0
Exterior Ballistics

# Investigation of the Magnus Effect of a Generic Projectile at Mach 3 Up to 16 Degrees Angle of Attack

[+] Author and Article Information
D. Klatt

Ph.D. Student
Aerodynamics and Wind Tunnels Group,
French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis (ISL),
5 rue du Général Cassagnou,
P.O. Box 70034,
68301 Saint-Louis, France
e-mail: daniel.klatt@isl.eu

R. Hruschka

Researcher
Aerodynamics and Wind Tunnels Group,
French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis (ISL),
5 rue du Général Cassagnou,
P.O. Box 70034,
68301 Saint-Louis, France
e-mail: robert.hruschka@isl.eu

F. Leopold

Head of Aerodynamics and Wind Tunnels Group
Aerodynamics and Wind Tunnels Group,
French-German Research Institute of Saint-Louis (ISL),
5 rue du Général Cassagnou,
P.O. Box 70034,
68301 Saint-Louis, France
e-mail: friedrich.leopold@isl.eu

Manuscript received July 31, 2012; final manuscript received January 14, 2013; accepted manuscript posted January 18, 2013; published online April 19, 2013. Assoc. Editor: Bo S. G. Janzon.

J. Appl. Mech 80(3), 031603 (Apr 19, 2013) (9 pages) Paper No: JAM-12-1359; doi: 10.1115/1.4023434 History: Received July 31, 2012; Revised January 14, 2013; Accepted January 18, 2013

## Abstract

The Magnus effect on a generic 6.37 diameter long tangential-ogive-cylinder type projectile was studied by means of 3D Reynolds-averaged Navier–Stokes (RANS) simulations and wind tunnel measurements. The nominal Mach number was 3 and the Reynolds number, based on the model length, was 1.09 × 107. The simulations provided a profound insight into the flow structure and revealed a shift of the cross-flow separation lines as a consequence of the spin. This was shown to be the primary source of the Magnus side force for the higher angles of attack in the investigated range. The nonlinear dependence of the Magnus side force on the angle of attack was analyzed and reached a maximum value between 10 and 15 deg before decreasing again. The occurrence of secondary vortices in this range of angles of attack is presented as an explanation for a locally negative Magnus side force portion acting on the model.

<>

## References

Murphy, C. H. and Schmidt, L. E., 1953, “The Effect of Length on the Aerodynamic Characteristics of Bodies of Revolution in Supersonic Flight,” U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, MD, Technical Report No. BRLMR-876.
Donneaud, O., Chemière, C., Cayzac, R., and Champigny, P., 2002, “Recent Developments on Aeroballistics of Yawing and Spinning Projectiles: Part II—Free Flight Tests,” 20th International Symposium on Ballistics, Orlando, FL, September 23–27, pp. 157–164.
DeSpirito, J., Silton, S. I., and Weinacht, P., 2009, “Navier-Stokes Predictions of Dynamic Stability Derivatives: Evaluation of Steady-State Methods,” J. Spacecr. Rockets, 46(6), pp. 1142–1154.
Luchuk, W. and Sparks, W., 1954, “Wind-Tunnel Magnus Characteristics of the 7-Caliber Army-Navy Spinner Rocket,” U.S. Naval Ordnance Laboratory, White Oak, MD, NAVORD Technical Report No. 3813.
Platou, A. S., 1965, “Magnus Characteristics of Finned and Nonfinned Projectiles,” AIAA J., 3(1), pp. 83–90.
Sturek, W. B., 1975, “Boundary Layer Studies on a Spinning Tangent-Ogive-Cylinder Model,” U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, MD, Technical Report No. BRL-MR-1801.
Kayser, L. D. and Sturek, W. B., 1978, “Experimental Measurements in the Turbulent Boundary Layer of a Yawed, Spinning Ogive-Cylinder Body of Revolution at Mach 3.0. Part I. Description of the Experiment and Data Analysis,” U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, MD, Technical Report No. ARBRL-MR-02808.
Kayser, L. D., Sturek, W. B., and Yanta, W. J., 1978, “Measurements in the Turbulent Boundary Layer of a Yawed, Spinning Body of Revolution at Mach 3.0 With a Laser Velocimeter and Impact Probe,” AIAA Paper No. 78-824, pp. 419–425.
Nietubicz, C. J. and Opalka, K. O., 1980, “Supersonic Wind Tunnel Measurements of Static and Magnus Aerodynamic Coefficients for Projectile Shapes With Tangent and Secant Ogive Noses,” U.S. Army Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Aberdeen, MD, Technical Report No. ARBRL-MR-02991.
Champigny, P., Ceroni, D., Thépot, R., Cayzac, R., Carette, E., Trouillot, C., and Donneaud, O., 2002, “Recent Developments on Aeroballistics of Yawing and Spinning Projectiles: Part I—Wind Tunnel Tests,” 20th International Symposium on Ballistics, Orlando, FL, September 23–27, pp. 203–208.
Sturek, W. B., 1984, “Applications of CFD to the Aerodynamics of Spinning Shell,” 22nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, January 9–12, AIAA, Paper No. 84-0323.
Nietubicz, C. J. and Sturek, W. B., 1988, “Navier-Stokes Code Verification for Projectile Configurations at Supersonic and Transonic Velocities,” 15th Aerodynamic Testing Conference, San Diego, CA, May 18–20, AIAA Paper No. AIAA-88-1995.
Sturek, W. B., Nietubicz, C. J., Sahu, J., and Weinacht, P., 1994, “Applications of Computational Fluid Dynamics to the Aerodynamics of Army Projectiles,” J. Spacecr. Rockets, 31(2), pp. 186–199.
Cayzac, R., Carette, E., Champigny, P., Thépot, R., and Donneaud, O., 2002, “Recent Developments on Aeroballistics of Yawing and Spinning Projectiles: Part III—First CFD Validation Results,” 20th International Symposium on Ballistics, Orlando, FL, September 23–27, pp. 11–19.
Cayzac, R., Carette, E., Denis, P., and Guillen, P., 2011, “Magnus Effect: Physical Origins and Numerical Prediction,” ASME J. Appl. Mech., 78(5), p. 051005.
Martin, J. C., 1957, “On Magnus Effects Caused by the Boundary-Layer Displacement Thickness on Bodies of Revolution at Small Angles of Attack,” J. Aeronaut. Sci., 24(6), pp. 421–429.
Kelly, H. R. and Thacker, G. R., 1956, “The Effect of High Spin on the Magnus Force on a Cylinder at Small Angles of Attack,” U. S. Naval Ordance Test Station, China Lake, CA, Technical Report No. NAVORD-5036.
Iversen, J. D., 1973, “Correlation of Magnus Force Data for Slender Spinning Cylinders,” J. Spacecr. Rockets, 10(4), pp. 268–272.
Power, H. L. and Iversen, J. D., 1973, “Magnus Effect on Spinning Bodies of Revolution,” AIAA J., 11(4), pp. 417–418.
Vaughn, H. R. and Reis, G. E., 1973, “A Magnus Theory,” AIAA J., 11(10), pp. 1396–1403.
Menter, F. R., 1994, “Two-Equation Eddy-Viscosity Turbulence Models for Engineering Applications,” AIAA J., 32(8), pp. 1598–1605.

## Figures

Fig. 1

Model geometry: tangential-ogive-cylinder projectile

Fig. 2

Topology of a cut through the central plane of the mesh M3 used for the investigation of the influence of the mounting structure: (a) structured mesh for the sting-mounted model; (b) zoom into the region near the model

Fig. 3

Visualization of the vortex system at a 9 deg angle of attack: (a) visualization for the nonspinning model; (b) visualization for the spinning model

Fig. 4

Contour lines of the vortices for the spinning and nonspinning test case at a 9 deg angle of attack

Fig. 5

Normal force coefficient for a model at a dimensionless spin rate of p¯ = 0.000 and p¯ = 0.107

Fig. 6

Magnus side force coefficient versus angle of attack

Fig. 7

Density field at a position of x = 0.75 diameters upstream of the base for a Mach number of 3 and an angle of attack of 2 deg: (a) model spin rate, p¯ = 0.000 (b) model spin rate, p¯ = 0.107

Fig. 8

Density field at a position of x = 0.75 diameters upstream of the base for a Mach number of 3 and an angle of attack of 6 deg: (a) model spin rate, p¯ = 0.000; (b) model spin rate, p¯ = 0.107

Fig. 9

Density field at a position of x = 0.75 diameters upstream of the base for a Mach number of 3 and an angle of attack of 9 deg: (a) model spin rate, p¯ = 0.000; (b) model spin rate, p¯ = 0.107

Fig. 10

Density field at a position of x = 0.75 diameters upstream of the base for a Mach number of 3 and an angle of attack of 12 deg: (a) model spin rate, p¯ = 0.000; (b) model spin rate, p¯ = 0.107

Fig. 11

Normalized circumferential pressure distribution for a 2 deg angle of attack

Fig. 19

Normalized circumferential sum of pressure and shear distribution in the side force direction at a position of x = 0.75 diameters upstream of the base

Fig. 18

Vortex formation for angles of attack of 9 deg and 14 deg at a spin rate of p¯ = 0.107 and a position of x = 0.75 diameters upstream of the base: (a) α = 9 deg, p¯ = 0.107; (b) α = 14 deg, p¯ = 0.107

Fig. 17

Magnus side force coefficient distribution along the model longitudinal axis for a spin rate of p¯ = 0.107 at different angles of attack

Fig. 16

Distribution of the normalized pressure difference on the model for an angle of attack of 6 deg and a spin rate of p¯ = 0.107

Fig. 15

Normalized circumferential pressure difference between the spinning (p¯ = 0.107) and the nonspinning model for different angles of attack

Fig. 14

Normalized circumferential pressure distribution for a 12 deg angle of attack

Fig. 13

Normalized circumferential pressure distribution for a 9 deg angle of attack

Fig. 12

Normalized circumferential pressure distribution for a 6 deg angle of attack

## Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

### Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related Proceedings Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections