16.

512, Rocket Propulsion

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez
Lecture 10: Ablative Cooling, Film Cooling

Transient Heating of a Slab

Typical problem: Uncooled throat of a solid propellant rocket

Inner layer retards heat flux to the heat sink. Heat sink’s T gradually rises during
firing (60-200 sec). Peak T of heat sink to remain below matl. limit. Back T of heat
sink to remain below weakening point for structure.

Prototype 1-D problem:

Can be solved exactly, or can do transient 1-D numerical computation. But it is

useful to look at basic issues first.

Thermal conductance of B.L.=hg

k1
Thermal conductance of front layer =
δ1
ki
Thermal conductance of layer i = ( δi = thickness, ki = thermal conductivity)
δi

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 1 of 12
 k1
Want layer 1 to have hg to protect the rest.
δ1
⎛ k1 1 W / m / K ⎞ k1 W
(Say, porous, Oriented graphyte, ⎜⎜ ⎟⎟ → = 330 2 compared to
⎝ δ1 = 3 mm ⎠ δ1 mK
W
hg ∼ 50, 000 2 , so OK here).
mK

Also, from governing equation

∂T ∂2 T ∂T ∂2 T
ρc =k 2 → =α 2
∂t ∂x ∂t ∂x

k
(α = , thermal diffusivity, m 2 / s )
ρc

we see that

x2
x2 ∼ αt , or x ∼ αt , or t ∼ .
α

δ12
So the layer 1 will “adapt” to its boundary conditions in a time t ∼ .
α1

J Kg 1
Say, c 710 and ρ 1100 3
( solid graphyte),
KgK m 2

1
so α = = 1.3 × 10−6 m2 / s .
710 × 1100

(3 × 10 )
2
−3
δ2
The layer “adapts” in t ∼ −6
= 7.0 sec (more like = 1.8 sec ).
1.3 × 10 4α

⇒ Treat front layer quasi-statically, i.e., responding instantly to changes in heat flux:

T (t) −T (t)
q (t)
wh1 wc1
k1
δ1

This also means we can lump the thermal resistances of BL and 1st layer in series:

1 1 δ
+ 1
(hg ) eff hg k1

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 2 of 12
 k1
and since hg ,
δ1

k1
(hg )eff ∼
δ1
hg

For layer 2 (the heat sink), k2 is high (metal) and hg ( )eff is now small (thanks to 1st
layer) so, very likely,

k2
δ2
(hg )eff

W
(For instance, say Copper, k2 360 , with δ2 = 2 cm. We now have
mK

k2 W k W k
(hg )eff δ2
= 350 2 , but 2 = 36, 000 2 , so indeed, 2
mK δ2 mK δ2
(hg )eff ).

Under these conditions, the heat sink is being “trickle charged” through the high
thermal resistance of layer 1. Most likely, heat has time to redistribute internally, so
that T2 is nearly uniform across the layer. We can then write a lumped equation.

dT2 k1
ρ2c2 δ2
dt
= q = hg( )eff ( Taw − T2 ) δ1
( Taw − T2 )

ρ2c2 δ1δ2 dT2

Define τ =
k1
τ
dt
+ T2 = Taw ( T2 (0 ) = T0 )

t
−
T2 = Taw − ( Taw − T0 ) e τ

J
For our example, say ρ2 = 8900 Kg / m3 (Copper), c2 = 430 , δ2 = 2 cm
KgK

8900 × 430 × 3 × 10−3 × 2 × 10−2

τ= = 230 sec
1

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 3 of 12
This is comfortable. Suppose Taw = 3300 K , T0 = 300 K , and we fire for 120 sec:
(60)

(60)
120 (989)
−
T2 (120 ) = 3300 − 3000 e 230 = 1520 K May need 4 cm

which is still (OK) for Copper (melts at 1360K, but no stress bearing, so can go to
~900. Also OK for steel on Carbon str member).

NOTE:

δ22
=
(0.02) 2

= 1.1 sec , so, indeed, layer 2 “adapts” quickly to B.C.’s

4α2 4 × 9.4 × 10−5

k2 360
→ uniform = = 9.4 × 10−5 m2 / s .
ρ2c2 8900 × 430

A More Exact Solution

Consider Taw “turned on” at t=0. The B.L. has a film coefficient hg , and the first
hg k1
layer has δ1 , k1 , so that hg ( )eff =
δ
∼
δ1
. Layer 2 has thickness δ2 , and has
1 + hg 1
k1
k2 , ρ2 , σ2 , α2 . The back is insulated.

