INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 7, pp.

1371-1376 JULY 2014 / 1371

DOI: 10.1007/s12541-014-0478-7

Optimization Process for Concept Design of Tactical

Missiles by Using Pareto Front and TOPSIS

Kwang-Ki Lee1, Kwon-Hee Lee2, Eun-Taek Woo2, and Seung-Ho Han2,#

1 Consulting Team, VP KOREA, 8-1, Sunea-dong, Bundang-gu, Kyunggi-do, South Korea, 463-825
2 Department of Mechanical Engineering, Dong-A University, Hadan-dong, Saha-gu, Busan, South Korea, 604-714
# Corresponding Author / E-mail: shhan85@dau.ac.kr, TEL: +82-51-200-7655, FAX: +82-51-200-7656

KEYWORDS: Optimization, Pareto front, TOPSIS, Desirability function, Design of experiments, Tactical missile design

Concept design requiring complicated feed-forward and feed-back processes makes it difficult for engineers to determine the global
behaviors of design variables and objective functions in a design space. Although design of experiments and response surface models
have been applied to overcome these problems, the design variables satisfying the objective functions can't be found due to violations
of given constraints. In this study, a new optimization process, i.e., the GEO (Generate, Explore and Optimize) process for the concept
design of a tactical missile, based on a MOGA (Multi-Objective Genetic Algorithm) was proposed, which was first adapted to
generate a Pareto Front in order to simultaneously satisfy the constraints and the objective functions. In the first step, the weights
between the objective functions were determined by using an AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process). Then, the design space exploration
followed, and was implemented by surrogate models constructed from the Pareto Front with a neural network. In the last step, a
TOPSIS (Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) and a desirability function were applied together to
determine the optimal solution. The TOPSIS merged the multi-objective design problem to a single entity, and the desirability function
normalized each objective function.

Manuscript received: July 10, 2013 / Revised: March 5, 2014 / Accepted: March 19, 2014

variables and objective functions. Thus, changing the design variables

NOMENCLATURE
in a given design space makes it difficult to grasp the tendencies of the
objective functions.
xij : Score of alternatives In order to overcome such problems, the use of DOE (Design of
yij : Normalized score of alternatives Experiments) and RSM (Response Surface Model) is recommended.1,2
Sj+ : Ideal solution Both methods, however, provide only characteristics of the design
Sj- : Worst solution variables in the design space, but the design space that is related to the
Dj+ : Euclidean distance of ideal solution objective functions cannot be considered. They are not proper for the
Dj- : Euclidean distance of worst solution concept design, which must accommodate many constraints and multi-
C : Closeness index objective functions, because too much DOE data can violate the
constraints.
In the present study, the MOGA (Multi-Objective Genetic
Algorithm)3,4 was adopted to generate a Pareto Front, which enabled
provision of the DOE data that satisfied the constraints and the multi-
1. Introduction objective functions. Before the MOGA was executed, weights between
the objective functions were determined with the help of experts and
For concept design, in general, there are complex feed-forward and AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process) methodology.5 Design space
feed-back combinations that are composed of many theory-based and exploration was then successfully implemented by using the surrogate
empirical governing equations. As a result of such complexity, models, which were constructed from the Pareto Front via the neural
engineers have difficulty determining the correlation between design network model.6,7 In order to obtain the optimal solution, a TOPSIS

© KSPE and Springer 2014

 1372 / JULY 2014
Fig. 1 A new GEO optimization process for concept design
(Technique for Order Preference by Similarity to Ideal Solution) was
applied to translate the multi-objective functions into a single objective
function, in which the desirability function was used to normalize the
different multi-objective functions. A new GEO (Generate, Explore
and Optimize) process for concept design was proposed, and is shown
in Fig. 1. In order to verify the proposed GEO process, it was applied
to the concept design of a MRAAM (Medium-Range Air-To-Air
Missile), which is a tactical missile of the air force. For the concept
design of the MRAAM, six design variables and six responses were
selected. In the first step, the MOGA was used; therefore, 1,280 Pareto
Front were generated, which satisfied the constraints given from a
sizing tool - the TMD (Tactical Missile Design) Excel spreadsheet.8
Then, the neural network was used to create six surrogate models for
these constraints and multi-objective functions, which were then used
for exploration of the design space. Integrated visualization tools such
as a prediction profiler and a contour plot were used in the operation
of the design space exploration. The optimal solution was then
determined from the desirability function9 that generated a single
TOPSIS objective function.
2. Tactical Missile Design and MRAAM Modeling
During the first step in the concept design of a missile, tools are
needed for the determination of geometric sizes that will allow figure
out quick tradeoffs among the determined geometry sizes. For optimal
effectiveness, these sizing tools must meet three requirements: they
must accept wide variations in the first order parameters of
components; they must accurately show the effects of the parameter’s
variations; and, they must be capable of performing rapid and
economic analyses. Rapid analysis is required for concept design
because the multi-dimensional nature of the design problem often
requires the examination of thousands of potential system
configurations. Missile design requires a tool that can be used to
analyze the geometrical, structural and propulsion parameters of
tactical missile as well as to calculate the missile performances such as
missile range, maximum velocity, and time-to-target. Fig. 2 shows the
design variables to be considered for missile design. In many cases,
these performance characteristics can be calculated from first-order
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 7
Fig. 2 Design variables in missile design
Fig. 3 Design process provided in TMD
physics-based analyses, which can be represented in terms of
straightforward analytical expressions that allow for easy calculation.
TMD (Tactical Missile Design)8 is a simple physics-based tool that
is used for the rapid sizing of tactical missiles. TMD provides an
integrated sizing and synthesis environment for the missile design that
predicts the aerodynamics, propulsion, weight, and flight performance
of the missile, as shown in Fig. 3. The aerodynamics analysis is based
upon several physics-derived analytical expressions. The system that is
used to predict the propulsion’s characteristics uses a simplified cycle
analysis that relates engine parameters to overall specific impulse, i.e.,
maximum inlet temperature, fuel heating value and expansion ratio.
The propulsion analysis can handle both air-breathing and solid-rocket
systems, or a combination thereof. For trajectory, a constant flight path
is assumed, with boost, cruise, and coast phases. Each of the types of
these analyses is embedded on a separate page of an Excel spreadsheet.
Each page provides output data that links all the analyses via a master
output page. The TMD Excel spreadsheet was developed to allow the
user to quickly generate missile performances and other measures of
merit such as lethality. These can allow the user to obtain a first-order
estimate of a missile's ability to meet a set of requirements, so that a
fast trade-study can be used to quickly identify the performance drivers
of a system. The TMD Excel spreadsheet for a complete concept
design process includes many disciplines and all the required analyses:
aerodynamics, propulsion, trajectory, structure, warhead, radar, and
dynamics. This spreadsheet is constructed according to which of the
disciplines is handled on an individual worksheet. The construction
breakdown allows the user to focus on each discipline individually.
Baseline input is included in the TMD Excel spreadsheet for two
missiles, a rocket system, and an air-breather. These missiles give the
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 7 JULY 2014 / 1373

Table 1 Design variables for MRAAM Table 3 MOGA formulation

Name Description Unit Range Name AHP Weight Objective Constraint
Diameter Missile body major diameter in 8~12 HorizTurnRadius 0.2 Minimize < 4000
Nose_Length Nose length of missile in 19~25 Max_Velocity 0.2 Maximize > 2400
Wing_Area Wing area of missile in2 367~400 FinalRange 0.2 Maximize > 10
Expand_Ratio Expansion ratio of boost - 6~15 FinalTime 1 Minimize -
Boost_Pc Boost chamber pressure psi 1769~2599
Sustain_PC Sustain chamber pressure psi 300~1000

Table 2 Responses for MRAAM

Name Description Unit Goal
Horizontal turning radius
HorizTurnRadius ft < 4000
against a target
Boostlsp Specific impulse of booster sec -
Sustainlsp Specific impulse of sustain sec -
Max_Velocity Maximum velocity of missile ft/sec > 2400
FinalRange Final range to attack a target nmi > 10
FinalTime Final time to attack a target nmi Minimize

user baseline systems that are used to perform trade studies. The rocket Fig. 4. Pareto alternatives presented by a Parallel Plot of six design
is based on the sparrow MRAAM (Medium-Range Air-to-Air Missile) variables and six responses
while the air-breathing baseline is based on the ramjet powered
ASALM (Advanced Strategic Air-Launched Missile). In the case of the
MRAAM, six design variables including three geometric and three
performance design variables and six responses are considered, as
shown in Tables 1 and 2.10

3. GEO Process for the Concept Design of a MRAAM

3.1 Generation
3.1.1 Formulation of multi-objective genetic algorithm
Before executing a MOGA, an AHP (Analytic Hierarchy Process)5
was used to define the importance of the objective functions as that has
been defined by expert knowledge. Rather than prescribing a “correct”
decision, the AHP helps decision makers find a choice that best suits
the goal and understanding of the problem. The AHP provides a
comprehensive and rational framework for structuring an approach to
solving a problem, for representing and quantifying the related elements,
for relating those elements to overall goals, and for evaluating alternative
solutions.
MOGA formulation has four objective functions, which are
maximization of the final range (FinalRange), maximization of the
maximum velocity (Max_Velocity), minimization of the final time
(FinalTime), and minimization of the horizontal turning radius
(HorizTurnRadius); and MOGA has three constraints, which are a
lower specification of the FinalRange, a lower specification of the
Max_Velocity, and an upper specification of the HorizTurnRadius, as
shown in Table 3.
3.1.2 Pareto front
With the MOGA formulation shown in Table 3, a total of 1,280
Pareto alternatives were generated. With the help of the Parallel Plot
shown in Fig. 4, all of the Pareto alternatives can be shown in one
figure. Among them, the thick line shows one alternative, which is the
maximum FinalTime. Because the plot shows the position for six
design variables and six responses, engineers have graphic evidence to
Fig. 5 Distribution and correlation analysis of six responses
help them decide if a selected alternative is satisfied within a given
design range.
Based on the distribution and correlation analysis of the 1,280
Pareto alternatives, as shown in Fig. 5, information from the descriptive
statistics for six responses was gathered and response space was
explored for the optimization formulation.
Fig. 5 also shows the trade-offs between the responses based on the
correlations found among the 1,280 Pareto alternatives. There were
very strong trade-offs found between the FinalRange and the
FinalTime. Since the FinalRange always degenerated when the
FinalTime was minimized, an optimal solution would set the FinalTime
to a specification that would be higher than the lower value of the
FinalRange. The Pareto Front that fell between that of the FinalTime
and the Max_Velocity is shown in Fig. 6, which accounts for the trade-
off between the FinalRange and the FinalTime. By considering three
constraints of the MRAAM, 46 optimal candidates were selected and
displayed. The final optimal solution should be among these 46
 1374 / JULY 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 7

Fig. 7 Neural network diagram for MRAAM modeling

Table 4 Summary of R2adj for training and validation

Name Training R2adj Validation R2adj
Fig. 6 Pareto Front between the FinalTime, the Max_Velocity, and
HorizTurnRadius 0.9999997 0.9999997
HorizTurnRadius
Boostlsp 1 1
Sustainlsp 0.9999996 0.9999994
candidates without the need for further optimization processing, Max_Velocity 0.9987124 0.9990585
because these 46 candidates all satisfy the three constraints. FinalRange 0.9999441 0.999927
FinalTime 0.9999644 0.9999531

3.2 Exploration
3.2.1 Neural network modeling
An artificial neural network (NN) is a computational model for
storing and retrieving acquired knowledge. The artificial NN has been
studied for many years in the hope of imitating the human brain's ability
to solve problems that are ambiguous and that require a large amount
of processing. Human brains accomplish this data processing by utilizing
massive parallelism between millions of neurons working together to
solve complicated problems.11 Similarly, the NN models consist of many
computational elements, called “neurons” that correspond to their
biological counterparts operating in parallel and connected by links with
variable weights. The NNs consist of dense interconnected computing
units that are simple models of the complex neurons in biological
systems. Knowledge is acquired during the learning process and is
stored in the synaptic weights of the inter-nodal connections. These
weights adapt during the training process, most commonly through the
back-propagation algorithm, by presenting the neural network with
examples of input-output pairs exhibiting the relationship that the
network is attempting to learn. The main advantage of neural networks
Fig. 8 Profiler plot of NN models for a MRAAM between six design
is their ability to represent complex input and output relationships.12
variables and six responses
In the present study, two hidden layers and three nodes were
determined for the modeling of a MRAAM from 1,280 Pareto
alternatives, as shown in Fig. 7.13 Among 1,280 Pareto ones, 853 data Wing_Area affects only the HorizTurnRadius, and the Sustain_Pc acts
was used for training the neural network models and 427 data was used on only the Sustainlsp, but the Booster_Pc and the Expand_Ratio
for validating the neural network ones. The accuracy of the modeling influence both the Boostlsp and the Max_Velocity. The profiler plot
is summarized in Table 4. In order to validate the NN models of a shows that the Diameter and the Nose_Length are the most important
MRAAM, the deterministic coefficients, R2adj, for training and factors among the four objective functions and three constraints. The
validating were calculated. The Max_Velocity shows the worst value of Diameter and the Nose_Length also demonstrate the trade-off between
R2adj, which was 0.9987124, which equates to 99.87124% and exceeds the FinalRange and the FinalTime. Those facts show that the optimal
99%. Because the worst value of R2adj exceeded 99%, all the NN solution can be determined by the proper adjustment of the Diameter
models were appropriate for use in the optimization process. and the Nose_Length.

3.2.2 Neural network exploration 3.3 Optimization

The profiler plot of NN models for MRAAM in Fig. 8, sensitivity 3.3.1 TOPSIS
information about magnitude and direction of responses, shows that the TOPSIS is a simple but reasonable methodology for engineers to
 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 7 JULY 2014 / 1375

translate multi-objectives into single one. It belongs to the family of

methodologies that recognize how far a found solution is from the
optimal solution and obviously a shorter distance would be better from
the given alternatives. Four objective functions of MRAAM were
translated into a single closeness index, C, from 1,280 Pareto set with
the help of AHP. The three steps of TOPSIS are as follow.14 Fig. 9 Profiler plot of NN models for closeness index C according to
First step: For a given problem, compute the ideal solutions, S+, six design variables
which should be normalized and weighted by an expert using AHP. The
best score for each criterion determines the ideal solution with respect
to maximization and minimization. That is, in a criterion that calls for
maximization, the best score is the largest. If the criterion calls for
minimization, the best score will be the smallest. Then, compute the
worst solution, S-. This can be known since it is determined by the
worst score of each criterion with respect to maximization and
minimization. In a criterion that calls for maximization, the worst score
is the smallest. If the criterion calls for a minimization, the worst score
is the largest.
xij
yij = --------------
- (1)
M
2
∑ xij
i=1

