The emphasis of this paper lies in the development of an efficient approach to reproduce the behaviors of the scramjet-powered hypersonic system with high fidelity. The modeling of the dual-mode scramjet powered hypersonic vehicle dynamics with shock interaction, Ram-to-Scram transition, and finite rate chemistry reaction is firstly introduced. The structure of surrogate model is identified with the implement of iterative fractional factorial design (IFFD). In order to declare the reliability of the surrogate models, ν-gap metric is applied to distinguish the difference among these surrogate models in terms of closed-loop performance. The results show that the influence of Mach number on the aerodynamics should not be overlooked, and the effect of propulsion system to the aerodynamic pitch moment is dramatic. Further, the partial Kriging model appears to have the closest plants throughout the flight envelope compared with the full Kriging model and polynomials model. Nevertheless, considering the briefness of analytical expression, the polynomials model may be an alternative approach for design-oriented modeling.
Rodriguez AA, Dickeson JJ, Sridhara S, et al. Control-relevant modeling, analysis, and design for scramjet-powered hypersonic vehicles. In: 16th AIAA/DLR/DGLR international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference, Bremen, Germany, AIAA 2009-7287, 19–22 October 2009.
2.
SridharanS. Multidisciplinary optimization for the design and control of uncertain dynamical systems, Phoenix: Arizona State University, 2014.
3.
Rodriguez AA, Dickeson JJ, Cifdaloz O, et al. Modeling and control of scramjet-powered hypersonic vehicles: challenges, trends, and tradeoffs. In: AIAA guidance, navigation and control conference and exhibit, Honolulu, Hawaii, AIAA 2008-6793, 18–21 August 2008.
4.
Moore M, Williams J and Douglas M. Aerodynamic prediction rationale for analyses of hypersonic configurations. In: 27th Aerospace sciences meeting, Reno, Nevada, AIAA89-0525, 1989.
5.
MaughmerMOzoroskiLStraussfogelD. Validation of engineering methods for predicting hypersonic vehicle control forces and moments. J Guid Ctrl Dynam1993; 16: 762–769.
6.
O’BrienTFStarkeyRPLewisMJ. Quasi-one-dimensional high-speed engine model with finite-rate chemistry. J Propuls Power2001; 17: 1366–1374.
7.
BirzerCHDoolanCJ. Quasi-one-dimensional model of hydrogen-fueled scramjet combustors. J Propuls Power2009; 25: 1220–1225.
8.
Torrez SM, Driscoll JF, Dalle DJ, et al. Scramjet Engine Model MASIV: role of mixing, chemistry and wave interaction. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference and exhibit, Denver, CO, AIAA 2009-4939, 2–5 August 2009.
9.
XuBShiZ. An overview on flight dynamics and control approaches for hypersonic vehicles. Sci China Inform Sci2015; 58: 1–18.
10.
Oppenheimer MW, Skujins T, Bolender MA, et al. A flexible hypersonic vehicle model developed with piston theory. In: AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference and exhibit, Hilton Head, SC, AIAA 2007-6396, 20–23 August 2007.
11.
Oppenheimer MW and Doman DB. A hypersonic vehicle model developed with piston theory. In: AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference and exhibit, Keystone, CO, AIAA 2006-6637, 21–24 August 2006.
12.
Whitmer C E, Kelkar A G, Vogel J M, et al. Control centric parametric trade studies for scramjet-powered hypersonic vehicles. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control conference, AIAA 2010-8283, 2–5 August 2010.
13.
Robinson J S. An Overview of NASA’S Integrated Design and Engineering Analysis (IDEA) environment. In: 17th AIAA international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference, San Francisco, CA, AIAA 2011-2392, 11–14 April 2011.
14.
LockwoodMKPetleyDHMartinJG. Airbreathing hypersonic vehicle design and analysis methods and interactions. Progr Aerosp Sci1999; 35: 1–32.
15.
QueipoNVHaftkaRTShyyW. Surrogate-based analysis and optimization. Progr Aerosp Sci2005; 41: 1–28.
16.
BartonRRMeckesheimerMChapter 18: Metamodel-based simulation optimization. In: ShaneGHBarryLN (eds). Handbooks in operations research and management science2006; vol. 13, . North-Holland: Elsevier, pp. 535–574.
17.
XuBYangCPanY. Global neural dynamic surface tracking control of strict-feedback systems with application to hypersonic flight vehicle. IEEE Transact Neural Network Learn Syst2015; 26: 2563–2575.
18.
Sridharan S and Rodriguez AA. Impact of control specifications on vehicle design for scramjet-powered hypersonic vehicles. In: AIAA guidance, navigation, and control (GNC) conference, Boston, MA. AIAA 2013-5166, 19–22 August 2013.
19.
Dalle DJ, Torrez SM and Driscoll JF. Sensitivity of flight dynamics of hypersonic vehicles to design parameters. In: 18th AIAA international space planes and hypersonic systems and technologies conference, Tours, France: AIAA 2012-5909, 24–28 September 2012.
20.
Fiorentini L and Serrani A. Nonlinear adaptive control design for non-minimum phase hypersonic vehicle models with minimal control authority. In: Joint 48th IEEE conference on decision and control and 28th Chinese control conference, 15–18 December 2009, Shanghai, China, pp.1405–1410.
21.
Fiorentini L, Serrani A, Bolender MA, et al. Nonlinear robust/adaptive controller design for an air-breathing hypersonic vehicle model. In: AIAA guidance, navigation and control conference and exhibit, Hilton Head, SC, AIAA 2007-6329, 20–23 August 2007.
22.
LiHLinPXuD. Control-oriented modeling for air-breathing hypersonic vehicle using parameterized configuration approach. Chinese J Aeronaut2011; 24: 81–89.
23.
Trocine L and Malone LC. Statistical tools for simulation design and analysis I: finding important independent variables through screening designs: a comparison of methods. In: Proceedings of the 32nd conference on Winter simulation. Orlando, FL, USA: Society for Computer Simulation International, 10–13 December 2000.
24.
SaltelliAAndresTHHommaT. Sensitivity analysis of model output. Performance of the iterated fractional factorial design method. Computat Stat Data Analysis1995; 20: 387–407.
25.
Tan GT, Huzmezan M, Kwok KE. (eds). Vinnicombe metric as a closed-loop nonlinearity measure. In: European Control Conference (ECC), Cambridge, UK, 1–4 September 2003.
26.
El-SakkaryAK. The gap metric: Robustness of stabilization of feedback systems. IEEE Transact Autom Ctrl1985; 30: 240–247.
27.
Vinnicombe G. A ν-gap distance for uncertain and nonlinear systems. In: Proceedings of the 38th IEEE conference on decision and control, Phoenix, USA, 7–10 December 1999. IEEE.
28.
BolenderMADomanDB. Nonlinear longitudinal dynamical model of an air-breathing hypersonic vehicle. J Spacecraft Rocket2007; 44: 374–387.
29.
Kulfan BM. A universal parametric geometry representation methodCST. In: 45th AIAA aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, Nevada, 8–11 January 2007: AIAA 2007-62.
30.
Kulfan BM. Recent extensions and applications of the CSTuniversal parametric geometry representation method. In: AIAA aviation technology, integration and operations conference, Belfast, Northern Ireland: AIAA 2007-7709, 18–20 September 2007.
31.
DalleDJ. Interactions between flight dynamics and propulsion systems of air-breathing hypersonic vehicles, Michigan: University of Michigan, 2013.
32.
TorrezSMDalleDJDriscollJF. New method for computing performance of choked reacting flows and ram-to-scram transition. J Propuls Power2013; 29: 433–445.
TorrezSMDriscollJFIhmeM. Reduced-order modeling of turbulent reacting flows with application to ramjets and scramjets. J Propuls Power2011; 27: 371–382.
35.
Torrez SM, Scholten NA, Micka DJ, et al. A scramjet engine model including effects of precombustion shocks and dissociation. In: 44th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference and exhibit, Hartford, CT: AIAA 2008-4619, 21–23 July 2008.
36.
SreekanthA. Aerodyanmic predictive methods and their validation in hypersonic flows, Delhi, India: Defence Research and Development Organisation, Ministry of Defence, 2003.
37.
AndersonJD. Hypersonic and high temperature gas dynamics, New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company, 2000.
38.
Oppenheimer MW, Doman DB, McNamara JJ, et al. Viscous effects for a hypersnoic vehicle model. In: AIAA atmospheric flight mechanics conference and exhibit, Honolulu, Hawaii: AIAA 2008-6382, 18–21 August 2008.
39.
LiefvendahlMStockiR. A study on algorithms for optimization of Latin hypercubes. J Stat Plan Inference2006; 136: 3231–3247.
40.
TangB. Orthogonal array-based Latin hypercubes. J Am Stat Assoc1993; 88: 1392–1397.
41.
LearySBhaskarAKeaneA. Optimal orthogonal-array-based Latin hypercubes. J Appl Stat2003; 30: 585–598.
42.
KleijnenJPC. Kriging metamodeling in simulation: a review. Eur J Operation Res2009; 192: 707–716.
43.
Lophaven SN, Nielsen HB and Sndergaard J. Aspects of the Matlab toolbox DACE. Kongens Lyngby, Denmark: Informatics and Mathematical Modelling, Technical University of Denmark, DTU, 2002.
