PSI - Issue 71

Prathamesh Patil et al. / Procedia Structural Integrity 71 (2025) 388–394

391

Fig.2. (a) Deformation Vs Time; (b) Stress Vs Time

Thus, transient structural analysis was performed successfully. The result of transient analysis confirms the robustness of the design and drone’s capability to handle such stresses with variations. The drone stays stable and responsive.

3.2 Modal Analysis

To assess the fundamental vibration behaviour of the bare frame, the modal analysis was performed using free free boundary conditions. With no restrictions that might skew the data, this method makes it possible to identify natural frequencies and related mode shapes. This analysis is only a preliminary baseline. The UAVs mass distribution and dynamic features will alter .

Fig.3. Frequency Vs Deformation

Modal analysis was performed successfully on the frame. Fig. 3 depicts the frequencies and their respective deformations. The frequencies found were under safer limits with their respective deformations. Hence it was concluded that the frame is safe.

3.3 Computational Fluid Dynamics

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFDs) was performed on the design frame to validate the airflow and check the efficiency of the UAV design. Airflow and streamline were evaluated based on the results obtained. The CFD was performed using Ansys Fluent. SST K-omega model was chosen for the simulation. The analysis was performed for propeller speed of 2000 rpm.