Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

UAV aerodynamic design involving genetic algorithm and artificial

neural network for wing preliminary computation
Abdelwahid Boutemedjet a,∗ , Marija Samardžić b , Lamine Rebhi a , Zoran Rajić b ,
Takieddine Mouada a
a
Military Academy, University of Defence, Belgrade, Serbia
b
Military Technical Institute, Belgrade, Serbia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: In this paper, the aerodynamic design procedure of a mini unmanned aerial vehicle, intended to perform
Received 1 February 2018 aerial reconnaissance at low altitude and low Reynolds number, was summarized. Design process was
Received in revised form 21 September divided into two major parts: conceptual design phase and preliminary design phase. During the
2018
conceptual design, classical procedures and data from similar unmanned aerial vehicles already designed
Accepted 27 September 2018
were employed to define the requirements related to unmanned aerial vehicle design. The preliminary
Available online 24 October 2018
design was performed using panel method where the emphasis was given on the design of the UAV
Keywords: wing, fuselage design and empennage. The wing planform parameters were determined through an
Unmanned aerial vehicle aerodynamic optimization process using both genetic algorithms and artificial neural networks. Finally
Preliminary aerodynamic design an aerodynamic analysis using panel method, Computational Fluid Dynamic simulations and wind tunnel
Wing design testing was carried out. Unmanned aerial vehicle full configuration design process was consistent, where
Genetic algorithm optimization a comparison between the final obtained results was carried out and showed an agreement in terms of
Computational Fluid Dynamic
lift, drag and pitch moment coefficients.
Wind tunnel testing
© 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Depending on the UAVs’ mission specifications and require-

An unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) refers to an aircraft that can
be operated autonomously or remotely, and also they can carry
a variety of payloads depending on their type, functionality, op-
erational characteristics and mission objectives. The UAV segment
experienced a great growth, driven primarily by the military com-
munity and to a lesser extent by border security, environmental
monitoring and other application domains. This picture seems to
change, where UAVs are dominating civilian and public domain ap-
plications [1]. Nowadays, UAVs offer several advantages, generally
related to the absence of crew-on board and the rapid develop-
ments in electronic and video equipment, such as accomplishing
critical tasks, reducing operational cost and increasing flight en-
durance due to weight reduction. Hence, they cover a wide spec-
trum of applications, such as monitoring hazardous environment
(nuclear/chemical contamination, fire detection etc.), search and
rescue, border or security surveillance and reconnaissance mis-
sions [2].
* Corresponding author at: Military Academy, University of Defence, Pavla Jurišića
Šturma 33, Belgrade, Serbia.
E-mail addresses: boutemedjet.abdelwahid.empfse@gmail.com (A. Boutemedjet),
marija.samardzic@vti.vs.rs (M. Samardžić).
ments, the design methodology may vary significantly and each
UAV concept requires a different approach [3,4]. The UAVs design
process was the subject of many studies. For example, the main
geometric, aerodynamic, stability and performance parameters of
the URCUNINA-UAV were calculated and assessed through analyti-
cal presizing and computer-aided design methods, by P. Mosquera
et al. [5]. Employing linear aerodynamic performance and Com-
putational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) optimization, S. Kontogiannis and
J. Ekaterinaris [6] performed a complete study of a small-size UAV.
P. Panagiotou et al. [3] carried out an aerodynamic design study
for a MALE UAV involving both analytical/semi-empirical presizing
methods and CFD simulations. S.G. Kontogiannis et al. [7] applied
the linear strip theory to perform the wing aerodynamic design
of the ATLAS IV-UAV. Using a combined approach of traditional
sizing methods and CFD simulations, a layout design study was
conducted by P. Panagiotou et al. [8] to carry out a complete de-
sign and aerodynamic analysis of Blended Wing Body MALE UAV.
Theoretical analytical methods were employed with CFD analy-
sis to develop conceptual methodology of a hybrid solar MALE
UAV, where an aerodynamic analysis and a solar power estimation
technique were detailed by P. Panagiotou et al. [9] aiming to de-
termine a compromised selection between fuel amount and panel
area sizing. G. Romeo et al. [10] designed a high altitude very-long

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2018.09.043
1270-9638/© 2018 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483 465

Table 1
UAVs comparison.

UAV Wing span Length Empty weight Total weight Payload Maximum speed Endurance Altitude Mission radios
(m) (m) (kg) (kg) (kg) (km/h) (h) (m) (km)
Azimut 2 2.9 1.82 7 9 2 120 2 300 10
Azimut 3 2.9 1.82 7 8 1 120 2 300 10
Bayraktar 2 1.2 3.5 5 1.5 – 1–1.5 1200 15
Bird Eye 400 2.2 0.8 4.4 5.6 1.2 – 1 300 –
Carolo t200 2 1.8 4.6 5.6 1 – 0.75 –
RAVEN RQ-11 1.4 0.9 1.9 2.2 0.3 95 1.5 30–300 10
EMT Aladin 1.46 1.4 2.6 3.2 0.6 90 0.5–1 3000 5
Fly eye 3.6 1.9 4 – – 170 2–3 1000 10
POINTER FQ M-151 2.74 1.8 3.4 4.3 0.9 80 1 300 5
Casper 250 1.8 1.38 4.45 5.7 1.25 80 2 2000 10
Puma 2.8 1.8 3.4 4.6 1.2 96 4 300 15
SpyLite 2.75 1.35 7.7 9 1.3 120 4 9100 50

endurance solar-powered UAV developing a computer program to 2. Research relevance

design the main UAV platform taking into consideration the ef-
ficiency of solar panels, aerodynamic, structural, flight mechanics
and aeroelastic performances. G. Frulla and E. Cestino [11] per-
formed a set of static structural tests for a solar powered high
altitude long-endurance UAV where the applied loads take into ac-
count the effective aerodynamic and mass distributions estimated
during the design of the UAV. The results of this study may help
in the design of such UAVs.
In the present study the aerodynamic design of a short range
mini UAV was presented and discussed. Based on the classical
methods, presented in [12–14], aerodynamic optimization CFD
simulations, the design process involved the design of the UAV
wing, fuselage and empennage. The first step in designing the UAV
was to perform a market analysis by identifying existing UAVs
intended to accomplish aerial reconnaissance at low altitudes sim-
ilarly to the UAV presented in this paper, Table 1 [15–21]. The data
presented in Table 1 are important to highlight some guidelines
in the estimation of the UAV specifications, for example empty
weight, maximum speed, optimization design space and other pa-
rameters.
During the preliminary sizing, emphasis was given on the wing
design where an aerodynamic shape optimization was evaluated
using genetic algorithms (GAs) in order to determine wing plan-
form parameters. GAs are a popular revolutionary method widely
used in aerodynamic optimization since they are very efficient in
finding global optimum. One of the key features of GAs is that
they are tolerant of noise in the objective function and have no
difficulty with categorical variables or topology changes. In addi-
tion, the development cost of GAs is minimal since they use only
objective function and do not require its derivatives. The key disad-
vantage associated with GAs is that they are computationally time
consuming especially in aerodynamic optimization where a CFD
solver is used for fitness function evaluation [22,23]. This makes
the use of artificial neural networks (ANNs) an efficient way to re-
duce computational time. ANN is one of reliable and fast methods
of predicting aerodynamic coefficients. The use of such method re-
duces the time and the cost of computation since ANN decouples
the aerodynamic solver from the optimization process where the
GA operates simultaneously with ANN [24].
In the following sections, a brief summary of the UAV design
methodology is provided. In section 2, conceptual design phase
based on the initial mission requirements and data from existing
UAVs is shown. In section 3, the methodologies for preliminary
design are manifested, including wing, fuselage and empennage
design. Aerodynamic analysis involving panel method (PM), CFD
and experimental tests are presented in section 4 besides the ob-
tained results.
Designing a low cost homemade mini UAV was one among the
tasks entrusted to the Military Technical Institute (VTI) exploiting
the available capacities. The designed UAV intended to accomplish
reconnaissance missions at low altitude and low speed depending
on camera capacities and filming photos qualities limits. The asso-
ciated challenges with such mission are related to design a small
size and light structure UAV that operates at low Reynolds num-
ber. Hence stall aerodynamic characteristics degradations, stability
and propulsive system vibrations present a serious problem to deal
with. Furthermore, to minimize the time of UAV readiness during
the takeoff phase and makes landing possible even in the absence
of flat areas, the UAV has to be hand launched and accomplishes
landing with a parachute.
To deal with these challenges a high lift low Reynolds number
airfoil (SD7062) was selected to produce high lift coefficients guar-
anteeing boundary layer transition before the separation even in
the case of high turbulence flow. The used airfoil provides also
excellent performance at low speed flight, including a high en-
durance ratio [25]. In addition, a high wing configuration with a
large aspect ratio (AR) was chosen serving to decrease induced
drag, to improve stall characteristics and at same time to ensure
a sufficient space for parachute.
Classical aerodynamic configuration, with a T-tail and whose
wing has a dihedral angle, was selected on purpose to provide
sufficient stability characteristic against free stream disturbances.
Compared to the chosen classical configuration, Blended Wing
Body (BWB) configuration presents more favorable aerodynamic
efficiency which provides better endurance and capacity of carry-
ing payloads and also characterized by a lighter structure. However
BWB configuration is more demanding in terms of longitudinal sta-
bility and requires a launching from catapult. Besides that, such
configuration requires many wind tunnel tests during the devel-
opment phase which makes design cost expensive. This justifies
classical aerodynamic configuration choice.
The UAV was equipped with an electric motor which reduce
significantly vibration and noise signature for better filming qual-
ity. Aiming to make the UAV as lighter as possible, composite ma-
terials was used to manufacture the UAV intending to make hand
launching feasible by a single person.
Besides the goal of designing a mini UAV intended to accom-
plish aerial reconnaissance, the use of GA optimization coupled
with ANN to perform design computation, can be considered as a
contribution in minimizing UAV design process time with respect
to other design methodology. In other side, performing aerody-
namic optimization with different objective functions provides an
extended list of optimal solutions and makes easy to choose the
adequate one. In addition, the reliability of the proposed approach
was well checked with CFD and experimental results.
466 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483
Fig. 1. Statistical data of empty weight versus total weight.
3. Conceptual design
The conceptual design is a procedure, in which the first esti-
mates regarding aerodynamics, configuration, size, weight and per-
formance are calculated. In the following sections, a brief summary
of UAV conceptual design is presented.
3.1. Design requirements and objectives
In the present study a mini UAV was selected to accomplish
reconnaissance missions. The camera technical limits required the
altitude to be 300 m. The total mass of the vehicle was limited
to 7 kg and the stall speed was kept down to low level, less than
12 m/s. These limits were based on typical weight that can be car-
ried and hand launched by a single person and at same time allow-
ing an easy transportation, ensuring good quality filming photos
and reducing take off distance. As the most used UAVs for recon-
naissance purpose, the selected UAV for this study was equipped
with electric motor since it contributes to the simplicity of instal-
lation and the low costs. The power of motor was estimated about
800 W. Rate of climb after takeoff was taken into consideration as
a requirement, equals to 5 m/s, which is related to climbing time
to operative altitude as well as the safe of nearby people, espe-
cially in a city environment. A maximum speed of 120 km/h and a
long endurance flying were required during the sizing of the UAV.
3.2. Weight estimation
Total weight W estimation was based on that the total weight
of the designed UAV was divided into payload weight W p and
empty weight W e . The empty weight included the structure, mo-
tor, propeller, batteries, fixed equipment, and anything else not
considered a part of payload. The payload weight was consid-
ered the weight of the reconnaissance equipment estimated about
1.5 kg. The total weight is expressed as:
W = We + W p
The empty weight was statistically estimated from historical
trends of existing UAV with similar requirements and configuration
(Table 1). Fig. 1 presents the curve fit equation of empty weight
W e versus total weight W , the fit equation was given as follows:
W e = 0.85W − 0.27
In this study, an UAV configuration with a total weight of 7 kg
and a payload of 1.5 kg was the objective of the weight estimation
Fig. 2. SD 7062 (14%) airfoil shape.
process. Statistically, using Eqs (1)–(2), in the case of a fixed pay-
load weight of 1.5 kg, the total weight and empty weight were
estimated respectively 8.2 kg, 6.7 kg, however for a fixed total
weight of 7 kg, the empty weight and payload weight were found
respectively 5.65 kg, 1.35 kg. The empty weight of 5.65 kg was fit-
ted to 5.5 kg; by minimizing the structure weight, where a small
part of wing bottom was immersed with UAV body and at same
time using honeycomb composite material which significantly con-
tributes to reduce the weight.
3.3. Airfoil selection
For the simplicity of construction no slats or flaps were used to
produce high lift. However a high lift, low Reynolds number airfoil
section was selected to satisfy the main design requirements. Since
composite materials were selected to manufacture the wing, the
choice of the adequate airfoil was not limited by airfoil thickness
constraints. Hence, regardless the airfoil thickness, the selection
criteria were the aerodynamic efficiency, maximum lift coefficient,
and minimum drag coefficient. Three airfoil sections were consid-
ered during the choice of the airfoil: NACA 643-418, Wortmann
FX63-137 and SD7062. The airfoils were simulated using PM and
changes in maximum lift coefficient, maximum efficiency and drag
coefficient at zero angle of attack with increasing Reynolds number
are resumed in Table 3.
Analyzing results from Table 3, it is clear that airfoil NACA
presents small lift coefficient values thus justifying the exclusion
of such airfoil from the wing design. In other side Wortmann
FX63-137 airfoil presents greater lift coefficient and higher effi-
ciency compared to SD7062, however the last mentioned airfoil
produces lower drag with acceptable efficiency and lift coefficient.
Hence SD7062 airfoil section (Fig. 2) was selected to be used for
wing design process. The chosen airfoil is characterized by a max-
imum thickness of 13.98% at position of 27.22% and with a maxi-
mum camber of 3.97% at position of 38.82%.
The airfoil was analyzed at Reynolds numbers (Re) 2 × 105 ,
3 × 105 and 4 × 105 . The obtained results were compared to ex-
(1)
perimental measurements [26]. Fig. 3 shows that the results from
X-foil analysis were generally well consistent with those from ex-
perimental measurements.
Table 4 resumes the main aerodynamic characteristics of the
chosen airfoil that were derived from lift coefficient versus angle
of attack (α ) curve and drag polar.
(2) The comparison of experimental results and those computed
using PM revealed some differences between the two cases. For
C L max , airfoil presented experimental greater values which can be
considered as a positive contribution to obtain greater lift, however
 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483 467

Table 2
UAV design requirements.

Flight specifications Equipment Aerodynamic configuration and characteristics Structure and motor
Total weight (W ) 7 kg Camera High lift Composite material
Payloads (W p ) 1.5 kg Avionic Low drag Operation temp −20 to 50 ◦ C
Altitude 300 m Battery Low Re Electric motor
Endurance 1h Parachute High wing
Stalling speed (V s ) 12 m/s T-tail
Motor power 800 W
Maximum speed (V M ) 120 km/h
Rate of climb (ROC) 5 m/s

Table 3
Airfoils comparison.

Re NACA 643-418 Wortmann FX63-137 SD7062

CL max (C L /C D )max C D α =0o CL max (C L /C D )max C D α =0o CL max (C L /C D )max C D α =0o
0,2 × 106 1.246 64.56 0.00868 1.704 77.61 0.01311 1.562 70.25 0.00832
0,3 × 106 1.247 77.87 0.00739 1.686 92.74 0.01042 1.561 83.13 0.00745
0,4 × 106 1.261 88.99 0.00678 1.693 104.11 0.00925 1.560 92.28 0.00698

Fig. 3. Aerodynamic characteristics of SD 7062 airfoil.

Table 4 C D = C D0 + C Di (3)
Experimental SD7062 Airfoil aerodynamic characteristics.
The parasite drag is given by the following equation:
Re CL C D α =0 (C L /C D )max
max

2 × 105
1.62 0.0114 63.4 C f i K i S wet
3 × 105 1.65 0.0104 78.2 C D0 = (4)
S ref
4 × 105 1.65 0.0095 87.8
Parasite drag contribution of each evaluated aerodynamic sur-
face is given in Fig. 4. From the diagram it is noticed that the wing
in the case of C D , experimental results were greater, and hence most contributes to generating aerodynamic drag. Such result was
it affected airfoil efficiency by decreasing its values. Despite that, expected since the UAV operates at low Reynolds numbers and low
it can be considered that the selected airfoil section SD7062 pre- altitudes where strong turbulence takes place.
sented acceptable results at different Reynolds number to be used The induced drag is given by Eq. (5)
for UAV wing design.
C Di = kC L2 (5)
3.4. Drag estimation where k = 1/(π ARe 0 ), AR is the aspect ratio equals to 11, e 0 is
the interference factor related to the aerodynamic interactions be-
UAV drag coefficient was computed from parasite drag (C D0 ) tween the wing/the empennage and the fuselage and it is equal to
and induced drag (C Di ). The drag was computed from main surface 1.78 × (1 − 0.045 × AR0.68 ) − 0.64. The obtained drag polar equation
(wing, fuselage and empennage), where the corresponding form is:
factor (K i ), reference area (S ref ) wetted area (S wet ) and skin fric-
tion coefficients (C f i ) of each surface were evaluated. C D = 0.0371 + 0.0396C L2 (6)
468 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483

Fig. 4. Pie diagram of the parasite drag contribution of UAV surfaces.

3.5. Aerodynamic main parameters and performances

During the analysis of different UAV constraint design such as

the rate of climb, maximum and stall speeds, the first parame-
ters to design the wing and to select the propulsion system were
determined. It is essential that a credible estimation of the wing
loading (WL) and power loading (PL) is made. The wing loading
has a strong effect upon sized UAV weight since reducing wing
loading value, makes the wing larger which significantly increases
UAV drag. Besides that WL affects directly stall speed, climb rate,
take off distance and performances. The design point of the UAV
which minimizes both wing loading and power loading was found
WL = 83.12 N/m2 and PL = 0.19 N/W. At this stage, applying con-
dition for minimum thrust required for level flight allows finding
velocity at which thrust or drag is minimum and efficiency ratio
C L /C D is maximum. Such velocity was computed as follows:
 
Fig. 5. Wing preliminary design process.

 2W
 k
V min thrust = (7) computation of the UAV external shape to satisfy the performance
ρS C D0 requirements. In this paper a gross design of the airfoil section and
the main surfaces were conducted in X-Foil and XFLR5 [27]. Fig. 5
where ρ is air density at the operating altitude, the minimum ve-
summarizes the process of wing design. The process starts with
locity for minimum required thrust was found equal to 12.5 m/s. defining a work space based on data delivered from classical aero-
The lift coefficient for minimum drag in level flight was deter- dynamic formulations, data from existing UAV and experience from
mined by the following expression: previous researches related to UAV design domain. Once the work-
 ing space was defined, aerodynamic solver was decoupled from op-
C D0
C L min thrust = (8) timization through ANN helping to minimize time of computation.
k Defining propulsion system characteristics in order to determine
The value of lift coefficient for minimum drag in level flight performances is one of important tasks to be added to the op-
was found equal to 0.9. This optimal lift coefficient depends only timization. Combined to constraints, objective function definition
on aerodynamic parameters, so in case of changing weight, UAV leads to complete wing design using aerodynamic optimization.
can be flown at this optimal lift coefficient by varying just velocity After wing planform determination, preliminary computation was
or altitude (air density). finished by fuselage and empennage design to obtain the full con-
Flying at the velocity V min thrust corresponds to maximum aero- figuration of the designed UAV.
dynamic efficiency C L /C D which maximizes the range from oper-
4.1. Optimization process definition
ating altitude. The resulting maximum C L /C D ratio is determined
from the following expression:
After airfoil process selection, the first objective of the UAV

CL 1 preliminary design was to determine the optimum combination
= √ (9) of the wing planform geometry and the specified aerodynamic
CD max 2 C D0k
requirements. UAV wing was designed using an aerodynamic op-
The obtained maximum glide ratio C L /C D is 13.5. The corre- timization including single-point and multiobjective optimization,
sponding velocity and lift coefficient to maximum glide ratio are Fig. 6. The GA coupled with ANN was used to perform the opti-
the same velocity and lift coefficient related to minimum required mization, where the training data for the ANN was derived from
thrust numerical simulations using XFLR5. The optimization problem was
formulated in term of design variables, constraints and objective
4. Preliminary design functions.

The preliminary design is the process that advances the de- 4.1.1. Design variables
sign concepts by individually designing and sizing the major com- Trapezoidal planform geometry was chosen in this study in or-
ponents of UAV. The aerodynamic design starts with preliminary der to simplify the computation. The parameters related to the
 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483 469

respect to the root airfoil, decreases across the span and becoming
lowest at the wing tip. This is referred to as wing tip twisted down,
where wings are typically twisted between zero and five degrees.

4.1.2. Optimization constraints

Constraints were imposed on the rate of climb (ROC) at the re-
quired altitude (ROC), stall speed (V S ) and maximum speed (VM)
at sea level conditions, which arise from the requirements given
in Table 2. These constraints were added to the objective function
as penalty term. The penalty term was formulated as a weighted
quadratic loss function:

2
2
T = ω1 max 0, ROC ∗ − ROC (t ) + ω2 max 0, V S (t ) − V S∗

∗
2
+ ω3 max 0, V M − V M (t ) (10)

where t is the design vector, ROC ∗ , V S∗ , V M

∗ are the required per-

formances, ωi =1,2,3 are weights applied to the penalty term. More

details about performances evaluation are presented in Section 4.2.
The use of loss function permits to aggregates all constraints
into one term by multiplying the value of each constraint by the
appropriate weighting coefficient. During the optimization, it was
found that there was difference between the objective function
and penalty term; therefore, scaling was performed by applying
Fig. 6. Wing shape optimization process using GA.
weights ωi .

4.1.3. Objective function definition

Objective function choice in any optimization problem is dic-
tated by aircraft design requirements. As an illustration, life cy-
cle, cost and profit are common used objective functions. In most
cases, it is very hard to connect design variables via objective func-
tions, thus, lower level objectives may be used. For UAV, achieving
Fig. 7. Wing shape. maximum endurance and minimum drag are required since they
are ideal lower level optimization objectives for the aerodynamic
Table 5
designer [19]. The choice of the objective function is a crucial
Wing planform parameters vs design variables. task to perform designing. In this study three different objective
Wing surface S = (C r + C t )b/2
functions were provided in order to explore the different possible
Aspect ratio AR = b2 / S optimal solutions at Reynolds number about 4.5 × 105 which was
Wing loading WL = W / S computed based on mean aerodynamic chord, for cruise speed of
Wing taper ratio TR = C t /C r
17 m/s. At first, the objective was to maximize endurance ratio
Wing tip twist angle θ 3/ 2
(C L /C D ), hence the objective function to be maximized is:

3
wing planform were considered as the design variables. Fig. 7 f = C L2 /C D − T (11)
shows the wing shape, where C r is the root chord,C t is the tip
chord, b is the wing span, θ is the wing tip twist angle and S where T is the penalty term from the constraints, in this case
is the wing surface. The aspect ratio AR, wing loading WL, wing ωi=1,2,3 = 10 was applied to the penalty term.
taper ratio TR, wing tip twist angle θ were chosen to reflect the The second objective was to minimize the drag coefficient at
effect of aerodynamic discipline during the 3D wing optimization angle of attack α = 0◦ , hence the objective function to be mini-
process. Table 5 resumes mathematical relationship between geo- mized is:
metrical wing planform parameters and chosen design variables to
 2
perform the optimization. Details of the geometry parametrization CD
f = 1− +T (12)
can be found in [28,29]. C ∗D
The optimization process requires a design space determination
basing on existing data from mini UAV already designed (Table 1) where C ∗D is the target drag coefficient, which was assumed to be
and from design variable first estimation. Designing a wing with unattainable within the specified constraints and its value is 0.008.
high aspect ratio values leads to maximum lift coefficient close to Weights applied to the penalty term were ωi =1,2,3 = 1.
those of infinite wing which justify the chosen values of the aspect Finally a multiobjective optimization was carried out where the
ratio. Basing on the existing values of wing span, a first estimation two competing objectives were given by:
of wing surface can be found; hence searching interval of wing
loading can be set. Since elliptical shape is ideal for minimizing  3
2
C L2 /C d
induced air resistance and reducing the minimum flight speed, the f1 = 1 − 3
+T (13)
taper ratio interval was set to ensure that the obtained wing shape (C L2 /C d )∗
would be similar to elliptical wing. Aiming to prevent tip stall and  2
to revise the lift distribution to approximate an ellipse, the wing Cd
f2 = 1 − ∗ +T (14)
is designed so that the airfoil angle of incidence, measured with Cd
470 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483
Fig. 8. Aerodynamic coefficient approximation with ANN.
The two function f 1 and f 2 are in competition because it is
generally easier to produce low drag at low lift coefficient or en-
durance ratio values. Consequently, the optimal candidates gener-
ated using this optimization present the key advantage to produce
at same time maximum endurance and low drag, where the drag
is minimized at the angles of attack corresponding to the maxi-
mum endurance ratio. The target endurance ratio and the target
drag coefficient C ∗D are equal to 24 and 0.023 respectively.
The two objectives were combined using the weighted sum ap-
proach as follows:
f = ω f 1 + (1 − ω) f 2
where ω ∈ [0, 1].
At this case ω presented the relative weight of the two objec-
tives. Such method for multiobjective function was used to provide
multiple solution points by varying the weight ω from 0 to 1.
Hence, minimizing objective function f provides a sufficient con-
dition for Pareto optimality, which means that the minimum of f
is always Pareto optimal [22].
The wing 3D design process can be expressed as a classical op-
timization problem as follows:
⎡ ⎤
3
f = −C L2 /C D + T
⎢ ⎥
Minimize f (t ) = Minimize ⎣ f = (1 − CC ∗D )2 + T ⎦ (16)
D
f = ω f 1 + (1 − ω) f 2
Subject to:
ROC (t ) ≥ 5 m/s
V s (t ) ≤ 12 m/s
V M (t ) ≥ 120 km/h
where design vector is t = [AR WS TR θ], design variable range is
defined in Table 6.
4.1.4. Decoupling the aerodynamic solver from GA
To make the process of optimization more simple and rapid, the
flow solver was decoupled from the process, and the programmed
genetic algorithm was implemented with a trained ANN that gave
an approximation of aerodynamic coefficient, Fig. 8. These aerody-
namic coefficients were used to evaluate the mentioned objective
functions. The data base used to train ANN was obtained from a
computation set, evaluated using XFLR5 free code. Such code em-
ploys Vortex Lattice Method (VLM) to analyze the wing. The wing
is defined as a set of panels, that determined by the following pa-
rameters: span, twist angle, root and tip chords. The principle of a
VLM is to model the perturbation generated by the wing by a sum
of vortices distributed over the wing’s planform. The strength of
each vortex is calculated to meet the appropriate boundary condi-
tions, i.e. non-penetration conditions on the surface of the panels.
The wing viscous drag is estimated by drag values resulting from
the X-Foil regenerated polar analysis. This code is well validated
with tunnel test experiments and other CFD codes [30,31].
4.2. Performance computation
“If the drag polar of an aircraft is accurately determined and
the thrust, or thrust horsepower, available is known, then all of
the performance characteristics of the subject airplane may be cal-
culated” [32]. Based on this approach, the thrust generated by the
propulsion system was accurately determined; hence it makes the
process of wing designing using the GA optimization more reliable
and efficient. At the electronics’ laboratory of VTI, the propulsion
system model was developed to ensure that it achieves the mis-
sion requirements.
Generally, propellers for UAV must operate in small range of
Reynolds numbers, which causes degradation in their efficiency co-
efficient since at these Reynolds numbers viscous flow is dominant.
The maximum efficiency of such propellers may vary from 0.28 to
0.6 which is far from the efficiency coefficient of classical aircraft
which is about 0.85 [33,34]. In the aim to determine the optimal
propeller parameters, a nonlinear optimization study was carried
out and followed by experimentally determination of the available
thrust (T A ) generated by the propulsion system [35]. Independence
(15) variables were propeller diameter (D) and pitch (H ). The objec-
tive function was maximum endurance (T prof ). Constraints were
applied on rate of climb (ROC) and static thrust force (T A ). A Li–Po
battery with nominal voltage of 29.6 V and nominal capacity of
8 Ah, motor with maximum power of 800 W were used. The objec-
tive function defined depending on propeller diameter and pitch.
In addition, the following constraints were entered to problem op-
timization: the rate of climb at zero altitude must be greater than
5 m/s with a static thrust force of 40 N.
The propeller optimization problem was written as follows:
max T prof ( D , H ) (20)
Subject to:
ROC ≥ 6 m/s (21)
T A ≥ 40 N (22)
where 0.4 ≤ D ≤ 0.44 and 0.2 ≤ H ≤ 0.26
(17) The determined parameters of the optimal propeller after per-
forming the optimization were: D = 0.4064 m and H = 0.2032 m
(18) with a maximum efficiency coefficient of 0.625 as shown in
Fig. 9.a.
(19)
The available thrust was determined at laboratory conditions
which considered as similar to sea level conditions. The maximum
thrust generated by the chosen propulsion system was found equal
to 44 N at air speed (V ) of 5 m/s (Fig. 9.b). The experimental data
of available thrust in relation with flight velocity were fitted as
follows:
T A = −0.0295V 2 − 0.0218V + 46.025 (23)
After accurately determining the available thrust, the performances
during the optimization process were evaluated basing on the
methods presented in [36].
Assuming steady level flight, the required thrust (T R ) was com-
puted from the equilibrium equations of the static movement of
the aircraft, and the obtained linear estimation is given as follows:
W
TR = (24)
C L /C D
where W is UAV weight expressed in N.
The available power ( P A ) and required power ( P R ) for steady
level flight can be found by multiplying both sides of Eq. (23) and
Eq. (24) by velocity, which becomes:
 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483 471

