Free Sample
ENGR 290 MATLAB Simulation for Hovercraft Design
List of Figures
Figure 2.1.1: Dimensions of Competition Track
Figure 4.1.1: Design Concept #1
Figure 4.1.2: Design Concept #2
Figure 4.1.3: Design Concept #3
Figure 5.0.1: Linear and Angular Motion Along the X and Z Axis of the Hovercraft
Figure 5.0.1.1: Dimensional Design of Hovercraft Design #1
Figure 5.0.2.1: Dimensional Design of Hovercraft Design #2
Figure 5.0.3.1: Dimensional Design of Hovercraft Design #3
Figure 5.2.1.1: Angular and Linear Motion Results Created by MATLAB Simulation for Hovercraft Design #1
Figure 5.2.2.1: Angular and Linear Motion Results Created by MATLAB Simulation for Hovercraft Design #2
Figure 5.2.3.1: Angular and Linear Motion Results Created by MATLAB Simulation for Hovercraft Design #3
Figure 8.0.1: Estimated Gantt Chart of the Hovercraft Project Timeline
List of Tables
Table 5.0.1: Inertia Calculations for Hovercraft Design #1
Table 5.0.2: Inertia Calculations for Hovercraft Design #2
Table 5.0.3: Inertia Calculations for Hovercraft Design #3
Table 5.1.1: Theoretical Results of the Hovercraft Designs
Table 6.1.1: WOT Analysis of Designs
Table 6.2.1: SWOT of Design 1
Table 6.2.2: SWOT of Design 2
Table 6.2.3: SWOT of Design 3
Table 6.3.1: Pairwise Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.2: Normalized Pairwise Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.3: Row Averages
Table 6.3.4: Priority Vector
Table 6.3.5: Weight Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.6: Normalized Weight Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.7: Row Averages
Table 6.3.8: Weight Priority Vector
Table 6.3.9: Speed Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.10: Normalized Speed Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.11: Row Averages
Table 6.3.12: Speed Priority Vector
Table 6.3.13: Maneuverability Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.14: Normalized Maneuverability Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.15: Row Averages
Table 6.3.16: Maneuverability Priority Vector
Table 6.3.17: Programmability Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.18: Normalized Programmability Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.19: Row Averages
Table 6.3.20: Programmability Comparison Matrix
Table 6.3.21: AHP Analysis Overall Ranking
Table 7.0.1: Components That Will be Used for Hovercraft Design 1
Table of Contents
1.0 Introduction 
Page 5 
2.0 Mission Objective 
Page 6 
3.0 Requirements 
Page 7 
4.0 Designs 
Page 8 
5.0 Theoretical and Matlab Simulations 
Page 11 
6.0 Design Selection 
Page 19 
7.0 Components 
Page 28 
8.0 Estimated Gantt Chart 
Page 29 
9.0 Conclusion 
Page 30 
References 
Page 31 
1.0 Introduction
The design and development of a hovercraft is perhaps similar to that of an aircraft or a boat in some way. Several indepth researches have been carried out in order to understand and analyze the principle of how the hovercraft work and functions.The primary team goal is to design and build a sufficient optimized hovercraft that can finish the path and overcome obstacles in the least amount of time. The process began by brainstorming and coming up with many different designs, which eventually narrowed down to three. Decision making can be complicated; each design decision such as shape, size, and amount of elements can have an impact on the hovercraft efficiency. With the help of SWOT, WOT, AHP, and Matlab framework which guides through the design selection process, and hopefully to the best hovercraft design.
2.0 Mission Objective
The objective of the this competition is to design an build a hovercraft that:
 Complete’s as much of the specified track as possible, operating autonomously.
 Traverse’s as many of the increasingly challenging obstacles along the track.
 Complete the course in as short a time as possible (2 min. time limit per each attempt)
 Accomplish the Objectives 13 without using more resources (i.e. fans and servos) than necessary.
Score will be based on the formula
Distance covered / (number of components * time taken) = Total Score
The highest score wins the competition that is why there is another objective
 That achieves as high a score as possible
2.1 The Track
The track consists of four straight aways of 235cm and three uturns. Along the way there will be three obstacles at the center of the straight aways, ranging in size , 1mm, 2mm and 3mm.
Figure 2.1: Dimensions of Competition Track
3.0 Requirements
