Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
5, MAY 2011
1055
Ming Zhu
Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, China
Email: zm_buaa@163.com
Kang-wen Sun
Beijing University of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Beijing, China
Email: sunkw100@ase.buaa.edu.cn
I.
INTRODUCTION
1056
II.
COMPUTATION PROCESS
A. Basic Hypotheses
It is known that in order to station-keeping at high
altitude for airship, it is necessary to accord with the
following [7].
The balance of buoyancy and weight of airship.
The balance of thrust and drag of airship.
The size of airship required can be calculated if basic
hypotheses are given as follows.
The NPL low drag airship body shape shown in Fig.1
[8].
Bare hull (gondola and tail group etc. being not taken
into account).
Payload and power for mission-devices on board
being not considered.
Power provided by Photovoltaic array + Lithium-ion
battery storage system and cruise by screw propellers
suitable for high altitude environment.
Horizontal cruise in north to south direction, in other
words, pitching and azimuth angle of airship being
zero.
Volumetric drag coefficient being 0.08.
In winter solstice.
At altitude of 20km.
At the locations of Taipei and Beijing.
Fitness of airship being 0.25.
Area of photovoltaic array being 50% ratio of top
surface of airship.
Winter solstice is taken for date of station-keeping
based on the reasons that solar irradiance time is shortest
and local wind is a maximum. If the airship can be
station-keeping in winter solstice, it is capable of flight at
high altitude in all year. Based on statistical wind data in
the years of 1971-2000 from Weather Bureau in China,
and it is described in Fig.2 that the mean wind varies with
the altitude at two locations of Taipei and Beijing. It is
pointed out that the date of wind speed at high altitude of
18-30 km was modeled with Weibull distributions by
Jason A. Roney [9], and based on the conclusion the
characteristics of wind at altitude of 20 km are shown in
Table I.
At location of Teipei
30
At location of Peiking
25
Altitude (km)
20
15
10
10
15
20
25
Wind speed (m/s)
30
35
40
VMean
10.5 m/s
15.5 m/s
STD.
4 m/s
4.5 m/s
V50%
10.4 m/s
15.6 m/s
V95%
17.3 m/s
22.8 m/s
V99%
20.1 m/s
25.5 m/s
Vairship =
2
( a1b 2 + a2b2 )
3
(2)
(3)
(4)
1057
(8)
T = PPr op . V
(9)
Weight of Airship
hss
Buoyancy of Airship
300
Weight of hull
250
200
150
100
50
Esc = Psc dh
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
(11)
hsr
160
95%
75
75%
350
32%
Weight of storage
system/Total weight
mean
sc
h4
mean
sc
storage
55%
h3
sc
mean
Weight of solar
array/Total weight
4%
9%
220
200
Summer solstice
180
160
Psc
140
Winter solstice
h3
120
h4
Pmean
100
80
60
40
20
Hypotheses:
LocationTeipei
Altitude:20 km;
Length of airship: 150 m ;
Fitness of airship: 0.25;
Solar intensity: 1262 W/m2;
Solar surface ratio: 50%
Solar efficiency: 8%
and airship N-S horizontal cruise
Sunset
Sunrise
9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25
Technology guidelines
Baseline
2
400
250
8%
III.
1058
350
300
250
Weight of airship
200
-3000
-4000
-5000
-6000
20
20.5
21
21.5
22
22.5
23
23.5
24
Thrust of airship
Drag of airship
2000
1500
1000
500
150
100
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
(a)
340
320
300
-2000
A. Altitude of station-keeping
It is well known that with the increase of altitude, the
atmosphere density decreases, which results in decrease
of buoyancy lift when size of airship keeps constant. On
the other hand, if design wind and solar array area ratio
keep constant, the available thrust is larger than drag.
-1000
280
260
240
B. Latitude of station-keeping
Latitude of station-keeping has large impact on
sunlight length. With lower latitude in same hemi-sphere
of earth, sunlight time is longer, which results in increase
of available energy in a day. If constant wind speed is
supposed, the solar array area ratio decreases, resulting in
decrease of weight and length, as shown in Fig.10. On the
other hand, in case that airship size keeps constant, with
the increase of latitude from 25 to 43.8 degree, the
payload capability decreases from 0 to -1500 kg, as
shown in Fig.11.
350
220
180
160
20
300
20.5
21
21.5
22
22.5
23
23.5
(b)
Figure 7. Size of airship varies with altitude of station-keeping
24
250
100
50
50
100
150
200
250
300
(a)
350
400
450
500
1059
195
350
190
185
180
175
250
Weight of airship
200
150
100
50
170
24
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
50
100
150
Latitude of station-keeping ( )
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
(a)
(b)
173
0
172.6
-200
172.4
-400
-600
-800
172.2
172
171.8
171.6
-1000
171.4
171.2
-1200
171
-1400
-1600
24
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
(b)
26
28
30
32
34
36
38
40
42
44
Latitude of station-keeping ( )
0
-10
25Pa 4P
a
(13)
29 Pa
Where, P is the pressure difference; a and
n =
-30
C. Pressure difference
If pressure difference between inner and outer of
envelope is considered, the airship unit buoyancy lift can
be described as:
-50
-70
-90
-110
25
25Pa 4P
a to
a with pressure difference,
29 Pa
29
-130
-150
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
D. Temperature difference
Supposing that the phenomenon that helium is superhot or super-cold occurs practically, the helium density
can be calculated as follows:
He =
4
Ta
a
29 Ta + t
(14)
1060
200
25
a
29
from
100
4
Ta
1
a accordingly. It can be seen from
29 Ta + t
Fig.14 that when helium is super-cold, in other words,
with the temperature difference varying from 0 to -20 K,
the length of airship increases from 171 to 173.8 m and
when helium is super-hot, in other words, with the
increase of temperature difference from 0 to 20 K, the
length of airship decreases from 171 to 168.7 m. In a
word, length of airship linearly varies with temperature
difference almost. On the other hand, in case that airship
size keeps constant, from the Fig.15, it can be seen that
payload capability also almost linearly varies with
temperature difference. With the increase of temperature
difference from -20 to 20 K, the payload capability
increases from -203 to 170 kg.
350
250
Weight of airship
-50
-100
-200
-250
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
20
E. Helium purity
Because atmosphere may enter the helium chamber
through small holes in the envelope, helium purity would
decrease with increase of time of station-keeping.
n = 1
4
air
29k
(15)
150
100
25
a to
29
50
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
(a)
174
173
1
air . As can be seen from Fig.16
29k
172
171
-150
200
50
300
150
to
buoyancy
170
169
168
-20
-15
-10
-5
10
15
Temperature difference ( K )
(b)
Figure 14. Size of airship varies with temperature difference
20
250
Weight of airship
200
150
100
50
50
100
150
200
250
300
(a)
350
400
450
500
1061
174.5
350
174
300
Buoyancy of airship
173.5
173
172.5
172
171.5
171
90
250
200
150
100
50
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
50
100
150
Helium purity ( % )
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
(b)
Figure 18. Size of airship varies with four typical dates
IV.
-50
-100
-150
-200
-250
0.9
0.91
0.92
0.93
0.94
0.95
0.96
0.97
0.98
0.99
Purity of He gas
TABLE IV.
Technology
guidelines
Improvement
Length (%)
Unitary (%)
Each technology
Envelope mass/area ratio (g/m2)
Solar cells mass/area ratio (g/m2)
Solar cells efficiency
Lithium-ion battery energy/mass ratio (Wh/kg)
Lithium-ion battery efficiency
Propeller power/mass ratio (W/kg)
Propeller efficiency
Envelope
mass/area ratio
Solar
array
mass/area ratio
Solar array
efficiency
Storage
system
energy/mass ratio
Storage system
efficiency
400200
50%
26.9
53.8
250150
40%
3.5
8.77
812%
50%
18.1
36.26
160200
25%
5.85
23.39
9598%
3.16%
0.88
27.76
Guidelines
improvements
200
150
12%
200
98%
125
85%
Propeller
power/mass
ratio
75125
66.7%
2.34
2.63
Propeller
efficiency
0.750.85
1.33%
0.47
35.18
1062
TABLE V.
Technology
guidelines
Improvement
Payload (%)
Unitary (%)
Envelope
mass/area ratio
Solar
array
mass/area ratio
Solar array
efficiency
Storage
system
energy/mass ratio
Storage system
efficiency
400200
50%
27.47
54.94
250150
40%
3.43
8.58
812%
50%
18.23
36.46
160200
25%
6.43
25.72
9598%
3.16%
0.98
31.01
V.
CONCLUSIONS
Propeller
power/mass
ratio
75125
66.7%
1.72
2.58
Propeller
efficiency
0.750.85
1.33%
0.57
42.86
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The authors would like to thank to the staffs in Faculty
513 of BeiHang University for providing us a
comfortable working environment and conveniences. The
authors also express our gratitude to the project members
in our team.
REFERENCES
[1] A. Colozza, Initial feasibility assessment of a high altitude
long endurance airship, NASA CR-2003-212724,
December.
[2] A. Colozza, High-altitude, long-endurance airships for
coastal surveillance, NASA/TM-2005-213427
[3] R. S. Pant, A methodology for determination of baseline
specifications of a non-rigid airship, AIAA Paper 20036830, November.
[4] J.A. Krausman, Investigation of various parameters
affecting altitude performance of tethered aerostats, AIAA
Paper 1995-1625, May.