Then one can prove that layer 2 has a temperature distribution

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 4 of 12
 α2t
Taw − T2 ( x, t ) ∞ −λn2
⎛δ −x ⎞
Taw − T0
= ∑a e
n =1
n
δ22
cos ⎜ 2
⎝ δ2
λn ⎟
⎠

2 sin λn
where an =
λn + sin λn cos λn

and λn (n=1,2,…) are the roots of

(hg )eff δ2 k1 δ2
λn tan λn =
k2 k2 δ1

Graphically,

k1 δ2
For small ∆ ≡ , small λ1 , so tan λ1 λ1 , so
k 2 δ1

k1 δ2
λ12 ∆ λ1 ∆ =
k2 δ1

k /ρ c
α2 k1 δ2 2 2 2 = k1
and also a1 1 λ12 ≡τ
δ22 k δ1 2
δ2 ρ2c2 δ1δ2
2

from before

So, leading term is then

Taw − T2 ( x, t ) −
t
⎛δ −x ⎞
e τ cos ⎜ 2 λ1 ⎟
Taw − T0 ⎝ δ2 ⎠
1

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 5 of 12
which is what we found before. The other terms are much smaller, except at very
small time.

For thermal protection of solid rocket nozzles read sec. 14.2 (pp. 550-563) of
Sutton-Biblarz, 7th ed., especially, pp. 556-563.

A key concept is ablative materials. They contain a C-based homogeneous matl.

embedded in reinforcing fibres of strong (anisotropic) C. Best is C/C, strong
expensive fibre since nozzle can get to 3600 K, can be 2D or 3D. Also good is C or
Kelvin (Aramid) fibres +phenolic plastic resins (for large nozzles)

For the shuttle RSRM, the throat insert (C cloth phenolic) regresses ~ 1 inch/120 sec,
and the char depth is ~ 0.5° inch/120 s.

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 6 of 12
Film Cooling of Rockets

For application of data on slot-injected films, we need to define the initial film
thickness s, velocity uF , density ρF , or at least mass flux uF ρF .

i i i i
Assume we know the flow rates mc and mF , where mc is the “core” flow and mF the
“film” flow. We also know the fully-burnt temperatures and molecular weights
( Tc , TF ; Mc , MF ).

The areas occupied at the “fully burnt” section are not known; let them be Ac , AF .
From continuity,

i i
mc mc R
uc A c = = Tc (1)
ρc P Mc
P = Pc is common to both

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 7 of 12
 i i
mF mF R
uF AF = = TF (2)
ρF P MF

and the total cross-section is known:

Ac + AF = A (3)

We need some additional information to find uF . The two momentum equations are
(neglecting friction):

duc dP ⎫
ρcuc + = 0⎪
dx dx ⎪⎪ duc duF
⎬ ρcuc = ρFuF
⎪ dx dx
duF dP
ρFuF + = 0⎪
dx dx ⎪⎭

uF duF ρ
= c (4)
uc duc ρF

Both, ρF and ρc , have been evolving as drops evaporate and burn. We make now
the approximation of assuming their ratio to remain constant (equal to the fully-
burnt value). Then (4) integrates to

uF2 ρc uF ρc
= = (5)
u2c ρF uc ρF

Substitute into the ratio (2)/(1)

i i
ρFuF AF mF ρ ρc AF mF
= i → F = i
ρcuc Ac ρc ρF Ac
mc mc

i
AF mF ρc
or = i (6)
Ac ρF
mc

ρFuF ρF
and also = (7)
ρcuc ρc

⎛ρu ⎞
This last ratio ⎜⎜ F F ⎟⎟ is called the “film cooling parameter”, MF :
⎝ ρcuc ⎠

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 8 of 12
 ρF MF Tc
MF = = (8)
ρc Mc TF
The film thickness s (at complete burn up) follows from

AF = π ⎡D2 − (D − 2s ) ⎤ ⎫
2
⎢⎣ ⎥⎦ ⎪ 2
⎪ AF ⎛ D ⎞ 4s
⎬ = ⎜ ⎟ −1 (if s D)
⎪ A c ⎝ D − 2s ⎠ D
A c = π (D − 2s )
2
⎪
⎭

i
D AF D mF ρc
s = (9)
4 Ac 4 i ρF
mc

From Rosenhow & Hartnett, Chapter 17-B, we characterize film cooling by the
change it induces to the driving temperature ( Taw ) for heat flow. In the absence of a
0
film, Taw
⎛
= Tc ⎜1 + r
⎝
γ −1 2⎞
2
Mc ⎟ , and we calculate ( qw )No Film = hg Taw
⎠
0
( )
− Tw . The film

0 F F
changes Taw to Taw (lower, presumably). The lowest we could Taw to get is TF , so
we define a film cooling efficiency

0 F
Taw − Taw
η= (10)
Taw − TF

⎧⎪η = 0 F
if Taw 0
= Taw (no effect)
Limits: ⎨
F
⎪⎩η = 1 if Taw = TF (max imum effect)

If we can predict η , then

F
Taw 0
= Taw 0
− η Taw (
− TF ) (11)

and then

F
qw = hg Taw(− Tw ) (12)

where hg is computed as if there were no film. To predict η , we first computes the

parameter

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 9 of 12
 1
−
x ⎛ µF ⎞ 4
ζ= ⎜⎜ ReF ⎟ (13)
MF s ⎝ µc ⎟⎠

where x is the distance downstream of the film injection (here we assume this is
from the burn-out section), and

ρFuF s
ReF = (14)
µF

and ρFuF = MF ( ρcuc ) , from before

From ζ , there are several semi-empirical correlations for η . A recommendation from

R & H is

2
1.9 Pr 3
η= (15)
⎛ cp ⎞ 0.8
1 + 0.329 ⎜ c ⎟ζ
⎜ cp ⎟
⎝ F ⎠

(or η = 1 if this gives >1)

which is supported by air data of Seban.

Example

TF 1 M ρ 0.8
Say = ; F = 0.8 → F = = 1.6 → MF = 1.6 = 1.265
Tc 2 Mc ρc 0.5

i i
mF 1 mF
= 0.1 → i =
i 9
m (0.01) mc
(0.0101)

Say D=0.5m x t − x com pl. com b = 0.5 m

P=70 atm=7.09 × 106 N / m2 ⎫

⎪ 7.09 × 106 × 0.020
Tc = 3200 K ⎬ ρc = = 5.33Kg / m3 ; ρF = 8.53Kg / m3
⎪ 8.314 × 3200
Mc = 20 g / mol; γ c = 1.2 ⎭

Mc = 0.2

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 10 of 12
 8.314
uc = 0.2 1.2 × × 3200 = 253 m / s
0.02

1
uF = 253 = 200 m / s
1.6

8.53 × 200 × s
Say µF = 2 × 10−5 Kg / m / s → ReF = −5
= 8.53 × 107 s
2 × 10
ReF = 9.37 × 105

s=
D mF
i
ρc
=
0.5
×
1 1
= 0.0110 m
(8.51 × 10 ) 4

4 i ρF 4 9 1.6
mc OR 0.0101
0.000998

0.6
µF ⎛ TF ⎞
=⎜ ⎟ = 0.50.6 = 0.660
µc ⎜⎝ Tc ⎟⎠

1
0.5
( )
−
ζ= 9.37 × 105 × 0.660 4 = 1.282
1.265 × 0.0110
0.000998
(
8.51 × 104 ) (25.74)

epc µF
= 0.8 (say, rF rc ), Pr = 0.8
c pF µc

2
1.9 × 0.8 3
η= = 1.24 → η = 1
1 + 0.329 × 0.8 × 1.2820.8 0.368 0.361
(25.74 )0.8

So, this offers perfect film cooling, meaning

F Tc
Taw = TF = = 1600 K
2
(3200-0.361(3200-700)=2296 K)

If the wall is made of Cu, and is at Tw = 700K , the reduction in heat flow is

qFw 1600 − 700

= = 0.360
q0w 3200 − 700
⎛ 2296 − 700 ⎞
⎜ 3200 − 700 = 0.638 ⎟
⎝ ⎠

which can be decisive.

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 11 of 12
(This example shows one could get good film cooling with much less than 10% flow
in the film, maybe with only 2%).

16.512, Rocket Propulsion Lecture 10

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez Page 12 of 12