Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057

www.springerlink.com/content/1738-494x(Print)/1976-3824(Online)
DOI 10.1007/s12206-018-0414-3

Investigations on the influence of control devices to the separation characteristics of

a missile from the internal weapons bay†
Shiquan Zhu, Zhihua Chen*, Hui Zhang, Zhengui Huang and Huanhao Zhang
Key Laboratory of Transient Physics, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, Nanjing 210094, Jiangsu, China

(Manuscript Received August 3, 2017; Revised January 17, 2018; Accepted February 10, 2018)

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Abstract

To ensure the safe separation process of a missile from internal weapons bay, the control device is mounted in front of the internal
weapons bay to control the separation process. Based on the coupling of Navier-Stokes (N-S) equations and six-degrees-of-freedom
(6DOF) rigid-body motion equations, the separation process of missile under four different conditions (free separation, and rectangle,
prism and wedge control) was numerically simulated. The separation process and flow fields were obtained, the aerodynamic parameters
and trajectory parameters of four cases compared. Our results show that, the control device can improve the aerodynamic characteristics
of the flow field, enhancing the safety of the missile separation. The wedge control device has the best control effect and makes the mis-
sile stable, the rectangular and prism control devices have strong bow shock wave and make the pitch angle of the missile large.
Keywords: Compressible flow; Control device; Internal weapons bay; Missile separation; Six-degrees-of-freedom rigid-body motion
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

istics of a typical wing-control missile configuration from a

1. Introduction
cavity of various depths. The sensitivity of the trajectories to
The use of an internal weapons bay in fighter aircraft can various store separation parameters was investigated by Davis
reduce the aerodynamic drag and radar signature of fighter et al. [15]. The investigation of high speed weapon delivery
aircraft [1, 2]; however, it also causes a large number of com- from internal weapons bay was conducted in a 0.6 m × 0.6 m
plex flow phenomena [3-5] and makes the missile separation sub-transonic and supersonic wind tunnel by Xue et al. [16].
from the weapons bay more dangerous. Therefore, it is of When the store is released from an internal aircraft bay, it
great significance to study the separation process and the flow can return back under certain flight conditions [17-19]. To
control of a missile from the internal weapons bay. avoid this problem, some researchers have used some control
The flows surrounding an internal weapons bay is a typical methods to ensure the safety of missile during release. A low
cavity flow. Cavity flow has been studied since the implemen- order model is derived, it captures the dominant mechanisms
tation of internal weapons bay into aircraft in the 1950s [6, 7]. that govern the store trajectory with and without microjets,
The control of cavity flow has attracted much academic inter- and conditions of safe and unsafe departure were delineated
est over last several years [3, 4, 8-12]. The flow control is by Sahoo et al. [19]. Bower et al. [20] developed an active
divided into two categories: Passive and active. For passive flow control approach for high-speed weapon dispensed from
control, there is no external energy input into the flow, and the a bay.
flow field is usually controlled by changing geometric shape, With the development of powerful computers and advanced
such as adding spoilers, ramps and others [4, 13]. Active con- numerical algorithms, computational fluid dynamics (CFD)
trol methods, however, involve external energy input, such as has been widely used [21-23]. In this paper, based on the CFD
jets or oscillating flaps [3, 14]. and 6DOF rigid-body motion equations, and the application of
The separation of a missile from the internal weapons bay is dynamic mesh technique, we performed numerical studies of
a very dangerous process, and much research work has been the separation process of a missile from the internal weapons
done. A store separation experiment under Mach 2.36 was bay under four different conditions (free separation and other
conducted in the Langley Unitary Plan Wind Tunnel by three with rectangle, prism and wedge control, respectively).
Stallings [1], to determine the near-field separation character- The influence of control device on the aerodynamic character-
*
Corresponding author. Tel.: +86 25 84303929, Fax.: +86 25 84315644 istics of flow field and the trajectory of missile was discussed.
E-mail address: chenzh@njust.edu.cn The control effects of the three different control devices were
†
Recommended by Associate Editor Hyoung-gwon Choi compared, which can provide references for the design of the
© KSME & Springer 2018
2048 S. Zhu et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057
relevant internal weapons bay, and the safe departure and
accurate delivery of missile from internal weapons bay.
2. Numerical methods and validation
2.1 Numerical methods
The numerical simulation of the missile release from an in-
ternal weapons bay is similar to the multi-body separation
problem. All involve the accurate solution of the flow field
and the calculation of the 6DOF motion of the moving body.
In this study, the FLUENT software is combined with user
defined function (UDF) to simulate the separation process. In
each time step, there are three main steps [24, 25]: (i) Solving
the governing equations of unsteady flow field; (ii) solving the
6DOF trajectory of missile; (iii) dynamic updating of flow
field grid.
The three-dimensional, unsteady N-S equations were solved
by using a higher precision detached eddy simulation (DES)
method. In the computational domain close to the wall region,
the realizable k-ε turbulence model was adopted, and the large
eddy simulation (LES) method was adopted to calculate the
fluid fields which are far away from the wall. The finite vol-
ume scheme was used for spatial discretization. The advection
upstream splitting method (AUSM) term was used for the
convection term and the central difference scheme for the
viscosity term.
To solve the 6DOF trajectory of missile, the mass and mo-
ment of inertia of missile are given using UDF. UDF is a func-
tion written by the user that is dynamically linked with the
FLUENT solver at run time. Using the same 6DOF trajectory
calculation method with Refs. [24-26], and combined with the
aerodynamic parameters of the flow field, the whole missile
separation process is calculated. Two dynamic mesh methods,
smoothing and remeshing method, are used for the missile
move. When the missile displacement is smaller than the mesh
size, the mesh does not have a serious skewness problem, the
smoothing method is used to move the nodes of the mesh and
adapt the mesh to the changes of the computational domain.
With this method, the mesh topology is always stable, and the
computational accuracy can be guaranteed. When the missile
displacement is large, the remeshing method regenerates the
distorted meshes; the interpolation method is also applied to
regenerate a better quality mesh in the computational region
where the mesh quality does not meet the requirement.
2.2 Verification example
A classical store separation case [24, 27, 28] was used to
verify the numerical method in this paper. The computational
model and the meshes of store and wing are shown in Fig. 1.
The global coordinate system is based on the store, and the
store body coordinate system coincides with it at the initial
time of calculation. The centerline of the store lies along the x
axis with the positive direction toward the store tip. The z axis
is along the positive direction of gravity, and the y axis is de-
Fig. 1. Computational model and surface meshes.
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
Cp
0.5
t=0.00s Numerical results
t=0.16s Numerical results
t=0.37s Numerical results
1.0
t=0.00s Experimental
t=0.16s Experimental
t=0.37s Experimental
1.5
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
x/L
Fig. 2. Pressure coefficient at φ = 5°.
termined by the right hand rule. The origin of the coordinate
system is located at the center of store. The store mass is 907
kg, and the altitude of the calculation condition is 11600 m,
The computational Mach number of main flow is Ma = 1.2
and the angle of attack α = 0°. The initial velocity and initial
angular velocity of the store are zero. The ejector characteris-
tics, other parameters and calculation conditions can be found
in Refs. [24, 27, 28].
The typical numerical simulation results are shown in Figs.
2 and 3, which agree well with the experimental data [24, 27,
28]. Fig. 2 shows the pressure profiles at φ = 5° for three times
t = 0.0, 0.16 and 0.37 s. The pressure coefficient calculated is
in good agreement with the experimental data. Fig. 3(a) shows
the variation of center of gravity (CG) of the store in the
global coordinate system versus time. The calculated Euler
angles at different times which are shown in Fig. 3(b) also
agree well with the experimental results. Therefore, the nu-
merical method in this paper can be applied to the numerical
simulation of the missile separation process.
3. Missile separating from internal weapons bay
3.1 Physical model
Fig. 4 shows the typical model of an air-to-air missile em-
bedded in the internal weapons bay simulated in this paper.
The internal weapons bay was rectangular with dimensions of
L×D×W = 4.2 m×0.525 m×0.8 m. The missile is similar to the
American AIM-120C air-to-air missile, with a length of 3.65
m and a diameter of d = 0.178 m. The CG location of the mis-
sile is 1.816 m from the missile tip. The distance between the
CG location of the missile and the front, bottom of internal
 S. Zhu et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057 2049

-3 25
-2 20 Roll
x
-1 15
Yaw

Euler angle (deg)

Distance (m) 0 10
1 y 5
2 0
3 -5 Pitch
Numerical results z
4 Numerical results
Experimental -10
Experimental
5 -15

6 -20
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
t/s t/s
(a) Center of gravity location (b) Angular orientation

Fig. 3. The trajectory parameters of the store.

(a) Internal weapons bay and missile model without control device

(b) Rectangular control device (c) Prism control device (d) Wedge control device

Fig. 4. Geometric model.

weapons bay is 2 m and 0.2625 m, respectively. The coordi-
nate system is the same as the verification example of Sec. 2.2,
and the origin of the missile body coordinate system is located
at the CG of the missile. It is assumed that the internal weap-
ons bay is stationary, and the tail fins and missile wings are
"X" inside the internal weapons bay.
Three different kinds of passive flow control devices were
employed (Fig. 4): Rectangular control device (RCD), prism
control device (PCD) and wedge control device (WCD). The
size of the control devices was ∆x = ∆z = 0.15 m, W = 0.8 m,
and the maximum length of the three control devices in the x,
y and z directions is the same. The volume of the prism control
device is half of the rectangular control device, and the vol-
ume of the wedge control device is one-sixth of the rectangu-
lar control device.
3.2 Computational conditions and mesh
The chosen computational domain and the corresponding
boundary conditions are shown in Fig. 5. The surface of mis-
sile, passive control device, internal weapons bay and nearby
aircraft structures are subjected to no-slip wall conditions. The
air is considered to be ideal and the pressure far-field bound-
ary condition is applied to other boundaries. Pressure far-field
2050 S. Zhu et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057

Table 1. Computational conditions.

Altitude (km) 10
Mach number 2
Angle of attack (º) 0
Mass of missile (kg) 156.8
2
Moment of inertia Ixx (kg·m ) 1.0708
Moment of inertia Iyy (kg·m2) 199.59
Moment of inertia Izz (kg·m2) 199.59 (a) t = 0.0 s (b) t = 0.2 s
Ejector force Ft (kN) 20
Initial velocity (m/s) 0, 0, 0
Initial angular velocity (rad/s) 0, 0, 0

(c) t = 0.4 s

Fig. 7. Variation of flow field mesh in wedge control device case.

Fig. 5. Computational domain and boundary conditions.

Fig. 6. Mesh distribution of missile.

Fig. 8. Computational domain size.

conditions are used in ANSYS Fluent to model a free-stream
condition at infinity, with free-stream Mach number and static
conditions being specified. It cannot be applied to flows that
employ constant density, the real gas model, and the wet
steam model [29]. The initial calculating conditions are shown
in Table 1. The ejection separation method was adopted in this
paper. The ejection configuration was neglected in the calcula-
tion, but the restraint of ejection device on the missile was
considered. The ejector force is about Ft = 20 kN, and acts on
the center of gravity of the missile along z positive direction.
When the missile moves more than 0.15 m in the direction of
z, the ejector force disappears. During the acting time of the
ejector force, the missile is constrained and moves only along
z direction. The initial velocity and initial angular velocity of
the missile are zero.
Fig. 6 shows the mesh distribution of missile, and the un-
structured mesh was adopted in the computational fluid do-
main. Fig. 7 shows the mesh distribution in the symmetry
plane (xoz plane) at three different times during the separation
process of missile from the internal weapons bay for wedge
control device. As can be seen from Fig. 7, the mesh main-
tains high quality in the process of calculation.
3.3 CFD domain independent study
To keep a balance between the numerical accuracy and cal-
culation efficiency, the independence of CFD domain was
tested first. Three different sizes of computational domain
without control device were calculated, the computational
domain sizes are shown in Fig. 8 and Table 2. All dimensions
of the computational domain are nondimensionalized using
the diameter of missile d.
Fig. 9 shows the CG location of missile in the z direction in
the global coordinate system as a function of time. Fig. 10
shows the variation of the pitch angle versus time. Case 2
has both high numerical accuracy and less computing re-
sources; therefore, the case 2 size was adopted for the simula-
tion.
 S. Zhu et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057 2051

Table 2. Computational domain sizes (nondimensionalized using the

diameter of missile d).

h w l1 l2
Case 1 29 d 13 d 22 d 8d
Case 2 34 d 17 d 27 d 11 d
(a) NCD (b) RCD
Case 3 39 d 21 d 32 d 14 d

-0.5

0.0
(c) PCD (d) WCD
0.5
Fig. 11. Vorticity distribution.
case 1
z (m)

1.0 case 2
case 3
1.5

2.0

2.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t (s)
Fig. 9. CG trajectory of missile in the z direction.
(a) NCD (b) RCD

(c) PCD (d) WCD

Fig. 12. Mach number distribution.

smoothly through the shear layer. The control device delays

Fig. 10. Time-varying angular orientation of y axis.
4. Results and discussion
4.1 Influence of control device on the flow field
For convenience, the computational case without control
device is referred to as NCD, and the case with rectangular,
prism and wedge control device is denoted as RCD, PCD and
WCD, respectively.
Figs. 11 and 12 show the vorticity distribution and Mach
number contours in the symmetry plane (xoz plane) of the
missile separation process at the initial time (t = 0 s). The re-
sults at t = 0 s are obtained from the steady flow field using
the realizable k-ε turbulence model. As shown, for the NCD
case there is a strong shear layer under the internal weapons
bay. When the missile passes through the shear layer, it suffers
a strong aerodynamic force modification; under the condition
of high angles of attack, it may return back to the weapons bay.
For the controlled cases, the shear layer under the internal
weapons bay becomes wider, which makes the missile pass
the modification of velocity of the shear layer, which reduces
the aerodynamic forces (pitch moments) of the missile during
the separation process and improves the attitude of the missile.
Fig. 13 denotes the pressure contours on the surface of three
control devices and the symmetry plane (xoz plane) at t = 0 s.
There is a bow shock wave at the front of the control device,
and the pressure behind the shock wave is high. The pressure
on the surface of the rectangular control device is the highest;
therefore, its drag is also the largest, then the prism control
device, and the pressure of the wedge control device is the
lowest. Therefore, the drag acting on the wedge control device
is the minimum, and it is beneficial for its structural strength.
4.2 Influence of control device on the flow field and aerody-
namic force (moment) coefficients of a missile
Fig. 14 shows the pressure distribution contours in the
symmetry plane (xoz plane) at six different times during the
missile separation process. For NCD case, the pressure at the
rear of the internal weapons bay is higher than the pressure at
the front, which makes the missile head rise during the separa-
2052 S. Zhu et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057
(a) RCD
(b) PCD
(c) WCD
Fig. 13. Pressure distribution of control devices and the symmetry
plane (xoz plane).
tion process; it increases the lift of the missile and under the
condition of large angle of attack, it is very dangerous since
the missile may move up and hit the bottom of the aircraft.
The flow field characteristics of the three controlled cases
are similar (Figs. 14(b)-(d)). The bow shock wave of the three
control devices is strong and has influence on the separation of
the missile. At t = 0.1 s, the head of missile passes the shock
wave, and the bow shock wave makes the missile head go
nose-down. At the same time, the force of the missile in the z
direction increases, so that the missile accelerates away from
the internal weapons bay. During the whole missile separation
process, the shock wave at the front of the control devices first
acts on the missile head. With its continuing separation, the
acting area of the shock wave moves to the tail (t = 0.4 s),
until the missile is completely removed from the influence of
internal weapons bay (t = 0.5 s).
Since the DES is adopted for the unsteady simulation, usu-
ally, the small vortical structure should be found in the shear
layer around the cavity. However, since the 6DOF motion of
the missile during the separation needs to be discussed, we
have to use unstructured dynamic meshes, and the application
of unstructured dynamic meshes decreases the accuracy of the
results and the small vortical structures disappear. On the
other hand, since the aerodynamic force and missile motion
during separation agree well with previous results (Figs. 2 and
3), we keep discussing the data calculated by the numerical
method described in Sec. 2.1.
Fig. 15 illustrates the force coefficient history of the missile
during the separation process. It contains the aerodynamic
force, ejector force and the gravity of the missile. Fig. 16 illus-
trates the pitch moment coefficients history of the missile
during separation. Generally speaking, the force (moment)
coefficients of NCD case are quite different from the other
three cases. The force (moment) coefficients of RCD and
PCD are almost similar to each other, but there are also some
differences. The force (moment) coefficients in WCD case
have the same trend with RCD and PCD cases, but differ in
values. Fig. 17 shows the pressure contours in the symmetry
plane (xoz plane) of NCD case at t = 0.10 s to 0.175 s. Fig. 18
is the pressure distribution of the upper side of the missile for
WCD.
As shown in Fig. 15(a), the force of the missile in the x di-
rection is negative for all four cases due to aerodynamic drag.
For NCD and WCD cases, the magnitude of the force coeffi-
cients Cx-NCD and Cx-WCD varies little, compared with the other
two cases, there is a big difference at the later stage of separa-
tion process. Fig. 15(b) shows the force coefficients Cz; it is
decreased greatly at 0.0465 s due to the disappearance of ejec-
tor force. Without the control device, the force coefficient Cz-
NCD is negative after t = 0.14 s. This means that the direction of
the missile lift is upward; the missile may move upward if the
lift is large enough, and this should be avoided during the
separation process.
However, for all of the three control devices, the force coef-
ficients Cz is positive; it indicates that the missile moves ac-
celerated downward which is beneficial to the separation. As
shown in Figs. 14(b)-(d), the shock wave at the front of the
control devices act on the upside of missile, which makes the
head pressure of the missile be large and its move direction
downwards, and Cz is positive.
After the disappearance of the ejector force, Cz-RCD, Cz-PCD
and Cz-WCD increase first and then decrease. Before t £ 0.45 s,
the pressure on the upper side of missile increases under the
action of bow shock wave, and it becomes small and vanishes
due to the weak interaction of shock wave after t > 0.45 s.
As shown in Fig. 17, for no control case, the region of
higher pressure on the upper side of the missile increases at t =
0.10 s ~ 0.12 s, and the pressure also increases with time, and
leads to the increase of aerodynamic force in the z direction.
When t = 0.13 s and 0.14 s, the higher pressure area on the
upper side of the missile begins to shrink and the pressure
decreases; therefore, the Cz-NCD begins to decrease until to zero.
When t > 0.14 s, the higher pressure area on the upper side of
missile continues to decrease, and the lower pressure area on
the upper side of missile increases; it makes Cz-NCD negative,
and is harmful to separation.
 S. Zhu et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057 2053

(a) NCD

(b) RCD

(c) PCD

(d) WCD

Fig. 14. Pressure distribution contours in the symmetry plane (xoz plane).
2054 S. Zhu et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057

1.0
Cx-NCD
0.5
Cx-RCD
0.0 Cx-PCD
-0.5
Cx-WCD
Cx

-1.0

-1.5

-2.0

-2.5

-3.0
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5

t (s)
(a) Cx
15
Cz-NCD
Cz-RCD Fig. 17. Pressure distribution contours in the symmetry plane (xoz
10
Cz-PCD plane) of NCD case.
Cz-WCD
5
Cz

-5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5
t (s)
(b) Cz

Fig. 15. Force coefficients.

1.5
CMy-NCD
Fig. 18. Pressure distribution of the upper side of missile in the WCD
CMy-RCD
1.0 case.
CMy-PCD

0.5 CMy-WCD
interacts with the front, middle and rear of missile during the
CMy

separation process (Fig. 14, t = 0.2 ~ 0.4 s).

0.0

-0.5 4.3 Influence of control device on the trajectory of missile

-1.0 Fig. 19 shows the CG location of the missile in the global

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
t (s)
Fig. 16. Pitching moment coefficients.
According to the pitch moment coefficients curve (Fig. 16),
the variation trend of the moment coefficients CMy-NCD is simi-
lar to the force coefficients Cz-NCD. The maximum value is at t
= 0.12 s, which corresponds to the change of the pressure be-
fore and after the CG of the missile. As shown in Fig. 14,
when t ≤ 0.12 s, the pressure at the back of missile upside
gradually increases with time, and the CMy-NCD is increased
gradually. When t > 0.12 s, the pressure at the back of missile
upside decreases and the pressure at the upside of missile head
increases, so the CMy-NCD begins to decrease. The pitch mo-
ment coefficient CMy appears to increase first and then de-
crease in the NCD, PCD and WCD cases. From Figs. 14(b)-
(d) this is because the bow shock wave of control devices
0.5
coordinate system as a function of time. During the action
time of ejector force, the missile is restricted and moves only
in the z direction. Its displacements and angular motion in
other directions are zero. When the ejector force disappears,
the missile is subjected to aerodynamic forces. For all of the
four cases of this paper, the missile has almost the same dis-
placements in the x direction, but there are also some small
differences. When t < 0.33 s, the displacement of the missile
in the x direction is close for all three cases with the control
device, and it is smaller than the no control case. However,
when t > 0.33 s, the displacement of the missile in the x direc-
tion increases rapidly for the RCD and PCD cases, and greater
than the values of NCD case at t = 0.5 s. This is because the
absolute values of the force coefficient Cx for RCD and PCD
cases is greater than the other two cases, at this time (Fig.
15(a)).
The CG location of missile in the z direction is shown in Fig.
 S. Zhu et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057 2055

0.5

0.0

NCD
x (m)

-0.5
RCD
PCD

-1.0 WCD

-1.5
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 (a) NCD (b) RCD
t (s)
(a) x
-1

2
z (m)

NCD
3
RCD
4 PCD
WCD (c) PCD (d) WCD
5

6
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
t (s)
(b) z
Fig. 19. Evolution of center of gravity of the missile.
Fig. 20. Time-varying angular orientation of y axis.
19(b). When t < 0.25 s, the displacements are close to each
other for all four cases. When t > 0.25 s, the displacement of
the missile in the z direction increases rapidly for all the con-
trolled cases, but increases slowly for NCD case. On the other
hand, since the Cz-WCD is smaller than the Cz of other two con-
trol cases (RCD, PCD) (Fig. 15(b)), its displacement in the z
direction is also slightly smaller than the displacement of RCD
and PCD at t = 0.5 s. At t = 0.5 s, the displacement of missile
in the direction of z under the cases with control device is
more than twice that of without control device case. This
means that the flow control device makes the missile quickly
separate from the internal weapons bay.
Fig. 20 shows the variation of the pitch angle of the global
coordinate system. There is almost no change of the pitch
Fig. 21. The missile separation process.
0.5
angle of missile for all four cases before t = 0.1 s. However,
when t > 0.1 s, the pitch angles of all four cases show different
trends. For the missile without control device, its head moves
nose-up, and the other cases with control device move nose-
down. In the separation process, the range of the pitch angle of
the WCD case is the smallest, which means that the separation
process of WCD case is the most stable of three control cases.
The variations of pitch angle for both RCD and PCD cases are
similar; they are negative during the whole process and be-
come the largest (-16º) at about t = 0.43 s. This also indicates
that the rectangular and prism control devices have almost the
same control potential and the missile head is down.
Fig. 21 shows separated locations of the missile at six dif-
ferent times (t = 0.0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, 0.4, 0.5 s). The figures show
almost the whole separating movement of missile from the
internal weapons bay. From these figures, we can clearly see
the missile movement and attitude during the separation proc-
ess.
5. Conclusions
With the coupling of N-S equations and 6DOF rigid-body
equations, and the employ of dynamic mesh technology, the
separation process of a missile from the internal weapons bay
was numerically simulated under four different conditions:
Free separation and other three with rectangle, prism and
wedge control, respectively. The numerical method used in
this paper has been validated and can be applied to calculate
the missile separation. The flow fields of separation process,
the missile trajectory, and the force (moment) coefficients
were obtained. The numerical results of four different cases
were compared.
2056 S. Zhu et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057
Our numerical results show that, the mount of control de-
vices in front of internal weapons bay makes the shear layer
under the internal weapons bay widen, which is beneficial for
the missile to pass through the shear layer smoothly. At the
front of the control device, the bow shock wave appears.
When the missile leaves the bay, high pressure acts on the
upper side of the missile and accelerates the separation proc-
ess. The shock wave makes the missile head nose-down after
the missile leaves the bay.
The above three kinds of applied control devices can accel-
erate the missile separating away from the internal weapons
bay. At t = 0.5 s, the separation distance between the missile
and the bay is larger, and it is more than two-times that of
without control case. For all of the three cases with control
devices, the displacement of the missile is similar; however,
different control devices have some influence on the attitude
variation of the missile.
For the wedge case, the variation of Euler angles is the
smallest, and the same with the missile drag; therefore, its
separation process is the best. The variations of pitch angles of
the missile for other two control devices (rectangle and prism)
are similar; they turn into negative and large later, and they
have almost the same control effects on the separation, except
that the rectangle causes a little larger drag.
Acknowledgment
This work was supported by the Key Laboratory Fund
(61426040303162604004) and the Fundamental Research
Funds for the Central Universities (30917012101), China.
References
[1] R. L. Stallings, Store separation from cavities at supersonic
flight speeds, J. of Spacecraft and Rockets, 20 (2) (1983)
129-132.
[2] O. Baysal, K. Fouladi, R. W. Leung and J. S. Sheftic, Inter-
ference flows past cylinder-fin-sting-cavity assemblies, J. of
aircraft, 29 (2) (1992) 194-202.
[3] L. N. Cattafesta Iii, Q. Song, D. R.Williams, C. W. Rowley
and F. S. Alvi, Active control of flow-induced cavity oscilla-
tions, Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 44 (7-8) (2008) 479-
502.
[4] A. J. Saddington, V. Thangamani and K. Knowles, Com-
parison of passive flow control methods for a cavity in tran-
sonic flow, J. of Aircraft, 53 (5) (2016) 1439-1447.
[5] J. F. Wu, X. F. Luo and Z. L. Fan, Flow control method to
improve cavity flow and store separation characteristics, Ac-
ta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 30 (10) (2009) 1840-
