Modeling the motion of small unmanned aerial system (sUAS) due to ground collision

Abstract

The aim of this paper is to develop a modeling method in order to predict the rebounce distance of a small size unmanned aerial system (sUAS) after collision with the ground. This distance would be useful to determine the safe range on the ground when operating the UAS. A two-step strategy is developed to model this procedure. In step one, numerical simulations are performed to model the first impact and predict the rebounce angle and impact velocity. Based on the information obtained, in step two, an analytical model is employed to calculate the rebounce distance without running numerical simulations, to save the computational time. Based on the model predictions, a non-linear function (known as a Meta model) is established to describe the rebounce behavior as a function of impact parameters, i.e. impact velocity, angle, and friction coefficient between the vehicle and ground. A correlation analysis is further performed to analyze the effect of these parameters on the response. The results show that the maximum rebounce range could be greater than 10 m. Compared to impact angle and friction coefficient, impact velocity is the most significant factor influencing the rebounce range. The larger velocity, smaller impact angle, and smaller ground friction coefficient would lead to the large rebounce range. The established Meta model would be useful to estimate safety range when operating sUAS platforms.

Keywords

sUAS ground collision finite element method Meta model parametric analysis safe range

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Marks

. UAVs are coming to a neighbourhood near you. New Sci 2012; 213: 20–21.

Carr

. Unmanned aerial vehicles: examining the safety, security, privacy and regulatory issues of integration into US airspace. Natl Centre Policy Anal (NCPA) 2013; 23: 2014–2014.

Skobir

Magister

. Assessment of a light unmanned aircraft ground impact energy. PROMET-Traffic Transportation 2011; 23: 97–104.

Hobbs

Herwitz

. Human factors in the maintenance of unmanned aircraft. Small 2014; 15: 100s–100s.

King DW, Bertapelle A and Moses C. UAV failure rate criteria for equivalent level of safety. In: International helicopter safety symposium, Montréal, 2005.

Frank

Jobski

Bockholdt

et al.

When backyard fun turns to trauma: risk assessment of blunt ballistic impact trauma due to potato cannons. Int J Legal Med 2012; 126: 13–18.

Melnyk

Schrage

Volovoi

et al.

A third-party casualty risk model for unmanned aircraft system operations. Reliab Eng Syst Saf 2014; 124: 105–116.

Ball JA, Knott M and Burke D. Crash lethality model. DTIC Document, 2012.

Guglieri

Quagliotti

Ristorto

. Operational issues and assessment of risk for light UAVs. J Unmanned Vehicle Syst 2014; 2: 119–129.

10.

Deng

Potula

Grewal

et al.

Finite element analysis of occupant head injuries: Parametric effects of the side curtain airbag deployment interaction with a dummy head in a side impact crash. Accident Anal Prev 2013; 55: 232–241.

11.

Rao J and Kumar B. Three-dimensional shape optimization through design of experiments and meta models in crash analysis of automobiles. SAE Technical Paper 2013-26-0032, 2013.

12.

Yildirim

Günay

Anil

et al.

Analysis of a skid type landing gear of a rotary wing UAV by experimental and numerical methods. Acta Phys Polonica A 2015; 127: 1170–1175.

13.

Brouwer

de Schipper

Rynne

et al.

Surfzone monitoring using rotary wing unmanned aerial vehicles. J Atmos Ocean Technol 2015; 32: 855–863.

14.

Mittal

. High performance polymers and engineering plastics, Hoboken, New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons, 2011.

15.

Henderson

. Lethality criteria for debris generated from accidental explosions, DTIC Document, 2010.

16.

Peterson

Apt

Whitacre

. Lithium-ion battery cell degradation resulting from realistic vehicle and vehicle-to-grid utilization. J Power Sources 2010; 195: 2385–2392.

17.

Shelley

. A model of human harm from a falling unmanned aircraft: implications for UAS regulation. Int J Aviation Aeronautics Aerospace 2016; 3: 1–1.

18.

Jie

Ding

. An adaptive metamodel-based global optimization algorithm for black-box type problems. Eng Optim 2015; 47: 1459–1480.

19.

Yun

Jiang

et al.

Maximum probable life time analysis under the required time-dependent failure probability constraint and its meta-model estimation. Struct Multidisc Optim 2016, pp. 1–13.

20.

Silva

Ghisi

Lamberts

. Performance evaluation of long-term thermal comfort indices in building simulation according to ASHRAE Standard 55. Building Environ 2016; 102: 95–115.

21.

Mueller RM. Theory-data maps: a meta-model and methods for inferring and visualizing relationships between causal theories and empirical evidences. In: 2016 49th Hawaii international conference on system sciences (HICSS), IEEE, 2016, pp.5288–5597.

22.

Zhu

Kalra

Saif

et al.

Parametric analysis of the biomechanical response of head subjected to the primary blast loading – a data mining approach. Comput Methods Biomech Biomed Eng 2016; 19: 1053–1059.

23.

Cheng

Yuan

et al.

Development of a lifetime prediction model for lithium thionyl chloride batteries based on an accelerated degradation test. Microelectron Reliab 2016; 65: 274–279.

24.

Zhang

Z-y

et al.

Optimization of blade motion of vertical axis turbine. China Ocean Eng 2016, pp. 1–12.