Aerodynamic Modeling and Path Optimization of Wing Docking Process for Fixed-Wing UAVs
-
摘要: 针对制约链翼无人机研制和发展的固定翼无人机空中聚合难题, 研究了固定翼无人机机翼对接过程的气动力建模与路径优化问题。首先, 采用数值升力线方法理论建立了固定翼无人机机翼对接过程的气动力模型, 分析了不同相对位置和姿态下无人机的气动耦合效应。在此基础上, 将对接过程视为加权的有向最短路径问题, 提出了一种基于Dijkstra算法的机翼对接路径规划方法, 获得了最佳的机翼对接路径。数值仿真结果表明, 该气动力建模方法能够可靠描述机翼对接过程的气动耦合效应, 优化得到的路径能够显著降低固定翼无人机机翼对接过程的翼尖涡相互干扰。Abstract: The problem of aerial docking of fixed-wing UAVs restricts the development of the chained-wing UAVs. The aero-dynamic modeling and path planning of the wing docking process of fixed-wing UAVs were investigated. At first, the aerodynamic model of the wing docking process of fixed-wing UAVs was established by using the numerical lifting-line theory. The aerodynamic coupling effects of the UAVs at different relative positions were analyzed. Then, the path planning of the wing docking process was considered as a weighted directed shortest path problem. The optimal wing docking path was obtained by using the path planning method based on the Dijkstra algorithm. Numerical simulation results demonstrate that the aerodynamic modeling method can reliably describe the aerodynamic coupling effects during the wing docking process. The optimal wing docking path significantly reduces the wingtip vortex interaction.
-
Key words:
- UAV /
- wing docking /
- aerodynamic coupling /
- path planning /
- optimization method
-
图 4 G-H方法中定义的马蹄涡与机体坐标系
Figure 4. Horseshoe vortex and body-fixed coordinate used in G-H method
图 6 G-H方法中后掠翼段的方向向量的定义
Figure 6. Direction vectors of a swept section defined in G-H method
图 7 G-H方法中的有效截面与有效速度
Figure 7. Effective section geometry and effective velocity in G-H method
图 8 后掠翼段与非后掠翼段的升力曲线对比
Figure 8. Comparison of the lifting curves of swept and unswept segments
图 12 升力和滚转力矩随着弦向方向距离的变化
Figure 12. Variation of lift and rolling moment with chordwise gap
图 13 升力和滚转力矩随着展向方向距离的变化
Figure 13. Variation of lift and rolling moment with spanwise gap
表 1 无人机参数
Table 1. Parameters of the UAVs
parameter value airfoil NACA0010 weight/N 20 half span/m 2 chord length/m 1 fuselage length /m 1 chord length of vertical tail /m 0.4 span length of vertical tail/m 0.5 sweep of vertical tail/(°) 20 chord length of horizontal tail/m 0.4 span length of horizontal tail/m 0.5 sweep of vertical tail/(°) 20 
下载: 导出CSV
表 2 气动力数据库计算的仿真参数
Table 2. Simulation parameters of the aerodynamic database
parameter value velocity/(m·s-1) 10 AoA/(°) 2 spanwise gap/m 0, 0.4, 0.8, …, 3.6, 4.0 chordwise gap/m 0, 0.4, 0.8, …, 3.6, 4.0
下载: 导出CSV
表 3 两种路径的总代价
Table 3. Total costs of two wing docking paths
routes costs a) 183.77 b) 141.15
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] 周伟, 马培洋, 郭正, 等. 基于翼尖链翼的组合固定翼无人机研究[J]. 航空学报, 2022, 43(9): 325946. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HKXB202209040.htmZhou W, Ma P Y, Guo Z, et al. Research of combined fixed-wing UAV based on wingtip chained[J]. Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 2022, 43(9): 325946(in Chinese). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-HKXB202209040.htm [2] 杨延平, 张子健, 应培, 等. 集群组合式柔性无人机: 创新、机遇及技术挑战[J]. 飞行力学, 2021, 39(2): 1-9, 15. https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FHLX202102001.htmYang Y P, Zhang Z J, Ying P, et al. Flexible modular swarming UAV: innovative, opportunities, and technical challenges[J]. Flight Dynamics, 2021, 39(2): 1-9, 15(in Chinese). https://www.cnki.com.cn/Article/CJFDTOTAL-FHLX202102001.htm [3] Anderson C. Dangerous experiments: wingtip coupling at 15 000 feet[J]. Flight Journal, 2000, 5(6): 64-72. [4] Alexander K, Alexander B, Alexander H, et al. Closed-loop flight tests with an unmanned experimental multi-body aircraft[C]. Proceedings of the 17th International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics. Como, 2017. [5] Magill S A. Compound aircraft transport study: wingtip-docking compared to formation flight[D]. Drillfield Drive: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, 2002. [6] An C, Xie C C, Meng Y, et al. Flight mechanical analysis and test of unmanned multi-body aircraft[C]. Proceedings of the International Forum on Aeroelasticity and Structural Dynamics. Savannah, 2019. [7] Behrens A, Grund T, Ebert C, et al. Investigation of the aerodynamic interaction between two wings in a parallel flight with close lateral proximity[J]. CEAS Aeronautical Journal, 2020, 11(2): 553-563. doi: 10.1007/s13272-019-00435-9 [8] Saban D. Wake vortex modelling and simulation for air vehicles in close formation flight[D]. Cranfield: Cranfield University, 2010. [9] Zhang Q R, Liu H H T. Aerodynamics modeling and analysis of close formation flight[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2017, 54(6): 2192-2204. doi: 10.2514/1.C034271 [10] Montalvo C, Costello M. Meta aircraft flight dynamics[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2015, 52(1): 107-115. doi: 10.2514/1.C032634 [11] Cooper J R, Rothhaar P M. Dynamics and control of in-flight wing tip docking[J]. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 2018, 41(11): 2327-2337. doi: 10.2514/1.G003383 [12] Phillips W F, Snyder D O. Modern adaptation of Prandtl's classic lifting-line theory[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2000, 37(4): 662-670. doi: 10.2514/2.2649 [13] Reid J T, Hunsaker D F. General approach to lifting-line theory, applied to wings with sweep[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2021, 58(2): 334-346. doi: 10.2514/1.C035994 [14] Goates C D, Hunsaker D F. Practical implementation of a general numerical lifting-line method[R]. AIAA 2021-0118, 2021. [15] Goates C D, Hunsaker D F. Modern implementation and evaluation of lifting-line theory for complex geometries[J]. Journal of Aircraft, 2023, 60(2): 490-508. doi: 10.2514/1.C036748 [16] Weber J, Brebner G. Low-speed tests on 45-deg swept-back wings, Part Ⅰ[R]. Aeronautical Research Council TR 2882, 1958. [17] Dijkstra E W. A note on two problems in connexion with graphs[J]. Numerische Mathematik, 1959, 1(1): 269-271. doi: 10.1007/BF01386390 -
点击查看大图
计量
- 文章访问数: 44
- HTML全文浏览量: 14
- PDF下载量: 5
- 被引次数: 0
邮件订阅
RSS