Aerodynamics of Projectile with Wrap Around

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

i=1
S
j
C
ij
(3.1)
Where,
S
j
= E
ax
, E
n1
, E
n2
, E
s1
, E
s2
, E
R
L
i
= A
x
, N
1
, N
2
, S
1
, S
2
, R
m
are the signal and force vector respectively.
No wind data from the balance is acquired before every run and is subtracted
from the wind data. Raw data is processed using the above equation to obtain loads
on the balance. The forces and moments at the balance centre in the model axes are
than evaluated from these balance loads using the following equations.
A
xb
= A
x
(3.2)
S
b
= S
1
+S
2
(3.3)
N
b
= N
1
+N
2
(3.4)
R
b
= R
m
(3.5)
M
b
= (N
1
N
2
) d (3.6)
Y
b
= (S
1
S
2
) d (3.7)
Where, d is the distance from the balance centre to the normal force or side force
gages. It is equal to 0.045 m for the balance used currently. The aerodynamic forces
and rolling moments will remain same at balance center and center of gravity. The
Pitching and Yawing moments obtained at the balance center were then transferred
to the center of gravity of the body of the model axis using the following equations.
M = M
b
r N
b
(3.8)
Y = Y
b
r Y
b
(3.9)
Where, r is the distance between balance center and center of gravity of the body.
Finally, the forces and moments obtained were converted into non dimensional
form using the free stream dynamic head and appropriate parameters. The forces
and moments coecients in the non-dimensional form are given below.
21
C
Force
=
Force
1
2
V
2
S
(3.10)
C
Moment
=
Moment
1
2
V
2
Sc
(3.11)
Where,
Force is in N
Moment is in Nm
S= Base area of the model
V= Free stream velocity in m/s
= Density of air kg/m
3
c= Diameter of the model
3.2.5 PSI Net Scanner Systems
The pressure on the dierent points of the converging diverging nozzle was measured
by the NetScanner Intelligent Pressure Scanner modules (model 9016). 9016 Scanner
Hookup Arrangement is shown in gure 3.3. Model 9016 is a pneumatic Intelligent
Pressure Scanner with sixteen integral pressure transducers and a pneumatic calibra-
tion manifold. It is a exible pressure measurement devices intended for use in test
and production environment. Per channel cost is less than a typical industrial pres-
sure transducer. A memory chip containing full calibration data is embedded with in
each internal transducer. This model is capable of accuracies better than +-0.05%.
Accuracy is maintained for six month after calibration. Standard communications
network protocols is used to control and read data from the net scanner modules.
Every Intelligent Pressure Scanner contains a circular interface connector, allowing it
to be inter-connected in a network with other modules and a host computer.
3.3 Wind Tunnel Model
Missile model with solid wrap around n have been fabricated by CNC vertical milling
machine. Figure 3.4 depicts the model conguration used for these tests. The basic
diameter of the model is 20mm. Total length of the model is 190mm with 40mm
tangent cone. Four wrap around ns were used which had a chord of 30mm. The
thickness of the n is 1mm. The ns leading edge are at the angle of 45
o
, 30
o
and
semi-circle. The trailing edge is maintained at for all 4 ns.
22
Figure 3.1: Diagrammatic layout of intermittent blow-down tunnel.
Figure 3.2: Schematic of Six Component Strain gage balance.
23
Figure 3.3: 9016 Scanner Hookup Arrangement.
24
Figure 3.4: Missile model with wrap around n.
25
Figure 3.5: WAF Missile Model inside the Tunnel.
26
Chapter 4
Results
Computational and experimental study were conducted on wrap around n missile
with the variation in n front end angle and n thickness. The variation employed
on the ns are the change in n front end angle i.e., 45
o
and 30
o
and n thickness as
1mm, 1.5mm and 2mm.
4.1 The Technical Cooperation Projectile
Simulations where conducted on the TTCP model from Mach 1.2 to Mach 2.5. The
names for each TTCP model is given as follows:
TTCP 45D - TTCP model with 45
o
n front end angle
TTCP 30D - TTCP model with 30
o
n front end angle
Floweld solutions have shown many interesting features, while simulating the
ow at varying Mach numbers ranging from transonic to higher supersonic Mach
numbers. The roll reversal presented by other computational, experimental work and
current work has been depicted in gure 4.1. The comparison is carried out at 0
o
angle of attack. This shows that TTCP model has no particular roll reversal point.
This variation can be attributed to the fact that neither of the previous works was
done on the same model, as well as none of the model had been congured properly.
This shows that the cross over point for the TTCP models is in between Mach 1.3
to 1.5. However, almost every work shows similar trend i.e. predicting a cross-over
point in low-supersonic range.
27
The simulated results show that the roll moment starts from negavtive and passes
on to positive after the cross over point. A positive roll moment coecient indicates
a roll direction towards ns center of curvature. This point shows that roll moment
coecients computed with present code agree well with the trend of roll reversal point
(cross over point).
To understand the reason behind rolling moment generation at 0
o
angle of attack,
a comparative study of the Mach number and Pressure prole was done for the TTCP
model. The cross section of the mach prole is show in gure 4.2. This shows that
oblique shock is formed when the ow reaches the missile due to the sharp edge of
the conical region. Then it continues with a expansion shock at the end of the conical
region. Behind the expansion wave the ow is supersonic and this supersonic ow
reaches the n region. From the Mach number prole it is observed that just before
the n the ow is subsonic for inlet condition of Mach 1.3 whereas the ow remains
supersonic before the n for Mach 1.6. Hence, there is a transition from subsonic to
supersonic ow just before the n-tip in the Mach no of 1.3. This transition from
subsonic to supersonic ow just before the n seems to be the main cause for the roll
reversal. There occurs a complex shock pattern just before the n and this complex
3D shock continues through out the n length. Due to the asymmetric n assembly
the pressure distribution along the n is very complex. The static pressure prole
(gure 4.3) indicates the formation of shock just before the n with the increase in
pressure. Since the ow remains supersonic for Mach 1.6 onwards, this shock should
be oblique shock or detached bow shock. The gure 4.4 depicts the reducing mach
number near the n region which is subsonic when the inlet mach number is 1.6.
When the inlet mach number is 1.6 the ow near the n is partially supersonic.
Detailed analysis of the ow eld has been done by plotting the ow eld contours
of Mach number and static pressure at dierent sections, which had been discussed
along. These sections were taken along the n region normal to the X-axis. The
gure 4.5 shows the pressure plot along the n region normal to X-axis for mach
number 1.3. Complex 3d bow-shock formation at the n tips causes pressure dierence
at the concave and convex side of the ns resulting in the development forces on the
n. The gure 4.6 shows the pressure plot along the n region normal to X-axis for
mach number 1.6. These gures show that at mach number 1.3 the pressure at the
concave region is low and due to this the missile rolls towards the concave region.
But for mach number 1.6 the pressure eect is not much so the roll involves towards
the convex region. The mach prole plot for mach number 1.3 and 1.6 is shown in
28
gure 4.7 and gure 4.8 respectively. These gures show the shock pattern in between
the n region. This highlights the convergence of shock from the n front towards the
concave which occurs at 50% of the n along X-axis. This shock interaction creates
the pressure dierence which induces the roll reversal for the Mach no 1.3.
The coecients have been plotted in gure 4.9, gure 4.10 and gure 4.11. The
plots are done against the angle of attack. This shows the variation in coecients
from mach number 1.2 to 1.6 has drastic changes. The side force coecient is more
compared to other coecients. This is caused due to the pitching moment as discussed
by Winchenbach [10]. The coecient of pitching moment and side force coecient
follow the same pattern for Mach number 1.2 to 1.4, so the reason is clear for high
side force on the missile. The missile thus develops a coupling of pitching and yawing
moment when the cross over point is reached. This makes the missile lose its stability
and deviate from its path.
4.2 Wind Tunnel Model
4.2.1 Computational Result
Computaion was carried out on the Wind Tunnel model (WT) from mach 1.2 to mach
2.5 with variation in n prole. The variation employed are with the n thickness of
1mm, 1.5mm and 2mm. Fin front end angle is also varied as 30
o
and 45
o
for each
thickness. The names for each model is as follows:
WT 45D T1 - WT Model with 45
o
n front end angle and 1mm thickness
WT 30D T1 - WT Model with 30
o
n front end angle and 1mm thickness
WT 45D T1.5 - WT Model with 45
o
n front end angle and 1.5mm thickness
WT 30D T1.5 - WT Model with 30
o
n front end angle and 1.5mm thickness
WT 45D T2 - WT Model with 45
o
n front end angle and 2mm thickness
WT 30D T2 - WT Model with 30
o
n front end angle and 2mm thickness
Rolling moment is calculated from each model and the cross over point is identied.
The WT Model gives the rolling moment coecient from positive to negative. This
is due to the n orientation which is opposite to the orientation of TTCP model.
29
The roll moment coecient is depicted in the gure 4.12 which shows that the cross
over point for this type of model comes in between Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.4. Therefore,
importance is given for these ow conditions. The n front end angle does not show
much dierence in the cross over point. All 3 thickness has the cross over point in
between Mach 1.2 to Mach 1.4. The WT model with n thickness 1mm shows the
variation in rolling moment coecient low (coecient of rolling moment extends upto
-0.1) compared to the WT model with n thickness 1.5mm and 2mm (coecient of
rolling moment extends upto -0.45). The WT model with n thickness 1.5mm and
2mm has the same pattern of roll moment coecient.
To furthur analyse the roll moment for the WT model, the cross section along the
XY-axis is taken for inlet ow conditon of Mach 1.2 and Mach 1.4. This is depicted
in gure 4.13 and gure 4.14. This shows that oblique shock is formed when the ow
reaches the missile due to the sharp edge of the conical region. Then it continues with
a expansion shock at the end of the conical region. Behind the expansion wave the
ow is supersonic and this supersonic ow reaches the n. From the Mach number
prole it is observed that just before the n the ow is subsonic for inlet condition
of Mach 1.2 where as the ow remains supersonic before the n for Mach 1.4. The
plot along the missile cross section in X-axis is shown in gure 4.15. This clearly
shows the variation of Mach prole on the missile surface. This concludes the shock
occurance near the n region which makes the ow subsonic for Mach number 1.2
and partially supersonic for Mach number 1.4. This provides the ow near the n for
Mach 1.2, which creates a complex 3D shock structure along the n region. Due to
the asymmetric n assembly the pressure distribution near the n is very complex.
The static pressure plot along the missile length is also shown in gure 4.16. The
increase in pressure near the n region conrms the formation of shock.
To learn more about the eects, cross section along the missile n is taken normal
to X-axis to see the pressure distribution and mach prole. The gure 4.17 shows the
static pressure distribution along 25%, 50% and 75% for Mach 1.2 with dierent n
thickness. Complex 3d bow-shock formation at the n tips causes pressure dierence
at the concave and convex side of the ns resulting in the development of forces on
the n. The pressure along the concave side is very less compared to the convex side.
This provides the n to roll towards the concave region. The static pressure for Mach
1.4 is show simultaneouly in gure 4.18 with dierent n thickness. The pressure
along the n is distributed with less pressure dierence on the concave and convex
region. Therefore, the roll occurs along the convex side of the n.
30
The Mach prole for dierent n thickness is shown in the gure 4.19 for Mach 1.2.
This shows the formation of shocks inside the cavity of the n. This shock pattern
from the concave side converges near 50% of the n. This disturbs the ow near the
concave side and a pressure dierence occurs.
Experiment were carried on the WT model with 1mm n thickness, so the compar-
ison for computational and experimental is done on this missile prole. Comparison
of all the coecients are done along the experimental results.
4.2.2 Experimental Results
Experiment was carried on the Supersonic Wind Tunnel available at Aerospace De-
partment, IIT Kanpur. The experiment was conducted on the n with thickness of
1mm. The test was run under the ow condition of Mach 1.6. The model involves
the n front angle of 45
o
, 30
o
and blunt semicircle. Aerodynamic coecients have
been measured for the wrap-around n using the six component strain gage balance.
The aerodynamic forces and moments are presented along the body axes at center of
gravity of the model.
Force Coecient
Figure 4.20 shows the lift coecient for the model with varied n front end angle.
The pattern for each model remains almost same. The lift coecient increases as the
angle of attack increases from negative to zero. Later from 0
o
to +2
o
the lift coecient
falls. This is due to the force acting on the ns caused by the shock pattern in the n
cavity. From +2
o
to +6
o
the change is lift coecient is not drastic. The eect of the
aire that holds the model also plays a major role in the lift coecient. Temperature
also play a major roll in the lift factor. The temperature inside the test section is low
because of the pressure drop.
Figure 4.21 shows the drag coecient for the model. The drag coecient decreases
from angle of attack -2
o
to 0
o
. From 0
o
to 6
o
there is a increase in drag for all the
model. Drag is also contributed from the aire.
Side force coecient has a sinusoidal variation as the angle of attack change. The
variation in the front end angle has slight changes in the side force coecient. This
is shown in the gure 4.22. The computational counter part is shown in gure 4.23,
which show a slight variation from angle of attack 4
o
to 6
o
as compared to experimental
31
result. The sinusoidal change of side force from -2
o
to 2
o
angle of attack is due to the
change in Mach number distribution around the n. The wrap around n have more
side force, where as for planar ns the side force is almost zero [16].
Eect of the Flaire
To identify the eect of the aire, tests where conducted for missile without n. Major
eects where found for lift coecient. Eect on lift is shown in the gure 4.24 which
show a linear increment in lift and the lift at angle of attack 6
o
is higher compared
to the model with n. This is due to the shape of the aire that produces a bow
shock at all angle of attack. This causes the increase in pressure from 0
o
to 6
o
angle
of attack. The bigger aire size is due to the size of the balance used. As the balance
used is 40mm dia, the adapter employed to protect it from the high speed ow is also
big enough to produce increasing eects.
Moment Coecient
The plot for coecient of rolling moment is depicted in gure 4.25. The plot shows
that the rolling moment is positive at negative angle of attack. And it goes to negative
at positive angle of attack. This is compared with the computational result through
the gure 4.26. The study has shown that, rolling moment is acting at zero angle of
attack towards the concave side of the wrap-around n. This is due to the oblique
shocks on the wrap-around n due to sharp leading edge. Abate and Cook [5] obtained
the rolling moment and has given the converging diverging theory for innitely thin
beveled n. Rolling moment is changes linearly and acting towards the convex side
of the n after zero degree angle of attack. This is due to the n geometry and very
complex three dimensional ow structure generated by the shock interaction between
the ns. There is also the shock interaction between the bow shocks of the dierent
ns. This show a very complex three dimensional ow structure around the ns at
angle of attack and ow will be supersonic in the vicinity of wrap-around ns and
this might be the reason of change in the direction of rolling moment at 0
o
angle of
attack. Computation and experiment go well with each other.
Figure 4.27 depicts the coecient of pitching moment for all the models. This
shows that the pitching moment is in negative for all angle of attack. But when
compared to computational results the pitching moment at negative angle of attack
32
is positive. The computational plot for coecient of pitching moment is shown in
gure 4.28. Pitching moment remains zero for 0
o
angle of attack for planar n cong-
uration. But for wrap around n missile the pitching moment is negative. Therefore,
a instability is introduced in the missile which drastically increases the side force and
thus makes the missile to wobble along the center of gravity of the missile.
Coecient of yawing moment is depicted in gure 4.29, which shows that there
exist a positive yawing moment when the angle is set at -2
o
and 0
o
. Later it goes to
negative at positive angle of attack. When it is compared to the computational plot,
it slighty agrees with the pattern that both follows. The computational plot is given
in gure 4.30.
33
Figure 4.1: Comparison of Rolling Moment Coecient Vs Mach Number.
Figure 4.2: Mach prole along the cross section in X-axis at Mach 1.3.
34
Figure 4.3: Static pressure plot along missile length.
Figure 4.4: Mach number plot along missile length.
35
Figure 4.5: Static pressure plot along n region M = 1.3.
Figure 4.6: Static pressure plot along n region M = 1.6.
Figure 4.7: Mach number plot along n region M = 1.3.
36
Figure 4.8: Mach number plot along n region M = 1.6.
Alpha
C
o
-
E
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
o
f
P
i
t
c
h
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6 8
-0.5
0
0.5
Mach 1.2
Mach 1.3
Mach 1.4
Mach 1.6
Mach 1.8
Figure 4.9: Coecient of pitching moment Vs angle of attack .
Alpha
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
O
f
Y
a
w
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
Mach 1.2
Mach 1.3
Mach 1.4
Mach 1.6
Mach 1.8
Figure 4.10: Coecient of yawing moment Vs angle of attack .
37
Figure 4.11: Side force coecient Vs angle of attack .
Figure 4.12: Rolling moment coecient Vs Mach Number for WT model.
38
Figure 4.13: Mach prole along the missile length at Mach 1.2.
Figure 4.14: Mach prole along the missile length at Mach 1.4.
39
Figure 4.15: Mach number plot along the missile length.
Figure 4.16: Static Pressure plot along the missile length.
40
Figure 4.17: Static Pressure plot along the n cross section with dierent n thickness
at mach 1.2.
41
Figure 4.18: Static Pressure plot along the n cross section with dierent n thickness
at mach 1.4.
42
Figure 4.19: Mach prole plot along the n cross section with dierent n thickness
at mach 1.4.
43
Figure 4.20: lift Coecient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6.
Figure 4.21: Drag Coecient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6.
44
Figure 4.22: Side Force Coecient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Experimental).
Angle of Attack
S
i
d
e
F
o
r
c
e
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
WT_45D
WT_30D
Figure 4.23: Side Force Coecient Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Computational).
45
Angle of Attack
L
i
f
t
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
-4 -2 0 2 4 6 8
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
Flaire Effect
Figure 4.24: Lift Coecient Vs Angle of Attack for Flaire at mach 1.6.
46
Figure 4.25: Coecient of Rolling Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Experi-
mental).
Angle of attack
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
o
f
R
o
l
l
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6
-0.04
-0.02
0
0.02
WT_45D
WT_30D
Figure 4.26: Coecient of Rolling Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Compu-
tational).
47
Figure 4.27: Coecient of Pitching Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Exper-
imental).
Angle of Attack
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
o
f
P
i
t
c
h
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6
-4
-2
0
2
WT_45D
WT_30D
Figure 4.28: Coecient of Pitching Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Com-
putational).
48
Figure 4.29: Coecient of Yawing Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Experi-
mental).
Angle of Attack
C
o
e
f
f
i
c
i
e
n
t
o
f
Y
a
w
i
n
g
M
o
m
e
n
t
-2 0 2 4 6
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
2
4
6
8
WT_45D
WT_30D
Figure 4.30: Coecient of Yawing Moment Vs Angle of Attack at mach 1.6 (Compu-
tational).
49
Chapter 5
Conclusion
From the computational and experimental results the following conclusions have been
arrived:
1. Grid dependence was conducted with dierent grid conguration. This estab-
lishes the grid size parameter that has to be employed for furthur accurate
analysis.
2. Simulated result at 0
o
angle of attack shows the development of roll reveral at
low supersonic speed. This is believed to be due to the low pressure region on
the concave side of the n. This can be seen from gure 4.5 and gure 4.17
3. The roll reversal occurs at low supersonic speed for both TTCP model and WT
model. The cross over point was identied as Mach 1.3 for TTCP model and
Mach 1.2 for WT model.
4. The roll reversal introduces the change in pitching and yawing moment due to
the pressure distribution along the concave and convex side of the missile n.
5. The pitching moment inturn increases the side force which creates a instability in
the missile. From the gure 4.11 we can see the increase in side force coecient
at 0
o
.
6. Increase in rolling moment and side force at higher angle of attack is due to the
eect of asymmetric ow distribution over the asymmetric n conguration.
7. This instability due to the combined rolling, pitching and yawing moment dis-
turbs the aerodynamic behaviour of the missile and the missile could deviated
from its default path.
50
Bibliography
[1] E.F. Lucero. Subsonic stability and control charateristics of congurations incor-
porating wrap-around surfaces. Journal of Spacecraft and rockets., Vol-13,:pages
740745, Dec 1976.
[2] Robert H. Whyte Umberto Catani, John J.Bertin and Wayne H.Hathaway. Aero-
dynamics characteristics for a slender missile with wrap-around ns. Journal of
spacecraft and rockets., Vol-35:pages 742748, Nov-Dec 1998.
[3] Abate G.L. Winchenbach Riner Vitale, R.E. Aerodynamics test and analysis of
a missile conguration with curved ns. AIAA., pages 9295, Aug 1992.
[4] H.L. Edge. Computation of the roll moment for a projectile with wrap-around
ns. Journal of spacecraft and rockets., Vol-31,:pages 615620, Jul-Aug 1994.
[5] Theresa Cook Gregg L. Abate. Analysis of missile conguration with wrap-
around ns using computational uid dynamics. AIAA-93-3631-CP., pages pages
157166, 1993.
[6] B. Bar-Haim and A. Seginer. Aerodynamics of wraparound ns. Journal of
spacecraft and rockets., Vol-20,:pages 339345, July-Aug 1983.
[7] Jae-Sung Bae In Lee nad Jang Hyuk Kwon Seung-Kil Paek, Tae-Sang Park.
Computation of roll moment for projectle with wrap-around ns using euler
equations. Journal of spacecraft and rockets., Vol-36,:pages 5358, Jan-Feb 1999.
[8] C.W. Dahlke. The aerodynamics characteristics of wrap-around ns at mach
numbers of 0.3-3.0. Technical Report, US Army Missile Command, Redstone
Arsenal, AL,., Oct 1976.
[9] Bowersox R.D.W.-Goss L.P. McIntyre, T.C. Eects of mach number on su-
personic wraparound n aerodynamics. Journal of spacecraft and rockets., Vol-
35,:pages 742748, Nov-Dec 1998.
51
[10] Robert H. Whyte G.L. Winchenbach, Randy S.Bu and Wayne H.Hathaway.
Subsonic and transonic aerodynamics of a wraparound n conguration. Journal
of Guidance., Vol-9,:pages 627632, Nov-Dec 1986.
[11] Young Hoon Kim and G.L. Winchenbach. Roll motion of a wraparound n
conguration at subsonic and transonic mach numbers. Journal of Guidance.,
Vol-9,:pages 253255, 1985.
[12] C. P. Tilmann; R. E. Human Jr.; T. A. Buter; R. D. W. Bowersox. Experimental
investigation of the ow structure near a single wraparound n. Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets., Vol-34,:pages 729736, Nov-Dec 1997.
[13] Ameer G. Mikhil. Roll damping for projectiles including wraparound, oset
and arbitrary number of ns. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets., Vol-32,:pages
929937, Nov-Dec 1995.
[14] Ansys Fluent Inc. Fluent Manual.
[15] AMES Research Sta. Equations, tables and charts for compressible ow. NACA
Report., Report-1135,:pages 5064, 1953.
[16] Milton E. Vaughn Jr. James Despirito and . W.David Washington. Numerical
investigation of canard-controlled missile with planar and grid ns. Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets., Vol-40,:pages 929937, May-June 2003.
52