The flow characteristics of asymmetric vortices and the side force of a slender body flight vehicle with chine nose at high angles of attack have been studied using a three-dimensional upwind Navier–Stokes method with the k–ω turbulence model and a simple laminar–turbulent transition model. Asymmetrically changing turbulent viscosities that arise from asymmetric laminar–turbulent transition conditions cause asymmetric cross-flow vortex structures and side forces at higher angles of attack. However, certain type of edges may cause fixed flow separations on these edges. In this study, the chine nose shape with chine edge on its both sides is considered for the method to reduce side force. The asymmetric flow control capacity of chine nose shapes at high angles of attack is studied.
NelsonRCMalcolmGNVisualization of high-angle-of-attack flow phenomena. In Tactical missile aerodynamics: general topics (Progress in astronautics and aeronautics), 1992 (Washington, DC, AIAA), 195–250.
2.
EricssonLERedingJPAsymmetric flow separation and vortex shedding on bodies of revolution. In Tactical missile aerodynamics: general topics (Progress in astronautics and aeronautics), 1992 (Washington, DC, AIAA), 391–452.
3.
PatelMPPrinceTSCarverRDiCoccoJMLisyFJNgTTDeployable flow effectors for phantom yaw control of missiles at high alpha. In AIAA, Flow Control Conference, St. Louis, Missouri, 24–26 June 2002.
4.
LamontPJPressure measurements on an ogive-cylinder at high angles of attack with laminar, transitional or turbulent separation. In AIAA, Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Danvers, Mass., 11–13 August 1980, pp. 1–10.
5.
EricssonLERedingJPVortex-induced asymmetric loads in 2-D and 3-D flows. In 18th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Pasadena, California, 14–16 January 1980, 46 pp.
6.
RedingJPEricssonLEMaximum vortex-induced side force revisited. In 21st AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, Nevada, 10–13 January 1983, 15 pp.
7.
LimSKimSDSongDJInfluence of asymmetric transition conditions on a slender-body flight vehicle. J. Spacecraft Rockets, 2009, 46(6), 1117–1123.
8.
LoperaJNgTTPatelMPStuckeRForebody geometry effects on the flowfield of a blunt-nose projectile at high alpha. J. Aircraft, 2007, 44(6), 1906–1922.
9.
SiranguVNgTTEffect of slender body geometry on flow control at high alpha. In 28th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Chicago, Illinois, 28 June–1 July 2010, AIAA 2010–4951.
10.
DeganiDEffects of geometrical disturbance on vortex asymmetry. AIAA J., 1991, 29(4), 560–566.
11.
DeganiDSchiffIBNumerical simulation of the effect of spatial disturbances on vortex asymmetry. AIAA J., 1991, 29(3), 344–352.
SiclariMJMarconiFThe computation of Navier-Stokes solutions existing asymmetric vortices. AIAA paper 89-1817, June1989.
14.
HartwichPMHallRMHemschMJNavier-stokes computations of vortex asymmetries controlled by small surface imperfections. AIAA paper 90-0385, January1990.
15.
VandenKJBelkDMNumerical investigation of subsonic and supersonic asymmetric vortical flow. AIAA paper 91-2869-CP, 1991.
16.
ThomasJLReynolds number effects on supersonic asymmetrical flows over a cone. J. Aircraft, 1993, 30(4), 488–495.
17.
KeenerERChapmanGTOnset of aerodynamic side forces at zero sideslip on symmetric forebodies at high angles of attack. In AIAA Mechanics and Control of Flight Conference, Anaheim, California, 5–9 August 1974, 10 pp.
18.
RossHMO’RourkeMJExploratory investigation of forebody strakes for yaw control of a generic fighter with a symmetric 60° half-angle chine forebody. NASA technical paper 3604, 1997.
19.
LombardCKBardinaJVenkatapathyEOligerJMulti-dimensional formulation of CSCM an upwind flux difference eigenvector split method for the compressible Navier–Stokes equations. In 6th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference, Danvers, Massachusetts, 13–15 July 1983, pp. 649–664.
20.
KimSDKwonCOSongDJComparison of turbulence models in shock-wave/boundary-layer interaction. KSME Int. J., 2004, 18(1), 153–166.
21.
SeoJIKimSDSongDJA numerical study on passive control of shock wave/turbulent boundary layer in a supersonic compressor cascade. Int. J. Rotating Mach, 2002, 8(6), .
22.
OhTHKimSDSongDJA numerical analysis of transonic/supersonic flows in main nozzle of air jet loom. Textil. Res. J., 2001, 71(9), 783–790.
23.
KwonCOSeoJIBaeCHSongDJA numerical study of two-dimensional/axisymmetric nonequilibrium chemically reacting flows using upwind Navier–Stokes method. Comput. Fluid Dynam. J., 2001, 10(1), 14–21.
WilcoxDCComparison of two-equation turbulence models for boundary layers with pressure gradient. AIAA J., 1993, 31, 1414–1421.
26.
KimSDSongDJThe numerical study on the supersonic inlet flow field with a bump. KSCFE, 2005, 10(3).
27.
WilcoxDCRubesinMWProgress in turbulence modeling for complex flowfields including the effects of compressibility. NASA TP 1517, 1980.
28.
GostelowJPBlundenARWalkerGJEffect of free-stream turbulence and adverse pressure gradients on boundary layer transition. ASME, J. Turbomach., 1994, 116, 302–404.
29.
ChampignyPReynolds number effect on the aerodynamic characteristics of an ogive-cylinder at high angles of attack. In 2nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Seattle, Washington, 21–23 August 1984, 8pp.
30.
KeenerERChapmanGTCohenLTaleghaniJSide forces on a tangent-ogive forebody with a fineness ratio of 3.5 at high angles of attack and mach numbers from 0.1 to 0.7. NASA TM-3437, February1977.
31.
HuntBLAsymmetric vortex forces and wakes on slender bodies. In 9th AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, San Diego, California, 9–11 August 1982, 42 pp.
