Professional Documents
Culture Documents
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.
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
3. Conceptual design
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
The conceptual design is a procedure, in which the first esti-
estimated respectively 8.2 kg, 6.7 kg, however for a fixed total
mates regarding aerodynamics, configuration, size, weight and per-
weight of 7 kg, the empty weight and payload weight were found
formance are calculated. In the following sections, a brief summary
respectively 5.65 kg, 1.35 kg. The empty weight of 5.65 kg was fit-
of UAV conceptual design is presented.
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
3.1. Design requirements and objectives
time using honeycomb composite material which significantly con-
tributes to reduce the weight.
In the present study a mini UAV was selected to accomplish
reconnaissance missions. The camera technical limits required the 3.3. Airfoil selection
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 For the simplicity of construction no slats or flaps were used to
12 m/s. These limits were based on typical weight that can be car- produce high lift. However a high lift, low Reynolds number airfoil
ried and hand launched by a single person and at same time allow- section was selected to satisfy the main design requirements. Since
ing an easy transportation, ensuring good quality filming photos composite materials were selected to manufacture the wing, the
and reducing take off distance. As the most used UAVs for recon- choice of the adequate airfoil was not limited by airfoil thickness
naissance purpose, the selected UAV for this study was equipped constraints. Hence, regardless the airfoil thickness, the selection
with electric motor since it contributes to the simplicity of instal- criteria were the aerodynamic efficiency, maximum lift coefficient,
lation and the low costs. The power of motor was estimated about and minimum drag coefficient. Three airfoil sections were consid-
800 W. Rate of climb after takeoff was taken into consideration as ered during the choice of the airfoil: NACA 643-418, Wortmann
a requirement, equals to 5 m/s, which is related to climbing time FX63-137 and SD7062. The airfoils were simulated using PM and
to operative altitude as well as the safe of nearby people, espe- changes in maximum lift coefficient, maximum efficiency and drag
cially in a city environment. A maximum speed of 120 km/h and a coefficient at zero angle of attack with increasing Reynolds number
long endurance flying were required during the sizing of the UAV. are resumed in Table 3.
Analyzing results from Table 3, it is clear that airfoil NACA
3.2. Weight estimation presents small lift coefficient values thus justifying the exclusion
of such airfoil from the wing design. In other side Wortmann
Total weight W estimation was based on that the total weight FX63-137 airfoil presents greater lift coefficient and higher effi-
of the designed UAV was divided into payload weight W p and ciency compared to SD7062, however the last mentioned airfoil
empty weight W e . The empty weight included the structure, mo- produces lower drag with acceptable efficiency and lift coefficient.
tor, propeller, batteries, fixed equipment, and anything else not Hence SD7062 airfoil section (Fig. 2) was selected to be used for
considered a part of payload. The payload weight was consid- wing design process. The chosen airfoil is characterized by a max-
ered the weight of the reconnaissance equipment estimated about imum thickness of 13.98% at position of 27.22% and with a maxi-
mum camber of 3.97% at position of 38.82%.
1.5 kg. The total weight is expressed as:
The airfoil was analyzed at Reynolds numbers (Re) 2 × 105 ,
3 × 105 and 4 × 105 . The obtained results were compared to ex-
W = We + W p (1)
perimental measurements [26]. Fig. 3 shows that the results from
The empty weight was statistically estimated from historical X-foil analysis were generally well consistent with those from ex-
trends of existing UAV with similar requirements and configuration perimental measurements.
(Table 1). Fig. 1 presents the curve fit equation of empty weight Table 4 resumes the main aerodynamic characteristics of the
W e versus total weight W , the fit equation was given as follows: chosen airfoil that were derived from lift coefficient versus angle
of attack (α ) curve and drag polar.
W e = 0.85W − 0.27 (2) The comparison of experimental results and those computed
using PM revealed some differences between the two cases. For
In this study, an UAV configuration with a total weight of 7 kg C L max , airfoil presented experimental greater values which can be
and a payload of 1.5 kg was the objective of the weight estimation 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.
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
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.
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
PA = TAV (25)
PR = TRV (26)
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
(27) Fig. 10. Artificial neural network structure.
ρ S 2
C L /C D
basic aerodynamic coefficients were set as ANN output, Fig. 10.
Since the propulsion system produces smaller thrust increasing Among the different models of ANN, the Back Propagation algo-
flight altitude due to air density reduction, then the available rithm is one of the most known and widely used. This algorithm
power at an altitude h ( P Ah ) was approximated as follows: was the first practical method for training a multiple layer net-
ρh work.
P Ah = TAV (28) The input and output data generated from 256 simulations us-
ρ0
ing aerodynamic solver were used to train the network until it
where ρh and ρ0 are respectively the densities at the required al- approximated the aerodynamic coefficient functions. Each pair of
titude and at the sea level. data (the input and the corresponding output) went through two
The difference between available power and the required power phases. The forward pass involved presenting a sample input to the
represents the excess power. Rate of climb is equal to excess power network and letting the activations flow until they reach the out-
divided by the weight of the UAV and is given by Eq. (29). put layer. During the backward pass, the network’s actual output
(from the forward pass) was compared with the target output and
PA − PR
ROC = (29) errors were computed for the output units [37]. Both coefficients
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- corresponding data set.
tract UAV minimum velocity, this minimum velocity corresponds Defining the architecture of ANN depends on the number of
to stalling speed described by the equation: layers, the number of hidden neurons, the type of transfer func-
tion, the training algorithm and the validation of ANN. For inter-
2 W 1 polating the basic aerodynamic coefficients, a three layer neural
VS = (30) network with input layer, hidden layer and output layer was cho-
ρ0 S C L max
sen. This type of ANN was considered in this case because of the
Since XFLR5 was not able to predict the exact value of C L max , it limited available data. Concerning the number of neurons, the in-
was approximated as the last value interpolated from the regener- put layer in the case of a single angle of attack was set with four
ated polar in order to simplify computation. input neurons (WL, AR, TR and θ ) while the output layer had just
UAV maximum speed was obtained as the maximum speed re- one neuron (C L or C D ). The appropriate number of hidden neu-
lated to zero excess power between the available and the required rons was determined through testing several networks where the
powers. number of hidden neurons was increased from one to five times
the number of input neurons. A number of 20 hidden neurons
4.3. Artificial neural network provided acceptable efficient fitting results. The use of 20 hid-
den neurons agrees with the assumption proven by T. Rajkumar
In this study, an ANN was introduced to define the process or and J. Bardina [38] which postulates that the number of hidden
the relation that associates each element of an input set to a single neurons equals five times the number of input neurons provides
element of the output set. During the ANN building the optimiza- good prediction of aerodynamic coefficients. The transfer function
tion design variables were considered as ANN input, however the is a continuous real-valued function that determines the neuron
472 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483
output values from the inputs. For this study, Tanh transfer func- Fig. 12. The average of percentage error for C L network was 11.6%,
tion was selected because it yields fast training since it produces which was considered as an acceptable range; however the aver-
both positive and negative values. Due to its guarantied conver- age percentage error reached the value of 15.57% in the case of
gence and its numerical robustness, Levenberg–Marquardt method drag coefficient prediction, this due to small variations of the drag
was selected to train the network. For more efficiency, the inputs coefficient from data base input. Most simulated candidates were
and outputs were scaled to range [−1, 1]. Network training error distributed in the interval that represents error of 0%–10%. His-
was performed using mean-square error between theoretical re- tograms showed also that 70% of tested candidates within error
sults and those computed by the network. More details about the between 0% and 20% concerning the C D coefficient compared to
architecture of the used NN are presented in [24,38] 77% concerning C L coefficient, which is considered acceptable.
The response of the modeled networks concerning the lift and According to the diagrams of error distribution (Fig. 13), the
drag coefficients was presented by performing a regression analy- maximum achieved errors for C L and C D are 290% and 272% re-
sis between networks’ outputs and the associated theoretical data. spectively. And it was noted that the error is regularly spaced in
The outputs of the ANN were plotted versus the theoretical values the whole test domain. According to ANN error percentage and
with open circle points, the dashed line presented the ideal fit, the distribution analysis, the trained ANN presents acceptable charac-
correlation between network and theoretical data was given by the teristics; however, the ANN requires design modifications to fur-
solid line, Fig. 11. The trained networks showed acceptable linear ther reduce the percentage error and ameliorate data scatter.
fit and exhibited values of R-correlation near to 1.
In spite the R-correlation values showed an excellent fit be- 4.4. Genetic algorithm
tween the outputs of the trained networks and the theoretical
data, the analysis of the networks performances based on pre- In the present GA optimization, design candidates, design vari-
diction errors is more suitable. The error was performed as the ables and objective function are corresponding respectively to the
percentage error between network simulation and theoretical data, chromosomes, gens and fitness. During solution initialization, the
A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483 473
Table 6
Test domain.
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
Fig. 14. Convergence history for endurance ratio maximization.
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 4.5. Optimization results
first operation required to determine the next generation, where
4.5.1. Endurance ratio maximization
the chromosomes are copied in mating pool according to their
The convergence history of the genetic algorithm is plotted in
rank. Pass through is an elitist strategy operator where twenty Fig. 14. The plotted function is the endurance ratio since it is ap-
percent of the fittest chromosomes are directly transferred into proximately equal to objective function except a small difference
the next generation to ensure that the fitness never drops from due to contribution from constraints. The function was increased
generation to generation. The next implemented GA operator is from 19.8 to 23.62 after 47 iterations, after 400 iterations (16000
called Crossover. This operator is used to create new genes from calls to the NN) the GA produced a wing with endurance ratio of
parent chromosomes that are randomly selected. A simple one- 23.65.
point crossover operator was used to determine twenty percent
of chromosomes for the next generation. Mutation is a GA oper- 4.5.2. Drag coefficient minimization at α = 0◦
ator that used to generate thirty percent of the next generation The corresponding convergence history of drag minimization is
shown in Fig. 15. Since the objective function related to drag min-
chromosomes where it was applied to randomly selected genes of
imization had low values, the plotted function was 1/ f . After 50
each chromosome. Perturbation mutation is the last used GA oper-
iterations, the equivalent function is increased to 28.14 for a drag
ator which is implemented in the same way as mutation; however,
coefficient of 0.00951. After 400 iterations, the produced wing gen-
gen’s value is modified as follows:
erates a drag coefficient of 0.0095 corresponding to an equivalent
function value of 28.33.
xk+1 = xk + (xmax − xmin ) R (0, 1) − 0.5 β (31)
4.5.3. Multiobjective optimization
where xk is the chosen gene first value and β is a specified toler- In this optimization, the two-dimension Pareto front was pro-
ance. β is chosen equal to 0.001 to avoid gene’s values, modified duced by genetic algorithm using the weighted sum approach and
by this operator, to exceed its limits as given in Table 6. The num- the gradient-based technique and. In this optimization, the gra-
ber of modified chromosomes using this operator is set to thirty dient technique was used in order to verify the obtained results
percent. The used GA was built at the VTI laboratory basing on the with GA. The generated front using gradient based technique can
details presented in [39,40]. 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
Table 8
Optimal wing characteristics.
Table 9
Similarities between the designed UAV and the existing UAVs from market analysis.
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.
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% Fig. 24. The UAV model in the T-35 wind tunnel test section.
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 A data reduction was performed using standard T-35 wind tun-
model support, Fig. 24. The model was supported by bent sting nel software package. The data acquisition system consisted of
which enabled angles of attack in the range −6.5◦ ÷ +23.5◦ . The 64-channel Neff 620/600 system controlled by VAX 8250 computer.
bent sting was mounted on a pitch and roll mechanism which en- The data from all analog channels were digitalized by a 16-bit
abled both step-by-step and continuous model movement. Position resolution A/D converter. The overall accuracy of the acquisition
accuracy of the model support was 0.1◦ in pitch and roll. During system was about 0.05% to 0.1% FS of the channel signal range. All
the tests, the stagnation pressure in the test section was measured channels were sampled with the same 200 sample/s rate.
by Mensor quartz bourdon tube absolute pressure transducer. The Aerodynamic forces and moments acting on the model were
measuring range of such transducer is 1.65 bar and its nonlinear- measured using an internal six-component monoblock strain gauge
ity and hysteresis is about 0.02% of its full scale (FS). The static balance, Fig. 25. The balance diameter is 35 mm. Table 10 lists its
pressure was measured by differential pressure Druck transducer design loads and gives a summary of achieved accuracy of the cal-
with a range of 0.07 bar. Nonlinearity and hysteresis of the Druck ibration as obtained in checkout after the calculation matrix. The
transducer is about 0.05% FS. 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
effect of stall detachments. Hence the measured UAV drag was in- The static pressure distribution and the streamlines on the UAV
creased under the direct influence of the tail vibrations. surfaces are presented in Fig. 30. The study of the flow field was
The aerodynamic efficiency curves are resumed in Fig. 29.c. The carried out in order to explain the UAV aerodynamic behavior, to
corresponding angle of attack to the maximum lift to drag ratio us- get information about the location of the flight control surfaces
ing PM was α = 2◦ , in other side both numerical and experimental and to determine the aerodynamic loads to be applied on the UAV
curves presented similar values at similar angles, being 15.82 and structure analysis and sizing. For the angle of attack 0◦ it was ob-
15.31 at α = 6◦ respectively. Therefore, this angle of attack is cor- served that the streamlines are attached to the UAV surface and
responding to the minimal required thrust for accomplishing the no significant variation of the flow field was observed. However
reconnaissance mission. for the angle of attack 16◦ , fluid separation areas appeared on the
Fig. 29.d presents the variations of pitching moment coefficient wing and between the horizontal and the vertical stabilizers. This
at the center of gravity versus the angles of attack. It was noted is manly caused by the stall effect that takes place at high angles
that the three methods gave similar results especially for low an- of attack.
gles of attack where the curves presented positive moment coef- During UAV performance evaluation, the most important in-
ficient at zero angle of attack, similar trim position α = 1◦ and formation that has to be derived is the drag polar. Combined
negative slope. Thus the longitudinal stability conditions for ensur- to the propulsion system available thrust, results from PM, CFD
ing UAV balance were satisfied. and wind tunnel tests were used to calculate UAV important per-
Table 11 summarize the main results obtained during the pro- formance parameters (Fig. 31) including required power, rate of
cess of aerodynamic design, it was concluded that both numerical climb, maximum velocity and stall speed. Fig. 31.a shows the
and experimental results of the UAV final configuration presented available power and the required power evaluated using results
well concordance between them. Regarding the values evolution of from different analysis. The different methods have almost the
drag coefficient, it was observed that the coefficient experimental same stall limit which corresponds to a stall speed of 9.6 m/s.
value was greater than the value estimated in the other cases; this The obtained stall speed indicates that the designed UAV provides
was reflected directly on the UAV performance, since it increased enough maximum lift coefficient to fulfill stall constraint. Regard-
the required power Eq. (12). In spite of that, the designed UAV ing the achieved maximum speed, using PM the speed was found
satisfied the most of requirements with the adjustment of some 126 km/h which is in good agreement with V M constraint, how-
parameters. ever, the reached speed using CFD and experimental results were
480 A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483
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 6. Conclusion
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- The design process and the related aerodynamic analysis of
tained maximum values of ROC using PM, CFD and experimental a low cost homemade UAV designed to accomplish aerial recon-
tests were respectively: 7.81 m/s, 6.77 m/s and 6.53 m/s. It is naissance at low altitude were developed. During the conceptual
clearly that the UAV withstands with constraint related to ROC. design traditional sizing methods were used to carry out the first
As it is illustrated, there is a similarity between the performances UAV layout. The concepts of the previous phase was developed em-
computed using both of CFD and experimental results which is the ploying aerodynamic optimization to design the wing. PM and CFD
projection of similarity in aerodynamic characteristics. 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
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 During the process of wing preliminary design using optimiza-
to check the reliability of the used design approach. tion coupled with GA and ANN, it was concluded that such method
Regarding the different obtained results from the different anal- was efficient for the aerodynamic UAV designing using PM, since
ysis, the UAV fulfills almost the whole design requirements and the numerical results showed that the isolated wing and the full
exhibits similarity with existing UAV from market analysis in terms configuration without winglet exhibited similar aerodynamic char-
of wing span, UAV length, total weight, payload and maximum acteristics. This strongly confirms that the wing is the main part
speed. The reached maximum speed of 110 km/h is smaller than characterizing the UAV aerodynamic behavior. The main differ-
the required speed 120 km/h. To deal with this problem in future ence between the different results was observed in drag estimation
works; a propeller efficiency optimization is suggested in order to which leaded to a deviation in results especially those of aerody-
increase the available power, and also a drag minimization also is namic efficiency. Therefore, as a perspective for future work, it is
recommended to reduce required power. 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.
values during the sizing process by following enrichment strategy [2] R. Austin, Unmanned Aircraft Systems: UAVs Design, Development and Deploy-
during optimization introducing results from high fidelity solver ment, vol. 54, John Wiley & Sons, 2011.
(for example CFD) to form a multi fidelity aerodynamic solver. [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/
As noted that the maximum efficiency was set at low angles of j.ast.2015.12.033.
attacks, so improving drag estimation at these incidences leads [4] A.C. Watts, V.G. Ambrosia, E.A. Hinkley, Unmanned aircraft systems in remote
to approaching performances/constraints to their real values. In sensing and scientific research: classification and considerations of use, Remote
addition introducing the empennage to optimization process and Sens. 4 (2012) 1671–1692, https://doi.org/10.3390/rs4061671.
adding more parameters in objective functions relating to UAV tail [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.
sizing and at same time taking into account the aeroelastic effect
Technol. 70 (2017) 600–614, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.09.005.
would significantly ameliorate the results and make the process of [6] S.G. Kontogiannis, J.A. Ekaterinaris, Design, performance evaluation and opti-
optimization more reliable and efficient. The use of GA coupled mization of a UAV, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 29 (2013) 339–350, https://doi.org/10.
with ANN benefited the preliminary wing computation process 1016/j.ast.2013.04.005.
used in this paper in term of decreasing the required computa- [7] S.G. Kontogiannis, D.E. Mazarakos, V. Kostopoulos, ATLAS IV wing aerodynamic
tion time. On the other hand, data from similar mini UAV already 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.
designed were exploited in order to decrease researching time of
[8] P. Panagiotou, S. Fotiadis-Karras, K. Yakinthos, Conceptual design of a Blended
the optimum solution. The obtained results through this paper can Wing Body MALE UAV, Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 73 (Feb. 2018) 32–47, https://doi.
serve as a contribution to enrich the data base of existing small org/10.1016/j.ast.2017.11.032.
range UAV since different results from Pareto front and other ob- [9] P. Panagiotou, I. Tsavlidis, K. Yakinthos, Conceptual design of a hybrid solar
jective functions were explored. 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-
Conflict of interest statement
powered unmanned air vehicle for multi-payload and operations, Proc. Inst.
Mech. Eng., G J. Aerosp. Eng. 221 (2007) 199–216.
There is no conflict of interest. [11] G. Frulla, E. Cestino, Design, manufacturing and testing of a HALE-UAV struc-
tural demonstrator, Compos. Struct. 83 (2008) 143–153.
References [12] D.P. Raymer, Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Reston, VA, 1992.
[1] K. Dalamagkidis, G.J. Vachtsevanos, K.P. Valavanis, Introduction, in: K.P. Valava- [13] J. Roskam, Airplane Design, DARcorporation, Lawrence, Kansas, 2004.
nis, G.J. Vachtsevanos (Eds.), Springer Handbook of Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, [14] J.D. Anderson, Aircraft Performance and Design, WCB/McGraw–Hill, Boston,
Springer, Dordrecht, Heidelberg, New York, London, 2015, pp. 1–99. MA, 1999.
A. Boutemedjet et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 84 (2019) 464–483 483
[15] Alcore technologies© , France, UAV, http://www.alcoretech.com/?vehicle_type= [33] Z. Rendulić, Mehanika Leta, Vojnoizdavački i Novinski centar, Belgrade, Serbia,
uav/, 2014 (Accessed 30 January 2018). 1987.
[16] BAYKAR© , Turkey, systems-Bayraktar mini UAS, http://baykarmakina.com/en/ [34] F. Smetana, Flight Vehicle Performance and Aerodynamic, AIAA Wright-
sistemler-2/bayraktar-mini-iha/, 2015 (Accessed 30 January 2018). Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, 2003.
[17] S. Doyle, P. Donaldson, D. Lake, I. Kemp, Unmanned Vehicles Handbook 2008, [35] K. Velimirović, L.G. Krstajić, N. Velimirović, Electrical unmanned aerial vehicle:
The Shephard Press Ltd., UK, 2007. parameters determination of optimal propeller, in: 43th Symposium on Opera-
[18] Avia.pro© , encyclopedia, Unmanned LA, http://avia-pro.net/blog/bespilotnye- tional Research, Tara, Serbia, 2016, pp. 1–6.
letatelnye-apparaty-drony-istoriya, 2018 (Accessed 30 January 2018). [36] J.N. Ostler, W.J. Bowman, D.O. Snyder, T.W. McLain, Performance flight testing
[19] BlueBird Aero systems© , UAV systems, SpyLite-Mini UAV, http://www.bluebird- of small, electric powered unmanned aerial vehicles, Int. J. Micro Air Veh. 1
uav.com/spylite/, 2015 (Accessed 30 January 2018). (2009) 155–171, https://doi.org/10.1260/175682909789996177.
[20] WB Electronics S.A© , Poland, Solutions, BSP, Fly Eye, http://wb.com.pl/fly-eye-
[37] D.E. Rumelhart, G.E. Hinton, R.J. Williams, Learning internal representations by
2/?lang=en, 2011 (Accessed 30 January 2018).
error propagation, in: D.E. Rumelhart, J.L. McClelland (Eds.), Parallel Data Pro-
[21] Department of the US Army, Army unmanned aircraft system operations, in:
cessing, vol. 1, The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986, pp. 318–362.
Field Manual Interim, FMI 3-04.155, Washington, USA, 2006.
[38] T. Rajkumar, J. Bardina, Training data requirement for a neural network to pre-
[22] D.W. Zingg, M. Nemec, T.H. Pulliam, A comparative evaluation of genetic and
dict aerodynamic coefficients, Proc. SPIE 5102 (2003) 92–103, https://doi.org/
gradient-based algorithms applied to aerodynamic optimization, Eur. J. Comput.
10.1117/12.486343.
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- [39] C. Reeves, Genetic algorithms, in: F. Glover, G.A. Kochenberger (Eds.), Hand-
tive parameterization and genetic algorithm, J. Optim. Theory Appl. 162 (2014) book of Metaheuristics, ©2003, Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, 2003,
257–271, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10957-013-0442-1. pp. 55–82.
[24] M.S. Khurana, H. Winarto, A.K. Sinha, Application of swarm approach and arti- [40] T.L. Holst, T.H. Pulliam, Aerodynamic shape optimization using a real-number-
ficial neural networks for airfoil shape optimization, in: 12th AIAA/ISSMO Mul- encoded genetic algorithm, in: 19th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference,
tidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, Victoria, British Columbia Anaheim, CA, USA, 2001.
Canada, 2008, pp. 1–15, AIAA 2008-5954. [41] R.T. Marler, J.S. Arora, The weighted sum method for multi-objective opti-
[25] S. Worasinchai, G. Ingram, R. Dominy, A low-Reynolds-number, high-angle- mization: new insights, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim. 41 (2010) 853–862, https://
of-attack investigation of wind turbine aerofoils, J. Power Energy 255 (2011) doi.org/10.1007/s00158-009-0460-7.
748–763, https://doi.org/10.1177/0957650911405411. [42] H. Sogukpinar, Numerical simulation of 4-digit inclined NACA 00xx airfoils to
[26] C.A. Lyon, A.P. Broeren, P. Giguère, A. Gopalarathnam, M.S. Selig, Summary of find optimum angle of attack for airplane wing, Uludag Univ. J. Fac. Eng. 22
Low-Speed Airfoil Data, vol. 3, SoarTech Publications Virginia Beach, Virginia, (2017) 169–178, https://doi.org/10.17482/uumfd.309470.
1997. [43] Ansys Inc., ANSYS FLUENT 14.0 and GAMBIT 2.1 licensed to VTI, 2010.
[27] XFLR5 V6.12,2016, GNU General public licence, http://www.xflr5.com, 2016 [44] F.R. Menter, Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering
(Accessed 7 June 2018). applications, AIAA J. 32 (1994) 1598–1605, https://doi.org/10.2514/3.12149.
[28] A. Sóbester, A.I.J. Forrester, Aircraft Aerodynamic Design: Geometry and Opti-
[45] G. Ocokoljić, D. Damljanović, B. Rašuo, J. Isaković, Testing of a standard model
mization, ©2015, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2015.
in the VTI’s large-subsonic wind-tunnel facility to establish users’ confidence,
[29] S. Rajagopal, R. Ganguli, Multidisciplinary design optimization of long en-
FME Trans. 42 (3) (2014) 212–217.
durance unmanned aerial vehicle wing, in: CMES – Computer Modeling in
[46] A. Boutemedjet, M. Samardžić, D. Ćurčić, Z. Rajić, G. Ocokoljić, Wind tunnel
Engineering and Sciences, vol. 81, 2011, pp. 1–34.
measurement of small values of rolling moment using six-component strain
[30] XFLR5 v6.02 Guidelines, http://www.xflr5.com/xflr5.htm.
gauge balance, Measurement 116 (2018) 438–450, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
[31] B. Maskew, Program VSAERO Theory Document, NASA CR-4023, 1987.
measurement.2017.11.043.
[32] T.R. Yechout, S.L. Morris, D.E. Bossert, W.F. Hallgren, Introduction to Aircraft
[47] J. Weierman, J. Jacob, Winglet design and optimization for UAVs, in: 28th AIAA
Flight Mechanics: Performance, Static Stability, Dynamic Stability, and Classi-
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Chicago, Illinois, USA, 2010.
cal Feedback Control, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.,
Reston, Virginia, 2003.