Presenting the calculation process of pitch and roll damping coefficients for a projectile in various flight conditions with numerical method

Authors

Abstract

Computation of flight trajectory and autopilot design are important issues in design of flying objects, requiring accurate calculation of aerodynamic, esp. dynamic, coefficients. This article discusses a general process of calculating roll and pitch damping coefficients with CFD, which can be used to calculate roll and pitch damping coefficients for all flying objects and projectiles. These coefficients are extracted by using Fluent software as well as dynamic mesh techniques. This article also contains grid and turbulence modeling studies to provide appropriate turbulence model for each of these coefficients. In this process, roll and pitch moment coefficients are first extracted by dynamic mesh techniques in Fluent, and then, the dynamic coefficients are computed by using relations that are presented in this article. In order to validate the process, the dynamic coefficients for a projectile are computed and results are weighed against those obtained by foreign valid articles. Acceptable agreement between the results of current work and those of valid references demonstrates the accuracy of the process presented in this article to compute dynamic coefficients.

Keywords

Main Subjects

References

[1] Sivan DD, Jermey C (1989) Wind tunnel term of the aerodynamic   characitbumcs of a 155mm artillery shell. Adv Mater Res 1014: 165-168, August.
[2] Kayser LD, Kuzan JD, Vazquez DN (1990) Flight testing for 155mm base burn projectile. U.S.Army Research Laboratory, United States of America.
[3] Silton S, Howell BE (2009) Effect of spin variation on  predicting the dynamic stability of small caliber ammunition. 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting Including the New Horizons Forum and Aerospace Exposition (47): 3417-3430.
[4]  Moore FG, Hymer TC (2004) 2002 Version of the aero prediction code (AP02). J Spacecr Rockets 41(2): 232-247.
[5] Heng WC (2011) Aerodynamic analysis of the M33 projectile using the CFX. PhD Thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.
[6] Silton S (2005) Navier–stokes computations for a spinning projectile from subsonic to supersonic speeds. AIAA J Spacecr Rockets 42(2): 223-231.
[7] DeSpirito J, Silton S, Weinacht P (2009) Navier–stokes predictions of dynamic stability derivatives: Evaluation of steady-state methods. AIAA J Spacecr Rockets 46(6): 1142-1154.
[8] Doraiswamy S, Candler GV (2008) Detached eddy simulations and reynolds averaged naiver–stokes calculations of a spinning projectile. AIAA J Spacecr Rockets 45(5): 935-945.
[9] Sahu J (2008) Unsteady free-flight aerodynamics of a spinning projectile at a high transonic speed. AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Honolulu, United States of America.
[10] Despirito J, Heavey KR (2004) CFD Computation of magnus moment and roll damping moment of a spinning projectile. AIAA atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference 139-154.
[11] Baranowski L (2013) Numerical testing of flight stability of spin-stabilized artillery projectile. Theor Appl Mech 51(2): 375-385.
[12] Carriage K, Young J, Kleine H, Hiraki K (2012) Reynolds-averaged navier-stokes computation of transonic projectiles in ground effect. 18th Australasian Fluid Mechanics Conference.
[13] Apostolovski G, Andreopoulos Y (2004) Microactuators for projectile flight control systems: A feasibility study. AIAA J Aircraft 41(6): 1336-1346.
[14] Okay E, Akay HU (2002) CFD predictions of dynamic derivatives for missiles. 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, United States of America.
[15] Doraiswamy S, Candler GV (2008) Detached eddy simulations and Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes calculations of a spinning projectile. J Spacecr Rockets 45(5): 935-945.
[16] Silton S (2011) Navier-Stokes predictions of aerodynamic coefficients and dynamic derivatives of a 0.50-cal projectile. 29th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference 27-30.
[17] Guidos BJ, Chung SK (1995) Computational flight design of 0.5 caliber limited range training ammunition. U.S.Army Research Laboratory, United States of America.
[18] McCoy RL (1990) The aerodynamic characterestics of 0.50 ball, M33, API, M8, and APIT, M20, ammunition. U.S.Army Research Laboratory, United States of America.
Journal of Solid and Fluid Mechanics
Volume 7, Issue 4
January 2018
Pages 183-196

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics