42 views

Original Title: Magnus Effect

Uploaded by Abdurrahman Abu Adib

- The Determination of the Reference Dynamic Pressure in Automotive Wind Tunnels
- National Conference on Advances in Armament Technology
- 8580789 Aero eBook Design of Low Speed Aircraft
- A Study of Spin Effects on Tennis Ball Aerodynamics
- Advanced Ansys Icem Cfd
- 61784194-eBooks
- CFD.docx
- Aerospace Engineering
- 176Wuhfghgh
- AGARD-AG-38
- Aeroelastic Analysis of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Insansiz Bir Hava Aracinin Aeroelastik Analizi
- Ballistics 1
- Auto Rotation
- 140354_3
- Racecar Engineering F1 Digimag 2018
- 07-tensinet
- Puls Frac
- Inverse design of centrifugal pump.pdf
- aero
- untitleddocument

You are on page 1of 6

NUMERICAL PREDICTION

1

Head of Aerodynamics, Technical Direction, Nexter Munitions, 7 Route de Guerry, 18023

Bourges Cedex, France and Associate Professor, ENSIB/PRISME, 88 Boulevard Lahitolle,

18020 Bourges Cedex, France

2

Research Associate in Aerodynamics, Technical Direction, Nexter Munitions, 7 Route de

Guerry, 18023 Bourges Cedex, France

3

Research Engineer, Applied Aerodynamics Department, Office National dtudes et de

Recherches Arospatiales, 29, avenue de la Division Leclerc, BP72, 92322 Chtillon

Cedex, France

Full manuscript available in the Journal of Applied Mechanics, September 2011, American Society of

Mechanical Engineers

2163

An overview of the Magnus effect of projectiles and missiles is presented.

The first part of the paper is devoted to the description of the physical mechanisms governing the

Magnus effect.

The second part of the paper is dedicated to the numerical prediction and validation of these flow

phenomena. A state of the art is presented including classical CFD methods based on RANS

(Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes) and URANS (Unsteady RANS) equations, and also hybrid

RANS/LES approach called ZDES.

For validation purposes computational results were compared with wind tunnel tests. A wide

range of angles of attack, spin rates, Reynolds and Mach numbers (subsonic, transonic and

supersonic) have been investigated.

INTRODUCTION

The Magnus effect is an old fluid dynamics phenomenon. It seems that Isaac

Newton has been the first one who had described it in 1671 [1] after observing

jeu de paume (court tennis) players in his Cambridge college. Benjamin Robins

in 1742 [2] explained deviations in the trajectories of musket balls in terms of

Magnus effect. Afterward, Heinrich Magnus described the effect with details in

1852 [3,4], and left his name to this physical phenomenon. In 1877, Lord

Rayleigh [5] proposed a first analytical formula of the phenomenon in the case

of a cylinder. The possibility of inverting the Magnus force by modifying the

experimental conditions, rotation speed of the cylinder-roughness of the wall,

was revealing by Lafay in 1910 [6]. Further to the works of Prandtl in 1904, it is

only in 1955 that Krahn [8] connects the Magnus effect with the viscous

phenomena of the boundary layer. Then, numerous studies were dedicated to the

study of the Magnus effect, both in the civil domain (spinning balls in sport:

table tennis, tennis, volleyball, golf, etc.) and in the field of Defense (projectiles,

missiles, etc.). Concerning projectiles or missiles, the References

[15,20,22,30,31] focus on wind tunnel or flight tests, and the References

[14,16,18,19,21,23-29,32-40] on numerical prediction and validation.

MAGNUS EFFECT

Magnus Effect of Yawing and Spinning Projectiles

Figure 1 shows the Magnus effect origin. At small incidences, the top right

figure compares two symmetric boundary layer profiles, with respect to the

plane of symmetry. Spin induces a weak asymmetry between the left and right

sides. The spinning wall deviates the transversal free stream to the left side,

pushing the projectile to the right.

The bottom right picture presents what the Magnus effect origin is on a body at

high incidences. Increased spin causes the separated vortex sheets to be altered

with respect to the plane of symmetry. Vortex asymmetry generates an

additional lateral force which gives a contribution to the Magnus. The figure on

the left exhibits the numerical longitudinal Magnus and normal force

distributions. Boundary layer growth is maximum on the boattail, because of

spin-induced distortion. Consequently, the majority of the Magnus force is

generated by the rear section. In this process, it is well known that pressure and

shear components act in opposite directions, the pressure component being

strongly dominant. Whereas, most of the normal force comes from the ogive.

Also it can be noted that the Magnus force amplitude is very weak compared to

the normal force.

2164

Fig. 1 Physical aspects of the Magnus of Spin-Stabilized Projectiles

Few studies have been devoted to the Magnus effect of finned projectiles or

missiles [7,10,11,27,29,35,36]. There are two main sources contributing to the

Magnus effect. Firstly, the interaction between the asymmetric body boundary

layer-wake and the fins, and secondly, the spin-induced modifications of the

local incidences and of the flow topology. Different flow topologies could be

encountered on the lee-side part of the fins: an attached flow at low incidences,

and a separated flow at the leading edge with a lee-side shock at higher

incidences. The lee side flow, corresponding to this second situation, is

presented here in Fig. 2(a). One common characteristic is the shock (I in Fig.

2(a)), which goes from the apex to the trailing edge. The second characteristic is

the development of a tip vortex (II in Fig. 2(a) and see Fig. 2(b)), particularly for

the right fin, whose spinning movement opposes the transversal freestream. The

apex shock tends to decrease local force near the root chord, whereas the tip

vortex tends to increase local force near the tip chord.

Fig. 2 Magnus effect on fins, (a) pressure ratio on the lee-side of the fins, (b) velocity vector

at a longitudinal station, Mach 4.3, p*= 0.041, Pi = 7.7 Bar, Ti = 295 K, = 4.22

Wind Tunnel Tests

Tests were carried out in the ONERA S3MA trisonic blow down wind tunnel

[30-32]. For complementary validation purposes, wind tunnel results available

in the open literature were also used [15,20,22].

2165

CFD Computations

The multiblock Navier-Stokes solver used in the present study is mainly the

FLU3M code developed by the ONERA. This code allows RANS, URANS and

hybrid RANS/LES computations. An example of RANS/LES computation is

shown in Fig. 3. The motivation for this approach was to combine the best

features of a RANS approach with the best features of LES The main concern in

this technique is the switch between the two modes.

For supersonic flow conditions (Fig. 4(a)), the comparison between the

RANS computations, using the Spalart-Allmaras turbulence model, and the

experiments show that the agreement is very good. For very complex transonic

conditions (Fig. 4(b)), a weak improvement of the Magnus force prediction is

obtained using ZDES approach.

Mach = 3 and p*= 0.0218 (a), Mach = 0.91 and = 2 (b)

Conditions

For finned projectile, the steady flow characteristic is lost, an URANS time

discretization scheme, based on grid movement and second-order Gears

formulation was developed [27] (see also Fig. 2). The behavior of mean

coefficients with angle of attack and spin is represented in Fig. 5. In this case,

URANS computations using the simple Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model were

achieved. Linearity with incidence is quite obvious for the normal force CN,

whereas non-linearity of Magnus force Cy occurs for over 2 degrees. The

picture on the bottom right exhibits a linear evolution of the Magnus force over

the full experimental range, whereas the picture on the bottom left shows that

the normal force is almost independent of the spin. Agreement between

computations and experiments is quite good.

2166

Fig. 5 CN and CY evolutions with angle of attach and non dimensional spin rate,

Mach 4.3, p*= 0 and 0.041, Pi = 7.7 Bar, Ti = 295 K, = 4.22

CONCLUSION

RANS/LES hybrid predictions are better than RANS predictions, but with an

increase of, at least, one order of magnitude in computational time. This

approach will be, certainly, the near future for more efficient numerical

aerodynamic predictionsFor yawing and spinning projectiles, the Magnus effect

is:

- Well predicted by RANS methods for supersonic flow conditions,

- Better described by RANS/LES hybrid approaches in transonic and subsonic

regimes. However, improvements are needed before reaching the goal of

predicting accurately the Magnus characteristics.

For finned projectiles or missiles, in the supersonic regime, URANS methods

(using Baldwin-Lomax or Spalart-Allmaras turbulence models), give very

satisfactory results.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank Marc Pchier, Franck Simon, Rmy Thpot,

Sbastien Deck and Patrick Champigny from the Office National dtudes et de

Recherches Arospatiales for their strong contributions in this work.

The authors would like also to thank Serge Secco and Ornelle Donneaud, from

the French MOD UMTER Program Division, for the support of a part of this

work.

REFERENCES

[1] Newton, I., 1671, A letter of Mr. Isaac Newton, of the University of Cambridge, containing his new theory about

light and color, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, Vol. 7, pp. 3075-3087.

[2] Robins, B., 1742, New principles of gunnery: containing the determination of the force of gun-powder, and an

investigation of the difference in the resisting power of the air to swift and slow motions, London, Ed. J. Nourse.

[3] Magnus, G., 1852, ber die Abweichung der Geschosse, Abhandlungen der Kniglichen Akademie der

Wissenschaften zu Berlin, pp. 1-23.

[4] Magnus, G., 1853, ber die Abweichung der Geschosse, und: ber eine abfallende Erscheinung bei rotierenden

Krpern, Annalen der Physik, Vol. 164, 1, pp. 1-29.

[5] Rayleigh, J. W., 1877, On the Irregular Flight of a Tennis Ball, Messenger of Mathematics, Vol. 7, p. 14.

[6] Lafay, A., 1910, Sur l'Inversion du Phnomne de Magnus, Comptes Rendus de l'Acadmie des Sciences, Vol.

151.

[7] Chapman, D. R., Wimbrow, W. R., and Kester, R. H., 1952, Experimental Investigation of the Base Pressure on

Blunt-Trailing-Edge Wings at Supersonic Velocities, NACA TN 2611.

[8] Krahn, E., 1955, The laminar Boundary Layer on a Rotating Cylinder in Crossflow, NAVORD Rep. 4022,

Aerobal. Res. Rep. 288, U.S. NOL, Maryland, USA.

[9] Martin, J. C., 1955, On the Magnus Effects Caused by the Boundary Layer Displacement Thickness on Bodies of

Revolution at Small Angles of Attack, BRL, Rep. 870, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, USA.

[10] Platou, A. S., 1960, Magnus Characteristics of Fined and Non Finned Projectiles, AIAA Journal, Vol. 3, No. 1,

pp. 83-90.

[11] Jacobson, I. D., 1970, Magnus Characteristics of Arbitrary Rotating Bodies, AGARDograph, No. AG-171.

2167

[12] Dwyer, H., and Sander, B. R., 1976, Magnus Forces Spinning Supersonic Cones. Part I: The Boundary Layer,

AIAA Journal, Vol. 14, p. 498.

[13] Sander, B. R., and Dwyer, H., 1976, Magnus Forces Spinning Supersonic Cones. Part I: The Inviscid Flow,

AIAA Journal, Vol. 14, pp. 576-582.

[14] Sturek, W. B., Dwyer, H., Kayser, L., Nietubicz, C., Reklis, R., and Opalka, K., 1978, Computations of Magnus

Effects for Yawed Spinning Body of Revolution, AIAA Journal, Vol. 16, No. 7, pp. 687-692.

[15] Kayser, L., Sturek, W. B., and Yanta, W., 1978, Measurements in the Turbulent Boundary Layer of Yawed

Spinning Body of Revolution at Mach 3 with a Laser Velocimeter and Impact Probe, AIAA paper, No. 78-824.

[16] Schiff, L., and Steger, J. L., 1979, Numerical Simulation of Steady supersonic Viscous Flow, AIAA Paper, No.

79-0130.

[17] Kegelman, J., Nelson, R., and Mueller, T., 1980, Boundary Layer and Side Force Characteristics of a Spinning

Axisymmetric Body, AIAA Paper, No. 80-1584.

[18] Sturek, W. B., and Schiff, L., 1980, Computations of the Magnus Effect for Slender Bodies in Supersonic Flow,

AIAA Paper, No. 80-1586.

[19] Sturek, W. B., Mylin, D., and Yanta, W., 1980, Computational Study of the Aerodynamics of Spining Slender

Bodies at Supersonic Speeds, AIAA paper, No. 80-1885.

[20] Nietubicz, C., and Opalka, K., 1980, Supersonic Wind Tunnel Measurements of Static and Magnus Aerodynamic

Coefficients for Projectile Shapes with Tangent and Secant Ogive Noses, Memorandum Report, ARBRL-MR-02991.

[21] Sturek, W. B., and Mylin, D. C., 1981, Computational Parametric Study of the Magnus Effect on Boattailed Shell

at Supersonic Speed, AIAA Paper, No. 81-1900.

[22] Miller, M. C., 1983, Wind Tunnel Measurements of the Magnus Induced Surface Pressures on a Spinning

Projectile in the Transonic Regime, AIAA paper, No. 83-1838.

[23] Sturek, W. B., and Nietubicz, C., 1992, Recent Applications of CFD to the Aerodynamics of Army Projectiles at

the U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, AIAA paper, No. 92-4349.

[24] Netterfield, M. P., 1993, Modern CFD Methods Applied to Aerodynamics Predictions of Spinning Projectile,

AIAA paper, No. 93-0500.

[25] Weinacht, P., and Sahu, J., 1994, Navier-Stokes Predictions of Missile Aerodynamics, AGARD Report 804

Special Course on Missile Aerodynamics.

[26] Cayzac, R., Carette, E., Pchier, M., and Guillen, P., 1999, Navier-Stokes Computations and Validations of a

Yawed Spinning Projectile, 18th International Symposium on Ballistics, San Antonio, USA, Vol. 1, pp. 28-37.

[27] Pchier, M., 1999, Numerical Predictions of Magnus Effects over Ammunition Configurations, Ph. D.

Dissertation (in French), Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of Poitiers, Poitiers, France.

[28] Cayzac, R., and Carette, E., 2000, Intermediate Ballistics and Aeroballistics Overview, European Forum on

Ballistics of Projectiles, ISL, Saint Louis, France, pp. 259-274.

[29] Pchier, M., Guillen, P., and Cayzac, R., 2001, Magnus Effect Over Finned Projectiles, AIAA, Journal of

Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 4, pp. 542-549.

[30] Cayzac, R., Trouillot, C., Carette, E., Champigny, P., Thpot, R., and Donneaud, O., 2002, Recent Developments

on Aeroballistics of Yawing and Spinning Projectiles: Part I, Wind Tunnel Tests, 20th International Symposium on

Ballistics, Orlando, USA, Vol. 1, pp. 203-208.

[31] Donneaud, O., Cayzac, R., Carette, E., Champigny, P., and Thpot, R., 2002, Recent Developments on

Aeroballistics of Yawing and Spinning Projectiles: Part II, Free Flight Tests, 20th International Symposium on

Ballistics, Orlando, USA, Vol. 1, pp. 157-164.

[32] Cayzac, R., Carette, E., Champigny, P., Thpot, R., and Donneaud, O., 2002, Recent Developments on

Aeroballistics of Yawing and Spinning Projectiles: Part III, Validation Results, 20th International Symposium on

Ballistics, Orlando, USA, Vol. 1, pp. 11-19.

[33] Cayzac, R., Carette, E., Champigny, P., Thpot, R., and Donneaud, O., 2004, Analysis of Static and Dynamic

Stability of Spinning Projectiles, 21st International Symposium on Ballistics, Adelaide, Australia, Vol. 1, pp. 504-510.

[34] DeSpirito, J., and Heavy, K. R., 2004, CFD Computations of Magnus Moment and Roll Damping Moment of

Spinning projectile, AIAA paper 2004-4713.

[35] Cayzac, R., and Carette, E., 2004, CFD Computations of Projectile Unsteady Aerodynamics, 55th Meeting of the

Aeroballistics Range Association, Freiburg, Germany.

[36] Cayzac, R., Carette, E., and Thepot, R., 2005, Recent Computations and Validations of Projectile Unsteady

Aerodynamics, 22nd International Symposium on Ballistics, Vancouver, Canada, Vol. 1, pp. 29-37.

[37] Simon, F., Deck, S., Guillen, P., Cayzac, R., Sagaut, P., and Merlen, A., 2007, RANS/LES Simulations of

Projectiles With and Without Rotation in the Subsonic and Transonic Regimes, 23rd International Symposium on

Ballistics, Tarragona, Spain, pp. 755-763.

[38] Weinacht, P., 2007, Virtual Wind Tunnel Method for Projectile Aerodynamic Characterization, 23rd International

Symposium on Ballistics, Tarragona, Spain, pp. 631-638.

[39] Simon, F., 2007, Hybrid RANS/LES Numerical Simulations of Projectile Aerodynamics, Ph. D. Dissertation (in

French), Mechanical Engineering, Univ. of Poitiers, Poitiers, France.

[40] Simon, F., Deck, S., Guillen, P., Cayzac, R., and Merlen, 2007, Zonal-Detached-Eddy Simulation of Projectiles in

the Subsonic and Transonic Regimes, AIAA Journal, Vol. 45, No. 7, pp. 1606-1619.

[41] Janzon, B., Backofen, J., Brown, R. E., Cayzac, R., Diederen, A., Giraud, M., M.Held, M., Horst, A. W., and

Thoma, K., 2007, The Future of Warheads, Armour and Ballistics, 23rd International Symposium on Ballistics,

Tarragona, Spain, Vol. 1, pp. 3-27.

[42] Sagaut, P., Deck, S., and Terracol, M., 2006, Multiscale and Multiresolution Approaches in Turbulence, Imperial

College Press.

[43] Deck, S., 2005, Numerical Simulation of Transonic Buffet Over a Supercritical Airfoil, AIAA Journal, Vol., 43

No. 7, pp. 15561566.

[44] Deck, S., 2005, Zonal-detached eddy simulation of the flow around a high lift configuration, AIAA Journal, Vol.

43, No. 11, pp. 2372-2384.

[45] Spalart, P. R., Jou, W. H., Strelets, M., and Allmaras, S. R., 1997, Comments on the Feasibility of LES for Wings

and on a Hybrid RANS/LES Approach, Proceedings of the First AFSOR International Conference on DNS/LES,

Ruston, USA.

[46] Deck, S., Garnier, S. E., and Guillen, P., 2002, Turbulence Modelling applied to Space Launcher Configurations,

Journal of Turbulence, Vol. 3, No. 57, pp. 1-21.

