Transcript UNLV-UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV) THIN-FILM SOLAR CELL INITIATIVE Ann Marie Frappier Wade McElroy David Glaser Louis Dube Dr.

UNLV-UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE (UAV)
THIN-FILM SOLAR CELL INITIATIVE
Ann Marie Frappier
Wade McElroy
David Glaser
Louis Dube
Dr. Darrell Pepper
September 18, 2009
UNLV
PRESENTATION OVERVIEW
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Project Review
Final Design
Airframe Optimization
Component Selection
Construction
Questions?
STARTING POINT
 Final design of senior design project
 Project Recommendations:
 Fuselage
and Wing Construction
 Drag Reduction
 Control Surfaces
 Solar Array and Charging System
THIN-FILM SOLAR CELLS
In many cases, uses less than 1% of the raw material as
compared to wafer-based solar cells, resulting in significant
price drop per watt
 So far, less efficient than wafer solar cells
 Printability
 Easily conforms to wing or fuselage surfaces
 Requires minimum maintenance

THIN-FILM SOLAR CELLS (CIGS)
THIN-FILM SOLAR CELLS




Amorphous silicon
 The most common type of thin film cells, they are not printable.
CIS
 This is a printable thin-film that attempts to drive down the cost by using
copper, indium, and selenium instead of silicon.
CIGS
 This is also printable and is very similar to CIS cells, the most important
difference being gallium is used to replace as much of the expensive indium
as possible.
CSG
 Silicon offshoot that shows promise; gives up some flexibility for efficiency.
MISSION ANALYSIS
REFINED MISSION REQUIREMENTS
 Refined mission requirements point to a maximum
ceiling of 10,000ft AGL for energy height.
 Ability to run racetrack pattern over target for
surveillance is paramount.
 25° bank angle, sustained turn was chosen as
appropriate for this application.
 The airframe must also sustain turning attitude to ride
thermals.
TYPICAL MISSION PROFILE
Loiter
Takeoff
Land
FINAL DESIGN
SAILPLANE DESIGN
FUSELAGE DESIGN


Airfoil Design
 NACA 63-806
 Preserve laminar flow
 Accelerate flow into wing
 Produce lift
Design Method
 Airfoil
 Taper after wing
6
4.35 4.63
4
3.35 3.93
2.75
2.145 1.7752.1552.4152.58
2
1.53
1.405
1.04
0.93
0.68
0.4
0.36
0.115
0.060.2 0.38 0.48 0.53
0
-0.065
-0.17
-0.17
-0.21
10
20
-2 0
4.71 4.29
2.8
2.62
0.75 0.95
0
-2.5
-1.5
-1
-0.285 0.285
0
0.5
1
-0.57
0.57
-0.5
-0.85
2.5
1.105
-1.345
1.345
-1.575
1.575
-10
-1.775
1.775
-15
-1.935
-2.035
1.935
2.035
-20
-1.95
1.95
-25
-1.65
1.65
-30
-1.05
1.05
-35
-0.6
0.6
-40
2.85 2.5 2.37
2.1
1.9
1.4 1.43
1.35 1.95
40
2
-5
2.26
1.86
1.46
50
-0.35
0.35
-0.35
0.35
2.22
2.19 2.192.192.19
2.19
2.19
2.19
1.84
1.84
1.84
1.84
1.49 1.841.841.84
1.491.491.49
1.49
1.49
1.49
1.461.84
-45
30
1.5
0.85
-1.105
Side View
3.37
2.25
1.13
-2
60
70
80
-50
SPECIFICATIONS
Wing Span
108”
Length
70”
Ground Height
18”
Wing Area
Aspect Ratio
Solar Panel Area
1404 in²
8.3
1250 in²
Panel Power Production
78 W
Weight
15 lbs
AIRFRAME OPTIMIZATION
 Wingtip drag reduction devices
 Complex airfoil and wing analysis
 Fuselage-wing flow interaction
 Flight behavior in different flight configurations
Ideas and calculations can be quickly and accurately
modeled in COMSOL or other CFD software
WINGTIP DEVICES
WINGTIP DEVICES
• Seek to reduce drag
by harnessing the
strength of wingtip
vortices and to
either redirect them
or redistribute the
vortex strength (or
both)
• Planar or non-planar
PLANAR WINGTIP DEVICES
• Lays in the plane of the wing
• Two different general approaches:
• Employs one or more sharp edges to hamper the
reconciliation of pressure gradients
• Employs a recirculation seat or zone to harness
the momentum or strength of the vortices, or to
deflect them outside of the wing’s plane
PLANAR WINGTIP DEVICE
–HOERNER TIP
NON-PLANAR WINGTIP DEVICES
• Lays outside the plane of the wing
• Considered a lifting surface that has a multitude of
effects on the overall aerodynamic qualities of the
wing:
• Impedes the circulation about the wingtip by
creating a side-force (the device’s lift force),
increasing overall lift
• Vertically diffuses the vortex flow further away
from the wingtip, decreasing overall drag
• May contribute to thrust (forward lift
component)
• Creates an increase in wing bending moment
• Must remember: winglet has its own drag
component
NON-PLANAR WINGTIP DEVICE
–WHITCOMB WINGLET
PLANAR DEVICES
Wingtip Device – Planar Device 01
PLANAR DEVICE
01
Average
Percent
Change Over
Control
(loiter, level
flight)
Drag Coefficient
0.30%
Lift Coefficient
-1.49%
Lift-to-Drag Ratio
-1.78%
Wingtip Device – Planar Device 02
PLANAR DEVICE
02
Drag Coefficient
Lift Coefficient
Lift-to-Drag Ratio
Average
Percent
Change Over
Control
(loiter, level
flight)
-2.89%
0.64%
3.06%
NON-PLANAR DEVICE
DESIGN PARAMETERS
WINGTIP DEVICE NON-PLANAR DEVICES
- Non-Planar Device 02
- Non-Planar Device 04
NONPLANAR
DEVICE
02
Drag
Coefficient
Lift
Coefficient
Lift-to-Drag
Ratio
NONPLANAR
DEVICE
04
Drag
Coefficient
Lift
Coefficient
Lift-to-Drag
Ratio
(loiter,
level
flight)
(loiter, -2°
AOA)
(loiter,
+2° AOA)
(loiter,
+4° AOA)
-6.46%
-4.82%
-3.51%
-3.57%
2.89%
0.35%
2.13%
2.39%
10.00%
5.43%
5.85%
6.20%
(loiter,
level
flight)
(loiter, -2°
AOA)
(loiter,
+2° AOA)
-5.34%
2.09%
0.86%
-0.63%
2.43%
1.57%
1.78%
2.50%
8.21%
0.50%
0.92%
3.16%
(loiter,
+4° AOA)
WINGTIP DEVICES -SUMMARY
Drag Coefficient versus Angle-of-Attack
0.0510
0.0490
Drag Coefficient
0.0470
0.0450
0.0430
0.0410
0.0390
0.0370
0.0350
-2
-1
0
1
Angle of Attack (degrees)
Drag Coefficient Average, Control
Drag Coefficient Average, NPD-04
2
3
Drag Coefficient Average, NPD-02
4
WINGTIP DEVICES -SUMMARY
Lift-to-Drag Ratio versus Angle-of-Attack
29.0000
27.0000
Lift-to-Drag Ratio
25.0000
23.0000
21.0000
19.0000
17.0000
-2
-1
0
1
Angle of Attack (degrees)
Lift-to-Drag Ratio Average, Control
Lift-to-Drag Ratio Average, NPD-04
2
3
Lift-to-Drag Ratio Average, NPD-02
4
WINGTIP DEVICES -SUMMARY
Lift Coefficient versus Drag Coefficient
1.3000
1.2000
Lift Coefficient
1.1000
1.0000
0.9000
0.8000
0.7000
0.6000
0.0350
0.0370
0.0390
Average, Control
0.0410
0.0430
0.0450
Drag Coefficient
Average, NPD-02
0.0470
0.0490
0.0510
Average, NPD-04
0.0530
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Non-Planar Device 02 showed
significant improvements over
entire flight envelope
• Devices in general were very
sensitive to changes in geometry.
Most attributable to laminar
separation bubble and local
Reynolds number:
• Investigation of various NPD’s
with a specifically designed
airfoil may provide even
better results
WING-FUSELAGE JUNCTIONS
WING-FUSELAGE JUNCTIONS
• The way the wing connects to the body
of the plane
• Visibly identifiable as a combination of
fairing and placement on the fuselage
• Junction design usually aims for a
particular goal:
• Reduce drag
• Increase lift
• Eliminate flow separation
• Increase stability and control
characteristics
WING-FUSELAGE JUNCTION -SAILPLANE
WING-FUSELAGE JUNCTION
CONTROL SPECIMEN
z
x
y
z
y
x
LINEAR WING-FUSELAGE JUNCTION 01
z
x
y
z
y
x
NON-LINEAR WING-FUSELAGE JUNCTION 01
z
x
y
z
y
x
WING-FUSELAGE JUNCTIONS -SUMMARY
Overall Drag Coefficient versus Angle-of-Attack
0.0167
Coefficient of Drag
0.0157
0.0147
0.0137
0.0127
0.0117
0.0107
0
1
2
Angle-of-Attack (degrees)
Drag Coefficient Average, Control
Drag Coefficient Average, NLWJ-01
3
Drag Coefficient Average, LWJ-01
4
WING-FUSELAGE JUNCTIONS -SUMMARY
Overall Lift Coefficient versus Angle-of-Attack
0.4900
0.4700
Lift Coefficient
0.4500
0.4300
0.4100
0.3900
0.3700
0.3500
0
1
2
Angle-of-Attack (degrees)
Lift Coefficient Average, Control
Lift Coefficient Average, NLWJ-01
3
Lift Coefficient Average, LWJ-01
4
RECOMMENDATIONS
• Non-Linear Wing-Fuselage Junction 01
showed best improvement in
performance although gains were
minute
• Results go against some of the
literature but differences are easily
explainable
• Further design iterations with more
complicated fairing shapes should be
initiated
COMPONENT SELECTION
MICROUAV BTC-88

Ball Turret System
3.6” x 3.5” x 4.85”
 275 grams
 GPS autopilot referencing
 Standard servo pulse code
operation


FCB-1X11A Camera
10x optical zoom
 Power consumption 6-12 VDC, 2.1
W max

FLYCAMONE2

Camera Stats
 3”
x 1.5” x 0.5”
 640x480 Video
 1280x1024 Photos
 Remote Activation
 2 Axis Control (Pan and Tilt)
 2.5 Hour Record Time
 Thermal activated motion
detector
 Inexpensive alternative
PROPULSION SYSTEM

Hacker A40 14L




Brushless Motor
310 KV rating
2.75 lbs Estimated Operating
Thrust
6 Amp/hrs
18 x 10 Prop
 Castle Creations
Phoenix 80
Electric Speed Controller

LITHIUM POLYMER BATTERY ARRAY
 Nominal voltage per cell: 3.7 V
 3S4P Configuration
 11.1V
 8000mAh
 Possible operation at 22.2V
 Lower
percentage losses
 Higher motor speeds
 Power density 187 W/Kg
BATTERY ARRANGEMENT
Key Results from MotoCalc
Pack Voltage (V)
Number of Pack
11.1
4
22.2
2
Static Predictions
Motor Efficiency (%)
84.1
79
69
468
7.8
37
420
7.0
576
2256
Flight Predictions
Throttle for Optimal (%)
Duration (min)
(hours)
Best Rate of Climb
(ft/min)
MAXIMUM POWER POINT TRACKER

Stats





Panel Voltage 0-27V
Efficiency 94%-98%
Tracking Efficiency 99%
80 grams
Benefits


Performance increase of
10-30%
Safely charge LiPo
Batteries (require constant
voltage)
COMPOSITE MATERIAL

Material


Sizing


1K
Weight


Carbon Fiber
3.74 oz/sq yrd
Weave


5 Harness-Satin
Added flexibility over
complex features
SOLAR ARRAY
G2- Thin Film Solar Cells
•Average Efficiency %10.2
•72” x 8.25”
•Vmpp: 7.3V
•Impp: 5.4A
•Power: 39.5W
P3 Portable Power Pack
•Average Efficiency ~%7.3
•52”x 30”
•Vmpp 20V
•Power 62W
•Encapsulated
CONSTRUCTION
CONSTRUCTION MILESTONES

Airframe construction



Avionics programming and
testing
Avionics integration




Carbon fiber foam body
Control surfaces
Solar array install
Wing-fuselage joining
Flight testing
CONCLUSION








Max Payload: 12-15lb
Final Cost: $5400
Loiter Time:
 Continuous Run Time: 7 hours
Hand Launch
Solar Array
 CIGS Thin Film 62W Array
 Investigate Silicon Cells
Construction technique
Components advances
Flight Testing
HOWIE MARK IV
QUESTIONS?