Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA-97-3725
OPTIMAL EXTERNAL CONFIGURATION DESIGN OF UNGUIDED MISSILES

Omer Tannkulu* & Veysi Ercant

A97-37313 Defense Industries Research and Development Institute (TUBITAK-SAGE)

Mechanics and Systems Engineering Research Group (MSMG)

PK16, Mamak 06261, Ankara, Turkey

Abstract respectively and two constraint functions related to

In this paper a simple optimal external stability are considered in the case study.

configuration design method is proposed that can be

used in conceptual and preliminary design stages of Nomenclature

an unguided missile development project. Cost and Drag force coefficient.

constraint functions are derived from the results of C, Roll damping moment stability
linear time-invariant aeroballistic theory (constant
derivative.
roll rate and forward speed, de-coupled axial and
Roll moment due to fin cant stability
transverse dynamics); therefore different phases of
derivative.
flight are examined separately. Curve-fitting is used
c. Static moment stability derivative.
to reduce number of trial cases and hence work

required to obtain aerodynamic and inertial data. Transverse damping moment stability

Optimal configurations are determined by using a derivative.

modified steepest descent algorithm. A case study is cm Transverse damping moment stability

presented in which external configuration of an

derivative.
unguided light assault missile is optimized for free
Magnus moment stability derivative.
flight at low subsonic speed. Three cost functions
Static force stability derivative.
related to stability, range and warhead performance

* Coordinator. Member AIAA.

t Research Engineer, Flight Mechanics Section.

Copyright © 1997 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

700
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

d Gradient vector of F(x). A : Reference length, rocket motor

Cost function.
diameter.
/.(*)
p^ : Free stream density.
Modified cost function.
H, v : Penalty constants.
Inequality constraint function.
f : Transverse damping factor.
*,(*) Equality constraint function.

Hessian matrix of F(X) .

Introduction

Axial moment of inertia. The main objectives in external configuration

Transverse moment of inertia. design of unguided missiles are to obtain adequate

Non-dimensional axial radius of stability in all phases of flight, short minimum

range, long maximum range, low dispersion and

gyration.
large payload mass. In practice it is difficult to
Non-dimensional transverse radius of
achieve these objectives due to complicated nature of
gyration.
unguided missiles as nonlinear, time-varying and
m Total mass.
random systems. Significant advances have been
Warhead mass.
made in analysis and system identification aspects of
Pdyn Magnus instability roll rate limit.
flight dynamics of unguided missiles since World
Yaw-pitch-roll resonance roll rate.
War II. A number of range, dispersion and stability
Dynamic stability factor. criteria have been determined by using analytical,

Static stability factor. numerical and experimental techniques. On the other

S Reference area, ;r/l2/4. hand, very few studies have been published on

external configuration design of unguided missiles1.

V Speed of missile.
The almost untouched synthesis problem is
Vector of scaled variable geometrical
challenging due to three reasons: Firstly, design
parameters.
criteria are functions of aerodynamic and inertial
Lower limit of x .
parameters which are in turn complicated functions
Upper limit of x .
of free stream flow conditions, missile geometry and
a Adaptive step size of iterations.
mass distribution. Secondly, design criteria are often

701
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

contradictory. Thirdly, design criteria are different flight (subsonic, transonic, supersonic). If M

for different flight phases of a given type of unguided different flight speeds are considered, then

missile. (Naturally, design criteria are different for aerodynamic data has to be determined MX N3 times.

different types of unguided missiles. Artillery shell, Separate flight dynamics analysis of all of these

artillery missiles, high kinetic energy projectiles, configurations is necessary which is difficult and

light assault missiles, anti-tank missiles, sounding costly. Moreover, such an analysis gives information

rockets and re-entry vehicles all have to be optimized about configurations with the selected discrete values

with different cost and constraint functions.) of (/, c, s)only.

Nature of the problem will be discussed by a Consider an external configuration design

simple example. Consider the unguided artillery analysis where only s is changed. As s is increased

missile configuration with cruciform tail fins m, Ia , , C,r, Cls and CD all

presented in Figure 1:
increase. An increase in s has both good and bad

results in terms of range, dispersion and stability

Warhead
performance. Good results are increase of static and

damping dynamic stability, and decrease of

Rocket Motor
dispersion due to thrust misalignment. Bad results

Figure 1. Unguided artillery missile configuration. are decrease of range and increase of dispersion due

to wind. Increase of s can have good or bad results

c and s are chord and span of tail fins in terms of Magnus dynamic stability since Ia , It,

respectively while / denotes length of mid-section Cm<i and Cm all increase. Increase of s can have
case. These are the geometrical parameters that are
good or bad results in terms of the likelihood of yaw-
easiest to modify once rocket motor and warhead
pitch-roll resonance since Ia , It, Cm^ , C, and Clg
properties are fixed. If N different values of each of
all increase.
these parameters are considered, then total number
One must also note that cost and constraint
of candidate configurations to be examined becomes
functions are different for boost and coast phases of
N*. Change of a single geometric parameter changes
flight of an unguided artillery missile. (As an
all aerodynamic and inertial data. Flight speed of an
example, most of the dispersion takes place during
unguided artillery missile varies significantly during
boost phase. Hence, dispersion criteria may not be

702
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

considered among cost and constraint functions in a data by using curve fitting. This approach reduces

first order analysis of coast phase.) number of trial cases significantly and it also creates

In the next section, details of a method that the possibility of analysing configurations with x

can be used in optimal external configuration design data other than the original sparse set. Aerodynamic

of unguided missiles will be presented This will be data at a given Mach number and inertial data are

followed by a case study about a light assault usually smooth functions of geometrical parameters;

unguided missile. hence, polynomial functions give satisfactory results

in terms of curve fitting.

Optimal External Configuration Design • Step#4: Determination of cost functions

The proposed method for optimal external ft (x)(i = 1,2,3, ...,Nf), inequality constraint
configuration design has four basic steps:
functions gl(x^i = l,2,3,...,Ng^ and equality
• Step#l: Investigation of characteristics of the

unguided missile that is to be optimized. constraint functions hl(x%i = 12,3,...,Nh) by using

Determination of cost and constraint functions for the approximate aerodynamic and inertial functions

different phases of flight. Determination of lower and that were obtained in Step-#3. The optimization

upper limits for variable geometrical parameters with problem is formulated as follows:

special emphasis given to producibility

considerations. Minimize: //(*)

• Step#2: Determination of aerodynamic data (at

Subject to: g,(x)^0,(i = 1,2,3,...,Ng)
several Mach numbers depending on flight speed
ht(x) = 0,(i = 1,2,3,...,Nh)
range of the unguided missile) and inertial data for a
x,<x<xu
sparse set of variable geometrical data by using

experimental, numerical and theoretical methods.

• Step#3: Determination of approximate functional In above expressions x, and xv are lower and upper

relationships between aerodynamic data at different limits of x that are usually dictated by producibility.

Mach numbers and geometric data by using curve Optimal configurations for different cost and

fitting. Determination of approximate functional constraint functions are determined by using the

relationships between inertial data and geometric

703
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

following iterative modified steepest descent iteration, a is the adaptive step size of iterations

algorithm2: wmle j is the gradient vector and H is the Hessian

matrix:

a = vr * d.I ~ ———
s+ 9 (5)

<?2F
(2) (6)
?x, dx.

ak = _ T - (3) Case Study

The subject matter of this representative case

study is optimal external configuration design of an

unguided short range light assault missile, schematic

(*/),.'/(**+>),
drawing of which is shown in Figure 2. The one man

portable missile is shoulder launched and there is no

rocket motor propulsion once the missile leaves its

tube launcher. The original anti-armour shaped

(A: = 1,2,3,...).
charge warhead of the missile is to be replaced by

another warhead as a part of a product improvement

In above expressions F is the modified cost
project. No modifications will be performed in terms
function which is obtained by combining cost and
of solid propellant rocket motor since mass of the
constraint functions to turn the constrained
new warhead is constrained to be less than or equal
optimization problem into an unconstrained one. x
to mass of the old one. Free flight Mach number of
is the vector of variable geometric parameters which
the missile is 0.32 with the old warhead. The missile
has a dimension of n. // > 0 and v > 0 are penalty
will have a low subsonic flight speed with the new
constants of very large magnitude for inequality and
warhead as well. The missile has six planar tail fins
equality constraints respectively. Magnitudes of //
with no dihedral which means that it has six-gonal
and v are increased in every couple of steps of

704
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

rotational symmetry and six planes of mirror section. Lower and upper limits of these parameters

symmetry3. that were determined by taking producibility and

warhead mass constraints into account are presented

in Table 1. Five equally spaced values of each

parameter were used to obtain a sparse set of 125

39 configurations.

215 50 50
Table 1. Upper and lower limits of variable

Figure 2. Unguided light assault missile. All geometrical data.

dimensions are in millimeters. Lower Limit Upper Limit

/ [mm] 30 60

There are three reasons while such a missile c [mm] 10 15

was selected as the subject of this case study: Firstly, s [mm] 50 100

there is only one flight phase to be considered (short

duration free flight during which the missile has a
relatively straight mean trajectory). Secondly, the
flight takes place at low subsonic Mach numbers
where aerodynamic characteristics are almost
constant, and hence only one set of aerodynamic data
has to be determined. Thirdly, it is possible to derive
approximate closed form expressions for a large
number of aerodynamic stability derivatives
3
(including Cm !) by using the method of Bryson for
Closed form expressions that relate
aerodynamic stability derivatives to geometry were
obtained by using Bryson's method which is
restricted to incompressible potential flow. Drag
coefficient data of the 125 configurations were
determined by Missile DATCOM data base for a
Mach number of 0.32. CD was assumed to be related
to x by the following functional relationship:

flight at low subsonic Mach numbers. CD(x) =

Three geometrical parameters of the light

assault missile were selected to be variable

(7)
parameters of the optimization problem: Span s and

chord c of tail fins and length / of warhead mid-

705
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

x data were scaled by using xl = l/lmax, x2 = c/cmax asymmetries.) Closed form expressions for and

and x3 - s/smm to improve quality of curve-fitting. pres are given below:

c,(/= 0,1,...,9) coefficients for CD were determined

by using curve-fitting utility of Sigma Plot software. 2V I, M

(8)
A Turbo Pascal program was prepared to

determine inertia! and aerodynamic data of the light

assault missile based on a simplified solid model, V

(9)
results of Bryson's method for aerodynamic stability

derivatives and curve fitted Missile DATCOM CD

where,
data. Values of the following cost and inequality

constraint functions were calculated for the 125

(10)
configurations by using the program: kt2

• f i : The first cost function is related to Magnus

instability and roll-pitch-yaw resonance. Linear time- _ 2T (11)

invariant aeroballistic theory has two important

results related to roll rate p of a statically stable

slightly asymmetric unguided missile4. Firstly, if (12)

magnitude of p exceeds a certain limit denoted by

pdyn during flight, then a Magnus instability takes 1

T = ——= -cmpp'-cz;-cD\ (13)
place. Secondly, if magnitude of p coincides with a

certain value denoted by pres then a yaw-pitch-roll

resonance takes place. (Non-linear aeroballistic ka , = (14)

theory predicts that a linear resonance can be

followed by lock-in of p to pns which in turn can

(15)
be followed by a severe instability known as 2m

catastrophic yaw due to nonlinear induced

aerodynamic moments and configurational

706
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

Magnitude of piyn is usually three to five • /3: The third cost function is related to warhead

times larger than magnitude of pres. In external performance. A very simple criterion in terms of
wea
configuration design, it is desirable to have a large P°n Wstem effectiveness is the ratio of warhead
m to total mass Hence the thirf cost
difference between Pdyn and Pres since one usually *"*** « - >
functionis selectedas
tries to meet Pns<p<Piyn condition by using tail '

fin cant. Hence, the first cost function is selected as,

/s=—-• (20)
m

/,=- (16)
2V
• g[: The first inequality constraint function is

related to the static stability factor sf which is

• / 2 : The second cost function is related to range
defined as,
performance. Linear time-invariant aeroballistic
theory predicts variation of speed of an unguided
missile in free straight flight to be, s. = (21)
* Cz« '
c

(17) Magnitude of ss should be larger than a certain

limiting value (which is usually taken as 1) for

where 5 is the non-dimensional arclength: adequate static stability. In case of the light assault
missile a survey of s3 data of 125 configurations

(18) showed that there were no problems in terms of static

stability, ~ 4.5 < ss <~ 5.5. Nevertheless, the first

inequality constraint function was selected as,

Hence, the second cost function is selected as,

81 = (22)
^D
(19)
m

The reason for this selection is related to dispersion

of the light assault missile which is due to aiming

707
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

errors and configurational asymmetries. Nothing can of cost and constraint functions with 5 and c at the

be done to reduce dispersion due to aiming errors in maximum value of / are shown in Figure 3.

terms of external configuration design. On the other Optimal external configurations for the three

hand, dispersion due to configurational asymmetries cost functions were determined by using a Turbo

can be reduced by increasing s,. Pascal program that implemented the modifed

• g 2 : The second inequality constraint is related to steepest descent algorithm discussed in the previous

section. Optimal (scaled) x values are presented in

transverse damping factor which is defined as,
Table 2:

H
(23)
Table 2. Optimal x values for ft(i = 1,2,3).

/I ft /3

Magnitude of £ should be larger than a certain

*1 0.997 0.996 0.997
limiting value for adequate dynamic stability. In case
X2 0.993 0.813 0.667
of the light assault missile a survey of ^ data of 125
*3 0.715 0.711 0.707
configurations showed that there were no problems

in terms of dynamic stability, ~0.12<£<~0.19.

Values of the cost functions at the optimal x values
Nevertheless, the second inequality constraint
are /, = -0.82108, /2 = 1.59146 and
function was selected as,
/3 = -1.43706 respectively. (ft values are scaled in

(23) such a way that the difference between maximum

and minimum values and mean are both equal to

The reason for this selection is also related to the one.)

desire for keeping dispersion due to configurational

asymmetries below a certain level. Discussion

Polynomial functional relationships similar to • An examination of Figure 3 shows that the

(7) were assumed to exist between each /, g and correct optimal value were obtained in each case.

• In all cases xl =~ 1, / =~ lmm for the optimal

x , coefficients of which were determined by using

curve fitting utility of Sigma Plot software. Variation configurations.

708
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

• In all cases x2 =~ 0.7 for the optimal mission, rather than the best configurations for

configurations. Value of optimal span is specifed by different phases of the mission.

the damping factor inequality constraint g 2 .

References
• The static stability inequality constraint g, is
^ayzac, R. and Carette, E., "Parametric
overruled by the damping factor inequality constraint
Aerodynamic Design of Spinning Finned Projectiles
g2 fOTXl=l,l = lmaic.
Using a Matrix Interpolation Method," AIAA
• No convergence problems were observed in
Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 29, No. 1,
iterations to find the optimal x in all cases.
January-February 1992.

Conclusion
2
Leblebicioglu, K., EE-553 Optimization Course
There are a large number of problems that
Lecture Notes, Electrical Engineering Department,
remain to be investigated in terms of external
Middle East Technical University, 1994.
configuration design of unguided missiles:

• Extension of the current method so that a number

3
Nielsen, J. N., Missile Aerodynamics, Nielsen
of cost functions can be optimized at the same time.
Engineering & Research, Inc., Mountain View,
(Multiple objective constrained optimization.)
California, 1988.
• Optimal external configuration design analysis of

other types of unguided missiles (artillery shell, 4

Murphy, C. H., "Free Flight Motion of Symmetric
artillery missiles, high kinetic energy projectiles,
Missiles", Ballistic Research Laboratories, Aberdeen
anti-tank missiles, sounding rockets, re-entry
Proving Ground, Report No. 1216, July 1963.
vehicles).

• Optimal external configuration design analysis

with a much larger number of variable parameters.

• Optimal external configuration design analysis of

cases where nonlinear aeroballistic phenomena are

observed.

• Development of a method that can determine the

best configuration for the whole of a specified

709
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Copyright© 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

f, (Magnus Instability-Resonance)

,.-0.8-'' 9, (Static Stability)

0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

x, (Chord)

f2 (Range)
-—0.3-

1.0 -T————1.8- —-Q.2—

0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

X2 (Chord)

g2 (Damping Dynamic Stability)

o.°S

0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

i, (Chord)

o.*-

f, (Warhead)

-o-*

0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

x, (Chord)

I
x"

0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00

Xj (Chord)

Figure 3. Variation of cost and constraint functions with c and s for / .

710
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics