Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-tn8tq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-20T00:58:08.414Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The aerodynamic force estimation of a swept-wing UAV using ANFIS based on metaheuristic algorithms

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2023

M. Uzun ,
H.H. Bilgic Open the ORCID record for H.H. Bilgic [Opens in a new window] ,
E.H. Çopur Open the ORCID record for E.H. Çopur [Opens in a new window]  and
S. Çoban Open the ORCID record for S. Çoban [Opens in a new window]
M. Uzun
Affiliation:
Department of Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance, İskenderun Technical University, İskenderun, Türkiye
H.H. Bilgic*
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautical Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye
E.H. Çopur
Affiliation:
Department of Astronautical Engineering, Necmettin Erbakan University, Konya, Türkiye
S. Çoban
Affiliation:
Department of Airframe and Powerplant Maintenance, İskenderun Technical University, İskenderun, Türkiye
*
Corresponding author: H. H. Bilgic; Email: hhbilgic@erbakan.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In this paper, a new approach to modeling and controlling the problems associated with a morphing unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) is proposed. Within the scope of the study, a dataset was created by obtaining a wide range of aerodynamic parameters for the UAV with Ansys Fluent under variable conditions using the computational fluid dynamics approach. For this, a large dataset was created that considered 5 different angles of attack, 14 different swept angles, and 5 different velocities. While creating the dataset, the analyses were verified by considering studies that have been experimentally validated in the literature. Then, an artificial intelligence-based model was created using the dataset obtained. Metaheuristic algorithms such as the artificial bee colony algorithm, ant colony algorithm and genetic algorithms are used to increase the modeling success of the adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system (ANFIS) approach. A novel modeling approach is proposed that constitutes a new decision support system for real-time flight. According to the results obtained, all the ANFIS models based on metaheuristic algorithms were more successful than the traditional approach, the multilinear regression model. The swept angle that meets the minimum lift needed by the UAV for different flight conditions was estimated with the help of the designed decision support system. Thus, the drag force is minimised while obtaining the required lift force. The performance of the UAV was compared with the nonmorphing configuration, and the results are presented in tables and graphs.

Keywords

aerodynamic forceANFISmetaheuristic algorithmmorphingpredictionswept wing UAV
Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 128 , Issue 1322 , April 2024 , pp. 739 - 755
Check for updates
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of Royal Aeronautical Society

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Mariga, L., Tiburcio, I.S., Martins, C.A., Prado, A.A. and Nascimento, C. Measuring battery discharge characteristics for accurate UAV endurance estimation, Aeronaut. J., 2020, 124, (1277), pp 1099–1113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, N., Liu, X., Yu, B., Li, L., Xu, J. and Tan, Q. Study on the environmental adaptability of lithium-ion battery powered UAV under extreme temperature conditions, Energy, 2021, 219, p 119481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shao, P., Wu, J., Wu, C. and Ma, S. Model and robust gain-scheduled PID control of a bio-inspired morphing UAV based on LPV method, Asian J. Control, 2019, 21, (4), pp 1681–1705.Google Scholar
Anderson, J.D. and Bowden, M.L. Introduction to Flight (Vol. 582), McGraw-Hill Higher Education, 2005, New York.Google Scholar
Li, D., Zhao, S., Da Ronch, A., Xiang, J., Drofelnik, J., Li, Y., Zhang, L., Wu, Y., Kintscher, M., Monner, H.P., Rudenko, A., Guo, S., Yin, W., Kirn, J., Storm, S. and De Breuker, R. A review of modelling and analysis of morphing wings, Prog. Aerospace Sci., 2018, 100, pp 46–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weaver-Rosen, J.M., Leal, P.B., Hartl, D.J. and Malak, R.J. Parametric optimization for morphing structures design: application to morphing wings adapting to changing flight conditions, Struct. Multidiscip. Optim., 2020, 62, (6), pp 2995–3007.Google Scholar
Elelwi, M., Kuitche, M.A., Botez, R.M. and Dao, T.M. Comparison and analyses of a variable span-morphing of the tapered wing with a varying sweep angle, Aeronaut. J., 2020, 124, (1278), pp 1146–1169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kundu, A.K. Aircraft Design (Vol. 27), Cambridge University Press, 2010, New York, USA.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, B., Dai, P., Liu, R., Xing, M. and Liu, S. Adaptive super-twisting sliding mode control of variable swept morphing aircraft, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2019, 92, pp 198–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xu, W., Li, Y., Lv, M. and Pei, B. Modeling and switching adaptive control for nonlinear morphing aircraft considering actuator dynamics, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2022, 122, p 107349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dai, P., Yan, B., Huang, W., Zhen, Y., Wang, M. and Liu, S. Design and aerodynamic performance analysis of a variable-swept-wing morphing waverider, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2020, 98, p 105703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roy, A.G. and Peyada, N.K. Aircraft parameter estimation using hybrid neuro fuzzy and artificial bee colony optimization (HNFABC) algorithm, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2017, 71, pp 772–782.Google Scholar
Homa, D., Wróblewski, W., Majkut, M. and Strozik, M. Experimental and numerical investigation of cavitation on Clark Y foil, Journal of Physics: Conference Series (Vol. 1101, No. 1). IOP Publishing, 2018, p 012008.Google Scholar
Kheir-aldeen, M. and Hamid, A. Experimental study to the effect of gurney flap on the Clark Y-14 airfoil wing model, Int. J. Innovation Sci. Res., 2014, 9, (1), pp 120–32.Google Scholar
Douvi, C.E., Tsavalos, I.A. and Margaris, P.D. Evaluation of the turbulence models for the simulation of the flow over a National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics (NACA) 0012 airfoil, J. Mech. Eng. Res., 2012, 4, (3), pp 100–111.Google Scholar
Wilcox, D.C. Simulation of transition with a two-equation turbulence model, AIAA J., 1994, 32, (2), pp 247–255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menter, F.R., Langtry, R.B., Likki, S.R., Suzen, Y.B., Huang, P.G. and Völker, S. A correlation-based transition model using local variables—part I: model formulation, J. Turbomach., 2006, 128, (3), pp 413–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Langtry, R. and Menter, F. Transition modeling for general CFD applications in aeronautics, 43rd AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, 2005, p 522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menter, F.R. Improved two-equation k-omega turbulence models for aerodynamic flows (No. A-92183), 1992.Google Scholar
Menter, F. Zonal two equation kw turbulence models for aerodynamic flows, 23rd Fluid Dynamics, Plasmadynamics, and Lasers Conference, 1993, p 2906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Menter, F.R. Two-equation eddy-viscosity turbulence models for engineering applications, AIAA J., 1994, 32, (8), pp 1598–1605.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sevim, U.K., Bilgic, H.H., Cansiz, O.F., Ozturk, M. and Atis, C.D. Compressive strength prediction models for cementitious composites with fly ash using machine learning techniques, Constr. Build. Mater., 2021, 271, p 121584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Suresh, S., Omkar, S.N., Mani, V. and Prakash, T.G. Lift coefficient prediction at high angle of attack using recurrent neural network, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2003, 7, (8), pp 595–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgado, J., Vizinho, R., Silvestre, M.A.R. and Páscoa, J.C. XFOIL vs CFD performance predictions for high lift low Reynolds number airfoils, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2016, 52, pp 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Oktay, T., Arik, S., Turkmen, I., Uzun, M. and Celik, H. Neural network based redesign of morphing UAV for simultaneous improvement of roll stability and maximum lift/drag ratio, Aircraft Eng. Aerospace Technol., 2018, 90, (8), pp 1203–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bagis, A. and Konar, M. Comparison of Sugeno and Mamdani fuzzy models optimized by artificial bee colony algorithm for nonlinear system modelling, Trans. Inst. Meas. Control, 2016, 38, (5), pp 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bilgic, H.H., Guvenc, M.A., Çakır, M. and Mistikoglu, S. A study on prediction of surface roughness and cutting tool temperature after turning for s235jr steel, Konya Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, 2019, 7, pp 966–974.Google Scholar
Bilgiç, H.H. and Mert, İ. Comparison of different techniques for estimation of incoming longwave radiation, Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol., 2021, 18, (3), pp 601–618.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mert, İ., Bilgic, H.H., Yağlı, H. and Koç, Y. Deep neural network approach to estimation of power production for an organic Rankine cycle system, J. Braz. Soc. Mech. Sci. Eng., 2020, 42, (12), pp 1–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jang, J.S. ANFIS: adaptive-network-based fuzzy inference system, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern., 1993, 23, (3), pp 665–685.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Isermann, R. On fuzzy logic applications for automatic control, supervision, and fault diagnosis, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern.-Part A Syst. Hum., 1998, 28, (2), pp 221–235.Google Scholar
Shehabeldeen, T.A., Abd Elaziz, M., Elsheikh, A.H. and Zhou, J. Modeling of friction stir welding process using adaptive neuro-fuzzy inference system integrated with harris hawks optimizer, J. Mater. Res. Technol., 2019, 8, (6), pp 5882–5892.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Han, Z., Chen, M., Shao, S. and Wu, Q. Improved artificial bee colony algorithm-based path planning of unmanned autonomous helicopter using multi-strategy evolutionary learning, Aerospace Sci. Technol., 2022, 122, p 107374.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holland John, H. Adaptation in Natural and Artificial Systems, University of Michigan Press, 1975, Ann Arbor.Google Scholar
Mirjalili, S. Genetic algorithm, in Evolutionary Algorithms and Neural Networks, Springer, 2019, Cham, pp 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Eberhart, R. and Kennedy, J. A new optimizer using particle swarm theory, MHS‘95. Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Micro Machine and Human Science, IEEE, 1995, pp 39–43.Google Scholar
Dorigo, M., Maniezzo, V. and Colorni, A. The ant system: An autocatalytic optimizing process, 1991.Google Scholar
Song, M.A.O. and Zhao, C.L. Unequal clustering algorithm for WSN based on fuzzy logic and improved ACO, J. China Univ. Posts Telecommun., 2011, 18, (6), pp 89–97.Google Scholar
Chen, Y., Bai, G., Zhan, Y., Hu, X. and Liu, J. Path planning and obstacle avoiding of the USV based on improved ACO-APF hybrid algorithm with adaptive early-warning, IEEE Access, 2021, 9, pp 40728–40742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rao, R.V., Savsani, V.J. and Vakharia, D.P. Teaching–learning-based optimization: an optimization method for continuous non-linear large scale problems, Inf. Sci., 2012, 183, (1), pp 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nagaraj, B. and Murugananth, N. A comparative study of PID controller tuning using GA, EP, PSO and ACO, 2010 International Conference On Communication Control And Computing Technologies, IEEE, 2010, pp 305–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adrian, A.M., Utamima, A. and Wang, K.J. A comparative study of GA, PSO and ACO for solving construction site layout optimization, KSCE J. Civil Eng., 2015, 19, pp 520–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tam, J.H., Ong, Z.C., Ismail, Z., Ang, B.C. and Khoo, S.Y. A new hybrid GA− ACO− PSO algorithm for solving various engineering design problems, Int. J. Comput. Math., 2019, 96, (5), pp 883–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Silverstein, A. Scale effect on Clark Y airfoil characteristics from NACA full-scale wind-tunnel tests (No. NACA-TR-502), 1935.Google Scholar