AIAA 2002-4300

ASSESSMENT OF VARIOUS FLOW

SOLVERS USED TO PREDICT THE
THERMAL ENVIRONMENT INSIDE SPACE
SHUTTLE SOLID ROCKET MOTOR JOINTS

Qunzhen Wang
ATK Thiokol Propulsion
P.O. Box 707, M/S 252
Brigham City, UT 84302

38th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit
July7-1o,2002
Ind=anapol_s, Indiana
I III

For permission to copy or to republish, contact the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA, 20191-4344.
 Assessment of Various Flow Solvers Used to Predict the Thermal
Environment Inside Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor Joints

Qunzhen Wang §
ATK Thiokol Propulsion Corp., Brigham City, UT

joints. The major difference between these codes is also

INTRODUCTION
the flow solver used to calculate the pressure,
temperature, and Mach number of the gas as well as the
It is very important to accurately predict the gas heat flux from the hot combustion gas to the
pressure, gas and solid temperature, as well as the surrounding cold solid parts.
amount of O-ring erosion inside the space shuttle
Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM) joints in the The flow of high pressure and high temperature
event of a leak path. The scenarios considered are combustion gas from the RSRM combustion chamber to
typically hot combustion gas rapid pressurization events the O-ring grove inside various joints is a highly
of small volumes through narrow and restricted flow transient compressible process involving flow area
paths. The ideal method for this prediction is a transient change, friction, heat transfer from the hot gas to cold
three-dimensional computational fluid dynamics (CFD) solid walls, as well as the mass addition due to the flow
simulation with a computational domain including both path and O-ring erosion. The main objective of this
combustion gas and surrounding solid regions. paper is to assess the capability of various flow solvers,
However, this has not yet been demonstrated to be which have been used in simulating the thermal
economical for this application due to the enormous environments of RSRM joints, to accurately predict
amount of CPU time and memory resulting from the transient compressible flow phenomena with area
relatively long fill time as well as the large pressure and change, friction, heat transfer, and mass addition.
temperature rising rate. Consequently, all CFD Besides the flow solvers used in SFLOW, ORING2,
applications in RSRM joints so far 1'2 are steady-state ORING and JPR, another flow solver is studied where
simulations with solid regions being excluded from the the governing equation is the generalized one-
computational domain by assuming either a constant dimensional steady flow equation taking into account
wall temperature or no heat transfer between the hot the effects of area change, friction, heat transfer and
combustion gas and cool solid walls. mass addition 9. Specifically, the following five flow
solvers have been incorporated into SFLOW to study
The complicated gas dynamics, heat transfer, and O- their capability in accurately predicting the transient
ring erosion phenomena in the RSRM joint compressible flows with area change, friction, heat
pressurization process are currently modeled by two transfer and mass addition: (1) isentropic method, (2)
widely used computer codes. One is SFLOW 3'4, which ORING2 method, (3) Lapple 1° method, (4) generalized
was recently developed at ATK Thiokol Propulsion, and method, and (5) SHARP 1H3 method. Note that,
the other is JPR 5'6, which was developed by NASA although SHARP can perform two-dimensional as well
Marshall Space Flight Center. While both codes apply as three-dimensional CFD simulations, only the one-
SINDA/G 7, a commercial thermal analyzer, to calculate dimensional part is considered in this paper. The other
the solid temperature for a given heat flux, the flow four solvers are for one-dimensional flows only.
solvers used to model the transient compressible flows
are very different. Before SFLOW was developed, a The following test cases with exact solutions are used to
code called ORING2 8 and its previous version ORING assess the above flow solvers: (1) steady flow with area
had been widely used at ATK Thiokol Propulsion to change, (2) steady flow with friction, (3) steady flow
predict the thermal-flow environment at various RSRM with heat transfer, (4) steady flow with mass addition,

02002, ATK Thiokol Propulsion Corp.

Published by American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission
_Sr. Principal Engineer, Gas Dynamics, AIAA member

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (5) transient
flowwithareachange, (6)transientflow
withheattransfer, (7)transient
flowwithareachange,
CapoA , ]27(p_)2'r[1 (p_l _r-'''r-
friction,andheattransfer,
and(8)volumefilling.
Thedetailsofvarious
flowsolversarediscussed
innext
section
followedbythecomparison ofpredictions
from If the pressure ratio PJPo is smaller than the critical
various
flowsolverswiththeexactsolutions. pressure ratio, the flow is choked and the mass flow rate
is obtained from
NUMERICAL METHODS
y+l

Isentropic Method _ C apoA, [-J 2 S_r-l, (8)

For steady isentropic flow in a pipe, the ratio of critical

pressure to inlet stagnation pressure is
Note that equation (8) can be obtained by replacing
PffPo in equation (7) with the critical pressure ratio in
7"
equation (1).
(1)
po /7+1 ) ORING2 Method

where 7 is the ratio of specific heats. If the ratio of back

While the isentropic method discussed in the last section
pressure to inlet stagnation pressure Pb/Po is larger than
applies a discharge coefficient to account for
this critical pressure ratio, the flow is not choked and
nonisentropic effects such as friction, the ORING2
the mass flow rate is obtained from
method eliminates the discharge coefficient and
introduces a form loss parameter K. For flows with
th = Cdp_ V,A _ (2) friction loss only,

where 9e, V_ and Ae are the density, velocity and cross- Lf

K = "---_ (9)
section area at the pipe exit, respectively. The discharge D
coefficient Ca accounts for the non-isentropic effects on
the mass flow rate such as friction. The gas properties at where D is the hydraulic diameter and L is the length of
the pipe exit can be calculated as the flow path. The Darcy friction factor is defined as

I,, (3) 1 (10)

V = M, y.ff-_, (4) where % is the wall shear stress and V,, is the bulk
velocity inside the flow path. In general, the loss
parameter K should also include pressure loss due to
sudden expansion or contraction and turns or bends in
(5) the flow path.

In the ORING2 method, the critical pressure ratio is

calculated as

(6)
T_ =7"o(1 -1 _ -i 7"

where R is the gas constant, P0 and To are the stagnation (11)

___0=
P* I 1 - _'-IM_(I+K)
2 7,1
density and temperature at the pipe inlet, respectively. 1+ Y-IM, z
Substituting equations (3) and (6) into equation (2) v 2
yields
where the choked Mach number is obtained from

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 obtain a new mass flow rate. This process is repeated
until the form loss and mass flow rate are converged.
Mc = I-B-fiB 2A -4AC (121)

Lapple Method
A= 1--2---1
1+ K (13)
For steady adiabatic flows in a pipe with constant cross-
2 section area and no mass addition, Lapple J° derived a
C__
method to calculate the mass flow rate as
(1 + K)(y- 1) 2 (14)

3 37/-1
B__
(15) (18)
(l+K)(7-1) (y-l) 2

If the ratio of back pressure to inlet stagnation pressure

A table was developed for the mass flow rate at
PJPo is larger than the critical pressure ratio in equation
(11), the flow is not choked and the Mach number at the different loss factor K, ratio of specific heats 7, and
pressure ratio PJPo This Lapple table only lists mass
pipe exit is
flow rate for K up to 200. In some applications such as
the carbon fiber rope 4, however, the friction factor is
usually very large and K could be as large as 10 6. Thus,
the Lapple table is extended in SFLOW for large values
M, 2 1 _ P0 ) of K based on the asymptotic relationship
= y_! I+K r-, (16)
t 1_ /"/
1_2_._
I_(P_ lr
poA, .y
1+,<[ t"o) j rh= R.f_o _lK for K _oo (19)

The mass flow rate is then obtained from In particular, for K>200, the mass flow rate is calculated
by
Y

t'_[ x,0.1522-0.O451p_/po+O.3275(pb/Po)"

poA, M(1--_KM2Ir---7 ,+,: / (20)

(17) ?Rrovxl po)
rh = _ .f_y (1 + __ M, 12'_r+-l'_ The constants in this equation are obtained by curve
fitting using the least-square method.

The Mach number M in equation (17) is the choked Note that, similar to the ORING2 method, iteration
Mach number Mc if the back pressure to inlet stagnation methods should also be applied for calculating the mass
pressure P_Po is smaller than the critical pressure ratio flow rate due to the fact that the loss factor usually
and is the unchoked Mach number Me if the flow is not depends on the mass flow rate. The Lapple method also
choked. It can be shown that, for flows with no form does not take into account the effects of heat transfer
loss (i.e., K=0), equation (17) is identical to equations and mass addition when the mass flow rate is calculated.
(7) and (8) of the isentropic method.
Figure 1 and Figure 2 show the mass flow rate for
Note that the ORING2 method does not take into
different pressure ratios as well as loss factors. The ratio
account the effects of heat transfer and mass addition
of specific heats used in these figures is 1.4. As
when the mass flow rate is calculated using equation expected, the flow rate increases with decreasing
(17). Note also that, in real problems, the loss factor is friction and with decreasing pressure ratio but the flow
usually a function of mass flow rate and, thus, an rate is constant for very large friction or small back
iteration method has to be applied to calculate the mass pressure due to choking.
flow rate from equation (17). In SFLOW, a loss factor is
first guessed and then equation (17) is used to calculate
the mass flow rate. A new loss factor is obtained from
this mass flow rate and equation (17) is applied again to

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 i i i
2,_ . , , i • , , i , , . i . , , i . , , 2£

_ 1,5
1.__
t.-,

"_ I£
"_ 1.[ <
<

g
-°- K=5 "', :.
E
02 .... K=100 - 0.5
.... K= 1000 "_ \

II

0.£ o I i | - - -

0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
p_b/p_0
p b/p_0

Figure 1: Mass flow rate vs. pressure ratio for different Figure 3: Comparison of mass flow rate vs. pressure
loss factors in the Lapple method, ratio for isentropic and Lapple methods.

The mass flow rate vs. pressure ratio from ORING2 and
].0t • • • i • • • i • • • ! • • ' ! • " '
Lapple methods for different loss factors are compared

L
in Figure 4 and Figure 5 with a specific heat ratio of 1.4.
0.8 In general, the ORING2 method predicts a mass flow
_ p_b/p_0=0 rate smaller than that from the Lapple method.
...... p_b/p (_-'0.25
"¢ 0.6 --° p b/p_0=0.5
_ .... p_b/p (_-'0.75
• • • ! , • • i • , , i , • • ! , • ,

0.4

-.3
E
............................ --_
0.2 p_b,r_o=o.9s 1
I- .................................. L-.'."=..............
0.0/ _:--:-.;-.;-..:
0 200 400

K
.'"," ," :"
6O0 800 10_ < ..... .........
c 02

Lapple K 5 •
--- ORING2 K=I
Figure 2: Mass flow rate vs. loss factor for different .... ORING2 K=5

pressure ratios in the Lapple method.

O.C , , . i . . . i , , , I • • - a - • -

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Figure 3 compares mass flow rate vs. pressure ratio for
p_b/p 0
isentropic and Lapple methods when there is no
pressure loss (i.e., K=0). The specific heat ratio used is
1.4 and the discharge coefficient is 1.0. Both methods Figure 4: Comparison of mass flow rate vs. pressure
predict the same mass flow rate for choked flow when ratio from ORING2 and Lapple methods for K= 1 and
K=5.
pJpo<0.53 and no flow for PJPo =1. For unchoked flow
with 0.9<pjpo<l, however, the mass flow rate predicted
by the Lapple method is slightly smaller than that from
the isentropic method. This is because the Lapple table
does not list mass flow rate for 0.9<p_/po<l and curve
fitting is used in SFLOW to calculate mass flow rate at
this pressure range, where the mass flow rate decreases
dramatically with increasing pressure ratio. Note that, as
discussed above, the mass flow rate from the ORING2
method, equation (17), when K=0 is the same as that
from the isentropic method.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 addition to the gas using energy and mass conservations
0.30 , • ' i • • • ! • • • ! • • • i • , •
laws
Lappte K= 1(30

...... Lapple K= 1000

0.25
--- ORING2 K=I00"
Tu,i< = To.i + q' (24)
_" 0.20 Cp

0,15
< tni+ 1 = rh i + rn. i (25)
k
= 0.I0

0.05
........... ZTZ.:::::::............
_'72.7::::::::::
where q, and m,.i are the heat transfer and mass addition
to the gas at cell i. For a real problem, the inlet Mach
number is usually unknown and the known values are
0,00 • , , i . . . ! . , ° i , , - i . . .
0,0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 the stagnation pressure and temperature at the inlet and
p_blp 0 the back pressure at the outlet. Moreover, the friction
factor, heat transfer, and mass addition are often
functions of mass flow rate. Therefore, an iteration
Figure 5." Comparison of mass flow rate vs. pressure
ratio from ORING2 and Lapple methods for K= 100 and method has to be applied to calculate flow properties
K= I O00. using the generalized method. In SFLOW, the inlet
Mach number is first guessed, the friction factor, heat
Generalized Method transfer, and mass addition are then evaluated• Next,
equation (21) is solved for Mach number at every flow
Both the ORING2 and Lapple methods discussed above cells using the forth-order Runge-Kutta method. Finally,
do not take into account the effects of heat transfer and the pressure and temperature at every cell are calculated
mass addition when the mass flow rate is calculated. A from equations (22) and (23). The process is repeated
until the outlet pressure matches the known value.
generalized steady flow equation relating the Mach
number and area change, friction, heat transfer as welt
SHARP Method
as mass addition parameters can be derived as

All the methods discussed above are derived for steady

flow problems. The transient compressible flow in a
dM = I+-c_-_-M" [_dA + yM' f dx 1+ yM'-a'T o _-(I+ rM")--_] (21)
M l-M: L A 2 D 2 TO path can be modeled using SHARP u13, which is a
general-purpose CFD code. While SHARP can also
solve two-dimensional as well as three-dimensional
Once the Mach number at every flow cells is obtained
flow problems, only one-dimensional flows are
by solving this ordinary differential equation, the
considered in this paper. In one-dimensional flow
pressure and temperature at cell i+1 can be calculated
problems, SHARP solves the Navier-Stokes equation as
from

b__Q_Q
+ a___E_E
=S (26)
at Ox

where the unknowns are

mi Ai+j M ,+I + M i2+l

Q=A u (27)
Toi< l+_1Mi21
• ( z .)_ (23)

T*+'= To,(I+ T_21M2÷ I

where p and u are the gas density and velocity,
respectively. The total energy is
The stagnation temperature and mass flow rate at cell
i+l can be obtained from the heat transfer and the mass

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 should also be correct for steady flows. Note that, unlike
the generalized method, no iteration is needed since the
(28) mass flow rate is calculated separately before the
generalized steady equation is solved.

whereT is the gas temperature and c_ is the specific heat

RESULTS
at constant volume. The inviscid flux term is given by

Most of the results shown in this paper are from test

a
(e+p)uJ
.1 (29)
problems where the inlet stagnation pressure
temperature as well as the outlet pressure are know. The
area of the pipe as well as the magnitudes
and

of friction,
heat transfer, and mass addition are also specified. The
Mach number, pressure and temperature inside the pipe
The source term in equation (26) is
are calculated using various methods discussed above.
The gas in all test problems is assumed to be perfect gas
rhA with a specific heat ratio of 1.4 and gas constant-of 287
v m2/s2-K.
fApu lu l
S _ (30)
2D
Steady Flow with Area Change
•a ;API.I'
-qv 2D The following adiabatic frictionless steady flow
problem with no mass addition is considered in this
where V is the volume of the flow cell. section. Air at stagnation pressure of 0.1215 MPa and
temperature of 368.34 K enters a nozzle having a cross-
Note that, unlike the other solvers, both SHARP and section area of
generalized methods do not solve the mass flow rate
directly. Instead, the Mach number, pressure, and A- C3 (31)
temperature in the flow path are calculated and the mass Cox + C2
flow rate can then be obtained as th = pAu. Note also
that the predicted mass flow rate from SHARP is not The axial distance of the nozzle is from x=-0 to x=20 m.
necessary constant at different cells of a flow path The constants C3=1 and C2=100. Two cases are studied:
whereas all other four methods predict the same mass (1) Co =1 and outlet pressure of 84.63 kPa for the
flow rate at different cells.
converging nozzle and (2) Co=-I and outlet pressure of
132.41 kPa for the diverging nozzle.
Pressure, Temperature_ Mach number in Flow Path
The Mach number and pressure distribution inside the
The isentropic, Lapple and ORING2 methods only give converging nozzle predicted by isentropic, ORING2,
a way to calculate the mass flow rate in the flow path. Lapple and generalized methods are compared with the
For the solid rocket joint simulations, the pressure, exact solution in Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively.
temperature and Mach number in the flow path are also Note that a discharge coefficient of unity is applied for
needed to calculate the heat transfer from the hot
the isentropic method. It is evident that the predict Mach
combustion gas to the cold solid surfaces. In this paper, number and pressure from isentropic method, ORING2,
the pressure, temperature and Mach number in the flow and generalized methods agree very well with the exact
path for these methods are calculated by the generalized solution. For the Lapple method, the predicted Mach
method using the calculated mass flow rate. number is slightly smaller whereas the pressure is
Specifically, the inlet Mach number is obtained from the slightly larger than the exact solution because of the
inlet pressure and temperature as well as the mass flow lower predicted mass flow rate as suggested in Figure 3.
rate. Then the generalized steady flow equation (21) is
solved to obtain the Mach number at every flow cell.
Next, the pressure and temperature at every cell inside
the flow path are calculated from equations (22) and
(23). This way, if the mass flow rate calculated is
correct, the Mach number, pressure and temperature

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 035 .... : .... ' .... ' .... 075

0.70

.... 20 cells
0.65 0.65

z Z
.c
_ generahzed
_ 0.60 2_ 0.60

[ _,.--" --- 0.!NO2

[..a,,r .... _] 0.55

0"5'
F- ° oe c, 1
0.501 .... i .... * .... I .... , 0.50 .... i . , , , i , , . . t ....

0 5 l0 15 20 5 l0 15 20

x (m) x _m)

Figure 6: Comparison of Mach number predicted from Figure 8: Comparison of Mach number predicted from
different methods with the exact solution. SHARP with different number of cells and the exact
solution.

0.10(3 .... I .... ! .... I ....

I_" -- generahzed 0.100 .... i .... . i .... i ....

....... Lapple

.... ORING2 _ 200 cells

0.095 ..... isentropic

..... 20 ceils
0.09.*

0.09(3

0.09(

0.085 .'.l_
.... J _ i , , -- , • -

5 10 15 20
0.0_
x (m) 5 10 15 20
x (m)

Figure 7: Comparison of pressure predicted from

different methods with the exact solution. Figure 9." Comparison of pressure predicted from
SHARP with different number of cells and the exact
solution.
Figure 8 and Figure 9 show the Mach number and
pressure distribution for the converging nozzle predicted
by the SHARP method, respectively, together with the The Mach number and pressure distribution for the
exact solution. The predicted Mach number and diverging nozzle predicted by isentropic, ORING2,
pressure using 200 flow cells agree very well with the Lapple and generalized methods are compared with the
exact solution whereas the predictions with 20 cells are exact solution in Figure 10 and Figure 11, respectively.
not as good. The predicted Mach number and pressure by these
methods agree very well with the exact solution. Similar
to the converging nozzle, the predicted Mach number
from the Lapple method is smaller whereas the pressure
is larger than the exact solution because of the lower
mass flow rate as suggested in Figure 3. However, the
discrepancy between the Lapple prediction and exact
solution is much larger for the diverging nozzle than the
converging nozzle because the pressure ratio PJPo is

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

muchclosertounity. 0.85 .... i .... i .... i ....

08£
.... i .... ! .... f ....

0.75

I ".'K ...... l_apple

0.7C
0"80 F _ --- ORING2 Z

0,65
za_ 07el __'_t n.... [] exacttSentr°plc
0.6£ .... 20 cetk_

0 D exact
0.55

0.f£
0.5{ | . . . ! .... I , , , - i ....
5 t0 15 2O
x (m)

0.5C , , , . t .... ! . • , • t ....

5 10 15 20

x (m)
Figure 12: Comparison of Mach number predicted from
SHARP with different number of cells and the exact
Figure 10: Comparison of Mach number predicted from solution for the diverging nozzle.
different methods with the exact solution for the
diverging nozzle.
0'135 I .... i .... i .... i .... .

O. 130 I
0"1356 .... _ .... ) .... _ .... t

0.1_1

0,120"

0'125 I
0.130[ _-
0.115
01_"

..f ...... 0.110

_
,_ 0.115

/ .... O. 105 ;; 27
o.o .I 2;27 0.1(_ a - - - a .... t • • - - i ....
0 5 10 15 20
0.105 / x (m)

O. IOOL .... t . . . . t .... t ....

0 5 10 15 20

x (m)
Figure 13." Comparison of pressure predicted from
SHARP with different number of cells and the exact
Figure 11: Comparison of pressure predicted from solution for the diverging nozzle.
different methods with the exact solution for the
diverging nozzle. Steady Flow with Friction

Figure 12 and Figure 13 show the Mach number and The following adiabatic steady flow problem with no
pressure distribution for the diverging nozzle predicted area change and no mass addition is considered in this
by the SHARP method, respectively. Similar to the section. Air enters a pipe at a stagnation pressure of
diverging nozzle, the predicted Mach number and 0.1007 MPa and temperature of 300.6 K. This pipe has
pressure using 200 flow cells agree very well with the a diameter of 0.1 m, length of 274.385 m, and friction
exact solution whereas the predictions with 20 cells are factor of 0.024. The pressure at the pipe exit is 19.54
not as good. That is, more flow cells are usually kPa.
required to obtain accurate results using SHARP than
other methods. The Mach number and pressure distribution predicted
by SHARP, ORING2, Lapple and generalized methods
are compared with the exact solution in Figure 14 and
Figure 15, respectively. It is evident that the predict
8

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Mach numberand pressurefrom SHARPand For this case, the optimal discharge coefficient is 0.172.
generalized
methods a_ee verywell with theexact A discharge coefficient smaller than this value predicts
solution•
However, theLapplemethod overpredicts
the smaller Mach number and larger pressure whereas a
Machnumberandunderpredicts thepressurewhereas discharge coefficient larger than this value predicts
theORING2methodunderpredicts theMachnumber larger Mach number and smaller pressure.
andoverpredicts
thepressure.
Thisisconsistent
withthe
factthatLapplemethodpredicts
a highermassflowrate 05C .... I .... i .... i .... i .... i •
thantheORING2 methodasdiscussedin Figure4 and
Figure5. cd=0.15
04C ...... cd=0.172

--- cd=0,174
0.6/ .... u .... i .... I .... I .... n ,j,
i
0 tl exact _j
E_ 03C /-
e Z
SHARP l

0.4
......

---
.... oRiNo:
generalized

Lapple
'1
l
d
z;

03£
...J.
t,-u D exact tI
E

O.IC
, , . , .... t .... ! . , . . i .... i . o

50 100 150 200 250

x (m)

Figure 16: Comparison of Mach number predicted from

0.0 I " " . a .... ! . • - - n .... I .... n . ,
50 1O0 150 200 250 the isentropic method with different discharge
x (m)
coefficients and the exact solution.

Figure 14." Comparison of Mach number predicted from

different methods with the exact solution. i

• • • • • i .... ! .... ! .... i .... ! •

_oo6 7 _ cd=0:5 --u.®. _

0.08

if" I ....... 0=0.172 "_I? 1

_2
0.10 _..
0.06

..... generalized
_" 0.04
-o- Lapple _,%'_
0.02/, . • • , .... t .... a .... , .... , ._1
.... ORING2 0 50 100 150 200 250
0.02 O 0 exact x (m)

0% .... 510 .....................

100 150 200 250 Figure 17: Comparison of pressure predicted from the
x (m)
isentropic method with different discharge coefficients
and the exact solution.
Figure 15." Comparison of pressure predicted from
different methods with the exact solution. Steady Flow with Heat Transfer

Figure 16 and Figure 17 show the Mach number and The following frictionless steady flow problem with no
pressure distribution predicted by the isentropic method, area change and no mass addition is considered in this
respectively. Since this method does not take into section. Heat is added to a pipe with a diameter of 0.01
account the effect of friction when the mass flow rate is m and length of 20 m at a rate of 200 J/re. Air enters
calculated, a discharge coefficient smaller than unity this pipe at a stagnation pressure of 0.1007 MPa and
should be applied to obtain the correct mass flow rate. temperature of 300.6 K. The pressure at the pipe exit is
9

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

93.73kPa.Thisproblemis solvedusingall the five Figure 20 and Figure 21 show the Mach number and
methods andthepressure
andMachnumber insidethe pressure distribution predicted by the isentropic method,
pipearecomparedwiththeexactsolutions. respectively, together with the exact solution. Since this
method does not take into account the effect of heat
TheMachnumberandpressure distribution
predicted addition when calculating mass flow rate, a discharge
by SHARP, ORING2,Lappleandgeneralized methods coefficient smaller than unity should be applied to
arecompared withtheexactsolutionin Figure18and obtain the correct mass flow rate. For this case, the
Figure19,respectively.
ThepredictMachnumberand optimal discharge coefficient is 0.034. A discharge
pressurefromSHARPandgeneralized methods agree coefficient smaller than this value predicts smaller
verywell withthe exactsolution.BothLappleand Mach number and larger pressure whereas a discharge
ORING2methods overpredict
theMachnumberand coefficient larger than this value predicts larger Mach
underpredictthepressure
because theeffectsof heat number and smaller pressure.
additionis notconsidered
andthepredicted massflow
ratefromthese twomethods
ismuchlarger.

....... cd=0.034
0._ .... ! .... ! .... l ....

0.6 .... cd=0.02 _ -

SHARP

0._

0
......

---
....

0
gener',dized

Lapp_e
ORING2

exact .._.:.'-:"'0
., ,.,;_,_'2"""
..ff.

,.,;_.'.-';"" -
" 0
z 0.4

0.4 ,_t _._

..°.o.°.°.°.°°°°°'°.
.......... .::.Z.Z:.Z-Z
0.2
()(_ .... I • • , * I * * I " I ....
5 I0 15 20
x _m)

0.0
0 5 10 15 20
x (m)
Figure 20: Comparison of Mach number predicted from
the isentropic method with different discharge
Figure 18: Comparison of Mach number predicted from coefficients and the exact solution.
different methods with the exact solution.

0.110 .... | .... i .... i • • '

0.110 .... _ .... _ .... _ ....

0.100

_'_':1_'"_ tD a-.O..O..,D..O..Q..O..,ID..I_.4D..ID.. = _1-_:

0.090

0.090

o oHo
0.08C
...... genevahzed "'¢:_._.
--- Lapple "'._.?_ --- cd=0.02
0.070
.... ORING2 "".'_'_ 0 0 exact
O.07G t] [] exact ",,._
-%-
0.(_: .... i . . • , I . - . - | ....

5 10 15 2O
006C , • • . , .... , .... ' .... :
x(m)
5 10 15 20

x (m)

Figure 21: Comparison of pressure predicted from the

Figure 19: Comparison of pressure predicted from isentropic method with different discharge coefficients
and the exact solution.
different methods with the exact solution.

10

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Steady Flow with Mass Addition OAK , , , i .... i .... i ....

The following adiabatic frictionless steady flow

problem with no area change is considered in this o_oc
section• Air at the same temperature as the air inside is
added to a pipe with a diameter of 0.1 m and length of _ o o,x
20 m at a rate of 0.5 kg/s-m. Air enters this pipe at a
stagnation pressure of 0.1007 MPa and temperature of
300.6 K. The pressure at the pipe exit is 91.34 kPa. _ o08(
...... generalized _
..- Lappie _'4_
0.07(
The Mach number and pressure distribution predicted .... ORING2 "_
0 0 exact "_
by SHARP, ORING2, Lapple and generalized methods ,.,,,.,
are compared with the exact solution in Figure 22 and O.Ofl( | • . . | • ,

5 i0 15 2O
Figure 23, respectively. The predict Mach number and x (m)

pressure from SHARP and generalized methods agree

very well with the exact solution. Both Lapple and
ORING2 methods overpredict the Mach number and Figure 23: Comparison of pressure predicted frorn
underpredict the pressure because the effects of mass different methods with the exact solution.
addition is not taken into account and the predicted
mass flow rate from these two methods is much larger. Figure 24 and Figure 25 show the Mach number and
pressure distribution predicted by the isentropic method,
respectively, together with the exact solution. Since this
1,0 .... I .... ! .... I ....
method does not take into account the effect of mass
SHaY / addition when calculating mass flow rate, a discharge
...... generabzed .s_".
0,8 coefficient smaller than unity should be applied to
--- t._pp_ ,_',"
obtain the correct mass flow rate. For this case, the
.... ORING2 _"
0 a exact _o,a _ optimal discharge coefficient is 0.03. A discharge
__ 0.6
E coefficient smaller than this value predicts smaller
z
.1= Mach number and larger pressure whereas a discharge
0.4 coefficient larger than this value predicts larger Mach
number and smaller pressure.
0.2

.... i .... i .... i ....

O.C ° , , • i .... I .... a ....

cd=l.O /
5 I0 15 20
....... cd=0.03 /

Figure 22." Comparison of Mach number predicted

different methods with the exact solution.
x (m)

from ._
0I
0.8

0.6
.... cd=O.02 / ,

04

0.2
0 0"40 I_ 0"40 I_ 1_40 0"4D B'O _ 0 0 0
. ....j.._ ,....- r', "" "' ._- I''n_''_'v'_r'-'_''''''_'_r

0.(3 . , , • i .... ! • • • - i ....

5 10 15 20
x (rn)

Figure 24." Comparison of Mach number predicted from

the isentropic method with different discharge
coefficients and the exact solution.

11

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 0.11C
_u +u3U+l_P =0 (33)
c3t _x p 0x
O.IO(]

In this problem, the pressure is constant and the term

_ 0.090 u3u/_ is balanced by 3u/cgt. For isentropic, ORING2,
Lapple and generalized methods, however, steady state
(i.e., _/0t=0) is assumed and the pressure term has to
u 0.0_
i = .
be nozero to balance uo_u/_. For the converging nozzle,
u3u/cgx >0 and the outlet pressure predicted from these
0.070
methods will be smaller than the predicted inlet pressure
whereas the predicted outlet pressure for the diverging
0,0(10 .... i .... I .... I | m '_ nozzle will be larger than the predicted inlet pressure
0 .5 10 15 20
since u3u/3x <0.
x (m)

The velocity at the inlet and outlet from ORING2,

Figure 25: Comparison of pressure predicted from the
Lapple, SHARP, and generalized methods are compared
isentropic method with different discharge coefficients with the exact solution in Figure 26 and Figure 27,
and the exact solution.
respectively, for the converging nozzle problem. The
velocity predicted by SHARP method agrees very well
Transient Flow with Area Chan_e with the exact solution whereas ORING2 and
generalized methods predict a much smaller velocity.
All the test cases shown above are steady flow problems Note that the generalized method and the ORING2
and only the SFLOW predictions at long times were method predict the same velocity since there are no
compared with the exact steady-state solution. In this friction, heat transfer and mass addition in this problem.
and the following two sections, the various flow solvers The Lapple method predicts even smaller velocity than
are assessed using one-dimensional unsteady flow ORING2 and generalized methods at later times when
problems with analytical solutions derived by Cai 14. the pressure ratio is closer to unity, consistent with the
smaller predicted mass flow rate by the Lapple method
It can be shown that for one-dimensional adiabatic shown in Figure 3.
frictionless compressible flow in a nozzle with a cross-
section area shown in equation (31), one exact solution
of the governing equation is

• , • i , • • J , • • i • • • i • • •
p = Const
200 _ _ SHARP
p = const ...... generalized
(32)
2C0 (Cox + C2) _. --- Lapple
U_----
.... ORING2
2Cot + CI N _ a a exact

if there is no mass addition. Similar to the steady flow

with area change problems discussed above, two cases
15
are studied: (l) a converging nozzle with Co =1 and (2)
a diverging nozzle with Co=-I. For both cases, the gas is
air with a static pressure of 0.1 MPa and temperature of
300 K. The stagnation pressure and temperature as well 5O
• . . t . . . i . . a I | a | I , , •
as the static pressure at the nozzle outlet are specified 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

whereas the velocity and pressure inside the nozzle are Tm'ae (s)

calculated.

Figure 26." Comparison of inlet velocity predicted by

The governing equation for this transient flow problem various flow solvers with the exact solution.
with area change only is

12

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 steady-state problems, however, there is no single value
25O
of discharge coefficient which matches the exact
velocity. A time dependent discharge coefficient near
-- SHARP
1.15 could be used to match the outlet velocity at
2OO ...... gcneraln_d
different times, but the predicted inlet velocity using
--- Lapple
N "%.. .... ORING: this discharge coefficient is much smaller than the exact
solution.
-_ 15_

"d "%
>
250

10(3

*',t_ --
...... cd=l.0
cd=l.15
......
2"2222 200
_ --- cd=l.3
, , I - - • I . • • I , , • i . . . ",h D

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 _2 .. , _ 0 exact

%. . t,.i
Ttme (s)
150 "'. "% D
"'.. ". r,i

Figure 27." Comparison of outlet velocity predicted by

various flow solvers with the exact solution. 100

Figure 28 shows the comparison of inlet and outlet

pressure predicted by SHARP and generalized methods 5O
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
with the exact solution. The pressure predicted by Ttme (s)
SHARP method agrees very well with the exact
solution. For the generalized method, the outlet pressure
agrees well with the exact solution but the inlet pressure Figure 29: Comparison of inlet velocity predicted from
is much larger, consistent with the above analysis using the isentropic method with different discharge
equation (33). Although not shown here, the isentropic, coefficients and the exact solution.
ORING2, and Lapple methods predict qualitatively
similar pressure with the generalized method.

o.]1ol , . . , • , . , • ... , • . . , • , . 200

[ • -- generalized mlet

_ ....... generahzed outlet

o.,o,I. \ ..... s Pou, ,

100

0.1_ "8__ '_'Ip'_'_'_P_'9

0.095 . . . i . . , , • • • , • • • ' -
0,0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Tmqe (s)
Figure 30: Comparison of outlet velociO, predicted from
the isentropic method with different discharge
Figure 28." Comparison of inlet and outlet pressure coefficients and the exact solution.
predicted by SHARP and generalized methods with the
exact solution. The velocity at the inlet and outlet from ORING2,
Lapple, SHARP, and generalized methods are compared
Figure 29 and Figure 30 show the velocity at the inlet with the exact solution in Figure 31 and Figure 32,
and outlet from the isentropic method compared with respectively, for the diverging nozzle problem. Similar
the exact solution. As expected, the predicted velocity is to the converging nozzle problem, the velocity predicted
larger for larger discharge coefficient. Unlike the by SHARP method agrees very well with the exact
13

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

solution•ORING2, Lapple,andgeneralizedmethods, 0 105 • • • I ' ' " I • ' • a • • ' I • • ,

however,predicta muchlargervelocityin contrast

to
thesmallervelocitypredicted
fortheconverging
nozzle. 0.100 _,E. B,., ,ID...O ,.4. i_. ,ID.,.._ ..,I. I- i,--O. 4. I_ 9t,,D, _l_ll_t: lf,_

0.095
300 • , • ! • • . ! . . • | • . , I ' 7 "
l

/
/ 0.090
SHARP / "

...... generalized / d 0,085

=-- Lappe # /
2oo .... ORING2 / / "
0¸080
":3
c
l.so 0.075
O0 0.2 0A 0.6 0.8 1,0
Ttme (s)
100

Figure 33." Comparison of inlet and outlet pressure

5O • , • I , , , ) - - - I . . • I . • .

0.0 0.2 0.4. 0.6 0.8 1.0 predicted by SHARP and generalized methods with the
Time (s)
exact solution for the diverging nozzle.

Figure 31: Comparison of inlet velociO' predicted by Figure 34 and Figure 35 show the velocity at the inlet
various flow solvers with the exact solution for the and outlet from the isentropic method compared with
diverging nozzle. the exact solution. As expected, the predicted velocity is
larger for larger discharge coefficient. Unlike the
steady-state problems, however, there is no single value
250 • , • i • • • I , • • I • • " i • • •
of discharge coefficient which matches the exact
velocity. A time dependent discharge coefficient near
m SHARP
0.8 could be used to match the outlet velocity at
200 ...... generalized I
different times, but the predicted inlet velocity using
:.-: // this discharge coefficient will not match the exact
solution.
.=
:a
150 ,.I"
>

100

5(
0.0
• • .

0.2
I , , • i

0.4
. . . I

0.6
. . .

08
I . . .

1.0
, ..............
__......_
_.......6,0
.....7'..
";1
.' n n exact so ,.. []

Time (s)

._ 15(] /" .-"" O '

Figure 32: Comparison of outlet velocity predicted by _w_ _ ...." n

various flow solvers with the exact solution for the

diverging nozzle. "_ i -_ ........-""
°'/
[] D
'Y []

Figure 33 shows the comparison of inlet and outlet 50_ 0 . . . ! • • . i . . .

