CFD Online Logo CFD Online URL
www.cfd-online.com
[Sponsors]
Home > Forums > Software User Forums > ANSYS > FLUENT

Boundary Conditions for Drag Analysis of Rocket Nose

Register Blogs Members List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old   November 4, 2019, 10:55
Unhappy Boundary Conditions for Drag Analysis of Rocket Nose
  #1
New Member
 
Shashwat
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 5
Legolas_1204 is on a distinguished road
I am new to CFD and I am using ANSYS fluent to calculate drag coefficient of a rocket nose cone. I am using the pressure-based solver and viscous model I am using is Spalart-Allamaras, strain-vorticity based. Boundary conditions are as below:

Inlet - Velocity Inlet: 312 m/s(~0.9 Mach)
Outlet - pressure outlet - 0 Gauge pressure
Temperature at inlet and outlet - 300 K

The results I am getting are varying greatly so I think there is a mistake in the boundary condition. So can you suggest what is the problem in the boundary conditions?
Legolas_1204 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 4, 2019, 11:17
Default
  #2
Senior Member
 
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,112
Rep Power: 60
LuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura aboutLuckyTran has a spectacular aura about
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas_1204 View Post
The results I am getting are varying greatly so I think there is a mistake in the boundary condition. So can you suggest what is the problem in the boundary conditions?

What is varying?

Boundary conditions, even if they are wrong, will give results. It may not be the result that you want, but a result nonetheless.
For example, I can mistakenly set the inlet temperature to 200 K and simulate the wrong conditions. But I should still get results for 200 K. Any other issues that arise, is its own issue. What is the actual problem you are encountering?
LuckyTran is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 4, 2019, 16:42
Default
  #3
Member
 
Joshua
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 49
Rep Power: 10
jbo214 is on a distinguished road
Did you specify the reference values (length, velocity, area etc.) correctly? Fluent uses those values to calculate the lift and drag coefficients.


If you left them as the default values, Fluent will report incorrect numbers.
jbo214 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 5, 2019, 01:24
Default
  #4
New Member
 
Shashwat
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 5
Legolas_1204 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyTran View Post
What is varying?

Boundary conditions, even if they are wrong, will give results. It may not be the result that you want, but a result nonetheless.
For example, I can mistakenly set the inlet temperature to 200 K and simulate the wrong conditions. But I should still get results for 200 K. Any other issues that arise, is its own issue. What is the actual problem you are encountering?
Example:

I have run the analysis of Von-karman nose cone and a Truncted Ogive nose cone. Theoretically Von-karman has lower drag than truncted ogive but I am getting opposite.
And second thing, when I go supersonic 'Turbulence viscosity ratio exceed' warning appeares and solution diverges eventually. So I think there is a problem in boundary condition
Legolas_1204 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 5, 2019, 01:25
Default
  #5
New Member
 
Shashwat
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 5
Legolas_1204 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbo214 View Post
Did you specify the reference values (length, velocity, area etc.) correctly? Fluent uses those values to calculate the lift and drag coefficients.


If you left them as the default values, Fluent will report incorrect numbers.
No, I have specified all the reference values and I have double-checked it so they are correct.
Legolas_1204 is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 6, 2019, 06:15
Default
  #6
Roh
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 130
Rep Power: 7
Roh is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Legolas_1204 View Post
...
Inlet - Velocity Inlet: 312 m/s(~0.9 Mach)
...
Not a good choice. If I were you, I would use pressure-far-field boundary conditions. Also I don't know anything on your domain. Velocity-inlet is intended for incompressible flows, and its use in compressible flows will lead to a nonphysical result.
Roh is offline   Reply With Quote

Old   November 6, 2019, 15:52
Default
  #7
New Member
 
Shashwat
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 5
Legolas_1204 is on a distinguished road
Quote:
Originally Posted by Roh View Post
Not a good choice. If I were you, I would use pressure-far-field boundary conditions. Also I don't know anything on your domain. Velocity-inlet is intended for incompressible flows, and its use in compressible flows will lead to a nonphysical result.
Thank you. I have read about it somewhere so I'll try it.
Legolas_1204 is offline   Reply With Quote

Reply

Tags
boundary conditions, fleunt, pressure and velocity, spalart allamaras

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Centrifugal fan-reverse flow in outlet lesds to a mass in flow field xiexing CFX 3 March 29, 2017 11:00
Domain Imbalance HMR CFX 5 October 10, 2016 06:57
Multiphase flow - incorrect velocity on inlet Mike_Tom CFX 6 September 29, 2016 02:27
Radiation interface hinca CFX 15 January 26, 2014 18:11
An error has occurred in cfx5solve: volo87 CFX 5 June 14, 2013 18:44


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 21:57.