Are you sure?
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
ROCKET ENGINES
A THESIS SUBMITTED TO
THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF NATURAL AND APPLIED SCIENCES
OF
MIDDLE EAST TECHNICAL UNIVERSITY
BY
MUSTAFA EMRE BOYSAN
IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS
FOR
THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE
IN
MECHANICAL ENGINEERING
DECEMBER 2008
Approval of the thesis:
ANALYSIS OF REGENERATIVE COOLING IN LIQUID PROPELLANT
ROCKET ENGINES
submitted by MUSTAFA EMRE BOYSAN¸ in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering
Department, Middle East Technical University by,
Prof. Dr. Canan ÖZGEN
Dean, Gradute School of Natural and Applied Sciences
Prof. Dr. Süha ORAL
Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdullah ULAŞ
Supervisor, Mechanical Engineering Dept., METU
Examining Committee Members:
Prof. Dr. Haluk AKSEL
Mechanical Engineering Dept., METU
Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdullah ULAŞ
Mechanical Engineering Dept., METU
Prof. Dr. Hüseyin VURAL
Mechanical Engineering Dept., METU
Asst. Dr. Cüneyt SERT
Mechanical Engineering Dept., METU
Dr. H. Tuğrul TINAZTEPE
Roketsan Missiles Industries Inc.
Date: 05.12.2008
iii
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and
presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare
that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all
material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last name : Mustafa Emre BOYSAN
Signature :
iv
ABSTRACT
ANALYSIS OF REGENERATIVE COOLING IN LIQUID PROPELLANT
ROCKET ENGINES
BOYSAN, Mustafa Emre
M. Sc., Department of Mechanical Engineering
Supervisor: Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdullah ULAŞ
December 2008, 82 pages
High combustion temperatures and long operation durations require the use of
cooling techniques in liquid propellant rocket engines. For highpressure and high
thrust rocket engines, regenerative cooling is the most preferred cooling method. In
regenerative cooling, a coolant flows through passages formed either by
constructing the chamber liner from tubes or by milling channels in a solid liner.
Traditionally, approximately square cross sectional channels have been used.
However, recent studies have shown that by increasing the coolant channel height
towidth aspect ratio and changing the cross sectional area in noncritical regions
for heat flux, the rocket combustion chamber gas side wall temperature can be
reduced significantly without an increase in the coolant pressure drop.
In this study, the regenerative cooling of a liquid propellant rocket engine has been
numerically simulated. The engine has been modeled to operate on a
v
LOX/Kerosene mixture at a chamber pressure of 60 bar with 300 kN thrust and
kerosene is considered as the coolant. A numerical investigation was performed to
determine the effect of different aspect ratio cooling channels and different number
of cooling channels on gasside wall and coolant temperature and pressure drop in
cooling channel.
Keywords: Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines, Regenerative Cooling, Cooling
Efficiency, Cooling Channel, Liquid Oxygen, Kerosene.
vi
ÖZ
SIVI YAKITLI ROKET MOTORLARINDA REJENERATĐF SOĞUTMA
ANALĐZLERĐ
BOYSAN, Mustafa Emre
Yüksek Lisans, Makina Mühendisliği Bölümü
Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. Dr. Abdullah ULAŞ
Aralık 2008, 82 sayfa
Yüksek yanma sıcaklıkları ve uzun çalışma süreleri, sıvı yakıtlı roket motorlarında
soğutma tekniklerinin kullanılmasını gerekli kılar. Yüksek basınçlı ve yüksek itkili
roket motorlarında rejeneratif soğutma, öncelikli tercih edilen soğutma
tekniklerinden biridir. Rejeneratif soğutma, soğutma akışkanının yanma odası
duvarlarına yerleştirilen tüplerden veya yanma odası duvarlarına işlenen
kanallardan geçirilmesiyle sağlanır. Soğutma kanalları için genellikle kare kesit
alanları tercih edilmekteyken, yapılan çalışmalarda kanal kesit alanlarında
yükseklik genişlik oranının arttırılmasıyla ve ısı akısı bakımından kritik olmayan
bölgelerde kesit alanlarının değiştirilmesiyle, kanal içinde basınç düşüşünü çok
etkilemeden yanma odası iç yüzeyindeki sıcaklık değerlerinin düşürülebildiği
gösterilmiştir.
vii
Bu çalışmada, sıvı yakıtlı roket motorlarında kullanılan soğutma kanalları
hesaplamalı akışkanlar dinamiği ile benzeştirilmiştir. Motor, sıvı oksijen ve
kerosen karışımı ile 60 bar yanma odası basıncı ve 300 kN’luk itki seviyesini
oluşturacak şekilde tasarlanmış, soğutma akışkanı olarak kerosen seçilmiştir.
Hesaplamalı akışkanlar dinamiği ile farklı yükseklikgenişlik oranları ve kullanılan
kanal sayılarının, yanma odası iç yüzeyinin ve soğutma akışkanının sıcaklık
değerlerine ve kanal içi basınç düşüşüne etkileri incelenmiştir.
Anahtar Kelimeler: Sıvı Yakıtlı Roket Motorları, Yanma Odası, Regeneratif
Soğutma, Soğutma Verimliliği, Soğutma Kanalları, Sıvı Oksijen, Kerosen.
viii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I am extremely grateful to my supervisor Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdullah ULAŞ for his
professional support, guidance and encouragement throughout the completion of
this thesis work. I deeply appreciate his patience and many efforts to proofread my
thesis over and over again.
I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my colleagues Bora KALPAKLI
for his crucial advises, Ezgi CĐVEK and Göktuğ KARACALIOĞLU for their
invaluable efforts during the preparation of this thesis.
I would like to thank to Dr. Tuğrul TINAZTEPE, Başar SEÇKĐN and Dr. Atılgan
TOKER for their great support and encouragement and ROKETSAN for partially
supporting this study.
Love and thanks to my family, my flat mates and my friends for their neverending
patience, support and encouragement.
Ankara, December 2008
Mustafa Emre Boysan
ix
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ABSTRACT.....................................................................................................................................IV
ÖZ.....................................................................................................................................................VI
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.........................................................................................................VIII
TABLE OF CONTENTS................................................................................................................IX
LIST OF TABLES ..........................................................................................................................XI
LIST OF FIGURES .....................................................................................................................XIII
LIST OF SYMBOLS ................................................................................................................... XVI
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................... 1
2 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................... 4
2.1 REGENERATIVE COOLING................................................................................................. 4
2.2 SELECTION OF COOLING PASSAGES GEOMETRY............................................................... 6
2.3 SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR THRUST CHAMBERS........................................................ 7
2.4 HEAT TRANSFER ANALYSIS.............................................................................................. 8
2.4.1 Definition of the Problem............................................................................................ 9
2.4.2 Gas Side Heat Transfer ............................................................................................. 10
2.4.3 Coolant Side Heat Transfer....................................................................................... 13
2.4.4 Pressure Drop in Cooling Channels ......................................................................... 16
3 MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION AND SOLUTION METHOD................................ 18
3.1 MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION............................................................................. 18
3.2 SOLUTION METHOD.................................................................................................. 21
3.2.1 Thermochemical Equilibrium Code .......................................................................... 22
3.2.2 User Defined Function for Solver ............................................................................. 22
3.2.3 Grid Generator and Solver ....................................................................................... 22
4 VALIDATION....................................................................................................................... 23
x
4.1 BASELINE SOLUTION ...................................................................................................... 25
4.1.1 Grid Generation........................................................................................................ 25
4.1.2 Material Properties ................................................................................................... 26
4.1.3 Results and Discussion.............................................................................................. 26
4.2 BIFURCATION CHANNEL SOLUTION................................................................................ 29
4.3 DISCUSSION.................................................................................................................... 30
5 THRUST CHAMBER PRELIMENARY DESIGN............................................................ 31
5.1 NOZZLE CONTOUR ESTIMATION FOR REGION II ............................................................. 35
5.2 LENGTH ESTIMATION FOR REGION I ............................................................................... 37
5.3 NOZZLE CONTOUR ESTIMATION FOR REGION III ............................................................ 38
5.4 NOZZLE CONTOUR FOR THE DESIGNED THRUST CHAMBER............................................ 38
6 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS................................................................................................ 39
6.1 MATERIAL PROPERTIES .................................................................................................. 39
6.2 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ................................................................................................ 39
6.3 EFFECT OF RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER ON TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE.................. 41
6.4 EFFECT OF CHANNEL GEOMETRY ON COOLING EFFICIENCY .......................................... 45
6.5 EFFECT OF NUMBER OF CHANNELS ON COOLING EFFICIENCY........................................ 56
6.6 COOLING CHANNELS WITH VARIABLE CROSS SECTION AREA........................................ 61
7 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION................................................................................... 67
REFERENCES................................................................................................................................ 69
APPENDICES................................................................................................................................. 73
A. THERMAL PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS .................................................................. 73
B. USER DEFINED FUNCTION FOR HEAT FLUX ON GAS SIDE WALL .................... 79
xi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 – Regeneratively Cooled Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines ................... 4
Table 2.2 – Heat Transfer Characteristics of Several Liquid Propellants [3] ......... 15
Table 3.1 – Conservation Equation Variables ........................................................ 19
Table 4.1 – 89 kN GH
2
and LOX Engine Specifications........................................ 24
Table 4.2 – Grid Specifications .............................................................................. 25
Table 4.3 – Results of Baseline Solution................................................................ 28
Table 4.4 – Comparison of Pressure Values........................................................... 29
Table 5.1 – LPRE Requirements............................................................................. 32
Table 5.2 – Flame Temperatures and I
sp
Values for Different O/F ........................ 32
Table 5.3 – Typical Characteristic Lengths for Various Propellant Combinations 36
Table 6.1 – Boundary Conditions for Inner Wall ................................................... 40
Table 6.2 – Boundary Conditions for Outer Shell .................................................. 41
Table 6.3 – Boundary Conditions for Coolant........................................................ 41
Table 6.4 – Parameters for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation......................... 42
Table 6.5 – Results for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation............................... 43
Table 6.6 – Parameters for 4 mm Height Channels ................................................ 46
Table 6.7 – Parameters for 8 mm Height Channels ................................................ 46
Table 6.8 – Results for 4 mm Height Channels ...................................................... 47
Table 6.9 – Results for 8 mm Height Channels ...................................................... 47
Table 6.10 – Parameters for Number of Channels Investigation............................ 56
Table 6.11 – Results for Channel Number Investigation........................................ 57
Table 6.12 – Results for Variable Cross Sectionx150 and 4x2x150 ...................... 62
Table A.1 – Thermal Properties of Kerosene ......................................................... 73
Table A.2 – Thermal Properties of Liquid Hydrogen............................................. 75
xii
Table A.3 – Thermal Properties of OFHC Copper ................................................. 77
Table A.4 – Thermal Properties of INCONEL 718................................................ 78
xiii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 – CrossSectional View of a Thrust Chamber along Axial Direction with
Regenerative Cooling........................................................................... 5
Figure 2.2 – Schematic Views for Dual Regenerative Cooling................................ 5
Figure 2.3 – CrossSectional View for Different Type of Coolant Passages ........... 6
Figure 2.4 – Typical Heat Flux Distribution along Thrust Chamber Wall ............... 9
Figure 2.5 – Heat Transfer Schematic for Regenerative Cooling [1] ..................... 10
Figure 2.6 – Regimes in Transferring Heat from a Hot Wall to a Flowing Liquid [1]
............................................................................................................ 14
Figure 3.1 – Schematic View of Solution Domain................................................. 18
Figure 3.2 – Convection and Radiation Heat Transfer from Combusted Gases to the
Solution Domain ................................................................................ 20
Figure 3.3 – Schematic View of Solution Method ................................................. 21
Figure 4.1 – 89 kN GH
2
and LOX Engine [17] ...................................................... 23
Figure 4.2 – CrossSectional View of Solution Domains....................................... 26
Figure 4.3 – Convergence History of Temperature Rise ........................................ 27
Figure 4.4 – Convergence History of Pressure Drop.............................................. 27
Figure 4.5 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall for Baseline Solution ... 28
Figure 4.6 – Temperature Distribution on GasSide Wall for Bifurcation Channel
Solution.............................................................................................. 29
Figure 5.1 – The Scheme of LPRE Chamber.......................................................... 31
Figure 5.2 – Flame Temperature vs Mass Percentage of RP1............................... 33
Figure 5.3 – I
sp
vs Mass Percentage of RP1 .......................................................... 33
Figure 5.4 – Calculated Combustion Chamber and Nozzle Contour for 300 kN
LPRE.................................................................................................. 38
xiv
Figure 6.1 – Schematic View of Solution Domain................................................. 40
Figure 6.2 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation............................................... 43
Figure 6.3 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation............................................... 44
Figure 6.4 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along
Axial Direction for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation ............... 44
Figure 6.5 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Radiation
Heat Transfer Investigation................................................................ 45
Figure 6.6 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant at Throat (x=0) ..................................... 48
Figure 6.7 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 4
mm Channel Height ........................................................................... 49
Figure 6.8 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 8
mm Channel Height ........................................................................... 50
Figure 6.9 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
4mm Channel Height ......................................................................... 50
Figure 6.10 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
8 mm Channel Height ........................................................................ 51
Figure 6.11 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along
Axial Direction for 4 mm Channel Height......................................... 51
Figure 6.12 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along
Axial Direction for 8mm Channel Height.......................................... 52
Figure 6.13 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Gas Side Wall Temperature .................. 53
Figure 6.14 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Coolant Temperature............................. 53
Figure 6.15 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Pressure Drop in Channel ..................... 54
Figure 6.16 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for 4 mm
Channel Height .................................................................................. 55
Figure 6.17 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for 8 mm
Channel Height .................................................................................. 55
Figure 6.18 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant at Throat (x=0) ................................... 57
Figure 6.19 – Effects of Number of Channels on Gas Side Wall Temperature...... 58
xv
Figure 6.20 – Effects of Number of Channels on Coolant Temperature ................ 58
Figure 6.21 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
Different Number of Cooling Channels............................................. 59
Figure 6.22 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
Different Number of Cooling Channels............................................. 59
Figure 6.23 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along
Axial Direction for Different Number of Cooling Channels ............. 60
Figure 6.24 – Effects of Number of Channels on Pressure Drop ........................... 60
Figure 6.25 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Different
Number of Channels .......................................................................... 61
Figure 6.26 – Channel Geometry for Variable Cross Section Area ....................... 62
Figure 6.27 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant for Variable Cross Section Channel at
Different Locations ............................................................................ 63
Figure 6.28 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
8 mm Channel Height ........................................................................ 64
Figure 6.29 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along
Axial Direction for Variable Cross Section Area Investigation ........ 64
Figure 6.30 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Variable
Cross Section Area Investigation....................................................... 65
Figure A.1 – Temperature Variable C
p
for Kerosene ............................................. 73
Figure A.2 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for Kerosene.............. 74
Figure A.3 – Temperature Variable Viscosity for Kerosene .................................. 74
Figure A.4 – Temperature Variable C
p
for Liquid Hydrogen................................. 75
Figure A.5 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for Liquid Hydrogen . 76
Figure A.6 – Temperature Variable Viscosity for Liquid Hydrogen...................... 76
Figure A.7 – Temperature Variable C
p
for OFHC Copper ..................................... 77
Figure A.8 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for OFHC Copper ..... 77
Figure A.9 – Temperature Variable C
p
for INCONEL 718.................................... 78
Figure A.10 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for INCONEL 718 .. 78
xvi
LIST OF SYMBOLS
A Area [m
2
]
*
C
Characteristic Velocity [m/s]
1
C
Constant in turbulence Model
2
C
Constant in turbulence Model
f
C
Thrust Coefficient
u
C
Constant in turbulence Model
p
C
Specific Heat at Constant Pressure [J/kgK]
d Diameter [m]
h
D
Hydraulic Diameter [m]
f Friction Factor
h Heat Transfer Coefficient [W/m
2
K]
h Height of Cooling Channel [mm]
I
sp
Specific Impulse [s]
k Thermal Conductivity [W/mK]
L Length of Cooling Channel in Axial Direction [m]
m& Mass Flow Rate [kg/s]
M Mach Number
n Normal Outward Direction
P Pressure [bar]
Pr Prantl Number
q& Heat Flux [W/m
2
]
r Recovery Factor
xvii
Re Reynolds Number
S Source Term
T Temperature [K]
u Velocity Along x Direction [m/s]
v Velocity Along y Direction [m/s]
V Velocity Magnitude [m/s]
w Width of Cooling Channel [mm]
ω Velocity Along z Direction [m/s]
x x axis of Cartesian Coordinate
y y axis of Cartesian Coordinate
z z axis of Cartesian Coordinate
Other Symbols:
κ
σ
Turbulent Prandtl Numbers for κ
ε
σ
Turbulent Prandtl Numbers for ε
T
σ
Turbulent Prandtl Numbers for T
ρ
Density [kg/m
3
]
γ
Specific Heat Ratio
u
Viscosity [kg/ms]
eff
u
Effective Turbulence Viscosity [kg/ms]
t
u
Turbulence Viscosity [kg/ms]
Subscripts:
aw Adiabatic Wall Temperature
c Chamber
cb Coolant Bulk Temperature
conv. Convection
xviii
2
CO
Carbon Dioxide
O H
2
Water Vapor
g
Gas Domain
l Liquid Domain
ox Oxidizer
pr Propellant
rad. Radiation
s Solid Domain
t Throat
tot Total
wc Coolant Side Wall
wg Gas Side Wall
1
CHAPTER 1
1 INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
All rocket engines have one problem in common; high energy released by
combusted gases. This problem results in high combustion temperatures (2400 to
3600 K), high heat transfer rates (0.8 to 160 MW/m
2
) in thrust chamber and
requires special cooling techniques for the engine [1]. Cooling techniques
developed to cope with this problem, either singly or in combination, include
regenerative cooling, radiation cooling, film or transpiration cooling, ablation, arid
inert or endothermic heat sinks [2]. To choose the proper cooling technique mission
requirements, environmental requirements and operational requirements should be
considered.
Regenerative cooling is one of the most widely applied cooling techniques used in
liquid propellant rocket engines [1]. It has been effective in applications with high
chamber pressure and for long durations with a heat flux range 1.6 to 160 MW/m
2
[3].
Regenerative cooling of a liquid propellant rocket engine consists of a balance
between the energy rejected by the combusted gases and the heat energy absorbed
by the coolant [4]. The energy absorbed by the coolant is not wasted; it augments
the initial energy content of the propellant prior to injection, increasing the exhaust
velocity slightly (0.1 to 1.5%) [2]. Therefore thermal energy is recovered in the
2
system [5]. However by this process the overall engine performance gain is less
than 1% [1].
Basically there are three domains in a regeneratively cooled rocket engine; gas
domain (combusted gases), liquid domain (coolant) and the solid domain (thrust
chamber wall). The heat transfer analysis in regenerative cooling are simply based
on convection and radiation heat transfer for gas domain, conduction heat transfer
for solid domain and convection heat transfer for liquid domain. Heat transfer from
the outer surface of thrust chamber to the environment can be neglected and the
outer surface wall can be assumed as adiabatic [6]. To simplify the gas side and
coolant side heat transfer analysis, many correlations are developed to calculate the
heat transfer coefficients.
In this study, the effects of geometry and number of rectangular cooling channels
on cooling efficiency are investigated in terms of the maximum temperature of
thrust chamber wall and coolant, and the pressure drop in cooling channel.
Thrust chamber is geometry is obtained preliminary according to the design
parameters that are determined for future works. Thermal properties of combustion
gases are calculated with thermochemical equilibrium code [7]. The contour of
thrust chamber is obtained by using isentropic gas equations [8, 9] and nozzle
contour design tools [10, 11].
Heat transfer analysis from gas side domain (combustion gases) to the solid domain
(thrust chamber) is simulated with Bartz correlation [12]. Therefore solution
domain consists of only liquid domain (coolant) and solid domain (thrust chamber
wall).
GAMBIT [13] and FLUENT [14] software programs are used as grid generator and
solver respectively in the solution. Fluid flow in the cooling channel is assumed to
3
be threedimensional, steadystate and turbulent. The standard kε turbulence
model is employed to the model [15].
Solution method is validated with experimental and numerical studies [16, 17]. The
effect of radiation heat transfer on temperature and pressure values of the system is
investigated. Several different channel geometries are formed with different
constant crosssection area in axial direction and analyses are performed. Results
are examined according to the maximum temperature of thrust chamber wall and
coolant, and also pressure drop in cooling channel. The most suitable geometry
from the engineering point of view is selected and optimum number of cooling
channel is found for this geometry with additional analyses. To decrease the
pressure drop in the cooling channel, crosssection area is increased in noncritical
regions, final analysis is performed and final geometry is obtained.
4
CHAPTER 2
2 BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
2.1 Regenerative Cooling
Regenerative cooling is first demonstrated in 1938 in United States by James H.
Wyld [18] and today one of the most widely applied cooling technique used in
liquid propellant rocket engines. Some of the engines, which use regenerative
cooling, and their specifications is given in Table 2.1.
Table 2.1 – Regeneratively Cooled Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines
Rocket Country Thrust [N] Chamber
Pressure [bar]
Oxidizer Fuel
AETUS II Germany 30,000 10 NTO MMH
RL10A USA 64,700 40 LOX LH
2
RD861K Ukraine 77,600 90 NTO UDMH
VINCI Germany 155,000 60 LOX LH
2
FASTRAC USA 270,000 80 LOX Kerosene
HM7B France  35 LOX LH
2
In regenerative cooling process, the coolant, generally the fuel enters passages at
nozzle exit of the thrust chamber, passes by the throat region and exits near the
injector face. Crosssectional view of a regeneratively cooled thrust chamber along
the rocket axis is given in Figure 2.1.
5
Figure 2.1 – CrossSectional View of a Thrust Chamber along Axial Direction with
Regenerative Cooling
The nozzle throat region usually has the highest heat flux and is therefore the most
difficult to cool. For this reason the cooling passage is often designed so that the
coolant velocity is highest at the critical regions by restricting the coolant passage
crosssection [3]. In some cases to increase the cooling efficiency, coolant can enter
the coolant passages either from the nozzle exit and throat (Figure 2.2a) or directly
from the throat (Figure 2.2b). This type of regenerative cooling is called as dual
regenerative cooling [19].
Figure 2.2 – Schematic Views for Dual Regenerative Cooling
6
2.2 Selection of Cooling Passages Geometry
Mainly two types of cooling techniques are used in regenerative cooling. Cooling
passages can consist of an assembly of contoured adjacent tubes or separate inner
wall.
In the first technique cooling tubes are brazed together to an outer shell that forms
the contour of thrust chamber. In this technique the crosssectional area of the tubes
are changed according to the region of thrust chamber. For the high heat flux
regions, tubes are elongated and squeezed to increase the velocity of the coolant
and to increase the heat transfer area (Figure 2.3.ab).
In the second technique, rectangular cooling channels are milled along the contour
of a relatively thick thrust chamber. The crosssections of the rectangular passages
are smaller in the high heat flux regions to increase the velocity of the coolant.
Outer shell is added to enclose the cooling passages (Figure 2.3.c).
Figure 2.3 – CrossSectional View for Different Type of Coolant Passages
7
In 1990, by conventional manufacturing techniques, aspect ratios (ratio of channel
height to channel width) as high as 8 could be manufactured and by introducing the
platelet technology [20] aspect ratio of cooling channels is increased as high as 15.
Today, improvements in manufacturing technologies have shown that by
conventional manufacturing methods (milling), cooling channels with an aspect
ratio 16 (8 mm height and 0.5 mm width) can be milled [21].
2.3 Selection of Materials for Thrust Chambers
The material selection for the brazed tubes or inner wall depends on the amount of
the heat flux and coolant properties. For most applications, copper is used for tubes
and inner wall. Cooper is an excellent conductor and does not oxidize in fuel rich
noncorrosive gas mixtures [3]. To increase the strength of material, copper alloys
with small additions of zirconium, silver or silicon can be used for thrust chambers.
Amzirc and NARloyZ are two examples for copper alloys used for thrust
chambers.
Amzirc is a copper base alloy containing nominal 0.15 % zirconium. This
zirconium copper alloy combines high electrical and thermal conductivity with
good strength retentation at high temperatures. NARloyZ is a copper base alloy
containing a nominal 3 % silver and 0.5 % zirconium. The silver zirconium copper
alloy combines high electrical and thermal conductivity with moderate strength
retention at high temperatures [22]. Although these materials have better strength
retention, they have lower conductivity than oxygen free high conductivity (OFHC)
copper.
For propellant combinations with corrosive and aggressive oxidizers (nitric asic or
nitrogen tetroxide) stainless steel is used as the inner wall material, since copper
would chemically react with these propellants [3].
8
Nickel and nickel alloys are preferred for the thrust chamber outer shell.
INCONEL718 is a nickel chromium base alloy used in aircraft turbojet engines,
thrust chamber outer shells, bellows and tubing for liquid oxygen type rocket
engines [23]. INCONEL718 has high yield, tensile, creep and creeprupture
strength at high temperatures up to 1000 K and at cryogenic temperatures [23].
2.4 Heat Transfer Analysis
In actual rocket development, not only the heat transfer is analyzed but also the
rocket units are almost always tested to assure that the heat is transferred
satisfactorily under all operating and emergency conditions. Heat transfer analysis
is required to guide the design, testing and failure investigations [3].
Several different computational fluid dynamics (CFD) computer programs have
been used for the analysis of thrust chamber steadystate heat transfer, with
different chamber geometries or different materials with temperature variable
properties. Some of the computer programs are described below.
Rocket thermal evaluation (RTE) code and twodimensional kinetics nozzle
performance code (TDK) are developed for the analysis of liquid propellant rocket
engines with regenerative cooling by NASA. RTE is a three dimensional analysis
code and uses a three dimensional finite differencing method. A GaussSeidel
iterative method is used at each axial location to determine the wall temperature
distributions. Gas properties (GASP) and complex chemical equilibrium and
transport properties (CAT) are the two subroutines used in this code to determine
the coolant and hotgasside thermal properties. TDK code evaluates the heat
fluxes on hotgasside walls with the wall temperature distribution from RTE.
Chamber pressure, coolant temperature, mass flow rates and coolant inlet pressure
are given as input parameters; pressure drop, hotgasside wall temperature and
coolant exit pressure are the results of the solution [16, 17, 19, 24].
9
GEMS (general equation and mesh solver) solves the conservation equations for an
arbitrary material using a hybrid structured/unstructured grid developed by Purdue
University. The code divides the computational domain into several zones where in
each zone different types of conservation equations can be described [6].
Rocket engine heat transfer evaluation computer code (REHTEP) [20] calculates
the gas side and coolant side heat transfer coefficients with basic correlations for
rocket engines and this data is imported into a twodimensional conduction analysis
which used a numerical differencing analyzer computer program (SINDA) [20,
25]; developed by NASA; to calculate the wall temperature profiles.
2.4.1 Definition of the Problem
Only 0.5 to 5 % of total energy generated by combustion is transmitted to all
internal surfaces of thrust chamber exposed to hot gases [3]. Local heat flux values
vary along the thrust chamber wall according to geometry and design parameters of
thrust chamber. A typical heat flux distribution along the thrust chamber wall is
given in Figure 2.4. The peak is always at the nozzle throat and the lowest value is
usually near the nozzle exit for uncooled thrust chambers.
Figure 2.4 – Typical Heat Flux Distribution along Thrust Chamber Wall
10
Heat transfer in a regeneratively cooled chamber can be described as the heat flow
between two moving fluids, through a multilayer partition as given in Figure 2.5
and total heat flux can be given as:
c s g tot
q q q q & & & & = = = (2.1)
Figure 2.5 – Heat Transfer Schematic for Regenerative Cooling [1]
2.4.2 Gas Side Heat Transfer
The heat transfer between the combusted gases and thrust chamber wall is by
convection and radiation.
rad , g conv , g g
q q q & & & + = (2.2)
2.4.2.1 Heat Transfer by Convection
In thrust chamber, before the combusted gases can transfer heat to the wall, the
heat energy must pass through a layer of stagnant gas along the wall, boundary
11
layer. This basic correlation for this complicated convective heat transfer can be
expressed by the following equation:
) T T ( h q
wg aw g conv , g
− = & (2.3)
The adiabatic wall temperature of combustion gas at a given location in the thrust
chamber may be obtained from the following expression:

¹

\
 −
+

¹

\
 −
+
=
2
2
c aw
M
2
1
1
M
2
1
r 1
T T
γ
γ
(2.4)
where recovery factor (r) can be estimated for turbulent flows as:
( )
33 . 0
Pr r = (2.5)
Determination of gas side heat transfer coefficient presents a very complex
problem. Comparisons of analytical results with experimental heat transfer data
have often shown disagreement. The differences are largely attributed to the initial
assumptions for analytical calculations. The boundary layer that controls the heat
transfer rate to the wall is greatly affected by the turbulent combustion process,
local gas compositions and temperature. Also each injector configuration produces
different combustion [1].
Based on experience with turbulent boundary layer, some relatively simple
correlations for the calculation of gas side heat transfer have been developed.
Bartz Correlation [12] is a well known equation used for estimation of rocket
nozzle convective heat transfer coefficients based on thermal properties of
12
combusted gases and isentropic gas equations. In this study and also in references
[26] and [27], heat transfer coefficient is estimated in terms of gas side wall
temperature by using Bartz Correlation.
σ
u
9 . 0
t
8 . 0
*
c
0
6 . 0
g
g , p
2 . 0
g
2 . 0
t
g
A
A
C
P
Pr
C
d
026 . 0
h 
¹

\


¹

\



¹

\

= (2.6)
12 . 0
2
68 . 0
2
c
wg
M
2
1
1 5 . 0 M
2
1
1
T
T
5 . 0
−
−

¹

\
 −
+
+

¹

\
 −
+ =
γ γ
σ (2.7)
Based on the experimental studies of Ciniaref and Dobrovoliski [28] the relation
for convective heat transfer can be given as:
35 . 0
wg
aw
82 . 0
g
82 . 0
g
g
g
T
T
Re Pr 0162 . 0
d
k
h


¹

\

= (2.8)
2.4.2.2 Heat Transfer by Radiation
The exact solution of the amount of heat transmitted to the wall by radiation is an
extremely complex problem for rocket propulsion systems.
In rocket combustion devices, gas temperature varies between 1900 and 3900 K;
where radiation heat transfer of combusted gases contributes 3 to 40% of the heat
transfer to the chamber walls, depending on the reaction gas composition, chamber
size, geometry and temperature [3].
Gases with symmetrical molecules, such as hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, have
been found not to show many strong emission bands. Also they do not really
absorb radiation and do not increase the radiation heat transfer. Heteropolar gases,
such as water vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and etc. have strong
emission bands [3].
13
For the propellants containing only carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms,
the total radiation heat flux can be approximated as [29]:
O H , rad CO , rad rad , g
2 2
q q q & & & + ≈ (2.9)


¹

\

−

¹

\

=
5 . 3
wg
5 . 3
aw
3
e CO CO , rad
100
T
100
T
L P 5 . 3 q
2 2
& (2.10)


¹

\

−

¹

\

=
3
wg
3
aw 6 . 0
e
8 . 0
O H O H , rad
100
T
100
T
L P 5 . 3 q
2 2
& (2.11)
where D 6 . 0 L
e
= in [m], heat flux in [kcal/m
2
h] and pressure in [kg/cm
2
].
2.4.3 Coolant Side Heat Transfer
The heat transfer between the coolant and thrust chamber wall is by forced
convection.
conv , l l
q q & & = (2.12)
) T T ( h q
cb wc l conv , l
− = & (2.13)
The coolant side heat transfer coefficient is influenced by many factors. Propellants
used for coolant may become corrosive, may decompose, or may deposit impurities
under high temperatures and heat fluxes, thereby reducing cooling effectiveness. It
is not possible to get the actual heat transfer coefficients without experiments [1].
The characteristic of coolant side heat transfer depend largely on the coolant
pressure and coolant side wall temperature (Figure 2.6). Curve A indicates the
behavior of heat transfer at coolant pressure below critical pressure. Line segment
A
1
– A
2
represents the forced convection when the temperature of the coolant is
14
below critical temperature. As the wall temperature of the coolant increases and
exceeds the critical temperature, small bubbles started to form in the boundary and
grow continuously. When the bubbles reach the colder liquid stream, they
condensate. This phenomenon is known as nucleate boiling and corresponds line
segment A
2
– A
3
in Figure 2.6. Nucleate boiling increase the heat transfer
coefficient, resulting in little increase in wall temperature for a wide range of heat
flux. A further increase in the heat flux increase the bubble population, gas film
occurs in the boundary and decrease heat transfer coefficient. Coolant side wall
temperature increases so high and causes failure of the wall material. Therefore for
coolant pressure values below critical temperature, A
3
is the maximum heat flux for
nucleate boiling and used as a design criteria for regenerative cooling [1].
Figure 2.6 – Regimes in Transferring Heat from a Hot Wall to a Flowing Liquid [1]
Curve B indicates the heat transfer behavior of coolant for pressure levels above
critical pressure. Since no boiling can occur, the wall temperature continuously
increases as the heat flux increases and heat transfer coefficient remains essentially
constant (line segment B
1
– B
2
). If the wall temperature reaches and exceeds the
critical temperature of coolant, a stable supercritical vaporfilm boundary layer
forms; this results in lower heat transfer coefficients and lower cooling efficiencies
(line segment B
2
– B
3
). Heat transfer can be increased up to the critical temperature
15
values of the wall material. Heat transfer characteristic of some propellants used for
regenerative cooling is given in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 – Heat Transfer Characteristics of Several Liquid Propellants [3]
Boiling
Characteristics
Nucleate Boiling
Characteristics
Liquid
Coolant
Pressure
[MPa]
Boiling
Temp.
[K]
Critical
Temp.
[K]
Critical
Pressure
[MPa]
Temp. [K]
Pressure
[MPa]
0.101 387 652 14.7 322.2 4.31
0.689 455
3.45 540 405.6 4.31
Hydrazine
6.89 588
0.101 490 678 2.0 297.2 0.689
0.689 603 Kerosene
1.38 651 297.2 1.38
0.101 294 431 10.1 288.9 4.31
0.689 342 322.2
Nitrogen
tetroxide
4.31 394 366.7
0.101 336 522 6.06 300 2.07
1.01 400
Unsymm.
dimethyl
hydrazine 3.45 489 300 5.22
For the nonboiling subcritical regions (line segments A
1
– A
2
and B
1
– B
2
), it is
possible to predict the heat transfer coefficient. Some correlations are defined to
calculate the heat transfer coefficient based on experimental studies.
The correlations used for coolant side heat transfer are principally based on the
conventional DittusBoelter equation for turbulent, thermally fully developed flow
for fluids with constant property values [30]. Some of the correlations used for
regenerative cooling analysis are given below.
16
Ciniaref and Dobrovolski [28]:
25 . 0
wc , l
l
43 . 0
l
8 . 0
l
l
h l
Pr
Pr
Pr Re 021 . 0
k
D h
Nu


¹

\

= = (2.14)
Taylor [31]:

¹

\

− −


¹

\

= =
x
D
59 . 1 57 . 0
cb
wc
4 . 0
l
8 . 0
l
l
h l
h
T
T
Pr Re 023 . 0
k
D h
Nu (2.15)
Sieder and Tate [32]:
14 . 0
cw , l
l
33 . 0
l
8 . 0
l
l
h l
Pr Re 027 . 0
k
D h
Nu
−


¹

\

= =
u
u
(2.16)
McCarthy and Wolf [33]:
55 . 0
cb
wc
4 . 0
l
8 . 0
l
l
h l
T
T
Pr Re 025 . 0
k
D h
Nu
−


¹

\

= = (2.17)
2.4.4 Pressure Drop in Cooling Channels
A higher pressure drop allows a higher velocity in the coolant channel which
increases the cooling efficiency but requires heavier feeding systems which
decreases the system efficiency of the propulsion system.
17
The pressure drop in steady, laminar and fullydeveloped flow of an
incompressible fluid through a horizontal pipe can be defined as [34]:
2
V
D
L
f P
2
h
ρ
= ∆ (2.18)
18
CHAPTER 3
3 MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION AND SOLUTION
METHOD
MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION AND SOLUTION
METHOD
3.1 MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION
The solution domain used in this study consists of 3 medium: coolant, inner wall of
the thrust chamber and outer shell of the thrust chamber. Because of the symmetry
characteristic of the system, the domain is divided by two symmetry planes (Figure
3.1).
Figure 3.1 – Schematic View of Solution Domain
19
In this study the fluid flow and heat transfer in the cooling channel was assumed to
be threedimensional, steadystate and turbulent flow. The standard kε turbulence
model is employed to the model. The conservation equations of fluid flow and heat
transfer are expressed as:
( ) ( )
φ φ
φ φ ρ S V + ∇ Γ ⋅ ∇ = ⋅ ∇ (3.1)
where the expressions of φ, Γ
φ
and S
φ
for different variables are given in
Table 3.1.
Table 3.1 – Conservation Equation Variables
Equations φ Γ
φ
S
φ
Continuity
Equation
1 0 0
u Equation u µ
eff

¹

\

∂
∂
∂
∂
+ 
¹

\

∂
∂
∂
∂
+ 
¹

\

∂
∂
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
−
x z x
v
y x
u
x x
p
eff eff eff
ω
u u u
v Equation v µ
eff

¹

\

∂
∂
∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂
∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
−
z z y
v
y y
u
x y
p
eff eff eff
ω
u u u
ω Equation ω µ
eff

¹

\

∂
∂
∂
∂
+ 
¹

\

∂
∂
∂
∂
+ 
¹

\

∂
∂
∂
∂
+
∂
∂
−
z x z
v
y z
u
x z
p
eff eff eff
ω
u u u
Energy
Equation
T µ/Pr + µ/σ
T
0
k Equation k µ + (µ/σ
k
)
ρε ρ −
k
G
ε Equation ε µ + (µ/σ
ε
) ( ) ρε ρ
ε
2 k 1
C G C
k
−
2 2 2
2
2
2
t
k
y z
v
x z
u
x
v
y
u
z y x
u
G


¹

\



¹

\

∂
∂
+ 
¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\


¹

\

∂
∂
+ 
¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\


¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂
+

¹

\

∂
∂
+


¹

\

∂
∂
+ 
¹

\

∂
∂


¹

\

=
ω ω ω ω
ρ
u
09 . 0 C =
u
44 . 1 C
1
= 92 . 1 C
2
= 0 . 1
k
= σ 3 . 1 =
ε
σ 85 . 0
T
= σ
20
The effect of heat transfer from combusted gases to the solution domain is
considered in two parts: convection heat transfer and radiation heat transfer as
shown in Figure 3.2.
Figure 3.2 – Convection and Radiation Heat Transfer from Combusted Gases to the
Solution Domain
Convection heat flux can be given as:
) T T ( h q
wg aw g conv
− = & (3.2)
Heat transfer coefficient can be calculated by using Bartz Correlation [13] as:
σ
u
9 . 0
t
8 . 0
*
c
6 . 0
c
c , p
2 . 0
c
2 . 0
t
g
A
A
C
P
Pr
C
d
026 . 0
h 
¹

\


¹

\



¹

\

= (3.3)
12 . 0
2
68 . 0
2
c
wg
M
2
1
1 5 . 0 M
2
1
1
T
T
5 . 0
−
−

¹

\
 −
+
+

¹

\
 −
+ =
γ γ
σ (3.4)

¹

\
 −
+

¹

\
 −
+
=
2
2
c aw
M
2
1
1
M
2
1
r 1
T T
γ
γ
(3.5)
21
where ( )
33 . 0
c
Pr r = for turbulent flows.
For the propellants containing only carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen atoms,
the total radiation heat flux, can be approximated as [28]:
O H , rad CO , rad rad
2 2
q q q & & & + ≈ (3.6)


¹

\

−

¹

\

=
5 . 3
wg
5 . 3
aw
3
e CO CO , rad
100
T
100
T
L p 3 q
2 2
& (3.7)


¹

\

−

¹

\

=
3
wg
3
aw 6 . 0
e
8 . 0
O H O H , rad
100
T
100
T
L p 3 q
2 2
& (3.8)
3.2 SOLUTION METHOD
Solution method used in this study is given in a schematic view in Figure 3.3.
Figure 3.3 – Schematic View of Solution Method
22
3.2.1 Thermochemical Equilibrium Code
To get thermal properties of the combusted gas, NASA computer program CEA
(Chemical Equilibrium with Applications) [7] is used. The program calculates
chemical equilibrium product concentrations from any set of reactants and
determines thermodynamic and transport properties for the product mixture.
Associated with the program are independent databases with transport and
thermodynamic properties of individual species.
3.2.2 User Defined Function for Solver
User Defined Function, which is coupled with the solver, basically calculates the
heat flux from combusted gases to solution domain in terms of T
wg
(gas side wall
temperature) by using the equations 3.2 and 3.6. Thermal properties of combusted
gases are given as an input data from CEA code. The code gets the coordinates of
the nodes from the solver to calculate Mach number and area which are used in
equation 3.3. Mach numbers are calculated using isentropic gas equations.
3.2.3 Grid Generator and Solver
GAMBIT [13] is used for grid generation. The grid is generated by hexahedral
elements in consideration of structured mesh. FLUENT [14], a pressure based
segregated solver, is used for the solution. Standard kε twoequation turbulence
model is employed with standard wall functions. SIMPLE algorithm is used to get
the pressure field.
23
CHAPTER 4
4 VALIDATION
VALIDATION
Validation of the solution method was performed using the experimental and
numerical studies of Wadel and Meyer [16, 17]. They used 89 kN GH
2
and LOX
engine for their experimental studies [17]. The engine specifications are given in
Table 4.1.
Figure 4.1 – 89 kN GH
2
and LOX Engine [17]
The thrust chamber consisted of an oxygen free high conductivity (OFHC) copper
inner wall with a nickel outer shell. The injector had 91 liquid oxygen posts.
Chamber liner was milled with 100 conventional coolant channels. These channels
had an aspect ratio of 2.5. In the critical heat flux area (nozzle throat region)
24
cooling channels are bifurcated into 200 channels and aspect ratio was increased up
to 8. For bifurcated channel cooling systems, channels were split into two channels
and combined back to a single channel.
Table 4.1 – 89 kN GH
2
and LOX Engine Specifications
Thrust [kN] 89
Chamber Pressure [bar] 110
Oxidizer/Fuel Liquid Oxygen/Gas Hydrogen
O/F 6
Coolant Liquid Hydrogen
LOX mass flow rate [kg/s] 13.8
GH2 mass flow rate [kg/s] 2.3
LH2 mass flow rate [kg/s] 2.3
Initial Temperature of LOX [K] 91.7
Initial Temperature of GH2 [K] 300
Initial Temperature of LH2 [K] 44.4
To get the temperature values on the hotgasside wall temperature, nine
thermocouples were inserted into holes drilled in the centre of the coolant channel
ribs. Also pressure taps were placed in the locations of coolant channel inlet and
coolant channel outlet. The tests are performed for different mass flow rates in
cooling channels. Gas side wall temperature distributions and pressure drops in the
channels are obtained [17].
Their numerical solution method is validated with the experiments explained
above. For numerical analysis Rocket Thermal Evaluation code (RTE) and Two
Dimensional Kinetics nozzle performance code (TDK) are used (explained in
Chapter 2). Radiation effects are not considered in analysis.
After the validation of their code, Wadel performed a numerical study for
comparison of high aspect ratio cooling channel designs [16]. In this study seven
different cooling channel designs are compared according to their cooling
25
efficiencies with considering fabrication. First design is called as “Baseline” and
has 100 continuous cooling channels with an aspect ratio of 2.5 and constant cross
sectional area. Fifth design is the bifurcated model which corresponds to the
experimental data performed by Wadel and Meyer [17]. For the validation of
solution method used in this study these two models are considered.
4.1 Baseline Solution
4.1.1 Grid Generation
Solution domain is generated for 5 cases. For each cases solution domain consist of
3 subdomains; inner wall, outer shell and coolant. For solid domains tetrahedral
elements and for coolant domain hexahedral elements are used. Between the sub
domains nonconformal grid boundary is used. The specifications of the grid for 5
cases are given in Table 4.2 and the crosssection of the solution domains are given
in Figure 4.2.
Table 4.2 – Grid Specifications
CASE 01 CASE 02 CASE 03 CASE 04 CASE 05
Grid Type
(Inner Wall)
Tetrahedral Tetrahedral Tetrahedral Tetrahedral Tetrahedral
# of Elements
(Inner Wall)
56,672 56,672 56,672 56,672 56,672
Grid Type
(Outer Shell)
Tetrahedral Tetrahedral Tetrahedral Tetrahedral Tetrahedral
# of Elements
(Outer Shell)
104,026 104,026 104,026 104,026 104,026
Grid Type
(Coolant)
Hexahedral Hexahedral Hexahedral Hexahedral Hexahedral
# of Elements
(Coolant)
82,134 167,112 450,400 1,014,000 4,563,000
Thickness of First
Row (Coolant)
10 µm 5 µm 1 µm 0.5 µm 0.1 µm
Total Number of
Elements
211,832 296,810 580,098 1,143,698 4,692,698
26
CASE 01 CASE 02 CASE 03 CASE 04 CASE 05
Figure 4.2 – CrossSectional View of Solution Domains
4.1.2 Material Properties
Materials used in the analysis are defined as Liquid Hydrogen for the coolant,
Oxygen Free High Conductivity Copper for the inner wall and INCONEL718 for
the outer shell. Thermal properties of the materials are given in (Appendix
APPENDIX A). Surface roughness for metal structures is taken 3.5 µm by
considering milling process [35].
4.1.3 Results and Discussion
Results are obtained for 5 different solution domains. Convergence history of
temperature rise and pressure drop in cooling channels according to number of
elements, are given in Figure 4.3 and Figure 4.4. Solution results of the five cases
along with the Wadel’s Solution [16] are given in Table 4.3 and Figure 4.5.
27
200
220
240
260
280
300
320
1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Number of Elements
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
R
i
s
e
i
n
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
(
K
)
Figure 4.3 – Convergence History of Temperature Rise
30
35
40
45
50
55
1.0E+05 1.0E+06 1.0E+07
Number of Elements
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
r
o
p
i
n
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
[
b
a
r
]
Figure 4.4 – Convergence History of Pressure Drop
28
Table 4.3 – Results of Baseline Solution
Tmax on Gas
Side Wall [K]
Pressure Drop in
Channel ∆P [bar]
Temperature Rise in
Channel ∆T [K]
CASE 01 882.7 53.8 216.8
CASE 02 816.9 51.4 229.8
CASE 03 783.2 45.7 265.4
CASE 04 755.07 40.5 297.8
CASE 05 748.4 40.1 302.8
Wadel’s Solution 764 37 
200.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
1000.00
0.30 0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
Axial Distance (m)
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
(
K
)
CASE 01
CASE 02
CASE 03
CASE 04
CASE 05
WADEL'S
SOLUTION
Figure 4.5 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall for Baseline Solution
As can be seen from the results, as the number of elements increased and the
thickness of boundary layer is decreased, the solution is converged. The results for
CASE 04 and CASE 05 are quite similar and at this point the grid specifications for
CASE 04 are enough to get grid independent solutions. Therefore for the following
analysis in this study, grids will be generated according to the grid specifications of
CASE 04.
29
4.2 Bifurcation Channel Solution
By using the grid specifications of CASE 04, the solution domain is generated for
bifurcation channel. Results are obtained by present solution method and compared
with the numerical and experimental solutions of Wadel and Meyer in Table 4.4
and Figure 4.5
Table 4.4 – Comparison of Pressure Values
P
inlet
[bar] P
outlet
[bar] ∆P [bar]
Present Numerical Solution 175.0 138.3 36.7
Wadel’s Numerical Solution 175.0 135.5 40.0
Wadel’s & Mayer’s Experimental
Data
175.0 125.0 50.0
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0.25 0.20 0.15 0.10 0.05 0.00 0.05 0.10
Axial Distance [m]
G
a
s

S
i
d
e
W
a
l
l
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
[
K
]
Present Numerical
Solution
Wadel's Numerical
Solution
Wadel's & Mayer's
Experimental Data
Figure 4.6 – Temperature Distribution on GasSide Wall for Bifurcation Channel
Solution
30
4.3 Discussion
For both analysis solutions, the results are quite similar with the numerical and
experimental results found in literature. Although there are some minor differences
between temperature and pressure values, these differences are acceptable. The
reasons for the differences could be the uncertainties on material thermal properties
and cooling channel geometry. The numerical solutions are strictly based on
thermal properties and channel geometry and these parameters are given roughly in
literature.
In this study main aim is to see the effect of cooling channel parameters on cooling
efficiency. Therefore the present solution is suitable and sufficient to understand
the effect of cooling parameters on efficiency.
31
CHAPTER 5
5 THRUST CHAMBER PRELIMENARY DESIGN
THRUST CHAMBER PRELIMINARY DESIGN
Although the design of thrust chamber consists of many parameters and detail
calculations, using basic geometric parameters are adequate to understand the
regenerative cooling effect on the system. In this study, a preliminary thrust
chamber design is performed to get the thrust chamber contour. In Figure 5.1 the
scheme of chamber LPRE is given. Region I is the Combustion Region, Region II
is the Subsonic Region and Region III is the Supersonic Region. The combination
of Region II and Region III can be called as nozzle and Region I as combustion
chamber.
Figure 5.1 – The Scheme of LPRE Chamber
32
For builtup of gasdynamic profile of the combustion chamber, it is necessary to
give some input data to the system such as thrust (at sea level), chamber pressure,
exit pressure, ambient pressure and propellant components. These parameters are
given in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1 – LPRE Requirements
Thrust [kN] 300
Combustion Chamber Pressure [bar] 60
Exit Pressure [bar] 1.5
Ambient Pressure [bar] 1
Fuel Kerosene (RP1)
Oxidizer LOX
Oxidizerfuel ratio is one of the main parameters also. To find the oxidizerfuel
ratio (O/F) for high combustion efficiency, oxidizerfuel couple with different
ratios is combusted by using the thermochemical code CEA. For different fuel
oxidizer ratios (O/F), flame temperatures and I
sp
values are found and given in
Table 5.2, obtained graphs are given in Figure 5.2 and Figure 5.3.
Table 5.2 – Flame Temperatures and I
sp
Values for Different O/F
Mass Percentage of RP1 [%] Flame Temperature [K] I
sp
[s]
5 1809 164
10 2944 224
15 3402 257
20 3607 278
25 3678 292
30 3570 295
35 3154 281
33
1600
1800
2000
2200
2400
2600
2800
3000
3200
3400
3600
3800
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Mass Percentage of RP1 [%]
F
l
a
m
e
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
[
K
]
Figure 5.2 – Flame Temperature vs Mass Percentage of RP1
150
160
170
180
190
200
210
220
230
240
250
260
270
280
290
300
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40
Mass Percentage of RP1 [%]
I
s
p
[
s
]
Figure 5.3 – I
sp
vs Mass Percentage of RP1
Maximum I
sp
is obtained around 30 percentage of RP1. Therefore 3 / 7 F / O = ,
s 295 I
sp
= and K 3570 T
f
= are selected for the combustion. Total mass flow rate
34
and mass flow rates for the propellant and oxidizer can be calculated as given
below. For this O/F ratio Specific Heat Ratio (γ) is found as 1.146.
Mass Flow Rate:
g I
F
m
sp
= & (5.1)
s
kg
1 . 31 3 . 0 8 . 103 m
s
kg
7 . 72 7 . 0 8 . 103 m
s
kg
8 . 103 m
pr
ox
= × =
= × =
=
&
&
&
Nozzle Expansion Area Ratio:


¹

\

−
−
+


¹

\


¹

\
 +
=
−
−
γ
γ
γ
γ
γ
γ γ
ε
1
c
e
1
c
e
1
1
P
P
1
1
1
P
P
2
1
1
(5.2)
573 . 6 = ε
Thrust Coefficient:
c
a e
1
c
e
1
1
2
f
P
P P
P
P
1
1
2
1
2
C
−


¹

\

−


¹

\

+ −
=
−
−
+
ε
γ γ
γ
γ
γ
γ
γ
(5.3)
6 . 1 C
f
=
35
Throat Area:
c f
t
P C
F
A = (5.4)
2
t
mm 31205 A =
Throat Diameter:
π
t
t
A 4
d = (5.5)
mm 200 d
t
=
Exit Area:
ε
t e
A A = (5.6)
2
e
mm 205097 A =
Exit Diameter:
π
e
e
A 4
d = (5.7)
mm 512 d
e
=
5.1 Nozzle Contour Estimation for Region II
The total combustion process; from injection of the reactants until completion of
conversation of the reactants to hot product gases, requires finite amount of time
and volume which can be defined by Characteristic Length (L
*
). L
*
can be
estimated from experimental data and previously successful designs. Typical
36
Characteristic Lengths for various propellant combinations are given in Table 5.3.
For the following calculation L
*
is taken as m 0 . 1 (Liquid Oxygen / RP1).
Table 5.3 – Typical Characteristic Lengths for Various Propellant Combinations
Propellant Combination
Characteristic
Length, L
*
[m]
Chlorine Trifluoride / HydrazineBase Fuel 0.5 – 0.76
Liquid Fluorine / Hydrazine 0.61 – 0.71
Liquid Fluorine / Gas Hydrogen 0.56 – 0.66
Liquid Fluorine / Liquid Hydrogen 0.64 – 0.76
Hydrogen Peroxide / RP1 1.52 – 1.78
Nitric Acid / HydrazineBase Fuel 0.76 – 0.89
Nitrogen Tetroxide / HydrazineBase Fuel 0.76 – 0.89
Liquid Oxygen / Ammonia 0.76 – 1.02
Liquid Oxygen / Gas Hydrogen 0.56 – 0.71
Liquid Oxygen / Liquid Hydrogen 0.76 – 1.02
Liquid Oxygen / RP1 1.02 – 1.27
Conditional Length:
t c
r 2 05 . 0 L = (5.8)
m 424 . 0 L
c
=
Where L
c
in meters and r
t
in millimeters.
Nozzle Contraction Area Ratio:
c
*
c
L
L
= ε (5.9)
361 . 2
c
= ε
37
Chamber Area:
c t c
A A ε = (5.10)
2
c
mm 73675 A =
Chamber Diameter:
π
c
c
A 4
d = (5.11)
mm 306 d
c
=
Contour of Region II can be estimated by a known formula of Vitoshinsky [10]:
3
2
c
2
2
c
2
c
t
t
r
2
3
x
3
1
1
r
2
3
x
1
r
r
1 1
r
y




¹

\

−




¹

\

−


¹

\

− −
= (5.12)
5.2 Length Estimation for Region I
Volume (Region I and Region II)
*
t cc
L A V × = (5.13)
3 9
cc
mm 10 031 . 0 V × =
V
II
can be obtained by fitting a curve on Region II contour points and taking the
integral of the curve, where
3 9
II
mm 10 013 . 0 V × = .
II cc I
V V V − =
38
3 9
I
mm 10 018 . 0 V × =
c
I
1
A
V
L =
mm 240 L
1
=
5.3 Nozzle Contour Estimation for Region III
NCDT (Nozzle Contour Design Tool) Code [11] is used to estimate the nozzle
contour for Region III. NCDT is a Fortran based program, which is composed of
three parts: Ideal nozzle contour design, Rao nozzle contour design and 2D
axisymmetric, irrotational, inviscid flow analyzer. In this study Rao nozzle contour
design tool is used.
5.4 Nozzle Contour for the Designed Thrust Chamber
With the analytical equations and obtained data points the nozzle contour is
obtained and given in Figure 5.4.
Figure 5.4 – Calculated Combustion Chamber and Nozzle Contour for 300 kN
LPRE
39
CHAPTER 6
6 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
ANALYSIS AND RESULTS
Analyses are performed for designed thrust chamber in Chapter 5 for 16 different
channel geometries.
6.1 Material Properties
Materials used in the analysis are defined as Kerosene (RP1) for the coolant,
Oxygen Free High Conductivity Copper for the inner wall and INCONEL718 for
the outer shell. Thermal properties of the materials are given in (APPENDIX A).
Surface roughness for metal structures is taken 3.5 µm by considering milling
process [35]
6.2 Boundary Conditions
Boundary conditions for solution domain (Figure 6.1) are given in Table 6.1, Table
6.2 and Table 6.3.
40
Figure 6.1 – Schematic View of Solution Domain
Table 6.1 – Boundary Conditions for Inner Wall
Plane ABGFDC
0
n
T
=
∂
∂
Plane JKPOML
0
n
T
=
∂
∂
Plane BGPK
0
n
T
=
∂
∂
Plane ACLJ
0
n
T
=
∂
∂
Plane ABKJ*
g
q
n
) kT (
& =
∂
∂
(*) Subcode used for calculating heat flux on plane ABKJ
is given in APPENDIX B.
41
Table 6.2 – Boundary Conditions for Outer Shell
Plane EFGIH
0
n
T
=
∂
∂
Plane NOPRS
0
n
T
=
∂
∂
Plane EHRN
0
n
T
=
∂
∂
Plane GISP
0
n
T
=
∂
∂
Plane HIRS
0
n
T
=
∂
∂
Table 6.3 – Boundary Conditions for Coolant
Plane LMON*
N 2
m
m
pr
×
=
&
& ,
inlet
T T =
Plane CDFE**
c
P P =
Plane CENL
0
n
T
n
w
n
v
n
u
=
∂
∂
=
∂
∂
=
∂
∂
=
∂
∂
(*) N refers to number of cooling channels. T
inlet
is the initial
temperature of coolant and 300 K for all analyses.
(**) Pressure loses in injector are neglected. Therefore coolant
exit pressure should be at combustion chamber pressure in
ideal conditions. For all analyses exit pressure of coolant is 60
bar.
6.3 Effect of Radiation Heat Transfer on Temperature and Pressure
To examine the radiation heat transfer effect, 2 analyses are performed with the
same geometry under different heat flux boundary conditions. Analysis parameters
are given in Table 6.4.
42
Table 6.4 – Parameters for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation
4x4x100
(no rad)
4x4x100
Channel Height [mm] 4 4
Channel Width [mm] 4 4
# of cooling Channels 100 100
Heat Flux (
g
q& )
Convection Convection, Radiation
m& (per channel) [kg/s] 0.311 0.311
Analysis results are given in Table 6.5. Radiation heat transfer increased the total
heat flux on thrust chamber wall approximately 1.1 MW/m
2
(8.4 %) at chamber
region, 1.2 MW/m
2
(4.4 %) at throat region and 0.7 MW/m
2
(13.1 %) at nozzle exit
region (Figure 6.2).
As the total heat flux increased, temperatures on gas side wall and in coolant are
increased also. At throat region gas side wall temperature is increased
approximately 18 K (2.3 %) and at combustion region coolant temperature is
increased approximately 23 K (3.5 %). Temperature distributions for gas side wall
and coolant along axial direction are given in Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.4.
There is an inverse proportion between viscosity and temperature for coolant
kerosene (Figure A.3). Addition of radiation heat transfer increased the overall
temperature of coolant and result in slightly less pressure drop in cooling channel
(Figure 6.5).
As a result radiation heat transfer should be considered for regenerativly cooled
thrust chambers with hydrocarbon fuels. Therefore for the following analyses sum
of radiation heat flux and convection heat flux is used as a boundary condition for
gas side thrust chamber wall.
43
Table 6.5 – Results for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation
4x4x100 (no rad) 4x4x100
Maximum Heat Flux on
Gas Side Wall [MW/m
2
]
28.43 29.32
Maximum Wall
Temperature on Gas
Side Wall [K]
783.7 801.8
Maximum Coolant
Temperature [K]
647.1 669.8
Required Pressure Inlet
for Coolant [bar]
78.1 77.8
Pressure Drop in
Channel [bar]
18.1 17.8
Figure 6.2 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation
44
Figure 6.3 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation
Figure 6.4 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along
Axial Direction for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation
45
Figure 6.5 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Radiation
Heat Transfer Investigation
6.4 Effect of Channel Geometry on Cooling Efficiency
The effect of channel geometry on cooling efficiency will be examined in two
groups. In each group the height of the cooling channels are constant and width of
the channels are decreased gradually. For the first group height is 4 mm and for the
second group height is 8 mm. Analysis parameters are given in Table 6.6 and Table
6.7.
46
Table 6.6 – Parameters for 4 mm Height Channels
4x5x100 4x4x100 4x3x100 4x2x100 4x1x100
Channel Height [mm] 4 4 4 4 4
Channel Width [mm] 5 4 3 2 1
# of cooling Channels 100 100 100 100 100
AR (Aspect Ratio) 0.8 1.0 1.3 2.0 4
D
h
[mm] 4.4 4.0 3.4 2.7 1.6
Heat Flux (
g
q& ) Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
m& (per channel) [kg/s] 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311 0.311
Channel Geometry
Table 6.7 – Parameters for 8 mm Height Channels
8x5x100 8x4x100 8x3x100 8x2x100 8x1x100
Channel Height [mm] 8 8 8 8 8
Channel Width [mm] 5 4 3 2 1
# of cooling Channels 100 100 100 100 100
AR (Aspect Ratio) 1.6 2.0 2.7 4.0 8.0
D
h
[mm] 6.2 5.3 4.4 3.2 1.8
Heat Flux (
g
q& ) Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
m& (per channel)
[kg/s]
0.1555 0.1555 0.1555 0.1555 0.1555
Channel Geometry
The results are given in Table 6.8 and Table 6.9.
47
Table 6.8 – Results for 4 mm Height Channels
4x5x100 4x4x100 4x3x100 4x2x100 4x1x100
Maximum Heat Flux on Gas
Side Wall [MW/m
2
]
29.03 29.32 29.53 29.67 29.74
Maximum Wall Temperature
on Gas Side Wall [K]
822.3 801.8 787.5 777.9 773.2
Maximum Coolant
Temperature [K]
681.2 669.8 659.2 649.7 640.3
Required Pressure Inlet for
Coolant [bar]
70.3 77.8 96.3 164.0 741.0
Pressure Drop in Channel
[bar]
10.3 17.8 26.3 104.0 681.0
Table 6.9 – Results for 8 mm Height Channels
8x5x100 8x4x100 8x3x100 8x2x100 8x1x100
Maximum Heat Flux on Gas
Side Wall [MW/m
2
]
27.33 27.90 28.36 28.79 29.24
Maximum Wall Temperature
on Gas Side Wall [K]
944.5 904.9 872.5 842.7 811.8
Maximum Coolant
Temperature [K]
805.0 760.6 724.0 703.4 679.0
Required Pressure Inlet for
Coolant [bar]
61.9 63.4 67.6 83.3 247.2
Pressure Drop in Channel
[bar]
1.9 3.4 7.6 23.3 187.2
As given in Chapter 2, heat transfer coefficient is highly depends on Re number
(Re
0.8
) and Re number is described as:
u
ρ
h
uD
Re = (6.1)
For incompressible flows:
hw
m
A
m
u
ρ ρ
& &
= = (6.2)
48
) w h ( 2
hw 4
D
h
+
= (6.3)
) w h (
1
m
2
) w h ( 2
hw 4
hw
m
Re
+
=
+
= &
&
u ρ u
ρ
(6.4)
As a result, with the same mass flow rate (same number of cooling channels) and
channel height, as we decrease the width of the cooling channel (increasing aspect
ratio), Velocity, Re number and heat transfer coefficient on coolant side wall will
increase assuming of constant thermal properties. Velocity profiles of the coolant at
throat (x=0) for each geometry are given in Figure 6.6.
Velocity Magnitudes (m/s)
4x5x100 4x4x100 4x3x100 4x2x100 4x1x100
8x5x100 8x4x100 8x3x100 8x2x100 8x1x100
Figure 6.6 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant at Throat (x=0)
49
Increasing heat transfer coefficient by increasing aspect ratio on coolant side will
result in increasing total surface heat flux on gas side wall. In Figure 6.7 and Figure
6.8 total surface heat flux distribution along axial direction is given for 4 mm and 8
mm channel heights. For 4 mm channel heights total surface heat flux is increased
2.5 % between the maximum and minimum aspect ratio cooling channels and for 8
mm cooling channel heat flux is increased 7.0 % at throat section. As the total
surface heat flux is increased, temperature difference between gas domain and
thrust chamber wall will increase with an assumption of constant heat transfer
coefficient and as a result temperature on gas side wall and coolant side wall will
decrease as the aspect ratio is increased. Temperature distribution along axial
direction on gas side wall and coolant side wall are given in Figure 6.9, Figure
6.10, Figure 6.11 and Figure 6.12 for 4 mm and 8 mm channel heights.
Figure 6.7 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 4
mm Channel Height
50
Figure 6.8 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 8
mm Channel Height
Figure 6.9 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
4mm Channel Height
51
Figure 6.10 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
8 mm Channel Height
Figure 6.11 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along
Axial Direction for 4 mm Channel Height
52
Figure 6.12 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along
Axial Direction for 8mm Channel Height
With constant channel height and channel number the cooling efficiency is
expected to reach an optimum level, because as we increase the aspect ratio, heat
transfer area for the coolant decreases and after a while coolant efficiency will start
to decrease. As given in Figure 6.13 Figure 6.14, increasing aspect ratio causes a
converging solution for minimum temperature on gas side wall and coolant. In this
study this optimum level has not been considered as a design point.
53
700
750
800
850
900
950
1000
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Aspect Ratio (AR)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
o
n
G
a
s
S
i
d
e
W
a
l
l
[
K
]
4 mm Channel Height
8 mm Channel Height
Figure 6.13 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Gas Side Wall Temperature
600
650
700
750
800
850
900
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Aspect Ratio (AR)
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
C
o
o
l
a
n
t
[
K
]
4 mm Channel Height
8 mm Channel Height
Figure 6.14 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Coolant Temperature
Pressure drop in coolant channel can be approximated as given in Chapter 2.
2
V
D
L
f P
2
h
ρ
= ∆ (6.5)
54
2
2
) wh ( 4
) h w (
m fL P
+
= ∆ & (6.6)
In equation 6.6 with constant channel height and mass flow rate, as we decrease the
channel width, pressure of coolant and pressure drop in coolant channel will
increase (Figure 6.15 – Figure 6.17). For channel geometries 4x2x100, 4x1x100
and 8x1x100 pressure drops are calculated as higher then the combustion chamber
pressure (60 bar) and these designs are not acceptable since they need large feeding
systems. Pressure drops around half of the combustion chamber pressure can be
used as a system design criteria.
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Aspect Ratio (AR)
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
r
o
p
i
n
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
[
b
a
r
]
4 mm Channel Height
8 mm Channel Height
Figure 6.15 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Pressure Drop in Channel
55
Figure 6.16 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for 4 mm
Channel Height
Figure 6.17 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for 8 mm
Channel Height
56
6.5 Effect of Number of Channels on Cooling Efficiency
According to the analysis results obtained in section 6.4, coolant channels with 4x1
mm
2
and 4x2 mm
2
cross section area have the best temperature results for cooling
but have high pressure drops in the channel. (681 bar and 104 bar respectively).
Although it is stated that these two geometries are not suitable because of high
pressure drops in coolant channel, by changing the number of coolant channels, it
is possible to decrease pressure drop and temperatures on solid body.
Since the cooling efficiency is quite close for these geometries, there is no need to
work on case with 4x1 mm
2
which has a very high pressure drop. Therefore,
channel geometry with 4x2 mm
2
cross section area is selected to investigate the
effect of number of channels on cooling efficiency.
The effect of number of channels on cooling efficiency is investigated for 6
different channel numbers. Analysis parameters are given in Table 6.10.
Table 6.10 – Parameters for Number of Channels Investigation
4x2x50 4x2x100 4x2x150 4x2x200 4x2x250 4x2x300
Channel Height
[mm]
4 4 4 4 4 4
Channel Width
[mm]
2 2 2 2 2 2
# of cooling
Channels
50 100 150 200 250 300
AR (Aspect
Ratio)
2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
D
h
[mm] 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7 2.7
Heat Flux (
g
q& ) Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
Convection
Radiation
m& (per
channel) [kg/s]
0.6220 0.3110 0.2073 0.1555 0.1244 0.1037
57
The results are given in Table 6.11. For less number of coolant channels mass flow
rate of the coolant is high and for the same crosssection area coolant velocities are
high. Velocity profiles of coolant are given at throat region (x=0) in Figure 6.18.
Table 6.11 – Results for Channel Number Investigation
4x2x50 4x2x100 4x2x150 4x2x200 4x2x250 4x2x300
Maximum Heat Flux on Gas
Side Wall [MW/m
2
]
29.07 29.67 29.83 29.71 29.39 28.67
Maximum Wall Temperature
on Gas Side Wall [K]
821.7 777.9 770.5 778.6 800.6 850.1
Maximum Coolant
Temperature [K]
654.8 649.7 647.3 649.3 654.4 695.5
Required Pressure Inlet for
Coolant [bar]
411.9 164.0 110.8 90.3 80.3 74.6
Pressure Drop in Channel
[bar]
351.9 104.0 50.8 30.3 20.3 14.6
Velocity Magnitudes (m/s)
4x2x50 4x2x100 4x2x150 4x2x200 4x2x250 4x2x300
Figure 6.18 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant at Throat (x=0)
Maximum coolant side heat transfer coefficient is obtained for geometry with 50
channels but also this geometry has the minimum total heat transfer area between
58
the coolant and solid body is low. As we increase the number of channels, total
heat transfer area is increased. The results show that there exists an optimum
number of cooling channels which has the highest heat flux on gas side wall and
lowest temperature on gas side wall (Figure 6.19) and coolant (Figure 6.20). For
4x2 mm crosssection area optimum number of cooling channels for cooling
efficiency is around 150. Gas side heat flux distribution and temperature
distributions for gas side wall and coolant side wall are given in Figure 6.21, Figure
6.22 and Figure 6.23.
700
725
750
775
800
825
850
875
900
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
# of Coolant Channels
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
o
n
G
a
s
S
i
d
e
W
a
l
l
[
K
]
Figure 6.19 – Effects of Number of Channels on Gas Side Wall Temperature
600
625
650
675
700
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
# of Coolant Channels
M
a
x
i
m
u
m
T
e
m
p
e
r
a
t
u
r
e
o
f
C
o
o
l
a
n
t
[
K
]
Figure 6.20 – Effects of Number of Channels on Coolant Temperature
59
Figure 6.21 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
Different Number of Cooling Channels
Figure 6.22 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
Different Number of Cooling Channels
60
Figure 6.23 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along
Axial Direction for Different Number of Cooling Channels
Since the velocity magnitudes are decreased as the number of cooling channels are
incresed, it is obvious to see lower pressure values in coolant channel with high
number of coolant channels (Figure 6.24). Pressure distributions along axial
direction for different number of coolant channels are given in Figure 6.25
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
# of Coolant Channels
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
D
r
o
p
i
n
C
h
a
n
n
e
l
[
b
a
r
]
Figure 6.24 – Effects of Number of Channels on Pressure Drop
61
Figure 6.25 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Different
Number of Channels
In summary by changing the number of cooling channels maximum gas side wall
temperature decreased from 777.9 K to 770.5 K (1.0 %), maximum coolant
temperature decreased from 649.7 K to 647.3 K (0.4 %) and pressure drop
decreased from 104.0 bar to 50.8 bar (51.2 %). Although the pressure drop is
decreased by changing the number of cooling channels, 50.8 bar pressure drop is
still high. By changing the cross section area of cooling channel for non critical
regions (low heat flux regions), it is possible to decrease pressure drop. This topic
will be discussed in next section.
6.6 Cooling Channels with Variable Cross Section Area
To understand the effects of variable cross section on temperature and pressure,
new cooling channel geometry is formed. The channel has 4x2 mm
2
cross section
area in the throat region and 4x4 mm
2
cross section areas in the combustion region
and nozzle region. The geometry of cooling channel is given in Figure 6.26.
62
Figure 6.26 – Channel Geometry for Variable Cross Section Area
Results are compared with the 4x2x150 channel geometry and given in Table 6.12.
Although there is not a big difference for the maximum heat flux and maximum
wall temperature on gas side wall, maximum temperature of coolant is increased
approximately 30 K and the pressure drop in the cooling channel decreased to 18.4
bar.
Table 6.12 – Results for Variable Cross Sectionx150 and 4x2x150
4x2x150 Variable Cross Section Areax150
Maximum Heat Flux on Gas Side
Wall [MW/m
2
]
29.83 29.82
Maximum Wall Temperature on Gas
Side Wall [K]
770.5 772.2
Maximum Coolant Temperature [K] 647.3 675.2
Required Pressure Inlet for Coolant
[bar]
110.8 78.4
Pressure Drop in Channel [bar] 50.8 18.4
63
As can be seen from Figure 6.27, velocity magnitude is high in throat region and
low in combustion and nozzle exit regions. Therefore it is expected a better cooling
efficiency in throat region relatively to combustion and nozzle exit regions. Since
for both cases the cross section area is same in throat region, temperature values are
quite similar in this region. But as we increased the cross section area the cooling
efficiency is decreased and increases the local temperatures at larger cross section
area regions (Figure 6.28 and Figure 6.29).
Velocity Magnitudes (m/s)
x=0.5m x=0m x=0.6m
Figure 6.27 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant for Variable Cross Section Channel at
Different Locations
64
Figure 6.28 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for
8 mm Channel Height
Figure 6.29 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along
Axial Direction for Variable Cross Section Area Investigation
65
As the velocity is decreased in larger cross section regions pressure drop is
decreased also. In Figure 6.30 the pressure distribution along axial direction for
4x2x150 channel geometry and variable cross section area channel geometry is
given. For variable cross section geometry the slope of pressure drop is low for
larger cross section regions and the slope of pressure drop is high for smaller cross
section region.
Figure 6.30 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Variable
Cross Section Area Investigation
16 different channel geometries are investigated and the variable cross section area
channel geometry gives the best sufficient results from the engineering point of
view although coolant temperature is reached higher temperature values compared
with other geometries.
Maximum wall temperature on gas side wall is calculated as 770.5 K. For OFHC
Copper melting temperature is 1083 °C (1356 K). Therefore we can conclude no
66
failure will be observed in thrust chamber because of the melting of the solid
domain.
In Table 2.2 the critical temperature and critical pressure of Kerosen is given 678 K
and 2.0 MPa (20 Bar). For the variable cross section channel geometry, the
maximum temperature of the coolant is calculated as 675.2 K. This put the
convection heat transfer on curve B
1
– B
2
in Figure 2.6. No boiling occurs in the
coolant.
Pressure drop in the channel calculated as 18.4 bar which is quite sufficient for a
regeneratively cooled rocket engine with 60 bar chamber pressure.
67
CHAPTER 7
7 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
In this study, the effects of geometry and number of rectangular cooling channels
on cooling efficiency are investigated in terms of the maximum temperature of
thrust chamber wall and coolant, and the pressure drop in cooling channel of a
liquid propellant rocket engine. The engine has been modeled to operate on a
LOX/Kerosene mixture at a chamber pressure of 60 bar with 300 kN thrust.
10 different channel geometries are formed in 2 groups with 100 cooling channels
and different constant crosssection area in axial direction In each group the height
of the cooling channels are constant and width of the channels are decreased
gradually. For the first group channel height is 4 mm and for the second group
channel height is 8 mm. Results are examined according to the maximum
temperature of thrust chamber wall and coolant, and also pressure drop in cooling
channel. From the engineering point of view the best cooling efficiency is obtained
by 4x2 mm
2
channel cross section area and 100 cooling channels with relatively
high pressure drop.
Optimum number of cooling channels is found for the constant cross section area
4x2 mm
2
and 150 cooling channels with a pressure drop 50.8 bar. By increasing the
number of cooling channels 50%, the pressure drop in the cooling channel is
decreased approximately 51%. To decrease the pressure drop in the cooling
68
channel more, crosssection area is increased in low heat flux regions up to 4x4
mm
2
and pressure drop is decreased to 18.4 bar (approximately 64%).
According to the analysis results following design rules for cooling channels can be
summarized as:
• Increasing the aspect ratio with constant height and constant number of
cooling channels, will increase the cooling efficiency up to a optimum
level, then efficiency will decrease because of decreasing heat transfer area.
• Increasing the aspect ratio with constant height and constant number of
cooling channels, will increase the pressure drop in cooling channel.
• Increasing the number of cooling channels without changing the geometry,
will increase the cooling efficiency up to an optimum level with increasing
total heat transfer area, then efficiency will decrease because of decreasing
mass flow rate per channel.
• Increasing the number of cooling channels without changing the geometry,
will decrease the pressure drop in channel.
• Increasing the cross section area of a channel in certain regions of the
cooling channel, will decrease the cooling efficiency, increase the local
temperatures and decrease the pressure drop in this region.
This thesis gives the analysis of regenerative cooling for a preliminary designed
thrust chamber. As a future work, the parameters affecting the cooling efficiency
can be optimized for given conditions. User defined function used for heat flux on
gas side wall can be improved in consideration of turbulence effect in combustion
region of thrust chamber.
69
REFERENCES
[1] Huzel, D., K., Huang, D., H., “Modern Engineering for Design
LiquidPropellant Rocket Engines”, AIAA,1992.
[2] Coulbert, C., D., “Selecting Cooling Techniques for Liquid Rockets
for Spacecraft”, Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 1, 2, 1964.
[3] Sutton G., P., “Rocket Propulsion Elements”, John Wiley & Sons,
Inc., 6
th
Edition, 1992.
[4] Batha, D., R., Carey, M., D., Campell, J., G., Coulbert, C., D., “Thrust
Chamber Cooling Techniques for Spacecraft Engines”, Marquardt
Corporation, NAS7103, 1963.
[5] Sullivian, J., A., Y., “Numerical Analysis of Variable Property Flow
Through Rectangular Channels”, The Pennsylvania State University,
1995.
[6] Merkle C., L., Li, D., Sankaran, V., “Analysis of Regen Cooling in
Rocket Combusters”, Jannaf Propulsion Conference, 2004.
[7] Sanford, G., Bonnie, J., M., “Computer Program for Calculation of
Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and Applications”
NASA RP1311, 1994.
[8] Zucrow, M., J., Hoffman, J., D., “Gas Dynamics: Multidimensional
Flows”, vol. 1 & 2, John Wiley & Sons Inc., 1977.
70
[9] Aksel, M., H., Eralp, O., C., “Gas Dynamics”, Prentice Hall., 1994.
[10] Bucharsky V., L., “Sıvı Yakıtlı Đtki Sistemleri Eğitim Notları”,
METU, 2008.
[11] Seçkin, B., “Rocket Nozzle Design and Optimization”, M. Sc. Thesis,
METU, 2003.
[12] Bartz, D., R., “A Simple Equation for Rapid Estimation of Rocket
Nozzle Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients”, Technical Notes,
California Institute of Technology, DA04495, 1957.
[13] GAMBIT
®
, htpp://www.fluent.com/software/gambit/index.htm
[14] FLUENT
®
, htpp://www.fluent.com/software/fluent/index.htm
[15] Arpaci, V. S., Larsen, P. S., “Convection Heat Transfer”, Prentice
Hall, Inc., 1984.
[16] Wadel, M., F., “Comparison of High Aspect Ratio Cooling Channel
Designs for a Rocket combustion Chamber with Development of an
Optimized Design”, NASA/TM1998206313
[17] Wadel, M., F., Meyer, M., L., “Validation of High Aspect Ratio
Cooling in a 89 kN Thrust Chamber”, AIAA 962584, July 1996.
[18] Sutton, G., P., “history of Liquid Propellant Engines in United States”,
Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 19, No. 6, 2003.
[19] Naraghi, M., H., Dunn, S., Coats, D., “Dual Regenerative Cooling
Circuits for Liquid Rocket Engines”, AIAA 20064367, July 2006.
71
[20] Carlie, J., Quentmeyer, R., “An Experimental Investigation of High
AspectRatio Cooling Passages”, AIAA 923154, July 1992.
[21] Mitsubishi Materials, C003E General Catalogue, 20072009
[22] Esposito, J., J., Zabora, R., F., “Thrust Chamber Life Prediction –
Mechanical and Physical Properties of High Performance Rocket
Nozzle Materials”, NASA CR – 134806, 1975.
[23] Muraca, R., F., Whittick, J., S., “Materials Data Handbook – Inconel
Alloy718”, NASA CR – 123774, April 1972.
[24] Naraghi, M., H., Dunn, S., Coats, D., “A Model for Design and
Analysis of Regeneratively cooled for Rocket Engine”, AIAA 2004
3852, 2006.
[25] Wang, T., Luong, V., “HotGasSide and CoolantSide Heat Transfer
in Liquid Rocket Engine Combustors”, Journal of Thermophysics and
Heat Transfer, Vol. 8, No. 3, 1994.
[26] Wang, Q., Wu, F., Zeng, M., Luo, L., “Numerical simulation and
Optimization on Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow in Cooling Channel of
Liquid Rocket Engine Thrust Chamber”, International Journal for
Computer Aided Engineering and Software, Vol. 23, No. 8, pp. 907
921, 2006.
[27] Schuff, R., Maier, M., Sindiy, O., Ulrich, C., Fugger, S., “Integrated
Modeling and Analysis for a LOX/Methane Expander Cycle Engine:
Focusing on Regenerative Cooling Jacket Design”, AIAA 20064534,
July 2006.
[28] Ciniaref, G., D., Dorovoliski , M., B., “Theory of LiquidPropellant
Rockets”, Moscow, 1957.
72
[29] Barrere M., Jaumotte, A., Veubeke, B., F., Vandenkerckhove J.,
“Rocket Propulsion”, Elsevier Publishing Company, 1960.
[30] Locke, J., M., “Analysis of Heat Transfer Correlations for
Supercritical Hydrogen in Regenerative Cooling Channels”, The
University of Alabama, 2005.
[31] Taylor, M., F., “Prediction of Friction and Heat Transfer Coefficients
with Large Variations in fluid Properties”, NASA TMX2145, 1970.
[32] Sieder, E., N., Tate, G., E., “Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of
Liquids in Tubes”, Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Vol. 28, No.
12, Dec. 1936, pp. 14921453.
[33] McCarthy, J. R., Wolf, H., “Forced Convection Heat Transfer to
Gaseous Hydrogen at High Heat Flux and High Pressure in a Smooth,
Round, Electrically Heated Tube”, ARS Journal, 30, 1960, pp.423
424.
[34] Aksel, M., H., “Notes on Fluid Mechanics”, METU, 1990.
[35] Degarmo, E., P., Black, J., T., Kosher, R., A., “Materials and
Processes in Manufacturing”, Macmillan Publishing Company, 7
th
Edition, 1988.
73
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A
THERMAL PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS
Table A.1 – Thermal Properties of Kerosene
Density [kg/m3] 820
Specific Heat [J/kgK]
261 . 0 T 10 95 . 2 T 10 82 . 2 Cp
4 2 8
+ × × − × × − =
− −
Thermal Conductivity
[W/mK]
261 . 0 T 10 95 . 2 T 10 64 . 9 k
4 2 8
+ × × − × × =
− −
Viscosity [kg/ms]
3 5 2 8 3 11
10 00 . 6 T 10 39 . 2 T 10 22 . 3 T 10 46 . 1
− − − −
× + × × − × × + × × − = u
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
4000
200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Temperature [K]
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
H
e
a
t
a
t
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
[
J
/
k
g

K
]
Figure A.1 – Temperature Variable C
p
for Kerosene
74
0
0.02
0.04
0.06
0.08
0.1
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
300 350 400 450 500 550 600 650 700 750 800
Temperature [K]
T
h
e
r
m
a
l
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
[
W
/
m

K
]
Figure A.2 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for Kerosene
0
0.0001
0.0002
0.0003
0.0004
0.0005
0.0006
300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Temperature [K]
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y
[
k
g
/
m

s
]
Figure A.3 – Temperature Variable Viscosity for Kerosene
75
Table A.2 – Thermal Properties of Liquid Hydrogen
Density
[kg/m3]
71
Specific Heat
[J/kgK]
) K 550 195 between ( 10 60 . 2 T 10 22 . 7 T 10 53 . 1 T 10 09 . 1 Cp
) K 195 30 between ( 10 62 . 3 T 10 85 . 1 T 10 85 . 5 Cp
4 1 2 1 3 4
3 2 2 1
− × + × × − × × + × × − =
− × + × × + × × − =
−
−
Thermal
Conductivity
[W/mK]
141 . 0 T 10 05 . 2 T 10 33 . 2 k
4 2 7
+ × × + × × =
− −
Viscosity
[kg/ms]
) K 550 60 between ( 10 06 . 2 T 10 40 . 1 T 10 75 . 4 T 10 45 . 4
) K 60 20 between ( 10 75 . 1 T 10 83 . 2
5 7 2 10 3 13
4 6
− × + × × − × × + × × − =
− × + × − =
− − − −
− −
u
u
0
2000
4000
6000
8000
10000
12000
14000
16000
18000
20000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Temperature [K]
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
H
e
a
t
a
t
C
o
n
s
t
a
n
t
P
r
e
s
s
u
r
e
[
J
/
k
g

K
]
Figure A.4 – Temperature Variable C
p
for Liquid Hydrogen
76
Chart Title
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Temperature [K]
T
h
e
r
m
a
l
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
[
W
/
m

K
]
Figure A.5 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for Liquid Hydrogen
0
0.00002
0.00004
0.00006
0.00008
0.0001
0.00012
0 100 200 300 400 500 600
Temperature [K]
V
i
s
c
o
s
i
t
y
[
k
g
/
m

s
]
Figure A.6 – Temperature Variable Viscosity for Liquid Hydrogen
77
Table A.3 – Thermal Properties of OFHC Copper
Density
[kg/m3]
8890
Specific Heat
[J/kgK] ) K 800 123 . between ( 7 . 64 T 44 . 2 T 10 17 . 6 T 10 32 . 5 Cp
) K 123 20 between ( 2 . 39 T 61 . 2 Cp
2 3 3 6
− + × + × × − × × =
− − × =
− −
Thermal
Conductivity
[W/mK]
) K 800 90 between ( 520 T 10 91 . 5 T 10 66 . 6 k
) K 90 20 between ( 1730 T 9 . 23 T 10 10 . 1 k
1 2 4
2 1
− + × × − × × =
− + × − × × =
− −
−
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Temperature (K)
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
H
e
a
t
(
J
/
k
g

K
)
Figure A.7 – Temperature Variable C
p
for OFHC Copper
0
200
400
600
800
1000
1200
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Temperature (K)
T
h
e
r
m
a
l
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
W
/
m

K
)
Figure A.8 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for OFHC Copper
78
Table A.4 – Thermal Properties of INCONEL 718
Density [kg/m3] 8190
Specific Heat [J/kgK]
327 T 10 04 . 3 T 10 79 . 5 Cp
1 1 2 7
+ × × + × × =
− − −
Thermal Conductivity [W/mK]
4 . 7 T 10 44 . 1 k
2
+ × × =
−
300
350
400
450
500
550
600
650
700
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200
Temperature (K)
S
p
e
c
i
f
i
c
H
e
a
t
(
J
/
k
g

K
)
Figure A.9 – Temperature Variable C
p
for INCONEL 718
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400
Temperature (K)
T
h
e
r
m
a
l
C
o
n
d
u
c
t
i
v
i
t
y
(
W
/
m

K
)
Figure A.10 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for INCONEL 718
79
APPENDIX B
USER DEFINED FUNCTION FOR HEAT FLUX ON GAS
SIDE WALL
#include "udf.h"
# define pi (3.14159)
DEFINE_PROFILE(Boun_Cond, t, i)
{
real x[ND_ND]; /* this will hold the position vector */
real rt, dt, At, vis, Cp, Pr, Pc, Tc, gamma, Cstar, g, r, A, M, Mnew, N1, N2, N3, Taw, sigma, hgas,
func, ffunc, fCO2, fH2O, Le, qrad, qCO2, qH2O, P, Pcr;
face_t f;
int k,NI;
rt=0.1; /* m */
vis=0.00010863; /* kg/ms */
Cp=2083.3; /* J/kgK */
Pr=0.63;
Pc=6000000; /* Pa */
Pcr=61.18297; /* kg/cm2 */
Tc=3570.44; /* K */
gamma=1.146;
Cstar=1804.7; /* m/s */
NI=100000;
dt=rt*2;
At=pi*pow(rt,2);
fCO2=0.11917; /* Mole Fraction of CO2 */
fH2O=0.31769; /* Mole Fraction of H2O */
begin_f_loop(f,t)
{
80
F_CENTROID(x,f,t);
r=sqrt(pow(x[a],2)+pow(x[1],2));
A=pi*pow(r,2);
Le=0.6*2*r;
/* For Combustion Region */
if (x[0]<0.28)
{
M=0;
P=Pcr/pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M,2)/2),(gamma/(gamma1)));
Taw=Tc*((1+pow(Pr,0.33)*((gamma1)/2)*pow(M,2))/
(1+((gamma1)/2)*pow(M,2)));
sigma=pow((0.5*F_T(f,t)/Tc*(1+(gamma1)*
pow(M,2)/2)+0.5),0.68)*pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M,2)/2),0.12);
hgas=0.026*pow(vis/dt,0.2)*Cp*pow(Pc/Cstar,0.8)*pow(At/A,0.9)*
sigma/pow(Pr,0.6);
/* Radiation Heat Transfer */
qCO2=4.0705*pow((P*fCO2*Le),1/3)*(pow((Taw/100),3.5)
pow((F_T(f,t)/100),3.5));
qH2O=4.0705*pow(P*fH2O,0.8)*pow(Le,0.6)*
(pow((Taw/100),3)pow((F_T(f,t)/100),3));
qrad=qCO2+qH2O;
}
/* For Subsonic Region */
if (x[0]<0 && x[0]>=0.28)
{
for(k=1;k<=NI;k++)
{
if(k==1)
M=0.05;
81
else
M=Mnew;
N1=2/(gamma+1);
N2=(gamma+1)/(2*(gamma1));
N3=1+(gamma1)*pow(M,2)/2;
func=pow(N1,N2)*pow(N3,N2)/MA/At;
ffunc=pow(N1,N2)*pow(N3,N2)*pow(M,2)+
pow(N1,N2)*N2*pow(N3,N21)*(gamma1);
Mnew=Mfunc/ffunc;
if(fabs(MnewM)<0.01)
break;
}
P=Pcr/pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M,2)/2),(gamma/(gamma1)));
Taw=Tc*((1+pow(Pr,0.33)*((gamma1)/2)*pow(M,2))/
(1+((gamma1)/2)*pow(M,2)));
sigma=pow((0.5*F_T(f,t)/Tc*(1+(gamma1)*
pow(M,2)/2)+0.5),0.68)*pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M,2)/2),0.12);
hgas=0.026*pow(vis/dt,0.2)*Cp*pow(Pc/Cstar,0.8)*pow(At/A,0.9)*
sigma/pow(Pr,0.6);
/* Radiation Heat Transfer */
qCO2=4.0705*pow((P*fCO2*Le),1/3)*(pow((Taw/100),3.5)
pow((F_T(f,t)/100),3.5));
qH2O=4.0705*pow(P*fH2O,0.8)*pow(Le,0.6)*
(pow((Taw/100),3)pow((F_T(f,t)/100),3));
qrad=qCO2+qH2O;
}
/* For Supersonic Region */
if (x[0]>=0)
{
for(k=1;k<=NI;k++)
{
if(k==1)
M=20;
82
else
M=Mnew;
N1=2/(gamma+1);
N2=(gamma+1)/(2*(gamma1));
N3=1+(gamma1)*pow(M,2)/2;
func=pow(N1,N2)*pow(N3,N2)/MA/At;
ffunc=pow(N1,N2)*pow(N3,N2)*pow(M,2)+
pow(N1,N2)*N2*pow(N3,N21)*(gamma1);
Mnew=Mfunc/ffunc;
if(fabs(MnewM)<0.01)
break;
}
P=Pcr/pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M,2)/2),(gamma/(gamma1)));
Taw=Tc*((1+pow(Pr,0.33)*((gamma1)/2)*pow(M,2))/
(1+((gamma1)/2)*pow(M,2)));
sigma=pow((0.5*F_T(f,t)/Tc*(1+(gamma1)*
pow(M,2)/2)+0.5),0.68)*pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M,2)/2),0.12);
hgas=0.026*pow(vis/dt,0.2)*Cp*pow(Pc/Cstar,0.8)*pow(At/A,0.9)*
sigma/pow(Pr,0.6);
/* Radiation Heat Transfer */
qCO2=4.0705*pow((P*fCO2*Le),1/3)*(pow((Taw/100),3.5)
pow((F_T(f,t)/100),3.5));
qH2O=4.0705*pow(P*fH2O,0.8)*pow(Le,0.6)*
(pow((Taw/100),3)pow((F_T(f,t)/100),3));
qrad=qCO2+qH2O;
}
F_PROFILE(f,t,i) = (hgas*(Taw  F_T(f,t))+qrad);
}
end_f_loop(f,t)
}
Approval of the thesis:
ANALYSIS OF REGENERATIVE COOLING IN LIQUID PROPELLANT ROCKET ENGINES
submitted by MUSTAFA EMRE BOYSAN¸ in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Mechanical Engineering Department, Middle East Technical University by,
Prof. Dr. Canan ÖZGEN Dean, Gradute School of Natural and Applied Sciences Prof. Dr. Süha ORAL Head of Department, Mechanical Engineering Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdullah ULAŞ Supervisor, Mechanical Engineering Dept., METU
Examining Committee Members: Prof. Dr. Haluk AKSEL Mechanical Engineering Dept., METU Assoc. Prof. Dr. Abdullah ULAŞ Mechanical Engineering Dept., METU Prof. Dr. Hüseyin VURAL Mechanical Engineering Dept., METU Asst. Dr. Cüneyt SERT Mechanical Engineering Dept., METU Dr. H. Tuğrul TINAZTEPE Roketsan Missiles Industries Inc.
Date:
05.12.2008
I hereby declare that all information in this document has been obtained and presented in accordance with academic rules and ethical conduct. I also declare that, as required by these rules and conduct, I have fully cited and referenced all material and results that are not original to this work.
Name, Last name
: Mustafa Emre BOYSAN
Signature
:
iii
Abdullah ULAŞ December 2008. the rocket combustion chamber gas side wall temperature can be reduced significantly without an increase in the coolant pressure drop. Traditionally. the regenerative cooling of a liquid propellant rocket engine has been numerically simulated. Prof. In regenerative cooling. Department of Mechanical Engineering Supervisor: Assoc. regenerative cooling is the most preferred cooling method. For highpressure and highthrust rocket engines.. a coolant flows through passages formed either by constructing the chamber liner from tubes or by milling channels in a solid liner. Dr.ABSTRACT ANALYSIS OF REGENERATIVE COOLING IN LIQUID PROPELLANT ROCKET ENGINES BOYSAN. approximately square cross sectional channels have been used. Sc. However. The engine has been modeled to operate on a iv . Mustafa Emre M. 82 pages High combustion temperatures and long operation durations require the use of cooling techniques in liquid propellant rocket engines. In this study. recent studies have shown that by increasing the coolant channel heighttowidth aspect ratio and changing the cross sectional area in noncritical regions for heat flux.
LOX/Kerosene mixture at a chamber pressure of 60 bar with 300 kN thrust and kerosene is considered as the coolant. A numerical investigation was performed to determine the effect of different aspect ratio cooling channels and different number of cooling channels on gasside wall and coolant temperature and pressure drop in cooling channel. Cooling Efficiency. Liquid Oxygen. v . Regenerative Cooling. Cooling Channel. Keywords: Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines. Kerosene.
82 sayfa Yüksek yanma sıcaklıkları ve uzun çalışma süreleri. Rejeneratif soğutma. Dr. Makina Mühendisliği Bölümü Tez Yöneticisi: Doç. sıvı yakıtlı roket motorlarında soğutma tekniklerinin kullanılmasını gerekli kılar. Soğutma kanalları için genellikle kare kesit alanları tercih edilmekteyken.ÖZ SIVI YAKITLI ROKET MOTORLARINDA REJENERATĐF SOĞUTMA ANALĐZLERĐ BOYSAN. kanal içinde basınç düşüşünü çok etkilemeden yanma odası iç yüzeyindeki sıcaklık değerlerinin düşürülebildiği gösterilmiştir. Yüksek basınçlı ve yüksek itkili roket motorlarında rejeneratif soğutma. vi . soğutma akışkanının yanma odası duvarlarına yerleştirilen tüplerden veya yanma odası duvarlarına işlenen kanallardan geçirilmesiyle sağlanır. öncelikli tercih edilen soğutma tekniklerinden biridir. Mustafa Emre Yüksek Lisans. Abdullah ULAŞ Aralık 2008. yapılan çalışmalarda kanal kesit alanlarında yükseklik genişlik oranının arttırılmasıyla ve ısı akısı bakımından kritik olmayan bölgelerde kesit alanlarının değiştirilmesiyle.
vii . Soğutma Verimliliği. soğutma akışkanı olarak kerosen seçilmiştir. Yanma Odası. Anahtar Kelimeler: Sıvı Yakıtlı Roket Motorları. Kerosen. sıvı oksijen ve kerosen karışımı ile 60 bar yanma odası basıncı ve 300 kN’luk itki seviyesini oluşturacak şekilde tasarlanmış.Bu çalışmada. Hesaplamalı akışkanlar dinamiği ile farklı yükseklikgenişlik oranları ve kullanılan kanal sayılarının. Regeneratif Soğutma. sıvı yakıtlı roket motorlarında kullanılan soğutma kanalları hesaplamalı akışkanlar dinamiği ile benzeştirilmiştir. yanma odası iç yüzeyinin ve soğutma akışkanının sıcaklık değerlerine ve kanal içi basınç düşüşüne etkileri incelenmiştir. Soğutma Kanalları. Sıvı Oksijen. Motor.
Dr. I would like to thank to Dr. December 2008 Mustafa Emre Boysan viii . Abdullah ULAŞ for his professional support. Prof. Başar SEÇKĐN and Dr. I would like to express my sincere appreciation to my colleagues Bora KALPAKLI for his crucial advises. guidance and encouragement throughout the completion of this thesis work. Love and thanks to my family.ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am extremely grateful to my supervisor Assoc. my flat mates and my friends for their neverending patience. support and encouragement. I deeply appreciate his patience and many efforts to proofread my thesis over and over again. Ezgi CĐVEK and Göktuğ KARACALIOĞLU for their invaluable efforts during the preparation of this thesis. Ankara. Atılgan TOKER for their great support and encouragement and ROKETSAN for partially supporting this study. Tuğrul TINAZTEPE.
8 Definition of the Problem... 1 BACKGROUND...........................................XI LIST OF FIGURES ................. 23 ix ...3 2.............................1 3..................................................................................................................XVI 1 2 INTRODUCTION .4..3 MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION.......4 3 REGENERATIVE COOLING .......2............ 6 SELECTION OF MATERIALS FOR THRUST CHAMBERS ...........................................................................2 3..............................................................................................................4..............................2 3.......................................................... 22 User Defined Function for Solver ..........................2............................................................ 4 2.............................................4....TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT..................................................................................................................................................................... 18 SOLUTION METHOD......................................................................... 4 SELECTION OF COOLING PASSAGES GEOMETRY .........................................................VIII TABLE OF CONTENTS...................... 16 MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION AND SOLUTION METHOD.............................................................................. 22 Grid Generator and Solver ......................................4...................................................................................................................................................................................................XIII LIST OF SYMBOLS .......................................IV ÖZ....................................................................................................1 3............. 13 Pressure Drop in Cooling Channels ........2....... 10 Coolant Side Heat Transfer......................................... 18 3...........................................................................................VI ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS..................................................................................................................................... 21 Thermochemical Equilibrium Code ..........................................................................................................................................................................................3 2.. 7 HEAT TRANSFER ANALYSIS ........................IX LIST OF TABLES ............................................2 2.........................................................................................................................................4 2..............1 2....................................................................................................................... 9 Gas Side Heat Transfer ............2 2...................1 2.................... 22 4 VALIDATION ...........................................
............2 6........................... 69 APPENDICES .................................................................................................................................................... THERMAL PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS ............2 5..............1............. 39 EFFECT OF RADIATION HEAT TRANSFER ON TEMPERATURE AND PRESSURE ......................................2 4...1.......... 39 BOUNDARY CONDITIONS ....... 79 x ......1 4........................................ 73 A...............................................................................................................................................................................................4 6...................... 35 LENGTH ESTIMATION FOR REGION I ..........................................................1 4...................................... 45 EFFECT OF NUMBER OF CHANNELS ON COOLING EFFICIENCY ..4 NOZZLE CONTOUR ESTIMATION FOR REGION II ........ 29 DISCUSSION ......... 31 5............ 37 NOZZLE CONTOUR ESTIMATION FOR REGION III ............................ 61 7 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION ................................ 25 Grid Generation .............................5 6..6 MATERIAL PROPERTIES ..........................................................1 6.......................................................................................................................................................................... 67 REFERENCES....... 30 THRUST CHAMBER PRELIMENARY DESIGN.....3 6................................................................................. B.............3 5 BASELINE SOLUTION .....................1 5................ 38 6 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ............................... 26 Results and Discussion.................................................................................................................................................................... 41 EFFECT OF CHANNEL GEOMETRY ON COOLING EFFICIENCY ................................................3 4....................................... 56 COOLING CHANNELS WITH VARIABLE CROSS SECTION AREA ........................................................ 38 NOZZLE CONTOUR FOR THE DESIGNED THRUST CHAMBER ........................................... 26 BIFURCATION CHANNEL SOLUTION ...................................................................2 4............... 39 6................................1................ 73 USER DEFINED FUNCTION FOR HEAT FLUX ON GAS SIDE WALL ............3 5......................... 25 Material Properties .....................4............................................................................
..................1 – Regeneratively Cooled Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines ............ 47 Table 6......7 – Parameters for 8 mm Height Channels ......................2 – Boundary Conditions for Outer Shell ..........................1 – Conservation Equation Variables ...........3 – Boundary Conditions for Coolant...... 15 Table 3.........9 – Results for 8 mm Height Channels ...................6 – Parameters for 4 mm Height Channels ........................... 19 Table 4.............2 – Thermal Properties of Liquid Hydrogen....................................12 – Results for Variable Cross Sectionx150 and 4x2x150 ...........................................2 – Grid Specifications ... 62 Table A........................................................LIST OF TABLES Table 2......... 29 Table 5............... 25 Table 4.........................11 – Results for Channel Number Investigation............. 57 Table 6.............. 4 Table 2........................................... 73 Table A..........................1 – Thermal Properties of Kerosene .................................................................................2 – Flame Temperatures and Isp Values for Different O/F ................1 – 89 kN GH2 and LOX Engine Specifications.3 – Typical Characteristic Lengths for Various Propellant Combinations 36 Table 6............................... 32 Table 5.....3 – Results of Baseline Solution ..................................... 46 Table 6........ 32 Table 5.......................4 – Comparison of Pressure Values ................................... 41 Table 6...........8 – Results for 4 mm Height Channels ... 43 Table 6..... 42 Table 6.................................................. 46 Table 6....................... 56 Table 6...4 – Parameters for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation.......................... 47 Table 6....... 28 Table 4..................................1 – Boundary Conditions for Inner Wall .............10 – Parameters for Number of Channels Investigation.............. 75 xi ....................................................................... 40 Table 6...................2 – Heat Transfer Characteristics of Several Liquid Propellants [3] ..5 – Results for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation................. 24 Table 4..............1 – LPRE Requirements.................. 41 Table 6.........................................
Table A.3 – Thermal Properties of OFHC Copper ................................................. 77 Table A.4 – Thermal Properties of INCONEL 718 ................................................ 78
xii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 – CrossSectional View of a Thrust Chamber along Axial Direction with Regenerative Cooling........................................................................... 5 Figure 2.2 – Schematic Views for Dual Regenerative Cooling................................ 5 Figure 2.3 – CrossSectional View for Different Type of Coolant Passages ........... 6 Figure 2.4 – Typical Heat Flux Distribution along Thrust Chamber Wall ............... 9 Figure 2.5 – Heat Transfer Schematic for Regenerative Cooling [1] ..................... 10 Figure 2.6 – Regimes in Transferring Heat from a Hot Wall to a Flowing Liquid [1] ............................................................................................................ 14 Figure 3.1 – Schematic View of Solution Domain ................................................. 18 Figure 3.2 – Convection and Radiation Heat Transfer from Combusted Gases to the Solution Domain ................................................................................ 20 Figure 3.3 – Schematic View of Solution Method ................................................. 21 Figure 4.1 – 89 kN GH2 and LOX Engine [17] ...................................................... 23 Figure 4.2 – CrossSectional View of Solution Domains....................................... 26 Figure 4.3 – Convergence History of Temperature Rise ........................................ 27 Figure 4.4 – Convergence History of Pressure Drop .............................................. 27 Figure 4.5 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall for Baseline Solution ... 28 Figure 4.6 – Temperature Distribution on GasSide Wall for Bifurcation Channel Solution .............................................................................................. 29 Figure 5.1 – The Scheme of LPRE Chamber.......................................................... 31 Figure 5.2 – Flame Temperature vs Mass Percentage of RP1............................... 33 Figure 5.3 – Isp vs Mass Percentage of RP1 .......................................................... 33 Figure 5.4 – Calculated Combustion Chamber and Nozzle Contour for 300 kN LPRE.................................................................................................. 38 xiii
Figure 6.1 – Schematic View of Solution Domain ................................................. 40 Figure 6.2 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation ............................................... 43 Figure 6.3 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation ............................................... 44 Figure 6.4 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along Axial Direction for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation ............... 44 Figure 6.5 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation................................................................ 45 Figure 6.6 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant at Throat (x=0) ..................................... 48 Figure 6.7 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 4 mm Channel Height ........................................................................... 49 Figure 6.8 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 8 mm Channel Height ........................................................................... 50 Figure 6.9 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 4mm Channel Height ......................................................................... 50 Figure 6.10 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 8 mm Channel Height ........................................................................ 51 Figure 6.11 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along Axial Direction for 4 mm Channel Height......................................... 51 Figure 6.12 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along Axial Direction for 8mm Channel Height.......................................... 52 Figure 6.13 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Gas Side Wall Temperature .................. 53 Figure 6.14 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Coolant Temperature............................. 53 Figure 6.15 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Pressure Drop in Channel ..................... 54 Figure 6.16 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for 4 mm Channel Height .................................................................................. 55 Figure 6.17 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for 8 mm Channel Height .................................................................................. 55 Figure 6.18 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant at Throat (x=0) ................................... 57 Figure 6.19 – Effects of Number of Channels on Gas Side Wall Temperature...... 58 xiv
....................7 – Temperature Variable Cp for OFHC Copper .........4 – Temperature Variable Cp for Liquid Hydrogen... 76 Figure A.... 59 Figure 6.........................24 – Effects of Number of Channels on Pressure Drop ... 60 Figure 6...........................21 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for Different Number of Cooling Channels.....................8 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for OFHC Copper ...........................1 – Temperature Variable Cp for Kerosene .............................9 – Temperature Variable Cp for INCONEL 718.....................2 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for Kerosene....... 64 Figure 6................... 63 Figure 6. 60 Figure 6...............25 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Different Number of Channels ...................26 – Channel Geometry for Variable Cross Section Area .............. 76 Figure A.............20 – Effects of Number of Channels on Coolant Temperature .......................Figure 6.. 58 Figure 6.........5 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for Liquid Hydrogen .. 64 Figure 6...............29 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along Axial Direction for Variable Cross Section Area Investigation .................... 73 Figure A............ 59 Figure 6..27 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant for Variable Cross Section Channel at Different Locations ............. 78 Figure A.30 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Variable Cross Section Area Investigation........................3 – Temperature Variable Viscosity for Kerosene .......................... 74 Figure A.................................................. 75 Figure A....................... 65 Figure A....... 74 Figure A..................................... 77 Figure A.............................. 61 Figure 6.28 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 8 mm Channel Height .......................10 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for INCONEL 718 .............23 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along Axial Direction for Different Number of Cooling Channels ................6 – Temperature Variable Viscosity for Liquid Hydrogen. 78 xv .......22 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for Different Number of Cooling Channels................... 62 Figure 6....................................... 77 Figure A.............
LIST OF SYMBOLS A Area [m2] C* Characteristic Velocity [m/s] Constant in turbulence Model Constant in turbulence Model Thrust Coefficient C1 C2 Cf Cµ Cp d Constant in turbulence Model Specific Heat at Constant Pressure [J/kgK] Diameter [m] Hydraulic Diameter [m] Friction Factor Heat Transfer Coefficient [W/m2K] Height of Cooling Channel [mm] Specific Impulse [s] Thermal Conductivity [W/mK] Length of Cooling Channel in Axial Direction [m] Mass Flow Rate [kg/s] Mach Number Normal Outward Direction Pressure [bar] Prantl Number Heat Flux [W/m2] Recovery Factor Dh f h h Isp k L & m M n P Pr & q r xvi .
Re S T u v V w ω x y z Reynolds Number Source Term Temperature [K] Velocity Along x Direction [m/s] Velocity Along y Direction [m/s] Velocity Magnitude [m/s] Width of Cooling Channel [mm] Velocity Along z Direction [m/s] x axis of Cartesian Coordinate y axis of Cartesian Coordinate z axis of Cartesian Coordinate Other Symbols: σκ σε Turbulent Prandtl Numbers for κ Turbulent Prandtl Numbers for ε Turbulent Prandtl Numbers for T Density [kg/m3] Specific Heat Ratio Viscosity [kg/ms] Effective Turbulence Viscosity [kg/ms] Turbulence Viscosity [kg/ms] σT ρ γ µ µeff µt Subscripts: aw c cb conv. Adiabatic Wall Temperature Chamber Coolant Bulk Temperature Convection xvii .
CO 2 H 2O g l ox pr rad. Carbon Dioxide Water Vapor Gas Domain Liquid Domain Oxidizer Propellant Radiation Solid Domain Throat Total Coolant Side Wall Gas Side Wall s t tot wc wg xviii .
It has been effective in applications with high chamber pressure and for long durations with a heat flux range 1. high energy released by combusted gases. either singly or in combination. The energy absorbed by the coolant is not wasted. film or transpiration cooling. Regenerative cooling is one of the most widely applied cooling techniques used in liquid propellant rocket engines [1]. include regenerative cooling. environmental requirements and operational requirements should be considered.CHAPTER 1 1 INTRODUCTION INTRODUCTION All rocket engines have one problem in common. it augments the initial energy content of the propellant prior to injection.5%) [2].1 to 1. high heat transfer rates (0. increasing the exhaust velocity slightly (0. ablation. This problem results in high combustion temperatures (2400 to 3600 K).8 to 160 MW/m2) in thrust chamber and requires special cooling techniques for the engine [1]. To choose the proper cooling technique mission requirements.6 to 160 MW/m2 [3]. Regenerative cooling of a liquid propellant rocket engine consists of a balance between the energy rejected by the combusted gases and the heat energy absorbed by the coolant [4]. radiation cooling. arid inert or endothermic heat sinks [2]. Therefore thermal energy is recovered in the 1 . Cooling techniques developed to cope with this problem.
However by this process the overall engine performance gain is less than 1% [1]. Therefore solution domain consists of only liquid domain (coolant) and solid domain (thrust chamber wall). The contour of thrust chamber is obtained by using isentropic gas equations [8.system [5]. The heat transfer analysis in regenerative cooling are simply based on convection and radiation heat transfer for gas domain. 9] and nozzle contour design tools [10. 11]. Thermal properties of combustion gases are calculated with thermochemical equilibrium code [7]. To simplify the gas side and coolant side heat transfer analysis. Heat transfer from the outer surface of thrust chamber to the environment can be neglected and the outer surface wall can be assumed as adiabatic [6]. Heat transfer analysis from gas side domain (combustion gases) to the solid domain (thrust chamber) is simulated with Bartz correlation [12]. many correlations are developed to calculate the heat transfer coefficients. GAMBIT [13] and FLUENT [14] software programs are used as grid generator and solver respectively in the solution. gas domain (combusted gases). Basically there are three domains in a regeneratively cooled rocket engine. and the pressure drop in cooling channel. Fluid flow in the cooling channel is assumed to 2 . liquid domain (coolant) and the solid domain (thrust chamber wall). the effects of geometry and number of rectangular cooling channels on cooling efficiency are investigated in terms of the maximum temperature of thrust chamber wall and coolant. conduction heat transfer for solid domain and convection heat transfer for liquid domain. Thrust chamber is geometry is obtained preliminary according to the design parameters that are determined for future works. In this study.
be threedimensional. The standard kε turbulence model is employed to the model [15]. crosssection area is increased in noncritical regions. Several different channel geometries are formed with different constant crosssection area in axial direction and analyses are performed. and also pressure drop in cooling channel. The most suitable geometry from the engineering point of view is selected and optimum number of cooling channel is found for this geometry with additional analyses. steadystate and turbulent. To decrease the pressure drop in the cooling channel. final analysis is performed and final geometry is obtained. 3 . Solution method is validated with experimental and numerical studies [16. The effect of radiation heat transfer on temperature and pressure values of the system is investigated. Results are examined according to the maximum temperature of thrust chamber wall and coolant. 17].
which use regenerative cooling.CHAPTER 2 2 BACKGROUND BACKGROUND 2.700 77. Crosssectional view of a regeneratively cooled thrust chamber along the rocket axis is given in Figure 2. Some of the engines.000 10 40 90 60 80 35 NTO LOX NTO LOX LOX LOX MMH LH2 UDMH LH2 Kerosene LH2 Oxidizer Fuel In regenerative cooling process.1 – Regeneratively Cooled Liquid Propellant Rocket Engines Rocket Country Thrust [N] Chamber Pressure [bar] AETUS II RL10A RD861K VINCI FASTRAC HM7B Germany USA Ukraine Germany USA France 30. Table 2.1 Regenerative Cooling Regenerative cooling is first demonstrated in 1938 in United States by James H. generally the fuel enters passages at nozzle exit of the thrust chamber.000 64.1.000 270. 4 .1. Wyld [18] and today one of the most widely applied cooling technique used in liquid propellant rocket engines.600 155. and their specifications is given in Table 2. the coolant. passes by the throat region and exits near the injector face.
2b). coolant can enter the coolant passages either from the nozzle exit and throat (Figure 2.2 – Schematic Views for Dual Regenerative Cooling 5 .1 – CrossSectional View of a Thrust Chamber along Axial Direction with Regenerative Cooling The nozzle throat region usually has the highest heat flux and is therefore the most difficult to cool.Figure 2. Figure 2. In some cases to increase the cooling efficiency. For this reason the cooling passage is often designed so that the coolant velocity is highest at the critical regions by restricting the coolant passage crosssection [3].2a) or directly from the throat (Figure 2. This type of regenerative cooling is called as dual regenerative cooling [19].
rectangular cooling channels are milled along the contour of a relatively thick thrust chamber. The crosssections of the rectangular passages are smaller in the high heat flux regions to increase the velocity of the coolant.2.3. Outer shell is added to enclose the cooling passages (Figure 2. Cooling passages can consist of an assembly of contoured adjacent tubes or separate inner wall.3. Figure 2. tubes are elongated and squeezed to increase the velocity of the coolant and to increase the heat transfer area (Figure 2.ab).c).3 – CrossSectional View for Different Type of Coolant Passages 6 . In this technique the crosssectional area of the tubes are changed according to the region of thrust chamber. In the second technique. For the high heat flux regions. In the first technique cooling tubes are brazed together to an outer shell that forms the contour of thrust chamber.2 Selection of Cooling Passages Geometry Mainly two types of cooling techniques are used in regenerative cooling.
2. For most applications. To increase the strength of material. aspect ratios (ratio of channel height to channel width) as high as 8 could be manufactured and by introducing the platelet technology [20] aspect ratio of cooling channels is increased as high as 15. The silver zirconium copper alloy combines high electrical and thermal conductivity with moderate strength retention at high temperatures [22].5 mm width) can be milled [21].In 1990. This zirconium copper alloy combines high electrical and thermal conductivity with good strength retentation at high temperatures. by conventional manufacturing techniques. Amzirc is a copper base alloy containing nominal 0. cooling channels with an aspect ratio 16 (8 mm height and 0. Amzirc and NARloyZ are two examples for copper alloys used for thrust chambers. improvements in manufacturing technologies have shown that by conventional manufacturing methods (milling). NARloyZ is a copper base alloy containing a nominal 3 % silver and 0.5 % zirconium. Although these materials have better strength retention. Cooper is an excellent conductor and does not oxidize in fuel rich noncorrosive gas mixtures [3]. copper is used for tubes and inner wall. since copper would chemically react with these propellants [3].15 % zirconium. they have lower conductivity than oxygen free high conductivity (OFHC) copper. silver or silicon can be used for thrust chambers. For propellant combinations with corrosive and aggressive oxidizers (nitric asic or nitrogen tetroxide) stainless steel is used as the inner wall material. Today. copper alloys with small additions of zirconium.3 Selection of Materials for Thrust Chambers The material selection for the brazed tubes or inner wall depends on the amount of the heat flux and coolant properties. 7 .
coolant temperature. tensile. testing and failure investigations [3]. Rocket thermal evaluation (RTE) code and twodimensional kinetics nozzle performance code (TDK) are developed for the analysis of liquid propellant rocket engines with regenerative cooling by NASA. Several different computational fluid dynamics (CFD) computer programs have been used for the analysis of thrust chamber steadystate heat transfer.Nickel and nickel alloys are preferred for the thrust chamber outer shell. 24]. thrust chamber outer shells. Heat transfer analysis is required to guide the design. Some of the computer programs are described below. INCONEL718 has high yield. 8 . mass flow rates and coolant inlet pressure are given as input parameters. TDK code evaluates the heat fluxes on hotgasside walls with the wall temperature distribution from RTE. creep and creeprupture strength at high temperatures up to 1000 K and at cryogenic temperatures [23]. A GaussSeidel iterative method is used at each axial location to determine the wall temperature distributions.4 Heat Transfer Analysis In actual rocket development. INCONEL718 is a nickel chromium base alloy used in aircraft turbojet engines. pressure drop. hotgasside wall temperature and coolant exit pressure are the results of the solution [16. not only the heat transfer is analyzed but also the rocket units are almost always tested to assure that the heat is transferred satisfactorily under all operating and emergency conditions. 2. 17. Chamber pressure. Gas properties (GASP) and complex chemical equilibrium and transport properties (CAT) are the two subroutines used in this code to determine the coolant and hotgasside thermal properties. RTE is a three dimensional analysis code and uses a three dimensional finite differencing method. bellows and tubing for liquid oxygen type rocket engines [23]. 19. with different chamber geometries or different materials with temperature variable properties.
25].4. developed by NASA. A typical heat flux distribution along the thrust chamber wall is given in Figure 2. The peak is always at the nozzle throat and the lowest value is usually near the nozzle exit for uncooled thrust chambers.4.5 to 5 % of total energy generated by combustion is transmitted to all internal surfaces of thrust chamber exposed to hot gases [3]. The code divides the computational domain into several zones where in each zone different types of conservation equations can be described [6].4 – Typical Heat Flux Distribution along Thrust Chamber Wall 9 . Figure 2. to calculate the wall temperature profiles.1 Definition of the Problem Only 0.GEMS (general equation and mesh solver) solves the conservation equations for an arbitrary material using a hybrid structured/unstructured grid developed by Purdue University. Rocket engine heat transfer evaluation computer code (REHTEP) [20] calculates the gas side and coolant side heat transfer coefficients with basic correlations for rocket engines and this data is imported into a twodimensional conduction analysis which used a numerical differencing analyzer computer program (SINDA) [20. 2. Local heat flux values vary along the thrust chamber wall according to geometry and design parameters of thrust chamber.
Heat transfer in a regeneratively cooled chamber can be described as the heat flow between two moving fluids, through a multilayer partition as given in Figure 2.5 and total heat flux can be given as:
& & & & q tot = q g = q s = q c
(2.1)
Figure 2.5 – Heat Transfer Schematic for Regenerative Cooling [1]
2.4.2
Gas Side Heat Transfer
The heat transfer between the combusted gases and thrust chamber wall is by convection and radiation.
& & & q g = q g , conv + q g , rad
(2.2)
2.4.2.1 Heat Transfer by Convection
In thrust chamber, before the combusted gases can transfer heat to the wall, the heat energy must pass through a layer of stagnant gas along the wall, boundary
10
layer. This basic correlation for this complicated convective heat transfer can be expressed by the following equation:
& q g , conv = h g (Taw − Twg )
(2.3)
The adiabatic wall temperature of combustion gas at a given location in the thrust chamber may be obtained from the following expression:
γ −1 2 1 + r 2 M Taw = Tc γ −1 2 1+ M 2
(2.4)
where recovery factor (r) can be estimated for turbulent flows as: r = (Pr )
0.33
(2.5)
Determination of gas side heat transfer coefficient presents a very complex problem. Comparisons of analytical results with experimental heat transfer data have often shown disagreement. The differences are largely attributed to the initial assumptions for analytical calculations. The boundary layer that controls the heat transfer rate to the wall is greatly affected by the turbulent combustion process, local gas compositions and temperature. Also each injector configuration produces different combustion [1].
Based on experience with turbulent boundary layer, some relatively simple correlations for the calculation of gas side heat transfer have been developed.
Bartz Correlation [12] is a well known equation used for estimation of rocket nozzle convective heat transfer coefficients based on thermal properties of
11
combusted gases and isentropic gas equations. In this study and also in references [26] and [27], heat transfer coefficient is estimated in terms of gas side wall temperature by using Bartz Correlation.
0.2 0.026 µ g C p ,g h g = 0.2 d t Prg 0.6
Pc 0.8 A t 0.9 σ C* A 0
−0.68
(2.6)
−0.12
T γ −1 2 σ = 0.5 wg 1 + M + 0 .5 Tc 2
γ −1 2 M 1 + 2
(2.7)
Based on the experimental studies of Ciniaref and Dobrovoliski [28] the relation for convective heat transfer can be given as:
hg =
kg d
0.0162 Prg
0.82
Re g
0.82
Taw T wg
0.35
(2.8)
2.4.2.2 Heat Transfer by Radiation
The exact solution of the amount of heat transmitted to the wall by radiation is an extremely complex problem for rocket propulsion systems.
In rocket combustion devices, gas temperature varies between 1900 and 3900 K; where radiation heat transfer of combusted gases contributes 3 to 40% of the heat transfer to the chamber walls, depending on the reaction gas composition, chamber size, geometry and temperature [3].
Gases with symmetrical molecules, such as hydrogen, oxygen, and nitrogen, have been found not to show many strong emission bands. Also they do not really absorb radiation and do not increase the radiation heat transfer. Heteropolar gases, such as water vapor, carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide and etc. have strong emission bands [3].
12
6).12) (2. Propellants used for coolant may become corrosive.13) The coolant side heat transfer coefficient is influenced by many factors. thereby reducing cooling effectiveness. & & q l = q l. CO 2 + q rad . It is not possible to get the actual heat transfer coefficients without experiments [1]. H 2 O = 3.9) (2.5 PCO 2 Le aw − 100 100 3 0.3 Coolant Side Heat Transfer The heat transfer between the coolant and thrust chamber wall is by forced convection. heat flux in [kcal/m2h] and pressure in [kg/cm2].4.For the propellants containing only carbon. oxygen. or may deposit impurities under high temperatures and heat fluxes.conv = h l (Twc − Tcb ) (2. may decompose.10) & q rad . rad ≈ q rad . the total radiation heat flux can be approximated as [29]: & & & q g . H 2 O (2.5 Twg 3. Line segment A1 – A2 represents the forced convection when the temperature of the coolant is 13 . Curve A indicates the behavior of heat transfer at coolant pressure below critical pressure.8 0. The characteristic of coolant side heat transfer depend largely on the coolant pressure and coolant side wall temperature (Figure 2. 2. hydrogen. CO 2 T 3.5 = 3.conv & q l. and nitrogen atoms.6D in [m].6 H2O e & q rad .11) where L e = 0.5P T 3 Twg 3 L aw − 100 100 (2.
A3 is the maximum heat flux for nucleate boiling and used as a design criteria for regenerative cooling [1]. the wall temperature continuously increases as the heat flux increases and heat transfer coefficient remains essentially constant (line segment B1 – B2). When the bubbles reach the colder liquid stream. Figure 2.6 – Regimes in Transferring Heat from a Hot Wall to a Flowing Liquid [1] Curve B indicates the heat transfer behavior of coolant for pressure levels above critical pressure. gas film occurs in the boundary and decrease heat transfer coefficient. resulting in little increase in wall temperature for a wide range of heat flux. As the wall temperature of the coolant increases and exceeds the critical temperature. a stable supercritical vaporfilm boundary layer forms. they condensate. Nucleate boiling increase the heat transfer coefficient. Heat transfer can be increased up to the critical temperature 14 . Therefore for coolant pressure values below critical temperature.6.below critical temperature. small bubbles started to form in the boundary and grow continuously. A further increase in the heat flux increase the bubble population. Since no boiling can occur. If the wall temperature reaches and exceeds the critical temperature of coolant. This phenomenon is known as nucleate boiling and corresponds line segment A2 – A3 in Figure 2. Coolant side wall temperature increases so high and causes failure of the wall material. this results in lower heat transfer coefficients and lower cooling efficiencies (line segment B2 – B3).
[K] Nucleate Boiling Characteristics Pressure [MPa] 4. [K] 387 455 540 588 490 603 651 294 342 394 336 400 489 300 5.2. Some correlations are defined to calculate the heat transfer coefficient based on experimental studies.38 4.31 For the nonboiling subcritical regions (line segments A1 – A2 and B1 – B2).45 6.2 366.2 288. it is possible to predict the heat transfer coefficient. Heat transfer characteristic of some propellants used for regenerative cooling is given in Table 2. Table 2.689 1.38 Nitrogen tetroxide Unsymm.7 300 2.101 Kerosene 0.values of the wall material.1 297.01 3.689 4.31 0.2 – Heat Transfer Characteristics of Several Liquid Propellants [3] Boiling Characteristics Liquid Coolant Pressure [MPa] 0.0 297.22 522 6. thermally fully developed flow for fluids with constant property values [30]. [K] 652 Critical Pressure [MPa] 14.31 Critical Temp. The correlations used for coolant side heat transfer are principally based on the conventional DittusBoelter equation for turbulent.101 1.31 678 2. Some of the correlations used for regenerative cooling analysis are given below.689 3.6 4.101 Hydrazine 0.101 0. dimethyl hydrazine 0. 15 .2 0.45 Boiling Temp.89 0.07 1.2 Temp.06 431 10.7 322.9 322.689 405.
16) McCarthy and Wolf [33]: −0.4 T = 0.Ciniaref and Dobrovolski [28]: hD 0.021 Re l Prl l Pr kl l.025 Re l Prl wc T kl cb (2. 16 .8 0.14 hD 0.027 Re l Prl l µ kl l.023 Re l Prl wc T kl cb (2.8 0.57 −1.4 Pressure Drop in Cooling Channels A higher pressure drop allows a higher velocity in the coolant channel which increases the cooling efficiency but requires heavier feeding systems which decreases the system efficiency of the propulsion system.25 (2.15) Sieder and Tate [32]: −0.59 h x Nu = h lDh 0.55 hD 0.17) 2.14) Taylor [31]: D − 0.33 µ Nu = l h = 0.43 Pr Nu = l h = 0.wc 0.cw (2.4 T Nu = l h = 0.8 0.8 0.4.
laminar and fullydeveloped flow of an incompressible fluid through a horizontal pipe can be defined as [34]: L ρV 2 Dh 2 ∆P = f (2.18) 17 .The pressure drop in steady.
1 – Schematic View of Solution Domain 18 . the domain is divided by two symmetry planes (Figure 3.CHAPTER 3 3 MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION AND SOLUTION METHOD MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION AND SOLUTION METHOD 3.1).1 MATHEMATICAL DESCRIPTION The solution domain used in this study consists of 3 medium: coolant. Because of the symmetry characteristic of the system. inner wall of the thrust chamber and outer shell of the thrust chamber. Figure 3.
92 σ k = 1.1) where the expressions of φ.In this study the fluid flow and heat transfer in the cooling channel was assumed to be threedimensional.0 σ ε = 1. steadystate and turbulent flow. The standard kε turbulence model is employed to the model.09 C1 = 1.1 – Conservation Equation Variables Equations Continuity Equation u Equation φ 1 Γφ 0 Sφ 0 − ∂p ∂ ∂u ∂ ∂v ∂ ∂ω + µeff + µeff + µeff ∂x ∂x ∂x ∂y ∂x ∂z ∂x u µeff v Equation v µeff − ∂p ∂ ∂u ∂ ∂v ∂ ∂ω + µeff + µeff + µeff ∂y ∂z ∂y ∂x ∂y ∂y ∂z ∂p ∂ ∂u ∂ ∂v ∂ ∂ω + µeff + µeff + µeff ∂z ∂x ∂z ∂y ∂z ∂x ∂z ω Equation Energy Equation k Equation ε Equation ω µeff − T k ε µ/Pr + µ/σT µ + (µ/σk) µ + (µ/σε) 0 ρ G k − ρε ε k (C1ρ G k − C2 ρε ) 2 2 2 2 2 2 µ ∂u ∂ω ∂ω ∂u ∂v ∂u ∂ω ∂v ∂ω Gk = t + + + + + + + + ρ ∂x ∂y ∂z ∂y ∂x ∂z ∂x ∂z ∂y C µ = 0.3 σ T = 0.85 19 . Γφ and Sφ for different variables are given in Table 3.1.44 C 2 = 1. The conservation equations of fluid flow and heat transfer are expressed as: ∇ ⋅ ρ Vφ = ∇ ⋅ (Γφ ∇φ ) + Sφ ( ) (3. Table 3.
6 C* A t (3.3) γ −1 2 M 1 + 2 −0.5 wg 1 + M + 0 . c Pc A t σ d 0.2 Prc 0.9 0.2 0.2 – Convection and Radiation Heat Transfer from Combusted Gases to the Solution Domain Convection heat flux can be given as: & q conv = h g (Taw − Twg ) (3.68 (3.026 µ c C p.8 0.5 Tc 2 γ −1 2 1 + r 2 M Taw = Tc γ −1 2 1+ M 2 −0.12 T γ −1 2 σ = 0. Figure 3.2.5) 20 .The effect of heat transfer from combusted gases to the solution domain is considered in two parts: convection heat transfer and radiation heat transfer as shown in Figure 3.4) (3.2) Heat transfer coefficient can be calculated by using Bartz Correlation [13] as: hg = 0.
6 H 2O e & q rad . hydrogen. oxygen. CO 2 + q rad .3. and nitrogen atoms. CO 2 T 3. H 2 O = 3p T 3 Twg 3 L aw − 100 100 (3. can be approximated as [28]: & & & q rad ≈ q rad . H 2 O (3.2 SOLUTION METHOD Solution method used in this study is given in a schematic view in Figure 3. For the propellants containing only carbon.8 0.6) (3.5 = 33 pCO 2 Le aw − 100 100 0.where r = (Prc ) 0.8) 3.7) & q rad . Figure 3.33 for turbulent flows.3 – Schematic View of Solution Method 21 .5 Twg 3. the total radiation heat flux.
The grid is generated by hexahedral elements in consideration of structured mesh. FLUENT [14]. SIMPLE algorithm is used to get the pressure field.6.3.2. Thermal properties of combusted gases are given as an input data from CEA code.2 User Defined Function for Solver User Defined Function. Mach numbers are calculated using isentropic gas equations.1 Thermochemical Equilibrium Code To get thermal properties of the combusted gas.3 Grid Generator and Solver GAMBIT [13] is used for grid generation.2. The code gets the coordinates of the nodes from the solver to calculate Mach number and area which are used in equation 3. 3. NASA computer program CEA (Chemical Equilibrium with Applications) [7] is used. is used for the solution. basically calculates the heat flux from combusted gases to solution domain in terms of Twg (gas side wall temperature) by using the equations 3. The program calculates chemical equilibrium product concentrations from any set of reactants and determines thermodynamic and transport properties for the product mixture. Standard kε twoequation turbulence model is employed with standard wall functions.2. which is coupled with the solver. 22 . 3.3. Associated with the program are independent databases with transport and thermodynamic properties of individual species.2 and 3. a pressure based segregated solver.
Figure 4.CHAPTER 4 4 VALIDATION VALIDATION Validation of the solution method was performed using the experimental and numerical studies of Wadel and Meyer [16.5. 17]. Chamber liner was milled with 100 conventional coolant channels.1. The engine specifications are given in Table 4. In the critical heat flux area (nozzle throat region) 23 . The injector had 91 liquid oxygen posts. They used 89 kN GH2 and LOX engine for their experimental studies [17].1 – 89 kN GH2 and LOX Engine [17] The thrust chamber consisted of an oxygen free high conductivity (OFHC) copper inner wall with a nickel outer shell. These channels had an aspect ratio of 2.
Wadel performed a numerical study for comparison of high aspect ratio cooling channel designs [16]. Their numerical solution method is validated with the experiments explained above.1 – 89 kN GH2 and LOX Engine Specifications Thrust [kN] Chamber Pressure [bar] Oxidizer/Fuel O/F Coolant LOX mass flow rate [kg/s] GH2 mass flow rate [kg/s] LH2 mass flow rate [kg/s] Initial Temperature of LOX [K] Initial Temperature of GH2 [K] Initial Temperature of LH2 [K] 89 110 Liquid Oxygen/Gas Hydrogen 6 Liquid Hydrogen 13. Gas side wall temperature distributions and pressure drops in the channels are obtained [17]. nine thermocouples were inserted into holes drilled in the centre of the coolant channel ribs. For bifurcated channel cooling systems. After the validation of their code. In this study seven different cooling channel designs are compared according to their cooling 24 .3 2.3 91.4 To get the temperature values on the hotgasside wall temperature.7 300 44. channels were split into two channels and combined back to a single channel. Table 4.cooling channels are bifurcated into 200 channels and aspect ratio was increased up to 8. Also pressure taps were placed in the locations of coolant channel inlet and coolant channel outlet.8 2. The tests are performed for different mass flow rates in cooling channels. Radiation effects are not considered in analysis. For numerical analysis Rocket Thermal Evaluation code (RTE) and TwoDimensional Kinetics nozzle performance code (TDK) are used (explained in Chapter 2).
026 Hexahedral 450. Between the subdomains nonconformal grid boundary is used. The specifications of the grid for 5 cases are given in Table 4.014. Fifth design is the bifurcated model which corresponds to the experimental data performed by Wadel and Meyer [17].026 Hexahedral 4.026 Hexahedral 1.672 Tetrahedral 104.1 Baseline Solution Grid Generation Solution domain is generated for 5 cases.026 Hexahedral 82. For each cases solution domain consist of 3 subdomains.efficiencies with considering fabrication.400 1 µm 580.134 10 µm 211. outer shell and coolant. For the validation of solution method used in this study these two models are considered.112 5 µm 296.5 and constant crosssectional area.098 CASE 04 Tetrahedral 56.698 25 .832 CASE 02 Tetrahedral 56.692. First design is called as “Baseline” and has 100 continuous cooling channels with an aspect ratio of 2.698 CASE 05 Tetrahedral 56.000 0.810 CASE 03 Tetrahedral 56.2 – Grid Specifications CASE 01 Grid Type (Inner Wall) # of Elements (Inner Wall) Grid Type (Outer Shell) # of Elements (Outer Shell) Grid Type (Coolant) # of Elements (Coolant) Thickness of First Row (Coolant) Total Number of Elements Tetrahedral 56.026 Hexahedral 167.672 Tetrahedral 104.000 0.1 4. Table 4.2 and the crosssection of the solution domains are given in Figure 4.5 µm 1.1 µm 4. For solid domains tetrahedral elements and for coolant domain hexahedral elements are used.672 Tetrahedral 104. inner wall.672 Tetrahedral 104. 4.672 Tetrahedral 104.143.2.1.563.
1.5 µm by considering milling process [35].5.3 and Figure 4. Solution results of the five cases along with the Wadel’s Solution [16] are given in Table 4. 4.3 Results and Discussion Results are obtained for 5 different solution domains.CASE 01 CASE 02 CASE 03 CASE 04 CASE 05 Figure 4.1. are given in Figure 4.4. Thermal properties of the materials are given in (Appendix APPENDIX A). Oxygen Free High Conductivity Copper for the inner wall and INCONEL718 for the outer shell. Surface roughness for metal structures is taken 3.3 and Figure 4. Convergence history of temperature rise and pressure drop in cooling channels according to number of elements.2 Material Properties Materials used in the analysis are defined as Liquid Hydrogen for the coolant.2 – CrossSectional View of Solution Domains 4. 26 .
0E+05 1.0E+07 Figure 4.4 – Convergence History of Pressure Drop 27 .3 – Convergence History of Temperature Rise 55 50 Pressure Drop in Channel [bar] 45 40 35 30 1.0E+06 Number of Elements 1.320 300 Temperature Rise in Channel (K) 280 260 240 220 200 1.0E+06 Number of Elements 1.0E+07 Figure 4.0E+05 1.
The results for CASE 04 and CASE 05 are quite similar and at this point the grid specifications for CASE 04 are enough to get grid independent solutions.10 Axial Distance (m) Figure 4. as the number of elements increased and the thickness of boundary layer is decreased.00 CASE 04 CASE 05 400.15 0. the solution is converged.3 – Results of Baseline Solution Tmax on Gas Side Wall [K] CASE 01 CASE 02 CASE 03 CASE 04 CASE 05 Wadel’s Solution 882.9 783.7 816.00 0. 28 .05 0.4 764 Pressure Drop in Channel ∆P [bar] 53.4 45.5 40.8 229.20 0.00 CASE 03 500.4 297.00 0.05 0.30 0.8 265.00 200.00 900.10 0. grids will be generated according to the grid specifications of CASE 04.7 40.00 Temperature (K) 700.2 755.00 800. Therefore for the following analysis in this study.8 51.8 302.00 CASE 01 CASE 02 600.00 WADEL'S SOLUTION 300.Table 4.07 748.5 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall for Baseline Solution As can be seen from the results.1 37 Temperature Rise in Channel ∆T [K] 216.25 0.8  1000.
2 Bifurcation Channel Solution By using the grid specifications of CASE 04.5 Table 4.10 Axial Distance [m] Figure 4. Results are obtained by present solution method and compared with the numerical and experimental solutions of Wadel and Meyer in Table 4.0 50.5 125.0 175.0 Poutlet [bar] 138. the solution domain is generated for bifurcation channel.0 ∆P [bar] 36.00 0.6 – Temperature Distribution on GasSide Wall for Bifurcation Channel Solution 29 .7 40.25 0.4.20 0.15 0.0 700 600 GasSide Wall Temperature [K] 500 400 Present Numerical Solution Wadel's Numerical Solution Wadel's & Mayer's Experimental Data 300 200 100 0 0.05 0.4 and Figure 4.10 0.0 175.3 135.05 0.4 – Comparison of Pressure Values Pinlet [bar] Present Numerical Solution Wadel’s Numerical Solution Wadel’s & Mayer’s Experimental Data 175.
Therefore the present solution is suitable and sufficient to understand the effect of cooling parameters on efficiency.3 Discussion For both analysis solutions. 30 . The reasons for the differences could be the uncertainties on material thermal properties and cooling channel geometry. In this study main aim is to see the effect of cooling channel parameters on cooling efficiency.4. these differences are acceptable. The numerical solutions are strictly based on thermal properties and channel geometry and these parameters are given roughly in literature. the results are quite similar with the numerical and experimental results found in literature. Although there are some minor differences between temperature and pressure values.
Figure 5. using basic geometric parameters are adequate to understand the regenerative cooling effect on the system. Region I is the Combustion Region.1 the scheme of chamber LPRE is given. In Figure 5. Region II is the Subsonic Region and Region III is the Supersonic Region. a preliminary thrust chamber design is performed to get the thrust chamber contour. In this study.CHAPTER 5 5 THRUST CHAMBER PRELIMENARY DESIGN THRUST CHAMBER PRELIMINARY DESIGN Although the design of thrust chamber consists of many parameters and detail calculations.1 – The Scheme of LPRE Chamber 31 . The combination of Region II and Region III can be called as nozzle and Region I as combustion chamber.
Table 5.2 – Flame Temperatures and Isp Values for Different O/F Mass Percentage of RP1 [%] 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 Flame Temperature [K] 1809 2944 3402 3607 3678 3570 3154 Isp [s] 164 224 257 278 292 295 281 32 . chamber pressure. To find the oxidizerfuel ratio (O/F) for high combustion efficiency. it is necessary to give some input data to the system such as thrust (at sea level).For builtup of gasdynamic profile of the combustion chamber.2 and Figure 5. obtained graphs are given in Figure 5. exit pressure. Table 5. flame temperatures and Isp values are found and given in Table 5. These parameters are given in Table 5.5 1 Kerosene (RP1) LOX Oxidizerfuel ratio is one of the main parameters also. ambient pressure and propellant components.3. For different fueloxidizer ratios (O/F).1 – LPRE Requirements Thrust [kN] Combustion Chamber Pressure [bar] Exit Pressure [bar] Ambient Pressure [bar] Fuel Oxidizer 300 60 1.2.1. oxidizerfuel couple with different ratios is combusted by using the thermochemical code CEA.
Therefore O / F = 7 / 3 .3800 3600 3400 Flame Temperature [K] 3200 3000 2800 2600 2400 2200 2000 1800 1600 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mass Percentage of RP1 [%] Figure 5. Total mass flow rate 33 .2 – Flame Temperature vs Mass Percentage of RP1 300 290 280 270 260 250 240 Isp [s] 230 220 210 200 190 180 170 160 150 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Mass Percentage of RP1 [%] Figure 5. I sp = 295s and Tf = 3570K are selected for the combustion.3 – Isp vs Mass Percentage of RP1 Maximum Isp is obtained around 30 percentage of RP1.
573 Thrust Coefficient: γ −1 γ +1 2γ 2 2 γ −1 Pe γ Pe − Pa ε Cf = 1− γ − 1 γ + 1 Pc Pc (5. Mass Flow Rate: & m= F Isp g kg s (5.2) ε = 6.7 = 72.6 34 .1) & m = 103.and mass flow rates for the propellant and oxidizer can be calculated as given below.7 kg s kg & m pr = 103.8 × 0.1 s Nozzle Expansion Area Ratio: ε= γ + 1 2 1 γ −1 1 1 Pe γ P c γ −1 γ + 1 Pe γ 1− γ − 1 Pc (5.146.8 & m ox = 103.8 × 0.3) Cf = 1.3 = 31. For this O/F ratio Specific Heat Ratio (γ) is found as 1.
1 Nozzle Contour Estimation for Region II The total combustion process.4) A t = 31205mm 2 Throat Diameter: dt = 4A t π (5.7) d e = 512mm 5. L* can be estimated from experimental data and previously successful designs.Throat Area: At = F Cf Pc (5. requires finite amount of time and volume which can be defined by Characteristic Length (L*).5) d t = 200mm Exit Area: A e = A tε A e = 205097 mm 2 (5.6) Exit Diameter: de = 4A e π (5. from injection of the reactants until completion of conversation of the reactants to hot product gases. Typical 35 .
9) ε c = 2.71 0.89 0.424m (5.76 0.02 – 1.71 0.56 – 0.02 1.3. Nozzle Contraction Area Ratio: εc = L* Lc (5.Characteristic Lengths for various propellant combinations are given in Table 5.89 0.76 – 0. Table 5.76 – 0.61 – 0.78 0.8) Where Lc in meters and rt in millimeters.05 2rt L c = 0.02 0.76 – 1. For the following calculation L* is taken as 1.66 0.3 – Typical Characteristic Lengths for Various Propellant Combinations Propellant Combination Chlorine Trifluoride / HydrazineBase Fuel Liquid Fluorine / Hydrazine Liquid Fluorine / Gas Hydrogen Liquid Fluorine / Liquid Hydrogen Hydrogen Peroxide / RP1 Nitric Acid / HydrazineBase Fuel Nitrogen Tetroxide / HydrazineBase Fuel Liquid Oxygen / Ammonia Liquid Oxygen / Gas Hydrogen Liquid Oxygen / Liquid Hydrogen Liquid Oxygen / RP1 Characteristic Length.64 – 0. L* [m] 0.76 – 1.52 – 1.76 1.56 – 0.5 – 0.0m (Liquid Oxygen / RP1).361 36 .27 Conditional Length: L c = 0.
13) VII can be obtained by fitting a curve on Region II contour points and taking the integral of the curve.031 × 10 9 mm 3 (5.10) Chamber Diameter: dc = 4A c π (5. VI = Vcc − VII 37 .Chamber Area: A c = A tε c A c = 73675mm 2 (5.12) 5.2 Length Estimation for Region I Volume (Region I and Region II) Vcc = A t × L* Vcc = 0.11) d c = 306mm Contour of Region II can be estimated by a known formula of Vitoshinsky [10]: y= rt 2 2 r x 1 − 1 − t 1 − rc 3 r 2 c 2 2 1 x 1 − 3 3 r c 2 3 (5.013 × 10 9 mm 3 . where VII = 0.
NCDT is a Fortran based program. irrotational.4. In this study Rao nozzle contour design tool is used. which is composed of three parts: Ideal nozzle contour design.018 × 10 9 mm 3 L1 = VI Ac L1 = 240mm 5. 5. Figure 5.VI = 0. Rao nozzle contour design and 2D axisymmetric. inviscid flow analyzer.4 – Calculated Combustion Chamber and Nozzle Contour for 300 kN LPRE 38 .4 Nozzle Contour for the Designed Thrust Chamber With the analytical equations and obtained data points the nozzle contour is obtained and given in Figure 5.3 Nozzle Contour Estimation for Region III NCDT (Nozzle Contour Design Tool) Code [11] is used to estimate the nozzle contour for Region III.
1 Material Properties Materials used in the analysis are defined as Kerosene (RP1) for the coolant. 39 .1.1) are given in Table 6.2 Boundary Conditions Boundary conditions for solution domain (Figure 6. Oxygen Free High Conductivity Copper for the inner wall and INCONEL718 for the outer shell. 6. Table 6.3. Thermal properties of the materials are given in (APPENDIX A).2 and Table 6. Surface roughness for metal structures is taken 3.5 µm by considering milling process [35] 6.CHAPTER 6 6 ANALYSIS AND RESULTS ANALYSIS AND RESULTS Analyses are performed for designed thrust chamber in Chapter 5 for 16 different channel geometries.
Figure 6. 40 .1 – Boundary Conditions for Inner Wall Plane ABGFDC ∂T =0 ∂n ∂T =0 ∂n ∂T =0 ∂n ∂T =0 ∂n ∂ (kT ) & = qg ∂n Plane JKPOML Plane BGPK Plane ACLJ Plane ABKJ* (*) Subcode used for calculating heat flux on plane ABKJ is given in APPENDIX B.1 – Schematic View of Solution Domain Table 6.
Analysis parameters are given in Table 6. (**) Pressure loses in injector are neglected.4. 6. For all analyses exit pressure of coolant is 60 bar.Table 6. 41 . Tinlet is the initial temperature of coolant and 300 K for all analyses. T = Tinlet P = Pc ∂u ∂v ∂w ∂T =0 = = = ∂n ∂n ∂n ∂n (*) N refers to number of cooling channels.2 – Boundary Conditions for Outer Shell Plane EFGIH Plane NOPRS Plane EHRN Plane GISP Plane HIRS ∂T =0 ∂n ∂T =0 ∂n ∂T =0 ∂n ∂T =0 ∂n ∂T =0 ∂n Table 6.3 – Boundary Conditions for Coolant Plane LMON* Plane CDFE** Plane CENL & m= & m pr 2× N . Therefore coolant exit pressure should be at combustion chamber pressure in ideal conditions.3 Effect of Radiation Heat Transfer on Temperature and Pressure To examine the radiation heat transfer effect. 2 analyses are performed with the same geometry under different heat flux boundary conditions.
3 and Figure 6.311 4 4 100 Convection. Addition of radiation heat transfer increased the overall temperature of coolant and result in slightly less pressure drop in cooling channel (Figure 6. At throat region gas side wall temperature is increased approximately 18 K (2.3).4 %) at throat region and 0.311 4x4x100 & Heat Flux ( q g ) & m (per channel) [kg/s] Analysis results are given in Table 6. Radiation 0.5.2 MW/m2 (4. Temperature distributions for gas side wall and coolant along axial direction are given in Figure 6.Table 6.3 %) and at combustion region coolant temperature is increased approximately 23 K (3.5).4.7 MW/m2 (13.5 %). 42 .4 %) at chamber region. As a result radiation heat transfer should be considered for regenerativly cooled thrust chambers with hydrocarbon fuels. temperatures on gas side wall and in coolant are increased also.1 %) at nozzle exit region (Figure 6. There is an inverse proportion between viscosity and temperature for coolant kerosene (Figure A. 1. Radiation heat transfer increased the total heat flux on thrust chamber wall approximately 1.2).4 – Parameters for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation 4x4x100 (no rad) Channel Height [mm] Channel Width [mm] # of cooling Channels 4 4 100 Convection 0.1 MW/m2 (8. As the total heat flux increased. Therefore for the following analyses sum of radiation heat flux and convection heat flux is used as a boundary condition for gas side thrust chamber wall.
7 801.8 2 4x4x100 29.32 28.8 647.43 Figure 6.1 669.8 783.8 78.5 – Results for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation 4x4x100 (no rad) Maximum Heat Flux on Gas Side Wall [MW/m ] Maximum Wall Temperature on Gas Side Wall [K] Maximum Coolant Temperature [K] Required Pressure Inlet for Coolant [bar] Pressure Drop in Channel [bar] 18.1 17.Table 6.2 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation 43 .1 77.
3 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation Figure 6.4 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along Axial Direction for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation 44 .Figure 6.
Analysis parameters are given in Table 6.4 Effect of Channel Geometry on Cooling Efficiency The effect of channel geometry on cooling efficiency will be examined in two groups.Figure 6.7. 45 . In each group the height of the cooling channels are constant and width of the channels are decreased gradually. For the first group height is 4 mm and for the second group height is 8 mm.5 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Radiation Heat Transfer Investigation 6.6 and Table 6.
311 4x2x100 4 2 100 2.6 Convection Radiation 0.4 Convection Radiation 0.0 5.6 – Parameters for 4 mm Height Channels 4x5x100 Channel Height [mm] Channel Width [mm] # of cooling Channels AR (Aspect Ratio) Dh [mm] 4 5 100 0.0 2.311 4x1x100 4 1 100 4 1.1555 The results are given in Table 6.8 4.0 1.311 4x3x100 4 3 100 1.7 4.1555 8x2x100 8 2 100 4.7 Convection Radiation 0.0 3.2 Convection Radiation 0.Table 6.3 Convection Radiation 0.7 – Parameters for 8 mm Height Channels 8x5x100 Channel Height [mm] Channel Width [mm] # of cooling Channels AR (Aspect Ratio) Dh [mm] 8 5 100 1. 46 .4 Convection Radiation 0.0 4.3 3.8 Convection Radiation 0.9.1555 8x3x100 8 3 100 2.311 Table 6.8 and Table 6.0 Convection Radiation 0.6 6.4 Convection Radiation 4x4x100 4 4 100 1.2 Convection Radiation 8x4x100 8 4 100 2.1555 & Heat Flux ( q g ) & m (per [kg/s] Channel Geometry channel) 0.311 & Heat Flux ( q g ) & m (per channel) [kg/s] Channel Geometry 0.1555 8x1x100 8 1 100 8.
0 703.8 27.9 3.0 944.4 679.8) and Re number is described as: Re = ρuD h µ (6.9 872.0 70.1) For incompressible flows: u= & & m m = ρA ρhw 47 (6.3 77. heat transfer coefficient is highly depends on Re number (Re0.67 4x1x100 29.36 8x2x100 28.5 842.2 61.53 4x2x100 29.6 83.24 As given in Chapter 2.6 724.0 741.7 640.3 17.3 247.79 8x1x100 29.74 29.33 8x4x100 27.0 760.9 – Results for 8 mm Height Channels 8x5x100 Maximum Heat Flux on Gas Side Wall [MW/m2] Maximum Wall Temperature on Gas Side Wall [K] Maximum Coolant Temperature [K] Required Pressure Inlet for Coolant [bar] Pressure Drop in Channel [bar] 1.8 659.2) .2 649.5 777.4 67.4 7.8 26.03 Table 6.8 787.90 8x3x100 28.5 904.32 4x3x100 29.8 – Results for 4 mm Height Channels 4x5x100 Maximum Heat Flux on Gas Side Wall [MW/m ] Maximum Wall Temperature on Gas Side Wall [K] Maximum Coolant Temperature [K] Required Pressure Inlet for Coolant [bar] Pressure Drop in Channel [bar] 10.7 811.2 805.8 96.2 669.2 2 4x4x100 29.Table 6.3 104.9 773.0 681.3 801.0 681.6 23.3 187.9 63.3 164.3 822.
Velocity profiles of the coolant at throat (x=0) for each geometry are given in Figure 6. with the same mass flow rate (same number of cooling channels) and channel height. Velocity.6 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant at Throat (x=0) 48 .Dh = Re = 4hw 2( h + w ) (6.3) (6. Velocity Magnitudes (m/s) 4x5x100 4x4x100 4x3x100 4x2x100 4x1x100 8x5x100 8x4x100 8x3x100 8x2x100 8x1x100 Figure 6.4) & ρ m 4hw 2 1 & = m µ ρhw 2(h + w ) µ (h + w ) As a result. as we decrease the width of the cooling channel (increasing aspect ratio). Re number and heat transfer coefficient on coolant side wall will increase assuming of constant thermal properties.6.
10.5 % between the maximum and minimum aspect ratio cooling channels and for 8 mm cooling channel heat flux is increased 7. Temperature distribution along axial direction on gas side wall and coolant side wall are given in Figure 6. As the total surface heat flux is increased.0 % at throat section. In Figure 6. Figure 6.7 and Figure 6. Figure 6. temperature difference between gas domain and thrust chamber wall will increase with an assumption of constant heat transfer coefficient and as a result temperature on gas side wall and coolant side wall will decrease as the aspect ratio is increased. For 4 mm channel heights total surface heat flux is increased 2. Figure 6.8 total surface heat flux distribution along axial direction is given for 4 mm and 8 mm channel heights.Increasing heat transfer coefficient by increasing aspect ratio on coolant side will result in increasing total surface heat flux on gas side wall.9.11 and Figure 6.12 for 4 mm and 8 mm channel heights.7 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 4 mm Channel Height 49 .
9 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 4mm Channel Height 50 .8 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 8 mm Channel Height Figure 6.Figure 6.
Figure 6.11 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along Axial Direction for 4 mm Channel Height 51 .10 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 8 mm Channel Height Figure 6.
14. In this study this optimum level has not been considered as a design point.Figure 6.12 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along Axial Direction for 8mm Channel Height With constant channel height and channel number the cooling efficiency is expected to reach an optimum level. heat transfer area for the coolant decreases and after a while coolant efficiency will start to decrease. As given in Figure 6.13 Figure 6. because as we increase the aspect ratio. increasing aspect ratio causes a converging solution for minimum temperature on gas side wall and coolant. 52 .
5) 53 .14 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Coolant Temperature Pressure drop in coolant channel can be approximated as given in Chapter 2. L ρV 2 Dh 2 ∆P = f (6.1000 4 mm Channel Height Maximum Temperature on Gas Side Wall [K] 8 mm Channel Height 950 900 850 800 750 700 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Aspect Ratio (AR) Figure 6.13 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Gas Side Wall Temperature 900 4 mm Channel Height 8 mm Channel Height Maximum Temperature of Coolant [K] 850 800 750 700 650 600 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Aspect Ratio (AR) Figure 6.
6) In equation 6. For channel geometries 4x2x100. Pressure drops around half of the combustion chamber pressure can be used as a system design criteria.15 – Effects of Aspect Ratio on Pressure Drop in Channel 54 . pressure of coolant and pressure drop in coolant channel will increase (Figure 6. as we decrease the channel width. 4x1x100 and 8x1x100 pressure drops are calculated as higher then the combustion chamber pressure (60 bar) and these designs are not acceptable since they need large feeding systems.17).& ∆P = fLm 2 (w + h) 4( wh ) 2 (6.15 – Figure 6.6 with constant channel height and mass flow rate. 700 4 mm Channel Height 600 Pressure Drop in Channel [bar] 8 mm Channel Height 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Aspect Ratio (AR) Figure 6.
Figure 6.16 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for 4 mm Channel Height Figure 6.17 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for 8 mm Channel Height 55 .
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 2 2 2 2 2 2 4 4x2x100 4 4x2x150 4 4x2x200 4 4x2x250 4 4x2x300 4 & Heat Flux ( q g ) & m (per channel) [kg/s] 0.4.0 2.0 2.7 Convection Radiation 0.10. Since the cooling efficiency is quite close for these geometries.0 2. Analysis parameters are given in Table 6.0 2.7 Convection Radiation 0. Therefore.3110 2.1037 2. there is no need to work on case with 4x1 mm2 which has a very high pressure drop.5 Effect of Number of Channels on Cooling Efficiency According to the analysis results obtained in section 6.0 2.1244 2.10 – Parameters for Number of Channels Investigation 4x2x50 Channel Height [mm] Channel Width [mm] # of cooling Channels AR (Aspect Ratio) Dh [mm] 2.6220 56 . The effect of number of channels on cooling efficiency is investigated for 6 different channel numbers.1555 2.7 Convection Radiation 0.6.7 Convection Radiation 2. by changing the number of coolant channels. (681 bar and 104 bar respectively). Table 6. it is possible to decrease pressure drop and temperatures on solid body. channel geometry with 4x2 mm2 cross section area is selected to investigate the effect of number of channels on cooling efficiency.7 Convection Radiation 0.2073 2. coolant channels with 4x1 mm2 and 4x2 mm2 cross section area have the best temperature results for cooling but have high pressure drops in the channel. Although it is stated that these two geometries are not suitable because of high pressure drops in coolant channel.7 Convection Radiation 0.
11.4 695.71 4x2x250 29.6 850.83 4x2x200 29.3 80.1 29.6 411.67 Velocity Magnitudes (m/s) 4x2x50 4x2x100 4x2x150 4x2x200 4x2x250 4x2x300 Figure 6.9 104.3 649.18. Velocity profiles of coolant are given at throat region (x=0) in Figure 6.0 110.8 90.3 20.6 654.67 4x2x150 29.11 – Results for Channel Number Investigation 4x2x50 Maximum Heat Flux on Gas Side Wall [MW/m2] Maximum Wall Temperature on Gas Side Wall [K] Maximum Coolant Temperature [K] Required Pressure Inlet for Coolant [bar] Pressure Drop in Channel [bar] 351.7 777.5 821.39 4x2x300 28.3 654.9 770.The results are given in Table 6. For less number of coolant channels mass flow rate of the coolant is high and for the same crosssection area coolant velocities are high.7 647.3 74.07 4x2x100 29.18 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant at Throat (x=0) Maximum coolant side heat transfer coefficient is obtained for geometry with 50 channels but also this geometry has the minimum total heat transfer area between 57 .8 649.5 778.8 30.3 14.6 800.9 164. Table 6.0 50.
For 4x2 mm crosssection area optimum number of cooling channels for cooling efficiency is around 150.20 – Effects of Number of Channels on Coolant Temperature 58 .22 and Figure 6.the coolant and solid body is low. Gas side heat flux distribution and temperature distributions for gas side wall and coolant side wall are given in Figure 6.23. The results show that there exists an optimum number of cooling channels which has the highest heat flux on gas side wall and lowest temperature on gas side wall (Figure 6. 900 Maximum Temperature on Gas Side Wall [K] 875 850 825 800 775 750 725 700 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 # of Coolant Channels Figure 6.19) and coolant (Figure 6. total heat transfer area is increased.20).19 – Effects of Number of Channels on Gas Side Wall Temperature 700 Maximum Temperature of Coolant [K] 675 650 625 600 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 # of Coolant Channels Figure 6.21. As we increase the number of channels. Figure 6.
21 – Heat Flux Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for Different Number of Cooling Channels Figure 6.22 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for Different Number of Cooling Channels 59 .Figure 6.
24). it is obvious to see lower pressure values in coolant channel with high number of coolant channels (Figure 6.25 400 350 Pressure Drop in Channel [bar] 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 # of Coolant Channels Figure 6.23 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along Axial Direction for Different Number of Cooling Channels Since the velocity magnitudes are decreased as the number of cooling channels are incresed. Pressure distributions along axial direction for different number of coolant channels are given in Figure 6.24 – Effects of Number of Channels on Pressure Drop 60 .Figure 6.
3 K (0.7 K to 647.8 bar (51.25 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Different Number of Channels In summary by changing the number of cooling channels maximum gas side wall temperature decreased from 777.0 bar to 50.26. 61 . 50. it is possible to decrease pressure drop.5 K (1.0 %).2 %). new cooling channel geometry is formed. 6.Figure 6.4 %) and pressure drop decreased from 104. The channel has 4x2 mm2 cross section area in the throat region and 4x4 mm2 cross section areas in the combustion region and nozzle region. By changing the cross section area of cooling channel for non critical regions (low heat flux regions).6 Cooling Channels with Variable Cross Section Area To understand the effects of variable cross section on temperature and pressure. This topic will be discussed in next section.8 bar pressure drop is still high. Although the pressure drop is decreased by changing the number of cooling channels. The geometry of cooling channel is given in Figure 6.9 K to 770. maximum coolant temperature decreased from 649.
2 78.4 647.83 62 .4 770.Figure 6. Table 6. maximum temperature of coolant is increased approximately 30 K and the pressure drop in the cooling channel decreased to 18.4 bar.26 – Channel Geometry for Variable Cross Section Area Results are compared with the 4x2x150 channel geometry and given in Table 6.12.2 2 Variable Cross Section Areax150 29.8 675.82 29. Although there is not a big difference for the maximum heat flux and maximum wall temperature on gas side wall.12 – Results for Variable Cross Sectionx150 and 4x2x150 4x2x150 Maximum Heat Flux on Gas Side Wall [MW/m ] Maximum Wall Temperature on Gas Side Wall [K] Maximum Coolant Temperature [K] Required Pressure Inlet for Coolant [bar] Pressure Drop in Channel [bar] 50.5 772.8 18.3 110.
velocity magnitude is high in throat region and low in combustion and nozzle exit regions.As can be seen from Figure 6. temperature values are quite similar in this region. Therefore it is expected a better cooling efficiency in throat region relatively to combustion and nozzle exit regions. Since for both cases the cross section area is same in throat region.27. Velocity Magnitudes (m/s) x=0.5m x=0m x=0.27 – Velocity Profiles of Coolant for Variable Cross Section Channel at Different Locations 63 .29).28 and Figure 6. But as we increased the cross section area the cooling efficiency is decreased and increases the local temperatures at larger cross section area regions (Figure 6.6m Figure 6.
29 – Temperature Distribution of Coolant on Coolant Side Wall along Axial Direction for Variable Cross Section Area Investigation 64 .Figure 6.28 – Temperature Distribution on Gas Side Wall along Axial Direction for 8 mm Channel Height Figure 6.
5 K. For OFHC Copper melting temperature is 1083 °C (1356 K). In Figure 6.30 the pressure distribution along axial direction for 4x2x150 channel geometry and variable cross section area channel geometry is given. Therefore we can conclude no 65 . For variable cross section geometry the slope of pressure drop is low for larger cross section regions and the slope of pressure drop is high for smaller cross section region. Figure 6. Maximum wall temperature on gas side wall is calculated as 770.As the velocity is decreased in larger cross section regions pressure drop is decreased also.30 – Pressure Distribution of Coolant along Axial Direction for Variable Cross Section Area Investigation 16 different channel geometries are investigated and the variable cross section area channel geometry gives the best sufficient results from the engineering point of view although coolant temperature is reached higher temperature values compared with other geometries.
This put the convection heat transfer on curve B1 – B2 in Figure 2. the maximum temperature of the coolant is calculated as 675.2 the critical temperature and critical pressure of Kerosen is given 678 K and 2. No boiling occurs in the coolant.2 K.6.failure will be observed in thrust chamber because of the melting of the solid domain. Pressure drop in the channel calculated as 18.4 bar which is quite sufficient for a regeneratively cooled rocket engine with 60 bar chamber pressure.0 MPa (20 Bar). In Table 2. 66 . For the variable cross section channel geometry.
To decrease the pressure drop in the cooling 67 . Results are examined according to the maximum temperature of thrust chamber wall and coolant.CHAPTER 7 7 CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION In this study. From the engineering point of view the best cooling efficiency is obtained by 4x2 mm2 channel cross section area and 100 cooling channels with relatively high pressure drop. the effects of geometry and number of rectangular cooling channels on cooling efficiency are investigated in terms of the maximum temperature of thrust chamber wall and coolant. 10 different channel geometries are formed in 2 groups with 100 cooling channels and different constant crosssection area in axial direction In each group the height of the cooling channels are constant and width of the channels are decreased gradually. By increasing the number of cooling channels 50%. and also pressure drop in cooling channel. The engine has been modeled to operate on a LOX/Kerosene mixture at a chamber pressure of 60 bar with 300 kN thrust. the pressure drop in the cooling channel is decreased approximately 51%. and the pressure drop in cooling channel of a liquid propellant rocket engine.8 bar. For the first group channel height is 4 mm and for the second group channel height is 8 mm. Optimum number of cooling channels is found for the constant cross section area 4x2 mm2 and 150 cooling channels with a pressure drop 50.
will decrease the cooling efficiency. Increasing the cross section area of a channel in certain regions of the cooling channel. According to the analysis results following design rules for cooling channels can be summarized as: • Increasing the aspect ratio with constant height and constant number of cooling channels. will increase the cooling efficiency up to a optimum level. This thesis gives the analysis of regenerative cooling for a preliminary designed thrust chamber. • • Increasing the number of cooling channels without changing the geometry. • • Increasing the aspect ratio with constant height and constant number of cooling channels. the parameters affecting the cooling efficiency can be optimized for given conditions. will decrease the pressure drop in channel. then efficiency will decrease because of decreasing heat transfer area. increase the local temperatures and decrease the pressure drop in this region. then efficiency will decrease because of decreasing mass flow rate per channel.4 bar (approximately 64%). will increase the pressure drop in cooling channel.channel more. Increasing the number of cooling channels without changing the geometry. User defined function used for heat flux on gas side wall can be improved in consideration of turbulence effect in combustion region of thrust chamber. 68 . crosssection area is increased in low heat flux regions up to 4x4 mm2 and pressure drop is decreased to 18. As a future work. will increase the cooling efficiency up to an optimum level with increasing total heat transfer area.
M. D. D. G. 69 .. John Wiley & Sons.... Coulbert. K.. vol.. A. “Gas Dynamics: Multidimensional Flows”. J.. [7] Sanford.. Jannaf Propulsion Conference.. Y.. J. Sankaran. “Modern Engineering for Design LiquidPropellant Rocket Engines”. Campell. D. D. J. Inc. Marquardt Corporation. 2004. D. D.. D. [2] Coulbert. Vol. NAS7103. 2. “Numerical Analysis of Variable Property Flow Through Rectangular Channels”. 1963. “Rocket Propulsion Elements”.. “Analysis of Regen Cooling in Rocket Combusters”.... Hoffman. C. M... The Pennsylvania State University. 6th Edition. M. [5] Sullivian. [8] Zucrow. “Selecting Cooling Techniques for Liquid Rockets for Spacecraft”.REFERENCES [1] Huzel. 1964. Huang.. D. “Thrust Chamber Cooling Techniques for Spacecraft Engines”.. P. Li. J. Bonnie... “Computer Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and Applications” NASA RP1311. H. G.. [6] Merkle C. 1992... R. 1995... John Wiley & Sons Inc. Carey. 1 & 2. 1994. 1.. L.1992. 1977. Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets. V... AIAA. [3] Sutton G. J. [4] Batha.. C...
. 2008. M. “Convection Heat Transfer”. Sc. Dunn. “Dual Regenerative Cooling Circuits for Liquid Rocket Engines”. DA04495. “Validation of High Aspect Ratio Cooling in a 89 kN Thrust Chamber”.. [18] Sutton. [11] Seçkin. “history of Liquid Propellant Engines in United States”.fluent. Prentice Hall. “Sıvı Yakıtlı Đtki Sistemleri Eğitim Notları”. Technical Notes. 70 . [16] Wadel. L... METU..htm FLUENT®.htm [14] [15] Arpaci.. Vol.com/software/fluent/index. Eralp. Journal of Propulsion and Power. Larsen... Prentice Hall. Coats. [19] Naraghi. M. 6. “A Simple Equation for Rapid Estimation of Rocket Nozzle Convective Heat Transfer Coefficients”. htpp://www. S. R. “Gas Dynamics”.com/software/gambit/index. M. D. 2003... No... P. July 1996. Inc. F. M. O. [13] GAMBIT®. [12] Bartz. P. “Comparison of High Aspect Ratio Cooling Channel Designs for a Rocket combustion Chamber with Development of an Optimized Design”. [10] Bucharsky V... Thesis. NASA/TM1998206313 [17] Wadel. METU. M. F. 1994. G. H. July 2006. 1984. “Rocket Nozzle Design and Optimization”.. B..... V. htpp://www. S.. C. M.. 2003. D. S. Meyer. H. AIAA 962584.fluent. 1957.. 19. L... AIAA 20064367.[9] Aksel. California Institute of Technology..
J. AIAA 923154. Whittick. [26] Wang. Q. No. “Theory of LiquidPropellant Rockets”.. pp. [27] Schuff. M. Ulrich.. 23. R. Vol. [24] Naraghi. “Integrated Modeling and Analysis for a LOX/Methane Expander Cycle Engine: Focusing on Regenerative Cooling Jacket Design”. [21] Mitsubishi Materials. Quentmeyer. Luong.. Dorovoliski ... “An Experimental Investigation of HighAspectRatio Cooling Passages”. M. Coats. July 1992. [23] Muraca. F. R. NASA CR – 134806.. Maier. 20072009 [22] Esposito. H. Dunn. O. NASA CR – 123774. Vol. “Thrust Chamber Life Prediction – Mechanical and Physical Properties of High Performance Rocket Nozzle Materials”. 1975. 2006. Sindiy.. “HotGasSide and CoolantSide Heat Transfer in Liquid Rocket Engine Combustors”. 1957. Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer. 3. 1994.. M. C003E General Catalogue... D. T... July 2006. [25] Wang. “Materials Data Handbook – Inconel Alloy718”. J. AIAA 20064534.... “A Model for Design and Analysis of Regeneratively cooled for Rocket Engine”. R.. J. C. AIAA 20043852.. B. Luo. Zeng. Zabora. V. International Journal for Computer Aided Engineering and Software. 8... R. “Numerical simulation and Optimization on Heat Transfer and Fluid Flow in Cooling Channel of Liquid Rocket Engine Thrust Chamber”. L. Wu. April 1972. S. Fugger. M. S... J.. 8. F. [28] Ciniaref. 71 .[20] Carlie. No.. S.. 907921.. G.. 2006. D.. Moscow.. F..
pp... E. pp. Black.. Vandenkerckhove J.. 1960. “Forced Convection Heat Transfer to Gaseous Hydrogen at High Heat Flux and High Pressure in a Smooth. 28. Tate.. P.[29] Barrere M. R. 72 . 14921453... 2005. Veubeke. J. [30] Locke. H. Macmillan Publishing Company. ARS Journal. Wolf. E. The University of Alabama.. “Rocket Propulsion”.. Round. F.. Dec. No.. M. “Analysis of Heat Transfer Correlations for Supercritical Hydrogen in Regenerative Cooling Channels”. A. 1936. 1990. M. J. Kosher.. G.. R. Industrial and Engineering Chemistry.. B.. “Materials and Processes in Manufacturing”. F.. M. [31] Taylor.. 30. T. NASA TMX2145. [34] Aksel. H. 12. [32] Sieder. Electrically Heated Tube”. “Notes on Fluid Mechanics”. Elsevier Publishing Company. E. Vol.. 1960. 1970. 1988. 7th Edition. J. METU. “Heat Transfer and Pressure Drop of Liquids in Tubes”.... “Prediction of Friction and Heat Transfer Coefficients with Large Variations in fluid Properties”. N. [33] McCarthy.423424. [35] Degarmo. A... Jaumotte.
APPENDICES APPENDIX A THERMAL PROPERTIES OF MATERIALS Table A.95 × 10 −4 × T + 0.261 µ = −1.39 × 10 −5 × T + 6.64 × 10 −8 × T 2 − 2.00 × 10 −3 4000 Specific Heat at Constant Pressure [J/kgK] 3500 3000 2500 2000 1500 1000 500 0 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Temperature [K] Figure A.1 – Thermal Properties of Kerosene Density [kg/m3] Specific Heat [J/kgK] Thermal [W/mK] Viscosity [kg/ms] Conductivity 820 Cp = −2.46 ×10 −11 × T 3 + 3.261 k = 9.1 – Temperature Variable Cp for Kerosene 73 .82 × 10 −8 × T 2 − 2.22 × 10 −8 × T 2 − 2.95 × 10 −4 × T + 0.
3 – Temperature Variable Viscosity for Kerosene 74 .2 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for Kerosene 0.02 0 300 Thermal Conductivity [W/mK] 350 400 450 500 550 Temperature [K] 600 650 700 750 800 Figure A.1 0.04 0.0002 0.0006 0.0005 Viscosity [kg/ms] 0.16 0.06 0.0.0003 0.12 0.0001 0 300 400 500 600 Temperature [K] 700 800 900 Figure A.18 0.08 0.0004 0.14 0.
2 – Thermal Properties of Liquid Hydrogen Density [kg/m3] Specific [J/kgK] Thermal Conductivity [W/mK] Viscosity [kg/ms] Heat Cp = −5.141 71 µ = −2.40 × 10−7 × T + 2.33 × 10 −7 × T 2 + 2.09 × 10−4 × T 3 + 1.83 × 10−6 T + 1.60 × 104 (between 195 − 550K) k = 2.75 × 10−10 × T 2 − 1.Table A.22 × 101 × T + 2.85 × 102 × T + 3.45 × 10−13 × T3 + 4.85 × 10−1 × T 2 + 1.06 × 10−5 (between 60 − 550K) 20000 18000 Specific Heat at Constant Pressure [J/kgK] 16000 14000 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 0 100 200 300 Temperature [K] 400 500 600 Figure A.62 × 103 (between 30 − 195K) Cp = −1.05 × 10 −4 × T + 0.53 × 101 × T 2 − 7.75 × 10−4 (between 20 − 60K) µ = −4.4 – Temperature Variable Cp for Liquid Hydrogen 75 .
25 0.05 0 0 100 200 300 Temperature [K] 400 500 600 Figure A.Chart Title 0.1 0.00006 0.3 Thermal Conductivity [W/mK] 0.5 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for Liquid Hydrogen 0.2 0.0001 Viscosity [kg/ms] 0.00012 0.00008 0.35 0.00002 0 0 100 200 300 Temperature [K] 400 500 600 Figure A.15 0.6 – Temperature Variable Viscosity for Liquid Hydrogen 76 .00004 0.
32 × 10 −6 × T 3 − 6.9 × T + 1730 (between 20 − 90K ) k = 6.8 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for OFHC Copper Thermal Conductivity (W/mK) 77 .91 × 10 −1 × T + 520 (between 90 − 800K ) 500 450 400 Specific Heat (J/kgK) 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Temperature (K) Figure A.7 ( between. 123 − 800K ) 8890 k = 1.61 × T − 39.Table A.3 – Thermal Properties of OFHC Copper Density [kg/m3] Specific [J/kgK] Thermal Conductivity [W/mK] Heat Cp = 2.44 × T + 64.17 × 10 −3 × T 2 + 2.10 × 10 −1 × T 2 − 23.7 – Temperature Variable Cp for OFHC Copper 1200 1000 800 600 400 200 0 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 Temperature (K) Figure A.66 × 10 − 4 × T 2 − 5.2 (between 20 − 123K ) Cp = 5.
04 × 10 −1 × T −1 + 327 k = 1.Table A.9 – Temperature Variable Cp for INCONEL 718 30 25 Thermal Conductivity (W/mK) 20 15 10 5 0 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 Tem perature (K) Figure A.4 700 650 600 Specific Heat (J/kgK) 550 500 450 400 350 300 0 200 400 600 Tem perature (K) 800 1000 1200 Figure A.10 – Temperature Variable Thermal Conductivity for INCONEL 718 78 .4 – Thermal Properties of INCONEL 718 Density [kg/m3] Specific Heat [J/kgK] Thermal Conductivity [W/mK] 8190 Cp = 5.79 × 10 −7 × T 2 + 3.44 ×10 −2 × T + 7.
Le. i) { real x[ND_ND]. Pr=0. t. Pc=6000000. N3.1. qCO2. N2. N1.146. face_t f.NI.APPENDIX B USER DEFINED FUNCTION FOR HEAT FLUX ON GAS SIDE WALL #include "udf. Pcr=61.7. int k. Cstar. Mnew. fH2O=0. rt=0. A. /* this will hold the position vector */ real rt.t) { /* Mole Fraction of CO2 */ /* Mole Fraction of H2O */ /* m /* kg/ms /* J/kgK /* Pa /* kg/cm2 /* K /* m/s */ */ */ */ */ */ */ 79 . P. hgas. qrad. Pcr. fCO2=0. begin_f_loop(f. r.00010863. Cp. gamma. Cstar=1804.3.11917. sigma. NI=100000.h" # define pi (3. Pr. Tc. qH2O.31769. fCO2. At=pi*pow(rt. Pc. dt=rt*2. Tc=3570. fH2O. g. vis=0. At. func. vis. Taw. gamma=1. dt.14159) DEFINE_PROFILE(Boun_Cond.44. Cp=2083.18297. ffunc.2).63. M.
80 .5)).28) { for(k=1.9)* sigma/pow(Pr.2))).t)/100).0705*pow((P*fCO2*Le).0.k++) { if(k==1) M=0.3)pow((F_T(f.2))/ (1+((gamma1)/2)*pow(M.6).026*pow(vis/dt.0705*pow(P*fH2O.5*F_T(f.5)pow((F_T(f.2)/2).33)*((gamma1)/2)*pow(M.2)*Cp*pow(Pc/Cstar.2).2)/2).0.t).0.2)).5). } /* For Subsonic Region */ if (x[0]<0 && x[0]>=0.(gamma/(gamma1))).F_CENTROID(x.2)/2)+0.0.05.28) { M=0.6*2*r. P=Pcr/pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M. Le=0. r=sqrt(pow(x[a].k<=NI.12).8)*pow(Le. A=pi*pow(r. qrad=qCO2+qH2O. qH2O=4.t)/Tc*(1+(gamma1)* pow(M. sigma=pow((0.3)).0. hgas=0. /* Radiation Heat Transfer */ qCO2=4.3.0.f.3.1/3)*(pow((Taw/100).0. Taw=Tc*((1+pow(Pr.8)*pow(At/A.68)*pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M.6)* (pow((Taw/100).2)+pow(x[1].0. /* For Combustion Region */ if (x[0]<0.0.t)/100).
N21)*(gamma1). Mnew=Mfunc/ffunc.0.0705*pow((P*fCO2*Le).01) break.0. func=pow(N1.t)/100). qH2O=4. ffunc=pow(N1.(gamma/(gamma1))).026*pow(vis/dt.5). hgas=0.8)*pow(At/A.0. } P=Pcr/pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M.0.3. sigma=pow((0.8)*pow(Le.N2)*pow(N3.68)*pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M.3. 81 .2)/2).5)pow((F_T(f.k<=NI.2)/2.0.6)* (pow((Taw/100).9)* sigma/pow(Pr.33)*((gamma1)/2)*pow(M. N1=2/(gamma+1). } /* For Supersonic Region */ if (x[0]>=0) { for(k=1.0.6). N3=1+(gamma1)*pow(M.N2)*pow(N3. N2=(gamma+1)/(2*(gamma1)).2)+ pow(N1. Taw=Tc*((1+pow(Pr.N2)*N2*pow(N3.else M=Mnew.5*F_T(f.2)*Cp*pow(Pc/Cstar.1/3)*(pow((Taw/100).2))).0.t)/Tc*(1+(gamma1)* pow(M.2)/2).k++) { if(k==1) M=20.0705*pow(P*fH2O.N2)*pow(M.3)).2))/ (1+((gamma1)/2)*pow(M.5)).2)/2)+0.12).0.N2)/MA/At. qrad=qCO2+qH2O.0. if(fabs(MnewM)<0.t)/100).3)pow((F_T(f. /* Radiation Heat Transfer */ qCO2=4.
N2)*pow(M.0.0705*pow(P*fH2O. N2=(gamma+1)/(2*(gamma1)).t) } 82 .2))).(gamma/(gamma1))).0.2)/2)+0. } end_f_loop(f.else M=Mnew.N21)*(gamma1). Mnew=Mfunc/ffunc. } F_PROFILE(f. qrad=qCO2+qH2O.F_T(f.i) = (hgas*(Taw .6). if(fabs(MnewM)<0.t)/100).2)/2).0.5*F_T(f.6)* (pow((Taw/100).33)*((gamma1)/2)*pow(M.N2)/MA/At.t)/Tc*(1+(gamma1)* pow(M.3. N3=1+(gamma1)*pow(M.3)pow((F_T(f. N1=2/(gamma+1).68)*pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M.3)). ffunc=pow(N1.5)). /* Radiation Heat Transfer */ qCO2=4.0.01) break. func=pow(N1.12).0705*pow((P*fCO2*Le).5)pow((F_T(f.0.8)*pow(At/A. } P=Pcr/pow((1+(gamma1)*pow(M.8)*pow(Le.2)*Cp*pow(Pc/Cstar.N2)*pow(N3.2)+ pow(N1.t))+qrad).2)/2). hgas=0. qH2O=4.N2)*N2*pow(N3.0.9)* sigma/pow(Pr.N2)*pow(N3.0.t)/100).t.3.026*pow(vis/dt.5).2)/2.0. sigma=pow((0. Taw=Tc*((1+pow(Pr.1/3)*(pow((Taw/100).0.2))/ (1+((gamma1)/2)*pow(M.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?