Comparison with older papers
avikde opened this issue · comments
From Chen(2016) Table 1 data: looks like Ixx, Izz (the two wing inertia params) both scale linearly with spar width (mm)
Based on this, maybe it makes sense to produce mspar and mwing both from spar width as the parameter. spar width, cbar, R -> can they together effectively predict Ixx, Izz.
Comparison of physical parameters in Chen (2016) IROS paper
| chord length | R (wing length) | T | mwing (dspar) | NOTES | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ixx | x | x | X | see below | |
| Izz | x | x | X | Observed affine relation between Ixx,Izz from [Chen (2016)]- makes sense to replace with a single lumped "mwing"  |
|
| AR | X | ||||
| r1 (spanwise first moment) | n/a planar | ||||
| LESR | n/a planar | ||||
| size | X | X |
Additionally, the dynamics equations only contain T and R in the combination T/R and can be replaced by a single parameter.
SHOW
Conclusion: we only need two params:
- mwing/dspar - note that Ixx ~= asd
Plots for comparison
Chen (2016)
- Fig 6 - increased mwing. but they also change the traj (freq)
- Fig 9 - AR increase means increase in R - since R only appears as T*R, increased R means increased T.
Chen JFM (2016)
- could say that we can pick what phase shift we want, and modify design to get it, instead of trying different frequencies --> shifting function added in #100; did not improve results much
Originally posted by @avikde in #75 (comment)
This relates to this issue, though the code is in #101
Trying to estimate my lumped mwing from the data:
mwings = Ixx/(m.R/2)^2
mwings2 = Izz/(2*cbar0^2*γ^2)
Using the one on the right; with gamma=0.8. Redlines are the density limits that can be used by the optim.
Torques are way too high when using those. Need to return to this
