Copyright ©1996, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

AIAA Meeting Papers on Disc, January 1996

A9618418, AIAA Paper 96-0457

High L/D projectile aerodynamic considerations

Edward M. Schmidt
U.S. Army, Research Lab., Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD

AIAA 34th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV Jan 15-18, 1996

Kinetic energy projectiles require rods of increasing length to improve penetration. As such, they are fin-stabilized.
With added length, problems are introduced in achieving good flight characteristics. Yaw, jump, resonances, and
instabilities are aerodynamic factors that must be understood and controlled. This paper addresses these issues for a set
of generic fin-stabilized projectiles flying at ordnance velocities. (Author)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA on September 21, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-457

Page 1

High L/D Projectile Aerodynamic Considerations
Edward M. Schmidt
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland
Abstract: Kinetic energy projectiles require
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA on September 21, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-457
rods of increasing length to improve
penetration. As such, they are fin-stabilized.
With added length problems are introduced in
achieving good flight characteristics. Yaw,
jump, resonances, and instabilities are
aerodynamic factors that must be understood
and controlled. This paper addresses these
issues for a set of generic fin-stabilized
projectiles flying at ordnance velocities.
INTRODUCTION
Lanz and Odermatt [1] present analytic
descriptions of a series of Tungsten
penetrators compatible with 105mm through
140mm cannon. The rods range from a length
of 550mm to 950mm (22 < L/D < 50). It is
reasonable to ask what are the aerodynamic
properties of such configurations and what
problems may arise hi attempting to fly them
to the target. There is a considerable body of
information describing past problems
encountered in the flight of fin stabilized
projectiles [2-6]. Recently, Mikhail [7] has
considered the case of flexural resonance for
high L/D ordnance velocity projectiles while
Legner [8] treats both flexural and spin-yaw
resonance for hypervelocity cases. The
present paper uses the work of Lanz and
Odermatt [1] to postulate a set of generic
projectiles. These are then analyzed to define
important flight characteristics such as
retardation, yaw, aerodynamic jump,
resonance and stability behavior.
To make the analysis tractable, certain
AIAA-96-0457-
features of the generic family of projectiles
are held constant. The penetrators all have a
mass of 7.0kg (flight mass ~ 7.4kg) and are
assumed to have been launched at 1720m/s
(M = 5.0). Five different penetrator lengths
are considered varying from around 0.4m to
greater than 1 .Om. Naturally, since the mass
is constant, this implies that the penetrator
diameters vary proportionately (40mm > D >
20mm). To simplify identification, the rods
are defined by their nominal L/D = 10,20,30,
40, and 50. The aerodynamic appendages are
the windshield and the fins, both of which are
assumed to be Aluminum and nominally
identical for all rods. The windshield is a
conical nose with a 12deg half angle. There
are six, clipped delta fins having a root chord
of 101.6mm, tip chord of 25.4mm, and span of
50.8mm. The fin thickness is 3.81mm. The
rod intrudes 50.4mm into the fin hub. A
schematic of the L/D = 10 projectile is shown
in Fig (1).
The aerodynamic and inertia!
properties of the projectile were computed
using PRODAS [9]. This code has been
shown to be adequate for standard fin-
stabilized projectiles launched at ordnance
velocities. For the current set of designs,
aerodynamics of the high L/D cases should be
validated. The PRODAS predictions for the.
generic projectiles are given hi Table 1.
These values are used in the subsequent
sections to evaluate projectile flight dynamics.
Since Magnus moment is not provided, it will
be developed based on the approach of
BentonflO].
 FLIGHT DYNAMICS
L/D 10 20 30 40 50
While not widely appreciated,
dV/dx -49.5 -43.1 -38.7 -37.6 -35.6
atmospheric flight does provide some benefits
to the projectile designer - it permits fin-
stabilization. All projectiles are launched These numbers are optimistic since the fins
from guns with some initial angular rate. are rather thin and no grooves are present on
Without aerodynamic forces and moments, the the projectile to provide for sabot
rod would simply tumble. The only alternate engagement, but the trend is should be
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA on September 21, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-457

would be spin and, as will be seen, this can
lead to serious problemswith rod flexure.
Since the ulterior ballistician struggles
mightily for the last bit of muzzle velocity,
drag or retardation is of serious concern.
Retardation is calculated as
2m (1)
While the drag coefficient in Table 1
increases with projectile L/D, the fact that it is
multiplied by the projectile cross-
sectionalarea in Eq (1) means that the
retardation (in m/s/km) actually decreases
with L/D as follows
correct. Unfortunately, this is not the
complete picture with respect to drag. The
above numbers are for zero yaw. The
influence of yaw is to increase drag for higher
L/D projectiles faster than for lower L/D
designs.
As mentioned above, all projectiles are
launched with finite angular rates. Within the
cannon, the yaw angle is highly constrained
and in-bore yaw should not exceed 0.1 deg for
a well designed round in a gun without serious
wear. But even at such small yaws, the yaw
rates can be appreciable due to the high in-
bore stiffness of the sabots and gun tube.
Outside the gun, sabot discard further
modifies the yaw behavior. A nominal
value for the initial free flight angular rate is

