Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Body-Fin Aerodynamic Interference For Low Aspect Ratio Missiles
Body-Fin Aerodynamic Interference For Low Aspect Ratio Missiles
Body-Fin Aerodynamic Interference For Low Aspect Ratio Missiles
SIR
(SIR) range from 1.3 t o 2.0, such that aspect ratios z = missile axial coordinate measured from nose
vary fiom 0.05 to 4. Afterbody length effects are also ZA/R = afterbody length to body radius ratio
considered. Euler results compare well with available ZLE = z-location of the fin leading edge
experimental data. Body pressure isobars show that ZN/R = tangent ogive nose length to body radius ratio
shock and expansion waves from the fin interact with a = missile angle of attack
the body and strongly contribute to KB(w), thus, Eu- aeq = equivalent angle of attack
ler predictions differ significantly from those of slen- B = missile sideslip angle
der body theory (SBT). As aspect ratio decreases from Aav = vortex contribution to a,,
4 to 0.05, KB(w) increases t o a maximum value and E = fin semivertex angle
then 1) decreases for small values of angle of attack
and 2) remains fairly constant for high values of angle
of attack. The aspect ratio for the maximum K B ( ~ ) Introduction
depends on SIR. Generally KB(w) increases in mag-
nitude and its maximum value shifts t o lower aspect Current trends in missile design emphasize low as-
ratios when Mach number increases. KB(w) values are pect ratio fins so that missile launchers can be smaller
presented graphically for use in conceptual and prelim- and to better use available launcher volume. Launch
inary design. tubes are often grouped together in a checkerboard
fashion. Figure 1 schematically shows how low aspect
Nomenclature ratio missiles can be efficiently stowed in a launch tube
to save space and allow clustering of a number of mis-
AR = aspect ratio of wing formed by siles. The fin span to body radius ratio (SIR) of the
CN
joining two fins
= missile normal force coefficient
missiles shown in Fig. 1 is a. Typical S/R values
of current missiles range from 2 t o 4, so the fins must
CNB = body alone normal force coefficient be folded t o fit small launchers. This adds mechanical
Ac& -
= CN Cfi complexity that is avoided with low aspect ratio fins.
%,, = normal force curve slope of the fin Aerodynamic data are sparce for low aspect ratio
KB (W = incremental body interference factor, missiles. L u c e r ~ l developed
*~ empirical curves based
A L ~ ( ~ ) / L ~ on Morikawa's3 interference factors to predict the nor-
KW(B) = fin interference factor mal force coefficient for a variety of low aspect ratio
= sideslip interference factor missile configurations for Mach numbers from 2.5 to
ALBfwl. = incremental normal force on the body
, 7.7. He developed empirical correlations using test
in the presence of the fin data from 29 combinations of Mach number and missile
Lw = normal force of fin alone configuration for a up to 20 deg. The missile configur*
tions were cruciform, generally in the "+' orientation
'Graduate Student, Department of Me-
chanical and Aerospace Engineering and Engineering Mechanics, though some were in the "xn orientation. The missile
currently Engineer, Naval Air Warfare Center-Weapons Division, fins included thick and thin lifting surfaces. Lucero's
China Lake, CA 93555. Member AIAA. empirical curves are used for preliminary design and
tprofesor of Aerospace Engineering, Thermal Radiative have been added t o Missile DATCOM;4 however, bet-
Transfer Group, Department of Mechanical and A m p a c e En-
gineering and Engineering Mechanics. Associate Fellow AIAA. ter nonempirical methods are needed to improve the
Copyright 0 1 9 9 2 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and conceptual and preliminary design data base.
Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. The equivalent angle of attack method516 is gen-
erally used in conceptual and preliminary design. This BaseQby Nielsenlo for fins with aspect ratios of 0.5, 1.0
method analyzes the individual missile components and 2.0 at taper ratios of 0.0, 0.5 and 1.0. Crucifom
separately and then sums the results together to find configurations in the " +" orientation were considered
the total missile normal force coefficient. The c o m p e a t a from 0 to 40 deg, and Mach number from 2.5 to
nent separation for a wing-body configuration is repre- 4.5.
sented by
Methodology
Missile G e o m e t r y
The terms on the right side represent the body alone The missile configuration used for this research is
normal force coefficient, the normal force coefficient on shown in Fig. 2. The missile has a tangent ogive nose
the fins in the presence of the body, and the incrc- with a length to radius ratio of six (ZN/R = 6) and a
mental normal force coefficient on the body due to the cylindrical body for Z/R 2 6. It has clipped-delta fins
fins, respectively. Interference factors are used to ac- in the "+" cruciform configuration, which are modelled
count for the mntnaI interference between the missile as infinitely thin flat plates with a 45 deg semivertex
components. They are included in the definition of the angle. The fin root chord leading edge was located at
equivalent angle of attack, which can be written as ZLE/R = 30 to minimize nose effects. Aspect ratio
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
where ALB(w)is the incremental normal force on the At the trailing edge of the delta fin Eq. 5 and Eq.
body in the presence of the fin. Lw is the fin alone lift. 6 predict the same value of AR. As Z/R approaches
When KB( w )is positive, the fin interference produces infinity, Eg. 6 shows that AR approaches zero.
a favorable effect on the body lift, because the body For the afterbody analysis, three aspect ratio (0.5,
produces greater lift than when i t is isolated. Like- 0.1 and 0.05) fins were selected. For a given AR and
wise, when KBtW) is negative the fin interference is S/R, Eq. 6 was used to locate the fin trailing edge
unfavorable. (Z/R). The missile fuselage was then extended 10 mis-
The literature on KB(W)for low aspect ratio mis- sile radii beyond the fin trailing edge. This allowed the
siles is sparse. Nielsen8 developed theoretical K B ( ~ ) calculation of K B ( ~data ) in terms of afterbody length
data using slender body theory (SBT). The SBT re- and aspect ratio.
sults are only a function of SIR; there is no depen- ZEUS
dence on Mach number, aspect ratio or angle of attack. The numerical Euler code ZEUS"J2 (ZonalEUler
SBT is a special case of linearized potential theory. In -
Solver) was used for this research. It is a finite volume
addition t o being irrotational and isentropic, SBT as- code developed by the Naval Surface Weapons Center
sumes that axial 0ow derivatives are smallcompared to which predicts the steady, supersonic flowfield between
crossflow derivatives, the axial flow derivatives are ne- the body and the bow shock using a spatial marching
glected. These assumptions limit SBT to small a and method. The flowfield solution is obtained using the
preclude modelling effects from vorticity, shock waves second order G o d u n ~ v ' ~ .method
'~ in conjuction with
and expansion waves. the Riemann15 problem. The code is extremely robust
The only experimental KB(W) that is available and flexible. Its accuracy is well d o c~rnented~~*'"~~
have been developed from the Triservice-NASA Data for a wide spectrum of applications from missiles with
noncircular fuselage cross-sections to spinning projec- All computations were performed on the IBM 4381
tiles used in tank guns. Many more examples exist, computer at the University of Missouri-Rolla. CPU
but these references show the versatility of ZEUS. times up to 30 minutes were required for complete flow-
M e s h Size field solutions over the entire missile.
For body alone ZEUS calculations at small a , fine Comparisons to Previous Work
grids generate spurious crossflow effects that lead to Theoretical predictions of K B ( w )have been pre-
inaccurate body force predictions.20 In this research sented by Nielsenl0 using slender body theory; how-
results from three mesh sues (18 x 24 (r x $), 36 x 36 ever, these predictions are generally two times larger
and 36 x 36 with clustering) were compared with wind than the current Euler results. Instead of placing the
tunnel data and the coarse mesh gave the best results. SBT results on the figures, they are summarized in
Additionally, using fine grids (36 x 36, clustered 36 x Table 1. Recall that SBT results are not a function of
36, 60 x 60, etc.) over the finned portion of the missile AR.
also produced inaccurate body forces. Consequently,
an 18 x 24 (r x $) grid mesh was used over the missile Table Slender Body Theory KB(W)Results
forebody and finned sections to obtain accurate body
force predictions. The accuracy of the 18 x 24 results lww
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
of length Z/R = 31 is 0.705 (1/AR = 1.42) for S I R on the side of the fuselage and have negligible effect on
= 1.3. For Z/R <_ 31, A L B ( ~experiences
) negligible body l i t and hence on K E ( ~ ) .
change while Lw increases due to the fin area increase, Figure 17 shows the body pressure for a missile
causing K B f W )to decrease. K B ( ~begins
) to increase with AR = 0.5 fins (S/R = 1.3). The fin trailing edge
for 1/AR 2 1.42, because the expansion waves effect is located at Z/R = 31.35; consequently, the afterbody
enough of the body to significantly change begins at Z/R = 31.15. For missiles with larger aspect
Figure 6 showed K B ( w )to be a nonlinear function ratio fins, the fin root chord length is short, so that the
of a. This occurs because shock and expansion wave fin trailing edge is located closer t o the fin leading edge.
interaction between the fins and the body changes with At the fin trailing edge the shock and expansion waves
a. However, At high a K B ( ~was ) relativity insensitive have not completely intercepted the body. Hence, they
to a, while at low a K B ( ~increased
) slighlty as a are carried over to the afterbody and cause KB(w)to
increased from 15 to 20 deg. Referring to Fig. 15' (a increase with afterbody length. Once the shock and
= 20 deg), the expansion and shock waves do not have expansion waves have completely intercepted the body,
the immediate impact on the body pressures as they pressure recovery begins and K B ( W )begins t o decrease
do for the lower angles of attack (see Fig. 12), because with Z/R.
of the larger shock and expansion wave angles. The ZEUS is an Euler code, so it does not include any
expansion waves have a minimal effect on the body boundary layer effects along the missile fins and body.
pressures that strongly effect body lift (i-e. 4 = 45 and For small S/R fins with long root chords, the boundary
0 deg). layer thickness may be significant and effect K B ( w ) .A
The preceding paragraphs have explained the in- detailed boundary layer analysis is beyond the scope
dividual aspects of Figs. 3-6. The nature of K B ( w ) of the research. However, a flat plate analysis (Ref.
is mainly dependent on the shock and expansion wave 23) for M = 3.5 over an insulaked wall yields a bound-
interaction between the fins and the body. The key ele- ary layer thickness (6/R) on the fin a t its the trailing
ments that determine KB(*) are 1)the strength of the edge of the order of 0.005 t o 0.01 depending on the 6x1
shock and expansion waves, 2) the location where they aspect ratio. The same magnitude of boundary layer
have completely intercepted the body and 3) the body thickness also occurs on the body. Thus, the effects of
pressure recwey after the shock and expansion waves boundary layer thickness on the fins and body appears
have intercepted the body. Each of these three ele- to be negligible. This analysis only shows order of mag-
ments is a function of S/r, AR, a and M. As these pa- nitudes and i t does not include high angle of attack or
rameters change, they produce the complicated KB(w ) body-fin interaction effects.
curves shown in Figs. 3-6.
Figures 7 and 8 showed that the maximum K B ( ~ ) Conclusions
values increase and shift to lower aspect ratios with in-
creasing Mach number. As Mach number increases, the An Euler code has been used t o examine the ef-
iin shock and expansion waves become stronger and fects of a, SIR, and AR on K B ( ~for) low aspect ratio
their angles become smaller so that they take more missiles at Mach numbers from 3 t o 4. This analysis
distance to completely intercept the body. Thus, the extends K B ( w ) data well beyond the limits of slen-
change in the body pressure acts over a larger por- der body theory, in which KB(W) is only a functicn
tion of the body. As a result, KB(W)increases with of S/R. Aspect ratio was varied from 0.05 to 4.0 and
the maximum value located at a larger Z/R, which S/R ranged from 1.3 to 2 for angles of attack up to 20
corresponds t o a lower aspect ratio. The cross-over deg. K B ( W )
was found to be a strong and complicated
function of both AR and a. K B ( w Iincreases as aspect
ratio decreases below 4 and reaches a maximum at AR 3. Morikawa, G., 'Supersonic Wing-Body Lift,"
= 0.2. For AR less than M 0.2, KB(WJshows two dif- Journal of Aeronautical Sciences, Vol. 18, No. 4,
ferent trends depending on angle of attack. For small April, 1951, pp.217-228.
a , K B ( ~decreases
) as AR decreases, but for high a
4. Bruns, K. D., Moore, M. E., Stan, S. L. and Vuke-
K B ( ~ remains fairly constant with decreasing AR.
lich, S. R., "MISSILE DATCOM", Wright Patter-
KB(W is strongly dependent on shock and expan-
sion wave interference from the fins. For missiles with son Air Force Base, Report WL-TR-91-3039, 1991.
no afterbody (trailing edge of fin is at the base of the 5. Hemsch, M. J. and Nielsen, J. N., "Equivalent
missile) the maximum KB(W) values occur when the Angle-of-Attack Method for Ektimating Nonlinear
combination of S I R and AR is such that the shock and Aerodynamics of Missile Fins," Journal of Space-
expansion waves from the fin leading edge intercept the craft and Rockets, Vol. 20, No. 4, July-Aug. 1983,
entire body cross section. This occurs at a specific Z/R pp. 356-362.
value. If the missile is longer than this Z/R, pressure
recovery occurs along the fuselage at small values of a, 6. Hemsch, M. J., "The Component Build-Up
which tends t o decrease KB(W)for the missile. At high Method for Engineering Analysis of Missiles at
a the pressure recovery is much slower, because of the Low-to-High Angles of Attack," Tactical Missile
newtonian nature of the flow and KB(W)remains near Aerodynamics, Volume 11-Prediction Methodol-
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
llAR
Fig. 5. KB(W)VS. 1/AR, S/R = 1.3, M = 3.5. Fig. 8. Mach Number Effects on Ks(w), S/R =
2.0, a = 20 deg.
AR = 0.05
AR = 0.1
AR = 0.5
0 Nielsen
0 5 1 0 1 5
20
1IAR Z A IR
Fig. 7. Mach Number Effects on K B ( ~ )S/R
, =
) Z*/R, hf
Fig. 10. Afterbody effects, K B ( ~VS.
2.0, a = 3 deg.
- 3.5, S/R = 2.0, a = 10 deg.
AR = 0.05
* AR = 0.1
AR = 0.5
0 Nielsen
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
ZIR
Fig. 13. PIP, vs. Z/R, SIR = 2.0, AR = 0.05,
M = 3.5, cr = 10 deg.
Downloaded by Indian Institute of Technology on September 30, 2012 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1992-4638
ZI R
Fig. 16. PIP, vs. Z/R, Afterbody Analysis for
fin trailing edge at Z/R = 42.15,, AR = 0.05, SIR =
1.3, M = 3.5, a = 3 deg.