2017 2nd International Conference for Convergence in Technology (I2CT)

Dynamic Stability of Unguided Projectile with 6-

DOF Trajectory Modeling
Musavir Bashir* Sher Afghan Khan
School of Aerospace Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering,
Universiti Sains Malaysia Islamic International University Malaysia
14300 Nibong Tebal, Malaysia 53100, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
[email protected] [email protected]

Leelanadh Udayagiri* Asim Noor

Department of Aerospace Engineering, Department of Mechanical Engineering
Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, Aligarh Muslim University
400076, Mumbai, India. Aligarh, India – 202002
[email protected] [email protected]

Abstract— The paper presents the study of unguided rolling ‫ ʹܩ‬Side force coefficient
projectiles at varying Mach numbers using aerodynamic ‫ ͵ܩ‬Normal force coefficient
coefficients. The aerodynamic coefficients are estimated using an
aerodynamic prediction code, Missile DATCOM. The predicted ‫ ܾ݊ܩ‬Transformation matrix from body frame to inertial frame
dynamic derivatives will determine the design criteria, and also ‫ܨ‬Ԧ Force vector
their effect on the design aspects (stability and accuracy) of the
ሬԦAngular momentum vector
‫ܪ‬
projectile. To satisfy the condition of stability for the trajectory of
projectile, a model of 6 DOF equations has been used. The result ሬሬԦMoment vector
‫ܯ‬
parameters, such as static margin of the projectile, force and ߙAngle of attack
moment derivatives in all the three modes, spin rate, angle of
attack, and time rate are shown. The accuracy of the rolling ߚ Side slip angle
moment derivatives is uncertain due to the limitation of ߠ Pitch angle
DATCOM, but it is the general method applicable at the initial ߜ ൌ ȁߞȁ Complex angle of attack in missile
design stage of any projectile and therefore falls in the realm of
aerodynamic database. The results address the problems of static ߮ Yaw angle
and dynamic stability by giving initial perturbations, effect of spin ߶ Roll angle
on thrust misalignment, and effect of variation in the geometric
parameters during the power on and off cases. Therefore, there is
a need for full aerodynamic characterization of the projectile, in II. Introduction
which sufficient derivatives are computed for accurate results. With the advanced design techniques, the prediction of
dynamic stability derivatives is vital to the design aspects of
Keywords— Trajectory Simulation, Aerodynamic Coefficients, 6- rockets and missiles. The dynamic stability derivatives give
DOF, Rocket, Missile DATCOM criteria to quantify the total forces and moments acting on the
projectile and the changes in flight conditions, such as angle of
attack and Mach number. The main dynamic stability
I. Nomenclature derivatives are the forces and moments derivatives in (pitch,
‫ ߙ݉ܥ‬Pitching moment derivative yaw, and roll), Magnus force, and Magnus moment. There are
‫ ݍ݉ܥ‬Pitch damping derivative numerous ways to generate stable and controllable forces and
‫ ݌݈ܥ‬Roll damping derivative with roll rate moments on a projectile to enable sufficiently large changes to
its trajectory for flight stability and control purposes. The
‫ ߜ݈ܥ‬Induced roll moment derivative
proposed concepts are aerodynamic surfaces (nose-mounted
‫ ߚ݊ܥ‬Yawing moment coefficient derivative with side slip angle canards and/or tail fins) [1], jet thrusters (gas or explosive) [2],
‫ ߚݕܥ‬Side force coefficient derivative with side slip angle and, finally, inertial loads (translating or rotating internal
‫ ߙ݊ܥ‬Yawing moment coefficient with yaw rate masses) [3], but the most efficient way is via aerodynamic
‫ ܦܥ‬Drag coefficient forces and moments. The advantages being easy time
corrections, sophisticated and more design command over the
‫ ͳܩ‬Axial force coefficient surfaces and aerodynamic resemblances to the main