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

pressure predicted by SHARP and generalized methods Tmae (s)
with the exact solution. The pressure predicted by
SHARP method agrees very well with the exact
solution. For the generalized method, the outlet pressure Figure 34: Comparison of inlet velocity predicted from
agrees well with the exact solution but the inlet pressure the isentropic method with different discharge
is much smaller, consistent with the above analysis coefficients and the exact solution for the diverging
nozzle.
using equation (33). Although not shown here, the
isentropic, •RING2, and Lapple methods predict
similar pressure as the generalized method.
14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 from SHARP agrees very well with the exact solution

2-
f........
_cd0........
,'°t ......
**-
cd=0.g
cd=l.0
•
,,/
/
[I .."
.:
::
whereas those from Lapple and generalized
not agree well. For ORING2
with a discharge coefficient
and isentropic
methods do

of 1.0, the predicted

Mach number agree well with the exact solution but the
methods
inlet

15( 0 0 exact s" D °.:

/" predicted outlet Mach number is larger. No optimal
.*°
discharge coefficient exists for the isentropic method
"._ ." o...: which predicts Mach number in good agreement with
the exact solution at all locations and times.
l_ ..o- Q.._..t..'_'_
.....-"" jD..p.._'"
I ,.o. n..D., n.'
0J5 • . • | , • . | , . . i • • • i • , ,

!,_,. _ SFLOW inlet

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Ttme (s) , k\ -*- SFLOW outlet
0 0 Exact inlet
0.4 ]it. X X Exact outlet

Figure 35." Comparison of outlet velocity predicted from

the isentropic method with different discharge
7-
coefficients and the exact solution for the diverging 0._
nozzle.

Transient Flow with Heat Transfer

0.[ i * " I " " • J " " ' t " " ' I . . .

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

It can be shown that for one-dimensional frictionless
Tnne (s)
compressible flow in a circular pipe with a heat transfer
rate per unit mass of
Figure 36." Comparison of inlet and outlet Mach number
predicted from the SHARP method with the exact
(34) solution.
q=T-1 r C,p(Clx+C3
C5 _-_lt+_.z j.c.,c,

0.6 • , • I • ' " I • , • I • • • ! • ' "

the exact solution of the governing equation is

SFLOW inlet

x *-- SFLOW outlet

p = const [] t,.J Exact inlet
x
C, (Clt + C2)c, ,c, 0.4
X X Exact outlet
x
P = (C,x+ C3"_+c''c') (35) E in x
C_x + C3 x
U _ • _q**, t'1
x
Clt + C_ 7- "_ O X

if the cross-section area is constant and there is no mass I "__ "''-- ° o o o o

addition. This transient flow with heat transfer case was

simulated using various flow solvers by assuming Cj=
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
C4=1, C3= C5=5000 and 6"2=15. The flow path is from Ttme (s)
x=0 to x=-20 m. The gas is air with a static pressure of
0.1 MPa. The stagnation pressure and temperature as
Figure 37: Comparison of inlet and outlet Mach number
well as the static pressure at the nozzle outlet are
predicted from the generalized method with the exact
specified as input whereas the velocity and pressure
solution.
inside the pipe are calculated.

Figure 36 to Figure 40 show the comparison of inlet and

outlet Mach number predicted by the five flow solvers
with the exact solution. The predicted Mach number

15

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

 06

°°t\ _ SFLOW inlet "":.....

[ x\ --- SFLOWoutle,
] '. '. --- cd=0.9 inlet
| '_ 0 0 Exact inlet
OA, X o4t- X".. -'_ L,-::. -
IX. _,.", . . Exacts, "
",lit".
"._.'.. X X Exact outlet -

[]

0.2

_,_.O'tl,.,11..g . X X X X X X

0.(] • , - i . . . i . , , I , - - i . . . o.o_
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0. g 1.0
0,0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
Tune (s)
Ttn_ (s)

Figure 38: Comparison of inlet and outlet Mach number Figure 40: Comparison of inlet and outlet Mach number
predicted from the Lapple method with the exact predicted from isentropic method with different
solution. discharge coefficients and the exact solution.

Transient Flow with Area ehange_ Friction_ and Heat

. . . ! • . . ! • , . | • . . ! • . . Transfer
0.6
_ SFLOW mlet

x \_ --- SFLOW out_[ For one-dimensional compressible flow in a circular

'_,, 0 0 Exact inlet pipe with area A, friction factor f, and heat transfer rate
0.4 X
'_,_ X X Exact outlet
b
q given by

1
x-_...._.
_le "_" x-_..,x ,x. A = (36)
0._ C4 e xp (- _-7_l x l+ _vC-_Dr

4
(37)
0.( • . t . , . ! . • . i . . . ! • . • f = 4cl(C, exp(- _3/-_-_tx)+ C_,[_)
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

Ta"ne (s)

[-x--(C,(C, exp(- x.f_7-_-,x)+ C_-_7-x)_ 3

Figure 39." Comparison of inlet and outlet Mach number q =-_/_-1 / " _ / (38)
predicted from the ORING2 method with the exact
solution. the exact solution is

p = const

t_ = const
(39)
U _

C: t + C 3

if there is no mass addition. This transient flow with

area change, friction, and heat transfer case is simulated
using SFLOW by assuming Co= Cs= C4=1, Cj=1000,
and 6"2=15. The flow path is from x=0 to x=20 m. The
gas is air with a static pressure of 0.1 MPa and
temperature of 300 K. The stagnation pressure and
16

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

temperatureaswellasthestaticpressureatthenozzle assumedwhenthemassflowrateis calculate
atevery
outletarespecifiedasinputwhereas thevelocityand timestep)butSHARPtreats
theflowastransient.
pressureinsidethepipearecalculated.
......... i ......... i ......... i ......... i .........
Thepredicted velocityattheinletiscompared
withthe
exactsolutionin Figure41.A verygooda_eement is
obtainedfortheSHARPmethod whereas
thepredicted
velocitiesfrom ORING2,Lappleand generalized 3tXl
methods aremuchsmaller.
_ 2O0 -- SHARP

300 • • • i • , • i , • , i , • • i • • •

-- SHARP
25O 100
...... gcneratt/,ed
Y
--- Lapple

"_E 2(X ;.-_o u- 0

(I,(.XX)
........ i .........

