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.

Numerical Study of Fluidic Thrust Vector Control Using Dual Throat Nozzle

“…Notwithstanding SWTVC and BSWTVC technologies can come true high vectoring angles, induced oblique and bow shock waves affect the systemic thrust ratio prominently (Wu and Kim 2019b;Deng and Kim 2015). Both COUTVC and COTVC have gained much interest because of their large jet deflections and less blowing or suction mass flow (Heo and Sung 2012;Wu et al 2020a;Wu et al 2020d;Kim et al 2020;Wu et al 2018). Nevertheless, some tough issues still need to be well addressed, specifically, the hysteresis impact and the source of the blowing and suction streams (Wu et al 2019).…”

“…Nowadays, the thrust vector control (TVC) quickly develops as an advanced and efficient fluid control technology, which supplies pitching, rolling, and yawing momentums for supersonic and hypersonic aircraft, as shown in Fig. 1 (Wu et al 2020a). Fig.…”

“…However, the FTVC implements the same control effect within a much lower weight and cost . Wu et al (2020a) declared that a supersonic or hypersonic aircraft owing FTVC can thoroughly gain the benefit of airfield or carrier runway independence through vertical ascent and landing.…”

“…Other exit boundaries are taken as the pressure outlet boundary.All current CFD work is finished in the software of Fluent that is good at calculating incompressible and compressible flows based on pressure-based and density-based solvers(Lin et al 2020;Tao et al 2020;Wang et al 2019a;Wang et al 2019b). By referring to earlier references(Deng and Kim 2015;Vignesh et al 2016;Vignesh et al 2019;Wu and Kim 2019a;Raman et al 2020;Wu et al 2020a), the density-based solver is fixed for issues of compressible flow. The implicit formulation is used to address the equation system.…”

Numerical Study on Rod Thrust Vector Control for Physical Applications

“…Thrust vector control technologies commonly have two categories, namely, fluidic and mechanical vectoring controls [2]. Figures 1(a)-1(g) show seven representative fluidic control techniques employing a gas or liquid injection, involving coflow [3,4], counterflow [5][6][7][8], shock vector [9][10][11][12], bypass shock vector [13,14], throat shifting [15][16][17], dual throat nozzle [18,19], and bypass dual throat nozzle [20,21]. The above fluidic techniques have some outstanding advantages, for example, fast response, simple mechanical structure, and less thrust loss [10,11].…”