Computational Study on Rigid Disk-Gap-Band Supersonic Parachute Aerodynamics

  • K. TakabayashiEmail author
  • K. Fukumoto
  • K. Kitamura
Conference paper


In Mars, supersonic parachutes have been used as a decelerator at around Mach 2. In order to stabilize the parachute, NASA proposed a supersonic parachute equipped with a gap and a vent, called disk-gap-band (DGB) supersonic parachute. However, it is not fully investigated how its surrounding flow field and its aerodynamics are affected by the gap and the vent (a small ventilation hole at a stagnation point). In this study, a computational study has been carried out on the aerodynamics of rigid-body-modeled parachutes. Results indicate that computed drag coefficient is in good agreement with the experimental data. Moreover, it is observed that reduction of drag per opening area by the vent is greater than that by the gap. Two factors are considered for this reduction: (1) the vortices around the jet from the gap and (2) the vent location at a stagnation point.


  1. 1.
    H. Takayanagi, T. Suzuki, K. Yamada, Y. Maru, S. Matsuyama, K. Fujita, Development of supersonic parachute for Japanese Mars Rover Mission: 30th ISTS, Paper No. 2015-e-08, (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. Karagiozis, R. Kamakoti, F. Cirak, C. Pantano, A computational study of supersonic disk-gap-band parachutes using large-Eddy simulation coupled to a structural membrane. J. Fluids Struct. 27, 175–192 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Sengupta, M. Wernet, J. Roeder, R. Kelsch, A. Witkowski, T. Jones, Supersonic testing of 0.8 m Disk Gap Band Parachutes in the Wake of a 70 deg Sphere Cone Entry Vehicle, in 20th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar AIAA 2009–2974, Washington, 4–7 May, 2009Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    A. Sengupta, Fluid structure interaction of parachutes in supersonic planetary entry, in 21st AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, 2011Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    A. Hashimoto, K. Murakami, T. Aoyama, K. Ishiko, M. Hishida, M. Sakashita, P. Lahur, AIAA-2012-1075, (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    E. Shima, K. Kitamura, Parameter-free simple low-dissipation AUSM-family scheme for all speeds. AIAA J. 49(8), 1693–1709 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    B.V. Leer, Towards the ultimate conservative difference scheme. IV. A new approach to numerical convection. J. Comput. Phys. 23(3), 276–299 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Spalart, S. Allmaras, A one-equation turbulence model for aerodynamic flows, AIAA-paper1992-439, 1992Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    M.L. Shur, P.R. Spalart, M.K. Strelets, A.K. Travin, A hybrid RANS-LES approach with delayed-DES and wall modelled LES capabilities. Int. J. Heat Fluid Flow 29, 1638–1649 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Yoon, A. Jameson, Lower-upper Symmetric-Gauss-Seidel method for the Euler and Navier-Stokes equations. AIAA J. 26(9), 1025–1026 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    V. Gidzak, M. Barnhardt, T. Drayna, I. Nompelis, G.V. Granham, W. Garrard, Comparison of fluid-structure interaction simulations of the MSL Parachute with Wind tunnel tests, Paper No. AIAA-2009-2971, (2009)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M.K. Ibrahim, T. Nakamura, K. Kitamura, K. Mori, Y. Nakamura, The role of vortices in side Jet/Blunt body interaction at hypersonic speed. Trans. JSASS Space Tech. Japan 7, 1–10 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Yokohama National UniversityYokohamaJapan

Personalised recommendations