Abra o Arquivo Na Pag
Abra o Arquivo Na Pag
Abra o Arquivo Na Pag
net/publication/295685137
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.
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
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.
Control/Suspension
Line
Fig. 1: The four different types of reefing techniques evaluated, where solid 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
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
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
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
Guide-line
Anchor
Anchor
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
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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.
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
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
a flat-circular canopy. Reeling-based reversible reefing clearly provides tremendous descent speed
11
θO
θC
a) Fully-Open b) Fully-Closed
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
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
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
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
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
[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
[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
[8] Ward, M., Culpepper, S., and Costello, M., “Parafoil Control Using Payload Weight Shift,” Journal of
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,
[10] Benney, R., Brown, G., and Stein, K., “A New Pneumatic PMA: Its Use in Airdrop Applications,”
[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,
[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.
[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 –
[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,
[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
[22] Anderson, G. B. and Raybold, R. C., “Studies of Calibration Procedures for Load Cells and Proving
[23] “Procedure for Calibrating Force Transducers (Load Cells),” Tech. rep., United States Department of
[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
16
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: