Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T11:07:49.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Optimisation of round bodies for aerodynamic performance and stability at supersonic speeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2016

W. Jiajan ,
R. S. M. Chue ,
T. Nguyen  and
S. Yu
W. Jiajan
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University, Aerospace Engineering, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Singapore
R. S. M. Chue*
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University, Aerospace Engineering, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Singapore
T. Nguyen
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University, Aerospace Engineering, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Singapore
S. Yu
Affiliation:
Nanyang Technological University, Aerospace Engineering, School of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Singapore
*
[email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An optimisation procedure coupled with computational fluid dynamics (CFD) is proposed to minimise the aerodynamic drag and to improve the static and dynamic stabilities of generic rounds at supersonic speeds (Mach 1·5 to 4). First, the Active-set algorithm, Sequential Quadratic Programming (SQP) is used as the optimisation method for drag minimisation. The objective function is the zero-lift drag computed from a semi-empirical solution. The constraints are based on the geometric restrictions of the body. CFD is then employed to validate the accuracy of the drag prediction from the semi-empirical solution and to incorporate the stability requirements into the optimisation process. A supersonic round body is considered as an example application. The optimised body provides up to 15% drag reduction and 46% increase in gyroscopic stability while remaining dynamically stable over the whole range of the operating Mach numbers.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Aeronautical Journal , Volume 117 , Issue 1193 , July 2013 , pp. 661 - 685
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2013 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. Viswanath, P.R. Flow management techniques for base and afterbody drag reduction, Prog Aerospace Sci, 1996, 32, pp 79–129.Google Scholar
2. Suliman, M.A., MAhmoud, O.K., Al-sanabawy, M.A. and Abdel-Hamid, O.E. Computational Investigation of Base Drag Reduction for a Projectile at Different fight regimes, 13th International Conference on Aerospace Science & Aviation Technology, Military Technical College, Kobry Elkobbah, Cairo, Egypt, 2009.Google Scholar
3. Ibrahim, A. and filippone, A. Effect of porosity strength on drag reduction of a transonic projectile, J Aircraft, January 2006, 44, (1), pp 310–316.Google Scholar
4. Ibrahim, A. and filippone, A. Supersonic aerodynamics of a projectile with slot cavities, Aeronaut J, January 2010, 114, (3416), pp 15–24.Google Scholar
5. Nicolas, J.M. Optimal Bodies for Minimum Total Drag at Supersonic Speeds, NSWC TR-80-208 Dahlgren, VA 22448, May 1980.Google Scholar
6. Van Dyke, M.J. The Similarity Rules for Second-Order Subsonic and Supersonic Flow, NACA Technical Note 3875, October 1956.Google Scholar
7. Van Driest, E.R. Turbulent boundary layers in compressible fuids, J Aeronautical Sciences, 1951, 18, (3), pp 145–160, 216.Google Scholar
8. Von Karman, T.H. The problems of resistance in compressible fuids, Cl Sci Frs Mat J, 14, 1936, pp 222 – 276.Google Scholar
9. Cole, J.D. Newtonian Flow Theory for Slender Bodies, US Air Force, Project Rand, RM 1633, February 1956.Google Scholar
10. Kline, R., Herrmann, W.R. and Oskay, V. A determination of the aerodynamic coeffcients of the 155mm, M549 Projectile, Technical Report No. 4764, Picatinny Arsenal, Dover, New Jersey, USA, BD 002730L, November 1974.Google Scholar
11. Sivan, D.D. and Jermey, C. Wind Tunnel Tests of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of a 155mm Artillery Shell, Aeronautical Research Lab, Flight Mechanics Technical Memorandum 417 (ARL-FLIGHT-MECH-TM-417), Australia, 1989.Google Scholar
12. McCoy, R.L. MC Drag – A Computer Program for Estimating the Drag Coeffcients of Projectiles, US Army Armament Research & Development Command Report No. ARBRL-TR-02293: 74, 1981.Google Scholar
13. Kenneth, J.B. Numerical Method for Chemical Engineering Applications in MATLAB, Cambridge University Press, New York, USA, 2006.Google Scholar
14. Despirito, J. and Heavey, K.R. CFD Computation of Magnus Moment and Roll Damping Moment of a Spinning Projectile, AIAA-2004-4713; Proceedings of the AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference and Exhibit, Providence, RI, USA, 16–19 August 2004.Google Scholar
15. Weinacht, P., Sturek, W.B. and Schiff, L.B. Navier-Stokes predictions of pitch damping for axisymmetric projectiles, J Spacecraft Rockets, 1997, 34, (6), pp 753–761.Google Scholar
16. DeSpirito, J., Silton, S.I. and Weinacht, P. Navier-Stokes Predictions of Dynamic Stability Derivatives: Evaluation of Steady State Methods, AIAA-2008-0214; Proceedings of the 46th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, USA, 7–10 January 2008.Google Scholar
17. Platou, A.S. and neilson, G.I.T. An Improved Projectile Boat Tail II, BRL Memorandum Report No. 1886, U.S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA, 1976.Google Scholar
18. McCoy, R.L. Modern exterior ballistics, Schiffer Military History, Atglen, PA, USA, 1999.Google Scholar
19. Platou, A.S. The Influence of the Magnus Moment on the Dynamic Stability of a Projectile, ARBRL-MR-2155, US Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland 2005, January 1972 (AD 738016).Google Scholar
20. Mason, L., Devan, L., Moore, F.G. and McMillan, D. Aerodynamics Design Manual for Tactical Weapons, NSWC TR 81-156, July 1981.Google Scholar
21. Jenke, L.M. and Shadow, T.O. Experimental Magnus and Static Stability Characteristics of Ballistic Projectiles with Various Boattail Angles and Lengths at Mach numbers from 0·5 throught 2·5, AEDC-TR-75-40, AFATL-TR-75-52 (AD A013759), August 1975.Google Scholar
22. Liepmann, H.W. and Roshko, A. Elements of Gas Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons Inc, 1957.Google Scholar