E80 Final Report Section 4 Team 2 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 May 5, 2008.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
University of Florida Hybrid Rocket Team’s Mile High Club
Advertisements

University of Florida PDR Presentation. Vehicle Design Diameter: 5.86 Length: 135 Static Stability Margin: 1.4 Total Weight: 23.6 lbs.
Motion Control for Packaging Machines Vibration analysis through motion control-motor-load interaction.
ME 322: Instrumentation Lecture 21
We deal with voltage signals Sensors convert environment data to electrical signals Output: Voltage Input: Time/Distance/Whatever Move Receiver around.
224 FINAL PROJECT- WIRELESS CONTROL OF A BOE-BOT Tom Cohlmia-Scott Moffat-Ashley Nidiffer-Eric Yim.
Closing Summary Design Testing Abstract Monitoring crop heath via aerial photography is a proper technique used to maximize agricultural productivity.
NASA SLI 2010 Mulberry Grove High School Flight Readiness Review Measurement of UVB Radiation Absorption by Cloth Material at Different Altitudes and Measurement.
Student Launch Project Critical Design Review February 28, 2014.
Flight Readiness Review. Intimidator 5: 5” diameter, 10’ length, 47 lbs  Motor: Aerotech L1300R 4556 N-Sec of impulse  Predicted altitude 5203’- RockSim.
Critical Design Review. Intimidator 5: 5” diameter, 10’ length, 45 lbs  Motor: Aerotech L1300R 4556 N-Sec of impulse  Predicted altitude RockSim.
Surface Variation and Mating Surface Rotational Error in Assemblies Taylor Anderson UGS June 15, 2001.
Accelerometer based localization for distributed off-the-shelf robots (Cots-Bots) Thomas Cheng, Sarah Bergbreiter Advisor: Prof. K.S.J. Pister Objectives.
Altimeters Team 7: K. ChristianM. Jones R. LupinskiI. McCall T. Thomas.
Chapter One Characteristics of Instrumentation بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم.
 All teams are provided with a “kit” – set of (mostly cardboard) templates to assist with rocket assembly  Our kit will be a “North Star” design seen.
Flight Readiness Review Atomic Aggies. Final Launch Vehicle Dimensions Diameter 5.5” Overall length: inches Approximate Loaded Weight: lb.
1. Project Purpose 2 Work Breakdown Structure Responsibility Assignment Matrix Gantt Chart Hint: Describe clearly Do not read directly from your powerpoint.
Critical Design Review of “Mach Shock Reduction” Phase II January 2008 Statesville, NC.
? ? ? ? ? ?.  3 POINT BENDING TEST :  Varying loads and spans  Variables measured in the gravity center:  Deflections with vision machine  Strains.
ME 322: Instrumentation Lecture 22 March 11, 2015 Professor Miles Greiner.
“Sky Rockets in Flight” Experimental Engineering Section 1,Team 3 Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4 May 5, 2008.
Vibration measurements on the final doublets and the Shintake Monitor Benoît BOLZON7th ATF2 project meeting, 16/12/08.
J Snyder, C. Barnes, Jessica Rinderle, Oleg Shiryayev
Science Fiction. Rocket flight Centre of Mass or Centre of Gravity (CM or CG) Centre of mass is the mean or central location of all the mass of an object.
Characterization of Model Rockets in Flight Section 4, Team 1 Student 1, Student 2, Student 3 and Student 4.
Vibrationdata 1 Unit 17 SDOF Response to Applied Force Revision A.
FRR Presentation IF AT FIRST YOU DON’T SUCCEED, TRY AGAIN… AND AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN.
Flight Readiness Review Student Launch Initiative SCS Rocket Team Statesville Christian School April 2, 2008.
Measurement of Pressure Distribution and Lift for an Airfoil  Purpose  Test design  Measurement system and Procedures  Instrumentation  Data reduction.
Where No One Has Gone Before… E80: The Next Generation Section 1, Team 1 Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4 May 5, 2008.
 Purpose  Test design  Measurement system and Procedures  Uncertainty Analysis.
Sundermeyer MAR 550 Spring Laboratory in Oceanography: Data and Methods MAR550, Spring 2013 Miles A. Sundermeyer Observations vs. Models.
Rocket Flight Dynamics Section 1, Team 4 Student 1, Student 2, Student 3 May 5, 2008.
Atomic Aggies CDR. Final Launch Vehicle Dimensions Diameter 5.5” Overall length: inches Approximate Loaded Weight: lb.
First-Year Engineering Program Advanced Energy Vehicle System Analysis 3 Reference:  AEV Lab Manual  System Analysis 3 Grading Guidelines.
Analysis of Rocket Flights Section 4, Team 4 Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, Student 4.
E80 Section 3 Team 3 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 May 5, 2008.
Projectile Motion Projectile motion: a combination of horizontal motion with constant horizontal velocity and vertical motion with a constant downward.
Presented by Rajatha Raghavendra
Analysis of Rocket Flights E80 Spring 2008 Section 2, Team 2 Student 1, Student 2, Student 3, and Student 4.
Current Works Determined drift during constant velocity test caused by slight rotation which results in gravity affecting accelerometers Analyzed data.
Critical Design Review Presentation Project Nova.
Vibrationdata 1 Unit 18 Force Vibration Response Spectrum.
Full Mission Simulation Test Report RocketSat CU Boulder
EE 495 Modern Navigation Systems
Trajectory Analysis Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 E80: Section 4 Team 3 Harvey Mudd College 5 May 2008.
INTRODUCTION TO ELECTRONIC INSTRUMENTATION
ECE3340 Review of Numerical Methods for Fourier and Laplace Transform Applications – Part 1 Fourier Spring 2016 Prof. Han Q. Le Note: PPT file is the.
ECET 402 Help Bcome Exceptional / snaptutorial.com
Analysis of the Mudd III Rockets
SDOF Response to Applied Force Revision A
Medium Rocket Analysis
College of Engineering
2nd Homework: Cervical Syndrome
Rocketry.
2018 First Nation Launch - Flight Readiness Review
Water Bottle Rocket Team 9: Darren Combs, Lauren Darling, Andrew Moorman, Esteben Rodriguez, Amanda Olguin.
ECET 402 Competitive Success/snaptutorial.com
ECET 402 Education for Service-- snaptutorial.com.
ECET 402 Teaching Effectively-- snaptutorial.com.
E80 Modal Vibrations Spring 2009
1/10 prototype support tube
3 General forced response
Final Readiness Review
The Maroonstone Rocket
Image Acquisition and Processing of Remotely Sensed Data
Laboratory in Oceanography: Data and Methods
Rocketry Trajectory Basics
2019 First Nation Launch – Oral Presentation
Presentation transcript:

E80 Final Report Section 4 Team 2 Student 1 Student 2 Student 3 Student 4 May 5, 2008

Introduction Goals: Simulate rocket flights Analyze rocket flight data Compare simulation to analysis and explain discrepancies Three analyses Large Inertial Measurement Unit (IMU) Large Vibration Small IMU Rocket—fatal flat spin

Background IMU Placed the IMU board on a turntable Measured distance from center to IMU Spun at several different frequencies Plotted ADC values as a function of known angular velocity and linear acceleration

Background Vibration Placed strain gauges on a hollow cylinder Performed a tap test with an impulse hammer Created Bode plots of output compared to force Flight Modeling Created 2-dimensional model of flight path using thrust curves and coefficient of drag Predicted time to apogee and height at apogee

Flight Preparation Set the configuration on the R-DAS unit Check transmission channel and settings Checked R-DAS and video telemetry Two flights did not have working video Loaded parachute and wadding Proctor loaded motor Proctor loaded ejection charge Loaded rocket on launch pad Turned on R-DAS unit to transmit Launch

IMU Analysis Procedure MATLAB code used calibration curves to convert ADC values to acceleration and angular velocity Numerically integrate angular velocities to find angles at each time step Create rotation matrix to convert local acceleration to global Numerically integrate in 3-dimensions to find velocity and position

Large IMU Analysis

Large IMU Simulation Analyzed and launched with G339N Motor Rocksim predicted Time to apogee: s Height at apogee: ft Burnout: s Distance from launch pad: ft

Large IMU Data—Flight 1 Only able to analyze to apogee Too much error accumulated past apogee to analyze the data Time to apogee: s Height at apogee: ft Burnout: 0.35 s

Large IMU Data—Flight 2 Only able to analyze to apogee Too much error accumulated past apogee to analyze the data Time to apogee: s Height at apogee: ft Burnout: 0.34 s

Large IMU Analysis Sensitivity to calibration curves Bias changes due to temperature Propagation of error

Large Vibration Flight Data Collected data for 6 sensors Used the sensor closest to the motor as the input Graphed plots of the output of each sensor vs. the designated input ” 13” 17” 33.25”

Large Vibration Analysis Sampling at 200 Hz gave frequencies between 0 and 100 Hz Based on Fourier transform and hollow cylinder results expected frequencies ~10 Hz and ~50 Hz within window Observed frequencies matched expected frequencies at both liftoff and apogee Mode shapes were arbitrary because of limited sensor resolution

3D Analysis

Small IMU Simulation Analyzed and flown with G104T motor Analysis performed without parachute Rocksim predicted: Time to apogee: s Height at apogee: ft Burnout: s Distance from launch pad: ft Time to impact: s

Small IMU Flight Data Data was corrupted throughout flight No distinct impulse and landing curves as in other plots Signal present only noise MATLAB analysis gave useless data From visual and video analysis: Height at apogee: ~850 ft Time at apogee: ~7.8 s

Small IMU Analysis Cause of data corruption may be low voltage to R-DAS and IMU Could have also led to failure of parachute to open at apogee From video, rocket experienced greater weather cocking than predicted by Rocksim Traveled nearly twice the predicted distance from launch pad Also likely due to higher wind gusts than predicted Noise in acceleration signal prevents accurate numerical analysis of flight path

Conclusions RockSim Simulations were relatively accurate when compared to flight data Variable winds and launch conditions contribute to discrepancies High amount of error after apogee for all IMU flights Resonant peaks for vibration rocket were observed during liftoff as expected Mode shapes could not be resolved

Acknowledgments Professors Spjut, Wang, Cardenas, Miraghie, and Yang Proctor A, Proctor B, Proctor C, and Proctor D

Questions?

Extra Figures

Modal Shape Magnitude vs. Position, with theoretical mode on top Sensor 10 as input, 7, 6, 1 as outputs 80 Hz

Large IMU Day 1 : Without Rotation

VI Front Panel

First Modal Shape Position along Rocket (in) Magnitude of Vibration (dB)

Second Modal Shape Position along Rocket (in) Magnitude of Vibration (dB)