Delhi Technological University

Student Unmanned Aerial Systems

Competition 2013 Journal Paper

Figure 1: Aarush-M

Abstract
Aarush-M is a twin-boom, inverted V-tail UAS designed for delivering situational awareness in a disaster
struck area. Command and control over UAS is done via a 2.4 GHz radio link, while the intelligence
gathered is transmitted over a 5 GHz link. A highly modular and portable system, Aarush-M can be flight
ready in less than 30 minutes, providing an endurance of 20 minutes. This paper presents requirements
analysis of the UAS followed by the design description. Flight testing and evaluation results are also
presented which validate the performance parameters .The final section elaborates the safety measures
adopted by the team to ensure safety of the personnel and UAS at all times. Having successfully
conducted two dry-runs of the competition mission, team UAS DTU is confident that Aarush-M will be
able to support the US Marines in their humanitarian relief and security mission in the earthquake struck
Caribbean island.

Delhi Technological University

Table of Contents
Abstract .................................................................................................................................................. 1
1.

Introduction .................................................................................................................................... 3

2.

Systems Engineering Approach ........................................................................................................ 3

2.1. Mission Analysis and Requirements Specification ..................................................................... 3

2.2. Design Rationale ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.1.
Intelligence Gathering Payload ......................................................................................... 4
2.2.2.
Guidance and Navigation .................................................................................................. 5
2.2.3.
Airframe ........................................................................................................................... 5
3. UAS Design Description.................................................................................................................... 6
3.1. Air Vehicle .................................................................................................................................... 7
3.1.1.
Conceptual & Preliminary Design...................................................................................... 7
3.1.2.
Wing analysis and configuration selection ........................................................................ 7
3.1.3.
Fabrication and Developmental Tests ............................................................................... 8
3.1.4.
Propulsion System ............................................................................................................ 9
3.1.5.
Power System Design and Layout of Avionics.................................................................. 10
3.2. Payload .................................................................................................................................. 11
3.2.1.
Imagery System Payload ................................................................................................. 11
3.2.2.
SRIC System Payload....................................................................................................... 11
3.3. Data Processing ...................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.1
Image Processing ............................................................................................................ 11
3.3.2.
SRIC Data Acquisition...................................................................................................... 14
3.4. Communications .................................................................................................................... 14
3.5. Ground Control Station .......................................................................................................... 14
3.6. Mission Planning .................................................................................................................... 15
4. Flight Testing and Evaluation Results ............................................................................................. 15
4.1. Navigation Performance ............................................................................................................. 15
4.2. Payload Performance ............................................................................................................. 16
4.2.1.
Imagery .......................................................................................................................... 16
4.2.2.
SRIC ................................................................................................................................ 18
5. Safety ............................................................................................................................................ 18
5.3. Safety in design of the UAS..................................................................................................... 18
5.4. Safety in mission execution/operation the UAS ...................................................................... 19
5.5. Failure Mode Effect Analysis .................................................................................................. 20
6. Acknowledgements ....21

Delhi Technological University

1. Introduction
The Unmanned Aerial Systems team at Delhi Technological University is proud to present Aarush-M to
compete at the eleventh annual SUAS competition. The team has been participating in the Student
Unmanned Aerial Systems SUAS Competition since 2009 and has gained valuable experience in design,
development, and operation of a UAS. The team comprises of undergraduate students from diverse
engineering backgrounds. The preparation for the competition started in October 2012 and after 4.5
hours of flight testing till May 25, the team is confident that Aarush-M will complete the mission safely
and successfully.

2. Systems Engineering Approach

Taking cue from the judges comments from last year, this year, the teams approach to the competition
has been mission-oriented, rather than technology-oriented. This section describes the systems
engineering paradigm followed by the team.

2.1.

Mission Analysis and Requirements Specification

The mission clearly entails objectives and thresholds for Key Performance Parameters. To score
maximum points, the performance with regard to each parameter should be close to the objectives.
Therefore, the team defined a set of KPPs given in Table 1 below with modified thresholds and
objectives based on their importance and likelihood. The expected performance during competition is
highlighted in green color in the table.
S. No.
1.
2.

Parameter
Navigation
Launch/Recovery

Threshold
Dynamic Waypoint
Automatic Launch

Objective
Dynamic Search Area
Automatic Launch and
Recovery
3.
Imagery
All Characteristics
All Characteristics
(3 Autonomously )
(All Autonomously)
4.
Target Location
Within 250 feet
Within 50 feet
5.
SRIC Data Acquisition
Manually
Autonomously
6.
Mission Completion
<=30 minutes
<= 20 minutes
*SRIC Simulated Remote Intelligence Center
** Green Color Expected Performance
Table 1: Key Performance Parameters

The analysis of the mission KPPs defined the initial driving inputs of the overall UAS design. These factors
along with performance parameters generated the derived requirements of the sub-systems which have
been described in detail later in this report.
The team also deduced certain operational requirements which contribute to the overall robustness of
the UAS operation. They were:
1. Wind Tolerance > 15 knots and Gust Tolerance ~ 20 knots.
2. Setup time should be less than 30 minutes, which would require a better portable ground
station, efficient mission planning and more test runs.

