Appl. Math. Mech. -Engl. Ed.

, 2008, 29(11):14111426
DOI 10.1007/s10483-008-1103-z
c
Shanghai
University and Springer-Verlag 2008

Applied Mathematics
and Mechanics
(English Edition)

Monte Carlo simulation of stage separation dynamics of

a multistage launch vehicle
J. Roshanian, M. Talebi
(Department of Aerospace Engineering, K. N. Toosi University of Technology,
P. O. Box 16765-3381, Tehran, Iran)
(Communicated by CHEN Li-qun)

Abstract
This paper provides the formulation used for studing the cold and hot
separating stages of a multistage launch vehicle. Monte Carlo simulation is employed
to account for the off nominal design parameters of the bodies undergoing separation to
evaluate the risk of failure for the separation event. All disturbances, effect of dynamic
unbalance, residual thrust, separation disturbance caused by the separation mechanism
and misalignment in cold and hot separation are analyzed to find out nonoccurrence of
collision between the separation bodies. The results indicate that the current design
satisfies the separation requirements.
Key words ullage-rocket, retro-rocket, launch vehicle, Monte Carlo simulation, hot
separation, cold separation
Chinese Library Classification V421.7, O242.2
2000 Mathematics Subject Classification 74H15

Nomenclature
a0 ,
acceleration of coordinate system (m/s2 );
u, v, w, components of body linear velocity along
x, y and z axes (m/s);
p, q, r, components of body angular velocity
about x, y, z axes (( )/s);
C,
coning angle ( );
u ,
critical velocity (m/s);
1 ,
gas density (kg/m3 );
T,
lateral angular tip-off rate (( )/s);
m,
mass (kg);
Ma ,
match number;
Pk ,
pressure in vessel (Pa);
Pa ,
pressure in nozzle (Pa);
P02 ,
pressure between shock and first stage
(Pa);
PM ,
pressure between two stages (Pa);

Ixy , Ixz , Iyz , products of inertia in yaw, roll and

pitch planes (kg m2 );
r,
radius of stage one (m);
R1,2 ,
relative distance between CG (center
of gravity) of stages 1,2 and coordinate system (m);
Ix , Iy , Iz ,
roll, pitch and yaw moments of inertial, respectively (kg m2 );
Sa ,
surface of nozzle (m2 );
Tk ,
temperature in vessel (K);
TM ,
temperature between two stages (K);
t,
time (s);
u1 ,
velocity (m/s);
VM ,
volume of space between two stages
(m3 );
, , ,
yaw, roll and pitch angles ( ).

Received Jun. 19, 2007 / Revised Aug. 7, 2008

Corresponding author Jafar Roshanian, Associate Professor, E-mail: roshanian@kntu.ac.ir

1412

J. Roshanian and M. Talebi

Introduction
The dynamics of separating stages has received attention of several investigators. Chubb[1]
has constructed collision boundaries between two separating stages. Palmer and Mitchell[2]
investigated spring separation of spacecraft. Dwork[3] and Wilke[4] provided valuable insight
into disturbances caused by separation mechanisms in a spinning setup. Puglisi[5] analyzed
controllability of stage separation. A considerable amount of aerodynamic data including
stability derivatives have been generated for the space shuttle type of configurations involving winged bodies[67] . The data so gathered have been utilized for the separation dynamics
investigation[8]. Christensen and Narahara[9] reviewed the spacecraft separation, and Mitchell
and Palmer[10] developed a high accuracy spacecraft separation system. Waterfall[11] investigated multispring systems for separation and spinning and nonspinning bodies. Bolster and
Googins[12] designed, developed and tested a series of air-launched sounding rockets. Longren[13]
analyzed spin-stabilized rockets with guide shoes and rails constraining the lateral motion. Hurley and Carrie[14] reviewed the genesis of a four bar linkage separation system and carried out
the analysis for separation of parallel staged shuttle vehicles. Su and Mullen[15] developed a
plume impingement force during tandem stage separation at high altitudes. Subramanyam[16]
developed a general model for spring-assisted stage separation. Kalesnikof[17] wrote a book
about dynamic separation. Saxena[18] investigated upper stage jet impingement on separated
boosters. Lochan et al.[1922] analyzed the separation dynamics of strap-on boosters from the
core rocket utilizing the wind tunnel simulation data for dynamic forces. Cheng[23] developed
an analytical procedure based on a coupled gas/structure model to simulate the fairing separation events. The procedure was validated by comparing the analysis results with full-scale
payload fairing separation test data of the Titan IV launch vehicle. Reubush et al.[24] simulated
hyper-X stage separation with the Monte Carlo method. Jeyakumar and Biswas[2527] provided
the stage separation system design and dynamic analysis of launch vehicles.
In a multistage vehicle mission, the separation phase is very critical. What one envisages
in a separation phase is a clean separation, which means avoidance of any change in attitude
due to lateral angular rates and elimination of collision between the separation stages. Clean
separation is difficult to achieve due to separation disturbances which are due to tip-off forces
introduced by the separation mechanism and dynamic unbalance of the separation stages. Another disturbance is due to the residual burning characteristics of the lower stage.
The prediction of the separation trajectory must include the impingement force from the
continuing stage propulsion system, and this force is especially large if the propulsion system
fires in close proximity to the spent stage.
Analysis of separation dynamics is essential to determine separation disturbance, to define
collision boundaries and to generate inputs for the guidance program. This may range in
complexity from the analysis of simple, rigid-body, one-degree-of-freedom models to intricate,
nonlinear computer simulations, in which each body has six rigid-body degrees of freedom,
which may be spinning, and where elastic effects are considered. Customarily, the analysis
is used to predict the nominal performance of the mechanism and to estimate tip-off errors
due to the standard tolerances on the various design parameters. It has also become common
to perform a failure-modes-and-effects analysis in which failure modes are assumed and their
effects on the performance of the separation mechanism are evaluated, at least in a qualitative
sense.
In general, two levels of analysis have been used successfully. In cases where no complex
forces act on the bodies, simple planar models have been used to analyze nonspinning separations, and simple transverse-moment models have been used to analyze spinning separations.
The separation mechanism is designed to operate successfully when each parameter that affects
tip-off or hang-up, such as tolerance effects, assumes its most adverse value. Often, several
iterations of the analysis are necessary to determine the worst combination of parametric val-

