During a gun firing, the flow around a projectile will be developing and changing. In particular, the flow around the projectile is disturbed significantly when the projectile overtakes the muzzle flow. Furthermore, the projectile body pressure will also change substantially. Therefore, the shot ejection process has an important effect on the shot accuracy. The maximum projectile velocity is one of the most important design goals of the interior ballistic process and also is the initial condition for the exterior ballistic process. Most researchers take the muzzle velocity as the maximum projectile velocity; actually, after the projectile exits the muzzle, the projectile velocity will increase further due to the influence of the muzzle flow. Most investigations of the muzzle flow focused on the blowout of the high-pressure jet flow after the projectile exited the muzzle. The interior ballistic process was ignored or simply assumed in most investigations. Also, the mutual influence between the moving projectile and the muzzle flow was often neglected. Actually, a precursor shock flow near the muzzle is formed before the projectile exits. This precursor muzzle flow has an important influence on the trajectory of the projectile, especially, for the prevalent trend of gun systems including large caliber cannon and multiple launch gun systems. For these reasons, the interior ballistic process was coupled with the simulation of the flow near the muzzle. A hybrid structured-unstructured gridding method was used to simulate the process from the projectile engraving to the gas ejection phase, accounting for the moving projectile. The simulation results show that the projectile muzzle velocity was 893.99 m/s but the maximum velocity was 899.28 m/s. The projectile velocity increased rapidly to up to 0.8 ms after muzzle exit; thereafter, the projectile velocity increased slowly before reaching its maximum value. The maximum Mach number of the effluent gas increased to 6.83 and the breech pressure decreased to 21.5 MPa at 1.8 ms after the projectile exited the muzzle. The formation and development of the muzzle flow field was highly complex and transient. The analysis of the projectile velocity was conducted during the interior ballistic after-effect period. The predicted muzzle velocity and maximum barrel pressure are in good agreement with those measured in gun firings. Results of the numerical simulation and analysis are helpful to understand and master the aerodynamic process of gun system launching and provide significant guidance for research into shot accuracy and muzzle brake design.

1.
Jin
,
Z. M.
, 2004,
Interior Ballistics of Guns
,
Beijing Institute of Technology Press
,
Beijing, China
, pp.
9
137
.
2.
Klingenberg
,
G.
, and
Heimerl
,
J. M.
, 1992, “
Gun Muzzle Blast and Flash
,”
Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics
,
A. R.
Seebass
, ed.,
AIAA
,
Washington, DC
, Vol.
139
.
3.
Jiang
,
Z.
,
Takayama
,
K.
, and
Skews
,
B. W.
, 1998, “
Wave Interaction Following the Emergence of a Supersonic Projectile From a Tube
,”
17th International Symposium in Ballistic
, pp.
9
16
.
4.
Jiang
,
X. H.
,
Fan
,
B. C.
, and
Li
,
H. Z.
, 2008, “
Numerical Investigations on Dynamic Process of Muzzle Flow
,”
Appl. Math. Mech.
0253-4827,
29
(
3
), pp.
351
360
.
5.
Cler
,
D. L.
,
Chevaugeon
,
N.
,
Shephard
,
M. S.
, and
Remacle
,
J. F.
, 2003, “
CFD Application to Gun Muzzle Blast a Validation Case Study
,”
41st AIAA Aerospace Science Meeting and Exhibit
, Reno, NV.
6.
Cayzac
,
R.
,
Carette
,
E.
,
Roquefort
,
T. A.
,
Bidorrini
,
P.
,
Bret
,
E.
,
Delusier
,
P.
, and
Secco
,
S.
, 2005, “
Unsteady Intermediate Ballistics: 2D and 3D CFD Modeling, Applications to Sabot Separation
,”
22nd International Symposium on Ballistics
, Vancouver, Canada.
7.
Kurbatskii
,
K. A.
, and
Montanari
,
F.
, 2007,
Numerical Blast Wave Identification and Tracking Using Solution-Based Mesh Adaptation Approach
,”
18th AIAA Computational Fluid Dynamics Conference
, Miami, FL.
8.
Merlen
,
A.
, and
Dyment
,
A.
, 1991, “
Similarity and Asymptotic Analysis for Gun-Firing Aerodynamics
,”
J. Fluid Mech.
0022-1120,
225
, pp.
497
528
.
9.
Carlucci
,
D.
,
Cordes
,
J.
,
Morris
,
S.
, and
Gast
,
R.
, 2006, “
Muzzle Exit (Set for Word) Effects on Projectile Dynamics
,” Paper No. AD-E403 082.
10.
Lee
,
C. L.
,
Lee
,
D. J.
,
Ko
,
S. H.
,
Lee
,
D. S.
, and
Kang
,
G. J.
, 2006, “
Numerical Analysis of a Blast Wave Using CFD-CAA Hybrid Method
,” Paper No. AIAA 2006-2701.
11.
Blazek
,
J.
, 2001,
Computational Fluid Dynamics: Principles and Applications
,
Elsevier
,
Oxford
, pp.
81
96
.
12.
Sakamoto
,
K.
,
Matsunnaga
,
K.
,
Fukushima
,
J.
, and
Tanaka
,
A.
, 2001, “
Numerical Analysis of the Propagating Blast Wave in a Firing Range
,”
19th International Symposium in Ballistic
, pp.
289
296
.
13.
Aibarow
,
A. V.
,
Babayev
,
D. B.
, and
Mironov
,
A. A.
, 2002, “
Numerical Simulation of 3D Muzzle Brake and Missile Launcher Flow Field in the Presence of Movable Objects
,”
20th International Symposium in Ballistic
, pp.
226
232
.
14.
Cayzac
,
R.
,
Carette
,
E.
et al.
, 2008, “
3D Unsteady Intermediate Ballistics Modeling: Muzzle Brake and Sabot Separation
,”
24th International Symposium on Ballistics
, New Orleans, LA.
15.
Mirsajedi
,
S. M.
,
Karimian
,
S. M. H.
, and
Mani
,
M.
, 2006, “
A Multizone Moving Mesh Algorithm for Simulation of Flow Around a Rigid Body With Arbitrary Motion
,”
ASME J. Fluids Eng.
0098-2202,
128
(
2
), pp.
297
304
.
16.
Watanabe
R.
,
Fujii
,
K.
, and
Higashino
,
F.
, 1997, “
Three-Dimensional Computation of the Flow Induced by a Projectile Overtaking a Shock Wave
,” Paper No. AIAA-97-1840.
17.
Chen
,
C. J.
, and
Jaw
,
S. Y.
, 1998,
Fundamentals of Turbulence Modeling
,
Taylor & Francis
,
Washington, DC
.
18.
Zhu
,
B.
, 2006, “
Interaction Study of Interior Ballistics Flow of Guns Chamber and Muzzle Flow Field
,” MS dissertation, Nanjing University of Science and Technology, pp.
21
22
.
You do not currently have access to this content.