aRiLITR-3140

-TECHNICAL REPORT BRL-TR-3140

Y,q
BRL
(D SPIKE-NOSED PROJECTILES:
N\ COMINPUTATIONS AND DUAL FLOW MODES
(y IN SUPERSONIC FLIGHT

AMER G. MIU-CAL D TI 'C

-111990
AUGUST 1990

APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE; DISTRIBUTION UNLIMTED.

U.S. ARMY LABORATORY COMMAND

BALLISTIC RESEARCH LABORATORY

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND

S
..= . • --. . ... . .. .. .. . .. ... .. . . . . . . ... . .. . . . . ... .. . .. . . . . . ... . . . . . . =. . . . ... . . . . . . . . .. .. . . .. . .
 NOTICES

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. DO NOT return it to the originator.

Additional copies of this report may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service,
U.S. Department of Commerce, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161.

The findings of this report are not to be construed as an official Department Of the Army position,
unless so designated by other authorized documents.

The use of trade names or manufacturers' names in this report does not constitute indorsement of
any commercial product.
 IUNCLASSIFIED r Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. C704*0?8
P.ttlc reporting burden for this c0l•ection of infort•tatt0n, eSttiflte.l to A8eraqe I htour or 'te ont. including the time for reviewinq instrwizloms,, searching eitnur.g Catl Oufcei.
gathetrng and maintainttg the data needed, and (OM'Dittng and reý-e-ftg the cvle~cmO 1f nformation. Send comrnents *?0ariAng this burden estimate or ay other asp•c• of this
(oIiwtOfl of AlOrfttltOn. ,n(uotngiugge~tiOCA for fitre cIng this Ouroen to Want'rqon n•eaoaarter Services. Orry ."crate or nforimation Operatiors ad RepotI,. 1t 1t teflerfon
Davi Htqhn Vy.Su.te 1204. A•rlnqtOr. VA 22202-4302. and to the O fce of Mqanagement and Budget. Pape'rork ReduCon Proj ¢•ý0704.- OtBB Is&). W Aigton. DC ;0503

I. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blark) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
I August 1990 , Final, Jan 89 - Dec 89
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

SPIKE-NOSED PROJECTILES: COMPUTATIONS AND DUAL FLOW MODES 1L162618AH80

IN SUPERSONIC FLIGHT 62618A-00-001 AJ
6. AUTHOR(S)

Ameer G. Mikhail

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND AOORESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER

9. SPONSORING; MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING. MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

Ballistic Research Laboratory

ATTN: SLCBR-DD-T BRL-TR-3140
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

The help given by Dr. N.R. Patel in the early stage of code adoption and initial
problem set-up is gratefully acknowledged.

12a. DISTRIBUTION AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DIS',RIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited

13. ABSTRACT (Ma.imum2WOwords) \ITli1S study was made to assess the capability of a
Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) method to adequately determine the aerod.ynamic
coefficients for the unusual configurations of sharp-edged, spike-nosed projectiles
that are of interest to the US Army. McCormack's time-dependent, explicit scheme
-as used for the full Navier-Stokes equations in a zonal gridding topology. Three
configurations were coripJted at Mach = 1.72 and zero angle of attack. The results
are compared against wi,:d tunnel data. The flow fields computed are in qualitative
agreement with wind tunnel schlieren photographs, and the computed drag coefficients
are within two percent of the wind tunnel measurements. Two important issues are
faced: (1) the always existing possibility of a dual flow mode and which one will
occur under specific flow conditions; and (2) observed role of the turbulence level
and numerical model in affecting flow separation and, thus, influencing a particular
flow mode to be predicted. This study demonstrates the successful application of
the present approach to these unusual configurations and, thus, leads the way to
further application for more complex configurations, such as those with booms and
fins.; .. . Ct' . • , -_ .( _ .,
A ,
14. SUMJECT TERMS "'15. NUMBER OF PAGES

Numerical Computations Spike-Nosed Projui-tilus 42

Navier-Stokes Equations Dual Flow Modes 16. PRICE CODE

Supersonic Aerodynamics Blunt Bodies
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18 SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED UNCLASSIFIED
.SNt7 5 d,) j 1 2 8 0 . 3 Saý)
o " n UJL
2 , 2 8 9?9
UNCLASSIFIED
L--%-iiNUOALLX LEFr Bx.&.wic.
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES ........................................ v

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . ................................... vii

S INTRODUCTION ......................................... I

2 ABOUT THE TEST CASES .................................. 2

3 GOVERNING EQUATIONS .................................. 2

3.1 Turbulence M odel ....................................... 4

4 ABOUT THE CODE, GRID, AND COMPUTATIONS ....................... 5

4.1 The C ode . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. ... .. .. . . .. . . .. . . . .. . 5
4.2 Boundary Conditions ..................................... 6
4.3 Initial Conditions ....................................... 6
4.4 The G rid . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

5 RESULTS .... .......................................... 7

5.1 Configuration 1 ............ 77.........................
5.2 Configuration 2 ........................................ 8
5.3 Configuration 3 .. . . ... . . .. .. . . . . .. . .. ... . .. .. . .. . . . . .. . 9
5.4 G rid Size Effect .............................. .......... 9

6 SUMýLMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................. 10

7 REFERENCES ........................................... 33

LIST OF SYM BOLS ....................................... 35

DISTRIBUTION LIST ...................................... 37

DIt C. I

,"J" Ty__

'" 1 P iiVi '.:,C d~LIvl

I~l•F I)'i ip•'e , ---

iiI
Intentionally left blankc

iv
 LIST OF FIGURES

1 Wind tunnel model of the first projectile configuration .................. 11

2 Wind tunnel model of the second projectile configuration ................... 12

3 Wind turnel model of the third projectile configuration ..................... 13

4 Tyr .al flow features for the low- and high-drag modes ...................... 14

5 Grid zones and computational domain for the spike-nosed projectiles ......... .... 15

6 Zonal grid for the first projectile configuration ............................. 16

7 Zonal grid for the second projectile configuration ............................ 17

8 Zonal grid for the third projectile configuration ....... ...................... 18

9 Mach number contours for the low-drag mode for Configuration 1 ..... .......... 19

10 Mach number contours for the high-drag mode for Configuration I .............. 20

11 Details of Mach number contours near the spike tip (low-drag, Configuration 1) . 21

12 Details of Mach number contours near the spike tip (high-drag. Configuration 1) . 22

13 Details of Mach number contours near the facing shoulder (low-drag, Configuration 1) 23

14 Details of Mach number contours near the facing shoulder (high-drag, Configuration 1) 24

15 Forebody drag coefficient comparison for Configuration I (low-drag mode) ..... 25

16 Mach number contours for Configuration 2 (low-drag mode) ..... .............. 26

17 Mach number contours for Configuration 2 (high-drag mode) ................... 27

18 Forebody drag coefficient comparison for Configuration 2 (low-drag mode) ..... 28

19 Mach number contours for Configuration 3 (low-drag mode) .....-.-.-.-.-...... 29

20 Mach number contours for Configuration 3 (high-drag mode) ................... 30

v
Intentionally left blank

vi
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The help given by Dr. N. R. Patel in the early stage of code adoption and initial problem set-up
is gratefully acknowledged.

vii
Intentionally left blank.

viii
 1. INTRODUCTION

Spike-nosed configurations arc used for projectile applications against armored targets where
the spike is used as a stand-off distance causing microseconds of advance time between the time that
the tip of the spike touches the armor and the time that the warhead (usually a shaped charge)
detonates. Spike nose conifiguratiorl are also used for a different purpose, namely reducing the drag
for blunt reentry vehicles at hypersonic speeds when drag and heating are of major concern.

After World War II, a new generation of spike-nosed high explosive, anti-tank (HEAT)
projectiles was developed in the U.S. and abroad. In the very early stage of development, during the
late 1940s and early 1950s, spinning HEAT projectiles were examined; but it was quickly found that
spin reduces the depth of penetration in the armor. Therefore, most spike-nosed projectiles, in the
late 1950s and thereafter, were fin-stabilized and were provided with a tail boom and fins behind the
shaped-charge warhead.

Many experimental studies were made for firned, spike-nosed projectiles. Some wind tunnel
tests can be found, for example, in References 1 through 5. Some firing-range tests are reported in
References 6 through 9. The U.S. Air Force, during the 1960-70s, cxtensivcly studied the unsteady
front-shock flow phenomenon (the buzzing) for spike-nosed reentry vehicles at high speeds.1°- 2 Also,
the Air Force successfully computed the unsteady buzzing flow for these reentry configurations of
interest."3"'

At present, for sharp-edged, spike-nosed projectiles of interest to the Army, there is no analytic
or formal computational procedure that can be systematically used to predict the aerodynamics of such
configurations. The Army has relied so far on direct wind tunnel tests followed by live firing of
projectiles in the firing ranges. The present study was made to establish such a systematic, numerical,
predictive technique. Therefore, validation of the predictive technique against range or wind tunnel data
is of vital importance for assessing the numerical capability. Although the final objective is the
application to finned, spikc-noscd projectiles, this study, being a first step toward that goal, limited
itself to unfinned, spike-nosed configurations in an attempt to focus on the spike-nosed flow with its
complex features. These features include dual flow modes, large separation regions, and unsteadiness.
By establishing that such flows can be systematically and successfully computed, the doors will be
opened for future work to tack'e similar configurations with added booms and fins.

The advances in the zonal gridding and overlapping techniques made this study possible for
the present sharp-edged configurations. This represents the first known application of computational
fluid dynamics to Army spike-nosed projectile shapes.

2. ABOUT THE TEST CASES

Very few experimental results are available for unfinned, spike-nosed projectiles in contrast to
those of finned ones for the reason stated earlier. For the sharp-edged configuration, only the wind
tunnel tests of Platou16 are applicable. Also, some firing range data arc available, but for configurations
with a tripping ring."' Very recent wind tunnel tests were made by Koenig, et al.,t8 while this work
was being completed, for very similar configurations with different spike lengths at Mach num~bers
between 0.8 to 1.5 and zero angle of incidence. Results of Reference 18 could be used for further
validations in the future.

Three cases from Reference 16 were chosen. They are shown in Figures 1-3. The wind tunnel
tests were made in 1950 at the Ballistic Research Laboratory supersonic wind tunnels at M=1.72 for
angles -10' < cx < +100. The Reynolds number was 4.86x106 per foot, To=100 F0 , and Po=1.26
atmospheres. The model diameter is 2.5 inch fcr ali three configurations. The first two configurations
were reported not to have dual flow modes at this Mach number and range of cx. The flow features
of both modes are depicted in Figure 4. The third configuration was reported to have had the dual
flow modes (the high-drag, open-flow mode and the low-drag, closed flow mode). However, the low-
drag mode briefly occurred while increasing cx and was captured on a schlieren photograph, but the
drag force itself was not measured. The high-drag mode then persisted, while the lower drag mode
could never be recovered again during the tests.16

3. GOVERNING EQUATIONS

The compressible, turbulent Navier-Stokes equations for axisymmetric and two-dimensional flow
can be expressed19 in the following strong conservation form, in which the dependent variables p, u,
v, and e are mass averaged, with e being the specific total energy, T being the temperature, p and p
being mean density and pressure, respcctivcl)y, and t denoting time:

Q'S++ E ' + w.+

F +( F ' +H ') 0la) (
ji ax ýy y y
whiere

puu + p - tL
Q, P E' = Puv -'
" pe (pe + p)u - t- tyv + q )

pv
puv - T.Y
F pvv + p - xyY
(pC + p)v -'Yu - Y~
v + Y

0
H' 0 +

2
"t•. = -2/3 (gt + c) V • V + (p + D)

(p.+ e) (U +v
tyy a2/ x) v
•ay
-23 ( +c) V.-+
TYY 2(g + e) a

To= o,= -2/3 (g.+ e) V*V+2(,.+,e)v-

y

z•=
o+ -2/ (k. 8)V + L(+
T
= V Du + +) +)

-C___+F)
Y~~ aT
r Pr F ) (lb)

where gt is molcctlar viscosity, r is ihe lurbulcnt cddy viscosity, and = 1 or 0 for axisymmctric
I3
and Lwo-dimcnsional cas•cs, respcctively.
 The air is assumed to be a perfect gas, satisfying the equation of state p = pRT. where R is
the gas constant (1,716 ft2/sec 2 - 'R for air). For the dependence L. - minar viscosity on temperature,
Sutherland's law was used:

l2.270
T312 lb - sec (2)
T + 198.6 x 10' f7 - 1

The laminar and turbulent Prandtl numbers, Pr and Pr,, were assumed constant with values of
0.72 and 0.9, respectively. The ratio of specific heats, y, was also assumed constant and equal to 1.4.
C. and CP are specific heat capacities at constant volume and constant pressure, respectively:

C, = 4290 ft2/scC2 - *R,

and
CP = 6006 ft 2/sec 2 - 'R for air.

'Ihe total energy per unit mass, e, is given by:

2 2
e = CT + (1/2) (u + v ).

In the ,• - r computational plane, Equations la and b are transformed to the conservation law
form, and the equations camn -e found, for example, in Reference 19.

3.1 Turbulcnce Model. lurbulcnce is modeled through the algebraic eddy-viscosity model
of Baldwin and Lomax. 20 This model employs the two-layer concept (inner and outer). The inner
layer is near the walls and is modeled as:

F,= p 2Iwl , (3a)

I = ky 1 -exp K1 (3b)

The magnitude of the vorticity IwI is:

,1IW - aY] (3c)

4
where

(. y . (3d)

The distance normal to the surface is y; A* = 26; k = 0.40 is the von Karman constant; and the
subscript w denotes values at the surface.

The model switches from the inner to the outer region at the smallest value of y for which the
inner and outer values of the eddy-viscosity are equal (i.e., ec = c0). The e for the outer layer is given
by

= pKCpF~y,,FKLB , (3e)

where

F.= y.1dI - cxp (30

The value of y at which F,,. occur-, is y,,.

FKL. = [1 + 5.5(CK,'y/yj)6]"1 (3g)

K = 0.0168, C• = 1.6, CL.M = 0.3 . (3h)

Due to the perpendicular surfaces of the spike surfaces at the nose tip arid at the facing shouldc, the
normal distance to the wall, y, in Equation 3 is difficult to assign. 2' This problem was solved in
Reference 21 by measuring the y along a 450 ray emanating from the point of intcrscction of the two
perpendicular walls.

4. ABOUT THE CODE, GRID, AND COMPUTATIONS

4.1 Theod. The code was dcvcloped by Patel and Sturck' 9 . It utilizes the familiar and
robust, eAplicit, time-depcridcnt method of McCormack. The code was vectorized and is run on a

5
Cray-XMP/48 Machine. The present computations were all run in serial arithmetic mode. The zonal
grid and overlap provided in the code are represented by eight d'."fcrent available zones (which can be
increased if so desired). The user prescribes the overlap between regions along one line of adjacent
zones (interface). A global, uniform, time step was used herein against grid-varying time steps to
simulate time-accurate solutions. The time step is determined from the Courarit-Fredrick-Levy (CFL)
condition, with a factor of about 0.6 being used as the Courant number.

4.2 Boundary Conditions. No-slip conditions are specified on all wall surfaces. The incoming
flow conditions are assumed t,') be of uniform profiles with free-stream temperature of T_ = 520 R",
p_ = 14.7 psi, M_ = 1.72.

The outgoing conditions at the end of the projectile were imposed as zero gradients parallel to
the body axis direction.

The outer boundary conditions were imposed as nonreflective conditions, i.e., zero-gradient
conditions along characteristic lines for all variables. The characteristic direction is determined from
the local velocity and temperature. This approach allows setting the "outer" field close to the body
without the penalty of any unnecessary approximations regarding shock reflection, or zero-gradient
conditions.

At the symmetry line, ahead of the spike tip, a two-point, zero-gradient, boundary condition
is imposed on the solved variables.

4.3 Initial Conditions. Computations were started using free-stream values everywhere in the
domain. These values are for free stream velocity, pressure, and temperature. The density and specific
total energy are computed accordingly, using the equation of state and the definition of the specific
total energy.

4.4 The QGd. Three different grid zones were used in the computation. Those zones and the
extent of the computational domain are depicted in Figure 5.

For the first configuration, the grids used for the three zoncs are (15x48), (26x39), and (21x25),
respectively. The first and second arguments in the parentheses refer to the axial and radial directions,
respectively. This grid has 2,259 total points and is equivalent to a (48x48) grid.

6
 One restriction in the present grid overlapping technique is the requirement that no interpolation
is allowed at the interface line between zones. Thus, each point on either side of any two zones must
have exactly the same coordinates. This restriction represents some constraint in the flexibility of the
grid distribution and may be alleviated in future development of the code. Meanwhile, to accommodate
this restriction, one has to accept unnecessary clustering of points in some locations. Figure 6 shows
the clustered points along lines parallel to the top body surface, where clustering is needed near the
body to resolve the turbulent boundar/ layer. Figure 6 shows the overall grid distribution for the first
projectile configuration.

The sharp cone spike configuration was also modeled using three zones, but with grid sizes
of (15x39), (26x39). and (21x25). respectively. This grid totals 2,124 points, or the equivalent of a
(46x46 mesh), and is depicted in Figure 7.

The third configuration was computed using zones of sizes (15x44), (21035), and (31x35).
This grid totals 2,480 points or (50x50), approximately. This grid for configuration 3 is given in
Figure 8. The grids were generated using a simple algebraic (exponential) formula in each zone in
both the axial and radial directions.

5. RESULTS

5.1 Configuration 1. The low-drag mode was obtained by straightforward computation,

assuming the flow to be fully turbulent everywhere. Unsteadiness occurred in the computation, but,
when the turbulence level was reduced to 0.2 of its value at each point, the flow became steady.
The Mach contours are provided in Figure 9. Comparison with the schlieren photograph of Reference
16 indicated good agreement of flow features. The bow shock stand-off distance was 0.5 d, as
theoretically predicted, and the bow shock angle away from the body nose tip was about 40'. the same
as can be determincd from the schlicren. The computation converged satisfactorily after 4,000 time
steps, although the code was later run to 12,000 steps to assure the stability of computations. The
computer CPU time was 40 minutes on the Cray-XMP/48 for the 4,000 steps.

Several numerical experiments were made to obtain the high-drag mode, even though that
mode was not confirmed during the tests of Reference 16. The high-drag mode was easily obtained
by freezing (i.e., not updating) the turbulence level after 1,000 steps and by simultaneously relaxing
the time step at each point to 0.6 of its local Courant time step value. The solution also converged
satisfactorily after 6,0(X time steps, using 60 minutes on the same computer. Figure 10 depicts the
flow field as presented by the Mach contours for this high-drag mode.

7
 Comparison between the local flow fields of the two modes near the spike tip is given in
Figures 11 and 12, respectively. For the high-drag mode, there is an expansion fan near the tip, which
is followed immediately by coalescence of compression waves facing the separation .egion. These
compression waves coalesce into a shock which faces the facing shoulder of the projectile, thus raising
the pressure behind it and also that on the facing wall. Thlus higher pressure results in the higher drag
of the projectile. Surprisingly, the corresponding flow detail near the facing shoulder differs very
slightly for the two modes. It was expected that larger differences would be observed there. Figures
13 and 14 provide the details for those modes near the facing shoulder.

The forebody drag coefficient for the computed geometry (low-drag) was 0.337. The drag due
to the rotating band, which is shown in Figures 1-3 but was not modeled in the computation, was
estimated7 to be 2% of the total drag at M = 1.72. The computed drag is, therefore, provided as
0o344, while the wind tunnel measurement given in Reference 16 is 0.351 for the forebody drag.
Reference 16 provides the net forebody drag without any reference to base drag corrections. The
computation, thus, underpredicts the measurement by 2%. Considering the tunnel measurement
accuracy, one can conclude that these flow results are very assuring and useful. This result is shown
in Figure 15. For the high-drag mode, the computed drag coefficient was 0.402 and is provided as
0.410 when including the 2% rotating band effect. The high-drag mode, therefore, resulted in a
19% increase in drag over the low-drag mode.

5.2 Confieuration 2. The high-drag mode was obtained first when the computation of
Configuration 1 was repeated, assuming fully turbulent flow everywhere and no reduction in the
turbulence level. The computation was slower in converging, requiring 7,000 time steps for satisfactory
convergence.

To obtain the low-drag mode, which is the mode reported"6 to occur, laminar flow and
transition should be allowed to occur on the cone. Therefore, laminar flow was allowed on the cone,
and transition was allowed to occur only along the middle third of the whole spike length. This was
based on estimates of location of transition (local Reynolds number), which were evaluated using
References 23 and 24. The low-drag mode was immediately obtained, but with slower convergence
rate. Convergence required about 12,000 time steps, requiring 120 minutes on the Cray-XMP/48
Machine.

The two now modes are depicted in Figures 16 and 17. In Figure 16, the flow seems to slide
over the separated region of the spike, while in Figure 17, for the high-drag mode, there is a
compression wave appearing at the beginning of the separated region, thus signifying flow path turning.

8
 The forebody drag coefficient for the low-drag case was 0.314 (including the 2% rotating
band drag), compared to 0.321 for the wind tunnel measurement. Again, computation is within 2%
of the measurement. Figure 18 depicts the comparison in the drag value. The high-drag mode drag
coefficient was computed as 0.397 (including the 2%) and, thus, is 26% higher than that of the low-
drag mode. The high drag mode was not observed during the tests of Reference 16.

5.3 jonfilgurotion. The high-drag mode was obtained readily when the computation, si-nilar
to that for Configuration 1, was applied here. Fully turbulent flow everywhere with no reduction in
turbulence level was applied. Computations required only 4,000 steps for satisfactory convergence.

Several numerical attempts were made to obtain the low-drag mode. It was found that, by
imposing a 3.5% cross flow (i.e., v = 0.035 V. in the free stream in zone 1, the flow mode was
readily obtained. This 3.5% cross flow falsely simulated a pseudo 20 angle of attack. Although this
is not truly an angle-of-attack effect, the cross velocity is an influence that can be related to an angle
of attack.

These flow fields arc depicted in Figures 19 and 20 for low-drag and high-irag modes,
respectively. An excellent agreement for the high-drag mode was obtained with the schlicren
photograph of Reference 16. Oc feature is the existence of a "kink" in the compression wave, which
emanates from the impact of the flow with the separation region. This kink was questioned at first,
but, when the schlieren photo had been examined carefully, the kink was found easily. Also, all the
shock and expansion wave angles (away from the body) were found to be within 40 of the values
measured from the schlicren photograph of Reference 16.

The forebody drag coefficient for the high-drag mode was computed as 0.478 (including the
2% increase due to the rotating band) compared to 0.306 for the low-drag case. This rep-esents a
56% increase in drag. The wind tunnel measurement for the high-drag mode was reported 16 to be
0.555. This large discrepancy between the computed and measured values is still unresolved.
However, when examining this particular case in Reference 16, the value of 0.555 seems to be
particularly high in comparison with the remaining cases tested. The data of Reference 16 for this case
were presented with only one point on one figure in the report. There are no cross-checked values or
any tabulated results for positive verification of this value. Table I provides a summary of all obtained
results arid a comparison with test data.

5.4 Gnd Sizc Effect. To examine the result obtained for the high-drag mode i .,iguration
3, the computations were pcrformed again using a larger number of points to assess whether that

9
discrepancy was due to inadequate grid size. Configuration 3 was computed first using zones with
(15x44), (21x35), and (31x35) points. This grid totals 2,480 points, with a (50x50) mesh equivalence.
The grid was then increased to (15x54), (31x45), and (41x45), thus totalling 4,050 points, which is
equivalent to a (63x63) mesh. The drag coefficient changed from 0.4621 to 0.4690, a change of only
1.5%. Therefore, it was assumed that the grid size is appropriate for most purposes.

6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Three different spike-nosed projectile configurations were computed at Mach = 1.72, and the
results are compared to wind tunnel measurements. The computed drag coefficients are in very good
agreement with the measured values. Computed values are within 2% of the measurements, which is
within the diag-measurement accuracy itself. The high-drag mode computed for the third configuration
provided a considerably lower drag than the measured value, although the detailed flow features
compared rather accurately with the schlieren photograph of the test. Because confidence was gained
from the two previous computed cases, it is believed that the drag measurement for this particular case
is quite high and may also be in error. This belief is supported by observing the results of 20 similar
spike-nosed configurations tested during the same test period. These drag data are also reported in
Reference 16.

Two interesting obstacles are faced in this study which cannot be resolved decisively. First,
the possibility of two flow modes always exists. iherefore, one cannot determine, a priori, which
mode the numerical procedure will favor. Also, it is not known, a priori, which one will physically
occur at particular wind tunnel conditions or under free-flight, firing-range conditions. The second
obstacle faced was the strong role of the turbulence eddy viscosity value level and model on
influencing the computation (possibly due to the large separation region) toward one particular flow
mode. It was not determined whether this influence is purely a numerical problem or it has a parallel
in nature where flow turbulence in the tunnel or in free flight may trigger a particular flow mode.

Finally, this study provided a straightforward and systematic capability for computing such
difficult configurations. The present work represents an advance in the application of CFD techniques.
The computations, in addition, have provided dual flow modes where the wind tunnel experiment had
only revealed one mode under certain tunnel conditions. It is not known if some of these computed
dual modes are superficial or whether real-life tests had favored only one mode which is more
dominant. Thils, these computations may spur the need for extensive and delicate variations in test
conditions to verify the existence of these modes at these flow conditions.

10
 CD

_ _ _ _ _ _ E
EC
(7) LC)
O-f C
C-D Ln

LnJ

0 OZ)

CO I
 LII)j

CXD.

Ln CD

000

21
 LLr

M5J Q-)

0;0-
(D L
2C

00

L(9

13
 - -

14~
-. 21

I In
7ý0

15I
 C).

IiI.I.: HM II.I

0 . 0 .

0. 0.0

N C16
C) 0 0

17.
 CN

:12

0.1 0.0 L6.

000

xxQx

I~tUl) 18
 00

I .0

CDE

z 0

1) 0z 0 y
:22
04

o 0

L 00 0.0)

1~19
0 M 000 0000 0000'- - - - - '- *O'Rt w-0M-.

0>

UU

m C) E

00

0.1 0.0

N.Q xx x

20
 OLJ 00000000000000

CD,

00004 000.0 1

D 0D

(.9

Ln (o
rn-

210
:( opooooa oooaooooooaoooa

OL.tO
U)-C4- ")'
ý-> ID90 4 C)' L W ý 0t t 4 oww
z0

C) 0C; C 0.0-
C Cý ý 0

0V

0 I

00

0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

c C

00o)L-
C%DU tte -

r)
C to- N (

22/
0 LH 0 C ;0'0'0 0
ý 0- 0 -ý -; -

kn

ii C

04

z 04

'00 L0

N C14

23
 0 .. 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 . . . . . ,- . . ..- - ,- • ,- ,- ,.

O-j

0•0 IM o.
• o
F c3
0
C4

I Ic

D C
C)

C E

0.06 0.04 0.02 0.00

C C D - -,t r '•
" i

o -
rI-O• xx
Lo (O
x
C* • L") C 'NO

24
 0

r-

0w m

- uJ-

C_CL _ __ _ _ __ _ _

___ __ __ r:
< 6)
MDXO~O

25>
 VL) C
0-1 00000000 0000000000000000000

00000000

LLU

:z

Co L

0.1 0.02
C4 y tn

C)

. . U') V-
0'C)
o "

26
 0 00 0 0 0 000000-------
U

m0
-D

C)C
<0

=00

0.1 0.02

Q) 4 te)

N~o ( x x x

27
 CQ E

zu-
V)I
z CL4

0L.

0-'0

<~o

z <
717
Co=

ZuJ
cLi

@00L

CLl

0 0CD L..

28
 C)C

WL C
mo

0.1 0.02

X -,t .Lr) 6e)

NoW(0 x x
. . . LO) V--T

29
 0
L.J O 00000000000w00000 co a'-
Z-> .O. . .. . .

m
0

uL
<0

0. 1 0.0

ýo xf xlL

~-0 ') ý-

30
 TABLE 1. Comparison of Results at Mach = 1.72 .

CD

Low-Drag Mode High-Drag Mode

Wind Present Wind Present
Configuration Tunnel Computations" Tunnel Coinputations'

1 0.351 0.344 .. b 0.410

2 0.321 0.314 .. b 0.395

3 - 0.306 0.555 0.469

'These values include an added 2% due to rotating band pressure drag,z2 at

M n 1.72 .

ý'Mhis flow mode was not reported in the wind tunnel experiment."
eThis modle was observed and reported only in a schlicren photograph but
quickly disappeared and could not be recovered' 6 in the wind tunnel for actual
measurement.

31
hite~ntionally lcft blank.

32
 7. REFERENCES

1. Krieger, R.H. "Wind Tunnel Test of the T153 120mm HEAT Projectile." BRL-TN-724, U.S.
Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, August 1952
(AD 803074).

2. Sylvester, M.A., and Krieger, R.H. "Wind Tunnel Tests of the T340EIl 90mm HE Projectile
with Varying Spike Nose and Spool-Type-Body Parameters." BRL-MR-1146, U.S. Army
Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, April 1958
(AD 301103).

3. Falkowski, E.W. "Static and Dynamic Stability Characteristics of the Supersonic Infantry
Projectile at Transonic Velocities." Technicai Memorandum 1565, U.S. Army Picatirnny
Arsenal, Dover, NJ, June 1965.

4. Falkowski, E.W., and Fleming, G.C. "Acrodynamic Characteristics of the Modified 105-mm
M490 Training Projectile!." Tcchnical Report ARLCD-TR-81043, ARDC, Dover, NJ, April
1982.

5. Corcc, J.D., and Best, J.T. "Static Stability and Axial Force Characteristics of Several U.S.
Army 105-mm Antitank Projectile Configurations at Mach Numbers 1.5 to 3.5." AEDC-
TR-76-101, Arnold Air Force Station, Tennessee, September 1976.

6. Karpov, B.G., and Piddington, M.J. "Effect on Drag of Two Stable Flow Configurations Over
the Nose Spike of the 90mm T316 Projectile." Technical Note No. 595, U.S. Army
Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, October 1954
(AD 803115).

7. Krieger, R.H. "The Aerodynamic Design of Fin Stabilized Ammunition." Memorandum Report
No. 971, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland,
February 1956 (AD 90193).

8. Sabin, C.P. "The Aerodynamic Properties of A Spike-Nosed Shell at Transonic Velocities."

Memorandum Report No. 1112, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen
Proving Ground, Maryland, November 1957 (AD 156637).

9. McCoy, R.L. "A Limited Aerodynamic Test of the 105mm Projectile, M456A1, and Three
Nose-Spike Modifications." ARBRL-MR-02862, U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory,
Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, September 1978 (AD B032242L).

10. Guenther, R.A., and Reding, P.J. "Fluctuating Pressure Environment of A Drag Reducing
Spike." AIAAjkurnitl, Vol. 14, No. 12, Deccmbcr 1977, pp. 705-710.

11. Ericsson, L.E. "Flow Pulsation on Concave Conic Forebodies." Jornal of Spacecraft and
Rocke, Vol. 15, No. 5, September-October 1978, pp 287-292.

12. Reding, P.J., and Jccmcn, D.I. "Effects of External Burning on Spike-Induced Separated
Flow." Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 20, No. 5, Scptcmber-Octobcr 1983, pp
452-453.

13. Haupt, B.F., and Koenig, K. "Aerodynamic Effects of Probe-Induced Flow Separation on
Bluff Bodies at Transonic Mach Numbrrs." .f Spacecraft aln Rockcts, Vol. 24,
a_.rnla
No. 4, Julk-August 1987, pp 327-333.

33
14. Shang. 1.S.. Hankey, W.L.. ar.d Smith. R.E. "Flow Oscillations of Spikc-Tipped Bodies."
AlAA Journal, Vol. 20, No. 1, January 1982, pp 25-26.
15. Calarese, W., and Hankey, W.L. "Modes of Shock-Wave Oscillations on Spike-Tipped
Bodies." AIAA Journal, Vol. 23, No. 2, February 1985, pp 185-192.

16. Platou, A.S. "Body Nose Shapes for Obtaining High Static Stability." BRL-MR-592, U.S.
Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, February 1952
(AD 802157).

17. Unpublished Firing Range Mcesurements, Launch and Flight Division, U.S. Army Ballistic
Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, 1980.

18. Koenig, K., Bridges. D.H., and Chapman, G.T. "Transonic Flow Modes of an Axisymmctric
Blunt Body." AIAA Paper No. 88-3536, 1st National Fluid Dynamics Congress, Cincinnati.
Ohio, July 1988.

19. Patel, N.R., and Sturek, W.B. "Multi-Tasked Numerical Simulation of Axisymmetric Ramjet
Flows Using Zonal, Overlapped Grids." BRL-MR-3834, U.S. Army Ballistic Research
Laboratory, Aberdern Proving Ground, Maryland, May 1990 (AD

20. Bddwin, B.S., and Lomax, H. "Thin-Layer Approximation and Algebraic Model for Separated
Turbulent Flows." AIAA Paper No. 78-257, January 1978.

21. Danberg, I.E., and Patel, N.R. "An Algebraic Turbulent Model For Flow Separation Caused
by Forward and Backward Facing Steps." BRL-MR-3791, U.S. Army Ballistic Research
Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, December 1989 (AD

22. NSWC-AP Code, Reference: Devan, L. and Mason, L. A. "Acrodynamics of Tactical

Weapons to Mach 8 and Angle of Attack 180': Part II, Computer Program and Users
Guide." NSWC.TR-81-358, Naval Surface Weapons Center, Dahlgren, Virginia, September
1981.

23. Whlitefieid, J.D., and Potter, J.L. "The Influence of Siiglht Leading Edge Bluntness on
Boundary-Layer Transition at Mach Number of Eight." AEDC-TDR-64-18, Arnold
Engineering Development Center, Terunessee, March 1964.

24. Shcetz, N. W. "Ballistics Range Experiments on the Effect of Unit Reynolds Number on
Boundary-Layer Transition." Proceedings of the 8th Navy Symposium on Aeroballistics,
Vol. 1, pp. 201-214, June 1969.

34
 LIST OF SYMBOLS

Nomenclatiure

A,, = reference area, (rd 2/4)

CD = drag coefficient, drag forcel(.5 p._ V2 Af)
Cp = specific heat under constant pressure
Cv = specific heat under constant volume
d = reference diameter
d, = spike diameter
e = specific total energy
M = Mach number
p = static pressure
Re = Reynolds number
u,v = velocity components in the x,y directions
V. = free stream velocity
x,y = Cartesian coordinates for 2-D case, axial and radial coordinates for axisymmctric
case

Greek symbols

a = angle of attack
-y = ratio of specific heats for air
p = density
g. = laminar (molecular) viscosity coefficient
E = turbulent eddy viscosity coefficient
= transformed coordinates in the computational plane for the coordinates x,y
=,rl

su bscdmj

o = denotes stagnation (total) condition

cc = free stream condition

35
Intentionally left blank.

36
No of No of
Q QOrganization • 1. L ! ' 'l

Office of the Secretary of Defense 1 Director

OUSD(A) US Army Aviation Research
Director, Live Fire Testing and Technology Activity
ATTN: James F. O'Fryon ATTN: SAVRT-R (Library)
Washington, DC 20301-3110 M/S 219-3
Ames Research Center
2 Administrator Moffett Field, CA 94035-1000
Defense Technical Info Center
ATTN: DTIC-DDA I Commander
Cameron Station US Army Missile Command
Alexandria, VA 22304-6145 ATTN: AMSMI-RD-CS-R (DOC)
Redstone Arsenal. AL 35898-5010
HQDA (SARD-TR)
WASH DC 20310-0001 1 Commander
US Army Tank-Automotive Command
Commander ATTN: AMSTA-TSL (Technical Library)
US Army Materiel Command Warren, MI 48397-5000
AUTN: AMCDRA-ST
5001 Eiscnhowcr Averue I Director
Alexandria. VA 22333-0001 US Army TRADOC Analysis Command
ATTN: ATAA-SL
Commander White Sands Missile Range, NMNI 88002-5502
US Army Laboratory Command
A'TTN: AMSLC-DL (CaIU. onl) 1 Commandant
Adelphi. MD 20783-1145 US Army Infantry School
ATT'N: ATSH-CD (Security Mgr.)
2 Commander Fort Henning, GA 31905-5660
US Army, ARDEC
ATTN: SMCAR-IMI-I (Un . only) I Commandant
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000 US Army Infantry School
ATTN: ATSH-CD-CSO-OR
2 Commander Fort Benning, GA 31905-5660
US Army, ARDEC
AN1N: SMCAR-TDC 1 Air Force Armament Laboratory
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07806-5000 ATIN: AFATL/DLODL
Eglin AFB, FL 32542-5000
Director
Benet Weapons Laboratory Aberdeen Proving Ground
US Army, ARDEC
AT'N: SMCAR-CCB-TL 2 Dir, USAMSAA
Watervliet, NY 12189-4050 ATTN: AMXSY-D
AMXSY-MP, H. Cohcn
Commander I Cdr. USATECOM
US Army Armament, Munitons A1TN: AMSI E-TD
and Chemical Command 3 Cdr. CRDEC, AMCCOM
ATTN: SMCAR-ESP-L ATTN: SMCCR-RSP-A
Rock Island. IL 61299-5000 SMCCR-MU
SMCCR-MSI
Commander I Dir, VLAMO
US Army Aviation Systems Command ATIN: AMSLC-VL-D
ATTN: AMSAV-DACL
4300 Goodfcllow Blvd.
St. Louis, MO 63120-1798

37
No. of No. of
Cis Organintion Copies Organization

4 Commander 2 Southwest Research Institute

US Army, ARDEC ATTN: Mr. T.R. Jcter
ATTN: SMCAR-AET-A, Dr. R. White
R. Klne Energetics Systems
S. Kahn P.O. Box 28510
H. Hudgins San Antonio, TX 78284
J. Grau
Picatinny Arsenal, NJ 07306-5000 1 Batteile Northwest
AfTN: Mr. M. Garnich
2 Commander P.O. Box 999
Naval Surface Warfare Center Richland, WA 99358
AITN: Dr. F. Moore
Dr. T. Clare, Code DK2O I Lockheed Company
Dahlgren, VA 22448 AT"N: M.. john Gerky
P.O. Pjx 33, Dept. 1/330
Commander Ont•io, CA 91761
Naval Surface Warfare Center
ATTN: Dr. A. Wardlaw 1 AAJ Corporation
Silver Spring. MD 20910 ATTN: Dr. T. Stasney
P.O. Box 6767
2 Sandia National Laboratories Baltimore, MD 21204
ATTN: Dr. W.L. Oberkampf
Dr. F. Blotncr 1 UniLed States Military Academy
Division 1636 Department of Mechanics
P.O. Box 5800 ATIN: LTC Andrew L. Dull
Albuquerque, NM 87185 West Point, NY 10996

Director 1 Commander
NASA US Army Missile Command
Ames Research Center AMlN: AMSMI-RD, Dr. W Walker
ATTN: MS-227-8, L. Schiff Redstone Arsenal, AL 35898-5000
Moffett Field, CA 94035

Director
Defense Advanced Research Projects
Agency
ATTN: Tactical Technology Office
1400 Wilson Boulevard
Arlington, VA 22209

Massachusetts Institute of Technology

AT-IN: Tech Library
77 Massachusetts Avenue
Cambridge, MA 02,39

38
 USER EVALUATION SHEET/CUANGE 3F ADDRESS

This Laboratory undertakes a continuing effort to improve the quality of the reports it publishes.
Your comments/answers to the items/questions below will aid us in our efforts.

1. ORL Report Number BRL-TR-3140 Date of Report AUGUST 1990

2. Date Report Received

3. Does this report satisfy a need? (Comment on purpose, related project, or other area of interest
for which the report will be used.)

4, Specifically, how is the report being used? (Information source, design data, procedure, source
of ideas, etc.)

5. Has the information in this report led to any quantitalive savings as far as man-hours or dollars
saved, operating costs avoided, or efficiencies achieved. etc? If so, please elahorate.

6. General Comments. What do you think should oe changed to improve future reports? (Indicate
changes 4o organization, technical content, format, etc.)

Name

CURRENT Organization
ADDRESS
Address

City. S:ate, Zip Code

7. If ndicating a Change of Address or Address Correction, please provide the Ncw or Corrfce
Address in Block 6 above and the Old or Incorrect address below.

i lame

OLD Organization
ADDRESS
Address

City, State, Zip Code

(Remove this sheet, fold as indicated, staple or tape closed, and mail.)