Fig. 9. Propulsion system.

PA = TAV
PR = TRV
While the endurance ratio is useful in characterizing an UAV be-
cause the characteristics associated with the maximum value of
endurance ratio are valid for the minimum value of required
power, which leads to maximum endurance. The required power
expressed in function of endurance ratio is given by the equation:

2 W3 1
PR = 3
ρ S 2
C L /C D
Since the propulsion system produces smaller thrust increasing
flight altitude due to air density reduction, then the available
power at an altitude h ( P Ah ) was approximated as follows:
ρh
P Ah = TAV
ρ0
where ρh and ρ0 are respectively the densities at the required al-
titude and at the sea level.
The difference between available power and the required power
represents the excess power. Rate of climb is equal to excess power
divided by the weight of the UAV and is given by Eq. (29).
PA − PR
ROC =
W were interpolated with the same architecture of NN respecting the
The maximum value of lift coefficient C L max can be used to ex-
tract UAV minimum velocity, this minimum velocity corresponds
to stalling speed described by the equation:
 tion, the training algorithm and the validation of ANN. For inter-
2 W 1 polating the basic aerodynamic coefficients, a three layer neural
VS =
ρ0 S C L max
Since XFLR5 was not able to predict the exact value of C L max , it
was approximated as the last value interpolated from the regener-
ated polar in order to simplify computation.
UAV maximum speed was obtained as the maximum speed re-
lated to zero excess power between the available and the required
powers.
4.3. Artificial neural network
In this study, an ANN was introduced to define the process or
the relation that associates each element of an input set to a single
element of the output set. During the ANN building the optimiza-
tion design variables were considered as ANN input, however the
(25)
(26)
(27) Fig. 10. Artificial neural network structure.
basic aerodynamic coefficients were set as ANN output, Fig. 10.
Among the different models of ANN, the Back Propagation algo-
rithm is one of the most known and widely used. This algorithm
was the first practical method for training a multiple layer net-
work.
(28) The input and output data generated from 256 simulations us-
ing aerodynamic solver were used to train the network until it
approximated the aerodynamic coefficient functions. Each pair of
data (the input and the corresponding output) went through two
phases. The forward pass involved presenting a sample input to the
network and letting the activations flow until they reach the out-
put layer. During the backward pass, the network’s actual output
(from the forward pass) was compared with the target output and
(29) errors were computed for the output units [37]. Both coefficients
corresponding data set.
Defining the architecture of ANN depends on the number of
layers, the number of hidden neurons, the type of transfer func-
(30) network with input layer, hidden layer and output layer was cho-
sen. This type of ANN was considered in this case because of the
limited available data. Concerning the number of neurons, the in-
put layer in the case of a single angle of attack was set with four
input neurons (WL, AR, TR and θ ) while the output layer had just
one neuron (C L or C D ). The appropriate number of hidden neu-
rons was determined through testing several networks where the
number of hidden neurons was increased from one to five times
the number of input neurons. A number of 20 hidden neurons
provided acceptable efficient fitting results. The use of 20 hid-
den neurons agrees with the assumption proven by T. Rajkumar
and J. Bardina [38] which postulates that the number of hidden
neurons equals five times the number of input neurons provides
good prediction of aerodynamic coefficients. The transfer function
is a continuous real-valued function that determines the neuron
472 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483

Fig. 11. Network generalization regression analysis of C L (a), and C D (b).

Fig. 12. Histogram of percentage error.

output values from the inputs. For this study, Tanh transfer func-
tion was selected because it yields fast training since it produces
both positive and negative values. Due to its guarantied conver-
gence and its numerical robustness, Levenberg–Marquardt method
was selected to train the network. For more efficiency, the inputs
and outputs were scaled to range [−1, 1]. Network training error
was performed using mean-square error between theoretical re-
sults and those computed by the network. More details about the
architecture of the used NN are presented in [24,38]
The response of the modeled networks concerning the lift and
drag coefficients was presented by performing a regression analy-
sis between networks’ outputs and the associated theoretical data.
The outputs of the ANN were plotted versus the theoretical values
with open circle points, the dashed line presented the ideal fit, the
correlation between network and theoretical data was given by the
solid line, Fig. 11. The trained networks showed acceptable linear
fit and exhibited values of R-correlation near to 1.
In spite the R-correlation values showed an excellent fit be-
tween the outputs of the trained networks and the theoretical
data, the analysis of the networks performances based on pre-
diction errors is more suitable. The error was performed as the
percentage error between network simulation and theoretical data,
Fig. 12. The average of percentage error for C L network was 11.6%,
which was considered as an acceptable range; however the aver-
age percentage error reached the value of 15.57% in the case of
drag coefficient prediction, this due to small variations of the drag
coefficient from data base input. Most simulated candidates were
distributed in the interval that represents error of 0%–10%. His-
tograms showed also that 70% of tested candidates within error
between 0% and 20% concerning the C D coefficient compared to
77% concerning C L coefficient, which is considered acceptable.
According to the diagrams of error distribution (Fig. 13), the
maximum achieved errors for C L and C D are 290% and 272% re-
spectively. And it was noted that the error is regularly spaced in
the whole test domain. According to ANN error percentage and
distribution analysis, the trained ANN presents acceptable charac-
teristics; however, the ANN requires design modifications to fur-
ther reduce the percentage error and ameliorate data scatter.
4.4. Genetic algorithm
In the present GA optimization, design candidates, design vari-
ables and objective function are corresponding respectively to the
chromosomes, gens and fitness. During solution initialization, the
 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483 473

Fig. 13. Error distribution in test domain.

