AIAA 2017-1204

AIAA SciTech Forum

9 - 13 January 2017, Grapevine, Texas
55th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting

Trajectory simulation of a standard Store and Generic

Wing Pylon using CFD
Omair Mahmood 1 , J. Masud 2 and Z. Toor3
Department of Mechanical & Aerospace Engineering, Institute of Avionics & Aeronautics,
Air University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan

Store separation experimental studies are expensive, time consuming and dangerous as it can also
result in fatal accidents. Thus store separation studies are augmented with the simulation and
determination of the position and attitude histories of the store after it is ejected or separated from the
aircraft while still in the complex and non-uniform flow field of the parent aircraft. In this study a wing-
pylon-store configuration is used to validate the predicted trajectory of a store from an aircraft. The
computational results are validated against the experimental results in the transonic (M=0.95) flow
regime. The store separation test case is simulated by using the time-dependent Computational Fluid
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

Dynamic (CFD) analysis. Coupled six degree of freedom (6-DOF) and RANS flow solvers are used to
predict the store trajectory. The geometry was generated for CFD studies based on a test model used in
the Arnold Engineering Development Center (AEDC) in the Aerodynamic Wind Tunnel. The Fluent
commercial flow solver was used to predict the trajectory of the wing-pylon store model. Major trends
are captured which are consistent with experimental results. Variation in weapon trajectory with varying
angles of attack and side slip angles has also been evaluated. As angle of attack is increased normal force
increases and vertical drop rate decreases with negligible effect in weapon rotation. However,
introduction of side-slip angle generates additional sideways movement in the store.

1 Nomenclature
CFD Computational Fluid Dynamics
G gravity
M mach no
L Store model length
XCG Center of mass
Ixx Roll moment of inertia
Iyy Pitch moment of inertia
Izz Yaw moment of inertia
Phi Roll angle of the store relative to the non-rolling body axes, deg. Zero at pylon position, deg.
Psi Yaw angle of the store: Angle between the projection of the store longitudinal axis in the flight axis
horizontal plane and the X-axis, deg.
Theta Pitch angle of the store: Angle between the store longitudinal axis and its projection in the flight axis
horizontal plane, (in degrees)
X, Y, Z Flight-axis system. Origin fixed in space. X is positive in direction of flight path, Y is positive to
pilot's right, Z is positive downward.
U, V, W Velocity components of store in flight-axis system,
P, Q, R Angular Velocity components of store in flight-axis system

1 Graduate student, Dept of Mech. & Aero.Engg, IAA, Air University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan.
2 Associate Prof, Dept of Mech. & Aero. Engg, IAA, Air University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan. Senior
Member AIAA.
3 Research Associate, Dept of Mech. & Aero. Engg, IAA, Air University, Islamabad 44000, Pakistan.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2017 by Jehanzeb Masud. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission.
 I. Introduction
Store separation tests have paramount importance in the certification of a new missile on an aircraft. The main
purpose of this test is to demonstrate the safe and effective deployment of the s tore. These tests don’t only
ensure the safe separation of a store but also it is a validation of airframe/store compatibility. Store can be
defined as any object which is deliberately detached from an aircraft (bomb, missile, fuel tank).

A. Overview

Whenever a new store or a missile is introduced or an old one needs some modification it needs an
airworthiness certification in order to be deployed on an aircraft. There are three main approaches that have
been used for store separation testing.

1. Wind tunnel testing

2. Flight testing
3. CFD analysis
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

Every store must undergo a series of these tests in order to be certified. Before wind tunnel testing and CFD
analysis, flight testing was the only way to ensure that the said store is safe for deployment which wa s not
only dangerous for the pilot flying the particular aircraft but also it could lead to the serious aircraft
damage. [1]

B. Historical Background for store separation testing

During World War 1, the ejection of the store was carried out by the pilot’s han d as the cockpit was free to
air and the pilot could simply toss the bomb to the ground. Safe separation of store gained importance when
the cockpit was closed and new variety of bombs came into existence with different trajectories in the
aircraft industry. A desire to carry more weapons required close positioning on aircraft and hence weapon
release gained more importance for safe clearance. Whenever a store is released into flight the main
purpose of the store is to clear the carrying aircraft without h itting aircraft surfaces or neighboring weapons .
The exact point at which the store will arrive is of less interest [2]. Store separation deals with the position
and the attitude history of a store after it has been ejected while remaining in the complex flow field of the
parent aircraft. The flow field of the aircraft/store is complex because of the various factors such as
downwash, side wash, dynamic pressure which can act both in lateral and longitudinal directions. As with
increasing speeds in transonic and supersonic flow the aircraft starts to encounter shock waves which
interact with the surrounding flow field. The flow field also gets modified because of the presence of
different store because of which changes in the flow field parameters occur which ultimately affects the
store loads and carriage moments. So a careful study must be made before the actual flight test to make
sure that the store not only reaches its predestined path but also doesn’t collide with the aircraft.

C. Problem Statement

Safe separation of a store from an aircraft is one of the major aerodynamic problems in the design and in the
integration of a new store to an aircraft. Carriage loads and moments acting on the store should be correctly
predicted in order to have an idea about its behavior after separation

Every store which is introduced into the aircraft industry or modified must undergo a series of air
worthiness tests in order to be certified. Before wind tunnel testing and CFD analysis, flight testing was the
only way to ensure that the said store is safe for deployment which was not only dangerous for the pilot
flying the particular aircraft but also it could lead to the serious aircraft damage

But with the significant advancement in science and technology, CFD has reached to a level as to stimulate
the actual store release from an aircraft and provide the trajectory results. So the purpose was to stimulate
the store release trajectory and establish in house capabilities of the same.

D. Research Methodol ogy

For the CFD analysis, a clipped delta wing with a 45 degree leading edge sweep was used along with
standard store with four fins which are arranged in a cruciform around the tail region with a constant airfoil
shape NACA 0008. ANSYS Fluent solver was selected for the calculation of trajectory results .The

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 experimental results for the center of gravity locations, center of gravity orientations, linear velocities and
angular velocities available in literature was used for validation of results . After validation, the same
geometry was tested at different angle of attack and beta variations in order to have an idea about the
behavior of store.

II. Computational Setup

For the 3-D analysis, a generic wing pylon with store is used whose experimental results are available in
literature for comparison purposes.

A. Geometry Definition

The model geometry consists of a clipped delta wing with a 45 degree leading edge sweep, a pylon situated
at the mid span of the wing and a generic finned store attached at the bottom of the pylon. The model
geometry is designed using the Pro-engineer design tool. [4]
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

Figure 1 Side view of the wing/pylon/store configuration

B. Mesh Generation

ANSYS ICEM is used to generate the unstructured computational grid for CFD analysis. In order to
minimize the occurrence of negative volumes in the fluent solver, an internal block was created around the
store region. The store moves only in this region. The dimensions for the block were selected such that the
store does not move outside the predefined area. The boundary condition of the block is selected as interior.
Two fluids were defined for the geometry. Fluid 1 which is between the far field and the interior block
whereas fluid 2 is the area around the store region within the interior block. The init ially generated grid
contained 1657126 elements and 279835 nodes. [5]

Figure 2 surface mesh (left) and mesh cut plane from front (right) of the wing/pylon/store geometry

C. Boundary Conditions

The ANSYS Fluent solver was selected to calculate the trajectory for the given geometry. Downstream,
upstream and all side boundaries were defined as pressure far field except the inboard side boundary which
was selected as symmetry. The internal block was defined as interior whereas the solid surfaces were
modeled as no slip, adiabatic wall boundary conditions. A test model of wing with pylon and store is used
for the calculation of the trajectory of the store. The experiments which are used for the calculation of

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 computational results were performed in the transonic (M=0.95) flow regime with an angle of attack of zero
at 26000 ft. altitude from which the static pressure and temperature values are taken .[6]

D. Turbulence Model

The simplest ‘‘complete models’’ of turbulence are two-equation models in which the turbulent velocity
and length scales are individually determined by solving the two separate transport equations. The
standard k-ε model in ANSYS falls within this category. It was proposed by Launder and Spalding [7] and
has become the most common choice for practical engineering flow calculations since then. The k-ε model
was designed especially for aerospace applications involving wall-bounded flows and has been shown to
give good results. Robustness, economy, and reasonable accuracy for a wide range of turbulent flows are
some of the properties which contribute to its popularity for different simulations .Enhanced wall treatment
options is also available with the k- ε model which is a near-wall modeling method that combines a two-
layer model with enhanced wall functions and is highly recommended with turbulent flows involving store
separation.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

E. Store Mass properties/Ejector Parameters

The store/inertial mass properties and ejector parameters are given in the follo wing table.

Weight 8899.45 kg
Center of mass (XCG ) 1.417 m
Roll moment of inertia(Ixx) 27.116 kg.m2
Pitch moment of inertia(Iyy ) 488.094 kg.m2
Yaw moment of inertia(Izz) 488.094 kg.m2
Forward ejector location 1.2375 m
Aft ejector location 1.7465 m
Forward ejector force 10.7 kN
Aft ejector force 42.7 kN
Table 1 Store mass properties and ejector parameters

F. Trajectory Validation

Center of gravity locations

Figure 5 shows the trajectory of center of gravity locations with respect to time as compared to the
experimental data. After the store is released from the aircraft under the effect of gravity and ejector
forces, the store begins to move backward downward and inward. The inboard side movement begins
to change direction after about t=0.32 seconds. Overall the linear displacements in all the three
directions shows great agreement with the available experimental data.

Figure 3 Trajectory of the center of gravity locations (X, Y, Z)

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Center of gravity angular orientations

Figure 6 shows the trajectory for center of gravity angular orientations with respect to time as compared to
the experimental data. The store motion is a pitch up, yaw and roll to the outboard side motion due t o the
application of aerodynamic forces. The ejector forces act on the store for a real time of t=0.052 seconds
which is the main reason for the pitch up motion of the store. When the store is free of ejector forces then
the aerodynamic forces become the main contributing factor for the store motion. The store starts to pitch
down around t=0.19 seconds. The maximum pitch up angle calculated through CFD is 5.12 degrees
whereas experimental data shows a maximum at 5.3 degrees.

The store rolls in the outboard side after it is being separated/release from the aircraft. The trend of the
curve is almost the same when compared with the experimental data. CFD results shows a maximum roll
angle value of 7.06 whereas experimental results shows a maximum of 6.5 degrees. Although the trend is
very much same but still results show a minor discrepancy from the experimental values. The difference in
data values start around 0.06 seconds just about when the ejector forces are vanished. The values shows a
maximum difference of about 0.56 degrees at time=0.33 seconds which corresponds to an approximate
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

error difference of about 7%.

The trend for the yawing moment which is also acting towards the outboard side of the wing is again the
same as experimental data but there is some discrepancy with the experimental results. This difference
increases with time and shows a maximum discrepancy at t=0.33 seconds.

Figure 4 Trajectory of the angular orientations

Linear and angular velocities of the store

Figure 7 shows the linear velocities of the store with respect to time. Store moves down under the effect of
ejector forces and gravitational acceleration until t=0.052 sec. After that store becomes free of the ejector
forces. Linear velocity shows very good agreement as compared to the experimental data whereas side
velocity shows the opposite behavior. In experimental calculations the side velocity is negative until about
t= 0.2 s after that it becomes positive whereas during CFD calculations store gains the positive side velocity
around t = 0.32s.Backward velocity shows small discrepancy from the experimental data but the trend is
almost the same.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 5 Linear (left) and Angular (right) velocities comparison between experimental and CFD results

The angular velocities of the store are shown in figure 8. Although there are small discrepancies between the
experimental and CFD data but overall the results are in good agreement and the trend for all the angu lar rates
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

(yaw, pitch and roll) are consistent.

G. Pressure Contours

Figures 9 to 15 show the side for the static pressure contours of the test case model at different time steps at
M=0.95 in which a nose up and outward yaw movement is observed .

Figure 6 Side view of the static pressure contour at t=0.05

Figure 7 Side view of the static pressure contour at t=0.19s

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

Figure 8 Side view of the static pressure contour at t=0.3s

Figures 16 to 22 show the front view for the static pressure contours of the test case model at different time steps
at M=0.95 in which a nose up and outward yaw movement is observed.

Figure 9 Front view of the static pressure contour at t=0.05s

Figure 10 Front view of the static pressure contour at t=0.19s

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

Figure 11 Front view of the static pressure contour at t=0.3s

III. Results and Discussions

After the successful trajectory comparison between the experimental results and the predicted results. The same
geometry was calculated at different angle of attack and sideslip angle (beta) variations. These angles were
varied from -4 to +4 with a 4 degree step.

Horizontal Displacement
As the angle of attack is increased the drag force increases so horizontal movement of the store also
increase.

Figure 12 Trajectory of the Horizontal Displacement (X) of Weapon CG at Different AOA and Beta Angles

Sideways Displacement

With the application of negative sideslip angle, the aircraft tend to move in the negative sideways
direction. So in our case at sideslip angle of -4, the sideways displacement should be highest as depicted in the
below plotted graph.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

Figure 13 Trajectory of the Sideways Displacement (Y) of Weapon CG at Different AOA and Beta Angles

Vertical Displacement

As the angle of attack of an aircraft is increased the corresponding lift also increases due to which at
the given time step the vertical distance will be slightly less as compared to others as shown in the below graph
in which the vertical distance has the minimum value at 4 degree angle of attack.

Figure 14 Trajectory of the Vertical Displacement (Z) of Weapon CG at Different AOA and Beta Angles

Yaw Angle

The yaw angle is termed as PSI. Clearly at beta -4 the yaw angle should be highest whereas at beta =4 the yaw
angle should be lowest. The same trend was observed when psi angle wa s plotted against time with different
sideslip angle and angle of attack.

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

Figure 15 Trajectory of the Yaw Rotation (psi) of Weapon CG at Different AOA and Beta Angles

Pitch Angle

The pitching motion is defined as theta. When theta was calculated at different angle of attack and sideslip
angle, at AOA 4 theta showed the highest value because when angle of attack is increased the lift also increases
due to which the theta angle should increase and vice versa.

Figure 16 Trajectory of the Pitch Rotation (theta) of Weapon CG at Different AOA and Beta Angles

Roll Angle

The rolling motion is termed as PHI. At negative angle of attack the rolling motion increases because it
contributes to the actual rolling motion of the aircraft but this phenomena is less prominent as compared to
negative sideslip angle as shown in the below plotted graph in which the roll angle has the highest value at beta -
4. Similarly at beta 4 the rolling motion has the lowest value.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

Figure 17 Trajectory of the Roll Rotation (phi) of Weapon CG at Different AOA and Beta Angles

IV. Conclusion
In the current study, trajectory results were evaluated against the experimental data through ANSYS Fluent
Solver for store separation at an angle of attack of zero degree and transonic Mach number of 0.95 at 26000 feet
altitude flight conditions. The center of gravity locations (linear displacements), center of gravity orientation
(angular displacements), linear velocities and angular velocities were plotted against time and then compared
with the available experimental data. The store moves backward, downward and towards inboard after
separation. The center of gravity locations (x,y,z) and center of gravity orientations (phi,tha,psi) showed good
agreement with the experimental results whereas there was small discrepancy observed in the linear and angular
velocities although the trend was nearly the same in all of them.

The small error between the compared values might be due to the fact that the ejector forces are not modeled
correctly during the wind tunnel experiment. The approximation on these forces might be the reason for the
difference in data between the experimental and CFD results. Also the experimental results are not time accurate
whereas the time accurate computations were performed during the analysis therefore it may be the cause why
error was introduced. Overall the results were in quite good agreement and major trends were captured using the
Fluent solver. Hence we can conclude that presented solution strategy can be efficiently employed to predict
store separation features .Through the use of CFD, we can not only get the acceptable results but also can ensure
the safe release of the store by getting the results before the actual flight test.

V. Future Work
The current analysis for the wing/pylon/store configuration was carried out at Mach no 0.95 at 26000 ft.
atmospheric conditions using the 6 DOF built in solver of ANSYS Fluent which calculates the translational and
angular motion of center of gravity of an object by using the given model’s forces and moments. Afterwards the
translational and angular motion will be computed by writing a 6 DOF code in the UDF instead of using the 6
DOF built in option which will then be compared with the original results in order to validate the written code.

VI. References
[1] A. Cenko, Store separation lessons learned during the last 30 years, ICASE 2010.
[2] H.Ozgur Demir, Computational fluid dynamics analysis of store separation, August 2004.
[3] M.Shivakumara Swamy, Store Separation simulation studies in high speed wind tunnels
[4] Fox., J. H., 23. Generic Wing, Pylon, and Moving Finned Store, Verification and Validation Data for
Computational Unsteady Aerodynamics, RTO-TR-26, October 2000, St. Joseph Ottawa/Hill, Canada.
[5] Parikh P, Pirzadeh S, Frink NT., Unstructured grid solutions to a Wing -Pylon-Store configuration using
VGRID3D/USM 3D, AIAA Paper 92- 4572, August 1992
[6] Yunus Emre Sunay, Emrah Gülay, Ali Akgül, Numerical simulations of store separation trajectories using

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 the Eglin test, Scientific Technical Review, 2013,vol.63,no.1,pp.10-16.
[7] Launder, B.E.; Spalding, D.B. "The numerical computation of turbulent flows" , Computer Methods in
Applied Mechanics and Engineering, March 1974.
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO on January 12, 2017 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2017-1204

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics