A Presentation On

‘Aero-thermodynamic Analysis of Reattachment Behaviour of Apollo Shaped

Body’
Submitted to

In Semester 8th of the Bachelor of Technology (2016-2020)

Submitted by
Anisha Saha(16030141AE010)
Madiwalara Arjuna(16030141AE041)
Sindhu Shantaram Kamat(16030141AE070)
Vinayak Jitendra Chawdimani(16030141AE076)

Under the guidance of

Prof. Abhinav Kumar
Alliance University
 Introduction

• Atmospheric re-entry refers to the movement of human made objects as they

enter the atmosphere of a planet from outer space.
• The constantly changing aero-thermodynamic loads are based on the geometric
dimensions of the vehicle
• Re-entry capsules are blunt-bodies designed to withstand high heating loads
experienced during entry into the atmosphere.
• The main requirement of designing a reentry vehicle is to increase the drag.
• Here conduct an external flow analysis on atmospheric re-entering vehicle called
Apollo.
 The various forces acting on the re-entry vehicle are:

• Gravitational force acting towards the center of the planet.

• Gas dynamic force opposite to the direction of motion of the vehicle.

• Centrifugal and gas dynamic lift force acting normal to the direction of motion of
the vehicle.

 The actual flight loads experienced by the vehicle depends upon:

• Local atmospheric environment (E.g.: density, temperature)

• Current flight static conditions (E.g.: velocity, angle of attack)

• Vehicle properties (E.g.: geometry, weight, aerodynamics)

 Surface pressure distribution on the Apollo body
 When flow separation occurs on a certain surface, the velocity boundary layer
becomes detached from it, leading to unsteady flow conditions.
 The phenomenon can basically be explained by the pressure conditions existing on
the surface.
 Lower pressure acting on the base of the reentry capsule acts as base drag. The base
drag coefficient based on maximum cross-section of the reentry capsule must
satisfy inequality.

 The base drag coefficient is a function of several geometrical parameters of the

fore-body and back-shell of reentry capsule, boundary layer, formation of free-shear
layer in the wake region and freestream Mach number. 
 Heat transfer analysis at the reattachment
 The Apollo program spent considerable resources on testing to quantify the
aerothermal environment around the re-entering command module.

 Ground-based tests were conducted in low-enthalpy wind tunnels, shock tunnels, and
free-flight facilities, the data from which were used to build engineering-fidelity
predictions of the expected flight heating rates.

 When a capsule re-enter an atmospheric environment, a strong shock wave is formed

in front of it. Behind the shock wave, a shock layer with very high temperature
appears where a high enthalpy fluid flows around a capsule, resulting in a severe
heating environment
 Literature Survey
• The survey is on Transition and flow reattachment behind an apollo-like body
at Mach numbers to 9 by Robert L. Kruse (Ames research center moff ett
field, calif).
• The models were launched from smooth-bore guns into still air at velocities
less than that at which radiation from their shock layers would fog the
shadowgraph film (nominally 3.6 km/sec).
• The flow field was observed in each shadowgraph that was studied to
determine the state of the boundary layer in the near wake, as well as how the
boundary layer separation and reattachment characteristics were affected by
angle of attack, Reynolds number, and Mach number.
• Since the models decelerated considerably, each test yielded results for ranges
of free-stream Mach number and Reynolds number.
 Literature Survey
In Results,
• The effect in the separated flow on the leeward meridian fig. 2a and 2b, while the flow
on the windward meridian is laminar to reattachment was observed.
• The effect on flow entirely separated over the afterbody is seen in figures 2 (c) and (d).
• The explicit influence of angle of attack on the wake flow is shown in figure 3. The
increase in, laminar run downstream of the windward corner can be seen, while the
flow aft of the leeward corner was considered turbulent in all cases.
• Figure 3(d) shows some unusual phenomena observed in several of the shadowgraphs.
The waves lying parallel to and between the model front face and bow shock wave
have caused considerable speculation.
• The oblique body-fixed waves emanating from the front face are believed to result
from supersonic flow over surface roughness. These waves were observed in a number
of shadowgraphs and begin to appear at an angular displacement of about 42' from the
stagnation point
 Literature Survey
Conditions for Flow Reattachment
• The flight conditions (angle of attack and Mach number) at which there was
reattachment of a separated boundary layer on the afterbody windward
meridian.
• The open symbols represent separated flow and the filled symbols represent
reattachment somewhere along the afterbody.
• In a few cases the separated flow appeared to reattach to the body near the
base apex without causing a reattachment shock wave.
• The relationship between angle of attack, Mach number, and percent of
reattached flow observed along the windward meridian can be seen. A straight
line was faired through the data points, dividing those representing separated
and reattached flow.
Fig.2-1 Effect of Reynolds Number on near Wake flow
Fig. 2-2 Effect of angle of attack near wake flow
 Literature Review

Conclusion

The following trends and features were observed:

1. Within the range of test conditions, the flow separation and reattachment
behavior on the afterbody were found to be sensitive primarily to Mach
number and angle of attack. There was no effect of Reynolds number in the
laminar flow regime.
2. At the highest Reynolds numbers the flow was turbulent and showed attached
afterbody flow even at small angles of attack.
3. Laminar flow in the separated boundary layer occurred below a Reynolds
number of around 3*10⁵
4. The streamline distance decreases with increasing Reynolds number, based on
normal-shock conditions and model diameter.
 Methodology
• The Apollo Command Module consists of a spherical section forebody and a
33° conical afterbody. The CM capsule was a 33° half-angle cone with the
blunt afterheat shield formed from a segment of a sphere of radius 4.694
m.
• A toroidal section with radius of 0.196 m provided the transition between
the conical and spherical sections. The maximum capsule diameter of 3.91
m occurred in the toroidal section.
• The air flows around the launch vehicle, the area surrounding the re-entry
vehicle model is meshed, rather than the re-entry vehicle itself.
 Geometrical Modelling
1.The dimensions of the re-entry module is shown in the figure below.

Fig.4-1 Two-dimensional Apollo model with dimensions

2. According to the dimensions a 2D model was made in CatiaV5 as shown in the figure below.

Fig.4-2 2D model of Apollo body placed inside a blunt body

3.A blunt body with one circular surface is designed in the outer surface of the re-entry
body as shown in the figure above.
4.The model was now imported to Ansys as it reduces the design complexity along with
the amount of time required to solve the problem. The model is designated with an “. igs”
extension file, and will be imported.

Fig.4-3 2D model of Apollo with 8° Angle of Attack

5.The mesh was generated around the body in Ansys as shown in the figure below.

Fig.4-4 2D model of Apollo body after meshing with 8° angle of attack

 RESULT

•As discussed in methodology, the result obtained was compared to the CFD results obtained
by NASA Wind-tunnel Apollo re-entry Command module Simulation. The results are
obtained for free stream Mach number 3.5 with angle of attacks 0°, 4°, 8°, 12°, 16 ° and 20°.

•The simulation for AS202 module re-entry vehicle at angle of attack ranging from 0deg to
20° with velocity 3.5 Mach in free stream domain delivered the following results. As the
simulation progressed a strong bow shock wave prior to the boundary layer was formed on
the front side. A large recirculation is formed on the front side of the vehicle, while a shear
layer enclosed by the separation bubble joins together at the neck on the backward side,
which is where the recompression shock is formed.
 RESULT

•The bow shock formed in front of the module increases drag massively on the body
which is also desired so as to decelerate the vehicle in motion towards the earth surface.
The maximum static pressure is created at the far field of the re-entry vehicle because of
the progressing bow shocks marching downstream of the vehicle. The increase in pressure
is visualized exactly using the static pressure contour for the varied angles of attack.

•It can also be observed from the velocity contour that the velocity behind the bow shock
falls suddenly, thus the vehicle experiences a huge drag force on front side.
Figures below are for Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 0°

Fig.5-1 Pressure (Mach Fig.5-2 Velocity (Mach

no.:3.5, angle of attack: 0°) no.:3.5, angle of attack: 0°)
Fig.5-3 Temperature (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 0°)
Fig.5-4 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 0°)
Figures below are for Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 4°

Fig.5-5 Pressure (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 4°)

Fig.5-6 Velocity (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 4°)
Fig.5-7 Temperature (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 4°)
Fig.5-8 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 4°)
Figures below are for Mach no:3.5, angle of attack: 8°

Fig.5-9 Pressure (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 8°)

Fig.5-10 Velocity (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 8°)
Fig.5-11 Temperature (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 8°)
Fig.5-12 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 8°)
Figures below are for Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 12°

Fig.5-13 Pressure (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 12°)

Fig.5-14 Velocity (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 12°)
Fig.5-15 Temperature (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 12°)
Fig.5-16 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 12°)
Figures below are for Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 16°

Fig.5-17 Pressure (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 16°)

Fig.5-18 Velocity (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 16°)
Fig.5-19 Temperature (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 16°)
Fig.5-20 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 16°)
Figures below are for Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 20°

Fig.5-21 Pressure (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 20°)

Fig.5-22 Velocity (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 20°)
Fig.5-23 Temperature (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 20°)
Fig.5-24 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:3.5, angle of attack: 20°)
Figures below are for Mach no:8, angle of attack: 0° (big domain)

Fig.5-25 Pressure (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 0° for big domain)

Fig.5-26 Velocity (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 0° for big domain)
Fig.5-27 Temperature (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 0° for big domain)
Fig.5-28 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 0° for big domain)
Figures below are for Mach no:8, angle of attack: 4° (big domain)

Fig.5-29 Pressure (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 4° for big domain)

Fig.5-30 Velocity (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 4° for big domain)
Fig.5-31 Temperature (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 4° for big domain)
Fig.5-32 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 4° for big domain)
Figures below are for Mach no:8, angle of attack: 8° (big domain)

Fig.5-33 Pressure (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 8° for big domain)

Fig.5-34 Velocity (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 8° for big domain)
Fig.5-35 Temperature (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 8° for big domain)
Fig.5-36 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 8° for big domain)
Figures below are for Mach no:8, angle of attack: 12° (big domain)

Fig.5-37 Pressure (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 12° for big domain)
Fig.5-38 Velocity (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 12° for big domain)
Fig.5-39 Temperature (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 12° for big domain)
Fig.5-40 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 12° for big domain)
Figures below are for Mach no:8, angle of attack: 16° (big domain)

Fig.5-41 Pressure (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 16° for big domain)
Fig.5-42 Velocity (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 16° for big domain)
Fig.5-43 Temperature (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 16° for big domain)
Fig.5-44 Graph of Pressure coefficient versus Position (Mach no.:8, angle of attack: 16° for big domain)
 The velocity contours show that the velocity at foremost of the body is zero, while maximum
velocity is found at free stream flow. The pressure contours agree with the wind-tunnel predictions.
 The pressure measurements are found lowest during maximum heating. Maximum pressure is found
at the foremost of the body for all angle of attacks respectively, resulting more pressure drag at the
front edges of the body.
 It is also observed n the pressure contour that a high static pressure is created at the base of the body.
The high pressure due to formation of bow shock wave ahead of the body has capability to decelerate
the body to lower Mach numbers.
 Since the bow shock is progressing downstream of the body, the maximum static pressure is created
at the far-field of the body, which is observed in static pressure contours for all results.
 The body undergoes radiative and convective heat fluxes from the high-temperature air between the
bow shock wave and the body. The convective heat transfer is lowered significantly due to formation
of boundary layer. The radiative heating is not affected due to outgassing from the boundary layer.
 The temperature at the heat shield is found maximum for the body which also results
in the decrease of potential as well as kinetic energy. According to the law of
conservation of energy, when one form of energy decreases, another form of energy
increases. Hence, here if the kinetic potential energy is decreasing and it is dissipating
in the form of heat energy. In temperature contours we can see the temperature is
maximum at the front of the body and is minimum at the base of the body.
 Body at 0 degree angle of attack: The contours obtained for body at zero-degree
angle of attack results give the visualization of the bow shock formed in the front of
the body and also the expansion over the shoulder and front edges of the body.
 The separated shear layer developed at the shoulder of the body does not reattach to
the body downstream of the flow.
 Body at >= 4 degree angle of attack: The contours obtained in the results look
similar to the contours for body at zero degree.
 The difference is that on either front edge of the body the shear partially
separates from the body. At the frontmost edge of the body a small shock
wave is present where the separation occurs.
 Where the shear layer reattaches the model downstream, a stronger shock is
formed. Also, a strong recompression shock is present where the wake is
recompressed downstream of the body.
 In all cases with >=4 degree angle of attack, a separation layer is formed
along the either side of the body downstream.
 CONCLUSION
 It can be observed in the result contours that the velocity at the heat sheild is minimum
and goes on increasing towards the edges. The decreasing velocity results in increasing
static pressure which results in formation of shock wave in this region. This is a major
output which will help to select the shape of the body for the re-entry vehicle.
 The temperature output parameters help in determining the material which can
withstand the re-entry in the earth's atmosphere.
 The Bow shock formed in the front of the body approaches closer to the body as the
Mach number increases, which is helpful to determine the heat flux around the body
during different phases of re-entry with different Mach number.
 The result was obtained for angle of attack 0 deg, 4 deg, 8deg, 12deg, 16deg and 20deg
with constant Mach number 3.5 for better visualization of the flow. The wake for body
with 0deg is completely separated and for body with angle of attack >= 4deg is partially
separated and reattaches downstream of the flow near the base of the body.
 The location of this reattachment moves upstream as the angle of attack increases.
 The results obtained help to obtain aerodynamics for the atmospheric re-entry.
 These results will prove important when it comes to validation of prediction methods for
wind tunnel testing.
 The results also provide output parameters helping in right choice of material to avoid
localised heating in the re-entry vehicle. The method and CFD code will prove helpful to
calculate the re-entry parameters for blunt body re-entry vehicles.
 SCOPE OF THE FUTURE WORK

 The future of this project lies in researching more for unsteady flow behavior for
the geometries. Since unsteady flows are entirely time dependent, such a flow
behavior is quite complex to solve.
 As all real cases, in fact, exist in unsteady flows, several different possibilities
and problems get associated while dealing with these. Fluctuations in pressure of
great magnitude are faced in such flows, making the computation a heavy task.
 Furthermore, an optimization study can be done for finding out fitting L/D ratios,
which addresses the problem of aero heating for each geometry. This means, for
the same design, several length-to-diameter ratios can be modified.
 Acoustics is another theme which can be further studied for these optimized re-
entry vehicles. For this, vibration analysis has to be carried out which can be done
using the concept of finite element methods.
 Material study can also be carried out after fetching desired computational results.
For this, material sciences of alloys can be disserted which would further alleviate
the requirement of having a robust thermal protection system.
 The scope of work is to predict the overall thermal environment around the capsule
and compare the data obtained from CFD simulations to those values calculated
from available approximate engineering correlations, thereby validating the
accuracy of present work.
 REFERENCES

1. Allen, H. Julian; Eggers, A. J. Jr. (1958). "

A Study of the Motion and Aerodynamic Heating of Ballistic Missiles Entering the Earth's Atmosphere at
High Supersonic Speeds"
.

2. Krishnendu Sinha, “Computational Fluid Dynamics in Hypersonic Aerothermodynamics”, Defence

Science Journal, Vol. 60, No. 6, (November 2010), pp. 663-671.

3. Balakrishnan, A., Park, C., and Green, M. J., 1985, “Radiative Viscous Shock Layer Analysis of Fire,
Apollo, and PAET Flight Data,” AIAA 20th Thermophysics Conference, Paper85-1064.

4. Landau, L.D.; Lifshitz, E.M. (2005) [1959]. Fluid Mechanics 2nd edition. Elsevier. ISBN 978-0-7506-
2767-2.

5. “A brief discussion about re-entry vehicles”, Amrita Mallick, Burhanuddin Kapadia, Aman Arnold pinto
Department of Aeronautical Engineering MVJ College of Engineering Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
6. Canning, Thomas N.; and Sommer, Simon C., Investigation of Boundary- Layer Transition on Flat-Faced
Bodies of Revolution at High Supersonic Speeds. NACA RM AS7C25, 1957.

7. Robert L. Kruse, “Transition and flow reattachment behind an Apollo-like body at Mach numbers to 9”, Ames
Research Centre Moffett Field, Calif, national aeronautics and space administration Washington DC, July 1968.

8. Bolonkin A.A., A New method of Atmospheric Re-entry for Space Ships, presented as paper AIAA-2006-6985
to 11th AIAA/ISSMO Multidisciplinary Analysis and Optimization Conference, 6-8 Sept. 2006, Virginia, USA.
http://aiaa.org search “Bolonkin”.

9. F.S. Billig. Shock-wave shapes around spherical-and cylindrical-nosed bodies. Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets, (4):0–1, 1967.

10. Regan F.J., Anandakrishnan S.M., Dynamics of Atmospheric Re-Entry, AIAA, 1993.

11. Cauchon, D. L., 1967, “Radiative Heating Results from the Fire II Flight Experiment at a Re-entry Velocity of
11.4 Kilometres per Second,” NASA Technical Memorandum, X-1402.

12. Park, C., 1984, “Calculation of Non-Equilibrium Radiation in AOTV Flight Regimes,” AIAA Paper 84-0306.
13. Ahmed M, Qin N (2011) Numerical investigation of aero heating characteristics of spiked blunt
bodies at Mach 6 flight condition. Aeronaut J 115:377-386.

14. Maull DJ (1960) Hypersonic flow over axially symmetric spiked bodies. Journal of Fluid
Mechanics 1960; 8(P.4):584–92.

15. R C Mehta, Computations of flow field over Apollo and OREX re-entry modules at high speed,
Indian Journal of Engineering & Materials Sciences, December 2008, Vol.15.

16. Daniel F. Potter. Modelling of radiating shock layers for atmospheric entry at Earth and Mars.
PhD, The University of Queensland, Brisbane, Australia, 2011.

17. J. D. Ramshaw and C. H. Chang. Ambipolar diffusion in two-temperature multicomponent

plasmas. Plasma Chemistry and Plasma Processing, 13(3):489–498, September 1993.

18. Jr. Ried, R.C., W.C. Rochelle, and J.D. Milhoan. Radiative Heating to the Apollo Command
Module: Engineering Prediction and Flight Measurement. Technical report, NASA, Manned
Spacecraft Center, Houston, Texas, 1972.
19. L.C. Scalabrin and I.D. Boyd. Numerical simulations of the FIRE-II convective and
radiative heating rates. AIAA Paper, (June), 2007.

20. Yannick Schlaeppi. 3D hypersonic numerical simulation of the Phoebus re-entry

capsule using NSMB. Technical report, EPFL, Lausanne, 2012.

21. Takashi ABE,” Overview of Research for Prediction of Aerodynamic Heating

Environment During a Super-Orbital Re-entry Flight of MUSES-C Re-entry Capsule”,
The Institute of Space and Astronautical Science, Report SP No.17, March 2003

22. Roop N. Gupta, Kam-Pui Lee, Richard. A. Thompson, Jerrold. Yos “Calculations
and Curve Fits of Thermodynamic and Transport Properties for Equilibrium Air to
30,000 K” Nasa RP-1260,1991
Thank You