Modelling and analysis of a drone for a high life cycle to identify the

life and damage

P. Krishna Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pragati Engineering College

Email: [email protected]
C. Nikith Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pragati Engineering College
Email: [email protected]
P. V. V. S. Mani Konda babu, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pragati Engineering College
Email: [email protected]
D. Venkata Surya Narayana, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pragati Engineering College
Email: [email protected]
Dr. G. Satish Associate Professor, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Pragati Engineering College
Email: [email protected]

Abstract:
In 2020, the global commercial drone industry was expected to reach a total value of $13.44 billion.
The projected growth rate between 2021 and 2028 is 57.5% on a compound yearly basis. This
expansion is anticipated to occur continuously for the whole term. Drones have been widely used
in several important areas to improve efficiency in recent years. These businesses include
agriculture, security, emergency needs, and several other sectors. The landing gear and structural
components of a drone might wear down over time due to repeated take-offs and landings. This
tiredness might result in harm to the goods being carried. Although much research has focused on
enhancing the physical durability of drones, only a few studies have investigated the fatigue
experienced by the landing gear. The project aimed to conduct a comprehensive analysis of a drone
intended for agricultural applications. The Finite Element Methods were used for this purpose. The
analysis included estimating the working life of the landing gear and identifying important load
and stress locations.

MSC Apex was used to examine and mesh the drone model provided by the firm. The landing gear
and contacts were made of aluminium 6061 T6, while the hub and rotor tubes were made of carbon
fibre reinforced plastic (CFRP) - T300 3k/EA9396 8-harness satin weave fabric. This was done in
line with the available information. This was conducted as a unidirectional component. A linear
static analysis was conducted by putting a load of 83.8755 Newtons at four specific spots on the
base of the landing gear and imposing a single point restriction at the centre of gravity. This was
conducted to analyse the performance of the landing gear. A comparison was conducted between
the total load resultant and the reaction force resultant to enhance knowledge of the mechanism of
static equilibrium. The Lanczos Method was used for Model Analysis in the free-free situation.
The action was taken to verify the model's continuity and examine the mode forms. The S-N
Method was used to do a fatigue study on the drone's landing gear. By transferring the static load
to the cyclic approach, the work was successfully completed. The highest cyclic load spectrum
value was considered for various descent speeds, such as 0.3 m/s, 0.5 m/s, 0.8 m/s, and 1 m/s, in
both 4-point and 2-point landing situations. This was completed for both situations.

The drone attained a static equilibrium, with the highest measured stress being 67.210
megapascals (MPa). The model's continuity was effectively confirmed by model analysis. The
damage output was 7.49 x 10-4, and it was determined that the model will fail after 1267 cycles.
The model had a failure. The fatigue study was the research approach that produced this
information. Considering peak loads and linear superposition of loading, this was deemed the
worst-case situation. The drone can land and take off 1267 times before the landing gear
malfunctions, which is the worst-case scenario for the drone. Furthermore, doing cross-correlation
analysis across different load circumstances might significantly impact the overall conclusion.
Enhancing the durability of the drone and landing gear might potentially be achieved via
optimizing their shape and components in the future. This might potentially be accomplished at a
later date.

1. Introduction:
The global commercial drone market size was valued at USD 13.44 billion in 2020. It is expected
to expand at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 57.5% from 2021 to 2028. In terms of
volume, the demand was recorded at 689.4 thousand units in 2020. Drones are used for multiple
applications ranging from filmmaking to emergency response. Additionally, these devices are
witnessing a high demand in the real estate and construction sector owing to their ability to survey
lands, provide continuous and precise project notifications, improve safety, and prevent dangerous
incidents on construction sites. Business use cases for drones have witnessed considerable growth
over the past few years. Market participants such as drone manufacturers and software solution
providers are constantly engaged in designing, testing and improving solutions for various markets.

Figure 1.1: Increase in Drone Market Size

1.1 Drones:
The term “drone” usually refers to any unpiloted aircraft. Sometimes referred to as “Unmanned
aerial Vehicles" (UAVs), these crafts can carry out an impressive range of tasks, ranging from
military operations to package delivery. Drones can be as large as an aircraft or as small as the
palm of the hand. Originally developed for the military and aerospace industries, drones have found
their way into the mainstream because of the enhanced levels of safety and efficiency they bring.
These robotic UAVs operate without a pilot on board and with different levels of autonomy. A
drone’s autonomy level can range from remotely piloted (a human controls its movements) to
advanced autonomy, which means that it relies on a system of sensors to control its movement.
2. Toll Literature Review:
• Shuai, et al. [1]- we studied Temperature, as a critical factor, significantly impacts on the
performance of lithium-ion batteries and also limits the application of lithium-ion batteries.
Accurate measurement of temperature inside lithium-ion batteries and understanding the
temperature effects are important for the proper battery management. They found the effects of
temperature to lithium-ion batteries at both low and high temperature ranges. This review
overviews recent development in both the understanding of the temperature effects and the
temperature monitoring, and discusses the challenges and possible future directions in achieving
optimum battery performance.
• Arnaud Girin [2]- we studied and design battery cooling systems and the importance of thermal
management were understood. This also gives idea of how voltage value varies with temperatures
of a Li-ion battery. Figure.2.1&2.2
• Shayok, etal.[3]- we have learned that there have been attempts to use hydrogen fuel cell onboard
drones. Fuel cell stacks and fuel tank assemblies can have high strength to weight. Therefore, they
can enable long-distance drone aircraft, but fuel cell stacks and associated systems, are generally
more expensive. Therefore, this work proposes the use of the novel stack of electric hydride fuel
containing metal hydride as a power source located on the drone. The main advantage of this is
that the fuel sticks can be used to cool the batteries, and the negative effect is that this slightly
reduces the load on the internal Li-ion battery and provides a slight increase during flight. This
work presents the results of experimental studies showing the main effect (i.e., lower battery
temperature) and the second side effect (i.e., a slight increase in flight time) obtained using a fuel
cell stack. In this work, the metal hydride fuel stick power hydrogen fuel cell is used in conjunction
with the Li-ion onboard a drone battery.
• Xin, et al.[4]- we have learned that the effects of Li-ion battery pack packets confirmed the
efficiency of the MHPA-based cooling system [Micro-Heat Pipe Array] by lowering the battery
pack temperature by 1C and reducing the temperature difference within the battery packs. and cells
during operation. Test and calculation results revealed improved stability and battery safety during
the charge-discharge cycle. This MHPA novel based on cooling system has features of energy
efficiency, simplification and coherence. Based on test data, heat production and dissipation of the
Li-ion battery pack are analyzed.
3. Research Gaps & Objectives:
From literature survey, most studies were done on studying the materials of drone and structural
integrity of the drone itself, but very few studies focus mainly on the landing gear of the drone
itself. Studying the fatigue life of a drone landing gear and trying to increase it can yield
tremendous increase in the usability of drones in fields of lower income such as agriculture.
Development of the correct configure for landing gear also has not been dived into a lot. Hence
the present study was carried out to study the fatigue of the landing gear and decide a suitable
configuration.

• To study the static stresses on the drone to ensure static equilibrium.

• To investigate the continuity of the drone model by performing a Modal Analysis
• Performing a fatigue analysis to estimate the life of drone landing gear.
Methodology followed to complete the project included using MSC Apex to mesh the drone model,
MSC Nastran and MSC Apex to compute the linear static analysis and the Model Analysis, and
CAE Fatigue to estimate the damage and life.
4. Methodology:
An initial drone model, provided by a Design Agency, was divided into the main hub and rotor
tubes group and the landing gear group. The existing landing gear, as originally proposed, was
replaced by a new landing gear designed and connectivity was re-established. Normal Mode
analysis was performed to ensure the connectivity of the model. Four Point and Two Point loads
were applied subsequently as transient load in order to perform a transient response. This was
expected to simulate the Landing Impact. The load was then converted into a cyclic load for fatigue
analysis. Fatigue material properties were applied to the parts of the landing gear and fatigue
analysis, using the CAE Fatigue module, was performed.

