12 views

Uploaded by samotc

MIT LECTURE 7

- Humour PDF
- MODELING HEADBOX PERFORMANCE WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID MECHANICS.pdf
- Turbulence Length Scale -- CFD-Wiki, The Free CFD Reference
- Computational Ship Hydro Nowadays and Way Forward 2013
- Mechanical Papers
- 1742-6596_214_1_012036_mareze
- Installation Control Valves
- 3d Model in Simulation of Heat and Mass Transfer Processes in Wet Cooling Towers
- 10.1.1.137.216
- Boundary Layer Theory
- 117
- Fluid Lab Report
- AIAA.pdf
- OCEAN_CLASSIFICATION_OF_DYNAMICAL_STRUCT.pdf
- 1.Introduction
- Eddy Viscosity Turbulence Model
- Fluids Exams year 2- CITY 2005.pdf
- Coke en Crudos
- WST_09_828
- Spaldin Conference

You are on page 1of 16

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.

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

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 +

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.

(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

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),

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7

Page 2 of 16

uxy

y

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)

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

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

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

conditions:

uw = hw = 0;

ue = he = 1

(10)

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.

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

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

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

St =

qw

eue hte hw

(15)

St =

cf

2

(16)

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

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)

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

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7

Page 6 of 16

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)

With these changes, the heat flux is now

qw = eue (haw hw )

cf

2Pr 0.6

(21)

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)

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

e cp ( Taw Tw )

(23)

0.026

enthalpy!) by

hg

qw

Taw Tw

(24)

hg =

0.026

D0.2

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)

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

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)

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)

1

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

D

t

. 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

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

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

1.3

Lecture 7

Page 10 of 16

160, 000 w / m2 / K

hg

and qw

( Taw )t

qw

1 2

= Tt 1 + r

= 1.057 3200

2

0.9

3400 K

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 .

=1mm. Then

T =

=

= 19, 000 K !!

K

20

(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.

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

1

5

Fc

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

FR

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

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7

Page 12 of 16

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

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

R e > 4000

0.0366

0.2

R ex

=

=

x 0.0152

R1 7

ex

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7

Page 13 of 16

throat

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:

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

Rt

2 tan

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

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

xc

= 0.713

and

Rt

Lecture 7

Page 14 of 16

throat) is insignificant.

The throat St is then

( Taw

(0.9)

= 3263 )

(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

0.6

T

6.8 105

3000

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7

Page 15 of 16

One gets,

(St )throat

= 0.00133

(St )throat

0.0293

0.68

0.2

< T >

uxeff

throat Te throat

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 .

Prof. Manuel Martinez-Sanchez

Lecture 7

Page 16 of 16

- Humour PDFUploaded byShriharsh Bhat
- MODELING HEADBOX PERFORMANCE WITH COMPUTATIONAL FLUID MECHANICS.pdfUploaded bysakariso
- Turbulence Length Scale -- CFD-Wiki, The Free CFD ReferenceUploaded bysb ali
- Computational Ship Hydro Nowadays and Way Forward 2013Uploaded byxeyran
- Mechanical PapersUploaded bySachin Agrawal
- 1742-6596_214_1_012036_marezeUploaded byEvilásio Souza
- Installation Control ValvesUploaded bygulmuhr
- 3d Model in Simulation of Heat and Mass Transfer Processes in Wet Cooling TowersUploaded bySBW
- 10.1.1.137.216Uploaded bylaksh1984
- Boundary Layer TheoryUploaded byJao Wei Kuang
- 117Uploaded byapi-19772009
- Fluid Lab ReportUploaded byEram Sabari Jeeva Balakrishnan
- AIAA.pdfUploaded byLIVYA
- OCEAN_CLASSIFICATION_OF_DYNAMICAL_STRUCT.pdfUploaded byjosenaranjo
- 1.IntroductionUploaded bySaikat Das
- Eddy Viscosity Turbulence ModelUploaded bysamity
- Fluids Exams year 2- CITY 2005.pdfUploaded byErnie Ernie
- Coke en CrudosUploaded byAlejandro Becerra
- WST_09_828Uploaded bySanjib Moulick
- Spaldin ConferenceUploaded byRodrigo Resende
- TR_CFD_08_36.pdfUploaded byManu Chakkingal
- turbUploaded byАкхилеш Кхапре
- ishak2009.pdfUploaded byNataraj
- 1Uploaded byMukesh Bohra
- 9611Uploaded byJagdeep Singh
- 24_Truchot.pdfUploaded bykad-7
- The Longitudinal Perturbated Fluid Velocity of the Dusty Fluid in the Incompressible Flow in Cylindrical Polar CoordinateUploaded byesatjournals
- fem9Uploaded bychrissbans
- Image Based Meshing of Packed Beds of Cylinders at Low Aspect Ratios Using 3d Mri Coupled With Computational Fluid DynamicsUploaded byOlggaa Olliveira
- Artigo velocidade cipUploaded byLucas Ancewski

- MMPI-2_ExtendedScore.pdfUploaded byMikeren
- Chapter 14Uploaded byKim Joshua Bolo
- Star Classification - Zoom AstronomyUploaded bynrmahesh
- Selling Skills MMS I NOTESUploaded byayushdixit
- Final ReportUploaded bykingfabio
- Koha PluginUploaded byGamindu Udayanga
- Homestay DevelopmentUploaded bybangbang63
- Using OracUploaded byvirat
- ps01Uploaded byKunalPandey
- thematic unitUploaded byapi-316018255
- Multi-Agent System Based Active Distribution Networks - P.H. Nguyen - 2010Uploaded byM8ow6f
- Fourier Family CheatSheet v2.0Uploaded byNikesh Bajaj
- Briefing Working TrackUploaded byJoao Ricardo Serra
- Ch NonunifrngUploaded bybing miranda
- TN How to Create Preps 6.x JDF for Apogee Prepress 8.0Uploaded bygromit_w
- 5Uploaded byBenjaminFigueroa
- [IJCST-V5I2P4]: Mr. Pritam R. Patil, Dr.S.B.Thorat, Dr.S.R.PandeUploaded byEighthSenseGroup
- STRONG-MOTION PARAMETERS: DEFINITION, USEFULNESS AND PREDICTABILITYUploaded bySadeghMahmoudkhani
- Wolfe, Cary - ZoontologiesUploaded byAlejandro Cabrera Hernández
- Discussion Session 4-11Uploaded bySujeanKim
- ipi66915.pdfUploaded byabimana
- Or Nek FinalUploaded bycinarsercan_69627706
- ingestion_layer.pdfUploaded byAnonymous 3OMRz3VC
- System Verilog for VHDL UsersUploaded byZakzouk Zakzouk
- Sudha BiharUploaded byAditya Pratap
- JEDI Slides-3.1 Requirements Engineering ConceptsUploaded byStef Shi
- ASTR 101 Chapters 10-16 ReviewUploaded byOhud Alanazi
- 14_Weintrit, Kopacz, B¦ůk, Uriasz, Naus_part 2_1212161840261529Uploaded byHans Dichter
- 12. Distributed DBMS Reliability - 3 of 3[Good]Uploaded byLakhveer Kaur
- Broker Genius vs NRZ Entertainment/Nathan Zalta etc.Uploaded byAnonymous 9YsE38IjJ