See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/336345689

CFD analysis of drag force for different nose cone design

Conference Paper · October 2019

CITATION READS

1 4,677

2 authors, including:

Lucas de Almeida S. Carvalho

Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
11 PUBLICATIONS   2 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Potiguar Rocket Design View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lucas de Almeida S. Carvalho on 08 October 2019.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 CFD analysis of drag force for different nose cone
design
Lucas de Almeida Sabino Carvalho#1, Geovanio Claudino Cavalcante Filho#2
#
Departamento de Engenharia Mecânica – Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Norte
Av. Salgado Filho, 3000 – Lagoa Nova – Natal RN – 59078-970

1carvalholucas01@hotmail.com

2geo.cavalcante@hotmail.com

Resumo— Neste presente artigo, os autores analisaram por meio boundary layer effects and turbulence, in view to apply over
de métodos computacionais a influência do formato de coifas de academic rockets, leading to more successful missions.
foguetes variando a velocidade para cada uma delas, com isso
possibilitando analisar a força de arrasto gerada, tendo como II. METHODOLOGY
parâmetro de trabalho um intervalo subsônico de Mach 0.05 a
aproximadamente Mach 0.62, considerando condições padrão de To develop this work, the general behavior of rocket nose
temperatura e pressão. Com auxílio da plataforma ANSYS e cone was studied. Rocket nose cones are revolution bodies
baseando-se no método utilizado no Fluent foi possível medir o defined by equations, in view to reduce aerodynamic drag,
comportamento dos quatro formatos e, portanto, analisar em cada and usually is where the rocket payload is inserted. The main
um o porquê do arrasto apresentado. goal is to find which one from the models chosen was the
nose cone with less aerodynamic drag. The simulations were
Palavras-chave— Coifas, foguetes, aerodinâmica, força de done on ANSYS Fluent, with its boundary conditions and
arrasto considerations shown on subsections below.

Abstract — In this paper, the authors analyzed by means of a A. Nose cone equations
computational procedure the influence of the shape of rocket nose Four nose cone equations were chosen for simulations:
cones varying the speed in each of them, with this it was possible to Tangent, parabolic, ellipsoidal and conic.
analyze the drag force generated, having as a working parameter in
The tangent nose cone is a commonly used design used in
subsonic medium ranging from a Mach 0.05 to approximately 0.62,
considering standard conditions for temperature and pressure. With hobby rocketry. Its shape is formed by a segment of a circle,
the aid of the ANSYS platform based on the Fluent method it was such that the rocket body is tangent to the curve of the
possible to measure a behavior in the four shapes and thus analyze nosecone at its base, as shown [1] in Fig. 1.
why each had the drag presented.

Keywords – Nose cone design, rockets, aerodynamics, drag

force.

I. INTRODUCTION
The aerospace industry has grown substantially over the
last years around the world. Automated rocket engine
landings like SpaceX Falcon Heavy, the curiosity over mars
and the possibilities of exploration with new technologies, the
ease of CubeSat development to space access and it’s
growing fame due of-the-shelf parts and high possibilities of
usage, this shows the continuous growth of aerospace
segment over society and industry. As a reflection of that Figure 1. Tangent ogive definition [1].
growth, academic rocket teams arise in universities,
developing rockets for competitions, research and The radius of the circle that defines the ogive is calculated
development, and building new technologies. On developing by Equation (1).
rockets for competition, aerodynamic efficiency is crucial to
mission success, so, rocket aerodynamics performance is a R 2 + L2
subject of lots of studies. The first element of a rocket that = (1)
2R
gets in contact with air during fly is it nose cone, that has the
purpose of reducing drag over the structure, leading the
Were ρ is the circle radius, R the nosecone radius and L
rocket to higher apogee. This paper aims to show, using
the nosecone length. The equation that defines the radius at
computational fluid dynamics analysis, what rocket nose cone
any point, since it goes from 0 to L, and defines the nose cone
design has the higher aerodynamic efficiency – which means
tangent design is shown below in Equation 2.
lower drag force - over different velocities, considering
 The last one was conic nose cone design. It is defined as a
y =  2 − ( x − L) 2 + ( R −  ) (2)
simple cone (Fig.4), due it eases manufacture and simple
design [1].
Parabolic ogive – or parabolic series - is a nosecone
formed by rotating a segment of a parabolic curve around a
line, with this line being parallel to the parabola latus rectum,
as shown in Fig. 2. The generation of a parabolic nose cone is
very similar to tangent ogive, but with a parabola defining it
shape rather than a circle [1].

Figure 4. Conic nose cone definition [REF 1].

The equation that defines the conic design is shown, being

defined often by their sides or half angle [1].

xL
y= (5)
R

R
 = tan −1   → y = x tan 
Figure 2. Parabolic series nose cone definition. [1]
(6)
The equation that defines the parabolic nose cone is L 
shown in Eq. (3).
The conical shape is a specific case of Eq. (3), when K’
 x x
2
 equals 0 [1].
 2   − K '  
y = R   L B. Boundary Conditions
L  (3)
 2−K '  For simulations, the same boundary conditions were
  applied to all nose cone design chosen. The flow velocity was
  from 30 m/s to 210 m/s, considering a step of 20 m/s.
C. Flow regime and chosen solver
Where K’ is a constant that lies between 0 and 1, R is the
nose cone radius and L the length of the nose cone. To Considering the Reynolds number calculation for
parabolic format, K’ equals 1. evaluating the flow regime, even for the lower velocity of 30
The third one was ellipsoidal ogive. The ellipsoidal nose m/s, Reynolds number obtained was of 739072, obtained
cone is simply a one-half of an ellipse rotated over its major using Eq. (7).
axis, in case, the centerline (Fig. 3). The elliptical shape is  vL
Re = (7)|
very popular in subsonic flight and model rocketry, not being

so used in professional rocketry [1].
Where ρ is fluid density, v is flow velocity, L is the
characteristic length, in case, nose cone length, and µ
dynamic viscosity [2]. With this Reynolds number, the flow
then is considered a turbulent flow for being above 500000 in
external flow [2]. The solver used in ANSYS for simulations
then was Shear Stress Transport k-ω turbulence model or SST
k-ω turbulence model.
SST k-ω model is a Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes
Simulation (RANS) model, which has a superior performance
Figure 3. Elliptical nose cone definition [1]. for complex boundary layer flows and separation – seen in
external flows - as having better flow separation prediction
The equation that generates the shape of elliptical nose than other RANS models, and being less sensitive to initial
cone is shown in Eq. (4) below. conditions than standard k-ω model [3].
Due boundary layer effects, near wall regions have high
x2 solution gradients, so accurate calculations are done in order
y = R 1− (4) to obtain success on simulation [3], which calculations can be
L2 done using wall functions or calculation viscous sublayer.
The y+ value considered for SST k-ω solver is around 1 [2, 3],
R is the radius of the nose cone, L the length of the nose and this parameter was used for simulations.
cone and x a point that lies between 0 and L.
D. Computational domain
 The computational domain was done in academic version
of SOLIDWORKS and put in ANSYS. The same domain and
dimensions were used for all nose cones, with one of then
shown below in Fig.5.

Figure 6. Drag force on rocket nose cones

The results obtained seem to corroborate with the studies

in [4], where the elliptical nose cone shown better
Figure 5. Computational domain of conic nose cone with dimensions.
performance than parabolic nose cone. Elliptical nose cone
The simulations were run considering flow axisymmetric. has, on average, 4.93% less drag than parabolic nose cone,
what can have significant effects on rocket efficiency,
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS because the rounded format has a significant role in
With the simulations done, the following results were minimizing drag [5]. However, when getting at higher
obtained. speeds– at 210 m/s -, the drag of elliptical nose cone grows
substantially, while parabolic stays with relative low drag.
A. Mesh This leads to higher drags in supersonic flights after the flow
The mesh of parabolic, tangent and conic nose cone entering in supersonic regime and happens because
followed the same pattern because of it sharp tip shape, while supersonic flight demands a more pointed nose cone than a
elliptical has a different mesh due rounded shape. The metrics rounded one [5]. The tangent ogive has a close drag to the
used for evaluating mesh quality was skewness and elliptical one; in literature, the ogive shape usually has bigger
orthogonal quality. The number of elements and mesh metrics drag than elliptical shape, but as said in [1], due visual
for each mesh are shown below in Table I. similarity with Von Karman shape, some studies of drag can
be done over Von Karman nose cone shape, what can difficult
Table I. Mesh configurations. on certify the analysis. The conic shape demonstrates having
Skewness Orthogonal the highest drag in all situations, what is seem in various
Nose Cone Elements references ([1], [4]). With the conclusions about sharp tip
(Max) quality
Elliptical 394027 0.8434 0.3026 shape in [5], is possible that conic shape has a good
0.9778 performance at supersonic speeds, but this needs to be better
Parabolic 980000 0.1349
analyzed.
Tangent 500000 0.1361 0.5701
Conic 980000 0.06795 0.9916 IV. CONCLUSIONS
In this present work, the CFD analysis for different nose
The boundary layer effects were considered, and get cones was done. The analysis aimed to find the nose cone
visible on post-processing results, as shown in Fig. 6. shape with best aerodynamic performance to be applied in
academic rocketry. In the study, the shapes with best
aerodynamics demonstrated to be elliptical shape and tangent
shape, with parabolic shape in third place. Conic nose cone
has shown the worst aerodynamic performance to subsonic
flight, what eliminates conic shape as a candidate for
development of new rockets. The elliptical shape shows the
best aerodynamic performance since in simulations done as in
literature, mostly by experimental data, what makes the
elliptical shape the best candidate to be applied in subsonic
projects. The application of tangent and parabolic nose cones
Figure 6. Sub viscous layer visualization on velocity contours in tangent
ogive. is situational, and can be analyzed by the needs of project,
even because the manufacture of the elliptical shape demands
B. Drag Force more quality, having a higher cost, so the application of
alternates shapes shows to be viable.
The drag force graph for all nose cone analyzed is shown The next step for future analyses is to validate
below in Fig. 6. simulations with future experimental analyses in a wind
tunnel. Others applications is to look at others nose cone
shapes, as Von Karman nose cone and Haack Series nose
cone, in order to evaluate if these has better aerodynamic
efficiency than the studied ones. With this work, it
demonstrated that the methodology of CFD analysis is viable
to evaluate needed information for projects, requiring only the
experimental validation for ensuring all the analysis, or
getting over present works, as done in this paper.

REFERENCES
[1] G. A .Crowell Sr., The descriptive geometry of nose cones, pp. 1-6,
1996.
[2] B. R. Munson,D. F. Young and T. H. Okiishi, Fundamentals of Fluid
Mechanics,4th ed,John Wiley and Sons Inc,
[3] Lecture 7: Turbulence Modelling ,introduction to ANSYS Fluent,
2014
[4] (2013) Drag of Nose Cones. [Online]. Available:
https://apogeerockets.com/downloads/Drag_of_Nose_Cones.pdf
[5] (2003) Rocket Nose Cone and Altitudes. [Online]. Available:
http://www.aerospaceweb.org/question/aerodynamics/q0151.shtml
[6] R. E. Sorace, V. S. Reinhardt, and S. A. Vaughn, “High-speed digital-
to-RF converter,” U.S. Patent 5 668 842, Sept. 16, 1997.
[7] (2013) Drag of Nose Cones. [Online]. Available:
https://apogeerockets.com/downloads/Drag_of_Nose_Cones.pdf
[8] M. Shell. (2002) IEEEtran homepage on CTAN. [Online]. Available:
https://apogeerockets.com/downloads/Drag_of_Nose_Cones.pdf

View publication stats