2017 2nd International Conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT)

Dynamic Stability of Unguided Projectile with 6-

DOF Trajectory Modeling
Musavir Bashir* Sher Afghan Khan
School of Aerospace Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Sains Malaysia Islamic International University Malaysia
14300 Nibong Tebal, Malaysia 53100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Musaero19@gmail.com Sakhan06@gmail.com

Leelanadh Udayagiri* Asim Noor

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Aligarh Muslim University
400076, Mumbai, India. Aligarh, India – 202002
engleelanadh92@gmail.com asimnoor@zhcet.ac.in

Abstract— The paper presents the study of unguided rolling
projectiles at varying Mach numbers using aerodynamic
coefficients. The aerodynamic coefficients are estimated using an
aerodynamic prediction code, Missile DATCOM. The predicted
dynamic derivatives will determine the design criteria, and also
their effect on the design aspects (stability and accuracy) of the
projectile. To satisfy the condition of stability for the trajectory of
projectile, a model of 6 DOF equations has been used. The result
parameters, such as static margin of the projectile, force and
moment derivatives in all the three modes, spin rate, angle of
attack, and time rate are shown. The accuracy of the rolling
moment derivatives is uncertain due to the limitation of
DATCOM, but it is the general method applicable at the initial
design stage of any projectile and therefore falls in the realm of
aerodynamic database. The results address the problems of static
and dynamic stability by giving initial perturbations, effect of spin
on thrust misalignment, and effect of variation in the geometric
parameters during the power on and off cases. Therefore, there is
a need for full aerodynamic characterization of the projectile, in
which sufficient derivatives are computed for accurate results.
Keywords— Trajectory Simulation, Aerodynamic Coefficients, 6-
DOF, Rocket, Missile DATCOM
I. Nomenclature
‫ ߙ݉ܥ‬Pitching moment derivative
‫ ݍ݉ܥ‬Pitch damping derivative
‫ ݌݈ܥ‬Roll damping derivative with roll rate
‫ ߜ݈ܥ‬Induced roll moment derivative
‫ ߚ݊ܥ‬Yawing moment coefficient derivative with side slip angle
‫ ߚݕܥ‬Side force coefficient derivative with side slip angle
‫ ߙ݊ܥ‬Yawing moment coefficient with yaw rate
‫ ܦܥ‬Drag coefficient
‫ ͳܩ‬Axial force coefficient
‫ ʹܩ‬Side force coefficient
‫ ͵ܩ‬Normal force coefficient
‫ ܾ݊ܩ‬Transformation matrix from body frame to inertial frame
‫ܨ‬Ԧ Force vector
ሬԦAngular momentum vector
‫ܪ‬
ሬሬԦMoment vector
‫ܯ‬
ߙAngle of attack
ߚ Side slip angle
ߠ Pitch angle
ߜ ൌ ȁߞȁ Complex angle of attack in missile
߮ Yaw angle
߶ Roll angle
II. Introduction
With the advanced design techniques, the prediction of
dynamic stability derivatives is vital to the design aspects of
rockets and missiles. The dynamic stability derivatives give
criteria to quantify the total forces and moments acting on the
projectile and the changes in flight conditions, such as angle of
attack and Mach number. The main dynamic stability
derivatives are the forces and moments derivatives in (pitch,
yaw, and roll), Magnus force, and Magnus moment. There are
numerous ways to generate stable and controllable forces and
moments on a projectile to enable sufficiently large changes to
its trajectory for flight stability and control purposes. The
proposed concepts are aerodynamic surfaces (nose-mounted
canards and/or tail fins) [1], jet thrusters (gas or explosive) [2],
and, finally, inertial loads (translating or rotating internal
masses) [3], but the most efficient way is via aerodynamic
forces and moments. The advantages being easy time
corrections, sophisticated and more design command over the
surfaces and aerodynamic resemblances to the main

