Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing the burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215 Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware that notwithstanding any other provision of law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
PLEASE DO NOT RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
April 2004
REPORT TYPE
ARL-TR-3169
SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S) 9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT NUMBER(S)
DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENTApproved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
ABSTRACTAn approach for predicting the two individual aerodynamic damping coefficients that form the pitch-damping coefficient sum is presented. The coefficients are obtained using prescribed or forced motions that independently excite the two different angular rates that are associated with the two damping coefficients. A key feature of the approach is that steady flow fields are produced by the selected motions. Steady flow computational fluid dynamics approaches can be applied, allowing results to be obtained in a computationally efficient manner. Application of the technique is made to an axisymmetric projectile configuration. The predicted pitch-damping coefficient sum obtained by adding the individually determined coefficients is in excellent agreement with previous predictions of the pitch-damping coefficient sum and with experimental data. Additional validation of the approach is obtained through comparisons with prior results from numerical solutions of the nonlinear unsteady potential equation. The individual coefficients are also compared with slender body theory, and the results show similar trends though the slender body theory appears to underpredict the various coefficients. iii
SUBJECT TERMS