978-1-5090-4307-1/17/$31.00 ©2017 IEEE 1002

configuration. Therefore, the aerodynamic derivatives are used effect of wind on the projectile trajectory was found to be very
to study the projectile motion and to ensure that efficient dominant [14].
configuration (stable yet maneuverable) design is predicted for
projectiles. The projectiles that do not require high The experimental studies were conducted by Dahlke[15] on the
maneuverability can make use of more simple stability and stability of missiles for a range of Mach number varying from
control techniques than high maneuverability projectiles, and 0.3 to 3 and verified that the static longitudinal aerodynamic
one such method is to make the projectile roll in flight, which characteristics of wrap around fin projectiles are not different
improves both the stability and controllability of the projectile. from that of flat fin if planform area was equal to the projected
The other aspect of stability is achieved by the projectile by its area of the curved fins. Experimental similitude studies by
ability of compact storage, for example folding the control McIntyre [16] showed the decrease in the rolling moment with
surfaces, wrap-around fins (WAF) etc. [4]. One investigation the increase of Mach number. For rolling moment reduction,
based on both linear and non-linear methods of stabilization they used two curved fin projectiles, one having a solid fin and
verified that the disturbance effects on the projectile can be the other a slotted one. Rolling moment is positive at subsonic
removed by a suitable choice of fin attachment location and velocity and roll reversal was experienced at approximately
properties [5]. The spin-stabilized projectile does not employ Mach 1. A more comprehensive study of the motion of the
any attitude sensor due to large launch overload and high spin symmetric rolling bodies in the presence of non-linear
rate. Therefore, the increment orientation of serving motion can aerodynamics was manifested by Murphy [17].Using different
be predicted with available trajectory parameters [6]. A approaches of slow-varying parameters, Clare [12] prolonged
research was conducted by testing various projectiles in a wind his solution to include resonance. However, both Murphy [18]
tunnel at different angles of attack and Mach numbers [7]. A and Clare [12] has assumed a constant spin rate, which was
comparative study was aimed at selecting the optimal later restrained by Murphy [18], but the rolling moment was
configuration. assumed to be linear. Nayfeh and Saric[19] utilized the method
Projectiles are usually designed with marginal static stability of multiple scales and determined the coupled non-linear roll,
that results in small natural frequencies in pitch – yaw [8]. pitch, and yaw equations to study roll resonance of re-entry
Moreover, small asymmetries or disturbances can easily set on vehicle. Numerous experiments were used to evaluate the
initially unspun projectile into a roll. These disturbed motions performance of the missile and validate whether the
allows the action of roll-orientation dependent side forces and performance index in the course of missile design meets the
moments which reduce the yaw damping of the missile, prerequisites or not [20, 21]. But both the time period and
resulting in increasing angles of attack to the moderate or the outlay cost for the experiment is high, and therefore different
large amplitude oscillations [9]. Such an accidently produced mathematical models are adopted.
roll rate may readily match with a low natural pitch yaw
frequency. This results in magnification of trim angle, and the A. 6-DOF research investigation:
projectile undergoes large amplitude yawing motion. This is The first rigid 6-degree of freedom projectile exterior ballistics
called roll resonance and may lead to instability [10]. High model was given by Fowler, Gallop and Richmond [22]. The
kinetic energy projectiles are also known to occasionally work was further proceeded by many authors to study the spin
display an abnormal flight behavior characterized by either stabilized missile, dual-spin projectile etc. [23-25]. Also, the
spinning at a different rate than their intended design values or study of trajectory prediction and dispersion analysis was
having larger yawing motion angles than expected. In a few carried out for unguided fin stabilized projectiles [26].
cases, this behavior can be catastrophic to the motion and
mission of the vehicle, causing ineffective armor penetration Z
for the KE projectile case or uncontrollable flight for the Cm V
Y
missile case [11]. A common solution to avoid roll-resonance is Cz
Cm
to cant the fins and deliberately roll the projectile through the E D
resonance region [12]. Surprisingly, many flight failures were Cy D X
observed when the roll rate failed to build up equilibrium V w
(design) value corresponding to the fin can’t. Instead, the roll
rate seen to get locked in at resonance; this phenomenon is
termed as roll lock-in [13]. The observed roll lock-in
tendencies could not be explained based on the existing linear Co
Cl
aeroballistics theory. The theory predicted that the roll rate
would vary through the resonance region and the projectile Figure 1. A schematic of Body Fixed Coordinate System
would attain only a fraction of the maximum (resonant)
amplitude. The actual disturbances were much larger. The It was revealed in the investigation that many projectile
variables (powered phase time, propellant weight and the

1003
average thrust) are significant for the accuracy of results. Some X3(X)
of the results of the investigation are comparable to our
investigated results. Another study to determine firing angles of
unguided projectile employed iterative algorithms and six-
degrees of freedom trajectory simulation and this method was
found very beneficial [27]. A full 6 DOF modelling for a
GRAD rocket in Earths non-inertial frame was presented and
the equations were solved for aerodynamic coefficients and C
T
their derivatives [28]. The characteristic dispersion factors due X1
to rocket production inaccuracies, launch condition variability \
and atmospheric factors and their relative influence on a Y2(Y3) \ X2
guidance implementation package were presented in this study. I
It was shown that significant range increase can be obtained Yl
while using the same propulsion unit with a step-like thrust- Y T I Z
curve modification. Another such investigation was carried out
using a series of numerical simulations with 6DOF used to Z1(Z2)
describe the missile flight in 3D space [29]. Also, 6 DOF non- Z3
linear models was proposed to obtain the accurate prediction at
short and long trajectories of both high and low spin stabilized o
projectiles through atmospheric flight [30]. Aerodynamic X1
forces and moments were predicted by employing PRADOS
program. It was concluded that the impact accuracy of a
conventional projectile can be improved by employing drag
brake module. Y1

III. Projectile Model and Coordinate System

Trajectory modeling of unguided missiles has displayed
noteworthy results over the last few years. Researchers have Figure 2. A schematic of a Euler angle Reference Frame
integrated the Newton-Euler equations to develop six-degree of
freedom model of equations, and are used to study the In order to implement aerodynamic coefficients to 6-DOF
projectile dynamics during preliminary design phase [31]. This model, two Cartesian coordinate systems are employed viz. the
model has found it applications over a vast area of research,
body fixed and the earth fixed. In the body fixed (XYZ), the
such as booster separation from a space launch vehicle,
origin is fixed at the center of gravity of the projectile however
separation of canopy in emergency, simulation studies of the axes do not roll with the projectile body. All axes are
control and navigation of missiles and so on [32, 33]. The orthogonal to each other. The X axis is coincident with the
computational studies have been applied for 6-DOF models in body longitudinal axis and X is positive forward. The Y axis is
which aerodynamic coefficients, control and navigation directed out the starboard of the body. The Z axis points
problems are solved for the projectiles. The six-degree of
downward and normal to both the X and Y axis, as per the
freedom for our study comprises of three translational and
right-hand rule. In the Earth fixed system, an Earth fixed
rotational components respectively. reference frame is used and treated as an inertial reference
where Newton’s laws of motion are valid. The rotational
velocity of the Earth is neglected. The inclination of body fixed
relative to Earth frame is defined by 3 Euler angles߮, ߠ and߶
as seen in Figure 2.

IV. Flight Dynamics and 6-DOF Model for Projectile

The rotational dynamics of the projectile is described in terms
of Euler angles߮ǡ ߠǡ ߶, which depicts the position of asset of
body fixed axes ‫ݔ‬ǡ ‫ݕ‬ǡ ‫ݖ‬ǡ relative to the inertial frame ‫ ݅ݔ‬ǡ ‫݅ݕ‬ǡ ‫݅ݖ‬
that translates the projectile. The flight of the projectile was
described with 6DOF motion equations, which were calculated
by solving 6-DOF equations using Program code in
FORTRAN.

1004
The governing equations of motion are solved in the inertial ݀‫ݑ‬
ൌ
ͳ
‫ ݔܣܨ‬െ ݃‫ ߠ݊݅ݏ‬൅ ‫ ݓݎ‬െ ‫ݓݍ‬ (14)
݀‫ݐ‬ ݉
coordinate system as follows;
݀‫ݒ‬ ͳ
Using transformation matrices, the rotations of a point in the ൌ ‫ ݕܣܨ‬൅ ݃‫ ߠݏ݋ܿ߮݊݅ݏ‬൅ ‫ ݑݎ‬െ ‫ݓ݌‬ (15)
݀‫ݐ‬ ݉
coordinate system are as;
݀‫ݓ‬ ͳ
ൌ ‫ ݖܣܨ‬൅ ݃ܿ‫ ߠݏ݋ܿ߮ݏ݋‬൅ ‫ ݑݎ‬െ ‫ݒ݌‬ (16)
ܿ‫߮ݏ݋‬ ‫߮݊݅ݏ‬ Ͳ ݀‫ݐ‬ ݉

‫= ͳܩ‬൥െ‫߮݊݅ݏ‬ ܿ‫߮ݏ݋‬ Ͳ൩ (1) In terms of rotational dynamics, the equations of the projectile
Ͳ Ͳ ͳ are represented as;
ܿ‫ߠݏ݋‬ Ͳ െ‫ߠ݊݅ݏ‬ ሬሬሬሬሬሬԦ
G2 =൥ Ͳ ͳ Ͳ ൩ (2) ሬሬԦ ൌ ‫ ߱݀ ܫ‬൅ ߱
ȭ‫ܯ‬ ሬԦǤ ሺ‫߱ܫ‬
ሬԦሻ (17)
݀‫ݐ‬
‫ߠ݊݅ݏ‬ Ͳ ܿ‫ߠݏ݋‬
Also,
ͳ Ͳ Ͳ
G3 = ൥Ͳ ܿ‫߮ݏ݋‬ ܿ‫ ߮ݏ݋‬൩(3) ሬሬԦ ൌ ‫݅ܮ‬Ԧ ൅ ‫ܬܯ‬Ԧ ൅ ܰ‫ܭ‬
ሬԦ (18)
ȭ‫ܯ‬
Ͳ െ‫߮݊݅ݏ‬ ܿ‫߮ݏ݋‬
As we have assumed that the projectile is symmetrical,
‫ܾ݊ܩ‬ therefore all the terms of inertia are zero. Therefore,
…‘•Ʌ…‘•߰ •‹ɔ•‹Ʌ…‘•߰ െ …‘•ɔ•‹߰ …‘•ɔ•‹Ʌ…‘•߰ ൅ •‹ɔ•‹߰
ൌ ൥ …‘•Ʌ•‹߰ •‹ɔ•‹Ʌ•‹߰ ൅ …‘•ɔ…‘•߰ …‘•ɔ•‹Ʌ•‹߰ െ •‹ɔ…‘•߰൩ ݀‫݌‬ ݀‫݌‬
‫ ܮ‬ൌ ‫ݔܫ‬ ൅ ሺ‫ ݖܫ‬െ ‫ ݖܫ‬ሻ‫ ݎݍ‬ൌ ‫ݔܫ‬ (19)
െ•‹Ʌ •‹ɔ…‘•Ʌ …‘•ɔ…‘•Ʌ ݀‫ݐ‬ ݀‫ݐ‬
(4) ݀‫ݍ‬
‫ ܯ‬ൌ ‫ݕܫ‬ ൅ ൫‫ ݔܫ‬െ ‫ ݕܫ‬൯‫( ݌ݎ‬20)
The equations of motion for a projectile are derived in terms of ݀‫ݐ‬
Translational and Rotational dynamic equations, using different ݀‫ݎ‬
force and angular momentum equations respectively. ܰ ൌ ‫ݖܫ‬ ൅ ൫‫ ݕܫ‬െ ‫ ݔܫ‬൯‫ݍ݌‬ (21)
݀‫ݐ‬

ሬሬሬሬሬԦ
ሬሬሬԦ=݀‫݌‬
ȭ‫ܨ‬ (5) The above equation is finally represented as:
݀‫ݐ‬
݀‫݌‬ ͳ
ሬሬሬሬሬሬԦ ൌ ‫( ܮ‬22)
ሬሬԦ=݀‫( ܪ‬6)
ȭ‫ܯ‬ ݀‫ݐ‬ ‫ݔܫ‬
݀‫ݐ‬
݀‫ݍ‬ ͳ ‫ ݕܫ‬െ‫ݔܫ‬
‫݌‬Ԧ ൌ ݉‫ݒ‬Ԧ (7) ൌ ‫ܯ‬൅ ‫( ݎ݌‬23)
݀‫ݐ‬ ‫ݕܫ‬ ‫ݕܫ‬

݀‫ݒ‬ ሬሬሬሬሬԦ ݀‫ݎ‬ ͳ ‫ ݔܫ‬െ‫ݕܫ‬

ȭ‫ܨ‬Ԧ ൌ ݉ (8) ݀‫ݐ‬
ൌ
‫ݖܫ‬
ܰ൅
‫ܻܫ‬
‫ݍ݌‬ (24)
݀‫ݐ‬

ሬԦ (9)
‫ݒ‬Ԧ ൌ ‫݅݌‬Ԧ ൅ ‫݆ݒ‬Ԧ ൅ ‫݇ݎ‬ V. Determination of Aerodynamic Derivative
Aerodynamic derivatives are obtained by following different
ሬԦ (10)
ሬԦ ൌ ‫݅݌‬Ԧ ൅ ‫݆ݍ‬Ԧ ൅ ‫݇ݎ‬
߱ methods;
x Computational methods
‫݅݁ݎ݄݁ݓ‬ǡ ݆ǡ ݇are the unit vectors along the body axes, x Theoretical and empirical aerodynamics
respectively. Using the components of v and߱, the dynamic x Experimental aerodynamics
equations of linear motion of the body centre of mass can be In the present study, we have used DATCOM in order to
obtained as: predict accurate values, but the missile DATCOM code has
limitations. As a theoretical and semi-empirical method,
݀‫ݑ‬
ȭ‫ܨ‬Ԧ‫ ݔ‬ൌ ݉ሺ ൅ ‫ ݓݍ‬െ ‫ݎݒ‬ሻ (11) Missile DATCOM predicts the aerodynamic coefficients both
݀‫ݐ‬
of finned and non-finned spin projectiles based on analytical
݀‫ݒ‬ method. The parabolic nature of fins is neglected during the
ȭ‫ܨ‬Ԧ‫ ݕ‬ൌ ݉ሺ െ ‫ ݎݑ‬൅ ‫ݓ݌‬ሻ(12)
݀‫ݐ‬ study for simplification purposes.
݀‫ݓ‬
ȭ‫ܨ‬Ԧ‫ ݖ‬ൌ ݉ ቀ ൅ ‫ ݒ݌‬െ ‫ݍݑ‬ቁ(13) VI. Results and Discussion
݀‫ݐ‬
From the analysis of unguided projectiles, we have concluded:
Considering the components of aerodynamic forces and a) A truly symmetric fin projectile need not be spun.
gravitational forces, we get;

1005
b) Manufacturing tolerances usually result in the projectile
Centre of gravity being located off the longitudinal axis.
The aerodynamic forces will then produce a moment
resulting in an angle of attack. This dispersion due to static
imbalance can be reduced by slow spin.
c) There is a critical spin corresponding to the pitch-roll
resonance, which must be avoided.

Therefore, the parameters analyzed are Static margin, dynamic

stability, spin rate, Mach number and flight time, and angle of
attack.
Figure 3 depicts the projectile altitude during flight time, where Figure 4(b). Velocity versus Flight time (s)
it is shown that total flight time is about 150 seconds, but the Results for angular speed developed during the flight as a
ascending phase time is actually 85 seconds. In view of the function of flight time are shown in Figure 5a and Figure 5b
high velocity of the rocket at the end of the powered phase or respectively. The figures show that the angular speed of the
jet on condition of the projectile, which takes place at the end rocket as function of flight time, where the angular speed at the
of the powered off or jet off condition. The results are launch point is 37 rad/s and then it is marginally decreased after
comparable to that of mentioned in previous research leaving launcher due to frictional forces acting on the rocket
investigation [26]. body as well as the low velocity of the rocket.
10000

9000 During the jet on condition the velocity of the rocket will
8000 increase, the angular rate will also increase due to the canting
7000 of the rocket lifting surfaces which will spin the rocket in the
6000 clock wise spin direction as it shown in Figure 5-a. At the end
Altitude (m)

5000 of the powered phase the rocket will have free flight resulting
4000 in the decrease of the speed which will result in the reduction
3000 of the angular speed as shown in Figure 5-b. Finally, in the
2000
descending phase of the flight of the projectile velocity will
1000
increase again and hence the angular speed too will increase.
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140

Flight time (s)

Figure 3. Altitude versus Flight time (s)

Figure 4a shows the speed of the rocket from the launching

point to the impact points, where the velocity at the launch
point is 26.7 m/s and due the thrust generated during the
powered phase it will be increased, where the velocity at the
end of the powered phase is nearly 1200 m/s. At the end of the
jet on condition the flight of the projectile becomes a free flight
until the maximum altitude and then the descending phase will
start during which the velocity of the rocket will increase due
Figure 5(a).Spin rate at initial phase versus Flight time (s)
the earth’s gravitational acceleration as shown in Figure 4b.

Figure 4(a). Velocity versus Flight time (s)

Figure 5(b). Spin rate at final phase versus Flight time (s)

1006
Figure 6 shows that initially there is an increase in static
margins up to 0.8<M<1.1 and then it decreases sharply. There
are three reasons for this trend:
1) ‫ ߙܰܥ‬of the nose increases throughout up Mach no. 3,
which gives destabilizing moment.
2) ‫ ߙܰܥ‬of fin has two peaks and after M = 1.2 it
decreases.
3) Due to the burning of boost phase, the Centre of
Gravity of the rocket shifts towards the fin, in turns
reduces the static margins.

Figure 8. Damping Moment vs Mach number

Figure 6. Static Margin versus Mach number

The pitching moment derivative slope versus Mach number

results are illustrated in Figure 7. The pitching moment
coefficient slope was calculated by taking the torque (Z axis)
difference between AOA of 2° and 0°. The variation of the
pitching moment coefficient slope from subsonic to supersonic
region was determined from Mach 0.5 to Mach 3 with an
interval of 0.5. Figure 9. Rolling moment vs Mach number
Figure 8 shows the variation of damping moment derivative
with the Mach number of the projectile, and it was observed
that the predicted values of Datcom could give errors up to 30
percent.
Similarly, the figure 9 and figure 10 represent the Rolling
moment derivative and induced rolling moment derivative with
Mach number respectively.

Figure 10. Induced rolling moment vs Mach Number

In figure 11 shows ‫ ܦܥ‬vs Mach number has been shown; peak

is around at M=1.2. The total drag of the projectile is
dominated by the skin-friction drag because of the high L/D
ratio and also due to the high ratio of wet-surface area to
Figure 7. Pitching Moment versus Mach number reference area.
Figure 12 to 14 shows the values aerodynamic force &
damping derivatives in pitch, and yaw.

1007
 Figure 11. Drag Coefficient versus Mach Number Figure 14. Yawing moment derivative with Yaw rate vs Mach
number

Figure 15. Angle of incidence as a function of time

Figure 15 shows the angle of incidence as a function of time.
Figure 12. Yawing moment coefficients with yaw rate vs Mach From the figure it is seen that the initial angle of incidence is
number 1.5 degrees and then it is increased to around four degrees then
getting decreased to almost zero degrees in cyclic order at the
end of the powered phase.

