0
Research Papers

Flight Performance Analysis of Hybrid Airship Considering Added Mass Effects

[+] Author and Article Information
Lanchuan Zhang, Mingyun Lv, Cong Sun

School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering,
Beihang University,
Beijing 100191, China

Junhui Meng

School of Aeronautic Science and Engineering,
Beihang University,
Beijing 100191, China
e-mail: zmg909@buaa.edu.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Dynamic Systems Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF DYNAMIC SYSTEMS, MEASUREMENT,AND CONTROL. Manuscript received September 11, 2017; final manuscript received May 3, 2018; published online June 4, 2018. Assoc. Editor: Ming Xin.

J. Dyn. Sys., Meas., Control 140(11), 111001 (Jun 04, 2018) (13 pages) Paper No: DS-17-1459; doi: 10.1115/1.4040220 History: Received September 11, 2017; Revised May 03, 2018

In this paper, an analysis is applied to a hybrid airship considering the added mass. First, based on the dynamic mesh technology, a computational fluid dynamics (CFD) method is employed to obtain the added mass coefficient matrix. Through a validation process using the 6:1 prolate spheroid, the 6 × 6 added mass matrix of hybrid airship is obtained. After a dynamic modeling, the equations of motion with added mass are developed. Through the linearization based on small perturbation, the linearized longitude model is used to simulate the dynamic response of a trim condition. The take-off and landing performance has been analyzed and affected by the added mass. The result shows an obvious vertical destabilizing trend on the hybrid airship dynamics due to the added mass and the inertial effect has little influence on the vehicle during the take-off and landing.

Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Brandon, B. , 2010, “ The Suitability of Hybrid vs. Conventional Airships for Persistent Surveillance Missions,” AIAA Paper No. 2010-1014.
Tatievsky, A. , and Tsach, S. , 2012, “ Cargo Airships Prospective,” Israel Annual Conference on Aerospace Sciences, Tel-Aviv, Israel, Feb. 29–Mar. 1, pp. 313–323.
Prentice, B. E. , and Knotts, R. , 2014, “ Cargo Airships: International Competition,” J. Transp. Technol., 4(3), pp. 187–195.
Carichner, G. E. , and Nicolai, L. M. , 2013, Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design: Airship Design and Case Studies, Vol. II, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA), Reston, VA. [CrossRef]
Khoury, G. A. , 2012, Airship Technology, Cambridge University Press, New York.
Lamb, H. , 1932, Hydrodynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK.
Munk, M. M. , 1924, “ The Aerodynamic Forces on Airship Hulls,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, Report No. NACA-TR-184. https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930091249
Lin, Z. , and Liao, S. , 2011, “ Calculation of Added Mass Coefficients of 3D Complicated Underwater Bodies by FMBEM,” Commun. Nonlinear Sci. Numer. Simul., 16(1), pp. 187–194. [CrossRef]
Lamb, H. , 1918, “ The Inertia Coefficients of an Ellipsoid Moving in Fluid,” British Aeronautical Research Committee, UK, Report No. 623. http://naca.central.cranfield.ac.uk/reports/arc/rm/623.pdf
Munk, M. M. , 1924, “ Some Tables of the Factor of Apparent Additional Mass,” National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics, Washington, DC, Report No. NACA-TN-197 https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19930080984.
Hess, J. L. , 1972, “ Calculation of Potential Flow About Arbitrary Three-Dimensional Lifting Bodies,” Douglas Aircraft Company, Long Beach, CA, Report No. MDC-J0971-01. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/755480.pdf
Hess, J. L. , and Smith, A. M. O. , 1967, “ Calculation of Potential Flow About Arbitrary Bodies,” Prog. Aerosp. Sci., 8(8), pp. 1–138. [CrossRef]
Raza, N. , Mehmood, I. , Rafiuddin, H. , and Rafique, M. , 2012, “ Numerical Simulation of Added Mass Determination of Standard Ellipsoids,” International Bhurban Conference on Applied Sciences and Technology (IBCAST), Islamabad, Pakistan, Jan. 9–12, pp. 419–425.
Feng, S. , Wei X. , Sun L. , Xie, L. , and Wei, Y. , 2015, “ Calculation on Added Mass of Cylinder Moving Along Its Axis in Flow Field,” Comput. Aided Eng., 24(2), epub.
Mueller, J. , Paluszek, M. , and Zhao, Y. , 2013, “ Development of an Aerodynamic Model and Control Law Design for a High Altitude Airship,” AIAA Paper No. 2004-6479.
Liu, D. , Wang, X. L. , and Shan, X. X. , 2006, “ Added Mass to Stratospheric Airship and It's Effect on Motion,” Comput. Simul., 23(6), pp. 52–56.
Tuveri, M. , Ceruti, A. , and Marzocca, P. , 2014, “ Added Masses Computation for Unconventional Airships and Aerostats Through Geometric Shape Evaluation and Meshing,” Int. J. Aeronaut. Space Sci., 15(3), pp. 241–257.
Atkinson, C. , and Urso, R. , 2006, “ Modeling of Apparent Mass Effects for the Real-Time Simulation of a Hybrid Airship,” AIAA Paper No. 2006-6619.
Li, Y. , and Nahon, M. , 2007, “ Modeling and Simulation of Airship Dynamics,” J. Guid. Control Dyn., 30(6), pp. 1691–1700. [CrossRef]
Li, Y. , 2008, “ Dynamics Modeling and Simulation of Flexible Airships,” AIAA J., 47(3), pp. 592–605. [CrossRef]
Jex, H. , Magdaleno, R. , Gelhausen, P. , and Tischler, M. , 1987, “ Pre- and Post-Flight-Test Models Versus Measured Skyship-500 Controlresponses,” AIAA Paper No. 87-2508.
Frye, M. T. , Gammon, S. M. , and Qian, C. , “ The 6-DOF Dynamic Model and Simulation of the Tri-Turbofan Remote-Controlled Airship,” American Control Conference (ACC'07), New York, July 9–13, pp. 816–821.
Zhang, K.-S. , Han, Z.-H. , and Song, B.-F. , 2010, “ Flight Performance Analysis of Hybrid Airship: Revised Analytical Formulation,” J. AIRCR., 47(4), pp. 1318–1330. [CrossRef]
Carrión, M. , Steijl, R. , Barakos, G. N. , and Stewart, D. , 2016, “ Analysis of Hybrid Air Vehicles Using Computational Fluid Dynamics,” J. Aircr., 53(4), pp. 1001–1012.
Carrion, M. , Biava, M. , Steijl, R. , Barakos, G. N. , and Stewart, D. , 2015, “ CFD Studies of Hybrid Air Vehicles,” AIAA Paper No. 2016-0059.
Carichner, G. E. , and Nicolai, L. M. , 2013, Fundamentals of Aircraft and Airship Design: Airship Design and Case Studies, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA. [CrossRef]
Chaabani, S. , Azouz, N. , Lerbet, J. , and Abichou, A. , “ Modelling of an Unconventional Airship,” ASME Paper No. ESDA2012-82143.
Zhu, M. , Liu, L. , and Zheng, Z. , 2015, “ Dynamic Control Allocation for a Stratospheric Airship With Redundant Control Systems,” Control and Decision Conference (CCDC), Qingdao, China, May 23–25, pp. 2716–2723.
Han, D. , Wang, X. L. , Chen, L. , and Duan, D. P. , 2015, “ Adaptive Backstepping Control for a Multi-Vectored Thrust Stratospheric Airship With Thrust Saturation in Wind,” Proc. Inst. Mech. Eng. Part G, 230(1), pp. 10396–10409.
Andan, A. D. , Asrar, W. , and Omar, A. A. , 2012, “ Investigation of Aerodynamic Parameters of a Hybrid Airship,” J. AIRCR., 49(2), pp. 658–662. [CrossRef]
Kornienko, A. , 2006, “ System Identification Approach for Determining Flight Dynamical Characteristics of an Airship From Flight Data,” Ph.D. thesis, Uni Stuttgart-Universitätsbibliothek, Stuttgart, Germany. https://www.deutsche-digitale-bibliothek.de/binary/PVUQWQ7DCALBTGJHZMALMTSBWYPIBV3H/full/1.pdf
Korotkin, A. I. , 2009, Added Masses of Ship Structures, Springer, Dordrecht, The Netherlands.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

A prototype model of hybrid airship

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

The longitude symmetric plane of double ellipsoid airship

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Added mass coefficients for an ellipsoid

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Structured mesh for the 6:1 prolate spheroid

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Domain extension and boundaries

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Mesh and domain for the prototype

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Pressure diagram of constant motions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Pressure diagram of accelerated motions

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

Effects of added mass on perturbation response with the nonlinear method

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

Effects of added mass on thrust response with the nonlinear method

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Effects of added mass on elevator angle response with the nonlinear method

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Local mesh of three difference b/h

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Longitude aerodynamic model

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 10

Effects of added mass on perturbation response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

Effects of added mass on thrust response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

Effects of added mass on elevator angle response

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

The near wall grid domain and local mesh

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

Added mass effects on take-off and landing phases

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Comparison with the analytic solutions

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In