Convective

Heat Transfer

Motor

in the Reusable
Transportation

System

Rashid

Performance

Thiokol

Propulsion,

This

simulation

of the Reusable

A Division

involved
Solid

Rocket

Motor

with CFD

commercial

continuity

with most

related

CFD

vectored

solution

grid

calculate

nozzle

selection

of the numerical

ballistic

predictions

and measured
This

convective

study

existing

was

the convective
relative
heat
(shear

On the other
heat

manner.

transfer

This

Conference,

as

Salt Lake

City,

Institute

transfer

forces)

thrust

predictions

and

results

the

heat

heat

and

to match

nozzle

chemical

pressure

erosion

impulse,
to be good.
with

of the ratio
was made

that was

(transpirating),

and the

favorably

data

d)

the rocket

specific

compared

at constant

and

results

was found

with backed-out

for various

transfer,

on matching

ballistic

conductive),
effects

based

it was

for any three-

and checkout
and

grain

to: a) maintain

of the present

vacuum

comparison

was devised

UT, July 8-11,

of Aeronautics

pressure,

to the specific

and

were

initial

baseline

modeling

Utah

(STS).

was performed

The accuracy

these

qualitative

AIAA-2001-3585,

*Sr. Principal Engineer,

Associate
2002 ATK Thiokol Propulsion,
American

heat

data

radiative

impingement

Paper

Matching

coefficient

backed-out

(convective,

and particle

Presented

transfer

hand,

end

System

application

models

City,

of a full motor

as a non-vectored

turbulence

turbulence
head

to convective

M/S 252

Transportation

simple

coefficients.

rate,

drop.

b) serve

a relatively

and

flow

pressure

limited

theory.

schemes

of the Space

Inc., Brigham

model

This analysis

studies,

heat transfer

of mass

chamber

analyses,

sensitivity

Company

of the Space

FLUENT.

c) provide

Section,

axisymmetric

(RSRM)

code

Motor

and Engineering

of ATK Aerospace
84302

previous

nozzles,

schemes,

Gas Dynamics

a two-dimensional

conducted

dimensional

A. Ahmad

Department,
Science

ATK

Solid Rocket

and

of
in a

a result

of

mechanical

combined.

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE

37th

Joint

Propulsion

2001.

Fellow AIAA.
a Division
of ATK
and Astronautics

Aerospace

Company

Inc.,

Published

by the

Nomenclature
A

area, m 2 (ft 2)

empirical

Cf

friction

constant

(Eq. 3)

coefficient

Cp, Cv specific

heats

at constant

pressure

COD

coefficient

diameter,

acceleration

convective

heat transfer

turbulence

intensity,

an acceleration

gas thermal

mixing

mass flow rate, kg/s (Ibm/s)

MW

molecular

Mach number

burning

Po, P

total and static pressure,

Pr

Prandtl

Prt

turbulent

wall heat flux, W/m 2 (Btu/hr-ft

Re(x)

local

of determination

respectively,

J/kg-K

(Btu/lbm-R)

of a correlation

m (in.)
due to gravity,

m/s 2 (ft/s 2)

coefficient,

Wlm2-K

(Btu/hr-ft2-R)

u '/u** (%)

parameter
conductivity,

length

constant

weight,

W/m-K
usually

kg/kgmole

rate pressure

(Btu/hr-ft-R)

known

as VonKarman

length

scale,

m (ft)

(lb/lbmole)

exponent
respectively,

Pa (psia)

number

axial

/l=( x )

and volume,

Prandtl

number

Reynolds

number

2)
based

on distance

along

the nozzle

wall,

p_(x)

u= (x) xw /

Red(x) local

axial Reynolds

9f

recovery

propellant

radius,

m (in.)

source

term

To, T

total and static

t+

non-dimensional

u, v

axial and radial

u_,

velocity

.4-

ur

shear

propellant

velocity

p_x)

uo, (x) d(x)/g,.lx)

m/s (ft/s)

of u and v at the motor

centerline,

m/s, ft/s

in wall coordinates

m/s (ft/s)

m/s (ft/s)

weight

axial and radial

flow rate, N/s (lbf/s)

axes, m (in.)

of axial and radial

non-dimensional

distance

directions,

heats,

kinetic

respectively

from the wall in wall units

augmentation/de-augmentation

turbulence

K (R)

in wall coordinates

components,

velocity

ratio of specific
K, E

respectively,

temperature

fluctuation,

velocity,

(x), (r) function

6g

temperature,

magnitude

velocity

4-

of the nozzle,

(Eq. 1)

u t

on diameter

burn rate, m/s (in./s)

non-dimensional

based

factor

x,

number

factor

in propellant

mass

flux

C,,JCv

energy

(m2]s

(ft2/s2))

and

its rate

of dissipation

(m2/$2/s

respectively

].L V

dynamic

gas density,
wall shear

(N-s/m 2 (lbm/ft-s))
kg/m 3 (lbJft
stress,

and kinematic

3)

N/m 2 (lbf/ft 2)

(mZ/s (ftZ/s)) viscosity,

respectively

(yt2]S2/S)),

Subscripts
aw

adiabatic

wall or recovery

at nozzle

exit

face

gas

hydraulic

chamber

propellant

ref

reference

static

turbulent

vac

vacuum

wall

oo

conditions

conditions

at motor

centerline

Superscripts
*

throat

"

flux

mean

temperature

conditions

and time averaged

Introduction
A computational
model

fluid

of a full motor

initial

with CFD commercial

with the most

related

CFD

etc.; and d) Calculate

interest
ratio

because
(h/Cp)

nozzle

the convective

is usually

erosion

The

are the

coupled

internal

as input

four

most

flow.

axisymmetric

(RSRM)

was conducted

to a) Maintain

continuity

as a non-vectored

simple

coefficients.

for

and checkout

modeling/heat

tra_nsfer,

Nozzle

heat

heat

at constant

pressure

(CMA)

code 8 for

to the specific
Material

baseline

application

turbulence

and

Second,

and a mass

on the particles'

behavior

of the

nose

structure

submerged

nozzle

and to define

the surface

of the aft case dome

the nozzle

afterwards,

along

flow

solution

in solid

Loh and Chwalowski

the

to determine

of this motor.

numerical

was

flows

transfer

studies

non-reacting

nozzles

effect

related

two-phase

sheet

b) Serve

studies,

Charring

Motor

was performed

coefficient

in the

axisymmetric

underneath

heat

transfer

a two-dimensional

area

Rocket

a relatively

sensitivity

axisymmetric

gas-particle

in converging-diverging
had a minimal

grid

convective
heat

a time-dependent,

the viscous
laminar

used

c) Provide

a two-dimensional

Ablation

transfer

is of

predictions.

following

conducted

the nozzle

Solid

3-7 of this motor,

nozzles;

schemes,

involved

L 2 This analysis

analyses

vectored

simulation

of the Resusable

FLUENT.

previous

solution

(CFD)

grain

code

any three-dimensional
for various

dynamics

nose

flow

4 used

loading

field

and forming

the underneath

nozzle

assumed

of 1 to 100 g.rn
lg and 3g

et al. 5 conducted

recirculation

region

overall

objective

underneath

the

impingement

environments

that particles

were

impacting

the

oxide

or slag.

The

of molten
nose

Whitesides

Loh 3

to analyze

between

The

It was concluded
a sheet

of diameters

in the RSRM.

in the

and

The solution

Acceleration
Third,

the gas flow and particle

insulation.

motors.

particles

of 28.8%.

analysis

Golafshani

of the Navier-Stokes

rocket

in the nozzle.
flow

First,

surface

aluminum

as is the direction

along

of the near

surfacevelocity vectorduring the last half of motor burn. This slaglayer is then shearedfrom
the nozzle cowl/boot ring surfaceand impacts the aft dome caseinsulation at the location of
severe erosion. Fourth, Laubacher
6 conducted two-dimensional axisymmetric analysis to
computechamberpressuredrop in the RSRM. The walls were assumedto be adiabaticand
utilized the standardn-e turbulencemodel anda coupledsolverusing in-housecode,SHARP.
These studies were conductedfor the RSRM and no attempt was made to calculate the
convectiveheattransfercoefficients. The fifth study7hasthe detailsof this study. It invol,zed2D axisymmetricand3-D vectorednozzles. Furthermore,it involved two-phaseflow whereslag
concentration,accretionrates,and particle trajectorieswere calculated. At this time, it is not
feasible how to augmentconvective heat transfer by effects of particle impingement and
trajectories.
Related convective heat transfer studies are given in Refs. (9-16). When considering
convectiveheattransferin solid rocketmotors,surfacetemperaturesandheatfluxes arehigh and
very difficult to measure.Ablative materialsare usedto dissipateand inhibit heat transferby
erosionandtranspiration.For the lack of reliablethermalconditions,thenozzlewall wasusually
assumedto be adiabaticin CFD calculations. On the other hand,CFD calculations(velocity,
density,pressure,temperature,viscosity, etc.) and geometryenablesomeoneto calculateheat
transfer.9 It is usually estimated
9 using three well-known methods. They are the modified
Reynolds'

analogy

developed

turbulent

well-known
variations
convective

17 for laminar

heat

over

a flat

plate,

pipe flow, and the Bartz l correlation

Dittus-Boelter
in velocity

flow

correlation

and temperature

transfer

studies

in the

17

for turbulent

Back
Jet

Dittus-Boelter
for nozzle

pipe

flow

et al. 11' 13-15 conducted

Propulsion

Laboratory

correlation

flows.

Bartz 1 extended

to account

for mass

analytical
(JPL)

17 for fully-

flux

the
and

and experimental

nozzle.

Moretti

and

Kays12conductedexperimentalconvective heat transfer to an essentiallyconstant property

turbulent boundary layer in a two-dimensional channel for various rates of free-stream
acceleration.Back et al. 14-_5
andMoretti andKays_2foundthat accelerationcausesa depression
in heattransferratebelow whatwould bepredictedassuminga boundary-layerstructuresuchas
obtainedfor constantfree-streamvelocity. They attributedit to re-laminarizationof the turbulent
boundarylayer. They further state, it is by no meansobvious that the same acceleration
parameterapplicableto an axisymmetric flow.

Wang 16 focused

purpose

transfer

surface.

CFD

Effects

treatments,
were

codes

of various

convective

parameters

as well as numerical

studied.

Test cases

The attributes

in predicting

such

schemes

included

effort

was made

coefficients

as grid resolution,

on the accuracy

flat plate,

of this two-dimensional

Significant

heat

pipe flow,

(2D)

to assess

on the

between

turbulence

axisymmetric

grid sensitivity

and near-wall

convective

heat

and impinging

analysis

of ge.neral-

a fluid and a solid

models

of predicted

JPL nozzle,

capability

transfer

jets.

are:

and grid

consistency

with

turbulence

models.

Verifying
usual

flow/thermal

velocity

and thermal

Calculations
boundary

solution

of
layer

nozzle

quality

thermophysical
computational
Governing

by vs. u -4- vs. y

laws of the wall for incompressible

convective

heat

transfer,

including

and

turbulent
the

t+

vs. y + against

flows,

assessment

the

respectively.
of

turbulent

re-laminarization.

Discussion
Governing

represented

equations,

geometry

properties,
schemes
Equations:

grid

parameters,
density

and numerical
The

of Modeling

numerical

operating
and

convergence
studies

Approach
and predicted

turbulence
(residuals)
considered

ballistic

modeling,
are discussed
the

solution

boundary

conditions,

conditions,

next.
of the

gas

Navier-Stokes

equations,energyequation,the turbulencekinetic energywith its rate of dissipationequations,

masstransferandthe necessaryconstitutiveequations(ideal gaslaw, power law for gasthermal
conductivityandviscosity,etc.). The generalgoverningequationwas
7. (13V
and the mass

conservation

0 can be velocity

an exchange

Parameters:

normalized

chamber

Operating

and

prediction
chamber
based

Gas

Table

parameters

thrust

drop.

and specific

1.

The

pressure
local

Grid
desired

Density

was

values

(i) and turbulence

of geometry

quantities

(K:, 8);/'is

Table

include

prediction

parameters.

They

are

the

and exit area ratios.

1 gives

head

and the selection

The

used

total

as input

end

a summary

pressure

and

of the schemes,

parameters

head-end

of the
FSM-9

models

in addition

conductivity
and

at the bottom

pressure

to the NASA-Lewis

gas temperature

viscosity

Turbulence

for wall

(2)

a summary

that

ballistic

chamber

as given

Conditions:

accuracy

Properties:

gas dynamic

and

(1)

ballistic
measured

and results

to mass

flow

are

rate,

and

impulse.18

(Cp), thermal

local temperature

V)=

with chamber

RSRM

_9 The

the SPP code 21 to obtain

constant

the

the above

formulation

S_

term for O per unit volume.

1 gives

Ballistic

for

Thermophysical

propellant

(u, v, w), enthalpy

and exit radii along

on matching

(p

for 0; S is a source

Predicted

pressure

vacuum

components

coefficient

Geometry

V _)

equation
V.

where

-F_

(To), dynamic

thermal

Modeling:

v+ and the pertinent

program

(ko), and molecular

of Table

given

conductivity

in Table

2 or the ODE

viscosity
weight.
were

1 along
module

(/.to), specific

They

are given

calculated

with

heat

of
at

in Table

as a function

of

1.

Table
results.

2 gives

the turbulence

A coarse

and

models

fine grids

with

used

with the

quadrilateral

cells usedin this simulation and aresummarizedin Table2. They weredesigned,solved,and

iteratedon to give the desiredvaluesfor y+
achieved

as given

in Table

2.

All the

orthogonal

and smoothed

from

Boundary

Conditions:

Boundary

and walls

and discussed

(1) At the propellant

so that consistency

grids

one domain

were

with the turbulence

generated

by using

GRIDGEN

models

was

22 and made

to another.

conditions

are applied

at the propellant

surface,

nozzle

exit,

as follows:
,_u__ace:

Mass

flux was calculated

as a function

of the local

static

pressure

as

(3a)
m

= oc pp a[Ps(x,r)]

where

In addition,
surface,

uniform

an assumed

augmentation

axi-symmetric
(2LA, L.g,r_
were

A supersonic
from

and exit

and temperature
(3) At wall:

flow

)_

direction

that

9 (/), and hydraulic

as 1 for the propellant

to account

(3b)

was

diameter

except

for the three-dimensional

normal

to the

(dh) were

in the head

propellant

specified.

The

end fin region,

where

fins modeled

in two-dimensional

analysis.

calculated

intensity,

intensity,

ct, was used

to 4.528

r_,i_(p.r,1

temperature,

turbulence

factor,

it was increased

chamber

condition

cells

upstream

hydraulic

diameter

were updated

Three

(a) Velocity

boundary

wall boundary

wall boundary

of the
were

as the solution
conditions
condition

was utilized
exit.

The

specified

where
exit

to start

the quantities

pressure,

temperature,

the calculation.

proceeded.
are used and discussed

was assumed

(P, T, u, v, _:, _)

as follows:

to be no slip condition.

The

turbulence
exit pressure

(b) Thermalwall boundaryconditionswere assumedfor the submergedandthe convergingdivergingpart of the nozzlewalls. The submergedwall wasassumedto be isothermalat 2938.5
K (5289.3 R). On the other hand, the nozzle wall was assumedto be non-isothermal.
surface

was

temperature

TableCurve2D

taken

x was taken

2789.03,
0.916,j
user

= 1174.06
defined

enables

along

b = - 4.61,

Assuming

a +cx+ex

23

and

the nozzle

and k = 815.51.

function

(UDF)

curve-fitted

(c) Near

by

this

author

using

4 + jx

the coefficients

coefficient

to compile

profile

enables

the

are given

= - 6.33,

surface

the calculation

of the

coefficient

and

a =
h = -

to be re = 0.997.
temperature
heat

depending

recovery

as follows:

g = - 20712.33,

was calculated

specified

heat transfer
centerline

(4)

flux

profile.

that

in turn

on the assumption

temperatures

are also

of

shown

and

shortly.
wall

turbulence

_c-E and RNG

two-layer

models

of the non-dimensional
wall coordinates

used

4 +kx

e = 32905.45,f

The correlation

Calculated

are the standard

zonal

and where

11.96,

of the convective

temperature.

will be discussed

d=

was

3 d-ix

2 + f x 3 +hx

surface

temperature

the calculation

2 + gx

l+bx+dx

c = -13307.21,

this surface

a reference

Ref.

24 as

Z(x)=
where

from

The

treatment:
_:-e. Near

as described
velocity

Two

wall treatment

in Table

in wall

0 ,) and the frictional

equation

2.

coordinates
velocity

The

turbulence

involved
standard

models

the standard
wall

functions

(u*), non-dimensional

(u_) are defined

were
wall

used.
functions

are given

distance

They

from

and

in terms
wall in

25 as
(5a)

, y*=
u_

for velocity

, u_=
(_p())r

and

l0

(5b)
L

- T_(r)

t +

exit plane

for temperature
In the

at the exit plane.

two-layer

boundary

layer

Reynolds

number

zonal

model, 1' 2 the

is divided

into

sublayer

(viscosity

the low

standard

_-E turbulence

viscosity

affected

turbulent

This model

requires

final

results.

The

Mach

Numerical

Convergence

requirements
iterations

at the nozzle

was

total

increased.
Third,
pressure

a first
ceased

monitor

the

larger

than

eddy

diffusivity

for momentum

is used.

Only

a length

scale

from

solver

1st and

and

Quick

imbalance,

larger

in the

2 nd order

the _ equation
correlation.

K-E turbulence

and therefore

Power

schemes
head-end

were

order

found

pressure,

is called

in the
is

is used.

resources.

and

Quick

schemes

chamber

layer

Fluent 2 was

to give

(e,u)) where

(High-Re)

code
law,

and the higher

and

The second

model

commercial

turbulent

is solved

CPU and memory

Upwind,

turbulent

a wall-distance-based
to the wall

the high standard

used.

schemes.

to obtain

similar
pressure

the

results
drop,

in
and

exit.
Numerical

sequence.
Second,

Rather,

is adjacent

(Low-Re)

(Residuals):

in the following

qualitatively.
average

number

and mass

by

used.

layer

was used to start the problem

rate

not

first

segregated

Upwind

are

The

resolution

were

functions

distinguished

_ is computed

The

2 "d order

flow

model

and where

utilized

scheme

of mass

maximum

while

finer mesh

schemes

1 st Upwind

terms

(v) is much

Schemes:

Differencing
The

region
(v << _)

Computational

layers

(Ret = p _c m Y/At).

viscous

fully

two

wall

the

First,

the residual

profiles

of the

on the

to change.

convergence

total

Fourth,

was
error

variables

pressure
a second

at the

achieved

by satisfying

diminished
ceased

as the number
to change,

propellant

monitor

on

four

the

of

at least

surface

until

the

mass

imbalance

3_3_

between

the inlet

a small

value

(propellant

surface)

and the outlet

(nozzle

exit)

mass

flow

rates until

it reached

10 .5 kg/s).

(10 -3 -

Results
Motor

chamber

parameter

discussed

Motor
MPa

pressure

Chamber
(913.85

pressure

motor

Pressure
psia),

ignition

relative

of the RSRM

the

MPa

ignition.

chamber.

chamber

pressure
19).

2), the

viscosity

drop

the total pressure

along

against

(effective

value

1.23 MPa

by experimental
of equilibrium
in Model

(178 psia).

boundary

and

acceleration

pressure

respectively.

as 6.30
The

static

value

was

Variable

in chamber

to match

total

0.05

and QM-8

was

pressure
ratio

limited

Cu is found
in a strong

pressure

pressure
drop

at the nozzle
motor

(Ref.

27) and
in Table

to 10,000

drop was calculated

was not limited,

homogeneous

MPa

to

and is

0.09

in the

shear

flow.

drop was calculated

(1.17

to

but Cu was

by modelers

to be around

to

the centerline

the calculated

Cu was suggested

chamber

along

whole

at prior

1 and 2a as given

to laminar)

2, the viscosity

in the

end and ended

tests of QM-7

The chamber

2. The motor

pressure

for Cz (Model

turbulent)

and

distribution
and its location

at the head

2 For example,
layers,

agreement

axial

static

psia).

to 0.055."

evidence.

2b of Table

A better

from

2b of Table

of 0.09

cavity

The interest

plus

of 6.28 MPa (910.78

the default

This was applied

transfer

psia),

pressure

submerged

x, started

data

(910

static

the local

coordinate,

(laminar

MPa

the

the

with the default

reduced

sublayer

heat

psia).

and

3 shows

measured

In Model

inertial

6.27

the centerline.

(200 psia).

well substantiated

and

2 shows

Figure

be 1.38 MPa
from

psia),

considered

Figure

For the cases

ratio

(905

The axial

and was measured

(Ref.

convective

21, 26 and 27 give the chamber

was 6.28 MPa (910.78

to the nozzle.

FSM-9

results,

References

geometry

entrance

match

Drop:

6.24

1 shows

at 1 s post

turbulence

next.

used in this study

Figure

drop,

(170 psia))

to be
was

12

achieved
y

were

on a finer

grid using

in the range

between

the high values

adjacent

of aspect

ratio

to the wall at y+ = 1.

coarse

grid

models

used will be given

Model

2c of Table

2.

0.5 and 8 and with

of cells.

with y+ consistent

with

when

some

In addition,

Therefore,

On the other

standard

compared.

scattering.

The

the results

7 of

is because

as calculated

results

of Model

values

of

the first grid point

are reported

functions.

Otherwise,

scattering

1' 2 to locate

in this study

wall

the calculated

The

it is suggested

the results

the

hand,

on a

of all turbulence

2b of Table

2 will be

given.
Also

shown

motors.
static

are

In addition,

chamber

test. 19 These

in the submerged
Turbulence
2b.

the measurements

scattering.

desired

Two

values
The

drop was

were made

The above

Quantities:

The calculated

some

pressure

measurements
region.

of the local

scattering

is because

wall y+ were not fully achieved.

were not pursued

to the nozzle

because

QM-7

to be 1.14 MPa

the head

and

QM-8

(165 psia)

test

in FSM-9

end and in the vicinity

were utilized

grid 7 were

in this study

in the range

of the high

values

The size of this motor

they are cost and time prohibitive.

wall can be estimated

along

of joint

is acceptable.

models

of y+ on the fine

pressure

measured

between

agreement

turbulence

static

between

of aspect
is too large

7 The height

and given

in Table

0.5 and 8 and with

ratio

of cells

and

the

and axial refinements

of the first cell adjacent

as:

21'

A-e (r-r)-

(6)
-l-

Ur

and

in Fig. 4.

To obtain

refinement

in the axial

shown

Additional
numerically
required

and to avoid
for

this

large

y+ < 1 would
direction

cells

of negative

motor.

It was

require

is required
areas.
found

Thus
that

grid refinement

in the

radial

to keep

aspect

ratio

large
large

the cell
number

cell

of cells

aspect

ratio

direction.
acceptable

(in millions)
would

are

generate

33

questionable

scattering

calculated
coarse

chamber

grid.

are mainly
Figure
the

convergent

values

the interest

here

wall

values

between

used

transfer

on the finer

stated

wall y+ along
the

grid compared

of the convective

On

more

the

other

favorably

heat

the converging-diverging
coordinate,

at the nozzle

transfer,

and

part

hand,

than

the

the results

xw, started

of the nozzle.

at the

and values

second

as shown

turbulence

models

For

beginning

exit and was measured

wall y+ profiles

130, the first

coefficient.

otherwise.

axial

and ended

give similar

25 and

heat

is the calculation

(y+, h, etc.)

of the nozzle

All the models

thus

grid unless

the calculated

section

were

y+ and

drop calculated

on the coarse

5 shows

nozzle

wall.

pressure

Since
given

in wall

along

the rtozzle

in Fig. 5.
used

of the

were

Since

the

consistent

with grid resolution.

Calculated

flow quality

in comparison
Velocity

of the present

with the velocity

Law of the

with the famous

i.e. the Spalding's

y+

Wall:

and thermal
Figure

incompressible
profile:

results
laws

6 shows

turbulent

is shown

of the wall for incompressible

the present

velocity

of y + vs. u + and y+ vs. t + and

in terms

results

turbulent

at the nozzle

flow.

exit in comparison

law of the wall for an external

boundary

layer,

2s

u + + exp(-

x" B)[exp(x"

where

_ and B were

taken 2s as 0.4 and

above

law were incompressible,

u +)-

5.5,

negligible

1-

(x" 2u+):

x" u +

respectively.

stream-wise

The

main

advection,

(h" 6u+)']

(7a)

assumptions

made

no axial pressure

in the

gradient,

and

no transpiration.
The

first flow cell from

Spalding's
velocity

the present

profile 28 was achieved

law of the wall yielded

study

around

was located

y+ = 25.

at y+ of 29.

Furthermore,

16.8 for u . The present

Very

good

agreement

with

at y+ = 100, the incompressible

calculations

for compressible

turbulent

14

flow

using

Model

1, Model

They

are depressed

respectively.
The

corresponding

is unwarranted.

1)

comparison

of increasing

T,JTaw

On the other

hand,

incompressible

u below

Temperature
of the

wall

compare
nozzle

a cold wall (heat

Law of the
exist

nor

Wall:

conclusions

with incompressible
exit in comparison

temperature

velocity

t+=

where
made

Prt and

in the above

gradient,
Only
100,

l were

law were

(compressibility,

2a, but partially

y-

9_ur 2)/(2
velocity

with Model

by White. 28 To

made
flow.

Similarly,
law

boundary

The

were:

u above
in Model

turbulent
again

the present

as 0.85

and

incompressible,

the
2b.

thermal

law

we need
results

incompressible

to

at the

turbulent

layer was taken 25 as

; y* < 13.2

+--

by

of the. wall.

to raise

dismay,

Fig. 7 shows

of the wall.

made

2b.

compressible
our

and

Cp Tw)), for a

law

This is the case partially

were

15.8,

involved

conclusions

flux, fl =_qw Vw / Tw kw ur) tends

neither

and

His conclusions

turbulent

hand,

13.2Pr

taken

with

law of the wall.

incompressible

with the temperature

t = Pr y*

16.3,

respectively.

in agreement

law of the wall.

law of the wall for an external

16.1,

law of the wall 28 is a lot more

On the other

turbulent

yielded

velocity

number

the

2)

and -5.95%,

1 and Model

turbulent

(Table

-2.98%,

velocity

high Mach

depress

2b

is partially

turbulent

This is the case in Model

2)

Model

turbulent

the compressible

The effect
given

above

and

by-4.17%,

compressible

This

White 28 regarding

2a,

(7b)

in

0.41,

; y*___13.2

respectively.
negligible

Once

stream-wise

again,

the main

advection,

assumptions

no axial

pressure

and no transpiration.
a qualitative

the incompressible

agreement
thermal

with the thermal

law

of the wall

law of the wall is achieved.

yielded

10.9 for t .

The

Similarly,
present

at y+ =

calculations

15

using

Model

depressed
present

i, Model

2a, and Model

by -22.02%,

-25.69%,

study is correlated

2b (Table

and -44.95%,

by the present

author

from Model

2b of Table

COD,

25 < y* <IO00,

the higher

Heat

at constant

will be given,

an integral

+ 1.709 ln(y+)];

2. The

"COD"

the quality

Transfer:
pressure

shown

25 < y <1000,

(7c)

COD=0.83

(7d)

29 < y+ < 1000, COD = 0.63

is the coefficient

of the correlation.

of determination
These

The ratio of the convective

(h/Cp)

and

1 and 2), followed

method

In Method
between

COD=0.80

(7e)

of a correlation.

correlations

apply

The

to compressible

flow.

Convective

(Methods

in Fig. 7 from the

2a, and

from Model

heat

shown

are

to give the following:

t* = [3.965 + 0.4292 In(y*)];

turbulent

The data

They

1, and

t = [-0.4793

higher

8.5, 8.1, and 6, respectively.

respectively.

N = [0.1525 + 1.618 ln(y*)];

from Model

2) yielded

(Method

finally

and the chamber

normalized
temperature

by eight

discussed.

by four

The

approximate

first

internally
specified

using

wall

two

coefficient

methods.

methods

(Methods

used

the calculated

finite

temperature,

eight

methods

volume

CFD

3, 4, 5 and 6), followed

heat flux based

given

to the specific

The

data from measurements

temperature

used as a reference

transfer

different

methods

7) and then using backed-out

1, it was calculated

the local

was calculated

heat

by Eq. (4) and

(Method

by
8).

on the difference
shown

in Fig.

i.e.,

(8a)

and is shown

h_(x)

q.

(x)

c [To- L

in Fig. 9.

2.6

In Method

2, it was calculated

using

the recovery

/h(x)

temperature

and defined

as
(9a)

qw (x)

c,
and shown

in Fig. 9. The recovery

temperature

25 is given

r ,(x)- r (x)+
and

where

9i' i(x) = [Pri(x)]

I/3 was

used

as

[ro- r.(x)]

for turbulent

flow

and

(9b)

was

calculated

locally.

The
-

temperature

at the

temperature

along

was

calculated

yields

temperature

centerline

motor

The chamber

1 which

Methods

of the boundary

the motor

at the

temperature.
as

edge

conditions
and shown

centerline

and

(To) and recovery

1 for

9i'2 which

(T g. w ) in the cell

in Fig.

shown

and

along

replaced
The

8.

in Fig.

temperature

corresponds

adjacent

has been

recovery

8 to be

temperature

less

than

(Taw. 2) were matched

to an ideal
the nozzle

situation.
wall.

axial

(Taw, 1)
chamber

only by taking

Also

Good

the

static

shown

agreement

the

Pr
gas

between

1 and 2 is shown.

The four approximate

used turbulent

methods

(Methods

3, 4, 5 and 6) are discussed

flow over a flat plate 17 which

is not shown

correct

profile.

maximum

in Fig.
It appears

occurred

9, because
approximating

at the start

next.

The third method

is

h3(x)=o'o296[Re(x)]SPr(x)_/3I_(-_](--_p

and

by the local

ICp

it overestimates

the

this large

nozzle

of the nozzle

and decreased

heat

transfer

(10)

and

as a fiat plate
along

does

not have

is not plausible.

the wall

as expected

the
The

for flow

over a flat plate.

The
which

fourth

method

used

the modified

Reynolds'

analogy

for laminar

flow

over

a fiat plate 17

is,

3_7

21C x3IRe
ll lx Pr x
(lla)

where

the local skin friction

is calculated

as

rw(x)

and is not shown

in Fig. 9. Again,

profile.

In addition,

Methods

The

fifth method

used

this method

overestimates

3 and 4 are not shown

the Dittus-Boelter

(llb)

the heat transfer

to reduce

17 correlation

but has the correct

clutter.

for fully-developed

turbulent

pipe flow

as

(12)

h'(x -ooe3tRe (x "Pr(xrrk(x

kd(x J ](Ic
and is shown
heating

in Fig. 9. The exponent

n for Pr was taken

as 0.3 for cooling

(Tw < T=) and 0.4 for

(Tw > T,o) per Fig. 8.

The sixth method

10 correlation

used the Bartz

(13a)
h6(x)
Cp

and shown

in Fig. 9.

heat transfer,
subscript
chamber

IO'026Ifl_CPlrP
_(d')8
_, Pr 6

It was based

as given

"o",

conditions.

on a similar

previously.

on the

second
Prandtl

"8(d'11](
_

/@)

The terms
term

in the

number

A"
_A(x))

correlation

of fully developed

in the bracket
bracket,

at chamber

I 9=_o'(x)(k(x)ll
_.d(x))

are constant

signifies

conditions

properties
was evaluated

turbulent

for a single
are

pipe flow
nozzle.

to be evaluated

at

1 using

4y

Pro=

The

(13b)

97-5
and

was

constant.

calculated
Using

to be 0.843.
lower

values

The
for

Pr

ratio

of specific

(= 0.5)

heats

as in this

is calculated
study,

would

from

Cp and

overestimate

the gas
h/Cp

as

3.8

calculated

by Eq. (13a).

The characteristic

exhaust

velocity

was calculated

as

(rRr,)

-"

(13c)
y+l

The

first

d2(x)).

term
The

variations

outside

the bracket

second

term

of density

outside

and viscosity

7+1

in Eq. (13a)

is a function

the

or(x), is a dimensionless

bracket,

across

the boundary

or(x) =

layer.

of nozzle

03 is taken

between

seventh

method

symmetric
The

to be 0.6.

This

dimensionless

= (rd4)

accounting

in Bartz

for

1o to be

method
solves,

boundary

eighth

measured
The

used

simultaneously

(13d)

parameter

was

_T

calculated

and

found

to vary

following

used

erosion

are observations

(1) They

all have

similar

turbulent

Layer

(TBL)

momentum

and

code 29 and

energy

is shown

equations

Fig.

9.

for thin

axi-

decrease

(analogous

expected.

It was found

data 23 that is used

and comparisons

in CMA

code 8 to match

the

profiles.

along

the

to the leading
that,

between

the CFD

results

(Methods

1 and 2)

3 to 8) as:

along

They
nozzle

flow over a flat plate (Method

the nozzle

(h/Cp)

profile.

(Methods

then

the integral

backed-out

methods

and

Boundary

layers.

method

nozzle

the Turbulent

and the other

throat

(A(x)

1.03 and 1.16.

The
TBL

area

factor

It is shown

[1Tw(X)(l+_-_-_Mg'w2(X)l+2]8-_(l+Y-lMg'w2(X))
O

where

local

3).
edge

all increase
wall

Method

with

the

3 shows

of a flat plate)

the last 40%

to a maximum
exception

of the

the maximum

and decreases

of the nozzle

length,

in the vicinity
correlation

to occur
along
the flat

of the
for the

at the start of

the nozzle
plate

wall

as

correlation

!9

becomes

reasonable.

(2) Methods
upstream

nozzle

predicts

1 and

throat.

to occur
area

to occur
obtained

models

(4) At the nozzle

as 4, 4.32,

6, 12.09,

The values

from

7.3%

and -20.5%,

data 23 (Method
comparison

be in disagreement.
transfer.
was

(particle

of heat

(excluding

manner
the

and

effects
would

nose-tip),

all

(with

modified

the nozzle.

maximum

to occur

and 6 (Bartz)

is heavily

show

dependent

Reynolds'

on

analogy)

also

the exception

This

confirms

kg/m2-s

Method

1 by 0.0%,

Method

1 and

202.3%,
Results

3.1%,

of Method

from the backed-out

34.9%,

respectively.

was

is within

devised

combined.

Therefore,

comparing

approach.

In the

to match

and conductive),

the

26%

2) are restricted

radiative

over-predict

are taken

This

3 fall out of the chart.

(convective,

methods

transfer

8, respectively.

50.0%,

7 differ

22.3%,

8 (backed-out)

(Methods

of (h/Cp)*

in Fig. 10.

1 through

29.6%,

of Method

8 (backed-out)

be a sound

of heat

1 through

8.0%,

is shown

280.2%,

values

for Methods

from Methods

1 and Method
results

3 (fiat plate))_ were

the dependency

9, the following

This comparison

88.7%,

of Method

of y+.

3.18

8 differ

35.8%,

present

transfer

impingement)

in a relative

4.29,

the values

Method

hand,

the

of methods

4 (the

used Fig.

in Fig. 10. Results

The

On the other

a result

the data

1 through

Similarly,

between

show

along

5 (Dittus-Boelter)

group

Method

in Fig. 5.

respectively.

is also shown

The comparison

shown

3.89,

8) by 25.8%,

less important

at the throat.

From

4.12,

Methods

The latter

from all Methods

throat:

4 fall out of the chart.

throat.

become

8 (backed-out)

hand,

as well as the value

Methods

effects
and

completeness,

to the y* distribution

on the turbulence

7 (TBL),

On the other

For

the maximum

analogous

curvature

at the nozzle

ratio.

(3) The profiles

2.8%,

2 (CFD),

of the nozzle

the maximum
the

This is because

ratio

converging

to

heat

nozzle

that

results
section

The

seem

to convective

chemical,

the present

h/C r.

and may

heat

erosion

and

mechanical

and Method
of the
transfer

nozzle
in the

20

convergence

section

may

(transpiring)

surface

and

nozzle

wall

nozzle

throat,

used

along

along

would

wall

wall.

some

not modeled

that

inhibit

surface

would

flow as a film that would

insulate

the nozzle,

less agreement

may be attributed

observations

made

experience

and

8.

in post

heat

observations,

heat

the nozzle

and

some

Some

and inhibit

exit

flight

tests

conclusions

factors

of

have

used

implications.

One

boundary_

the

heat

In the diverging

this

condensed

motor. 23

to be made

through

may

section

length.

impingement
Based

layer

phase

of the nozzle

of particle

points

are 320 data

Furthermore,

because

At the

12 data

as a thick

transfer.

to the

transfer.

there

such

adjacent

that

has great

8 in the last 40%

cone

heat

It is to be noted
study,

is an ablating

layer

and

the heat transfer

transfer.

wall

boundary

in the present

with Method

to eroded

nozzle

reactions

8 by 26%.

While,

The
The

chemical

transfer.

inhibit

static

study.

over-predict

is obtained

disagreement

inhibit

Method

in Method

effects.

in this

that

All the methods

factors

and a transpiring

by chemical

1 over-predicts

the nozzle

concludes

was

be oxidizer-poor

Method

the nozzle

be inhibited

of

This

based

on this

heuristic

on

author's

arguments

alone.
(5) In the

vicinity

downstream

decrease-increase-decrease.
surface

temperature

K (1062

decreases

(250 psia).

0.5

at 2000
when

experimentally
boundary

(Fig. 8).

R) within

temperature

This

K (3600

in the

condition
The JPL

was

drop

and
has

was

This

was

the

sudden

Laboratory

was
a throat

throat,

operated
radius

the

attributed

of the throat,

re-laminarize.

Propulsion

used

nozzle

ft).

R) and

flow

Jet

sudden

nozzle

In the vicinity

m (1.64

turbulent

of the

easily
drop

present
to the large

the surface
verified
was

nozzle.

at a maximum
of about

temperature

by specifying

this
TM

have

dropped

drop

13-15

An

surface

heat
was

transfer
detected

isothermal

pressure

2 cm (0.8 in) that

by 590

uniform
The

sudden

chamber

a sudden

drop in the specified

not calculated.

Furthermore,
(JPL)

results

amounts

wall

of 1.72 MPa
to about

21

percent

of the

turbulent

throat

size

boundary

layer

in this

study.

This

re-laminarization

is the reason

discussed

for considering

in terms

the

of acceleration

possibility

parameter

of

in the

next section.
Acceleration
external

Parameter:

boundary

layer

The

acceleration

parameter,

3x10 6.

in Fig.

Therefore,

acceleration

11.

The

calculated

re-laminarization

parameter

was

calculated

from '5 based

on

as

p.(x u (x)
and is shown

KI,

was

l / x106

values

of KI were

of the turbulent

translated

by Coon

smaller

boundary

and

Perkins

than

layer

,14a

the transition

did not occur.

3 into terms

more

value
The

pertinent

of

above
to tube

flow as
(14b)

The maximum

calculated

values

of K1 and 1(2 were smaller

as 3x 10 -6 and 1.5x 10 -6, respectively.

Therefore,

than the transition

re-laminarization

values

of the turbulent

given

above

boundary

layer

did not occur.

Summary
The following

Two

economy
relative

been

summary

turbulence

models

and execution
comparison

Convective
compared

and conclusions

time,

with

have

and two types

RNG

reached:
treatment

standard

were

used in this study.

wall functions

gives

reasonable

Based

on

results

in

data. 23

coefficients

approximate

been
of wall

_:-e with

with the backed-out

heat transfer

and Conclusions

methods,

have

been

Bartz

calculated

correlation,

using
turbulent

two

methods.
boundary

They
layer

have
(TBL)

22

theory

code,

and backed-out

The

interdependency

Therefore,

consistency

The accuracy

ballistic

of

the

between

of mass

flow

rate,

chamber

Convective

heat transfer

coefficients

coefficient

comparison

to the specific

data

was devised

and

conductive),

to match

pressure

and

erosion

and

wall

cannot

mechanical

been

shown.

are based

on matching

the RSRM

head

pressure,

and

thrust

data

end

of the ratio

a result
(shear

with

existing

of the convective

heat

transfer

manner.

transfer

particle

and

favorably

in a relative

of heat

vacuum

to be good.

and compared

was made

that was

has

be over-emphasized.

drop and was found

pressure

y*

and results

were calculated

at constant

nozzle

chemical,

transfer
model

maximum

with backed-out

heat

tests.

heat

of the schemes

and measured

Qualitative

and flight

a grid and a turbulence

impulse

theory.

on post static

convective

and the selection

predictions

specific

data based

Backed-out

(convective,

impingement

radiative

forces)

effects

in Solid

Rocket

combined.

References
_FLUENT

5 Solver

Training

2FLUENT

5 User's

Guide,

3Golafshani,
Motors

M. and

Using

Study,"
Reno,

H.T.

and

AIAA

the

Evaluation

H.T.,

Flux-Split

Paper

R.H.,

Fluent

Inc., TRN-1998-006,

95-0084,

Dec.

1998.

Inc., July 1998.

"Computation

of Two-Phase

Eulerian-Lagrangian

25th Joint Propulsion

Chwalowski,

NV, Jan. 9-12,

5Whitesides,

Fluent

Loh,

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
*Loh,

Notes,

P., "One

and

Viscous

Technique,"

Conference,
Two-Phase

Flow

AIAA

Monerey,

Paper

CA, July 10-12,

Converging-Diverging

AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE

33rd

89-2785,

Aerospace

1989.

Nozzle
Sciences

Flow

Meeting,

1995.
Dill,

R.A. and Purinton,

of

Asbestos-Free

D.C.,
Insulation

"Application
in

of Two-Phase
the

RSRM,"

CFD

Analysis

to

AIAA-97-2861,

23

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
6Laubacher,

B.A.,

2000-3803,
16-19,

"Internal

Flow

Analysis

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE

36th

Conference,
of Large

Joint

Seattle,

L/D

Solid

Propulsion

WA, July 6-9, 1997.

Rocket

Motors,"

Conference,

AIAA

Huntsville,

Paper

A.L,

July

Booster

for

2000.

7Ahmad,
the

33rd Joint Propulsion

R.A.,

Space

"Internal

Transportation

Propulsion
SMcBride,

Center

(COSMIC),

Athens,

Georgia,

9Ahmad,

_Bartz,
Transfer

Massier,

and Kays,

Heat Mass

Boundary-Layer
l*13ack, L.H.,

Equation

P.F.,

P.M.

L.H.,

Coefficients

Jet Propulsion,

Velocity

W.M.,
Varying

Transfer,
P.F.,

Heat Transfer
Massier,

and

Journal.

and

Massier,

Rocket

AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE

37th

Joint

2001.

S., "CMA-

Charring

Computer

Software

of Georgia

Engineering,

Intern.

Free-Stream

13Back,

"Discharge

Nozzle,"

12Moretti,

1.6,"

Solid

Office

Material

Thermal

Management

Response

and

of Computing

and

Transfer

Axisymmetric

and

Information

Information

Services,

1994.

Coefficients,"

Divergent

Performance

AIAA-2001-3585,

and Gordon,
Version

"A Simple

L.H.,

of Enhanced

City, UT, July 8-11,

University

Transfer

D.R.,

llBack,

Journal.

The
May

Heat

M.A.,

SEE01,

R.A.,

Nozzles,"

Salt Lake

B.J., Reno,

Program,

Simulation

System,"

Conference,

Ablation

Flow

P.F.,

Vol.
and

and

Heat

Quarterly

International,

for Rapid

Estimation

for

Vol. 22, No. 6, Dec. 2001.

of Rocket

Vol. 27, No. 1, pp. 49-51,

Gier,

H.L.,

Heat Mass
"Heat

"Convective
Transfer,

Transfer

Surface

in Nozzles,"
and Cuffel,

R.F.,

"Some

AIAA
R.F.,

Heat

to a Turbulent

8, pp. 1187-1202,
Cuffel,

Dec.

Convective

Heat

1957.
Transfer

Boundary

An

in a ConvergentMay
Layer

Experimental

1964.
With

Varying

Study,"

Intern.

1965.
Observations

J., Vol. 4, No.

"Flow

Nozzle

Vol. 7, pp. 549-568,

Temperature

Supersonic

Phenomena

on Reduction

12, Dec.

of Turbulent

1966 pp. 2226-2229.

and Convective

Heat

Transfer

24

in a Conical

Supersonic

Nozzle,"

Journal

of Spacecraft

and Rockets,

Vol.

4, No. 8, Aug.

1967,

pp. 1040-1047.
_SBack, L., H., Cuffel,
in Nozzle
of Heat

Flow - Boundary
Transfer,

16Wang,
Purpose

R.F.,

Q.,

Layer

Vol. 92, Series

"On

CFD

and Massier,

the

Codes,"

and Heat

"Laminarization

Transfer

C, No. 3, Aug.

Prediction
AIAA

P.F.,

Measurements

Boundary

Layer

with Wall

Cooling,"

Journal

Coefficients

Using

General-

1970, pp. 333-344.

of Convective

Paper

of a Turbulent

Heat

2001-0361,

AIAA

Transfer

39 th Aerospace

Sciences

Meeting,

.Reno,

NV, Jan. 8-11, 2001.

17Incropera,

F.P. and Dewitt,

18Wiesenberg,
Thiokol

B.,

Corp.,

19Manuel,

B.J.,

With Applications,"
21Nickerson,

(SPP),"

Rev.

Report

Reno,

for

A., July

Space

Transfer,

Shuttle

Wiley,

Reusable

New
Solid

York,

1985.

Rocket

Motor,"

1997.

for CTP-0179

J.T.,
Version

M.A.,

Lewis

NASA

G.R.,
"The

- Static

Gordon,

Computer

Coats,

D.E.,

6.0, Vol.

Program

Dang,

A.L.,

Rocket

1-4, AFAL-TR-87-078,

23Maw,

"Aero/Thermal

Version

S.,

Test Plan for FSM-9,"

"CET93

4557,

Dunn,

Motor

Thiokol

Propulsion,

Dec.

of the RSRM

CETPC:

An

Complex

Interim

Updated

Chemical

Equilibria

Hermsen,

R.L.,

1994.

S.S.,

Berker,

Performance

13" by Pointwise,

Analysis

and

for Calculating

Memorandum

Solid Propellant

User Manual

J.F.,

and

Technical

22GRIDGEN

Corp.,

Book

to Heat

Sept. 2001.

of the NASA

Lamberty,

Data

TWR-16881,

2McBride,
Version

"Design

L.J., "Final

TWR-76760,

D.P., Introduction

D.R.,

Prediction

Computer

TWR-17219,

Rev.

and

Program

1987.
Inc.

1998.

Nozzle,"

D, Thiokol

Feb. 20, 1997, p. 22.

24TableCurve

2D V 5.0/3D

V 3.0 automated

surface

fitting

software,

Jandel

Scientific,

San

25

Rafael,

CA,

25Kays,

W.M.

New York,
26A

1993.
and Crawford,

Chaps.

user's

Segmented

Guide

for Computer

L., "QM-7

TWR-63695,

Thiokol

Viscous

29Elliot,

D.G.,

Bartz,

(NASA),

Internal
Series

Transfer

C.W.

Fluid
D.R.,

No.

Motors,"

Thiokol

and Mass

Flow,

Transfer,

and Perkins,

Convective
C, No. 3, Aug.

Flow

H.C.,

with

Pressure

3 rd ed., McGraw-Hill,

(JPL)

Large

Property

Ballistics

Program

for

1982.

Calculated

from

York,

Strain

Gauge

Variation,"

and

No. 32-387,

the Turbulent
Journal

Chaps.

Data,"

6 and 7, 1991.

Boundary

Aeronautics

Report

From

New

of Turbulent

National

Technical

"Transition

Internal

1992.

S., "Calculation

Nozzles,"

- An

Propulsion,

2 na ed., McGraw-Hill,

and Silver,

Laboratory

SCB02

Axial

30 March

in Axi-symmetric

Jet Propulsion

3Coon,

Heat

program

Transient

Corporation,

F.M.,

Heat

Rocket

and QM-8

28White,

and

Convective

11 and 13, 1993.

Solid Propellant

27Gruet,

M.E.,

Space

Feb.,

Layer

Administration

1963.

to the Laminar
of Heat

Growth

Transfer,

Regime
Vol.

for
92,

1970, pp. 506-512.

26

Table

1:

Summary

operating

ballistic

predictions,

and

of

geometry,

conditions,
gas

ballistic

thermophysical

properties.
Geometry
ro/r*

1.50

rer*

2.63

Ao/A *

2.065

Ae/A *

7.72

Ballistic

Operating
Conditions
(TWR16881, Rev. A (Ref 1877

P o (M Pa, psia)
Chamber

Pressure

6.28 (910.787
Drop

Test (Ref.
LIP, (MPa,

(FSM-9
9))

psia)

1.138,

Gas Tbermophvsieal

Cp (J/kg-K,
ko (W/m-K,
MW

3419.2, 6164.56
9.25x10 5,
6.22x10 5

lbm/ft-s)
Btu/lbm-R)
Btu/hr-fl-R)

(k_/kgmole)

165

Properties

To (K, R)
/20 (kg/m-s,

Static

1966.54,
0.397,

0.47
0.229

28.46,

where _ =
/1 = /Zo (T/To) ( , k = ko (T/Tofl
0.66687
as calculated
from
NASA-Lewis
Program

(Ref. 20).

27

Table

2 CFD

calculated

pertinent

Parameters

results

for the RSRM

Coarse

Grid (105,850

at 1 sec burn time

Fine Grid

cells)

(376,100
Model
Viscous
Near

Model

Standard

Model

K-

RNG

2a
a K-E

Model

2b

RNG _ 1-c

cells)
Model2c
RNG

1-c

Standard
Wall

Standard

Two-

Wall

Functions

Functions

Functions

Layer
Zonal

20 < y <
100

20 < y <
100

20 < y+ <
100

Cjj

0.09

t.tt / _

104

0.09
10 4

Wall

Treatment

Standard
Wall

Model
Desired

wall y+

0.055
106

<1

0.055-0.06
104._._106

P s. ,,_. cro (M Pa, psia)

6.29,911.90

6.30,913.62

6.34,
919.14

6.28,
911.16

Po.,,,_x, CFD(MPa,

6.29,911.99

6.30,913.71

6.45,
934.92

6.28,
911.26

2.65%

0.05%

% difference
% difference

psia)

in Po (Using
in mass

Table

1)

flow rate

AP (M Pa, osia)
% difference

in AP (Using
Iterations
used

_.-RNG (renormalization

group

Table

1)

0.13%
3.55

3.59

3.58

3.61

-1.01%

-0.92%

-0.71%

-0.11%

1.38,200
21.21%

1.38,200

2000
theory),

0.32%

% difference

21.21%

1.23, 178
7.88%

2000
= (calculated

1.17, 170
3.03%

4000
/ predicted

5OOO

- 1) x 100

28

2.0

"_

Propellant

1.5_

0.5
1.0

_No
zzle

67.0

67.5

68.0

68.5

69.0

69.5

70.0

x/r*

Fig. 2 RSRM

cavity

at prior

to ignition

time.

3O

6 _40_

5.08040_

M_x

Min P

2. _6e+_6
Enlarged

I .'auo_,c6

_. 6_-,-,-,-,-,_
+04

Mar 08, 200 2

FLUENT 6.0 (a,xi, sagr_gat_,
mgko)

ContoursofStaticPrQssum (pascal)

Fig.

1 Geometry

and pressure

(M Pa, psia) _ 6.34,

919.54;

distribution
number

in the RSRM

of levels

at I s post ignition

= 10; 0, 0 < riPs (M Pa, psia)

time,
<_0.634,

0, 0 _<Ps
91.95.

29

--Model

1(Table
2)

---

-.-

Model

2a (Table

2)

....

Model

2b (Table

---

- -.Model

2c (Table

2)

QM-7

Test Motor

FSM-9

2)
[27]

<>

QM-8

Test Motor

[27]

[19]

1.05

0.95

0.9

0.85
<>
0.8

0.75
15

30

45

60

75

x/r*

Fig. 3 Local
centerline

axial

static

of the RSRM

pressure

along

the

at I s post ignition.

31

350
A_

300
250
200
150
100
50
0

Fig.

For y+ =1

/
+_'t

4 Estimated

height

[]

[]

of cell

adjacent

to the

wall

32

-_,
-

r/r*,Nozzle
radius
Model 2a (Table 2)
3

----

--- Model
- --Model

1 (Table 2)
2b (Table 2)
150

2.5

125

100

"_ 1.5

75

50

0.5

O f

67.5

--

--

_ I ....

69.5

--

_ _ '

71.5

_ t

'

+_

25

'

73.5

x /r"

Fig.

5 Local

diverging

wall

section

y along
of the

the

RSRM

convergingnozzle

at 1 s

post ignition.

33

---

---

....
--25

Model

1 (Table

Model

2a (Table2)

Model

2b (Table

- ,, Velocity

2)

2)

Law of the Wall [28]

2o F
I

is 3

10
5
...

- _

y+ = 26

0
1

10

100

1000

Fig. 6 Comparison

of the velocity

wall with the RSRM

nozzle

law of the

calculations

at

exit.

34

_Model

1 (Table

--....

--

2a (Table2)
2b (Table 2)

---

Model
Model
..Thermal

law

2)

of the Wall

[25]

f
b

J
1

10

1
0-

+,..

sl

uF

,o w

J'

.J
h

LLn

10

ILk

100

1000

Fig.
the

7 Comparison
wall

with

the

of the temperature
RSRM

nozzle

hlLJ

law of

calculations

at exit.

35

1.00

Tow, z / To

2.5

0.91
Taw, 1 / To

0.82
r/r

_2

0.73

._1.5

-..
b.

0.64

Tw / TaN
Tg, w / To

0.5

0.55

Iw / lo
Tcz / To

0
67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

x/r

Fig. 8 Local

specified

surface

temperature

and calculated

temperatures

in the RSRM

at 1 s

post ignition.

26

--r/r*,Nozzle
....

Radius

---

---

--

o --Dittus-Boelter

CFD,

Method

Bartz

[10] - Method

Backed-out

[23] - Method

CFD,

Method

TBL Code

Throat

1
[17] - Method

[29] - Method

Location

4.8

1.5

2.4 _

i/
0.5

0.8

i
Throat

1.6

Location

_ ................

67.5

_ ........

68.5

69.5

70.5

71.5

72.5

0.0
73.5

74.5

x/r*

Fig.

9 Local

(Methods

convective

heat

transfer

on the

nozzle

wall

of the

RSRM

at 1 s post

ignition

3 and 4 are not shown).

37

<>Difference
fromMethod

Method

_=

Method

from Method

<>

50
40

I D Difference

--rq

[]

30
20

rq
[]

kl

<>
-10
-20
-30
1

Method

Fig.
throat

10

Comparison
among

of heat

transfer

at the

all methods

38

--r/r*,
---

NozzleRadius

--

....
3

Based

on External

Boundary

Layer

Based

on Internal

Boundary

Layer

3.6E-08

"

2.4E-08

._ "_

1.2_os

._ ._

4t_
t_

........
67.5

1.0E-13

',........

69.5

71.5

73.5

x/r*

Fig. 11 An acceleration
on

external

along

and

the nozzle

Parameter

internal
centerline

(K) based

boundary
of the RSRM

layers
at 1

s post ignition.

39