Proceedings of ICFD 10: Tenth International Congress of Fluid Dynamics December 16-19, 2010, Stella Di Mare Sea Club

Hotel, Ain Soukhna, Red Sea, Egypt

ICFD10-EG-3044
Numerical Study of Geometry Effects on Nose for a Supersonic Missile at Mach 2
Kamyar Mansour Ziba Eghlima

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Amirkabir University of Technology, Tehran, Iran, 15875-4413

ABSTRACT This paper studied numerical analysis for a typical land to land missile with conventional geometry. The goal is to obtain the flow pattern about missile with ogive and parabolic shape noses and compare the results with other references. The computational Roe method is applied and it is found that parabolic nose shape at Mach number 2 has less drag coefficient than ogive shape one. However the normal force coefficient, CN is approximately equal in both nose shapes at different angles of attack. KEYWORDS: Supersonic, Pressure distribution, Nose, Parabolic, Ogive. INTRODUCTION This paper studied numerical analysis for a typical land to land missile with conventional geometry. The boundary conditions is used for this work are the conditions for this supersonic missile in flight. This article tries to compute the results for different nose geometries. The goal is to see the flow pattern about missile with ogive and parabolic shape noses and compare the results with other references. First, we report the results for an ogive shape nose which is also studied in ref [1] and ref [2] using USER3D and Flu3m methods. The second nose has studied is a parabolic shape which we have added in this article. In this study first we consider ogive nose geometry and the numerical Roe method is applied for the same conditions as ref [1] and then comparison of these two results is presented. We report also the results for the parabolic nose. The nose of supersonic missiles especially at high Mach number plays important role in performance of missile and the possibility of severe heating effects beyond the speed of sound speed (Hypersonic). Therefore a study of aerodynamic of nose shape in supersonic missiles is required for increasing the speed up to desired Mach number. Our calculation shows how the results change for different parameters like angles of attack and nose shapes. The desired type of simple fin missile at

Supersonic flight conditions at Mach 2 and the altitude of 22,800 meters has been considered and compared with the results of ref [1] and ref [2]. METHODOLOGY In this study as indicated before, we used Roe method to solve inviscid supersonic flow over a conventional missile and compared to results of ref [1] and ref [2] (which uses USER3D and FLU3M methods). The geometry we studied for the conventional missile is shown in figure 1. The nose section is a tangent ogive followed by a cylindrical body and four straight tail fins. The fins have a constant thickness ratio of t / c = 0.07 along the span. The three dimensional grid is used for this study as shown in figure 2. This study has been done for different angles of attack from 0 to 20 deg for ogive and parabolic shape noses. GEOMETRY AND GRID GENERATION The geometry as mentioned before for the conventional missile is seen in figure 1. The nose section in this figure is a tangent ogive followed by a cylindrical body and four straight tail fins. The fins have a constant thickness ratio of t/c=0.07 along the span. For simplicity the diameter D is set to be equal to 1. Second case we study has the same geometry but nose section has been replaced by a parabolic shape. The three dimensional grids around the missile geometries are generated as shown in figure 2.The grid generated on the surfaces of the noses of parabolic and ogive missiles are shown in figure3.Outer boundaries; inlet, outlet and sides of domain are assumed pressure far-field boundaries. The three dimensional grid generated for this geometry, given in figure 2, has 761900 cells with 794652 nodes and 2318295 faces, for proper configuration. In this study Mach number at outer boundaries set to be 2.0 and ideal gas equations and inviscid flow was assumed. Initial temperature in boundaries set to 300 K.

Copyright 2010 by ICFD 10

THE GOVERNING EQUATIONS The time dependent Euler equations for an ideal compressible fluid in the absence of external forces are given in the integral form as:

QdV + F (Q).ndS = 0. t Here represents the physical domain with a boundary . o u n u x F (Q).n = (V .n) v + p n y , Q = v w n w z e 0 e + p

where n x , n y , n z are the Cartesian components of the exterior surface unit normal n on the boundary . Pressure can be expressed as:

1 p = ( 1) e (u 2 + v 2 + w 2 ). 2
In this work we solve only steady Euler equations by Roe method [3] for an ideal compressible fluid. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The overall flow pattern around the missile at M=2.0, =20 and no roll (=0) condition, is presented in figure 4, which shows the pressure coefficient contour distribution over ogive nose and parabolic nose missile. These contours are shown more clearly at figure 5. It is seen that the flow over parabolic nose missile is different from flow over ogive nose one. The behavior of the flow at high angle of attack, =20 is given in figure 6, which shows the cross flow static temperature contours obtained at an axial location of x=14.6 m. It is to be noticed that this is purely an inviscid behavior since it is an Euler solver, and that these vortices are mainly coming from the rotational behavior of the flow caused by the entropy production due to the cross flow shocks. However, the same structures are obtained using a NavierStokes code [4], and solving the flow both as a laminar or a turbulent flow with the BaldwinLomax turbulence model, and very good agreement with the experimental results are achieved. At 10 of angle of attack, the situation would be much different, since there are no cross flow shocks, and so no vortical flow would be founded by the Euler solution. Also for the ogive nose and parabolic nose missiles, there is approximately similar contour over this section. The distributions of pressure coefficient Cp with axial distance x, at 20 angle of attack, both on the windward and on the leeward sides of the body surface for both nose types are given in figure 7 up to a distance of 14.66 which is upstream the fin location. Up to this location, the agreement between the predictions of our method and the method used in ref [1] and ref [2] is very good.

Figure 8 shows the variation of the normal force coefficient CN with angle of attack, and also compares the present results with the results of USER3D method in Ref [1] and FLU3M method in ref [2]. It is observed that all of the results obtained are in good agreements with Ref [1] and ref [2]. It is observed that the results of this study are close to the results obtained by FLU3M (deviation less than 10%). The normal force coefficient CN has approximately same value and there is little difference in both nose shapes at different angles of attack, but it is observed tangible difference between the results of present study and the results of USER3D method. The variation of the Fore drag coefficient, CD with angle of attack is given in figure 9. As can be seen in figure 9, drag coefficient values for parabolic nose missile is considerably less than drag coefficient of ogive nose missile at different angles of attack. The data for comparison between two missile geometries is not available but in ref [5] it is observed that parabolic nose shape of fineness ratio 3 has almost less fore drag coefficient than other nose shapes in supersonic speeds. So it is obtained acceptable results for this missile. Figure 10 shows variation of Cp with x for different angles of attack at wind side of missiles. Variation between the curves of ogive nose and parabolic nose missiles is almost the same for different angles of attack. It is observed that cp curve for parabolic nose missile at the nose section is different relative to ogive nose missile. The variation of the pitching moment coefficient, about 8 times diameter D in axial position, with respect to the angle attack is given in figure11. Remarkable agreement between the our methods and other works is observed up to 10 degrees angle of attack, and from 10 up to 20 degrees angles of attack the result of present study and experimental values are agreeable (ref [6]). Although we used Roe method[3] in this study one can obtain similar results by using Jameson method[7]. CONCLUSIONS Noses with different profiles have different aerodynamic effects on flow. It seems that among the studies presented here, parabolic nose shape at Mach number 2 has drag coefficient less than ogive shape one. Therefore is important to see each one of the geometry noses what other effect has on the rocket. It seems at Mach 2 the results changes as the angle of attack increases. Also flow over parabolic nose missile is more steady and consistent and has less pressure gradient over its nose and body. But normal force coefficient, CN is approximately equal in both nose shapes at different angles of attack. Consequently, deformation of nose for this case has a considerably effect on the drag force of missile but not considerable effect on the normal force.

Copyright 2010 by ICFD 10

REFFERENCES [1]. Erdal Oktay, Nafiz Alemdaroglu, Erhan Tarhan, PatrickChampigny, Unstructured Euler solutions for missile aerodynamics: Aerosp. Sci. Technol. 4 (2000)
[2] Jouet C., dEspiney P., 3D Laminar and Turbulent Computations with the NavierStokes Solver FLU3M, ONERA, TP-No1993-105, 1993.

[3] Roe,P.L (1981b)."Approximate Riemann Solver,parameter vectors and difference schemes." Journal Computational Physics,43,357-72. [4]. Borrel M., dEspiney P., Jouet C., Supersonic Vertical Flows around an Ogive-Cylinder: Laminar and Turbulent Computations, First European Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Brussels, Belgium, 1992. [5].Edward W. Perkins, Leland H. Gorgensen, investigation of the drag of various axially symmetric shapes of fineness ratio 3 for mach numbers from 1.24 to 3.67, NACA RM-a52h28, 1952. [6] Champigny P., Test Data on a Non-Circular Body for Subsonic, Transonic and Supersonic Mach Numbers, A Selection of Experimental Test Cases for the Validation of CFD Codes, AGARD Advisory Report No 303, AGARDAR- 303 vol. II, August 1994, pp. C6.1C6.11. [7] A. Jameson, W. Schmidt and E. Turkel, Numerical Solution of the Euler Equations by Finite Volume Methods Using Runge-Kutta Time-Stepping Schemes Technical -Report AIAA-81-1259, AIAA 14th Fluid and Plasma Dynamics Conference, palo Alto, California, June19

Copyright 2010 by ICFD 10

Figure1. Conventional missile geometry with four tail fins.

Figure 2. The grid generated for the conventional missile.

Copyright 2010 by ICFD 10

Figure 3. The 3D grid generated on the surfaces of the noses of parabolic and ogive missiles .

Figure 4. Flow solution (Pressure coeficient contour) on ogive nose missile(right picture) and parabolic nose missile (left picture)

at M=2.0 and =20.

Figure 5. pressure contours on noses and bodies of ogive nose (upper pic) and parabolic nose (lower pic) missile at M=2.0 and =20.

Copyright 2010 by ICFD 10

Figure 6. Contours of Static Temperature at M=2.0 and =20 and X=14.6 m about body of missile.

Figure 7. Variation of pressure coefficient on the body surface with axial distance at =20.

Copyright 2010 by ICFD 10

Figure 8.Variation of Normal force coefficient with angle of attack for ogive and parabolic nose missile.

Figure 9.Variation of fore drag coefficient with angle of attack for ogive and parabolic nose missile.

Copyright 2010 by ICFD 10

Figure 10.Variation of pressure coefficient with axial distance for ogive and parabolic nose missile at different angles of attack for

windside of missile.

Figure 11. Variation of pitching moment coefficient, with angle of attack.

Copyright 2010 by ICFD 10