Monte Carlo simulation of stage separation dynamics of multistage launch vehicle

1413

ues (equivalent, in statistical terms, to large sigma values, possibly 9 or 10) and to confirm
satisfactory separation of the bodies under this condition. Although the simple analysis does
not account for the effects of coupling and of complex forces and moments, this shortcoming is
conservatively compensated for by the requirement for satisfactory separation under the worst
combination of parametric values. This type of analysis has proven successful for most simple
separations and has led to the design of separation mechanisms with high intrinsic reliability.
When complex forces or moments act on the bodies, the mission is man rated and the
separation-mechanism weight is critical; or when mission requirements are stringent, then complex, nonlinear computer simulations are performed. In this type of analysis, the forces and
moments acting on each body are accounted for in detail, each body is allowed rigid-body motion in six degrees of freedom, gyroscopic coupling is included for spinning cases, and elastic
effects may be considered. In addition, statistical studies are performed to assess the effect on
separation motion when the value of each parameter is allowed to vary throughout its tolerance
band. The expense of conducting these studies is often reduced by using Monte Carlo techniques instead of computing the separation motion for every possible combination of parametric
values.
Another technique for complex separation analysis is to determine the partial derivative of
each error source. The partial derivatives, together with the range of values of each parameter,
can be used to determine the possible tip-off error attributable to the variation in the value
of each parameter. The tip-off errors from all parameters are then combined to give the total
possible error. The favored technique for combining the errors is to add directly all the errors
attributable to correlated parameters, and to add the errors attributable to uncorrelated parameters by the root-sum-square method. This technique gives a close approximation of the
results that can be obtained with a more rigorous mathematical approach and avoids a large
number of computer runs.
The partial-derivative error analysis also identifies the principal sources of tip-off error and
the parameters which should be closely controlled, and those which can be allowed to vary
without producing excessive errors. This information is especially useful for cost/weight tradeoff
studies. The partial-derivative approach offers the best practical way to analyze the separation
mechanism and to evaluate possible errors.
Depending on the time in the flight when separation is programmed to occur, a rigorous
separation analysis considers the effects of the aerodynamic environment, wind shears or gusts,
fuel sloshing, engine-nozzle flow separation, sequencing of events, control-system interactions,
mass and inertia properties of the separating bodies, gyroscopic coupling, and details of the
separation mechanism itself[28] .

Stage separation modeling

A typical launch vehicle may involve several separation events, such as strap-on separation,
stage separation, heat shield separation, ullage rocket separation and spacecraft separation. In
a multistage rocket configuration the most important event is staging. Obviously, the process
commences from the detection of the burn-out of the ongoing stage, and continues with the
ignition of the next stage and the separation of the spent stage.
1.1 Cold separation
The problem is modeled under the influence of forces and moments of the individual bodies
undergoing separation, treating the bodies as rigid. A rigid body has six degrees of freedom
(three displacements of a point fixed in the body and three orientation angles). Each body
undergoing separation has twelve state variables (namely, three displacements of a point fixed
in the body, three orientation angles, three components of the velocity vector, and three components of the angular velocity vector). Two basic types of frames of reference are used in the
formulation apart from the usual geo-centric or Earth-centered inertial frame of reference (to

1414

J. Roshanian and M. Talebi

compute the gravity effect) and the topo-centric or launch point inertial frame.
A local inertial frame in which the dynamics is described and the body coordinate system,
separate for each of the body undergoing separation, is used. The transformation from the
body frame to the local inertial frame and vice versa can be achieved through a transformation
matrix in which a prefixed sequence of rotation of the Euler angles is used.
In principle, equations of motion can be expressed in any coordinate system. It is advantageous to express them in the body coordinate system, as the moment of inertia, engine tail-off
thrust and aerodynamic computations are very simple in the body coordinate system, while
gravity computation is simpler in the geo-centric inertial coordinate system.
The coordinate system for the analysis includes two body-fixed axis systems (see Fig. 1),
O1 x1 y1 z1 and O2 x2 y2 z2 , for lower and upper stages, respectively[17] . The six degrees-of-freedom
for the separating stages are three translational rates (u, v, w) along and three rotational rates
(p, q, r) about the x, y, z axes, respectively. Exyz is the inertial coordinate system. At the
initiation of separation (t = 0) all the three coordinate systems are mutually parallel to one
another and O1 coincides with E.
x2
y2
O2

yP

xP

y1
x1
O1

Coordinate axis systems

Fig. 1

The equations are described below:

m

dV
+ V = Ft ,
dt

(1)

where m is the mass of the body; V = Vx i + Vy j + Vz k is the velocity; = pi + qj + rk

is the angular velocity, which has components p, q and r along the body axes; t is the time;
Ft = Fx i + Fy j + Fz k is the total external force vector. Equations for the translational motion
along body x, y, z axes are

m(u + qw rv) = Fx ,
m(v + ru pw) = Fy ,
(2)

m(w + pv qu) = Fz .
The equation for the angular motion is

dL
+ L = Mt ,
dt

(3)

where L = Lx i + Ly j + Lz k is the angular momentum vector; Mt = Mx i + My j + Mz k is

the total external moment vector; i, j, k are the unit vectors with respect to the center of mass

Monte Carlo simulation of stage separation dynamics of multistage launch vehicle

of the respective body frame. The components of

from


Lx
p
Ixx
Ly = I q = Iyx
Lz
r
Izx

1415

the angular momentum vector are obtained

Ixy Ixz
p
Iyy Iyz q .
(4)
Izy Izz
r

Equations for the angular motion about body x, y, z axes are

2
2

Ix p Ixy q Ixz r p(Ixz q Ixy r) qr(Iy Iz ) Iyz (q r ) = Mx ,

Iy q Iyz r Ixy p q(Ixy r Iyz p) rp(Iz Ix ) Ixz (r2 p2 ) = My ,

Iz r Ixz p Iyz q r(Iyz p Ixz q) pq(Ix Iy ) Ixy (p2 q 2 ) = Mz .

(5)

Mass, moments of inertia and products of inertia are, in general, functions of time. Fx , Fy
and Fz and Mx , My and Mz are sums of external forces and moments, respectively. These
functions can include effects due to thrust, gravity, aerodynamics separation forces and disturbances. The effect of dynamic unbalance is simulated by taking nonzero values for products of
inertia.
The Euler angles define the body attitude with respect to the inertial coordinate systems.
,
Their rates ,
in terms of , , and p, q and r are

= (q sin + r cos )/ cos ,

= p + tan (q sin + r cos ),
(6)

= q cos r sin .
The components of the velocity in the inertial coordinate system are

x = u(cos cos ) + v(cos sin sin sin cos ) + w(cos cos sin + sin sin ),
y = u(cos sin ) + v(sin sin sin cos cos ) + w(sin cos sin cos sin ), (7)

z = u sin + v(sin cos ) + w(cos cos ).

The above equations are first order nonlinear simultaneous equations. Two sets of such
equations, one for each stage, are programmed. The output of these equations consists of the
time histories of x,
y,
z,
x, y, z, p, q, r, , , , u, v, w for each stage. Relative velocity and motion
between the separating stages are obtained by differencing the respective parameters. If we use
a guide pin in the separation mechanism, the differential equations change into the following
equations:
Equations for translational motion along the body x, y, z axes with a guide pin are

2
2
2
2

mB (aOx (q + r )RB + RB ) + mH (aOx (q + r )RH + RH ) = Fx ,

(8)
mB (aOy + (r + pq)RB + 2rR B ) + mH (aOy + (r + pq)RH + 2r R H ) = Fy ,

mB (aOz (q pr)RB 2q RB ) + mH (aOz (q pr)RH 2q RH ) = Fz .

Equations for angular motion about the body x, y, z axes are

p Ixx + (r2 q 2 ) Iyz + (pr q)I

xy (pq + r)I
xz + rq(Izz Iyy ) = Mx ,

2
2

zy (qr + p)I
xy + pr(Ixx Izz )
q Iyy + (p r ) Ixz + (pq r)I

(mB RB + mH RH )aOz + (2mB RB R B + 2mH RH R H )q = My ,

r Izz + (q 2 p2 ) Ixy + (rq p)I

xz (pr + q)I
yz + pq(Iyy Ixx )

+ (mB RB + mH RH )aOy + (2mB RB RB + 2mH RH R H )r = Mz .

(9)

1416

J. Roshanian and M. Talebi

Additional equations are




2
2

F
=
m
a

(q
+
r
)R
+
R
,
B
B
O
B
B

x
x



H ,
FHx = mH aOx (q 2 + r2 )RH + R

mB RB + mH RH = 0.

(10)

1.2 Hot separation

In hot separation, the reversed flow effects are significant when the tandem stages are relatively close together (X/D 2). These effects result from the flow to the spent stage cavity
being directed back toward the continuing stage. In this part, we describe an analytical technique to predict the plume impingement force during the tandem stage separation, and consider
the reversed flow effects.
The flow model of a plume impinging on the lower stage at high altitudes is shown in Fig. 2.
The exhaust gas expands rapidly once it leaves the nozzle and passes through a bow shock wave
before entering the lower stage cavity. The flow then reverses direction and leaves the cavity at
the nearly sonic speed.
Upper stage
(Continuing)

Lower stage
(Spent)

1 2

Bow shock
3
R

Task dome
x
Plume boundary

Fig. 2

Flow model and control surface of plume impingement during tandem stage separation

By applying the momentum theorem, one obtains the impingement force on the lower stage
dome at separation distance x. If one assumes that the flow behind the shock wave is nearly
parallel to the axis of symmetry and the flow leaves the cavity at the sonic speed, then
Z r1
Z r1

1 u1 rdr,
F
=
2
P
rdr
+
2u

1x
02

Z 0
Z0

PM ds,
F1z =
PM ds.

F1y =
s1y

(11)

s1z

The above equation can be integrated numerically with the characteristic solution of the exhaust plume. However, the characteristic calculation is time-consuming, and at large distances
from the nozzle, computational difficulties occur.
The calculation can be greatly simplified if one integrates the above equation analytically

Monte Carlo simulation of stage separation dynamics of multistage launch vehicle

with the approximate analytical expression for the exhaust plume flow field by[15]

P02 = Pa Sa 1 (Ma , X)(1

+ kMa2 ),

2
u1 = ua [1 +
]1/2 ,
(k

1)Ma2

1 = a 2 (Ma , X)k(k
1)Ma2 ,

2
k(k1)Ma2 +4

= [k(k 1)Ma + 2][cos(arctan(r/X))]

1 (Ma , X)
,
2
2 X


2

= 1 ra [cos(arctan(r/X))]
k(k1)Ma2 .

2 (Ma , X)

2 X

1417

(12)

(13)

Critical velocity u according to the gas dynamic computation is

u =

2k
gRTk .
k+1

(14)

Inserting Eq. (12) into Eq. (11) and carrying out the integration, and after some manipulations
one obtains
F1x

F1y

1
k(k 1)Ma2
a
=
+
)[1

f
(
X)]
+
1
kMa2
[k(k 1)Ma2 2]
1
k1
2
2

[
+ 2+
] 2 [1 f1b (X)]},
2
Ma
(k 1)Ma4
= PM S1y , F1z = PM S1z ,
kMa2 Pa Sa {(1

=
f1 (X)

1
,
1 + ( rX1 )2

a=

1)Ma2

k(k
2

+ 1,

b=

1)Ma2

k(k
2

2
k+1

1
2

(15)
(16)
1,

(17)

where
k+1

2(k1)
Ma ( k+1
SkP
2 )
=
k+1 ,
Sa
2 2(k1)
(1 + k1
2 Ma )

k
Pk
k 1 2 k1
= (1 +
Ma )
,
Pa
2

(18)

which define the axial plume impingement force on the lower stage at the nozzle exit. TM , PM
is calculated by the following equations:
"
r
n
dTM
RTM
g X i
=
(kTk TM )kO Pk
S
dt
PM VM
RTk i=1 kP

r
g
(d1 + d2 )
(k 1)CT SCT (TM TCT )
c (k 1)TM kO

xPM
, (19)
RTM
2
R

n
p
dPM
0.3kO gRTk X i
1
(d1 + d2 )
=
Pk
SkP
[c kO 0.3gRTk
x + SM x]P
M.
(20)
dt
VM
V
2
M
1
The axial plume impingement force on the upper stage is
F2x = PM (S2

n
X
i=1

Sai ).

