See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/316174400

Solid-Rocket-Motor Performance-Matching Design Framework

Article  in  Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets · April 2017

DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655

CITATIONS READS

17 5,138

5 authors, including:

Zeping Wu Wang Dong-Hui

National University of Defense Technology National University of Defense Technology
35 PUBLICATIONS   286 CITATIONS    31 PUBLICATIONS   244 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Zhang Weihua Patrick N Okolo

National University of Defense Technology Oxford Brookes University
200 PUBLICATIONS   797 CITATIONS    38 PUBLICATIONS   325 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

aerodynamic optimization View project

Design of Experiment View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zeping Wu on 19 October 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 JOURNAL OF SPACECRAFT AND ROCKETS
Vol. 54, No. 3, May–June 2017

Solid-Rocket-Motor Performance-Matching
Design Framework

Wu Zeping,∗ Wang Donghui,† and Zhang Weihua‡

National University of Defense Technology, 410073 Changsha, Hunan, People’s Republic
of China
Patrick Okolo.N§
University of Dublin, Dublin 2, Ireland
and
Fei Yang¶
Equipment Academy of the Rocket Force, 100094 Beijing, People’s Republic of China
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE on June 1, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655

DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655
An effective performance-matching design framework for solid rocket motor tailored toward satisfying various
thrust-performance requirements is presented in this research paper through an innovative and specialized general-
design approach developed to evaluate the general-design parameters. During the general-design stage, a
combination of grain web and area ratio is selected as the design variables to be adjusted to obtain the general
parameters. Based on the general parameters obtained, a grain-design stage incorporates the level-set method and
simulates solid-propellant evolution and internal ballistic analysis, thereby obtaining the thrust performance. Grain-
design effectiveness is determined by how closely the designed solid-rocket-motor performance matches and
compares to a prespecified thrust curve. An efficient sequential-field-approximate-optimization algorithm is
proposed and used to minimize the average rms error between the desired and designed thrusts. Validation of the
proposed design framework is carried out by evaluating motor cases possessing different thrust requirements, and
results obtained highlight the proposed framework as a practical and efficient strategy for solid-rocket-motor designs.

Nomenclature pc;k = chamber pressure of kth burning step

Ab;k = burning area of kth burning step p0 = minimum pressure needed to sustain grain burning
At = throat area of nozzle si ⋅ = surrogate model of thrust for ith time node
At;k = throat area of kth burning step T = burning time of the solid rocket motor
a = burning-rate coefficient X = design variable for grain design
C
= characteristic velocity of the propellant δc = thickness of steel layer
CF⋅ = thrust coefficient ε = nozzle-area ratio
D = diameter of motor ηn = nozzle efficiency
Dp = diameter of propellant η0 = volumetric loading efficiency
ek = web of kth burning step ξ = weld coefficient
e0 = initial web ρp = density of propellant
F⋅ = thrust σ = metal strength
F0 t = thrust requirement
J = nozzle-to-port-aero ratio I. Introduction
Kmax = maximum search iterations
k
m
=
=
factor of safety
number of design variables
S OLID rocket motor (SRM) design is a highly integrated process
requiring levels of synergistic compromises and tradeoffs.
Synthesis of an effective compromise would require a balanced
mc = mass of chamber
emphasis on subsystems, unbiased tradeoffs, and evaluation of
mg = gross mass of the solid rocket motor
alternatives, which is often a time-consuming process due to manual
mn = mass of nozzle
loops of trial and error. Therefore, the need arises to improve SRM
mp = mass of propellant
design approach and optimization-technique applications within its
N = number of time nodes
design.
n = pressure index
Optimization-based design is an emerging field in aerospace
p⋅ = pressure
engineering that attempts to introduce and use a more structured
methodology to locate the best possible design. The subject of SRM
Received 24 May 2016; revision received 25 December 2016; accepted for
design and optimization is quite vast, and its applications vary from
publication 18 January 2017; published online 12 April 2017. Copyright small igniters to complex grain configurations, and currently, heavy
© 2017 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All launch systems [1–5]. An array of optimization techniques exists and
rights reserved. All requests for copying and permission to reprint should be has been employed for design optimization of SRMs; these techniques
submitted to CCC at www.copyright.com; employ the ISSN 0022-4650 range from gradient-based methods to basic heuristics, specially
(print) or 1533-6794 (online) to initiate your request. See also AIAA Rights tailored meta-heuristics, and hybrid heuristics methods [6–9]. In these
and Permissions www.aiaa.org/randp. optimization techniques, the general performance index of SRMs is
*Ph.D. Student, College of Aerospace Science and Engineering. generally taken as the design objective, such as minimizing total mass,
†
Associate Professor, College of Aerospace Science and Engineering; maximizing impulse–mass ratio, etc., which provides solution to the
wangdonghui1984@sina.cn.
‡
Professor, College of Aerospace Science and Engineering. SRM design.
§
Postdoctor, Department of Mechanical and Manufacturing Engineering, SRM design and optimization have also clearly evolved with
Trinity College Dublin; also Professor, University of Nigeria, Department of computing-power availability. Research efforts, therefore, propose
Mechanical Engineering, Nsukka, Nigeria. strategies to improve the design process considering both modeling
¶
Research Associate. and optimization issues. Currently, there exists the possibility of
698
 ZEPING ET AL.
obtaining extended details of thrust performance prior to the detailed
design of the SRM, which implies that a prespecified thrust-time
history can be determined by the conceptual design of a vehicle, thus
ensuring engineers possess the capability of designing SRMs that
would match a specified thrust-time performance. Recently, more
efforts have been made toward taking the thrust-time history into
account [10,11]. Albarado et al. [10] developed a performance-
matching design method, driven by a pattern search/particle swarm
optimization (PSO) algorithm. A similar approach was employed in
[11], which applies a modified ant-colony optimization (ACO). In
these evolutionary algorithms, PSO and ACO were integrated with a
local search approach to perform the optimization. Simple star grain
was specified as the grain configuration for its burn-back analysis,
which is implemented analytically, and a desirable thrust curve
obtained after thousands of simulations or more. However, when a
complex three-dimensional grain and its consequent time-consuming
burn-back analysis are taken into account, this optimization approach
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE on June 1, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655
mentioned so far becomes practically infeasible due to innumerous
iterations and its expensive associated computational costs.
Therefore, for modern-day technological applications, require-
ments are not only limited to designing a system that fits engineering
needs, but also to attain an optimized system requiring the lowest
possible cost, yet still possessing the greatest efficiency. Therefore,
this research proposes an efficient performance-matching design
framework for SRM. The design framework comprises two stages:
the general-design stage and the grain-design stage. The general-
design stage aims to evaluate the general parameters of an SRM
scheme, and these are subsequently fed into the grain-design stage.
During the grain-design stage, a sequential field approximate
optimization (SFAO) is proposed to implement the grain design, due
to the efficacy of SFAO.
The remaining part of this paper is organized thus; Sec. II
elucidates the general framework of the proposed method. Section III
Design Requirements
Thrust vs. time Constraint
• Volumetric loading efficiency • Density
• Chamber pressure • Strength of tension
• Permissible temperature • Permissible
temperature
System design variables(X)
x1: Nozzle area ratio End
x2: Grain web
General design
End
• Propellant mass estimate
• Chamber design
- Insulation mass estimate
- Casing mass estimate
• Nozzle design
- Nozzle mass estimate
• Overall mass Mtot estimate
Find: Mtot(X)
Satisfy: Constraints
Fig. 1 Proposed SRM performance-matching design framework.
699
presents the general-parameter evaluation method, which determines
all general parameters of an SRM scheme. Section IV describes the
grain-design method based on the SFAO. Section V presents several
test cases for validation of the proposed design framework, followed
by concluding remarks in Sec. VI.
II. General Framework of SRM Design
In SRM design, even with the aim of locating optimum values for
design variables, there still exist an infinite number of possibilities
that might render such design impossible to evaluate. Therefore, to
perform practical SRM design, there is a need to model and solve the
design problem by coupling the design variables to the trajectory and
target of the design. Hence, there exists an aim to design an SRM that
would match a prespecified performance characteristic as much as
possible. In this present research, the effectiveness of the design
optimization is determined by how closely the SRM can match and
compare with the prespecified thrust curve with respect to time.
The proposed SRM design framework is presented in Fig. 1. Initial
inputs to the entire design process include the design requirements
and SRM materials. The design requirements specify the thrust with
respect to time and the design constraints, including the volumetric
loading efficiency, minimal chamber pressure, and permissible
temperature. SRM materials determine the choice and properties of
the chamber casing, propellant, and insulations. Based on these initial
inputs, the general-design stage is performed so as to feed in key
design parameters of nozzle-area ratio and grain web into the next
stage of grain design. During general design, the grain burn-back
analysis and internal ballistic analysis are employed as simulation
models to generate the thrust curve. Critical grain-configuration
parameters are designated as design variables, which are adjusted by
the SFAO algorithm to search for the best-matching thrust
performance. Because of the implementation of the SFAO, the design
efficiency is highly increased, as will be shown in Sec. V.
Materials
Casing Propellant Insulations
• Density • Thermal
• Specific heat ratio conductivity
• Burning rate coefficient • Density
• Pressure index • Initial
• Characteristic velocity temperature
Grain design
Iterations
run out?
Performance
matched?
SFAO
Internal ballistic analysis
Grain burn-back analysis
Grain design variables
 700 ZEPING ET AL.

III. General Design

General design is a basic stage in the proposed SRM design Throat part
framework. In this section, an innovative general-parameter
evaluation method is proposed to satisfy the performance-matching
SRM design procedure.
As described in literatures [2,5], a larger grain web leads to increased
combustion pressure; consequently, total impulse and thickness of convergent part divergent part
combustion chamber increase accordingly. A similar situation results Fig. 2 Geometry of the conical nozzle.
with the increase of nozzle-area ratio ε. Therefore, as a consequence, an
increased ε and grain web lead to improved performance and increased
weight of an SRM. This means that a proper combination of initial web In this present work, the casing comprises a cylindrical steel shell
e0 and ε is required to balance the performance and gross weight of with half-ellipsoid domes at both ends. The Ethylene-Propylene-
an SRM. Diene Monomer insulation thermal barrier is fixed onto the inner
Given the constraint of volumetric loading efficiency η0, the low surface to prevent high-temperature gases from direct contact with
bound of initial web e0;min is calculated by Eq. (1): the metal shell. Thus, casing thickness is the sum of the metal layer
D
p and the insulation layer. The thickness of the steel layer is calculated
e0;min  1 − 1 − η0 (1) by Eq. (8):
2
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE on June 1, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655

