www. ASSUREuas.org1
FAA sUAS COE Task A3UAS Airborne Collision
Hazard Severity Evaluation
Gerardo Olivares Ph.D. | November 2017 | Washington D.C.
www. ASSUREuas.org2
UAS Airborne Collision Hazard Severity Research
Purpose Inclusion of large numbers of sUAS into the National Airspace System (NAS) may pose unique
hazards to other aircraft sharing the NAS. It is necessary to determine potential severity of sUAS mid-air collisions with aircraft in order to define
an Equivalent Level of Safety to manned aviation.
Research Questions What is the severity of a UAS collision with a manned aircraft? What are the hazard severity criteria for a UAS mid-air collision (weight, kinetic energy, etc.)? How can the design of a UAS minimize potential damage during a mid-air collision? Can we classify a UAS impact similar to a bird strike? What particular characteristics of a UAS are required to avoid so it will not be a risk to a manned
aircraft? Can we categorize the severity of a UAS mid-air collision with an aircraft based on the UAS and what
would those categories look like?
Approach Develop high-fidelity computer models supported by component level tests to evaluate the severity of
sUAS collisions with manned aircraft (commercial transports, business jets)
www. ASSUREuas.org3
sUAS Airborne Collision Hazard Severity Evaluation – ASSURE Research TeamASSURE Principal Investigator (PI): Gerardo Olivares Ph.D., Director Computational Mechanics and Crash Dynamics Laboratories, National Institute for Aviation Research –Wichita State University, [email protected] . 316-9787273Other ASSURE Performers PI’s:
Wichita State University - NIARTom AldagJaime Espinosa de los MonterosChandresh ZinzuwadiaAdrian GomezRussel BaldridgeLuis GomezStudents: Armando Barriga, Hoa Ly, Rodrigo Marco, Sameer Naukudkar, and NathanielJ. Baum
Mississippi State UniversityThomas E. Lacy Jr. Ph.D. (co-PI)Students: Kalyan Raj Kota, Nimesh Jayakody, and Trent Ricks
Montana State UniversityDoug Cairns Ph.D. (co-PI)Mike EdensStudents: Graham Johnson and Forrest Arnold
Ohio State UniversityKiran D'Souza Ph.D. (co-PI)James Gregory Ph.D.Students: Troy Lyons
www. ASSUREuas.org4
Research Program OverviewDescription of Activity Quarterly Report
Research Plan Definition
WPI .UAS Class Definition
WPII. TargetAircraft Definition
WPIII. (a) sUAS Type I Projectile Development
WPIII.(b) sUAS Type II Projectile Development
WPIV.(a)NarrowBodyTransportModel Dev.
WPIV.(b)Business Jet Model Development
WPV.(a) Business Jet Safety Evaluation
WPV.(b) Narrow Body Safety Evaluation
WPV.(c) EngineModel Safety Evaluation
WPVI.Aircraft Draft Recommendations
WPVII. UAS Draft RecommendationsPeer Review
On Track Milestone
Completed Milestone
TBD Milestone
www. ASSUREuas.org5
Research Approach : Why did we use Simulation?
14 month research effort plus a 3 month peer review process.
Over 140 scenarios were analyzed: Two different sUAS configurations(QuadCopter and Fixed-
Wing) Two different Airplane Targets (Single Aisle Commercial
and Business Jet) with eight different impact locations (Wing leading edge, Horizontal Stabilizer, Vertical Stabilizer, and Windshield).
Impact velocities from 100 knots to 365 knots. Comparison with 2.68, 4, and 8 lb bird strike impacts. sUAS
masses 2.68, 4, and 8 lb. configurations. Engine ingestion configurations: Take-off, Cruise, Landing
This will have not been possible through Full Scale Physical Testing [Prohibitive costs and time, sourcing of test articles, control of accurate impact conditions, etc.]
Simulation allows for quick changes on impact conditions (Orientation, Velocity, Impact location, Mass)
Simulation allows for repeatability between tests and appropriated comparisons between impact scenarios.
Simulation allows for further evaluations with minimal costs.
www. ASSUREuas.org6
sUAS Models Development Process
sUAS Selection•Market Study
•Model Selection
sUAS Preparation•UAS Disassemble
•Component Mass Measurement
Reverse Engineering•Cloud Point Generation
•CAD Modeling•Material Identification
•Sanity Checks
FE Modeling•Discretization•Material Definitions
•Connections•Contact Modeling •Mass and CG Check
Validation (Building Block)•Coupon•Component•Full Scale
www. ASSUREuas.org22
What is the Severity of a sUAS Midair Collision with a Narrow Body Aircraft?
2.7 lb. Quadcopter 4 lb. Fixed Wing
www. ASSUREuas.org23
What is the Severity of a sUAS Midair Collision with a Business Jet Aircraft?
2.7 lb. Quadcopter 4 lb. Fixed Wing
www. ASSUREuas.org27
Conclusions Airframe – sUAS Impact R&D
Comparison to Bird Strikes sUAS collisions caused greater structural damage than bird strikes for equivalent impact energy levels
(i.e. equal mass and impact velocity).
Velocity and Mass (kinetic energy) Velocities above landing speeds are considered critical for masses equal to or above 2.6lbs (1.2 kg).
Lower masses will need to be investigated in the future. Damage severity increases with increased mass and velocity
Verified through component level tests and sUAS parametric studies with simulations
Stiffness of Components Component level testing demonstrated that stiff components such as motors can produce severe
damage. Testing showed penetration of motors (2.268 oz (64 grams)) into 0.063” (1.6 mm) aluminum panels when impacted at 250 knots.
Full scale sUAS simulations confirmed that most of the damage is produced by stiffer components (battery, motor, payload, etc.)
Distribution and Connection of Masses Distribution of mass and stiffness in the design of the sUAS is critical to the energy transfer. With concentrated or aligned masses the probability of critical damage increases.
Simulations confirmed that the critical damage occurs when a majority of the masses are aligned with the impact direction.
Energy Absorption Capability sUAS designs which incorporate energy absorbing components (materials and/or structural features)
could reduce the damage to the target aircraft.
www. ASSUREuas.org28
Engine Ingestion – Research Questions
Does a sUAV ingestion take out blades?
If blades are lost, are they contained?
What parameters of the ingestion event are expected to have the largest effect on the damage level? Flight condition Fan geometry Impact location and orientation Type of sUAV and sUAV
components (i.e. batteries, motors, cameras..etc.)
www. ASSUREuas.org29
Engine Ingestion – Approach
Develop a generic mid-sized business jet engine model for parametric study: Capture geometric characteristics consistent with modern engines. Generic model, not specific of any particular engine in service. Define representative geometry and materials. Leverage material models developed from literature review.
Conduct ingestion simulations using LS-Dyna by setting boundary conditions to match operating conditions at key flight phases: Takeoff. Approach. Flight below 10,000 ft.
www. ASSUREuas.org30
Engine Ingestion – Summary Results
Simulations focus on damage to fan, nacelle, and nosecone – downstream components such as the compressor, combustor and turbine are not included in the model.
Fixed wing is expected to introduce more damage than the quadcopter.
Stiffer components such as motors, cameras and batteries do the most damage to the fan.
Location of impact along fan is a key parameter. More damage as the impact occurs closer to the blade tip.
Takeoff scenario is the worst case because of high fan speeds.
During the peer review with various engine manufacturers [Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, General Electric and Honeywell] it was recommended that further work and collaboration are required to develop and validate a representative engine model to evaluate sUAS engine ingestion impact scenarios.
www. ASSUREuas.org32
Conclusions ASSURE Airborne Collision Study
sUAS can introduce severe damage to aircraft structures in case of airborne collision scenarios as shown in this research.
Even non-severe structural damage levels in the Level 1 to 3 can introduce a significant economic burden to aircraft operators: due to downtime and repairs.
sUAS collisions caused greater structural damage than bird strikes for equivalent impact energy levels (i.e. equal mass and impact velocity).
sUAS hobbyist and operators need to follow the guidance provided by the FAA in Special Rule for Model Aircraft (Public Law 112-95 Section 336) and/or AC107-2 respectively.
sUAS manufacturers should adopt “detect and avoid” and/or “geo-fencing” technologies to reduce the probability of potential impacts with other aircraft in the NAS.
The data provided in this research may be used by the FAA to define future Expanded Operations and Non-segregated Operations rulemaking activities.
www. ASSUREuas.org33
Future Work Phase 2 ‐ FY18 ‐ FY19
Study additional manned airframes such as rotorcraft and general aviation. Partnership with industry Original Equipment Manufacturer (OEMs) from the peer
review committee (GE, Pratt and Whitney, Rolls Royce, and Honeywell) to define a representative engine model to further research sUAS engine ingestion.
Conduct additional UAS component tests for various impact conditions (structural and rotational) as requested during the peer review with OEMS and FAA Chief Scientific Technical Advisors (CSTAS).
Phase 3 ‐ 4th Quarter FY18 ‐ FY19 Begin Testing of fan blade assembly. Develop plan and identify assets/partners/parameters/metrics for engine ingestion
testing using out of service engines; Peer review with OEMS and FAA CSTAS. Phase 4 ‐ FY20
Execute engine ingestion test using out of service engine; Peer review with OEMS and FAA CSTAS
www. ASSUREuas.org34
Questions?
• Electronic copy of the presentation available at: www.ASSUREuas.org Airborne collision research contact:
Gerardo Olivares Ph.D., Director, Computational Mechanics and Crash Dynamics LaboratoriesNational Institute for Aviation Research Wichita State [email protected](316) 978-7273