Abra o Arquivo Na Pag

Download as pdf or txt
Download as pdf or txt
You are on page 1of 17

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/295685137

Evaluation of Control Line Reefing Systems for Circular Parachutes

Article in Journal of Aircraft · February 2016


DOI: 10.2514/1.C033524

CITATIONS READS
12 2,601

1 author:

Travis Fields
University of Missouri - Kansas City
49 PUBLICATIONS 212 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Travis Fields on 24 February 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.


Evaluation of Control Line Reefing Systems for

Circular Parachutes

Travis D. Fields1
University of Missouri-Kansas City, Kansas City, Missouri, 64110, USA

I. Introduction

Aerial delivery operations provide supplies in areas and situations not reachable with any other

supply method [1]; however, traditionally uncontrolled circular parachutes can only be accurately

delivered from low altitudes. Several autonomous decelerator vehicle (ADV) techniques have been

investigated to improve aerial delivery landing location accuracy. Small-scale high accuracy ram-air

parafoil systems have seen tremendous success in landing accuracies with circular error probables

(CEP) of approximately 10m [2–4]. Additionally, several alternative ram-air parafoil control tech-

niques that reduce actuator requirements or improve accuracy have been developed and evaluated

including glide slope control[5, 6], upper surface spoilers[7], and payload weight shift control[8]. It

is important to note that small-scale ram-air systems are typically more accurate than

the full-scale counterparts.

Although parafoil systems have demonstrated extremely high landing location accuracy in small-

scale testing, full-scale parafoil systems are rarely used in combat scenarios because of the high

system cost [1]. Ram-air systems are also incapable of producing zero glide slope in a wind-fixed

frame, limiting applicability in urban environments and rough terrain environments [9]. To improve

landing location accuracy over traditional uncontrolled aerial delivery techniques while minimizing

the system cost, two different circular parachute control strategies have been evaluated; asymmetric

and symmetric canopy deformation. Asymmetric canopy deformation provides rudimentary steering

capabilities of the delivery system. Canopy deformation is achieved with four pneumatic muscle

1 Assistant Professor, Civil and Mechanical Engineering, 5110 Rockhill Rd FH 352, and AIAA Member.

1
actuators or electromechanical actuators attached to the suspension lines [10–12]. Simulation results

with actual atmospheric wind data have demonstrated sufficient accuracy (CEP < 100 m); however,

the required canopy and payload modifications and crew training requirements have limited the

applicability of the asymmetric canopy deformation methods. Descent rate control is a less invasive

ADV strategy that utilizes symmetric canopy deformation to control the vehicle descent speed in the

presence of known atmospheric wind conditions. A simple, constant drag area approach has been

developed in which the vehicle attempts to navigate to a target line segment (i.e. road) [13]. A more

advanced path planning strategy was also developed to capitalize on the capability of the vehicle to

modify the parachute size continuously during descent [14]. This time varying strategy enables the

vehicle to “steer” towards a target point (rather than a line segment). Preliminary flight testing was

performed with a prototype reversible reefing symmetric canopy deformation system coupled with a

quarter-spherical cross-based canopy, where descent rate was controlled with an electromechanical

reeling system [15]. The vehicle exhibited high descent speed controllability; however, the required

reeling actuator force was equal to the entire payload weight (which may be problematic for heavy

cargo systems). Additionally, high canopy-payload relative yaw motion was observed during testing

with flat-circular canopies, thereby severely limiting the system applicability into current delivery

operations.

In addition to terrestrial aerial delivery applications, symmetric canopy deformation also has

significant potential for planetary reentry vehicles. Current reentry decelerator systems employ

reefing systems to reduce the chance of parachute failure by reducing canopy inflation loads [16, 17].

Typical reefing practice incorporates reefing lines fixed to the canopy that reduce inflated size

during parachute deployment. Time-based reefing cutters are used to cut the reefing line, allowing

the canopy to inflate to the next reefing stage. The primary concern with time-based reefing cutters

is the inability to adjust the timing schedule in real-time. The Orion parachute system was designed

to withstand a single reefing stage failure during nominal reentry [18, 19]. In a pad abort scenario

the main canopies are deployed with extremely high dynamic pressure that could cause

canopy failure [20]. The inability to adjust the reefing stages can cause potentially catastrophic

results when designed for one scenario (i.e. nominal reentry deployment), and are activated in

2
another scenario (i.e. aborted mission deployment).

To increase efficiency and applicability of descent rate control strategies, several new reefing

techniques were tested. In total, three reefing techniques were tested and compared to the previously

developed reeling-based reefing effort. The three reefing strategies stemmed from a single control-

line approach in which a single control line can manipulate the parachute size/shape directly while

theoretically carrying only a small portion of the suspension line load (which was identified as

one of the two major limitations of the reel-based reefing methodology tested previously). The

continuous control line-based skirt reefing methodology was originally noted by Knacke [17] and

was later implemented by Sadeck and Lee [21]. It is important to note these continuous reefing

systems were developed for open loop control-based continuous disreef capabilities only, not for

reversible reefing of a parachute canopy. The focus of this study is on the development and testing

of a control line-based continuous reversible reefing systems similar to the system noted by Knacke.

II. Methodology

A. Reefing Techniques

In this study four different reefing techniques were evaluated as shown in Figure 1. Center

loop control line reefing (Figure 1 (a)) requires small lines to be fixed to the canopy skirt at the

suspension line/skirt attachment point. These small lines are then attached to a single control line,

which when actuated, forces the skirt closed. The reefing lines are approximately the length of the

canopy radius when fully inflated. In an attempt to keep the reefing lines approximately

perpendicular to the canopy regardless of the reefing amount, a second method in-

corporating a small guide ring attached to the canopy (Figure 1 (b)) was created for

evaluation. A two loop control line technique (Figure 1 (c)) incorporates two loops woven through

the suspension line attachment points and connected to a single control line in the center of the

canopy. During control line actuation, the two loops constricts the canopy in a manner similar to

a bag drawstring system. Finally, the suspension line reefing technique (Figure 1 (d)) uses a winch

actuator to reel all of the suspension lines to achieve the desired descent speed. It is important

to note that for each reefing technique, the configuration/setup was adjusted to provide the best

3
possible results with the given hardware prior to final data collection.

Inflated Parachute Canopy Guide Ring Guide Ring


Anchor Line

Control Reefing Line Reefing Line Reefing Line


Control Control
Line Line Line

Control/Suspension
Line

Control Control Control Control


Payload Payload Payload Payload
a) Center loop control line b) Anchored center loop control line c) Two loop single control line d) Suspension line reeling

Fig. 1: The four different types of reefing techniques evaluated, where solid lines

indicate control and/or reefing lines.

The payload contains an Arduino microcontroller with onboard inertial measurement unit and

barometric pressure transducer (MultiWii), electric winch servomotor, miniature load cell, and a

2.4 GHz remote control receiver (typically used for hobbyist aircraft). The Arduino microcontroller

receives all commands from the R/C receiver, transmits angular position commands to the servo-

motor, and stores all data to a SD card logger. Time, altitude, control line load, and servo position

data were collected and stored at a sampling rate of approximately 30 Hz. The total payload mass

with added ballast weight is 2.1 kg.

A miniature load cell was attached to the control line for each of the techniques tested in

order to quantify the actuation force needed for each configuration. The average load (at terminal

velocity) and the maximum load experienced during flight testing were reported for each reefing

level. The reported control line loads provide an estimate of the steady state actuator force required

as well as an indication of actuator/payload peak loading requirements. For the reeling-based reefing

technique (Figure 1 (d)) the actuation force is simply the weight of the payload; therefore, the load

cell was not incorporated into the reeling-based reefing system. The load cell was connected to a

custom instrumentation amplifier printed circuit board (PCB). The PCB output voltage range was

0 − 5 V, which can be more accurately sampled with the 0 − 5 V 10-bit A/D converter onboard the

microcontroller. The output range of the PCB correlates directly with a tension load of 0 − 33 N

4
(0 − 7.4 lbs). Calibration was performed with standard calibration techniques [22, 23] with the use

of a Bose ElectroForce load frame.

