Stuart Boland

Powertrain Design for Hand- Derek Keen1

Justin Nelson
Brian Taylor
Launchable Long Endurance Nick Wagner
Dr. Thomas Bradley
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE JPC

 Outline
2 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Introduction
Motivation
Technical Approach
Design Structure Matrix
Test Case
Testing
Conclusion
 Introduction
3 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
The use of Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles (UAVs) is
widespread. The United
States, alone, has
exceeded 500,000 flying
hours as of January 2008.
The most widely used of
these MUAVs is the RQ-11
Raven. It can be
transported by Humvee and
then carried by one person,
deployed in approximately
15 minutes , launched by
hand and capable of 110
minutes flight endurance.
 Introduction
4 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Sample of current Miniature UAV designs. Flight Endurance vs. Takeoff Mass
 Introduction
5 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Design Trade-Offs:
Endurance versus Take-Off Requirements
Increased endurance increases mass which requires
more thrust for hand-launchability.
Endurance versus Packability
Increased endurance increases mass which increases
mass of entire system.

Understanding and optimization among these

trade-offs may lead to better designs.
 Motivation
6 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Development of successful back-packable,
hand-launchable, long endurance UAVs
requires the understanding three competing
qualities:
1. Hand-launchability
2. Back-packability
3. Endurability
 Motivation
7 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
User can only throw so
Hand Launchability (Prelim Analysis):
fast
Lower stall velocity leads
to much larger wings,
but easier launch.
Can we overcome the
difference in throwing
velocity and stall velocity
with thrust?
Wing Area vs. Stall Velocity for 2.5 kg Aircraft

*Using Newtons Laws

 Motivation
8 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Backpackability (Prelim):
Low Weight
Soldier Maximum Load = 60 lbs.
Fighting Load = 35 lbs.
Leaves 25 lbs for UAS
Small Form Factor
To maintain maneuverability max
pack dimensions for height and
width must be set.
Elbow to Elbow Breadth for 95th
Percentile Male = 50.5 cm
Normal Sitting Height for 95th
Percentile Male = 93 cm
 Motivation
9 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Packing Concepts:
Folding Wings
Detachable Wings

Inflatable Wings

Telescoping Wings

Plot assumes constant

chord length of 30cm.
 Motivation
10 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Endurability
(Prelim):
Increase the mass
of the batteries on
the airplane or
increase the cost
with better battery
technology.
We consider the
battery to be 50%
of the total aircraft
mass.
 Technical Approach
11 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Problem Statement
Calculate Endurance Values for MPUAVs
Build An Aircraft Meeting Design Specifications

Demonstrate Endurance Through Flight and HiL

Testing
 Technical Approach
12 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion

Design Space: Partial Matrix of Alternatives

Attributes Alternative 1 Alternative 2 Alternative 3
Vehicle Conventional Canard Flying Wing
Planform Straight Tapered Elliptical
Configuration
Wing Position High Wing Mid Wing Low Wing
Fuselage Tadpole Cylindrical Streamlined
Tail Configuration Conventional T-Tail V-Tail
Propulsion
Energy Storage NiMH Lithium Polymer PEM Fuel Cell
Propeller Position Tractor Pusher
Structures Materials Wood Composite Combination
Process Monocoque Space Frame
Landing Gear Fixed Retractable None

Decisions made by either qualitative or quantitative analysis.

 Technical Approach
13 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Contributing Analyses:
Aerodynamics CA
Hand-Launch CA

Propeller CA

Motor CA

Lithium Polymer Battery CA

Performance CA
 Technical Approach
14 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Contributing Analyses:
Aerodynamics CA
Hand-Launch CA

Propeller CA

Motor CA

Lithium Polymer Battery CA

Performance CA
 Technical Approach
15 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Hand-Launch Contributing Analysis
Equations of Motion Derived By FBD
Initial Velocity Determined Experimentally ~8 m/s
 Technical Approach
16 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Lithium Polymer Battery Contributing Analysis

Scalable Static Battery Polarization

Linear Model
Improved Computational Efficiency
 Technical Approach
17 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Performance Contributing Analysis
CalculatesMotor and Propeller Efficiencies at
Launch and Cruise
To make sure the aircraft is real. (Windmilling,
efficiencies > 100%, negative efficiencies)
Calculates Launch and Cruise Thrust Error
To make sure the aircraft will meet launch and cruise
requirements.
Calculates Aircraft Endurance
 Design Structure Matrix
18 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
 Design Structure Matrix
19 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
DSM Optimization Methods
Darwin Genetic Algorithm (Advanced Design and
Optimization Technologies)
Multiple near optimal designs
Better chance of finding global optimum
Objectives
Minimize Motor Mass
Maximize Endurance
Results in Pareto Optimal Trade Study
Importance of Motor Mass Or Endurance Used to Select
Proper Powertrain.
 Design Structure Matrix
20 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
DSM Optimization Methods
Optimization Constraints
0 < Motor Efficiency < .85
0 < Propeller Efficiency < .90
-0.01N < Thrust Errors < 0.01N

Design Constraints
0 cm < Propeller Diameter
0 cm < Propeller Pitch
0 < Number of Battery Cells
 Test Case
21 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion

Autopilot/Remot
Wing/Tail Powertrain Payload
e Control

Control Surface
Servo Motors

Airframe, Fuselage, Linkages and Wiring

Pack
 Test Case
22 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Preliminary Design Choices
Aircraft Mass 2.5 kg

Wing Area - .54 m2

Stall Velocity = ~10 m/s
Wing Span - 1.8 m
Constrained to Pack Dimensions
Wing Chord - 30 cm
 Test Case
23 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion

Wing and Tail Design

XFLR5 Analysis Software aided:
Wing and tail configuration
Flight behavior prediction
Parameters considered:
Airfoil choices
Size of tail surface
Length of tail boom
Wing/Tail angles-of- XFLR5 aircraft analysis
software
incidence
Analysis results validated
against hand calculations
 Test Case
24 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Taperless, Straight Wing
Ease of manufacture
Packability
Simplicity
Wing Airfoil, HQ 2.5-9 B
Balance of
Low-drag
High-lift
Flight behavior
Tail Airfoil, NACA 0009 XFLR5 aircraft analysis
Balance of software
Low-drag
Linear lift properties
 Test Case
25 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
 Test Case
26 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Pareto Optimal Powertrain Design
Batteries 4x ThunderPower RC 3S ProLite MS
4000 mAh
Motor Hacker A40-14L
Propeller RFM 20x13 +9 Offset Spinner
Endurance ~5 Hours
(est.)
 Test Case
27 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Fuselage Design
Airframe designed around
system layout of powertrain
and payload.
Adjustable center of gravity
and multiple battery
placement options.
Materials chosen for high
strength-to-weight ratio.
Pro/Engineer used to visualize system layo
Carbon fiber supports
Nylon components
Fiberglass-Rohacell
sandwich, later replaced
with Birch-ply
 Test Case
28 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
 Testing
29 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Initial flight tests were

completed to determine
the baseline endurance
of the aircraft in steady
level flight conditions.
Average wattage, 40W.
Not ideal testing
conditions. Future
testing will be completed
with autopilot enabled.
These tests were also
used to determine hand
launchability.
 Testing
30 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion

Hardware in the Loop Testing:

Hardware in the loop endurance testing was completed to determine
the ultimate endurance of the aircraft.
One test was conducted and found the ultimate endurance of the
aircraft to be 3.2 hours.

Schematic and control system causality flowchart for HIL simulation.

 Testing
31 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Major Sources of Error:
Battery Capacity
Actual Battery Storage is 11.41 Ah vs. 16 Ah rated
capacity.
Endurance drops from ~5 hrs to ~3.6 hrs. This
equates to a -6% error on actual power consumption.
Linear Battery Model
A state of charge resolved battery model will provide
greater endurance calculation accuracy.
Pilot vs. Autopilot Cruise Conditions
Steady level flight not necessarily achieved by pilot.
The effect of this has not been measured to date.
 Conclusion
32 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
 Conclusion
33 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion
Preliminary results indicate that optimizing
aircraft power plants make significant
improvements in aircraft endurance.
Future Work:
Complete full endurance flight test.
Test other powerplant designs from the
optimization.
 Questions?
34 Introduction | Motivation | Technical Approach | Design Structure Matrix | Test Case | Testing |
Conclusion