1 / 38

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) The University Of Michigan 2011

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) The University Of Michigan 2011. 1. Vehicle: i. . 2. Vehicle: ii. Nose. Main Chute Separation Bay. Main Chute Separation. 3. Vehicle: iii. Main Chute Seperation. Aviation Bay. Aviation Bay Access Cut. Apogee Separation Bay. Apogee Separation. 4.

alanna
Download Presentation

Preliminary Design Review (PDR) The University Of Michigan 2011

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Preliminary Design Review (PDR) • The University Of Michigan • 2011 1

  2. Vehicle: i. 2

  3. Vehicle: ii. Nose Main Chute Separation Bay Main Chute Separation 3

  4. Vehicle: iii. Main Chute Seperation Aviation Bay Aviation Bay Access Cut Apogee Separation Bay Apogee Separation 4

  5. Vehicle: iv. Apogee Separation Apogee Separation Bay Motor 5

  6. Vehicle Dimensions • Body Tube • 5.5 in dia. • Can • 2.0 in dia. 6

  7. Launch Vehicle Verification • Vehicle/Payload design justification • Static stability analysis • Materials/system justification (discussed in further detail in proceeding slides) 7

  8. Vehicle Design Justification • Different ideas for reducing drag • Requirements • Stable • Fast • Precise • Consistent • Highly variable 8

  9. Vehicle Materials • Nosecone Polystyrene Plastic • Body Blue Tube (Apogee Comp.) • Cans Blue Tube (Apogee Comp.) • Fins G10 fiberglass 9

  10. Material Justifications • Phenolic Tubing • Cured paper fibers • Cheapest, strong, brittle • Blue Tube 2.0 • High-density paper • More expensive, durable, dense • Carbon Fiber • Strands of woven carbon • Most expensive, strongest, labor-intensive 10

  11. Static Stability Margin • 1.5 in neutral configuration pre-launch • 2.4 after engine burnout • Drag mechanism actuated • RockSim estimated CP/CG locations • On the unstable side • Add mass to nose of rocket 11

  12. Recovery Scheme • Two Separations • Apogee • Drogue-less • 500 Feet • Main Parachute • Double Redundancy • Flight computer • Altimeter 500 Feet Apogee 12

  13. Vehicle Safety Verification Plan This matrix shows detrimental failures in red, recoverable failures in yellow, and failures with a minimal effect in green 13

  14. Testing Plans • Ground test proper body tube separation during E-Charge ignition • Use a multimeter to measure the current the Flight Computer sends to each E-Charge during ground simulations • Servo selection through torque testing on flap from collected simulation/wind tunnel data 14

  15. Motor Selection • Motor Manufacturer: Loki • Motor Designation: L1482-SM • Total Impulse: 868.7 lb-s • Mass pre/post burn: Pre:7.8 lb Post:3.8 lb • Motor Retention System: Aero Pack RA75 15

  16. Thrust-To-Weight Ratio 16

  17. Rail Exit Velocity • Rail Exit Velocity: ??? ft/s • Rail Length: 6 ft 17

  18. Recovery Avionics • Raven Flight Computer • Competition Altimeter • 4 Total E-Charges • 2 from Flight Computer • 2 from Altimeter • 1 Main Apogee Charge • @ 5280 feet • 1 Backup • 1 Main Chute Charge • @ 500 feet • 1 Backup Apogee TB 9V Batteries AvBay Flight Computer Competition Altimeter Positive TB Main Chute TB 18

  19. Aerodynamics-Linear Flaps: i. • Flap Geometry • 0% closed corresponds to the position where the flap is not exposed to air flow • 100% closed corresponds to where the flap is fully extended into the flow 19

  20. Aerodynamics-Linear Flaps: ii. Flap B Flap A 20

  21. Aerodynamics-Linear Flaps: iii. Flap C Flap D 21

  22. Aerodynamics-Linear Flaps: iv. • Drag data from cases run at 300 m/s *NOTE: All flap data is for one flap and all rocket data is for half-body 22

  23. Aerodynamics-Rotating Flaps: i. • Moment Concerns with the y component of the force generated by the flap at various angles • Analyzed at the most extreme case (largest can and flap size at 45 ̊) • Force in the y direction caused by the flap angle deflection is negated by the force it creates on the wall of the can *NOTE: All data is from a simulated wind speed of 300 m/s 23

  24. Aerodynamics-Rotating Flaps: ii. ANSYS Fluent CFD mesh sizes were refined in areas of interest such as the flap and the interior wall for optimal results. 24

  25. Structures-Can Analysis • Analyzed the worst case scenario (flaps 100% closed) • Pressure forces in front of the valve are not a concern • Low pressure pockets behind the valve are not a concern 25

  26. Controls: i. • Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) controller that will induce pressure drag as a means of regulating vehicle altitude • Drag is calculated dynamically during flight • Controller should respond to physical system changes in no more than 50 milliseconds and recover within 2% of the goal altitude 26

  27. Controls-System Model: ii. Dynamic Apogee-Rectifying Targeting (DART) Control System Dynamic Target: Used to aid in assuring the mean energy path solution is followed Restrained Controller: Proportional Integral Derivative (PID) derived controller with physical limits Physics Plant: Simulation of vehicle-environment interaction given controller commands Instrument Uncertainty: Propagation of instrument uncertainty into system values Alt. Projection: Projection of rocket apogee altitude with same physics plant model for consistency 27

  28. Controls – Dynamic Target

  29. Controls – Restrained Controller

  30. Controls - Physics

  31. Controls –Instrument Uncertainty

  32. Controls – Apogee Calculation

  33. Flight Avionics Drag Servo • Competition Altimeter • Drag Computer • Drag Servo Drag Computer 9V Batteries Competition Altimeter 33

  34. Payload Design • Drag Control System • Actuating flaps located within side cans to control drag • Control system will activate under specific altitude and/or velocity conditions 34

  35. Payload Test Plan i. • Flap Drag Testing • Simulations/flow characterization using compressible flow in ANSYS Fluent CFD over a range of Mach numbers • Test drag flap mechanism in various configurations to confirm results from simulated model • Produce a function for control system relative to drag, flow speed and flap deflection 35

  36. Payload Test Plan ii. Drag Flap Control System Testing • 4 constants to vary (Kp, Ki, Kd, Dt) • N^4 simulations for N possible different constants • Parallel processing in Matlab to tackle Monte Carlo simulation • NYX / FLUX supercomputers from UM Center for Advance Computing used to tune constants for best performance 36

  37. Outreach Project • We have contacted a teacher at a high school that has agreed to make rocketry a unit in his class. • We plan to go in and teach about the basics of rocketry. • We are aiming to have the students work in groups and design rockets to eventually launch in a class competition. • We also plan to outreach to lower level grades and invite them to the final launch. • The point is to get kids excited about rocketry. We want the entire district to participate. 37

  38. Questions? 38

More Related