1 Introduction
Computational fluid–structure interaction (FSI) analysis of spacecraft parachutes involves a number of challenges beyond those in a typical FSI analysis (see [
1,
2] and references therein, and [
3‐
10]), including some that are formidable. The Deforming-Spatial-Domain/Stabilized Space–Time (DSD/SST) method [
2,
11‐
15] has been serving as the core computational technology in addressing these challenges, and special ST methods introduced in conjunction with these core technologies have brought spacecraft parachute FSI analysis to a new level (see [
1,
2] and references therein, and [
3‐
10]). The core and special ST methods enabled successful computational analysis and design studies of the Orion spacecraft parachutes (see [
1,
2] and references therein, and [
3‐
10]).
Spacecraft parachute analysis with the ST computational methods started in 2007. The studies conducted in the first five years can be found in [
1,
2] and references therein. The aspects of spacecraft parachutes studied in the last five years include “disreefing” [
3,
6], spacecraft cover separation [
4], parachute designs with modified “geometric porosity” [
3,
5], gore curvature calculation [
7], aerodynamic-moment calculation [
8], drogue parachutes [
6,
9], and compressible-flow parachute aerodynamics [
10].
The DSD/SST method was introduced in [
11,
16,
17], intended for computation of flows with moving boundaries and interfaces (MBI), including FSI. Because it functions as a moving-mesh method in MBI computations, the fluid mechanics mesh follows the fluid–solid interfaces, enabling mesh-resolution control and accurate flow representation near those interfaces. What made the original DSD/SST method “stabilized” were the Streamline-Upwind/Petrov–Galerkin (SUPG) [
18] and Pressure-Stabilizing/Petrov-Galerkin (PSPG) [
11] components, and for that the method is now also called “ST-SUPS.” The ST Variational Multiscale (ST-VMS) method [
14,
15] is the VMS version of the DSD/SST method, with the VMS components coming from the residual-based VMS (RBVMS) method [
19‐
22].
The RBVMS method has been shown to have good turbulence modeling features, including in the context of the ALE-VMS method [
2,
23‐
27], which is the VMS version of the Arbitrary Lagrangian–Eulerian (ALE) finite element method [
28]. The ALE method is a more commonly used moving-mesh method. To increase their scope and accuracy, the ALE-VMS and RBVMS methods are often supplemented with special methods, such as those for weakly enforced no-slip boundary condition [
29‐
31], “sliding interfaces” [
32,
33] and backflow stabilization [
34]. The first increases accuracy in turbulent flows with active walls, the second enables application of the ALE-VMS method to flow computations with solid surfaces in fast relative motion, and the third prevents divergence due to possible reverse flow at the outflow boundaries. The RBVMS and ALE-VMS methods have been successfully used for different types of FSI, MBI and fluid mechanics problems. The classes of problems include wind-turbine aerodynamics and FSI [
35‐
42], more specifically, vertical-axis wind turbines [
43,
44], floating wind turbines [
45], wind turbines in atmospheric boundary layers [
46], and fatigue-damage in wind-turbine blades [
47], patient-specific cardiovascular fluid mechanics and FSI [
23,
48‐
53], biomedical-device FSI [
54‐
59], ship hydrodynamics with free-surface flow and fluid–object interaction [
60,
61], hydrodynamics and FSI of a hydraulic arresting gear [
62,
63], hydrodynamics of tidal-stream turbines with free-surface flow [
64], and bioinspired FSI for marine propulsion [
65,
66].
The ST-VMS method, because of the source of its VMS components, also has good turbulence modeling features, and the ST-SUPS method, which is a reduced version of the ST-VMS method, can quite often perform reasonably well. The ST-SUPS and ST-VMS methods, because of their ST accuracy features (see [
14,
15]), would be desirable also in computations that do not involve any MBI. They have been successfully used for different classes of FSI, MBI and fluid mechanics problems. The classes of problems include spacecraft parachute analysis for the main parachutes [
1‐
3,
5,
8], cover-separation parachutes [
4] and the drogue parachutes [
6,
7,
9], wind-turbine aerodynamics for horizontal-axis wind-turbine rotors [
2,
35,
67,
68], full horizontal-axis wind turbines [
41,
69‐
71] and vertical-axis wind turbines [
72], flapping-wing aerodynamics for an actual locust [
2,
73‐
75], bioinspired MAVs [
70,
71,
76,
77] and wing-clapping [
78,
79], blood flow analysis of cerebral aneurysms [
70,
80], stent-blocked aneurysms [
80‐
82], aortas [
83,
84] and heart valves [
71,
78,
84‐
87], spacecraft aerodynamics [
4,
88], thermo-fluid analysis of ground vehicles and their tires [
89], thermo-fluid analysis of disk brakes [
90], flow-driven string dynamics in turbomachinery [
91], flow analysis of turbocharger turbines [
92‐
94], flow around tires with road contact and deformation [
95,
96], ram-air parachutes [
97], and compressible-flow parachute aerodynamics [
10].
The core and special ST computational methods have been playing by far the most prevalent role in FSI analysis of spacecraft parachutes (as documented in [
1‐
10] and references therein). Actually, parachute FSI analysis in 3D with the ST computational methods started about 10 years earlier than the FSI analysis of spacecraft parachutes. In that earlier 10-year period, the ST computational methods played the most prevalent role in FSI analysis of various types of personnel and cargo parachutes (as documented in the earlier references cited in [
1‐
10]). However, computational FSI analysis of spacecraft parachutes involves challenges not only beyond those in a typical FSI analysis, but also beyond those in parachute FSI analysis, and even beyond those in large-parachute FSI analysis. One of those challenges is the “geometric porosity,” a design feature created by the hundreds of gaps and slits that the flow goes through. Because FSI analysis with resolved geometric porosity would require resolving the flow that goes through the hundreds of gaps and slits as they change their shapes during the computation, it would be exceedingly time-consuming. That makes accurate geometric-porosity modeling essential. One of the special methods targeting spacecraft parachutes, the Homogenized Modeling of Geometric Porosity (HMGP) [
3,
98], was introduced to address this computational challenge. The HMGP was a key contributor to successful computational analysis and design studies of the Orion spacecraft parachutes since 2007 (see [
1,
2] and references therein, and [
3‐
9]).
Until recently, ST computational analysis of spacecraft parachutes focused on the Orion spacecraft main parachutes, which are the parachutes used for landing, in the incompressible-flow regime, which is where the main parachutes operate. At the higher-altitudes, drogue parachutes will be used, and that will mostly be in the compressible-flow regime. These parachutes have a ribbon construction and 24 gores, with 52 ribbons in each gore, where a gore is the slice of the parachute canopy between two radial reinforcement cables running from the parachute vent to the skirt. This construction results in hundreds of gaps that the flow goes through, creating a geometric-porosity challenge similar to the one faced in FSI analysis of the main parachutes. Furthermore, there are three wider gaps along the gore, created by removing ribbons. Drogue FSI computations with the ST computational methods were first presented in [
6,
7,
9], for the incompressible-flow part of the flight envelope.
Geometric-porosity models and ST computational methods for compressible-flow aerodynamics of spacecraft parachutes were introduced recently [
10] in the context of finite element discretization. The key new component of the ST computational framework was the compressible-flow ST Slip Interface (ST-SI) method, introduced in conjunction with the compressible-flow ST SUPG method.
The compressible-flow ST SUPG method is essentially the same as the compressible-flow DSD/SST method, but without necessarily implying a mesh motion. The compressible-flow DSD/SST method is a straightforward mixture of the DSD/SST concept and the compressible-flow SUPG method. The first 3D computation with the compressible-flow DSD/SST method was reported in 1996 [
99] for two high-speed trains passing each other in a tunnel. The interested reader can find in [
10] a summary of when and in what context the compressible-flow SUPG method was introduced [
100‐
102], how it evolved with the addition of a shock-capturing term [
103,
104] and with new stabilization and shock-capturing parameters [
105‐
107], and what test computations [
108‐
110] were reported.
The ST-SI method [
72] was introduced to retain the desirable moving-mesh features of the ST-VMS method (and its reduced version, ST-SUPS) when we have spinning solid surfaces, such as a turbine rotor or a tire. With the ST-SI method, the mesh covering the spinning solid surface spins with it and we retain the high-resolution representation of the boundary layers. The starting point in the development of the ST-SI method was the version of the ALE-VMS method designed for computations with sliding interfaces [
32,
33]. In the ST-SI method, interface terms similar to those in the ALE-VMS version are added to the ST-VMS formulation to account for the compatibility conditions for the velocity and stress. The SI between the spinning mesh and the rest of the mesh accurately connects the two sides. An ST-SI version where the SI is between fluid and solid domains with weakly-imposed Dirichlet boundary conditions for the fluid was also presented in [
72]. The ST-SI method introduced in [
90] for the coupled incompressible-flow and thermal-transport equations addresses the challenge involved in high-resolution representation of the thermo-fluid boundary layers near spinning solid surfaces. These ST-SI methods have been successfully applied to aerodynamic analysis of vertical-axis wind turbines [
72], thermo-fluid analysis of disk brakes [
90], flow-driven string dynamics in turbomachinery [
91], flow analysis of turbocharger turbines [
92‐
94], flow around tires with road contact and deformation [
95,
96], aerodynamic analysis of ram-air parachutes [
97], and heart valve flow analysis [
84,
86,
87].
The ST-SI methods have additional desirable features. The SI provides mesh generation flexibility in a general context by accurately connecting nonmatching meshes. This feature was used in the flow analysis of a heart valve [
84,
87] and a turbocharger turbine [
92‐
94]. This type of mesh generation flexibility is especially valuable in complex-geometry flow computations with isogeometric discretization, removing the matching requirement between the NURBS patches without loss of accuracy (see [
93,
94]). In another version of the ST-SI method presented in [
72], the SI is between a thin porous structure and the fluid on its two sides. With this, the fabric porosity is dealt with in a fashion consistent with how the standard two-sided SIs are dealt with and how the Dirichlet conditions are enforced weakly. Furthermore, this version of the ST-SI method enables handling thin structures that have T-junctions. This method has been successfully used in incompressible-flow aerodynamic analysis of ram-air parachutes with fabric porosity [
97].
The compressible-flow ST-SI methods were introduced in [
10], including the version where the SI is between a thin porous structure and the fluid on its two sides. Compressible-flow porosity models were also introduced in [
10]. These, together with the compressible-flow ST SUPG method, extended the ST computational analysis range to compressible-flow aerodynamics of parachutes with fabric and geometric porosities. That enabled successful ST computational flow analysis of the Orion spacecraft drogue parachute in the compressible-flow regime [
10]. The computations were in the context of finite element discretization.
The ST Isogeometric Analysis (ST-IGA), which is the integration of the ST methods with isogeometric discretization, was introduced in [
14], inspired by the success of using IGA basis functions in space [
23,
32,
48,
111]. First computations with the ST-VMS method and ST-IGA were reported in [
14] in a 2D context, with IGA basis functions in space for flow past an airfoil and in both space and time for the advection equation. The stability and accuracy analysis given [
14] for the advection equation showed that using higher-order basis functions in time would be essential in getting full benefit out of using higher-order basis functions in space.
In the early stages of the ST-IGA, the emphasis was on IGA basis functions in time. As pointed out in [
14,
15] and demonstrated in [
73,
74,
76], higher-order NURBS basis functions in time provide a more accurate representation of the motion of the solid surfaces and a mesh motion consistent with that. They also provide more efficiency in temporal representation of the motion and deformation of the volume meshes, and better efficiency in remeshing. That is how the ST/NURBS Mesh Update Method (STNMUM) was introduced and demonstrated in [
73,
74,
76]. The name “STNMUM” was given in [
69]. The STNMUM has a wide scope that includes spinning solid surfaces. With the spinning motion represented by quadratic NURBS basis functions in time, and with sufficient number of temporal patches for a full rotation, the circular paths are represented exactly, and a “secondary mapping” [
2,
14,
15,
73] enables also specifying a constant angular velocity for invariant speeds along the paths. The ST framework and NURBS in time also enable, with the “ST-C” method, extracting a continuous representation from the computed data and, in large-scale computations, efficient data compression [
89‐
91,
112]. The STNMUM and desirable features of the ST-IGA with IGA basis functions in time have been demonstrated in many 3D computations. The classes of problems solved are flapping-wing aerodynamics for an actual locust [
2,
73‐
75], bioinspired MAVs [
70,
71,
76,
77] and wing-clapping [
78,
79], separation aerodynamics of spacecraft [
4], aerodynamics of horizontal-axis [
41,
69‐
71] and vertical-axis [
72] wind-turbines, thermo-fluid analysis of ground vehicles and their tires [
89], thermo-fluid analysis of disk brakes [
90], flow-driven string dynamics in turbomachinery [
91], and flow analysis of turbocharger turbines [
92‐
94].
The ST-VMS method and ST-IGA with IGA basis functions in space have been successfully utilized in ST computational flow analysis of turbocharger turbines [
92‐
94], ram-air parachutes [
97], heart valves [
84,
86,
87], and tires with road contact and deformation [
96]. The turbocharger turbine analysis was based on the integration of the ST-SI method and ST-IGA. The IGA basis functions were used in the spatial discretization of the fluid mechanics equations and also in the temporal representation of the rotor and spinning-mesh motion. That enabled accurate representation of the turbine surfaces and rotor motion and increased accuracy in the flow solution. The meshes used in the turbine analysis presented in [
93,
94] was created by the general-purpose NURBS mesh generation method introduced in [
93] for complex-geometry flow computations. The ST-SI method is a key player in discretization with this general-purpose mesh generation method; it removes, without loss of accuracy, the matching requirement between the NURBS patches. The ram-air parachute analysis was based on the integration of the ST-IGA, the ST-SI version that weakly enforces the Dirichlet conditions, and the ST-SI version that accounts for the porosity of a thin structure. The ST-IGA with IGA basis functions enabled, with relatively few number of unknowns, accurate representation of the parafoil geometry and increased accuracy in the flow solution. The volume mesh needed to be generated both inside and outside the parafoil, and the mesh generation inside was challenging near the trailing edge because of the narrowing space. Using IGA basis functions addressed that computational challenge and still kept the element density near the trailing edge at a reasonable level. The heart valve analysis was based on the integration of the ST-SI method, ST Topology Change (ST-TC) method [
78,
79,
85,
95], and the ST-IGA. The “ST-SI-TC-IGA,” beyond enabling a more accurate representation of the surfaces and increased accuracy in the flow solution, kept the element density in the narrow spaces near the contact areas at a reasonable level. When solid surfaces come into contact, the elements between the surface and the SI collapse. Before the elements collapse, the boundaries could be curved and rather complex, and the narrow spaces might have high-aspect-ratio elements. With NURBS elements, it was possible to deal with such adverse conditions rather effectively. The computational flow analysis of tires with road contact and deformation presented in [
96] was also based on the ST-SI-TC-IGA, with essentially the same desirable features as in the heart valve computational flow analysis.
In this article, we integrate the compressible-flow porosity models and ST computational methods with isogeometric discretization. We apply that to flow analysis of a drogue parachute. We use quadratic NURBS basis functions in the computations.
The governing equations are given in Sect.
2, and the porosity models in Appendix
A. The compressible-flow ST SUPG and ST-SI methods are given in Appendices
B and
C. The computations are presented in Sect.
3 and the concluding remarks are given in Sect.
4.