Sie sind auf Seite 1von 10

2015 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS)

Denver Marriott Tech Center


Denver, Colorado, USA, June 9-12, 2015

Development of Co-Axial Y6-Rotor UAV Design, Mathematical


Modeling, Rapid Prototyping and Experimental Validation
Roman Czyba, Grzegorz Szafraski, Marcin Janik, Krzysztof Pampuch and Micha Hecel

Abstract This paper outlines development process of


Y6-Rotor Micro UAV, which consists of concept of motion,
modeling of the vehicle dynamics, rapid prototyping of the
mechanics and finally practical realization of the VTOL. This
paper presents a micro air vehicle designed to participate in the
2014 International Micro Air Vehicle Conference and Flight
Competition (IMAV). Designed mechanical structure may also
be referred to as a co-axial tri-rotor UAV, because has two
rotors installed on each rotor axis. In order to improve the
vehicle development it requires to derive accurate dynamics
model enriched by empirical measurements of co-axial rotor
performed on the test bench. Based on the theoretical
considerations and previous stages of the development, the
frame and mechanics of the vehicle has been designed and
manufactured on the principle of rapid prototyping. Finally,
flight tests performed on the real Y6-Rotor UAV show that the
concept of flight mechanics and proposed control strategies are
satisfactory at this early concept level.

I. INTRODUCTION
In recent years, there has been rapid development of
unmanned aircraft systems equipped with autonomous
control devices called unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) and
micro aerial vehicles (MAVs). UAVs offer major advantages
when used for aerial surveillance, reconnaissance, and
inspection in complex and dangerous environments. The
expansion of the usage of UAVs results from low downside
risk and higher confidence in mission success than manned
aircraft. Furthermore, many other technological and
economic factors have encouraged the development and
operation of UAVs. The miniaturization technologies
together with a new sensors, embedded control systems,
advanced communication and specific control algorithms
have stimulated the development of a many new small
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) [1-9], [14-24]. However,
many constraints such as weight, size and power
consumption play an important role in unmanned systems
efficiency, particularly in the Vertical Take-off and Landing
(VTOL) platforms. Improved performance expected from the
new generation of VTOL vehicles is possible through
derivation and implementation of specific control techniques
[2-13], [19], [21], [26] incorporating limitations related to
sensors and actuators.
Multi-rotors are highly maneuverable, have the potential
to hover and to take-off, fly, and land in small areas, and have
a simple control mechanism. They are designed in various

configurations including bi-rotor, tri-rotor, quad-rotor, hexarotor, octo-rotor, etc [1-9], [14-24]. From these types of
design, the hexa-rotor in the configuration of co-axial trirotor, is the main concern of this paper. Presented platform
called Y6 is a Y-shaped letter, which means that it has three
equally spaced arms ending with drive units. Three rotor axes
are equidistant from its center of gravity. The shape of the
frame causes that the UAV motion will be based on the
forces and torques generated by the drive units placed on the
vertices of an equilateral triangle.
The motivation of this development is the design of a
MAV to participate in the 2014 edition of the International
Micro Air Vehicle Conference and Flight Competition
(IMAV). The IMAV is the most famous European annual
event that combines a scientific conference with a
technological competition in the field of autonomous aerial
vehicles and small Remotely Piloted Air Systems (sRPAS).
Such combination allows researcher groups from all over the
world to share their knowledge, and stimulates them to focus
on research that can be used in real life scenarios. Every year
the competition scenarios become more advanced and more
challenging. However, competitors are given the opportunity
to either do complete missions, or to focus on sub-elements
of the mission scenario. Our team brings together students
and UAV enthusiasts from different departments of the
Silesian University of Technology. Our motivation for
participating in such competitions is to develop a sRPAS
with high level of autonomy which can be later modified for
civilian applications.
This paper is intended to present and describe the co-axial
Y6-Rotor UAV designed taking into account the principles
and limitations resulting from the competition rules. The
layout of the paper is following. First, the introduction is
provided in section I. The motivation and general rules of
2014 IMAV are presented in section II. Then, the concept of
the Y6 platform with an explanation of the control strategy is
presented in section III. In section IV, the mathematical
modeling including the rigid body equations of motion with a
control allocation, and co-axial rotor aerodynamics for the
purpose of propellers and motor selection are explained. The
empirical measurements of co-axial rotor performed on the
test bench are presented in section V. The next section
presents a rapid prototyping of the mechanics, avionics
architecture, and finally practical realization of the co-axial
Y6-Rotor. Finally, the section VII provides the conclusions
and also guidelines for future work.

R. Czyba, G. Szafraski M. Janik, K. Pampuch and M. Hecel are with


the Silesian University of Technology, Akademicka 16, 44-100
Gliwice, Poland (corresponding author to provide phone:
+48322371095; fax: +48322371165; e-mail: Roman.Czyba@polsl.pl).

978-1-4799-6009-5/15/$31.00 2015 IEEE

1102

II. MOTIVATION IMAV 2014 COMPETITION


In the last year, the competition consisted of a single
mission that combines both outdoor and indoor mission
elements. The focus is put on the following tasks:
surveillance, recognition, endurance, and multi-MAV
operations. The scenario of the IMAV 2014 assumed natural
disaster in small city and investigation mission conducted by
rescue team. Participating teams had to face realistic
engineering challenges which involved obstacle detection,
map construction, house scanning or survivor localisation in
both indoor and outdoor environment with use of small size
unmanned platforms. Strong emphasis has been put on MAV
largest dimension, its level of autonomy and multitasking
approach. This influenced overall mission score expressed as
following formula:


   

(1)



where:





- overall mission score,


- autonomy level for mission n,
- scored points in mission n,
- size factor expressed as:
 






(2)

where:

- largest dimensiton of MAV that performed mission
n in centimeters,

 - Dimenstion of 100cm.

Values of  ,  in eq. (1) depend strictly on particular


mission and can be found in the official competition rules
[27].
The last, but the most important for this paper was the
size factor which can strongly increase or decrease total
team score. In the Fig. 1 we present value of  in function
of  .

X: 50
Y: 1.75

Size factor

1.5

X: 100
Y: 1

0.5

0
20

40

60
80
100
Maximum dimension Ln [cm]

Figure 1.

120

140

Size factor.

Important point on this curve is midpoint roll-off where


 is equal to 100cm and does not influence  . Above
that level, the sum component is decremented. On the other

hand by developing unmanned platform smaller than 1m in


radius, team can enhance overall score by maximum of
200%.
Taking into consideration project assumption about flight
control avionics, flight time, ambient outdoor air speed,
indoor window dimensions, agility and maneuverability, we
have set realistic goal of 50cm span and we have decided to
co-axial Y6-Rotor configuration. That would give us 1.75
scaling factor independent of achieved mission goals in
chosen level of autonomy.
III. Y6-ROTOR CONCEPTS AND DYNAMICS
The presented project focuses on the six-rotor UAV
which was fabricated in manufacturing laboratory. A coaxial Y6-Rotor is mechanically simpler than a classical
helicopter since it has propellers with constant pitch and
without a swash plate. The innovative design has three
counter-rotating pairs mounted at the vertices of an
equilateral triangle. The advantages of Y6-Rotor with
respect to quadrotor and classical helicopter is that the
double drive units configuration increases the thrust without
increasing the size of the frame, and naturally eliminates loss
of efficiency due to torque compensation. The advantage of
proposed UAV platform is a better stability, but the
disadvantage is the higher energy consumption for six
propulsion units.
Coaxial layout of rotors ensures single point torque
balancing. In other words [6], when the rotor turns, it has to
overcome air resistance, so a reactive force acts on the rotor
in the direction opposite to the rotation of the rotor. As long
as all rotors produce the same torque, they produce the same
reactive torque. This torque is mostly a function of rotation
speed, pitch of the rotor blade and size of the propeller.
Since the sum of the two air resistances is zero, there is no
yaw motion. If one of the rotors changes its rotation speed,
the induced torque will cause the Y6-Rotor to rotate in the
direction of the induced torque.
For a determined configuration of the propellers, the
translational and angular motion of co-axial Y6-Rotor is
controlled by rotation speed of each rotors. The main thrust
is the sum of all rotors thrust, and rotational movement
(pitch, roll, yaw) is generated by the differences of rotors
thrust, respectively. The configuration of co-axial Y6-Rotor
UAV is shown in Fig. 2. In this paper x, y and z axes of the
inertial coordinate system are defined as a right handed
Cartesian coordinate system with North, East and
Downward directions, abbreviated as the NED coordinate
system. The relationship between the measured signals on
each axis in the body coordinates and the inertial coordinates
is defined by the Euler angles, respectively by roll , pitch
and yaw angles, as a specific sequence of rotation with
respect to x, y and z axes of a referred coordinate system. An
inertial reference frame FE(xN, yE, zD) and a body reference
frame FB(xB, yB, zB) are defined in Fig. 1. Platform Y6
contains three axis of rotation with upper and lower drive
units. Upper rotors (M1, M3, M5) rotate in counter-clockwise
direction, and lower rotors (M2, M4, M6) rotate in clockwise
direction. The distance from the center of gravity to each
rotor is the same and defined as l.

1103

2) Moment equations

where:


0
0


0

     
 




0

0

0
0  inertia matrix


1 

0

    


0


3) Kinematic equations

Figure 2.

Configuration of Co-Axial Y6-Rotor UAV.

Since each motor turns in a fixed direction, the produced


forces are always positive. The following motions can be
performed while maintaining the constant value of the total
thrust:

Vertical motion it is achieved by increasing (upward


movement) or decreasing (downward movement) speed
of all rotors simultaneously.
Roll motion is obtained by inceasing speed of M3,
M4 rotors and decreasing speed of M5, M6 rotors
simultaneously.
Pitch motion results from the difference in thrust
between the front and rear rotors, namely by increasing
speed of M1, M2 and decreasing speed of M3, M4 and
M5, M6 simultaneously.
Yaw motion is obtained by the difference between
the torques generated by the upper and the lower plane
of the propellers, namely by increasing the torque of
the M1, M3, M5 motors, respectively, while decreasing
the torque of the M2, M4, M6 motors.
longitudinal and lateral motions are attained as a
result of pitching and rolling platform, respectively.
IV. MODELING OF CO-AXIAL Y6-ROTOR UAV

A. Rigid Body Model


The model of co-axial Y6-Rotor is considered as a rigid
body model with a fixed mass m. The nonlinear equations of
motion that are developed for conventional aircrafts [25] are
also used for tri-rotor UAVs. The following 6-degree of
freedom (DOF) equations refer to its motion in threedimensional space. It describes the rotational and
translational dynamics and kinematics using Newtons
second law.
1) Force equations


0



          
  
 






0


 

   
0 


0





   

0

(4)

(5)

 



 





!
"   $   

#

(6)

(7)

  
   
$       




 

where:

(8)

The individual elements of the equations have the


following meanings: s, c, t are abbreviations of sin, cos,
tan; m mass of UAV; g gravitational acceleration; u, v,
w translational velocities expressed in the body reference
frame; , , - Euler angles expressed in the inertial
reference frame; Fx, Fy, Fz external forces; Mx, My, Mz
external moments; p, q, r angular velocities expressed in
the body reference frame; x, y, z position in inertial
reference frame; $ attitude transformation matrix,
which transforms the vector related to the body reference
frame to inertial reference frame.
Let us denote F as a force vector and M as a moment
vector generated by the co-axial Y6-Rotor, and let us
describe in the following form (Fig. 3):
0
'

0
&
6
     &

&
% i =1

fi

*
)
)
)
(

(9)


   
c 30     
c 30

        
    
c 60     
c 60 

          

(10)

(3)

where: fi rotor forces; I rotor torques; l distance from


the center of gravity to the rotor; c abbreviation of cos.

1104

the one-dimensional momentum theory, which has a few


limitations but gives solutions in an analytic form [29].

Figure 4.

Figure 3.

Co-Axial Y6-Rotor top view.

In the simplest form the relationship between the thrust fi


generated by the i-th rotor and control signal ui has been
described in the square of the angular rotor velocity [16],
[19]. A more detailed description, taking into account a
dynamics of BLDC motor and propeller aerodynamics, has
been presented in [26]. For the purposes of this paper it was
assumed that fi=f(ui) where i=1,, 6.
The co-axial Y6-Rotor will follow a control command
similar to conventional UAV controlled by RC operator,
which are collective, longitudinal, lateral, and yaw. For the
purposes of the co-axial Y6-Rotor control, the mixer matrix
has been introduced. Its aim is the allocation of four
command inputs to six rotors. The mixer matrix has the
following form:

u1 1 0 1 1
u 1 0 1 1 u
2
col
u3 1 1 1 1 u
=

u4 1 1 1 1 u
u5 1 1 1 1 u

u6 1 1 1 1

Coaxial propulsion operating in fully developed slipstream.

In practical approach the rotors of a coaxial system are


spread enough which means that the lower rotor operates in
the vena contracta of the upper rotor. Taking this into
consideration the lower rotor does not affect the wake
contraction of the upper rotor, basing on the assumption of
the ideal flow one-half of a disk area of the lower rotor is
operating in the slipstream velocity induced by the rotor
above. However, this is more complicated problem, because
of other effects acting on this phenomena but it can be
investigated using the simple momentum theory. The rotors
in the coaxial system can operate in two modes, either equal
thrust or at balanced torques. The basic air flow model for
these cases is depicted in Fig.4. From the point of
developing a multirotor vehicle the ability to balance the
torque at each arm gives less cross-sensitivity between the
angular movements. In the second case, the assumption
about the two rotors operate at the equal torque is as follows:
Pu = Pl = P

(12)

The thrust of the upper rotor under the hover mode is:
Tu = 2 Au vu2

(11)

(13)

where: -air density, vu-induced velocity of upper rotor, Auupper disc area.
Let us consider now the area of the upper rotor that
covers the lower one and denote one as Au because in
practice the wake contraction may be different from the ideal
case of vena contracta equals Au/2. However, the ideal case
represents the minimum induced lost value for the coaxial
system. At the plane of lower rotor in the area Au the
velocity is 2vu+vl. Over the outer part of a lower disk area
the induced velocity is vl. In the fully developed slipstream
of a lower part of coaxial propulsion the velocity is wl. The
air mass flow through the first disc is Auvu which gives the
induced power:

where:
ui control input of motor,
i=1,,6 motor number,
ucol collective control command,
u - lateral control command,
u - longitudinal control command,
u - yaw control command.
B. Co-Axial Rotor Aerodynamics
Highly desirable feature of coaxial propulsion unit is a
torque balance which is simply achieved by each pair of
rotors. The performance of a coaxial rotor system for the
purpose of mini UAV development can be examined with

Pu = 2 Au vu3

(14)

The air mass flow through the inner and outer parts of the
lower rotor are:

1105

m& l = ( Au ( 2 vu + vl ) + (Al Au )vl ) =


= ( 2 Au vu + Al vl )

(15)

where: Al-lower disc area. Because the momentum flow at


& l wl , then the
the end of coaxial propulsion is given as m
thrust on the lower rotor can be expressed:
2
& l wl 2 Au vu2 = ( 2 Auvu + Av
Tl = m
l l )wl 2 Au vu

analytically different propellers diameter and their impact on


the coaxial propulsion system that should be selected for
development of Y6 aerial vehicle. The default propeller size
has been chosen as an eight inches. In the following figure
(Fig.5) the thrust ratio being a comparison of a coaxial rotor
to two isolated rotors has been given. In Fig.6 the power of
the coaxial rotors with different diameter combination at
given value of thrust is presented.
Thrust ratio vs. propeller size

(16)

0.89
lower prop. const - 8 inches
upper prop. const - 8 inches

0.88

And the work done by the second rotor is as follows:

0.87

Pl = Tl ( 2vu + vl )

(17)
0.86

Tc/Ts

and form the conservation of the kinetic energy of the


slipstream this is equal to:

0.85
0.84

1
1
Pl = (m& f wl2 ) Au vu ( 2vu )2 =
2
2
1
= ( Au vu + Al vl ) wl2 2 Au vu3
2

0.83

(18)

0.82
0.81

6.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

10

Propeller size [inches]

Using Eq.18 and because of the torque balance Eq.12, the


equation above can be simplified using Eq.14 to the
following form:

Figure 5.

Coaxial to single rotor ratio dependent on propeller size.


Induced power vs. propeller size

1
Pl = ( 2 Au vu + Al vl )wl2
4

110

(19)

lower prop. const - 8 inches


upper prop. const - 8 inches

105
100

Multiplying Eq.16 by 2vu+vl and rearranging it using again


Eq.14 because of the torque balance assumption one receive:

= ( 2 Au vu + Al vl )( 2 vu + vl ) wl vu

Pu+Pl [W]

P(
l 2 vu + vu + vl ) =

95

(20)

90
85
80
75

Substituting Eq.19 to Eq.20 and evaluating it for wl one get:


wl =

4vu ( 2 vu + vl )
2 vu + vu + vl

70
65

(21)

60

6.5

7.5

8.5

9.5

10

Propeller size [inches]

Again because of the torque balance (Eq.12) and substituting


wl in Eq.18 gives:

Figure 6.

3
u u

2 A v =
= ( Au vu +

1
Al vl
2

4v ( 2 vu + vl )
3
) u
2 Au vu
2 vu + vu + vl

(22)

which leads to:

2Alvl3 + vl2 ( 8 Al vu + 4 Au vu Au vu ) +
+2vl ( 4 Al 2 vu2 + 8 Au 2 vu2 2 Au vu2 Au vu2 ) +
3
u

(23)

Induced power of coaxial propulsion dependent on propeller


size

As a result the coaxial propulsion unit with the same size


propellers has been chosen for further empirical tests.
Mainly due to the fact that the thrust is about 0.85 of the two
isolated rotors and the power is the mean value between all
propellers combination and the span of the MAV vehicle
will not be changed because of the larger propeller diameter
in the drive unit.
V. EMPIRICAL MEASUREMENTS OF CO-AXIAL ROTOR

+v ( 16 Au 4 Au 4 Au Au ) = 0
Solving numerically the cubic equation given above, the
induced velocity vl can be obtained, then the thrust force for
the lower rotor can be calculated. Using the parameter =0.5
the ideal case of lower rotor operating in the vena contracta
of the upper rotor slipstream at its half area can be
investigated. Using the given formulas we can consider

Development of a mini unmanned aircraft requires


proper matching of a propulsion unit. This step is crucial
especially when we are dealing with any kind of a VTOL
platform because the lift is generated by means of the motor
and suitable propeller. In the previous section a theoretical
background for the propulsion system has been given. Once
the decisions about the propeller size is made then the

1106

empirical verifications must be undertaken in order to fulfill


the accepted flight requirements together with the selected
electric motor type.
A. Test Bench
To perform the necessary tests of a selected drive unit
such as thrust generation during the hover conditions, power
consumption and indirectly the flight duration a single rotor
test-bed [30] has been rearranged in that manner that the
coaxial propulsion system can be investigated.

brushless DC motor, consists also of an electronic speed


controller (ESC) which is running at the frequency rate up to
450 Hz, which is nine times faster than standard controllers
for the radio control planes. The reason of a faster ESC is to
improve the Y6 rotor control processes.
Using the laboratory setup for the thrust measurement
equipped with the current and velocity and air flow sensors
it is possible to collect data for the variety of static
characteristics, transient analysis and identification
experiments which are presented in the next section.
Moreover a comparison with a single rotor propulsion unit
can be easily made.
TABLE I.

MOTOR PARAMETERS

Type
Nominal Voltage in Cells
KV Electromotive Force
Constant
Power
Length
Diameter
Shaft diameter
Weight

Figure 7.

Test bench.

The mechanics consists of the lever with the pivot point


and transmission ratio 2:1 (Fig.7). The impact produced by
the propulsion unit is transferred to the strain gauge (sensing
element) that gives the voltage signal proportional to the
thrust force. Motor current is being measured with the use of
the contactless current transducer that allows to measure
high current without any impact on the propulsion circuit.
The rotational velocity and the air flown out of the propeller
are also measured. All the information are gathered via the
DAQ card and passed to the PC computer with the software
application that can operate the test setup. The block
diagram of the laboratory setup is depicted in Fig.8.

Figure 8.

IBM2215-13
2-4S
850 RPM/min/V
187W
26 mm
28 mm
3.15 mm
56g

B. Test Results
In this section, we present the results of experiments
conducted on the previously described test bench, in order to
compare the propulsion system consisting of a pair of
coaxial rotors with conventional single rotor one. During
the tests we were changing the values of the duty cycles of
PWM signal, in the range of 0.4 0.8 which corresponds
with the range 0-100%. There are three measured values:
thrust of the propulsion systems, current consumption of
each motor and their rotational speed. In addition, using a
vane anemometer, which was attached to a tripod, the
airflow rate was measured behind the propulsion system.
Due to the high sensitivity of the load cell, measurement
noises and other disturbances occurring in the gathered data,
in the first step of post-processing, it was necessary to carry
out an appropriate filtering of the measuring signals. For this
purpose, we used the Savitsky-Golay filter, with following
parameters: the polynomial order was 5, and the frame size
equal to 41. The results of filtering are shown in Fig. 9.

Data acquisition diagram for the propulsion test bed.

The motor has been selected as a drive for the three


coaxial multirotor configuration, type Y6. The construction
weighting approximately 1.5 kilograms, so the necessary
thrust for one coaxial propeller unit is about 0.25 kilograms.
The exact motor parameters have been given in Table I. The
propeller has been matched with the following parameters: 9
inches in diameter as stated in the previous section, and 4.5
in pitch. The electric propulsion system beside the propeller,

Figure 9.

Comparison of the signals before and after filtration.

The basic characteristic, shown in Fig. 10, illustrates the


relationship between the thrust of propulsion system and
a duty cycle. On this basis, it can be seen that for small

1107

values of duty cycle, the differences in the thrust of a single


rotor and coaxial system are insignificant. However, they are
growing exponentially, along with the value of the PWM
signal increase. It is therefore apparent, that the resultant
thrust of coaxial rotors is less than can be expected from the
sum of the thrusts of individual rotors.

system is achieved at lower air flow rate, in comparison to


conventional single rotor. The obtained results are shown in
Fig. 13.

Figure 13. Flow rate depending on the thrust.

Figure 10. Thrust depending on the duty cycle.

The comparison of the airflow rate, generated by the


rotors, exhibits a linear dependence on the control signal.
This value was independent of the number of rotors drives,
what is presented in Fig. 11.

On the basis of conducted experiments, we have shown,


that the differences between thrust of single rotor and
coaxial system rise with increasing the rotational speed of
rotors. The resultant thrust of coaxial rotors proved to be
less than expected of the sum of the individual rotors.
Generating more uplift force at lower rotational speed,
results in a reduction of engine temperature and, therefore,
increases their reliability. The comparative results for three
example values of duty cycles are given in Table II.
TABLE II.

thrust [kg]
airflow [m/s]
power [W]

COMPARATIVE RESULTS

DUTY CYCLE
0.5

DUTY CYCLE
0.65

DUTY CYCLE
0.8

single
0.16
7.14
38.68

single
0.71
14.39
44.41

single
1.71
21.70
58.39

coax
0.27
7.48
40.06

coax
1.26
15.13
51.81

coax
2.98
22.50
73.25

Figure 11. Flow rate depending on the duty cycle.

VI. Y6 PLATFORM

Despite the need for supplying two motors, the efficiency


of coaxial system turned out to be very close to a single
rotor. Based on Fig. 12, we can see that the higher values of
thrusts depend linearly on a higher power of propulsion
system.

A. Mechanical Design
The main inspiration for the first mechanical prototype
which was also proof of concept in our project, was an
IMAV 2011 award winning MAV designed by William
Thielicke called Shrediquette BOLT. It is presented in
Fig.14.

Figure 12. Thrust depending on the power of propulsion system.

Based on the previously mentioned dependency, it can be


concluded, that at the same power of both propulsion
systems, the same value of thrust generated by coaxial

1108

Figure 14. Shrediquette BOLT [24]

Originally BOLT was controlled by means of FPV and


did not have any on-board video processing, so it could
afford small and compact form factor ( Ln = 19cm,
Maximum Take Off Weight = 254g) [24]. In case of Y6
platform, we were planning to implement video based digital
localization and recognition, thus yielding higher payload
weight which in turn resulted in need for bigger propeller
diameter and bigger power supply battery.
The first approach to Y6 construction was to cut two
plates out of 3mm plywood and connect with 6mm threaded
rods. The prototype with the on board system has been
depicted in Fig.15.

negative way the distribution of airspeed between propellers,


but in the end the flight time has increased by factor of 7 to
15 minutes.
Being satisfied with the second prototype and that this
concept is valid for competition environment, we have
decided to follow this evolution path. The manufacturing
process had to be repeatable and guarantee both rigid and
functional construction. In order to achieve rapid
prototyping, 3D printing has been introduced. On previous
model, there hasnt been hardly any space for avionics so
that aspect was improved in the first order. All mechanical
assembly is produced out of PLA plastic by the Makerbot
3D printer, except three arms which temporarily was made
with carbon composite and balsa wood. Next version of Y6
prototype is presented in Fig.17.

Figure 15. prototype.

We have used 9 inch propellers with 4.5 pitch. That


concept worked out correctly and flew stable, due to high
building components weight the maximal flight time
reached approximately 2 minutes which was not acceptable.
The second iteration of prototype has resulted in two
major improvements, namely the frame consisted of
lightweight wooden booms and the parallel plates were
replaced by three arms in Y-type connection. Results were
very promising because not only total frame weight dropped
from 2kg to 0.7kg, but also airflow slipstream had much less
disturbances ahead, thus resulting in higher propulsion
system efficiency. Platform is presented in Fig.16.

Figure 17. Frame of Y6 prototype II.

With extensive use of 3D printer we were able to quickly


test different design concepts. In this manner we tried to
replicate existing arms with printed substitutes. It was very
challenging task, because carbon fibre is the best composite
when considering endurance and weight ratio. First
iterations differed in fill percentage and were similar in
thickness. Unfortunately due to high vibration stress which
motor mounts are subjected to, this did not work well.
Solution for unacceptable arm flexing was found in simple
longitudinal rib which is presented in Fig.18.

Figure 18. 3D model of proposed arm.

Figure 16. Y6 prototype I.

One can also note that distance between propeller


rotation planes has decreased approximately three times to
almost minimal. That theoretically has influenced in

This idea satisfied platform rigidity constraints and has come


through few more iterations.
During laboratory test and flights in real outdoor
environment, the platform has evolved in some aspects like
enhanced landing gear, flight control mounting holes,
folding arm mechanics and legs shape. Final Y6 render is
presented in Fig. 19.

1109

us sufficiently high bandwidth and no need for specialized


equipment, but in turn resulted in useful range of only 100
meters. The final version of Y6-Rotor UAV is presented in
Fig. 21.

Figure 19. Final version of the Y6 prototype.

B. Autopilot and Sensors


For the mission during IMAV competition, team has
equipped Y6 multirotor platform with electronic avionics
system. The main components were Wi-Fi video and
telemetry radio link, on board vision processing ARM
computer and autopilot unit capable of realizing GPS based
autonomous missions.

Figure 20. Avionics architecture of the Y6-Rotor UAV.

In the Fig.20 we present detailed block diagram of


implemented avionics. It is worth mentioning that electronic
speed controllers used for motors drivers on the final
platform were reprogrammed in order to provide 100Hz
control execution update rate. Based on numerous field tests
on both fixed wind and multirotor platforms, as autopilot
unit was chosen Pixhawk module manufactured by 3D
Robotics [28]. It is an open source device which allowed us
to introduce custom mission elements. While autopilot was
solely responsible for basic flight dynamics, the main
processing power was located in Raspberry Pi model B
which was programmed with vision processing algorithms.
With combination of single axis tilt camera gimbal we were
able to detect landing zone and recognize house numbers.
Due to the fact, that mission took place in built-up area and
competition rules required live video transmission we have
decided to use commercial Wi-Fi access point on the ground
and compact USB transceiver for UAV. This solution gave

Figure 21. Y6-Rotor UAV during mission flight.

VII. CONCLUSION AND FUTURE WORK


In this paper, the comprehensive design and
implementation of co-axial Y6-Rotor UAV has been
presented, including concept of motion, modeling of the
vehicle dynamics, rapid prototyping of the mechanics and
finally practical realization of the VTOL. The model
formulation starts from the presentation of the Y6 concept
and explanation of control strategies, through the rigid body
dynamics, ending on the issues of co-axial rotor
aerodynamics in order to obtain some clues for the
propulsion component selection. Preliminary tests of a
selected single co-axial drive unit based on the theoretical
considerations, such as thrust generation during the hover
conditions and power consumption, have been investigated
on the prepared for this purpose test bench. The resultant
thrust force of a coaxial rotors is less than the sum of two
isolated rotors but thanks to experimental verification this
loss is acceptable in the selected configuration of the
propellers size and is about 20%. Generating more uplift
force at lower rotational speed, results in a reduction of
engine temperature and, therefore, increases their reliability
and efficiency.
Based on the previous stages of the project, the frame of
the MAV has been designed and manufactured on the
principle of iterative method of rapid prototyping. The
presented Y6 platform has not only been verified in the real
flight tests, but also during the International Micro Air
Vehicle Flight Competition (IMAV 2014) scored fourth
place in the final classification.
Considering the requirements on various practical
implementations, extensive contributions could be achieved
by extending the Y6 research in the following directions. It
is planned to conduct research aimed at optimizing the
energy efficiency of the co-axial drive unit. The study will
involve testing the coaxial propellers in various
configurations, namely for different:

1110

pitch of the rotors blade, and diameter (larger upper smaller lower, conversely, the same),
distance between the rotors.

Further experiment and research work is required to


obtain a high-fidelity dynamics model of Y6 in the different
operation conditions. Experiments conducted on constructed
test bench will include different supply voltage which should
simulate another lithium-polymer battery models. The final
form of proposed Y6 platform should be built with use of
composite materials in order to guarantee maximal durability
and reduced weight.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work has been granted by the Polish Ministry of
Science and Higher Education from funds of European
Union and national funds for years 2014-2015, grant No.
MNISW/2014/DIR/481/GPII.
REFERENCES
[1]

[2]

[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]
[11]

[12]
[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

A. Tayebi and S. McGilvray, Attitude stabilization of a VTOL


quadrotor aircraft, IEEE Trans. on Control Systems Technology, vol.
14, no. 3, 2006, pp. 562-571.
J.S. Chiou, H.K. Tran and S.T. Peng, Attitude Control of a Single Tilt
Tri-Rotor UAV System: Dynamic Modeling and Each Channels
Nonlinear Controllers Design. Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, vol. 2013, Hindawi Publishing Corporation, 2013.
K. Nonami, F. Kendoul, S. Suzuki, W. Wang, Nakzawa D.,
Autonomous Flying Robots. London: Spirnger, 1st edition, 2010.
I.A. Raptis, K.P. Valavanis, Linear and Nonlinear Control of Smallscale Unmanned Helicopters. Dordrecht: Springer-Verlag, 2011.
K.P. Valavanis, Advances in Unmanned Aerial Vehicles. The
Netherlands: Springer-Verlag, 2007.
P. Castillo, R. Lozano, and A. E. Dzul, Modelling and Control of
Mini-flying Machines. London: Springer-Verlag, 2005.
M.D. Hua, T. Hamel, P. Morin, C. Samson, Introduction to Feedback
Control of Underactuated VTOL Vehicles. IEEE Control Systems
Magazine, February 2013, pp. 61-75.
S. Salazar, R. Lozano, J. Escareo,.. Stabilization and nonlinear
control for a novel trirotor mini-aircraft. Proceedings of the 2005
IEEE International Conference on Robotics and Automation,
Barcelona, Spain, pp. 2612-2617.
J. Escareo, A. Sanchez, O. Garcia, R. Lozano, Triple Tilting Rotor
mini-UAV: Modeling and Embedded Control of the Attitude,
American Control Conference, Westin Seattle Hotel, Seattle,
Washington, USA, June 11-13, 2008.
A. Visioli, Practical PID control, Springer 2006.
K.H. Ang, G. Chong, Y. Li, PID Control System Analysis, Design,
and Technology. July, 2005, IEEE Transaction on Control Systems
Technology, vol. 13 no.4.
H. L. Wade, Basic and Advanced Regulatory Control: System Design
and application. ISA, United States of America, 2004.
K. Skrzypczyk, Time optimal tracking a moving target by a mobile
vehicle - game theoretical approach, Electrical Review, Vol. 86,
No. 3, 2010, pp. 211-215.
R. Czyba, G. Szafranski, A. Rys, Development of Control System for
an Unmanned Single Tilt Tri-Rotor Aerial Vehicle, Proceedings of the
2014 International Conference on Unmanned Aircraft Systems
(ICUAS), Orlando, USA, 2014, pp.1091-1098.
A. Koehl, H. Rafaralahy, M. Boutayeb, B. Martinez, Aerodynamic
Modelling and Experimental Identification of a Coaxial-Rotor UAV,
Journal of Intelligent and Robotic Systems, 2012, 68:53-68, DOI
10.1007/s10846-012-9665-x.
Abhishek, A. Tripathi, Six-rotor UAV helicopter dynamics and
control: theory and simulation, International Journal of Advanced
Research in Electrical, Electronics and Instrumentation Engineering,
vol. 2, issue 11, 2013, pp. 5747-5755.

[17] D. Aleksandrov, I. Penkov, Optimization Mini Unmanned Helicopter


Energy Consumption by Changing Parameters of Coaxial Rotor
Pairs, Proc. of 12th International Symposium, Topical Problems in the
Field of Electrical and Power Engineering, Tallinn, 2012, pp. 139-141.
[18] D.-W. Yoo, H.-D. Oh, D.-Y. Won, M.-J. Tahk, Dynamic Modeling
and Stabilization Techniques for Tri-Rotor Unmanned Aerial
Vehicles, International Journal of Aeronautical and Space Science,
vol. 11, no. 3, pp.167-174, 2010.
[19] Z. Chen, Z. Peng, F. Zhang, Attitude Control of Coaxial Tri-rotor
UAV Based on Linear Extended State Observer, IEEE Proceedings of
the Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Changsha, 2014, pp.
4204-4209.
[20] S.D. Prior, J.C. Bell, Empirical Measurements of Small Unmanned
Aerial Vehicle Co-Axial Rotor Systems, Journal of Science and
Innovation, Vol. 1, No. 1, 2011, pp. 1-18.
[21] A. Kulhare, A. Bhanja Chowdhury, G. Raina, A back-stepping control
strategy for the Tri-rotor UAV, IEEE Proceedings of the Control and
Decision Conference (CCDC), 2012, Taiyuan, pp. 34813486.
[22] Fei Wang, Swee King Phang, Jinqiang Cui, Guowei Cai, Ben M.
Chen, Tong H. Lee, Nonlinear Modeling of a Miniature Fixed-Pitch
Coaxial UAV, Proceedings of the 2012 American Control Conference,
Montreal, Canada, 2012, pp. 3863-3870.
[23] Feng Lin, Kevin Z. Y. Ang, Fei Wang, Ben M. Chen, Tong H. Lee,
Beiqing Yang, Miaobo Dong, Xiangxu Dong, Jinqiang Cui, Swee
King Phang, Biao Wang, Delin Luo, Kemao Peng, Guowei Cai, Shiyu
Zhao, Mingfeng Yin, Kun Li, Development of an Unmanned Coaxial
Rotorcraft for the DARPA UAVForge Challenge, World Scientific
Publishing Company, Unmanned Systems, Vol. 1, No. 2, 2013, pp.
211245.
[24] http://shrediquette.blogspot.com/p/shrediquette-bolt.html
[25] Stevens B., Lewis F.: Aircraft control and simulation. John Wiley &
Sons, New York 1992.
[26] Armando S. Sanca, Alsina P. J., Cerqueira Jes de F. Dynamic
Modeling with Nonlinear Inputs and Backstepping Control for a
Hexarotor Micro-Aerial Vehicle. Latin American Robotics
Symposium and Intelligent Robotics Meeting, 2010, pp.3642.
[27] http://www.imavs.org/2014/competition.html
[28] http://3drobotics.com
[29] Seddon, J. (1990). Basic Helicopter Aerodynamics. British Library.
[30] Szafranski, G.; Czyba, R.; Blachuta, M., "Modeling and identification
of electric propulsion system for multirotor unmanned aerial vehicle
design," Unmanned Aircraft Systems (ICUAS), 2014 International
Conference on , vol., no., pp.470,476, 27-30 May 2014 doi:
10.1109/ICUAS.2014.6842287.

1111

Das könnte Ihnen auch gefallen