MECH4552 Major Design Project: The Development of an Air Data System

Student Names: William Le (41412295) Jordan Palmer (41416145) Daniel Wilcox (41450000) Course Code: MECH 4552 Supervisor: Dr. Peter Jacobs Submission Date: 29 October 2010

A thesis submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements of the Bachelor of Engineering Degree in Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (Dual Major)

UQ Engineering Faculty of Engineering, Architecture and Information Technology

Abstract
The aim of this project is to design and manufacture an air data system for the Zuni Rocket, capable of recording flight characteristics such as Mach number, altitude and angle of attack (pitch and yaw). The air data system is designed to be a 5-hole pressure probe which operates in supersonic flow conditions. It incorporates a central transducer recording the stagnation pressure on the nose of the cone and four transducers, located around the base, measuring the static pressures. The project was approached from three different aspects; the design and data acquisition, the CFD and the calibration process. In terms of the design, a conical nose piece made from mild steel was manufactured. As required, it had four base holes which were connected to MPX5700AP model transducers. Additionally it had a central hole which interfaced with a P51-300-G-B-I36-4.5V-R transducer. Furthermore, the supporting components to the air data system were also designed and manufactured. The final assembly consisted of the nose cone, an electrical strip board unit with supports, a new payload case and payload window cover. The assembly was designed to meet the requirements of the mentioned air data system while still being mechanically sound during the aggressive flight conditions. Extensive computational fluid dynamic analysis was conducted to model the flow conditions over the conical nose cone. The results were used to compare and calibrate our experimental data. This data was obtained during a live flight experiment conducted at Woomera launch range. An in depth calibration process was established to model the five collected pressure values and convert them into the desirable flight characteristics. As expected the rocket reached a maximum altitude of approximately 5200m. Furthermore, the process yielded a maximum Mach number of about Mach 3. Finally, the rocket was found to be pitching and yawing between 3. This data could be used to estimate the coning rate of the rocket which was calculated to be 2Hz.

Table of Contents

1 Contents
2 Scope of Project ...............................................................................................................................1 2.1 2.2 2.3 3 Instrumentation and Nose Cone Design ...................................................................................1 Computational Fluid Dynamics ...............................................................................................1 Pressure Probe Calibration .......................................................................................................2

Literature Review .............................................................................................................................3 3.1 Pressure Probes........................................................................................................................3 4 hole (Cobra Probe): .......................................................................................................3 5 hole pressure probes: ....................................................................................................4

3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 3.3

Response Time: ........................................................................................................................5 Computational Fluid Dynamics ...............................................................................................6 Experimental Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamic Results .................................6

3.3.1 3.4 4

Calibration ................................................................................................................................9

Background Theory ....................................................................................................................... 12 4.1 Supersonic Flow and Shock Relations .................................................................................. 12 Types of Shocks ............................................................................................................ 12 Calculating Maximum Angle ........................................................................................ 14 Shock Relation Equations ............................................................................................. 14 Calculating Pressures for Yaw and Pitch Angles .......................................................... 18 Stagnation Temperature and Pressure ........................................................................... 19

4.1.1 4.1.2 4.1.3 4.1.4 4.1.5 4.2 4.3 4.4 4.5

Multi-hole Pressure Probe and Pitot-Static Tubes ................................................................ 19 Turbulence Effects over Cone ............................................................................................... 20 Reflection of Pressure Waves ............................................................................................... 21 Computational Fluid Dynamics Usage in the Calibration of Pressure Probes ...................... 22 Reducing the Computation Time .................................................................................. 23 Separating Velocity Components .................................................................................. 23 Similarities in Pitch and Yaw Pressures ........................................................................ 23 Roll ................................................................................................................................ 24

4.5.1 4.5.2 4.5.3 4.5.4 4.6 4.7

Bolt Calculations ................................................................................................................... 25 Calibration ............................................................................................................................. 27 Determination of Mach Number ................................................................................... 27 Determination of Flow Angles ...................................................................................... 29 Correction Factor........................................................................................................... 30

4.7.1 4.7.2 4.7.3

4.7.4 4.7.5 5 6

Probe Calibration Matrix ............................................................................................... 30 Determination of Altitude ............................................................................................. 31

Assumptions .................................................................................................................................. 33 Limitations .................................................................................................................................... 33 6.1 6.2 6.3 6.4 Zuni ....................................................................................................................................... 33 Manufacturing ....................................................................................................................... 33 Assembly ............................................................................................................................... 34 CFD Simulations ................................................................................................................... 34

Previously Designed Components................................................................................................. 35 7.1 Data Acquisition.................................................................................................................... 35 Overview ....................................................................................................................... 35 Modifications ................................................................................................................ 36 Mode Switch ................................................................................................................. 37

7.1.1 7.1.2 7.1.3 7.2 8

Separation Module ................................................................................................................ 38

Detailed Design ............................................................................................................................. 39 8.1 8.2 Design Requirements ............................................................................................................ 39 Preliminary Design ................................................................................................................ 39 Nose Cone ..................................................................................................................... 39 Pressure Transducers .................................................................................................... 40

8.2.1 8.2.2 8.3

Final Design .......................................................................................................................... 40 Nose Cone ..................................................................................................................... 40 Pressure Transducer Selection....................................................................................... 43 Strip Board and Interface .............................................................................................. 45 Payload Case and Window ............................................................................................ 48 Manufacturing Processes............................................................................................... 50 Bolt Design .................................................................................................................... 51 Nosecone to Payload case bolts..................................................................................... 51

8.3.1 8.3.2 8.3.3 8.3.4 8.3.5 8.3.6 8.3.7 8.4

Calibration Code Design ....................................................................................................... 53 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 53 Importing Data .............................................................................................................. 55 Obtaining Initial Values ................................................................................................ 55 Mach Number ................................................................................................................ 56 Total and Dynamic Pressure ......................................................................................... 58 Determination of Flow Angles ...................................................................................... 60

8.4.1 8.4.2 8.4.3 8.4.4 8.4.5 8.4.6 9

Procedure....................................................................................................................................... 64

9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4

Trans Calibration of Transducers .......................................................................................... 64 Assembly ............................................................................................................................... 64 Woomera Launch .................................................................................................................. 67 Computational Fluid Dynamics Procedure ........................................................................... 70 Geometry ....................................................................................................................... 70 Meshing ......................................................................................................................... 72 Pre-CFX ........................................................................................................................ 74 Solver ............................................................................................................................ 78 CFX-Post ....................................................................................................................... 78

9.4.1 9.4.2 9.4.3 9.4.4 9.4.5 9.5 10 10.1 10.2 10.3 10.4

Code Procedure ..................................................................................................................... 79 Results ....................................................................................................................................... 83 Pressure Transducer Calibration ........................................................................................... 83 Theoretical Results ................................................................................................................ 84 Raw Data from Launch ......................................................................................................... 86 CFD Results .......................................................................................................................... 91 Meshing ......................................................................................................................... 91 Testing ........................................................................................................................... 91 Data ............................................................................................................................... 92

10.4.1 10.4.2 10.4.3 10.5

Final Results from Code........................................................................................................ 98 Flight Angles ................................................................................................................. 98 Flight Mach Number ................................................................................................... 100

10.5.1 10.5.2 11 11.1 11.2

Discussion ............................................................................................................................... 100 CFD Compared to Theoretical ............................................................................................ 100 Flight Angles ....................................................................................................................... 102 Angle of Yaw .............................................................................................................. 103 Angle of Pitch.............................................................................................................. 104 Mach Number .............................................................................................................. 105

11.2.1 11.2.2 11.2.3 11.3 11.4

Altitude ................................................................................................................................ 106 Error Analysis ..................................................................................................................... 107 CFD ............................................................................................................................. 107 Calibration ................................................................................................................... 109

11.4.1 11.4.2 12 13 14 14.1

Conclusion............................................................................................................................... 112 Bibliography ............................................................................................................................ 114 Appendix ................................................................................................................................. 117 Appendix A Engineering Drawings .................................................................................... 117

14.1.1 14.1.2 14.1.3 14.1.4 14.1.5 14.1.6 14.2 14.3 14.4 14.5 14.6 14.7 14.8

Assembly ..................................................................................................................... 117 Nose Cone ................................................................................................................... 118 Payload Case................................................................................................................ 119 Payload Case Window ................................................................................................. 120 Strip Board Support Plate ............................................................................................ 121 Strip Board Support Ring ............................................................................................. 122

Appendix B Code ............................................................................................................... 123 Appendix C ASRI Payload Guide ....................................................................................... 138 Appendix D NACA1135 Charts........................................................................................... 194 Appendix D Correction Factors ......................................................................................... 197 Appendix E Probe Calibration Matrices ............................................................................ 202 Appendix F Pressure Calibration graphical results ............................................................ 207 Appendix G Transducer Data Sheets ................................................................................. 209 Freescale MPX5700AP................................................................................................. 209 SSI Technology P51-300-G-A-I36-4.5OV-R .................................................................. 215

14.8.1 14.8.2 14.9

Appendix H Payload Description. ...................................................................................... 230

Appendix D payload information document template ....................................................................... 231 Description of Air Data System: ...................................................................................................... 232 Description of Conical Nose Piece: .................................................................................................. 232 Description of the Data Acquisition Module: .................................................................................. 234 Payload weight ................................................................................................................................ 235 Protrusions ...................................................................................................................................... 235 Living material ................................................................................................................................. 236 Explosive material ........................................................................................................................... 236 Flammable material ........................................................................................................................ 236 Chemical material ........................................................................................................................... 236 Other hazardous material ............................................................................................................... 237 Calculated Coefficient of Drag......................................................................................................... 237 Assembly ......................................................................................................................................... 237 Preparation...................................................................................................................................... 238 Pre-launch ....................................................................................................................................... 239 Recovery .......................................................................................................................................... 240 Personnel......................................................................................................................................... 240 Procedures to be conducted during the launch sequence ............................................................. 242 14.10 APPENDIX I CFD RESULTS ............................................................................................. 247

14.11 14.12 14.13

APPENDIX J RAW DATA ................................................................................................ 252 APPENDIX K APPENDED LIST OF CFD RESULTS ............................................................. 252 APPENDIX L CALIBRATED DATA .................................................................................... 252

List of Figures
Figure 1: 5-hole Pressure Probe on Ares-X Rocket (Space Fellowship 2009)..........................................3 Figure 2: Cobra Probe (Chen, J et al 2000) ...............................................................................................4 Figure 3: 5-hole pressure probe (Porro 2010)..........................................................................................4 Figure 4: Devices for measuring angles of attack (allstar 2008) ..............................................................5 Figure 5: Variation of the settling time as a function of the length of the connecting tube, for different internal diameters (Bajsi, et al 2007) .....................................................................................................5 Figure 6: The AIAA method for the validation of a particular CFD solver ................................................8 Figure 7: Neural Network Calibration Method ..................................................................................... 10 Figure 8: Figure showing the difference between Oblique shocks on the Left and Bow shocks on the Right. (White, 2008) .............................................................................................................................. 13 Figure 9: The Definition of Prandtl-Meyer Expansion Waves (White, 2008) ........................................ 14 Figure 10: How the velocity profile changes as it passes through an oblique shock, (White, 2008).... 15 Figure 11: Plot used to calculate the value for oblique shocks, (White, 2008) ................................. 17 Figure 12: Conditions for calculating surface pressure (NACA1135) .................................................... 18 Figure 13: A Pitot-Static Tube (eFunda, 2010) ...................................................................................... 20 Figure 14: Cavitation Effect (Stanford University, 2000) ...................................................................... 21 Figure 15: Roll Data vs. Pressure Coefficient for different Pitch Angles (NACA TN3967) ..................... 25 Figure 16: Angles of Pitch and Yaw ....................................................................................................... 27 Figure 17: Effect of Pitch on Total Pressure .......................................................................................... 28 Figure 18: Variation of Mach Number With Respect to Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Total Pressure ................................................................................................................................................. 29 Figure 19: Example of Probe Calibration Matrix ................................................................................... 31 Figure 20: US Standard Atmosphere Model ......................................................................................... 32 Figure 21: F-Box data acquisition module (Lara 2007).......................................................................... 36 Figure 22: Channel Configuration ......................................................................................................... 36 Figure 23: Separation Module............................................................................................................... 39 Figure 24: Preliminary design of nose cone .......................................................................................... 40 Figure 25: Comparing the section cut of the initial design to the final design ..................................... 41 Figure 26: Manufactured nose cone sitting on top of payload case ..................................................... 41 Figure 27: Inside of nose cone showing the protruding copper tubing ................................................ 42 Figure 28: Image showing the internal section of the forward facing cavity........................................ 42 Figure 29: SSI Technology. P51-300-G-B-I36-4.5V-R ............................................................................. 44 Figure 30: Freescale MPX5700AP.......................................................................................................... 45 Figure 31: Picture from bottom of nose cone showing redundant bolt holes ..................................... 45 Figure 32: Redundant back plate designed to support the original strip board ................................... 46 Figure 33: Hole cut in the middle of the board to allow cables to reach the DAQ module .................. 46 Figure 34: The strip board assembly showing the support ring holding down the vero board to the support plate ......................................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 35: Electrical insulation on the support ring ad support plate .................................................. 47 Figure 36: Flexible hosing in boiling water ............................................................................................ 48 Figure 37: Original payload case (left) and the new payload case(right).............................................. 49 Figure 38: Payload case cover ............................................................................................................... 49 Figure 39: Breakwire adaptor................................................................................................................ 50 Figure 40: Forces acting on the nose cone. Shows the bolt position and configuration of a section cut ............................................................................................................................................................... 52

Figure 41: Overview of Calibration Process .......................................................................................... 54 Figure 42: Determination of Coefficients of Pitch and Yaw .................................................................. 56 Figure 43: Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Total Pressure vs. Mach Number (M>1)...................... 57 Figure 44: Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Total Pressure vs. Mach Number (M<1)...................... 58 Figure 45: Comparison of CFD data to Rational Approximation ........................................................... 58 Figure 46: Total Pressure Ratio vs. Mach Number (M<1) ..................................................................... 59 Figure 47: Total Pressure Ratio vs. Mach Number (M>1) ..................................................................... 60 Figure 48: Ratio of Dynamic Pressure to Total Pressure vs. Mach Number ......................................... 60 Figure 49: Flow Diagram Describing Interpolation of Probe Calibration Matrix................................... 61 Figure 50: 951-300-G-B-I36-4.5V-R screwed into the nose cone.......................................................... 64 Figure 51: One hose connected and hot glued to the nose cone ......................................................... 65 Figure 52: Processor board and Battery configuration ......................................................................... 65 Figure 53: Assembled DAQ module. The sixth transducer measuring the atmospheric pressure, can also be seen to be glued to the top of the board ................................................................................. 66 Figure 54: Payload assembly before the payload case is attached....................................................... 66 Figure 55: Separation module ............................................................................................................... 67 Figure 56: Payload attached to parachute tube.................................................................................... 68 Figure 57: Find the centre of gravity ..................................................................................................... 69 Figure 58: Measuring centre of gravity ................................................................................................. 69 Figure 59: Bounding Box Created in ANSYS Geometry ......................................................................... 71 Figure 60: Cone Cut Out of Bounding Box ............................................................................................ 71 Figure 61: Smoothed Circular Area Corresponding to Pressure Transducers....................................... 72 Figure 62: Geometry Imported into Meshing Application .................................................................... 73 Figure 63: Meshed with Basic Settings.................................................................................................. 73 Figure 64: Inflation Layers Shown Around the Probe ........................................................................... 74 Figure 65: How the Set-Up of the Default Domain for CFX-Pre is Set Out............................................ 75 Figure 66: Inlet and Outlet Arrows for No Angles of Pitch or Yaw ........................................................ 77 Figure 67: Inlet and Outlet Arrows For When There is Pitch or Yaw .................................................... 78 Figure 68: Visualisation Effect Created by CFX-Post Showing the Mach Number Distribution ............ 79 Figure 69: Probe Layout ........................................................................................................................ 80 Figure 70: P1 Change in Pressure over Time during Launch ................................................................. 87 Figure 71: P2 Change in Pressure over Time during Launch ................................................................. 87 Figure 72: P3 Change in Pressure over Time during Launch ................................................................. 88 Figure 73: P4 Change in Pressure over Time during Launch ................................................................. 88 Figure 74: P5 Change in Pressure over Time during Launch ................................................................. 89 Figure 75: Atmospheric Transducer Change in Pressure over Time during Launch ............................. 89 Figure 76: Transverse Accelerometer Results ....................................................................................... 90 Figure 77: Axial Accelerometer Results................................................................................................. 90 Figure 78: Change in P1 Pressure with Mach Number ......................................................................... 94 Figure 79: Change in Pressure vs. Change in Yaw (P2) (M<1) ............................................................... 96 Figure 80: Change in Pressure vs. Change in Yaw (P2) (M>1) ............................................................... 96 Figure 81: Change of Normalised Pressure vs. Change of Yaw Angle (P3,P5) (M<1)............................ 97 Figure 82: Change in Normalised Pressures vs. Yaw Angle (P3,P5) (M>1)............................................ 98 Figure 83: Angle of Pitch vs. Time ......................................................................................................... 99 Figure 84: Angle of Yaw vs. Time .......................................................................................................... 99 Figure 85: Mach Number vs. Time ...................................................................................................... 100 Figure 86: Comparison of Theoretical and CFD Results for Stagnation Pressure ............................... 101

Figure 87: Comparison of Theoretical and CFD Results for the Pressures on the Surface of the Cone ............................................................................................................................................................. 102 Figure 88: Rocket Initial Position......................................................................................................... 103 Figure 89: Averaged Angle of Yaw vs. Time ........................................................................................ 104 Figure 90: Average Angle Of Pitch vs. Time ........................................................................................ 105 Figure 91: Averaged Mach Number vs. Time ...................................................................................... 106 Figure 92: Altitude Using Atmospheric Pressure ................................................................................ 107 Figure 93: Altitude using Static Pressure ............................................................................................ 107 Figure 15-1 Payload protrusions diagram .......................................................................................... 236 Table 18-1. Qualitative Measures of Likelihood ................................................................................ 243 Table 18-2. Qualitative Measures of Consequences ......................................................................... 244 Table 18-3. Legend.............................................................................................................................. 244 Table 18-4. Risk Analysis Matrix ........................................................................................................ 244 Table 18-5 Risk analysis matrix ........................................................................................................... 246

List of Tables
Table 1: Bolt Calculations (RoyMech 2008) .......................................................................................... 26 Table 2: Properties of Carbon Steel Bolts (Euler 2003) ......................................................................... 26 Table 3: Determined channels for each transducer .............................................................................. 37 Table 4: Mode switch set up for varying tasks ...................................................................................... 38 Table 5: Highest expected pressures for transducer locations ............................................................. 43 Table 6: Bolt selection for each interfacing component ....................................................................... 53 Table 7: Inlet Conditions in CFX-Pre ...................................................................................................... 76 Table 8: Outlet Conditions in CFX-Pre ................................................................................................... 76 Table 9: Payload Conditions in CFX-Pre ................................................................................................ 76 Table 10: Payload Conditions in CFX-Pre .............................................................................................. 77 Table 11: Pressure Transducer Calibration ........................................................................................... 83 Table 12: Theoretical Stagnation Pressures for Varying Mach Numbers ............................................. 85 Table 13: Theoretical Surface Pressures Calculated Using NACA Report 1135 .................................... 86 Table 14: Mesh Results for CFD ............................................................................................................ 91 Table 15: Test Data Using Different Pitch and Yaw Angles ................................................................... 92 Table 16: Raw CFD Data Obtained From CFX For P1, Pitch and Yaw Angles Kept at 0 ........................ 92 Table 17: Linear Setup for CFD Results ................................................................................................. 93 Table 18: Percent Difference in Pressure Values Compared to Yaw = 0, for Change in Yaw Angle, Pitch Angle Kept at 0 ............................................................................................................................ 95 Table 19: Error Percentage in CFD Compared to Theory .................................................................... 108 Table 20: Initial (Theoretical) Calibration Process Error ..................................................................... 110 Table 21: Approximation Error ............................................................................................................ 111 Table 22: Actual Calibration Process Error .......................................................................................... 111

2 Scope of Project
The Air Data System that will be designed must be able to measure the overall flight parameters of a Zuni rocket during the supersonic period of flight using a series of pressure transducers. This essentially means the designed payload will be a pressure probe customised for the Zuni rocket. Furthermore, as a benchmark for success, useable data should be obtained from an in-flight experiment conducted at the Woomera launch range. Some major parameters that must be determined from the Zuni test flight include the rockets angle of attack (Pitch and Yaw angle), altitude and Mach number. The project can be divided into three major sections. 2.1 Instrumentation and Nose Cone Design

In terms of the design, the nose cone needs to be modified into a pressure probe. This includes the nose cone as well as the supporting components (i.e. transducers and payload casing). The nose cones semi-vertex angle, mass and materials should be determined The nose cone must be able to incorporate pressure transducers located at various positions; one central transducer recording the total pressure and a determined amount of transducers around the base to measure the static pressure on the cone surface. Furthermore, the design must be able to use the Data Acquisition module named the F-Box, design by Franco Mario Rabines Lara. This DAQ module will sit inside a payload case attached to the nose cone. The pressure transducers used in-flight must be able to operate between the expected pressure ranges. They must also be able to interface with the nose cone either by screwing into the nose cone or via some sort of hosing. The end product needs be a fully assembled payload from the supplied separation module (payload/parachute separation interfacing plate) and up. 2.2 Computational Fluid Dynamics

The Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) section of the project involves the use of a CFD language to simulate the flight of the payload at various Mach numbers and angles of attack. The CFD language used is CFX, which is part of the simulation software ANSYS. The use of CFD allows for quick and easy estimations of possible pressure readings at the rockets expected flight conditions. This is to be done over the conventional wind tunnel test and calibration. The conventional wind tunnel testing and calibration process involves simulating real flow effects for short periods of times. However due to the hundreds of combinations that must be performed, the wind tunnel testing is too time consuming. In order to have an
1

effective CFD model the simulation is to be set up as realistically as possible. This involves reducing the amount of approximations and assumptions made by the solver. This is important so the solver does not over or under estimate the results which are to be used as a comparison to real world data. 2.3 Pressure Probe Calibration

The calibration section utilises both the recorded data from the instrumentation and the CFD sections in order to obtain useful data that can represent the flight attitude of the Zuni rocket. This process will take the voltage readings from the pressure transducers and convert them into the rockets angle of attack, Mach number and altitude. To have a successful and accurate model, the calibration process must include a detailed error analysis, working calibration software and the data must be presented in a clear and concise format. Some other considerations include a detailed risk analysis of the cone and payload manufacturing and further detailing the risks involved during the launching process. Furthermore a strict time line must be followed in order for all manufacturing, CFD simulations and calibration software to be ready prior to launch.

Literature Review

3.1 Pressure Probes

Almost all aircraft utilise some form of pitot-static system. It is common for aircraft, particularly commercial and light-wing aircraft to utilise up to ten components to make up a pitot-static system (Gavin Gillett). These components consist of; pitot tubes, static vents, static drains, static lines, pitot lines, secondary static sources, airspeed indicators, altimeters and vertical speed indicator. These usually determine in flight characteristics such as Mach number, altitude and velocity. However, a simplified instrument for measuring flow speeds and more importantly flow angularity, is a pressure probe. A simple pitot tube by itself is insufficient to measure the angle of attack (flow angularity). Rather a modified pitot tube consisting of multiple pressure transducers is used. An example of pressure probes being used in aerospace applications is NASAs Ares-X rocket. Its a large 5 hole pressure probe designed to record the mach number, altitude and angle of attack.

Figure 1: 5-hole Pressure Probe on Ares-X Rocket (Space Fellowship 2009)

As outlined by the Cambridge engineering department, pressure probes can be found in many forms. The most, common of the pressure sensitive direction probes are the cobra, the wedge, the five-hole and cylindrical probes (Hodson).
3.1.1 4 hole (Cobra Probe):

The 4 hole pressure probe is a simpler, smaller design that reduces any redundant information being collected (less pressures need to be calculated). It has a triangular shaped head as it is relatively easy to manufacture, accurate location of the side holes is less critical because of the absence of steep pressure gradients over most of the flat area in which the hole is located

and the positive location of flow separation at the junctions of the flat surfaces insures minimal sensitivity to Reynolds number (Shepard, I.C, 1981)

Figure 2: Cobra Probe (Chen, J et al 2000)

3.1.2

5 hole pressure probes:

The 5 hole pressure probe has more pressure calculations involved in the calibration technique than the 4-hole pressure probe. However, the axial-symmetric design allows for a more simplistic calibration process.

Figure 3: 5-hole pressure probe (Porro 2010)

In either case, the probes can be used to calculate the stagnation pressure, the static pressure and the flow angularity. However, when designing a pneumatic probe that is to be used in flow measurements, the effects of blockage, frequency response, pressure hole size and geometry, the local Mach and Reynolds numbers and the relative scale of the phenomena under investigation must be addressed (Porro 2010) Five hole angularity pressure probes are manufactured by some companies such as Aerolab. These require shock tunnel calibration before any practical application. They are also quite expensive and can price around US$1200.

An alternative to the pressure probe is a common vane which acts as a small airfoil. These are located on the front of the fuselage before the incoming airflow is disturbed.

Figure 4: Devices for measuring angles of attack (allstar 2008)

3.2

Response Time:

In order to achieve the most accurate results, fast response times for the pressure transducers are to be desired. In similar experiments traducers with nominal frequency response of 225 kHz(Porro 2010) were used.

