See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: [Link]

net/publication/268581382

Detailed Aerodynamic Analysis of Ram-Air Parachute Systems in Steady Flight

Conference Paper · May 2011

DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-2553

CITATIONS READS
2 2,789

2 authors, including:

Hamid Johari
California State University, Northridge
140 PUBLICATIONS   1,629 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Hamid Johari on 08 March 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Detailed Aerodynamic Analysis of Ram-Air Parachute
Systems in Steady Flight

Haykaz Mkrtchyan 1 and Hamid Johari 2

California State University, Northridge, CA, 91330

The main goal of this paper is to present methods for the detailed analysis of
aerodynamic forces on the various components of ram-air parachute systems. The drag
contribution from each component would permit the examination of the primary drag
sources on the systems. The parachute components considered were the canopy, slider,
suspension lines, payload (cargo or personnel), as well as any other component between the
payload and the canopy. Both analytical and computational approaches are explored, and
three different model parachute systems spanning a range of canopy size and loading and
were analyzed. Results indicate that the treatment of the suspension lines is an important
aspect of the analysis, and vibration of the lines can be a significant contribution to the total
drag. The relative contribution of line drag may range from 17% to 35% of the total drag,
and the drag increase due to line vibration may be as much as 141% of the rigid line value.
A comparison of the three models appears to suggest that each parachute design needs to be
evaluated individually, and generalizations regarding the effects of line vibration or the
relative contribution of the lines to the system drag cannot be made based on the canopy
scale or loading.

I. Introduction

T HE deployments of ram-air parachute systems continue to increase due to the military airdrop operations as well
as in the sport jumping community. Most recently, the Joint Precision Airdrop Systems (JPADS) program has
employed ram-air parachutes with canopy areas ranging from less than 1,000 sq. ft. to 3,500 sq. ft. for precision
delivery of cargo.1,2 Even a larger system with a canopy area of over 10,000 sq. ft. is being tested.3 It is expected
that the trend of expanded aerial delivery of cargo and personnel will persist, and a broader range of payload weights
and even further landing precision will be required. To address these potential future requirements, methods to
accurately analyze the performance of various ram-air parachute designs prior to the initiation of the test phase are
needed.
The most comprehensive work to date on the analysis of precision aerial delivery systems is that provided by
Lingard4. Aerodynamic performance of the canopy, overall system flight dynamics, as well as static and dynamic
stability of ram-air parachutes is addressed in Lingard’s work. To analyze the aerodynamics of ram-air parachute
systems, the lift and drag of the canopy, drag of the payload, and the suspension line drag were considered.
Specifically, methods for the assessment of the canopy lift and drag that are based on the underlying airfoil section
characteristics and the lifting line theory were presented in Ref. 4. The effect of the canopy inlet on the drag is
accounted for by the height h of the opening; i.e., the inlet is assumed to generate a drag coefficient of 0.5h/c where
c is the canopy chord length. Line drag is computed by using a drag coefficient of one, and accounting for the total
length of suspension lines. Finally, drag of the payload is added in by estimating a drag coefficient. In this manner,
the system glide ratio could be computed as a function of the canopy aspect ratio and other design parameters.
Even though the methods employed by Lingard provide good estimates for the initial sizing and the overall
trends, more refined techniques are required to predict accurately the glide ratio of cargo and personnel ram-air
parachute systems. Computational tools for the analysis of airfoils and wings have advanced significantly in the past
two decades, and since the work of Lingard was published. In addition, an aspect of the previous analysis that
requires attention is the potential vibration of the suspension lines. Past work by Blevins5 has shown that the drag of
a circular cylinder may increase three-fold if it vibrates under certain conditions. Thus, vibration of the suspension
lines could increase the system drag notably and reduce the parachute glide ratio. Moreover, the relative angle of the
1
Research Assistant, Mechanical Engineering Department, Mail Stop 8348; currently with Enertech, Brea, CA.
2
Professor, Mechanical Engineering Department, Mail Stop 8348, AIAA Associate Fellow.
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
line segments with respect to the velocity vector has to be taken into account. Another component of ram-air
parachutes to be considered is the slider whose area scales with the canopy size. Also, the JPADS parachutes
incorporate a guidance unit that controls the control lines of the parachute. Drag of the slider and the guidance unit
has to be included in the system analysis. Given these various aspects, a reexamination of the methods for
characterizing the aerodynamics of ram-air parachutes is warranted.
The main goal of this paper is to outline further refinements of analytical and computational methods for
characterizing the aerodynamic performance of ram-air parachutes systems. A technique for examining the presence
of line vibration and the associated drag increase is presented. The use of Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) is
also discussed. The application of the proposed methods should result in fairly accurate estimates of the system glide
ratio for a wide range of canopy areas, and allow the calculation of the relative contribution of the various system
components to the total drag. It is hoped that engineers would find the approaches presented here practical for design
purposes. The proposed methods are described in the next section, and they are applied to a model cargo parachute
system in Section III. Finally, the characteristics of several ram-air parachute systems are compared in Section IV.
The conclusions of the work are summarized in Section V.

II. Analysis Methods

To analyze the performance of a ram-air parachute system, it is divided into its primary components including
the canopy, suspension lines, slider, and the payload. For cargo systems, the payload typically has parallelepiped
geometry with sharp edges whereas for personnel systems, the payload is the parachutist. For autonomously
controlled systems, there is also a guidance unit which has a rectangular geometry and contains the control system
hardware and computer. The performance of each component is addressed separately below, and any effect due to
interaction of components is ignored in this analysis. Even though there elements other than the primary ones listed
here, such as harnesses and the deployment bag, the effects of these secondary components are expected to be minor
and not accounted for in this analysis.
To apply the methods described in this section, a model of the ram-air parachute system approximating its steady
glide state is required. Ideally, the model should be constructed in a Computer-Aided Design (CAD) environment
during the design phase. In this manner, the model can be exported to various other software applications for
analysis. However, if only the basic layout or the cut pattern is available, a solid model needs to be created to show
the approximate inflated shape of the canopy as well as the distribution and layout of the suspension lines.

A. Canopy
A hybrid method that uses CFD and the lifting line theory for the computation of the forces on the canopy is
presented this section. As a way of background the traditional way of estimating the canopy loads is reviewed first.
Conventional ram-air canopies consist of a rectangular planform wing created from a baseline airfoil profile having
an opening at the leading edge. In steady glide, the canopy deforms into a wing with arc-anhedral, an arched wing,
and with spanwise bumps resulting from the bulging of each cell. More modern canopy designs have incorporated
the elliptic planform to reduce the induced drag of the canopy. To analyze the aerodynamic forces on a ram-air
canopy, Lingard4 begins with the lift and drag coefficients, Cl and Cd, of the baseline airfoil. Such data may be
found either through standard references (e.g. Abbott and von Doenhoff 6), or computed by any of the commonly
available software applications for airfoil analysis. XFoil, available at [Link] is
a shareware airfoil analysis application. The airfoil lift coefficient slope, ao ≡ dCl /dα, is then used in conjunction
with the lifting line theory to estimate the lift slope of the rectangular wing, a, as follows:
a = π ao′ AR / (π AR + ao′ (1 + τ )) (1)

where AR is the canopy aspect ratio, AR = b2/S, with b the canopy span and S the canopy area. Here, τ is a parameter
that accounts for the rectangular planform. Values of τ range from 0.04 to 0.14 for aspect ratios of 1 to 5; for an
elliptical planform, τ is zero.4 The parameter ao' is related to ao through the following expression which accounts for
the low aspect ratios associated with ram-air canopies.
ao′ = 2π AR tanh(ao / 2π AR ) (2)

The lift coefficient of the canopy CL varies linearly with the angle of attack α in the pre-stall regime,
CL = a (α − α zl ) cos2 β (3)

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
for aspect ratios greater than 2.5. In this expression, αzl is the zero-lift angle of attack, and β is the arc-anhedral
angle defined by Lingard.4 In this approach, the effects of the opening at the leading edge and the bumpy surface of
the canopy on the aerodynamic characteristics are ignored.
To estimate the drag coefficient of the canopy, CD , the profile drag of the baseline airfoil, Cd , is added to the
induced drag.4 The drag for a rectangular planform wing is given by
CD = Cd + [a (α − α zl )]2 (1 + δ ) / (π AR) (4)

The parameter δ accounts for the rectangular planform, and is zero for the elliptical planform. Values of δ range
from 0.003 to 0.037 for aspect ratios of 1 to 5; it is 0.018 for an aspect ratio of 3. The above expressions are
discussed in more detail in Refs. 4 and 7. To account for the extra drag resulting from the opening at the leading
edge, a drag coefficient equal to one-half of the opening height over the canopy chord length is added to the
expression in Eq. 4. Other empirically-based drag coefficients for the surface irregularities, fabric roughness, as well
as the pennants and stabilizer panels may be added to Eq. 4. With the expressions for the canopy lift and drag, the
canopy L/D may be computed.
The above outlined procedures rely on the lifting line theory to obtain the canopy lift slope from the baseline
airfoil characteristics. It is shown that the theory holds for smooth wings with larger aspect ratios; however, the
results may not be as reliable for ram-air canopies with arc-anhedral, modest aspect ratios, leading edge opening,
and a bumpy surface. For this reason, it is proposed to use Computational Fluid Dynamics (CFD) to simulate the
viscous, three-dimensional flow field about the entire canopy. The canopy model with the geometric features of the
canopy should be employed for the CFD simulations. Since the simulations do not require the use of lifting line
theory and no empirical assumptions are made regarding the drag contributions, the CFD simulations would yield
the aerodynamic characteristics of the canopy, including its L/D, under various conditions. The CFD simulations
also are applicable to canopies with any aspect ratio. The only shortcoming of the CFD approach is the
computational resources as well as the personnel expertise required to simulate a full-scale ram-air canopy.
A method in between the three-dimensional CFD simulations of the full-scale canopy and the conventional
method based on the aerodynamic data of the baseline airfoil is to simulate the flow field about a two-dimensional
slice of the canopy. The slice could be the rib cut pattern of the canopy. Such a simulation has been carried out in
Ref. 8. The benefit is the greatly reduced computational resources and the elimination of the need for the three-
dimensional model of the canopy. Also, no assumptions need to be made regarding the effects of the canopy
opening; the computed flow field does take into account the effects of canopy opening. The drawbacks of this
approach are the use of the lifting line theory to arrive at the canopy force coefficients and the absence of the effects
from the surface bumps. Once the force coefficients of the two-dimensional slice are computed as a function of the
angle of attack, equations 1-4 could be used to obtain the canopy lift and drag coefficients. An example of this
approach is presented in Section III.

B. Suspension Lines
Both circular and non-circular lines constructed from several materials are used as suspension lines in ram-air
parachutes. The Reynolds number of suspension lines in flight is typically on the order of thousands. Drag of rigid
circular cylinders in this Reynolds number range is approximately one.7 Traditionally, the total length of the lines
along with the drag coefficient of one is used to estimate the suspension line drag.4 However, suspension lines may
vibrate depending on the flight conditions and the tension in the lines. Drag of vibrating lines could be significantly
greater than stationary lines. To determine the drag of suspension lines, first the stationary drag of lines is computed
and then the additional drag due to vibration is added. Blevins5 provides a procedure to determine whether a circular
cylinder vibrates and the amount of the associated drag increase. The procedure for the determination of the line
drag is outlined below.
As the orientation of the lines with respect to the oncoming air stream determines the drag of the lines, the angle
θ formed by each line segment and the freestream flow has to be determined using the CAD model of the parachute
system. Hoerner7 shows that the forces on a rigid cylinder depend on the angle θ as follows:

Cd = Cdo sin 3 θ
(5)
Cl = Cdo sin 2 θ cosθ
When the line is perpendicular to the flow, θ = 90°, the drag coefficient is Cdo, the baseline value, and the lift
coefficient is zero as expected. At the other limit of θ = 0°, the line is aligned with the flow, and lift and drag
coefficients both vanish. Of course, the viscous drag is neglected in this limit. For ram-air parachutes, the baseline
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
drag coefficient is Cdo = 1. Knowing the orientation of each line segment, the drag of all suspension lines under
stationary conditions can be calculated.
The ratio of natural frequency to vortex shedding frequency of the suspension lines is an important parameter in
determining whether the line segments of the suspension line system fall in a lock-in regime where vibration of the
lines becomes significant. To assess the vibration of lines, the procedure outlined in Blevins5 is followed where it is
necessary to know the tension, damping characteristics, natural and shedding frequencies of each line segment. For
each line segment, the length l, diameter d, mass density m (mass per unit length), tension T, line angle θ, elastic
modulus E, and the Poisson’s ratio is required. The flow velocity and fluid properties allow the line Reynolds
number Re = ρ V∞ d/µ to be calculated, where ρ and µ are the air density and viscosity, respectively. Then, the
vortex shedding frequency fs for a stationary line is found from the Strouhal number S = fs d / V∞. Strouhal number is
a function of Reynolds number, and for the range of parameters encountered by ram-air parachutes it is
approximately constant at a value of 0.22. The vortex shedding frequency is then given by fs = S V∞ / d.
The next step is to compute the fluid damping term

ξ=
π ρd2 FG µ / ρ IJ 1/ 2
, (6)
2 m Hπ f d K
s
2

and the modified damping term 2π ξ (2m / ρd 2 ) . Both of these terms are dimensionless. The natural frequency of
each line segment is computed in Eq. 7 assuming that the ends of each line segment are rigidly held.

n T
fn = (7)
2L m
Here, n is the vibration mode and under most circumstances the fundamental n = 1 mode results in the largest
amplitudes. Thus, only the fundamental mode was considered. To calculate the natural frequency of each line

Figure 1. Outline of procedure for determination of line vibration.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
segment, the tension in that segment is needed. Tension in each line segment can be determined by using the solid
CAD model of lines and a finite element based analysis software package. In our work, we have used SolidWorks, a
3D CAD software suite, to create the model and to carry out the analysis of the lines. The ends of lines connecting to
the canopy, at a given angle of attack, are assumed to be held rigidly, and a force equal to the weight of the payload
is applied to the lowest section of the lines connected to the confluence point. In this manner, the von Mises stress in
each line segment can be computed using the structural analysis tool in the SolidWorks Simulation suite. The
computed stresses in each line segment allow the calculation of tension, and subsequently, the natural frequency of
that line segment.
The procedure for computing the average drag of vibrating line segments is outlined in Fig. 1. Two main
questions need to be answered. First, is the modified damping parameter 2π ξ (2m / ρ d 2 ) less than 64? Next, does
the ratio of natural frequency over the
shedding frequency fall in the lock-in
(synchronization) regime? To answer the
second question, the amplitude of vibration
Ay/d is needed. Figure 2 provides the vibration
amplitude as a function of a damping
parameter and the line l/d ratio.
As the line diameters are very small
compared to the length and the damping term
in the abscissa is typically less than one, the
vibration amplitude is taken to be Ay/d = 1.0.
Knowing the amplitude, the lock-in range in
the map of Fig. 3 could be used to determine
whether each line segment falls within or
outside of the synchronization regime.
However, the lock-in map in Blevins5 only
extends up to Ay/d ~ 0.5. This map can be
extended by fitting a parabola to the data. The
plot in Fig. 4 shows the line segments that fall
within the lock-in regime have natural
frequencies between 0.4 and 1.6 times the
shedding frequency. Within this lock-in
regime, drag coefficient increases to 3.1 due
to the line vibration ( CD = 1 + 2.1 ( Ay / d ) with
Ay/d = 1.0). Outside this region, vortex Figure 2. Vibration amplitude as a function of the damping
shedding does not cause significant vibration parameter from Blevins5.
of the lines and the drag coefficient of the
lines is expected to remain the same as the
stationary value of one. As the canopy loading
changes, the tension in the lines varies, and in
turn, the natural frequency of the line
segments changes. At the same time the
parachute flight velocity depends on the
system loading, and thus the shedding
frequency of the lines changes with the
loading as well. Since the ratio of the natural
to shedding frequency is the key parameter in
determining whether each line segment falls
within or outside the lock-in regime, general
statements about the status of the lines and
their contribution to the total drag of the Figure 3. Map of lock-in regime from Blevins5.
system cannot be made. For each parachute
system and operating condition, the analysis
has to be performed to establish the drag of each line segment and the total line drag.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
C. Slider
To control the opening, ram-air canopies lock-in region, Cd = 3.1
typically employ a slider that becomes fixed
above the confluence point after full inflation
is achieved. Sliders consist of rectangular
fabric elements retained at the four corners.
To our knowledge, there are no drag
coefficient values in the literature for flexible
fabrics held under such conditions. To
estimate the slider drag, drag coefficient of
flags aligned with flow are considered. It is
understood that there are differences between
a slider and a flag fluttering in the wind; stationary, Cd = 1
however, we expect the drag coefficients to be
in the same range. Drag of a flag depends on
the aspect ratio and the fabric area. Hoerner7
provides a plot of the drag coefficient as a Figure 4. Classification of line segments that fall in or out of the
function of flag aspect ratio, see Fig. 5. The lock-in regime.
chord length is the dimension along the flow
and the span is in the transverse direction.
Ram-air parachute sliders have aspect ratios
typically less than one. Examination of several
ram-air systems shows sliders have aspect
ratios from about one to 0.36. The drag
coefficient of flags with aspect ratios in this
range is approximately 0.05. This value is
suggested as the slider drag coefficient, and
the slider drag is computed using the slider
area and the flight dynamic pressure.

D. Payload
The payload for ram-air can be human
beings or cargo packages with parallelepiped
geometries. For personnel systems, drag on a
human being is required. A first estimate is
provided by Hoerner7 where the drag area is Figure 5. Drag coefficient of a flag as a function of aspect ratio.7
listed as 9 sq. ft. for an “average person”
standing against the wind. It is understood that the “average person” probably does not represent a paratrooper, and
the latter will likely have a drag area larger than the value provided by Hoerner. An alternative method is to follow
the procedure outlined in the work by Penwarden et al.9 The surface area of a standing human is referred to as the
DuBois area, ADu, as follows:
ADu = 0.0769 W 0.425 H 0.725 (8)

where W is the weight in Newton (N) and H is the height in meter (m). Reference 9 suggests a frontal area A based
on the DuBois area, A ≈ 0.35 ADu.
The drag coefficient based on frontal area A was measured for a number of subjects in a wind tunnel and the data
are listed in Table 4 of Ref. 9. The table suggests a value of CD=1.17 for a male subject with coat and trousers.
Thus, the drag area would be:
A CD = ADu (A/ADu) CD= ADu (0.35) (1.17) (9)
Given height and weight, the drag area could be estimated using this expression. Let’s assume that the “average
man” has a height of 1.8 m (71 in) and is 800 N (180 lbs). The DuBois area is 2.02 m2 and the drag area is 0.826 m2,
or 8.9 ft2. This value is quite close to the value provided by Hoerner of 9 ft2. Thus, the expressions in Eqs. 8 and 9
may be used to arrive at a drag area, and subsequently the drag of a parachutist/paratrooper could be estimated.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 For cargo carrying systems, the payload may be modeled as a parallelepiped container. For example, the A-22
Container Delivery System (CDS) has a cubic geometry with a dimension of 1.22 m (4 ft). White10 provides a drag
coefficient of 1.07 for a cube (aligned with the flow) at Reynolds numbers above 104. Cargo containers used in ram-
air systems are in the turbulent regime and flow separation exists on the edges and corners causing large drag forces.
Estimation of drag coefficients for parallelepiped geometries other than cube can be made by examining two-
dimensional rectangular sections. Hoerner7 provides values of drag coefficients from 0.9 to 2 depending on the
section aspect ratio. We propose a drag coefficient of one for the cargo containers routinely used for airdrop
operations. Although further refinements can be made, or the drag coefficient could be computed using CFD, the
proposed value should provide an initial estimate of the payload drag.
Guided systems such as those in the JPADS program require a guidance unit for control purposes. The guidance
unit is typically a slender rectangular box. Similar to the cargo containers, it is suggested that the drag coefficient of
one be used for the computation of the guidance unit drag values.
The drag of the entire parachute system can now be computed by adding the values for the various components,
and the relative contributions of each component can be assessed. Moreover, as the lift is almost entirely created by
the canopy, the system lift-to-drag ratio (glide ratio) during steady glide can be found. The methods and procedures
described in this section are applied to a model ram-air parachute system in the next section.

III. Model Ram-Air Parachute

To illustrate the methods described in the previous section, the performance of a model ram-air parachute system
was analyzed. The canopy was assumed to have 0.5
a rectangular planform with an area of 1000 sq.
ft. The aspect ratio was assumed to be 3.2, and
the arc-anhedral angle to be β = 26°. The 0.4
payload was taken to be an A-22 CDS weighing
2200 lbs. To compute the canopy aerodynamic
0.3
canopy CL

coefficients, the two-dimensional slice discussed

in Ref. 8 was chosen as the mean canopy cross-
section. The CFD simulations in Ref. 8 provided
0.2
the lift and drag coefficients of the slice as a
function of the angle of attack. The computed
lift slope was ao = 5.67 rad−1, and the zero-lift 0.1
angle of attack was −0.8°. Using Eq. 1, the lift
slope of the canopy in the linear regime was
computed and plotted in Fig. 6. The lift 0.0
coefficient varies linearly up to the stall angle, 0 2 4 6 8 10
CL = 0.041 + 0.049α. The angle of attack α in canopy angle of attack α (deg)
this expression is in degrees. The angle of attack Figure 6. Model canopy lift coefficient.
at which the canopy generated lift was equal to
0.10
the system weight was taken as the equilibrium
flight angle of attack, and for this model
parachute system it was α = 7°. 0.08
The profile drag of the slice computed in
Ref. 8 along with the computed lift coefficient
allowed the calculation of the canopy drag 0.06
canopy CD

coefficient which is plotted in Fig. 7. The profile

drag coefficient at the flight angle of attack is
0.04, and the canopy drag coefficient estimated 0.04
through Eq. 4 is 0.062. About 35% of the canopy
drag is due to the induced drag at this angle of
attack. 0.02
The canopy lift-to-drag (L/D) ratio was then
computed by taking the ratio of the data in Figs.
0.00
6 and 7. The resulting canopy lift-to-drag ratio is 0 2 4 6 8 10
presented in Fig. 8. The data in this plot indicate
that the canopy L/D varies with the angle of canopy angle of attack α (deg)
Figure 7. Model canopy drag coefficient.
7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
attack, and it reaches its maximum value at an
7
angle of α ≈ 6.5°. The canopy lift-to-drag
ratio of approximately 6 appears reasonable
for this model canopy at α = 7°. 6
The next step was to compute the drag of
suspension lines. A model of the suspension 5
lines allowed the determination of the

canopy L/D
orientation of the line segments with respect
4
to the oncoming flow. The lines were assumed
to 2000-lb Spectra which is round with a
diameter of 4 mm. At first the lines were 3
assumed to be stationary (non-vibrating), and
the total drag of lines were computed using a 2
drag coefficient of one. The line drag under
the stationary assumption was 463 N. Then,
1
the procedure for the assessment of line
0 2 4 6 8 10
vibration presented in the last section was
followed. The map demarcating the vibrating canopy angle of attack α (deg)
lines from the stationary lines is shown in Fig. Figure 8. Model canopy lift-to-drag ratio.
9. Each line segment is denoted individually
on this map. The majority of
Transverse vibration amplitude over line diameter

lines fall in the lock-in regime lock-in region, Cd = 3.1

resulting in a large Cd. Once the
vibration of lines was taken
into account, the total line drag
increased to 1118 N. The
vibration of lines increased the
line drag by a factor of 2.4
which is a major contribution to
the total drag of the system.
To illustrate the line
segments that fall in the lock-in
regime, Fig. 10 shows a
schematic of the suspension
lines from one side of the stationary, Cd = 1
parachute. The line pattern is
symmetric with respect to the
canopy centerline. Stationary Figure 9. Map of line segments in the lock-in and stationary regimes.
line segments are shown in red
while the vibrating lines are in blue. The majority of the lines are vibrating. The line segments connected to the outer
edge of the canopy as well as several others were found to be stationary. The reason for the lines on the outer edges
behaving as stationary lines is that the tension on the outer edges is expected to be less due to the lower loads on the
canopy edge. Lower tension leads to lower natural frequencies, and thus further to the left of the lock-in regime
boundary.
The model parachute was assumed to have a slider with a surface area of 57 sq. ft., resulting in a drag
contribution of 70 N. The payload was assumed to be a A-22 CDS bundle, a cube of 4-ft on each side. The payload
produced a drag of 418 N corresponding to a drag coefficient of 1.07. Summing the drag of the canopy, suspension
lines, payload and the slider results in a system drag of 3235 N. The system glide ratio was computed to be just over
3. This value appears to be quite comparable to the values commonly quoted for cargo ram-air parachutes. The
variation of the parachute system glide as a function of the canopy angle of attack is shown in Fig. 11. The glide
ratio increases continuously until α = 7°, and subsequently levels out. Thus, it appears that the equilibrium canopy
angle of attack results in the maximum glide ratio for this model ram-air parachute system.
The relative contribution of each component to the total drag of the system is listed in Table 1. Clearly the
canopy contributes the largest share of the total drag; however, the suspension lines also contribute a substantial
share (35%) of the total drag. Had the vibration of the suspension lines been ignored, the drag of the lines would be
less and the relative contribution of the lines would be reduced to 18%. Moreover, the computed system glide ratio
8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
would be 3.9 if the line vibration were not taken into
account. Thus, it is important to consider the
vibration of suspension lines when estimations of the
system drag and glide ratio are made.

Table 1. Relative contribution of each component

of the model ram-air parachute.
component drag contribution
canopy 50%
suspension lines 35%
payload 13%
slider 2%

IV. Comparison of Ram-Air Parachutes

To examine the relative importance of the
suspension line vibration on the drag distribution,
two other model ram-air parachute systems were
examined. One canopy was assumed to have a
canopy area smaller and the other larger than the
model considered in the previous section. The same
methods were applied Section III were utilized. The
smaller canopy parachute was assumed to have a
loading of one psf while the larger canopy was Figure 10. Schematic of stationary (red) and
assumed to have loading of 3 psf. The model canopy vibrating lines (blue).
had a loading of 2.2 psf. The different loading
changes the tension in the lines, and 3.5
consequently the natural frequency of each
line segment changes. It is found that the 3.0
larger canopy with the higher loading
would result in the shift of the line
segments to the right in a plot analogous to 2.5
glide ratio

that in Fig. 10. On the other hand, the

opposite would be true for the case of the 2.0
smaller canopy with reduced loading. It
should also be pointed out that the smaller
canopy would have a smaller number of 1.5
lines compared to the other two models.
Computation of the line drag for all cases 1.0
indicated that accounting for line vibration
increases the line drag. However, the
0.5
increase is not uniform and does not
0 2 4 6 8 10
correlate directly with the canopy loading.
For the larger canopy, accounting for the canopy angle of attack α (deg)
vibration of lines in the lock-in regime only Figure 11. Glide ratio of model ram-air parachute system.
increased the line drag by slightly over 5%.
On the other hand, the small canopy
parachute model had its line drag increase by about 41% due to the line vibration. These values are to be compared
against the 141% increase computed for the model described in Section III.
The relative contribution of the line drag to the system was also examined for the three cases considered here. As
listed in Table 1, suspension line drag contributes 35% of the total drag on the model parachute system evaluated in
Section III. For the larger canopy model, lines contribute 23% of the drag while for the smaller model with the lower
loading only 17% of the drag comes from the suspension lines. These estimates indicate that the relative
contribution of the line drag does not scale with the canopy size or the loading directly even though the latter
parameters are key elements of the parachute system. These few models appear to suggest that each parachute
9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 design needs to be evaluated separately, and generalizations regarding the effects of line vibration or the relative
contribution of the line drag to the system drag and performance cannot be made based on the ram-air parachute
scale or loading. However, the canopy generates at least 50% of the total drag of the system in all three cases
considered.

V. Conclusions
Methods and procedures were developed and applied for the determination of the canopy aerodynamic
characteristics, suspension line vibration and drag, as well as slider and payload drag. Some of the proposed
techniques require the use of computational analysis tools whereas others use the drag coefficients available in the
literature. The aerodynamic performance of three model ram-air parachute systems under nominal steady glide
conditions was carried out. The lifting line theory along with the computed (CFD) section force coefficients were
used for the canopy lift and drag calculations while the available drag coefficients in the literature were used to
estimate drag of the payload and slider. Based on the results of this study, the following conclusions are drawn:
1) To establish the relative contribution of suspension line drag to the system drag, a comprehensive analysis
of each individual system needs to be carried out. Not only line type, length, and the material properties
are required, but the orientation of each line segment with respect to the oncoming flow and the tension
distribution through the lines are also needed.
2) The relative contribution of line drag may be as little as 17% for the smallest model to as much as 35% for
the model canopy described in section III. Similarly, the drag increase due to line vibration may be as
much as 141% to as low as 5% of the rigid line value.
3) The analysis carried here appears to result in realistic parachute glide ratios for the parameters chosen for
the model canopy.
It is recommended that CAD techniques should be developed to allow the creation of inflated ram-air canopies
as the cut patterns used in the construction of the canopies may be significantly different than the shape the canopy
inflates to during flight. Such models may be used for the analysis of the canopy and other components. This
approach would remove the need for the application of lifting line theory, and would result in accurate predictions of
canopy loads. The CFD approach would be especially useful for the analysis of small, low aspect ratio canopies
used for personnel and sport jumping applications. The lifting line theory may not result in accurate force
coefficients for these types of canopies.

Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by the Airdrop Technology Team at Natick Soldier Systems Center under
contracts W911QY-08-P-0361 and W911QY-09-P-0357, monitored by Dr. Calvin Lee. Assistance of Mr. Justin
Barber, Drs. Kenneth Desabrais and Calvin Lee during various phases of this project is greatly appreciated.

References
1
Benney, R., Barber, J., McGrath, J., McHugh, J., Noetscher, G., and Tavan, S., “The Joint Precision Airdrop System
Advanced Concept Technology Demonstration,” Proceedings of the 18th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology
Conference and Seminar, Munich, May 23-26, 2005, Germany, AIAA 2005-1601.
2
Benney, R., McGrath, J., McHugh, J., Noetscher, G., Tavan, S., and Patel, S. “DOD JPADS Programs Overview and NATO
Activities,” Proceedings of the 19th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar,
Williamsburg, VA, May 21-24, 2007, AIAA 2007-2576.
3
Berland, J., Gargano, W., Bagdonovich, B., and Barber, J., “Autonomous Precision Delivery of 42,000 Pounds (19,000 kg)
Under One Parachute,” Proceedings of the 19th AIAA Aerodynamic Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar,
Seattle, WA, May 5-7, 2009, AIAA 2009-2928.
4
Lingard, J. S., “Precision Aerial Delivery Seminar: Ram-Air Parachute Design,” Proceedings of the 13th AIAA Aerodynamic
Decelerator Systems Technology Conference and Seminar, AIAA, Reston, VA, May 1995. Also available from URL:
[Link]
5
Blevins, R. D., Flow-Induced Vibration, 2nd edition, Krieger Publishing, Malabar, FL, 1990.
6
Abbott, I. H. and von Doenhoff, A. E., Theory of Wing Sections, Dover Publications, New York, NY, 1959.
7
Hoerner, S. F., Fluid-Dynamic Drag, published by the author, Midland Park, NJ, 1965.
8
Mohammadi, M. A. and Johari, H., “Computation of Flow over a High Performance Parafoil Canopy,” AIAA Journal of
Aircraft, Vol. 47, No. 4, 2010, pp. 1338-1345.
9
Penwarden, A. D., Grigg, P. F., and Rayment, R., “Measurements of Wind Drag on People Standing in a Wind Tunnel,”
Building and Environment, Vol. 13, 1978, pp. 75-84.
10
White, F. M., Fluid Mechanics, 5th edition, McGraw-Hill, New York, 2003, p. 485.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

View publication stats