Table 1. PRODAS Predictions for Generic Projectiles

L/D D m Ix
(kg-m2)
iy
(kg-m2) CD C
x. C
«. C
».
(mm) (kg)
X1000

10 37.14 7.483 1.5651 0.1001 0.329 11.2 -30.6 -324

20 29.46 7.437 1.0571 0.2411 0.455 14.9 -96.6 -1690
30 25.76 7.425 0.8518 0.4071 0.534 17.3 -182 -4360
40 23.39 7.408 0.7332 0.5913 0.631 19.1 -280 -8540
50 21.72 7.401 0.6556 0.7916 0.691 20.7 -389 -14300
 lOrad/s. Since the projectile-is statically sta
ble, increasing yaw is opposed by the action
of the fins and a maximum is reached which is
given by
(2)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA on September 21, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-457
The variation of this parameter with
L/D is presented in Fig (2). It can be seen that
the for an equal value of initial angular rate
the yaw increases with L/D. Apparently, the
increasing aerodynamic moment is not
sufficient to balance the greater transverse
momentum. This increase hi yaw level with
L/D can be a problem since penetration is
degraded by yaw and this degradation
increases with rod L/D. Fortunately, yaw
damping acts to decrease this angle as the
projectile moves downrange. Damping will
be discussed as part of the paragraphs on
dynamic stability later hi the paper.
Another effect of initial yaw rate is to
provide for a deviation of the trajectory. Lift
forces on the projectile cause the round to
swerve side to side. When integrated in range
the summed swerve provides a lateral
deviation of the trajectory termed
Aerodynamic Jump [2] which can be
expressed as
(3)
The variation of the Aerodynamic Jump
Coefficient, term hi brackets hi Eq (3), with
L/D is tabulated below
L/D 10 20 30 40 50
[...] -0.077 -0.098 -0.117 -0.136 -0.152
As L/D increases, so does the Jump
Coefficient. For the nominal lOrad/s launch
angular rate, the L/D = 50 projectile would
experience a l.Smr jump (roughly 4.5m at
3.0km range). This factor is significant
especially if the launch rates are randomly
distributed. If the launch rates are biased hi a
given direction then the calibration (zero)
policy may be able to correct for the
aerodynamic jump.
Fin-stabilized projectiles require some
rolling motion hi order to average out the
effect of inertia! or aerodynamic asymmetries.
The nature of this problem is clearly
illustrated in Fig (3) which plots the lateral
trajectory deviation for an L/D = 30 projectile
having a Ideg trim angle due to asymmetry,
but zero roll rate. At 3.0km range, the round
has deviated by more than 55m from the aim
point. This is clearly unacceptable. To avoid
the problem, the fins are canted to induce
rolling motion about the projectile's principle
axis. The introduction of roll brings a host of
new problems dealing with resonance and
dynamic stability. There are two resonance
problems to consider, low frequency spin-yaw
lock-in and higher frequency flexural
resonance. At frequencies on the order of ten
Hertz, the roll rate and yaw rate can come into
coincidence. When the two rates are equal,
asymmetric trim angles can be greatly
amplified. The yawing frequency is
(4)
and the amplification of the zero roll rate trim
angle at roll resonance is [2]
(5)
 The values of the amplification factor, the
terms multiplying trim angle in Eq (5), for the
generic projectiles are tabulated below
L/D 10 20 30 40 50
a.f. 22.3 21.2 20.5 19.9 19.5
There is little change in amplification
factor with projectile L/D; however, the
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA on September 21, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-457
values of the amplification are quite alarming.
If a projectile had sufficient asymmetry to
generate a Ideg trim angle at zero roll, this
would grow to 20deg or so at the resonance
condition. To avoid spin-yaw resonance, the
projectile designer typically uses a rule-of-
thumb which takes a steady state roll rate of
five times the yaw rate as being sufficient to
drive the projectile through roll resonance and
maintain a safe margin for the remainder of
the trajectory [3].
Increasing roll rate requires con-
sideration be given to resonance with the
fundamental fiexural frequencies of the rod.
At this condition, the rod can be expected to
sustain relatively large lateral bending [7,8].
The fundamental frequencies for a free-free
right circular beam are given [11] as
/.r-^ytp/^4])1'2 (6)
where Cn = 0.0,4.730,7.853,10.996,14.137,
17.279,... for the rigid body, first bending
mode, etc. The spin-yaw and flexural res-
onance frequencies are presented in Fig (4).
As L/D increases, the spread in roll
rate between the two resonance conditions
decreases dramatically. In fact, the nominal
rule-of-thumb begins to bump up against the
flexural resonance condition for L/D > 40.
Since the next highest bending frequency is
roughly a factor of two greater than that
shown in Fig (4), it is interesting to consider
if the projectile could be given a fin cant to
drive it past the first mode and to a steady
state at roll rate between the first and second
modes. Mikhail [7] has analyzed this
possibility and comes to the conclusion that
the round will lock-in at the first mode
condition. Another problem to consider as the
roll rate increases is Magnus instability.
Magnus forces and moments are
lateral loads induced by spin or roll. For a
spin-stabilized projectile, they are typically
associated with distortion of the viscous
boundary or separated layers by spin. For
finners, data is extremely sparse and the origin
of the loads are less understood. Benton [10]
provides conjecture as to a variety of sources
including vortices shed off of forward wings
or canards, shadowing of fins in separated
flow regions, or the influence of fin cant. For
the basic designs considered here, there are no
forward wings so only the latter two processes
are applicable. Unfortunately, there is no
simple analysis describing the separated flow
case. Benton does provide guidance for
Magnus due to differential fin cant. A
straightforward application of Benton's
procedure to the clipped delta, six bladed fin
set was developed. Details will be reported
elsewhere, but the resulting estimates of
Magnus moment are tabulated below
L/D 10 20 30 40 50
-14.1 -28.1 -44.1 -59.5 -76.0
C
«~
Murphy [2] has developed a general
stability criteria which permits examination of
yaw damping characteristics. It is expressed
 -1
(7)
where
F+2A. (8)
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA on September 21, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-457
(/. pf
(9)
the damping term, A, may be set by the
designer to achieve the desired rate of yaw
decay with range. For the present case, this is
selected to be a damping of yaw to 1/3 the
first maximum level at a range of 1km (-A/D
= 0.0011). The standard dynamic stability
criteria requires that yaw not grow, this is
stated as
2T ,n 2T. 1
——(2——)a —
H H S. (10)
These criteria are compared hi Fig (5). It is
seen that as L/D increases, the maximum roll
rate for no yaw growth increases substantially,
well hi excess of the values considered for
resonances. However, Murphy's generalized
criteria that specifies a level of yaw damping
indicates that roll rates should be maintained
at less than 500Hz. hi any case, this value is
also above that under consideration elsewhere.
The question arises as to how well the
Magnus moment has been predicted. While it
has been validated at L/D = 10 for
rectangular, four finned projectiles, it has not
been compared with other, more diverse
configurations. Unfortunately, there is very
little data against which to make such
comparisons.
SUMMARY
The aerodynamic behavior of fin-
stabilized projectiles has been considered.
Regions of roll resonance promise difficulty
to future designers as projectile LTD increases.
The consideration of dynamic stability is
severely hampered by availability of data and
a reasonable first order analysis. The
application of computational fluid dynamics
to the estimate of Magnus forces and moments
oniin-stabilized projectiles may help resolve
this problem.
REFERENCES
1. W. Lanz and W. Odermatt, "Penetration
Limits of Conventional Large Caliber Anti-
Tank Guns/Kinetic Energy Projectiles," 13th
Int'l Symp on Ballistics, 6/92.
2. C. H. Murphy, "Free Flight Motion of
Symmetric Missiles," BRLR 1216,7/63.
3. J. D. Nicolaides, "A History of Ordnance
Flight Dynamics," AIAA Paper 70-533, 4/70.
4. A. S. Platou, "Magnus Characteristics of
Fin and Nonfin Projectiles," AIAA J, 1/65.
5. C. H. Murphy, "Response of an
Asymmetric Missile to Spin Varying through
Resonance," AIAA J, 11/71.
6. C. H. Murphy, "Some Special Cases of
Spin-Yaw Lock-In," AIAA G&C, 11-12/89.
7. A. G. Mikhail, "In-Flight Rod Flexure and
Spin Lock for Kinetic Energy Projectiles,"
15th Int'l Symp on Ballistics, 5/95.
8. H. H. Legner and W. G. Reinecke,
"Exterior Ballistics of Hypervelocity
Projectiles Reviewed," 15th Int'l Symp on
Ballistics, 5/95.
9. R. Whyte, "PRODAS - Projectile
Analysis," Arrow Tech Associates, 1991.
10. E. R. Benton, "Supersonic Magnus Effect
on a Finned Missile," AIAA J, 1/64.
11. S. Timoshenko, Vibration Problems hi
Engineering. D. VanNostrand, 1961.
 -CG-
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA on September 21, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-457

Figure (1) Schematic of L/D =10 Projectile

10 20 30 40 50

L/D

Figure (2) First Maximum Yaw for lOrad/s Initial Rate

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA on September 21, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-457

1000 2000 3000

RANGE (m)

Figure (3) Lateral Deflection for L/D = 30 Projectile with Ideg Trim and Zero Roll Rate

500

400

--FLEXURAL RESONANCE
300
UJ

<
OC

200
o
or
RULE-OF-THUMB
100 •

SPIN-YAW RESONANCE

10 20 30 40 50

L/D

Figure (4) Resonance Conditions

 3000

2000
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA on September 21, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1996-457

< <-- FOR NO YAW GROWTH

DC

O
DC

1000
X
<
MURPHY'S DYNAMIC STABILITY CRITERIA

10 20 30 40 50

L/D

Figure (5) Dynamic Stability Criteria