Aerospace Science and Technology 26 (2013) 29–37

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Aerospace Science and Technology

www.elsevier.com/locate/aescte

±3-Sigma based design optimization of 3D Finocyl grain

Ali Kamran a,∗ , Liang Guozhu b , Amer Farhan Rafique a , Qasim Zeeshan a
a
Institute of Space Technology, Islamabad Highway, Near Rawat Toll Plaza, P.O. Box 44000, Islamabad, Pakistan
b
Beihang University (BUAA), 37 XueYuan Road, Haidian District, Beijing 100191, China

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A three-sigma (−3 ∼ +3) approach is applied in robust design optimization of Finocyl grain geometry.
Received 27 September 2011 Grain design becomes an exigent task when accounting for uncertainties in manufacturing processes.
Received in revised form 23 November 2011 Upper stage SRM requires tight control on total impulse and acceleration to ensure safe entry of satellites
Accepted 13 February 2012
into orbits. A first order Taylor series is used to calculate solution sensitivity and thus moving toward a
Available online 21 February 2012
robust solution. Motor performance is calculated using a simplified ballistic model with throat erosion
Keywords: considerations. Average thrust and propellant mass are the impetus drivers on performance, and so
Solid rocket motor considered as core of grain design process. Therefore, we intend to maximize them with minimizing the
Grain design variation in both. Monte Carlo simulation reveals that robust solution proves insensitive to manufacturing
3-Sigma uncertainties. The approach produced satisfactory results for test case.
Robust solution © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
Monte Carlo simulation

1. Introduction
Design under uncertainty arises in numerous disciplines includ-
ing engineering, economics, finance and management. Achieving
balance between robustness and performance is one of the fun-
damental challenges faced by scientists and engineers. Tradeoffs
must be made to reach acceptable levels of performance with ad-
equate robustness to uncertainty. Robust design optimization is a
powerful tool for managing the tradeoffs between optimal perfor-
mance and performance stability. A robust design is one where
system performance remains relatively stable when exposed to
certain unavoidable uncertainties. These uncertainties can signifi-
cantly impact the success of the engineering design process. Such
uncertainty – which is always present – comes in numerous forms,
which include imprecise material properties, imperfect manufac-
turing methods, in-service degradation due to erosion processes
and foreign object damage, drifts in operating conditions, and over
simplified engineering models. To guarantee the quality of the op-
timization results, it is necessary to perform either a robustness
analysis including sensitivity studies at the end of the optimization
or to include robustness criteria into the optimization procedure.
When these uncertainties are not considered during the optimiza-
tion of a design, the obtained solution is likely to be more “high
risk” than “optimal”.
Robust design methodology has been originally developed by
Taguchi to improve the quality of products [14,19]. Taguchi’s strat-
egy is to make the system insensitive to variations rather than
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +92 51 9075505; fax: +92 51 9273316.
E-mail address: a1k1s1@yahoo.com (A. Kamran).
controlling the variations which is often more costly. Taguchi’s ap-
proach groups robust design problems in three distinct categories.
These are the larger-the-better, nominal-the-better and smaller-
the-better according to their objectives. Apart from Taguchi’s
method, a number of approaches have been proposed to attain
robust designs in recent times. These include the one-at-a-time ex-
periments, bounds-based, fuzzy and probabilistic methods [1,33].
Faced with high sensitivities to uncertainties, traditional Evolu-
tionary Algorithms (EA) [2] tends to display sign of over-searching
since they naturally favor designs with a larger fitness value. Prac-
tical design solution is probably one that may not be the globally
optimum solution, but one that has a high tolerance or robust-
ness to uncertainties. In EA, a number of prominent new studies
on handling the presence of uncertainty in engineering designs
have also been made over the recent years [3,4,6,10,15]. A multi-
objective approach to handling uncertainty in EA was also studied
in Ref. [11] where the trade-off between robustness and nominal
performance of a solution was discussed. A strategy to attain ro-
bust designs with minimum variations in noise was also presented
in Ref. [7] on realistic mechanical design problem. The methods for
robust design have progressed from the initial Taguchi’s parame-
ter design method to nonlinear programming methods [24,32] that
formulate robust design problems as nonlinear optimization prob-
lems with multiple objectives subject to feasibility robustness [28].
The level of dispersion can be defined as “sigma level n”. In the
context of robust design optimization, smaller dispersion translates
to a more robust characteristic “n-sigma concept”. The aim is to
achieve a process with such a small dispersion that the range of
size ±nσ around the mean value μ is included in an acceptable
(safe) range for the performance parameter [20,30].

1270-9638/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Masson SAS. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.ast.2012.02.011
30 A. Kamran et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 26 (2013) 29–37
Nomenclature
Ab Burning area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm2
At Area of throat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm2
a Burning rate exponent . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm/s/Pan
CF Thrust coefficient
c∗ Characteristic velocity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m/s
Dt Throat diameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm
er Throat erosion rate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm/s
F Thrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kN
F av Average thrust . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kN
I Total impulse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kN s
L Length of grain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm
mp Mass of propellant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg
Neu Neutrality
n Pressure exponent
p amb Ambient pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bar
p av Average pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bar
Specification of sigma level in advance, and as such, it also leads
to the same difficulty of careful input parameter. To cater for the
problem present research effort focus on n-sigma approach, treats
the weighted summation of mean value and variance of a dis-
persive objective function as one objective function, and considers
increasing sigma level as second objective with quality and system
constraints.
The present paper has two main objectives: to propose a robust
design optimization approach “design for n-sigma” and to demon-
strate the capabilities of the approach by considering a practical
application (Finocyl grain design for upper stage solid rocket mo-
tor).
2. Grain design
Solid Rocket Motor (SRM) operation is dictated by the thrust
time trace requirement. Grain design is essentially a geometri-
cal constraint depending upon the thrust–time and pressure–time
laws [5]. These laws define the SRM performance that in turn
affects the ballistic performance of any rocket system. Different
methods have been used to calculate the geometrical properties
of grain burn back analysis [35]. The most important analytical
method is the generalized coordinate grain calculation method
which uses basic geometrical shapes to define the initial grain void
[12,13,23].
CAD based programs are available in industry and have proved
to be very useful for design process of SRM. PIBAL [8] and ELEA
[29] software uses CAD modeling for design of SRM two dimen-
sional (2D) and three dimensional (3D) grains. The former program
uses a simplified ballistic model for internal ballistics and later can
give a point to point burning rate taking account of local internal
ballistics.
Upper stage SRM of launch vehicles requires highly efficient
propulsion system. An infinite number of possibilities exist, there-
fore, the need arises for intelligent optimization approach that
can control the design domains and configure an optimum design
within set design limits and quality constraints. The Finocyl (Fin
in Cylinder) is a 3D grain configuration especially employed to rel-
atively low fineness ratios (L/D) requiring internal burning grains
with relatively long duration, allowing higher web fraction. It can
provide a variety of thrust time trace depending on mission re-
quirements.
Ref. [21] presents design and optimizations for Finocyl grain us-
ing generalize coordinate method. Ref. [17] presents design and
optimization of Finocyl grain using simulated annealing. Refs. [22,
pc Chamber pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bar
pe Nozzle exit pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bar
p max Maximum pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bar
p min Minimum pressure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . bar
R Grain outer radius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . mm
tb Burning time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . s
Vk Volume change at kth step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3
Vp Volume of propellant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . m3
wk Web change at kth step
ε Area ratio
μf Mean value
ρp Propellant density . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kg/m3
σf Variance
LSL Lower specification limit
USL Upper specification limit
27,36] presented hybrid optimization technique for Finocyl grain
configuration and other aerospace systems respectively. Ref. [16]
presented design optimization of 3D Radial slot grain using ge-
netic algorithm, whereas comparison of optimization algorithms
for application in design of complete launch vehicle is shown in
Ref. [25]. Refs. [18,26] present hyper heuristic approach for de-
sign of complete aerospace system. All these method explores for
the best possible design without considering any kind on uncer-
tainties that indeed exists during manufacturing process. Mandrel
component tolerances are not considered and propellant character-
istic along with nozzle dimension are fixed. Throat erosion is also
not considered that can have significant affects on total impulse
delivered.
The above discussion necessitates the requirement of adopting
a methodology that can incorporate mandrel tolerances (in case
motors are manufactured from different mandrels), allowing for
nozzle dimension as variables and process tolerances on propellant
characteristics. The methodology should include quality constraints
in order to limit the variation of total impulse delivered.
2.1. Grain modeling
The Finocyl (Fin in Cylinder) is a 3D grain configuration espe-
cially employed to relatively low fineness ratios (L/D) requiring in-
ternal burning grains with relatively long duration, allowing higher
web fraction. It can provide a variety of thrust time trace de-
pending on mission requirements. The grain configuration model
is built up from a list of features contained in the “Feature-Path”,
defining the sequence of geometric operations to create the model.
Dynamic variables are created to drive the dimensionality of the
geometry in 3D space. Figs. 1–4 show detailed description of the
grain modeling.
Grain configuration construction can be defined as follows:
1. Grain boundary is solid and constructed by revolve protrusion
with no burning surface.
2. Grain bore is constructed by revolve surface and all surfaces
burning.
3. Sharp corners are filleted to account for new surfaces that are
created during burning as shown in Fig. 4. Lines AB and BC are
connected using CAD function “CONNECT”, so that they remain
connected during offsetting operation. Lines BC and CD are
connected through a small fillet of radius 0.1 mm in the initial
geometry. During offsetting the fillet radius is incremented by
a value equal to web increment.
 A. Kamran et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 26 (2013) 29–37 31

Fig. 1. Grain boundary.

Fig. 2. Grain bore.

Fig. 3. Fin shape.

4. Boolean function is used to subtract the solid within grain

bore.
5. Similar operation is performed for fins and all surfaces burn-
ing.
6. Surface offset function available in CAD software is used to
simulate burning, by offsetting the surface by a web increment
equal and orthogonal in all direction.
7. Boolean function is used at each web increment to subtract
Fig. 4. Sharp edge treatment (grain).
the solid within grain bore and slots to calculate new volume.
8. Offsetting and Boolean operations are repeated till web is
completely burnt. pressure is assumed to be uniform throughout the motor chamber;
therefore, the burning rate is uniform as well. Steady state pressure
The grain regression is achieved by equal web increment in all is calculated by equating mass generated in the chamber to mass
directions. The selection of web increment is critical to grain re- ejected through nozzle throat [9,31,34]. The following relation cal-
gression. At each step new grain geometry is created automatically culates the chamber pressure:
thereafter volume at each web increment is calculated. A decreas-  1/(1−n)
ing trend is obtained for volume of the grain. pc = ρ p ac ∗ K (3)
Burning surface area and propellant mass are calculated as:
where K = A b / A t , and thrust is calculated using Eq. (4).
V k +1 − V k Throat erosion can be very important in determining the total
A bk = (1) impulse delivered and as such must be considered in the design
w k +1 − w k
process. Throat erosion law is stated as:
mp = ρp V k (2)
er = 0 (tb  10) and er = 0.1 mm/s (tb > 10 s)
where k is web step.
Thrust and other ballistic parameters of interest are calculated
2.2. Ballistic analysis as:

F = C F pc At (4)
Grain length to diameter ratio is small along with port to throat
area ratio of greater than 2. It is safe to assume that the chamber Thrust coefficient and total impulse are given as:
32 A. Kamran et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 26 (2013) 29–37

Fig. 5. Flow chart of the robust optimization process.


 (γ +1)/(γ −1)   (γ −1)/γ  In robust design optimization objective function is written as
2γ 2 2 pe
CF = 1− weighted summation of the mean value (μ f ) and the variance
γ −1 γ +1 pc
(σ f ). Objective function f (x) must be minimized as follows:
p e − p amb
+ ε (5)
pc min(ωμ μ f + ωσ σ f ) (8)
I = Ft (6)
ωμ and ωσ are weights of mean and variance. μ f and σ f are
Neutrality is defined as: estimated by sampling x following its probability distribution and
  evaluating f (x) at each sample point. The following inequality con-
p max p min
Neu = max , (7) straints are specified in advance to achieve the expected sigma
p av p av
level quality of the obtained solution.
3. n-Sigma approach
μ f + nσ f  USL
“Six-sigma concept” was originally established as a measure of μ f − nσ f  LSL (9)
excellence for business processes. The aim is to achieve a process
with such a small dispersion that the range of size 12σ (−6σ ∼ The manufacturing of mandrels requires special care in terms
+6σ ) around the mean value (μ f ) is included in an acceptable of dimensional control however no two mandrels are same due
range for the performance parameter. The level of dispersion can to different tolerances met during manufacturing. Propellant pro-
be defined as “sigma level n”, where larger sigma level indicates cessing poses same attributes as the physical and ballistic per-
smaller dispersion. In the context of robust design optimization, formance will vary from motor to motor (for different batches).
smaller dispersion translates to a more robust characteristic. Modern manufacturing and processing technologies and the logical
 A. Kamran et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 26 (2013) 29–37 33

Table 1 Table 3
Design variables for Finocyl grain. Design variable variations.

Design variables Units Symbol Discipline Design variables Symbol Variation

Grain length mm L1 Grain length L1 ±2.0
Motor front opening mm F1 Motor front opening F1 ±0.15
Grain radius mm F2 Grain radius F2 ± 0.5
Motor rear opening mm F3 Motor rear opening F3 ± 0.2
Bore radius mm F5 Bore radius F5 ± 0.2
Fin straight portion mm L6 Fin straight portion L6 ± 0.5
Front web mm L2 Front web L2 ±1.0
Front cone mm L3 Grain geometry Front cone L3 ± 0.5
Rear cone mm L4 Rear cone L4 ±0.25
Rear cylinder mm L5 Rear cylinder L5 ± 0.2
Fillet radius mm R1 Fillet radius R1 ±1.0
Fin taper angle deg α Fin taper angle α ± 0 .5
Number of fins – N Number of fins N –
Fin height mm H1 Fin height H1 ± 0.5
Half fin thickness mm H2 Half fin thickness H2 ± 0.1
Fin radius mm R2 Fin radius R2 = H2

Burn rate mm/s br Ballistic Burn rate br ± 0.1

Characteristic velocity c∗ ±10.0
Area ratio – ε Nozzle Propellant density ρp ±5.0
Throat diameter mm Dt
Area ratio ε ±0.03
Throat diameter Dt ± 0.5
Table 2
Bounds of design variables for Finocyl grain.
Table 4
Design variables Symbol Fixed Upper bound Lower bound Optimum and robust design variables.
Grain length L1 2360 – – Design variables Symbol Fixed Optimum Robust
Motor front opening F1 65 125
Grain length L1 2360 – –
Grain radius F2 689 – –
Motor front opening F1 75.66 88.08
Motor rear opening F3 256 – –
Grain radius F2 689 –
Bore radius F5 160 210
Motor rear opening F3 256 –
Fin straight portion L6 75 200
Bore radius F5 160.0 177.11
Front web L2 70 130
Fin straight portion L6 96.82 166.93
Front cone L3 50 105
Front web L2 120.0 111.86
Rear cone L4 90 200
Front cone L3 100.0 73.46
Rear cylinder L5 90 200
Rear cone L4 100.0 172.31
Fillet radius R1 50 120
Rear cylinder L5 100.0 177.15
Fin taper angle α 30 60
Fillet radius R1 99.72 108.92
Number of fins N 8 14
Fin taper angle α 40.19 48.96
Fin height H1 400 600
Number of fins N 10 13
Half fin thickness H2 20 30
Fin height H1 566.76 536.45
Fin radius R2 = H2 – –
Half fin thickness H2 20 26.99
Burn rate br 6 10 Fin radius R2 = H2 – –

Area ratio ε 12 20 Burn rate br 9.751 9.19

Throat diameter Dt 130 210
Area ratio ε 18.382 17.891
Throat diameter Dt 186.59 188.05

assumption of minimal dimensional and ballistic variation during

service life of SRM; a ±3-sigma performance variation is enough to tain design parameters. The Taylor’s expansion of first order, ne-
lie within the set specification limits for SRM operation. The prob- glecting higher order terms, is selected for gradient estimation in
ability of satisfying the mission requirements defined by ±3-sigma order to limit computational time. Taylor’s series expansion for a
limits is 0.9973%, in engineering terms, this probability is deemed performance response, Y , is:
acceptable. The present study considers a 3-sigma (−3σ ∼ +3σ )
level to control uncertainty in design variables and propellant char- dY
Y (x) = y + x (10)
acteristics. dx
The mean of this performance response is evaluated by setting the
3.1. Working of proposed method uncertain design parameters to their mean value, μx :

The choice of design and quality constraints can be critical

in setting a robust design methodology. The bias of the qual-
μY = Y (μx ) (11)
ity constraints and sigma level can affect the performance both The standard deviation of Y (x) is given by:
in solution quality and computational cost. A multi island ge-

netic algorithm is opted for optimization purpose. The implemen-
m  

 ∂ Y 2
tation of the sigma based probabilistic optimization formulation σY =  (σxi )2 (12)
requires the mean and standard deviation or variance must be esti- ∂ xi
i =1
mated. Calculation of objective and constraints is performed using
Eqs. (8)–(9). The method that has been used to estimate standard where σxi is the standard deviation of the ith parameter and m
deviation or variance is a sensitivity-based approach. Gradients of is the number of uncertain parameters. Fig. 5 depicts the detailed
performance parameters are estimated with respect to the uncer- flow chart of the complete robust optimization.
34 A. Kamran et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 26 (2013) 29–37
Fig. 6. Grain configuration and burning regression (burning progression at web = 0, 150, 300, 450).
4. Finocyl grain test case
SRM grain design can be mass or volume (or both) constrained
depending upon the specific application. Specific impulse and ini-
tial to burn-out mass ratio affects the burn-out vehicle velocity as
a natural log function. The fundamental driver of upper stage SRM
grain design is minimum variation of specific impulse. The cause
of specific impulse variation can be due to propellant mass, pro-
pellant characteristic and nozzle dimensional variations.
Application of the sigma based probabilistic design optimization
implementation presented in the previous section is demonstrated
in designing a SRM Finocyl grain problem. The grain is first opti-
mized deterministically, robust design using three-sigma approach
followed by a Monte Carlo analysis to measure the quality of both
solutions.
4.1. Robust design approach
Upper stage motors for launch vehicles requires stringent con-
trol on SRM performance in all missions especially where a thrust
termination operation is eliminated to avoid complexity and in-
creasing reliability. This however requires a strict control on de-
livered performance as any discrepancy can lead to undesirable
results. Consideration of all possible geometrical variation of the
grain shape as well as propellant characteristics will ensure a well
defined performance band of the SRM.
The Finocyl grain configuration to be “optimized for quality” is
illustrated in Fig. 3. Table 1 lists the grain design variables for en-
tire process including geometrical and ballistic variables. There are
total of 19 design variables that govern the design and optimiza-
tion problem of Finocyl grain. Table 2 enlists the bounds of design
variables.
The grain is to be designed for minimum variation in average
thrust and propellant mass, subjected to ballistic and quality con-
straints. The robust objective function takes the form as shown in
Eq. (13).
min(−μ F av − μm p + σ F av + σm p ) (13)
Grain envelope, manufacturing and propellant type impose sev-
eral stringent constraints on design. Targeted design of Finocyl
grain is for use as upper stage motor operating in vacuum.
 A. Kamran et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 26 (2013) 29–37 35

Fig. 7. Burning area vs web. Fig. 8. Pressure time history.

Neutrality is a key parameter, strictly depending upon geo-

metrical variables and slightly on throat erosion, and will cause
minimum pressure variation (neutral burning) which in turn re-
duces variation in time and thrust. Another important variable
is time which, other than geometry, is influenced by burn rate
coefficient, throat erosion, and characteristic velocity. A minimal
variation in burning time ensures a minimal variation in delivered
performance.
Variation in performance can be controlled by variation in
neutrality and burning time therefore considered as quality con-
straints. A 3-sigma level quality constraint is imposed on both
variables with upper and lower control limits being same as stated
in Eq. (14). Table 3 enlists the random variables along with their
variation.
Performance constraints are formulated as follows:
⎫
C 1 : R = 689 ⎪
⎪
⎪
C 2 : p max  65 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎪
Fig. 9. Thrust time history.
C 3 : Neu  1.25 ⎬
(14)
C 4 : 50  tb  58 ⎪
⎪
Table 5
⎪
⎪ Optimum and robust performance parameters.
C 5 : L = 2360 ⎪
⎪
⎪
⎭ Parameter Unit Optimum value Robust value
C 6 : D e  800
Thrust kN 308.24 282.34
Propellant mass kg 5332.2 5227.8
4.2. Deterministic design approach Neutrality – 1.2498 1.10118
Maximum pressure bar 64.691 57.948
The optimization of SRM requires it to have maximum value Burning time s 50.0 53.469
Exit diameter m 0.79999 0.7954
of total impulse, area under the thrust time curve. This can be
Total impulse kN s 15 412 15 105
achieved by maximum value of average thrust and burning du-
ration. In the deterministic approach average thrust is obtained
from ballistic analysis and the maximum value is sought. Propel- statistical response of the system. The simulation is performed for
lant mass is the parameter that controls the burning duration as a 500 samples. Normal distribution is assumed for all uncertain de-
it allows higher web fraction hence increased burning time. Inclu- sign variables. The sampling population is generated between the
sion of propellant mass in objective function ensures a maximum variations of design variables shown in Table 3.
value of obtainable burning time under specified constraints. The
present study optimizes the grain geometry for average thrust and 5. Results and discussion
propellant mass under constraints defined in Eq. (14). The objec-
tive function now can be stated as:
Design optimization using deterministic and three-sigma ap-
max( F av + m p ) (15) proach is successfully implemented for complex design problem
of Finocyl grain for SRM under stringent mission objectives and
4.3. Monte Carlo simulation performance constraints. Three-sigma approaches proved to be re-
markably effective in terms of robustness.
Monte Carlo methods have long been recognized as a practi- Table 4 contains optimal and robust design values for all the
cal method to acquire knowledge of the probability distribution design variables. It is evident that robust design variables are not
of responses of uncertainty in systems to uncertain inputs. The lying at edge of bounds compared to optimal values. Fig. 6 reveals
technique is implemented by random simulation of a design con- the designed grain configuration and burning progression. Fig. 7
sidering stochastic nature of design variables, emphasizing on the shows the burning area variation, it is clear that robust design
36 A. Kamran et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 26 (2013) 29–37

Fig. 10. Monte Carlo simulation.

Table 6
Monte Carlo results for optimum and robust design.

Parameter Unit Optimum value Robust value

Min Max Mean Min Max Mean
Thrust kN 299.5 321.4 309.3 269.6 292.7 280.9
Average pressure bar 58.1 63.3 60.6 51.7 56.1 53.9
Propellant mass kg 5296 5351 5324 5191 5245 5217
Neutrality – 1.206 1.257 1.232 1.099 1.118 1.105
Maximum pressure bar 65.6 70.8 68 55.2 60.1 57.6
Burning time s 48.37 51.29 48.84 52.0 55.3 53.6
Exit diameter m 0.796 0.804 0.8 0.791 0.8 0.795
 A. Kamran et al. / Aerospace Science and Technology 26 (2013) 29–37
has a high burning area at start due to higher number of fins and
slightly higher bore diameter. The higher number of fins results in
better neutrality conversely less variation in pressure and thrust in
comparison to optimal design. Figs. 8 and 9 show the ballistic per-
formance, optimal solutions has higher pressure and thus lower
burning time. Table 5 shows the ballistic performance achieved
by optimal and robust methods; the optimal solution has approx-
imately 2% higher total impulse in comparison to robust solution.
Fig. 10 shows the Monte Carlo simulation for both designs; it is
evident that the optimal solution can violate system constraints if
subjected to the variation defined in Table 3 whereas the 3-sigma
based robust design is insensitive to the uncertainties in design
variables. Table 6 gives the details of the uncertainty analysis.
6. Conclusion
The present research effort implements an automated approach
for the robust design optimization of Finocyl grain. CAD software
is integrated with robust optimization module. CAD modeling over-
comes the limitation posed by analytical expression thus increas-
ing model fidelity. 3-Sigma approach incorporates uncertainties in
the design optimization process. The approach significantly in-
creases the insensitivity of the solution to uncertainties caused
by manufacturing and other sources. Monte Carlo simulation en-
lightens the robustness of the solution. For the test case, a loss
of ∼ 2% in total impulse can lead to a robust solution. It can be
concluded that the integrated modeling and robust optimization
modules provide a proficient platform in facilitating design analy-
sis and optimization of Finocyl grain.
References
[1] D.V. Arnold, H.G. Beyer, Local performance of the (1 + 1)-ES in a noisy envi-
ronment, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 6 (1) (2002) 30–41.
[2] J. Branke, Creating Robust Solutions by Means of Evolutionary Algorithms,
Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998.
[3] J. Branke, Evolutionary Optimization in Dynamic Environments, Kluwer Aca-
demic Publishers, 2002.
[4] J. Branke, T. Kausler, C. Schmidt, H. Schmeck, A Multi-Population Approach to
Dynamic Optimization Problems, Adaptive Computing in Design and Manufac-
turing, Springer, 2000.
[5] W.T. Brooks, Solid propellant grain design and internal ballistics, NASA SP-8076,
March 1972.
[6] W. Chen, J.K. Allen, F. Mistree, K.L. Tsui, A procedure for robust design: mini-
mizing variations cause by noise factors and control factors, ASME Journal of
Mechanical Design 118 (4) (1996) 478–485.
[7] K.K. Choi, B.D. Youn, Hybrid analysis method for reliability-based design opti-
mization, in: Proceedings of DETC’01, ASME 2001 Design Engineering Technical
Conference and Computers and Information in Engineering Conference, 2000.
[8] F. Dauch, D. Ribéreau, A software for SRM grain design and internal ballistics
evaluation, PIBAL, AIAA 2002-4299, 2002.
[9] A. Davenas, Solid Rocket Propulsion Technology, Elsevier Science & Technology,
1993.
[10] X. Du, W. Chen, Methodology for managing the effect of uncertainty in
simulation-based systems design, AIAA Journal 38 (8) (2000) 1471–1478.
[11] X. Du, W. Chen, Towards a better understanding of modeling feasibility ro-
bustness in engineering, ASME Journal of Mechanical Design 112 (4) (2000)
357–583.
37
[12] S.S. Dunn, D.E. Coats, 3-D grain design and ballistic analysis using SPP97 code,
AIAA 97-3340, 1997.
[13] S.S. Dunn, D.E. Coats, Solid performance program, AIAA 87-1701, 1987.
[14] L. Huyse, Solving problems of optimization under uncertainty as statistical de-
cision problems, in: AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics,
and Materials Conference and Exhibit, 2001, AIAA Paper 2001-1519.
[15] Y. Jin, B. Sendhoff, Trade-off between performance and robustness: an evolu-
tionary multiobjective approach, in: Proceedings of the Second International
Conference on Evolutionary Multi-criteria Optimization, in: LNCS, vol. 2632,
Springer, 2003, pp. 237–251.
[16] A. Kamran, L. Guozhu, Design and optimization of 3D radial slot grain configu-
ration, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 23 (4) (2010) 409–414.
[17] A. Kamran, L. Guozhu, Design and optimization of solid rocket motor Finocyl
grain using simulated annealing, Journal of Aerospace Power 26 (4) (April
2011) 917–923.
[18] A. Kamran, L. Guozhu, An integrated approach for optimization of solid rocket
motor, Aerospace Science and Technology 17 (1) (2012) 50–64, doi:10.1016/
j.ast.2011.03.006.
[19] P.N. Koch, T.W. Simpson, J.K. Allen, F. Mistree, Statistical approximations for
multidisciplinary design optimization: the problem of size, Journal of Air-
craft 36 (1) (1999) 275–286.
[20] S. Koji, O. Akira, F. Kozo, Development of multi-objective six-sigma approach
for robust design optimization, Journal of Aerospace Computing, Information,
and Communication 5 (August 2008) 215–233.
[21] K. Nisar, L. Guozhu, Design and optimization of three dimensional Finocyl grain
for solid rocket motor, AIAA 2008-4696, 2008.
[22] K. Nisar, L. Guozhu, Q. Zeeshan, A hybrid optimization approach for SRM
Finocyl grain design, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 21 (6) (2008) 481–487.
[23] E.G. Peterson, C.C. Nielson, W.C. Johnson, K.S. Cook, Generalized coordinate
grain design and internal ballistic evaluation program, AIAA 68-490, 1968.
[24] M.S. Phadke, Quality Engineering Using Robust Design, Prentice Hall, 1989.
[25] A.F. Rafique, H. LinShu, A. Kamran, Q. Zeeshan, Multidisciplinary design of air
launched satellite launch vehicle: performance comparison of heuristic opti-
mization methods, Acta Astronautica 67 (7–8) (2010) 826–844, doi:10.1016/
j.actaastro.2010.05.016.
[26] A.F. Rafique, H. LinShu, A. Kamran, Q. Zeeshan, Hyper heuristic approach for
design and optimization of satellite launch vehicle, Chinese Journal of Aero-
nautics 24 (2) (2011) 150–163, doi:10.1016/S1000-9361(11)60019-8.
[27] A.F. Rafique, H. LinShu, Q. Zeeshan, A. Kamran, K. Nisar, Multidisciplinary de-
sign and optimization of an air launched satellite launch vehicle using a hybrid
heuristic search algorithm, Journal of Engineering Optimization 43 (3) (2011)
305–328, doi:10.1080/0305215X.2010.489608.
[28] B. Ramakrishnan, S.S. Rao, A robust optimization approach using Taguchi’s loss
function for solving nonlinear optimization problems, in: Advances in Design
Automation, ASME DE-32-1, 1991, pp. 241–248.
[29] E. Saintout, D. Ribereau, P. Perrin, ELEA: a tool for 3D surface regression analy-
sis in propellant grains, AIAA 1989-2782, 1989.
[30] S. Sundaresan, K. Ishii, D.P. Houser, A robust optimization procedure with vari-
ations on design variables and constraints, in: Advances in Design Automation,
ASME DE-69-1, 1993, pp. 379–386.
[31] P. Sutton, B. Oscar, Rocket Propulsion Elements, seventh edition, Wiley–
Interscience, 2001.
[32] G. Taguchi, E. Elsayed, T. Hsiang, Quality Engineering in Production Systems,
McGraw–Hill, New York, 1989.
[33] S. Tsutsui, A. Ghosh, Genetic algorithms with a robust solution searching
scheme, IEEE Transactions on Evolutionary Computation 1 (3) (1997) 201–
208.
[34] G. Wang, E. Cai, The Design of Solid Rocket Motor, Northwestern Polytechnical
University Press, 1994.
[35] H.M. William, Solid rocket motor performance analysis and prediction, NASA
SP-8039-1971.
[36] Q. Zeeshan, D. Yunfeng, K. Nisar, A. Kamran, A.F. Rafique, Multidisciplinary de-
sign and optimization of multistage ground launched boost phase interceptor
using hybrid search algorithm, Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 23 (2) (2010)
170–178.