Back to portfolio

OA-005 / Project

Aug 2025 – Present


Swamp Launch Rocket Design and CFD

ANSYS Fluent CFD on HiPerGator with drag within 15% of RASAero, validated on a dual-load-cell wind-tunnel rig.

As Aerosciences / Staging Engineer on the Swamp Launch IREC rocket team, I developed mesh-independent ANSYS Fluent subsonic CFD models on UF's HiPerGator supercomputer, with drag estimates within 15% of RASAero predictions, and authored the team's standardized CFD documentation across 10 Mach regimes from 0.1 to 1.0. I designed a dual-load-cell wind-tunnel test rig to validate that drag physically and authored its Wind Tunnel Testing Process, and serve as Responsible Engineer for flight-dynamics simulation and aft-plane pressure sensing toward a 10,000-ft IREC apogee.

Role

Aerosciences / Staging Engineer

Organization

University of Florida · Swamp Launch Rocket Team

SolidWorksANSYS FluentCFDRASAeroHiPerGator (HPC)MeshingWind-tunnel testingArduino DAQ

Test record

±0%CFD drag estimates against RASAero predictions

Objective
Check the CFD drag prediction against physical measurement in a subsonic wind tunnel.
Setup
  • Dual-load-cell test rig with precision-machined couplings and Arduino-based DAQ
  • Quarter-scale resin-printed rocket, sanded so its surface roughness scales with the model
  • Sting mount kept under 30% of the rocket diameter and checked for sag
Method
  1. Sized the model by matching the full-scale Reynolds number
  2. Calibrated both load cells against known weights before the run
  3. Raised tunnel speed in steps, holding each long enough for steady readings
  4. Time-aligned load-cell and tunnel data, then reduced it to a drag coefficient
CAD-modeled rocket prepared for wind tunnel testing on a rod fixture
Rocket model prepared for wind tunnel testing to compare physical results with ANSYS CFD data.

Building the rocket in CAD

I built the Swamp Launch IREC competition vehicle in SolidWorks, the geometry that everything else keys off of. The same CAD model became the basis for the CFD study and the wind tunnel test planning, so the simulation and the physical test were checking the same shape.

Competition rocket CAD for Swamp Launch, the basis for CFD and wind tunnel test planning.

CFD in ANSYS Fluent

I achieved drag estimates within 15% of RASAero predictions by developing mesh-independent ANSYS Fluent subsonic CFD models on UF's HiPerGator supercomputer, building Cd-versus-Mach tables from Mach 0.1 to 1.0 and optimizing nosecone, fin, and boattail geometry.

I refine the mesh and boundary-layer setup around the rocket before each run and documented the workflow for each regime: physics setup, wall Y-plus targets, drag calculations, and which equations apply, so it is repeatable by the rest of the team.

Mesh refinement and boundary-layer setup before running cases at different Mach ranges.
Wall Y-plus contours and drag output from a Fluent run on the competition vehicle.

Mach Ranges: a CFD playbook from Mach 0.1 to 1.0

I authored Mach Ranges, the team's standardized CFD documentation, which takes a rocket through a complete ANSYS Fluent simulation at every speed from Mach 0.1 to 1.0 in steps of 0.1. Each Mach number gets the same 42 numbered steps in four stages: understanding the aerodynamics, geometry setup, mesh setup, and physics setup. Anyone on the team can pick up a case and run it the same way.

The document tracks how the setup has to change as the flow does. Up to Mach 0.3 the flow is treated as incompressible with constant density and viscosity. From Mach 0.4 the energy equation turns on, with ideal-gas density and Sutherland's law for viscosity, and the inlet and outlet become a pressure far field. At Mach 0.9 and 1.0 the flow goes transonic, so the regions of interest grow from the wake to the nose cone and fins, where normal shocks and a bow shock start to form. The boundary layer is sized for a wall y+ of 30 to 300, so the first-layer height and layer count are recalculated at every speed.

A companion Cd-vs-Mach process turns the playbook into a production run. It groups the ten cases by geometry (full rocket for 0.1 to 0.3, a symmetric half-model without rail buttons for 0.4 to 0.7, full rocket again for 0.8 to 1.0), sets a naming convention so several people can split the runs, and ends in the drag-coefficient curve the team uses. The excerpts below are public versions: competition-rocket operating conditions and dimensions are redacted, and most pages are left out.

Mach Ranges (excerpt)

PDF · 3 pages

Download

Cd vs. Mach Process (excerpt)

PDF · 1 pages

Download

Validating against the wind tunnel

To check the CFD against reality, I designed a dual-load-cell wind-tunnel test assembly with precision-machined couplings and Arduino-based real-time data acquisition, then mounted the rocket in a subsonic wind tunnel so measured drag could be compared directly against the ANSYS CFD data.

I authored the team's Wind Tunnel Testing Process, which records how the test was designed, run and analyzed, down to its assumptions and limitations. The model is quarter scale, the largest that keeps the rocket under one tenth of the test section, and is matched to flight by Reynolds number. It was resin printed in sections and sanded to 330 grit so the surface roughness scales with the model. The sting is kept under 30% of the rocket diameter and checked for sag, and a CFD run of the tunnel domain puts the rig's own error at about 6%. The document closes with an honest debrief: vibration in the cantilevered mount limited the useful test speed, and it lists the changes for the next rig.

The subsonic wind tunnel facility used for the drag validation runs.
The rocket mounted through the test-section port, ready for a run.
The sting mount inside the test section that holds the model in the flow.
Opening the test section to set up the model between runs.
The tunnel and its control station in the lab.
Rig assembly drawing: the rocket threads onto the sting, which carries load into the two load cells under the tunnel floor.
CFD of the rocket on its sting inside the tunnel domain, used to estimate how much the rig itself changes the measured drag.

Wind Tunnel Process (excerpt)

PDF · 6 pages

Download

Flight dynamics and pressure sensing

As Responsible Engineer for flight-dynamics simulation and aft-plane pressure sensing, I validate the models against flight data and refine the boattail instrumentation to calculate pressure drag, supporting the team's 10,000-ft IREC apogee target.

That validation follows the team's Flight Data Analysis Process, which I helped with. After burnout, the flight computer's inertial (east-north-up) accelerations, roll, pitch, yaw, pressure and temperature are integrated in MATLAB to give velocity, position and Mach number. The deceleration along the velocity vector gives drag force and Cd. A 3-2-1 Euler rotation into the body frame gives angle of attack and sideslip. The excerpt shows the method and a drag result from a 2026 test launch; the code, vehicle mass and control-system data are left out.

Flight Data Analysis (excerpt)

PDF · 5 pages

Download

Interactive 3D CAD

Drag to rotate, scroll to zoom.

3D model
Drag to rotate · scroll to zoom
The competition rocket in 3D, the geometry that drove the CFD and wind tunnel work.
3D model
Drag to rotate · scroll to zoom
The wind tunnel test assembly in 3D, the rocket configured on its mount for tunnel testing.