750 AIAA JOURNAL AIAA 78-1048 VOL. 19, 0.4 Design of Maximum Thrust Nozzle Contours by Direct Optimization Methods Jeffrey G. Allman* and Joe D. Hoffmant Purdue University, West Lafayette, Ind. Abstract PROCEDURE for the design of maximum thrust nozzle ‘contours by direct optimization methods is presented. The nozzle contour is a second-degree polynomial having @ fixed initial expansion contour. The coefficients of the polynomial are varied by direct optimization methods to determine the maximum thrust contour. Three direct op- timization methods are considered: multidimensional line search, the method of steepest descent, and Newton's method, Results are presented to illustrate the behavior of the direct ‘optimization methods, and to demonstrate that second-degree polynomial contours yield thrusts comparable to the thrusts developed by nozzle contours determined by calculus of variations methods. Contents Some procedures! for designing maximum thrust nozzle ‘contours are based on the calculus of variations. A major drawback to this procedure is tha ifthe nozzle configuration or the gasdynamic model are changed, then the entire op- timization analysis and corresponding computer program must be reworked. The objective of the present investigation? was to develop aan efficient method for the design of maximum thrust nozzle contours by direct optimization methods. That was ac- complished by specifying the nozzle contour as a polynomial, and employing nonlinear programming methods? to deter: ‘mine the polynomial that yields the maximum thrust contour for a given nozzle configuration, a given gasdynamic model, and a given design constraint Two questions are answered by this investigation. First, how do direct optimization methods behave in this problem? Second, do polynomial nozzle contours develop thrusts comparable to calculus of variations contours? In the present investigation, the nozzle configuration is a conventional De Laval nozzle specified by a second-degree polynomial, the gasdynamie model assumes the isentropic flow of a perfect gas, and the design constraint is that the nozzle has a specified length, ‘The nozzle geometry and flowfield are illustrated in Fig. 1 The maximum thrust contour is given by the second-degree polynomial YQ) sat beter? wo Specifying the three coefficients a, 6, and c uniquely defines the nozzle contour. These coefficients are determined by specifying the attachment angle @,, the exit radius y,, and by Presmhied as Paper 78-1088 at the AIAA/SAE lth Joint Propulsion Conference, Las Vegas, Nev, July 25.27, 1978; submitted ‘Aug. 31, 1978; synoptic received Jan. 19, 198i. Copyright ‘American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Ine. 1978. All tights reserved. Full paper available from AIAA Library, 585 W. S7th Street, New York, N. Y. 10019. Price: microfiche, 3.00; hard copy 57.0. “Research Assistant in Mechanical Engineering: presently with Exxon Chemical Company, ‘Professor af Mechanical Engineering, Member ALAA. requitng thatthe polynomial contour attach contnuouy with continuous wall slope to the circular arc intal- expan Contour. Consequety, 2, and yy determine a unique nox Sonfguration. The optimization procedure searches throw the allowabie anges of these wo parameters to determine gt Pariclar set of values that yels the maximum now thre The flowed and nzze thrust are calculated by model version of the method of characteristics program develop by Pasley and Hoffman.* ‘The thrust f the som of te pressure frees and momentum flux across he that and tt Integral ofthe pressure ores along te noel wall Direc optimization procedures may be divided into two broad categories; cetvative-ftee methods and. dervaine methods, Dervatie-fyse methods employ systematic searcher through the domain of the objective function (ue the hus) without employing any information about derivative of ts jective function, This caps of methods is most usefl when the objective uncon isfa function of many variate, Derivative methods employ first derivatives to determine te fearch diretion, and in some cases second derivatives fo otermine te stp sie, Tis cass of method: Is mos sta srhen the objective function is smooth and depends on onl few variables This class of methods was used in the pros investigation “The general philosophy ofa direct optimization method to bein with an arbitrary starting pot (bse poi). The Optimization method then selects a earch ection and sty Se for moving the base point toward the optimum. Te Dumber of function evaluations required foreach base pt move and the numer of base point moves determine te eifcency ofthe method, sine a function evaluation require tmuch more computational effort than te optimization len “Tare iret optimization methods were considered in ths seudy: multfinensional ine search the method of seat escent and Newiows method. Mulitdimensona ine se performs a onedimensional line search in each of the Br Expendent variables. A cyte is complete when allo thei dependent variables have been considered. The method of steepest descent searches along the direction of he gradient the objective function, Newton's method sed both firs aad second derivatives fo determine both te search direction asd he eepsie ‘The calelus of variations is an indirect optimise procedure, No constraints placed on the form ofthe n0z# Contour, '=y. (3), other than emus be a seamline. TH the calculus of variations method yields the absolute Bt 4 eran met etecmet sot Fig. Nozaleflowfield modelaUNT 1981 Table 1 Comparison ofthe performance of maximum thrust nozzle contours Tras, N Nowle Ambient fengih, pressure, Rao_——_Polynomial om am nozzle _noztle® a7 0 Mes aso 7.199 ° 2is73 Ries 9-708 ° 273800 RIT8 1.616 0 DIS] 2a 15993 ° Dales. 241869 20.259 ° 27736 247362 sis ° 2527S 281868 a3 ° 250282 258037 2968 ° 264020 25361.5 2153 ° 267821267072 ani ° 27080. 2699118 7331 030 © 217080 21565.2 m2 od 69s joss oso 2392s HasTd2 wan 030 996.5 239196 TRewioa meted zed Lf a 3 sa z 4a} Pe NOZZLE ATTACHMENT ANGLE fe, 066 Fig.2 Example of nozzle optimization. solution to the specific design problem. The design procedure developed by Rao! is a one-dimensional variational problem. The results presented in this paper are compared with results, based on Rao’s method, The three direct optimization methods were applied 10 (assign a series of maximum thrust nozzle contours for dif- ferent lengths for two values of the ambient pressure. All operating conditions were typical of modern rocket motor DESIGN OF MAXIMUM THRUST NOZZLE CONTOURS, 751 technology. Results are presented to demonstrate the behavior of the direct optimization methods and to show that the thrusts obtained by the second-degree polynomial contours are comparable (0 the thrusts obtained by calculus of variations contours. The results for a nozae length of 24.818 cm, illustrated on the surface F=F(0,,»,), ate presented in Fig. 2. The paths tothe maximum thrust contour followed by each ofthe three direct optimization methods ae illustrated. From numerous studies, such asthe one illustrated in Fig. 2, the following conclusions regarding the direct optimization methods are drawn: 1) each method converges to the unique maximum thrust contour; 2) the solution obtained is the slobal maximum; and, 3) each method converges othe global maximum efficiently, without an excessive number of base point moves. The thrusts developed by Rao contours are compared with the thrusts developed by polynomial contours in Table 1. Both methods predict esentially the same maximum thrust. Some Of the differences between the maximum thrust values Predicted by the two approaches may exist because the rhumerical results were obtained with different, although similar, flowfield analysis programs, and the ‘direct op- timizations were terminated by nonzero elative tolerances However, itis likely thatthe bulk ofthe differences are due to the restriction of a second-degree polynomial wall contour Overall agreement between the two approaches is very good. For zero ambient pressure, agreement forall cases is within 0.2%, which is the approximate precision of the method of characteristic flowfield calculation algorithm. The results for fan ambient pressure of 0.340 atm do not agree as wel, suggesting that a contour with more degrees of freedom may bbe desirable for this ambient pressure. Thus, polynomial contours effectively approximate maximum thrust nozzle contours, justifying this approach. Higher-degree polynomials could produce even closer agreement between the to procedures, and may be required for other fozzle operating conditions and ambient pressures. Acknowledgments ‘This work was sponsored by the Air Force Aero Propulsion Laboratory, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, Ohio, under Contract No. F33615-73-C-2010. P. J. Hutchison (AFAPL/RIT) was the Project Engineer. References ‘Rao, G. V. R., “Exhaust Nozzle Contour for Optimum Thrust" Jet Propulsion, Vol 28, June 1958, pp. 377-382. Allman, J.G. and Hoffman, j. D., “Propulsion Nozzle Studies, Vol. I. Design of Maximum Thrust Nozzle-Base-Boatall Contours,” Air Force Aero Propulsion Lab., Wright-Patterson AFB, Ohio, ‘AFAPL-TR-T7-1, March 1977 SHimmelblau,'D.M., Applied Nonlinear Programming, McGraw Hill Book Co., New York, 1972, +Pasiey, S.A. and Hoffman, J. D., “Flow Field Analysis of a Nozzle-Boattail System," Ait Force Acro Propulsion Lab., Wright- Paterson AFB, Ohio, AFAPL-TR-74-38, May 1974,