Figure 4.1: Methodology

5. Simulation of a Hexacopter Drone:

5.1 Static Analysis:
Static Analysis is executed when one or multiple point time-invariant loads are applied at given
positions on the model. It is done to check for static equilibrium i.e., to ensure that there are no
unbalanced forces in the model.

1. To find the points of high and low stresses in the model.

2. To ensure proper stiffness distribution by examining the displacements.
When performing static analysis, using the finite element method, the structure is represented as a
collection of discrete elements. These elements can be thought of as building blocks from which
one can construct a model of the actual structure. Each element is connected to the neighboring
element at a node. The stiffness of the element is represented internally in the form of a matrix
called the Element Stiffness Matrix. The size of this matrix depends on the type of element and the
degrees of freedom associated with that element. All of the element stiffness matrices are
assembled into a single matrix called the global stiffness matrix. This global stiffness matrix
represents the total structural stiffness before the boundary conditions are considered; therefore,
the global stiffness matrix is, in general, a singular matrix. The physical meaning of a singular
stiffness matrix is that the whole structure or part of the structure can displace as a free body
without producing any internal forces in the members.
In static analysis, adequate boundary conditions must be applied to the model in order to prevent
any rigid body motion of the structure. Once the boundary conditions are applied to the model
appropriately, the global stiffness matrix is reduced to a nonsingular stiffness matrix representing
the constrained structure. If no boundary condition is applied, the global stiffness matrix remains
as a singular matrix and the solution becomes trivial. All the loads that are applied to the model
are combined to form the load vector.
After the constrained stiffness matrix and the load vector are generated, the static equilibrium
matrix equation given below is solved as follows:
[𝐾]{𝑢} = {𝑝}

where,
[𝐾] = system stiffness

{𝑢} = grid point displacements

{𝑝} = applied load vector

The unknowns in the above equation are the displacements {𝑢} at the grid points in the model.
Determining the displacements involves the inversion of the stiffness matrix [𝐾] and multiplying
it by the force vector {𝑝}. In reality, the process of inverting a matrix is too time consuming;
therefore, a process based on the Gauss elimination method is used. The resulting displacements
are the same--the solution process is just faster.
Once the displacements at the grid points are known, any desired outputs, such as element forces,
strains and stresses can be computed.
 Figure 5.1: Forces and stresses from displacement results

5.2 Fatigue:

Fatigue is a failure under a repeated or otherwise varying load which never reaches a level
sufficient to cause failure in a single application. It can also be thought of as the initiation and
growth of a crack, or growth from a pre-existing defect, until it reaches a critical size, such as
separation into two or more parts.

Figure 5.2: Fatigue Five Tick Box

6. Results & Discussions:
All the load cases shown in Table 4.4 were superposed with each other and the
superposed function was applied as one duty cycle onto the model as shown in Figure 6.1 in the
time load scheduler.

Figure 6.1: CAE Fatigue performing the Fatigue.

6.1 Damage Tolerance

When the time history is processed, CAE Fatigue uses Rain Flow counting to give the Damage on
the structure based in the duty cycle of loading applied. Figure 6.2 shows the damage to the
structure.

Figure 6.2: Damage Plot

As seen on the fringes on the right, the maximum damage value is 7.49e-04, which is a lot lesser
than 1. Since damage value is less than one, in one duty cycle, there is no failure seen.
6.2 Estimated Life
In a similar way as shown in the previous sub chapter, life of different parts of the Landing Gear
is shown for the given time history in Figure 6.3.

Figure 6.3: Estimated Life

At the base of the landing gear the, the number of cycles crosses 1018 cycles of loading whereas at
the top, it can withstand 1267 cycles of loading. This is a worst-case scenario since the maximum
load for all cyclic loading has been considered and all load cases have been linearly superposed.

6.3 Interpretation of Results

In Static Analysis, the Overall Load Resultant and Single Point Constraint Reaction Forces are
balancing each other, meaning that the structure has static equilibrium.
In Modal Analysis, all flexible modes show continuity in the model. Both static and normal modes
show the landing gear has the maximum stress and least deflection. Hence only the Landing Gear
was considered for Fatigue.
In Fatigue analysis, it is to be noted that both maximum damage and least number of cycles to
failure is tending towards the top part of the landing gear although the load history is at the base
of the landing gear. This is due to buckling in the vertical tubes of the landing gear. Buckling can
cause a decrease in life of almost 1014 cycles in total.
6.4 Static Analysis:
 Figure 6.4: Stress Plot for 2 Point Landing

Figure 6.5: Stress Plot for 4 Point Landing

6.5 Normal Modes Analysis:

Since the model is in free-free condition, the first six natural frequencies extracted from the
analysis are rigid body modes. From the seventh mode, flexible modes are observed. Figures 4.9
through 4.12 depict modes seven through ten.

Figure 6.6: Mode 7

 Figure 6.7: Mode 8

7. Conclusions and Future Scope:

Drone technology has been a particularly important field in the recent year and will continue to
grow in popularity owing. Analyzing drones for stresses and fatigue will always be important given
the amount of money spent to building them. Most companies that purchase drones of higher
caliber will not want to constantly get it repaired or replaced. Hence, getting these analyses correct
is highly necessary.
➢ Static Analysis shows that the drone model satisfies static equilibrium and is structurally
intact.
➢ Modal Analysis confirmed the continuity of the model.
➢ Landing Gear of any drone model is the prime focus of fatigue analysis due to the high
loads and stresses to faces.
➢ Simply supported landing gear is preferred over a cantilever type landing gear due to more
even load distribution.
➢ Fatigue Analysis of the landing gear shows that the landing gear can withstand 1267 load
cycles in the worst-case scenario.
Mentioned below are the future possibilities of this project:
➢ Optimize drone design to increase fatigue life.
➢ Usage of newer materials and draw a comparison with current model.
➢ Usage of Composites in the entire model and to see how it compares.
➢ Cross corelating the load cases in order to get a more realistic life estimation.
➢ Validating the simulation results with real life testing of drone model
References:
[1] Commercial Drone Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis Report By Product (Fixed-wing,
Rotary Blade, Hybrid), By Application, By End-use, By Region, And Segment Forecasts, 2021 –
2028 (Page 1)
[2] Jin-feng LI; Zhuo-wei PENG; Chao-xing LI; Zhi-qiang JIA; Wen-jing CHEN; Zi-qiao ZHENG
(2008). Mechanical properties, corrosion behaviors and microstructures of 7075 aluminum alloy
with various aging treatments. , 18(4), 0–762. (Page 1-3)
[3] Balachandran, A., Divyesh Karelia, Jayaramulu Challa and Conceicao Rodrigues.
“MATERIAL SELECTION FOR UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLE.” , International Journal of
Mechanical Engineering and Technology (2014), (Page no. 35 – 38)
[4] Shrotri, Kshitij; Schrage, Daniel (2009). Composite Skid Landing Gear Design Feasibility.
Journal of the American Helicopter Society, 54(4), 042004–. (Page No. 042004-1 to 042004-3)
[5] M Urdea, Stress and Vibration Analysis of a Drone, 2021 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng.
1009 012059 (Page No. 1 – 3)
[6] MSC Nastran 2021.1 Linear Static User Guide (Page No. 18-30)
[7] MSC Nastran 2021.1 Dynamic Analysis User Guide (Page No.42-49)
[8] MSC Nastran 2021.1 Embedded Fatigue User Guide (Page No. 2-8)
[9] Reddy, S. and Yadav, V., "Duty Cycle Fatigue Simulation for Differential Casing," SAE
Technical Paper 2012-01-0813, 2012 (Page No. 1 – 5)
[10] Singh, KL & Ranganath, VR. (2007). Cycle counting using rainflow algorithm for fatigue
analysis. Structural Integrity Division, NAL (Page No. 301 – 302)
[11] Chen, Jinbao & Nie, Hong & Zhang, Zemei & Li, Lichun. (2014). Finite element linear static
structural analysis and modal analysis for Lunar Lander. Journal of Vibroengineering. 16. (Page
No. 399-406.)
[12] Pendleton, Richard L.; Tuttle, Mark E. (1989). Manual on Experimental Methods for
Mechanical Testing of Composites || Classical Lamination Theory., 10.1007/978-94-009-1129-
1(Chapter 3), (Page No. 11–16).