|
[Sponsors] |
Boundary Conditions for Drag Analysis of Rocket Nose |
|
LinkBack | Thread Tools | Search this Thread | Display Modes |
November 4, 2019, 10:55 |
Boundary Conditions for Drag Analysis of Rocket Nose
|
#1 |
New Member
Shashwat
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 7 |
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? |
|
November 4, 2019, 11:17 |
|
#2 | |
Senior Member
Lucky
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Orlando, FL USA
Posts: 5,754
Rep Power: 66 |
Quote:
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? |
||
November 4, 2019, 16:42 |
|
#3 |
Member
Joshua
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 49
Rep Power: 12 |
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. |
|
November 5, 2019, 01:24 |
|
#4 | |
New Member
Shashwat
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 7 |
Quote:
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 |
||
November 5, 2019, 01:25 |
|
#5 |
New Member
Shashwat
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 7 |
No, I have specified all the reference values and I have double-checked it so they are correct.
|
|
November 6, 2019, 06:15 |
|
#6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2017
Posts: 130
Rep Power: 9 |
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.
|
|
November 6, 2019, 15:52 |
|
#7 |
New Member
Shashwat
Join Date: Aug 2019
Posts: 16
Rep Power: 7 |
Thank you. I have read about it somewhere so I'll try it.
|
|
Tags |
boundary conditions, fleunt, pressure and velocity, spalart allamaras |
|
|
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 |