Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Design and Dynamic Analysis of A Transformable Hovering Rotorcraft (Thor)
Design and Dynamic Analysis of A Transformable Hovering Rotorcraft (Thor)
6390
Fig. 3. From left to right, H-MOD, Transition Step, C-MOD. Note how H-MOD yaw corresponds to C-MOD roll with respect to the body frame.
where s is the torque arm between the blade elements’ achieving a pitch and roll equilibrium. Also due to the con-
quarter chord points and the pitch axis, c(r) is the function tinuous rotation, two new factors need to be accounted for,
described in (3) and mm is the total mass of the motor centripetal forces and rotor-wing aerodynamics. The former
system. Note that dL can be swapped with dD in (4) to the is resolved by placing the H-MOD’s yaw axis orthogonal and
same effect. We have also approximated the blade element centered on the C-MOD’s pitch axis. This takes advantage of
thickness to be a constant, h. This is because most of the the span-wise symmetry mentioned earlier to ensure that the
prototypes that were tested used flat plate airfoils, a type inertia tensor is as close to diagonal as possible. For the latter,
of symmetrical airfoil that is easy to build and maintain. the aerodynamic forces become more complex and would
NACA airfoil-ed prototypes had their wing masses balanced require the implementation of additional tools, like the Blade
by adding small weights at the edges to compensate for the Element Momentum Theory (BEMT) [9], to determine the
aforementioned assumption. Through (4) and (5) cP and cm subsequent aerodynamic torques. Here, we take advantage of
are constrained to be: wing symmetry to simplify the problem. By placing identical
wings at a 180◦ offset to one another, we are able to cancel
c2R + cR c0 + c20 the aerodynamic torques experienced in H-MOD hover.
cp = (6)
2 (cR + c0 ) Hence, with a specific wing design and orthogonally ar-
ranged flight modes, we need only to implement a transition
ρh rR 2 mechanism that rotates the wings 180◦ from each other.
cm = c + 3cp cR − cR c0 − cp c0 − c2R (7)
6 mm 0 Consequently, we propose a structurally efficient transition
Hence given a specific wing material, total wing area, mechanism where flap control rotates the entire wing. To
wingspan and motor, (6) and (7) can be used to define the effect a transition, the craft will rotate each wing 90◦ in
position of the pitch axis and the motor relative to the rest opposite directions. This is illustrated in Fig. 3.
of the wing such that its three influential points, the P.C, the B. Reference Frame Definitions
M.C. and the A.C., are all collinear.
With the flight configurations fully defined and before
This leaves us with the body component for C-MOD
proceeding to our analysis of rotational dynamics on large
equilibrium. By ensuring its size is small relative to the wings
wing areas, we feel it is now apt to introduce a set of
and by using a span-wise symmetrical, perforated structure,
coordinate systems. First, the Earth frame XE YE ZE , where
we approximate the aerodynamic contribution of the body to
gravity(g) is defined to be g = [ 0 0 −1 ]||g||. Next,
be the drag force:
the pilot’s reference frame XP YP ZP , which is set up such
that ZE and ZP are equivalent and XE is aligned to the
DF = −kquad U 2 − klin U (8)
pilot’s front. Finally, the body reference frame xyz, which
where kquad and klin are the drag coefficients as seen in [8]. is pinned to the craft’s center of mass such that the y-axis
The force acts at the M.C. of the craft and parallel to the is equivalent to the pitch axis described in Section II.A
freestream velocity, U . With the pitch axis set via the wing and the z-axis points in the direction of C-MOD forward.
design, the components on the body are arranged accordingly The corresponding body frame rotations are thus θ, φ, and
to ensure that the body component’s own M.C. is also at the ψ. In describing velocities in the body reference, we use
midpoint of the pitch axis. v = [ẋ ẏ ż] and ω = [θ̇ φ̇ ψ̇]. These conventions are
With the C-MOD equilibrium resolved, we can now deter- illustrated in Fig. 3. Note that while the terms roll, pitch and
mine a position for the H-MOD. Due to its continuous rota- yaw corresponds to the C-MOD x, y and z-axis, H-MOD
tion along its yaw axis, steady H-MOD flight is dependent on roll and pitch corresponds to the XP and YP -axis.
6391
C. Effects of Propulsion and Body Rotational Configurations introduce a relationship between ωmotor and motor forces
Using the large wing areas associated with fixed-wing and torques. We use the approximation as seen in [11]:
flight for rotor-wing maneuvers produces a pair of unusual
2
design problems. Firstly, gyroscopic precession while in H- F = kF ωmotor (11)
MOD produces a significant wing twist while in operation.
Secondly, the craft is also subject to pronounced cases of 2
M = kM ωmotor + Imotor ω̇motor (12)
asymmetric blade loading.
In the case of gyroscopic precession, the rotating mass where kF is the motor lift constant and kM is the motor drag
of the motor system produces a torque on the rotating body constant. With both motors rotating in the same direction, the
frame as described by the equation: torque term, M , would cause C-MOD to roll. However, this
is preferable over an unbalanced H-MOD wing twist as a
τgyro = Imotor ωmotor θ̇ (9) simple flap correction can be used to resolve the former.
where Imotor is the inertia tensor of the motor, ωmotor . Asymmetrical blade loading [12] is a manifestation of non-
Given the large wing area on the THOR, this produces a uniform freestream velocities relative to the motor system’s
pronounced twist along the wing while the craft operates in rotating propeller. The result is a shift in the P.C. of each mo-
its H-MOD, thus changing the effective α across the wing. tor depending on the inflow distribution. Both THOR flight
This in turn affects the lift and drag forces experienced along modes experience some form of asymmetrical blade loading.
each wing. To estimate the change in α, we use a linear In H-MOD, the θ̇ term will cause the inflow distribution to
approximation based on (9): be biased towards the outer side of the motor system. In
C-MOD, the phenomena manifests itself when the motors
α = ktwist τgyro y (10) are operated at a high angle of attack, a common situation
given that flap control rotates the entire wing along with
where ktwist is the twist coefficient and y is the spanwise the motor. Depending on the motor rotation, this will either
distance from body frame origin. It can be seen that to reduce shift the distribution away from or towards the body origin.
changes in α, it would be useful to keep θ̇ constant during H- With a Type A Rotation Configuration, we use the following
MOD operation, much like in helicopter control [10]. It can equation to approximate the shift in the body frame:
also be seen that, depending on the directions of rotation of
ωmotor and θ̇, the effects on α can be exacerbated or reduced, ⎡ ⎤
0
as illustrated in Table I.
δP ABL = −δSBL = ⎣ kf lap α + krot θ̇ ⎦ (13)
TABLE I 0
ROTATION C ONFIGURATIONS
where δP ABL is for the port and δSABL is for the starboard
Config. Craft Port Starboard Precession motor. kf lap and krot are defined to be the loading coeffi-
Rotation Motor Motor Effect cients. Similar to the motor torque term, the flight controller
(θ̇) (ωmotor ) (ωmotor ) (α) will also need to correct for this phenomenon, this time via
A Positive Positive Positive Positive
B Positive Positive Negative Unbalanced
a motor thrust correction.
C Positive Negative Positive Unbalanced
D Positive Negative Negative Negative
E Negative Positive Positive Negative
F Negative Positive Negative Unbalanced
G Negative Negative Positive Unbalanced
H Negative Negative Negative Positive
6392
III. DYNAMIC MODEL
For the dynamic model of this craft, we choose the body
frame as the workspace for two reasons. Firstly, the on-board
Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) outputs data relative to the
body frame. Secondly, the aerodynamic and motor forces
and torques are related to the velocities acting relative to the
craft’s wings, which requires only one rotation about the y-
axis to be translated to the body frame. For motor forces,
the angle of interest is γ which is defined to be the angle
between the wing chord and the body frame (also known as
the flap input). For aerodynamic forces, we define the angle
between the freestream velocity (U ) and the body frame to
be β. The lift force and drag force acting on each wing is
defined to act perpendicular and parallel to the freestream
velocity vector respectively. Combined, these angles form Fig. 7. H-MOD Free Body Diagram
the angle of attack (α) as illustrated in Fig. 5.
It is important to note that the magnitude and location of
the lift and drag forces on the wing are calculated differently
depending on the flight mode. C-MOD uses the equations (1)
and (2) while H-MOD uses definitions described in [3] with
blade twist (10) implementation from [13]. For simplicity
in notation, we combine these forces for each mode into
the vector A for each wing and define their point of action
Fig. 5. The wing relative angles α, β and γ
relative to body origin using the vector sP W for the port
For the effects of gravity on the body frame, we use the wing and sSW for starboard. Likewise, we define the position
equation: of the motors as the vectors sP M and sSM . Hence, we have
the equations of motion:
W = mRg g (14) 1
v̇ = [FP + FS + AP + AS + W + DF ] (15)
m
where m is the mass of the craft and Rg is the rotation matrix
linking the body frame to the world frame.
With these, we can establish the Free-Body Diagrams as ω̇ = I −1 [(sP M + δP ABL )FP + (sSM + δSABL )FS
seen in Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. As mentioned in Section II.A, each +MP + MS + sP W (AP ) + sSW (AS )] (16)
wing in H-MOD experiences centripetal forces that cancel
IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS
each other out, hence their omission in Fig. 7. However, it is
also acknowledged that these forces produce a phenomenon Given the atypical nature of this hybrid, there is con-
known as blade flap [9] about the z-axis, the implementation siderable work to be done to improve the dynamic model
of which has been deferred to future work. Lastly, we assume and develop an effective controller for flight. In this paper,
the H-MOD has negligible DF as the airflow velocity due we present two experiments towards this direction; the first
to θ̇ this close to the x-axis is small. explores effects of gyroscopic precession as described in
Section II.C and the second explores steady flight. The
prototype used for these is shown in Fig. 8.
6393
In this prototype, a direct drive mechanism is used for flap
control. As this puts a lot of stress on each actuator, a rotary
bearing is added to reduce bending load. Also added onto the
system to aid testing is an SD card reader to log flight data.
A close up of the electronics can be seen in Fig. 9 while its
specifications can be found in Table II.
TABLE II
THOR V III S PECIFICATIONS L IST
6394
yaw input via a remote controller. The feedback control loop around 6 revolutions per second while in hover. We believe
of the craft is illustrated in Fig. 12. With this setup, three the 12 Hz component to correspond to the blade flapping
tests were conducted; an outdoor C-MOD test, an indoor phenomena mentioned in Section III.
H-MOD test and an indoor transition test.
Heading
Hardware
Fusion
Fig. 15. Raw Roll Data and Single-Sided Amplitude Spectrum computed
via discrete Fourier transform
6395
wing to rotate less than the other wing during a transition. [5] K. Fregene and C. L. Bolden, “Dynamics and control of a biomimetic
The motor on this wing therefore pushes the craft into the single-wing nano air vehicle,” in Proc. IEEE ACC ’10, Baltimore, MD,
June 30 - July 2 2010, pp. 51–56.
forward direction while the other wing is still in the process [6] R. A. G. Mark Allan Page, Matthew Robert McCue, “Long endurance
of executing its own transition, thereby tipping the craft the vertical takeoff and landing aircraft,” U.S. Patent 8 991 751, Mar. 31,
right side up. 2015.
[7] J. John D. Anderson, Fundamentals in Aerodynamics. Singapore:
McGraw Hill, 2011, ch. 4.7, 5.3.
[8] M. Bangura and R. Mahony, “Nonlinear dynamic modeling for high
performance control of a quadrotor,” in Proc. AARA ACRA ’12,
Wellington, New Zealand, Dec.3 - 5 2012, pp. 115–124.
[9] J. G. Leishman, Principles of Helicopter Aerodynamics. New York,
NY: Cambridge University Press, 2008, ch. 3.
[10] R. W. Prouty, Helicopter Performance, Stability, and Control. Mal-
abar, FL: Krieger Publishing Company, 2005, ch. 9.
[11] T. Luukkonen, “Modelling and control of quadcopter,” Aalto Univer-
sity, School of Science, Espoo, Finland, Independent research project
Fig. 16. Transition from H-MOD to C-MOD in applied mathematics, Aug. 2011.
[12] F. A. Administration, Flight Training Handbook: Ac 61-21A. Okla-
homa City, OK: Aviation Book Co, 1980, ch. 17.
[13] Y. H. P. Jun En Low and S. Foong, “Analysis of wing twist effects
V. CONCLUSIONS on hover flight dynamics of a single rotor aerial craft,” in Proc. IEEE
AIM ’16, Banff, Canada, 12 - 15 2016, pp. 323–328.
In this work we present a hybrid UAV testbed aimed at
achieving maximum structural efficiency by using the same
aerodynamic surfaces and propulsion sources for fixed-wing
and rotor-wing flight. We establish a design that allows these
two systems to coexist and complement each other on the
same frame without the implementation of any additional or
single mode only systems. Our approach leverages on physi-
cal design parameters to simplify the equilibrium problem of
both flight modes while also accounting for the craft’s unique
flight conditions. We verify these by developing a prototype
with a feedback controller. Experimental data shows that the
craft is able to maintain its equilibrium in both modes.
Given that the craft borrows its concepts from two dif-
ferent fields of aerodynamics, we believe the system gives
strong justification for developing new tools for analysis and
control that would have uses beyond this particular craft. Our
current research work is focused on three fronts; the first is
further verification and improvements to the model of the
system’s dynamics, the second is to implement additional
design parameters that improve the craft’s response to pilot
input and lastly, to implement a more elaborate controller for
both flight modes and the transition step.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This work was funded jointly by the SUTD-MIT Interna-
tional Design Centre and the Temasek Laboratories@SUTD,
Singapore. The authors would like to thank Kris Winer for
providing the IMU for this project.
R EFERENCES
[1] T. J. Mueller, Ed., Fixed and Flapping Wing Aerodynamics for Micro
Air Vehicle Applications, ser. Progress in Astronautics and Aeronau-
tics. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Inc, 2001, vol. 195.
[2] A. Kellas, “The guided samara: Design and development of a control-
lable single-bladed autorotating vehicle,” M. Sc. thesis, Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, Aug. 2007.
[3] J. Houghton and W. Hoburg, “Fly-by-wire control of a monocopter,”
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Boston, MA, Experimental
Projects II Tech. Rep., May 2008.
[4] D. J. P. Evan R Ulrich and J. S. Humbert, “From falling to flying:
the path to powered flight of a robotic samara nano air vehicle,”
Bioinspiration & Biomimetics, vol. 5, no. 4, p. 045009, Nov. 2010.
6396