Table 6
Test domain.

Design variables xmin xmax

Wing loading [kg/m2 ] 8 10
Aspect ratio 8 11
Taper ratio 0.55 0.83
Twist angle [◦ ] −5 0

population size was set to twenty chromosomes (NC = 20) and the
first generation was randomly initialized according to each gen up-
per and lower limits, Table 6.
After the initialization, objective function is evaluated for each
candidate. Then the population is optimized according to each
chromosome objective function value. Hence, a process of rank-
ing is used where the most fitted chromosome is given a number
ranking one until the last most fitted individual is given a number
ranking NC. The overall process consists of selection, pass through,
crossover, perturbation mutation and mutation. Selection is the
first operation required to determine the next generation, where
the chromosomes are copied in mating pool according to their
rank. Pass through is an elitist strategy operator where twenty
percent of the fittest chromosomes are directly transferred into
the next generation to ensure that the fitness never drops from
generation to generation. The next implemented GA operator is
called Crossover. This operator is used to create new genes from
parent chromosomes that are randomly selected. A simple one-
point crossover operator was used to determine twenty percent
of chromosomes for the next generation. Mutation is a GA oper-
ator that used to generate thirty percent of the next generation
chromosomes where it was applied to randomly selected genes of
each chromosome. Perturbation mutation is the last used GA oper-
ator which is implemented in the same way as mutation; however,
gen’s value is modified as follows:
 
xk+1 = xk + (xmax − xmin ) R (0, 1) − 0.5 β
where xk is the chosen gene first value and β is a specified toler-
ance. β is chosen equal to 0.001 to avoid gene’s values, modified
by this operator, to exceed its limits as given in Table 6. The num-
ber of modified chromosomes using this operator is set to thirty
percent. The used GA was built at the VTI laboratory basing on the
details presented in [39,40].
Fig. 14. Convergence history for endurance ratio maximization.
4.5. Optimization results
4.5.1. Endurance ratio maximization
The convergence history of the genetic algorithm is plotted in
Fig. 14. The plotted function is the endurance ratio since it is ap-
proximately equal to objective function except a small difference
due to contribution from constraints. The function was increased
from 19.8 to 23.62 after 47 iterations, after 400 iterations (16000
calls to the NN) the GA produced a wing with endurance ratio of
23.65.
4.5.2. Drag coefficient minimization at α = 0◦
The corresponding convergence history of drag minimization is
shown in Fig. 15. Since the objective function related to drag min-
imization had low values, the plotted function was 1/ f . After 50
iterations, the equivalent function is increased to 28.14 for a drag
coefficient of 0.00951. After 400 iterations, the produced wing gen-
erates a drag coefficient of 0.0095 corresponding to an equivalent
function value of 28.33.
(31)
4.5.3. Multiobjective optimization
In this optimization, the two-dimension Pareto front was pro-
duced by genetic algorithm using the weighted sum approach and
the gradient-based technique and. In this optimization, the gra-
dient technique was used in order to verify the obtained results
with GA. The generated front using gradient based technique can
be considered as the true Pareto front, since there is a substantial
474 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483

Fig. 15. Convergence history for drag minimization. Fig. 16. Pareto front for the two objectives of drag and endurance ratio.

Table 7
Genetic algorithm results with weighted sum approach.
3/2
Candidate No ω f1 f2 (C L /C D ) CD
1 0.01 0.02833 0.05801 19.960 0.028540
2 0.1 0.02222 0.05841 20.422 0.028559
3 0.2 0.01511 0.05997 21.050 0.028633
4 0.3 0.01306 0.06018 21.256 0.028643
5 0.4 0.01247 0.06250 21.320 0.028750
6 0.5 0.01136 0.06120 21.441 0.028690
7 0.6 0.00178 0.07954 22.988 0.029487
8 0.7 0.00120 0.08071 23.167 0.029534
9 0.8 0.00075 0.08366 23.342 0.029652
10 0.9 0.00061 0.10502 23.406 0.030454
11 0.99 0.00051 0.10913 23.458 0.030598

reduction in the gradient for each point. Furthermore, the front is

convex, so the weighted sum approach is effective [41]. For the ge-
netic algorithm, in order to simplify the process of optimal wing
selection, the weighted sum approach was realized with eleven
values of ω from 0.01 to 0.99, Table 7.
The generated fronts were plotted in Fig. 16, where drag and
endurance ration objectives were respectively plotted on y-axis
and x-axis. The obtained results presented small differences be-
tween the two methods due to convergence errors. When ω ap-
proaches the value 1, the endurance ratio objective is close to zero,
since the target endurance ratio is achievable; the produced wing Fig. 17. Stream lines and pressure coefficient distribution at.
in this case is characterized by a maximum endurance ratio of
23.46 and a drag coefficient of 0.0306. On other hand, the drag
majority of optimization constraints and design requirements were
objective does not approach zero with ω = 0.01, since the set drag
satisfied, where the maximum achieved speed and rate of climb, as
target is unattainable. The obtained wing gives a maximum ratio
shown in Fig. 18, were respectively 130 km/h and 8 m/s. On other
of endurance about 19.96 and drag coefficient of 0.0285.
side, in spite the PM is not able to determine the exact maximum
At the end of the optimization, a data set of 13 wings was
lift coefficient, the obtained stall speed of 10.22 m/s satisfied stall
formed; 11 candidates were obtained from Pareto front, Table 7,
constraint.
and two candidates from endurance and drag optimization. The
The final obtained wing (Fig. 19) and the optimal wing
adequate wing used to design the UAV of this study was selected
(Fig. 17.b) have almost the same dimensions, aerodynamic charac-
among this set of wings. The process of wing selection was car-
teristics and performances. The aerodynamic analysis of this wing
ried out by a compromise between the following considerations:
is shown in Section 4.
objective functions values, wing planform parameters and the ob-
tained performances. The data from mini UAV of the same category
4.6. Fuselage design
were also exploited in the decision of the selection of the appro-
priate wing. Finally the wing number 10 from the Pareto set was
selected to be mounted on the concerned UAV, Fig. 17.a. The UAV fuselage is designed in such a way that it ensures
The selected wing was simulated using XFLR5 and its evaluated enough room for the electro-optical equipment, electric motor and
performances and characteristics are resumed in Table 8. It was re- batteries to be placed, and at the same time minimize aerody-
markable that there was a small difference in maximum endurance namic drag. Fuselage length and maximum diameter provided the
ratio since the shown value in Table 7 was computed with ANN, basis aerodynamic design of the fuselage. Fuselage fineness ratio
however the given value in Table 8 was determined using PM, this is defined as the ratio between the fuselage length and its maxi-
is due to the error generated by ANN. It was observed also that the mum diameter. Theoretically, the subsonic drag is minimized by a
 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483 475

Table 8
Optimal wing characteristics.

W /S 9.25 S 0.75 m2 VS 10.22 m/s α for (C L3/2 /C 1D/2 )max 5.5◦

3/2 1/2
AR 10.5 b 2.818 m VM 36.2 m/s C D for (C L /C D )max 0.0296
TR 0.625 Ct 0.206 m ROC max 8 m/s C D α =0◦ 0.0115
−2.00◦
3/2 1/2
θ Cr 0.330 m (C L /C D )max 22.96 (C L /C D )max 29.26

Fig. 18. Optimal wing performances analysis.

section is not a circle, an equivalent diameter (de ) is calculated

from the cross-sectional area as follows:
l22
1.55(π 4
+ l1l2 − l22 )0.625
de = (32)
(π l2 + 2l1 − 2l2 )0.25
where l1 and l2 are the length of major and minor side respec-
tively.
At the end the equivalent diameter and fuselage length were
found equal to 0.65 m and 1.94 m respectively. These results pro-
vided a fineness ratio of 2.98.

4.7. Empennage design

In this study the conventional T-tail configuration was selected

Fig. 19. Final wing planform parameters.
fineness ratio of about 3.0 [12]. According to the mentioned con-
siderations above, the fuselage maximum cross section was chosen
similar to an oblong cross section, Fig. 20. Since the fuselage cross
to be connected to the UAV body via a boom. The design of the
tail planes was carried out using the classical methodology based
on static stability criteria. A longitudinal analysis was carried out to
allow the UAV to perform a stable flight, taking into consideration
the allowed static margin referenced to the UAV neutral point. As
a result from this analysis, the trim angle of the designed UAV was
found 1◦ (Fig. 21). The static margin and the neutral point were

Fig. 20. Fuselage geometry.

476 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483

Table 9
Similarities between the designed UAV and the existing UAVs from market analysis.

UAV Wing span Length Total weight Payload

(m) (m) (kg) (kg)
√ √ √ √
Azimut 2
√ √ √
Azimut 3 –
√
Bayraktar – – –
√
Bird eye 400 – – –
√
Carolo t200 – – –
RAVEN RQ-11 – – – –
EMT Aladin – – – –
√
Fly eye – – –
√ √
POINTER FQ M-151 – –
√
Casper 250 – – –
√ √ √
Puma –
√ √ √
SpyLite –

the full UAV configuration analysis involved three different tech-

Fig. 21. UAV pitching moment (C m ).
respectively estimated at 15.81% and 47.06% of the mean aerody-
namic chord. Furthermore, the horizontal plane was formed from
the symmetrical airfoil NACA0008 [42] which tilted with an an-
gle of 2o and characterized by a surface area of 0.11 m2 , a span
of 0.68 m and a chord ratio of 0.81. In similar way the vertical
plane characteristics was specified where the determined surface
area was 0.07 m2 , a span of 0.62 m, a chord ratio of 0.80 and the
same symmetrical airfoil NACA0008 was used to form the vertical
stabilizer.
4.8. Final concept
The final UAV concept and the main dimension obtained per-
forming design computation are shown in Fig. 22. Compared to
the data from existing UAV, The designed UAV presented a well
correspondence. In term of wing span, length, total weight and
payload, the designed UAV seems similar to Azimut 2/3, Pointer
and Puma UAV, Table 9. The UAV aerodynamic characteristics and
performances will be discussed in the following section.
5. Aerodynamic analysis
During the aerodynamic analysis phase, the optimal wing cho-
sen during the optimization process was analyzed using only the
3D PM implemented in XFLR5 and the CFD simulation, however
niques: PM simulation, CFD simulation and wind tunnel testing.
The followed methodology for the aerodynamic analysis focused on
analyzing the Reynolds number similarity. For that aim, a scale 1:1
3D solid model of the UAV was designed and manufactured. Fur-
thermore comparisons between the results of different techniques
were carried out in term of the basic aerodynamic coefficients as:
3/ 2
C L max , C D α =0 , (C L /C d )max (C L /C d )max and trim position.
5.1. CFD analysis
The CFD analysis was carried-out with the commercial code
Ansys Fluent [43]. The analysis based on resolving Reynolds-
Averaged–Navier–Stokes equations (RANS), coupled with the Shear
Stress Transport (k-ω SST) turbulence model. The Shear Stress
Transport turbulence model was used since it models typical low
Reynolds aerodynamic problems [44]. The computational domain
was selected as a parallelepiped with a 4 m × 4 m inlet section
and a length of 12 m, Fig. 23. The whole domain was meshed
with tetrahedral elements generating approximately 2.5 million el-
ements for the wing and 4 million elements in the case of the
UAV. In order to properly capturing boundary layer turbulent flow,
15 inflation layers were implemented on the walls, the first of
which was placed at 5 × 10−5 m from the wall generating y +
approaching 1. The boundary conditions correspond to UAV flight
conditions, where the freestream velocity was set at 17 m/s, and
the ambient temperature and pressure corresponded to the alti-
tude of 300 m. Symmetry condition was imposed in the half of the
longitudinal plane of the model. The walls of the computational

Fig. 22. UAV final design dimensions expressed in meter.

 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483 477

Fig. 23. Computational domains and grid generation for the numerical simulations.

domain were defined as ideal walls where free slip condition was
imposed. The wing and UAV surfaces were treated as no-slip wall.
The Reynolds number was calculated equal to 4.5 × 105 , based
on the mean aerodynamic chord. A range of angle of attack from
α = −2◦ to α = 22◦ was examined.

5.2. Experimental setup

The UAV model was tested in the T-35 wind tunnel of the VTI
[45]. The T-35 wind tunnel is large subsonic, continuous, closed
circuit pressurized wind tunnel. It is driven by a variable pitch fan,
powered by four AC motors with a maximum power of 7.2 MW.
Mach number from 0.1 to 0.5 can be achieved in the test section
and it is regulated to 0.5% of its nominal value. Stagnation pres-
sure can be between 1.0 to 1.5 bars and it is regulated to 0.3%
of its nominal value. Reynolds number capability is up to 12 mil-
lion per meter. According to turbulence level in T-35 wind tunnel,
free stream turbulence is below 0.09%. The UAV model was tested
in the 3.2 × 4.4 m octagonal test section with quadrant/tail-sting
model support, Fig. 24. The model was supported by bent sting
which enabled angles of attack in the range −6.5◦ ÷ +23.5◦ . The
bent sting was mounted on a pitch and roll mechanism which en-
abled both step-by-step and continuous model movement. Position
accuracy of the model support was 0.1◦ in pitch and roll. During
the tests, the stagnation pressure in the test section was measured
by Mensor quartz bourdon tube absolute pressure transducer. The
measuring range of such transducer is 1.65 bar and its nonlinear-
ity and hysteresis is about 0.02% of its full scale (FS). The static
pressure was measured by differential pressure Druck transducer
with a range of 0.07 bar. Nonlinearity and hysteresis of the Druck
transducer is about 0.05% FS.
Fig. 24. The UAV model in the T-35 wind tunnel test section.
A data reduction was performed using standard T-35 wind tun-
nel software package. The data acquisition system consisted of
64-channel Neff 620/600 system controlled by VAX 8250 computer.
The data from all analog channels were digitalized by a 16-bit
resolution A/D converter. The overall accuracy of the acquisition
system was about 0.05% to 0.1% FS of the channel signal range. All
channels were sampled with the same 200 sample/s rate.
Aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the model were
measured using an internal six-component monoblock strain gauge
balance, Fig. 25. The balance diameter is 35 mm. Table 10 lists its
design loads and gives a summary of achieved accuracy of the cal-
ibration as obtained in checkout after the calculation matrix. The
results of the balance calibration have a 2-sigma level of confi-
478 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483

maximum reached lift coefficient is 1.35. Hence one of the mains

aerodynamic requirements related to stall speed was achieved. The
wing is characterized with a soft stall at high angle of attacks
due to the use of high-lift airfoil, which is very adequate aero-
dynamic behavior characterizing UAVs operating at low Reynolds
number [5].
According to the wing aerodynamic efficiency, the lift to drag
coefficient for both analyses had the same tendency. The max-
imum value computed using PM and CFD analysis were 28.8 at
α = 2◦ and 24.3 at α = 4◦ respectively; such difference is mainly
justified by the fact that PM predicts low drag values. It was ob-
served from the wing drag polar that there was a similarity in the
tendency of the two curves generated by CFD and PM. The values
obtained from drag polar using PM were close to numerical results
Fig. 25. Six-component strain gauge balance. especially at the front of polar.
The UAV full configuration was obtained assembling its de-
Table 10 signed parts, and it was simulated using CFD. It was observed
Balance calibration results. that UAV’s aerodynamic coefficient was improved introducing an
Component Design Uncertainty Standard deviation adequate winglet. To show winglet’s contribution in ameliorating
load (%FS) of the errors (%FS) aerodynamic behavior, the UAV full configuration was simulated
Axial force 850 N ±0.112 0.03 with and without winglet, a comparison between the two cases
Side force 1320 N ±0.173 0.049 is resumed in Fig. 26. Compared to configuration without winglet,
Normal force 2560 N ±0.052 0.017
whose maximum lift coefficient was 1.41, the maximum lift co-
Rolling moment 75 Nm ±0.16 0.054
Pitching moment 150 Nm ±0.115 0.029 efficient value related to the configuration with winglet was 1.59
Yawing moment 75 Nm ±0.221 0.053 (Fig. 27.a). This was explained by the minimization of tip vortices
effect (Fig. 28) and the additional lifting surface of the mounted
winglet. Fig. 27.b shows the plot of C D vs C L2 , as it is noted that the
dence. More details about the selected six component strain gauge
two curves have the same slop which means that the two configu-
balance and its calibration is presented in [46].
rations produce same induced drag. This is attributed to the small
The non-dimensional aerodynamic coefficients were obtained in
size of used winglet where there is just relatively small decrease
the following forms: in total drag as shown in Fig. 27.c, consequently, regarding lift to
RD drag comparison (Fig. 27.d) the used winglet has no contribution
CD = (33) to improve maximum lift to drag ratio. Related to those results, a
qS ref
parametric winglet design procedure, as described in [47], could
RL further increase aerodynamic performance
CL = (34)
qS ref Observing the results in Fig. 29.a, from angle of attack −2◦ to
◦
11 , the three curves present a linear behavior with similar slope
MM
Cm = (35) in spite of noting different values of C L at α = 0◦ . The obtained lift
qlS ref
coefficient was overestimated using PM since the simulation was
where R D , R L are axial and normal forces, M M , is pitching mo- carried out considering only the wing and the empennage. The
ment which are expressed in body axis coordinate system, S ref is absence of fuselage eliminates the aerodynamic flow interaction
model reference area (wing area), l is wing mean chord and q is induced by the junction with the wing, which explain the cause of
dynamic pressure. The Mach number and dynamic pressure in the obtaining high lift values using XFLR5. Additionally, as well as for
test section were calculated using the isentropic relations: the wing, the PM cannot predict the stall effect; hence there is no
variation in the slope of the curve for high angle of attacks. Con-
  γ γ−1 12
2 p0 trary to the PM curve, numerical and experimental curves exhib-
M= −1 (36) ited the same behavior even for stall region. Both curves presented
γ −1 p st
pre-stall angle of 12◦ which is a favorable aerodynamic behavior,
γ p st M 2 such characteristic allow the UAV to avoid crash risks due to stall
q= (37)
2 effect when approaching stall angle. In addition the two curves
where p 0 is stagnation pressure, p st is static pressure and γ is reached similar maximum values of lift coefficient, 1.57 for experi-
heat capacity ratio. mental and 1.59 for numerical curve. Such lift coefficient value was
the consequence of using high lift low Reynolds number airfoil and
5.3. Results at same time employing winglet at wing tips.
The drag coefficient results are shown in Fig. 29.b. Similar to
The CFD results of the optimal wing are presented in Fig. 26. isolated wing results, PM presented lower values of drag coeffi-
The obtained results was used to determine wing aerodynamic cient since, firstly; such method could not exactly predict viscous
characteristics, and at same time to be compared with those ob- drag, secondly; the results were obtained without considering the
tained from PM computation. According to the lift coefficient re- fuselage. Furthermore, for angles of attack less than 11◦ , both nu-
sults, there was a good agreement in the linear region between merical and experimental results were well consistent, where the
the two analyses; however, for high angles of attack PM showed drag coefficient values at zero angle of attack were 0.041 and
no variation in the slope lift curve since it was not able to exactly 0.038 respectively. However, for high angles of attacks, experimen-
predict viscous and stalling effects. The drag coefficient values sim- tal curve exhibited higher values. The raison of that difference was
ulated with PM were lower due to the weakness of this method deduced during the experimental test, where it was observed that,
to predict the viscous drag. The CFD analysis showed that the at high angles of attack, the UAV tail started vibrating under the
 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483
Fig. 26. Wing aerodynamic characteristics.
effect of stall detachments. Hence the measured UAV drag was in-
creased under the direct influence of the tail vibrations.
The aerodynamic efficiency curves are resumed in Fig. 29.c. The
corresponding angle of attack to the maximum lift to drag ratio us-
ing PM was α = 2◦ , in other side both numerical and experimental
curves presented similar values at similar angles, being 15.82 and
15.31 at α = 6◦ respectively. Therefore, this angle of attack is cor-
responding to the minimal required thrust for accomplishing the
reconnaissance mission.
Fig. 29.d presents the variations of pitching moment coefficient
at the center of gravity versus the angles of attack. It was noted
that the three methods gave similar results especially for low an-
gles of attack where the curves presented positive moment coef-
ficient at zero angle of attack, similar trim position α = 1◦ and
negative slope. Thus the longitudinal stability conditions for ensur-
ing UAV balance were satisfied.
Table 11 summarize the main results obtained during the pro-
cess of aerodynamic design, it was concluded that both numerical
and experimental results of the UAV final configuration presented
well concordance between them. Regarding the values evolution of
drag coefficient, it was observed that the coefficient experimental
value was greater than the value estimated in the other cases; this
was reflected directly on the UAV performance, since it increased
the required power Eq. (12). In spite of that, the designed UAV
satisfied the most of requirements with the adjustment of some
parameters.
479
The static pressure distribution and the streamlines on the UAV
surfaces are presented in Fig. 30. The study of the flow field was
carried out in order to explain the UAV aerodynamic behavior, to
get information about the location of the flight control surfaces
and to determine the aerodynamic loads to be applied on the UAV
structure analysis and sizing. For the angle of attack 0◦ it was ob-
served that the streamlines are attached to the UAV surface and
no significant variation of the flow field was observed. However
for the angle of attack 16◦ , fluid separation areas appeared on the
wing and between the horizontal and the vertical stabilizers. This
is manly caused by the stall effect that takes place at high angles
of attack.
During UAV performance evaluation, the most important in-
formation that has to be derived is the drag polar. Combined
to the propulsion system available thrust, results from PM, CFD
and wind tunnel tests were used to calculate UAV important per-
formance parameters (Fig. 31) including required power, rate of
climb, maximum velocity and stall speed. Fig. 31.a shows the
available power and the required power evaluated using results
from different analysis. The different methods have almost the
same stall limit which corresponds to a stall speed of 9.6 m/s.
The obtained stall speed indicates that the designed UAV provides
enough maximum lift coefficient to fulfill stall constraint. Regard-
ing the achieved maximum speed, using PM the speed was found
126 km/h which is in good agreement with V M constraint, how-
ever, the reached speed using CFD and experimental results were
480 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483

Fig. 27. UAV with winglet comparison.

Fig. 28. Flow field and vortices near the final wingtip. α = 16◦ .

respectively 113.76 km/h and 110.16 km/h. In this case, the UAV
cannot reach the desired V M since the obtained drag is greater
than the one computed using PM. According to Fig. 31.b, the ob-
tained maximum values of ROC using PM, CFD and experimental
tests were respectively: 7.81 m/s, 6.77 m/s and 6.53 m/s. It is
clearly that the UAV withstands with constraint related to ROC.
As it is illustrated, there is a similarity between the performances
computed using both of CFD and experimental results which is the
projection of similarity in aerodynamic characteristics.
6. Conclusion
The design process and the related aerodynamic analysis of
a low cost homemade UAV designed to accomplish aerial recon-
naissance at low altitude were developed. During the conceptual
design traditional sizing methods were used to carry out the first
UAV layout. The concepts of the previous phase was developed em-
ploying aerodynamic optimization to design the wing. PM and CFD
were also used to design the UAV wing and fuselage. Besides that,
 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483 481

Fig. 29. Results of the aerodynamic characteristics of the UAV.

Table 11
Results resume.

Aerodynamic parameters Isolated wing Full configuration without winglet Full configuration with winglet
Numerical Panel method Numerical Panel method Numerical Experimental
CL max 1.35 – 1.41 – 1.589 1.574
α for C L max 16◦ – 14◦ – 18◦ 17◦
C L α =0◦ 0.282 0.308 0.313 0.432 0.315 0.367
C D α =0◦ 0.0162 0.0128 0.032 0.0205 0.0321 0.0413
(C L /C D )max 24.29 28.83 15.54 25.96 15.31 15.81
α for (C L /C D )max 4◦ 2◦ 4◦ 2◦ 6◦ 6◦
3/2 1/2
(C L /C D )max 19.91 23.62 14.77 22.05 14.70 15.56
α for (C L3/2 /C 1D/2 )max 6◦ 6◦ 6◦ 4◦ 6◦ 6◦
C m α =0◦ – – – 0.014 0.011 0.015
αtrim – – – 1◦ 0.58◦ 0.96◦

