Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Numerical analysis of an UAS impact in a reinforced wing fixed leading edge

  • Technical Paper
  • Published:
Journal of the Brazilian Society of Mechanical Sciences and Engineering Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

During last years, the number of Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS), popularly known as drones, operating in the sky of urban centers has quite increased. Associated with this growth, the risk of airborne impacts between such vehicles and manned aircrafts, caused intentionally or not, has also increased. Aiming to understand the phenomena that occur during an impact between an UAS and a commercial aircraft wing, the present work aimed to reproduce this event in terms of numerical simulation and compare it with situations involving bird impact. Initially, corroboration of numerical models for the UAS most stiffened components was considered comparing impact simulations results with ballistic test data from the literature. Once the results were assumed to be acceptable, the UAS components were assembled together to represent the complete drone in subsequent impact simulations. Further, simulations were performed to corroborate a numerical smooth particle hydrodynamics model of a 1.8 kg bird. The bird model, which presented conservative results comparing to a theoretical model, was used to perform the initial dimensioning of a typical wing fixed leading edge for a commercial aircraft. The Johnson–Cook constitutive and failure model was used to analyze the aluminum wing skin failure. Then, the wing fixed leading edge, initially designed for bird strike, was subjected to impact with the UAS complete model in order to compare both impact scenarios involving the small aerial vehicle and the bird. The results confirmed that the UAS impact was more critical due to its structural materials, harder, tougher and stiffer, which induce higher and more concentrated loads in the impacted structure. In order to assure flight safety after impact with the UAS, different reinforcements were considered for the wing fixed leading edge structure. Finally, it was found that the solutions of increasing the spar thickness, reinforcing it with back stiffeners, and using an additional structure placed behind the leading-edge skin were capable to allow flight safety after impact, although these proposals induce increase of mass in the wing fixed leading edge structure of 13%, 13% and 10%, respectively.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16

Similar content being viewed by others

Abbreviations

ρ :

Density

E :

Young’s modulus, energy

E t :

Tangent modulus

G :

Shear modulus

ν :

Poisson’s coefficient

σ :

Normal stress

τ :

Shear stress

ε :

Strain

D :

Diameter

L :

Length

h :

Height

t :

Thickness

m :

Mass

P :

Pressure

µ :

Change in density during impact

u, v :

Speed

c :

Speed of sound

k :

Experimental constant

F :

Impact force

W :

Work

T :

Temperature

A, B, C, m, n, D 1 , D 2 , D 3 , D 4, D 5 :

Johnson–Cook parameters

b :

Bird

y :

Yield

L :

Length

W :

Width

o :

Medium

H :

Hugoniot

S :

Stagnation

s :

Shock

avg :

Average

max :

Maximum

References

  1. Jenkins D, Vasigh B (2013) The economic impact of unmanned aircraft systems integration in the United States. Assoc Unmanned Vehicle Syst Int (AUVSI).

  2. Sharma RS (2016) Investigation into unmanned aircraft system incidents in the national airspace system. Int J Aviation Aeronaut Aerospace3(4):1–58. Doi: https://doi.org/10.15394/ijaaa.2016.1146

  3. GAO—U.S. Government Accountability Office (2018) Small unmanned aircraft systems: FAA should improve its management of safety risks. GAO-18–110

  4. NTSB—National Transportation Safety Board (2017) Aviation Incident Final Report DCA17IA202A

  5. BBC—British Broadcasting Corporation, BBC News (2017) Drone collides with commercial aeroplane in Canada. URL: https://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41635518. Retrieved 26 Sep 2020

  6. JIAAC—Junta de Investigación de Accidentes de Aviación Civil (2019) Colisión en Vuelo con VANT. Informe de Seguridad Operacional LV-CDZ, IF-2019–71003702-APN-DNIA#JIAAC (in Spanish)

  7. EASA—European Aviation Safety Agency (2016) Drone collision task force. Final Report

  8. CAS—Civil Aviation Safety Authority, “Potential Damage Assessment of a Mid-Air Collision with a Small UAV,” Technical Report, 2013.

  9. MAA—British Military Aviation Authority (2016) Small remotely piloted aircraft systems (RPAs)—Mid-air Collision Study

  10. Song Y, Horton B, Bayandor J (2017) Investigation of UAS ingestion into high-bypass engines, part i: bird vs. drone. In: 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, AIAA 2017–0186, Grapevine, TX, USA, pp 1–9. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-0186

  11. Schroeder K, Song Y, Horton B, Bayandor J (2017) Investigation of UAS ingestion into high-bypass engines, part ii: drone parametric study. In: 58th AIAA/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference, AIAA 2017–0187, Grapevine, TX, USA, pp 1–10. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2017-0187

  12. Olivares G, Lacy T, Gomez L, Monteros JE, Baldridge RJ, Zinzuwadia C, Aldag T, Kota KR, Ricks T, Jayakody N (2017) UAS airborne collision severity evaluation: executive summary—structural evaluation. Federal Aviation Administration, DOT/FAA/AR-XX/XX

  13. Meng X, Sun Y, Yu J, Tang Z, Liu J, Suo T, Li Y (2019) Dynamic response of the horizontal stabilizer during UAS airborne collision. Int J Impact Eng 126:50–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2018.11.015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Lu X, Liu X, Li Y, Zhang Y, Zuo H (2020) Simulations of airborne collisions between drones and an aircraft windshield. Aerosp Sci Technol 98:105713. Doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2020.105713

  15. Wilbeck JS (1978) Impact behavior of low strength projectiles. Air Force Materials Laboratory, AFML-TR-77–134

  16. Nizampatnam LS (2007) Models and methods for bird strike load predictions. In: Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Wichita State University, Wichita, KS, USA

  17. Walvekar V (2010) Birdstrike analysis on leading edge of an aircraft wing using a smooth particle hydrodynamics bird model. In: M.Sc. Dissertation, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Wichita State Univ., Wichita, KS, USA

  18. Hedayati R, Sadighi M (2016) Bird strike: an experimental, theoretical, and numerical investigation, 1st edn. Woodhead Publishing in Mechanical Engineering, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  19. Hedayati R, Ziaei-Rad S (2013) A new bird model and the effect of bird geometry in impacts from various orientations. Aerosp Sci Technol 28(1):9–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2012.09.002

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. ATSB—Australian Transport Safety Bureau (2002) The hazard posed to aircraft by birds. Attachment B

  21. Smojver I, Ivancevic D (2012) advanced modelling of a bird strike on high lift devices using hybrid Eulerian−Lagrangian formulation. Aerosp Sci Technol 23(1):224–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2011.07.010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Guida M (2008) Study, design and testing of structural configurations for the bird strike compliance of aeronautical components. In: Ph.D. Thesis, Department of Aerospace Engineering, University of Naples “Federico II”, Napoli, Campania, Italy

  23. Liu J, Li Y, Yu X, Tang Z, Gao X, Lv J, Zhang Z (2017) A novel design for reinforcing the aircraft tail leading edge structure against bird strike. Int J Impact Eng 105:89–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijimpeng.2016.12.017

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. FAR 25.571 (e) (2020) Damage-tolerance and fatigue evaluation of structure - Damage-tolerance (discrete source) evaluation. Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR), PART 25—Airworthiness Standards: Transport Category Airplanes. URL: https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?node=14:1.0.1.3.11#se14.1.25_1571. Retrieved 27 Sep 2020

  25. Nastran SOL 700 (2010) MD Nastran Explicit Nonlinear (SOL 700) User’s Guide,” MSC Software Corporation

  26. Cairns DS, Johnson G (2016) Volume I—UAS Airborne Collision Severity Evaluation—Projectile and Target Definition. Federal Aviation Administration, DOT/FAA/TC-XXX/XX

  27. Sahraei E, Meier J, Wierzbicki T (2014) Characterizing and modeling mechanical properties and onset of short circuit for three types of lithium-ion pouch cells. J Power Sources 247:503–516. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpowsour.2013.08.056

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. ANSI/AA Cast Aluminum 520.0 (formerly 220.0, LM10, G10A, A05200) (2020). URL: https://www.makeitfrom.com/material-properties/520.0-520.0-T4-formerly-220.0-LM10-G10A-A05200-Cast-Aluminum. Retrieved 26 Sep 2020

  29. MMPDS-09 (2014) Metallic material properties development and standardization (MMPDS). Chapter 9, Ed. 7. Battelle Memorial Institute

  30. Hernandez C, Maranona A, Ashcroft IA, Casas-Rodriguez JP (2013) A computational determination of the Cowper-Symonds parameters from a single Taylor test. Appl Math Model 37:4698–4708. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apm.2012.10.010

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  31. Olivares G, Gomez L, Monteros JE, Baldridge RJ, Zinzuwadia C, Aldag T (2017)Volume II—UAS Airborne Collision Severity Evaluation—Quadcopter. Federal Aviation Administration, DOT/FAA/AR-XX/XX

  32. Brooks TR, Kenway GKW, Martins JRRA (2018) Benchmark aerostructural models for the study of transonic aircraft wings. AIAA J 56(7):2840–2855. https://doi.org/10.2514/1.J056603

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Johnson GR, Cook WH (1983) A constitutive model and data for metals subjected to large strains, high strain rates and high temperatures. In: Proceedings of the 7th international symposium on Ballistics, The Hague, The Netherlands, pp 541–547

  34. Johnson GR, Cook WH (1985) Fracture characteristics of three metals subjected to various strain, strain rates, temperatures and pressures. Eng Fract Mech 21(1):31–48. https://doi.org/10.1016/0013-7944(85)90052-9

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. Kay G (2003) Failure modeling of titanium 6Al-4V and aluminum 2024-T3 with the Johnson-Cook material model. Federal Aviation Administration, DOT/FAA/AR-03/57. Doi: https://doi.org/10.2172/15006359

  36. Aeronautical Information Manual (2017) Official Guideline to Basic Flight Information and ATC Procedures. Federal Aviation Administration

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the Fundação de Desenvolvimento da Pesquisa (FUNDEP), the Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estado de Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG) and the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) for their financial research supports.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Structural Engineering (DEES), Federal University of Minas Gerais (UFMG), Belo Horizonte, MG, 31270-901, Brazil

    Tomaz P. Drumond, Marcelo Greco & Carlos A. Cimini Jr.

Authors
  1. Tomaz P. Drumond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcelo Greco
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Carlos A. Cimini Jr.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Carlos A. Cimini Jr..

Additional information

Technical Editor: Flavio Silvestre.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Drumond, T.P., Greco, M. & Cimini, C.A. Numerical analysis of an UAS impact in a reinforced wing fixed leading edge. J Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng. 43, 532 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-03208-w

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40430-021-03208-w

Keywords

Search

Navigation