Now that we have version 2.9 and inertial primary control for the Z axis and soon to have it for X and Y axes as well it is necessary to take vibration dampening and isolation of the flight control board much more seriously.
Primary improvements can certainly be made by balancing the props and motors.
So far it seems that the more rigid the frame the better because frame flex introduces undesirable mechanical delay (hysteresis) in translating motor induced actions to the centrally located flight control board. (Do NOT shock mount the motor Arms).
It may be reasonable to somewhat vibration damp the motor mounts themselves because they are on one end of the mechanism.
However, primary damping gains will be made by vibration isolating and or dampening the flight control board itself.
So far we have undertaken this process simply by trial and error sticking on of Foam or Gel pads or using O-ring suspension of the board to outboard standoffs.
This has achieved (barely) acceptable results, but is certainly by no means optimum.
The crucial fact that we have not properly addressed is that the amount and type of dampening medium needs to be matched to the weight (mass) of the item we are trying to isolate.
In fact we are trying to isolate a flight control board that weighs under an ounce or less than 2 ounces in its case which is a very small mass.
Our current "solutions" are actually designed for much larger masses and are not nearly as effective for the light mass of our flight control board as they ought to be.
I have done some on line research which did fully verify this inadequacy.
Virtually all off the shelf solutions (either pad or stud type) basically require a suspended mass that would weigh at a minimum 5 to 10 times what an APM or PX4 / IO board(s) weigh or more for optimal effectiveness.
This includes all pre-made Sorbothane, Alpha gel, memory foam or other silicone or urethane gel or foam mounts including Lord Micro mounts.
However, Alpha Gel or 30 durometer Sorbothane or Kyosho Zeal Gel double sided tape do appear to be the best possible solutions at this time so long as you use small enough pieces of them.
Simply putting a double sided pad under the entire board as we normally do now is entirely inappropriate for maximum vibration isolation and it is amazing it works at all.
Optimally you would use pads of them smaller than 1/2" square (possibly even 1/4" square) on each corner of the board or APM enclosure box. (smaller for the bare board than the board in the box obviously).
You could also improve isolation somewhat by sandwiching the board / enclosure between pads on both sides in slight compression.
So far we have done a dismal job of approaching this like engineers, but the reality is that with the massive excess quantities of vibration absorbing materials that we are using versus the mass of the APM (or PX4) has produced better results than not using them, but no where near what could be achieved by using the proper weight and size of dampening / isolation material.
The basic solution is to reduce the actual isolation medium to the 4 smallest pads you can get by with on each corner and using the softest commercially available dampening materials you can find.
A further gain can be made by placing the item to be damped in 10 to 20 percent compression between 2 pieces of the dampening material.
Thickness of the dampening material does improve dampening and isolation but is not nearly as important as selecting the right material and the right size of the supports made from it.
I believe that Kyosho Zeal tape is 2/10 of an inch thick and that is probably plenty for our use and the frequency range we are trying to damp.
I would very much like to see 3D Robotics produce a APM (and PX4 / IO board for that matter) case with proper internal shock mounting of the board(s) with dampening data for it.
I actually suspected this result from the start of my investigation and a little thoughtful research has completely confirmed it.
Another significant gain in vibration isolation can be had by using a high flex wire and strain relief approach to all wires connected to the Flight control board (and using the minimum number of wires necessary as well.)
I have used the concept of vibration isolation and dampening somewhat interchangeably in this discussion.
Isolation is simple undamped (spring or rubber band support) which allows the movement of the isolated object largely separate from the containing object.
Dampening is the conversion of vibration into heat energy by a shock absorbing medium (car shock absorber for instance.)
Our ultimate goal here is to provide the most high and medium frequency reduction while still allowing low frequency actual board movement to take place with a minimum of delay.
So realistically our methods embody both Dampening and Isolation.
I have covered a lot of ground here, but this is at least a good start for designing some real world vibration solutions that are bound to work better for us than what we have done so far.
Please try your own experiments and kick in your own thoughts here, that's how we get better and this is just a launching point.
Here is an excellent link to some definitive research and testing that will help:
http://fpvlab.com/forums/showthread.php?4251-Vibration-Dampening-amp-Isolation-Solutions-Guide
Replies
What about the distance between the props and the arms? (just joking ;-) )
I think this will get pretty complicated if you want to collect and analyze data - not to mention the math behind it...
So in essence: if there is a chance to mount the motors under the arms one should do it - it won't hurt.
My first ship was under the armpit for that reason ... just a question of if you are comfy being under a flying lawn mower ... but then again, how many times have I leaned over the ship to turn it off and my fat belly pushed the throttle to full ;-{
The reason why over might be better is that under requires landing gear that adds weight. So like all things, there is a trade that we need to measure to get it right.
Nice landing gear to be able to use large props under. Do you have more details about these?
Hugues, it's all custom made:
Hi Thorsten,
bit off topic - Do you mind sharing the still-pic camera model that you use on your rig?
I assume it is a Canon and you use CHDK scripting etc.
Thx,
Gerhard Laubscher
Hi Gerhard,
this one is a Canon S110 with CHDK, which we use for precise georeferencing (see http://mavis.bitmapping.de for details).
Bes regards,
Thorstem
Always wondered about how much prop wash going over the rotor spar impacted vibration. On small ships with really stiff arms, the effect was mute. But on larger arms with a chance to do some lower frequency harmonics???
I'm building a ship that has coax potential. It will be easy enough to try putting the props up and then rotating them down and measure the wattage and vibration difference.
As a note, the Frantz Strut, when the axle is placed under the Spar is immune from prop wash.
Hi Thorsten and Forrest,
Mounting the motor / prop units below the spars provides 2 benefits.
Definitely reduced losses due to down wash being dissipated according to the aerodynamic profile when the spar is below. (approx 1/2 flat plate area for round and 1 flat plate area for square and worse for flat rectangular ones (which may actually be worse with lightening cutouts due to even more increased turbulence).
Speaking of turbulence, this is a producer of additional vibration.
Although there is some loss even with the spar on top, the inrush air is much less affected and for multicopters in hover the loss is virtually negligible.
And induced vibration is also virtually non existent.
For normal hovering quads the for motor/prop on top experiments done by others have shown that losses can vary from about 5 percent for round tubes to greater than 15 percent for unusually wide flat plate arms.
Generally this is loss has not been present when the motor props were placed on the bottom on the same copters.
Vibration reduction was also shown.
For high performance multicopters which spend most of there time at high angles of attack and speed the losses and vibration are higher for both types but much worse for prop on top versions.
A racing quad with flat plate carbon fiber arms can actually experience considerable loss with the motor/prop on top and much less with it below, but for those it is hard to put them below.
Basically it is always advantageous to put the motor prop units on the bottom, it is generally landing gear or camera gimbal interference that makes this unpopular.
Fully aerodynamic (symmetrical airfoil) vertical spars can reduce losses to as little as 1/10th flat plate area even for prop on top versions and also reduce vibration similarly, so this would also be an interesting avenue which only a few very expensive hand laid custom carbon fiber frames have ever employed.
Gary - You know me ... a data guy. Has anyone really done controlled testing of this and shared their results? There are so many misconceptions out there based on Charmin and gut testing. Prop wash is one of those areas that I wonder about. It makes so much sense, yet when I measure the prop wash force from a 16" prop, it's only a few grams and can't be a huge factor on a 2000 gram ship. Also, most all the ships I've built end up being 88% to 95% efficient (relative to individual rotor tests), so the effect can't be too large (at least with round tubes).
In any case, I'm building a coax capable ship so I'll be able to test both props up and props down. I'll do it in a controlled manner, tracking vibrations and watts and let the community know of the results.
Hi Forrest,
Yes, last year one of our members did some tests with a round tube multicopter, hex I think.
He could simply rotate his motors and change directions and props.
He was trying for long endurance in hover records. as I recall he found a difference of 8 or 9% verified by hover flight time increase for equivalent battery discharge.
It is however a simple fact that the downwash is destructively and directly interfered with by the arms and specifically to a degree of their equivalent flat plate area plus induced turbulence.
Basically if you take the fraction of the circle that they occupy and their equivalent air resistance, the down wash force is diminished by the interference provided.
Effectively, it not only blocks the down wash, but is itself pushed back down by it by that force.
A flat plate represents maximum interference, basically a square rod or a "flat plate" represent a 1 to 1 correlation between the air flowing against them and their resistance.
(A 1 inch square tube or 1" wide flat plate have roughly the same resistance and are considered worst case.)
A 1" round tube has almost exactly half the resistance of a 1" square tube or flat plate.
And an aerodynamic shape (airfoil) can have less than 10 percent equivalent resistance.
The reason it is normally not much of a problem on a round tube multicopter is that the rods tend to be small diameter and are round representing 1/2 flat plate resistance anyway and that they only interfere a very small portion of the total down wash.
The negative effect is actually a lot more evident in the currently popular flat plate arm multicopters which have a much greater relative interference with the circle of down wash and where interestingly the "lightening" cutouts in them can actually increase turbulence and resulting interference.
(You would think the cutouts would just provide access to more air flowing through them, but they are not usually aerodynamically designed and can actually contribute to parasite drag.)
That said, aside from the somewhat anecdotal example above and a few other similar ones there does not appear to have been any exhaustive examination of this phenomenon relating to multicopters at least nothing published that I have found except the original seminal work by Dr. Paul Pounds defining the operational characteristics of a muti rotor UAV.
http://eprints.qut.edu.au/33833/1/33833.pdf
I also link to this on my Drones Are Fun Site.
Simple physics and aerodynamics, does make it clear that to what ever degree the arms are driven downward by the prop wash, so also is the copter and this will always be at least as much as the equivalent flat plate area of the arms for the area of the down wash circle they interfere with.
Results from helicopters also have illustrated that inrush air on top is interfered with to a much lesser degree although it is trickier to figure out what the losses are.
-
6
-
7
-
8
-
9
-
10
of 37 Next