Multidisciplinary design optimization is one of the modern design methods. It was developed in several different structures and used to solve some of the theoretical and applied problems. Collaborative optimization is one of the structures of bi-level multidisciplinary design optimization. It comprises system level and discipline level, which is used to solve engineering complex problems. Collaborative optimization structure maximizes options of discrete disciplines and provides a mechanism for coordinating design problem at system level. The present research discusses capability of the collaborative optimization method to solve multidisciplinary problems aiming at reducing the weight of a liquid-propellant system. It is realized by implementing a propellant system design comprising an engine and consumption of fuel and oxidizer. To do this, we calculated engine parameters through response surface methodology. The calculation parameters were optimized by applying a response surface and an engine structure design in the collaborative optimization process at the same time in the form of combustion, geometry, and weight (structure) problems with the evolutionary algorithms. Finally, we compared the obtained results with the reference results and specified the optimization rate achieved for the values of variables. The values included pressure increase of combustion, specific impulse, engine mass reduction, rate of fuel and oxidizer consumption with fixed thrust, and burn time.
Balling RJ and Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J. Optimization of coupled systems: A critical overview of approaches. NASA Langley Research Center Hampton, Operated by Universities Space Research Association, 1994.
2.
Balling RJ and Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J. An algorithm for solving the system-level problem in multilevel optimization. AIAA Paper 94-4333, September, 1994.
3.
CramerEJDennisJrJEFrankPD. Problem formulation for multidisciplinary optimization. SIAM J Optim1994; 4: 754–776.
4.
Alexandrov NM and Lewis RM. Comparative properties of collaborative optimization and other approaches to MDO. Proc., First ASMO UK/ISSMO CONFERENCE on Engineering Design Optimization, MCB Press, 8–9 July 1999, pp.1–8.
5.
Thomas AZ and Lawrence LG. Multidisciplinary design optimization techniques implications and opportunities for fluid dynamics research. In: 30th AIAA fluid dynamics conference, Norfolk, VA, 28 June–1 July 1999.
6.
Arora S and Wang Q. Review of formulations for structural and mechanical system optimization. The University of Iowa, Iowa city, IA, USA, 11 December 2004.
7.
Ruben EP and Hugh HT. Evaluation of multidisciplinary optimization approaches for aircraft conceptual design. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Albany, NY, USA, 30 August–1 September 2004.
8.
BraunRKrooIDevelopment and application of the collaborative optimization architecture in a multidisciplinary design environment. In: AlexandrovNHussainiMY (eds). Multidisciplinary design optimization: State of the art, Philadelphia: SIAM, 1995, pp. 98–116.
9.
Braun RD. Collaborative architecture for large-scale distributed design. PhD Thesis, Stanford University, USA, June 1996.
DellinoGLinoPMeloniC. Multidisciplinary design optimization of a pressure controller for CNG injection systems, New York: IEEE, 2006.
12.
Zhao YJ, Xu C and Wang P. Research on individual soldier automatic weapon design based on MDO. In: Second International Conference on Information and Computing Science, Manchester, England, UK, 21–22 May 2009, pp.53–56.
13.
ParkJELuisFSulemanA. Multidisciplinary design optimization of an automotive magnetorheological brake design. Comput Struct2008; 86: 207–216.
14.
Raymer DP. Enhancing aircraft conceptual design using multidisciplinary optimization. PhD Thesis, Royal Institute of Technology, Sweden, 2002.
15.
Rafique AR, Linshu H and Zeeshan Q. Integrated system design of air launched small space launch vehicle using genetic algorithm. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & exhibit, Denver, Colorado, 2–5 August 2009.
16.
RoshanianJKeshavarzZ. Effect of variable selection on multidisciplinary design optimization: A flight vehicle example. Chin J Aeronaut2007; 20: 86–96.
17.
Ming L. A study on the multidisciplinary design optimization (MDO) using collaborative optimization method. PhD Thesis, Pusan National University, South Korea, 2000.
18.
Mathieu B. Multidisciplinary design optimization of launch vehicles. Office National Etudes et de Recherches Aérospatiales Institut, 2011.
19.
HashemiMDarabiHRoshanianJ. Comparison between traditional method (statistical method) and multidisciplinary optimization method (AAO) in designing of a lightweight liquid propellant LV. J Space Sci Technol2012; 5(1): 61–75.
20.
Jodei J, Ebrahimi M and Roshanian J. An automated approach to multidisciplinary system design optimization of small solid propellant launch vehicle. In: 1st international symposium on systems and control in aerospace and astronautics, Harbin, China, 2006.
21.
Braun R, Moore A and Kroo I. Use of the collaborative optimization architecture for launch vehicle design. In: 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Bellevue, WA, USA, 1996.
22.
BrownNOldsR. Evaluation of multidisciplinary optimization techniques applied to a reusable launch vehicle. J Spacecraft Rock2006; 43(6): 1289–1300.
23.
Roth B and Kroo I. Enhanced collaborative optimization: Application to analytic test problem and aircraft design. In: 12th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference, Victorian, British Columbia, Canada, 10–12 September 2008.
24.
Cormier TA, Scott A, Ledsinger LA, et al. Comparison of collaborative optimization to conventional design techniques for a conceptual RLV. In: 8th AIAA/ USAF/ NASA/ ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization, Long Beach, CA, USA, 2000.
25.
KalyanmoyD. Multi-objective optimization using evolutionary algorithms, New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2001.
26.
Olivier DW. Multidisciplinary system design optimization, heuristic techniques: A basic introduction to genetic algorithms. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA, 2004.
RandyLH. Practical genetic algorithms, 2nd ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons, 2004.
29.
GoldbergDE. Genetic algorithms in search, optimization, and machine learning, 1st ed. Reading: Addison Wesley Longman, 1989.
30.
KirkpatrickSGelattCDVecchiMP. Optimization by simulated annealing. Science1983; 220(4598): 671–680.
31.
Besnard E, Cordier-Lalloue N, Kural O, et al. Design optimization with advanced simulated annealing (AIAA 99-0186). In: 37th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, 11–14 January 1999.
32.
PétrowskiADréoJSiarryP. Meta heuristics for hard optimization, Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2006.
33.
Tekinalp O and Utalay S. Simulated annealing for missile trajectory planning and multidisciplinary missile design optimization. In: 38th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, U.S.A. 10–13 January 2000.
34.
TekinalpOBingolM. Simulated annealing for missile optimization: Developing method and formulation techniques. J Guid Control Dyn2004; 27(4): 616–626.
35.
Zeeshan Q, Yunfeng D, Rafique AF, et al. Meta-heuristic approach for the conceptual design and optimization of multistage interceptor. 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia 13–17 July 2009, pp.4474–4480.
36.
Technical documents. JSC NPO Energomash International Cooperation of Russia, Technical Information, http: //www.npoenergomash.ru/ eng/engines/RD253/ (2002).
37.
HumbleRWHenryGLarsonW. Space propulsion analysis and design, New York: McGraw-Hill Inc, 1995.
38.
Robert MF. Penalty and barrier methods for constrained optimization. Massachusetts Institute of Technology, February 2004.
39.
BenjaminWWYixinCTaoW. Simulated annealing with asymptotic convergence for nonlinear constrained optimization. J Glob Optim. DOI: 10.1007/s10898-006-9107-z.
40.
Kodryatcev VM. Fundamental of theory and calculation of liquid propellant engine. Moscow, 1993.