2.2.

Design Rationale

Once the overall system requirements were generated, different sub-teams were tasked with dissecting
the UAS requirements document to generate quantitative subsystem requirements. These low level
requirements guided the design process that followed. The team identified four design elements which

Delhi Technological University

dictated the performance of the overall system:

1. Intelligence Gathering Payload (IGP)
2. Guidance , Navigation and Control System (GNC)
3. Communications
4. Airframe
Communications
IGP

GNC
Airframe

B: B derives requirements from A

Figure 2: Relationship between the requirements of sub-systems

For each of the design elements, anomalies in the previous years competition entry were analyzed and
the goal of the development process was to mitigate these in the new UAS. A variety of options for each
design element were considered, and the option that fulfilled its own requirements, while not
conflicting with the requirements of the other elements was chosen.

2.2.1. Intelligence Gathering Payload

This design element is considered the most important from the competitions perspective. Gathering
situational awareness is the foremost requirement of the competition, ergo the team locked down this
subsystem in the early stages of the design. This system also dictated the payload fraction and
payload aperture requirements of the airframe design team, thereby making the IGP the most critical
design element. The IGP consists of two functionally different elements:
Imagery System
Our previous years imagery system comprised of a Canon G10 for capturing images, which after
rigorous testing, was found incapable of giving the required image quality, especially for character
recognition. After analysing the imagery system requirements, a DSLR camera was sought as a suitable
upgrade. All DSLR cameras supported by libgphoto2 library were listed and further shortlisting was
done based on camera properties, weight, camera availability and budget. Various tests inside
laboratory and during test flights revealed that Canon 500D was able to capture images at a higher rate
as compared to Canon G10. This ensured that UAS covers entire search area by providing significant
overlap of land between consecutive images.
Parameter
Canon
Canon EOS
Nikon
Comments
G10
500D
D5100
Resolution
14.7
15.1
16.2
12-16 MP was found to be optimal to meet
(MP)
requirements.
Sensor size
7.44 X
22.3 X 14.9
23.6 X 15.7 Larger sensor captures more light and gives
(mm)
5.58
better quality image.
Shutter
1/4000 to 1/4000 to 30 1/4000 to Fast shutter speed is preferable.
Speed(s)
15
30
ISO
80 - 1600
1003200
100 6400 High ISO crucial in low light conditions
Weight
14.15 oz.
38.51 oz.
41.58 oz.
Canon 500D is lighter among other DSLRs
Price (USD)
509/691/619/Prices nearly equal.
Availability
Low
High
Moderate In Indian markets.
(* green color highly favorable *yellow color moderately favorable * red color not favorable)
Table 2: Comparison between Canon G10, Canon EOS 500D and Nikon D5100

Delhi Technological University

SRIC
It was decided that gathering data from the SRIC would be accomplished using a wireless network
adapter because of the simplicity of the approach and minimal weight addition. The selection of the
network adapter was done by limiting the physical size and weight of the adapter and connectivity, as
shown in Table 3:
Parameter
Weight
Form Factor
Connectivity
Frequency of operation

Limiting value
<2.5 oz.
3.5 X 3.14 X 0.8
Ethernet
2.4Ghz
Table 3: SRIC Requirements

Previous years UAS failed to connect to the SRIC because of the large turning radius of the vehicle. To
improve the probability of data acquisition from SRIC unit, the UAS was deemed to have a lower orbit
radius and higher communication range.

2.2.2. Guidance and Navigation

The single component affecting the performance of the navigation system is the autopilot. The team
surveyed different COTS (Commercial-Off-The-Shelf) and open source autopilots. The teams previous
years UAS used Piccolo II autopilot from Cloud Cap Technology, which gave satisfactory performance.
Piccolo II, initially served as a reference autopilot used to compare other, low-cost alternatives. The
main contender to Piccolo II in the open source domain was ArduPilot Mega 2.5, which was the teams
initial choice. However, preliminary flight testing revealed serious design limitations in the APM 2.5. The
performance of the APM, even after hours of tuning, was nowhere near the ballpark required for the
competition and hence the APM 2.5 was replaced by the Piccolo II as the GNC unit.

2.2.3. Airframe
The team had previously been using a commercial, off the shelf airframe - Sig Rascal 110 that supported
a payload of 2 lbs..However, Sig Rascal was deemed unsuitable for this years mission due to the
increased payload weight, low wind tolerance and smaller turn radius that was demanded. The team
thus decided to develop a custom airframe to meet the unique requirements of the system.
2.2.3.1.
Design Objectives
According to the requirements analysis of the aircraft, a Statement of Objectives (SOO) was made which
set the basis of the aerodynamic and mechanical design. Table 4 lists the SOO for Aarush-M. The
complete design description of the airframe is given in UAS Design section.
Parameter
Objective
Threshold
Gross Take-off Weight (GTOW)
< 25 lbs.
< 55 lbs.
Endurance
> 150 mins
>30 mins
Payload
>13.2 lbs.
>10 lbs.
Take off Distance
<80 ft.
<150 ft.
Landing Distance
<80 ft.
<150 ft.
Min Control Speed
26.2 ft./s
49.2 ft./s
Turning Radius
< 98 ft.
< 164 ft.
Wind Tolerance
>20 knots
>15 knots
Table 4: Statement of Objectives

Delhi Technological University

3. UAS Design Description

Figure 3: System Overview

AARUSH-M

5.8 GHz

2.4 GHz
2.4 GHz

Delhi Technological University

3.1.

Air Vehicle

Team UAS DTU chose to develop a custom airframe with a wingspan of 122 and having an empty
weight of 32 lbs.. The airframe has been designed and fabricated by undergraduate mechanical
engineering students of the team. It is powered by Hacker A80-8 electric motor with a 22x8 propeller. A
single axis gimbal for the camera has been integrated with the system, to provide +/- 45 degree roll
compensation.
Considering the time constraints, the prototyping of the airframe was broken into three phases for rapid
development:
i)
Conceptual and Preliminary Design
ii)
Fabrication and Developmental Tests
iii)
Flight Testing and Evaluation
3.1.1. Conceptual & Preliminary Design
A preliminary weight estimate was deduced from
the statement of objectives and data gathered
about other UAS belonging to the same class as
Aarush-M. MATLAB was used for all the theoretical
analysis. Various design specifications of different
small class UAS (10 100 lbs.) were studied and this
statistical data was used to estimate the weight
using regression analysis. This gave a good initial
estimation of 35 lbs.. Once the weight was
Figure 4: Power Loading vs. Wing Loading
determined, the SOO and four parameters namely
stall speed, take-off distance, landing distance,
turning radius were used to construct a constraint analysis graph. A design space for the airframe which
would meet all the threshold requirements was obtained as can be seen in the Figure 4. The power
loading vs. wing loading plot depicts infinite number of points which satisfy the design requirements;
ergo it was difficult to choose an optimum value. Few points for low power loading and wing loading
were selected and compared on the basis of overall scoring with weightage assigned to different
parameters. The highest scoring point in the design space was selected.
GTOW
35%

Endurance
20%

Payload
25%

Take off Run

5%

Landing Distance
5%

Min. Control Speed

10%

Table 5: Parameters Weightage

Since practical outcome and performance always deviate from the theoretical analysis and estimation,
sensitivity charts for GTOW vs. Payload, Endurance were prepared. This gave an opportunity to assess
the changes in performance with the changes in design value.
Output of Conceptual Design Specifications of the Air Vehicle
GTOW
Power required
Take-off Distance
Landing Distance

35 lbs.
3.8 hp
110 ft.
100 ft.

Wing Span
Wing Area
Payload
Endurance

122 inches
11.02 sq ft.
7 lbs.
20 mins

3.1.2. Wing analysis and configuration selection

A variety of low speed, high lift airfoils were analyzed with the help of XFLR5 and their drag polars and

Delhi Technological University

lift curves were studied. Simulation for wing analysis was performed based on various computational
models (Lifting Line Theory, Vortex Lattice Method). The result thus obtained concluded the wing
design.
Propulsion configurations such as pusher, tractor, twin-engine were considered as prospects for the
design. Propeller efficiency, vibration isolation, flexibility in tail, manufacturability & weight were the key
parameters which were used to discern these configurations. Pusher configuration with twin boom

Figure 5: Wing Analysis

Figure 6: Final CAD

inverted V-tail was chosen for being lighter than H-tail. Besides being lighter, inverted V-tail also gives
an advantage of proverse yaw which increases the wind and gust tolerance of the UAS. The pusher
configuration provides a larger field of view for the camera and better vibration isolation. Such a
configuration also allowed the avionics system to be easily accessible. The wings have been designed for
high turning rate and tolerate a structural load of 6 Gs. Figure 6 shows the finalized assembly of the
airframe
Simulations were done to diagnose and fix the problems in flight characteristics and dynamic stability of
the airframe. The stability and control analyses were performed in AVL and a full 6 DoF simulation was
done in X-Plane. The two simulations concurred, with a static margin of +10% giving a satisfactory result,
which was chosen for the airframe.
3.1.3. Fabrication and Developmental Tests
One of the ancillary objectives of the team was to develop a robust aerial
platform fit for indigenous research, besides performing in SUAS 13. The
fabrication process for the new airframe was carried out completely in the
UAS-DTU lab at DTU. The fuselage features a monocoque shell design Figure 7: Load vs. Wingspan
Plot
composed of carbon fiber/epoxy sandwiching balsa sheet for additional
stiffness. Sandwiched laminates of carbon fiber, glass fiber and balsa sheet
were made for testing and experimentally determining their strengths
which would be further used for wing and tail skins. As a result 200 GSM
glass fiber (45 degrees) and balsa sheet were used. The 45 degree
orientation provides much greater load transfer and shear strength. Wing
spar was constructed according to the structural calculations which gave
the load and the bending moment along the spar. Unidirectional CF strip,
400 GSM CF and balsa wood was used to build the spar. It was subjected to
Figure 8: Wing Spar
cantilever destructive test failing at 168 lbs. where as it was designed for
destructive test
124 lbs. with a factor of safety 2, thereby passing the test with a good
margin. The design features twin CF booms and solid spring CF landing gear. Landing gear, wing & tail
skins were manufactured using CNC cut medium density fiber molds. The wing assembly consists of two

Delhi Technological University

Figure 9: Fuselage Bottom Skin

Figure 10: Mold Pattern

Figure 11: Left Wing

outboard sections and one mid-section. To reduce the time in assembly and easy replacement standard
bolts of 4 and 5 mm have been used.
3.1.4. Propulsion System
The team studied two options a two stroke engine and an electric motor, to meet the power
requirement of 3.5 HP. A comparison chart was prepared, based on prior experience, as shown in Table
6, where green color indicates a favorable condition and red indicates an unfavorable condition.
A two stroke 50 cc DA engine was tested, but encountered
several mid-air engine failures leading to emergency
landings. The reliability of the engine was not satisfactory,
especially at elevated temperatures. Operational factors
such as maintenance, troubleshooting etc. deemed the
engine unfit for operation with Aarush-M. However, these
risks were mitigated by an electric motor which provided
equivalent thrust and higher reliability, low acoustic
signature and almost no maintenance.

Figure 12: Hacker A80-8 Brushless DC motor

Parameter

Two Stroke Electric

Engine
Motor

Reliability
Vibration
Endurance
Maintenance
Weight
Table 6: Propulsion System Selection

Figure 13: Aarush-M at Karnal Airport

MotoCalc was used to compare different motors and propellers. A brushless DC motor Hacker A80-8
powered by three 10S 5000mah Lithium Polymer batteries with a propeller of 22x8 was selected. This
propulsion system provided an endurance of 20 minutes under static conditions. The result was in
accord with the time required to complete the mission.

Delhi Technological University

3.1.5. Power System Design and Layout of Avionics

The power sources were selected on the basis of their size, weight and energy density. Lithium Polymer
chemistry was chosen because of its high discharge capacity and high energy density. The battery

Figure 14 Layout of avionics on-board Aarush-M

capacity was optimized recursively with flight tests so as to save weight. The power of the control
surfaces actuators was kept separate from the avionics system. A switch board was placed under the
avionics hatch to allow selective powering of components during ground testing.
Table 7 shows the power requirements chart which was
board components were specified:
Avionics Component
Mission Ampere Hours
(30 minute flight time)
Piccolo II Autopilot System
600 mAh
PandaBoard
350 mAh
DLink Network Switch
200 mAh
SRIC Wi-Fi Router
300 mAh
5 Ghz Wireless Router
600 mAh
Canon EOD 500 DSLR
600 mAh
Actuator servos
1350 mAh

prepared for battery selection once the onPower Source

Factor Of
Safety

14.8V 3900 mAh Li-Poly

1.9

7.4 Wh 1000 mAh Li-ion

7.4 V 2600mAh Li-Poly

1.67
2

Table 7: Power Requirement Chart

Separating the control surface power and avionics power sources had twofold advantages:
Increased reliability of aircraft control: In case of avionics power failure, the aircraft control
systems shall remain active. This increases the reliability of the UAS as a whole.
Eliminating loading effects at servos: Isolating the power at servos precludes the dropping of
voltage at their input below their operating point i.e. 4.8 V. It was been empirically ascertained
that running the avionics and control servos simultaneously from the same 5V source resulted in
loading effects which may lead to terminal voltage at servos dropping below their operating
point i.e. 4.8 V.

Delhi Technological University

10

3.2.

Payload

3.2.1. Imagery System Payload

The team opted for a user-centred approach for the effective operation of imagery system during
mission. The imagery system is designed to require minimum human intervention and deliver minimum
false positives. Several use cases were designed to test out the individual features of the software and

Figure 15: Onboard Imagery Peripherals

hardware system, and various test flights were conducted to simulate the mission which helped in
identifying bugs and bottlenecks. It was observed during flight tests that aircraft banked as much as 40
degrees. Hence, the Canon EOS 500D is housed inside a gimbal which is roll compensated up to +/-45
degrees. The competition objectives also require imagery system to be capable of analysing the offcentre target which could be up to 250ft. cross-range. The gimbal is capable of being controlled via a
joystick at the ground station when put into manual mode, to accomplish this objective.
3.2.2. SRIC System Payload
Data from SRIC is accessed via network adapter that transmits the file data via the Imagery link itself.
The Imagery router is used for the SRIC data downlink because the amount of data transferred from the
SRIC is a) intermittent and b) small enough to not hinder any pending Imagery data transfer for more
than a few seconds. These assumptions were well justified when the setup was tested in the lab and
during flights. The test procedures are described under the Testing and Evaluation section of this paper.

3.3.

Data Processing

Figure 16: SRIC Information Flow Diagram

3.3.1 Image Processing

The mission objectives require the imagery system to perform Automatic Detection/Cueing,

Delhi Technological University

11

Classification, or Identification (ADCCI) on acquired aerial images in real time. The data processing unit
was, therefore designed to be reliable, efficient and fast. Rigorous testing during test flights revealed
more than eighty five per cent success rate of the entire sub-system.
a. Image Acquisition: The on-board computer runs a headless version of Ubuntu 11.04. It controls
the camera parameters such as aperture, shutter speed, focus, and image quality etc. using
libgphoto C library. The code running on Pandaboard on-board computer captures the images every
three seconds to provide optimum overlap. Excess overlap is avoided to reduce computational
overhead. As soon as the image is captured, the GPS information is stored in the image metadata as
exif tags. These images are simultaneously transmitted to the Ground Station using a secured Wi-Fi
link created by Groove Routers. Image transfer takes about 2-3 seconds which is equal to the time
required to capture one image. This time interval has proven to be sufficient for real-time image
processing within given mission time.
b. Graphical User Interface (GUI): The GUI was developed in C++ using QT library. The primary
objective while designing the GUI was to reduce mission execution time by making the compilation
of target data sheet easy for the imagery operator. The need to increase the speed of the GUI was
catered by running few small processes that can run independently on separate threads. The visible
components on the GUI are divided such that all data being processed is displayed on one screen
while all processed target data is displayed on the other. This separates the active target-related
data from diagnostic information which is not used during normal operation. The GUI also lets the
administrator communicate directly with the on-board computer. It stores all processed targets in a
SQL database common to all users and is capable of generating a text file for submission in
accordance with the competitions requirement. Screenshots of GUI are shown in Figure 17:

Screen 1: Contains Processed Target Data and

diagnostic information

c. Image Analysis:

Screen 2: Contains data being processed

or the active data

Figure 17: Image Processing

GUI

The image processing code for autonomous target classification and identification was written in
C++ using OpenCV, an open source image processing library. To process about three hundred
images in the allotted mission time, it is imperative for the image processing software to be fast and
accurate. Thus, a laptop with NVIDIA Graphics Processing Unit is used to improve the image
processing rate. The image processing technique has been described in the flow chart shown in
Figure 18:

Delhi Technological University

12

Original Image

Mask created using Graph

Cut Segmentation

Distance Theta curve for

Shape Recognition

Texture of ground flattened

using mean shift filtering

Extracted Target Using Mask

Saliency Map of Image

Histogram of color distribution in

extracted target for color
recognition

Letter extracted from Image for

recognition based on Eigen Space

Figure 18: Imagery Analysis Flowchart

Segmentation: Segmentation was found to be a crucial part for autonomous processing. A

frequency tuned approach of segmentation to extract salient objects is used to segment
targets from the images. The result of segmentation is a gray scale image in which salient
objects (targets in our case) appear whiter. A graph cut based technique is then used to
extract targets from its background.
Color Recognition: To recognize the colors, a histogram of colors for the target is generated
using the Hue values from HSV color space. The highest peak of this histogram gives the
shape color while the second highest peak gives the color of alphabet.
Shape Recognition: Previous years system used ray tracing technique to identify shapes of
target. The technique was found to be highly reliable and was improved for distorted shapes
also. Once correctly segmented, the unit can now recognize various polygonal and non-

Delhi Technological University

13

polygonal images with 78% accuracy.

Letter Recognition: Letters are first segmented from the target using graph cut approach.
This is done using the method of scale and rotation invariant letter recognition based on
Eigen spaces. This letter recognition module was trained by an artificial dataset. The
implementation resulted in a success rate of less than fifty percent, with certain characters
being recognized only if they were well defined in the image.

3.3.2. SRIC Data Acquisition

Data acquisition from the SRIC required manual intervention from the payload operator to access the
file. This was one of the reasons why the team couldnt access the file last year. After selecting the
payload required for this task, it was decided to automate the process by writing scripts for both
Windows (batch file) and Linux (shell script), which allowed us to perform this task from either the
Mission Control Centre (MCC), or the Information Gathering Station (IGS). The script, when given the
required parameters of the SRICs remote laptop and router e.g. IP Address, Username, Password etc.,
tries persistently to connect to the FTP server running on the remote laptop. Once a connection is
established, it navigates to the specified directory, extracts the text file, and stops execution upon
successful file transfer.

3.4.

Communications

There are three communication channels between the air vehicle and the ground station:

Manual R/C control

Telemetry downlink and uplink
Imagery downlink

The manual R/C control is the most critical link and utilizes a 2.4 GHz frequency hopping spread
spectrum transmitter receiver to ensure a robust link, and allow manual override at any time. Such a
modulation technique provides superior noise immunity as compared to FM/AM transmitters.
The telemetry downlink and uplink is done via 2.4 GHz Microhard transceivers that are part of the
autopilot package. The frequency was chosen because the other option of utilizing the 900MHz band is
not possible without licensing in India.
The payload connectivity requires large bandwidth to keep latencies to a minimum. As a result, a 5.8GHz
wireless router is used to communicate with the air vehicle. The TCP/IP protocol of the router ensures
that the transmitted packets are delivered at the ground station.

3.5.

Ground Control Station

The PGS setup makes the gathered intelligence easily accessible to the judges and the operators. A
portable ground station has reduced our setup time by a factor of 10 and thus allows Aarush-M to be
ready for deployment in less than 30 minutes, as stipulated by the competition rules.
The ground station supports a maximum of three payload operators: one administrator and two other
users. Each user runs an independent Graphical User Interface that shares same database over wired
network. A separate MCC operator laptop displays the telemetry data from the UAV.
The PGS requires an 110V AC power source and provides the user ample control over the power of
various system components, thereby allowing the controller to switch off / reset them when needed.
Spare power outputs are also given to allow future expansion. It also provides an umbilical power cord

Delhi Technological University

14

to power the RC transmitter separately which precludes battery drain in ground testing. A charging port
for transmitter battery is also incorporated to charge the same during long flight hours.

3.6.

Mission Planning

At the onset of preparation for the competition, the mission plan was based on retrospection of
previous years performance, this plan, was evolved with each flight test to adapt to the new systems
capabilities.

Figure 19: General Flight Plan Profile

It was observed that the initial waypoint navigation, including the take-off took about 3 minutes, while
one traversal of the search area in progressive wave pattern took about 4.5 minutes. Since sufficient
overlap is maintained between consecutive aerial images clicked, only one round of the search area was
sufficient. Extraction of text file from SRIC required less than 30 seconds. The pop-search area was also
tried and it was found out that its traversal took about a minute. These time estimates helped us
develop a general flight plan, which would be used for mission during competition.

4.

Flight Testing and Evaluation Results

The test flights were methodically scheduled to test and tune the performance of each major subsystem rigorously, with minimum risk, to ensure that the system gets enough flight time to be reliable
and worthy of a competition entry.
Subsystem

F1

Autopilot

R/C

Imagery
SRIC

F2

F3

F4

Lateral Tuning

F5

F6

Longitudinal
Tuning

F7

F8

F9

F10

Autonomous
Takeoff &
Landing
Camera Parameters
Altitude
Competition rehearsal real-time code run;
Selection
Optimization
sweep pattern analysis
Static Testing
Altitude
Orbit Radius
Transferred File
Competition
Variation
Variation
Changes
rehearsal

F11

F12

Waypoint
Navigation

Buffer Flights

Table 8: Flight Testing Schedule

4.1. Navigation Performance

Improving the navigation system performance is central to the success of the mission, since it directly
impacts the performance of imagery and SRIC data acquisition. Prior to the flight testing phase, the
dynamic model of the aerial-vehicle was developed using AVL, R/C test flight results and vehicle design
parameters. This dynamic model was used in Piccolo IIs proprietary simulator to carry out control law
tuning in software-in-the-loop simulation environment.
The optimum gains found during simulation were then used as initial points for in-flight gain tuning. The
gains were tuned iteratively, until the desired performance of the various command loops was attained.

Delhi Technological University

15

Following two images show the waypoint navigation performance during normal day and a windy day.

Figure 20: Clockwise from top-left: Waypoint navigation on normal day (wind = 2 m/s); Waypoint navigation on
windy day (wind = 7 m/s); Bank angle strip chart during orbit

S. No.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.

Parameter
Bank angle tolerance
Altitude tolerance
Waypoint tracking tolerance
Airspeed Tolerance
Auto-takeoff
Auto-landing

Result
2 deg
13 ft.
10 ft.
4.9 ft./s
5 successful attempts
1 successful attempt

Table 9: Autopilot performance specifications

4.2.

Payload Performance

4.2.1. Imagery
4.2.1.1 Target characteristics
Accuracy of the imagery system was validated by various tests
Canon EOS 500D (DSLR)
Canon G-10
inside the laboratory and in test flights. Images clicked by Canon
Figure 21: Target Image
EOS 500D showed significant improvements in image quality in
Quality Comparison
comparison with the images clicked by Canon G10. For example, target
acquired from images captured by Canon G10 and by Canon EOD 500D are shown in Figure 21.
Data analysis unit was rigorously tested for different target shapes, colors and letters. It was found that

Delhi Technological University

16

processing an image took about 4 seconds, which makes it reliable for real time applications. The
current image processing software can segment targets autonomously with 72% accuracy. This number
would increase on a ground with lesser pattern variation which gives lesser false positives. The shapes
that can be identified autonomously include star, cross, circle, semi-circle, triangle, square, rectangle,
arc, trapezium and rhombus with 78% accuracy. The accuracy for character recognition was found to be
less than 30%. This number is low, because of the size of the character in images, noise and other
complexities involved in recognition. The Table 10 shows the results obtained during test flights with
few of the target types.
S.
Cropped
After
Shape
Shape Color
Letter
Letter Color
No.
Image
Segmentation
1
Semi-Circle
Red
Not analyzed
White
2

Square

Blue

Yellow

Star

Sea Blue

Sea Blue

Semi-Circle

Sea Blue

Not analyzed

Red

Triangle

Pink

Not analyzed

Not analyzed

Cross

Red

Not analyzed

Red

Circle

Yellow

Grey

Semi-Circle

Pink

Blue

Triangle

Sea Blue

Pink

10

Rhombus

Yellow

Grey

(* green color correct * red color incorrect

*grey color Not Analyzed)
Table 10: Imagery Test results for a given set of inputs
4.2.1.2 Target Location and letter orientation
Determination of the target location requires vehicles GPS coordinates, altitude and heading
information. These values are tagged by the on-board computer in each of the image. If the planes GPS
location at the time of capturing is considered as the actual target location, the maximum error was
found to be within the threshold value of 250ft. It can be calculated as follows(refer to Figure 22):

Max error will occur when target is present at corner of the

image.
(

Where, VFOV is Vertical field of view = 42.2

HFOV is Horizontal field of view = 63.3

Vehicles
GPS

Figure 22: Max GPS Error

To improve the target location estimation a set of mathematical equations were used which utilize the
latitude, longitude, altitude, heading and camera field of view to transform the targets pixel coordinates
into the actual GPS coordinates. This code, however, gave poor results in test flights. It was later

Delhi Technological University

17

observed that the GPS heading information was being updated with a delay of 5-10 seconds. This
problem is being corrected as of this writing by using a better GPS unit.
4.2.2. SRIC
Having missed out on extracting data from the Simulated Remote Information Center (SRIC) in the 2012
SUAS Competition, the team was keen to perform rigorous testing for our SRIC setup to successfully
execute it in the competition. Testing of the SRIC was done in three phases:

Time Taken (seconds)

1. Lab testing: The test environment was set up in the lab to verify the functioning of all systems.
This testing phase was used to
Transfer of 1 MB of data at different altitudes
200
debug and tune the scripts for
and orbit radii
automated data extraction.
200 ft
2. Altitude and Orbit Radius
150
300 ft
variations: The planes altitude
and orbit radius above the SRIC
100
400 ft
was varied and the access time
was recorded, if the file was
500 ft
50
received at all. The result from
these tests showed that for best
600 ft
0
results, the plane should fly
0
100
200
300
400
somewhere between 200 300
Orbit Radius (feet)
feet above ground level, with
Figure 23: Time taken vs. Orbit Radius for different altitude
orbit radius 150 feet.
3. Changes in transferred files: Further tests were conducted to figure out the maximum amount
of data that could be acquired from the SRIC in under a minute. To do this, the size of file(s) to
be acquired was increased, starting from a simple text file, all the way to a video. The results
showed that at least 3 MB of data could be accessed in under a minute with optimum flight
conditions.
(Note that every trial required around 5 seconds making the initial connection. The Time Taken
value does not take this into account)
Type of File
Text File
JPEG Image
PDF File
MP4 Video

5. Safety

Size (MB)
0.1
0.5
2.2
26.4

Time Taken (seconds)

0
2
13
204

Table 11: Time taken for acquisition of different files

The competition demands special attention to safety of personnel and the UAS. The team approached
the development of each design element keeping in mind these crucial criteria. There are two levels of
safety measures adopted by the team:

5.1 Safety in design of the UAS

Safety in design of all the sub-systems was accounted for at the onset of development. The degree of
safety was quantified by a number called factor of safety (FOS) which provided a safety margin for the
design of all critical elements. A higher FOS implied greater the safety margin and hence, more
reliability. The FOS also accounted for theoretical and fabrication inaccuracies which were revealed only

Delhi Technological University

18

in the later stages of the development.

The foremost safety requirement from the UAS design was the accessibility of manual override in case
of autopilot control failure. Such a failure could happen due to autopilot power loss, or accidental faults
in the autopilot output lines. The team mitigated these sources of error by separating the actuator and
avionics power, and incorporating an RX MUX that allowed manual override any time during the flight.
These corrective measures ensured that the actuators would be powered in the case of avionics power
loss, and that the safety pilot will be able to take control of the plane.
Most of the faults that have compromised the mission have, in the teams experience, been traced to
electrical sources. The team has taken extra measure of precaution, by using conduits to protect wires
from physical damage and extend their mean time between failures. The selection of wire gauges and
insulation types was made keeping in mind the required ampacity, operating temperature and a
conservative factor of safety.
Booster extensions have been used at the output of the RX MUX, in order to prevent loading of its
outputs and signal loss at the actuator. The connectors between the different components of the UAS
were identified as major failure points, and all of them have either been substituted by positive locking
type Molex connectors or, encapsulated by servo extension locks.
The airframe has been designed to handle load factors in excess of 4 which is much higher than the
normal flight envelop. The camera is one of the most critical components on board the UAS; ergo, it has
been recessed inside the fuselage to ensure its integrity even in the case of a main landing gear collapse.

5.2 Safety in mission execution/operation the UAS

While measures were taken in design process to ensure a safe build, the operation of the UAS ensures
that a safe design stays safe for long periods of time. The team tackled this problem by characterising
the Mean Time between Failures (MTBF) for critical components. This number allowed the team to
anticipate fatigue of components and thus replacements were made accordingly.
The safety of the UAS during competition and flight testing is ensured by conducting rigorous pre-flight
checks. These checks have evolved with the teams experience with failures and ensure that the UAS is
fit to fly prior to mission execution.
Efforts have been made to minimise human errors during mission execution by establishing a
communication protocol amongst the ground crew. The ground crew now follows a chain of command
to ensure that only the right people are making the relevant choices, thus avoiding errors. A predetermined mission protocol is in place to ensure that there is no panic in the case of any crisis.
The safety officer is accoutred with a master checklist and is in-charge of overall safety of the mission.
He is second in command, after the flight director to call off the flight in the case of any aberration in
system performance.
A rigorous range check is performed to ensure that the airplane stays under manual control for the
desired airspace boundary and there are no glitches in control surface actuation.

Delhi Technological University

19

5.3 Failure Mode-Effect Analysis

The team used the flight testing experience to identify risks and develop multiple contingencies for each
fault. A detailed Failure Mode-Effect Analysis was carried, out and the mission status after each failure
mode is classified as follows:
Code Blue: Mission Continues, Fully Autonomous
Code Yellow: Mission Continues, Manual Override

Code Red: Mission Haults, Emergency Landing

Failure Mode
Telemetry Link
Loss

Image Acquisition
System Failure

Indication
Link Indicator
turns red at MCC
terminal, unusual
navigational
response

Effect
Link between
60% to 80%

Image
synchronisation
fails or is
unresponsive

Image
processing
possible but
slow
Image
processing not
possible
Autopilot
Navigation
Affected
Image
Processing
affected

Link less than

60%

Mission Control
Centre computer
crashes
Imagery Terminal
Crashes

Command Centre
hangs or Shuts
down
No output on
screen

Avionics or
Propulsion
Battery level
unsafe
Motor cut-off

Indicated on PCC
plugin

Flight
Endurance
Affected
Flight Stability
affected

Component
Disintegration

Continuously
falling Airspeed
and/or Altitude
Falling debris,
erratic behaviour

Unable to hold
altitude/Enters
no fly zone

Altitude or
position error
observed on MCC

Aircraft
integrity
affected
Autonomous
navigation
accuracy
affected

Primary Response
Observe Autopilot
telemetry for link
improvement.
Observe Autopilot
telemetry for 15
seconds for link
improvement.
Observe link for 2
minutes for
improvement
Reset router power
and observe link again
Shift to R/C,
meanwhile backup
computer brought in
Terminal restarted,
backup image
processing terminal
brought in
Emergency landing
within three minutes

Shift to R/C and

emergency landing
engaged
Shift to R/C and
emergency landing
engaged
Switch to manual,
mission continues;
Adjust the control law
gains

Secondary Response
Observe Autopilot
telemetry for link
improvement.
Switch to manual and
troubleshoot
communication link.
Reset router power and
observe link

Emergency landing to
troubleshoot imagery
subsystem
Resume mission after
setting up backup
Autopilot terminal
N/A

Swift battery replacement

and take-off

Swift battery replacement

and take-off
Quick ground assessment
and take-off if feasible
Switch to autopilot and
observe

Table 12: Failure Mode Effect Analysis

Delhi Technological University

20

6 Acknowledgements
The Team extends its gratitude towards University Vice Chancellor Prof. P B Sharma for his constant
support and encouragement to the project. The team is indebted to its project advisor Prof.N S Raghava
for his timely guidance and motivation during the course of the project.
Team UAS-DTU would like to immensely thank Lockheed Martin Aeronautics Company for their
mentorship and financial support in the project. The team also acclaims the support of the former team
members who helped the team in preparing flight plans and execution of mission.
The team is grateful for the efforts of Mr. Jasvinder Singh, who was the safety pilot for developmental
test flights of Aarush-M.

Delhi Technological University

21