Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Key Words: Missile Configuration, Wind tunnel, planar fins, Grid fins, Force
coefficients, Moment coefficients.
NOMENCLATURE
d - Missile base diameter in mm
L - Total length of the body in mm
P - Pressure in N/m2
q - Free stream dynamic pressure in N/m2
t - Thickness of the web of a grid fin in mm
u, v, w - Velocity component in X, Y, Z direction
- Angle of attack
- Density
- Kinematic viscosity
1 Introduction:
Lattice fins (grid fins) have been studied for flight vehicle controls for several
years. Aerodynamics of such grid fins has been investigated since 1985. A lattice fin is an
unconventional control surface comprising an outer frame supporting an inner grid of
Previous investigations that have been performed on grid fins shows that grid fins
have some advantages over conventional, planar fins. One advantage is the ability to
maintain lift at higher angles of attack since grid fins do not have the same stall
characteristics of planar fins. Another is the very small hinge moments, which can reduce
the size of control actuator systems. Curvature of the grid fins had little effect on their
performance so that folding the fins down onto the missile body is a storage design
advantage. The main disadvantage was indicated to be higher drag than that of planar
fins, although some techniques for minimizing drag by altering the grid fin frame cross-
section shape were demonstrated.
The missile body was kept common for both types of fins. The body has been
fabricated with teak wood. The planar fin is made wit h the wood and the grid fin
configuration was fabricated using metal sheets of one mm thickness. The body has a
base diameter of 70mm and a total length of 7.2d. it consists of tangent ogive nose
attached to the cylindrical body. The model is composed of 3 modulus one for the nose
section, one for the mid section and finally one for the tail section of the model.
The grid fin geometry has been fabricated using metal plates of 1mm thickness.
The surface was coated with zinc plating to obtain smooth finish. The planar fins were
fabricated using wood. The surface was well polished to achieve the smoothness. The fin
configurations with dimensions are shown in Figure 1.
2.2Wind tunnel:
The Wind tunnel used for experimental work was the low speed tunnel of
MIT-AU. This is of suction type where the air is drawn in the front directly from the
atmosphere and exhausted directly to the atmosphere. The photograph of the tunnel is
shown in the figure. The tunnel is 20m long and has a rectangular test section sandwiched
between the inlet duct and the diffuser. The test section has a cross section of 0.9m *
1.22m and a length of 1.82m with transparent windows on either side. The maximum
speed of the tunnel is 89 m/s the tunnel is fitted with three bladed propellers driven by
170 HP induction motor. The motor can control the propeller speed with microprocessor
based electronic speed control unit whose least count is 1rpm. The tunnel is equipped
with two-channel hot wire anemometer for velocity measurements and five-component
strain gauge internal balance for force measurements. Low speed wind tunnel used for the
present work is given in Figure 2
0.4
0.5
0.3
CY
CY
0.2 0.3
0.1
0.1
0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5
-0.1 -0.1 0 5 10 15
-0.2
Angle of attack 38ofm/s
Angle attack
-0.3
-0.3 14 m/s 31 m/s
21 m/s
-0.4 -0.5 21 m/s
31 m/s
-0.5
38 m/s -0.7 14 m/s
Fig 5. Normal Force (Planar fin) Fig 6. Normal force (Grid fin)
First of the results is covering the normal force data generated by the fins. As
expected the normal force coefficient increases as the angle of attack increases, for both
models. The over all design philosophy behind these two models was for the grid fin
model to impact an identical level of longitudinal stability as conventional planar fin. It
can be emphasized from the graphs plotted that the grid fins shows identical incremental
normal force slopes than the planar fin.
CX
Cx
0.6 0.3
38 m/s 0.25
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLA on 10/28/15. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
0.5
0.4 0.2
0.3 0.15
0.2 0.1
0.1 0.05
0 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
Angle of attack Angle of attack
Fig 7. Axial force (Planar fin) Fig 8 Axial force (Grid fin)
The figure shows the axial force coefficient in terms of the body angle of
incidence for the grid fin and planer pin models. From the above curves it can be seen
that at -5 to +5. The axial force value has a decrease for planer fin case and the amount of
reduction is lesser in the grid fin case. At large angles of attack the axial force is greater
for both the fin cases. The increase in axial force is generated by the addition of various
components (webs, grid fins) is obvious from this figure. One possible explanation is that
the grid fins on the lee word side of the model starts chocking because of its position on
the model and its design, thus generating a larger axial force than a completely functional
planar fin.
