Project Report

on

Design and Analysis of concept UAV based on

Magnificent Frigatebird
Submitted as partial fulfillment for the award of

BACHELOR OF TECHNOLOGY
DEGREE
Session 2014-15
in

Mechanical Engineering

By
Vivek Kumar Chaurasia (1403240185)
Sarvesh Thakur (1403240128)
Shivam Mishra (1403240141)
Ranju Payala (1403240117)

Under the guidance of

Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta

ABES ENGINEERING COLLEGE, GHAZIABAD

AFFILIATED TO
DR. A.P.J. ABDUL KALAM TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY, LUCKNOW

1
 DESIGN OF UAV BASED ON FRIGATEBIRD

by

Sarvesh Thakur (1403240128)

Vivek Kumar Chaurasia (1403240185)
Shivam Mishra (1403240141)
Ranju Payala (1403240117)

Submitted to the department of Mechanical Engineering

in partial fulfilment of the requirements
for the degree of
Bachelor of Technology
in
Mechanical Engineering

ABES Engineering College, Ghaziabad

Dr. A.P.J. Abdul Kalam Technical University, Uttar Pradesh, Lk
April, 2018

2
 Student’s Declaration

We hereby declare that the work being presented in this report entitled
“Design and Analysis of UAV based on Magnificent
Frigatebird” is an authentic record of our own work carried out under
the supervision of Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta.

The matter embodied in this report has not been submitted by us for the
award of any other degree.

Dated :

Signature of students

Vivek Shivam Sarvesh Ranju

Department : Mechanical Engineering

This is to certify that the above statement made by the candidate(s) is correct to
the best of my knowledge.

Date............................

Signature of HOD Signature of Supervisor

Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta
Dr. R.K. Shukla Assistant Professor,
Mechanical Engg. Dept. Mechanical Engineering Department

3
 Acknowledgement

We would like to express our gratitude to Mr. Vijay Kumar Gupta, our
project guide, who took the time to guide us in our project work in spite
of a busy schedule that he has, being the Assistant Professor of the
department of Mechanical Engg. at ABESEC.

We would also like to thank Ms.Gaganpreet Kaur, the final year project
incharge, for her continuous help and guidance.

Sarvesh Thakur
Vivek Kr. Chaurasia
Shivam Mishra
Ranju Payala
(Project Group Members)
4
 CONTENTS

Chapter Name Page Number

1. Introduction 1
1.1 Objective 1
1.2 Background 2

2. Literature Review 7
2.1 Literature Survey 7
2.1.1 CJ Pennycuick 7
2.1.2 Aljoscha Sander 10
2.1.3 Henri Weimerskirch 14

3. Research and Project Work 18

3.1 Methodology 18
3.2 Airfoil Selection 19
3.3 Wing Modelling 26
3.4 Ansys Fluent CFD 28

4. Conclusion and Future Scope 32

5. References 33

5
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Render of the proposed design

Figure 2. The Magnificent Frigatebird
Figure 3. Female juvenile magnificent frigatebird
Figure 4. Civil UAV FOX-C8-HD AltiGator
Figure 5. NACA 4412
Figure 6. CL Vs Alpha Curve - NACA 4412
Figure 7. Sander’s Modeling of Frigate Wing
Figure 8. Sander's Wing Lift Coefficient Vs Alpha
Figure. 9 Henri Weimerskirch with a juvenile frigatebird. Credit:
Henri Weimerskirch, CEBC CNRS
Figure. 10 A juvenile great frigatebird that fledged from Europa
travelled over the northern Indian Ocean over six months.
Figure. 11 Isometric View of the Flying Wing
Figure. 12 Top View of Flying Wing
Figure. 13 Front View of Flying Wing
Figure. 14 Mesh Formation
Figure. 15 Mesh Formation 2
Figure. 16 CL , CD Vs Alpha

6
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Body Measurements of Magnificent Frigatebird.

Table 2. Speed Range of Frigate.
Table 3: Wing Characteristics.
Table 4: Morphological Features of our Wing.
Table 5: Carbon Fibre Properties.

