Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-xfwgj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T12:31:00.610Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Aeroelastic effects of battens on the flight dynamics of a MAV

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

J. Babcock  and
R. Lind
J. Babcock*
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Florida, USA
R. Lind
Affiliation:
University of Florida, Florida, USA
*
jtbabcock@gmail.com
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wing flexibility is well established as providing gust rejection and delayed onset of stall for micro air vehicles. As such, many designs adopt wings of a flexible material mounted onto a skeleton comprised of a stiff leading-edge spar and stiff chordwise strips, called battens. These battens are shown to provide additional strength at localised regions of the wing and thus improve the gust rejection and delay stall; however, their effect on the flight dynamics is less studied. Using a numerical modeling approach, this paper explores a design space of vehicles with a varied number of wing battens mounted onto a baseline vehicle with a flexible wing. The battens are modelled as stepwise changes in torsional stiffness along the wing span. The resulting trim characteristics, static stability metrics and flight dynamics are evaluated. The battens are shown to improve gust rejection but otherwise have a complicated effect across the design space. A reduction in the number of battens improves the longitudinal static stability derivative slightly but lowers the lateral and directional static stability. The damping is decreased for the short period mode and increased for the phugoid and dutch roll modes as the number of battens is reduced.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 118 , Issue 1207 , September 2014 , pp. 985 - 1008
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Abdulrahim, M., Garcia, H., Ivey, G.F. and Lind, R. Flight Testing A Micro Air Vehicle Using Morphing For Aeroservoelastic Control, 45th Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, number AIAA-2004-1674, Palm Springs, CA, USA, 2004.Google Scholar
2. Abdulrahim, M., Garcia, H. and Lind, R. Flight characteristics of shaping the membrane wing of a micro air vehicle, J Aircr, 2005, 421, pp 131–136.Google Scholar
3. Abdulrahim, M. and Lind, R. Flight Testing and Response Characteristics of a Variable Gull-Wing Morphing Aircraft, AIAA Guidance, Navigation and Control Conference and Exhibit, number AIAA-2004-5113, Providence, RI, USA, 2004.Google Scholar
4. Albertani, R., Stanford, B., Hubner, J.P. and Ifju, P.G. Aerodynamic coeffcients and deformation measurements on fexible micro air vehicle wings, J Experimental Mechanics, 2007, 47, pp 625–635.Google Scholar
5. Chatterjee, S. and Templin, R.J. Posture, locomotion and paleoecology of pterosaurs, Geological Society of America Special Publication, 376, 2004.Google Scholar
6. Combes, S.A. and Daniel, T.L. Flexural stiffness in insect wings, J Experimental Biology, 2003, 206, pp 2989–2997.Google Scholar
7. Drela, M. Integrated Simulation Model for Preliminary Aerodynamic, Structural, and Control-Law Design of Aircraft. 40th Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference and Exhibit, number AIAA-1999-1394, St Louis, MO, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
8. Drela, M. Method for simultaneous wing aerodynamic and structural load prediction, J Aircr, 1990, 27, (8), pp 692–699.Google Scholar
9. Drela, M. and Youngren, H. AVL (Athena Vortex Lattice) Software Package, Version 3.31. http://web.mit.edu/drela/Public/web/avl/ (retrieved 2 July 2012).Google Scholar
10. Ifju, P.G., Ettinger, S., Jenkins, D.A. and Martinez, L. Composite materials for micro air vehicles, Proceedings of the 46th International Society for the Advancement of Material and Process Engineering Symposium and Exhibition, pp 1926–1937, Long Beach, CA, USA, 2001.Google Scholar
11. Ifju, P.G., Jenkins, D.A., Ettinger, S., Lian, Y., Shyy, W. and Waszak, M.R. Flexible-Wing-Based Micro Air Vehicles, 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, number AIAA-2002-0705, Reno, NV, USA, 2002.Google Scholar
12. Lian, Y. and Shyy, W. Numerical simulations of membrane wing aerodynamics for micro air vehicles applications, J Aircr, 2005, 42, (4), pp 865–874.Google Scholar
13. Lian, Y., Shyy, W., Viieru, D. and Zhang, B. Membrane wing aerodynamics for micro air vehicles, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2003, 39, pp 425–465.Google Scholar
14. Maekawa, S., Nakadate, M. and Takegaki, A. Structures of the low-altitude stationary fight test vehicle, J Aircraft, 2007, 44, (2), pp 662–666.Google Scholar
15. Murphy, D.M., Murphey, T.W. and Gierow, P.A. Scalable solar-sail subsystem design concept, J Spacecraft and Rockets, 2003, 40, (4), pp 539–548.Google Scholar
16. Noll, T.E., Brown, J.M., Perez-Davis, M.E., Ishmael, S.D., Tiffany, G.C. and Gaier, M. Investigation of the Helios Prototype Aircraft Mishap Volume I: Mishap Report. Technical report, NASA Langley Research Center, 2004.Google Scholar
17. Ulla, M. and Norberg, L. Structure, form and function of fight in engineering and the living world, J Morphology, 2002, 252, (1), pp 52–81.Google Scholar
18. Pennycuick, C.J. Gliding fight of the dog-faced bat rousettus aegyptiacus observed in a wind tunnel, J Experimental Biology, 1971, 55, pp 833–845.Google Scholar
19. Shyy, W., Berg, M. and Ljungqvist, D. Flapping and fexible wings for biological and micro air vehicles, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 1999, 35, (5), pp 455–505.Google Scholar
20. Sriram, P., Hanagud, S. and Craig, J. Mode shape measurement using a scanning laser doppler vibrometer, J Analytical and Experimental Modal Analysis, 1992, 7, pp 169–178.Google Scholar
21. Stanbridge, A.B. and Ewins, D.J. Modal testing using a scanning laser doppler vibrometer, Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing, 1999, 13, pp 255–270.Google Scholar
22. Stanford, B., Albertani, R. and Ifju, P. Static fnite element validation of a fexible micro air vehicle, J Experimental Mechanics, 2007, 47, pp 283–294.Google Scholar
23. Stanford, B., Ifju, P., Albertani, R. and Shyy, W. Fixed membrane wings for micro air vehicles: experimental characterization, numerical modeling, and tailoring, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2008, 44, pp 258–294.Google Scholar
24. Stanford, B., Abdulrahim, M., Lind, R. and Ifju, P. Investigation of membrane actuation for roll control of a micro air vehicle, J Aircr, 2007, 44, (3), pp 741–749.Google Scholar
25. Stanford, B. and Ifju, P. Aeroelastic topology optimization of membrane structures for micro air vehicles, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2009, 38, (3), pp 301–316.Google Scholar
26. Stewart, K.C., Blackburn, K., Wagener, J., Czabaranek, J. and Abate, G. Development and Initial Flight Tests of a Single-Jointed Articulated-Wing Micro Air Vehicle, AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, number AIAA-2008-6708, Honolulu, Hawaii, USA, 2008.Google Scholar
27. Stewart, K.C., Wagener, J., Abate, G. and Salichon, M. Design of the Air Force Research Laboratory Micro Aerial Vehicle Research Confguration. 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, number AIAA-2007-0667, Reno, NV, USA, 2007.Google Scholar
28 Waszak, M.R., Jenkins, L.N. and Ifju, P. Stability and control properties of an aeroelastic fxed wing Micro Aerial Vehicle. AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, number AIAA-2001-4005, Montreal, Canada, 2001.Google Scholar
29. Woo, J. and Murthy, V.R. Static and dynamic analysis of airships, J Aircr, 1988, 25, (9), pp 790–795.Google Scholar
30. The VIC-3D Measurement System. Technical report, Correlated Solutions, Columbia, SC, USA, 2011.Google Scholar