UAVL Final Thesis - Report

Design and Fabrication of Unmanned Air Vehicle
Launcher
By
Hammad-ur-Rehman ME-131013
Umer Danish Bashir ME-131046
Abdullah Soleh ME-131023
Charles Kumar ME-131107
Noman Iqbal ME-131123
Advisor: Dr. Bilal A. Siddiqui
A report submitted to the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in

fulfillment of the requirements for the ME-492 Design Project II
course of
Bachelor of Engineering
in
Mechanical Engineering Dept.
DHA Suffa University

Karachi, Pakistan
© 2017, Hammad-ur-Rehman, Dr.Bilal Siddiqui
1
Acknowledgments
We would like to appreciate and thank the efforts of those who have helped us in
completing this project. Firstly we would like to deeply thank our project supervisor
Dr. Bilal A. Siddiqui for his continuous support and guidance. His help in coordinating
our project especially in writing this report is tremendous.
Also we would like to thank our co-supervisor Mr. Hassan Hussain for his support in doing
literature research and manufacturing. We would like to thank our teachers who have
helped us with their expertise in various ways, like we thank Mr. Hamza Ahmed Qazi to
guide us in manufacturing phase of our project, his idea for smooth running of rope is
highly appreciated. We would like to thank and highly appreciate the help of Dr. Usama
and Mr. Mustafa Usman Pasha for their support and guidance in structural analysis study
on Ansys, and granting us permission to use CAE center for our simulations. We would
like to thank Mr. Taimoor for his guidance in manufacturing our prototype and actual
model in various ways, we highly appreciate his advice to use PVC for our pneumatic
circuit. We would also like to thank Mr. Farrukh Mustehsan for his support in idea
generation.
We would like to thank our support staff member like Mr. Mudassir for his support in
machining work and market survey. Help from other lab staff Mr. Asif and Mr. Amir is
duly appreciated. We greatly acknowledge the support of Mechanical engineering
workshop staff members for their contribution in manufacturing with their expertise on
lathe and welding.
2
We would like to show gratitude to the collaboration in research provided by Cornell
University’s aerospace team CUAir’s Cory Pomerantz and Michael Romanko.
In the end we would like to thank our friends and family for their support and
encouragement as and when ever needed to boost our moral and support with their helping
hand.
3
Abstract
An unmanned air vehicle launcher is required for defence and surveillance requirements.
A basic hindrance in the use of U.A.V. is the requirement of large runway for takeoff,
which is difficult to arrange. Therefore we are building a U.A.V. catapult mechanism to
aid in this situation. The catapult is a lightweight and rigid structure that is able to
accommodate different sizes of U.A.Vs for the launch. The base of the catapult is a truss
structure that is very light and strong. Guidance rail is attached on top of the structure for
the trolley travel. This report evaluates the multiple design solutions of a lightweight,
portable and rigid structure of UAV launcher that can be designed and fabricated as per the
specific requirements.
4
Table of Contents
Acknowledgments ............................................................................................................. 2
Abstract .............................................................................................................................. 4
Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. 5
List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 9
List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 10
Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................... 13
1.1 Unmanned Air Vehicle Launcher ...................................................................... 13
1.2 Bunge/Spring...................................................................................................... 13
1.3 Pneumatic ........................................................................................................... 13
1.4 Hydraulic ............................................................................................................ 14
1.5 Electromagnetic .................................................................................................. 14
1.6 Problem Statement ............................................................................................. 14
1.7 Objective ............................................................................................................ 14
Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................. 15
2.1 Robonic UAV Launching System: ..................................................................... 15
2.2 Meggit Defence System ..................................................................................... 15
2.3 TASUMA Aerospace Composite Engineering: ................................................. 17
2.4 ARIES Defence & Security: .............................................................................. 17
5
Chapter 3: Design Methodology .............................................................................. 19
3.1 Design Requirements: ........................................................................................ 19
3.2 Mechanisms for launching UAV........................................................................ 19
3.3 Chosen Mechanism ............................................................................................ 23
3.4 Design Calculations, Simulation and system sizing........................................... 23
3.5 Detailed Design and CAD model: ...................................................................... 43
3.6 First design: ........................................................................................................ 44
3.7 Second design:.................................................................................................... 45
3.8 Third design: ...................................................................................................... 46
3.9 Forth design: ....................................................................................................... 48
3.10 Fifth design: .................................................................................................. 49
3.11 Sixth design:.................................................................................................. 51
3.12 Seventh design: ............................................................................................. 52
Chapter 4: Structural Analysis (FEA) .................................................................... 55
4.1 Rail structural integrity analysis ......................................................................... 55
4.2 Cad pulley assembly development ..................................................................... 57
4.3 Pulley shaft analysis ........................................................................................... 58
4.4 Pulley bracket analysis ....................................................................................... 59
4.5 Cart analysis ....................................................................................................... 61
Chapter 5: Manufacturing ....................................................................................... 63
6
5.1 Overview ............................................................................................................ 63
5.2 Track................................................................................................................... 69
5.3 Cart ..................................................................................................................... 74
5.4 Pneumatic System .............................................................................................. 76
Chapter 6: Testing .................................................................................................... 85
6.1 Test 01: With small mass flow rate nozzle. ....................................................... 85
6.2 Test 02: With high mass flow rate nozzle. ......................................................... 86
6.3 Test 03: Launch at an angle, with measuring launch speed. .............................. 88
6.4 Test 04: High pressure launch cylinder .............................................................. 88
6.5 Test 05: Tested with rail and pulley assembly ................................................... 89
6.6 Test 06: Launch with load (01) .......................................................................... 91
6.7 Test 07: Launch with load (02) .......................................................................... 92
6.8 Test 08: Launch with bigger rope hole at support block .................................... 93
6.9 Wire rope calculation ......................................................................................... 96
Chapter 7: Conclusion .............................................................................................. 97
References ........................................................................................................................ 98
Appendix A: Peer-Evaluation of Group Work .......................................................... 100
Appendix B: Statement of Requirements ................................................................... 101
Appendix C: Basic Design Calculations...................................................................... 105
Appendix D: Detailed Design Calculations................................................................. 109
7
Appendix E: Wire rope selection chart ....................................................................... 115
Appendix F: Research paper published at SIMEC-2017 .......................................... 117
Appendix F: Research paper published at ICASE-2017 ........................................... 118
8
List of Tables
Table 1 Design Parameters ......................................................................................................................... 41
9
List of Figures
Figure 1-MC0315L UAV Launcher [3] ..................................................................................................... 15
Figure 2-UAV Launcher mounted on single axes trailer [4] ................................................................... 16
Figure 3 Bungee Launcher [5] .................................................................................................................... 17
Figure 4-A3 Observer UAV Launcher [6] ................................................................................................. 17
Figure 5-ATLAS ME-01 UAV Launcher [7] ............................................................................................ 18
Figure 6-Bungee UAV Launcher [8] .......................................................................................................... 20
Figure 7-Car Top UAV Launcher [9] ........................................................................................................ 21
Figure 8-Pneumatic Launcher [10] ............................................................................................................ 22
Figure 9-Schematic of pneumatic system .................................................................................................. 23
Figure 10-Simulink model replicating the behavior of tank discharge process. .................................... 26
Figure 11-Comparison between Simscape and analytical models, with parametric study of
polytrophic constant and flow discharge coefficient. ...................................................................... 27
Figure 12-Simscape model for the pneumatic piston actuator ................................................................ 28
Figure 13-Comparision of pressure profile between analytical and Simscape models for pneumatic
actuator. .............................................................................................................................................. 29
Figure 14-This graph compares velocity of piston in pneumatic actuator as predicted by the
analytical and Simscape models. ...................................................................................................... 29
Figure 15-Comparison between pressure at piston analytical and Simscape results of combined
model. .................................................................................................................................................. 31
Figure 16-Comparison between velocity profile of analytical and Simscape results of combined
model. .................................................................................................................................................. 32
Figure 17 Prototype cylinder ...................................................................................................................... 33
Figure 18 Teflon Piston along with O-rings .............................................................................................. 34
Figure 19 Pressure Sensor Mounted on Cap and connected to Laptop by Arduino. ............................ 34
Figure 20 Pressure Sensor inside pipe View ............................................................................................. 35
Figure 21 Compressor along with Accumulator ....................................................................................... 35
10
Figure 22-Pressure Vs Time graph Break Away Friction Test – (Test 02) ............................................ 36
Figure 23-Friction Force graph .................................................................................................................. 37
Figure 24-Pressure Vs Time graph ............................................................................................................ 38
Figure 25-Absolute Pressure Vs Time ....................................................................................................... 39
Figure 26-Prototype vs SIMSCAPE piston pressure model .................................................................... 40
Figure 27- U.A.V. Launcher Velocity at the end ...................................................................................... 42
Figure 28- Pressure on Piston ..................................................................................................................... 42
Figure 29- Pressure in Accumulator .......................................................................................................... 43
Figure 30 Adjustable arms, trolley design to cater various different classes of U.V.As ........................ 44
Figure 31 Slot type rail ................................................................................................................................ 45
Figure 32 Solid steel rod rail ...................................................................................................................... 46
Figure 33 Adjustable cart ........................................................................................................................... 47
Figure 34 U tube rail ................................................................................................................................... 48
Figure 35 U tube rail trolley view .............................................................................................................. 48
Figure 36 Light weight design .................................................................................................................... 49
Figure 37 Light weight Cart ....................................................................................................................... 50
Figure 38 Cart simple design ...................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 39 Cart Zoom View ......................................................................................................................... 51
Figure 40 Final cart design ......................................................................................................................... 52
Figure 41 Isometric View of the UAVL ..................................................................................................... 53
Figure 42 Zoom Isometric View of the UAVL .......................................................................................... 54
Figure 43 Isometric View of the Cart ........................................................................................................ 54
Figure 44 FEA analysis on rail ................................................................................................................... 56
Figure 45 Mesh convergence graph for rail .............................................................................................. 56
Figure 46 Equivalent Von-Mises Stress ..................................................................................................... 57
Figure 47 Test setup, fixed support at the ends and 6k Newton load in the middle .............................. 58
Figure 48 shaft bending stresses ................................................................................................................. 59
Figure 49 Mesh convergence graph for pulley bracket ............................................................................ 60
11
Figure 50 Stresses on Pulley bracket ......................................................................................................... 60
Figure 51 Cart mesh convergence graph ................................................................................................... 61
Figure 52 maximum stresses at the axle support holes and cart stopper holes ..................................... 62
Figure 53 Pneumatic catapult overview. Top: configuration at launch start, Middle: configuration at
end of Piston and cart travel, Bottom: configuration after detachment. ...................................... 64
Figure 54 Schematic of the shock block assembly .................................................................................... 71
Figure 55 Pulley aligned to with centre of PVC cylinder ......................................................................... 72
Figure 56 Front leg assembly ..................................................................................................................... 73
Figure 57 Backward A-Frame .................................................................................................................... 74
Figure 58 Cart assembly ............................................................................................................................. 75
Figure 59 Reservoir cylinder ...................................................................................................................... 77
Figure 60 PVC to steel tube mounting ....................................................................................................... 78
Figure 61 Front PVC cylinder half ............................................................................................................ 78
Figure 62 Piston connected with rope via U clips ..................................................................................... 79
Figure 63 Piston connected with rope via thimble and ferrule ................................................................ 80
Figure 64 12 volt air compressor ................................................................................................................ 81
Figure 65 Test 01 ......................................................................................................................................... 85
Figure 66 Test 02 picture ............................................................................................................................ 86
Figure 67 Busted cap during test ............................................................................................................... 87
Figure 68 Test 03 ......................................................................................................................................... 88
Figure 69 Test 05 ......................................................................................................................................... 90
Figure 70 Test 06 ......................................................................................................................................... 91
Figure 71 Test 07 ......................................................................................................................................... 93
Figure 72 Test 08 ......................................................................................................................................... 94
Figure 73 Variation of Required Acceleration with Ramp Length for Exit Velocity of 50 m/s. ........ 106
Figure 74 Variation of Cylinder Pressure with Bore Diameter for Required Force ........................... 107
12
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1 Unmanned Air Vehicle Launcher
An unmanned air vehicle launcher is a mechanism which allows the unmanned air vehicle
to be launched from almost everywhere (like rough terrains, urban areas etc.) in a relatively
short distance. It also eliminate the need of runway. There are few types of unmanned air
vehicle launchers based on power generation methods (e.g. Bunge/Spring, pneumatic,
Hydraulic, electromagnetic etc.). Depending on the design, they can be based on multiple
platforms including ships, land vehicles, and even other aircraft [1].
1.2 Bunge/Spring
Bungee/Spring Bungee or spring systems store the required energy for launch by physical
compression or extension of the elastic component. They are typically inexpensive,
lightweight, and relatively simple to implement. Using AVA’s [2] existing launcher as an
example of the simplicity, this system does not require a shuttle or retainer.
1.3 Pneumatic
Pneumatic systems are found to be the most common. They utilize compressed air to
generate the necessary launching force.
13
1.4 Hydraulic
Hydraulic launchers are less common than pneumatic, and they have higher pressure
requirements for the hydraulic fluid than their pneumatic counterparts. These system
requires high pressure to operate therefore safety precautions must be applied while dealing
with them.
1.5 Electromagnetic
Electromagnetic systems are essentially modified rail guns using fluctuating magnetic
fields to propel a ferrous shuttle down the launch rail. These systems are highly complex
and demand a significant amount of electrical power.
1.6 Problem Statement

The problem at hand is to design and manufacture a U.A.V. catapult mechanism that is
able to launch a U.A.V at take-off speed within a short track at a small tilt angle.
1.7 Objective
To build an unmanned air vehicle launcher that can safely launch an unmanned air vehicle
with in a short distance, while providing a launch velocity appreciably above the stall
speed, and save the cost of a larger tarmac runway.
The aim of this project is to design and fabricate a light weight, rigid and portable structure
of UAV launcher to launch UAVs for surveillance at DHA City Karachi.
14
Chapter 2: Literature Review
2.1 Robonic UAV Launching System:

The MC0315L shown in the (figure: 1), is the latest fully pneumatic catapult in the
Robonic family and is optimised to meet the growing market demand for tactically
responsive launch systems for small UAV’s and light target drones. It is capable of
launching 40Kg unmanned air vehicle at a speed of 15m/s. This is achieved using a
pneumatic system that operates at up to 10 bar, providing a smooth acceleration profile
along the 3.5m launch rail. However, it is very disadvantageous for us because our
objective is to carry a payload of 200kg with a maximum launching speed of 50m/s.
Figure 1-MC0315L UAV Launcher [3]
2.2 Meggit Defence System
The Meggitt group of companies manufacturing different types of unmanned air vehicle
launchers. The launcher shown in (figure: 2) is MDS Hercules Pneumatic Launcher,
capable of launching a 250Kg unmanned air vehicle at a speed of 55m/s. This is achieved
using a low pressure pneumatic system that operates at up to 10 bar, providing a smooth
acceleration profile along the 16m folding launch rail. The total weight of the launcher is
15
6000kg.However, the disadvantage in our case include: Huge weight, High purchasing
cost, not available in Pakistan.
Figure 2-UAV Launcher mounted on single axes trailer [4]
Meggit Defence System
Another launcher made by Meggit is shown in the (figure: 3), known as elastic launcher.
The launcher is a free standing unit based on a 6.22 meter launch rail with a 15° launch
angle when deployed. The air vehicle is mounted on a trolley that moves freely along the
rail. The trolley is driven through four elastic power bands, tensioned with a rail-mounted
electric winch. It has the capability to withstand with a maximum payload of 20Kg with
maximum launch velocity of 20m/s. However, this launcher is disadvantageous for us as it
is not capable to launch a load of 200Kg.
16
Figure 3 Bungee Launcher [5]
2.3 TASUMA Aerospace Composite Engineering:

The unmanned air vehicle launcher A3 Observer shown in (figure: 4) is manufactured by
TASUMA. The launcher has adjustable elevation angle of 5 to 20 degrees, actuated by
electro-hydraulic ram with a maximum launch weight of 50kg. The rail length is 7.5m and
the maximum launch speed is 35m/s. However, it is disadvantageous for because it is not
capable to carry our desired launch load of 200kg.
Figure 4-A3 Observer UAV Launcher [6]
2.4 ARIES Defence & Security:

The ATLAS ME-01 shown in the (figure: 5) is the ultimate technology for medium-weight
UAV’s launching. Very high performances, autonomous driving force, maximum
flexibility, fully customisable, high mobility (foldable and transportable on a standard
trailer), and fully ensured repeatability in all environments and operational scenarios. The
launcher is actuated by medium pressure pneumatic and has the ability to launch a
maximum pay load of 150Kg with a maximum launch velocity 38m/s. However, the design
17
doesn’t meet out desired specifications the desired pay load is 200Kg with a maximum
launch velocity of 50m/s.
Figure 5-ATLAS ME-01 UAV Launcher [7]
In conclusion, after having a thorough market survey, it is found that, there is a general
lack of information available for UAV launching systems. This is primarily attributed to a
low degree of innovation in the designs. As a result of this, there is not a high degree of
competition in the market. The limited cases for which comprehensive information is
available are for the few companies producing launchers compatible with multiple UAV
platforms. Their marketing strategies lead to the second conclusion that, the market is not
yet responding to swarming UAV scenarios. Frequently highlighted features of an
advertised system are its ease of setup and portability. This is likely because these two
variables greatly affect the versatility and ease of use of the UAV. However, parameters
critical to swarming scenarios, like UAV loading and system reset times, are rarely
mentioned. However, they all failed to satisfy our design criteria, that it should be portable,
light weight, rigid structure and should be capable to launch a maximum load of 200Kg
with a launch velocity of 50m/s.
18
Due to the limitations involved in the UAV launchers discussed under the ‘literature
review’ section there is a need for making a UAV launcher from scratch that would
overcome all given requirements.
Chapter 3: Design Methodology
3.1 Design Requirements:

The unmanned air vehicle launcher is to be designed and fabricate for DHA city Karachi.
It is to be used for the surveillance of the city. The required specifications for the design
are,
 It should be portable, so that it can carry out to the desired location.
 It should be light weight.
 The structure should be rigid, in order to bear all the reaction forces during service.
 Capable to launch a maximum mass of 200Kg.
 The launch velocity should be greater than / equal to 20% more than given stall
speed.
3.2 Mechanisms for launching UAV

Various launching mechanisms that can be used in our UAV launcher are given below,
with their functionality.
Mechanism 1: Bungee Launch

This design is based on a rail and trolley mounted on any platform. The trolley is then
driven by using elastic energy, accumulated in rubber cords, into kinetic energy.
19
The advantages using bungee launcher are:
 Light weight.
 Free energy.
 Portable.
Figure 6-Bungee UAV Launcher [8]
In this design one end of bungee is attached with the rail while the other end is attached
with trolley. The trolley is then forced back at the starting point of rail in order to store
potential energy in bungee. As the trolley release the stored potential energy is then
converted into kinetic energy which produce the lift for the mounted UAV on trolley.
Advantages: Light weight, free energy, portable, maintenance cost is low, rigid structure.
Disadvantages: Unable to launch heavy payloads (> 45 Kg).
20
Mechanism 2: UAV Car Top Launch
In this mechanism a UAV is mounted on the top of the car and the launching is done by
moving the car with launch speed.
The main advantages for using UAV car top launch are:
 Simple in design.
 Cost is very low.
 Easy to setup and launch.
 Light weight.
 Portable.
Figure 7-Car Top UAV Launcher [9]
As the car moves forward the velocity is increased. When the speed of the car reached at
the launch speed, the UAV is then released and its start flying up in the air.
Advantages: Light weight, simple design, portable, purchasing cost is very low.
21
Disadvantages: Road is required to drive car, Not able to launch heavy payloads (> 20
Kg).
Mechanism 3: Pneumatic Launch

The system consist of an air chamber, piston cylinder assembly, air compressor and control
panel. The low pressure pneumatic energy conversion is used to launch the UAVs.
The two main advantages of the systems are:
High launch velocities.
Capable of launching high pay loads.
Figure 8-Pneumatic Launcher [10]
In this design the pay load is launched by mean of pressure. A long cylinder enclosed by
piston is mounted with the rail. A hard metal wire along with pulleys is joining the trolley
with the piston to produce forward and backward motion. As the pressure applies to the
piston, it move the trolley to produce launch speed.
Advantages: Capable to launch heavy payloads (>200Kg), portable, rigid structure.
Disadvantages: complex design, expensive.
22
3.3 Chosen Mechanism
Based on the evaluation above, the most suitable design based on our requirements is
Design Pneumatic Launch. The 3D cad model for the mechanism is created in Solid
works. Different views of the mechanism are given below:
Pulley for steel cable

Launch Rail, 55 ft
Aircraft, 400Wheeled
lb
Start position of the trolley
piston
Compressor 100 psi, 5
cfm
Pneumatic Cylinder,
200 mm bore, 50 ft
Accumulator 220
stroke of the piston
End position
cu.ft.
Figure 9-Schematic of pneumatic system
3.4 Design Calculations, Simulation and system sizing
We have modeled our complete U.A.V Launcher in SIMSCAPE/MATLAB for the initial
sizing and optimization of operational parameters. We at first did some calculations based
on research papers to validate our simulation. Along with the construction of prototype for
a simple pneumatic actuator to validate the simulations.
23
Analytical Validation of Simulation
3.4.1.1 Simulink Model
Simulink is a tool linked with MATLAB, which provides a wired blocks based modeling
technique. This approach provides strong visual confirmation the user about the model’s
correctness and getting sense out of it. Within Simulink there are different modules that
range from computational mathematical modeling to physical modeling block systems.
Physical modeling system is called the SIMSCAPE.
3.4.1.2 SIMSCAPE Physical Modeling Technique
SIMSCAPE provides strong blocks based mathematical modeling of physical structures,
with the ability to connect them in a real world kind of manner. This real world depiction
of mathematical model provides immense help in modeling complex real world systems
with great ease. In this way modeling large systems in SIMSCAPE allows users to model
their non-linearity as well. But to get confidence over the model, the model needs to be
validated, with physical model and/or mathematical models that themselves have been
validated. We utilized both of these methods to validate our model.
3.4.1.3 Benchmarking of Simspcape Simulations
We researched and short listed two research papers from resources like American Society
for Engineering Education, 2007 [11] and INTECH [12]. These papers model pressure
vessel charging/discharging process and pneumatic piston actuator model respectively.
These research papers have derivation of mathematical model that are being validated by
physical models. We programmed mathematical models from these papers and
24
simultaneously solved resulting non-linear differential equations with Matlab ODE45, tool.
Results were compared with equivalent Simulink models.
3.4.1.4 First Benchmark (Tank Discharge)
In [11], a mathematical model for the differential state changes of ideal gas upon discharge
and charging process of accumulator have been derived. Ideal gas assumption was carried
out along with isentropic flow through the nozzle. Applying the mass conservation
principles they have defined a differential, density change expression that is further
integrated to find final density and other state parameters of ideal gas.
1⁄ (𝛾+1 )
− ⁄
𝑑𝜌 𝜌𝑜 𝐴𝑡 𝑀𝑡 (𝛾 𝑅 𝑇𝑜 ) 2 𝛾−1 2 2(𝛾−1 )
= [1 + 𝑀𝑡 ]
𝑑𝑡 𝑉 2
For Mt: P o / P cv < 0.528
𝑀𝑡 = 1
Else Mt, P o / P cv > 0.528
1⁄
𝛾−1⁄ 2
2 𝑃𝑐𝑣 𝛾
𝑀𝑡 = ⌈ {( ) − 1}⌉
𝛾−1 𝑃𝑜
This mathematical model has been solved in Matlab with ODE45 suite and compared with
the results of equivalent Simulink Simscape model shown in (figure: 3.4.1.4) which
validates the above equation.
25
Figure 10-Simulink model replicating the behavior of tank discharge process.
3.4.1.5 Results and Discussion
A Matlab script has been written to evaluate the behaviour of both the tests, from analytical
model and from the Simscape model. Results are displayed in the (figure: 3.4.1.5) which
show the relative error of only 2-4 percent, and that verifies the Simscape model for tank
discharge.
These two models actually caters different type of orifice approximations. The Simscape
model uses flow discharge coefficient to model the flow in and out of the tank while the
analytical model uses the nozzle flow which is controlled by the polytrophic coefficient for
non-linearity. This poses a mismatch in the numerical accuracy for both models but the
overall trend is same in both of them, at different values of Cd and n for respective models,
we are able to verify their accuracy as shown in (Figure: 3.4.1.5).
26
Figure 11-Comparison between Simscape and analytical models, with parametric study of polytrophic constant
and flow discharge coefficient.
3.4.1.6 Second Benchmark (piston cylinder combination)
In [12], authors studied the behaviour of an ideal pneumatic actuator, with ideal gas
properties and derived a mathematical model for differential pressure at the piston, with
the energy coservation and mass conservation principles.
𝑑𝑃 𝑅. 𝑇 𝑃 𝑑 𝑉𝑜𝑙
=𝐾 . 𝑚̇ − 𝐾 .
𝑑𝑡 𝑉𝑜𝑙 𝑉𝑜𝑙 𝑑 𝑡
𝑑∀
Where, = ∀̇
𝑑𝑡
mU.A.V Ẍ = (P2 (t) A2 − Psea A2 )
− [m g 〈Sin θ〉 + 1⁄2 X 2̇ S CD ρsea + μ (m g 〈Cos θ〉 − 1⁄2 X 2̇ S CL ρsea )]
 We neglect friction effects in this models as per assumptions described earlier.
27
An equivalent model on Simscape has been constructed as in (figure 3.4.1.6) All the
parameters in both the models are kept equal and same. There have been a very good
approximation in th epressure response in the two models but a significatnt overshoot in
velocity profile of the simulink model has been observed along with slight higher pressure,
an explanation for this effect is considered to be the temperature gradient effect, which has
been modeled in Simscape but in the analytical model has been assumed to be negligible.
Figure 12-Simscape model for the pneumatic piston actuator
28
Figure 13-Comparision of pressure profile between analytical and Simscape models for pneumatic actuator.
Figure 14-This graph compares velocity of piston in pneumatic actuator as predicted by the analytical and
Simscape models.
29
3.4.1.7 Third Benchmark (Coupling Piston Cylinder to Discharge Tank)
For coupling the two systems, we know that for actuator system only controllable
parameter by the tank model is mass flow rate. And also this mass flow rate from the tank
side model is affected by the pressure on the actuator, instantaneously. Modified equations
are:
1⁄ (𝛾+1 )
− ⁄2(𝛾−1 )
𝑑𝜌 𝜌𝑜 𝐴𝑡 𝑀𝑡 (𝛾 𝑅 𝑇𝑜 ) 2 𝛾−1 2
= [1 + 𝑀𝑡 ]
𝑑𝑡 𝑉 2
𝑃0
If, <0.528 , then 𝑀𝑡 = 1
𝑃𝑐𝑣
Otherwise,
1⁄
𝛾−1⁄ 2
2 𝑃𝑐𝑣 𝛾
𝑀𝑡 = ⌈ {( ) − 1}⌉
𝛾−1 𝑃𝑜
where Po=P , from actuator. Therefore,
1⁄
𝛾−1⁄ 2
2 𝑃𝑐𝑣 𝛾
𝑀𝑡 = ⌈ {( ) − 1}⌉
𝛾−1 𝑃
𝒎̇ = 𝝆𝑽
30
𝑑𝑃 𝑅. 𝑇 𝑃 𝑑 𝑉𝑜𝑙
=𝐾 . 𝑚̇ − 𝐾 .
𝑑𝑡 𝑉𝑜𝑙 𝑉𝑜𝑙 𝑑 𝑡
mU.A.V Ẍ = (P2 (t) A2 − Psea A2 ) − [m g 〈Sin θ〉 + 1⁄2 X 2̇ S CD ρsea +
μ (m g 〈Cos θ〉 − 1⁄2 X 2̇ S CL ρsea )]
An equivalent Simscape model has been constructed for this study. All the parameters in
both the models, analytical and Simscape, are kept same.
In this model we combined the two simpler analytical models above to form a complete
pneumatic actuator system. For the coupling effect we introduced the changing mass flow
rate out of the tank discharge model into the piston cylinder model and fed its pressure
differential to the tank model to calculate respective Mach no. this in turn modifies the
velocity of piston and assembly which feeds back the effects of mass and friction back on
the model.
Figure 15-Comparison between pressure at piston analytical and Simscape results of combined model.
31
Figure 16-Comparison between velocity profile of analytical and Simscape results of combined model.
Prototype Manufacturing
3.4.2.1 Introduction
A prototype testing rig has been developed to validate the analytical and SIMSCAPE
simulation results, and to be able to use SIMSCAPE model for the complete U.A.V.
catapult mechanism sizing and run time calculations. Idea is to run the piston cylinder
device with compressor and pressurized tank similar to the analytical and SIMSCAPE
constructed models and compare the results as in post processing. The study is intended to
validate the SIMSCAPE model within acceptable error tolerance. This study will led the
pathway for the more complex and complete computer aided SIMSCAPE model simulation
for the exact sizing and optimization of system parameters.
32
3.4.2.2 Methodology
A prototype of piston cylinder device has been constructed with PVC cylinder and Teflon
piston. Choice of material is based on the need of fine surface requirement in small time
and budget. Teflon piston is provided with slots for O-rings that should serve the purpose
of air tight mechanism and lubrication of the whole cylinder from inside. 5mm thickness
and 80 mm diameter Or-rings are used for the purpose.
To make our prototype we use a PVC pipe of length 1.5 m diameter of 3 inch and 2.8 inch
inner diameter which can bare a pressure up to 35 psi. For piston we use Teflon with dia.
2.75 inch and length of 1.5 inch. On one end we use a cap and on the other hand we used
a threaded cap, on threaded cap we made a inlet for compressed air and also attached our
pressure sensor “spark fun 14 bar”. For compressed air we used a medium range
compressor which gives us compressed air on pressure on of 3.5
Figure 17 Prototype cylinder
33
Figure 18 Teflon Piston along with O-rings
Figure 19 Pressure Sensor Mounted on Cap and connected to Laptop by Arduino.
34
Figure 20 Pressure Sensor inside pipe View
Figure 21 Compressor along with Accumulator
35
3.4.2.3 Break Away Friction Test – (Test 01)
In this test we want to know at what pressure or force our piston start moving or counter
friction so for that we used a portable car tire pump to provide a compress air for our
cylinder, as you can see in (figure: 22). Initially pressure increases inside cylinder and at
pressure of 1130 mBar. Piston Friction force resisting to move and after some time pressure
reaches to 1150 mBar it is the point where friction force is less than the force provided by
the compress air.
Pressure VS Time
1160
1140
1120
Pressre mBar
1100
1080
1060
1040
1020
1000
0 2 4 6 8 10 12
Time Step 5000 mSec
Graph 1.
Figure 22-Pressure Vs Time graph Break Away Friction Test – (Test 02)
36
3.4.2.4 Break Away Friction Test – (Test 02)
For this test we used a Car tire air compressor, as you can see in (figure: 24). Initially
there is reading of 1000 mbar and after some time pressure inside start increasing and at
1300 mbar our Piston start moving and our pressure inside start decreasing to 1050 mbar
and cause to stop piston again, because of increase in inner volume but as compress air
provide by a double stage compressor to increase pressure inside, air pressure rise again
and know our piston start moving again on a pressure of 1200 mBar and same phenomena
increasing of volume and decreasing of pressure goes on but at the end you can see pressure
rises 1100 mbar to 1300 mbar because of max inner volume and at that point our cylinder
fill of compress air.
Force of Friction
180
160
140
120
100
Force in N
80
60
40
20
0
-20 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
-40
Time Step 1000 mSec
Graph 3.
Figure 23-Friction Force graph
37
Pressure VS Time
1400
1200
Pressure mBar 1000
800
600
400
200
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Time Step 1000 sec
Graph 2.
Figure 24-Pressure Vs Time graph
In (figure 23). as you can see initial force required by the piston to overcome its friction
between piston O-ring and cylinder wall which is 150N, at that force our piston start
moving and friction force decreasing to approx. 20 N and after that it start increasing again
up to 75N and that increase and decrease of friction force goes on but at the end it again
goes to a force of 150N. This all because of car pump we are using which has no tank of
pre compressed air.
38
3.4.2.5 High Pressure Test – (Test 03)
For this test we used a medium range commercial Compressor and cylinder to maintain
flow rate and to provide compress air continuously to minimize the effect of increase in
volume which may cause decrease in pressure of cylinder which you can see in (figure:
25) . Here as we open valve of compress air for our piston cylinder piston, Our Piston start
moving smoothly but at a low velocity because of low pressure during this it achieve max
pressure of 2000 mBar while it start moving approximately at 1100 mBar but there is no
delay for because of drop in pressure piston move smoothly.
Absolute Pressure VS Time T3

2500
2000
Pressure in mBar
1500
1000
500
0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Time Step 50 mSec
Graph 4.
Figure 25-Absolute Pressure Vs Time
39
prototype vs simulink
2500 90
80
2000 70
60
piston pressure (mBar)
1500 50
matlab_simulink
40
prototype_data
1000 30 analytical_results
error
20
500 10
0 -10
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
time_step 50 mili Sec
Figure 26-Prototype vs SIMSCAPE piston pressure model
This test is then compared with the results from SIMSCAPE model, and the results are
presented in the Figure. , there it shows the remarkable similarity between the results. As
in the prototype model valve is opened like a ramp applied, in a short time period which
is also included in the SIMSCAPE model for more realistic results, also frictional
damping is added in the SIMSCAPE model to make it more prone to the prototype model
and the results are a 90% similar.
40
3.4.2.6 System Parameter Characterization
Now we use our SIMSCAPE model to find out the actual sizing parameters for our U.A.V
catapult mechanism. We have written a MATLAB script that runs a Monte Carlo based
simulation which tends to find optimum system parameters. Monte Carlo simulation has
been constructed on the basis of cost function that indicates the best performance
parameters after thousands of iterations.
We are sizing our system to be operated with pneumatically powered actuator. For our
prototype model we are targeting a light weight U.A.V class with weight of about 15-25
Kg. and end velocity of 13-23 m/s. this type of UAV has been provided to us by the
Machines lab DSU. We are running through series of Monte Carlo simulations to reach out
to optimized parameters for the catapult.
After first few Monte Carlo tests we have found design parameters for a 15 Kg UAV as
shown in (Table: 1), Velocity graph, shown in (figure: 27), Piston Pressure graph, shown
in (figure: 28) and Accumulator graph, shown in (figure: 29).
Table 1 Design Parameters
Parameter Value
Piston Diameter 78
Accumulator Volume 0.011 m3
End Velocity 15 m/s
Force on start 3000 N
Force on impact 4 0000 N
Acceleration at start 16 gs
Impact spring stiffness 1 e6 N/m
41
Figure 27- U.A.V. Launcher Velocity at the end
Figure 28- Pressure on Piston
42
Figure 29- Pressure in Accumulator
3.5 Detailed Design and CAD model:
The chosen design is further optimized, detailed and extended for the final CAD of the
Unmanned Air Vehicle Launcher under this heading.
43
3.6 First design:
Figure 30 Adjustable arms, trolley design to cater various different classes of U.V.As
Pros:
 This design provides flexibility in terms of different types of UAVs mounting that
can be hold from their wings.
 Wheels assembly are capable of providing smooth ride with all the high speed
loadings on it.
 Structure is easily mendable, all the crucial components are kept detachable, and
replaceable if required.
44
Cons:
 It complicates the design for relatively short scale UAVs and which don’t have
specifications to behold from wings.
 Design is relatively heavy for short scale UAVs.
3.7 Second design:
Figure 31 Slot type rail
Pros:
 A weight reduction by the removal of wheels assembly.
 Simpler slider mechanism, only greasing is required.
 Trolley is similar adjustable arm.
45
 Solid rod pneumatic actuator is used, the design is for the rope multiplication factor,
i.e, launch in half of the rail length.
Cons:
 Wear and tear of the slider.
 Rail structure needed to be made with precise manufacturing process.
 Trolley structure is heavy.
 Pneumatic cylinder is heavy.
3.8 Third design:
Figure 32 Solid steel rod rail
46
Figure 33 Adjustable cart
Pros:
Wheel assembly is changed as shown, following design is much more stable and light
weight
Rail structure is light weight, and easy to manufacture
Cart design is adjustable arm.
Cons
Cart is heavy.
Rail structure is found to be flimsy as shown.
47
3.9 Forth design:
Figure 34 U tube rail
Figure 35 U tube rail trolley view
48
Pros:
Rail structure is much more stable and light weight
Rail structure is easy to fabricate
Trolley design is adjustable arms
Trolley wheels assembly is light weight and stable for operation.
Cons
Trolley design is heavy and complicated
3.10 Fifth design:
Figure 36 Light weight design
49
Figure 37 Light weight Cart
Pros:
Rails structure is light weight, easy to fabricate.
Wheels assembly is simple and light weight.
Cons:
Cart design is complicated, and dangerous cantilever loads exist.
Cart design is heavy, yet lighter than before.
50
3.11 Sixth design:
Figure 38 Cart simple design
Figure 39 Cart Zoom View
Pros:
Cart has been changed to a more light weight design.
Cart has light and stable wheel assembly.
51
Rail structure is the light weight and easy to fabricate.
Cons:
Cart design is complicated to fabricate
3.12 Seventh design:
Figure 40 Final cart design
52
Design Views
. We have optimized the design to reduce the complexity of the structure. In this section
the final model of the entire UAVL is created and assembled using SolidWorks. The top,
front and the side views of the 3D model are illustrated below.
Figure 41 Isometric View of the UAVL
53
Figure 42 Zoom Isometric View of the UAVL
Figure 43 Isometric View of the Cart
54
Chapter 4: Structural Analysis (FEA)
4.1 Rail structural integrity analysis
With the design being finalized for structural stability it needs to be analyzed for stresses
being generated and structural integrity. ANSYS has been used for the stresses and
structural analysis, since the major loads on the rail structure are cart impact at launch
velocity and live bending load of cart. For a simplified yet conservative analysis. The rail
has to bear very high impact load at the end of launch, this load needs to be decreased while
transferring to rail and the stopper block to be held rigidly. The bolts used are considered
as rigid because their strength lies in range of 900-1000 MPa while the rail is made with
Galvanized steel with strength of about 300 MPa.
Show model setup for static analysis
The structure has been modeled with considering the symmetry of the setup in longitudinal
axis and representing the sheet as a surface body, this has drastically reduced the problem
size and we achieved mesh convergence.
55
Figure 44 FEA analysis on rail
Meshing
The model is well simplified and made with highly accurate quad elements, quad elements
allow bending so it’s also beneficial for our case in which the rail might experience bending
at the time of impact. Mesh convergence plot for the following analysis can be seen in
(figure:45).
Mesh Convergence for Rail

60
50
stress MPa
40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000 9000
No. of Quad Elements
Figure 45 Mesh convergence graph for rail
Stress analysis:
With above mentioned model setup we achieved the stresses in the structure as shown in
(figure: 46)
56
Figure 46 Equivalent Von-Mises Stress
With the stresses exceeding in the region of bolts, we used rubber bushings and extra
support sheets to withstand such high stresses in the small area, while in rest of the areas
we achieved factor of safety of 5
4.2 Cad pulley assembly development
Pulley is a crucial component for the launching mechanism, it need to guide the cable
pulling the cart for launch plus taking up all the beating of its load.
Pulley in our structure is what takes up the real beating, there is a whopping 6000 N impulse
load, this needs to be checked for the material failure. Crucial parts of a pulley are its shaft
and the bracket, we have run FEA test on both of them and done some basic design
tweaking in light of the FEA results to save the pulley assembly.
57
4.3 Pulley shaft analysis
This shaft has been modeled with a single line in ANSYS workbench, and then meshed
with highly accurate beam elements. The case of the shaft has been modeled as a fixed-
fixed end beam with a concentrated load in the mid span. The test setup can be seen in the
(figure: 47).
Figure 47 Test setup, fixed support at the ends and 6k Newton load in the middle
Design changes and results
As per finite element analysis results we see that shaft diameter less than 10 mm is near
the elastic failure, with high jerk loads in mind we selected 15 mm diameter axle for the
pulley. With this we achieved a factor of safety of 13.63. A very high FOS has been selected
due to the important role of the shaft. One shaft has to bear high acceleration loads and on
the other hand we cannot afford large bending of the shaft because otherwise it will deflect
the pulley bracket to the dangerous levels.
58
Figure 48 shaft bending stresses
4.4 Pulley bracket analysis
Pulley bracket has the job to transport 6k N of force from the rope to the rail structure. This
poses strict design constraints on the pulley bracket design. Design iterations have been
conducted and the following design has been selected on the basis of FEA. The pulley
bracket was tested for the static structural failure and linear buckling of its side walls, both
the conditions are satisfied in the selected design.
MESHING:
Shell elements have been selected for the reduced computational expense. Shell elements
can be justified on the basis of the nature of the design, pulley bracket is made out of sheet
metal components which can be easily modeled with shell elements providing the right
thickness.
(figure: 48), shows the mesh convergence of the model for the validation, a moderate mesh
size is selected for better computational performance.
59
Figure 49 Mesh convergence graph for pulley bracket
Pulley bracket is also designed considering the high factor of safety in mind, about FOS
3.65, and a peak stress of 82 MPa was attained in a region far from stress concentrations.
These stress concentrations are dealt with rounding off edges in final fabrication. As shown
in the following (figure: 49).
Figure 50 Stresses on Pulley bracket
60
4.5 Cart analysis
Cart is the main assembly that takes up the real beating. The cart’s design is challenging
due to the following requirements of a design to withstand heavy impact loads and be light
and sturdy enough to give a smooth ride to the UAV mounted on top of it, so that it does
not tumble during the run and launch. To be in a conservative approach cart’s side sheet
has been modeled in a static structural solver with impact loads extracted from the simscape
simulation tool. This impact load for a 15 Kg UAV mounted goes as high as 20, 000 N.
this is the real issue and the side sheet thickness has been selected appropriately to
accommodate this high load requirement.
Meshing:
The side sheet was modeled with shell elements that reduce the problem size yet keeping
the high numerical accuracy. Mesh convergence has been attained as follows in (figure:
50).
Mesh Convergence for Cart

80
70
60
Stress MPa
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000
No. of Elements
Figure 51 Cart mesh convergence graph
61
Figure 52 maximum stresses at the axle support holes and cart stopper holes
As per the maximum stresses dictated by the FEA results in (figure: 51) we calculated the
factor of safety for the cart to be 1.16. For the proper use of cart and its safety it’s mandatory
to properly align the dampers at the impact site and avoid any unwanted moments.
62
Chapter 5: Manufacturing
5.1 Overview
Through the research conducted in the literature search, a piston-driven pneumatic
catapult system was chosen. The catapult drives its energy from the compress air stored
in a reservoir, which is pressurized using a small, portable pump. The reservoir is connected
with the cylinder by a high pressure pipe and valve to open and close. When the valve is
open the air from the piston rushes into the cylinder, pushing piston from one end to
another. The plane is attached to a cart which rides on a track located above the cylinder.
The cart and piston are coupled via a cable which runs over a pulley. As the piston travels
towards one end of the cylinder, it tows the cart along the track in the opposite direction.
Upon reaching the end of the track, the cart collide by a set of shock absorbers. The plane
simultaneously detaches from the cart, continuing its trajectory, and beginning the climb-
out portion of its flight. A diagram of this process is shown in (figure: 52) below.
63
Figure 53 Pneumatic catapult overview. Top: configuration at launch start, Middle: configuration at end of
Piston and cart travel, Bottom: configuration after detachment.
The launcher was manufactured using the outside and on-campus resources. In campus we
worked at the Mechanical Engineering department workshops. The workshops are
equipped with a wide verity of tools and machines which we have used to fabricate the
launcher. The primary machines used for this project were the mill and lathes (for turning,
facing, finishing and boring), an electric welding machine (for joining different assembly
parts) and basic machine tools such as drill press, hack saw, hand drill and cutting tools.
We have also used the outside resources which were not available at Mechanical
Engineering department workshops. The banding of sheets for the fabrication for track and
machining of high grade steel for the trolley wheel shafts were carried out from outside
resources.
Material selection
Material selection has been done on the basis of structural analysis of crucial components
in Ansys Workbench.
Aluminum has been selected for the cart assembly to make it light weight yet strong enough
to bear the impact load at the end of the launch
GI sheet is chosen for the rail to ensure the smooth surface, corrosion resistance and string
enough to bear the heavy impact load.
64
Bill of material
Rail structure
Table 2 bill of materials list for rail structure
Part name material purpose Quantity
Rail slides (C- Galvanized iron Provide run length 2
channels) for the UAV
End sheet block Mild Steel Adds necessary 2
weight to
encounter cart
inertia
Stand Mild steel To elevate the 2
launcher in
position and at
specific angle
Cylinder PVC Rodless psiton runs 1
within it providing
launch capability
Piston Teflon Transfer 1
pneumatic power
through rope to the
cart
65
O-rings rubber Provides air tight 2
guide to the piston
and oiling
Tie bolt Standard 10 mm Connects rope to 1
bolt the piston
hook steel Rope is loop 1
around it
Cart structure
Table 3 bill of materials list for cart structure
Side sheet Aluminum 6061 Provide cart’s 2
shape and support
Wheel axle stainless Steel Wheels and rocker 4
arms are mounted
on it. They give
cart’s width
Wheel Nylon Cart rolling 8
Rocker arms Aluminum 6061 UAV is mounted 4
on them
Retaining rings Hardened steel Holds the cart in 8
shape
66
Cart stopper Aluminum 6061 Mounted with 2
Allen bolts on the
cart to bear the
impact at the end
of launch
Allen bolts Standard Allen Holds the stopper 4
bolts M6 block in its place
spring steel Helical spring to 2
absorb shock on
rocker arm
Pulley
Table 4 bill of materials list for pulley
Pulley wheel Aluminum Guides the rope 2
Pulley bracket Mild Steel Holds the pulley 2
Pulley shaft hardened steel Carries the load of 2
launch and support
pulley wheel
67
Accumulator
Table 5 bill of materials list for accumulator
Accumulator PVC, 40 sch Holds pressurized 1
cylinder, 3inch dia air
Clean out, 4inch PVC, 40 sch Provide easy access 1
dia to operate the
accumulator
Valve, 2inch dia PVC, 40 sch For quick release of 1
pressure
Outlet tube fabric Flexible inlet to the 1
cylinder
Project Risk assessment
This project is related to a very sophisticated operation of UAV launch. UAVs are sensitive
equipment that needs to be dealt with extreme care. A launcher is a heavy duty machinery
with very high operational speeds and forces involved. These forces and speeds therefore
needed to be handled with extreme care. These conditions impose serious risks in the
construction of such a launcher and to ensure that after all the work the UAV will actually
fly. The Design process cannot ensure the safe flight of UAV unless the fabrication process
is done with about 95 % of accuracy.
68
Use of PVC for the compressed air application was a risk since it is not recommended, but
we used it with appropriate factor of safety. Reason for using this stuff was to bring down
the cost of the UAV launcher and ease of manufacturing.
5.2 Track
The catapult frame design was driven by the requirement to fit within a 3 m wide carrying
case. To achieve this, the catapult frame was split into two halves, each with a total length
of approximately 2.4 m, and each housing an inner 7 cm PVC tube acting as the cylinder.
Several options were investigated for the outer frame design. The outer frame was required
to support an inner pressurized tube or be pressurized itself, and to easily come apart and
split into two halves, while also supporting the weight of the catapult itself. The idea of
pressurizing the frame itself was quickly discarded as too mechanically complex. A circular
outer frame was also considered, but discarded in place of a square frame, whose flat
surfaces would be easier to machine and mount components.
Square galvanized steel tube with an outer width of 130 mm and a wall thickness of 1.75
mm was utilized for the frame. Galvanized iron was chosen for its corrosion resistance
as the catapult would operate outdoors and in moist environments. A stress analysis
on ANSYS (FEA) was performed to check the strength of the tubular frame by assuming
one continuous 130 mm width tube 2.4 m long, with a central static load of 20,000 N on
each side. The detailed stresses analysis can be seen in chapter 04.
69
Mounted inside both halves of the catapult frame are PVC tubes acting as the cylinder for
the piston. These are mounted via wooden support blocks which hold the cylinder at the
centre and does not allow any further movement.
The front half of the catapult frame holds the front legs, the support blocks, the
shock absorbers and the pulley. The shock absorbing springs are sized to entirely absorb
the energy of a 15 kg cart traveling at 15 m/s. The cart mass was a conservative estimate
before construction, based on the material properties. The actual cart weighs 2 kg. With
two springs, the required spring constant to absorb the cart’s energy results from the
calculations below.
1 1 𝑚
𝐾𝐸𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑡 = 𝑚𝑣 2 = (2 + 15𝐾𝑔)(15 )2 = 3825𝑁
2 2 𝑠
1 𝐾𝐸𝐶𝑎𝑟𝑡 1 3825𝑁
𝐾𝑟𝑒𝑞𝑢𝑖𝑟𝑒𝑑 = ∗2∗ 2
= ∗2∗ = 72306𝑁/𝑚
2 𝑋 2 0.232
Two springs with a spring constant of 72300 N/m, a 29 cm length, a 30 mm in diameter,
and a maximum rated deflection were chosen for the shock absorbers. Based on the test
results the shocks head is covered with rubber to reduce the impact of shock on cart. A
labeled schematic of the shock block assembly is shown in (figure: 53) below.
70
Rubber on head
Pulley Support Block Damper / Shocks
Figure 54 Schematic of the shock block assembly
The pulley is mounted in support block, and an extended frame coming out from the
support block to support the pulley shaft. The pulley shaft and pulley are sized and lined
up such that the wire rope pulling the cart and attached to the piston feeds through the
center of the PVC cylinder, as shown in (figure: 54).
71
Figure 55 Pulley aligned to with centre of PVC cylinder
The pulley is 7.5 cm in diameter and load rated up to 6000 KN and enclosed with ball
bearings. The pulley shaft was originally intended to be hardened stainless steel, however,
a stress analysis simplifying the pulley shaft as a fix end fix beam with a point load in its
center of 6000 N, revealed a very high stress. These stress analysis is done using FEA can
be seen in chapter 04.
Square Mild steel tubes 2.54 cm in width with a wall thickness of 1.6 mm, act as legs
supporting the front and back of the catapult. The legs attach to the front of the frame via
heavy duty stainless steel 30º angle brackets, and are reinforced with a cross member
creating an A-frame. The A- frame is welded on support block.
72
Square Leg
Figure 56 Front leg assembly

A-Frame Member
The back half of the catapult frame is similar in construction to the front half. At the end
the support block is attached. The back pulley is mounted on support block. A 48 cm high
A-frame is attached at the back which helps to provide a 12º angle. The bleed holes are
drilled at the end of PVC pipe to allow for air to escape. The below (figure: 56) showing
the back half of the launcher.
73
Figure 57 Backward A-Frame
5.3 Cart
The interface between the frame of the catapult and the aircraft, referred to as the
cart, is critical for a successful takeoff. A variety of loading schemes and motion
constraints are present on the cart in order for a takeoff to be successful. First of all, the
plane must be stable resting on the cart. The cart must then restrain the plane in place as
throttle is applied. When the catapult is fired, the cart must transfer the motion of the cable
into the aircraft without damaging it. The plane must remain stable and cannot pitch, yaw,
or roll while accelerating down the track. At the end of the track, the cart needs to
sustain a rapid deceleration as it impacts the spring dampers on the frame.
Simultaneously, the cart must release the aircraft without slowing it down or causing a
74
pitching moment. Under full load, the cart needs to be able to withstand the full force of
launch without moving.
Figure 58 Cart assembly
The final cart design is shown in (figure: 57) above. The cart is composed mainly of 6 mm
aluminum sheet metal. The geometry of the cart adds strength in the needed locations while
keeping mass to a minimum. This minimum mass feature is not incorporated in final
manufacturing due to the time constraints, but this feature is required for future work. Two
identical side plates serve as the primary mounting surfaces for the cart. Four shafts contain
a total of eight wheels that ride along the corners of the frame. Four arms ride fit on the top
two shafts and interface with the plane. All the arms restrained at the 90º angle and free to
move in clockwise direction which restrains the plain at fixed position of 90º. At the end
of the track when the cart collide with the spring dampers the impact allows the arms to
fold down and UAV is released. The cart is connected with the rope at the front and back
excel. U clips are used to connect the rope at both excels. Also on the side plates are large
75
stopping blocks that contact the frame damper springs and distribute the loads present
during deceleration. Altogether, the cart has a mass of 2 kg, which is small in comparison
to the plane.
The wheels fully constrain the carts motion in five degrees of freedom. Machined from
wear-resistant nylon, they are robust enough to withstand countless launches. Ball bearings
allow for low-friction rotation along the shafts. The wheels are precisely placed to brace
the track at its four corners, eliminating any play in the roll, pitch, and yaw directions.
The cart frame experiences its highest loading upon impact with the spring damper
stoppers. It must decelerate from 15 m/s to rest in about 6 cm. at 15Kg it provides the
deceleration of approximately 200 G. Since all of the force of the deceleration is applied
to the stopping blocks, they have to sustain an average force of approximately 20,000 N
each.
Through these components and mechanisms, the cart meets the required motion and
loading constraints while keeping mass and complexity to a minimum.
5.4 Pneumatic System
The pneumatic system of the catapult consists primarily of a reservoir, piston, and cylinder,
along with many other fittings, hoses, and gauges. The reservoir is pressurized with air to
a specified pressure and connected via a hose rated at 300 psi to the front of the cylinder
mounted within the catapult frame.
76
The cylinder and reservoir system is sized to accelerate a 15 kg object to 15 m/s over a
distance of 2.2 m. While the cylinder is sized by length constraints, the reservoir must
be sized large enough to deliver the required impulse through piston work, but not be
excessively large either. To predict the size of the reservoir we have used Simscape model.
Reservoir was chosen to achieve generous performance margin, and such that high
reservoir pressures, like 60 psi can be used. A reservoir is chosen with a length of 3m long,
88 cm diameter and 6 mm thickness. The (figure: 58) below showing the reservoir.
Figure 59 Reservoir cylinder
All components of the pneumatic system are rated to at least 250 psi for safety. The cylinder
and reservoir are constructed of schedule 40 PVC which is rated to a maximum
operating pressure of 250 psi and a minimum burst pressure of 1060 psi [13]. PVC
cement, used to join fittings together, is rated to the same pressures when applied
correctly. Hoses connecting the reservoir to the cylinder are rated for 300 psi. All other
fittings are also rated at or above 200 psi.
The cylinder mounted in the inside of the steel tube framing via wooden adapter
pieces, as shown in (figure: 60) below. These pieces hold the PVC tube and mounted
77
via cut screws to the steel tube frame. This allows the PVC cylinders to be slid out and
removed from the catapult frame.
Figure 60 PVC to steel tube mounting
The front half of the cylinder has a “Y” fitting on its front end. The Y fitting branches out
at an angle for the reservoir hose connection, as well as straight through for the cart to
piston cable. The straight end of the Y fitting is plugged with a PVC end cap with a small
hole (5mm) drilled in its center for the cart to piston cable to run through. Some air does
escape through this hole during launch. A grommet is mounted inside to hole to reduce the
air leak which reduces the air leakage, but the pressure loss is minor compared to the
pressure of the reservoir. The shape of the Y fitting causes less of a pressure drop over a T
fitting for this purpose, due to its favorable angle with respect to the cylinder line.
Figure 61 Front PVC cylinder half
78
The piston is a 5 cm long cylinder of nylon machined to a 78 mm diameter. Two glands
machined into the piston hold two O-rings which help seal the piston to the cylinder. The
piston to cart cable attaches to the piston via U clip. The piston assembly is shown in figure
below.
Figure 62 Piston connected with rope via U clips
79
Figure 63 Piston connected with rope via thimble and ferrule
A 12 volt pump pressurizes the reservoir. 12 volts was chosen such that the pump can be
powered off typical 3-cell Lithium Polymer (LiPo) batteries, or a standard car battery can
be used to run it, currently using. The pump was chosen for its robust and basic design, and
is rated to 150 psi and has a relatively high flow rate. This allows the reservoir to be filled
to a typical operating pressure of 60 psi in approximately 2 minutes.
80
Figure 64 12 volt air compressor
5.5 User operations manual
Complete systems has been made modular-detachable to ensure proper maintenance and
ease of transport by disassembling and assembling at the site. UAV launcher is intended to
serve in the remote areas to operate a UAV when there is no runway and only limited space
is available for take-off. This UAV catapult mechanism is intended to be used in the
following SOP.
81
1. The rail cylinder should be properly oiled up before putting piston in.
2. Tie up the wire rope to the piston properly with the U-bolts (thimble and ferule).
3. Put piston into the rail cylinder with an equivalent length rod, piston should be well
oiled with motor lubricant.
4. Pull the rope out of the cylinder from the end near the Y-inlet
5. Pull the rope out of the clean out cap, equipped with a grommet.
6. Now pull the rope from the hole in the end sheet, equipped with the pulley.
7. Setup the launcher rail, by mounting the end sheets with 4, 8 mm Allen key bolts
each.
8. Before mounting the lower end, end sheet slide the cart in.
9. Pull the rope over the pulley.
10. Now tie the cart with rope ensuring the length of rope is enough to reach the
respective bleed hole mark
11. Pull the rope through the pulley ensuring the cart has a smooth run on rail.
12. Place the UAV intended for the launch on the cart by securing it safely over the
rocker arms of the cart.
13. Now connect the accumulator pipe to the Y-inlet in rail cylinder
14. Tie it up with 2x2inch jubilee clips.
82
15. Connect the pump inlet to the accumulator cap
16. Charge the accumulator to the pressure corresponding to the launch weight, max
weight to be 15 Kg (4 bar).
17. Clear the area around the launcher, especially no one standing in straight line with
the end of rail cylinder pointing at.
18. The operator should stand against the shield wearing his protective gear.
19. A countdown should be done before launching.
5.6 Maintenance manual
Our structure has been designed in such a way that it can be completely disassembled. This
feature enable an ease in maintenance of the system. Every part can be disassembled and
can be replaced or repaired as per the maintenance requirement.
5.6.1.1 Rail
The rail structure requires minimal maintenance, just needs to be checked for the wear and
tear around the shock absorber, after few 10s of tests. If the wear is too much the rail can
be easily replaced, only the upper rail portion will be needed to replaced.
5.6.1.2 Cart
Cart structure requires major maintenance in this whole. Major components that require
maintenance in the cart are its side plates, wheels, and rocker arms. Theses components
needs to be checked after every test. And should be replaced if wear is excessive. Retaining
83
rings holding the plates in place needs to be checked frequently after some 10s of tests, if
they have wear out much.
5.6.1.3 Accumulator
Accumulator has been manufactured with FOS 4 and above and can be reliably used for
several test runs. The accumulator requires to be treated with care that no scratches appear
on its surface that can question its strength, it should not be operated in high temperature
environment, and the flexible hose should be cleaned to clear the oil after every test to
avoid slippage during the test run.
5.7 Safety precautions
Elements of safety to be considered

