Analysis For Fatigue Life of A Hexacopter Drone: Department of Mechanical Engineering

55
DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
Analysis for Fatigue Life of a Hexacopter Drone
MAJOR PROJECT REPORT

Submitted by
VIKHYAT J K 1RV17ME124
Under the Guidance Of
Dr. B S Suresh V. Shripathi

Technical Manager
Associate Professor
MSC Software Corporation Pvt
Dept of Mechanical Engineering Ltd.
RV College of Engineering
In partial fulfilment for the award of degree of

Bachelor of Engineering in
Mechanical Engineering 2020-2021
CERTIFICATE
This is to certify that the Minor Project work titled ‘Analysis for Fatigue Life of a Hexacopter
Drone’ is carried out by Vikhyat J K (1RV17ME124) who are bonafide students of RV College
of Engineering, Bengaluru, in partial fulfilment for the award of degree of Bachelor of
Engineering in Mechanical Engineering of the Visvesvaraya Technological University,
Belagavi during the year 2020-2021. It is certified that all corrections/suggestions indicated for
the Internal Assessment have been incorporated in the minor project report deposited in the
departmental library. The major project report has been approved as it satisfies the academic
requirements in respect of Major Project Work (16MEP81) prescribed by the institution for the
said degree.
Dr. B S Suresh Dr. M Krishna Dr. K N Subramanya

Associate Professor Prof. and Head Principal
Dept. of Mechanical Dept. of Mechanical RV College of Engineering
Engineering Engineering Bangalore
External Viva
Name of Examiners Signature with date
1.
2.
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE i

DECLARATION
I, Vikhyat J K (1RV17ME124), student of Eighth Semester B.E, Mechanical Engineering, RV

College of Engineering, Bengaluru hereby declare that the project titled Analysis for Fatigue
Life of a Hexacopter Drone is carried out by us and submitted in partial fulfilment for the
award of the Degree of Bachelor of Engineering in Mechanical Engineering for the academic
year 2020-2021.
Further we declare that the content of the project report has not been submitted previously by
anybody for the award of any degree or diploma to any other University.
We also declare that any Intellectual property rights generated out of this project carried out at
RVCE will be property of RV College of Engineering, Bengaluru and we will be only one of the
co-authors of the same.
Place: Bengaluru 1. Vikhyat J K

Date:
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE ii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
The successful completion of this project work was made possible through the valuable
contribution of a number of people. To say thank you to all of them is not even enough to
express our gratitude.
Our first debt of gratitude and deep regards must go to our guides Dr. B S Suresh, Associate
Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering and V Shripathi, Technical Manager of
MSC Software Corporation, for their valuable and inspiring guidance, wholehearted support,
suggestions, patience and constant encouragement throughout our project work and their
immense help in the preparation of this thesis. The blessing, help and guidance given by them
from time to time shall carry us a long way through our journey.
We also express our gratitude to our panel members Dr. Ramesh S Sharma, Dr. V L
Jagannatha Gupta, Dr. Bharatish A, Dr. P V Srihari and Dr. Gangadhar Angadi of the
Department of Mechanical Engineering for their valuable comments and suggestions.
Our sincere thanks to Dr. M. Krishna, Professor and Head, Department of Mechanical
Engineering, for his valuable suggestions and support to carry out the entire project work in the
facilities of the Department for their advice and encouragement throughout the project work.
Lastly, our special thanks go to our parents for their blessings have been a great source of
inspiration for us.
ABSTRACT
The global commercial drone market size was valued at USD 13.44 billion in 2020. It is expected
to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 57.5% from 2021 to 2028. Major fields
like agriculture, security, emergency need, etc. are using drones extensively in the recent years to
carry out their work more efficiently. Over a period of time, due to constant takeoff and landing,
drone landing gear and structure parts can suffer fatigue leading to damage of the payload. Lot of
research has gone into making these drones structurally strong but very few studies have gone
into studying the fatigue in the landing gear. The objective of this work was to analyze a drone
that is going to be used in the field of agriculture, thoroughly using Finite Element Methods,
locating major load and stress hotspots, and calculating life of the landing gear.
Company given drone model was studied and meshed on MSC Apex. From Literature,
Aluminium 6061 T6 properties were assigned to the landing gear and contacts whereas CFRP -
T300 3k/EA9396 8-harness satin weave fabric properties were applied to the hub and rotor tubes,
as a unidirectional fibre. Linear Static Analysis was performed by applying load of 83.8755N at
four points at the base of the landing gear and applying a single point constraint at the Centre of
Gravity. The static equilibrium was studied by comparing the Overall Load Resultant and
Reaction Force Resultant. Model Analysis was performed in free-free condition using Lanczos’
Method to verify the continuity of the model and check mode shapes. Further, fatigue analysis
was carried out on the drone landing gear using S-N Method, by converting the Static load to
cyclic loading. Peak value of the cyclic load spectrum was considered for different descent
speeds of 0.3m/s, 0.5m/s, 0.8m/s and 1m/s, for both conditions of landing – 4-point and 2-point
landing. Damage and Life was estimated.
Static Equilibrium was achieved in the drone, and maximum recorded stress was 67.210MPa.
Model Analysis confirmed continuity of the model. From the fatigue analysis, the output Damage
was 7.49 x 10-4 and the minimum number of cycles to failure on the model was found to be 1267
cycles. This was considered to be the worst-case scenario since peak loads were considered as
well as linear superposition of loading. This means that the drone can land and take off 1267
times in the worst case before the landing gear fails. Further, cross correlation between load cases
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE iv

can be done which may change the total life. Optimization of geometry and parts of the landing
gear and drone in order to increase the fatigue life can also be done in the future.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE v

DECLARATION ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT iii
ABSTRACT iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS vi
LIST OF FIGURES viii
LIST OF TABLES ix
LIST OF SYMBOLS x
Chapter 1: Introduction 11
1.1 Market Survey 11
1.2 Drones 11
1.3 Literature Review 12
1.3.1 Material Selection 12
1.3.2 Design of Landing Gear 13
1.3.3 Structural Analysis 13
1.4 Report Organization 14
Chapter 2: Subsystems of Drone & Theory of Finite Element Analysis 16
2.1 Subsystems of Drone: 16
2.2 Need for FEM for the Drone: 17
2.3 Static Analysis: 17
2.4 Normal Mode Analysis: 20
2.5 Fatigue 22
2.6 Complexity involved in the FE Analysis of the Drone: 26
2.7 Classical Lamination Theory: 27
2.8 Failure Theories for Composites 28
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE vi

Chapter 3: Project Overview 31
3.1 Problem Definition: 31
3.2 Project Methodology: 31
Chapter 4: Finite Element Analyses 33
4.1 Materials: 33
4.2 Static Analysis: 35
4.3 Calculation of Load for Four Point: 37
4.4 Static Analysis Results: 37
4.5 Normal Modes Analysis: 41
4.6 Cyclic Load Variation 45
Chapter 5: Results and Discussion 47
5.1 Damage Tolerance 48
5.2 Estimated Life 48
5.3 Interpretation of Results 49
Chapter 6: Conclusions and Future Scope 50
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE vii

LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Number Description Page Number
1.1 Increase in Drone Market Size 12
2.1 Fatigue Five Tick Box 23
2.2 Life Estimation Process 24
Depiction of Superposition of Loads to give Stress
2.3 distribution. 26
Highlighting element types on different parts of the drone
4.1 32
4.2 Drone FE Model 33
4.3 S-N Curve for Aluminium 6061 T6 34
4.4 Points of application of load for 4 Point condition 36
4.5 Points of application of load for 2 Point condition 37
4.6 Stress Plot for 2 Point Landing 39
4.7 Stress Plot for 4 Point Landing 40
4.8 Enlarged Image of Stress Hotspot for 4 Point Landing 41
4.9 Normal Modes – Mode 7 42
4.13 Previous Configuration of Landing Gear – Cantilever Type 45
New Configuration of Landing Gear – Simply Supported
4.14 Type 45
4.15 Points of Load Application 47
5.1 Damage Plot 48
5.2 Estimated Life 49
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE viii

LIST OF TABLES
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION UNITS
2.1 Failure Theories 28
4.1 Loading on Four points of the Landing Gear 37
4.2 Overall Load Resultant Table 38
4.3 Reaction Forces Resultant Table 38
4.4 Load Variation Tabulation 46
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE ix

LIST OF SYMBOLS
SYMBOL DESCRIPTION
K System Stiffness Matrix
u Grid Point Displacements
p Applied Load Vector
M Mass Matrix
C Damping Matrix
Rm Residue Matrix
ψm Vector representing Modal Shape
σ1 Plane Stress in x (or 1) direction
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE x

σ2 Plane Stress in y (or 2) direction
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE xi

ANALYSIS OF FATIGUE LIFE OF A HEXACOPTER DRONE
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Market Survey

The global commercial drone market size was valued at USD 13.44 billion in 2020. It is
expected to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 57.5% from 2021 to 2028. In
terms of volume, the demand was recorded at 689.4 thousand units in 2020. Drones are used for
multiple applications ranging from filmmaking to emergency response. Additionally, these
devices are witnessing a high demand in the real estate and construction sector owing to their
ability to survey lands, provide continuous and precise project notifications, improve safety, and
prevent dangerous incidents on construction sites. Business use cases for drones have witnessed
considerable growth over the past few years. Market participants such as drone manufacturers
and software solution providers are constantly engaged in designing, testing and improving
solutions for various markets [1].
Figure 1.1: Increase in Drone Market Size
BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE 12

1.2 Drones
The term “drone” usually refers to any unpiloted aircraft. Sometimes referred to as “Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles" (UAVs), these crafts can carry out an impressive range of tasks, ranging from
military operations to package delivery. Drones can be as large as an aircraft or as small as the
palm of the hand. Originally developed for the military and aerospace industries, drones have
found their way into the mainstream because of the enhanced levels of safety and efficiency they
bring. These robotic UAVs operate without a pilot on board and with different levels of
autonomy. A drone’s autonomy level can range from remotely piloted (a human controls its
movements) to advanced autonomy, which means that it relies on a system of sensors to control
its movement.
In the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak across the globe, there has been a considerable increase
in the utilization of drone technology across various scenarios, with drones proving to be of
immense assistance in such situations. Drones are being widely adopted in the healthcare sector
for lab sample pickup and delivery as well as transportation of medical supplies for reducing
transportation turnaround time and curtailing the exposure to infection. As per the UNICEF, so
far, more than eighteen countries have deployed drones for delivery and transportation purposes
during the pandemic.
The precision agriculture segment is anticipated to register the highest CAGR of over 60.0%
from 2021 to 2028, as drones have become one of the critical aspects for managing vital
operations of farms. Farmers across the globe are trying to reduce agricultural costs and expand
yields. With the help of drones, farmers and agriculture workers can gather farm data, automate
redundant processes and thus maximize efficiency. Additionally, drones assist farmers in
numerous tasks, including field monitoring and analysis and planning of crop plantations to
identify the growth and health of crops. Companies such as Raptor Maps, a U.S.-based
agriculture analytics provider, use drones to help farmers better understand their possible harvest
[1].

1.3 Literature Review
1.3.1 Material Selection

Proper selection of materials for the drone is a vital part of the design. The main factors
influencing the selection of materials are- ease of manufacturing, ease of welding, resistance to
fatigue and creep and cost. The material used should be able to withstand extremely high
vibrations, impact forces and should be lightweight. An important requirement of the drone is
that it should have a high precision and accuracy during flight. For this it is necessary to have
high strength to weight ratio, the key requirement.
Materials such as Balsa Wood, Carbon Fibre and Thermocol are used for base level drone
models. Materials like Rubber can be used to design flexible Landing Gears for these drones, but
it is not preferred. Aluminium, Steel and Titanium are the most commonly used materials for
drones due to their high strength and resistance to damage. Aluminium 7075 is a popular alloy
used for aerospace applications [2]. Newer materials like Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastics have
also started making a presence in the drone market due to high strength to weight ratio. [3]
1.3.2 Design of Landing Gear

Configuration of the Landing Gear is an extremely important consideration while analyzing a
drone since it is the component that needs to protect the main hub of the drone as well as resist
maximum impact in case of a hard landing.
Rotary winged aircraft main use two types of systems of landing gears. The oleo-strut landing
gear with wheels gives an advantage of initial taxi and take-off run capability but has a high cost
of design and is complex. Skid landing gear offers a simple design and reduction in empty
weight. Reduction in gross weight and empty weight of the drone are primary design concerns.
Hence making the landing gear have a high strength to weight ratio is in the hands of the material
selected. skid landing gears have been manufactured from elasto-plastic metal alloys, which
dissipate energy during plastic bending. Corrosion resistance concerns in metals and fatigue
performance can also be adequately addressed. [4]

1.3.3 Structural Analysis

Drones need to be analyzed in order to find the maximum stresses, stress hotspots, fatigue life.
These parameters insinuate how safe and well made the drone can be. Using MSC NASTRAN,
most of these analyses can be carried out. For performing FE analysis, it is important to define
all the forces acting on the frame. The weight of the frame and all components (including
payload) is normal to the ground [5]. Static loading involves a static study for calculating the
response of bodies on which loads are applied statically or slowly [6].
Each structure tends to vibrate with frequencies. A natural frequency study calculates the natural
frequencies, also adding the body’s mode shapes. [7] Dynamic Response Analyses give us the
variation of stresses with respect to more realistic cyclic load spectrum.
Fatigue Life Estimation is of utmost importance since it gives us the number of life cycles of
cyclic loading the drone can withstand [8]. A cycle of loading for a drone includes take-off,
landing, cruising, and maneuvering. Different forms of cyclic loading can be superposed to
produce a consolidated linear load function and applied to the given model. Multiple Loading
event strung together can be termed as a duty cycle [9]. Time histories of loading are processed
using the algorithm of Rain Flow counting i.e., slowly increasing stress value until damage
increase and leads to failure. This counting utilizes Miner’s Rule to give the Damage tolerance.
Damage from all cycles is summed to give Fatigue Life [10].
1.4 Research Gap

From literature survey, most studies were done on studying the materials of drone and structural
integrity of the drone itself, but very few studies focus mainly on the landing gear of the drone
itself. Studying the fatigue life of a drone landing gear and trying to increase it can yield
tremendous increase in the usability of drones in fields of lower income such as agriculture.
Development of the correct configure for landing gear also has not been dived into a lot. Hence
the present study was carried out to study the fatigue of the landing gear and decide a suitable
configuration.

1.5 Main Objectives of the Project

 To study the static stresses on the drone to ensure static equilibrium.
 To investigate the continuity of the drone model by performing a Modal Analysis
 Performing a fatigue analysis to estimate the life of drone landing gear.
Methodology followed to complete the project included using MSC Apex to mesh the drone
model, MSC Nastran and MSC Apex to compute the linear static analysis and the Model
Analysis, and CAE Fatigue to estimate the damage and life.
1.6 Report Organization

Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION: Gives a brief introduction about the market scenario and
introduction to drones, followed by literature review and organization of the report.
Chapter 2 SUBSYSTEMS OF DRONE AND THEORY OF FINITE ELEMENT

ANALYSIS: A brief introduction to drone subsystems and explanation of theory behind Static
Dynamic and Fatigue Analysis as well as some concepts related to composites.
Chapter 3 PROJECT OVERVIEW: Defines the objectives of the project work and the
methodology adopted to attain the defined objectives.
Chapter 4 FINITE ELEMENT ANALYSIS: Gives details about the Static and Normal Mode
Analysis, explains the output of those analyses and give information about the fatigue load
variation.
Chapter 5 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Shows the result of the fatigue analysis performed
in the form of Damage and Life.
Chapter 6 CONCLUSION AND FUTURE SCOPE: Presents conclusions of the project work
and presents concepts for future work that can be carried out.

Chapter 2: Theory of Finite Element Analysis
2.1 Need for FEM for the Drone:

Nearly any sort of design model in the industry can be tested for various factors including static-
stresses, deformation, fatigue, etc. by sacrificing test modules over and over again. This is
expensive and here comes the need for computer simulation to arrive at the aforementioned
results. It is a common practice now to use a test module to confirm the results of the computer
simulation.
In the case of the drone, it is impossible to keep building new test drones and crashing them for
the sake of testing until a reasonable model is arrived at. Hence static, dynamic and fatigue
analysis is very necessary to get results such as maximum stress, stress hotspots, natural
frequencies, fatigue life, etc. This helps to optimize the design even before the first prototype is
built.
2.2 Static Analysis:

Static Analysis is executed when one or multiple point time-invariant loads are applied at given
positions on the model. It is done to:
Check for static equilibrium i.e., to ensure that there are no unbalanced forces in the model.
1. To find the points of high and low stresses in the model.