7
 Nomenclature and Abbreviations

Symbol Units Description

CD - Drag Coefficient
CD0 - Zero Lift Drag Coefficient
CDf - Drag Coefficient of the
. fuselage non
dimensionalized by the wing area

CL - Lift Coefficient
CLmax - Aircraft max lift coefficient
Cm - Moment Coefficient
D N Drag
DC N Drag at Cruise
e - Oswald efficiency factor
g m/s2 Gravity
L N Lift
L/D - Lift to Drag Ratio
RA - Aspect Ratio
Sw m2 Wing Area
T N Thrust
V m/s Airspeed
Vcruise m/s Cruise Airspeed
Vmin m/s Minimum(Stall) Airspeed
WT kg Total Weight of Aircraft
ρ kg/m3 Air Density

8
 ABSTRACT
The Magnificent Frigate Bird, has been investigated extensively in the

past because of its extraordinary flying capabilities. Most of its life is

spent in the air. Frigate can stay aloft continuously for months. All of

these astounding facts about Frigatebird point towards its aerodynamic

anatomy and preferred flight mode, Soaring. In this project report, we

examine the research work done on Frigate Bird, its stupendous

aerodynamics and flight capabilities. We end the project by proposing a

UAV Design based on Magnificent Frigatebird, optimum for Soaring

Purposes.

9
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

1.1 OBJECTIVE

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV), commonly known as a drone, is an aircraft

without a human pilot aboard. UAVs are a component of an unmanned aircraft

system (UAS); which include a UAV, a ground-based controller, and a system of

communications between the two. The flight of UAVs may operate with various

degrees of autonomy: either under remote control by a human operator or

autonomously by onboard computers.

For various purposes, there are different types of UAVs. In the project work that

follows, a design for efficient Soaring UAV has been proposed based on Pacific

Magnificent Frigatebird. Soaring UAVs are ideal for surveying and hovering

purposes as they produce high lift and high drag during flight at low speeds.

Selection of Magnificent Frigatebird as the backbone of the design comes as no

surprise, given it’s stupendous flying abilities. Frigatebirds are at the extreme end

of evolution. They spend most of their life airborne and even hunt food in flight.

Taking nature as inspiration, we have design a flying wing Soaring UAV model

which can be used for surveying and other relevant purposes.

10
Fig 1. Render of the proposed design

11
1.2 BACKGROUND

Magnificent Frigatebird

The magnificent frigatebird (Fregata magnificens) is a seabird of the frigatebird

family Fregatidae. With a length of 89–114 centimetres (35–45 in) it is the largest

species of frigatebird. It occurs over tropical and subtropical waters off America,

between northern Mexico and Ecuador on the Pacific coast and between Florida and

southern Brazil along the Atlantic coast. There are also populations on the

Galápagos Islands in the Pacific and the Cape Verde islands in the Atlantic.

Fig 2. The Magnificent Frigatebird

12
The magnificent frigatebird is a large, lightly built seabird with brownish-black

plumage, long narrow wings and a deeply forked tail. The male has a striking red

gular sac which it inflates to attract a mate. The female is slightly larger than the

male and has a white breast and belly. Frigatebirds feed on fish taken in flight from

the ocean's surface (often flying fish), and sometimes indulge in kleptoparasitism,

harassing other birds to force them to regurgitate their food.

13
 Fig 3. Female juvenile magnificent frigatebird

The magnificent frigatebird is the largest species of frigatebird. It measures 89–114

cm (35–45 in) in length, has a wingspan of 2.17–2.44 m (7.1–8.0 ft) and weighs 1.1–

1.59 kilograms (2.4–3.5 lb). Males are all-black with a scarlet throat pouch that is

inflated like a balloon in the breeding season. Although the feathers are black, the

scapular feathers produce a purple iridescence when they reflect sunlight, in contrast

to the male great frigatebird green sheen. Females are black, but have a white

breast and lower neck sides, a brown band on the wings, and a blue eye-ring that is

diagnostic of the female of the species. Immature birds have a white head and

underparts.

This species is very similar to the other frigatebirds and is similarly sized to all but

the lesser frigatebird. However, it lacks a white axillary spur, and juveniles show a

distinctive diamond-shaped belly patch.

The magnificent frigatebird is silent in flight, but makes various rattling sounds at its

nest.

It spends days and nights on the wing, with an average ground speed of 10 km/h

(6.2 mph), covering up to 223 km (139 mi) before landing. They alternately climb in

14
thermals, to altitudes occasionally as high as 2,500 m (8,200 ft), and descend to

near the sea surface. The only other bird known to spend days and nights on the

wing is the common swift.

In a recent survey, frigatebirds were found to stay aloft for over 2 months without

rest. They covered over 55000 km in a 185 days with only 4 days of rest. Frigate

birds preferred flight mode is Soaring. Soaring describes the use of thermal

convective flow in the earth’s atmosphere as an ascending mechanism. By flying a

spiraling circular path within these columns of rising air, birds are able to ride the air

currents and climb to higher altitudes while expending very little energy in the

process.

This bird makes a shallow platform nest on top of both trees and bushes on islands

and cays with mangroves. This nest is constructed out of branches and twigs.

The magnificent frigatebird lays a clutch of one clear white egg that measures 68 by

47 millimetres (2.7 by 1.9 in) on average. This egg is incubated by both sexes for a

period of 50 to 60 days. After the egg hatches, the male parent will abandon it, with

the female staying to provision for the egg for almost a year.

This species feeds mainly on fish, squid, jellyfish, and crustaceans. Individual bird

diets vary depending on food availability and preferred hunting technique. It is a

kleptoparasite, pecking at other seabirds to force them to disgorge their meals. After

forcing the other seabird to regurgitate its meal, the magnificent frigatebird will dive

and catch the prey before it hits the surface of the water.
15
A scientific study which examined genetic and morphological variation in magnificent

frigatebirds found both expected and also highly unexpected results. As predicted by

the flight capacity of the species, the authors found signatures of high gene flow

across most of the distribution range. This included evidence of recent gene flow

among Pacific and Atlantic localities, likely across the Isthmus of Panama. This

geological formation is a strong barrier to movement in most tropical seabirds.

However, the same study also found that the magnificent frigatebird on the

Galápagos Islands is genetically and morphologically distinct. Based on this study,

the Galápagos population has not been exchanging any genes with their mainland

counterparts for several hundred thousand years.

16
Unmanned Aerial Vehicles

Compared to manned aircraft, UAVs were originally used for missions too "dull, dirty

or dangerous” for humans. While they originated mostly in military applications, their

use is rapidly expanding to commercial, scientific, recreational, agricultural, and

other applications, such as policing, peacekeeping, and surveillance, product

deliveries, aerial photography, agriculture, smuggling, and drone racing. Civilian

UAVs now vastly outnumber military UAVs, with estimates of over a million sold by

2015, so they can be seen as an early commercial application of autonomous things,

to be followed by the autonomous car and home robots.

Fig 4. Civil UAV FOX-C8-HD AltiGator

Civil uses include aerial crop surveys, aerial photography, search and rescue,

inspection of power lines and pipelines, counting wildlife, delivering medical supplies

to otherwise inaccessible regions, and detection of illegal hunting, reconnaissance

operations, cooperative environment monitoring, border patrol missions, convoy

17
protection, forest fire detection and monitoring, surveillance, coordinating

humanitarian aid, plume tracking, land surveying, fire and large-accident

investigation, landslide measurement, illegal landfill detection, the construction

industry, smuggling, and crowd monitoring.

18
US government agencies use UAVs such as the RQ-9 Reaper to patrol borders,

scout property and locate fugitives. One of the first authorized for domestic use was

the ShadowHawk in Montgomery County, Texas SWAT and emergency

management offices.

Private citizens and media organizations use UAVs for surveillance, recreation,

news-gathering, or personal land assessment. In February 2012, an animal rights

group used a MikroKopter hexacopter to film hunters shooting pigeons in South

Carolina. The hunters then shot the UAV down. In 2014, a UAV was used to

successfully locate a man with dementia, who was missing for 3 days.

In the last few decades, small-scale unmanned aerial vehicles have been used for

many applications. The need for aircraft with greater maneuverability and hovering

ability has led to a rise in quadcopter research. The four-rotor design allows

quadcopters to be relatively simple in design yet highly reliable and maneuverable.

Research is continuing to increase the abilities of quadcopters by making advances

in multi-craft communication, environment exploration, and maneuverability. If these

developing qualities can be combined, quadcopters would be capable of advanced

autonomous missions that are currently not possible with other vehicles.

19
 CHAPTER-2

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter deals with the literature survey which are team carried out and

research gaps which gives further motivation to work in proper direction and also

helps in formulation of project objective.

2.1 LITERATURE SURVEY

[1] CJ Pennycuick, 1982.

In 1982, C.J. Pennycuick presented his paper consisting of comparative

observations on three contrasting species of gliding birds. Birds included were

Magnificent Frigatebird, Fregata magnificens, the brown Pelican, Pelecanus

occidentalis, and the American black vulture, Coragyps atratus. Observations

were made from the top of Flamenco Island, Panama, on 13 days between 21 st

May and 6th June 1980.

Frigatebirds flew individually, with no apparent flock structure. They circled in

thermals and soar in slope lift, gliding whenever possible. They were also able to

proceed in straight, continuous flapping flight when necessary.

20
Efforts to catch frigatebirds were unsuccessful, so the mass and wing area were

taken to be the mean for 10 individuals from Florida, recorded by Harrington,

Schreiber & Woolfenden(1972). The sources of the morphological data were

heterogeneous, and Pennycuick claims no great precision for them. Harrington et

al. (1972) did not record wing spans. Therefore, Aspect Ratio was measured

directly, from six monochrome photographs of gliding frigatebirds, taken from

ground.

Measurements of speed and rate of climb were obtained by ornithodolite. A full

description of this instrument has been published elsewhere (Pennycuick,

1982a). The instrument consisted of a rangefinder on an alt-azimuth mount, fitted

with photoelectric digital encoders for azimuth, elevation and range. In use, it was

aimed manually to centre the image of the bird in the rangefinder window. The

rangefinder (a coincident image type) was set by means of a large handle,

geared to allow the range knob to be turned through its full travel with a quarter-

turn of the wrist. On pressing a button adjacent to the aiming handle, the current

readings of azimuth, elevation and range, and the time, together constituting an

'observation', were stored in the memory of a battery-operated Nascom 1

microcomputer. Several observations were accumulated before the bird passed

out of range of the instrument, and these together constituted a 'run'.

The run was concluded by typing in details of the species, the bird's behaviour,

and the wind strength and direction from the computer's keyboard. The whole

run, including these details, was then recorded on tape cassette, after which the

21
computer's internal memory was reset, ready to accept the next run.

Body measurements are listed in Table 1. Wingspan (b) is the distance from tip to

tip of the fully outstretched wings. Wing Area (S) is the projected area of both

wings, together with the portion of the body included between them, according to

usual convention.

The slope soar lifting coefficient predicted by Pennycuick was around 1.6 for

frigate

bird. So, if we consider 20% loss of lift in Airfoil to Wing formation, one should

choose an airfoil having max. Lift coefficient more than 2.0 at normal angle of

attacks (0-60 ).

Table 1. Body Measurements

Mass 1.52 Kg

Span 2.29m

Wing Area 0.408m2

Wing Loading 36.5 N/m2

Aspect Ratio 12.8

22
Aspect Ratio (A) and Wing Loading (Q) are derived from these as follows:

A = b2/S

Q = m.g/S

where m is the body mass, and g is the acceleration due to gravity.

23
 Table 2. Speed Range of Frigate

Mean S.D. CL

Flap/ Flap Guide 9.30 1.96 -

Glide 8.67 3.27 0.84

Slope Soar 6.22 1.74 1.63

Summary:

1. All three species were observed in straight flight, and circling in thermals,

from Flamenco Island, Panama. Measurements were made by or- nithodolite,

an instrument which records a series of timed, three- dimensional position

estimates, from which speeds, circle diameters and rates of climb can be

calculated.

2. Mean lift coefficients in straight glides ranged from 0*72 to 0-84, except in

slope soaring, where a mean of 1-6 was recorded for both the frigatebird and

black vulture.

3. Mean circling radii were proportional to wing loading, and varied from 12'Om

for the frigatebird to 18-0 m for the pelican. Mean rates of climb ranged from

0-fms" 1 for the black vulture to 0-57 ms"1 for the pelican. All species showed
24
 mean circling lift coefficients between 1-33 and 1-45, and angles of bank

between 22-9° and 24-7°.

4. It is argued that the frigatebird is adapted to stay airborne continuously, day

and night, for extended periods, by exploiting thermals over the sea under

trade wind cumulus clouds. The low wing loading is seen as an adaptation to

circling in narrow thermals, and the low disc loading as an adaptation giving

low minimum power, when flapping cannot be avoided. Take-off appears to

be possible only by dropping from an elevated perch, not from the ground or

water surface.

5. The low aspect-ratio, tip-slotted wings of the black vulture are certainly less

efficient for soaring, but appear to be better for upward take-off from the

ground. The pelican also has tip-slotted wings. Although its aspect ratio is

higher, it is still capable of taking off from a level water surface.

25
[2] Aljoscha Sander, 2017

In 2017, Aljoscha Sander in his paper, “Biomimetic Wing Design based on

Magnificent Frigate”, proposed a wing design for UAVs based on the geometry of

Magnificent Frigatebird.

In this paper, Thermal Soaring was considered as main Soaring phenomenon for

Magnificent Frigatebird. Morphological Features were used as it is to model the

wing.

NACA 4412 was selected as the go-to Airfoil in this paper. NACA 4412 is a High

Lift Low Reynolds number Airfoil.

26
 Fig 5. NACA 4412

The choice of NACA 4412 is not recommended as it’s max CL is around 1.6 even

at high angle of attack (150). Thus, this does not seems to be the right choice for

imitating Magnificent Frigatebird wing.

27
 Fig 6. CL Vs Alpha Curve - NACA 4412

Camber and Twist were chosen based on the Images present of Soaring Frigate

birds. Resulting Geometry was modeled using Rhino 5 CAD Software.

In order to quantify the 3D-effect of the wing, a linear extrusion (referred as 2D

wing ) of the NACA 4412 profile with the same aspect ratio as the frigate inspired

wing (referred as 3D wing) was generated.

For Wind Tunnel Testing purposes, scaled down versions of both wings were 3D

printed having following properties:

3D Wing 2D Wing

Chord Length 4.7cm 4.7cm

Wing Span 0.14m 0.14m

Wing Area 4.05 x 10-3m2 7.27 x 10-3 m2

Table 3. Wing Characteristics.

28
29
Experiments were conducted with two different wind tunnels, one for force-gauge

measurements and one for PIV ( Particle Image Velocimetry).

Force-gauge measurements were carried out in an custom-built open-circuit.

Experiments were done at 3 air speeds 5, 10 and 14 ms -1 resulting in Reynolds

Number of 19500, 39000 and 55000. For each speed, drag and lift were

measured.

PIV measurements were carried out using a custom built wind open-circuit wind

tunnel with a closed test chamber. Wind tunnel was capable of speeds up to 9ms -
1 (Re 35000). To supplement the experiments, Numerical simulations were also

done using OpenFOAM CFD Software.

30
 Fig 7. Sander’s Modeling of Frigate Wing

Frigate wing showed quite unexpected behaviour for both lift and drag. For drag

measurements, at 10ms-1, an increase in the drag coefficient of almost half an

order was observed. This was unexpected and cause of error remained unclear.

Because at 5ms-1 and 14ms-1, the drag coefficient shows values of within what

would be expected of an 3D wing. Max. CL was 0.8 at around 20o AOA which is

too less.

31
 Fig 8. Wing Lift Coefficient Vs Alpha

Aljoscha Sander comments that NACA 4412 was may be not a suitable profile to

reproduce the aerodynamic properties of the Frigate bird.

On the positive note, Wing modeled had no clear stalling point. Wing modeled

had low wing loading, low drag coefficient and an intermediate lift coefficient.

Sander comments that due to low wing loading at intermediate angles of

attack(0o - 6o), the 3D Wing could be used as a wing design for soaring UAVs.

32
Summary:

Frigate’s astounding flying abilities make it a viable design for soaring UAVs.

Work done in recent years paves a path for making a Soaring UAV based on

Frigatebird.

Airfoil to be selected must be a high lift, undercambered airfoil. S1223-RTL might

be a good airfoil to start with.

33
[3] Henri Weimerskirch, 2003

Scientists from France, Britain, Canada and Germany went to work at Europa

Island. The team was led by Henri Weimerskirch, an ecologist at Centre d’Etudes

Biologiques de Chizé, France. The island that lies between mainland Africa and

Madagascar has a large colony of great frigatebirds. The researchers caught

birds using nooses at the end of telescopic poles by day and by hand with the aid

of night vision goggles at night.

They outfitted 24 adults and 25 juveniles with solar-powered satellite transmitters,

while eleven birds also got data loggers to measure heart rate, wing flaps and

speed of flight. With these gadgets, the researchers tracked the birds’

movements for four years.

Between June and September, frigatebirds with no parental duties left Europa.

They caught the trade winds north to the equator and banked eastward toward

Indonesia. Frigatebirds are known to ride the thermals without working their

wings much.

However, the skies above warm equatorial waters are still, with hardly any wind.

34
Called the doldrums, they were the bane of pre-industrial era sailors. The birds

avoided getting stuck in these windless sections and rode the trade winds

sweeping from the southern and northern hemispheres that skirted the doldrums.

Rising columns of warm humid air condense to form cumulus clouds.

The birds caught this air current, and without flapping their wings, they spiralled

effortlessly upward to 700 metres, to the base of the clouds. While they usually

coasted horizontally from these heights, they frequently didn’t stop climbing at

this point. They continued their corkscrew-like flight pattern inside these clouds to

reach more than 4,000 metres. Once frigatebirds reached a peak, they cruised

down.

35
Cumulus clouds suck air with increasing velocity. The taller the clouds, the

greater the speed. Paragliders and hand gliders have a difficult time getting out of

its hold. It is naturally inquisitive to know how frigatebirds fare.

Fig. 9 Henri Weimerskirch with a juvenile frigatebird. Credit: Henri Weimerskirch, CEBC CNRS

“When entering into the cloud, where updraft is much stronger, they do no not

flap their wings but climbing rates are three times higher,” Weimerskirch told The

Wire. “This shows they are literally sucked in. Turbulence is probably not strong

inside the clouds, but when the bird has to come out of the cloud, they have to

flap a lot.”

36
Any activity at high altitudes is laboured because of low oxygen levels. But the

birds’ heartbeats didn’t thud fast from the effort of gaining altitude. Since they let

the air currents do their work for them, they didn’t spend much energy. So the

cost of flying tens of thousands of kilometres was low.

One stayed airborne for two months. Normally, the birds coasted non-stop for up

to 48 days, traveling an average of 420 km a day. They rested for 8 to 48 hours in

the islands of Indonesia, Seychelles or the Chagos that lie south of Maldives

before resuming their great transoceanic flights.

During the day, the frigatebirds flew just above the sea to catch fish. However,

they suffer from a critical design fault: their feathers are not waterproof. Should

they land on water, they’d get waterlogged and cannot take off. Neither can they

dive into the water after fish. By necessity, they catch prey on the surface like

flying fish and flying squid that they gulp down in midair. These feeding bouts sap

energy because the birds flap their wings vigorously to gain altitude before

shooting down to pick prey off the water. Feeding takes no more than 10% of the

their time.

Such aerial prowess takes time to master. Parents spend up to two years raising

37
their chicks. This is far longer than any other bird. Once the offspring become

independent, they leave their island home and circle over the Indian Ocean,

staying airborne for months. One youngster flew large sweeps over the the Indian

Ocean, clocking 55,000 kilometres in six months. In all that time, it rested on

islets for only four days.

If frigatebirds spend months in the air, even catching and eating their prey on the

wing, when do they sleep? Sleep is necessary to restore physiological functioning

of the brain. Frigatebirds cannot land on the water like albatrosses and go to

sleep. The researchers suggest the birds must sleep in flight, too. As they catch

an updraft and soar, they may be able to doze for no more than 12 minutes at a

time.

Researchers tracked three alpine swifts that flew non-stop for more than 6

months. They slept as they glided and didn’t seem to suffer from sleep

deprivation. More than deep REM sleep that would require muscle relaxation,

they could instead go into slow-wave sleep that shuts down one or both

hemispheres of the brain at a time while allowing them to keep their wings

outstretched.

38
Fig. 10 A juvenile great frigatebird that fledged from Europa travelled over the northern Indian Ocean

over six months.

The study didn’t provide unequivocal evidence that frigatebirds sleep in the skies.

The birds don’t forage at night and the lack of any sign of activity at night

indicates they may be asleep.

Their body design leaves great frigatebirds with no choice but to keep flying. But

their adaptations to power this lifestyle are remarkable. This study is the first to

track the species on its long-haul flights.

39
As a next step, Weimerskirch says, “We are comparing the influence of

environmental and atmospheric conditions on migration strategies of young

frigatebirds throughout their range, i.e. in the Galapagos, south west Pacific and

Indian Ocean.”

40
 Chapter 3

Research and Project Work

Working Methodology

We follow step by step procedure to reach an optimum solution. We start with

identifying the airfoil requirements of our UAV. We use the works of Henri

Weimerskirch and CJ Pennycuick to estimate the optimum airfoil.

We then model a Flying Wing model optimum to soaring. We use Solidworks

2016 for modelling. We then analyse the Model for lift and drag properties

using ANSYS FLUENT 2018.

41
 1. Airfoil Selection

We use XFOIL and MACHUP to analyse the different airfoils. We compare two

airfoils known for High Lift and High Drag at Low Reynolds Number :

NACA 4412

S1223 RTL

NACA 4412 was used by Aljoscha Sander[2] in his research work. So we compare it

with our choice of airfoil S1223RTL.

We start with analysing NACA 4412.

NACA 4412

42
Max Camber is found at 39.9% of chord length.

Max Camber Position is found at 40.3% distance.

Max Thickness is 12% of airfoil length

Max Thickness Position : 0.297

NACA 4412 Analysis

43
 We find that NACA 4412 provides following lift at 0o , 5o, 10o :

1) AOA 0o : CL = 0.5100

2) AOA 5o : CL = 1.1113

3) AOA 10o : CL = 1.7041

Not the best choice for imitating frigate as it has lower Lift coefficient than 2.2.

When Airfoils are used in wings, Lift is compromised by 20% (General rule of

thumb).

44
 NACA 4412 Flat Bottom Analysis

We find that NACA 4412 Flat Bottom provides following lift at 0 o , 5o, 10o :

1)AOA 0o : CL = 0.5771

2)AOA 5o : CL = 1.1674

3)AOA 10o : CL = 1.7487

We realize that Flat Bottom Airfoils are better for soaring than high cambered

wings.

