Figures (15)  Tables (3)
    • Figure 1. 

      Research logical relationship diagram.

    • Figure 2. 

      Plot of propeller's chord (c) and pitch angle (β) distribution of the T-MOTOR 1855 propeller.

    • Figure 3. 

      Different hexacopter configurations. (a) Small-sized rotor. (b) Large-sized rotor.

    • Figure 4. 

      Computational domain and mesh partitioning. (a) Computational domain and boundary conditions; (b) Computational mesh.

    • Figure 5. 

      Validation of thrust and torque coefficients for a single rotor.

    • Figure 6. 

      Aerodynamic performance of three small-sized rotors. (a) Rotor thrust for various configurations. (b)Thrust coefficient. (c) Torque coefficient. (d) FM of each rotor. (e) Average FM of the hexacopter.

    • Figure 7. 

      Isosurface of Q-criterion and z-velocity for small-size rotors.

    • Figure 8. 

      (a) Downwash velocity distributions. (b) Axial velocity distribution along the z-axis in the central region of the hexacopter system. (c) z-Velocity distributions. (d) z-Velocity-streamline distributions. (e) Vorticity distribution at the rotor disk plane.

    • Figure 9. 

      (a) Ratios of peak-to-trough fluctuation amplitudes of instantaneous thrust to mean thrust. (b) Thrust variation with phase during one revolution.

    • Figure 10. 

      Aerodynamic performance of three large-sized rotors. (a) Rotor thrust. (b) Thrust coefficient. (c) Torque coefficient. (d) FM of each rotor. (e) Average FM of the hexacopter.

    • Figure 11. 

      Isosurface of Q-criterion and z-velocity for large-size rotors.

    • Figure 12. 

      (a) Downwash velocity distributions; (b) z-velocity at the rotor disk plane; (c) z-velocity-streamline distributions; (d) vorticity distributions at the rotor disk plane.

    • Figure 13. 

      (a) Ratios of peak-to-trough fluctuation amplitudes of instantaneous thrust to mean thrust; (b) thrust variation with phase during one revolution.

    • Figure 14. 

      (a) 'X' layout control scheme; (b) prototype of the novel hexacopter configuration; (c) flight test.

    • Figure 15. 

      (a) PWM signals of six motors over time; (b) time history of roll angle; (c) time history of pitch angle; (d) time history of yaw angle.

    • Experiment Simulation Relative error (%)
      CT-isolated rotor (10−2) 1.142 1.076 5.78
      CQ-isolated rotor (10−3) 1.754 1.7938 2.27

      Table 1. 

      Comparison of simulation and experimental results.

    • Rotational speeds157.1 rad/s209.4 rad/s261.8 rad/s314.2 rad/s366.5 rad/sNumber of grids
      Medium grids CT (10−2)1.0651.0731.0691.0761.086Rotor domain: 1.72 × 106; Stationary domain 2.05 × 106
      Fine grids CT (10−2)1.0601.0751.0791.0761.092Rotor domain: 3.49 × 106; Stationary domain 5.24 × 106
      Relative error (%)0.4720.1860.92700.549/
      Medium grids CQ (10−3)1.7451.7551.7591.7941.835/
      Fine grids CQ (10−3)1.6821.7011.7121.7491.754/
      Relative error (%)3.7463.1752.7452.5734.618/

      Table 2. 

      Calculated results at different rotational speeds of the single rotor.

    • Rotor # S1 S3 S5 N2 N4 N6 Number of grids
      Medium grids CT (10−2) 1.059 1.059 1.058 1.064 1.065 1.065 Rotor domain: 1.19 × 107; Stationary domain: 4.02 × 106
      Fine grids CT (10−2) 1.081 1.082 1.082 1.089 1.089 1.087 Rotor domain: 2.14 × 107; Stationary domain: 5.24 × 106
      Relative error (%) 2.035 2.126 2.218 2.296 2.204 2.024
      Medium grids CQ (10−3) 1.843 1.850 1.843 1.862 1.867 1.869
      Fine grids CQ (10−3) 1.787 1.786 1.779 1.789 1.801 1.803
      Relative error (%) 3.134 3.583 3.598 4.081 3.665 3.661

      Table 3. 

      Calculated results for each rotor of the complete hexacopter system.