Science China Technological Sciences

, Volume 61, Issue 2, pp 273–284 | Cite as

Trajectory generation of heat load test based on gauss pseudospectral method

  • YuanLong Zhang
  • LuHua Liu
  • GuoJian Tang
  • WeiMin Bao


A new trajectory generation for heat load test is proposed based on gauss pseudospectral method within limit range. Firstly, with multiple path constraints and flight task requirements taken into consideration, heat load parameters are introduced into the dynamics equations. In order to solve the problem of generating such a trajectory within limit range rapidly, the dynamics equations have been normalized by Earth related parameters. Secondly, since the gauss pseudospectral method is just employed to solve the discrete nonlinear programming problem, transformations are developed, which can relate the Lagrange multipliers of the discrete nonlinear programming problem to the costates of the continuous optimal control problem. In addtion, another approach of trajectory generation by tracking the given heat rate is also presented. Finally, simulation results with common aero vehicle (CAV-H) show that the trajectories obtained by both methods can well perform the heat load test with high stagnation heating rate and the large total aeroheating amount; meanwhile, gauss pseudospectral method is better than the compared one in the given range. Furthermore, the 3-D trajectory states and control variables, angle of attack and bank, which are generated by gauss pseudospectral method, can change smoothly.


hypersonic glide vehicle trajectory generation heat load test gauss pseudospectral method 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Yang M F, Zhang W, Peng J, et al. Technical advancements and significance of circumlunar return and reentry spacecraft. Sci China Tech Sci, 2015, 58: 738–745CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sziroczak D, Smith H. A review of design issues specific to hypersonic flight vehicles. Prog Aerospace Sci, 2016, 84: 1–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Philippe R. Survey of aerodynamics and aerothermodynamics efforts carried out in the frame of Mars exploration projects. Prog Aerosp Sci, 2014, 70: 1–27Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zhao J S, Gu L X, Ma H Z. A rapid approach to convective aeroheating prediction of hypersonic vehicles. Sci China Tech Sci, 2013, 56: 2010–2024CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dejarnette F R, Cheatwood F M, Hamilton H H, et al. A review of some approximate methods used in aerodynamic heating analyses. J Thermophys Heat Tr, 1987, 1: 5–12CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Huo L. The rapid engineering aero-heating calculation and thermal respond for complex shaped hypersonic vehicles. Dissertation of Masteral Degree. Changsha, China: National University of Defense Technology, 2012Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Rankins F, Pines D J. Relative heat load comparison of vehicles flying hypersonic transatmospheric trajectories. J Spacecr Rockets, 2000, 37: 491–498CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    DeJarnette F R, Hamilton H H, Weilmuenster K J. New method for computing convective heating in stagnation region of hypersonic vehicle. In: Aerospace Sciences Meetings of 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit. Reno, Nevada, 2008CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hamilton H H, Weilmuenster K J, DeJarnette F R. Approximate method for computing laminar and turbulent convective heating on hypersonic vehicles using unstructured grids. In: Fluid Dynamics and Co-located Conferences of 41st AIAA Thermophysics Conference. San Antonio, Texas, 2009CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harpold JC, Graves CA. Shuttle entry guidance. J Astronaut Sci, 1979, 27: 239–268Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mease K D, Chen D T, Teufel P, et al. Reduced-order entry trajectory planning for acceleration guidance. J Guidance Control Dyn, 2002, 25: 257–266CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhang Y, Chen K, Liu L, et al. Entry trajectory planning based on three-dimensional acceleration profile guidance. Aerosp Sci Technol, 2016, 48: 131–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zoby E V, Thompson R A, Wurster K E. Aeroheating design issues for reusable launch vehicles: A perspective. In: Fluid Dynamics and Co-located Conferences of 34th AIAA Fluid Dynamics Conference and Exhibit. Portland, Oregon, 2004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Zimmerman C, Dukeman G, Hanson J. Automated method to compute orbital reentry trajectories with heating constraints. J Guidance Control Dyn, 2003, 26: 523–529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Joshi A, Sivan K, Amma S S. Predictor-corrector reentry guidance algorithm with path constraints for atmospheric entry vehicles. J Guidance Control Dyn, 2007, 30: 1307–1318CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lu P. Predictor-corrector entry guidance for low-lifting vehicles. J Guidance Control Dyn, 2008, 31: 1067–1075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Xu M L, Chen K J, Liu L H, et al. Quasi-equilibrium glide adaptive guidance for hypersonic vehicles. Sci China Tech Sci, 2012, 55: 856–866CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Zhu J, Liu L, Tang G, et al. Highly constrained optimal gliding guidance. Proc I Mech Eng G-J Aer Eng, 2015, 229: 2321–2335Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Guo X, Zhu M. Direct trajectory optimization based on a mapped Chebyshev pseudospectral method. Chin J Aeronautics, 2013, 26: 401–412CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Benson D. A gauss pseudospectral transcription for optimal control. Dissertation of Doctor Degree. Cambridge: Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 2005Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Zhang K N, Chen W C. Reentry vehicle constrained trajectory optimization. In: 17th AIAA International Space Planes and Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference. San Francisco, California, 2011CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Yan X, Lyu S, Tang S. Analysis of optimal initial glide conditions for hypersonic glide vehicles. Chin J Aeronautics, 2014, 27: 217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Xie Y, Liu L H, Tang G J, et al. Trajectory optimization for hypersonic glide vehicle with multi-constraints. J Aeronautics, 2011, 32: 551–572Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Garg D, Hager W W, Rao A V. Pseudospectral methods for solving infinite-horizon optimal control problems. Automatica, 2011, 47: 829–837MathSciNetCrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Benson D A, Huntington G T, Thorvaldsen T P, et al. Direct trajectory optimization and costate estimation via an orthogonal collocation method. J Guidance Control Dyn, 2006, 29: 1435–1440CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • YuanLong Zhang
    • 1
  • LuHua Liu
    • 1
  • GuoJian Tang
    • 1
  • WeiMin Bao
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Aerospace Science and EngineeringNational University of Defense TechnologyChangshaChina
  2. 2.China Aerospace Science and Technology CorporationBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations