Original Article

Proc IMechE Part G:

J Aerospace Engineering
A preliminary multidisciplinary 2019, Vol. 233(9) 3445–3458
! IMechE 2018

design procedure for tactical missiles Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/0954410018797882
journals.sagepub.com/home/pig

Mostafa Khalil , Anwer Hashish and Hamed M Abdalla

Abstract
During missile system development, multidisciplinary design procedure is iteratively implemented based on the missile
objective and target nature including internal ballistic, warhead function, and airframe configuration. By applying missile
preliminary design, a good estimation for different design parameters can be obtained which will be useful through
further detail design process. The aim of this paper is to build a preliminary design procedure for an unguided tactical
missile that uses single-stage solid propellant motor to deliver a defined payload mass to a desired ground range. Based
on data of available similar mature missile systems, two empirical formulas are developed to serve in the initial sizing of
the missile with consideration of slenderness ratio, warhead mass, and desired ground range. Two different design
concepts are implemented for tubular and star grains with different propellant compositions and chamber filling coef-
ficients while the body-alone airframe configuration is adopted. The results demonstrate the capability of the proposed
design procedure in defining the detailed design parameters. The impact of changing the propellant compositions and
chamber filling coefficients on the obtained ground range is also explored.

Keywords
Missile design, solid propellant rocket motor, missile sizing, single-stage rocket, point-mass trajectory model, multidis-
ciplinary design procedure

Date received: 17 July 2017; accepted: 8 August 2018

Introduction of such missiles. A remedy for this is to add a preci-

Being a system of various sub-systems, the complexity
of missile system design is threefold; the design pro-
cess is multidisciplinary, involves competing object-
ives, and iterative in nature. For a certain mission to
be established, the design of multiple sub-systems
including airframe configuration, propulsion system,
payload (warhead), and flight trajectory must be har-
monized. The interaction and coupling among these
sub-systems as well as the ground sub-systems add to
the complexity of missile system design. In addition,
the design objectives are competing and profound tra-
deoffs are to be performed. Compromising trajectory
optimality and survivability, accuracy and cost,
lethality and drag are the examples. The objective of
high hit-to-kill probability of guided rockets can be
improved on the expense of system cost and warhead
lethality. The added expensive high-maneuverability
guidance and control modules may replace a part of
warhead section or decrease the missile effective
range. In many cases of high maneuvering targets,
the killing radius requirement has to be compromised.
A similar tradeoff is evident for surface missiles that
attack fixed targets. For unguided missile, increased
dispersion comes as a penalty for increasing the range
sion kit that degrades the rocket lethality. As a final
example, the new production facilities, manipulation
means, and operational capability available can pose
additional technical and cost constraints for the
design process. Therefore, in case of modifying an
existing missile system as increasing range and/or pay-
load mass, the missile caliber may have to be kept
unchanged. On the other hand, missile design is an
iterative process. After concepts are selected based
on similar missile knowledge, preliminary calculations
for each concept are performed. As the design process
evolves, the design matures, and missile system defin-
itions become more clearly specified.
The warhead sub-system design was the concern of
many studies1–7 since it is considered the main object-
ive of the entire design process. Different correlations
among warhead sub-system definition and missile
Aerospace Engineering Branch, Military Technical College, Cairo, Egypt
Corresponding author:
Mostafa Khalil, Military Technical College, Kobry El-Kobbah, Cairo
11766, Egypt.
Email: Mostafa.Samir@mtc.edu.eg
3446
objectives were derived and found adequate for use
during different missile design phases. Design of mis-
sile trajectory, both direct and indirect fire, is another
objective for which the missile system metrics should
be optimized to ensure a successful mission. For indir-
ect fire problems, such as multi-launch rocket system
MLRS and ballistic missile, analytical expressions
under action of different flight conditions are used
to provide primary good estimation for the related
design parameters. However, in case of direct trajec-
tory problems, the system dynamics including state and
control variables are introduced in the optimization of
missile mission objectives.8 Missile airframe design9–11
is another example for the tradeoffs in the design pro-
cess. It should be optimized for the constraints of pro-
duction complexity and cost, control and guidance
system requirements, and mission requirements (missile
range and flight conditions). A simple aerodynamic
design method was developed taking into consideration
the stability, range, and warhead performance for a
low subsonic unguided light assault missile.9
The design of solid propellant power plant of the
missile is another field of tradeoffs. Design parameters
include thrust profile, chamber pressure, burning
time, propellant composition, and grain shape and
dimensions. Simultaneously incorporating all these
parameters to achieve the desired performance based
on predefined missile mission is not a straight-forward
task. In the context of three-stage solid propellant
launch vehicle,12 six design parameters for each
stage were optimized for three different missions.
Optimization of motor design parameters was made
more accurate by coupling computer-aided design
(CAD) tools for grain regression13 and computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) for internal ballistics14 with
optimization tools. In addition, meeting the thrust
profile for a predefined missile mission was discussed
in many studies15–18 using analytical, numerical and
CAD burn-back analysis techniques for 3D grain geo-
metrical parameters. The sensitivity of motor perform-
ance to the variation of its design was examined19 using
Monte-Carlo method while the impact of uncertainties
in design parameters was discussed20 for dual-thrust
motors. A significant increase in missile range can be
achieved by increasing the grain volumetric loading by
using star21 or wagon-wheel22 grain configuration.
The iterative nature of missile design process is evi-
dent since the sub-systems are mutually dependent
and coupled.23 Therefore, the search for missile
designs that satisfy multiple objectives from multiple
disciplines invokes the use of multidisciplinary opti-
mization techniques.24–27 To speed up the missile
design process, Fleeman23 provided a comprehensive
conceptual design tool. However, this procedure is
constrained by three aspects. On the one hand, it
emphasizes the aerodynamic configuration design of
a tactical missile. In addition, the procedure is mainly
based on the existence of a baseline missile; an existing
already-operating missile with the same propulsion
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(9)
type, knowing that no single baseline can cover all
the range of possible solutions. On the other hand,
the procedure is concerned with sizing the sub-sys-
tems rather than obtaining detailed design param-
eters. Recently, Fleeman’s design tendency has been
considered by many researchers.24–26,28 An air-to-
ground missile (AGM) configuration design proced-
ure has been developed24 based on the conceptual
design tool found by Fleeman23 to analyze multiple
objectives as propulsion, trajectory, weight, and sta-
bility and control in conjunction with a high-fidelity
aerodynamic design tool. A baseline missile was
selected from 24 AGMs database including missile
configuration, engine type, total weight, and oper-
ating range and velocity. The lower and upper
bounds for 23 design variables were set to be 20%
of the selected baseline. High-fidelity aerodynamic
analysis tools were implemented in the design pro-
cess which was aimed for preliminary design pur-
poses. The accuracy gain upon using high-fidelity
tools is found to be unjustified taking into consid-
eration the time and calculations budget; more than
360 times that needed by low-fidelity validated com-
puter code. However, the advantage of using such
high-fidelity tools is the ability to capture the missile
longitudinal control effectiveness rather than low-
fidelity Missile Datcom. A multidiscipline design
procedure25 has been implemented to maximize mis-
sile range through the motor action, where the
motor is limited to solid propellant end burning
rocket motor. In this study, some aerodynamic
shape parameters as wing dimensions, total mass,
and motor thrust are included as design variables.
Although, the missile caliber, slenderness ratio,
total mass, and motor propellant mass and burning
time are constants based on selected air to ground
baseline missile, which has a cruciform wing and tail
configuration and an ogive nose. As more discip-
lines are involved in the early missile design phase,
the higher would be the accuracy of the outcome.
However, increasing the size (number of design par-
ameters) and complexity (number of sub-systems
and level of mutual dependence) of the optimization
problem aggravate the calculation time and risk of
solution divergence. These concerns can be alle-
viated by defining in advance the key design param-
eters and narrowing the ranges of their variation.
The proper selection of the concept design(s) is the
paramount aspect that yields an efficient and suc-
cessful design process. This initial sizing of the mis-
sile system and sub-systems should take with high
consideration the coupled multidisciplinary nature
of the missile system design. Clearly, this may not be
an easy task since the sub-systems are not well-
defined at the initial sizing stage. Hence, in almost
all cases, the initial sizing of the missile systems
stems from the designer experience and knowledge
about similar existing systems. With the lack of such
experience and knowledge, it is advantageous to
Khalil et al.
have simple techniques that convey the nature of
missile system to serve in the initial design phases.
The paper is intended to present a simplified, reli-
able, and accurate multidisciplinary procedure for the
design of a single-stage rocket motor in early design
phases. The focus of the paper is two design concepts
of a solid propellant motor for an unguided tactical
missile. The procedure starts with initial sizing
and follows to determine all detailed dimensions of
the motor taking into consideration warhead, range,
and launcher integration. Tools for thermo-chemical
calculations, internal ballistics, aerodynamic charac-
teristics, and point-mass trajectory are involved in
the procedure. The remainder of the paper is orga-
nized as follows. First, the design procedure is
explained in detail. The next section illustrates the
implementation of such procedure on two different
design concepts. The paper ends with the limitations
and recommendations for further improvement for
the proposed design procedure.
Description of the design procedure
The design procedure is intended to define the detailed
parameters including (i) the primary considerations as
missile caliber and the slenderness ratio, initial rocket
mass and acceleration, and chamber initial pressure
and filling coefficient; (ii) selection of propellant com-
position, and grain shape to be utilized and hence
compute grain dimensions, and the thrust profile;
(iii) the aerodynamic problem is simplified to have
body-alone configuration, where the study of stability
criteria is overlooked during the preliminary design
phase and hence, the point-mass trajectory is used
to estimate the maximum ground range. The proced-
ure is concerned with two solid propellant rocket
motors design concepts.
Concept 1: A single-stage rocket motor that con-
tains a double-base solid propellant tubular grain
Figure 1. Historical trends for range as a function of caliber and warhead mass.
3447
producing neutral thrust to deliver the allocated pay-
load at a specific ground range.
Concept 2: A single-stage rocket motor that con-
tains a composite solid propellant star grain produ-
cing neutral-progressive thrust to deliver the allocated
payload at a specific ground range.
Missile sizing
As a common practice in the initial missile sizing, a
survey on similar missiles is undertaken in inter-
national military industry firms.29–33 As illustrated
in Appendix 1, the data for 70 single-stage solid pro-
pellant (SSSP) surface-to-surface missile weapon sys-
tems are collected including caliber D, slenderness
ratio lR ¼ L=D, total mass mo , payload mass mWH ,
and maximum range X. The relation between the mis-
sile maximum range and the corresponding caliber for
a range of payload mass is illustrated in Figure 1,
which can provide a good estimation for the missile
range/caliber bounds in view of the applied payload
mass.
To perform initial missile sizing, explicit relations
among the main sizing parameters have to be estab-
lished via regression analysis of the data collected in
the survey. To establish these relations, the caliber
and total mass are chosen as the dependent variables
whereas the warhead mass, slenderness ratio, and
range are chosen as the independent ones. Table 1
lists the correlation coefficient34 (R-score), which is a
number ranged between 1 and 1 introducing how
much two sets of variables are related (i.e., closer to
zero means no evidence for such respective relation),
and corresponding p value,34 which is a number
ranged between 0 and 1 measuring the significance
between two sets of variables (i.e., closer to zero
means higher significant level), among the dependent
and independent variables. The first empirical relation
to be obtained is missile caliber D (m), which is
3448 Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(9)

Table 1. Correlation coefficient and p value for design parameters based on collected data.

Data points D  mWH D  R DX mo  D mo  mWH mo  X mo   R

70 R-score 0.916 0.624 0.605 0.909 0.866 0.687 0.41

p value 9.34E29 7.65E9 2.82E8 1.51E27 3.28E22 5.08E11 4.23E4
50 R-score 0.942 0.871 0.676 0.926 0.917 0.763 0.7467
p value 2.4E24 1.99E16 7.16 E8 6.58E22 9.6E21 1.23E10 4.78E10

Table 2. Coefficients of equations (1) and (2) based on the collected data set.

Data points 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
3
70 52.70E 0.500 0.258 277.50 3.90 2.48 0.204
53 159.96E3 0.406 0.455 478.04 4.82 2.68 0.149

correlated the most with mWH (kg). To consider the
fact that two missiles with the same warhead mass
may have different calibers, the independent variable
lR (with inverse proportionality to the caliber) is
introduced. Hence, the first empirical relation would
have the form
D ¼ 1 mWH
2
l
R
3
Similarly, the missile total mass mo (kg) includes
both warhead mass, structure mass and propellant
grain
 mass.
 3 A cylindrical part with volume (V ¼

4 Lcyl =D D ) conveys
  both chamber structure and
propellant as Lcyl =D ¼ ½lR  ðlWH þ lother Þ, where
lother includes the impact of mass differences for parts
independent on the motor length as fins, nozzle, con-
nections, etc. For the same missile total mass however,
different ground ranges can be obtained using different
propellant compositions (Isp / X) and different filling
coefficients (KFC / X). Hence, the ground range X
(km) will be admittedly-proportional to the cylindrical
part material density (including both structure and
propellant). Therefore, a proper relation representing
total mass would have the form
mo ¼ mWH þ 4 ½lR  5  D6 X7
The unknown coefficients 1 to 7 in equations (1)
and (2) are evaluated by applying nonlinear regression
to the collected data points to both formulae. The first
approximations for these coefficients are listed in the
first row in Table 2, whereas the corresponding pre-
dicted values of the dependent variables based on the
estimated parameters are illustrated in Figure 2.
Clearly, equations (1) and (2) neither infer the level
of technology, quality of materials, design optimality,
nor possible uncertainty of the surveyed 70 missiles
data upon which the two equations are based. The
unexplained variability witnessed in Figure 2 may be
attributed to such factors. Hence, the predictive qual-
ity equations (1) and (2) can be improved by
eliminating the outliers, data points with extreme esti-
mation errors for both total mass and caliber. The
outliers are successively eliminated, where, in each
iteration, the data point with the greatest caliber/
mass estimation error is eliminated. As more outliers
are eliminated, the error measures are improved. As
illustrated in Figure 3, the maximum percentage error,
ð1Þ emax , and mean absolute percentage error, MAPE,
respectively, for both formulas are reduced to less
than 10% after 17 iterations (53 data points remain-
ing). Finally, values of coefficients of equations (1)
and (2) for the missile caliber and total mass, respect-
ively, are listed in second row of Table 2. As inferred
from Figure 4, the accuracy of the predicted values for
missile caliber and total mass using equations (1) and
(2), respectively, relative to the real values is accept-
able as far as missile preliminary design is concerned.
Design parameters calculation
Design parameters initialization
In this proposed procedure, a number of design par-
ameters are specified and assigned fixed values (or
range of variation) in advance throughout the design
steps. Other parameters starting from given initial
ð2Þ values will be modified as the design process evolves.
The fixed parameters are determined in view of the
following considerations:
– Ground range X and warhead mass mWH are
imposed according to mission requirements.
– The missile slenderness ratio lR is given a recom-
mended value based on its tactical-technical
requirements1 including missile transportation,
manipulation, and launching. Too small slender-
ness ratios raise problems during transportation
while too large values may invoke aero-elasticity:
body flexible bending during flight, increasing dis-
persion, complicating the flight control, and even
yielding structural failure.
– The initial missile acceleration ao is chosen.
Khalil et al.
Figure 2. Predicted missile caliber and total mass based on 70
data points.
– Based on available solid propellant compositions
and a chosen combustion pressure Pc value, the
theoretical specific impulse Ispth , characteristic vel-
ocity C*, combustion temperature Tcch, and other
combustion characteristics are computed using
specialized tools as the chemical equilibrium with
application CEA software.35 In case of star grains,
the expected average combustion pressure P c is
utilized to compute its combustion characteristics.
Due to the effects of two-phase flow, nozzle diver-
gence part, boundary layer, and insufficient
combustion, the real specific impulse is commonly
less than the theoretical one. This is expressed as
Isp ¼ ’Ispth , where the loss coefficient ’ may be
assumed to be 0:93 and 0:97 for composite and
double-base propellant, respectively.36
– The missile caliber, D, is estimated using equation
(1) for given mWH and lR . The caliber may be then
approximated to its nearest corresponding value in
Figure 1.
– The missile total mass is computed using
equation (2).
3449
Figure 3. Evolution of prediction error measures for
equations (1) and (2) with eliminated outliers. (a) Maximum
estimation error; (b) Mean absolute percentage error MAPE.
– The invariable portion of missile total mass is
defined as minv ¼ mWH þ m. Here, m includes
other masses that are independent on the motor
length (fins, nozzle, igniter, etc.). It can be related
to the missile caliber37 as
m ¼ lD3 ð3Þ
with recommended values (l ¼ 1:6 : 2:8 kg=dm3 ).
– The missile nozzle is selected to be adapted such
that the average exit pressure of gases is equal to
the ambient pressure: P e ¼ Pa .
– The airframe is simplified to a body-alone config-
uration. The missile aerodynamic performance is
simplified to address only the zero-lift drag coeffi-
cient CD ¼ fðMÞ which is estimated using a reliable
aerodynamic prediction tool.38,39
Having initialized the key design parameters, the
proposed procedure will help estimate the detailed
design parameters of SSSP rocket motor to accom-
plish the desired ground range. Despite being numer-
ous, they can be aggregated in two distinct key
parameters namely, motor total impulse IT and filling
coefficient KFC . Specifying these two parameters, all
detailed design parameters can be defined. Since there
are no explicit mathematical relations between missile
range and IT and KFC , a graphical representation has
been constructed through the proposed design pro-
cedure as illustrated in Figure 5. Hence, a range of
motor IT and KFC can be obtained satisfying missile
range (horizontal dashed line in Figure 5).
3450
Figure 4. Predicted missile caliber and total mass based on 53
data points (outliers eliminated).
Figure 5. A graphical representation for proposed design
procedure.
To construct such graph, at least three values for both
IT and KFC should be utilized through outer and inner
loop as illustrated below.
Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(9)
Outer loop of calculations
The aim of the outer loop is to specify the value
for chamber filling coefficients KFC ¼ Asp =Ac , where
Ac and Asp are the cross-sectional areas of the
combustion chamber and solid propellant grain,
respectively. A range of filling coefficient values is
first assumed; each value within this range is exam-
ined during each iteration of the outer loop. The
outer loop is repeated for an adequate number of
values (typically 3 values) for the filling coefficient.
For each chosen filling coefficient value, a first guess
for the solid propellant mass and, hence, the total
impulse, IT , are computed in a given iteration.
Then, the inner loop is processed.
The appropriate values of filling coefficient are
chosen such that only an acceptable amount of ero-
sive burning is allowed. This is undertaken by esti-
mating, for every filling coefficient value, the
combustion gases port velocity as
_ p g ¼ ð1:1  1:2ÞVgth , where, m,
Vg ¼ m=A _ Ap , and g
are the gases flow rate, port area, and gas density,
respectively. The threshold velocity for the combus-
tion gases Vgth is defined as40
Vgth ¼ Gth =g ð4Þ
where Gth ¼ 182:8 þ 15:4Pc is the threshold mass flux in
(kg/m2 s) and Pc is the combustion pressure in (bar).
Hence, a relation between KFC and Vg is obtained.
Inner loop of calculations
The aim of the inner loop is to specify—mainly—the
total impulse value and the detailed design parameters
necessary to ensure that the desired maximum missile
ground range is fulfilled. The inner loop iteration
starts with the estimated total impulse obtained in
the outer loop and continues as follows:
– The respective masses of solid propellant grain and
combustion chamber casing are calculated, more
accurately, as
msp ¼ IT =Isp and mc ¼ msp =ða=bÞKFC ð5Þ
where the values of a and b are explained in the
context of derivation of equation (5) listed in
Appendix 2.
– The missile initial thrust is calculated as
Fo ¼ mo ao , where the total missile mass mo ¼
mc þ msp þ minv .
– Based on the current filling coefficient KFC value,
the detailed grain dimensions are computed.
In case of star grain, a set of star parameters
are selected and other grain dimensions are
computed.
– The nozzle critical area is calculated Acr ¼ Fo =CF Pc
where CF is the thrust coefficient defined as41
Khalil et al. 3451

 
Pe  Pa the burning is simply assumed neutral along the
CF ¼ ’CFo þ "A ð6Þ
Pc burning time computed as tk ¼ IT =Fo . Hence, the
pressure and thrust at any given instant are equal
to their corresponding initial values. However,
where in case of star grain, the pressure and thrust profiles
vffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffiffi
ffi are obtained using reliable internal ballistics pre-
u "  1= # diction equations.42
u 2 P
¼ t
e
CFo 1 , – Finally, the missile maximum range is computed
1 Pc using a proper point-mass trajectory model43
based on the zero-lift drag coefficient CD ¼ fðMÞ
pffiffiffi 2 þ1=2ð1Þ
 ¼  þ1 , and  is the ratio of the spe- computed before. Based on the error between the
cific heat capacities of the combustion gas products, computed and desired maximum ground range,
Pe and Pa are the nozzle exit and ambient pressures, another IT value is generated and the next iteration
respectively, and "A ¼ Ae =Acr ¼ 2 =CFo ðPe =Pc Þ1= is of the inner loop commences.
the nozzle expansion ratio based on the average pres-
sure P c wherefrom Pe is taken equal to the ambient The inner loop is executed for an adequate number
pressure for an adapted nozzle condition. of values of chosen total impulse and the correspond-
ing ground ranges are obtained. The total impulse
– The initial mass flow rate is computed using the value needed to deliver the missile to the desired
relation m_ o ¼ Pco Acr =C . Hence, the initial burning range X is obtained using linear interpolation
rate is calculated by uo ¼ m_ o =sp Abo , where Abo is among the set of values obtained. Figure 6 summar-
the initial burning area and sp is the solid propel- izes the procedures for calculations explained above.
lant density. The burning law is then deduced on
the form u ¼ a:Pn based on the computed burning
rate uo and selected Pco .
Implementation of design procedure
– Eventually, the thrust profile F–t and pressure The proposed preliminary design procedure is
profile P–t are obtained. In case of tubular grain, assessed in the design considering the two concepts

Figure 6. A flow chart for the proposed design procedure.

3452 Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(9)

presented earlier using a case study. The main missile
system requirement adopted in this study is a payload
mass of 420 kg. Some limitations and constraints are
imposed on the design as illustrated in Table 3.
The airframe is a body-alone cone-cylinder configur-
ation with an assumed total slenderness ratio of
lR ¼ 16:5 (Figure 7(a)). The warhead length and
cone semi-apex angle are assumed to be 3.5D and
10 , respectively,1 which are typical values for frag-
mentation-demolition warhead. The missile zero-lift
drag coefficient CD ¼ fðMÞ is estimated using38
(Figure 7(b)). Following the proposed design proced-
ure, the missile caliber is estimated using equation (1)
as Dest: ¼ 519 mm, which is approximated using
Figure 1 to be D ¼ 544 mm. Hence, using equation
Table 3. Design limitations and constrains.
Parameter Value
Initial acceleration, ao ð9:5  10:5Þ g
Propellant burning rate, u 5  20 mm=s
Initial combustion pressure, Pco 70  90 bar
Velocity of combustion gases, Vg ð1:1  1:2ÞVgth
(3), the invariable mass is estimated to be
minv ¼ 870 kg. In what follows, the detailed design
parameters for the two concepts handled by the pro-
posed procedure are deduced.
Design concept 1
A double-base propellant formed as a tubular grain is
utilized through this case study to send the missile war-
head to maximum ground range X ¼ 66 km. Using
equation (2), the missile total mass is moest ¼ 2419 kg.
The initially specified design parameters adopted for
this concept are: initial acceleration ao ¼ 10g and pro-
pellant specific impulse Isp ¼ 1970 m=s. The range of
filling coefficient KFC ¼ 0:65 0:75 is examined; for
each value, a set of total impulse values are investi-
gated. As a sample for the output, Table 4 lists the
computed missile design parameters and corresponding
maximum range for KFC ¼ 0:65 and a set of total
impulse values IT . Similar results are obtained for the
other values of filling coefficient namely, KFC ¼ 0:7
and KFC ¼ 0:75. Upon interpolation of the listed
data for the desired maximum ground range X ¼
66 km, the required total impulse is IT ¼ 2:1
106 N s and hence, the solid propellant rocket motor
(SPRM) design parameters are listed in Table 4.
The obtained value of filling coefficient needs to be
checked for grain erosive burning. To do so, the vari-
ation of combustion gas flow velocity through the
tubular gain port with filling coefficient at different
initial missile acceleration is plotted (Figure 8).

Figure 8. Combustion gas flow velocity vs. motor filling

Figure 7. Illustration of (a) missile airframe configuration, and coefficient, for different initial missile accelerations (design
(b) predicted zero-lift drag coefficient. concept 1).

Table 4. Motor design parameters corresponding to filling coefficient KFC ¼ 0.65 (design concept 1).

IT ðN sÞ msp ðkgÞ mc ðkgÞ mo ðkgÞ Fo ðkNÞ tk ðsÞ o ð Þ X ðkmÞ

2.00  106 1015.23 466.60 2351.83 230.715 8.669 62.40 61.056

2.25  106 1142.13 524.92 2537.05 248.885 9.040 61.79 73.355
2.50  106 1269.04 583.25 2722.29 267.057 9.361 61.30 85.109
2.1  106 a 1066.24 490.04 2426.28 238.018 8.825 62.15 66.00
a
Data interpolated for desired ground range.
Khalil et al. 3453

The range of maximum allowable gas flow velocity
based on the threshold value corresponding to the
investigated case is Vg ¼ 160 : 175 m=s. This range is
indicated by the two solid lines in Figure 8. As
inferred from Figure 8, the filling coefficient value of
KFC ¼ 0:7 along with the initial missile acceleration
ao ¼ 10 g are unacceptable as far as avoiding exces-
sive erosive burning is concerned. Consequently, the
filling coefficient and initial acceleration are chosen,
respectively, as KFC ¼ 0:68 and ao ¼ 9:5 g.
A closer analysis of Figure 8 provides a better
understanding of the interdependence among the
motor filling coefficient, initial missile acceleration
(conveying both thrust and total mass), internal gas
flow velocity, and missile-launcher integration. It is
Figure 9. Star grain design parameters (KFC ¼ 0.7).
clear that for given filling coefficient and missile
total mass, the initial acceleration can be increased
by increasing the propellant burning rate (mass flow
rate) as inferred from the following relation
_ eff ¼ mW
F ¼ mW _ e þ Ae ðPe  Pa Þ ð7Þ
As a consequence, the velocity of combustion gases
Vg through the tubular grain port increases. On the
other hand, for a given Vg value, the filling coefficient
can be increased by decreasing the initial acceleration
ao . However, a smaller value of ao would imply
increasing the launcher guide-way length to ensure a
stable leave of the missile off the launcher.
Design concept 2
A composite propellant in the form of a star perfo-
rated grain is assumed for the second design concept
to send the missile warhead to maximum ground
range X ¼ 120 km. Using equation (2), the missile
total mass is moest ¼ 2649 kg. The adopted initial
design parameters for this concept are: initial acceler-
ation ao ¼ 9:5 g and propellant specific impulse
Isp ¼ 2475 m=s. In contrast to design concept 1, the
specific impulse is computed using an average value of
the combustion pressure that varies with burning time
of the star grain; here a value of P c ¼ 95 bar is
chosen. The star parameters are chosen as follows:
N ¼ 7, " ¼ 0.5, f ¼ 7 mm, p ¼ 71.1 (for neutral burn-
ing during first phase of combustion) and hence, the
web thickness, w, is calculated according to the chosen
filling coefficient KFC as illustrated in Figure 9. As a
sample of the output, Table 5 lists the missile
design parameters and the corresponding maximum
range for a filling coefficient value KFC ¼ 0:7 and
a set of total impulse values. Similar results are
obtained for the other values of filling coefficient
namely, KFC ¼ 0:65 and KFC ¼ 0:75. For the
desired maximum range X ¼ 120 km, an interpolation
is made yielding the required total impulse to be
IT ¼ 2:7788  106 N s as illustrated in Table 5.
The corresponding thrust and total mass profiles for
each of the total impulse values listed in Table 5 are
illustrated in Figure 10. In contrast to design concept
1, thrust profile is obtained by applying internal bal-
listic relations proposed in Sforzini.42 Finally, erosive
burning constraint is checked. For the data adopted

Table 5. Motor design parameters corresponding to filling coefficient KFC ¼ 0.7 (design concept 2).

IT ðN sÞ msp ðkgÞ mc ðkgÞ mo ðkgÞ Fo ðkNÞ tk ðsÞ o ð Þ X ðkmÞ

2.6  106 1050.51 448.33 2368.84 220.764 10.950 61.90 108.873

2.8  106 1131.31 482.81 2484.12 231.508 11.235 61.847 121.318
3.0  106 1212.12 517.30 2599.42 242.253 11.516 61.757 133.970
2.78  106 a
1122.75 479.16 2471.91 230.370 11.205 61.85 120.00
a
Data interpolated for desired ground range.
3454 Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(9)

in this design concept, Figure 11 illustrates the

dependence of gas flow velocity along the star grain
port on the grain filling coefficient for ao ¼ 9:5 g. The
two solid lines indicate the range of maximum allow-
able gas flow velocity based on the threshold value for
the adopted data: Vg ¼ 198  216 m=s. As inferred
from Figure 11, a filling even higher than KFC ¼ 0:7
ensures a non-erosive burning of the grain. To maxi-
mize the filling, KFC ¼ 0:725 is chosen.

Concluding remarks—Design concept comparison

Figure 10. Computed thrust–time curve and total mass
variation for design concept 2 with KFC ¼ 0.7.
Figure 11. Combustion gas flow velocity vs. motor filling
coefficient, for different initial missile accelerations (design
concept 2).
Table 6 compares the final results obtained for both
design concepts. Clearly, design concept 2 can deliver
the same payload mass to almost double the range
delivered by design concept 1. This gain is achieved
by increasing both the propellant specific impulse and
the grain filling coefficient with a total mass penalty
that amounts to only 1.78%. In addition, compared
with more sophisticated internal ballistics calcula-
tions,42 equation (2) provides fast and fairly accurate
total mass estimation with less than 9% relative error.
Finally, in order to check the accuracy of the proposed
design procedure, a point-mass trajectory model is
applied using the data input listed in Table 6. The com-
parison between the two values indicates the remark-
able accuracy of the proposed simple design procedure.
The missile initial acceleration, 9:5  10:5 g, impacts
another system level metric namely, dispersion. The
initial acceleration should be selected such that the
missile leaves the launcher with a velocity that ensures
that the missile is least vulnerable to disturbances
especially lateral wind. In fact, the initial missile accel-
eration impacts two competing design objectives.
On the one extreme, reducing the initial acceleration
implies longer, hence heavier, launcher and ground
equipment to secure a stable launch. On the other
extreme, increasing the initial acceleration implies
larger solid propellant grain dimensions, mass, and
associated inertial forces and internal stresses. In
practice, the initial acceleration for tactical missiles
is 20 g.37 This value is attainable using a single
motor only for small artillery rockets. The range of
values for initial missile acceleration adopted here is
selected based on practice in relatively large tactical
missiles using a single motor. For large caliber tactical
missiles, as it is the case for the two design concepts
discussed above, the initial acceleration generated by
the missile motor, ao ¼ 9:5 g, would imply an exces-
sively long guide-way. A remedy for this drawback

Table 6. Comparison of final concept designs 1 and 2.

Design mo ðkgÞ mo ðkgÞ X ðkmÞ

concept KFC IT ðN sÞ Isp ðm=sÞ msp ðkgÞ (eq. (2)) (final) Fo ðkNÞ tk ðsÞ X ðkmÞ (checked)

1 0.68 2.07  106 1970 1051.4 2459 2383.3 222.112 9.325 66 66.94
2 0.725 2.73  106 2475 1101.9 2649 2425.9 226.083 10.66 120 120.92
Khalil et al.
is to provide additional small motor(s) operating sim-
ultaneously with the main motor. In effect, the add-
itional motor(s) acts as an ejector/booster to increase
the initial missile acceleration to about 20 g. This solu-
tion is considered by the authors as future extension
of the present work.
Conclusion
The process of missile design is complicated by its
multidisciplinary, iterative, and tradeoff nature.
Hence, it is crucial to have a simple reliable sizing
and preliminary design tool. The aim of this study is
to construct a design procedure for single-stage solid
propellant unguided missile to deliver certain payload
mass to a desired maximum ground range. The devel-
oped tool is based on the interaction among thermo-
chemical calculation tool, unsteady internal ballistic
model, aerodynamic performance evaluation tool,
and point-mass trajectory model while accounting
for erosive grain burning. The procedure incorporates
two key sizing formulae derived from nonlinear
regression on design parameters of 70 mature missile
systems. It is concluded that the range of a missile
under development can be increased by increasing
the propellant specific impulse and/or the chamber
filling coefficient with a slight mass penalty. The
results demonstrate that the proposed simple design
procedure has good estimation accuracy. The
obtained design parameters can be further improved
using more comprehensive design procedure that
incorporates more design concerns such as flight sta-
bility, which can be improved by utilizing an appro-
priate fin configuration.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of
this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research,
authorship, and/or publication of this article.
ORCID iD
Mostafa Khalil http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4809-8399
References
1. Kurov V and Dolzhanskiy Y. Fundamentals of design for
solid-propellant rocket missiles. foreign technology. Ohio,
USA: DIV Wright-Patterson AFB, 1962.
2. Zulkoski T. Development of optimum theoretical warhead
design criteria. Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA,
1976.
3. Haozheng J. Status and development trends in missile war-
heads. DTIC Document, 1991.
4. Gao C, Jing W and Wei P. Research on application of
single moving mass in the reentry warhead maneuver.
Aerospace Sci Technol 2013; 30: 108–118.
3455
5. Menon P, Sweriduk G, Ohlmeyer E, et al.
Integrated guidance and control of moving-mass
actuated kinetic warheads. J Guidance Control Dyn
2004; 27: 118–126.
6. Farrell JJ, Lipner N, Chiu JS, et al. Target vulnerability
and hardness uncertainty analysis. TRW Defense and
Space Systems Group, Redondo Beach, CA: One
Space Park, 1977, p.93.
7. Procedure ITO. Penetration tests of HEAT warheads.
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD: U.S Army Test and
Evaluation Command, 1983, p.13.
8. Betts JT. Survey of numerical methods for trajectory
optimization. J Guidance Control Dyn 1998; 21:
193–207.
9. Tanrikulu O and Ercan V. Optimal external configur-
ation design of unguided missiles. J Spacecraft Rockets
1998; 35: 312–316.
10. Anderson MB, Burkhalter J and Jenkins R. Missile
aerodynamic shape optimization using genetic algo-
rithms. J Spacecraft Rockets 2000; 37: 663–669.
11. Cui K and Yang G-W. Shape optimization for hyper-
sonic arc-wing missiles. J Spacecraft Rockets 2010; 47:
694–700.
12. Kamm Y and Gany A. Solid rocket motor optimiza-
tion. In: 44th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion
conference & exhibit, Hartford, CT, 21–23 July 2008,
p.4695.
13. Kamran A and Guozhu L. An integrated approach for
optimization of solid rocket motor. Aerospace Sci
Technol 2012; 17: 50–64.
14. Smit GJ, Knoetze J, Steyn F, et al. Rapid solid rocket
motor design. In: 49th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint
propulsion conference, San Jose, CA, 14–17 July 2013,
p.3789.
15. Kamran A and Guozhu L. Design and optimization of
3D radial slot grain configuration. Chin J Aeronaut
2010; 23: 409–414.
16. Dong-Hui W, Yang F, Fan H, et al. An integrated frame-
work for solid rocket motor grain design optimization.
Proc IMechE, Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 2014;
228: 1156–1170.
17. Javed A, Sundaram IA and Chakraborty D. Internal
ballistic code for solid rocket motors using minimum
distance function for grain burnback. Defence Sci J
2015; 65: 181–188.
18. Yücel O, Açık S, Toker KA, et al. Three-dimensional
grain design optimization of solid rocket motors. In: 7th
international conference on recent advances in space tech-
nologies (RAST), 2015, IEEE, 2015, pp.471–476.
19. Villanueva FM, He LS and Xu DJ. Solid rocket motor
design optimization using genetic algorithm. Adv Mater
Res 2014; 502–506.
20. Gawad ARA, Ahmed MY, Abdalla HM, et al. Pressure
profile prediction of dual-thrust rocket motors under
uncertainties. Propellants Explos Pyrotech 2016; 41:
965–971.
21. Kamran A, Guozhu L, Rafique A, et al. Star grain
optimization using genetic algorithm. In: 51st AIAA/
ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynam-
ics, and materials conference 18th AIAA/ASME/AHS
adaptive structures conference 12th, 2010, p.3084.
22. Raza MA and Liang W. Design and optimization of 3D
wagon wheel grain for dual thrust solid rocket motors.
Propellants Explos Pyrotech 2013; 38: 67–74.
3456 Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(9)

23. Fleeman EL. Tactical missile design. Reston: American program. Final report, NASA contractor report NASA
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, 2006. CR-129025, Auburn University, AL, USA, 1972.
24. Van Nguyen N, Tyan M, Jin S, et al. Adaptive multi- 43. Khalil M. Trajectory prediction of flying vehicle.
fidelity constraints method for efficient multidisciplin- Aerospace Department, Military Technical College,
ary missile design framework. J Spacecraft Rockets 2008.
2015; 53: 184–194.
25. Tekinalp O and Bingol M. Simulated annealing for mis-
sile optimization: developing method and formulation
techniques. J Guidance Control Dyn 2004; 27: 616–626.
26. Jun S, Tischler V and Venkayya V. Multidisciplinary
Appendix
design optimization of a built-up wing structure with Notation
tip missile. J Aircraft 2003; 40: 1093–1098.
27. Starkey R, Liu D, Baldelli D, et al. Rapid conceptual ao missile initial acceleration
design and analysis of a hypersonic air-breathing mis- Ac combustion chamber cross-sectional
sile. In: 15th AIAA international space planes and hyper- area
sonic systems and technologies conference, 2008, p.2590. Acr nozzle critical area
28. Tanil C, Platin B and Mahmutyazicioglu G. External
Ae nozzle exit cross section area
configuration optimization of missiles in conceptual
Ap motor port area
design. In: AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics confer-
ence, 2009, p.5719. Asp solid propellant grain cross-sectional
29. Cordesman AH. Iran’s rocket and missile forces and area
strategic options. Lanham, MD: Rowman & CD zero-lift drag coefficient
Littlefield, 2014. CF thrust coefficient
30. Dullum O. The rocket artillery reference book. FFI C* propellant characteristic velocity
report 2009, 2009, p.179. D missile caliber
31. ALIT CAL-MI. Product Catalogs 2017. China f fillet radius
Aerospace Long-March International ALIT, 2017. Fo missile initial thrust
32. Hildreth SA. Iran’s ballistic missile and space launch Gth threshold mass flux
programs. Congressional Research Service, Library of
Isp propellant specific impulse
Congress, 2012.
IT motor total impulse
33. Foss CF. Jane’s armour and artillery. London: Jane’s
Publishing Company Limited, 2002. KFC motor filling coefficient
34. Fenton N and Neil M. Risk assessment and decision L missile length
analysis with Bayesian networks. Boca Raton, FL: mc combustion chamber mass
Taylor & Francis Group. minv invariable portion of missile total mass
35. Gordon S and McBride B. Computer Program for mo missile total mass
Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium msp solid propellant grain mass
Compositions and Applications. Part I: analysis, mWH payload mass
NASA Reference Publication 1311. Cleveland, OH: m_ combustion gases flow rate
Lewis Research Center, 1994. M Mach number
36. Landsbaum E, Salinas M and Leary J. Specific impulse
N number of star points
prediction of solid-propellant motors. J Spacecraft
Rockets 1980; 17: 400–406.
Pa ambient pressure
37. Konečný P, Hrubý V and Křižan Z. Design optimiza- Pc combustion pressure value
tion of solid propellant rocket motor. In: Proceedings of tk motor burning time
the 23rd international symposium on ballistics, Tcch combustion temperature
Tarragona, Spain, 16–20 April 2007. u propellant burning rate
38. Blake WB. Missile datcom: user’s manual-1997 FORTRAN Vg combustion gases port velocity
90 revision. Air Force Research Lab. Wright-Patterson Vgth threshold velocity for combustion gases
AFB OH Air Vehicles Directorate, 1998. We exhaust velocity at the nozzle exit
39. Sooy TJ and Schmidt RZ. Aerodynamic predictions, X maximum ground range
comparisons, and validations using missile datcom " angular fraction
(97) and aeroprediction 98 (ap98). J Spacecraft
"A nozzle expansion ratio
Rockets 2005; 42: 257–265.
40. Kreidler J. Erosive burning-new experimental tech-
o missile launch elevating angle
niques and methods of analysis. In: Solid propellant p star angle
rocket conference, Palo Alto, CA, 29–31 January 1964, lR missile slenderness ratio
p.155. g combustion gases density
41. Barrere M, Jaumotte A, Veubeke BFd, et al. Rocket sp the solid propellant density
propulsion. Amsterdam, Netherlands: Elsevier Pub.
Co., 1960.
42. Sforzini RH. Design and performance analysis of solid-
propellant rocket motors using a simplified computer
Khalil et al. 3457

Appendix 1

Collected data for 70 single-stage solid propellant surface-to-surface missile weapon systems.

