Shock Waves (2006) 15(1): 31–41
DOI 10.1007/s00193-005-0003-0
O R I G I N A L A RT I C L E
R. C. Mehta
Numerical simulation of supersonic flow past reentry capsules
Received: 24 June 2005 / Accepted: 31 August 2005 / Published online: 1 February 2006


C Springer-Verlag 2006
Abstract The flow fields over ARD (ESA’s atmospheric
reentry demonstrator), OREX (orbital reentry experiments)
and spherically blunted cone-flare reentry configurations
are numerically obtained by solving time-dependent, ax-
isymmetric, compressible Navier–Stokes equations for
freestream Mach numbers range of 1.2–6.0. The fluid dy-
namics are discretized in spatial coordinates employing a
finite volume approach which reduces the governing equa-
tions to semi discretized ordinary differential equations.
Temporal integration is performed using the multistage
Runge–Kutta time-stepping scheme. A local time step is
used to achieve steady-state solution. The numerical simu-
lation is carried out on a structured grid. The flow-field fea-
tures around the reentry capsule, such as bow shock wave,
sonic line, expansion fan and recirculating flow in the base
region are obtained. A good agreement is found between
the calculated value of aerodynamic drag coefficient of the
spherically blunted cone/fare reentry configuration with the
experimental data. The effects of geometrical parameters,
such as radius of the spherical cap, half cone angle, with
sharp shoulder edge and with smooth shoulder edge on the
flow-field have been numerically investigated for various
reentry configuration which will be useful for optimization
of the reentry capsule.
Keywords Supersonic flows · Computational fluid
dynamics · Reentry capsules
PACS 47.11.Df, 47.40.Ki
1 Introduction
A high-speed flow-past a blunt-body generates a bow shock
wave which causes a rather high surface pressure and as
Communicated by K. Takayama
R. C. Mehta (B)
Aerodynamics Division, Vikram Sarabhai Space Centre,
Trivandrum 695022, India
E-mail: atulm@md4.vsnl.net.in
a result the development of high aerodynamic drag which
is needed for aerobraking. Highly blunt configurations are
generally used to decelerate spacecraft for safe returning on
the Earth after performing the experiments. The bow shock
wave is detached from the blunt forebody and is having a
mixed subsonic–supersonic region between them. The sur-
face pressure distribution, the location of the sonic line and
the shock stand-off distance on the spherical cap have been
analytically calculated at very high speeds with an adiabatic
index near to unity which gives a singular point at 60◦ from
the stagnation point [1, 2]. The analytical approach for the
high-speed flow-past the blunt-body is considerably difficult
and complex [3]. The flow-field over the reentry module be-
comes further complicated due to the presence of corner at
the shoulder and the base shell of the capsule.
Aeroassist flight experiment (AFE) configurations have
been analyzed using two different Navier–Stokes flow
solvers by Venkatapathy et al. [4]. Aerodynamic heating
and pressure along with the forebody and wake-flow struc-
ture during atmospheric entry of the Mars Pathfinder space-
craft have been computed by Haas and Venkatapathy [5] us-
ing the commerically available general atmospheric simula-
tion program (GASP 2.2). An aerodynamic analysis of the
commercial experiment transport (COMET) reentry capsule
has been carried out by Wood et al. [6] solving the lami-
nar thin layer Navier–Stokes LAURA code for low super-
sonic to hypersonic speeds. The LAURA code is an upwind,
point implicit, second-order-accurate fluid dynamics solver
based on an extension of the Roe flux-difference-splitting
scheme. Yamomoto et al. [7] carried out flow-field com-
putation over the OREX (orbital reentry experiments) us-
ing computational fluid dynamics approach coupled with the
thermal response of the heat shield material using finite el-
ement method in conjunction with the aerodynamic flight
data. Tam [8] has computed flow field at hypersonic Mach
numbers over Viking, Biconic and AFE reentry capsules us-
ing IEC3D (inviscid equilibrium computation in three di-
mension). Menne [9] has computed flow field over Viking
(Apollo type) and Biconic cases for freestream Mach num-
bers 2.0 and 3.0 by solving Euler equations. The inviscid
32
Fig. 1 Representation of flow features on blunted body at supersonic speeds
analysis is unable to predict the flow separation in the back
region of the reentry module. The aerodynamic characteri-
zation of the CARINA reentry module in the low supersonic
Mach regimes has been performed employing numerical and
experimental approach [10]. The flow-field simulation past
the ARD (ESA’s atmospheric reentry demonstrator) module
has been computed numerically by Walpot [11] at hyper-
sonic speeds. Developments relating to base pressure and
base heating prediction for wide range of cone and wedge
have been reviewed for supersonic and hypersonic Mach
numbers by Lamb and Oberkampf [12]. Recently, flow-
field solutions past Beagle-2 spacecraft have been obtained
by Liever et al. [13] using commerically available CFD-
FASTRAN code for low supersonic to hypersonic speeds.
A numerical simulation code has been used for super or-
bital reentry flow and has been applied to the flow-field pre-
diction around the MUSES-C reentry capsule [14]. Super-
sonic and hypersonic flow over a slender cone [15] has been
numerically obtained by solving Navier–Stokes equations
using an explicit multi-stage Roe’s scheme. The flow field
around blunt reentry capsules [16] were numerically stud-
ied in order to understand the mechanism of dynamic in-
stability of the capsule at freestream Mach number of 1.3.
The blunt and short reentry capsule tends to be dynami-
cally unstable at low supersonic Mach number attributed
primarily to the delay in base pressure [17]. Numerical
studies have been carried out by Ottens [18] using a lam-
inar Navier–Stokes flow solver for two different types of
delft aerospace reentry test (DART) demonstrators reentry
modules.
The above literature survey reveals that the forebody
shape of reentry capsules can be classified either using as
a spherical cap as in the case of Apollo and ARD, or com-
bination of the spherical nose with cone as in the case of
OREX and Beagle-2, or a spherical blunt-cone/flare config-
uration as proposed by DART. The flow-field features over
the reentry capsule can be delineated through the experimen-
tal and theoretical investigations at high speeds. The signif-
icant flow features are described by the following: In the
R. C. Mehta
forebody region, the fluid decelerates through the bow shock
wave depending upon the cruise speed and altitude. At the
shoulder of the capsule, the flow turns and expands rapidly,
and the boundary layer detaches, forming a free shear layer
that separates the inner recirculating flow region behind the
base from the outer flow field. The latter is recompressed
and turned back to freestream direction, first by the so-called
lip shock, and further downstream by recompression shock.
At the end of the recirculating flow past the neck, the shear
layer develops in the wake trail. A complex inviscid wave
structure often includes a lip shock wave (associates with
the corner expansion) and wake trail (adjacent to the shear-
layer confluence). The corner expansion process is a modi-
fied Prandtl–Mayer pattern distorted by the presence of the
approaching boundary layer. Figure 1 shows schematic fea-
tures of the flow field over OREX and DART.
The sonic line is located on the OREX-type configura-
tion on the shoulder whereas in the case of DART’s reentry
module, the location of the sonic line is at the junction of the
spherical blunt cone. Thus, it is seen that the flow field over
the reentry capsule needs a high drag with good static stabil-
ity margin which leads to the selection of an axisymmetric
shape of large angle sphere-cone combination.
The forebody geometry of the ARD configuration is hav-
ing a spherical cap; the OREX module is having combina-
tion of spherical cap with cone. The other capsule consists
of spherically blunted cone/fare. These capsules cover most
of the existing reentry modules. The main aim of the present
paper is to numerically analyze three types of reentry mod-
ules such as ARD, OREX and DART configurations in order
to understand flow-field behavior and its influence on pro-
files of the surface pressure and skin friction coefficients and
also aerodynamic drag for freestream Mach numbers range
of 1.2–6.0. The numerical solution of solve-axisymmetric
laminar-compressible time-dependent Navier–Stokes equa-
tions is carried out employing a multi-stage Runge–Kutta
time stepping scheme. The numerical scheme is second-
order accurate in space and time. A local time step is used
to obtain a steady-state solution. The computation is carried
Numerical simulation of supersonic flow past reentry capsules 33

out on a structured grid. The effects of geometrical parame- 2 ν

σ+ = − p − µ∇ · U + 2µ
ters of the reentry capsules on the wall quantities and aero- 3 r
dynamic drag coefficient are analyzed using the numerically ∂x ∂ν ν
obtained flow-field data. ∇ ·U = + +
∂x ∂r r
Cp µ ∂ T
qx = −
Pr ∂ x
2 Problem definition and approach Cp µ ∂ T
qr = −
Pr ∂r
2.1 Governing equations
where Cp is specific heat at constant pressure, U is the mean
The axisymmetric time-dependent compressible Navier– upstream velocity. Pr is the Prandtl number. The coefficient
Stokes equations can be written in the following strong con- of molecular viscosity µ is calculated according to Suther-
servative form: land’s law. The flow is assumed to be laminar, which is con-
sistent with the numerical simulation of [6, 13, 15]. The tem-

 perature T is related to the pressure p and ρ by the perfect
∂W ∂F ∂G ∂R ∂S
+ + +H= + (1) gas equation of state as
∂t ∂x ∂r ∂x ∂r


where p 1
= ρe − ρ(u + ν )
2 2
(2)
    (γ − 1) 2
ρ ρu
 ρu   ρu 2 + p 
    The ratio of specific heats γ was assumed constant and
W = r  , F = r  ,
 ρv   ρuv  equal to 1.4.
ρe (ρe + p)u
 
ρv
 ρuv  2.2 Numerical algorithm
 
G=r 
 ρv + p 
2
2.2.1 Spatial discretization
(ρe + p)v
To facilitate the spatial discretization in the numerical
are the state vector W and inviscid flux vectors F and G. scheme, the governing fluid dynamics, Eq. (1), can be writ-
The viscous flux vectors are R, S, and H is the source vector ten in the integral form over a finite volume as
term.
   
  ∂
Wd+ (Fdr −Gdx) = (Rdr −Sdx)− Hd
0 ∂t    
 σx x 
  (3)
R=r ,
 τxr 
uσx x + ντxr + qx where  is the computational domain,  is the boundary of
    the domain. The contour integration around the boundary of
0 0 the cell is taken in the anticlockwise sense.
 τxr   
   0  The computational domain is divided into a finite num-
S=r , H =   ber of non-overlapping quadilateral cells. The conservation
 σrr   σ+ 
variables within the computational cell are represented by
uτxr + νσrr + qr 0
their average values at the cell centre (i, j). When the inte-
where σx x , σrr , τxr and σ+ are components of the stress gral governing Eq. (3) is applied separately to each cell in
vector, qx and qr are components of the flux vector, u the computational domain, we obtain a set of coupled ordi-
and ν are axial- and radial-velocity components in x and nary differential equations of the form
r directions, respectively, e is the total energy. Thus, the
viscous terms in the above equations become ∂Wi, j
Ai, j = Q(Wi, j ) − V(Wi, j ) + Ai, j Hi, j (4)
∂t
2 ∂u
σx x = − µ∇ · U + 2µ where Ai, j is the area of the computational cell, Q(Wi, j ),
3 ∂x V (Wi, j ) and H (Wi, j ) are the inviscid and viscous fluxes
2 ∂ν and source term, respectively. These quantities are obtained
τrr = − µ∇ · U + 2µ
3 ∂r
by a simple averaging of adjacent cell-centre values of de-
∂u ∂ν pendent variables [19]. In viscous calculations, dissipating
τxr = τr x = µ +
∂r ∂x properties are present due to diffusive terms.
34 R. C. Mehta

2.2.2 Artificial dissipation 2.2.3 Time-marching scheme

To suppress the tendency for odd- and even-point decoupling The spatial discretization described above reduces the gov-
and to prevent the appearance of oscillations in regions con- erning flow equations to semidiscrete ordinary differential
taining severe pressure gradients near shock wave and stag- equations. The integration is performed using an efficient
nation points, the finite volume scheme must be augmented mutistage three-stage Runge–Kutta time-stepping scheme
by the addition of artifical dissipation terms. Therefore, [20]. The time-step advance of each variable W from time
Eq. (4) is replaced by (t) to time (t + t) can be written as
∂Wi, j W(0) = W(t)
Ai, j + Res(Wi, j ) − D(Wi, j ) = 0 (5)

∂t t  
where the residual Res(W ) is given by W(1) = W(t) − 0.6 Res(0) − D(0)
A


Res(Wi, j ) = Q(Wi, j ) − V (Wi, j ) + Ai, j Hi, j (6) t  
W(1) = W(t) − 0.6 Res(1) − D(0) (12)
where Di, j denotes the dissipative terms which are gener- A


ated by dissipative fluxes. The approach of Jameson et al. t  
[20] is adopted to construct the dissipative terms consisting W(1) = W(t) − 0.6 Res(2) − D(0)
A
of a blend of second and fourth differences of the vector
conserved variables Wi, j with coefficients that depend on W(t + t) = W(3)
the local pressure gradient. The dissipation term consists of
the following operators in each direction. In order to minimize the computation time and increase
the stability margin for the dissipative terms, the expensive
D = (Dx + Dr )Wi, j (7) evaluation of the artificial dissipation terms is carried out
The dissipative fluxes in each direction are only at the first intermediate stage (0) and then frozen for the
subsequent stages. A conservative choice of the Courant–
Dx Ui, j = di+ 1 , j − di− 1 , j Friedrichs–Lewy (CFL) number (1.4) is taken to achieve a
2 2
Dr Ui, j = di, j+ 1 − di, j− 1 . stable numerical solution. Local time steps are used to ac-
2 2
clerate convergence to a steady-state solution by setting the
The dissipative flux di+ 1 , j is defined as time step at each point to the maximum value allowed by
2
the local CFL condition. The present numerical algorithm is
( A)i+ 1 , j 
(2) (4) validated with many test cases [21, 22].
di+ 1 , j = 2
d 1 −d 1 (8)
2 ( t)i+ 1 , j i+ 2 , j i+ 2,j
2 2.3 Initial and boundary conditions
with
(2) The freestream conditions for each trajectory point are enu-
d =
(2) (Wi+1, j − Wi, j ) merated in Table 1, which are used as the initial conditions.
i+ 12 , j
(4) (9)
d 1 =
(4) (Wi+2, j − 3Wi+1, j + 3Wi, j − Wi−1, j ). The subscript ∞ represents freestream value in Table 1.
i+ 2 , j Four types of boundary conditions are required for the
The terms di− 1 , j , di, j+ 1 and di, j− 1 are calculated in an computation of flow field, i.e. wall, inflow, outflow and sym-
2 2 2
metric conditions. They are prescribed as follows:
analogus manner.
(2) and
(4) are adaptive coefficients and At the solid wall, no-slip condition is enforced by setting
defined as

(2) = κ (2) max(ν uw = vw = 0 (13)

 i+1, j , νi,j )
(10)

(4) = max 0, κ (4) −

(2) together with an adiabatic wall condition where subscript w
are switched on or off by use of the shock wave sensor ν, refers to the wall condition.
with At the inflow, all flow variables are prescribed at the
  freestream values as given in Table 1.
 pi+1, j − 2 pi, j + pi−1, j 

νi, j =   (11) For the supersonic outflow case, all flow variables are ex-
pi+1 , j + 2 pi, j + pi−1, j  trapolated at the outer and wake regions of the computational
where κ (2) are κ (4) are constants, taken equal to 14 and 256 1
,
respectively, in the above calculations. The scaling quantity Table 1 Trajectory points and initial conditions
( A
t )i+ 12 , j in Eq. (8) confirms the inclusion of the cell vol- M∞ ν∞ m/s p∞ , (Pa) T∞ , (K)
ume in the dependent variable of Eq. (4). The blend of sec-
1.2 351 4519 210
ond and fourth differences provides third-order background 2.0 596 2891 219
dissipation in smooth regions of the flow and first-order dis- 3.0 903 2073 224
sipation as shock waves. The dissipation terms in the r - 5.0 1532 1238 232
direction are constructed in a similar way. 6.0 1840 1064 234
Numerical simulation of supersonic flow past reentry capsules 35

Fig. 2 Geometrical parameters of reentry capsules

domain. At the centre line of the computational domain, the The spherically blunted-cone/flare configuration is illus-
following symmetric conditions are prescribed. trated in Fig. 2c. The conical forebody has R N = 0.51 m,
D = 2.03 m, L = 1.67 m and α N = 20◦ . The flare has a
ρν = 0 half-angle cone of 25◦ and is terminated with a right circu-
∂u ∂T ∂p (14) lar cylinder and is geometrically similar to the REV of the
= = =0 DART demonstrator [18].
∂r ∂r ∂r
At the center line of the reentry capsule, the respective
cell faces are having zero surface area; therefore, it is simple
to implement the symmetric conditions. 3.2 Computational grid

One of the controlling factors for the numerical simulation

is the proper grid arrangement. In order to initiate the nu-
3 Model and grid arrangement merical simulation of flow over the body, the physical shape
is discretized into nonuniform-spaced grid points. These
3.1 Body configuration
body-oriented grids are generated algebraically in conjunc-
tion with homotopy scheme [23]. The typical computational
The dimensional detail of the ARD capsule, shown in
space over the reentry capsule is defined by a number of grid
Fig. 2a, is an axisymmetric design with a spherical blunt
points in cylindrical coordinate system. Using these surface
nose diameter, D = 2.8 m, spherical cap radius, R N =
points as the reference nodes, the normal coordinate is then
3.36 m and a shoulder radius, RC = 0.014 m. The back shell
described by exponentially structured field points, (xi, j , ri, j )
has inclination angle α B = 33◦ relative to the vehicle’s axis
extending outwards upto an outer computational boundary.
of symmetry. A frustum of cone of radius 0.507 m with a
The stretching of grid points in the normal direction is ob-
12◦ half angle cone is attached to the base region. The over-
tained using the following expression:
all length of the module L = 2.04 m. The ARD resembles a
70% scaled version of Apollo capsule [11].
The OREX geometry is depicted in Fig. 2b with the de-
( j−1)β 
( j−1)β 
e −1
nr −1 e nr −1 − 1
tailed dimensions. The forebody shape consists of R N = xi, j = xi,0 + x i,w 1 −
1.35 m, a half-angle cone of α N = 50◦ , D = 3.4 m, eβ − 1 eβ − 1
L = 1.508 m and RC = 0.01 m. The OREX geometry in-
( j−1)β 
( j−1)β 
corporates a rear cover with a small backward facing step e −1
nr −1 e nr −1 − 1 (15)
ri, j = ri,0 + r i,w 1 −
at the junction between back cover and heat shield. The aft eβ − 1 eβ − 1
body is having a, α B = 15◦ , half-angle cone relative to the i = 1, 2, . . . , n x
plane of symmetry. j = 1, 2, . . . , nr
36 R. C. Mehta

Fig. 3 Enlarged view of computational grid

where ri,w and ri,0 are wall and outer surface points, respec- mospheric reentry demonstrator), OREX (orbital reentry ex-
tively, β is the streching factor. n x and nr are total number of periments) with a smooth and a sharp shoulder edge and
grid points in x and r directions, respectively. These streched a spherically blunted cone-flare reentry modules and for
grids are generated in an orderly manner. The typical com- freestream Mach numbers range of 1.2–6.0.
putational space of the reentry module is defined by a num-
ber of grid points in the cylindrical coordinate system. Using
these surface points as the reference nodes, the normal co-
4.1 Flow characteristics
ordinate is then described by exponentially streched struc-
tured field points, extending up to an outer computational
Figures 4–7 show the enlarged view of the computed veloc-
boundary. The streched grid points in the direction is ob-
ity vector field over the above-mentioned vehicles at various
tained using exponentially stretched relation. These grids are
freestream Mach numbers M∞ . It can be visualized from the
generated in an orderly manner. Grid independence tests are
vector plots that all the significant flowfield features such as
carried out taking into consideration the effect of the com-
bow shock wave, rapid expansion fans on the corner, flow re-
putational domain, the streching factor to control the grid
circulation region with converging free shear layer and for-
intensity near the wall, and the number of grid points in the
mation of the vortex flow in the aft region of the capsule.
axial and normal directions. The outer boundary of the com-
The wake flow field, immediately behind the capsule base,
putational domain is varied from 5 to 12 times the maximum
exhibits complex flow characteristics. The formation of the
diameter of the capsule. The grid streching factor in the ra-
bow shock wave on the forebody of the capsule is observed,
dial direction is varied from 1.5 to 5. The present numerical
which depends on R N and α N and the value of M∞ . The
analysis is carried out on 132 × 52 grid points. The grid
bow shock wave moves close to the forebody with the in-
streching factor is selected as 5, and the outer boundary of
creasing M∞ and the stand off distance between bow shock
the computational domain is kept about 4–7 times the maxi-
wave and the forebody decreases with the increasing M∞ .
mum diameter of the reentry module. In the downstream di-
rection, the computational boundary is about 6–10 times the
maximum diameter of the capsule. The minimum grid spac-
ing at the wall is about 2 × 10−5 − 8 × 10−5 m, sufficient
to resolve the boundary layer and complex flow field which
gives resulting Reynolds number after bow shock wave for
this minimum grid spacing as 33 − 41. The coarse grid helps
in reducing the computer time. A close-up view of the com-
putational grid over different capsules can be seen in Fig. 3.
This grid arrangement is found to give a difference mea-
sured and computed values of ±1.5% in the drag coefficient.
The convergence criterion is based on the difference in den-
sity values, ρ, at any grid point between two successive iter-
ations, that is, |ρ l+1 − ρ l | ≤ 10−5 , where l is the iterative
index.

4 Results and discussion

The numerical procedure described in the previous section

is applied here to compute flowfield over ARD (ESA’s at- Fig. 4 Enlarged view of velocity field over ARD
Numerical simulation of supersonic flow past reentry capsules 37

Fig. 5 Enlarged view of velocity field over OREX (with smooth shoul-
der edge)

Fig. 7 Enlarged view of velocity field over spherically blunted cone-

flare module

Computed Mach contour plots around the various

capsules are shown in Figs. 8–11 for various freestream
M∞ . The Mach contour plots show the formation of
vortices at the corner region of the capsule for M∞ ≤ 3.
Characteristic features of the flow field around the blunt
body at supersonic speeds, such as bow shock wave ahead of
the capsule, the wake, and the recompression shock waves
emanating from the neck point, are observed in the Mach
contour plots. In Figs. 8–10, the bow shock wave follows
the body contour and the forebody is entirely subsonic upto
the corner tangency point of the ARD and the OREX where
the sonic line is located. In the case of spherically blunted
Fig. 6 Enlarged view of velocity field over OREX (with sharp shoulder
edge)

In Fig. 7, the bow shock wave does not follow the body con-
tour in the case of the spherically blunted cone-flare config-
uration, which is attributed to small values of R N and α N as
compared to OREX. A gradual flow turning can be visual-
ized in the case of OREX with smooth shoulder edge as seen
in Fig. 5 whereas a sharp flow turning is found in the sharp
shoulder edge of the OREX as noticed in Fig. 6. The ap-
proaching supersonic boundary layer separates at the corner
and the free shear layer is formed in the wake region. The
wake flow feature also depicts vortex attached to the corner
with a large recirculating flow behind the vehicle adjacent to
the axis of symmetry which depends on α B and M∞ . The
separation point moves downstream from the shoulder to-
wards the base with the increase in M∞ . Similar flow-field
features were observed in the analysis of the bulbous pay-
load shroud of the heat shield of the launch vehicle [24]. Fig. 8 Mach contours over ARD
38
Fig. 9 Mach contours over OREX (with smooth shoulder edge)
Fig. 10 Mach contours over OREX (with sharp shoulder edge)
Fig. 11 Mach contours over spherically blunted cone-flare module
R. C. Mehta
cone-flare module, the sonic line is located at the junction of
the sphere cone as seen in Fig. 11. The Mach contour plots
reveal many intresting flow features of the reentry capsule.
The flow expands at the base corner and is followed by the
recompression shock downstream of the base which realigns
the flow. The flow then develops in the trailing wake. The
flow ground of the capsule is divided into regions inside and
outside of the flow recirculating zone, and two regions are
separated by the shear layer. The wake structure includes
one vortex attached to the conical after-body frustum and
a large recirculating vortex behind the reentry module.
As observed in Figs. 8–11, vortices are generated at the
capsule surface and are then moving and changing location
with M∞ . One can also see the strong vortex flow over
the shoulder of the capsule at Mach number 1.2 and 2.0.
The flow may become highly unsteady at supersonic Mach
numbers [16, 17] due to the formation of the vortices. Note,
however, that use of a fixed CFL number in the present
numerical flow simulation leads to a local time step size
which differs throughout the flow domain. The local time
stepping scheme gives rapid convergence for steady-flow
problem but cannot compute time accurate behaviour. Rapid
expansion around the fore body corners produces high
Mach numbers in the outer inviscid region of the wake.
Figures 12–15 show the pressure coefficient [Cp =
2( p/ p∞ ) − 1/γ M∞ 2 ] variation along the surface for dif-
ferent reentry capsules and freestream Mach numbers. The
s/D = 0 location is the stagnation point, where s is the dis-
tance measured along the surface from the stagnation point
and D is the maximum diameter of the capsule. The pres-
sure coefficient on the spherical cap of the capsule decreases
gradually for a given M∞ . In Figs. 13–15, Cp falls on the
sphere-cone junction and remains constant over the cone.
In the case of the ARD and the OREX, the sonic point
moves to the corner of the blunt bodies and affects the pres-
sure distribution throughout the subsonic flow. In the case of
the OREX with α N = 50◦ , the pressure coefficient shows
Fig. 12 Variation of pressure coefficient along the surface (ARD)
Numerical simulation of supersonic flow past reentry capsules
Fig. 13 Variation of pressure coefficient along the surface (OREX with
smooth shoulder edge)
Fig. 14 Variation of pressure coefficient along the surface (OREX with
sharp shoulder edge)
overexpanded flow. The spherically blunted cone-flare con-
figuration (α N = 20◦ ) gives underexpanded flow as seen in
Fig. 15. These types of flow-field features are also explained
by Bertin [25] in conjunction with flow past reentry cap-
sules. A sudden drop in Cp is observed on the shoulder of
the module followed by a negative Cp variation in the base
region. A low pressure is formed immediately downstream
of the base which is characterized by a low-speed recirculat-
ing flow region which can be attributed to fill-up the growing
space between the shock wave and the body [3]. In the base
region, Cp is decreasing with increasing M∞ . The effect of
the corner radius on Cp can be observed in Figs. 13 and 14.
The value of Cp is higher on the corner as compared with the
sharp shoulder edge of the OREX module. At M∞ = 1.2, a
wavy pattern is observed in the pressure distribution in the
39
Fig. 15 Variation of pressure coefficient along the surface (spherically
blunted cone-flare module)
Fig. 16 Variation of skin friction coefficient along the surface (ARD)
base region which may be attributed due to complex geom-
etry in the base region of the OREX.
The skin friction coefficient Ct along the surface of the
capsule is computed using following relation.
 
µ  du 
dr wall
Cf = − (16)
2 ρu ∞
1 2
Figures 16–19 depict the variation of C f along the sur-
face of the capsule with M∞ as a parameter. C f decreases
with increasing M∞ on the forebody. In Fig. 19, the skin
friction increases in the spherical region then decreases on
the first cone generator and again starts increasing on the
flare. A sudden drop in skin friction is found at the shoulder
of the capsule. This may be attributed to sudden expansion
of the flow on the corner. Negative skin friction can be seen
40 R. C. Mehta

Fig. 17 Variation of skin friction coefficient along the surface (OREX Fig. 18 Variation of skin friction coefficient along the surface (OREX
with smooth shoulder edge) with sharp shoulder edge)

on the base, which is due to the flow separation. The separa-

tion zone is found to be function of M∞ and geometry of the
base region of the capsule. Pressure fore drag is calculated
by integrating the pressure distribution on the body surface
excluding the base of the capsule and can be expressed as

2πri Cp i tan θ dx
CD = (17)
Amax
where r and θ are local radius and local inclination angle in
the x-direction station i respectively. Amax is the maximum
area of the capsule. Table 2 gives pressure-drag coeffi-
cient of the ARD, the OREX- and the spherically blunted
cone-flare configurations at different M∞ . C D increased
as the nose radius is increased; as expected, the increase is
relatively small. High aerodynamic drag is seen in the ARD-
and the OREX- type module as compared with the spherical
blunt configurations. High C D is found for the OREX
with the smooth shoulder edge as compared to the corner Fig. 19 Variation of skin friction coefficient along the surface (spheri-
radius. A good agreement is found between the calculated cally blunted cone-flare module)
value of forebody aerodynamic drag coefficient of the
spherically blunted cone-fare reentry configuration with the
experimental data.

Table 2 Forebody pressure drag coefficient

M Calculated value of C D Experimental

value of C D
ARD OREX with smooth OREX with sharp Spherically blunted Spherically blunted
shoulder edge shoulder edge cone flare cone flare
1.2 1.45 1.82 1.80 0.43 0.42
2 1.43 1.50 1.36 0.42 0.41
3 1.28 1.30 1.17 0.39 0.40
5 1.13 1.16 1.04 – –
6 – – – 0.37 0.38
Numerical simulation of supersonic flow past reentry capsules
5 Conclusion
The flow field over various reentry axisymmetric configu-
rations are studied numerically by solving time-dependent
compressible Navier–Stokes equations. The governing fluid-
flow equations are discretized in spatial coordinates employ-
ing a finite volume approach which reduces the equations
to semi-discretized ordinary differential equations. Tempo-
ral integration is performed using the two-stage Runge–
Kutta time-stepping scheme. A local time step is used to
achieved steady-state solution. Flow field around the cap-
sules have been calculated in the freestream Mach number
range of 1.2–6.0 for different configurations. The essential
flow-field features around the capsules are captured for vari-
ous reentry capsules. The effects of geometrical parameters,
such as radius of the spherical cap, half cone angle, with
the sharp shoulder edge and with the smooth shoulder edge
on the flow field have been numerically investigated for var-
ious reentry configuration. The ARD, the OREX capsules
have the sonic line over the forebody shoulder whereas the
spherically blunted cone-flare module is having sonic line
over the spherical cap region. The flow field behind the bow
shock wave is either subsonic or mixed subsonic–supersonic
region depending upon the geometrical parameters of the
reentry configuration. Thus, the reentry configurations can
be distinguished by the location of the sonic line over the
fore-body at supersonic Mach number which influences wall
pressure and skin friction variations and also aerodynamic
drag coefficient. The shoulder edge affects the corner expan-
sion wave. The pressure coefficient, the skin friction coeffi-
cient variation along the surface and the integrated value of
pressure coefficient will be useful quantities for optimization
of the reentry capsule.
References
1. Chester, W.: Supersonic flow past a bluff body with a detached
shock. J. Fluid Mech. 1, 353–365 (1956)
2. Freeman, N.C.: On the theory of hypersonic flow past plane and
axially symmetric bluff bodies. J. Fluid Mech. 1, 353–365 (1956)
3. Lighthill, M.J.: Dynamics of a dissociating gas, Part 1: Equilib-
rium flow. J. Fluid Mech. 2, 1–32 (1957)
4. Venkatapathy, E., Palmer, G., Prabhu, D.K.: AFE base compu-
tations including base heating predictions. AIAA Paper 91-1372
(June 1991)
5. Haas, B.L., Venkatapathy, E.: Mars Pathfinder computations in-
cluding base heating predictions. AIAA Paper 95-2086 (1995)
6. Wood, W.A., Gnoffo, D.F.G., Rault, D.F.G.: Commercial Experi-
ment Transport reentry capsule. J. Spacecraft Rockets 33(5), 643–
646 (1996)
41
7. Yamamoto, Y., Yoshioka, M.: CFD and FEM coupling analysis
of OREX aerothermodynamic flight data. AIAA Paper 95-2087
(1995)
8. Tam, L.T.: LU-SGS Implicit Scheme for entry vehicle flow com-
putation and comparison with aerodynamic flight data. AIAA pa-
per 95-2671 CP (1992)
9. Menne, S.: Computation of non-winged vehicle aerodynamics in
the low supersonic rane. In: Proceedings of the Second European
Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, ESTEC,
Noordwiik, The Netherlands, pp. 73–78, 21–25 November 1994.
10. Solazzo, M.A., Sansone, A., Gasbarri, P.: Aerodynamic charac-
terization of the Carina reentry module in the low supersonic
regimes. In: Proceedings of the Second European Symposium on
Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, ESTEC, Noordwiik, pp.
41–47, 21–25 November 1994
11. Walpot, L.: Numerical Analysis of the ARD capsule in S4 wind
tunnel. In: Proceedings of the Fourth European Symposium on
Aerothermodynamics for Space Applications, Capua, Italy, pp.
523–527, 15–18 October ESA, 2001
12. Lamb, J.P., Oberkampf, W.L.: Review and development of base
pressure and base heating correlations in supersonic flow. J.
Spacecraft Rockets 32(1), 8–23 (1995)
13. Liever, P.A., Habchi, S.D., Burnell, S.I., Lingard, J.S.: Computa-
tional prediction of the Beagle 2 aerodynamic database. J. Space-
craft Rockets 40(5), 632–638 (2003)
14. Osu, H., Abe, T., Ohnishi, Y., Sasoh, A., Takayama, K.: Numerical
investigation of high-enthaly flow generated by expansion tube.
AIAA J. 40(12), 2423–2430 (2002)
15. Tai, C-S., Kao, A-F.: Navier–Stokes solver for hypersonic flow
over a slander cone. J. Spacecraft Rockets 31(1), 215–222 (1994)
16. Teramoto, S., Hiraki, K., Fujii, K.: Numerical analysis of dynamic
stability of a reentry capsule at transonic speeds. AIAA J 39(4),
646–653 (2001)
17. Teramoto, S., Fujii, K.: Mechanism of dynamic instability of a
reentry capsule at transonic speeds. AIAA J 40(12), 2467–2475
(2002)
18. Otten, H.B.A.: Preliminary computational investigation on aero-
dynamic phenomena on DELFT aerospace reentry test vehicle. In:
Proceedings of the Fourth Symposium on Aerothermodynamics
for Space Applications, Capua, Italy, pp. 207–213, ESA, 15–18
October 2001
19. Peyret, R., Viviand, H.: Computational Methods for Fluid Flow.
Springer-Verlag, New York (1993)
20. Jameson, A., Schmidt, W., Turkel, E.: Numerical solution of Eu-
ler equations by finite volume methods using Runge-Kutta time
stepping schemes. AIAA Paper 81-1259 (1981)
21. Mehta, R.C.: Comparitive study of surface pressure fluctuations
over bulbous heat shield at mach 0.95. Comput. & Fluids 30(6),
689–709 (2001)
22. Mehta, R.C.: Numerical heat transfer study over spiked blunt
bodies at Mach 6.8. J. Spacecraft Rockets 37(5), 700–703
(2000)
23. Shang, J.S.: Numerical simulation of wing-fuselage interference
aerodynamic. AIAA Paper 81-0084 (1981)
24. Mehta, R.C.: Flowfield over bulbous heat shield in transonic and
low supersonic speeds. J. Spacecraft Rockets 35(1), 102–105
(1998) AIAA Paper 97-2256 (1997)
25. Bertin, J.J.: Hypersonic Aerothermodynamics. p. 297. AIAA Ed-
ucation Series, AIAA Press, VA, USA pp. 297 (1994)