APSC 258 – L2D

Preliminary Report
Group G2D

Submitted by:
Sam Poarch (55421168)
Xander Harvey (92521293)
Braden Bester (21828660)
Graeme Brown (35299163)
Rowan McDonald (59528240)
Zak Neudorf (91986752)
Adil Housininh (16732620)
Aiman Ridwan Mohd Hafash (70965850)

TA: Brad Reinholz

March 1st, 2019

1
Executive Summary
This report provides a detailed description of our hovercraft design thus far as well as well as our
objectives as a group for the final version. The problem which our team has been appointed to is
that the farmers of the Okanagan are searching to find a novel solution to their agricultural sector
and increase global competitiveness for the global exports. They are seeking a better solution to
increase the efficiency of local fertilizer delivery to a crop. The current methods are not
sufficient for this specific task. Using the skills obtained through this course, we are able to
develop a design plan for a hovercraft which can aid the Okanagan farmers with this task. The
purpose of the hovercraft is to deliver fertilizer to the crop without using other inefficient
resources. The vehicle will perform at a high level, use less manpower, efficiently deliver
fertilizer to crop with increased speed, ultimate saving money and time, decreasing the economic
footprint.
Additionally, all testing involved in the creation of our current design will be included to
furthermore show our thought process towards addressing the task at hand. We tested the fans
power and speed to minimize the amount of resources used while also meeting our requirements
for performance.
Our thoughts towards design and prototyping are found under major topic sections. We
considered three aspects of our hovercraft which include the electrical, hydrodynamics and
structural design. The electrical aspect includes controlling/movement and dropping mechanism
for the delivery of fertilizer to a crop. The hydrodynamics aspect investigates the analysis of the
amount and distribution of thrust and lift generated by the fans, to come up with the idlest thrust
mechanism. The structural aspect covers the shape and material used to stabilize and strengthen
the hovercraft’s structure. Performing lab tests, research and having group members in the three
disciples of civil, mechanical and electric our team came up with multiple design options for the
different features of the hovercraft; a decision matrix was generated for the different options to
select the best possible design for a feasible hovercraft that will fulfill the requirements of our
project.

2
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 4
1.1 Problem Statement/Objectives 4
1.2 Needs and Constraints 6

2.0 Background 8
2.1 Literature Review 8
2.1.1 General Hovercraft Theory 8
2.1.2 Moment Curtains and Skirts to Maximize Lift Force 10
2.1.3 Hovercraft Controllability 11
2.2 Project Planning 12

3.0 Description of Major Components 13

3.1 Electronic Design 14
3.2 Hydrodynamic Design 14
3.3 Structural Design 15

4.0 Possible Solutions 16

4.1 Thrust Mechanism Options 16
4.1.1 Design 1: 3 Lift Fans and 1 Thrust Fan 16
4.1.2 Design 2: 2 Lift Fans and 2 Thrust Fans 17
4.2 Dropping Mechanism Options 17
4.2.1 Design I - Rack and Pinion 18
4.2.2 Design II - Solenoid 18
4.2.3 Design III - “Vending Machine” 19
4.3 Shape/Structure Options 20
4.4 Plenum Design and Lift Options 21
4.4.1 Plenum Design Options 21
4.4.2 Lift Options 21

5.0 Concept selection 21

5.1 Thrust mechanism selection 22
5.2 Dropping mechanism selection 22
5.3 Shape/Structure selection 23
5.4 Selection of Plenum and Lift Design Options 24
5.4.1 Selection of Plenum Design 24
5.4.2 Selection of Lift Design 24
5.5 Electrical system selection 25

6.0 Conclusion 28

Appendix A: Additional Figures 31

3
1.0 Introduction
This report communicates the preliminary design process for a hovercraft in accordance
to the project’s design objectives:

“A consortia of Okanagan farmers are seeking to find a novel solution to their agricultural
sector and increase global competitiveness for global exports. They have engaged a consultant,
who has identified a range of opportunities for improvements. One such opportunity is to
increase the efficiency of local fertilizer delivery to a crop. The proposed solution is to use a
hovercraft system as a means of delivery. A series of testbed systems will evaluate the
effectiveness of various configurations, scoring each based on an algorithm that indicated the
improvement in efficiency for the farmers. The top 20 testbed solutions will be selected for a
more rigorous testing scenario and ultimately, the best performing model will be selected for
further development and eventually, full commercialization by the consortia.”

A hovercraft is a vehicle which travels over land and water on an air cushion provided by a
downward thrust of air; fans are utilized under the craft to inherit a pressurized air under the craft
to lift the vehicle. This report focuses on three aspects of our hovercraft which include the
electrical, hydrodynamic and the structural design. The electrical aspect includes
controlling/movement and dropping mechanism for the delivery of fertilizer to a crop. The
hydrodynamics aspect investigates the analysis of the amount and distribution of thrust and lift
generated by the fans, to come up with the idlest thrust mechanism. The structural aspect covers
the shape and material used to stabilize and strengthen the hovercraft’s structure. Performing lab
tests, research and having group members in the three disciples of civil, mechanical and electric
our team came up with multiple design options for the different features of the hovercraft; we
generated a decision matrix for the different options to select the best possible design for a
feasible hovercraft that will fulfill the requirements of our project.

4
1.1 Problem Statement/Objectives
Okanagan farmers have put forth an initiative to “find a novel solution to their
agricultural sector and increase global competitiveness for global exports.” One opportunity for
improvement is to increase the efficiency of local fertilizer delivery to crops. The proposed
solution is to employ the use of a hovercraft system. A mathematical algorithm (shown below)
that indicates the improvement in efficiency will determine the score for every type of
configuration. The top 20 prototypes will be selected for more rigorous testing. Finally, the best
one will be chosen for further development, and eventually commercialization.
The Hovercraft Project’s objective is to design and build a hovercraft system as a solution
for agricultural-based applications. Therefore, to test all hovercrafts designed for this project the
vehicles must be able to manoeuvre comfortably throughout a given obstacle course, make three
separate deployments, and carry additional payload masses. This feat will require knowledge of
the three main engineering disciplines: electrical, mechanical and civil. All teams will decide the
best lift, thrust, controlling, design, and dropping mechanisms when designing their hovercraft.
Every team is given a remote control, receiver, battery pack (GWS 9.6V), small battery charger,
Arduino, four fan, two servo motors, and wires to control moving parts on the craft; that is
propellers, thrust, and the dropping mechanism. Coding knowledge will be required to program
this system. With a total of four fans, teams must decide the best arrangement to achieve optimal
lift and maneuverability. Finally, the delivery system is unspecified for this project, meaning
each team will come up with their own dropping mechanism and decide how it will operate
remotely from the craft.
Commented [R1]: Why is lightweight TBD? Don’t you
simply want to minimize it?

Table 1: Design Objectives summarized in a table Commented [R2]: Table titles go above the table

5
1.2 Needs and Constraints
The focus group of our hovercraft design is the consortia of local farmers in the Okanagan’s
agricultural sector. These farmers have set needs and constraints that our final product must be
able to meet, if it is to be a successful product used in the farming industry. The following is a
list of the prevailing needs for the project:

 Cost Effective
 Reliability
 Ease of Operation
 Operating Range
 Effective Delivery
 Operate in a Variety of Weather Conditions
 Environmentally Friendly
 Repairable
 Drive on varying surfaces
 Regulations

Cost is a major need for the hovercraft to be successful because farmers have very marginal
income that can differ greatly depending on the success of their crops that year. Farmers have a
low budget for new technology, and they want a product that will repay their investment in the
long run. The only way farmers will maximize their returns is if the hovercraft’s delivery system
turns out to be more effective than previous fertilizer delivery methods. Additionally, the needs
of the farmers create constraints on the hovercraft. These constraints are as follows:

 Cost of Production
 Speed of the Hovercraft
 Load Bearing Capability
 Control Range
 Energy Needed
 Minimum Service Interval Commented [R3]: Try to state them like in assignment
1. Remember that a proper need in 258 needs to be
 Safety Requirements worded in a negative context

6
 By designing the hovercraft around these needs and constraints, the craft will have a greater
chance of being a success within the Okanagan agricultural community. Figure 1 is a QFD
diagram that compares the engineering requirements to the consumer requirements.

Table 2: QFD Chart of Okanagan Farmer Requirements Commented [R4]: QFD charts in APSC much have a
roof and benchmarks

Cost is not an engineering requirement ( the customer

The constraints for all hovercrafts during testing are as follows: is worried about cost because they pay for it, the
engineer does not pay the price)
 Must use a certain amount of materials given by the lab TAs, for example the four fans,
two servo motors, and the Arduino. Commented [R5]: You don’t NEED to use these. Only
the fans and batteries are restricted
 The budget must not exceed $100 or the students will have to pay out of their own
pocket.
 The design must follow a hovercraft design template, as in it must contain a minimum
number of features that defines the hovercraft system. Fans and battery must be the same
for all groups Commented [R6]: This is a detached statement from
the previous sentence. (I would incorporate this into
 ¼” steel nuts will be used as the payload your first bullet)

 Must finish the designated course under 5 min

7
 Commented [R7]: Probably makes more sense to put
2.0 Background this before the needs since it’s good to understand
what a hovercraft is before you explain needs,
constraints based on the design of a hovercraft.

2.1 Literature Review

2.1.1 General Hovercraft Theory

Hovercrafts, or air cushion vehicles, are a type of amphibious craft that are capable of
travelling over almost all types of terrain (Yun & Bliault, 2000). In their early conception, air
cushion vehicles were designed as a solution to the problem caused by drag in marine crafts
(Yun & Bliault, 2000, p. 48). Engineers searching for ways to increase speed in marine crafts to
compete with the increases in speed of air travel as well as motor vehicles, found that air cushion
vehicles were a viable way to increase speed without worrying about drag created by water (Yun
& Bliault, 2000, p. 48). The design of air cushion vehicles is very mostly dependent on the air
cushion that supports them, as will be discussed below.
Many theories of air cushion design were taken into account in the initial design of these
vehicles. One theory that was important to the early design of hovercraft was the A.A West
single wall theory. (Yun & Bliault, 2000, p. 51). The A.A West single wall theory, shown in
Figure 2.1A is a plenum theory that was used to test the durability and overall viability of various
different skirt designs for the apparatus depicted in the Figure. The theory was eventually
discarded as it does not consider the viscosity of air as a real fluid, and does not consider flow
energy losses from nozzles in the bag (Yun & Bliault, 2000, p. 55). Although this theory is no
longer used in modern hovercraft design, important discoveries were made about skirt material
and implications of extended use were discovered that would greatly impact the hovercraft
designs to come after it (Yun & Bliault, 2000, p. 55).

8
 Figure 1. A.A West single wall theory. 1: lift fan, 2: lift engine, 3: propulsion engine and
propeller, 4: bow seal, 5: air cushion plenum chamber, 6: rigid surface, 7: sidewall, 8: stern seal.
(Figure retrieved from Yun & Bliault, 2000)

A problem faced by many in the agricultural industry is the lack of labour force (Nair,
2014). This issue can be addressed by remote controlled hovercraft technology that has the
potential to be a more accurate and cost effective method of sowing, spacing, weeding, and
spraying farmland. As reported by Statistics Canada (2017), in 2016, there was approximately
190 000 farming operations in Canada. Many of these operations are suffering from a dwindling
labour force and could use a hovercraft system to alleviate this issue. The hovercraft would only
take one driver to operate opposed to the many it currently takes. This system could be further
adapted to become autonomous which would be of even greater benefit to the agricultural
industry. To address the issue of soil disturbance from lift and thrust fans some designs have
implemented an angled weighted plate with grooves that extends off the rear of the vehicle (Nair,
2014). This design could be adopted on our proof of concept model to show to consumers the
capability of hovercraft assisted farming. Another consideration to be made is the varied terrain
of farm land. Fingered skirt designs are most advantageous on such terrain. They comprise of
many segments of skirting that can conform to the ground giving a smooth and stable movement
while maintaining pressure beneath the hull (4Wings, n.d.). Additionally, this design is easier to
repair as segments can be individually replaced or repaired.

9
 The use of hovercraft design has beneficial applications in the agricultural field. To best
implement a hovercraft the terrain and conditions of farm use will have to be considered and
tested. For the purpose of our small scale proof of concepts not all these designs can be utilized
but are helpful to consider for future development.

2.1.2 Moment Curtains and Skirts to Maximize Lift Force

Hovercrafts operate on the principle of reduced friction due to an air cushion between the
base of the craft and the surface it is travelling over. Maximizing the efficiency of this air
cushion is important to allow for higher speeds and increased lift allowing for more weight to be
carried by the hovercraft. The air provided by lift fans should be maximized by creating as much
pressure beneath the hull as possible.
One model of hovercraft is the open plenum design (Figure 2). In this simple design, air
comes directly from the lift fan to the ground and pressure concentrates throughout the center of
the open space of the plenum. A more effective method, also shown in figure x, concentrates the Commented [R8]: ??

pressure in a smaller space directly beneath the hull which maximizes the upward pressure.
Momentum curtains (Pragyan, 2015) reduce friction and increase lift by minimizing air lost
directly out of the sides of the hovercraft. This is done by directing concentrated, high speed,
inward-pointing air from the edges of the hull that circulate and accumulate pressure in the
center of the hull (Figure 3). With less air escaping directly from the edges, a greater lift force
and reduced friction can be achieved with the same power input. This is done in the peripheral jet
design where an air flows between the outer wall and a slightly smaller inner container which
creates such a momentum curtain (Woodford, 2018). To best utilize the momentum curtain it
was found that the implementation of a flexible skirt (Figure 4) creates a better seal especially
over varying terrain. The skirt further directs air back up against the center of the hull and lets
less air escape from the sides maximizing efficiency. For smaller crafts over smooth terrain, this
skirt should be constructed of a fairly rigid peripheral material that contains the air. It must be
flat and even on the bottom without gaps or variations in strength or stiffness so that the best
stability and seal is created. For the purpose of farm use, a finger skirt like the one mentioned in
2.1.1 could adapt to the variable terrain of farmland to provide better pressure.

10
 For the purpose of our hovercraft, it will be highly beneficial to use our knowledge of
momentum curtains and skirts to direct the maximum pressure upwards on the hull. This will
allow us to have an efficient and stable design that will be able to carry a greater load and have
proper balance and stability. We can do this by implementing a closed plenum design in
combination with a rigid rubber/foam skirting evenly placed around the edge of our craft.

2.1.3 Hovercraft Controllability

Hovercraft movement, in its most simplified terms, can be described by a planar rigid
body being propelled across a flat surface by a thrust device at a certain distance from the body’s
center of mass (Tyner & Lewis, 2004, p. 1204). Lagrangian is a function that describes the state
of a dynamic system, such as hovercraft control. By setting this system’s position coordinates
and time derivatives equal to the difference between potential and kinetic energy, one is able to
understand how and why a system moves in the way it does (Merriam Webster, n.d.). Tyner &
Lewis (2004) describe the mathematical model for a hovercraft in Figure 5, where 𝜏 is the Commented [R9]: ?

torque about the fan; which itself provides thrust, F, in the direction g1. f1 is defined such that it
lies on the point of application of the thrust force. The origin of frame {g1,g2} is the center of the Commented [R10]: Not rendering properly?

fan, while the origin of frame {f1,f2} is the center of mass of the hovercraft (Tyner & Lewis,
2004, p. 1204). Relative to the inertial frame {e1,e2}, the frame {f1,f2} is specified by an element
of SE(2).The frame {g1,g2} is specified by its orientation with respect to {f1,f2} by an element of
SO(2) (Tyner & Lewis, 2004, p. 1204). Given the above assumptions, the configuration space
can be denoted as Q = SE(2) X SO(2). Knowing the configuration space, one can now define the
kinetic energy Lagrangian for the system, as shown in Equation 1, where mbody and Jbody are the
mass and moment of inertia of the body respectively, mfan and Jfan are the mass and moment of
inertia of the fan respectively. The two forces acting in the system are the thrust force, F1 =
(cos(𝜏+𝜏), sin(𝜏+𝜏), -h(sin(𝜏)), 0) and the torque rotating the fan, F2 = (0,0,0,1) (Tyner &
Lewis, 2004, p. 1204). The kinetic energy Lagrangian ultimately gives us the control equation
for the system, which is shown in Equation 2. Various theorems are examined in literature in
order to attempt to explain in general terms the controllability of this layout, none of which are
complete. From this equation and the other work done by Tyner & Lewis (2004), one can
conclude that the structure’s layout is very complicated and therefore difficult to control
efficiently.

11
 Figure 5. Hovercraft coordinate system

Equation 1. Kinetic energy Lagrangian of the hovercraft

Equation 2. Control equation for a hovercraft

2.2 Project Planning

As seen in Figure 6 (Appendix A), a rough timeline was created early in our project
planning to follow. Within each task is a written description of the objective and details of the
task. This helped us to know what is required of us as we carry out the demands of this project.
The PERT diagram seen in Figure 7 (Appendix A) has been the most effective way for our team
members to visualize the flow of work and the required tasks. Up to this point we have stuck to
this schedule and have even scheduled additional meetings that we did not expect to have time
for. Following this schedule has allowed us a sense of confidence that the deliverables will be
met and organization that has made the use of our time more efficient. Now that we are entering
the more labour intensive construction phase of the project we intend to create a more detailed
and specific timeline in order to follow a more precise schedule. This will be especially useful as

12
time is even more valuable with the added workload of the comprehensive final report as well as
midterms and other class projects compiling over the next month. Within our next GANTT chart Commented [R11]: Gantt was named after its founder
and is not an acronym. Therefore it should not be all-
we will include a detailed schedule of what is to be done in each meeting. We will commit to caps.

stick to this schedule the best we can, but knowing that there are many variables and areas for
lost time we plan to finish 7 days ahead of schedule to account for any lost time throughout the
next few weeks. Knowing that we are following a set timetable and have stayed on schedule so
far, our team is confident that the all deliverables will be completed to the best of our abilities by
the given deadlines.

13
3.0 Description of Major Components

3.1 Electronic Design

The electrical design of our hovercraft is governed by what we aim to accomplish with
our subsystems and the general project requirements. Most importantly, we must be able to
control all aspects of our hovercraft remotely. This will allow Okanagan farmers to distribute
payloads to their crops more efficiently. Next, we must be able to control our hovercrafts major
functions: lift, steering, and payload administration.
The project requirements have limited us to using the provided fans to generate lift. To
avoid the costly penalties that result from going out of bounds and hitting obstacles, we will be
including a function that allows us to shut off our lift fans at any moment. We must also consider
the fact that our lift fans and propellor must be driven by the battery packs we were given in lab
one. Since the propellor will not always be operating at the same speed, it will be drawing a
variable current from our batteries. This could affect the current passing through our lift fans,
which should be constant, and determined by the additional load we carry. To ensure our lift fans
are supplied with a constant current, we could introduce current limiting circuitry.
Steering our hovercraft will require two electrical control systems. One that controls our
propellor speed, and one that controls our steering mechanism. We have decided to give our
propellor the capability to run in reverse. This will give us the ability to correct our position
while deploying the payload.
The complexity of the electrical system that governs payload administration depends on
our dropping mechanism. We have decided to use a “rack and pinion” mechanism (discussed in
section 4.2.1), and its control is relatively straight forward. We will simply need to rotate a gear
which will in turn cause the nut to be dropped.

3.2 Hydrodynamic Design

Hydrodynamic design with respect to hovercraft designing is the analysis of the amount
and distribution of thrust and lift generated by the fans. A hovercraft is equipped with lift fans
and thrust fans. Propellers are often placed in front of a rudder to allow the hovercraft to turn,

14
however other turning apparatus also exist. The lift fans serve to create an air cushion under the
vehicle for it to float on, while the propeller serves to create a thrust force to allow the vehicle to
move forward. Lift can be analyzed in hovercrafts as a function of lift pressure over hull area.
The lift fans of a hovercraft are required to apply an equal distribution of lift force in order to not
send the hovercraft into a spiral.
The project constrains us to the use of only 4 fans to achieve our required lift and thrust.
This is a significant constraint on our hovercraft as there are very few fans to go around.
However, the lift force can be aided depending on the chosen plenum design. There are two
popular plenum designs which are an open plenum and a closed plenum. A open plenum has
nothing between the ground and the lift fan. A closed plenum has a flat plate of material under
our lift fans which helps trap air beneath the hovercraft. This simple addition greatly improves
the efficiency of our lift fans which is very helpful given our fan and power constraints making it
a good choice for ou. Commented [R12]: ?

Thrust is a force which is generated by the reaction force of a mass flow in a specific
direction. This air is accelerated using a propulsion system, which in the case of our project is a
fan. Thrust force is needed in order to actually move our hovercraft and to control it’s steering. Commented [R13]: grammar

The thrust fan(s) push air horizontally in order to create a horizontal thrust force and thus
horizontal movement. This horizontal force can then be rotated in order to steer our hovercraft
either left or right.

3.3 Structural Design

Structural design in accordance to our hovercraft project is to identify and analyze the
stability, strength and rigidity of the hovercraft’s structure. This also includes the shape of our
component as it would adds in building the hovercraft as a whole. Hovercraft has a body like a Commented [R14]: grammar

ship but it is treated more like an aircraft. For stability reasons, air is typically blown through
slots or holes around the outside of a disk- or oval-shaped platform, giving most hovercraft a
characteristic rounded-rectangle shape. Given that we will be using 3 lift fans, we decided to use
rounded-triangle shape for our platform. The material for the body should be able to withstand
the weight of item that is carried and high pressure created under the hull. We were given balsa
wood along the kit. This type of wood has a high workability and responds well to deformation
to its shape. It is also inexpensive so performing different tests and trying varying ideas is not an

15
issue. We also have hard insulation foam in abundance. The foam is a lightweight and strong
rigid material that can cut into any required shapes.
Our project constraint us from building real size hovercraft. Our model hovercraft is
relatively small which reduce the weight, stress within the components as well as the need of
material rigidity significantly. However, this does not mean that the thrust and propulsion of the
hovercraft will be easier as the size of our motor and power produced will be reduced as well
given the small size constraint. As a miniature model, we expect that at least it would be able to
withstand impact when hitting an obstacle and did not produce too much noise when
maneuvering.

4.0 Possible Solutions

4.1 Thrust Mechanism Options

The thrust mechanism is a mechanism which is required to lift and propel our hovercraft
off the ground and forward. In the contest of our farming scenario, the thrust mechanism has to
get the hovercraft to the locations that need fertilizer dropped.
The thrust mechanism is constrained by a few constraints. The biggest is that we only
have four fans to work with that have to solve both our lift and thrust factors. These four fans
have to be able to lift our hovercraft off of the ground and have to propel and steer the
hovercraft. For all of our ideas we believe that a closed plenum design is better all around. This
is because the lift force is much more efficient in both scenarios by the use of a closed plenum
design and it is easy to implement. Below are some brainstormed ideas that both fit the
constraints and satisfy the thrust and lift vectors.

4.1.1 Design 1: 3 Lift Fans and 1 Thrust Fan

The most promising of these is to have one thrust fan centered on the back of the
hovercraft. This thrust fan could be on a 360o servo giving the hovercraft ability to break and Commented [R15]: brake
o
move in reverse. We could also use a 180 servo if we are able to reverse the airflow through the
fan. This thrust fan would also be on a pivot allowing us to rotate the hovercraft however we
want. We thought this is a good idea because it gives us many more options of movement

16
making it drastically easier to safely move the hovercraft through the obstacle course (or, in our
given scenario, through a field). However, the main benefit to this idea is that it allows us to have
three lift fans. This gives us a relatively strong lift force which allows us to have design freedom
in other areas. Commented [R16]: What about rudders?

4.1.2 Design 2: 2 Lift Fans and 2 Thrust Fans

Another idea we were looking into was having two thrust fans, located on the rear end of
the hovercraft. This would steer by having them blow in opposite directions of each other
causing the hovercraft to rotate in the direction we wanted. The benefit of this method compared
to the above was that it would give us a much faster turning speed and we would have a stronger
overall thrust. However there are a few cons to this system. This system requires more wiring,
more coding, adds a more uneven weight distribution and, most importantly, takes a fan away
from our lift fans; giving us a much smaller weight capacity. For these reasons, we were thinking
of using the first system as our steering method. Commented [R17]: Do you value weight more than
speed? It would be good to have a discussion of the
point scoring formula to establish your assumptions as
to what criteria are most important
4.2 Dropping Mechanism Options
A dropping mechanism is a mechanism of varying design which is used to drop an object
at a specific point in space. In the context of hovercraft design, and more specifically a farming
application, a dropping mechanism can be useful in the application of fertilizer and pesticide to
crops.
Dropping mechanisms are bounded by several limiting factors, including the accuracy
and precision of dropping relative to the predetermined drop location, the current draw of the
mechanism, and the weight and size of the mechanism. During group brainstorming sessions
about dropping mechanism design, our group took these limiting factors into account and
potential designs will be discussed below. The factor to be discussed below were considered the
most crucial in dropping mechanism design, however there exist other limiting factors which will
not be discussed in the body of this report.

17
4.2.1 Design I - Rack and Pinion
Our first, and most simple design consists of a Servo mounted to the surface of the
hovercraft oriented such that the Servo’s axle is orthogonal to the hovercraft surface. Mounted
on the axle would be a pinion gear whose teeth would be engaged with those of a rack mounted
on the side of a delivery device with sections divided for each nut. The rack and pinion model
can be more effectively visualized through Figure 8.
The system would function by receiving command from an Arduino programmed such
that the Servo would rotate a defined number of degrees each time the system is turned on, or a
button is pressed. Using simple algebra, this predefined number of degrees would be chosen such
that the delivery device moves one nut over a hole in the hovercraft, ultimately dropping a nut on
the anticipated drop site.

Figure 8. Rack and Pinion Apparatus Commented [R18]: Inconsistent capitalization. Previous
figures you used sentence case, this one you used title
case

4.2.2 Design II - Solenoid

In order to avoid the bouncing of the nuts upon being dropped, a dropping mechanism
must optimize its dropping speed. This can be achieved through many methods, the most
sophisticated being that of an induced magnetic field. Our idea includes installing a solenoid in
the dropping hole and inducing a magnetic field in the dropping hole to counteract the force of
gravity on the falling nut. The dropping speed could be regulated by controlling the force balance
in the hole and ensuring that magnetic field strength is only slightly smaller than the force of

18
gravity, therefore drastically slowing down the nut and eliminating the bounce upon contact with
the ground. Control of the magnetic field strength is ultimately achieved by the restriction of
current through the solenoid. In understanding Figure 9, we can calculate the magnetic field
strength generated by our circuit and thus determine a consistent dropping speed.

Commented [R19]: Should be referenced

Figure 9. Magnetic field through a solenoid

4.2.3 Design III - “Vending Machine”

Our third option for the dropping mechanism uses a metal coil with the payload between
the coils, similar to that used in a vending machine. In theory, as the coil spins the nuts stay still
and with each rotation one nut will drop. The design allows us to drop the nuts from a minimal
height lowering the possibility of rolling and providing accuracy for each drop. Although the
design offers precision it requires multiple rotations, a servo will not be sufficient for this model.
A small electric motor would offer the degree of freedom needed to drop our payload but will
add weight and consume more power. In addition, the design will pose a level of complexity that
might be unnecessary for the task at hand. The “vending machine” model is illustrated in Figure
10.

19
 Figure 10. “Vending machine” mechanism

When considering each design we will take simplicity, functionality and cost into account
to ensure we select the most practical, effective, and attainable option.

4.3 Shape/Structure Options

The base will take shape in oval shape to assist in overall lifting balance for the first
option. As for the second option, we proposed a rounded slight triangular shape where it should
not compromise the lifting balance. The second option allows us to cut down the material used
for the body so that the weight of the hovercraft can be reduced. Figure 11 depicts the second
shape option in which the fans are placed in a triangle to evenly distribute the lifting force and
allow a central weight distribution for additional payload. Commented [R20]: F=P*A had no effect on your
design?

Were you worried about drag?

Figure 11. Second option of body shape structure

20
4.4 Plenum Design and Lift Options

4.4.1 Plenum Design Options

For the hovercraft we considered three main plenum design options: open plenum, closed
plenum or momentum curtain with directive air flow channels, and a momentum curtain without
directive air flow channels. As stated in section 2.1.2 of the literature review, it was found that a
closed plenum design would provide better lift and therefore a lower friction coefficient when
compared to an open plenum design. Figures 2, 3, and 4 depict the characteristics of the three
types of plenum design. Each of the three design options have varying levels of difficulty for
construction and performance benefits therefore our team had to weigh the pros and cons of each
design choice.

4.4.2 Lift Options

Fans are going to be used to provide adequate lift for our hovercraft. During the design process
our team identified two main options pertaining to lift. The first option was to use two fans for
lift and two for thrust. The second option was to use three fans for lift and only one fan for
thrust. There were also three main options for skirting on the hovercraft. The first option
involved no special skirting and uses the styrofoam structure as the skirt. The second option
utilizes a soft semi rigid foam skirting. Finally the third option that we came up with was to use
a flexible skirt made of rubber that inflates once the fans are on, creating a deeper air cushion.

21
5.0 Concept selection

5.1 Thrust mechanism selection

When thinking about which thrust mechanism to choose we must consider the tradeoffs
they have. This is particularly important as our hovercraft can only have one of two reasonable
layouts given the constraints of this project; two lift and two thrust fans or three lift and one
thrust fan. After considering the pros and cons of both layouts our group decided to go with the
latter option of one thrust and three lift fans. This doesn’t allow for us to have two thrust fans
blowing in opposite direction in order to turn sharply however it gives us many other benefits.
The one thrust, 3 lift fan layout was chosen because it offers a much stronger lift force which
gives us a greater amount of freedom when it comes to other mechanisms. Although our total
thrust force will be much smaller the hovercraft will still achieve an acceptable speed and
maneuverability. From here, we have to choose how to actually steer the hovercraft. The best
options available to us is to use a 180 or 360 degree servo in order to rotate and reverse the thrust
fan. Of these options we chose to go with the 180 degree servo as it solves our tasks and is easy
to work with, however both 180 and 360 degree servos are feasible.

5.2 Dropping mechanism selection

When considering the dropping mechanism for the hovercraft, there are many factors that must
be considered when making a decision about design including those described in Table 3. Taking
into account the results obtained from the table as well another important factor in that of build
time, one can conclude that the rack and pinion design would be the best design for our group.
The solenoid and vending machine designs would ultimately be slightly more accurate and
precise, but taking into account the complexity of design, and difficulty of the build, it makes
more sense for the group to go with the rack and pinion design.

22
Weight 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 0.2 1

Design Reliability Simplicity 1/Weight 1/Cost Accuracy Total

(Weighted)

Rack and 1 1 2 1.7 0.4 1.22

pinion

Solenoid 0.8 0.5 1.4 1 0.9 0.92

Vending 0.5 0.6 1 1.7 1 0.96

machine

Table 3: Dropping mechanism decision matrix - Normalized (weighted sum method)

5.3 Shape/Structure selection

When considering shape and structure we must prioritize weight and shape. Ideally, our
hovercraft has minimal weight while maintaining its structure when subjected to lift and thrust
forces. This includes our hovercraft main body, plenum, and thrust fans. Because the plenum and
thrust fan structure are directly loaded by the fans, it is important for us to ensure the materials
are adequate. From our lift testing we have determined optimal placement of the lift fans, this
dictates the shape of our hull. After observing radial distance vs. thrust force, it is apparent that
as we increase distance force also increases, as shown in Figure 13. A triangular shape with
rounded corners allows the furthest distance between each of the fans and the edge of the plenum
therefore maximizing lift. Commented [R21]: How much weight are you trying to
lift? How much area do you need to achieve that lift?

Weight 1/3 1/3 1/3 1

Material Stiffness 1/Weight Workability Total (weighted)

Foam 0.43 1.76 1 1.06

Wood 1 1 0.57 0.86

Table 4: Hull material decision matrix - Normalized (weighted sum method)

23
5.4 Selection of Plenum and Lift Design Options

5.4.1 Selection of Plenum Design

After weighing out the pros and cons of each plenum design option we decided to go with
the closed plenum or momentum curtain plenum design without directive air flow channels.
This design should provide the hovercraft with most of the benefits of a closed plenum design
such as improved lift force, reduced friction, and reduced power demand for the lifting fans as
found in the Literature Review Section 2.1.2. It was decided that the addition of air flow
channels would only complicate the construction process in a scaled down model of a hovercraft
and was not likely to provide a significant increase in lifting capabilities. Our team decided to
mimic the benefits of air flow channels by shaping the hull around the closed plenum to direct air
towards the center of the hovercraft. This design will allow our hovercraft to maximize its
payload capacity which is preferable given the value of payload in overall scoring criteria.

5.4.2 Selection of Lift Design

For selection of lift design our team decided to go with a three fan triangular layout for
lift. As explained in section 5.3, this layout should allow for optimal lift characteristics by each
fan allowing the highest payload capacity. We decided to prioritize overall lifting force over the
increased speed available from a layout using two thrust fans as it contributes more to our overall
hovercraft score. For skirting we decided to use compressible foam as it should provide a good
seal with the ground without compromising stability of the hovercraft like a soft, inflatable
rubber skirting material. As the surface we are testing on is smooth and flat we do not require
the ground absorbing characteristics and improved clearance given by a rubber flexible skirting.
The foam skirting will allow us to carry more weight and not have to worry about the placement
of the weight on the hovercraft as it will be less likely to veer one way or another due to
deformation of the skirt. The foam skirting strikes a good balance between simplicity of the
design and effectiveness of the skirt itself.

24
5.5 Electrical system selection
We must have the ability to turn our lift fans on or off at any moment. A transistor works
as an electrical switch, and is very easy to implement using Arduino digital output pins.
Furthermore, we were provided with n-channel Mosfet transistors which are ideal for this
application. The figure below shows the circuit that will be used to control our lift fans.

Figure 15. Lift fan control circuit. M1, M2, and M3 represent our fans

One additional factor we must consider is inductive kickback. Our fans (DC motors) are
similar to inductors in their behavior. When we shut them off, a temporary voltage is created to
resist this rapid change in current. This risks overloading the Mosfet, which renders it useless. To
protect the Mosfet, we will install a protective diode across our motors that acts as a path through
which induced current can flow when we shut off the lift fans.

Our hovercraft steering mechanism must be able to control speed and direction. These
can be treated as two different electrical systems. To control steering, we need a motor whose
angle of rotation can be maintained and controlled with precision. We identified two options in
our preliminary brainstorming sessions - servo motors and stepper motors. While both are able to
meet the design requirements, there are several distinct advantages to using a servo motor. For
one, servo motors are easily compatible with Arduino. The servo provided to us can be driven by
the 5V microcontroller supply, and it requires only one logical input (compared with a stepper
motor’s two) that can be connected directly to Arduino digital output pins. Stepper motors on the

25
other hand require a supplemental driver chip for their control, which is an extra expense and
opportunity for power losses. Typically, steppers are chosen for applications that require precise
rotation at high speeds. We do not require rapid rotation in our steering mechanism. In fact, high
speed rotation would hinder our handling performance by increasing control sensitivity. For
these reasons, we will be using a single servo motor to control the direction of our hovercraft.
The circuit diagram for the servo’s control is shown below.

Figure 16. Servo motor control circuit

Controlling hovercraft speed can be accomplished in several ways. An H-bridge would

allow us to control both the propellor speed and rotation direction using a pulse width modulated
(PWM) signal on its switch gates. The duty cycle of this signal would create an average voltage
(positive or negative) across the propellor terminals, and this system is easy to implement using
Arduino. Alternatively, we could simply use a mosfet with a PWM signal applied to its gate. The
downside to this option is that propeller rotation direction can not be controlled. Finally, we
could use a stepper motor driver which would give us the capability to control propellor direction
and speed. However, this is not the intended use for these drivers, and would require complex
programming and several microcontroller pins. Nevertheless, stepper drivers are much cheaper
than H-bridges. The A4988 by Pololu (a stepper driver that matches our motor’s specifications)
also includes a logic pin that significantly reduces its power dissipation when the motor is turned
off. This would allow us to reduce power losses during payload administration, which is not
possible if we use an H-bridge. We have chosen to use the A4988 stepper driver for these
reasons, although we will be prepared to implement a simpler method if need be.

26
 The control of our dropping mechanism will be relatively simple. We will be using an
identical servo motor to the one involved in our steering. We chose to use a servo over a low
RPM motor because it requires no extra cost (two servos were provided) and is easy to operate.
A DC motor would allow for continuous motor rotation, however this is not necessary so long as
the gear attached to the motor’s axel has a large enough radius.

27
6.0 Conclusion
With each aspect of the hovercraft, our team began with a few potential options to
achieve a specific function. For required functions of the hovercraft in which several feasible
options were identified, a decision matrix was used to select the best option when considering
key performance and construction parameters. Selections for functions such as selecting the best
dropping mechanism and hull material were decided in this way to reduce bias in the selection
process. For simpler parameters such as the number of fans to use for thrust vs. lift, lab results
and inspection of the scoring criteria provided sufficient data to select the best option. It was
through this calculated decision making process in which all of the brainstormed ideas were
subsequently evaluated that the final form of our teams hovercraft took shape. This process
showed the importance of data collection and research in determining the best solutions to a
problem. Doing the research and lab testing ultimately reduced the cost and time spent when
compared to a trial and error method while ending up with what would likely be the same end
result. The team is now moving towards the execution stage of the project in which we will start
constructing the hovercraft using plans outlined in this lab report. The work required to
physically construct the hovercraft will be divided into equal parts based on each group
member’s area of expertise. In this way we will be able to utilize a combination of each group
member’s strengths to minimize delays and maximize productivity during the final construction
process.

28
References

H. Nair, Aneesh & P Pai, Krishnanand & Varghese, Mathews & Bailysbt, Sunil. (2014).
Hovercraft Based Farming System. International Journal of Science and Research (IJSR).

Lewis, A. D., & Murray, R. M. (1997). Configuration controllability of simple mechanical

control systems. SIAM Journal on Control and Optimization, 35(3), 766-25.
doi:http://dx.doi.org.ezproxy.library.ubc.ca/10.1137/S0363012995287155

Merriam Webster (n.d.). Lagrangian. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-

webster.com/dictionary/Lagrangian

Pragyan. (2015). Basic hovercraft theory. Retrieved from

https://www.pragyan.org/15/home/events/core_engineering/hover_one/resources/Theory
%20of%20Hovercraft.pdf
Solenoid. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://hyperphysics.phy-
astr.gsu.edu/hbase/magnetic/solenoid.html

Statistics Canada. (2017, May 10). 2016 Census of Agriculture. Retrieved from
https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/170510/dq170510a-eng.htm

Tyner, D. R., & Lewis, A. D. (2004, December). Controllability of a hovercraft model (and two
general results). In 2004 43rd IEEE Conference on Decision and Control (CDC)(IEEE
Cat. No. 04CH37601) (Vol. 2, pp. 1204-1209). IEEE.

Woodford, C. (2018). Hovercraft. Retrieved from

https://www.explainthatstuff.com/hovercraft.html

Yun, L., & Bliault, A. (2000). Theory and design of air cushion craft. Elsevier.

29
4Wings. (n.d.). The Finger Skirt. Retrieved from http://4wings.com.phtemp.com/tip/finger.html

30
Appendix A: Additional Figures

Figure 2. Pressure concentration comparison of plenum designs (Pragyan, 2015)

Figure 3. Momentum curtain effect (Pragyan, 2015)

31
 Figure 4. Maximizing momentum curtain with flexible skirt (Woodford, 2018)

Figure 6. GANTT schedule created for rough timeline

32
 Figure 7. PERT task flow Commented [R22]: This is not a proper PERT for 258.
We would expect to see an activity on arrow. However,
you provided a good Gantt so this is overlooked

33
 Commented [R23]: Missing units on your plot

Figure 12. Shows the pressure field beneath the hull using a 0mm clearance

Figure 13. Shows the pressure field beneath the hull using a 1.93mm clearance

34
 Figure 14. Shows the pressure field beneath the hull using a 3.93mm clearance

Possible Earned
G2D Marks Marks
C1 5 2 Commented [R24]: Only equation attempt was in the
background section. However, it seemed to have no
C2 5 4 bearing on your subsequent design motivations. We
C3 10 10 expect to see more equation usage such as F=P*A to
help guide your design
C4 5 4.5
Commented [R25]: Certain topics were left out like
C5 5 2.5
drag. If you “assume” these are negligible as you
C6 10 8.5 design thought process suggests, you need to state
C7 10 8 why and how you came to that conclusion

C8 5 5 Commented [R26]: Some were never translated. E.g.

costs were not translated into requirements (no budget
C9 5 3 was presented)
C10 10 8.5 Commented [R27]: Some topics not well discussed
Late? -7/day such as arduino/controller use, budgeting, point scoring
formula. Claims/design features could have been better
Total 70 55.5 support through equation use
Commented [R28]: Only used scheduling software and
matlab plots. Expect to see better CAD usage
(components/circuits) and other visualizations.

35
36