Multi-level of Fidelity Multi-Disciplinary Design Optimization of Small, Solid-Propellant Launch Vehicles

A new automated multi-level of fidelity Multi-Disciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) methodology has been developed at the MDO Laboratory of K.N. Toosi University of Technology. This paper explains a new design approach by formulation of developed disciplinary modules. A conceptual design for a small, solid-propellant launch vehicle was considered at two levels of fidelity structure. Low and medium level of fidelity disciplinary codes were developed and linked. Appropriate design and analysis codes were defined according to their effect on the conceptual design process. Simultaneous optimization of the launch vehicle was performed at the discipline level and system level. Propulsion, aerodynamics, structure and trajectory disciplinary codes were used. To reach the minimum launch weight, the Low LoF code first searches the whole design space to achieve the mission requirements. Then the medium LoF code receives the output of the low LoF and gives a value near the optimum launch weight with more details and higher fidelity.

[1]  G. N. Vanderplaats,et al.  ADS: A FORTRAN program for automated design synthesis: Version 1.10 , 1984 .

[2]  John R. Olds,et al.  System Sensitivity Analysis Applied to the Conceptual Design of a Dual-Fuel Rocket SSTO , 1994 .

[3]  J. Roshanian,et al.  An automated approach to multidisciplinary system design optimization of small solid propellant launch vehicles , 2006, 2006 1st International Symposium on Systems and Control in Aerospace and Astronautics.

[4]  Roger A. Lepsch,et al.  Multidisciplinary Analysis of a Lifting Body Launch Vehicle , 2002 .

[5]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Use of the Collaborative Optimization Architecture for Launch Vehicle Design , 1996 .

[6]  Z. C. Roza,et al.  Simulation Fidelity Theory and Practice , 2005 .

[7]  Bernard Grossman,et al.  Response Surface Models Combining Linear and Euler Aerodynamics for Supersonic Transport Design , 1999 .

[8]  Douglas O. Stanley,et al.  Rocket-powered single-stage vehicle configuration selection and design , 1993 .

[9]  Douglas O. Stanley,et al.  Dual-fuel propulsion in single-stage Advanced Manned Launch System Vehicle , 1995 .

[10]  Xu Lin,et al.  The MDO Environment for Hypersonic Vehicle System Design and Optimization , 2006 .

[11]  Raphael T. Haftka,et al.  Variable-complexity aerodynamic optimization of a high-speed civil transport wing , 1994 .

[12]  V. V. Malyshev.  Aerospace vehicle control : modern theory and applications , 1996 .

[13]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Multidisciplinary optimization applications in preliminary design - Status and directions , 1997 .

[14]  Ahmed K. Noor,et al.  Future Space Transportation Systems and Launch Vehicles , 1997 .

[15]  Bernard Grossman,et al.  A Coarse-Grained Parallel Variable-Complexity Multidisciplinary Optimization Paradigm , 1996, Int. J. High Perform. Comput. Appl..

[16]  Douglas O. Stanley,et al.  Single-stage-to-orbit — A step closer☆ , 1995 .

[17]  Ren Dahai,et al.  A DISTRIBUTED MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN OPTIMAZATION ARCHITECTURE FOR SPACECRAFT DESIGN , 2002 .

[18]  Jamal F. Nayfeh,et al.  Designing and Optimizing Missiles in an Interactive Environment , 2002 .

[19]  Zhiyong Lin,et al.  Application of Taguchi Design Methods and Uniform Design Methods to Scramjet Propulsion System Optimization for Hypersonic Cruise Vehicle , 2003 .

[20]  C. D. Perttunen,et al.  Lipschitzian optimization without the Lipschitz constant , 1993 .

[21]  Dimitri N. Mavris,et al.  A Conceptual Design Environment for Technology Selection and Performance Optimization for Torpedoes , 2002 .

[22]  Douglas O. Stanley,et al.  Aerodynamic configuration design using response surface methodology analysis , 1993 .

[23]  Yong Zhao,et al.  SIDE: A Tool for Integrated Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Spacecraft , 2006 .

[24]  B. Grossman,et al.  Variable-complexity response surface approximations for wing structural weight in HSCT design , 1996 .

[25]  Douglas O. Stanley,et al.  Comparison of two multidisciplinary optimization strategies for launch-vehicle design , 1995 .

[26]  T. W. Layne,et al.  A Comparison of Approximation Modeling Techniques: Polynomial Versus Interpolating Models , 1998 .

[27]  Timothy W. Simpson,et al.  MULTIDISCIPLINARY DESIGN OPTIMIZATION TESTBED BASED ON AUTONOMOUS UNDERWATER VEHICLE DESIGN , 2002 .