Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-20T00:41:03.815Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conceptual design of UAV using Kriging based multi-objective genetic algorithm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 February 2016

S. Rajagopal  and
R. Ganguli
S. Rajagopal
Affiliation:
Aeronautical Development Establishment, DRDO, Bangalore, India
R. Ganguli
Affiliation:
Department of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, India
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This paper highlights unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) conceptual design using the multi-objective genetic algorithm (MOGA). The design problem is formulated as a multidisciplinary design optimisation (MDO) problem by coupling aerodynamic and structural analysis. The UAV considered in this paper is a low speed, long endurance aircraft. The optimisation problem uses endurance maximization and wing weight minimisation as dual objective functions. In this multi-objective optimisation, aspect ratio, wing loading, taper ratio, thickness-to-chord ratio, loiter velocity and loiter altitude are considered as design variables with stall speed, maximum speed and rate of climb as constraints. The MDO system integrates the aircraft design code, RDS and an empirical relation for objective function evaluation. In this study, the optimisation problem is solved in two approaches. In the first approach, the RDS code is directly integrated in the optimisation loop. In the second approach, Kriging model is employed. The second approach is fast and efficient as the meta-model reduces the time of computation. A relatively new multi-objective evolutionary algorithm named NSGA-II (non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm) is used to capture the full Pareto front for the dual objective problem. As a result of optimisation using multi-objective genetic algorithm, several non-dominated solutions indicating number of useful Pareto optimal designs is identified.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 112 , Issue 1137 , November 2008 , pp. 653 - 662
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2008

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

1. Sobieski, I. and Haftka, R.T., Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent development, 1996, AIAA Paper No. 96-0711.Google Scholar
2. Bartholomew, P., The role of aerospace design and progress towards an MDO capability, 1998, AIAA Paper No 98-4705.Google Scholar
3. Kroo, I., Multidisciplinary optimisation applications in preliminary design, 38th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference and Exhibit and AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Forum, Kissimmee, Florida, US, 7-10 April, 1997.Google Scholar
4. Wakayama, S. and Kroo, I., Subsonic wing planform design using MDO, J Aircr, July-August 1995, 32, (4), pp 746–753.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
5. Kroo, I., Altus, S., Braun, R., Gage, P. and Sobieski, I., Multidisciplinary optimization methods for aircraft preliminary design, AIAA 94-4325, Fifth AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, September 7-9, Panama City, Florida, 1994 Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference and Exhibit and AIAA/ASME/AHS Adaptive Structures Forum, Kissimmee, Florida, US, 7-10 April, 1997.Google Scholar
6. Hajela, P., Non-gradient methods in multidisciplinary design optimization — Status and potential, J Aircr, January-February 1999, 36, (1), pp 255–265,CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Raymer, D.P. and Crossley, W.A., A comparative study of genetic algorithm and orthogonal steepest descent for aircraft multidisciplinary optimization, AIAA Paper No 2002-0514.Google Scholar
8. Marta, A.C., Parametric study of a genetic algorithm using a aircraft design optimization problem, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford University, Stanford, California 94305, URL: http://www.cs.ucl.ac.uk/staff/W.Langdon//ftp/public/papers/koza/sp2003marta.pdf.Google Scholar
9. Jun, S., Jeon, Y.H., Rho, J. and Lee, D.H., Applications of collaborative optimization using genetic algorithm and response surface method to an aircraft wing design, J Mech Sci and Tech, January 2006, 20, (1), pp 133–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Clayton, R.P. and Martinez Botas, R.F., Application of genetic algorithm in aerodynamic optimization design process, Aeronaut J, December 2004, 108, (1090), pp 611–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Reisenthel, P.H., Love, J.F., Lesieutre, D.J. and Childs, R.E., Cumulative global meta-models with uncertainty — a tool for aerospace integration, Aeronaut J, 2006, 110, (1108), pp 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Chen, W., Allen, J.K., Scharge, D.P. and Mistree, F., Statistical experimentation methods for achieving affordable concurrent systems design, 1997, AIAA J, 35, (5), pp 892–900.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
13. Timothy, W.S., Timothy, M.M., John, J.K. and Farrokh, M., Comparison of response surface and kriging models for MDO, AIAA Paper No. 98-4755, September 1998.Google Scholar
14. Anthony, A.G. and Layne, T.W., A comparison of approximate modeling techniques: Polynomial versus interpolating models, September 1998, AIAA Paper No 98-4758.Google Scholar
15. Kumano, T., Jeong, S. and Obayashi, S., Multidisciplinary design optimization of wing shape for a small jet aircraft using Kriging model, 2006, AIAA Paper No 2006-932.Google Scholar
16. Lu, X. and Zhenghong, G., The investigation of multi-disciplinary and multi-objective optimization method for the aircraft configuration design, ICAS Paper No 2002-811.1Google Scholar
17. Arora, J.S. and Marler, R.T., Survey of multi-objective optimization methods for engineering, Structural Multidisciplinary Optimization, 2004, 26, pp 369–395,.Google Scholar
18. Gonzalez, L.F., Lee, D.S., Srinivas, K. and Wong, K.C., Single and multi-objective UAV aerofoil optimization via hierarchical asynchronous parallel evolutionary algorithm, Aeronaut J, 2006, 110, (1112), pp 659–672.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Gonzalez, L.F., Periaux, J., Srinivas, K. and Whitney, E.J., A generic framework for design optimization of multidisciplinary UAV Intelligent systems using evolutionary computing, 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, US, 9-12 January 2006.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Sobester, A. and Keane, A.J., Multidisciplinary design optimization of UAV airframes, AIAA 2006-1612.Google Scholar
21. Goldberg, D.E., Genetic Algorithms in search, optimization and machine learning, Addison Wesley Pub Co, 1989.Google Scholar
22. Deb, K., Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, Chichester, UK,Wiley, 2001.Google Scholar
23. Deb, K. and Srinivas, N., Multi-objective optimization using non-dominated sorting genetic algorithm, J of Evolut Comp, 1994, 2, (3), pp. 221–248.Google Scholar
24. Raymer, D.P., Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach, AIAA Education Series, AIAA, Washington DC, 1992.Google Scholar
25. Kuppanan, M., et. al, Weight model of composite wing for MALE UAV, ADE internal report No. ADE/SDET/TM/06 dated 25 July 2006, ADE, DRDO, Bangalore, 2006.Google Scholar
26. Jeong, S., Murayama, M. and Yamamoto, K., Efficient optimization design method using Kriging model, J Aircr, March-April 2005, 12, (2), pp 413–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Deb, K., Agrawal, S., Pratap, A. and Meyarivan, T., A fast and elitist multi-objective genetic algorithm: NSGA-II, IEEE Transactions on evolution comp, 2002, 6, (2), pp 182–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar