Numerical Analysis of Aerodynamic

Characteristics and Fluid-Structure Interaction

(FSI) of Circular Parachutes

A Postgraduate Project Report submitted to ADRDE in partial fulfilment of

the requirement for the award of the degree of

MASTER OF TECHNOLOGY
in
DEFENCE TECHNOLOGY

Submitted by
Yashavanth K M
Manipal Institute of Technology (MIT), Manipal
(Internship period 9th November 2022 to 8th September 2023)

Under the guidance of

Shri. Anup Raj

Scientist ‘D’

Aerial Delivery Research and Development Establishment (ADRDE) |

Defence Research and Development Organisation - DRDO,
Ministry of Defence, Government of India.

Page | i
 CERTIFICATE

This is to certify that the project report entitled “Numerical Analysis of Aerodynamic
Characteristics and Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) of Circular Parachutes” submitted by
Yashavanth K M (Register Number 210941005) in partial fulfilment of the requirement for
award of Master of Technology degree in Defence Technology at Manipal Institute of
Technology (MIT), Manipal, Karnataka, India is an authentic work carried out by him under
my guidance and supervision.

Sri. Anup Raj

Scientist ‘D’
Aerial Delivery Research and Development Establishment (ADRDE)
Agra Cantt.

Date:
Place:

Page | ii
 CONTENTS
Page
No
Acknowledgement iv
Abstract v
List of symbols
and abbreviations vi
List of Figures vii
List of Tables ix
About ADRDE x

Introduction
Chapter 1 1
1.1 Components of parachute
1
1.2 Parachute Applications
3
1.3 Aerodynamics of parachute
3
1.4 Fluid-structure interactions
5

Literature review
Chapter 2 7
2.1 Literature survey
7
2.2 Summarized outcome of literature review
14

Methodology
Chapter 3 15
3.1 Strategy
15
3.2 Engineering Tools
16
3.3 Geometric model
18
3.4 Parachute design
20
3.5 Governing equations
24
3.6 Fluid-structure interaction model
26

Results and Discussion

Chapter 4 32
4.1 Parachute Canopy inflation
32
4.2 Results
34
4.3 Reults analysis
38
4.4 MATLAB program
42

Page | iii
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

Firstly, I would like to thank the almighty for giving me this opportunity.

I sincerely thank Dr.Manoj Kumar Director and OS of ADRDE for granting me

permission to conduct the study.

I am very grateful for my project guide Shri Anup Raj, Sc ‘D’ from ADRDE, Agra, for
his guidance and constant support which he has provided to conduct my project. I am also
greatly thankful for his able guidance, critical review, constant encouragement, and full support
rendered in every aspect of this study.

I express my sincere thanks and gratitude to my guide, Prof. Dr.Chandrakant R Kini,

Professor, Department of Aeronautical and Automobile Engineering, Manipal Institute of
Technology, Manipal, Karnataka, for his able supervision, encouragement, valuable
suggestions and support for this study.

I also extend my sincere thanks to all the Associate Professors, Assistant Professors,
Department of Aeronautical and Automobile Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology,
Manipal for their guidance, supervision, valuable suggestions and support throughout this
study.

I thank my fellow post graduate colleagues from Defence Technology, Department of

Aeronautical and Automobile Engineering, Manipal Institute of Technology, Manipal, for the
stimulating discussions, for the sleepless nights we were working together before deadlines,
and who helped me to complete this thesis.

I express my sincere gratitude to my parents Mr. Mahadevappa K B and Mrs. Pankaja, my

sister Dr. Thrupthi K M for their continuous support and encouragement. Everything I have
and everything I am, I owe it to all of you.

Page | iv
 ABSTRACT

A parachute is a crucial decelerator in the rescue system, which is frequently employed

in spaceship recovery, the touchdown of Mars probes, and other operations due to its great
slowing effectiveness and dependability. During the rescue phase, flexible parachutes are
exposed to the varied and complicated surrounding environment. Analysing the aerodynamic
characteristics and computer simulation for the same is one of the important aspects in
designing and developing the parachutes. In this study we have focused on configuration and
development of parachute model in SolidWorks software. Then material selection process is
done by studying the textile properties of Nylon which the fundamental material in designing
the parachute. Then simulation is done by Ansys software to determine the opening force of
the parachute canopy and the result is with compare with the theoretical calculations with error
consideration. Also, velocity and pressure distributions of the canopy is analysed along the the
deformation.

Page | v
 LIST OF SYMBOLS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Symbol Meaning/expansion, Unit

ALE Arbitrary Lagrangian-Euler

FSI Fluid-Structure Interaction
SALE Simplified Arbitrary
Lagrangian-Euler

b Body force
ci Relative velocity
Dm Mean Diameter
Do Nominal Diameter
Dp Parachute Diameter
Dv Vent Diameter
E Specific total energy
H Parachute height
L Lift force
R Resultant force
Rx Referential coordinate in X-direction
Ry Referential coordinate in Y-direction
Rz Referential coordinate in Z-direction
t Time
s Seconds
to Initial time
Change in time
Density
Stress tensor
Mapping
Spatial gradient
Velocity

Page | vi
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Parts of Parachute ....................................................................................................... 2

Figure 2: Configuration of a Parachute ...................................................................................... 3
Figure 3:Parachute for heavy drop ............................................................................................. 3
Figure 4:Parachute for braking aircraft ...................................................................................... 3
Figure 5:Parachute as an aerodynamic body ............................................................................. 4
Figure 6:Parachute flow field and shape during FSI ................................................................. 6
Figure 7: FSI of two parachutes ................................................................................................. 8
Figure 8: Airflow distribution across ribs .................................................................................. 9
Figure 9: Parachute inflation sequence .................................................................................... 11
Figure 10: Aerodynamic interactions between two parachutes ............................................... 12
Figure 11: Fluid-Structural System Flow ................................................................................ 15
Figure 12:ANSYS Implicit Architecture ................................................................................. 17
Figure 13: ANSYS Workbench Architecture .......................................................................... 17
Figure 15: Initial drawing of a parachute canopy’s gore ......................................................... 18
Figure 14:Gore with dimensions .............................................................................................. 18
Figure 16: Single gore .............................................................................................................. 18
Figure 17 : 600mm canopy (Font view) .................................................................................. 19
Figure 18: 600mm canopy ....................................................................................................... 19
Figure 19: Complete model of a Parachute created in SolidWorks ......................................... 19
Figure 20: Loss of Tenacity caused by exposure to Temperature ........................................... 23
Figure 21: Illustration of the fluid and structural domains and their interface ........................ 25
Figure 22: Parafoil Fluid Domain Setup .................................................................................. 26
Figure 23: Meshing of canopy Figure 24: Meshing of Fluid domain. .......... 28
Figure 25: The refined mesh around the model in the symmetry plane, with the model contour
highlighted in green. ................................................................................................................ 31
Figure 26:: Parachute Canopy Inflation Process ...................................................................... 33
Figure 27: Parachute characteristics ........................................................................................ 34
Figure 28:: Opening force at V1 = 100 m/s ............................................................................. 35
Figure 29: Opening force at V2 = 110 m/s .............................................................................. 36
Figure 30: Opening force at V3 = 120 m/s .............................................................................. 36
Figure 31: Opening force at V4 = 130 m/s .............................................................................. 37

Page | vii
Figure 32: Opening force at V5 = 140 m/s .............................................................................. 38
Figure 33: Opening force at V6 = 150 m/s .............................................................................. 38
Figure 34: Pressure distribution on lower surface ................................................................... 39
Figure 35: Pressure distribution on upper surface ................................................................... 39
Figure 36Flow behaviour around canopy ................................................................................ 40
Figure 37: Velocity streamlines around canopy ...................................................................... 40
Figure 38: Stress distribution (a)Front view (b)lower surface (c)upper surface ...................... 41
Figure 39: Deformation of canopy (a) upper surface (b) lower surface (c) front view ........... 42
Figure 40: Drag force v/s time ................................................................................................. 46
Figure 41: Drag v/s Velocity.................................................................................................... 47

Page | viii
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Drop simulation parameters ....................................................................................... 13

Table 2: Modeling Tools .......................................................................................................... 16
Table 3: Sample input parameters............................................................................................ 20
Table 4: Recommended Design Factors for Parachute assemblies ......................................... 22
Table 5: Characteristics of various materials ........................................................................... 24
Table 6: Comparison between the standard air properties used in CFX and ISA standard
atmosphere at sea level ............................................................................................................ 29
Table 7: Opening force, Theoretical v/s Simulation ................................................................ 39

Page | ix
 About ADRDE

Aerial Delivery Research & Development Establishment (ADRDE) was started at Kanpur
during latter part of 1950’s consisting of two Aerial Delivery Sections primarily for the indigenization
of Parachutes and related equipment for Para-dropping of men and materials. These two sections were
moved to Agra during 1965, and a full-fledged establishment viz. Chief Inspectorate of Aerial Delivery
Equipment (CIADE) was formed. This DGI Estt. came under the fold of DRDO in May 1968 and
ADRDE was created in January 1969. In 1980 ADRDE was brought under Directorate of Aeronautics,
during restructuring of DRDO. In the last two decades ADRDE has executed projects on Man-carrying
Parachutes, Cargo & Heavy Equipment Dropping Systems, Aircraft Brake Parachutes, Weapon
Delivery Parachute Systems, Ammunitions Parachutes, Recovery Parachutes & related equipment’s,
Arrester Barriers and Aerostats. Today, the charter of ADRDE includes design & development of
parachutes, Aerostat Systems, Aircraft Arrester Barrier Systems and Heavy-Drop Systems for both
military and civilian applications. The technological competence built in Aeronautical, Textile,
Mechanical and Electronics engineering has imparted ADRDE, a unique combination of know-how
and capabilities to evolve new solutions in these fields, with emphasis on quality assurance. This
establishment is also responsible for ensuring the transfer of technology of the matured and established
technologies to the identified production agency. After establishing source for bulk production, ADRDE
continues to provide advice and assistance to the production agencies both within and outside MoD,
during production, inspection, and maintenance of stores. Apart from stipulated R&D work, this
establishment also carries out design modifications for extending the capabilities of existing
stores/equipment’s of armed forces. Life extension studies are also undertaken depending upon needs
of the users. The ADRDE is one of the seven Aero-cluster labs. Though, it is small, but it is not so in
terms of technological feats and its commercial value. In the last five years, just one of the products of
ADRDE i.e., Parachutes has fetched Ordnance Parachute Factory over Rs. 170 crores whereas the
expenditure budget of ADRDE in salaries & projects was ~ Rs 30 crores during the same period.
Similarly, indigenous Arrester Barrier Nets of 20-ton class and Su-30 class have saved foreign exchange
worth ~ Rs. 60 crores in the past ten years. Each product developed by ADRDE is backed up by
conformance to stringent quality standards. In its quest of delivering the most modern and up-to-date
technological solutions, this lab is well equipped with state-of-the-art testing and measurement
facilities. Over a period of time ADRDE has built strong bonds of partnership with industry, reputed
institutes like IITs, CSIR labs, Ordnance factories, etc. Our sincere efforts in developing technologies
and system development has helped us in graduating ADRDE from an indigenisation lab of parachutes
to a system lab offering customized turnkey solutions to user requirements in a gamut of Aerial delivery
systems.

Page | x
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

The word "Parachute" is derived from French word "Parare" (to shield or defend) and
"chute" (a fall). By definition, a parachute is a folding umbrella like device used for the safety
of falling bodies. Although the parachute was initially conceived for use by human beings, but
today due to change in parachute configuration, these are being used for emergency escape of
crew, for air drop of equipment, for air drop of weapons & bombs, for braking fighter/bomber
aircraft and for recovery of aero-space vehicles. To the layman the parachute is often no more
than a large umbrella which brings payload safely to earth, but to the engineer, parachute
involves complex aerodynamics theory. In fact, the changes in the role of parachute
applications and its complexity, have led to defining this drag device in technical terminology
as "Deployable Aerodynamic Decelerator".

1.1. Components of Parachute

The various parts of a typical parachute are shown in the Fig.1. The principal components
of a parachute are the canopy and the suspension lines or rigging lines. The canopy is the cloth
surface that inflates to a developed shape which produces the aerodynamic force to apply a
retarding or stabilizing force as it is drawn through the air by a falling or moving body. The
crown of a canopy is the region of cloth area above the major diameter of inflated shape,
whereas the portion below to the leading edge of the canopy is known as the skirt. Suspension
lines transmit the retarding force i.e., drag of the canopy to the load which it carries. The
vectorial point of convergence of all suspension lines of parachute is generally referred to as
the confluence point. The distance from canopy skirt to the confluence point is the effective
suspension line length, le. A riser forms a single load carrying member below the confluence
point, normally treated as a separate subassembly unless formed by continuation of the
suspension lines. The circular opening at the centre of crown is called the vent[1]. It serves to
simplify fabrication and provide relief for the initial surge of air that impacts the top of canopy
at the start of inflation. The apex is the topmost point of an inflated canopy. A gore is a tapered
or triangular segment of a canopy.

The use of aircraft for war purpose provided the means of dropping men, materials,
equipment and weapons at various speed and heights. If these will allow to fall freely, attain a

Page | 1
very high speed by the time they reach the earth/ground. It is possible to slow down the
descent speed of falling bodies by artificial means, providing large air resisting surfaces.
Such rigid surfaces usually occupy too much space while flexible surface like parachute is an
economical solution and can be packed into a comparatively small space.

Figure 1: Parts of Parachute

Page | 2
 Figure 2: Configuration of a Parachute

1.2 Parachute applications

The principal uses of parachute are:

(a) For dropping paratroopers.
(b) For life saving of aircrew.
(c) For dropping supplies and heavy equipment.
(d) For dropping ammunition, weapons & bombs.
(e) For recovery of vehicle & space payload.
(0) For braking aircraft. (g) For sports
It is not possible to design one parachute to meet all these requirements as each purpose has
some special features which necessitate a particular design, size & materials.

Figure 4:Parachute for braking aircraft Figure 3:Parachute for heavy drop

Page | 3
1.3 Aerodynamics of Parachute

The prime purpose of a parachute is to produce drag. Most of the aerodynamics is

concerned with the minimization of flow disturbance by the use of streamlined shapes, but the
parachute designer strives to produce the maximum of flow disturbance within the constraints
of parachute mass and volume. We are therefore concerned, in studying parachutes, with the
separated flows about bluff bodies: one of the most intractable fields of aerodynamics[2].

In general, the parachute is initially stored within the payload. Space limitations
invariably dictate that the parachute is packed into a compact shape very different from its
deployed form. When it is required, it must then inflate rapidly, transforming itself to a high
drag shape. Subsequently, the parachute decelerates the payload. We are thus also concerned
with time varying or unsteady flows. Since it is the purpose of a parachute to decelerate a
payload, it must fly in a turbulent wake which can strongly influence its drag. In order to create
a stable parachute, it is usually necessary to introduce geometric porosity and/or use permeable
material in the canopy. So, in addition to the complexities of flow around a bluff body, we must
also consider the flow through the body[3]. A parachute must be flexible; therefore, its flying
shape is determined by the flow around it, which in turn is influenced by the shape of the
canopy. The aerodynamic and structural aspects of the parachute are therefore strongly
coupled. Finally, parachutes, like other aerodynamic devices must operate in subsonic,
transonic and supersonic flow regimes.

Figure 5:Parachute as an aerodynamic body

Page | 4
 The analysis of parachutes necessitates the solution of unsteady, separated
compressible flows about a flexible, porous body with non-uniform upstream flow conditions.
In the light of the extreme complexity of this problem it is unsurprising that parachute designers
still rely heavily on empirical methods to predict parachute behaviour. Even with modern
advances in computer power and numerical methods, the full three-dimensional problem of
parachute inflation remains extremely challenging. Nonetheless, over the last twenty years
significant advances have been made by a piecemeal approach to various aspects of the
aerodynamics of parachutes. By using simplifying assumptions to eliminate some of the
problems described above, semi-analytical methods have been developed which permit
improved understanding of parachute behaviour. Moreover, within their limitations, and in
conjunction with high quality test data and practical experience, these methods allow
increasingly efficient and confident design of parachute systems[4].

1.4 FLUID-STRUCTURE INTERACTION (FSI)

Due to the enormous needs for combat and civilian renew, the research of aerial
delivery systems has become much specific and during the last few decades the growth and
development have been significant. Among the best-known study topics in analytical models
in design, fluid-structure interaction (FSI) modelling contains a vast diversity of fundamental
concepts and methodologies as well as implementations. The Team for Advanced Flow
Simulation and Modelling (TAFSM) began concentrating on the application category known
as Parachute FSI modelling as early as 1997, with three dimensional calculations beginning in
2000. Ever since, the TAFSM has just been researching overall FSI methods and strategies
particularly aimed at chutes, all developed for huge parallel processing, to meet the
technological problems associated in parachute FSI[5].

The dynamics of parachute systems are extremely complicated due to interactions

involving the canopy, payload, suspension lines and atmospheric air. Any time throughout the
installation and operating process, parachutes can endure significant canopy distortion and
alignment variations. Computation of these canopy structures necessitates the formulation of
numerical solution over computational subdomains with time-varying forms in order to
accurately reflect the behaviour as it occurs. The Stabilized Space–Time conceptualization,
that was presented as a standard cause interface-tracking approach for stream calculations

Page | 5
involving changing borders and surfaces, such as FSI, is the primary mathematical
methodology employed by the TAFSM in FSI modelling[6].

Figure 6:Parachute flow field and shape during FSI

The Continuity equation and Stress stabilisation techniques are applied. The
grid updating techniques created by the TAFSM are employed with the DSD conceptualization,
and a suitable FSI coupling mechanism is included in the FSI execution. The handling of the
interaction among the calculation modules describing flow characteristics, material properties,
and grid movement formulas is controlled by the FSI linkage approach. At the beginning, the
block-iterative FSI linking method was used for the TAFSM parachute computations.
Eventually, a more reliable variation of the free-block coupling approach was used in the
calculations, greatly enhancing linking durability.

