Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Omer
Tanr kulu and Veysi Ercan
Defense Industries Research and Development Institute, Ankara 06, Turkey
Downloaded by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV on January 25, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3328
A simple optimal external con guration design method is proposed that can be used in conceptual and preliminary design stages of an unguided missile development project. Cost and constraint functions are derived from
the results of linear time-invariant aeroballistic theory (constant roll rate and forward speed, decoupled axial and
transverse dynamics); therefore different phases of ight are examined separately. Curve tting is used to reduce
the number of trial cases and hence the work required to obtain aerodynamic and inertial data. Optimal con gurations are determined by using a modi ed steepest-descent algorithm. A case study is presented in which the
external con guration of an unguided light assault missile is optimized for free ight at low subsonic speed. Three
cost functions related to stability, range, and warhead performance, respectively, and two inequality constraint
functions related directly to stability and indirectly to dispersion are considered in the case study.
Nomenclature
CD
Cl p
Cl
Cm
Cm Cmq
Cm p
CZ
d
F x
f x
g x
H
h x
Ia
It
ka
kt
mT
m
pdyn
pres
S
sd
ss
V
x
xl
xu
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
=
Introduction
HE main objectives in external con guration design of unguided missiles are to obtain adequate stability in all phases of
ight, short minimum range, long maximum range, low dispersion,
and large payload mass. In practice it is dif cult to achieve these
Received Aug. 5, 1997; presented as Paper 97-3725 at the AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, New Orleans, LA, Aug. 1113,
1997; revision received Nov. 17, 1997; accepted for publication Nov. 19,
1997. Copyright c 1997 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
Coordinator, Mechanics and Systems Engineering Research Group, PK
16, Mamak 06261. E-mail: b092136@orca.cc.metu.edu.tr. Member AIAA.
Research Engineer, Flight Mechanics Section, Mechanics and Systems
Engineering Research Group, PK 16, Mamak 06261.
312
313
Downloaded by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV on January 25, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3328
hm x
m
xl
Ng
Nh
1
xu
f xk
max[gl xk 0]
k
l
xk
1 j
(1)
xk
xk
xl
xu
h m xk
xk
if
if
if
1 j
j
j
xl
xk
xk
(2)
dk
xk
1 j
xl
xu
1 j
1 j
xu
(3)
di
F
xi
2F
(5)
(6)
xi x j
Case Study
The subject matter of this representative case study is the optimal external con guration design of an unguided short-range light
assault missile, a schematic drawing of which is shown in Fig. 2.
The one-man portable missile is shoulder launched, and there is no
rocket motor propulsion once the missile leaves its tube launcher.
The original warhead of the missile is to be replaced by an antipersonnel fragmentationwarhead. No modi cations will be performed
in terms of solid propellant rocket motor because the mass of the
new warhead is constrained to be less than or equal to the mass
of the old one. The free ight Mach number of the missile is 0.32
with the old warhead. The missile will have a low subsonic ight
speed with the new warhead as well. The missile has six planar tail
ns with no dihedral, which means that it has hexagonal rotational
symmetry and six planes of mirror symmetry.3
There are three reasons for selecting such a missile as the subject
of this case study, which aims to demonstrate the proposed optimal
external con guration design method as simply as possible. First,
there is only one ight phase to be considered (short-duration free
ight during which the missile has a relatively straight mean trajectory). Second, the ight takes place at low subsonic Mach numbers
where aerodynamic characteristics do not vary much with Mach
number, and hence only one set of aerodynamic data has to be determined. Third, it is possible to derive approximate closed-form
expressions for a large number of aerodynamic stability derivatives
(including C m p ) by using the method of Bryson3 for ight at low
subsonic Mach numbers.
Three geometricalparameters of the light assault missile were selected to be variable parameters of the optimization problem: span
s and chord c of tail ns and length l of warhead midsection. The
values that are assigned to lower and upper limits of these parameters in this case study are shown in Table 1. Five equally spaced
values of each parameter were used to obtain a sparse set of 125
con gurations.
