Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-5g6vh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T09:42:37.768Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Experimental research and numerical simulations of thrust vector control nozzle flow

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 May 2016

S. Zivkovic*
Affiliation:
Military Technical Institute, Rocket Armament Sector, Department for Rocket Propulsion, Belgrade, Serbia
M. Milinovic*
Affiliation:
University of Belgrade, Faculty of Mechanical Engineering, Department for Weapons Systems, Belgrade, Serbia
N. Gligorijevic*
Affiliation:
Military Technical Institute, Rocket Armament Sector, Department for Rocket Propulsion, Belgrade, Serbia Military Academy, Department for Chemical Engineering, Belgrade, Serbia
M. Pavic*
Affiliation:
Military Technical Institute, Rocket Armament Sector, Department for Guidance and Control, Belgrade, Serbia

Abstract

Rocket motor nozzle flow geometry is considered through its influence on the thrust vector control (TVC) performances. Extensive research is conducted using theoretical and software simulations and compared with experimental results. Cold and hot flow test equipments are used. The main objective of the research is to establish the methodology of flow geometry optimisation on the TVC hardware system. Several geometry parameters are examined in detail and their effects on the system performances are presented. The discovered effects are used as guidelines in the TVC system design process. A numerical method is presented for the determination of dynamic response time upper limit for the TVC system based on the gas flow dynamics performances.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
Copyright © Royal Aeronautical Society 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1.Sutton, G.P. and Biblarz, O.Rocket Propulsion Elements, 2001, Wiley, New York, New York, US.Google Scholar
2.Ocokoljic, G., Zivkovic, S. and Subotic, S. Aerodynamic coefficients determination for antitank missile with lateral jets, Proceedings of the 4th International Scientific Conference on Defensive Technologies, September 2011, Belgrade, Serbia.Google Scholar
3.Gal-Or, B.Fundamental concepts of vectored propulsion, Journal of Propulsion and Power, 1990, 6, (6), pp 747757.Google Scholar
4.Hunter, C.A. and Deere, K.A. Computational investigation of fluidic counterflow thrust vectoring, Proceedings of the 35th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, June 1999, Los Angeles, California, US.Google Scholar
5.Jojic, B., Milinovic, M., Stefanovic, Z. and Blagojevic, D. Pressure distribution in rocket nozzle with mechanical system for TVC, Proceedings of the 23rd Joint Propulsion Conference, July 1987, San Diego, California, US.Google Scholar
6.Zivkovic, S. Thrust calculation methods in optimization process for thrust vector system (in Serbian), Proceedings of the 22nd Jugoslovenski Komitet za Eksplozivne Materije, October 2004, Bar, Montenegro.Google Scholar
7.Gligorijevic, N., Zivkovic, S., Subotic, S., Kozomara, S., Nikolic, M. and Citakovic, S.Side force determination in the rocket motor thrust vector control system, Scientific Technical Review, 2013, 63, (1), pp 2738.Google Scholar
8.Kozic, M. and Ristic, S.Capability of 2D RANS simulations for 2D thrust vectoring nozzle, J Aerospace Engineering, 2010, 224, (8), pp 905910.Google Scholar
9.Zivkovic, S., Milinovic, M. and Adamec, R.Tunnel tests and numerical simulation of the high speed separated nozzle flow, FME Transactions, October 2014, 42, (3), pp 8997.Google Scholar
10.Chang, P.K.Control of Flow Separation: Energy Conservation, Operational Efficiency, and Safety, Hemisphere Publishing, Washington, DC, US 1976.Google Scholar
11.Ostlund, J. Flow processes in rocket engine nozzles with focus on flow separation and side-loads, Tech Rep 2002:09, Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm, 2002.Google Scholar
12.Schilling, T.W. Flow Separation in Rocket Nozzles, MS Thesis, University of Buffalo, New York, 1962.Google Scholar
13.Waithe, K.A. and Deere, K.A. Experimental and computational investigation of multiple injection ports in a convergent-divergent nozzle for fluidic thrust vectoring, Proceedings of the 21st AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, June 2003, Orlando, Florida, US.Google Scholar
14.Tian, C. and Lu, Y.Turbulence models of separated flow in shock wave thrust vector nozzle, Engineering Application of Computational Fluid Mechanics, 2013, 7, (2), pp 182192.Google Scholar
15.Balabel, A., Hegab, A.M., Nasr, M. and El-Behery, S.M.Assessment of turbulence modelling for gas flow in turbulence modelling for gas flow in two-dimensional convergent-divergent rocket nozzle, Applied Mathematical Modelling, 2011, 35, (7), pp 34083422.Google Scholar
16.Fluent Incorporated. Fluent 5 User's Guide, 1998, Lebanon, New Hempshire, US.Google Scholar
17.Dobrovolskii, V.M. Liquid Rocket Engines (in Russian), Mashinostroenie, Moscow, Russia, 1968.Google Scholar
18.Jaunet, V., Aymer, D., Collin, E., Bonnet, J.P., Lebedev, A. and Fourment, C. 3D effects in a supersonic rectangular jet vectored by flow separation control, a numerical and experimental study, Proceedings of the 5th Flow Control Conference, June-July 2010, Chicago, Illinois, US.Google Scholar
19.Zmijanovic, V., Rasuo, B. and Chpoun, A.Flow separation modes and side phenomena in an overexpanded nozzle, FME Transactions, September 2012, 40, (3), pp 111118.Google Scholar
20.Mangin, B., Chpoun, A. and Jacquin, L. Experimental and numerical study of the fluidic thrust vectoring of a two-dimensional supersonic nozzle, Proceedings of the 24th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, June 2006, San Francisco, California, US.Google Scholar