(21)

1418

J. Roshanian and M. Talebi

1.3 Separation mechanisms force and momentum

Stage separation by the force of the ullage rocket and retro rocket thrust is considered.
The separation impulse is provided by release of the energy stored in the relatively low thrust
short burn duration solid motor. Its location and support hardware design is dictated by the
geometry requirements, as the jet impingement from the retro motor should not affect the
highly sensitive payload interface.
To compute the actual thrust from a propulsion unit in the body frame, a transformation
matrix is generated between the thrust frame (coordinate frame assumed at the nozzle) and
the body frame. This matrix is defined by the following sequence of anti-clockwise rotation of
the body frame: about the x-axis through (measured from the y-axis) is the azimuth angle
defining the propulsion unit location; about the z-axis through the nozzle is the cant angle
as shown in Fig. 3.

y1
y

O1

CG

x2

L'

z
z

Fig. 3

z1

x1

O2

y2
y1

Transformation of retro rocket thrust frame to body frame

The thrust vector in the body frame[27] is

Fb = T (t)(cos i sin cos j + sin sin k).

(22)

The propulsion unit thrust location is given by

r = L i + d cos j + d sin k.

(23)

The moment due to thrust is given by

M = r Fb .

(24)

The mathematical models for thrust F (t) are shown below, the inputs for the mathematical
model for the ullage rocket and retro rocket are I, , t0 , t1 , t2 , t3 , where ti is time, I is the motor
impulse, and is the angle (see Figs. 4 and 5).
F(t)

F(t)

O
t0

Fig. 4

t1

t2

t3 t

Mathematical model for retro rocket

Fig. 5

t1

t2

t3

Mathematical model for pyrotechnic bolt

Monte Carlo simulation of stage separation dynamics of multistage launch vehicle

1419

The surface under the F (t) curve is equal to I:

I=

t3

F (t)dt.

(25)

t0

The thrust vector F (t) is given by

t t0

h, t0 < t < t1 ;

t
1 t0

(t1 t2 )(t t1 )
T =
tan + h, t1 < t < t2 ;

t2 t1

t t3

(h (t2 t1 ) tan ), t2 < t < t3 ,

t2 t3

where

h=

I + 0.5(t2 t1 )2 tan + 0.5(t2 t1 )(t3 t2 )

.
0.5(t1 t0 ) + 0.5(t3 t2 ) + (t2 t1 )

(26)

(27)

Inputs for the pyrotechnic bolt are I, t0 , t1 , t2 . Similar to the above equations the force of the
pyrotechnic bolt is given by

t t0 2I

, t 0 < t < t1 ;

t1 t0 t2 t0
T =
(28)
t t2 2I

, t 1 < t < t2 .
t1 t2 t2 t0

Monte Carlo method and disturbance

Analysis of separation dynamics is essential to determine separation disturbances and to

define collision boundaries. The effects of dynamic unbalance, residual thrust and separation
disturbance occurr due to the separation mechanism.
2.1 Monte Carlo method
An important aspect of separation analysis is the uncertainty of model parameters (mass
properties, initial conditions, separation mechanism parameters, etc.). In order to account for
the randomness associated with such uncertainty, the Monte Carlo technique was incorporated
in the stage separation analysis. The Monte Carlo simulation provides a unified framework for
the quantitative analysis of model uncertainty and assessment of associated risk, as well as in
the formulation of trade-off studies relative to design parameters. The use of high-speed workstations has made the Monte Carlo simulation more practical as a design and verification tool.
Enhanced by the Monte Carlo technique, the separation analysis predicts the statistical
bounds of separation parameters. These statistical boundes are used to assess the performance
of the stage separation hardware design under the worst case conditions[34] .
2.2 Effect of dynamic unbalance
The product of inertia causes dynamic unbalance in each stage. Dynamic unbalance produces
tip-off rates and in turn coning motion.
2.3 Effect of residual thrust
Residual thrust accelerates the lower stage forward and it may catch up with and hit the
upper stage.
2.4 Effect of separation disturbance which occurs due to the separation mechanism
Due to manufacturing tolerances, it is practically impossible to get identically acting separation mechanisms. The possibility of one or more separation mechanisms failing to cause force

1420

J. Roshanian and M. Talebi

can not be completely ruled out. Such disturbance creates lateral moments on the separation
stages inducing tip-off rates.
Manufacturing tolerances also introduce variation in separation velocity and time. In this
part we introduce some parameters. Lateral angular tip-off rate T and coning angle C are[34] :
p
T = q 2 + r2 ,
(29)
!
p
Iy q 2 + r2
C = arctan
.
(30)
Ix
p
In the hot separation the point must be attentioned in distance between two stages. Because
little volume and distance cause pressure to rise up and cause cutoff flow in the nozzle, to avoid
this phenomenon, the following conditions must be applied[17] :


0.6
da
Pk
1

1 + 0.33

,
d
PM
fkP
kP
(31)
k

 k1

f =

.
kP
k+1
With these equations we can arrive at the minimum allowable initial volume.

Simulation results

The separation between two stages of a rocket utilizing 4 springs for separation is chosen.
The initial conditions for separation are[16]
x1 = y1 = z1 = 0, 1 = 1 = 1 = 0,
u1 = v1 = w1 = 0, p1 = 6 rad, q1 = r1 = 0.
In the nominal case where separation disturbances are absent, the relative velocity and
relative distance are shown in Figs. 6 and 7.
5

0.8
0.6
urel/(m s1)

xrel /cm

4
3
2

0.2

1
0
0

0.4

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

0
0

t/s

Fig. 6

Relative distance in separation

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.08

0.10

t/s

Fig. 7

Relative velocity in separation

The separation distance between the stages increases monotonically and hence there is no
possibility of collision. Now, effect of each separation disturbance is discussed.
In the present example, dynamic unbalance is assumed to be in the pitch plane only. Dynamic unbalance produces tip-off rates and in turn coning motion. The coning angle for the
lower stage behaves as a periodic function of time, and the maximum value of the coning angle
is 2.5 ; for the upper stage this parameter increases continuously with time, see Fig. 8.
Now, the effect of spring force variation is discussed. Due to manufacturing tolerances,
it is practically impossible to get springs of identical action. The possibility of one or more

Monte Carlo simulation of stage separation dynamics of multistage launch vehicle

1421

Lower stage
Upper stage
Separation

4
Coning angle C/()

Angular tip-off rate T/(() s1)

springs failing to impart ejection force can not be completely ruled out. In the present example,
maximum variation in stiffness of spring is assumed to be 5% from the nominal value, see Fig. 9.
Separation between two stages of a launch vehicle with 6 pyrotechnic bolts, 2 retrorockets
and rolling rockets is simulated. Separation occurs in vacuum and hence aerodynamic force is
absent. External forces and moments are due to the thrust, gravity and separation mechanism.
In cold separation, separation occurs after lower stage burnout and hence mass, moments and
products of inertia are constant. In the hot separation, separation occurs before the lower stage
burnout. In the nominal case where separation disturbance is absent, the relative parameters
are shown in Figs. 16 and 17.

3
2
1
0
0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0
0.8

Lower stage
Upper stage

0.6
0.4
0.2
0
0

1.0

0.02

0.04
t/s

t/s

Effect of dynamic unbalance in coning angle

Fig. 8

0.06

0.08

Effect of 5% variation in spring stiffness in tip-off rate

Fig. 9

800
2.0104

600

Retro rocket

1.0104

200

Rolling rocket

0.5104

2.0

200
0

Separation mechanism forces

Fig. 11

0
0

Fig. 10

400

0.5

1.0
t/s

1.5

a2y /(m s2)

0
5

15
10
5

0.5

1.0

1.5

0
0

Component y of acceleration
in stage 2

0.5

1.0

1.5

t/s

t/s

Fig. 12

Component x of acceleration in
stage 2

20

10
0

1104 2104 3104 4104 5104

t/s

25

10

p2 /(rad s1)

Force F/N

a2x /(m s2)

Pyrotechnic bolt
1.5104

Fig. 13

Component x of angle velocity in stage 2

1422

J. Roshanian and M. Talebi

0.3

45.4

0.2
0.1
0

q2

2/()

45.3
45.2

0.1
0.2

45.1

0.3
45.0

0.5

1.0

0.4
0

1.5

0.5

1.0

t/s

Fig. 15

angle in stage 2

Fig. 14

60

Mathematical model for pyrotechnic bolt

40

55

30
urel/(m s1)

50
xrel/m

1.5

t/s

45
40

20
10
0

35
30
0

0.5

Fig. 16

1.0
t/s

1.5

2.0

Relative distance in hot separation

10
0

0.5

Fig. 17

1.0
t/s

1.5

2.0

Relative velocity in hot separation

The plume impingement force and PM are shown in Figs. 18 and 19.
Table 1 provides the dynamic parameters considered for the separating bodies at the time
of separation. Table 2 provides the dispersion parameters considered in the studies of the
separation mechanism. Table 3 provides the expected value and the time variance of the 12
degrees of freedom of the separated bodies.
Note the 1000 simulation performed and the results of separation parameters which are
presented in terms of their statistical bounds: minimum, maximum, mean 3.
Figures 2027 summarize the statistical bounds of the separation parameters.
10105

7105
6105

8105
PM /Pa

F1x /N

5105

6105
4105

3105
2105

2105
0

4105

1105

Fig. 18

0.5

1.0
t/s

1.5

2.0

Axial force caused by gas

dynamic in hot separation

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

t/s

Fig. 19

PM in hot separation

0.5

Monte Carlo simulation of stage separation dynamics of multistage launch vehicle

Table 1

1423

Dynamic parameters of the separating bodies

Ix /(kg m2 ) Iy /(kg m2 ) Iz /(kg m2 ) Ixy /(kg m2 ) Ixz /(kg m2 ) Iyz /(kg m2 )

Parameters

m/kg

Stage 1
Stage 2

2000 2
500 2

500 5
50 2

Table 2

25000 20
200 5

25000 20
200 5

0 10%
0 10%

0 10%
0 10%

0 10%
0 10%

Sensitivity of the separation mechanism

Dispersion level

Parameters
Retro rocket

Rolling rocket

Pyrotechnic bolt

Jettisioning rocket thrust dispersion & pyrotechnic bolt force dispersion p/%

Jettisioning rocket ignition delay & pyrotechnic

bolt ignition delay t/ms

10

10

Jettisioning rocket cant angle /( )

0.5

Differential impulse between the core engines &

between pyrotechnic bolts Pe /(N s)

10

Thrust line offset between the core engines &

between pyrotechnic bolts e/mm

0.3

0.1

Table 3
Physical

Variation in 12 degrees of freedom for the separating bodies

Stage 1

quantities
s1 )

vx /(m
vy /(m s1 )
vz /(m s1 )
x/m
y/m
z/m
p/(rad s1 )
q/(rad s1 )
r/(rad s1 )
/rad
/rad
/rad

Stage 2

3 value

Expected value

+3 value

3 value

Expected value

+3 value

2973
79.1
239.2
2706
233.6
3559
0
0.0087
0.0097
0.11
0.78
0.105

2976
88
249
3378
194
2957
0
0.0087
0.0087
0.107
0.79
0.102

2979
96.9
258.8
4050
154.4
2355
0
0.0087
0.0077
0.102
0.792
0.098

3000.4
280
4.5
2716
233
3527
21.2
0.0075
0.007
0.095
0.787
22

3004
231
5.3
3397
195
2968
24.2
0.0065
0.01
0.091
0.79
29.5

3007.6
182
6.1
4078
157
2409
27.2
0.00055
0.013
0.086
0.792
37.2

Fig. 20

Component z of angle acceleration in stage 1

Fig. 21

Component x of angle acceleration in stage 2

1424

J. Roshanian and M. Talebi

Fig. 22

Angular tip-off rate in stage 2

Fig. 24

Relative angle of stages

Fig. 26

Relative angle of stages

Fig. 23

Fig. 25

Fig. 27

Component z of angle velocity

in stage 1

Relative angle of stages

Component y of acceleration
in stage 2

Conclusions

Limits on various disturbances can be specified with the knowledge of allowable tip-off rates
which depend on vehicle performance and control power plant limitation. Separation dynamics
analysis generates some of the inputs for designing on-board control power plants and also for
choosing and evaluating a separation mechanism. A statistical method is followed to examine
the influence of the design variables on the separating bodies and detect the statistical bounds

Monte Carlo simulation of stage separation dynamics of multistage launch vehicle

1425

of separation parameters.