1. Pneumatic system should be well constructed with proper codes and standards and
high FOS.
2. End impact should be managed well without any projectile firing up
3. When fully assembled, it should be placed with proper stability any mishandling
could result in a fall, which could damage the equipment and the operator.
4. All pipes and fittings are bought from reliable brands such as Pak Arab and AGM
5. Factor of safety has been set about 4 time’s minimum in plastic equipment’s
6. 40 Sch pipe has been used for the accumulator and cylinder, which is rated at 220
Psi, and we use it maximum to 60 Psi, that is a FOS of 3.7.
7. Similarly all the fittings including Y-Inlet, reducers, valve and clean out are of 40
Sch.
84
Chapter 6: Testing
6.1 Test 01: With small mass flow rate nozzle.
SCH 30 PVC pipe fitted with a 4in clean out and 8 mm nozzle for inlet. The pressure
accumulator was charged to 2 Bar of pressure. A 78 mm diameter nylon piston is used to
be fired with rope being tied to one end that is fed through the clean out cap. In this test the
valve is quickly opened which resulted in a smooth piston drive out but at a fairly low
speed. This test was concluded as a failure due to low mass flow rate of small 8 mm nozzle.
Test setup can be seen in the following (figure: 65).
Figure 65 Test 01
85
6.2 Test 02: With high mass flow rate nozzle.
This time the same apparatus as test 1 was used with the inlet now being replaced with a
2in (50 mm) diameter valve for high mass flow rate. But in this test we required to change
the inlet of the compressor tank which is not possible so we needed to construct our own
pressure accumulator which is accompanied with 2in valve. Now for this demand we
selected a SCH 40 PVC pipe which is rated at 220 PSI. And we intend to use it only till 80
PSI max this ensures the safety for using PVC pipe. Further good quality PVC cement was
used to join all the fittings together to ensure safe experimentation. This accumulator is
fitted with a 4in clean out at one end, with an 8 mm nozzle in the cap for charging the
accumulator. This cap is a very crucial component to decide the operating pressure for the
accumulator. Its limit was determined to be till the 5 Bar with a burst test by charging the
accumulator till 5 Bar until the cap burst out.
This test was a success with the very high speed launch of the piston proving the idea of
high mass flow rate. After this test the simscape simulator was tuned with the similar
parameters like bigger inlet valve, and it also depicted the same results with speedy piston
travel. The test apparatus can be seen in (figure: 66).
Figure 66 Test 02 picture
86
The test can be seen at the following YouTube channel (https://youtu.be/o9-IVDSX0Yc).
Another try on the same apparatus but with a faulty procedure. To tighten the cleanout cap
properly we used the technique of hammering with a screw driver placed on the
circumference of the cap, this induced fatal cracks in the cap. Then when we charge the
accumulator to the 4 bar, the cap burst out into many pieces. The burst was concluded to
be the faulty tightening procedure because after that another same cap was used for further
tests to be conducted. Busted cap is shown in (figure: 67).
Figure 67 Busted cap during test
87
6.3 Test 03: Launch at an angle, with measuring launch speed.
This time same apparatus was used as test 2, but this time the cylinder with piston was
placed at an angle of 12 degree for launching the piston in the air. Accumulator was charged
at 4 bar and valve was quickly opened. In this test piston was launched at very high speed
into the air following a parabolic trajectory and travelled approx. 250 feet of distance.
Launch velocity was calculated by the launch trajectory relations. Experimental setup can
be seen in the following (figure: 68)
Figure 68 Test 03
This launch video can be watch on YouTube channel (https://youtu.be/3UekmmgNyEc).
6.4 Test 04: High pressure launch cylinder
In the previous tests it was noted that the SCH 30 pipe was inflating a little as the valve is
opened this creates an air cushion around the cylinder which reduces the total pressure head
88
on the piston an eventually the launch speed. To overcome this issue SCH 40 pipe was
used for the launch cylinder too. The test setup was constructed similarly as before and
tested.
Launch at this time resulted in a much farther throw and at higher velocity proving the
problem of pipe inflation.
6.5 Test 05: rope tangling effect
This test was a significant leap from the previous ones since in this test the rail for the final
launcher assembly was constructed and also the pulley mechanism to guide the rope around
the rail was constructed. The test was carried out in a similar fashion as the previous tests,
with the rail placed at an angle. In this test only the rope around the pulley was tested. This
test was carried out to ensure the alignment of rope and pulley, is crucial for the safe
operation of the whole system, slightest error in this can cause fatal failure. The test setup
can be seen in the (figure: 69).
89
Figure 69 Test 05
The test was carried out while opening the valve suddenly at accumulator being charged,
at 4 bar.
In this test our cleanout cap at the beginning of launcher cylinder broke when it was hit by
the tangled rope. This test ruled out some of the flaws in the usage of the insulated wire
rope. The insulation gets crumbled up when it passes from the small hole of the metallic
support block, and the intense pressure at the back pushes the tangled rope through the cap,
which breaks the cap into pieces. The test video can be seen at the following link.
(https://youtu.be/wjOuF4bTEiM)
90
6.6 Test 06: First launch with cart assembly
Now the cart was also constructed and ready to be tested. The new assembly can be seen
in the (figure: 70).
Figure 70 Test 06
Initial run with only the trolley went successful and we were able to hit the trolley into the
dampers on the other hand of the rail. Then the trolley was reloaded and this time a 5 Kg
concrete block was placed onto it. This time we experienced the slippage of the high
pressure rubber hose connecting the accumulator to the launch cylinder. The reason was
the increased load on the system which the friction between the rubber hose and cylinder
connection could not take. This rubber hose is replaced by the woven cloth hose with rubber
lining inside, this provides adequate friction in the contact while hose is rated at 300 psi,
91
so tis suitable for our application. The launch video is on this link
(https://youtu.be/b7zfUCrhBjQ).
6.7 Test 07: First launch with dead load
Now the rubber how pipe was replaced with closely woven fabric hose that has an inner
lining to avoid leakage, which also acts a rough surface for the grip at the launch cylinder.
The test setup was completed with jubilee clips clamping the e new hose pipe. The test was
carried out with cart on and no load at first. This test failed this time due to the rope. We
uninsulated the rope after the test no. 5 to avoid tangling but the wire rope got wear out due
to the sharp hole edges at the support block and rope tangle due to that, this tangling up the
rope cause the rope to break due to high pressure and already wear out rope. The test setup
can be seen in the following (figure: 71).
92
Figure 71 Test 07
Test video can be seen at this link (https://youtu.be/uvmqkVpJUyI).
6.8 Test 08: Launch with bigger rope hole at support block
After the failure at the last test we widen the hole in the support block upon the advice from
one of our mentor. This thing really worked and this final test was a success with and
without the load. For the load we used a 5 Kg concrete block, and were able to give it a
push with the cart, although the block did not travelled along the cart till the end of the rail
because we cannot constrain the block on the cart properly. Test setup is as test 7.
93
Figure 72 Test 08
The launch video can be seen at the following YouTube link
https://youtu.be/DdYHj43dp7s
6.9 Test 09: 6 Kg mass throw
This test setup has been conducted with the cart has been setup properly as per design. 6
Kg mass blocks have been put up on the cart. This launch has been a success with launching
the mass at the terminal velocity of 20-22 m/s in the time frame of 185 millisecond, on the
rail length of 2.2 m. this test can be seen in the following video. This test has been analyzed
in light of the simscape results for the similar parameters and a velocity of 22 m/s has been
94
achieved in 0.15 seconds in simscape which is close to our prototype model, as shown in
figure
This figure shows 0.15 seconds time lapse for a 22m/s terminal velocity
95
This figure shows that test runs is 0.185 seconds
https://youtu.be/ht7ECsi70Js
6.10 Wire rope calculation
The rope needs to be selected for the launcher application. Wire rope is strong and is
smooth, these both qualities are what we need.
For the base line calculation, we can find out the force that will be carried out by the wire.
We will be operating our system with an impact load, considering a steady state solution,
we know that.
Area of the piston 𝐴 = 𝑝𝑖 ∗ 𝑟^2
𝐹 =𝑃∗𝐴
F=1.18 KN
At this load the wire rope was selected from [13], the table in appendix C., to be 6.4mm in
diameter rated at safe load of 4.89 kN.
96
Chapter 7: Conclusion
Based on theoretical predictions and simulation/experimental validations, we have
successfully sized a pneumatic catapult mechanism that is capable of launching a
maximum of 15 Kg of UAV at the desired launch speed. Project deliverables and wish lists
of the SORs were accomplished. A very unique aspect of this project has been the
development of complete UAV Launcher simulator development in Simscape, which can
be used to size UAVL system. The work has already been published in two highly regarded
conferences [15]-[16]. The paper [16] has been the most read research paper for one week
on Research-Gate in aeronautical engineering for a whole week.
In the future work, we would suggest exploring different materials and gases and steam for
running the system. Moreover, the system deployment time needs to be reduced by
optimizing the mechanical subsystems further. Rapid production of pressure instead of
bulky compressors should also be explored. The braking mechanism and UAV release
mechanisms will also need to be optimized further.
97
References
[1] Raymond L. Davis, “Mechanical Design and Optimization of Swarm-Capable UAV

Launcher Systems,” Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School Monterey California, 2015.
[2] AVA, “Air Vision Air Catapult,” [Online]. Available: http://www.air-vision-
air.com/products-for-you/asm300-2-5-6kg-catapult/
[3] Robonic, “Robonic UAV Launching Systems,” 2012. [Online]. Available:

http://www.robonic.fi/mc0315l/
[4] Meggit, “Meggit Defence System Ltd,” 2015. [Online]. Available:

https://meggitttargetsystems.com/en-ca/products-and-services/launchers-for-unmanned-
systems/hercules-launcher/
[5] Meggit, “Meggit Defence System Ltd,” 2015. [Online]. Available:

https://meggitttargetsystems.com/en-ca/products-and-services/launchers-for-unmanned-
systems/lightweight-launcher/
[6] TASUMA, “TASUMA Aerospace Composite Engineering,” [Online]. Available:

http://www.tasuma-uk.com/tasuma.php?p=40
[7], [8] ARIES, “ARIES Defence and Security,” [Online]. Available:

http://www.ariestesting.com/solutions-by-applications/unmanned-aerial-systems/uav-launchers/
[9] UAV Factory, “Unmanned Air Vehicle Factory,” [Online]. Available:

http://www.uavfactory.com/product/47
[10] ARIES, “ARIES Defence and Security,” [Online]. Available:

http://www.ariestesting.com/solutions-by-markets/unmanned-aerial-systems-uas/
[11] Glen Throncroft, J. Scott Patton & Raymond Gordon, “Modeling Compressible Air
Flow in a Charging or Discharging Vessel and Assessment of Polytrophic Exponent,”
Thesis, American Society for Engineering Education, 2007.
[12] Dr. Djordje Dihovicni and Dr. Miroslav Medenica, “Mathematical Modelling and
Simulation of Pneumatic Systems,” [Online]. Available:
http://www.intechopen.com/books/advances-in-computer-science-and-engineering
[13] Engineering Tool Box, “The Engineering Tool Box,” [Online]. Available:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pvc-cpvc-pipes-pressures-d_796.html
98
[14] Billavista offroad tech, “for the U-bolt guide”:
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/pvc-cpvc-pipes-pressures-d_796.html
[15] Dr. Bilal, H.rehman, Noman Iqbal, Charles Kumar, Abdullah soleh and U.D.Bashir
“Computer Aided Modeling and Simulation of Pneumatic U.A.V. Catapult Mechanism”
[Online]. Available:
https://www.researchgate.net/project/UAV-Catapult-Design
[16] Bilal A. Siddiqui et al, “Design Optimization, Manufacture and Testing of UAV
Pneumatic Catapult”, 5th International Conference on Aerospace Science and Engineering
(ICASE 2017) November 14 - 16, 2017 Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad,
Pakistan.
99
Appendix A: Peer-Evaluation of Group Work
Quality of Work
Dependability
Contribution
Participation
Cooperation
Innovation
Relative
Team Member
Hammad-ur-Rehman 5 5 5 5 5 5
Charles Kumar 4 5 5 5 5 5
Umer Danish Basheer 1 1 2 1 3 4
Abdullah Soleh 3 4 5 5 5 5
Noman Iqbal 5 4 5 5 5 5
Partic
Hamma Charle Noma Abdull Total ipatio
Umer
d s n ah Points n
Grade
22.5 22.5 22.5 10 22.5 100 A
Hammad
22.5 22.5 22.5 10 22.5 100 A
Charles
22.5 22.5 22.5 10 22.5 100 A
Noman
22.5 22.5 22.5 10 22.5 100 B
Umer
22.5 22.5 22.5 10 22.5 100 A
Abdullah
Total 100 100 100 100 100
(100)
100
Appendix B: Statement of Requirements
Title: U.A.V. catapult

Issue: 01 Date: 18-november-2016
launch mechanism
CHANGES D/W REF REQUIREMENTS

1 Introduction
1.1 Preamble
Unmanned air vehicle launch mechanism to overcome the

need of long and prepared runway surfaces.
To make the UAV operations possible in difficult terrains,

while making an adequate contribution in this niche market.
Design optimization and fabrication
System simulation
Stress Analysis
1.2 Scope
The purpose of this project is to launch Unmanned Air
Vehicles in all terrains, in order to overcome the need of
prepared runways, according to specifications set by
SUPARCO.
1.3 Related Documents
1.3.1 Books
RICHARD G. BUDYNAS J. KEITH NISBETT 2011
1 SHIGLEY’S MECHANICAL ENGINEERING DESIGN 9TH
EDITION MC GRAW HIL PUBLISHERS
PAUL GERIN FAHLSTROM, THOMAS JAMES GLEASON
2 2012 INTRODUCTION TO UAV SYSTEM 4TH EDITION
JOHN WILEY & SONS, LTD
3 PETER BEATER 2007 PNEUMATIC DRIVES SPRINGER
Ferdinand P. Beer , E. Russell Johnston Jr. , JOHN T.
4 DEWOLF , DAVID F. MAZUREK MECHANICS OF
MATERIALS 7TH EDITION MC GRAW HIL PUBLISHERS
1.4 Definitions, Abbreviations and Symbols

1.4.1 Definitions
1.4.1.1 Hydraulics:
101
Uncompressible oil based mechanical actuation system.
1.4.1.2 Pneumatics
Compressed air based mechanical actuation system
1.4.1.3 Bore
It is the length of the hole in cylinder of pneumatic actuator
that accommodates piston movement.
1.4.1.4 Orifice
Holes in the compressed air accumulator and pneumatic
actuators that accommodate air flow passage in and out.
1.4.2 Abbreviations
UAV Unmanned air vehicle
SUPARCO Space and Upper Atmosphere Research
Commission
TOP Take off parameter
WOD Wind over deck
COTS Common off the shelf
1.4.3 Symbols
D Demand (A mandatory requirement)
W(H) Wish high (A highly desirable attribute)
W(L) Wish low (A low desirable attribute)
W(I) Wish Impossible (An attribute impossible without
funding)
2 Technical Requirements
Machine design, mechanics of materials, dynamics,

thermodynamics, pneumatic systems and actuators
2.1 Description & Purpose

Design of a pneumatically powered catapult for purpose-built
U.A.Vs for SUPARCO. The pneumatic system will carry
pressure accumulator to serve as energy storage device and
pneumatic actuator to operate the launching mechanism.
The project will serve the operation of U.A.Vs in remote areas
D? 2.1.1
and areas where long runways are not the option for take-off.
2.2 Functional Characteristics
W(L)? Hybridization of different catapult mechanisms
D? 2.2.1 Design, mathematical modeling and simulation
D? 2.2.2 Manufacturing drawings and procedures
W(H)? 2.2.3 Manufacturing of scaled prototype
W(I)? 2.2.4.1 Full scale prototype manufacture
W(H)? 2.2.4.2 Hi fidelity simulation
W(H)? 2.2.5.1 Optimization of system parameters
W(L)? 2.2.5.2 Alternate mechanisms of actuating launch vehicle
102
2.3 Physical and other Characteristics
W(H)? 2.3.1 Field deployable and strippable solution
D? 2.3.2 Sturdy and robust structural design
W(H)? 2.3.3 Minimum leakage in pneumatic circuit

2.4 Design & Construction
2.4.1 The main components of the launcher are …..
 Truss structure
 Piston and cylinder
 Pneumatic accumulator
 Pneumatic compressor
 Plumbing and piping
 Solenoid valves
W(L) The components used are available locally
W(L) 2.4.3 Camouflage canopy for low observability from the sky
W(H) 2.4.4 Low maintenance cycle, high serviceability
W(I) 2.4.5 Programmable Logic Control (PLC) based automation
2.5 Environmental Conditions
The UAV catapult can function under moderate to harsh
W(L) 2.5.1
environmental conditions.
2.6 Reliability & Maintenance
W(H) 2.6.1 System requires scheduled maintainance
2.7 Safety
W(H) 2.7.1 The system is safe when handled in the prescribed procedure
W(H) 2.7.2 Launch direction should have no obstacles for some distance
3 Quality
The project process should be monitored by means of weekly
3.1
project meetings.
The project plan should be monitored by means of a Gantt
3.2
chart.
The chosen design should be presented at the concept design
3.3
board.
The chosen design should be assessed by experts from
3.4
SUPARCO.
The technical details should be scrutinized before detailed
3.5 design work is undertaken by means of the design review
board.
4 Miscellaneous
The Project Content should be monitored by the project
4.1
advisor and co-advisor Dr. Bilal Ahmed Siddiqui
4.2 Mr. Hammad ur Rehman is the project lead.
103
5 Costs
The estimated cost of the Project is PKR 400,000/-
5.1
approximately
The above mentioned cost is subjected to material cost,
5.2
assembly requirements, testing and calibration.
5.3 The project has received support from SUPARCO
5.4 In case of unavailability of fund W cannot be achieved.
6 Constraints
6.1 Cost and Funding are the major constraints of the project
6.2 Some pneumatic valves are expensive
6.3 PLCs are expensive, but alternate microcontrollers exist

Dr. Bilal Ahmed Siddiqui Engineer Hassan Hussain
(Advisor) (Co-Advisor)
Project
Advisors/Co
Advisors
104
Appendix C: Basic Design Calculations
In this section, we will explore the possibility of accelerating a 200 kg aircraft on a catapult
to launch speeds of nearly 180 km/hr (50 m/s or 100 knots).
For launching an aircraft weighing nearly 200 kg, it is not possible to use spring-loaded or
bungee type of catapults. The only option is to use either steam, hydraulic or pneumatic
power. Steam is an efficient catapult power source (used universally on all aircraft carrier
ships), but is problematic in the sense that heat signature of the steam source (boiler) is
easily detectable from the air/satellite. Hydraulic power comes at the price of maintaining
leak free piston movement and slow piston speeds. This leaves us with the option of the
pneumatically powered catapult.
The nearly constant force required to catapult an aircraft from rest to the launch speed
depends on the length of the ramp as well as the angle of the ramp with the ground. Using
a simpler analysis, we can argue that the velocity imparted at take-off is directly
proportional to the force applied.
2
𝑣𝑇𝑂 = 2𝑎𝑆𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑝 𝑛
Where n is the efficiency of acceleration a and Sramp is ramp length. Efficiency n takes care
of drag and ramp angle effects. For take-off velocity of 50 m/s, acceleration with ramp
length is shown in Figure 73.
105
Figure 73 Variation of Required Acceleration with Ramp Length for Exit Velocity of 50 m/s.
Therefore, to keep the structural design manageable, we choose a ramp length of 15 m (50
ft), which requires an acceleration of 10 g with n=0.8. We will use a moderate ramp angle
of 10°.
Assuming that the piston and counter weight add another 20 kg weight, then the total
kinetic energy required to catapult the aircraft to launch speed is
1 2
1
𝐾𝐸 = 𝑚𝑣𝑇𝑂 = × 200 × 502 = 250 𝑘𝐽
2 2
This is the required energy to be imparted to the aircraft for attaining the specified speed
at the end of the launch rail. This energy should be equal to the work done by the force Fcat
imparted by the system in moving through the distance Sramp.
𝐾𝐸 = 𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑡 𝑆𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑝 = 250 × 103 𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑡 = 17 𝑘𝑁 (3800 𝑙𝑏)
For a pneumatic cylinder with piston diameter (bore) of dp, the pressure required is
106
𝐹𝑐𝑎𝑡
𝑃=𝜋
2
4 𝑑𝑝
Variation of required constant pressure in the pneumatic cylinder with bore is shown in
Figure 74 Variation of Cylinder Pressure with Bore Diameter for Required Force
We will use a bore diameter of 200 mm for a cylinder pressure of 77.5 psi (5.25 bar). Total
𝜋
displacement of the cylinder will be∀𝑐𝑎𝑡 = 4 𝑑𝑝2 𝑆𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑝 = 0.5 𝑚3 = 18 𝑓𝑡 3 . This stroke
2𝑆𝑟𝑎𝑚𝑝
time can be approximated as𝑡𝑐𝑎𝑡 = √ = 0.7 𝑠. Therefore, the compressor should be
𝑎
∀
able to give a flow rate of∀̇= 𝑡 𝑐𝑎𝑡 = 0.7𝑚3 𝑠 −1 = 1050𝑐𝑓𝑚. Obviously, this is too much
𝑐𝑎𝑡
of a flow rate to be handled by an affordable compressor alone. For this purpose, we
introduce an accumulator (air storage tank) to be able to handle the sudden demand in
pressurized air due to movement of piston.
107
To size the accumulator, we need to specify the maximum and minimum pressures. Let us
allow a variation of 10 psi pressure, i.e. Pmax=75 psi and Pmin= 85 psi, with a mean operating
pressure of P0=80 psi. Therefore, the volume ∀acc of the accumulator can be found from
adiabatic expansion relation of air.
∀𝑎𝑐𝑐 +∀𝑐𝑎𝑡 𝑃 0.714 ∀𝑐𝑎𝑡 0.5

= (𝑃𝑚𝑎𝑥 )  ∀𝑎𝑐𝑐 = 0.714 = 85 0.714
= 5.35𝑚3 =
∀𝑎𝑐𝑐 𝑃
𝑚𝑖𝑛 ( 𝑚𝑎𝑥 ) −1 ( )
75
−1
𝑃𝑚𝑖𝑛
5350 𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑠 = 200 𝑓𝑡 3
Therefore, the solution is to have a huge accumulator (which can be manufactured easily)
and connect it to a low cost pressure source. Such a low cost compressor could be, for
example the Husky 20 gallon electric-powered portable or the Ningbo 200 liter gas-
powered compressors.
For an air delivery rate of about 5 cfm, these compressor can fill the accumulator in
∀𝑎𝑐𝑐 220
𝑡𝑓𝑖𝑙𝑙 = = = 45 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑢𝑡𝑒𝑠
𝑠𝑐𝑓𝑚𝑐𝑜𝑚𝑝 5
An alternate source of pressure can be three Scuba tanks of 80 cu ft each, connected in
parallel, depressurized to 85 psi. Also oxygen cylinders for welding come in 220 cu ft
capacity.
To summarize, the pneumatic rail launcher will have the specifications shown in Error!
Reference source not found..
108
Appendix D: Detailed Design Calculations
TANK SIDE
𝑃1 (0) 𝜌1 (0) 𝑘=4.5

= [ ]
𝑃1 (𝑡) 𝜌2 (𝑡)
𝑃1 (0)
𝑃1 (𝑡 ) = × 𝜌2 (𝑡)𝐾
𝜌1 (0)𝑘
𝑑 𝑃1 𝐾 𝑃1 (0) 𝜌1 (𝑡)𝑘−1 𝑑𝜌1

=
𝑑𝑡 𝜌1 (0)𝑘 𝑑𝑡
𝑑 𝑃1 𝐾 𝑃1 (0) 𝑘−1
𝑑𝜌1
= 𝜌1 ( 𝑡 ) 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (1)
𝑑𝑡 𝜌1 (0)𝑘 𝑑𝑡
ALSO:
𝑚 1 (𝑡)
𝜌 1 (𝑡 ) =
∀1
𝑑𝜌1 −1 𝑑𝑚
= 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (2)
𝑑𝑡 ∀1 𝑑 𝑡
109
FOR CYLINDER:
𝜋
𝐴 2 = 𝐴 𝑃𝑖𝑠𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 = 𝑑 𝑝2
4
Dead Volume:
∀ 2 (0) = 𝐴2 𝑋2
We can initially set
𝑃 2 (0) = 𝑃𝑎 = 1 𝐵𝑎𝑟
𝑃 2 (0) = 1 or
𝑚𝑔 sin 𝜃
𝑃 2 (0) = 𝜋 ≅ 4.5 𝐵𝑎𝑟 𝑜𝑟 5.5 𝐵𝑎𝑟 @ 𝑚 = 200 𝐾𝑔 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑑𝑃 = 75 𝑚𝑚
2
( 𝑑𝑝 )
4
∀2 (0) = 𝐴2 𝑋0
𝑚2 (0) = 𝜌2 (0) ∀2 (0)

𝐾𝑔⁄
𝜌2 (0) = 1.233 𝑚3
𝑇2 (0) = 298 𝐾
At t > 0:
𝑃2 (𝑡 ) = 𝜌 2 (𝑡 ) 𝑅 𝑇2 (𝑡)
𝑑 𝑃2 𝑑 𝑇2 𝑑 𝜌2
= 𝑅 [𝜌2 (𝑡) + 𝑇2 (𝑡 ) ] 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (3)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
Also:
𝑚2 (𝑡)
𝜌2 =
∀2 (𝑡)
110
𝑑𝑚2 𝑑∀2
𝑑𝜌2 [∀2 (𝑡) ( )] − [𝑚 2 (𝑡 ) ( )]
= 𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (4)
𝑑𝑡 ∀ 2 2 (𝑡)
Volume Dilation is Simply Explained
𝑑 ∀2 𝑑𝑋
= 𝐴2 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (5)
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
Now Simplifying:
mU.A.V Ẍ = P2 (t) A2
− Psea A2 [m g 〈Sin θ〉 + 1⁄2 X 2̇ S CD ρsea
+ μ (m g 〈Cos θ〉 − 1⁄2 X 2̇ S CL ρsea )] 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (6)
TEMPERATURE GRADIANT:
Two systems are interlinked therefor the temperature in one system affects the
other from equation (3) on Tank Side.
𝑑 𝑇1 𝑑 𝑃1 𝑑𝜌1
= [1⁄𝑅 − 𝑇1 (𝑡) ] 𝑒 1 −1 (𝑡) 𝐸𝑞𝑛(4)
111
PISTON SIDE:
𝑘−1
𝑇2 (𝑡) 𝜌2 (𝑡)
= [ ]
𝑇1 (𝑡) 𝜌 1 (𝑡)
𝑑𝑇2⁄ ( ) 𝑑𝑇1⁄
𝑇2 (𝑡) 𝑇 1 (𝑡 ) 𝑑𝑡 − 𝑇2 𝑡 𝑑𝑡
= 2
𝑇1 (𝑡) 𝑇1 (𝑡)
𝑑𝜌2 𝑑𝜌1
𝜌2 (𝑡) 𝐾−2 𝜌1 (𝐾)
𝑑𝑡
− 𝜌2 (𝑡)
𝑑𝑡
= (𝐾 − 1) [ ] = 2
𝜌1 (𝑡) 𝜌1 (𝑡)
𝑑𝑇2 𝑑𝑇1
= 𝑇1 −1 (𝑡 ) [𝑇2 (𝑡 )
𝑑𝑡 𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝜌2 𝑑𝜌1
2 𝜌2 (𝑡) 𝐾−2 𝜌1 (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡 − 𝜌2 (𝑡) 𝑑𝑡
− 𝑇1 (𝑡 ) (𝐾 − 1) { } ] 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (5)
𝜌1 (𝑡) 𝜌1 2
NOW FOR MASS FLOW THROUGH THE VALVE
𝑑𝑚
𝑑𝑡
2⁄ 𝐾+1⁄
𝐾 𝑃2 (𝑡 ) 𝐾 𝑃2 (𝑡 ) 𝐾
= 𝐶𝑑 𝐴𝑟 √2 𝜌1 (𝑡 )𝑃1 (𝑡) ( ) [{ } − { } ] 𝐸𝑞𝑛(6)
𝐾−1 𝑃1 (𝑡 ) 𝑃1 (𝑡 )
Remaining Equation is to obvious
𝑑𝑋
𝑋̇ = 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (7)
𝑑𝑡
112
So Equation (7) nonlinear differential equation needs to be solved.
STEADY STATE ANALYSIS:
Let, 𝑉𝐿𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 = 50 𝑚⁄𝑆𝑒𝑐 = 𝑋̅̇ and 𝑋̅̈ = 0
∴ 𝐸𝑞𝑢𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 (8) ⇒
𝑃2 𝐴2 = 𝑚𝑔 (𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃 + 𝜇 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜃) + 1⁄2 𝑉𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 2 𝑆 [𝐶𝐷 − 𝜇 𝐶𝐿 ] + 𝜇 𝑚 𝑔 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝜃

̅̅̅
̅̅̅2 𝐴2 = 𝑚𝑔 (𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃 + 𝜇 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜃) + 1⁄ 𝑉𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 2 𝑆 𝜌𝑠𝑒𝑎 [𝐶𝐷 − 𝜇 𝐶𝐿 ]

𝑃 𝐸𝑞𝑛(8)
2
It is obvious that desired Pressure in piston at stroke end should be proportional to 𝜃 and
to mass of (U.A.V + Launcher system) as well as drag proportional to the square of end
speed, but inversely proportional to piston area.
Now Re-Write Equation 8 and 7 respectively and become 8a and 7 bellow.
1
̅̅̅2 =
𝑃 [𝑚𝑔 (𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃 + 𝜇 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜃)
𝐴2
+ 1⁄2 𝑉𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 2 𝑆 𝜌𝑠𝑒𝑎 [𝐶𝐷 − 𝜇 𝐶𝐿 ]] 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (8 𝑎)
1
𝑋̅̈ = [𝑃2 (𝑡) 𝐴2 − 𝑃𝑠𝑒𝑎 𝐴2 − 𝑚 𝑔 (𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃 + 𝜇 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜃)
𝑚𝑈𝐴𝑉
− 1⁄2 𝑆 𝑉𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 2 𝜌𝑠𝑒𝑎 {𝐷𝐷0 + 𝐶𝐿 (𝐾𝐶𝐿 − 𝜇)}] 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (7 𝑏)
1
𝑋̈ (0) = [− 𝑚𝑈𝐴𝑉 𝑔 (𝑆𝑖𝑛 𝜃 + 𝜇 𝐶𝑜𝑠 𝜃)]
𝑚𝑈𝐴𝑉
At t=0 ⇒ 𝑋̈
113
Dilation of Piston Cylinder Volume
𝑑 ∀2
= 𝐴2 𝑉𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (9)
𝑑𝑡
For Constant Pressure:
𝑑𝜌2 ̅̅̅̅
𝑑𝑚 ̅̅̅̅̅̅
𝑑 ∀2
̅
= 0 = ∀2 − 𝑚
̅2
̅̅̅̅
𝑑𝑚
̅2
⇒ ∀ − 𝑚
̅ 2 𝐴2 𝑉𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 = 0
𝑑𝑡
𝑑𝑚
⇒ = 𝜌
̅̅̅̅
2 𝑉𝑙𝑎𝑢𝑛𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟 𝐴2 𝐸𝑞𝑛 (10)
𝑑𝑡
114
Appendix E: Wire rope selection chart
Minimum Breaking
Rope Diameter Safe Load Weight
Strength
(in) (mm) (lbf) (kN) (lbf) (kN) (lbm/ft) (kg/m)
1/4 6.4 5480 24,4 1100 4.89 0.11 0.16
5/16 8 8520 37,9 1700 7.56 0.16 0.24
3/8 9.5 12200 54,3 2440 10.9 0.24 0.36
7/16 11.5 16540 73,6 3310 14.7 0.32 0.48
1/2 13 21400 95,2 4280 19.0 0.42 0.63
9/16 14.5 27000 120 5400 24.0 0.53 0.79
5/8 16 33400 149 6680 29.7 0.66 0.98
3/4 19 47600 212 9520 42.3 0.95 1.41
7/8 22 64400 286 12900 57.4 1.29 1.92
1 26 83600 372 16700 74.3 1.68 2.50
1 1/8 29 105200 468 21000 93.4 2.13 3.17
1 1/4 32 129200 575 25800 115 2.63 3.91
1 3/8 35 155400 691 31100 138 3.18 4.73
1 1/2 38 184000 818 36800 164 3.78 5.63
115
Minimum Breaking
Rope Diameter Safe Load Weight
Strength
(in) (mm) (lbf) (kN) (lbf) (kN) (lbm/ft) (kg/m)
1 5/8 42 214000 852 42800 190 4.44 6.61
1 3/4 45 248000 1100 49600 221 5.15 7.66
1 7/8 48 282000 1250 56400 251 5.91 8.80
2 52 320000 1420 64000 285 6.72 10.0
116
Appendix F: Research paper published at SIMEC-2017
117
Appendix F: Research paper published at ICASE-2017
118

UAVL Final Thesis - Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

UAVL Final Thesis - Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Design and Fabrication of Unmanned Air Vehicle

Advisor: Dr. Bilal A. Siddiqui

A report submitted to the Faculty of Mechanical Engineering in

Mechanical Engineering Dept.

DHA Suffa University

© 2017, Hammad-ur-Rehman, Dr.Bilal Siddiqui

our project especially in writing this report is tremendous.

duly appreciated. We greatly acknowledge the support of Mechanical engineering

lathe and welding.

University’s aerospace team CUAir’s Cory Pomerantz and Michael Romanko.

which is difficult to arrange. Therefore we are building a U.A.V. catapult mechanism to

Table of Contents .............................................................................................................. 5

List of Tables ..................................................................................................................... 9

List of Figures .................................................................................................................. 10

Chapter 1: Introduction ........................................................................................... 13

1.1 Unmanned Air Vehicle Launcher ...................................................................... 13

1.3 Pneumatic ........................................................................................................... 13

1.4 Hydraulic ............................................................................................................ 14

1.5 Electromagnetic .................................................................................................. 14

1.6 Problem Statement ............................................................................................. 14

1.7 Objective ............................................................................................................ 14

Chapter 2: Literature Review .................................................................................. 15

2.1 Robonic UAV Launching System: ..................................................................... 15

2.2 Meggit Defence System ..................................................................................... 15

2.3 TASUMA Aerospace Composite Engineering: ................................................. 17

2.4 ARIES Defence & Security: .............................................................................. 17

3.1 Design Requirements: ........................................................................................ 19

3.2 Mechanisms for launching UAV........................................................................ 19

3.3 Chosen Mechanism ............................................................................................ 23

3.4 Design Calculations, Simulation and system sizing........................................... 23

3.5 Detailed Design and CAD model: ...................................................................... 43

3.6 First design: ........................................................................................................ 44

3.7 Second design:.................................................................................................... 45

3.8 Third design: ...................................................................................................... 46

3.9 Forth design: ....................................................................................................... 48

3.10 Fifth design: .................................................................................................. 49

3.11 Sixth design:.................................................................................................. 51

3.12 Seventh design: ............................................................................................. 52

Chapter 4: Structural Analysis (FEA) .................................................................... 55

4.1 Rail structural integrity analysis ......................................................................... 55

4.2 Cad pulley assembly development ..................................................................... 57

4.3 Pulley shaft analysis ........................................................................................... 58

4.4 Pulley bracket analysis ....................................................................................... 59

4.5 Cart analysis ....................................................................................................... 61

Chapter 5: Manufacturing ....................................................................................... 63

5.3 Cart ..................................................................................................................... 74

5.4 Pneumatic System .............................................................................................. 76

Chapter 6: Testing .................................................................................................... 85

6.4 Test 04: High pressure launch cylinder .............................................................. 88

6.6 Test 06: Launch with load (01) .......................................................................... 91

6.7 Test 07: Launch with load (02) .......................................................................... 92

6.9 Wire rope calculation ......................................................................................... 96

Chapter 7: Conclusion .............................................................................................. 97

Appendix A: Peer-Evaluation of Group Work .......................................................... 100

Appendix B: Statement of Requirements ................................................................... 101

Appendix C: Basic Design Calculations...................................................................... 105

Appendix D: Detailed Design Calculations................................................................. 109

Appendix F: Research paper published at SIMEC-2017 .......................................... 117

Appendix F: Research paper published at ICASE-2017 ........................................... 118

Table 1 Design Parameters ......................................................................................................................... 41

Figure 1-MC0315L UAV Launcher [3] ..................................................................................................... 15

Figure 2-UAV Launcher mounted on single axes trailer [4] ................................................................... 16

Figure 3 Bungee Launcher [5] .................................................................................................................... 17