the obtained configuration was tested in wind tunnel on purpose
to check the reliability of the used design approach.
Regarding the different obtained results from the different anal-
ysis, the UAV fulfills almost the whole design requirements and
exhibits similarity with existing UAV from market analysis in terms
of wing span, UAV length, total weight, payload and maximum
speed. The reached maximum speed of 110 km/h is smaller than
the required speed 120 km/h. To deal with this problem in future
works; a propeller efficiency optimization is suggested in order to
increase the available power, and also a drag minimization also is
recommended to reduce required power.
During the process of wing preliminary design using optimiza-
tion coupled with GA and ANN, it was concluded that such method
was efficient for the aerodynamic UAV designing using PM, since
the numerical results showed that the isolated wing and the full
configuration without winglet exhibited similar aerodynamic char-
acteristics. This strongly confirms that the wing is the main part
characterizing the UAV aerodynamic behavior. The main differ-
ence between the different results was observed in drag estimation
which leaded to a deviation in results especially those of aerody-
namic efficiency. Therefore, as a perspective for future work, it is
very advisable to take into consideration the underestimated drag
482 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483
Fig. 30. Static pressure distribution and streamlines on the UAV surface.
Fig. 31. UAV performances.
values during the sizing process by following enrichment strategy
during optimization introducing results from high fidelity solver
(for example CFD) to form a multi fidelity aerodynamic solver.
As noted that the maximum efficiency was set at low angles of
attacks, so improving drag estimation at these incidences leads
to approaching performances/constraints to their real values. In
addition introducing the empennage to optimization process and
adding more parameters in objective functions relating to UAV tail
sizing and at same time taking into account the aeroelastic effect
would significantly ameliorate the results and make the process of
optimization more reliable and efficient. The use of GA coupled
with ANN benefited the preliminary wing computation process
used in this paper in term of decreasing the required computa-
tion time. On the other hand, data from similar mini UAV already
designed were exploited in order to decrease researching time of
the optimum solution. The obtained results through this paper can
serve as a contribution to enrich the data base of existing small
range UAV since different results from Pareto front and other ob-
jective functions were explored.
Conflict of interest statement
There is no conflict of interest.
References
[1] K. Dalamagkidis, G.J. Vachtsevanos, K.P. Valavanis, Introduction, in: K.P. Valava-
nis, G.J. Vachtsevanos (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles,
Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London, 2015, pp. 1–99.
[2] R. Austin, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: UAVs Design, Development and Deploy-
ment, vol. 54, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
[3] P. Panagiotou, P. Kaparos, C. Salpingidou, K. Yakinthos, Aerodynamic design of
a MALE UAV, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 50 (2016) 127–138, https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ast.2015.12.033.
[4] A.C. Watts, V.G. Ambrosia, E.A. Hinkley, Unmanned aircraft systems in remote
sensing and scientific research: classification and considerations of use, Remote
Sens. 4 (2012) 1671–1692, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4061671.
[5] P.D.B. Mosquera, L.B. Bolivar, D.A. Giraldo, H.D.C. Muñoz, Aerodynamic design
analysis of a UAV for superficial research of volcanic environments, Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 70 (2017) 600–614, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.09.005.
[6] S.G. Kontogiannis, J.A. Ekaterinaris, Design, performance evaluation and opti-
mization of a UAV, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 29 (2013) 339–350, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ast.2013.04.005.
[7] S.G. Kontogiannis, D.E. Mazarakos, V. Kostopoulos, ATLAS IV wing aerodynamic
design: from conceptual approach to detailed optimization, Aerosp. Sci. Tech-
nol. 56 (2016) 135–147, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2016.07.002.
[8] P. Panagiotou, S. Fotiadis-Karras, K. Yakinthos, Conceptual design of a Blended
Wing Body MALE UAV, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 73 (Feb. 2018) 32–47, https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.11.032.
[9] P. Panagiotou, I. Tsavlidis, K. Yakinthos, Conceptual design of a hybrid solar
MALE UAV, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 53 (June 2016) 207–219, https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.ast.2016.03.023.
[10] G. Romeo, G. Frulla, E. Cestino, Design of a high-altitude long-endurance solar-
powered unmanned air vehicle for multi-payload and operations, Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng., G J. Aerosp. Eng. 221 (2007) 199–216.
[11] G. Frulla, E. Cestino, Design, manufacturing and testing of a HALE-UAV struc-
tural demonstrator, Compos. Struct. 83 (2008) 143–153.
[12] D.P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1992.
[13] J. Roskam, Airplane Design, DARcorporation, Lawrence, Kansas, 2004.
[14] J.D. Anderson, Aircraft Performance and Design, WCB/McGraw–Hill, Boston,
MA, 1999.
 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483
[15] Alcore technologies© , France, UAV, http://www.alcoretech.com/?vehicle_type=
uav/, 2014 (Accessed 30 January 2018).
[16] BAYKAR© , Turkey, systems-Bayraktar mini UAS, http://baykarmakina.com/en/
sistemler-2/bayraktar-mini-iha/, 2015 (Accessed 30 January 2018).
[17] S. Doyle, P. Donaldson, D. Lake, I. Kemp, Unmanned Vehicles Handbook 2008,
The Shephard Press Ltd., UK, 2007.
[18] Avia.pro© , encyclopedia, Unmanned LA, http://avia-pro.net/blog/bespilotnye-
letatelnye-apparaty-drony-istoriya, 2018 (Accessed 30 January 2018).
[19] BlueBird Aero systems© , UAV systems, SpyLite-Mini UAV, http://www.bluebird-
uav.com/spylite/, 2015 (Accessed 30 January 2018).
[20] WB Electronics S.A© , Poland, Solutions, BSP, Fly Eye, http://wb.com.pl/fly-eye-
2/?lang=en, 2011 (Accessed 30 January 2018).
[21] Department of the US Army, Army unmanned aircraft system operations, in:
Field Manual Interim, FMI 3-04.155, Washington, USA, 2006.
[22] D.W. Zingg, M. Nemec, T.H. Pulliam, A comparative evaluation of genetic and
gradient-based algorithms applied to aerodynamic optimization, Eur. J. Comput.
Mech. 17 (2008) 103–126, https://doi.org/10.3166/remn.17.103-126.
[23] M. Ebrahimi, A. Jahangirian, Aerodynamic optimization of airfoils using adap-
tive parameterization and genetic algorithm, J. Optim. Theory Appl. 162 (2014)
257–271, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-013-0442-1.
[24] M.S. Khurana, H. Winarto, A.K. Sinha, Application of swarm approach and arti-
ficial neural networks for airfoil shape optimization, in: 12th AIAA/ISSMO Mul-
tidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Victoria, British Columbia
Canada, 2008, pp. 1–15, AIAA 2008-5954.
[25] S. Worasinchai, G. Ingram, R. Dominy, A low-Reynolds-number, high-angle-
of-attack investigation of wind turbine aerofoils, J. Power Energy 255 (2011)
748–763, https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650911405411.
[26] C.A. Lyon, A.P. Broeren, P. Giguère, A. Gopalarathnam, M.S. Selig, Summary of
Low-Speed Airfoil Data, vol. 3, SoarTech Publications Virginia Beach, Virginia,
1997.
[27] XFLR5 V6.12,2016, GNU General public licence, http://www.xflr5.com, 2016
(Accessed 7 June 2018).
[28] A. Sóbester, A.I.J. Forrester, Aircraft Aerodynamic Design: Geometry and Opti-
mization, ©2015, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015.
[29] S. Rajagopal, R. Ganguli, Multidisciplinary design optimization of long en-
durance unmanned aerial vehicle wing, in: CMES – Computer Modeling in
Engineering and Sciences, vol. 81, 2011, pp. 1–34.
[30] XFLR5 v6.02 Guidelines, http://www.xflr5.com/xflr5.htm.
[31] B. Maskew, Program VSAERO Theory Document, NASA CR-4023, 1987.
[32] T.R. Yechout, S.L. Morris, D.E. Bossert, W.F. Hallgren, Introduction to Aircraft
Flight Mechanics: Performance, Static Stability, Dynamic Stability, and Classi-
cal Feedback Control, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
Reston, Virginia, 2003.
483
[33] Z. Rendulić, Mehanika Leta, Vojnoizdavački i Novinski centar, Belgrade, Serbia,
1987.
[34] F. Smetana, Flight Vehicle Performance and Aerodynamic, AIAA Wright-
Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2003.
[35] K. Velimirović, L.G. Krstajić, N. Velimirović, Electrical unmanned aerial vehicle:
parameters determination of optimal propeller, in: 43th Symposium on Opera-
tional Research, Tara, Serbia, 2016, pp. 1–6.
[36] J.N. Ostler, W.J. Bowman, D.O. Snyder, T.W. McLain, Performance flight testing
of small, electric powered unmanned aerial vehicles, Int. J. Micro Air Veh. 1
(2009) 155–171, https://doi.org/10.1260/175682909789996177.
[37] D.E. Rumelhart, G.E. Hinton, R.J. Williams, Learning internal representations by
error propagation, in: D.E. Rumelhart, J.L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel Data Pro-
cessing, vol. 1, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, pp. 318–362.
[38] T. Rajkumar, J. Bardina, Training data requirement for a neural network to pre-
dict aerodynamic coefficients, Proc. SPIE 5102 (2003) 92–103, https://doi.org/
10.1117/12.486343.
[39] C. Reeves, Genetic algorithms, in: F. Glover, G.A. Kochenberger (Eds.), Hand-
book of Metaheuristics, ©2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2003,
pp. 55–82.
[40] T.L. Holst, T.H. Pulliam, Aerodynamic shape optimization using a real-number-
encoded genetic algorithm, in: 19th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference,
Anaheim, CA, USA, 2001.
[41] R.T. Marler, J.S. Arora, The weighted sum method for multi-objective opti-
mization: new insights, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 41 (2010) 853–862, https://
doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0460-7.
[42] H. Sogukpinar, Numerical simulation of 4-digit inclined NACA 00xx airfoils to
find optimum angle of attack for airplane wing, Uludag Univ. J. Fac. Eng. 22
(2017) 169–178, https://doi.org/10.17482/uumfd.309470.
[43] Ansys Inc., ANSYS FLUENT 14.0 and GAMBIT 2.1 licensed to VTI, 2010.
[44] F.R. Menter, Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
applications, AIAA J. 32 (1994) 1598–1605, https://doi.org/10.2514/3.12149.
[45] G. Ocokoljić, D. Damljanović, B. Rašuo, J. Isaković, Testing of a standard model
in the VTI’s large-subsonic wind-tunnel facility to establish users’ confidence,
FME Trans. 42 (3) (2014) 212–217.
[46] A. Boutemedjet, M. Samardžić, D. Ćurčić, Z. Rajić, G. Ocokoljić, Wind tunnel
measurement of small values of rolling moment using six-component strain
gauge balance, Measurement 116 (2018) 438–450, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
measurement.2017.11.043.
[47] J. Weierman, J. Jacob, Winglet design and optimization for UAVs, in: 28th AIAA
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2010.