However, it was also discovered that the response time of a pressure measurement system would be influenced by a connecting tube. The following graph shows the expected settling time for various set ups

Figure 5: Variation of the settling time as a function of the length of the connecting tube, for different internal diameters (Bajsi, et al 2007)

3.3

Computational Fluid Dynamics

Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is the use of computational software to analyse fluid flows. The software used can range from simple codes, to complex programs with advanced Graphical User Interfaces (GUI). These GUIs are most commonly used as they are able to create complex geometries, and set up a flow around the model quite easily to analyse. The use of CFD as an experimental tool has many advantages over conventional tests such as a wind tunnel test. This is due to being able to change geometry or flow properties quite easily using the CFD software. Whereas to undertake a wind tunnel test, the geometry needs to be manufactured and instrumentation set up inside the tunnel, and then tests run. If it is found the geometry is not satisfactory for the application it is needed for, the process needs to be started again with the manufacture of another model and testing. The use of CFD has increased dramatically over the past decade as a tool to optimise and analyse flow before a model is manufactured, as well as saving on time and money.
3.3.1 Experimental Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamic Results

However, the results of the CFD calculations for the pressure probe need to be assessed for their validity and accuracy before they are used in real world applications. This is because there are a number of assumptions the CFD code makes to be able to calculate the results more efficiently. These assumptions can either over-estimate the results, or significantly under-estimate the results. Neither of these results are ideal. This is because to accurately model an unknown flow exact values for pressures at specific velocities and angles are needed. The journal article Computational Fluid Dynamics: A Two Edged Sword (Baker, AJ et al, 1997) talks about these issues in depth. It looks at the legitimacy of using CFD to model air flow in a room. It states that CFD is a good visual tool, and can be used to help understand how a flow interacts with an environment. It is also able to measure miniscule values that would normally be too small to measure experimentally. However, due to the many assumptions and approximations that are originally made by the solver, the values obtained using CFD are not the correct values that would be found in a real life scenario. This means that to use CFD effectively, great care must be taken in the modeling, and set up of the flow parameters, so that the flow is modeled as realistically as possible. The main assumptions made by CFD solvers involve the turbulence models, as well as viscous effects for analysing boundaries in high velocity profiles. The turbulence model is a major contributing factor for all CFD flows. This can be because realistically there can be sections
6

of local turbulence in a flow, with the majority of the flow laminar. However, the CFD assumes that due to the small amount of turbulence that the entire flow is turbulent. This severely affects the quantitative results of the flow. Research papers have been written that are interested in determining the validity of CFD based on experimental data that is already possessed. These papers cover a broad range of fields, including medical, manufacturing, and the aerospace industry. However the conclusions made for the validity of CFD results compared to experimental results can be used across any application. Mylavarapu, G (et al, 2009) investigated the use of CFD as a non-invasive method to model the human upper airways to help determine the unsteady air flow in Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) patients. CFD is used due to the ability to easily change flow parameters and determine the effects that these have on people who have OSA. Magnetic Resonance (MR) and Computed Tomography (CT) imaging are used to create a 3D virtual model of a persons upper airways. This model is then analysed using CFD simulations to determine why there are problems, or where further problems could occur if the condition is exacerbated. The CFD experiment was conducted using various CFD flow models, and compared with experimental results, both for the same airway. The comparison showed that the CFD was able to model the trend of the experimental results, however, depending on the model, overestimated or under-estimated the result, compared to the experimental values. The closest CFD result measured within 20% of the experimental results. This is a significant error margin, with the model used both overestimating and underestimating the flow at different times. However Mylavarapu, G (et al, 2009) concluded that CFD could be used to analyse the flow, but use some experimental data to back up the CFD. Oberkampf and Trucano (2002) talk about the process of experimentally validating CFD data according to the AIAA Guide in the article Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics(2002). This process is shown in the Figure 6.

Figure 6: The AIAA method for the validation of a particular CFD solver

This shows the relationship between how a computational model can be used to accurately predict experimental results using the results of CFD simulations and experimental results. A series of experiments are performed, and then replicated in the CFD. The results from both of these are then compared and the differences assessed for a range of different experiments. A general inference can then be made from these comparisons. This inference is then made for every simulation run using this solver. However, Oberkampf and Trucano also state that it needs to be acknowledged that this inference is much weaker than actual experimental result. This is because even though CFD relies on theoretical solutions, it also has other issues involving cell sizes, discretisation, and etc. Due to this, there can be a significant error that the inference derived cannot predict, unless exactly the same CFD conditions are kept each time. However this is an unlikely scenario. Computational Fluid Dynamics is an extremely useful tool for qualitatively analysing flows as well as determining the best possible geometry of a model before being manufactured. However, to accurately analyse a flow over a model and gain quantitative results, the flow parameters need to be carefully set with as little assumptions and approximations made as possible to ensure a reasonably accurate result. The results gained from CFD should also be checked with theoretical results, as well as experimental results to determine the validity of the CFD for that particular model.

3.4

Calibration

The calibration of the five-hole pressure probe in supersonic conditions involves collating the recorded data from a flight and converting it into the total and dynamic pressure ahead of the shock and hence finds the flight Mach number, angle of pitch, roll and yaw. Through the literary review two main methods of calibration emerged, they are; the most commonly used conventional method and the relatively new Neural method. The conventional method outlined by Centolanzi (1957) involves finding calibration curves relating to potential fluid flow theory. This process is the simplest and evidence from other journal articles suggests that it is the most widely used method. The main advantage of this process is that it is widely used meaning that it is a refined process and there are numerous examples available. However, some disadvantages are that it can be a slow computing process for a large set of collated pressure values, due to the need for large amounts of initial calibrating data and the constant interpolation of those sets of data. Interpolation also leads to approximation error, which if done numerous times in a single process could lead to significant uncertainties in the final product. A brief outline of the process is as follows: 1. Find the ratio of the static pressure to total pressure behind the shock: a.
.

2. Assuming that angles of pitch and yaw are zero, we interpolate a plot determined by testing data to obtain the Mach number. 3. Using the mach number we interpolate the tables provided by Ames Research Staff (1953) to get the total pressure ratio, and the dynamic pressure ratio

4. Total Pressure before the shock can then be found: 5. The dynamic pressure before the shock is then given by:

6. Using the dynamic pressure the coefficients of pitch and yaw can be obtained: a. b. 7. Using the coefficients of pitch and yaw, interpolate the test data in order to gain an approximation for the angles of pitch, yaw and roll. 8. In order to correct the initial assumption that the angle of attack was zero, a correction factor must be applied to the initial ratio of static and total pressure. The new ratio is found by the following equation:
9

a.

9. The process is then repeated until the values of total and dynamic pressure before the shock, and respectively have converged

The second method found was the neural method (Hui-Yuan et al. 2003), which is a computational strategy that aims to simulate the biological processes that take place in the human brain. The code is made from a series of interconnected processing elements that individually seem insignificant, however, combined they can be used as a powerful tool for approximation of arbitrary or non-linear functions such as pressure probe calibration. It is a somewhat new method, but from previous tests it has been found to be quite accurate and unlike the conventional method, it is not a slow process nor does it compound error by continuously interpolating initial data sets. The code forms a good approximation for pressure calibrations by first being 'trained', this is done by simply importing a series of input and output values (Figure 7). The software will slowly find a pattern in the imported values and once 'training' is complete, it will be able to accurately output the data needed. In this case, the sets of initial collated pressure values will be imported and the program will output, the overall flight attitude and Mach number. Some advantages of this process includes a theoretically accurate result and a quick computing time. However, some disadvantages include; it is a fairly new and therefore untested method, the code needed to run this process would be incredibly complex, training the program would be time consuming and accurate methods of training are relatively unknown, which will lead to variable unknown errors in the final product.

Figure 7: Neural Network Calibration Method

10

Therefore, taking both methods into consideration, the conventional method was chosen as the process that will adequately suit the needs of this project. Although it is a slower computing process that will potentially produce larger error, it is much simpler to set up and in this case the error will be able to be quantified, giving a better indication of overall accuracy. The neural method would be a faster process to run and possibly more accurate, but the complexity of writing the code, training the program and the unquantifiable final error makes the option unfeasible.

11

Background Theory 4.1 Supersonic Flow and Shock Relations

The payload design attached to the Zuni rocket will experience speeds that are much higher than the speed of sound. The speed of sound can be defined as:

(1)

Where a is the speed of sound, k is the ratio of specific heats, R is the universal gas constant, and T is the temperature of the flow. At speeds higher than the speed of sound, shockwaves are formed at the front of the body. These shockwaves have a significant effect on the properties of the flow, changing the static temperature and pressure of the flow behind the shock as well as the overall flow velocity. We use a non-dimensional term to make calculating these flow parameters much easier. This term is the Mach number, where:

(2)

M is the Mach number, and V is the flow velocity. With shocks starting to form at M=1. The flow properties after a shock wave for a specific Mach number can be calculated using the isentropic flow relations, as well as the Compressible Flow Relations Tables found in Fluid Mechanics (White, 2008). 4.1.1 Types of Shocks There are two main types of shockwaves that can be formed in supersonic flow, a bow shock, or an oblique shock. 4.1.1.1 Bow Shock A bow shock is defined as a strong shock with is not attached to the body in the flow, however it sits in front of the body as a broad curved shock as shown on the right of Figure 8. As the flow passes through the bow shock, from a speed of M>1, it is slowed down to a speed of M<1, with the air flow curving away from its original path, until it is parallel from the body. The flow then expands away from the body as can be seen in Figure 8.
12

Figure 8: Figure showing the difference between Oblique shocks on the Left and Bow shocks on the Right. (White, 2008)

4.1.1.2 Oblique Shock An oblique shock wave is defined as a weak shock that is attached to the front of a body. It causes the flow to deflect at an angle , relative to the body that the shock is attached to. The , main difference between a bow shock and an oblique shock, other than one is attached to the than body and the other isnt, is that the flow behind an oblique shock wave can be supersonic, sonic or subsonic depending on the incoming Mach number. This flow is deflected completely parallel to the surface of the body as shown above on the left in Figure 8. ab 4.1.1.3 Prandtl-Meyer Expansion Waves Meyer There is a case where there is an isentropic expansion or compression through multiple oblique shock waves as flow moves around a corner or a bend. This effect can happen when s the body is at an angle of pitch or yaw to the flow, and the flow expands as it moves over the top of the body, or compresses as it moves underneath the body, as shown in Figure 9. As the flow expands around the corner, the Mach number increases, with a decrease in Mach number as the flow compresses.

13

Figure 9: The Definition of Prandtl-Meyer Expansion Waves (White, 2008)

4.1.2 Calculating Maximum Angle Ideally, it is required that there is an oblique shockwave formed at all Mach numbers experienced so that the flow is deflected instantly along the body. There is a maximum angle that the flow can be deflected for a specific Mach number, before an attached oblique shock can no longer be formed, but instead forms a strong bow shock, as shown in Figure 8. To ensure that an oblique shock is formed, we need to consider the maximum Mach number that the body could experience. The maximum angle for a specific Mach number is defined as:
/ /

(3)

Where:

(4)

The values for V are obtained from the Compressible Flow Relation Tables for specific Mach numbers.
(White, 2008)

4.1.3 Shock Relation Equations To calculate the flow conditions downstream of an oblique shock we need to consider the isentropic flow relations for a normal shock. This is because we can separate the components
14

of the incoming flow, to the normal and tangential components of the flow relative to the oblique shock, as shown in Figure 10.

Figure 10: How the velocity profile changes as it passes through an oblique shock, (White, 2008)

From this we can see that the tangential component of velocity is constant across the shock, however the normal component of velocity changes as it passes through the shock. The Mach Number Relations for the change in pressure and Mach number behind a normal shock are defined as: 1 2 1 2 1 1

(5)

(6)

Where k is the ratio of specific heats for a perfect gas, shock, with the Mach number after the shock.

is the Mach number before the

is the ratio of the pressures, where p2 is

the static pressure after the shock, and p1 the static pressure before the shock.

15

However, an oblique shock has an angle associated with it, as shown in Figure 10. This requires the angle of the shock to be known to calculate the ratio of pressures as well as the new Mach number. The normal component is related to the free-stream Mach number by:

(7)

sin is an arbitrary value for the angle of the shock and

(8)

is the deflection angle of the flow into the above pressure

parallel to the body. To find the pressure ratio, we substitute ratio equation: 1 2 1

(9)

To determine the Mach number after the shock, we need to use: 1 2 1

2 And then sub this into:

(10)

sin This will determine the total Mach number of the flow after the shock.

(11)

can be determined from the following figure, knowing the Mach number and angle of deflection, for a value of 1.4 for specific heat ratio.

16

Figure 11: Plot used to calculate the

value for oblique shocks, (White, 2008)

The figure above shows two possible values for graph represents

for each value of . The dotted line in the

, the point in which the oblique shock moves from a weak shock (on

the left), where the Mach number behind the shock is greater than 1, to a strong shock (on the right), where the Mach number behind the shock is less than 1. Ideally we will be looking at weak oblique shocks with less than .

Another way to check the pressure along the cone surface is to use Chart 6 from the NACA Report 1135 (Appendix D). These tables show pressure coefficient versus the semi-vertex angle for varying Mach numbers of the cone where the pressure coefficient is,

(12)

17

The following image indicates the necessary parameters required in order for this chart to be useable.

Figure 12: Conditions for calculating surface pressure (NACA1135)

4.1.4 Calculating Pressures for Yaw and Pitch Angles To determine the angle of deflection when there are angles of pitch and yaw, we can add, or subtract this angle from the deflection angle, depending on the direction of the flow. For example, if there is a pitch angle of , with a deflection angle of resultant deflection angle is defined as: when there is no pitch, the

(13)

(14)

This results in a non symmetrical oblique shock wave forming about the body, with a smaller value for the bottom deflection angle, and larger for the top. Using these new values for we can determine the static pressures on the top and bottom of the body. However, if there is no yaw angle involved when there is a pitch angle, or vice versa, the angle of deflection to calculate those pressures not affected by the added angle, is normal.

18

4.1.5 Stagnation Temperature and Pressure The stagnation temperature and pressure are also very important, in designing a body to handle high speed flows, as well as record the pressure. The stagnation pressure can be defined as: 1 Where 1

(15)

the stagnation is pressure before the shock and

is the static pressure of the flow

before the shockwave. We can also determine the stagnation temperature using the following relation:

(16)

is the stagnation temperature and

is the static temperature. is required. This can be calculated by

However, the stagnation pressure behind the shock finding the value for 4.2 /

in the normal shock relation tables found in (White, 2008).

Multi-hole Pressure Probe and Pitot-Static Tubes

The multi-hole pressure probe uses the above theory for shockwaves in supersonic flow, to act as a regular pitot-static tube. A pitot-static tube is used in many different fields to find the velocity of an unknown flow. It has an opening at the front of a tube which records the stagnation pressure of a flow. Around the edges of the tube, there are also holes, which feed back to pressure sensors to measure the average static pressure of the flow. As shown in Figure 13. The flow velocity can then be computed using the following equation:

(17)

19

is the density of the flow, V is the velocity, pressure of the flow.

is the stagnation pressure and

is the static

Figure 13: A Pitot-Static Tube (eFunda, 2010)

A multi-hole pressure probe, acts in exactly the same way as a pitot-static tube. However the shape is different. This is because as shown above, for supersonic flows, the flow is deflected from its original path. This means that a conventional pitot-static tube will not be effective, as it will be unable to measure the static pressure of the flow over the holes on the side, as the flow is directed away from the body shown above. However, due to the nature of oblique shocks, a conical shaped pressure probe can be developed, which will allow the pressure probe to act exactly like a pitot-static tube. This is because the flow is deflected parallel along the surface of the cone, so the average static pressure can be obtained. As shown in Figure 13. 4.3 Turbulence Effects over Cone

Ideally, for a flow interacting with a body with an angle of pitch or yaw the flow will instantly separate into two streams based on which oblique shock is passes through. However, even for
20

small angles of pitch and yaw, some of the flow does separate. At the front of the cone on the windward side, there is a build up of pressure similar to that of the stagnation point, with the leeward side having an absence of flow, and a significant decrease in pressure. This is a similar effect as to that seen for aerofoils for increasing angle of attack, creating a cavitation behind the aerofoil as seen in Figure 14.

Figure 14: Cavitation Effect (Stanford University, 2000)

This cavitation effect can significantly affect the results of the pressure measurements if the sensors are positioned too close to this area. Therefore to accurately measure the pressure on the sides of the probe, it is necessary to position the sensors a significant distance away from the effects caused by possible pitch and yaw angles. 4.4 Reflection of Pressure Waves

As flow enters the inlet of a duct that is blocked at one end, there can be reflections which can affect the incoming flow. This effect usually causes a decrease in pressure as the waves interact, however, if there is a build up of waves there can be a dramatic increase in pressure. This concept is much like acoustic waves interacting, with positive and negative amplitudes interacting. The length of the duct is a significant contributor to the whether there are severe pressure wave reflections. This is because the longer the pressure waves spend reverberating in the closed end duct; the longer it is affecting the results as pressure waves are absorbed causing readings at the end of the ducts to be inaccurate.
21

To avoid this something can be used to break up the pressure waves down the duct. This can be a permeable medium inside the duct that will not allow for the transfer of the pressure waves, however the pressure is still able to increase through the medium so the pressure transducer is able to measure the pressures accurately. 4.5 Computational Fluid Dynamics Usage in the Calibration of Pressure Probes

The use of CFD to calibrate the pressure probes involves determining the pressures at each pressure sensor, depending on the flow velocity and the angle of attack. Using these obtained values we are able to determine the velocity and angle at which the probe is in an unknown flow, such as on a rocket, or aircraft. Each pressure probe has a different set of calibration data, based on its geometry, number of sensors, and positions of sensors. Therefore each different pressure probe needs to be calibrated individually to ensure that it is accurately modeling the unknown flow. Generally, calibration of pressure probes is performed in a wind or shock tunnel, depending on the application. This process involves placing the probe into the tunnel, and simulating different flow conditions, including mean flow velocity and angle of attack. This is done to obtain pressures at each of the pressure sensors, and is used as a reference for when the probe is in use. However this is a very time demanding process. It involves having to place the model inside at the exact required angle of attack, start the wind tunnel and allow the flow to reach the desired flow velocity. Once the pressure sensors are reading a steady state flow, record the data, turn the wind tunnel off, and start all over again. This needs to be done for every possible scenario that the pressure probe may encounter while in use (all angles and all velocities), which, depending on the range of velocities, and angles, as well as the number of data points observed over the ranges. This number can become very large very quickly, over a factor 106 combinations quite easily. As each different combination takes time to set up, this process takes a very long time if not completely automated. Therefore there is a need to reduce this calibration time. A reduction in calibration time will speed up the process between the design and implementation phase of a pressure probe. CFD is able to be used to speed up this process. The overall geometry and boundary conditions only need to be set up once. From this point the flow conditions can be easily changed, depending on the angle or the velocity. The pressure distribution about the probe can

22

also be seen, and pressures can be obtained for the points where the pressure sensors are located on the probe. 4.5.1 Reducing the Computation Time Calculating a large number of data points in CFD can be extremely time consuming. However, there are some simplifications that can be made to reduce the amount of data points that need to be calculated. This is done by using simple mathematical relations to show that a lot of the data is the same or very similar to that of other data points. Thus determining which data points can be extrapolated from others. The following theory explains how this can be done. 4.5.2 Separating Velocity Components The velocity of a flow can be broken up into 3 separate velocity components using the directional vectors x, y, and z. Knowing the angle of the flow it is possible to use basic trigonometry to correctly determine these velocities. These velocity components are extremely important in setting up the flow conditions in CFD. The following equations can be used to determine the velocities in the x and y directions where there is no velocity component in the z-direction.

(18)

(19)

(20)

Where V is the actual velocity of the flow, and Velocity vector and the x-axis.

is the angle between the direction of the

The velocity component in z can be calculated the same way as in y, with the direction of the velocity vector and the x-axis. 4.5.3 Similarities in Pitch and Yaw Pressures

the angle between

is the same value as above.

For a 5-hole pressure probe, there are 4 equidistant spaced positions around the cone where the pressure is recorded. The opposite transducers are used to determine either the pitch or yaw angles. This is done by determining the difference in pressure from the leading edge in
23

the flow, to the trailing edge. This means that the transducer on the windward side would have a higher pressure than that on the leeward side. Using the above trigonometric theory, we can see that for the same the same value, as does to the pitch, and value, and produce contributes

for both cases. It can be assumed that the component

contributes to yaw, where x is the direction of the flow.

If this is the case, an angle of 5 yaw will produce the same pressures over the 4 sensors around the cone, as an angle of 5 pitch. However, the values of pressure will be rotated by 90. For example, if the four pressure sensors are labelled, P2, P3, P4 and P5:
, ,

From this, we can extrapolate to say that for calculating pitch and yaw values ranging between and , we only need to look at between 0 and , for either pitch or yaw, while leaving the other variable at 0. We can then use these results to determine what the pressure values are at every combination of pitch and yaw. This is because, if looking at 5 pitch and 5 yaw, there are 2 points in the leading edge and 2 points in the trailing edge. Knowing the pressure values for both these scenarios, we can correctly assume what the pressure values are. The full list of Pressure Values for every scenario can be found in Appendix K. 4.5.4 Roll To calculate roll we need to look at how the pressures change on each pressure sensor. For a constant angle of pitch and yaw, as the payload rolls, the pressures stay constant at the spatial positions; however, the sensors oscillate between these values. If we consider four points of roll, we can look at 0, 90, 180 and 270. Between 0 and 90, there is a curve that defines the transition between the two pressures at those points. Figure 15 below is an extract from the NASA Technical Note 3967, showing the effects of roll on the pressure coefficient for a Mach number of 1.95.

24

Figure 15: Roll Data vs. Pressure Coefficient for different Pitch Angles (NACA TN3967)

Each plot is for a different pitch angle. It can be seen that for large pitch angles, there is a definitive curve between each major point as defined above. However for low pitch angles, the progression from one point to the next is linear. Due to this we can assume that between 0 and 90, 90 and 180, 180 and 270, 270 and 0 it is entirely linear. This will make interpolating results much easier, as well as cutting back the number of CFD calculations required, as values for the four major points above can be easily defined using the data already obtained.
, , , ,

4.6

Bolt Calculations

As expected, flight conditions can be quite demanding on the mechanical system especially during launch, landing and the deployment of the parachute. A Zuni rocket can be expected to experience forces of up to 70 times that of normal gravity, the failure and design calculations for the mechanical fittings must be taken into consideration. The following equations should be applied to the proposed design.
25

Table 1: Bolt Calculations (RoyMech 2008)

Shear stress

Compressive Stress

4F D

F Dt

Plate Shear Stress

F 2ct

Furthermore to design for maximum shear stress the shear yield strength needs to be determined The Maximum Distortion Energy Theorem suggests that the shear yield strength = 0.577*normal yield strength.
Table 2: Properties of Carbon Steel Bolts (Euler 2003)

Properties of carbon steel bolts

Grade

Description

Proof

Load Tensile

Yield Tensile Ultimate Strength, MPa 400 420

Stress, MPa 4.6 4.8 low or medium carbon steel 225

Strength, MPa 240 340

low or medium carbon steel, 310 fully or partially annealed

5.8

low or medium carbon steel, 380 cold worked

420

520

8.8

medium

carbon

steel, 600

660

830

quenched and tempered 9.8 Low or medium carbon 650 steel, quenched and
26

720

900

tempered 10.9 medium carbon steel, 830 940 1040

quenched and tempered 12.9 alloy steel, quenched and 970 tempered 1100 1220

4.7

Calibration

The objective of this section is to take the pressure values recorded from a Zuni rocket flight , use the CFD data to calibrate those values and return a model of the flight attitude at supersonic speeds. The variables which will be describing the flight are; the Mach number, are; angle of pitch, angle of yaw and flight altitude (Figure 16). Using a series of fluid flow and shock relations a good estimate of these variables can be found. The processes for finding the flight attitudes for every data point recorded over the flight were as follows: fligh

Figure 16: Angles of Pitch and Yaw

4.7.1 Determination of Mach Number The first step in the calibration process was to find the ratio of static pressure to pitot pressure (23). It was observed that at varying angles of pitch and yaw, the static pressure would largely . vary across the four transducers around the base; however, averaging those values out gives a good indication of the actual static pressure and enables the value to be essentially invariant at the estimated Mach number. Next an assumption was made that the angles of pitch and yaw
27

of the rocket were equal to zero. This assumption will later be corrected, however, it allows for the initial determination of the Mach number by interpolating the CFD data and the ratio of static pressure to pitot pressure (Figure 18). Using this initial Mach number the flow angles can be estimated, the process for doing so is described in section 4.7.2Determination of Flow Angles. Once the flight angles have been found a correction factor is reapplied to the ratio of static to pitot pressure, which will then re-estimate the Mach number and hence re-evaluate all other values. The process is continued until all values have converged. However, it must be noted that the initial assumption of the flight angle equalling zero will not adversely affect the end results due to the fact that the static and pitot pressures hardly vary at the calculated Mach number. This can be seen in Appendix D Correction Factors, where at supersonic mach numbers there is minimal variation of ratio of total and static pressures due to pitching. Further evidence that the flight angle has little dependence on the resulting Mach numbers can be seen in the low variance of pitot pressure due to varying speeds and pitch angles (Figure 17). This therefore provides enough evidence that Equation (23) which defines Mach number in this calibration process has little dependence on the flight angles. Thus, only a small correction factor will need be applied to find the 'true' Mach number.

Effect of pitch on pitot pressure

1 0.2 0.4 pitot pressure ratio 0.8 0.6 0.8 0.6 1 1.2 0.4 1.4 1.6 1.8 0.2 2 2.2 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 angle of pitch 2 4 6 2.4 8

1.2

Figure 17: Effect of Pitch on Total Pressure

28

Mach number
0.2 0.15 Pa/Pt2 0.1 0.05 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Mach Number 2 2.5 3

Figure 18: Variation of Mach Number With Respect to Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Total Pressure

4.7.2 Determination of Flow Angles For the flight angles of a supersonic vehicle to be found, initially the total pressure before the shock, and the dynamic pressures, had to be calculated. The total pressure is a function

of the pitot pressure, angle of attack and Mach number and therefore follows a similar process to that of the determination of the Mach number where the angle of attack is initially ignored and a correction factor will be later applied, but as mentioned, this assumption is not detrimental to the end results. Furthermore, ongoing from the assumption that the angle of attack is zero, results reported from Gracey et al. (1951), show that at any supersonic Mach number the shock relations associated with a supersonic nose cone can be related to normal shock theory. Thus the total pressure ratio (25) can be found by interpolating the tables located in the NACA Report 1135 (1953). The tables were interpolated by finding a polynomial relationship that would input the Mach number and output the corresponding total pressure ratio, a method to complete this task can be seen in 8.4.5 Total and Dynamic Pressure. The total pressure can then be calculated using the relationship seen in Equation (26). The dynamic pressure is determined by a similar method, in that it utilises the polynomial relationship which exists between the Mach number and the ratio of dynamic pressure to total pressure to return the dynamic pressure ratio needed. The resulting dynamic pressure can then be calculated using Equation (28). Utilising across the sets of opposed transducers, the coefficients of pitch and yaw ( C and C and the pressure differences

respecitely) can be calculated (Equation). The matrix plots (4.7.4 Probe Calibration Matrix) generated with CFD data can then be interpolated with the coefficients of pitch and yaw at each Mach number in order to find the angles of pitch and yaw.
29

4.7.3 Correction Factor As mentioned, in order to correct the initial assumption that flight angles were equal to zero a correction factor is introduced. It simply measures the deviation of the ratio of static to pitot pressure at different angles to the zero angle point. As can be seen in Appendix D Correction Factors, the deviation due to pitching at high Mach numbers tends to be minimal, indicating that the initial error was not large. Once the correction factor is applied to the static to pitot pressure ratio, the process is repeated until the value of Mach number has converged. By applying this correcting factor it continuously minimises the deviation of the static to pitot pressure ratio from its actual value at the specified angle, therefore continuously improving the solution. 4.7.4 Probe Calibration Matrix The probe calibration matrix is a plot of the variables obtained (C , C , , ) from the CFD

modelling. An example of the plot can be seen in Figure 19(All other plots are located in Appendix E Probe Calibration Matrices. The probe calibration matrix was obtained by initially finding the coefficients of pitch and yaw, found by the processes outlined in 8.4.5 Total and Dynamic Pressure. These data points were then plotted using simple plotting software. The matrix forms a good representation of the flow fields at varying Mach numbers and provides a good reference for quickly determining the angles of pitch and yaw once the corresponding coefficients have been calculated. As can be seen in Appendix E Probe Calibration Matrices the data points seem equidistant apart, with lower variance levels at high supersonic speeds. The consistent plotting pattern is what should be expected from a CFD calibration due to the fact that computer simulations have constant ambient values, unlike real life testing which would have various inconsistencies due to experimental losses.

30

Mach 2.2
0.15

0.1

0.05 Coefficient of Yaw

0 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

-0.1

-0.15 Coefficient of Pitch

Figure 19: Example of Probe Calibration Matrix

4.7.5 Determination of Altitude Located inside the payload was a sixth pressure transducer which was utilised to record the atmospheric pressures as the altitude of the rocket changed over time. The US standard atmosphere (1976) and the Earth Atmospheric Model (Glenn Research Centre, 2010) Equation were utilised in order to calibrate the ambient pressure values to obtain flight altitude. The resulting calibration plots and function relating ambient pressure to altitude for the US Standard (1976) model can be seen in Figure 20. As a further comparison of the data, the same models were applied to the calculated average static pressure; this was simply done in order to check the accuracy of the pressure values recorded and consistency in the results.

31

US Standard Atmosphere Model (Pressure vs. Altitude)

90000 80000 70000 60000 Altitude (m) 50000 40000 30000 20000 10000 0 -10000 0 20 40 60 Pressure (kPa) 80 100 120 y = -6978ln(x) + 32471 R = 0.9994 Series1 Log. (Series1)

Figure 20: US Standard Atmosphere Model

101.29

0.00649

288.08

273.1

15.04

(21)

32

5 -

Assumptions Maximum speed payload can reach is M=2.6, however, M=3 is used to calculate optimum angles and pressures Flight time at supersonic speeds ends between 6-10 seconds The range of pitch and yaw angles experienced are between -7 and 7 Acceleration forces can reach 70g Viscous effects are negligible when performing CFD calculations The payload will experience a roll effect. For a constant angle of pitch and yaw there is a linear progression between pressures at 0 and 90, 90 and 180, etc. Pressures on surface of cone are the same as pressure at the end of tubing Due to small length of tubing there is a negligible response time reading the pressure from the surface to the pressure transducer An oblique shock is created at all times when the payload is at speeds above M=1 Heat transfers and thermal expansion are neglected due to the short flight time CFD results are comparable to real world applications Data is recorded by the DAQ at a rate of 1kHz for approximately 20 seconds

Limitations 6.1 6.2 Zuni 10 kg minimum weight of the payload for attachment to the Zuni The Zuni has a radius of 130mm Manufacturing Length of drill bits capable to drill through long sections of the cone limited to greater than 200mm Minimum diameter for drill bits capable of drilling to 200mm is limited to 63.5mm () Copper Tubing outer diameter is limited to Hosing has to fit onto transducer flange (4.92mm) and be able to be molded to fit onto the copper tubing All designed sections must be able to be manufactured in the workshop or instrument lab. Finances are to be minimized. Transducers should be inexpensive. Design should avoid the need to order anything else a part from transducer (i.e. Swaglok connections).
33

6.3 -

Assembly Make assembly as easy as possible while still meeting design requirements Must be able to physically connect plastic tubing to copper tubing by hand Lengths of tubing, and cables from pressure sensors are limited in length due to the space available in the payload case

Due to small space, need to be able to install the components into the payload case with all cables and tubing completely attached together

6.4 -

CFD Simulations Restricted to using CFX within ANSYS to calculate CFD results Limited maximum number of elements in CFD Mesh due to processing power and allowable computational time

Limited time to perform excessive amount of pitch, yaw, mach combinations

34

Previously Designed Components 7.1 Data Acquisition

7.1.1 Overview The in-flight data acquisition module is Franco Laras F-Box (Lara 2007). This modular DAQ module is based off Dr. Peter Jacobs data logger The F-box was constructed specifically for the Zuni rocket and was intended to be compatible with many types of sensors (i.e. pressure, temperature, acceleration etc). The ability for the F-box to be reconfigured makes it a suitable acquisition module for almost any future Zuni experiment. The F-box was design with the following parameters [4]: It is capable of recording analog signals for up to 10 channels (2 connected to accelerometers). A recording time of up to 20 seconds. The recording time is user specified and can be between 10 to 20 seconds. Has a maximum sample rate of 1Khz Has a capability of storing up to 256KB. Has a resolution of 10 bits. The I/O communication board allows for stored data to be downloaded via a serial communication protocol. The module is self powered by two 9V batteries Has the input channels readily accessible and fits inside a customised payload case. Has a mass of approximately 2.5 kg

The F-box has two modalities. Communication Mode: In this mode, the device can talk to the computer. In communication mode, information can be stored or downloaded. Furthermore, the settings such as sample rate and recording time can be set. A manual analog read of each channel can be tested to help with calibration. Record Mode: There are two sub settings while the device is in this mode. While the write-protection cable is connected, the information that the channels are reading are stored into a circular buffer. When the break-wire event occurs and the cable is unplugged, the data from the circular buffer is then stored in the EEPROM chip and every sample read is also stored in a round robin fashion into the memory.
35

Figure 21: F-Box data acquisition module (Lara 2007)

7.1.2 Modifications There were a few difficulties associated with the F-Box. Firstly, previous years had modified F Box. the board, and as such it had to be converted back to the default configuration. Additionally, the microchip was damaged during an installation and the power cables were found to be cut in half. Furthermore, the socket configuration for each of the analog channels was rearranged of as follows.

Figure 22: Channel Configuration

It was found that some of the channels were faulty or unable to be used for the experiment. Logically, there had to be six operational channels to record the signals coming from the six transducers. The following table shows which channels were assigned to what transducer.

36

Table 3: Determined channels for each transducer

Channel 2 through to 5 6

Transducer Base transducers recording static pressure Transducer located inside the payload case recording the atmospheric pressure

Central

transducer

recording

the

total

pressure on the nose of the cone

The mode switch on the I/O communications board has varying set ups depending on which task is required. 7.1.3 Mode Switch
Power to Transducers Power to Processing Board Mode Switch Clear Memory

37

Table 4: Mode switch set up for varying tasks :

Condition Set up for Communication mode: (Breakwire not connected)

Connection Layout

Set up to talk to the transducers: (Breakwire not connected)

Set up for memory clear: (Breakwire connected)

Set up to record: (Breakwire connected)

Set up for live flight experiment: (Breakwire connected)

7.2 Separation Module

The separation module is an interfacing plate which connects the payload case to the electronics module of the parachute tube. It has an internal diameter of 117mm which fits into the end of the payload case. As seen in Appendix A - Assembly the separation module connects to the payl payload tube and the parachute tube with 6 x M6 bolts. The separation plate was provided by ASRI and was unmodified for the entirety of the project.

38

Figure 23: Separation Module

Detailed Design 8.1 Design Requirements

As stated in the scope, the payload had to act as a pitot-static system capable of determining flow angularity. As such few design requirements had to be met. Payload (From separation module and up) had to reach a minimum mass of 10kg Due to the ability to take advantage of axial symmetric qualities the air data system was decided to be a 5-hole pressure probe Pressure transducers had to be able to operate within the expected pressure ranges Heat transfers and thermal expansion would be neglected due to the short flight time. Time during supersonic flows was expected to be only about 5-6 seconds. All sections must be easily assembled. All designed sections must be able to be manufactured in the workshop or instrument lab. 8.2 Preliminary Design

8.2.1

Nose Cone

The initial nose cone design was based on the draft provided in the 2005 ASRI Payload guide (see Appendix C ASRI Payload Guide). However, modifications had to be made in order to meet the project requirements. The nose cone was to act as a pressure probe. In order for this transformation to occur, five holes had to be positioned around the nose cone; one at the tip of the nose (i.e. a forward facing cavity). The positions of the other four transducers were to be decided upon a later date. Initially their positions were to be chosen after CFD had been run.

The following figure represents an artistic impression of the preliminary design. (It should be
39

noted; the hole positions, sizes and bluntness of tip were yet to be design and are merely artist impressions).

Figure 24: Preliminary design of nose cone

As you can see this was a rather simplistic conical design with a 12 semi vertex angle. As seen in the section Theory - It was approximately 13cm in diameter and was initially intended to be made out of an Aluminium Alloy.

8.2.2

Pressure Transducers

Literature review suggested the need for high frequency high response pressure transducers. As stated by Porro 2010, pressure transducers with a nominal frequency of 225 KHz were utilized. This was considered too high and instead it was initially decided to utilise similar transducers that were used on previous test launches (i.e. the Honeywell 19C500PA4K) 8.3 Final Design

8.3.1 Nose Cone From the preliminary design, the nose cone underwent extensive modifications.

Firstly, it was discovered that there was a minimum payload mass limit of 10kg. The original design of a thin walled aluminium cone was significantly inadequate (3-4 kg). As such, the nose cone material was re evaluated and was changed to mild steel. Ideally, non rusting steel (such as stainless steel grade 316) would have been optimum. However, consultations with the manufacturers eliminated this as an option due to the difficulties in respect to machining and working with the metal. Furthermore, it was estimated the manufacturing time would have at least doubled and as such to reduce the project cost a compromise was made and mild
40

steel was chosen. The final mass of the nose cone was approximately 10 kg. The following figure demonstrates the thickness change from initial design to final design.

Figure 25: Comparing the section cut of the initial design to the final design

In terms of the actual design, the conical walls were thickened to further increase the mass of the payload. However, the internal section (hollow) had to be kept spacious enough to allow for transducer and hose assembly. The cone still maintained its 12 semi vertex angle. It had a base diameter approximately 13 cm and was 330 long. The nose cone was designed to bolt onto the DAQ payload case using 6 x M5 bolts.

Figure 26: Manufactured nose cone sitting on top of payload case

41

The pressure holes were designed to be in diameter (four base holes and the forward facing cavity). This was to allow a OD copper tubing to be placed inside the four base holes. They were cut long enough to protrude into the internal hollow sect section when sitting flush with the outer surface of the cone (see Strip Board and Interface section for the purpose of the copper tubing).

Figure 27: Inside of nose cone showing the protruding copper tubing :

The forward facing cavity also had copper tubing placed inside. This copper tubing was positioned such that it was sitting flush with the central transducer. It was cut so it only extended half the length of the forward facing cavity. This was so the diameter was reduced to minimise resonance in the cavity. It also served to stop the steel wool from reaching and blocking the transducer. The steel wool also helped reduce resonance in the cavity.

Figure 28: Image showing the internal section of the forward facing cavity :

42

8.3.2 Pressure Transducer Selection Three important aspects had to be considered in the selection of the pressure transducers; the operating range, the size of the transducer and whether the transducers needed to measure gauge or absolute.

The maximum expected pressures for various locations based on worst case scenarios were calculated using the appropriate theory. (See Theory Shock Relation Equations)
Table 5: Highest expected pressures for transducer locations

Location

Measuring

Theory Used

Mach

Worst

Worst Case Pressure (kPa) 1221.8

Number Case Pressure (psi) Forward Stagnation Normal Theory Shock 3 177.2

facing cavity (Total) Pressure (central transducer) Base of Cone Static Along Surface Inside Payload the Atmospheric Pressure

Pressure Oblique Cone Theory

Shock 3

45.64

314.67

Atmospheric Model

14.69

101.3

Firstly, as seen in the above table worst case pressures for the forward facing transducer was expected to be about 177 psi (1221.8 kPa). In order to simplify the calibration process a transducer capable of recording 300 psi absolute was desire able. However, due to stock limitations and budget restrictions, only a transducer capable of recording gauge pressure was available. The chosen model was the SSI Technologys P51-300-G-B-I36-4.5V-R. This transducer operates between 0 300 psi gauge. An additional transducer (Freescale MPX5100AP) was then needed to be placed inside the payload casing to record the ambient pressure of the atmosphere and thus absolute pressure could be deducted. Furthermore, the
43

transducer needed to have the 1/8 NPT male connection port to screw into the nose cone. The cone had been designed so this transducer would be screwed into the internal section, eliminating any need for a hosing interface. Ideally this would have been perfect for all transducers as it would have eliminated extra manufacturing and assembly time and would have reduced pressure settling time; however restrictions with the project budget eliminated this as a feasible option.

Figure 29: SSI Technology. P51-300-G-B-I36-4.5V-R

In terms of the four transducers recording the static pressures around the base of the nose cone, the expected maximum pressure was calculated to be 45.64 psi (314.67 kPa). Additionally, no NPT connection was required as they were designed to be installed (soldered) into an electrical board and positioned inside the payload case. As such, a more economical transducer was selected; the Freescale MPX5700AP. This small temperature compensated, integrated Silicon pressure transducer had an operating range of 700kPa and measured the absolute pressure. Furthermore, this particular model was chosen because the diaphragm inside the transducer would be aligned perpendicular to the axis of the main acceleration. This was crucial such that the initial impulse of the rocket did not affect any of the readings. (See Appendix G-Transducer Data Sheets for both transducer data sheets).

44

Figure 30: Freescale MPX5700AP

All pressure transducers had an onboard signal conditioning and amplifying chip which removed the need for any amplifiers to be installed onto the data acquisition module. 8.3.3 Strip Board and Interface The four transducers were soldered into an electrical strip board (vero board). This board was originally intended to be screwed into the nose cone as shown below.

Figure 31: Picture from bottom of nose cone showing redundant bolt holes

45

Figure 32: Redundant back plate designed to support the original strip board

However, this configuration only applied to the originally chosen transducer model. When the new MPX5700AP transducers were ordered it became impossible due to space restrictions for the strip board to be installed inside the nose cone. Rather, the strip board was then designed to be stationed inside the payload case.

The strip board is a rather simple design. The 4 transducers were soldered into the board and compensation capacitors (100nf) were also soldered as close to the transducers as possible. These were used to reduce any noise associated with the response of the transducer. The strip board was cut to size and a circular hole was cut from the middle to allow the cables from the central transducer and the four base transducers to pass through to the DAQ module.

Figure 33: Hole cut in the middle of the board to allow cables to reach the DAQ module

46

The strip board rests on a metal support plate which screws into the payload case using M3. The board is also held down by a support ring (i.e. the strip board is sandwiched between the support plate and support ring) which screws into the support plate using M3 bolts as shown below.

Figure 34: The strip board assembly showing the support ring holding down the vero board to the support plate :

The support ring and strip board are both unthreaded to allow for easy assembly. Furthermore the base plate and ring are lined with an electrically insulative rubber so none of the electrical circuits are shorted when installed.

Figure 35: Electrical insulation on the support ring ad support plate :

The transducers were connected to the copper tubing inside the nose cone via a flexible hosing. This plastic hosing had an internal diameter of 4 mm and fit nicely on the flanged onto connection of the transducer which had a maximum radius of 4.92 mm. Connecting it to the copper tubing was more difficult. The flexible tubing had to be placed into boiling water
47

and forced onto a spare piece of copper tubing. This remoulded the hosing at one end so it would now fit onto the copper tubing.

Figure 36: Flexible hosing in boiling water

8.3.4 Payload Case and Window The original payload case that was designed for the DAQ module could not be used for this particular project. Firstly, there was no way for it to connect to the nose cone or the separation module and there wasnt any room to drill these holes either. Instead a new payload case had to be designed for this specific project. It also had to incorporate enough room to allow for the electrical strip board to sit inside. The new payload tube was based off the old design, in that it was a simple conical aluminium tube thick with the necessary holes drilled/tapped into the appropriate positions. (See Appendix A Engineering Drawings for design and location of holes). All holes were countersunk so the bolts could sit flush on the tube to reduce drag. Furthermore, flat bolts were also determined to be impractical on the curved payload tube surface.

48

Figure 37: Original payload case (left) and the new payload case(right)

Like the previous design, a small window had to be cut out of the case such that the DAQ I/O communications board could be accessed when assembled. This was necessary so the DAQ module could be armed (set to record mode) whilst on the launch pad.

Furthermore, a small window cover had to be made to protect the electronics in flights. It needed to have a hole cut out of the bottom so the breakwire could be attached. It was also lined with the electrically non conductive rubber to avoid any short circuits. This was bolted onto the case with 4 M3 countersunk bolts.

Figure 38: Payload case cover

Finally it was desirable to be able to connect the breakwire to the outside of the payload case rather than stick it directly into the DAQ module. The rapid disconnection may cause damage to the I/O communications board or may get stuck coming out of the window cover
49

So a small connection (similar to that on the I/O board) was glued (using an epoxy: araldite) to the outside of the payload case. This connection was soldered to an extension which would case. be connected into the I/O board upon the assembly of the payload. The break wire would then be connected to the adaptor on the payload.

Figure 39: Breakwire adaptor

8.3.5 Manufacturing Processes

Nose Cone: The nose cone was made from a cylindrical block of mild steel with a cross

sectional diameter of 15cm. The internal sections were removed on the manual lathe and the outer shape was then shaped. Once the shape was finished the holes and threads were drilled finished or tapped. The copper tubing was cut to size and adhered in place using Loctite.

In terms of complications, the internal section was discovered to be fairly restrictive. However, this was unable to be remedied as the nose cone needed as much mass as possible. Furthermore, as it was made from mild steel, it began to rust. This was combated with a wipe down after every time it is handled. The rust can also be removed with fine sandpaper and some kerosene.

Payload Case: The payload tube was manufactured from a cylindrical piece of aluminium.

The outer diameter was already at the right dimensions, it just needed to be bored out to get it

50

to the correct thickness. The design was converted to the appropriate CAD file and the holes were then produced in the CNC. Finally, the window was manually cut out.

A problem arose when trying to assemble the entire payload. The case appeared to be too tight. After an evaluation it appeared that when the window was cut out, the cylindrical case had distorted somewhat and so it had lost its perfect cylindricity. To overcome this, the internal diameter had to be rebored so the DAQ module could fit in without excessive force being required.

After the manufacturing of the payload case, a full assembly was performed. This highlighted a major interface issue with the parachute/payload module. Pre 2004 this module was assembled using M5. Because the payload case was designed using the earlier ASRI payload guides, it was manufactured with 6 M5 countersunk holes. However, it was soon discovered that the later separation modules were made with M6 holes. This meant the payload case had to be worked on again and the holes made bigger.
8.3.6 Bolt Design

Each component has to withstand different force loadings. As such the bolts should be designed accordingly for each part. 8.3.7 Nosecone to Payload case bolts Firstly, the nose cone was designed so it had a lead in edge. This was intended to lower the shear stresses being translated into the bolts. However, for the sake of implementing the worst case scenario, this lead in edge was not considered. Additionally, the friction between the case and nose cone was neglected, such that it should be assumed the shear force is carried by the bolts alone. Furthermore, an acceleration of 70g was incorporated at a launch angle of 70. The nose cone was approximated to be 10kg.

51

Figure 40: Forces acting on the nose cone. Shows the bolt position and configuration of a section cut :

Since the birth of the first design, it was intended to have 6 bolts equispaced around the base of the cone. The bolts were assumed to be of Grade 5.8 and as such had a tensile yield . strength of 420 MPa. More importantly the shear yield strength was 242.3 MPa ( y = ( 0.577Sy). The bolts are only hand tightened so pre tensioning is not a consideration. Furthermore, for simplicity reasons we have assumed the bolts do not undergo significant tensile loading. Very small moment forces were calculated around the bolt centre. In respect to the other interfacing components (listed below), the same method for espect determining the required bolt sizes were carried out and the results were as follows.

52

Bolt Selection
Table 6: Bolt selection for each interfacing component

Connection

Number of Shear Force Bolts

Required Area

Bolt Selection

Nose Cone to Payload Strip Board to Payload Case DAQ Module to Payload Case Payload to Separation Module Case cover to payloads case

1075.48 N

4.438 mm

M5 Countersunk

75.28 N

0.31 mm

M3 Countersunk

215.1 N

0.88mm

M3 Countersunk

1398.12 N

5.769 mm

M6 Countersunk

Negligible

M3 Countersunk

For manufacturing simplicity, the bolts connecting the DAQ module and the strip board to the payload case were selected to be M3. According to the above table, this is over engineered. However, the DAQ module was manufactured with the M3 holes so the bolts had to be of this size. Furthermore, the above calculations were based on absolute worst case. The safety factors are already included in the shear force calculations. The bolts that hold the payload window cover to the case undergo a negligible drag force due to the insignificant reference area. 8.4 Calibration Code Design

8.4.1 Introduction As mentioned, the entire calibration process described in 4.7 Calibration would have to be carried out on every recorded data point, indicating that it is a highly iterative process, requiring thousands of calculations and repetitions. In order to calculate the high volume of equations needed to complete the process, Python, a coding language was utilised. The
53

completed code can be seen in Appendix B Code. Figure 41 shows a brief overview of the calibration process.

Figure 41: Overview of Calibration Process

54

8.4.2 Importing Data The initial step in the coding process involved the importing of all the data needed. This includes; CFD data, Flight Data and tables from NACA Report 1135 (1953). The data was initially presented in an Excel spreadsheet format and later converted into a CSV file format, which was imported into python using a simple CSV importer. Note that in order to save on computing time the data required for creating the probe calibration matrixes and hence the data needed to interpolate for angles of pitch and yaw was calculated prior to importing into Python. 8.4.3 Obtaining Initial Values Figure depicts the step by step process run by the Python source code to calculate the initial variables from the flight data. Most processes were completed by simply iterating through the flight data and inserting them in to the mathematical functions required. However, to obtain values such as Mach number, total pressure and dynamic pressure, various methods of interpolation had to be utilised.

55

Figure 42: Determination of Coefficients of Pitch and Yaw

8.4.4 Mach Number As mentioned, to obtain the Mach number a series of initial calculations must be carried out to calculate the needed ratio of average static to pitot pressure. The process to obtain this value is outlined in greater detail in 9.5 Code Procedure. Once the static to pitot ratio of pressures was calculated, a rational function interpolation definition was created and used in Python to estimate the Mach number. The relationship between the two values can be seen in Figure 45. Rational functions which are quotients of polynomials are used in this instance due to the unusual relationship that exists between the subsonic, transitional and supersonic flows and static to pitot pressure ratios. interpolation method: The following equation is a representation of rational

56

(22)

The need for using a rational means of approximation is due to the original function containing regions of rapid change (due to change in flows), which simply could not be modelled by polynomial relationships. It must be stated however, that this particular method for approximation was not as effective for subsonic flow, due to its more polynomial relationship, and a better approximation for supersonic flows would be an exponential relationship, however, when the two states had to be modelled by the same function, rational approximation was by far the most accurate and effective method found.

Mach number >1

3 2.5 2 Pa/Pt2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.02 0.04 0.06 0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 y = 4.7493e-8.944x R = 0.9842

Mach Number

Figure 43: Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Total Pressure vs. Mach Number (M>1)

57

Mach number <1

0.07 0.06 0.05 0.04 Pa/Pt2 0.03 0.02 0.01 0 -0.01 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 Mach Number y = -0.8909x4 + 1.8585x3 - 1.3304x2 + 0.4061x - 3E-14 R = 1

Figure 44: Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Total Pressure vs. Mach Number (M<1)

Mach number
0.2 0.18 0.16 0.14 Pa/Pt2 0.12 0.1 0.08 0.06 0.04 0.02 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Mach Number 2 2.5 3 CFD Data Rational Approximation

Figure 45: Comparison of CFD data to Rational Approximation

8.4.5 Total and Dynamic Pressure The total and dynamic pressures are determined by the Mach number. The calculation process for obtaining each of the pressure values is detailed in 9.5 Code Procedure. However, similar to the process for obtaining Mach number, a series of data points needed to be interpolated in order to obtain the total and dynamic ratios needed to calculate q and P . In this situation the

relationship between Mach number and the 2 pressure ratios was much more constant and could therefore be modelled by a polynomial function. To obtain the coefficients needed for
58

the polynomial interpolation, the in-built function 'numpy.polyfit' was used. To ensure that the polynomial model was a good fit, it was first checked using Microsoft Excel (plots can be seen in Figures 45, 46 and 47). Polynomial coefficients were for the total pressure ratio below and above Mach 1 and for the entire range of dynamic to total pressure ratio. These coefficients were then applied to a definition which was used for the interpolation and determination of both pressure ratios. With the total pressure ratio and ratio of dynamic to total pressure obtained Equations (26) and (28) can be used to calculate the total and dynamic pressure. The dynamic pressure can then be used to find the coefficients of pitch and yaw.

Total Pressure Ratio vs. Mach Number < 1

1.2 1 Total Pressure Ratio 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 Mach Number 0.8 1 1.2

y = 0.3565x3 - 0.8512x2 + 0.0239x + 0.9991 R = 1

Figure 46: Total Pressure Ratio vs. Mach Number (M<1)

59

Total Pressure Ratio vs Mach Number > 1

1.2 1 Total Pressure Ratio 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 y = -0.0339x4 + 0.3936x3 - 1.5747x2 + 2.2035x + 0.0084 R = 1

Mach Number

Figure 47: Total Pressure Ratio vs. Mach Number (M>1)

Ratio Dynamic Pressure to Total Pressure vs. Mach Number

0.5 0.45 Dynamic Pressure Ratio 0.4 0.35 0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 y = 0.0074x6 - 0.1055x5 + 0.5799x4 - 1.4731x3 + 1.5306x2 - 0.1804x + 0.0089 R = 0.9998

Mach Number

Figure 48: Ratio of Dynamic Pressure to Total Pressure vs. Mach Number

8.4.6 Determination of Flow Angles The process for determining flow angles involves the utilisation of the dynamic pressure to find the coefficients of pitch and yaw and the interpolation of those values within a matrix plot (Appendix E Probe Calibration Matrices) for a specified Mach number. Figure 49 explains the method used in order to interpolate the matrix plots.

60

Figure 49: Flow Diagram Describing Interpolation of Probe Calibration Matrix

The initial step was to create an array of zeroes that would eventually house the solution variables ([, , Correction Factor, M]). A correction factor is returned because as mentioned,
61

it will later be applied to correct the initial assumption of angles of attack equalling zero. The scope of the design project is for the modelling of a supersonic flight, therefore a restriction was set that the process would only be carried out for calculated Mach numbers between 1 and 2.6. Mach 2.6 was chosen as the maximum boundary because the calibration data from the CFD analysis was only completed up to Mach 2.6. This section of the code is a type of 'smart' code that works by referencing the previous time step in order to decide the most appropriate values for the current time step. This means that in order for this process to work, an initial condition had to be set, this initial condition was ([ = 0, = 0, Correction Factor = 0, M = 0]). Once the initial conditions are set, the process for interpolating the probe calibration matrix with the experimental data begins. The first consideration when interpolating matrix plots is the Mach number. As mentioned, the code uses the previous time step to decide a suitable answer for the current step. The list of potential data points is then further reduced by not allowing the angles of pitch and yaw to be 3 greater than the previous step. Another restriction that will further reduce the number of candidate values is created by introducing an awareness of the pitch and yaw acting in the correct plane. This is simply done by comparing the sign convention of each of the 5 pressure values recorded by the transducers and the pressure readings recorded with CFD. By introducing all of the above restrictions it reduces the list of useable values greatly, therefore making the process more accurate. The next step was to find an initial interpolation point. Due to the restrictions the list can be summarised in 2 main parts, values with a Mach number below the current data point,( the current data point will be referenced as t) and values with a Mach number greater. Therefore, the next step was to cut the list into those 2 sections (Mach number lower than the experimental values, L and Mach number higher than the experimental values, H). Within the L group of data points, the coefficients of pitch and yaw are sifted through until a value is found with the smallest error. This value and the associated values (i.e. pitch, yaw and correction factor) are then appended to a list (for ease of reference, it will be called i). The H list is then referenced; values are chosen depending on whether the coefficients of pitch and yaw which determined i were higher or lower than the experimental value. As seen in Figure 49, if the coefficients of pitch or yaw which determined the i value are higher than t, the code will search for values lower than t (and vice-versa), which will allow for interpolation between the points to obtain, Mach, pitch, yaw and a correction factor. A linear interpolator is used, simply because the interpolation is between 2 points which is logically a linear relationship. The current data that has been returned is working under the initial assumption that the pitch and yaw must equal zero. Therefore the obtained correction factor must be utilised in order to obtain a more accurate solution. A correction factor is applied to the ratio
62

of static to pitot pressure, which is used to find a new Mach number; this new Mach number will hence recalculate all other variables. The process will continue to repeat until the Mach number has converged; in this case the tolerance was set to 0.1.
8.4.6.1 Computing Time

Initially the code was applied for all 20,000 data points; however, due to the large volume of data, the overall process was running quite slowly. Therefore, it was decided to cut the experimental data down to several shorter lists, 700 rows long. However, as mentioned, the code references the initial data point, meaning that every time a new data file was opened, the reference point would revert back to ([ = 0, = 0, Correction Factor = 0, M = 0]), leading to inaccurate results, or possibly no results at all. Therefore, it was input into the code that each time a new document was opened, the initial point would be equal to the last data point recorded from the previously opened document.
8.4.6.2 Error Handling

Within the code is an error handling function which simply accepts a particular error that may and continues running the model. The error which the code has been told to accept is Unbound Local Error: which indicates that the calculated values from the flight data do no match with the CFD data. Specifically, the experimental data does not fit within the bounds of the CFD or none of the CFD data qualifies after being put through range of criteria within the code. If this is the case, the value returned is simply; ([Pitch = 0, Yaw = 0, Correction = 1, Mach = Calculated]). These data points will be ignored in the end results.

63

Procedure 9.1 Trans Calibration of Transducers

Each transducer needs to be calibrated due to the fact that the manufacturers data can vary greatly from how the transducer is truly behaving. In order to calibrate the sensors, a simple calibration rig was set up. It consisted of a vacuum pump, a pressure gauge and a vacuum/outlet port. The pump was connected to the port and the pressure dial measured the negative gauge pressures. Each transducer could then be connected to the port via specific interfacing connections. The transducers were connected to the DAQ module which was connected to the computer. A series of negative gauge pressures for each transducer were measured and the corresponding voltage readings were appended through HyperTerminal using the analog_read channel function.

9.2

Assembly

(Set up the separate components) 1. Stage one of the assembly is to screw in the central transducer (951-300-G-B-I364.5V-R) into the nose cone by hand. Do to the space restrictions a pair of pliers can be used to further tighten the transducer until as tight as possible.

Figure 50: 951-300-G-B-I36-4.5V-R screwed into the nose cone

2. Connecting the hoses: The flexible interface hoses need to be placed into boiling water and let to turn malleable for about 30 seconds. They then need to be pushed onto the copper tubing as tight as possible. Again due to the limited space, this can be quite difficult and as an extra precautionary measure to reduce the risk of the hose coming

64

off during flight they can be hot glued into place. For this project they were glued onto the copper tubing.

Figure 51: One hose connected and hot glued to the nose cone

3. The DAQ module needs to be set up: The batteries need to be connected and the battery case needs to be screwed in.

Figure 52: Processor board and Battery configuration

4. The DAQ module needs to be stacked (assembled) and the nuts need to be screwed on so that the module is tight with no rattling.

65

Figure 53: Assembled DAQ module. The sixth transducer measuring the atmospheric pressure, can also be seen to be glued to the top of the board

5. The electrical strip board and the supports need to be assembled. Firstly, the strip board and the support ring need to be aligned and then secured to the support plate with the flat head M3 bolts. (Connect the components to each other) 6. While someone holds the nosecone (remember it is fairly heavy) or stabilises it while it lays on its side on the bench, another person needs to bring the assembled strip board nearby. The central transducers cable (and the 4 base transducers if not already) needs to be passed through the central hole. 7. Then the four transducers need to be connected to the nose cone via the flexible hosing. The connection between the hose and the transducers should be tight enough such that glue is not required. 8. At this point the strip board should be connected to the nose cone. Now the cables need to be connected to the DAQ module. Each transducer should be placed into their correct channels (predetermined). The assembly should now look like such.

Figure 54: Payload assembly before the payload case is attached

66

9. Now the payload case needs to be slowly and carefully sheaved over the DAQ module and the strip board. This requires at least two people. The DAQ module and strip board are all connected and cannot be rotated too excessively in reference the nose cone. So estimating the correct orientation before the module and strip board are inserted into the case is essential. When the holes for each part can be spotted through the case two bolts should be quickly tighten by hand to lock the parts into place. The nose cone, strip board and DAQ module should now connected by tightening the remaining bolts. 10. The separation module (parachute/payload interface plate) should be inserted (solid side into the payload case) and the M6 bolts all tightened.

Figure 55: Separation module

11. Finally the breakwire adaptor should be inserted into the I/O communications board. That is, the breakwire adaptor which is glued to the payload should be connected. The actual short circuiting wire should not be attached at this time.

The payload should now be ready for the pre launch preparation. Note: the payload window cover, the power bridge connections or the breakwire should not be connected at this stage.

9.3

Woomera Launch

The launch at the Woomera follows the procedures set out in the ASRI User Payload Guide Appendix D, found in Appendix H. Pre Launch Sequence (Before Launch Pad)
67

At this stage everything above the parachute/payload separation module should be assembled. 1. Final memory clear of the DAQ module. If the memory isnt cleared then the DAQ module will not record anything, in particular it will not overwrite the existing data if this stage is not performed. Firstly the break-wire needs to be connected. Then the right power connections need to be inserted in the correct order (See DAQ Module operations sections for the correct method to wipe the memory. It is also encouraged to connect the DAQ to a computer to check if the memory is clear. The memory flag should be set to 0. 2. The payload should now be attached to the parachute tube (prepared by ASRI) with 6 x M6 bolts.

Figure 56: Payload attached to parachute tube

3. The payload must be weighed and the mass should be given to an ASRI member 4. The payloads centre of gravity should be determined and the distance from the base of the parachute tube to the centre of gravity should be measured. This needs to be given to an ASRI member also.

68

Figure 57: Find the centre of gravity

Figure 58: Measuring centre of gravity

5. Carry the payload up to the launch pad. (On the launch pad) 6. When on the launch pad the DAQ module has to be set up for record mode. Firstly the breakwire needs to be connected. The breakwire can then be attached to a bungie chord attached to the launch stand. 7. Pin 1 and pin 5 should be connected first. 8. Then the bridge connection which fits into pin 7 should be inserted upside down. Then the power bridge should be connected. At this stage the green and red LED should be glowing steadily. 9. The payload window cover should be now bolted in ensuring the breakwire correctly fits through the designed hole.

69

9.4

Computational Fluid Dynamics Procedure

Computational Fluid Dynamics is used to calculate pressure values at each of the sensors for a range of Mach numbers. This data is used as a comparison to the results obtained in the flight to determine the Mach number, Yaw and Pitch angle, as well as the roll. The CFD software CFX was used within the engineering simulation software ANSYS to calculate the results. CFX can be broken down into five main sections. Setting up the geometry (Geometry) Creating a mesh (Mesh) Defining the boundary conditions and flow parameters before solving the process (CFX-Pre) Solving the process (Solver) Obtaining the results from CFX. (CFX-Post)

The first two steps in the overall process, geometry and meshing, do not need to be set up for each of the different combinations that need to be tested in CFD. This is because once the geometry has been created it does not need to be modified. The mesh involves breaking the geometry defined into a number of elements, which the solver then uses to determine the flow conditions at each cell. This again does not need to be changed for each run. The last three main steps are updated for every new simulation that needs to be run, however, after the first initial set up in the CFX-Pre, only the initial flow speed conditions need to be changed for each simulation. The solver is required to be run for every simulation, with the CFX-Post used to obtain the pressure readings on all five pressure transducer points. The following process was used to obtain the CFD results: 9.4.1 Geometry 1) Firstly the geometry needs to be set up and defined in ANSYS. To analyse the payload geometry we need to create a bounding box that will define where the fluid will be. The bounding box is created as a cube with a side length that is at least 5 times the radius of the payload. This box is just an extrusion of a rectangle to create a solid box. This is shown in Figure 59.

70

Figure 59: Bounding Box Created in ANSYS Geometry

2) Once the bounding box has been created, a simplified model of the payload is extracted from the end of the box. This simplified model has the same dimensions as the payload, however, only the cone shape is modelled, and the holes to the pressure sensors are ignored. This is because for supersonic flows the solver has a problem with expansion and turbulence effects caused near an outlet, causing an error in the solver which creates a wall at the outlet to prevent flow entering back through the outlet boundary. This can be seen in Figure 60.

Figure 60: Cone Cut Out of Bounding Box

3) Once the cone shape has been extracted from the bounding box, we need to create areas on the geometry where the holes for the pressure sensors can be found. To do this, we create a tangent plane on the inside of the cone cut-out at 0, 90, 180 and 270.
71

On each of these planes a circle is drawn that corresponds to the holes on the side of the cone that go to the pressure transducers. Each of these circles is then extruded a small distance, and this distance is then cut away again. This leaves an area that can be selected to read pressure during the post-solver phase. However this area needs to be smoothed out into the rest of the cone as a small part of the area is protruding from the cut out. Once smoothed this blends into the cone, however it can still be selected.

Figure 61: Smoothed Circular Area Corresponding to Pressure Transducers

4) Once this has been completed for all 4 holes on the side of the cone, the geometry is complete 9.4.2 Meshing 5) Import the geometry into the mesh creator application.

72

Figure 62: Geometry Imported into Meshing Application

6) Change the Mesh Sizing to Fine, and the Smoothing to High. This will produce a fine mesh with a reasonable amount of elements.

Figure 63: Meshed with Basic Settings

7) From this change the minimum and maximum cell and element sizes for the mesh to reduce or increase the number of elements desired. Ideally, the more elements used the more accurate the results will be, however, due to lack of computer processing power, too many elements can cause the solver (and the meshing application) to take quite a long time to process what is happening in each element (or the original request). 8) Introduce Program Controlled Inflation layers by changing the Automatic Tet Inflation setting. Inflation layers are produced in a radial direction from the cone. The number of layers as well as the size can be defined. Inflation layers are very helpful for correctly analysing flow near a surface. This is beneficial for this project as
73

shockwaves are being produced that can be smeared between cells, and not accurately representing the flow conditions.

Figure 64: Inflation Layers Shown Around the Probe

9) Once the desired number of elements and inflation layers are set the meshing application can be closed. 9.4.3 Pre-CFX 10) To set up the solver to be able to process supersonic flows, we must change the fluid and energy conditions for the overall flow. This can be done by editing the options in the Default Domain tab. a. Under the Basic Settings Tab, need to change the Fluid 1 material to Air Ideal Gas b. Under the Fluid Models Tab, need to change the Heat Transfer Option to Total Energy

74

Figure 65: How the Set-Up of the Default Domain for CFX-Pre is Set Out

11) From this the boundaries of the geometry need to be set up, with an inlet, outlet, noslip wall for the payload and if not looking at pitch or yaw angles, a free slip wall around the outside to simulate open air. The boundary conditions are defined as follows:

75

a. Inlet
Table 7: Inlet Conditions in CFX-Pre

Boundary Type Flow Regime Option Mass Momentum Option Turbulence Heat Transfer b. Outlet
Table 8: Outlet Conditions in CFX-Pre

Inlet Supersonic (or subsonic) Cart. Vel & Pressure Intensity and Length Scale Static Temp = 297 K

Boundary Type Flow Regime Option IF SUBSONIC Mass and Momentum Option Pressure Averaging

Outlet Supersonic (or subsonic)

Average Static Pressure (Rel =0) Average over whole outlet

c. Payload
Table 9: Payload Conditions in CFX-Pre

Boundary Type Mass and Momentum Option Wall Roughness

Wall No Slip Wall Smooth

Heat Transfer- Heat Transfer Coeff 25 W/m2K Outside Temp 297 K

76

d. Outer Wall
Table 10: Payload Conditions in CFX-Pre

Boundary Type Mass and Momentum Option Heat Transfer

Wall Free Slip Wall Adiabatic

12) The Inlet, Outlet and Wall can be changed to accommodate angled flows. The normal set up is shown in Figure 66, with the inlet and outlet shown via arrows.

Figure 66: Inlet and Outlet Arrows for No Angles of Pitch or Yaw

However, for angles, parts of the wall need to be set up as an inlet and an outlet as shown in Figure 67.

77

Figure 67: Inlet and Outlet Arrows For When There is Pitch or Yaw

13) In the Solver Control set-up the RMS value needs to be changed to a specified limit of residual error (typically 10-6), as well as the Maximum Iterations under Convergence Control, to allow for the solver to finish. 14) Monitors need to be created on all five of the pressure reading positions. These monitors are used to track the pressure readings as the solver progresses. The Monitors tab can be found under Output Control. 15) Once all this has been set up, the flow speeds for a particular simulation can be entered under the Inlet boundary. For angles, trigonometry is used to enter the x and y velocities as mentioned in Section 3.5.2. 16) The initial conditions can also be set to be the same flow conditions as the Inlet. This is a precaution to prevent severe errors occurring in the Solver. 9.4.4 Solver 17) Run the solver from initial conditions. This makes sure that the solver does not start from the previous solution which can cause the values 18) Once the solver has either reached the RMS value for each u, v, and w momentum as well as mass, or if the pressure values on the monitor have reached a constant value, the solver can be stopped 9.4.5 CFX-Post 19) To obtain the pressure values for the data points, we use the function calculator to find the pressure of an average area.

78

20) Contour plots can also be created for a visual representation to show how the pressure and Mach number change at the probe. This is useful for checking the creation of oblique shocks at all the Mach numbers. An example of this is shown in Figure 68.

Figure 68: Visualisation Effect Created by CFX-Post Showing the Mach Number Distribution

Steps 14 to 18 are to be repeated for the range of Mach numbers and angles required. 9.5 Code Procedure

Example Calibration Process (Supersonic and subsonic conditions) 1. The initial values are taken from the DAQ module and calibrated and are represented below:

79

Figure 69: Probe Layout

3:

2: 5: 4:

2. Finding ratio of static pressure to pitot pressure a. The static pressure at varying angles of pitch and yaw can be estimated by averaging the pressures from transducer 2-5. 1 4 b. Hence: (24) (23)

3. Finding Mach number

80

a. It assumed that that the pitch and yaw angles are equal to zero. Using the CFD results Figure 18 interpolate the pressure ratio in order to find the Mach number. 4. Finding Total Pressure before shock (supersonic) a. Interpolating the tables from NACA Report 1135 (1953) using the Mach number the total pressure ratio can be found: (25) b. Using the following expression the total pressure before the shock can be calculated

(26)

5. For subsonic conditions 6. Finding the dynamic pressure a. Again interpolating the NACA 1135 tables, the ratio of dynamic pressure and total pressure is obtained:
1

(27)

b. Therefore the dynamic pressure is given by: (28) 7. Finding Pitch and Yaw a. Initially the pitch and yaw coefficients need to be calculated. These are found by the pressure difference of the opposing pressure transducers, the functions developed were as follows: , (29)

(30)

b. Using the calculated coefficients of pitch and yaw the CFD data can be interpolated to obtain the desired angles of attack. A visual representation of
81

the datails represented by the matrix plot (Appendix E Probe Calibration Matrices). 8. Finding a factor to correct the initial assumption that the angle of attack was equal to zero a. Using the CFD data a correction factor can be obtained by using the following function (Appendix D Correction Factors):
,

(31)

9. Apply correction factor to the ratio of static pressure to pitot pressure and repeat process until values have converged: (32)

82

10 Results 10.1 Pressure Transducer Calibration

Table 11: Pressure Transducer Calibration

Voltage (mV) Channel 2 144 130 104 69 39 Channel 3 145 131 105 70 41 Channel 4 144 130 104 69 40 Channel 5 144

Pressure (kPa) (absolute)

80 70 50 22.5 0

80 70 50 22.5 0

80 70 50 22.5 0

80
83

131 104 70 40 Channel 6 641 548 364 112 14 Channel 7

70 50 22.5 0

80 70 50 22.5 0

Pressure (absolute) 104 97 94 84 74 10.2 Theoretical Results 101.3 86.3 76.3 51.3 26.3

(kPa) Pressure (gauge) 0 -15 -25 -50 -75

(kPa)

The following tables outline the theoretical stagnation points for Mach numbers between 0 and 2.6 based on the theory found in SECTION, as well as the Surface Pressure determined using Chart 6 from the NACA Report 1135 as outlined in SECTION.

84

Table 12: Theoretical Stagnation Pressures for Varying Mach Numbers

Mach Number 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

Stagnation Pressure (gaugePa) 0 2864.878 11806.71 27908.53 53115.64 90453.72 142579.9 207587.5 284143.7 371721.9 470076.7 579079.4 698657.4 828760.4

85

Table 13: Theoretical Surface Pressures Calculated Using NACA Report 1135

Gauge Dynamic Mach 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 Pressure 0 2026 8104 18234 32416 50650 72936 99274 129664 164106 202600 245146 291744 342394 Surface Pressure Coefficient 0 0 0 0 0 0.315 0.2075 0.18 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.135 0.13 0.1275 coef x dyn press 0 0 0 0 0 15954.75 15134.22 17869.32 20746.24 24615.9 28364 33094.71 37926.72 43655.235 Surface Pressure 0 0 0 0 0 117254.75 116434.22 119169.32 122046.24 125915.9 129664 134394.71 139226.72 144955.235 Surface Pressure 0 0 0 0 0 15954.75 15134.22 17869.32 20746.24 24615.9 28364 33094.71 37926.72 43655.24

10.3 Raw Data from Launch The following graphs show the Raw Data for the Pressure Transducers (converted to pressures), as well as the accelerometer results. The full Raw Data List can be found in Appendix J

86

P1 - Central Transducer
350 300 Gauge Pressure (kPa) 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 5 10 Time (s) 15 20 25

Series1

Figure 70: P1 Change in Pressure over Time during Launch

P2
140 120 Absolute Pressure (kPa) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 Time (s) 15 20 25

Series1

Figure 71: P2 Change in Pressure over Time during Launch

87

P3
160 140 Absolute Pressure (kPa) 120 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 Time (s) 15 20 25 Series1

Figure 72: P3 Change in Pressure over Time during Launch

P4
140 120 Absolute Pressure (kPa) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 Time 15 20 25

Series1

Figure 73: P4 Change in Pressure over Time during Launch

88

P5
140 120 Absolute Pressure (kPa) 100 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 Time (s) 15 20 25

Series1

Figure 74: P5 Change in Pressure over Time during Launch

P6 - Atmospheric Sensor
120 100 Absolute Pressure (kPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 5 10 Time (s) 15 20 25 Series1

Figure 75: Atmospheric Transducer Change in Pressure over Time during Launch

89

Transverse Accelerometer
1000 900 800 700 Voltage (mV) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 5 10 Time (s) 15 20 25 Series1

Figure 76: Transverse Accelerometer Results

Axial Accelerometer
1200 1000 800 Voltage (mV)

600 Series1 400 200

0 0 5 10 Time (s) 15 20 25

Figure 77: Axial Accelerometer Results

90

10.4 CFD Results The CFD procedure was followed according to SECTION 8.4, ranging Mach numbers between 0 and 2.6, in 0.2M increments. The angles were also ranged for Yaw exclusively, between 0 and 7, in 1 increments. These calculations were performed with Pitch kept at 0. 10.4.1 Meshing
Table 14: Mesh Results for CFD

Sizing

Parameter Relevance Center Smoothing Transition Min Size Max Face Size Max Tet Size

Setting Fine High Slow 8.0878e-004 m 8.0878e-002 m 8.1756e-002 m

Inflation

Use Automatic Tet Inflation Program Controlled Transition Ratio Maximum Layers Growth Rate 0.77 10 0.6 72772 194889

Statistics

Nodes Elements

10.4.2 Testing There was an initial testing phase of the CFD to determine if the theory in Section 3.5 was correct in assuming the pitch and yaw values obtained were such that they could be used to define any combination of pitch and yaw. Table 15 below shows the results from the initial testing done on the final geometry design with a flow velocity of 600ms-1. Mesh size used: approximately 3,500,000 elements. All values of Pressure are Gauge Pressures in Pa.

91

Table 15: Test Data Using Different Pitch and Yaw Angles

Pitch=0; Yaw=0 P1 P2 P3 P4 P5 307200 32683 32439 32429 32450

Pitch=0; Yaw=5 283201 20326.6 29999.7 49385 29935

Pitch=5;Yaw=0

Pitch=5;Yaw=5

283581 30109.3 49742.2 30.1084 20.6126

285109 17817.6 47965.5 47297 18107.5

10.4.3 Data The resultant matrix of CFD data is a 4 dimensional matrix taking into account Mach number, Yaw, Pitch and Roll. However to determine all the CFD data originally, roll was ignored as a significant factor in calculating the results, due to the assumptions made in SECTION. To collect the data from the CFD an Excel spreadsheet was created, with a different sheet for each of the pressure sensors. For each pressure sensor there were tables of Mach vs. Yaw for each different Pitch angle. TABLE below presents the data for the central transducer calculated by CFD. Pressure Transducer 1; Pitch = 0. All values of Pressure are gauge pressures in Pa.
Table 16: Raw CFD Data Obtained From CFX For P1, Pitch and Yaw Angles Kept at 0

Mach\Yaw 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

0 0

1 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

2184.31 2172.78 2168.9

2162.79 2154.59 2143.94 2130.92 2115.75

9100.15 9071.32 9055.58 9034.11 9004.31 8964.84 8916.46 8860.14 21948.8 21842.4 21813.7 21771.9 21714.2 21638.5 21547.9 21442.9 43442 42678.8 42688.4 42663.5 42584.1 42445.7 42368.8 42208.5 75630 75418

75567.8 76303.8 76245.5 76054.7 75994.2 75807

92

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

117280 171990 241891 323200 419674 524347 637310 759141

117047 171855 240247 323073 419364 523975 637005 758381

117042 171765 240040 323147 419154 523561 635970 756978

116992 171649 239893 323189 418976 523122 635159 755962

116931 171472 239612 323035 418603 522383 634083 754312

116792 171239 239221 322668 418013 521298 632606 752521

116616 170955 238718 322252 417225 519971 630824 750625

116392 170601 238122 321527 416225 518523 628891 748432

The pressures were also obtained for the four transducers located around the base for the above case. The initial data obtained using CFD for each of the pressure transducers can be found in Appendix I. Using the basic trigonometric theory discussed in Section 3.5 we can then extrapolate from the data obtained, and can use it to determine the results for the various pitch angles, as well as the negative ranges of yaw angles. This data has then been appended into a list for use with comparing to the raw data obtained on launch. The layout of the list is shown in the line below:
Table 17: Linear Setup for CFD Results

Mach

P1

P2

P3

P4

P5

Pitch

Yaw

Roll

Where P1 is the central transducer, and P2, P3, P4 and P5 are the transducers located around the sides of the cone, spaced at 90 increments moving in a clockwise direction, starting with P2 at 0. Four points of roll were considered, 0, 90, 180, and 270. The complete list of values for the CFD can be found in Appendix K. The following Figure 78 shows the relationship of change in pressure as Mach number increases for a pitch and Yaw angle of 0.

93

Mach Number vs. Pressure

800000 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Mach Number 2 2.5 3

Pressure (Pa)

Mach Number vs. Pressure

Figure 78: Change in P1 Pressure with Mach Number

As pitch and yaw angle changes, the pressure at P1 decreases as the angle is increased as seen in

94

Table 18. However this change is very small compared to the original value. The percentage difference between the initial pressure found at pitch and yaw equal to 0 and the pressure at a specific yaw angle can be seen in

95

Table 18.

96

Table 18: Percent Difference in Pressure Values Compared to Yaw = 0, for Change in Yaw Angle, Pitch Angle Kept at 0

Mach\Yaw 0 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 0 0

2 0

3 0

4 0

5 0

6 0

7 0

0 0.005279 0.007055 0.009852 0.013606 0.018482 0.024443 0.031387 0 0.003168 0.004898 0.007257 0.010532 0.014869 0.020185 0.026374 0 0.004848 0.006155 0.00806 0 0.017568 0.017347 0.01792 0 -0.00974 -0.00897 -0.00644 0.010689 0.014137 0.018265 0.023049 0.019748 0.022934 0.024704 0.028394 -0.00564 -0.00317 -0.00082 0.001982

0 0.001987 0.002029 0.002456 0.002976 0.004161 0.005662 0.007572 0 0.000785 0.001308 0.001983 0.003012 0.004367 0.006018 0.008076 0 0.002673 0.003533 0.004143 0.005309 0.006933 0.009021 0.011495 0 0.000393 0.000164 3.4E-05 0.000511 0.001646 0.002933 0.005176

0 0.000739 0.001239 0.001663 0.002552 0.003958 0.005835 0.008218 0 0.000709 0.001499 0.002336 0.003746 0.005815 0.008346 0.011107 0 0.000479 0.002103 0.003375 0.005063 0.007381 0.010177 0.01321 0 0.001001 0.002849 0.004188 0.006361 0.00872 0.011218 0.014107

As can be seen here the highest percentage difference is 3.13% at a yaw angle of 7 at Mach 0.2. The following plots represent the pressure distributions for the Pressure Transducers around the cone (P2-P5). Figure 79 plots the pressure changes from -7 to 7 for Mach numbers less than 1. With Figure 80 plotting Mach numbers above 1. Both of these figures represent the pressure transducers P2 at a Pitch angle of 0. The pressure transducers P2 and P4 are regarded as the Yaw sensors as they record a significant change in pressure for different yaw angles.

97

Pressure vs. Yaw Angle (P2)

7000 6000 5000 Pressure (Pa) 4000 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 Yaw Angle (Degrees) M=0.2 M=0.4 M=0.6 M=0.8

Figure 79: Change in Pressure vs. Change in Yaw (P2) (M<1)

Pressure vs. Yaw Angle (P2)

120000 100000 80000 60000 40000 20000 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 M=1 M=1.2 M=1.4 M=1.6 M=1.8 M=2 M=2.2 M=2.4 M=2.6

Pressure (Pa)

Yaw Angle (Degrees)

Figure 80: Change in Pressure vs. Change in Yaw (P2) (M>1)

For the pressure transducer P4, the values are equal and opposite. So as pressure decreases from left to right for P2, pressure increases from left to right for P4. Figure 81 and Figure 82 plot a normalised pressure compared to change in yaw angle (pitch = 0) for Mach number values of less than 1, and greater than 1, respectively. These figures represent the pressure transducers P3 and P5 at a pitch angle of 0. The normalised pressure is calculated by dividing the value of pressure at that particular Mach number for a specific yaw
98

angle by the pressure value at that Mach number for yaw and pitch angles of 0. A value of normalised pressure was used so it was possible to effectively plot a variety of Mach numbers on the single graph to show the general trend as the angle of yaw changed. P3 and P5 are regarded as the Pitch sensors as they are able to calculate the change in pitch angle as they record a significant change in pressure as the pitch angle changes.

Normalised Pressure vs. Yaw Angle (P3,P5)

1.2 1 Normalised Pressure (P/P0) 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 M=0.2 M=0.4 M=0.6 M=0.8

Yaw Angle (Degrees)

Figure 81: Change of Normalised Pressure vs. Change of Yaw Angle (P3,P5) (M<1)

99

Normalised Pressure vs. Yaw Angle(P3,P5)

1.1 1 Normalised Pressure (P/P0) M=1 0.9 0.8 0.7 0.6 0.5 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 2 4 6 8 M=1.2 M=1.4 M=1.6 M=1.8 M=2 M=2.2 M=2.4 M=2.6

Yaw Angle (Degrees)

Figure 82: Change in Normalised Pressures vs. Yaw Angle (P3,P5) (M>1)

If these graphs were plotted for change in pressure due to change in pitch angle, P3 and P5 would have similar plots to Figure 79 and Figure 80, where P2 and P4 will have the same plot as Figure 81and Figure 82. The above statement is based off the theory in Section 3.5, where as either pitch or yaw angle stays constant; the change in pressure is symmetrical about 0. However, as the angle changes, the pressures on those transducers will change linearly with angle, with one transducers pressure increasing where the other decreases.

10.5 Final Results from Code Using the raw data recorded from the DAQ module, CFD calibration data in conjunction with the calibration processes yields the resulting variables that help explain the flight attitudes of the Zuni rocket. The following is the presentation of the resulting pitch angle, Yaw angle and Mach number. The full data outputted by the calibration code can be found in Appendix B
Code.

10.5.1 Flight Angles Using the coefficients of pitch and yaw at their specified Mach numbers, the probe calibration matrixes were interpolated using the calibration code the resulting the angles of pitch and yaw
100

were returned and plotted. Figure 83 shows the angles of pitch against the time and Figure 84 shows the angles of yaw against time over the flight of the Zuni rocket. The range of data only reaches approximately 3.5 seconds due to that being the duration of the supersonic flight.

Angle of Pitch vs. Time

6 4 2 Angle of Pitch (deg) 0 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Time, t (s)

Figure 83: Angle of Pitch vs. Time

Angle of Yaw vs. Time

6 4 2 Angle of Yaw (deg) 0 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Time, t (s)

Figure 84: Angle of Yaw vs. Time

101

10.5.2 Flight Mach Number Using the ratio of average static pressure to pitot pressure in conjunction with the CFD data and inputting them into the calibration process returned the resulting Mach number. Figure 85 shows the Mach number as a function of time.

Mach Number vs. Time

3.5 3 Mach Number, M 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Time, t (s) 2 2.5 3 3.5

Figure 85: Mach Number vs. Time

11 Discussion 11.1 CFD Compared to Theoretical The CFD results for the stagnation pressures are extremely comparable to the theoretical values found for the same Mach numbers. A plot of the theoretical stagnation pressure and the CFD results for the stagnation pressures can be found in Figure 86. These results are for Pitch and Yaw angles of 0.

102

Mach Number vs. Stagnation Pressure

900000 800000 Stagnation Pressure (Pa) 700000 600000 500000 400000 300000 200000 100000 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Mach Number 2 2.5 3 Theoretical Values CFD Values

Figure 86: Comparison of Theoretical and CFD Results for Stagnation Pressure

We can see that as the values for the theoretical and CFD data are relatively the same, however as Mach number increases there are an error between the theoretical values and the CFD. The CFD results underestimate the value of pressure as the Mach number increases compared to the theory. However, as the theory does not take into account real-world effects and is itself an over-approximation, the CFD results for the Stagnation Pressures are quite a good representation to compare to real data. The theoretical values for the surface pressures on the cone are found using the NACA 1135 charts as described in Section 3.1.3. These values have been compared to the average pressure on the surface calculated by the CFD in Figure 87.

103

Mach Number vs. Surface Pressure

60000 50000 Surface Pressure (Pa)

40000

30000 NACA 1135 Theory 20000 CFD Results

10000

0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Mach Number 2 2.5 3

Figure 87: Comparison of Theoretical and CFD Results for the Pressures on the Surface of the Cone

As we can see from the graph, there is a correlation between the CFD Results and the NACA 1135 theory, with an approximately linear progression as Mach number increases. However, for a Mach number of 1 there is a discrepancy with the results of the NACA 1135 theory, where the Stagnation Pressure is higher than the value at Mach = 1.2. The CFD results are overestimating the average surface pressure on the surface of the cone. This can be due to a number of reasons. Either the approximate values used in the NACA 1135 theory were interpolated incorrectly producing a slightly lower pressure value than the CFD results. It is also possible that the geometry created in ANSYS could have a slightly larger angle than the design due to errors in the original set up. This will cause a higher pressure on the surface of the cone due to the change in value covered in 3.1.3. 11.2 Flight Angles Throughout the flight analysis (CFD and calibration) the pressure differences across P2 and P4 were defined as the change in Yaw angle6. As can be seen in Figure 88, the rocket was initially set with P2 facing opposite of the launch rail and therefore the rocket Yaw will initially be positioned adjacent to the ground.

104

Figure 88: Rocket Initial Position

11.2.1 Angle of Yaw As can be seen by the results, the data system initially records a large resonance in the angle of yaw. By observing the initial position of the yaw sensors and thinking logically about the rockets balance and dynamics, it can be expected that after leaving the launch rail the rocket would initially be subject to frequent resonance in the yaw direction due to the fact that the support is suddenly removed and therefore, the rocket would need to balance its flight. As seen in Figure 89, the results reflect the initial hypothesis. It can be seen that in the first section of the flight (>2s) there is a large amount of resonance within the data, this is most likely the rocket trying to rebalance itself. It can be seen in the second half of the flight (>2s), the frequency of the yawing is lessened, further proving that the initial resonance is not a part of the natural flight, instead it can be attributed to the violent nature of the launch. Also the overall magnitude of the yaw angles is quite large, which is a further indication that the rocket was trying to recover from the launch and the removal of the initial rail support by wobbling at a higher frequency. Furthermore, when taking an average of the flights overall trend, it seems to be reaching a peak at approximately every 0.5 seconds. This is an indication that the rocket is rolling at approximately 2 Hz.

105

Angle of Yaw vs. Time

6 4 2 Angle of Yaw (deg) 0 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Time, t (s)

Figure 89: Averaged Angle of Yaw vs. Time

11.2.2 Angle of Pitch Theoretically, because the rockets pitching plain was parallel to the ground, it should not experience such a large resonance in regards to frequency and magnitude when compared to the yawing angles. This is due to the fact that the rocket was not initially supported in the pitching plain, and hence should not experience a lot of imbalance from a loss of support; instead it should only be caused to pitch due to the forces experienced at the launch. As seen in Figure 90 the results match what was expected from theory, overall the magnitude of the pitching is not large compared to the yaw, although there are a few outlying values which could be due to errors from resonance within the pressure transducers. Also, the model is seen to have experienced an initially high frequency of pitching due to the launch, although, it is not as frequent as the yaw data (indicated by the relatively flat trend) . Furthermore, similar to the Yaw data, the frequency of pitching seems to settle down after the initial impact of the launch, which is again expected. Additionally, by averaging the pitching values over the flight of the rocket, a general trend can be seen, similar to that of the experimental yaw values. It can be seen that the data peaks tend to occur every 0.5s, further proving that the rocket is rolling at approximately 2Hz.

106

Angle of Pitch vs. Time

6 4 2 Angle of Pitch (deg) 0 0 -2 -4 -6 -8 -10 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5

Time, t (s)

Figure 90: Average Angle Of Pitch vs. Time

11.2.3 Mach Number

From the theory, it is expected that when the rocket leaves the launch rail, it should already be approaching Mach 2 due to the large initial impulse from the motor. From the initial impulse the rocket should then experience a steady acceleration rate until the point where the engine pack is jettisoned which will lead to a loss in mass and another impulse, the result should then be a small jump in velocity. Once the motor has expended its fuel source and detached from the payload, the rocket should then begin to decelerate. As seen in figure, the Mach number does follow the expected trend. However, there are some errors within the recorded values which are further discussed in 11.4.2 Calibration. The true trend of the Mach number can be seen by again averaging out the values; this shows a clearer relationship of Mach number to time and gives strong support to the expected theoretical trend.

107

Mach Number vs. Time

3.5 3 Mach Number, M 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 0 0.5 1 1.5 Time, t (s)
Figure 91: Averaged Mach Number vs. Time

2.5

3.5

11.3 Altitude
Using the raw data, the US standard atmospheric and the NASA atmospheric models were used to calibrate the pressures into a value for altitude. As a comparison, the average static pressure and ambient pressure values were used, as seen in below, the general consensus is that the rocket reaches an altitude of approximately 5km after 20 seconds. Although, there is no indication that the rocket has reached its apogee, the trend of the plot has flattened out enough to be able to safely assume that the rocket did not reach a significantly greater height. Also, due to the fact that both the plots for average static pressure and ambient pressure reach a similar value, it gives a good indication, that the pressure sensors were working correctly. Although, it can be seen within both plots that the initial values are at a negative, this is most likely due to errors in the calibration process. Furthermore, both the US standard and the NASA atmospheric model follow similar trends showing that either model is a good estimate of the flight altitude. Overall as a test for the integrity of the recorded pressure data, it is a good indication that the experimental are accurate and able to be used to form a decent model for the flight attitude.

108

Altitude Using Ambient Pressure Sensor vs. Time

6000 5000 4000 Altitude, h (m) 3000 2000 1000 0 0 -1000 5 10 15 20 25 US Standard Atmospheric Model Nasa Atmospheric Model

Time, t (s)

Figure 92: Altitude Using Atmospheric Pressure

Altitude Using Average Static Pressure vs. Time

6000 5000 4000 Altitude, h (m) 3000 2000 1000 0 -1000 0 -2000 -3000 Time, t (s) 5 10 15 20 25 US Standard Atmospheric Model NASA Atmospheric Model

Figure 93: Altitude using Static Pressure

11.4 Error Analysis 11.4.1 CFD The error between the CFD results and the Theoretical results for both the stagnation pressures and the surface pressures are shown in Table 19.

109

Table 19: Error Percentage in CFD Compared to Theory

Mach

Stagnation Pressure Error (%)

Surface Pressure Error (%)

0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

0 0.66815 2.432335 4.717051 6.752712 7.409621 10.47151 11.59728 11.44232 10.26906 8.912279 8.15992 7.836341 7.718039

0 0 0 0 0 19.15746 -25.9274 -29.5815 -37.5176 -39.0464 -39.4074 -33.0067 -30.0559 -28.4482

As we can see there is a significant error, between 19% and 40% error, in the Surface Pressure results between the CFD data and the theoretical data. Some reasons for this were given in Section 10.1. However, there are other possible reasons why these values have such a high error value. The values for the surface pressure were assumed to be an average of the 4 pressure positions in the CFD, where the positions were exactly the same for 4 points around the inside surface. However, there are some discrepancies in the positions of these points in the geometry due to the difficulty of positioning with tangent planes. This means the pressures are slightly different, where an outlying pressure can cause a large discrepancy.
110

The mesh size of the final geometry was not very fine compared to the test runs. This was because there was a limited amount of time to conduct all the CFD runs, and the finer the mesh, the more time was taken to calculate each simulation.

The amount of time left running in the solver affects the overall pressure, as there can a slight increase of pressure as the solver continues to run. This effect may be responsible for values between M=1.2 and 1.8 for the stagnation pressure, as the error increases for these values. These values could have had the solver cut off early causing the error.

All of these factors can attribute to the error found above. To avoid this, great care must be taken in creating the geometry. The solver should also be run for a specified time rather than until the monitors converge. This should significantly decrease the errors between the CFD and the theory. 11.4.2 Calibration Throughout the analysis of the data, the calibration process returned some outlying values with that did not fit the trend of the original data. These outlying data points were removed from the data sets to produce a more consistent model. Some possible reasons for the data error could be due to resonance within the pressure tubes from supersonic flow, errors within the CFD data or errors within the calibration process, in particular within the approximation methods used to interpolate the values required. 11.4.2.1 Mach Number As seen in Figure 85 the initial data points (<0.7s), the Mach number does not follow any particular trend. This could be due to the initial settling time of the pressure sensors, which is the time taken for the pressure sensors to start recording accurate data, this error could have been further magnified by the large volume of the pressure holes and also, the length of the tubes leading to the transducers. Furthermore, within the Mach number results, it can be seen that the value for Mach number is continuously resonating at a high frequency. This is due to the pressure sensors constantly fluctuating to try and estimate the incoming flow pressures. Also, due to the pressure sensor calibration and its strong reaction to a small change in voltage, this fluctuation of is amplified within the results. Averaging this value will provide a good indication of the actual trend. Finally, outlying data points were removed from the plot to create a more accurate model. These outlying data points could be due to a number of reasons, such as resonance within the pressure cavities, error within the CFD data or approximation error within the calibration code.
111

11.4.2.2 Flight Angle Calculation As can be seen in Figure 83 and Figure 84 the initial data points (<7s) do not seem to be recording any values. This is due to the determination of pitch and yaw being reliant to the Mach number, which as mentioned at a low time step is unreliable. Although Figure 85 shows that some values of Mach are being recorded at that those time steps, the pressure values that are returning that Mach number do not fit within the specified criteria set within the code and therefore return the generic values of [Pitch = 0, Yaw = 0, Correction = 1, Mach = Calculated]. 11.4.2.3 Altitude As seen in Figure 92 the altitude calculated from the ambient pressure values experiences a sharp dip at approximately 6.5 seconds. Whilst it is still unclear as to why this decline occurs, it could possibly be attributed to the axis in which the transducer calculating the atmospheric values was positioned. Due to the space restrictions within the payload casing, this transducer had to be installed with its diaphragm in the axis of the primary acceleration (i.e. the diaphragm may bend with the acceleration due to thrust). When the diaphragm stops being influenced by a positive thrust it may elastically rebound, thus outputting a smaller signal than what is expected. Unfortunately, the analysed data does not test for past 3.5 seconds so further investigation is not possible at this stage. Calibration Error Due to the method of calibration utilised, which involves the use of a correction factor, the data is difficult to measure in a quantifiable form. From NACA Technical Note 3967 document the error was as follows:
Table 20: Initial (Theoretical) Calibration Process Error

Value Mach Number 1 2 Mach Number 2 2.6 Pitch Yaw

Error 0.01 0.02 0.25 0.25

112

Therefore, using these initial values the approximate error of the calibration code can be found. The predominant means of error within the calibration process was due to the various approximation methods used to interpolate the data. The error from these methods is presented below:
Table 21: Approximation Error

Method Rational Approximation Polynomial Interpolation (Total Pressure Ratios) Polynomial Interpolation (Dynamic Pressure Ratio)

Error 0.05% 0

0.02%

Using the following expression, the quantitative error for the calibration process can be approximated:

(33)

Table 22: Actual Calibration Process Error

Value Mach Number 1 -2 Mach Number 2 -2.6 Pitch Yaw

Error 0.06% 0.06% 0.26 0.26

113

12 Conclusion To conclude, it can be stated that the overall experiment and design project was a success. The project was initially split into three separate sections, they were; instrumentation and cone design, computational fluid dynamics and pressure probe calibration. Each of the three sections needed to work in conjunction with each other in order to reach a final goal of being able to model the Zuni rockets behavior over a supersonic flight. These variables were Pitch, Yaw and Mach number. The goal of the instrumentation and cone design was to understand the Data Acquisition module and design a system that could utilise the DAQ to record pressure values over a Zuni flight. The main components of the design were; the nose cone design and integration of pressure transducers to fulfill the goal. When observing the results from the flight, this section can be seen to have fulfilled its goal. A successful launch at Woomera was carried out and enough data was collected in order to describe the behavior of the rocket at supersonic speeds. The goal of the CFD section was to run simulations of the nose cone design at various angles of pitch and yaw whilst varying the Mach number. The reason for using CFD was that more data could be collected in a shorter time period, thus providing a larger range of data that could help map out the Zunis flight. Also, CFD was seen as a good option due to the overall reduction in experimental error leading to more consistent results. The end product indicates that this section also fulfilled its goal. It provided a large database that helped calibrate the pressure probe and find the needed resultant variables (pitch, yaw and Mach number). Finally, the calibration sections task was to utilise each of the previous sections (raw data and CFD) and return the Mach number and angles of pitch, yaw which can be used to model the flight. This section can also be deemed as a success for a number of reasons. One; it completed the goal by calculating the needed variables, furthermore, not only did it return a set of results, but most of the results found, were expected, after observing the theory. Therefore, with all sections fulfilling their goals and acceptable results being returned, the scope has seemed to be fulfilled with the supersonic flight of the Zuni being able to be modelled. Recommendations The scope of the project has been fulfilled and the overall task has been deemed a success. However, for future reference and checking the results from this project a series of other projects could be carried out, they are as follows:
114

The data presented in this project can be checked by performing wind tunnel testing, this could also help calculate the error within the calibration and CFD sections. It was observed throughout the results that there were a number of outlying values, these numerical anomalies were attributed to resonance within the nose cone cavities due to the supersonic flight speeds, to combat this, research could be carried out on how to minimise or eliminate resonance. o A possible solution to the resonance is attaching the transducer closer to the cavity whilst also decreasing their overall volume.

To form a more complete model, a calibration process could be created to model both supersonic and subsonic flight. These results could also be compared to those presented in this project.

115

13 Bibliography Aircraft general Knowledge, The Pitot/Static System, viewed 29 October 2010, <http://www.ausflightsim.net/pdf/acftgenknowledgr_pitot-static_system.pdf.> Allstar Network, Flight Instruments Level 3, viewed 20 October 2010, >http://www.allstar.fiu.edu/aero/pssi.htm?

AMES Research Staff NACA 1953, Equations, Tables and Charts for Compressible Flow, Report 1135pp.613 -681 Ames Research Staff (1953) "Equations, tables, and charts for compressible flow": National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics; Report 1135

Bajsi, Ivan , Kutin, Joe and agar, Toma 2007 'Response Time of a Pressure Measurement System with a Connecting Tube', Instrumentation Science & Technology, vol35: no 4,pp. 399 409

Baker, AJ & Kelso, RM & Gordon, EB & Roy, S & Schaub, EG 1997, Computational Fluid Dynamics: A Two Edged Sword, ASHRAE Journal, vol. 39, no. 8, pp 51-57

Centolanzi F.J. (1957) "Characteristics of a 40 cone for measuring mach number, total pressure, and flow angles at supersonic speeds": National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics; Technical Note 3967

Chen, J, Haynes, B.S & Fletcher, D.F 2000, Cobra probe measurements of mean velocities, Reynolds stesss and higher-order velocity correlations in pipe flow, Experimental Thermal and Fluid Science, 21, pp. 206-17 Earth Atmospheric Model, NASA, Glenn Research Centre (2010) <http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/atmosmet.html>

Efunda, 2010, Theory of Pitot-Static Tubes, viewed 25 Oct 2010, <http://www.efunda.com/designstandards/sensors/pitot_tubes/pitot_tubes_theory.cfm>

Euler G 2003, Metric bolt Strength, viewed 15 October 2010,

116

< http://euler9.tripod.com/bolt-database/22.html>

Fan H., Lu W., Xi G. and Wang S. (2003) "An improved neural-network-based calibration method for aerodynamic pressure probes": Journal of Fluids Engineering; Transactions of the ASME

Gracey, William, Colletti, Donald E, Russell and Walter R (1951) Wind tunnel investigation of a number of total pressure tubes at high angles of attack: National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics; Technical Note 2261

Lara, FMR 2007, Data Acquisition System for Student-Designed Rocket Experiments, Masters Thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

Mylavarapu, G & Murugappan, S & Mihaescu, M & Kalra, M & Khosla,S & Gutmark, E 2009, Validation of Computational Fluid Dynamics Methodology Used For Human Upper Airway Flow Simulations ELSEVIER, vol. 42, pp 1553-1559 Oberkampf, WL & Trucano, TG, 2002, Verification and Validation in Computational Fluid Dynamics, Progress In Aerospace Sciences, vol 38, pp 209-272

Porro, A.R 2010, Pressure Probe Designs for Dynamic Pressure Measurements in a supersonic flowfield, pp.417-26

RoyMech, Bolted Joint Design, viewed 10 October 2010, <http://www.roymech.co.uk/Useful_Tables/Screws/Bolted_Joint.html>

Shepard, I.C 1981, A Four hole Pressure Probe for Fluid Flow Measurements in Three Dimension, Journal of Fluids Engineering, vol. 103, pp. 590-94 Space Fellowship 2009, Ares I-X Launch Scrub: Can You Say "Triboelectrification",

Stanford University, 2000, Marine Hydrodynamics, viewed 25 Oct 2010, <http://web.mit.edu/13.021/13021_2003/Lifting%20surfaces/lectureC.htm>

117

University of Cambridge, Pressure Probes, Cambridge, viewed 20 October 2010, < http://www-g.eng.cam.ac.uk/whittle/current-research/hph/pressure-probes/pressureprobes.html> US Standard Atmosphere (1976) < http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/standard-atmosphere-d_604.html>

White, FM, 2008, Fluid Mechanics, McGraw-Hill, Boston

118

14 Appendix

14.1 Appendix A Engineering Drawings

14.1.1 Assembly

119

14.1.2 Nose Cone

120

14.1.3 Payload Case

121

14.1.4 Payload Case Window

122

14.1.5 Strip Board Support Plate

123

14.1.6 Strip Board Support Ring

124

14.2 Appendix B Code

########################## Calibration.py #################################### from cStringIO import StringIO from tokenize import generate_tokens from numpy import * from math import * from pylab import * import csv

p2 = 2 p3 = 3 p4 = 4 p5 = 5 pt = 1

def open_file(filename): """ Imports external data files into python - String format input = filename returns the imported data """ file = open(filename, "r") filedata = file.read() STRING = 1 y = list(token[STRING] for token in generate_tokens(StringIO(filedata).readline) if token[STRING]) return y def create(h, dp, num, cpl, cpa): """ Imports values into list format. h =file name dp = no. of rows num = delete points cp1 = data points in each row cpa = no. of columns returns the data in a list; integer format """
125

y = open_file(h) x = [] v=0 for i in range(dp): newlist = [] for j in range(cpl): if v in range(num-1, len(y), num): v+= 1 else: newlist.append(y[v]) v+=1 x.append(newlist) finallist1 = [] for i in range(dp): finallist2 = [] for j in range(cpa): finallist2.append(convertStr(x[i][j])) finallist1.append(finallist2) return finallist1 def csv_importer(c, filename): """ imports CSV files to complete calibration process c = column no. filename = file to be imported returns the imported data in a useable format """ files = [] reader = csv.reader(open(filename, "rb")) for row in reader: files.append(row) finallist = [] for i in range(len(files)): finallist2 = [] for j in range(c): finallist2.append(convertStr(files[i][j])) finallist.append(finallist2) return finallist

def convertStr(s): """ converts integers into strings

126

s = value to be converted return converted values """ try: ret = int(s) except ValueError: ret = float(s) return ret def static_p(p2, p3, p4, p5, plist): """ find average static pressure inputs = recorded raw pressure values plist = list of recorded pressure values p1, 2, 3, 4, 5 = corresponding pressure values returns the average static pressure """ staticp = zeros(len(plist)) for i in range (len(plist)): staticp[i] = 0.25 * (plist[i][p2] + plist[i][p3] + plist[i][p4] + plist[i][p5]) return staticp def press_r(pt, staticpress, plist): """ pt = total pressure recorded by top transducer staticpress = average static pressure plist - list of recorded data return the Static pressure ratio, pA/pt2 """ staticr = [] for i in range(len(plist)): sr = staticpress[i]/plist[i][pt] staticr.append(sr) return staticr def mach_x(m, c): """import CFD x column (mach no.) m = fliename c = coluumn no. returns column within file """ machx = [] for i in range (len(m)):
127

macx = m[i][c] machx.append(macx) return machx def mach_y(ma, c): """import CFD y column (mach no.) m = fliename c = coluumn no. returns column within file (ratio of static to pitot pressure """ machy = [] for i in range (len(ma)): macy = ma[i][c] machy.append(macy) return machy def reference_x(M): """ M = Data file return the reference tables column 1, mach number """ Mx = [] for i in range (len(M)): refx = M[i][0] Mx.append(refx) return Mx def reference_x1(M): """ M = Data file return the reference tables column 1, mach number """ Mx = [] for i in range (0, 100, 1): refx = M[i][0] Mx.append(refx) return Mx def reference_x2(M): """ M = Data file returns the reference tables column 1, mach number
128

""" Mx = [] for i in range (100, 401, 1): refx = M[i][0] Mx.append(refx) return Mx def reference_Msmall(M): """ M = Data file returns reference tables pressure ratio M<1 """ My1 = [] for i in range (0, 100, 1): refy1 = M[i][1] My1.append(refy1) return My1 def reference_Mlarge(M): """ M = Data File returns reference tables pressure ratio M>1""" My2 = [] for i in range (100, 401, 1): refy2 = M[i][2] My2.append(refy2) return My2 def dynamic_press(M): """ M = Data File returns the reference tables, dynamic pressure ratio""" dynp = [] for i in range (len(M)): press = M[i][3] dynp.append(press) return dynp def total_pressure(p, pt, z): """ p = data file pt = total pressure after shock z = total pressure ratios
129

returns the total pressure, pt1 = pt2/(pt2/pt1)""" totalp = [] for i in range (len(p)): tot_pa = p[i][pt] tot_pb = tot_pa/z[i] totalp.append(tot_pb) return totalp def dynamic_p(z, totalpressure): """ z = dynamic pressure ratio total pressure = def total_pressure(p, pt, z) returns dynamic pressure, q1 = (q1/pt1)pt1 """ q1 = zeros(len(z)) for i in range (len(z)): q1[i] = z[i]*totalpressure[i] return q1 def rocket_pitch(q1, plist): """ q1 = dynamic pressure plist = raw data returns coefficients of pitch """ pitch = zeros(len(plist)) for i in range (len(plist)): pitch[i] =(plist[i][p5] - plist[i][p3])/q1[i] return pitch def rocket_yaw(q1, plist): """ q1 = dynamic pressure plist = raw data returns coefficients of yaw """ yaw = zeros(len(plist)) for i in range (len(plist)): yaw[i] = (plist[i][p4] - plist[i][p2])/q1[i] return yaw def rational(xdata, ydata, z): """
130

xdata = list of ratios of static to pitot pressure ydata = list of Mach number z = value to be interpolated Uses rational approximation to interpolate for the mach number returns the resultant Mach number """ v = [] for j in range(len(z)): x = z[j] m = len(xdata) r = ydata.copy() rOld = zeros(m) for k in range(m - 1): for i in range(m - k - 1): if abs(x - xdata[i + k + 1]) < 1.0e-9: r[i] = ydata[ i + k + 1] else: c1 = r[i + 1] - r[i] c2 = r[i + 1] - rOld[i + 1] c3 = (x - xdata[i])/(x - xdata[i + k + 1]) r[i] = r[i + 1] + c1/(c3*(1.0 - c1/c2) - 1.0) rOld[i + 1] = r[i + 1] v.append(r[0]) return v def polyfunc(values, f): """ values = Mach number f = coefficients found from polyfit Uses the found coefficients from polyfit and the x value to find the interpolated y value returns function to calculate either interpolated value for total pressure ratio or dynamic pressure ratio""" num = len(f) y=0 for j in range(len(f)): y = y + f[j]*values**(num-(j+1)) return y def rational_2(polinter, ratio): """ polinter = mach numer ratio = data from NACA Tn 1135 reference tables Interpolates using polyfit rather then the newtons polynomial. For Case M<1 and M >= 1
131

returns interpolated value for total pressure ratio """ polinter_interpolated = [] for i in range(len(polinter)): if polinter[i] < 1.: small = polyfit(array(reference_x1(ratio)), array(reference_Msmall(ratio)), 3) intersmall = polyfunc(polinter[i], small) polinter_interpolated.append(intersmall) elif polinter[i] >= 1.: large = polyfit(array(reference_x2(ratio)), array(reference_Mlarge(ratio)), 4) interlarge = polyfunc(polinter[i], large) polinter_interpolated.append(interlarge) return polinter_interpolated def dynamic_pressure(z, ratio): """ z = mach number ratio - NACA TN 1135 tables uses polyfunc to find a good approximation of the relationship between mach number and dynamic pressure ratio returns dynamic pressure ratio""" q1 = [] for i in range (len(z)): drat = polyfit(array(reference_x(ratio)), array(dynamic_press(ratio)), 6) dratinter = polyfunc(z[i], drat) q1.append(dratinter) return q1 def lin_interp(rocket_angle, x, y): """ linear interpolater rocket_angle = value to be inerpolated x = xdata for interpolation y = ydata for interpolation returns interpolated value """ if x[0] == x[1]: answer =(y[0]+y[1])/2 else: answer = y[0] - (y[0]-y[1])*(x[0]-rocket_angle)/(x[0] - x[1]) return answer def pitch_yaw_roll(backup, step, polinter, q1, CFD_data, plist, mach, ratio, counter, solution, counterb):
132

""" Using cut down CFD list to find the best values for pitch and yaw (incorporate solving definitions backup = previous data position step = 0 if first run, otherwise equals 1 polinter = Mach number q1 = dynamic pressure CFD_data = CFD data plist = raw data mach = inserts CFD data for mach number at zero pitch and yaw ratio = NACA TN 1135 tables counter = placeholder solution = solution array matrix counterb = step counter returns the solution array matrix, placeholder and step counters """ tbinterp = [] if counter == 0: backup[2] = 1. for i in range(len(polinter)): polinterold = 100. polinternew = polinter[i] if 1.0 <= polinter[i] <= 2.6: ans = find(i, q1, backup, polinter, CFD_data, plist) correction = ans[2] if correction == 1: minorsol = ans else: cn = 0 loop = 0 while abs(polinternew - polinterold) >= 0.1: polinterold = polinternew ans = answers(correction, i, ans, plist, mach, ratio, CFD_data) polinternew = ans[3] correction = ans[2] loop +=1 if loop >6: ans[3] = (polinterold+polinternew)/2. break cn+= 1 minorsol = ans solution[counterb][0] = counter
133

for k in range(len(minorsol)): solution[counterb][k+1] = minorsol[k] backup[0] = solution[counterb][1] backup[1] = solution[counterb][2] backup[2] = solution[counterb][3] print minorsol, counter counterb+= 1 counter += 1 return solution, counter, counterb def find(i, q1, prev, polinter, CFD_data, plist): """ Cuts down the number of suitable CFD data points using a set of criters and eventually interpolates to acquire the initial values i = position counter q1 = dynamic pressure prev = previous step polinter =Mach number CFD_data = CFD data plist = raw data returns the initial estimated solution """ solv = zeros(4) machno = polinter[i] prev[3] = machno dummyp1 = 100. dummyy1 = 100. dummyp2 = 100. dummyy2 = 100. tbinterpnest = [] highlist = [] pitch = rocket_pitch(q1, plist)[i] yaw = rocket_yaw(q1, plist)[i] for j in range(len(CFD_data)): machcfd = CFD_data[j][0] if machcfd - machno >= 0.3: break else: if abs(machno-machcfd) <= 0.2: pitchprev = prev[0] yawprev = prev[1] if abs(CFD_data[j][1] - pitchprev) <= 3: if abs(CFD_data[j][2] - yawprev) <= 3:
134

if (plist[i][2] >=0 and CFD_data[j][7]>=0) or (plist[i][2]<=0 and CFD_data[j][7]<=0): if (plist[i][3] >=0 and CFD_data[j][8]>=0) or (plist[i][3]<=0 and CFD_data[j][8]<=0): if (plist[i][4] >=0 and CFD_data[j][9]>=0) or (plist[i][4]<=0 and CFD_data[j][9]<=0): if (plist[i][5] >=0 and CFD_data[j][10]>=0) or (plist[i][5]<=0 and CFD_data[j][10]<=0): if CFD_data[j][0]<=polinter[i]: if abs(pitch - CFD_data[j][4]) <= dummyp1 and abs(yaw CFD_data[j][5]) <= dummyy1: dummyp1 = abs(pitch - CFD_data[j][4]) dummyy1 = abs(yaw - CFD_data[j][5]) value = CFD_data[j] else: highlist.append(CFD_data[j]) while True: try: pitchlowc = value[4] yawlowc = value[5] highlisty = [] for v in range(len(highlist)): if pitchlowc <= pitch: if highlist[v][4] >= pitch: highlisty.append(highlist[v]) elif pitchlowc >= pitch: if highlist[v][4] <= pitch: highlisty.append(highlist[v]) for c in range(len(highlisty)): if yawlowc <= yaw: if highlisty[c][5] >= yaw: if abs(yaw - highlist[c][5]) <= dummyy2: dummyy2 = highlisty[c][5] value2 = highlisty[c] elif yawlowc >= yaw: if highlist[v][4] <= yaw: if abs(yaw - highlisty[c][5]) <= dummyy2: dummyy2= highlisty[c][5] value2 = highlisty[c] while True: try: pcoef = []
135

pcoef.append(float(value[4])) pcoef.append(float(value2[4])) pitchlist = [] pitchlist.append(float(value[1])) pitchlist.append(float(value2[1])) pitchinterped = lin_interp(pitch, pcoef, pitchlist) ycoef = [] ycoef.append(float(value[5])) ycoef.append(float(value2[5])) yawlist = [] yawlist.append(float(value[2])) yawlist.append(float(value2[2])) yawinterped = lin_interp(yaw, ycoef, yawlist) prev[0] = pitchinterped prev[1] = yawinterped correction = [] correction.append(float(value[6])) correction.append(float(value2[6])) correctionfactor = lin_interp(pitchinterped, pitchlist, correction) solv[0] = pitchinterped solv[1] = yawinterped solv[2] = correctionfactor return solv except UnboundLocalError: return prev except UnboundLocalError: return prev def answers(correctionfactor, i, ans, plist, mach, ratio, CFD_data): """ correctionfactor = value for correcion factor i = step counter ans = previously solved solution matrix, without current correction factor applied plist = raw data values mach = CFD data for Mach number at zero pitch and yaw ratio = NACA TN 1135 tables CFD_Data = Inserted CFD data Goes through the calibration process, with the applied correction factor """ print i staticpress = static_p(p2, p3, p4, p5, plist) pressureration = press_r(pt, staticpress, plist) pressureratio = []
136

for g in range(len(pressureration)): pressureratio.append(pressureration[g]/correctionfactor) polinter = rational(array(mach_y(mach, 1)),array(mach_x(mach, 0)) , pressureratio) polinter_interpolated = rational_2(polinter, ratio) totalpressure = total_pressure(plist, pt, polinter_interpolated) q1r = dynamic_pressure(polinter, ratio) q1 = dynamic_p(q1r, totalpressure) test2 = find(i, q1, ans, polinter, CFD_data, plist) test2[3] = polinter[i] return test2 def save_file(variable, name): """ variable = data to be saved into text file name = name of created file creates a text file and saves documents into the file """ f = open(name, "w") inslist = variable f.write("\n".join(map(lambda x: str(x), variable))) f.close() def solve(init, step, filename, counter, solution, counterb): """ init = last recorded data point in the previous solution, which behaves as initial data point in new test range step = 0 if first run, otherwise equals 1 filename = file to be imported position holder counter = position holder solution = solution array matrix counterb = step counter solves for the initial values needed to get coefficients of pitch and yaw returns the solution [Pitch, Yaw, Correction Factor, Mach number] """ plist = csv_importer(6, filename) "import raw data" ratio = create("Tables.txt", 401, 5, 5, 4) "import reference tables" mach = create("machinsert.txt", 14, 3, 3, 2) CFD_data = csv_importer(11, "CFD Insert.csv") "imports CFD data" staticpress = static_p(p2, p3, p4, p5, plist) "find avg static pressure"
137

pressureratio = press_r(pt, staticpress, plist) "find static pressure ratio" polinter = rational(array(mach_y(mach, 1)),array(mach_x(mach, 0)) , pressureratio) "interpolate static pressure ratio in CFD to get Mach number" polinter_interpolated = rational_2(polinter, ratio) "interpolate Mach number with reference tables to get pressure ratios Pt2/Pt1" totalpressure = total_pressure(plist, pt, polinter_interpolated) "find total pressure, pt1 = pt2/(pt2/pt1)" q1r = dynamic_pressure(polinter, ratio) "finds dynamic pressure ratio, q1/pt1" q1 = dynamic_p(q1r, totalpressure) "find dynamic pressure, q1 = (q1/pt1)pt1" solution = pitch_yaw_roll(init, step, polinter, q1, CFD_data, plist, mach, ratio, counter, solution, counterb) return solution counter = 0 counterb = 0 solution = zeros([20085,5]) backup = zeros(4) solved, counter, counterb = solve(backup, 0, "CFD test data.csv", counter, solution, counterb) solutionprev = [] for k in range(len(solved[counterb-1])-1): solutionprev.append(solved[counterb-1][k+1]) print 'solutionprev', solutionprev solved, counter, counterb = solve(solutionprev, 1, "HOPE701-1400.csv", counter, solved, counterb) solutionprev = [] for k in range(len(solved[counterb-1])-1): solutionprev.append(solved[counterb-1][k+1]) print 'solutionprev', solutionprev solved, counter, counterb = solve(solutionprev, 1, "HOPE1401-2100.csv", counter, solved, counterb) solutionprev = [] for k in range(len(solved[counterb-1])-1): solutionprev.append(solved[counterb-1][k+1]) print 'solutionprev', solutionprev solved, counter, counterb = solve(solutionprev, 1, "HOPE2101-2800.csv", counter, solved, counterb) solutionprev = [] for k in range(len(solved[counterb-1])-1): solutionprev.append(solved[counterb-1][k+1])
138

print 'solutionprev', solutionprev solved, counter, counterb = solve(solutionprev, 1, "HOPE2801-3500.csv", counter, solved, counterb) solutionprev = [] for k in range(len(solved[counterb-1])-1): solutionprev.append(solved[counterb-1][k+1]) print 'solutionprev', solutionprev

save_file(solved, "SOLUTION.txt") savetxt("Solution.txt", solved) print solved

139

14.3 Appendix C ASRI Payload Guide

Australian Space Research Institute Ltd

Small Sounding Rocket Program

Zuni Payload Users' Guide

ASRI-SSRP-PUGver1c.doc Distribution: PUBLIC

Copyright ASRI 2005

140

141

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 1 of 38

142

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE

Copyright reserved in all respects, Australian Space Research Institute Ltd 2005 The copyright and trademarks of respective owners is acknowledged. This document remains the property of ASRI Ltd; no part of this document may be reproduced without the prior written consent of ASRI Ltd. However a license is granted to reproduce the Zuni Payload Users' Guide for the purpose of considering, completing and submitting a payload proposal to ASRI Ltd.

143

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 2 of 38

144

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

AMENDMENT LOG
Ver. 0A 0B 0C 0D 1 1a Release Date 2002-03-11 2002-03-11 2002-03-11 2002-03-11 2002-10-25 2005-02-21 Description of Change (Including Sections Affected) Created from extract of TRM Created from extract of TRM Created from extract of TRM Created from extract of TRM Updated to ZPM6. Filled in body Release for Auspace Space Endeavour Competition information General updates and addition of Appendix D Author Shaun Wilson Shaun Wilson Shaun Wilson Shaun Wilson Matthew Clark Richard Samuel Reviewer / Approver Richard Samuel Richard Samuel Richard Samuel Richard Samuel Shaun Wilson

1b

2005-04-11

Bernard Davison, Richard Samuel, Andrew Fenton, Bruce Henderson, Michael ODonnell, Michael Nicholls Bernard Davison

1c

2007-02-01

Updated links to documents and reference to RMS-2002

145

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 3 of 38

146

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This Zuni Payload Users' Guide for the Small Sounding Rocket Program is intended to provide information to payload developers on Zuni rocket payload hardware and systems Zuni rocket flight characteristics and environment SSRP Procedures Guidelines and ASRI requirements for payload development

147

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 4 of 38

148

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

TABLE OF CONTENTS
COPYRIGHT AND CONDITIONS OF USE .............................................................................2 AMENDMENT LOG..................................................................................................................3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..........................................................................................................4 TABLE OF CONTENTS ...........................................................................................................5 1 DOCUMENT OVERVIEW..................................................................................................7 1.1 PURPOSE .....................................................................................................................7 1.2 FORMATTING AND IDENTIFICATION .................................................................................7 1.3 HANDLING AND CONTROL ..............................................................................................7 1.4 SOURCE DID ................................................................................................................7 1.5 STRUCTURE ..................................................................................................................8 1.6 DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................................8 1.7 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................9 SSRP AND THE ZUNI ROCKET .....................................................................................10 2.1 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................10 2.2 MOTOR SPECIFICATION ...............................................................................................10 2.3 PAYLOAD RESTRICTIONS .............................................................................................10 ZUNI PAYLOAD MODULE ..............................................................................................11 3.1 INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................11 3.2 PAYLOAD BAY DIMENSIONS .........................................................................................11 3.3 MASS AND DISTRIBUTION ............................................................................................11 3.4 INTERFACES AND MOUNTING .......................................................................................11 FLIGHT ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................13 4.1 FLIGHT PHASES ..........................................................................................................13 4.2 LOADING AND VIBRATION .............................................................................................13 4.3 THERMAL ....................................................................................................................13 HANDLING AND TRANSPORT ......................................................................................14 5.1 PRE FLIGHT .................................................................................................................14 5.2 ASSEMBLY/DISASSEMBLY ............................................................................................14 5.3 POST FLIGHT ..............................................................................................................14 OPERATIONS .................................................................................................................15 6.1 OVERVIEW ..................................................................................................................15 6.2 PAYLOAD PREPARATION..............................................................................................15 TABLE 6-1: PREPARATION TO LAUNCH TIME LINE ....................................................................17 6.3 LAUNCH ......................................................................................................................17 6.4 RECOVERY .................................................................................................................17 SAFETY REQUIREMENTS .............................................................................................18
149

7.1

INTRODUCTION............................................................................................................18

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 5 of 38

150

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

7.2 7.3 7.4 7.5 8

ELECTRICAL-EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS (EEH) ..........................................................18 ARMING/DISARMING ....................................................................................................19 EMERGENCY ...............................................................................................................19 HAZARDS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................... 19

COMMUNICATIONS .......................................................................................................20 8.1 DOCUMENTATION ........................................................................................................20 8.2 ASRI INVOLVEMENT .................................................................................................... 20 8.3 ASRI CONTACTS ........................................................................................................ 20

APPENDIX A ZPM6 PAYLOAD COMPONENT DRAWIINGS ............................................ 21 APPENDIX B - CALCULATED FLIGHT PROFILE ................................................................. 25 APPENDIX C - RECORDED FLIGHT DATA ......................................................................... 27 APPENDIX D - PAYLOAD INFORMATION DOCUMENT TEMPLATE ................................. 28

1 2

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................29 1.1 DESCRIPTION OF PAYLOAD: ......................................................................................... 29

PAYLOAD SUBSYSTEMS ..............................................................................................30 2.1 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSYSTEM 1: .................................................................................. 30 2.2 DESCRIPTION OF SUBSYSTEM 2: .................................................................................. 30 2.3 PAYLOAD WEIGHT ....................................................................................................... 30 2.4 PROTRUSIONS ............................................................................................................ 30 2.5 LIVING MATERIAL ......................................................................................................... 31 2.6 EXPLOSIVE MATERIAL .................................................................................................. 31 2.7 FLAMMABLE MATERIAL................................................................................................. 31 2.8 CHEMICAL MATERIAL ................................................................................................... 31 2.9 OTHER HAZARDOUS MATERIAL ..................................................................................... 31 PROCEDURES ............................................................................................................... 32 3.1 ASSEMBLY .................................................................................................................. 32 3.2 PREPARATION ............................................................................................................. 32 3.3 PRE-LAUNCH .............................................................................................................. 32 3.4 RECOVERY ................................................................................................................. 33 3.5 PERSONNEL ................................................................................................................ 33 3.6 PROCEDURES TO BE CONDUCTED DURING THE LAUNCH SEQUENCE .............................. 35 FAILURE MODE ANALYSIS ........................................................................................... 36 RISKS ANALYSIS ........................................................................................................... 37 5.1 GENERAL .................................................................................................................... 37 5.2 RISKS ......................................................................................................................... 37

4 5

151

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 6 of 38

152

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

1 1.1

DOCUMENT OVERVIEW PURPOSE

The purpose of this Zuni Payload Users' Guide (PUG) is to clearly state the requirements that payloads intended for launch on ASRI's sounding rockets must satisfy and to assist payload developers to meet those requirements.

1.2

FORMATTING AND IDENTIFICATION

To ensure uniformity of appearance, ASRI project documents are formatted with the styles defined in the applicable template or DID. ASRI project documents are to be titled in accordance with the ASRI Project System scheme described at www.asri.org.au. The document title is entered in Document Properties Summary Title and the project title is entered in Document Properties Summary Subject. ASRI project documents are assigned document numbers and version numbers in accordance with the ASRI Project System scheme described at www.asri.org.au. Changes at each version are to be recorded in the Amendment Log. ASRI project documents are saved under the document number with the version number appended to the file name as (for example) ver2D. This number combination is shown on the cover page and in the header as the automatically updated FileName field.

1.3

HANDLING AND CONTROL

Unless assigned a CONTROLLED distribution control, Small Sounding Rocket Program project documents are stored in the Small Sounding Rocket Program Virtual Project Office (VPO) at www.asri.org.au. Hardcopies are not amendment controlled and thus should not be used for normative reference. Distribution of this document is PUBLIC; that is, there are no restrictions on release of this document, although the Project Manager or document creator might restrict release of drafts until formally reviewed. All information contained herein remains copyright ASRI.

1.4

SOURCE DID
This Zuni Payload Users' Guide for the Small Sounding Rocket Program was created from generic ASRI Project System document template available at www.asri.org.au and the draft developed by Richard Samuel in early 2001.

153

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 7 of 38

154

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

1.5

STRUCTURE
This Zuni Payload Users' Guide is structured as follows: Document overview SSRP and the Zuni Payload Module Flight environment and Transport Operations Safety Requirements Communications Self-explanatory An introduction into the ASRI small sounding rockets program and the Zuni rocket Payload bay physical properties Zuni flight characteristics Handling Handling of payload experiments An introduction to SSRP launch trial operations and procedures ASRI requirements for safe design practices Payload development documentation and communications with ASRI

1.6

DEFINITIONS

1.6.1 Internal Definitions

Terms and abbreviations used in this document are defined below: AAC APM APSO ATM CLO DID Program ASRI Area Controller ASRI SSRP Payload manager ASRI Preparation and Safety Officer ASRI SSRP Trials Manager Commonwealth Liaison Officer Data Item Description An enduring management structure encompassing an ongoing series of time-limited activities, usually projects, conducted around a common theme, such as launch vehicles or satellites. Virtual Project Office a sub-domain of the ASRI web site at to www.asri.org.au where project documentation is stored.
155

VPO

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 8 of 38

156

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

1.6.2 External Definitions

Further definitions are contained in higher-level project documents (if any) and the ASRI Glossary of Terms.

1.6.3 Precedence of Definitions

Should there be a conflict in definitions, the following order of precedence applies: 1. ASRI-SSRP-SOP SSRP Safety and Operations Plan (Distribution LIMITED) 2. Section 1.6.1 of this document 3. ASRI Glossary of Terms http://www.asri.org.au/library/asri-glossary-of-terms

1.7

REFERENCES
The documents listed below become part of this Zuni Payload Users' Guide to the extent referenced herein: ASRI Glossary of Terms http://www.asri.org.au/library/asri-glossary-of-terms ASRI-SSRP-SOP SSRP Safety and Operations Plan (Distribution LIMITED) ASRI Safety Regulations Range Safety Manual (RMS-2002) for Godard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) June 28, 2002 WFF Safety Office Suborbital and Special Orbital Projects Directorate ASRI SSRP Payload Users Guide Appendix D http://www.asri.org.au/SSRP/ASRI-SSRP-PUG-Appendix-D-ver2a.doc ASRI reference documents are available at www.asri.org.au.

157

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 9 of 38

158

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

2 2.1

SSRP AND THE ZUNI ROCKET PURPOSE

To provide Australian educational institutions from primary schools to universities with a high-acceleration rocket payload launch service at very low cost.

2.2

MOTOR SPECIFICATION
Nomenclature: Propellant Grain: Grain Mass: Mass of Motor: Hazard Division (HD): Hazard Classification Code (HCC): UN Number: Package details: Filled package mass: Rocket Motor (ZUNI) Mk16 Mod 0, 1 & 2 Double base N8, extruded, starred central perforation 15 kg 26.7 Kg 1.3 C 0281 1 Motor per Wooden Box 44.5 kg

2.3

PAYLOAD RESTRICTIONS
There are few limitations on the type of payloads which can be flown but they must not exceed mass and available dimensions, nor represent a hazard to personnel or property, or contravene ethical guidelines such as in the carriage of live animals. Changes to the external configuration of the vehicle are prohibited and any protrusions or modification to the exterior of the payload module, even such as a window, must be analysed and documented to the satisfaction of the ASRI SSRP Trials Manager prior to scheduling.

159

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 10 of 38

160

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

3 3.1

ZUNI PAYLOAD MODULE INTRODUCTION

The standard Zuni Payload Module, ZPM6 carries the experiment being flowing in the payload upper section half of the module. The lower section includes the separation module and parachute recovery system that returns the module safely to the ground.

3.2

PAYLOAD BAY DIMENSIONS

The standard payload module internal bay is 500mm length and 117mm internal diameter. The payload must fit completely within these dimensions.

3.3

MASS AND DISTRIBUTION

The maximum allowable payload mass is 22kg. Centre of mass must be at or forward of the dimensional centroid of the entire module. Figure 3-1: ZPM6

3.4 INTERFACES AND MOUNTING

The preferred payload mounting arrangements are based on experience gained in preparing previous payloads for launch, which should consist of: A. Fastened directly the payload adapter plate at the aft end of the payload bay via 3 M8 threaded rods that may be used to secure a single module to the base plate, or to mount a series of shelves supported by struts. See drawing of ZPM6-4 for mounting plate dimensions in Appendix A, or

Figure 3-2: Shelves Supported by Struts B. By supporting the payload within high-density foam cut the correct internal dimensions of the payload bay. See drawing of ZPM6-3, Appendix A

161

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 11 of 38

162

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

Foam Packaging/Insulation

Experiment Figure 3-3: Experiment Supported in Foam

163

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 12 of 38

164

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

4 4.1

FLIGHT ENVIRONMENT FLIGHT PHASES

Separation was timed to occur at 50 seconds into the flight

Burnout occurs after ~ 1.5 seconds

Parachute deployment timed to occur at 60 seconds

Payload landing at ~ 5 minutes

Figure 4-1 Zuni Flight Phases

4.2

LOADING AND VIBRATION

Maximum axial acceleration at lift-off: 70 g for 1.2 seconds Maximum Velocity: Mach 2 Maximum axial deceleration after burnout: 10g for 4 seconds Maximum rotation rate: 4 Hz Maximum axial deceleration at main parachute deployment: -50 g Descent Velocity: 8-10 m/s depending on payload mass Axial load at landing: -20 g instantaneous impact

See Appendix B and C for flight profile using modelling and previously recorded flight data.

4.3

THERMAL
As the payload will spend a very short time supersonic, frictional heating is considered insignificant. In the case of a sealed payload, the ambient
165

temperature considerations are negligible due to the short flight duration and the large heat capacity of the payload module. In a non-sealed module,

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 13 of 38

166

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

ambient conditions should be considered. At maximum altitude (6000m) standard atmospherics conditions are: Temperature: 249K Pressure: 47kPa Density: 0.66kg/m3

5 5.1

HANDLING AND TRANSPORT

PRE FLIGHT

Payload experiments will be delivered to the launch area by road and will be handled in horizontal, vertical and inverted configurations. Payloads should be packaged as necessary to protect against dust and vibration. If hazardous materials are to be used in the payload they must be removed and transported separately.

5.2

ASSEMBLY/DISASSEMBLY
Assembly requiring the use of large or electrical equipment may be conducted at the launch site with the prior permission of ASRI Launch personnel. ASRI personnel will perform final integration of the payload module with the motor.

5.3

POST FLIGHT
Recovery of the payload modules will take place at the conclusion of the launch program and while the remaining daylight permits a search. Hence the payload can spend up to 24 hours on the range before it is retrieved. Temperature ranges between -5 and +50 an d the possibility of C C precipitation should be considered. If necessary the payload should be packaged in such a way at to protect it from these conditions. In most cases the payload can be returned to the experimenter immediately after retrieval.

167

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 14 of 38

168

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

6 6.1

OPERATIONS OVERVIEW
Scheduled launch trails are held over the long weekends in June and October. Personnel and hardware involved typically arrive in Woomera on the Friday. On Saturday, ASRI personnel head to LA9 to prepare the launch area and the Zuni payload modules. On the Sunday morning, the payloads are integrated with the payload modules and final checks of the pyrotechnics are performed. Non-essential personnel then return to the observation area and launch operations commence. Once the launches are complete, a search party heads out onto the range to locate the payload modules. Proceedings are typically completed by the evening of the launch day.

6.2

PAYLOAD PREPARATION
Final preparation of the payloads will be completed on the morning of the launch. This involves checking and final approval of the payload experiments by the APM and integration of the payloads into the Zuni payload modules. At this time the experimenter may complete final checks and initiate the payload. Experimenters must return to the observation area unless express permission to remain at the launch site has been granted by the ATM. Payload integration, activation and flight readiness shall occur as follows:

Time before launch

30 minutes

Procedure
Integrate payload to motor.

Personnel
ASRI

Warning
Payload RF Transmitters SHALL NOT be operated whilst personnel are on the launcher Payload RF Transmitters SHALL NOT be operated whilst personnel are on the launcher Payload RF Transmitters SHALL NOT be operated whilst personnel are on the launcher

20 minutes

Place rocket with payload onto launch rail

ASRI

15 minutes

Experimenters may add an automatic launch hold here to initiate/check experiments/photos.

Experimenter

169

10 minutes

Arming of ASRI recovery electronics.

ASRI

5 minutes

Experimenters may

Experimenter/ASRI

Payload RF Transmitters SHALL NOT be operated whilst personnel are on the launcher Payload RF

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 15 of 38

170

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

add a launch hold here to initiate experiments.

Transmitters SHALL NOT be operated whilst personnel are on the launcher

171

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 16 of 38

172

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

5 minutes

All non essential personnel to retreat to bunker

All non essential

5 minutes

Connection of motor to launch circuit.

ASRI (APSO)

4 minutes

All personnel to enter launch bunker

All

4 minutes

Enter radio launch sequence/test launch circuit.

ASRI (ATM) / ASRI (APSO)

3 minutes

Experimenters may add a launch hold here to remotely initiate experiments. Radio launch sequence continue. Nominal launch Personnel allowed to leave bunker after "ROUND GONE" called by AAC over the radio.

Experimenters

2 minutes

ASRI (ATM)

Payload RF Transmitters SHALL NOT be operated whilst personnel are on the launcher Payload RF Transmitters SHALL NOT be operated whilst personnel are on the launcher Payload RF Transmitters SHALL NOT be operated whilst personnel are on the launcher Payload RF Transmitters SHALL NOT be operated whilst personnel are on the launcher Transmitters may be activated here by remote only. No personnel permitted to leave bunker. No personnel permitted to leave bunker.

0 T plus 10 seconds

ASRI (APSO) followed by all

TABLE 6-1: PREPARATION TO LAUNCH TIME LINE 6.3 LAUNCH

Launch will occur after commencement of Hazardous Operations as declared by the ATM.

6.4

RECOVERY
After the completion of all Hazardous Operations, interested personnel may proceed to LA9 under the supervision of the AAC for the formation of recovery search groups. If special procedures are required for the recovery of the payload, details must be given to the APM and experimenters should be present. No part of the payload or rocket may be moved or touched without
173

approval from the APM and the experimenter.

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 17 of 38

174

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

7 7.1

SAFETY REQUIREMENTS INTRODUCTION

Payloads must meet specific ASRI safety requirements. These factors will ensure safe handling and flight as well as facilitating efficient final launch preparations.

7.2

ELECTRICAL-EXPLOSIVE HAZARDS (EEH)

The term EEH is used when discussing hazards to electrically initiated explosive devices and systems. The equivalent United States Navy (USN) term is Hazards of Electromagnetic Radiation to Ordnance (HERO): the United States Army and United States Air Force refer to Electromagnetic Radiation (EMR) hazards. The United Kingdom (UK) use a broader term relating to all radiation (RADHAZ) whether these hazards relate to ordnance, personnel or fuel. In addition to the EEH arising from the use of radar, Citizens Band (CB) and High Frequency transceivers, mobile phones and payload telemetry or other transmitters or transceivers, inadvertent initiation of Electro-Explosive Devices (EED) may be caused by electrostatic discharge (ESD) effects or electromagnetic interference (EMI) from nearby circuits. This section applies only to the effects of electromagnetic radiation (EMR) and does not consider the precautions to be taken with regard to static electricity or lightning. Payloads must not emit EMR under the conditions specified in Table 6-1. Any payload that must emit EMR during a pre-launch test and whilst the payload is assembled to a modified (igniter circuit) ZUNI rocket motor or to the standard 3 Inch (Sighter) rocket motor, or that is in the proximity thereof, must be capable of being activated and deactivated remotely and be designed and manufactured to include a minium of two physical intercepts in the activation mechanism. The first intercept is to be included as part of the payload and the second intercept is to be operated remotely. The system shall be designed to be FAIL SAFE and the basic design rule that the failure of either intercept must not result in transmitter activation shall apply. The design requirements of ASRI Safety Regulations Section Four Hazardous Systems shall be observed. Additional information is contained in the Range Safety Manual (RMS-2002) for Godard Space Flight Center (GSFC)/Wallops Flight Facility (WFF) June 28, 2002 WFF Safety Office Suborbital and Special Orbital Projects Directorate. This document can be located on the web at a number of locations.

175

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 18 of 38

176

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

7.3

ARMING/DISARMING
Any electronics in the experiment should include a system for easy arming and disarming with some visible or audible status indication. This facilitates final launch preparation.

7.4

EMERGENCY
The design must consider shutdown and disassembly procedure in emergency situations.

7.5

HAZARDS ANALYSIS
A hazards analysis of the payload, if deemed necessary by the ASRI SSRP Trials Manager, must detail the failure mode for each component and the consequences of such a failure.

177

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 19 of 38

178

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

8 8.1

COMMUNICATIONS DOCUMENTATION
The payload information document template located in Appendix D must be completed and submitted to ASRI at least 30 days prior to launch.

8.2

ASRI INVOLVEMENT
Details should be communicated to ASRI personnel during the design phase for approval and to receive the benefit of ASRIs experience to avoid design changes down the line. ASRI can provide assistance for compliance with safety requirements, compatibility with the payload module and in other aspect of design.

8.3

ASRI CONTACTS
Members of the ASRI SSRP team can be contacted via the SSRP section of the ASRI website http://www.asri.org.au/SSRP

179

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 20 of 38

180

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

APPENDIX A ZPM6 PAYLOAD COMPONENT DRAWIINGS

181

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 21 of 38

182

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

183

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 22 of 38 184

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

185

Last saved on 1 February

2007 186

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 23 of 38

187

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

188

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 24 of 38 189

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

APPENDIX B - CALCULATED FLIGHT PROFILE

190

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 25 of 38

191

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

192

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 26 of 38

193

Small Sounding Rocket Program Zuni Payload Users' Guide ASRI-SSRP-PUG-ver1c.doc

APPENDIX C - RECORDED FLIGHT DATA

Altitude Acceleration Sun Sensor Flight Phase

Seconds
194

Last saved on 1 February 2007

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 27 of 38

195

14.4 Appendix D NACA1135 Charts

196

197

198

14.5 Appendix D Correction Factors

Mach 1 - Pitch Angle vs. Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Pitot Pressure
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 Pitch Angle 2 4 6 8

Pressure Ratio

Mach 1.2 - Pitch Angle vs. Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Pitot Pressure
1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 Pitch Angle 199 2 4 6 8

Pressure Ratio

Mach 1.4 - Pitch Angle vs. Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Pitot Pressure
1.2 1

Pressure Ratio

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 Pitch Angle 2 4 6 8

Mach 1.6 - Pitch Angle vs. Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Pitot Pressure
1.14 1.12 1.1 1.08 Pressure Ratio 1.06 1.04 1.02 1 0.98 0.96 0.94 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 Pitch Angle 200 2 4 6 8

Mach 1.8 - Pitch Angle vs. Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Pitot Pressure
1.2 1 Pressure Ratio 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 Pitch Angle 2 4 6 8

Mach 2 - Pitch Angle vs. Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Pitot Pressure
1.4 1.2 1 Pressure Ratio 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 Pitch Angle 2 4 6 8

201

Mach 2.2 - Pitch Angle vs. Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Pitot Pressure
1.25 1.2 1.15 1.1 1.05 1 0.95 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 Pitch Angle 2 4 6 8

Pressure Ratio

Mach 2.4 - Pitch Angle vs. Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Pitot Pressure
1.4 1.2 1 Pressure Ratio 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 Pitch Angle 2 4 6 8

202

Mach 2.6 - Pitch Angle vs. Ratio of Average Static Pressure to Pitot Pressure
1.4 1.2 1 Pressure Ratio 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -8 -6 -4 -2 0 Pitch Angle 2 4 6 8

Drawing 6

203

14.6 Appendix E Probe Calibration Matrices

Mach 1
0.25

(-7,7)

0.2 0.15 0.1

(7,7)

Coefficient of Yaw

0.05 0 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

-0.25

(-7,-7)

-0.2 -0.25 Coefficient of Pitch

(7,-7)

Mach 1.2
0.25

(-7,7)

0.2 0.15 0.1

(7,7)

Coefficient of Yaw

0.05 0 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25

-0.25

(-7,-7)

-0.2

(7,-7)
-0.25 Coefficient of Pitch

204

Mach 1.4
0.2

(-7,7)

0.15 0.1

(7,7)

Coefficient of Yaw

0.05 0 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

-0.2

(-7,-7)

(7,-7)
-0.2 Coefficient of Pitch

Mach 1.6
0.2

(-7,7)

0.15 0.1

(7,7)

Coefficient of Yaw

0.05 0 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

-0.2

(-7,-7)

(7,-7)
-0.2 Coefficient of Pitch

205

Mach 1.8
0.2

(-7,7)

0.15 0.1

(7,7)

Coefficient of Yaw

0.05 0 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 -0.1 -0.15 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

-0.2

(-7,-7)

(7,-7)
-0.2 Coefficient of Pitch

Mach 2
0.2

(-7,7)

0.15 0.1

(7,7)

Coefficient of Yaw

0.05 0 -0.2 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 -0.1 0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2

(-7,-7)

-0.15 -0.2 Coefficient of Pitch

(7,-7)

206

Mach 2.2
(-7,7)
0.15

(7,7)

0.1

0.05 Coefficient of Yaw

0 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

-0.1

(-7,-7)

-0.15 Coefficient of Pitch

(7,-7)

Mach 2.4
0.15

(-7,7)
0.1

(7,7)

0.05 Coefficient of Yaw

0 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

-0.1

(-7,-7)
-0.15 Coefficient of Pitch

(7,-7)

207

Mach 2.6
0.15

(-7,7)
0.1

(7,7)

0.05 Coefficient of Yaw

0 -0.15 -0.1 -0.05 -0.05 0 0.05 0.1 0.15

-0.1

(-7,-7)

-0.15 Coefficient of Pitch

(7,-7)

208

14.7 Appendix F Pressure Calibration graphical results

Channel 2
100 80 Pressure, P (kPa) 60 40 20 0 -20 0 50 100 Voltage, V (mV) 150 200 y = 0.7666x - 30.013 R = 0.9999

Channel 3
100 Pressure, P (kPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 Voltage, V (mV) 150 200 y = 0.7726x - 31.522 R = 0.9999

Channel 4
100 Pressure, P (kPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 50 100 Voltage, V (mV) 150 200 y = 0.7726x - 30.749 R = 0.9999

209

Channel 5
90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 -10 0 Pressure, P (kPa) y = 0.772x - 31.006 R = 0.9998

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Voltage, V (mV)

Channel 6
100 Pressure, P (kPa) 80 60 40 20 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 y = 0.1218x + 3.5947 R = 0.9857

Voltage, V (mV)

Channel 7
20 0 Pressure, P (kPa) -20 0 -40 -60 -80 -100 Voltage, V (mV) 20 40 60 y = 2.5272x - 261.95 R = 0.9992 80 100 120

210

14.8 Appendix G Transducer Data Sheets

14.8.1 Freescale MPX5700AP

211

212

213

214

215

216

14.8.2 SSI Technology P51-300-G-A-I36-4.5OV-R

SSI Technologies Application Note PS-AN2

Pro du ct De scr ipti on
The MediaSensor (P51) family of bulk micro-machined, absolute, sealed and gage pressure sensors are for both harsh and benign media with superior accuracy over an operating temperature of -40 to 105 C C. These compact, robust sensors measure pressures from 3 PSI to 5,000 PSI and are well suited for a variety of automotive, industrial and co m me rci al ap plic ati on s.

Product Features
Superb Accuracy: o +/- 0.5% Full Scale for 75 PSI to 5000 PSI o +/- 1% Full Scale for 15 PSI to 60 PSI o +/- 2% Full Scale for 3 PSI to 10 PSI Pressure Ranges: 3 PSI to 5,000 PSI Electronics: o 0.5 4.5 Volt output (with 5V input) o 0.5 4.5 Volt output with

overvoltage protection (with 5V input) o 1-5 Volt non output (with 8 - 30V input) o 4 20 mA output (with 8 - 30V input) Temperature Range: -40 to 105 C C Maximum Flexibility: Custom ASIC provides signal conditioning for calibration and temperature compensation. Standard and custom options available for OEM 217

q u a n t i t i e s Excellent price/performance ratio

MediaSensor Family of Pressure Sensors with integrated signal conditioning

Compact, Robust Package: All laser-welded stainless steel design for optimal media isolation in compact size Chemical Compatibilities: Any gas or

liquid compa

Typical Applications: Refrigeration; Fuel Cells; Pumps; Hydraulics; Process Control; Spraying Systems; Pneumatics; Compressors; Flow; Robotics; Agriculture; Hydrogen Storage Call us at 1- 888 477- 4320 or visi t our Website: http://ssitechnologies.com SSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Controls Division 2643 W. Court Street Janesville, WI 53548-5011 Phone: (608)758-1500 Fax: (608) 758-2491 www.ssitechnologies.com

Standard Full Scale Pressure Ranges

Gage: 3, 5,10, 15, 25, 30, 50, 60, 75, 100, 120, 130, Page 1 200, 225, 250 and 300 PSIG Sealed: 50, 100, 150, 200, 300, 400, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000, 3000 and 5000 PSIS Absolute: 15, 30, 50, 65, 75, 100, 150, 200, 250, 300, 500, 750, 1000, 1500, 2000, and 3000 PSIA

Measurement Technology
In general, pressure measurement technology 218

translates force from an induced pressure into an electrical quantity. The MediaSensor family of pressure transducers and transmitters use piezoresistive technology for its sensor signal processing to measure pressure. A micro-machined stainless steel convoluted diaphragm with a silicon crystal semiconductor is used. Strain gauges (resistive elements) in the silicon crystal are used in a Wheatstone Bridge circuit. When pressure is applied, the resistivity of the strain gauges changes proportional to the pressure applied. Since a single silicon crystal is used it has a low mechanical hysteresis with good linearity. One leg of the bridge measures the input pressures port. The other leg of the bridge is connected to the reference port the input pressure port is compared to. The connection to this reference port determines the pressure sensing convention used. The MediaSensor family comes in a choice of three pressure sensing type conventions: sealed). absolute, gauge (vented or

Absolute MediaSensors measure pressure relative to perfect Vacuum pressure (0 PSI) which remains unchanged regardless of temperature, location or other ambient conditions such as weather. Absolute MediaSensors are calibrated to have 0.5 Vdc, 1 Vdc, or 4 mA respectively at 0 P S I A . There are two different gauge pressure conventions Vented Gauge and Sealed Gauge. Gauge MediaSensors measure pressure relative to ambient room vented (open) pressure through a port that is to the atmosphere. Gauge

MediaSensors are calibrated to have 0.5 Vdc, 1 Vdc, or 4 mA respectively at 0 PSIG. Sealed MediaSensors measure pressure relative to a port that is connected to a sealed perfect vacuum chamber. Sealed MediaSensors are calibrated to 14.5 PSI absolute. MediaSensors are calibrated to have 0.5Vdc, 1 Vdc, or 4 mA respectively at 14.5 PSIA. The MediaSensor takes the two voltage output ports of the Wheatstone bridge and amplifies Sealed

th

1) 0.5 4.5 Volt ratiometric output (transducer) 2) 0.5 4.5 V ratiometric output with Overvoltage protection (transducer) 3) 1 5 volt output (transducer) 4) 4 20 mA output (transmitters)

SSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Controls Division 2643 W. Court Street Janesville, WI 53548-5011 Phone: (608)758-1500 Fax: (608) 758-2491 www.ssitechnologies.com Pa ge 2

Copyright January 12, 2009 SSI Technologies Inc. All Rights Reserved Revision 3 219

RoHS

220

Ratiometric outputs vary as a ratio of the supply voltage. Transmitters are very suitable in applications that use long cables. There is virtually no error

MediaSensor Features
All to

Compensations

the compensation circuitry is internal the MediaSensor pressure transducer. No external from voltage drop introduced from the wire compensation modules are needed. resistance when sending the signal as a current. They are also less sensitive 1) Zero balancing (Null Offset) Calibration Some piezoresistive pressure transducers use only an unprotected silicon sensing element. Silicon is a brittle crystalline material, which can sometimes crack under severe cold transient environments. The MediaSensor pressure transducer uses an additional 316L stainless steel convoluted diaphragm with a protective non-silicone oil to protect the sensitive silicon sensing element from the harsh media and environmental conditions. The 316L stainless steel diaphragm not only provides for optimal water and chemical media isolation for the silicon crystal sensing element but can handle cold temperature transients without sustaining damage. During manufacturing the Wheatstone Bridge

to electromag

resistive elements are closely matched and compensated, however an offset voltage (due to resistance differences) may still exist. SSI MediaSensor compensates for this offset over operating temperature range (refer to Table 1). 2) Span Calibration The resistance of silicon gauges is temperature dependent. The span will shift with temperature to a final stabilized value as it warms up. SSI MediaSensor compensates for this span variation over operating temperature range.

Under cold transient conditions and within our operating temperature range, the oil does not gel and acts as a buffer for the silicon sensing element from the extreme temperature transients found in certain applications such as refrigeration.

SSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Controls Division 2643 W. Court Street Janesville, WI 53548-5011 Phone: (608)758-1500 Fax: (608) 758-2491

www.ssitechnologies.com

221

Copyright January 12, 2009 SSI Technologies Inc. All Rights Reserved Revision 3

RoHS

222

Typical Connections
MediaSensor 4 -20mA Output connections: The following torque limits should be used when mounting the MediaSensor pressure port. 1) Connect the Power Lead (Red) to the + terminal of the supply voltage. Connect the Return Lead (White) to the + terminal of the current measuring device Connect the terminal of the current measuring device to the terminal of the supply voltage.

2)
Straight Thread w/O-Ring: High Pressure PSI) All others with out Port types T, U, Y Parts with Ports T,U, Y NPTF Thread: 120 in lb 2 T.F.F.T. (Turns From Finger Tight) 150 in lb (> 750 Recommended Torque 300 in lb

3)

MediaSensor Voltage Output connections: 1) Connect the Power Lead (Red) to the + terminal of the supply voltage. 2) Connect the Ground Lead (Black) and the terminal of the supply voltage to input of your equipment. 3) voltage measurement

Connect the Vout Lead (White) to the + input of your voltage measurement equipment.

SSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Controls Division 2643 W. Court Street Janesville, WI 53548-5011 Phone: (608)758-1500 Fax: (608) 758-2491 www.ssitechnologies.com 223

Copyright January 12, 2009 SSI Technologies Inc. All Rights Reserved Revision 3

RoHS

224

P a c k a g i n g
MediaSensor is readily available in a large selection of standard packaging options. MediaSensor offers an integral harness with 6 standard lengths and four standard readily available connectors (Packard, Deutsch, M12 and Mini DIN). In addition, SSI will work with the customer to meet their needs with custom options for large volumes orders. (I.e... special fittings & connectors; special pressure ranges; operating temperature; and increased accuracy). Integral Harness (Standard lengths of 6, 12, 18, 24, 36 and 72). The Harness can be constructed of either PVC Jacketed 18 or 24 AWG Wire.

Red - Power White - Return

Integral Harness Transmitter (4 to 20 mA)

Wire Color Red Powe r White Vout Black Grou nd

Integral Harness Transducer(1 to 5 Vdc or 0.5 to 4.5Vdc)

W i r e C o l o r

225

SSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Controls Division 2643 W. Court Street Janesville, WI 53548-5011 Phone: (608)758-1500 Fax: (608) 758-2491 www.ssitechnologies.com Pa ge 5

Copyright January 12, 2009 SSI Technologies Inc. All Rights Reserved Revision 3

RoHS

226

Standard Connector Options

Pin 1 - Power 2 - Not Used 3 - Return

Pin 1 - Power 2 - Ground 3 - Vout

Packard Connector Transmitter (4 to 20 mA)

Packard Connector Transducer (1 to 5 Vdc or 0.5 to

4.5Vdc)

Pin 1 - Power 2 - Not Used 3 - Return

Pin 1 - Power 2 - Ground 3 - Vout

Deutsch Connector Transmitter (4 to 20 mA)

Deutsch Connector Transducer (1 to 5 Vdc or 0.5 to

4.5Vdc)

SSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Controls Division 2643 W. Court Street Janesville, WI 53548-5011 Phone: (608)758-1500 Fax: (608) 758-2491 www.ssitechnologies.com

Copyright January 12, 2009 SSI Technologies Inc. All Rights Reserved Revision 3 227

RoHS

228

SSI

Pin 1 - Power 2 - Return 3 Not Used 4 Not Used

Pin 1 - Power 2 - Ground 3 Vout 4 Not Used

M12 Connector Transmitter (4 to 20 mA)

M12 Connector Transducer (1 to 5 Vdc or 0.5 to

4.5Vdc)

Pin 1 - Power 2 - Return 3 Not Used 4 Not Used

Pin 1 - Power 2 - Vout 3 Ground 4 Not Used

DIN 43650 Transmitter Connector

DIN 43650 Transducer Connector

www.ssitechnologies.com SSI TECHNOLOGIES, INC. Controls Division 2643 W. Court Street Janesville, WI 53548-5011 Phone: (608)758-1500 Fax: (608) 758-2491 229

Copyright January 12, 2009 SSI Technologies Inc. All Rights Reserved Revision 3

RoHS

230

Standard Packaging Options

Integral Harness with 22mm Hex 5/8 Hex Harness Construction: PVC Jacketed 18 or 24 AWG Wire

Integral Harness with

Please visit our website at http://www.ssitechnologies.com for a more information and a listing of all the series of pressure sensors in the MediaSensor family or call SSI toll-free at 1- 888- 4774320

Last saved on 29 October 2010

Distribution: PUBLIC

Page 231 of 263

14.9 Appendix H Payload Description.

The following is the payload description that was sent to ASRI as a prelaunch briefing. It was used so they could see what our payload was and what it did. The following file was what was sent. It is based off the ASRI payload guide as seen in Appendix C.

APPENDIX D PAYLOAD INFORMATION DOCUMENT TEMPLATE

ASRI-SSRP-PUG-Appendix-D-2008.doc
Save as ASRI-SSRP-PUG-Appendix-D-Air Data System- Version 1.0

AIR DATA SYSTEM

Payload description, Preparation and Launch procedures

For launch in 10/10
prepared by

Surname WILCOX PALMER

Given names Daniel Jordan

Organisation UQ UQ

Address

Phone number

LE

William

UQ

List of contact details of all individuals that have any management or executive involvement in this particular project. Introduction

This document lists the components and sets out the procedures to be followed and identifies the hazards during the launch of the Air Data System test flight. It covers the duties and procedures to be followed to ensure the safety and health of ASRI personnel involved with the launch and other personnel that might be involved with the launch procedure.

Description of Air Data System:

The purpose of the payload is to determine the flight characteristics of the Zuni rocket. The payload will replace the nose cone provided on the Zuni rocket with a similar nose cone which houses five pressure transducers to measure the pressure around the cone. From this we can accurately determine the yaw, pitch and roll angles as well as the speed of the Zuni Rocket. From this, we can determine a trajectory and flight pattern of the rocket which can be potentially used for future projects where this data is important. The payload will start recording data from the moment the rocket is launched. This will be achieved via a trip wire which will be pulled at launch. The payload will continue recording until the memory in the Data Acquisition Module is full (approx 10 seconds). The design is very simple. With no moving parts, or computer controlled systems. There are 2 9V batteries located in the Data Acquisition Module that provide the power to the system.

Payload subsystems Conical Nose Piece Data Acquisition Module

Description of Conical Nose Piece:

The Conical Nose Piece is designed to house the pressure transducers used, as well as act as the nose cone for the Zuni Rocket. There are five pressure transducers located inside the cone, 1 measuring the pressure at the tip, with the other 4 measuring the pressure along the sides of the cone. These will be soldered into an electrical board that is bolted onto the inside of the cone, with the transducers connected to the outside via plastic and copper tubing. The conical nose piece will be made out of low carbon steel, due to the weight requirements set by ASRI, with a weight of approx 10.4kg.

The following diagram shows the Conical Nose Piece.

Description of the Data Acquisition Module:

The Data Acquisition Module is used to record the data received by the pressure transducers. The module being used is the same module that has flown previously on Zuni Rocket flights to record data. The housing is made of aluminium, and weighs approximately 1kg total. The Data Acquisition Module is powered by two 9V batteries, held securely in the base of the module. There is a trip wire attached to the module that will be pulled at launch to start the recording of data. The dimensions of the Data Acquisition Module has an outer diameter of 127mm and a height of about 110mm. The Data Acquisition Module is to be bolted into an existing payload casing using 6 M3 bolts.

The following diagram shows The Data Acquisition Module.

The Full Assembly of the System is shown below:

Payload weight
The payload weighs: 11.4 kg

Protrusions
Does the payload have any protrusions? No

Figure 14-1 Payload protrusions diagram

Living material
Does the payload contain any living material? If yes is ethical clearance documentation attached? No No

Explosive material
Does the payload contain any explosive material? If yes is appropriate clearance documentation attached? No No

Flammable material
Does the payload contain any flammable material? If yes is appropriate clearance documentation attached? No No

Chemical material
Does the payload contain any chemical material? If yes is appropriate clearance documentation attached? No No

Other hazardous material

Does the payload contain any other hazardous material? If yes is appropriate clearance documentation attached? No No

Calculated Coefficient of Drag

Coefficient of drag must be calculated to assist in recovery calculations for parachute deployment of your payload.

Calculated Coefficient of Drag~ 0.32 at Re 104

Procedures

Use warnings where and if required.

Assembly
Before the payload is transported to the launch site, the nose cone and the data acquisition will be assembled such that the pre-launch preparation stage is minimal.

Payload subsystem 1: Conical Nose Piece As stated in the description, the transducers will be connected to the surface of the nose cone via a flexible hose and rigid copper tubing. This copper tubing will be glued into position with a strong adhesive. The overhang on the surface side of the nose cone will be filed down and shaped such that it sits flush with the natural shape and curvature of the cone. The flexible hosing will be sleeved onto the copper tubing and clamped into place. It will remain attached to copper tubing (and therefore the nosecone) for the remainder of the project. The pressure transducers will be positioned inside the internal cavity of the nose cone. They will be arranged on a strip board and soldered into place. The stripboard design and the required wiring will be completed before transporting the payload to the launch site. Furthermore, the support backing plate which will take the loads such that the strip board does not fracture during the flight will be manufactured and screwed into place. (WARNING: The pressure transducers will not be connected to the flexible hosing at this time so, the backing plate will need to be removed pre-launch and the hosing attached.

Payload subsystem 2: Data Acquisition Module.

The DAQ module is self assembling and not a complicated process. Before transportation however, the amplifier for the central transducer will be installed onto the F-box module and the gain will be set appropriately. For transportation the DAQ module will be assembled without the batteries.

Preparation
Preparation procedures are carried out inside the bunker at the launch site.

There is very little that needs to be done inside the bunker, other than ensuring that everything is correctly attached after transportation, and the electronics components are working correctly.
Articles required

PPE minimum: Hat Long sleeve tops Long pants Covered shoes Gloves (riggers/safety) Eye protection
Extra: Screwdriver set Spanner Set or Shifting Spanner 4 x 9V Batteries Power bridge connections Break wire Laptop

Hose Tie
Payload Subsystem 1: Conical Nose Piece Pre launch, the pressure transducers must be connected to the flexible hosing. This requires the backing plate and the strip plate to be unscrewed. The hosing will be attached and then secured with tubing tie. The strip board will then be put into place, the washers and nylon separators assembled and the backing plate will be screwed firmly.

Payload Subsystem 2: Data Acquisition Module Pre launch, the 9 volt batteries will be installed and the DAQ module will be put inside the DAQ module casing and secured. The DAQ module will undergo a final test to ensure it is functioning

as intended. The power connection bridges will be put into the correct positions and the breakwire will be inserted. At this time, the pressure transducer connections (attached to transducers inside the nose cone) will be carefully attached to the appropriate connections on the DAQ module. (WARNING: This will require more than one person. One person must hold the nose cone while the other carefully connects the transducers to the DAQ module. Ensure no sudden jolts of the nose cone are made to reduce the risk of the cables breaking or detaching from the strip board. Also it is important that the central transducer be connected to the correct connection that has the amplifier.) Finally the nosecone must be screwed into the DAQ module casing with 6 x M5 screws.

Measure CG before motor integration. Measure Centre of Gravity from nose tip prior to motor integration for ATM to record on your flight records sheet.

210.9 mm

Pre-launch
Pre-launch procedures are carried out on the launch pad.

The procedures for the launch pad are minimal. The system needs to be attached and bolted to the rocket, with the trip wire attached to a stationary point on the ground to be disconnected at launch. The Data Acquisition Module also needs to have a final check to make sure it is in the correct state for launch. Photographs will also need to be taken at this point of the payload attached to the Zuni Rocket.
1. Conical Nose Piece There is nothing that needs to be done with the conical nose piece other than make sure it is securely attached to the Data Acquisition Module and the Payload Tube. 2. Data Acquisition Module Before launch, the Data Acquisition Module will be in a state ready to record data (Sampling Mode). The signals from the transducers will be held in a buffer but not stored to memory. The break wire will be inserted during the preparation stages but there will need to be something attached to the break wire before launch to ensure the break wire is removed when the motor is ignited. The LEDs on the I/O board have to also be checked one last time. At this stage with the break wire attached The following LEDs should be performing the following:

 Yellow Save Off Green Active Flashes Slowly Red Ready Glows Steadily The Data Acquisition Module is then bolted to the Payload/Parachute Module interface.

Recovery
Recovery procedures are carried out on the range.

The recovery of the Payload is very simple; the system needs to be unbolted from the parachute casing and transported from the landing site back to the bunker. The electrical system recording data will have run its course and will be in standby mode at the time of recovery. Articles required.
1. Shifting Spanner to disconnect from parachute tube. 2. A screw driver may be needed, however should not be necessary.

The following steps are required for payload recovery 1. Locate the payload 2. Remove bolts connecting payload and parachute tube. 3. Transport payload back to base

Personnel
The following personnel if any are involved in the Assembly, Preparation, Pre-launch and Recovery procedures.

Name Wilcox, Daniel Palmer, Jordan Le, William

Required for procedure All Procedures All Procedures Assembly, Preparation, Pre-Launch

Do persons required to be located at the launch site during launch operations have personal liability insurance? No Is a copy of the personal liability insurance attached? No

NOTICE: All persons in attendance will have to sign a disclaimer before they are allowed to enter any ASRI facility.

A copy of this disclaimer is included below for your convenience.

WARNING IMPORTANT LEGAL DISCLAIMER - READ CAREFULLY In consideration for ASRI permitting you access, you covenant agree warrant and represent as follows:1. You understand that the activities of Australian Space Research Institute Limited ACN 051 850 563 ("ASRI") are potentially hazardous to you and your property and in attending and/or participating you do so entirely at your own risk voluntarily assumed; You will not seek recourse for anything that might happen to you, those you are responsible for or your/their property; You are satisfied as to the adequacy of your own insurance and will rely soley on the same; To the maximum extent legally permissible ASRI shall not bear any responsibility or liability of any nature or form whatsoever to the intent that your attendance for all purposes is a purely private enterprise of your own. You hereby release, discharge and forever hold harmless ASRI, its officers, employees, servants, agents, members, supporters, contractors and all Commonwealth, State and Territory governments, and their instrumentalities from all present and future claims, liabilities, demands, grievances and the like howsoever arising including but not limited to negligence, tort, contract, statute (to the extent capable of limitation) strict liability or otherwise.

2. 3. 4.

5.

Procedures to be conducted during the launch sequence

The following procedures are to be conducted in line with the launch sequence as detailed in Table 61 of the Zuni Payload Users' Guide.

Time before launch 15 minutes

Procedure Make sure system is set up correctly, and the DAQ module is ready to record and the trip wire is secure and in place. Take photographs for future reference No more procedures need to be conducted. No more procedures need to be conducted.

5 minutes 3 minutes

Failure Mode Analysis Failures may occur during pre-launch, launch or flight. The following section must describe these failure modes and the likely outcomes that may occur.

All phases prior to launch Mode of Failure DAQ module fault Likely Outcome Data not recorded during flight, leading to a useless flight. Incorrect data recorded or no data recorded at all, leading to a useless flight. Data is recorded prematurely, useless recordings to begin with. Payload damage, possible flight cancellation.

Pressure Transducer fault

Kill switch prematurely disconnected

Accidental dropping of payload

During Flight Mode of Failure Bolts Shear under stress Pressure Transducers fail Batteries Disconnect from DAQ module Likely Outcome Payload will be destroyed Data is not recorded. Useless flight. DAQ module does not record data, useless

flight DAQ module fails DAQ module does not record data, useless flight

Risks Analysis General Give a description of the risks that this payload could potentially pose and how the risk can be mitigated to an acceptable level of safety. For example if the payload is heavy then there is a risk that it could be dropped; thus protective footwear should be worn at all times when working with or around the payload and more than one person should be involved in moving the payload. Risks Referring to Tables 4-1, 4-2 and 4-3 quantify the risks as in Table 4-4 and enter them into Table 4-5.

Level A

Descriptor Almost certain

Description The event is expected to occur in most circumstances The event will probably occur in most circumstances The event should occur at some time The event could occur at some time The event may occur only in exceptional circumstances

B C D E

Likely Moderate Unlikely Rare

Table 14-2. Qualitative Measures of Likelihood

Level 1 2

Descriptor Catastrophic Major

Description Death / Payload destroyed Extensive injuries / Extensive offsite repairs required to payload Medical treatment required off site / remedial offsite repairs required to payload

Moderate

Minor

First Aid treatment on site / remedial onsite repairs required to payload No injuries / no effect on payload

Insignificant

Table 14-3. Qualitative Measures of Consequences

Likelihood

Consequences 5 4 S S M L L 3 H S S M M 2 H H H S S 1 H H H H S

Legend: H S M L High risk Significant risk Moderate risk Low risk

A B C D E

S M L L L

Table 14-4. Legend

Table 14-5. Risk Analysis Matrix

Risk Analysis Matrix for Air Data System

Hazard Description Likelihood Consequence Control Risk Level Residual risk after control Acceptable

Event

1. Environmental Hazards

Sunburn A 3 H

Ensure that suitable clothing and hats are used at all times. (D,4) L Yes

Redness of skin, lasting irritation. Differing severities Ensure sufficient liquids are consumed. B 3 S

Dehydration

Headaches, dizziness, thirst, elevated temperature

(D,4) L

Yes

2. Hazards associated with the serviceability of the payload

Payload falls off a bench or table C 4 M

Minor damage to the payload.

Ensure that suitable payload restraining equipment is used at all times.

(D,4) L

Yes

Payload is dropped during handling C 4

Minor damage to the payload.

Ensure that a suitable number of personnel are present when moving the payload

(D,4) L

Yes

3. Hazards to personnel caused by payload.

Payload is dropped or falls off bench

Damage to personnel

Ensure that a suitable number of personnel are present when moving the payload

(E,4) L

Yes

Table 14-6 Risk analysis matrix

14.10
P1
Mach\Yaw 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

APPENDIX I CFD RESULTS

0 0 2184.31 9100.15 21948.8 43442 75567.8 117280 171990 240891 323200 419674 524347 637310 759141 1 0 2172.78 9071.32 21842.4 42678.8 76303.8 117047 171855 240247 323073 419364 523975 637005 758381 2 0 2168.9 9055.58 21813.7 42688.4 76245.5 117042 171765 240040 323147 419154 523561 635970 756978 3 0 2162.79 9034.11 21771.9 42663.5 76054.7 116992 171649 239893 323189 418976 523122 635159 755962 4 0 2154.59 9004.31 21714.2 42584.1 75994.2 116931 171472 239612 323035 418603 522383 634083 754312 5 0 2143.94 8964.84 21638.5 42445.7 75807 116792 171239 239221 322668 418013 521298 632606 752521 6 0 2130.92 8916.46 21547.9 42368.8 75630 116616 170955 238718 322252 417225 519971 630824 750625 7 0 2115.75 8860.14 21442.9 42208.5 75418 116392 170601 238122 321527 416225 518523 628891 748432

P2
Mach\Yaw 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 0 0 119.66 533.192 1385.29 3143.39 1 0 90.5449 416.0855 1112.873 2609.695 2 0 74.914 353.158 947.599 2174.91 3 0 52.462 261.624 736.834 1768.26 4 0 31.1947 175.593 535.042 1372.39 5 0 11.439 95.8399 345.756 996.938 6 0 -6.97825 21.176 170.902 644.915 7 0 -24.0659 -47.9005 7.28365 316.313

1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

13000.5 18428.5 24615.6 31137.3 37868.5 43684.2 48630.7 54703.7 62470.8

12898.23 19058.13 23155.33 28529.73 34227.53 39541.53 44018.18 49325.93 56074.38

11138.9 13643.4 20974.5 26250.5 31421.9 36090.6 39973.6 44511.5 50315.1

10172.2 13105.9 19547.3 24173.8 28621.1 32569.2 36025 40024 44971.3

8307.81 12420.7 18304 22162.6 25976.4 29346.8 32485.8 36001.1 40077.1

8085.73 12546.3 16956.1 20271.5 23495.2 26431.1 29170.1 32180 35696.1

7030.8 11774.5 15753.6 18467.9 21141.1 23611.2 26003.5 28664.7 31768.1

6324 11078.1 14520.4 16804.3 18983.2 20983 23004.2 25297.5 28123.1

P3
Mach\Yaw 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 0 0 90.5449 416.0855 1112.873 2609.695 12898.23 19058.13 23155.33 28529.73 34227.53 39541.53 44018.18 49325.93 56074.38 1 0 92.40995 423.624 1121.62 2572.01 12010.85 16078.55 22708.95 28071.35 33841.15 39411.6 44107.65 49448.3 56158.2 2 0 87.219 400.8755 1067.11 2455.935 11688.15 16247.95 22453.25 27710.5 33515.5 39170.95 43960.55 49314.65 56074.2 3 0 76.46325 364.378 978.3085 2276.35 10132.35 16130.35 22067.8 27110.8 32953.1 38705.2 43529.7 48927.35 55539.7 4 0 66.24 314.2175 855.5035 2026.215 10342.6 16463.85 21389.5 26301.75 32174.4 38055.1 42841 48271.05 54541.9 5 0 50.51855 248.931 698.063 1705.215 9407.85 15947.65 20573.6 25255.2 31152.3 37125.4 41896.75 47159.6 53279.15 6 0 31.47055 154.72 507.249 1319.15 8729.05 15324.7 19491.45 23967.1 29825.05 35848.8 40568.95 45629.8 51578.1 7 0 9.16267 76.42245 282.794 849.226 7928.95 14459.15 18246.7 22386.2 28229.55 34220.2 38841.4 43719.7 49468.35

P4
Mach\Yaw 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0 90.5449 416.0855 1112.873 2609.695 12898.23 1 0 119.66 533.192 1385.29 3143.39 13000.5 2 0 144.573 635.892 1626.65 3600.78 13778.9 3 0 170.544 741.828 1878.78 4099.81 13255 4 0 197.683 852.648 2140.98 4610.63 14935.5 5 0 225.897 968.24 2413.68 5132.97 15434 6 0 255.192 1087.96 2695.34 5678.57 16397 7 0 285.488 1211.52 2986.04 6234.03 17383

1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6

19058.13 23155.33 28529.73 34227.53 39541.53 44018.18 49325.93 56074.38

18428.5 24615.6 31137.3 37868.5 43684.2 48630.7 54703.7 62470.8

20103.1 26389.5 33695.4 41299.9 48068.7 53632.5 60436 69065.9

21735 28274 36292.2 44861.2 52699.6 59011.4 66553 75994.4

23752.5 30165.9 38976.5 48560.4 57492.9 64697.9 73048.1 83616.5

25425.9 32229 41760 52321.8 62497.9 70679.5 79803.3 91644.6

27166.9 34299.2 44614.8 56220.6 67796 77063.7 86992.4 100146

28855.7 36570 47531.5 60250.1 73218.1 83708.8 94561.8 108865

P5
Mach\Yaw 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6 1.8 2 2.2 2.4 2.6 0 0 90.5449 416.0855 1112.873 2609.695 12898.23 19058.13 23155.33 28529.73 34227.53 39541.53 44018.18 49325.93 56074.38 1 0 92.40995 423.624 1121.62 2572.01 12010.85 16078.55 22708.95 28071.35 33841.15 39411.6 44107.65 49448.3 56158.2 2 0 87.219 400.8755 1067.11 2455.935 11688.15 16247.95 22453.25 27710.5 33515.5 39170.95 43960.55 49314.65 56074.2 3 0 76.46325 364.378 978.3085 2276.35 10132.35 16130.35 22067.8 27110.8 32953.1 38705.2 43529.7 48927.35 55539.7 4 0 66.24 314.2175 855.5035 2026.215 10342.6 16463.85 21389.5 26301.75 32174.4 38055.1 42841 48271.05 54541.9 5 0 50.51855 248.931 698.063 1705.215 9407.85 15947.65 20573.6 25255.2 31152.3 37125.4 41896.75 47159.6 53279.15 6 0 31.47055 154.72 507.249 1319.15 8729.05 7 0 9.16267 76.42245 282.794 849.226 7928.95

15324.7 14.459.15 19491.45 23967.1 29825.05 35848.8 40568.95 45629.8 51578.1 18246.7 22386.2 28229.55 34220.2 38841.4 43719.7 49468.35

14.11

APPENDIX J RAW DATA

FOUND ON ELECTRONIC COPY IN EXCEL FILE

14.12 14.13

APPENDIX K APPENDED LIST OF CFD RESULTS APPENDIX L CALIBRATED DATA

FOUND ON ELECTRONIC COPY IN EXCEL FILE

FOUND ON ELECTRONIC COPY IN EXCEL FILE