Numerical parametric study on three-dimensional rectangular counter-flow thrust vectoring control

Abstract

Recently, fluidic thrust vectoring control is popular for micro space launcher propulsion systems due to its several advantages, such as fast dynamic responsiveness, better control effectiveness, and no moving mechanical equipment. Counter-flow thrust vectoring control is an especially effective technique by utilizing less suction flow to control the mainstream deflection flexibly. In the current work, theoretical and numerical analyses are performed together to elaborate on the performance of the three-dimensional rectangular counter-flow thrust vectoring control system. A new propulsion nozzle of Mach 2.5 is devised by method of characteristics. To testify the feasibility and accuracy of the present research methodology, numerical results were validated against experimental data from the open literature. The computational result using the standard k-epsilon turbulence model reveals a good match with experimentally measured static pressure values along the centerline of the upper suction collar. The influence of several key parameters on vectoring performance is investigated herein, including the mainstream temperature, collar radius, horizontal collar length, and gap height. Critical parameters have been quantitatively analyzed, such as static pressure distribution along the centerline of the upper suction collar, pitching angle, suction mass flow ratio, and thrust coefficient. Furthermore, the flow-field features are qualitatively expounded based on the static pressure contour, streamline, iso-turbulent kinetic energy contour, and iso-Mach number contour. Some important conclusions are offered for further studies. The mainstream temperature mainly affects different dynamic characteristics of the mixing shear layer, including the convective Mach number of the shear layer, density ratio, and flow velocity ratio. The collar radius influences the pressure gradient near the suction collar surface significantly. The pitching angle increases rapidly with the increasing collar radius. As the horizontal collar length increases, the systematic deflection angle initially increases then decreases. The highest pitching angle is obtained for L/H = 3.53. With regard to the gap height, a larger gap height can achieve a higher pitching angle.

Keywords

Thrust vectoring control counter-flow internal flow gas dynamics compressible flow

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Francis

. Air vehicle management with integrated thrust-vector control. AIAA J 2018; 56: 1–11.

Wilde PIA, Crowther WJ, Buonanno A, et al. Aircraft control using fluidic maneuver effectors. In: 26th AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, Honolulu, HA, 18-21 August 2008, AIAA paper no. 2008-6406. USA: AIAA, pp.1–12.

Fleeman

. Tactical missile design, 2nd ed. USA: AIAA, 2006.

Sutton

Biblarz

. Rocket propulsion elements, Chichester: Wiley, 2001.

Wing DJ. Static investigation of two fluidic thrust-vectoring concepts on a two-dimensional convergent-divergent nozzle. NASA TM-4574, 1994.

Wing DJ and Giuliano VJ. Fluidic thrust vectoring of an axisymmetric exhaust nozzle at static conditions. In: ASME fluids engineering division summer meeting, Vancouver, BC, 22–26 June 1997, FEDSM97-3228. USA: NASA Langley Technical Report Server, pp.1–6.

Das

Páscoa

Trancossi

, et al. Computational fluid dynamic study on a novel propulsive system: ACHEON and its integration with an unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV). J Aerospace Eng 2016; 29: 04015015-1–04015015-16.

Herbst

. Future fighter technologies. J Aircr 1980; 17: 561–566.

Henderson

. Propulsion system integration in high performance aircraft. J Aerospace Eng 1990; 10: 21–25.

10.

Deere KA. Summary of fluidic thrust vectoring research conducted at NASA Langley Research Center. In: 21st AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, Orlando, FL, 23–26 June 2003, AIAA paper no. 2003-3800. USA: AIAA, pp.1–18.

11.

Deere KA, Berrier BL, Flamm JD, et al. Computational study of fluidic thrust vectoring using separation control in a nozzle. In: 21st AIAA applied aerodynamics conference, Orlando, FL, 23–26 June 2003, AIAA paper no. 2003-3803. USA: AIAA, pp.1–11.

12.

Miller DN, Yagle PJ and Hamstra, JW. Fluidic throat skewing for thrust vectoring in fixed geometry nozzles. In: 37th aerospace sciences meeting and exhibit, Reno, NV, 11–14 January 1999, AIAA Paper no. 99-0365. USA: AIAA, pp.1–9.

13.

Yagle

Miller

Ginn

, et al. Demonstration of fluidic throat skewing for thrust vectoring in structurally fixed nozzles. J Eng Gas Turb Pow 2001; 123: 502–507.

14.

Ferlauto

Marsilio

. Numerical simulation of fluidic thrust-vectoring. J Aerospace Sci Tech Syst 2009; 88: 1–8.

15.

Guo

. Experimental and numerical investigations of a bypass dual throat nozzle. J Eng Gas Turb Pow 2014; 136: 1–6.

16.

Deng

Kong

Kim

. Numerical simulation of fluidic thrust vectoring in an axisymmetric supersonic nozzle. J Mech Sci Technol 2014; 12: 4979–4987.

17.

Kim

. Numerical study on the shock vector control in a rectangular supersonic nozzle. Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 2019; 233: 4943–4965.

18.

Kim

. Fluidic thrust vector control using shock wave concept. J Korean Soc Prop Eng 2019; 23: 10–20.

19.

Deng

Kim

. A study on the thrust vector control using a bypass flow passage. Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 2015; 229: 1722–1729.

20.

Deng

Setoguchi

Kim

. Large eddy simulation of shock vector control using bypass flow passage. Int J Heat Fluid Fl 2016; 62: 474–481.

21.

Heo

Sung

. Fluidic thrust-vector control of supersonic jet using coflow injection. J Propul Power 2012; 28: 858–861.

22.

Strykowski

Krothapalli

Forliti

. Counterflow thrust vectoring of supersonic jets. AIAA J 1996; 34: 2306–2314.

23.

Carpenter

Green

. The aeroacoustics and aerodynamics of highspeed coanda devices, part 1: conventional arrangement of exit nozzle and surface. J Sound Vib 1997; 208: 777–801.

24.

Newman BG. The deflexion of plane jets by adjacent boundaries–Coanda effect: boundary layer and flow control. Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press, 1961.

25.

Heo JY, Yoo KH, Lee Y, et al. Fluidic thrust vector control of supersonic jet using co-flow injection. In: 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & exhibit, Denver, CO, 2–5 August 2009. USA: AIAA, pp.1–12.

26.

Song

Park

Lee

. Application of backstep coanda flap for supersonic coflowing fluidic thrust-vector control. AIAA J 2014; 52: 2355–2359.

27.

Lee

Park

Kim

. Thrust vectoring of sonic jet by using coanda flap and solenoid valve. AIAA J 2016; 54: 2909–2915.

28.

Strykowski PJ and Krothapalli A. The countercurrent mixing layer: strategies for shear-layer control. In: 3rd shear flow conference, Orlando, FL, 6–9 July 1993, AIAA paper no. 93-3260. USA: AIAA, pp.1–14.

29.

Strykowski

Krothapalli

Jendoubi

. The effect of counterflow on the development of compressible shear layers. J Fluid Mech 1996; 308: 63–96.

30.

Strykowski

Niccum

. The stability of countercurrent mixing layers in circular jets. J Fluid Mech 1991; 227: 309–343.

31.

Strykowski PJ and Forliti DJ. Flow control applications using countercurrent shear. In: International Symposium on Recent Advances in Experimental Fluid Mechanics, Kanpur, 18–20 December 2000, pp.1–16.

32.

Alvi

Strykowski

. Forward flight effects on counterflow thrust vector control of a supersonic jet. AIAA J 1998; 37: 279–281.

33.

Alvi

Stryknowski

Krothapalli

, et al. Vectoring thrust in multiaxes using confined shear layers. J Fluids Eng 2000; 122: 3–13.

34.

Flamm JD. Experimental study of a nozzle using fluidic counterflow for thrust vectoring. In: 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & Exhibit, Cleveland, OH, 13–15 July 1998, AIAA paper no. 98-3255. USA: AIAA, pp.1–27.

35.

Lim CM, Kim HD and Setoguchi T. Studies on thrust vector control using a fluidic counter-flow concept. In: 42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Sacramento, CA, 9–12 July 2006, AIAA paper no. 2006-5204. USA: AIAA, pp.1–6.

36.

Hunter CA and Deere KA. Computational investigation of fluidic counterflow thrust vectoring. In: 35th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE joint propulsion conference & exhibit, Los Angeles, CA, 20–23 June 1999, AIAA paper no. 99-2669. USA: AIAA, pp.1–13.

37.

Kim

Jin

. Fluidic thrust vector control based on counter-flow concept. Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 2018; 233: 1412–1422.

38.

Gillgrist RD. A fundamental study of thrust vector control using counterflow. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, 1999.

39.

Banazadeh

Saghafi

. An investigation of empirical formulation and design optimization of co-flow fluidic thrust vectoring nozzles. Aeronaut J 2017; 121: 213–236.

40.

Jin

Kim

. Hysteresis behaviors in counter-flow thrust vector control. J Aerospace Eng 2019; 32: 04019041.

41.

Zhang G, Zhang YF, Liu Q, Li Y, et al. Experimental study on the two-phase flow of gas-particles through a model brake valve. Powder Technol 2020; 367: 172–182.

42.

Lin Z, Sun XW, Yu TC, et al. Gas-solid two-phase flow and erosion calculation of gate valve based on the CFD-DEM model. Powder Technol 2020; 366: 395–407.

43.

Roache

. Perspective: a method for uniform reporting of grid refinement studies. J Fluid Eng 1994; 116: 405–413.

44.

Roache

. Quantification of uncertainty in computational fluid dynamics. Annu Rev Fluid Mech 1997; 29: 123–160.

45.

Lijo

Kim

Setoguchi

. Analysis of choked viscous flows through a constant area duct. Proc IMechE Part G: J Aerospace Engineering 2010; 224: 1151–1162.

46.

Raman

Sethuraman

VRP

, et al. Effect of the wall temperature on Mach stem transformation in pseudo-steady shock wave reflections. Int J Heat Mass Transfer 2020; 147: 118927.