BIRDIE: Biologically-Inspired low Reynolds number Dynamic Imagery Experiment

1
BIRDIEBiologically-Inspired low Reynolds number
Dynamic Imagery Experiment
Preliminary Design Review

• Jeff Baxter
• Jeff Silverthorn
• Matt Snelling
• Courtney Terrell
• Blake Vanier
• Keith Wayman

2
Briefing Overview and Content

• Objectives and Requirements Overview
• Development and Assessment of System Design
  Alternatives
• System Design-To Specifications
• Development and Assessment of Subsystem Design
  Alternatives
• Subsystem Feasibility
• Risk Assessment
• Project Management Plan

3
Objectives Overview

• To create an experimental apparatus that can
  trace out a given wing motion similar to a
  hummingbird in hovering flight
• Design a system to capture the aerodynamic
  structures created by this wing motion

http//www.ae.utexas.edu/design/humm_mav/
4
Motivation

• Study low Reynolds number unsteady flow of
  hovering flight
• Application for highly maneuverable MAVs
• Single system for thrust and maneuver

5
Requirements

• Wing Range of Motion
• 80 in the horizontal plane
• 60 in the vertical plane
• 110 about the length of the wing (pitch)

60
110
80
6
Requirements

• Wing tip motion must follow a given path
• Within 20, of the maximum amplitude, spatially
• Within 20, of the period, temporally
• Pitch motion must follow a given rotational mode
• Within 20, of the maximum angle, rotationally
• Within 20, of the period of rotation, temporally
• Frequency
• 0-10 Hz with a resolution of 1 Hz
• Wing Variation
• Simple interchange of wings 5-10 cm in length,
  within 30 minutes
• Visualization of Aerodynamic Flow
• View Area gt30 cm2
• Minimum Resolution 96 x 96 pixels
• Minimum Frame Rate gt200 frames per second (fps)

7
Goals

• Create three different wings with varying
  stiffness for testing
• Synchronize visualization with collected
  three-axis dynamic loading data
• Precision less than 0.0015 N
• Range 5 N

8
PDD Addendum

• Frequency adjustment
• Current 0-10 Hz,
• Goal 20 Hz
• Original 0-55 Hz
• Camera Requirements
• Current
• Field of View gt30 cm2
• Minimum resolution 96 x 96 pixels
• Frame Rate gt200 fps
• Original Unspecified

Required FPS for Varying Field of View
Number of Times Seen
9
General Experimental Setup
10
System Architecture
11
Wing Mechanism Location

• Containment chamber
• Able to hold 1-3 shed vortices
• Must be at least 4-6 times the wing motion range
  in dimension to negate wall effects
• Magnitude of size of vortex is approximately the
  size of the wing motion
• Mechanism must be in center

12
Experimental Medium

• Air
• Pros
• Few necessary experimental modifications
• Variety of feasible subsystem options
• Cons
• Higher wing beat frequency, f 10 Hz

• Water
• Pros
• Lower wing beat frequency, f 0.66 Hz
• Cons
• Waterproofing of interfaces, electronics,
  actuators, joint lubricants, adhesives
• Stronger containment necessary
• Limits subsystem options
• Increases complexity
• Increases difficulty to change wings

13
Visualization Capturing Options

• Suspended Particulate Imagery (SPI)
• Allows frame-by-frame visualization of the
  created flow using a high speed camera
• Several options for medium and illumination
  source
• Medium kerosene smoke, phosphorescent particles
• Illumination laser sheets, industrial lighting
• Image collection is possible through camera
  software

14
Visualization Capturing Options

• Digital Particle Image Velocimetry (DPIV)
• Creates a vector field superimposed on the
  formation of the flow
• Greatly increases complexity
• Similar to Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD)
  software
• Synchronization of software, laser, and camera(s)
• Very specific constraints from software for
  laser, medium, and camera(s)
• Mechanical Engineering has a similar setup, with
  very limited access

Ref. 6
15
System Design-To Specifications
16
Wing Mechanism

• Subsystem Design Alternatives
• Influence and Sub-Subsystems
• Subsystem Feasibility Analysis
• Design-To Specifications

17
Subsystem Design AlternativesWing Mechanism
Variable (1)
Rotary (2)
Moving (3)
Design Pros Cons
Variable (1) Low moving mass Variable range of motion Complex software
Rotary (2) One motor at a constant speed Mechanically complex Fixed motion
Moving (3) Variable range of motion Easily machineable Entire platform moves vertically Does not simulate vertical motion Complex software
18
Influence and Sub-SubsystemsWing Mechanism
Design specific Goals
19
Subsystem Design AlternativesWing Mechanism

• Moving design (3) inertial force in the z
  direction increase by 11.3 N

  Moving Mass Moving Mass Moving Mass Complexity Complexity Motion Change Motion Change  
Design Moving Mass (g) Weight Score Weight Score Weight Score Total
Variable (1) 1.68  40   1  25    .25 35   1 .8125 
Rotary (2) 2.02  40    1 25    .5   35 0  .525 
Moving (3) 145   40  0  25  .5  35 1  .475 
20
Subsystem Feasibility AnalysisWing Mechanism
21
Subsystem Feasibility AnalysisWing Mechanism
22
Design-To SpecificationsWing Mechanism

• Equations to determine the inertial loads

Drive system must be able to provide a minimum
of
Drive System Angular Velocity (rad/s) Angular Acceleration (rad/s2) Torque (N-m) Power (W)
Y Direction 61.8 3888 0.00637 0.0314
Z Direction 61.8 7776 0.0127 0.211
Rotational 120.6 7579 2.110-5 0.00127
23
Test Bed

• Subsystem Design Alternatives
• Sub-Subsystem Design Alternatives
• Subsystem Feasibility Analysis

24
Subsystem Design AlternativesTest Bed
Containment Chamber
Wing Mechanism
Support
Top (2)
Side (3)
Bottom (1)
Mount Pros Cons
Bottom (1) No camera obstruction from above and the side Flow disruption below wing Lower camera obstruction
Top (2) No flow disruption Upper camera obstruction
Side (3) No flow disruption No camera obstruction Possible deflection due to lift
25
Sub-Subsystem Design Alternatives Test Bed
26
Subsystem Feasibility AnalysisTest Bed
Static
Dynamic
27
Subsystem Feasibility AnalysisTest Bed
28
Subsystem Feasibility AnalysisTest Bed

• Resonant frequencies can create failure in beams
  with loads far below their yield strength

29
Visualization

• Subsystem Design Alternatives
• Sub-Subsystem Design Alternatives
• Design-To Specifications

30
Subsystem Design AlternativesVisualization
Smoke Jet (1)
Suspended Particles (2)
Design Option Pros Cons
Smoke Jet (1) No added modifications Unwanted forces for 5m/s flow added 1N Poor visualization Only streamlines Low TRL
Suspended Particles (2) No added modifications Easy setup Higher TRL Illumination Costs Heat Rejection
TRL Technology Readiness Level
31
Sub-Subsystem Design AlternativesVisualization
32
Design-To SpecificationsVisualization

• Camera resolution maximum of 800 x 600 pixels
• Illumination source
• Able to target specific flow areas
• Be safely and easily moved

33
Wing Motion Verification

• Subsystem Design Alternatives
• Subsystem Feasibility
• Design-To Specifications

34
Subsystem Design AlternativesWing Tip Motion
Tracking
Method Pros Cons
Accelerometer (1) Independent of visualization method Heaviest solution Highest cost/unit Requires power to be supplied to wing tip
LED(2) Low cost/unit May require bulk purchase Requires high speed camera Requires power to be supplied to wing tip
Phosphorescent Paint(3) Inexpensive (12/oz.) Requires no power Requires high speed camera Requires excitation source
35
Subsystem Design AlternativesWing Pitch Angle
Tracking
Method Pros Cons
Rotary Encoder (1) Independent of visualization method Real-time tracking Higher cost (85.00)
Second Tip Marker(2) No new requirements or needs Requires post processing of images Accuracy limited by camera resolution
36
Subsystem Design AlternativesWing Motion
Verification
37
Subsystem FeasibilityWing Motion Verification
Selected Examples
Method Manufacturer Model Size (mm) Mass Inertial Force (N)
Accelerometer PCB Piezotronics 356A13 6.4x6.4x9.6 1 g 0.078
LED Marktech Optoelectronics MTSM9100LB-UO 0.8x0.8x1.6 0.75 g (estimated) 0.0057
Phosphorescent Paint SHANNON LUMINOUS MATERIALS,INC. S-2820SP N/A 0.1 g (estimated) 8.210-4
Rotary Encoder TR Electronic Incremental Encoder - 58 58.0 (diameter) x42.0 0.3 kg N/A
38
DesignTo SpecificationsWing Motion Verification

• Position must be measured to within 2 of the
  maximum amplitude
• Horizontal direction 4 mm accuracy
• Vertical direction 3.5 mm accuracy
• Pitch angle must be measured to within 2 of the
  maximum angle
• Angle 2.2 degree accuracy
• Time must be measured to within 2 of the period
• Time 0.002 second minimum step

39
Project Risk Analysis
Consequence 5 Support failure Eye damage from illumination Required illumination undetermined
Consequence 4 Data storage Linkage breaks Poor motor and software interaction Cannot find small actuators
Consequence 3 Too many particles in chamber Illumination source too expensive Flow is outside FOV
Consequence 2 Motion blur Lack of intensity
Consequence 1
Consequence 1 2 3 4 5
Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood
40
Project Risk Mitigation

• Use larger actuators that are stored outside of
  the chamber
• Make multiple parts in case of failure to reduce
  down time
• Use proper safety protocol when operating
  dangerous lasers

41
Project Risk MitigationVisualization Experiment

• Purpose
• Determine the minimum illumination power
  necessary
• Compare illumination sources
• Compare suspended particles
• Determine particle density
• Setup Using a clear chamber, capture the
  illuminated plane with a digital camera and
  compare the different variables

42
System Architecture
43
System Architecture
44
Project Management Plan

• Organizational Responsibilities
• Work Breakdown Structure
• Schedule
• Cost Estimates
• Specialized Facilities and Resources

45
Organizational Responsibilities
46
Work Breakdown Structure
47
Schedule

• Subsystem schedule breakdown

48
Schedule

• Preliminary spring schedule

49
Cost Estimates
SUBSYSTEM ITEMS Options Options Options Cost
Test Bed Outer Casing Plexiglass 40 ft2   76.00
  The Mounting Structure 2' long, 1.5" width/height square bar 2' long, 1.5" width/height square bar 2' long, 1.5" width/height square bar 55.00
Wing Mechanism Actuators 2 linear actuators 2 linear actuators   1,400.00
  Strain Gauges 15 semi-conductor strain gauges 15 semi-conductor strain gauges 15 semi-conductor strain gauges 115.95
  2-axis gimbal Four     40.00
  wing material Carbon Fiber Spar (2) Carbon Fiber Spar (2)   40.00
Visualization Camera High-Speed (borrowed) High-Speed (borrowed)   0.00
  Laser Green laser     700.00
  Media Storage 160 GB Hard Drive 160 GB Hard Drive   140.00
  Suspended Particles 5lbs Dry ice     4.00
Wing Motion Verification Paint 1 oz. bottle     12.00
Shipping 50.00
SUB-TOTAL 2,632.95
Uncertainty 1.5
TOTAL 3,949.43
50
Specialized Facilities and Resources

• Camera Olympus I-Speed High-Speed Camera (Max
  rate - 33,000 fps)
• Workstations
• LabVIEW
• IDL/ENVI

51
References

• http//homepages.which.net/paul.hills/Materials/M
  aterialsBody.html
• http//web2.automationdirect.com/adc/Shopping/Cata
  log/Sensors_-z-_Encoders/Encoders/Light_Duty_Stand
  ard_Shaft_(TRD-S_Series)
• Altshuler, Douglas L., Dudley, Robert, and
  Ellington, Charles P. (December, 2004).
  Aerodynamic forces of revolving hummingbird wings
  and wing models Electronic Version. Journal of
  Zoology Proceedings of the Zoological Society of
  London, 264, 327-332.
• David L. Raney, Eric C. Slominski. Mechanization
  and Control Concepts for Biologically Inspired
  Micro Aerial Vehicles. 11 - 14 August 2003,
  Austin, Texas
• Opto Diode Corporation. OD-6FS Data Sheet. Sept
  28, 2006, from http//optodiode.com/pdf/OD6FS.pdf
• Opto Diode Corporation. OD-880F Data Sheet. Sept
  28, 2006, from http//optodiode.com/pdf/OD880F.pdf
  
• Toshiba. Toshiba TLxE1008A SMT LEDs. Sept 28,
  2006, from http//www.marktechopto.com/pdfs/Toshib
  a/ToshibaTLxE1008ASMTLEDs0201.pdf
• FGR Sensors Instrumentation. FA3106 Series
  Tri-axial Accelerometer. Sept 28, 2006, from
  http//www.fgpsensors.com/pdf/FA3106_us.pdf
• FGR Sensors Instrumentation. XA1000 Series
  Ulta-Miniature Accelerometer. Sept 28, 2006,
  from http//www.fgpsensors.com/pdf/XA1000_us.pdf
• PCB Piezotronics. Model 356A01 Spec Sheet. Sept
  28, 2006, from http//www.pcb.com/CommonIncludes/P
  dfs/356A01_C.pdf
• PCB Piezotronics. Model 356A13 Spec Sheet. Sept
  28, 2006, from http//www.pcb.com/CommonIncludes/P
  dfs/356A13_B.pdf
• Warrick, Douglas R., Tobalske, Bret W., and
  Powers, Donald R. Aerodynamics of the hovering
  hummingbird 2005, Nature, Volume 435, pages
  1094-1097
• Wells, Dominic. Muscle Performance in Hovering
  Hummingbirds. The Company of Biologists Limited.
  1993

52
Questions?
53
Supplemental Information
54
Development and Assessment of Subsystem Design
Alternatives- Wing Mechanism Point System

• Mass
• mlt1g 1 1gltmlt10g .5 10gltm 0
• Complexity
• 1 motor .25
• No pivot point .25
• Comparatively large parts .25
• No restrictions on motor placement .25
• Motion Change
• Yes 1 No0

55
Wing Mechanism Feasibility Previous Experiments

• Design used linear Actuators with a wing length
  of 75 mm at 25 Hz.

Ref. 4
Ref. 4
56
Wing Mechanism Feasibility Analysis

• Equations to determine the inertial loads

57
Wing Mechanism Feasibility Analysis
Determining size and mass of the leading edge
58
Wing Mechanism - Rotational Feasibility Analysis
59
Wing Mechanism Feasibility Analysis
Linear Actuators
Supplier Designation Acceleration (g) Velocity (m/s) Continuous Force (N) Cost ()
Baldor LMCF-Series 10 5 5.3 649
Trilogy Systems Trilogy I FORCE Linear Motor -- 110-1w/ drives 20 10 24.5 2250 
Copley Controls Corp. Servo Tube STA 2506 With feedback 24.1 5.3 70 1100 
60
Wing Mechanism Risk Assessment
Consequence 5 Actuators extend too far
Consequence 4 Linkage breaks Poor motor and software interaction Cannot find small actuators
Consequence 3 Power overload
Consequence 2
Consequence 1
Consequence 1 2 3 4 5
Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood
61
Test Bed Feasibility Analysis - Failure

• With no safety factor, (SF1), the yield strength
  of the support beam must be 1 kPa
• Using aluminum (70 GPa), the safety factor is
  73,000

62
Test Bed Risk Assessment
Consequence 5 Support failure
Consequence 4 Outer casing shattering Large support deflection
Consequence 3 Outer casing cracking Small support deflection
Consequence 2
Consequence 1
Consequence 1 2 3 4 5
Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood
63
Camera Blur and Field of View
64
Visualization Subsystem Design Alternatives

• Types of Particles
• Smoke
• Can be generated from kerosene or dry ice
• Easily available
• Low costlt50
• Phosphorescent Particles
• Provides more light for better visualization

65
Visualization Subsystem Design Alternatives

• Types of illumination
• Laser
• High intensity light can be focused in a sheet
• Precise placement to illuminate specific field of
  view
• Proven heritage
• High cost 200-3000
• Dangerous if used improperly
• Industrial Lighting
• Moderate intensity good for lighting large areas
• Not easily focused
• Cost 50-200
• Large heat buildup
• Unproven

66
Visualization Risk Assessment
Eye Damage
Illumination required cannot be determined
from
Consequence 5 Camera breaks Eye damage from illumination Required illumination undetermined
Consequence 4 Data storage Software interface not compatible
Consequence 3 Particle selection Too many particles in chamber Illumination source too expensive Flow is outside FOV
Consequence 2 Necessary frame rate change
Consequence 1 Housing failure
Consequence 1 2 3 4 5
Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood
67
Wing Motion Tracking Risk Assessment
Consequence 5
Consequence 4
Consequence 3
Consequence 2 Motion blur Lack of intensity
Consequence 1
Consequence 1 2 3 4 5
Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood Likelihood
68
Project Software

• Requirements
• Command wing actuators
• Record strain gauge measurements
• Synchronize force measurements with visualization
• Verify wing tip location
• LabVIEW
• Designed to interact with sensors
• Allows real time execution of programs
• IDL/ENVI
• Image manipulation software
• Capable of batch processing
• Ideal for computing location of wing tip marker