Professional Documents
Culture Documents
(
(
(
+
+
=
=
IB
z y x IB
A
A A A A
where , & are roll, pitch and yaw rotations respectively. A
BI
is obtained by taking transpose of A
IB
.
Transformation matrix from Inertial frame to Velocity frame is denoted by A
IV
and defined as
( ) ( )
| | ( ) 2
cos sin sin sin cos
0 cos sin
sin sin cos cos cos
(
(
(
=
=
IV
z y IV
A
A A A
and are defined as angle of elevation and drift respectively. A
VI
is transpose of A
IV
.
Transformation matrix from Body frame to Velocity frame is denoted by A
BV
and defined as
( ) ( )
| | ( ) 3
cos sin sin sin cos
0 cos sin
sin sin cos cos cos
(
(
(
=
=
BV
z y BV
A
A A A
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2013 Page 185
and are angle of attack and sideslip angle respectively.
3.2. Equations of Motion: The dynamical motion of the projectile is studied with the help of Newton's second law of
motion. The equations of motion are converted in body frame with the help of transformation matrices. The forces taken
into consideration are gravity force, drag force, lift force, Magnus force and damping force. The moments considered are
Spin damping moment, Spin driving moment, Overturning moment, Magnus moment and Damping moments. The six
degrees of freedom model which consists of three scalar equations for linear motion (force equations) and three for
angular motion (moment equations) is developed and scalar equations of motion are given below [11] - [12]:
| | ( )
| | ( )
| | ( )
| | ( )
| | ( )
| | ( ) 9
1
8
1
7
1
6 ) (
1
5 ) (
1
4 ) (
1
z z z
zz
y y y
yy
xx
z z z z Bz z z
y y y y By y y
x x x x Bx x x
DM MM OM
I
r
DM MM OM
I
q
SDr SD
I
p
damp magnus coriolis lift D drag gravity
m
w
damp magnus coriolis lift D drag gravity
m
v
damp magnus coriolis lift D drag gravity
m
u
+ + =
+ + =
+ =
+ + + + =
+ + + + =
+ + + + =
In these equations (u, v, w) denotes velocity of the projectile in x, y and z directions respectively. m is the mass of the
projectile. I
xx
, I
yy
and I
zz
are moment of inertia in x, y and z directions respectively. All the forces are resolved
componentwise to get the scalar equations for transverse motion. SD denotes the spin damping moment, SDr denotes
spin driving moment. OM, MM and DM are overturning moment, Magnus moment and damping moment respectively.
Scalar equations for angular motion are obtained by resolving these moments in x, y and z directions. Definitions of all
the forces and moments could be referred in literature [13].
The drag induced by the drag brakes is denoted by the vector
B
D and it is defined as follows.
deployed is brake drake when
2
1
deployed not is brake drake when 0
1
V C V S D
D
d B
B
A =
=
where is air density, V is velocity of projectile, S
1
is surface area of drag brakes C
d
is additional drag coefficient.
A simulation study has been carried out and analysis has been done to study the effect of drag brakes on projectile range.
The equations of motion are integrated using forth order Runge Kutta method.
4. SIMULATION AND ANALYSIS
4.1. Simulation Data: The simulation has been carried out for 155 mm artillery projectile. The initial conditions used for
simulation are m = 44.80 Kg, V = 878 m/s, = 30 deg, x = y = z = 0. Mass of the projectile includes weight of drag
brakes also. It is assumed that the weight of each drag brake is 0.012 Kg. The deployment of drag brakes increase
diameter of fuze and the analysis is carried out for the variation of fuze diameter from 60mm to 100mm with the
assumption that 50mm being the diameter of fuze without drag brakes. As drag brakes are hosted in the fuze, the
deployment of drag brakes with diameter more than 100mm is not possible because of space constrains. The
deployment of drag brakes with the diameter of fuze of 60mm increases the frontal area by 1.5 times whereas for
100mm diameter of fuze the frontal area increases by 4 times. It is assumed that projectile will take 4 - 5 seconds for
stabilization itself after the muzzle exits and 2 seconds to deploy the drag brakes.
4.2. Simulation Results: The analysis is carried out for deploying the drag brakes at various stages of trajectory and once
the drag brakes are deployed it will remain open throughout the trajectory. Deploying drag brakes in early stage of
trajectory results in maximum range correction. As the diameter of drag brakes increases, it improves the correction
in the range. Hence maximum range correction is observed for maximum diameter of drag brakes deployed at the
earliest. With fuze diameter of 60mm deployed at 10 seconds during the flight corrects the range by 219m whereas
the same drag brakes gives the correction of only 3m if deployed at 50 seconds. Deployment of drag brakes of 100mm
fuze diameter gives maximum correction of 1347m (Figure 4).
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2013 Page 186
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Drag Brake opening Time ( s )
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
in
R
a
n
g
e
(
m
)
Fuze dia 60mm
Fuze dia 70mm
Fuze dia 80mm
Fuze dia 90mm
Fuze dia 100mm
Figure 4: Effect of deployment time on range
The simulation analysis has been carried out for deployment duration with deployment start at 10 second of flight time. It
is observed (Figure 5) that long duration deployment of drag brakes results into large correction in range. Deployment of
drag brakes of fuze diameter 60mm at time of 10 seconds gives correction of 125m whereas deploying same fuze diameter
for completer time of flight gives range correction of 219m. Similarly for 100mm fuze diameter, deployed for 10 seconds
starting from flight time of 10 seconds gives 820m range correction whereas for complete flight time deployment1347m.
10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
1400
Deployment duration ( s )
C
o
r
r
e
c
t
i
o
n
i
n
R
a
n
g
e
(
m
)
60mm
70mm
80mm
90mm
100mm
Figure 5: Drag brakes deployment duration
Table 1: Drag Brakes deployed for 10 seconds
Ctrl start
time (s)
Correction
60mm Fuze
dia (m)
Correction
70mm Fuze
dia (m)
Correction
80mm Fuze
dia (m)
Correction
90mm Fuze
dia (m)
Correction
100mm Fuze
dia (m)
10 125 271 437 619 820
20 56 120 194 277 367
30 23 53 85 124 163
40 10 22 37 54 73
50 2 8 11 18 23
It is observed that deployment of drag brakes early for small duration gives maximum range correction whereas deploying
for small duration in later stage of trajectory gives less correction in range. Table 1 shows deploying drag brakes with
60mm fuze diameter at 10 second of time for 10 seconds duration gives 125m correction in range but deploying at 50
second of time for 10 seconds duration gives 2m correction only.
5. CASE STUDY FOR MULTIPLE DEPLOYMENTS
One time deployment results into the range correction and increase the diameter is dictated by the required correction in
the range. In case if the range correction required does not lead to the exact increase in the diameter of drag brakes then
multiple deployment may be the solution for it. In this case depending on the correction required, the variation in the
diameter can be calculated and applied at each step. An algorithm has been developed for the same in terms of velocity
and applied for a particular case. The selection of fuze diameter is based on following algorithm.
a. Calculate the ideal trajectory for exact range.
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2013 Page 187
b. Select the time of deployment of drag brakes.
c. Calculate the difference between the actual velocity of the projectile and ideal velocity.
d. Select the drag brakes such that the difference of velocities becomes zero or closer to zero.
e. Deploy the drag brakes for one second.
f. Repeat the step b to d for remaining time of flight.
5.1. Case Study: The case study is carried out for the data given in section 4.1. It is observed that the uncontrolled
projectile achieved 25180 m range with total time of flight is 63.8 seconds and vertex is achieved at 28.75 seconds.
The remaining velocity at time of impact is 346 m/s when fired at a target on 25000m. It means that a correction of
180m is needed to hit the target. The analysis is carried out for multiple deployments of drag brakes during the
flight get the maximum of 180m correction in range. At the time of drag brakes deployment, calculate the impact
point using current trajectory data and find the overshoot distance. Depending upon overshoot distance the suitable
drag brakes are opened to correct the range. It is observed that deploying the drag brakes just after the vertex height
gives 100% correction in range. Figure 7 shows the requirement of fuze diameter for drag brakes once it is deployed
at flight time of 31 seconds. It is observed that initially only 60mm fuze diameter drag brakes is required and in later
stage of trajectory requirement of drag brakes is varies between 80mm to 100mm to achieve the optimum range
correction.
30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65
0.055
0.06
0.065
0.07
0.075
0.08
0.085
0.09
0.095
0.1
Time ( s )
F
u
z
e
d
i
a
(
m
)
Figure 7: Fuze diameter during flight
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25 1.5 1.75 2 2.25 2.5 2.75
x 10
4
0
1000
2000
3000
4000
5000
6000
Range ( m)
A
lt
itu
d
e
(
m
)
w/o drag brakes
with drag brakes
Figure 8: Trajectory
Figure 8 shows the effect of drag brakes on the trajectories of uncontrolled and controlled artillery projectile. The
differences in velocities due to drag brakes are shown in Figure 9, it is observed that deployment of drag brakes
throughout the flight reduces the remaining velocity by 11m/s which give the required correction in range.
Further analysis is carried out for given projectile data and study suggests that a DC motor of the power 300W is required
to extract and retract the drag brakes during the flight [10].
Figure 9: Effect of drag brakes on velocity
International Journal of Application or Innovation in Engineering& Management (IJAIEM)
Web Site: www.ijaiem.org Email: editor@ijaiem.org, editorijaiem@gmail.com
Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2013 ISSN 2319 - 4847
Volume 2, Issue 9, September 2013 Page 188
6. CONCLUSION
Range correction using drag brakes is studied in this work. The effect of varying drag brakes frontal area on projectile
range has been analyzed. One time deployment of drag brakes at early stage of flight gives maximum range correction.
To increase the accuracy artillery projectile multiple deployment scheme can be used. The result shows that deploying
drag brakes early for small duration also gives sufficient correction in range. The deployment time can be predefined
depending on required correction of range. Optimum correction in range is possible with the help of multiple
deployments algorithm.
References
[1] Grignon C, Cayzac R, Heddadj S., "Improvement of Artillery Projectile Accuracy", 23rd International Symposium on
Ballistics, Tarragona, Spain, pp 747 754, 2007.
[2] Stockenstrom A, A Simplified Approach to Range Dispersion Reduction, 20th Int. Symposium on Ballistics, pp
180 - 186, 2002.
[3] Rogers J, Costello M, Design of a Roll-Stabilized Mortar Projectile with Reciprocating Canards, Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 33, No. 4, July August 2010, P. No. 1026 - 1034.
[4] Corriveau D, Berner C, Fleck V, "Trajectory Correction Using Impulse Thrusters For Conventional Artillery
Projectiles" 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics, Tarragona, Spain, pp. 639 6462007.
[5] Wey P, Corriveau D , Berner C, "Thrusters Pairing Guidelines for Trajectory Corrections of Projectiles", Journal of
Guidance, Control, And Dynamics, Volume 34, Number 4, pp 1120 - 1128, 2011.
[6] Gupta S K, Saxena S, Singhal A, Ghosh A K, " Trajectory Correction Flight Control System using Pulsejet on an
Artillery Rocket", Defence Science Journal, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp 15-33, 2008.
[7] Brandon F J, Hollis M S L, Drag Control Module for Range Correction Of A Spin Stabilized Projectile, US Patent
no. 5,826,821, 1998.
[8] Harkins T E, Bradford S D, Drag-Brake Deployment Method and Apparatus for Range Error Correction of
Spinning, Gun Launched Artillery Projectiles, US Patent no. US 6,345,785 B1, 2002.
[9] Bar K, Bohl J, Kautzsch K, Spin-Stabilized Projectile With A Braking Device US Patent no. US 6,511,016 B2,
2003.
[10] Hollis M S L, "A Report on Preliminary Design of a Range Correction Module for an Artillery Shell", Army
Research Laboratory, Report number ARL-MR-298, 1996.
[11] R L McCoy, Modern Exterior Ballistics, Schiffer Publication, 1999.
[12] Sarsar R B, Mukhedkar R J, Naik S D, Study on Extending Range of Artillery Rocket Using Control Surfaces,
Volume 63, Number 2, Journal of Aerospace Science and Technologies, Bangalore, pp No. 153 157, 2011.
[13] Anonymous, Text Book of Ballistics and Gunnery, Her Majestic Stationary Office, Volume I, pp 476 483, 198.