in which D is the diameter of the SRM. kDpmax

Given an initial web of grain e0 , the relationship between pressure pmax  max pt δc  (8)
0<t<T 2ξσ
history with respect to time denoted by pt and e0 is established by
Eq. (2): ZT in which k is the factor of safety, ξ is the weld coefficient, and σ is the
aptn dt  e0 (2) metal strength. To account for dome stresses, a factor of safety of 1.4
0 and weld coefficient of 0.98 are considered. The insulation layer
in which T is work duration of the SRM and can be obtained through the helps to minimize overheating of the case. Generally, cables for
specified thrust curve, a is the burning-rate coefficient, and n is the electronic modules run along the casing length; therefore, during the
pressure index. working time of the motor, the case wall temperature should not
Based on the desired thrust-time profile Ft, pt can be exceed the permissible wall temperature of ∼30°C [6]. The insulation
computed as follows: thickness can be determined using the formula in [12].
The cylinder length is estimated using Eq. (9):
Ft  CF tptAt ≈ CF ptAt (3)  
4mp πD2 h
L − ∕πD2 (9)
Ft Ft Ft ηρp 3
pt  ≈ ≜ (4)
CF tAt CF At C0
in which h is the height of half-ellipsoid, and for the present research,
h  D∕4 is applied. The chamber mass is calculated by the
in which CF t is the thrust coefficient with respect to time. Because
computer-aided design modeling approach.
CF t fluctuates slightly during the burning duration, it is sometimes
The present study considers conical nozzle due to its simplicity,
acceptable to replace CF t by a constant CF , which is the average and comprises a convergent part, a throat, and a divergent part with a
value of CF t. At denotes the area of the nozzle throat. thermal barrier protecting the structural member from excessive
By substituting Eq. (4) into Eq. (2), C0 is obtained and pt can be temperature. The nozzle geometry is as illustrated in Fig. 2. Nozzle-
calculated. Applying the area ratio ε, CF t is calculated by Eq. (5) design procedures, as outlined in [6], were used, the full details of
based on the ideal-gas assumption: which are not included herein.
s
      The gross mass of an SRM has the formulation of Eq. (10), and is
2γ 2 2 γ−1∕γ1 pe γ−1∕γ p −pamb influenced by the initial web e0 and the nozzle-area ratio ε.
CF t  1−  e ε
γ −1 γ 1 pt pt
mg  mp  mc  mn  mg e0 ; ε (10)
(5)
in which γ is the specific-heat ratio, pe is the nozzle-exit pressure, Minimal gross mass is desired, as it highly promotes SRM
pamb is the ambient pressure, and ε is the nozzle-area ratio. performance. Hence, the following optimization problem is proposed
At t is obtained using Eq. (3), but At should be a constant value. to implement the SRM general-design procedure:
Thus, the average value of At t is specified by Eq. (6):
Z min : mtot e0 ; ε subject to η > η0 pmin > p0 (11)
1 T
At  A t dt (6)
T 0 t in which p0 is the minimum pressure needed to sustain grain burning.
Solving Eq. (11) by employing PSO as carried out in this research
Adjusting pt, CF t, and Eq. (4) by At, an iterative process is produces the best combination of ε and e0 , which is further
achieved. At is obtained by repeating the foregoing procedure until At t transmitted to the grain-design stage.
converges to a constant, then pt is obtained accordingly.
The mass of grain is computed by Eq. (7):
IV. Grain Design Based on SFAO

A. Simulation Models for Grain Design
I sp t  ηn CF tC
1. Level-Set-Based Burn-Back Analysis
Ft
_
mt  For the performance prediction of the SRM, prior knowledge of the
Isp t grain geometry is required to simulate pressure-time and thrust-time
ZT
histories. This is due to the fact that the grain-burning-surface evolution
mp  _ dt
mt (7) depends on grain geometry. The grain geometry changes as the solid
0
propellant evolves, which in turn causes a change within the burning
in which ηn is the nozzle efficiency, and C
is the characteristic area. Therefore, the burning area should be known at each burning step
velocity of the propellant. to rightly predict the pressure-time and thrust-time histories.
 ZEPING ET AL. 701

Initial Sampling

Determine the design variables and their feasible region

Sampling the m-dimensional design variable using Optimal Latin

Hypercube Design method

Evaluating the thrust performance of the initial sampling points by invoking

the level set burn-back analysis and internal ballistic analysis

Field Approximation
Discretizing the thrust curve by N points on the time axis
Sequential Sampling
Constructing the surrogate model of thrust performance at every time node by the RBF
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE on June 1, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655

Add the optimal result

approximate technique
and its thrust
performance to the
initial sample set Solving the performance matching optimization problem using PSO algorithm

Evaluating the thrust performance of the optimal result by invoking the level set
burn-back analysis and internal ballistic analysis

No Termination Criterion Satisfied?

Yes

End

Fig. 3 General procedure of the SFAO-based grain design.

The level-set method is widely used in different engineering in which v is the interface evolving velocity. By projecting the
applications for computing interface evolution [1,13], such as crystal velocity v onto the normal direction of the interface, then
growth, two-phase flows, flame propagation, solid–fluid–gas
interactions, etc. It naturally represents the complex boundaries φt  vn ⋅ j∇φj  0 (15)
that form holes, split into multiple pieces, or merge with other
q
boundaries [13,14].
in which j∇φj  φ2x  φ2y  φ2z .
In this paper, the level-set method is adapted and used to simulate
the solid-propellant regression. The most notable advantage of the The grain-burning surface evolving with a speed of vn toward its
level-set method is that a general code can be developed to perform normal is simulated using the level-set equation (15). Based on the laws
the burn-back analysis for different grains with high precision [13]. of propellant burning in parallel layers, vn is equal to the burning rate of
Furthermore, it imposes no limitations on either two-dimensional or propellant r. The burning surface is regarded as the boundary between
three-dimensional configuration. the phases of solid grain and gas in the SRM chamber. According to
The main idea of the level set is to represent a moving interface Γt Eq. (15), φX; t is less than 0 for X in the solid-grain phase, whereas
bounding a region of Ωt in Rn by a Lipschitz continuous function φX; t is greater than 0 for X in the gas phase within the chamber at
φX; t, which has the following properties:
8 Table 1 Design parameters of neutral thrust case
>
< φX; t  −dX in Ωt
Parameters Values Units
φX; t  0 on Γt (12)
>
: φX; t  dX Insulation Thermal-conductivity insulation 0.84 W∕mK
in Ωt

material λ0
Initial temperature T 0 300 K
in which dX  min jX − XI j, XI ∈ Γt. Density of case material ρi 1150 kg∕m3
Because the interface Γt is represented as the zero level set of Chamber Density of case material ρc 7800 kg∕m3
function φX; t, the motion of Γt can be regarded as an evolution case
Strength of extension of case σ 1160 MPa
equation for φX; t by taking the time derivative of φX; t  0 to
Permissible casing wall temperature T
600 K
yield Propellant Burning-rate coefficient a 0.0765 mm∕Pan
Pressure index n 0.34 — —
∂φ ∂x ∂φ ∂y ∂φ ∂z Characteristic velocity C
1550 m∕s
φt    0 (13)
∂x ∂t ∂y ∂t ∂z ∂t Propellant density ρP 1700 kg∕m3
Specific-heat ratio λ 1.12 — —
which can also be described as Diameter of SRM DSRM 300 mm
Minimal pressure p0 2.5 MPa
Nozzle Nozzle efficiency ηn 0.95 — —
φt  v ⋅ ∇φ  0 (14)
 702 ZEPING ET AL.

Table 2 Design constraints Table 4 Optimal results of neutral thrust case 1

Parameters Values Units L1, L12, L13, R6, bw, Computation
Initial volumetric efficiency η0 ≥0.8 — — Parameters mm mm mm mm mm costs, min
Throat-to-port-area ratio J 0 ≤0.5 — — PSO 1218 36 44 98 41 4800
SAO 1221 95 534 136 43 1788
SFAO 1227 108 534 136 43 252

Table 3 Design parameters of neutral thrust case 1

Parameters Values Units corresponding to ek , which is given by the burn-back analysis.
Grain web e0 87.2 mm Because pc;k is known, the burning rate and elapsed time at each
Area ratio ε 9.6 — — burning step can be calculated using Eqs. (17) and (18), respectively.
Diameter of nozzle throat Dt 90.1 mm Finally, the pressure-time history of the rocket motor is obtained by
Outer diameter of propellant Dp 291.7 mm solving simultaneously Eqs. (5), (17), and (18).
Maximum pressure pmax 15.1 MPa
Mass of propellant 185.5 kg
Mass of chamber 23.7 kg rk  apnc;k (17)
Mass of nozzle 4.8 kg
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE on June 1, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655

X
k−1
Δe
tk  (18)
each time step. The geometric parameters, such as burning area, k0
rk
burning perimeter, free volume, propellant volume and breathing area
for each burning step are captured by the level set method, which are
subsequently fed into the internal ballistic analysis procedure to obtain p
At;k  π At;0 ∕π  r0 tk 2 (19)
the performance of the SRM. The efficacy of the level-set method
applied in the grain burn-back analysis was demonstrated in [1], and
full details will be avoided here. in which r0 is the ablation rate of the nozzle throat.
After the pressure-time history is obtained, the thrust-time
2. Thrust-Performance Prediction relationship may be formulated as follows:
Pressure and thrust performances are predicted by the internal
ballistics analysis. In this present research, the internal ballistics Ft  ηn CF pc tAt t (20)
analysis is performed by making an assumption of constant pressure
and nonerosion along the motor. Steady-state pressure is computed The thrust coefficient CF is given by Eq. (5).
by equating the mass generated within the chamber to the mass
ejected through the nozzle throat. When web burnt is ek , the pressure 80
pc;k is solved as follows:

pc;k  ρp ac
Ab;k ∕At;k 1∕1−n (16)

60
in which At;k is the throat area corresponding to ek , a is the burning-
rate coefficient, n is the pressure sensitivity index, c
is the
Thrust (kN)

Requirement
characteristic velocity of the propellant, and Ab;k is the burning area 40
SFAO

SAO
20 PSO

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
Fig. 4 Configuration of the finocyl grain. Fig. 6 Contrast between thrust results.

Fig. 5 Convergence history of neutral thrust case 1.

 ZEPING ET AL. 703

Table 5 General parameters of neutral thrust case 2 Table 6 Optimal results of neutral thrust case 2
Parameters Values Units L1, L2, R0, R1, θ, Computation costs,
Grain web e0 97.9 mm Parameters mm mm mm mm deg min
Area ratio ε 9.6 — — PSO 2012 650 35 129 59 4800
Diameter of nozzle throat Dt 90.1 mm SAO 1941 795 32 136 68 1788
Outer diameter of propellant Dp 292.7 mm SFAO 1932 765 35 134 67 252
Maximum pressure pmax 11.1 MPa
Mass of propellant 185.5 Kg
Mass of chamber 34.3 kg
Mass of nozzle 7.7 kg 2. Field Approximation
N points on the time axis t1 ; t2 ; : : : ; tN  are selected to discretize
the thrust curves, which are converted into the following form:
B. General Procedures of Grain Design Based on SFAO
2 3
To commence the grain-design stage, configuration of the grain is X1 ; f1 t1  f2 t1  ··· f2m t1 
initially determined based on the characteristics of the prerequisite thrust 6 X2 ; f1 t2  f2 t2  ··· f2m t2  7
6 7
profile. The properties of the propellant are preset in the general-design 6 .. .. 7 (21)
4 . . 5
stage and followed here. Also, the critical configuration parameters are
f1 tN  f2 tN  f2m tN 
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE on June 1, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655

screened out and designated as design variables. SFAO is now employed X 2m ; ···
to adjust the design variables, and invokes the burn-back analysis and
thrust-performance-prediction modules iteratively so as to obtain the Based on the sample sets Xj ; fj ti j  1; 2; : : : ; 2m,
desirable thrust performance. Figure 3 presents a detailed procedure for approximate models si X are constructed using the radial basis
SFAO-based grain design, which is roughly divided into four stages: function (RBF) [1] at every time node. The thrust vs time
initial sampling, field approximation, termination evaluation, and performance field is surrogated and represented by N approximate
sequential sampling. models, which is the core reason this algorithm is called an SFAO.
Based on the N approximate models, the following optimization
1. Initial Sampling
problem is derived to approach the specified performance curve:
In grain design, the critical configuration parameters of the solid
grain are usually designated as design variables X. Suppose the
dimensionality of X is m, then the optimal Latin hypercube design 1X N
min s X − F0 ti 2 s:t:J ≤ J0 η ≥ η0 (22)
method is employed to sample 2m points in the feasible domain of X. N i0 i
Finally, the level-set burn-back analysis and internal ballistic analysis
are invoked to obtain 2m thrust-performance curves as follows:
100
2 3
X1 ; f1 t
6 X2 ; f2 t 7
6 7
6 .. .. 7
6 . . 7
6 7
4 5
X2 m ; f2 m t Requirement
Thrust (kN)

50 SFAO

SAO

PSO

0
0 1 2 3 4 5
Time (s)
Fig. 7 Configuration of the star grain. Fig. 9 Contrast between thrust results.

Fig. 8 Convergence history of neutral thrust case 2.

 704 ZEPING ET AL.

Table 7 General parameters of dual-thrust case Table 8 Optimal results of dual-thrust case

Parameters Values Units L1, L12, L13, R6, bw, Computation

Grain web e0 101.75 mm Parameters mm mm mm mm mm costs, min
Area ratio ε 11.9 — — PSO 2089 843 887 131 27 4800
Diameter of nozzle throat Dt 73.5 mm SAO 1953 689 958 113 12 1824
Outer diameter of propellant Dp 291.5 mm SFAO 1956 675 966 116 11 252
Maximum pressure pmax 10.5 MPa
Mass of propellant 192 kg
Mass of chamber 20.5 kg
Mass of nozzle 5.3 kg Finocyl grain is employed in this test case. Configuration of the
finocyl grain with eight back wings and the characteristic parameters
(i.e., design variables, including L1, L12, L13, R6, and the width of
wings bw) are illustrated in Fig. 4.
in which F0 ti  is the desired thrust performance at ti . Solving Based on the results of the general-design stage, the grain design is
problem (3) with the PSO method, the solution is evaluated by the implemented employing the SFAO method.
true functions of the level-set burn-back analysis and the internal The number of initial sampling points is set as 10 and the number of
ballistic analysis. time discretization nodes is 20. The search precision is set as 0.001
and the maximum search iteration is set as 100. The convergence
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE on June 1, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655

3. Termination Evaluation history of the objective is illustrated in Fig. 5a. It is obvious that this
optimization converges after 21 true function evaluations (10 initial
Based on the prespecified search precision eps and the maximum
sampling points plus the 11 sequential sampling points in 11
search iterations Kmax , termination of the optimization is
optimization iterations). The optimal grain-configuration parameters
implemented using the following criterion:
are listed in Table 4. The comparison between the prespecified thrust
First, define the following indicator at iteration k:
curve and the optimized result is illustrated in Fig. 6, and it is obvious
v that these are in agreement.
u N  k−1 
u1 X s ti  − ski ti  2 To confirm the efficacy of this proposed method, various
errork  t i
(23) optimization techniques can be used to minimize the rms error
N i0 F0 ti 
(RMSE) to reach an optimal solution. The powerful sequential
approximate optimization (SAO) technique [15,16] and PSO [10] are
If errork < eps or k  K max, the optimization is terminated and tested and used for verification within this research paper. Figure 5b
the optimized result is the output. Otherwise, the proposed algorithm presents the convergence history for the SAO technique. As clearly
proceeds to the sampling stage. seen, the SAO-based grain design converges after 149 true function
evaluations. A complete execution of the level-set burn-back analysis
4. Sequential Sampling
In this stage, the optimal solution of problem (22) together with the 200
thrust performance obtained by the level-set burn-back analysis and
internal ballistic analysis is added to the sample set so as to update the Requirement
surrogate models at the next iteration. SFAO
150
SAO
Thrust (kN)

V. Benchmark Tests PSO

A. Neutral Thrust Case 100
1. Case 1
In this test case, an SRM having a constant thrust of 60 kN over a
5 s burning duration is designed. The properties of the chosen 50
propellant, casing, and insulation are shown in Table 1, and the design
constraint of the grain design is listed in Table 2. Through the general-
design stage, the general parameters are calculated as listed in 0
Table 3, after which these are fed into the grain-design stage, which 0 1 2 3 4 5
further adjusts the grain-configuration variables to match the Time (s)
prespecified thrust profile using the SFAO. Fig. 11 Contrast between thrust results.

Fig. 10 Convergence history of dual-thrust case.

 ZEPING ET AL. 705

Table 9 Design parameters of tri-thrust case 2. Case 2

Parameters Values Units In this test case, another neutral thrust case having a constant thrust
of 90 kN over a 5 s burning duration is designed. The properties of the
Insulation Thermal-conductivity insulation 0.84 W∕mK
material λ0 chosen propellant, casing, and insulation follow those in Table 1, and
Initial temperature T 0 300 K the design constraint of the grain design is listed in Table 2. Through
Density of case material ρi 1150 kg∕m3 the general-design stage, the general parameters are calculated and
Chamber Density of case material ρc 7800 kg∕m3 listed in Table 5.
case The star grain is employed in this test case. Configuration of the
Strength of extension of case σ 1160 MPa star grain with seven wings and characteristic parameters (i.e., design
Permissible casing wall temperature T
600 K variables, including L1, L2, R1, θ, and R0) are illustrated in Fig. 7.
Propellant Burning-rate coefficient a 0.12 mm∕Pan
Pressure index n 0.25 — — The burn-back analysis and internal ballistic analysis aided to
Characteristic velocity C
1528 m∕s obtain thrust performance of the SRM, and the proposed SFAO
Propellant density ρP 1750 kg∕m3 method is employed to adjust the grain-configuration variables so as
Specific-heat ratio λ 1.16 — — to accomplish the grain design. The number of initial sampling points
Diameter of the SRM DSRM 700 mm is set as 10 and the number of time discretization nodes is 20. The
Minimal pressure p0 2.5 MPa search precision is set as 0.001 and the maximum search iteration is
Nozzle Nozzle efficiency ηn 0.95 — — set as 100. The convergence history of the objective is illustrated in
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE on June 1, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655

Fig. 8a. It becomes obvious that the optimization converges after 24

true function evaluations (10 initial sampling points plus 14
sequential sampling points in 14 optimization iterations). The
optimal grain-configuration parameters are listed in Table 6. The
Table 10 General parameters of tri-thrust case
comparison between the prespecified thrust curve and the optimized
result shown in Fig. 9 shows that the optimal result obtained by the
Parameters Values Units SFAO is desirable. The optimized results obtained by the SAO and
Grain web e0 238 mm PSO are also listed in Table 5 for comparison. The convergence
Area ratio ε 7.1 — — histories of the SAO and PSO are presented in Figs. 8b and 8c,
Diameter of nozzle throat Dt 131.2 mm respectively. Also, the optimized thrust curves obtained by the SAO
Outer diameter of propellant Dp 680.6 mm and PSO are presented in Fig. 9.
Maximum pressure pmax 10.5 MPa
Mass of propellant 2226 kg
Mass of chamber 515 kg B. Single-Chamber Dual-Thrust Case
Mass of nozzle 58 kg In this subsection, we focus on the requirement of a single-chamber
dual-thrust performance. The predefined thrust curve can be depicted
as follows: the first stage sustains 150 kN for 1 s, and then descends
linearly from 150 kN to the second stage of 60 kN in 1 s, and the second
consumes about 12 min, whereas the time used by the internal stage lasts for 3 s. The properties of the chosen propellant, casing, and
ballistic analysis is negligible. Hence, the time consumed by the SAO insulation follow those in Table 1, and the design constraint of the grain
technique is about 1788 min. Pure PSO with a swarm of 20 design is listed in Table 2. Through the general-design stage, the
individuals is applied to the test case. Although the PSO algorithm general parameters are calculated and listed in Table 7.
tends to reach the global optimum, this takes a huge number of After the general-design stage, the grain design commences. In this
function evaluations. To avoid a long-run problem, an optional test case, the finocyl grain with eight back wings is chosen, and its
termination criterion enabling the optimization process to be characteristic parameters (i.e., design variables, including L1, L12,
terminated after 20 iterations (i.e., 400 true function evaluations) was L13, R6, and the width of wings bw) are illustrated in Fig. 4. The
added. The convergence history is as presented in Fig. 5c. proposed SFAO algorithm is applied to the grain design. The
The optimized thrust curves obtained by the SAO and PSO are convergence history of the objective is as illustrated in Fig. 10a, in
plotted in Fig. 6. The SAO and the proposed SFAO method both which the optimization converges after 11 iterations (i.e., 21 true
locate the desirable results. However, the SAO method consumes model evaluations). The optimal grain-configuration parameters are
1788 min, which is more than seven times the computational costs of listed in Table 8. The comparison between the prespecified thrust
the SFAO. Meanwhile, the PSO did not obtain a satisfactory result curve and the optimized result is further illustrated in Fig. 11, and it is
even after 4800 min. obvious that these are in good agreement.

Fig. 12 Convergence history of tri-thrust case.

 706
Table 11
Parameters L1, mm L12, mm L13, mm R6, mm bw mm L5, mm L4, mm R7, mm fw mm Computation costs, min
PSO 4042.6 640.6 674.4 148.0 26.2 2021.3 1036.2 328.4 44.4
SAO 4240.2 1334.8 1731.0 197.8 36.9 840.3 798.3 328.4 96.9
SFAO 4295.9 1200.8 1709.5 196.3 38.6 941.9 894.8 328.4 96.9
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE on June 1, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655
The optimized results obtained by the SAO and PSO are also listed
in Table 8 for comparison. The convergence histories of the SAO and
PSO are presented in Figs. 10b and 10c, respectively, whereas the
optimized thrust curves obtained by the SAO and PSO are presented
in Fig. 11 for comparison also.
C. Single-Chamber Tri-Thrust Case
In this case, a single-chamber tri-thrust performance is designated
as the SRM design requirement. The requisite thrust curve is depicted
as follows: the first stage sustains 210 kN for 2 s and descends linearly
from 210 kN to the second stage of 150 kN in 2 s; after 18 s, the thrust
drops linearly from 150 kN to the third stage of 80 kN in 3 s, and the
third stage lasts for 15 s. The properties of the chosen propellant,
casing, and insulation are listed in Table 9, and the design constraint
of the grain design is listed in Table 2. Through the general-design
stage, the general parameters are calculated and presented in
Table 10.
At the conclusion of the general-design stage, the general
parameters of the SRM are fed into the grain-design stage. For this
test case, the finocyl grain with six front wings and 10 back wings is
used, and the parameter configurations as illustrated in Fig. 4 are
designated as design variables. The proposed SFAO algorithm is
applied to the grain design. The number of initial sampling points is
set as 20 and the number of time discretization nodes is 30. The search
precision is set as 0.001 and the maximum search iteration is set as
100. The convergence history of the objective is illustrated in
Fig. 12a, from which we observed that the optimization converges
after 43 iterations (i.e., 63 true model evaluations in total). The
optimal grain-configuration parameters are listed in Table 11. The
comparison between the prespecified thrust curve and the optimized
result is illustrated in Fig. 12, and it is obvious that a good level of
agreement is attained.
250 Requirement
SFAO
200
PSO
SAO
150
Thrust (kN)
100
50
0
0 10 20 30 40
Time (s)
Fig. 13 Thrust-time history of case 3.
ZEPING ET AL.
Optimal results of tri-thrust case
4800
3060
780
The optimized results obtained by the SAO and PSO are also listed
in Table 10 for comparison. The convergence histories of the SAO
and PSO are presented in Figs. 12b and 12c, respectively, whereas the
optimized thrust curves obtained by the SAO and PSO are presented
in Fig. 13.
D. Discussion
For test cases carried out herein, various thrust requirements are
used to implement a benchmark using the proposed performance-
matching SRM design framework. It is worthwhile to note that the
proposed general-design method and the SFAO-based grain-design
method combined effectively to facilitate the SRM design. SFAO,
SAO, and PSO are employed in the grain-design stage for benchmark
studies. The proposed SFAO method discretizes the thrust curve and
constructs a surrogate model at each discrete point. After which, the
approximate models are progressively updated and improved upon so
as to predict thrust response at the discrete points precisely. Better
information of the thrust trend is exploited and employed to guide the
optimization and render good matching between the designed and
desired thrust performances; therefore, the optimization efficiency is
highly enhanced. Based on the proposed SFAO method, only tens of
true model evaluations are required to attain desirable results, which
drastically reduce the computing costs when compared to the SAO
and PSO methods, thereby obviously portraying the proposed SRM
design framework as a more efficient and practical approach.
VI. Conclusions
The research carried out in this paper implements an efficient
approach for design and optimization of an SRM, which tends to
satisfy various thrust design requirements based on the performance-
matching technique. An original general-parameter evaluation
method specialized for the performance-matching procedure is
developed, and by further minimizing gross SRM mass, the general
parameters are determined to perform within the grain-design stage.
Subsystems, such as combustion chambers and nozzles, are designed
through such optimization processes. In the grain-design stage, the
level-set algorithm is used to perform the grain burn-back analysis
and internal ballistic analysis so as to acquire the thrust performance.
To reduce the computational costs, a proposed SFAO method is
employed to perform the time-consuming grain-design optimization.
The feasibility, convenience, and efficacy of the proposed design
framework are investigated by four different test cases. Furthermore,
the effectiveness and computational efficiency of the SFAO
algorithm were benchmarked against other optimization techniques.
The computational costs for locating optimum results become
reduced by two to three orders of magnitude when the SFAO is used.
The proposed framework significantly increases the ability to search
optimal solutions without adequate adjustment of the algorithm for
different problem scenarios, and proves to be an adequate strategy for
handling SRM design optimization effectively.
 ZEPING ET AL.
References
[1] Wang, D., Fei, Y., Hu, F., and Zhang, W., “An Integrated Framework for
SRM Grain Design Optimization,” Journal of Aerospace Engineering,
Vol. 228, No. 7, 2014, pp. 1156–1170.
[2] Nisar, K., Guozhu, L., and Zeeshan, Q., “A Hybrid Optimization
Approach for SRM FINOCYL Grain Design,” Chinese Journal of
Aeronautics, Vol. 21, No. 6, 2008, pp. 481–487.
doi:10.1016/S1000-9361(08)60164-8
[3] Kamran, A., and Guozhu, L., “Design and Optimization of 3D Radial
Slot Grain Configuration,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, Vol. 23,
No. 4, 2010, pp. 409–414.
doi:10.1016/S1000-9361(09)60235-1
[4] Rousseau, C. W., Steyn, S. F., Sullwald, W., De Kock, E. R., Smit, G. J.
F., and Knoetze, J. H., “Rapid Solid Rocket Motor Design,” 49th AIAA/
ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA, Reston, VA,
2013, pp. 1–12.
[5] Peterson, J., and Garfield, J., “The Automated Design of Multi-Stage
Solid Rocket Vehicles,” AIAA Paper 1976-744, July 1976.
[6] Kamran, A., and Liang, G., “An Integrated Approach for Optimization
Downloaded by NATIONAL UNIVERSITY OF DEFENSE on June 1, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.A33655
of Solid Rocket Motor,” Aerospace Science and Technology, Vol. 17,
No. 1, 2012, pp. 50–64.
[7] Anderson, M., and Burkhalter, J., “Multi-Disciplinary Intelligent
Systems Approach to Solid Rocket Motor Design, Part I: Single and
Dual Goal Optimization,” AIAA Paper 2001-3599, July 2001.
[8] Anderson, M., and Burkhalter, J., “Multi-Disciplinary Intelligent
Systems Approach to Solid Rocket Motor Design, Part II: Single and
Dual Goal Optimization,” AIAA Paper 2001-3600, July 2001.
[9] Mc Cain, W. J., “AVariable Selection Heuristic for Solid Rocket Motor,”
Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. of Alabama in Huntsville, Huntsville, AL,
Number 9324488, 1993.
View publication stats
707
[10] Albarado, K. M., Hartfield, R. J., Hurston, B. W., and Jenkins, R. M.,
“Solid Rocket Motor Performance Matching Using Pattern Search/
Particle Swarm Optimization,” 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference, AIAA, Reston, VA, 2011, pp. 1–14.
[11] Kiyak, Z. J., and Hartfield, R. J., “Solid Rocket Motor Design Using a
Modified Ant Colony Optimization Metaheuristic with Local Search
Capability,” 49th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference,
AIAA, Reston, VA, 2013, pp. 1–8.
[12] Wolpert, D. H., and Macready, W. G., “No Free Lunch Theorems for
Optimization,” IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation,
Vol. 1, No. 1, 1997, pp. 67–82.
doi:10.1109/4235.585893
[13] Osher, S., and Fedkiw, R., Level Set Methods and Dynamic Implicit
Surfaces, Springer–Verlag, New York, 2003, pp. 25–90.
[14] Wang, M. Y., Wang, X. M., and Guo, D. M., “A Level Set Method for
Structural Topology Optimization,” Computer Methods in Applied
Mechanics and Engineering, Vol. 192, Nos. 1–2, 2003, pp. 227–246.
doi:10.1016/S0045-7825(02)00559-5
[15] Wang, D., Wu, Z., Fei, Y., and Zhang, W., “Structural Design Employing
a Sequential Approximation Optimization Approach,” Computers &
Structures, Vol. 134, No. 4, 2014, pp. 75–87.
doi:10.1016/j.compstruc.2013.12.004
[16] Wang, D., Hu, F., Ma, Z., Wu, Z., and Zhang, W., “A CAD/CAE
Integrated Framework for Structural Design Optimization Using
Sequential Approximation Optimization,” Advances in Engineering
Software, Vol. 76, No. 3, 2014, pp. 56–68.
doi:10.1016/j.advengsoft.2014.05.007
A. Ketsdever
Associate Editor