Chinese

Journal of
Aeronautics
Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 23(2010) 194-197

www.elsevier.com/locate/cja

Decision-making of Aircraft Optimum Configuration Utilizing Multidimensional Game Theory

Peng Runyan*, Wang Heping, Wang Zhengping, Lin Yu
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xian 710072, China
Received 5 March 2009; accepted 18 May 2009

Abstract
As multi-discipline coupling and components interference often affect the aircraft configuration decision-making and analysis
during conceptual design process, this article presents an approach of multidimensional game theory based on aircraft components to deal with this problem. The idea is that the configuration decision-making process is regarded as the game for different
disciplines and technologies, and the aircraft components are players. The payoff function with highest total gain means that according to the game protocols and multidimensional theory, the optimal aircraft configuration within the strategy set will be chosen. The decision-making model is applied to conceptual design process of the high altitude long endurance (HALE) unmanned
aerial vehicle (UAV) based on the assessment of technological risk. The obtained optimum configuration is quite consistent with
the current HALE UAV development trends. Thus, taking into account the coupling and interference factors, the multidimensional gaming model based on aircraft components will be an effective analysis method in the decision-making process of aircraft
optimum configuration.
Keywords: decision making; optimum configuration; components; interference; multidimensional game theory; disciplines coupling; technological risk

1. Introduction
From the relationship between the degree of freedom
and cost of design in the aircraft design process[1], we
can see that the configuration decision-making has an
important influence on the design progress. At present,
the selection of aircraft configuration is mainly based
on the experiences of senior experts or expert systems.
The aircraft is a huge system, many factors such as
classical mechanics, aerodynamics, structural mechanics, control theory, aesthetics, etc. need to be considered during its design, so the configuration inference
and decision-making process based on experts or expert systems is very complicated and the efficiency is
often degraded.
As a branch of applied mathematics, the game theory
has been applied widely to the areas of economics,
biology, politics, etc., such as Prisoners Dilemma
and Pigs Payoffs. Game theory is a decision-making
method between players who interact with and depend
on each other. Based on the comparability between
*Corresponding author. Tel.: +86-29-88494855.
E-mail address: pry20032003@yahoo.com.cn
1000-9361 2010 Elsevier Ltd. Open access under CC BY-NC-ND license.
doi: 10.1016/S1000-9361(09)60204-1

aircraft design and game theory, some researches on

gaming in aircraft design and analysis process have
been made[2-3]. These researches are mainly focused on
the issues of multi-discipline optimization and tactics
flight. But few are concerned with the conceptual configuration decision-making. So according to the influences of the component design, location and interferences on the performances of key disciplines and technological risk, a multidimensional gaming model is
established for the aircraft optimum configuration decision-making process in this article.
2. Multidimensional Game Theory
2.1. Definition
Game theory is a game in which the individuals or
teams chose possible strategies synchronously or successively to achieve high payoff income according to
the known information in certain circumstance or constrained condition[4]. It has five factors: player, strategy,
decision-making order, payoff function and information. When the decision is made in several fields, the
game is called multidimensional game theory.

No.2

Peng Runyan et al. / Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 23(2010) 194-197

The gaming model including two players is G = (S1,

S2; u1, u2), where Si (i=1,2) is the strategy space of each
player and ui (i=1,2) is the payoff function of each
player.
2.2. Protocol and equilibrium
According to the factors and characters of game, the
gaming process can be depicted in several types. In this
article, the aircraft components are regarded as the
game players, so based on different players, the cooperative, non-cooperative and leader/follower protocol
will be introduced.
(1) Cooperative protocol
In this protocol, both players have the information of
each other and they work together to find a Pareto solution. A pair (x1p, x2p) is Pareto optimal if no other pair
(x1, x2) exists, such that
ui ( x1 , x2 ) ui ( x1p , x2p ) i = 1, 2

u j ( x1 , x2 ) < u j ( x1p , x2p )

For at least one, j = 1, 2

(1)

(2) Non-cooperative protocol

This protocol occurs when the full coalition of players is not possible being emerged due to organization,
information, or process barriers. Players must make
decisions by assuming that the choices of other decision makers are made. In an iterative approach, the
final Nash equilibrium solution will be obtained. A
strategy pair (x1N, x2N) is a Nash solution if
u1 ( x1N , x2N ) = max u1 ( x1 , x2N )
x1

u2 ( x1N , x2N ) = max u2 ( x1N , x2 )

x2

(2)

The Nash equilibrium solution has the property of

being the fixed points of two subsets of the feasible
space:
( x1N , x2N ) S1N ( x2N ) S2N ( x1N )
where

{
{

}
}

S1N ( x2 ) = x1N | u1 ( x1N , x2 ) = max u1 ( x1 , x2 )

x1

S2N ( x1 ) = x2N | u2 ( x1 , x2N ) = max u2 ( x1 , x2 )

x2

are called the rational reaction sets (RRSs) of the two

players. The RRS of a player is a function that embodies his reactions to the decisions made by other players.
(3) Leader/follower protocol
When one player dominates another, they have a
leader/follower relationship. This is a common occurrence in a design process when one discipline dominates the design (when one discipline plays a large
role), or in a design process that involves a sequential
execution of interrelated disciplinary processes. P1 is
said to be the leader if he/she declares his/her strategy

195

first by assuming that P2 behaves rationally. Thus the

model of P1 as a leader is as follows
Max u1(x1, x2)
s.t.
x2S2N(x1)
(3)
where S2N(x1) is the RRS of P2.
For exactly describing game theory, the above
mentioned protocols are represented by functions. The
normal game is usually represented by a matrix which
shows the players, strategies and payoffs.
3. Decision-making Model
From the traditional viewpoint, aircraft has the main
components such as wing, fuselage, empennage, engine,
undercarriage, etc. Each component has its own function, e.g. wing is the main lift surface, fuselage contains payload, empennage plays an important role in
stabilizing and controlling the aircraft, engine provides
the propulsion during flight, and undercarriages support the aircraft in takeoff and landing processes. When
the design requirements are known, then what components should be chosen, how the chosen components
should be designed and what kind of interferences exist
between them form the gaming issues between aircraft
components.
The optimum configuration decision-making of aircraft is also related to the development level of key
technology. For example, the developments of computational fluid dynamics (CFD), new material, intelligence control and electronic technology may result in
advanced aircraft configuration and bring the opportunity and challenge to the design. As a long period engineering, it is necessary for aircraft designers to look
into the developments of these key technologies and
their developmental trends. So identifying the levels of
key technology and design risk is the prerequisite for
optimum configuration decision-making. In conceptual
design phase, to obtain the optimum aircraft configuration, the important disciplines and the coupling between them need to be considered too. Based on the
methods of quality function deployment (QFD) for key
technology identification[5] and performance index allocation principle[6-7], the performance weights will be
assigned to each important discipline field.
From above analysis, the components design, location, interference, disciplines coupling, technological
risk, etc. are considered and the optimum configuration
decision-making process is simulated utilizing the multidimensional game theory in this article. The decision-making flow chart is shown in Fig.1.
The idea of aircraft configuration decision-making is
that the aircraft components are the players and the
strategies or strategies combination for each important
discipline and technological risk are evaluated, and
then get the one dimensional payoff income. All important disciplines will be synthesized to achieve the
optimum configuration that has total highest payoff
income by multidimensional game theory[8] combined
with the assigned performance index weights.

 196

Peng Runyan et al. / Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 23(2010) 194-197

Fig.1

Flow chart of aircraft optimum configuration decision-making based on multidimensional game theory.

4. Analysis of High Altitude Long Endurance

(HALE) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) Decision-making

Table 2

In this article, HALE UAV is used as a verifying

aircraft. Recent research trend has indicated an increasing interest in utilizing HALE aircraft as a
low-cost alternative to perform the missions of intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR), telecommunication relay and so on. In order to effectively
utilize a HALE UAV performing these missions, the
aircraft must be capable of operating at extremely high
altitude to acquire the maximum coverage with extended mission duration. By analyzing the design requirements of this HALE UAV[9-10], the following performance areas will be studied: 1) advanced aerodynamic characteristic, 2) stealth, 3) aeroelastic, 4) advanced structure and material, 5) autonomy control, 6)
heavy payload, and 7) propulsion.
Through the established gaming model, we can analyze the HALE UAV configuration decision-making
here. Due to the development levels of technology have
important effects on the configuration selection, the
technological risk is also considered. In this analysis
process the assessment of technological risk is based
on the present development levels of technology.
Assuming the engine is already specified, the
weights for other six important performances will be
assigned according to the HALE UAV design requirements by utilizing QFD method. The weights of performances and technological risk are normalized and
shown in Table 1.

Wing

Table 1

0.15

0.15

0.15

Aeroelastic

Stability

0.1

0.1

HALE UAV feasible strategies of component

configuration

Player

Strategy
Long-straight, joined, blended

Fuselage

Single-tube, twin-tube, blended

Empennage

Conventional, V-tail, boom-mounted, tailless

Engine

Wing mounted, fuselage mounted

The component performances and their interferences

with each other shown in Table 2 are evaluated respectively[11-14] according to the performances shown in
Table 1. The rating of individual component is expressed with 1, 3, 5, 7 or 9, where 1 denotes the worst
performance and 9 shows the best. The interferences
are classified as advantageous and disadvantageous.
The rating of advantageous interference is between 1.0
and 2.0 and the disadvantageous interference is between 0 and 1.0.
The gaming outcome is shown in Table 3. The
HALE UAV conceptual optimum configuration C1 is a
conventional and second configuration C2 is blendedwing-body (BWB) without tail. Their images are described in Fig.2 and Fig.3. As the weight of technological risk is set to be the highest in this example, the
conventional configuration wins the optimum selection,
which indicates a quite conservative decision-making
strategy.
Table 3 HALE UAV alternative configurations for meeting performance requirements
Optimum
configurations

Wing

Fuselage

C1

Singletube

Conven- Fuselage
tional
mounted

PayTechnoload logical risk

Longstraight

C2

Blended

Blended

Tailless

Fuselage
mounted

0.1

C3

Blended

Blended

V-tail

Fuselage
mounted

C4

Joined

Blended

Tailless

Fuselage
mounted

C5

Longstraight

Singletube

V-tail

Fuselage
mounted

HALE UAV performance index weight

Perfor- Aero- StrucStealth

mance dynamic ture
Weight

No.2

0.25

The chosen component players are wing, fuselage,

empennage and engine. The possible configurations for
HALE UAV components are shown in Table 2. In this
example, the cooperation protocol is applied.

Empennage

Engine

Sequencing of
decision-making
result

No.2

Peng Runyan et al. / Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 23(2010) 194-197

197

(3) In aircraft decision-making process, the assessment of technological risk makes this method more
close to practical design.
By taking the HALE UAV as an example, the feasibility of this decision-making method is verified and
the results agree well with the developmental trends of
the HALE UAV and the sensor craft.
Fig.2

Configuration C1 image.

References:
[1]

[2]
[3]
Fig.3

Configuration C2 image.

[4]

According to the decision-making, compared with

other configurations, the technological risk of C1 is
lower and the controlling and stabilizing performance
is better, but the stealth performance looks worse. The
configuration C2 seems better in the fields of stealth
and payload carrying, but the controlling and stabilizing performance is worse, and the design technology is
not mature relatively. Both C1 and C2 have better
aerodynamic performance, although the aeroelastic
design is a great challenge for both of them.
In current world, the typical HALE UAV such as
Global Hawk has a long-straight wing, single-tube
fuselage, V-tail and fuselage mounted engine. This
configuration takes the fifth place among all the
twenty-four configurations. This can be explained with
two reasons: the first reason is that the experience of
designing and controlling a V-tail might be quite mature in designing the Global Hawk, so the V-tail can
substitute the conventional horizontal tail and vertical
tail; the second reason may be that as Global Hawk
is the first generation of HALE UAV, it is not appropriate to adopt those conceptual configurations that
have relatively high technological risk.

[5]

5. Conclusions

[14]

The contribution of this article is to introduce an efficient aircraft configuration decision-making method.
It has three characteristics mainly:
(1) Based on the comparison between decisionmaking and game theory, the multidimensional game
theory is employed in the process of aircraft decision-making, and an effective approach is afford to
choose optimum configuration.
(2) Compared with present decision-making methods,
aircraft components interference is taken into account
in this article, and the decision-making result is more
credible.

[6]

[7]

[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]

Chen Q F. Distributed co-evolutionary multidisciplinary

design optimization methods for flying vehicles. PhD
thesis, National University of Defense Technology,
2003. [in Chinese]
Lewis K E. The tradeoffs between cooperative and
approximate cooperative formulations in multidiscipline
design. AIAA-1998-4923, 1998.
Clarich A, Poloni C, Pediroda V. A competitive game
approach for multi-objective robust design optimization.
AIAA-2004-6511, 2004.
Wang Z K, Li J. Introduction to game theory. Beijing:
Renmin University of China Press, 2004. [in Chinese]
Lin Y, Wang H P. A method for identifying important
design features in aircraft conceptual design phase.
Computer Simulation 2008; 25(8): 47-50. [in Chinese]
Liu X D, Song B F. Research on the index systems for
conceptual/preliminary design comprehensive evaluation
of combat aircraft. Systems Engineering and Electronic
2004; 26(4): 449-453.
Zhang K S, Li W J, Wei H Y, et al. A new method for
optimum allocation of design requirement in aircraft
conceptual design. Chinese Journal of Aeronautics 2006;
19(3): 203-211.
Tan D Q. Multidimensional game theory. Chengdu:
Southwest Jiaotong University Press, 2005. [in Chinese]
Baullinger N, Page V, Schwartzberg A, et al. High altitude long endurance RPV. AIAA-1989-2014, 1989.
Goraj Z, Frydrychiewicz A, Winiecki J. Design concept
of a high-altitude long-endurance unmanned aerial vehicle. Aircraft Design 1999; 2(1): 19-44.
Raghavan B, Patil M. Flight dynamics of high aspect-ratio flying wings: effect of large trim deformation. AIAA-2007-6383, 2007.
Sadr Lahidjani M H, Ovesy H R, Shams S. Aeroelastic
and flutter analysis of a flexible wing. AIAA-20031492, 2003.
Martinez J R, Flick P, Perdzock J, et al. An overview of
sensorcraft capabilities and key enabling technologies.
AIAA-2008-7185, 2008.
Tuzcu I, Marzocca P, Cestino E, et al. Stability and
control of a high-altitude, long-endurance UAV. Journal of Guidance, Control and Dynamics 2007; 30(3):
713-721.

Biography:
Peng Runyan Born in 1979, she received M.S. degree from
School of Aeronautics, Northwestern Polytechnical University in 2006, and now she is a Ph.D. candidate in the same
school. Her main research interests are aircraft conceptual
design and performance analysis.
E-mail: pry20032003@yahoo.com.cn