KQ

Tsubasa Iwai Andrew Nunnikhoven Ehrich Rodgers Eric Roggatz Paul Rose John Warning
FINAL REPORT - DRAFT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
TABLE OF CONTENTS..................................................................................................................................... 2 LIST OF FIGURES ............................................................................................................................................ 4 LIST OF TABLES .............................................................................................................................................. 5 1 2 ABSTRACT .............................................................................................................................................. 6 CUSTOMER SPECIFICATIONS ................................................................................................................. 7 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 CUSTOMER STATEMENT OF NEED ................................................................................................ 7 CUSTOMER DESIGN CONCEPT ...................................................................................................... 7 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................................... 8
MARKET RESEARCH AND LITERATURE SURVEY .................................................................................... 9 3.1 3.2 MATERIAL RESEARCH .................................................................................................................... 9 SIMILAR PROJECT RESEARCH ........................................................................................................ 9
4 5 6
GLOBAL AND SOCIETAL IMPACT ......................................................................................................... 11 ETHICAL ISSUES ................................................................................................................................... 12 DESIGN CONCEPT ................................................................................................................................ 13 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 6.5 Part Identification ....................................................................................................................... 13 Assemblies .................................................................................................................................. 15 Final Configuration ...................................................................................................................... 17 Trade Studies .............................................................................................................................. 19 Common Material Properties ..................................................................................................... 19
ANALYSES ............................................................................................................................................ 21 7.1 Load Derivation ........................................................................................................................... 21 Static Loads ......................................................................................................................... 21 Impact Loads ....................................................................................................................... 21
7.1.1 7.1.2 7.2
Stress Analysis ............................................................................................................................. 23 Bumper Subassembly .......................................................................................................... 23 Central Hub Subassembly Analysis ANSYS Model............................................................ 31
7.2.1 7.2.2 7.3 7.4
Power Loss Calculation ............................................................................................................... 38 Testing ......................................................................................................................................... 40 Bumper................................................................................................................................ 40 Fixed Helicopter Force Measurement ................................................................................ 42 2
7.4.1 7.4.2
The information in this report has been prepared by Team Quadrocopter for use in design documentation for Aer E 462, Fall 2010. All supplemental material used to create this report can be found in the supplied documents. These documents are available via request from Steve Holland or members of the Team Quadcopter Controls Team in the SSCL.
8 9
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................ 44 APPENDIX A: Trade Studies ................................................................................................................ 45 9.1 BUMPER MASS BUDGET ............................................................................................................. 45 CURRENT BUMPER DESIGN AND ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 49
9.1.1 9.2 9.3 10 11
LAYOUT CONCEPT ....................................................................................................................... 53 HUB CONSTRUCTION .................................................................................................................. 54 APPENDIX B: Matlab Model Script ................................................................................................. 60 APPENDIX C: Carbon Fiber Layup Fabrication................................................................................. 67
3
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1.1: Client Design Concept ................................................................................................................. 8 Figure 4.1: Contemporary Bridge Inspection Methods .............................................................................. 11 Figure 4.2: The Interstate 35 Bridge Collapse ............................................................................................. 11 Figure 6.1: Quadrocopter Final Assembly ................................................................................................... 17 Figure 6.2: Subassembly Weight Percentages (GW = 6 lbs) ....................................................................... 18 Figure 6.3: Subassembly Weight Percentages [GW = 8.910 lbs (MAX)] ..................................................... 19 Figure 7.1: Bumper Deformation ................................................................................................................ 25 Figure 7.2: Internal Normal Force ............................................................................................................... 25 Figure 7.3: Internal Shear............................................................................................................................ 26 Figure 7.4: Internal Moment ....................................................................................................................... 26 Figure 7.5: ANSYS Bumper Subassembly model setup ............................................................................... 27 Figure 7.6: Bumper Deflection .................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 7.7: Bumper Subassembly Deflection .............................................................................................. 28 Figure 7.8: Von Mises Stress Bumper ...................................................................................................... 29 Figure 7.9: Von Mises Stress Helicopter Bracket ..................................................................................... 30 Figure 7.10: Von Mises Stress Horizontal Truss Bracket .......................................................................... 30 Figure 7.11: Von Mises Stress Bumper Subassembly .............................................................................. 31 Figure 7.12: Central Hub Subassembly ....................................................................................................... 32 Figure 7.13: Load Case 1 Model Setup ..................................................................................................... 33 Figure 7.14: Load Case 1 - Von Mises Stress ............................................................................................... 33 Figure 7.15: Load Case 1 Total Deformation............................................................................................ 34 Figure 7.16: Load Case 1 Outer Bracket Von Mises Stress....................................................................... 34 Figure 7.17: Load Case 1 Inner Bracket Von Mises Stress ....................................................................... 35 Figure 7.18: Load Case 2 ANSYS Model Setup ......................................................................................... 36 Figure 7.19: Load Case 2 - Von Mises Stress ............................................................................................... 36 Figure 7.20: Load Case 2 Total Deformation............................................................................................ 37 Figure 7.21: Load Case 2 Outer Bracket Von Mises Stress....................................................................... 37 Figure 7.22: Load Case 2 Inner Bracket Von Mises Stress ....................................................................... 38 Figure 7.23: Bumper Test Results ............................................................................................................... 41 Figure 7.24: Forces vs Time for axial flight (climbing)................................................................................. 42 Figure 9.1: Bumper Design Variation 2 ....................................................................................................... 47 Figure 9.2: Bumper Subassembly................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 9.3: Deformed and Undeformed Bumper Shapes ........................................................................... 52 Figure 9.4: Internal Moment vs. Angular Displacment ............................................................................... 52 Figure 9.5: Enclosed Box Central Hub Design ............................................................................................. 54 Figure 9.6: Frame Constructed Central Hub Design ................................................................................... 55 Figure 9.7: Box-Like Central Hub Design ..................................................................................................... 57 Figure 9.8: Hub Design 4 ............................................................................................................................. 59 Figure 11.1: Steel Form Carbon Fiber Layup ............................................................................................ 67 4
LIST OF TABLES
Table 6.1: Bumper Sub Assembly Part Identification List ........................................................................... 13 Table 6.2: Hub Subassembly Part Identification List................................................................................... 15 Table 6.3: Final Assembly Subassembly Identification List ......................................................................... 16 Table 6.4: Final Assembly Part Identification List ....................................................................................... 16 Table 6.5: Final Assembly Part List .............................................................................................................. 18 Table 6.6: Common Material Properties..................................................................................................... 19 Table 6.7: IM7/8551-7A Carbon Fiber Material Properties ........................................................................ 19 Table 7.1: Matlab Model Boundary Conditions .......................................................................................... 25 Table 7.2: Matlab Model Input ................................................................................................................... 25 Table 7.3: Central Hub Load Cases .............................................................................................................. 32 Table 7.4: Power Loss Assumptions/Values Used ...................................................................................... 39 Table 7.5: Forces acting on three axis for axial flight ................................................................................. 42 Table 7.6: Forces for Full Forward Flight and Full Backward Flight ............................................................ 43 Table 7.7: Moments for Full Forward Flight and Full Backward Flight ....................................................... 43 Table 9.1: Bumper Design Variation 1 Calculations .................................................................................... 46 Table 9.2: Bumper Design Variation 2 Calculations .................................................................................... 48 Table 9.3: Bumper Design Variation 3 Calculations .................................................................................... 49 Table 9.4: Layout Concept 1 Calculations ................................................................................................... 53 Table 9.5: Layout Concept 2 Calculations ................................................................................................... 54 Table 9.6: Enclosed Box Central Hub Design Calculations .......................................................................... 55 Table 9.7: Frame Constructed Central Hub Design Calculations ................................................................ 56 Table 9.8: Box-Like Central Hub Design Calculations.................................................................................. 58 Table 9.9: Hub Design 4 Calculations .......................................................................................................... 59
5
1 ABSTRACT
Team Quadrocopter is involved in designing a structure to link four identical remote controlled helicopters, each with cyclic and collective control, into one stable unit that could be used for tasks such as bridge inspection. The crucial design problem is to devise a structure that is very stiff but also extremely lightweight. The proposed use of the concept is for non-destructive evaluation of structures like bridges, where using equipment mounted on a highly mobile and easily controlled unmanned aerial vehicle is much more efficient than traditional methods. However, the platform taking these measurements would need to be highly stable, resistant to the gusty environment inherent about such structures, and resilient to any impact with those structures. Although the stability issue is addressed immediately by the Quadrocopter concept, there was still a need for a structure that was stiff, lightweight, and minimal in profile. It was this need that led Dr. Steve Holland to recruit Team Quadrocopter from the Aerospace Engineering 462 class to develop a structure capable of filling these requirements. Dr. Steve Holland, along with the members of the Quadrocopter controls development team, are considered the Customer for this project, hence he will be providing all requirements and input for design change. The purpose of this report is to document our process of design, evaluation, and construction, and outline any conclusions and recommendations derived during the process.
6
2 CUSTOMER SPECIFICATIONS
This section identifies the customers, hereinafter referred to as the Client, requirements and statement of need given initially to Team Quadrocopter, hereinafter referred to as the Team, in the project proposal. These requirements are basic guidelines or baselines for the performance and/or specifications, whereas the complete design as a whole is left to the Teams discretion.
2.1 CUSTOMER STATEMENT OF NEED

The Team was assigned the task of designing, building and testing a Quadrocopter to be used for structural inspection of bridges and buildings. The Team was required to use off-the-shelf helicopters to provide the thrust and maneuvering controls. These helicopters and parts were supplied by the Client, with additional structural components left to the responsibility of the Team for design and build. In addition the Quadrocopter must be able to resist wind gusts common around large structures, prevent catastrophic failure from small collisions, and be able to move horizontally without tilting.
2.2 CUSTOMER DESIGN CONCEPT

The clients design concept showed four helicopter bodies with the tails pointed towards the center and beams protruding from the front, supporting a solid bumper structure surrounding the entire Quadrocopter. The client specified that the environment for this craft would primarily be in close proximity to bridges, buildings, and other structures, but that he also foresaw the possibility of the craft being operated indoors as well. He stated that in the outdoor environments, the helicopter would be operable in the face of gusts in addition to being protected from uneven or protruding surfaces. Indoors, it would be maneuverable or small enough to move through doors or windows. He also specified that the design would be relatively easy to construct using the components both from the commercially available kits being used and the Teams own original pieces.
7
Figure 1.1: Client Design Concept
2.3 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS

The Team was given a set of requirements by the Client. These requirements establish a baseline for the design of the structure as well as the product as a whole but do not necessarily establish the performance or structural limits of the Quadrocopter. The generated list of requirements given to the Team for the project design is given below: The Quadrocopter design shall use four T-Rex 250 RC helicopters. The Quadrocopter design shall have a central hub for shared power source, avionics, and payload accommodations. The entire structure shall be rigid and stiff. The structure shall be light; the Gross Weight Limit is six pounds, this total does not include the weight of the original helicopter components (approx. 0.728 lbs each) The Quadrocopter design shall include a guard to protect the rotor blades. The Quadrocopter shall be able to hold position in wind gusts of up to ten miles per hour. Assembly and disassembly of the structure shall be easy, utilizing interchangeable parts. Quadrocopter rotors may or may not have some degree of tilt to generate lateral thrust. Quadrocopter rotors shall not be tilted at a degree where less than ninety-three percent of the thrust generated acts downward. The payload section of the Quadrocopter shall be modular for the use of multiple sensory devices.
Additional requirements for this project have been established by the Team and will be presented later in this report. In addition to the Client requirements listed above, additional requirements for physical components/prototypes will be given later in the report.
8
3 MARKET RESEARCH AND LITERATURE SURVEY

When starting this new project, it was necessary to first see what has been tried or is currently in production by other companies. Not only does this initiate the brainstorming process but it also saves companies time by observing what has and has not worked in the past. Our Team was faced with decisions based on which material to use to construct the structural components from, as well as to finding what has and hasnt worked in the field of quadrocopter projects so as to make intelligent decisions when designing, constructing, and operating our aircraft. The next sections will highlight the research pursued by the Team during the project duration.
3.1 MATERIAL RESEARCH

Technological innovations in recent years have brought impressive advancements to many vehicles. For example, discovery of carbon nanotubes in 1991 enabled the realization of a Space Elevator for the future. As the strength of materials increases, and smaller equipment and lighter components become possible, new ideas are recognized in every sector of industry, and RC helicopters, including quadrocopters, are no exception. Advancements in the field of composite material fabrication and piezoelectric components have provided an opportunity for consumers to enjoy inexpensive RC helicopters, such as the T-Rex 250 for example, at home. Composites are becoming commonplace in the aerospace industry and as composites become more cost effective, they have also found a home in RC aircraft. They are often used for customizing a RC helicopters body but are also used to create the frame components and rotor blades. In fact, carbon fiber composites, like those in the T-Rex 250 RC Helicopters tailboom, are known to be stronger than steel in the direction of fiber alignment. This is of value because the Client has recommended we use the supplied tail boom to attach each rotor to the center hub, as well as use carbon fiber in all applications if possible. Carbon fiber composite layups are known for their strength, low density, and ease of fabrication when considering complex shapes such as airfoils. Carbon fiber also has a very low strain rate under load which can prove to be either beneficial or detrimental, depending on the situation. Under low loading, like the loading that is expected to be experienced by the Quadrocopter, the deflection will be low, hence providing stiffness to the structure. However, in high loading situations this low strain rate does not allow for advanced notification of failure. Since there is no indication that the Quadrocopter will experience loads of such a large magnitude, carbon fiber will be the material of choice for all structures comprising the Quadrocopter. Another possible material which was considered in the Quadrocopter design is fiberglass layups. Fiberglass is known for its strength and low strain rate, but is also less expensive to produce in comparison to carbon fiber. Numerous trade studies will be presented weighing the options between producing our structural components from fiberglass or carbon fiber.
3.2 SIMILAR PROJECT RESEARCH

A RC helicopter is a great toy and hobby to experience flight first hand, but when this helicopter technology is applied to a quadrocopter platform, there is potential for use beyond recreation. For example, Google Inc. has purchased several quadrocopters produced by Microdrones. Google plans to 9
take advantage of the quadrocopters exceptional stability which is a well-known characteristic of quadrocopters. These quadrocopters will be taking aerial photos for use in applications such as Google Earth. To achieve the desired level of high resolution photography and accurate imagery requires outstanding steady flight and hover conditions. Our project has very similar requirements to that of the Google mission. Our Quadrocopter must be able to hover in a stable position and react gently but accurately to input and wind gusting to achieve its NDE mission. Since the quadrocopter concept is shown to be favorable for this kind of stability demanding application, it is quite obvious that the quadrocopter concept will be a perfect fit for our project. Current quadrocopter concepts like the Microdrones are almost entirely throttle controlled meaning that in order to roll, pitch, and yaw they must have adequate throttle applied to the appropriate rotor. Using the rotors throttle to change direction twists the fuselage in the direction of movement. This is where the Teams concept differs. Our Quadrocopter will use collective and cyclic control on each rotor to enable the Quadrocopter to move laterally, fore, and aft with minimal to zero fuselage tilt. This feature enables the Quadrocopter to continually observe its target object without change in angle of the camera. This concept has not been pursued by any competitor and will present a significant challenge in terms of controlling the rotors.
10
4 GLOBAL AND SOCIETAL IMPACT

Quadrocopter was conceived for the purpose of non-destructive evaluation of hard to reach structures. By carrying equipment on a highly mobile platform to areas that a human being cannot easily reach without the aid of additional equipment such as ladders, ropes and harnesses, and lifts, Quadrocopter will be able to greatly reduce the amount of time it takes to inspect a bridge or building. By diminishing time required and streamlining the inspection process, Quadrocopter could allow inspectors not only to conduct more thorough inspections, but also to conduct more inspections in a shorter amount of time, which could in turn help to prevent disasters such as the Interstate 35 bridge collapse. The end result would be that the safety and peace of mind that people expect when traveling would be nearly complete.
Figure 4.1: Contemporary Bridge Inspection Methods
Figure 4.2: The Interstate 35 Bridge Collapse 11

5 ETHICAL ISSUES
Despite being in its very early stages of development, Quadrocopter has already been suggested as a viable UAV by a low-level military member. While this was merely an observation in passing, and the individual had no authority to begin an acquisitions process, the fact the Quadrocopter or one of its future derivatives may be pursued in that fashion cannot be overlooked. Although non-destructive evaluation is a clearly beneficial use for Quadrocopter, its use by the military treads into an ethical gray area. Even though it is unlikely that our current design would ever see use by soldiers in the field, as ethically responsible engineers we must anticipate the possible consequences that our work could generate. It is possible that at some time in the future, a quadrocopter design with foundations in our work could be used in operations that have the potential to result in the loss of life. However, we feel that our design could not be used for anything directly harmful, and that its responsible use by the military would tend to result in lives, both military and civilian, saved due to additional information gathered by a quadrocopter.
12
6 DESIGN CONCEPT
6.1 Part Identification
This section clearly identifies all parts that are to be fabricated by either rapid prototyping, CNC machining, or hand layups of carbon fiber. All parts are assigned a name, subassembly they belong to, the quantity in each subassembly, the weight of the component, and the material from which they are to be made. Table 6.1: Bumper Sub Assembly Part Identification List Part # 1001 Description Bracket which attaches bumper to helicopter body (Referred to as Helo bracket throughout) [0.00913 lbs] Carbon fiber rod supporting the bumper [0.02399 lbs] # of Pieces in Subassembly 1 Method of Manufacture Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic) Image
1002
Purchased premade (Carbon Fiber composite)
1003
Bracket supporting the bumper from collapsing under asymmetric load [0.00113 lbs] Carbon fiber rod to connect parts 1003 and 1005 [0.00016 lbs]
Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic)
1004
1005-1
Bracket connecting the support rods to the bumper, left side [0.00700 lbs]
13
1005-2
Bracket connecting the support rods to the bumper, right side [0.00700 lbs]
1006
Bracket attached to ends of the bumper with holes for a pinned joint [0.00174 lbs] Carbon fiber bumper (Referred to as bumper throughout) [0.04025 lbs]
1007
Handmade carbon fiber layup (Carbon Fiber composite)
1008
Pin for joint between parts 1005 and 1006 [0.00004 lbs]
Handmade from wire
1009
Adjustable pin to hold string between bumper assemblies [0.00023 lbs]
1010
Holds a brace between parts 1002 (Referred to as horizontal truss bracket throughout) [0.00104 lbs] Carbon fiber rod to provide strength to the bumper assembly [0.00443 lbs]
1011
14
Table 6.2: Hub Subassembly Part Identification List Part # 1012 Description Bracket to clamp on to helicopter tail boom [0.00151 lbs] # of Pieces in Subassembly 8 Method of Manufacture Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic) Image
1013
Bracket to mount part 1012 to part 1014 [0.00417 lbs]
Machined from aluminum
1014
Carbon fiber plate to connect helicopters and mount avionics [0.05018 lbs]
1015
Carbon fiber plate to mount and protect avionics [0.04656 lbs]
1016
Spacer to provide separation between and connect parts 1014 and 1015 [0.00142 lbs]
12
Machined from aluminum
6.2 Assemblies
This section identifies the assemblies and subassemblies that exist in the Quadrocopter. Also stated are the quantities of each subassembly and the location on the overall assembly.
15
Table 6.3: Final Assembly Subassembly Identification List # of Subassemblies on Final Assembly 1 Location on Final Assembly In the center of the final assembly
Subassembly Name Hub
Description This subassembly connects the helicopter bodies and will house the power source and avionics This subassembly contains all the helicopter components, and is constructed from an Align T-Rex 250 kit This subassembly protects the helicopter rotors from impacting against objects
Image
Helicopter Body
Mounted by the tail boom to the four sides of the hub subassembly Attached to the outboard (front) end of the helicopter body subassembly
Bumper
Table 6.4: Final Assembly Part Identification List Part # 1017 Description Bracket to hold tensioned lines between helicopter bodies, left side [0.00094 lbs] Bracket to hold tensioned lines between helicopter bodies, right side [0.00094 lbs] Adjustable pin to hold lines between helicopter bodies [0.00023 lbs] # of Pieces in Final Assembly 4 Method of Manufacture Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic) Image
1018
1009
16
6.3 Final Configuration

This section shows and highlights the final configuration that will be fabricated for each Quadrocopter assembly, the weight of the total Quadrocopter (less all avionics, batteries, and other non-Team supplied components) as well as the percentage of weight each component/subassembly consumes of the entire structure.
Figure 6.1: Quadrocopter Final Assembly One component seen in the final configuration but not listed in the part identification charts are the tensioned lines. These lines span between the helicopter bodies and between the bumper subassemblies. The purpose of the lines between the helicopters is to provide stiffness without adding significant weight, and the purpose of the lines between the bumpers is to prevent objects from passing between the bumpers and into the rotors. The lines are attached to the tensioner pins (part 1009), which are then turned until the desired level of tension is reached.
17
Table 6.5: Final Assembly Part List Part # or Subassembly Name 1001 1002 1003 1004 1005-1 1005-2 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1016 1017 1018 Hub Helicopter Body Bumper Total Structure # of Parts/SubAssemblies in Final Assembly 4 8 8 8 4 4 8 4 16 16 8 4 8 8 2 2 12 4 4 1 4 4 ----------------------------------Total Part/Subassembly Weight (lbs) 0.037 0.192 0.009 0.001 0.028 0.028 0.014 0.161 0.001 0.004 0.008 0.018 0.012 0.033 0.100 0.093 0.017 0.004 0.004 0.264 2.910 0.498 3.673 % Weight Contribution to GW = 6 lbs 0.609% 3.199% 0.151% 0.021% 0.467% 0.467% 0.232% 2.683% 0.011% 0.061% 0.139% 0.295% 0.201% 0.556% 1.673% 1.552% 0.284% 0.063% 0.063% 4.407% 48.502% 8.301% 61.21% % Weight Contribution to GW = 8.910 lbs* 0.415% 2.155% 0.101% 0.011% 0.314% 0.314% 0.157% 1.807% 0.011% 0.045% 0.090% 0.202% 0.135% 0.370% 1.122% 1.044% 0.191% 0.045% 0.045% 2.963% 32.660% 5.589% 49.787%
*8.910 lbs is the maximum Gross Weight (helicopters can generate 1.5 lbs over their own Gross Weight each)
Hub 4.41% Remaining 38.79%
Bumpers 8.30%
Helicopter Components 48.50%
Figure 6.2: Subassembly Weight Percentages (GW = 6 lbs) 18

Hub 2.96% Remaining 58.79% Bumpers 5.59%
Helicopter Components 32.66%
Figure 6.3: Subassembly Weight Percentages [GW = 8.910 lbs (MAX)]
6.4 Trade Studies

Due to the length of this report, all past trade studies have been placed in the appendix. Trade studies include those for the bumper, overall configuration, and the central hub. This report specifically outlines the final design concept that is presented to the Client.
6.5 Common Material Properties

This section identifies the materials used in the assembly and the common properties for each material used in various analyses performed by the Team. This information has been gathered from various sources. Table 6.6: Common Material Properties Material Carbon Fiber 1060 Aluminum Alloy ABS Plastic Elastic Modulus (ksi) 25000 10000 290 ULT (ksi) 580 68 4.351 Density (lbf/in3) 0.07 0.10 0.04 Poissons Ratio 0.18 0.33 0.39
In the above table, the elastic modulus of the Carbon Fiber layup was calculated theoretically using the following information: Table 6.7: IM7/8551-7A Carbon Fiber Material Properties Description Fiber Volume Fraction, vf Fiber Elastic Modulus Matrix Volume Faction, vm Matrix Elastic Modulus 19
Value 0.62 40000 ksi 0.38 435 ksi
This information was used and placed into the following equation to determine the effective Elastic Modulus used in stress analysis:
20
7 ANALYSES
The Team performed various analyses throughout the duration of the design concept development. These analyses ranged from stress analysis, aerodynamic drag analysis, and testing with accompanying analysis to verify the calculations from the analyses. This section presents these analyses.
7.1 Load Derivation

Determining the loads that were to be seen by the Quadrocopter was the foundation of the design concept development. Each component was to be designed to withstand the derived loads; hence each component was optimized to achieve the target load carrying capacity. There are two types of loading that were developed for this project, static and impact loading. Both loading types are individually shown in the following sections and these loads are then used for the design of each component or assembly. The loads are also used for input values in all ANSYS Workbench models. 7.1.1 Static Loads Static loads can be applied in the ANSYS Workbench model or other Team developed stress analysis tools. For simplicity, static loads are assumed to be constant amplitude loads applied over a significant period of time, i.e. static loads are not applied for very short duration (0.1 seconds for example) as these load types will be considered impact loads. Impact loads are derived in the next section and function as applied static loads in the stress analysis tools. The load cases containing static loads only are generally applied in the stress analysis of the Central Hub. These loads mainly consist of forces generated by the individual helicopters (lift) and are transferred to the Central Hub via the helicopter tail booms. These loads are a function of the current maneuver the Quadrocopter is performing, i.e. steady level flight, left and right turns, or climbing. These loads will vary by the blade angle of attack and RPM of each helicopter. In addition to the forces generated by the helicopters, impact load reactions through the helicopter tail booms will be simultaneously applied in various load cases to observe the behavior of the structure under these load cases. 7.1.2 Impact Loads Impact loads are applied to the structure for very shot durations of time. The methodology is common to that used in mechanical dynamics courses and is as follows: The Quadrocopter is moving at an assumed speed (and corresponding kinetic energy) and impacts one bumper assembly directly over the individual rotor. The bumper, and entire bumper assembly, deflects to absorb the kinetic energy into potential energy much like a spring. If the stiffness, K, is known for the bumper configuration, the deflection can then be calculated. This method was used to determine the number of plies of unidirectional carbon fiber was needed in the layup of the bumper. Due to time constraints, the Team was able to model one collision. In this collision it is assumed that the Quadrocopter is hovering a distance, D, from a wall or structure. Since the Team must design the Quadrocopter to resist gusts of 10 mph, the Quadrocopter is then perturbed by a wind gust of 10 mph and is accelerated toward the wall. The Quadrocopter is constantly accelerated until impact, hence a 21
final velocity and time to impact may be calculated if certain aerodynamic properties are known about the Quadrocopter cross section. Since the component that will be creating most of the drag is the bumper, it can be assumed that this can be idealized as a flat plate oriented perpendicular to the flow. It can be readily found that the drag coefficient of a flat plate with this orientation is, cd = 2.5. To derive the impact speed and time, use the following method:
From calculating an impact time and velocity the Team noticed that at distances greater than 3 feet, the time to impact was greater than 5 seconds. From this observation, the Team decided that the Quadrocopter would have more than enough time to respond to the wind gust and make adjustments, meaning 3 feet travel distance is too conservative. The Team hence decided to limit the reaction time to less approximately 2 seconds. By reverse solving the equations above, one can arrive at the following conclusions assuming a 2 second reaction time: Time to impact Distance from wall Drag force Acceleration by wind Velocity at wall 1.97 seconds 0.7 feet = 8.4 inches 0.0672 lbf 0.360 ft/s2 0.7103 ft/s = 0.4843 mph
This velocity can now be used to calculate the impact force experienced by the Quadrocopter during a collision endured while observing a structure. 7.1.2.1 Calculation of Impact Force Based on the impact velocity calculated in the previous section, the equivalent impact force (static force input for stress analysis) can be calculated using simple dynamics. In order to know this calculation one must know the mass of the entire Quadrocopter assembly and the stiffness constant (spring constant) of the component absorbing the impact. The first of these is readily known as the mass has been assumed for the entire project as:
22
The spring constant of the assembly is more complicated. For this analysis the Team has assumed the majority of the impact will be absorbed by the bumper component alone, with minimal deflection of the carbon fiber Bumper Supports. To determine this constant, the Team used a stress analysis tool developed to model the bumper behavior and this will be further described in the Stress Analysis section of this report. This constant, based on 4 plies of 0.006 unidirectional carbon fiber, was determined to be:
Next the following equations and method were used to determine the deflection and equivalent impact force.
Since all of the kinetic energy is absorbed (the Quadrocopter comes to rest before bouncing back), the potential energy must equal the kinetic energy. Using this relation, can be solved for:
This impact force will be used for remaining calculations to verify structural integrity of the bumper during this type of collision.
7.2 Stress Analysis

Stress analysis was performed to validate the design presented in the Design Concept section of this report. The methodology used to validate each component was similar for each subassembly observed. Each component within a subassembly was analyzed separately by observing the load path through each individual part. The part was then analyzed for this observed load to verify structural integrity. This section highlights these analyses. 7.2.1 Bumper Subassembly The Bumper Subassembly was the most rigorously analyzed component during the verification of the final design. The difficulty and complexity of the analysis proved to be time consuming as it required numerous methods and stress analysis tools to be developed, as well as an ANSYS model to validate the behavior of the system as a whole. As stated before the analysis was performed by component and the analysis of the Bumper Subassembly began with analysis of the Bumper component. It was determined that due to the complexity of the design and the constant evolution of the Bumper in regards to shape and thickness, the Team developed a tool using Matlab software that required input of the size and shape of the 23
current Bumper component. This allowed for easy access to quantities such as deflection, stress, strain, and reactions at the ends. This program and methodology is described in the next section. 7.2.1.1 Bumper Analysis Matlab Program The Matlab program utilized a method known as the stiffness method which is a form of finite element analysis. The Bumper was idealized into finite linear elements, each with two nodes and each node having 3 degrees of freedom: vertical and horizontal deflection as well as rotation deformation. In essence the Bumper was idealized as a frame with numerous straight elements, which with increasing mesh density will be observed as a circular arc. The stiffness matrix for each element is given as:
( ( , ( ( [ ) ) ( ( ) ) ( ( ) ) ( ( ) ) ] ) ( ) ) ( ( ) ) ( ( ) )
Where in the above matrix, the following are defined as:
The above matrix is used to satisfy the following equation, after the final K matrix has been assembled: , -* + * +
Where {u} is the column vector of displacements of each node in the global system and {R} are the applied reactions (forces and moments) at each node. The boundary conditions are then applied to each of the nodes causing a number to replace a variable in some locations of the {u} and {R} vectors. The boundary conditions applied for all analyses using this tool were:
24
Table 7.1: Matlab Model Boundary Conditions B.C. Number 1 2 3 Node Location Left End Middle Right End Values Fixed Displacement :: x = 0, y = 0, rotation allowed Load Applied :: x = 0, y = -3.864, moment = 0 Fixed Displacement :: x = 0, y = 0, rotation allowed
The remaining inputs are based on the geometry of the Bumper itself. These inputs are as follows: Table 7.2: Matlab Model Input Description Thickness Width of Plate Angle from X axis Elements left of Y-Axis Node to place loading Input Value 0.024 1.5 69.1o 30 31
Using these inputs in the Matlab program (script is attached in Appendix B) will yield results that were used to verify the ANSYS models as well as assist the Team in determining the stiffness of the Bumper (as was stated and used in the Impact Load Derivation section). Among the results the Matlab program produces are: deformed/undeformed model plot, internal normal force, internal shear force, and internal moment. The last three plots are derived using information from the geometry defined and the reactions at the ends of the Bumper. The internal force and moment plots can be used to determine the stress in the Bumper at each location. The results from running the stated inputs through the Matlab program are given below.
Figure 7.1: Bumper Deformation
Figure 7.2: Internal Normal Force
25
Figure 7.3: Internal Shear
Figure 7.4: Internal Moment
The final important result needed is the deflection at the load application point, i.e. in the middle of the Bumper as this will determine the spring constant, K, used in the impact load derivation. This value from Matlab is: ( This means that the spring constant is equivalent to: ) ( )
This value is very similar to that used in the impact load derivation, so this calculation is then verified and the K = 158 may be used. Other important calculations that may be deduced using the plotted results are the components of stress and strain within the Bumper at important locations. These stresses can then be used to verify the ANSYS model. The stress state at the bottom surface, directly in the middle of the Bumper as according to the Matlab model is found by the following calculations:
)(
( 26
This value of stress will be compared to the equivalent (Von-Mises stress) found on the surface of the Bumper in the ANSYS model presented in the next section. 7.2.1.2 Bumper Subassembly Analysis ANSYS Model To better model the system reaction to the impact load derived, it was necessary to construct an idealized ANSYS model using ANSYS Workbench software. The model contains the entire Bumper Subassembly as modeled in CAD and presented to the Client. All components are made from the material specified in the Parts List and Identification section of the report so as to give accurate response to the impact force. The force is applied at the Team determined critical location and is indicated in the figure shown below. This figure also displays the boundary conditions and entire ANSYS model setup.
Figure 7.5: ANSYS Bumper Subassembly model setup The critical results from the ANSYS model include the stresses in each component and the deflection of the Bumper. Each of these results were carefully observed so as to ensure structural integrity of the system. The first of the results verified is the deflection of the center of the Bumper, as this cannot exceed 1.4 due to geometry constraints. The following images show the deflection of the Bumper itself and the entire Bumper Subassembly so as to substantiate the assembly under this loading.
27
Figure 7.6: Bumper Deflection
Figure 7.7: Bumper Subassembly Deflection Observing the deflection of the Bumper alone, the image shows that the deflection is less than 1.4 and thus satisfies the criteria. The deflection shown in the ANSYS model is slightly higher than the deflection modeled in the Matlab tool, i.e. 0.29 in the Matlab tool compared to ~0.80 from the ANSYS model. This discrepancy is due to the nature of the two models. The Matlab model is only concerned with the Bumper itself and assumes zero deflection of the Bumper Support Rods. As seen from the ANSYS model 28
this assumption is nearly correct, but some deflection exists in these components and hence the deflection is greater in the ANSYS model as predicted. The stress will be used to verify the use of the ANSYS model instead of the deflection for this reason. Second, it is necessary to observe the stress of each component to ensure that the stresses do not exceed the maximum allowable yield stresses of the material out of which each component is comprised. In the following figures the stresses are plotted for critical components as well as the entire assembly, with maximum stress and important location stress indicators on each plot for verification and comparison purposes.
Figure 7.8: Von Mises Stress Bumper
29
Figure 7.9: Von Mises Stress Helicopter Bracket
Figure 7.10: Von Mises Stress Horizontal Truss Bracket
30
Figure 7.11: Von Mises Stress Bumper Subassembly Observation of the above figures indicate that the stress in each component does not exceed the maximum tensile yield stress of the material the component is comprised. To validate this model the Team used the expected stress found using the Matlab results (Bumper alone) to compare the stress seen in the Bumper in the Bumper Subassembly model. This value is shown probed in the image above for the Von Mises stresses in the Bumper only. These two stress values are:
The percentage error shown above is small and hence substantiates the ANSYS model for use in validating the design concept in the present analysis as well as future analyses. 7.2.2 Central Hub Subassembly Analysis ANSYS Model To provide further assurance that the Central Hub Subassembly is strong enough to withstand loading conditions, an FEA model was completed using ANSYS Workbench. The model geometry inserted into ANSYS includes only the Central Hub subassembly as well as the four tailbooms for load application as shown below in Figure 7.12.
31
Figure 7.12: Central Hub Subassembly Two load cases were conducted in ANSYS as shown below in Table 7.3. All loads are applied to the normal face on the free end of the tailboom. The Central Hub is constrained at the eight small faces located in the center of the two middle stacked plates as fixed constraints. Figures are provided for each load case showing the constraints and loads. Table 7.3: Central Hub Load Cases Load Case 1 2 Description Lifting Forces: 1.5 lbs/tailboom Lifting Forces: 1.5 lbs/tailboom + Impact Load: 4lbs on 1 tailboom
Load Case 1: Lifting forces of 1.5 lbs are applied to each of the normal faces on the free ends of the tailbooms. This loading condition simulates the loads resulting from maximum lift produced by each helicopter. The constraints are as described above. Figure 7.13 below shows Load Case 1.
32
Figure 7.13: Load Case 1 Model Setup Plots for the resulting stresses and deformations are shown below.
Figure 7.14: Load Case 1 - Von Mises Stress
33
Figure 7.15: Load Case 1 Total Deformation The maximum stress shown in Figure 7.14 of 31588 psi is located on the inner carbon fiber stacked plate and is well within the material yield allowable of 819000 psi for the carbon fiber. The maximum total displacement of 0.23417 inches shown on the end of the tailboom in Figure 7.15 is within acceptable limits for deformation. The next figures show the stresses for the individual parts within the Central Hub Subassembly.
Figure 7.16: Load Case 1 Outer Bracket Von Mises Stress
34
Figure 7.17: Load Case 1 Inner Bracket Von Mises Stress The maximum stress for the outer bracket shown in Figure 7.16 is 2954 psi and is well within the material allowable of 70000 psi for the Aluminum Alloy. The maximum stress for the inner bracket shown in Figure 7.17 is 781 psi and is within the material allowable of 4351 psi for the respective plastic. The inner and outer brackets are thus substantiated. Load Case 2: Lifting forces of 1.5 lbs are applied to each of the normal faces on the free ends of the tailbooms. There is also an impact force of 4 lbs inserted on just one of the tailbooms. This loading condition simulates the loads resulting from maximum lift produced by each helicopter as well as an impact load resulting from a simultaneous direct impact to one of the bumpers. The constraints are as described above. Figure 7.18 below shows Load Case 2.
35
Figure 7.18: Load Case 2 ANSYS Model Setup Plots for the resulting stresses and deformations are shown below.
Figure 7.19: Load Case 2 - Von Mises Stress 36

Figure 7.20: Load Case 2 Total Deformation The maximum stress shown in Figure 7.19 of 31766 psi is located on the inner carbon fiber stacked plate and is well within the material yield allowable of 819000 psi for the carbon fiber. The maximum total displacement of 0.23417 inches shown on the end of the tailboom in Figure 7.20 is within acceptable limits for deformation. The next figures show the stresses for the individual parts within the Central Hub Subassembly.
Figure 7.21: Load Case 2 Outer Bracket Von Mises Stress 37

Figure 7.22: Load Case 2 Inner Bracket Von Mises Stress The maximum stress for the outer bracket shown in Figure 7.21 is 3138.1 psi and is well within the material allowable of 10000 psi for the Aluminum Alloy. The maximum stress for the inner bracket shown in Figure 7.22 is 745 psi and is within the material allowable of 4351 psi for the respective plastic. The inner and outer brackets are thus substantiated. Based upon the stresses and deformations observed from the analysis conducted in ANSYS, all the components of the Central Hub Subassembly are substantiated. It should also be noted that this is a conservative model. In reality the central hub would not act like a fixed object but would lift upward along with the helicopters. This further substantiates the Central Hub Subassembly.
7.3 Power Loss Calculation

A primary concern for the design concept proposed by the Team was how the structure would interact with the downwash of each rotor of the Quadrocopter. As there are structural members directly in the wake of the rotors, calculation of the amount of aerodynamic drag over these structural members must be carried out to show that minimal lift force is loss due to the existence of these members. The Team performed a simple calculation, with aspirations of further, more complicated calculation in the future. For this analysis some simple equations and assumptions are used to determine the induced velocity and far field velocity, from which the drag force on the structural members can be determined. The following assumptions are made for this analysis:
38
Table 7.4: Power Loss Assumptions/Values Used Description Aircraft Weight Hover Lift Force Hover Lift per Rotor Atmospheric Density Blade Length Disk Area Drag Coefficient, Rod Rod Length in flow Rod Diameter Rod area in flow Variable W LH LR R A cd B S Equation LH = W Value 6 lbf 6 lbf 1.5 lbf 0.00238 slug/ft3 8.858 in = 0.7382 ft 1.712 ft2 1.2 8.858 in = 0.7382 ft 0.254 in = 0.02117 ft 2.25 in2 = 0.0156 ft2
Now the knowledge gained in the area of disk loading can be applied given the variables above. From the following equation, induced velocity can be calculated:
And from the literature, the far field velocity which is assumed to be velocity at the structural components under the downwash will be:
Now this far field velocity can be used in the drag equation to calculate the drag force induced by each rod:
In the design concept there are two structural rods under each rotor and four rotors total, therefore the total drag on the structural members is then:
This means that the total force that can be used for lift at this hover setting is then:
This shows that the blades will need to increase pitch in order to maintain a hover condition; however the percentage of lift lost due to drag is:
39
And this value indicates a small amount of lift lost to maintain structural rigidity. These calculations show that the design concept displays a reasonably small value of lift lost due to drag on structural members.
7.4 Testing
In addition to the analyses shown in the previous subsection the Team performed testing on certain components to provide additional validation of the design concept. These tests serve both as design substantiation and an aid in the design process. The following tests outline the tests performed by the Team throughout the project duration. 7.4.1 Bumper The first test performed was to validate the analysis of the Bumper component. This test also served the purpose of determining an Elastic Modulus that could be used in future analyses as well as to finalize the design if any changes were needed based on the results of the test. For this test, the geometry shown in the stress analysis section was used for the Bumper, or: Parameter Width of Carbon Fiber Strip Thickness of Bumper Radius of Curvature Arc, angle subtended Value 1.5 0.024 23.819 41.8o
The carbon fiber used was a pre-impregnated unidirectional carbon fiber available in the Composites laboratory in Howe Hall. This carbon fiber has a thickness of 0.006 per ply, hence four plies were used in constructed. The carbon fiber plies were laid up in the custom fabricated steel form to create the arc shape, and cured according to instructions accompanying the carbon fiber (reference Appendix C for full instructions on Bumper component fabrication). Upon completion of cure, the Team then tested the carbon fiber layup (Bumper) in the test apparatus supplied. This machine measures force applied as well as displacement of the application points. This allowed the Team to acquire a Force vs. Deflection curve. From this information, the Team then used the Matlab tool developed for stress analysis (with Elastic Modulus as input) to satisfy the Force and deflection values. 7.4.1.1 Results Bumper Testing On December 1, 2010, the Team tested the carbon fiber layup defined in the previous section to determine a Force vs. Deflection curve to aid in the verification of the effective Elastic Modulus used in stress analysis. The results of this test were Force vs. Deflection curves of two separate tests on the same component. These plots are shown below:
40
Test 1: Force vs. Deflection

1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 Deflection, ft
1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0
Test 2: Force vs. Deflection
Force, lbf
Force, lbf
0.02
0.04
0.06
Deflection, ft
Figure 7.23: Bumper Test Results From these results one can determine that the experimental effective stiffness, K, is:
Which is far lower than the theoretical value of K = 159 lbf/ft. To find the experimental modulus the Team then used the Matlab code presented in earlier sections and iterated the Elastic Modulus input until a convergence was found between the experimental and theoretical stiffness. The modulus that satisfied the preceding statement was:
This is around 11.2% of the theoretical (25000 ksi) modulus used in analysis. This experimental modulus is very low, far lower than aluminum (10700 ksi) or any other used material, and hence these results led the Team into considering reasons for this phenomenon. Upon observation of the test apparatus used to perform the testing, the Team realized that the boundary conditions did not match with the Matlab assumed boundary conditions. The test apparatus showed a gap of 0.25 that would allow each end of the bumper to displace 0.125. After using this assumption and applying it the Matlab code to analyze the deflection with this initial displacement, the Team was able to more accurately converge the stiffness to the experimentally obtained value and hence arrive at a more reasonable value of Elastic Modulus:
This is around 60% of the theoretically calculated value and is a more useable value in analysis. However the Team has desire to achieve the calculated modulus and has made conclusions as to the cause of this reduction in experimental modulus. There are several factors to consider when carbon fiber layups are to be used. The cure cycle, pressure application, elimination of voids in the layup, are all issues that could and most likely were the root causes of this low modulus calculation. It is for this reason the Team has decided that it will remain using 41
the theoretically calculated modulus, but with hopes of using more carefully created carbon fiber layups in future tests to verify the modulus is correct. 7.4.2 Fixed Helicopter Force Measurement The team conducted testing to determine the capabilities and behavior of the T-Rex 250. To measure the forces acting on the rotor, the Team chose to use the JR3 sensor (JR3, Inc.) which uses a pressure sensor to record data. We affixed the helicopter (T-Rex 250) to the sensor, and configured the DX7 controllers trim settings to negate its various behaviors. As soon as we ran the system connected to JR3 sensor, it recorded all three dimensional forces (Fx, Fy and Fz) produced by the helicopter as well as the moments produced about each axis (Mx, My and Mz). 7.4.2.1 Results Helicopter Testing As shown in Figure 7.24 below, all of the forces acting on the rotors cause a wide range of vibrations. The possible reasons for these vibrations include turbulence due to rotation of blades and retroaction of the force due to anchorage to the JR3 sensor. If the majority of the vibration is in fact caused by the rigid conncection to the JR3 sensor, the rotor should generate the force more efficiently when its released. When evaluating the results of the tests in which maximum thrust was commanded of the helicopter, we determined that the maximum lift force the T-Rex 250 could generate was 2.78 lbf. Since the maximum estimated lift force required for hovering is 1.5 lbf per rotor, the force capability ascertained from the testing suggests that the Quadrocopteris more than capable of hovering while loaded.
Figure 7.24: Forces vs Time for axial flight (climbing) Table 7.5: Forces acting on three axis for axial flight Fx_max Front (lbf) 1.97 Fx_max Back (-) (lbf) -1.69 Fy_max Left (-) (lbf) -1.73 Fy_max Right (lbf) 1.66 Fz_max Up (lbf) 2.78 Fz_max Down (lbf) -0.82
Climbing
As shown in Table 7.6, the helicopter generated about 3.2 lbf of lateral force when tested for full forward flight (FFF) and full backward flight (FBF). This lateral force was generated without tilting the body of the helicopter, but it is only 4-5 degrees of tilt of rotor given by controlling cyclic pitch. However, helicopter is rigidly affixed to the sensor, and tilting may be prohitited by this attachment, so we need to determine if the helicopter tends to tilt when it makes lateral thrust in free flight, and then consider the 42
helicopters behavior as we pursue one of the critical requirements of this project lateral movement without tilting of the Quadrocopter body. Table 7.6: Forces for Full Forward Flight and Full Backward Flight Fx_max Front (lbf) 3.06 Fx_max Back (-) (lbf) -3.34 Fz_max Up (lbf) 6.20 2.69 Fz_max Down (lbf) -6.96 -3.41
Backward Forward
Table 7.7: Moments for Full Forward Flight and Full Backward Flight My_max My_max Mz_max Mz_max CW CCW CCW CW (ft lb) (ft lb) (ft lb) (ft lb) -1.11 0.16 -0.13 1.61 0.37 -0.36
Forward Backward
For Full Forward and Full Backward Flight, moments about y-axis (pitching) are generated. As long as the helicopter is fixed to the sensor inclination of the body is prevented from occuring, but in general flights, the helicopter tilts when it makes a lateral movement. In observation, this moment would be cancelled in the Quadrocopter by the opposing set of rotors.
43
8 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION

This document contains the project guidelines, Client requirements and objectives, design concepts, and the accompanying analyses and tests used to effectively communicate the project developed by the Team to the reader. This design concept represents the structural layout and analysis performed to verify the structure, but does not represent Quadrocopter as a whole. The Team working in conjunction on the same project is responsible for the control aspects of the Quadrocopter; hence, this document does not cover these issues. Through the design process, either fabricated or off-the-shelf parts were used in construction. These components were individually analyzed or verified with classical stress analysis or more advance finite element methods to ensure structural integrity under expected loading. Additional testing was performed to verify the methods and assumptions used in the structural analysis. However, additional testing that this Team was unable to perform within the time given is foreseen and will require knowledge of the methods used in analysis. This document serves the purpose of giving these required details. The design concept shown in this report was optimized using multiple trade studies. These trade studies are shown in the following appendix.
44
9 APPENDIX A:
Trade Studies
There are several trade studies that have already been conducted, and there will undoubtedly be more that occur as other questions arise and warrant investigation. The execution of trade studies is critical to developing the best possible system because it allows engineers to numerically analyze the advantages and disadvantages of opposing possibilities.
9.1 BUMPER MASS BUDGET

The bumper required by the Client for the Quadrocopter has proven to be the most mass sensitive portion of the structural design. The Client has issued a weight limit of 16.7% of the maximum aircraft Gross Weight (GW) of 6 pounds for the entire structure provided by the Team. As the bumper is by far the largest component of the design in terms of both volume and mass a trade study was conducted to show the comparison between various bumper designs. The designs are different variations of a similar structure, but the trade studies show that removal of unused material has a very large impact on the bumpers overall mass contribution to the aircraft. The main objective of this trade study is therefore to provide an observation of the effect of how removing unused portions of the structure reduces the overall percentage mass of the bumper in relation to the allowable GW of the aircraft. The simple structure observed in this trade study is as follows. The bumper comprises three concentric cylinders, each of varying material type and inner and outer radii, but the same overall depth. Each cylinder is attached to its neighboring via an adhesive to be determined later. For all design variations the three cylinders have the following attributes: Inner cylinder (stiffener) o Material: Carbon Fiber Thickness: 0.8 mm = 0.032 inches Density: 1.8x10-6 kg/mm3 = 2.02x10-3 lbm/in3 o Inner Radius: 605 mm = 23.819 inches o Outer Radius: 605.8 mm = 23.850 inches o Depth: 38 mm = 1.5 inches Middle cylinder (foam core) o Material: Structural foam Thickness: 3.175 mm = 0.125 inches 0.8x10-6 kg/mm3 = 0.90x10-3 lbm/in3 o Inner Radius: 605.8 mm = 23.850 inches o Outer Radius: 608.975 mm = 23.975 inches o Depth: 38 mm = 1.5 inches Outer Cylinder (stiffener) o Material: Carbon Fiber, 0.8 mm = 0.032 inches thick o Inner Radius: 608.975 mm = 23.975 inches o Outer Radius: 609.775 mm = 23.968 inches o Depth: 38 mm = 1.5 inches
Design Variation 1 45
The first design variation is a complete bumper that completely surrounds the Quadrocopter. This design proved to be very heavy, i.e. a relatively high percentage of the max GW. The process used to estimate the mass of each component (stiffeners and foam core) was to calculate the volume of each component using the inner and outer radii and depth of each cylinder and the density of the appropriate material. The weight of each component was then calculated and summed to achieve the bumpers total weight and then compare to the total GW of the aircraft. For design variation 1: Table 9.1: Bumper Design Variation 1 Calculations
Concept #1 - Full Surround Structure: 2-Concentric Cylinders (Stiffener) - 0.8mm Thickness 1-Cylindrical Foam Filler - 3.175mm Thick Total Thickness = 4.775mm Materials: Stiffeners - Carbon Fiber Foam - (Unknown) Density: Carbon Fiber: 0.0000018 kg/mm^3 Thickness Foam: 0.0000008 kg/mm^3 Thickness Inner Radius: Outer Radius: Depth: Inner Stiff--> Volume: Mass: Weight: Inner Radius: Outer Radius: Depth: Geometry: Filler --> Volume: Mass: Weight: Inner Radius: Outer Radius: Depth: Outer Stiff--> Volume: Mass: Weight: Mass, kg: Total Weight and Mass: Weight, N: Weight, lbs: GW, max % Total Weight: % 605 mm 605.8 mm 38 mm 115636.7 mm^3 0.208 kg 2.042 N 605.8 mm 608.975 mm 38 mm 460440.0 mm^3 0.368 kg 3.614 N 608.975 mm 609.775 mm 38 mm 116396.0 mm^3 0.210 kg 2.055 N 0.786 7.711 1.734 6 lbs 28.89% <--- Unnacceptable
0.8 mm 3.175 mm
0.459 lbs
0.812 lbs
0.462 lbs
As can be seen in the table above, the total weight of the bumper structure is itself greater than the allowable structure percentage of 16.7%, therefore this bumper structure is not a valid design for the bumper.
46
Design Variation 2 The second design variation is similar in structure and geometry to the first design variation but with portions of the full surrounding bumper removed. The sections that were removed are shown below in the following figure.
Figure 9.1: Bumper Design Variation 2 The angle that each bumper portion subtends is approximately 41.8o. This essentially removes 53.6% of the weight seen in design variation 1. The calculations similar to design variation 1 performed for design variation 2 are shown in the following table.
47
Table 9.2: Bumper Design Variation 2 Calculations

Concept #2 - Partial Surround, Sections Structure: 2-Concentric Cylinders (Stiffener) - Split Into Four equal Pieces - 0.8mm Thickness 1-Cylindrical Foam Filler - 3.175mm Thick Total Thickness = 4.775mm Materials: Stiffeners - Carbon Fiber Foam - (Unknown) Density: Carbon Fiber: 0.0000018 kg/mm^3 Thickness 0.8 mm Foam: 0.0000008 kg/mm^3 Thickness 3.175 mm Note - According to AutoCAD model, the arc angular measurement spans 41.7 deg Inner Radius: Outer Radius: Depth: Inner Stiff--> Volume: Mass: Weight: Inner Radius: Outer Radius: Geometry: Depth: Filler--> Volume: Mass: Weight: Inner Radius: Outer Radius: Depth: Outer Stiff--> Volume: Mass: Weight: Mass, kg: Total Weight and Mass: Weight, N: Weight, lbs: GW, max % Total Weight: % % Decrease from Concept 1: 605 mm 605.8 mm 38 mm 13394.590 mm^3 0.024 kg 0.237 N 605.8 mm 608.975 mm 38 mm 53334.300 mm^3 0.043 kg 0.419 N 608.975 mm 609.775 mm 38 mm 13482.538 mm^3 0.024 kg 0.238 N Arc 41.7 deg 0.727802298 rad
0.053 lbs
0.096 kg 0.213 lbs
0.094 lbs
0.171 kg 0.376 lbs
0.054 lbs
0.097 kg 0.214 lbs
0.364 3.573 0.803 6 lbs 13.39% <--- Semi-acceptable 53.67%
At 13.39% of the total GW, this option shows the advantages of removing unused material. Also note the percentage decrease from the weight percentage from design variation 1. Design Variation 3 To continue the trend of removing material, the Team also considered adding lightening holes from the inner stiffener of the structure found in the second design variation. It is the Teams belief that the inner stiffener will not be used in most collisions encountered by Quadrocopter and therefore may be lightened to decrease weight even further. Essentially, the Team will remove triangular shaped portions of the inner stiffener leaving enough material to provide adequate stiffness. Arbitrary amounts were removed for this example, but this is not the final design. The calculations are shown below in the following table. 48
Table 9.3: Bumper Design Variation 3 Calculations

Concept #3 - Partial Surround, Sections, Lightening Holes Included Structure: 2-Concentric Cylinders (Stiffener) - Split Into Four equal Pieces - 0.8mm Thickness 1-Cylindrical Foam Filler - 3.175mm Thick Total Thickness = 4.775mm Materials: Stiffeners - Carbon Fiber Foam - (Unknown) Density: Carbon Fiber: 0.0000018 kg/mm^3 Thickness 0.8 mm Foam: 0.0000008 kg/mm^3 Thickness 3.175 mm Note - According to AutoCAD model, the arc angular measurement spans 41.7 degress Holes: Inner Guard: Final Area: Lightening %: 10700 mm^2 19228 mm^2 8528 mm^2 55.65% Arc Hole Information: b = 25, h = 43, qty(10) b = 85, h = 25, qty(4) b = 86, h = 25, qty(1)
Lightening of Material:
Inner Radius: Outer Radius: Depth: Inner Stiff--> Volume: Mass: Geometry: Weight: Inner Radius: Outer Radius: Depth: Filler--> Volume: Mass: Weight: Inner Radius: Outer Radius: Depth: Outer Stiff--> Volume: Mass: Weight: Mass, kg: Total Weight and Mass: Weight, N: Weight, lbs: GW, max % Total Weight: % % Decrease from Concept 1: % Decrease from Concept 2:
605 mm 605.8 mm 38 mm 6822.4 mm^3 0.0123 kg 0.120 N 605.8 mm 608.975 mm 38 mm 53334.300 mm^3 0.043 kg 0.419 N 608.975 mm 609.775 mm 38 mm 13482.538 mm^3 0.024 kg 0.238 N
41.7 deg 0.727802 rad
0.027 lbs
0.049 kg 0.108 lbs
0.094 lbs
0.171 kg 0.376 lbs
0.054 lbs
0.097 kg 0.214 lbs
0.317 3.108 0.699 6 lbs 11.65% <--- Acceptable 59.69% 12.99%
The weight percentage of 11.65% is the believed minimum set by the Team and also proves to be acceptable for the structure. Further study of the rigidity of design variation 3 will determine the placement and quantity of the lightening procedure of the inner stiffener. 9.1.1 CURRENT BUMPER DESIGN AND ANALYSIS
The current bumper design being considered was driven by the bumper mass budget shown in Section 5.1.1. The bumper design is to span the same angle as bumper Design Variation 2, but without a foam 49
core and outer stiffener. It was determined that both of these layers were unneeded as the magnitude of the loads experienced would not fail the inner stiffener. To make this decision the Team performed simple stress analysis to determine the maximum deflection and internal moment within the bumper while subjected to the assumed maximum load of 20 lbs, which is applied at the center of the arc radially to the surface of the bumper. This design will provide structural rigidity, but also allow for deflection and flexibility in the structure. At the load application point the bumper is allowed to deform, but at the end connections the bumper is not allowed to deform due to the compression members attaching the bumper to the helicopter bodies. To add flexibility at these joints, small portions of foam will be added to allow the structure to deform at these locations. These foam sections will not be included into this analysis. The current design has been modeled as shown below:
Figure 9.2: Bumper Subassembly Geometry and Material Properties The Team has also chosen to use Carbon Fiber sheeting as the primary structural material for the bumper. Cited properties for carbon fiber sheets assumed for this analysis are: Thickness (per laminate) = 0.003 inches = 0.076 mm Tensile Ultimate = 500 ksi Elastic Modulus = 20 Msi Density = 2.02x10-3 lbm/in3 The bumper continues to span around 41.8o with the radius being from the center of the Quadrocopter. There will be 6 plies of carbon fiber used (thickness = 0.018 inches), and the width of the plate is 1.5 inches. Given this geometry the calculated weight of this bumper design is: Weight = 0.031 lbs (per unit) = 0.122 lbs (total 4 bumper portions) Support and Stress Analysis Assumptions
50
The ends of each arc are attached by pinned connection to each respective helicopter body and this assumption was considered in the stress analysis presented here. The pinned joint vertical reactions are assumed to be half of the applied load or 10 lbs. The problem proved to be statically indeterminate as there would be a horizontal reaction at each pinned location to prevent the arc from deforming outward. The unit load method was used to determine the reactions as well as internal moment at the location of load application by considering the following boundary conditions: Horizontal deflection at load application point = 0 inches Internal Moment at pinned connections = 0 in-lb
Results Using these assumptions, the results for horizontal reaction and internal moment at the load application point to be:
This information is sufficient to calculate the maximum bending stress at the load application point, but not sufficient to calculate the deflection at the load application point. To calculate this, beam theory was used since we now know the reactions at each end. A better description of this process will be included in the Final Report. Using a Team developed Matlab script to produce the change in radius and internal moment at increments chosen by the user of the script, Matlab generates a plot of the deformed (and undeformed) shape as well as internal moment versus the angular location (theta). These two plots generated by the script are shown below.
51
Figure 9.3: Deformed and Undeformed Bumper Shapes
Figure 9.4: Internal Moment vs. Angular Displacment Based on the geometry of the plate and the maximum internal moment, the maximum bending stress is: 52
The maximum deflection based on the method and the geometry from Matlab is: ( )
Conclusions Based on the deflection and maximum bending, this design iteration is very suitable to not fracture the carbon fiber material. However, the small deflection may allow for the bumper radius to be decreased as the bending stress is the limit on the thickness of the part. Decreasing the radius will decrease the material needed which will also decrease the weight. These options will be further analyzed when final design is carried out.
9.2 LAYOUT CONCEPT

The purpose of this trade study was to compare two early layout concepts to determine which was most advantageous. The benefits of the second concept were that there would be less structure under the rotors, and therefore less power lost to drag, and that there would be fewer members attached to the helicopter bodies, for simplicity. In addition, the structure carrying the bumper would be uninterrupted. It was determined, however, that the second concept was significantly less desirable than the first for several reasons: even in the rough comparison the second concept is significantly heavier, but also, upon further review, it was decided that the type 2 beams in the first concept could likely be replaced by tensioned lines. Doing this would lower the total volume of the first concept to less than half that of the second concept. The benefits realized in the second concept were not forgotten, however, and a third concept comprised of elements from both ideas was developed shortly thereafter. Table 9.4: Layout Concept 1 Calculations
Concept 1 Piece Type 1 2 Piece Length (mm) 487.132 500 Number of Pieces 4 4 Total Length of All Pieces Tube Cross Section Ro (mm) 4.25 Ri (mm) 3.95 Area 2 (mm ) 7.72809 Total Volume (mm ) Total Volume (Lines)
3
Combined Length (mm) 1948.528 2000
3948.528
30514 15058
53
Table 9.5: Layout Concept 2 Calculations

Concept 2 Piece Type 1 2 Piece Length (mm) 487.132 707.11 Number of Pieces 4 4 Total Length of All Pieces Tube Cross Section Ro (mm) 4.25 Ri (mm) 3.95 Area 2 (mm ) 7.72809 Total Volume (mm )
3
Combined Length (mm) 1948.528 2828.44
4776.968
36916
9.3 HUB CONSTRUCTION

The purpose of the central hub is to provide a place to mount the camera as well as a place to store the avionics. The most concerning requirement analyzed in the hub trade study is weight. Two design concepts for the central hub of the Quadrocopter structure were discussed and studied. The first concept includes an enclosed box-like design shown in the figure below. The walls are made of thin sheets of carbon fiber. In this design, brackets are mounted on the outside of the box from which the booms of the individual helicopters can be mounted.
Figure 9.5: Enclosed Box Central Hub Design The trade study calculation shown below for the first concept revealed that the total conservative weight of this design is 1.510 lbs. This calculation is based upon the volumes of the six faces and the density of the carbon fiber. A conservatively estimated weight of the bracket mounts is also taken into account.
54
Table 9.6: Enclosed Box Central Hub Design Calculations

Concpet 1 Enclosed Box 5 or 6 faces to the box SI Carbon Fiber thickness Carbon Fiber Density Length Width Height volume of solid face mass of the solid face # of solid faces Total mass of solid hub faces Total Weight of solid hub faces Estimated Bracket Weight Number of Brackets Total Brackets Weight TOTAL Hub Weight 0.5 0.0000018 207 207 207 mm kg/mm^3 mm mm mm English 0.020 3.133E-06 8.15 8.15 8.15 in slugs/in^3 in in in
21425 mm^3 0.039 kg 6 0.23 kg 2.27 N 1.11 N 4 4.45 N 6.72 N
1.31 in^3 0.003 slugs
0.016 slugs 0.51 lbf 0.25 lbf 1.00 lbf 1.51 lbf
The second design concept shown in the figure below involves the connection of carbon fiber rods by means of elbow joints.
Figure 9.6: Frame Constructed Central Hub Design The trade study calculation for the second concept revealed that the total conservative weight of the design is 0.353 lbs. This calculation is based upon the diameters, volumes and density of the carbon fiber rods. The conservatively estimated weight of the elbow joints and boom connector devices are also included in the weight calculation.
55
Table 9.7: Frame Constructed Central Hub Design Calculations

Concept 2 Framed box 12 rods + 1 face SI Carbon Fiber Thickness Carbon Fiber Density Length Width Height volume of solid face mass of the solid face # of solid faces Total mass of solid hub faces Total Weight of solid hub faces Outer Diameter of Rods Inner Diameter of Rods Rod Length # of rods volume of a rod Total Volume of all rods mass of all rods Total Weight of the Rods Estimated 3 Way Elbow Weight Number of Elbows Total Weight of Elbows Estimated Boom Connector Weight Number of Boom Connectors Total Boom Connector Weight TOTAL Hub Weight 0.5 mm 0.0000018 kg/mm^3 207 mm 207 mm 207 mm 21425 mm^3 0.039 kg 1 0.039 kg 0.38 N 6.35 mm 5.08 mm 200 mm 12 2280 mm^3 27362 mm^3 0.049 kg 0.48 N 0.04 N 8 0.36 N 0.04 N 8 0.36 N 1.57 N English 0.020 in 3.133E-06 slugs/in^3 8.15 in 8.15 in 8.15 in 1.31 in^3 0.003 slugs
0.003 slugs 0.085 lbf 0.25 in 0.2 in 7.87 in
0.14 in^3 1.67 in^3 0.003 slugs 0.11 lbf 0.01 lbf 0.08 lbf 0.01 lbf 0.08 lbf 0.35 lbf
56
The third design concept involves a box-like structure with slits for mounting brackets as shown below in the figure below.
Figure 9.7: Box-Like Central Hub Design The trade study calculation for the third concept revealed that the total conservative weight of the design is 0.353 lbs. The weight calculation shown below for the third design concept is based upon the volumes of all the faces as well as an estimated bracket weight.
57
Table 9.8: Box-Like Central Hub Design Calculations
Concept 3 Box with slits 4 faces with slits, bottom face SI Carbon Fiber Thickness Carbon Fiber Density Length Width Height volume of bottom face mass of the bottom face # of bottom faces Total Weight of bottom face slit height slit width volume of slit face mass of slit face number of slit faces total mass of slit faces Total Weight of slit faces Bracket Weight??? Number of Brackets Total Brackets Weight 0.4 0.0000018 207 207 200 mm kg/mm^3 mm mm mm English 0.016 3.133E-06 8.15 8.15 7.87 in slugs/in^3 in in in
17140 mm^3 0.031 kg 1 0.30 N 36 12 16387.2 0.03 4 0.12 mm mm mm^3 kg kg
1.05 in^3 0.002 slugs
0.021 lbf 1.42 0.47 1.00 0.002 in in in^3 slugs
0.01 slugs 0.26 lbf 0.25 lbf 1.00 lbf
1.16 N 1.11 N 4 4.45 N
TOTAL Hub Weight
5.91 N
1.33 lbf
The fourth concept shown below resulted from feedback given in our initial design presentation. This design has four layers of 1 mm thick carbon fiber sheets that include cross-bracing for strength. These layers are connected per aluminum spacers. Between the middle layers of carbon fiber sheets there are four bracketed boom mount assemblies. Each boom mount contains two brackets. The gray brackets on the outside of the mount are Aluminum and the black brackets on the inside are plastic. This design allows for easy placement of avionics equipment as well.
58
Figure 9.8: Hub Design 4
The weight calculation is conducted using SolidWorks mass properties. The table below shows the calculated weight values for each individual part as well as the total hub weight. The total weight for the fourth hub concept is 0.27 lbs. Table 9.9: Hub Design 4 Calculations Part Layer 1 (Top/Bottom Plates) Layer 2 (Middle Plates) Bracket 1 (Al) Bracket 2 (Plastic) Spacer Total Hub Weight Weight from SolidWorks 21.12 g 24.05 g 1.91 g 0.95 g 0.65 g 1.19 N (0.27 lbf) Quantity 2 2 8 8 12
In summary the total weight value for the fourth concept is 0.27 lbs. and is less than concepts one and three. The fourth concept has therefore been selected as the current design for the central hub of the Quadrocopter.
59
10 APPENDIX B:
Matlab Model Script
This Appendix contains the Matlab script code that was used in stress analysis. This code uses the stiffness method for solving a beam with beam and frame qualities. %-------------------------------------------------------------------------% CREATOR: ERIC ROGGATZ % TEAM: TEAM QUADROCOPTER % CLASS: AER E 462 - FALL 2010 % DATE STARTED: 10/11/2010 % DATE FINISHED: 10/24/2010 % PURPOSE: [NEEDS TO BE UPDATED] % OUTPUT: [NEEDS TO BE UPDATED] %-------------------------------------------------------------------------clear clear all clc disp('-------------------------------------------------------------------') disp(' THIS PROGRAM WAS WRITTEN BY ERIC ROGGATZ IN FALL 2010 ') disp(' THIS PROGRAM PERFORMS FEA OF A SEMI-CIRCULAR ARC USING BEAM TYPE ') disp(' ELEMENTS. THE ARC IS APPROXIMATED AS FINITE STRAIGHT LINES. THE ') disp(' ARC IS DEFINED BY THE USER AS A RADIUS AND ANGLE (+) CLOCKWISE ') disp(' FROM THE -X AXIS (IT IS MIRRORED OVER THE Y-AXIS). LOADS ARE DEFI- ') disp(' NED BY THE USER, AS WELL AS B.C.s ') disp('-------------------------------------------------------------------') disp(' ') r2d = 180/pi; d2r = pi/180; %-------------------------------------------------------------------------% ASK USER FOR GEOMETRY INPUT %-------------------------------------------------------------------------R = input('Please input the radius of the circular arc: '); Rkeep = R; disp(' ') angle = input('What is the angle in degrees the arc starts at WRT the -X axis? '); angle = angle*pi/180; arc = 2*(pi/2-angle); beta = pi-angle; disp(' ') nel = input('Input an even number for number of elements per side: '); nel = nel*2; nnode = nel+1; dtheta = arc/nel; 60
K(1:3*nnode,1:3*nnode) = 0; P(1:3*nnode,1) = 0; Ptemp(1:3*nnode,1) = 0; disp(' ') disp('-------------------------------------------------------------------') disp('This section gathers data about the beam cross section') disp(' ') b = input('What is the width of the carbon fiber strip? '); disp(' ') h = input('What is the thickness of the carbon fiber? '); A = b*h; I = 1/12*b*h^3; E = input('What is the Elastic Modulus of the material? '); %-------------------------------------------------------------------------% CALCULATE THE XS AND XF MATRICES, AND Nx AND Ny %-------------------------------------------------------------------------for k=1:nel x(k,1) = R*cos(beta); y(k,1) = R*sin(beta); beta = beta-dtheta; x(k,2) = R*cos(beta); y(k,2) = R*sin(beta); L(k) = sqrt((x(k,2)-x(k,1))^2+(y(k,2)-y(k,1))^2); n(k,1) = (x(k,2)-x(k,1))/L(k); n(k,2) = (y(k,2)-y(k,1))/L(k); end L_total = sum(L); disp(['Length of Arc',' = ',num2str(L_total)]) disp(' ') for j=1:nnode-1 node(j,1:2) = [x(j,1),y(j,1)]; end node(nnode,1:2) = [x(j,2),y(j,2)]; c = 1; for k=1:nel Kt(1:3*nnode,1:3*nnode) = 0; Kt(c,c) = A*E/L(k)*n(k,1)^2 + 12*E*I*n(k,2)^2/L(k)^3; Kt(c,c+1) = (A*E/L(k) - 12*E*I/L(k)^3) * n(k,1)*n(k,2); Kt(c,c+2) = -6*E*I/L(k)^2 * n(k,2); Kt(c,c+3) = -(A*E*n(k,1)^2/L(k) + 12*E*I*n(k,2)^2/L(k)^3); Kt(c,c+4) = -(A*E/L(k)-12*E*I/L(k)^3)*n(k,1)*n(k,2); Kt(c,c+5) = -6*E*I*n(k,2)/L(k)^2; 61
Kt(c+1,c) = Kt(c,c+1); Kt(c+1,c+1) = (A*E*n(k,2)^2/L(k)+12*E*I*n(k,1)^2/L(k)^3); Kt(c+1,c+2) = 6*E*I*n(k,1)/L(k)^2; Kt(c+1,c+3) = -(A*E/L(k)-12*E*I/L(k)^3)*n(k,1)*n(k,2); Kt(c+1,c+4) = -(A*E*n(k,2)^2/L(k)+12*E*I*n(k,1)^2/L(k)^3); Kt(c+1,c+5) = 6*E*I*n(k,1)/L(k)^2; Kt(c+2,c) = Kt(c,c+2); Kt(c+2,c+1) = Kt(c+1,c+2); Kt(c+2,c+2) = 4*E*I/L(k); Kt(c+2,c+3) = 6*E*I*n(k,2)/L(k)^2; Kt(c+2,c+4) = -6*E*I*n(k,1)/L(k)^2; Kt(c+2,c+5) = 2*E*I/L(k); Kt(c+3,c) = Kt(c,c+3); Kt(c+3,c+1) = Kt(c+1,c+3); Kt(c+3,c+2) = Kt(c+2,c+3); Kt(c+3,c+3) = (A*E*n(k,1)^2/L(k)+12*E*I*n(k,2)^2/L(k)^3); Kt(c+3,c+4) = (A*E/L(k)-12*E*I/L(k)^3)*n(k,1)*n(k,2); Kt(c+3,c+5) = 6*E*I*n(k,2)/L(k)^2; Kt(c+4,c) = Kt(c,c+4); Kt(c+4,c+1) = Kt(c+1,c+4); Kt(c+4,c+2) = Kt(c+2,c+4); Kt(c+4,c+3) = Kt(c+3,c+4); Kt(c+4,c+4) = (A*E*n(k,2)^2/L(k)+12*E*I*n(k,1)^2/L(k)^3); Kt(c+4,c+5) = -6*E*I*n(k,1)/L(k)^2; Kt(c+5,c) = Kt(c,c+5); Kt(c+5,c+1) = Kt(c+1,c+5); Kt(c+5,c+2) = Kt(c+2,c+5); Kt(c+5,c+3) = Kt(c+3,c+5); Kt(c+5,c+4) = Kt(c+4,c+5); Kt(c+5,c+5) = 4*E*I/L(k); K = K+Kt; c = c+3; end %-------------------------------------------------------------------------% ASK USER FOR INPUT ON LOADING AND BOUNDARY CONDITIONS %-------------------------------------------------------------------------disp('-------------------------------------------------------------------') disp('This section gathers information about the loading and B.C.s ') disp(' ') 62
data = input('Input the nodes (in brackets) where external loading exist '); for j = 1:length(data) disp(['Loading conditions for node ',num2str(data(j))]) disp(' ') Ptemp(3*data(j)-2,1) = input('Input X component of external load: '); Ptemp(3*data(j)-1,1) = input('Input Y component of external load: '); Ptemp(3*data(j),1) = input('Input external applied moment: '); P = P + Ptemp; Ptemp(1:3*nnode,1) = 0; end disp(' ') Ktemp = K; BC(1,1) = input('Is the left end fixed in the x-direction? 1=Y, 2=N '); if BC(1,1) == 1 Ktemp(1:nnode*3,1) = 0; Ktemp(1,1:nnode*3) = 0; Ktemp(1,1) = 1; end BC(2,1) = input('Is the left end fixed in the y-direction? 1=Y, 2=N '); if BC(2,1) == 1 Ktemp(1:nnode*3,2) = 0; Ktemp(2,1:nnode*3) = 0; Ktemp(2,2) = 1; end BC(3,1) = input('Is the left end fixed in the rotation? 1=Y, 2=N '); if BC(3,1) == 1 Ktemp(1:nnode*3,3) = 0; Ktemp(3,1:nnode*3) = 0; Ktemp(3,3) = 1; end disp(' ') BC(4,1) = input('Is the right end fixed in the x-direction? 1=Y, 2=N '); if BC(4,1) == 1 Ktemp(1:nnode*3,nnode*3-2) = 0; Ktemp(nnode*3-2,1:nnode*3) = 0; Ktemp(nnode*3-2,nnode*3-2) = 1; end BC(5,1) = input('Is the right end fixed in the y-direction? 1=Y, 2=N '); if BC(5,1) == 1 63
Ktemp(1:nnode*3,nnode*3-1) = 0; Ktemp(nnode*3-1,1:nnode*3) = 0; Ktemp(nnode*3-1,nnode*3-1) = 1; end BC(6,1) = input('Is the right end fixed in the rotation? 1=Y, 2=N '); if BC(6,1) == 1 Ktemp(1:nnode*3,nnode*3) = 0; Ktemp(nnode*3,1:nnode*3) = 0; Ktemp(nnode*3,nnode*3) = 1; end %-------------------------------------------------------------------------% SOLVE FOR DISPLACEMENTS %-------------------------------------------------------------------------U = Ktemp\P; %---------------------------------------------------------------------% GROUP DISPLACEMENTS FOR EASY VIEW AND PLOTTING %---------------------------------------------------------------------c = 1; for j=1:nnode deform(j,1:3) = [U(c),U(c+1),U(c+2)]; nodenew(j,1) = node(j,1) + U(c); nodenew(j,2) = node(j,2) + U(c+1); c = c+3; end %-------------------------------------------------------------------------% DETERMINE REACTIONS FROM ORIGINAL STIFFNESS MATRIX AND DISPLACMENTS %-------------------------------------------------------------------------R = K*U; figure plot(node(:,1),node(:,2),'k--') axis equal grid on hold on plot(nodenew(:,1),nodenew(:,2),'b-','linewidth',3) title('Undeformed and Deformed Geometry') legend('Undeformed','Deformed') %-------------------------------------------------------------------------64
% ELEMENT STRAIN DETERMINATION %-------------------------------------------------------------------------for j=1:nnode-1 xnew(j,1) = nodenew(j,1); xnew(j,2) = nodenew(j+1,1); ynew(j,1) = nodenew(j,2); ynew(j,2) = nodenew(j+1,2); Lnew(j) = sqrt((xnew(j,2)-xnew(j,1))^2+(ynew(j,2)-ynew(j,1))^2); strain(j) = (Lnew(j)-L(j))/L(j); end L_new_total = sum(Lnew); disp(' ') disp(['New Arc Length',' = ',num2str(L_new_total)]) disp(' ') strain_avg = (L_new_total - L_total)/(L_total); disp(['Average Strain in Arc',' = ',num2str(strain_avg*10^6),' (micro)']) figure plot(1:nel,strain*10^6,'ko-') grid on title('Strain vs. Element Number') xlabel('Elements (left end to right end)') ylabel('Strain in micro-units') %-------------------------------------------------------------------------% CALCULATE THE INTERNAL SHEAR, NORMAL, AND MOMENT DIAGRAMS %-------------------------------------------------------------------------alpha = arc/2; delta = alpha/20; theta2 = [0:delta:alpha]; thetaright(1) = theta2(length(theta2)); c = length(theta2); for k=1:length(theta2); N(k) = -R(1)*cos(theta2(k))-R(2)*sin(theta2(k)); V(k) = R(1)*sin(theta2(k))-R(2)*cos(theta2(k)); X = Rkeep*sin(alpha)-Rkeep*sin(theta2(k)); Y = Rkeep*cos(theta2(k))-Rkeep*cos(alpha); MR(k) = R(2)*X - R(1)*Y; 65
thetaleft(k) = theta2(c); c = c-1; if k < length(theta2) thetaright(k+1) = thetaright(k) + delta; end end
figure plot(thetaleft*r2d,N,'b-') hold on plot(thetaright*r2d,N,'b-') grid on title('Internal Normal Force vs. Location') xlabel('Location (Theta - Left to Right), degrees') ylabel('Normal Force') figure plot(thetaleft*r2d,V,'r-') hold on plot(thetaright*r2d,V,'r-') grid on title('Internal Shear Force vs. Location') xlabel('Location (Theta - Left to Right), degrees') ylabel('Shear Force') figure plot(thetaleft*r2d,MR,'g-') hold on plot(thetaright*r2d,MR,'g-') grid on title('Internal Moment vs. Location') xlabel('Location (Theta - Left to Right), degrees') ylabel('Moment')
66
11 APPENDIX C: Carbon Fiber Layup Fabrication

This section details instructions and methods used to fabricate the carbon fiber layup used for the Bumper component seen in the Bumper Subassembly. These instructions are for the intended use of remanufacture of the Bumper in the event of fracture of the Bumper component or other needs for replacement. The method used to produce our curved bumper shape involved a steel form donated to us by Precision Pulley and Idler, a company located in Pella, IA, and the bottom portion is shown in the figure below with the carbon fiber layup in place:
Figure 11.1: Steel Form Carbon Fiber Layup The instructions for manufacture are as follows: 1) Lay a thin aluminum bar in the bottom half of the form 2) Lay the following pieces in order: a. Teflon release film b. Absorbent bleeder c. Perforated release film 3) Using a roller, place each layer of composite after ensuring the correct alignment and roll out any air bubbles. a. For this bumper, use four layers aligned in the 0 degree direction 4) Lay the following pieces on top of the composite: a. Perforated release film b. Absorbent bleeder c. Teflon release film 5) Place the top half of the mold and use C-clamps to secure and apply pressure 67
6) Place assembly in oven 7) Slowly ramp temperature to 350o F and cure for 4 hours. The first process using a simple oven went as follows: a. Heat oven to 250o F and hold for 2 hours b. Increase heat to 350o F and hold for 4 hours c. Reduce heat to 250o F and hold for 2 hours d. Turn oven off and wait for the form to cool to room temperature 8) Remove form from oven and unclamp assembly 9) Carefully remove top half of the form and aluminum sheeting 10) Carefully remove bleeder and release film layers, making sure not to bend the layup and damage it.
68

KQ

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originalbeschreibung:

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

KQ

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

Tsubasa Iwai Andrew Nunnikhoven Ehrich Rodgers Eric Roggatz Paul Rose John Warning

FINAL REPORT - DRAFT

7.1.1 7.1.2 7.2

7.2.1 7.2.2 7.3 7.4

9.1.1 9.2 9.3 10 11

2.1 CUSTOMER STATEMENT OF NEED

2.2 CUSTOMER DESIGN CONCEPT

Figure 1.1: Client Design Concept

2.3 CUSTOMER REQUIREMENTS

3 MARKET RESEARCH AND LITERATURE SURVEY

3.1 MATERIAL RESEARCH

3.2 SIMILAR PROJECT RESEARCH

4 GLOBAL AND SOCIETAL IMPACT

Figure 4.1: Contemporary Bridge Inspection Methods

Figure 4.2: The Interstate 35 Bridge Collapse 11

Purchased premade (Carbon Fiber composite)

Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic)

Purchased premade (Carbon Fiber composite)

Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic)

Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic)

Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic)

Handmade carbon fiber layup (Carbon Fiber composite)

Handmade from wire

Adjustable pin to hold string between bumper assemblies [0.00023 lbs]

Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic)

Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic)

Purchased premade (Carbon Fiber composite)

Bracket to mount part 1012 to part 1014 [0.00417 lbs]

Machined from aluminum

Handmade carbon fiber layup (Carbon Fiber composite)

Carbon fiber plate to mount and protect avionics [0.04656 lbs]

Handmade carbon fiber layup (Carbon Fiber composite)

Machined from aluminum

Subassembly Name Hub

Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic)

Rapid Prototyping Machine (ABS Plastic)

6.3 Final Configuration

Hub 4.41% Remaining 38.79%

Helicopter Components 48.50%

Figure 6.2: Subassembly Weight Percentages (GW = 6 lbs) 18

Hub 2.96% Remaining 58.79% Bumpers 5.59%

Helicopter Components 32.66%

Figure 6.3: Subassembly Weight Percentages [GW = 8.910 lbs (MAX)]

6.4 Trade Studies

6.5 Common Material Properties

Value 0.62 40000 ksi 0.38 435 ksi

7.1 Load Derivation

7.2 Stress Analysis

Where in the above matrix, the following are defined as:

Figure 7.1: Bumper Deformation

Figure 7.2: Internal Normal Force

Figure 7.3: Internal Shear

Figure 7.4: Internal Moment

Figure 7.6: Bumper Deflection

Figure 7.8: Von Mises Stress Bumper

Figure 7.9: Von Mises Stress Helicopter Bracket

Figure 7.10: Von Mises Stress Horizontal Truss Bracket

Figure 7.14: Load Case 1 - Von Mises Stress

Figure 7.16: Load Case 1 Outer Bracket Von Mises Stress

Figure 7.19: Load Case 2 - Von Mises Stress 36

Figure 7.21: Load Case 2 Outer Bracket Von Mises Stress 37

7.3 Power Loss Calculation

Test 1: Force vs. Deflection