Closed-form expressionsthat relate aerodynamicstability derivatives to geometry were obtained by using the method of Bryson,
Table 1 Upper and lower limits
of variable geometrical data
Parameter
F
Hi j
1 2
l, mm
c, mm
s, mm
Lower
limit
Upper
limit
30
10
50
60
15
100
where
k
Fig. 1
d kT dk
d Tk Hk dk
(4)
314
which is restricted to incompressible potential ow. Drag coef cient data of the 125 con gurations were determined by using the
Missile DATCOM databasefor a Mach number of 0.32. The term C D
was assumed to be related to x by the following functional relationship:
CD x
c0
Downloaded by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV on January 25, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3328
c7 x 1 x2
c1 x 1
c2 x 2
c8 x1 x 3
c4 x 12
c3 x 3
c5 x22
c6 x 32
(7)
c9 x 2 x 3
pdyn
pres
(8)
(9)
where
M
1 k t2 C m
(10)
2T H
(11)
sd
H
Cz
T
1 2kt2 C m q
2C D
1 2ka2 C m
ka t
Cz
Ia t m T
CD
2
2m T C
Cm
(12)
(13)
(14)
(15)
f1
pres
2V
(16)
The second cost function denoted by f 2 is related to range performance. Linear time-invariant aeroballistic theory predicts the variation of speed of an unguided missile in free straight ight to be
V
V0 e
CDs
(17)
V dt
t0
f2
CD mT
(18)
(19)
mT
(20)
Cm
CZ
(21)
(22)
ss
The reason for this selection is related to the dispersion of the light
assault missile, which is due to aiming errors and con gurational
asymmetries. Nothing can be done to reduce dispersion due to aiming errors in terms of external con guration design. On the other
hand, dispersion due to con gurational asymmetries can be reduced
by increasing ss .
The second inequality constraint function, denoted by g2 , is related to the transverse damping factor, which is de ned as
H 2
M
sd 2 sd
(23)
0 15
(24)
The reason for this selection is also related to the desire to keep
dispersion due to con gurational asymmetries below a certain
level.
Polynomial functional relationships similar to Eq. (7) were assumed to exist between each f g, and x, coef cients of which were
determined by using the curve tting utility of Sigma Plot software.
Each cost function was scaled in such a way that the difference between its maximum and minimum values and its mean value were
both equal to 1. The optimal external con guration for each cost
function was determined separately by using a Turbo Pascal program implementing the modi ed steepest-descent algorithm that
was discussed in the preceding section. [Four different optimization
f 1 f 2 f 3 g1
problems were solved with fi i 1 2 3 f 4
0 g2
0, and xl
x
xu .] Optimal x values for roll dynamic
stability performance f 1 , range performance f2 , warhead performance f 3 , and composite cost function f 4 are presented in
Table 2 with the corresponding values of the cost and inequality
constraint functions.
The variations of f1 g1 , and g2 with x 2 and x3 at x 1
0 5 are
shown in Figs. 35. The variations of f 2 f 3 f 4 g1 , and g2 with x 2
and x3 at x 1
1 are shown in Figs. 610. Figure 3 shows that the
lowest f 1 value is located at the upper-left-handcorner of the f 1 vs
x 2 and x 3 graph at x 1
0 5. Figures 4 and 5 show that inequality
constraints g1
0 and g2
0 are both satis ed at that particular
point. Similar visual inspection of Figs. 610 and an examination
of the cost and constraint function data of the 125 con gurations
have shown the authors that correct optimal solutions were found
for all four of the optimization problems. No convergenceproblems
were observed in iterations with different initial conditions, which
resulted in the same optimal solutions.
Downloaded by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV on January 25, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3328
315
316
Table 2
f1
g1
g2
xopt
1 570
0 239
0 045
0 500
0 667
1 000
f2
g1
g2
xopt
1 592
0 363
0 000
0 996
0 856
0 712
f3
g1
g2
xopt
1 437
0 446
0 000
0 997
0 667
0 707
f4
g1
g2
xopt
1 021
0 682
0 043
1 000
0 667
1 000
Downloaded by GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIV on January 25, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/2.3328
Conclusion
References
1 Cayzac,
R., and Carette, E., Parametric Aerodynamic Design of Spinning Finned Projectiles Using a Matrix Interpolation Method, Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 29, No. 1, 1992, pp. 5156.
2 Pierre, D. A., Optimization Theory with Applications, Dover, New York,
1986, pp. 264366.
3 Nielsen, J. N., Missile Aerodynamics, Nielsen Engineeringand Research,
Inc., Mountain View, CA, 1988, pp. 349431.
4 Murphy, C. H., Free Flight Motion of Symmetric Missiles, Ballistic
Research Lab., Aberdeen Proving Ground, Rept. 1216, Aberdeen, MD, July
1963.
Fig. 10 Variation of g2 inequality constraint function with x2 and x3
for x1 = 1.0; g2 (damping dynamic stability).
J. R. Maus
Associate Editor