You are on page 1of 10

See

discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270308389

Investigations on Missile Configuration


Aerodynamic Characteristics for Design
Optimization

Article in Transactions of the Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences July 2014
DOI: 10.2322/tjsass.57.210

CITATIONS READS

3 480

4 authors:

Nhu Van Nguyen Maxim Tyan


Viettel Aerospace Institute-VTX Konkuk University
97 PUBLICATIONS 81 CITATIONS 60 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Jae-Woo Lee Yung-Hwan Byun


Konkuk University Konkuk University
479 PUBLICATIONS 2,422 CITATIONS 74 PUBLICATIONS 188 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Korea Light Aircraft Development View project

Uncertainty Aerospace Design Optimization Using Advanced Variable Complexity Modeling Method
View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Nhu Van Nguyen on 22 September 2015.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file. All in-text references underlined in blue are added to the original document
and are linked to publications on ResearchGate, letting you access and read them immediately.
Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci.
Vol. 57, No. 4, pp. 210218, 2014

Investigations on Missile Conguration Aerodynamic Characteristics


for Design Optimization

By Nhu-Van NGUYEN, Maxim TYAN, Jae-Woo L EE and Yung-Hwan BYUN


Department of Aerospace Information Engineering, Konkuk University, Seoul, Korea

(Received February 4th, 2013)

The integrated missile design optimization process is proposed by implementing the aerodynamics database (Aero
DB) and tactical missile design (TMD) spreadsheet to obtain a quick and relatively accurate optimal air intercept missile
conguration at the conceptual design stage. The Aero DB is constructed to replace an existing aerodynamics analysis
module in the TMD spreadsheet and to provide stability and control coecients as constraints for improving missile
range performance based on the body-wing-tail conguration baseline. Sensitivity analysis is performed on an entire
missile geometry and ight condition variables to eliminate the small eects of design variables on missile range and
constraints under a PHX ModerCenter 10.1 integration environment. The optimal missile conguration shows
27.8% improvement in total range compared with a body-wing-tail conguration baseline while all constraints are
satised. The proposed integration of the missile design program using Aero DB demonstrates more accurate and reliable
results which are validated by high-delity analysis ANSYS Fluent 13 on the optimal missile conguration compared
with TMD aerodynamics analysis results. The maximum dierence between ANSYS Fluent and Missile DATCOM is
11.76% at 10 degrees of AoA compared with 37.97% for TMD aerodynamics analysis and ANSYS Fluent dierence.

Key Words: Aerodynamics Database, Air Intercept Missile (AIM) Aerodynamics, Missile DATCOM 97,
Missile Design Optimization

Nomenclature h: launch altitude


tdome : dome thickness
: side slip angle tmotor : motor thickness
: roll angle t=cW : wing max. thickness ratio
a : aileron deection angle t=ctail : tail max. thickness ratio
e : elevator deection angle SW : wing area
r : rudder deection angle WL : launch weight
W : wing taper ratio Wboost : boost weight
tail : tail taper ratio Wcruise : cruise weight
AoA: angle of attack XCG : longitudinal center of gravity
ARW : wing aspect ratio XW : wing longitudinal location
ARtail : tail aspect ratio Xtail : tail longitudinal location
CA : axial force coecient AIM: air intercept missile
CL : lift coecient AAM: air-to-air missile
CN : normal force coecient SQP: sequential quadratic programming
Cm : pitching moment coecient SM: static margin
CDo : zero-lift drag coecient TMD: tactical missile design
Cl : static lateral derivative
Cn : static directional derivative 1. Introduction
Cm : static pitching derivative
Dbody : missile body diameter The U.S. Air Force Missile DATCOM Ver. 97 software1)
Dhemi : nose bluntness is used widely in stability and aerodynamic analyses for
Isp : specic impulse wing-bodies and tails.2) Basically, Missile DATCOM is an
L=D: lift to drag ratio engineering level computer code that predicts the aerody-
Lmissile : missile length namic forces, moments, and stability derivatives of axisym-
LN : nose length metric and non-axisymmetric missile congurations for a
M: mach number wide range of attack angles and Mach numbers. The capa-
Mi : initial Mach number bilities of missile DATCOM are comprehensive in comput-
Mter : terminal Mach number ing a wide range of ight conditions from subsonic to hyper-
sonic speeds, and control surface deections from 35 to 35
2014 The Japan Society for Aeronautical and Space Sciences
Jul. 2014 N.-V. N GUYEN et al.: Investigations on Missile Conguration Aerodynamic Characteristics for Design Optimization 211

degrees.1) Moreover, Missile DATCOM is also used for pre-


dicting and evaluating missile aerodynamic characteristics
at high angles of attack up to 90 degrees.3,4) In addition,
Missile DATCOM is considered to be an aerodynamic
module for various missile conceptual design applications
such as the preliminary design of liquid-propellant missile
system with single and multi-objective optimization5,6) and
for supersonic missile preliminary design7) in which it
provides faster and more competitive results compared to
the other aerodynamic code-Aerodsn.6) Nowadays, missile
aerodynamic databases are used as a very important module
for missile simulation and autopilot.8) Besides that, aerody-
namic databases are widely applicable for missiles, aircraft
conceptual design and simulation,8,9) and wind-induced
pressure time series on the envelope of various low build-
ings.10) There are many tools to construct the aerodynamic Fig. 1. Aero DB construction process for an arbitrary missile.
databases which are wind-tunnel test,9) and to use high-
delity analysis for some critical lateral jet missile condi-
tions.11) However, to construct aerodynamic database used
for missiles, aircraft simulation and autopilot require large
computational cases and time to interpolate accurately dur-
ing dierent ight conditions. Hence, the computation cost
and accuracy of problem must be compromised before pro- Fig. 2. Body-wing-tail missile conguration for missile DATCOM
ceeding to construct the database for applications. There- validation.12)
fore, the aerodynamic database (Aero DB) program is devel-
oped for arbitrary missile by implementing the missile
DATCOM 97 as a core analysis. The pre- and post-processes 2.1. Aero DB program pre-process
are programed by MATLAB to arrange inputs and outputs The pre-process is coded to read arbitrary missile cong-
into the right format for the ight simulation and missile uration and ight condition and save automatically into the
conceptual design optimization. missile DATCOM input format. The Mach number, angle of
In this study, the validation of body-wing-tail congura- attack and sideslip angle calculation range are specied in
tion is performed on Missile DATCOM comparing with this stage to create Aero DB in the next step.
an experimental data. The short and medium range missile 2.2. Execution and checking process
medium range conguration are selected to generate Aero Missile DATCOM 97 is the aerodynamic analysis code in
DB and to investigate missile aerodynamic characteristics. the Aero DB program. The validation of Missile DATCOM
The missile conceptual design optimization process imple- 97 and the checking process are presented to ensure that the
menting Aero DB program is proposed and demonstrated accurate aerodynamics data and the correct output format
by maximizing a total range of a baseline missile body- are provided for the next application.
wing-tail conguration. The validation of optimal missile 2.2.1. Validations of Missile DATCOM 97
conguration is performed using the high-delity analysis The eorts are performed to reproduce the validation
ANSYS Fluent to demonstrate the eectiveness of the pro- of Missile DATCOM 97 using a body-wing-tail congura-
posed missile design optimization process. tion as shown in Fig. 2 with the experimental data and
AeroPrediction 98 (AP98).1214) The AeroPrediction 98
2. Missile Aero DB Program Development (AP98) or current version AP0915) released in 2009 is a
semi-empirical code enhanced by an improved boundary-
An accurate aerodynamics database for an arbitrary mis- layer displacement model and renement of several existing
sile is extremely important and necessary for missile guided methods.15) The normal force and pitching moment coe-
simulation, trajectory and design. Therefore, the missile cients of body-wing-tail conguration analysis results show
Aero DB program is developed and presented. The Aero good agreement with the experimental data and AP98, and
DB construction process is shown in Fig. 1. The Aero DB the maximum error between the predicted data and experi-
program is composed of pre-process, execution and check- ment data is approximately 5.2%.13,14) The normal force
ing, and post-process. The Aero DB program is written coecient for body-wing-tail conguration validation is
using MATLAB . Missile DATCOM is implemented as a presented in Fig. 3(a) in which a similar trend of Missile
main analysis tool in the Aero DB program. In addition, DATCOM result is observed while comparing with the
the investigations on aerodynamic characteristics of the experiment data and AP98. The pitching moment coecient
arbitrary missile are presented. comparison shows a right trend and good agreement with
experiment data at less than 30 degrees of AoA in Fig. 3(b).
212 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 57, No. 4

40 0
Experiment
DATCOM 97 -10
30 AP98
-20
CN

Cm
20
-30
Experiment
10 -40 DATCOM 97
AP98
0 -50
0 10 20 30 40 50 0 10 20 30 40
AoA (deg.) AoA (deg.)
(a) CN at M =1.5 and =45 (b) Cm at M =1.5 and =45

Fig. 3. Validation results for body-wing-tail conguration baseline.

It shows a bigger gap while AoA is larger than 30 degrees Table 1. Calculation range of the medium range conguration.
compared with AP98. However, it is acceptable for con- M 0.7 0.9 1.1 2.0 3.0
structing Aero DB and a missile conceptual design stage.
AoA (deg) 40.0 17 values 40.0
Therefore, Missile DATCOM 97 is selected to construct
 (deg) 40.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0
Aero DB to implement for missile simulation and design op-
r (deg) 16.5 0.0 16.5
timization.
e (deg) 16.5 0.0 16.5
2.2.2. Checking process
The checking process is performed before reading and
writing the output le correctly into aero databases, and
Table 2. Calculation range of the short range conguration.
RW DB is programmed in MATLAB. The RW DB consists
of checking output format to detect the correct format form M 0.7 0.9 1.1 2.0 3.0
and reading into Aero DB. If the RW DB detects a dierent AoA (deg) 40.0 17 values 40.0
output format, users must go back to adjust inputs for  (deg) 40.0 20.0 0.0 20.0 40.0
Missile DATCOM. r (deg) 15.0 0.0 15.0
2.3. Aero DB program post-process e (deg) 15.0 0.0 15.0
The post-process is executed using the RW DB to write a (deg) 15.0 0.0 15.0
the missile outputs into the right format for ight simulation
and design optimization. The 17 available aerodynamic co-
ecients including the static and dynamics coecients are
presented in Aero DB. Aerodynamic coecients character-
istics are investigated.

3. Medium and Short Range Conguration Aero DB Fig. 4. Medium range missile conguration.14)

Constructions
3.1. Medium range conguration
The air-to-air missile is broadly classied into two The detailed conguration of the medium range type con-
groups. The rst group is designed to engage opposing guration14) and ight conditions in Table 1 and Fig. 4 are
aircraft at ranges of less than 30 km and are known as a modeled into the Missile DATCOM in order to generate
short-range or within visual range missiles. Most short range the medium range conguration aerodynamic database. A
missiles use infrared guidance called heat-seeking missiles. turbulent boundary layer and full base drag conditions are
The second group are beyond visual range missiles includ- assumed. Due to the requirements of ight simulation of
ing medium and long range missiles which tend to depend the medium range conguration aerodynamics data, this
on radar guidance. Therefore, the short range medium range study intends to build an aero-database of the medium range
conguration and medium range short range congura- conguration with detailed conguration of medium range
tion14) are selected to test the Aero DB program and to conguration for several critical ight conditions and for
investigate aerodynamics characteristics. The calculation dierent bank angles. Additionally, the n deections
ranges for the medium and short range conguration Aero are conducted with a range from 16:5 to 16.5 degrees
DB construction are shown in Tables 1 and 2, respectively. and a Reynolds number of 2  106 per foot.
The control surfaces of medium range conguration consist In Fig. 5, three aerodynamic coecients (the normal-
of rudder and elevator. The short range conguration is force, pitching-moment and axial-force coecients) are
composed of rudder, elevator and aileron surfaces. shown at an elevator deection of 0 with various Mach num-
bers ranging from 0.7 to 3.0. The rest of the aerodynamic
Jul. 2014 N.-V. N GUYEN et al.: Investigations on Missile Conguration Aerodynamic Characteristics for Design Optimization 213

2.5 M=0.7
M=0.9
M=1.1
2 M=2.0
M=3.0 Fig. 6. Short range missile conguration.14)
CA

1.5

The discontinuity around 30 degrees, which appears from


1 high subsonic up to Mach number of 1.1 shown in Fig. 5(a),
does not reect the real missile aerodynamics correctly. The
Missile DATCOM utilizes two distinct methods. The modi-
0.5
-40 -20 0 20 40 ed Allen and Perkins method is implemented for AoA
AoA below 30 degree, and the Jorgensens slender body theory
(a) CA at various Mach numbers is used for AoA above 30 degree.16,17) Hence, Missile
100
DATCOM results presenting the discontinuity around 30
M=0.7
degrees is due to the switchover in two method calculations.
M=0.9
M=1.1 However, the axial force coecient predicted by Missile
50 M=2.0 DATCOM still captures the tendency of missile aerody-
M=3.0
namic characteristics. When Mach number increases up to
CN

0 2.0 and 3.0, the main drag components are the wave drag
that has a reducing tendency based on potential theory and
-50 the leading-edge bluntness that has a small reduction while
increasing Mach number. Therefore, the trend of axial force
coecient is seen at Mach number of 2.0 and 3.0, as shown
-100
-40 -20 0 20 40 in Fig. 5(a).
AoA The normal force coecient increases when the AoA
(b) CN at various Mach numbers increases from 0 to 40 degrees, as shown in Fig. 5(b). How-
ever, the normal force coecient at the supersonic regime is
100 lower than at the subsonic and transonic regime. The reason
M=0.7
M=0.9 is that the stronger shocks occur at the supersonic ow;
M=1.1
50 M=2.0
therefore the normal force is reduced behind the stronger
M=3.0 shocks. The pitching moment coecient shows stability in
the longitudinal direction. When the nose of the medium
Cm

0
range conguration is up, the pitching moment coecient
is negative, as shown in Fig. 5(c).
-50 Three important aerodynamic coecients, axial, normal
and moment coecients, are presented and analyzed for dif-
-100 ferent ight conditions. These coecients show the right
-40 -20 0 20 40
AoA
trend and behavior of the medium range conguration.
(c) Cm at various Mach numbers The remaining fourteen medium range conguration aero-
dynamic coecients are stored in the database with a set
Fig. 5. Aerodynamic characteristics of medium range type conguration. of dierent sideslip angle, elevator and rudder.
3.2. Medium range missile short range conguration
coecients are also calculated with the same range of Mach The detailed short range conguration14) and ight condi-
numbers, AoA and control surface deection. tions in Table 2 and Fig. 6 are modeled into the Missile
In Fig. 5(a), the axial force coecients have similar DATCOM to predict and construct the aerodynamic data-
tendencies with body-wing-tail conguration results13) from base. A turbulent boundary layer and full base drag condi-
subsonic to supersonic regimes. The medium range cong- tions are assumed. Additionally, the n deections are con-
uration produces the lowest drag at Mach number of 0.7 ducted from 0 to 15 degrees and the Reynolds number is 2 
due to the main eects of skin friction, subsonic pressure 106 per foot.
drag and leading-edge bluntness considered in the Missile In Fig. 7, three aerodynamic coecients (the normal-
DATCOM method16,17) and then, it increases up to the Mach force, pitching-moment and axial-force coecients) are
number of 0.9 in which the wave drag starts having a small shown at the elevator deection of 0. The axial force coef-
contribution on total drag when shocks occur on the missile. cient has a similar behavior with medium range congura-
At the Mach number of 1.1, the axial force coecient tion. However, the highest axial force coecient variations
reaches the highest values. This is because the leading-edge are at Mach number of 2.0. The discontinuity around 30
bluntness drag increases and the wave drag contributes the degrees of AoA can be seen clearly up to Mach number of
large portion in the total drag at this Mach number. 1.1 in Fig. 7(a). That is due to the switchover between
214 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 57, No. 4

1 35
M=0.7
M=0.9 Wing-body-tail configuration
M=1.1 30 Short range configuration
0.8 M=2.0
M=3.0 25

20
0.6

CN
CA

15

0.4
10

5
0.2
-40 -20 0 20 40
AoA 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45
(a) CA at various Mach numbers
AoA (deg.)

50 Fig. 8. CN comparison at M 1:5 and  45 for body-wing-tail and


M=0.7
short range conguration.
M=0.9
M=1.1
M=2.0
M=3.0
The short range conguration is designed and aimed with
the most sophisticated radar guided air to air missile (AAM)
CN

0
and the aerodynamics performance as well. The short range
conguration has the same length as the body-wing-tail
conguration. However, the wing and n of the short range
conguration are designed to provide better performance
-50
-40 -20 0 20 40 and allow easy installation to ghters. The short range con-
AoA guration aerodynamic charateristics are investigated and
(b) CN at various Mach numbers compared in normal force coecient at Mach of 1.5 and roll
angle of 45 degrees, as depicted in Fig. 8. Therefore, it is
300 concluded that the short range conguration aerodynamic
M=0.7

200 M=0.9 characteristics have good agreement and reasonable results


M=1.1
M=2.0
compared with the prior body-wing-tail conguration and
100
M=3.0 published data.
Cm

0
4. Aero DB Program Application for Missile Concep-
-100
tual Design Optimization
-200
4.1. Missile design optimization process using Aero DB
-300
-40 -20 0 20 40 Aero DB is applied for the air-to-air missile conceptual
AoA
design optimization process as shown in Fig. 9. The analysis
(c) Cm at various Mach numbers
solver is composed of Aero DB constructed from Missile
Fig. 7. Aerodynamic characteristics of the short range conguration. DATCOM and the TMD Spreadsheets.18) The TMD Spread-
sheet, which is based on semi-empirical equations, consists
of aerodynamics, propulsion, weight, performance and tra-
two calculation methods mentioned in the medium range jectory analysis modules. TMD is quite appropriate for the
conguration results. Although it does not reect the real conceptual design of missiles as it obtains conceptual results
aerodynamics correctly around that switchover point, it is quickly and eectively. The validation is performed for the
still able to capture the trend of the axial force coecient. body-wing-tail conguration in Fig. 3 at launch conditions
The axial force coecient has a gradual change at super- which are Mach 0.8; altitude of 20,000 ft; ight range of
sonic regime, because of wave drag that has main contribu- 7.7 n miles, exceeding the requirement of 6.7 n miles by
tion on total drag in this supersonic regime. 15%. The body-wing-tail conguration baseline achieves
The normal force coecient has a similar behavior with the required ight range of 6.7 n miles within a time that
medium range conguration, as shown in Fig. 5(b). It is 14% shorter than the required time of ight (21 vs.
increases when AoA increases from 0 to 40 degrees and 24.4 s).18)
Mach number increases from subsonic to transonic regime. The Aero DB is stored and called to replace an aerody-
However, the normal force coecient at the supersonic namics analysis module in the TMD Spreadsheet and to pro-
regime is lower than at the subsonic and transonic regime vide stability and control coecients to an optimizer as
due to stronger shocks occurring in front of the nose of shown in Fig. 9 for missile trajectory, propulsion and
the missile. The pitching moment coecient also shows dynamics analysis in the TMD Spreadsheet at dierent
stability in the longitudinal direction, as shown in Fig. 7(c). ight conditions including boost, sustain and coast stage
Jul. 2014 N.-V. N GUYEN et al.: Investigations on Missile Conguration Aerodynamic Characteristics for Design Optimization 215

Dbody
h
Mter
Wboost
Others
LN
Wcruiset
Wboost:Dbody
WL
Mlaunch
WL:Dbody

Fig. 10. Total range sensitivity analysis.

Dbody
XCG
Fig. 9. Missile design optimization process. Lmissile
SW
after launching from a ghter. The lift, drag and stability
Xtail
coecients are estimated from Aero DB using Table lookup
as shown in Fig. 9 which implements the linear interpola- XW
tion technique between nearest points through Mach num- Others
ber, side slip angle, control deection angle, and angle of XCG:Xtail
attack variables provided from the ight conditions. LN
The sensitivity analysis module is implemented to elimi-
XCG:Dbody
nate small eects of design variables on objective function
and constraints. The optimizer is integrated to an analysis
solver to seek an optimum missile conguration with an Fig. 11. Sustain drag coecient sensitivity analysis.
improvement in performance characteristics. The integra-
tion of missile design optimization is completed in PHX (XCG ) has a 16% eect on drag coecient. The remaining
ModelCenter 10.1.19) The high-delity analysis ANSYS eects including missile length, wing area (SW ), tail location
Fluent20) is implemented to validate aerodynamics analysis (Xtail ), and wing location (XW ) are considered as shown in
results for an optimum conguration. Fig. 11.
4.2. Air-to-air missile sensitivity analysis 4.3. Missile design formulation
Sensitivity analysis is performed on 24 variables includ- The specic mission prole for the body-wing-tail cong-
ing missile characteristics and conguration using a Latin uration baseline is shown in Fig. 12 which is divided into
hypercube and orthogonal method in ModelCenter 10.119) boost, sustain and coast phases. The propulsion, structure,
with 300 design points to address the eects of design var- trajectory and dynamic analysis module are maintained to
iables on performance and stability parameters such as complete this given mission prole in the TMD Spread-
boost, sustain and coast range, pitching, directional, and sheet.18) Only aerodynamics and stability coecients are
lateral moment coecient. Sensitivity analysis helps to derived from Aero DB.
determine main design variables aecting the objective The total range including boost, sustain and coast stages is
and constraints function. selected as an objective function to be maximized. The aer-
The most eective variable for total range parameter is a odynamics and stability constraints are listed as follows for
missile diameter at 66% which causes a large increment in boost, sustain and coast stage conditions. The design varia-
drag while increasing missile diameter. It eects the range bles are reduced to 16 variables after the sensitivity analysis
of each boost, sustain and coast range. Other factors include process in which small sensitivity of the variables and
launching altitude (h), terminal Mach (Mter ), boost weight launch speed are removed from formulation as shown in
(Wboost ), nose length, cruise weight (Wcruise ), launch Mach Table 3. The lower and upper bounds are set from 20%
number (Mlaunch ), and launch weight (WL ) which have a from a baseline for design space.
smaller sensitivity to total range of missile as shown in Maximize:
Fig. 10. RangeTotal RangeBoost RangeSustain RangeCoast
The drag for the sustain condition mainly eects on mis- Subject to
sile diameter (61%). The missile CG longitudinal location
216 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 57, No. 4

Sustain stage 4.4. Optimizer solver


Level out AoA=2~3 deg.
The Design Explorer algorithm, developed by Boeing and
Pitch-over integrated into PHX ModelCenter 10.1,19) helps to search on
At high AoA an entire design space by surrogate models with sequential
Climb Coast stage optimization algorithm (SEOPT).21) The Design Explorer
Launch: M=0.8
altitude Pitch-up
AoA=5~7 deg. has been implemented and validated in many Boeing design
At high AoA applications such as high lift aerodynamics, multidiscipli-
Boost stage
AoA=1~2 deg. Target impact at 0 deg
nary wing planform design, forming of aircraft wing skin,
engine duct seal, and other products.21) The tolerances are
Fig. 12. Missile mission prole.18) set up for objective functions, constraints and projected gra-
dient which are 0.001, 0.001 and 0.01, respectively. The tol-
Table 3. Air-to-air missile design optimum conguration. erances are set by the recommended convergence criteria of
A baseline Optimum Unit the Design Explorer algorithm in the Model Center 10.1.
Objective Total range 41,419 52,935 feet
If there is no improvement in one of these tolerances, the
program is terminated.
Design variables h 20,000 19,000 feet
4.5. Optimum missile design conguration
XCG 76.2 80.01 inches
The optimum missile conguration is shown in Table 3
Mter 1.5 1.8
with 27.8% improvement in a total range including boost,
Lmissile 143.9 172.68 inches
sustain and coast conditions from 41,419 feet of baseline
Dbody 8 8.4 inches
to 52,935 feet of optimal conguration. Sixteen missile con-
LN 19.2 19.2 inches
guration design variables are determined by an optimizer
Dhemi 0.05 0.04
for an improved range shown in Table 3. The 2D and 3D
SW 367.2 385.56 inches2
optimum conguration comparison with a baseline are
t=cW 0.044 0.0396
presented in Figs. 13 and 14.
ARW 2.82 2.538
The launching altitudes from ghters are close to a base-
XW 60.8 66.88 inches
line conditions. The optimum wing conguration becomes
W 0.175 0.193
bigger in area and moves backward along to a missile longi-
ARtail 2.59 2.46
tudinal direction. Hence, the lift coecient over wing
tail 0 0.375
increases to extend the range of each ight condition includ-
Xtail 125.4 151.67 inches
ing boost, sustain and coast with a thinner airfoil in optimum
t=ctail 0.027 0.0284
missile conguration at 3.96% of maximum thickness ratio.
Constraints Boost CDo 1.02 0.928
The optimum tail n becomes larger than a baseline with a
Coast CDo 1.14 0.9201
tapered tail n and moves backward 27 inches in order to
Sustain CDo 0.982 0.951
satisfy the stability constraints while wing area is increased
L/D boost 1.376 1.386
and moved backward for better aerodynamics characteris-
L/D sustain 1.381 1.398
tics. The optimum missile body is longer than a baseline
L/D coast 0.888 1.002
at 30 inches. The optimum body neness ratio, which is cal-
Cm boost 0.0045 0.0262
culated as body length to diameter, becomes longer to pro-
Cm sustain 0.0036 0.0273
vide better lift and less drag on the optimum conguration.
Cm coast 0.0054 0.0221
The body neness ratio is 18 which still lies between 5 to 25
Cl boost 0.0002 0.0429
for air-to-air missile guidance. The nose bluntness is
Cl sustain 0.0025 0.0438
reduced to 4% compared to 5% as a baseline value. It re-
Cl coast 0.0061 0.0407
duces the body drag with a smaller nose bluntness as shown
Boost range 5,092 5,721 feet
in Table 3. The nose neness ratio, which is dened as nose
Sustain range 12,712 20,197 feet
length to body diameter, is reduced slightly due to the incre-
Coast range 23,661 27,017 feet
ment of diameter. However, the optimum nose length is
reached at a baseline value.
The optimum missile conguration shows a lower para-
Rangei  Rangebaseline i site drag and higher lift to drag ratio values compared to
CDo i  CDo baseline i the body-wing-tail conguration baseline for the boost, sus-
tain, and coast missile ight conditions. It results in increas-
CL i  CL baseline i
ing the range of boost, sustain and coast stage as shown in
L=Di  L=DBaseline i Table 3. The pitching and rolling moment coecient con-
jCl ji  0:3jCla ji straints are satised while a bigger n tail and further back
movement of tail location are made in the optimum missile
jCm ji  0:3jCme ji
conguration as shown in Figs. 13 and 14. In addition, the
Where: i boost, sustain, and coast center of gravity is moved backward 4 inches to satisfy
Jul. 2014 N.-V. N GUYEN et al.: Investigations on Missile Conguration Aerodynamic Characteristics for Design Optimization 217

Optimum missile
configuration
Body-wing-tail
configuration

Fig. 15. Air intercept missile mesh topology.

Fig. 13. 3D view of optimum conguration comparison with a baseline


body-wing-tail conguration.

Fig. 16. Pressure coecient contours along an optimum missile congu-


Fig. 14. 2D view of optimum missile compared with a baseline body- ration.
wing-tail conguration.
18
TMD analysis
16
pitching and rolling moment coecient. 14
ANSYS-Fluent
Missile DATCOM
Therefore, the missile conguration design optimization 12
problem is successfully formulated to obtain an optimum 10
CN

missile conguration with an improvement in total missile 8


6
range while implementing aerodynamics and stability data-
4
base generated from Missile DATCOM to replace aerody- 2
namics analysis module in the TMD Spreadsheet. 0
0 2 4 6 8 10
4.6. High-delity analysis validation AoA (deg.)
High-delity analysis ANSYS Fluent 1320) is used to val-
idate the optimal conguration results as shown in Fig. 13. Fig. 17. Normal force validation for the optimum missile conguration.
Steady state calculations are used to compute aerodynamic
coecients and ow eld of the optimum missile congura- shown in Fig. 15. Due to the complex ow at the rear part
tion using ANSYS Fluent 13. The mesh is modeled using of the missile it is decided to use a density-based solver with
Pointwise 1622) grid generation software. Reynolds-aver- CFL number equal to 0.5 at the rst 5,000 iterations and 3
aged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations are applied to to 5 at later iterations. This approach allows us to obtain a
describe ow around the missile. The single equation converged solution of the ow around the optimum missile
Spalart-Allmaras turbulent model (S-A), which was specif- conguration. Convergence criteria is selected as the maxi-
ically developed by Spalart and Allmaras for aerospace mum residual of velocity components, energy and continu-
applications involving wall-bounded ows, is used in the ity less than 104 .
current calculation. The model shows good agreement for The pressure coecient contours along the missile sur-
boundary layers subject to adverse pressure gradients. face are shown in Fig. 16 for 5 degrees of AoA. The weak
Flow around half of the optimum missile conguration is shock captured at the top surface of the wing and strong
investigated due to symmetric missile geometry. For precise pressure gradient at missile nose area are observed. The
calculation of boundary layer properties, dense mesh is gen- high-delity ANSYS Fluent 13 is calculated for 0, 5 and
erated around missile conguration. Y value at the wing 10 degrees of AoA as shown in Fig. 16. The normal force
and tail surface is equal to 1.0 and greater than 1.0 at the coecient results on the missile optimum conguration
body surface. Applying a Y value at the body surface of are also performed with the TMD Spreadsheet aerodynam-
less than 1.0 leads to high aspect ratio cells and mesh geom- ics analysis model and missile DATCOM to compare with
etry problems. Dense mesh with a number of grid points of the high-delity ANSYS Fluent 1320) analysis results in
3.1 million is used to precisely predict aerodynamic charac- Fig. 17. The comparison graph indicates that the TMD
teristics of the optimum conguration. Grid topology is Spreadsheet and Missile DATCOM predict a normal force
218 Trans. Japan Soc. Aero. Space Sci. Vol. 57, No. 4

Table 4. Normal force results comparison with ANSYS Fluent 13. Acknowledgments
AoA ANSYS- Missile Dierence TMD Dierence
(degree) Fluent DATCOM (%) analysis (%) The authors would like to acknowledge that this research was
0 0 0 0 0 0
supported by the Ministry of Education, Science and Technology
(MEST), Space Core Technology Development Programa
5 4.57 4.82 5.49 5.19 13.52
grant number 2012033521 and the 2013 KU Brain Pool (Konkuk
10 8.07 9.56 11.76 11.13 37.95
University), and the corresponding author for the grant Jae Woo
Lee..

coecient quite close to high-delity analysis results at low References


AoA of approximately 5 degrees. At higher AoA, the TMD
Spreadsheet and Missile DATCOM shows an over- 1) Blake, W. B.: Missile DATCOM Users Manual1997, Fortran 90
estimated lift coecient as shown in Fig. 17. The Missile Revision, 1998.
2) White, J. T.: An Assessment of Missile Datcom Prediction Accuracy
DATCOM is closely predicted with ANSYS Fluent 13 Relative to Generic Body+Wing+Tail Missile Pitch Aerodynamics,
results compared with TMD analysis as shown in Table 4. AIAA Paper 95-1893-CP, 1995.
The maximum normal force coecient dierence with 3) Abney, E. J. and McDaniel, M. A.: High Angle of Attack Aerody-
ANSYS Fluent 13 is 11.76% at 10 degrees of AoA while namic Predictions Using Missile Datcom, AIAA Paper 2005-5086,
2005.
the TMD aerodynamics analysis result shows a 37.95% 4) Smith, E. H., Hebbar, S. K. and Platzer, M. R.: Aerodynamic Charac-
dierence with ANSYS Fluent at 10 degrees of AoA in teristics of a Canard-Controlled Missile at High Angles of Attack,
Table 4. In addition, the designed missile mission prole J. Spacecraft Rockets, 31, 5 (1994), pp. 766772.
operates at approximately 7 degrees of AoA as shown in 5) Riddle, D. B., Harteld, R. J., Burkhalter, J. E. and Jenkins, R. M.:
Genetic-Algorithm Optimization of Liquid-Propellant Missile Sys-
Fig. 12. Therefore, it is worthy to replace an aerodynamics tems, J. Spacecraft Rockets, 46, 1 (2009), pp. 151159.
analysis module in the TMD Spreadsheet by Missile 6) Riddle, D. B., Harteld, R. J., Burkhalter, J. E. and Jenkins, R. M.: Ge-
DATCOM for obtaining more accuracy and reliability at a netic Algorithm Optimization of Liquid Propellant Missile Systems,
missile conceptual design stage. AIAA Paper 2007-362, 45th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit, 2007.
7) Talpallikar, M. V. and Nelsont, H. F.: Modeling Supersonic Missile
5. Conclusion Fin-Body Interference for Preliminary Design, J. Spacecraft Rockets,
27, 6 (1990), pp. 571576.
The investigations on short and medium range missile 8) Zipfel, P. H.: Modeling and Simulation of Aerospace Vehicle Dynam-
ics, 2nd ed., AIAA Education Series, 2007.
aerodynamic characteristics of medium range conguration 9) Leng, G.: Compression of Aircraft Aerodynamic Database Using Mul-
and short range conguration were addressed by implement- tivariable Chebyshev Polynomials, Adv. Eng. Software, 28, 2 (1997),
ing the results from a developed Aero DB program. The val- pp. 133141.
idations of Missile DATCOM were reproduced for the 10) Chen, Y., Kopp, G. A. and Surry, D.: Interpolation of Pressure Time
Series in an Aerodynamic Database for Low Buildings, J. Wind
body-wing-tail conguration by comparing with experiment Eng. Ind. Aerodynam., 91, 6 (2003), pp. 737765.
data and AeroPrediction AP98. The investigations on 11) Min, B.-Y., Lee, J.-W. and Byun, Y.-H.: Numerical Investigation of
medium and short range conguration aerodynamic coe- the Shock Interaction Eect on the Lateral Jet Controlled Missile,
cients show the correct aerodynamics trend and capture Aerospace Sci. Technol., 10, 5 (2006), pp. 385393.
12) Monta, W. J.: Supersonic Aerodynamic Characteristics of a Sparrow
the physical phenomena of air-to-air missiles. III Type Missile Model with Wing Controls and Comparison with
The conceptual missile design optimization process was Existing Tail-Control Results, NASA Technical Paper 1078, 1977.
established to obtain a quick and relatively accurate optimal 13) Sooy, T. J. and Schmidt, R. Z.: Aerodynamic Predictions, Compari-
missile conguration. The Aero DB was implemented suc- sons, and Validations Using Missile DATCOM (97) and Aeropredic-
tion 98 (AP98), J. Spacecraft Rockets, 42, 2 (2005), pp. 257265.
cessfully and eciently into a missile conceptual design 14) Raytheon Co., http://www.raytheon.com/
stage for replacing aerodynamic analysis module of the 15) Moore, F. G. and Moore, L. Y.: 2009 Version of the Aeroprediction
TMD Spreadsheet and providing stability coecient con- Code: AP09, J. Spacecraft Rockets, 45, 4 (2008), pp. 677690.
straints supporting resizing of an air-to-air missile congu- 16) Vulkelich, S. R., Stoy, S. L., Burns, K. A., Castillo, J. A. and Moore,
M. E.: Missile DATCOM Volume IFinal Report, McDonnell Doug-
ration by maximizing total range performance. A 27.8% las Missile Systems Co., 1988.
improvement in a total range was obtained by an optimal 17) Jorgensen, L. H.: Prediction of Static Aerodynamic Characteristics for
missile conguration while satisfying given aerodynamics, Slender Bodies Alone and with Lifting Surfaces to Very High Angles
stability and performance constraints. of Attack, NASA TR-R-474, 1977.
18) Fleeman, E. L.: Tactical Missile Design, AIAA Education Series,
The high-delity analysis performed on the optimal mis- 2001.
sile conguration using ANSYS Fluent 13 demonstrated 19) ModelCenter 10.1, PHX ModelCenter , http://www.phoenix-int.com/
more accurate and reliable results provided by Aero DB software/phx-modelcenter.php
rather than the TMD Spreadsheet aerodynamics analysis at 20) ANSYS Fluent 13, ANSYS, Inc., www.ansys.com
21) Booker, A. J., Meckesheimer, M. and Torng, T.: Reliability Based
angle of attack up to 10 degrees. Design Optimization Using Design Explorer, Optim. Eng., 5, 2
(2004), pp. 179205.
22) Pointwise 16 User Manual, http://www.pointwise.com/

View publication stats

You might also like