中国科技论文在线 http://www.paper.edu.

cn
Can. Aeronaut. Space J., Vol. 56, No. 1, pp. 17–30, 2010

Conceptual design of wrap-around-fin rockets

using the MDO methodology
Liangyu Zhao, Gyung-Jin Park, Kwan Soo Lee, and Shuxing Yang

Abstract. The conceptual design of rockets is a system engineering that involves configuration, aerodynamics, engine,
dynamic stability, and coupling effects. To obtain benefits from the synergistic effects, the latest research achievements, and
the most powerful analysis tools efficiently, this paper focuses on how to apply the multidisciplinary design optimization
(MDO) technology to the conceptual design of the long-range, large length to diameter ratio wrap-around-fin (WAF)
rockets. The software iSIGHT was employed as the MDO framework, the multidisciplinary feasible (MDF) method as the
MDO architecture, and the multi-island genetic algorithm combined with sequential quadratic programming as the search
algorithm. By maximizing the payload ratio, the structural analysis, aerodynamics, engine, trajectory, and dynamic
stability were considered comprehensively. A case study demonstrated that MDO could improve the rocket
performance effectively.

Résumé. Le modèle conceptuel des fusées est associé au concept d’ingénierie des systèmes complexes qui comprend la
configuration, l’aérodynamique, le moteur, la stabilité dynamique ainsi que leurs effets de couplage. Afin de tirer profit
dans un souci de plus grande efficacité des effets synergétiques, des derniers développements en recherche et des outils
d’analyse les plus puissants, on met l’accent dans cette étude sur la façon d’appliquer la technologie d’optimisation
multidisciplinaire (OMD) au modèle conceptuel des fusées à ailettes enveloppantes (WAF) longue portée à rapport
longueur/diamètre élevé. Le logiciel d’optimisation iSIGHT a été utilisé comme cadre OMD, la méthode MDF
(« multidisciplinary feasible ») comme architecture OMD et l’algorithme génétique utilisant le modèle à ı̂lots multiples
(« multi-island genetic ») a été combiné à la programmation quadratique séquentielle à titre d’algorithme de recherche.
Dans une optique de maximisation du taux de charge utile, divers éléments ont été examinés en détail dont l’analyse
structurale, l’aérodynamique, le moteur, la trajectoire ainsi que la stabilité dynamique. Une étude de cas a démontré que la
technologie OMD pouvait s’avérer efficace pour l’amélioration de la performance des fusées.
[Traduit par la Rédaction]

Nomenclature Lcy length of cylindrical segment of control section

LE length of engine
A equatorial moment of inertia Lf distance between WAF trailing edge and rocket
AT21 burn time of first stage tail
AT22 burn time of second stage Ln length of nozzle
c absolute thickness of WAF Lr length of WAF root
c relative thickness of WAF LW wingspan of WAF
D rocket diameter p value of thrust
DT delay time PR payload ratio
Isp mass-specific impulse Tp period of pitch oscillation
I% ratio of total impulse of first stage to total Tr period of roll oscillation
impulse of entire engine THn absolute thickness of nozzle
L length of rocket V* volume
LA length of arc segment d installation angle of WAF
Lb length of warhead lA length to diameter ratio of arc segment
LC length of control section lb ratio of warhead length to rocket length

Received 2 October 2009. Published on the Web at http://pubservices.nrc-cnrc.ca/casj on 30 September 2010.

L. Zhang, and K.S. Lee. Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, Seoul 133-791, Republic of Korea.
G.-J. Park.1 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Hanyang University, Gyeonggi-do 426-791, Republic of Korea.
S. Yang. School of Aerospace Engineering, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100081, China.
1
Corresponding author (e-mail: gjpark@hanyang.ac.kr).

E 2010 CASI 17 转载
中国科技论文在线
Vol. 56, No. 1, April/avril 2010
lB length to diameter ratio of rocket
lW aspect ratio of WAF
r* equivalent density
h0 fire angle
vc critical rotation rate
ve balance rotation rate
x0 sweepback angle of WAF leading edge
x1 forward-swept angle of WAF tailing edge
j opening angle of WAF
Introduction
The long-range multiple launch rocket is a type of
traditional and popular ground-to-ground munition. It has
received a lot of attention, and significant support has been
provided for its unique advantages in many countries. A
large length to diameter ratio with a wrap-around fin
(WAF) is the most popular aerodynamic configuration.
Many long-range rockets in current use are designed using
these criteria, including the multiple launch rocket system
(MLRS) and guided multiple launch rocket system
(GMLRS) developed by the US, the 9M55K series
projectiles of the BM-30 ‘‘Smerch’’ system developed by
the former Soviet Union, and the A-100 system developed
by China. With developments in science and technology,
these kinds of rockets will be used not only in the military
domain but also in civil engineering, such as in the field of
artificial rainfall. In the foreseeable future, rocket
developments will be made in terms of longer range,
smaller miss error, greater interchangeability of parts, and
higher intelligence level. With increasing pressure from
competition in the world weapons market, the cost of
rockets should be minimized at the same time as the
performance is maximized. This is the prime motivation of
the multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) method in
the conceptual design of weapon systems just like it has been
used extensively in the aircraft design process (Kroo, 1997).
Conceptual design is the first stage of the three major
phases in the design of a flying vehicle; the other two
stages are preliminary design and detailed design.
Designers have the greatest freedom at the conceptual
design stage, and decisions at this stage can directly affect
the final performance of the flying vehicle (AIAA Technical
Committee for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization,
1991). The MDO, initiated in the 1980s, can be described
as a methodology for the design of systems where the
interaction between several disciplines must be considered
and where the designer is free to significantly affect the
system performance in more than one discipline (AIAA
Technical Committee for Multidisciplinary Design
Optimization, 1991). The MDO is responsible for many
achievements in the fields of aeronautics and astronautics
(Weck et al., 2007). Currently, this methodology has been
18
http://www.paper.edu.cn
applied to the design of a winged missile and a hypersonic
air-breathing missile (Jun et al., 2003; Starkey et al., 2008),
new-concept civilian airplanes such as the blended-wing-
body (BWB) aircraft and supersonic transport (Choi et al.,
2008; Herrmann, 2008; Ko et al., 2003), a reusable launch
vehicle (Brown and Olds, 2006), the unmanned air vehicle
(UAV) (Lee et al., 2009; Rajagopal et al., 2007), and so on.
Researchers have benefitted greatly from the MDO
methodology.
Some MDO strategies, also referred to as MDO
architectures, have already been proposed. In general,
MDO strategies can be classified into two categories based
on the number of optimizers in the entire architecture. One is
single-level architecture, which has one optimizer and
includes the multidisciplinary feasible (MDF) method and
the individual discipline feasible (IDF) method (Cramer et
al., 1994; Renaud, 2002). The other is multilevel architecture,
which has two or more optimizers and includes the
collaborative optimization (CO) method, the concurrent
subspace optimization (CSSO) method, and the bilevel
integrated system synthesis (BLISS) method (Braun, 1996;
Hajela et al., 1992; Kodiyalam and Sobieszczanski-Sobieski,
1999; Sobieszczanski-Sobieski et al., 1998). A comparison of
these MDO architectures with mathematical examples can
be found in Yi et al. (2008). In addition, analytical target
cascading (ATC) and isoperformance are also considered by
some designers as two kinds of MDO strategies and have
been receiving more and more attention (Kim et al., 2003;
Weck and Jones, 2006). Each is briefly explained here. MDF,
which is the foundation of other MDO strategies, is easy to
use, but a complicated system analysis has to be involved in
every step of the iteration. IDF was proposed to eliminate
the system analysis by solving every subdiscipline
independently. Multilevel MDO strategies were proposed
to handle large-scale problems. CO, a two-level MDO
strategy, does not have to perform system analysis by
decomposing subdisciplines. The system level manages the
overall process with the lower level, and all of the
subdisciplines are performed concurrently. High-fidelity
models of subdisciplines are quite important in CO. CSSO,
also a two-level MDO strategy, has a system optimizer and
multiple subsystem optimizers. The system and the
subsystems optimizers have the same optimization
objectives and the same or different design variables.
Approximation techniques are fairly essential for CSSO.
BLISS was proposed based on the decomposition
techniques. The key advantage of BLISS is that it allows
designers to stop the optimization process at any time.
ATC is based on the principles of the preliminary design of
products, and isoperformance is based on the theories of
inverse design. However, we prefer to consider ATC and
isoperformance as product design methods, such as MDO.
Unfortunately, very little literature on the MDO can be
found in the field of WAF rocket design. The aim of this
research was to apply the MDO methodology to the
conceptual design of WAF rockets. This paper is organized
E 2010 CASI
中国科技论文在线
Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal / Journal aéronautique et spatial du Canada
in three major sections. First, the MDO problem and the
interactions of concerned disciplines are described, and
some of the geometry variables, geometry constraints, and
optimization objectives are described based on the
simplification of a benchmark rocket. Second, the
subdisciplines including component configuration or
parametric modeling, aerodynamics, engine analysis,
trajectory simulation, and stability analysis are described.
Third, a case is used to demonstrate that MDO techniques
can truly improve the rocket performance effectively. UG NX
(Siemens Co., available from www.plm.automation.siemens.
com/en_us/products/nx/index.shtml), a commercial computer-
aided-design (CAD) package, was used for the parametric
modeling. A surrogate model technique was involved in the
aerodynamics discipline; the MDF method was adopted as the
MDO architecture, and the multi-island genetic algorithm
(MIGA) was combined with sequential quadratic programming
as the search algorithm.
Definition of the problem
Multidisciplinary design optimization of WAF rockets,
similar to the traditional design method (Zhou and Ju,
2005), requires a number of iterations to achieve a balance
between performance and design parameters. First, the
aerodynamic configuration is determined based on former
experience or new concepts. The geometry parameters and
type of engine propellant (fuel) are then determined. After
the burn time of the engine is chosen, the rocket
Figure 1. Interaction of the concerned disciplines.
E 2010 CASI
http://www.paper.edu.cn
characteristics can be calculated, such as mass, center of
gravity, moments of inertia, aerodynamic coefficients (e.g.,
coefficients of lift, drag, and pitch moment), and change of
thrust against time. Substituting these characteristics into the
mathematical model of the ballistics, the range and change of
angle of attack with time and the change of angle of sideslip
with time are obtained. Lastly, the stability can be analyzed
based on the flight information. This is one iteration of the
entire design process. If the performance is not good enough,
the iteration should be performed again and again. The
relationships and interactions of the required disciplines
are illustrated in Figure 1, and a more detailed description
is given in the following sections.
Basically, an MDO problem is an optimization problem
with or without constraints. Design variables, optimization
objectives, and design constraints are the three key factors.
Before defining these factors, a simplified benchmark rocket
is defined. It is based on the sophisticated A-100 rocket
system (the weapon system and rocket are shown in
Figures 2 and 3). The body of the simplified rocket, which
is illustrated in Figure 4, includes five main components,
namely the control section, the warhead, the engine, the
nozzle, and the stabilizer (the tail fins – wings). The
control section consists of an arc segment that starts from
the rocket nose and a cylindrical segment just after the arc
segment. The former is generated through rotation of a
specified generatrix along the longitudinal axis of the
rocket, and the latter is assumed to be a solid cylinder. The
warhead and engine are both simplified similar to the
19
中国科技论文在线
Vol. 56, No. 1, April/avril 2010
Figure 2. A-100 weapon system.
cylindrical segment of the control section and consist of solid
cylinders. The nozzle is a hollow cylinder. The profile of the
simplified stabilizer, which is shown in Figure 5, consists of
six panels of WAF.
Design variables
Based on the basic theory of rocket design (Zhou and Ju,
2005) and the aforementioned simplifications, the
independent parameters to define the rocket geometry are
shown in Table 1. They are also the design variables for
the rocket geometry.
Though the parameters in Table 1 are independent and
generally used to describe the rocket geometry, they are
not convenient enough to construct the solid rocket model,
especially using CAD software. To fix this problem, the
relevant design parameters, which can be deduced from the
aforementioned independent design variables and are more
convenient to construct the geometry model, are shown in
Table 2.
Figure 3. A-100 rocket.
20
http://www.paper.edu.cn
Optimization objective
The selected optimization objective is to maximize the
payload ratio (PR), which is defined as the ratio of the
warhead mass (Mwarhead) to the rocket takeoff mass
(Mtakeoff). The objective is selected based on the designer’s
intention, and PR is defined as follows:
M warhead
PR ~
M takeoff
ð1Þ
V w rw
~
V ac rac z V cc rcc z V w rw z V e rei z V n rn z V s rs
where V is the volume; r is the equivalent density; and the
subscripts ac, cc, e, ei, n, s, and w denote arc segment,
cylindrical segment, engine, initial engine, nozzle, WAF,
and warhead, respectively. Normally, the volume of the
specified model can be calculated automatically using
CAD software. However, equivalent densities must be
defined by the designer. The values and units of the
concerned equivalent densities are shown in Table 3, and
all were deduced based on the benchmark rocket.
Design constraints
The constraints of the geometry can be regarded as the
design space. For example, the rocket diameter belongs in
the range of [100.0, 400.0] (in mm), and the rocket length to
diameter ratio belongs in the range of [10.0, 30.0]. The design
space of the geometry is defined according to popular
rockets worldwide and the current industrial foundation of
a specified country (China). Some other design constraints in
the subdisciplines are discussed in detail later in the paper.
Multidisciplinary design optimization
The MDF method, which is also referred to as the fully
integrated optimization (FIO) method or nested analysis and
design (NAND) method (Keane and Nair, 2005), was
employed as the MDO architecture. The whole MDO
system includes structural analysis, aerodynamics, engine
analysis, trajectory simulation, and stability analysis, which
are described in detail in the following sections.
Structural analysis
Structural analysis computes the mass, center of gravity,
and moments of inertia of the rocket. Stress and fatigue have
not yet been considered. This subdiscipline can also be called
parametric modeling or components configuration.
A novel geometry representation method, called the ‘‘point-
orientation and vector-direction’’ method, is proposed based
on the simplified rocket and is illustrated in Figure 6. Five
points (solid circles) and one vector (solid line with an
arrowhead) are involved. Orientation points are employed
to describe the starting and end points of each component,
and the direction vector is used to describe the longitudinal
axis of the rocket (from nose to tail). Five orientation points
E 2010 CASI
中国科技论文在线
Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal / Journal aéronautique et spatial du Canada
Figure 4. Profile of the body of the simplified rocket.
Figure 5. Profiles of the stabilizing device of the simplified rocket.
Table 1. Design variables for the rocket geometry.
Symbol Description
D (mm) Rocket diameter; diameter of warhead, engine, and
cylinder segment of control section
lB Length to diameter ratio of rocket; defined as ratio
of rocket length to rocket diameter, and can be
described as lB 5 L/D
lA Length to diameter ratio of arc segment; defined as
ratio of arc segment length to rocket diameter
lb Ratio of warhead length to rocket length (excluding
control section); can be used to describe the
warhead power and calculate the payload ratio
j (u) Opening angle of WAF; shown in Figure 5 and
defined as angle between the chord and the
tangent to the surface of the nozzle section
lW Aspect ratio of WAF; defined as ratio of WAF span
to chord length of WAF wing root
c Relative thickness of WAF; defined as ratio of WAF
thickness to chord length of WAF wing root
d (u) Installation angle of WAF; defined as angle between
WAF wing root axis and the rocket longitudinal
axis; illustrated in Figure 5
x0 (u) Sweepback angle of WAF leading edge; shown in
Figure 5
combined with the direction vector can describe the nose, the
end plane of the control cabin and the starting plane of the
warhead, the end plane of the warhead and the starting plane
of the engine, the end plane of the engine and the starting
plane of the nozzle, and the tail of the rocket.
E 2010 CASI
http://www.paper.edu.cn
Table 2. Design parameters for the rocket geometry.
Symbol Description
L (mm) Length of rocket; calculated as L 5 lBD
LA (mm) Length of arc segment; calculated as LA 5 lAD
Lcy (mm) Length of control section cylindrical segment;
assumed to be a function of D and L; Lcy 5
f(D, L) 5 exp[(D 2 300.0)/D] 6 506.0 6 L/7600.0
LC (mm) Length of control section; LC 5 LA + Lcy
Lb (mm) Length of warhead; Lb 5 lb(L 2 LC)
Lf (mm) Distance between WAF trailing edge root and rocket
tail; Lf 5 L 6 121.0/7600.0
LW Wingspan of WAF; LW 5 D sin(j)/2, where j ƒ 2p/n
(n is the number of WAFs and is kept constant at 6
for the benchmark rocket)
Lr (mm) Length of WAF wing root; Lr 5 LW/lW
Ln (mm) Length of nozzle; assumed to be a function of Lf and
Lr: Ln 5 Lf + Lr 6 1.1 + 10.0
THn (mm) Absolute thickness of nozzle; assumed to be a
function of D, THn 5 D/10.0
LE (mm) Length of engine; LE 5 L 2 LC 2 Lb 2 Ln
c (mm) Absolute thickness of WAF; c ~ cLr
x1 (u) Sweepback angle of trailing edge of WAF; constant
and equals 20u for the benchmark rocket
Note: All of the mathematical relationships in the table are determined
based on the benchmark rocket. Some of these parameters are shown in
Figures 4 and 5.
There are two advantages with this geometry
representation method. First, every component can be
constructed in parallel as long as the orientation points,
direction vector, and relevant parameters are known. The
21
中国科技论文在线 http://www.paper.edu.cn
Vol. 56, No. 1, April/avril 2010

Table 3. Equivalent densities (kg/m3). modeling is developed based on the secondary

development of the commercial CAD package called UG
Value NX (Siemens Co., available from www.plm.automation.siemens.
Symbol Description (6103) com/en_us/products/nx/index.shtml) using C++ programming
rac Equivalent density of arc segment 1.3840 language (Kirch-Prinz and Prinz, 2001). The three-
rcc Equivalent density of cylindrical segment 1.1399 dimensional (3D) solid model of one WAF rocket with a
rw Equivalent density of warhead 1.7856 Karman nose and six WAF panels is shown in Figure 7, and
rei Initial equivalent density of engine 1.7856 the six 3D WAF panels are shown in Figure 8. The opening
ref Final equivalent density of engine 0.5603
angle of the WAFs is shown in Figure 9, which is the right tail
rn Equivalent density of nozzle 0.5603
rs Equivalent density of WAF 7.8000 view of the rocket. The characteristics of the rocket, such as
mass, center of gravity, and moments of inertia, can be
obtained using the nested function of UG NX. The
rocket model is obtained just by assembling these generation of invalid designs is avoided during the process
components. Second, this method is compatible with of parameterization. This can increase the robustness of the
various fidelity models, which is very important and very entire optimization process. A more detailed description of
useful for MDO. parametric modeling can be found in Zhao (2007).
Based on the theory of Samareh (2001), parametric This section provides rocket geometry parameters for the
modeling techniques can be classified into three categories, aerodynamics subdiscipline, mass, center of gravity and
namely the discrete approach, free-form deformation moments of inertia for the ballistic simulation, and
methods, and CAD-based approaches. The last category is relevant geometry parameters for the engine analysis. In
the most widely used because there are so many benefits addition, it provides two-dimensional (2D) figures and 3D
from the current CAD software. The code of parametric models for the design documentations.

Figure 6. Orientation points (solid circles) and direction vector (arrow).

Figure 7. Three-dimensional (3D) solid model of rocket with a Karman nose.

22 E 2010 CASI
中国科技论文在线
Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal / Journal aéronautique et spatial du Canada
Figure 8. Six panels of the WAF.
Aerodynamics
The MDO methodology emphasizes that the high-fidelity
computation models should be employed. In terms of
aerodynamics, experimental data obtained using wind
tunnels are undoubtedly closest to reality but are too
expensive and time-consuming to be practical and
necessary at the conceptual design stage. Computational
Figure 9. Tail view of the rocket.
E 2010 CASI
http://www.paper.edu.cn
fluid dynamics (CFD) is a good substitute for wind tunnels
(Anderson, 1995), but there are still some problems integrating
CFD techniques into the MDO system. For instance, CFD
tools are not automatic and robust enough, especially on mesh
generation. In addition, the CFD technique is time-
consuming. As a compromise in terms of computation
accuracy and time, the surrogate model technique was
employed in our MDO system. This technique is a key
element of MDO methodology and has been used in almost
every MDO application (Simpson et al., 2004; 2008).
The orthogonal array is employed as the design of
experiment (DOE) technology and radial bases function
(RBF) neural network as the approximation method (Hick
and Turner, 1999; Keane and Nair, 2005). High-fidelity data
are obtained using the commercial CFD package FLUENT
(Tu et al., 2007). A structured mesh of a representative WAF
rocket is shown in Figure 10, and the mesh of the WAF and
its vicinity are shown in Figure 11. Figure 12 shows a typical
velocity contour near the nose of the WAF rocket from a
high-fidelity model. In this case, the Mach number is 3.0 and
the angle of attack is 0.0. Steady flow fields were simulated to
obtain the static aerodynamic coefficients, such as the
coefficients of lift, drag, and pitch moment. Unsteady flow
fields with a dynamic mesh were simulated to obtain the
dynamic derivatives, like the coefficient of the derivative of
the roll damping. The governing equations here were the
Reynolds averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) equations with
the Spalart–Allmaras 1 equation turbulence model (Tu et al.,
2007). More information about how to calculate relevant
aerodynamic coefficients and validation of this calculation
method can be found in Mao et al. (2007a). A more detailed
description of how to construct surrogate models and
comparisons of several surrogate model techniques, such
as the polynomial response surface, the Kriging method,
and the RBF neural network, are given in Zhao (2007) and
Zhao et al. (2007). The RBF neural network has been
identified as having the highest approximation accuracy
(relative error less than 5.0%) for our problem (Zhao,
2007). It is also known that the RBF neural network will
provide higher approximation accuracy if it is constructed
for every coefficient of the aerodynamic force–moment
separately (Zhao et al., 2007). The neural network toolbox
of MATLAB was employed to construct an RBF neural
network (The MathWorks, Inc., 2006), and the surrogate
model was constructed off-line.
This section describes the key element of the MDO system.
It provides a fast and effective method to integrate an
aerodynamics high-fidelity model into the MDO system.
For example, an evaluation using FLUENT needs about
3 h, and an evaluation using the well-established surrogate
model needs only 8 ms.
Engine
Generally, the WAF rocket uses a solid rocket engine as a
thrust generator. It is unnecessary to design the engine in
23
中国科技论文在线 http://www.paper.edu.cn
Vol. 56, No. 1, April/avril 2010

Figure 10. Side view of the mesh for CFD.

Figure 12. Typical flow field of the rocket nose.

Figure 11. Mesh of the wing.

detail because it is enough for conceptual design to know the

changes in thrust and rocket mass with the burn time. In
response to this characteristic, two types of simplified
propulsion were introduced, one with a single combustion
chamber with a single thrust value (type 1), and one with a
two combustion chambers with two thrust values (type 2)
(Dong and Shang 1996), as sketched in Figure 13. It is
assumed that the mass-specific impulse (Isp) of the solid
engine is constant and is obtained using the following
equation based on the benchmark rocket: Figure 13. Thrust changes versus operating time.

24 E 2010 CASI
中国科技论文在线
Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal / Journal aéronautique et spatial du Canada
Figure 14. Mass changes versus operating time.
I sp ~ 839:31=333:55 ~ 2:5157kN:s:kg{1 ð2Þ
The changes in mass with burn time for the two types of
engines are sketched in Figure 14. This discipline provides
five more design variables, namely the propulsion type (PS),
the ratio of the total impulse of the first stage to the total
impulse of the entire engine (I%, equals 1.0 for type 1), the
delay time (DT) between the first stage burning and the
second stage burning, the burn time of the first stage
(AT21), and the burn time of the second stage (AT22).
PS is equal to zero (type 1) or one (type 2). The mass
difference of the engine before and after burning (Dm) can
be calculated as follows:
Dm~Ve (rei {ref ) ð3Þ
The total impulse of the solid engine (I) can be then be
determined using the following equation:
I ~ Isp Dm ð4Þ
For type 1, I% equals 1.0, only the total burn time of the
first stage (TAT1) is the independent design variable, and p
can be calculated as follows:
p ~ I = TAT1 ð5Þ
For type 2, I% is an independent design variable, so the
total impulse of the first stage (I1) can be calculated as
follows:
I1 ~I|I% ð6Þ
Taking the burn time of the first stage (AT21) as another
independent design variable, the thrust value of the first
stage (p1) is calculated as follows:
p1 ~ I1 = AT21 ð7Þ
E 2010 CASI
http://www.paper.edu.cn
Taking the burn time of the second stage (AT22) as an
independent design variable, the thrust value of the second
stage (p2) is calculated as follows:
p2 ~ I ð1 { I% Þ = AT22 ð8Þ
The total operating time of the engine (TAT2) is
calculated as
TAT2 ~ AT21 z DT z AT22 ð9Þ
This section provides changes of the thrust versus flight
time and changes of the engine mass center against the flight
time to the trajectory simulation sub-discipline.
Trajectory simulation
The six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) trajectory equations
of a spinning missile were employed to simulate the rocket’s
flight ballistics (Qian et al., 2000). MATLAB/Simulink was
employed as the solver of the ballistics ordinary differential
equations (ODEs). This discipline contributes a design
variable (h0) called the fire angle, which is defined as the
angle between the ground floor and the longitudinal axis
of the rocket when launching. In addition, this discipline
offers a constraint, the range, which is one of the major
criteria to evaluate the rocket performance.
Stability analysis
The stability analysis consists of the static stability
analysis and the dynamic stability analysis. Dynamic
stability analysis includes the coning motion analysis, the
following stability analysis, and the resonance effects
analysis. This discipline will introduce four more
constraints into the MDO system as follows: the static
stability margin must be larger than 10.0%, the ratio of the
pitch oscillation period to the roll oscillation period must be
larger than one safe factor (1.2 for this kind of rocket) when
the rocket is flying, the dynamic equilibrium angle must be
smaller than 3.0u at the highest flight point, and the
difference between the balanced rotation rate (ve) and the
critical rotation rate (vc) must be smaller than 0.0.
The static stability margin (ssm) is calculated as follows:
ssm ~ ðxF { xG Þ = L ð10Þ
where xF is the distance between the nose and the center of
the pressure from the air, xG is the distance between the nose
and the center of gravity, and L is the length of the rocket. If
ssm . 0, the rocket has static stability; ssm 5 0 means a
transient static stability; and ssm , 0 means a static
instability. More information on how to calculate static
stability can be found in Qian et al. (2000).
The following stability is caused by the gravity of the
rocket (Xu, 2004). To avoid this phenomenon, the
dynamic equilibrium angle (Da) must be smaller than 3.0u
at the highest flight point. This equilibrium angle, also
25
中国科技论文在线 http://www.paper.edu.cn
Vol. 56, No. 1, April/avril 2010

considered as the total angle of attack at the highest point, is MDO framework and search algorithm
defined as the angle between the longitudinal axis and the
The commercial software iSIGHT developed by
vector of the flying velocity of the rocket and can be
Engineous Software, Inc. was employed as the MDO
calculated using the following equation (Xu, 2004):
framework. Because it is a highly nonlinear problem, the
kzd   kzd MIGA combined with sequential quadratic programming
Da~ 2 h_  2 2 g cos h ð11Þ
k V k V
where A is the equatorial moment of inertia, k 5 (|kz|)1/2, kz 5
rSLmz/2A, kzd 5 rSL2mzd/2A, mz is the coefficient of the
pitch moment, mzd is the derivative of the coefficient of the
damping of pitch moment, r is the air density, L is the
reference length, S is the reference area, and h is the angle
of the obliquity of the trajectory.
The period of the pitch oscillation Tp is just the period of
the angle of attack and can be calculated as
Mz z Mzvz ~ Aa
€ ð12Þ
where Mz is the pitch moment, Mzvz is the damping of the
pitch moment, and a is the angle of attack, and with the
initial condition described as follows:
 process, namely the migration interval, which is the
at~0 ~a0
ð13Þ
a_ t~0 ~0
where t is the time.
The period of the roll oscillation Tr is calculated by solving
Tr ~ 2p = vx ð14Þ
Thus, the following equation must be satisfied to avoid the
resonance effects:
Tp
§1:2 ð15Þ
Tr
Equation (15) can also be written as
vx § 1:2 | 2p = Tp ð16Þ
More detailed information on how to deal with the following
stability and resonance effects can be found in Xu (2004).
The balanced rotation rate (ve) and the critical rotation
rate (vc) can be calculated as follows:
c1 V
ve ~{ ð17Þ
c3 L
c7 c9 qSL2
vc ~ ð18Þ
(C{A)c5 V
where V is the velocity of the rocket, q is the dynamic
pressure, C is the pole moment of inertia, and c1, c2, c5, c7,
and c9 are obtained based on the aerodynamic coefficients
by the weighted least squares method.
When ve , vc for every point of the ballistics of the
rocket, the coning motion would result in asymptotic
stability. More detailed discussions on coning motion can
be found in Mao et al. (2006; 2007b) and Zhao (2007).
nested in iSIGHT was employed as the search algorithm
(Engineous Software, Inc., 2004).
Similar to other widely used genetic algorithms, the
MIGA employs a so-called elitism technique which
guarantees that the best genetic material is carried over to
the child generation and allows the best individuals from the
previous generation to be preserved without alteration. In
addition, the selection operation in MIGA employs the
so-called ‘‘tournament selection’’ scheme. The main feature
of MIGA that distinguishes it from traditional genetic
algorithms is the fact that each population of individuals is
divided into several subpopulations called ‘‘islands.’’ Some
individuals are then selected from each island and migrated
to different islands periodically. This operation is called
‘‘migration.’’ Two parameters control the migration
number of generations between each migration, and the
migration rate, which is the percentage of individuals
migrated from each island at the time of migration
(Engineous Software, Inc., 2004).
Flow chart and realization
Based on the previous descriptions, the flow chart of an
MDO system of the conceptual design of WAF rockets is
illustrated in Figure 15. First, all of the independent design
variables are organized into four groups based on the special
requirement of each subdiscipline. The organizations are
shown in Table 4. Each group is then transformed to the
corresponding solver. After that, the mass, center of
gravity, moments of inertia, and PR are obtained through
structural analysis; coefficients of aerodynamic force and
aerodynamic moments, both of which depend on the flight
velocity and the angle of attack or the angle of sideslip, are
calculated by the surrogate model in the aerodynamics
discipline; the change in thrust with burn time, the change
in engine mass with burn time, and the change in engine mass
center with burn time are deduced in engine analysis; and the
launching system module in the flow chart is to set the fire
angle and submit it to the trajectory simulation. All of the
outputs of the aforementioned four disciplines are provided
to the trajectory simulation. Then, the range, PR, thrust
value of the first stage, ratio of the first thrust to the
second thrust, static stability margin, ve, vc, ratio of the
pitch period to the yaw period, and equilibrium angle are
obtained. The latter four outputs are used to evaluate the
stability of the rocket in the stability analysis module, and
the other outputs are used to evaluate the rocket
performance. The entire process is under the control of the
MDO framework, and the realization on the iSIGHT
platform is shown in Figure 16.

26 E 2010 CASI
中国科技论文在线 http://www.paper.edu.cn
Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal / Journal aéronautique et spatial du Canada

Figure 15. Flow chart of MDO system.

Table 4. Organization of the design variables into groups based on the requirements of each subdiscipline.

D lB lA lb Dj lW c d x0 PS I% AT21 DT AT22 h0
Structural analysis ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6
Aerodynamics ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! 6 6 6 6 6 6
Engine ! ! ! ! 6 6 6 6 6 ! ! ! ! ! 6
Trajectory simulation 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 !

E 2010 CASI 27
中国科技论文在线 http://www.paper.edu.cn
Vol. 56, No. 1, April/avril 2010

Figure 16. Realization on the iSIGHT platform.

Case study the equality constraint is a little difficult to reach. Dj in

One case is studied here. The design variables and design
space are described in Table 5, and the objective and
constraints are described in Table 6. To evaluate the
optimization results more conveniently, the propulsion
type was not considered as an optimization variable and
kept the same as that of the benchmark rocket. Based on
the current industrial capability, the thrust value of the first
stage was limited to 250.0 kN. The range was supposed to be
70.0 km but was set in the range of [69.95, 70.05] km because
Table 5 is calculated as follows:
Dj ~ j0 { j ð19Þ
where j0 is the opening angle of the benchmark rocket and is
equal to 60.0u.
In this case, the relevant parameters of MIGA are
described as follows: the size of subpopulation is 20, the
number of islands is 10, the number of generations is 100,
the rate of crossover is 1.0, the rate of mutation is 0.01, the

Table 5. Description of design variables and design space.

Design Optimization Lower Benchmark Upper Final

variable variable limit value limit result
D (mm) ! 100.00 300.00 400.00 395.76
lB ! 10.00 25.30 30.00 21.33
lA ! 2.00 2.30 2.50 2.49
lb (%) ! 10.00 35.00 50.00 44.45
Dj (u) ! 0.00 0.00 20.00 7.27
lW ! 0.400 0.600 0.800 0.628
c ! 0.010 0.015 0.020 0.012
d (9) ! 30.0 40.0 60.0 48.0
x0 (u) ! 15.00 20.00 30.00 20.67
PS 6 0 1 1 1
I% (%) ! 30.0 70.0 90.0 58.2
AT21 (s) ! 0.00 5.00 20.00 5.00
DT (s) ! 0.00 2.00 50.00 9.04
AT22 (s) ! 0.00 10.00 20.00 12.65
h0 (u) ! 40.00 45.00 60.00 58.00

28 E 2010 CASI
中国科技论文在线
Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal / Journal aéronautique et spatial du Canada
Table 6. Objective and constraints.
Lower limit
Objective
Payload ratio (q) 0.0000
Constraint
Range (km) 69.950
Difference between ve and vc (s–1) — 246.96
Ratio of pitch period to roll period 1.20
Equilibrium angle at highest point (u) — 0.87
Static stability margin (%) 10.0
Thrust value of first stage (kN) — 108.37
Ratio of first thrust to second thrust 2.00
rate of migration is 0.5, and the interval of migration is 5.
Based on these parameters, there would be more than 5000
iterations. We assumed that it was enough to find a good
result. iSIGHT decided the final result based on the
feasibilities of all of the valid design points. The final
results are shown in Tables 5 and 6.
The final results showed that the payload ratio was
improved from 0.3446 to 0.4248. Additionally, the range
increased significantly. To achieve these goals, the diameter
should be increased, and the rocket length to diameter ratio
was decreased. This results in the rocket length increasing
from 7.95 m to 8.44 m. With the increase in lA, the arc
segment length of the control section increased from 0.69 m
to almost 1.0 m. The cylindrical segment length of the control
section increased from 0.55 m to 0.72 m, which means that
there is much more space for the control system. The warhead
length increased from 2.24 m to 3.00 m. In addition, the ratio
of the total impulse in the first stage to the total impulse for
the engine decreased with the increase in delay time. We think
this is useful to control the flight velocity and improve the
dynamic stability. The decrease in the opening angle could
also improve the stability of the coning motion.
Conclusions and discussion
Research has been conducted on the improvement of the
WAF rocket performance by MDO at the conceptual design
stage. A test case based on the MDF method obtained
satisfactory results and improved the payload ratio by up
to 23% with all the constraints being met. The results
achieved in this paper can be a reference when designing or
modifying this kind of rocket.
Circular error probability (CEP) is a comprehensive and
common criterion for evaluating the performance of the
multiple launch rocket system. Integrating the control and
guidance system into the MDO system is one of the future
research directions. This can motivate the application of
MDO to the preliminary design stage and even to the
detailed design stage.
Though MDF has the best convergence property of all of
the MDO architectures, it is a single-level MDO strategy.
E 2010 CASI
http://www.paper.edu.cn
Benchmark value Upper limit Final result
0.3446 — 0.4248
47.770 70.050 70.026
0.00 243.02
2.30 — 2.20
3.00 0.95
23.6 — 22.9
250.00 134.96
4.70 — 3.51
The experiences of subdiscipline experts are absolutely
ignored. The collaborative optimization (CO) method is
considered to be the most practical because its
configuration is consistent with the divisions in the current
industry organization. We also plan to apply the CO method
to the conceptual design of the WAF rocket in the future.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by the Second Brain Korea
21 Project in the year 2009 and by the World Class Univer-
sity (WCU) program through the Korea Science and Engin-
eering Foundation funded by the Ministry of Education,
Science and Technology (No. R32-2008-000-10022-0). The
authors are thankful to Mrs. MiSun Park for her correction
of the manuscript.
References
AIAA Technical Committee for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization. 1991.
White paper on current state of the art in multidisciplinary design
optimization (MDO). American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA), Reston, Va.
Anderson, J.R. 1995. Computational fluid mechanics: the basics with
applications. 1st ed. McGraw-Hill, Inc., New York.
Braun, R. 1996. Collaborative optimization: an architecture optimization for large-
scale distributed design. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif.
Brown, F., and Olds, R. 2006. Evaluation of multidisciplinary optimization
techniques applied to a reusable launch vehicle. Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, Vol. 43, No. 6, pp. 1289–1300. doi:10.2514/1.16577.
Choi, S., Alonso, J.J., Kroo, M.I., and Wintzer, M. 2008. Multifidelity design
optimization of low-boom supersonic jets. Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 45,
No. 1, pp. 106–118. doi:10.2514/1.28948.
Cramer, E.J., Dennis, J.E., Frank, P.D., Lewis, R.M., and Shubin, G.R.
1994. Problem formulation for multidisciplinary optimization. SIAM
Journal on Optimization, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 754–776. doi:10.1137/0804044.
Dong, S., and Zhang, Z. 1996. Theory of solid rocket engines. Beijing Institute
of Technology Press, Beijing, China. [In Chinese.]
Engineous Software, Inc. 2004. iSIGHT_9.0’s reference guide. Engineous
Software, Inc., Cary, N.C.
29
中国科技论文在线
Vol. 56, No. 1, April/avril 2010
Hajela, P., Bloebaum, C., and Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J. 1992. Application
of global sensitivity equations in multidisciplinary aircraft synthesis.
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 27, No. 12, pp. 1002–1010. doi:10.2514/3.45974.
Herrmann, U. 2008. Multiple discipline optimization and aerodynamic off-
design analysis of supersonic transport aircraft. Journal of Aircraft,
Vol. 45, No. 5, pp. 1474–1480. doi:10.2514/1.32673.
Hick, C., and Turner, K. 1999. Fundamental concepts in the design of
experiments. 5th ed. Oxford University Press, Eynsham, UK.
Jun, S., Tischler, A.V., and Venkayya, B.V. 2003. Multidisciplinary design
optimization of a built-up wing structure with tip missile. Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 40, No. 6, pp. 1093–1097. doi:10.2514/2.7219.
Keane, J.A., and Nair, B.N. 2005 Computational approaches for aerospace
design: the pursuit of excellence. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., New York.
Kim, H.M., Michelena, N.F., Papalambros, P.Y., and Jiang, T. 2003. Target
cascading in optimal system design. Journal of Mechanical Design
(Transactions of the ASME), Vol. 125, No. 3, pp. 474–480. doi:10.
1115/1.1582501.
Kirch-Prinz, U., and Prinz, P. 2001. A complete guide to programming in C++.
Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, Mass.
Ko, A., Leifsson, T., Mason, H.W., Haftka, T.R., Schetz, J., and Grossman,
B. 2003. MDO of a blended-wing-body transport aircraft with distributed
propulsion. In Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Aviation Technology,
Integration, and Operations Technical Forum, 17–19 November 2003,
Denver, Colo. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Inc. (AIAA), Reston, Va. AIAA Paper 2003-6732.
Kodiyalam, S., and Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J. 1999. Bi-level integrated
system synthesis with response surfaces. In Proceedings of the 40th
AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and
Materials Conference, 12–15 April 1999, St. Louis, Mo. American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA), Reston, Va.
AIAA Paper 99-1306.
Kroo, I. 1997. Multidisciplinary optimization applications in preliminary
design — Status and directions. In Proceedings of the 38th AIAA/ASME/
ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference,
7–10 April 1997, Kissimmee, Fla. American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA), Reston, Va. AIAA Paper 1997-1408.
Lee, S., Gonzalez, F., Periaux, J., and Srinivas, K. 2009. Robust multi-
objective aerostructural optimization using advanced evolutionary
algorithms. In Proceedings of the 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
5–8 January 2009, Orlando, Fla. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA), Reston, Va. AIAA Paper 2009-970.
Mao, X., Yang, S., and Xu, Y. 2006. Research on the coning motion of wrap-
around-fin projectiles. Canadian Aeronautics and Space Journal, Vol. 52,
No. 3, pp. 119–125.
Mao, X., Yang, S., and Zhao, L. 2007a. Numerical simulation on
aerodynamic characteristics of rockets with wrap around fins. Journal
of Solid Rocket Technology, Vol. 30, No. 3, pp. 181–184. [In Chinese.]
Mao, X., Yang, S., and Xu, Y. 2007b. Coning motion stability of wrap
around fin rockets. Science in China Series E: Technological Sciences,
Vol. 50, No. 3, pp. 343–350.
Qian, X., Lin, R., and Zhao, Y. 2000. Missile flight mechanics. Beijing
Institute of Technology Press, Beijing, China. [In Chinese.]
Rajagopal, S., Ganguli, R., Pillai, A., and Lurdharaj, A. 2007. Conceptual
design of medium altitude long endurance UAV using multi objective
genetic algorithm. In Proceedings of the 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/
30
http://www.paper.edu.cn
ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, 23–
26 April 2007, Honolulu, Hawaii. American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA), Reston, Va. AIAA Paper 2007-1885.
Renaud, G. 2002. An application of multidisciplinary feasible formulation for
aircraft wing design. NRC Institute for Aerospace Research, Ottawa, Ont.
Samareh, J. 2001. Survey of shape parameterization techniques for high-
fidelity multidisciplinary shape optimization. AIAA Journal, Vol. 39,
No. 5, pp. 877–884. doi:10.2514/2.1391.
Simpson, T.W., Booker, A.J., Ghosh, D., Giunta, A.A., Koch, P.N., and Yang,
R. 2004. Approximation methods in multidisciplinary analysis and
optimization: a panel discussion. Structural and Multidisciplinary
Optimization, Vol. 27, No. 5, pp. 302–313. doi:10.1007/s00158-004-0389-9.
Simpson, T.W., Toropov, V., Balabanov, V., and Viana, F. 2008. Design and
analysis of computer experiments in multidisciplinary design optimization:
A review of how far we have come — or not. In Proceedings of the 12th
AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 10–
12 September 2008, Victoria, B.C. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA), Reston, Va. AIAA Paper 2008-5802.
Sobieszczanski-Sobieski, J., Agte, J., and Sandusky, R. 1998. Bi-level
integrated system synthesis. In Proceedings of the 7th AIAA/NASA/
ISSMO Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization, 2–
4 September 1998, St. Louis, Mo. American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA), Reston, Va. AIAA Paper 98-4916.
Starkey, P.R., Liu, D., Baldelli, H.D., Chang, R., and Che, P.C. 2008. Rapid
conceptual design and analysis of a hypersonic air-breathing missile. In
Proceedings of the 15th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic
Systems and Technologies Conference, 28 April – 1 May 2008, Dayton,
Ohio. American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA),
Reston, Va. AIAA Paper 2008-2590.
The MathWorks, Inc. 2006. MATLAB user’s guide. The MathWorks, Inc.,
Natick, Mass.
Tu, J., Yeoh, G., and Liu, C. 2007. Computational fluid dynamics: A practical
approach. Elsevier Inc., New York.
Weck, O., and Jones, M. 2006. Isoperformance: analysis and design of
complex systems with desired outcomes. Systems Engineering, Vol. 9,
No. 1, pp. 45–61.
Weck, O., Agte, J., Sobieski, J., Arendsen, P., Morris, A., and Spieck, M.
2007. State-of-the-Art and future trends in multidisciplinary design
optimization. In Proceedings of the 48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/
ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, 23–
26 April 1999, Honolulu, Hawaii. American Institute of Aeronautics
and Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA), Reston, Va. AIAA Paper 2007-1905.
Xu, M. 2004. Rocket ballistics. Haerbin Institute of Technology Press,
Harbin, China. [In Chinese.]
Yi, I.S., Shin, K.J., and Park, G.J. 2008. Comparison of MDO methods with
mathematical examples. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization,
Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 391–402. doi:10.1007/s00158-007-0150-2.
Zhao, L. 2007. Research on multidisciplinary design optimization system of
conceptual design of wrap-around-fin rockets. Ph.D. thesis, Beijing
Institute of Technology, Beijing, China. [In Chinese.]
Zhao, L., Yang, S., and She, H. 2007. Research on constructing surrogate
model of rocket aerodynamic discipline. Journal of Solid Rocket
Technology, Vol. 30, No. 1, pp. 1–4. [In Chinese.]
Zhou, C., and Ju, Y. 2005. Theory of design of rocket artilleries. Press of the
Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, China. [In Chinese.]
E 2010 CASI