Transmittal Letter

Hayden DAddona
hayden.daddona@uqconnect.edu.au
(+61) 457 951 358
Friday, 23th October 2015
Michael Shiel and Brendan Chen
Project A Leaders
University of Queensland
Brisbane QLD, 4072
Dear Mr Shiel and Mr Chen,
Please find attached P03 Glass Final Report. This report was completed to fulfil the requirements of
ENGG1200 with regard to the design of a Micro Air Vehicle (MAV) prototype. An area of innovation
the team wishes to bring to your attention is the use of 3D printing technology for the production of
the Micro Aerial Vehicle, details of which can be found in section 4. This section identifies ease of
manufacture, cost effectiveness and time usage as contributing factors to the use of 3D printing. This
construction method greatly simplified the project task for the group.
If you have any queries regarding the report dont hesitate to contact our team via the attached email.
Regards,

Hayden DAddona
On behalf of P03-Glass,
Hayden DAddona
Oliver Darvas
Te Otinga Kopa
Asher Leung
Alex Shoung
Keh Xian De
St Lucia
University of Queensland

University of Queensland
ENGG1200: Project A

Final Report
October 24, 2015

P03: Team Glass

Hayden DAddona

Oliver Darvas

Xian De Keh

Te Otinga Kopa

Asher Leung

Alex Shoung

s4392870

s4394256

s438429

s4392781

s4392781

s4332343

Executive Summary
The task was to design, build and demonstrate a prototype Micro Aerial Vehicle (MAV). The development process started with MATLAB and Simulink calculations. These calculations were then used to
simulate the flight trajectory of the MAV. The results are as follows:
Lift coefficient = 0.069,
Drag coefficient = 0.578,
Mass of MAV = 75g,
Flight distance = 30.21m, and
Flight time = 1.8105s (trajectory model assumes point mass).
What followed was the build phase. The MAV was 3D printed as its individual components and
assembled separately. This allows for parts to be replaced easily after being damaged. The next
phase was flight testing. The prototype failed to fly during initial testing however after shifting the
centre of mass forward and repositioning the wings the MAV was able to glide an average of 23 metres
consistently. The following results were recorded from flight testing after the improvements were made:
Maximum flight distance = 26.8m,
Maximum flight time = 5s,
Cost of MAV= $1.50,
Total mass = 75g,
Length = 20cm,
Width = 30cm,
Height = 5cm, and
Durability = 10 test flights plus toss testing.
The MAV design is a success as it minimises cost and manufacture time while maximising durability,
flight distance and flight time. In order to further increase the potential of the aircraft it is recommended
that calculations be used to optimise the cost of the MAV by minimising the volume of material needed
as much as possible without affecting the flight results. Furthermore, redesigning the model to improve
assembly would make the design more time and cost-effective.

Contents
Executive Summary

Contents
1 Introduction
1.1 Task Definition . .
1.2 Objectives . . . . .
1.3 Contents of Report
1.4 Project Scope . . .

ii

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

2 Virtual Model
2.1 Tensile Member . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Approximations for Lift and Drag Coefficients using ANSYS .
2.3 Launch Rig Simulation (MATLAB Simulink) . . . . . . . . .
2.4 Trajectory Simulation (MATLAB Simulink) . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Predicted Performance for Demonstration Day . . . . . . . .
3 Structural Model
3.1 Quick Release Plate . . .
3.2 Specifications . . . . . . .
3.2.1 Airfoil Design . . .
3.2.2 Other Components

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

4 Construction Process
4.1 Simplicity of Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.2 Manufacturability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.3 Fabrication Process. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.4 Successes and Difficulties Encountered . . . . .
4.5 Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
4.5.1 Critical Evaluation of Costs . . . . . . .
4.5.2 Critical Analysis of Performance against

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
. . .
Cost

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

5 Reflections
5.1 Team Reflection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2 Effectiveness of Organizational Structure . . . . . . . .
5.2.1 Tutors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.2 Workshops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.2.3 Problem Solving Sessions Workshop MATLAB
5.2.4 Online tools - Blackboard . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3 Key Lessons Learned . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.1 Early Prototype Testing . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.2 Communication Between Team Members . . .
5.3.3 Team Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.4 Using All Resources Available . . . . . . . . . .
5.3.5 The Importance of Organisation . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

1
1
1
1
1

.
.
.
.
.

2
2
2
3
3
4

.
.
.
.

5
5
6
6
6

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

8
8
8
8
10
10
10
11

. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
& Creo
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .
. . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

11
11
12
12
12
13
13
13
13
13
14
14
14

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.

6 Conclusions

15

7 Recommendations

15

8 References

16

ii

1 Tensile Member Calculations

1.1 Material Comparison . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
1.2 MATLAB Script for Plotting Stress-Strain Relationship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

17
17
18

2 MAV Performance Calculations

2.1 Lift and Drag Simulation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.2 Physical Model Verification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
2.3 MATLAB Script for Declaring Performance Parameters
2.4 Launch Rig Modelling (SIMULINK) . . . . . . . . . . .
2.5 Trajectory Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.

19
19
20
20
21
21

Strain of Brass Samples of Various Thickness Under Load

Dimensions of Release plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The MAV on the release plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The MAV on the release plate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Engineering Drawings of the MAV . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Manufacturing Process Flowchart . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Data Specifications of Various Materials and Thickness . .
Comparison of Different Materials Under Load . . . . . .

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

2
5
5
5
7
9
17
19

. . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . .
Construction
. . . . . . . .

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.

1
4
10
19

List of Figures
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

List of Tables
1
2
3
4

Relevance of Design Factors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Comparison of Trajectories at Different Launch Speeds
Successes & Difficulties Encountered During Prototype
Lift and Drag Parameters for the MAV . . . . . . . . .

iii

Introduction

1.1

Task Definition

The MAV was designed and built from suitable materials to maximise flight duration and distance.
The MAV is stable in the air and proved to be durable over a number of tests. The MAV was built to
comply to the following constraints:
The MAV must have a width no greater than 300mm, length no longer than 600mm and a height
no greater than 300mm,
The mass must be no greater than 250g,
Cost no greater than $100,
Must not start with any form of stored energy (batteries, pre-loaded elastics, etc.),
The lowest part of the MAV must not be any lower than the quick release plate (Reidsema, 2015),
and
The quick release plate must be made from aluminium. The tensile member can be made from
brass, carbon steel or aluminium. Its dimensions must be within 150mm x 20mm.

1.2

Objectives

The objective of this report is to summarise the design and building processes taken in the development
of the MAV. It includes an analysis of the final design, recommends further improvements, and features
multiple reflective pieces. The report provides information on the engineering process of the design of
the prototype.

1.3

Contents of Report

The report covers integral factors of the design including explanations of Dynamic and Structural
Models created with MATLAB and Creo. The construction process is also covered along with all
calculations, design drawings and justifications. Reflections are also contained pertaining to numerous
topics such as the groups teamwork, the effectiveness of organisational structure and key lessons learned
by individual group members.

1.4

Project Scope

Table 1 lists all possible factors involved in this project as in scope factors that will be addressed in
the design and build process and out of scope factors that will not be addressed.

In Scope

Table 1: Relevance of Design Factors

Out of Scope

Calculating lift & drag coefficients

Propulsion systems

Designing profile of MAV

Construction of the launch rail

Optimise wing profile & the number of wings

Steering system to control MAV direction

Selection of materials for the MAV, quick release

plate and tensile member

Use of CNC machine

Designing the quick release plate & tensile mem- Choosing Material to manufacture the tensile
ber
member

2
2.1

Virtual Model
Tensile Member

With the data specifications of the potential tensile member materials (aluminum, brass and steel)
presented in Figure 7 (see Appendix 1.1), a MATLAB script (see Appendix 1.2) was written to plot a
graph of strain vs retraction distance. To prevent the tensile member from yielding, the tensile stress at
0.2% yield was reduced by a reasonable amount as shown in line 17-19 of Appendix 1.2 such that there
is a safety margin on the maximum retraction distance that could be applied. Brass was chosen for the
tensile member because at a gauge width of 13 mm it doesnt plastically deform within the expected
retraction distance, yet the extension is large enough to be detected by the Optical Strain System (OSS).
To further investigate the properties of brass, a plot of the retraction distance against the strain
was produced for various gauge widths (10 - 15 mm) in Figure 1 to determine the best gauge width.

Figure 1: Strain of Brass Samples of Various Thickness Under Load

From this graph it was decided that a gauge width of 13 mm would be most suitable. It would allow for
a maximum amount of strain of 0.001425 at retraction of 2.5 m (maximum usable retraction distance
of the launch rig) and the metal would not plastically deform. Between the two given thickness of the
brass tensile member, 0.390 mm is preferred over 0.250 mm as this would allow a larger launching force
(since force is proportional to area for a fixed Youngs Modulus) , thus a greater range is achieved by
the MAV.

2.2

Approximations for Lift and Drag Coefficients using ANSYS

After some background research on MAV designs, the prototype MAV was designed digitally as a
virtual CAD model in Autodesk Inventor. This was used to develop a trajectory simulation. To do
this, the lift and drag coefficients had to be found. The prototype MAV model was loaded into ANSYS
and ran through a few virtual wind tunnel tests at different angles of attack in a given wind speed of
22 ms1 (close to the estimated launch speed). The raw data is presented in Table 4 in Appendix 2.1.
The lift and drag coefficients were calculated with equations 1 and 2, where wing area A = 0.015 m2 ,
density of air = 1.225 kgm3 and velocity v = 22 ms1 .
Cd = 2D/(Av 2 )(N ASA, n.d.)

(1)

Cl = 2L/(Av 2 )(N ASA, n.d.)

(2)

The virtual model was validated through wind tunnel testing of the physical prototype (Appendix
2.2). An angle of attack of 5 was chosen for the launch angle due to its high lift-to-drag ratio of
2

approximately 8. The lift and drag coefficients at this angle of attack were 0.58 and 0.07. There was
only a 1.6% discrepancy between the simulated value from ANSYS and the results of wind tunnel
testing.

2.3

Launch Rig Simulation (MATLAB Simulink)

A MATLAB script (Appendix 2.3) was created to declare all the constants and initial conditions
(masses, lift and drag coefficients etc.) for the launch system model and trajectory simulation (section
2.4). Appendix 2.4 presents the Simulink code used to model the launch rig. In this code the following
assumptions were made:
The rail of the rig produces no friction with the sled and has a usable max length of 2.5 m,
The energy losses due to heat is negligible,
The air density remains constant, and
Constant angle of attack.
The drag force experienced by the MAV-QRP-Trolley system was not neglected as this would contribute
some damping effect. Hence, the forces acting on the MAV-QRP-Trolley system were the elastic forces
provided by the elastic cords and drag (namely contact and aerodynamic friction). The elastic force is
dependent on displacement and the drag force is speed dependent. The position and speed outputs
were fed into the elastic force function block and the drag function block respectively. From this model,
the initial launch velocity of approximately 25 ms1 was obtained. Nevertheless, this value would be
slower in real world conditions due to the presence of environmental factors such as wind and energy
lost as heat. A more reasonable launch velocity would be around 20 2 ms1 and this range of values
shall be used as this would provide a much more realistic representation when simulating the flight
path of the MAV. One key thing to note that for this rig model, the elastic force is given by 26dext
instead of 26dext + 21.1 (Shiel, 2015) because the MAV-QRP-Trolley system would be moving even
when there is no extension applied to the elastic cord.

2.4

Trajectory Simulation (MATLAB Simulink)

In the Simulink code for trajectory simulation (Appendix 2.5), a clock is set up in coordination with a
stop command to determine the time of flight, e.g. the stop command stops the simulation when the
height output reaches 0 m. A standard launch angle equation would only give a parabolic trajectory
which is unrealistic because it did not take into account lift and drag forces acting on the MAV. The
lift force always acts perpendicularly to the MAV whereas the drag force acts in parallel, so both
forces were resolved into their respective horizontal and vertical components which were represented
in Horizontal Forces and Vertical Forces function blocks. This simulation also outputs a horizontal
displacement from initial launch position as well as an XY graph of the trajectory as shown in Appendix
2.5.
For this trajectory model, a few assumption were made as follows:
Uniform air density of 1.225 kgm-3,
Absence of wind,
Trajectory only lies in one plane (does not veer sideways), and
MAV is treated as a point mass.
The resulting flights for different launch conditions were thus explored in table 2
During rig testing, the shape of trajectory of the physical prototype MAV did perform according to
what was expected thus informing that the simulation is pretty close to the real conditions in which
a maximum flight time of 4.8 s with a maximum range of 26.8 m were achieved. This test result
corresponds to a launch velocity of approximately 18 ms-1. The 10.8% deviation from the simulated
3

Table 2: Comparison of Trajectories at Different Launch Speeds

Launch velocity (ms1 )
Time of flight (s)
Horizontal range (m)
18

1.797

30.06

19

2.160

37.32

20

2.630

46.42

21

3.180

56.77

22

3.753

67.20

horizontal range was understandable due to the extra external factors like wind, temperature of the
air, random errors that were ignored in the simulation. However, one unexpected result was that the
simulated time of flight deferred 62.6% from the actual flight time during testing. This could be treated
as a good sign in terms of performance for the MAV in real world conditions. To further improve its
performance, a higher launch velocity would be favoured such that a greater time of flight and range
would be achieved.

2.5

Predicted Performance for Demonstration Day

The performance of the MAV on Demonstration Day is expected to yield the following outputs as
predicted from the virtual model and validated through physical testing:
Time of flight, t = 4.0 1.0 s
Launch distance, d = 25 2.0 m
Due to some wind factors during testing, it was found that on a relative windy day the MAV did
not follow a trajectory which lies in a single plane. Instead, the MAV veered off sideways and this
could have resulted in extra lift and drag forces acting sideways which the trajectory model could not
simulate (motion simulated only confined to a single plane in 3D space). This may have caused the
increase in time of flight by a factor of approximately 2.5 from the flight duration obtained from the
simulation when tested at launch velocity of 18 ms1 .
As for the predicted launch distance, the average of launch distances achieved during rig testing
was calculated after removing a few outliers and chosen for this prediction. An error margin of 2.0
m was included to take external factors and random errors into account such that to provide a more
realistic and accurate value.

3
3.1

Structural Model
Quick Release Plate

The quick release plate was designed so that the the fuselage could rest at a 5angle for launch. The
fuselage has a little hollow which the point of the plate inserts into to prevent premature take off
(figure 3). The plate has been designed so that the front of the fuselage leaves the plate at the same
time as the rear, preventing the MAV nosing down (figure 4).
The dimensions of the plate are presented in figure 2

5,00

5,00

1,70

30,00

5,00

5,00

6,00

100,00

Figure 2: Dimensions of Release plate

Designed by

Checked by

Date

Approved by

Date

08/10/2015

oliver

Edition

Figure 3: The MAV on the release plate

Figure 4: The MAV on the release plate

Sheet

1/1

3.2

Specifications

The following lists provide design details with accompanying justification for their selection.
3.2.1

Airfoil Design

The MAV is a high wing cantilever monoplane with elliptical wings of moderate aspect ratio and
slight dihedral angle. The wingspan is 300mm, with an aspect ratio of 6.
High wings keep the centre of lift above the centre of mass, preventing tilting during flight.
The shape of wings was chosen to lower drag, while achieving a reasonable amount of lift
(NASA, 2010).
Moderate aspect ratio compromises between having a large surface area for maximum lift
and low area for minimum drag.
Various wing designs were tested in the virtual wind tunnel. This design performed best.
The airfoil has a low camber symmetric cross section based on the NACA 4415 profile.
Has a higher stall speed than a cambered wing (Laitone, 1997).
While symmetrical wings produce little lift for small angles of attack (AoA), they are easier
to manufacture and are more stable if the AoA varies, as it will throughout the trajectory.
Wings have an AoA of 3 which is increased to 8 during launch. They have a transitional fillet
at their base, separation separation separation of flow around the fuselage.
The transitional fillet removes hard edges around the fuselage above the wings, hence
preventing separation of flow and turbulence occurring over this section.
Having a non-zero angle of attack relative to the fuselage enables the symmetrical wings to
provide lift even if the MAV is horizontal.
3.2.2

Other Components

The nosecone is a paraboloid, and is printed as a solid component. The tip is left flat, and the
curve is completed with a moulded bluetak cone.
By being solid, the the centre of mass moves forward, helping the craft recover from a stall
by preventing the AoA continuing to rise over the trajectory.
The shape ensures minimal drag at the expected speeds.
The more pliable tip acts as a shock absorber, minimising damage upon landing.
The fuselage is 200mm long from nose to tail. The thickness is only 4mm at the tail to keep the
centre of mass forward.
The short length minimises flexing along the fuselage. This keeps the flight more stable.
Having such a thin fuselage towards the back helps bring the centre of mass forward.
The MAV is released from the plate without interfering with it (either being nosed down or
up) due to its relatively short length.
The empennage consists of a tailfin and high mounted vertical stabilisers
Having the empennage mounted at the same height as the wings allows the top of the
fuselage to be printed flat against the printer bed, improving the ease of manufacture.
All components were 3D printed in PLA plastic. This was found to be more durable than printing in
ABS. They were all designed in Autodesk Inventor, which enabled small changes to be made to the
design quickly and easily. Altered components could be printed instantly and tested physically. Hence
the use of this software enabled rapid prototyping, leading to quick progress and greatly improved
model performance. The dimensions of the MAV are provided in Figure 5.
6

36,00

50,00

10,00

6,00

55,00

8,00

28,00

70,00

300,00

50,00

200,00

15,00

4,00

15,00

50,00

25,00

R3
5,0
0

0
5,0
1
R
5,00

2,00

Designed by

Checked by

Approved by

Date

P03-Glass

Oliver Darvas

P03-Glass

22/10/2015

Date

23/10/2015

MAV - Project A
University of Queensland
Plane

Figure 5: Engineering Drawings of the MAV

Edition

Sheet

1/1

Construction Process

4.1

Simplicity of Design

MAVs are used for many situations worldwide, making the simplicity of their design vital so that many
can be manufactured quickly and efficiently. The profile of the MAV (see Figure 5 in section 3) that
was designed took into consideration simplicity of design. The four simple design components are:
Nose,
Fuselage,
Tail, and
Wings.
The simplicity in the way that these components were designed allows for it to be easily reprinted.
In comparison, other materials such as balsa wood and styrofoam consume time when shaping these
materials to the specified design, making them less simple and efficient than 3D printing the design.
The assembly of the design was with the use of super glue for gluing the nose, tail and wings to the
fuselage. The nose and tail were attached to the fuselage and then the wings last to determine where
the appropriate centre of lift would be for maximum flight performance of the prototype. The simple
and effective design makes for a high quality plane to achieve the specified requirements.

4.2

Manufacturability

The ability to design an MAV that is easily manufacturable and produce an effective aerodynamic
prototype is also beneficial in worldwide situations. A 3D printer was used to manufacture the
components for the prototype because it was simple, efficient and effective in manufacturing the
necessary components. It was a more accurate process and consumed less time (with the total time of
making the components being approx. 2hrs) compared to traditional manufacturing methods. New
components could be easily reprinted when damaged or broken. In comparison, manufacturing the
prototype from materials such as balsa wood or styrofoam would require more time consuming processes.
It would have been a tedious process to shape accurate, symmetrical wings by hand.

4.3

Fabrication Process.

The fabrication processes involved in building the prototype, quick release plate and tensile member
were simple. The quick release plate was built by submitting a file of the design to the University of
Queensland and it was machined by a CNC machine. The tensile member was built in the ABB STC
(Student Technology Centre) by selecting the required material and following the specified instructions.
The process flow chart below shows the steps taken in construction the prototype, quick release plate
and tensile member. The fabrication process is graphically described in Figure 6.

Figure 6: Manufacturing Process Flowchart

4.4

Successes and Difficulties Encountered

Throughout the construction phase of the prototype there were many successes and difficulties
encountered and lessons learnt from these challenges. These are shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Successes & Difficulties Encountered During Prototype Construction
Successes
Difficulties
Lessons Learnt from Difficulties
Each component of the prototype
was printed to a high quality to
the specified design requirements

Gluing the two pieces for the

wings. The thin wings meant less
surface area for the glue to stick
onto and for the wings to be able
to attach securely.

Learnt that it would be simpler to design a wing profile as

one component instead of two
individual pieces. This would
make for a more secure attachment onto the MAV and the wing
would be stronger.

Constructing the components

from 3D printing allows for them
to be symmetrical, which is important when the MAV gets
launched.

Attaching the fuselage of the

MAV to the quick release plate.
The piece removed from the bottom of the fuselage was not
printed to the correct dimensions
so there was a tight fit onto the
quick release plate.

Learnt that measurements

should be doubled checked before printing to save the wastage
of material and that accuracy is
important. Also the machines
are not always precise and can
be inaccurate sometimes.

The tensile member was built to

the required specifications calculated. Worked well as a team to
make the tensile member. Had
clear communication and knew
what was needed to be achieved.

Assembling each of the components onto the fuselage using super glue. Tape and blue tack was
used to attach wings and tail to
add further support. Also components broke or got damaged
during practice runs.

Learnt that should consider other

fastening methods when assembling the MAV, as blue tack adds
extra weight and isnt as secure as
super glue. Also that we should
have printed extra components
to have on stand by for when a
component does break or become
damaged.

4.5
4.5.1

Costs
Critical Evaluation of Costs

The expense that was involved in manufacturing the MAV was very low compared to that of other
materials. The simplicity of the design and processes that were used to manufacture the prototype were
taken into consideration in the designing stage of the project build, with the 3D printing fabrication
process chosen because of its effectiveness, efficiency and low cost. The total cost of the prototype was
only $1.50 and the extremely low cost was to do with the MAV being produced using a 3D printing
machine. There were minimal materials used in the construction process. These materials were:
Super Glue,
Tape, and
PLA plastic (3D printer plastic).
Each component was printed separately, with the total time taken to print all components being
approximately 2hrs. The other components of the design and manufacture process (quick release plate
and tensile member) involved no costs as the materials were supplied by the University of Queensland.
In comparison, materials such as balsa wood and styrofoam can be seen to be more expensive than
that of 3D printing. An approximation of the cost of balsa wood and styrofoam were calculated using
the same design with the cost of these materials being:
10

 3D printing $1.50,
Styrofoam $2.10, and
Balsa wood $4.50 (Bunnings, 2015).
4.5.2

Critical Analysis of Performance against Cost

Section 2.4 shows that the approximation of the prototypes trajectory simulation is 30.06m in 1.797secs
for an approximated 75g MAV. It can be seen that prototypes performance is remarkable for its
extremely low cost. In comparison, if other materials were chosen such as balsa wood or styrofoam and
manufactured in the same design a different trajectory simulation is achieved. Assuming that the mass
of the prototype to be 60g when using balsa wood or styrofoam, it can be seen that the trajectory
simulation models the MAV to travel 39.3m in 2.49secs. It is evident that the lighter weight model has
a better performance as it flies further for longer. Comparing the cost to build each of the prototypes
the performance of the 3D printed model can be seen to be greater than that of the others as it was
cheaper and only travelled approximately 9m less than the other prototypes made from balsa wood or
styrofoam, which were more expensive to build.