VII. Conclusion
The analysis of unguided projectile was carried out by Missile
Datcom by using 6-DOF equations, and aerodynamic
derivatives were obtained. The data was collected over
different Mach numbers ranging from 0.5-3. The ensuing
aerodynamic derivatives predicted are used to improve the
stability characteristics of the projectile. As it is well known
that due to the manufacturing uncertainties there can be
misalignment of the geometrical axis of the missile with the
thrust vector, which could lead to major stability and accuracy
Figure 13.Side force coefficient derivative with side slip angle issues. Hence intentional spin will address the thrust
vs Mach number misalignment. Also, in view of the wrap around fin (WAF) the
pair of fins are having concave and convex shape leading to
unbalanced force and hence the unbalanced moment. Hence, it
is suggested to keep static margin quite high to cater for the
effect of the variation of the center of gravity of the rocket
towards the fin during powered phase of the rocket. Wrap-
around-fin projectiles have inherited dynamic stability issues
which straight fixed fins don’t have. The analysis also shows
that the spin rate should be kept as low as possible after
considering the limitations for the dynamic coefficients using

1008
Datcom. As for the errors in some dynamic coefficients, more [20] J.-F. Cossette, P. K. Smolarkiewicz, and P. Charbonneau, "The Monge–
range of tests would be useful in determine more accurate Ampère trajectory correction for semi-Lagrangian schemes," Journal of
results using computational methods. The six degree of Computational Physics, vol. 274, pp. 208-229, 2014.
[21] J.-q. ZHAO, F. Long, and H. Sun, "The Summary of Trajectory
freedom equation model is applied for increasing the accuracy
Correction Projectiles [J]," Guidance and Fuze, vol. 4, p. 003, 2005.
of the results for both high and low spin-stabilized projectiles.
[22] L. W. Alaways and M. Hubbard, "Experimental determination of baseball
REFERENCES spin and lift," Journal of Sports Sciences, vol. 19, pp. 349-358, 2001.
[1] F. J. Reg and J. Smith, "Aeroballistics of a terminally corrected spinning [23] G. Cooper, "Influence of yaw cards on the yaw growth of spin-stabilized
projectile (TCSP)," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 12, pp. 733- projectiles," Journal of Aircraft, vol. 38, pp. 266-270, 2001.
738, 1975. [24] M. Costello and A. Peterson, "Linear theory of a dual-spin projectile in
[2] B. Burchett and M. Costello, "Model predictive lateral pulse jet control of atmospheric flight," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol.
an atmospheric rocket," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, 23, pp. 789-797, 2000.
vol. 25, pp. 860-867, 2002. [25] B. Burchett, A. Peterson, and M. Costello, "Prediction of swerving
[3] C. H. Murphy, "Influence of moving internal parts on angular motion of motion of a dual-spin projectile with lateral pulse jets in atmospheric
spinning projectiles," Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, vol. flight," Mathematical and computer modelling, vol. 35, pp. 821-834,
1, pp. 117-122, 1978. 2002.
[4] A. Jerry M and W. Carolyn B, "Experimental Study at Low Supersonic [26] M. Khalil, H. Abdalla, and O. Kamal, "Trajectory prediction for a typical
Speeds of a Missile Concept Having Opposing Wraparound Tails," 2003. fin stabilized artillery rocket," in 13th International Conference on
[5] T. Sailaranta and A. Siltavuori, "A passive method to stabilize an airborne Aerospace Sciences & Aviation Technology, Cairo, 2009, pp. 1-14.
vehicle," Defence Technology, vol. 10, pp. 124-130, 2014. [27] P. Chusilp, W. Charubhun, and N. Nutkumhang, "Investigating an
[6] X.-d. Liu, D.-g. Li, and Q. Shen, "Swerving orientation of spin-stabilized iterative method to compute firing angles for artillery projectiles," in 2012
projectile for fixed-cant canard control input," Mathematical Problems in IEEE/ASME International Conference on Advanced Intelligent
Engineering, vol. 2015, 2015. Mechatronics (AIM), 2012, pp. 940-945.
[7] S. Sharmash and A. Ghosh, "Analytical Modeling, Trajectory Simulation [28] F. Mingireanu, L. Georgescu, G. Murariu, and I. Mocanu, "Trajectory
and Control of Guided Projectiles," in International Conference on Modeling Of Grad Rocket With Low-Cost Terminal Guidance Upgrade
Control, Automation and Robotics (CAR). Proceedings, 2011, p. C39. Coupled To Range Increase Through Step-Like Thrust-Curves,"
[8] G. Cooper, "Spinning Projectile with an Inviscid Liquid Payload Romanian Journal Of Physics, vol. 59, pp. 369-381, 2014.
Impregnating Porous Media," AIAA Journal, vol. 46, pp. 783-787, 2008. [29] A. Żyluk, "Numerical simulation of the effect of wind on the missile
[9] J. D. Nicolaides, "Two non-linear problems in the flight dynamics of motion," Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mechanics, vol. 52, pp. 335-
modern ballistic missiles," DTIC Document1957. 344, 2014.
[10] J. D. Nicolaides, "On the free flight motion of missiles having slight [30] A. Elsaadany and Y. Wen-jun, "Accurate trajectory prediction for typical
configurational asymmetries," DTIC Document1953. artillery projectile," in Control Conference (CCC), 2014 33rd Chinese,
[11] A. G. Mikhail, "Fin damage and mass offset for kinetic energy projectile 2014, pp. 6368-6374.
spin/pitch lock-in," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 35, pp. 287- [31] S. M. Murman, M. J. Aftosmis, and M. J. Berger, "Simulations of 6-DOF
295, 1998. motion with a Cartesian method," AIAA paper, vol. 1246, p. 2003, 2003.
[12] T. A. Clare, "Resonance instability for finned configurations having [32] R. L. Meakin, "Computations of the unsteady flow about a generic
nonlinear aerodynamic properties," Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, wing/pylon/finned-store configuration," AIAA paper, vol. 4568, p. 1992,
vol. 8, pp. 278-283, 1971. 1992.
[13] J. Morote, "Control of Roll Lock-in and Catastrophic Yaw for Cruciform [33] Y. Xu, Z. Wang, and B. Gao, "Six-Degree-of-Freedom Digital
Finned Missiles," in AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference, Simulations for Missile Guidance and Control," Mathematical Problems
2009, p. 5717. in Engineering, vol. 2015, 2015.
[14] R. J. Mukhedkar and S. D. Naik, "Effects of different meteorological
standards on projectile path," Defence Science Journal, vol. 63, p. 101,
2013.
[15] J. A. Humphrey and C. W. Dahlke, "A Summary of Aerodynamic
Characteristics for Wrap-Around Fins from Mach 0.3 to 3.0," DTIC
Document1977.
[16] T. C. McIntyre, R. D. W. Bowersox, and L. P. Goss, "Effects of Mach
number on supersonic wraparound fin aerodynamics," Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, vol. 35, pp. 742-748, 1998.
[17] C. H. Murphy and J. W. Bradley, "Nonlinear Limit Motions of a Slightly
Asymmetric Re-entry Vehicle," AIAA Journal, vol. 13, pp. 851-857,
1975.
[18] C. H. Murphy, "Response of an asymmetric missile to spin varying
through resonance," AIAA Journal, vol. 9, pp. 2197-2201, 1971.
[19] A. H. Nayfeh and W. S. Saric, "NONLINEAR RESONANCES IN THE
MOTION OF ROLLING REENTRY BODIES," Virginia Polytechnic
Inst. and State Univ., Blacksburg; Sandia Labs., Albuquerque, N.
Mex.1971.

1009