B. Testing Method

Drop testing was conducted with a scaled flat-circular 1.2m (4.0 ft) canopy with a payload

mass of 2.1 kg (4.6 lbs). A guide-line was used during testing to minimize canopy-payload relative

rotation, and provide repeatable results. The top of the guide line was fixed to a a semi-rigid anchor

system mounted in a large indoor environment, producing a drop height of 13.2m (43.3ft). The

bottom of the guide-line was fixed to the structure floor by attaching the guide-line to a large set

of free weights. The testing environment cross section is 6.1m x 6.1m (20ft x 20ft), resulting in

a blockage ratio of approximately 3% which is similar to the blockage ratio encountered by other

indoor parachute testing programs. Desabrais et al reports use of up to 9 ft canopies in a

100ft diameter testing facility (≈ 1% blockage) that incorporated a 120 ft long guide

line [24]. An illustration of the drop system used for the small-scale testing regime

described herein is shown in Figure 2.

Guide-line
Anchor

Anchor

Fig. 2: Indoor guide-line drop testing apparatus illustration.

Due to the relatively low drop altitude, the reefing level was fixed during each test. Multiple

drops were performed at each reefing level to quantify the variability in the descent rate, with a

minimum of two drops performed at each reefing level. The number of discrete reefing values tested

5
varied depending on the specific configuration, with ten, nine, seven, and five reefing levels tested

for configurations A, B, C, and D, respectively. The zero reefing condition was qualitatively

estimated by decreasing reefing amount until the canopy was fully inflated during

descent. Full reefing was then defined as a 0.42 m (1.4 ft) control line/suspension line

contraction from the zero-reefing condition. All four configurations were evaluated

with an identical control line deflection range (0 - 0.42 m). Because of the qualitative

zero-reef condition, a particular configuration may be biased. However, the bias has

negligible impact on the overall conclusions of the study as the resulting controllable

descent speed range will be nearly identical as the unbiased case. By performing only

static reefing testing, the dynamic reefing load cannot be quantified; however, the change in reefing

load during dynamic reefing will vary only slightly from the static case. This of course depends

on the speed of the reefing actuator, but a limited amount of dynamic flight testing, particularly

with configurations A and C, has shown the reefing actuator used in this study is capable of

transitioning from full to zero reefing in approximately two seconds, resulting in only small (< 15%)

increases in the terminal control line load. As mentioned previously, the control line loading data

reported in this study are estimated from both the average control line load at terminal

velocity and the maximum control line load experienced during the drop test.

The measured flight data was used to calculate the descent speed and control line force at

various reefing levels (or servo positions) for each of the tested reefing techniques. The barometric

altimeter data was used to estimate the descent speed via numerical differentiation. To reduce

differentiation induced noise, a moving five point linear least-squares trend line was used to estimate

the descent speed. The resulting slope of the linear trend line at each time interval was stored as

the estimated descent speed. An example of a single drop test in the fully open (zero reef) and

fully closed (fully reefed) setting for configuration C is shown in Figure 3. Although the drop time

is short, the canopy appears to approach terminal velocity prior to reaching the ground

as indicated by the speed (particularly the zero reef-scenario) approaching a constant

descent speed of approximately 6 m/s. It is important to note that only the segments

of quasi-constant descent speed are used for this study (i.e. approximately 1.4 - 1.9 s

6
in Figure 3). At least six descent speed and control line load estimates are used to calculate the

average descent speed and average control line load; however, with slower descents the number of

data points used is typically ≈ 15 − 20. Although the fully-reefed drop test may not reach terminal

velocity prior to impact, the reported descent speed ranges will be more conservative estimates of the

actual achievable descent ranges in full-scale testing. Due to the short test durations, canopy

oscillations (breathing) are not visible which will slightly degrade canopy descent speed

estimates. An instrument uncertainty analysis (95 % confidence) yielded an estimated uncertainty

in descent speed (based on altitude and time measurements) of ±0.21 m/s (0.69 ft/s). The expected

speed range of each technique is approximately 5.0 − 9.5 m/s (16 − 31 ft/s), resulting in a maximum

relative uncertainty (occurs at the slowest descent speed) of 4.2%. Similarly, the load cell instrument

uncertainty (95% confidence) was found to be ±0.040 N (±0.0090 lbs) based on collected calibration

data. It is important to note that the reported uncertainties are for the measurement only, and do

not include uncertainties induced by the experiment technique itself.

10
Zero Reef
Fully Reefed
8
Descent Speed [m/s]

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [sec]

Fig. 3: Velocity data collected from fully open reefing level for configuration C.

III. Results

In total, 74 fixed mass drop tests were performed spanning all four parachute configurations.

For each configuration 5-10 different reefing values were tested,Student


with Version
2-4 drop tests conducted at
of MATLAB

each reefing value. Testing was conducted with nearly identical atmospheric conditions (both tem-

7
perature and pressure) for the 74 drop tests. A representative drop test (zero reef condition)

including both descent speed and control line load for configurations A and C are shown

in Figures 4 and 5, respectively. The average descent speed at terminal velocity and

average control line load for the representative configuration A drop test was estimated

from the time range of 1.5 - 2.0 s. For the representative configuration C test, the av-

erage descent speed and control line load were estimated from time range of 1.5 - 2.2

s.
Descent Speed [m/s]

6
4
2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [sec]
Control Line Load [N]

20

10

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [sec]
Fig. 4: Zero reefed configuration A drop test including descent speed and control line

load after release.

The resulting terminal descent speed at each reefing level for the four parachute configurations

are shown in Figure 6. For each configuration, a linear fit was applied to the data to

improve clarity. A third order polynomial could also be applied to capture reefing

Student Version
saturation near the minimum and maximum reefing values. of MATLAB A had the
Configuration

slowest overall descent speed, with a speed range of 4.6−6.5 m/s (15.1−21.3 ft/s) which corresponds

to a percent increase of 41% in descent speed relative to the fully open configuration. Descent speed

results for the each configuration are tabulated in Table 1. Configuration D produced the largest

controllable range of decent speeds, with configuration A producing the smallest controllable range.

To investigate the actuator force required to maintain the different levels of reefing with the four

8
Descent Speed [m/s]
6
4
2
0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [sec]
Control Line Load [N] 3
2
1
0
−1
0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Time [sec]
Fig. 5: Zero reefed configuration C drop test including descent speed and control line

load after release.

11
Config. A
10 Config. B
Config. C
Descent Speed [m/s]

9 Config. D
8 Student Version of MATLAB

4
0 20 40 60 80 100
Reefing Amount [%]

Fig. 6: Average descent speed for the four tested parachute configurations at various

levels of reefing with drop height of 13.2 m and payload mass of 2.1 kg.

configurations, a load cell was fixed to the control line. For configuration D, no load cell was used

as the actuator force required is equal to the weight of the payload. Figure 7 provides the average

control line load near terminal velocity measured during a flight test at each of the static reefing
Student Version of MATLAB
levels. For configuration C, the peak load typically occurred near the time of inflation.

9
Table 1: Speed range and percentage increase for each parachute configuration

Reefing Speed Range % Speed Increase

Configuration [m/s] [%]

A 4.6 − 6.5 41

B 4.8 − 7.5 56

C 5.5 − 10.3 87

D 4.9 − 9.2 88

As the amount of reefing increases, the size of the peak relative to the steady state

load decreases (steady state load increases as reefing increases). For configurations A

and B, the peak load also tends to occur near inflation; however, the size of the peak

relative to the steady state load is quite small (≈ 1 − 2N ). The peak control line load

was measured to be 18.6 N (4.17 lbs), 19.1 N (4.28 lbs), 2.50 N (0.56 lbs), and 20.4 N (4.57 lbs) for

configurations A, B, C, and D, respectively.

20
Average Control Line Load [N]

15 Config. A
Config. B
Config. C
10 Config. D

0
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Descent Speed [m/s]

Fig. 7: Average control line load experienced at various reefing levels for the four

tested parachute configurations with drop height of 13.2 m and payload mass of 2.1

kg.

10 Student Version of MATLAB


IV. Discussion

The drop testing results indicate that both configurations A and B do not provide sufficiently

large descent control ranges and require significant actuator forces. The controllability for both

methods was substantially lower than the other two configurations evaluated, limiting applicability

in descent strategies that rely heavily on descent speed changes (such as the asymmetric deformation

technique). The guide ring provided only minimal increase in descent speed controllability; however,

the installation costs for the added ring severely outweigh the small increase in control. Compared

to configurations C (two loop control line reefing) and D (reeling-based reefing), configurations A

and B required significant canopy reconfigurations (for attachments of the reefing lines) prior to

testing. Additionally, the added canopy-payload complexity introduced safety considerations due

to excessive suspension line, reefing line, and control line tangling during descent. Configuration B

was particularly prone to tangling, as the ring mounted near the canopy apex tended to tangle with

suspension lines during canopy inflation.

The poor performance of the the two configurations can be attributed to the geometry of the

individual reefing lines attached at the suspension line/canopy confluence point. As the control

line is shortened, the angle of the reefing lines relative to the canopy suspension lines, θ, quickly

approaches zero (Figure 8). As θ decreases, the control line takes more of the payload weight until

the entire payload weight is carried only by the control line. Drop test results indicate at full reef

the control line load approaches ≈ 85% of the payload weight. The individual reefing lines also do

not provide sufficient inward force as the lines are nearly vertical during reefing, severely limiting

the reduction in parachute wetted area. The ring added for configuration B was intended to reduce

these limitations; however, the resulting system produced severe rigging complications, namely the

line tangling issue mentioned previously as well as the loading applied to the apex of the canopy.

These results provide insight into the deficiencies of the center loop control line reefing techniques.

The descent range achieved with the reel-based reefing technique (configuration D) correlate

well with previous reeling-based reefing autonomous decelerator vehicle flight results [15] (measured

descent speed range of 5 − 10 m/s) applied to a quarter-spherical cross-based canopy as opposed to

a flat-circular canopy. Reeling-based reversible reefing clearly provides tremendous descent speed

11
θO
θC

a) Fully-Open b) Fully-Closed

Fig. 8: Fully-open and fully-closed reefing level for configuration A

control; however, regardless of the hardware, the actuator must be capable of lifting the entire

payload weight. For small-scale systems this limitation may be negligible, but when attempting

to implement such a system at full-scale the actuator requirements quickly prove impractical. The

focus of this study was on the evaluation of reefing methods compared to the reeling-based approach,

but it is important to note the similarity in controllable range between the larger scale study, and

the measured range with the small-scale system. The similarity provides some confidence in the

scalability of the reeling-based approach, permitting comparisons between the other small-scale

reefing techniques tested.

Configuration C outperformed all other configurations tested, resulting in significantly lower

control line load and high descent speed controllable range. As expected, the required actuator

load (measured on the control line) increases with the amount of reefing (and correspondingly

increased descent speed), but even the maximum required actuator load of 2.5 N is only ≈ 12% of

the payload weight. It is important to note that when analyzing the examining the average control

line loads, the actuator requirements are only ≈ 5% of the payload weight. Scaling this system to

a full size parachute/payload system, the actuator would be substantially smaller than the reeling-

based technique counterpart. The level of reefing is also approximately linearly proportional to the

change in descent speed, resulting an in ideal control mechanism for use in autonomous decelerator

vehicles. Compared to the reeling-based reefing technique, the single control line approach can

12
also be modified to reduce the control line deflection necessary to fully reef the canopy. This is

particularly evident with canopies attached to long suspension lines, as the reeling-based technique

must reel in the entire suspension line to fully reef the canopy. The double loop reefing technique

requires control line displacement equal to approximately the canopy diameter, and can be further

reduced by implementing a four (or more) loop system.

It is important to note that for this study the stability of the various configurations was not fully

evaluated. With the limited drop height used in this study, the steady state behavior could not be

completely captured. Therefore, a stability analysis of configuration C should be conducted prior to

implementation of such a system. The time history data does provide some conservative confidence

in the results; however, particular attention must be paid to the relative canopy-payload rotation

that can occur during full canopy reefing. The relative rotation can cause significant suspension

line tangling, which when later disreefed may prevent canopy inflation from occurring. Although

this type of behavior was not seen during flight testing, similar testing should be conducted with

the control line reefing technique to ensure stable canopy reefing and disreefing to ensure a stable

reversible reefing prior to implementation.

V. Conclusion

Reversible reefing has potential for both autonomous descent vehicles and atmospheric reentry

vehicles; however, a practical reversible reefing technique has not been developed. To evaluate four

reversible reefing techniques, a payload was constructed which measured the payload motion and

the control line force via miniature load cell. Data was collected onboard the payload, and stored

for post-processing upon test completion. From the four reefing candidates identified in the study,

configuration C (double loop control line reefing) required very small actuation forces ( 12% payload

weight maximum) to maintain canopy shape throughout the various levels of reefing. Additionally,

configuration C had approximately the same controllable descent speed range as the only previously

developed reeling-based reversible reefing technique (configuration D). Flight testing of configura-

tion C demonstrated a high level of linearity between the level of reefing and the corresponding

descent speed for two different payload weights, resulting an ideal candidate for use in ADV path

13
planning strategies.

VI. Acknowledgements

This research was funded by the University of Missouri-Kansas City Summer Undergraduate

Research Opportunity Program (SUROP). The author would like to acknowledge Aldair Gongora,

Nicolas Basore, John Bazin, and Daniel Schroeder for their assistance during drop testing and

prototype development.

References

[1] Benney, R., “History and Challenges of Airdrops in Afghanistan-Invited Lecture,” in “22nd AIAA

Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Conference and Seminar,” , Daytona Beach, Florida, March 25-28,

2013.

[2] Slegers, N. J., Rogers, J., and Brown, A., “Experimental Investigation of Stochastic Parafoil Guidance

Using a Graphic Processing Unit,” in “23rd Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference

and Seminar,” , Daytona Beach, Florida, March 30 - April 2, 2015, AIAA Paper 2015-2106.

[3] Slegers, N. and Rogers, J., “Terminal Guidance for Complex Drop Zones Using Massively Parallel

Processing,” in “22nd AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Conference and Seminar,” , Daytona

Beach, Florida, March 25-28, 2013, AIAA Paper 2013-1343.

[4] Slegers, N., “Effects of Canopy-Payload Relative Motion on Control of Autonomous Parafoils,” Journal

of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 1, 2010, pp. 116–125, doi: 10.2514/1.44564.

[5] Slegers, N., Beyer, E., and Costello, M., “Use of Variable Incidence Angle for Glide Slope Control of

Autonomous Parafoils,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 31, No. 3, 2008, pp. 585–596,

doi: 10.2514/1.32099.

[6] Ward, M., Gavrilovski, A., and Costello, M., “Flight Test Results for Glide Slope Control of Parafoil

Canopies of Various Aspect Ratios,” in “21st AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Conference and

Seminar,” , Dublin, Ireland, May 23-26, 2011, AIAA Paper 2011-2620.

[7] Ward, M. and Costello, M., “Autonomous Control of Parafoils Using Upper Surface Spoilers,” in “22nd

AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Conference and Seminar,” , Daytona Beach, Florida, March

25-28, 2013, AIAA Paper 2013-1379.

[8] Ward, M., Culpepper, S., and Costello, M., “Parafoil Control Using Payload Weight Shift,” Journal of

Aircraft, Vol. 51, No. 1, 2014, pp. 204–215, doi:10.2514/1.C032251.

14
[9] Benney, R., “An Overview of DoD Aerial Delivery Capabilities and Needs-Invited Lecture,” in “23rd

Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar,” , Daytona Beach, Florida,

March 30 - April 2, 2015.

[10] Benney, R., Brown, G., and Stein, K., “A New Pneumatic PMA: Its Use in Airdrop Applications,”

AIAA Paper 2001-2022.

[11] Dobrokhodov, V. N., Yakimenko, O. A., and Junge, C. J., “Six-Degree-of-Freedom Model of a Controlled

Circular Parachute,” Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2003, pp. 482–493, doi: 10.2514/6.2002–4613.

[12] Yakimenko, O. A., Dobrokhodov, V. N., and Kaminer, I. I., “Synthesis of Optimal Control and Flight

Testing of an Autonomous Circular Parachute,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 27,

No. 1, 2004, pp. 29–40, doi: 10.2514/1.9282.

[13] Fields, T. D., LaCombe, J. C., and Wang, E. L., “Autonomous Guidance of a Circular Parachute

Using Descent Rate Control,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 35, No. 4, 2012, pp.

1367–1370, doi: 10.2514/1.55919.

[14] Fields, T. D., LaCombe, J. C., and Wang, E. L., “Time Varying Descent Rate Control Strategy for

Circular Parachutes,” Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, Vol. 38, No. 8, 2015, pp. 1468 –

1477, doi: 10.2514/1.G000627.

[15] Fields, T. D., LaCombe, J. C., and Wang, E. L., “Flight Testing of a 1-DOF Variable Drag Autonomous

Descent Vehicle,” in “22nd AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Semi-

nar,” , Daytona Beach, FL, March 25-28, 2013, AIAA Paper 2013-1377.

[16] Ray, E. S., “Reefing Line Tension in CPAS Main Parachute Clusters,” in “22nd AIAA Aerodynamic

Decelerator Systems Conference and Seminar,” , Daytona Beach, Florida, March 25-28, 2013, AIAA

Paper 2013-1393.

[17] Knacke, T., Parachute Recovery Systems Design Manual, Para Publishing, first edition ed., 1992.

[18] Ray, E. S., “Reconstruction of Orion EDU Parachute Inflation Loads,” in “22nd AIAA Aerodynamic

Decelerator Systems Conference and Seminar,” , March 25-28, 2013, Daytona Beach, Florida, AIAA

Paper 2013-1260.

[19] Takizawa, K., Tezduyar, T. E., Boswell, C., Kolesar, R., and Montel, K., “FSI modeling of the reefed

stages and disreefing of the Orion spacecraft parachutes,” Computational Mechanics, Vol. 5, No. 54,

2014, pp. 1203–1220, DOI: 10.1007/s00466–014–1052–y.

[20] Lichodziejewski, D., Taylor, A. P., Sinclair, R., Olmstead, R., Kelley, C., Johnson, J., Melgares, M.,

Morris, A., and Bledsoe, K., “Development and Testing of the Orion CEV Parachute Assembly System

(CPAS),” in “20th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar,” ,

15
May 4-7, 2009, Seattle, Washington, AIAA Paper 2009-2938.

[21] Sadeck, J. E. and Lee, C. K., “Continuous Disreefing Method for Parachute Opening,” Journal of

Aircraft, Vol. 46, No. 2, 2009, pp. 501–504, doi: 10.2514/1.37444.

[22] Anderson, G. B. and Raybold, R. C., “Studies of Calibration Procedures for Load Cells and Proving

Rings as Weighing Devices,” National Bureau of Standards.

[23] “Procedure for Calibrating Force Transducers (Load Cells),” Tech. rep., United States Department of

the Interior Bureau of Reclamation, 1989, USBR Paper No. 1045-89.

[24] Desabrais, K. J., Lee, C. K., Buckley, J., and Jones, T. W., “Experimental Parachute Validation

Research Program and Status Report on Indoor Drop Tests,” 19th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator

Systems Technology Conference and Seminar.

16

View publication stats

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy