25th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference 25 - 28 June 2007, Miami, FL

AIAA 2007-4075

Trajectory prediction tool comparisons for spinning and non-spinning projectiles

D. Corriveau1 and N. Hamel 2 Defence R&D Canada Valcartier, Quebec City, Canada, G3J-1X5 and B. Plante 3 Gestion Tlmatique, Quebec City, Canada,
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2007-4075

The field of artillery must meet ever more stringent operational needs in the delivery of precise effects. Closely connected to meet these needs for the Canadian Forces, DRDC Valcartier studies solutions of guidance and control. DRDC Valcartier undertook to compare different suites of tools to predict the trajectory of projectiles in order to study the various concepts with a sufficient degree of confidence. Two reference projectiles were studied, namely, the Basic Finner and a 105 mm spin stabilized projectile. The MMCL (Munition Model Component Library) was benchmarked against PRODAS trajectory module using the aerodynamic coefficients predicted by PRODAS for the 105 mm configuration. Then, the MMCL package was validated using a spin-stabilized projectile. Then, trajectories of the reference model were simulated and compared for PRODAS and the MMCL. Finally, the trajectories obtained were compared with available experimental data. The results indicate that Missile Datcom generated aerodynamic coefficients are sufficiently accurate to predict the overall trajectories of the projectiles.

Nomenclature
AoA Cal. DoF MMCL = = = = Angel of Attack Caliber of the projectile Degree of freedom Munition Model Component Library

I. Introduction
HE field of artillery must meet the operational need for the delivery of precise effects in position, time and intensity. Closely connected to meet these needs for the Canadian Forces, DRDC Valcartier studies solutions of guidance and control in the field of artillery projectiles. In order to study the various concepts with a sufficient degree of confidence, DRDC Valcartier undertook to compare different suites of tools to predict the trajectory of projectiles. The suites available to DRDC Valcartier are: Prodas V3 [1] from ArrowTech and the combination of Missile Datcom and MMCL [2]. The latter is part of DRDC Valcartier simulation tool to calculate guided weapon performance. The main objective of this paper is to compare MMCL with commercially available software. Using the tools mentioned previously, two projectiles were studied, namely, the Basic Finner and a 105 mm spin stabilized projectile (Figures 1 and 2). The Basic Finner reference projectile is a simple 20 nose cone on a cylindrical body stabilized with four rectangular fins. The fins dimensions are 30mm x 30mm and wedge shaped. The four fins were canted at 2 to produce a clockwise roll motion when the projectile is viewed from the aft end. The 105 mm reference projectile has an ordinary blunt tangent ogive nose on a cylindrical body followed by an 8 boattail.
1 2

Defence Scientist, Precision Weapons Section, 2459 Pie-XI Blvd North, and AIAA Member Defence Scientist, Precision Weapons Section, 2459 Pie-XI Blvd North, and AIAA Member 3 Research engineer 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Copyright 2007 by The Department of National Defence, Canada. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.

The Basic Finner was studied at Mach number of 0.95 on a range of 250 m [3,4] while the 105 mm trajectory was studied numerically at a 20 km slant range and a launch Mach number of about 2.1. PRODAS (PROjectile Design and Analysis System) is an effective design and analysis tool for use by design engineers in the development and evaluation of projectiles. It has been a multi-year project which began at General Electric in 1972 and continues at ArrowTech Associates Inc. since 1991. The primary objective of PRODAS development has been to provide an effective analytical tool that allows for rapid and complete design of projectiles and rockets. MMCL stands for Munition Model Component Library. It is based on the in-house USAF project MSTARS (Munition Simulation Tools and Resources) at the Air Force Research Lab/ Munitions Directorate, the first version was implemented in 1997 using VisSim, from Visual Solutions. In 2000, DSTO Weapon Figure 1. Basic Finner (Dimensions in calibers 1cal = 30 System Division ported the MSTARS Public mm) Release to MATLAB/ Simulink. MMCL is the merging of the previous DRDC MunitionToolBox library into the Simulink version of MSTARS.

Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2007-4075

II. Comparison methodology

Figure 2. 105 mm reference projectile (Dimensions in calibers) The comparative study was performed in three steps. First, the MMCL package was benchmarked against the PRODAS trajectory module using the aerodynamic coefficients predicted by PRODAS. Once the MMCL package was validated, trajectories of the reference models were simulated and compared for PRODAS and the MMCL. Finally, the trajectories obtained were compared with available experimental data.

A. Step 1: MMCL benchmarking using the 105 mm reference projectile The portability of the PRODAS data file (mass, inertia and aerodynamics) towards Matlab/Simulink MMCL package was performed under several constraints. No modification could be made to the PRODAS files. The MMCL package had to be used without making any changes. The translation of the PRODAS data file to the MMCL package input format was done as follows. The projectile description parameters required as inputs to the Simulink models such as the mass, the centre of gravity and the aerodynamic coefficients were listed. Then, the parameters extracted from the PRODAS data file were translated to those used by the Simulink model. The 105 mm spin stabilized projectile was used for the comparison. In these simulations, 6 DoF trajectories were obtained with PRODAS. Then, the aerodynamic coefficients predicted by Prodas were exported to MMCL 5 DoF ballistic trajectory prediction tool. The results are shown in Figure 3. Excellent correlation was found between PRODAS and the MMCL trajectory predictions. As a result, the MMCL was then used in conjunction with Datcom as a complete suite in step 2. 2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2007-4075

Figure 3. PRODAS and PRODAS-coefficient/MMCL trajectories for the spin stabilized 105 mm reference projectile

B. Step 2: Numerical trajectories comparisons using the Basic Finner reference model The next step was to compare DATCOM/MMCL against PRODAS. Both codes produced their own aerodynamic coefficients and trajectory for the Basic Finner at Mach 0.9. Initial conditions of the projectile at the gun muzzle are described in Table 1. The altitude, drift, yaw angle, and pitch angle against the downrange distance are presented in Figure 4. Both code predicted the same trajectory in altitude and almost the same drift. A small discrepancy of 5% was observed on the drift. However, the pitching and yawing motion were not exactly the same. The first yaw angle cycle was the same for both code in intensity and frequency. However, as the projectile flew downrange the yaw angle undamped as predicted by PRODAS. The pitch angle was also comparable between both codes at the beginning of the flight. Table 1: Initial conditions at the gun PRODAS predicted a plateau in the pitch angle at about 180 m muzzle for the Basic Finner reference downrange. The plateau was not captured by DATCOM/MMCL. projectile Instead, DATCOM/MMCL predicted a yaw and pitch angle Pitch [rad] 0.0 damping during the complete flight. Pitch Rate [rad/sec] 3.5 Yaw [rad] 0.0 Yaw Rate [rad/sec] 0.6807 Roll [rad] 0.0 Roll Rate [rad/sec] -1.75 Velocity [m/s] 345

3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2007-4075

Figure 4. PRODAS and DATCOM/MMCL trajectories for the Basic Finner at Mach 0.9 C. Step 3: Experimental trajectories comparison using the Basic Finner reference model The final step is to compare DATCOM/MMCL against experimental results available for the Basic Finner. The 6 DoF of PRODAS is used to reproduce the trajectory of the Basic Finner. The comparison is showed in Figure 5. DATCOM/MMCL compare very well with the experimental data for the altitude vs. downrange for the complete flight. Again, the same discrepancy was found on the drift. Moreover, the yaw and pitch angle were correctly simulated by DATCOM/MMCL at the beginning of the cycle. To tackle the discrepancy between the experimental results and DATCOM/MMCL trajectory, the experimental coefficients were used as an input in the MMCL package. Results are shown in Figure 6. The altitude and drift are still accurate. The biggest differences occurred in the yaw and pitch angle resolution. The yaw is correctly resolved by the MMCL and the un-damping effect was captured. The pitch angle is quite well resolved when the experimental coefficients are used. The MMCL predicted more accurately the pitch angle. Moreover, the pitch angle plateau was at the right downrange position but, not at the right angle. The use of experimental results corrected the flaws found previously.

4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2007-4075

Figure 5. Experiment and DATCOM/MMCL trajectories at Mach 0.9

III. Conclusion
In conclusion, it was demonstrated that the MMCL package could be used in conjunction with DATCOM as a design tool for spin stabilized and finned projectiles to predict the trajectory. It was also found that the precision of the MMCL is directly related to the aerodynamic coefficient used for the simulations. To be able to simulate precisely the behavior of in flight projectile more accurate coefficients, such as those available from experiments, are needed. New developments on the MMCL package are still ongoing to increase its usability and precision. The versatility and the in-house knowledge of the MMCL is essential for the design and evaluation of new concept of weapon.

Acknowledgments
The authors want to thank Mr. Vincent Trudel from LTI inc. for the invaluable help in the production of MMCL results, and Mr. Marc Lauzon for discussions and troubleshooting of the MMCL. This work was financed by the Defence R&D Canada Applied Research Program under the project Artillery precision guided munitions.

5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on October 1, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2007-4075

Figure 6. Experimental and experimental coefficient/MMCL trajectories at Mach 0.9

References
1.

PRODAS (PROjectile Design/Analysis System, Version 3.1.29), Technical and User Manual, Arrow Tech Associates, Burlington, Vermont, USA 2. Munition Model Component Library (MMCL), Library Version 1.4, DRDC Valcartier, June 2007. 3. Dupuis, A.D. and Hathaway, W. (1997). Aeroballistic range Tests of the Basic Finner Reference Projectile at Supersonic Velocities. DREV-TM-9703., Defence Research Establishment Valcartier 4. Dupuis, A.D (2002). Aeroballistic Range and Wind Tunnel Tests of the Basic Finner Reference Projectile from Subsonic to High Supersonic Velocities. DRDV Valcartier TM-2002-136., Defence R&D Canada Valcartier

6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics