You are on page 1of 16

16.

512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez
Lecture 7: Convective Heat Transfer: Reynolds Analogy
Heat Transfer in Rocket Nozzles
General
Heat transfer to walls can affect a rocket in at least two ways:
(a) Reducing the performance. This tends to be a 1-3% effect on Isp only, and is
therefore secondary.
(b) Creating great difficulties in the design of hot-side structures that have to
survive heat fluxes in the 107 108 w / m2 range.
The principal modes of heat transfer to nozzle and combustor walls are
convection and radiation. Of these, convection dominates, and radiation tends to be
important only for particle-laden flows from solid propellant rockets.
Convective Heat Transfer
We will review here the compressible 2D boundary layer equations in order to extract
information on wall heat transfer.

The governing equations are (in the B.L. approximation)

Continuity

( u )
x

( v)
y

=0

u
u p xy
u
+ v
+
=
=

x
y x
y
y y

X-Momentum

Y-Momentum

P
=0
y

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

(1)

(2)

(3)

Lecture 7
Page 1 of 16

Total enthalpy

ht
h

T
uxy +
+ v t =
k

x
y
y
y y

(4)

u2
is the specific total enthalpy, and is the viscosity. For a
2
laminar flow, = ( T ) is a fluid property. Rocket boundary layers are almost always

where ht = h +

turbulent, and is then the turbulent viscosity, where momentum transport is


effected by the random motion of turbulent eddies. If these eddies have a velocity
scale u' and a length scale l ' , we have, in order-of-magnitude.

turb. u'l'

(5)

where u' is some fraction of the local u, and l ' tends to be of the order of the wall
distance y. The important points about (5) are
(a) turb.

, mostly because l '

mean free path and

(b) turb. is proportional to density (whereas is not, because the m.f.p. is inversely
proportional to ).

Similarly, the last term on the right in the energy balance, representing the
convergence of heat flux, contains the turbulent thermal conductivity K cpu'l' .
Once again, we notice that K is here proportional to density. We also note that the
turbulent Prandtl number
Pr =

t cp
kt

1 (from the orders of magnitude)

It is of some interest to note the origin and composition of the viscous term in
equation (4). If we collect the dot products u i t around a fluid element as shown (in
B.L. approximation),

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 2 of 16

we obtain the term

uxy
y

as written in (4). This can be expanded as


2

xy
u

u
u
+ xy
=u
uxy = u

y
y
y
y y
y

(6)

The 1st term in (6) is just the velocity times the viscous net force per unit volume, so
it is the part of the total viscous work that goes to accelerate the local flow. The
second term in (6) is positive definite, and it is the rate of dissipation of energy into
heat due to viscous effects. We will return later to this heating effect.
Approximate Analysis Let us manipulate the right hand side of equation (4):


u T
u K T
+
u
u
+
K
=

y
y y y y y y

and, since

h
T
= cp
, this yields
y
y

u2

2
1 h

+
y y
Pr y

cp

Pr

We note here that, both for laminar and turbulent flows, Pr is a constant,
independent of P and T to a good approximation. In fact, as we noted before, it is
also of order unity ( 0.9 for turbulent flows). So, the RHS of the energy equation
becomes

h u2

2
y Pr

(7)

If we made the approximation Pr = 1 , then this would reduce


ht
u2
. If in addition, we made

with ht = h +
y y
2
P
the flat plate approximation
0 , then the pair of equations
x
(1), (4) would become

further to

u
u
u
+ v
=

x
y y y
h
h
ht
u t + v t =

x
y
y y

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

approximations

(8)

Lecture 7
Page 3 of 16

These are identical equations for u and ht . The same equation would also govern the
linearly transformed variables
u=

u
;
ue

where the

( )e

h=

ht htw

(9)

hte htw

subscript denotes the value of a variable in the local external

flow (just outside the boundary layer). Both u and h satisfy identical boundary
conditions:

uw = hw = 0;

ue = he = 1

(10)

and, as noted, identical governing equations. We conclude that, under the


assumption
P

Pr = 1, x = 0 ,

ht hw
u
=
hte hw
ue

(11)

u2w
= hw . This similarity relation between velocity
2
and total enthalpy profiles is known as Croccos analogy.

where we also noticed htw = hw +

Approximate heat flux at the wall


We are interested in the magnitude of the wall heat flux
T
qw = K

y w

K h
K
h
qw =
t
=
cp y

w cp y

(12)

0, since uw = 0

h
h
h
u

where we used t =
h +
= + u

2
y w y
y w y w
w
2

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 4 of 16

The group

K
1
should be set equal to unity, for consistency with the stated
=
cp
Pr

approximations. Thus
h
qw = t
y w

Use now equation (11):

ht hw u

u
qw =
hw + hte hw
= e

y
ue
ue
y w

u
and notice that
is the wall shear stress, w . So
y w

qw =

hte hw
ue

(13)

which is also called Reynolds analogy. A more compact form of this can be written in
terms of the Friction Coefficient

cf

(14)

1
u2
2 e e

and the Stanton number


St =

qw

eue hte hw

(15)

with the result (from (13))

St =

cf
2

(16)

One important point can be made about the result (13):


The heat flux to the wall is driven by the enthalpy (or temperature) difference
between Total external and Wall values, not between static values. This can be nonintuitive. Consider the situation near the exit of a highly expanded space nozzle,
where the bulk temperature Te may have dropped to, say, 300K due to the strong
expansion from a chamber temperature of, say, 3000K. The wall could be made of
Tungsten so as to be able to sustain relatively high temperature and cool itself by
radiation to space, so Tw could be, say, 1500K. Is the nozzle wall being heated or
cooled by the 300K gas? The answer is that it is being heated, because

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 5 of 16

Tte = Tc = 3000K, while Tw = 1500 < Tt . Are we violating the 2nd Principle of
e
Thermodynamics. Read on.
Simplified Profiles, Across the Boundary Layer
To better understand this situation, let us return to Croccos analogy (equation 11)
2
and write ht = h + u
, and solve for h:
2

h = hte hw

) uu

u2
2

(17)

This is a quadratic relationship between h and u. For low subsonic flows h ht , so


the last term is not strong, and the relationship becomes linear in the limit.
The relationship between slopes at the wall flows from (17):
0
dh
u
1 du

= hte hw

dy
u
dy

w
w y w
e

or

hte hw
dh
du = u

w
e

(18)

We can use (17) and (18) to sketch h vs. u across the boundary layer. For a case
with he > hw , this looks like

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 6 of 16

Note that whenever ue >

hte hw there develops an intermediate temperature

maximum. But in any case, the wall slope is as if the line were coming from h t e , not
from he . The case when he < hw is more revealing even:

Now the wall slope is seen to be positive (heat into the wall), despite he < hw (as
long as ht > hw )
e

So, the quadratic portion of the Crocco relationship is responsible for the extra wall
heat; this can in turn be traced to viscous dissipation, which accumulates in the
boundary layer and elevates its temperature, so that the wall is heated even when
the outside temperature is low (as long as the flow has high speed).
Modification for Pr 1
We leave for now the issue of the non zero pressure gradient, except to note that it
introduces small modifications down to the throat. The deviations of Pr from unity
are small, and, for gases Pr < 1 (~ 0.9 for turbulent flow). This breaks the perfect
balance between dissipation and conduction responsible for Croccos analogy, in the
sense of favoring conduction of the dissipated heat. As a second consequence, the
temperature overshoot is reduced, and so is the wall slope of T and the heat flux to
the wall. The direct effect of higher conduction ( Pr < 1 ) is accounted for
approximately by modifying Reynolds analogy to

St =

cf
2Pr 0.6

(19)

The secondary effect (reduced overshoot) is accounted for by replacing the driving
enthalpy difference ht hw by haw hw , where haw is the Adiabatic-wall enthalpy,
e

defined as
16.512, Rocket Propulsion
Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 7 of 16

haw = he + r

u2e
2

;r

(20)

0.9

(turbulent)

and r is the Recovery factor.


With these changes, the heat flux is now
qw = eue (haw hw )

cf
2Pr 0.6

(21)

The Bartz heat flux formula


A very crude, but surprisingly effective representation for the friction factor cf is that
supplied by the well-studied case of fully developed turbulent flow in a pipe.
cf =

0.046
R 0.2
e

Re =

eueD

(22)

where R e is the Reynolds number based on diameter D, and e is the laminar


viscosity. Putting also h = cp T + constant, equation (21) now gives
qw = euecp ( Taw

0.2

0.023 e
Tw )

Pr 0.6 eueD

0.026
0.2

( eue )0.8 0.2


e cp ( Taw Tw )

(23)

0.026

It is common practice to define a heat transfer gas-side film coefficient, hg (not an


enthalpy!) by
hg

qw
Taw Tw

(24)

And, so far, we have


hg =

0.026
D0.2

( eue )0.8 0.2


e cp

(25)

At this point we note that the formulation so far has ignored the strong variations of
and across the boundary layer since these quantities depend on temperature as

1
(at P=constant) ; T w ( w
T

0.6 )

(26)

A commonly used approach to including these variations is to replace e and e in


equation (25) by their values at some intermediate temperature <T>:

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 8 of 16

< T >
e e

Te

Te
;
<T>

e e

(27)

and <T> can be evaluated by several empirical rules. For Mach numbers not much
higher than 1, we can simply use
<T>

Te + Tw
2

(28)

Making the replacements of (27) in equation (25), we obtain


hg =

0.026
D0.2

( eue )

0.8

0.8 0.2w

Te

< T >

0.2
e cp

(29)

which is one form of Bartz formula. A more useful form follows from the continuity
equation:
i

P At
m
eue =
= c
, with
A
c* A

R g Tc

()

and where A is the local cross-section, and A t the throat cross-section. Substituting
2

A
D
in (29), and using t = t , the final form is
A
D

0.8

hg =

0.026 Pc

D0.2
c *
t

1.8

Dt

Te
cp 0.2

e
< T >

0.8 0.2w

(30)

Several important trends and observations can be made now:

1
(a) Smaller throat diameter leads to larger heat flux 0.2
D
t

straight from the Reynolds no. dependence of cf .

. This comes

(b) Heat flux is almost linear in chamber pressure Pc0.8 . This limits the
feasibility of high chamber pressures, which are otherwise very desirable.
D 1.8
(c) Maximum heat flux occurs at the throat t . One critical design
D

consideration is therefore the thermal integrity of the throat structure.

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 9 of 16

(d) Lighter gasses lead to higher heat fluxes, through the combined effects of cp
1

and c * hg 0.6
M

0.8 0.2w

0.68

T
Te
(e) The factor e
is greater than unity. This

< T >
< T >
enhancement of heat flux follows mainly from the fact that the gas in the
boundary layer is mostly cooler than in the core, hence denser. We showed
before that the turbulent heat conductivity is proportional to density.

Example
Consider the Space Shuttle Main Engine (SSME), which is a Hydrogen-Oxygen rocket
with (roughly) these characteristics:
2.2 107 Pa

Pc = 220 atm

Tc = 3600 K
M = 15g / mol
r

1.25

c* =

R g Tc

()

2600 m / s

cp =

R
1 M

3 105 Kg / m / s

Tthroat =

2800 J / Kg / K

2
Tc
+1

3200 K = Te

Tw = 1000 K
We calculate then
Te + Tw
3200 + 1000
=
= 2100 K
2
2

< T >=

0.8 0.2w

Te

< T >

0.61

3000
2100

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

(at the throat)

1.3

Lecture 7
Page 10 of 16

and so, using equation (30),


160, 000 w / m2 / K

hg

and qw

160, 000 Tawt 1000

( Taw )t
qw

1 2

= Tt 1 + r
= 1.057 3200
2

0.9

3400 K

(slightly less than Tc )

160, 000 2400 = 3.8 108 W / m2

This is a very high level of heat flux. To visualize the implications, suppose this qw
had to be transmitted through a thin metal plate (thickness , thermal conductivity
k).

T
where T is the temperature drop through the metal .

As an initial guess, suppose the metal were stainless steel (K 20 W / m / K ) , and

One would have qw = K


=1mm. Then
T =

qw 3.8 108 103


=
= 19, 000 K !!
K
20

Obviously, this is unacceptable. Try using Copper instead, with K 400 W / m / K


(twenty times better). This gives T =950K, still not acceptable (copper would be
very soft then). The plate would have to be thinner and made of copper. Not an easy
problem.

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 11 of 16

More rationally
The St or hg should depend on x, distance from start of nozzle, since the B.L. is still
developing (not fully developed). In addition, there should be some accounting for

acceleration
property variation through B.L.
cylindrical geometry

The article by Rubsin and Inonye (ch. 8 in Rosenhow and Hartnetts Handbook of
Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, 1973) gives a general formula for turbulent B.L. In an
cylinder, with acceleration:

St ( x ) =

s=

(and hg = euecpSt )

u x
s e e eff Fc1n FRn
e

cf 2
ch

1 found walls.

A
= constants, depending on Reynolds no. based on mom. th.
n
R e > 4000 , A = 0.0131, n =

1
7

R e < 4000 , A = 0.0293 , n =

1
5

Fc
= Factors for property variability. Can take several nearly equivalent forms. A
FR

simple one from Eckert, is

Fc =

FR =

(< >)
e
(< >)

Taw = Te + r

< >
Te
Te

< >

(w

T
T
< >
= 0.28 + 0.50 w + 0.22 aw

Te
Te
Te

0.6 )

u2e
1 2

= Te 1 + r
Me
2
2

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 12 of 16

0.9 (recovery factor)

The effective distance xeff is related to the actual distance x through an integral
(accounting for memory of past acceleration)

xeff ( x ) =

where f =

z=

f ( x ')
f (x)

dx '

eue zRne

haw hw
hte hw

1
1n

n
Fc FR1 n

u2
haw = he + r e

R=R(x)= body radius at x.


For a quick estimate of R e , we can simplify further to the flat-plate case, in which
d c f
,
=
dx
2

0.0128 R1 4
e
cf

with
=
2
0.0065 R1e 6

dR e
dR ex

or

(R
(R

e
e

) , and with
> 4000 )
< 4000

0.0128
4 5 4

14
5 R e = 0.0128 R ex
R e
=

R e
0.0065
6 R 7 6 = 0.0065R
ex
R1 6
7 e
e

R e
R ex

dR e
d
=
dx dR ex

0.0366 R 4 5
ex

0.0152 R 6e 7
x

R e < 4000

(R

ex

< 1.99 101

R e > 4000

0.0366

0.2
R ex
=
=
x 0.0152
R1 7
ex

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 13 of 16

For large rockets, R ex

throat

tends to be 107 108 , so the high R e formulas should

be better, despite the common use of Bartzs formulae, which are based on the low
R e formulation. Fortunately, differences tend to be small, and are marked often by
other uncertainties (surface films, fluid properties).
Example and Comparisons:

Consider nozzle R = x tan x +

x=

R R 2 R 2t
2 tan

R c R 2c R 2t

with origin at x = xc =

and

R 2t
1
4 tan x

2 tan

Rc
= 1.5 , = 15o
Rt

and going through throat at x = xt =

Rt
2 tan

Using =1.25 and the R e > 4000 option, we find

xeff

Rt

throat

where

xt
Rt

xc
Rt

5
M 12

1.125

2
1 + 0.125M

R
x
=
tan15o +
Rt
Rt
x

Rt

1 1 + 0.125M2
and 1

1.125
M 2

2.25

1.875

0.6979

2
0.6515 + 0.0464 M

0.9

x
d
Rt

R
4

(x)
R

t
o
tan15

R
M (x)
Rt

x
The integration gives eff
= 1.0892
R t throat

Compared to

x t xc
= 1.153
Rt

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

xc
= 0.713
and
Rt

Lecture 7
Page 14 of 16

Since xeff appears to the 1

power, the memory/acceleration effect (up to the

throat) is insignificant.
The throat St is then

( Taw

(0.9)

= 3263 )

(using r=1, Tw = 1000 K , Tc = 3300 K,

(St )throat

Te
2
=
3300 = 2933K )
t
2.25

0.0131

u ( x t xc ) 7

throat

0.771

< T >

Te throat

(3263)
(0.6952)
1000
3300
<T >
= 0.28 + 0.50
+ 0.22
= 0.6979
Te
2933
2933

Take Pc = 2 107 N / m2 ,
M= 25 g/mol

c =

R g Tc

( u ) t =

8.314
3300
0.025
2.25

= 1592 m / s

2 0.5
1.25

2.25

Pc
*

= 12560 Kg / s / m2

xc 1.5 1.52 1
=
= 0.7128
Rt
2 tan15o

xt
1
=
= 1.866
Rt
2 tan15o

and, with R t = 0.3 m ,


0.6

T
6.8 105

3000

throat = 6.70 105 Kg m sec

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 15 of 16

One gets,

(St )throat

(0.00124 using xt instead of xt xc )

= 0.00133

Using the R e < 4000 option (small rockets)

(St )throat

0.0293
0.68

0.2

< T >
uxeff

throat Te throat

and using again xeff = xt xc , etc,


we get ( St )throat = 0.00102

(0.000933 using xt )

For comparison, the fully developed pipe flows formulation would give

St =

0.2

Rg

ue cp

0.026 c*

D0.2
Pc
t

0.8 0.2w

Te
0.2

e
< T >

At

0.9

1 at throat

(St )throat

= 0.000958

This is close to the R < 4000 results above (and, indeed, the coefficients are for

R < 4000 ). But this appears coincidental, based on the fact that for most nozzles,
x R t .

16.512, Rocket Propulsion


Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7
Page 16 of 16