Type D (mm) X (km) mo (kg) mWH (kg) R (–) Type D (mm) X (km) mo (kg) mWH (kg) R (–)

WS-15 122 45 73.5 21.5 24.6 WS-3 400 200 1260 200 17.5
WS-22 122 45 73 21 24.8 WS-3A 400 280 1401 200 17.9
SAKR-18 122 20 66.5 19.5 24 FROG-3 410 40 2249 450 25.6
SAKR-36 122 36 58.5 19.5 21.3 FROG-4 410 50 2000 250 25.6
WS-1E 122 40 74 22 24.1 PRAHAAR 420 150 1280 200 17.4
SAKR-45 122 45 63.5 20.5 23.7 Naze’at 10 450 130 1830 230 18.4
ARASH-1 122 12 44 19 15.2 D1a 480 32 1000 500 8.8
ARASH-2 122 21 65 19 23.4 D2a 480 76 1200 500 9.5
ARASH-3 122 40 67.5 22 23.7 FROG-7A 540 70 2345 390 16.9
LAR-160 160 45 110 46 20.7 FROG-5 550 55 3000 450 16.6
WS-33a 200 70 200 23 16.5 HATF-1 560 70 1500 500 10.7
M26a 227 32 306 156 17.4 HATF-1A 560 100 1500 500 10.7
M26A2a 227 45 296 135 17.4 HATF-1B 560 100 1500 500 10.7
OGHAB 230 45 360 70 21 ABDALI-Ia 560 180 1750 500 17.4
BM-24a 240 11 112 47 4.9 MGM-140a 610 140 1670 560 6.6
Fajr-3 240 43 407 90 21.7 ZELZAL-1 610 125 2950 600 13.6
FALAQ-1a 240 10 113 50 5.5 ZELZAL-1A 610 160 2950 500 13.6
Smercha 300 70 800 280 25.3 ZELZAL-2 610 210 3400 600 13.7
WS-32 300 150 800 155 23 Fateh-110 610 200 3450 650 14.5
A100 300 100 840 200 24.3 ZELZAL-2 610 200 3600 600 14.8
A200 300 200 750 100 24.2 ZELZAL-3 610 250 3870 600 15.7
A300a 300 290 750 150 24.2 Fateh110 4thG 610 300 3450 650 14.5
WS-1 302 100 524 150 15.7 FROG-2 620 25 2410 500 14.6
Khaiber-1 302 160 750 150 20.9 Scarab-A 650 70 2000 480 9.9
WS-1B 302 180 725 150 21.1 Scarab-B 650 120 2010 480 9.9
M-302 302 212 524 175 16.6 Scarab-C 650 185 1800 480 9.9
MGR-3 320 18 353 110 13.8 DF-12 (M20) 750 280 4010 480 10.4
FALAQ-2a 333 11 256 120 5.5 MGR-1A 760 25 2640 680 10.9
Fajr-5 330 75 915 175 19.5 MGR-1Ba 760 48 1960 680 10.4
Shahin Ia 330 13 384 190 8.7 FROG-1a 850 32 3012 500 11.9
Shahin IIa 330 20 530 190 11.7 DF-11 860 350 3800 800 8.7
MAR-350a 350 80 835 334 14.3 DF-11A 860 600 4200 500 9.9
Naze’at 6 356 100 960 130 17.7 GHAZNAVI 880 290 5256 700 11
WS-2B 400 200 1285 200 18.3 ISKANDAR 950 500 3800 480 7.6
WS-2C 400 350 1280 200 18.3 DF-15 1000 600 6200 750 9.1
a
Eliminated outliers.

Appendix 2: Derivation of combustion

chamber mass in equation (5)
Figure 12 illustrates a section of a motor casing.
Assume that the ratio between the inner and outer
diameters for the motor case with insulator is 0 and
the ratio between the inner and outer diameters for
the motor case alone is , where

0 ¼ D1 =D0 ð8Þ
Figure 12. Combustion chamber section view.
3458 Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 233(9)

 ¼ D01 =D0 ð9Þ which is defined as

The solid propellant mass is given by L ¼ Lc =Lsp ð15Þ

msp ¼ Asp Lsp sp Therefore, the additional mass ratio to be added
Ac D0 Asp Lsp ð10Þ during design procedure is  ¼ L  m . The metal
msp ¼ 0
Asp Lsp sp ¼ Ac D0 sp casing mass can be computed as
Ac D Ac D0
Let KL ¼ Lsp =D0 , Ac ¼ D21 =4   02 0

mcase ¼ D  D12 m Lc m
4

msp ¼ KFC KL D21 D0 sp ð11Þ
4 where m is the casing metal density, and then, sub-
stituting by equations (9) and (15), we get
Substituting equation (8) in (11), we get
 02
mcase ¼ D 1  2 Lsp m ð16Þ
03
msp ¼ aD KFC KL ð12Þ 4

where a ¼ 4 02 sp Similarly, the insulation mass can be computed as

The combustion chamber empty mass is the sum of
metal casing mcase and insulation mins i.e.  02 2 2

mins ’ D   0 Lsp ins ð17Þ
4
mc ¼ mcase þ mins ð13Þ
Substituting equations (16) and (17) in (13), we get
Due to construction requirements, the metal casing
thickness is increased at some locations along the mis- 3
mc ¼ bD0 KL ð18Þ
sile as shown in Figure 12, which is defined by the  
ratio  ¼ D0 =D. A new parameter m is defined as where b ¼ 4  1  2 m þ 2  0 2 ins
the ratio between the metal case mass mcase to the Finally, using equations (12) and (18), the combus-
cylindrical part mass mcyl with D01 and D0 as the tion chamber empty mass can be written as
inner and outer diameter, respectively, as
msp
mc ¼ ð19Þ
mcase ¼ mcyl þ m, m ¼ mcase =mcyl ð14Þ KFC

where m is the excess mass needed for assembling where ¼ a=b

different missile parts and sections.
The combustion chamber length Lc is greater than
the solid propellant grain length Lsp by a ratio L ,