Aerodynamic Analysis of

Projectile in Gun System Firing

Wei Yu
Xiaobing Zhang
School of Power Engineering,
Nanjing University of Science and Technology,
Nanjing 210094, China
Process1
During a gun firing, the flow around a projectile will be developing and changing. In
particular, the flow around the projectile is disturbed significantly when the projectile
overtakes the muzzle flow. Furthermore, the projectile body pressure will also change
substantially. Therefore, the shot ejection process has an important effect on the shot
accuracy. The maximum projectile velocity is one of the most important design goals of
the interior ballistic process and also is the initial condition for the exterior ballistic
process. Most researchers take the muzzle velocity as the maximum projectile velocity;
actually, after the projectile exits the muzzle, the projectile velocity will increase further
due to the influence of the muzzle flow. Most investigations of the muzzle flow focused on
the blowout of the high-pressure jet flow after the projectile exited the muzzle. The
interior ballistic process was ignored or simply assumed in most investigations. Also, the
mutual influence between the moving projectile and the muzzle flow was often neglected.
Actually, a precursor shock flow near the muzzle is formed before the projectile exits. This
precursor muzzle flow has an important influence on the trajectory of the projectile,
especially, for the prevalent trend of gun systems including large caliber cannon and
multiple launch gun systems. For these reasons, the interior ballistic process was coupled
with the simulation of the flow near the muzzle. A hybrid structured-unstructured gridding
method was used to simulate the process from the projectile engraving to the gas ejection
phase, accounting for the moving projectile. The simulation results show that the projec-
tile muzzle velocity was 893.99 m/s but the maximum velocity was 899.28 m/s. The
projectile velocity increased rapidly to up to 0.8 ms after muzzle exit; thereafter, the
projectile velocity increased slowly before reaching its maximum value. The maximum
Mach number of the effluent gas increased to 6.83 and the breech pressure decreased to
21.5 MPa at 1.8 ms after the projectile exited the muzzle. The formation and development
of the muzzle flow field was highly complex and transient. The analysis of the projectile
velocity was conducted during the interior ballistic after-effect period. The predicted
muzzle velocity and maximum barrel pressure are in good agreement with those measured
in gun firings. Results of the numerical simulation and analysis are helpful to understand
and master the aerodynamic process of gun system launching and provide significant
guidance for research into shot accuracy and muzzle brake design.
关DOI: 10.1115/1.4001559兴

Keywords: numerical simulation and analysis, interior ballistic after-effect period, mov-
ing grid method, complex shockwave

1 Introduction
Tank cannon muzzle brakes are becoming a critical technology
for future combat systems as recoil loads increase and system
weight decreases. In particular, muzzle effects have greater influ-
ence on the currently popular development of large caliber guns.
Muzzle brakes redirect forward momentum of the muzzle gases
rearward to offset recoil load created by the cannon during firing.
In addition, firing accuracy has always been focused on the study
and design of weapons. The projectile is affected by a complex
muzzle flow when exiting the muzzle 关1–3兴. The movement of the
projectile is one of the most important factors influencing firing
accuracy. Laws of projectile motion are very important for re-
search and design of weapons. The process of the projectile over-
taking the muzzle flow has a significant influence on shot accu-
racy.
1
Paper No. ISB ’10 01-052.
Contributed by the Applied Mechanics of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF
APPLIED MECHANICS. Manuscript received January 6, 2010; final manuscript received
March 16, 2010; accepted manuscript posted April 8, 2010; published online June
10, 2010. Assoc. Editor: Bo S. G. Janzon.
The ejection of propellant gas from the gun bore after the pro-
jectile exits the muzzle is similar to the free jet expansion process
关4兴. The muzzle flow is a very transient flow field. It includes a
large overexpansion jet, recompression shocks, contact surfaces, a
Mach disk, free air blast, and a moving projectile. A schematic of
the muzzle flow pattern is depicted in Fig. 1. Recently, many
attempts have been made to apply numerical methods to evaluate
the high-pressure unsteady muzzle flow field 关4–7兴. With the de-
velopment of new numerical methods and measurement technol-
ogy, considerable progress has been made in the research of pro-
jectile motion 关8–11兴. Most investigations on the muzzle flow
focused on the ejection of the high-pressure jet after the projectile
exited the muzzle 关12–17兴. The interior ballistic process was ig-
nored or simply assumed in most investigations. Also, the mutual
influence between the moving projectile and the muzzle flow was
often neglected. Actually, a precursor shock flow near the muzzle
is formed before the projectile exits. This precursor muzzle flow
has an important influence on the trajectory of the projectile, es-
pecially, for the prevalent trend of gun systems including large
caliber cannon and multiple launch gun systems. The maximum
projectile velocity is one of the most important design goals of the
interior ballistic process and also is the initial condition for the

Journal of Applied Mechanics Copyright © 2010 by ASME SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 77 / 051406-1

Downloaded 13 Oct 2010 to 194.27.18.18. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 1 Muzzle flow schematic
exterior ballistic process; it is very important for studies and ap-
plications of weapons design. Most researchers take the muzzle
velocity as the maximum projectile velocity. In reality, after the
projectile exits the muzzle, the projectile velocity will increase
further due to the influence of high-pressure propellant gas ejec-
tion from the gun bore.
Recently, many attempts have been made to apply numerical
methods to evaluate the high-pressure unsteady muzzle flow field
关4–7兴. With the development of new numerical methods and mea-
surement technology, considerable progress has been made in the
research of projectile motion 关9,10,13兴. Experimental photographs
of time development of the muzzle wave for small caliber gun
were observed by Merlen and Dyment 关8兴. But the experimental
images could just be evaluated qualitatively and not be analyzed
quantitatively. The variation laws of the pressure: the temperature
and so no are very difficult to be obtained in detail by experimen-
tal technology. The full-scale experimental testing of the interior
ballistic and the intermediate ballistics is very expensive and dif-
ficult, especially, for the prevalent trend of gun systems including
large caliber cannon and multiple launch gun systems. As a result,
the simulation of the muzzle flow field is highly desirable as an
early design tool.
Accurate modeling of the near-field wave propagation is critical
to determine the blast wave overpressure of muzzle brakes. Most
investigations of the muzzle flow focused on the ejection of the
high-pressure jet after the projectile exited the muzzle 关11,12兴.
The process before the projectile exit was ignored or assumed
simple in most previous muzzle investigations 关4,9,13兴. Actually,
a precursor shock flow near the muzzle is formed before the pro-
jectile exits. This precursor muzzle flow has an important influ-
ence on the trajectory of the projectile, especially, for large caliber
cannon and multiple launch gun systems. In addition, the maxi-
mum projectile velocity is one of the most important design goals
of the interior ballistic process and also is the initial condition for
the exterior ballistic process; it is very important for studies and
applications of weapons design. Most researchers take the muzzle
velocity as the maximum projectile velocity. In reality, after the
projectile exits the muzzle, the projectile velocity will increase
further due to the influence of high-pressure propellant gas ejec-
tion from the gun bore. The precursor shock also has a great
influence on the flight stability of the projectile. Actually, the par-
ticular configuration of the muzzle flow has a blowdown charac-
terized by a precursor shock and the main propellant gas flow. For
these reasons, the muzzle flow was simulated coupled with the
interior ballistic process in this paper. Also, the mutual influence
between the moving projectile and the muzzle flow was consid-
ered. The problem selected for aerodynamic analysis is the 30 mm
gun with a 1502 mm barrel length shooting a typical projectile.
Predictions of the projectile muzzle velocity and maximum cham-
ber pressure are in agreement with measured results. The unsteady
developing process of the muzzle flow is shown to be highly
transient and varied. The pressure and Mach number contours of
the muzzle flow field are analyzed and the turbulence in the region
around the muzzle is simulated. The interaction of the projectile
with the muzzle flow field is analyzed during the interior ballistic
after-effect period.
051406-2 / Vol. 77, SEPTEMBER 2010
Downloaded 13 Oct 2010 to 194.27.18.18. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
The results of numerical simulation and analysis are helpful to
understand and master the aerodynamic process of gun launch and
provide significant guidance for research into shot accuracy and
muzzle brake design.
2 Mathematical-Physical Models
2.1 Physical Model. Before the projectile exits the barrel, a
precursor shock is formed as the projectile begins to accelerate
down the barrel. This causes compression waves to be formed in
front of the projectile as the air column ahead of the projectile
accelerates. In addition, the leakage of propellant gases past the
projectile can cause the air column to accelerate as well. The
compression waves caused by the acceleration of the air column
coalesce to form a precursor shock. Depending on the speed of the
projectile and the length of time the projectile is in the barrel, a
second precursor shock may form.
After the projectile exits the barrel and uncorks the propellant
gas column behind it, the flow of the main propellant gas begins.
The main propellant gas flow is similar to the precursor flow; only
with the pressure ratio typically one to two orders of magnitude
higher. The precursor contributes very little to the overall blast
effect of the gun. The propellant gas exits the barrel at a high-
pressure. Because the pressure is so much higher than the precur-
sor wave, the main blast wave quickly overtakes the precursor
wave. In addition, because of large quantities of unburned propel-
lant and water vapor in the propellant gases, viewing the shock
structure of the main propellant blast wave with shadowgraphs is
very difficult.
The blowdown or emptying of a gun bore after the projectile
leaves the barrel is similar to the free jet expansion process. As the
flow exits the barrel at the muzzle and begins to expand around
the sharp corner of the gun barrel, a Prandtl–Meyer expansion fan
forms at the muzzle plane and spreads angularly away from the
gun axis and then terminates at the free-shear jet boundary, or
contact surface, of the muzzle flow. These expansion waves reflect
off the jet boundary forming a series of weak compression waves
that coalesce to form a barrel or intercepting shock. In addition,
these waves can propagate into the flow field toward the main
blast wave 关2兴.
Downstream of the muzzle, a Mach disk forms across, which
the flow decelerates from supersonic to subsonic velocities. The
Mach disk and barrel shock enclose a volume known as the
shock-bottle. Initially the Mach disk is constrained by a blast
wave front or primary shock moving at sonic speed. This con-
straining action can be seen as a deformation in the plume bound-
ary 关2兴.
Outside of the barrel shock, at the corners of the Mach disk, a
turbulent vortex ring forms as the flow tries to move toward the
blast wave but is constrained. The outside edge of this turbulent
vortex ring forms the plume boundary. The turbulent vortex ring is
caused by large differences in the tangential velocity and turbulent
shear layer near the jet boundary. After the blast moves away from
the muzzle, the flow from the muzzle is similar to an unrestrained
free jet expansion.
As a result, the propellant gas exiting the barrel is typical of a
highly underexpanded jet flow. The flow field around the muzzle
of a gun barrel can be complicated and include flow phenomena
such as expansion waves, compression waves, shocks, shear lay-
ers, and blast waves.
2.2 Mathematical Models. The simulation of the muzzle
flow field was coupled with the interior ballistic process and the
pressure distribution forward of the projectile. Mathematical mod-
eling of the interior ballistic process was based on the following
assumptions.
共1兲 Propellant burning in parallel layers.
共2兲 Powder grains burning at a rate proportional to the mean
pressure rose to a burn rate exponent.
Transactions of the ASME
 冢 冣
共3兲 Heat loss from the propellant gas to the barrel is accounted ␳u2

