European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
Call for Core-Partners:
CLEAN SKY 2
RESEARCH and INNOVATION ACTION PROJECTS
(CS-RIA Projects):
Questions and Answers
Sixth Release
Issued on 16th October 2014
Call Identifier
H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01
Please note that the current document also includes the Q&As received during the CS2 Info Days
dedicated to the 1st Call for Core-Partners organized in Toulouse (4th September) and Brussels (16th
September).
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 1 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
All questions regarding the call and the topics published can be addressed to:
[email protected]
Questions received up until the end of 03rd October 2014 will be analysed.
A first version of the Q/A document was released on or soon after 29th July 2014.
A second version of the Q/A document is released on 29th August 2014.
A third version of the Q/A document is released on 3rd September (merging the 2 previous releases).
A fourth version of the Q/A document is released on 12th September.
A fifth version of the Q/A document is released on 1st October 2014.
A sixth and final version of the Q/A document is released on 16th October 2014.
via a special mailbox [email protected].
Questions having a general value, either on legal, financial and procedural aspects or specific
technical clarifications concerning the call topics, when judged worth being disseminated to the
whole public, will be published in a specific section of the web site (www.cleansky.eu), together with
the answers provided.
All interested applicants are recommended to consult the website and the FAQ section periodically.
The above mentioned mailbox is the only permitted channel for asking questions concerning this call.
As stated in the call, all interested parties are recommended to consult periodically the Clean Sky JU
website for updates to this document and any corresponding updates to the call.
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 2 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
A. ADMINISTRATIVE QUESTIONS
#
Question / Answer
On Members’ contributions to the Programme and the funding rates:
1
2
My understanding is that the indicative funding value represents the planned contribution for
the selected Core Partner(s). Future Partners applying for calls issued by the selected CorePartners are not funded from this budget. So the indicative funding value is for the Core
Partner(s) only and does not need to be shared with future Partners. Is my understanding
correct? If not, what share of the budget needs to be reserved for partners?
The indicative funding value is related to the activities to be perfomed by the Core Partner. The
calls for the selection of partners (call for proposals) will be launched by the CSJU within the budget
of the Programme specifically dedicated to calls for proposals and calls for tenders in accordance
with Article 16 (1)( c) of Regulation n° 558/2014 establishing the Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking (the
CSJU Regulation)
In the CSJU Work Plan 2014-2015:
In page 175, it is written: “The indicative average total value of a Topic for the selection of Core
Partners will be approximately 10 M€ throughout the Programme”. However, in pages 180-194,
the value of topics (funding in M€) does not fit with the average of 10 M€ (for example 5 M€,
6M€, 15 M€, etc.) Could you please clarify?
The 10 M€ indicative average value under footnote n° 14 of the CSJU Work Plan 2014-2015, page
175, already mentioned in the Info Days, is a general consideration, meant to highlight, for
Programme management purposes, the average level of magnitude of the topics under the Work
Plan. Now, topics were sized in a way to be globally consistent with this indication.
This 10 M€ value (total cost) is not an eligibility condition and does not apply as such to any specific
topic and shall not be taken into consideration when applying to a particular topic. Only the specific
value of the topic for which the application is submitted shall be considered by the applicant when
submitting its proposal.
No threshold notion should be considered. This also means that a proposal may go below the 10 M€
(total cost) or 5 M€ (funding) indication.
The total value of each topic was estimated and the indicative funding was subsequently obtained
by dividing this total value by 2. This is however not more than an indication: It is up to the
applicants to answer with their own analysis of the total cost and (consequently) appropriate
funding request, disregarding any threshold. The total cost reported will be taken into account in
the criteria for evaluation, in order to take the best value for money into account.
The funding requested shall be calculated by following the applicable H2020 funding rate, as laid
down in the Work Plan and based on the project value representing the total amount of work and
costs proposed to implement the activities under the topic.
The in-kind contribution of all the private members (leaders and core partners) shall be globally at
least equal to the cash contribution at programme level; therefore, at programme level this
contribution has to be reached globally through the private members. However, the level of in-kind
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 3 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
3
4
5
Question / Answer
contribution is not part of the evaluation criteria used for evaluating the best proposal in this call.
a) Can you clarify what the funding for Universities will be? The topics for the first call for core
partners are described as “Innovation Actions”, for which a funding rate of 70% (but 100% for
non-profit entities) applies? This is quite different from the 50-50 rule known in Clean Sky “1” for
Members. Moreover, if the funding is 100%, what is the remaining in-kind contribution?
The funding rate applies to the “eligible costs”, i.e. to Direct Costs + 25% of Direct
Costs (flat rate to cover indirect costs) + subcontracts.
The classification under “Innovation Actions” was decided by the Governing Board of the CSJU
through the approval of the Work Plan. Basically, it reflects a 70% funding rate (except for nonprofit entities), which is close in average to a 50/50 balance of total costs for private Members (i.e.
Leaders + Core Partners), given the variety of cost structures within the participating entities
regarding the ratio of indirect to direct costs. Article 4 of the CSJU regulation sets outs the
minimum contribution of the private members to the programme and this shall be attained
through their total in-kind contributions.
We confirm that, following the rules of “Innovation Actions”, non-profit entities will be funded
100% of the above “eligible costs”.
In-kind contributions must be calculated on the basis of total costs. In the case of 100% funding of
eligible costs, they represent the uncovered part of indirect costs (indirect costs minus 25% of direct
costs) where these are reported. On top of this, further ‘in-kind’ can be brought through the
additional activities of leaders or core partners (see Article 4 of the CSJU regulation). These
additional activities are not funded by the JU but can be brought in as contributions to
achievement of the overall objectives of the programme.
b) In some past information days, it was foreseen to demonstrate the financial capacity to
provide an in-kind commitment of “either 2% of the ITD or IADP value or €5 million, whichever is
greater”; was this changed?
Please see the answer to Question 2.
For more information on the minimum contribution level, see article 4 of the CSJU Regulation.
How will the funding be managed? Clean Sky 2 will have a budget of over 4 bn€ and H2020 will
contribute up to 1.716 bn€. When looking at the document of the call, it seems that the usual
H2020 rules will apply with funding of 100% or 70%.
Could you clarify how the funding should be computed: twice the proposed funding of the topic
or a % between 50% and 0% to reach the 10M€ threshold (e.g. if a topic has a proposed funding
of 10M€, could a 14,3M€ proposal funded 70% be acceptable)?"
Please see the answer to Question 2.
(Comment to the figure of 1716 bn € above - Please note H2020 will contribute 1.755bn € in total
as 39m € will be allocated to the running costs of the JU. )
If the budget for a topic seems lower than what is proposed (e.g. total less than 10M€), could
we submit a proposal with a lower funding request even if below 10 M€?
Best value for money will be taken into consideration as part of the evaluation. However, this is not
the driving factor. The criteria for the evaluation are well described in the call and best value for
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 4 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
6
money is part of one of those criteria. Again, the primary objective is to have the best overall
technical programme of activity. Consequently, a proposal can be sumbitted with a lower budget
than anticipated provided that it fulfills the full scope and perimeter of the Core Partner topic
description.
Please refer also to the answer to Question 2.
The topics list has a topic with a projected budget that is 4 M€. We can recall for earlier
communication a threshold of the budget for a Core Partner being 5M€ own in kind
contribution. We did not see this requirement anymore in the latest communication. Is there a
threshold for being a Core Partner in this Call?
Please see the answer to Question 2.
Is the indicative budget/project size of ~10 M€ applicable also for the second wave?
7
The indicative budget/project size of 10 M€ is currently the principle followed for the Calls of Core
Partners.
Please also refer to Questions 2-6 above.
8
Initially, it was explained that participants should be able to invest at least 5 M€ of in-kind
contribution to become a Core Partner. How will this pre-requisite be implemented in the 1st Call
for Core Partners?
The Indicative Topic Values (in Funding) are built – as explained in each Info Session to date - on
the background assumption that the Funding Rate applicable to the Topic will lead to
approximately 50% of the total cost (direct and indirect) of an applicant being funded. This
approximate relationship between funding and total costs plus the average funding value per topic
in this Call of > 5m€ means that applicants should assume that an in-kind investment of at least
5m€ (on average over all topics, and on approximation due to the effects of the H2020 funding
rates). It should be noted that topics vary in funding values and that this requirement is indeed
valid “on average” but that different levels of in-kind investment are applicable for each specific
topic.
9
Could you please clarify what is the administrative contribution level to the JU if we win the call
for Core Partners?
The Clean Sky Regulation and Statutes provide all clarity needed on this question.
10
Q1. Are the management/coordination costs considered eligible in CS2 for a private (not-forprofit) research organization leading a consortium of companies answering to a Call for Core
Partner?
Q2. In the positive case, are these costs funded 100%?
Q3. In the positive case, can the research organization assign to a private company partially (or
totally) the management activity through subcontract ?
A1. See Question 14.
A2. See Question 14.
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 5 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
A3. The Management and Coordination tasks of the ITD/IADP coordinator (e.g. distribution of
funds, review of reports and others tasks listed under Article 41.2 (b)) — cannot be
subcontracted (see Article 41.2(b) of the Clean Sky 2 Model Grant Agreement. The same
restriction applies mutatis mutandis to the sublevel managment and coordination tasks of the
consortium or cluster leader who according to the rules for submission, selection and evaluation
shall be appointed at application stage and is called to perform specific coordination tasks
within its grouping.
11
Could you please clarify what is the difference between 70% funding rate for enterprises as
suggested in your presentation and the 50/50 funding principle for Public-Private Partnership as
presented under EC rules?
The 70% [of total eligible cost] funding rate is the applicable rate for enterprise in the Innovation
Actions section of H2020. As such it applies to proposals and topics in this call with the exception of
not-for-profit entities. Refer to the presentations and the H2020 Regulation for any further
guidance.
Separately the 50/50 partnership in the JTI is guaranteed by means of the combination of the
applied funding rates for Members, with their net impact with respect to funding vs total cost
(direct and indirect) PLUS the undertakings given to date and to be complemented in future for
Additional Activities. These Additional Activities are defined in the Clean Sky 2 Regulation and
Statutes.
12
Could you please clarify the in kind contribution and additional costs for Core Partners? Article 4
of CSJU Regulation refers to general terms and global contributions from all members. It does
not provide specific rules to address the question by participant and in particular:
if a non-profit organization applies to the call for Core Partners, the funding rate is 100% of
eligible costs (direct costs) + 25% of direct costs (indirect costs). In such case, what is the correct
answer?
1) The entity contribution is 0€ and 0€ for in kind contribution.
2) The entity have to provide additional resources:
a. In kind contribution: what would be the exact percentage of the total topic
value/funding value for in kind contribution?
b. Financial contribution: what is the exact budget/percentage of the total topic
value/funding value?
Article 4 of the Regulation refers to the global level of in kind contribution which shall be brought
jointly by the Members of the Clean Sky 2 JU, thus by the Leaders and the Core Partners which will
be selected. It does not lay down a specific legal obligation at the level of the single Member. The JU
will assess the fulfilment of this condition in the course of the Programme implementation.
In addition, please refer to Questions 1-11.
About the eligibility of costs:
13
Can you clarify which costs are eligible?
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 6 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
For information on the eligibility of costs, see Articles 5 and 6 of the H2020 Annotated Grant
Agreement1. All costs categories and explanations are detailed in Chapter 3 of the same document.
14
Please also refer to Questions 3 and 17.
According to the H2020 literature, management costs are not eligible except for the usual audit
fees where applicable. Could you please clarify?
Management tasks related to the operating costs of the beneficiary cannot be considered as direct
costs and are therefore not eligible since already covered by the 25% flat rate for indirect costs (see
non exhaustive list at page 71 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agrement2)
However, the management tasks when directly related to the action can be considered as direct
costs. Please note that:
 Management costs cannot be delegated by the coordinator to a Cluster Leader as prohibited by
the Grant Agreement for Members
 Management costs of the ITD/IADP Coordinator and any sublevel management costs of
clusters or consortia shall be reflected in Annex 1 (e.g. WP0 Management and reported via the
Form C)
For further information on the eligibility of costs related to management tasks and rules, please
refer to p.71 of the H2020 Annotated Model Grant Agreement.
About the payments to successful Partners:
15


16

One pre-financing payment: what is the pre-financing in percentage?
One or more interim payments? (how many? What does that depend on? What percentage
per interim payment?)
 One payment of the balance?
The level of pre-financing in each action shall be determined according to:
a) the activity/effort to be undertaken in the first reporting period of the action
b) the length of the first reporting period and further reporting periods of the action
c) availability of funds at the CSJU through its annual budget;
The rate of interim payments will depend on the above factors and will be negotiated with the
CSJU once the proposal is successfully evaluated and the applicant is invited to enter the grant
preparation stage.
For more information on payments and payment arrangements, see Article 21 of the CSJU Model
Grant Agreement for Members (GAM).
About the financial situation of entities:

How will the financial situation of entities be evaluated? What kind of information will be
requested for the companies? When will these information be requested?
Will you request any kind of financial guarantee to the companies?
1
The H2020 Annotated Grant Agreement is available via the EC Participant Portal under the tab "Call
Documents”: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/calls/h2020cs2-cpw01-2014-01.html#tab1
2
Ibid.
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 7 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
17
Question / Answer
Please see part A of the Proposal template, section on the “Financial and economic capacity”.
A financial guarantee as such will not be requested - however, part of the JU funding will be
withheld as a contribution to the guarantee fund in accordance with Article 21.2 of the CSJU
model GAM for all actions launched by the JU until completion of the activities foreseen. In
addition, depending on the results of the financial capacity check of the applicant (including the
entities composing a consortium or at cluster level) ,the JU may decide, in some cases, to reduce
the pre-financing foreseen, to reduce the scope of work and/or to request (where appropriate) a
joint and several liability regime to the entities applying jointly as a consortium. When a cluster is
a validated legal entity and applies as such but does not qualify the financial capacity check, the
JU may also request a joint and several liability to the entities composing the cluster.
Is there a particular accounting method/system which is requested regarding the participation of
companies in Clean Sky 2 ?
Once the entity concerned is eligible for EU funding (see eligibility conditions for participation in the
core partner call), the rules require to have an accounting system which records the cost in
accordance with the accounting standards applicable in the country where the beneficiary is
established and with the beneficiary’s usual cost accounting practices. According to the H2020
eligibility rules:
‘Eligible costs’ are costs that meet the following criteria:
(a) for actual costs:
(i) they must be actually incurred by the beneficiary;
(ii) they must be incurred in the period set out in in the grant agreement, with the exception of costs
relating to the submission of the periodic report for the last reporting period and the final report;
(iii) they must be indicated in the estimated budget set out in Annex 2 of the grant agreement;
(iv) they must be incurred in connection with the action as described in Annex 1 of the grant
agreement and necessary for its implementation;
(v) they must be identifiable and verifiable, in particular recorded in the beneficiary’s accounts in
accordance with the accounting standards applicable in the country where the beneficiary is
established and with the beneficiary’s usual cost accounting practices;
(vi) they must comply with the applicable national law on taxes, labour and social security, and
(vii) they must be reasonable, justified and must comply with the principle of sound financial
management, in particular regarding economy and efficiency.
Cost should be identifiable and verifiable (i.e. come directly from the beneficiary’s accounts (be
directly reconcilable with them) and supported by documentation)
Accounting documentation is necessary only for actual costs.
Indirect costs do not need supporting evidence because they are declared using a flat-rate ( new
in Horizon 2020).
Costs must be calculated according to the applicable accounting rules of the country in which
the beneficiary is established and according to the beneficiary’s usual cost accounting practices.
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 8 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
Example: if a beneficiary always charges a particular cost as an indirect cost, it must do so also
for Horizon 2020 actions, and should not charge it as a direct cost.
This principle cannot be used as justification for non-compliance with other Grant Agreement
(GA) provisions. A beneficiary must make any changes needed to bring its usual cost accounting
practices in line with all GA provisions.
Example: conditions for calculation of productive hours; conditions for the eligibility of depreciation
costs (in line with the international accounting standards, which may deviate from the accounting
rules of the country)
For more details please consult the H2020 Annotated Grant Agreement3.
Therefore the requirements as regards to the accounting system of the beneficiary are as follows:
- the accounting system in place should be able to register the cost in accordance with the
accounting standards applicable in the country where the beneficiary is established
- the beneficiary should apply its usual cost accounting practices
- the beneficiary must make the changes needed to bring its usual cost accounting practices
in line with the eligibility rules of the grant agreement.
About subcontracting possibility:
18
19
Is subcontracting to other entities/organisations possible? Will it be the Core Partner to organise
this subcontracting via Call for Tenders?
Yes, subcontracting is possible as part of the grant agreement and shall be indicated (tasks to be
subcontracted and budget) in the proposal. Please see Part B of the Proposal template, section 3.6
“Resources to be committed”
In addition, applicants should be aware that any subcontracting to be included as an eligible cost
should follow the best-value-for-money principle, have followed a transparent procurement
process and strictly comply with Article 13 of the CSJU model GAM. The applicant will be fully
responsible for following the correct process in order to ensure eligibility of costs later on.
As a separate process, not related to the present call, the CSJU may launch, provided it is approved
in any future work plan, its Calls for Tenders in accordance with Article 16 (1) (c) of the Statutes of
the CSJU regulation.
The MGA sets out some rules for subcontracting in its Articles 13.1.1 and 26. Article 13.1.1 states
that subcontracting may only cover a limited part of the action. What interpretation should be
given to “limited part”? Is there a maximum percentage of subcontracting allowed in relation to
the size of the topic?
 The applicant is expected to perform the substantial core of the research work of the action,the
subcontracting may be allowed when limited in scope in the execution of the overall work
volume and when limited in nature (critical tasks and core content not to be subcontracted).
3
The H2020 Annotated Grant Agreement is available via the EC Participant Portal under the tab "Call
Documents”: http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/calls/h2020cs2-cpw01-2014-01.html#tab1
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 9 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer


However, a maximum threshold of eligible subcontracting is not applicable ex ante.
It is noted and understood that supply chains exist and a case-by-case approach will be taken to
assess the subcontracting duly included in the proposal (Annex I when duly justified and in
accordance with the best-value-for-money principle (method for selecting the subcontractor
identified and proof of no conflict of interest).
In addition, please refer to Question 18.
Terminology: Call for Core Partners / Call for Partners (Call for Proposals) / Call for Tenders / Subcontracting
20
What is the difference between "Call for Core Partners" and "Calls for Proposals"?
21
 Please see Chapter 10, points 10.1 and 10.7 of the CSJU Work Plan.
Could you please clarify the differences between Call for Proposal and Call for Tender?


22
For details on the Call for Proposals, please see Chapter 10.7 of the CSJU Work Plan.
Calls for Tenders are referred to as to the calls which may be launched by the CSJU, as
contracting authority, for the provision of works and services. Please note that the Work Plan
2014-2015 currently in force does not envisage at the moment any Call for Tender.
What is the difference between Call for Tender and subcontract?

Subcontracting is mentioned as referring to the works and services which may be subcontracted
by the applicant to carry out a limited part of the action. Any subcontracting must be indicated in
the proposal and shall comply with the provisions on subcontracting under Article 13 of the CSJU
model grant agreement
 Calls for Tenders are referred to as to the calls which may be launched by the CSJU, as
contracting authority, for the provision of works and services. Please note that the Work Plan
2014-2015 currently in force does not envisage at the moment any Call for Tender
On the budget for activities planned via Calls for Proposal/Call for Tender
23
In some topics for Core Partners, experimental/demonstration activities are mentioned that
should be performed via a separate Call for Proposal / Call for Tender. In this case, is the budget
for the CfP/CfT included in the topic estimated budget or is it part of a different budget to be
defined at a later stage?
The indicative funding value is related to the activities to be performed specifically by the Core
Partner. Topics for Partners (Call for Proposals) and for any Calls for Tenders will be launched by the
CSJU within the budget of the Programme specifically dedicated to Calls for Proposals and Calls for
Tenders in accordance with Article 16.1 (c) of the CSJU Regulation.
The available preliminary list for the first Call for Proposals is available in the Work Plan (see chapter
10.1). This may be amended before publication of the first Call for Proposals which is foreseen before
the end of 2014.
Please note that at present no Calls for Tenders are foreseen in the Work Plan for 2014-15 as
adopted.
24
If when considering an application for a Core Partner role the related topic can be addressed only
partially by a potential applicant, can the applicant assume that the elements described in the
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 10 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
topic that they cannot address should be launched as a future Call for Proposals (so as to include a
Partner for this work area from within the CfP budget)?
No, the topic description lists and specifies the core capabilities and key tasks required from the
successful Core Partner to perform themselves (notwithstanding that certain elements may be
specified as “to be performed via a CfP”).
Where capabilities and tasks related to a topic are specified as inherent part of the topic the
indicative budget for this topic includes any such capabilities and tasks. The applicant should
consider that their proposal must cover these areas, and they should ensure the appropriate
capabilities are met and are evident in the proposal and the required tasks and deliverables will be
adequately met (either through internal capability or through the creation of an application via a
consortium / cluster). These aspects will be subject to the evaluation (see the award criteria listed in
the General Annexes of the Work Plan) and should encourage any potential applicants who may feel
their proposal has some weaknesses in a particular area to address this weakness through the
building of an appropriate combination of capabilities ex-ante i.e. before submitting a proposal.
The applicant must consider that the indicative budget published already includes the performance
of these tasks and the related deliverables inside the Core Partner topic.
25
The funding rate for Core Partner has been clearly explained in the first issue of Q&A. Will the
funding rate for the Call for Proposal (CfP)/Call for Tender (CfT) follow the same rules? Or will the
funding rate follow different criteria as in the CS1 call for proposal?
The funding rate for the Call for Proposals will be defined in the Work Plan published with the call
text. The funding rate for the Call for Tender will be 100% and will be launched by the JU. Please note
that at present, there are no CfT foreseen in 2014 or 2015 Work Plan.
26
Could you please clarify the process related to the Call for Tenders (CfT) and in particular the one
used for the definition of CfT topics, planning and budget?





The CfT is a new specific tool of Clean Sky 2 which will be used to tender works and services for
the technical benefits of the Programme and to achieve its strategic goals.
CfTs will be launched by the JU which will be the authority in charge of launching the calls in
conjunction and cooperation with the members concerned, in accordance with Article 11.5 f) of
the Statutes.
CfT will follow the procurement rules under the EU Financial regulation and its rules of
applications which are applicable to EU Institutions and bodies plus the specific rules on
procurements applicable to the JU based on its Financial Rules. The JU will be the contracting
authority.
The CfT process is currently under internal discussions with the Commission in view of defining its
scope, joint process with Members concerned and funding.
The scope and topics of the CfT will be defined by the JU based on the advice on its content
proposed by the Steering Committees in accordance with Article 11.5 f) of the Statutes. They will
be integrated and approved via the CS2 Work Plan which amendments will be regularly
published by the JU via its website, the calls will be announced via its website along with
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 11 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
procedures, rules and deadlines.
 According to Article 8.2 n) of the Statutes, the GB will approve the list of tenders selected for
funding. The JU, as contracting authority, may sign any contract with the selected tenderer.
 The budget of the CfT will be accounted in the 30% share of the Programme budget allocated to
the CfP and CfT in accordance with Article 16.1 c) of the Statutes.
On the submission of application:
27
28
Is it possible to answer a topic in the call for Core Partners partially?
a. If yes, is there a minimum amount (percentage) of the projected topic budget where the
proposal is still eligible?
b. If yes, should parts that are foreseen to be outsourced via Call for Tender (CfTs) or Call for
Partner (CfPs) be explicitly mentioned in the proposal?
Applications shall satisfy the scope and demonstrate technical and organizational compliance with
the objectives of the Topic.
Applicants may however refer to some areas that could be covered via CfPs or CfTs. In such case,
the relevant associated budget should be indicated as they will be taken from another Programme
funding allocation than the one dedicated to the Core Partners in accordance with Article 16 (1) (c)
of CSJU Regulation.
Finally, please note that CfTs in the meaning of the CSJU Regulation are the ones which may be
launched by the JU and within the budget allocation thereto Article 16 (1) (c) mentioned above
whereas subcontractings are those launched by the applicants within the proposal budget.
Analysing the work plan and the rules of submission documents, we understand it is possible to
apply for different topics (and as part of various clusters) within the same IADP/ITD. For
example, there are 8 topics in IADP Large Passenger Aircraft and to our understanding an
applicant can apply to several topics in parallel. Is this correct?
Applicants can indeed apply to several topics in one IADP/ITD but also across more than one
IADP/ITD in parallel. Applicants shall submit at all times separate applications for each topic,
enabling evaluation per topic.
However, all applicants may submit only one application for each topic, as published in the call.
Multiple applications submitted by the same applicant related to the same topic will be rejected.
Applicants to more than one topic should indicate, where applicable, any links between these
topics, demonstrating and highlighting any additional value that a common approach could bring,
both for their application and for the IADP/ITD concerned or the Clean Sky 2 Programme as a
whole. Applicants submitting applications for different topics may highlight benefits brought by
their activities that flow logically from an IADP/ITD towards another IADP/ITD but separate
applications are needed and separate evaluations will take place for each topic.
29
I understand that Leaders can apply as Core Partner inside another IADP/ITD. Is there any
restriction foreseen?

The Statutes and the Rules governing the Call (see in particlaur the admissibility criteria laid
down in the General Annexes of the Work Plan) do not prevent Leaders to apply as Core
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 12 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
Partner inside other IADP/ITD – as long as there is no Conflict of Interest and no previous
involvement of that Leader in the IADP/ITD where the application is submitted In order to
allow the JU to check this aspect, all applicants are requested ,when applying, to fill in a
declaratrion of interest which will be assessed by the JU to determine the admissibility of the
applicant.

30
In addition, please refer to Questions 35-39.
Could you please clarify if we may submit a proposal for the same topic as a single applicant and
as a consortium?
There is no rule which prevents an entity to do so. However applicants would do well to understand
the impact of submitting “competing“ proposals to one topic can have for their proposal’s
credibility, and on the resources they will require to prepare and submit more than one proposal.
On the application of Cluster/Consortium:
31
32
When sending in a proposal in on behalf of a cluster/consortium, is there a requirement that
this cluster/consortium is legally in place? Or is it possible to establish the legal structure later
on (for example parallel during the negotiations)?
 The cluster/consortium shall be legally established upon application. However, depending on
the status of validation of the legal entity in the H2020 beneficiary register4, the JU reserves
the right to follow a case-by case-approach.
 Please see also Chapter II of the CS2 Rules for submission, evaluation, selection, award and
review procedures of Calls for Core Partners.
 Please see also “Eligibility criteria for Calls for Core Partners” under Section C of the General
Annexes of the CSJU Work Plan.
Concerning the possibility that different legal entities may apply jointly through a “Single Legal
Entity”, could you please confirm that an application introduced by an Economic Interest
Grouping (EIG) constituted before the notary but not yet registered is a valid application as a
Single Legal Entity? Please note that the registration process takes about 3-4 weeks.
In our country, an EIG is an entity that have the capacity, in its own name, to have the rights and
obligations of all kinds, to make contracts or accomplish other legal acts from the date of its
inscription in the Commercial Register. Our law nevertheless allows an EIG to initiate operations
as soon as it is constituted.
 The single legal entity or a cluster (when it is a legal entity) shall be legally established upon
application. Applicants are recommended to register the validation as legal entity through the
H2020 portal and to receive a valid PIC number upon application However the JU reserves the
right to apply a case by case approach depending on the status of the validation of the legal
entity in the H2020 beneficiary register and to request additional information at a later stage of
the selection process and grant preparation (see link:
4
Please use the following link to access the H2020 Beneficiary Register:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/organisations/register.html
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 13 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/organisations/register.html)
 Please see also Chapter II of the CS2 Rules for submission, evaluation, selection, award and
review procedures of Calls for Core Partners.
Please see also “Eligibility criteria for Calls for Core Partners” under Section C of the General
Annexes of the CSJU Work Plan.
33
What is the definition of a “legal entity” for the purpose of CS2?
It is the same definition as for the purpose of H2020: “A legal entity means any natural or legal
person created and recognised as such under national law or international law, that has legal
personality and that may, acting in its own name, exercise rights and be subject to obligations.”
34
Can a leader (e.g. ALENIA, SNECMA, etc.) apply as a member of a consortium/cluster to a Core
Partner role?
See the admissibility criteria under Chapter B7 of the General Annexes of the CSJU Work Plan.
On further application(s) once members to an ITD/IADP:
35
Can Core Partners that have evidently not been involved in the preparation of a specific topic in
the Call for Partners also apply to become Partner on this topic? This question specifically relates
to the involvement of research establishments which have the mission to support the entire
industrial sector in their country and hence will be asked by individual industries and SMEs to
support them while applying in different types of calls.
Please see “Admissibility conditions and related requirements for Calls for Core Partners” under
Section B of the General Annexes of the CSJU Work Plan.
Once an Applicant has successfully become a Core Partner and is a Member of the JU and a
participant in an ITD/IADP or TA (i.e. once they have endorsed the Statutes of the CSJU, have
accessed to the Grant Agreement for Members and are entitled to participate in the ITD/IADP/TA) ,
it cannot apply as a Partner in the same ITD/IADP or TA, even within a Consortium or when being
part of a Cluster (legal entity). The reason is that by definition, topics for Partners are proposed to
the JU by the ITD/IADP Steering Committees (or TA Coordination Committees) which are composed
of the Leaders and the Core Partners of this IADP/ITD/TA (who may also propose topics). The
involvement of the Core Partner(s) in the preparation of and proposition to the JU of topics for the
calls for proposals (CfP) may result in a Conflict of Interest and competitive advantage if
subsequently submitting a proposal towards a topic that the Core Partner was involved in or had
prior access to in terms of information.
Applicants successful in becoming a Core Partner and Member of the JU through one IADP/ITD
remain free to submit applications for Calls for Proposals (CfP) in other IADPs/ITDs or TAs where
they are not involved as Members. As in this case the Core Partner would have no involvement in
the Steering Committee of the other IADP/ITD or TA launching this CfP there would be no risk of
Conflict of Interest. If however the applicant in question was successful in becoming a Core Partner
in one IADP/ITD or TA, and is subsequently also selected as winner of any CfP Topic in another
IADP/ITD or TA, the JU funding received under this CfP will be accounted by the JU as within the
Core Partner global share of the Programme budget allocation as laid down in Article 16 of the
Statutes.
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 14 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
36
37
38
39
Question / Answer
Important note: if, due to the timing of the first Call for Proposals no final selection, appointment
and implementation of Core Partner roles (under the present open call) has been finalised,
applicants to the first Call for Core Partners will be considered admissible to submit proposals for
the first CfP. If however the applicant in question is subsequently successful in becoming a Core
Partner and also is selected as winner of any CfP Topic in the same IADP/ITD, the same rule for
accounting for the funding as above will apply and the JU funding received under this CfP will be
accounted by the JU as within the Core Partner share of the Programme budget allocation as laid
down in Article 16 of the Statutes.
If a cluster or consortium is Core Partner in an ITD / IADP, can its members individually still
become Partner in the same ITD / IADP as long as it has evidently not been involved in the
preparation of a specific topic in the Call for Partners?
Please see answer to Question 35.
Core Partners member of an ITD/IADP/TA, either as an individual applicant or a member of a
consortium, cannot apply for a Partner role in the same ITD/IADP/TA once they have accessed the
Grant Agreement and participate in the ITD/IADP/TA.
Please see also “Admissibility conditions and related requirements for Calls for Core Partners” under
Section B of the General Annexes of the CSJU Work Plan.
Once a company or consortium of companies becomes a CS2 Core Partner, can they still
participate later on as a regular partner in ad hoc calls for the same IADP / ITD? I thought that
the answer would be no. However, I also heard that there is one exception, i.e., if there is “no
conflict of interest”. When accepting a partner, the IADP / ITD leadership + core partners will
probably take all necessary steps to ensure that they are not faced with a conflict of interest in
relation to the proposals on which they are required to give an opinion. Maybe the potential
partners and the IADP / ITD leadership + core partners have to sign a declaration that no such
conflict of interest exists at the time of the selection of partners. Maybe, for instance, one core
partner can be removed from the partner selection process, if there is a conflict of interest which
doesn’t prevent the candidate partner to become a partner after all ?
See answer to Question 35.
Flexibility will be ensured and a selected and appointed Core Partner will be able to apply again as
Core Partners in the same ITD/IADP subject to a declaration of interest to be filled in as part of the
application which will be assessed by the JU which will determine the admissibility of the applicant
( see also Section B of the General Annexes of the Work Plan).
Can a successful applicant from the 1st wave of Core Partners participate in the 2nd wave of Core
Partners?
Please refer to Questions 35-37.
Can those who wish to be a candidate for the "Calls for Core Partners" participate in the second
type "Calls for Proposals" and submit (a) proposal(s)?
See answer to Question 35.
About the application to a Transverse Activity:
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 15 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
40
If one is selected to become Core Partner in an ITD for SAT (or other transversal activity), is it
still possible to become Partner in the same ITD for non-SAT topics or vice-versa?
There is no specificity for Transverse Areas. The same rules apply across all areas (i.e. TA, ITD,
IADP).
About the type of activity of the topics:
41
I would like to confirm again with you the type of activity of the open topics. According to the
CORDIS, all the topics are identified as RIA (example:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/8082
- jti-cs2-cpw-air-02-02.html#tab2). However, we understood that CS2 activities are labelled as IA.
Could you please re-confirm that the activities are IA activities?
CORDIS has been updated to reflect the new labelling of activities as "Innovation actions". The
activities for this call are IA and are funded at 70% (of direct costs + 25% flat rate for indirect costs).
Indeed, the funding for core partners and leaders should remain 70% for the entire programme,
whatever the type of activity as this coincides with the minimum 50/50 matching principle of EU
contribution and in-kind contribution at programme funding level. For the future CS2 calls for
proposals intended to select partners, amendments to the Clean Sky 2 Work Plan are under review
for possible adoption by the Governing Board of the JU before the launch of the first CS2 CfP which
may lead to a different categorization of the actions to be performed by selected Partners (i.e. RIA
in stead of IA) and could lead to a revision of the relevant funding rate.
Applicants are advised to check regularly on the Clean Sky website and/or the Participant Portal to
apprise themselves of the actual conditions for future CfP.
About the participation of third party countries as Core Partners:
42
Can entities established in a third country (e.g. Russian, US entities) apply to the Call for Core
Partners?
Eligibility to become Core Partner:
Entities established in third countries are not eligible to apply as Core Partner. In accordance with
Article 4.1 of the Statutes ( Annex I to CSJU Regulation), only entities established In a Member
State of the EU and H2020 Associated Countries are eligible to become Core Partner and
beneficiary to the CSJU GAM.
What about Calls for Proposals?
Entities established in third countries may however apply to the Call for Proposals that will be
launched by the CSJU. In the Calls for Proposals, the JU will follow the general H2020 Rules for
Participation and their participation will therefore be allowed. Please note that for funding
eligibility, US like other entities established in a third country shall meet one of the 3 conditions as
indicated in the H2020 Rules for Participation, see p. 4 of the Guidelines on Cooperation with
participants from third countries and international organisations.
The Work Plan 2014-2015 will be amended by the JU by the end of this year to include any specific
condition for participation of Partners and any condition in terms of exploitation of results and
performance of core research in Europe.
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 16 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
43
May entities from third countries not associated to Horizon 2020 become Core Partners?
See Question 42.
Pursuant to article 4.1 of the Statutes (Annex I to CSJU Regulation) of the Clean Sky 2 JU, “any legal
entity established in a Member State or in a country associated to Horizon 2020 may apply to
become a Core Partner.” Therefore the on-going call for Core Partners has a specificity stemming
directly from its Regulation and any application as Core Partner from entities established in a third
country (not associated to Horizon 2020) will be considered by the JU in the on-going call as noneligible and will not be retained for the evaluation.
May Swiss entities become Core Partners? Is there a specific agreement with the EU?
Switzerland is, at the moment, a country not associated to Horizon 2020 and the association
arrangements currently being envisaged between the European Union and the Switzerland would
only cover Pilar 1 of Horizon, actions under the specific objective ‘Spreading excellence and
widening participation’, the Euratom Programme plus ITER, and would not compass Joint
Undertakings. Therefore, on the basis of Article 4.1 of the Statutes and the current status of
negotiations, Swiss entities will be treated as entities from a third country and will not considered
eligible to become Core Partners and this is not likely to change in the near future. However, their
participation as “third party without JU funding” may be allowed when meeting the conditions as
presented in Question 45.
May third parties entities linked to an applicant Core Partner participate and receive funding
under a grant agreement for Members? Any specificity in this call for Core Partners?
Participation:
Entities that are “linked third parties” to an applicant as Core Partner in the meaning of Article 14
of the Clean Sky 2 model grant agreement , may implement the action tasks attributed to them in
Annex 1 if they fulfil the general conditions for participation laid down in Art. 7 of H2020 Rules for
Participation and any specific condition laid down in the Work Plan of CSJU. Please note that the
requirement of such a “legal link” may be assessed by the CSJU to be met only when either a legal
relation as “affiliate” (in the meaning of article of H2020) legally exists or when there is a
cooperation agreement between the entities (such as a cluster agreement or other wide
cooperation frameworks) which is pre-existing and is not limited in scope and duration to the
participation to the call and its action, therefore “ad hoc” collaboration would not qualify. For
more
info
see
from
page
117
of
the
H2020
annotated
model
GA
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/grants_manual/amga/h2020amga_en.pdf
The linked third party meeting the above conditions may implement part of the action of the
beneficiary to which it’s linked, however in case of selection it will not become contractually a
beneficiary ( the third party will not sign the GAM but will be listed under Article 14 of the CSJU
model GAM) and will not become a Core Partner in the meaning of the CSJU Regulation (only the
entity to which they’re legally linked would become the Core Partner)
Funding:
Costs incurred by linked third parties (when meeting the above conditions for participation) may be
44
45
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 17 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
46
Question / Answer
eligible if they fulfil – mutatis mutandis – the general and specific eligibility conditions (Art. 6.3 of
the Clean Sky 2 Model Grant Agreement for Members ). In accordance with Art. 23(5) of H2020
Rules for Participation , please note in particular that such costs may only be considered eligible if
the third party would be eligible for funding if it were a beneficiary (see Article 10.1 and 10.2(b) of
H2020 Rules for Participation ). Consequently, in the light of the specific eligibility criteria to
become a Core Partner, third parties established in a third country would not qualify to receive JU
funding.
The third party, its tasks, activities and budget shall be included in the proposal template 1B under
the third parties section, their costs shall be included under the total costs of the action. For third
parties not eligible to receive JU funding, it should be clearly indicated in the Annex I and budget
table that no JU funding is requested for the implementation of their work.
Regarding the participation of US companies in the Clean Sky 2 Programme:
Q1. Will US companies be entitled to participate in Clean Sky 2 Calls for Proposals (as “normal”
Partners). If yes, will they be entitled to receive EU funding?
Q2. Could any of the work under Clean Sky 2 be conducted on US territory?
A1. see Question 42
A2. See Questions 42 and 45 with regard to eligibility.
If “any of the work” is meant to refer also to potential activities performed in a GAM by a third
party (linked to a Core Partner in the meaning of answer 43) or by a subcontractor established
in a third country, please note that the CSJU Work Plan General Annexes specifically requires
the applicant to submit a plan on exploitation and dissemination where the section on
exploitation shall be showing and committing on a clear exploitation path of the results
brought by their participation in the Programme showing the contribution to European
competitiveness of the sector. This aspect will be duly assessed during the evaluation and
followed up by the JU during implementation of the action. In addition, please note that the
Work Plan envisages under the “evaluation/award criteria” the performance of the "core
research” activities in Europe.
About the Third Party participation:
47
My company intends to apply for core partnership. We foresee that some of the work will be
carried out by one of our affiliates, in another European country.
Should I:
1. apply only as one company, and let the affiliate receive funds through us?
2. add the affiliate as 2nd partner, thus forming a consortium?
3. include the affiliate as Third Party?
The affiliated entity shall be included in the proposal as Third Party under the specific section in
template 1B, its tasks, activities and budget shall be described.
In case of selection of the proposal, the third party shall be added during the negotiation and grant
preparation phase to the Grant Agreement for Members under Article 14 provided that a legal
supporting document proving the status as affiliate is submitted to the JU.
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 18 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
The inclusion as Third Party will allow the affiliated entity to carry out part of the work and to
declare eligible costs if the third party is meeting the eligibility conditions ( established in EU MS or
H2020 Associated Country).
About the CS2 Model Grant Agreement for Members (GAM):
48
CS2 Model Grant Agreement vs. H2020 Annotated Grant Agreement
The H2020 Annotated Grant Agreement provides further explanations on the articles of the CS2
Model Grant Agreement for Members.
The CS2 Model Grant Agreement5 is the ‘template’ for the grant agreement to which beneficiaries
will have to commit before joining the Programme after a successful selection. It will be adapted
with the details of beneficiaries, funding values and any other such details as appropriate before
signature by the parties to it.
49
Could you summarize the main differences for Model GA between FP7 and H2020?
The Clean Sky 2 model grant agreement for Members has been built entirely on the new H2020
model grant agreement. Its specificities are related to the specific status which Members have in
the Programme and its implementation. The substantial specificities are applied via amended
versions of the text or optional clauses under Articles 2, 25.5, 31.6, 41.2,56.2 and footnotes from 1
to 8.
On the Proposal template for Applicant and Q&A mailbox:
Please note that Part B. I. of the Proposal template for Applicants has been revised on 01 October and is
available for download via the EC Participant Portal6
Please note that due to format issues experienced by some applicants, the excel tables embedded in Part
B. I. of the Proposal template for Applicants (i.e. Table 3.1.b “Work Package Description Sheet”; Table 3.1.c
“Work Package Effort” and Table 3.3 “Budget Summary”) are now available for download as an Excel file in
the ZIPed package of call documents on the call page of the EC Participant Portal. Participants may chose to
complete the tables in Excel before re-incorporating them into Part B.I prior to submitting proposals.
Instructions are included inside the Excel file. To download the Excel version of the Part B.I tables click on
the "Download all Documents" button in the "CALL DOCUMENTS" section. You will find the Excel file in the
ZIP.
50
Some documents like a proposal template are announced to be available soon. Can you make a
statement what “soon” means? It would help us to schedule our internal planning.
Also it would be good to know when the Q&A mailbox for the calls becomes available.
5
The CS2 Model Grant Agreement is available for download under section 6 of each topic under the tab "Topic
Conditions and Documents” of the EC Participant Portal:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/calls/h2020-cs2-cpw012014-01.html#tab1
6
Part B. I. of the Proposal template for Applicants is available for download under section 6 of each topic
under the tab "Topic Conditions and Documents” of the EC Participant Portal:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/calls/h2020-cs2-cpw012014-01.html#tab1
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 19 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
The template to prepare an application for submission will be available just before or during the
first week of August. It will be possible to download it from the call web site on the European
Commission Participant Portal. Please see section 6 of the “Topic Conditions and Documents”
section. The template contains important guidance and should be used by applicants. Once
applicants have completed Part B (mainly technical content) of their proposal they can then submit
it via the submission system which will open in the coming weeks. Part A (mainly administratve
information) will need to be completed using on-line forms in the submission system.
The Q&A mailbox is operational since the 9th July. Applicants are therefore invited to submit their
questions on this Call for Core Partners to the following address: [email protected]
51
Could you explain how the risk description part in the table 3.1a in the proposal template has to
be filled?
For the risk description, please see the revised version of Part B. I. of the Proposal template for
Applicant, Paragraph 3.4 Risk management and Table 3.2 - List of identified critical risks and the
mitigating measures foreseen.
52
Where should the costs of complementary activities be reported in the proposal template?
For the complementary activities, please see the revised version of Part B. I. of the Proposal
template for Applicant, Paragraph 1.6 Complementary activities and:
53
 Table 3.1.a – List of Work Packages
 Table 3.1.b – Work Package Descriptions
 Table 3.1.c – Work Package Effort
 Table 3.3 – Budget summary.
In which part(s) of the template can I find the declaration of Conflict of Interest and Endorsement
of the Statutes?
They are detailed in the Administrative section of the template for applicants.
On Point “5.2 Security” of Part B.II of the template for applicants
54
Could you please clarify Point “5.2 Security” of Part B.II of the template for applicants?
“5.2 Security7
Please indicate if your proposed project involves:
 any material imported from non-EU countries into the EU: (NO)”
7
Article 37.1 of Model Grant Agreement: Before disclosing results of activities raising security issues to a third
party (including affiliated entities), a beneficiary must inform the coordinator — which must request written
approval from the Joint Undertaking; Article 37. Activities related to ‘classified deliverables’ must comply with
the ‘security requirements’ until they are declassified; Action tasks related to classified deliverables may not be
subcontracted without prior explicit written approval from the Joint Undertaking.; The beneficiaries must
inform the coordinator — which must immediately inform the Joint Undertaking — of any changes in the
security context and — if necessary —request for Annex 1 to be amended (see Article 55)
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 20 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
For example, is buying a casting of the alloy Inco718 from a US supplier a secutity issue? (no
export license needed).
55

If no export license is needed, this is not a security issue in principle. The applicant should justify
the choice of an US supplier in its Proposal.

For further information, please refer to the RTD guidance on Security related issues accessible
via the H2020 Participant Portal.
In the template for Core Partner, one can read in §1.2 "Relation to Work Plan", page 4:
"The description of the overall Clean Sky 2 Programme is the “Joint Technical Programme
[published by the JU on the 27th of July] which may be consulted by the applicants to clarify the
context of the topics within the overall strategic objectives of the Programme and the relevant
IADP/ITD area(s)." Where can I find this document?
The JTP is accessible in the section of “Additional Documents” of each topic under the tab "Topic
Conditions and Documents”e.g. in the case of the topic named “jti-cs2-cpw-air-01-01”, see link:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/opportunities/h2020/topics/8079jti-cs2-cpw-air-01-01.html#tab2
On Intellectual property and confidentiality:
56
In topic JTI-CS2-2014-CPW01-ENG-01-01, could you clarify the following Section regarding
“Intellectual property and confidentiality” and in particular the following paragraphs:
- Snecma will own the specification, while the Core-Partner(s) will own the technical solutions
that he will implement into the corresponding subsystems.
- Snecma information related to this programme must remain within the Core-Partner(s); in
particular, no divulgation of this topic to Core-Partner affiliates will be granted”
Since part of the work might be carried out by our affiliate located in another European country,
could you please inform us on the best way to proceed without risking a conflict with Section 3?
The involvement in the implementation of the work by affiliated entity is allowed and shall be
indicated in the proposal as Third Party under the specific section for Third Parties (see detailed
answer on Third Parties provided to Question 46 of the present document).
In case of selection and grant signature, the beneficiary of the grant and the Core Partner will be
however the main entity which will enjoy the ownership of the results (Article 26.1) and will be
subject to the IP provisions of the Model Grant Agreement.
On the Access Rights to Affiliates, according to Article 25.4 and Article 31.4 of the Clean Sky 2
Model Grant Agreement for Members, the background and the project results must be made
accessible by the beneficiaries also to the affiliates of the beneficiaries if this is needed to exploit
the results generated by the beneficiaries to which they are affiliated unless otherwise agreed in the
Consortium Agreement. The template of the ITD/IADP Consortium Agreement is under preparation
and will be published as part of the call documents by the 20th September.
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 21 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
The JU can anticipate that the Consortium Agreement template limits such an access rights default
regime as laid down in the Grant Agreement for reasons of confidentiality and commercial secrecy
of the ITDs/IADPs and lays down specific provisions on that.
Applicants are strongly advised to take note of Consortium Agreement template once published by
the JU. The accession of the Core Partners to the ITD/IADP Consortium Agreement and the
definition of all applicable clauses will take place during the negotiation stage after selection.
On Complementary Activities:
57
Could you explain how these activities will be assessed? Will it be a discriminatory factor
between two proposals: one including additional activities, the other without such activities?
Applicants have the opportunity to propose more activities, also called “Complementary activities”,
than required in topic for Core Partners provided that they firstly comply with the essential scope of
work of the topic for Core Partner.N
If an applicant considers that it has other applications or other technologies or innovative solutions
to propose in relationship to one topic, the applicant should present them in section 1.6 of the Core
Partner Template. An indicative budget value (total project cost value) corresponding to this
complementary activity shall be mentioned in the relevant part of the template.
If the applicant indicates complementary activities and innovative solutions within the general
topic area related to the topic for which they are applying and within the scope of the IADP/ITD, it
should be demonstrated under the section 1.6 of the Core Partner Template that these activities
would meet the following:
- be in line with the Clean Sky 2 Programme key goals and objectives;
- represent an enhancement or improvement of the content of an IADP/ITD; and
- lead to a demonstrable additional contribution beyond the state of the art in the topic’s
general area;
The complementary activities will be assessed during the evaluation against the criteria Excellence,
where the “Suitability of the technologies approaches and solutions proposed, including the
complementary activities, where applicable, with respect to the Topic description and the IADP/ITD
area and objectives” will be considered.
When comparing two proposals, closed to each other in term of scope of perimeter, an advantage
will be given to the one proposing complementary activities if this contribution is positively
assessed and it can bring additional benefits with respect to the objectives of the Topic and the
ITD/ IADP.
The complementary activities will not be granted at the same time than the activity proposed in the
Core Partner Topic. They will be subject to Governing Board approval and to the availability of
funding. The inclusion of the complementary activities in the scope of work of the awarded
applicant will be defined in a later stage during the programme execution when deemed
appropriate.
On the registration of Partners (with their PIC numbers) in the EC submission system:
58
Do we have to add all the partners (with their PIC numbers) in the submission system at this
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 22 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
#
Question / Answer
stage?
Each beneficiary, if not registered yet, must at the proposal stage register in the
‘Beneficiary Register8’ of the Participant Portal (in particular, name, address, legal representatives,
legal form and organisation type).
At the moment of the registration, the potential beneficiaries will receive a temporary (nonvalidated) ‘Participant Identification Code (PIC)’. The temporary PIC becomes final once they are
validated.
The validation process starts once the registration process is completed AND once the first Horizon
2020 (CS2) proposal has been successfully evaluated (i.e. is on a ranking list)- see following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/grants/applying-forfunding/register-an-organisation/registration-of-organisation_en.htm
More detailed information can be found in the Grants Manual section on legal entity validation at
the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/docs/h2020-funding-guide/grants/applying-forfunding/register-an-organisation/financial-capacity-check_en.htm
8
Access the Beneficiary Register of the EC Participant Portal via the following link:
http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/portal/desktop/en/organisations/register.html
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 23 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
B. TECHNICAL QUESTIONS
On Topic JTI-CS2-CPW1-REG-01-02: “Advanced wing for regional A/C - Technologies
Development, Design and Manufacturing for FTB#1”
1
Could you please clarify “WP2.1.3 “Advanced HLD” (p.109 of ANNEX 1 in Work Plan)
and in particular, the following points:
Q1. It is stated that the work in CS1 GRA (where the HLD are Krueger flaps and Fowler
flaps which are conventionally actuated) is the basis of the work in this call but
subsequently a droop nose device is requested. However, a morphing droop nose is
already be already developed in WP2.1.2. So, it is not clear which additional
activities on a morphing droop nose are requesting in WP2.1.3 compared to
WP2.1.2 unless it is a different (conventional actuated) droop noose.
Q2. Also a flap is mentioned on this page as part of WP2.1.3. Can it be assumed that
this will be a (Fowler of single slotted) flap that can be extended in a conventional
manner (using flap track mechanism)? This flap is not listed in the table (p110) with
the specific technology challenges expect that the TE flap for LC&A will need to be
embedded in the HLD flaps. However the design of this flap will be part of WP2.1.4.
Hence is it correct that in WP2.1.3 only the flap track actuation mechanisms that
are compatible with the NLF wing need to be developed?
Q3. It is also not clear if CFD studies will need to be done in as part of WP2.1.3 to define
the shape and position of the HLDs in extended position or this done by the WAL of
in another WP/call.
Q4. For the morphing drop noose (WP2.1.2) and the morphing TED (WP2.1.4) large
scale WTT are required but it is not clear if the extension/retraction mechanism of
the flaps needs to tested with WTTs or any hardware components needs to be
manufactured as part of WP3.1.2 or is the latter part of WP3.1?
Q5. Finally, since the call concerns only the outer wing section, is the development of
the HLDs on the inner wing sections also required?
A1. Reference wing baseline and HLD configuration shall be a Regional Turbo Prop wing
configuration, developed in CS1 GRA, where only TE Flap has been considered (no slat
present) for HLD. Droop nose coupled with Trailing Edge Flap (Fowler) will be the HLD
concepts considered for this Call for application to a NLF outboard wing designed for a
future Turbo Prop regional A/C. Reason for this is the presence of engines limiting the
NLF to outer wing region.
 WP2.1.2 (Morphing Structures) shall consider the development of advanced
structural-mechanical architectures (morphing) to be adopted as innovative wing
control surfaces. Basically 3 concepts shall be considered: small trailing edge
devices - morphing parts of TE Flap system to be used at high speed to improve
wing aero efficiency, adaptive morphing winglet - always to improve wing aero
efficiency, droop nose - to improve low speed NLF wing chracteristics, coupuled
with extended Flap.
 WP 2.1.2 shall concentrate its effords in morphing structures and mechanisms
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 24 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
development and actuation system architectural design.
 Note that for all devices, the control systems shall be developed into WP2.4,
tested in WP3.4, and later integrated in WP3.1.
 WP2.1.3 shall perform the aerodynamic design and optimization (including wind
tunnel test validation) of complete HLD system therefore: droop nose coupled
with the TE Flap configuration for NLF wing - see below for further details.
A2. WP2.1.3, additionally to HLD system aerodynamic configuration development, shall
consider a kinematic design of Flap actuation mechanical solution based on
conventional architecture, taking into account the installation on a NLF wing - i.e. no
external fairings allowed - for the full wing. These mechanical concepts for HLD
deployment shall be compatible/integrated with the solutions by WP 2.1.2 of
morphing fowler flap and by WP2.1.4 of small TED for high speed actuation.
Appropriate interactions/interfaces among the WP2.1.2, 2.1.3 and 2.1.4 shall be
defined by CP.
A3. WAL shall provide results of aerodynamic studies performed in CS1 for the baseline
reference wing configuration (Regional TP), incuding the positions of the HLD
reference configuration. Additional studies shall be performed by CP considering
Droop Nose aero optimization, morphing Fowler flap, small TED, innovative winglet
optimization on this TP wing configuration. Modification to Flap reference positions
can be defined/proposed by CP during these studies, in order to improve wing
performances.
A4. Extension/retraction mechanism of the flaps, integrating the WP2.1.2, and WP 2.1.4
(see above) additional mechanical solutions, shall be tested by mean of full scale
structural-mechanical functional ground demonstrator/s, considering also external
loading application. Since WP2.1.4 is dealing with high speed devices, large
scale wind tunnel test for aerodynamic TRL improvement are requested but a
conteporary full scale structural-mechanical functional and aerodynamic validation,
during WT Test, is not mandatory due to the technical difficulties of this task. Of
course a realistic proposal, by CP Applicant, of an integrated full scale aeromechanical test for above concepts multidisciplinary validation shall be considered in
a
positive
way
for
the
evaluation
of
the
proposal.
Note that, in general, large scale WT Test and full scale structural-mechanical
demonstrators are part of WP 2.1, while development of devices for FTB#1 (WP 3.1)
shall be limited only to the parts that shall perform Flight Tests. Basically wing tip
region devices. Reason for this is that the wing configuration of FTB#1 shall not be the
same of Green TP Reference Wing.
A5. For technical and budget reasons the full span wing cannot be tested up to flight
demonstration. Nevertheless the studies for WP 2.1 shall consider the complete wing,
including inner span sections. Therefore aerodynamic theorethical studies and
optimizations shall consider the complete wing, as well the large scale WT Tests for
validation. Only full scale outer wing components and devices will be realized for
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 25 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
2
ground tests first and then for Flight Test demonstration (WP3.1).
We are preparing a proposal on topic JTI-CS2-CPW1-REG-01-02 and we would highly
appreciate your answer to the following question:
In section 1.2 of the proposal (Relation to the Work Plan) we are supposed to explain
how the proposal addresses the specific challenge and the scope of the topic, but there
is no description of the specific challenge and the scope in the work program. How
should we address this section?
The description of the scope of work programme are described, for the WP 2.1 and 3.1, in
the pages relevant to paragraph 2. "Scope of work" where the work packages,
general targets and the part related to Applicant work, are extensively described. In the
same paragraph you can find a table collecting, by each concept/technology, the relevant
technological challenges.
Core partner shall contribute to the achievements of these goals.
So in your application you should describe in detail which of those challenges you will
takle and how do you propose to perform this task.
On JTI-CS2-2014-CPW01-AIR-01-01 Topic: “New Innovative Aircraft Configurations and Related
Issues”
3
Concerning laminar nacelle, to evaluate cost and feasibility of demonstration, could
you provide more information on reference nacelle characteristics? (e.g. estimated size,
estimated cruise speed, nacelle installation (rear fuselage or under wing, …)
This topic will focus on a typical business jet nacelle (like F5X with a 42.5 inch diameter)
installed on the rear fuselage in the cruise conditions (Mach from 0.8 to 0.9 at around 40
kft).
For Large SMR a/c, nacelle can be installed under wing or on rear fuselage, typical
diameter would be 1.8m for a lenght of 2.6m. Cruise Mach number between 0.75 and
0.85.
4
Nacelle demonstration: will the nacelle demonstrator be built by the Core Partner or
through CfP? If yes, is the budget already included in the topic description?
The nacelle demonstrator will be built through a specific CfP and its budget is not
included in this topic description.
5
Concerning laminarity activities, what is the approximate size and speed of the
reference wing?
The business jet reference wing characteristics are :
- Area from 70 to 110 m2
- Mach number from 0,8 to 0,9
For SMR, wing is 122.4 m² and Mach number between 0.75 and 0.85
6
In the deliverable there is reference to a Vertical Tail (VT) wind tunnel test that is not
described in the scope of work, could you provide more information? Is the VT already
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 26 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
available? What is its size? Will the test be performed through CfP of via Core Partner?
The deliverable is refer to the contribution of the core partner to the ground based
demonstrator or wind tunnel tests. The HLFC system could be installed inside a large scale
business jet vertical tail for example. This model or aircraft parts modification will be
performed through on specific CfP with a budget not included in this topic description.
7
Could you please better explain the objectives and the background of the full-flight
simulator?
A full-flight simulator allows to test the new control law developed in a realistic
environment for systems (flight computers, actuators …). There are two main objectives
to such a simulator. The first one is to validate the global behavior of the control law
before flight test. The second objective is to test specific behavior that cannot be modeled
and that are difficult to flight test. An example could be to validate to transient state that
happens following a failure (sensor, actuator, computer …), detected or not.
The full flight simulator should integrate as much as possible of real systems and be able
to simulate A/C behavior. It should be representative of reduced scale flight test bench.
8
Could you please better explain the objectives and the background of reduced scale
flight test bench? Does the reduced scale flight test bench have to be representative of
a specific aircraft or can it be representative of one of the new configuration developed
within the Novel High Efficiency Configuration?
The objective of the reduced scale flight test bench is to demonstrate by flight test the
performance of the new control laws developed. The reduced scale flight test bench must
be representative of some characteristics of civilian A/C :
- Flight mechanics
- Systems limitations (computer precision/frequency, sensors precision, actuators limits).
In the test bench, some limitations could be obtained by emulation (i.e. the system is not
used at the maximum of its capacities).
- Flexibility : flight mechanics modes and flexible modes vicinity should be respected.
Flexible modes should include wing modes and fuselage modes
9
What is the target mission (aircraft size and cruise speed) for the Novel High efficiency
configuration and the active load control task?
For WP A-1.3 (Novel High Speed Configuration), size and speed will be variable
parameters in accordance with typical business jet configuration. Results must take into
account the variability of some parameters as the cruise Mach number or the range. A
MDO methodology will be use in this WP.
For WP A-4.2 (active load control) the target A/C is a typical business jet configuration.
A/C main typical dimensions are :
- Fuselage diameter < 3 m
- Fuselage length about 25 m
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 27 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
- Wing span about 25 m
For SMR, dimensions would be Fuselage length about 40 m and diameter around 4m.
On JTI-CS2-CPW-AIR-01-02 Topic: “Optimised Ice Protection Systems Integration in Innovative
Control Surfaces”
10
11
12
What is a mixer air/electric running wet anti-ice wing inner section?
A running wet anti-ice protection system for a slat section prevents ice-build up on the
designated protected areas of the slat through the application of heat, in order to keep
impinging water in liquid form, rather than evaporating it or letting it solidify into ice
accretions, which are removed later. A mixed air/electric system uses both hot bleed air
from the engines and electrical heater(s) to apply heat.
The call text specifies a mixed air/electric running wet anti-ice system demonstrator. Is
there already a definition of how this should be integrated (e.g. bleed air system at the
leading edge, with electrothermal heater mats aft to remove any runback accretion), or
is this to be defined by the Core Partner?
With an anti-ice system there is no ice accretion in normal operation. The electrically
powered heater mats will not be cycled to remove ice. Which parts of the protected area
are heated by air, which are heated electrically and which are possibly heated both ways
is the result of a system design optimisation task which is under the responsibility of the
applicant.
Could you please clarify the following items:
Q1. Scope of work c) : Do the leader expect to receive the samples and test them by
itself?
Q2. Scope of work d) : The expected solution of protection for the air intake is not
defined : should the running wet anti-ice system be electro-thermal ?
Q3. Scope of work e) : Is the wire bundle dedicated to full electro-thermal solution ?
Q4. Scope of work g) : Is there a particular link with scope of work a) ? Or do the
architecture trade off relates to the full electro-thermal de-icing system ?
Q5. Milestone TRL3 for a de-icing wing ice protection system demonstrator for large
A/C : do the milestone apply for the mixed air/electrothermal objective ?
Q6. Deliverable AIR-W1ST2-9 : Is the leader expecting an electrical behaviour validation
or de-icing performance validation?
A1. No, the tests must be performed under the control of the Core Partner, and shall
follow an internationally recognised applicable test standard (ED-113, ED-84, DO-160,
…). The test documents (test plan, test procedure, test results and recommendations)
will be synthesized in the deliverable AIR-W1ST2-3.
A2. The simulation shall be capable of describing a system design relying on electrothermal power, bleed air power or both in any combination. The heat output of each
heater depends on the ambient temperature since metal conductivity and air/air heat
exchanger power both depend on ambient temperature for given power supply
conditions. The simulation may offer a generic way to handle the temperature
dependency of the heat output from a heater, or have specific solutions for electrical
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 28 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
heaters and bleed air heat exchanger structures. The problem of correctly describing
the gradual loss of energy in a flow of bleed air traversing several areas, is not very
different from the case of serially connected electrical heaters.
A3. It is not dedicated to full electro-thermal solutions, but the travelling wire bundle is
the only electrical connection between the wing box and the slat. The technology may
be used for other types of electrical ice protection which do not require particularly
low impedance in the wiring harness, or could be used side-by-side with a telescopic
pipe carrying bleed air into some areas of the slat. However, achieving a robust and
reliable interconnect for a full electro-thermal solution with half a dozen wires could
be an important milestone. The objective is to focus mainly on PTA (Power Transfer
Assembly).
A4. The search for the best architecture solution will seek to minimise the mass on the
perimeter of electrical power generation and distribution and wing ice protection
system. Some state of the art mass data will come from the slat demonstrator in
scope of work a). Practical results are expected from this scope of work, considering
only the electrically heated areas of the ice protection system, which may be fully
electro-thermal or mixed air/electrical like in scope of work a). The objective is to
demonstrate benefit at A/C level considering impact on electrical generation sizing.
A5. The 2017 TRL 3 and TRL 4 milestones applies for a second generation ice protection
system which relies on electro-thermal de-icing In some areas, rather than anti-icing
everywhere. De-icing approaches have impacts on flying quality and are generally
more difficult to implement on high performance jets. It is possible that on some
target platforms the resulting power budget would still be too high and would require
the implementation of a mixed air/electro-thermal de-ice protection system, but not
on the same slat. This situation is less likely to occur on the large A/C then on the
business jet.
For large A/C, the focus will be on full electrical WIPS.
2017: focus on ETIPS
2020: ultralow power solution : If benefit demonstrated this could include ETIPS,
EMIPS and HYLIPS (pending GENOME outcomes)
A6. In order to achieve TRL 4, the Core Partner will have to reach an agreement with
participating airframers on the critical components of the system. These critical
components will have to be developed at TRL 5 level (i.e. fully conformant prototype
parts). The critical elements of the demonstration will depend on the proposed system
design, but will always centre around the same themes:
- ability to meet mass and power requirements (if the solution does not procure
large mass reductions compared to conventional bleed air based ice protection
schemes, the demonstration of the ability to meet mass requirements can be a
strong push TRL 4 achievements very close to TRL 5).
- ability to meet the de-icing performance requirements derived from applicable
regulations, although IWTT may not be necessary if equivalent performance with
respect to the TRL 3 demonstrator can be shown by indirect means, the TRL 3
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 29 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
demonstrator has been adequately tested in icing conditions, and adequate
models correlated with actual tests are available.
For large A/C airframer, electrical behaviour and impact on electrical network is a key
point to be addressed at TRL4. At this stage, adequate simulation is acceptable.
Demonstration on test bench is mandatory at TRL5.
In terms of de-icing performance, full scale IWT/T (icing wind tunnel tests) are
generally required for this level of maturity… However, pending of core partner
experience, capability (validated models) and previous demonstration (eg IWT/T at
TRL3), this requirement could be challenged.
On JTI-CS2-CPW-AIR-02-02 Topic: “Optimised Ice Protection Systems Integration in Innovative
Control Surfaces”
13
We are trying to fill the scope and estimate the budget for the tail unit in AIR-02-02.
On page 511 of the workplan a picture of the tail unit indicates 4 different components
(Boom, HTP, VTP, control surfaces). In table 2 there are 5 hardware components to
deliver. The one missing in the picture overview is the Upper tail boom fairing. Can we
get an indication of the form, size and location of this component to be able to
estimate the effort to develop?
14
As is reflected in the document (AIR-02-02 WP), this fairing could be necessary or not, it
will depend of the final arquitecture or structural design that it will be chosen during the
pre-design phase of the project, for this reason appears as TBC. The dimensions of this
Non Structural Fairing (Secondary Structure) will be very similar to the Upper part of the
Tail Boom (full, mid or just a part close to the root of the Tail boom). The main aim of this
fairing will be to isolate the structure of the tail boom from the high temperature of the
exhaust gases if the tail boom by itself can´t stand it. The allocation therefore, if
necessary, it will be over the Tail Boom Structure.
In addition, could you please clarify/provide indications on the doors (form, size
location)?
We are talking about doors for maintenance and inspection or even for any equipment
allocation into the Rear Fuselage, so we are talking about hand-holes and similar to that
(even a man-hole). The number, allocation, size…etc…belongs to the detailed design
phase.
On JTI-CS2-2014-CPW1-AIR-02-03:
15
Among the expected tests to be performed by the applicants, it’s included a level 3
expansive test “fatigue and static compression / buckling tests up to failure, fatigue and
static tension tests up to failure, impact tests with different level of energy and
different impact locations in severe environment (temperature, humidity)”. Could it be
considered technically acceptable to take into account the influence of the severe
environment through the use of factors at level of loads in order to decrease the cost of
the test ? The severe environment (temperature, humidity) would be validated by tests
at Level 2.
This approach would allow to free a portion of budget to allocate for more detailed test
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 30 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
in the Sub Topic 2 and/or for the activity of the Sub Topic 1.
The experimentation of severe conditions (temperature, humidity) at level 3 provides the
opportunity to take into account the opportune scale factor for the validation of SHM/NDI
methodologies and technologies. Core Partners should demonstrate in detail how the use
of appropriate factors at Level 3 could replace the validation through experimental tests
in severe conditions.
16
Which flight tests (in detail) have to be made or prepared in AIR-02-03 and by whom
(CP or WAL)?
Within AIR-02-03 flight tests are not foreseen. Core Partners should verify and validate
the mentioned technologies and methodologies up to TRL 6 using the building block
approach up to the ground demonstrations taking into account those driver factors
indispensable for the parts industrialization and considering that the developed
technologies, methodologies, software's, techniques shall be addressed to applications in
flight.
On JTI-CS2-2014-CPW01-SYS-02-01 Topic: “Power Electronics and Electrical Drives”
17
Could you please clarify “Development of Electrical power train for EMC/Stability and
optimisation studies for aircraft applications” and in particular the following points:
Q1. What should be included in the power train simulation/optimization?
Q2. Who will provide data about the individual components of the power train
Q3. It will be necessary to characterize the individual components of the power train to
validate the models
Q4. Will the optimization be focused on the optimization of the EMI filter design of a
given power train complying the EMC standards and assuring system stability?
A1. The power network, the inverter, the harness, motor and actuator with its load.
A2. The system responsible and components provider who can give size parameter.
A3. Yes.
A4. The EMC is a challenge with the filter design but the optimization have to take into
account also low frequency ,inrush current and stability.
18
Could you please clarify ““Using functional mock-ups built from existing hardware, the
Core-Partner(s) shall demonstrate a significant improvement in parallel operation of
reversible 270V DC sources over Clean Sky results, when measured according to the
same criteria. The demonstration may take place on the COPPER Bird(r) electrical test
rig in cooperation with leaders and may involve more than 2 source” and in particular
the following points:
Q1. We understand that the main goal of this work is to design and test a control of the
bidirectional converter to operate in parallel having good power sharing among all
the converters. Is it correct?
Q2. Are the converters DC/DC or AC/DC?
Q3. We understand that at least four prototypes of the existing hardware will be
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 31 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
available for this work. . Is it correct?
Q4. Does the current solution have any special control to improve the power sharing
among the parallel modules? Is this control digital or analog?
Q5. Is it allow communication among the modules to improve the power sharing.
Q6. The DC source is a closed system where all the variables (voltage and current of all
the modules) are reported and with that information the control must be designed
to provide power sharing among the modules. Is it the case, a closed system?
Q7. Or is it an open system where either the power stage and the control stage can be
modified?
Q8. In the case of being an open system, we have the following questions:
a. Will the electrical schematics and layout be available?
b. The proposed design will be implemented in the available prototypes to
validate the proposed concept. Either power stage as control stage could be
modified. Power stage could be modified in order to include a current
sensor to include a current loop. Are we allowed to modify both stages?
A1. Yes, although “parallel operation of sources” means that all of the converters must
have access to a power source on their non-270V DC side. The power source can be an
electrical machine, a battery, or another network having other power sources. Power
sharing has to be performed without any common mode failure. Zone failures and
equipment failures will be considered. Power sharing performance improvement will
be measured according to four metrics:
a. Stabilised power which can be extracted from N sources compared to the sum
of maximum stabilised power which can be extracted from each source.
b. Dynamic power which can be extracted from N source in a single load step to
full power. The ideal result is to demonstrate a load step from maximum
regenerative condition into all reversible sources to the maximum stabilised
power demonstrated in (a).
c. Conjunction tests in which one or more sources are added to an overloaded
network is order to alleviate the overload condition. There are several
limitations to deal with which include how long and how high a given number
of sources can sustain an overload before extra sources are connected. The
demonstration focuses on the transient characteristics with realistic network
protection devices and thresholds in place.
d. Disjunction tests which are just the opposite: beginning with N sources in
parallel delivering maximum power, a number of sources are disconnected
suddenly. How many sources are removed and the initial load conditions
depends on the overload characteristics of the remaining sources. The goal is
to demonstrate that the remaining sources stay in operation for at least 0.5 s
before their overload protections trip.
The network ability to absorb electrical power under any condition shall also be
investigated.
A2. The minimum scope is AC/DC converters working as active front ends to electrical
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 32 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
machines and DC/AC converters working as inverters for motor loads, both reversible.
DC/DC converters acting as a front end to batteries or to 28V networks equipped with
batteries should also be studied.
A3. No. Only the Copperbird infrastructure owned by involved strategic topic leading
companies will be available for this work (drives, lubrication groups, programmable
loads). The applicant must propose and adapt its own existing sources and converters
for the demonstrations and must provide adequate network protection means if
needed for the demonstrations as well.
A4. It does. Most relevant details of the current solutions are described in the following
scholar documents:
 Fei Gao; Bozhko, S.; Yeoh Seang Shen; Asher, G., "Control design for PMM startergenerator operated in flux-weakening mode," Power Engineering Conference
(UPEC), 2013 48th International Universities'
 Fei Gao; Bozhko, S.; Seang Yeoh; Asher, G.; Wheeler, P., "Stability of multi-source
droop-controlled Electrical Power System for more-electric aircraft," Intelligent
Energy and Power Systems (IEPS), 2014 IEEE International Conference on , vol.,
no., pp.122,126, 2-6 June 2014.
 Arumugam, P., Gerada, C., Bozhko, S., Zhang, H. et al., "Permanent Magnet
Starter-Generator for Aircraft Application," SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-2157,
2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-2157
 Yeoh Seang Shen; Linying Xia; Bozhko, S.; Asher, G., "Stability analysis of aircraft
electrical power system with active front rectifier system in generation channel,"
Power Engineering Conference (UPEC), 2013 48th International Universities' , vol.,
no., pp.1,6, 2-5 Sept. 2013
 Gao, F., Bozhko, S., and Asher, G., "Drooping Strategies for Paralleling Sources
and their Effect on Electric Power System Stability," SAE Technical Paper 2014-012113, 2014, doi:10.4271/2014-01-2113
 M. Degano ; P. Arumugam ; W. Fernando ; Tao Yang ; He Zhang ; J.B. Bartolo ; S.
Bozhko ; P. Wheeler ; C. Gerada, “An Optimized Bi-directional, Wide Speed Range
Electric Starter-Generator for Aerospace Application” 7th IET International
Conference on Power Electronics, Machines and Drives (PEMD 2014), 2014 page
2.12.03
 Bozhko, S., Yeoh, S., Gao, F., Yang, T. et al., "Control Design for Electric StarterGenerator Based on a High-Speed Permanent-Magnet Machine Fed by an Active
Front-End Rectifier," SAE Technical Paper 2014-01-2139, 2014, doi:10.4271/201401-2139.
A5. Power sharing has to be performed in a such a way that failure conditions leading to
the loss of voltage control across all network segments, large reductions of
distributable power and complete loss of power are all extremely improbable. Zone
failures and equipment failures will be considered. Type and capabilities of network
protections have to be taken into account. The current solution does not require
communications between modules, however a dedicated digital electrical network
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 33 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
19
20
monitoring system sending data to all the parallel modules will be evaluated in the
frame of Clean Sky. In a complete demonstration, this system would need to be highly
resilient to failures, and in the scope of this study failures affecting it must be
considered.
A6. The system must be physically distributed to avoid zone failures (e.g. localised fire or
smoke/pollution deposits). The topic focuses on practical solutions which can be
implemented on certified aircraft in the near future, not demonstrations of principles.
Every relevant aspect of the design must be treated: possible failures, sampling rates,
data freshness, actuator delays or propagation delays, cable protection devices and
technology, processing time, thermal losses and efficiency, etc.
A7. Every source, converter, protection device (if needed for proper operation) and
participating motor load has to be designed and supplied by the Core Partner. Most
aspects of the design are fully open.
A8. See answers below:
a. The Copperbird ™ network layout is available, and highly flexible. In its
current configuration it has five main bus bars, four in a row with bus tie
contactors and the fifth directly connected to all the other ones. It also has
several 28V DC bus bar, a 3-phase AC bus bar. Several batteries are owned by
Clean Sky 2 members and can be supplied if needed.
b. See answer to Q3. While some details of the current designs have been made
public through the above scientific publications, detailed blueprints and
engineering calculations will not be provided to the Core Partner as a basis
for its own work. The Core Partner is expected to base his work on his own
technology.
Could you please clarify “PCB cooling topic” and in particular the following points:
Q1. What is the expected output of this topic, Is there a need to design a PCB for some
specifications?
Q2. What is the current level to be handled by the PCB?
Q3. What is the harmonic content of the currents to be handled?
Q4. What type of cooling is available? Air, liquid,… and what is the flow and
temperature?
A1. Prototype PCB are expected with thermal flow analyzes (with model). PCB and metal
box unit need to be taken account in the thermal flow.
A2. Current level < 400ª
A3. Large frequency spectrum because of switching frequencies of the power component.
A4. Forced air, liquid and thermal conduction with heatsink could be combined or not to
manage the thermal flow. Ambient temperature -55°C<T<85°C and flow ~ TBD.
Could you please clarify “Power Core Operation at output (AC) in order to increase
power” and in particular the following points:
Q1. Which is the value of the DC input voltage of the Power Core?
Q2. Which is the value of the AC output voltage?
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 34 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
21
Q3. Is it allowed communication between the power cores to improve the power
balance?
A1. 270VDC or 540 VDC rated.
A2. Maximum value out of the input voltage. The baseline should be 230 VAC wide
frequency (10kVA).
A3. Whatever supports effective parallel operation of power cores (probably precise
synchronisation is required) is allowed. Communications between power cores should
be the last solution considered because it would créate a common point.
Could you please clarify “Optimized EMI filter design based on new magnetic materials
and new type of capacitors” and in particular the following points:
Q1. I understand that Inverter, the motor and the cables are already characterized to
22
perform the optimization of the EMI filter based on new magnetic materials, is it
right?
Q2. What is the switching frequency and the power range?
A1. This is a quite generic topic; based on some standard filter design new concepts
should be investigated; maybe based on some (new) advanced material. The aim
would be loss and weight optimisation. (e. g. 10 kVA at 230 V AC with compliance of
relevant EMI standards).
A2. Power range 5kw to 150 kw Switching frequency 20 khz to 50 khz with Si with SiC or
GaN we can expeted more and reach 500 khz , this part can include output filter.
Maybe here also an optimisation could be done by elaborating a range of switching
frequency supporting optimised filter design for common mode and EMI
Could you please clarify the meaning of the following paragraph?
“Demonstrator Topic: High reliability, high speed bearings integrated in the functional
mockup of an alternator having a minimum top speed of 30krpm, and the associated
reliability study.“
23
The deliverable must focus on lightweight practical bearings for use in the alternator or
starter/generator of an aircraft electrical power generation channel in the range 50 to 70
kW in the near future. Because the main driver for high speed machine is weight savings,
the proposed bearing technology (including controller & wires in the case of active
magnetic bearings) shall not eliminate the benefits of rotating the machine faster in the
first place.
Could you please clarify the meaning of the following paragraph?
“Technology bricks for specific environments: (high temperature, unpressurized env.,
mechanical constraints, magnetic constraints using high speed bearings, etc.)”
Parts made of steel moving or rotating at high speed through magnetic fields may heat
up due to eddy currents. Magnetic flux can also cause magnetostriction in the form of
vibrations which can reduce the lifespan of bearings. Proper lubrication, thermal control
and magnetic effects all must be considered in the development of an improved solution.
On JTI-CS2-2014-CPW01-SYS-03-01 Topic: “Model, tools, simulation and integration”
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 35 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
24
The topic point “EMA&EHA actuation” occurs in the WBS within WP100.3.3 (page 700)
and in the set of deliverables (page 720). However, the topic does not occur in the
content description (page 708-712). May the leading companies clarify this issue and
provide additional information for the content of this topic point? Furthermore the
dates of the deliverables are early and do not comply with the Gant chart of page 716.
Also here clarification is needed.
It is correct that a detailed content description for this part of the work at this point in
time is still missing. However, the work on this subject is related to the electrical wing
activities in WP3 of the SYSTEMS ITD. Since the work on the wing and the system
architectures will start in the 2nd half of 2014, the results of the models and simulation
task need to be available at an early stage of the program. The Gant chart also needs to
be adapted accordingly.
Once available, the missing details of this topic point will be provided in the next Q&A
release.
25
The topic point “Aircraft Thermal Platform” occurs in the WBS within WP100.3.3 (page
700) and in the set of deliverables (page 719). However, the topic does not explicitly
occur in the content description (page 705-706). Although some paragraphs seem
related to this topic, there is no separate section as for the other topic points. May the
leading companies clarify this issue and provide additional information for the content
of this topic point?
The aircraft thermal platform is the framework used by aircraft integrators to design and
optimize the thermal architecture of an aircraft. This activity is described in the lower half
of page 709. The required activity builds upon existing Clean Sky results in thermal
modelling of airframes.
The activity has four major parts:
-
Reuse of Clean Sky thermal modelling approach of air and heat circulation in the
airframe (input provided by leading company)
-
Adaptation or development of models of heating / ventilation / pressurization /
cooling machinery which is installed in the airframe or connected to it.
-
Adaptation or development of the thermal models of installed systems and
equipment (properly model heat losses) and assistance to the leading companies
doing an integration of those models in the configuration of specific aircraft. Most
components in an aircraft dissipate heat. Their thermal model describes how this heat
dissipates in the environment by convection on each face; conduction through the
attachment points (and radiation for very hot parts). Equipment thermal models must
be written in a specific way in order to integrate with the thermal model of the
airframe. The comprehensive guide inherited from Clean Sky describes how air
cooling, liquid cooling, solid conduction cooling and mixed ways of cooling shall be
modelled (guide will be an input provided by the leading company).
-
Propose to increase the level of detail of the cabin model in order to be able to tackle
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 36 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
new problems regarding crew and passenger comfort and/or physiological distress
(which is seen as slightly easier to address).
26
The topic point “landing gear systems” on page 710 asks for a generic aircraft model.
What means generic in this context? Generic for tilt-rotor, or generic for all aircraft
ranging from airplanes to helicopters? Also the topic point is missing deliverables. We
presume them to be in line with the ones of other WP100.3.3 topics.
This activity is focused on the Tilt Rotor Landing Gear System developed in WP4 of the
SYSTEMS ITD. Therefore in this context, the word “generic” is related to the Tilt Rotor
AC/HC.
The definition of the deliverables would be similar to the other WP100.3.3 topics but the
optimization environment will consist of at least two models, the generic Tilt Rotor model
and the landing gear design environment.
27
-
Requirements and Specifications T0+6m
-
Landing Gear system architecture model & generic Tilt Rotor model T0+18m
-
Validation and benchmarking of the optimization environment T0+24
The formulation on page 714, last paragraph of WP1003.5, requires clarification of its
context: “The Core-Partner(s) will need to conduct specific discussions with EASA
regarding the certificability of systems partially virtually tested.”
Can the applying Core Partner presume that EASA will be available for discussion within
ITD Systems or has the availability of EASA to be ensured by the (financial) means of
the applying Core Partner?
It is expected that modelisation and evaluation results generated by the core partner will
in some cases be used to prepare questions, presentations or support certification
requests with the EASA, for example in the preparation of documentation for application
of prototypes flight clearance, or innovative certification processes. Expertise and
experience in these areas should be mentioned in the answer. The selected Core Partner
will be invited to attend meetings as well when relevant, and wil provide technical
expertise to Leaders during the process. The involvement of EASA in Clean Sky 2 will not
be charged specifically to the Core Partner, but the support activities have to be part of
the answer to the strategic topic SYS01, at least as a lump sum or percentage of other
activities with rationale.
28
Q1. This WP will need the integration of many tools, either commercial or specific to
the Leading companies (ie: Catia, Matlab/Simulink, Thales Advance tool, …). Will
these tools be provided to the Core Partner for free within the project context?
Q2. The Core Partner should also support the ITD Systems management and the
launching of Call for Proposals. Can you detail the specific budget for CfPs which
has been allocated for this WP?
A1. To avoid contractual and administrative complications, no commercially available
licence or tool will be supplied by the leaders. These should be taken into account in
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 37 of 38
European Commission
Research Directorates
Clean Sky 2 Joint Undertaking
the candidate’s funding/activities. Proprietary tools are obviously a different matter
as they may only be provided by owner companies. A characterization of the
candidate’s expected expectations in the matter would be welcome: number of
licences, training, support, etc.
A2. There are two aspects that need consideration:
29

The Core Partner (or its representative for a joint answer) will be a Member of the
ITD and will sit at the Steering Committee. As such, he will be aware of the CfP
definition and build-up process, and may contribute expertise, opinions, suggestions
to enhance ITD output. This activity is a normal aspect of being a Member, and no
specific additional budget is foreseen to perform it.

To complete or to complement its own scope of work in the ITD, the Core Partner
may propose complementary topics for Partners that will bring added value to the
ITD output and demonstrations. In this case, corresponding management activities
will be executed by the Core Partner. If the need for CfP is identified from the start,
this should be mentioned clearly in the answer : summary topic description, expected
start of work, duration, main deliverables, estimated value. If the possibility of a
complementary CfP topic is detected after the Core Partner selection, corresponding
funding will be discussed in the ITD Steering Committee. It is expected that in most
cases the CfP expected results will be a sufficient incentive for the Core Partner to
bear the corresponding management activity.
According to the suggested list of deliverables and the table in page 700, both thermal
platform modeling at the aircraft level and thermal architecture modeling at the
system level are required. However, there is no description of the requirements for the
thermal platform at aircraft level in the section related to WP 100.3.2 (pages 705 and
706). Only description of the thermal architecture at system level is provided so far.
May the lead companies clarify the difference between the aircraft level thermal
platform for WP 100.3.2 and the system level thermal architecture for WP 100.3.3?
Candidates should propose their approach of the two topics in light of the previous
answers provided under Question 15.
th
Call: H2020-CS2-CPW01-2014-01; Q&A Release 6 – 16 October 2014
Page 38 of 38