d

q3
AlAA m-0035
-
Grid Fins A New Concept for Missile
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

Stability and Control

William D. Washington
U S . Army Missile Command
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

Mark S. Miller
\J
Dynetics, Inc.
Huntsville, Alabama

31st Aerospace Sciences

Meeting & Exhibit
January 11-14, 1993 / Reno, NV
For permission to copy or republish, contact the American institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
370 L'Enfant Promenade, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20024
 AIAA-93-0035
GRID FINS - A NEW CONCEPT FOR MISSILE STABILITYAND CONTROL

William David Washington*

U S . Army Missile Command
Redstone Arsenal, Alabama

Mark S. Miller+
Dynetics, Ino.
Huntsville, Alahania
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

ABSTRACT The fundamental design of the grid fin

allows a large amount of lifting surface
T h e aerodynamic characteristics of two area to be housed along the body of the
grid fin configurations have been missile without causing large increases in
investigated experimentally. The fins overall dimensions. I n addition, t h e
were mounted o n a body of revolution internal framework can be arranged to
consisting of a 3.0 caliber ogive nose with a provide the grid fin with remarkably high
7.4 caliber cylindrical afterbody. A main strength-to-weight ratios. The small chord
balance and four fin balances were used to dimensions of these devices result in near
m e a s u r e overall model loads a n d zero hinge moments and small center of
individual fin loads, respectively. Runs pressure variations over wide Mach
were made with fins deflected a t both 0 and number ranges, thereby reducing control
15 degrees. Individual fin normal force, actuator requirements.
hinge moment and root bending moment
coefficients were measured a t Mach A n experimental investigation was
numbers ranging from 0.5 to 3.5. Results conducted t o examine t h e aerodynamic \j
indicate t h a t grid fin hinge moments are characteristics of t h e t w o grid fin
extremely small, normal force and root configurations shown in Figure 1. The
bending moments a r e comparable t o objective of this investigation was to
planar fins of similar size, and grid fin evaluate the feasibility of using the devices
axial force is greater (for the grid fins a s aerodynamic stabilizers and/or control
tested) than planar fins with comparable surfaces o n free rockets and guided
lift characteristics. antitank missiles. The two grid fin
configurations tested had identical outer
I. INTRODUCTION frames, with different internal grid
framework. Wind tunnel models of the
A g r i d fin i s a n unconventional grid fins were built and tested (Ref. 1) on
aerodynamic lifting device consisting of an existing ogive cylinder. A main
a n outer f r a m e with internal grid balance and four fin balances were used t o
framework. Two different grid fin m e a s u r e overall model l o a d s a n d
concepts a r e shown i n Figure 1. With individual fin loads, respectively.
proper design, the unique aerodynamic
and structural characteristics of the grid Test results are presented and analyzed i n
fin can provide certain advantages over this paper that show the effect of internal
other conventional fin designs. grid framework, Mach number, angle of
attack and fin deflection angle o n grid tin
aerodynamics. Comparisons a r e also
* Aerospace Research Engineer made with experimental data of a planar
+ Aerospace Enginner, Member AIAA f i n with equivalent lift characteristics
(obtained Ref. 2 ) to qualitatively compare
l%ispapm i s a dcdared work of thc U.S. G n v c ~ n r n i m;ind 1s not
subject to copyright prukclion i n lhe United SL3U.s. aerodynamic characteristics.
LJ

1
 11. WIND TUNNEL TEST PROGRAM Test Facilities

W' T& Articles The grid fin test was conducted at the LTV
Aerospace and Defense Company high
A sketch of t h e wind tunnel model speed wind tunnel facility. The tunnel is a
hardware used for this investigation is blowdown, trisonic facility, with a Mach
shown in Figure 2. The body measured number range of 0.2 t o 5.0. Reynolds
5.0" in diameter and consisted of a 3.0 number capability ranges from 2 to 38
caliber tangent ogive nose with a 7.4 million per foot. Equivalent pressure
caliber cylindrical afterbody. This model altitudes range from below sea level to
had been used on previous tests and was 80,000 feet. The test section is 4 x 4 x 5 feet
chosen because it is typical of antitank with adjustable walls for supersonic Mach
missile shapes. Four fins can be mounted numbers.
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

on the body two calibers forward of the base.

