.f_ / i .

_f

lfj i I -_.J

NASA Contractor Report 195478

AIAA-95-2968

A Transient Model of the RL 10A-3-3A

Rocket Engine

Michael E Binder
NYMA, Inc.
Engineering Services Division
Brook Park, Ohio
,#

0
o_
0_
!
U
o_ C o
Z
0

...I

Q
o
,_uJ
June 1995 z

ZC._
uJZ
J"_W

_LU

Prepared for
0
Lewis Research Center
Under Contract NAS 3-27186
,,m_ i,f,1

_0
P'# p"# i_
I ..i e_i

l_i
National Aeronautics and

Space Administration
 A Transient Model of the RL10A-3-3A Rocket Engine

_tchael Bind_
NYMA, Inc.
2001 Aerospace Parkway
Brook Park, Ohio 44129

Abstract

RL10A-3-3A rocket engines have served as the main tm3Pulsion system for Centaur upper stage
vehicles since the early 1980's. This hydrogen/oxygen expander cycle engine continues to play a
major role in the American launch industry. The Space Propulsion Technology Division at the
NASA Lewis Research Center has created a computer model of the RL10 engine, based on detailed
component analyses and available test data. This RL10 engine model can imxlict the perfcmnanoe
of the engine over a wide range of operating conditions. The model may also be used to predict
the effects of any proposed design changes and anticipated failure scenarios. In this paper, the
results of the component analyses are discussed. Simulation results from the new system model
are compared with engine test and flight data, including the start and shut-down transient
clmtaoeristics.

1.0 state performance of the RL10A-3-3A, but the predicted

The RL10A rocket engine is an important component
of the United States space infraslntctme. Two RL10
engines form the main propulsion system for the
Centaur upper stage vehicle, which boosts commercial,
scientific, and military payloads from a high altitude
into Earth orbit and beyond (planetary missions). The
Centaur upper stage is used on both Atlas and Titan
launch vehicles. The initial RL10A-1 was developed in
the 1960's by Pratt & Whitney (P&W), under contract
to NASA. The RL10A-3-3A, RL10A-4, and RL10A-
4-1 engines used today incorporate component
improvements but have the same basic configuration as
that of the original RL10A-I engine. RL10's have
been highly reliable servants of America's space
program for over 30 years. The RLIOA-3-3A engine is
represented schematically in Figure 1.
The Space Propulsion Technology Division (SPTD) at
the NASA Lewis Research Center began developing a
computer model of the RL10 in 1991. This model was
intended for government use in engine system research,
_-analysis and flight failure investigations. The
first version of the model was created using data
provided by Pratt & Whitney, and the ROCket Engine
Transient Simulator (ROCETS) I system analysis
program. This model could accurately p_llct the steady-
lime required for the engine to reach a specified thrust
during engine start (time-to-accelerate) showed
significant differences with test data 2. It is believed
that these discrepancies were due to errors in
exuapolating the available component perfmmance data
to cover engine-start conditions, as well as errors in the
physical models used for heat umsfer and two-phase
flow. Analysis of each RL10 engine component was
undertaken in order to verify the origin of the dam
lXovided by P&W, and to improve the accuracy of the
models at far off-design conditions. These analyses
were also used to benchmark our ability to acowalely
model new rocket engine designs forwhich test data are
not yet available; the RLIO engine system provided test
data to validate the available component and system
modeling tools.
In this paper, the RLIOA-3-3A rocket engine and its
various components me described briefly. The analysis
n:mlts for each component are then discussed, including
comparisons with existing component test data. The
new engine system model, which includes the results of
selected component analyses, is described and
pn_dictionsof me model_ mmparedto gn_-test and
flight data. For a more detailed discussion of the
modeling work summariz_ here, the reader is referred m
the RL10A-3-3ARocketEngineModelingProject
F'mMReport3.
As the simulation results will show, the new RL10
model ccuectly predicts variation in engine transient
behavior due to inlet conditions, initial thermal
conditioning, and ignition delay.
2.0 RL10A-3-3A Engine Description
The RL10 engine design (all models) is based oll a full
expander cycle, as shown in Figure I. Hydrogm fuel is
used to cool the thrust chamber and nozzle, and the
thermal eaezgy Wansfetmi to the coolant is used to drive
the aubopumps. Warm hydrogen gas is injected with
cryogenic liquid oxygen into the comlmslkm chamber
and burned to provide thrust. During enghg sum, fuel
tank iaessme and the initial ambient heat in the cooling
jacket metal are used to start rotation on the mrbiue.
After ignition, the heat of combustion is used to
accelerate the tmbopumps to full power. Because the
Centaur upper stage vehicle uses two RL10 engines, it
is important that the engines start simultaneously (to
minimize thrust imbalances). For the purpose of
providing a quantitative measure of the engine start
times, we shall refer to the time between the start
signal and the chamber pressure reaching 200 psla as
the t/me_/erate.
During engine shutdown, the fuel inlet, fuel shut-off,
and oxidizer inlet valves are clmed. The oumbustion
process stops mul the fuel and oxidizer drain flora the
engine system; LOX drains out through the thrust
chamber, and the fuel drains out through the pump
cool-down valves.
3.0 Turbomachinerv Analysis
3.1 Turbonumu Background Information
The RL10A-3-3A Uubopump includes a two-stage fuel
turbine which drives a two-stage fuel pump ou a
shaft, rex! a single-stage LOX pump tla-ough a
gear box. At the engine's normal operating point, a
fuel flow of 6 lb/sec is pumped to a wessure of 1100
psla, and 30 Ib/sec of LOX is ptmaped to 600 psia. The
normal operating speed of the fuel pump is 32000 rpm,
and the LOX pump speed is 12800 rpm.
Pratt & Whimey provided the NASA SPTD with test
data maps of head coefficient and efficiency for each
pump stage as functions of flow coefficient, and
included a speed correction factor f_" efficiency. These
maps do not cover the entire range of operating
conditions exlgdenced by the pom_ during engine tort
and shutdown. P&W had also wovided the SPTD with
test data maps of turbine efficiency and flow zesistance
as fanctlom of overall pressure ratio sad velocity ratio
(u/Co). These maps do cover a range of conditions
suitable for engine start and shutdown sinudatious.
3.2 Detailed Pumn Analyses
Two different analysis codes, PUMPA 4 and LSISO 5,
were used to model the RL10A-3-3A fuel and LOX
pumps. Tan pamp head coefficients _ by each
code agree with test data to within five percent (5%)
over the engine's normal steady-state operating range.
The PUIvIPA and LSISO efficiency predictions,
however, differed from test data by as much as fifteen
percent (15%), and could therefme not be used in the
engine system model. PUMPA was also used to
predict the performance of the RL10A-3-3A pumps at
the engine start conditions. The results of these
analyses were used qualitatively to help extrapolate the
head maps beyond the available test data provided, as
discussed later in this section. It sJz3uldbe noted that a
subsequent version of the PUMPA code was recently
developed which better wedicts the RL10A-3-3A pump
design point efficiency, without affecting the head
predictions. The new version of PUMPA was
completed too late to allow a comprehensive a_tlysls of
start coalitions to be perforated again for this project.
In addition to the PUMPA and LSISO analyses
above, a third analysis was peffcmned which
was spec_xcally designed to estimate the lOW speed
pump head (as experienced during start). This method
was suggested by Rostafmski 6 and requires that the
design point perfommuce of the pump be known. This
when cambiued with a separate model of the
pump exit diffuser, appears to match well with the
limited test data available at engine start conditions.
Although Im3mislng, this modeling technique proved
impractical for transient system simulation (slow
execution, numerical instabilities, etc.) and was
therefcce not included in the new RLI0 system model
Using available engine test data and informatim gained
from the analyses discussed above, the pump
performance maps provided by Pratt & Whitney were
exlrapolaled to include _nditions at engine start and
shutdown (zero speed, zeverse flow, ca_ etc.). In
order to represeut such a wide range of operating
conditions, a map format suggested by Chaudl_y 7 is
used. The new map format defines normalized head
parameter(h) and torque parameter (13)as functions of a
third parameter, 6 (them) as described below. The new
pumpperfmmance
mapsfortheengine system model
me shown in Figures 2 and 3.
h= I_=
N Q + N
whe_ ffihead (in feet)
N = shaftspeed (inrpm)
Q = volmnetric
flow(ingpm)
andthesubscript
d denotesthedesign
condition.
The results of the pump analyses descn'bed above
indicate that it shouki be possible to predia the general
performance characteristics of new pump designs.
Results from this type of analysis are valuable for
conceptual engine design and simulation activities.
Such component Ixedictions may not be sufficiently
accurate for use in engine start-transient simulations,
especially if no test data is available with which to
anchor the new pump models.
3.3 Detailed Analysis of Fuel Turbin_
The RLIOA-3-3A turbine was alsoanalyzedruingthe
TURBA code s, which is cmrently being developed at
the NASA Lewis Research Center. TURBA is a one-
dimensional mean-line code which combines basic
physics (vdocity trianglesand isentropicrelaX'ms)
with empirical cot_lations derived from existing
uubine designs. The turbine perfmamnee predictious
could notbe directly compared with the maps provided
by P&W. Instead, both sets of maps were used as
inputs to a simple turbine simulation, and the resulting
overall efficiencies and flow rates were compared.
Although the overall performance trends i_edicted by
1XJRBA are similar to those indicated by the P&W
data, a more quantitative comparison shows that
significant differences exist. The predicted overall
turbine effgietgy, for ex_m_ diffe¢_ by more than5%
ffmn the P&W data, especially at low speeds. It has
been fmlh_ noted that relatively small variations in the
turbineperfotmaige at low speeds can profoundly affect
the RL10 engine time-to-accelerate. Possible
explanations for the poor match between TURBA
output and test data have not been explored; the
TURBA code is still considered to be in the
development phase. The performance maps provided
by P&W have flmrefore been retained in the new system
model.
The turbine analysis performed in this study indicates
that it is possible to estimate the design point
performance of a new turbine to within a few percenL
It is also possible to predict the overall trends in
perfmmance at off-design conditions. As with the
pump analyses discussed above, however, the accmacy
of the turbine lm_iictious may not be sufficient for use
in transient or deep-throuling simulations of a new
engine. When component test data is available for a
new turbine design, it might be possible to adequately
adjust the model based on only a few test data points.
4.0 Thrust Chamber and Cooline Jacket
4.1 Thrust Chamber Backtwound Information
walls of the RL10A-3-3A thrust chamber are
consmgted of stainless steel tubing. Hydrogen fuel is
pumped throegh these robes in order to cool the walls
of the thrust dmmber and provide thermal en_gy to the
turbine. The robes are brazed together and reinforced
with bands on the outside, as well as a metal girdle
around the throat sectim. A silver throat insert is cast
in place to increase the nozzle area ratio and specific
impulse. The thrust chamber normally operates at a
pressure of 475 psi& a mixture ratio (O/F) around 5.0,
a thrust of 16500 lbf, and a specific impulse of 445
seconds.
The analysis of the RLIOA-3-3A thrust chamb_ was
divided into three basic areas: 1) cooling jacket heat
transfer, 2) combustion chamber performance, and 3)
nozzle performance. Each analysis is described below.
4.2l_etailfd Analysis of Coolint Jacket Heat
T_mrer
original model of the RL10 cooling jacket had only
five heat transfer cakulatm nodes distributed along the
cooling circuit This model was considered to be too
coarse and amore detailed model was c_mted for this
project.
CET93, a _ equih'laium program 9, was
used to refine the table of hot-gas properties. The
Rocket Thmnal Evaluator (RTE) code lo was used to
predict the flow resistance of the cooling jacket and the
effects of tube curvatt_e ou heat transfer rate. Heat
transfer between the combustion gas and chamber walls
waspnxk_ ustagan euthalpy-driven Banz correlatim
I t. The euthalpy gradient was used instead of the
temperature gradient because this more accurately
predicts variation inheatIransfer atdifferent mixture
ratios. A Colbum correlatioa 12 was used to detetlBi_
the heat transfer from the chamber wall to the coolant
flow. It was clisc_vered that cembining twenty hot-gas
and metal property nodes with five (rather than 20)
coolant nodes couM significantly increase the
computational efficiency of the transient system model
without loss of accuracy overall. This the
configurmkm was used in the new RL10A-3-3A system
model.
Figure 4 shows the predicted heat flux, wall
temlmauue, coolant _ and wesm_ along the
axial length of the thrust chamber cooling jacket. Test
data show_ ux_ _ ta tempenm_ and _
are not available for comparismx. The accma_ of the
new heat Wausfer model can only be judged by the
overall _ rise and wesuue drop across the
cooling jacket. Based on these parameters, an
empirical _ of 1.08 was added for the hot-gas
heat transfer coefficient and a fact_ of 0.94 applied to
the predicted jacket flow resistanoe. These empirical
correction factors represent average values, since the
actual heat _ metlicient _ to vary somewhat
fiem one RLI0 engine to another. These variations
may be due to small mmmfactming diHe_aces; they are
not c_nsidered critical as loag as the engine has
sufficient starting pow_.
A simple cme-dimeasiem_ film boiling model was also
added to the oooling jacket heat trm_fer model. Fdm-
boiling effects have been suggested as the cause of the
four to eight Hertz pressure oscillations often
ex_ dsmg the RLI0 engine start seqne_e. Tee
new model still does not show these pressure
oscUlations; they may be due to two-dimensional
effects not modeled here or to local choking within the
two-phase fluid.
The analyses wes_ted hem demmsuale the capab_ty
of one-dimensional models to pmdi_ the effects of
various oondifims on heat transfer. Depending on the
accuracy required for system simulations, some
adjustment to the heat transfer _ts using test
data my be required. Test results ate also useful in
defining the variability in heat trm_e_ characteristics
due to manufacturing tolerances and other factors.
4.3Detailed Analysis of Combustion
Chamber Performance
In addition to revising the ¢ombmtion gas property
tables f(g the new model, several other imwovements
were made. In the original RL10 engine model, the
thrust chamber was treated as a _ingle point, without
considering axial variation. In reality, there me
m,wnmmwn losses and eJ_ager in static pressure along
the hot-gas flow path which will affect performance.
These effects were relatively simple to wedict and were
added to the model. Au analysis of the RL10A-3-3A
thrust chamb_ _bly was also perfonned usingthe
ROCCID code 13, which provides a c_pability of
modeling the propellant injectors, atomization and
combustion processes. The objectives of this analysis
were to validate onr _ty to wedict ¢*_
usingRL10 data from P&W, and to extend the range of
mixture ratios represented in that data set. The RL10
injextef proved difficult to model using ROCCID;
several aspects of its design are not found in the more
contemporary designs which ROCCID was intended to
model. As a result, the results of the ROCCID
analyses did not show a good match with the P&W
data. 2_e R_ model also _ numea'ieal
convergence woblems at low pressures (below 160
psla), where the c*-eff'tciency changes significantly.
Tbe data maps wovided by P&W have beea retained in
the new system model
During the engine start sequmce, heat transfeg in the
injector can play a discernal_ role in the system's
dynamic behavior, prima_y by clumgingthe densityof
the injected LOX. Simple models of heat ttm_er in
theinjector ekmems endinter-_t bulkheadwere
added to the new engine model. Although the_ is
insufficient datato validate tbe modeis, the results
test
al_earmasmable.The addition ofthesemodeledeffects
delaysthetime-to-accelerate by apwoximately I00
milliseconds,Considered over all engine start
transients simulated, this delay results in a more
accurate predktion of time-to-accelerate. Figure 5
shows the _ heat tnmsfef rate in the injoc/_ as a
function of time during a typical engine start.
4.4Detailed Analvsta of No_,.zle Performance
The RLIOA-3-3A nozzle perf_ affects the
mmbustion chamber Wesmre and flowrate, as well as
the specific impulse and _-ust of the engine. Prau&
Whitney had originally ixovided nozzle perfm_ance
data in the form of specific impulse (Isp) tables with
additional corre_ons for various kinetic losses.
Analyses were performed at Lewis using a Two
D:on_l$ion_l _es (TDK) pl'ogram 14 in O_ to
better understand the P&W data. Figure 6 shows the
output of the TDK analysis compared with the P&W
data. The results match well at the engine's normal
operating point of 475 psia and O/F = 5.0. The
wedicted and P&W values differ mote significantly at
low pressures and mixture-ratios, however. The
predicted Isp maps have been included in the new
RL10A-3-3A system model.
Several different _ were takm to detmaine the
nozzie discharge o3efficknt (CA). P&W had specified a
CA of approximately 0.98. A Navief-Stokes analysis 15
was performed at Lewis which wedicted the discharge
coefficient to be 0.979, a remarkable agreement.
Trimming the CA value used in the engine simulation
to match lxedicted chamber laesmre with test data gave
a value of 0.975. The TDK analysis descn3_ above
had further indicated that the CA may ch_mge somewhat
with chamber pressure and mixture ratio. After
considering these various results, a constant CA of
0.975 was selected fog use in the new system model.
$.0 Miscellaneous Comnonents
In general, the ducts, valves, and manifolds in the RL10
engine were not analyzed in detail Many of these
components have complex geometries that would
require f'mite-element methods to model im31gdy. In
the case of the fuel pump cool-down valves, oxidizer
control valve, madLOX injectar elements, however, the
models for two-phase flow contained in the original
model required improvement. We also attempted to
verify the resistance of a single duct as specified by
Pratt & Whitney using generic one-dimensional
metho&.
During the engine start, several components experience
two-phase critical and mrJmked flow conditions. The
fnel-pump cool-down valves, which vent liquid
hydrogen overbom_ ale always clinked and the hydrogen
flashes to vapor as it is vented. The oxidizer control
valve and LOX injector elemmts experience two-phase
flow for only a small period of time during start,
transitionin8 at some point between choked and
unchoked conditions. The challenge was to devise
models which allow a relatively continuous transition
between the various flow conditions during start.
A number of different _ were cousidered 26 J7
18. Ultimately, a model was derived which treats the
flow as incompressible, but limits the assumed
dowusueam wessure to either saturation og isenlropic
critical pw._sme, depending on the value of the pressure
upstream of the orifice or valve. This modeling
approach was used fog the LOX injector elements and
fuel cool-down valves. Two-phase flow in the oxidizer
control valve is modeled as incemweuibie, limited by
the saturation pressme of the fluid until the flow
becomes entirely gaseous, after which it is Ireated as
isentropie flow of an ideal gas. These models agree
well with avaflabie test data.
The fluid resistances of ducts and tubes are typically
determined by flow testing those components. For
new rocket engine systems, empirical data of
this kind may not be available during the analysis
phase. A simple ol_ff-dil3_e_onal analysis19 of flow in
an RLI0 duct (from the turbine discharge to the main
fuel shut-off valve) was peffmmed and the results wea'e
compared with the resistmwe _ by P&W. Tne
inflate roughness on the interior of the duct was not
known, so we considered a range of options from
smooth commercial steel pipe to drawn tubing. The
analyses indicated a range of possible K valnes19 from
0.928 to 0.487; the value of g given by P&W was
0.648. Our estimates the_fore define a range of
possible values which bracket the suggested value with
m each" of 25 to 43 %. The _ce provided by
P&W has been retained for the new RL10 engine
model, but this analysis suggests that we c_m wobably
estimate the resistance for a new (untested) duct to
within 4./- 30%. Better estimates might be possible if
the surface roughness of the intended duct is well
defined.
It is evident from the discussion above that accurate
one-dimmsioml models of ducts and valves in a new
engine design will require at least some flow testing.
Befme such data is available, it would be prudent to
_tsider the effects of uncertainty in engine system
simS. In the case of valves and ducts where two-
phase flow might exist, it is advisable to test the
components over d_Jr entire operating range, since
two-phase effects caa often lead to unexpec_ behavi_.
Flow models which include two and three dimensional
effects may also woduce more accurate resistance
predictions.
6.0 _lew RL10A-3-3A En2ine System Model
Tne new RLIOA-3-3A engine system model includes
the results of several of the detailed component
analyses, as described above. In addition to these
comixagnt model changes, several improvements wae
made in the structnre of the system model itself.
Tracking of the total-to-static conversions for pressure
and mthalpy was iml_ved in the new system model, is unl/kely that the values were all Wecisely 20 Ibf-
for example. in.

It became necessary to create two difterent models of 6.1.2 Uncertainties in Valve movement
the RL10 engine: one for ¢imzdatlng Start transient "Fne transient behavior of the engine in both start
behavior and steady-state peff_ and the other for and shutdown is largely determined by the opening
simulating shut-down transient behavior. During shut- and closing of valves. Variations in valve and
down, the ducts and manifolds in tbe engine me emptied actuator behavior actually do occm for a variety of
into space, and dynamk: volumes had to be added to the reasons. In some cases, the opening and closing
model to allow the simulation of these effects. times of valves can be infen'ed f:n:an test data. In
Including these dynamic volumes in the start transient most cases,however, this is not posm'ble because
and steady-state model changed the predicted start of the limited number of engine sensors and their
transient behavior significantly, in disagreement with dynamic response rates. Valve data provided by
test dam. These differences could not be resolved, and P&W has been cmnbined with information infm'ed
so two separ_ modeLs w_e developed. from avaUable test data to define 'typical" valve
movement schedules for the new system model.
6.1Effects of Modelin_ Uncertainty This single set of typical scigdules was used for all
Before discussing the output of the new system model, simulations performed in this study.
it is important to note several unresolved sources of
uncertainty in the model which will affect our ability to 6.1.3 Uncertain Initial conditions
accurately simulate a given RLI0 engine firing. Tlw.se The temlga'atme of the combustion chamber,
uncertainties can be divided into four categories: 1) nozzle and cooling jacket at the beginning of the
enceminty in hardware _ 2) _ties engine start sequence is an importmt factor in the
in valve dynamic behavior, 3) _ties in engine engine timc-to-acccler_. Unlike the engine inlet
initial conditions, and 4) uncertainty in the main and tempetatm_, there is no foible
chamber ignition delay. _ is also a great deal of meamtemmt of initial jacket _ for any
non-linear interaction between RL10 engine given test or flight. Temperatures that are
components 2o. Charactaizing the _,nction between measured on the engine genea_ily show false
the various operating lXtmneters with uncertainty was readings before start due to ambient conditiot_,
beyond the u:ope of this study. metal _ with other c_a_ and the
lack of pmpeUant flow at that time. Tha initial
6.1.1 Uncertainti_es in Hardware temperature of the coolingjacket, ducts, manifokis,
eh_wtt,ri_tiot and ether components must be estimated, often
There LSsome mceminty in the actml value of the based on limited information from past testing.
discharge coefficient for the fuel-immp cool-down
valves. In the RL10 model, the discharge In the RLI0 model diacussed here, tbe_
coefficimt is set at 0.6 for grom_test and 0.8 for of the cooling jacket is asmanecl to be a uniform
flight. These values were chosen based on 540 R for furst butas and 350 R for second bums.
discussims with enginec_ at Pratt & Whitney but Tha _oling jacket ialet manifoM is asmmod to be
no real caWntion data is available to verify these at 200 R became the inlet manifokl is extmm_ to
values, l_e res/stmce of the cool-down valves is some of the fnel pump toM-down flow before start.
.n important factor in the engine time-go-accelwate. All other _ in the systan m'e assumed to
be in thermalequflflx-imn with thewopellant flows
'1"ne drag tmque (due to bearings, seats, gears, etc.) at start. Because these assumptions are somewhat
of the RLIO Imbopump (fuel and LOX combined) arbitrary, fl_ey me h'kely to be in avor to some
is a known f_wce of mgine-to-engine variation. degree for my given firing.
Tbe valne LSnot genially mea._d for ea,'h engine
but past studies have shown that the torques v&y 6.1.4 Uncertainty in hmition delay
from 8 to 36 Ibf-in (with resla_::t to tbe fnel pump For the simulations considered here, the ignition
shaft)2o.A constantnominal value of 20 lbf-in times were set mammlly to agxee with the meamnxl
has been used for all simulaficms nm for this study. data. In order to simulate m engine start for which
It is uncertain what the actual values of running data is not yet available, a model of the ignition
torque were for the lest and flights considered but it Igocess would be required. 131is model could be
 based on theorelkal analysis, or might be derived
from test dau_ NASA does not currently have an
ignition model for the RL10.
6.2RL10 Steady-state Engine Performance
Ten test cases are considered for the steady-_aate
performance predictions. Five tests are based on
diffe_nt quiescent operating pointsf_ a single ground-
testrunof a singleengine(EaglneP2087,Run 2.01,
Ocloi_ 4,1991). The other five tests are based on the
final states of five sturt-Umsient data sets (five different
ground-test runs) of a singleengine(P2093). Flight
data has not been included in this comparison because
insufficient data exists to determine the mixture-ratio
and trim position of the oxidizer control valve (OCV)
for those firings. For the ground-test runs considered,
the OCV position has been trimmed in the simulation
to achieve the steady-stale mixture ratio indicaledby the
test data. Since the OCV position is not a measured
parameter, the simulated trim position could not be
verified directly with test data. A comprehensive
performanee wediction for a typical case b shown in
Table 1. In general, only a few parameters are actually
measmed on engine firings (14 parameters on grmmd-
tests, 8 in flight). Of the fotmeen pmmneters measured
in ground-tests, five are used as inputs to the model
(inlet conditions and chamber lZessure), and so only
nine _ _ are cmapm_ with test data for
each case.
Figure 7 shows the distribution of error between the
measured and predicted parameter values in the ten
ground-test cases. The model lX'edictions match the
meastm_ values to within 10% fcf all pmmnetefs on all
tests (a total of 90 values). Most wedictions are within
3% of the test resuRs. The most significant errms are
in the turbine inlet temperature and the pump discharge
_esmres. The difference between the wedicted and
measuredturbine inlettemperature varies frem engine
to engine,as discussedin section 4.2of thispaper.
The en_ in the pump discharge ptesmres appems to be
associated with mfl)cpump speeds that are consistently
lower than measm_. This _ in speed is mnst
likely due to small errors in the turbine maps and
cooling jacket model; these errors cannot be easily
corwxted for without adversely affecting the wedicted
stm behavior. The turbine performance maps wovided
by P&W for transient simulation are not the same as
those originally provided for use in the steady-state
model. The original maps do not work well in
simulating the start transient but the new maps do not
match as well at the engine's design operating
conditions. The new system model's steady-state
are therefore slightly less acowale than those
of the original system models. It was decided, however,
that the turbine maps suggested for start transient
modeling would be used throughout, and the associated
steady-state mor accepted.
6.3RLI0 Start Transient Simulations
The results of RLI0 start transient simulations were
compared with both ground-test and flight data. Figure
8 (a - e) shows the predicted and measured start
Wamients of a single ground-test first-burn. Figure 9
shows chamber pressure and pump speed data for an
Atlas/Centaur flight (AC-72), while Figure 10 shows
similar data for the second burn (restart) of a different
flight (AC-74). In each of these runs, the ignition time
has been setin the model based on examination of the
test or flight dam. 1_e difference betweengronnd-test
and flight engine simulations is the value chosen for
the fuel cool-down valves discharge coefficient (which
reflects differences between the vehicle and test-stand
ductwork). The difference between first and second bcm
simulations b the a_umcd initial temperatm_ of the
combustion chamber metal. These assunwM variations
worn also discnssed in section 6.1 above.
The start model generally matches the measured tim¢-
to-accelmme of the engine to within approximately 230
milliseconds, using only estimates for initial
_ bearing fxicti_ valve u:heduies and other
factors which may vary from nm to run and from
engine to engine. Table 2 gives the predicted vs.
measured finw-to-a_x_ate for six ground-test and three
flight-engine firings. One of the flight simulations is
off by 280 msec (rather than 230 reset), but this
appears to be an aberration relative to other flight-
engine starts. Comparing the results of this start
Uan._ent with those from other frights, it appears likely
that the conditions f_ this flight were differeat in ways
oth_ than their inlet conditkms alone. The model
correctly predicts start variations due to different engine
inlet conditions, initial thermal conditions, and
diffeamces betwem gnmnd and flight hardw_.
The reader may note from Figures 8-10 that there are
some transient differences between the predicted and
measured chamber pressures which occur after the
engine bootstraps but before it reaches the quiescent
state. The small oscillations evident in the test data me
due to oscillations of the Thrust Control Valve CI'CV)
se_vo-mechanisnL The simulation does not include a
model of the actuator dynamics, but the TCV is
assumed to open as a simple linear function of
combustionchamberpressure. The simulation 7.0 Concludina Remarks
thereforeoverMmots thedesired
chamber pressureand The major goals set for this pmjeot were to create a
doesnotoscillate,htseveral
cases,
tbesimuiatim does tramient model of the RLIOA-3-3A rcdwA eagine for
showscene unusualuausiemsbeforereacbtagsteady- government use, to betu_r understand the engine and its
state;theseapsgar
tobedueto volume dynamics tn the mmlmnems, m_dto beaclanmk tha available cmnponem
LOX pe_ iuiet ducc As the OCV suddmly opens and malysis tools using an existing mgine design. These
the LOX system _ the simulatim pmlkts goershavebernacmmpUstet
o,cmaems musodby nutd inerea, and
phase changm. These mmsients,which Ke not evident Tha new RL10 start trmsieat model accmm_y Igedicts
in the test data, may occtw in the simulations becanse tbeenginet e-t , me whm to ground-
OCT serve dynamics m'e not included in the model. test and flight data. The model can granulate engine
Thesetramient differences betweenpredictkm and test start transients over a wide range of inlet conditions,
ate not considered significant; they would be minimized initial themml conditious, and ignition delays. This
if models af tbe TCV and OCV actuatms are deveicj_ model also paedicts steady-state ped'ommance values
in the futm_. which are within 10% of the meamred values in all
cases, and within 3% for most _. The new
To demmsuate one potmtial applkation of the system RLI0 shutdown model successfully reproduces the
start model, Figure 11 shows the predicted metal eDgi_'s transieat behavior after main eogine cut-off.
of the combustion chamber just upstream These new system models muld be used in the future to
of the thront (its hottest point). This _ is not predict the effects of cJumges in the mgine design, and
measm-ed, even in ground tests. The temperatme in this to simulate off-nmninal opmuing conditious.
case peaks at amend 1875 R, which is a few hundw_
degrees below the melting point of the silver throat i,!performing
thedmanedcomponent
analysesdescribed
insert. Infoanation of this kind can be used to help in this patsy, a great deal has been leamod about the
determine conqmtzmt wear and to _ the impaa of RLI0 e_gine. This activity has also provided am
_ or hmdwa_ chaqes to tbe engine. oplmaunity to compare the output from available
component modeling tools with test data from an
6.4RLIO Shutdown Transient Simulations existing engine design. Comparison of the
Two firings have been used for comparison between mmlysisresalts with data provided by Pratt k Whitney
model predictions and measured data. RLI0 eagine indicates that at least some empirical correction must be
shutdowns do not appear to have any distinct feature made to the results of the component models. Such
analogous to the time-to-accelerate for start transients. component models are nonetheless valuable in
Although there are subtle variations in the rate of predicting the off-design _ of the engine
deceleration, the nature of these differences is not as components, especially once _ cozre_ons have
well understood as in the case of engine start. been included. Detailed three-dimensional
computational-fluid-dynamic models may also be
Figure 12 (a-d) shows the wedicted vs. measured considered in the future to improve the _tncy of
shutdown for a gronnd-test engine. The RLIO mmponent
performance
pt fictious,
though
evenugh
shutdown model has capturedmany interesting effects advancedtechniques willinvolvesome uncertainty,
that occur during shutdown. In Fignre 12c, for especially fornew cx_aponent de&igus, The capability
example, the simulated and measmed venturi pressmes may notyetexisttoweci_y predict thebehaviorof
both show a characteristic dip, rise and then falioff in new componmts of engines for which no test data is
the fuel venturi upstream pressure. This feature is available. In inch cases, the best that can be expec_d
caused by the dynamic interaction of the fuel pump is to define a range of performance and transient
cool-down valve opening gad main fuel shutoff valve behavior based on malysis. This type of infomation
closing. Anotber _g charactedstic of Ibe RLI0 can be extremely valuable in the design and
shutdown transient (as shown in Figure 12c) is the development of new ccmpommts or systems, especially
jump in fuel pump inlet wesstwe due to reverse flow in combination with probablistic and uncertainty
through the fuel pump. analysis techniques.
 References
Acknowledgements

'Ibiswork was Ix_fonned undexconlractNAS3-27186. 1. Pratt & Whitney Government Engines,

System Design Specification for the
The anth0f would like to acknowledge the participation ROCETS System - Final Report, NASA
of the following individuals, who performed the CR-184099, July 1990.
component analyses which were incorporated into the
new RL10A-3-3A system model.
2. Binder, M. - Sverdrup Technology Inc.,
Tom Tomsik (NASA LeRC) - Heat Transf_ An RLIOA.3.$A Rocket Engine Model
Joseph Veres (NASA LeRC) - Turbine and Pumps Using the ROCETS Software, AIAA
Ken Kacynski (NASA LeRC) - Combu.qion and Nozzle Paper 93-2357, June 1993.
Doug Rapp (Sverdrup / NYMA) - Hot gas properties
Dean Scheer (Sveldrup / NYMA) - Pumps 3. Binder, M., Tomslk,T, Veres,J,
Albert Pavli (Sveadmp / NYMA) - Inject_ RLIOA-3-3A Modeling Project- Final
William Tabata (NASA LeRC) - General RL10 Report, NASA TIM (number pending),
1995.
information and expert_.

Pratt & Whitney (West Palm Beach, Florida) also 4. Veres, J, A Pump Meanline Analysis
participated in this work, supplying us with design Code (PUMPA), NASA TM.106745,
infoflnation and test data forvalidation. October 1994.

$. Gulbrandsen, N. Centrifugal Pump Loss

lsolatiou Program (LSISO), COSMIC
Program # MFS-13029, April 1967.
*(note that the version of LSISO used in
this study is not publicly available, this
reference gives a general description of
the program in its original, publicly
disseminated form).

6. Rostafinsld, W, An Aulytical Method

for Pr#dictiag the Performcmce of
Centrifugal Pumps During Pressurized
Startup, NASA TN D-4967, January
1969.

7. Chaudhry,H, Applied Hydraulic

Transients - 2ml Edition, Van Nostrand
Reinhold, New York 1987.

8. Veres, J., A Turbine Meanliae Analysis

Code (TURBA), NASA TM (number
pending), 1995.

9. McBride,B. and Gordon,S. CETg$ and

CETPC: An Interim Updated Version of
the NASA Lewis Computer Program for
Calculating Complex Chemical
Equilibria witk Applications , NASA
TM-4557, March 1994.
10. Nnragbi, M.H.N, RTE - A Computer
Code for Tkree-Dimensiolud Rocket 20.RLI0 Start Capability Working Group
Thermal Evaluation, (NASA Grant NAG (government/industry cooperative), AC-
3.892), July 1991. 71 Failure lnvestigatiou - Final Report,
(no contract or report number given),
11.Bnrt_ D.R, Smrvey of Relationships December 1993.
between Tkeory aml Experiment for
Convection Heat Transfer in Rocket
Combustion Gases, Advances in Rocket
Propulsion, AGARD, Technivision
Services, Manchester, England, 1968.

12. Holman,J.P, Heat Transfer - Fourth

Editiom McGraw Hill, 1976

13.Muss, J. and Nguyen,T_ User's Mauual

for Rocket Combustor Interactive Design
(ROCCID) arid Aualysis Computer
Program, NASA CR-1087109, May
1991.

14. Nickerson,G, Two-Dimeasioual

Kinetics (TDg) Nozzle Performauce
Computer Program. Users Manual,
(NASA Contract NAS8-39048), March
1993.

15. Kacynski, K., Calculut/ou of Propulsive

Nozzle Flowfieid in Multidiffusing,
Ckemicallyreacting Environments,
NASA TM 106532, 1994.

16. Henry, R. and Fauske, H, Tkc Two-

phase Critical Flow of Oue-Compouent
Mixtures in NooJes, Orifices, amd Short
Tubes, ASME Journal of Heat Transfer,
May 1971.

17. Applied Physics Laboratory, JANNAF

Rocket Engine Performamce Test Data
Acquisitiou aml laterpretattou Manual,
CPIA Publication 245, April 1975.

18.Shnonean, R. and Hendricks, R.,

Generalized Clwzrts for the Computation
of Two-phase Choked Flow of Simple
Cryogen Fluids, Cryogenics, February
1977.

19. Crane Co. and ABZ Inc., Crane

Compauiou to Flow of Fluids Through
Valves, Fittings, and Pipe, (software),
1992.

10
 Oxkber
Coatm/
Vdve
(OO0

MBind_ / M.Milis

Figure 1
RLIOA-3-3A Engine System Schematic

1!
 1.50

1.00

/
"'m

m l, _ L
0.50

-'I

I.
0.00
0
E
m
L,

'P -0.50
ii FP Ist Stage
o
:]::
FP 2rid Stage
-1.00
........ Ox P.mp

-1.50

-2.00

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Speed/FlowParameter (the,-)

Figure 2
Extrapolated Pump Head Maps for RL10 Model

0.70

0.60
0.50 /

!I °..°,,,.
°''° II/ --........
.---
I 0.20

o.lo

o.oo l:P 2rid Stake

.o.lo ........ Ox P.mp _

-0.20

0.00 0.50 1.00 1.50 2.00 2.50 3.00 3.50

Speed/Flow Parameter (theta)

Figure 3
Extrapolated Pump Torque Maps for RLI0 Model

12
 ]h,_dl,elod lleel Plu deq Jmelml ]P_41mml
Iiml Taqmnm_ mlmqau_m, Wdl

2O 2000

18
J _844
,_ !
14
It._
r .1440
e,I V
i, f200
-\
lO
J il 1444
1000
!%+.
I -

!' •-J IX
404

|
4
I\ _ 404

2
i % 2OO

4
I m
4

-24 -14 0 14 24 60 4O SO
SO -20 -14 4 14 24 64 44

a.Vd I_dJm - Hed. mldpdmm (im+b_ _ 11n_

FT_lhmd CLdml T_NSMIT _lll J_

S44

l 1464
4S0

/
K. 0 I08O
4OO

/
644 _ 464

| _54
J,, "% tl
200

/
1S0

140

SO

-24
i-TJ °
764

-1O 4 14 20 50 44 SO *s+O -14 4 '14 14 54 44 60

J_d r'd'_" • Ned. ladpdmb (kud._ m_ _) &dd e'ud_. Ne.dt.]r,Jdtm_ C.udn. -'n 'n,n._

Figure 4
Predicted Axial Variation in Heat Transfer with New Model

]3
 8O

7O

.0 //
I/
a_ 4o

J
lO

or
o.oo 0.SO 1 .oo I .SO 2.o0 2.So s.oo s.S0 4.00

Time from MES (mc)

Figure $
Predicted Heat Transfer in Injector Piena during Engine Start

45O

4OO

350
L
J x/l.:
300
II_ib °

%
"1%

25O m
---- - NtWIqlmWdi_-lS
I!
---4--- PaW mSllmml _
n
2OO

0 2 4 8 8 10

]m_ st_, (o_

Figure 6
TDK/ODE Predictions of Isp vs. P&W Suggested Values

]4
 0

Is
 100%

90%
0
I-,
80%

"_ 70%
© 60%
=1
50%
1:
•- 40%
¢=
30%
--a 20%
:l

E= 10%

O%

Percent Error relative to Measured Values

Figure 7
Steady-state Predictions vs. Measurements from
Ground-Test Engine Runs (all runs, all parameters)

]6
 8OO
14400

14000
SO0

20OO
J
J
400

tO000
//
? J
SO0
10@0

r_
lO0

I
i 8000
i I
lOO t =. ....
4000

_ mOmxmd 11ncD_
24100 i

I I I
o_o4 o.so 0oO0 0.64 1.00 1 .SO 2.00 2.S0 $.00 S.S0 4.00

__) Time 8rim _ (me)

(a) _)
44;0
1200

700

400
I ooo _r_.

f_ soo

J 500

j I00 ,,
400
$00

I I I i200
_ '°° //
I/f _ Gmad Tin4 Doll 1oo
/Y
| I ! I I I
0.00 OoSO 1.00 I .SO 2.00 2.S0 3.00 S.50 4.@0 0.1_ O.H 1 .(HI l.Se _.llO 2.M :I.O0 3+S0 4.00

(c) (d)
800

f \
,oo f
,oo y_

i
i
soo
400 "'_
I..
J
!.o//
1
_ 200

too
............. Ground Tul OmM

I I I

1.04 ! .80 2.00 2.50 3.00 S.SO 4.00

11me Imm _s_ _)

(c)
Figure 8
RLIOA-3.3A Start Transient Simulation Output for Ground Test Conditions

17
 SO0 IN00

14000
I I
$00

i --,v:-_ IgslsDm (/
(,.il_?mspb
400 mnl_q)

j:lO0
I I I /jr
J II,000

//
i iI0ql+ 0

_100
200

/ 4000

__.Jl_

I l J

0 O.S 1 1.5 2 2.S 0.5 I 1.5 2 2.5 3

_k,i, _d_ (re, I) 'lnil m,,ml MBS fJ,O

Figure 9
RL10A-3-3A Start Transient Simulation Output
for Atlas/Centaur Flight AC-72 (first burn)

4100 II0_

140_
SO0 -- " - ,-i...._

4oo _"_'+"+
I I J

J 300

_
I
200

100
il-
l I
i

0.04} 0.SO 1.10 $ .SO 2.04 2.S0 3,.00 _1.$4} 4.N

arm ]dgl.S (lie)

Figure 10
RLI0A-3-3A Start Transient Slmulatio_ Output
for Arias/Centaur Flight AC-74 (2rid burn)

18
 Table 2
Comparisonof Measuredand Predicted
RL10 Engine Time-to-Accelerate

Type of Run Simulation Time Measured Time diFFerence

(sec from MES) (sec from MES) (msec)

Cm3m_ Test 2.09 2.26 170 (early)

Grm_ Test 1.80 1.90 100 (early)

C._md Test 1.51 1.43 80 (late)

Cam_ Test 1.72 1.70 20 (late)

Grmmd Test (Relight) 1.91 1.84 70 (late)

Caotmd Test (Religh0 2.00 2.08 80 (early)

Flight 1.98 1.90 80 (late)

Flight 1.95 1.67 280 (late) *

_t O_ugho 2.33 2.56 230(early)

* Note : Although this run had inlet conditions similar to other flights, these engines started about 300
msec earlier relative to MF.S. This may indicate a difference in the engine other than inlet conditions (see
section ofthis report on uncertainty).

I000

1700 _ _

Z
I
J 1500

1SO@

J
J
| 11oo r

O00

!
i 700

500
O.O00.SO 1.001JO2.002.SOS.005.f_4.00

Tim, ZrmmDam _m,)

Figure 11
Predicted Maximum Cooling Jacket Metal Temperature
during Engine Start

19
 S_ 104)00

"_1 I I I I
450 11HlO0

............ i_.md TIll OlI

I
I_00

j,. ; 1..

SO S@OO

0.2 0.4 0.1 O.I 1 0.2 0.4 O.I 0.8

tSmtmmJkdnhsJ_Cea-ddmd(l_CO)(m)
TS/e hm Mdn helm C_eJ..dr lisnd OiIK_O) Ime)

(a) (b)
I00 7@0

I -.---._,-- (s.tn.)
Lolml m

J--_ --_-_-.- . _Qmmml

" Jlkm

TIIII Bill

1.°°
_ 300
j k
L.\\ i,oo
20O

,. _'_ ,% _,. \ _,,_.----_ _.qqW_ _

0 0

0 I).2 0.4 0.1 O.I I 0.2 0.4 O.I O.l

"nine tn,m Mde _ C:w-e8 dpd (JdU:O) (me) _m _ u-L. icqh, (:_ dpd IMICO) ira)

((:) (d)
Figure 12
RLIOA-3-3A Shutdown Simulation for Ground Test Conditions

2O
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMBNo.0704-0188
Public reporling burden for this collection of information is estimaled to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources.
gathering and maintaining the data noecled, and cornple!ing a.nd reviewing the co.lleclion of inJormation:. Send _ts r,egar.ding th_bu_enestimateorany ot_her.,1Sa_jeff_h_s
cofleclion o| informalion, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Wash=ngton Headquarters :_ervees, Uweczorale lot mTormal_on ul_eratlunr* cmu net-_,_:,. --:_ ,Jw _,-,
Davis Highway. Suite 1204, Arfington. VA 22202.4302. and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Prolect (0704-0188). Washinglon. DC 20503.

1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
June 1995 Final Contractor Report
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

A Transient Model of the RL10A-3-3A Rocket Engine

WU-242-70--04
6. AUTHOR(S) C-NAS3-27186
Michael P. Binder

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
NYMA, Inc.
Engineering Services Division E-9702
2001 Aerospace Parkway
Brook Park, Ohio 44142
10. SPONSORING/MONITORING
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES)
AGENCY REPORT NUMBER

National Aeronautics and Space Adminisu'ation

NASA CR-195478
Lewis Research Center
AIAA-95-2968
Cleveland, Ohio 44135-3191

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Prepared for the 31st Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, cosponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, ASEE, San Diego,
California, July 10-12, 1995. Project manager, Joseph A. Hemminger, Space Propulsion Technology Division, NASA
Lewis Research Center, organization code 5320, (216) 433-7563.
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified - Unlimited
Subject Category 20

This publication is available from the NASA Center for Aerospace Information, (301) 621---0390.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum200 words)

RL10A-3-JA rocket engines have served as the main propulsion system for Centaur upper stage vehicles since the early
1980's. This hydrogen/oxygen expander cycle engine continues to play a major role in the American launch industry.
The Space Propulsion Technology Division at the NASA Lewis Research Center has created a computer model of the
RL10 engine, based on detailed component analyses and available test data. This R10 engine model can predict the
performance of the engine over a wide range of operating conditions. The model may also be used to predict the effects
of any proposed design changes and anticipated failure scenarios. In this paper, the results of the component analyses are
discussed. Simulation results from the new system model are compared with engine test and flight data, including the
start and shut-down transient characteristics.

14. SUBJECTTERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES

22
RL10; RL10A3-3A; Centaur; Transient system model; ROCETS Program 16. PRICE CODE
A03
17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT

Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified

Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
NSN 7540-01-280-5500
Presc_'iloecl by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102
 Cl_ •
I_ -L ill Q.
O CD
O

1,1
0
C_
3