Improvement of Hexacopter UAVs Attitude Parameters Employing Control and Decision Support Systems - PubMed (original) (raw)

Improvement of Hexacopter UAVs Attitude Parameters Employing Control and Decision Support Systems

Mihai-Alin Stamate et al. Sensors (Basel). 2023.

Abstract

Today, there is a conspicuous upward trend for the development of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs), especially in the field of multirotor drones. Their advantages over fixed-wing aircrafts are that they can hover, which allows their usage in a wide range of remote surveillance applications: industrial, strategic, governmental, public and homeland security. Moreover, because the component market for this type of vehicles is in continuous growth, new concepts have emerged to improve the stability and reliability of the multicopters, but efficient solutions with reduced costs are still expected. This work is focused on hexacopter UAV tests carried out on an original platform both within laboratory and on unrestricted open areas during the start-stop manoeuvres of the motors to verify the operational parameters, hover flight, the drone stability and reliability, as well as the aerodynamics and robustness at different wind speeds. The flight parameters extracted from the sensor systems' comprising accelerometers, gyroscopes, magnetometers, barometers, GPS antenna and EO/IR cameras were analysed, and adjustments were performed accordingly, when needed. An FEM simulation approach allowed an additional decision support platform that expanded the experiments in the virtual environment. Finally, practical conclusions were drawn to enhance the hexacopter UAV stability, reliability and manoeuvrability.

Keywords: UAV; remote control and communication; sensor systems; simulation.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analysis or interpretation of the data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to publish the results.

Figures

Figure 1

Figure 1

Variant v1 of the hexacopter. (a) Equipment; (b) Radio control.

Figure 2

Figure 2

Variant v2 of the hexacopter.

Figure 3

Figure 3

Hexacopter variant v1. (a) Components; (b) Assembly.

Figure 4

Figure 4

Connections diagram for hexacopter variant v1.

Figure 5

Figure 5

Hexacopter assembly for variant v2.

Figure 6

Figure 6

Blocd diagram of hexacopter platform.

Figure 7

Figure 7

Arrangement of the telemetry kit on the drone and on the ground.

Figure 8

Figure 8

Video signal transmission–reception chain from hexacopter to the operator.

Figure 9

Figure 9

Pixhawk 2.4.8 flight controller and the peripheral connection interfaces.

Figure 10

Figure 10

The ESC architecture and simplified diagram of ESC operation. (a) ESC general architecture; (b) Simplified diagram of ESC operation.

Figure 11

Figure 11

Hobbywing XRotor 40A Opto ESC.

Figure 12

Figure 12

Propulsion system efficiency test stand configurations.

Figure 13

Figure 13

Measurement of the rotor assembly maximum RPM.

Figure 14

Figure 14

Propulsion system tests results. (a) Propulsion system efficiency; (b) Traction force as a function of RPM; (c) Current consumption based on RPM; (d) Mechanical power versus RPM.

Figure 15

Figure 15

Measurement of motor temperature during operation on the test stand, within 5–100% throttle range.

Figure 16

Figure 16

Results obtained after running the simulation using xcoperCalc platform.

Figure 17

Figure 17

Online tests. (a) Range estimator; (b) Motor characteristics at full throttle.

Figure 18

Figure 18

Mission planner ground control station. (a) Main window; (b) HUD window.

Figure 19

Figure 19

Employed open area test rigs.

Figure 20

Figure 20

Hexacopter in stationary flight at a fixed point—flight stages.

Figure 21

Figure 21

Drone-mounted GoPro camera footage, on the ground and in flight.

Figure 22

Figure 22

Mission planner interface. Images acquired by GoPro camera mounted on the hexacopter.

Figure 23

Figure 23

Wind speed measurement with anemometer.

Figure 24

Figure 24

Closed-loop PID scheme—general approach.

Figure 25

Figure 25

Hexacopter programmed and recorded altitude.

Figure 26

Figure 26

Hexacopter measured parameters. (a) Altitude and ambient temperature; (b) Ambient atmospheric pressure.

Figure 27

Figure 27

Tests performed on the motors without propellers. (a) Speed command given by the operator; (b) Engine response to the operator command.

Figure 28

Figure 28

The altitude of the test site. (a) Operating altitude of the in situ location; (b) Test location.

Figure 29

Figure 29

Results processed with the online platforms. (a) Engines response to the lift command; (b) Accelerometer (0) vibration recordings.

Figure 30

Figure 30

Vibration and clipping. (a) Accelerometer (0); (b) Clipping.

Figure 31

Figure 31

Gyro rotational speeds and accuracy of data received from GPS satellites. (a) Gyro rotational speeds in rad/s for IMU (0) and (1); (b) Accuracy of data received from GPS satellites.

Figure 32

Figure 32

Accuracy of HDop positioning data received from GPS satellites.

Figure 33

Figure 33

Relative speed of the drone to the ground.

Figure 34

Figure 34

Vibration frequencies induced by motors rotation.

Figure 35

Figure 35

Fluid dynamics simulation. (a) CFD approach; (b) Enclosure.

Figure 36

Figure 36

Velocity profile and dissipated turbulences for no wind and lateral wind scenarios.

Figure 36

Figure 36

Velocity profile and dissipated turbulences for no wind and lateral wind scenarios.

Figure 37

Figure 37

Streamlines and pressure contours on the rotors.

Figure 38

Figure 38

Drag and lift forces -numerical vs. analytic computation.

Figure 39

Figure 39

Maximum displacements on Y axis after 0.25s hover flight time.

Figure 40

Figure 40

Hexacopter dynamic analysis using FEM.

Figure 41

Figure 41

FEM model.

Figure 42

Figure 42

Mode shapes of the structural components and of the propeller.

Figure 43

Figure 43

Drop test results at 0.1s after the impact.

Figure 44

Figure 44

Hexacopter impact during field tests.

Similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Chu P.H., Huang Y.T., Pi C.H., Cheng S. Autonomous Landing System of a VTOL UAV on an Upward Docking Station Using Visual Servoing. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2022;55:108–113. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.10.496. - DOI
    1. Sethi N., Ahlawat S. Low-fidelity design optimization and development of a VTOL swarm UAV with an open-source framework. Array. 2022;14:100183. doi: 10.1016/j.array.2022.100183. - DOI
    1. Patel T., Kumar M., Abdallah S. Control of Hybrid Transitioning Morphing-wing VTOL UAV. IFAC-PapersOnLine. 2022;55:554–559. doi: 10.1016/j.ifacol.2022.11.241. - DOI
    1. Bahari M., Rostami M., Entezari A., Ghahremani S., Etminan M. A comparative analysis and optimization of two supersonic hybrid SOFC and turbine-less jet engine propulsion system for UAV. Fuel. 2022;319:123796. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2022.123796. - DOI
    1. Bahari M., Rostami M., Entezari A., Ghahremani S., Etminan M. Performance evaluation and multi-objective optimization of a novel UAV propulsion system based on PEM fuel cell. Fuel. 2022;311:122554. doi: 10.1016/j.fuel.2021.122554. - DOI

LinkOut - more resources