O,OlO
i .........

0,020
i .........

0030 (L(HO
| ....... .--

00__)

Tune (s)

f'"% ..

c. "'%

Figure 42: Comparison of predicted tank pressure with

I(_ the exact solution derived by assuming the flow is quasi-
stead)'.
5C
0.02 004 006 0('18 O. I0
0.00 CONCLUSIONS
Twne (s)

The capability of various flow solvers in predicting

Figure 41: Comparison of predicted inlet velocit 3"with transient compressible flow phenomena with area
the exact solution. change, friction, heat transfer, and mass addition has
been assessed. Specifically, the following flow solvers
Volume Filling have been studies in detail: isentropic method, ORING2
method, Lapple method, generalized method, and
All the test problems discussed above focus on SHARP method. Of the five solvers, only SHARP is
calculating flow properties inside a flow path with designed for transient flow problems whereas all other
specified inlet stagnation pressure and temperature, as solvers assume the flow is quasi-steady. The isentropic
well as static pressure at the path exit. A volume filling method only considers the effect of area change and
problem is studied in this section where the mass flow applies a discharge coefficient to take into account the
rate is calculated similar to the problems discussed effects of friction, heat transfer, and mass addition. Both
above and the pressure and temperature in the tank are ORING2 and Lapple methods try to take into account
calculated by mass and energy conservation laws using the effects of friction, but heat transfer and mass
the mass flow rate at the pipe inlet and outlet 3. addition are neglected when the mass flow rate is
Specifically, air at a pressure of 1,000 psia and calculated. The generalized method considers area
temperature of 5,400 R fills a tank with a volume of 100 change, friction, heat transfer as we/I as mass addition.
in3. The tank initial pressure and temperature is 14.7
psia and 540 R. The area of the flow path is 0.0235 in2. SHARP method is the most accurate among the five
flow solvers studied in this paper. The results from
Figure 42 shows the predicted volume pressure in SHARP agree very well with the exact solution for all
comparison with the exact solution. A discharge test problems shown in this paper except the volume
coefficient of 1.0 is used for the isentropic method. The filling problem where the exact solution is derived by
volume pressure predicted by isentropic, ORING2, assuming the flow is quasi-steady.
Lapple and generalized methods agree very well with
the exact solution whereas that from SHARP is smaller. The generalized method is capable of accurately solving
This is because the exact solution is derived by all steady flow problems with area change, friction, heat
assuming the flow is quasi-steady (i.e., steady state is transfer and mass addition. However the results from

17

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

thismethod
arenotaccuratefortransient
flowproblems reusable
solid rocketmotor,"AIAA Paper
becausesteadystateis assumed whenthe pressure, 2001-3441.
temperature
andMachnumber insidetheflowpathare
calculated. , Clayton, J.L. 1989 "Modeling of the space
shuttle solid rocket motor nozzle boot cavity
BothORING2andLapplemethods predictaccurate pressurization process," J. Spacecraft, Vol. 26,
resultsfor steadyflows with areachangeonly.For pp. 385-390.
transientflowsor flowswith heattransferor mass
addition,however, thesetwomethods arenotaccurate. , Clayton, J.L. 1999 "Reusable solid rocket
Althoughthesemethods try to takeintoaccount the motor nozzle joint-4 test correlated gas
effects
of friction,it isaccurateonlywhenthefrictionis dynamics-thermal analysis," AIAA Paper 99-
2791.
smallenough.
For steady flows with area change only, the isentropic . Network Analysis Inc. 1996 SINDA/G User's
method predicts accurate results using a constant Guide, Tempe, AZ.
discharge coefficient of 1.0. For steady flows with
friction, heat transfer, or mass addition, a unique . O'Malley, M.J. 1988 "A model for predicting
discharge coefficient can be found such that the RSRM joint volume pressurization,
prediction agrees well with the exact solution. However, temperature transients, and ablation," AIAA
this optimal discharge coefficient is not known before Paper 88-3332.
the calculation. Note that, while friction makes the
optimal discharge coefficient smaller, heat transfer and . Zucrow, M.J. and Hoffman, J.D. 1976 Gas
mass addition could increase or decrease the optimal Dynamics, John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New
discharge coefficient depending on whether the heat York.
transfer is from the gas or to the gas and whether it is
mass addition or removal. For transient flow problems, 10. Lapple, C.E. 1943 "Isothermal and adiabatic
there is no optimal discharge coefficient which makes flow of compressible fluids," Transcripts from
the prediction by the isentropic method agree well with American Institute of Chemical Engineers,
the exact solution at all locations and times. Vol. 39, pp. 385-432.

REFERENCE 11. Golafshani, M. and Loh, H.T. 1989

"Computation of two-phase viscous flow in
. Laubacher, B.A., Eaton, A.M., Pate, R.A., solid rocket motors using a flux-split Eulerian-
Wang, Q., Mathias, E.C. and Shipley, J.L. Lagrangian technique," AIAA Paper 89-2785.
1999 "Cold-flow simulation and CFD
modeling of the space shuttle solid rocket 12. Loh, H.T. and Golafshani, M. 1990
motor nozzle joints," AIAA Paper 99-2793. "Computation of viscous chemically reacting
flows in hybrid rocket motors using an upwind
. Eaton A.M. and Mathias, E. 2000 "Simulating LU-SSOR scheme," AIAA Paper 90-1570.
heat transfer to a solid rocket motor nozzle-
case-joint thermal barrier," AIAA Paper 2000- 13. Loh, H.T., Smith-Kent, R., Perkins, F and
3807. Chwalowski, P. 1996 "Evaluation of aft skirt
length effects on rocket motor base heat using
. Wang, Q., Mathias, E.C., Heman, J.R. and computational fluid dynamics," AIAA Paper
Smith, C.W. 2000 "A thermal-flow code for 96-2645.
modeling gas dynamics and heat transfer in
14. Cai, R. 1998 "Some explicit analytical
space shuttle solid rocket motor joints," AIAA
Paper 2000-3189. solutions of unsteady compressible flow,"
Journal of Fluid Eng., Vol. 120, pp. 760-764.
4, Wang, Q., Ewing, M.E., Mathias, E.C., Smith,
C. and Heman, J. 2001 "Development of flow
and heat transfer models for the carbon fiber
rope in nozzle joints of the space shuttle
18

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics