Computation of Drag of a Ballistic Reentry Body at Various …
531
Fig. 2 Flow domain with boundary configuration conditions
Fig. 3 Unstructured grid with 21 inflation layers
3 Results and Discussions
All drag coefficient data presented in this paper are normalized with the maximum
value. Figure 5 shows the drag convergence plot for typical Mach numbers. The
analysis has been done for 500 iterations with 1st order upwind scheme and beyond
that, the second-order upwind scheme is used. The plot shows good convergence
of C D values for all Mach numbers (maximum of 0.001). Figure 6 shows forebody
drag and base drag comparison in percentage for the various range of Mach numbers
at a 0° angle of attack. It is observed that for a bluff body, while increasing Mach
number from subsonic to hypersonic, the percentage of forebody contribution to drag
coefficient is increasing and the contribution of base drag is decreasing. At M = 0.3
531
Fig. 2 Flow domain with boundary configuration conditions
Fig. 3 Unstructured grid with 21 inflation layers
3 Results and Discussions
All drag coefficient data presented in this paper are normalized with the maximum
value. Figure 5 shows the drag convergence plot for typical Mach numbers. The
analysis has been done for 500 iterations with 1st order upwind scheme and beyond
that, the second-order upwind scheme is used. The plot shows good convergence
of C D values for all Mach numbers (maximum of 0.001). Figure 6 shows forebody
drag and base drag comparison in percentage for the various range of Mach numbers
at a 0° angle of attack. It is observed that for a bluff body, while increasing Mach
number from subsonic to hypersonic, the percentage of forebody contribution to drag
coefficient is increasing and the contribution of base drag is decreasing. At M = 0.3