n

' /
v

Sponsored byAmerican Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics (AIAA) With Particloation olAmerican Astronautical Society (AAS)

Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

O P T I M A L R O C K E T THRUST P R O F I L E SHAPING USING THIRD-DEGREE S P L I N E FUNCTION INTERPOLATION

by IVAN I,. JOHNSON NASA J o h n s o n S p a c e C e n t e r H o u s t o n , Texas

ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA / AUGUST 59,1974

First publication rights reserved by American Institute o f Asronaut;cs and Astronautics.

1290 Avenue of the Americas, New York, N. Y. 10019, Abstrscts may be published without
permission if credit is given to author and to AIAA. (Price: A l A A Member $1.50. Nonmember $2.001. Note: This paper available at A l A A New York office for six months; thereafter, photoprint copies are available at photocopy prices from A l A A Library, 750 3rd Avenue. New York. New York 10017

OPTIMAL ROCKET THRUST PROFILE SHAPING USING THIRD DEGREE SPLINE FUIICTIOH 1IiTERPOI.ATION

Ivan L . Johnson National Aeronautics and Space Administration N a Lyndon B. Johnson Space Center Houston, Texas Abstract Optimal solid-rocket thrust p r o f i l e s f o r the parallel-burn, solid-rocket-assisted space s h u t t l e are investigated. Solid-rocket t h r u s t profiles are simulated bv usino t h i r d dearee soline functions, w i t h the-value; of the t h s t brdinates defined as parameters. The profiles are optimized Paranatricall v , usina the Davidon-F1 etcher-Powell perialty funct7on metGod, by minimizing propellant weight subject t o s t a t e a n d control inequality cons t r a i n t s and terminal boundary conditions. This study shows t h a t optimizing a control variable parametrically by using t h i r d degree spline function interpolation allows the control to be shaped so t h a t inequality constraints are s t r i c t l y adhered t o and a l l corners are eliminated. The absence of corners, which i s r e a l i s t i c in nature, makes t h i s method a t t r a c t i v e from the viewpoint. of solid rocket grain design. Introduction
L .

linear-segments approach constrains the thrust between data ooints t o a s t r a i a h t line: t h i s orevents. in respect i o optimally reduhng SRB.propeliant weiqht, e f f i c i e n t handlinq of s t a t e a n d control i n equality constraints on dynamic pressure and axial acceleration. In refererices 1 a n d 2 and i n the s h u t t l e cont r a c t o r ' s solution, the maximum dynamic pressure inequality constraint

Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

$ 5 650 psf
was s a t i s f i e d in terms of dynamic pressure passage throuah 650 osf a t onlv one i n s t a n t . This i s because the constraint was appbxinated as a point' inequali t y constraint a t the instant dynamic pressure reached i t s maximum and because of thrust r a t e limitations. References 1 and 2 a n d the contractor t r e a t m e n t did not contend with the axial acceleration constraint a, 2 39, However, use of a single s t r a i g h t l i n e for t h r u s t during t h i s time r e s u l t s in only a small l o s s i n performance. Thrust p r o f i l e s designed i n t h i s manner lose considerable performnce i n terms of SRB propellant weight. On the other h a n d , an optimal solution would yield a thrust-time curve which, a f t e r encountering a constraint boundary, m i g h t ride i t until some other constraint i s met. This i s d i f f i c u l t t o approximate i f piecewise continuous l i n e a r segments are used f o r t h r u s t modeling unless a very large nuinber of segments i s chosen. S t i l l , corners would probably remain a problem, and the number of parameters required may be quite large. Kelley and Oenhaml3) explain t h a t the use of cubic spline functions f o r modeling may o f f e r a n a t t r a c t i v e compromise between number of parameters ( r e s u l t i n g from use o f many segments) a n d overall smoothness of the r e s u l t ing control. I n addition, because of the nature of t h i s sequence of t h i r d degree polynomials i n t e r polating t h r u s t , entry t o and e x i t from inequality constraint boundaries will tend t o be smooth.

For t h i s study, the s h u t t l e contractor 1973 solid rocket t h r u s t p r o f i l e was chosen for comparison purpose^.'^) I t i s emphasized t h a t the purpose of t h i s paper i s t o present a mathematical technique f o r optimizing solid rocket thrust profiles; the paper i s not meant as a comparison t o the present s h u t t l e configuration.
A major contributor t o the cost per f l i g h t of a shuttle-type vehicle i s the cost of t h e solid

rocket boosters (SRB), which a s s i s t the o r b i t e r i n insnrting a specified payload. An important e l e ment of the t o t a l SRB c o s t i s the cost incurred by the weight of propellant, approximately $1.20 per pound per f l i g h t . Sometiiws a significant reduct i o n in SRB propellant weight and therefore cost i s realized by optimally shaping the SRB t h r u s t p r o f i l e , even with regard t o the constraints imposed on the f l i g h t . Previous SRB&sisted space s h u t t l e configurations were shaped optimally by assuming t h a t thrust (vacuum) could be simulated by a sequence o f piecewise continuous l i n e a r segments. with the values of thrust (vacuum) a t each junction point treated as parameters. (l*') This type of modeling o r i n t e r polation presents several inefficiencies or problems. The corners formed a t the juncture points w i t h i n the sequence of piecewise linear segments i n a feasible t h r u s t profile represent discontinuities in derivatives of t h r u s t . These dincontinuities are undesirable t o an engineer trying t o determine an actual SRB t h r u s t p r o f i l e in order t o simulate the sequence of linear segments. Floreover, the

t h a t employed third-degree or cubic-spline function

ir:erpol:rim(4) 1 3 rclLcc S23 propellJ-.l Meiqht bf parametric,!ly o r r i r r i z i n o r n e SRB tnr..st-tii-e c..rve. The parameter optimization method used i s the Davidon-Fletcher-Powell per.al ty f u n ~ t i o n ( ~ ' ~ J ~ ) method. Also used was a n e r r o r function method ( 8 ) t h a t e f f i c i e n t l y s a t i s f i es inequality constraints on dynamic pressure and axial acceleration and design constraints on maximum t h r u s t and t h r u s t r a t e .

This paper presents the r e s u l t s of a study

Reference T r a j e c c o x I n order t o . s t u d y r e d u c t i o n s i n SRB p r o p e l l a n t weight, a r e f e r e n c e t r a j e c t o r y was generated by s o l v i n g a maximum payload problem. The data p o i n t s f o r t h e t h r u s t p r o f i l e were taken from r e f . 9 and. i n t e r p o l a t e d by u s i n g t h i r d - d e g r e e s p l i n e f u n c t i o n s . The r e s u l t i n g curve i s shown i n f i g u r e l ( a ) . Engine c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s and weight p r o p e r t i e s a r e presented i n t h e t a b l e . A f t e r f i n d i n g t h e maximum payload, t h e payload w i l l then be h e l d c o n s t a n t and t h e t h r u s t data p o i n t s w i l l be a l l o w e d t o v a r y as parameters t o reduce SR8 p r o p e l l a n t . 40K payload south p o l a r m i s s i o n (Western Test Range)
Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

g. A t t = 281 seconds an o r b i t e r engine i s turned o f f ; t h e o t h e r two engines a r e brought t o a l e v e l o f 109 percent; and t h e o r b i t a l maneuverin system (OMS) engines and r e a t i o n c o n t r o l system TRCS) engines a r e t u r n e d on. h. A t t = 439.1 seconds RCS p r o p e l l a n t i s depleted.

i. A t t = 625.4 seconds t h r u s t - t o - w e i g h t r a t i o (T/W) reaches 3 and t h e o r b i t e r enqines w i l l begin t o throttle.

j. A t t = 641.5 seconds t h e o r b i t e r i n s e r t s .

The s t e e r i n g a f t e r t h e p i t c h o v e r u n t i l s t a g i n g i s Cn = 0 (aerodynamic normal force c o e f f i c i e n t ) . To s i m u l a t e t h e r e f e r e n c e t r a j e c t o r y , a maximum payload o p t i m i z a t i o n problem was solved. The parameter v e c t o r x had t h e f o l l o w i n g parameters as components: a. b. Payload weight Azimuth a f t e r v e r t i c a l r i s e

(a)

Weights, l b

..... Booster d r y weight . . . . . . . . . . . . Booster G L O W . . . . . . . . . . . . . O r b i t e r ascent p r o p e l l a n t . . . . . . O r b i t e r d r y weight ( w i t h EOHT) . . . . OMS and RCS p r o p e l l a n t weight . . . . ASRM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Payload ( a c t u a l ) . . . . . . . . . . . O r b i t e r GLOW ( w i t h ASRM) . . . . . . . Total G L O W . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Booster p r o p e l l a n t (nominal)
;

2 829 449
423 266 3 252 715 1 696 854 269 734 14 654 99 050 39 418 2 119 008

c.. Amount o f 0% i r o p e l l a n t burned a f t e r one o r b i t e r engine o u t

d. Value o f p i t c h a t end of p i t c h o v e r maneuver ( t = 15 sec) e. Value o f p i t c h angle a f t e r f i r s t stage s e p a r a t i o n ( t = 128.6 sec)

f. Value o f p i t c h a t b e g i n n i n g of a b o r t (t = 281 sec)

5 371 723

(b)
v

P r o p u l s i o n (each engine)

Booster

.......... Vacuum t h r u s t (sax) . . . . . . . . Isp vacuum, sec . . . . . . . . . .

Sea l e v e l t h r u s t Sea l e v e l t h r u s t Vacuum t h r u s t Isp vacuum, sec

4 642 420 4 089 110 273.238

g. Value o f p i t c h a t RCS p r o p e l l a n t d e p l e t i o n (t = 439.1 sec) h. Value o f p i t c h when T/W reaches 3 ( t = 625.4 sec)

Orbiter

.......... ...........

375 000 470 000 450.647 gl: a l t i t u d e = 50 n. m i . v e l o c i t y = 25 920 f p s f l i g h t - p a t h angle = 0.54313" angle of i n c l i n a t i o n = 90'
c

..........

The r e f e r e n c e t r a j e c t o r y used i n t h e study s a t i s f i e d once-around a b o r t c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e p o l a r m i s s i o n and i n c l u d e d t h e f o l l o w i n g events:

a.

g2: g3: g4:

(1 )

5-second v e r t i c a l r i s e 10-second p i t c h o v e r
A t t = 30 seconds t h e a b o r t s o l i d r o c k e t

b.

hl:

c.
motors

a m u n t of OMS p r o p e l l a n t burned 5 11 904 pounds

(ASRM) a r e dropped.

d. A t t = 38 seconds maximum dynamic pressure (max Q) = 630 psf i s reached.

e . A t t = 116 seconds maximum a x i a l accelerat i o n of 2 . 2 3 ~i ~ s reached and t a i l o f f begins.

--

f. A t t = 128.6 seconds SRB cases a r e staged and i t e r a t i v e guidance mode ( I G N ) s t e e r i n g i s initiated.

f i g u r e 6(a).

I t c o n s i s t s o f a imaximum t h r u s t u n t i l

i -

Problem D e f i n i t i o n

Q = 1/2pv2 reaches 650 p s f a t t = tl, then an i n v

Ztantaneous decrease t o a l e v e l corresponding t o Q = 0. F i g u r e 6 ( b ] shows t h e corresponding changes i n t h e Q curve. From tl t o t2, w h i l e Q = 650 psf, the t h r u s t i s computed from = 0. The reason f o r t h i s i s that Q li 650 i s a f i r s t - o r d e r s t a t e v a r i a b l e i n e q u a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t . (10) The c o n t r o l , t h r u s t , does n o t app?ar e x p l i c i t l y i n 9 = 1!2?v2, b u t appears i n i t s f i r s t d e r i v a t i v e i n t h e v term

The payload was s p e c i f i e d as 39 418 pounds, t h e amount obtained f o r t h e r e f e r e n c e t r a j e c t o r y . The value o f t h r u s t i n each d a t a p o i n t ( 2 2 p o f i t s f o r t h i s case) and t h e values o f t h e f i r s t d e r i v a t i v e s a t the h e g i n n i n g and end o f t h e s p l i n e i n t e r p o l a t i o n i n t e r v a l o f t h r u s t versus t i m e were t r e a t as parameters.+ The l e n g t h o f t h e burn time from t = 30 seconds t o t h r u s t t a i l o f f i n i t i a t i o n and t h e t i m e t h a t t h e optimal s t e e r i n g was begun were a l s o t r e a t e d as parameters. This brought t h e t o t a l numb e r o f parameters t o 33, i n c l u d i n g t h e ones defined i n t h e r e f e r e n c e case. I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e c o n s t r a i n t s defined by e q u a t i o n ( l ) , t h e f o l l o w i n g c o n s t r a i n t s h2:

;1 = $4 + pv2/2

= 0

(2)

Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

.
..

The e q u a t i o n f o r t h i s t h r o t t l e was d e r i v e d f o r a s i m i l a r s i t u a t i o n i n r e f e r e n c e 11. From f i g u r e 6 ( c ) , a t t i m e t2 t h e a x i a l a c c e l e r a t i o n reaches 3g0 b e f o r e t h e t h r u s t can r i s e back t o t h e maximum l e v e l . A t t h a t p o i n t t h e t h r u s t w i l l begin t o decrease as i t r i d e s t h e a x i a l a c c e l e r a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t boundary

5 25 p s f

(T

COS a

- D ) l m = 3g0
The times

were imposed t o keep t h e optimal s t e e r i n g f r o m beginning too early.

(3)

u n t i l t = t3 where t a i l o f f begins.
tl
-c

t 3 would have t o be determined by s a t i s f y i n g

a i l of t h e necessary c o n d i t i o n s f o r an extremum. For a s o l i d r o c k e t booster, the optimal t h r u s t p r o f i l e o f f i g u r e 6 ( a ) suggests t h e use of two d i f f e r e n t s e t s r a t h e r than a s i n g l e s e t of s o l i d r o c k e t boosters. Both s e t s o f r o c k e t s would burn i n p a r a l l e l u n t i l t i m e ti, a t which time one set, having a c o n s t a n t t h r u s t of (Tmax

A measure o f performance was d e f i n e d as t h e The problem then was weight of SRB p r o p e l l a n t , W P t o f i n d t h e parameters described which l o c a l l y m i n i mize W w h i l e s a t i s f y i n g t h e c o n s t r a i n t s (1) and ( 4 ) P and t h e i n e q u a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s on dynamic pressure, a x i a l a c c e l e r a t i o n , and maximum t h r u s t . This would e f f e c t i v e l y shape an e f f i c i e n t t h r u s t - t i m e curve.

Parametric Thrust P r o f i l e I4odeline Before an ascent s i m u l a t i o n can take place, W

T*),

upon being

spent, would be dropped, w h i l e t h e o t h e r s e t , having an i n i t i a l c o n s t a n t t h r u s t T*, would continue t o burn. P j r a m e r r i c k i l y Optimiz>n3J!>r,st S?line r m : i o n

must be known so t h a t i t can be added i n t o t h e t o t a l c o n f i g u r a t i o n weight. One scheme f o r t h i s i s t o t r e a t i t a s a parameter, so t h a t i t can be added i n i n i t i a l l y , and c o n s t r a i n i t t o be t h e same as t h e n u m e r i c a l l y i n t e g r a t e d value o b t a i n e d a t staging. T h i s would t a k e c a r e o f t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which I varies. But f o r t h e s i t u a t i o n i n which I s i d e r e d constant t h i s i s n o t necessary. SRB's
SP

_. s i n 2 Tnird-?cqree

ProfInterpoldrion

i s con-

SP

For t h e
(5)

I n t h e design o f a s o l i d r o c k e t motor, a . t h r u s t - t i m e curve and an envelope l i m i t a t i o n a r e furnished. (12) Other f a c t o r s , such as temperature storage requirements and v e h i c l e o v e r a l l r e q u i r e ments, a r e a l s o i n v o l v e d i n t h e s e l e c t i o n o f a p r o p e l l a n t . The t o t a l impulse and p r o p e l l a n t weight of t h e d e s i r e d motor i s determined as a f u n c t i o n o f t h e t h r u s t - t i m e curve. Based uoon t o t a l impulse. p r o p e l l a n t weight, and parameters such as chamber pressure, b u r n i n g r a t e , surface area, and nozzle t h r o a t area, t h e d e s i r e d s o l i d r o c k e t motor can be described. The t h r u s t - t i m e curve, an i m p o r t a n t i n f l u e n c e on t h e a m u n t o f p r o p e l l a n t r e q u i r e d , i f s e l e c t e d e f f i c i e n t l y ( o p t i m a l l y ) , can save a s i g n i f i c a n t amount of p r o p e l l a n t weight and thereby reduce cost. A comparison o f f i g u r e s l ( a ) and 6(a) r e v e a l s t h a t t h e r e f e r e n c e t h r u s t p r o f i l e i s f a r from optimal. and

fiP

= (106/ISp)T(t)

where

Tmx,

0 5 t 5 15 15 I t 5 ttail 'tail
5 t

T ( t ) = TSpln,
'tail.

(7)

5 tstage

Thrust d u r i n g t h e t i m e of t h e s p l i n e i n t e r p o l a t i o n , between t h e two data p o i n t s [ti, T ( t i ) l and Tspln* [ti+,, T(titl)l, ti 2 t 5 titi, i s defined by

\*-

t T h e second d e r i v a t i v e s c o u l d have been s p e c i f i e d i n s t e a d o f the f i r s t ; howpver, t h e t h r u s t - t i n e curve shaping i s much more s e n s i t i v e t o changes i n the f i r s t d e r i v a t i v e s than i t i s t o changes i n t h e second derivatives.

Tspln(t) = T ( t i )
2
U

aliz

atiz2 +

a3i23;

The Error Function Models

--

(t

- t i ) / ( t j f l- t i ) ,
(8 1

st r a i n t s ,

Since the s t a t e and control inequality cons1 = p v 2 / 2 s2 = T ( t )

s

i = 1,. ..,21

- 650 psf T ,,
I O

20

The coefficients a l i , a Z i , and a3i a r e determined by a s e t of equations based on the use of a t h i r d d q r c e natural spline function for interpolation. ( 4 ) Also required i n the spline interpolation a r e the slopes f ( t l ) and f ( t z 2 ) . During t a i l o f f the thrust, T t a i l , i s defined by
Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

= ( T cos a - O)/m - 3g0 5 0 (13) 3 must he maintained during t h i s time, p o i n t inequali t y constraints were defined a t each integration time, t:

3'

slj z p(tj)v(tj)2/2
Ttail(t)
where
Y = (t
=

IO
3

650 5 0
(14)

T(tZ2)

bly

b2Y2

b3y3

(9)
s
23
E
1

T(tj)

- Tmx

ttajl)/AtT

s3j
(10)

[T(tj)c0S[a(t.)]

D(tj)]/m(tj)

- 39,

5 0

' tstage

- t t a i.l

Error functions e l , e2, and e3 are defined by

n.
1

The coefficients b l , b2, and b3 were obtained by modeling the t a i l o f f exactly a s the reference t a i l o f f except t h a t T ( t Z 2 ) was used a s the i n i t i a l value o f thrust rather t h a n the reference value.
bl = -0.367620493 A t T
b2 = 3(0.203743

e, =

g1j = l s y j u ( s l j )

e2 =
bl)
f

0.735240986 A t T 2[0.203743

h2 C s;j
j =I

n. 1

u(sZj)

(11)

b3 = -0.367620493 A t T

T(tZ2)] e3
=

I n i t i a l l y , without having been shaped? a thrusttime curve modeled with equations ( 7 ) t h r o u g h (11) could look l i k e the following:

h3Cs i j ~
j=1

n. 1

( 5 ~ ~ )

ni

number of integration steps

An e r r o r

and U O denotes a unit step function. function of the form

e = e + e (16) 1 zte3 i s accumulated and added t o the penalty function. (6) The technique described i n reference 8 i s a concept used t o handle s t a t e inequality constraints, b u t i t i s very similar t o an integral penalty function:

Then,

wp

= (10G/Isp) I f [ T ( t i )

'1i
~f

a2i -j-

i =1

The error function (16) s a t i s f i e s the cons t r a i n t s (14) i n the same manner t h a t terminal and i n t e r m d i a t e boundary point constraints are s a t i s fied in the penalty f ~ n c t i o n . ( ~ " ~So, ) the penalty function f o r t h i s case i s

The s o l u t i o n f o r the p r o b l m described p r e v i o u s l y y i e l d e d t h e SRB t h r u s t , dynamic pressure, a x i a l a c c e l e r a t i o n , t h r u s t r a t e , and p i t c h c o n t r o l p r o f i l e s d e p i c t e d i n f i g u r e s l ( h ! , 2(b), 3(b), .l(b), and 5 ( b ) . The amount o f SKB p r o p e l l a n t r e q u i r e d was reduced by 161 776 pounds. A comparison o f f i g u r e s 6 ( a ) and l ( b ) shows t h a t t h i s s o l u t i o n looks v e r y much l i k e the optiilial s o l u t i o n except t h a t the corners o f t h e t h r u s t p r o f i l e viere rounded o f f when c o n s t r a i n t boundaries were i n t e r s e c t e d . The corners were rounded as l i t t l e as t h e curve f i t would p e r m i t . Observation o f these t w o f i g u r e s and o f f i g u r e 2 ( b ) i n d i c a t e s t h a t the d i s c o n t i n u i t y i n vacuum t h r u s t a p p a r e n t l y tended t o occur v e r y near t = 30 seconds, which corresponds t o t, i n f i g u r e 6 ( a ) , t o

and added t o e i n e q u a t i o n ( 1 6 ) . The value of i s obtained by e v a l u a t i n g t h e d e r i v a t i v e o f equat i o n (8): TSpln(t)

=

(ali

2a 2 i z + 3 a 3 i Z 2 ) / ( t i + 1

ti)
(21 1

The bounds f o r T n n il

and Tmax are: percent o f T /sec max

min

( t ) = -1.5

T m x ( t ) = 0.5 percent o f TmaX/sec For t h i s case t h e r e d u c t i o n i n W

(22)

Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

t h r o t t l e down f o r t h e 9 = 650 p s f dynamic pressure c o n s t r a i n t boundary. A t t = 30 seconds t h e ASRM a r e dropped, causing an instantaneous i n c r e a s c i n a c c e l e r a t i o n , an increase whick i s enough t o h i t 9 = 650 p s f . Without a method t o c u t back a c c e l e r a t i o n j u s t before ( t = 30- sec) t h i s drop i n mass, i t appears t h a t e i t h e r t h i s would be t h e optimal t i m e t o encounter the c o n s t r a i n t o r another i n s t a n taneous drop i n t h r u s t should bc allowed t o occur. The l a t t e r reason i s probably the ca% and can be done mathematically, although t h e r e s u l t i n g t h r u s t t i m e curve would p r o b a b l y n o t be p h y s i c a l l y f e a s i ble. The s o l u t i o n obtained s a t i s f i e d the c o n d i t i o n s g i v e n by t h e foriner reason. Current c o n f i g u r a t i o n s a r e n o t c a r r y i n g ASRM's, so t h i s problem no l o n g e r exists.

r e p r e s e n t i n g a l o s s o f 65 percent i n t h e r e d u c t i o n obtained by t h e optimal t h r u s t - t i m e curve. F i g u r e s l ( c ) , 2 ( c ) , 3 ( c ) , 4 ( c ) , and 5 ( c ) f e a t u r e t h r u s t , dynamic pressure, a x i a l a c c e l e r a t i o n , t h r u s t r a t e , and p i t c h f o r t h i s case. Adding f i v e more d a t a p o i n t s (parameters) t o the s p l i n e curve f i t and l e t t i n g t h e i n t e r p o l a t i o n begine a t t = 0 r a t h e r than a t t = 15 seconds, another case was r u n which a l s o s a t i s f i e d t h e cons t r a i n t s (22). The r e d u c t i o n i n p r o p e l l a n t weight was 118 572 pounds. Figures l ( d ) , 2 ( d ) , 3(d), 4(d), and 5 ( d ) f e a t u r e t h r u s t , dynamic pressure, a x i a l a c c e l e r a t i o n , t h r u s t r a t e , and p i t c h f o r t h i s case. Examination o f f i g u r e l ( d ) shows t h a t t h e t h r u s t increased (progressed) i n i t i a l l y a l o n g t h e maximum r a t e boundary. Comparison w i t h 1 ( c ) shows t h a t t h e e f f e c t of a l l o h i n g t h r u s t t o progress i n i t i a l l y shortened t h e t h r u s t d u r a t i o n by 3 seconds, and t h e t h r o t t l i n g down f o r maximum dynamic pressure begins about 2 seconds e a r l i e r . Discussion o f R e a

was 56 088 pounds,

--

A comparison o f thrust. p r o f i l e s [ f i g s l ( a ) and l ( b ) ] r e v e a l s t h a t t h e burn t i m e was shortened by 20.1 seconds, which, besides reducing p r o p e l l a n t , a l s o stages the 423 266-pound SRB cases e a r l i e r . The p i t c h p r o f i l e s [ f i g s . 5 ( a ) and 5 ( b ) ] i n d i c a t e t h a t the t i m c of optimal s t e e r i n g i n i t i a t i o n was reduced by 14.5 seconds, and the value of t h e p i t c h was h i g h e r than t h e reference p i t c h , i n d i c a t i n g t h e v e h i c l e was f l y i n g c l o s e r t o the l o c a l h o r i z o n t a l t o reduce g r a v i t y losses. (14)
Thrust-Rate-Limi t e d Optimal S o l u t i o n s Apparently, i n t h e design of a s o l i d r o c k e t m t o r , one c o n d i t i o n which must be s a t i s f i e d by a t h r u s t - t i m e curve i s a r e s t r i c t i o n on t h r u s t r a t e a t any i n s t a n t i n time. The optimal t h r u s t - t i m e curve i n f i g u r e l ( b ) i s n o t a f e a s i b l e curve by which t o design a s o l i d r o c k e t motor because of t h e l a r a e t h r u s t r a t e maanitudes associated w i t h it. TheFefore, another i i e q u a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t i s i n t r o duced t o c o n s t r a i n the slope of the t h r u s t - t i m e curve d u r i n g the main burn ( t h e s p l i n e i n t e r p o l a tion):

Several o o i n t s can be observed bv s t u d v i n a a l l o f t h e t h r u s t ' p r o f i l e s i n f i g u r e 1. " n I thrittiing t o ineet t h e max Q c o n s t r a i n t , the r e f e r e n c e case 1(a) obviously violates the t h r u s t r a t e constraint, equation (22), and appears m r e l i k e I ( b ) r a t h e r t h a n l ( c ) . Also, observing 3 ( a ) , p r o f i l e l ( a ) makes no attempt t o s a t i s f y t h e maximum a x i a l accele r a t i o n c o n s t r a i n t , equation ( 3 ) . F i g u r e 2, f e a t u r i n g t h e dynamic pressure curves, r e v e a l s several i n t e r e s t i n g things. F i r s t , curve 2(a), the reference curve d i d n o t reach t h e maximum Q l e v e l 650 p s f , b u t i n s t e a d reached 630, r e s u l t i n g i n a l o s s o f performance. Curve 2 ( b ) resembles 6 ( b ) , the optimal, v e r y much except f o r t h e rounding of t h e corners where t h e boundary i s encountered. Curves 2 ( d ) and 2 ( c ) resemble each o t h e r i n t h a t they peak a t maximum Q r a t h e r than r i d e the maximum 0 boundarv. T h i s i s because of t h e t h r u s t r a t e constrain&. The dynamic pressure i n 2 ( d ) i s t o be h i g h e r a t almost a l l i n s t a n t s and apPrOXlmateS t h e optimal 2 ( b ) by becoming a f l a t t e r curve near f o r t h e c o n s t a n t r a t e case Q = 650 p s f . A t tstage Q was below 25 p s f and tSteer = tstage* For curves 2 ( b ) and 2(d), however, Q = 25 p s f was reached 6 seconds and 3.5 seconds a f t e r tstage, respectively.

Since t h i s c o n s t r a i n t w i l l be maintained v i a p e n a l t y f u n c t i o n , anothcr e r r o r f u n c t i o n , ea, i s defined:

!hewn

e4 =

The a x i a l a c c e l e r a t i o n and t h r u s t r a t e curves ( f i g s . 3 and 4) a r e s e l f explanatory, showing t h e l a r g e t h r u s t r a t e magnitudes as expected i n 4 ( b ) . The p i t c h p r o f i l e s i n f i g u r e 5 p o i n t o u t an i n t e r e s t i n g p r o p e r t y . The reference curve [ 5 ( b ) l and curve 5(d), show t h e p i t c h p r o f i l e s decreasing a f t e r s t a g i n g , whereas f o r the c o n s t a n t t h r u s t r a t e case 5 ( c ) t h e p i t c h p r o f i l e increased. Comparison o f 5 ( b ) and 5 ( c ) shows t h a t f o r 5 ( b ) t h e p i t c h was mu'ch h i g h e r , e s p e c i a l l y a f t e r p i t c h o v e r . T h i s i n d i c a t e s , w i t h r e f e r e n c e t o f i g u r e 2, t h a t the v e h i c l e rose, p i t c h e d over more, and f l e i r c l o s e r t o t h e l o c a l h o r i z o n t a l and then t h r o t t l e d e a r l i e r t o meet the 4 c o n s t r a i n t .
Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

of v e h i c l e a t t i t u d e c o n t r o l f u n c t i o n s such as p i t c h o r angle o f a t t a c k and bank angle, o r any o t h e r c o n t r o l . The e r r o r f u n c t i o n technique f o r s a t i s f y i n g i n e q u a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s can be used whenever t h e c o n t r o l s are approximated by a sequence o f piecewise continuous l i n e a r segments o r any o t h e r d e s i r a b l e parametric r e p r e s e n t a t i o n o f the c o n t r o l as w e l l . References 1. Johnson. I . L.: and Kamm. J. L.: Performance A n a l y s i s o f 049AlSRM S h u t t l e f o r Minimum GLOW. JSC I N 72-FM-202, Sept. 5, 1972. Kanim, J . L.; and Johnson, I. L.: An Optimal S o l i d Rocket Motor Thrust P r o f i l e t o Minimize 040A S h u t t l e GLOW. JSC I N 72-FM-159, June 16, 1972. ExamK e l l e y , Henry J.; and Denham, Walter F.: i n a t i o n of Accelerated F i r s t Order Methods f o r A i r c r a f t F l i g h t Path Optimization. Report No. 68-19, Contract NAS 1-7987, A n a l y t i c a l Mechanics Associates, Inc., Oct. 1968. Spline function, interpol a t i o n , and n u n r r i c a l quadrature, Mathematical Methods f o r U i i t a 1 Com u t e r s , e d i t e y m t F a h . + l . 11, :h!p. 8, Wiley, 1967.

Conclusions The r e s u l t s i n t h i s study show t h a t t h e method o f third-degree spline function i n t e r p o l a t i o n o f the c o n t r o l ( t h r u s t i n t h i s case). connected w i t h the e r r o r f u n c t i o n technique, i s ' i reasonable way o f h a n d l i n g s t a t e and c o n t r o l i n e q u a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s o p t i m a l l y , ~ a d i f f i c u l t problem i n o p t i m i z a t i o n . Accordina t o the c o n t r a c t o r . one undesirable f e a t u r e i n t l i r u s t - t i m e curve shaping i s corners. The technique presented e l i m i n a t e d t h i s f e a t u r e by rounding t h e corners o f t h e t h r u s t - t i m e curve smoothly going from one c o n s t r a i n t boundary t o another. Also, t h e c o n s t r a i n t boundaries a r e rounded a t e n t r y ' and e x i t . The way t h a t t h e i n t e r v a l f o r t h e s p l i n e funct i o n i n t e r p o l a t i o n o f t h e SRB t h r u s t was modeled i s o n l y one o f several ways. I t appears from f i g u r e 6(1) t h d t a f u t u r e method o f modeling the optimal p r o f i l e v i g h t be t o parameterize the l e n g t h of t h e maximum t h r u s t tl, the l e n g t h ( t 3 - tl), and t h e t h r u s t T(t;) a l o n g w i t h the slope i ( t 7 ) . The s p l i n e i n t e r p o l a t i o n would s t i l l be from tl t o t3, b u t t h i s time the d i s c o n t i n u i t y would n o t be f a i r e d i n across tl as i n f i g u r e l ( b ) , an a d d i t i o n a l obstacle. The reason f o r t h i s change i s t h a t the SR8 profiles,,observed have allowed d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s o r "corners a t t h i s time. The modeling i n t h i s r e g i o n i s v e r y c r i t i c a l i n g a i n i n g maximum performance. To handle the f i r s t k i n d o f t h r u s t r a t e constrained case under t h i s new formulation, T ( t i ) i s s e t equal t o

2.

3.

4. G r e v i l l e , T. N. E.:

5.

L-

F l e t c h e r , R.; and Powell, PI. 3. D . : A Rapidly Convergent Oescent Method f o r M i n i m i z a t i o n . Computer Journal, Vol. 6, No. 2, pp. 163-168, J u l y 1963. K e l l e y , Henry J . ; Denham, Walter F.; Johnson, I v a n L.; and Wheatley, P a t r i c k 0.: An Accele r a t e d Gradient Elethod f o r Parameter Optimiz a t i o n w i t h Non-Linear C o n s t r a i n t s . The Journal o f t h e A s t r o n a u t i c a l Sciences, Vol. Vol. X I I I , no. 4, pp. 166-169, July-Aug., 1966.

6.

7.
Automatica, Vo1 Johnson, Ivan: The E r r o r F u n c t i o n Method f o r Handling I n e q u a l i t y C o n s t r a i n t s . JSC I N 73-FM-114, J u l y 25, 1973. North A w r i c a n Rockwell Carp., Data Sheet, 1973.

8. and the r a t e c o n s t r a i n t i s a p p l i e d as p r e v i o u s l y v i a the e r r o r f u n c t i o n method. This method w i l l a l s o r e q u i r e t h e e r r o r f u n c t i o n method t o m a i n t a i n the o t h e r s t a t e and c o n t r o l i n e q u a l i t y c o n s t r a i n t s 9. (14) i n the same manner described. For the param e t r i c a l l y optimal s o l u f i o n the maximum t h r u s t con10. s t r a i n t w i l l be a l l e v i a t e d somewhat, and performance w i l l be improved because the p r o f i l e w i l l be more nearly optimal. Future research i s recommended t o determine the minimum number of data p o i n t s r e q u i r e d t o model the t h r u s t - t i m e curve and s t i l l m a i n t a i n i n t e g r i t y o f the c o n s t r a i n t s and o b t a i n maximum performance. A r e d u c t i o n i n the number of paraitieters i n t h i s case c o u l d mean a l a r g e r e d u c t i o n i n computation t i m e and a l e s s d i f f i c u l t problem t o solve f r o m the v i e w p o i n t o f an i t e r a t i o n problem. This method o f p a r a m e t r i c a l l y d e f i n i n g a cont r o l f u n c t i o n such as t h r u s t by u s i n g s p l i n e funct i o n i n t e r p o l a t i o n can be a p p l i e d t o the modeling
C

Tmax, t a k i n g t h e jump o u t o f T versus t a t t = tl,

Bryson, A. E.; Oenham, W . F.; and Dreyfus, S. E.: O p t i m a l Programing Problems w i t h I n e q u a l i t y C o n s t r a i n t s I : Necessarv Conditions f o r Extrema1 S o l u t i o n s . A I A i Journal, Vol. 1, No. 11, p p . 2544-2550, Nov. 1963. Johnson, I v a n L.: Space S h u t t l e V e h i c l e S i z i n g w i t h Maximum Dynamic Pressure C o n s t r a i n t I n cluded. JSC I N 72-FM-196, Aug. 15, 1972. Lambert. C. H.: S o l i d Rockets. Enqineerina Design and Operation o f Manned SpacecraftSeminar Series, L e c t u r e 25, Spring, 1964.

11.

12.

L-

13.

Johnson, Ivan L . : Impulsive Orbit Transfer Ootimization b v an Accelerated Gradient Method. Journal o f Spacecraft and Rockets, Vo1. 6 , no. 5, May 1969, pp. 630-632. Johnson, Ivan L.: and Karnm, J a m s L.: Near Optimal Shuttle Trajectories Using Accelerated Gradient Methods. Presented a t A A S I A I A A Astrodynamics Specialists Conference, Aug. 17-19, 1971, F t . Lauderdale, Florida.

14.

Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

,.'.

.....
I
iir.
3-

12:

1 . 0

I,-.

( a ) Reference.
Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

Lb) Parametric optimal

Figure 1.- SRB vacuum t h r u s t versus time.

,,-,

1 3

,lrr.

%I

( a ) Reference.

( b ) Parametric optimal

T l l . in

,#*,

%/L

( c ) Constant t h r u s t r a t e .

( d ) With i n i t i a l proqression.

Figure 2 . - Dynamic pressure versus time

8

,,*e,8-

( b ) Parai!ietl'ic optimal.
. . . . . . .....
Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

__,,_ r,

..

.,.

..

..

. ,...
............

....
.....

!:?-

20

4"

ho

80

100

I20

I40

20

10

60
Tl-.

,,e, i*

BO

LOO

120

140

( c ) Constant t h r u s t rate.

( d ) W i t h i n i t i a l progression. Figiire'3.- A x i a l Bicceleration versus time.

20

10

bo

80

LOO

120

140

Tin..

I*

( b ) Parametric optimal.

-.f

-2

..4

20

40

60

I , ,

,-

BO

100

120

140

( c ) Constant t h r u s t r a t e .

( d ) W i t h i n i t i a l progression.

Figure 4 . - Vacuum t h r u s t r a t e versus time. 9

,/"e,

,cc

( a ) Reference.
Downloaded by Beihang University (CNPIEC - XI'AN BRANCH) on May 12, 2013 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1974-823

.........

.........
..

,. . . . . . . . . . . .
. . .

r u

...........

,oo

io0

,oo
9-

400

500

600

700

( d ) With i n i t i a l progression.

Fiqurc. 5.- Pitch versus time.

T h . I*

it-.

( a ) SRB vacuum thrust versus time.

( b ) Dynamic pressure vcrsus time.

( c ) Axial acceleration Figure 6 . - Optimal solution.

10

NASA-JSC