Intergration Optimize GF

AIAA 2015-1017
AIAA SciTech
5-9 January 2015, Kissimmee, Florida
AIAA Atmospheric Flight Mechanics Conference
Integration of Grid Fins for the Optimal Design of

Missile Systems
Timothy W. Ledlow II∗ and John E. Burkhalter†

and Roy J. Hartfield‡
Auburn University, Auburn, Alabama, 36849, USA
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 31, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2015-1017
Grid fins are unconventional missile control and stabilization devices that produce
unique aerodynamic characteristics that are vastly different from that of the conventional
planar fin. History has shown that grid fins are able to achieve much higher angles of attack
than planar fins without experiencing any effects of stall. They are also able to produce
much lower hinge moments than planar fins, which allows for the use of smaller actuators
for fin control. However, the major drawback of grid fins that has prevented them from
seeing more applications in missile control is the high drag that is associated with the lattice
structure, which is substantially larger than that of a comparable planar fin. Despite the
high drag produced by grid fins, there are still several applications where the grid fin is an
ideal candidate for missile control. One such application is the maximization of the target
strike capability of a missile that is released from an airplane at a designated altitude. The
goal of this work is to integrate a set of grid fin aerodynamic prediction algorithms into a
missile system preliminary design code in an effort to maximize the target strike area of a
missile using both planar fins and grid fins as aerodynamic control devices. It was found
that a missile system using grid fins for aerodynamic control is able to strike a larger target
area with a higher degree of accuracy than a similar missile system using equivalent planar
fins for aerodynamic control.
Nomenclature
α Angle of Attack
β Compressibility Factor
∆Cp Differential Pressure Coefficient
δ Fin Incidence Angle
δth Displacement Thickness of Boundary Layer
Γ Vortex Strength
γ Specific Heat Ratio
λ Fin Leading Edge Sweep Angle
µ Mach Angle
φ Roll Angle
ρ Density
ρal Density of Aluminum
A Area
A∗ Throat Area
Aδth Reduction in Fin Capture Area
Aref Reference Area
B2 Fin Span from Body Centerline
C Chord Length
∗ Graduate Student, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University.
† Emeritus Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University.
‡ Professor, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Auburn University.
1 of 30
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2015 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
CA Axial Force Coefficient
CN Normal Force Coefficient
CS Side Force Coefficient
CMmc Pitching Moment Coefficient about Moment Center
CN i Imaged Normal Force Coefficient
CSi Imaged Side Force Coefficient
CF Transonic Correction Factor
DB Diameter of the Missile Body
Dref Reference Length
ft Feet
H Height of Grid Fin
HB Height of Grid Fin Support Structure
Iyy Mass Moment of Inertia About the Y Axis
ibase Number of Cells in Fin Base Corner
in. Inches
itip Number of Cells in Fin Tip Corner

Lptot Total Length of the Grid Fin Panels
M Mach Number
mGF Mass of a Single Grid Fin
mph Miles per Hour
ndy Number of Cells in Horizontal Direction
ndz Number of Cells in Vertical Direction
np Number of Fin Element Intersection Points
p Pressure
RB Radius of the Missile Body
Re Reynolds Number
Sabi Span-wise Length of the Imaged Panel
Sab Span-wise Length of the Actual Panel
THT Distance from Nose of Body to Tail Location
TXCG Distance from Nose of Body to Center of Gravity Location
thk Average Fin Element Thickness
ttle Total Length of the Grid Fin Elements in the Plane Perpendicular to the Freestream
XL Length of Missile Body
XLN Length of the Nose
I. Introduction
he grid fin (also known as a lattice control surface) is an unconventional aerodynamic control device that
T consists of an outer frame which supports an inner lattice of intersecting planar surfaces of small chord
length. Unlike the conventional planar fin, the grid fin is positioned perpendicular to the freestream direction,
which allows the oncoming flow to pass through the inner lattice structure. This design provides unique
aerodynamic performance characteristics that are vastly different from that of the planar fin. Extensive
research has been performed on grid fins since their development in the 1970s in an effort to better understand
these unique aerodynamic performance characteristics. This research has included wind tunnel testing of
different grid fin configurations,1–5 Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) analysis,6–8 and the development
of different theoretical formulations for the prediction of grid fin aerodynamics.9–14
The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command in particular has performed extensive research on various
grid fin configurations,1–4 including a suite of grid fin performance prediction codes that was developed for
the U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command by Burkhalter in the mid 1990s.9–11 Different theoretical
formulations were used for the subsonic, transonic, and supersonic flow regimes due to the drastically different
flow fields that the grid fin experiences in each Mach regime. These codes use a vortex lattice approach in
the subsonic and transonic flow regimes, with a correction factor that is applied in the transonic flow regime
to account for mass flow spillage due to the choking of the flow within each individual cell of the grid fin.
The formulation for the supersonic flow regime uses a modified version of Evvard’s Theory to determine
the differential pressure coefficient for each panel of the grid fin. The results produced by these theoretical
2 of 30

formulations have been compared with experimental data obtained from wind tunnel test results of different
grid fin geometries at various Mach numbers, incidence angles, and roll angles. It has been determined that
these theoretical formulations are able to accurately and efficiently predict the aerodynamics of a wide range
of grid fin geometries, and is a suitable tool for application in the preliminary design analysis of missile
systems.
The purpose of this work is to incorporate the grid fin aerodynamic prediction capability that was
developed by Burkhalter into an existing preliminary design analysis tool that has been developed at Auburn
University for the optimal design of missile systems. This program uses an aerodynamic prediction tool
known as AERODSN to predict the aerodynamic characteristics of typical missile configurations in flight.
AERODSN was developed by Sanders and Washington for the U.S. Army Missile Command in 1982 to
provide an efficient and reliable tool to predict the aerodynamics for a typical cylindrical missile body
configuration with wings or planar tail fins or both.15 AERODSN has proven to be an effective aerodynamic
prediction tool, and has been successfully applied to a multitude of aerospace design problems.16–19
Optimization is a very important tool that provides the ability to find good solutions for highly complex
problems where the best solution is not readily apparent and cannot be solved for directly. There are
several different optimization schemes that can be used to intelligently search a given solution space for
global optimal solutions. The missile system preliminary design tool used in this work has four different
optimization schemes incorporated in the code that have been successfully applied to aerospace design
problems in the past.16–22 These optimization schemes include a modified ant colony optimizer, a particle
swarm optimizer, a binary-encoded genetic algorithm, and a real-encoded genetic algorithm. The modified
ant colony optimization scheme was selected for use in this work due to its proven effectiveness at solving
complex aerospace design problems. It has been shown that the modified ant colony has the ability to be
more effective than many established optimization methods, as it is able to converge more quickly and find
better solutions than competing optimization algorithms.20, 21
The incorporation of the grid fin aerodynamics into AERODSN allowed for a preliminary analysis that
compared the performance of planar fins versus grid fins as the aerodynamic control device for an unpowered
missile system. The modified ant colony optimization scheme was used to find the optimal planar fin and
grid fin designs for a given missile configuration that maximized the target strike area for an unpowered
missile dropped from an airplane flying with a horizontal velocity of 492.8 ft/sec at an altitude of 23,000 ft.
II. Background: Grid Fins

Grid fins were initially developed in the 1970s by the Soviet Union. The first flow field analysis of grid
fins was performed by Russian researchers, who were able to provide a basic understanding of the unique
aerodynamics associated with the grid fin.23 Grid fins can be used as either an aerodynamic stabilizer or
a control surface for a missile or munition configuration. The unconventional geometry of the grid fin is
what really separates it from the conventional planar fin. Planar fins can generally be characterized by four
geometrical parameters: root chord, tip chord, span, and thickness. The grid fin, however, adds an extra
dimension, requiring five geometrical parameters: element thickness, cell spacing, span, height, and chord
length.2
There are several distinct advantages to using grid fins as an aerodynamic stabilizer or as a control surface
instead of planar fins:
1) Grid fins are able to be folded down against the body of the missile for compact storage, which can
be particularly helpful when there are size limitations for the missile, such as if it is a tube-launched
device.
2) Grid fins generate much lower hinge moments than planar fins, and are therefore able to use smaller
actuators for fin deflection than their planar fin counterparts would require.8
3) The multiple cell arrangement of the grid fin makes it less prone to stall at higher angles of attack
than the traditional planar fin. A typical grid fin can reach angles of attack near 40 - 50 degrees before
experiencing any loss in lift, as seen by the wind tunnel test results of a single grid fin in Mach 0.35
flow in Figure 1.
4) The truss structure of the grid fin is inherently strong, which allows the lattice walls to be extremely
thin, thus reducing the weight of the fin.
3 of 30

Figure 1: Wind Tunnel Results Showing the High Angle of Attack Capability of Grid Fins2
5) Grid fins provide greater control effectiveness in the supersonic flight regime than a comparative planar
fin.2
6) A grid fin that is mounted in the vertical position will still produce a normal force at any finite body
angle of attack, which is a unique characteristic compared to any other lifting surface system that is
currently in use on missile systems.10
There are also several disadvantages to the use of grid fins as an aerodynamic stabilizer or as a control
surface:
1) Grid fins produce higher drag than planar fins, especially in the transonic flight regime.
2) Grid fins perform very poorly in the transonic flight regime due to the choking of the flow within the
individual grid fin cells and the shocks that are present in the flow field.
3) Grid fins have a high manufacturing cost due to their complex geometry.8
The large amount of drag that is produced by the grid fin is undesirable in most applications. There
have been several different efforts that have been conducted in an effort to reduce the drag of the grid fin.4, 8
Miller and Washington found that it is possible to considerably lower the drag of a grid fin without resulting
in a major impact on other aerodynamic properties by adjusting the cross-section shape of each panel within
the lattice structure.4 Each advantage and disadvantage of the grid fin concept must be thoroughly analyzed
within the constraints of the given problem before a definitive decision can be made on their use.1
Since their inception in the 1970s, grid fins have found rather limited use compared to their planar fin
counterparts. The majority of the application of grid fins has been on Russian ballistic missile designs such as
the SS-12, SS-20, SS-21, SS-23, and the SS-25. Grid fins have also been used on some launch vehicle designs,
most notably as emergency drag brakes on the launch escape system for the Russian Soyuz spacecraft.24
Grid fins have also found use on conventional bombs such as the American Massive Ordnance Penetrator
(Figure 2a), and the Russian Vympel R-77 (Figure 2b). Another recent application of grid fins is the Quick
Material Express Delivery System (Quick-MEDS), which is a precision-guided supply pod that is designed
to deliver small, critically needed packages from Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) in the air to troops on
the ground.25
4 of 30

(a) American Massive Ordnance Penetrator (MOP)26 (b) Russian Vympel R-7727
Figure 2: Examples of Uses of Grid Fins

III. Theoretical Analysis

A set of robust theoretical analysis tools capable of quickly predicting the aerodynamic coefficients asso-
ciated with a cruciform grid fin configuration on a missile body was developed for the U.S. Army Aviation
and Missile Command by Burkhalter in the mid 1990s.9–11 Separate theoretical formulations were developed
for the different Mach regimes in order to correctly capture the flow structure of the grid fin for any given
flight condition.
Table 1 gives a brief description of the assumed flow structure for a grid fin for each Mach regime. For a
freestream Mach number M < 0.8, the flow is assumed to be compressible subsonic flow, and a vortex lattice
solution is used to calculate the loading on each individual element of the grid fin.9 In the transonic regime
(0.8 < M < 1.0), the flow is assumed to choke within each individual cell of the grid structure, resulting
in mass flow spillage around the edges of the grid fin. A correction factor is applied to the normal force
coefficient to account for this effect in the theoretical analysis. A bow shock is formed in front of the grid
fin in the low supersonic Mach regime (1.0 < M < 1.4), resulting in compressible subsonic flow behind the
shock. A schematic showing the bow shock in front of the grid fin can be seen in Figure 3. This is treated as
transonic flow, with a correction factor once again being applied to the normal force coefficient to account
for the mass flow spillage. This bow shock is “swallowed” by the grid fin at higher supersonic Mach numbers
(1.4 < M < 1.9), leading to the formation of attached oblique shocks that are reflected within the grid fin
structure (Figure 3). At higher supersonic Mach numbers (M > 1.9), the flow structure for the grid fin is
assumed to consist of attached, unreflected oblique shocks (Figure 3). A modified version of Evvard’s Theory
is used to determine the loading produced by the grid fin in the supersonic Mach regime.
The grid fin aerodynamic prediction algorithms as developed by Burkhalter consisted of two standalone
programs, one for the subsonic flow regime and the other for the supersonic flow regime. Each program
contained a modified form of slender body theory that was combined with Jorgensen’s theory for the pre-
diction of the body alone aerodynamic coefficients.10 The integration of the grid fin aerodynamic prediction
Table 1: Assumed Grid Fin Flow Structure in Different Mach Number Regimes
Mach Number Flow Regime Assumed Flow Structure

M < 0.8 Subsonic Compressible, subsonic flow
0.8 < M < 1.0 Transonic Choked flow within grid structure
1.0 < M < 1.4 Transonic Bow shock in front of grid fin, subsonic
flow behind shock
1.4 < M < 1.9 Supersonic Shock attachment and reflection
M > 1.9 Supersonic Unreflected shocks
5 of 30

Figure 3: Different Possible Shock Structures for a Grid Fin24
programs into AERODSN required the combination of the subsonic and supersonic prediction programs as
well as the removal of the body alone aerodynamic coefficient prediction method. Another modification that
was required for the integration of the grid fin aerodynamics into AERODSN was the addition of the normal
shock equations to account for the effects of the bow shock that forms in front of the grid fin in the low
supersonic Mach regime (1.0 < M < 1.4). This addition allowed for the grid fin aerodynamic prediction
algorithms to be successfully used for any Mach number ranging from approximately Mach 0.1 up to Mach
3.5.
A. Subsonic Grid Fin Analysis

1. Linear Analysis: Subsonic
A vortex lattice solution was used as the linear subsonic formulation for predicting the loading on each
individual element of the grid fin lattice structure. A horseshoe vortex is placed on each individual element
of the grid fin, as illustrated in Figure 4. This vortex is defined using ten node points. Points 1 and 6 are
placed at the quarter chord location of the grid fin element, while points 2 and 7 are located at the trailing
edge of the element. The remaining points define the vortex trailing legs, which extend aft of the panel
in the direction of the freestream flow.9 A control point and a unit normal vector are then placed at the
three quarter chord location of the panel. A boundary condition that requires the flow at the control point
location of a panel to be tangent to the surface of that panel is then applied so that the strength of each
vortex within the lattice structure can be determined. The velocity at each control point is composed of
Figure 4: Vortex Lattice on a Single Grid Fin Panel9
6 of 30

Figure 5: Resulting Flowfield from a Freestream Doublet9
three different components: the freestream velocity, the cross-flow velocity (body up-wash term), and the
induced velocity that takes into account the vortex strengths of the surrounding vortices.9
The cross-flow velocity term is determined using a potential flow solution of an infinite doublet in the
freestream, an illustration of which can be seen in Figure 5. The induced velocity from the doublet and
freestream can be written in vector form as:
V 0 = V∞ cos (α) ı̂ + (−Vθ sin (θ) + Vr cos (θ)) ̂ + (Vθ cos (θ) + Vr sin (θ) + V∞ sin (α)) k̂ (1)
The compressible form of the Biot-Savart law gives the velocity induced by a vortex filament segment at a
control point:9
Γβ 2
Z
rxdl
vΓ = − (2)
4π |rβ |3
where β is the compressibility factor: p
β= 1 − M2 (3)
The dot product of the velocity vector from Equation 1 and the unit normal for a panel gives the velocity
component normal to the surface of the panel. This component of velocity must be equal to zero in order
to satisfy the flow tangency boundary condition mentioned previously. The application of this boundary
condition results in the following expression:
" #
β2 β2 β2
Z Z Z
rxdl rxdl rxdl
B = vΓ · n = − · nx + − · ny + − · nz · Γ (4)
4π |rβ |3 x 4π |rβ |3 y 4π |rβ |3 z
which can be rearranged to solve for the unknown vortex filament strength Γ, where the “A” matrix is the
inverse of the bracketed term from Equation 4 and the “B” matrix is the known velocities induced at the
panel control point by the freestream doublet combination:9
−1
[Γ] = [A] · [B] (5)
An iterative procedure is used to find the vortex strengths in order to avoid taking the inverse of a large
“A” matrix,28 and is as follows. First, the vortex strengths associated with the first fin are found as if there
are no other fins present in the flow. Second, the vortex strengths for the second fin are found as if fins 1 and
2 are the only fins present in the flow, and the vortex strengths of fin 1 are known. This process continues in
a similar fashion for the remaining two grid fins, each time including the known strengths from the previous
fins.28 Once the vortex strengths of the fourth and final fin are known, the entire process is repeated for
several iterations until there is no significant difference in vortex strength values from one iteration to the
next. It has been found that a large number of iterations is not necessary to achieve accurate results, and
therefore a total of six iterations are used in this work.
7 of 30

Once the iterative process is complete and the vortex strengths for all four grid fins are known, the
Kutta-Joukowski theorem is used to compute the aerodynamic loads on each individual element of each grid
fin:
2∗Γ∗S
CF̂ = (6)
Sref
where S is the slant length of the individual grid fin element that is being analyzed. This force coefficient can
then be turned into different components by multiplying by the unit normal vector for that grid fin element:
CN̂ = CF̂ · nz (7)

CŜ = CF̂ · ny (8)
CÂ = CF̂ · nx (9)
The total axial force for the grid fin is assumed to consist of four different components: induced drag, skin
friction drag, pressure drag, and interference drag from the fin element intersection points.9 The induced
drag is the drag produced due to fin deflection angle, and is given by:
CAi = CN tan(δ) (10)

The skin friction drag is determined by calculating the wetted area of the fin and converting it to a flat
plate area with an assumed laminar or turbulent boundary layer, as a function of Reynolds number. The
drag contribution due to pressure is a function of the frontal area of the grid fin and the local dynamic
pressure:9
Swetf t
CAdp = (11)
2 ∗ Sref C
An empirical formulation that was derived using experimental data is used to determine the interference
drag due to the fin element intersection points:
CAxp = 2 ∗ 0.000547 ∗ (np + 2) (12)
where (np + 2) is the total number of fin intersection points, including the base support structure. The total
grid fin axial force coefficient is simply the sum of these four contributions:
CAx = CAxi + CAxf + CAxdp + CAxp (13)
It was observed that the fin axial force changes very little with angle of attack, and is therefore assumed
to be independent of angle of attack.9
2. Nonlinear Analysis: Subsonic

Unlike planar fins, the linear aerodynamics region of the grid fin begins to break down at an angle of attack
around 5 ◦ to 8 ◦ , resulting in the need for a nonlinear theoretical formulation to more accurately model the
aerodynamic coefficients. Experimental results obtained through wind tunnel testing of different grid fin
geometries were used to develop a semi-empirical formulation for the nonlinear aerodynamic region at higher
angles of attack:
   q 
Bg
k3 − k 4 H C Nα sin(α)
 CN δ sin(δ)   
CN =   2  ∗ k6 − 2
+
 Bg C

2
 Bg 2

1 + k2 H H sin (δ) 1 + k5 H α
  (14)
CN α sin(α) 2
 cos (2α − δ)
 
 2
Bg C

2
1 + k1 H H sin (α)
This subsonic semi-empirical formulation uses the initial lift-curve slope from the linear vortex lattice
theory and also attempts to incorporate the influence from the major grid fin geometric properties, such
as the fin span to height ratio (Bg /H) and the fin chord length to height ratio (C/H). A more in-depth
analysis of the nonlinear aerodynamics of grid fins can be found in Reference 12.
8 of 30

B. Transonic Grid Fin Analysis
Grid fins exhibit unique aerodynamic characteristics in the transonic flight regime compared to the traditional
planar fin. Planar fins experience their maximum normal force coefficients in the transonic region, while
grid fins experience what is known as a “transonic bucket”. An illustration of the transonic bucket can be
seen in Figure 6. This phenomenon is a result of the choking of the individual cells of the grid fin, which
causes mass flow spillage around the edges of the grid fin. In order to capture this characteristic, the grid
fin aerodynamic prediction tool applies a correction factor to the normal force coefficient when operating in
the transonic flow regime.
The first step to calculating the correction factor is to determine the thickness of the boundary layer
within the cells of the grid fin. Blasius’ theorem is used to calculate the displacement thickness of the
boundary layer:
1.7208 ∗ C
δth = √ (15)
Rec
The presence of the boundary layer results in an area reduction within the individual grid fin cells, which
can be determined by:
Aδth = 2 ∗ δth + thk ∗ ttle (16)

The area required to choke the flow at the given Mach number is then determined using the following
isentropic relationship:
Acap ∗ M
A∗ = ( γ+1 ) (17)
2(1+ γ−1
2 M
2
) 2(γ−1)
γ+1
If the calculated exit area is less than or equal to the value calculated using Equation 17, the flow is
considered to be choked and a correction factor is then determined by calculating the reduction in mass flow
rate between the choked and unchoked conditions:
r γ+1
( γ−1 )
2
Aex ∗ γP0 ρ0 γ+1
CF = (18)
Acap ρ∞ V∞
Figure 6: Grid Fin Normal Force Coefficient Transonic Bucket1
9 of 30

which is then applied as a multiplier to the calculated fin forces and moments, thus capturing the reduction
in grid fin performance in the transonic flow regime.
For any transonic Mach number above Mach 1.0 (Table 1), a normal shock is assumed to be present
in front of the fin, which results in a subsonic flow-field behind the shock. The well-known normal shock
equations (found in Reference 29) are used to determine the resulting Mach number and freestream pressure
behind the shock:
1 + γ−1
2
2 2 M1
M2 = 2 γ−1 (19)
γM1 − 2
p2 2γ
M12 − 1

=1+ (20)
p1 γ+1
The subsonic theoretical formulation is then used to determine the loads on the grid fins, including the
transonic correction factor if the flow within the cells of the grid fin is determined to be choked.
C. Supersonic Grid Fin Analysis

1. Linear Analysis: Supersonic
A modified version of Evvard’s theory is used as the linear supersonic theoretical formulation in the grid
fin aerodynamic prediction tool. The original version of Evvard’s theory determines the differential pressure
coefficient distribution over a swept wing with a supersonic leading edge.30 Figure 7 shows an illustration
of the original version of Evvard’s theory, showing the various supersonic regions associated with a typical
planar fin.
Similar to the subsonic formulation, the supersonic formulation is applied to the grid fin on a panel by
panel basis, resulting in the need for a modified version of Evvard’s theory that takes account of end-plate
effects. These end-plate effects are a result of the unique lattice structure of the grid fin, and are not
accounted for in the original form of Evvard’s theory. Figure 8 shows the two possible cases for the flow
over the individual grid fin elements: without crossing Mach lines (Figure 8a) and with crossing Mach lines
(Figure 8b).
It can be seen in Figure 8 that only the differential pressure calculations for regions 1, 2, and 4 are
required for the determination of the loading on a grid fin element. The differential pressure coefficients for
each region were derived by Evvard and can be seen by the following equations:
4α
[∆Cp ]1 = p (21)
B 2 − tan2 (λ)
Figure 7: Classical Evvard’s Theory9
10 of 30

(a) Without Crossing Mach Lines (b) With Crossing Mach Lines
Figure 8: Modified Evvard’s Theory9
x ∗ tan(λ) − B 2 y x ∗ tan(λ) − B 2 y

1 −1 −1
[∆Cp ]2 = [∆Cp ]1 cos + cos (22)
π B (x + y ∗ tan(λ)) B (x − y ∗ tan(λ))

