Design of Hypervelocity Test Facility up to 10Km/s

Six Months Industrial Training Report

At
TBRL (DRDO), Ramgarh

Submitted In the Partial Fulfilment of The Requirements for The Award of

Degree

BACHELOR OF ENGINEERING
IN
AEROSPACE ENGINEERING

PUNJAB ENGINEERING COLLEGE (DEMMED UNIVERSITY)

PEC, CHANDIGARH
Feb2021 – July2021

SUBMITTED BY
Rajneesh Manhas
B. Tech 6th Sem.
SID-18101024

1
 PROJECT REPORT
(Internship Semester February-July 2021)

Design of Hypervelocity Test Facility up to 10Km/s

Submitted by

RAJNEESHMANHAS
18101024

Under the Guidance of

Prof. M.S. Rajeshwaran Mr.Vikas Bhardwaj, Sci. E

Department of AEROSPACE Engineering

Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Chandigarh

FEBURARY to JULY,2021

2
 Declaration
I hereby declare that the project work entitled “Hypervelocity test facility up to 10 KMs-1” is
an authentic record of my own work carried out at ‘Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory’
as requirements of six months project semester for the award of degree of B.E./B.Tech.
Aerospace Engineering, Punjab Engineering College (Deemed to be University), Chandigarh,
under the guidance of (Sci. Vikas Bhardwaj) and (Prof. M.S. Rajeshwaran), during 5 Feb
2021 to 1 July, 2021).

(Signature of student)

Rajneesh Manhas

18101024

Date: ___________________

Certified that the above statement made by the student is correct to the best of our knowledge
and belief.

(Name & Designation) (Name & Designation)

Faculty Coordinator Industry Coordinator

3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

The report has been prepared for the internship that has been done in the Terminal Ballistic
Research Laboratory (TBRL) Ramgarh, Panchkula in order to study the practical aspect of
the Military Ballistics and implementation of the theory in the real field with the purpose of
fulfilling the requirements.

The aim of this internship is to be familiar to the practical aspect and uses of theoretical
knowledge and clarifying the career goals, so I have successfully completed the internship
and compiled this report as the summary and the conclusion that have drawn from the
internship experience. I would like to express my sincere gratitude to our internship
coordinator who have given their valuable time and given me chance to learn something
despite having their busy schedule to ‘Mr. Vikas Bhardwaj (Sc. E) for his great guidelines for
this internship. I am also thankful to ‘Mr. Prince Sharma (Sc. F) and other staff member for
their co-operative support, and presenting with an opportunity for me to have a practical
experience in this organization.

Lastly, I would like to thank Sayansh Jindal for providing this opportunity to work in TBRL
( DRDO ) and ‘Prof. Rajeshwaran’ of Punjab Engineering College who helped me to clutch
the rear opportunities to learn the real-world situations. I am also grateful to all member of
TBRL for providing several documents, papers, data, figures, and services as well as sharing
their experience with me and teaching me different techniques to build the Efficiency for to
operate effectively and efficiently. Thus, the time in TBRL is very audacious and supportive
to my career through which I have gained valuable work experience that will help to make a
favourable impression on me as a prospective future employer.

Sincerely

Rajneesh MANHAS

July 2021

4
ABSTRACT
At TBRL (DRDO) an Affordable Techniques has been developed to duplicate the type of
impacts observed on spacecraft, including the shuttle, by use of a certified hypervelocity
impact facility (HIF) which propels particulates using 2 stage gas guns. The fully operational
facility provides a flux of particles in the 10-100 Micron diameter range with a velocity
distribution covering the space debris and interplanetary dust particle environment. HIF
measurements of particle size, composition, impact angle and velocity distribution indicate
that such parameters can be controlled in a specified, tailored test designed for or by the user.
Unique diagnostics enable researchers to fully describe the impact for evaluating the 'targets'
under full power or load.

The performance of the gas gun was investigated through experiments and a quasi ‐one ‐
dimensional modelling of it was also developed and described in detail. The model accounts
for the friction and heat transfer to the tube wall for gases by adding a source term. An
improved model has been established to consider the inertial loads in the piston or projectile
and model the friction force with the tube wall. Besides, the effects of pump tube pressure on
the performance of the gas gun are also investigated numerically. Simulations of the pressure
histories in the pump tube and the piston and projectile velocities were conducted. A good
agreement was observed between the computational predictions and experimental results.

Users regularly evaluate space hardware, including solar cells, coatings, and materials,
exposing selected portions of space-qualified items to a wide range of impact events and
environmental conditions. Benefits include corroboration of data obtained from impact
events, flight simulation of designs, accelerated aging of systems, and development of
manufacturing techniques.

Contents

5
1 INTRODUCTION.........................................................................................................................8
2 ABOUT INDUSTRY..................................................................................................................10
2.1 VISION...............................................................................................................................10
2.2 MISSION.............................................................................................................................10
2.3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF TBRL........................................................................11
2.4 AREAS OF WORK.............................................................................................................11
2.5 PRODUCTS........................................................................................................................12
2.6 FACILITIES AVAILABLE................................................................................................12
2.6.1 Performance Evaluation of Warheads..........................................................................12
2.7 ACHIEVEMENTS..............................................................................................................13
2.7.1 BAFFLE RANGE- SMART SOLUTION FOR SMALL ARMS PRACTICE FIRING
13
2.7.2 BUND BLASTING DEVICE (BBD)..........................................................................13
2.7.3 MULTI-MODE HAND GRENADE............................................................................14
2.7.4 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION- PLASTIC BULLETS, FRANGIBLE CERAMIC
AND METAL AMMUNITION..................................................................................................15
3 FACILITY DESCRIPTION........................................................................................................17
3.1 Facility.................................................................................................................................17
3.2 Piston and Projectile............................................................................................................18
4 NUMERICAL MODELLING.....................................................................................................21
4.1 Governing Equations...........................................................................................................21
4.2 Gas‐Phase: Friction and Heat Transfer Terms.....................................................................23
4.3 Friction between Piston and Wall........................................................................................24
4.4 Comparison of data to gas dynamic theory..........................................................................27
4.4.1 Lagrangian Code..........................................................................................................27
4.4.2 QUASI ONE-DIMENSION CFD CODE....................................................................27
5 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................29
5.1 Boundary Conditions...........................................................................................................30
5.2 Numerical Models and Equation..........................................................................................30
5.3 Solution Procedure...............................................................................................................31
5.3.1 FIRST STAGE.............................................................................................................31
5.3.2 SECOND STAGE........................................................................................................31
5.3.3 INVENTION AND DESIGN PROCESS....................................................................32
5.3.4 Testing and Analysis / hyper velocity impact testing...................................................34
6 Results And Discussion...............................................................................................................36
6.1 Validation............................................................................................................................37

6
 6.2 OBSERVATION AND CONTOUR PLOTS.......................................................................40
6.3 Effects of the Pump Tube Pressure......................................................................................41
7 Conclusion...................................................................................................................................42
8 References...................................................................................................................................43
9 Table of Figures...........................................................................................................................44

7
1 INTRODUCTION
A gas dynamic gun is a kind of test facility in which the test models or projectiles are
launched at desired velocities and the aerodynamic properties of the flying models are
measured during its flight, or shock and damage of the targets are measured upon the
projectile impact. With the invention of two‐stage light gas gun by Crozier in 1946 and Hume
in 1950s, especially hypervelocity ballistic range, was widely used in the fields of
hypervelocity aero thermodynamics and hypervelocity impact effects as the results of
development of hypervelocity re-entry vehicles,
protection of structures/shields against space debris, and kinetic energy weapons. Although
there are several other kinds of hypervelocity launchers, such as the electro‐magnetic rail gun
and coil gun, the two‐stage light gas gun remains the most reliable and frequently used device
in laboratories. Relative to other launchers, the two‐stage light gas gun has advantages in
considerable versatility, maturity of technology, low cost, and capability of launching test
models of different shapes at hypervelocity.

Regardless of the driving method, the energy of the projectile depends on the energy that is
stored in the driver section. Therefore, the driving method is of critical significance to the
two‐stage light gas gun. The simplest method is to utilize the high‐pressure gas filled in
driver section as the driver gas directly. However, the driving capability of this method is not
often sufficient, i.e., the available speed or energy of projectile is often not high enough to
meet the experimental requirements within the range of operable pressure. This driving
method is therefore mainly limited to situations requiring relatively low speed or energy for
the projectile. To improve the driving capability, gunpowder is often used. Owing to the
release of chemical energy, the driving capability of gunpowder is much more powerful than
that of high‐pressure gas. For example, the largest two stage light gas gun in the world, the
Arnold Engineering Development Complex (AEDC) Range‐G, can launch a projectile of 10
kg to speeds higher than 4 km/s. Many studies of this driving method have been conducted,
and relevant theories and numerical methods have been developed.

Although most large‐scale two‐stage light gas guns are currently driven by gunpowder, this
driving method also has disadvantages. First, the transport, storage, and use of gunpowder are
highly specialized activities and are restricted to strictly qualified organizations; therefore, the
use of gunpowder is often out of reach for many research institutes. Second, it is a

8
cumbersome task to clean the gunpowder residue after each run. Therefore, it is necessary to
develop an alternative driving method that not only makes up the deficiency of driving
capability of the high‐pressure gas but also is more available and convenient compared to
methods requiring gunpowder.

Gas guns driven by the combustion of flammable and explosive gases have been investigated
as an alternative driving method. The combustion light gas gun that uses H2, O2, and He
mixture gas as the driving gas was first developed by the UTRON Company. It can launch a
projectile of 0.2 kg to speeds higher than 2.8 km/s. The China Aerodynamics Research and
Development Centre (CARDC) and McGill University also developed combustion two‐stage
light gas guns capable of a speed of 5.6 km/s. Deng has developed an interior ballistics
model of combustion light gas gun and found that the combustion process could be
successfully controlled by adding the proper quantity of diluents. Pressure oscillation and
average temperature of the chamber were also reduced. However, the combustion light gas
gun has difficulty in getting uniform and predictable ignition or muzzle velocities.

9
 2 ABOUT INDUSTRY

TERMINAL BALLISTICS RESEARCH LABORATARY

(TBRL)

Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (TBRL) was envisaged in 1961 as one of the
modern armament research laboratories under the Department of Defence Research &
Development. The laboratory became fully operational in 1967 and was formally inaugurated
in January 1968 by the then Defence Minister. While the main laboratory is situated in
Chandigarh, the firing range, spread over an area of 5000 acre, is located at Ramgarh in
Haryana, 22 km away from Chandigarh. Over the past three decades, the Laboratory has
grown into an institution of excellence and has become one of the major technical bases in
the field of armament studies in DRDO.

2.1 VISION
TBRL envisage self-reliance in the development of technologies related to conventional and
non-conventional warheads and provide state-of–the-art diagnostics facilities for assessment
of terminal effects of armaments stores.

2.2 MISSION
Develop critical technologies and products related to conventional and non-conventional
warheads, provide state-of-the-art diagnostics facilities for test and evaluation of armaments
stores. Build strong technology base in the country in the field of armaments by providing
requisite infrastructures and committed quality manpower

10
2.3 HISTORICAL BACKGROUND OF TBRL

After the end of Second World War, new generation weapons and warheads were introduced
in the armed forces worldwide. To keep pace with these new technological developments,
strong need was felt to create the indigenous base for setting up specialized instrumented
facilities and range technologies essential for the evolution of data essential for design,
development & evaluation of warheads and weapon systems. Terminal Ballistics Research
Laboratory, Chandigarh was thus formed in 1961 as one of armament research laboratory,
under the Department of Defence Research & Development with an aim to provide facilities
for applied research and technology development in the fields of high explosives processing,
detonics and shock dynamics, blast & damage, immunity, lethality & fragmentation, defeat of
armour and performance evaluation of warheads & other armament systems.

The laboratory is certified as per International Quality Management Systems Standard ISO
9001:2000 by Standardization Testing and Quality Certification Services (STQC),
Department of Information Technology (DIT), Government of India. It was upgraded to ISO
9001:2008 in 2014.

The laboratory is certified as per International Quality Management Systems Standard ISO
9001:2000 by Standardization Testing and Quality Certification Services (STQC),
Department of Information Technology (DIT), Government of India.

2.4 AREAS OF WORK

 Performance of armour defeating projectiles and immunity profiles.

 Studies of ground shock, blast damage, fragmentation and lethality.
 Preparation of safety templates for various weapons.
 Studies of underwater detonics and pressure wave propagation
 Explosive forming, cladding and welding.
 Development, production, processing and characterization of different high explosive
compositions.
 Impact & penetration studies and characterization of materials at high strain rates

11
  Technology for generation of high energy electrical pulse power through explosive
driven magnetic flux compression
 Blast, Lethality and Fragmentation studies of warheads, shells and other ammunitions.
 Captive flight testing of Bombs, Missiles and Airborne systems.
 Ballistics evaluation of various protective systems like body armour, vehicle armour
and helmets against small arm ammunition.
 Blast, Lethality and Fragmentation studies of warheads, shells and other ammunitions.
 Captive flight testing of Bombs, Missiles and Airborne systems.
 Ballistics evaluation of various protective systems like body armour, vehicle armour
and helmets against small arm ammunition.
 Design and development of Baffle Ranges, Warhead and Exploder for Torpedoes,
Bund Blasting Devices, Multi-mode Hand Grenade, Non-lethal plastic and frangible
bullets, High voltage- high energy electrical power packs.

2.5 PRODUCTS

 Ballistic Evaluation of Bullet Proof Panels/Jackets: TBRL offers its expertise and

specialized facilities for ballistic evaluation of bullet proof panels/helmets against
various small arms ammunitions.
 Development of Riot Control Non-Lethal Plastic Bullet: For usage by para-military
forces and the police organizations
 Bund Blasting Devices
 Multimode Grenade
 Baffle range

2.6 FACILITIES AVAILABLE

2.6.1 Performance Evaluation of Warheads

TBRL has instrumented facilities for generation of data for computation of lethality in terms
of Mean Area of Effect. Evaluation of aircraft bombs, shells and missile warheads are
conducted in horizontal/vertical strawboard layout to assess the following parameters in one
firing.

12
  Mass distribution of fragments
 Spatial distribution of fragments
 Velocity of fragments
 Blast parameters
 Penetration performance of fragments in simulated targets

This data, thus generated, is used for assessing beam width, hit/perforation density,
percentage perforation and spallation/deformation level of preformed fragments. For
computation of absolute safety distance, fragmentation trials are carried out in a sand pit
layout and in underwater fragmentation tank for determination of the heaviest fragment and
mass distribution of fragments. The data generated in all the above trials is used for
computation of following parameters.

 Mean Area of effect

 Absolute Safety Distance
 Normal Safety Distance
 Safety distances based on casualty criterion

2.7 ACHIEVEMENTS
2.7.1 BAFFLE RANGE- SMART SOLUTION FOR SMALL ARMS PRACTICE FIRING
Baffle range uses an improvised concept of a system of ground barriers, side walls, baffle
walls and stop butt to arrest the misdirected bullets. The land required for a Baffle range can
be reduced to 15-20 acres (The area required for a classification range with full danger area is
around 500 acres) by providing suitably designed ballistic protection structures (i.e., baffle
walls, side walls, ground barriers, stop butt etc) at specified locations and strict enforcement
of safety rules/ precautions in the range. Such a great saving of land creates a possibility of
having practice firing ranges at cantonments with short availability of land due to increasing
population and very high estate cost.

Salient Features

 Baffle range accommodates six firers in lying, kneeling and standing-in-trench firing
positions from firing points at 500,400,300,200,100 and 50m (standing position only)
 Safe against firing error of 14o in the horizontal plane and 12o in the vertical plane

13
 from the intended line of fire

2.7.2 BUND BLASTING DEVICE (BBD)

 TBRL has designed and developed Bund Blasting Device, based on the principle of
hollow charge and a rocket assisted high explosive filled follow through projectile
 For movement of mechanized army against various types of obstacles canal banks and
DCBs.
 To launch equipment, bridges to enhance the mobility of mechanized infantry in the
war-field.
 On activation, main bursting charge moves down with the help of Rocket motor.
 Then activates a specially designed hollow charge initiation device.
 Hollow charge created a pilot hole in the ground. Main bursting charge enters to the
base of the pilot hole detonates after a pre-set delay of 3 seconds and creates the
required breach/crater.

Figure 1:Experimental field views at TBRL, DRDO

Salient features

 Man portable
 Single action functioning and Capable of firing in an array mode
 Rocket assisted and hence flawless flight of projectile into the hole created by hollow
charge.
 Initiation device being Explosive - Mechanical, no power back is required to activate.

14
2.7.3 MULTI-MODE HAND GRENADE

Grenades of natural fragmentation type have been in use by the infantry world over for a long
time. Indian Army still uses the 36M, a grenade which also has severe reliability problems
and uneven fragmenting pattern making it unsafe even to the thrower. The multi-mode
grenade has been developed to overcome these defects. It uses preformed cylindrical mild
steel pre-fragments to achieve uniform distribution.

Salient Features

 Modular in design
 Light in weight
 Uniform fragmentation pattern

Figure
2:Grenade

 Less safety distances

 Higher splinter density
 Additional safety
 Maintenance free
 Highly reliability

2.7.4 NON-LETHAL AMMUNITION- PLASTIC BULLETS,

FRANGIBLE CERAMIC AND METAL AMMUNITION

Figure 3:Plastic bullets, Frangible ceramic, and Metal ammunition

To counter the political and social unrests expressed by the people in the form of
demonstrations which are traditionally dealt with lathi charge, tear gas, firing and end up in

15
killing etc, TBRL has designed & developed Riot control ammunitions for Police and law
enforcing agencies. These ammunitions are currently being used by various such agencies in
the country. These deter unruly situations by inducing fear and using non- lethal techniques.

Plastic Bullets: Salient Features

 A non- metallic & non-poisonous bullet, non-expanding after penetration

 Induces similar sound effect as that of Ball Ammunition up to 150 m Range
 Causes only superficial injuries at 60 m and above range
 Ammunition available in two calibres i.e., .303" & 7.62mm
 Can be used by in-service weapons without any modification

Frangible Ceramic/ Metallic Ammunition

 Non-toxic and Eco- friendly. Available in 9mm calibre

 Can be fired from standard service weapons without any modification
 Disintegrates into powder on hitting hard targets like walls, metallic plate etc
 Best suitable for Training purposes and can be safely used in indoor shooting ranges
 Disintegrates into small fragments of hitting any hard target
 Powder Metallurgy techniques have been used to produce metal-matrix simulates that
are having properties very similar to lead.

16
3 FACILITY DESCRIPTION
3.1 Facility
This report concerns the modelling and simulation of a particular built facility, namely
the Two-stage light gas gun facility at the Terminal Ballistics Research Laboratory (DRDO),
Ramgarh. The facility consists of a detonation tube, a pump tube, a launch tube, and a target
chamber, as shown in Figure 1.

These components have inner diameters of 190 mm(D1), 75 mm(D2), 30 mm(D3) and 20
mm(D4), respectively. The lengths of each section are shown in Figure 4. Diaphragm Ⅰ
separates the detonation tube and the pump tube, and diaphragm Ⅱ separates the pump tube
and the launch tube; both are scored steel diaphragm. The grooves in the form of a cross
with different depths are designed to adjust the critical rupture pressure of the diaphragm
and minimize fragmentation. Diaphragm Ⅱ is designed to have a rupture pressure of 45 MPa
or 75 MPa depending on the study. An ignition tube is placed at the upstream end wall of the
drive tube. The mixture in the ignition tube is initially ignited by electrical sparks. A high‐
temperature jet is formed and propagating into the driving section, thereby the detonable gas
directly. This will lead to a stable detonation wave traveling downstream in the detonation
tube, behind which a Taylor wave follows and the products are at high temperature and
pressure.

Figure 4: The figure here visualizes the requested Dimensions

17
Piezoelectric pressure transducers with a resonant frequency of more than 100 kHz, are
mounted on the tube sidewall to record the pressure histories. The signals from the sensors
are acquired by a signal conditioner and are processed on a PC‐based data acquisition system
at a sampling rate of 2 MHz the transducers are labelled as P1 to P9 in the present study. P1
is in the detonation tube and the others are placed in the pump tube.

3.2 Piston and Projectile

The schematic drawing of the piston is shown in Figure 5. The front and rear part are
made of polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE), which can prevent abrasion of the pump tube and
minimize friction losses. The diameter of the piston at positions a, b, and c in Figure 5 is 75 +
(0.1 – 0.2) mm at room temperature before the experiments. The diameter at position d is
manufactured to be 75 + (0.5–0.9) mm, which can prevent gas leakage from the pump tube to
the detonation tube and make full use of the compressed light gas. Although the piston will
freeze before the experiments, the diameter at position d can still satisfy a close fit with the
pump tube. To further minimize friction losses, the diameter of the piston is locally reduced
as shown in Figure 5. The deformable front and rear parts of the piston have a weight of
3.114 kg and 0.700 kg, respectively, and they are replaced after each test. The PTFE
surrounds a steel metallic weight, with a diameter of 74 mm. The length of the steel weight is
selected in order to change the weight of the piston and influence the compression process. In
the present study, a steel weight of 4.686 kg is selected. Thus, the total weight of the
piston is 8.5 kg, with a total length of 850 mm.

Due to the geometric variation in the longitudinal direction as the piston moves past the
piezoelectric transducers, the pressure around the sensors and the voltage of the piezoelectric
transducers change. Typical pressure periods as the piston move past the sensors P3 and P8
are
shown in Figure 6. Points d, e, and f in Figure 6 represent time when the corresponding point
on the piston passes the sensor. In Figure 6 (a), the rising of the pressure at point d indicates
the passing of the piston, as well as the arrival of the high-pressure detonation gas. For the
pressure sensors at the right section of the pump tube, they are already exposed to the high-
pressure light gas at the arrival of the piston. There are significant pressure changes due to the
geometric variation in the longitudinal direction of the piston, as shown in Figure 6(b). Thus,
the pressure histories can be used to calculate the piston velocities at different positions.

18
 Figure 5: Schematic diagram of the piston (not to scale, units in mm).

Figure 6: Pressure periods in the pump tube during the piston movement passing through the
sensor (Image for one random launch).
Different shapes and weights of projectile can be used in the gas gun. However, only the
muzzle

19
velocity value and the measuring method are described here. A laser diagnostic system and
highspeed photography was used to measure the projectile velocity. The laser diagnostic
system can measure the projectile muzzle velocity directly, while the high‐speed photography
is an auxiliary method to verify the accuracy of the results of the laser diagnostic system
results. The photography optical window is 3320 mm away from the launch tube exit. The
snapshots in Figure 4 demonstrate the high‐speed photography results processed by a script
written in Python that incorporates edge detection and shape fitting methods. The velocity of
the projectile is calculated using Equation (1):
∇ d R PRO
v PRO= (1)
∇ t R¿

where ∇ dis the distance between the centre of the red circle in two images, ∇ t is the time
interval between two sequential frames, i.e., 13.3 μs in the present case; RPRO and RRED are the
radius of the actual projectile and the radius of the red circle in the image, respectively. RRED
and ∇ d have the unit of pixel and their values are related to the resolution of the high‐speed
camera. However, their values are detected from the images and have no influence to the
actual projectile velocity calculation. The projectile in the present is a cylinder with a
spherical head, as shown in Figure 7, and the diameter of the sphere is 20 mm.

Figure 7:Results of high‐speed photography with a time interval of 13.3 μs; the projectile has
a diameter of 20mm.
The optical window was 3320 mm away from the muzzle exit.

20
4 NUMERICAL MODELLING
4.1 Governing Equations
Numerical simulations are necessary to understand the gas‐dynamic processes and piston or
projectile movement, and they are straightforward and provide detailed information. A
simulation is also a simple method to identify and assess new operating parameters of the test
conditions without risk to the facility and hardware, as well as for the validation of new
design concepts. The two‐stage gas gun driven by detonation involves detonation, flow of
gas, motion of the piston and projectile, energy dissipation, and other complex chemical and
physical phenomena. A two‐dimensional axisymmetric investigation of the tube flows by
solving the unsteady Navier‐Stokes’s equation coupled with the heat conduction equation
would be a more appropriate method. However, modelling all phenomena in detail is
unrealistic in this method. For example, it is challenging to simulate the strong interactions
between the detonation waves and the main diaphragm. In addition, the computer resources
and simulation time are extensive, even for simple shock tube cases, not to mention the
detonation tubes where complicated chemical reactions occur. Thus, a quasi‐one‐dimensional
code is more attractive for the engineering design in the present study.
The flow of gas is modelled by the quasi‐one‐dimensional equations, and the detonation
process in the drive gas is described by the two‐step chemical reaction model modified by
Sichel et al.[ CITATION PlaceholderX \l 1033 ]
The equations, written in conservation form, are

∂U ∂ Af ∂ A
A + − H −S c − A S w = 0 (2)
∂T ∂ x ∂x

where the state vector U = (ρ, ρu, e, ρα, ρβ)T, the flux vector F = (ρu, ρu2+p, (e + p)u, ραu,
ρβu)T, the chemical reaction source term Sc = (0, 0, 0, α , β )T, the wall pressure source term
H = (0, p, 0, 0, 0)T, and the wall‐friction and heat‐transfer source term Sw = (0, τ, q, 0, 0)T;
where ρ, u, e, p, and A are the density, velocity, total energy, and pressure of the gas, and the
cross‐sectional area, respectively. τ is the wall shear stress and q is the wall heat flux. α and
β, which are associated with the two‐step chemical reaction model describing the detonation
process, are the process parameter of the chemical induction and the chemical transformation,
respectively; α and βare the rates of the chemical induction and the chemical
transformation, respectively. For the details of this model, please refer to Ref. [CITATION
PlaceholderX \l 1033 ]. For the oxyhydrogen detonation, eight components, H2, O2, HO, H2O,

21
H2O2, HO2, O, and H, are considered in the computations, and for the methane‐oxygen
detonation, CH4, CO2, and CO are added. Based on this chemical reaction model and the
dispersion-controlled dissipation scheme proposed by Jiang [ CITATION Jia95 \l 1033 ] , a code
has been developed and successfully applied to the simulations of detonation‐driven shock
tubes [ CITATION LiJ07 \l 1033 ].
The situation of the two‐stage gas gun differs from that of the shock tube due to the presence
of
the piston and projectile. To account for the effect of the piston or projectile on the gas flow,
the
motion of it is treated as the moving boundary conditions for the governing Equation (2). The
acceleration of the piston or projectile is calculated from its mass and the applied force. Since
the
acceleration of the gas at the base and front of the piston or projectile is the same as the
piston or
projectile itself, and the disturbance resulting from the motion of the piston or projectile to
the gas is isentropic if the displacement of the piston or projectile is small enough within each
time step, the equations along characteristics and isentropic process still hold [ CITATION
Cha87 \l 1033 ]. Thus, the sound speeds and pressures at these locations are obtained. The
other state quantities are calculated in terms of the equations of state and of sound speed.
Provided that the boundary condition is determined, Equation (2) can be solved as routinely
as that for the detonation‐driven shock tube.
The piston or projectile is assumed to have a fixed mass, length, and cross‐section area. Their

states are given by a flag whether they are constrained, its tail positions xp, xm, and

velocities vp, vm. Subscript “p” represents the piston, and “m” represents the projectile
throughout this paper. Since the process of the piston and projectile are described using the
same method, only the governing differential equations are displayed here.

d vp 1
= ( A ( p − pF )−F f ) (3)
dt m p P B

d xP
=v P (4)
dt

where pB and pF are the pressures acting on the back and front faces of the piston,
respectively.

22
4.2 Gas‐Phase: Friction and Heat Transfer Terms

Although the boundary layer along the tube wall is not completely modelled in the
formulation
of the gas dynamic equations, its effects are modelled by the addition of a wall shear stress in
the
momentum equation and heat transfer in the energy equation.

The wall‐skin stress on the gas is given by: τ = ‐0.5fρπu | u| D. The skin friction coefficient
for the pipe flow is then computed as [ CITATION Bog95 \l 1033 ]:

−0.2
ƒ' =0.049 ( ℜ'D )

{ '
ƒ =0.00875
16
ƒ' = '
ℜD
ℜ'D ≥ 5507
5507 ≥ ℜ'D ≥ 1828
1828 ≥ ℜ'D
(5)

' T ' 2
ƒ=ƒ ' is evaluated at the reference temperature as follows: T =0.9 T +0.03 M T +0.46 T w '

T
Where T is the cell temperature and Tw is the specified wall temperature, M is the Mach
number.
' ρ' uD
The Reynolds number is calculated as: ℜD = where u is the cell velocity and D is the
μ'

T
tube diameter of the cell. ρ' and μ' are evaluated at the reference conditions: ρ' = ρ ,
T'
μ' =μ' (T ' , ρ' ).

The heat transfer from the gas to the walls is given by: q=hπ D(Tw−T ' ¿, where the heat
transfer coefficient is h = ρ Cp |u | St and the Stanton number is given by the modified
Reynolds analogy for pipe flows[ CITATION Jac94 \l 1033 ].
−2
ƒ 3
St = P r (6)
8

In the treatment of the viscous gas mixture, Wilke’s mixture rule is applied with Maxwell’s
Power Law to calculate the dynamic viscosity of the gas [ CITATION Chu03 \l 1033 ].

23
 n
T
μ=μ o ( )
T ref
n = 0.76 (air) or 0.83 (detonation gas) (7)

According to Ref. [ CITATION Jac94 \l 1033 ], the Prandtl number is given approximately as:

20 γ
Pr= (8)
39 γ −15

where γ is the ratio of the specific heat for gases.

4.3 Friction between Piston and Wall

The implementations in the L1d code assume that the friction force is simply proportional to
the
pressure exerted either at the back or the front of the piston, and that the piston is a perfectly
elastic body [ CITATION Jac94 \l 1033 ].However, this method is specified not from physical
considerations, but to produce the best agreement between the calculated and experimental
values of object velocity or gas pressure. An improved model with a physical basis has been
implemented for the Longshot by accounting for the inertia loads within the piston [ CITATION
Gro17 \l 1033 ]. Since different types of pistons are used in different facilities; modifications
were made based on the Longshot method to obtain a better agreement in the present study.
Details are described below.
The longitudinal stresses σ x of a moving piston are obtained by considering successive static
stresses (due to equal pressures applied on both ends of the piston) and dynamic stresses (due
to the remaining pressure difference and the corresponding acceleration of the piston). The
longitudinal stresses within a piston in arbitrary motion are then obtained by summing the
static contribution and the dynamic one, as expressed by Equation (9).

4 Finertia
σ x =min( p b , pƒ )+ (9)
π D2

where D is the diameter of the piston, F inertia= mp |ap | are the piston inertia forces during the
acceleration.

24
According to Hook’s law generalized to cylindrical coordinates, the strain–stress relationship
in an isotropic medium is:
1
ε r= (σ −ν(σ θ +σ x )) (10)
E r

1
ε θ= (σ θ−ν (σ r + σ x )) (11)
E

where E is young’s modulus of the material, σ x and ε r are the radial stresses and strain, σ θ
and ε θare the azimuthal stresses and strain.
For the specific case where the piston is bounded by the tube, only axial and radial
deformations
are allowed. If the diameter of the piston is larger than that of the tube, differences in the
diameter Δ r exist between the piston and tube, and then the radial and angular strains are
obtained as follows:

∂ ur ∆ r 2 ∆ R
ε r= ≈ = (12)
∂ r RP Dp

u r 1 ∂ uθ ∆ r 2 ∆ R
ε θ= + ≈ = (13)
r r ∂θ R P Dp

where Rp is the radius of the piston, and D P is the diameter.

Thus, the radial stress can be obtained from Equations (9) (10), (11), (12), and (13). Besides,
an
upper limit for the local stresses σ r may be associated to the maximum stresses allowable
before yield would take place.

2 E∆r ν 4 Finertia
(
σ r=min σ yield , +
D p (1−ν) 1−ν (
min(P b , Pƒ )+
π D 2t )) (14)

The normal force FN corresponding to the radial stresses applied on all friction surfaces of the
piston is defined as:
FN=σ r π DP Lƒ (15)

25
where Lƒ is the length of the piston in contact with the tube. The friction force F ƒ is then
assumed to be proportional to the normal force F N :
F ƒ=μƒ F N (16)

The piston consists of PTFE and its Poisson’s ratio ν is 0.4; the sliding friction coefficient μƒ
of steel‐PTFE is in the range of 0.04–0.05. Young’s modulus is about 0.5 GPa, and the yield
stress is about 20 MPa [ CITATION Ebn16 \l 1033 ].
At room temperature, the diameter of the piston is manufactured to be larger than that of the
tube. However, freezing of the piston at 0 °C for at least four hours before the experiments is
required to be able to insert the piston into the tube. Since time is needed to pump the tubes
and fill them with the initial gas, the experiments are usually finished 30 to 50 minutes after
the piston has been inserted. Figure 8 shows the changes in the piston diameter during the
thawing process at room temperature. Positions a to d on the piston are illustrated in Figure 5.
A positive ∆ rindicates a tight fit between the piston and pump tube, and a negative ∆ r means
a loose fit. Positions a, b, and c still have negative ∆ r values after 60 minutes, while position
d has positive values. Thus, only the rear end of the piston contacts with the pump tube;
hence, Lƒis set to 50 mm in the computation. Since the diameter of the rear part changes
gradually, as shown in Figure 8, the diameter at its centre position is used to deduce ∆ r. The
diameter at position d is 75 + (0.5–0.9) mm. Thus, ∆ r is set to 0.25 – 0.45 mm in the
calculation. It will become evident in the following discussion that these values do not have a
significant influence on the modelling results.

26
 Position D Position A Position B Position C
0.45
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
r(mm)

0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
-0.05
-0.1
-0.15
Time

Figure 8:Changes in the radius of the piston at different positions versus time after removing it from the freezer

4.4 Comparison of data to gas dynamic theory

4.4.1 Lagrangian Code

A two-stage Lagrangian gas dynamics code[ CITATION MJG89 \l 1033 ] is used to model the
interior ballistics of the two-stage light gas gun system. This code has the following
capabilities:
(1) Lagrangian formulation of the finite difference representation of the one-dimensional
differential equations of continuity, motion, and energy.
(2) treatment of shocks that form in the pump tube and barrel by the artificial viscosity
method of von Neumann and Richtmyer, [ CITATION Jvo50 \l 1033 ] which spreads out
shocks due to dissipative effects such as viscosity and heat conduction.
(3) modelling of either real (variable specific heat) or ideal gases, and
(4) accounting for nonideal effects, including
(a) piston friction and plastic deformation,
(b) heat transfer from gas to wall via the Reynolds analogy [CITATION CCL59 \l 1033 ]
methods, and

27
 (c) smooth-wall, constant surface roughness or constant gas friction factor.

4.4.2 QUASI ONE-DIMENSION CFD CODE

The anticipated performance of the gas gun has been modelled using a quasi-one-dimensional
computational fluid dynamics code (Jacobs, 1994). In this method, the gas dynamic equations
are solved by discretizing the various regions of gas within the facility. The regions or 'slugs'
of gas are the reservoir gas (compressed air which pushes the piston), the driver gas (gas in
front of the piston which is compressed and eventually accelerates the projectile) and the air
in front of the projectile in the launch tube. The numerical modelling is based on a
Lagrangian formulation of the gas dynamics where each cell is treated as a point mass. At the
interfaces between the cells pressures and velocities are calculated using an approximate
Riemann solver (Jacobs, 1992). The code can simulate the interaction of several gas slugs,
pistons, diaphragms, and projectiles making it very useful in the study of free-piston driven
gas gun and shock tube facilities. Coupling of the gas slugs to the pistons and diaphragms is
achieved by the proper selection of boundary conditions. Viscous effects are included using
standard engineering correlations for friction and heat transfer in pipe flow. Although these
correlations are derived for steady incompressible flow, results using this code (Jacobs, 1994)
indicate remarkable performance in flows which are predominately compressible and
unsteady. The code also allows area changes that are assumed to occur gradually over finite
distances. The reader is referred to Jacobs (1994), Doolan and Jacobs (1996), Tani et al
(1994) and Maus et al (1992) for further information on the quasi-one-dimensional numerical
technique.

28
5 METHODOLOGY

The driving force for acceleration of the projectile is determined by the pressure pulse
generated at the pump tube exit. And 3 different pressure cases are taken for the study and
simulated on Ansys. Helium was used for the driving gas in both stages and the boundary
conditions are ideal as it is vacuum in domain.

Computational domain or GUN is used in an axisymmetric case to reduce the computational

efforts across the axial direction. Proper boundary conditions are used in order to eliminate
pressure(gas) to create vacuum in the domain. Simulation is performed with a domain with
dimensions 1000D (axial) x 300D (radial) .

29
 Figure 9:Grid Independence

As from the test we see the static pressure for 6 different Mesh with cell size 8126, 9500,
10000, 16000, 20000, 32000 and as we see the pressure for grid 16K, 22K and 32 K are
almost same. Thus, for the results thus I take the minimum size mesh for the results i:e; 16K
cell size mesh.

30
 Figure 10:Mesh grid

5.1 Boundary Conditions

Physical Quantity Value/Condition

Courant Number 5
Backflow Temperature 300k
Gauge Pressure 0 Pascals
Chamber Pressure 1000 bar
Gas Ideal
Outlet Pressure outlet
Axis Axisymmetric
Walls No slip, Fixed

Table 1:Boundary Conditions

5.2 Numerical Models and Equation

 Viscous Model

 Standard K-omega SST model

 Density based (Transient)

 Continuity Equations (mass conservation)

31
  Governing Equation (For solid and gaseous phase)

 Energy Equation

 Dynamic Equation (Flow and Turbulence)

5.3 Solution Procedure

5.3.1 FIRST STAGE

The first stage uses conventional smokeless gunpowder as its propellant and works the same
way as firing a bullet from a gun. The second-stage propellant uses a highly compressible
light gas such as hydrogen. The guns breech contains the first-stage powder charge, set off by
an electronic igniter. The ignition provides the explosion that drives a piston forward down
the pump tube, rapidly compressing the hydrogen gas that provides the second-stage launch
power. The front face of the piston compresses the hydrogen at a speed of approximately
2,500 feet per second. The back end of the piston uses an O-ring to seal the expanding gases
from the powder charge.

