INTERNATIONALJOURNAL FOR NUMERICAL METHODS I N ENGINEERING, VOL.

35,

641-653 (1992)

SPACECRAFT THERMAL MODELLING

J. H. CHIN, T. D. PANCZAK AND L. FRIED

Lockheed Missiles and Space Co., Inc., Sunnyvale, California. U.S.A.

SUMMARY
Thermal modelling of spacecraft requires approaches which can handle dominant radiative heat transfers
and many special thermal control components. Present network-type thermal analysers allow simulation,
especially for components with rectangular geometries, but at the expense of considerable awkwardness and
much error-prone manual input. The user interfaces for pre- and postprocessing for these analysers are also
very deficient. Finite element thermal analysers solve some of the analytical difficulties, but are not widely
used because they lack the flexibility to simulate special operations. The Galerkin finite element method
(GFEM) distributes the contributions within an element to the element nodal points. The assembly of the
contributions from all elements yields a system of energy balance equations for the nodal points of the
system. Monte Carlo raytracing, in conjunction with a GFEM energy distribution to element nodal points,
yields a procedure of consistent nowisothermal surface radiation exchange. This procedure reduces a source
of simulation error caused by non-uniform element illumination and shading. Orbital heating, fluid flow and
special analysis features are discussed. The main analysis program is interfaced to the preprocessing and
postprocessing modules. Example results are given.

1 . INTRODUCTION
Historically, approaches to thermal modelling of spacecraft have been driven by the capabilities
of computer hardware, by the domination of radiative heat transfer and by the need for flexibility
in analysis. Two types of analysis software evolved. The first is an equation solver (e.g.
SINDA85') which requires hand input of the R-C thermal network components. Initially, no
formalized scheme was available t o calculate the conduction resistors and thus the quality of the
conduction network depended upon the skill of the engineer building it. The availability of
preprocessors such as Thermal Model Generator (TMG)' eased the problem somewhat. However, T M G s algorithm is only approximate and may yield unreliable results for irregular
geometries and anisotropic material properties.
The second type calculates radiative exchanges between various surfaces, as well as the
environmental heating or cooling for the external surfaces. The very earliest software could not
handle the effects of intervening bodies on the heat flow between surfaces. This problem was
finally solved3 and most subsequent software (e.g. TRASYS4) incorporates the original basic
algorithm.
Computer hardware capabilities also dictated the design of software, as for instance, the
radiation algorithm of TRASYS. Because of the slow speed of the available computers, schemes
such as double area integration were used, despite their known theoretical limitations and their
inability to handle specular surfaces. Properly designed ray-tracing schemes together with
modern computer hardware eliminate these restriction^.^
Although the finite element method (FEM) has become more accepted in thermal analysis in
recent years, its use in spacecraft thermal analysis is relatively infrequent. The major reason is that

0029-598 1/92/170641-13$11 S O
0 1992 by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Received 3 February 1992

Revised 8 May 1992

642

J. H. CHIN, T. D. PANCZAK AND L. FRIED

most finite element codes do not provide the flexibility to incorporate special logic to simulate the
operation of heat transfer components such as heaters or heat pipes.
Complex geometry, large size and enhanced mission timelines of modern-day spacecraft
dictated the need for more advanced methods than existing analysis tools can provide. The
advances in modern computer aided engineering (CAE), powerful computer graphics and work
stations, and parallel and distributed processing have paved the way for the development of the
next generation integrated thermal analysis system, such as the Thermal Synthesizer System
(TSS).6*7An alternative is to use available commercial software for preprocessing and postprocessing. Interface programs are then developed to communicate between the commercial package
and the main analyser program.8
Section 2 reviews the main analysis components. Preprocessing and postprocessing are
discussed in Section 3. Example results are given in Section 4.

2. ANALYSIS COMPONENTS AND APPROACHES

This section reviews the analysis components: conduction, radiation, orbital heating, fluid flow
analysis and special analysis features.
2.1. Conduction analysis

The network method (NWM) and finite element method (FEM) are discussed and the FEM
algorithm for conductance and capacitance is described.
2.1.1. NWM versus FEM. As already mentioned, the commonly used equation solver for
spacecraft thermal analysis requires user calculation and input of the values of R-C network
components, computation and output controls. The capacitance of a node, in energy per degree
units, is specified with its index and initial temperature. The conductance of a conductor in energy
per unit time per degree, is input with its index and the indexes of its adjoining nodes. The
conductor may be a conduction conductor or radiation conductor. N o geometry information is
utilized by the equation solver. Computational controls include, for instance, the selection of the
finite differencing technique for time integration.
Because of the lack of geometry descriptions in the equation solver, a significant of amount of
engineering time is required to accommodate design changes and parametric designs. The user
must build new models repeatedly. The inadequate geometry description also results in unsatisfactory postprocessing. Good graphical representation of the analysis results speeds up the
design acceptance process.
The geometry description is generally prepared by the user or by a preprocessor. A controlvolume is drawn around a node. The bounding volume and bounding surface areas to the
adjacent nodes are computed. The capacitance of the node equals the product of its volume,
density and specific heat. Its conductance equals the product of the material conductivity and
cross-sectional area of the flow path, divided by the length of the path (i.e. from the node centroid
to the center of bounding area). For simple and regular configurations such as rectangles, this
conductance algorithm yields good analytical results. However, if the geometry is very irregular
or skewed, for instance a node having a skewed parallelogram boundary, this algorithm produces
poor analysis results. Therefore, with this conductance algorithm, it is important to avoid skewed
nodal shapes.
In other words, in the preprocess, the geometry region of interest is first divided into subregions
or control-volumes (elements). The capacitance of each element is lumped to its centroid. The

SPACECRAFT-THERMAL MODELLING

643

conductance of the subregion from the centroid to the boundary is computed to provide the
calculation of the centroid-to-centroid conductance values. The element is assumed to be at a
uniform temperature. This assumption coincides with the fact that radiation exchange is also
traditionally modelled by energy balance between finite isothermal elemental surfaces. With
coarse meshes, the isothermal assumption tends to under-predict the temperature gradients.
Since the nodes are at the centroid of a control-volume, zero-capacitance nodes are introduced
at the boundary in order to apply the boundary conditions there. Alternately, the node may be
placed on the boundary of the control-volume instead of at its centroid.
In FEM, the analysis domain is divided into a number of finite elements (areas in 2-D and
volumes in 3-D). A preprocessor (mesh generation) yields the global co-ordinates of the nodal
(corner) points and the element connectivity (nodal point indexes for each element). The common
nodal points are shared by adjacent elements; thus the continuity of the primitive variables from
element to element is established. Further information required for analysis consists of material
properties, boundary conditions, various types of loading including internal and external sources,
and computational controls (e.g. iteration or time integration schemes).
Many thermal engineers, who use the network and control-volume approaches to derive the
heat balance equations, do not feel comfortable with the finite element approach that minimizes
the residual using Galerkin weighting functions. However, the Galerkin approach may also be
described in terms of energy balance. Consider a four-node quadrilateral as shown in Figure l(a).
This quadrilateral may be mapped into a square in natural co-ordinates 5 and q, with corner coordinates as indicated in Figure l(b). The temperature at any point (5, q ) inside the square may be
interpolated in terms of the temperature at the four nodal points:

where p refers to node p, No(&q ) is the element shape function (interpolation function) for node p
evaluated at location (5, q) and N , is the number of nodes of the element. For a linear, four-node
isoparametric element, the element shape functions are, written in a 1 x 4 matrix form

4 1

5 ) (1 - 111, (1 + 5) (1 - rl), (1 + 5 ) (1 + rl), (1 - 5) (1 + r1)l

(2)

Now consider a point source Q situated at (x,, yo) within an element. The energy of this point
source may be distributed to the nodal points of the element by using the unit Dirac impulse
function:

Q, =

Joe

QW - xo, Y - Y~)N,(X,
y)dx dy

yo), (a = 1, NP)
(3)
Thus the energy of the point source is simply distributed to the element nodal points according to
its shape functions at the location of the point source.
Since the sum of the element shape functions equals unity, the energy of the point source is
conserved. If the location of the point source coincides with node a, the total point source energy
is deposited to this node, according to equation (3).
If point sources of different magnitudes are distributed throughout the element, integration
over the element then yields the total power (in energy per unit time) deposited to each of the
element nodal points.
Consider replacing the element shape function in equation (3) by a different weighting function
w,(x, y). The point source energy will be distributed to the nodes in a different proportion, which
= QN,(xo,

644

J. H. CHIN, T. D. PANCZAK AND L. FRIED

(a)

(-l>-l)

(l,-l)

(b)

Figure 1. Finite element geometry: (a) global co-ordinates; (b) natural co-ordinates

may not be natural. One weighting function orthogonal to the shape function (which yields a
diagonal mass matrix), for an element (0 < < 1, 0 < 1 < l), is

<

cwi = 2

3 0 (2 - 311, - (1

3 0 (2 - 31), (1 - 3 0 (1 - 31),

(2 - 35) (1

- 3111

(4)

instead of the shape function

C(1 - 0(1 - 11,4(1 - r), 5% (1 - 011

(5)

With this weighting function, if the point source coincides with the node at (0,0), the distribution
of the point source energy to the four nodes will be [4, - 2, 1, - 21, which is not natural,
although the energy to the element is conserved (summed to unity).
If the weighting functions are the same as the element shape functions, the method is the
Galerkin method. For the point source, the Galerkin method is thus more natural than the use
of other weighting functions. The algorithm of consistent non-isothermal surface radiation
exchange to be discussed later also evolves naturally from the Galerkin method.
The above consideration may be extended to the diffusion (heat conduction) and heat
capacitance terms of the heat equation. Different considerations apply to the convection term and
will not be discussed in this article.
The Galerkin finite element method (GFEM) thus provides a method of distributing the
various contributions within the element to the element nodal points. Energy is conserved
because summation of the element shape functions equals unity. Summation of the contributions
from all elements surrounding a nodal point yields in essence an energy balance equation for this
nodal point. The assembly of the contributions from all elements then yields a system of energy
balance equations for the nodal points of the system. Note no control boundary surrounding a
nodal point is required in the Galerkin approach.
Further discussion of conduction FEM follows.
2.1.2. Conductamelcapacitance by F E M . With the centroidal approach, the difficulty of
computing the conductor values, particularly for irregular geometries and anisotropic material
properties, may be circumvented by first creating a finite element mesh, computing the element
conductivity matrix K,,, and setting the value of the conductor between two nodes i and j to
minus the off-diagonal i, j terms of K , : G i j = - K i j (cf. Reference 11). As already mentioned, the
GFEM distributes the heat capacitance within an element to the element nodal points. The
network prepared in this manner is consistent with the FEM space discretization.

SPACECRAFT THERMAL MODELLING

645

2.1.3. Flux and control-volume FEM. The heat equation may be written in a conservative form
instead of in terms of temperature:
in terms of enthalpy and heat

The same isoparametric element shape functions are used to interpolate the temperature,
enthalpy and heat fluxes:
T = I I N ( x ) I ( T ) , H = i I N ( x ) I ( H } , qi = CN(x)I(qi)

(7)

where { } represents a vector of quantities at the element nodal points.

Application of the Galerkin procedure to the conservative form of the heat equation will yield
element integrals independent of the material properties. Further, these integrals may be
evaluated in closed form. Some results indicate that the flux formulation reduces significantly the
computational time compared to numerical integration.13
The control-volume finite element method (CVFEM)14 is an alternate to the GFEM. In the
CVFEM, we first divide the element into subvolumes, one for each nodal point. For the twodimensional, four-noded quadrilateral element, the internal boundaries of the sub-controlvolumes (SCV1 to SCV4) are shown in Figures 2(a) and 2(b). The internal line segments are
termed subsurfaces (SS1 to SS4). The midpoints of the subsurfaces are the integration points
(ipl to ip4). For SCVI, the integral of the heat flux across subsurface SSI is approximated by the
midpoint value at integration point ipl multiplied by the surface area of SS1. In a similar manner,
the heat flux integral across SS4 for this element is calculated. If node 1 is an interior node, the
sum of the contributions from the four sub-control-volumes surrounding node 1 will yield an
energy balance equation for this node. As in the Galerkin method, the isoparametric element
shape functions and their derivatives are used to provide the interpolations needed, for CVFEM,
to obtain the thermal conductivities, surface normal and area, temperature and temperature
gradients at the points of integration of the subsurfaces.
In CVFEM, the energy of a point source within an element will be deposited to only the subcontrol-volume (SCV) in which it is located. The method of allocation of the energy from point
sources is thus of lower order for CVFEM than for GFEM.
2.1.4. Consistent boundary flux evaluation. For external boundaries with applied temperatures, the usual method of evaluating the boundary fluxes is first to compute the temperature
gradients by numerical differentiation. This procedure requires fine meshes near the boundary.
Another procedure evaluates the boundary flux more consistently; that is, when the computed
fluxes are imposed as a Neumann boundary condition, the same temperatures are obtained as
from the original Dirichlet problem.'

2.2. Radiation analysis

Radiation is a dominant mode of heat transfer for spacecraft. Infrared radiation interchange
factor calculation and the calculation of orbital heating rates from the sun, planetary albedo and
planetary infrared emission are central to the analysis of spacecraft and consume the majority of
computer resources used in the thermal analysis.
2.2.1. Radiation exchange factor evaluation. Two basic methods are available for determining
radiation interchange factors: the Gebhart methodi6 and the Monte Carlo method.17 The
Gebhart method requires the calculation of form factors from which the radiation interchange

646

J. H. CHIN. T. D. PANCZAK AND L. FRIED

Figure 2. Control-volume finite element geometry: (a) sub-control-volumes; (b) subsurfaces and integration points

factors are derived. The Monte Carlo method (MCM) performs radiation interchange calculations by directly simulating the process of emission, reflection, transmission and absorption.
The advantages of analysing radiation interchange with the MCM have long been known.
Since the emission and reflection processes are simulated directly, directional and spectral surface
property variations may be modelled at the same cost as modelling diffuse surfaces. The
requirements of the Gebhart method are not only that the surfaces emit diffusely and uniformly
but also that the surfaces are illuminated uniformly and diffusely, a requirement that is often
overlooked.
Despite the inherent advantages, the MCM is not widely used because of the extensive
computational resources required by the algorithm. The time required to perform an analysis is
proportional to the square of the number of surfaces in the model, which makes large models
intractable.

2.2.2. M C M with adaptive spatially coherent subdivision. The calculation of radiation interchange factors using the MCM involves the following steps.I7
1. Generate a ray from the emitting surface (using a random number generator"). Tally the
energy for the emitting node.
2. Find the intersection point of the closest surface along the ray direction.
3. Tally the absorbed energy from the ray. Reflect the ray from the new surface.

After the ray is reflected, the next closest surface is determined. This process repeats until the
energy in the ray has been exhausted. The closest surface is determined by performing a ray
intersection test with all of the surfaces in the model. Since each ray undergoes many reflections,
the vast majority of CPU time is spent performing ray/surface intersection calculations. Studies
have shown that up to 95 per cent of the CPU time is used to calculate ray/surface intersections
for large models.
Efficiency is greatest by incorporating a way to reduce the number of ray/surface intersections.
The most popular schemes in the graphics and aerospace industries include: direct view method,
hierarchical bounding volumes, regular spatially coherent subdivision, and adaptive spatially
coherent subdivision.' The last scheme 'is judged most efficient' and is described below.

SPACECRAFT THERMAL MODELLING

647

The geometric space is divided into subregions of varying sizes by balancing the number of
surfaces per subregion. An oct-cell datastructure accomplishes this goal, while maintaining
spatial coherency.
The oct-cell datastructure is a three-dimensional variation of the two-dimensional quad-tree,
Figure 3, used for image compaction of bit mapped images. The box in the upper left of Figure 3
shows a conventional representation of an image. The image is represented by a square array of
cells, each of which is either on or OK The middle box shows the same image represented by a
quad-tree. The quad-tree eliminates the storage of empty regions by successively dividing the
image into four smaller, hierarchically organized subregions.
The quad-tree is built by starting with a rectangle that encloses the entire image. This rectangle
is called the root of the quad-tree. The root node is subdivided into four equal size rectangles.
Each of the child rectangles is examined to see if it is full, empty, or partially full. If a subregion is
partially full, it is subdivided. This process continues until all leaf nodes of the tree are either full,
empty, or at the maximum number of allowed subdivisions. The image shown is subdivided a
maximum of four levels. A portion of the quad-tree is shown at the right of the figure using the
child cell numbering and node type identification convention indicated.
The three-dimensional analogue of the quad-tree is referred to as an oct-tree. A large box is
placed around the geometric model. This box, called the master box, or universe box, can be
subdivided into eight smaller boxes. Each subregion is subdivided until it is either completely full,
completely empty, or is at the maximum number of subdivisions (called the resolution of the tree).
The oct-tree contains the complete geometrical information of the model and may be used as the
fundamental geometric primitive. The complete kinematic history of a solid geometric model may
be maintained by a hex-tree,* a tree consisting of nodes each of which has sixteen children, by
applying the binary partitioning scheme to the time domain. The hex-tree can be thought of as
two oct-trees occupying the same region, one for past and one for future.
The oct-tree could also be used to represent a surface model; however, all of the nodes would be
at the limit of precision. The leaf nodes could contain a small planar approximating patch of the
nodal surface in order to generate a surface normal for ray reflection. The closest surface would
be determined as soon as the ray encountered a partially full leaf node during its traversal of the
oct-tree, eliminating the need for explicit ray/surface intersection tests. The major drawback to
the method is that a very large amount of memory would be required to subdivide the tree to a
resolution that accurately approximates the geometric model.
The oct-cell method uses adaptive spatial subdivision as in the oct-tree, but maintains a list of
surfaces in each partially full leaf node, as in the regular subdivision techniques. The generation of
the tree starts with a box enclosing the geometric model. This box is subdivided into eight smaller
boxes, each of which contains a list of surfaces that lie in its region. If the box contains more than
a prescribed number of surfaces, it is further subdivided. Subregions are subdivided until the cell
contains less than a given number of surfaces or until the limit of precision is reached.
The method is relatively insensitive to the geometric configuration and the only parameters
required of the user are the resolution of the oct-cell tree and the maximum number of surfaces
per cell. The time required to generate the tree is minimal, so that it can be generated
transparently before the raytracing process begins. In practice, levels between five and seven have
produced the best results.

2.2.3. Consistent non-isothermal surface radiation exchange. In traditional radiation exchange

calculations, the emitting ray would carry an average energy of the emitter element. The energy of
the hitting ray is then distributed uniformly over the receiver element, regardless of whether this

648

J. H. CHIN, T. D. PANCZAK AND L. FRIED

Figure 3. Conventional and quad-tree representation of 2-D image

element is shaded by intervening surfaces or not. This is equivalent to an isothermal or averaging

approximation, which becomes inaccurate when shading effects are dominant.
Figure 4(a) shows a ray of radiation leaving an emitter element 1. Assuming uniform radiative
properties over the element, the emitter ray energy is calculated by interpolation of the energies at
the element nodal points.'O

Qf,

= A'E'E~N i ( t i , q i )

(8)

where N i ( ( f , , q f ) is the element shape function for nodal point fi evaluated at element natural
co-ordinates ((fi, q i ) for the nth ray, A , is the surface area, is the emissivity and E i is the blackbody emissive power at nodal point fi of element 1. For a non-isothermal element, Qf, varies over
'the element, dependent upon the origin of the emitting ray. This ray may hit element J directly, or
it may undergo one or more reflections, partial absorptions (and refractions) before hitting J . This
ray may also hit element J multiple times by virtue of multiple, diffuse and specular reflections.
Let

be the transport fraction for ray n due to the intermediate surface k with absorptivity a. For a
direct hit, Tf = 1. After the Tfn attenuation of energy, ray n hits element J , Figure 4(b), at its
natural co-ordinates (ti, 1;). Multiplying the hitting energy by aJ then yields a point source
deposition of energy to element J .
As discussed earlier with equation (3), the energy of a point source Q situated at (xo, yo) within
an element is distributed to the element nodal points according to its shape functions at the point
source location. Sum over times hit for ray n and then sum over Nray rays yield the expression for
energy from node a of element I to node fi of element J :

(a' = 1, N,; fiJ = 1, N,)

(10)

where i(a') is the global node index corresponding to local node index a for emitter element 1 and
j ( p J ) is the global node index for local node fl for receiver element J .

SPACECRAFT THERMAL MODELLING

649

Figure 4. Finite element raytracing geometry: (a) emitting ray energy from interpolation of energy of corner nodes;
(b) energy of hitting ray distributed to corner nodes according to hit location

In equation (lo), E' and clJ are assumed to be independent of direction and location; otherwise
they are put behind the appropriate summation sign. The fact that subscript i ( d ) appears in
Q&$i,Jl,jcsJ,
means that for each ray from an emitter element, four energy buckets, one for each of the
N , = 4 nodal points (a' = 1, 4), are maintained. Similarly, for each hitting ray to an element .I,
four energy buckets, one for each of the nodal points (/IJ = 1, 4), are kept.
Summing over the elements sharing global emitter node i and then summing over the elements
sharing global receiver node j yields the energy interchange between globar nodes i and j .

where Bijis the radiation exchange factor between global nodes i and j . The above summation is
performed in the regular, finite element assembly process. The raytracing equations described
above provide a consistent procedure of computing the radiation exchange factors between
nodal points rather than between elements. This procedure yields more accurate results than the
application of traditional isothermal radiation exchange factors, by accounting for both the nonisothermal nature of surfaces and the partial blockage (shading) conditions.
2.3. Orbital heating calculation

The function of the Orbit application' is to specify an orbit for input into HEATRATE, a
Monte Carlo raytracing program that computes orbital heating of a spacecraft due to direct solar
illumination, albedo and infrared emission from the planet. The application also contains many
useful features for conceptual design and mission planning. The main screen of the application is
shown in Plate 1. The planet, orbit, calculation positions, solar cone and other viewing items may
be toggled on or off to aid in visualization of the orbit. The view may be rotated as desired, or
standard viewing positions such as the North Pole, Vernal Equinox, or the Sun may be selected.

650

J. H. CHIN, T. D. PANCZAK AND L. FRIED

2.4. Fluid flow analysis

Fluid flow problems in spacecraft may be put into two types: problems which may be simulated
using a one-dimensional (1-D) fluid network (cf. Reference 1) and problems which must be
considered three dimensional (3-D) or may be approximated by two-dimensional (2-D) or
axisymmetric approaches. The 1-D approaches are used to analyse the performance of cooling
circuits for heat generating payloads. The 2-D or 3-D methods are used to predict the flow fields
over spacecraft with sensitive thermal-optical systems on board. Approximate solutions may be
obtained for the 2-D or 3-D flow fields using engineering approaches. However, during the past
several years, considerable work has been devoted to develop computational fluid dynamic
(CFD) techniques to solve the 2-D or 3-D Navier-Stokes equations. Example results of CFD
approaches for spacecraft flow analysis are given in Section 4.

2.5. Special analysis features

The engineer building thermal mathematical models must be provided considerable flexibility
because of the need to account for specialized type of operations. Frequently operations cannot
be preprogrammed, but rather depend upon the dynamics of spacecraft operation. A simple
example is the on/off heater with or without deadband. More complicated heater controls include
proportional control and operation that may depend on a combination of conditions such as the
temperature and temperature gradients, or available power which may be a function of solar
array and battery temperatures or some other complex control laws. In addition to heaters,
thermal control components such as simple and variable conductance heat pipes must also be
represented in a thermal math model of a spacecraft.
To allow the simulation of these special model components, entry points or modes are placed
in the driver program. The user must write subroutines for these modes to be compiled and linked
with the standard routines. This approach provides the flexibility needed. However, it requires
more user understanding of not only the physical problems but also the necessary programming
skills. It also promotes the proliferation of user-written codes of diverse styles and readability and
consequently the problem of program maintenance and control.
In the context of finite element procedures, the heaters may be simulated by volumetric or
environmental sources, which may be functions of time or temperatures of specified nodal points.
The detailed design and analysis of various types of heat pipes (e.g. Reference 22) are beyond the
scope of this paper. One example of a simple approach is described in the next paragraph.
The heat transfer characteristics of a heat pipe/honeycomb radiation panel were successfully
modelled using a finite element technique.23 The tube and fluid elements were modelled using
PTUBE and PFTUBE elements of the NASTRAN thermal analyser program.24 (The ROD and
FLUID ROD elements of the
code may also be used.) Each pipe was treated as an
evaporator tube element, three condenser tube element, and one vapour node (may be simulated
by the ENCLOSURE ROD element of CAFE) represented isothermal vapour along the entire
length. An over-all effective conductance [based on test data] was used between the vapour and
the wall.
We can also consider the coupling of the general conduction and the heat pipe solution
through interface boundary conditions:
0

Assume a heat pipe solution procedure is available

a Given:

Heat flux distribution to evaporator

Sink temperature for condenser

SPACECRAFT THERMAL MODELLING

65 1

Effective conductance or effective radiation exchange factor from condenser to sink

0

Compute:
Heat pipe wall temperatures

Use calculated heat pipe wall temperatures as the boundary conditions for the general
conduction problem
Evaluate the boundary heat flux input to the heat pipe wall, using a consistent boundary flux
algorithm
Cycle between heat pipe and general conduction solutions to obtain the coupled solution

The above procedure can be applied to the coupling of the general conduction and the fluid
network (single or two phase) solution.
3. PREPROCESSING AND POSTPROCESSING

Before the analyses discussed in Section 2 can be carried out, a proper mesh must be generated for
the problem. Output from the mesh generator is then translated, if required, into the input format
for the main analysis program. Results from the main analysis program are then translated and
transferred, if required, to a graphics program for display. For complex configurations, pre- and
postprocessing are very important components of the analysis chain.
3.1. Preprocessing
For complex configurations, geometry generation is a pace-setting item of preprocessing. Two
approaches may be used to create the required mesh for analysis: extraction and synthesis.
Generally simplications are introduced to the mechanical design such that the resulting geometry
is more amenable for thermal analysis. The key geometry parameters are extracted from CAE
drawings, for instance, by removal of fillets. Alternately, the analysis geometry is synthesized by
combining geometry primitives such as rectangles, bricks, cylinders, cones and spheres. Commercial solid modellers (e.g. IDEAS2) are general preprocessors, whereas the Geometry Module
of TSS7 is a special preprocessor to create analysis geometry for spacecraft.
There are pros and cons of using a general or special preprocessor. The complete design
of a spacecraft requires the coordination of many analysis components: mechanical, thermal,
dynamic, structural, environmental and cost. Therefore, the interface problems between different
analysis components must be worked out in order to reduce the project time and cost. It may be
easier to construct interface codings with general preprocessors. On the other hand, specialized
analysis modules tend to be more efficient than general analysis packages.
Plate 2 shows an example of the main screen of the geometry application of a specialized
preprocessor of TSS. This application is used to build a combined solid and surface model for
both conduction and radiation.
3.2. Postprocessing

As with preprocessing, there are general postprocessors (e.g. IDEASz7) and specialized
postprocessors (e.g. TSS7).Postprocessor output includes X Y plots, contour plots and animation
videos. Sophisticated raytracing techniques are used to generate photo-realistic images showing
detailed shadow patterns and the effects of specularity and transparency.j Special translators, if
required, convert the output from the main analysis program to input for the postprocessor.

652

J. H. CHIN, T. D. PANCZAK AND L. FRIED

4. EXAMPLE RESULTS
Results of three example problems will be given. The first two examples were analysed by the
specialized TSS7 system. Plate 3 shows the magnitudes of radiation form factors to space for the
Space Shuttle surface model. Plate 4 displays a spacecraft concept using a photo-realistic
raytracing algorithm.
The third example represents a spacecraft internal flow problem. The commercial package
IDEASz7 is used as a pre- and postprocessor. The internal flow field is solved using a
compressible Navier-Stokes code ENSA3D.* Plate 5 shows the surface grids for one half of the
configuration: a brick obstacle inside a circular cylinder. Air enters a circular hole in front and
exits from an opening on the side of the cylinder. The cylinder and obstacle walls are maintained
at a hotter, uniform temperature than the entering fluid. The velocity vectors on the plane of
symmetry and from the exit are indicated. Plate 6 shows a cut-away view of the temperature field
on all surfaces, including the plane of symmetry.
These examples illustrate the fact that all components of the analysis: preprocessing, main
analysis algorithm and postprocessing contribute to the final results.
5. CONCLUSIONS

Both current network and finite element methods have drawbacks. Intelligent use of FEM,
including the use of Monte Carlo raytracing from non-isothermal surfaces and flexible pre- and
postprocessing modules, can overcome most of these. Additional flexibilities such as options for
the FFEM and CVFEM, and procedures for simulation of special thermal control components
such as heat pipes should be included.
REFERENCES
1. B. A. Cullimore, R. G. Goble, C. L. Jensen and S. G. Ring, SINDA 85/FLUINT, Systems Improved Numerical

Diflerencing Analyzer and Fluid Integrator, Users Manual, Version 2.0, MCR-85-644 (Revision l), Contract NAS
9-17053, Martin Marietta Corp., Denver Aerospace, U.S.A., Aug. 1986.
2. MAYA Heat Transfer Technologies Ltd., TMG Thermal Model Generator, a thermal analysis computer program,
MAYA Heat Transfer Technologies Ltd., Suite 380, 5180 Queen Mary Rd, Montreal, Quebec, Canada H3W 3E7,
Sept. 1, 1987.
3. T. S. Newby, R. G. Eurich and D. Ow, Heat flux study, M-16-64-1, Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc.,
Sunnyvale, California, U.S.A., 15 July 1964.
4. Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company, Thermal Radiation Analyzer System (TRAS YS) Users
Manual, LEMSCO-22641, Contract NAS 9-17900, Lockheed Engineering and Management Services Company,
Houston, Texas, U.S.A., Apr. 1988.
5. T. D. Panczak, A fast, linear time, Monte Carlo radiation interchange program utilizing adaptive spatially coherent
subdivision, in R. W. Lewis and K. Morgan (eds.), Numerical Methods in Thermal Problems, Vol. VI, Proceedings of
the Sixth International Conference, Swansea, U.K., July 3-7, 1989, Pineridge Press, Swansea, U.K., 1989, pp. 702-712.
6. B. de Graff. J. Kukla and T. Panczak, Thermal Synthesizer System (TSS) annual report: 1986, NASA Contract NAS
9-17474, DRD MA-968T, Lockheed Missiles & Space Co., Inc., Sunnyvale, California, U.S.A., 1986, Section 3.3.1.1.
7. T. Panczak, S. Rickman, M. Welch and L. Fried, An overview of the Thermal Synthesizer System: A system for
spacecraft thermal analysis, in R. W. Lewis et al. (eds.), Numerical Methods in Thermal Problems, Vol. VII,
Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, Stanford, U.S.A., July 8-12, 1991, Pineridge Press, Swansea,
U.K., 1991, pp. 1367-1377.
8. J. H. Chin and M. C. Fong, Flow modeling techniques for spacecraft,in C. Taylor et al. (eds.), Numerical Methods in
Laminar and Turbulent Flow, Vol. VII, Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference, Stanford, U.S.A., July
15-19, 1991, Pineridge Press, Swansea, U.K., 1991, pp. 841-851.
9. Huntsville Research & Engineering Center, The general interpolands method (The GIM code), LMSC-HREC TB
0784120-8, Lockheed Missiles & Space Company, Inc., Huntsville, Alabama, U.S.A., Mar. 1981.
10. J. H. Chin, T. D. Panczak and L. Fried, Finite element and raytracing in coupled thermal problems, in R. W. Lewis
and K. Morgan (eds.), Numerical Methods in Thermal problems, Vol. VI, Proceedings of the Sixth International
Conference, Swansea, U.K., July 3-7, 1989, Pineridge Press, Swansea, U.K., 1989, pp. 683-701.

Plate 1 . View of orbit plane for a low earth orbit

Plate 2. TSS geometry application main screen

Plate 3. Form factors to space, Space Shuttle surface model

Plate 4. Photo-realistic raytracing display of spacecraft concept

Plate 6. Temperature field on all surfaces, cut-away view

SPACECRAFT THERMAL MODELLING

653

11. T. Anderson, F. Baum and P. R. Zarda, Thermal analysis with Supertab and FEMJSINDA, SDRC I-DEASTM/
CAEDR, Users Conference Series, International Proceedings, Cincinnati, Ohio, U.S.A., Oct. 1988, pp. 125-1 37.
12. E. A. Thornton and N. Balakrishnan, A finite element solution algorithm for nonlinear thermal problems with severe
gradients, 27th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Jan. 9-12, 1989, Reno, Nevada, U.S.A., AIAA Paper 89-0520.
13. A. K. Pandey, P. Dechaumphai and A. R. Wieting, Thermal-structural finite element analysis using linear flux
formulation, AIAAIASMEJASCEIAHSIASC 30th Structural, Structural Dynamics and Materials Conference, Apr.
3-5, 1989, Mobile, Alabama, U.S.A., AIAA Paper 89-1224-CP.
14. G . E. Schneider, Elliptic systems: Finite-element methods 1,Chapter 10 in W. J. Minkowycz et al. (eds.), Handbook of
Numerical Heat Transfer, Wiley, New York, 1988, pp, 379-420.
15. P. M. Gresho and R. L. Lee, The consistent method for compnting derived boundary quantities when the Galerkin
FEM is used to solve thermal and/or fluid problems, in R. W. Lewis et al. (eds.), Numerical Methods in Thermal
Problems, Vol. ZI, Proceedings of the Second International Conference, Venice, Italy, July 7-10, 198 I , Pineridge Press,
Swansea, U.K., 1981, pp. 663-675.
16. B. Gebhart, Unified treatment for thermal radiation transfer processes-Gray, diffuse radiators and absorbers, Dec.
1957, ASME Paper No. 57-A-34.
17. R. Seigel and J. R. Howell, Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1981.
18. J. L. Potter, Using hextrees to model 4 space, Topical Meeting on Machine Vision, Mar. 20-22, 1985, pp. FC2-1FC2-4.
19. I. Carbom, 1. Chakravarty and D. Vanderschel, A hierarchical data structure for representing the spatial decomposition of 3-D objects, IEEE Comp. Gruphics Applic., Apr. (1985), pp. 24-31.
20. A. S. Glassner, Space subdivision for fast ray tracing, I E E E Comp. Graphics Applic., Oct. (1984), pp. 15-22.
21. J. A. Melton, T. S. Newby and S. Kay, Therm manual spacecraft thermodynamics, LMSC-D711792, Lockheed
Missiles & Space Co., Inc., Sunnyvale, California, U.S.A., July 1981.
22. P. Dunn and D. A. Reay, Heat Pipes, 3 edn, Pergamon Press, 1982.
23. R. D. Karam and H. Hwangbo, Thermal interaction between a heat pipe radiator and a coolant fluid header, in
D. A. Reay (ed.), Proceedings of the ZVth International Heat Pipe Conference, 7-10 Sept. 1981, Pergamon Press,
Oxford, 1981, pp. 359-372.
24. The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation, M S C I N A S T R A N Users Manual, The MacNeal-Schwendler Corporation,
815 Colorado Blvd., Los Angeles, CA 90041, U.S.A.
25. J. H. Chin, Charring ablation by finite element, in R. W. Lewis et al. (eds.), Numerical Methods in Thermal Problems,
Vol. 11, Proceedings o f t h e Second International Conference, Venice, Italy, July 7-10, 1981, Pineridge Press, Swansea,
U.K., 1981, pp. 672-682.
26. J. H. Chin and D. R. Frank, Engineering finite element analysis of conduction, convection and radiation, Chapter 10
in R. W. Lewis and K. Morgan (eds.), Numerical Methods in Heat Transfer, Vol. I l l , Wiley, New York, 1985,
pp. 215-229.
27. Structural Dynamics Research Corporation, I-DEAS Finite Element Modeling Users Guide, Structural Dynamics
Research Corporation, 2000 Eastman Drive, Milford, Ohio 45150, U.S.A., 1990.
28. F. Shakib, Finite element analysis of the compressible Euler and Navier-Stokes equations, Ph.D. Dissertation,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., U.S.A., Nov 1988.