1 xa + ya (2B + tan(λ))
[∆Cp ]4 = [∆Cp ]2 − [∆Cp ]1 −cos−1 (23)
π xa + ya tan(λ)
where
B2 = M 2 − 1 (24)
The orientation of the grid fin is extremely important in the supersonic theoretical formulation, as that
is what dictates the size of the different pressure regions on the grid fin panels. Each element of the grid
fin must be oriented at some dihedral angle θ, pitched at some deflection angle δ, rolled to some angle φ,
and finally pitched to some angle of attack α.11 The grid fin elements are terminated at each end by end
plates that are not necessarily perpendicular to the lifting surface, making it very important to understand
the geometric angles involved with each element lifting surface. Once each point of each element of the grid
fin has been pitched and rolled to its final position, the leading edge sweep and the effective angle of attack
can be determined. This process is described in further detail in References 11 and 31.
Once the differential pressure coefficients for the different regions on the grid fin element are known, the
aerodynamic coefficients for normal force, side force, and axial force can be determined by subdividing the
element into a series of small rectangles with area “A”.9 The loading for each subelement can be seen by:
∆Cp ∗ A ∗ UN Z
∆CN = (25)
Sref
∆Cp ∗ A ∗ UN Y
∆CS = (26)
Sref
∆Cp ∗ A ∗ UN X
∆CA = (27)
Sref
The total force coefficients for the grid fin can then be found by simply summing the loading on each indi-
vidual subelement. The total fin axial force coefficient is calculated using the same component contributions
as those that are described for the subsonic theoretical formulation.
2. Nonlinear Analysis: Supersonic

Similar to the linear subsonic grid fin aerodynamic formulation, the linear supersonic grid fin aerodynamic
formulation is only accurate for low angles of attack, and typically begins to break down at angles of attack
11 of 30

around 5 ◦ to 8 ◦ . A semi-empirical formulation for the supersonic nonlinear aerodynamic region at higher
angles of attack can be seen as:
 
δCN δ αCN α δCN δ
CN = + ∗ 1 − (28)
 
δ α 2
1 + αmax

1 + δmax

δ
α=0 δ=0 1+ δmax
α=0
where CN α and CN δ are the initial lift-curve slopes with respect to angle of attack and fin deflection,
respectively, that are calculated from the modified Evvard’s theory. A more in-depth discussion of the
development of this formulation can be found in Reference 31.
D. Fins in the Vertical Position

As was mentioned previously, grid fins possess a unique characteristic that no other lifting surface system
that is currently in use on missile systems possesses, as they are able to produce a normal force at any finite
body angle of attack when mounted in the vertical position.10 The normal force coefficient for a grid fin
in the vertical position (either the top or bottom of the missile body) is still found in the same manner as
discussed in the previous sections, but the values of CN δ and CN α are considerably smaller than those for the
fins in the horizontal position.11, 28 The lift-curve slopes for a fin in the vertical position are still determined
via the vortex lattice theory (subsonic) or Evvard’s theory (supersonic), although an error is introduced that
is not present in the linear analysis.
This error arises due to the streamline flow near the top and bottom of the body surface and from
the body vortices emanating from the nose of the missile.11 The grid fins on the top and bottom of the
missile body do not experience oncoming flow that is the same as the freestream direction, and are therefore
assumed to be immersed in a stream tube that is nearly parallel to the body.11 Burkhalter determined from
an analysis of available experimental data that the average angle of attack of the top and bottom fin due to
body alteration of the incident streamlines should be assumed to be approximately α/2.28
E. Fin-Body Carry-Over Loads

In traditional airplane design, the effects of the wing-body carry-over loads can be accounted for by viewing
the aerodynamic characteristics as being dominated by the wing such that no body is present in the flow.32
This traditional assumption is valid for cases where the wing span is large compared to the body diameter,
but a different approach is required in the case of very small wings in comparison to the body diameter, as
is characteristic of many missile designs.32
The fin-body carry-over loads are modeled in the grid fin aerodynamic prediction tool through an imaging
scheme in which each panel element is imaged inside the missile body, as illustrated by Figure 9. The
basic assumption is that each imaged element inside the body carries the same load per unit span as its
corresponding element outside the body.10 The geometry of the imaged element is defined by imaging the
endpoints of the “real” panel outside the body along radial lines to the center of the body, using the following
equations:
2 2
y1 RB z1 RB
ya = 2
za = 2
(29)
ra ra
2 2
y2 RB z2 RB
yb = zb = (30)
rb2 rb2
The chord length of the imaged element is assumed to be the same as that of the corresponding “real”
panel. The normal force coefficients and side force coefficients due to carry-over loads are both determined
by this method, while the axial force coefficients are not imaged.10 The equations for the determination of
the imaged normal force coefficient and the imaged side force coefficient can be seen by:

Sabi
CN i = CN (31)
Sab

Sabi
CSi = CS (32)
Sab
12 of 30

Figure 9: Imaging Scheme for Fin-Body Carry-Over Load Calculation9
where Sab and Sabi are the span-wise lengths of the “real” and imaged panels, respectively. These values are
determined by: q
2 2
Sab = (y1 − y2 ) + (z1 − z2 ) (33)
q
2 2
Sabi = (ya − yb ) + (za − zb ) (34)
This imaging technique is used to predict the fin-body carry-over loads for each theoretical formulation
described in this section.
IV. Validation of Grid Fin Prediction Algorithm

The validation of the subsonic, transonic, and supersonic grid fin aerodynamic theoretical formulations
was performed by conducting several tests using a classical grid fin design (as seen in Figure 10) for mul-
tiple Mach numbers and fin incidence angles. The theoretical results obtained from the grid fin prediction
algorithm were compared with experimental wind tunnel data that was extracted from References 1, 2, 4, 9,
10, and 11. Experimental data was available for two general cases: four grid fins mounted on a cylindrical
missile body in a cruciform configuration (allowing for the capture of the fin-body carry-over loads), and a
Figure 10: Grid Fin Geometries Used for Validation
13 of 30

single grid fin mounted on a fin balance (eliminating the fin-body carry-over loads). Additional validation
results can be seen in Reference 33, including the analysis of other grid fin designs and different configuration
roll angles.
The missile body that was used for these wind tunnel tests consisted of a 15 in. tangent ogive nose section
followed by a 37 in. cylindrical main body section.2 The parameters for the missile body configuration are
defined in Figure 11, where XLN = 15 in., TXCG = 26 in., THT = 46 in., XL = 52 in., and RB = 2.5 in.. A
consistent reference length (Dref = 5 in.) and reference area (Aref = 19.63 in.2 ) was used for all experimental
test data. The values of the reference length and reference area correspond to the missile base diameter and
the missile base area, respectively.
The grid fin geometry that was analyzed for this validation effort can be seen in Figure 10. The grid fin
had a 0.384 in. chord length, an average element thickness of 0.008 in. for the inner lattice structure, and
an average element thickness of 0.03 in. for the outer support elements.
The validation results presented in Figures 12 and 13 in the following pages represent the normal force
coefficient, axial force coefficient, and pitching moment coefficient versus angle of attack for four grid fins
mounted on a missile body in a cruciform configuration. The fin-body carry-over loads are included in the
results in each of these plots. Figure 14 shows the normal force coefficient and axial force coefficient (when
available) for a single grid fin, allowing for a comparison of theoretical and experimental data without the
inclusion of fin-body carry-over loads.
Figure 12 shows CN , CA , and CMmc for grid fin “A” mounted in a cruciform configuration at Mach
numbers ranging from 0.5 to 0.9. The grid fins are at an incidence angle of 0 ◦ and a roll angle of 0 ◦ . The
theoretical results were found to closely match the wind tunnel data overall, with slight discrepancies at
high angles of attack. It is clear that the correction for the transonic effects is accurate for this particular
configuration, as the theoretical data matches the experimental data very well in both the Mach 0.8 case
and the Mach 0.9 case.
Figure 13 shows CN , CA , and CMmc for grid fin “A” in a cruciform configuration at Mach 0.5 at different
fin incidence angles (ranging from δ = 0 ◦ to δ = 20 ◦ ). It can be seen that the theoretical results have
excellent agreement with the experimental data for these cases. The theoretical model was able to accurately
predict the aerodynamic coefficients for each fin deflection case for this particular configuration. It should
also be noted that the aerodynamic coefficients are symmetric about α = 0 ◦ for all cases where there is no
fin deflection, and is not symmetric about α = 0 ◦ in the cases with fin deflection, as would be expected.
Figure 14 shows several different subsonic and supersonic fin balance cases, including the variation of the
fin deflection angle at Mach 0.5. A comparison of the normal force coefficient for grid fin “A” at Mach 0.5
both with and without fin-body carry-over loads (Figures 13 and 14, respectively) show that the imaging
scheme is once again able to accurately capture the effects of the fin-body interactions, even at different fin
deflection angles. Also included is a Mach 1.1 case, where a normal shock is present in front of the grid
fin. It can be seen that the modifications made to the grid fin prediction algorithm to include the normal
shock calculations allow the theoretical formulation to closely match the experimental results of the grid fin
aerodynamics in this region.
It can be concluded from this comparison of theoretical versus wind tunnel test results that the grid
fin aerodynamic prediction algorithms are suitable for use as a preliminary design tool for missile systems.
Figure 11: Parameters Defining Missile Geometry12
14 of 30

(a) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 0.5, CN and CA (b) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 0.5, CMmc
(c) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 0.8, CN and CA (d) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 0.8, CMmc
(e) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 0.9, CN and CA (f) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 0.9, CMmc
Figure 12: Subsonic Mach Numbers, Including Fin-Body Carry-Over Loads
15 of 30

(a) Grid Fin “A”, 0 ◦ Incidence Angle, CN and CA (b) Grid Fin “A”, 0 ◦ Incidence Angle, CMmc
(c) Grid Fin “A”, 10 ◦ Incidence Angle, CN and CA (d) Grid Fin “A”, 10 ◦ Incidence Angle, CMmc
(e) Grid Fin “A”, 20 ◦ Incidence Angle, CN and CA (f) Grid Fin “A”, 20 ◦ Incidence Angle, CMmc
Figure 13: Varying Incidence Angles at Mach 0.5, Including Fin-Body Carry-Over Loads
16 of 30

(a) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 0.5, 0 ◦ Incidence Angle (b) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 0.5, 10 ◦ Incidence Angle
(c) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 0.5, 20 ◦ Incidence Angle (d) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 1.1, 0 ◦ Incidence Angle
(e) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 2.5, 0 ◦ Incidence Angle (f) Grid Fin “A”, Mach 3.5, 0 ◦ Incidence Angle
Figure 14: Single Grid Fin, Subsonic Speeds, Not Including Fin-Body Carry-Over Loads
17 of 30

The grid fin prediction algorithms were able to match the aerodynamic characteristics of a classical grid
fin geometry for a wide range of Mach numbers ranging from Mach 0.5 to Mach 3.5, for several different
fin incidence angles. It was shown that both the subsonic and supersonic linear aerodynamic theoretical
models are able to provide very good matches with the initial lift curve slope, and that the nonlinear semi-
empirical formulations are sufficient for preliminary-level engineering design analysis. It was also found that
the transonic correction factor was able to accurately capture the effects of the mass flow spillage around
the grid fin, and the normal shock equations provide good theoretical results in the low supersonic Mach
regime. The imaging scheme used to capture the fin-body carry-over loads for the grid fins was also shown
to be able to accurately capture the effects of the interaction between the grid fins and the missile body.
V. Algorithm Description and Integration

The grid fin aerodynamic prediction programs were integrated into two different existing codes: a stan-
dalone version of AERODSN and a missile system preliminary design tool. The standalone version of
AERODSN was used to conduct the validation efforts presented in the previous chapter, while the prelimi-
nary design tool was used to conduct the target strike envelope maximization problem.
A. Standalone AERODSN
The grid fin aerodynamic prediction algorithm was integrated with a standalone version of AERODSN for
the purpose of the validation efforts shown in the previous section. Figure 15 shows a flow diagram of the
program. The program begins by loading the required initial parameters from an input file that has been
modified to include the information necessary for the grid fin aerodynamic prediction tool. The program
then begins a sweep of the specified Mach numbers, and subsequently calculates the aerodynamic coefficient
derivatives for the low angle of attack region. A sweep of the specified angles of attack is then performed
within the Mach number loop, where the aerodynamic coefficients for the missile configuration are calculated.
This process is repeated for every angle of attack at each Mach number.
Figure 15: Standalone AERODSN Flow Chart
18 of 30

B. Missile System Preliminary Design Tool
Once the grid fin aerodynamic prediction tool had been validated in conjunction with AERODSN, the
program was integrated with the missile system preliminary design tool. The missile system preliminary
design tool consists of a suite of optimizers that drive a full six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) model capable of
designing single-stage missile systems to fly given trajectories or to hit specified targets. This code consists
of an aerodynamics model (AERODSN), a mass properties model, and a solid propellant propulsion model.
This code has proven to be a reliable tool for aerospace design applications and has been successfully used
in many previous optimization studies.20–22
Figure 16 shows the flow diagram for this program. The program begins by allowing the user to select
the desired optimizer and flight case and set the maximum and minimum bounds for the optimization
parameters. Once this is done, the optimizer fills the initial population with feasible solutions and then
begins the generational loop. The flight characteristics (mass properties, aerodynamics, and propulsion) are
determined for each member of the population, and a 6-DOF fly-out is generated for each member. The
fitness of each member is calculated based on the specified objective function, and a new set of solutions are
then created based on the fitness of the previous population. This process is repeated until the maximum
number of generations has been reached.
1. Optimization
As was discussed previously, a modified ant colony optimization scheme was selected for use in this work due
to its proven effectiveness at solving complex aerospace design problems.20, 21 The ant colony is an example
of a swarm intelligence algorithm, and is based on the foraging behavior of ants. The ants communicate by
depositing a trail of pheromone, which allows them to determine the optimal paths to sources of food over
time. The original ant colony algorithm is very effective at solving complex combinatorial problems, but is
Figure 16: Missile System Preliminary Design Tool Flow Chart
19 of 30

ineffective at solving complex problems in the continuous domain. The modified ant colony that is in the
missile system preliminary design tool has been extended to the continuous domain by replacing the discrete
pheromone links with Gaussian probability density functions. The solutions are ranked in order by their
respective fitness values and a pheromone model is created, where the pheromone amount is determined
by rank. The new ants are created by choosing an existing ant with a probability that is proportional
to their assigned pheromone strengths. The ants sample the Gaussian distributions around each variable
and combine the variables to form the new solution. The methodology behind the modified ant colony
optimization algorithm is fully detailed in Reference 20.
The objective function that was used for the target strike envelope maximization problem was defined
to simply be the sum of the fitness values for each individual target within the specified target grid. The
fitness for each individual target was defined to be the miss distance in feet between the (x, y) location of
the target and the (x, y) location where the missile actually landed, as seen by:
q
2 2
Error = (xtarget − xactual ) + (ytarget − yactual ) (35)
In order to ensure that the ant colony was optimizing to increase the strike capability area rather than just
minimizing the miss distance, a “maximum” miss distance of 35 feet was set so that if the missile missed a
target by more than the designated distance, the fitness for that particular target location would be set to
35. This value was chosen for the maximum miss distance because it adequately captured the zone where
the target is considered to be hit while still providing room for error. If no “maximum” miss distance is set,
a missile could actually miss every target in the grid and have a better fitness value than a second missile
that hits 25% of the grid but misses the remaining targets by a greater amount than the first missile.
2. Flight Characteristics
The mass properties of the missile configurations are determined using a variety of empirical formulations
for the different components of the missile. Included in the mass calculations are: the nose of the missile,
the solid rocket motor case and liner, the warhead, the sensors and wiring, the servo actuators, the igniter,
the nozzle, the wing assembly, the tail assembly, the rail, and the fuel grain. In addition to the mass of the
individual components, the mass moments of inertia and the x-location of the center of gravity of the missile
are calculated in this section of the code.
The aerodynamic properties for the conventional planar fin and for the cylindrical missile body are
determined via AERODSN in the missile system preliminary design tool. The grid fin aerodynamic prediction
algorithms were incorporated into the code so that a wide variety of grid fin designs could also be evaluated.
The propulsion properties are determined through the geometric analysis of the burning of a solid rocket
motor grain. The typical grain geometry used in this code is the star grain. A parabolic nozzle design is
also used in this code.
3. Program Modifications
Several modifications had to be made to the missile system preliminary design code in order to implement
the target strike envelope optimization problem. The missile system preliminary design code was originally
set up so that a single-stage, solid propellant missile could launch from sea level and follow a given trajectory.
For this work, all of the propulsion properties were removed, including the solid rocket motor grain modeling
subroutines and the nozzle subroutines. The missile guidance algorithm was also modified to better fit the
current problem. Since the purpose of the code was to match specified trajectories, the guidance algorithm
was set up to follow predetermined points along the trajectory for the duration of the missile flight. For
the target strike envelope maximization problem, the guidance algorithm was modified to a line-of-sight
guidance system that seeks to minimize the rotation of the line-of-sight vector between the location of the
missile and the location of the target. This approach is similar to proportional navigation (Pro-Nav), except
that the acceleration terms are not considered in this work. Figure 17 shows an illustration of the line-of-sight
guidance system concept for this application.
A total of ten grid fin parameters were added to the missile system preliminary design tool, which
increased the total number of optimization parameters from 35 to 45. However, with the removal of the
propulsion properties, the total number of parameters was reduced to 34. A total of 20 parameters were
used for the planar fin optimization cases while a total of 25 parameters were used for the grid fin optimization
20 of 30

Figure 17: Illustration of Line-of-Sight Guidance
cases. The ten grid fin parameters that were added can be seen in Figure 18, along with their respective
maximum and minimum bounds that were used for this work. The defining geometrical parameters for the
grid fin can be seen in Figure 19, and are:
1) Body centerline to the base of the grid fin (Y0 )
2) Body centerline to the tip of the grid fin (B2 )
3) Height of the fin support base (HB )
4) Total height of the grid fin (H)
5) Chord length of the grid fin (C)
6) Average fin element thickness (thk)
7) Number of cells in base corner (ibase)
Figure 18: Grid Fin Parameter Optimization Constraints
21 of 30

Figure 19: Grid Fin Parameters12
8) Number of cells in tip corner (itip)

9) Number of cells in span-wise direction (ndy )
10) Number of cells in vertical direction (ndz )
Another modification made to the missile system preliminary design code was adding the ability to hold
any desired optimization parameter constant. Since a direct comparison of the performance of planar fins
and grid fins is desired, it is imperative to be able to hold the missile body geometry constant for each run so
that any variation in performance can be attributed directly to the fins. Check boxes were added to the user
interface that allow the user to mark each individual parameter that is to be held constant for that run, an
example of which can be seen in Figure 18. If the “hold variable constant” box is selected for a parameter,
the corresponding data from the most recent single run case is used for each subsequent call to the objective
function.
A final modification that was required in the missile system preliminary design code was the addition of
a method for the determination of the mass properties for any given grid fin geometry. In order to calculate
the mass of a given grid fin geometry, a routine was added to determine the total length of the panels of
the grid fin (Lptot ). This value was then multiplied by the chord length (C) and the average thickness (thk)
of the elements to obtain an effective grid fin volume. Under the assumption that the grid fin is made of
aluminum, the effective grid fin volume was then multiplied by the density of aluminum (ρal ) in order to
obtain the mass of the grid fin:
mGF = C ∗ thk ∗ Lptot ∗ ρal (36)
The x-location of the center of gravity for the tail configuration was assumed to simply be at the half chord
location of the grid fin. For the mass moment of inertia calculation, the grid fin was assumed to be a point
mass, the equation for which can be seen by:
Ixx = mGFi ∗ ri2 (37)
where ri is the distance from the centerline of the missile body to the half span location of the fin. The mass
moments of inertia about the y and z axes are assumed to be negligible in this work.
VI. Target Strike Envelope Maximization

A. Problem Description
The goal of this problem is to compare the performance of an optimized missile configuration using both
planar fins and grid fins as aerodynamic control devices in an effort to maximize the target strike envelope
22 of 30

Figure 20: Illustration of the Missile Drop Problem
of an unpowered missile. An illustration of this problem can be seen in Figure 20. For each case, the missile
was dropped from the (x, y) location of (0, 0) at an altitude of 23,000 ft with a freestream (x-component)
velocity of 492.8 ft/sec (336 mph). A stationary target was placed directly in front of the missile drop point
at sea level at a range of 20,000 ft downstream, and a [21x21] grid of targets was then constructed around this
specified central target location, as seen in Figure 21. The [21x21] grid size was chosen for the optimization
runs in an effort to find a balance between the number of function calls required for each missile configuration
that was analyzed and the resolution of the target grid area. Values of dxt = 39, 000 f t and dyt = 40, 000 f t
were used to construct the target grid for the optimization runs so that the entire vicinity in front of the
aircraft was captured. A population size of 35 members was used for each optimization run for a total of
25 generations. This resulted in the evaluation of 875 solutions at 441 different target locations each, for a
total of 385,875 function calls per optimization run. A maximum fin deflection of 15 ◦ was allowed for the
planar fin cases, while a maximum fin deflection of 30 ◦ was allowed for the grid fin case.
This problem was approached by first conducting the optimization of a missile configuration with grid
fins so that it could strike the largest area of the target grid structure as possible. Once the optimal grid fin
configuration had been found, another optimization run was conducted in which the grid fins were replaced
by planar fins but the missile body parameters were held constant. In an effort to produce comparable
results between the grid fin and planar fin configurations, several different constraints were applied to the
Figure 21: Illustration of a Target Grid for Optimization
23 of 30

problem. The first constraint was to ensure that the missile geometry had approximately the same static
margin regardless of the aerodynamic control device used. This resulted in the placement of the grid fins
closer to the nose of the missile compared to the planar fins. The second constraint that was used ensured
that the semi-span of the planar fin and the semi-span of the grid fin would be nearly identical. This was
satisfied by using identical maximum and minimum bounds for the optimization runs for both the grid fin
and planar fin cases. The third and final constraint limited the maximum hinge moment possible for the
planar fin configuration. Larger hinge moments require a larger control actuator to move the fin, which
requires more control power and a larger internal volume of the missile. For the purposes of this work, the
maximum allowable hinge moment coefficient for the planar fin case was set to be two times the maximum
hinge moment coefficient from the grid fin analysis.
B. Results
To show the importance of optimization in complex aerospace design problems, two unoptimized cases were
run: one for a generic grid fin missile configuration and one for a generic planar fin missile configuration.
The resulting target strike envelopes for these two cases can be seen in Figure 22 below. In the target strike
envelope plots, the missile is dropped from the (x, y) location of (0, 0) and the color represents the miss
distance in feet, as defined by the colorbar beside each plot. The total target strike area for the unoptimized
grid fin case was found to be 2.60 square miles, while the total target strike area for the unoptimized planar
fin case was found to be 0.51 square miles.
Figure 23 shows the strike area for the optimized grid fin missile configuration. It can be seen that the
ant colony optimizer was able to design a missile configuration that drastically improved the target strike
area, improving it from 2.60 square miles in the unoptimized case to 13.21 square miles in the optimized
case.
Figure 24 shows the strike area for the optimized planar fin missile configuration with limited hinge
moment coefficient. Similar to the grid fin case, the optimizer was able to drastically improve the performance
of the planar fin missile case. The target strike area was increased from 0.51 square miles in the unoptimized
case to 8.65 square miles in the optimized case. For the optimized planar fin missile configuration with
unlimited hinge moment coefficient that is shown in Figure 25, the target strike area was found to be 19.02
square miles.
Table 2 shows a comparison between the optimized grid fin case, the optimized planar fin case with
limited hinge moment coefficient, and the optimized planar fin case with unlimited hinge moment coefficient.
It can be seen that the grid fin resulted in a substantial weight reduction, as it weighs approximately 85%
(a) Unoptimized Grid Fin Configuration (b) Unoptimized Planar Fin Configuration
Figure 22: Unoptimized Target Strike Envelopes
24 of 30

Figure 23: Target Strike Envelope for Optimized Grid Fin Configuration
Figure 24: Target Strike Envelope for Optimized Planar Fin Configuration with Limited Hinge Moment
25 of 30

Figure 25: Target Strike Envelope for Optimized Planar Fin Configuration with Unlimited Hinge Moment
less than either of the planar fin configurations. It can also be seen in Table 2 that the average flight time of
the grid fin configuration is substantially higher than that of the planar fin cases. This is due to the higher
drag that is produced by the grid fins compared to the planar fins.
A comparison of the target strike envelope of the grid fin configuration in Figure 23 and the planar fin
configuration with limited hinge moment coefficient in Figure 24 shows that the missile with the grid fins is
able to hit a larger range of targets than a comparable missile with planar fins. In addition to being able to
hit a larger area than the planar fin configuration, the grid fin configuration is also able to hit the targets
with greater precision. To show this, the average miss distance within the target strike zone was calculated
for each of these cases. It was found that for the region where the missile configuration is considered to hit
the target, the average miss distance for the grid fin case is 2.42 feet, while the same value for the planar
fin case with limited hinge moment is 5.30 feet. This calculation was also done for the planar fin case with
unlimited hinge moment coefficient in Figure 25, and the average miss distance was found to be 6.50 feet.
Figure 26 shows a comparison between the optimized grid fin geometry found in this work and a classical
grid fin geometry. It can be seen that the cells of the optimized grid fin have been stretched in the span-wise
Table 2: Optimized Missile Configuration Data
Limited Planar Fin Unlimited Planar

Parameter Grid Fin Case
Case Fin Case
Target Strike Area 13.21 mi2 8.65 mi2 19.02 mi2
Mass of Single Fin 20.66 lbs 139.70 lbs 115.30 lbs

Maximum Hinge Moment
0.0862 0.1538 1.0516
Coefficient
Average Flight Time 59.4 sec 47.7 sec 49.5 sec
26 of 30

Figure 26: Grid Fin Comparison
Table 3: Optimized Grid Fin Geometry Parameters
Parameter Minimum Limit Optimized Value Maximum Limit
Y0 /DB 0.5 0.6276 1.0
B2 /DB 1.56258 1.6414 1.79871
HB /DB 0.1 0.3489 0.6
H/DB 0.3 0.4652 1.0
C/DB 0.05 0.0583 0.2
thk/DB 0.0008 0.0014 0.0036
ibase 0 1 3
itip 0 1 3
ndy 2 2 10
ndz 2 4 10
direction so that the panels are not at a 45 ◦ angle. This seems to suggest that a missile configuration
with classical grid fins is more effective at some finite roll angle rather than in the cruciform configuration,
which is supported by the findings of Kless and Aftosmis in Reference 6. In addition, it was found that
the design parameters for the optimized grid fin geometry did not reach any of the limits that were set for
the optimization runs, which indicates that the bounds used in this work were sufficient for this particular
problem. The values for the optimized grid fin geometry parameters as well as their respective maximum
and minimum bounds can be seen in Table 3. It was also noted that the initial velocity and altitude used
in the target strike optimization problem resulted in strictly subsonic and transonic flow conditions for the
missile configurations, meaning that the supersonic grid fin aerodynamic prediction capabilities were not
used for this particular problem.
Figure 27 shows the optimized missile configurations for each of these three cases. As expected, the
missile body geometry is identical for all three cases. In addition, it can be seen that the grid fins are
located at approximately 80% of the missile body length, while the planar fins are located closer to the tail
of the missile. This placement was chosen by the optimizer to satisfy the equivalent static margin constraint
discussed previously. It can also be seen that the fins in each case have approximately the same semi-span,
27 of 30

(a) Optimized Grid Fin Configuration (b) Optimized Planar Fin Configuration with Limited Hinge
Moment
(c) Optimized Planar Fin Configuration with Unlimited Hinge

Moment
Figure 27: Side View of Optimized Missile Geometry
as expected. Another interesting observation from Figure 27 is the optimized geometry of the planar fins in
the limited and unlimited hinge moment coefficient cases. Since the missile is in completely subsonic and
transonic flow, the best planar fin configuration should have an un-swept leading edge similar to that of the
missile geometry for the unlimited hinge moment coefficient case. However, this design results in a hinge
moment coefficient that is over twelve times higher than that of the grid fin case. In order to have lower
hinge moment coefficients for the planar fin, the leading edge of the fin must be more swept, similar to the
geometry found for the limited hinge moment coefficient case.
VII. Conclusions and Recommendations

The subsonic, transonic, and supersonic grid fin aerodynamic prediction algorithms were successfully
integrated into two different codes: a standalone version of AERODSN and a missile system preliminary
design tool. The transonic grid fin aerodynamic prediction method was altered to account for the bow shock
that forms in front of the grid fin at low supersonic Mach numbers, and was shown to provide accurate
estimations of grid fin aerodynamics in that region. A validation of the grid fin aerodynamic prediction
capability was performed using the standalone version of AERODSN for a classical grid fin design for
multiple Mach numbers and fin deflection angles. It was found that the theoretical formulations provide
accurate estimations for the normal force, axial force, and pitching moment coefficients for a wide range
of Mach numbers and angles of attack, and are sufficient for the prediction of grid fin aerodynamics in a
preliminary-level engineering design tool. It was also shown that the imaging scheme used to model the
fin-body carry-over loads is able to accurately capture the interference effects of the grid fin with the missile
body.
The target strike envelope maximization problem was then conducted using the missile system preliminary
28 of 30

design tool, where it was found that an optimized grid fin configuration is able to outperform a comparable
optimized planar fin configuration. Several constraints were set in order to ensure the grid fin and planar
fin cases were comparable. The first constraint ensured that the grid fin and planar fin cases both had the
same fin semi-span. The second constraint ensured the planar fin missile configuration had approximately
the same static margin as that of the grid fin missile configuration. The third and final constraint ensured
that the planar fin could not have a maximum hinge moment coefficient that was more than two times larger
than that of the grid fin. With these constraints, the grid fin missile was able to hit a larger target area
and was able to hit those targets with greater accuracy than the planar fin missile. The grid fins produced
increased performance while substantially reducing the mass of the fins and the size of the control actuator
required for fin control.
This research shows that, despite the high amounts of drag associated with grid fins, there are some
applications where the grid fin should be seriously considered for use as a control and stability device.
Additional research that could be conducted to supplement and enhance the results achieved in this work
include:
1) The inclusion of wing-tail interference effects with the grid fin aerodynamics so that wings can be
added to the missile configuration to see how the target strike envelope is affected by the additional
lifting surfaces.
2) Investigation of different missile body geometries, including a multitude of different diameters and
fineness ratios.
3) Expansion of the limits of the fin design parameters so that the optimizer is able to consider a wider
range of planar fin and grid fin designs for the different missile body geometries.
4) Testing the planar fin and grid fin missile configurations at different roll angles to find the optimal
orientation of the missile.
5) Performing additional wind tunnel testing on a more diverse set of grid fin geometries for further
validation of the subsonic, transonic, and supersonic grid fin aerodynamic prediction codes.
6) Performing a supersonic grid fin analysis similar to the target strike problem done in this work.
References
1 Washington, W. D., and Miller, M. S., “Grid Fins - A New Concept for Missile Stability and Control,” 31st Aerospace
Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, AIAA Paper 93-0035, January 1993.

2 Washington, W. D., and Miller, M. S., “Experimental Investigations of Grid Fin Aerodynamics: A Synopsis of Nine Wind
Tunnel and Three Flight Tests,” AGARD Applied Vehicle Technology Panel Symposium and Meeting on Missile Aerodynamics,
Paper 10, May 1998.
3 Washington, W. D., Booth, P. F., and Miller, M. S., “Curvature and Leading Edge Sweep Back Effects on Grid Fin
Aerodynamic Characteristics,” 11th Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 93-3480, August 1993.
4 Miller, M. S., and Washington, W. D., “An Experimental Investigation of Grid Fin Drag Reduction Techniques,” AIAA
Paper 94-1914, June 1994.

5 Simpson, G. M., and Sadler, A. J., “Lattice Controls: A Comparison with Conventional, Planar Fins,” NATO Science
and Technology Organization, The Applied Vehicle Technology Panel Symposium, May 1998.
6 Kless, J. E., and Aftosmis, M. J., “Analysis of Grid Fins for Launch Abort Vehicle Using a Cartesian Euler Solver,” 29th
AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, AIAA Paper 2011-3666, June 2011.

7 Cai, J., “Numerical Study on Choked Flow over Grid Fin Configurations,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 46,
No. 5, September-October 2009, pp. 949-956.

8 Schülein, E., and Guyot, D., “Novel High-Performance Grid Fins for Missile Control at High Speeds: Preliminary
Numerical and Exerimental Investigations,” NATO Science and Technology Organization, RTO Applied Vehicle Technology
Panel Symposium, May 2006.
9 Kretzschmar, R. W., and Burkhalter, J. E., “Aerodynamic Prediction Methodology for Grid Fins,” U.S. Army Aviation
and Missile Command, RTO Applied Vehicle Technology Panel Symposium, May 1998.
10 Burkhalter, J. E., “Characterization of Grid Fin Aerodynamics for Subsonic Flow,” Final report, Contract No. DAAL03-
91-C-0034, TCN Number: 95-197, Scientific Services Program, AMSMI-RD-SS-AT, Redstone Arsenal, AL, September 1995.
11 Burkhalter, J. E., “Grid Fins for Missile Applications in Supersonic Flow,” 34th Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit,
AIAA Paper 96-0194, January 1996.

12 Burkhalter, J. E., Hartfield, R. J., and Leleux, T. M.,“Nonlinear Aerodynamic Analysis of Grid Fin Configurations,”
Journal of Aircraft, Vol. 32, No. 3, May-June 1995, pp. 547-554.
29 of 30

13 Kretzschmar, R. W., “Downwash Effects on Aft Control Surfaces for Missile Configurations in Subsonic Flow,” Master’s
Thesis, Auburn University, August 1997.

14 Brooks, R. A., “An Aerodynamic Analysis of Several Grid Fin Configurations Using Vortex Lattice Method,” Master’s
Thesis, Auburn University, August 1987.

15 Sanders, G. A., and Washington, W. D., “Computer Program for Estimating Stability Derivatives of Missile Configura-
tions - Users Manual,” U.S. Army Missile Command Technical Report RD-83-2, Redstone Arsenal, AL, August 1982.
16 Riddle, D. B., Hartfield, R. J., Burkhalter, J. E.,, and Jenkins, R. M., “Design of Liquid Rocket Powered Missile Systems
Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 46, No. 1, January-February 2009, pp. 151-159.
17 Bayley, D. J., Hartfield, R. J., Burkhalter, J. E.,, and Jenkins, R. M., “Design Optimization of Space Launch Vehicle
Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 45, No. 4, July-August 2008, pp. 733-740.
18 Hartfield, R. J., Jenkins, R. M., and Burkhalter, J. E.,, “Ramjet Powered Missile Design Using a Genetic Algorithm,”
Journal of Computing and Information Science in Engineering, Vol. 7, No. 2, June 2007.
19 Hartfield, R. J., Jenkins, R. M., and Burkhalter, J. E., “Optimizing a Solid Rocket Motor Boosted Ramjet Powered
Missile Using a Genetic Algorithm,” Applied Mathematics and Computation, Vol. 181, No. 2, 2006, pp. 1720-1736.
20 Kiyak, Z. J., “Ant Colony Optimization: An Alternative Heuristic for Aerospace Design Applications,” Master’s Thesis,
Auburn University, December 2013.

21 Kiyak, Z. J., Hartfield, R. J., and Ledlow, T. W., “Missile Trajectory Optimization Using a Modified Ant Colony
Algorithm,” 2014 IEEE Aerospace Conference, AIAA Paper 2014-2185, March 2014.
22 Ledlow, T. W., Kiyak, Z. J., and Hartfield, R. J., “Missile System Design Using a Hybrid Evolving Swarm Algorithm,”
2014 IEEE Aerospace Conference, AIAA Paper 2014-2225, March 2014.

23 Belotzerkovsky, S. M., et al., “Wings with Internal Framework,” Machine Translation, FTD-ID(RS)T-1289-86, Foreign
Technology Div., February 1987.

24 Scott, J. A., “Missile Grid Fins,” http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/weapons/ q0261.shtml, February 2006.
25 Dynetics, “Advanced Payload Design, Development, and Integration,” http://www.
dynetics.com/services/intelligence/aviation-systems/advanced-payload-design-development-and-integration.
26 Reed, J., “USAF Providing “Options” for Dealing with Iran,” http://defensetech.org/ 2012/03/01/usaf-providing-
options-for-dealing-with-iran/, March 2012.

27 Kopp, C., “The Russian Philosophy of Beyond Visual Range Air Combat,” Technical Report APA-TR-2008-0301, Air
Power Australia, March 2008.

28 Burkhalter, J. E., and Frank, H. M.,“Grid Fin Aerodynamics for Missile Applications in Subsonic Flow,” Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 33, No. 1, January-February 1996, pp. 38-44.
29 Anderson, J. D., Jr., “Fundamentals of Aerodynamics,” McGraw-Hill Publishing, Fifth Edition, 2011, pp. 549-598.
30 Evvard, J. C., “Use of Source Distributions for Evaluating Theoretical Aerodynamics of Thin Finite Wings at Supersonic
Speeds,” NACA Report 951, 1950.

31 Burkhalter, J. E., “Grid Fins in Supersonic Flow,” Contractor Final report, Contract No. DAAH01-92-D-R002, DO
Number NRC 0211, AMSMI-RD-SS-AT, Redstone Arsenal, AL, September 1994.

32 Nielsen, J. N., “Missile Aerodynamics,” Nielsen Engineering & Research, Inc., 1988, pp. 112-138.
33 Ledlow, T. W., “Integration of Grid Fins for the Optimal Design of Missile Systems,” Master’s Thesis, Auburn University,
August 2014.
30 of 30

Intergration Optimize GF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intergration Optimize GF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Intergration Optimize GF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

AIAA 2015-1017

Integration of Grid Fins for the Optimal Design of

Timothy W. Ledlow II∗ and John E. Burkhalter†

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

itip Number of Cells in Fin Tip Corner

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

II. Background: Grid Fins

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 2: Examples of Uses of Grid Fins

III. Theoretical Analysis

Mach Number Flow Regime Assumed Flow Structure

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 3: Different Possible Shock Structures for a Grid Fin24

A. Subsonic Grid Fin Analysis

Figure 4: Vortex Lattice on a Single Grid Fin Panel9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

CN̂ = CF̂ · nz (7)

CAi = CN tan(δ) (10)

2. Nonlinear Analysis: Subsonic

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Aδth = 2 ∗ δth + thk ∗ ttle (16)

Figure 6: Grid Fin Normal Force Coefficient Transonic Bucket1

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

C. Supersonic Grid Fin Analysis

Figure 7: Classical Evvard’s Theory9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 8: Modified Evvard’s Theory9

2. Nonlinear Analysis: Supersonic

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

D. Fins in the Vertical Position

E. Fin-Body Carry-Over Loads

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 9: Imaging Scheme for Fin-Body Carry-Over Load Calculation9

IV. Validation of Grid Fin Prediction Algorithm

Figure 10: Grid Fin Geometries Used for Validation

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 11: Parameters Defining Missile Geometry12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 12: Subsonic Mach Numbers, Including Fin-Body Carry-Over Loads

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

V. Algorithm Description and Integration

Figure 15: Standalone AERODSN Flow Chart

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 16: Missile System Preliminary Design Tool Flow Chart

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 17: Illustration of Line-of-Sight Guidance

Figure 18: Grid Fin Parameter Optimization Constraints

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 19: Grid Fin Parameters12

8) Number of cells in tip corner (itip)

VI. Target Strike Envelope Maximization

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 20: Illustration of the Missile Drop Problem

Figure 21: Illustration of a Target Grid for Optimization