+ -
Sj = Max ( wj yij ), Sj = Min ( wj yij ),
(2)
i = 1, 2, …, M, j = 1, 2, …, N
where w means the weight of the criterion, x means the score of
alternatives, y means the normalized score of alternatives, M is the
number of alternatives, and N is the number of the criterion.
Second step: For the first alternative, find the difference between its
score in the first criterion and the best value, S+, for that criterion and Fig. 10 Optimal solution of MRAAM from TOPSIS between six
square this difference. Next, find the difference between the score of design variables and six responses
this first alternative and the second criterion and its best S+ and square
the difference. Repeat the process for all criteria. When completed, add
all these squared values and extract the square root of this sum, this is of C was sufficient for use in the optimization process. The profile plot
the Euclidean Metric, and it is the solution for the first alternative. of C as shown in Fig. 9 shows that the Diameter and the Nose_Length
Repeat the procedure for all alternatives. Then, repeat the procedure but were the most effective design variables, which was similar to the
now consider the worst values, S-. As a final result there will be a tendency of the response for the FinalTime. This was because the
matrix with columns that are alternatives and rows that are the best, D+, weight of the response for the FinalTime in Table 3 was larger than for
and worst distances, D-. any of the other three responses. In order to maximize C, the Diameter
should be maximized, and then the Nose_Length should be minimized.
N 2
+ +
Di = ∑ (Si – wj yij) , j = 1, 2 , …, M (3)
j=1
3.3.3 TOPSIS optimization
With the help of the desirability function, the optimal solution was
N
- - 2
Di = ∑ (wj yij – Si ) , j = 1, 2, …, M (4) achieved from maximizing a closeness index C and satisfying
j=1
constraints, as shown in Fig. 10.15 The optimal solution satisfied whole
Third step: Compute a closeness index, C, with a range that is three constraints, where the HorizTurnRadius should be less than
between 0 and 1, by using the following formula for each alternative. 4,000, the Max_Velocity should be larger than 2,400, and the
The alternative with the largest C is the first to be calculated, followed FinalRange should exceed 10. In order to verify the optimal solution
by the others in decreasing C order. from the NN models, the TMD was simulated using the same design
- variables as the NN models shown in Table 5. The largest difference
Di
Ci = ----------------
+
-- , i = 1, 2, …, M (5) between the NN models and the TMD occurred in the FinalRange with
Di + Di a difference of only 0.083%, so that the use of the approximate NN
models was verified. The optimal solutions were compared with the
3.3.2 Neural network model initial values. The initial solution of the Max_Velocity was violated
The deterministic coefficients, R2adj, of the closeness index, C, were because it was below 2,400, but the optimal solution satisfied the
0.9998177 and 0.9997673, respectively, for training and validating. constraint because it exceeded 2,400. Because the main objective
Because the worst value for R2adj of C exceeded 99%, the NN model function was to minimize the FinalTime, it should have improved the
 1376 / JULY 2014 INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PRECISION ENGINEERING AND MANUFACTURING Vol. 15, No. 7

Table 5 Comparison between neural network and TMD REFERENCES

Name Neural Network TMD Difference [%]
HorizTurnRadius 3503.348 3503.345 0.0000856 1. Myers, R. H. and Montgomery, D. C., “Response Surface
Boostlsp 282.8945 282.8945 0 Methodology: Process and Product in Optimization Using Designed
Sustainlsp 272.405 272.415 0.004 Experiments,” John Wiley & Sons, pp. 208-341, 1995.
Max_Velocity 2410.769 2409.936 0.034
FinalRange 10.04918 10.05756 0.083 2. Del Castillo, E., “Process Optimization: a Statistical Approach,”
FinalTime 29.40778 29.421687 0.047 Springer, pp. 85-147, 2007.

Table 6 Summary of optimization 3. Deb, K., “Multi-Objective Optimisation Using Evolutionary

Algorithms: An Introduction,” in Multi-objective Evolutionary
Improve-
Name Initial Optimal Constraints Optimisation for Product Design and Manufacturing, pp. 3-34, 2011.
ment [%]
HorizTurnRadius 3729.5 3503.345 < 4000 - 4. Konak, A., Coit, D. W., and Smith, A. E., “Multi-Objective
Boostlsp 270.502 282.895 - 4.58
Optimization using Genetic Algorithms: A Tutorial,” Reliability
Sustainlsp 252.015 272.415 - 8.09
Engineering & System Safety, Vol. 91, No. 9, pp. 992-1007, 2006.
Max_Velocity 2368.075 2409.936 > 2400 -
FinalRange 13.2619 10.0575 > 10 - 5. Saaty, T. L., “A Scaling Method for Priorities in Hierarchical
FinalTime 38.3041 29.42169 - 23.19 Structures,” Journal of Mathematical Psychology, Vol. 15, No. 3, pp.
234-281, 1977.
most. The improvement is shown in Table 6. At 23.19%, the FinalTime
6. Lee, K. K. and Han, S. H., “Optimization of Wind Turbine Pitch
showed the most improvement among the other objective functions.
Controller by Neural Network Model Based on Latin Hypercube,”
The other objective functions such as the BoostIsp and the SustainIsp
Transactions of the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers A, Vol.
were improved to 4.58 and 8.09%, respectively.
36, No. 9, pp. 1065-1071, 2012.

4. Conclusions
A process for the optimization of concept design was proposed by
using a Pareto Front and TOPSIS together with a neural network
algorithm and desirability function. The obtained results are as follows:
(1) Neural network models of a MRAAM, generated from Pareto
sets, were verified as accurate for exploring and optimizing the design
space of a MRAAM, because the worst deterministic coefficient was
only 0.9987, which meant that neural network models represent
99.87% of the TMD simulation.
(2) By using the suggested GEO (Generate, Explore and Optimize)
process, optimal solutions were calculated, where the Pareto sets were
generated via the MOGA. The obtained optimal solutions were verified
via the simulation results from the TMD analysis. The optimal
solutions provided good agreement with the simulated results from FE
analysis to within an error range of 0.083%.
(3) With maximizing the closeness index C which translates multi-
objectives into single objective, the objective function FinalTime was
improved 23.19% and whole constraints were satisfied within the lower
and upper specifications.
7. Lee, K. K., Lee, K. H., and Han, S. H., “Use of an Orthogonal Array
based on the Kriging Model to Maximize the Fatigue Life of a
Turbine Blade,” International Journal of Structural Integrity, Vol. 2,
No. 3, pp. 303-312, 2011.
8. Eugene, L. F., “Tactical Missile Design,” AIAA Education Series,
AIAA, pp. 1-18, 2001.
9. Lee, K. K., Han, J. W., and Han, S. H., “TOPSIS-Based Multi-
Objective Shape Optimization for a CRT Funnel,” Transactions of
the Korean Society of Mechanical Engineers A, Vol. 35, No. 7, pp.
729-736, 2011.
10. Frits, A. P., Fleeman, E. L., and Mavris, D. N., “Use of a Conceptual
Sizing Tool for Conceptual Design of Tactical Missiles (U),” Proc.
of the Missile Sciences Conference, 2002.
11. Ramu, M., Raja, V. P., Thyla, P., and Gunaseelan, M., “Design
Optimization of Complex Structures Using Metamodels,” Jordan
Journal of Mechanical & Industrial Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 5, pp.
653-663, 2010.
12. Hamza, R. M. A., “Multi-Objective Neural Network Modeling for
Improving Stud Arc Welding Process Joining,” Journal of Engineering
Science and Technology, Vol. 6, No. 3, pp. 382-391, 2011.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT 13. SAS Institute Inc., “JMP 10 User's Guide,” 2011.

14. Munier, N., “A Strategy for Using Multicriteria Analysis in Decision-

This work was supported by the Human Resources Program (No.
20134030200320) of the Korea Institute of Energy Technology
Evaluation and Planning (KETEP), granted financial resource from the
Ministry of Trade, Industry & Energy, Republic of Korea.
Making,” Springer, pp. 77-100, 2011.
15. Derringer, G., “Simultaneous Optimization of Several Response
Variables,” Journal of Quality Technology, Vol. 12, No. 4, pp. 214-
219, 1980.