45
 NACA 4412 Undercambered Foil Analysis

We find that NACA 4412 Undercambered provides following better lift at 0 o , 5o, 10o :

AOA 0o : CL = 0.9714

AOA 5o : CL = 1.5286

AOA 10o : CL = 2.0746

We realize that Undercambered Airfoils are best for soaring than high cambered

wings. Hence, choosing an undercambered airfoil is a better choice.

46
 S1223 RTL Analysis.

Max Camber is found at 8.9% of chord length.

Max Camber Position is found at 10.3% distance.

Max Thickness is 5% of airfoil length

Max Thickness Position : 0.30

It is an undercambered airfoil which produces high lift even at low reynolds number

at comfortable AOAs.

47
 We find that S1223RTL Undercambered provides following better lift at 0o , 5o,

10o :

AOA 0o : CL = 1.5355

AOA 5o : CL = 2.1251

AOA 10o : CL = 2.6986

We realize that S1223RTL Undercambered Airfoils is the best for soaring than

high cambered wings. Hence, choosing an undercambered airfoil is a better choice.

At 5o AOA, it is able to produce CL of 2.1 which matches are requirement of Airfoil.

48
Thus, we conclude to use S1223 RTL Airfoil for our wing Design Procedure.

49
2. Wing Design

Morphological Features of our Wing :

Span 2.38m

Wing Area 0.411m2

Aspect Ratio 11.6

Table 4: Morphological Features of our Wing.

Wing CAD Model

50
Fig. 11 Isometric View of the Flying Wing

51
Fig. 12 Top View

Fig. 13 Front View

52
3. ANSYS CFD ANALYSIS

For the purpose of this work some key design requirements are considered which

are thus enlisted as the reduction in material distribution in its optimal path; with the

optimal material distribution it should not cross the upper bound stress value

exposed by the UAV.

For this model preparation the main parts are only considered like fuselage, wing,

horizontal tail and vertical tail and propulsion system. It has been prepared under

sheet metal design part so as to get a thin surface thickness of 2mm of the outer

body parts which will be further useful for analysis. The other dynamic parts like

landing gear, missiles and other outer payloads are not considered for this analysis

The material used for all structural components is Carbon Fiber Reinforced Polymer

(CFRP) with properties shown in table below.

Parameters Denotation Values

Young’s Modulus E 72Gpa

Poisson’s Ratio µ 0.4

Density ρ 1.6 𝑒 −9 kg/𝑚3

Table 5: Properties of Carbon Fibre

53
 Governing Equations in CFD

There are mainly three equations we solve in computational fluid dynamics

problem. They are Continuity equation, Momentum equation (Navier Stokes

equation) and Energy equation. The flow of most fluids may be analyzed

mathematically by the use of two equations.

The first, often referred to as the Continuity Equation, requires that the mass of fluid

entering a fixed control volume either leaves that volume or accumulates within it. It

is thus a "mass balance" requirement posed in mathematical form, and is a scalar

equation.

The other governing equation is the Momentum Equation or Navier-Stokes Equation

and may be thought of as a "momentum balance".

Continuity Equation

. .
∂ ∫CV ρdA
∫ ρVdA + =0
∂t
CS

Momentum Equations

There are thus three different momentum equations that together comprise the
Navier-Stokes Equations

∂u ∂u ∂u ∂u ∂p 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕2 𝑢
ρ + ρu + ρv + ρw = ρg x − +µ 2
+µ 2
+µ
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂x 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧 2

54
 ∂v ∂v ∂v ∂v ∂p 𝜕2 𝑣 𝜕2 𝑣 𝜕2 𝑣
ρ + ρu + ρv + ρw = ρg y − +µ 2
+µ 2
+µ
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂y 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧 2

∂w ∂w ∂w ∂w ∂p 𝜕2 𝑤 𝜕2 𝑤 𝜕2 𝑤
ρ + ρu + ρv + ρw = ρg z − +µ 2
+µ 2
+µ
∂t ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂z 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧 2

