Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T10:35:26.340Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Multiple unmanned aerial systems collision impacts on wing leading edge

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 March 2022

A.J. de Wit Open the ORCID record for A.J. de Wit [Opens in a new window] ,
W.M. van den Brink Open the ORCID record for W.M. van den Brink [Opens in a new window]  and
M. Moghadasi Open the ORCID record for M. Moghadasi [Opens in a new window]
A.J. de Wit*
Affiliation:
Department of Collaborative Engineering Systems, Royal Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR), The Netherlands
W.M. van den Brink
Affiliation:
Department of Collaborative Engineering Systems, Royal Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR), The Netherlands
M. Moghadasi
Affiliation:
Department of Collaborative Engineering Systems, Royal Netherlands Aerospace Centre (NLR), The Netherlands
*
*Corresponding author. Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Unmanned Aerial Systems (UASs) are increasingly starting to dominate the lower airspace. This increases the chance that a UAS will hit the means of transport of people e.g. aircraft, helicopters. For air traffic, the European Union Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) are in the process of determining the threat of a UAS impact on aircraft. This will result in new rules that may impose new, or additional, requirements on the ‘wetted zones’ of aircraft and the like. Current research suggests that aircraft wetted-areas (e.g. wing leading edge) that are certified for so called ‘bird-impact’ may not sustain a ‘UAS-impact’, such an UAS-impact may even damage the primary load carrying structure. But what would happen if multiple UASs are flying close to one other? To the authors’ knowledge, the damage caused by multiple UAS impacts on a wetted surface zone has not yet been established.

A finite element modelling approach is chosen for the UAS; specifically, a Lagrangian approach is applied using material nonlinearity and damage. A comparison is made between the damage caused by a bird impactor and a UAS impactor model. To establish the resulting damage of multiple UAS impacts on a wing leading edge, a multiple-UAS impact scenario is executed. The results show that a wing leading edge capable of sustaining a bird impact may not be capable of sustaining a UAS impact, which supports previous findings. Furthermore, for all simulated cases the front spar was not penetrated by components that managed to enter the leading edge. However, for the heavier drone some deformation of the front spar was observed. The multiple UAS impact scenario causes additional damage to the leading edge with respect to the single UAS impact, with greater deformation of the front spar being observed.

Keywords

UAS impactBird strikeLeading edgeFinite element simulation
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 126 , Issue 1304 , October 2022 , pp. 1648 - 1677
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2022. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

EASA. Certification Specifications CS-25 Large Aeroplanes. [Online] 2020. [Cited: 15 01 2021.] https://www.easa.europa.eu/certification-specifications/cs-25-large-aeroplanes.Google Scholar
FAA. Electronic Code of Federal Regulations - PART 25 AIRWORTHINESS STANDARDS: TRANSPORT CATEGORY AIRPLANES. [Online] 2021. [Cited: 15 01 2021.] https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=1fab3f89ba09fe822716daf4d917ec8a&mc=true&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14cfr25_main_02.tpl .Google Scholar
Dennis, N. and Lyle, D. Bird strike damage & windshield bird strike. ATKINS. s.l. : European Aviation Safety Agency, 2009.Google Scholar
EASA. Annual Safety Review 2019. s.l.: European Union Aviation Safety Agency, 2019.Google Scholar
Sharma, R.S. Investigation into unmanned aircraft system incidents in the national airspace system, International Journal of Aviation, Aeronautics, and Aerospace, 2016, 3, (4). https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1146 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radi, A. Potential Damage Assesment of a mid-air collision with a small uav. s.l. : CASA, 2013.Google Scholar
British Military Aviation Authority. Small Remotely Piloted Aircraft Systems Drone Midair Collision Study, Crown, 2016, London.Google Scholar
Dadouche, A., Greer, A., Galeote, B., Breithaupt, T., Vidal, C. and Gould, R. Drone impact assessment on aircraft structure: windshield and leading edge testing and analysis. Volume 2 of 2, Report No: CR-GTL-2020-0054, Aerospace Research Centre National Research Council Canada, 2020. https://doi.org/10.4224/40001907 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EASA. ‘Drone Collision’ Task Force. s.l. : European Aviation Safety Agency, 2016.Google Scholar
ASSURE. ASSURE UAS Airborne Collision Severity Evaluation Final Report. [Online] 2017. [Cited: 5 7 2021.] https://www.assureuas.org/projects/completed/sUASAirborneCollisionReport.php.Google Scholar
Olivares, G. UAS Airborne Collision Severity Evaluation Executive Summary - Structural Evaluation, U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration DOT/FAA/AR-xx/xx, 2017a, Washington.Google Scholar
Olivares, G. UAS Airborne Collision Severity Evaluation - Volume II - Quadcopter. s.l.: Federal Aviation Administration, 2017b.Google Scholar
Olivares, G. UAS airborne collision severity evaluation - volume III - fixed wing. s.l. : Federal Aviation Administration, 2017c. Report DOT/FAA/AR-XX/XX.Google Scholar
Drumond, T., Greco, M. and Cimini, C. Evaluation of increase weight in a wing fixed leading edge design to support UAS impact, Aerospace Technology Congress, 8-9 October 2019, Stockholm, Sweden, Swedish Society of Aeronautics and Astronautics (FTF), Linköping Electronic Conference Proceedings 162:8, s. 71–80, 2019. http://dx.doi.org/10.3384/ecp19162008 Google Scholar
Jonkheijm, L. Predicting Helicopter Damage Caused by a Collision with an Unmanned Aerial System using explicit Finite Element Analysis, TU Delft, 2020, Delft.Google Scholar
Austen, W.J., Lord, S.J. and Bridges, S.A. Vulnerability of manned aircraft to drone strikes. s.l. : EASA.2020.C04 Qinetiq, 2020.Google Scholar
BBC. Gatwick Airport: Drones ground flights. BBC News. [Online] 20 12 2018. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-sussex-46623754.Google Scholar
Calder, S. GATWICK DRONE DISRUPTION COST OVER £50M. [Online] 2019. [Cited: 22 01 2021.] https://www.independent.co.uk/travel/news-and-advice/gatwick-drone-airport-cost-easyjet-runway-security-passenger-cancellation-a8739841.html .Google Scholar
Wendt, P., Voltes-Dorta, A. and Suau-Sanchez, P. Estimating the costs for the airport operator and airlines of a drone-related shutdown: an application to Frankfurt international airport. Journal of Transportation Security, 2020, 13, (1), pp 93–116. DOI: 10.1007/s12198-020-00212-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
EASA. ASIDIC EASA UAS Collision Workshop. 2017.Google Scholar
Kota, K.R., Ricks, T., Gomez, L., Espinosa de los Monteros, J., Olivares, G. and Lacy, J.E., Jr. Development and validation of finite element impact models of high-density UAS components for use in air-to-air collision simulations, Mechanics of Advanced Materials and Structures, 2020, 27, (13), pp 1178–1199. DOI: 10.1080/15376494.2020.1740956 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yu, J. Numerical simulation of a UAV impacting engine fan blades, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, 2021, 34, (10), pp 177–190. DOI: 10.1016/j.cja.2020.10.025.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simulia. Abaqus - Abaqus analysis user’s guide. s.l. : Dassault Systemes, 2020. Version 2020.Google Scholar
Rice, R.C. Metallic Materials Properties Development and Standardization (MMPDS), U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Administration, 2003, Washington.Google Scholar
Kay, G. Failure Modeling of Titanium 6Al-4V and Aluminium 2024-T3 With the Johnson-Cook Material Model. s.l.: Report DOT/FAA/AR-03/57, FAA, 2003.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McNaughtan, I. The design of leading-edge and intake wall structure to resist bird impact. s.l. : Royal Aircraft Establishment, 1972.Google Scholar
Riccio, A., Cristiano, R. and Saputo, S. A brief introduction to the bird strike numerical simulation, American Journal of Engineering and Applied Sciences, 2016, 9, pp 946–950. DOI: 10.3844/ajeassp.2016.946.950.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Segletes, S.B. An analysis on the stability of the Mie-Gruneisen equation of state for describing the behavior of shock loaded materials. s.l. : Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland: Ballistic Research Laboratory, 1991. Technical Report BRL-TR-3214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walvekar, V. Birdstrike analysis on leading edge of an aircraft wing using a smooth particle hydrodynamics bird model. Vancouver: Proceedings of the ASME 2010 International Mechanical Engineering Congress & Exposition, 2010.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Federal Aviation Administration. Aeronautical Information Manual. Official Guideline to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures. 2017.Google Scholar