JOURNAL OF GUIDANCE, CONTROL, AND DYNAMICS

Vol. 31, No. 5, September–October 2008

Simplified Projectile Swerve Solution for General

Control Inputs

Douglas Ollerenshaw∗
Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon 97331
and
Mark Costello†
Georgia Institute of Technology, Atlanta, Georgia 30332
DOI: 10.2514/1.34252
The swerve response of fin- and spin-stabilized projectiles to control mechanism inputs is sometimes not intuitive.
This paper seeks to explain the basic parameters that govern the swerve of projectiles excited by control inputs. By
modeling the overall effect of a generalized control mechanism as a nonrolling reference frame force applied to a
point on the projectile, general expressions for swerve are obtained in terms of basic vehicle parameters. These
compact expressions are used to show that maximum swerve response for a fin-stabilized projectile is achieved when
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.34252

the force is applied near the nose of the projectile, whereas maximum swerve response for a spin-stabilized projectile
is achieved when the force is applied near the base of the projectile.

Nomenclature  = atmospheric density

CMQ = pitch damping aerodynamic coefficient R = phase shift of the swerve response
CNA = normal force aerodynamic coefficient , , = projectile roll, pitch, and yaw angles
CYPA = Magnus force aerodynamic coefficient
= denotes variables expressed in the projectile no-roll
D = projectile reference diameter frame
0
Fc = magnitude of the applied control force = prime denotes variables differentiated with respect to
g = gravity dimensionless arc length
IP = pitch moment of inertia measured around an axis
centered at the projectile center of mass and
perpendicular to the axis of symmetry
I. Introduction
IR

m
=

=
roll moment of inertia measured about the projectile
axis of symmetry
mass of the projectile
T HE continuing development of microelectromechanical
systems (MEMS) is pointing to the possibility of mounting
complete sensor systems on medium- and small-caliber projectiles as
p = projectile roll rate expressed in the body frame part of an actively controlled smart munition. Two important
~ r~
q, = projectile pitch and yaw rates expressed in the no- technical challenges in achieving this goal are the development of
roll frame small, rugged, sensor suites and control mechanisms. There is
R = magnitude of the swerve response currently a flurry of activity to create innovative physical control
s = dimensionless arc length mechanisms. Concepts include pulse jets, squibs, synthetic jets [1–
u, ~ w~
~ v, = projectile velocity components expressed in the no- 3], drag brakes [4,5], deployable pins [6,7], moveable nose [8],
roll frame moveable canards [9], dual-spin projectiles [10,11], ram air
V = total velocity deflection [12], and internal translating mass [13], to name a few.
x, y, z = projectile position in inertial space Although the preceding physical control mechanisms are very
Y c , Zc = y and z components applied control force expressed diverse, there is a common theme between them all: each exerts a
in no-roll frame force and/or moment on the projectile. Moreover, because

SLC = station line distance from the projectile mass center trajectories are shaped relative to ground coordinates, the forces
to the point of application of the control force and moments are effectively applied in a nonrolling reference frame

SLM = station line distance from the projectile mass center and can often be modeled as constant point forces applied to the
to the point of application of the Magnus force projectile body. Although the uncontrolled dynamics of projectiles

SLP = station line distance from the projectile mass center (both fin-stabilized and spin-stabilized) have been extensively
to the center of pressure studied in the ballistics community, issues with regard to control

FR ,
FI = real and imaginary parts of the fast-mode epicyclic response have received considerably less attention due to the lack of
eigenvalues practical application of control technology to spinning projectiles.

SR ,
SI = real and imaginary parts of the slow-mode epicyclic Using projectile linear theory, this paper analytically investigates
eigenvalues several aspects of the response of a spinning projectile to a constant
control force in the nonrolling reference frame. Simple expressions
result for the swerve-response magnitude and phase angle in terms of
Received 27 August 2007; revision received 30 November 2007; accepted basic physical mass properties, aerodynamic characteristics, and the
for publication 6 December 2007. Copyright © 2007 by the American state of the air vehicle. These expressions provide a means toward
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved. Copies of
this paper may be made for personal or internal use, on condition that the
deeper understanding of the underlying factors driving the control
copier pay the $10.00 per-copy fee to the Copyright Clearance Center, Inc., response of projectiles, helping smart-weapon designers to create
222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923; include the code 0731-5090/08 more capable weapon systems.
$10.00 in correspondence with the CCC.
∗
Department of Mechanical Engineering; currently Consulting Engineer, II. Simplified Analytical Swerve Solution
Earthly Dynamics LLC, Atlanta, GA 30327.
† A six-degree-of-freedom (6-DOF) rigid-body dynamic model
Sikorsky Associate Professor, School of Aerospace Engineering.
Associate Fellow AIAA. used to simulate the trajectory of a projectile in atmospheric flight is
1259
 1260 OLLERENSHAW AND COSTELLO

well known [14]. Over time, however, a series of simplifications to DYC

the dynamic equations have been identified that result in an VF  (13)
mV
analytically solvable set of quasi-linear differential equations and
reasonably accurate trajectories. These equations are referred to
collectively as projectile linear theory [15]. The linear theory DZC
WF  (14)
dynamic equations that are applicable to this analysis are given as mV
Eqs. (1–6):
8 09 2 38 9 8 9
>
> v~ > > A 0 0 D > > v~ >
> >
> VF >> D
SLC ZC
< 0 = 6 0 A D < = < = QF   (15)
w~ 6 0 77 w~ WF IP V
0  4 B C 5  (1)
>
> q~ > H F > q~ > > Q >
: 0> ; D
C
D
B
>
: > ; > : F> ;
r~ D D F H r~ RF
D
SLC YC
RF  (16)
D IP V
0  q~ (2)
V
Both the velocity V and the roll rate p are considered to be constant
D in Eqs. (2–6) and (8–16).
0
 r~ (3) The aerodynamic coefficients appearing in Eqs. (8–16) are defined
V as follows [16]. The term CNA is the normal force coefficient. The
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.34252

normal force acts in a direction perpendicular to the projectile axis of

symmetry and results from nonaxial wind forces caused by yawing
x0  D (4)
and pitching of the projectile. The normal force does not act at the
projectile center of gravity (c.g.), but at a point called the normal
force center of pressure (COP). The
SLP term represents the
D
y0  v~  D (5) distance between the center of gravity and the center of pressure, as
V shown in Eq. (17):

D
SLP  SLCOP  SLc:g: (17)

z0  w~  D (6)
V
where both the center of gravity and the center of pressure are
The projectile linear theory dynamic equations use dimensionless arc measured from the projectile base along the projectile station line.
length s as the independent variable. Arc length is related to time, as CYPA is the Magnus force coefficient. The Magnus force is
shown in Eq. (7): perpendicular to the normal force and is caused by unequal pressures
Z on opposite sides of the projectile resulting from viscous interaction
1 t between the spinning surface and the surrounding atmosphere. The
s V dt (7)
D 0 Magnus force itself is generally considered to be small enough to be
neglected; however, the resulting moment must be considered. The
The prime notation employed in Eqs. (1–6) signifies that the distance between the c.g. and the point of application of the Magnus
derivatives are taken with respect to dimensionless arc length, as force (Mag) is denoted as
SLM :
opposed to time. Additionally, the linear theory equations employ a
reference frame that is aligned with the projectile axis of symmetry
SLM  SLMag  SLc:g: (18)
but does not roll. Variables in this reference frame, which is referred
to as the no-roll frame or the fixed plane frame, are denoted with a
where both the center of gravity and the Magnus force application
tilde superscript. The no-roll frame is related to the body-fixed frame
point are measured from the projectile base along the projectile
used in the traditional 6-DOF equations by a single axis rotation
station line. The Magnus force is proportional to both spin rate and
about the projectile axis of symmetry.
transverse angular velocity. Therefore, in projectiles with very low
For the purpose of examining basic swerve response due to control
spin rates, the Magnus moment approaches zero. The term CMQ
inputs, both gravity and atmospheric winds are neglected. The
constant terms in the set of four coupled equations shown as Eq. (1), represents the pitch-damping-moment coefficient. The pitch
referred to as the epicyclic equations, can then be described as damping moment is proportional to the transverse angular velocity
of the projectile. CMQ will always be negative for a stable projectile.
Thus, it has the stabilizing effect of decreasing the total transverse
D3 CNA angular velocity of the projectile.
A (8) Finally, the terms YC and ZC represent the y and z components of a
8m
constant control force expressed in the no-roll frame and are assumed
D5 CYPA p
SLM to act at a single point on the projectile with a moment arm
SLC
B (9) defined as
16IP V

SLC  SLCF  SLc:g: (19)
4
D CNA
SLP
C (10) where both the center of mass and the point of application of the
8IP
control force are measured from the rear of the projectile along the
projectile axis of symmetry.
IR Dp To arrive at expressions for swerve y; z, the solutions to
F (11) the coupled epicyclic equations (5) must first be obtained. In
IP V the interest of brevity, this lengthy but mathematically conventional
solution was omitted here. Substituting the solutions for q~ and r~
into the attitude equations ; , then substituting the resulting
D5 CMQ attitude expressions, along with the solutions for v~ and w, ~ into
H (12)
16IP the swerve expressions results in the following expressions for
 OLLERENSHAW AND COSTELLO 1261

FC Table 1 Summary of the projectile initial conditions, physical

parameters, and aerodynamic coefficients

y 120-mm fin-stabilized 155-mm spin-stabilized

projectile projectile
V0 , ft=s 5479.0 2710.0
ΦR p0 , rad=s 8.7000 1674.1
, slug=ft3 2:3785  103 2:3785  103
−z IR , slug  ft2 2:3870  104 0.10857
R
IP , slug  ft2 0.17718 1.3964
m, slug 0.34461 2.9465
D, ft 0.08790 0.50853
CNA 13.350 2.6314
CYPA 0.0000 0:9600
j CMQ 5215:8 27:700
SLc:g: , ft 1.3833 1.0627

SLM , ft 0.0000 0:52920

SLP , ft 0:50079 0.71373

k
Fig. 1 Rear view of the projectile, showing position coordinate The resulting simplified swerve expressions are then functions of
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.34252

definitions. The positive
i and x directions point into the page. range solely in terms of projectile parameters, initial velocity and
spin rate, and a control force applied in the no-roll frame. The
equations for y and z can then be combined to create an expression for
projectile swerve: the overall magnitude of the swerve response. A compact and
informative expression for the response magnitude R results:
ys  Cy0  Cy1S  Cy1S2  e
FRs Cyfc cos
FIS 
 Cyfs sin
FIS   e
SRS Cysc cos
SIS   Cyss sin
SIS  s






































































































F x2 D2 p20 CYPA 2

2SLM  4V02 CNA 2

SLC 
SLP 2
(20) R C 2
2V0 p0 2IR CNA  mDCYPA
SLM   4m2 V02 CNA
2 2 2

2SLP
(23)
zs  Cz0  Cz1S  Cz2s2  e
FRs Czfc cos
FIS 
 Czfs sin
FIS   e
SRS Czsc cos
SIS   Czss sin
SIS 
where FC is the magnitude of the control force, defined as
(21)

The C terms in Eqs. (20) and (21) are constants containing projectile q


















parameters, initial conditions, and input forces. Additionally, the FC  YC2  ZC2 (24)
downrange position of the projectile is simply

xs  x0  Ds (22) The phase shift of the response, R , is the angle between the
direction of the applied control force and the direction of the
Equations (20–22) are expressed as a function of dimensionless arc response, as shown in Fig. 1. The phase shift can be expressed as
length s, as defined in Eq. (7).
To obtain a sense of the generalized swerve response of a projectile
due to an applied control force, we will examine the case in which the
projectile is fired downrange with no initial pitch or yaw angle and
with no initial perturbations to the transverse lateral and angular
velocities. Assuming that the firing position is at the origin of the
inertial reference frame, this allows us to set the initial conditions of
all terms to zero, with the exception of velocity and roll rate. The
velocity and roll-rate initial conditions are denoted V0 and p0 .
Additionally, as stated earlier, the effects of both gravity and
atmospheric winds are neglected here. These assumptions provide a
case in which a projectile with no applied control force displays no
swerving motion. Subsequently, the swerve response created by the
application of a control force is clear.
Examining the swerve expressions in Eqs. (20) and (21), a few
simplifications can be made. First of all, it should be noted that in a
stable projectile, the real parts of the fast- and slow-mode
eigenvalues,
FR and
SR , are always negative. Therefore, the oscilla-
tory terms in the swerve-response decay as the projectile flies
downrange and can be neglected for long-term swerve response. The
pitch damping moment is primarily associated with the oscillatory
epicyclic terms and can also be neglected, allowing CMQ in Eq. (12)
to be set to zero. Additionally, as the arc length value becomes large,
the terms containing the square of the arc length begin to dominate
the swerve-response expressions, and the terms involving Cy0 , Cy1 ,
Cz0 , and Cz1 can be neglected. These simplifications leave only the Fig. 2 Vertical plane swerve response of the fin-stabilized projectile at a
terms involving s2 in Eqs. (20) and (21). Finally, Eq. (22) can be range of 5280 ft to a 1-lbf control input applied in the
y direction, with 6-
solved for arc length s and substituted into Eqs. (20) and (21). DOF correlation data.
 1262 OLLERENSHAW AND COSTELLO

 
2V0 p0 CNA 2IR CNA 
SLC 
SLP   mDCYPA
SLM
SLC 
R  tan1 (25)
Dp20 CYPA
SLM 2IR CNA  mDCYPA
SLM   4mV02 CNA
2

SLP 
SLC 
SLP 

The preceding equations provide relatively compact expressions ensure that the stability assumption is not violated. It also needs to be
for the swerve magnitude and phase shift resulting from a constant emphasized that these equations calculate the magnitude and phase
control force applied to a point on the projectile. These expressions shift of the swerve response under the assumption that the velocity
highlight the key parameters that drive the control response of and spin rate remain constant at their initial values and, in turn, all
projectiles excited by a control-force input. However, when applying Mach-number-dependent quantities remain constant as well. Of
these formulas, it is important to recall that stability of the projectile is
inherent in the assumptions used to arrive at the preceding
expressions. When parameters are varied in these expressions to
investigate the effects on swerve response, care must be taken to
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.34252

Fig. 5 Magnitude of the swerve response of the spin-stabilized

projectile to a 1-lbf control input as a function of the distance from the
projectile c.g. to the point of application of the force, with 6-DOF
correlation data.
Fig. 3 Magnitude of the swerve response of the fin-stabilized projectile
to a 1-lbf control input as a function of the distance from the projectile c.g.
to the point of application of the force, with 6-DOF correlation data.

Fig. 6 Phase shift of the swerve response of the spin-stabilized

Fig. 4 Vertical plane swerve response of the spin-stabilized projectile projectile to a 1-lbf control input as a function of the distance from the
at a range of 5280 ft to a 1-lbf control input applied in the
y direction, projectile c.g. to the point of application of the force, with 6-DOF
with 6-DOF correlation data. correlation data.
 OLLERENSHAW AND COSTELLO 1263

course, this assumption becomes increasingly inaccurate as the Table 1 summarizes the initial conditions and the resultant
projectile proceeds downrange and must be periodically updated for aerodynamic coefficients, along with the relevant physical
long-range trajectories. parameters, for both projectiles, as used in Eqs. (23) and (25).
Figure 2 shows the swerve response of the fin-stabilized projectile
in the vertical target plane at a downrange location of x  5280 ft,
with five 6-DOF data points included to demonstrate correlation. It
III. Correlation to the Full Six-Degree-of-Freedom should be noted that the positive z direction points downward, in the
Model negative altitude direction. Figure 3 shows the magnitude of the
To demonstrate the accuracy of the simplified swerve equations, a response as a function of control-force application point, along with
typical 120-mm fin-stabilized projectile and a typical 155-mm spin- 6-DOF correlation data for the fin-stabilized projectile. Note that the
stabilized projectile were evaluated. For both projectiles, the results magnitude of the response is dependent only upon the magnitude of
obtained using Eqs. (23) and (25) were compared with results from a the control input, not its direction. The phase shift, which is simply
fixed-step, fourth-order Runge–Kutta numerical integration of the 0 deg when the force is applied in front of the COP and 180 deg when
full 6-DOF equations of motion. The swerve response was evaluated it is applied behind the COP, is not shown. The phase shift of the
at a range of 5280 ft in the absence of gravity and atmospheric winds response does not vary with the magnitude of the input and is also
and with no initial yaw or pitch angles. In both cases, a 1-lbf control independent of the direction of the input force.
input was applied in the positive y direction. The control-force Figure 4 shows the swerve response of the spin-stabilized
moment arm
SLC in Eqs. (23) and (25) was varied from 1 ft behind projectile in the vertical target plane at a downrange location of
the projectile center of mass to 1 ft in front of the projectile center of x  5280 ft, with five 6-DOF data points included to demonstrate
mass. The 6-DOF swerve response was evaluated for both projectiles correlation. Figures 5 and 6 show the magnitude and phase shift of
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.34252

with control-force moment arms of
SLC  1:0, 0:5, 0.0, 0.5, and the response along with 6-DOF correlation data for the spin-
1.0 ft. stabilized projectile.

Fig. 7 Summary of the projectile response to a control input in the positive y direction in both a fin-stabilized and a spin-stabilized projectile. Magnus
moments, which act 90 deg out of phase with the angle of attack in spin-stabilized projectiles, are not shown.
 1264 OLLERENSHAW AND COSTELLO

For both the fin-stabilized and spin-stabilized projectiles studied

here, the response as predicted by the simplified swerve equations is
shown to correlate very well with that predicted by the full 6-DOF
simulation at this relatively short range. Though only a very small
fraction of the total terms comprising the full linear theory swerve
expressions are preserved in the simplified version, it is clear that
those terms providing the dominant effect on the swerve response
have been retained.

IV. Effects of Individual Parameters

Figures 2–6 clearly show that the point of application of the
control force has a very large effect on both the direction and the
magnitude of the swerve response. Further, they demonstrate that the
effects are drastically different for fin- and spin-stabilized projectiles.
The simplified swerve expressions provide insight into the reasons
for this behavior. In the swerve-response magnitude and phase
expressions given as Eqs. (23) and (25), the term expressing the
distance from the center-of-pressure location to the point of
application of the control force (
SLC 
SLP ) shows up repeatedly.
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.34252

The practical result is that if the control force is applied at the center
of pressure,
SLC 
SLP becomes zero and the response magnitude Fig. 8 Phase shift of the swerve response of the spin-stabilized
is at a minimum. In the case of a fin-stabilized projectile, which has projectile to a 1-lbf control input as a function of the distance from the
very low spin rates and negligibly small Magnus effects as a result, projectile c.g. to the point of application of the control force. Magnus
the magnitude of the response goes to zero when the control force is force coefficient is varied from its nominal value to zero.
applied at the center of pressure.
The direction of the response is also driven by the center-of-
pressure location relative to the projectile mass center. A typical fin-
projectile. As the Magnus force coefficient is reduced, the portion of
stabilized projectile will have a center-of-pressure location behind
the response that is orthogonal to the control input diminishes. With
the projectile center of mass. A control force applied in front of the
no Magnus moment present, the response is almost completely in
center of pressure leads to a response largely in phase with the
phase with a force applied behind the center of pressure and is nearly
direction of the control force. Conversely, when the control force is
180 deg out of phase for a force applied in front of the center of
applied behind the center of pressure, the response is nearly 180 deg
pressure.
out of phase with the direction of the control force.
A spin-stabilized projectile, which typically has its center of
pressure located in front of the center of mass, displays the opposite V. Conclusions
behavior. Additionally, the Magnus moment causes a relatively
small response that is 90 deg out of phase with the direction of the Relatively simple, closed-form formulas for the magnitude and
applied control force. phase angle of a projectile excited by a control force in terms of
The physical explanation for this behavior is relatively fundamental projectile flight mechanic parameters were created. The
straightforward. Application of a control force away from the center swerve-response formulas are remarkably accurate given the litany
of gravity creates a nonzero angle of attack in the projectile. The of simplifications and the resulting compact form of the results.
normal force results directly from the angle of attack, and in a stable These formulas clearly explain the control response differences
projectile, it will create a moment equal and opposite to the moment between fin- and spin-stabilized projectiles, including the key role
caused by the control input after the initial oscillatory epicyclic that the center of pressure plays in control-force response. It is shown
dynamics decay, creating a zero net moment on the body. The that fin-stabilized projectiles respond in phase to control-force inputs
direction of the response will be driven primarily by the sum of these forward of the center of pressure whereas spin-stabilized projectiles
two forces. When the control force is applied at the center of pressure, respond out of phase to control-force inputs forward of the center of
the normal force will be equal and opposite to the control force and pressure. The simple formulas reported here are expected to be useful
the response will be driven solely by the Magnus effect, which has a to smart-weapon designers in bringing to light basic parameters that
nonnegligible effect only in spin-stabilized projectiles. Figure 7 drive swerve response from different control mechanisms.
graphically summarizes the effects of a control force in the positive y
direction applied at varying points on the projectile body.
To demonstrate the relatively small contribution of the Magnus References
moment in a spin-stabilized projectile, the swerve magnitude and [1] Harkins, T., and Brown, T., “Using Active Damping as a Precision-
phase shift of the spin-stabilized projectile were examined with the Enhancing Technology for 2.75-Inch Rockets,” U. S. Army Research
Magnus force coefficient equal to the nominal value (0:96), half the Lab., ARL-TR-1772, Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD, 1999.
[2] Jitpraphai, T., and Costello, M., “Dispersion Reduction of a Direct Fire
nominal value (0:48), and zero. Rocket Using Lateral Pulse Jets,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets,
The magnitude of the response is largely unaffected by reducing or Vol. 38, No. 6, 2001, pp. 929–936.
removing the Magnus moment, with the exception being when the [3] Amitay, M., Smith, D., Kibens, V., Parekh, D., and Glezer, A.,
control force is applied near the projectile center of pressure. When “Aerodynamic Flow Control over an Unconventional Airfoil
that is the case, the sum of the normal force and control force nears Using Synthetic Jet Actuators,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 39, No. 3, 2001,
zero and the Magnus moment becomes the dominant factor in the pp. 361–370.
response magnitude. When the Magnus moment is neglected [4] Harkins, T., and Davis, B., “Drag-Brake Deployment Method and
entirely, the magnitude of the response of the spin-stabilized Apparatus for Range Error Correction of Spinning, Gun-Launched
Artillery Projectiles,” U.S. Patent 6345785, issued 12 Feb. 2002.
projectile becomes zero when the control force is applied at the center
[5] T. Hillstrom, T., and Osborne, P., “United Defense Course Correcting
of pressure, as is the case in a fin-stabilized projectile. Fuze for the Precision Guidance Kit Program,” 49th Annual Fuze
The effect of the Magnus moment becomes more apparent when Conference, National Defense Industrial Association, Arlington, VA,
examining the phase response of the spin-stabilized projectile with 5–7 Apr. 2005, http://proceedings.ndia.org/5560/Wednesday/Sessio-
varied Magnus force coefficients, as shown in Fig. 8. The Magnus n_III-A/Osborne.pdf.
moment acts 90 deg out of phase with the angle of attack of the [6] Massey, K., and Flick, A., “Mechanical and Jet Actuators for Guiding a
 OLLERENSHAW AND COSTELLO 1265

Small Caliber Subsonic Projectile,” 25th AIAA Applied Aerodynamics [12] Chandgadkar, S., Costello, M., Dano, B., Liburdy, J., and Pence, D.,
Conference, Miami, FL, AIAA Paper 2007-3813, 25–28 June 2007. “Performance of a Smart Direct Fire Projectile Using a Ram Air Control
[7] Massey, K., McMichael, J., Warnock, T., and Hay, F., “Mechanical Mechanism,” Journal of Dynamic Systems, Measurement, and Control,
Actuators for Guidance of a Supersonic Projectile,” 23rd AIAA Vol. 124, No. 4, 2002, pp. 606–612.
Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, AIAA doi:10.1115/1.1514666
Paper 2005-4970, 6–9 June 2005. [13] Rogers, J., and Costello, M., “Control Authority of a Projectile
[8] Costello, M., and Agarwalla, R., “Improved Dispersion of a Fin Equipped with an Internal Translating Mass,” 2007 AIAA Atmospheric
Stabilized Projectile Using a Passive Moveable Nose,” Journal of Flight Mechanics Conference, Hilton Head, SC, AIAA Paper 2007-
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol 23, No. 5, 2000, pp 900–903; 6492, 2007.
also Errata, Vol. 25, No. 2, 2002, pp. 414. [14] McCoy, R. L., “Six-Degrees-of-Freedom (6 DOF) and Modified Point-
[9] Costello, M., “Extended Range of a Gun Launched Smart Projectile Mass Trajectories,” Modern Exterior Ballistics: the Launch and Flight
Using Controllable Canards,” Shock and Vibration, Vol 8, Nos. 3–4, Dynamics of Symmetric Projectiles, Schiffer Publishing, Atglen, PA,
2001, pp. 203–213. 1999, pp. 187–212.
[10] Costello, M., and Peterson, A., “Linear Theory of a Dual Spin Projectile [15] Hainz, L., and Costello, M., “Modified Projectile Linear
in Atmospheric Flight,” Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Theory for Rapid Trajectory Prediction,” Journal of
Vol. 23, No. 5, 2000, pp. 789–797. Guidance, Control, and Dynamics, Vol. 28, No. 5, 2005, pp. 1006–
[11] Burchett, B., Peterson, A., and Costello, M., “Prediction of Swerving 1014.
Motion of a Dual-Spin Projectile with Lateral Pulse Jets in Atmospheric [16] McCoy, R. L., “Aerodynamic Forces and Moments Acting on
Flight,” Mathematical and Computer Modelling, Vol. 35, No. 7–8, Projectiles,” Modern Exterior Ballistics: the Launch and Flight
2002, pp. 821–834. Dynamics of Symmetric Projectiles, Schiffer Publishing, Atglen, PA,
doi:10.1016/S0895-7177(02)00053-5 1999, pp. 32–40.
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.34252
 This article has been cited by:

1. Yu Wang, Jiyan Yu, Xiaoming Wang. 2020. Normal acceleration response to canard control with wind for spin-
stabilized projectiles. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 65,
095441002091183. [Crossref]
2. Dan Fang, Yi Wang. Research on Control Method of Electric Proportional Canard for Two-Dimensional Trajectory
Correction Fuze of Movable Canard 317-327. [Crossref]
3. Yu Wang, Xiao-ming Wang, Ji-yan Yu. 2018. Influence of control strategy on stability of dual-spin projectiles with fixed
canards. Defence Technology 14:6, 709-719. [Crossref]
4. Thomas J. Lambert, Bojan Vukasinovic, Ari Glezer. 2018. Aerodynamic Flow Control of Axisymmetric Bluff Body by
Coupled Wake Interactions. AIAA Journal 56:8, 2992-3007. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
5. Shuping Li, Zhongxing Yan. 2018. Research and simulation analysis of an Electric-Servo-Actuator system. IOP Conference
Series: Materials Science and Engineering 397, 012137. [Crossref]
6. Qiuping Xu, Sijiang Chang, Zhongyuan Wang. 2018. Acceleration autopilot design for gliding guided projectiles with less
measurement information. Aerospace Science and Technology 77, 256-264. [Crossref]
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.34252

7. Spilios Theodoulis, Philippe Wernert. 2017. Flight Dynamics & Control for Smart Munition: The ISL Contribution.
IFAC-PapersOnLine 50:1, 15512-15517. [Crossref]
8. Raúl de Celis, Luis Cadarso, Jesús Sánchez. 2017. Guidance and control for high dynamic rotating artillery rockets. Aerospace
Science and Technology 64, 204-212. [Crossref]
9. Eric Gagnon, Alexandre Vachon. 2016. Efficiency Analysis of Canards-Based Course Correction Fuze for a 155-mm Spin-
Stabilized Projectile. Journal of Aerospace Engineering 29:6, 04016055. [Crossref]
10. CM Umstead, YY Tay, HM Lankarani. 2016. Multibody modelling of an internal gyroscopic micro-mechanism for
development of lateral deviation of a projectile. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part K: Journal of
Multi-body Dynamics 230:3, 226-236. [Crossref]
11. Sijiang Chang. 2016. Dynamic Response to Canard Control and Gravity for a Dual-Spin Projectile. Journal of Spacecraft
and Rockets 53:3, 558-566. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
12. Thomas J. Lambert, Bojan Vukasinovic, Ari Glezer. Aerodynamic Control of Coupled Body-Wake Interactions . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
13. Thomas J. Lambert, Bojan Vukasinovic, Ari Glezer. 2015. Active decoupling of the axisymmetric body wake response to
a pitching motion. Journal of Fluids and Structures 59, 129-145. [Crossref]
14. Thanh T. Vu, Nicolas Rongione, Amir Rahmani. Minimalist control design of canard-actuated micro-projectiles 1-5.
[Crossref]
15. Frank Fresconi, James DeSpirito, Ilmars Celmins. 2015. Flight Performance of a Small Diameter Munition with a Rotating
Wing Actuator. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets 52:2, 305-319. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
16. Frank Fresconi, Jonathan Rogers. 2015. Flight Control of a Small-Diameter Spin-Stabilized Projectile Using Imager
Feedback. Journal of Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 38:2, 181-191. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
17. John W. Robinson, Peter Strömbäck. Velocity To Be Gained Guidance for a Generic 2D Course Correcting Fuze . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
18. Thomas J. Lambert, Bojan Vukasinovic, Ari Glezer. Unsteady Aerodynamic Loads Effected by Flow Control on a Moving
Axisymmetric Bluff Body . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
19. Frank Fresconi, Jonathan D. Rogers. Guidance and Control of a Man Portable Precision Munition Concept . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
20. Boris Kogan, Ephrahim Garcia. 2015. Walking the Precession for Trajectory Control of Munitions. Journal of Guidance,
Control, and Dynamics 38:1, 157-161. [Citation] [Full Text] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
21. C. M. Umstead, Y. Y. Tay, H. M. Lankarani. An Internal Gyroscopic Micro-Mechanism for Development of Lateral
Deviation of a Projectile 859-868. [Crossref]
22. Xu-dong Liu, Dong-guang Li, Qiang Shen. 2015. Swerving Orientation of Spin-Stabilized Projectile for Fixed-Cant
Canard Control Input. Mathematical Problems in Engineering 2015, 1-11. [Crossref]
 23. Yi Wang, Wei-dong Song, Dan Fang, Qing-wei Guo. 2015. Guidance and Control Design for a Class of Spin-Stabilized
Projectiles with a Two-Dimensional Trajectory Correction Fuze. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2015, 1-15.
[Crossref]
24. Qing-wei Guo, Wei-dong Song, Yi Wang, Zhi-cai Lu. 2015. Guidance Law Design for a Class of Dual-Spin Mortars.
International Journal of Aerospace Engineering 2015, 1-12. [Crossref]
25. Matthew Gross, Mark Costello. 2014. Impact point model predictive control of a spin-stabilized projectile with instability
protection. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G: Journal of Aerospace Engineering 228:12, 2215-2225.
[Crossref]
26. Thomas J. Lambert, Bojan Vukasinovic, Ari Glezer. Aerodynamic Flow Control of a Moving Axisymmetric Bluff Body .
[Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
27. John Robinson, Peter Strömbäck. Perturbation Based Guidance for a Generic 2D Course Correcting Fuze . [Citation]
[PDF] [PDF Plus]
28. Frank Fresconi. 2011. Guidance and Control of a Projectile with Reduced Sensor and Actuator Requirements. Journal of
Guidance, Control, and Dynamics 34:6, 1757-1766. [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]
29. Frank Fresconi. Guidance and Control of a Fin-Stabilized Projectile Based on Flight Dynamics with Reduced Sensor and
Downloaded by BEIHANG UNIVERSITY on June 2, 2020 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/1.34252

Actuator Requirements . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]

30. James DeSpirito. Factors Affecting Reaction Jet Interaction Effects on Projectiles . [Citation] [PDF] [PDF Plus]