Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of Space Plane Considering Rigid Body Characteristics

DOI: 10.2514/1.19969 Multidisciplinary designoptimization isanimportant approachfor the conceptualdesignof space planesbecause these planes are characterized by disciplines that interact with one another. A multidisciplinary design optimization problemof asingle-stage-to-orbit space plane isformulated andsolved inthis study.Themodeling andoptimization ofrigidbodycharacteristics,suchastrimandstability,arefocusedonbecauseasingle-stage-to-orbitspaceplanehas a tendency for considerable shift of both the aerodynamic center and the center of gravity. Moreover, the design of the air-breathing engines are integrated with the airframe and its effect on the rigid body characteristics are also modeled in the framework of multidisciplinary design optimization. Using the all-at-once-based multidisciplinary design optimization approach, which incorporates sparse nonlinear programming and metamodeling, the design of the vehicle and its flight trajectory are successfully optimized. Finally, the characteristics of the optimal solution are investigated, especially the relationships among the airframe-engine integration, rigid body characteristics, and payload transportation capability.

[1]  N. Yokoyama,et al.  Convergence Acceleration of Direct Trajectory Optimization Using Novel Hessian Calculation Methods , 2008 .

[2]  Thomas J. Santner,et al.  The Design and Analysis of Computer Experiments , 2003, Springer Series in Statistics.

[3]  C. R. Glatt,et al.  WAATS: A computer program for Weights Analysis of Advanced Transportation Systems , 1974 .

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

[5]  Anil V. Rao,et al.  Practical Methods for Optimal Control Using Nonlinear Programming , 1987 .

[6]  Kenji Kudo,et al.  Calculation of Dual-Mode Engine Performance , 2006 .

[7]  T. J. Mitchell,et al.  Exploratory designs for computational experiments , 1995 .

[8]  G. L. Brauer,et al.  Capabilities and applications of the Program to Optimize Simulated Trajectories (POST). Program summary document , 1977 .

[9]  Brian Berkowitz,et al.  Hypersonic Aerospace Sizing Analysis for the Preliminary Design of Aerospace Vehicles , 1990 .

[10]  Ilan Kroo,et al.  Collaborative Approach to Launch Vehicle Design , 1997 .

[11]  Sobieszczanski Jaroslaw,et al.  Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS) , 1998 .

[12]  Decision Systems.,et al.  Convergence of the simulated annealing algorithm , 1988 .

[13]  M. J. D. Powell,et al.  Radial basis functions for multivariable interpolation: a review , 1987 .

[14]  Alfred E. Magnus,et al.  PAN AIR: A Computer Program for Predicting Subsonic or Supersonic Linear Potential Flows About Arbitrary Configurations Using a Higher Order Panel Method. Volume 1; Theory Document (Version 1.1) , 1981 .

[15]  R. Yang,et al.  Convergence of the Simulated Annealing Algorithm for Continuous Global Optimization , 2000 .

[16]  Shang-Liang Chen,et al.  Orthogonal least squares learning algorithm for radial basis function networks , 1991, IEEE Trans. Neural Networks.

[17]  M. Tanner,et al.  Theories for base pressure inincompressible steady base flow , 1998 .

[18]  Yukihiko Nakata,et al.  Advanced Integrated Modular Avionics , 2004 .

[19]  John E. Dennis,et al.  Problem Formulation for Multidisciplinary Optimization , 1994, SIAM J. Optim..

[20]  John R. Olds,et al.  Multidisciplinary Conceptual Design Optimization of Space Transportation Systems , 1999 .

[21]  Jaroslaw Sobieszczanski-Sobieski,et al.  Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization - Survey of recent developments , 1996 .

[22]  E Booner,et al.  Aerodynamic Preliminary Analysis System II: Part I---Theroy , 1991 .

[23]  A. Roshko,et al.  Observations of turbulent reattachment behind an axisymmetric downstream-facing step in supersonic flow. , 1966 .

[24]  John K. Eaton,et al.  A Review of Research on Subsonic Turbulent Flow Reattachment , 1981 .

[25]  Daniel P. Raymer,et al.  Aircraft Design: A Conceptual Approach , 1989 .

[26]  William H. Heiser,et al.  Hypersonic Airbreathing Propulsion , 1994 .

[27]  J. L. Pittman,et al.  Application of supersonic linear theory and hypersonic impact methods to three nonslender hypersonic airplane concepts at Mach numbers from 1.10 to 2.86 , 1979 .

[28]  Richard J. Balling,et al.  Execution of Multidisciplinary Design Optimization Approaches on Common Test Problems , 1997 .