Energy Equation

𝜕 1 ∂ 1 ∂ 1 ∂
𝜕𝑡
(ρe + 2 ρv 2 ) + ∂x (ρue + 2 ρuv 2 ) + ∂y (ρve + 2 ρvv 2 ) + ∂z (ρwe +
1 𝜕2 𝑇 𝜕2 𝑇 𝜕2 𝑇 𝜕𝑝 𝜕𝑝 𝜕𝑝 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕 ∂v
ρwv 2 ) = k( 2
+ 2
+ 2
)-(u +v +w ) + μ[u + (v ∂x +
2 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑌 𝜕𝑍 𝜕𝑥 𝜕𝑦 𝜕𝑧 𝜕𝑥 2 𝜕𝑥
∂w 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕 ∂u ∂w 𝜕2 𝑢 𝜕 ∂u ∂v 𝜕2 𝑢 ∂u ∂v
w ) + v 𝜕𝑦2 + 𝜕𝑦 (u ∂y + w ∂y ) + w 𝜕𝑧 2 + 𝜕𝑧 (u ∂z + w ∂z )+2μ[𝜕𝑥 2 +∂y ∂x +
∂x
𝜕2 𝑣 ∂v ∂w 𝜕2 𝑤 ∂w ∂u
2
+ + + ] + ρug x + ρvg y + ρwg z
𝜕𝑦 ∂z ∂y 𝜕𝑧 2 ∂x ∂z

ANSYS CFX is more than just a powerful CFD code. Integration into the ANSYS

workbench platform provides superior bi-directional connections to all major CAD

systems, powerful geometry modification and creation tools with ANSYS Design

modeler, advanced meshing technologies in ANSYS meshing, and easy drag and

drop transfer of data and results to share between applications.

55
Mesh Formation

Fig. 14 Mesh Formation

Fig. 15 Mesh Formation 2

56
 CL , CD Vs Alpha(AOA) at 6ms-1

Fig. 16 CL , CD Vs Alpha

Thus, we see that CL found at around 60 is around 1.55 which is very close to what

Pennycuick had proposed in his paper. Hence, the wing modelled is good enough for

Soaring Purposes.

57
 Chapter 4

Conclusion and Future Scope

Conclusion

We designed a UAV based on Pacific Bird Magnificent Frigatebird. The

modeled UAV, through Computational Fluid Analysis, proved to be a good

choice for Soaring UAV.

We propose Carbon Fibre for manufacturing the UAV as it is light and very

durable. Since the design of UAV is challenging, it has to be modelled through

CNC made dyes. This will give it a high quality finish as required for it.

Future Scope

The future endeavor that can be pursued is designing Ornithopter based on

Frigatebird or other birds. This will require a high level of understanding of

birds flight mechanics.

58
 References

[1] Pennycuick, C.J., 1983, Thermal soaring compared in three

dissimilar tropical species, fregata magnificens, pelacanus Occidentals
and coragpys atratus. Journal of Experimental Biology 102, 307-325.

[2] Sander A. Aljoscha, Biomimetic wing-design, inspired by the

magnificent frigatebird Fregata magnificens, Journal of experimental
Biology, Abteilung 5: Schiffsbau, Meerestechnik und Bionik, City
University of Applied Sciences Bremen, 28201 Bremen, Germany.

[3] Weimerskirch, H., Chastel, O., Barbraud, C., Tostain, O., 2003.
Frigatebirds ride high on thermals. Nature: Brief Communications 421,
333.

[4] Abbot, I. H., Doenhoff, A. E. V., 1958. Theory of Wing Sections.

Dover Publications Inc.

[5] A.Ahmad, “Digital Mapping Using Low Altitude UAV,”Pertanika

Journal of Science and Technology. Vol. 19 (S): pg 51 – 58 Oct 2011.

[6] K.N. Tahar and A.Ahmad, “A Simulation Study On The Capabilities

Of Rotor Wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicle In Aerial Terrain Mapping,”
International Journal Of Physical Sciences Vol. 7(8), Pp. 1300 - 1306,
2012.

[7] H.Y.Chao, Y.C.Cao and Y.Q. Chen, “Autopilots for Small Unmanned
Aerial Vehicles: A Survey,” Int. J. Contr. Automation. Syst., 8(1): 3644,
2010.

[8] Denny, M., 2009. Dynamic soaring: aerodynamics for albatrosses.

European Journal of Physics 30, 75 – 84.

[9] Pope, A., 2009. Basic Wing and Airfoil Theory. Dover Publications
Inc.

[10] Allen, M., January 2006. Updraft model for development of

autonomous soaring uninhabited air vehicles. In: 44th AIAA Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit.

[11] Walters, D. K., Cokljat, D., 2008. A three-equation eddy-viscosity

model for reynolds-averaged navier stokes simulations of transitional
flow. Journal of Fluids Engineering 130 (1), 1–14.

59
[12] Allen, M., February 2007. Guidance and control of an autonomous
soaring uav. Tech. rep., NASA Dryden Flight Research Center,
Edwards, Californa.

60