ARMY RESEARCH LABORATORY

l '* ^ it '*• e '. it i ' "C

Experimental Validation of Elliptical

Fin Opening Behavior

James M. Garner
Paul Weinacht
Robert P. Kaste

jr H,rfjfl>>iMM-iilriir'rTf"H Vili. ifr-Tna.K. .„.n -TT Mm i'ill •tf-iT>«Sriti''ftr1

ARL-TR-2527 SEPTEMBER 2001

20011102 069
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
 The findings in this report are not to be construed as an official Department of the Army position
unless so designated by other authorized documents.

Citation of manufacturer's or trade names does not constitute an official endorsement or approval of
the use thereof.

Destroy this report when it is no longer needed. Do not return it to the originator.
Army Research Laboratory
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066

ARL-TR-2527 September 2001

Experimental Validation of Elliptical Fin

Opening Behavior

James M. Garner
Paul Weinacht
Robert P. Kaste
Weapons & Materials Research Directorate

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

Abstract

An effort to improve the performance of ordnance has led to the

consideration of the use of folding elliptical fins for projectile
stabilization. A second order differential equation was used to model
elliptical fin deployment history and accounts for deployment with
respect to the geometric properties of the fin, the variation in fin
aerodynamics during deployment, the initial yaw effect on fin
opening, and the variation in deployment speed based on changes in
projectile spin. This model supports tests conducted at the Transonic
Experimental Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, which
examined the opening behavior of these uniquely shaped fins. A
companion boat tail configuration is created by sectioning the
projectile base and joining with the fin. The configuration is both
space efficient and aerodynamic. Reduced drag coefficients have been
documented for this configuration and it is employable on a variety of
projectiles. The fins use the centrifugal force from the projectile spin to
deploy. During the deployment, the fin aerodynamic forces vary with
angle-of-attack changes in the free stream. Model results indicate that
projectile spin dominates the initial opening rates and that
aerodynamics dominate near the fully open state. Vibratory fin
motions after elastic and inelastic collisions with the fin stop are also
examined. The aerodynamics and initial state conditions correspond
to a zone 7w artillery firing (roughly Mach 2.25) that uses a slip band
obturator and with muzzle exit yaws of 0 and 5 degrees. The model
results are examined to explain the observed behavior and to suggest
improvements for later designs.
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The origination of this design is an adaptation of a fin design by Lyle Kayser, of the
former Ballistic Research Laboratory. It is an extension of the principles developed
under the high capacity artillery projectile program. James Bender, U.S. Army
Research Laboratory (ARL) 75-pound shell program originator, sponsored the
experiments, provided guidance, and assisted in the analysis. The ARL machine
shop (specifically, Gary Sprenkle) did a masterful job in fabricating the projectiles
and offering constructive suggestions. Finally, the personnel at the Transonic
Experimental Facility were able to evaluate the design in a timely manner, and their
efforts are appreciated.

in
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

IV
Contents

1. Introduction 1
2. Design Aspects . 2
3. Results and Discussion 9
4. Conclusions 17
References 19
Distribution List 21
Report Documentation Page 23
Figures
1. Isometric and Rear View of the 75-pound Projectile 1
2. Components of the 75-pound Projectile 3
3. Schematic of Fin Opening 4
4. View of the Compound Angle of the Hinge Line 6
5. Effective Fin Cant Angle as a Function of Fin Opening Angle 7
6. Effective Fin Cant Angle as a Function of Fin Opening Angle, Zero
Yaw and Zero Spin 8
7. Schematic Showing Orientation of Fins A Through D Relative to
Pitch Plane 8
8. Schematic Showing Orientation of Experimental Setup 10
9. Seventy-five-pound Projectile at 16.77 m From the Muzzle 10
10. Fin Opening Motion Over a 120-foot Trajectory 11
11. Fin Opening Angle as a Function of Time, Zero Yaw, 15.6-Hz
Spin Rate 12
12. Fin Opening Angle as a Function of Time, 5 Degrees of Yaw,
15.6-Hz Spin Rate 12
13. Fin Opening Angle as a Function of Time, 5 Degrees of Yaw,
30-Hz Spin Rate 14
14. Fin Opening Angle as a Function of Time, No Locking Mechanism,
Zero Yaw, 15.6-Hz Spin Rate 15
15. Fin Opening Angle as a Function of Time, No Locking Mechanism,
5 Degrees of Yaw, 15.6-Hz Spin Rate 16
16. Fin Angle Response to Impact With Fin Stop as a Function of Time
for No Locking Mechanism, 5 Degrees of Yaw, 15.6-Hz Spin Rate . . 16

Table
1. Hinge and Boat Tail Angles 7
INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

VI
 EXPERIMENTAL VALIDATION OF ELLIPTICAL
FIN-OPENING BEHAVIOR

1. Introduction

Proposals to create a composite artillery projectile have arisen recently. A prime

benefit of such a round would be a roughly 25% reduction in projectile weight.
The weight reduction has significant benefits in terms of transportation and
loading/handling of the projectiles. A proposed composite artillery projectile
offered by the U.S. Army Research Laboratory employs fins as a stabilization
method. Spin stabilization (the present standard for artillery projectiles) would
require extensive engineering and specialized fabrication to withstand the torque
loads applied in bore. Additionally, the mass distribution for efficient spin
stabilization in a lightweight projectile would be unfavorable for use with the
current projectile payloads.

An alternative to conventional fins (fixed, folding, or wrap around) is offered

with the use of elliptical, deployable fins. These fins (dubbed "Kayser" fins in
honor of their creator, Lyle Kayser), combined with their inherent boat tail,
reduce the increase in drag associated with the addition of fins to a previously
un-finned body. The typical Kayser four-fin configuration is shown in Figure 1.
The fins are stowed in bore and are designed to fully deploy to 135 degrees
(2.36 radians) upon muzzle exit.

Figure 1. Isometric and Rear View of the 75-pound Projectile.

When stowed, the fins are folded against the boat tail, and this configuration
allows more efficient use of the boat tail volume. For example, the boat tail
volume may now be configured to house a rocket motor similar to that of the
M549. Typically stowed, folding fins intrude into the body/boat tail and clearly
would not allow such an option. The deployment properties of Kayser fins have
been the described previously [1]. These previous descriptions have relied on
controlled static experiments since the fin design has only recently been
ballistically evaluated. The fin opening behavior is primarily governed by
controllable factors such as fin mass properties, fin cant angles, and projectile
spin. Less controllable factors such as yaw states at muzzle exit also affect the fin
deployment. The effect of yaw is generally to inhibit the deployment of fins on
the wind side and to enhance deployment on the lee side. This report offers
insight about the effect of aerodynamic loads encountered at launch on fin
opening via the use of the experimental data coupled with the solution of
equations given in previous analytical models.

2. Design Aspects

Fin-stabilized artillery projectiles with fixed fin designs would be very inefficient.
They would require large sabot volumes and would mandate large cannons.
Deployable fins are clearly necessary for artillery shells if they are going to retain
their same basic geometry and be fired from existing 155-mm cannons. For the
Kayser fin configuration, the fin area and boat tail design are integrated so that
they provide an adequate fin area for stabilization as well as a boat tail that
reduces base drag in addition to being deployable. A 7° boat tail angle was
selected on the basis of a previous Ballistic Research Laboratory report, which
indicated that it was nearly optimal from an aerodynamic drag standpoint [2].
This boat tail in the aforementioned report was axisymmetrical, but it offers
confirmation to some extent that this same angle is suitable for the Kayser fin
boat tail. This angle provides sufficient fin area to stabilize the projectile. Another
criterion to be met is the deployment performance of the fin once it exits the gun.

Figure 2 shows the components of a projectile for ballistic experimentation. This

complemented the modeling efforts.

Knowledge of the range of motion for the fin is critical if the fin is expected to
sweep through a 2.36-radian (135°) angle and lock into position. Fortunately,
there is some latitude in the design parameters of the fin since stability
requirements do not impose a unique design. The appropriate amount of over-
design to mitigate random launch conditions and assure consistent fin
deployment is not well determined. Random launch conditions such as muzzle
exit yaw and pitch angles affect the aerodynamic force, Faero, on the fins. An
estimate of this behavior is obtained from actual firings and is offered here.
 Figure 2. Components of a 75-pound Projectile.

In a previous effort, Kayser and Brown developed a simplified model of the fin
opening event [1]. Their analysis resulted in the following equation of motion for
the fin blade:

,- O.Sbco2 . . 0.8FO(
9+ sm<9 = (1)
a ma
with

a Fin half-height
b Distance from the projectile axis to the fin pivot point
m Fin mass
Faei Aerodynamic force attributable to fin cant angle (tends to
close the fully opened fin)
e Angle between projectile body and fin face
CO Projectile rotational rate

This ordinary differential equation (1) describes the fin opening angle, G, in terms
of the geometric, mass and aerodynamic properties of the fin illustrated in
Figure 3. The equation is a close analog to the equation of a pendulum (2) with
the exception that the equation of motion for the fin opening includes a forcing
function on the right-hand side. The forcing function is produced by the applied
(aerodynamic) forces acting on the fin blade:

0+^-sin0=O. (2)

Fin 2

Figure 3. Schematic of Fin Opening.

The aerodynamic forces acting on the fin blade during the fin opening event can
be complicated because of the three-dimensional flow field produced by the
interaction of the fins and the projectile body during launch and flight. To make
the problem manageable, Kayser and Brown made the following assumptions:
(1) the aerodynamic force acting on the fin blade was proportional to the local
cant angle of the fin relative to the free stream flow, and (2) the aerodynamic
force was related to the roll-producing moment produced by the fin cant. Kayser
and Brown related the aerodynamic force in the following manner:

F^„=^-S, (3)

in which Sr is the instantaneous effective cant angle of the fin blade and F^ is
the aerodynamic lift force produced by the fin when it is fully deployed to the
final cant angle 6f .
Kayser and Brown found that for their fin geometry, the effective fin cant angle
could be approximated by a simple cosine function. In the current effort, a formal
derivation of the fin cant angle in terms of two hinge angles, the projectile boat
tail angle, the free stream angle of attack, and the fin opening angle is presented.
From this analysis, it is found that the approximated form of the fin cant angle
used by Kayser and Brown is not universally valid. Furthermore, by the
inclusion of two angles to describe the hinge line for the fin blade, additional
control of the aerodynamic properties of the fin (including the fin cant angle
when the fin is fully open) is possible. In addition, free stream angle of attack
appears to significantly affect the fin opening event.

The local fin cant angle is defined as the enclosed angle between the free stream
velocity vector and the vector normal to the fin surface and is related as follows:

U sin8=Ü-n (4)

To compute the fin cant angle, both the fin normal vector n and the fin stream
velocity vector U must be determined.

The fin normal vector is purely a function of the geometric properties of the fin.
The current derivation assumes that the boat tail and fins are cut symmetrically.
The hinge line for the fin blade is described by two compound angles shown in
Figure 4. Note also that the first compound angle for the hinge is not required to
have the same angle as the projectile boat tail. This allows for additional control
of the fin aerodynamic to enhance the fin opening. The fin normal vector has the
following form:

n = i (cos/, cosy'2 cosy4 siny5 +cosy, sin/j cos(37r74-0)siny4 siny5

H-siny, sin(37r/4-0)siny4 siny5 -cosy, siny2 sin(3^/4-ö)cosy5
+ siny, cos(3;r/4-0)cosy5)
+ j (-siny^ cosy, siny5 +cosyj cos(3;r/4-0)siny4 siny5 -cosy'2 sin(37r/4-0)siny5)
+&(siny, cosy2 cosy4 siny5 -siny, siny^ cos(3^/4-ö)siny4 siny5 (5)
+ cosy, sin(3^/4-ö)siny4 siny5 -siny smy2 sin(37r/4-0)cosy5
+ cosy cosQn IA-6) cosy5)
tany2 =cosy, tany2
74=72
75=7BT-71
 Hinge Line (Side View)

Hinge Line (Top View)

Figure 4. View of the Compound Angle of the Hinge Line.

The free stream velocity vector has the following form:

Ü =U„,]f(cosa) + J(sinasin0) + £(sinacos0)} (6)

in which U„ is the magnitude of the free stream velocity, a is the angle of attack,
and 0 is the orientation angle of the pitch plane (shown in Figure 3).

Figure 5 shows the fin cant angle as a function of the fin opening angle for the
conceptual design of Kayser and Brown versus the design recently fired for zero
pitch and yaw angles. Geometric parameters for each design are shown in
Table 1. (Kayser and Brown provide limited details of the geometric
configuration of their design, particularly the hinge line. The details of this
design used in the current analysis have been reconstructed from some of the
results published originally by Kayser and Brown.) Also shown is the simple
cosine approximation form of the fin cant angle proposed by Kayser and Brown.
Clearly, the effective cant angle for the current design would be poorly
approximated by the simple cosine function. The variation in free stream angle
induced by the fin angular velocity is not included in Figure 5 because its effect is
minimal (less than a degree) and varies over the fin span.

Figure 5 also shows that early in the opening event, the fin cant angle is negative,
which results in an aerodynamic force that tends to open the fin. At larger fin
opening angles, the fin cant angle changes sign and the aerodynamic force resists
the fin opening. Compared to the design of Kayser and Brown, the present fin
geometry investigated has a negative cant angle for a greater range of fin
opening angles. However, the final fully deployed cant angle is significantly
smaller.
 Current Fin Geometry
Kayser and Brown
Cosine Approx

45 90 135
Fin Opening Angle (Degrees)

Figure 5. Effective Fin Cant Angle as a Function of Fin Opening Angle.

Table 1. Hinge and Boat Tail Angles

Current Design Kayser and Brown

yx (degrees) 5. 6.
y2 (degrees) 2. 4.
YBT\ (degrees) 7. 6.

In the current analysis, the effect of projectile yaw is included in the effective cant
angle. Figure 6 shows the effective cant angle as a function of fin opening angle
for 5 degrees of yaw. For reference, the effective cant angle for zero yaw is also
shown. Since the effect of yaw depends on the orientation of the pitch plane
relative to the fins, four different fin orientations relative to the pitch plane are
shown. These four orientations are shown schematically in Figure 7. Fins A and
C are located on the lee and wind sides of the body, respectively. As noted
previously, a negative cant angle results in an aerodynamic force that tends to
open the fin. In the fully closed position, the effective cant angle of Fin A (lee
side) is essentially the sum of the boat tail angle and the yaw angles
(7° + 5° = 12°), while the effective cant angle of Fin C (wind side) is the difference
between the boat tail angle and the yaw angles (7° - 5° = 2°). Fins B and D have
the same cant angle as for the zero yaw case when fully closed. Although the fin
cant angle produces a favorable aerodynamic force on the lee side when the fin is
in the closed position, the fin cant angle is positive when the fin is fully
deployed. Fin D has a positive fin cant angle through nearly the last 90 degrees of
the fin opening angle, while Fin B has a negative fin cant angle for all fin opening
angles. It is interesting to note that the average cant angle for all four fins is equal
to the zero yaw cant angle for all fin opening angles.

45 90 135
Fin Opening Angle (Degrees)

Figure 6. Effective Fin Cant Angle as a Function of Fin Opening Angle, Zero
Yaw and Zero Spin.

Pitch-Plane Fin A

FinB

Figure 7. Schematic Showing Orientation of Fins A Through D Relative to Pitch

Plane.
The fin blades for the Kayser design typically do not have a symmetrical cross
section since part of the exposed surface (when the fins are fully closed) is cut to
conform to the cylindrical geometry of the projectile. This results in a leading
edge bevel on the fin that produces an aerodynamic force that opposes the
opening of the fin. This aerodynamic effect is also included in the present
aerodynamic model. With this addition to the model, the aerodynamic force can
be written in the following form:

Faero=FSÖr+Fbevel (7)

The leading edge bevel is effectively oriented at the boat tail angle of the
projectile. Using the wedge pressure from compressible flow theory and
computing the bevel area, we can determine the aerodynamic force attributable
to the bevel.

The fin force attributable to fin cant Fs was determined by a simple two-
dimensional compressible flow theory for the lift of a flat plate.

FS = I ; * (8)

This approach yields values of the fin force that are similar to those used by
Kayser and Brown in their analysis. In the current configuration,
F8 = 9985 N/rad and Fbevel =193N.

3. Results and Discussion

Two 75-pound composite projectiles with Kayser fins were fabricated and fired
at the Transonic Experimental Facility of Aberdeen Proving Ground. These
projectiles used an aluminum boat tail portion coupled with a composite body
and ogive. They also carried a payload that matched the payload mass of the
M483. The purpose of these firings was twofold. The first was to verify that the
composite body was structurally sound for M119A2 (zone 7Red) charge loads
and their corresponding accelerations. The second purpose was to assure that the
fins would deploy and the round would fly as expected over the short trajectory
of the range. The projectile firings used the following instrumentation: two
cameras, a high speed digital camera, and a yaw card, as well as pressure gauges
and wide angle video coverage. A Weibel radar was used to monitor the velocity.
The zone 7R charge produced a muzzle velocity of 740 m/s for the 75-pound
shell. The projectiles were fired from an M199 cannon. A sketch of the
experimental setup is shown in Figure 8.
The firings produced mixed results. The composite bodies demonstrated
structural integrity. The fin opening behavior produced less satisfactory results.
When the film and yaw card data were reviewed, it appeared that only one of the
four fins deployed and locked.

'Standard video

Yaw card 36.58 m

High speed video

down the throat
7.62 m 16.77 m

155mm M199 tube

Firing barricade

Figure 8. Schematic Showing Orientation of Experimental Setup.

Figure 9 is a smear photograph at 16.77 m and shows what appear to be two fins
almost fully open. The fins look undamaged, although their angular position is
difficult to determine simply from a normal view. The measured yaw angle is
approximately 5 degrees.

Figure 9. Seventy-five-pound Projectile at 16.77 m From the Muzzle.

10
The video looking down the gun tube offers the best information about fin
behavior. Frames taken from the video and shown in Figure 10 illustrate the
oscillation of the fin. There are no trajectory location markers to which to relate
the images. The upper left frame shows the projectile nearest the muzzle, and the
lower right shows the fin state nearest the camera (roughly 120 feet from the
muzzle). The frames lack sufficient resolution to make accurate angular
measurements of the fins' angles relative to the projectile body.

Figure 10. Fin Opening Motion Over a 120-foot Trajectory.

The fin opening model, developed from the previous equations, was used to
interpret the firings. Figure 11 shows the results from the application of this
model for a projectile spin rate of 15.6 Hz and zero yaw. For the conditions
examined here, the model predicts that the fin blades open to their fully
deployed position within 10 ms. This corresponds to about 7.5 m of flight or
60 degrees of rotation of the projectile. The fin opening angle is given as the
angular difference between the fully deployed position and the instantaneous
angle of the fin (as shown in Figure 2).

A review of the smear photographs shows that the projectile was noticeably
yawed shortly after launch. The model was applied to determine whether the
effect of yaw retarded the fins from opening. The analysis assumes constant yaw
amplitude over the period of interest (about 40 ms), but the projectile rotates
relative to the pitch plane at 15.6 Hz (the measured spin rate). Figure 12 shows
the results of the analysis for a yaw angle of 5 degrees. Initially, Fin 1 is located
on the lee side of the body and Fin 3 is located on the wind side of the body.
Fins 2 and 4 are oriented initially 90 degrees from the pitch plane so that Fin 2

11
 will be located on the wind side of the body and Fin 4 will be located on the lee
side of the body after the projectile initiates 90 degrees of roll because of its spin
rate, as seen in Figure 3.

IJS

</>
0)
a
i_
O)
90 -
D
*■.•»»

0)
Cl
c
<
O)
c 45
"E
Q)
a
O

0 -
0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Time (Seconds)

Figure 11. Fin Opening Angle as a Function of Time, Zero Yaw, 15.6-Hz Spin
Rate.

H
IOO

(ft
«
0)
i_
TO
0)
n 90 - —-Fin1
a> ►Fin 2
TO l' V \
c -^-Fin3
<
c
O) -*— Fin 4
c 45 -
0) \•
a \
O \
c \
LL

0 t I_ _
\

0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04

Time (Seconds)
Figure 12. Fin Opening Angle as a Function of Time, 5 Degrees of Yaw, 15.6-Hz
Spin Rate.

12
The model results indicate that Fins 1 and 2 deploy rapidly and Fin 3 is slightly
delayed. The opening of Fin 4 is significantly longer than the other three fins.
Only as Fin 4 rotates through the lee plane does the fin fully deploy. Despite the
slow opening of Fin 4, the model shows that all the fins fully deploy after the
body spins through a half rotation. These results demonstrate that the free
stream angle of attack is an important factor when one is considering fin
deployment.

The presence of yaw can either accelerate or retard the opening of the fin blades.
In this case, Fins 1 and 2 open more quickly because of the presence of yaw, since
the effective cant angle of the fin is increased by the yaw. For Fin 1, which is
initially located on the lee side of the body, the initial cant angle of the fin is
nearly 12 degrees, since the yaw adds an additional 5 degrees to the existing cant
angle of the fin. However, for Fin 3, the initial effective cant angle of the fin is
reduced to only 2 degrees because of the yaw. Fin 4 shows the most significant
effect of yaw. In this case, the yaw initially has no effect on the effective fin cant
angle since the fin blade is aligned with the pitch plane when it is fully closed. As
the fin begins to open because of the centrifugal force, the effective fin cant angle
quickly becomes positive and the fin opening is retarded. Complete opening of
Fin 4 is not possible until the projectile rotates 90 degrees and Fin 4 is on the lee
side of the body.

The deployment of the fins is also accelerated when the projectile spin rate
increases. Figure 13 shows the fin opening angle as a function of time for a
projectile spin rate of 30 Hz. For this increased spin rate, the fin opening angle
shows a monotonic decrease in the fin opening angle until the fin is fully
deployed. The effect of increasing the spin rate is twofold. First, the larger spin
rate increases the centrifugal force that accelerates the fin opening. A secondary
effect of the increased spin rate is that the fins are rotating more quickly with
respect to the pitch plane. Fins 3 and 4, whose deployment is delayed because of
the yaw, rotate more quickly into a position where the aerodynamic forces
attributable to the yaw have a more beneficial effect. Although the actual time for
deployment of Fin 4 is decreased for a spin rate of 30 Hz, it still takes
approximately one-third of a rotation to deploy the fin as compared to nearly
half of a rotation for a spin rate of 15.6 Hz.

The level of difficulty in increasing the projectile spin rate is uncertain. The
melting temperature and the frictional coefficient between the slip band
obturator and the polyethylene band seat were taken into account in the choice
of the obturator material and geometry. Changes such as removing the
polyethylene band seat and increasing the projectile surface roughness in the
obturator slot should increase the starting torque and the resultant spin, but
these solutions are unproven and they bear research and validation.

13
 135

tn
Q)

O)
0)
a

c
<
_c
'E
a>
Q.
O
c
E

0.005 0.01 0.015

Time (Seconds)

Figure 13. Fin Opening Angle as a Function of Time, 5 degrees of Yaw, 30-Hz
Spin Rate.

One explanation for the failure of the fins to fully deploy and lock is that the fin
detent pins were not adequate to lock or lock securely enough to hold the fins
fully open. This explanation does not account for the fact that the images of the
fin larger opening angles (> 1.9 radians) were not detected in a film review. A
review of the down-bore photographs should show opening angles greater than
1.9 radians for most of the fins over the course of the trajectory monitored. The
non-locking or non-securing detent pin explanation is somewhat consistent with
the fin motions that were observed. Three of the four fins can be seen closing
from semi-open position. Of course, one fin for each firing was verified to have
deployed and locked at 135°. Whether the three semi-open fins ever reached the
fully open state remains unanswered. The round had not completed a full
revolution along its trajectory by the last camera location, and not all the fins had
been exposed to the lee flow. This flow is conducive to fin opening.

Though the analysis shows the retarded opening of one of the fins, the analysis
does not appear to fully corroborate the fin behavior observed in the video. The
fin opening model with yaw was applied to examine the behavior of the fins if
no locking mechanism had been present. Two conditions for the fin were
considered that represented extremes: 1) The fin has a perfectly elastic collision
with the fin stop, or 2) the fin collision is totally inelastic and the fin comes to a
complete slow stop (while not locking) at the fin stop. Figure 14 shows the two
oscillatory behaviors. It is difficult to imagine that the fin would stop and the

14
locking pins would not engage (situation 2), but it is possible that these pins were
damaged by the high pressure chamber environment.

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1

Time (Seconds)

Figure 14. Fin Opening Angle as a Function of Time, No Locking Mechanism,

Zero Yaw, 15.6-Hz Spin Rate.

As mentioned previously, the video indicated that the projectile was yawed
during the fin opening event. Figure 15 shows the response of each of the four
fins in the presence of 5 degrees of yaw when no locking mechanism is present.
Early in the event, before the fin reached the fully opened position, the fin
motion is identical to the locking case (see Figure 6). After reaching the fully
opened position, the fins oscillate between the fully open and partially opened
positions. After approximately one projectile body rotation, the motion becomes
periodic and a phase shift is predicted for the fin motions. In contrast to the zero
yaw case, the presence of yaw enhances the fins' opportunity to reach their fully
open and locked position once during each rotation of the projectile.

The results in Figure 15 were obtained by assuming an inelastic rebound of the

fin against the stop. When an elastic rebound is considered, the motion of the fin
is somewhat more complicated than the inelastic rebound. Figure 16 shows the
motion of Fin 2 for both elastic and inelastic rebound. Although the oscillations
of the fin are larger for the elastic rebound case, the general behavior of the fin is
similar for both cases. In particular, the fin will only reach the fully deployed
position when the fin is close to the lee side. For the inelastic rebound case, the
fin reaches the fully deployed position only once during each rotation of the

15
projectile. For the elastic rebound case, there are two to three instances when the
fin reaches the fully deployed position for each rotation of the projectile.

135

0)
A
■ *

£ ■ ^
i
i F
0) ■
Q 90 T " TV
T\ "
o
U)
c
< Jm \ f*
c ■ l i
c f \ I
0) 45 t~ -' *
a k*n ■l
O

t/iJ Ll\J
' fi ■ 1
c ■ T
il ■ I

0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12

Time (Seconds)

Figure 15. Fin Opening Angle as a Function of Time, No Locking Mechanism,

5 Degrees of Yaw, 15.6-Hz Spin Rate.

135

(0

£
G)
0)
Q
©
D)
C
<
c
'E
a>
a.
O

0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

Time(Seconds)

Figure 16. Fin Angle Response to Impact With Fin Stop as a Function of Time for
No Locking Mechanism, 5 Degrees of Yaw, 15.6-Hz Spin Rate.

16
4. Conclusions

The analysis of the fin opening event has been used to provide some
interpretation of the results of the experimental firings. In the absence of yaw, the
analysis indicates that the fins should open and lock soon after launch. The
presence of yaw can slightly delay the opening of individual fins. However, as
the projectile rotates relative to the pitch plane, the effect of yaw will eventually
provide sufficient aerodynamic force to cause all the fins to fully deploy within a
projectile rotation. Since the observed motion from the video of the experiment
indicates that the fins open but do not lock, it appears that the locking
mechanism either failed or did not engage for at least some of the fins.
Oscillations of the fins between the fully deployed and partially open positions
are possible when the fins do not lock.

Based on the modeling results as well as review of the range film and
engineering judgment, some modifications have been incorporated for future
firings. Locking pins with an increased spring tension have been selected and are
scheduled for use. Additionally, a higher projectile spin rate, perhaps near 30 Hz,
is also planned. An increased firing elevation has also been suggested to ensure
that each of the fins will have an increased opportunity to rotate through the lee
flow environment, which is conducive to fin opening.

17
 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

18
References

1. Kayser, L., and T. Brown, "Fin Motion After Projectile Exit From Gun Tube/'
BRL-TR-3375, U.S. Army Ballistics Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving
Ground, MD, July 1992.

2. Dickinson, E., "The Effect of Boattailing on the Drag Coefficient of Cone

Cylinder Projectiles at Supersonic Velocities," Memorandum Report 842,
Ballistic Research Laboratory, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, November
1954.

19
 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

20
 NO. OF NO. OF
COPIES ORGANIZATION COPIES ORGANIZATION

1 ADMINISTRATOR 1 COMMANDER
DEFENSE TECHNICAL INFO CTR US ARMY TACOM ARDEC
ATTN DTIC OCA ATTNAMSTAARFSFT J MATTS
8725 JOHN J KINGMAN RD STE 0944 BLDG 120
/ FTBELVOIR VA 22060-6218
1 DIRUSAMSAA
1 DIRECTOR ATTN AMXSYCA
t US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY BLDG 392
ATTN AMSRL CI AI R REC MGMT
2800 POWDER MILL RD 1 DIRECTOR
ADELPHIMD 20783-1197 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY
ATTN AMSRL WM B A HORST
1 DIRECTOR BLDG 4600
US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY
ATTN AMSRL CILL TECH LIB 1 DIRECTOR
2800 POWDER MILL RD US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY
ADELPHIMD 20783-1197 ATTN AMSRL WM BA T G BROWN
BLDG 4600
1 DIRECTOR
US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY 9 DIRECTOR
ATTN AMSRL D D SMITH US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY
2800 POWDER MILL RD ATTN AMSRL WM BC B GUIDOS
ADELPHIMD 20783-1197 D LYON J NEWILL
J GARNER (2CYS)
2 COMMANDER DAHLGREN DIV P WEINACHT (2 CYS)
ATTN CODE G33 J FRAYSSE V OSKAY A ZIELINSKI
CODE G61M KELLY BLDG 390
NAVAL SURFACE WARFARE CTR
17320 DAHLGREN ROAD 3 DIRECTOR
DAHLGREN VA 22448-5100 US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY
ATTN AMSRL WM MB J BENDER
1 DTI ASSOCIATES R KASTE (2 CYS)
ATTN JEFF SURKOSKY BLDG 4600
17119 DAHLGREN RD
KING GEORGE VA 22485

ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND

DIRECTOR
US ARMY RSCH LABORATORY
ATTN AMSRL CI LP (TECH LIB)
BLDG 305 APGAA

CDR USATECOM
ATTN AMSTETEFLTELETSKI
RYAN BLDG

COMMANDER
US ARMY ABERDEEN TEST CTR
ATTN STECLI
BLDG 400

21
 INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

22
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
September 2001 Final
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Experimental Validation of Elliptical Fin Opening Behavior PR: AH80

6. AUTHOR(S)

Garner, J.M.; Weinacht, P.; Kaste, R.P. (all of ARL)

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION
REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Weapons & Materials Research Directorate
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
U.S. Army Research Laboratory
Weapons & Materials Research Directorate ARL-TR-2527
Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066
11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.

13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

An effort to improve the performance of ordnance has led to the consideration of the use of folding elliptical fins for projectile
stabilization. A second order differential equation was used to model elliptical fin deployment history and accounts for
deployment with respect to the geometric properties of the fin, the variation in fin aerodynamics during deployment, the initial
yaw effect on fin opening, and the variation in deployment speed based on changes in projectile spin. This model supports tests
conducted at the Transonic Experimental Facility, Aberdeen Proving Ground, Maryland, which examined the opening behavior of
these uniquely shaped fins. A companion boat tail configuration is created by sectioning the projectile base and joining with the
fin. The configuration is both space efficient and aerodynamic. Reduced drag coefficients have been documented for this
configuration and it is employable on a variety of projectiles. The fins use the centrifugal force from the projectile spin to deploy.
During the deployment, the fin aerodynamic forces vary with angle-of-attack changes in the free stream. Model results indicate
that projectile spin dominates the initial opening rates and that aerodynamics dominate near the fully open state. Vibratory fin
motions after elastic and inelastic collisions with the fin stop are also examined. The aerodynamics and initial state conditions
correspond to a zone 7w artillery firing (roughly Mach 2.25) that uses a slip band obturator and with muzzle exit yaws of 0 and 5
degrees. The model results are examined to explain the observed behavior and to suggest improvements for later designs.

14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

30
elliptical fin
16. PRICE CODE
fin opening
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89) ,-
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18 Ii
298-102