Proceedings of the 37th National & 4th International Conference on Fluid Mechanics and Fluid Power December 16-18,

2010, IIT Madras, Chennai, India. FMFP10 - HS - 14

Aerodynamic Analysis of a Rocket Configuration with Grid Fin

J Sreenivasulu*, Dr. Patil M M and A E Sivaramakrishnan$

Abstract CFD simulations have been carried out on a rocket configuration with a flared base using PARAS code at various Mach numbers. This configuration has propulsive motor nozzles projected to the flow at the middle and grid fins are provided at the end. The viscous turbulent flow studies have been carried out to generate aerodynamic coefficients and load distribution with and without grid fins. The computed aerodynamic coefficients obtained through CFD agree within 10% of the reported wind tunnel test data for Apollo Escape Vehicle. The variation of aerodynamic coefficients with Mach number is on the expected lines. At transonic Mach number, the flows get chocked and normal shock is formed inside the grid fins, causing considerable increase in drag and reduction in grid fin effectiveness. Grid fins are very effective to improve the stability in subsonic and supersonic regimes. Keywords Grid Fins, PARAS-3D, Aerodynamic coefficients Nomenclature
Symbol D M Quantity Diameter Mach number Angle of attack Moment coefficient Normal force coefficient Axial force coefficient Load distribution along x-axis Longitudinal distance Reference area m2 m m2 deg Units m

CM CN CA SdCN/d(x/D) X S

I. INTRODUCTION rid fins are relatively new aeromechanic technology used for providing the required static margin during sustainer phase of a rocket. The design of these grid fins allow an effective aerodynamic control device stowed along with the sustainer body with a minimum increase in the overall dimensions. This will give very small disturbance to the flow over the main vehicle. A grid fin is an unconventional lifting and control surface consisting of an outer frame supporting an inner grid of intersecting small chord planar surfaces [1]. Most advantage of the grid fins are, desired when kept folded during flight regime and deployed whenever it is required. The drag of the grid fin can be minimized with the proper design of the inner grid [2]. Computational fluid dynamic (CFD) techniques to calculate the viscous flow around grid fins were recently demonstrated [3], [4]. Unlike conventional planar fins which experience maximum normal force coefficient during transonic regime, a grid fin experiences lesser normal force coefficients which is commonly referred as Transonic bucket[5]. The main objective of this study is to analyze the effect of grid fin over a rocket configuration. Section two of this paper presents geometry details and computational approach carried out using PARAS-3D. Section three gives the details of the studies carried out at different Mach numbers and the results.

J Sreenivasulu., Sci./Engr SC, Aerodynamics Design Division, Vikram Sarabhai Space Center, Thiruvananthapuram, kerala, India-69502. (e-mail: sreenivas_j@vssc.gov.in or jksnivas@gmail.com). Dr. Patil M M, Sci./Engr SG, Aerodynamics Design Division, Vikram Sarabhai Space Center, Thiruvananthapuram, kerala, India-69502. (e-mail: mm_patil@vssc.gov.in) $ A E Sivaramakrishnan, Head, Aerodynamics Design Division, Vikram Sarabhai Space Center, Thiruvananthapuram, kerala, India-69502. (e-mail: ae_sivaramakrishnan@vssc.gov.in) .

II. COMPUTATIONAL APPROACH A. Geometry generation The CFD simulation is used to determine the stability and aerodynamic coefficients on a rocket configuration with and without grid fin. The rocket configuration used in the CFD study consists of a nose followed by a cylinder of diameter 1D with propulsive nozzles at the end of the cylinder, followed by a towered interstage which ends up with a flare. This configuration has a flared base of diameter 4.5625D, four rockets are attached on the flare circumferentially equi distance and four grid fins are located at the base of vehicle. The total length of configuration is 16.8275D. Figure 1 shows the rocket configuration with grid fin and Figure 2 shows the rocket configuration without grid fin used in this study. Each grid fin has a height of 1.25D, span of 0.703D and chord length of 0.1875D. Each grid fin consists of 7x4 panels and each panel of thickness 0.01875D. B. Flow Solver The study has been carried out using Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) through an in house developed code PARAS-3D. PARAS-3D is versatile tool for analyzing various type of flow with multiple free streams. The Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes (RANS) equations are solved. The turbulent flows are simulated using k- model in association with modified wall functions. The explicit finite volume method is used for solution of RANS equations. The time integration has done using Euler scheme. The inviscid fluxes are computed using an approximate Riemann solver. Viscous flux terms are computed using central differencing scheme C. Grid Generation The PARAS code uses the Cartesian grids. The grid is generated by means of an adaptive Cartesian mesh technique. The overall flow domain for subsonic flow analysis is 60 D on all sides with flow symmetry. Initially a coarse grid with approximately 8.5 million cells is used. During flow simulation the grids are refined and finally a finer grid of 11 million cells is arrived at. Figure 3 shows the section of 3D grid for M less than 1. In order to capture the flow features, appropriate cluster was used to make finer grid near the body. For supersonic study, the flow domain is 6D upstream and 60D on other sides. The initial coarse grid contained nearly 8.5 million cells and the final finer grid turned out to be 18 million cells. Figure 4 shows the section of 3D grids for M greater than 1. The boundary conditions are implemented with the dummy cells. Computational grid at the close up view of grid fin is shown in Figure 5 D. Convergence Computations were initiated by specifying initial value to the entire domain. During computations, forces and moments are monitored. Figure 6 shows the typical converged curves for CA, CN and CM at Mach number 0.8 and angle of attack of 40 for a rocket configuration with grid fin. E. Grid Independence Test The grids are refined at different levels during computation. Results are obtained for the coarse and finer grids. The result of the grid independence study at M=0.8 and angle of attack of 40 for a rocket configuration without grid fin is shown in Figure 7. These show the results are within 2.5%. III RESULTS & DISCUSSION Computations were performed to analyze the flow over a rocket configuration with and without grid fins under jet-off and jet-on conditions. For different Mach numbers, the jet pressure ratio used in simulations are given in Table 1. Computations have been carried out at various Mach numbers and attitude at 4 deg. angle of attack. Table 1: Jet pressure ratio of jet-on condition Mach number 0.6 0.8 1.2 2 Jet pressure ratio 8.72 11.5 21.39 53.54

A. Validation The viscous simulation tool used in this study is validated using existing wind tunnel test data [6]. The Apollo configuration is chosen for this purpose since extensive wind tunnel data are available for comparison. The flow analysis at Mach number of 0.7 and angle of attack of 50 is carried out at wind tunnel test flow conditions. The static margin is calculated from nose tip. The comparison of aerodynamic coefficients is given in Table 2. The computed normal force coefficient is 10% higher than experimental data. The moment coefficient is 2% lower than experimental values. Table 2: Validation results of Apollo vehicle at M=0.7 and =50
Literature CM CN Static Margin (interms of D) -0.0932 0.1837 0.5086 Computed -0.09513 0.1655 0.576 Difference 2.02% -9.9% 0.0674

B. Aerodynamic characterization of a rocket configuration with and without grid fin Figure 8 shows the variation of static margin with Mach number for a rocket configuration with and without grid fin. Rocket with and without grid fin configurations are simulated under jet-off and jet-on conditions. In presence of jet, center of gravity of the rocket configurations moves towards base. Jets improve the static margin at lower Mach numbers. Both the configurations have minimum static margin of 1D. Grid fins are effective in subsonic and supersonic Mach numbers. At transonic Mach numbers rocket configuration with grid fin has less static margin than rocket configuration without grid fin. Figure 9 to Figure 12 show the load distribution over a rocket configuration with and without grid fin for various Mach number under jet-off and jet-on conditions. It is seen from the figures that the flow is smooth till the nozzle region. Also a sharp rise in the load distribution is seen at the nozzle region under jet-off condition. The load distribution behind the nozzle is smooth and increases at the flare and then decreases due to the change in the flare angle. At the grid fin location the load distribution increases. At transonic Mach numbers the load distribution due to the grid fins decreases is shown in Figure 11. At transonic Mach number, the flow gets choked and normal shock is formed inside the grid fins, causing considerable increase in drag and reduction in grid fin effectiveness [5]. At supersonic Mach number grid fins are very affective to increase the load distribution is shown in Figure 12. IV CONCLUSION Aerodynamic coefficients and load distribution over a rocket configuration with and without grid fin has been generated. The variation of aerodynamic coefficients with Mach number is on the expected lines. Both the configurations have a static margin of 1D. At transonic Mach number, the flow gets chocked due to normal shock formed inside the grid fins, causing considerable increase in drag and reduction in grid fin effectiveness. Grid fins are very effective to improve the stability in subsonic and supersonic regions. ACKNOWLEDGEMENT Authors are thankful to Dr. George Joseph., GD, ADTG and Sri. S.V Sharma, Deputy Director, Aeronautics Entity, VSSC for their guidance and encouragement for this work. We also thankful to Sri. Rakesh C K, HSP, VSSC for his support in geometry modeling. Authors thankful to Dr. T Jayachandran, Head, FMTD for kindly agreeing to review the paper and for the valuable suggestions. REFERENCES
[1] Karl S. Orthner and Ensign, Aerodynamic Analysis of Lattice Grid Fins in Transonic Flow AFIT/GAE/ENY/04-J09 [2] Miller, M. S., and Washington, W. D., An Experimental Investigation of Grid Fin Drag Reduction Techniques, AIAA Paper 94-1914CP, Jun. 1994. [3] DeSpirito, J., Edge, H. L., Weinacht, P., Sahu, J., and Dinavahi, S. P. G., Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of a Missile With Grid Fins, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 38, No. 5, 2001, pp. 711718. [4] DeSpirito, J., and Sahu, J., Viscous CFD Calculations of Grid Fin Missile Aerodynamics in the Supersonic Flow Regime, AIAA Paper 2001-2057, Jan. 2001 [5] Wm. David Washington and Mark S Millar., Experimental investigation of grid fin aerodynamics-A synopsis of nine wind tunnel and three flight tests, RTO AVT symposium on Missile Aerodynamics, Sorrento, Italy, 11-14 May 1998 [6] William C. Moseley, Jr. and James G.Honros., Aerodynamic Stability Characteristics of the Apollo Launch Escape Vehicle, NASA, TN D-3964

Nozzle

Figure 3 Section view of 3D grid for M<1

Figure 1 Rocket configuration with grid fin Figure 4 Section view of 3D grid for M>1

Figure 5 Computational grids at the close up of grid fin

No. of cells CA CN CM in million 18 5 30 12 4 24 CA, CN and CM 12 3 18 10 2 12 6 1 0 0 6 0 9

M=0.8, =4 and jet-off

11

No. of cells in million CM CN CA

Figure 2 Rocket configuration without grid fin

25

50

75

100

125

No. of Iterations/1000

Figure 6 Convergence history at M=0.8, =40 for a Rocket configuration with grid fin

M=0.8, =4 and jet-off 1.5 1.0 0.5

2

M=0.8, =4 , Jet-off
1.5

Fine grid Coarse grid

1.0

with grid fin without grid fin

SdCN/d(x/D), m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

SdCN/d(x/D), m

0.5 0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5 -2.0 -2.5

10

12

14

16

18

Longitudinal Distance (x/D)

Longitudinal distance (x/D)

Figure 7 Grid independence test at M=0.8, =4 for a Rocket configuration without grid fin

Figure 10 Load distribution over a Rocket configuration with and without grid fin at M=0.8 and =40
0

2.8

M=1.2, =4 and jet-off

without grid fin (jet-on) with grid fin (jet-on) without grid fin (jet-off) with grid fin (jet-off)
1.5 1.0

Static Margin (interms of D)

2.6 2.4 2.2 2.0 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1.0 0.8 0.4

with grid fin without grid fin

SdCN/d(x/D), m
0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2.0 2.2

0.5 0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

Mach Number

10

12

14

16

18

Mach number

Figure 8 Variation of static margin with Mach number for a Rocket configuration with and without grid fin

Figure 11 Load distribution over a Rocket configuration with and without grid fin at M=1.2 and =40

M=0.6, =4 an Jet off 1.5 1.0

2

M=2.0, =4 and jet-on

with grid fin without grid fin
2

1.5 1.0

SdCN/d(x/D), m

0.5

with grid fin without grid fin

SdCN/d(x/D), m
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18

0.5 0 -0.5 -1.0

0 -0.5 -1.0 -1.5

-1.5

Longitudinal Distance (x/D)

10

12

14

16

18

Figure 9 Load distribution over a Rocket configuration with and without grid fin at M=0.6 and =40

Longitudinal Distance (x/D)

Figure 12 Load distribution over a Rocket configuration with and without grid fin at M=2.0 and =40