Considering the requirements of hovercraft, there are three major and distinct components that are involved in the entire mechanism, a platform, a motorised fan and a skirt. Hovercrafts can also be called as Air Cushioned Vehicle (ACV) that are designed to travel on land, snow, water and other surfaces like mud, grass and quicksand (Jeong and Chwa, 2017). The smooth air cushion can be of different materials as per the purpose of the ACV. However, it is necessary to take care of certain requirements that are involved in the making of the hovercrafts to handle the speed and strength required by the hull considering the availability of the components and intermediate fabrication skills. In the words of Iventosch et al., (2019), as hovercrafts serve different purposes, it is necessary to ensure the implementation of certain factors like military surveillance near coastal areas, transportation purposes in snowy regions and flood rescue operations. Among the three major components stated above, the fan bows the air beneath the platform that are trapped and grounded by the skirts. The region where the air is trapped is the plenum chamber and the air that is blown inside form rings that is circulated at the base of the skirt and through this the air beneath keeps escaping (Foraker et al., 2016). Along with this, under laid are the requirements that are to be met by hovercraft before it functions:
 It is necessary to maintain the hoverheight by containing the cushion of the air under the craft.
 It must have the ability to contour over the hindrances or obstacles across its path.
 Ability to regain the original shape after deformation and also focusing on providing stability.
The powertoweighttostrength and powertoweight ratio are required to be determined in order to handle the structural strength of the hovercraft.
4.0 Designs
Figure 4.1.1: Design Concept #1
Figure 4.1.2: Design Concept #2
Figure 4.1.3: Design Concept #3
5.0 Theoretical and MATLAB Simulations
In the previous part of the report we dipics three designs of the hovercraft that will be tested and simulated to expand on the decision making on our final design. To do this we set on using newtonian methods to solve for angular acceleration and linear acceleration of each design. After solving for both angular and linear acceleration MATLAB would be used to simulate the velocity and displacement over time of each design and each type of motion.
The goal was to find the acceleration, velocity and displacement of the hovercraft to both the translational motion (the x direction) and the rotational motion (?, along the x and z axis).
Figure 5.0.1: Linear and Angular Motion Along the X and Z Axis of the Hovercraft
To calculate the angular acceleration of the hovercraft, the newtonian equation of inertia was used Inertia = Torque x Angular Acceleration . We had the weight of all the components and the dimensions were determined for each design, with this data we were able to calculate the Inertia of each part with the equation Inertia = Mass * Meter2, the sum was then recorded. The torque was more difficult to calculate as the only data that was given for the thrust was the air flow. With the help of an online airflow calculator [1] the force was calculated for the AFB1212SH fan. With the force known for the fan, the Torque could be calculated with Torque = [perpendicular] Force * Meter, trigonometry was used for forces that were not perpendicular. With inertia and torque both calculated, the angular acceleration could be calculated.
To calculate the linear acceleration, the simple newtonian equation of Force = Mass * Acceleration was used. In this context the acceleration that we are looking for is in the forward front direction of the hovercraft. Due to this fact the force that is used is the backwards force applied by the AFB1212SH fan(s). With this force the total mass was calculated and used to calculate the forward linear acceleration.
5.0.1 Inertia Calculations for Design Concept #1
Figure 5.0.1.1: Dimensional Design of Hovercraft Design #1
Table 5.0.1: Inertia Calculations for Hovercraft Design #1
Parts 
Inertia (kgm2) 
Sensor 25cm 
0.000312 
Sensor 15cm x2 
0.000225 
Servo 15cm 
0.001 
Fan 
0.009 
Body 
0.014 
Battery x2 
0.00185 
Total 
0.0264 
5.0.2 Inertia Calculation for Design Concept #2
Figure 5.0.2.1: Dimensional Design of Hovercraft Design #2
Table 5.0.2: Inertia Calculations for Hovercraft Design #2
Parts 
Inertia 
Battery x2 
0.00185 
Sensor 25cm 
0.000312 
Sensor 15cm x2 
0.000221 
Body 
0.014 
Fans x2 
0.064 
Total 
0.080 
5.0.3 Inertia Calculation for Design concept #3
Figure 5.0.3.1: Dimensional Design of Hovercraft Design #3
Table 5.0.3: Inertia Calculations for Hovercraft Design #3
Parts 
Inertia (kgm2) 
Sensors x4 
0.00125 
Fan x2 
0.06 
Battery x2 
0.002 
Body 
0.017 
Total 
0.080 
5.1 Theoretical Results
Design #1 
Design #2 
Design #3 

Power consumption 
15.04W 
19.39W 
19.41W 
Area of base 
13.57m2 
13.57m2 
19.63m2 
Weight of base 
0.5kg 
0.5kg 
0.6kg 
Mass 
1.510kg 
1.863kg 
1.977kg 
Total Airflow from thrust 
3.203M2/min 
6.406M2/min 
6.406M2/min 
Total Airflow from lift 
3.203M2/min 
3.203M2/min 
3.203M2/min 
Thrust applied by fan(s) 
5.3N 
7.48N 
10.6N 
Force applied by gravity 
14.81N 
18.27N 
19.39N 
Total Inertia 
0.0264kgm2 
0.080kgm2 
0.080kgm2 
Torque applied for one fan 
0.795Nm 
1.06Nm 
1.325 Nm 
Angular Acceleration 
30.16rads/s2 
13.24rads/s2 
16.54rads/s2 
Linear Acceleration 
3.51m/s2 
4.01m/s2 
5.31m/s2 
Table 5.1.1: Theoretical Results of the Hovercraft Designs
5.2 MATLAB simulations
The MATLAB simulation was used to elaborate on the data collected in the theoretical calculations. The theoretical calculation gave us the angular and linear acceleration of each hovercraft design. With the addition of MATLAB we will not only be able to see the the acceleration over time of each hovercraft but to be able to calculate and represent velocity and displacement over time of each design. For better visual effects the value at three seconds is shown. Note that these calculations do not take into consideration drag and friction, which will affect the results in the real world .
5.2.1 MATLAB simulations of Design #1
Figure 5.2.1.1: Angular and Linear Motion Results Created by MATLAB Simulation for Hovercraft Design #1
5.2.2 MATLAB simulations of Design #2
Figure 5.2.2.1: Angular and Linear Motion Results Created by MATLAB Simulation for Hovercraft Design #2
5.2.3 MATLAB simulations of Design #3
Figure 5.2.3.1: Angular and Linear Motion Results Created by MATLAB Simulation for Hovercraft Design #3
6.0 Design Selection
6.1 WOT Analysis
Table 6.1.1: WOT Analysis of Designs
DESIGN 1 
DESIGN 2 
DESIGN 3 
SPEED 
2 
1 
1 
NUMBER OF PARTS 
2 
2 
3 
MANEUVERABILITY 
1 
2 
3 
WEIGHT 
1 
3 
3 
PROGRAMMABILITY 
2 
3 
3 
TOTAL 
8 
11 
13 
1: best, 2: ok, 3: worst
6.2 SWOT Analysis
Table 6.2.1: SWOT of Design 1
Strengths

Opportunities

Weakness

Threats

Table 6.2.2: SWOT of Design 2
Strengths

Opportunities

Weakness

Threats

Table 6.2.3: SWOT of Design 3
Strengths

Opportunities

Weakness

Threats

6.3 AHP Analysis
Table 6.3.1: Pairwise Comparison Matrix
Weight 
Speed 
Maneuverability 
Programmability 

Weight 
1 
2 
1/2 
4 
Speed 
1/2 
1 
1/2 
3 
Maneuverability 
2 
2 
1 
3 
Programmability 
1/4 
1/3 
1/3 
1 
Sum 
3.75 
5.3333 
2.3333 
11 
Table 6.3.2: Normalized Pairwise Comparison Matrix
Weight 
Speed 
Maneuverability 
Programmability 

Weight 
0.2667 
0.3750 
0.2143 
0.3637 
Speed 
0.1333 
0.1875 
0.2143 
0.2727 
Maneuverability 
0.5333 
0.3750 
0.4286 
0.2727 
Programmability 
0.0667 
0.0625 
0.1428 
0.0909 
Sum 
1.0000 
1.0000 
1.0000 
1.0000 
Table 6.3.3: Row Averages
Weight 
0.3049 
Speed 
0.2020 
Maneuverability 
0.4024 
Programmability 
0.0907 
Table 6.3.4: Priority Vector
0.3 
0.2 
0.4 
0.1 
Table 6.3.5: Weight Comparison Matrix
Design 1 
Design 2 
Design 3 

Design 1 
1 
3 
3 
Design 2 
1/3 
1 
2 
Design 3 
1/3 
1/2 
1 
Sum 
1.6667 
4.5 
6 
Table 6.3.6: Normalized Weight Comparison Matrix
Design 1 
Design 2 
Design 3 

Design 1 
0.6 
0.6667 
0.5 
Design 2 
0.2 
0.2222 
0.3333 
Design 3 
0.2 
0.1111 
0.1667 
Sum 
1 
1 
1 
Table 6.3.7: Row Averages
0.5889 
0.2518 
0.1592 
Table 6.3.8: Weight Priority Vector
0.59 
0.25 
0.16 
Table 6.3.9: Speed Comparison Matrix
Design 1 
Design 2 
Design 3 

Design 1 
1 
1/3 
1/4 
Design 2 
3 
1 
1/3 
Design 3 
4 
3 
1 
Sum 
8 
4.3333 
1.5833 
Table 6.3.10: Normalized Speed Comparison Matrix
Design 1 
Design 2 
Design 3 

Design 1 
0.125 
0.0769 
0.1579 
Design 2 
0.375 
0.2308 
0.2105 
Design 3 
0.5 
0.6923 
0.6316 
Sum 
1 
1 
1 
Table 6.3.11: Row Averages
0.1199 
0.2721 
0.6980 
Table 6.3.12: Speed Priority Vector
0.12 
0.27 
0.70 
Table 6.3.13: Maneuverability Comparison Matrix
Design 1 
Design 2 
Design 3 

Design 1 
1 
3 
3 
Design 2 
1/3 
1 
2 
Design 3 
1/3 
1/2 
1 
Sum 
1.6667 
4.5 
6 
Table 6.3.14: Normalized Maneuverability Comparison Matrix
Design 1 
Design 2 
Design 3 

Design 1 
0.6 
0.6667 
0.5 
Design 2 
0.2 
0.2222 
0.3333 
Design 3 
0.2 
0.1111 
0.1667 
Sum 
1 
1 
1 
Table 6.3.15: Row Averages
0.5889 
0.2158 
0.1592 
Table 6.3.16: Maneuverability Priority Vector
0.59 
0.22 
0.16 
Table 6.3.17: Programmability Comparison Matrix
Design 1 
Design 2 
Design 3 

Design 1 
1 
2 
3 
Design 2 
1/2 
1 
2 
Design 3 
1/3 
1/2 
1 
Sum 
1.8333 
3.5 
6 
Table 6.3.18: Normalized Programmability Comparison Matrix
Design 1 
Design 2 
Design 3 

