Aerodynamics of Projectile with Wrap Around

Fins
A Report Submitted
in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements
for the Degree of
Master of Technology
by
Vasanth Kumar. G
Y6101024
to the
Department of Aerospace Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Kanpur
July, 2008
Acknowledgments
I take this opportunity to express my sincere thanks to my thesis supervisors Prof.
Abijith Kushari and Prof. A.K. Ghosh, for their invaluable suggestions, tech-
nical skills and friendly guidance throughout my work. They were a constant source
of inspiration throughout my stay at IIT Kanpur and I feel fortunate to work under
them.
My sincerest thanks also go out to my parents and my brother, without whose
blessings I would not have been able to do this.
Furthermore, I would like to thank Mr. Sanjeev, Mr. Shishu Pal Singh, Mr.
Kamlesh Mishra and Mr. Arun Mishra for their unconditional support and motivation
which has played a pivotal role in successful completion of the experimental work.
I would like to thank Mr. Ravi Krishna, Mr. Rhishabh Surit and Mr Vikas Tayal
for the materials that they provided for my thesis.
I am grateful to all the Professors, who taught during the course work of my
M.Tech program.
I can never forget the contribution of my friends Renu Patle, Arpita Sen, Shefali
Waldekar, Nidhi Agarwal, Abha Tiwari, Pavan Kumar and Bhange Niteen Popat.
A special mention about my friend Lakshmanan who has helped me in writing my
thesis.
Vasanth Kumar G
iii
Abstract
This thesis presents the study conducted on the wrap around fin missiles. This
investigation involves the aerodynamic anomalies associated with the asymmetric
wrap around fins. Both computational and experimental study was conducted at
different Mach numbers to investigate the instabilities which occurs on the body at
low supersonic speed. The computational and experimental results were in good
agreement with each other. The pressure distribution along the concave and convex
side of the fin were identified to be uneven causing the missile to roll towards the
concave side. The instability developed was thus due to the development of side
force, yawing moment and roll moment reversal which was created by this pressure
variation. The intensity of these forces increases with increase in angle of attack.
Generation of 3D shock structure near the fin results in the development of these
forces. Furthur, through these investigation it was identified that there is a coupling
of rolling, pitching and yawing moment at the center of gravity which disturbs the
aerodynamic behaviour of the projectile and thus deviates it from its default path.
iv
Contents
List of Tables i
List of Figures i
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Aim of the present study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Computational Method 6
2.1 Description on Computational Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.1 Grid independence test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.1.2 CFD Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
2.2 3D Model Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.1 The Technical Cooperation Program Projectile . . . . . . . . . 9
2.2.2 Wind Tunnel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
2.3 Computational Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Experimental Methods 17
3.1 Experimental Facility . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
3.2 Instrumentation and Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
3.2.1 Pressure Regulating Valve System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.2 Six Components Strain Gage Balance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
3.2.3 Balance Calibration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
3.2.4 Data Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
v
3.2.5 PSI Net Scanner Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
3.3 Wind Tunnel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4 Results 27
4.1 The Technical Cooperation Projectile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
4.2 Wind Tunnel Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2.1 Computational Result . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
4.2.2 Experimental Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Force Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Effect of the Flaire . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Moment Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
5 Conclusion 50
Bibliography 51
vi
List of Tables
2.1 Comparison of CFD and theoretical Values for α= 0
o
. . . . . . . . . 8
3.1 Balance Specification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
vii
List of Figures
1.1 Converging/Diverging Nozzle Analogy. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.1 3D missile model without fin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.2 2D Mesh along XY axis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.3 Mesh along the cross section at X=0.5L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
2.4 Static pressure plot to number of nodes at X=0.25L. . . . . . . . . . 12
2.5 Static pressure plot to number of nodes at X=0.5L. . . . . . . . . . . 12
2.6 Shock angle for different mach number. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
2.7 The Technical Cooperation Program Projectile. . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.8 Tip to root angle variation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
2.9 Mesh near the Fin area. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.10 Mesh along the axial cross section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
2.11 3D Wind Tunnel Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
2.12 Variation in Fin Thickness. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
3.1 Diagrammatic layout of intermittent blow-down tunnel. . . . . . . . . 23
3.2 Schematic of Six Component Strain gage balance. . . . . . . . . . . . 23
3.3 9016 Scanner Hookup Arrangement. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
3.4 Missile model with wrap around fin. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
3.5 WAF Missile Model inside the Tunnel. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
4.1 Comparison of Rolling Moment Coefficient Vs Mach Number. . . . . 34
4.2 Mach profile along the cross section in X-axis at Mach 1.3. . . . . . . 34
4.3 Static pressure plot along missile length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
viii
4.4 Mach number plot along missile length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
4.5 Static pressure plot along fin region M = 1.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.6 Static pressure plot along fin region M = 1.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.7 Mach number plot along fin region M = 1.3. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
4.8 Mach number plot along fin region M = 1.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.9 Coefficient of pitching moment Vs angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.10 Coefficient of yawing moment Vs angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
4.11 Side force coefficient Vs angle of attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
4.12 Rolling moment coefficient Vs Mach Number for WT model. . . . . . 38
4.13 Mach profile along the missile length at Mach 1.2. . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.14 Mach profile along the missile length at Mach 1.4. . . . . . . . . . . . 39
4.15 Mach number plot along the missile length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.16 Static Pressure plot along the missile length. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
4.17 Static Pressure plot along the fin cross section with different fin thick-
ness at mach 1.2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 41
4.18 Static Pressure plot along the fin cross section with different fin thick-
ness at mach 1.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
4.19 Mach profile plot along the fin cross section with different fin thickness
at mach 1.4. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
4.20 lift Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6. . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.21 Drag Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6. . . . . . . . . . . . 44
4.22 Side Force Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Experimental). 45
4.23 Side Force Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Computational). 45
4.24 Lift Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack for Flaire at mach 1.6. . . . . . . 46
4.25 Coefficient of Rolling Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Exper-
imental). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.26 Coefficient of Rolling Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Com-
putational). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
4.27 Coefficient of Pitching Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Ex-
perimental). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
ix
4.28 Coefficient of Pitching Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Com-
putational). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
4.29 Coefficient of Yawing Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Exper-
imental). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.30 Coefficient of Yawing Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Com-
putational). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
x
[1.0in]
xi
Chapter 1
Introduction
There are two primary categories of modern missiles; unguided and guided. All
missiles, to be effective, must be directed in some sense, but those subject to no
furthur control after leaving the launching device are usually classed as unguided.
One such unguided missile is the Wrap around fin (WAF) missiles. These missiles are
usually launched using tube launcher.
Wrap-around fin (WAF) missiles have been studied extensively, largely because
of the packaging advantages they offer. E.F. Lucero [1] identified the importance of
wraparound fins in exchange for planar surface configuration. Curved fins are wrapped
around the missile body during storage, using considerably less space that traditional
missile fins. Upon deployment, fins lock into position using a spring mechanism. The
advent of stealth technology has made these cylindrical projectiles desirable, since
internal missile storage would reduce an aircraft radar cross-sectional signature [2].
But certain aerodynamic qualities of WAF missiles must be controlled before this type
of armament can become a potential guided missile. These WAF configurations have
conventional longitudinal aerodynamics similar to those of configuration with planar
fins of identical planform. However WAFs enables many design possibilities, it has
been observed that several aerodynamic anomalies have been repeatedly experienced
during their flight. These major anomalies has been identified as,
• Rolling moment at zero angle of attack.
• At subsonic velocities, rolling moment is positive and the missile rolls towards
the convex side of the fin, the side that is exposed when fins are wrapped
around the body. A rolling moment reversal occurs at Mach 1.0, as pressure
1
distributions change in the fin region.
• Due to its asymmetric fin geometry, missiles with WAFs display pitch- yaw
coupling.
• Cavity housing WAFs represents a considerable contribution to total drag on
the missile.
Characterizing the aerodynamics in the fin region of a WAF is the first step for
controlling future missile applications.
Before, the development of CFD as an effective tool for computational works,
previous research was done using experimental methods. With the advancement in
both hardware and software, now it is possible to economically study WAF geometry
using CFD analysis. The availability of detailed flow field information throughout the
flow using CFD now makes it possible to investigate the root cause of the above stated
aerodynamics anomalies. The accuracy of the CFD results is greatly determined by
how accurately the configuration is modeled. Since the aerodynamic anomalies of
interest are inherent to WAF geometry, it is important to model (grid) the fin area
as accurately as possible.
Previous CFD studies [3] of missile configurations with WAF have shown general
agreement with experimental data, but always lacked accuracy in roll moment and
side force/moment determination.
Edge [4] calculated the roll moment for a laminar flow case with a three-dimensional
full Navier-Strokes code. His investigation concluded that roll moment coefficients
calculated using inviscid CFD computations have not shown good agreement with
experimental data.
Later on, Abate and Cook [5] calculated the roll moment of wrap around fins
attached to an infinitely long cylinder using Euler code. They pointed that accuracy
of CFD greatly depend on configuration modeled. They also added that roll moment
did not appear as long as fin thickness was neglected. So they considered fin thickness
to be critical parameter in WAF Aerodynamics. Also, they explained the roll moment
reversal with the concept of converging diverging nozzle (Figure 1.1).
Bar-Haim and Seginer [6] have shown that rolling moment can be induced on the
antisymmetric fins by the radial flow generated at the base of the configuration, either
over the converging separated wake or over the diverging plume of a rocket motor.
2
Figure 1.1: Converging/Diverging Nozzle Analogy.
Paek, Park [7], furthur showed that edge and tip shapes have a great significance
in roll moment of WAFs. They also showed that euler equations can give comparably
accurate solutions when computing the roll moment of WAFs configuration. Their
comparision with Edge [4] showed that fin tip, when pinched shows in complete
agreement with experimental data.
Dahlke C.W [8] emphasized on defining static and dynamic roll characteristics
between Mach numbers of 0.3 to 3.0. Among the geometric parameters highlighted
are fin span, aspect ratio, leading edge sweep, leading edge shape, fin opening angle,
and afterbody geometry.
McIntyre et al [9] used experimental analogy to investigate the rolling moment
reduction with increasing Mach number. He used Schlieren photography to charac-
terize the fin generated shock structure. He experimented on two curved fin missile,
one having a solid fin and the other a slotted fin. Purpose of the slot was to provide
pressure relief there by reducing the mach no dependence of the rolling moment and
reduced the strength of shock structure produced by the fin at low mach numbers.
Experiments indicate that the magnitude of the rolling moment decreases with in-
creasing Mach number for both the fins and rolling moment for the slotted fin is
3
nearly double.
Buff and Winchenbach [10] conducted the free flight aeroballistics tests to obtain
aerodynamic data over Mach number range of 0.6 to 1.35 for a WAF configuration
at atmospheric pressure. Results of their analysis indicated that dynamic instability
exists above Mach 1 and is related to an out of plane side moment which is dependent
on the pitch angle and this moment can have a dramatic effect on trajectory compu-
tations based on the conventional aerodynamic coefficient and derivatives. Furthur,
Young and Winchenbach [11] provided more details on the dynamic instability.
Tilmann and Huffman [12] found that turbulence intensites in the fuselage bound-
ary layer were far greater on the concave side of the fin than on the convex side. And
their results were consistent with the stabilizing and destabilizing effects of the pres-
sure gradient distortion on supersonic boundary layer.
Mikhail [13] used algebraic correlation for the roll-damping and roll producing
moment for finned projectiles and missiles. But his correlation is limited to missile
with only one set of fins and to small angles of attack.
1.1 Aim of the present study
The computational study is done in a series of steps to ensure that the final model
developed should give satisfactory results. the process followed are described as fol-
lows:
1. First step involves the grid independence test for the missile model without
fins. Grid layout is specified through the number of nodes on the length of the
fin. Varying the numbers and matching the static pressure variation through
various sections on the missile model gives the optimized grid selection for the
model with fins.
2. Secondly, the optimized grid model is used to generate the validation for the
code used.
3. After grid independence test and code validation, a 3D grid is generated and
the simulation is conducted on the standard wrap around fin projectile designed
by The Technical Cooperation Program (TTCP).
4. Finally, a 3D grid is generated for the Wind Tunnel Model (with varied fin
thickness) and the results are plotted.
4
The detailed introduction and literature of these problems are given in their re-
spective chapters. The rest of the thesis is organized as follows. Chapter 2 describes
the computational methods used for analysis WAF missiles. Discussion on Gambit
and Fluent is highlighted and the methods employed is discussed in details. Chapter
3 describes the experimental procedure and the setup involved. This includes the
calibration of the component balance and the high speed wind tunnel specification in
IIT Kanpur.The WAF missile model assigned for experiment is also discussed here in
detail. Chapter 4 consists of the result and discussion. The last chapter focus on the
future work that can be carreid on the WAF.
5
Chapter 2
Computational Method
Computations were carried out to understand the flow field over the WAF missile
using the commercially available CFD software FLUENT [14]. All the computations
were done at the central computer facility available at Indian Institute of Technology,
Kanpur. The present chapter discusses in detail about the numerical formulation and
problem setup. The details of Fluent and Gambit is discussed in Appendix.
2.1 Description on Computational Study
2.1.1 Grid independence test
First, a 3D missile model without fin was created in Gambit with the dimensions as
show in figure 2.1. Non-dimensional length of the missile is 190 including the conical
region. The diameter of the missile is kept as 20. Non-dimensional scale considered
are - 1mm as the length scale and free stream velocity as the velocity scale.
Figure 2.1: 3D missile model without fin.
6
For the analysis the domain considered is as follows, circumferential outer bound-
ary is at the distance of 15D from the missile and in the axial direction the domain
boundaries are considered at 5D from the leading edge of the missile to 10D from the
end of the missile.
For meshing the flow field, structured meshing was used as shown in the figure 2.2.
The cross section of the mesh is shown in the figure 2.3. It is shown in these figures
that the meshing near the missile surface is finer. This enables to capture the dis-
continuity across the flow field near the missile surface. The farfield from the Missile
is defined as Wall, while the inlet and the outlet faces were defined as Pressure inlet
and Pressure outlet conditions respectively.
The mesh was then exported to Fluent for Grid Independence Test.The solver
type used for compressible flow is coupled with implicit formulation. This was rec-
ommended by the Fluent tutorials since it converges fast and is much efficient in
capturing the discontinuities. Equation was considered to be Steady one, while veloc-
ity formulation was chosen to be Absolute and gradient option was Cell based. Since,
we are dealing with compressible flow, so energy equation was used, and was moni-
tored during convergence study. The fluid used for flow field was taken as Air invoking
the properties of ideal gas. During the run, following boundary conditions were used
corresponding to Mach 2.5, static pressure 101325 Pa and static temperature 300k.
• Inlet:
Total gauge pressure: 1629839 Pa
Supersonic/initial gauge pressure: 101325 Pa
Total temperature: 675.1 K
• Outlet:
Total gauge pressure: 101325 Pa
Total temperature: 675.1 K
Grid Independence Test is carried on this model by varying the nodes along the
length of the missile. The grid generated varies from 20 nodes to 120 nodes. The flow
was simulated at Mach 2.5 with inviscid flow. For examining the results obtained
from each node variations, static pressure alone X= 20 units and X= 60 units are
plotted. The resulting pressure variation with respect to the grid size has been plotted
in figure 2.4 and figure 2.5. This shows that the variation in static pressure with node
7
variations from 100 to 120 nodes remains constant. Therefore, simulations for missile
with fin has been carried out at 110 nodes.
2.1.2 CFD Validation
Now before proceeding for the grid generation and its simulation for the missile con-
figuration with Wrap around fin (which would have a more complex grid pattern),
it was necessary to check whether the results obtained using Fluent is authentic or
not. In order to achieve this, a model was prepared with appropriate grid size and
spacing function (using results obtained from grid-independence study). The numer-
ical simulation was then done using Fluent solver at AOA=0. The shock pattern
obtained was then graphically analyzed to find shock angle and the static pressure at
the model surface. The measured shock angle is shown in figure 2.6. The result was
then compared with the corresponding values obtained from the chart-5 and chart-6
of the NACA report 1135 [15]. The comparison is displayed in Table 2.1. As is clear
from the data sheet, the values obtained from the numerical solution matches with
the theoretical values. Hence this validates the numerical formulation used.
Table 2.1: Comparison of CFD and theoretical Values for α= 0
o
Mach no Shock angle Pressure at Shock angle Pressure at
(deg) model surf. (deg) model surf.
(×10
5
Pa) (×10
5
Pa)
(CFD Values) (CFD Values) (Theoretical) (Theoretical)
2.5 29 1.89 30 1.89
2.725 27.5 1.93 27 1.9
3.0 25.5 2.15 25 2.14
3.5 23 2.48 22 2.51
8
2.2 3D Model Specification
2.2.1 The Technical Cooperation Program Projectile
Some of the major work on WAF was conducted by The Technical Cooperation Pro-
gram (TTCP). This TTCP configuration has fins with symmetric leading and trailing-
edge. Also a difference of 45
o
exists between the root and tip chord cross section. All
dimensions are expressed in units of calibers (1 caliber= 1.524 cm). The experimental
data were obtained from an experiment conducted at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory,
California Institute of Technology, (JPL). The test model is a scaled-down version
of the original TTCP standard configuration (1 caliber = 10.16 cm). For the TTCP
standard configuration, there are different roll moment coefficients obtained from the
wind-tunnel tests at various facilities, such as the McDonnell Douglas Aerophysics
wind tunnel, the Arnold Engineering Development Center, and NASA Langley Re-
search Center which are also used for the comparison of the results of the present
computation. Although the models used at JPL did not have any boundary-layer
trips, other wind-tunnel test models were reported to have boundary layer trips on
the fin leading edges. Because the Euler equations cannot predict viscous effects, the
roll moment coefficients from JPL have been compared with the values computed from
the flow field solutions by the present Euler code. Figure 2.7 is the computational
model used by Edge. His computational model has blunt leading and trailing edges,
and the root and tip chord cross sections are parallel in the computational model.
The roll moment computation for this model will be used later for a comparison.
In the TTCP model the root to tip cross section angle is varied to 30
o
and it is
simulated for all angle of attack. This is done to analyse the variation when the tip
angle is varied. The variation is shown in figure 2.8.
The grid was generated using Gambit and the grid parameter has been used from
the Grid Independence test. The fin region was meshed using Quadilateral mesh.
The cross section of the fin mesh region is shown in figure 2.9. The cross section
along the axial of the missile is shown in figure 2.10.
2.2.2 Wind Tunnel Model
Simulation was conducted on the Wind Tunnel model to analyse the flow field around
the fin. The pictorial representation of the missile is shown in the figure 2.11. The
9
modification taken for this model is the fin thickness. The thickness are vaired as
1mm, 1.5mm and 2mm. The variation is shown in the figure 2.12. The tip to root
cross section angle is maintained at 45
o
and 30
o
.
2.3 Computational Analysis
The prepocessor part involving model generation, grid and domain specification was
done in Gambit. The grid generated is a structured mesh using ’Hexahedral map’
and ’Hexahedral cooper’. The grid is clustered near the fin surface and the body.
Quadrilateral with map and pave scheme wherever necessary are used for face mesh-
ing. For volume mesh, structured mesh with Hexahedral (bricks) map and submap
scheme is involved (Figure 2.9). 20 grids were taken along the fin curvature and
20 taken along the fin length. For the analysis the domain considered is as follows,
circumferential outer boundary is at the distance of 15D from the missile and in the
axial direction the domain boundaries are considered at 5D from the leading edge of
the missile to 10D from the end of the missile. The computaional domain contains
823440 hexahedral cells, 2451156 quadrilateral interior faces and 842572 nodes.
The solution was obtained and post processing was done using Fluent code. Solver
selected for this problem is Segregated with imlicit formulation. The discretization
of momentum equation, energy equation and conservation equation was done using
’first order upwind’ scheme and pressure-velocity coupling was done using SIMPLE
method. K-epsilon viscous formulation was used for the flow condition. The simula-
tion was carried out for Mach 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.6, 1.8, 2.0, 2.2 and 2.5. and the angle of
attack involved was -2, 0, +2, +4 and +6. All other flow conditions have been used
as in grid independence test.
10
Figure 2.2: 2D Mesh along XY axis.
Figure 2.3: Mesh along the cross section at X=0.5L.
11
Figure 2.4: Static pressure plot to number of nodes at X=0.25L.
Figure 2.5: Static pressure plot to number of nodes at X=0.5L.
12
Figure 2.6: Shock angle for different mach number.
13
Figure 2.7: The Technical Cooperation Program Projectile.
Figure 2.8: Tip to root angle variation .
14
Figure 2.9: Mesh near the Fin area.
Figure 2.10: Mesh along the axial cross section.
15
Figure 2.11: 3D Wind Tunnel Model.
Figure 2.12: Variation in Fin Thickness.
16
Chapter 3
Experimental Methods
This chapter gives an overview of the test facility, experimental arrangements, de-
scribes the measurements carried out and models for the present study
3.1 Experimental Facility
To understand and evaluate the effect of various parameters on the aerodynamic
characteristics of wraparound fin, experiments were conducted at supersonic wind
tunnel. The test facility consists of compressor, storage tanks and supersonic wind-
tunnel. The layout of the tunnel is shown in the figure 3.1.
A two stage reciprocating compressor, capable of delivering 360 cfm of air at a
pressure of 500 psia is being used in this laboratory. The compressor used in the
present investigation is driven by a 150 hp 3 phase induction motor. The compressed
air is dried in a dual tower semi automatic silica gel dryer. The compressed air is
stored in three tanks, having total capacity of 3000 cubic feet at 300 psia.
This wind tunnel is a blow-down type facility capable of Mach numbers from
0.2 to 3.5 and has a 180mm * 300mm test section. The wind tunnel provides a
uniform Mach number distribution across the test section. The run time for this
wind tunnel is 35 sec at mach 3.5 with about a 2.5 hours recharge time. The pressure
and temperature probe mounted in the settling chamber allows for the determination
of the free-stream conditions. An automatically controlled pressure regulating valve
located between the air receiver and the settling chamber is an essential feature of
blow down type wind tunnel.
17
The primary functions of the pressure regulating valve are -
• It provides a quick acting mechanism for starting and stopping the tunnel.
• It maintains a constant pressure in the settling chamber, which establishes the
dynamic pressure, Reynolds number, and stagnation pressure of each run.
The PRV is built around a 10 inch taper plug valve modified for hydraulic actu-
ation. The hydraulic power is supplied by a 20HP motor. A hydraulic accumulator
is included in the circuit to meet the demands for sudden pressure surges and also
to provide for fail safe operation in the event of power failure. Operating pressure
is in the range of 800-1000psia. Test Section consists of a pair of channels fitted
on to a circular flange on the entry side and a rectangular flange on the exit side,
with parallel side walls. The side walls are fitted with two pairs of interchangeable
windows. One set of windows is presently blank, while the other is fitted with optical
finished glass, providing 9 inch clear view for Schlieren. Internal dimension of the
test section is 180mm * 300mm. The nozzle blocks were finished with epoxy resin to
provide a smooth and moisture resistant finish. The static pressure probes have been
embedded in the uniform section of the nozzle blocks.
The sting-supported model incidence system is being used for this tunnel. The
difficulties associated with the wall boundary layer for wall-supported models make
the sting support method more attractive. Moreover, for the force test and for the
incidence system sting support method is more suitable. The sting support is gen-
erally used for models of airplane or missile type. The sting attachment is usually
made through the base of the model at the position which would be occupied by the
exhaust of the aircraft. Such attachment positions are favored since they provide a
minimum of sting interference to the flow on the model.
3.2 Instrumentation and Control
Instrumentation used to control and acquire data from the facility is the vital part
of the Trisonic wind tunnel. Following instruments was used to measure the forces,
moments and pressure inside the wind tunnel.
18
3.2.1 Pressure Regulating Valve System
The controller operates in two feedback loops: position loop and pressure loop. The
system is started in position loop mode when the actual valve position is sensed by
a potentiometer mounted on the valve shaft. The output is compared with preset
position on another potentiometer and the difference gives the error signal in position
loop. Once about 90% of the preset pressure is reached an automatic transfer takes
place to pressure loop mode. In this mode the actual settling chamber pressure is
sensed by a pressure transducer, amplified and compared with the pressure set point
potentiometer output. This provides the error for driving the electro hydraulic valve
in pressure loop mode. The overall system has a settling time of 1 sec and pressure
regulation of 0.5%.
3.2.2 Six Components Strain Gage Balance
Six component strain gage balance was used to measure the forces and moments
acting on the model during a wind tunnel tests (Figure 3.2). The balance is an
integral RAE type with a maximum diameter of 40mm and length of 220mm. It is
made out of stainless steel (17-4-PH) with yield strength of about 118kg/mm
2
. The
balance consists of 2 normal force gauge stations(F
z1
and F
z2
) for determination of
normal force(Lift) and pitching moment(M
y
), 2 side force gage station (F
y1
and F
y1
)
for determination of side force and yawing moment(M
z
), one axial force (F
x
) and one
rolling moment bridge(M
x
). Balance center is located at the center of the 2 normal
force measuring force stations. All gage sections are of binding type. Four strain
gages are bonded to each of the gage station to form 4 active arms of a Wheatstone
bridges. The data from the balance was acquired to a computer at a sampling rate
was 400 samples per second. Data acquisition card and signal conditioning unit was
used to transfer data from the balance to computer.
19
Table 3.1: Balance Specification
F
x
Axial Force 170Kg
F
z
Lift Force 170Kg
F
y
Side Force 170Kg
M
z
Yawing Moment 20Kgm
M
y
Pitching Moment 20Kgm
M
x
Rolling Moment 10Kgm
3.2.3 Balance Calibration
The balance was calibrated with known loads before the test. A simple calibration
rig was used to calibrate the balance. Balance was mounted on the calibration rig
with the help of calibration adapter and 3 volt excitation voltage was supplied to the
balance. A computer and labview program has been employed to collect the data
from the strain gage bridges with a resolution of 1 micro volt. Direct acting dead
weights up to 100 kg have been used for calibration. A calibration body has been
used to transmit the loads to the balance in the same manner as the model would
transmit the load during test run. An individual load F
z1
, F
z2
, F
y1
, F
y2
, F
x
, and M
x
was applied on the loading points of the calibration body.
3.2.4 Data Analysis
During experiments, the model is subjected to various aerodynamic forces and mo-
ments. The magnitude of these forces and moments keeps changing with the model
attitude with respect to the flow. A six component strain gauge balance measures
these forces and moments. The output from the six bridges of the balance is in volts.
These signals are converted into corresponding forces and moments by the inverse
matrix obtained during the calibration. When inverse matrix is pre-multiplied to the
20
signal matrix, the result is load matrix.
L
i
=
6

i=1
S
j
C
ij
(3.1)
Where,
S
j
= E
ax
, E
n1
, E
n2
, E
s1
, E
s2
, E
R
L
i
= A
x
, N
1
, N
2
, S
1
, S
2
, R
m
are the signal and force vector respectively.
No wind data from the balance is acquired before every run and is subtracted
from the wind data. Raw data is processed using the above equation to obtain loads
on the balance. The forces and moments at the balance centre in the model axes are
than evaluated from these balance loads using the following equations.
A
xb
= A
x
(3.2)
S
b
= S
1
+S
2
(3.3)
N
b
= N
1
+N
2
(3.4)
R
b
= R
m
(3.5)
M
b
= (N
1
−N
2
) ×d (3.6)
Y
b
= (S
1
−S
2
) ×d (3.7)
Where, d is the distance from the balance centre to the normal force or side force
gages. It is equal to 0.045 m for the balance used currently. The aerodynamic forces
and rolling moments will remain same at balance center and center of gravity. The
Pitching and Yawing moments obtained at the balance center were then transferred
to the center of gravity of the body of the model axis using the following equations.
M = M
b
−r ×N
b
(3.8)
Y = Y
b
−r ×Y
b
(3.9)
Where, r is the distance between balance center and center of gravity of the body.
Finally, the forces and moments obtained were converted into non dimensional
form using the free stream dynamic head and appropriate parameters. The forces
and moments coefficients in the non-dimensional form are given below.
21
C
Force
=
Force
1
2
ρV
2
S
(3.10)
C
Moment
=
Moment
1
2
ρV
2
Sc
(3.11)
Where,
Force is in N
Moment is in Nm
S= Base area of the model
V= Free stream velocity in m/s
ρ = Density of air kg/m
3
c= Diameter of the model
3.2.5 PSI Net Scanner Systems
The pressure on the different points of the converging diverging nozzle was measured
by the NetScanner Intelligent Pressure Scanner modules (model 9016). 9016 Scanner
Hookup Arrangement is shown in figure 3.3. Model 9016 is a pneumatic Intelligent
Pressure Scanner with sixteen integral pressure transducers and a pneumatic calibra-
tion manifold. It is a flexible pressure measurement devices intended for use in test
and production environment. Per channel cost is less than a typical industrial pres-
sure transducer. A memory chip containing full calibration data is embedded with in
each internal transducer. This model is capable of accuracies better than +-0.05%.
Accuracy is maintained for six month after calibration. Standard communications
network protocols is used to control and read data from the net scanner modules.
Every Intelligent Pressure Scanner contains a circular interface connector, allowing it
to be inter-connected in a network with other modules and a host computer.
3.3 Wind Tunnel Model
Missile model with solid wrap around fin have been fabricated by CNC vertical milling
machine. Figure 3.4 depicts the model configuration used for these tests. The basic
diameter of the model is 20mm. Total length of the model is 190mm with 40mm
tangent cone. Four wrap around fins were used which had a chord of 30mm. The
thickness of the fin is 1mm. The fins leading edge are at the angle of 45
o
, 30
o
and
semi-circle. The trailing edge is maintained flat for all 4 fins.
22
Figure 3.1: Diagrammatic layout of intermittent blow-down tunnel.
Figure 3.2: Schematic of Six Component Strain gage balance.
23
Figure 3.3: 9016 Scanner Hookup Arrangement.
24
Figure 3.4: Missile model with wrap around fin.
25
Figure 3.5: WAF Missile Model inside the Tunnel.
26
Chapter 4
Results
Computational and experimental study were conducted on wrap around fin missile
with the variation in fin front end angle and fin thickness. The variation employed
on the fins are the change in fin front end angle i.e., 45
o
and 30
o
and fin thickness as
1mm, 1.5mm and 2mm.
4.1 The Technical Cooperation Projectile
Simulations where conducted on the TTCP model from Mach 1.2 to Mach 2.5. The
names for each TTCP model is given as follows:
• TTCP 45D - TTCP model with 45
o
fin front end angle
• TTCP 30D - TTCP model with 30
o
fin front end angle
Flowfield solutions have shown many interesting features, while simulating the
flow at varying Mach numbers ranging from transonic to higher supersonic Mach
numbers. The roll reversal presented by other computational, experimental work and
current work has been depicted in figure 4.1. The comparison is carried out at 0
o
angle of attack. This shows that TTCP model has no particular roll reversal point.
This variation can be attributed to the fact that neither of the previous works was
done on the same model, as well as none of the model had been configured properly.
This shows that the cross over point for the TTCP models is in between Mach 1.3
to 1.5. However, almost every work shows similar trend i.e. predicting a cross-over
point in low-supersonic range.
27
The simulated results show that the roll moment starts from negavtive and passes
on to positive after the cross over point. A positive roll moment coefficient indicates
a roll direction towards fin’s center of curvature. This point shows that roll moment
coefficients computed with present code agree well with the trend of roll reversal point
(cross over point).
To understand the reason behind rolling moment generation at 0
o
angle of attack,
a comparative study of the Mach number and Pressure profile was done for the TTCP
model. The cross section of the mach profile is show in figure 4.2. This shows that
oblique shock is formed when the flow reaches the missile due to the sharp edge of
the conical region. Then it continues with a expansion shock at the end of the conical
region. Behind the expansion wave the flow is supersonic and this supersonic flow
reaches the fin region. From the Mach number profile it is observed that just before
the fin the flow is subsonic for inlet condition of Mach 1.3 whereas the flow remains
supersonic before the fin for Mach 1.6. Hence, there is a transition from subsonic to
supersonic flow just before the fin-tip in the Mach no of 1.3. This transition from
subsonic to supersonic flow just before the fin seems to be the main cause for the roll
reversal. There occurs a complex shock pattern just before the fin and this complex
3D shock continues through out the fin length. Due to the asymmetric fin assembly
the pressure distribution along the fin is very complex. The static pressure profile
(figure 4.3) indicates the formation of shock just before the fin with the increase in
pressure. Since the flow remains supersonic for Mach 1.6 onwards, this shock should
be oblique shock or detached bow shock. The figure 4.4 depicts the reducing mach
number near the fin region which is subsonic when the inlet mach number is 1.6.
When the inlet mach number is 1.6 the flow near the fin is partially supersonic.
Detailed analysis of the flow field has been done by plotting the flow field contours
of Mach number and static pressure at different sections, which had been discussed
along. These sections were taken along the fin region normal to the X-axis. The
figure 4.5 shows the pressure plot along the fin region normal to X-axis for mach
number 1.3. Complex 3d bow-shock formation at the fin tips causes pressure difference
at the concave and convex side of the fins resulting in the development forces on the
fin. The figure 4.6 shows the pressure plot along the fin region normal to X-axis for
mach number 1.6. These figures show that at mach number 1.3 the pressure at the
concave region is low and due to this the missile rolls towards the concave region.
But for mach number 1.6 the pressure effect is not much so the roll involves towards
the convex region. The mach profile plot for mach number 1.3 and 1.6 is shown in
28
figure 4.7 and figure 4.8 respectively. These figures show the shock pattern in between
the fin region. This highlights the convergence of shock from the fin front towards the
concave which occurs at 50% of the fin along X-axis. This shock interaction creates
the pressure difference which induces the roll reversal for the Mach no 1.3.
The coefficients have been plotted in figure 4.9, figure 4.10 and figure 4.11. The
plots are done against the angle of attack. This shows the variation in coefficients
from mach number 1.2 to 1.6 has drastic changes. The side force coefficient is more
compared to other coefficients. This is caused due to the pitching moment as discussed
by Winchenbach [10]. The coefficient of pitching moment and side force coefficient
follow the same pattern for Mach number 1.2 to 1.4, so the reason is clear for high
side force on the missile. The missile thus develops a coupling of pitching and yawing
moment when the cross over point is reached. This makes the missile lose its stability
and deviate from its path.
4.2 Wind Tunnel Model
4.2.1 Computational Result
Computaion was carried out on the Wind Tunnel model (WT) from mach 1.2 to mach
2.5 with variation in fin profile. The variation employed are with the fin thickness of
1mm, 1.5mm and 2mm. Fin front end angle is also varied as 30
o
and 45
o
for each
thickness. The names for each model is as follows:
• WT 45D T1 - WT Model with 45
o
fin front end angle and 1mm thickness
• WT 30D T1 - WT Model with 30
o
fin front end angle and 1mm thickness
• WT 45D T1.5 - WT Model with 45
o
fin front end angle and 1.5mm thickness
• WT 30D T1.5 - WT Model with 30
o
fin front end angle and 1.5mm thickness
• WT 45D T2 - WT Model with 45
o
fin front end angle and 2mm thickness
• WT 30D T2 - WT Model with 30
o
fin front end angle and 2mm thickness
Rolling moment is calculated from each model and the cross over point is identified.
The WT Model gives the rolling moment coefficient from positive to negative. This
is due to the fin orientation which is opposite to the orientation of TTCP model.
29
The roll moment coefficient is depicted in the figure 4.12 which shows that the cross
over point for this type of model comes in between Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.4. Therefore,
importance is given for these flow conditions. The fin front end angle does not show
much difference in the cross over point. All 3 thickness has the cross over point in
between Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.4. The WT model with fin thickness 1mm shows the
variation in rolling moment coefficient low (coefficient of rolling moment extends upto
-0.1) compared to the WT model with fin thickness 1.5mm and 2mm (coefficient of
rolling moment extends upto -0.45). The WT model with fin thickness 1.5mm and
2mm has the same pattern of roll moment coefficient.
To furthur analyse the roll moment for the WT model, the cross section along the
XY-axis is taken for inlet flow conditon of Mach 1.2 and Mach 1.4. This is depicted
in figure 4.13 and figure 4.14. This shows that oblique shock is formed when the flow
reaches the missile due to the sharp edge of the conical region. Then it continues with
a expansion shock at the end of the conical region. Behind the expansion wave the
flow is supersonic and this supersonic flow reaches the fin. From the Mach number
profile it is observed that just before the fin the flow is subsonic for inlet condition
of Mach 1.2 where as the flow remains supersonic before the fin for Mach 1.4. The
plot along the missile cross section in X-axis is shown in figure 4.15. This clearly
shows the variation of Mach profile on the missile surface. This concludes the shock
occurance near the fin region which makes the flow subsonic for Mach number 1.2
and partially supersonic for Mach number 1.4. This provides the flow near the fin for
Mach 1.2, which creates a complex 3D shock structure along the fin region. Due to
the asymmetric fin assembly the pressure distribution near the fin is very complex.
The static pressure plot along the missile length is also shown in figure 4.16. The
increase in pressure near the fin region confirms the formation of shock.
To learn more about the effects, cross section along the missile fin is taken normal
to X-axis to see the pressure distribution and mach profile. The figure 4.17 shows the
static pressure distribution along 25%, 50% and 75% for Mach 1.2 with different fin
thickness. Complex 3d bow-shock formation at the fin tips causes pressure difference
at the concave and convex side of the fins resulting in the development of forces on
the fin. The pressure along the concave side is very less compared to the convex side.
This provides the fin to roll towards the concave region. The static pressure for Mach
1.4 is show simultaneouly in figure 4.18 with different fin thickness. The pressure
along the fin is distributed with less pressure difference on the concave and convex
region. Therefore, the roll occurs along the convex side of the fin.
30
The Mach profile for different fin thickness is shown in the figure 4.19 for Mach 1.2.
This shows the formation of shocks inside the cavity of the fin. This shock pattern
from the concave side converges near 50% of the fin. This disturbs the flow near the
concave side and a pressure difference occurs.
Experiment were carried on the WT model with 1mm fin thickness, so the compar-
ison for computational and experimental is done on this missile profile. Comparison
of all the coefficients are done along the experimental results.
4.2.2 Experimental Results
Experiment was carried on the Supersonic Wind Tunnel available at Aerospace De-
partment, IIT Kanpur. The experiment was conducted on the fin with thickness of
1mm. The test was run under the flow condition of Mach 1.6. The model involves
the fin front angle of 45
o
, 30
o
and blunt semicircle. Aerodynamic coefficients have
been measured for the wrap-around fin using the six component strain gage balance.
The aerodynamic forces and moments are presented along the body axes at center of
gravity of the model.
Force Coefficient
Figure 4.20 shows the lift coefficient for the model with varied fin front end angle.
The pattern for each model remains almost same. The lift coefficient increases as the
angle of attack increases from negative to zero. Later from 0
o
to +2
o
the lift coefficient
falls. This is due to the force acting on the fins caused by the shock pattern in the fin
cavity. From +2
o
to +6
o
the change is lift coefficient is not drastic. The effect of the
flaire that holds the model also plays a major role in the lift coefficient. Temperature
also play a major roll in the lift factor. The temperature inside the test section is low
because of the pressure drop.
Figure 4.21 shows the drag coeffcient for the model. The drag coefficient decreases
from angle of attack -2
o
to 0
o
. From 0
o
to 6
o
there is a increase in drag for all the
model. Drag is also contributed from the flaire.
Side force coefficient has a sinusoidal variation as the angle of attack change. The
variation in the front end angle has slight changes in the side force coefficient. This
is shown in the figure 4.22. The computational counter part is shown in figure 4.23,
which show a slight variation from angle of attack 4
o
to 6
o
as compared to experimental
31
result. The sinusoidal change of side force from -2
o
to 2
o
angle of attack is due to the
change in Mach number distribution around the fin. The wrap around fin have more
side force, where as for planar fins the side force is almost zero [16].
Effect of the Flaire
To identify the effect of the flaire, tests where conducted for missile without fin. Major
effects where found for lift coefficient. Effect on lift is shown in the figure 4.24 which
show a linear increment in lift and the lift at angle of attack 6
o
is higher compared
to the model with fin. This is due to the shape of the flaire that produces a bow
shock at all angle of attack. This causes the increase in pressure from 0
o
to 6
o
angle
of attack. The bigger flaire size is due to the size of the balance used. As the balance
used is 40mm dia, the adapter employed to protect it from the high speed flow is also
big enough to produce increasing effects.
Moment Coefficient
The plot for coefficient of rolling moment is depicted in figure 4.25. The plot shows
that the rolling moment is positive at negative angle of attack. And it goes to negative
at positive angle of attack. This is compared with the computational result through
the figure 4.26. The study has shown that, rolling moment is acting at zero angle of
attack towards the concave side of the wrap-around fin. This is due to the oblique
shocks on the wrap-around fin due to sharp leading edge. Abate and Cook [5] obtained
the rolling moment and has given the converging diverging theory for infinitely thin
beveled fin. Rolling moment is changes linearly and acting towards the convex side
of the fin after zero degree angle of attack. This is due to the fin geometry and very
complex three dimensional flow structure generated by the shock interaction between
the fins. There is also the shock interaction between the bow shocks of the different
fins. This show a very complex three dimensional flow structure around the fins at
angle of attack and flow will be supersonic in the vicinity of wrap-around fins and
this might be the reason of change in the direction of rolling moment at 0
o
angle of
attack. Computation and experiment go well with each other.
Figure 4.27 depicts the coefficient of pitching moment for all the models. This
shows that the pitching moment is in negative for all angle of attack. But when
compared to computational results the pitching moment at negative angle of attack
32
is positive. The computational plot for coefficient of pitching moment is shown in
figure 4.28. Pitching moment remains zero for 0
o
angle of attack for planar fin config-
uration. But for wrap around fin missile the pitching moment is negative. Therefore,
a instability is introduced in the missile which drastically increases the side force and
thus makes the missile to wobble along the center of gravity of the missile.
Coefficient of yawing moment is depicted in figure 4.29, which shows that there
exist a positive yawing moment when the angle is set at -2
o
and 0
o
. Later it goes to
negative at positive angle of attack. When it is compared to the computational plot,
it slighty agrees with the pattern that both follows. The computational plot is given
in figure 4.30.
33
Figure 4.1: Comparison of Rolling Moment Coefficient Vs Mach Number.
Figure 4.2: Mach profile along the cross section in X-axis at Mach 1.3.
34
Figure 4.3: Static pressure plot along missile length.
Figure 4.4: Mach number plot along missile length.
35
Figure 4.5: Static pressure plot along fin region M = 1.3.
Figure 4.6: Static pressure plot along fin region M = 1.6.
Figure 4.7: Mach number plot along fin region M = 1.3.
36
Figure 4.8: Mach number plot along fin region M = 1.6.
Alpha
C
o
-
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
o
f
P
i
t
c
h
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6 8
-0.5
0
0.5
Mach 1.2
Mach 1.3
Mach 1.4
Mach 1.6
Mach 1.8
Figure 4.9: Coefficient of pitching moment Vs angle of attack .
Alpha
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
O
f
Y
a
w
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Mach 1.2
Mach 1.3
Mach 1.4
Mach 1.6
Mach 1.8
Figure 4.10: Coefficient of yawing moment Vs angle of attack .
37
Figure 4.11: Side force coefficient Vs angle of attack .
Figure 4.12: Rolling moment coefficient Vs Mach Number for WT model.
38
Figure 4.13: Mach profile along the missile length at Mach 1.2.
Figure 4.14: Mach profile along the missile length at Mach 1.4.
39
Figure 4.15: Mach number plot along the missile length.
Figure 4.16: Static Pressure plot along the missile length.
40
Figure 4.17: Static Pressure plot along the fin cross section with different fin thickness
at mach 1.2.
41
Figure 4.18: Static Pressure plot along the fin cross section with different fin thickness
at mach 1.4.
42
Figure 4.19: Mach profile plot along the fin cross section with different fin thickness
at mach 1.4.
43
Figure 4.20: lift Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6.
Figure 4.21: Drag Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6.
44
Figure 4.22: Side Force Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Experimental).
Angle of Attack
S
i
d
e
F
o
r
c
e
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
WT_45D
WT_30D
Figure 4.23: Side Force Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Computational).
45
Angle of Attack
L
i
f
t
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Flaire Effect
Figure 4.24: Lift Coefficient Vs Angle of Attack for Flaire at mach 1.6.
46
Figure 4.25: Coefficient of Rolling Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Experi-
mental).
Angle of attack
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
o
f
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
WT_45D
WT_30D
Figure 4.26: Coefficient of Rolling Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Compu-
tational).
47
Figure 4.27: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Exper-
imental).
Angle of Attack
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
o
f
P
i
t
c
h
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6
-4
-2
0
2
WT_45D
WT_30D
Figure 4.28: Coefficient of Pitching Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Com-
putational).
48
Figure 4.29: Coefficient of Yawing Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Experi-
mental).
Angle of Attack
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
o
f
Y
a
w
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
WT_45D
WT_30D
Figure 4.30: Coefficient of Yawing Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Compu-
tational).
49
Chapter 5
Conclusion
From the computational and experimental results the following conclusions have been
arrived:
1. Grid dependence was conducted with different grid configuration. This estab-
lishes the grid size parameter that has to be employed for furthur accurate
analysis.
2. Simulated result at 0
o
angle of attack shows the development of roll reveral at
low supersonic speed. This is believed to be due to the low pressure region on
the concave side of the fin. This can be seen from figure 4.5 and figure 4.17
3. The roll reversal occurs at low supersonic speed for both TTCP model and WT
model. The cross over point was identified as Mach 1.3 for TTCP model and
Mach 1.2 for WT model.
4. The roll reversal introduces the change in pitching and yawing moment due to
the pressure distribution along the concave and convex side of the missile fin.
5. The pitching moment inturn increases the side force which creates a instability in
the missile. From the figure 4.11 we can see the increase in side force coefficient
at 0
o
.
6. Increase in rolling moment and side force at higher angle of attack is due to the
effect of asymmetric flow distribution over the asymmetric fin configuration.
7. This instability due to the combined rolling, pitching and yawing moment dis-
turbs the aerodynamic behaviour of the missile and the missile could deviated
from its default path.
50
Bibliography
[1] E.F. Lucero. Subsonic stability and control charateristics of configurations incor-
porating wrap-around surfaces. Journal of Spacecraft and rockets., Vol-13,:pages
740–745, Dec 1976.
[2] Robert H. Whyte Umberto Catani, John J.Bertin and Wayne H.Hathaway. Aero-
dynamics characteristics for a slender missile with wrap-around fins. Journal of
spacecraft and rockets., Vol-35:pages 742–748, Nov-Dec 1998.
[3] Abate G.L. Winchenbach Riner Vitale, R.E. Aerodynamics test and analysis of
a missile configuration with curved fins. AIAA., pages 92–95, Aug 1992.
[4] H.L. Edge. Computation of the roll moment for a projectile with wrap-around
fins. Journal of spacecraft and rockets., Vol-31,:pages 615–620, Jul-Aug 1994.
[5] Theresa Cook Gregg L. Abate. Analysis of missile configuration with wrap-
around fins using computational fluid dynamics. AIAA-93-3631-CP., pages pages
157–166, 1993.
[6] B. Bar-Haim and A. Seginer. Aerodynamics of wraparound fins. Journal of
spacecraft and rockets., Vol-20,:pages 339–345, July-Aug 1983.
[7] Jae-Sung Bae In Lee nad Jang Hyuk Kwon Seung-Kil Paek, Tae-Sang Park.
Computation of roll moment for projectle with wrap-around fins using euler
equations. Journal of spacecraft and rockets., Vol-36,:pages 53–58, Jan-Feb 1999.
[8] C.W. Dahlke. The aerodynamics characteristics of wrap-around fins at mach
numbers of 0.3-3.0. Technical Report, US Army Missile Command, Redstone
Arsenal, AL,., Oct 1976.
[9] Bowersox R.D.W.-Goss L.P. McIntyre, T.C. Effects of mach number on su-
personic wraparound fin aerodynamics. Journal of spacecraft and rockets., Vol-
35,:pages 742–748, Nov-Dec 1998.
51
[10] Robert H. Whyte G.L. Winchenbach, Randy S.Buff and Wayne H.Hathaway.
Subsonic and transonic aerodynamics of a wraparound fin configuration. Journal
of Guidance., Vol-9,:pages 627–632, Nov-Dec 1986.
[11] Young Hoon Kim and G.L. Winchenbach. Roll motion of a wraparound fin
configuration at subsonic and transonic mach numbers. Journal of Guidance.,
Vol-9,:pages 253–255, 1985.
[12] C. P. Tilmann; R. E. Huffman Jr.; T. A. Buter; R. D. W. Bowersox. Experimental
investigation of the flow structure near a single wraparound fin. Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets., Vol-34,:pages 729–736, Nov-Dec 1997.
[13] Ameer G. Mikhil. Roll damping for projectiles including wraparound, offset
and arbitrary number of fins. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets., Vol-32,:pages
929–937, Nov-Dec 1995.
[14] Ansys Fluent Inc. Fluent Manual.
[15] AMES Research Staff. Equations, tables and charts for compressible flow. NACA
Report., Report-1135,:pages 50–64, 1953.
[16] Milton E. Vaughn Jr. James Despirito and . W.David Washington. Numerical
investigation of canard-controlled missile with planar and grid fins. Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets., Vol-40,:pages 929–937, May-June 2003.
52

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer for students: Only $4.99/month.

Master your semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Cancel anytime.