1 / 27

Experimental Engineering: Rocket Flight and Analysis

Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4 Section 3 Team 2. Experimental Engineering: Rocket Flight and Analysis. Intro/Background. E80: Experimental Engineering Rocket launches on 4/19 and 4/26 Lucerne Valley dry lake bed Rockets had various sizes, sensors, and motors

leal
Download Presentation

Experimental Engineering: Rocket Flight and Analysis

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. Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4 Section 3 Team 2 Experimental Engineering: Rocket Flight and Analysis

  2. Intro/Background • E80: Experimental Engineering • Rocket launches on 4/19 and 4/26 • Lucerne Valley dry lake bed • Rockets had various sizes, sensors, and motors • Take data, analyze it, and compare it to theoretical models we developed

  3. Brief Rocket Overview Photo courtesy of Professor Cardenas

  4. Launch Procedures • Configure and verify RDAS • Configure and verify video telemetry • Connect jumpers for vibration sensors • Physical launch preparations • Launch • Recover data

  5. Data Analysis:Large IMU • Inertial Measurement Unit mounted on a large and small rocket • Accelerations • Angular velocities • IMU calibrated with a turntable apparatus • Euler method and rotation used to find global variables

  6. Data Analysis:Large IMU RockSim • Experimental and Theoretical Results IMU Data Flight Model Vertical Position Horizontal Position

  7. Data Analysis:Large IMU

  8. Data Analysis :Medium Pressure • Both RDAS and IMU have pressure sensors • Mounted on a medium rocket • Pressure sensors calibrated with a pressure chamber • Altitude can be calculated from pressure

  9. Data Analysis:Medium Pressure RDAS pressure RDAS altitude IMU pressure IMU altitude

  10. Pressure Analysis: Comparison with Theoretical Models Flight Model RDAS IMU RockSim

  11. Pressure Analysis: Compiled Data

  12. Models vs. IMU and Pressure Data • Apogees from data consistently lower than predicted apogees from the flight model and RockSim • Calibration error • Launch angle • Dynamic wind vs. static wind

  13. Data Analysis:Large Vibration • Theoretical resonant frequencies, obtained by modeling the rocket as a hollow tube with free-free boundary conditions. • f1 = 165 Hz, f2 = 456 Hz, f3 = 893 Hz. • Expected peaks after folding = 35 Hz, 56 Hz and 93 Hz. E = Young’s modulus, Iz = second moment of the beam, A = cross sectional area of the beam ρ = density ßn= a property dependent on boundary conditions

  14. Resonant peaks also determined by taking data with the DAQ, to get rid of folding. • DAQ data can only be obtained for half of the rocket. • Resonant peak obtained for half-rocket and extended onto the full rocket. • Assumed only parameter changing is length. • First resonant frequency at 178 Hz, which should appear at 22 Hz after folding.

  15. Data Analysis:Large Vibration • Large vibration • Strain gages along the body of the large vibration rocket • Strain gages measure changes in length • The magnitudes of the length changes can be used to determine characteristic vibration

  16. Large vibration • Strain gages along the body of the large vibration rocket • Strain gages measure changes in length • The magnitudes of the length changes can be used to determine characteristic vibration

  17. Data Analysis:Large Vibration • Obtain raw data from the RDAS. • Split up raw data according to events. • Takeoff, ejection charge and deployment, landing. • Perform FFT on each output channel. • Assume the sensor closest to the motor is the input for take off. • Obtain FRF by taking the ratio of the output and the input for the first event of the rocket. • Determine resonance frequencies.

  18. 77 Hz 51 Hz 46 Hz

  19. Theoretical Predictions: • Hollow beam model - 165 Hz • DAQ experimental prediction - 178 Hz • Experimental Value - 154 Hz • Difference - 7% • Theoretical Predictions: • Hollow beam model - 456 Hz • Experimental Value - 451 Hz • Difference - 1% • Theoretical Predictions: • Hollow beam model - 893 Hz • Experimental Value - 877 Hz • Difference - 2%

  20. Conclusions • Experimental vibration data matched theoretical model fairly closely • Data from large IMU rocket fit with flight model and RockSim shapes, but differed in altitude • RDAS and IMU data from temperature and pressure rocket agreed with each other, but fit neither of the theoretical models

  21. Recommendations • Change sampling rate of RDAS (200 Hz is too low) • Use low-pass filters to block out unwanted noise • Have more than 6 channels collecting data • Have Global Positioning System onboard rocket for confirmation

  22. Appendix: Data Analysis - Small IMU • Experimental Results • A: x-position • B: y-position • C: z-position

  23. Appendix: Data Analysis - Small IMU • Theoretical Predictions • A: z-position (Rocksim)

  24. Appendix: Data Analysis - Small IMU • Recovery charge did not ignite • Fatal flat spin • Damage to the RDAS

  25. The natural frequency of a hollow tube is given by: E = Young’s modulus, Iz = second moment of the beam, A = cross sectional area of the beam ρ = density ßnL= a property dependent on boundary conditions independent of length.

  26. k k

More Related