978-1-5090-4307-1/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 1002

configuration. Therefore, the aerodynamic derivatives are used
to study the projectile motion and to ensure that efficient
configuration (stable yet maneuverable) design is predicted for
projectiles. The projectiles that do not require high
maneuverability can make use of more simple stability and
control techniques than high maneuverability projectiles, and
one such method is to make the projectile roll in flight, which
improves both the stability and controllability of the projectile.
The other aspect of stability is achieved by the projectile by its
ability of compact storage, for example folding the control
surfaces, wrap-around fins (WAF) etc. [4]. One investigation
based on both linear and non-linear methods of stabilization
verified that the disturbance effects on the projectile can be
removed by a suitable choice of fin attachment location and
properties [5]. The spin-stabilized projectile does not employ
any attitude sensor due to large launch overload and high spin
rate. Therefore, the increment orientation of serving motion can
be predicted with available trajectory parameters [6]. A
research was conducted by testing various projectiles in a wind
tunnel at different angles of attack and Mach numbers [7]. A
comparative study was aimed at selecting the optimal
configuration.
Projectiles are usually designed with marginal static stability
that results in small natural frequencies in pitch – yaw [8].
Moreover, small asymmetries or disturbances can easily set on
initially unspun projectile into a roll. These disturbed motions
allows the action of roll-orientation dependent side forces and
moments which reduce the yaw damping of the missile,
resulting in increasing angles of attack to the moderate or the
large amplitude oscillations [9]. Such an accidently produced
roll rate may readily match with a low natural pitch yaw
frequency. This results in magnification of trim angle, and the
projectile undergoes large amplitude yawing motion. This is
called roll resonance and may lead to instability [10]. High
kinetic energy projectiles are also known to occasionally
display an abnormal flight behavior characterized by either
spinning at a different rate than their intended design values or
having larger yawing motion angles than expected. In a few
cases, this behavior can be catastrophic to the motion and
mission of the vehicle, causing ineffective armor penetration
for the KE projectile case or uncontrollable flight for the
missile case [11]. A common solution to avoid roll-resonance is
to cant the fins and deliberately roll the projectile through the
resonance region [12]. Surprisingly, many flight failures were
observed when the roll rate failed to build up equilibrium
(design) value corresponding to the fin can’t. Instead, the roll
rate seen to get locked in at resonance; this phenomenon is
termed as roll lock-in [13]. The observed roll lock-in
tendencies could not be explained based on the existing linear
aeroballistics theory. The theory predicted that the roll rate
would vary through the resonance region and the projectile
would attain only a fraction of the maximum (resonant)
amplitude. The actual disturbances were much larger. The
1003
effect of wind on the projectile trajectory was found to be very
dominant [14].
The experimental studies were conducted by Dahlke[15] on the
stability of missiles for a range of Mach number varying from
0.3 to 3 and verified that the static longitudinal aerodynamic
characteristics of wrap around fin projectiles are not different
from that of flat fin if planform area was equal to the projected
area of the curved fins. Experimental similitude studies by
McIntyre [16] showed the decrease in the rolling moment with
the increase of Mach number. For rolling moment reduction,
they used two curved fin projectiles, one having a solid fin and
the other a slotted one. Rolling moment is positive at subsonic
velocity and roll reversal was experienced at approximately
Mach 1. A more comprehensive study of the motion of the
symmetric rolling bodies in the presence of non-linear
aerodynamics was manifested by Murphy [17].Using different
approaches of slow-varying parameters, Clare [12] prolonged
his solution to include resonance. However, both Murphy [18]
and Clare [12] has assumed a constant spin rate, which was
later restrained by Murphy [18], but the rolling moment was
assumed to be linear. Nayfeh and Saric[19] utilized the method
of multiple scales and determined the coupled non-linear roll,
pitch, and yaw equations to study roll resonance of re-entry
vehicle. Numerous experiments were used to evaluate the
performance of the missile and validate whether the
performance index in the course of missile design meets the
prerequisites or not [20, 21]. But both the time period and
outlay cost for the experiment is high, and therefore different
mathematical models are adopted.
A. 6-DOF research investigation:
The first rigid 6-degree of freedom projectile exterior ballistics
model was given by Fowler, Gallop and Richmond [22]. The
work was further proceeded by many authors to study the spin
stabilized missile, dual-spin projectile etc. [23-25]. Also, the
study of trajectory prediction and dispersion analysis was
carried out for unguided fin stabilized projectiles [26].
Z
Cm V
Y
Cz
Cm
E D
Cy D X
V w
Co
Cl
Figure 1. A schematic of Body Fixed Coordinate System
It was revealed in the investigation that many projectile
variables (powered phase time, propellant weight and the
average thrust) are significant for the accuracy of results. Some
of the results of the investigation are comparable to our
investigated results. Another study to determine firing angles of
unguided projectile employed iterative algorithms and six-
degrees of freedom trajectory simulation and this method was
found very beneficial [27]. A full 6 DOF modelling for a
GRAD rocket in Earths non-inertial frame was presented and
the equations were solved for aerodynamic coefficients and
their derivatives [28]. The characteristic dispersion factors due
to rocket production inaccuracies, launch condition variability
and atmospheric factors and their relative influence on a
guidance implementation package were presented in this study.
It was shown that significant range increase can be obtained
while using the same propulsion unit with a step-like thrust-
curve modification. Another such investigation was carried out
using a series of numerical simulations with 6DOF used to
describe the missile flight in 3D space [29]. Also, 6 DOF non-
linear models was proposed to obtain the accurate prediction at
short and long trajectories of both high and low spin stabilized
projectiles through atmospheric flight [30]. Aerodynamic
forces and moments were predicted by employing PRADOS
program. It was concluded that the impact accuracy of a
conventional projectile can be improved by employing drag
brake module.
III. Projectile Model and Coordinate System
Trajectory modeling of unguided missiles has displayed
noteworthy results over the last few years. Researchers have
integrated the Newton-Euler equations to develop six-degree of
freedom model of equations, and are used to study the
projectile dynamics during preliminary design phase [31]. This
model has found it applications over a vast area of research,
such as booster separation from a space launch vehicle,
separation of canopy in emergency, simulation studies of
control and navigation of missiles and so on [32, 33]. The
computational studies have been applied for 6-DOF models in
which aerodynamic coefficients, control and navigation
problems are solved for the projectiles. The six-degree of
freedom for our study comprises of three translational and
rotational components respectively.
1004
X3(X)
C
T
X1
\
Y2(Y3) \ X2
I
Yl
Y T I Z
Z1(Z2)
Z3
o
X1
Y1
Figure 2. A schematic of a Euler angle Reference Frame
In order to implement aerodynamic coefficients to 6-DOF
model, two Cartesian coordinate systems are employed viz. the
body fixed and the earth fixed. In the body fixed (XYZ), the
origin is fixed at the center of gravity of the projectile however
the axes do not roll with the projectile body. All axes are
orthogonal to each other. The X axis is coincident with the
body longitudinal axis and X is positive forward. The Y axis is
directed out the starboard of the body. The Z axis points
downward and normal to both the X and Y axis, as per the
right-hand rule. In the Earth fixed system, an Earth fixed
reference frame is used and treated as an inertial reference
where Newton’s laws of motion are valid. The rotational
velocity of the Earth is neglected. The inclination of body fixed
relative to Earth frame is defined by 3 Euler angles߮, ߠ and߶
as seen in Figure 2.
IV. Flight Dynamics and 6-DOF Model for Projectile
The rotational dynamics of the projectile is described in terms
of Euler angles߮ǡ ߠǡ ߶, which depicts the position of asset of
body fixed axes ‫ݔ‬ǡ ‫ݕ‬ǡ ‫ݖ‬ǡ relative to the inertial frame ‫ ݅ݔ‬ǡ ‫݅ݕ‬ǡ ‫݅ݖ‬
that translates the projectile. The flight of the projectile was
described with 6DOF motion equations, which were calculated
by solving 6-DOF equations using Program code in
FORTRAN.
The governing equations of motion are solved in the inertial ݀‫ݑ‬
ൌ
ͳ
‫ ݔܣܨ‬െ ݃‫ ߠ݊݅ݏ‬൅ ‫ ݓݎ‬െ ‫ݓݍ‬ (14)
݀‫ݐ‬ ݉
coordinate system as follows;
݀‫ݒ‬ ͳ
Using transformation matrices, the rotations of a point in the ൌ ‫ ݕܣܨ‬൅ ݃‫ ߠݏ݋ܿ߮݊݅ݏ‬൅ ‫ ݑݎ‬െ ‫ݓ݌‬ (15)
݀‫ݐ‬ ݉
coordinate system are as;
݀‫ݓ‬ ͳ
ൌ ‫ ݖܣܨ‬൅ ݃ܿ‫ ߠݏ݋ܿ߮ݏ݋‬൅ ‫ ݑݎ‬െ ‫ݒ݌‬ (16)
ܿ‫߮ݏ݋‬ ‫߮݊݅ݏ‬ Ͳ ݀‫ݐ‬ ݉

‫= ͳܩ‬൥െ‫߮݊݅ݏ‬ ܿ‫߮ݏ݋‬ Ͳ൩ (1) In terms of rotational dynamics, the equations of the projectile
Ͳ Ͳ ͳ are represented as;
ܿ‫ߠݏ݋‬ Ͳ െ‫ߠ݊݅ݏ‬ ሬሬሬሬሬሬԦ
G2 =൥ Ͳ ͳ Ͳ ൩ (2) ሬሬԦ ൌ ‫ ߱݀ ܫ‬൅ ߱
ȭ‫ܯ‬ ሬԦǤ ሺ‫߱ܫ‬
ሬԦሻ (17)
݀‫ݐ‬
‫ߠ݊݅ݏ‬ Ͳ ܿ‫ߠݏ݋‬
Also,
ͳ Ͳ Ͳ
G3 = ൥Ͳ ܿ‫߮ݏ݋‬ ܿ‫ ߮ݏ݋‬൩(3) ሬሬԦ ൌ ‫݅ܮ‬Ԧ ൅ ‫ܬܯ‬Ԧ ൅ ܰ‫ܭ‬
ሬԦ (18)
ȭ‫ܯ‬
Ͳ െ‫߮݊݅ݏ‬ ܿ‫߮ݏ݋‬
As we have assumed that the projectile is symmetrical,
‫ܾ݊ܩ‬ therefore all the terms of inertia are zero. Therefore,
…‘•Ʌ…‘•߰ •‹ɔ•‹Ʌ…‘•߰ െ …‘•ɔ•‹߰ …‘•ɔ•‹Ʌ…‘•߰ ൅ •‹ɔ•‹߰
ൌ ൥ …‘•Ʌ•‹߰ •‹ɔ•‹Ʌ•‹߰ ൅ …‘•ɔ…‘•߰ …‘•ɔ•‹Ʌ•‹߰ െ •‹ɔ…‘•߰൩ ݀‫݌‬ ݀‫݌‬
‫ ܮ‬ൌ ‫ݔܫ‬ ൅ ሺ‫ ݖܫ‬െ ‫ ݖܫ‬ሻ‫ ݎݍ‬ൌ ‫ݔܫ‬ (19)
െ•‹Ʌ •‹ɔ…‘•Ʌ …‘•ɔ…‘•Ʌ ݀‫ݐ‬ ݀‫ݐ‬
(4) ݀‫ݍ‬
‫ ܯ‬ൌ ‫ݕܫ‬ ൅ ൫‫ ݔܫ‬െ ‫ ݕܫ‬൯‫( ݌ݎ‬20)
The equations of motion for a projectile are derived in terms of ݀‫ݐ‬
Translational and Rotational dynamic equations, using different ݀‫ݎ‬
force and angular momentum equations respectively. ܰ ൌ ‫ݖܫ‬ ൅ ൫‫ ݕܫ‬െ ‫ ݔܫ‬൯‫ݍ݌‬ (21)
݀‫ݐ‬

