiency and higher level of operating performance with respect to
the 2000 technology level. The rationale for the importance of this specific market segment in achieving the ACARE 2020
goals was presented convincingly. The underlying work programme defines clear paths toward
demonstrators. However, the individual pillars are progressing at different speeds and some significant delays are observed. GRA has a high level of confidence that all the demonstration
goals and initial objectives are achievable in timeframe up to 2015, in accordance with the original
schedule. Strong interaction with the other ITDs exists, but the interface with SGO is still under
negotiation.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 69
The Panel recognises a significant level of dependencies between GRA and the other ITDs and the
related interfaces are clearly defined. However the efficiency versus the related level of
coordination should be subject to further review. The Panel identifies a large TRL gap to be bridged through GRA activities. The Panel recognises
the concern of a potentially growing unbalanced situation between high TRL programmes versus
upstream research initiatives enabling innovation.
2d Interim Evaluation (2013)
The status of GRA-ITD and the progress made since 2010 is described in Section 5 of the present Report. Here we only summarise some of the key (experimental) activities to highlight the
progress. The Agenda of the 4-5 July meeting in Pomigliano d’Arco (Alenia) shows the extent and
the depth of the Panel Members visit. The Panel visitors consider the approach to ‘Low Weight Structure’ as the main feature of the visit.
The choice of GRA to develop a new composite material as a principal feature to reduce the weight
(and consequently fuel consumption and emissions) of the aircraft, was explained ‘in front’ of a prototype section of fuselage and wings, same already manufactured and ready for tests (a Table
with the detail of the ground tests- executed or underway- and the planned flight tests is shown in
Chapter 6 of this Report), other still underway. This new material (covered by a patent) was
presented as a wide tape of typically 0.1mm thickness. By wrapping this tape, at three different angles 0° - 45° -90°, the required thickness of the structure is reached (typically 1mm thick or more
where required). Stringers of the same material are used, to reinforce he structure as required.
Some key tests to prove the strength of this structure have been performed (in the presence of the Panel Members), against hail ‘sphere’ up to 2.75 cm in diameter and against drop of tools up to 30J
of energy. Ultrasonic tests were performed to prove that in both cases there was no internal
damage.
The design of ‘all-electrical aircraft’ was presented and components were shown in the workshop. Tests on the section of a fuselage showed substantial vibration; this was corrected by inserting a
dumping material in the middle of the fuselage structural material.
The design of the Mission and Trajectory Management was also presented and one of the green functions (GCI, Green Cost Index), the cruise speed function was verified in two ATR72 flights
from Venice to Napoli.
Finally the GRA Simulation Model (GRAMS) was used for the environmental impact studies, obtaining numbers for the reduction of the emission (CO2 – 24% and NOX -45%) and Noise level
reduction of the impact area by up to 45%.
More information is given in Section 5.2.
6.4.3 Green Rotorcraft (GRC-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution
1st Interim Evaluation (2010)
GRC focuses on the integration of technologies and demonstration of rotorcraft platforms. The first
phase of the activity was dedicated to the consolidation of the work plan. This phase took longer than expected, due to the ITD complexity and size. A significant part of the associated delays has
been recovered. GRC has implemented adequate management structures and procedures.
Coordination within and across the ITDs is reported to be satisfactory. During the assessment,
evidence has been provided of good technical progress. However, there are still technologies that have low TRL. In view of the budget and time constraints, the ITD should consider focusing on
technologies with higher TRL and select only few technologies with low TRL or alternative
solutions.
The Panel recommends establishing a detailed roadmap of technical progress in order to compare
achievements against the plan. It should include key decision points, technology milestones and a schedule of TRL achievements. In addition, the Panel notes that TRL definitions are provided in
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 70
several documents, but TRL understandings might differ. Therefore a consistent use of TRL should
be achieved.
2d Interim Evaluation (2013)
It is clear that the ITD is well run at overall level and shows strong interactions with other ITDs as well. Significant progress is documented in the latest annual report and the presentations for both
content and shaping aspects, confirmed a wide application of the technical reviewers’ former
recommendations.
In each sub-project, a sound selection of concrete targets has been presented with a real concern to focus on their final contribution to CleanSky objectives.
Risk analysis and management of schedules, including TRL achievements, are present in almost all
activities with a pertinent highlighting of consequences and major problems. Management of cross contributions from partners and other ITDs appears to be well handled.
6.4.4 Systems for Green Operation (SGO-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution
1st Interim Evaluation (2010)
SGO is addressing two different areas of technology: Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE) and
Management of Trajectory and Mission (MTM). MAE focuses on the development of all-electric
system architecture, while MTM aims at developing technologies and procedures to reduce fuel
consumption, emissions and noise by management of trajectories. The Panel recognises a clear strategic approach towards the ACARE 2020 targets. Good evidence
is provided that the environmental targets are in line with the technical progress of SGO so far.
Good progress towards the definition and development of the demonstrators has been observed. Having planned the ITD ‘top-down’ in 2008, the ITD management spent significant effort in
completing the planning with a ‘bottom-up’ approach. These activities resulted in a new planning
baseline. On the other hand the first annual SGO review has already identify delays. This ITD is
highly interconnected with other ITDs. Interfaces exist to GRC, GRA, ED, SFWA and TE. However, SGO has no global demonstrators and each technology is managed individually.
The Panel considers that the foreseen level of coordination is appropriate. However, it is recommended to align the complete spectrum of related activities to each other, including
scenarios, tools, validation strategies and means in order to obtain a common validation baseline
and to allow comparable analysis of achievements. Moreover, the Panel in 2010 recommended an early involvement of stakeholders such as airlines, air navigation service providers, airport and
EASA.
2d Interim Evaluation (2013)
Good evidence of technical progress towards SGO global objectives has been provided. In the
second evaluation period, the SGO has been exposed to several technical and administrative difficulties. As a result realignment of activities has been necessary reducing the initial ambitious
scope, but keeping SGO overall objective. For example, the initial GAM in 2008 including as
enabling technologies management of robust performance in presence of atmospheric perturbations
based on characterisation and surveillance. The updated GAM showed that new sensors related to this activity reached TRL 3 maturity in 2012 and no further maturation was possible.
The new GAM is very extensive, which makes difficult to have an overall view and to identify the remaining technical problems and opportunities. Still, there is a concern regarding new
developments such as improved weather algorithms which seems ambitious to be completed within
the time frame of Clean Sky. It is not certain that new developments at this stage of the programme are in line with progress towards ground and flight demonstrations.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 71
As noted in the ITD report, many demonstrations are shifted toward the end. In 2012, interactions
between SGO and SESAR have been improved. EASA is involved though annual meeting. A more active involvement of key stakeholders is still needed.
6.4.5 Sustainable and Green Engine (SAGE-ITD) 2010-2013 evolution
1st Interim Evaluation (2010)
The engine demonstrators include five different engines.
SAGE1 (Geared ‘Contra-Rotating Open Rotor’ Demonstrator), and SAGE2 (Geared ‘Contra-
Rotating Open Rotor’ Demonstrator) are led by two different industrial organisations. So far,
emphasis has been largely on studying various concepts and preparing for the technical work for future years.
SAGE3 (Large 3-shaft Light-Weight Turbofan Demonstrator) was launched in 2009, with the
initial aim of identifying candidate technologies for demonstration and application in next generation of medium and large turbofans. Finally an engine demonstration project was developed
for system technologies that could together deliver the environmental performance required for
future engine generations. SAGE4 (Geared Turbofan Demonstrator) activities progressed with study work to define size and
operating conditions of a demonstrator vehicle supporting future product strategy at its best – but it
was considerably hampered by changing single aisle aircraft requirements. Consequently the
technical work for the demonstrator programme deviates from the planned progress. However SAGE4, (with SAGE3 and SAGE5), represents one of the few propulsion configurations with firm
industrial commitment to be transferred into a commercial product near-term.
SAGE5 (Turboshaft Engine Demonstrator) has initiated the preliminary design of all modules of the demonstrator, with a validation of the architecture and all preliminary designs, especially of the
core engine though thermal, mechanical and aerodynamic analysis. In addition, some progress has
been made on defining the engine development planning and the partial rig test planning.
The Panel considers the fact that certain demonstrator engine configurations have already been
committed to become an industrial commercial product near-term, has to be positively
acknowledged. However the Panel recommends careful monitoring of the demonstration contents to prevent a public post-founding of activities which would have happened anyhow out of
commercial necessity and commitment.
For a comparative assessment of the various SAGE ground and flight demonstrators, agreement has to be reached amongst the key contributing Members and those responsible for the Technology
Evaluator, on what can and should be measured in the tests and how the data evaluation should be
carried out to be widely accepted.
2d Interim Evaluation (2013)
Main Achievements
The main novelties in the SAGE ITD are the start of engine demonstrator tests (SAGE 3 and SAGE
5) and the availability of new hardware including the composite fan blades (SAGE 3 - RR) for the large turbofan, composite blades for the CROR (SAGE 2 - Snecma) and the intermediate casing
(GKN Aerospace) for the turbofan. Another important achievement is the noise issue of CROR
engines, which could be significantly mitigated by appropriate design of blades. Finally, SAGE6 has also completed successfully the Full Annular Rig testing with latest set of injectors.
Budget and Delays
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 72
Although it was reported during this assessment review that in several cases improvements were
being achieved in the resourcing of SAGE projects, programmes generally are still showing a
tendency to ‘slide to the right’, reflecting delays in planned ‘ramping up’ of effort and expenditure. While recognising the current pressures on industry - due to major product development and
production commitments - project managers are urged to continue to emphasize to their higher
managements the importance - technical, commercial and political - of the Clean Sky joint undertaking. Every effort needs to be made to ensure that the planned engine demonstration
programmes are achieved within the Clean Sky 1 timeframe, which terminates at the end of 2016.
R-6.4.3: With the aim of minimising the danger of planned demonstration programmes failing to be achieved within the timeframe of Clean Sky 1, continuing efforts should be made where necessary
by project managers to emphasise to their higher managements the importance - technical,
commercial and political- of the Clean Sky joint undertaking, and ensure the appropriate level of resources are available and committed to the projects.
Evolution of the industrial structure in Europe
Discussion arose during the review regarding the possible effect on Clean Sky programmes of
changes in the structure of industry. It was noted that problems might arise if a company
participating in Clean Sky is taken over by a non-European firm, which is either directly or indirectly linked with competing non-European interests. A current example is the question of
future access by European companies to the gear system test rig, planned to be procured in
connection with AVIO gear testing under SAGE 4 (see R-SAGE.3).
The Call-for-Proposal Process
The progress of the Calls-for-Proposal (CfP) portion of the SAGE programme continues to be a matter for some concern. Although a large number of CfP contracts have now been launched, there
is evidence that in some areas the rate of achieving successful applications of the results of CfP
work to the engine demonstrators is likely to be disappointingly low. Sometimes a development simply fails technically; in other cases, a device developed under a CfP contract turns out to be
incapable of being fitted (e.g., for reasons of size or weight) in the demonstrator under whose
auspices it was launched. Reviewers felt that SAGE members should consider whether some CfP developments, which had turned out to be inapplicable to their initiating project, might be useful to
other projects.
R-6.4.4: The Clean Sky Project Manager should keep under review the emerging results and apparent prospects for application of CfP topics, with a view to identifying increased opportunities
for application among the range of projects.
Often, the poor results relative to the project are related to inappropriate choices of subcontractors
(see R-4.6).
In some cases it also appeared that developments starting at very low TRL were proposed as CfPs
to be launched at a late stage of projects. This weakens credibility and could be interpreted as a
means of using underspent budgets.
Evaluation of technological benefits
Regarding the vital Technology Evaluation phase, aimed at deriving a measure of the benefits that could result from the developments made through the Clean Sky programme for relevant classes of
future civil aircraft, the reviewers were concerned that the inevitably complicated processes
involved may not yet have been fully established. There appears to be a need for greater clarity and
consistency regarding how to define and to quantify the contributions from the SAGE projects and, in particular, in relation to contributions from other sources. It is essential that interactions between
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 73
the SAGE projects, the aircraft companies, and the TE staff, should be characterised by rigour and
consistency. As stated in a slide presented at the 5th Review (June 2012) by the JU, “The TE
assessment is key for Clean Sky”.
There are still delays in the delivery of aircraft models, generally due to delays in engine model
deliveries to air-framers. It is disappointing that four years after the start of Clean Sky, there is still no quantitative result from TE on the gains between reference aircraft from 2000 and the reference
2020 aircraft with and without Clean Sky technologies.
Furthermore, it appeared during the review that the objective of evaluating the differential gain
coming from Clean Sky technologies has been abandoned. In doing so, the existence of a new generation of medium range aircraft (A320 NEO, B737 Max) and of long range aircraft (B787,
A350) is not taken into account in the global analysis of the TE, which seems difficult to
understand.
R-6.4.5: Further consideration should be given to the detailed process of estimating the benefits of
the Clean Sky programme in relation to contributions from other relevant programmes, and to how the benefits can most clearly and accurately be conveyed to authorities outside the specialist
scientific/technical community.
Duplication of activities
SAGE1 and SAGE2 are led by different industrial organisations but aim at the same CROR engine
demonstrator. A strategic change was made by RR to reduce activities in SAGE1 to the profit of new activities on Lean Burn Combustion for which SAGE 6 was created. RR confirmed that there
would be no demonstrator for SAGE1 within Clean Sky 1.
The focus for SAGE1 has been on further refinement of demonstrator requirements, developing
more detailed understanding of the issues involved in demonstrating open rotor engines and progressing and selecting concepts for the demonstrator. The demonstrator project has progressed
in three work streams, i.e. open rotor assembly, core engine and integration and test.
SAGE2 activities resulted in a recent concept change from direct-drive to a geared version, which represents a partial restart and implies additional concerns with respect to the potential duplication
of work with public funding.
- With respect to technical activities, the demonstrator requirements specification was critically revised and promising concepts at engine level and at engine sub-systems level were screened.
- As a result of the mentioned concept change, SAGE1 and SAGE2 have essential concept
technologies in common. In the interviews carried out by the Panel, it was argued that the
implied risks in any CROR development justify a certain competitive duplication of activities.
]Both SAGE 1 and SAGE 2 seem to be highly dependent on the pending SFWA go/no-go decision
on whether to proceed to a flight test programme with a demonstrator CROR engine installed in a modified Airbus aircraft. For this reason, some activities have been deliberately limited such as on
work on mechanical and manufacturing aspects at GKN or even put on hold such as ITP work on
the 3-stage booster compressor. Since the decision to give up the CROR engine demo, most of SAGE1 activities are of “on-going
technology” type, which means that the final delivery at the end of CleanSky1 will be less easy to
define quantitatively.
R-6.4.6: The Panel is of the opinion that when the SFWA/AI go/no-go decision on a CROR
demonstrator aircraft emerges it might be necessary to reconsider and clarify, SAGE 1 future
activities within the Clean Sky time frame will be needed. On the basis of their recent independent experimental research and analysis, the leaders of both
projects are now expressing confidence that CROR powerplants can achieve the reductions in
external noise levels (in EPNdB) desired in future civil aircraft.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 74
Although further work will be required to investigate thoroughly the acceptability of open rotor
noise, including noise characteristics inside the aircraft, the Panel regards the above as an
encouraging outcome of the CleanSky work so far.
6.4.6 Eco-Design (ED-ITD)
1st Interim Evaluation (2010)
ED concentrates on ‘green’ design, production, use and maintenance, withdrawal and recycling of aircraft, fully in line with goals state in the ACARE SRA2 . It is broken down into two areas: Eco-
Design for Airframe (EDA) and Eco-Design for Systems (EDS, small aircraft). The plan includes
slack on critical path activities. Still, the following issues require further consideration:
No clear indication of dependence within and across ITD. It is not possible to assess the effect
of combined contributions to the different delays reported.
No overall view of deliverables for ED-EDA in the activity report including delivery date
planned, actual or forecast delivery.
In conclusion, ED achieved to bring expertise together under a common ambitious goal. It is
acknowledge that significant efforts have been invested to consolidate the ITD and produce results. However, there is concern regarding the identified delays and their consequences.
The Panel recommends that means to actively recover delays and mitigate future delays should be identified within and across ITD as a risk mitigation strategy. This could include design reviews,
aiming at less risky and less time consuming technical solutions.
2d Interim Evaluation (2013)
The ED ITD is proceeding on time toward the agreed objectives. Both the Eco-Design for Airframes (EDA) and the Eco-Design for Systems (EDS) are making good progress against
schedule.
On EDS the Panel recommends to check the interfaces with SGO and GRA/ GRC work packages
related to electricity to make sure that there are neither gaps nor overlaps. On EDA the Panel recommends to ensure that the quality of the CfP is at the right standard in
every case.
Globally, at the ED ITD level, it is recommended to ensure that the ED results are taken into account in the TE and that feed back is provided as soon as possible.
6.4.7 Technology Evaluator (TE)
1st Interim Evaluation (2010)
TE has the strategic role in the CS programme of evaluating at three different and independent
levels the environment achievements. It has to be pointed out that the TE activities are not carried
out in its [I believe it should stay, own right, but serve the monitoring and steering of the CS
activities towards the ACARE Strategic Research Agenda. The start of TE activities was slow with a kick-off meeting only in December 2008. As a consequence the first full assessment of CS is
planned by the end of 2011, albeit with a limited set of models. A second assessment will be
carried out in the final demonstration by the end of 2015. The 2011 assessment is likely to come too late to impact the definition of demonstrators. TE will not provide guidance for decision
making regarding demonstrators and it will merely assess the demonstrators’ integrated
environmental impact.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 75
The Panel understand that the feedback role of TE on ITD activities is limited due to the timing of
TE assessments. Nevertheless, the role of TE in providing guidance to ITDs should be emphasized.
Therefore TE should be given more pro-active responsibility in the interaction with the ITDs. The Panel remarks that the current limitation in interactions between TE and ITDs could be
significantly mitigated, should demonstrator and TE activities be carried out beyond the current
deadline of 2015.
2nd Interim Evaluation (2013)
Annual Reports about the activities of TE have been delivered for 2008 – 2009 – 2010 – 2011. However, only the annual Report 2012, delivered in early 2013, provides figures showing
environmental impacts for Concept Aircraft Models, involving new technologies developed by the
ITDs. These results were presented to the Panel during two meetings (10/4/3013 in Brussels and 24/5/2013 in Toulouse). These presentations were very impressive, because the Panel saw, for the
first time, a real proof of the beneficial effects of the newly developed Clean Sky Technologies for
the future of the aviation industry and society. The ultimate objective of Clean Sky (eventually including CS2 activities) is for TE to prove CS
contributions to the achievements of the ACARE goals (CO2 -50%, NOx – 80%, Noise level -50%)
and green design. The technical discussions on the results reported to the Panel, indicate that by
developing further the present ITD technologies and, eventually may be, by introducing some additional new technologies, Clean Sky, together with other initiatives (e.g. SESAR, etc.) can
contribute substantially in achieving the ACARE goals. Concrete examples of 2012 assessment
results were provided during the technical visit.The work is performed by three complementary computational platforms (see Fig 5.7.3), Chapter 5, section 5.7 of this 2
nd Interim Evaluation
Report). These results have been obtained by building up Conceptual Aircraft Models, provided by
the vehicle ITDs. Environmental impact results presented to the Panel for GRA (see Chapter5,
section 5xf.2) compare relatively well with those produced by TE. This can be considered a poof that the TE and the GRA results, all in all, are consistent.
In conclusion, the Panel observed a real progress in the TE assessment, which should provide an
opportunity for the ITDs in their decision making to focus on most promising technologies. The Panel identifies a lack of a feedback mechanism that ensure use of TE results within the vehicle
ITDs, perhaps with an exception, GRA-ITD, as indicated above.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 76
7 List of Recommendations (for Clean Sky 1)
This section contains the full list of recommendations. The recommendations are numbered
according to the chapter, where they have been raised for the first time. The final columns indicate
to whom the specific recommendation is mainly addressed to.
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations
JU
GB
EC
Fu
ture
PP
Ps
2 Clean Sky - Overall Progress and Effectiveness
2.1 Progress towards environmental targets
R-2.1 – CS1 and CS2 related: The current progress is reported in relation
to CS objectives. The Panel recommends a more transparent traceability
between the ACARE goals and the specific contributions from Clean Sky. x x
R-2.2: The Panel encourages the Partners and Project Managers to
provide more clarity and consistency in the figures presented as well as on the assumptions taken for the evaluation of the environmental targets in
relation with the ACARE goals.
x x x
2.2 Coordination with FP7, SESAR and National Programmes
R-2.3: It is recommended to deepen the existing relationship with both
SESAR and ACARE aiming - at working group level – to reach a better view within the JU at large about the airlines, ANSPs and other
stakeholder communities.
R-2.4: The Panel believes that information exchange between the JU and
NSRG is very important and recommends that the NSRG continues to play a crucial role in ensuring the coherence of national programmes with
Clean Sky.
x x x
2.4 Effectiveness in promoting participation
R-2.5: The Panel appreciates that Clean Sky does not require a consortium as a condition for participation to calls for proposals; even a
single entity can apply and that there are a number of mono-beneficiaries
also amongst SMEs. It however recommends making the high participation
of SMEs and of new players more visible (see also 3.5 Efficiency in
Communication).
x
2.5 Effectiveness of ITD and TE strategies
R-2.6: The Panel recognises that the TRL concept has been refined during CS and recommends the CSJU to disseminate the results across the R&D
community. x
R-2.8 – CS1 and CS2 related: The visit provided evidence of very good
cooperation between research development activities and flight test
preparations. Detailed reviews have been conducted including
x x
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 77
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations
JU
GB
EC
Fu
ture
PP
Ps
multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel in flight test. Moving from the example of the good GRA flight test preparation, the
Panel recommends to ITDs to make greater efforts to communicate and disseminate best practices and encourages them to extract from successful
cases of other ITDs useful lessons for own future activities.
2.8 Complementarity with other activities in Horizon 2020
R-2.10: CS2 is an appropriate framework to implement and manage
industry-led projects. It is important to devote a significant share of the budget to such projects, to bring technologies from TRL 3 to TRL 4 or at
best 5, without the a-priori objective of contributing to a flying full scale
platform demonstrator.
x x x x
R-2.11: It is important that this type of industry-led project is run directly
by the JU without interference from the big projects of higher TRL.
x x x x
R-2.12: These projects should use the Technology Evaluator to provide
inputs during the evaluation phase and to assess environmental impact and efficiency at the end of the projects.
x x x x
3 Clean Sky - Organisation and Efficiency
3.1 Appropriateness of the CS legal framework and governance
R-3.1.1: The Panel recommends that the STAB role is preserved and enhanced for example in drafting the future updates of the SRIA. Their
contribution – also for a CS2 – is considered significant and it is
recommended to ensure that high quality individuals are involved as it is the case in Clean Sky.
x x x
R-3.1.2: Notwithstanding the valuable involvement of the advisory bodies,
there is still room for a greater and more pro-active involvement of the
STAB and NSRG. The CS JU should seek to maximise the potential of its advisory bodies to gain support for the remaining calls and other activities
at all levels.
x x
3.2 Appropriateness of the JU internal rules and funding
R-3.2.1 The Panel underlines that the Clean Sky JU also contributes to
achieving the roadmaps that have been jointly agreed between all
stakeholders, considers the multi-annual approach as advantageous and recommends this to be continued in the future.
x x x
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 78
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations
JU
GB
EC
Fu
ture
PP
Ps
R-3.2.2: The Panel regrets that concerning the negotiation of a multi-
annual GAM, there continues to be a need for more flexibility in the
management of GAMs. In general, the Panel recommends more discretionary power for the Executive Director in management matters
and believes that GAM budget transfers should be initiated, negotiated
and implemented by the Executive Director. This step would help speeding up the implementation of necessary decisions since it would no longer be
necessary to involve the Governing Board.
x x x x
R-3.2.3: The Panel is aware that recommendations have been issued about
completeness and timing of the strategic planning (CSDP) and alignment with annual planning (AIP) and annual amendments of the GAMs. In this
context a specific finding has been raised by the Internal Audit Service
(IAS) concerning subsequent changes of topics compared to the approved AIP. The Panel endorses plans to delegate a number of decisions and
functions from the GB to the ED for the approval of such changes in order
to ensure the necessary flexibility for the JU to adapt the lists of topics to
the actual needs during the year.
x x x x
R-3.2.4 – CS1 and CS2 related: The Panel considers that the existing
possibilities to redistribute the budget amongst ITDs (as the transfer
occurred in 2012 between ITDs) are an initial useful step towards providing some budget flexibility. The Panel regrets that there is still no
contingency budget since this would enable transversal
flexibility.Therefore the Panel recommends to the Governing Board to
consider introducing a 5-10% contingency budget.
x x x x
R-3.2.5: The Panel is of the opinion that the verification of in-kind
contribution is still a laborious and time-consuming issue to manage and
negotiate and that the current procedure is not efficient. Therefore it
recommends steps to simplify the procedure.
x x x
3.3 Efficiency of the JU Executive Team organisation and procedures
incl. monitoring
R-3.3.1: Notwithstanding that the Executive Office has made significant
progress in speeding up processes and reaching operational efficiency, the
Panel recommends that some further adjustments will be carried out to improve efficiency. Now that the Clean Sky JU is well established, the
balance of skills between general administration and project management
in the Executive Office needs some readjustment.
x x x
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 79
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations
JU
GB
EC
Fu
ture
PP
Ps
R-3.3.2: The Panel considers the number of the JU technical staff as being
insufficient and recommends a review by the Governing Board of staff
requirements to ensure that the Executive Team can exercise in full its coordinating and monitoring functions. At the same time the Panel
recommends a review of potential services to be shared with other JUs and
of administrative services that could be outsourced.
x x x
R-3.3.3: The Clean Sky Executive Office should seek further ways of
reducing bureaucracy and ensure that it has the optimal organisational structure for the tasks ahead.
x
R-3.3.4: Although participation and success rate of the applications
indicate that the performance of the JU in administration of the
programme, project management and programme design and implementation is adequate and capable, the Panel notes that the “Time to
grant” is still rather high (240 days from call publication to GAP; 360
days on average for grants signed in 2012) and recommends this to be shortened.
x
R-3.3.5: The Panel acknowledges the value of the adopted system of 16
internal control standards and considers this a robust system for an
efficient and effective management. The Panel appreciates that there is a satisfactory alignment of strategic and annual planning and recommends
its systematic implementation.
x
R-3.3.6: The Panel welcomes the intention of the JU (as in the GB meeting
of 22.3.2013) to launch trainings for Topic Managers and endorses endeavours to increase the monitoring from the Project Officers and the
administration team, to make sure delays and problems in execution of the
projects are tackled as soon as possible. These steps are important ones to address bottlenecks currently limiting the overall efficiency.
x
R-3.3.7: The Panel appreciates that in the evaluation period ex-post audits of financial statements of CS JU beneficiaries have been implemented and
recommends that the efforts undertaken to reduce the error rates be
continued. It values that the JU has put efforts in improving its ex-ante
validation process and has provided guidance to its beneficiaries concerning the eligibility of costs for the Clean Sky projects.
x
3.4 Efficiency of ITD organisations and procedures
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 80
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations
JU
GB
EC
Fu
ture
PP
Ps
R-3.4.1: The Panel appreciates that monitoring and control tools are
mature and implemented. The Panel recommends harmonized progress
activity reports and technical evaluation reports across ITDs. In particular, progress reports should contain achieved progress against
plan, and achieved deliverables against planned deliverables. The Panel
recommends technical evaluation reports to follow the EC standard. This standard is useful in terms of evaluating in a systematic manner technical
and management aspects.
x
3.5 Efficiency of communication
R-3.5.1: Cooperation and exchange between ITDs appears to be still limited and should be enhanced. Models and tools produced across ITDs
should be analysed in the view of potential complementarities. The TE
interface with other ITDs deserves careful consideration to ensure timely results.
x x
R-3.5.2- CS1 and CS2 related: The Panel believes that communication
between ITDs can be improved by using to a larger extent the TE as a tool
to feed back information and to discuss efficiency in technical matters. A closer relationship with the working groups of ACARE and SESAR could
also improve this communication process. The JU team should be more
involved in this process and additional resources need to be allocated to this task.
x x x x
R-3.5.3: The Panel believes that raising the profile of Clean Sky should be
a key aspect of the CS communications objectives. The Panel endorses the
recommendations of the previous interim evaluation and reiterates that CS should improve its visibility to the interested public.
x
R-3.5.4: The Panel appreciates the effort on the part of the Executive
Office to communicate call topics and disseminate the Clean Sky initiatives via publications. However the Panel felt that, as there have been more
successes stories coming out of the projects, these could form the basis for
intensified dissemination targeted to a broader range of stakeholders,
including policymakers within the Member States.
x
R-3.5.5: The technical information on the website should be improved,
with more active involvement and input from the ITDs. Moreover it is
deemed necessary to find appropriate forms for communicating the activities and assessment of the TE.
x
R-3.5.6: The Panel recommends that the CS communication strategy puts
more dedicated efforts for communicating the broader socio-economic and
environmental impacts not only to the aeronautical stakeholders, but also to the policy and decision makers at the European and national levels. The
NSRG and STAB should be involved in these initiatives.
x x
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 81
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations
JU
GB
EC
Fu
ture
PP
Ps
R-3.5.7: The Panel commends that Clean Sky has been successful in
attracting a high level of interest from companies, well above the average
participation of industrial entities in collaborative projects in FP7. However the Panel notes that although there is a remarkably high
participation of SMEs, Clean Sky is still perceived as “big industry and
big technology” and therefore recommends that success stories involving SMEs should be communicated on the website and in dedicated
publications.
x
4 Quality
4.1 Quality of Activities
R-4.1: The Panel recognises the added value of technical visits and
technical presentation meetings which provide more insight and permit a
deeper analysis in favour of an objective assessment. The Panel considers
this as a key instrument to assess the quality of the technical developments
and recommends to make site visits an integral part of the review process.
x x x
4.3 Quality of Calls for Proposals
R-4.3: In case of a large number of proposals for a specific ITD, the Panel
recommends a flexible distribution of responsibilities in order to optimise the associated work load within the JU.
x x
R-4.4: It is proposed that the topics include the possibility to present a
more innovative approach leading same results than the one described in
the topic.
R-4.5: It is recommended that the technical ITDs reviews include a
systematic CfP review to monitor and contribute to the high quality of the
CfPs. This would establish a clear connection between CfP topic and ITD objectives, thus improving the focusing of the technical activities.
x x x
R-4.6: The Panel notes that, in some cases, the inappropriate choice of subcontractors has led to poor results relative to the project they are
related to. The Panel therefore recommends the JU to investigate possible
ways of improving the selection process of subcontractors.
x x
5 Clean Sky ITDs and Technology Evaluator - Progress
and effectiveness
5.1 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA)
R-SFWA.1: The Panel recommends that flight tests should be taken into
account at the very beginning of the ITD. It is to be recognised as a
necessary step, overlooked at the project launch but very much needed to
ensure project success.
x
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 82
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations
JU
GB
EC
Fu
ture
PP
Ps
R-SFWA.2: For large ITDs, it is recommended to adopt systematically an
industrial project management methodology from the very beginning of the
project.
x
R-SFWA.3: It is recommended to secure robust commitment from the
participants, to find ways to prevent a lack of interest and of focus from
the participating companies and to secure adequate resource allocation by all.
x
R-SFWA.5: The Panel recommends the JU to focus on minimising the risk
of insufficient commitment of resources, and to entrust the GB with the
responsibility of motivating the potentially defaulting partners.
x
R-SFWA.6: Downstream research leading technologies to TRL6 maturity
should achieve the following steps: performance readiness, engineering readiness, operational readiness (main tenability, stability, etc …),
manufacturing readiness. The Panel believes this recommendation is
applicable to all large ITDs.
x
x
5.2 Green Regional Aircraft (GRA)
RGRA-1 – CS1 and CS2 related: The current progress is reported in
relation to CS objectives. The Panel recommends a more transparent traceability between the ACARE goals and CS specific contribution.
x x x x
RGRA-2 – CS1 and CS2 related: The site visit provided evidence of very
good cooperation between research & development activities and flight test preparations. Detailed reviews have been conducted including
multidisciplinary teams with experienced personnel in flight test. It is
recommended to other ITDs to learn from the good GRA flight test
preparations.
x x x x
5.3 Green Rotor-Craft (GRC)
R-GRC.1: The Panel encourages the Partners and Project Managers to
provide more clarity and consistency in the figures presented as well as on the assumptions taken for the evaluation of the environmental targets in
relation with the ACARE goals.
x
5.4 Systems for Green Operation (SGO)
RSGO.1 – CS1 related: The Panel recommends carefully monitoring and
implementing an early warning mechanism for critical activities, success
factors of SGO. x
R-SGO.6: SGO benefits are expressed per flight phase. This makes a comparison across ITDs difficult regarding the most promising
technologies. Therefore, the Panel agrees with technical reviews about
alignment of SGO environmental benefits metrics to other ITDs.
x x
R-SGO.8: Demonstration activities for some equipment are foreseen in a single test platform. Back-up plans in case of delays in the test platform
need to be addressed.
x x
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 83
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations
JU
GB
EC
Fu
ture
PP
Ps
5.5 Sustainable And Green Engines (SAGE)
R-SAGE.2: It is strongly recommended to explore the possibilities of
testing the gearbox (with AVIO) in order to reduce the associated risk. x
RSAGE.3: The conditions of access to the future Gearbox test rig by third
parties needs to be clarified. x
RSAGE.4: The planning and technology features of the SAGE 4
demonstrator need to be clarified and confirmed. x
R-SAGE.7: Any proposal for a lean burn flight test within Clean Sky time
scale should be clarified in terms of schedule and financing. x
5.6 Eco-Design (ED)
R-ED2: It is recommended to check that EDA is taking into account
lessons learnt by other domains such as automotive and by the emerging deconstruction eco-system.
x
R-ED.3: Taking into account the content of EDS, it is recommended to
ensure consistency and check gaps or overlaps with SGO and GRA/ GRC
ITDs related to electricity. There are synergies and potential cross fertilization opportunities.
x
5.7 Technology Evaluator (TE)
R-TE.2: The Panel has not identified clear quantifiable targets for Life Cycle Assessment LCA. It is recommended that methods and metrics to
assess LCA benefits are addressed by CS present or future research. X
R-TE.4: The resolution, granularity and assumptions included in the
aircraft models have a potential impact on verification of their representativeness and accuracy. The Panel recommends that aircraft
models are as transparent as possible with regard to known standards .
x x
R-TE.6: The duration of the TE information system needs to be aligned to
the duration of TE assessments. This is to record latest assessment results and their impact.
x x
R-TE.7: Low TRL technologies are included in aircraft models. However,
the purpose of the TE is to assess the impact of mature and most promising technologies and a better focusing of TE goals should be established.
x x
6. Evolution since 1st Evaluation
6.1 General Issues
R-6.1.1 – CS1: Clean Sky has a lot of ground and flight demonstrations at programme end. Significant attention should be paid towards the most
critical and success factors for the programme. Careful monitoring and
prioritization of available resources vs. remaining work and vs.
technology environmental benefit towards demonstration is recommended.
x x
R-6.1.3 – CS1: The main objective of CS is to accelerate the introduction x x x
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 84
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations
JU
GB
EC
Fu
ture
PP
Ps
and development of environmental friendly technologies in the next
generation vehicles. While it is important to review overall management
documentation and progress of technical activities, it is particular crucial to perform a verification of actual developments at Partners sites. The
Panel recommends future evaluations to include technical site visits. A
representative selection of technical visits provides new ways of understanding developments and to reconcile technical evidence and
lessons learnt across ITDs.
6.2 Management 2010-2013 evolution
R-6.2.2: The Panel recommends the streamlined coverage of CfP towards ITDs objectives and endorses the overall regular review of the CfP
programme within the CS prioritising at this stage demonstration
activities.
x x x
R-6.2.3: The Panel is concerned that many demonstrations activities have
been shifted towards the end of Clean Sky and recommends ensuring the
adequate deployment of resources within the ITDs. x
6.4 Scientific and technical comparison
R-6.4.2: The Panel recommends to freeze the objectives and plans as soon
as possible and to monitor closely the technical status of SFWA projects in
order to make sure that no further delays occur. The ITD has probably overcome the most important risks, some exist still.
x x
R-6.4.3: With the aim of minimising the danger of planned demonstration
programmes failing to be achieved within the timeframe of Clean Sky 1,
continuing efforts should be made by project managers to emphasise to their higher management the - technical, commercial and political-
importance of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking, and ensure the
appropriate level of resources are available and committed to the projects.
x x
R-6.4.4: The Clean Sky Project Manager should keep under review the
emerging results and potential application of CfP topics, with a view to
identifying increased opportunities across the whole of CS.
X
R-6.4.5: Further consideration should be given to estimating the benefits of the Clean Sky programme with regard to contributions from other
relevant programmes, and to how the benefits can be shared with
stakeholders outside the specialist scientific/technical community.
x x x
R-6.4.6: The Panel is of the opinion that when the SFWA/AI go/no-go decision on a CROR demonstrator aircraft emerges it might be necessary
to reconsider and clarify SAGE 1 future activities within the Clean Sky
timeframe.
x
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 85
8 Key Issues and Overall Recommendations for Clean Sky 2
8.1 SWOT Analysis
The Panel performed a SWOT analysis in order to place the evaluation in a broader context and to
help building conclusions and formulating recommendations. This SWOT analysis has been carried
out after the 2nd
interim assessment was completed in September 2013.
STRENGTHS WEAKNESSES
The basic principle of PPP in aeronautic research has been successfully demonstrated
CS JU as a central element of the European aeronautics landscape/Recognised as a
world-leading PPP in aeronautics
Distinctive cooperation model to address
non-competitive aeronautical challenges
Builds on FP6 and FP7 results, catalyst for private sector investment in European
aeronautic R&D
Valuable contribution to ACARE objectives. The TE represents an innovative approach to
evaluate environmental benefits in a systematic way. The TRL evaluation could
be adopted in other areas in the H2020
programme.
CS-JU as a valid instrument to achieve agreement on a strategic research agenda and (potentially) efficient use of research budget
High quality of scientific output and wide network of industry, SMEs and academia
High SMEs participation and involvement
Remarkable mobilisation and pooling of resources and expertise to tackle the most
complex problems of aeronautics along the
entire R&D cycle
Mobilised resources reinforced by synergies
across a broad range of stakeholders
Effective governance structure/proactive
participation of advisory bodies (NSRG and STAB)
High quality of processes and methodology
Gaining visibility through dissemination of results in scientific papers and conferences,
air shows and exhibitions
KPIs and Technology Evaluator not mature enough to demonstrate broader
environmental and socio-economic impact
Inadequate balance between scientific and administrative tasks of the CS Executive
Office:
- burdensome administrative rules,
regulations and controls and - insufficient technical resources (JU
level) to tackle transversal issues
Low flexibility esp. by budgetary issues;
lack of a contingency budget
In some ITDs unmet quality and effectiveness
No active use of TE feedback by ITDs
Insufficient resource allocation from
companies in some ITDs
Lack of clear priorities in allocating resources to projects in some ITDs
Still insufficient communication between ITDs
Limited coordination with national/ international initiatives potentially leading
to inefficient use of resources
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 86
OPPORTUNITIES THREATS
Potential for CS as a platform for building a common European vision for environmental focused research in Aeronautics
Developing new funding models
Communicate the broader socio-economic
and environmental impact beyond the aeronautic stakeholders
Explore synergies and potential cross-fertilisation in other industry sectors
Building a favourable environment for Level 2 like projects in the Framework of next EU
Research Programme
A negative perception among key stakeholder groups
Lack of priority in allocating key
resources by key players (associates) triggering endless issues: de-scoping,
rescheduling...
Missing key changes in aeronautic market needs
Changes in European industry structure, i.e. new ownerships or joint ventures
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 87
8.2 Key Issues and Recommendations for CS2
The CS has successfully demonstrated the principle of PPP in aeronautics, has become a
central element of the European aeronautic landscape and should be continued.
Clean Sky is sufficiently advanced today to provide important lessons in view of future
PPPs, such as Clean Sky 2.
The following recommendations are derived from the lessons learnt and are made as a
contribution to the construction of Clean Sky 2.
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations for CS2
2 Clean Sky - Overall Progress and Effectiveness
2.1 Progress towards environmental targets
R-2.1: CS1 and CS2 related: The current progress is reported in relation to the Clean Sky
objectives. The Panel recommends a more transparent traceability between the ACARE
goals and specific contributions from Clean Sky.
R-2.2: The Panel encourages the Partners and Project Managers to provide more clarity
and consistency in the figures presented and about the assumptions taken for the
evaluation of the environmental targets in relation to the ACARE goals.
R-2.9 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The traceability and evolutions of the GAM should be better documented to establish and assess its overall compliance and performance.
Further, this traceability should track changes in the GAM and its impact. This action
ensures the ability of the programme to adapt to new challenges and opportunities.
2.8 Complementarity with other activities in Horizon 2020
R-2.10: Additionally to its higher TRL activities, Clean Sky 2 would be an appropriate
framework to implement and manage industry-led projects of the size of the former FP7 Level 2 projects. It is important to devote a significant share of the budget to such projects,
to bring technologies from TRL 3 to TRL 4 or at best 5, without the a priori objective of
contributing to a flying full scale platform demonstrator. R-2.11: It is important that this type of industry-led projects are run directly by the JU
without interference from higher TRL projects in Clean Sky.
R-2.12: These projects should use the Technology Evaluator to provide inputs during the
evaluation phase and to assess environmental impact and efficiency at the end of the
projects.
3 Clean Sky - Organisation and Efficiency
3.1 CS legal framework and governance
R-3.1.1: The Panel recommends that the STAB role is preserved and enhanced, for
example in drafting the future updates of the SRIA. Their role – also for CS2 – is
considered significant and it is recommended to ensure that high quality individuals are involved as in the case of Clean Sky.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 88
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations for CS2
R-3.1.3-Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel believes it is important that a constant feedback to the JU on National Programmes takes place and that in the future the NSRG
maintains a strong role and continues to exchange experiences, to advise and provide
recommendations to the JU Executive team.
3.2 JU Internal Rules and Funding
R-3.2.1 The Panel underlines that the Clean Sky JU also contributes to achieving the
roadmaps that have been jointly agreed between all stakeholders and considers the multi-annual approach as advantageous and recommends this to be continued in the future.
R-3.2.2: The Panel regrets that concerning the negotiation of a multi-annual GAM, there continues to be a need for more flexibility in the management of GAMs. In general, the
Panel recommends more discretionary power for the Executive Director in management
matters and believes that GAM budget transfers should be initiated, negotiated and
implemented by the Executive Director. This step would help speeding up the implementation of the necessary decisions since it would no longer be necessary to involve
the Governing Board.
R-3.2.4 – CS1 and CS2 related: The Panel considers that the existing possibilities to redistribute the budget amongst ITDs are an initial useful step towards providing some
budget flexibility. The Panel regrets that there is still no such contingency budget since
this would enable transversal flexibility. Therefore the Panel recommends to the
Governing Board to consider introducing a 5-10% contingency budget to increase flexibility.
R-3.2.6- Lessons learnt for CS2: It has been critically remarked that the Clean Sky
Financial Regulations only allow for either 20% flat rate without justification or real overheads and that there is nothing in between. For CS 2 it is recommended to verify
whether there are more efficient solutions.
3.5 Efficiency of internal communication
R-3.5.2- Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel believes that communication between ITDs
can be improved by using to a larger extent the TE as a tool to feed back information and to discuss efficiency in technical matters. A closer relationship with the working groups of
ACARE and SESAR could also improve this communication process. The JU team should
be more involved in this process and additional resources need to be allocated to this task.
4 Quality
4.1 Quality of Activities
R-4.1: The Panel recognises the added value of technical visits and technical presentation meetings which provide more insight and allow a deeper analysis and an objective
assessment. The Panel considers this as a key instrument to assess the quality of the
technical developments and recommends to make site visits an integral part of the review
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 89
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations for CS2
process.
R-4.2- Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends to all participants to carry out a realistic risk analysis and establish early mitigation plans. For large ITDs, it is
recommended to adopt systematically an industrial project management methodology from
the very beginning of the project.
5 Clean Sky ITDs and Technology Evaluator - Progress and
effectiveness
5.1 Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA)
R-SFWA.4: It is recommended at the pre-design phase level to run an assessment of risks
on the work package contents.
R-SFWA.5: The Panel recommends the JU to focus on minimising the risk of insufficient commitment of resources, and to entrust the GB with the responsibility of motivating the
potentially defaulting partners.
5.2 Green Regional Aircraft (GRA)
R-GRA-2 – CS1 and CS2 related: The site visit provided evidence of very good
cooperation between research development activities and flight test preparations. Detailed
reviews have been conducted including multidisciplinary teams with experienced
personnel in flight test. It is recommended that other ITDs learn from the current good GRA flight test preparations.
5.3 Green Rotor-Craft (GRC)
R-GRC3 - lessons learnt for CS2: The link with previous or ongoing Framework Programmes should be clearly stated in order to avoid overlap and possible double
funding. This recommendation is valid for all ITDs.
5.4 Systems for Green Operation (SGO)
R-SGO.2 – lesson learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends that administrative and project
management procedures are set-up before the start of technical work.
R-SGO.3 – lesson learnt for CS2: The traceability and evolutions on GAM should be
better documented to establish and assess its overall compliance and performance. Traceability should track changes and their impact. This action enhances the ability of the
programme to adapt to new challenges and opportunities.
R-SGO.4 – lesson learnt for CS2: Many interdependencies are seen among ITDs and with
other national and EC activities. The Panel recommends incorporating current interface management practices into a specific interface management function. Moreover, formal
exchange of information should be established among the CS, SESAR and other research
programmes (e.g. Horizon 2020). Implementing this recommendation would speed up research work and avoid potential duplications.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 90
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations for CS2
R-SGO.5 – lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends including metrics such as weight savings, energy efficiency, maintenance environmental impacts (e.g. reduction of
hydraulic fluids) and expected efforts to maturation and manufacturing to be taken
individually per technology in order to assess the benefit for Clean Sky and potential
candidates for CS2.
R-SGO.7 – CS1 and CS2 related: The Panel recommends a thorough preparation for the
transition to new developments proposed by Clean Sky. The compatibility of Clean Sky
with end users expectations needs to be addressed.
5.5 Sustainable And Green Engines (SAGE)
R-SAGE.1 – lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel questions the appropriateness of
designing a new CROR engine demonstrator (SAGE2), based on the non-optimal choice of an existing gas generator. It is understood that this is a cost and time limiting solution.
There are doubts whether the final demonstrator is going to be fully representative of a
future CROR engine. Therefore the Panel recommends strengthening the validity of the
design in view of more representative demonstrators. RSAGE.5 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The possible influence on programmes of changes in
the structure of industry (acquisitions, joint ventures, etc.) should be kept under review by
Clean Sky officials, with the aim of identifying opportunities to prevent or to minimise potential adverse effects. RSAGE.6 –Lessons learnt for CS2: In general, the boundaries between activities carried
out within FP7 Level 2 programmes and Clean Sky are not clearly defined or explained.
The Panel recognises that Clean Sky is intended to bring those Level 2 technologies to a higher TRL level but the issues of duplicating work and duplicate funding should be
monitored.
5.7 Technology Evaluator (TE)
R-TE.1 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel considers that budget allocation and
involvement of ITD leaders should be reinforced within TE. This would help ensuring
ownership on the results of TE assessment and implementation of corresponding
improvement measures.
R-TE.3 - CS1 and CS2: The Panel believes that a more formal involvement of certification
authorities and decision makers is needed. Their direct feedback in the TE evaluation is
needed to take into account the necessary steps to move forward the Clean Sky developments forwards into actual implementation of future aircraft systems.
R-TE.4 – CS1 and CS2 related: The resolution, granularity and assumptions included in
the aircraft models have a potential impact on verification of their representativeness and
accuracy. It is important that aircraft models are as transparent as possible referring to known standards or providing sufficient information.
R-TE.5 – CS1 and CS2 related: It seems that TE consists of three separate projects
(aircraft, airport and global). Tthe Panel considers that work is needed in the creation of
an integrated TE framework and how this framework can be developed and used beyond Clean Sky. This would help evaluating technologies associated to environmental
improvements in a harmonised and systematic manner.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 91
Sec
tio
n
Recommendations for CS2
R-TE.8 – CS1 and CS2 related: The airport and global (ATS) level needs to include SESAR and NextGen effects in the ATM system developments.
6. Evolution since 1st Evaluation
6.1 General Issues
R-6.1.2 – Lessons learnt for CS2 : It is noted that the TRL evaluation occurs at a late stage of the Clean Sky plan. By the time the TRL evaluation is performed, design concepts,
technological developments and implementation directions have been committed to a great
cost. The Panel recommends an early evaluation of the TRL potential and its
environmental benefit when a technology is considered for Clean Sky. Lessons learnt from Clean Sky work should also be considered regarding technologies that have been stopped.
6.2 Management 2010-2013 evolution
R-6.2.1 – Lessons learnt for CS2: The Panel recommends to implement contingency plans in terms of budget and demonstration activities.
R-4.5: The Panel notes that in some cases, the inappropriate choice of subcontractors has
led to poor results relative to the project they are related to. The Panel therefore recommends the JU to investigate possible ways of improving the selection process of
subcontractors.
R-6.4.5: Further consideration should be given to the detailed process of estimating the
benefits of the Clean Sky programme in relation to the contributions from other relevant
programmes, and to how the benefits can be shared with stakeholders outside the specialist scientific/technical community.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 92
9 Conclusions
The Panel is convinced that - in spite of initial delays due to the slow start - the JU has marked satisfactory progress towards meeting the objectives set and has shown an open, non-
discriminatory attitude towards a wide community of stakeholders. In particular, there has been an
effective strategy in managing the calls for proposals, in promoting participation of SMEs and
increasing the rate of new entrants in the JU and the CfPs. The existing links with both SESAR and ACARE should be strengthened and it is important to reach a better view within the JU at large
about the airlines, ANSPs and other stakeholders.
Overall the Panel believes that the Clean Sky governance is efficient in the management of the programme and delivery of calls and projects and considers the present governance structure a
valid model to be continued also in the future. However, efforts for increasing the organisational
efficiency, reducing the administrative burden and enhancing internal and external communication
are still required. The Panel recommends strengthening the resources of the JU alongside with the streamlining of the potential services which could be shared with other JUs.
Communication and dissemination efforts are satisfactory; however it is deemed necessary that the
CS communication strategy allows for more efforts dedicated to communicating the broader socio-economic and environmental impacts not only to the aeronautical stakeholders, but also to the
policy and decision makers at the European and national levels. The NSRG and STAB should be
involved in these initiatives.
Overall, the Panel believes that the large Clean Sky research and demonstrators portfolio is of high
quality. The Panel collected evidence that the JU is perceived as the flagship for Public Private
Partnership supported aeronautic R&D in Europe. Overall the Panel was of the opinion that
alongside considerable strengths and achievements of the CSJU, there were areas that needed some further attention and where opportunities should be taken. There is no doubt about the quality and
the relevance of the technical activities carried out within Clean Sky, but the problems of resource
allocation together with “slipping” schedules may jeopardize this quality is some cases.
Also the technical development of the demonstrators is making satisfactory progress. The Panel
believes that by the end of Clean Sky, the demonstration programmes will allow to provide
evidence of integration of several technologies and to indicate the potential benefits in a relevant operational environment. The status of each of the Clean Sky ITDs is briefly described in the
following paragraphs.
The Smart Fixed Wing Aircraft (SFWA) ITD can be considered as the reference for the Clean Sky
ambitions. It is managing some very critical technologies, potentially contributing to breakthrough performance improvement for aircraft and to a step change in achieving ACARE goals. New tools,
new methodologies, new certification processes have been investigated and developed to allow
progress towards TRL 6. The JU and its governance bodies should review with special attention all the issues encountered during the past years in SFWA and draw all the lessons from this first phase
of Clean Sky in order to avoid any repetition in CS2. ITDs need to be flexible not only technically
but also in terms of budget.
The Green Regional Aircraft (GRA) ITD has a comprehensive task, dealing with the Aircraft
Body (with the exclusion of the engine), All Electrical Aircraft Devices, Mission and Trajectory
Management, and finally with the evaluation of the benefits for the environment as defined by ACARE. The Panel was pleased to see concrete evidence of progress in innovative technology
developments, concrete contribution towards ACARE targets and to note that the environmental
assessment performed at this stage of the GRA development shows similar quantitative results in both GRA ITD and TE.
The key issue is the reduction of weight by using composite materials. The R&D on new structure
design and composite materials is supported by a wide range of laboratory tests; full scale ground
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 93
demonstrators are planned to be concluded with a variety of flying tests within 2015. Flying tests
require extensive preparation in terms of a new technology and its suitability for an existing
regional aircraft. An important aspect addressed in an appropriate manner by GRA is the combination of experienced production and R&D personnel involved in detailed planning and
appropriate reviews for preparing demonstration activities.
The two days visit to the Alenia premises was instrumental to convince the Panel that the GRA
ITD will be completed on time, with more than satisfactory results.
The transversal ITD Systems for Green Operation (SGO) develops technologies addressing the Management of Aircraft Energy (MAE) t and Management of Trajectory and Mission (MTM). The
Panel observed concrete examples of technologies, architectures and software tools as well as
preparations towards demonstration activities. In general, flight and ground demonstrations are foreseen for MAE technologies while ground demonstrations are foreseen for MTM technologies.
The documentation, presentations and demonstrations during the technical visits provided good
evidence of the SGO contribution to the ACARE goals in terms of weight, fuel savings and noise reduction.
The Panel appreciates that the SGO technologies take into account results from previous FP
projects and develop them further. SGO mature technologies have been adapted to regional and
large aircraft ITDs. Many technologies are expected to achieve TRL 5 or TRL 6, e.g. the green take-off function and Electrical Environmental Control System. Still, the Panel notes that not all
technologies will achieve TRL 6, e.g. advanced weather algorithms.
The assessment of TRL has been more challenging than expected. Currently, TRL monitoring and
risk management tools have been implemented in a satisfactory manner. Lessons learnt from this
assessment process can be transferred to other domains.
SGO has a lot of interfaces internally within CS and externally, e.g. with SESAR. Deficiencies in
receiving documentation from SESAR have been identified. Specific reviews between SESAR and
CS are carried out and members seem satisfied with the level of interaction achieved. Close involvement of EASA is still an open issue. More coordination with TE and SESAR is advised
regarding models, e.g. noise models and noise assessments to ensure complementarity and
synergies.
The Green Rotor-Craft ITD (GRC) focuses on the integration of technologies and demonstration
of rotorcraft platforms (helicopters and tilt-rotor) to drastically reduce emissions and noise while
maintaining present performance. The Active Gurney Flaps and the Diesel Engine are presented as the two “flagships” of this ITD.
Regarding the achievement of the ACARE goals, as of today, the evaluation carried out within
GRC7 and TE confirms those objectives. In particular, for the single engine light helicopter (SEL), the evaluation shows a reduction of 30% for CO2 and 47% for noise compared to the targets of -
25% CO2 and -50% noise respectively, thanks to the new technologies developed within GRC. The
Panel considers this a very positive achievement. However, the evaluation of NOx reduction is not yet available and the evaluation still has to be complemented by the evaluation of the other
helicopter models in order to obtain an average result for all helicopter categories considered within
CS.
The work plan shows delays in some areas, but no impact is expected on completion of targets as
appropriate mitigation plans have been put in place. It is clear that the ITD is well run at overall
level. Some of the ground tests have been completed already and the ambition of GRC is to include flight tests as well towards the end of the programme to achieve a nominal TRL6 level.
The purpose of the Sustainable and Green Engine ITD (SAGE) is to assess, design, build and test up to five full-scale engine demonstrators distinguished by application (helicopter, regional,
narrow-body and wide-body aircraft) and by engine architecture (2-shaft, 3-shaft, geared, open-
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 94
rotor). These demonstration vehicles are using the competencies and facilities of all the European
aero-engine manufacturers complemented with those of related Research establishments, academia
and SMEs.
The main novelties in the SAGE ITD are the start of engine demonstrator tests (SAGE 3 – Large
Turbofan and SAGE 5 – Advanced Turboshaft) and the availability of new hardware including the
composite fan blades (RR) for the large turbofan, composite blades (Snecma) for CROR and the intermediate casing (GKN) for the turbofan. Another important achievement is the noise issue of
the CROR engines, which could be significantly mitigated by appropriate design of blades.
Confidence is now expressed by both SAGE 1 and SAGE 2 leaders that CROR powerplants can
achieve the reductions in external noise levels (in EPNdB) desired in future civil aircraft. The Panel regards all these achievements as encouraging outcomes of the Clean Sky work so far.
However, delays in the work plan are still threathening the programmes although mitigation plans are being adopted. Changes in the industry structure in Europe may also threathen the programmes
and the consequences of the acquisition of Clean Sky Partners by non-European competing firms
should be considered. The high number of CfPs is promoting involvement of a large number of SMEs at European level and widening participation of companies from other industrial sectors.
However, the low success rate of CfPs in some areas remains a source of concern. Finally, further
consideration should be given to the detailed process of estimating the benefits of the Clean Sky
programme in relation to contributions from other relevant programmes, and to how the benefits can be conveyed most clearly and accurately to authorities outside the specialist scientific/technical
community.
The Eco-Design ITD (ED) is focused on a very critical domain for Aerospace. Until now this
domain has been insufficiently taken into consideration by research studies in the different
Framework Programmes, namely to improve the environmental impact of Aircraft design,
manufacturing, maintenance and withdrawal. The ITD is well managed and its contribution is notable. However, the JU should better define the
concept of the ITD and identify the potential contribution from other State of the Art domains to
Aerospace (e.g. railways, automotive, etc.) in order to build a consistent and coherent approach for the domain. Clean Sky 2 offers an opportunity to launch a top-down design phase to address the
domain by taking into account inputs from other areas.
Regarding the Technology Evaluator ITD, the Panel observed real progress in the TE assessment.
TE has a critical role of assessing the environmental impact of the CS technologies by flying the
conceptual aircraft in various operating scenarios. The Panel greatly appreciated to see real figures
of ITDs environmental benefits and the contribution to ACARE targets. However the conceptual aircraft delivered as black boxes is hampering the original role of TE as an independent instrument.
Consequently, future TE developments must shift towards a more open definition and validation of
conceptual aircraft models.
The TE assessment provides an opportunity for ITDs in their decision making to focus on the most
promising technologies. TE has experienced some delays due to information not timely available from the ITDs. The Panel identifies a lack of use of the feedback mechanism that ensures the use of
the TE results within the vehicle ITDs. The Panel recommends a more active use of the TE
assessment results so that the ITDs can define and follow-up the effect of the corrective actions.
Finally, the frequent interactions with TE officials in the course of the preparation of the Panel
Report have allowed to clarify the concept of noise reduction. Up to now noise reduction has been
qualified as a reduction of the noise surface area, while, to compare with the ACARE goals a dB reduction should also be evaluated. This has not been included so far, because the data for this
additional evaluation were not provided for all concerned ITDs. The Panel has been assured that as
of the next yearly TE assessment, all the dB values will be also made available by the ITDs,
enabling TE to perform the expected comparison with the ACARE targets and CSPD objectives.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 95
The 1st Interim Evaluation Report, published in 2010, emphasised the existence of significant
delays, due to a variety of reasons, in one way or another, because the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking was set up as joint venture among the major European aeronautical Industries, each of them with its
own history, traditions and ‘modus operandi’. A major effort was thus required to harmonise these
differences in order to set up an efficient organisation, able to tackle the complexity of the activities required for such an ambitious undertaking. Therefore it should not be surprising at all that the
original targets for 2010 could not be met, in spite of the expert and competent management of the
CSJU. The Panel could only review at the time documents and interview the Leaders of the JU and
of all the ITDs in Brussels and to discuss in detail the difficulties encountered in starting the planned activities in an efficient manner.
For the 2nd
Interim Evaluation, the Panel visited some of the involved Partners at their own premises. These visits enabled the Panel to realise the enormous amount of R&D work performed
by each ITD and the significant results already obtained based on the implementation of clear and
well focussed plans. The Panel was very impressed by these results clearly showing that all the ITDs were on the right track, leaving little doubt that Clean Sky will eventually reach its overall
objectives. Given the research nature of CS, the Panel notes that some technologies have been
abandoned. This fact provides a good example of adaptability to changes, opportunities and
constraints.
There are still some delays (although reduced in most cases since 2010) and some technical issues
to be addressed, which should however not raise any serious concern. Actually it would be preferable to make available the new technologies required with some delays and at some extra
costs, rather than providing, on time and within the original costs, technologies not sufficiently
mature and validated.
A new planning has been implemented and overall good technical progress has been reported now. However, it should be noted that the original ambitions have to be adapted to the programme
timeline and resources available.
The Panel underlines that the CSJU strongly contributes to achieving the roadmaps that have been
jointly agreed between all stakeholders, considers the multi-annual approach as advantageous and
recommends this to be continued in the future.
Following a SWOT analysis, the Panel prepared recommendations for the remaining activities
under Clean Sky and - based on the lessons learnt - formulated recommendations for future public
private partnerships under Horizon 2020 (Clean Sky 2).
Finally, the Panel assesses the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking as a very ambitious European initiative
which can be regarded as the flagship for public-private-partnership supporting aeronautic R&D in Europe with the potential to become an innovative model of public-private-partnerships also for
other domains.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 96
10 Annexes
10.1 Composition of the 1st Interim Evaluation Panel
BERTOLINI, Enzo
ECKARDT, Dietrich
HECKER, Peter (Rapporteur)
HERRERA, Ivonne HORVAT, Manfred
HUGUET, Michel (Chairman)
10.2 Composition of the 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel
BERTOLINI, Enzo
BROUCKAERT, Jean Francois (Rapporteur) DI NUCCI, Maria-Rosaria
HERRERA, Ivonne
QUENTIN, Francois (Chairman)
10.3 Short Bio of the 2nd Interim Evaluation Panel Members
Enzo BERTOLINI (IT) is, since 2006, the Director of the 'Foundation Clément Fillietroz', operating the Astronomic Observatory and the Planetarium of the Aosta Valley (research in astrophysics and science communication for students and general public). He was at CERN (Geneva) from 1959 to 1962 (research in high energy physics), he then moved to the CNEN (now ENEA) at the Frascati Laboratory (research in plasma physics aiming at fusion power) from 1962 to 1969. He then accepted a Visiting Professorship (Regent's professor), at the University of California (Davis campus), teaching in the field of plasma physics applications from 1969 to 1970. He came back to Frascati to take the position of Director of the MHD (Magneto-Hydrodynamics Laboratory) from 1970 to 1973, when he was appointed Deputy Manager at the JET Project (Joint European Torus), Abingdon (UK), to design, build and operate the, still today, largest and most successful fusion energy experiment in the World (in November 1991, JET proved the scientific feasibility of fusion energy, reproducing a 'piece' of Sun on Earth for the first time). He covered various positions in JET, ending up, from 1992 to 1997 as Technical Director, responsible for all the Engineering and the experimental operation of this 1 billion € machine. In 1991 an unprecedented World collaboration was set up (Japan, China, Korea, India, European Union and United States to design ITER (International Tokamak Experimental Reactor), now under construction in the European site of Cadarache (France). Enzo Bertolini was involved in this activity, for several years, thanks to his wide experience acquired with JET. Subsequently he served as Technical and Scientific Advisor of the JET Director (1997-1999), and of the Director of the UKAEA Fusion Programme (1999- 2005), when JET became a user's facility, operated by the UKAEA, for the European Fusion Laboratories. Finally, before the present position, he has been a consultant for the Korean Basic Science Institute (KBSI), for the design and construction of KSTAR (the main Korean fusion facility). He has been, or is still member of various Institutions (EPS, IEEE, etc.) and Projects (such as ATLAS, the main LHC detector at CERN, where, last year, the Higgs particle was experimentally discovered, Project 242 of the Italian Space Agency, aiming at the design of a special nuclear engine, proposed by the Nobel laureate Carlo Rubbia, for a manned mission to Mars). Enzo Bertolini has been author or co-author of more than 120 publications in Journals and in proceeding of major Conferences in the fields of his research activities. His academic career started as Assistant Professor at the department of Electrical Engineering at the University of Rome (1064-1069) and continued as Visiting Professor at the College of Engineering at the University of California (Davis Campus and Santa Barbara Campus) from 1969 to 1988, when he was appointed Adjunct Professor at Davis.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 97
Jean-Francois BROUCKAERT (BE), is Associate Professor in the Turbomachinery and Propulsion Department at the von Karman Institute for Fluid Dynamics (VKI), Belgium. He graduated as a Mechanical Engineer from the Faculté Polytechnique de Mons in 1994. He then joined the VKI for a postgraduate Research Master in Turbomachinery and obtained his PhD from Université Libre de Bruxelles in 2002. His major fields of activities are axial compressor design and testing as well as high frequency and high temperature instrumentation for gas turbines. Dr. Brouckaert is also Secretary General of EVI-GTI, the European Virtual Institute for Gas Turbine Instrumentation. He is co-chair of several NATO-RTO AVT (Advanced Vehicle Technology) working groups. He has served as an independent expert in several previous evaluations and reviews for European funded projects.
Maria Rosaria DI NUCCI (IT) is a Senior Researcher at the Environmental Policy Research Centre of the Freie Universität Berlin and an independent consultant. She holds a Masters degree in Economics from the University of Rome (1979) and a PhD (1986) from SPRU (Science and Technology Policy Research) of the University of Sussex. She has been working in environmental and energy policy for over 25 years and was involved in various EU Initiatives and projects. Formerly she was Head of the Climate Protection Group at the Ministry of Urban Development and Environment of the Land Berlin (1989-2001) and a lecturer in Industrial Economics at the Berlin Technical University (1985-89). A further focus of her activities is impact assessment. Dr. Di Nucci is an expert evaluator and reviewer for European RTD funding organisations and the EC. She participated also in the interim evaluation of the Innovative Medicine JU and Fuel Cell and Hydrogen Joint Undertaking, acting as the common expert.
Ivonne HERRERA (NO) is a Senior Scientist at SINTEF Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Department of Software Engineering Safety and Security. She has degrees in Electrical Engineering, Masters in Aeronautical Maintenance and Production and PhD in Resilience Engineering and Safety Management. She has more than 20 years experience in the industry regarding avionics engineering, maintenance, air traffic management and safety analyses for aviation and oil and gas industries. The EC has invited Dr. Herrera as an independent expert acting as evaluator or reviewer for evaluation research activities. In 2010, She was member of the expert Panel for the 1st Interim Evaluation of Clean Sky Joint Undertaking. Dr. Herrera is currently involved in Single European Sky ATM Research (SESAR) projects and acts as project manager for SESAR project such as Dynamic Risk Modeling and a long-term innovative research project dealing with resilience potential for Air Traffic Management in case of system degradation. Dr. Herrera has been invited as a reviewer for different journal such as Reliability Engineering and System Safety, International Journal of Applied Aviation Studies, Information and Software Technology and Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science. She is currently guest editor to the widely read and respected journal Reliability Engineering & System Safety.
Francois QUENTIN (FR) is an engineer, he graduated in 1975 at Paris Telecom Paris-Tech, he is a French Navy Reserve Officer. Since October the 1
st 2010, he is the Chairman of the Board of
Directors of HUAWEI France, he is also a member of the HUAWEI Group Advisory Council. He is member of the Board of Directors of French and foreign companies. He is Senior Advisor of a leading consulting strategy firm in France. He is a member of an Advisory Group to the Prime Minister Office. From 2003 to 2012, he was Chairman of the Advisory Council for Aeronautics Research in Europe (ACARE) Brussels a European Commission body in charge of the 2020 Aeronautics Strategic Research Agenda ( refer to : acare4europe.org). In 2008, on behalf of the French Minister for Transport, he launched CORAC (Committee for Research in Aeronautics chaired by the French Ministry in charge of Transport). CORAC is in charge of defining the research strategy for Aeronautics in France 2030. He chaired CORAC from 2008 to 2009, he was a member until 2012. From 2000 to 2010, he was member of the board of the French Aerospace Trade Association (GIFAS) and a member of the board of the European Trade Association ( ASD: Aero Space and Defense). Since 2003, he was a member of the Executive Committee, CEO of the Aerospace Division of the THALES group. In 2009, as SVP and as member of the Executive Committee of THALES, he took charge of the Group global Transformation. Since 1992, he was CEO of various THALES subsidiaries, AUXILEC (Aerospace electrical equipment), SEXTANT Avionique, now THALES Avionics (Flight deck avionics, Flight controls etc…).
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 98
10.4 Terms of Reference
The most relevant extracts of the “Terms of Reference” document provided to the Panel by the DG
RTD of the European Commission are listed below. Those are provided as guidelines to the Panel
members as a non-exhaustive list of questions to be addressed and assessed. The focus was mainly set on the evaluation of the effectiveness, efficiency and quality of the CSJU, additionally to the
technical progress of the work programme under each ITD.
1. QUESTIONS TO BE ADDRESSED
The objectives of the CS JU are set up in Article 2 of its Regulation.
The objective of this second interim evaluation is to assess the progress and achievements of the
Clean Sky Joint Undertaking using a common framework between the different JUs to provide coherence for the interim evaluations. In line with Article 11(2) of the Regulation, the evaluation
will be undertaken against the following criteria:
Effectiveness: The progress towards meeting the objectives set, including how all parties
in the public-private partnerships live up to their financial and managerial responsibilities and keep an open non-discriminatory attitude towards a wide community of stakeholders.
Efficiency: The extent to which the JTIs are managed and operate efficiently.
Research Quality: The extent to which the JTIs enable world-class research that helps
propel Europe to a leadership position globally, and how they engage with a wider
constituency to open the research to the broader society.
In applying those criteria, the follow-up of the recommendations of the first interim evaluation
should also be assessed. An indicative list of evaluation questions to be covered is provided in
Annex 1.
Currently, the CS JU is progressing towards the build-up of demonstrators to be ground and/or flight tested. The 2
nd Interim Assessment of Clean Sky will therefore be in the position of providing
a firma evaluation of the progress towards the technical objectives.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 99
ANNEX 1: Criteria and questions for the 2nd Interim Evaluation of the CS JU (non-
exhaustive list)
1 - General
Q1.1 What is the competitive position of the CS Technologies in the short, medium and long
term?
Q1.2 What changes have occurred from a technology development point of view (e.g.
complementary/competitive technology) and in the global economic/financial context of
this sector since the initiation of the CS JU programme and what are their likely effects?
Q1.3 To what extent were the recommendations from the first interim evaluation taken into account/implemented?
2 - Effectiveness: Progress towards meeting the objectives set.
Q2.1 What progress has been achieved towards the objectives set in the Article 2 of the Council
Regulation setting up the JU? In particular:
Q2.1.1 Has the Clean Sky JU adequately supported aeronautics research in Europe towards the
ACARE 2020 goals as stated in the SRA2?
Q2.1.2 Has there been progress towards the definition and development of the Demonstrators as
set out in the 7-year Work Programme?
Q2.1.3 Has the Clean Sky JU ensured complementarity with other activities of the Seventh Framework Programme? Has CS been effective at leveraging R&D investment at national
programme level?
Q2.1.4 To what extent has the Clean Sky JU succeeded in grouping stakeholders around a project
of common European interest?
Q2.1.5 Has the Clean Sky JU contributed/promoted to the participation/involvement of Small and
Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs) in its membership/partnership?
Q2.1.6
Are the technical areas (ITDs) structured well in order to achieve their objectives
efficiently? Is the communication appropriate to achieving the overall objectives of Clean
Sky? In particular:
within ITDs?
Across ITDs?
Towards the Technology Evaluator?
Q2.1.7 Are the Technology Evaluator strategy and workplan the most effective in order to assess
the environmental impact of Clean Sky?
Q2.1.8 What changes have occurred in the research and socio-economic context of this sector
since the initiation of the programme and what are their likely effects?
Are the objectives and timeline of the JU still in line with these challenges?
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 100
3 - Efficiency: The extent to which the JU has been operated efficiently, whether there has been
good communication of objectives and progress, and the ability to address problems as they arose.
Q3.1 Are the overall legal framework and the modalities for implementation of the JU clear, appropriate and effective?
Q3.2 Are the activities of the JU carried out efficiently?
Q3.3 Do the activities of the JU constitute effective methods of achieving the objectives set?
Q3.4 Is the level of supervision/control within the JU capabilities appropriate to effective
monitoring of progress and has it early warning capability?
Q3.5 Are the JU’s objectives adequately specified and clearly understood by external
stakeholders?
Q3.6 Is the JU effective in terms of knowledge dissemination? Are the JU’s activities
sufficiently visible to the public?
Q3.7 How adaptable is the JU to changing research needs and policy priorities and how are
external stakeholders from science, industry and policy involved in identifying these
needs and shaping the priorities?
4 - Research quality: The extent to which the JU supports top-class RTD in the area.
Q4.1 At this stage, what are the indications that the RTD activities supported by the JU are of
high quality?
Q4.2
Is the membership/partnership of Clean Sky representative of top competences and strengths scattered throughout Europe? How is the participation pattern in terms of
stakeholders (academic, industrial, including SMEs, and research organisation sectors),
geographical and gender balance?
Q4.3 Are the topic descriptions in the Call for Proposal texts appropriate to attract the right level of applicants and ensure innovation?
Q4.4 Is the JU perceived as flagship for Public-Private partnership-supported RTD in the world
and what more could be done in this respect?
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 101
10.5 Interviews and sources of information
The Evaluation Report is based on extensive documentation provided by the EC DG RTD and the CSJU. The Panel acknowledges that responses were timely and well prepared. Information was also received through interviews carried out between March and September with the persons listed below. All ITD leaders have participated in the interviews and presentations. The technical visits provided concrete evidence of work e.g. software and hardware presentations. During these visits additional personnel directly involved in the developments discussed were present.
10.5.1 JU Executive Team participants to interviews
DAUTRIAT, Eric Executive Director
PAGNANO, Giuseppe Coordinating Project Officer (PO)
SELMIN, Vittorio PO SAGE-ITD
DEN BOER, Ruud PO SGO-ITD
DITTMANN, Bettina Internal Audit and Quality Officer
DUBOIS, Sébastien PO GRC-ITD
GAVIN, Elisabeth Head of Administration and Finance
FAU, Fernanda Communication Officer
LE HUNCHEC, Yan Project Controller
VAN MANEN, Ron PO TE
POFSADOWSKI, Andrzej PO GRA-ITD
SCHWARZE, Helmut PO SFWA-ITD
TRINCHIERI, Paolo PO ED-ITD
10.5.2 ITD participants to interviews
PINTO, Rocco Alenia Aermacchi
POUSSIN, Giles Thales
ZIEHM, Sebastian Liebherr
KOENIG, Jens Airbus
HELSTROM, Thomas SAAB
OLLIVIER Yvon Dassault Aviation
PACEY, Mark Rolls-Royce plc
10.5.3 Interaction with the NSRG and STAB
LAWLER Jim Chair of the NSRG
EWINS David Chair of the STAB
EURY Serge Member of the STAB
GRASSO Francesco Member of the STAB
SANNA RANDACCIO Francesca Member of the STAB
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 102
10.5.4 Reference documents used in the 2nd Interim Evaluation
1st Interim Evaluation- Panel Report of 13 December 2010
Clean Sky setting up
o Council Regulation 71/2008
o Ex-Ante Evaluation of Clean Sky – Impact Assessment 13 June 2007
o Report on JTI structure and Rules for Participation – 23 June 2006
o 2008 Technical evaluation of Clean Sky
Cover note to Evaluation Summary Reports
Transversal Comments across ITDs
Summary reports for ED, GRA, GRC, SFWA, SAGE, SGO, TE
Clean Sky Bodies
o Governing Board
2010-2013 Minutes of Meeting and adopted documents
2010-2013 Minutes of Meetings and related documents
o National States Representative Group
NSRG Rules of Procedure
NSRG Fact Sheet
2008-2013 Minutes of Meetings and related documents
o Scientific and Technical Advisory Board
STAB Terms of Reference
STAB composition – Press release
2010-2013 Minutes of Meetings and related documents
Clean Sky 2 Consultation. Initial View of the Member States and
Associate States
Clean Sky JU Internal Documents
o Clean Sky Policy for SMEs (Sept. 2010)
o Financial Rules of the Clean Sky Joint Undertaking
o Provisional accounts and budgetary implementation report of the CSJU for
the year 2011
o Provisional accounts and budgetary implementation report of the CSJU for
the year 2012
o Clean Sky JU Multi-annual Staff Policy Plan 2013-2015
o Strategic Audit Plan 2010 – 2012
o Strategic Audit Plan 2011 – 2013 of the IAO
o Quality Manual Ed. 9
o CS Management Manual
CSJU Management Manual V1
CSJU Management Manual Annexes
CSJU Management Manual V3 of 25.5.2013
o Draft Annual Activity Report 2012
o CSJU Communication & Dissemination Strategy. December 2012 Update
o Communication Action Plan 2013
o Financing Agreements EC-C
General Financing Agreement
2009+2010 Annual Financing Agreements
o Model Grant Agreements
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 103
GAM version 18-03-2010 + Annexes
GAM SGO Year 2013-2014 + Annexes
GAP version 18-03-2010 + Annexes
Technical Activities
o Research Programme
Technical Proposal March 2007
2008 Work Programmes per ITD
Annexes Ia for ED, GRA, GRC, SAGE, SFWA, SGO and
TE
2009 Update of Work Programme per ITD (where applicable)
2009 Annex Ia update for ED, GRA, GRC, SAGE and TE
2009 Annex Ib update for ED and SAGE
o Members
Annual Implementation Plans
Adopted AIP 2008-2010
ITD Annual Technical Activity Reports
2008 + 2009 Technical activity reports for ED, GRA, GRC,
SAGE, SFWA, SGO and TE
2012 Activity report GRA, SGO
Annual review of 2009 activities per ITD –2009, 2010, 2011, 2012
Reviews of ED, GRA, GRC, SAGE, SFWA, SGO and TE
o Partners
Clean Sky Rules for Participants – Guide for Applicants
Call text and outcome (2009-2012)
Additional documents provided after the Kick-Off-Meeting
o Presentation KOM Terms of Reference
o Presentation KOM Panel Meeting 1
o Presentation Clean Sky coordination with national programmes (NSRG)
o ITDs technical presentations and answer to Panel questions April 10
o ITDs technical presentations and answers to Panel questions during
technical visits
o List of actions from 1st Interim Assessment and status
Consultation documents and reports to Clean Sky 2
o CLEAN SKY 2 Impact Assessment. Final Report of the Expert Group
of 29 September 2012
SFWA : Documents, meetings and site visits:
A complete set of documents was provided by the JU covering all the previous stage of the
project.
On April the 10th
, a meeting was organized to present to the Panel the ITD and its status.
The presentation was made by Jens Koenig (AIRBUS) and Thomas Ellstroem (SAAB), Helmut
Schwartze (CSJU) was present.
A visit in Toulouse was organized on May the 23rd
and many in-depths discussions with all the
relevant leaders. Jens Koenig was leading the Airbus team. The CSJU attended to the visit. One
day visits focused on briefing and visits.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 104
An SFWA ITD update briefing and discussion with Jens Koenig project leader and Axel
Krein director Research at Airbus and discussion with the Panel
A presentation of the Ground based Demonstrators by Norman Wood with a visit of
the display on site.
A presentation of the BLADE demonstrators flight test by Thierry Fol.
A discussion with Axel Krein, Research VP Airbus.
A visit of the A340-300 flying test bed selected to test BLADE.
A visit of the Digital Mock Up by Sylvain Pradayrol.
Visit of A340-300, flying test Aircraft selected for the mission, led by Sylvain Pradayrol
(Airbus Flight Tests): two 8 meters long wing sections will be removed and replaced by
the new laminar flow “smart wing” sections of two different types (one on each side of the
aircraft). These sections are identical externally but are different in terms of structure and
technologies.
The site visits were focused exclusively on the BLADE projects, the demonstrators are
outstanding and the associated briefing was explicit about the positive expected results
(Airbus confidential data). The complexity of the BLADE project was very clearly
explained: aircraft modifications were explained. Flight test constraints are understood and
managed. Manufacturing processes were explained and demonstrated (Film).
GRA: Meetings
- April 10, 2013: meeting at the JU, Brussels, Belgium.
- July 4th – 5
th Naples visit to Alenia
- Presentations and other relevant information
- GRA ITD Presentation II Interim Assessment Panel. Brussels, Wednesday, 10
April 2013. The ITD presentation included videos of technological developments.
- Additional answers were provided during September 2013.
Presentations - files Naples technical visit, including some presenters:
Agenda for 4-5 July visit 020713 Update
01-Opportunities for Regional aircraft, P. Cerreta / G. Lannuzzo. Figure on page 6 used in the
CS1 2nd
Iterim Evalaution Report
01-Introduction to AEA (history, objectives...)
02 – GRA One Piece Barrel (OPB) Evaluation
02 - Status of GRA AEA Figure from page 2 used in the CS1 2nd
Iterim Evalaution Report
03 - EPDGS presentation. F. Cuomo. figure from page 5 used in the report
03 – GRA OaA Infusion Technologies – Outer Wing ground demonstrator
04 – E-ECS for Regional Aircraft presentation, Alessandro Della Rocca
04 – Metal welding – Nano material, Fernando Bianchetti
05 - Status of activities GRA Low Weight Configuration domain. V. Ascione / V. D’Errico.
05- H-WIPS for regional aircraft, Giusy Nugnes
06 – EMA FCS presentation – Flight Control System – Electro-Mechanical Actuation for FCS
application
06- JTI Flying Panel evaluation. V. D’Ambrosio / V. D’Errico. Figure on page 12 used in the
CS1 2nd
Iterim Evalaution Report
07 – EMA MLG presentation
07 – Status of activities GRA MTM S. Mastorana
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 105
08 - Assessment of AEA & LWC technologies at aircraft level, Giovanni Cerino & Rossella
Valiante (Alenia Aermacchi Preliminary Design department) Figures from pages 13 and 14
used in the CS1 2nd
Iterim Evalaution Report
Status of activities (GRA LNC)
GRC : Documents, meetings and site visits:
Documents :
- General CS information provided on USB key at Kick-Off Meeting
- Annual Review Reports
- Meeting Presentations
Meetings
- April 10, 2013: meeting at the JU, Brussels, Belgium.
SGO: Documents, meetings and site visits:
Documents :
- General CS information provided on USB key at Kick-Off Meeting
- Annual Review Reports
- Meeting Presentations
Meetings
- April 10, 2013: meeting at the JU, Brussels, Belgium.
- May 23, 2013: meeting at AIRBUS, Toulouse, France.
- May 24, 2013: meeting at THALES and LIEBHERR, Toulouse, France
Presentations and other relevant information
- Clean Sky "Systems for Green Operation - Integrated Technology Demonstrator" Gilles Poussin (Thales) / Sebastian Ziehm (Liebherr); Ruud den Boer (CleanSky
JU); 10th Apr Brussels
- Clean Sky “Systems for Green Operation” Integrated Technology Demonstrator”
Gilles Poussin (Thales) / Kader Benmachou (Liebherr), Sebastien Vial (Airbus)
23rd -24
th May 2013, Toulouse
- Clean Sky “Systems for Green Operation ” Integrated Technology Demonstrator”
(SGO-ITD): Toulouse, 24th May 2013 Gilles Poussin (Thales) / Kader
Benmachou (Liebherr) (MTM Functions) 24th May 2013, Toulouse
- SGO ITD LIEBHERR AEROSPACE TOULOUSE SGO Consortium, 24th May
2013, Toulouse
- ITD Systems for Green Operations Grant Agreement Annex 1A 2013-2014
SGO-WP 0-TAV-MNGT-0320-A08, Annex 1B Year 2013-2014
SGO-WP 0-TAV-MNGT-0321-A10
SAGE: Documents, meetings and site visits:
Documents :
- General CS information provided on USB key at Kick-Off Meeting
- Annual Review Reports
- Meeting Presentations
Meetings
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 106
- April 10, 2013: meeting at the JU, Brussels, Belgium.
- June 18, 2013: meeting at Rolls-Royce, Derby, UK.
- June 25-28, 2013: SAGE annual review meeting at Scandic Swania Hotel hosted
by GKN Aerospace (Volvo), Trollhattan, Sweden (SAGE 7th Annual Review
Meeting).
Eco-Design ITD presentations and additional material:
Presentation April the 10th by Yvon Ollivier (Dassault Aviation) and Paolo Trinchieri (CSJU).
The presentation made was sent to the Panel members.
A memorandum proposing the ITD’s answers to the Panel was sent on 21/05/13 under the
following identification: ED-WP_0MEM0441. A second version of the same document (same number) was sent on the 29/08/13.
TE: Documents, meetings and site visits:
Documents :
- General CS information provided on USB key at Kick-Off Meeting
- Annual Review Reports
- Meeting Presentations
Meetings
- April 10, 2013: meeting at the JU, Brussels, Belgium.
- May 24, 2013: meeting at THALES and LIEBHERR, Toulouse, France
- Telephone conferences August and September with TE representatives
Presentations and other relevant information
- Clean Sky TE 2nd
CS interim review CSJU April 10, 2013
- CLEAN SKY 1st INTERIM EVALUATION (15 dec 2010) PANEL REPORT.
This document indicates how TE addressed recommendations from 1st Interim
Evaluation
- Second CS Interim Review Technology Evaluator presentation
Thales Avionics - May 24th, 2013, Toulouse, France
- CLEAN SKY DEVELOPMENT PLAN V 2.02 DRAFT
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 107
10.6 Procedure comparison among three JUs: Fuel Cell & Hydrogen (FCH), Innovative Medicines (IMI) and Clean Sky
ACTIVITIES
FCH IMI CS
JUs Organisation
Legal Form Legally established in May 2008 as community body involving a PPP based on the principles of the EU Financial Regulations. Full autonomy in November 2010.
Legally established in December 2007 as community body involving a PPP under the EU Financial Regulations. Full autonomy in November 2009.
Legally established in December 2007 as a community body involving a PPP under the EU Financial Regulations. Full autonomy in November 2009.
Veto Right EC YES
(by failing consensus a majority of 9/12 is required and EC has an indivisible vote of 5/12)
de jure NO, de facto YES
(decisions taken by a three-quarters majority and requiring the positive vote by
the Founding Members)
YES
Founding members EU and ‘Industry Grouping’. The Research Grouping became a member late in 2008.
EU and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA)
EU and Industry consisting of 12 ITD leaders, 72 Associates (and 450 Partners).
STAFFING Authorised ceiling of 20 staff of which 18 posts assigned as of June 2013.
5 Project Managers responsible for approx. 150 projects and overloaded with a wide range of administrative functions and other functions dealing (directly or indirectly) with operational activities (financial, legal, audit and communication officers)
Additional efficiencies resulting from internal reallocation of resources and sharing of horizontal services with other JUs are already exploited.
Authorised maximum ceiling of 36 staff members reached in July 2012.
9 scientific managers for scientific activities +3 communications/external relations. In total 30 + 6 admin. assistants.
80% of staff resources are assigned to directly work or support operational activities.
Authorised ceiling of 24
8 Project officers; 75% of staff dealing with operational activity (technical and financial); 6 staff on horizontal support, e.g. Executive Director, Head of Admin, secretary, Internal Auditor; etc.
Nr of calls for Proposals
6 in total, one yearly
11 in total (9- 11 to be launched in second half of 2013)
14 in total (one planned in July 2013)
Nr of projects estimated total of 150 for 2008-2013 40 signed (estimated 60 in total) 342 GAP (Grant Agreement for Partners) + 7 GAM (Grant Agreement for Members) = 349 projects signed (further 63 under negotiation and further 30 to be published) – Estimated final total -= 442 projects
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 108
ACTIVITIES
FCH IMI CS
Nr of projects per PO
Approx. 25-30 projects/PO The Head of Programme does also manage 13 projects.
Each on-going project managed by a scientific & a finance officer. Projects’ portfolio distributed among 9 scientific and 4 finance officers (7 projects per scientific officer on average).
1 GAM and 60 GAPs per PO on average
BUDGET Funding for RTD 2008-2013: 940 M€ (including max 40 M € for running costs)
Contribution on a 50/50 basis by the EC in cash and IG/RG( in-kind for operations and cash for running costs)
2 billion € (1 billion from EC in cash/ EFPIA companies contribute €1 billion in kind), including maximum €40 million contribution per Founding Member. Funding is distributed through open and competitive CfP following a peer reviewed two-stage process.
2008-2013: 780.26 M €. Contribution on a 50/50 basis by the EC (in cash) and the aeronautical industry (in-kind). ITD Leaders commit up to 400m €, Associates members up to 200 m € and Partners receive (through Call for Proposals) a minimum of 200m €.
AUDIT Internal Audit Commission’s Internal Audit Service (IAS)
Internal Audit Capability within the JU
External Audit European Court of Auditors
COORDINATION amongst JUs
Shared services & facilities
Logistics (building); Common IT infrastructure
Shared approach on continuation of JU in H2020 legal basis and financial rules
Regular coordination between Internal Audit Functions of the 3 JUs in place for issues of horizontal nature (e.g. audit methodology, approach towards the Court of Auditors). Audit services are also shared between JUs when it is the most cost-efficient solution (e.g. common framework contract on Ex-Post audits, joint engagements…)
Synergies/ commonalities
Informal general coordination at executive directors’ level (quarterly) and Heads of Administration and Finance IT Governance Committee (quarterly meetings) Common framework contracts (e.g. ex-post audits, interim staffing, IT support)
Coordination on case-by-case basis for communication / HR / legal matters /IT/ audits...
Planned common activities
2nd October 2013: JTIs joint conference and exhibit at European Parliament
Potential services to be shared
IT No objection within JU. There is already a shared IT service (outsourced to an external firm). IT officer of the JU chairs the IT Governance Committee & ensures coordination between JUs on common IT issues.
No objection within JU. Joint management of common infrastructure and services already in place.
No objection within JU Joint management of common infrastructure and services already in place.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 109
ACTIVITIES
FCH IMI CS
Internal audit The JU has an Internal Audit Manager covering assurance (i.e. audits) and consulting services on risk management, governance aspects, reporting and ex-post audit .This internal solution with a multi-task approach is considered by FCH JU the most efficient solution to address the necessary ‘assurance’ and ‘advisory’ needs of the JU.
The JU has an Internal Audit Manager providing internal assurance and consulting services on governance, internal control, ex-post and risk management processes. This current arrangement, embedded within the JU’s internal governance and internal control system is considered by the JU as essential and necessary as to ensure timely and efficient response to the ‘assurance’ and ‘advisory’ needs of the JU.
JU has Internal Audit Officer focusing on advisory services, risk assessment, ex-post audit process. “Internal” advisory function, partially management role. This internal solution is considered by CS as more effective. CS claims that the quality function within the JU is essential. Even if the internal audit could be shared, this internal knowledge and advisory role should be kept.
Other administrative services
JU claims that a combination of “multi-task” of staff in a JU (HR & general affairs; legal & procurement; accounting & finance…) with coordination & cooperation on a case by case basis with other JUs is more efficient as it has the advantage of knowledge of the JU transactions, flexibility and business continuity
Enhanced cooperation and synergies in areas of support services (e.g. IT, HR, Finance) are desirable but remains to be further investigated based on impact analysis of centralisation of common support services by DG RTD for the Research family under Horizon 2020, workload and budget (including staffing level) for IMI2.
Some staff are performing ‘multi-task’ functions, e.g. the Assistant to the Director is the only person dealing with all HR matters for the JU; the Legal officer is combining the role of legal officer with procurement officer and Data Protection Officer and is also in charge with European Parliament relations; The internal audit function and quality management role are performed by the same person.
GOVERNANCE Governing bodies Same structure based on Governing Board and advisory bodies (SC, SRG/STAB, Stakeholder Assembly/Stakeholder Forum/General Forum)
Governing Board The GB consists of the EC (5 members), the Industry Grouping (6 Members) and 1 member of the Research Grouping.
The GB consists of the EC (5 members) and EFPIA (5 Members)
The GB consists of the EC, 12 ITD leaders and 6 Associates (rotating representatives for associates)
Scope and functions of
the SRG
SRG acts as advisory group and should interface with the relevant stakeholders in their respective countries.
Around 10 members attend regularly. The Group meets at least bi-annually
The chair attends as observer the GB meetings.
SRG acts as advisory group and as an interface with the relevant stakeholders in their respective countries. It is supposed to have an important role in liaising with the national programmes and helping in dissemination and outreach activities. SRG members shall act as IMI ambassadors/ multipliers.
SRG acts as advisory group and as an interface with the relevant stakeholders in their respective countries. 14 members attend regularly. Some members are at the same time NCPs or/and members of the programme-me committee. The CS ED and the GB Chair attend the NSRG meetings and the Chair of the NSRG attends as an observer at the CS GB.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 110
ACTIVITIES
FCH IMI CS
Up to now there have been limited joint activities. There appear to be a strong interest in reviewing AIP and MAIP and in advising on the strategic orientation of the programme.
The SRG has been invited to propose experts and to contribute to the workshops related to the calls consultations prior to launch.
SRG consulted on annual scientific priorities set out in AIPs.
SRG proposes candidatures for the SC to be approved by the GB.
During 2012, the NSRG met four times and was represented at the GB meetings.
Members take a supportive role particularly in relating with the European Council and take part in information dissemination and Info days. They analyse the results of the calls.
Scope and functions of the Scientific Committee SC/STAB
The SC (9 members from academia, industry and regulatory bodies) provides scientific advice on the R&D agenda (MAIP & AIP) and participates in the monitoring of the FCH JU programme by acting as experts in the annual Programme Review Days
The SC (15 members, including the EU regulatory agency EMA as observer) provides scientific advice to the Governing Board
The STAB (established in 2010) is involved in monitoring the progress of the 7 ITDs that comprise the technical content of the programme, largely through participation as Reviewers at the Annual Reviews and in the mid-year progress reviews and other reviews throughout the year. Each Board member is associated with the reviews of at least 2 ITDs and also serves to check the quality of the reports delivered by these ITDs. The STAB oversees all the reviews and produces (since 2012, at the ED’s request) a synthesis of the annual reviews outcomes.
Role and authority of Exec. Director
Chief executive responsible for the management and implementation of the JU programme in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Board. No system of delegation from the GB to the Exec. Director in place.
Chief executive responsible for the management and implementation of the JU programme in accordance with the decisions of the Governing Board.
Few discretionary decisions. A system of delegation from the GB to the Exec. Director for routine operations is envisioned.
Chief executive responsible for the management and implementation of the JU in accordance with the decisions of the GB. CS is a programme, with a common set of objectives, cross-links between platforms, interfaces, priorities and management. The exec Director is in charge with it. The director has delegation for contracts signatures up to a predefined level.
SMEs
Support/ Involvement of SMEs/
No dedicated PO focusing on SMEs. All POs do their best to involve as many SMEs in the projects.
A Scientific officer has been tasked with focusing on SMEs and developed links with many SMEs associations. IMI Executive
No dedicated officer focusing on SMEs
CfP participants: 38% SMEs winning in CfPs
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 111
ACTIVITIES
FCH IMI CS
CfP statistics One seat in the JU-GB is reserved for SMEs (in practice, there are 2 SMEs seating in the GB)
SME participation > than in FP (in 2008-2012 : 25% of the funding compared to 18% in FP7)
>50% of the more than 60 members of the IG are SMEs
Office supports SMEs through info on IPR, a web based tool kit, advice on negotiating grants & project agreements, rules on financial reporting. SME are selected based on the needs of EFPIA consortium coordinators. In total, there are 141 SMEs participating in IMI projects (15.9% of total participants). 21.4% of IMI Calls funding is allocated to SMEs (Calls 1-8). Perceived benefits for SMEs: to work with large companies, who are potential clients. There has been a steady increase in SME participation in IMI consortia and in EoI.
SMEs´ share of funding earmarked for CfP (25% of EC contribution) amounts to 35%
Financial restrictions/
red tape
As the FCH is not part of the guarantee fund it carries out a Financial Viability Check (eligibility for grant pre-financing) which may lead to requiring a guarantee or limiting the amount of pre-financing and this may appear difficult for some SMEs. Possibility to organise a workshop on the topic between FCH JU PO/ EC and SMEs who have been facing these issues.
No need for financial guarantee for SMEs, but a financial viability check is performed. The current IP-policy of the IMI is alleged to discourage the participation of SMEs.
No need for financial guarantee for SMEs, but a financial viability check is performed.
SMEs can be mono-beneficiaries which contributes to the high percentage participation in CFPs
Participation in JU CfP procedures and regulations
FUNDING rate
The funding rules are very close to the FP7 ones .The upper funding rates for direct costs are basically the FP7 ones, with the additional requirement of matching between EU funds and in-kind contribution from participants. This might lead to decreased funding rates with a ‘correction factor’ to be applied across the whole call. Funding rates may differ for each Call depending on ‘correction factor’ applied.
Eligibility for funding limited to academia, research institutes, patient organisations, regulators, SMEs
75% RTD contribution to SMEs/academia and other IMI beneficiaries; 20% flat overhead rate or actual indirect costs
For other activities , management and training, the IMI JU financial contribution may reach a maximum of 100% of the total eligible costs
The single entity applying is eligible for either 50% or 75% depending on the legal status (for example industry or SME); in case of a consortium, both funding criteria will apply and the resulting funding will be an average of the two percentages, weighted by the actual contributions of each partner.
The existing members are only eligible for 50% funding if they are winners of CFPs
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 112
ACTIVITIES
FCH IMI CS
This assessment is done after the evaluation of each call and before starting negotiations.
Indirect costs (overhead) can be declared based either on ‘actual’ or on a ‘flat rate’ model (EC validation system), but are reimbursed at a maximum fixed rate of 20% of the direct costs.
EFPIA companies contribute with in-kind or cash contribution and are not reimbursed.
Budget distribution:
Up to : 400 M €: leaders
Up to 200M € : associates
At least 200 M€ CfP
Average funding rate in Calls: 65.6%
Applicants success rate: 35%
Rules for participation/
Requirements for consortia
Similar as in FP7 (3 legal entities from at least 3 MS or associated countries etc.) with one addition: at least one member of the consortium must be member either of the IG or of the RG.
Two-stage process. In Stage 1 applicants (at least 2 legal entities eligible for IMI funding) submit EoI for joining a consortium of EFPIA member companies. In Stage 2 the successful applicants and EFPIA consortium (at least 2 EFPIA companies) are invited to submit a full proposal. With the 4th revision of the IMI model Grant Agreement, IMI projects have been provided with additional flexibility:
- to launch competitive calls for the addition of new beneficiaries to on-going projects
- for setting up synergies with other on-going IMI collaborative research projects.
Most of RDD&TD are performed by the Members of CS whose activities are covered by Grant Agreements for Members (GAM). There is one amendment to the GAM per year and per ITD which specifies work plan, resources and budget. Subcontractors are selected by Members through Calls for Tender. Part of the CS programme using 25% of the EC contribution is performed by Partners selected through CfP. Successful CfPs lead to the signature of Grant Agreement for Partners (GAP). Average GAP duration is 20 months. There are also mono-beneficiaries. CS does not require a consortium as a constraint; even a single entity can apply.
Financial regulations
In kind contributions (‘matching rule’)
Procedure in use (based on GB approved methodology) to verify that the in-kind contributions provided by the JU participants´ match the cash contribution from the EU. The ‘correction factor’ is the main tool ‘to steer’ the matching between EU funds and in-kind contribution from
In Kind contribution
Procedure in use to verify that Members’ in-kind contributions to IMI match the cash contribution from the EC. EFPIA in kind contribution is monitored through different levels, Call, Grant agreements, ex-ante and ex-post audits.
A limited amount of in kind contribution from outside the EU and associated countries can now account for industry
In Kind contribution
There is a procedure in use to verify that Members’ in-kind contributions to CS match the cash contribution from the EC. The verification is carried out at 3 levels, by audits inside the Members’ organisations when preparing their Form C (annual cost claim), by a CS ex-ante check before payment on the basis of the documents provided (which includes a document of
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 113
ACTIVITIES
FCH IMI CS
the participants, in order to comply with the requirement of the Regulation by the end of the Programme.
The verification of the in-kind contri-butions reported by the participants in the cost claims (CCs) is done at three levels: (1) ex-ante review of 100% of CCs by the JU, (2) audit certificates carried out by beneficiaries’ auditors for CCs above pre-defined thresholds and (3) Ex-Post audits by the JU on a sample basis. Assessment and reporting. In addition, FCH JU Council Regulation (art 12.7) requests an independent auditor to assess the in-kind contri-butions on an annual basis and report the results by April of N+1. Since the autonomy of the JU, two annual assessments have been carried out.
matching contribution. This relates to up to 10% of the global contribution for standard projects within a global cap of 5% of the total industry contribution.
For projects of special interest to the EU and society, such as antimicrobial resistance, there is no maximum limit by project but a maximum limit of 30% of the total in kind contribution.
audit procedures to be carried out above 200k threshold per claim) and by an ex-post audit of Members’ expenses against the specified GAM activities.
CS Financial Regulations only allow for either 20% flat rate without justification or real overheads, there is nothing in between.
Time to grant Time to pay
Target in H2020
< 180 days from evaluation
< 90 days
Present
Between 341 and 411 days
365 days in 2011
< 90 days
Target in H2020
< 180 days from evaluation
< 90 days
Present Evaluation process was streamlined. Time to grant (reduction from 400 days in call 3 to 185 days in call 6).
Target in H2020
< 180 days from evaluation
Present Latest calls: < 240 days from call publication to GAP 360 days on average for grant signed in 2012
BUDGET
Flexibility
”N+3” rule gives the possibility to re-enter in the budget cancelled appropriations from previous years and this is effectively used
Certain flexibility available. Possibility to shift budget according to the ” 3-years rule”
Certain flexibility available. Possibility to shift budget according to the ” 3-years rule. Transfer from SAGE ITD to GRA ITD. Internal changes in all ITDs as % share. A ITD (SGO) made available 2.5 M€ to JU which was redistributed to other ITDs; budget flexibility works for CS projects in a timely way.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 114
ACTIVITIES
FCH IMI CS
Coordination with National Programmes & Collaborative Research
Cooperation with national programmes (NOW in Germany and Danish FCH programme); involvement in UK H2 Mobility, possibly in future French H2 Mobility
Enhanced cooperation with SRG, which is consulted on annual scientific priorities and proposal Cfp text prior to launch
Interactions with JPI through CfP pre-launch consultation.
Cooperation with NSRG, providing visibility on the CS programme and especially CFPs.
Limited or partial interaction about synergies with national programmes.
KPIs/ Metrics KPIs on: (1) operational aspects linked to Calls/ projects; (2) control aspects encompassing the grant management cycle (e.g. % of complaints on the evaluation process, financial impact of the negotiation process, % of payments made on time, Ex-Post audits: coverage and error rates). The JU reports annually the resulting KPIs in the Annual Activity Report)
Concerning project and technology metrics, the on-going project TEM0NAS should provide a TEchnology MONitoring and ASsessment tool combining S-O-A methodology and IT-implementation. The tool is tailored for the needs of programme progress evaluation and should enable a targeted comparison and evaluation of project results and achievements in an objective way. The tool has still to be provided to the JU (project finished in May 2013) and has to be filled in with project results data, plus literature data for benchmarking. It is expected to start providing reports in 2014.
KPIs were initially developed in 2011 and reported to the Governing Board from 2012. In 2013, a dedicated IT tool has been developed to facilitate tracking of project data and the generation of "classical" metrics. This tool is operational and allows reporting a series of metrics from June 2013. In the future, data generated by the IT-tool will be used to generate a Balanced Scorecard that should facilitate the governance of the partnership.
Regular release of bibliometric data. Agreement with Thompson Reuters to devise metrics for the analysis of scientific publications. Metrics are derived from scientific reports and interim reviews.
Internal Quality management encompassing internal control standards, KPIs and a system of various TRL. For ITDs indicators include: - Budget vs. planned, - Deliverables/TRL gates/ other milestones/ on time vs. delayed - Risk status per technology/sub system - TRL passed during the quarter - % of review recommendation fulfilled at next Annual Review KPIs related to CfP process include: - topic failure rate, time to contract, SME rate KPIs related to GAPs include: - topic success, eligible proposals, contracts signed on time, delay of final reports
- Actual resources consumption of ITDs - SME participation and funding Specific case of TE, providing monitoring and assessment of the improvement in environmental impact of aviation (CO2; NOx; noise) due to the maturity of the technologies being developed and demonstrated in CS. This in terms of sectors (by conceptual aircraft types integrating the suitable technologies) at mission, airport and ATS levels.
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 115
ACTIVITIES
FCH IMI CS
IPR The IPR rules are identical to FP7 (foreground and background). The IPR details are agreed between beneficiaries in the mandatory Consortium Agreement.
They have to accommodate the interests of a wide range of stakeholders from large companies to SMEs and researchers in different application areas.
Although based on FP7, IPR rules have been adapted to the objectives of IMI and provide flexibility to IMI consortia to reach the most appropriate agreements (e.g. definition of background; scope of research use of results, access rights to third parties after project’s end, etc.) .
Agreement on IP management shall be reached upfront before the start date of each concerned IMI project.
IPR rules are sometimes perceived to act as a barrier for SME participation
IPR rules – same as in FP7 are implemented in both GAMs and GAPs The Foreground, (results generated by the project), is the property of the beneficiary carrying out the work generating that Foreground. Indeed, beneficiaries are not subcontractors of the CS-JU, so IPRs are not the property of the Topic manager or of the CS-JU. Where several beneficiaries have jointly carried out work generating foreground and where their respective share of the work cannot be ascertained, they shall have joint ownership of such foreground.
Transfer of ownership can be defined.
A plan for the use and dissemination of foreground needs to be prepared, including patent applications and use of the results.
Quality control
Technical/ scientific reviews
Projects are monitored by the POs (after each reporting period) and (with assistance from external experts) during mid-term review meetings and final meetings when needed Feed-back is provided to beneficiaries for better steering the project in the next period.
In parallel an assessment of the programme is performed annually via the Programme Review Days.
Scientific officers and external experts, including members from the Scientific Committee.
Review performed by JU with external experts and STAB.
Technology evaluator providing monitoring and assessment of the improvement in environmental impact (CO2; NOx; noise)
Ex post audit
Error rate threshold allowed by the European Court of Auditors: 2%
Ex-Post audits of beneficiaries are regularly launched in line with the Audit Strategy adopted by the Governing Board.
To date, 48 audits have been launched of which 20 are concluded.
Ex-post audits of beneficiaries are regularly launched in accordance with the Ex-Post Audit Strategy adopted by the Governing Board. To date, 90 audits of beneficiaries have been launched of which 56 have been concluded, indicating to date an error rate
In 2011 and 2012 ex-post audits of financial statements of CSJU beneficiaries have been implemented in line with the Ex-post Audit Strategy adopted by the Governing Board. To date, 65 audits have been launched, out of which 52 have been
Clean Sky - 2nd IA - 10-11-2013 - FINAL VERSION.docx 116
ACTIVITIES
FCH IMI CS
97.6% of the errors in favour of the FCH JU detected in the concluded audits have been corrected by the JU. This leads to a residual error rate (i.e. error rate after corrections) of 1.67%, below the Court’s threshold (i.e. 2%).
In addition to the corrective measures above, two main preventive measures have been established by the JU to reduce the probability of errors occurring and/or being undetected, i.e. (1) communication campaigns to provide guidance to beneficiaries and (2) reinforcement of JU’s ex-ante controls.
above threshold of 2%. Recovery and corrective actions are now being taken (where possible with offsetting against next payments). In addition, as preventive measures IMI has continue to reinforce its ex-ante controls and has provided training and guidance to beneficiaries, which has appeared very important to reduce errors especially with the many participants that are SMEs or unfamiliar with FP7 rules.
finalised. Audit results have been implemented (i.e. overpayments were recovered) with more than 96%. The residual error rate, reflecting the remaining errors in favour of the JU - after corrective measures have been taken place- passed from 4.22% in 2011 to 1.29% in 2012, resulting in an accumulated rate of 2.77.
In order to reduce the error rates, the JU has put efforts in improving its ex-ante validation process and has provided extensive guidance to its beneficiaries concerning the eligibility of costs for the CS projects.
Continuation in
H 2020
Proposed by the Commission Proposed by the Commission Proposed by the Commission