Bose, Deepak

Clark, Ian

Mastropietro, A. J.

Mobley, Brandon L.

Muppidi, Suman

Smith, Sheldon D.

Van Norman, John W.

NASA Technical Reports Server

TFAWS
MSFC ∙ 2017
Presented By:
Brandon L. Mobley
PLUME INDUCED AERODYNAMIC AND HEATING 
MODELS FOR THE LOW DENSITY SUPERSONIC 
DECELERATOR TEST VEHICLE
Brandon L. Mobley – MSFC EV33 Aerosciences, Huntsville, AL
Sheldon D. Smith – MSFC EV33 – Jacobs, Huntsville, AL
John W. Van Norman – LaRC – Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc., Hampton, VA
Deepak Bose – ARC - Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc., Mountain View, CA
Suman Muppidi – ARC - Analytical Mechanics Associates, Inc., Mountain View, CA
A. J. Mastropietro – JPL/Caltech – Thermal Systems, Pasadena, CA
Ian Clark – JPL/Caltech – LDSD Program Principle Investigator, Pasadena, CA
Thermal & Fluids Analysis Workshop
TFAWS 2017
August 21-25, 2017
NASA Marshall Space Flight Center
Huntsville, AL
TFAWS Aerothermal Paper Session
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=20170009027 2019-08-29T23:17:15+00:00Z
Agenda
• Background
• Analysis Objectives
• Approach
• Analyses
– Spin Motor Plume Impingement Environments
– Main SRM Plume Induced Environments
• Conclusions & Lessons Learned
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
2
Background
• LDSD Supersonic Flight Dynamics Tests (SFDT-1, 2)
– Test supersonic deceleration technologies in Earth’s upper 
stratosphere, SFDT-1: June 28, 2014, SFDT-2: June 8, 2015
– Balloon launched test vehicle, accelerated using a solid rocket motor 
(SRM) to achieve freestream test conditions (simulate Mars entry)
– SFDT-1 & 2 Deceleration Technologies
• Supersonic Inflatable Aerodynamic Decelerator - Robotic class (SIAD-R)
• Parachute Deployment Device (PDD) – Ballute – Parachute extraction
• Supersonic Disk Sail (SFDT-1) , Ring Sail (SFDT-2) Parachutes
• Marshall Space Flight Center – EV33 Aerosciences - Roles
– Program onset - provide plume induced heating predictions 
throughout powered flight (main solid)
– Spin motor plume impingement (heating and impact pressures)
– Plume induced aerodynamics predictions (post-SFDT-1/pre-SFDT-2)
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
3
Background
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
4
Full Scale Testing in Earth’s Stratosphere– Simulating Mars Entry
Figure Courtesy of JPL
Spin-up
Scope of Work
Spin-down
U.S. Navy Pacific Missile Range 
Facility (PMRF), Kauai
• LDSD Test Vehicle and Trajectories (Best Equivalent)
Background
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
5
SPIN-UP MOTORS 
(2 PAIRS)
SPIN-DOWN MOTORS
(2 PAIRS)
MAIN SRM
CAMERA MAST
AND FLIGHT 
IMAGERY 
RECORDER
SIAD-R
SSRS
PDD
RELEASE FROM BALLOON
VEHICLE SPIN-UP
POWERED ASCENT VEHICLE SPIN-DOWN
Background
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
6
Orbital-ATK Star-48B Long Nozzle Solid Rocket Motor
Expansion Ratio (A/A*) 54.8 (47.2 avg. nozzle erosion)
Throat Diameter 3.98 in / 10.11 cm
Exit Diameter 29.5 in / 74.93 cm
Nozzle Length 35.8 in / 90.93 cm
Chamber Pressure Approximately 600 PSIA (@ t=0 sec)
Propellant (Approx. % Weight)
71% Ammonium Perchlorate
11% Hydroxyl Terminated Polybutadiene (HTPB)
18% Aluminum
Duration: Offloaded approx. 20% (400kg) to reduce burn time from 84 to 68 secs
Nammo Talley, Inc. Solid Rocket Spin Motor
Expansion Ratio (A/A*) 6.47
Throat Diameter 0.86 in / 2.2 cm
Exit Diameter 2.2 in / 5.59 cm
Nozzle Length 1.82 in / 4.63 cm
Chamber Pressure Approximately 3057 PSIA (mean)
Propellant (Approx. % Weight)
83%      Ammonium Perchlorate 1.5%     Aluminum
9%        HTPB 1.5%      Fe2O3
5%     Plasticizer 
Duration: 0.25 secs
Analysis Objectives
• 2012–2013 LDSD Thermal Design Support
– Star 48 Plume Induced Base Heating
• Radiation heat flux from Al2O3 particles and plume gases
• Convection from plume-air recirculation
– Spin Motor Plume Impingement
• Predict plume heating from convection and Al2O3 particle impingement
• Plume induced forces & moments (spin performance)
• Primary concerns, impingement heating on SIAD, parachute bridles and 
mast cameras and instrumentation
• 2014–2015 Plume Induced Aerodynamics Support
• Predict aerodynamic coefficients (forces & moments) during subsonic 
and transonic powered flight
• Investigate plume flow field modeling sensitivities to aerodynamics
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
7
Approach
• Simulate plumes throughout a flight trajectory at discrete 
points in time in a quasi-steady fashion
– Two step approach, nozzle flows using engineering codes
– Nozzle solutions used as boundary conditions to CFD domain
• Nozzle Flow Field
– Model chamber and nozzle flow field chemistry using the NASA 
Glenn Chemical Equilibrium Combustion (CEC) program
– Model two-phase nozzle flow, core and boundary layer, using the 
Reacting and Multiphase Program (RAMP2) & Boundary Layer 
Integral Matrix Procedure (BLIMPJ) engineering codes (MOC codes)
• CFD (induced forces and convection) - Loci-CHEM 3.3 p4
• Spin Motor Plume Particle Heating – PLIMP eng. code
• Plume Radiation (sep. series of plume solutions, Star 48) 
– RAMP2 – Gaseous and aluminum-oxide particle plume flow field 
– Reverse Monte Carlo – Particle, gaseous band model code
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
8
Computational Grid
• CFD Grid Challenges
– Approach – Generally, try to create one grid to accommodate many 
cases, opposed to #grids refined for each case
– Variation of motor firing configurations (2, 4)
• 1 spin-up and 1 spin-down grid to suit case
• Tailored surface geometries per spin motor impingement, removed 
protuberances “behind motors”
– Variable angles of attack
– Subsonic / supersonic free stream conditions (shock refinement, 
aspiration refinement/convergence)
• Grid Generation
– ANSA 14,  Solid Mesh 5.9.9 – Surface Grids, Volume Setup
– AFLR3 – Unstructured – Volume Grids
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
9
Approach
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
10
Summary of CFD Settings, RANS
STAR 48 SFDT-2 & Spin Motor Case Conditions
Spin-Up Motor Surface Mesh 
(Final Iteration, 174M)Category
Case Description Spin-Up Motors Spin-Down Motors Star48B Motor
Number of Plumes Simulated 1
Angle-of-Attack, α, and Side-Slip, β, Angles α = 163°, β = 0° α = 0°, β = 0° Various, per trajectory
Plume Chemistry
No. Species
Thermodynamic and Transport Properties
Specific Heat, Cp
Viscosity and Conduction Models
Diffusion Model
Particle Model Aluminum-Oxide
Type Lagrangian (1 Case)
Number of Particle Bins & Sizes 5, 1.662 - 4.557μm
Turbulence Model
Compressibility Correction 
Urelax (m/s)
Dt Max (sec)
Accuracy
Surface Boundary Conditions
Wall Temperatures 255 K
Vehicle Spin Rate 0
Internal Nozzle Wall Thermal
Solver
Model Setup
4 (all on) and 2 (staggered firing)
Frozen
2 - Equivalent air & plume gas
Thermally perfect gas, specie Cp varies with temperature, polynomial 
Transport Fit (equivalent μ(T), k(T), per specie)
Laminar-Schmidt
Menter's Shear Stress Transport, SST
Sarkar
Adiabatic Wall ( Carbon Phenolic)
Guass-Seidel 
None
0.10
Varied per case, generally 0.001 - 0.0001 sec
2nd Order, steady-state solutions
255, 973, 1773 K
No slip, vehicle spin rate applied 
50 (RPM)
Vehicle Attitude
Alt (km) M∞  q∞ (Pa)  P∞ (Pa) T∞ (K) Po (psia) Plip (psia) θPress Exp Ratio αTotal (deg)
36.050 0.01 0.84 499.03 246.00 3057.00 70.10 968.52 163.0 SPIN MTR, PRE-SFDT-1
36.322 0.10 3.46 494.00 242.00 643.68 1.61 22.54 40.4 Post-SFDT-1, Star 48, ADB
36.390 0.20 13.71 489.69 241.88 643.68 1.61 22.74 30.0 Post-SFDT-1, Star 48, ADB
36.514 0.30 30.30 481.00 242.00 643.68 1.61 23.15 22.3 Post-SFDT-1, Star 48, ADB
36.993 0.50 78.75 450.00 244.00 606.29 1.57 24.01 17.7 Post-SFDT-1, Star 48, ADB
37.617 0.70 141.66 413.00 244.00 607.40 1.59 26.46 17.1 Post-SFDT-1, Star 48, ADB
38.449 0.90 208.66 368.00 246.00 607.40 1.59 29.70 14.7 Post-SFDT-1, Star 48, ADB
38.682 0.95 225.53 357.00 248.00 607.40 1.59 30.61 14.4 Post-SFDT-1, Star 48, ADB
39.469 1.10 271.04 320.00 253.00 616.23 1.68 36.17 12.7 Post-SFDT-1, Star 48, ADB
49.480 4.23 1171.60 93.10 266.96 3057.00 70.10 5191.44 0.0 SPIN MTR, PRE-SFDT-1
Trajectory Atmospheric Conditions Chamber Conditions
Notes
Spin Motor Analysis
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
11
INITIAL ANALYSIS
SPIN-UP  – 120 Kft (36.6 km), P∞= 0.72 PSIA (499 Pa) - ALL SPIN-UP MOTORS “ON” 
Surface Contours
Solution Plane Contours
Plume-Plume Interaction
Inboard Plume
Outboard Plume
Shock Off Motor Barrel
Shock Off 
Motor Barrel
Plume-Plume Interaction
Reflected Shock
Spin Motor Analysis
• Initial Spin Motor Plume Impingement Summary
– Motor casings, bridle coverings  - severe heating areas, peak heat 
rates in excess of 500 BTU/ft2sec (568 W/cm2) 
– Camera mast, peak heat rates in excess of 200 BTU/ft2sec (170 
W/cm2)
• Thermal and Operational Design Impacts
– Two week “Tiger Team” to provide thermal protection options
– Added plume deck blast shields, motor barrel shields and deflectors
• Restricted height to prevent potential entanglement with chute brid. lines
– Thermal protection (TPS) increased on camera mast (thin cork)
– Staggered firing configurations  (driven by flight dynamics, flight-ops 
as well)
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
12
Spin Motor Analysis
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
13
BEFORE INITIAL PLUME ANALYSIS
AFTER (MIRRORED PICTURE)
PLUME DEFLECTORS
MAST TPS
DECK SHIELDS
MOTOR BARREL BLAST SHIELDS
M
I
R
R
O
R
E
D
V
I
E
W
DECK SHIELD
DEFLECTOR
MOTOR BARREL SHIELD
Spin Motor Analysis
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
14
FOLLOW-UP ANALYSIS
SPIN-UP  – 120 Kft (36.6 km), P∞= 0.72 PSIA (499 Pa) – STAGGERED FIRINGS
Plume-Plume Interaction
Reflected Shock
Deck Impingement BL, Separation Region
Impingement, 
Reattachment
Corner Expansion
Shock, Flow Deflection
Reverse Angle
14
Spin Motor Results
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
15
SFDT-1 June 28, 2014 
Pre-flight Heating Contours Post-flight CharringSpin-Up Motor Firings
Star 48 Analysis
• Pre-SFDT-1 Star 48 plume induced heating environments
– Predicted radiation rates approximately a factor of 4 less than initial
– Predicted base pressure coefficient always negative, predicted 
convective heat rates generally <1 BTU/ft2sec
– No thermal issues, very benign, highest temperatures were 
recorded on the Star 48 motor case (282 C, driven by internal 
environment)
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
16
Pre-SFDT-1 Convective Heating Prediction, 151Kft
Star 48 Analysis
• SFDT-1 flight reconstruction revealed the test vehicle over 
shot the targeted altitude approximately 10Kft
– No chamber pressure measurements, no distinct way to accurately 
decoupling thrust and drag (challenge on determination of CA)
– Thrust reconstruction analysis revealed slightly over performing solid 
and over prediction of plume induced drag 
– Over predicted total moment (pitch-yaw) coefficient, resulting in the 
vehicle lofting more than expected
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
17Figure Courtesy of John Van Norman, LaRC
• LDSD plume induced base flow field is different than 
“traditional” launch vehicles and missiles
1. Blunt body - Realm of historical launch vehicles and missiles have a 
large slenderness ratio, where there is considerable running length to 
allow the development of a thick boundary layer that enters the base 
2. Ratio of base-to-nozzle exit area – free stream expansion angle 
entering the base, relative base eddy scale. Aft cavity provides 
recovery volume that affects the base environment
3. Variation in total alpha due to spin/flight dynamics  
Mach Number
S
ta
ti
c
P
re
s
s
u
re
(P
a
)
0 1 2 3 4
100
200
300
400
500
Base Pressure Transducer #1
Base Pressure Transducer #2
Ambient Pressure, Reconstructed
SFDT-2 Base Pressure, 0  M

 4.1
Star 48 Analysis
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017 19
Figure Courtesy of Clara O’Farrell, JPL
M=0.200
α = 30.0°
Star 48 Analyses
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
19
Grid Evolution – Star 48 
Pre-SFDT-2 (190 million, 2015 )
Sub, transonic cases (M∞=0 - 1.2 “larger” vol. O ~ 1 km
3)
Reconstructed trajectory subset (α, β =10 – 40˚)
Increase grid to accommodate ≥40˚ cases, seek grid convergence
Initial Grids, Pre-SFDT-1 Heating (41 - 90 million cell, 2013)
Predominantly supersonic cases, 1.1 < M∞ < 4.3, need higher q∞ for recirculation
Simple geometry & trajectory ( αtotal=0˚, small vol. O ~ 0.1 km
3)
Primary objective, resolve forward shock, plume induced base recirc. (avg heating)
Post-SFDT-1 (90, 136 million, 2014 )
Sub, transonic cases (M∞= 0.5 - 1.2, “larger” vol. O ~ 1 km
3)
Two geometries, reconstructed traj. subset (α, β = 0, 10, 20˚)
Multiple Models – Plume w/wout particles, hybrid RANS/LES (423M)
Objective, predict plume induced aero. forces & moments 
Star 48 Analysis
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
20
Aerodynamic Database 1.5 
OVERFLOW
FUN3D
Loci-CHEM Runs (2015)
Star 48 Analysis
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
21
STAR48 PLUME INDUCED AERODYNAMICS
CFD, Mach = 0.7, Angle-of-Attack = 17.1˚ 
CFD, Mach = 1.2, Angle-of-Attack = 11.5˚ 
Base Pressure Coefficient 
SFDT-1 Lofting Impact  
Over predicted Pitching 
Moment
Star 48 Analysis
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
22
M=0.950
α = 14.4°
M=1.20
α = 11.5°
M=1.10
α = 12.7°
M=0.100
α = 40.8°
M=0.300
α = 14.7°
M=0.200
α = 30.0°
M=0.500
α = 17.7°
M=0.900
α = 14.7°
M=0.700
α = 17.1°
19
Leeward
Windward
• Flight Instrumentation
– Star 48 chamber pressure, Kulite pressure transducer
• Star 48 performance, thrust reconstruction
– Tavis (2) pressure transducers (0-0.137 psia)
• Base pressure, aero model CFD validation
SFDT-2
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017 19
Kulite pressure transducer Tavis pressure transducers
Mach Number
A
x
ia
l
C
o
e
ff
ic
ie
n
t,
C
A
0.5 1 1.5
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Best Equivalent Trajectory
 3
Aerodynamic Database Ver. 1.7
MSFC, Loci-CHEM 3.3 CFD, Pre-Flight
SFDT-2 Powered Phase, 0.1  M

 1.6
Impacts & Results
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
24Mach Number
T
o
ta
l
M
o
m
e
n
t
C
o
e
ff
ic
ie
n
t,
C
m
,T
o
ta
l
0.5 1 1.5
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
Best Equivalent Trajectory
Aerodynamic Database Ver. 1.6.3
MSFC, Loci-CHEM 3.3 CFD, Pre-Flight
SFDT-2 Powered Phase, 0.1  M

 1.6
Mach Number
A
x
ia
l
C
o
e
ff
ic
ie
n
t,
C
A
1 2 3 4
-4
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
4
5
Best Equivalent Trajectory
 3
Aerodynamic Database Ver. 1.7
MSFC, Loci-CHEM 3.3 CFD, Pre-Flight
SFDT-2 Powered Phase, 0.1  M

 4.1
Mach Number
S
ta
ti
c
P
re
s
s
u
re
(P
a
)
0 1 2 3 4
100
200
300
400
500
Base Pressure Transducer #1
Base Pressure Transducer #2
MSFC, Loci-CHEM 3.3, Pre-Flight Predicted
Ambient Pressure, Reconstructed
SFDT-2 Base Pressure, 0  M

 4.1
Conclusions & Lessons Learned
• Plume induced environments - all thermal requirements met, 
robust thermal design validated, Star 48 power-on 
aerodynamic data base updated (ready for potent. SFDT-3)
• Highly under expanded plume-air interactions can be 
significant
• Degree of expansion, plume size, can lead to a variety of consequences!
• Observed similar plume induced environment issues with sep. motors
• Better understanding of the modelling sensitivities 
associated with single engine, plume induced base flow, in 
regards to the development of base eddy structure(s)
• Cavity geometry provided greater base pressure recovery
• Freestream BL separation point affected the point of impingement on 
Star 48 plume
• Angle of attack, relative exposed plume area to the freestream
• Match all nozzle exit conditions as best as possible
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
25
Questions
Questions?
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017
26
Back-Up
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017 27
Back-Up
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017 28
Temperature Response
Back-Up
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017 29
Temperature Response
Back-Up
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017 30
FIR BOX 
REMOVED
FIR
BOX
MAST 
CORNER 
HEATING
Back-Up
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017 31
References
TFAWS 2017 – August 21-25, 2017 32


Plume Induced Aerodynamic and Heating Models for the Low Density Supersonic Decelerator Test Vehicle

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

NASA Technical Reports Server