ሬሬሬሬሬԦ
ሬሬሬԦ=݀‫݌‬
ȭ‫ܨ‬ (5) The above equation is finally represented as:
݀‫ݐ‬
݀‫݌‬ ͳ
ሬሬሬሬሬሬԦ ൌ ‫( ܮ‬22)
ሬሬԦ=݀‫( ܪ‬6)
ȭ‫ܯ‬ ݀‫ݐ‬ ‫ݔܫ‬
݀‫ݐ‬
݀‫ݍ‬ ͳ ‫ ݕܫ‬െ‫ݔܫ‬
‫݌‬Ԧ ൌ ݉‫ݒ‬Ԧ (7) ൌ ‫ܯ‬൅ ‫( ݎ݌‬23)
݀‫ݐ‬ ‫ݕܫ‬ ‫ݕܫ‬

݀‫ݒ‬ ሬሬሬሬሬԦ ݀‫ݎ‬ ͳ ‫ ݔܫ‬െ‫ݕܫ‬

ȭ‫ܨ‬Ԧ ൌ ݉ (8) ݀‫ݐ‬
ൌ
‫ݖܫ‬
ܰ൅
‫ܻܫ‬
‫ݍ݌‬ (24)
݀‫ݐ‬

ሬԦ (9)
‫ݒ‬Ԧ ൌ ‫݅݌‬Ԧ ൅ ‫݆ݒ‬Ԧ ൅ ‫݇ݎ‬ V. Determination of Aerodynamic Derivative
Aerodynamic derivatives are obtained by following different
ሬԦ (10)
ሬԦ ൌ ‫݅݌‬Ԧ ൅ ‫݆ݍ‬Ԧ ൅ ‫݇ݎ‬
߱ methods;
x Computational methods
‫݅݁ݎ݄݁ݓ‬ǡ ݆ǡ ݇are the unit vectors along the body axes, x Theoretical and empirical aerodynamics
respectively. Using the components of v and߱, the dynamic x Experimental aerodynamics
equations of linear motion of the body centre of mass can be In the present study, we have used DATCOM in order to
obtained as: predict accurate values, but the missile DATCOM code has
limitations. As a theoretical and semi-empirical method,
݀‫ݑ‬
ȭ‫ܨ‬Ԧ‫ ݔ‬ൌ ݉ሺ ൅ ‫ ݓݍ‬െ ‫ݎݒ‬ሻ (11) Missile DATCOM predicts the aerodynamic coefficients both
݀‫ݐ‬
of finned and non-finned spin projectiles based on analytical
݀‫ݒ‬ method. The parabolic nature of fins is neglected during the
ȭ‫ܨ‬Ԧ‫ ݕ‬ൌ ݉ሺ െ ‫ ݎݑ‬൅ ‫ݓ݌‬ሻ(12)
݀‫ݐ‬ study for simplification purposes.
݀‫ݓ‬
ȭ‫ܨ‬Ԧ‫ ݖ‬ൌ ݉ ቀ ൅ ‫ ݒ݌‬െ ‫ݍݑ‬ቁ(13) VI. Results and Discussion
݀‫ݐ‬
From the analysis of unguided projectiles, we have concluded:
Considering the components of aerodynamic forces and a) A truly symmetric fin projectile need not be spun.
gravitational forces, we get;

1005
b) Manufacturing tolerances usually result in the projectile
Centre of gravity being located off the longitudinal axis.
The aerodynamic forces will then produce a moment
resulting in an angle of attack. This dispersion due to static
imbalance can be reduced by slow spin.
c) There is a critical spin corresponding to the pitch-roll
resonance, which must be avoided.

Therefore, the parameters analyzed are Static margin, dynamic

stability, spin rate, Mach number and flight time, and angle of
attack.
Figure 3 depicts the projectile altitude during flight time, where
it is shown that total flight time is about 150 seconds, but the
ascending phase time is actually 85 seconds. In view of the
high velocity of the rocket at the end of the powered phase or
jet on condition of the projectile, which takes place at the end
of the powered off or jet off condition. The results are
comparable to that of mentioned in previous research
investigation [26].
10000
Figure 4(b). Velocity versus Flight time (s)
Results for angular speed developed during the flight as a
function of flight time are shown in Figure 5a and Figure 5b
respectively. The figures show that the angular speed of the
rocket as function of flight time, where the angular speed at the
launch point is 37 rad/s and then it is marginally decreased after
leaving launcher due to frictional forces acting on the rocket
body as well as the low velocity of the rocket.

9000 During the jet on condition the velocity of the rocket will
8000 increase, the angular rate will also increase due to the canting
7000 of the rocket lifting surfaces which will spin the rocket in the
6000 clock wise spin direction as it shown in Figure 5-a. At the end
Altitude (m)

5000 of the powered phase the rocket will have free flight resulting
4000 in the decrease of the speed which will result in the reduction
3000 of the angular speed as shown in Figure 5-b. Finally, in the
2000
descending phase of the flight of the projectile velocity will
1000
increase again and hence the angular speed too will increase.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Flight time (s)

Figure 3. Altitude versus Flight time (s)

Figure 4a shows the speed of the rocket from the launching

point to the impact points, where the velocity at the launch
point is 26.7 m/s and due the thrust generated during the
powered phase it will be increased, where the velocity at the
end of the powered phase is nearly 1200 m/s. At the end of the
jet on condition the flight of the projectile becomes a free flight
until the maximum altitude and then the descending phase will
start during which the velocity of the rocket will increase due
Figure 5(a).Spin rate at initial phase versus Flight time (s)
the earth’s gravitational acceleration as shown in Figure 4b.

Figure 4(a). Velocity versus Flight time (s)

Figure 5(b). Spin rate at final phase versus Flight time (s)

1006
Figure 6 shows that initially there is an increase in static
margins up to 0.8<M<1.1 and then it decreases sharply. There
are three reasons for this trend:
1) ‫ ߙܰܥ‬of the nose increases throughout up Mach no. 3,
which gives destabilizing moment.
2) ‫ ߙܰܥ‬of fin has two peaks and after M = 1.2 it
decreases.
3) Due to the burning of boost phase, the Centre of
Gravity of the rocket shifts towards the fin, in turns
reduces the static margins.

Figure 8. Damping Moment vs Mach number

Figure 6. Static Margin versus Mach number

The pitching moment derivative slope versus Mach number

results are illustrated in Figure 7. The pitching moment
coefficient slope was calculated by taking the torque (Z axis)
difference between AOA of 2° and 0°. The variation of the
pitching moment coefficient slope from subsonic to supersonic
region was determined from Mach 0.5 to Mach 3 with an
interval of 0.5. Figure 9. Rolling moment vs Mach number
Figure 8 shows the variation of damping moment derivative
with the Mach number of the projectile, and it was observed
that the predicted values of Datcom could give errors up to 30
percent.
Similarly, the figure 9 and figure 10 represent the Rolling
moment derivative and induced rolling moment derivative with
Mach number respectively.

Figure 10. Induced rolling moment vs Mach Number

In figure 11 shows ‫ ܦܥ‬vs Mach number has been shown; peak

Figure 7. Pitching Moment versus Mach number
is around at M=1.2. The total drag of the projectile is
dominated by the skin-friction drag because of the high L/D
ratio and also due to the high ratio of wet-surface area to
reference area.
Figure 12 to 14 shows the values aerodynamic force &
damping derivatives in pitch, and yaw.

1007
 Figure 11. Drag Coefficient versus Mach Number Figure 14. Yawing moment derivative with Yaw rate vs Mach
number

Figure 15. Angle of incidence as a function of time

Figure 15 shows the angle of incidence as a function of time.
Figure 12. Yawing moment coefficients with yaw rate vs Mach From the figure it is seen that the initial angle of incidence is
number 1.5 degrees and then it is increased to around four degrees then
getting decreased to almost zero degrees in cyclic order at the
end of the powered phase.

Figure 13.Side force coefficient derivative with side slip angle
vs Mach number
VII. Conclusion
The analysis of unguided projectile was carried out by Missile
Datcom by using 6-DOF equations, and aerodynamic
derivatives were obtained. The data was collected over
different Mach numbers ranging from 0.5-3. The ensuing
aerodynamic derivatives predicted are used to improve the
stability characteristics of the projectile. As it is well known
that due to the manufacturing uncertainties there can be
misalignment of the geometrical axis of the missile with the
thrust vector, which could lead to major stability and accuracy
issues. Hence intentional spin will address the thrust
misalignment. Also, in view of the wrap around fin (WAF) the
pair of fins are having concave and convex shape leading to
unbalanced force and hence the unbalanced moment. Hence, it
is suggested to keep static margin quite high to cater for the
effect of the variation of the center of gravity of the rocket
towards the fin during powered phase of the rocket. Wrap-
around-fin projectiles have inherited dynamic stability issues
which straight fixed fins don’t have. The analysis also shows
that the spin rate should be kept as low as possible after
considering the limitations for the dynamic coefficients using

1008
Datcom. As for the errors in some dynamic coefficients, more
range of tests would be useful in determine more accurate
results using computational methods. The six degree of
freedom equation model is applied for increasing the accuracy
of the results for both high and low spin-stabilized projectiles.
REFERENCES
[1] F. J. Reg and J. Smith, "Aeroballistics of a terminally corrected spinning
projectile (TCSP)," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 12, pp. 733-
738, 1975.
[2] B. Burchett and M. Costello, "Model predictive lateral pulse jet control of
an atmospheric rocket," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics,
vol. 25, pp. 860-867, 2002.
[3] C. H. Murphy, "Influence of moving internal parts on angular motion of
spinning projectiles," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol.
1, pp. 117-122, 1978.
[4] A. Jerry M and W. Carolyn B, "Experimental Study at Low Supersonic
Speeds of a Missile Concept Having Opposing Wraparound Tails," 2003.
[5] T. Sailaranta and A. Siltavuori, "A passive method to stabilize an airborne
vehicle," Defence Technology, vol. 10, pp. 124-130, 2014.
[6] X.-d. Liu, D.-g. Li, and Q. Shen, "Swerving orientation of spin-stabilized
projectile for fixed-cant canard control input," Mathematical Problems in
Engineering, vol. 2015, 2015.
[7] S. Sharmash and A. Ghosh, "Analytical Modeling, Trajectory Simulation
and Control of Guided Projectiles," in International Conference on
Control, Automation and Robotics (CAR). Proceedings, 2011, p. C39.
[8] G. Cooper, "Spinning Projectile with an Inviscid Liquid Payload
Impregnating Porous Media," AIAA Journal, vol. 46, pp. 783-787, 2008.
[9] J. D. Nicolaides, "Two non-linear problems in the flight dynamics of
modern ballistic missiles," DTIC Document1957.
[10] J. D. Nicolaides, "On the free flight motion of missiles having slight
configurational asymmetries," DTIC Document1953.
[11] A. G. Mikhail, "Fin damage and mass offset for kinetic energy projectile
spin/pitch lock-in," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 35, pp. 287-
295, 1998.
[12] T. A. Clare, "Resonance instability for finned configurations having
nonlinear aerodynamic properties," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets,
vol. 8, pp. 278-283, 1971.
[13] J. Morote, "Control of Roll Lock-in and Catastrophic Yaw for Cruciform
Finned Missiles," in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference,
2009, p. 5717.
[14] R. J. Mukhedkar and S. D. Naik, "Effects of different meteorological
standards on projectile path," Defence Science Journal, vol. 63, p. 101,
2013.
[15] J. A. Humphrey and C. W. Dahlke, "A Summary of Aerodynamic
Characteristics for Wrap-Around Fins from Mach 0.3 to 3.0," DTIC
Document1977.
[16] T. C. McIntyre, R. D. W. Bowersox, and L. P. Goss, "Effects of Mach
number on supersonic wraparound fin aerodynamics," Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 35, pp. 742-748, 1998.
[17] C. H. Murphy and J. W. Bradley, "Nonlinear Limit Motions of a Slightly
Asymmetric Re-entry Vehicle," AIAA Journal, vol. 13, pp. 851-857,
1975.
[18] C. H. Murphy, "Response of an asymmetric missile to spin varying
through resonance," AIAA Journal, vol. 9, pp. 2197-2201, 1971.
[19] A. H. Nayfeh and W. S. Saric, "NONLINEAR RESONANCES IN THE
MOTION OF ROLLING REENTRY BODIES," Virginia Polytechnic
Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg; Sandia Labs., Albuquerque, N.
Mex.1971.
1009
[20] J.-F. Cossette, P. K. Smolarkiewicz, and P. Charbonneau, "The Monge–
Ampère trajectory correction for semi-Lagrangian schemes," Journal of
Computational Physics, vol. 274, pp. 208-229, 2014.
[21] J.-q. ZHAO, F. Long, and H. Sun, "The Summary of Trajectory
Correction Projectiles [J]," Guidance and Fuze, vol. 4, p. 003, 2005.
[22] L. W. Alaways and M. Hubbard, "Experimental determination of baseball
spin and lift," Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 19, pp. 349-358, 2001.
[23] G. Cooper, "Influence of yaw cards on the yaw growth of spin-stabilized
projectiles," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 38, pp. 266-270, 2001.
[24] M. Costello and A. Peterson, "Linear theory of a dual-spin projectile in
atmospheric flight," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol.
23, pp. 789-797, 2000.
[25] B. Burchett, A. Peterson, and M. Costello, "Prediction of swerving
motion of a dual-spin projectile with lateral pulse jets in atmospheric
flight," Mathematical and computer modelling, vol. 35, pp. 821-834,
2002.
[26] M. Khalil, H. Abdalla, and O. Kamal, "Trajectory prediction for a typical
fin stabilized artillery rocket," in 13th International Conference on
Aerospace Sciences & Aviation Technology, Cairo, 2009, pp. 1-14.
[27] P. Chusilp, W. Charubhun, and N. Nutkumhang, "Investigating an
iterative method to compute firing angles for artillery projectiles," in 2012
IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent
Mechatronics (AIM), 2012, pp. 940-945.
[28] F. Mingireanu, L. Georgescu, G. Murariu, and I. Mocanu, "Trajectory
Modeling Of Grad Rocket With Low-Cost Terminal Guidance Upgrade
Coupled To Range Increase Through Step-Like Thrust-Curves,"
Romanian Journal Of Physics, vol. 59, pp. 369-381, 2014.
[29] A. Żyluk, "Numerical simulation of the effect of wind on the missile
motion," Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, vol. 52, pp. 335-
344, 2014.
[30] A. Elsaadany and Y. Wen-jun, "Accurate trajectory prediction for typical
artillery projectile," in Control Conference (CCC), 2014 33rd Chinese,
2014, pp. 6368-6374.
[31] S. M. Murman, M. J. Aftosmis, and M. J. Berger, "Simulations of 6-DOF
motion with a Cartesian method," AIAA paper, vol. 1246, p. 2003, 2003.
[32] R. L. Meakin, "Computations of the unsteady flow about a generic
wing/pylon/finned-store configuration," AIAA paper, vol. 4568, p. 1992,
1992.
[33] Y. Xu, Z. Wang, and B. Gao, "Six-Degree-of-Freedom Digital
Simulations for Missile Guidance and Control," Mathematical Problems
in Engineering, vol. 2015, 2015.