5.3.2 SECOND STAGE

The taper-bored, high pressure (HP) section referred to as the high-pressure coupling halts the
propelled piston at the end of its travel down the pump tube. In the HP section, rapid internal
pressurization is followed by an extremely high level of impact caused by the halted piston. A
petal-valve diaphragm retains the gas until it bursts and upon rupture, the launch package
containing the sabot and the projectile is accelerated by the rapidly expanding light gas down
the barrel into the expansion tank where a stripper plate separates the projectile from the
sabot. The sphere enters the target tank (with air removed to replicate the vacuum of space)
and hits the test article. The ASME-rated target tank is designed to contain the gas from the
second-stage and the eruption of shrapnel and debris from the projectile’s impact on the test
article.

5.3.3 INVENTION AND DESIGN PROCESS

32
5.3.3.1 LAUNCH PACKAGES

Launch packages are made up of a sabot and one or more projectiles and are propelled at
hypervelocity speeds at the test article. Before impacting the test article, the sabot is separated
from the projectile and only the projectile continues forward to strikes the test article.

Figure 11:Projectile with sabot

5.3.3.2 SABOTS

Sabots come in various sizes to house different projectiles. Sabots are highly engineered,
precision machined plastic parts that are manufactured by our Machining and
Fabrication team. They are designed to protect the projectile from barrel friction and abrasion
much in the same way that a bullet jacket protects a bullet for a gun. Sabots also provide an
effective gas seal until they exit the barrel into the expansion tank and are then stripped away
from the projectile.

33
 Figure 12:Sabot made on solid works

5.3.3.3 PROJECTILE
Projectile shapes range from spheres, cylinders, disks, and cubes to multiple projectile
shotgun shots. Projectiles range in diameter from 25.4 mm down to .05 mm (the size of a
quarter down to half the width of a human hair).

5.3.3.4 TARGET CHAMBER

Our ASME-rated target chambers replicate the vacuum of space and contain the gas from the
second-stage and the eruption of shrapnel and debris from the projectile’s impact of the test
article. The chambers range from 3.5 ft. diameter x 7 ft. long to 9 ft. diameter x 30 ft. long
and easily accommodate full size test articles. They are also equipped with optical ports for
monitoring and data capture.

34
 Figure 13:Target Chamber

5.3.4 Testing and Analysis / hyper velocity impact testing

5.3.4.1 HIGH SPEED DATA ACQUISITION SYSTEM

Signals measuring the physical conditions of the testing are captured by our data acquisition
system for results analysis using measurement equipment including but is not limited to

• Velocity,

• Temperature

• Pressure,

• Voltage, and

• Current.

35
Figure 14:System showing Data collection

36
6 Results And Discussion

The pressure at the base of the projectile are shown in Figure 8; fluctuations also exist due to
the shock wave reflections. The fluctuations are extensive in the initial stage and gradually
weakened over time. However, it should be noted that the pressure at the base of the
projectile was actually the pressure on diaphragm II before 82.8 ms. Since the projectile was
placed close to diaphragm II, we use this pressure to monitor the pressure on diaphragm II or
the pressure histories at the base of the projectile at the same time.

Figure 15:Simulated pressure at the base of the projectile

37
6.1 Validation

Figures 16 show the experimentally measured and computed pressure histories in the Launch
tube.
Pressure histories are displayed for pressure length 3.5 m. As we see the simulation results
show a similar trend as the experimental results. The pressure changes following the increase
indicate the
complicated gas‐dynamic processes. As the results are not accurate but it is 80 % similar with
experimental data. the pressure value of the experiment agrees well with that of the
simulation in the initial stage. However, the differences increase over time. the temperature of
the light gas also increases as it is compressed, as shown in Figure 17.

Figure 16:Validation

38
 Figure 17:Temperature at the muzzle of launch tube
In my case, I started the simulation when the diaphragm II ruptures and figure 18 and 19
shows the computed pressure histories along the length of the launch tube for 2 cases as
shown.

Figure 18:Presuure histories in pump tube. (a)2m (b)3.5m

The launch tube has a relatively small diameter, and it would be complicated to measure the

39
projectile velocity along the tube wall. Thus, only the muzzle velocity value is measured in
the
experiments; the results for Case are listed. However, in the simulation, we can obtain the
flow velocity at the exit of the launch tube. And the maximum velocity reached is 1533m/s
for case 1 as shown in figure 19. These values are significantly lower than the numerical
results. One reason for the difference is the rough estimate of the rupture pressure of
diaphragm Ⅱand other is the barrel length (or launch tube).

Figure 19:Max Muzzle Velocity

Other reasons for the differences may be the roughness of the launch tube wall, the melting of
the landing surface of the projective, improper data on the high strain rate deflection and
yielding
behaviour of the projectile material, and that the viscous dissipation term between the high
temperature light gas and tube wall are not completely accurate. However, the present
simulation is acceptable for the identification and assessment of new operating parameters of
the test conditions.

40
6.2 OBSERVATION AND CONTOUR PLOTS

Figure 20:Contour plots of temperature and Mach number (Axial and Radial)
As we notice that maximum temperature reaches are 1200 k and max. Mach reaches is 8.085
as shown in figure 21.

From the plot below we see that maximum velocity and maximum Mach no. occurring at
same time. We estimated the maximum capabilities of the gaseous two‐stage light‐gas gun.
We increased the rupture pressure of diaphragm Ⅱ to 2000 bars for case 2. An appropriate
set of calculation parameters was chosen. The muzzle velocity is about 1500 m/s, and the
maximum base pressure is close to 1800 bars and for other case base pressure 2000 bars and
muzzle velocity is above 1500 m/s and length of launch tube for case 2 is 3.5 m. Therefore, if
we further optimize the launch parameters, the muzzle velocity of the projectile with a mass
of less than 20 g can reach 6–8 km/s from the gaseous detonation study [ CITATION BWa20 \l
1033 ].

41
 Figure 21:plot of velocity and Mach number at muzzle

6.3 Effects of the Pump Tube Pressure

For any particular gun with a fixed geometry, the operating parameters or loading condition
that can be adjusted to achieve the desired velocity include the initial gas conditions in the
pump
tube, the piston mass, the rupture pressure of diaphragm Ⅱ, and the projectile mass. However,
it is desirable to minimize the maximum base pressures to obtain the most uniform base
pressure history and maintain gas reservoir pressures that are within the strength capabilities
of the gun. Generally, the initial pressure of the pump tube and detonation tube is the easiest
parameter to adjust. Since the pump tube pressure tends to limit the acceleration of the piston,
the piston speed decreases as the pump tube pressure increases at different detonation
pressures. However, the pump tube pressure has little influence on the maximum piston
speed, and the detonation pressure is the dominant influence. The projectile velocity has an
optimal value at different pump tube pressures.

42
7 Conclusion
There is a need for more faithful simulation of space debris impacts on various space
vehicles. Space debris impact velocities can range up to 14 km/sec and conventional two-
stage light gas guns with moderately heavy saboted projectiles are limited to launch velocities
of 7-8 km/sec. Any increases obtained in the launch velocities will result in more faithful
simulations of debris impacts. It would also be valuable to reduce the maximum gun and
projectile base pressures and the gun barrel erosion rate. In this paper, the results of a
computational fluid dynamics (CFD) study designed to optimize the performance of the
DRDO THIOT gun by systematically varying gun operating parameters are reported.
Due to strict controls of gunpowder, the use of traditional two‐stage light‐gas guns have
limitations. Therefore, it is necessary to develop a new driving method for two‐stage light‐gas
guns in laboratory conditions. In present study, a two-stage light-gas gun simulated on
ANSYS and its performance was evaluated. An accurate and rapid computational method
was also implemented to simulate the flow or flow movement in the light- gas gun. This type
of model is required because different tests are conducted frequently in experimental
facilities, and simulations are needed. The proposed quasi‐one-dimensional model provides
accurate simulation results of the internal ballistic process of the light gas gun.
The results under different test conditions show that the quasi‐one‐dimensional modelling of
the two‐stage light‐gas gun driven by fluid flow provides reliable performance data. The
maximum muzzle velocity of the current design is 1-2km/s. Although this study has focused
on the DRdO gas gun, the modelling is generic and may be applied to other facilities.

43
8 References

[1] M. Sichel, N. Tonello, E. Oran and D. Jones, “A two–step kinetics model for numerical
simulation of explosions and detonations in H2‐O2 mixtures.,” Proc. Math. Phys. Eng. Sci., pp.
458, 49–82., 2002.

[2] Z. Jiang, “Dispersion conditions for non‐oscillatory shock capturing schemes and its
applications,” Comput. Fluid Dyn. J., pp. 2, 137–150, 1995.

[3] J. Li, Z. Jiang, H. Chen, H. Feng and H. Yu, “Numerical study on backward ‐forward double ‐
detonation,” Chin. J. Theor. Appl. Mech, pp. 3, 343–349, 2007.

[4] A. Charters, “Development of the high‐velocity gas‐dynamics gun.,” Int. J. Impact Eng, pp. 5,
181–203., 1987.

[5] D. Bogdanoff and R. Miller, “New Higher‐Order Godunov Code for Modelling Performance of
Two‐Stage Light,” NASA’s Ames Research Center: Mountain View, California, USA, 1995.

[6] P. Jacobs, “Quasi‐one‐dimensional modeling of a free‐piston shock tunnel.,” AIAA J., pp. 32,
137–145, 1994.

[7] R. Chue, C. Tsai and R. Bakos, “Driver gas contaminationin a detonation ‐driven reflected ‐shock
tunnel.,” Shock Waves, pp. 13, 367–380, 2003.

[8] G. Grossir, Z. Ilich and O. Chazot, “Modeling of the VKI Longshot Gun Tunnel Compression
Process Using a,” In Proceedings of the 33rd AIAA Aerodynamic Measurement Technology and
Ground Testing Conference, Denver, CO, USA, 5–9 June 2017; American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston,VA,USA,, p. 3985, 2017.

[9] W. A. Ebnesajjad, S. Expanded PTFE Applications Handbook: Technology, Manufacturing and

Applications,Norwich, NY ,USA, p. pp. 163–170, 2016.

[10] S. K. C. P. W. F. a. S. L. M. M. J. Gouge, Rev. Sci. Inotrum, pp. 60 (4), 570, 1989.

[11] J. von Neumann and R. D. Richtmyer, J. Appl. Phys., pp. 21, 232, 1950.

[12] e. C. C. Lin, Turbulent Flows and Heat Transfer, vol. 5 of high speed Aerodynamics and Jet
Propulsion, 1959.

[13] B. a. W.Z., “Performance and Modeling of a Two‐Stage Light Gas Gun Driven by Gaseous
Detonation,” 2020.

44
9 Table of Figures
Figure 1:Experimental field views at TBRL, DRDO...........................................................................15
Figure 2:Grenade.................................................................................................................................16
Figure 3:Plastic bullets, Frangible ceramic, and Metal ammunition....................................................17
Figure 4: The figure here visualizes the requested Dimensions...........................................................19
Figure 5: Schematic diagram of the piston (not to scale, units in mm)................................................21
Figure 6: Pressure periods in the pump tube during the piston movement passing through the sensor
(Image for one random launch)...........................................................................................................21
Figure 7:Results of high‐speed photography with a time interval of 13.3 μs; the projectile has a
diameter of 20mm................................................................................................................................22
Figure 8:Changes in the radius of the piston at different positions versus time after removing it from
the freezer............................................................................................................................................29
Figure 9:Grid Independence................................................................................................................33
Figure 10:Mesh grid............................................................................................................................34
Figure 11:Projectile with sabot............................................................................................................36
Figure 12:Sabot made on solid works..................................................................................................37
Figure 13:Target Chamber...................................................................................................................38
Figure 14:System showing Data collection..........................................................................................39
Figure 15:Simulated pressure and temperature at the base and front of the projectile or piston for Case
.............................................................................................................................................................40
Figure 16:Validation............................................................................................................................41
Figure 17:Temperature at the muzzle of launch tube...........................................................................41
Figure 18:Presuure histories in pump tube. (a)2m (b)3.5m..................................................................42
Figure 19:Max Muzzle Velocity..........................................................................................................42
Y

45