In this study, a multidisciplinary design optimization framework and detailed procedure based on improved sequential approximation optimization (SAO) and 3-degree-of-freedom trajectory simulation are proposed for conceptual design and parameters optimization of a rockoon (from rocket and balloon) system. A reliable and efficient strategy, which considers the approximation accuracy of the response surfaces in the sampling process, is proposed to reduce the evaluation times of the original model for finding the global optimal solution. Besides, a modified SAO algorithm based on the multistage adaptive sampling strategy is presented, and the obtained tested results verify the fine robustness, high efficiency, reliability, and validity of the proposed SAO algorithm. The objective is to minimize the liftoff gross mass of the launch vehicle which reflects the cost for satellite launching. Constraints are imposed to ensure the orbit injection accuracy and stability of the launch vehicle. Finally, based on the multidisciplinary design framework with modified SAO, the optimal design results in 12 design cases from various payload mass, objective orbit, and ignition altitude are discussed and compared with the generic launch vehicle.
RandJRandJ(eds) (1997). Balloon assisted launch to orbit-An historical perspective. 33rd Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit.
3.
GIZINSKIISTEPHENGWANAGASJ(eds). Feasibility study of a balloon-based launch system. Albuquerque, NM, USA: International Balloon Technology Conference, 1991.
4.
OkninskiARaurellDSMitreAR. Feasibility of a low-cost sounding rockoon platform. Acta Astronautica2016; 127: 335–344.
5.
JonesMSJr. A method for estimating altitude performance of balloon launched rockets. Journal of Jet Propulsion1955; 25(10): 531–534.
6.
FuchsJHaskellMThompsonB, et al. (eds) Concept study of a reusable suborbital launch vehicle. Kissimmee, FL, USA: AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 2018.
7.
GrantDRandJ(eds). The balloon assisted launch system-a heavy lift balloon. Norfolk, VA, USA: International Balloon Technology Conference, 1999.
8.
PatruDKozakJBowmanR. A custom launch system for satellites smaller than 1 kg, 2006.
9.
HaywardKUrdialesJML (eds). Small satellite launch vehicle from a balloon platform. In: Proceedings of the 13th reinventing space conference,Oxford, UK, 9-12 November 2015. Springer; 2018.
10.
López UrdialesJMPeris MartiIGirardG(eds). BLOOSTAR, The enabler for more efficient satellites in low earth orbit. Marseille, France: SpaceOps Conference, 2018.
11.
WangDWuZFeiY, et al.Structural design employing a sequential approximation optimization approach. Computers & Structures2014; 134: 75–87.
12.
GoldenbergDE. Genetic Algorithms in Search, Optimization and Machine Learning. Reading: MA: Addison Wesley, 1989.
13.
KirkpatrickSGelattCDVecchiMP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science1983; 220(4598): 671–680.
14.
KennedyJEberhartR(eds). Particle swarm optimization. In: Proceedings of IEEE international conference on neural networks (ICNN'95),Perth, Australia, 27 November-1 December, 1995.
15.
YıldızAR. An effective hybrid immune-hill climbing optimization approach for solving design and manufacturing optimization problems in industry. Journal of Materials Processing Technology2009; 209(6): 2773–2780.
16.
KarabogaDBasturkB. A powerful and efficient algorithm for numerical function optimization: artificial bee colony (ABC) algorithm. Journal of Global Optimization2007; 39(3): 459–471.
17.
KitayamaSArakawaMYamazakiK. Sequential approximate optimization using radial basis function network for engineering optimization. Optimization and Engineering2011; 12(4): 535–557.
18.
DengY-MLamYCTorSB, et al.A CAD-CAE integrated injection molding design system. Engineering With Computers2002; 18(1): 80–92.
19.
KitayamaSYamazakiK. Simple estimate of the width in Gaussian kernel with adaptive scaling technique. Applied Soft Computing2011; 11(8): 4726–4737.
20.
LuoCZhangS-LWangC, et al.A metamodel-assisted evolutionary algorithm for expensive optimization. Journal of Computational and Applied Mathematics2011; 236(5): 759–764.
21.
HardyRL. Multiquadric equations of topography and other irregular surfaces. Journal of Geophysical Resarch1971; 76(8): 1905–1915.
22.
JinRChenWSimpsonTW. Comparative studies of metamodelling techniques under multiple modelling criteria. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization2001; 23(1): 1–13.
23.
ChenSHongXHarrisCJ. Grey-box radial basis function modelling. Neurocomputing2011; 74(10): 1564–1571.
24.
XuPJayawardenaALiWK. Model selection for RBF network via generalized degree of freedom. Neurocomputing2013; 99: 163–171.
25.
YehI-CChenC-CZhangX, et al.Adaptive radial basis function networks with kernel shape parameters. Neural Computing and Applications2012; 21(3): 469–480.
26.
WuZWangDJiangZ, et al.Unified estimate of Gaussian kernel width for surrogate models. Neurocomputing2016; 203: 41–51.
27.
ZepingWDonghuiWWeihuaZ, et al.Solid-rocket-motor performance-matching design framework. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets2017; 54(3): 698–707.
28.
BonteMHFourmentLDoT-t, et al.Optimization of forging processes using finite element simulations. Structural and Multidisciplinary Optimization2010; 42(5): 797–810.
29.
ForresterAIKeaneAJ. Recent advances in surrogate-based optimization. Progress in Aerospace Sciences2009; 45(1–3): 50–79.
30.
XiongYChenWApleyD, et al.A non‐stationary covariance‐based Kriging method for metamodelling in engineering design. International Journal for Numerical Methods in Engineering2007; 71(6): 733–756.
31.
WangDHuFMaZ, et al.A CAD/CAE integrated framework for structural design optimization using sequential approximation optimization. Advances in Engineering Software2014; 76: 56–68.
32.
PengKHuFWangD, et al.Grid fins shape design of a launch vehicle based on sequential approximation optimization. Advances in Space Research2018; 62(7): 1863–1878.
33.
HuFYangXJiangZ, et al.Integrated optimization design of trajectory/system parameters for solid launch vehicles. Journal of Solid Rocket Technology(JSRT)2010; 33(6): 599–602.
34.
FoutoAGomesMASulemanA (eds). Multidisciplinary optimization strategies using evolutionary algorithms with application to aircraft design. In: 50th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC structures, structural dynamics, and materials conference,Palm Springs, California, 4-7 May, 2009.
35.
RaymerD. Enhancing aircraft conceptual design using multidisciplinary optimization. Stockholm, Sweden: Institutionen för flygteknik, 2002.
36.
WertzJR (ed). Economic model of reusable vs. expendable launch vehicles. Rio de Janeiro, Brazil: IAF, International Astronautical Congress 51 st, 2000.
37.
PadulaSAlexandrovNGreenL(eds). MDO test suite at NASA langley research center. In: 6th Symposium on Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization. Reston, VA: NASA Langley Research Center, 1996.
38.
YildizAR. Comparison of evolutionary-based optimization algorithms for structural design optimization. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence2013; 26(1): 327–333.
39.
HuangF-zWangLHeQ. An effective co-evolutionary differential evolution for constrained optimization. Applied Mathematics and Computation2007; 186(1): 340–356.
40.
HeQWangL. An effective co-evolutionary particle swarm optimization for constrained engineering design problems. Engineering Applications of Artificial Intelligence2007; 20(1): 89–99.
41.
CoelloCACMontesEM. Constraint-handling in genetic algorithms through the use of dominance-based tournament selection. Advanced Engineering Informatics2002; 16(3): 193–203.