The forward location was chosen to avoid The planar fin test was conducted at the
any influence of the base region on the McDonnell Douglas Aerophysics
fins. The grid fin with the fine internal Laboratory Trisonic T u n n e l and t h e
framework (Sl) was mounted opposite of the Arnold Engineering Development Center
fin with the " X internal framework (S2)t o Von K a r m a n Facility (AEDC-VKF)
minimize fin-fin interference effects. Tunnel A. Mach numbers of 0.8 t o 1.2 were
tested a t McDonnell Douglas and 1.8 t o 3.0
The planar fin data used for comparison were tested a t AEDC.
purposes was measured on an ogive
cylinder body similar to the grid fin test, as Test Conditions
shown in Figure 3. It measured 3.75" in
diameter and consisted of a 3.0 caliber Reynolds numbers for both tests are shown
tangent ogive nose with a 7.0 caliber in Table 1. This data was used to adjust
cylindrical afterbody. Four planar f i n s skin friction drag of the planar fin for
4 were mounted on fin balances with trailing comparison with the grid fins.
edges flush with the model base.

Instrume ntation Table 1. Test Reynolds Numbers.

A six-component main balance and four GRID FW PLANAR FW

three-component fin balances were used for MACH NO.
RNIFT, xi@ RNIFT, X106
the grid fin test. The fin balances were
calibrated t o measure fin normal force, 0.5 4.36
root bending moment and hinge moment. 0.6 4.90
Typical base pressure measurements were 0.7 5.36
made to correct for sting effects on base
drag. Main balance data was used t o 0.8 5.66 6.9
examine fin drag, because the fin balances 0.9 6.15
did not measure fin drag directly. Force 1.0 8.6
and moment coefficients for the grid fins
were referenced to the model diameter (5.0 1.1 6.45
in.) and cross sectional area (19.635 in.2). 1.3 7.01
T h e sign conventions used for t h e 1.8 5.52 2.7
coefficient data are shown in Figure 4.
2.0 2.8
A main balance and four fin balances were 2.5 7. 18 3.0
used i n the planar fin test. Coefficients for 3.0 4.6
the planar fins have been converted to the
same reference dimensions (body) and 3.5 11.3
sign conventions a s the grid fin data.
4

2
 111. RESULTS AND ANALYSIS Figure 7, the reduction i n the inlet cross
sectional area caused by the presence of the
N m r e cell structural members and the build-up of
d
the boundary layer on the cell walls will
Grid fin normal force coefficient data cause the flow passing through the cell to
(Cm)were obtained with the fins mounted accelerate to sonic conditions at freestream
in the horizontal plane (180 degrees apart). Mach numbers less t h a n 1.0. Using
CNF data for both grid tin configurations conventional terminology, the cell becomes
tested are presented i n Figure 5. These choked at this point. The cell remains
data are presented as a function of angle of choked as the freestream Mach number
attack ( a )for Mach numbers of 0.5, 0.8, 1.1, increases p a s t Mach 1.0. While t h e
1.8, 2.5 and 3.5. The fine mesh grid fin individual cells are choked, part of the flow
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

(Sl) is clearly superior t o the "X" pattern spills around the grid fin which causes a
grid fin (S2) at subsonic and supersonic reduction in normal force generated by the
speeds. Fin S1 produces at least 50% more fin.
normal force than tin S2 at subsonic speeds
and at least 150% more normal force at Further increases in freestream Mach
supersonic speeds. At transonic speeds, number will eventually enable the cell t o
fin S1 loses efficiency and produces swallow the shock and will result in a
essentially the same Cm values as fin S2. shock wave attaching t o the leading edge of
the cell. Once a shock wave attaches to the
Two trends with angle of attack a r e leading edge of a cell, further increases in
evident. First, the change i n CNF with Mach number will sweep t h e shock
angle of attack is nonlinear at subsonic backward causing i t to reflect within the
speeds, but tends t o become more linear as cell a s shown in Figure 7. The internal
Mach number increases through transonic reflection of the shock wave also tends to
to supersonic conditions. Second, the reduce Cm, values.
typical fin stall characteristics of \4
conventional planar fins are not evident a t At a certain Mach number, the shock wave
angles of attack up to 15 degrees. This will pass through the cell undisturbed.
trend makes the grid fin more attractive as Further increases i n Mach number will
a control device. This observation becomes have no qualitative effect on the grid fin
much more evident from the fin deflection flow field. It is at the point where the shock
data presented in the next section. first passes undisturbed t h a t the grid fin
begins t o exhibit supersonic normal force
Figure 6 presents zero angle of attack fin characteristics similar to conventional
normal force slope (CNF,) values a s a fins.
function of Mach number (M,) for the S1
configuration. The CNF, data follows The Mach numbers for the onset of choked
trends exhibited by conventional fins a t flow, shock attachment and undisturbed
subsonic (M,<0.75) and higher supersonic flow have been calculated for the S1
(M,>1.60) Mach numbers. However, a configuration u s i n g one-dimensional
"bucket" exists i n the Cpp, data through the isentropic flow relations derived for grid
transonic and lower supersonic Mach fin applications (Ref. 3 ) . A comparison of
number range. T h i s "bucket" is predicted flow field regimes is made with
attributable to t w o separate flow phenomena experimental data i n Figure 6 and shows
and is a function o f the grid fin internal excellent correlation with t h e trends
cell geometry, freestream Mach number observed in the experimental data.
and Reynold's number.
Control Force
For analysis purposes, it is valid t o vieW a
grid fin as a collection of individual cells Opposite fins in the horizontal plane were
acting a s separate inlets. Referring t o deflected -15 degrees t o evaluate grid fin
L

