EVALUATION OF AERODYNAMIC

COEFFICIENTS
OF FINNED PROJECTILE
Dissertation Submitted for Masters Degree
Candidate: Zahid Maqbool
Supervisor: Prof. Xu Yuan Ming

Presentation Layout

Background & Motivation

Objectives
Governing Equations
Grid Generation
Turbulence Modeling
Density Based Explicit Solver
Simulation of Finned Projectile

Background & Motivation

Aerodynamic characteristics traditionally have been

predicted by semi empirical methods or have been
determined from experiments.
It is now feasible to use computational methods for
different forms of Navier-Stokes Equations to compute the
flow-field around configurations.
In recent years, turbulence modeling methods have been
widely used to effectively resolve the complex flow
features of flight vehicle.

Objectives

Inviscid and viscous computation by using flux difference

scheme and different limiters.
Comparison of Performances of Roe flux difference and
advection upstream splitting method (AUSM).

Governing Equations

The governing equations in the present study are the NavierStokes equations.
The equations of motion are transformed from physical space (x, y,
z) to computational space (, , ) by the following relations:
=t
= (t, x, y, z)
= (t, x, y, z)
= (t, x, y, z)
After transformation, the three dimensional Navier-Stokes
equation in computational space for compressible flows is
expressed in nondimensional flux vector form as:
5

Cont
Q E F G Ev Fv Gv

Where
Q

Q
J

1
E tQ x E y F zG
J
1
F tQ x E y F zG
J
1
G tQ x E y F zG
J

1
Ev x Ev y Fv zGv
J
1
Fv x Ev y Fv zGv
J
1
Gv x Ev y Fv zGv
J

Where J is the Jacobian of transformation, and E, F, G and Ev , Fv ,

Gv are the nondimensional inviscid and viscous flux vectors
6
respectively defined by:

Cont
.

u
Q v

w
e
t

, E uv

uw

p
)
u
t

vu
wu

F v 2 p , G wv

w2 p
vw

p
)
v
( et p ) w
t

0
xx
xy

Ev

xz

u xx v xy w xz qx

0
yx

Gv

zz

u zx v zy w zz qz

yy

yz

u v w q
yy
yz
y
yx

Fv

0
zx
zy

Cont
Assuming the gas to be perfect, we have
et

1
u 2 v 2 w2 p ( 1)
2

ij

ui u j 2 uk
Re x j xi 3 xk ij

qi

T
Re Pr( 1) M 2 xi

U L
Re

Pr

c p
k

And absolute viscosity is computed by Sutherlands law given by

1.4586 10 6 T1.5

T 110.4
8

Numerical Method

Present numerical methods for the prediction of

aerodynamic characteristics range from engineering
methods to the solution of full Navier-Stokes equations.
Most calculations presented based on either engineering
methods or linear potential theory tends to have severe
limitations when it comes to dealing with the aerodynamic
non-linearities.

Hierarchy of flow-field models

10

Grid Generation

In order to utilize CFD techniques, it is necessary to

replace the spatial domain of the interest into a structured
or unstructured discrete domain, depending on the solution
method employed to solve the problem.
This spatial domain conversion process is very important
for many reasons. Depending on how the domain is
discretized and grid points are controlled, the solutions
obtained using an appropriate solution scheme may be not
so accurate, due to many errors, such as discretization,
and interpolation errors.
11

Structured Grid Generation

A structured mesh is characterized by regular connectivity

that can be expressed as a two or three dimensional array.
This restricts the element choices to quadrilaterals in 2D or
hexahedra in 3D. The regularity of the connectivity allows
us to conserve space since neighborhood relationships are
defined by the storage arrangement.
Even though there are some advantages of employing
structured grids due to their simplicity, availability of code,
and suitability for multi-grid and finite difference methods,
it is very difficult to generate a structured grid for complex
configurations, such as a complete aircraft.
12

Unstructured Grid Generation

An unstructured mesh characterized by irregular

connectivity is not readily expressed as a two or three
dimensional array in computer memory. This allows for
any possible element that a solver might be able to use.
Compared to structured meshes, the storage requirements
for an unstructured mesh can be substantially larger since
the neighborhood connectivity must be explicitly stored.
Although unstructured grid generation is considered to be
well-advanced over the last fifteen years, further
improvements in efficiency and robustness are desired.
13

Hybrid Grid Generation

A hybrid mesh is a mesh that contains structured portions

and unstructured portions. Note that this definition requires
knowledge of how the mesh is stored (and used). There is
disagreement as to the correct application of the terms
"hybrid" and "mixed." The term "mixed" is usually applied
to meshes that contain elements associated with structured
meshes and elements associated with unstructured meshes
(presumably stored in an unstructured fashion).

14

Turbulence Modeling

Turbulence could be thought of as instability of laminar

flow that occurs at high Reynolds numbers (Re ). Such
instabilities origin form interactions between non-linear
inertial terms and viscous terms in N-S equation. These
interactions are rotational, fully time-dependent and fully
three-dimensional.
Nowadays turbulent flows may be computed using several
different approaches. Either by solving the Reynoldsaveraged Navier-Stokes equations with suitable models
for turbulent quantities or by computing them directly.
15

Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)

Models

Linear eddy-viscosity models (EVM)

One assumes that the turbulent stress is proportional to the
mean rate of strain. Further more eddy viscosity is derived
from turbulent transport equations (usually k + one other
quantity).
Non-linear eddy-viscosity models (NLEVM)
Turbulent stress is modeled as a non-linear function of
mean velocity gradients. Model is set to mimic response of
turbulence to certain important types of strain.

16

Reynolds-Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS)

Models

Differential stress models (DSM)

This category consists of Reynolds-stress transport models
(RSTM) or second-order closure models (SOC). One is
required to solve transport equations for all turbulent
stresses.

17

Computation of fluctuating quantities

Large-eddy simulation (LES)

One computes time-varying flow, but models sub-gridscale motions.

Direct numerical simulation (DNS)

No modeling what so ever is applied. One is required to

resolve the smallest scales of the flow as well.
Models computing fluctuation quantities resolve shorter
length scales than models solving RANS equations. Hence
they have the ability to provide better results. However they
have a demand of much greater computer power.

18

Choosing a Turbulence Model

It is an unfortunate fact that no single turbulence model is

universally accepted as being superior for all classes of
problems. The choice of turbulence model will depend on
considerations such as the physics encompassed in the
flow, the established practice for a specific class of
problem, the level of accuracy required, the available
computational resources, and the amount of time available
for the simulation. To make the most appropriate choice of
model for our application, we need to understand the
capabilities and limitations of the various options.
19

Shear-Stress Transport (SST) K- Model

The shear-stress transport (SST) K- RANS linear eddy

model was developed by Menter to effectively blend the
robust and accurate formulation of the K- model in the
near-wall region with the free-stream independence of the
K- model in the far field. To achieve this, the K- model
is converted into a K- formulation.
SST K- model is more accurate and reliable for a wider
class of flows (e.g., adverse pressure gradient flows,
airfoils, transonic shock waves) than the standard K-
model.
20

Computational Effort: CPU Time and Solution

Behavior

In terms of computation, the Spalart-Allmaras model is the

least expensive turbulence model of the options provided
in FLUENT, since only one turbulence transport equation
is solved.
Compared with the K- and K- models, the RSM
requires additional memory and CPU time due to the
increased number of the transport equations for Reynolds
stresses.

21

Extend of Turbulence modeling

22

Density Based Explicit Solver

Density based solver is used for the computation of

subsonic, supersonic and hypersonic flow fields. It is used
to solve and operate for a wide range of flow conditions. In
this method the velocity field is obtained from the
momentum equations. In the density-based approach, the
continuity equation is used to obtain the density field while
the pressure field is determined from the equation of state.
The density-based solver solves the governing equations of
continuity, momentum, energy and species transport
simultaneously (i.e., coupled together).
23

Control Volume Technique

Division of the domain into discrete control volumes using

a computational grid.
Integration of the governing equations on the individual
control volumes to construct algebraic equations for the
discrete dependent variables ("unknowns') such as
velocities, pressure, temperature, and conserved scalars.
Linearization of the discretized equations and solution of
the resultant linear equation system to yield updated values
of the dependent variables.

24

Solution Method

Update the fluid properties based on the current solution. (If

the calculation has just begun, the fluid properties will be
updated based on the initialized solution.)
Solve the continuity, momentum, and (where appropriate)
energy and species equations simultaneously.
Where appropriate, solve equations for scalars such as
turbulence and radiation using the previously updated
values of the other variables.
When inter-phase coupling is to be included, update the
source terms in the appropriate continuous phase equations
with a discrete phase trajectory calculation.
Check for convergence of the equation set.
25

Coupled System of Equations

In the density-based solution method we solve the coupled

system of equations (continuity, momentum, energy and
species equations) by using, the coupled-explicit
formulation.
The discrete, non-linear governing equations are linearized
to produce a system of equations for the dependent
variables in every computational cell. The resultant linear
system is then solved to yield an updated flow-field
solution.

26

Explicit Formulation

In explicit formulation of the density-based solver, each

equation in the coupled set of governing equations is
linearized explicitly. However, this system of equations is
explicit in the unknown dependent variables. For example,
the x -momentum equation is written such that the updated
x velocity is a function of existing values of the field
variables.
Because of this, a linear equation solver is not needed.
Instead, the solution is updated using a multi-stage (RungeKutta) solver.
27

Setting Under-Relaxation Factors

The pressure-based solver uses under-relaxation of

equations to control the update of computed variables per
iteration. This means that all equations solved using the
pressure-based solver, including the non-coupled equations
solved by the density-based solver (turbulence and other
scalars), will have under-relaxation factors associated with
them.
In FLUENT, the default under-relaxation parameters for all
variables are set to values that are near optimal for the
largest possible number of cases.
28

Overview of the density based solution

method

29

Simulation Of Finned Projectile

Inviscid and Viscous Computation by using Flux

Difference Scheme
The aerodynamic coefficients of finned projectile are
evaluated using Inviscid model, viscous turbulence K-
SST model and high order low dissipative Flux difference
scheme of Roe against experimental flow fields on
different angle of attacks at supersonic Mach number. The
numerical predictions include lift, drag and pitching
moment coefficients. Comparison of two geometries, cone
cylinder and cone cylinder with fins is provided in order to
study the effects on the aerodynamics characteristics by the
addition of the lifting surfaces, and the same is compared
30
with the available experimental data.

Geometrical Models

The supersonic projectile model in this study is a basic

finner; a cone-cylinder-finned configuration and cone
cylinder body. The length of the projectile without fins is 6
calibers and the diameter is 40 mm. the length of fined
body is 10 calibers and diameter is 30 mm.
Four fins are located on the back end of the projectile. A
structured computational mesh was generated for this
projectile, and efforts are focused to cluster most of the grid
points near wall region to capture the boundary layer and
control the Y value for turbulence model.
31

Cone/cylinder model without fins

32

Cone/cylinder model with fins

33

Generation of grids

The algebraic method is used to generate three-dimensional

boundary-fitted grids for configurations used. The height of
the first grid next to the body is controlled, and the grids
near to the body are normalized.
To fins or fin/cylinder combination, the H-H and C-type
boundary- fitted grids are generated at first in order to
simulate the aerodynamic forces accurately.

34

Algebraic mesh on projectile nose and fins

35

Cont
Grid
Multi-block, structured grid generation is used to generate the
grid around projectile configuration.
The grid is divided into eight computational blocks.
The body of projectile with fins consists of four blocks.
The mesh is generated on wall such that y+ should be within
limits of turbulence model.

36

Flux Limiters
Following three limiters are used for these computations:

Minmod limiter

VanLeer limiter

Osher-Chakravarthy
The Minmod and Van Leer limiters are symmetric.

37

Results
Contours of Mach no. and density at Mach 4 and angle of attack
20 Deg

38

Results
Contours of Mach no. and temperature at Mach 4 and angle of
attack 10 Deg

39

Results
Contours of dynamic pressure and density at Mach 4 and angle of
attack 10 Deg

40

Results

41

Results

42

Results
Contours of Mach number (AUSM) at Mach. 4, angle of attack 1
Degree

43

Results
Contours of density and pressure (AUSM) at Mach. 4, angle of
attack 1 Degree

44

Results

45

Results
Contours of Mach. number at Mach. 4, angle of attack 4 Degree

46

Results
Contours of density and pressure at Mach. 4, angle of attack 4
Degree

47

Results

48

Results

49

Conclusion

CFD analysis of projectile body with and without fins has been
performed by considering inviscid and viscous supersonic flow by
using Roe and AUSM schemes with three different limiters.
Coefficients of Drag, Lift, and pitching moments increased with
increasing angle of attack. Computations performed on Euler or
non viscous model yielded under predicted values of the lift, drag
and pitching moment coefficients.
On the other hand, the above mentioned coefficients possess
reasonable agreement with the experimental values by using
viscous turbulence model the above mentioned coefficients
possess reasonable agreement with the experimental values.
50

Cont

Both Roe and AUSM schemes and limiters capture and simulate
the high-pressure gradient flows having discontinuities and
shocks and suppress the oscillations and provide stable solution.
The scheme used is the 2nd order low dissipative, so it works
excellently with these limiters in regions of high-pressure
gradient. Roe scheme and these limiters are excellent for solving
the hyperbolic equations with discontinuities and high pressure
gradient flows.
The K- SST turbulent model is particularly suitable for these
types of flows and even it will be stable at low quality of the
mesh.
51

Thank You

52

Cone/cylinder model without fins

Aerodynamic Characteristics

53

Cone/cylinder model with fins Aerodynamic

Characteristics

54

Aerodynamic coefficient measurements

Cone/cylinder model with/without fins
MODEL
CONFIGURATION
AND ANGLE OF
ATTACK SWEEP
DEG

MODEL
ROLL
ANGLE

MACH
NUMBER

CAO

XCPO

CNA

CMA

CONE/
CYL -5 to+13

0.0

1.97

0.373

-4.1822

2.879

12.041

CONE/
CYL -5 to+13

0.0

1.98

0.367

-4.1 176

2.985

12.293

CONE/
CYL -5to+13

0.0

1.98

0.367

-4.1439

2.918

12.093

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-6to+13

0.0

1.99

0.542

-2.0684

7.080

14.644

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-6to+13

22.5

1.99

0.544

-2.0769

7.155

14.859

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-6to + 13

45.0

1.99

0.544

-2.0753

6.959

14.442

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-6to+13

67.5

1.99

0.540

-2.0815

6.994

14.558

CONE/

0.0

2.48

0.287

-3.7959

55
3.154

1 1.972

PER RAD PER

RAD

DEG

Cont
MODEL
CONFIGURATION
AND ANGLE OF
ATTACK SWEEP
DEG

MODEL
ROLL
ANGLE

MACH
NUMBER

CAO

XCPO

CNA

CMA

PER RAD PER

RAD

DEG

CONE/
-6to+13

CYL-FINS 0.0

2.45

0.395

-2.1479

6.272

13.473

CONE/
-6to+13

CYL-FINS 22.5

2.47

0.396

-2.1566

6.355

13.705

CONE/
-6to+13

CYL-FINS 45.0

2.48

0.398

-2.1513

6.371

13.707

CONE/
-6to+13

CYL-FINS 67.5

2.48

0.403

-2.1437

6.572

14.089

0.0

2.98

0.249

-3.5732

3.461

12.366

CONE/
-5to+ 13

CYL-FINS 0.0

2.97

0.371

-2.2443

6.321

14.187

CONE/
-6to+I3

CYL-FINS 0.0

2.98

0.355

-2.2624

6.289

14.228

2.98

0.372

-2.2462

56
6.405

14.387

CONE/
CYL -5to+13

CONE/ CYL-FINS

22.5

Cont
MODEL
CONFIGURATION
AND ANGLE OF
ATTACK SWEEP
DEG

MODEL
ROLL
ANGLE

MACH
NUMBER

CAO

XCPO

CNA

CMA

PER RAD PER

RAD

DEG

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-5TO+13

45.0

2.98

0.357

-2.2447

6.296

14.133

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-6TO+13

45.0

2.98

0.358

-2.2415

6.346

14.226

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-5TO+13

67.5

2.98

0.375

-2.2272

6.458

14.383

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-6TO+13

67.5

2.98

0.358

-2.2215

6.465

14.361

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-6TO+13

67.5

2.98

0.377

-2.2567

6.358

14.347

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-6TO+13

67.5

2.98

0.369

-2.2541

6.401

14.428

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-6TO+13

67.5

2.94

0.343

-2.2560

6.180

13.942

CONE/

67.5

2.94

0.353

-2.2587

57
6.221

14.052

CYL-FINS

Cont
MODEL
CONFIGURATION
AND ANGLE OF
ATTACK SWEEP
DEG

MODEL
ROLL
ANGLE

MACH
NUMBER

CAO

XCPO

CNA

CMA

PER RAD PER

RAD

DEG

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-6TO+13

67.5

2.94

0.346

-2.2584

6.232

14.074

CONE/
CYL -5to+l 3

0.0

3.50

0.225

-3.5407

3.688

13.058

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-5TO+I3

0.0

3.50

0.325

-2.3779

6.067

14.427

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-5TO+13

22.5

3.50

0.333

-2.4013

6.184

14.850

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-5TO+13

45.0

3.50

0.319

-2.3690

6.085

14.416

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-5TO+13

67.5

3.50

0.325

-2.3578

6.110

14.407

CONE/
CYL -5to+ 13

0.0

3.99

0.207

-3.3630

3.748

12.604

CONE/

0.0

3.99

0.213

-3.3237

58
3.850

12.796

Cont
MODEL
CONFIGURATION
AND ANGLE OF
ATTACK SWEEP
DEG

MODEL
ROLL
ANGLE

MACH
NUMBER

CAO

XCPO

CNA

CMA

PER RAD PER

RAD

DEG

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-5TO+13

0.0

3.99

0.293

-2.3411

5.851

13.698

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-5TO+13

22.5

3.98

0.300

-2.3363

5.775

13.493

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-5TO+13

45.0

3.98

0.299

-2.3396

5.664

13.253

CONE / CYL-FINS
-5TO+13

67.5

3.98

0.300

-2.3392

5.708

13.351

CONE/ CYL-FINS
-5TO+13

67.5

3.98

0.291

-2.3244

5.428

12.618

59

Influence of Mach number and Roll angle

60

Roll Angle Negligible Influence at Mach 4

61

Summery of Aerodynamic Coefficients at

Mach 4

62

Cont

63

Cont

64