Page | 6
 CHAPTER 2
LITEATURE REVIEW

Here we are going to see a brief review of aerodynamics and fluid-structure interaction
of different category of parachutes with different approaches and computational techniques.
Authors and scholars from different parts of the world have discussed about aerodynamic
performances and interactions between the parachute canopies, aerodynamic models and its
flight performances by numerically simulating the parachutes, opening characteristics and
much more[7]. Then Fluid-Structure interaction (FSI) of parachute has been discussed. Three
dimensional computational FSI in parachute systems, supersonic parachute inflation by
simulation, parachute clusters modelling and its FSI, low-speed airdrop of parachute are
discussed with various techniques and methodologies.

The prime purpose of a parachute is to produce drag. The majority of aerodynamics is

concerned with the minimization of flow disturbance by the use of streamlined shapes, but the
parachute designer strives to produce the maximum of flow disturbance within the constraints
of parachute mass and volume. We are therefore concerned, in studying parachutes, with the
separated flows about bluff bodies: one of the most intractable fields of aerodynamics[8].

The potential to model canopy FSI is acknowledged inside the parachute scientific
world as a significant difficulty since the interactions among the canopy mechanism and the
flow surrounding it is dominating in most parachute missions. The dynamic
interaction challenge of a canopy is extremely challenging and complicated since it is
inherently unpredictable and unstable. Due to the requirement to employ statistical parameters
or statistics, the earliest computational analyses concentrated on the mechanics of the canopy
and load combination. The three most common techniques are the fundamental motion
equations approach, hyperinflation length technique, and hyperinflation duration process.

2.1 Literature survey

H. Johari and K.J. Desabrais has analysed the flow field in the vicinity of a small,
pliable, flat circular canopy cover. The trials were carried out in a rectangular channel using a
Reynolds number of 3 × 104. A completely expanded canopy as well as the expansion process
were both evaluated. With a parameter of 0.56 0.03, the substantially expanded canopy

Page | 7
underwent a periodic "breathing" action that matched the peeling of swirling circles out from
top. When the circumference reaches about 68% of the completely expanded size, the boundary
layer that has developed on the crown surface starts to split close to the peak region. The flow
separation of the fluid layers then flows upwards near the skirt as drag quickly approaches to
its absolute peak[9].

T. Tezduyar V. Kumar S. Sathe studied when two different parachutes are near to one
another or when a group of parachutes is present, aerodynamic events between the canopies of
the parachute can happen. Our analysis for the scenario with two distinct parachutes
concentrates on the influence of the spacing on the aerodynamic correlations, as well as the
dynamic interactions with predetermined initial equilibrium locations. We concentrate on the
impact of changing the sequence and pattern of the canopies for the airflow dynamics among
a category of parachutes.

Figure 7: FSI of two parachutes

Page | 8
 Angelo A. Fonseca Pazmiño studied the creation of a computer aided design and
Computational approach for simulating ram-air parachutes under steady-state circumstances
which are presented in this paper. Methods for approximating the 3d model and effectively
modelling the parachute as a stiff, impervious body were devised commencing from a two-
dimensional ribs sketch. To improve the behaviour of a two-dimensional, pseudo-2D, and
computer model during an actual flight, distortions were applied to each. Because it can
accurately forecast pressure difference and coalescence from unfavourable flow velocity, the
Simulation model was selected for the modelling of these geometries. The CFD software's
corresponding boundary constraints and scrubbing topological techniques are used to manage
the three-dimensional model's great deal of difficulty[10].

Figure 8: Airflow distribution across ribs

Enrique Ortega and Roberto Flores provides a method for the aero - elastic analysis of
chute retardation. The technique combines two specific constructive resolution techniques with
evidence-based aerodynamics, which is based on a loading expansion concept and Ludtke's
surface area law. In order to accurately calculate the construction weights and tensions
throughout chute deployment and stable flight, a finite element model is employed in
conjunction with the mass-spring-damper approach. The prototypes have a shared grid and a
stumbled coupling method. The approach gives meaningful functional and physical statistics
while limiting system complication and processing expense. It is designed for realistic
evaluations of retardation mechanisms[11].

Page | 9
 Mingxing Huang and Wenqiang Wang analysed agile, reduced, and low vibrant forces
which describe the Martian parachute operating conditions. The Tianwen-1 Mars chute has
undergone performance analysis and evaluation in order to guarantee service quality and
dependability. First, the conceptual refinement of the chute design is accomplished by
experiments in rapid and sonic airflow tunnels. Three chutes were then evaluated in elevated
flights to determine their aero properties and their ability to deploy reliably at speeds between
Mach and subsonic while also measuring their drag correlation and instability orientation. This
page describes the Tianwen-1 Mars parachute's research, creation, and validation so that it
might serve as a model for the development of further Martian surface parachute[12].

Kai Li and Gang Chen examines the UAV catastrophic chute rescue mechanism built
on paratrooper rocket using a specific kind of UAV as its subject of analysis. Both chute and
UAV aerodynamics and mechanics equations used in the reprocessing are designed separately.
Given are the statistics obtained for return mobility in the absence of breeze, along with an
analysis of how the aspect velocity and other UAV characteristics vary throughout the
restoration phase. In the light of this, the linked variables impacting the UAV's controlled
descent are investigated, serving as a guide for such UAV in determining when to deploy the
canopy[13].

To build the capacity for evaluating supersonic chutes under Spaceman circumstances,
the Advanced Supersonic Parachute Inflation Research Experiments (ASPIRE) initiative was
started. Two potential parachute designs were satisfactorily investigated by Suman Muppidi
Clara O’Farrell during three preliminary parachute trials, which were intended to lower risk
for NASA’s impending Mars 2020 mission. These tests also yielded useful information on
canopy expansion, loads, and manoeuvrability. Flight mechanics simulations were used to
design the flight experiments, which in turn needed aerodynamic models of the cargo and the
chute. The maximum flow of air and quasi - steady drag of the chute are within the ranges of
the which was before predictions, despite the fact that the forecasts overestimate the parachute
drag at supersonic Mach values. The projected duration to expansion for the parachute is also
in good agreement with the pre-flight simulation[14].

Page | 10
 Figure 9: Parachute inflation sequence

Tayfun Tezduyar et al. studied aero behaviours among 2 round chutes, aerodynamic
performance of different phases of the parachute processes which are used in decelerating,
cruising, and touching down the Staff Deliver Vehicle of the International Space Station, and
aeroelastic of a paratrooper isolating from an aeroplane are a few of the purposes which are
concentrating on. The structural and aerodynamic reaction of the canopy to the tail impacts
are significantly influenced by free-flowing interplay, which must be taken into consideration
in numerical parachute behaviour forecasting. Irregular streams over extended wake areas

Page | 11
must be precisely solved, which is a difficult task on top of the one required in addressing an
unstable free flowing interface issue[15].

Figure 10: Aerodynamic interactions between two parachutes

Page | 12
 Binqi Chen and Yiding Wang approached a responsive flowing fluid network which is
created on the foundation of the current unconstrained Linear dynamic coupling technique in
attempt to examine the fluid-solid interaction dynamic features of the parachute-cargo system
throughout the descent phase and assess the unstable performance forces within limited force
release circumstances. The C-9 parachute's release power and descent speed computed values
show how successful this approach is. Based on this, the impact of parachutes with 3 various
levels of porosity on the mobility characteristics of the parachute-cargo system, comprising
releasing function, constant descending assets, and stabilization, is investigated. An analysis of
the morphologies and swirling properties of canopies made of various materials is made, and
the entanglement process of the flow field for the parachute-cargo system in the unstable
vibration is discovered[19].

Table 1: Drop simulation parameters

Variable Value Units

Initial height 35 M
Initial velocity 0 m/s
Flight path angle 90
Air density 1.18 Kg/m3
Air pressure 101,325.0 Pa
Acceleration 9.81 m/s2
Weight of payload 1.8 Kg

Xiaopeng XUE and He JIA studies the pliable Navier-Stokes solutions which are solved
computationally to examine sonic streams in the vicinity of parachute different schemes. The
stiff and elastic parachute models—which consist of a spacecraft and a canopy—are taken into
consideration in the current research. The focus of the current work is to look at how the
Martian atmosphere affects both the structural behaviour of the extensible canopy and the
turbulent flows generated by such chute models. The rapid stiff gliders with smaller leading
lengths were found to display less hydrodynamic reactions in between spacecraft wave and
parachute shockwave in the Martian environment, leading in a reduced stress distribution over
the usual canopy regions[16].

Page | 13
2.2 Summarized outcome of the literature review

Authors and researchers around the world have widely discussed about the aerodynamic
characteristics and its performances and Fluid-structure interaction about the parachute
systems. The transverse separation between the two parachutes affected the aero dynamics. In
this investigation, it’s found that when the horizontal distance among the chutes is 2 canopy
diameters or below, there are substantial correlations. They also investigated how the fluid-
structure interactions (FSI) in simulation environment affect the relationship within the various
parachutes. To verify the modelling inside the programme and analyse aeronautical test data to
gauge the influence of deviations, a sample array of 7 scenarios was studied. The appraisal
results from these investigations were compared to the empirical and quantitative data from
earlier study work that was accessible[30].

