A survey of multidisciplinary design optimization methods in launch vehicle design

  • Mathieu Balesdent
  • Nicolas Bérend
  • Philippe Dépincé
  • Abdelhamid Chriette
Review Article

Abstract

Optimal design of launch vehicles is a complex problem which requires the use of specific techniques called Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO) methods. MDO methodologies are applied in various domains and are an interesting strategy to solve such an optimization problem. This paper surveys the different MDO methods and their applications to launch vehicle design. The paper is focused on the analysis of the launch vehicle design problem and brings out the advantages and the drawbacks of the main MDO methods in this specific problem. Some characteristics such as the robustness, the calculation costs, the flexibility, the convergence speed or the implementation difficulty are considered in order to determine the methods which are the most appropriate in the launch vehicle design framework. From this analysis, several ways of improvement of the MDO methods are proposed to take into account the specificities of the launch vehicle design problem in order to improve the efficiency of the optimization process.

Keywords

Multidisciplinary design optimization Launch vehicle design MDO Multi-objective optimization Distributed optimization Space transport system design Multi-criteria optimization Optimal control 

Nomenclature

AAO

All At Once

ATC

Analytical Target Cascading

BLISS

Bi-Level System Synthesis

CO

Collaborative Optimization

CSSO

Concurrent SubSpace Optimization

DIVE

Discipline Interaction Variable Elimination

DyLeaf

Dynamic Leader Follower

ELV

Expendable Launch Vehicle

FPI

Fixed Point Iteration

GA

Genetic Algorithm

GAGGS

Genetic Algorithm Guided Gradient Search

GLOW

Gross Lift-Off Weight

GSE

Global Sensitivity Equation

IDF

Individual Discipline Feasible

LDC

Local Distributed Criteria

MCO

Modified Collaborative Optimization

MDA

Muldisciplinary Design Analysis

MDF

Multi Discipline Feasible

MDO

Multidisciplinary Design Optimization

MOPCSSO

Multi-Objective Pareto CSSO

MSTO

Multi-Stage To Orbit

NAND

Nested Analysis and Design

OBD

Optimization Based Decomposition

RLV

Reusable Launch Vehicle

RSM

Response Surface Method

SAND

Simultaneous Analysis and Design

SQP

Sequential Quadratic Programming

SNN

Single NAND NAND

SSA

System Sensitivity Analysis

SSN

Single SAND NAND

SSS

Single SAND SAND

SSTO

Single Stage To Orbit

References

  1. Agte J (2005) A tool for application of bi-level integrated system synthesis to multidisciplinary design optimization problems. In: DGLR-2005-241, German air and space congress, Friedrichshafen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  2. Agte J, de Weck O, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Arendsen P, Morris A, Spieck M (2009) MDO: assessment and direction for advancement—an opinion of one international group. Struct Multidisc Optim. doi:10.1007/s00158-009-0381-5 Google Scholar
  3. Akhtar S, Linshu H (2005) Simulation-based optimization strategy for liquid fueled multi-stage space launch vehicle. In: 6th international conference on parallel and distributed computing, applications and technologies (PDCAT’05). Dalian, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  4. Akhtar S, Linshu H (2006) Support vector regression-driven multidisciplinary design optimization for multi-stage launch vehicle considering throttling effect. In: 44th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. Reno, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  5. Alaya I, Solnon C, Ghedira K (2007) Ant colony optimization for multi-objective optimization problems. In: 19th IEEE international conference on tools with artificial intelligence. Patras, GreeceGoogle Scholar
  6. Alexandrov N, Hussaini M (1995) Multidisciplinary design optimization: state of the art. In: Proceedings of the ICASE/NASA Langley workshop on multidisciplinary design optimization, SIAM proceedings seriesGoogle Scholar
  7. Alexandrov N, Lewis R (2000) Algorithmic perspectives on problem formulations in MDO. In: 8th AIAA/UASAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis & optimization. Long Beach, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  8. Allison J (2004) Complex system optimization: a comparison of analytical target cascading, collaborative optimization and other formulations. Ph.D. thesis, University of Michigan, USAGoogle Scholar
  9. Allison J, Kokkolaras M, Zawislak M, Papalambros P (2005) On the use of analytical target cascading and collaborative optimization for complex system design. In: 6th world congress on structural and multidisciplinary optimization, 30 May–3 June, Rio de Janeiro, BrazilGoogle Scholar
  10. Altus T (2002) A response surface methodology for Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS). NASA Technical Report n° NASA/CR-2002-211652. NASA Langley Research Center, USAGoogle Scholar
  11. Auroux D, Clément J, Hermetz J, Masmoudi M, Parte Y (2009) Etat de l’art et nouvelles tendances en conception collaborative. Optimisation multidisciplinaire en mécanique. Hermes Science, ISTE Wiley, LondonGoogle Scholar
  12. Bäck T (1996) Evolutionary algorithms in theory and practice. Oxford University Press, OxfordMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Balesdent M, Bérend N, Dépincé P (2010a) Optimal design of expendable lauch vehicles using stage-wise MDO formulation. In: 13th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference. Fort Worth, Texas, USA. AIAA-2010-9324Google Scholar
  14. Balesdent M, Bérend N, Dépincé P, Chriette A (2010b) Multidisciplinary design optimization of a multi-stage launch vehicle using flight phases decomposition. In: 3rd international conference on multidisciplinary design optimization and applications. Paris, FranceGoogle Scholar
  15. Balling R, Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1994) Optimization of coupled systems: a critical overview of approaches. NASA/ICASE Report n° 94-100Google Scholar
  16. Balling R, Wilkinson C (1997) Execution of multidisciplinary design optimization approaches on common test problems. AIAA J 35(1):178–186MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Bayley D, Hartfield R (2007) Design optimization of space launch vehicles for minimum cost using a genetic algorithm. In: 43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference and exhibit. Cincinnati, OH, USA. AIAA-2007-5852Google Scholar
  18. Bayley D, Hartfield R, Burkhalter J, Jenkins R (2008) Design optimization of a space launch vehicle using a genetic algorithm. J Spacecr Rockets 45(4):733–740CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Betts J (1998) Survey of numerical methods for trajectory optimization. J Guid Control Dyn 21(2):193–207MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Boman E (1999). Infeasibility and negative curvature in optimization. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, USAGoogle Scholar
  21. Braun R (1996) Collaborative optimization: an architecture for large-scale distributed design. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, USAGoogle Scholar
  22. Braun R, Kroo I (1995) Development and application of the collaborative optimization architecture in a multidisciplinary design environment. In: Multidisciplinary design optimization: state of the art. SIAM, Philadelphia, pp 98–116Google Scholar
  23. Braun R, Kroo I, Gage P (1993) Post-optimality analysis in aerospace vehicle design. In: AIAA aircraft design, systems and operations meeting. Monterey, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  24. Braun R, Kroo I, Lepsch R, Powell R, Stanley D (1995) Comparison of two multidisciplinary optimization strategies for launch vehicle design. J Spacecr Rockets 32(3):404–410CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Braun R, Moore A, Kroo I (1996) Use of the collaborative optimization architecture for launch vehicle design. In: 6th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization. Bellevue, WA, USAGoogle Scholar
  26. Briggs G, Ray T, Milthorpe J (2007a). Evolutionary algorithm use in optimisation of a launch vehicle stack model. In: 45th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. Reno, Nevada, USA. AIAA-2007-364Google Scholar
  27. Briggs G, Ray T, Milthorpe J (2007b) Optimal design of an Australian medium launch vehicle. Innov Syst Softw Eng 2(3):105–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Brown N, Olds J (2005) Evaluation of Multidisciplinary Optimization (MDO) techniques applied to a reusable launch vehicle. In: 43rd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. Reno, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  29. Brown N, Olds R (2006) Evaluation of multidisciplinary optimization techniques applied to a reusable launch vehicle. J Spacecr Rockets 43:1289–1300CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Bryson A (1999) Dynamic optimization. Addison-Wesley, Menlo-ParkGoogle Scholar
  31. Bryson A, Ho Y-C (1975) Applied optimal control: optimization, estimation and control, revised printing. Taylor & Francis, LevittownGoogle Scholar
  32. Castellini F, Lavagna M, Erf S (2008) Concurrent optimization of launcher architectures and ascent trajectories with global optimization algorithms. In: 59th international astronautical congress (IAC). Glasgow, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  33. Clément J (2009) Optimisation multi-disciplinaire: étude théorique et application à la conception des avions en phase d’avant projet. Ph.D. thesis, Institut Supérieur de l’Aéronautique et de l’Espace. Toulouse, FranceGoogle Scholar
  34. Coello C (1998) An updated survey of GA-based multi-objective optimization techniques. Technical Report RD-98-08. Laboratorio Nacional de Informatica Avanzada (LNIA). Xalapa, Veracruz, MexicoGoogle Scholar
  35. Coello C (1999) A comprehensive survey of evolutionary-based multi-objective optimization. Knowl Inf Syst 1(3):129–137Google Scholar
  36. Cormier T, Scott A, Ledsinger L, McCormick D, Way D, Olds R (2000) 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, USAGoogle Scholar
  37. Cramer E, Dennis J, Frank P, Lewis R, Shubin G (1994) Problem formulation for multidisciplinary optimization. SIAM J Optim 4:754–776MathSciNetMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Delattre N, Mongrard O (2007) The use of multidisciplinary optimization for the design of expendable launchers. In: 2nd European conference for aerospace sciences (EUCASS). Brussels, BelgiumGoogle Scholar
  39. DeMiguel A (2001) Two decomposition algorithms for nonconvex optimization problems with global variables. Ph.D. thesis, Stanford University, USAGoogle Scholar
  40. DeMiguel A, Murray W (2000) An analysis of collaborative optimization methods. In: 8th AIAA/USAF/NASA/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization. Long Beach, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  41. Doerner K, Gutjahr W, Hartl W, Strauss R, Stummer C (2001) Ant colony optimization in multiobjective porfolio selection. In: 4th metaheuristics international conference. Porto, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  42. Dorigo M, Süzle T (2004) Ant colony optimization. MIT Press, CambridgeMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Du X, Chen W (2002) Efficient uncertainty analysis methods for multidisciplinary robust design. AIAA J 40(3):545–552CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Duranté N, Dufour A, Pain V (2004) Multidisciplinary analysis and optimisation approach for the design of expendable launchers. In: 10th AIAA/ISSMO multidisciplinary analysis and optimization conference. Albany, New-York, USAGoogle Scholar
  45. Filatyev A, Golikov A (2008) The complex approach to optimization of STS parameters on the maximum principle basis. In: 59th international astronautical congress (IAC). Glasgow, ScotlandGoogle Scholar
  46. Filatyev A, Golikov A, Shanygin A, Voityshen V (2009) The local distributed criteria method for multidisciplinary optimization of launchers parameters. Acta Astron 65:584–590CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Fletcher R (1987) Practical methods of optimization, 2nd edn. Wiley, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  48. Fonseca C, Fleming P (1993) Genetic algorithms for multi-objective optimization: formulation, discussion and generalization. In: Forrest S (ed) 5th international conference on genetic algorithms. San Mateo, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  49. Gang C, Min X, Zi-ming W, Si-Lu C (2005) Multidisciplinary design optimization of RLV reentry trajectory. In: 13th AIAA/CIRA international space planes and hypersonices systems and technologies. Capua, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  50. Geethaikrishnan C, Mujumbar P, Sudhakar K, Adimurthy VV (2008) Genetic algorithm guided gradient search for launch vehicle trajectory optimization. In: International conference on aerospace science and technology. Bangalore, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  51. Gill P, Murray W, Wright M (1981) Practical optimization. Academic, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Gill P, Murray W, Sainders M, Wright M (1986) Users guide for NPSOL (version 4.0): a Fortran package for nonlinear programming. Technical Report SOL 86-2. Stanford University, USAGoogle Scholar
  53. Han J, Papalambros P (2010) A note on the convergence of analytical target cascading with infinite norms. J Mech Des 132:034502CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Hargraves C, Paris S (1987) Direct trajectory optimization using nonlinear programming and collocation. J Guid Control Dyn 10(4):338–342MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Holland J (1975) Adaptation in natural and artificial systems. University of Michigan Press, Ann ArborGoogle Scholar
  56. Huang C, Bloebaum C (2004) Multi-objective Pareto concurrent subspace optimization for multidisciplinary design. In: 42nd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. Reno, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  57. Jodei J, Ebrahimi M, Roshanian J (2006) An automated approach to multidisciplinary system design optimization of small solid propellant launch vehicles. In: 1st ISSCAA international symposium on systems and control in aerospace and astronautics. Harbin, ChinaGoogle Scholar
  58. Jodei J, Ebrahimi M, Roshanian J (2009) Multidisciplinary design optimization of a small solid propellant launch vehicle using system sensitivity analysis. Struct Multidisc Optim 38:93–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kalden O (2007) Multidisciplinary design and trajectory optimization of the reusable launch vehicle concept Hopper. In: 3rd international conference on recent advances in space technologies. Istanbul, TurkeyGoogle Scholar
  60. Keane A, Nair P (2005) Computational approaches for aerospace design: the pursuit of excellence. Wiley, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kim H (2001) Target cascading in optimal system design. Ph.D. thesis, University of MichiganGoogle Scholar
  62. Kim H, Chen W, Wiecek M (2006) Lagrangian coordination for enhancing the convergence of analytical target cascading. AIAA J 44(10):2197–2207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Kirkpatrick S, Gelatt C, Vecchi J (1983) Optimization by simulated annealing. Science, New Series 220(4598):671–680MathSciNetMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. Kodiyalam S (1998) Evaluation of methods for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization (MDO), phase 1. NASA/CR-1998-20716Google Scholar
  65. Kodiyalam S (2000) Evaluation of methods for Multidisciplinary Design optimization (MDO), phase 2. NASA/CR-2000-210313Google Scholar
  66. Kroo I (2004) Distributed multidisciplinary design and collaborative optimization. In: VKI lecture series on optimization methods and tools for multicriteria/multidisciplinary designGoogle Scholar
  67. Kudryavtsev L (2001) Implicit function. In: Hazewinkel M ed. Encyclopaedia of mathematics. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  68. Kuratani N, Suzuki H, Goeklich RA (2005) Multidisciplinary optimization of space transportation systems. In: 56th international astronautical congress of the international astronautical federation. Fukuoka, JapanGoogle Scholar
  69. Laurent-Varin J, Bolanowski O, Cristiani E, Zidani H (2009) Trajectory optimization of launcher with Hamilton–Jacobi–Bellman approach. In: 3rd European conference for aerospace sciences. Versailles, FranceGoogle Scholar
  70. Ledsinger L, Olds J (2002) Optimized solutions for Kistler K-1 Branching Trajectories using Multidisciplinary Design Optimization techniques. J Spacecr Rockets 39(3):420–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Lee J-W, Choi Y-C, Byun Y-H (2005a). Optimal supersonic air-launching rocket design using multi-disciplinary system optimization approach. J Korean Soc Aeronaut Space Sci 33:12Google Scholar
  72. Lee J-W, Jeon K-S, Byun Y-H, Kim S-J (2005b) Optimal space launcher design using a refined response surface method. In: Lecture notes in computer science, vol 3613/2005. Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  73. Liu X, Xiang A, Gang T (1997) A new efficient method of multi-stage solid rocket optimization. In: 33rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference and exhibit. Seattle, WA, USAGoogle Scholar
  74. Luo Y, Liang Y, Zhou L (2004) Multi-level, multi-objective and multidisciplinary optimization design of a series of launch vehicles. In: 55th international astronautical congress. Vancouver, CanadaGoogle Scholar
  75. Martins J, Marriage C (2007) An object-oriented framework for Multidisciplinary Design Optimization. In: 3rd AIAA multidisciplinary design optimization specialist conference. Waikiki, Hawaii, USAGoogle Scholar
  76. Masmoudi M, Parte Y (2006) Discipline Interaction Variable Elimination (DIVE) approach for MDO. In: European conference on computational fluid dynamics (ECCOMAS CFD). Egmond aan Zee, The NetherlandsGoogle Scholar
  77. Masmoudi M, Parte Y, Hermetz J, Clement J (2008) DIVE: a new approach for multidisciplinary optimization. In: 5th European congress on computational methods in applied sciences (ECCOMAS). Venice, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  78. Metropolis N, Rosenbluth A, Rosenbluth M, Teller A, Teller E (1953) Equations of state calculations by fast computing machines. J Chem Phys 21:1087–1092CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Michelena N, Kim H, Papalambros P (1999) A system partitioning and optimization approach to target cascading. In: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on engineering design. Munich, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  80. Michelena N, Park H, Papalambros P (2003) Convergence properties of analytical target cascading. AIAA J 41(5):897–905CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Moore A, Braun R, Powell R (1995) Optimal technology investment strategies for a reusable launch vehicle. In: AIAA space programs and technologies conference. Huntsville, AL, USAGoogle Scholar
  82. Nocedal J, Wright S (2006) Numerical optimization, 2nd edn. Springer, BerlinMATHGoogle Scholar
  83. Olds J (1992) The suitability of selected multidisciplinary design and optimization techniques to conceptual aerospace vehicle design. In: 4th AIAA/USAF/NASA/OAI symposium on multidisiciplinary analysis and optimization. Cleveland, OH, USAGoogle Scholar
  84. Olds J (1994) System sensitivity analysis applied to the conceptual design of a dual-fuel rocket SSTO. In: 5th AIAA/NASA/USAF/ISSMO symposium on multidisciplinary analysis and optimization. Panama City Beach, FL, USAGoogle Scholar
  85. Olds J, Walberg G (1993) Multidisciplinary design of a rocket-based combined cycle SSTO launch vehicle using Taguchi methods. In: AIAA/AHS/ASEE aerospace design conference. Irvine, CA, USAGoogle Scholar
  86. Pareto V (1971) Manual of political economy. A.M. Kelley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  87. Perez V, Renaud J, Watson L (2002) Adaptive experimental design for construction of response surface approximations. AIAA J 40(12):2495–2503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Perrot L (2003) Optimisation of reusable launchers by decomposition and coordination of trajectory optimisation problems. In: 5th international conference on launcher technology, space launchers: missions, control and avionics. Madrid , SpainGoogle Scholar
  89. Pontryagin L, Boltyansky V, Gamkrelidze R, Mischenko E (1962) The mathematical theory of optimal processes. Interscience, New YorkMATHGoogle Scholar
  90. Qu M, Gage P, Sohn J, Bradford J, Starr B (2004) Generalized vehicle performance closure model for two-stage-to-orbit launch vehicles. In: 42nd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. Reno, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  91. Rafique A, LinShu H, Zeeshan Q, Nisar K, Xiaowei W (2009a) Hybrid optimization method for multidisciplinary design of air launched satellite launch vehicle. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & exhibit. Denver, Colorado, USAGoogle Scholar
  92. Rafique A, LinShu H, Zeeshan Q, Nisar K, Xiaowei W (2009b) 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, USAGoogle Scholar
  93. Rahn M, Schöttle U (1994) Decomposition algorithm for flight performance and system optimization of an airbreathing launch vehicle. In: 45th congress of International Astronautical Federation. Jerusalem, Israel. IAF-94.A.2.018Google Scholar
  94. Renaud J, Gabriele G (1993) Improved coordination in nonhierarchic system optimization. AIAA J 31(12):2367–2373MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Renaud J, Gabriele G (1994) Approximation in nonhierarchic system optimization. AIAA J 32(1):198–205MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Rodriguez J, Renaud J, Watson L (1998) Trust region augmented Lagrangian methods for sequential response surface approximation and optimization. J Mech Des 120:58–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. Rodriguez J, Perez V, Padmanabhan D, Renaud J (2001) Sequential approximate optimization using variable fidelity response surface approximations. Struct Multidisc Optim 22(1):24–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Sellar R, Batill S (1996) Concurrent subspace optimization using gradient-enhanced neural network approximations. In: 6th AIAA/NASA/USAF multidisciplinary analysis and optimization symposium. Bellevue, WA, USAGoogle Scholar
  99. Sellar R, Batill S, Renaud J (1996) Response surface based, concurrent subspace optimization for multidisciplinary system design. In: 34th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. Reno, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  100. Serafini P (1992) Simulated annealing for multiple objective optimization problems. In: 10th international conference on multiple criteria decision making. Taipei, TaiwanGoogle Scholar
  101. Sobieski I (1993) Multidisciplinary design optimization: attempt at definition. In: Industry university workshop on multidisciplinary aircraft design, pp 23–48Google Scholar
  102. Sobieski I, Kroo I (2000) Collaborative optimization using response surface estimation. AIAA J 38(10):1931–1938CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1988) Optimization by decomposition: a step from hierarchic to non-hierarchic systems. NASA Technical Report CP-3031Google Scholar
  104. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J (1990) Sensitivity of complex internally coupled systems. AIAA J 28(1):153–160CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Haftka R (1997) Multidisciplinary aerospace design optimization: survey of recent developments. Struct Optim (14):1–23Google Scholar
  106. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Agte J, Sandusky R (1998) Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS). NASA/TM-1998-208715Google Scholar
  107. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Emiley M, Agte J, Sandusky R (2000) Advancement of Bi-Level Integrated System Synthesis (BLISS). NASA/TM-2000-210305Google Scholar
  108. Sobieszczanski-Sobieski J, Altus T, Phillips M, Sandusky R (2003) Bi-level Integrated System Synthesis for concurrent and distributed processing. AIAA J 41(10):1996–2003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Tava M, Suzuki S (2002) Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of the shape and trajectory of a reentry vehicle. Trans Jpn Soc Aeronaut Space Sci 45(147):10–19CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Tava M, Suzuki S (2003) Integrated multidisciplinary and multicriteria optimization of a space transportation system and its trajectory. In: 54th international astronautical congress of the International Astronautical Federation. Bremen, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  111. Tedford N, Martins J (2010) Benchmarking multidisciplinary design optimization algorithms. Optim Eng 11:159–183MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Tosserams S, Etman L, Rooda J (2009) A classification of methods for distributed system optimization based on formulation structure. Struct Multidisc OptimGoogle Scholar
  113. Tosserams S, Kokkolaras M, Etman L, Rooda J (2010) A nonhierarchical formulation of analytical target cascading. J Mech Des 23:051002CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Tsuchiya T, Mori T (2002) Multidisciplinary Design Optimization to future space transportation vehicles. In: AIAA-2002-5171Google Scholar
  115. Tsuchiya T, Mori T (2004) Optimal conceptual design of two-stage reusable rocket vehicles including trajectory optimization. J Spacecr Rockets 41(5):770–778CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. Ulungu E, Teghem J, Fortemps P, Tuyttens D (1999) MOSA method: a tool for solving multi-objective combinatorial optimization problems. J Multi-Crit Decis Anal 8:221–2396MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  117. Vanderplaats G (1999) Numerical optimization techniques for engineering and design, 3rd edn. Vanderplaats Research & Development, Inc., Colorado SpringsGoogle Scholar
  118. Villeneuve F, Mavris D (2005) A new method of architecture selection for launch vehicles. In: 13th AIAA/CIRA international space planes and hypersonics systems and technologies. Capua, ItalyGoogle Scholar
  119. Wujek B, Renaud J, Batill S (1997) A concurrent engineering approach for multidisciplinary design in a distributed computing environment. In: Alexandrov N, Hussaini MY (eds) Multidisciplinary Design Optimization: state-of-the-art. SIAM series: Proceedings in applied mathematics, vol 80, pp 189–208Google Scholar
  120. Wujek B, Renaud J, Batill S, Brockman J (1996) Concurrent subspace optimization using design variable sharing in a distributed computing environment. Concurr Eng 4(4):361–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. Yokoyama N, Suzuki S, Tsuchiya T, Taguchi H, Kanda T (2005) Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of SSTO space plane considering rigid body characteristics. In: 42nd AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit. Reno, Nevada, USAGoogle Scholar
  122. Yokoyama N, Suzuki S, Tsuchiya T, Taguchi H, Kanda T (2007) Multidisciplinary Design Optimization of SSTO space plane considering rigid body characteristics. J Spacecr Rockets 44(1):121–131CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. Zitzler E (1999) Evolutionary algorithms for multi-objective optimization: methods and applications. Ph.D. thesis, Department of Computer Science, Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH), ZurichGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mathieu Balesdent
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Nicolas Bérend
    • 1
  • Philippe Dépincé
    • 3
  • Abdelhamid Chriette
    • 3
  1. 1.Onera – The French Aerospace LabPalaiseauFrance
  2. 2.CNES, Launchers DirectorateEvryFrance
  3. 3.Ecole Centrale de Nantes, IRCCyNNantesFrance

Personalised recommendations