L3 Applications Exercise

Group 9

Academic responsible: Dr. Mirko Kovac

Department: Aeronautics
Academic year: 2016/2017

Student Name: CID:

Mihai Cristian Botea 00851598
James Calford 00959568
Pierre-Olivier Donnat 00950508
Andrew Gooding 00930324
Maria Atienza Menendez 00965790
Ben Ng 00842739
Arthur Pasquier 00951894
Conor Wilson 00869286

Department of Aeronautics
South Kensington Campus
Imperial College London
London SW7 2AZ
U.K.
 I Introduction & Design Process
The design task consisted of producing a self-
driving unmanned aerial vehicle, under 70g within
a sphere of 50cm, aiming to maximize the lon-
gitudinal distance when launched off a 1.24m
high, 1.8m long ramp [1]. To achieve optimal
performance, the design was driven by attempt-
ing to maximize the end of ramp velocity and
glide trajectory, while maintaining stability, creat-
ing a structure strong enough to withstand multi-
ple launches, and simultaneously minimizing the
weight. First priority was placed on researching
similar applications and modelling all aspects of
the glider [2], [3], [4], [5]. With this information
initial ideas were drafted, discussed within the
group, and tested for their validity, leading to our
first concept. This concept was made manufac-
turable, produced, and assessed. After modifica-
tions addressing the issues of the first design, a
final design was created and tested, with the re-
sults presented here.
II Performance Modelling
Accurately predicting the elements of robot per-
formance was fundamentally tied to the quality of
the models used. The modelling was split into
three primary categories: the drivetrain and ramp
phase, the aerodynamics and glide phase, and
structural simulations for landing loads.
Drivetrain & Ramp phase
For the ramp phase, motion was assumed to be
strictly parallel to the direction of the ramp. As-
suming a linear relationship between the torque
and the rotational speed of the motor and negligi-
ble mechanical losses, the equation of motion in
the horizontal direction and the torque equation
from motor parameters is as follows [1]:
d2 x T Tmax
m = D ; T = Tmax (1)
dt2 r max
In order to prevent slippage, the traction force
should be less that of the static friction experi-
enced by the traction wheels. Therefore, the fol-
lowing relation must hold true:
T determine the necessary thickness and number
N (2)
r of cross struts required to withstand landing.
A friction coefficient value was found using a
force-meter to be 1.33 between the rubber tyres
and the 400 grit sandpaper surface of the ramp.
This value was used to determine the maximum
torque prior to slippage.
Equation 1 was solved in Matlab using a 4th
order Runge-Kutta time-marching scheme and
was used in conjunction with Equation 2 to anal-
yse the performance of various configurations to
determine the factors that maximize the robots
i
range. The optimization process started with
choosing an appropriate motor and gear ratio.
The 5:1 High Power Micro motor was found to
maximise the ramp exit velocity with an optimal
gear ratio of 2:3. Front and rear wheels were cho-
sen to have diameter of 32mm and 40mm respec-
tively. This set of parameters predicted a ramp
exit velocity for our initial model of 4.4 m/s.
Aerodynamics & Glide Phase
To accurately model the glide trajectory of the
robot, a standard form of glider equations of mo-
tions was taken and simplified to only model the
longitudinal components as detailed in [6], [7].
Similar to the ramp equations of motion, these
were solved using a 4th order Runge-Kutta time-
marching scheme in Matlab, taking the end of the
ramp phase as the initial conditions for the glide.
With the equations of motion found, the next
step was to accurately model the lift, drag, and
pitching moment of the glider. Knowing the robot
would be flying at very low speeds (3 m/s) with
Reynolds numbers typically less than 50,000,
the effects of compressibility were considered
negligible. The wing consisted of a thin airfoil op-
erating at low angles of attack with no flow sepa-
ration further allowing for the assumption that the
viscous and turbulent effects would be small. In
turn, the flow was idealized as potential flow and
use of a vortex lattice method was justified.
To this end, Tornado was incorporated into the
model to solve for the overall lift, drag, and pitch-
ing moment at each time step [8]. This involved
writing Matlab functions to automate the con-
struction of a wing based on defined parameters,
generate a lattice and solve for forces based on
the current glide state and output the final values
to the equations of motion. Ground effect was
modelled by testing the given wing, and its re-
flection across the ground plane, at a set angle
of attack and velocity, across a variety of heights
to generate a function to scale the lift and drag
values as the glider approached the ground.
Structural Simulations
Using the worst case impact velocity and an-
gle from the glide phase, the structure was run
through Creo Simulate to test its response and
III Mechanical Implementation
Wing
The model allowed the group to iterate through
designs (assuming a fixed structural center of
gravity, and altering the positions, size, and shape
of the wing and tail) testing their stability and fea-
sibility. It was determined that the benefits of a
cambered wing (testing with a NACA 4408 air-
foil) were outweighed by the increase in mass
and structural complications. Therefore, taking
the optimum design from the model, the wing
was constructed as a 3mm foam flat plate with
a 3030cm inverse zimmerman planform shape.
A small tail was added for improved stability. The
wing position was made variable through the use
of carbon rods connecting to the undercarriage,
while the tail was fixed in place by the structure.
Undercarriage Structure
The undercarriage was designed to be minimal-
istic and lightweight with the top edge set at a
5o angle of attack for the main wing. The con-
struction was made from 2D laser cut parts of ac-
etal, with the CAD parts sized to take into account
the 0.2mm tolerance of the laser cutter. To min-
imize the use of epoxy and save weight, push fit
designs and interference fits were used wherever
possible. A platform was designed to attach the
motor, circuit and battery.
Drivetrain, Wheels, and Circuitry
The front and rear wheels were purchased rather
than manufactured to ensure perfect in plane ro-
tation. A 3mm hole was drilled through their cen-
tral axis to provide an interference fit for the car-
bon rod axles. Bearings were also utilized to min-
imize the friction with the rear axle. An Adafruit
Trinket circuit board was connected to the motor,
a 3.7V battery, a Mosfet transistor, and an infrared
demodulator, with all the components soldered as
neatly as possible [1]. The circuit would receive a
PWN signal from a remote control to engage the
motor, gradually increasing the voltage supplied
so as to avoid any wheel slip.
IV Performance Review
Prototype Testing and Modifications
A series of preliminary tests highlighted two pri-
mary issues in the initial prototype. Firstly, the
gears responsible for transferring torque from the
motor to the rear axle had a tendency to become
un-meshed which resulted in zero power transfer
from the motor and subsequently a severe loss in
velocity by the end of the ramp. Going forward
it was decided that a wider set of gears would
be used as, although heavier, they would provide
a greater contact area between gears and sub-
stantially reduce the risk of becoming un-meshed.
Furthermore, it was decided that a motor bracket
should be used to ensure accurate integration of
the motor into the structure providing further im-
provements to the motor/axle connection.
Secondly, it was observed that in cases where
the gears remained in contact, the model exhib-
ited a pitching up behaviour on departure from
the ramp. This resulted in an early onset of stall
significantly reducing the distance travelled. This
was due to the inflexibility in moving the center
of gravity of the robot, and restricted movement
ii
of the wing due to the tail structure. Although
a sub-optimal design decision according to the
model, to allow for greater wing movement the tail
and the corresponding structure was removed.
This decreased the weight allowing for the use
of a larger wing (4040cm) to generate greater
amount of lift, whilst simultaneously shifting the
models centre of gravity forward helping alleviate
the pitching issues. Further amendments made
were the inclusion of re-designed cross stiffen-
ers, as illustrated in Figure 2, to improve the struc-
tures torsional rigidity and impact resistance, so
as to retain straight motion in the ramp phase af-
ter the first run.
Final Design
The final model did not perform as expected,
travelling a distance of just 1.6m compared to a
1.9m predicted for the final configuration. Testing
within the flight arena brought to light new issues;
most significantly, in all but one test the model
demonstrated a severe lateral bias towards the
port side. This was likely a skewed centre of grav-
ity caused by parts of the circuitry extruding from
the main chassis creating a weight imbalance,
compounded by the greater moment arm of the
larger wing. The model also displayed wheelie
behaviour as the motor was switched on; the wing
was already designed to be at a 5o angle of at-
tack so this pitching behaviour left the model in an
off-design regime. The actual trajectory was also
poor because the robot started part way down the
ramp to mitigate the left bias resulting in an exit
velocity about 1.3 m/s rather than 3.7 m/s in the
predicted model.
Next Steps
The lateral stability issues could be rectified by re-
fining the circuitry to fit within the chassis or con-
structing a cage specifically for housing the cir-
cuit. A vertical stabilizer could also be added, with
all these solutions coming at a weight penalty.
The wheelie problem could be solved through
a more gradual increase in applied torque, or by
switching to front-wheel-drive with the added ben-
efit of moving the center of gravity forward. Fur-
thermore, the model needs to be revised. As
shown in Figure 3, there are significant curvature
differences in the second half of the actual and
model trajectories for the same exit ramp veloci-
ties. This is due to the fact that the model predicts
significant stability problems for tailless configu-
rations, as illustrated by Figure 4, likely to do with
how the pitching moment, and possibly ground ef-
fect, were modelled. Moving forward, more em-
pirical data should be collected with the model
corrected with this information. Greater emphasis
should be placed on the manufacturing and me-
chanical design of components. The listed mod-
ifications should be implemented and a tail and
smaller wing should also be re-evaluated.
 V Figures and Tables
Final Distance 1.6m
Ramp Exit Velocity 1.3m/s
Final Mass 60.88g
Configuration 3 wheels, RWD
Engine 5:1 High Power Micro
Gear Ratio 2:3
Front Wheel 32mm
Rear Wheels 40mm
Wing Planform Inverse Zimmerman
Figure 1: Glider equations of motion free body diagram [6]. Wing Max Dimensions 4040cm
Wing Aspect Ratio 1.27
Wing Area 1256.64cm2
Wing Angle of Attack 5o

Table 1: The values characterizing the final robot.

Figure 2: Comparing the initial prototype and final design
undercarriage and structure.
Figure 3: Comparing the predicted trajectories of the final
model with the actual trajectories with the same center of
gravity positions.
References
[1] Kovac M. L3 Applications 2016/2017. 2016.
[2] Laitone E.V. Wind tunnel tests of wings at
Reynolds numbers below 70000. In: Exper-
iments in Fluids 23.405-409 (1997).
[3] Mizoguchi M. and Itoh H. Effect of As-
pect Ratio on Aerodynamic Characteristics
at Low Reynolds Numbers. In: AIAA 51.7
(2013).
[4] Nonomura T. Oyama A. Anyoji M. Liu T. and
Fujii K. Effect of Wing Planform on Aero-
dynamic Characteristics at Low Reynolds
Numbers using a Low Density Wind Tunnel.
In: AIAA (2013).
[5] Okamoto M. and Azuma A. Aerodynamic
Characteristics at Low Reynolds Numbers
for Wings of Various Planforms. In: AIAA
49.6 (2011).
[6] Floreano D. Vidyasagar A. Zufferey JC. and
Kovac M. Performance analysis of jump-
gliding locomotion for miniature robotics.
Bristol, United Kingdom.: IOP Publishing Ltd,
2015.
[7] Moerder D. Beeler S. and Cox D. A Flight Dy-
namics Model for a Small Glider in Ambient
Winds. Langley Research Center, Virginia,
USA.: NASA, 2003.
[8] Users guide and reference manual for Tor-
nado. Online. http://tornado.redhammer.se/.
2012.

Figure 4: Comparing the predicted trajectories of three con-

Finally, please see l3appgroup9.weebly.com for
figurations. With a corrected model, future designs should more information, including videos of our interim
re-consider adding a tail to improve performance. and final designs, as well as the robot in action.

iii