4.4 Side force & Rolling force :
1 0.5
0.8 0.4
0.6 0.3
Cz
Cl
0.4 0.2
0.2 0.1
0 0
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
-0.2
Angle of attack -0.1
Angle of attack
-0.4 14 m/s -0.2 14 m/s
-0.6 21 m/s -0.3 21 m/s
-0.8 31 m/s -0.4 31 m/s
-1 38 m/s -0.5 38 m/s
Fig 9. Side force (Planar fin) Fig 10. Rolling force (Grid fin)
Above plot shows the computed side force data and rolling force data for both the
planar and grid finned configuration at different angles of attack. There was a little
difference in the side force due to the fin type at all angles of attack. The maximum side
force seems to be not so large and hence it can be stated that the lateral stability of the
missiles seems to be good and at grid fin configuration there seems to be a negligible
variation in side force and rolling force.
5 CONCLUSION:
Wind tunnel experiments were used to predict the aerodynamic coefficients and
flow field around a generic tail controlled air – to – air missile configurations in low
subsonic flow. Computations were carried out at several angles of attack ranging from –
Axial force coefficient obtained from the grid fin missile configuration was about
0.8 times greater than that of planar fin configuration for same conditions. This
contradicts the previous speculation that the grid fins will produce higher axial force
coefficients when compared to planar fins. This was achieved in the present study by
reducing the web thickness and the outer frame of the fin.
6 REFERENCES:
1) James Despirito, “Numerical Computations os supersonic flow past missiles with lattice
fins”. Army Research laboratory, Weapons & Materials research Directorate,Aberdeen
Proving ground, MD,USA.
2) Despirito, J.,Vaughn, M., Washington,W.D.”CFD investigation of canard Controlled
missile with planar and grid fins in supersonic flow,” AIAA Paper 2002-4509, August
2002.
3) A.Dupuis, C.Berner, “Aerodynamic Aspects of a Grid finned projectile at subsonic and
supersonic velocities”. 19th International Symposium of Ballistics, 7-11 May 2001,
Interlaken, Switzerland.
4) Gregg Abate, Gerald Winchenbach, and Wayne Hathaway, “Transonic Aerodynamic and
Scaling Issues for Lattice fin Projectiles tested in a Ballistics Range”. 19th International
Symposium of Ballistics, 7-11 May 2001, Interlaken, Switzerland.
5) James Depirito, Harris L.Edge, Paul Weinacht and Juburaj Sahu. “CFD analysis of grid
for Maneuvering Missiles” AIAA 2000-0391.
6) E.Y.Fournier, “Wind tunnel investigation of a high L/D projectile with grid fin and
Conventional planar control Surfaces”. 19th International Symposium of Ballistics, 7-11
May 2001, Interlaken, Switzerland.
7) John E. Burk halter, Roy J. Hart field, and Todd M.Leleux “Nonlinear Aerodynamic
Analysis of grid fin Configurations” Journal of aircraft Vol.32 No.3, May – June 1995.
8) Ross A. Brooks and John E. Burk halter “Experimental and Analytical Analysis of Grid
Fin Configurations” Journal of aircraft Vol.26 No.9, September1989.
9) John E. Burk halter and Harris M. Frank “Grid Fin Aerodynamics for Missile
Applications in Subsonic Flow” Journal of spacecraft and rockets. Vol. 33, No.1 Jan –
Feb 1996.
10) Joseph Brooks, Avrum Jacobson, Andre Joseph, Michael Millet “Results for
Investigation of Grid Fin Control Surfaces in Subsonic Flows” University of Michigan
Ann Arbor, Michigan, April 21, 2004
11) James DeSpirito, Harris L.Edge, Paul Weinacht and Jubaraj Sahu “Computational fluid
dynamic analysis of a Missile with Grid Fins” Journal of spacecraft and rockets. Vol. 38,
No.5 Sept – Oct 2001.