Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Approach for a Small Solid Propellant Launch Vehicle Conceptual Design Using Hybrid Simulated Annealing

Article Preview

Abstract:

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) of a two-stage Small Solid Propellant Launch Vehicle (SSPLV) by simulated annealing (SA) Method is investigated. Propulsion, weight, aerodynamic (geometry) and 3degree of freedom (3DOF) trajectory simulation disciplines are used in an appropriate combination. Suitable design variables, technological-functional constraints and minimum launch weight objective function are considered. To handle constraints augmentation of constraints to cost using penalty coefficients are used. Results are compared with gradient-base method that shows the ability of SA to escape local optimums.

You might also be interested in these eBooks

Info:

Periodical:

Pages:

4765-4771

Citation:

Online since:

October 2011

Export:

Price:

Permissions CCC:

Permissions PLS:

Сopyright:

© 2012 Trans Tech Publications Ltd. All Rights Reserved

Share:

Citation:

[1] Blair J. C., Ryan R. S., Schutzenhofer and L. A., Launch Vehicle Design Process: Characterization, Technical Integration, and Lessons Learned, NASA/TP—2001–210992.

Google Scholar

[2] Hammond, W. E., Design Methodologies for Space Transportation Systems, AIAA Inc., (2001).

Google Scholar

[3] Wertz, J. R., Economic Model of Reusable vs. Expendable Launch Vehicles, IAF 51st International Astronautical Congress Rio de Janeiro, Brazil Oct. 2–6, (2000).

Google Scholar

[4] Isakowitz, S. J., International Reference Guide to Space Launch Systems, 2nd Ed., AIAA Inc., (1995).

Google Scholar

[5] Roshanian J., Jodei J., Ebrahimi m., An Automated Approach to Multidisciplinary System Design Optimization of Small Solid Propellant Launch Vehicles, , AIAA conference , china, (2006).

DOI: 10.1109/isscaa.2006.1627501

Google Scholar

[6] Roshanian J., Jodei J., Ebrahimi m., Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of a Small Solid Propellant Launch Vehicle Using System Sensitivity Analysis, Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization journal, Springer , (2009).

DOI: 10.1007/s00158-008-0260-5

Google Scholar

[7] Kirkpatrick, S., Gelatt, C. D., and Vechi, M. P., Optimization by Simulated Annealing, Science, Vol. 220, No. 4598, 1983, p.671–680.

DOI: 10.1126/science.220.4598.671

Google Scholar

[8] Vanderbilt, D., and Lougie, S. G., AMonte Carlo Simulated Annealing Approach to Optimization over Continous Variables, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 56, No. 2, 1984, p.259–271.

DOI: 10.1016/0021-9991(84)90095-0

Google Scholar

[9] Corona, A., Marchesi, M., Martini, C., and Ridella, S., Minimizing Multimodal Functions of Continuous Variables with the Simulated Annealing Algorithm, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol. 13, No. 3, 1987, p.262–280.

DOI: 10.1145/29380.29864

Google Scholar

[10] Siarry, P., Berthian, G., Durbin, F., and Hamesy, J., Enhanced Simulated Annealing for Globally Minimizing Functions of Many Continuous Variables, ACM Transactions on Mathematical Software, Vol. 23, No. 2, 1997, p.209–228.

DOI: 10.1145/264029.264043

Google Scholar

[11] Romeijn, H. E., and Smith, R. L., Simulated Annealing for Constrained Global Optimization, Journal of Global Optimization, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1994, p.101–126.

DOI: 10.1007/bf01100688

Google Scholar

[12] Belisle, C. J. P., Romeijin, H. E., and Smith, R. L., Hide-and-Seek a Simulated Annealing Algorithm for Global Optimization, Dept. of Industrial and Operations Engineering, Technical Rept. 90-25, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, Sept. (1990).

Google Scholar

[13] Lu, P., and Khan, M. A., Nonsmooth Trajectory Optimization: An Approach Using Continuous Simulated Annealing, Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 17, No. 4, 1994, p.685–691.

DOI: 10.2514/3.21256

Google Scholar

[14] Tekinalp, O., and Utalay, S., Simulated Annealing for Missile Trajectory Planning and Multidisciplinary Missile Design Optimization, AIAA Paper 2000-0684, Jan. (2000).

DOI: 10.2514/6.2000-684

Google Scholar

[15] Freeman, D., Future Space Transportation System Study, Aerospace America, pp.36-56, June (1983).

Google Scholar

[16] Martin, J., Orbit on Demand, Aerospace America, pp.36-61, Feb. (1985).

Google Scholar

[17] Freeman, D., Stanley, D., Camarda, C., Lepsch, R., and Cook, S., Single-Stage-To-Orbit: A Step Closer, IAF Paper 94-V3. 534, Oct. (1994).

DOI: 10.1016/0094-5765(95)00087-g

Google Scholar

[18] Stanley, D., et al., Rocket-Powered Single-Stage Vehicle Configuration Selection and Design, AIAA Paper 93-1053, Feb. (1993).

Google Scholar

[19] Engelund, W., Stanley, D., McMillin, M., and Unal, R., Aerodynamic Configuration Design Using Response Surface Methodology Analysis, AIAA Paper 93-3967, Aug. (1993).

Google Scholar

[20] Lepsch, R., Stanley, D., and Unal, R., Dual-Fuel Propulsion in Single-Stage Advanced Manned Launch System Vehicle, Journal of Spacecraft & Rockets, Vol. 32, No. 3, May-June 1995, pp.417-425.

DOI: 10.2514/3.26631

Google Scholar

[21] Braun, R., Powell, R., Lepsch, R., Stanley, D., and Kroo, I., Comparison of Two Multidisciplinary Optimization Strategies for Launch Vehicle Design, Journal of Spacecraft & Rockets, Vol. 32, No. 2, Mar. -Apr. 1995, pp.404-410.

DOI: 10.2514/3.26629

Google Scholar

[22] Olds, J., System Sensitivity Analysis Applied to the Conceptual Design of a Dual-Fuel Rocket SSTO, AIAA Paper 94-4339, Sept. (1994).

Google Scholar

[23] Braun, R. D., Moore, A. A., and Kroo, I. M., Use of Collaborative Optimization Architecture for Launch Vehicle Design, AIAA paper 1996-4018, Sept (1996).

DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-4018

Google Scholar

[24] Ebrahimi, R., Rapid Solid Rocket Motor Design Code, MDO Laboratory, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, MDO-LAB-TR121, Feb. (2005).

Google Scholar

[25] Mirshams, M., Expendable Launch Vehicle Mass Estimate Relationship, MDO Laboratory, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, MDO-LAB-TR134 Mar. (2005).

Google Scholar

[26] Roshanian, J., Trajectory Simulation and Optimization, MDO Laboratory, Dept. of Aerospace Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology, MDO-LAB-TR115, Jan. 2005. 10. 25.

Google Scholar

[27] Malyshev V. V., etal., Aerospace Vehicle Control, Modern Theory and Applications, IAE Brazil and MAI Russia Cooperation, (1998).

Google Scholar

[28] Rao S. S Engineering Optimization, Theory and Practice , John Wiley and Sons Inc, (1996).

Google Scholar