1845 (in Chinese).
[6] A. Roshko, Some measurements of flow in a rectangular
cutout, Technical Note 3488, California institute of Technol-
ogy, Washington, USA (1955).
[7] K. Krishnamurty, Acoustic radiation from two-dimensional
rectangular cutouts in aerodynamic surfaces, Technical
Note 3487, California institute of Technology, Washington,
USA (1955).
[8] S. W. Perng and D. S. Dolling, Suppression of pressure os-
cillations in high-mach-number, turbulent, cavity flow, J. of
Aircraft, 38 (2) (2001) 248-256.
[9] N. S. Vikramaditya and J. Kurian, Effect of aft wall slope on
cavity pressure oscillations in supersonic flows, The Aero-
nautical J., 113 (1143) (2009) 291-300.
[10] C. Lada and K. Kontis, Experimental studies of open cavity
configurations at transonic speeds with flow control, J. of
Aircraft, 48 (2) (2011) 719-724.
[11] M. Martinez, G. Dicicca and M. Onorato, Control of cavity
flow oscillations by high frequency forcing, J. of Fluids En-
gineering, 134 (5) (2012) 51201.
[12] N. S. Vikramaditya and J. Kurian, Pressure oscillations
from cavities with ramp, AIAA J., 47 (12) (2009) 2974-2984.
[13] S. J. Lawson and G. N. Barakos, Assessment of passive
flow control for transonic cavity flow using detached-eddy
simulation, J. of Aircraft, 46 (3) (2009) 1009-1029.
[14] A. D. Vakili and C. Gauthier, Control of cavity flow by
upstream mass-injection, J. of Aircraft, 31 (1) (1994) 169-
174.
[15] M. B. Davis, P. Yagle, B. Smith, K. M. Chankaya and R. A.
Johnson, Store trajectory response to unsteady weapons bay
flowfields, AIAA 2009-547, 47th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting Including The New Horizons Forum and Aerospace
Exposition, Orlando, Florida, USA (2009) 1-35.
[16] F. Xue, X. Jin, Y. C. Wang and Y. N. Yang, Wind tunnel
test technique on high speed weapon delivery from internal
weapons bay, Acta Aeronautica et Astronautica Sinica, 38
(1) (2017) 59-65 (in Chinese).
[17] D. Sahoo, A. Annaswamy and F. Alvi, Microjets-based
active control of store trajectory in a supersonic cavity using
a low-order model, AIAA 2005-3097, 11th AIAA/CEAS Aer-
oacoustics Conference (26th AIAA Aeroacoustics Confer-
ence), Monterey, California, USA (2005) 1-49.
[18] V. I. Shalaev, A. V. Fedorov and N. D. Malmuth, Dynam-
ics of slender bodies separating from rectangular cavities,
AIAA J., 40 (3) (2002) 517-525.
[19] D. Sahoo, A. M. Annaswamy and F. Alvi, Active store
trajectory control in supersonic cavities using microjets and
low-order modeling, AIAA J., 45 (3) (2007) 516-531.
[20] W. Bower, V. Kibens, A. Cary, F. Alvi, G. Raman, A. An-
naswamy and N. Malmuth, High-frequency excitation active
flow control for high-speed weapon release (HIFEX), AIAA
2004-2513, 2nd AIAA Flow Control Conference, Portland,
Oregon, USA (2004) 1-13.
[21] J. Ma, Z. G. Huang, Z. H. Chen, D. W. Xue and J. L. Han,
Flow separation control of two kinds of microvortex genera-
tors for a supersonic spinning projectile, J. of Mechanical
Science and Technology, 31 (1) (2017), 197-205.
[22] M. H. Shojaeefard, A. Khorampanahi and M. Mirzaei,
Numerical investigation of oscillation frequency and ampli-
tude effects on the hydrodynamic coefficients of a body with
NACA0012 hydrofoil section, J. of Mechanical Science and
 S. Zhu et al. / Journal of Mechanical Science and Technology 32 (5) (2018) 2047~2057
Technology, 31 (5) (2017) 2251-2260.
[23] G. Bangga, T. Lutz and E. Krämer, Root flow characteris-
tics and 3D effects of an isolated wind turbine rotor, J. of
Mechanical Science and Technology, 31 (8) (2017) 3839-
3844.
[24] D. O. Snyder, E. Koutsavdis and J. S. R. Anttonen, Tran-
sonic store separation using unstructured CFD with dynamic
meshing, AIAA 2003-3919, 33rd AIAA Fluid Dynamics
Conference and Exhibit, Orlando, Florida, USA (2013) 1-8.
[25] Z. G. Huang, Z. H. Chen and Y. J. Guo, Numerical simula-
tion on three-dimensional dynamic process of sabot discard-
ing of APFSDS, Acta Armamentarii, 35 (1) (2014) 9-17 (in
Chinese).
[26] Z. G. Huang, M. E. Wessam and Z. H. Chen, Numerical
investigation of the three-dimensional dynamic process of
sabot discard, J. of Mechanical Science and Technology, 28
(7) (2014) 2637-2649.
[27] E. R. Heim, CFD wing/pylon/finned store mutual interfer-
ence wind tunnel experiment, ADB152669, Arnold Engi-
neering Development Center, Tennessee, USA (1991).
[28] E. E. Panagiotopoulos and S. D. Kyparissis, CFD transonic
store separation trajectory predictions with comparison to
wind tunnel Investigations, International J. of Engineering,
3 (6) (2010) 538-553.
2057
[29] ANSYS, ANSYS FLUENT user’s guide. Release 16.0,
ANSYS, Inc. Canonsburg, PA, USA (2015).
Zhu, Shi-quan is currently pursuing his
Ph.D. in the Key Laboratory of Tran-
sient Physics, Nanjing University of
Science & Technology. His research
interests include computational fluid
dynamics of supersonic flow, multi-
body separation problem and fluid-
structure interaction.
Chen, Zhi-hua received two Ph.D. de-
grees: One is from the New Jersey Insti-
tute of Technology, USA in 2001, and
the other from Nanjing University of
Science & Technology, China, in 1997.
Dr. Chen is currently a Professor at the
Key Laboratory of Transient Physics at
Nanjing University of Science & Tech-
nology, Nanjing, China. His research interests include super-
sonic and hypersonic flow, detonation, and flow control.