16.

512, Rocket Propulsion

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez
Lecture 8: Convective Heat Transfer: Other Effects

Overall Heat Loss and Performance Effects of Heat Loss

(1) Overall Heat Loss

i
The local heat loss per unit area is qw = ρucp ( Taw − Tw ) St , and using m = ρuπR2 , the
integrated heat loss is

L 2
⎛ dR ⎞
Qw
x =0
∫qw 2πR ds ; ds = 1 + ⎜ ⎟ dx
⎝ dx ⎠
dx (small angles) (1)

L i L
m i dx
Qw ∫ πR 2
cp ( Taw − Tw ) St 2πR dx = m cp ( Taw − Tw ) St 2
∫ (2)
R
0 0

For an approximate evaluation, assume the quantity cp ( Taw − Tw ) St is a weak

function of x, and treat it as a constant. We then obtain

L L
Qw Taw − Tw dx ⎛ Tw ⎞ dx
i Tc
2St
R (x)∫ ⎜⎜1 −
⎝
⎟ 2St
Tc ⎟⎠ ∫ R (x) (3)
m cp Tc 0 0

L
⎛L ⎞ dx Tw 1 1
For many rockets, ⎜ ⎟ ≡
⎝ R ⎠eff ∫ R (x)
0
is of the order of 6-10, and
Tc
∼ − , so the
4 3
Qw
ratio i
(heat loss divided by total enthalpy flux) is of the order of 8-16 times
m cp Tc

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 8

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 1 of 6
the Stanton number. As we found before, St is itself ~ 0.001, leading to fraction
heat losses of the order of 1-2%. While this is a small fraction, its absolute value
may be large, because the total thermal power is enormous. As an example, for the
SSME engine

i F 2 × 106 N J
m cp Tc = cp Tc × 2770 × 3600 K ,
C 4500 m s KgK

i
or m cp Tc = 4.4 × 109 W (the output power of four large power stations).

A 1.5% fraction of this means 66 MW lost to the walls (some 80,000 HP).

(2) Effect on Performance

As a starting guess, we could imagine that all of the losses ( Qw ) are reflected in an
equal amount of kinetic energy loss in the exhaust. If ue0 is the exist velocity with
no losses,

i ⎛u u2 ⎞
2
e
m⎜ 0 − e ⎟ Qw (4)
⎜ 2 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠

But a little reflection shows that the kinetic energy loss must be less than Qw .

Indeed, heat losses that occur near the nozzle exit plane are almost irrelevant for
performance, because the thermodynamic efficiency of the remaining expansion
from the point of loss to the exhaust is very small, so very little of that loss is
reflected in a kinetic energy decrease.

So, for the time being, we simply acknowledge this by writing

i ⎛u u2 ⎞
2
e
m ⎜ 0 − e ⎟ < Qw (5)
⎜ 2 2 ⎟
⎝ ⎠

2Qw ue 2Q
or ue > u2e0 − or > 1− i w (6)
i ue0
m mu2e0

⎡ γ −1 ⎤
⎢ ⎛P ⎞ 2 ⎥
Remembering that u2e0 2 = cp ( Tc − Te ) = cp Tc ⎢1 − ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ ⎥,
⎢ ⎝ Pc ⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 8

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 2 of 6
 ⎛ i ⎞
⎜ Qw m cp Tc ⎟
ue
> 1− ⎝ γ −1
⎠ (7)
ue0
⎛P ⎞ γ
1−⎜ e ⎟
⎝ Pc ⎠

Qw
If the fractional loss i
is of order 1.5% and the expansion efficiency
m cp Tc

γ −1
⎛P ⎞ γ u 1 0.015
η = 1 − ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ is of order 75%, then e > 1 − = 1 − 0.01 (i.e., a loss of less
P
⎝ c⎠ u e0
∼ 2 0.75
than 1% in specific impulse, ignoring the exit pressure contribution).

The calculation can be made more precise by tracking the evolution of the gas
temperature. The total energy equation, accounting for the losses, is

Tc
i dht ⎛ dT du ⎞
m = ρuA ⎜ cp +u ⎟ −qw 2πR = − ρucp ( Taw − Tw ) St 2πR
dx ⎝ dx dx ⎠

dT du 2St
or cp +u =− cp ( Tc − Tw ) (8)
dx dx R

But the momentum equation (ignoring, somewhat inconsistently, the effects of

du dp du 1 dp
friction), gives ρ u + = 0 , or u =− . Substituting in (8),
dx dx dx ρ dx

dT 1 dp 2St
cp = − cp ( Tc − Tw )
dx ρ dx R

1 dp γ − 1 1 dp
Divide by cp T and note that =
ρ cp T dx γ p dx

1 dT γ − 1 1 dp 2St Tc − Tw
= − (9)
T dx γ p dx R T

γ −1
T ⎛P ⎞ γ
Without the heat loss term, this would integrate to = ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ , the ideal flow
Tc ⎝ Pc ⎠
(isentropic) relation. More generally now,

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 8

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 3 of 6
 γ −1
T ⎛P ⎞ γ ⎡ L 2S T − T ⎤
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
Tc ⎝ Pc ⎠
exp ⎢ −
⎢ R ∫
t c
T
w
dx ⎥
⎥
(10)
⎣ 0 ⎦

and since the exponent is a small number,

γ −1
T ⎛P ⎞ γ ⎡ L
2St Tc − Tw ⎤
= ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟
Tc ⎝ Pc ⎠
⎢1 −
⎢ ∫ R T
dx ⎥
⎥
(11)
⎣ 0 ⎦

To evaluate the correction term, we use for T the undisturbed T, as if no heat loss
had happened. This gives

γ −1
Tc − Tw T − Tw Tc ⎛ Tw ⎞ ⎛ Pc ⎞ γ
= c ⎜⎜1 − ⎟⎜ ⎟
T Tc T ⎝ Tc ⎟⎠ ⎝ P ⎠

⎛ T ⎞
and we also assume that St ⎜⎜1 − w ⎟⎟ is nearly constant:
⎝ Tc ⎠

γ −1
⎡ L
γ −1 ⎤
T ⎛P ⎞ γ ⎢ ⎛ Tw ⎞ ⎛ Pc ⎞ γ dx ⎥
Tc
⎜⎜
⎝ Pc
⎟⎟
⎠
⎢1 − 2St
⎢⎣
⎜⎜1 −
⎝
⎟
Tc ⎟⎠ ∫⎜ ⎟
0⎝
P ⎠ R ⎥
⎥⎦
(12)

and, in particular, at the exit plane,

γ −1
⎡ L
γ −1 ⎤
Te ⎛ Pe ⎞ γ ⎢ ⎛ Tw ⎞ ⎛ Pc ⎞ γ dx ⎥
Tc
⎜⎜
⎝ Pc
⎟⎟
⎠
⎢1 − 2St
⎢⎣
⎜⎜ 1 −
⎝
⎟
Tc ⎟⎠ ∫⎜ ⎟
0⎝
P ⎠ R ⎥
⎥⎦
(13)

We now express the exit kinetic energy as

(
u2e = 2cp Tte − Te ) (14)

where both Tte and Te are affected by the losses. For the total energy loss, we have

( )
i
m cp Tc − Tte = Qw

and so

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 8

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 4 of 6
 L
Tt e Qw ⎛ T ⎞ dx
Tc
=1− i = 1 − 2St ⎜⎜1 − w ⎟⎟
⎝ Tc ⎠ ∫R (15)
m cp Tc 0

where we have used the result in equation (3). For the loss of static energy, we have
the result in (13). Using both in (14),

⎡ L
γ −1
L
γ −1 ⎤
⎢ ⎛ Tw ⎞ dx ⎛ Pe ⎞ γ ⎛ T ⎞ ⎛ Pe ⎞ γ dx ⎥
∫ ∫
2
ue = 2cp Tc ⎢1 − 2St ⎜⎜1 − T ⎟⎟ − ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ + 2St ⎜⎜ 1 − w ⎟⎟ ⎜ ⎟
R ⎝ Pc ⎠ Tc ⎠ P ⎠ R ⎥⎥
⎢ ⎝ c ⎠ 0 ⎝ 0⎝
⎣ ⎦

⎧ γ −1
L ⎡ γ −1 ⎤ ⎫
⎪ ⎛P ⎞ γ ⎛ T ⎞ ⎢ ⎛ Pe ⎞ γ ⎥ dx ⎪
or u2e = 2cp Tc ⎨1 − ⎜⎜ e
⎪ ⎝ Pc
⎟⎟
⎠
− 2St ⎜⎜ 1 − w ⎟⎟
⎝ Tc ⎠ ∫ ⎢1 − ⎜ P ⎟
0 ⎢ ⎝ ⎠
⎥ R ⎬
⎥⎦ ⎪
(16)
⎩ ⎣ ⎭

γ −1
⎛P ⎞ γ
We see now that the factor 1 − ⎜ e ⎟ occurring in the integral of (16) is just the
⎝P ⎠
“thermodynamic relief” we had mentioned earlier, which makes the loss of kinetic
energy be less than the heat loss. Indeed, this factor becomes zero as P → Pe , so, as
anticipated, heat losses near the exit are irrelevant.

⎡ γ −1 ⎤
⎢ ⎛P ⎞ γ ⎥
To simplify the writing, use u2e0 = 2cp Tc ⎢1 − ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ ⎥
⎢ ⎝ Pc ⎠ ⎥
⎣ ⎦

and define

γ −1 γ −1
⎛P ⎞ γ ⎛ P ⎞ γ
η0,e = 1 − ⎜⎜ e ⎟⎟ and ηx,e =1−⎜ e ⎟ :
⎜ P (x) ⎟
⎝ Pc ⎠ ⎝ ⎠

L
u2e ⎛ T ⎞ ⎛ ηx,e ⎞ dx
u2e0
= 1 − 2St ⎜⎜1 − w ⎟⎟
⎝ Tc ⎠ ∫ ⎜
⎜η
0 ⎝ 0,e
⎟
⎟ R
⎠
(17)

⎛ ηx,e ⎞
and, again, the right-hand-side minus the ⎜ ⎟ factor would be the relative heat
⎜ η0,e ⎟
⎝ ⎠
loss (equation 3). Numerical evaluation shows that the modified integral in (17) is

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 8

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 5 of 6
 L
dx
about 2
3
of the original integral ∫R
0
. Remembering our earlier estimate of the

relative Isp loss ( < 1%), we conclude that a better estimate is about 0.67%. This
∼
amounts to 3 sec. out of Isp 400s .

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 8

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 6 of 6