In order to confront the simulation difficulties associated with chute disreefing, such as
the disreefing of chute groupings and chutes with altered dimensional permeability, such as the
furler phases of such chutes, designers also described this same unique canopy FSI
methodologies we have produced. The increasing geometric complexity and the quick
variations in the canopy shape provide computing difficulties in the event of canopy disreefing.
The circulation via the openings generated by the elimination of the boards and the broader
spaces produced by the loss of the flaps in the instance of the chutes with variable structural
permeability can be adequately represented and can only be addressed throughout the FSI
calculation and can't be adequately described using the HMGP[31].

Page | 14
 CHAPTER 3
METHODOLIGY
3.1 Strategy

Like the methods used in the past, the first step to planning out the computational model
of the aerodynamic and structural performance of a parafoil will be to design a program flow
that the computational analysis will use as a roadmap. Like the previous work done on
parachute modeling, the strategy will need the following programs to work synchronously: a
geometric modeler, a meshing application, a CFD solver that works seamlessly with a FEA
solver and vice versa, a method of incorporating the material properties of the canopy into the
FEA solver, a coupling program that records the CFD and FEA solver’s input and output during
each iteration of the fluid-structure interaction, and a post processor that will record the
displacements and stresses of the parafoil canopy as well as the pressures and flow fields of the
surrounding air. Figure 44 demonstrates the placement of these programs to complete the fluid-
structure interaction roadmap that the computational analysis will need to follow to get an
accurate model of a parafoil.

Figure 11: Fluid-Structural System Flow

An implicit FSI model will be used as the primary engineering strategy for this thesis.
The difference between an implicit and explicit FSI model is simply the number of cycles the
FSI process completes per time step. If a FSI cycle only completes one transfer between the
CFD and FEA solvers, then it is considered an explicit FSI model. If two or more iterations are
used to reach a stabilized solution by reducing residuals, then the model is considered an

Page | 15
implicit FSI model. The advantage of using an implicit model over an explicit model is that
because an explicit model only uses one FSI cycle per time step which yields a typically high
number of residuals per time step, the time step must be very small.

Implicit modeling is very accurate in reducing residuals. High accuracy is required to

model a parafoil because the slight miscalculation of a pressure component or displacement
could drastically change the outcome of the parafoil shape and performance.

3.2 Engineering Tools

After careful consideration among solvers including easiness to use, compatibility with
other solvers and conforming to all the requirements set forth in the previous section, it was
chosen to use the following software shown in Table.

Table 2: Modeling Tools

Manufacturer Program Utility

Dassault Systems SolidWorks Geometric Modeler

Space-claim modeler Geometric Modeler

ICEM meshing Manual/Automatic meshing

Engineering data Material properties manager

ANSYS Fluent CFD modeler

Structural MAPDL FEA modeler

System coupling Data transfer

Post CFD Post processing

Dassault Systems SolidWorks will be used as the primary geometric modeler for the
initial creation of the parafoil shape for ease of 3D surface modeling. The initial creation of the
parafoil canopy and suspension lines will then be passed off to ANSYS Design Modeler where
parametric will be added to the geometry for design optimization. Parametric allow a simple
change to be made such as a length parameter or a line attachment location and instantly the

Page | 16
geometric profile will be updated, and the computation model can begin or restart. Once the
geometric profile of the parafoil model is created and passed off to ANSYS Design Modeler,
the FSI process can begin.

3.2.1 Program Workflow

Figure 12:ANSYS Implicit Architecture

Figure 13: ANSYS Workbench Architecture

Page | 17
3.3 Geometric Model
The model is developed using the SolidWorks software. SolidWorks is a solid modeling
computer-aided design (CAD) and computer-aided engineering (CAE) application.

Figure 15: Initial drawing of a parachute canopy’s gore

Figure 14:Gore with dimensions

Figure 16: Single gore

By taking 300mm diameter and canopy height 200mm, and with the arc diameter of 250mm,
a single gore model is created. Then circular pattern feature is applied to the gore and an 8-
gore canopy is created for a thickness of 0.2mm.

Page | 18
 Figure 18: 600mm canopy Figure 17 : 600mm canopy (Font
view)

After the creation of canopy, corresponding suspension lines, riser, and payload are created
and assembled to develop a complete parachute model.

Figure 19: Complete model of a Parachute created in SolidWorks

Page | 19
 Table 3: Sample input parameters

Parameters Typical Value Units

Height of the Canopy 0.2 Meter(m)
Diameter of the Canopy 0.6 Meter(m)
Thickness 0.0002 Meter(m)
Surface area of Canopy 0.636 Meter square(m2)

Surface area calculation (Ao):

From the available data,
𝐷𝑝
= 0.67, Dp = Projected diameter = 0.6m, therefore, Do = 0.9m
𝐷𝑜
Area, 𝐴𝑜 = 𝜋𝑟 2 = 0.636 m2.
For the further CFD analysis, we will use the above parameters of the canopy and will find
the aerodynamic coefficient, flow behaviour, pressure distribution and deformation of the
canopy by Fluid-Structure Interaction (FSI) method using ANSYS software.

3.4 Parachute Design

Parachute deployment denotes the sequence of events that begins with the opening of a
parachute compartment or parachute pack attached to the body to be recovered. Deployment
continues with extraction of the parachute until the canopy and suspension lines are stretched
behind the body and the parachute canopy is ready to start the inflation process. This
deployment is associated with a mass shock (snatch force) created by the acceleration of the
mass of the parachute to the velocity of the body to be recovered. The task of a good
deployment system is to limit the mass shock to an acceptable level. Shock limitation is
accomplished by controlling the parachute deployment process and providing means for
progressive incremental acceleration of all parts of the parachute to the velocity of the
forebody. A high snatch force is usually the result of a poor deployment system. The need for
a controlled progressive parachute deployment increase with parachute size and deployment
velocity, and with the number of parachutes in the assembly. An uncontrolled high acceleration
of the canopy skirt may also cause reefing cutters to rip away from their anchor points and
damage the reefing installation.

Page | 20
A good parachute deployment system provides the following benefits:

1. Minimizes the parachute snatch force by controlling incrementally the deployment of the
parachute, and by keeping the parachute canopy closed until line stretch occurs. Acceleration
of the air mass in a partially inflated canopy before line stretch is a main contributing factor to
high snatch loads.

2. Keeps tension on all parts of the deploying parachute. Tension prevents fluttering of the
canopy. Fluttering causes entanglement, canopy damage, line-overs, and canopy inversions.

3. Minimizes opening time and opening-force scatter caused by irregularities and delayed
action during parachute deployment and inflation.

4. Supports uniform deployment and subsequent inflation of parachute clusters. This is of

utmost importance in clusters to avoid wide discrepancies in forces and opening times of the
various parachutes.

3.4.1 Material selection

The two primary groups of textiles are those of natural fibres and those of man-made
fibres. Fiber is a generic name that refers to all materials used in the manufacture of textiles.
Natural fibres include wool, cotton, silk, hemp, flax (linen), and many others. Only silk and
cotton are of interest to parachute designers. Man-made fibers are classified by their origins.
Mineral fibers, the only nonorganic fibers, include glass fibre and metal thread used in woven
metals such as metal shielding for electrical wiring. All other man-made fibers are based on
cellulose, protein, or resin composites. The cellulose group includes rayon; the protein and
resin groups include nylon, Dacron, Kevlar, and others. Cellulose, protein, and resin are
referred to as organic fibers.

Page | 21
 Table 4: Recommended Design Factors for Parachute assemblies

Load Factors Loss Factors

Item Safety Dynamic Line Unsymmetrical Ultimate Joint Abrasion Fatigue, Water Total Ultimate
Factor, conversion oil, o Design
Load, m Load, s Load Loss, Loss, e k Loss
u factor Factor,
SF factor DF
Emergency
escape,
bailout, 1.5 1.0 1.05 1.1 1.73 0.8 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.69 2.50
premed,
1.5 1.0 1.05 1.0 1.575 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.9
seat capsule

Vehicle 1.5 1.0 1.05 1.0 1.575 0.8 0.97 0.95 1.0 0.74 2.12
recovery,
UVS, drone 1.6 1.0 1.05 1.0 1.68 0.8 1.0 1.0 0.95 0.76 2.21

1.6 1.0 1.05 1.1 2.02 0.8 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.69 2.93
Airdrop 1.5 1.0 1.05 1.0 1.575 0.8 0.95 0.9 0.95 0.65 2.42
paratrooper
cargo

1.5 1.0 1.05 1.0 1.73 0.8 0.90 0.9 0.9 0.58 2.98
Aircraft
deceleration

Ordnance, 1.5 1.0 1.05 1.0 1.575 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 1.97
torpedoes,
mines, 1.6 1.0 1.05 1.0 1.84 0.8 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.8 2.3
bombs,
weapons

3.4.2 Natural Fibers Silk:

Silk is produced by the silkworm, which spins a cylindrical cocoon from a thread less
than 1/1000 of an inch in diameter, 800 to 1500 meters long, and triangular in cross section.
Because the thread is so small in diameter, five to ten cocoons are unwound simultaneously,
and their threads spun together using the natural glue of the thread. The thread is then spun into
yarn and woven into cloth. Silk is the strongest of all natural fibers, resists heat, and burns only
as long as a flame is applied to it. The silk fiber is referred to as a long staple fiber, unlike
cotton and wool, which are short staple fibers.

Page | 22
3.4.3 Man-made Fibers

Nylon: Nylon, developed shortly before World War II by DuPont for use in clothing, has
become the primary fiber for parachute fabrics. Nylon is a synthetic resin (polyamide) with
high tenacity caused by long, highly oriented molecules and high intermolecular forces that
resist slippage. Nylon tenacity ranges from 2.5 to 9.5 grams per denier; its elongation ranges
from 29 to 40%. Nylon type 6.6, used for parachute fabrics, is rated at 6.6 grams per/denier,
approximately equivalent to a tenacity of 115,000 lb/inch2, which compares favourably to
other materials used in the aerospace industry.

3.4.4 Properties of Nylon

➢ Nylon is abrasion resistant, durable, and little affected by humidity, fungus, bacteria,
organic solvents, and alkalise.
➢ Nylon is sensitive to ultraviolet radiation (sunlight); this sensitivity can be reduced but
not eliminated by appropriate treatment of the fabric.
➢ Nylon melts when subjected to fire but does not burn. This fabric can be used, with
little loss in strength, at temperatures of up to 250°F.
➢ Nylon loses 50% of its strength at about 330F, becomes sticky at higher temperatures,
and melts at 480"E If subjected to repeated stresses, nylon exhibits a certain hysteresis
in its strain characteristics, but fully recovers after few minutes.
➢ However, long exposure to high stresses and high temperatures notably decreases the
strength of the fabric.

Figure 20: Loss of Tenacity caused by exposure to Temperature

Page | 23
 Table 5: Characteristics of various materials

3.5 Governing Equations

The flow behaviour is described by the continuity and momentum Navier-Stokes equations,
incompressible Newtonian fluid in three dimensions with body forces neglected.

Page | 24
 Figure 21: Illustration of the fluid and structural domains and their interface

3.5.1 Governing Equations for the Fluid Domain

The flow of an ideal, non-reactive gas is considered in this work. The fluid can described by
the compressible Navier-Stokes equations, shown here in conservative form:
∂wf /∂t + ∂F (i) /∂xi = 0 in Ωf
Where, wf = [ρf , ρf v1, ρf v2, ρf v3, ρfEt ]T is the unknown state vector of the fluid, and
F (i) = [ρf vi; ρf v1vi + pδ1i − τ1i; ρf v2vi + pδ2i − τ2i; ρf v3vi + pδ3i − τ3i; (ρfEt + p)ui + qi
− vj τij )] contains the flux of mass, momentum, and energy, respectively.
Here, p, vi , and T are the pressure, velocity components, and temperature of the fluid,
respectively. ρf is the density of the fluid and is given by the equation of state, p = ρfRT, where
R is the gas constant of the fluid. The subscript f associates quantities with the fluid domain. qi
are the components of the heat flux of the fluid given by Fourier’s law, qi = −κ∂T/∂xi , where
κ is the thermal conductivity of the fluid, and τij represents the components of the viscous stress
tensor.

3.5.2 Governing Equations for the Structural Domain

The dynamic equilibrium of the structure can be expressed in total Lagrangian form as
ρsu¨ = ∇0 · (X · S) + b0 in Ωs,0,
where Ωs,0 denotes the initial configuration of the structure, ρs is the density of the structural
material, ∇0 is the divergence operator in the initial configuration, b0 is the vector of body
forces acting in Ωs,0, and u and u¨ are the unknown displacements and accelerations. X and S
represent the deformation gradient tensor and the second Piola-Kirchhoff stress tensor,
respectively. The subscript s associates quantities with the structural domain.

Page | 25
3.5.3 Fluid-Structure Interface conditions
The fluid and structural domains interact at the shared interface, Γfsi, via the following
−1
transmission conditions: v = ˙u on Γfsi and −pn + τn = J XSXTn on Γfsi , ensuring the
compatibility of velocities and equilibrium of traction between the two domains.

3.6. Fluid Structure Interaction Model

Pressure Outlet

Parafoil model

Velocity Inlet

Figure 22: Parafoil Fluid Domain Setup

The process of refining the mesh parameters by helping the CFD solver to converge
with less error and fewer iterations was driven by keeping the orthogonal quality ratio high and
skewness low for the overall CFD domain. The orthogonal quality of a mesh cell is most simply
explained by taking the smallest dimension of one of the sides of a cell and dividing it by the
largest dimension whereas skewness is the measure of angular twist the overall shape of a mesh
cell. For example, a perfect cube has an orthogonal quality of 1 and a skewness of 0, because
all the sides are the same length and there is no twist. A rectangle would have an orthogonal
quality of less than 1 because it has a larger and smaller side but would still have a skewness
of zero because there is no twist or warp to its shape.

Page | 26
 An example of a cell with a low orthogonal quality and a high skewness would be one
in the shape of a very thin twisted plate. This makes meshing a thin surface very difficult in a
fluid domain and is why the parafoil is treated as a zero-thickness plate in the CFD mesh so
that the cells of the parafoil canopy do not occupy any cells in the CFD domain and simply just
connect to the pressure contours around the parafoil.

3.6.1 Meshing
Once the mesh was imported in ANSYS Fluent, the Navier-Stokes equations for
conservation of mass and momentum combined with the transient shear-stress transport (SST)
k-ω model was used for the computation of the fluid flow around the parafoil using the
turbulent kinetic energy and specific dissipation rate equations. The benefit of using the k-ω
SST model is its effectiveness for low Reynolds number flows and flexibility for adverse
pressure gradients and separating flow. This helps with modeling the unpredictable turbulent
flow around a parachute. The k-ω SST model also switches to a k-ε model in the free-stream
sections of airflow, thereby avoiding the common k-ω turbulence model problem where the
solution is too sensitive to the inlet free-stream turbulence sensitivity. A velocity inlet with
turbulence intensity of 10% and a hydraulic diameter of 0.5 feet was used to model the inflow
of the parafoil CFD domain, while a pressure outlet was used to model the outflow as shown
back in Figure for defining the inlet and outlet of the CFD domain.
𝜕𝑣𝑥/ 𝜕𝑥 + 𝜕𝑣𝑦/ 𝜕𝑦 + 𝜕𝑣𝑧/ 𝜕𝑧 = 0

Where: 𝜌 = 𝐷𝑒𝑛𝑠𝑖𝑡𝑦
𝑢⃗ = 𝐹𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
𝑣 = 𝐶𝑜𝑚𝑝𝑜𝑛𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑜𝑓 𝑓𝑙𝑜𝑤 𝑓𝑖𝑒𝑙𝑑
𝑝 = 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢⃗𝑟𝑒
𝑔 = 𝐵𝑜𝑑𝑦 𝑎𝑐𝑐𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛

Properly defining the dynamic mesh properties are crucial in a successful FSI model,
especially a model with a high amount of free-roaming displacement such as a parachute.
Smoothing, layering, and re-meshing techniques were used to dynamically model the motion
of the CFD domain and smoothing constraints were used to keep the mesh cells as clean and
as possible for motion. The region of the CFD mesh that represents the air volume was
dynamically smoothed using a diffusion-based dynamic mesh, allowing for a uniform

Page | 27
displacement of CFD cells. Where a diffusion parameter (α) of 1.5 was used to relate the
normalized boundary distance and volume of the mesh cells.

Figure 23: Meshing of canopy Figure 24: Meshing of Fluid domain.

3.6.2 CFX Solver

Ansys CFX software is a high-performance, general-purpose fluid dynamics program

that engineers have applied to solve wide-ranging fluid flow problems for over 20 years. At the
heart of CFX is its advanced solver technology, the key to achieving reliable and accurate
solutions quickly and robustly. The modern, highly parallelized solver is the foundation for an
abundant choice of physical models that capture virtually any type of phenomena related to
fluid flow. The solver and models are wrapped in a modern, intuitive, and flexible GUI and
user environment, with extensive capabilities for customization and automation using session
files, scripting, and a powerful expression language.

3.6.3 Boundary conditions

The fluid velocity for the analysis was set for various inlet velocity conditions as this
was the target cruising speed of the parachute in the conceptual study. The flow was directed
to be parallel to the y-axis and in the opposite direction of it. The fluid properties used for the
analysis were the standard properties for air in CFX/Flow. These differ slightly from the ISA
properties and will also change with increasing altitude, but this has no effect on the result as
long as the same values are used when analysing the results. The buoyancy of the fluid was
ignored as the flow was incompressible and adiabatic, thus density would be constant. If the

Page | 28
flow was not adiabatic and heat transfer with the exterior of the control volume would be
present, for example a hot exhaust pipe heating the air passing it, the air would move differently
because of convection caused by warmer air with lower density rising above colder denser air.
This effect would be negligible when taking the velocity of the surrounding air into account.

Table 6: Comparison between the standard air properties used in CFX and ISA standard
atmosphere at sea level

CFX Solver ISA

Pressure, P 101325 Pa 101325 Pa
Temperature, T 293 K 288.2
Density, ρ 1.2047 kg/m3 1.225 kg/m3
Viscosity, µ 1.817*10-5 kg/ms 1.789*10-5 kg/ms

The domain has 5 different types of boundaries surrounding it.

• 1 Inlet (1)
• Outlet (1)
• Side walls (3)
• Symmetry wall (1)
• Model surface (Canopy)

Inlet: At the inlet, the boundary condition was set to velocities ranging from
110,110,120,130,140,150 m/s, normal to the inlet simulating the freestream. This would give
a flow parallel to the Y-axis of the model.

Outlet: At the outlet boundary the total pressure was set to average static pressure of 95 KPa
as the difference from the reference pressure. This means that the air leaving the control volume
will not experience any resistance nor will it be drawn out making its velocity higher than
normal.

Side Walls: Initially the side wall boundaries were set as velocities equal to the inlet boundary.
The idea was to speed up convergence and it worked well for smaller domains. This however
led to problems as the domain grew larger, causing the solution to diverge. The boundary was
then changed to a slip wall. The slip wall is a friction-less wall which only has the function to
stop fluid passing through it. The reason this was used was because it would have the least

Page | 29
effect on the flow around the model. This worked better although the solution did not converge
as rapidly.

Symmetry wall: The wall where the domain was split into two equal halves was set to slip wall,
the same as the side walls.

Model Surface (Canopy): The surface of the model was set as a no-slip wall resulting in zero
velocity at the node on the wall, letting a boundary layer form in the adjacent nodes as the
computations progressed. This would give the right friction forces the flow exerts on the model.

Discretization of the domain: To speed up computations the mesh used was coarser in areas
with very small gradients, where the model has very little effect on the flow, such as at the far
boundaries. With the same logic, the mesh was made finer along the model surface with high
gradients, such as leading edges where the flow takes a sharp turn around the model. The way
this is done in ANSYS CFX is by setting a global element size and using mesh control to refine
the mesh around chosen surfaces.

Global Mesh: The global mesh defines the element size in any part of the domain where the
element size has not actively been reduced through mesh control. The global element size
chosen was 5 metres with a tolerance of 1.5 cm. This value was chosen because it was
determined to be a good balance between element size and element count. Smaller elements
would have greatly increased the element count while not improving results.

Refined Mesh: The mesh around the model was refined so that the smallest element size was
0.05 m. The element growth ratio was set to 1.2. The thickness of the refined mesh was about
30 layers, which was adequate for letting the refined mesh grow to the global size. A smaller
element size at the surface would have been desirable, but the computer’s hardware became a
limiting factor. When the meshing was finished, the final mesh consisted of 397,259 elements
and 563,354 nodes.

Page | 30
Figure 25: The refined mesh around the model in the symmetry plane, with the
model contour highlighted in green.

Page | 31
 CHAPTER 4
RESULT ANALYSIS / RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

4.1 Parachute Canopy Inflation

Parachute inflation is defined as the time interval from the instant the canopy and lines
are stretched to the point when the canopy is first fully inflated. Figure 5-36 shows the phases
of canopy inflation. The canopy filling process begins when canopy and lines are stretched and
when air begins entering the mouth of the canopy (a). After the initial mouth opening, a small
ball of air rushes toward the crown of the canopy (b). As soon as this initial air mass reaches
the vent (c), additional air starts to fill the canopy from the vent toward the skirt (d). The
inflation process is governed by the shape, porosity, and size of the canopy and by air density
and velocity at the start of inflation. Inflation is slow at first but increases rapidly as the mouth
inlet of the canopy enlarges (e) and the canopy reaches its first full inflation (f). Most solid
textile canopies overinflate and partially collapse because of the momentum of the surrounding
air (g). Several factors contribute to an orderly, repeatable inflation process and to a low,
uniform opening force. The amount of air moving toward the canopy vent at point (b) should
be small to avoid a high-mass shock when the air bubble hits the vent of the parachute. The
inflation of the canopy should occur axisymmetrically to avoid overstressing individual canopy
parts. Overinflation of the canopy after the first initial opening should be limited to avoid delay
in reaching a stable descent position.
Methods have been developed to control the inflation of the canopy; the most frequently
used is canopy reefing. Reefing stops the inflation of the canopy at one or more steps between
stages (c) and (f), thereby limiting the parachute opening force to a preselected level. Reefing
is also required for uniform inflation of parachutes in a cluster. Stopping the inflation of all
cluster parachutes at a point close to stage (d) of Figure 5-36 allows all parachutes to obtain an
initial uniform inflation-a prerequisite for a uniform final inflation--without running into a
lead/lag chute situation with widely varying parachute forces. Other means for controlling the
parachute opening include ballistic spreader guns, sliders for gliding parachutes, and pull-down
vent lines.

Page | 32
 Figure 26:: Parachute Canopy Inflation
Process

The equation for the parachute opening force, FX is given by

1
FX = ρ S V2 Cd CX
2

Where, ρ = Density of air (Kg/m3)

S = Surface area of the full open or reefed parachute (m2)
V = Velocity of the body/flow (m/s)
Cd = Drag coefficient
CX = Opening-force coefficient at infinite mass, dimensionless

Page | 33
Figure 27: Parachute characteristics

Page | 34
4.2 Results
Using the boundary conditions for specified inlet velocities range, the opening force
of the canopy is calculated in CFX solver. Along with that pressure distribution, velocity
contour and deformation of the canopy is also analysed.

Case(i): Inlet velocity, V1 = 100 m/s

1
Opening Force, Fx1 = ρ S V12 Cd CX
2
ρ = 1.3 Kg/m3, S = 0.636 m2, V1 = 100 m/s, Cd = 0.76 (Fig:27), CX = 1.7

Fx1 = 5270 N
Simulation result for Opening force at Inlet velocity, V1 = 100 m/s

Figure 28:: Opening force at V1 =

100 m/s

Case(ii): Inlet velocity, V2 = 110 m/s

1
Opening Force, Fx2 = ρ S V22 Cd CX
2
ρ = 1.3 Kg/m3, S = 0.636 m2, V2 = 110 m/s, Cd = 0.76 (Fig:27), CX = 1.7

Fx2 = 6462 N

Page | 35
Simulation result for Opening force at Inlet velocity, V2 = 110 m/s

Figure 29: Opening force at V2 = 110 m/s

Case(iii): Inlet velocity, V3 = 120 m/s

1
Opening Force, Fx3 = ρ S V32 Cd CX
2
ρ = 1.3 Kg/m , S = 0.636 m2, V3 = 120 m/s, Cd = 0.76 (Fig:27), CX = 1.7
3

Fx3 = 7691 N
Simulation result for Opening force at Inlet velocity, V3 = 120 m/s

Figure 30: Opening

force at V3 = 120
m/s

Page | 36
Case(iv): Inlet velocity, V4 = 130 m/s
1
Opening Force, Fx4 = ρ S V42 Cd CX
2
ρ = 1.3 Kg/m3, S = 0.636 m2, V4 = 130 m/s, Cd = 0.77 (Fig:27), CX = 1.7

Fx4 = 9145 N
Simulation result for Opening force at Inlet velocity, V4 = 130 m/s

Figure 31: Opening force at V4 = 130 m/s

Case(v): Inlet velocity, V5 = 140 m/s

1
Opening Force, Fx5 = ρ S V52 Cd CX
2
ρ = 1.3 Kg/m3, S = 0.636 m2, V5 = 140 m/s, Cd = 0.77 (Fig:27), CX = 1.7

Fx5 = 10,606 N

Page | 37
Simulation result for Opening force at Inlet velocity, V5 = 140 m/s

Figure 32: Opening force at V5 = 140 m/s

Case(vi): Inlet velocity, V6 = 150 m/s

1
Opening Force, Fx6 = ρ S V62 Cd CX
2
ρ = 1.3 Kg/m3, S = 0.636 m2, V6 = 150 m/s, Cd = 0.78 (Fig:27), CX = 1.7

Fx6 = 12,333 N
Simulation result for Opening force at Inlet velocity, V6 = 150 m/s

Figure 33:
Opening force
at V6 = 150
m/s

Page | 38
 Table 7: Opening force, Theoretical v/s Simulation
Sl No. Inlet Velocity, Opening Force Opening Force Error (%)
(m/s) (Theoretical), N (Simulation), N
1 100 5270 5305 0.6
2 110 6462 6557 1.4
3 120 7691 7952 3.3
4 130 9145 9444 3.2
5 140 10,606 11,052 4
6 150 12,333 12,733 3.1

Theoretical and Simulation values for the Opening Force (Fx) has been calculated for inlet
velocities ranging from 100 m/s to 150 m/s with step value of 10 m/s. Both the values are
compared and analysed and are well within the range.

4.3 Result analysis

The figures on the next few pages plot the velocity streamlines, pressure contours and
deformation of canopy for inlet velocity of 150 m/s.

Figure 35: Pressure distribution on Figure 34: Pressure distribution on

upper surface lower surface

From analysing the simulation results, it is found out that pressure is maximum on the lower
surface of the canopy and minimum on the upper surface of the canopy.

Page | 39
 Figure 36: Flow behaviour around canopy

Figure 37: Velocity streamlines around canopy

Page | 40
Figure 38: Stress distribution (a)Front view (b)lower surface (c)upper surface

Page | 41
Figure 39: Deformation of canopy (a) upper surface (b) lower
surface (c) front view

Page | 42
4.4 MATLAB Program to find Drag force

% MATLAB Program for Simulation of Circular Parachute Operation

% Input Parameters
Parachute_Drag_Area = 0.4897;%m2
Average_Drag_Coefficient = 0.80;
Density_of_air = 1.23;%Kg/m3
Mass_of_the_Aircraft = 16720; % Kg
Normal_Landing_Deployment_Velocity = 150;
Emergency_Landing_Deployment_Velocity = 200;
% Fix Variables
Pie = 22/7;
Opening_Shock_Factor = 1.7;
Filling_Time_Index = 14.00;
Additional_Drag_Coefficient = 10; % Percent for Design Purpose
Initial_Time = 0; %sec
dt = 0.001; %sec
n = 1/dt;
% Calculations
Drag_Coefficient = Average_Drag_Coefficient * (1 + Additional_Drag_Coefficient/100);
Parachute_Nominal_Area = Parachute_Drag_Area /Drag_Coefficient;
Nominal_Diameter = 2 * sqrt (Parachute_Nominal_Area / Pie); % for Normal landing
Normal_Maximum_Drag_Force = 0.5 * Density_of_air *
Normal_Landing_Deployment_Velocity * Normal_Landing_Deployment_Velocity *
Parachute_Drag_Area
Normal_Maximum_Dynamic_Pressure = 0.5 * Density_of_air *
Normal_Landing_Deployment_Velocity *Normal_Landing_Deployment_Velocity
Normal_Area_1 = [0]; %m2
Normal_Area_2 = [Parachute_Nominal_Area]; %m2
Normal_Drag_Force_1 = [0]; %N
Normal_Drag_Force_2 = [Normal_Maximum_Drag_Force]; %N
Normal_Dynamic_Pressure = [Normal_Maximum_Dynamic_Pressure]; %Pa
Normal_Landing_Velocity = [Normal_Landing_Deployment_Velocity]; %m/sec

Page | 43
Normal_Filling_Time = Filling_Time_Index * Nominal_Diameter /
Normal_Landing_Deployment_Velocity %sec
Normal_Deceleration = Normal_Maximum_Drag_Force / Mass_of_the_Aircraft; %m2/sec
Normal_Stopping_Time = Normal_Landing_Deployment_Velocity / Normal_Deceleration;
% sec
N_Normal_During_Inflation = round((Normal_Filling_Time-Initial_Time) / dt);
N_Normal_After_Inflation = round((Normal_Stopping_Time-Initial_Time) / dt);
Normal_Time_1 = dt; % sec
Normal_Time_2 = Normal_Filling_Time; % sec
% Normal landing Loop – 2
for j = 1: N_Normal_After_Inflation
Normal_Dynamic_Pressure_Matrix_2 (j,:) = [Normal_Time_2, Normal_Dynamic_Pressure];
Normal_Drag_Force_Matrix_2 ( j,:) = [Normal_Time_2, Normal_Drag_Force_2];
Normal_Area_Matrix_2 ( j,:) = [Normal_Time_2,Normal_Area_2];
Normal_Landing_Velocity = Normal_Landing_Deployment_Velocity-(Normal_Deceleration
* dt);%m/sec
Normal_Drag_Force_2 = 0.5 * Density_of_air * Normal_Landing_Velocity *
Normal_Landing_Velocity *Parachute_Drag_Area; %N
Normal_Deceleration = Normal_Drag_Force_2 /Mass_of_the_Aircraft; %m/sec2
Normal_Dynamic_Pressure = 0.5 * Density_of_air *Normal_Landing_Velocity *
Normal_Landing_Velocity; %Pa
Normal_Landing_Deployment_Velocity = Normal_Landing_Velocity; %m/sec
Normal_Time_2 = Normal_Filling_Time + j /n; %sec
end
% Plot-1 Drag Force Vs Time
figure (1)
plot (Normal_Drag_Force_Matrix_2 (:,1), Normal_Drag_Force_Matrix_2 (:,2), 'r')
hold off
title ('Drag Force Vs Time');
legend ( 'Normal landing After Inflation');
ylabel ('Drag Force (Newton)');
xlabel ('Time (Seconds)');

Page | 44
Drag force of the inflated parachute canopy is calculated by writing a MATLAB program
considering the parameters like,
Parachute Drag Area = 0.4897 m2
Nominal area = 0.636 m2
Average Drag Coefficient = 0.80
Density of air = 1.23 Kg/m3
Normal Landing Deployment Velocity = 150 m/s

Here we have written a program for condition, one for Normal Landing during inflation
and another for Normal landing after inflation. But main focus is on Normal Landing after
inflation and Maximum drag force for the same is calculated for the condition of 150 m/s
velocity. In ANSYS simulation, using CFX solver we have calculated maximum Opening
shock on the inflated canopy for several conditions ranging from 100 m/s to 150 m/s and
compared with the theoretical calculations and it is found that both the results are matching and
well within the range with the consideration of error.
Now in MATLAB we have written a program for parachute canopy inflation process
in correspondence to the Drag force induced in the canopy after inflation. We have considered
the parameters like density of air, area of the canopy, drag coefficient and velocity.
Firstly, we will find the Maximum drag force induced at velocity 150 m/s for by
calculating Drag force v/s time profile. Then we have calculated the drag force for different
velocity ranging from 100 m/s to 150 m/s with a time step of 10 m/s. It is found out that the
MATLAB values are matching with the theoretical values and are well within the range.
Since both the Simulation (ANSYS) and MATLAB values are matching with the
theoretical values, we can conclude that it is good to go for the further design and development
process of the parachute. By this is convinced that computer simulation values are dependable
and good to continue the design process and it is evident that computer simulation process is
lesser cost than the experimentation which is a huge advantage.

Page | 45
 Figure 40: Drag force v/s time

Maximum Drag force at 150 m/s velocity recorded from the above graph is,
FD = 6773 N
Maximum Drag force from the theoretical calculations,
1
Fd = ρ S V2 Cd
2

Fd = 0.5 * 1.3 * 0.636 * 1502 * 0.75

Fd = 6976 N

Both the results are within the range with the acceptance of Error = 3%

Page | 46
% Inputs
c_d = 0.75; % Drag cofficient
A = 0.636; % Area perpendicular to force (m^2)
rho = 1.3; % Density of air at NTP (kg/m^3)
velocity = linspace(100,150,10); % Velocity (m/s)

% drag force expression

drag_force = 0.5 * rho * velocity.*velocity * c_d * A;

% plotting the values of Velocity and Drag Force

plot (velocity, drag_force, '-+')
title('Velocity vs Drag Force')
xlabel ('Velocity (m/s)')
ylabel ('Drag Force (N)')

Figure 41: Drag v/s Velocity

Page | 47
 CHAPTER 5

CONCLUSION and FUTURE SCOPE

Above Figures shows the pressure distribution and velocity of air effects on parachute
canopy. It is assumed that a stream air against the canopy, which is fixed in air. It is equivalent
to parachute is moving in space. When the canopy located in the stream of air velocity the flow
apart near the leading edge and flow along the upper and lower surface of canopy. The velocity
at the lower surface looks similar, but its level is considerably lower. Velocity and pressure are
dependent each other – Bernoulli’s equation says that increasing the velocity decreases the
pressure and vice versa. Thus, higher velocities on upper side of parafoil side result in lower
than ambient pressure whereas the pressure lower side is higher than the ambient pressure. In
design and analysis of parachute canopy, the inflation problem is of the main concern while
optimizing the shape and structure of the parachute based on strength, stability, and reliability.
Hence using the results obtained from the simulation such as opening shock, velocity, and
pressure distributions one can design the parachute for practical applications.

Future Plans for Parachutes Linked with Space Mission like Space Recovery of Payload
with the next step toward the space recovery is to design a recovery system for heavy payloads
i.e., range up to 5000 kg. Recovery System for Manned Spacecraft Terrestrial Landing with a
space capsule with crew can be recovered by a parachute-based earth landing system. Launch
Vehicle Recovery to recover the launch vehicle like solid rocket booster. Planetary Spacecraft
Descent, a parachute-based system for interplanetary mission. Future Plans for Parachutes
Linked with other Applications like Powered Parachute, gliding parachute with a propulsion
system can cover a very large range to deliver the payload. Smart Ammunition Delivery
Parachute can retard the ammunition speed to low subsonic speed for effective searching of the
target. Controlled Aerial Delivery Heavy System The capability of the system is to deliver a
heavy payload range up to 3000 kg to a predefined target. Supersonic parachute. The parachute
can recover a payload from the supersonic speed to a low subsonic speed.

Page | 48
 REFERENCES

[1] C. Beach and J. S. Lingard, “3th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology
Conference PRECISION AERIAL DELIVERY SEMINAR RAM-AIR PARACHUTE
DESIGN,” 1995.
[2] A. Witkowski, “Aerodynamic Decelerator S Systems Module 1 Heritage Module 1-Heritage
Learning from the Past, Looking to the Future,” 2011.
[3] T. W. Knacke, “DTI(C Q o-i Parachute Recovery Systems Design Manual,” 1991.
[4] X. P. Xue, Y. Nishiyama, Y. Nakamura, K. Mori, and C. Y. Wen, “Parametric study on
aerodynamic interaction of supersonic parachute system,” AIAA Journal, vol. 53, no. 9, pp.
2796–2801, 2015, doi: 10.2514/1.J053824.
[5] H. Zhu et al., “Fluid-Structure Interaction Simulation and Accurate Dynamic Modeling of
Parachute Warhead System Based on Impact Point Prediction,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp.
104418–104428, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3099248.
[6] B. Chen, Y. Wang, C. Zhao, Y. Sun, and L. Ning, “Numerical visualization of drop and opening
process for parachute-payload system adopting fluid–solid coupling simulation,” J Vis (Tokyo),
vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 229–246, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1007/s12650-021-00797-5.
[7] T. Tezduyar, “Simulation of Parachute and Paratrooper Aerodynamics,” 2001. [Online].
Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303736097
[8] L. Jiang et al., “Numerical Study on Aerodynamic Performance of Mars Parachute Models
with Geometric Porosities,” Space: Science & Technology, vol. 2022, Jan. 2022, doi:
10.34133/2022/9851982.
[9] A. A. Fonseca Pazmiño, “A Computational Fluid Dynamics Study on the Aerodynamic A
Computational Fluid Dynamics Study on the Aerodynamic Performance of Ram-Air
Parachutes Performance of Ram-Air Parachutes.” [Online]. Available:
https://commons.erau.edu/edt
[10] X. Yang, L. Yu, S. Nie, and S. Zhang, “Aerodynamic performance of the supersonic parachute
with material permeability,” Journal of Industrial Textiles, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 812–829, Jan.
2021, doi: 10.1177/1528083719844605.
[11] D. Yang, Z. Feng, H. Huang, Q. Zhang, and T. Yang, “Aerodynamic simulation and analysis
of large ring-sail parachute,” in Journal of Physics: Conference Series, Institute of Physics,
2022. doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/2383/1/012078.
[12] H. Johari and K. J. Desabrais, “Aerodynamics of Parachute Opening,” 2002.
[13] M. Huang, W. Wang, and J. Li, “Analysis and Verification of Aerodynamic Characteristics of
Tianwen-1 Mars Parachute,” Space: Science & Technology, vol. 2022, Jan. 2022, doi:
10.34133/2022/9805457.
[14] S. Muppidi, C. O’farrell, J. W. Van Norman, and I. G. Clark, “Aspire aerodynamic models and
flight performance,” in AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics Inc, AIAA, 2019, pp. 1–17. doi: 10.2514/6.2019-3376.
[15] R. Saim, S. Mohd, S. Syafiq Shamsudin, M. Fadhli Zulkafli, S. Nur Mariani Mohd Yunos, and
M. Riza Abd Rahman, “CFD Letters Computational Fluid Dynamic (CFD) Analysis of
Parachute Canopies Design for Aludra SR-10 UAV as a Parachute Recovery Systems (PRS),”
CFD Letters, vol. 12, pp. 46–57, 2020.
[16] A. Panta, S. Watkins, and R. Clothier, “Dynamics of a small unmanned aircraft parachute
system,” Journal of Aerospace Technology and Management, vol. 10, 2018, doi:
10.5028/jatm.v10.752.
[17] X. XUE, H. JIA, W. RONG, Q. WANG, and C. yung WEN, “Effect of Martian atmosphere on
aerodynamic performance of supersonic parachute two-body systems,” Chinese Journal of
Aeronautics, vol. 35, no. 4, pp. 45–54, Apr. 2022, doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2021.05.006.

Page | 49
[18] E. Berexa, R. Warner, J. Seidel, and K. Bergeron, “Effect of spoilers on ram air parachute
aerodynamic force and moment coefficients,” in AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc, AIAA, 2019, pp. 1–11. doi: 10.2514/6.2019-
3370.
[19] H. Zhu1, Q. Sun1, J. Han2, and Z. Chen1, “Numerical Simulation and Experiment for Impact
Point Prediction of Parachute-Warhead System; Numerical Simulation and Experiment for
Impact Point Prediction of Parachute-Warhead System,” 2020.
[20] K. C. Huber, D. D. Vicroy, A. Schütte, and A. R. Hübner, “UCAV model design and static
experimental investigations to estimate control device effectiveness and Stability and Control
capabilities,” in 32nd AIAA Applied Aerodynamics Conference, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc., 2014. doi: 10.2514/6.2014-2002.
[21] T. Tezduyar, “Simulation of Parachute and Paratrooper Aerodynamics,” 2001. [Online].
Available: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303736097
[22] K. Takizawa and T. E. Tezduyar, “Computational Methods for Parachute Fluid-Structure
Interactions,” Archives of Computational Methods in Engineering, vol. 19, no. 1, pp. 125–169,
Mar. 2012, doi: 10.1007/s11831-012-9070-4.
[23] X. YANG, L. YU, M. LIU, and H. PANG, “Fluid structure interaction simulation of supersonic
parachute inflation by an interface tracking method,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 33,
no. 6, pp. 1692–1702, Jun. 2020, doi: 10.1016/j.cja.2020.03.005.
[24] K. Stein, R. Benney, T. Tezduyar, and J. Potvin, “Fluid±structure interactions of a cross
parachute: numerical simulation q.” [Online]. Available: www.elsevier.com/locate/cma
[25] K. Takizawa, T. E. Tezduyar, J. Boben, N. Kostov, C. Boswell, and A. Buscher, “Fluid-
structure interaction modeling of clusters of spacecraft parachutes with modified geometric
porosity,” Comput Mech, vol. 52, no. 6, pp. 1351–1364, 2013, doi: 10.1007/s00466-013-0880-
5.
[26] T. E. Tezduyar, S. Sathe, M. Schwaab, J. Pausewang, J. Christopher, and J. Crabtree, “Fluid-
structure interaction modeling of ringsail parachutes,” Comput Mech, vol. 43, no. 1, pp. 133–
142, 2008, doi: 10.1007/s00466-008-0260-8.
[27] K. Takizawa, T. Spielman, C. Moorman, and T. E. Tezduyar, “Fluid-structure interaction
modeling of spacecraft parachutes for simulation-based design,” Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Transactions ASME, vol. 79, no. 1, 2012, doi: 10.1115/1.4005070.
[28] X. Gao, Q. Zhang, Q. Chen, and W. Wang, “Fluid-structure Interactions on Steerable
Cruciform Parachute Inflation Dynamics,” in IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, Institute of Physics Publishing, Feb. 2020. doi: 10.1088/1757-
899X/751/1/012010.
[29] S. Y. Zhang, L. Yu, Z. H. Wu, H. Jia, and X. Liu, “Numerical investigation of ram-air
parachutes inflation with fluid-structure interaction method in wind environments,” Aerosp Sci
Technol, vol. 109, Feb. 2021, doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2020.106400.
[30] J. Boustani, M. F. Barad, C. C. Kiris, and C. Brehm, “Fully-coupled fluid-structure interaction
simulations of a supersonic parachute,” in AIAA Aviation 2019 Forum, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics Inc, AIAA, 2019, pp. 1–22. doi: 10.2514/6.2019-3279.
[31] H. Zhu et al., “Fluid-Structure Interaction Simulation and Accurate Dynamic Modeling of
Parachute Warhead System Based on Impact Point Prediction,” IEEE Access, vol. 9, pp.
104418–104428, 2021, doi: 10.1109/ACCESS.2021.3099248.
[32] L. Yu, H. Cheng, Y. Zhan, and S. Li, “Study of parachute inflation process using fluid-structure
interaction method,” Chinese Journal of Aeronautics, vol. 27, no. 2, pp. 272–279, 2014, doi:
10.1016/j.cja.2014.02.021.
[33] H. Johari and K. J. Desabrais, “Aerodynamics of Parachute Opening,” 2002.

Page | 50
[34] X. Xue and C. Y. Wen, “Review of unsteady aerodynamics of supersonic parachutes,”
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 125. Elsevier Ltd, Aug. 01, 2021. doi:
10.1016/j.paerosci.2021.100728.
[35] “Parachute.”
[36] K. Stein et al., “Aerodynamic interactions between parachute canopies,” in Journal of Applied
Mechanics, Transactions ASME, Jan. 2003, pp. 50–57. doi: 10.1115/1.1530634.
[37] X. Yang, L. Yu, S. Nie, and S. Zhang, “Aerodynamic performance of the supersonic parachute
with material permeability,” Journal of Industrial Textiles, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 812–829, Jan.
2021, doi: 10.1177/1528083719844605.
[38] X. Xue and C. Y. Wen, “Review of unsteady aerodynamics of supersonic parachutes,”
Progress in Aerospace Sciences, vol. 125. Elsevier Ltd, Aug. 01, 2021. doi:
10.1016/j.paerosci.2021.100728.
[39] K. Takizawa, S. Wright, C. Moorman, and T. E. Tezduyar, “Fluid-structure interaction
modeling of parachute clusters,” Int J Numer Methods Fluids, vol. 65, no. 1–3, pp. 286–307,
Jan. 2011, doi: 10.1002/fld.2359.
[40] K. Takizawa, M. Fritze, D. Montes, T. Spielman, and T. E. Tezduyar, “Fluid-structure
interaction modeling of ringsail parachutes with disreefing and modified geometric porosity,”
Comput Mech, vol. 50, no. 6, pp. 835–854, Dec. 2012, doi: 10.1007/s00466-012-0761-3.
[41] J. Donea, A. Huerta, J.-P. Ponthot, and A. Rodríguez-Ferran, “Chapter 14 Arbitrary
Lagrangian-Eulerian Methods.”

Page | 51
Page | 52