2168

- The Determination of the Reference Dynamic Pressure in Automotive Wind TunnelsUploaded byVyssion
- National Conference on Advances in Armament TechnologyUploaded byLuptonga
- 8580789 Aero eBook Design of Low Speed AircraftUploaded bybadulescu florentina
- A Study of Spin Effects on Tennis Ball AerodynamicsUploaded byFabrizzio Valer
- Advanced Ansys Icem CfdUploaded byAhmadreza Aminian
- 61784194-eBooksUploaded byAjan Kumar
- CFD.docxUploaded byThiam Chun Ong
- Aerospace EngineeringUploaded byGargav
- 176WuhfghghUploaded byclimax1364
- AGARD-AG-38Uploaded byshyamsundarsr
- Aeroelastic Analysis of an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle Insansiz Bir Hava Aracinin Aeroelastik AnaliziUploaded bytarik
- Ballistics 1Uploaded byKier C. Seracosa
- Auto RotationUploaded byCarlos Castillo Palma
- 140354_3Uploaded byyoungonhunt
- Racecar Engineering F1 Digimag 2018Uploaded byBruno Bambineti
- 07-tensinetUploaded byMicaelCosta
- Puls FracUploaded byNam Nguyen
- Inverse design of centrifugal pump.pdfUploaded byRonard Pa–a
- aeroUploaded bynanduslns07
- untitleddocumentUploaded byapi-303093249
- 20050010179_2004208011Uploaded bycreative_editing00
- 2019 CP502 CFD Project Guidelines With ILOs.170120820Uploaded byPrabhasha Jayasundara
- Labora.pdfUploaded byBeatriz Cicatriz
- Norma de Tokyo sobre edificios sosteniblesUploaded byCarolina Maricielo Cruzado Ramos
- Standards for wind effect on structures and environment in INDONESIA.pdfUploaded byLim Chern Kuang
- Susanto_2018_IOP_Conf._Ser.__Mater._Sci._Eng._316_012002(1)Uploaded byEdy Mesin
- Large Area PropellersUploaded byCláudio Tavares
- Inive-IBPSA-BS05_0603_608Uploaded byPalwasha Malik
- PHY2June2004Uploaded byapi-3726022
- Materials and Structural Concepts for Aeroelastically-Tailored Aircraft WingsUploaded byOSCARDELTA

- ASSIGNMENT ON ASTROPHYSICS 2Uploaded byNarayanan Elatchoumy Pady
- 15ECE201_Dec2016.pdfUploaded byabcdefg
- WallInSand ExampleUploaded bymatin
- De Broglie Waves as the Bridge of Becoming Between Quantum Theory and Relativity 1107.1678Uploaded byforizsl
- fractal_antenna.pdfUploaded bynestor.escala7666
- Impuls AtUploaded byrizal123
- Topic 1_Atomic_structureUploaded bysasha_91
- Numerical Investigation of Heat Transfer Characteristics Using Different Discrete Rib ArrangementsUploaded byGRD Journals
- Reactive Muffler SbsUploaded byanandr50
- 260064216 Properties Measurement PvtUploaded byMuhammad Nursalam
- Fick's Law and DiffusionUploaded byamir
- SlidesUploaded byDiego Canales Aguilera
- Stress Ribbon and Cable-supported Pedestrian Bridges CAP5Uploaded byAnonymous VkzquW39
- Basic Explanation of Creep Processes.docUploaded byRiza Khan
- Density Variation in Finite Volume SchemesUploaded byhhqq2010
- TriaxiaI Load Capacity Diagrams Provide a New Approach to Casing and Tubing Design AnalysisUploaded byYash Menon
- Cantilever Retaining WallUploaded byOmar Rubio
- Estimating the Low-Speed Sidewash.pdfUploaded byGabriel Rodrigues Felix
- Entalpia EjerciciosUploaded byAlvaro Bastidas
- Geo1Uploaded bypoloko7
- CasinoUploaded byDaljot Singh Kang
- 25002Uploaded byFazrian Eka
- Brenda J. Dunne and Robert G. Jahn- Consciousness and Anomalous Physical PhenomenaUploaded byCanola_Olive
- CHM Reprt RadioactivityUploaded byms2spectacular
- leaf springUploaded byramasamy
- Bearing capacity of ring footingUploaded byilmareblu
- colector SolarUploaded byTony Dalia Medrano
- Turbulence Models and Their Application to Complex FlowsUploaded byMason925
- End BlockUploaded bydon2hmr
- De Sousa Et Al. - 2012 - An Experimental and Numerical Study on the Axial Compression Response of Flexible PipesUploaded byOscar Ariza