冢冣
for by a decrease in propellant impetus 共f兲 or an increase in ␳
␳ u 2u 1 − ␶ x2x1
the specific heat ratio 共k兲.
冉 冊
␳u1
共4兲 Other secondary energy losses are considered by the coef- Q̄ = , S̄ = 2␮ u2 ⳵ u2 ,
␳u2 ␳ u 22 + −
ficient ␸. ReL x2 ⳵ x2
共5兲 The engraving process is assumed transient. The constant Et
共Et + p兲u2 − 共␶x2x1u1 + ␶x2x2u2兲 + qx2
engraving pressure 共p0兲 is regarded as a starting condition

冢 冣 冢 冣
of the projectile.
共6兲 The equation of state of propellant gas follows the Abel– ␳u1 ␳u2
Noble equation ␳ u 12 + p ␳ u 2u 1
Eu = , Fu = ,
␳ u 1u 2 ␳ u 22 + p
p共v − a兲 = RT
共Et + p兲u1 共Et + p兲u2
共7兲 Energy of the propellant gas per unit mass and the tempera-

冢 冣
ture of propellant burning are regarded as constant. Varia-
0
tion in the propellant gas composition in the expansion pro-
cess is ignored. So propellant impetus, specific heat ratio ␶ x1x1
and covolume 共a兲 are considered as constant. Ev =
␶ x1x2
,
共8兲 Sealing between the projectile and the gun barrel is perfect
and no propellant gases escape forward during or after the 共 ␶ x1x1u 1 + ␶ x1x2u 2兲 − q x1
engraving process.

冢 冣
0
Based on the above assumptions, the mathematical formula-
␶ x2x1
tions of an interior ballistic model suitable for computer simula-
Fv =
tion are established as follows 关1兴: ␶ x2x2
␺ = ␹Z共1 + ␭Z + ␮Z2兲 共 ␶ x2x1u 1 + ␶ x2x2u 2兲 − q x2

dZ u1 pn
dt
=
e1
␶ x1x1 =
2␮
2 冉
⳵ u1 ⳵ u2 u2
− −
3 ReL ⳵ x1 ⳵ x2 x2
, 冊
m
dv
dt
= Spin − 共Ffront + Ffri兲 共1兲
␶ x1x2 = +冉
␮ ⳵ u2 ⳵ u1
ReL ⳵ x1 ⳵ x2
, 冊
␪
Spin共l␺ + l兲 = f ␻␺ − ␸mv2
␶ x2x2 =
2␮
2 冉
⳵ u2 ⳵ u1 u2
− −
3 ReL ⳵ x2 ⳵ x1 x2
冊
2
␮ ⳵T ␮ ⳵T
q x1 = − , q x2 = − .
dl 共r − 1兲M ⬁ ReL Pr ⳵ x1
2
共r − 1兲M ⬁ ReL Pr ⳵ x2
2
=v
dt
2.3 Turbulence Model. Turbulence effects are also consid-
where ␺ is the percentage of propellant burnt, Z is the relative ered in the simulation. The Spalart–Allmaras turbulence model is
burned thickness of propellant, v is the projectile velocity, l␺ is the applied for the turbulent flow calculation. The Spalart–Allmaras
chamber volume-to-bore area ratio, f is the propellant impetus, ␻ model includes a developed single equation model and is highly
is the charge weight, l is the projectile travel, pin is the projectile suitable for the simulation of gas flow with a wall boundary. Fur-
base pressure, Ffront is the resistance due to the gas pressure on the thermore, the Spalart–Allmaras model is very effective for simu-
front of the projectile, Ffri is the friction resistance, and v is the lating boundary layer flow fields for adverse pressure gradient
projectile velocity. problems.
Generally, the propellant has been completely burned by the The transport equation for turbulent energy of the Spalart–
time of the interior ballistic after-effect period. Consequently, the Allmaras model is written as follows 关9兴:

冋冉 冊 册 冉 冊
high-pressure jet from gun bore can be assumed to be a single gas
phase. In addition, as sealing between the projectile and the gun ⳵ 共␳k兲 ⳵ 共␳kui兲 ⳵ ␮t ⳵ k ⳵ ui ⳵ u j ⳵ ui
+ = ␮+ + ␮t +
barrel is perfect so that no propellant gases escape forward after ⳵t ⳵ xi ⳵xj ␴k ⳵ x j ⳵ x j ⳵ xi ⳵ x j
the engraving process, then the fluid ahead of the projectile can
also be assumed to be a single gas phase. Therefore, it is assumed k3/2
− ␳CD 共3兲
that the air ahead of the projectile has similar gas properties to the l
propellant gas flow in the interior ballistic after-effect period. From left to right, the terms account for transient, advection,
The mathematical formulations of a two-dimensional axis- diffusion, generation, and dissipation effects, respectively.
symmetric aerodynamic model for the gas flow field are estab- The turbulent viscosity is calculated using the Kolmogorov–
lished as follows: Prandtl expression

⳵ Q̄ ⳵ Eu ⳵ Fu ⳵ Ev ⳵ Fv S̄ ␮t = ␳C␮冑k1 共4兲
+ + − − + =0 共2兲
⳵ t ⳵ x1 ⳵ x2 ⳵ x1 ⳵ x2 ⳵ x2 ␴k, CD, and Cu are empirical coefficients.

Q̄ is the variable to be solved, Eu and Fu are the inviscid fluxes in
two coordinate directions, Ev and Fv are the viscid fluxes in two
coordinate directions, and S̄ is a source term. Q̄, Eu, Fu, Ev, Fv,
and S̄ are defined, respectively, as follows:
2.4 Mesh Method. Hybrid structured grid and moving grid
methods were applied in simulations. Unstructured meshing was
applied for the irregular shape of the front of the projectile. Mesh
refinement was used in the region close to the projectile to im-
prove the calculation accuracy. To improve the computing effi-

Journal of Applied Mechanics SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 77 / 051406-3

Downloaded 13 Oct 2010 to 194.27.18.18. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
 Fig. 2 Initial mesh distribution in computational domain
ciency of the simulation, a structured mesh was used in the area
far from the muzzle to reduce the calculation time. This combina-
tion of a structured mesh, an unstructured mesh and a moving
mesh was used to simulate the gun firing process. The initial com-
putational mesh distribution is shown in Fig. 2. In order to capture
the shockwave, adaptive mesh refinement is applied to the nu-
merical simulation of the muzzle flow around the projectile. The
initial mesh includes 73,735 nodes. The grid resolution is 1.5 mm
near the projectile and then it grows to 8 mm elsewhere. The mesh
is dynamically adapted during the numerical simulation. And the
method of local mesh densification is used to simulate the area
near the projectile more precisely.
2.5 Initial and Boundary Conditions. Initial conditions in-
clude velocity, pressure, density, etc. For steady problems, a stable
solution is converged from special initial conditions by a time
iteration method. For the unsteady problem of the projectile
muzzle flow, a stable converged result was calculated in every
time step. The previous calculation is used as the initial condition
of the next one. There will be less calculation time for more rea-
sonable first initial conditions, which are as follows: R
= 287 N m / kg K, ␥ = 1.4, Cp = 1006 N m / kg K, p = 101, 325 Pa,
V = 0 m / s, T = 300 K, ␳ = p / RT.
A schematic of the boundary conditions is shown in Fig. 3.
Boundary conditions used in the muzzle flow simulation include a
solid boundary, a moving boundary, a pressure outlet boundary,
and an axial symmetric boundary. Fluid velocity on a solid bound-
ary is the same as the boundary and there is no fluid transfer
across a solid boundary. The atmospheric pressure is established
on the pressure outlet boundary. If supersonic flow conditions
exist on a pressure outlet boundary, then the boundary pressure
could be interpolated from the interior flow field. Circulation and
transpiration are both zero on the axial symmetric boundary.
Fig. 3 Boundary condition schematic
051406-4 / Vol. 77, SEPTEMBER 2010
Downloaded 13 Oct 2010 to 194.27.18.18. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 4 Comparison between numerical results and the experi-
mental photo
3 Example Verification
Coupling with the interior ballistic process, the semi-implicit
method for pressure-linked equations algorithm was adopted to
simulate the muzzle flow of a 7.62 mm gun for contrasting with
the experimental image. The residual error of the convergence
criteria of is less than 0.000001. The local mesh densification was
dynamically adapted during the numerical simulation. The pres-
sure contours of the muzzle flow from numerical simulation were
in good agreement with the experimental photo 关18兴, as shown in
Fig. 4. The shock-bottle of numerical simulation was clearly vis-
ible, and the shapes of axial and radial shockwave were both
similar between numerical simulation and experimental image.
The agreement of the numerical results with experimental results
shows that the model and method provided in the paper is reason-
able and effective.
4 Numerical Simulation and Analysis
4.1 Comparisons Between Numerical Results and Experi-
mental Results. In this paper, the problem selected for numerical
analysis is the 30 mm gun shooting a typical projectile. Main
calculation parameters are as follows: barrel length is 1502 mm,
gun caliber is 30 mm, charge mass is 116 g, charge density is
0.828 g / cm3, and chamber volume is 140 cm3. Simulation re-
sults show that the projectile muzzle velocity is 894 m/s and the
peak gun chamber pressure is 358 MPa. As shown in Table 1, the
numerical simulation results are in good agreement with those of
the experiments.
4.2 Simulation Results of the Interior Ballistic Process.
The air pressure ahead of the projectile is ignored by most nu-
merical investigators. For the improvement of shot precision, this
resistive pressure should be considered in the interior ballistic
Table 1 Comparisons between numerical results and experi-
ment results
Percentage
Experimental Simulation difference
Ballistic factors results results 共%兲
Muzzle velocity 共m/s兲 890⫾ 15 894 0.45
Peak gun chamber
pressure 共MPa兲 369.6 358 3.14
Transactions of the ASME
 Fig. 7 Distribution of reference points

ing the muzzle, and influenced the moving projectile. A shock-

bottle was formed after the projectile left the muzzle, as shown in
Fig. 5 Calculation results of the interior ballistic process Fig. 6.
4.4 Simulation and Analysis of the Precursor Muzzle
Flow. The precursor muzzle flow is ignored or simply assumed by
process. At the same time, this forward projectile pressure is the most researchers. Actually, the air column in front of the projectile
cause of the precursor muzzle flow field. expands incompletely around the muzzle while the projectile is
The projectile was pushed forward by high-pressure gas gener- moving in the gun barrel. The projectile trajectory is influenced by
ated by propellant burning in the gun chamber. The projectile base the air pressure ahead of the projectile. This resistive air pressure
pressure-time curve and the projectile velocity-time curve are is also important for fuse design. The precursor flow field provides
shown in Fig. 5. The projectile velocity is continually increased the initial environment for the final muzzle flow. With more chal-
due to acceleration by high-pressure propellant gas. The air ahead lenging design requirements for shot accuracy, the precursor flow
of the projectile was continually compressed by the moving pro- and air pressure ahead of the projectile cannot be ignored or sim-
jectile, causing a shockwave in the barrel. The pressure of the air ply assumed. In this paper, the unsteady developing process of
ahead of the projectile decreased rapidly after the projectile exited precursor flow was simulated by coupling with the interior ballis-
the muzzle. tic process in every time step. In Fig. 7, three positions near the
muzzle are used as reference points to analyze the unsteady de-
veloping precursor flow process. Figure 8 is the Mach number-
4.3 The Muzzle Flow Formation and Development time curve of point 1 before the projectile exits the muzzle. The
Process. Before the projectile exits the muzzle, a precursor flow precursor muzzle flow was affected by a shockwave, ahead of the
field is formed by expansion of the high-pressure jet flow from the projectile, at the time is 2.2 ms after the projectile engraved. The
barrel. After the projectile exits the muzzle, a complex shockwave muzzle flow velocity increased quickly because of expansion of
flow field is formed from the high-pressure high-speed jet from the air column shockwaves 共seen in Fig. 8兲. The pressure in the
the barrel, the precursor flow field and the moving projectile. The region around the muzzle also increased quickly. Pressure-time
muzzle flow structure is very complex. It is a multidimensional, curves of three reference points are shown in Fig. 9. The flow
multiphase, transonic, and aerodynamic problem. The projectile is around the muzzle was influenced initially by the shockwave
affected by a series of shockwaves when overtaking the muzzle ahead of the projectile. Based on distance from the muzzle, point
flow. The investigation on the muzzle flow is useful to the re- 3 is closer than point 2. But point 2 is influenced earlier because
search of shot accuracy and gun system recoil loads. The devel-
opment of the muzzle flow field is shown in Fig. 6. In the figure
the left pictures are Mach contours and the right ones are pressure
contours.
The formation of the precursor muzzle flow is shown in Fig. 6.
Half of the Fig. 6 depicts the time when the projectile exits the
muzzle. The other half of the Fig. 6 shows the process after the
projectile has exited the muzzle. The propellant gas jet then mixes
with the precursor flow field.
In the gun firing process, the projectile was pushed forward by
high-pressure propellant gas. Air in front of the projectile was
continually compressed by the moving projectile, resulting in the
formation of a series of compression waves. The speed of each
subsequent compression wave was faster than the preceding one
because of the projectile acceleration. The shockwaves combine in
the gun barrel due to compression wave superposition. The vol- Fig. 8 Mach number-time curve of point 1 before muzzle exit
ume of the precursor flow field increased continually due to the
expansion of shockwaves from the barrel. The process is shown
clearly in Fig. 6. After the projectile exited the muzzle, the high-
pressure propellant gas jet expanded into the flow field surround-

Fig. 6 Time development of the muzzle flow „pressure

contours… Fig. 9 Pressure-time curves of reference point

Journal of Applied Mechanics SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 77 / 051406-5

Downloaded 13 Oct 2010 to 194.27.18.18. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm

Fig. 10 Simulation results profile along axis of symmetry
the radial wave propagation was impeded by the gun barrel. Pres-
sures at points 2 and 3 decreased after the shockwave passed, as
seen in Fig. 9.
When the projectile reaches the muzzle, the precursor flow pro-
vides the initial environment outside the barrel. Figure 10 shows
the Mach number variation and the pressure variation along the
axis of symmetry in front of the projectile at the instant of pro-
jectile exit. The maximum Mach number of the precursor muzzle
flow was 4.95 and the maximum pressure was 8.3 MPa. Shock-
waves in the precursor flow can be seen in Fig. 10. Three shock-
waves were formed in the precursor flow field. These decrease in
magnitude with distance from the muzzle. Jumps in pressure and
velocity were observed before and after each shockwave, as
shown in Fig. 10.
4.5 Discussion of the Flow Field Induced by the Projectile
Overtaking the Complex Shockwave. When a projectile over-
takes a preceding shockwave from behind, a complex shockwave
interaction occurs in the flow field around the projectile. The pro-
jectile experiences a rapid variation in aerodynamic forces as it
goes through the shockwave from the high-pressure region to the
low-pressure region. The rapid change in aerodynamic forces may
make the trajectory of the projectile unstable after the projectile
overtakes the preceding shockwave. Such a flow field is observed
near the outside of the muzzle when the launched projectile over-
Fig. 11 Velocity contours and projectile body pressure distribution at the various times
051406-6 / Vol. 77, SEPTEMBER 2010
Downloaded 13 Oct 2010 to 194.27.18.18. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
takes the blast wave. In order to improve shot precision, it is
important to analyze the process of the projectile overtaking the
blast waves in the muzzle flow. Many experiments and theoretical
studies have investigated the interaction of the flow field with
practical configurations. However, there has been little discussion
on the phenomena coupling the projectile with the shockwave.
The muzzle flow consists of a series of propagating normal
shockwaves and a moving projectile. Here, the flow field analysis
is important for the estimation of the projectile trajectory after it
overtakes the complex unsteady shockwave.
Figure 11 shows the velocity contours and projectile body pres-
sure distribution when the projectile is overtaking the muzzle flow
field. After the projectile exited the muzzle, it was surrounded by
a high-pressure high-temperature jet from the gun bore. The for-
mation of a shockwave was disturbed by the moving projectile.
Simultaneously, the projectile body pressure changed greatly
when the projectile overtook the unsteady complex shockwave. At
0.2 ms after the projectile exited the barrel 共Fig. 11共a兲兲, the lead-
ing part of the projectile was not surrounded by the shockwave.
The projectile body pressure decreased sharply behind the shock-
wave and then increased toward the muzzle because of the con-
tinuous high-pressure jet from the barrel. The projectile body
pressure increased at the projectile tail due to the low-pressure
area at the bottom of the projectile. At 0.5 ms after the projectile
exited the barrel 共Fig. 11共b兲兲, another shockwave was formed due
to differences in the projectile diameter. At 0.8 ms after the pro-
jectile exited 共Fig. 11共c兲兲, the shockwave has moved backward to
the projectile tail. The projectile tail body pressure increased be-
cause the shockwave was near the projectile base. At 1.2 ms after
the projectile exited 共Fig. 11共d兲兲, the projectile moved out of the
shockwave. The projectile body pressure was then fairly evenly
distributed. The body pressure at the front of the projectile was
relatively high due to the resistive pressure caused by the non-
streamlined projectile profile. An investigation of the projectile
body pressure profile is the foundation for research into shot ac-
curacy.
4.6 Aerodynamics Analysis After the Projectile Exits the
Barrel. After the projectile has left the barrel, a high-pressure
propellant gas jet is vented from the muzzle. The jet interacted
with the precursor flow and was impeded by the moving projec-
tile. Mach number and pressure distributions, along the axis of
Transactions of the ASME

Fig. 12 Mach number distributions behind the projectile
symmetry to the back of the projectile, at different times 共0.2 ms,
0.4 ms, 0.6 ms, 0.8 ms, 1.0 ms, 1.2 ms, 1.4 ms, 1.6 ms, and 1.8
ms兲, are shown in Figs. 12 and 13, respectively. Due to shock-
wave superposition, the maximum Mach number at each time is
larger than the previous one. Furthermore, the position of the
maximum Mach number moves forward as the shockwaves spread
forward. The projectile trajectory was influenced by the projectile
base pressure and the air pressure ahead of the projectile. The
projectile base pressure decreased as the projectile moved away
the muzzle 共Fig. 13兲. The projectile velocity increased initially but
became constant 0.6 ms after the projectile exited the muzzle. The
pressure in the barrel constantly decreased as the gas expanded
out of the muzzle.
4.7 Numerical and Analysis of Muzzle Vortex Flow.
Muzzle flow is a typical under expanded fluid jet. A coronary
wave was formed by the expansion of shockwaves from the bar-
rel. Before the projectile exited the muzzle, a vortex flow was
developed for the precursor gas flow expanding around an exter-
nal obtuse angle. In Fig. 14 a vortex ring is shown beside the
muzzle at 0.4 ms before the projectile exits the muzzle. After the
projectile left the muzzle, a high-pressure, high-velocity jet flowed
out of the gun muzzle. The vortex effect weakened gradually.
4.8 Analysis of the Projectile Velocity After Shot Exit. Fig-
ure 15 shows the velocity-time profile for the projectile after leav-
ing the barrel. The projectile velocity increased significantly due
to the high-pressure gas jet flow expanding from the bore after
shot ejection. In the interior ballistic process, resisting forces on
the projectile comprised the barrel friction force and the resistive
pressure on the front of the projectile. The driving force on the
projectile was mainly from high-pressure gas. So the projectile
velocity increased constantly 共see Fig. 5兲. After shot ejection, dur-
ing the interior ballistic after-effect period, the projectile base was
acted on by the high-pressure jet. Consequently, the pressure on
the base of the projectile was greater than the pressure on the front
Fig. 13 Pressure distributions behind the projectile
Journal of Applied Mechanics
Downloaded 13 Oct 2010 to 194.27.18.18. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
Fig. 14 Velocity vector before the projectile exited
of the projectile, resulting in a positive velocity acceleration. In
Fig. 15 the projectile velocity increased quickly after it left the
muzzle. After the projectile moved away from the Mach disk,
there was no discernable pressure difference between base and
front of the projectile. So the velocity of projectile tended to be-
come constant.
5 Conclusions
An aerodynamic analysis has been conducted for the firing pro-
cess of a 30 mm gun shooting a typical projectile. The process
from the end of engraving to the time of the maximum projectile
velocity in the interior ballistic after-effect period was simulated
and analyzed with a hybrid structured-unstructured moving grid
method. The main conclusions are as follows.
共1兲 Using data from a 30 mm gun firing, the muzzle flow field
was simulated coupled to the interior ballistic process. The
predicted projectile muzzle velocity and maximum cham-
ber pressure were in good agreement with those of the ex-
periment.
共2兲 Numerical simulations showed the formation and develop-
ment of the muzzle flow field. Bottle shockwaves were
clearly displayed. The analysis methods and conclusions
will provide significant guidance to researchers of problems
related to the influence of the muzzle flow field.
共3兲 The flow induced by a projectile overtaking a shockwave
was simulated and analyzed. This analysis can be used to
investigate the effect of the muzzle flow on the projectile
trajectory. The pressure and Mach number distributions in
the precursor flow field were analyzed before the projectile
exited the muzzle. The vortex flow near the muzzle was
also analyzed. The position of maximum Mach number
moved forward after the projectile exited the muzzle. The
maximum Mach number increased to 6.83 and the breech
pressure decreased to 21.5 MPa at 1.8 ms after the projec-
tile had left the barrel. The projectile velocity increased
Fig. 15 Velocity-time curve of the projectile after the projectile
exited
SEPTEMBER 2010, Vol. 77 / 051406-7
 rapidly up to 0.8 ms after shot exit and then tended to be
constant. The projectile velocity increased to 899.28 m/s
from 843.99 m/s in the interior ballistic after-effect period.
The simulation results accurately reflected the physics of the
problem. Results of numerical simulation and analysis are helpful
to understand and master the aerodynamic process of the gun
system launch process and provide significant guidance for re-
search into shot accuracy and muzzle brake design.
Acknowledgment
This work is supported by the Program for New Century Ex-
cellent Talents in University 共Contract No. NCET040509兲, the
Research Fund for the Doctoral Program of Higher Education
共Contract No. 20060288019兲, and the Natural Science Foundation
of Jiangsu province 共Contract No. BK2007531兲, People’s Repub-
lic of China.
References
关1兴 Jin, Z. M., 2004, Interior Ballistics of Guns, Beijing Institute of Technology
Press, Beijing, China, pp. 9–137.
关2兴 Klingenberg, G., and Heimerl, J. M., 1992, “Gun Muzzle Blast and Flash,”
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, A. R. Seebass, ed., AIAA, Wash-
ington, DC, Vol. 139.
关3兴 Jiang, Z., Takayama, K., and Skews, B. W., 1998, “Wave Interaction Follow-
ing the Emergence of a Supersonic Projectile From a Tube,” 17th International
Symposium in Ballistic, pp. 9–16.
关4兴 Jiang, X. H., Fan, B. C., and Li, H. Z., 2008, “Numerical Investigations on
Dynamic Process of Muzzle Flow,” Appl. Math. Mech., 29共3兲, pp. 351–360.
关5兴 Cler, D. L., Chevaugeon, N., Shephard, M. S., and Remacle, J. F., 2003, “CFD
Application to Gun Muzzle Blast a Validation Case Study,” 41st AIAA Aero-
space Science Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV.
051406-8 / Vol. 77, SEPTEMBER 2010
Downloaded 13 Oct 2010 to 194.27.18.18. Redistribution subject to ASME license or copyright; see http://www.asme.org/terms/Terms_Use.cfm
关6兴 Cayzac, R., Carette, E., Roquefort, T. A., Bidorrini, P., Bret, E., Delusier, P.,
and Secco, S., 2005, “Unsteady Intermediate Ballistics: 2D and 3D CFD Mod-
eling, Applications to Sabot Separation,” 22nd International Symposium on
Ballistics, Vancouver, Canada.
关7兴 Kurbatskii, K. A., and Montanari, F., 2007, Numerical Blast Wave Identifica-
tion and Tracking Using Solution-Based Mesh Adaptation Approach,” 18th
AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Miami, FL.
关8兴 Merlen, A., and Dyment, A., 1991, “Similarity and Asymptotic Analysis for
Gun-Firing Aerodynamics,” J. Fluid Mech., 225, pp. 497–528.
关9兴 Carlucci, D., Cordes, J., Morris, S., and Gast, R., 2006, “Muzzle Exit 共Set for
Word兲 Effects on Projectile Dynamics,” Paper No. AD-E403 082.
关10兴 Lee, C. L., Lee, D. J., Ko, S. H., Lee, D. S., and Kang, G. J., 2006, “Numerical
Analysis of a Blast Wave Using CFD-CAA Hybrid Method,” Paper No. AIAA
2006-2701.
关11兴 Blazek, J., 2001, Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principles and Applications,
Elsevier, Oxford, pp. 81–96.
关12兴 Sakamoto, K., Matsunnaga, K., Fukushima, J., and Tanaka, A., 2001, “Nu-
merical Analysis of the Propagating Blast Wave in a Firing Range,” 19th
International Symposium in Ballistic, pp. 289–296.
关13兴 Aibarow, A. V., Babayev, D. B., and Mironov, A. A., 2002, “Numerical Simu-
lation of 3D Muzzle Brake and Missile Launcher Flow Field in the Presence of
Movable Objects,” 20th International Symposium in Ballistic, pp. 226–232.
关14兴 Cayzac, R., Carette, E. et al., 2008, “3D Unsteady Intermediate Ballistics
Modeling: Muzzle Brake and Sabot Separation,” 24th International Sympo-
sium on Ballistics, New Orleans, LA.
关15兴 Mirsajedi, S. M., Karimian, S. M. H., and Mani, M., 2006, “A Multizone
Moving Mesh Algorithm for Simulation of Flow Around a Rigid Body With
Arbitrary Motion,” ASME J. Fluids Eng., 128共2兲, pp. 297–304.
关16兴 Watanabe R., Fujii, K., and Higashino, F., 1997, “Three-Dimensional Compu-
tation of the Flow Induced by a Projectile Overtaking a Shock Wave,” Paper
No. AIAA-97-1840.
关17兴 Chen, C. J., and Jaw, S. Y., 1998, Fundamentals of Turbulence Modeling,
Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC.
关18兴 Zhu, B., 2006, “Interaction Study of Interior Ballistics Flow of Guns Chamber
and Muzzle Flow Field,” MS dissertation, Nanjing University of Science and
Technology, pp. 21–22.
Transactions of the ASME