References
[1] Chubb W. The collision boundary between the two separating stages of the SA-4 saturn vehicle[R].
NASA-TND-598, August 1961.
[2] Palmer G D, Mitchell D H. Spring separation of spacecraft[R]. NASA-CR-64009, 1963.
[3] Dwork M. Coning effects caused by separation of spin stabilized stages[J]. AIAA Journal, 1963,
1(11):26392640.
[4] Wilke R O. Comments on coning effects caused by separation of spin stabilized stages[J]. AIAA
Journal, 1964, 2(7):1358.
[5] Puglisi A G. Saturn IB/S-IVB stage separation controllability report[R]. Douglas Report SM46758, 1964.
[6] Decker J P, Pierpont P K. Aerodynamic separation characteristics of conceptual parallel-staged
reusable launch vehicle at Mach 3 to 6[R]. NASA-TMX-1051, January 1965.
[7] Decker J P. Aerodynamic abort-separation characteristics of a parallel staged reusable launch
vehicle from Mach 0.60 to 1.20[R]. NASA-TMX-1174, November 1965.
[8] Decker J P, Gera J. An exploratory study of parallel-stage separation of reusable launch vehicles[R]. NASA-TND-4765, 1968.
[9] Christensen K L, Narahara R M. Spacecraft separation[J]. Space Aeronautics, 1966, 46(7):7482.
[10] Mitchell D H, Palmer G D. Analysis and simulation of a high accuracy spacecraft separation
system[J]. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1966, 3(4):458463.
[11] Waterfall A P. A theoretical study of the multi-spring stage separation system of the black arrow satellite launcher[R]. Royal Aerospace Establishment, TR-682016, Farnborough Hants, UK,
August 1968.
[12] Bolster W J, Googins G C. Design, development and testing of a series of air-launched sounding
rockets[J]. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1969, 6(4):460465.
[13] Longren D R. Stage separation dynamics of spin stabilized rockets[J]. Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, 1970, 7(4):434439.
[14] Hurley M J, Jr, Carrie G W. Stage separation of parallel-staged shuttle vehicles: a capability
assessment[J]. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1972, 9(10):764771.
[15] Su M W, Mullen C R, Jr. Plume impingement force during tandem stage separation at high
altitudes[J]. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1972, 9(9):715717.
[16] Subramanyam J D A. Separation dynamics analysis for a multistage rocket[C]. In: Kobayashi S
(ed). Proceedings of the International Symposium of Space Science and Technology, Tokyo: AGNE
Publishing, 1973, 383390.
[17] Kalesnikof K S. Dynamic separation[M]. 1977 (in Russian).
[18] Saxena S K. Upper stage jet impingement on separated booster[J]. Aeronautical Journal, 1979,
616:7174.
[19] Lochan R, Adimurthy V, Kumar K. Separation dynamics of strap-on boosters[J]. Journal of
Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 1992, 15(1):137143.
[20] Lochan R. Dynamics of bodies separating from launch vehicles[D]. Ph D Dissertation. Department
of Aerospace Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur, May 1993.
[21] Lochan R, Adimurthy V, Kumar K. Separation dynamics of ullage rockets[J]. Journal of Guidance,
Control and Dynamics, 1994, 17(3):426434.
[22] Lochan R, Adimurthy V. Separation dynamics of strap-on boosters in the atmosphere[J]. Journal
of Guidance, Control and Dynamics, 1997, 20(4):633639.
[23] Cheng S C. Payload fairing separation dynamics[J]. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1999,
36(4):511515.
[24] Reubush D E, Martin J G, Robinson J S, et al. Hyper-X stage separation-simulation development
and results[C]. In: 10th International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies
Conference, Kyoto, Japan, April 2001.

1426

J. Roshanian and M. Talebi

[25] Jeyakumar D, Biswas K K. Design and analysis of the stage separation system of a massive liquid
rocket stage[C]. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Modelling Simulation and
Optimization for Design of Multidisciplinary Engineering Systems, Goa, India, 2003.
[26] Jeyakumar D, Biswas K K. Stage separation system design and dynamic analysis of ISRO launch
vehicles[J]. Journal of Aerospace Sciences and Technologies, 2003, 55(3):211222.
[27] Jeyakumar D, Biswas K K. Stage separation dynamic analysis of upper stage of a multistage launch
vehicle using retro rocket[J]. Mathematical and Computer Modelling, 2005, 41(8/9): 849866.
[28] Mitchell D H. Flight separation mechanism[R]. NASA-SP-8056, 1970.
[29] Logan J W. DSV-3E first-second stage separation analysis[R]. Rept SM-46446, Douglas Aircraft
co, April 1965.
[30] Ball K J, Osborne G F. Space vehicle dynamics[M]. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1967.
[31] Orlik-Rukemann K J, Iyengar S. Example of dynamic interference effects between two oscillating
vehicles[J]. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, 1973, 10(9):617619.
[32] Xue Yu. Separation between stages of multistage carrier rocket[R]. FTD-ID (RS) T-1143-83, Sept
1983.
[33] Naftel J C, Wilhite A W, Cruz C I. Analysis of separation of a two-stage winged launch vehicle[C].
In: 24th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan 1986.
[34] Papoulis A. Probability, random variables, and stochastic processes[M]. McGraw-Hill, 1991.