3
 control effectiveness. Fin deflection data pressure locations (YCP) for both grid fin
presented in Figure 8 (for Mach numbers of configurations are very consistent with
W' 1.8 and 3.5) indicate t h a t the grid fin typical planar fins (;.e., about 40% of span,
concept is probably more attractive as a measured outboard from fin base). This
control device than typical planar fins. At means t h a t the root bending moment
a fin deflection ( 6 ) of -15 degrees and angle characteristics of grid fins a r e similar to
of attack of -13 degrees (an equivalent fin planar fins. Unlike planar fins where
angle of attack greater than 25 degrees), the normal force acts through the plane of least
grid fin CNF data still does not indicate a rigidity, the grid fin normal force acts
typical planar fin type stall. Test results through the plane of greatest rigidity. This
show t h a t a t higher supersonic Mach implies that for a given load requirement,
numbers, the incremental change in CNF a grid fin will be somewhat lighter and
d u e t o fin deflection i s essentially s u b s t a n t i a l l y more rigid t h a n a
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

independent of angle of attack for conventional fin.

equivalent fin angles of attack i n excess of
30 degrees. Both S1 and 5 2 grid fin Planar Fin Commrison - Normal Force
configurations exhibit similar trends at
other Mach numbers. This data appears to I n order t o provide insight into t h e
indicate that the grid fin concept is very magnitude of normal force generated by
attractive as a control device a t supersonic the S1 grid fin, a comparison h a s been
speeds. made with experimental data obtained on a
planar fin with similar lift characteristics
Center of Pressurg (Ref. 2). The direct comparison of CNF
data is valid since both sets of data are
Clearly, one of the biggest advantages of the based on the model body cross sectional
grid fin concept is its low hinge moment areas. Figure 12 shows a scaled geometric
characteristics. Figure 9 summarizes the comparison between the two fins.
chordwise center of pressure locations
4 (XCP) a s a function of Mach number for Figure 13 presents CNF data for both fin
both the S1 and 5 2 configurations. As configurations a t Mach numbers of 0.8, 1.8
shown in Figure 9, the chordwise center of and 2.5. The grid fin produces essentially
pressure for fin S1 is essentially at 30% of the same normal force as the planar fin for
t h e chord (measured from the grid fin Mach n u m b e r s 0.8 a n d 1.8, a n d
leading edge), and varies n o more than approximately 50% more normal force at
10% in either direction. Chordwise center Mach number 2.5. Data was not available
of p r e s s u r e location f o r f i n S2 is for a direct one on one comparison a t
approximately 40% at subsonic speeds and transonic speeds. This data seems to
60% at supersonic speeds. indicate that the grid fin concept can be
very comparable t o planar fins in the
Figure 10 presents grid fin hinge moment production of fin normal force, and may be
(CHM) data, measured relative t o the fin even better a t higher supersonic speeds.
centerline, a s a function of angle of attack
a t Mach 2.5. As one might expect, hinge Planar .?in Comuarison - D r a
moment values increase with angle of
attack. When one considers that the chord Perhaps the greatest disadvantage of the
of a grid fin is very small in comparison t o grid fin configurations tested is their
a typical planar fin, then it is easy to high drag characteristics. As shown in
understand why grid fins have such low Figure 14, the drag of the S1 grid fin is 3 to 4
hinge moment values. times higher than t h e planar fin with
comparable lift characteristics.
Figure 11 summarizes the spanwise center
of pressure locations as a function of Mach It should be noted that the drag data for the
n u m b e r for both t h e S1 a n d S 2 planar fin was adjusted to the grid fin test
configurations. The spanwise center of Reynolds numbers and model scale for
J
4
 direct comparison with grid fin drag data. 1. Grid fin hinge moments a r e very
Incremental differences in fin skin small. For the test articles in this study, the W
friction d r a g were calculated using variation in chordwise center of pressure
standard boundary layer theory t o adjust was less than 0.1 inches (less t h a n 20
the planar fin skin friction drag to the grid percent of chord length).
fin test Reynolds numbers and model size.
The increments in drag were then added t o 2. Root bending moments for grid fins
the experimental planar fin data t o enable and planar fins are similar -- typically 40
drag comparisons with the grid fin data. t o 45 percent of fin span.

I n most i n s t a n c e s , high d r a g is 3 . Grid fins a r e effective devices for

undesirable. This grid fin characteristic, generating normal force a t all Mach
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

however, must be factored into the overall numbers tested. At higher supersonic
system performance before a definite Mach numbers, grid fins appear to be more
conclusion can be drawn. For some effective than planar fins with comparable
systems (such as submunitions), a rapid planform areas.
deceleration from high speeds, while
maintaining stability and controllability, 4 . Drag values for the grid fins tested are
might be desirable. The advantages and g r e a t e r t h a n for p l a n a r fins with
disadvantages of the grid fin concept must comparable lift characteristics. In this
be examined within the system constraints, study, grid fin drag is approximately 3 to 4
or requirements, and only then c a n it be times the drag of a planar fin with
judged good or bad. comparable normal force. Shaping of the
grid fin leading edges would, however,
The grid fins tested here had c o n s t a n t reduce drag significantly.
thickness internal elements and frame.
The leading and trailing edges of each 5. Because of t h e i r favorable lift
e l e m e n t a n d f r a m e were b l u n t . characteristics at high angles of attack and LJ
Significant d r a g reductions could be high Mach numbers, grid fins a r e very
realized (especially a t supersonic speeds) attractive as control devices. In this study,
by reshaping the edges t o be sharp, like grid fin stall did not occur for fin angles of
wedges. Also, the grid fin surface finish attack up t o 30 degrees - the maximum
could possibly be altered t o minimize tested.
friction drag. A technology effort is
currently i n process to investigate The observations noted above coupled with
techniques to reduce drag of the grid fin the excellent storage characteristics of grid
concept. fins lead t o conclusion t h a t grid fins are
particularly attractive devices t o consider
Theoretical Prediction Methods for canister launched missiles, ship
launched missiles, missiles designed for
Considerable work h a s been performed deployment from aircraft internal bays,
developing methods to predict the lift and compressed c a r r i a g e weapons a n d
drag characteristics of grid fins. These dispensed submunitions. Further research
methods are principally based on classic i n this area as well as system impact
isentropic flow relations and 2-D airfoil studies must be performed before definitive
theory. It is beyond the scope ofthis paper to answers can be obtained.
present details concerning these methods.
Additional information can be obtained ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
from References 4 through 6.
The a u t h o r s wish t o express t h e i r
IV. CONCLUSIONS appreciation to Mr. David Corder and Ms.
Lisa Brooks who provided assistance i n the
The following observations are made from peparation of this paper.
the results of this study.

5
 REFERENCES Applications," NWC TP 7137, Presented a t
W'
t h e 1990 AIAA Missile Sciences
1. Gills, Pamela F., "Data Base Report Conference, Naval Postgraduate School,
For Grid Fin Technology Wind Tunnel Monterey, California, November 14, 1990.
Test," Technical Report RD-SS-88-6, U.S.
Army Missile Command, Redstone 5. Miller, Mark S., a n d Richard L.
Arsenal, Alabama, March 1988. Burton, "Application of Foreign Airframe
Technology to Enhance S m a r t Weapon
2. Chafin, J. M., "User's Guide For High Flight Characteristics." GACIAC PR 90-02,
Angle Of Attack (HIALFA) Aerodynamic Vol. 2, Presented at the U.S. Army Smart
D a t a Base," Interim Technical Report Weapons Conference, Adelphi, Maryland,
TR1003, New Technology, I n c . , August 15,1990.
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

Huntsville, Alabama, December 1978.

6. Burton, Richard, L., a n d Mark S.
3. Miller, Mark S., "Unpublished Notes Miller, "Lattice Control Surfaces - An
Concerning Lift a n d Drag Prediction Alternate Means of Missile Control," 1990
Techniques for Grid Fins", 1988-1992. Joint Service Innovative Anti-Air Weapon
Systems Conference Proceedings,
4. Miller, Mark S., a n d Richard L. Presented a t J o h n s Hopkins Applied
B u r t o n , "An Innovative Aerodynamic Physics Lab, Laurel, Maryland, J u n e 28,
Control Device for Compact Weapon 1990.

Figure 1. Photograph of Two Grid Fins.

6
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

NOTE ALL DIMENSIONS IN INCHES

Figure 2. Grid Fin Wind Tunnel Model

A +
PLANAR FIN MODEL 3 7%

I ,
f

V, SIDE VIEW

0.713
b 1 . 2 8 2 4

2,565
40.6,$-

Figure 3. Planar Fin Wind Tunnel Model

1 0 125
t cNF

REAR VIEW
YNF

Figure 4. Coefficient Sign Convention.

7
 NORMAL FORCE COEFFICIENT NORMAL FORCE COEFFICIENT NORMAL FORCE COEFFICIENl
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

NORMAL FORCE COEFFICIENT NORMAL FORCE COEFFICIENT

P P P P P P P
 0.030 CELL W U,

0.025
NORMAL
SHOCK
.d
0.020
a) ChokwJFlow(M 51) b) choked Flow (M 21)
CNF, 0.015

0.010 CHOKED FLOW

0.005 ATTACHMENT

0.000
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5

MACH NUMBER

Figure 6. C N Versus
~ ~Mach Number. Figure 7. Grid Fin Flow Field

0.3
k
z
w0 0.2
-
LL
:: 0.1
s 0.0
a
0
5 -0.1 W
2
a -0.2
0
z
-0.3
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
ANGLE OF ATTACK ANGLE OF ATTACK

0.3
+
z
?!? 0.2
0
LL
lL
w 0.1
8
5 0.0
a
50 -0.1
<
2
a -0.2
9
-0.3
-i5 -io -5 0 5 10 15 -15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15
ANGLE OF ATTACK ANGLE OF ATTACK

Figure 8. Grid Fin Normal Force Coefficient Versus Angle of Attack, 6 = 0, -15 degrees
L'

9
 CHORDWISE CENTER OF PRESSURE SPANWISE CENTER OF PRESSURE
CHORD = 0.3M In. SPAN = 3.243in.
1007 1007

..--...
___.<)
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

0.0 1.o 2.0 3.0 4.0 0.0 1.o 2.0 3.0 4.0
MACH NUMBER MACH NUMBER

Figure 9. Chordwise Center of Pressure Figure 11. Spanwise Center of Pressure

Location Versus Mach Number. Location Versus Mach Number.

FRONT VIEW

TOP VIEW

-15 -io -5 0 5 1.0 15

ANGLE OF ATTACK

Figure 10. Hinge Moment Coefficient Versus

Mach Number. TOP VIEW OF PLANAR FIN
(SCALED UP TO GRID FIN MODEL)

Figure 12. Scaled Comparison Between Grid

Fin and Planar Fin.

10
 ANGLE OF ATTACK

M-= 1 8
Downloaded by KUNGLIGA TEKNISKA HOGSKOLEN KTH on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.1993-35

I
5 10 15
ANGLE OF ATTACK

ANGLE OF ATTACK

Figure 13. Grid Fin - Planar Fin Normal

Force Comparison.

1IJI”.’..
007

” ........ ..............
0. 0 .....................
2 ”.. ..........+..............
+....................
003
0 002
0 01 & ,..............
-..e
o..e........0....,(,,( +a
0 PLANA13 FIN
Y
0 00 t 7

00 05 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
MACH NUMBER

Figure 14. Grid Fin - Planar Fin Drag

Comparison.

11