Design 1 
0.5455 
0.5714 
0.5 
Design 2 
0.2727 
0.2857 
0.3333 
Design 3 
0.1818 
0.1429 
0.1667 
Sum 
1.8333 
3.5 
6 
Table 6.3.19: Row Averages
0.5890 
0.2972 
0.1638 
Table 6.3.20: Programmability Comparison Matrix
0.59 
0.30 
0.16 
Table 6.3.21: AHP Analysis Overall Ranking
Weight (0.3) 
Speed (0.2) 
Maneuverability (0.4) 
Programmability (0.1) 
Final Score 

Design 1 
0.59 
0.12 
0.59 
0.59 
0.496 
Design 2 
0.25 
0.27 
0.22 
0.30 
0.247 
Design 3 
0.16 
0.70 
0.16 
0.16 
0.268 
Design 1 is the preferred design based on the AHP analysis. It had the highest score for the weight, maneuverability and programmability sections of the AHP analysis. This is the design that will be constructed for the project.
7.0 Components
Table 7.0.1: Components That Will be Used for Hovercraft Design 1
FAN 
SERVO 
BATTERY 
SENSOR 
NAME: AFB1212SH Newtons: 5.3N AMOUNT: 2 DIMENSIONS: 120x120x25mm TOTAL MASS: 396g 
NAME: HS311 AMOUNT: 1 DIMENSIONS: 39.88x19.81x36.32mm MASS: 43g TOTAL MASS: 43g 
NAME: GENS 450 AMOUNT: 2 DIMENSIONS: 56x31x10mm MASS: 33g TOTAL MASS: 66g 
NAME: GP2Y0A02YK0F AMOUNT: 3 DIMENSIONS: 29.5x13x21.6mm MASS: 4.8g TOTAL MASS: 14.4g 
8.0 Estimated Gantt Chart
Figure 8.0.1: Estimated Gantt Chart of the Hovercraft Project Timeline
9.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, the first hovercraft design has a substantially lower score for the WOT Analysis than the other designs. In addition to this, the SWOT analysis has also shown that the first design is better overall than the other two designs. Also, the AHP analysis has proven that hovercraft design one is better than its counterparts and the most efficient. This hovercraft will offer increased maneuverability, speed and have a lower weight than the others. Matlab and other simulations have shown that the torque of design one is lower than the others and the angular acceleration is higher than the other designs. Should the Gantt Chart be accurate, the hovercraft will be on schedule and teamwork is crucial for this hovercraft to function as intended.
References
Fu, M., Zhang, T. and Ding, F., 2019. Adaptive FiniteTime PI Sliding Mode Trajectory Tracking Control for Underactuated Hovercraft With Drift Angle Constraint. IEEE Access, 7, pp.184885184895.
Jeong, S. and Chwa, D., 2017. Coupled multiple slidingmode control for robust trajectory tracking of hovercraft with external disturbances. IEEE Transactions on Industrial Electronics, 65(5), pp.41034113.
Iventosch, J., Dutton, J.E., Matthews, S.D., Gorsev, P.K. and Schwartz, R., Pensa Systems Inc, 2019. Recognition and prediction of semantic events learned through repeated observation. U.S. Patent Application 16/533,764
Foraker, J., Lee, S. and Polak, E., 2016. Validation of a strategy for harbor defense based on the use of a min?max algorithm receding horizon control law. Naval Research Logistics (NRL), 63(3), pp.247259.
[1]Online Engineering Calculator. Airflow Conversion Calculator https://www.engineering.com/calculators/airflow.htm. Retrieved february 2020.
Get Assignment Help Now...!
Areas We Cover
What Do we give you ?
 100% assignment help satisfaction
 Quality and affordability
 Unique , original and plagiarism free assignments
 24/7 customer support help desk
 Highly qualified and globally certified subject faculty
 Ontime delivery