2. To ensure proper stiffness distribution by examining the displacements.
When performing static analysis, using the finite element method, the structure is represented as
a collection of discrete elements. These elements can be thought of as building blocks from
which one can construct a model of the actual structure. Each element is connected to the
neighboring element at a node. The stiffness of the element is represented internally in the form
of a matrix called the Element Stiffness Matrix. The size of this matrix depends on the type of
element and the degrees of freedom associated with that element. All of the element stiffness
matrices are assembled into a single matrix called the global stiffness matrix. This global

stiffness matrix represents the total structural stiffness before the boundary conditions are
considered; therefore, the global stiffness matrix is, in general, a singular matrix. The physical
meaning of a singular stiffness matrix is that the whole structure or part of the structure can
displace as a free body without producing any internal forces in the members.
In static analysis, adequate boundary conditions must be applied to the model in order to prevent
any rigid body motion of the structure. Once the boundary conditions are applied to the model
appropriately, the global stiffness matrix is reduced to a nonsingular stiffness matrix representing
the constrained structure. If no boundary condition is applied, the global stiffness matrix remains
as a singular matrix and the solution becomes trivial. All the loads that are applied to the model
are combined to form the load vector.
After the constrained stiffness matrix and the load vector are generated, the static equilibrium
matrix equation given below is solved as follows:
[ K ] {u }={ p }
where,
[ K ] = system stiffness
{ u } = grid point displacements
{ p } = applied load vector
The unknowns in the above equation are the displacements { u } at the grid points in the model.
Determining the displacements involves the inversion of the stiffness matrix [ K ] and multiplying
it by the force vector { p }. In reality, the process of inverting a matrix is too time consuming;
therefore, a process based on the Gauss elimination method is used. The resulting displacements
are the same--the solution process is just faster.
Once the displacements at the grid points are known, any desired outputs, such as element forces,
strains and stresses can be computed.


2.3 Normal Mode Analysis:

A Normal Mode is a pattern of oscillatory motion in which all the parts of the system move
sinusoidally with a common frequency and a fixed phase relation. The eigenvalues are the
natural frequencies of vibration. The generalized wave equation that governs this is -
M ẍ ( t )+C ẋ ( t )+ Kx (t)=f (t ) …………………… (Eq No. 1)
where 𝑀, 𝐶and 𝐾 are respectively 𝑛 × 𝑛 mass, damping, and stiffness matrices. 𝑛 is the number
of degrees of freedom of the system.
Eq No 1 above can be solved for two conditions.
1. When f ( t )=0, the solution of the resulting homogenous equation results in the Normal
Modes of vibration, also called Eigen Vectors, of the structure and the corresponding
Natural Frequencies or Eigen Values. In this process, damping C = 0. These Normal
Modes are called Undamped Normal Modes.
2. When f ( t ) ≠ 0, the solution is called the response of the system to the specified dynamic
force.
These conditions are further elaborated below. [11]
Transforming the above equation to the Laplace Domain –
Z ( s ) X ( s )=F (s )
With Z ( s ) the dynamic stiffness matrix
Z ( s )=M s2 +Cs+ K
The transfer function matrix 𝐻(𝑠) between displacement and force vectors, 𝑋(𝑠) = 𝐻(𝑠)𝐹(𝑠),
equals the inverse of the dynamic stiffness matrix
−1 N ( s)
H (s)=[ M s 2+ Cs+ K ] =
d ( s)
With the numerator polynomial matrix 𝑁(𝑠) given by:

N ( s )=adj( M s 2 +Cs+ K )
And the common-denominator polynomial 𝑑(𝑠), also known as the characteristic polynomial:
d ( s)=det( M s 2 +Cs+ K )
When the damping is small, the roots of the characteristic polynomial 𝑑(𝑠) are complex
conjugate pole pairs, 𝜆m and 𝜆m*, 𝑚 = 1, . . . , 𝑁m, with the number of modes system. The transfer
function can be rewritten in a pole-residue form:
Nm
Rm R¿
H ( s )= ∑ ( + m¿ )
m=1 s−λm s−λ m
The residue matrices 𝑅m*, 𝑚 = 1,2, . . . , 𝑁m are defined by:
Rm = lim H ( s ) (s−λ m )
s → λm
It can be shown that the rank of the matrix 𝑅m is 𝑚 that 𝑅m can be decomposed as:
ψ m (1)
Rm =ψ m ψ Tm =
{ }…
ψ m (N m )
[ψ m ( 1 ) … ψ m ( N m ) ]
with 𝜓m a vector representing the “modal shape” of mode 𝑚. From the above H(s) equation, it is
obvious that the full transfer function matrix is completely characterized by the modal
parameters, the poles 𝜆𝑚 = −𝜎𝑚 + 𝑖𝜔𝑑,𝑚, and the mode shape vectors 𝜓𝑚, 𝑚 = 1,2, . . . , 𝑁𝑚.
There are many methods to find the eigenvalues like Givens Method, Householder’s Method,
Lanczos’ Method, Inverse Power Method, etc. The algorithm used in this project was the
Lanczos’ Method as it overcomes the limitations and combines the best features of the other
methods which are iterative in nature thus consuming more time. It requires that the mass matrix
be positive semidefinite, and the stiffness be symmetric. Like the transformation methods, it does
not miss roots, but has the efficiency of the tracking methods, because it only makes the
calculations necessary to find the roots requested by the user. This method computes accurate
eigenvalues and eigenvectors. Unlike the other methods, its performance has been continually

enhanced since its introduction giving it an advantage. The Lanczos’ method is the preferred
method for most medium- to large-sized problems, since it has a performance advantage over
other methods.
A real structure has infinite degrees of freedom. However, the analytical model has a finite
number of degrees of freedom and the question is how many degrees of freedom need to be
considered. To address this issue. to the concept of modal effective mass is introduced. Each
Normal Mode depicts a certain percentage of the total mass, called the modal effective mass.
Theoretically speaking when a normal mode is reached where the modal effective mass is 85%
of the total mass, the range of frequencies considered in the modal analysis should take care of
the total mass of the structure. However, it is difficult to capture the exact total mass within the
finite element model. Hence, 85% of the total mass is acceptable and can be calculated as modal
effective mass in MSC NASTRAN Normal Modes analysis.
There are a few reasons why Normal Mode / Modal Analysis is necessary –
1. To assess the dynamic interaction between a component and its supporting structure
2. Decisions regarding subsequent dynamic analyses (i.e., transient response, frequency
response, etc.) can be based on the results of modal analysis.
3. Design changes can also be evaluated by using natural frequencies and normal modes.
2.4 Fatigue
Fatigue is a failure under a repeated or otherwise varying load which never reaches a level
sufficient to cause failure in a single application. It can also be thought of as the initiation and
growth of a crack, or growth from a pre-existing defect, until it reaches a critical size, such as
separation into two or more parts.

Figure 2.1: Fatigue Five Tick Box
Any Fatigue Analysis model follows the concept of Fatigue “Five Tick Box” shown in figure
2.2. The first three boxes show the inputs necessary for life estimation. The fourth box is for
analysis and the last one is results. [6]
1. Cyclic Material Information: Materials behave differently when subjected to cyclic

loading as opposed to when they are subjected to monotonic loading. Cyclic Properties
are determined from material tests where loading is cycled and reversed until failure at
different load levels.
2. Service Loading Information: Proper specification of the load variation is extremely
important for accurate life estimation. The loading can be defined in various manners. It
can be time dependent, frequency dependent or can be in the form of a spectrum
depending on the type of fatigue analysis to be done.
3. Geometry Information: Geometry has a different meaning depending on whether the
point of discussion is a finite element model or a test specimen. In the case of a test
specimen, the geometry input would be the stress concentration factor, Kt since the point
of failure is away from the actual point of measurement. The corresponding role in a FE
Model is to produce fields of K t over the entire model with the added point that the local
stress concentration factors are in the form of stress tensors.
4. Analysis: It is important for the above three inputs to be accurate since the analysis
procedure for fatigue is logarithmic i.e., 10% error in any field could result in 100% error

in the fatigue result. In a conventional finite element-based fatigue analysis, the 4th box
often contains both the stress prediction and fatigue life calculation.
5. Results: The last box pertains to postprocessing and result evaluation. This can take on
the form of color contours on a finite element model or a tabular listing but also quite
often leads back into the three inputs to see what effect variations of these inputs will
have on the life prediction. This is referred to as a sensitivity study.
Life Estimation depends on two major relationships as shown in Figure 2.3:
1. Relation between loading environment to the stresses and strains in the component.
2. Relation of stresses and strains to the life of the component
Figure 2.2: Life Estimation Process
There are 3 main methods used to predict fatigue life. It is important to understand when to use
which method.
1. Stress Life (S-N or Total Life) - Long life or High Cycle Fatigue (HCF) problems, where
there is little Plasticity since the S-N method is based on nominal stress. Components
where crack initiation or crack growth modeling is not appropriate, e.g., composites,
welds, plastics, and other non-ferrous materials. Also used in situations when situations
where large amounts of pre-existing S-N data exist.

2. Strain Life (-N or Crack Initiation) - Mostly defect free, metallic structures or
components. Components where crack initiation is the important Failure Criterion.
Locating the point(s) where cracks may initiate, and hence the growth of a crack should
be considered.
3. Crack Growth (Damage Tolerant Design) - Pre-cracked structures or structures which
must be presumed to be already cracked when manufactured such as welds. Prediction of
test programs to avoid testing components where cracks will not grow.
The procedure used in this project is the Stress Life or Total Life Approach.
As mentioned earlier, fatigue analysis requires three main inputs: geometry, materials, and the
cyclic load variations. Special material properties are used in the form of stress-life (S-N). The
plasticity that occurs due to the cyclic loading is built into these curves and methods used as look
up tables and corrections to equate linear stress (range and mean) to life. The cyclic variations of
the loading are defined in typical table format and are used to scale the stress distribution.
Multiple, simultaneously applied loads are combined using the principle of linear superposition
to produce the stress time variations. These time histories are then processed through a "rain
flow” cycle count algorithm to determine the range and mean of each stress cycle. Damage is
determined using the tried-and-true methods of the total life (S-N) to determine fatigue life.
Damage from all cycles is summed and reported as life values. Multiple loading events can be
strung together to form a sequence of events, commonly known as a duty cycle, shown in Figure
2.4. Damage from each event is summed to give life due to the entire duty cycle.
Figure 2.3 Depiction of Superposition of Loads to give Stress distribution.

2.5 Classical Lamination Theory:

In the structural application of a composite, multiple laminae of unidirectional composites are
stacked at various angles to form a laminate. The sequence of stacking and orientations of the
layers give the laminate designer added freedom to optimize the design with respect to strength,
stiffness, buckling load, vibration response, panel flutter or other performance objectives.
The importance of the classical lamination theory is to predict the laminate behavior from a
knowledge of the material properties of the individual layers and the geometry of the laminate.
Classical lamination theory is based upon the following simplifying engineering assumptions
[12] –
1. Each layer is thin and constructed of macroscopically homogeneous, orthotropic, linear-

elastic material.
2. The entire laminate and all of the individual layers are assumed to be in a state of plane
stress.
3. The layers are perfectly bonded together.
4. The Kirchhoff hypothesis is invoked, i.e., plane, normal cross sections of the entire
laminate before deformation remain plane, normal to the deflected middle surface, and do
not change in thickness.
2.6 Failure Theories for Composites

While analyzing isotropic materials, strength is not dependent on the orientation of the body and
the maximum principal stress can be compared to the allowable to understand the integrity of the
structure. However, Orthotropic materials may exhibit different properties for tension and
compression separately. Thus, the strength of these orthotropic laminae is a function of body
orientation relative to the imposed stresses.
The set of established allowable stresses in the principal material directions are given as follows:
Xt = Allowable tensile stress in the principal x (or 1) direction of the material.

Xc = Allowable compressive stress in the principal x (or 1) direction of the material.
Yt = Allowable tensile stress in the principal y (or 2) direction of the material.
Yc = Allowable compressive stress in the principal y (or 2) direction of the material.
S = Allowable shear stress in the principal material system.
Expressions for the different failure indices are shown in Table 2.1:
Table 2.1: Failure Theories

Failure Theory used was Tsai Wu.
The theory of strength for anisotropic materials proposed by Tsai and Wu specialized to the case
of an orthotropic lamina in a general state of plane stress is
F 1 σ 1 + F 2 σ 2+ F 11 σ 21 + F 22 σ 22 +2 F12 σ 1 σ 2 + F66 σ 212=FI
where,
1 1
F1 = −
Xt X c
1 1
F2 = −
Yt Yc
+1
F 11 =
xt x c
+1
F 22 =
yt yc

1
F 66 = +
s2
F 12 in the given Tsai Wu Failure Criteria is to be determined experimentally.
The magnitude of F 12 is constrained by the following inequality called Stability Criterion:
2
F 11 F 22−F12 >0
The failure index of the bonding material will be calculated as the maximum allowable inter
laminar shear stress divided by the allowable of the banding material.

Chapter 3: Project Methodology
3.1 Problem Definition:

It is a widely known fact that many disciplines such as security, agriculture, etc. are using drones
in order to improve accessibility, provide more automated outcomes and also speed up many
processes. In fact, the full form of the word ‘Drone’ is Dynamic Remotely Operated Navigation
Equipment. These drones carry a certain amount of payload and are subjected to constant cyclic
loading on landing, taking off, cruising and maneuvering. This cyclic loading induces fatigue in
critical parts of the drone and if not kept in check, would lead to failure. Hence, it is important to
study the fatigue of the given model and estimate the fatigue life of the drone in order to avoid
any situation that leads to failure of any component of the drone. This is also important from the
commercial angle.
3.2 Project Methodology:

An initial drone model, provided by a Design Agency, was divided into the main hub and rotor
tubes group and the landing gear group. The existing landing gear, as originally proposed, was
replaced by a new landing gear designed and connectivity was re-established. Normal Mode
analysis was performed to ensure the connectivity of the model. Four Point and Two Point loads
were applied subsequently as transient load in order to perform a transient response. This was
expected to simulate the Landing Impact. The load was then converted into a cyclic load for
fatigue analysis. Fatigue material properties were applied to the parts of the landing gear and
fatigue analysis, using the CAE Fatigue module, was performed.


Chapter 4: Numerical Studies of Drone Model
4.1 Subsystems of Drone:

Drone FEM depicted in Figure 2.1
1. Hub: The central portion of the drone having a cavity in its middle to carry the payload
assigned to the drone. It comprises of two plates horizontally placed parallel to each other
and connected by six vertical plates.
2. Rotor Tube: Main tubes connecting the hub to the rotor hub and blades. In the drone,
which is being analyzed in this report, there are six such tubes.
3. Landing Gear: Cantilever type landing gear structure, connected to the hub of the drone
through attachments and bolts. It is vital part of the drone body as it has to bear the
impact during landing and also support its static weight. Hence correct design and
analysis of a drone’s landing gear is vital to avoid significant damage to the end product.
Figure 4.1: Drone FE Model

4.2 Complexity involved in the FE Analysis of the Drone:

The Hexacopter Agri-Drone, being considered in the present study, has a complex and dense
finite element model. All the load bearing components such as the landing gear tubes, the rotor
tubes and also structural elements like the hub plates have all been meshed using 2D
quadrilateral elements, for the sake of simplifying the analysis, shown in Figure 2.5. The element
size 2mm which leads to an extremely fine mesh. All connector elements were meshed using 3D
tetrahedral elements. All connections were made using Rigid Body Elements and Bushings in
order to simulate bolts.
Figure 4.2: Highlighting element types on different parts of the drone
4.3 Materials:
1. Aluminium 6061 T6 – This alloy of Aluminium has Zinc as its primary alloying element.
Exhibits good ductility, high strength, toughness, and good resistance to fatigue. Mainly
utilized in aerospace applications. The mechanical properties of this alloy depend on the
tempering (Heat Treatment) of the material. T6 temper is achieved by homogenizing the
cast 6061 at 450°C for several hours, quenching, and then ageing at 120°C for 24 hours.

E = 71.7GPa
Yield Stress = 265MPa
Ultimate Tensile Strength = 305MPa
Figure 4.3: S-N Curve for Aluminium 6061 T6
2. Carbon Fibre Reinforced Plastic - T300 3k/EA9396 8-harness satin weave fabric.
Fibre - T300 3k fibers are continuous carbon filaments made from PAN precursor,
surface treated to improve handling characteristics and structural properties. Filament
count is 3,000 filaments per tow.
Matrix - EA9396 is a 200°F curing toughened epoxy resin with improved hot/wet
properties. 75-minute pot life for 1 lb. batch. This resin is a two-part, unfilled version of
EA 9394.
Properties have been taken from the composite materials handbook
Exx = 51760MPa
Eyy = 51760MPa

Gxy = 3516MPa
Rho = 1.8e-6 kg/mm3
Xt = 406.43 MPa
Yt = 406.43 MPa
Xc = 365.78 MPa
Yc = 365.78 MPa
IPS = 33MPa
Allowable shear stress of the bonding material = 25.172MPa
As mentioned above, the hub and the rotor tubes of the drone are made of T300 CFRP. It was
modelled in the software using Classical Lamination Theory (CLT).
4.4 Static Analysis:

The weight of the drone is calculated to be 37.8kg.
Static Analysis was done for two conditions on the model.

1. Four Point Landing: This is the type of landing where the whole base of the landing gear
is parallel to the ground below. This is a case of normal landing and is the most common
in any regular situation. The forces for this condition need to be applied at four points at
the base of the landing gear.
Figure 4.4 Points of application of load for 4 Point condition
2. Two Point Landing: A couple of times, the drone might accidentally land slanted such
that in its initial touchdown, only one of the sides of the landing gear touches the ground
and experiences the entire landing load.

Figure 4.5: Points of Application of Forces for 2-Point Loading
For both conditions, the vertical landing speed (Sink Rate) considered was 0.3m/s. For Four
Point landing the load at each point was calculated as 5.7kg and for 2-point landing it was
calculated as 16.2 kg.
Table 4.1: Loading on Four points of the Landing Gear
4.5 Calculation of Load for Four Point:

Given Load acting at each of these point = 5.7kg * 9.81m/s^2 = 55.917N

Considering Factor of Safety of 1.5 (RPAS Certification Criteria) = 55.917 * 1.5 = 83.8755N
Total Force including all the points = 83.8755 * 4 = 335.502N
4.6 Static Analysis Results:

Table 4.2: Overall Load Resultant Table
Table 4.3: Reaction Forces Resultant Table

Table 4.2 and Table 4.3 show the Applied Load Resultant and the Constraint Forces. It is
observed that the values are equal and opposite in sign confirming static equilibrium.
Figure 4.6: Stress Plot for 2 Point Landing

Figure 4.7: Stress Plot for 4 Point Landing
Figure 4.6 and Figure 4.7 show the stress plots for Two Point landing and Four Point landing,
respectively. This gives the value for maximum stress and its location. An enlarged image of the
stress hotspot is shown in Figure 4.8.
For 2-Point Landing, Maximum Stress = 179.171MPa
For 4-Point Landing, Maximum Stress = 67.210MPa
Figure 4.8: Enlarged Image of Stress Hotspot for 4 Point Landing

4.7 Normal Modes Analysis:

Since the model is in free-free condition, the first six natural frequencies extracted from the
analysis are rigid body modes. From the seventh mode, flexible modes are observed. Figures 4.9
through 4.12 depict modes seven through ten.
Figure 4.9: Mode 7

Figure 4.10: Mode 8
Figure 4.11: Mode 9

Figure 4.12: Mode 10
After performing the above to analyses, it is evident that the stress concentration is maximum at
the Landing Gear since to has to withstand the most amount of loading. Hence, subsequent
dynamic and fatigue analysis was done on the model of the landing gear alone as:
1. To simplify the analysis process

2. If any component was to fail first, it would be the landing gear.
The landing gear was converted from a cantilever structure to a simply supported structure to
improve stress distribution.

Figure 4.13: Previous Configuration of Landing Gear – Cantilever Type
Fi
gure 4.14: New configuration of Landing Gear – Simply Supported Type

4.8 Cyclic Load Variation

Table 4.4: Load Variation Tabulation
Descent Speed (m/s) Load (N)

Load Case
F1 F2 R1 R2
1 127.86 127.86 127.86 127.86
0.30
2 255.71 0.00 255.71 0.00
3 204.57 204.57 204.57 204.57
4 0.00 409.14 0.00 409.14

0.50
5 409.14 409.14 0.00 0.00
6 0.00 0.00 409.14 409.14
7 294.07 294.07 294.07 294.07

0.75
8 588.14 0.00 588.14 0.00
9 389.96 389.96 389.96 389.96

1.00
10 0.00 779.93 0.00 779.93

Figure 4.15: Points of Load Application (Refer Table 4.4)
Table 4.4 shows the different loads at different points on the base of the landing gear as shown in
the figure 4.13, at different descent speeds. All the load cases shown in the table are considered
to be cyclic loading, depicting different types of landing i.e., four-point or two-point landing.
Load cases 1, 3, 7 and 9 depict four-point landing and Load Cases 2, 4, 5, 6, 8 and 10 depict two-
point landing of different combinations.
The loads depicted are the maximum possible load of the entire cycle of load for each decent
speed. These maximum loads are considered as the worst-case scenario to get the lowest number
of cycles to failure.

Chapter 5: Results and Discussion

All the load cases shown in Table 4.4 were superposed with each other and the superposed
function was applied as one duty cycle onto the model as shown in Figure 4.14 in the time load
scheduler.
Figure 4.14: CAE Fatigue performing the Fatigue.

5.1 Damage Tolerance

When the time history is processed, CAE Fatigue uses Rain Flow counting to give the Damage
on the structure based in the duty cycle of loading applied. Figure 5.1 shows the damage to the
structure.
Figure 5.1: Damage Plot
As seen on the fringes on the right, the maximum damage value is 7.49e-04, which is a lot lesser
than 1. Since damage value is less than one, in one duty cycle, there is no failure seen.
5.2 Estimated Life

In a similar way as shown in the previous sub chapter, life of different parts of the Landing Gear
is shown for the given time history in Figure 5.2.

Figure 5.2: Estimated Life
At the base of the landing gear the, the number of cycles crosses 1018 cycles of loading whereas
at the top, it can withstand 1267 cycles of loading. This is a worst-case scenario since the
maximum load for all cyclic loading has been considered and all load cases have been linearly
superposed.
5.3 Interpretation of Results

In Static Analysis, the Overall Load Resultant and Single Point Constraint Reaction Forces are
balancing each other, meaning that the structure has static equilibrium.
In Modal Analysis, all flexible modes show continuity in the model. Both static and normal
modes show the landing gear has the maximum stress and least deflection. Hence only the
Landing Gear was considered for Fatigue.
In Fatigue analysis, it is to be noted that both maximum damage and least number of cycles to
failure is tending towards the top part of the landing gear although the load history is at the base
of the landing gear. This is due to buckling in the vertical tubes of the landing gear. Buckling can
cause a decrease in life of almost 1014 cycles in total.

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Future Scope

Drone technology has been a particularly important field in the recent year and will continue to
grow in popularity owing. Analyzing drones for stresses and fatigue will always be important
given the amount of money spent to building them. Most companies that purchase drones of
higher caliber will not want to constantly get it repaired or replaced. Hence, getting these
analyses correct is highly necessary.
 Static Analysis shows that the drone model satisfies static equilibrium and is structurally
intact.
 Modal Analysis confirmed the continuity of the model.
 Landing Gear of any drone model is the prime focus of fatigue analysis due to the high
loads and stresses to faces.
 Simply supported landing gear is preferred over a cantilever type landing gear due to
more even load distribution.
 Fatigue Analysis of the landing gear shows that the landing gear can withstand 1267 load
cycles in the worst-case scenario.
Mentioned below are the future possibilities of this project:
 Optimize drone design to increase fatigue life.

 Usage of newer materials and draw a comparison with current model.
 Usage of Composites in the entire model and to see how it compares.
 Cross corelating the load cases in order to get a more realistic life estimation.
 Validating the simulation results with real life testing of drone model

References
[1] Commercial Drone Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product (Fixed-wing,
Rotary Blade, Hybrid), By Application, By End-use, By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2021 –
2028 (Page 1)
[2] Jin-feng LI; Zhuo-wei PENG; Chao-xing LI; Zhi-qiang JIA; Wen-jing CHEN; Zi-qiao
ZHENG (2008). Mechanical properties, corrosion behaviors and microstructures of 7075
aluminum alloy with various aging treatments. , 18(4), 0–762. (Page 1-3)
[3] Balachandran, A., Divyesh Karelia, Jayaramulu Challa and Conceicao Rodrigues.
“MATERIAL SELECTION FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE.” , International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Technology (2014), (Page no. 35 – 38)
[4] Shrotri, Kshitij; Schrage, Daniel (2009). Composite Skid Landing Gear Design Feasibility.
Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 54(4), 042004–. (Page No. 042004-1 to 042004-3)
[5] M Urdea, Stress and Vibration Analysis of a Drone, 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng.
1009 012059 (Page No. 1 – 3)
[6] MSC Nastran 2021.1 Linear Static User Guide (Page No. 18-30)
[7] MSC Nastran 2021.1 Dynamic Analysis User Guide (Page No.42-49)
[8] MSC Nastran 2021.1 Embedded Fatigue User Guide (Page No. 2-8)
[9] Reddy, S. and Yadav, V., "Duty Cycle Fatigue Simulation for Differential Casing," SAE
Technical Paper 2012-01-0813, 2012 (Page No. 1 – 5)
[10] Singh, KL & Ranganath, VR. (2007). Cycle counting using rainflow algorithm for fatigue
analysis. Struetural Integrity Division, NAL (Page No. 301 – 302)
[11] Chen, Jinbao & Nie, Hong & Zhang, Zemei & Li, Lichun. (2014). Finite element linear
static structural analysis and modal analysis for Lunar Lander. Journal of Vibroengineering. 16.
(Page No. 399-406.)

[12] Pendleton, Richard L.; Tuttle, Mark E. (1989). Manual on Experimental Methods for
Mechanical Testing of Composites || Classical Lamination Theory. , 10.1007/978-94-009-1129-
1(Chapter 3), (Page No. 11–16).

Internship Request

Analysis For Fatigue Life of A Hexacopter Drone: Department of Mechanical Engineering

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Analysis For Fatigue Life of A Hexacopter Drone: Department of Mechanical Engineering

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

55

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

Analysis for Fatigue Life of a Hexacopter Drone

MAJOR PROJECT REPORT

Under the Guidance Of

Dr. B S Suresh V. Shripathi

In partial fulfilment for the award of degree of

Dr. B S Suresh Dr. M Krishna Dr. K N Subramanya

Name of Examiners Signature with date

BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE i

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

I, Vikhyat J K (1RV17ME124), student of Eighth Semester B.E, Mechanical Engineering, RV

Place: Bengaluru 1. Vikhyat J K

BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE ii

BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE iv

BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE v

LIST OF FIGURES viii

1.1 Market Survey 11

1.3 Literature Review 12

1.3.1 Material Selection 12

1.3.2 Design of Landing Gear 13

1.3.3 Structural Analysis 13

1.4 Report Organization 14

Chapter 2: Subsystems of Drone & Theory of Finite Element Analysis 16

2.1 Subsystems of Drone: 16

2.2 Need for FEM for the Drone: 17

2.3 Static Analysis: 17

2.4 Normal Mode Analysis: 20

2.6 Complexity involved in the FE Analysis of the Drone: 26

2.7 Classical Lamination Theory: 27

2.8 Failure Theories for Composites 28

BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE vi

Chapter 3: Project Overview 31

3.1 Problem Definition: 31

3.2 Project Methodology: 31

Chapter 4: Finite Element Analyses 33

4.2 Static Analysis: 35

4.3 Calculation of Load for Four Point: 37

4.4 Static Analysis Results: 37

4.5 Normal Modes Analysis: 41

4.6 Cyclic Load Variation 45

Chapter 5: Results and Discussion 47

5.1 Damage Tolerance 48

5.2 Estimated Life 48

5.3 Interpretation of Results 49

Chapter 6: Conclusions and Future Scope 50

BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE vii

BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE viii

2.1 Failure Theories 28

4.1 Loading on Four points of the Landing Gear 37

4.2 Overall Load Resultant Table 38

4.3 Reaction Forces Resultant Table 38

4.4 Load Variation Tabulation 46

BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE ix

K System Stiffness Matrix

u Grid Point Displacements

p Applied Load Vector

ψm Vector representing Modal Shape

σ1 Plane Stress in x (or 1) direction

BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE x

σ2 Plane Stress in y (or 2) direction

BE- Mechanical Engineering-Dept of Mechanical Engg. RVCE xi