5
5.1

Reflections
Team Reflection

One of the most used methods of project management used was group meetings. They served as a
platform to communicate mutual goals, allocate work and discuss how our team wanted to progress
forward. Reflecting on the earlier stages of the semester, we realise that our procedures for those
meetings were inefficient, due to the lack of communication and organisation. As all team members had
different roles and responsibilities, when it came to discussing completed work, we realised the necessity
of communication and organisation to be able to complete assessment to the highest quality by the
due date. It has also become apparent to us that if effective communication were to occur, we would
have been able to further minimise errors as the project progressed. Our team has highlighted that for
future group work, it is important that a foundation is laid where all team members understand the
project timeline and assessment allocations so that in the early stages group productivity is optimised.
Another key area was communication. In reflecting on this, the necessity of having a team leader
and having clear communication between all team members made for a successful project with all
goals being achieved. It is recommended for future group practices, that a foundation on a mutually
agreeable style of leadership be laid at the start of the project to achieve goals and have a successful
project. An example from our team was that individuals in our group preferred a leader to initiate
discussions about reports, followed by team members picking sections based on their strengths to
maximise the success of the report. It is believed that with this recommendation, team performance
will increase and execution of the project will be to a higher standard.
We believe we have learnt the significance of supporting one another. Reflecting on our experience at the start of the project, team members were assigned individual tasks. Although some of us
may have experienced difficulty completing this task due to a gap in knowledge, there was limited
discussion between members asking or offering help. Certain team members admitted this was how
their ENGG1100 team operated, where individuals would complete only their assigned tasks. However,
building on this experience, towards the middle of our team project, we decided to take the next step
forward and ensure that we all felt comfortable asking for assistance if required. We discussed how
there is no I in team and to achieve high standards we would need to work as a team. This made our
planning and execution of the project a smoother, more enjoyable experience. It also made positive
impacts on our teams performance, where more work was able to be completed in a shorter amount of
time. A recommendation to improve this in future situations would be to offer help to individuals if it
appear they made need the assistance.
11

Discussing our team reflection has changed our groups way of thinking, especially in terms of what
we now believe contributes to a successful team. We have agreed that prior to commencement of the
Bachelor of Engineering, we believed a successful team consisted of highly intelligent individuals being
able to complete work to a high standard. However, after reflecting on our joint journey through
ENGG1200, we now believe that healthy leadership, clear communication and excellent teamwork are
a some of the key factors to what makes a team successful. We have highlighted recommendations for
future improvement in hopes to apply our learning from ENGG1200 and make future group experiences
more positive, rich and enjoyable.

5.2

Effectiveness of Organizational Structure

The organisational support provided throughout this project was seen to be effective for different
areas of the course. A large degree of the learning for the course was self-directed learning. The
organisational support provided by the course included:
Tutors,
Workshops,
MATLAB/Creo Problem Solving Sessions, and
Online tools - Blackboard.
5.2.1

Tutors

The project session tutors had a relatively minor impact on the groups project. However, this was due
to the fact that their job was primarily to oversee our completion of the MATLAB and Creo tutorials
during each session. The ENGG1200 Facebook group was a highly effective was to gain assistance
from tutors/ course leaders about questions or issues with the project. It was an effective way for
organisational support recommending it for future years as it is easy to inform the cohort on issues
and questions were promptly answered by tutors.
Another recommendation towards improving organisational support in regards to the tutors could be
by getting tutors to discuss the project with groups, outlining the key concepts and features for the
project to achieve a successful outcome. This would allow for a better overall project and no areas of
the project where concepts are misunderstood.
5.2.2

Workshops

The workshops provided useful time to address key concepts of the course and expand our knowledge
on project specific content. The templates completed within the workshops allowed for different
components of the course to be focused on each week (such as the memo, exam study, final report)
whether it be project specific or course related. Course coordinators and the project leaders used the
workshops as an interactive lecture to address these aspects of the course (such as reflections and
project management), providing in depth knowledge and guidance along the way. This was evident
during the initial weeks of the course as the workshops assisted in simplifying the overall scope of the
project and improved our groups approach to the task (e.g. templates D and F). The templates in the
workshops allowed my team and I to gain a different perspective on the key concepts and what was
fully required for the assessment items. The organisational support was highly effective throughout the
workshops with the course coordinators and project leaders leading us in the right direction, along
with the power point slides that provided beneficial information. A recommendation would be to keep
the weekly completion of templates during the workshop as the support provided was a key factor in
understanding what was required from specific tasks and being able to achieve success in completing
the project.

12

5.2.3

Problem Solving Sessions Workshop MATLAB & Creo

The support given through the problem solving sessions during weeks 7 to 9 for learning MATLAB
and Creo, were highly effective. The tutorial videos used to walk groups through simulating the rig
model, trajectory simulation and how to use Creo were very effective and clearly outlined the steps
that needed to be taken. The videos along with the sufficient tutor help that was provided at these
session was beneficial and allowed our team to achieve success and complete the required tasks. The
organisational support at these sessions was highly effective and resulted in a productive outcome for
our team, with the required assessment being achieved.
A recommendation for the future would be to persist with the tutorial videos as they were an
effective way of support for not only our team, but most teams and outlined what needed to be achieved
each session.
5.2.4

Online tools - Blackboard

The online tools (such as Blackboard and Facebook) were another useful tool of support for our group.
The large degree of self-directed learning throughout the course made the use of online tools more
relied on. The course Facebook group and project specific group were very effective when a question
was needed to be raised or an issue resolved, with tutors promptly answering. The Facebook groups
and the large amount of resources available on the Blackboard site were easily accessible tools for
finding information about unknown content and were effective methods for providing support for myself
and my project team. However, with the abundance of people in the course it was difficult in finding
key information at times, although the learning pathway link was helpful in keeping up to date. A
recommendation for the future would be to create a search bar where documents or links could be
typed to find the specific file on the Blackboard course page.

5.3
5.3.1

Key Lessons Learned

Early Prototype Testing

Prior to rig testing, our team was confident that our MAV would fly well. This belief was confirmed
through concept, theoretical discussions and mathematical models. However, on the first day of our
scheduled rig testing, our MAV failed to fly further than 3 metres despite numerous trial runs. Our
team was encouraged to alter our design to generate a more appropriate centre of mass and lift. After
these modifications were taken, we were then able to successfully fly and believe that we have learnt
several key lessons from this experience.
We have identified the significance of early prototype testing. It has become clear to us that if
we were to delay rig testing until a later date, appropriate modifications to our MAV may not have
been made. We have recommended that for our future projects, it is vital that preliminary prototype
testing must occur well before demonstration. We have also come to understand that this lesson
can be extended beyond ENGG1200. For example, if we were to create MATLAB scripts for future
mathematics courses, even if we were confident in it and it has been shown to work before, it is still
vital that we run it to observe how it works in demonstration.
5.3.2

Communication Between Team Members

Reflecting on the first few weeks of our team project, we realise that we lacked communication between
each other. We failed to clearly communicate ideas to each other, thus making progress in the preliminary memorandum and MAV construction stagnant. Our team began to notice this halfway during the
semester and decided to make the extra effort in clear, concise communication. Since then, in mutual
agreement, we all have noticed our teams production and effectiveness have increased significantly and
project tasks have run smoother.

13

It has become clear to us that for future projects, clear communication is a vital aspect to producing a successful team. Reflecting on this, we have all discussed how it is important to get to
know and understand your future team mates and encourage clear communication from an early stage
through this. It has also been highlighted how clear communication skills within teams may not only
help us in other courses, but also in our future industry work.
5.3.3

Team Work

Although there were minimal problems with teamwork in our journey through ENGG1200, we all
believe we have learnt some key lessons regarding it. All tasks assigned to us were split between team
members with all contributing a similar amount of work. The team noticed how such large perceived
tasks can be easily completed by a cooperative and well-rounded team. After completing the majority
of our assessment pieces a few days prior to the deadline, we found that our teamwork made our
journey through ENGG1200 a more smooth and enjoyable experience.
We hope to take this into any future group practices by encouraging teamwork between individuals, as we now know that it will lead to tasks being completed easier, faster and possibly to a higher
standard. Reflecting on this, we have come to the conclusion that teamwork is not only vital in
ENGG1200 or other university courses, but also several real world applications such as group work in
the engineering industry.
5.3.4

Using All Resources Available

Our group has agreed that one of the reasons as to why we found our journey through ENGG1200
relatively smooth was because we used all resources available to us. Although we didnt experience
any difficulty regarding this, our team has reflected and agreed that this is one of the key lessons
that we will take away from this course. Furthermore, we asked tutors any questions we were having
on the days of rig testing regarding our MAV. We have come to realise that using MATLAB and
Simulink once again after the model test was not required by the course, however was extremely useful
in optimising the performance capable from our MAV.
We hope to apply this key lesson to future team projects, where we aim to use all resources available,
despite whether they are marked or required by the course. This is heavily applicable to general
everyday life, where this process could make our journey through university both easier and more
enjoyable.
5.3.5

The Importance of Organisation

In the earlier stages of our journey through ENGG1200, although our team had suitable teamwork and
communication, we lacked organisation. Despite being able to communicate with each other effectively
and help each other when need be, we initially found it difficult to set and meet deadlines for ourselves
in terms of assessment. As the course went on and we developed as a team, we actively identified our
weakness as organisation, and aimed to improve that. By the later stages of the course, our team had
successfully organised testing times which were available to everyone and our own deadlines for the
final report and were successful in meeting them.
The main key lesson we will take away from this is the importance of organisation in a successful team. We all aim to apply this to future projects by taking the lead if need be, and making
teamwork less stressful. We have also identified that this can be applied and extended beyond
ENGG1200, where good organisation will not only help our university studies, but also our everyday
lives such as sticking to a time schedule.

14

Conclusions

The prototype was manufactured using a 3D printer and each component was printed individually and
assembled as outlined in section 3. The material and design of each of the components was chosen for
optimal performance of the MAV and is outlined in section 4. Furthermore, the lightweight material
choice and unique design will ultimately lead to achieving success and reaching the requirements for
maximum flight time and distance that the MAV can travel.

Recommendations

Due to the scope and nature of the project, the design and model of our MAV is unsuitable for any
real life applications, due to its simplicity and very small size. The functions of modern UAVs/MAVs
primarily include photography, aerial inspection, surveying and remote observation (MicroDrones,
2015). All of these functions require both continuous flight and the implementation of camera, which
this MAV was not designed for.
For the purpose of increasing the functionality of our MAV design, research into propellers should
be conducted to extend flight time. Producing sustained flight would require the ability to remotely
control the MAV which would necessitate the presence of a steering system and power source within
the model. This would increase the functionality of the MAV, but would also require a large amount
of research, design, simulation and manufacturing.
Further recommendations may also include the consideration of a wider range of materials, different manufacturing processes, or slight changes to the design such as winglets to provide better
aerodynamics. Lighter materials such as balsa wood or carbon fibre may decrease the weight and
therefore increase the overall performance of the MAV.

15

References

Bunnings Warehouse. (2015). Craft Wood. Accessed on 16 October 2015 from: http://www.bunnings.
com.au/our-range/paint-decorating/paint-accessories/craft/wood
Dynamic Flight. (2010). Airfoils in General. Accessed 18 October 2015 from http://www.dynamicflight.
com/aerodynamics/airfoils/.
Gurit. (2015). Balsa Wood Core Material. Accessed on 19 October 2015 from http://www.gurit.cn/
Files/Documents/Wind%20Energy%20Datasheets%20(English)/Balsaflex_WE_v3.pdf

MatBase. (2015). PLA monomere (Polylactic Acid). Accessed on 19 October 2015 from http://www.
matbase.com/material-categories/natural-and-synthetic-polymers/agro-based-polymers/material-pr
html
NASA. (n.d.). Drag Coefficient. Retrieved from NASA: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/k-12/
airplane/dragco.html
NASA. (n.d.). Lift Coefficient. Retrieved from NASA: https://www.grc.nasa.gov/www/K-12/
airplane/liftco.html
NASA. (2010). Wing Design. Accessed on 10 August 2015, from http://www.aeronautics.nasa.
gov/pdf/wing_design_k-12.pdf
Shiel, M. (2015). ENGG1200 - Project A Brief. University of Queensland.
Laitone, E. (1997). Wind tunnel tests of wings at Reynolds numbers below 70 000. Experiments in
Fluids, 23(5), pp.405-409.
MicroDrones. (2015). MICRODRONES-APPLICATIONS:. Retrieved from microdrones: https:
//www.microdrones.com/en/home/

16

Appendices
1

Tensile Member Calculations

1.1

Material Comparison

Test Report
Gauge Length
Cross Head Speed

25.00 mm
2.000 mm/min

SHIM TEST
800
700
600

Tensile stress [MPa]

Specimen Name
BRASS 1
BRASS 2
BRASS 3
BRASS 4
Aluminium
Aluminium
Aluminium
Aluminium
Steel 1
Steel 2
Steel 3
Steel 4

500
400
300
200
100

1
2
3
4

10

20

30

40

50

Tensile strain [%]

Results
Thickness
[mm]

Width
[mm]

Maximum Load
[N]

0.390
0.390
0.250
0.250
0.560
0.560
0.770
0.770
0.200

12.050
12.050
12.050
12.050
12.050
12.050
12.050
12.050
12.050

1,861
1,866
1,063
1,022
1,062
1,058
1,467
1,478
1,889

Tensile stress at
Maximum Load
[MPa]
396
397
353
339
157
157
158
159
784

Steel 2

0.200

12.050

1,903

Steel 3

0.130

12.050

1,057

Steel 4

0.130

12.050

1,083

Specimen label
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
1
0
1
1
1
2

BRASS 1
BRASS 2
BRASS 3
BRASS 4
Aluminium
Aluminium
Aluminium
Aluminium
Steel 1

1
2
3
4

162
132
140
100
56
119
98
69
225

Tensile stress at 0.2%

Yield
[MPa]
245
242
226
226
144
142
138
142
639

790

196

646

2.0

675

209

565

1.1

692

194

472

1.5

Young's Modulus
[GPa]

Tensile strain at Break

[%]

Figure 7: Data Specifications of Various Materials and Thickness

Page 1 of 1

17

24.1
44.0
33.6
33.5
4.8
4.2
6.3
6.8
1.6

1.2

MATLAB Script for Plotting Stress-Strain Relationship

18

Figure 8: Comparison of Different Materials Under Load

2
2.1

MAV Performance Calculations

Lift and Drag Simulation

The following table presents the results of the simulation, run at various angles of attack.

Angle of attack ()

Table 4: Lift and Drag Parameters for the MAV

Lift (N) Drag (N) Lift Coefficient Drag Coefficient

Lift to Drag Ratio

0.876242

0.167576

0.1971

0.0377

5.22893

2.55877

0.306044

0.5754

0.0688

8.3608

10

4.09503

0.788733

0.9209

0.1774

5.19191

15

4.32252

1.32252

0.9763

0.2974

3.2851

20

4.32533

1.79481

0.9727

0.4036

2.40991

19

2.2

Physical Model Verification

2.3

MATLAB Script for Declaring Performance Parameters

20

2.4

Launch Rig Modelling (SIMULINK)

2.5

Trajectory Modelling

21

22