Numerical Simulation of Flow Field around an Inflatable Vehicle during a Reentry Demonstration Flight considering Membrane Deformation

Size: px

Start display at page:

Download "Numerical Simulation of Flow Field around an Inflatable Vehicle during a Reentry Demonstration Flight considering Membrane Deformation"

Felicia Boone
5 years ago
Views:

1 Numerical Simulation of Flow Field around an Inflatable Vehicle during a Reentry Demonstration Flight considering Membrane Deformation Dongheun HA 1,Yusuke TAKAHASHI 1 Kazuhiko YAMADA 2 1) Hokkaido Univ. 2) Institute of Space and Astronautical Science/JAXA December 19th, 2014

2 Contents 2 Backgrounds Previous research Objective Membrane deformation Numerical setting Results Conclusion

3 3 Backgrounds - Reduce entry-velocity with low ballistic coefficient flight - Reduce heat flux by deceleration at high altitude - It can land softly without a parachute system

4 4 SMAAC (Sounding rocket experiment of Membrane Aeroshell for Atmospheric-entry Capsule) SMAAC

5 Flight test 5 S310-rocket (ISAS)

6 Previous research Ha, Dongheun, et al. "Numerical Simulation of Flow Field around an Inflatable Vehicle during a Reentry Demonstration Flight. 32 nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, Case Flight model Altitude, km Velocity, m/sec Temperature, K Density, kg/m3 4.24e e e e e e e-3 Mach number 3.95e0 3.50e0 2.30e0 1.51e0 1.00e0 8.71e e-1 Reynolds number 3.98e4 5.72e4 9.01e4 1.00e5 9.94e4 1.03e5 1.14e5 Case Flight model Altitude, km Velocity, m/sec Temperature, K Density, kg/m3 8.99e e e e e e e0 Mach number 6.08e e e e e e e-2 Reynolds number 1.31e5 1.87e5 4.50e5 8.18e5 1.05e6 1.08e6 1.14e6

7 Previous research Drag coefficient (FFR) Drag coefficient (Flight) Supersonic region Transonic region C D Drag coefficient (FaSTAR) Mach number Altitude Altitude, km Subsonic region C D qs ma q : dynamic pressure S : characteristic area m:massofvehicle a : acceleration

8 Previous results 8 This model was assumed as a rigid body Simulation model used previous research There is a difference between these models figure of wind tunnel test Real model is made of fabric, and it is deformed by aerodynamic force

9 Objective 9 Post analysis is important for future experiment It is necessary to validate numerical simulation method Investigate the influence of membrane deformation by using numerical simulation.

Membrane deformation 10 Yamada, Kazuhiko, and Kojiro Suzuki. "A Particle-Based Model and Its Validation for Deformation Analysis of Membrane Aeroshell.

10 Membrane deformation 10 Yamada, Kazuhiko, and Kojiro Suzuki. "A Particle-Based Model and Its Validation for Deformation Analysis of Membrane Aeroshell." Japan Society of Aeronautical Space Sciences 53 (2005): : elastic force : aerodynamic force : tension force : shear force : bending force Aerodynamic schematic

11 Previous research 11 Takahashi Y., et. al Preliminary Study for Fluid-Structure Problem of Membrane Deformation using Virtual Particle Method SSW-2c1-3, 2014 Pressure coefficient profiles along SMAAC surface (altitude of 43 km).

12 Computation process 12 Initial shape Fluid simulation Membrane deformation Fluid simulation with deform model

13 Numerical setting Membrane deformation- 13 Boundary conditions Momentu m Fixed Number of elements : structure grids Time integration : 4 th Runge-Kutta Fixed

14 Numerical setting FFR and FaSTAR 14 Software package Front Flow Red 3.1 RG-FaSTAR Discretization Vertex-centered finite volume method Cell-centered finite volume method Numerical fluxes Time-marching method Poisson equation solver Turbulence model Molcular viscosity Parallel computing Convection term: 2 nd order central difference scheme (95%) and 1 st order upwind scheme (5%),and Viscous term: 2 nd order central difference scheme SMAC-type implicit method (using Crank-Nicolson method) ICCG method - LES, standard Smagorinsky model RANS: SST (Cs=0.15) Sutherland s law MPI Time step 5.0x10-6 sec/step - Convection term: SLAU(+MUSCL interpolation), and Viscous term: 2 nd order central difference scheme Implicit method (Euler Implicit)

15 Results altitude of 37km- 15

16 Results altitude of 37km- 16 initial model deformed model Distribution of pressure coefficient (no deformation) C p Distribution of pressure coefficient (with deformation) y, m

17 Results altitude of 54km- 17

Results altitude of 54km- 18 2 initial model deformed model 1.

18 Results altitude of 54km initial model deformed model 1.5 Distribution of pressure coefficient (initial model) C p Distribution of pressure coefficient (with deformation) y, m

19 19 Results Initial model Deformed model Initial model Deformed model Altitude of 37km Altitude of 54km Altitude, km 37km 54 Deformation Without With Without With Drag force Cd

20 Conclusion 20 In this research, we simulated deformed models at the altitude of 37km and 54km In the case of altitude of 37km, there was a difference of drag coefficient between considering membrane deformation model and initial model and it is considered by pressure distribution at the torus In the case of altitude of 54km, Although there was a difference of distribution of surface pressure coefficient, there was little difference of drag coefficient We plan to simulate more deformed models through all of speed range

21 21 Thank you for your kind attention

Small Entry Probe Trajectories for Mars

Small Entry Probe Trajectories for Mars CubeSat (re-)entry can mean burning up in the atmosphere Here, we discuss surviving atmospheric entry We must model & understand flight dynamics, aerodynamics, heating Motivation for CubeSat entry Support