https://doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v11.

1066 ORIGINAL PAPER

xx/xx

Theoretical and Experimental Heat

Transfer in Solid Propellant Rocket Engine
Izabel Cecilia Ferreira de Souza Vicentin1,*, Carlos Henrique Marchi1, Antonio Carlos Foltran1,
Diego Moro1,2, Nicholas Dicati Pereira da Silva1, Marcos Carvalho Campos1, Luciano Kiyoshi Araki1,
Alysson Nunes Diógenes1

How to cite
Vicentin ICFS https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9596-9989
Vicentin ICFS; Marchi CH; Foltran AC; Moro D; Silva NDP; Campos
Marchi CH https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1195-5377 MC; Araki LK; Diógenes AN (2019) Theoretical and Experimental
Foltran AC https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4899-5652 Heat Transfer in Solid Propellant Rocket Engine. J Aerosp Technol
Manag, 11: e3819. https://doi.org/10.5028/jatm.v11.1066
Moro D https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7912-1686
Silva NDP https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5808-3932
Campos MC https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2269-486X
Araki LK https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0130-739X
Diógenes AN https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5687-3407

ABSTRACT: Accurate determination of heat flux is an important task not only in the designing aspect, but also in the performance
analysis of rocket engines. In this purpose, this work deals with the heat flux determination in a combustion chamber through the
inverse method. In this approach, the transient heat flux is determined from the experimental temperature data measured at
the outer sidewall of the rocket engine. In this work the physical phenomenon was modeled by the transient one-dimensional heat
equation in cylindrical coordinates and the material properties of the chamber were considered constant. Furthermore, the model
is solved using the inverse heat conduction problem with least squares modified by the addition of Tikhonov regularization term
of zero-order. Moreover, the sensitivity coefficients were obtained by Duhamel’s theorem. Through the regularization parameter,
it was able to generate acceptable results even when using data with considerable experimental errors.

KEYWORDS: Combustion chambers, Heat flux, Heat conduction, Ill-posed problems.

INTRODUCTION

In a thrust chamber (nozzle and combustion chamber), the amount of energy transferred as heat to the chamber
walls is between 0.5% and 5% of the total generated energy (Sutton 1992). Nevertheless, this amount could be enough
to cause structural failure. Thus, to prevent the chamber and nozzle walls from failing, it is necessary to predict the heat
flux accurately. Furthermore, accurate determination of heat flux is also important in the calculation of rocket engine
performance and for the cooling system design.
Convective and radiative heat transfer must be determined for characterization of total heat flux. The convective
heat transfer coefficient typically depends on many fluid physical properties. The computation of the radiation heat
transfer must be accounted by the surfaces emissivity and the absorption and scattering coefficients of the fluid mixture.
However, information about these parameters is not always easily found. Considering the propellant applied in this work
(potassium nitrate with sucrose, KNSu), the combustion products that affects radiation heat transfer are predominantly

1.Universidade Federal do Paraná – Setor de Ciências Exatas – Engenharia Mecânica – Curitiba/PR – Brazil.
2.Universidade Positivo – Engenharia Mecânica – Curitiba/PR – Brazil.
*Correspondence author: izabeldesouza@gmail.com
Received: Feb. 6, 2018 | Accepted: Oct. 30, 2018
Section Editor: T John Tharakan

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
 Vicentin ICFS; Marchi CH; Foltran AC; Moro D; Silva NDP; Campos MC; Araki LK; Diógenes AN
02/18
xx/xx

water vapor, carbon dioxide and carbon monoxide, which are strong radiation emitters and absorbers (Incropera et al.
2007). In addition, the presence of liquid phase particles promotes radiation scattering (Incropera et al. 2007). Therefore,
calculation of the radiation phenomenon is very complicated. Owing to the difficulties previously reported, the heat flux
prediction has large uncertainties.
In order to minimize these uncertainties, the Inverse Heat Conduction Problem (IHCP), or Inverse Problem (IP), can
be applied. The standard heat conduction problem (Direct Problems or DP) is concerned with the determination of the
temperature distribution in the interior of the solid material. In contrast, the IP aims to obtain the boundary condition
by using measured temperature history at one or further locations in a solid material (Beck et al. 1985). The outstanding
advantage in using inverse problem is to avoid the computation of physical properties of gas combustion in order to
obtain the heat flux from combustion (Kimura 1987).
The primary difficulty in solving inverse problems is associated to the fact that they are ill-posed. According to
Hadamard, DP are well posed since the solution exists, is unique and stable under slight changes in input data. The
problems that do not satisfy one or more of these conditions are referred to as ill-posed (Ozisik and Orlande 2000). In
order to overcome the difficulty in solving ill-posed problems, a variety of analytic and numerical approaches have been
proposed.
Stoltz (1960) and Burgraff (1964) proposed analytical solutions. Stoltz (1960) employed the Duhamel theorem to
solve the heat equation for slab and spheres. Burgraff (1964) presented a solution based on series. Analytical solutions are
restricted to linear problems, thus IP the technique was extended to nonlinear problems by the application of numerical
methods. The first researcher to apply a nonlinear problem in IP was Beck (1970). In his work, the Fourier equation was
solved using temperature dependent properties (specific heat and conductivity). Williams and Curry (1977) calculated
the heat flux for the nonlinear case in materials of high and low thermal conductivity using the least squares method.
Mehta (1981) employed the Finite Difference Method (FDM) to determine the heat flux in a rocket engine using inverse
problem approach.
Tikhonov and Arsenin (1977) proposed the modified least squares method for a regularization term. The authors
showed that this method is efficient in solving systems of ill-conditioned equations resulting from data with considerable
experimental errors. The authors’ emphasis was performing an analysis of the stability of existing methods and the
proposed method. The authors also discussed methods for determining optimal values of the regularization parameter.
Alifanov and Egorov (1985) presented the conjugate gradient method. In this minimization method, the regularization
is made during the iterative procedure in an implicit way.
Simpler techniques require less computational effort; however, they may not achieve satisfactory stability. On the
other hand, sophisticated techniques can generate further accurate results, although the computational cost is usually
higher. Currently, several methods are combined to take advantage of two or various approaches in order to obtain a
competitive algorithm (hybrid).
Much work has been done to obtain heat flux in the nozzle, especially in the throat region (Mehta 1981; Kimura 1987;
Patire Jr. 2010). Therefore, the purpose of this work is to predict the heat flux in a rocket combustion chamber using IP
and least square method modified by the Tikhonov regularization parameter (Tikhonov and Arsenin 1997). The goal is
to estimate the data of heat flux values in a rocket combustion chamber by using IP.

PROBLEM DEFINITION

The combustion chamber utilized in this work has a cylindrical geometry. Thus, the physical model can be described as a
hollow cylinder of internal and external radius Ri and Ro, respectively. In Fig. 1 the heat flux q”(t) from the combustion is applied
on the boundary surface at the internal radius Ri. It is reasonable to consider the external surface, at radius Ro, insulated. The
experimentally determined temperature Y is measured by thermocouples located on the outer surface, as exposed in Fig. 1.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
 Theoretical and Experimental Heat Transfer in Solid Propellant Rocket Engine
03/18
xx/xx

Insulated
Twh

q”(t) Y
The assumptions adopted for
r this problem are one-dimensional transi
Sensor
transfer (in radial direction)
RiThe assumptions adopted and
forcombustion chamber
this problem with constant physical
are one-dimensional proh
transient
location
Ro
transfer (in radial The 1-D transient
direction) andheat conduction
combustion equation
chamber withinconstant
cylindrical coordinates
physical propertiis
The assumptions adopted for this problem are one-dimensional transien
as The
Eq. 11-D (Ozisik
transient1993):heat conduction equation in cylindrical coordinates is wri
transfer (in radial direction) and combustion chamber with constant physical prope
asThe
Eq. assumptions
1 (Ozisik
 T k1993): adopted
  T for this problem are one-dimensional transient heat
Figure 1. Geometry  c p The
of the =1-D r
transient
problem. , conduction equation in cylindrical coordinates is w
heat
t r  r and combustion
transfer (in radial direction) r chamber with constant physical properties.
T k   T 
 casp Eq. =1 (Ozisik  r1993):  , (1)
The assumptions adopted for this problem are one-dimensional rtransient
t transient
1-D kisr theheat heat transfer
r  conduction (in radial[W/(mK)];
direction) and
ρ iscombustion c is spec
Thewhere: thermal conductivity
equation in cylindrical density (kg/mis
coordinates 3
);written
chamber with constant physical properties.
T k   T 
Eq.where:
The 1-D transient heat conduction equation inascylindrical  c[J/(kg
1 (Ozisik =the thermal
K)];
k is1993):
pcoordinates T isis rthe conductivity
 written  , as Eq. 1 (Ozisik
temperature (K), the
[W/(mK)]; dependent
1993): variable;
ρ is density (kg/m 3); rc (m)
and and t (sh
is specific
t r r  r 

T independent
[J/(kg   T is
k K)];  Tthevariables.
temperature (K), the dependent variable; and r (m) and t (s) are
 cp where:
= k isr the thermal
, conductivity [W/(mK)]; ρ is density (kg/m (1) 3); c is(1)specifi
 t r  r  The  r boundary
 condition on the outer surface is given by Eq. 2 (Ozisik 19
independent variables.
[J/(kg K)]; T is the temperature (K), the dependent variable; and r (m) and t (s) a
where: k is the TThethermal conductivity [W/(mK)]; ρ is density (kg/m3); c is specific heat
3 boundary condition on the outer surface is given by Eq. 2 (Ozisik 1993):
where k is the thermal conductivity [W/(mK)]; ρ is density (kg/m ); =c is0 specific heat [J/(kg K)]; T is the temperature (K), the
independent variables.
dependent variable; and r (m) and t (s) are the independent  r = Ro
[J/(kg K)];variables.
T is r the temperature (K), the dependent variable; and r (m) and t (s) are the
T
The boundary condition on the outer surface is given by Eq. 2=The 0 boundary
(Ozisik 1993): condition on the outer surface is given by Eq. 2 (Ozisik 1993 (2)
 r r = Rovariables.
independent The hypothesis of insulation on outer surface is appropriate since
T
The 0 condition
The= hypothesis
transferred by natural convection
ofoninsulation onisouter
negligible
surfacecompared to heat
is appropriate
(2) the (2h
transferr
since
 rboundary
r = Ro
the outer surface is given by Eq. 2 (Ozisik 1993):

 T transferredcombustion gases. convection is negligible compared to heat transferred fr

by natural
=0 The hypothesis of insulation on outer surface is appropriate (2) since the
The hypothesis of insulation on outer surface israppropriate since the heat transferred by natural convection is negligible
r =combustion
Ro The
gases. boundary condition on the inner surface is given by Eq. 3 (Ozisik 19
compared to heat transferred from combustion gases. transferred by natural convection is negligible compared to heat transferred
The boundary condition on the inner surface is given The by Eq.hypothesis
3 (Ozisik
The T boundary of insulation
1993):condition on ontheouter
innersurface
surface isis given
appropriate
by Eq. since the 1993):
3 (Ozisik heat
−k
combustion =
gases. q(t )
 r r = Ri
transferred by natural convection is negligible compared to heat transferred from
T
−k The
= (t )
qboundary condition on the inner surface is given by Eq. (3) 3 (Ozisik 1993
combustion rgases.
where:
r = Ri k is the thermal diffusivity (m /s), defined as the ratio between the cond
2

T
−kand
where:
The is the=
k density
boundary q (t )versus
(ρ)
thermal
condition onspecific
diffusivity
the inner heat
(m (c).defined
2/s),
surface as the
is given by ratio
Eq. 3between the conducti
(Ozisik 1993):
where k is the thermal diffusivity (m /s), defined as the ratio between
2  r r = Ri the conductivity and density (ρ) versus specific heat (c).
The initial condition is the initial temperature T0 (Eq.and4): Theversus
initialspecific
condition (c). initial temperature T0 (Eq. 4):
is the
 T density (ρ) heat
−k where:
= q(kt )is the thermal diffusivity (m2/s), defined as the ratio between the condu (3)
 r r = Ri T = T .
The0 initial condition is the initial temperature T0 (Eq. 4): (4)
and density (ρ) versus specific heat (c).
where:Tk=isTthe thermal diffusivity (m2/s), defined Direct as the ratio between the conductivity
Problem
0.
DIRECT PROBLEM The initial condition is the initial temperature T0 (Eq. 4):
and densitywhich
As previously commented, DP is the standard procedure (ρ) versus
isAs specificwith
previously
concerned heat (c).
commented,
determination DPProblem
of is the standard
temperature procedure which is co
distribution
Direct
T = T0 .
inside a solid. All properties, boundary conditions and initial condition
Thewithinitial are prescribed,
condition is the including the
initial temperature boundary condition
T0 (Eq.inside on the
4): a solid.
As determination
previously of temperature
commented, DP distribution
is the standard procedure All properties,
which is concerb
inner surface q”(t). Thus, the DP can be readily solved by classical solution techniques. Direct Problem
T = T0 . (4)
with determination of temperature distribution inside a solid. All properties, bound
As previously commented, DP is the standard procedure which is conc
Direct Problem
J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
with determination of temperature distribution inside a solid. All properties, bou
As previously commented, DP is the standard procedure which is concerned

with determination of temperature distribution inside a solid. All properties, boundary

 uniform mesh (all elements has length Δr), as shown in Fig. 2:

Vicentin ICFS; Marchi CH; Foltran AC; Moro D; Silva NDP; Campos MC; Araki LK; Diógenes AN
04/18
xx/xx

The DP was solved numerically using the Finite Volume Method (FVM) (Versteeg and Malalasekera 1995). The physical
domain was discretized using a uniform mesh (all elements has length Δr), as shown in Fig. 2:

Δrw Δre

r = Ri r=R
w e Figure 2. Uniform one-dimensional
o
mesh.

Figure 2 also illustrates both the internal

r and the boundary
W P E Figure 2. Uniform one-dimensional mesh.
elements. Each internal volume P has a neighbor to the left, W, and
1 2 Figure
Similarly,
ΔrW
2 also
Δreach
illustrates
volume
Δr
both
N-1
has faces Ntheleft,
to the internal
w, andand theright,
to the boundary
e. v
P E

elements. The
Each internal
1-D volume
transient P has a neighbor
heat conduction equationtointhe left, W, coordi
cylindrical and to
Figure 2. Uniform one-dimensional mesh.
Similarly, each
discretized volume
using haswhich
FVM, faces provides
to the left, w, and to
a general the right, e.
equation:
Figure 2 also illustrates both the internal and the boundary volumes for N elements. Each internal volume P has a neighbor
The 1-D transient
aPTPhas= faces
awTWto +theaeleft,
TE +
heat conduction equation in cylindrical coordina
to the left, W, and to the right, E. Similarly, each volume w,band
P . to the right, e.

The 1-D transient heat conduction equation in cylindrical coordinates, Eq. 1, was discretized using FVM, which provides a
discretized using FVM, which provides a general equation:
general equation: The approximation implemented to obtain the coefficients and
aPTP = awTW + aeTE + bP . (5)
Eq. 5, to the internal volumes was Central Differencing Scheme (CDS
The and
Versteeg
The approximation implemented to obtain the coefficients approximation
and source term,implemented
Malalasekera
the Eq.1995).
5, to theThe to obtain
volumesthe
coefficients
internal acoefficients
was , aw and ae and
PCentral and th
th
Differencing Scheme (CDS) (Maliska 2004; Versteeg and Malalasekera 1995). The coefficients aP, aw and ae and the source term
bP are defined as follows (Eqs. 6 to 9):
Eq.are5,defined
to the internal volumes
as follows (Eqs. 6was Central Differencing Scheme (CDS) (
to 9):
Versteeg and Malalasekera 1995). The coefficients aP, aw and ae and the s
r 2 rP
a=
P + re + rw , (6)
 as
are defined t follows (Eqs. 6 to 9):

are2 r=P re , (7)

(7)
ae = re , a=
P + r  + rw ,
 t e
aw = rw , (8)
aw = rw , (8)

 r 2
r r 2 rP 0
b= b= T 0
r (1 −  ) + T 0
r (1
T r (1 −  ) + T r (1 −P ) +ETPe ( − 1)[re W+ rww ] +
0 0 0 −  ) + T 0
(
0
TP ,
P P  − 1)[ re + rw ] + TP ,
(9)
P E e W w
 t   t
(9)

where: θ isformulation
the parameter where: θ is the parameter that defines the formulation implemen
thatindefines thework,
formulation implemented
where θ is the parameter that defines the implemented time. In this θ = 0.5 (Crank-Nicholson) wasin time.
chosen.In this
The approximation implemented to obtain the coefficients and source term of the first volume, N = 1, was the Downstream
work, θ =2004;
0.5 Versteeg work, θ = was
(Crank-Nicholson) 0.5 (Crank-Nicholson)
chosen. was chosen.
Differencing Scheme (DDS) (Maliska and Malalasekera 1995). The coefficients and source term are defined as
follows (Eqs. 10 to 13):
The approximation
The approximation implemented implemented
to obtain the toand
coefficients obtain the coefficients
source term of the an
J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
first
first volume, N = 1, was thevolume, N = 1,Differencing
Downstream was the Downstream Differencing
Scheme (DDS) Scheme
(Maliska 2004; (D
Versteeg
Versteeg and Malalasekera and The
1995). Malalasekera
coefficients1995). The coefficients
and source and source
term are defined as
 follows (Eqs.follows
10 to (Eqs.(Eqs.
13):
follows
follows
10 to10
(Eqs.
13): 13):
10 to
tothe
13):
first volume,first
N= volume,
1, Nthe= Downstream
1, was Downstream Differencing Scheme (DDS)
first volume, N = 1, was Differencing
was Scheme
the Downstream (DDS) (Maliska
Differencing Scheme2
2
r 2Versteeg
rP r rPMalalasekera
and rr+22 rrP ,
= aP
Versteeg =
and aMalalasekera
+
=  ,a
Versteeg
a
 and1995). +  ,, The 1995).
P Malalasekera coefficients The coefficients
1995). The and source and
termsource
coefficients
term
are source
and define
(
re  t = +
P
r P
P 
Theoretical
e  t
e 
rrand  t  t
Experimental Heat Transfer in Solid Propellant Rocket Engine
05/19
xx/xx
follows (Eqs. follows (Eqs. e10 to 13):
10 tofollows
13): (Eqs. 10 to 13):
ae =  , ae = ae, =  ,
ae2 =  ,
(
= 2
r rP a  r r 2
=aPa = 0, P+  ,
P
+r  r,P (10(
w r  t
=a a
w re P
= a
0, = t 0, + , (10)
a w re  t
w = 0,
e

rr+22 rrqP(t )rqqw((ttr)).rrw

2
ae =  , ae =  , 0 0 2
0 0r r0P q0(t)rrw0rPr r (11
 w r .(11)
0 a
bP= T (1 − b)P=+ TT =
ebE(
= 
(1−,
−
T 
1)
0 )
+
0 (1 +
T
− T
 )(
+ −
T 1)(+
+−T1) + T . P +
E bP= TE (1 −PP) + TP ( − 1)
P
P E
0 P + TP
re 
Pt
0
re
k Prrte +
t re k rre kk .
aw = 0, e t e
aw = 0, aw = 0, (12) (12
Finally,
Finally, the approximation the approximation implemented thetocoefficients
obtain the coeffici
Finally,
Finally, the theimplemented
approximation
approximation to obtain
implemented
implemented to obtainand
to obtain the the
the coe
coe
2
0 r r q (t) r
r
2
r r q ( t ) r  r
bP=term 0
TE of b)P=term
(1 −the +last 0
0
TTPbE(term
(1 0)++last
−the
1) TT P (
0 P + TP
− 1) 0
w 0 +
P
r 2
r
. Differencing
w
q(t ) r r
. wDifferencing
of−
volume,
P= TEof
N, )volume,
was (+
 −N,
the
+ TP0volume, 1)re+was
UpstreamTN, the Upstream Scheme Schem
(UDS) (1
(M
of(1 − re+k Upstream . (13)
P
the last P t was
 the Differencing S
term the lasttvolume, re k N, was the Upstream Differencing S
P
re re t re k
2004; Versteeg 2004; and Versteeg
2004; Malalasekera
Versteeg and Malalasekera
and1995). The 1995).
Malalasekera The coefficients
coefficients
1995). and coefficients
The source termand sour
of t
and
Finally, the 2004;
Finally, Versteeg
approximation and
the approximation Malalasekera
implemented implemented
to obtain1995).
the The
obtaincoefficients
tocoefficients and
the coefficien
and the so
Finally, the approximation implemented
Finally, the approximation implemented to obtain the coefficients and the source term of the last volume, N, was the Upstream to obtain the coef
volume areandvolume
defined are(Eqs.
as defined 14 ascoefficients
to (Eqs.
17): 14and
to1417):
Differencing Scheme (UDS) (Maliska 2004;
term
Versteeg
of the term
last ofvolume
volume
Malalasekera
the last
volume, N,
are
are
1995). defined
defined
The
volume,
was the
as
N, (Eqs.
as was
(Eqs.
Upstream the14 to
to 17):
source 17):
term of the
Upstream
Differencing
last volume
Differencing
Scheme Scheme
(UDS) (Ma
are defined as (Eqs. 14 to 17): term
The system of linear equations of Eq.the
of the last volume, N, was Upstream
5 was solved Differencing
using the Sc
TriDiago
2
2
r 2004;
rP r rPrand 2
= aP Versteeg
2004; = a=
+ 
and Versteeg
,a
2004; r+2 rrPP ,(Maliska
Malalasekera
Versteeg
Malalasekera
+ 1995). TheThe
,, Malalasekera1995). The coefficients
coefficients and
The source
and source
termthe
of the
rw  t=
Algorithm
P (TDMA)
arPP system +and 2004). DP1995).
was implementedcoefficients
using
(14) and
FOR s
The w r w t  oftlinear
rw  t equations of Eq. 5 was solved using the TriDiagon
volume
volume are definedlanguage are
aswithdefined
(Eqs.double14 asprecision.
to (Eqs. 14Ten
17): to 17):
volumes were employed to achieve the so
Algorithm volume (TDMA) are defined
(Maliska as2004).
(Eqs.The
14 to
DP 17):
was implemented using the FORT
ae = 0, ae = 0,
a = 0,
aee2 = 0, (15) (
2
r rPlanguage  r r 2 Inverse Problem
= aPa = = aP+  , with +r rP,
P double precision. Ten volumes were employed to achieve the sol
(14
w r  t, = a r=
w wP
a 
a , 
= t ,, + , (16) (
w The w
w
 
aw =rmathematical t formulation of IP is identical to the DP, excep
Inverse Problem
2
ae = 0, aboundary
e = 0, 0 0condition 0in 0 r r0P
3, q”(t),
0 r 0rPr 2 rP
Eq.2 is unknown. 2 The IP consists in the determ
(15
0 aThe=
bP= T (1 − b)P=+ TeTPbbWP(=0,
(1−T 
−1)
0 )
+
0 (1 +
T
− T
mathematical
 ) (
+ T− 01) + T
formulation
(. − 1) + T 0ofIP r
. ris .identical to (17)
the DP, except
= TW (1 −P ) + TP ( − 1) + TP .
P P P
W
P W rwintot account
P rwthe
Prrwtknown
 t physical properties and geom
w t
the heat flux q”(t) taking
aw =  , a = 
boundary , condition in Eq. 3, q”(t), is unknown. The IP consists in the determi
(16
w
aw =  ,
Ill-posed problems do not satisfy one or more Hadamard’s con
theusing
The system of linear equations of Eq. 5 was solved heatthe
flux q”(t) taking
TriDiagonal Matrixinto account2(TDMA)
Algorithm the known physical
(Maliska 2004).properties
The DP and geome
2 r r
(r−volumes
r1) 2
b = T 0 (1 − bwith
was implemented using the FORTRAN 90 language
)P=+ Tdouble
existence, 0)++TT0P0Ten
T0W0((1−−precision.
uniqueness P0 + T
0 P
. r rto achieve theand
were employed solution.
b = T1) (1 −  ) + Tand (. stability.
−P1) + T 0 The Pexistence
problems rwsatisfy
Pt . uniqueness of(17
a
rw Pt do not rw one
t or more Hadamard’s cond
P W P Ill-posed
P W P

INVERSE PROBLEM guaranteed by requiring that the inverse solution minimize the least squares n
existence, uniqueness and stability. The existence and uniqueness of an
The mathematical formulation of IP is identical to the DP, except that the boundary condition in Eq. 3, q”(t), is unknown.
thantaking
The IP consists in the determination of the heat flux q”(t) makeintoit necessarily
account the zero.
known physical properties and geometry data.
guaranteed by requiring that the inverse solution minimize the least squares no
Ill-posed problems do not satisfy one or more Hadamard’s conditions of existence, uniqueness and stability. The existence
The measured temperature on the outer surface is represented by Eq. 18
and uniqueness of an IP are guaranteed by requiringthan
that the
make inverse solution minimize
it necessarily zero. the least squares norm rather than make
it necessarily zero.
Y j (t j ), j =1, 2,...M ,
The measured temperature on the outer surface is represented The measured
by Eq. 18: temperature on the outer surface is represented by Eq. 18

Ywhere: tj is the instant

2,...Min and M is the tot
, which the temperature is measured;(18)
j (t j ), j =1,
of measurements.
where: tand
where tj is the instant in which the temperature is measured; j is the
M isinstant
the totalin whichofthe
number temperature is measured; and M is the tota
measurements.
The by
The estimated temperature on the outer surface is represented estimated
Eq. 19: temperature on the outer surface is represented by Eq. 19
of measurements.
Tˆj (qˆj ),The estimated
j = 1, 2,...M , (19)
temperature on the outer surface is represented by Eq. 19

Tˆwhere:
ˆ the jsymbol
j (q j ), = 1, 2,...^Mdenotes
, the estimated values.
J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
In order to solve the IP, it is required that the estimated temperature on
where: the symbol ^ denotes the estimated values.
wall (computed from the solution of the direct problem by the Fourier Equatio
 M M

 [Y j − Tˆj (qˆ )] +   qˆj 2 ,

Vicentin ICFS; Marchi CH; Foltran AC; Moro D; Silva NDP; Campos MC; Araki LK; Diógenes
2 AN
06/18
xx/xx S (qˆ ) =
=j 1 =j 1

the symbol ^ denotes the estimated values. where: S is the sum of squares; and α is the regularization parameter.
In order to solve the IP, it is required that the estimated temperature on the outer wall (computed from the solution of the
direct problem by the Fourier Equation) should match the The traditional
measured least squares
temperatures onpossible
as closely as the right-hand side
over a specified of Eq. 20 are adde
tolerance.
In order to perform that, the least square norm is minimized. Here, the least square norm is modified by addition of a zero-order
regularization term (Ozisik 1993; Arsenin andorder regularization
Tikhonov term
1977; Beck et al. in order to reduce instability or oscillations that are
1985):

M M
S (qˆ )the
= solution
[Y j − Tˆj (of ill-posed
qˆ )]2
+   qˆproblems.
j 2 , The instability problem is solved b
(20)
=j 1 =j 1
regularization term. The next step in the analysis is the minimization of the
where S is the sum of squares; and α is the regularization
where: S is theparameter.
sum of squares; and α is the regularization parameter.
Eq. side
The traditional least squares on the right-hand 20 of byEq.differencing
20 are added toita zero-order
regardingregularization
each of the termunknown
in order toheat
reduceflux compon
instability or oscillations that are inherent to theThe solution of ill-posed
traditional problems.
least squares Theon instability problem is side
the right-hand solvedofbyEq.
using20theare added to
regularization term. The next step in the analysis1993).
is the After someofalgebra,
minimization the least squareit is Eq.
possible to write itthe
20 by differencing solution
regarding each for the heat
of the unknown heat flux components (Ozisik 1993). After someterm
order regularization algebra, initorder
is possible to writeinstability
to reduce the solution for or the heat flux in that are inhe
oscillations
the matrix form: matrix form:
the solution of ill-posed problems. The instability problem is solved by usi
q = ( XT X +  I ) −1 XT (Y − T0 ), (21)

regularization term. The next step in the analysis is the minimization of the least
where X is the matrix of sensitivity. where: X is the matrix of sensitivity.
Eq. heat
Equation 21 is the solution of the inverse 20 conduction
by differencingproblem. it One regarding
can notice that each theof the unknown
unknown surface heatheat flux components (
flux depends
on the regularization term α, the matrix of sensitivity X and the measured temperature data Y, only.
Equation 21 is the solution of the inverse heat conduction No information a priori about proble
Dear Editor, I kindly suggest the folowing:
1993).
the behavior of the heat flux on outer surface After some algebra, it is possible to write the solution for the heat flux
is needed.
The matrix of sensitivity is by definition thenotice that theof unknown
first derivatives the dependent surface
variable heat flux depends
(i.e., temperature) on theto the
with respect regularization
matrix in
unknown parameter (i.e., heat flux), as exposed form:
Eq. 22:
A) Edit Figure 22 :
matrix of sensitivity X and the measured temperature data Y, only. No in
q = ( XT X +  I ) −1 XT (Y − T0 ),
prioriThe about the behavior
matrix of sensitivity of the heat fluxthe
represents on changes
outer surface is needed.
of dependent variable w
where: X is the matrix of sensitivity.
respect toThe the matrix
changesofofsensitivity
the unknown is by parameter.
definition Oncethe the
firstdirect problemofcan
derivatives th
Equation 21byisclassical
promptly
the solution of the inverse heat conduction (22) problem. O
variablesolved (i.e., temperature) solution
with techniques,
respect to the thesensitivities are easily determine
unknown parameter (i.e., he
notice
For thatthis the
study, unknown
the direct surface
problem heatwas fluxsolved depends on the through
numerically regularization term
the Duhame
exposed in Eq. 22:
matrix
theoremof sensitivity
(Ozisik 1993). X and the measured temperature data Y, only. No inform
 T1 T1 T1 
The matrix of sensitivity represents the changes of dependent  L  Analysis
priori about qvariable
the behavior  of qwith
 respectStability
2 the heat flux
toq
the changes of the unknown parameter.
M on outer surface is needed.
 1
Once the direct problem can be promptly solved by classical solution techniques, the sensitivities  are easily determined. For this
B) The word “achieved”
To examine T2the Tmany
is used
accuracy T2  Table 7). Iby
times (above
of the
suggest the following text
by predictions
L (Ozisik thethe inverse analysis,ofa the
studydep
ca
study, the direct problem was solved numerically through the Duhamel’s 2
theorem 1993).
The
(changes matrix
T
in red):  of sensitivity is definition
 first derivatives
X =  q   q   q  .
 1
qT Consider
2 M 
is proposed. that
 Mdata achieved a known heat flux having a triangular shape, Eq. 23,
STABILITY ANALYSIS variable
Table(i.e.,
7 shows temperature)
the with for respect
convection to theheat unknown parameter (i.e., heat fl
flux coefficient
To examine the accuracy of the predictions by the inverse
calculation.  third column
Theanalysis, a study shows
case is proposed.
the source, Consider
that is,that
how a known
that heatwas
data flux
applied on the inner  TMsurface TM of hollowT cylinder
M  of Fig. 1.
exposed
having a triangular shape, Eq. 23, is applied on the in
attained. Eq.
inner Mass 22:flow
surface rate was
of hollow cylinder L
calculated
of Fig.through
1. the ratio between the mass of
q1 q2 qM 
propellant and the burn time in NRB25 test. Through Propep software
5t 0  t 1
(t ) =   T
q(ROCKETWORKBENCH .T1 and Prandtl number from chemical
T1 2016) viscosity (23) (23)
 −5t +110 1 <
L t  2
 q q qM 
composition of propellant were obtained. The reference utilized to determine
 conductivity
the thermal 1 2
of combustion gases and the ratio between roughness
The
(e)2019  
physicalT  T
properties
and tube diameter of the T
cylinder material are listed in Table 1.
2  et al. (2007).
2 (D) was Incropera
J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819,
T 
2
L 
X = q1 q2 qM . (
qT  
M 
 
 The physical properties of the cylinder material are listed in Table 1

Theoretical and Experimental Heat Transfer in Solid Propellant Rocket Engine

Table 1. Physical properties 07/18
hypothetic
xx/xx problem
Material: aluminum ABNT 6061-T5
The physical properties of the cylinder material are listed in Table 1.
Initial temperature: 300 K
Specific mass: 2700.0 (kg/m3)
Table 1. Physical properties hypothetic problem.Specific heat: 896.0 (J/kg.K)

Parameter Thermal
Propertyconductivity: 180.0 (W/m.K)
Type of material External radius:
Aluminum ABNT 6061-T540.0 (mm)
Initial temperature 300 Kradius: 30.0 (mm)
Internal
Specific mass 2700.0 (kg/m3)
Specific heat 896.0 (J/kg.K)
Thermal conductivity The measured data is(W/m.K)
180.0 simulated by solving the direct probl
External radius 40.0 (mm)
Internal radius heat flux. Thus, by solving30.0the direct problem the temperature ov
(mm)

can be using
The measured data is simulated by solving the direct problem achieved, including
the known heat flux.the temperature
Thus, by solving the on theproblem
direct outer surface. Th
the temperature over the whole domain can be achieved, including the temperature on the outer surface. Then the measured data
is generated
is generated by introducing a random error ω, as follows (Eq. 24): by introducing a random error ω, as follows (Eq. 24):

Y Texact +  ,
= (24)

where ω has values between –5.0 and 5.0. The exact valuewhere: ω has
of the surface heatvalues in Eq.–5.0
between
flux is shown 23. and 5.0. The exact value of the
Figure 3 shows the temperature generated by introducing random errors, Y, and the temperature in the inner wall, Tw. The
shown
temperature simulated Y, i.e. the outer wall, is utilized in the in Eq. 23.
code program developed to estimate the heat flux q”.

550

500

450
Temperature (K)

400

350

300

250
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time (s)

Tw Y

Figure 3. Temperature in the outer and inner wall in the study case.

Figure 4 presents the heat flux q” estimated from Eq. 21 using different values of regularization parameters α. Applying
values for regularization parameter such as 1.10–12, the solution exhibits oscillatory behavior, whereas for α = 1.10–10 the solution
is damped and deviates from the exact result. The regularization parameter that approximates the solution satisfactorily to exact
result is 1.10–11.
Figure 5 shows a diagram of the computational procedure. The first step is to read the data of temperature in relation to time,
Y(tj). Temperature data is fed just once. Other data are: physical properties, internal and external diameter of combustion chamber,
and the sensitivity coefficient.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
 Vicentin ICFS; Marchi CH; Foltran AC; Moro D; Silva NDP; Campos MC; Araki LK; Diógenes AN
08/18
xx/xx

6.0

Heat flux (MW·m-2) 4.5

3.0

1.5

0.0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time (s)

Exact α = 1E-12 α = 6E-12 α = 1E-11 α = 1E-10

Figure 4. Effect of the regularization parameter α on the stability of inverse solution.

Beginning

Read data: Temperature Y, Physical properties of combustion

chamber (density, specific heat, thermal condutivity),
acquisition frequency of temperature data, externa
internal radius, sensitivity coefficient.

Obtain the sensitivity matrix, obtain the transposed sensitivity

matrix, identity matrix.

Solve the problem with the Eq. 21

End

Figure 5. Diagram of the computational procedure.

After that reading data, the computer code will calculate the sensitivity matrix, the transposed sensitivity matrix and obtain
identity matrix.
The heat flux is calculated using Eq. 21. The heat flux calculation consists in a single step, therefore convergence procedures
are not necessary.

LITERATURE COMPARISON

In this subsection, analytical solutions from Kacynski et al. (1987) and Burgraff (1964) are compared to the methodology
presented in this work.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
 analytical solutions being ill posed and do not deal with measurement error

The correlation developed by Kacynski et al. (1987) is an analy

Theoretical and Experimental Heat Transfer in Solid Propellant Rocket Engine
09/18
xx/xx
significantly simplified by the hypothesis that the temperature derivative

independent
Burgraff (1964) presents a solution for the heat of the spatial
flux based in expansion derivative
series. His correlation over timefor(Eq.
is available slab, 25). This correlation w
solid cylinder
and solid sphere. Thus, to accomplish the comparison, the solutions for the current model and Kacynski (1987) were computed
in rectangular coordinates. The same material and for physical
a slab considering the
properties listed in same
Table 2assumptions:
were considered. The temperature data
considered was the Texact, obtained by solving the direct problem. The exact values for temperature must be chosen due to the
analytical solutions being ill-posed and do not deal with constant properties;
• measurement errors.
The correlation developed by Kacynski et al. (1987) is an analytical solution significantly simplified by the hypothesis that the
temperature derivative over time is independent of the linear
• spatial rate ofover
derivative temperature rise;
time (Eq. 25). This correlation was developed for a
slab considering the same assumptions:
• Constant properties; • adiabatic outer wall;
• Linear rate of temperature rise;
• Adiabatic outer wall; • no axial or circumferential conduction;
• No axial or circumferential conduction;
• derivative
derivative of temperature with respect to time independent of temperature with respect to time independent of the po
of the position.
where: xo (mm) corresponds to the outer wall of combustion chamber
k dY  xo 
=q" xi  − 1 (25)
corresponds  inner wall, Ri.
 dt  xito the

The derivative of temperature with respect to time was comp

where xo (mm) corresponds to the outer wall of combustion chamber, Ro, and xi (mm) corresponds to the inner wall, Ri.
The derivative of temperature with respect to time(Eq. 26) (Maliska
was computed 2004).
using DDS (Eq. 26) (Maliska 2004).

dY Y j − Y j −1
= (26)
dt t

Figure 6 presents the heat fluxes obtained by Kacynski et al. (

Figure 6 presents the heat fluxes obtained by Kacynski et al. (1987) correlation by the current model, and Burggraf (1964)
analytical solution.
by the current model, and Burggraf (1964) analytical solution.

3
Heat flux (MW·m-2)

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time (s)
Current work Burgraff (1964) Kacynski et al (1987)

Figure 6. Comparison between Kacynski et al. (1987), Burggraf (1964) analytical correlation, and the solution for IP of this work.

One can note good agreement between the current work and Burgraff (1964) solution. The Kacynski et al. (1987) solution
presents a delay, possibly due to the assumption of temperature derivative with respect to time and not with respect to the
position.

Figure 6. Comparison between Kacynski et al. (1987), Burggraf (19

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
correlation, and the solution for IP of this work.
 Vicentin ICFS; Marchi CH; Foltran AC; Moro D; Silva NDP; Campos MC; Araki LK; Diógenes AN
10/18
xx/xx

GRID INDEPENDENCY
Consider the same hypothetic problem approached in the Stability Analysis section. To evaluate the grid independency, the
hypothetic problem was solved with different quantity of volumes in radial direction (N = 10, 100 and 1000) and a fixed number
of time advances (M = 100).

4
Heat flux (MW·m-2)

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time (s)
Exact N = 10 N = 100 N = 1000

Figure 7. Effect of quantity of volumes for hypothetic problem with M = 100 (fixed).

Figure 7 shows the results for the different quantity of volumes. It is possible to note that the result is independent on the
quantity of volumes.
To evaluate the effect of time advance, the hypothetic problem was solved using different time advances (M) and a fixed number
of volumes (N = 10). Figure 8 shows the results have no influence in the results.

4
Heat flux (MW·m-2)

0
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0
Time (s)
Exact M = 100 M = 1000 M = 10000

Figure 8. Effect of the quantity of time advances for hypothetic problem with N = 10 (fixed).

EXPERIMENTAL FACILITIES

The static tests were performed at the Hydraulic Machines Laboratory (LMH) ate Federal University of Paraná (UFPR).
For the tests, the engine was fixed horizontally on a test bench, which allows the measurement of the thrust through strain
gauges. Outer wall temperatures were measured by type K thermocouples fixed on the outer wall of engine. According to
the manufacturer, the thermocouple response time is under 0.3 s. In order to evaluate the effect of acquisition frequency in the

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
 Theoretical and Experimental Heat Transfer in Solid Propellant Rocket Engine
11/18
xx/xx

results, tests were performed employing 200 Hz, 2 Hz and 1 Hz. The data acquisition system employed was HBM Spider 8 and
Catman 4.5 software.
Space Activities Laboratory (LAE) of UFPR developed Netuno-RB (NRB) and Urano (U) with the purpose of studying propellant
performance parameters. The engines are made of Aluminum 6063-T6, cylindrical in shape. The noteworthy dimensions of NRB
and Urano engines are shown in the Table 2. These dimensions are indicated in Fig. 9.

Table 2. Diameter of MTP engines.

Engine Le (mm) Di (mm) De (mm)

NRB25/26/27 180.0 38.1 44.45

U25/26 280.0 44.46 50.8

The physical properties of 6063-T6 employed in this work (ASM 2016) are listed in Table 3.

Table 3. Physical properties of Netuno-RB and Urano engine.

NRB and U Values

Thermal conductivity (W/m.K) 209.0

Specific heat (J/kg.K) 900.0
Density (kg/m3) 2690.0

The total length without nozzle and cap for NRB and Urano is 180 and 280 mm, respectively. Figure 9 illustrates the NRB or
Urano rocket engine and its parts. Smectite is a non-reactive substance deposited between cap and casing to seal the propellant
grain in order to avoid gas losses during burning.
Powder of smectite (approximately 0.1 kg) was placed in the chamber casing and conformed by mechanical press. Afterwards,
powder propellant was placed in the engine and similarly conformed by mechanical press. The propellant apllied was potassium
nitrate (KNO3)/sucrose (C12H22O11), known as KNSu. The composition was 65 wt% of KNO3 and 35 wt% of C12H22O11.

T4
Cap Smectite Propellant T5
Nozzle side

Din Dout

Le

Figure 9. Essential parts of NRB and Urano engine and thermocouples location.

The tests were performed without nozzle. The position of thermocouples on the surface of the combustion chamber is presented
in Fig. 9. In Table 4, the distance T4 and T5 are showed in mm. Thermocouple T4 placed on the outer surface of engine is positioned
next to propellant grain and thermocouple T5 is positioned on the outer surface next to nozzle entrance.
Five tests were performed. In all tests the thermocouples were positioned in T4 and T5 position. NBR25, NBR26 and NBR27
were tested using 1 Hz, 2 Hz and 200 Hz acquisition frequency, respectively. U25 and U26 were tested using 1 Hz and 200 Hz.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
 Vicentin ICFS; Marchi CH; Foltran AC; Moro D; Silva NDP; Campos MC; Araki LK; Diógenes AN
12/18
xx/xx

The temperature history of thermocouples T4 and T5 are presented in Fig. 10. The behavior of temperature history is very similar,
therefore only the NBR25 temperature history is shown.

Table 4. Position of thermocouples during the static test.

Engine T5 (mm) T4 (mm)

NRB25/26/27 15 20
U25/26 20 40

90
Temperature (°C)

60

30

0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
T4 T5

Figure 10. Experimental temperature data of a) T4 and b) T5 for NRB25.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Table 5 summarizes the tests performed. Applying the methodology discussed in the previous sections, the heat fluxes were
obtained for thermocouple T4 and T5 for each test.

Table 5. Position of thermocouples during the static test.

Test Engine T5 (mm) T4 (mm) Data acquisition frequency (Hz)

1 NRB25 15 20 1
2 NRB26 15 20 2
3 NRB27 15 20 200
4 U25 20 40 1
5 U26 20 40 200

Figures 11 to 14 show the heat fluxes obtained for all tests performed. The heat fluxes acquired from the thermocouple T4 for
tests 1, 2 and 3 are presented in Fig. 11. The heat fluxes acquired from the thermocouple T5 for tests 1, 2 and 3 are presented in
Fig. 12. In the same vein, the heat fluxes from T4, for U25 and U26 are presented in Fig. 13 and the heat fluxes for U25 and U26
engines are presented in Fig. 14.
The firing duration of NRB engines was on average 3 s. The firing duration of Urano engine was on average 4 s. The heat flux
peaks of the tests were superposed.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
 Theoretical and Experimental Heat Transfer in Solid Propellant Rocket Engine
13/18
xx/xx

300

Heat flux (kW·m-2) 200

100

0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
T4, NRB25 (1Hz) T4, NRB26 (2Hz) T4, NRB27 (200Hz)

Figure 11. Heat flux from temperature history of thermocouple T4, of NBR25, 26 and 27.

300
Heat flux (kW·m-2)

200

100

0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
T5, NRB25 (1Hz) T5, NRB26 (2Hz) T5, NRB27 (200Hz)

Figure 12. Heat flux from temperature history of thermocouple T5, of NBR25, 26 and 27.

200
Heat flux (kW·m-2)

100

0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
T4, U25 (1Hz) T4, U26 (200Hz)

Figure 13. Heat flux from temperature history of thermocouple T4, U25 and U26.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
 Vicentin ICFS; Marchi CH; Foltran AC; Moro D; Silva NDP; Campos MC; Araki LK; Diógenes AN
14/18
xx/xx

450

Heat flux (kW·m-2)

300

150

0 2 4 6 8 10
Time (s)
T5, U25 (1Hz) T5, U25 (200Hz)

Figure 14. Heat flux from temperature history of thermocouple T5, of U25 and U26.

One can note that the results are very similar despite different data acquisition frequency of the tests. This can be regard to
the fact that current methodology is based in derivative of temperatures, that is, the temperature variation in respect to the heat
flux, or sensitivities. A peak of heat in Fig. 14 is probably related to iteration error due to a greater amount of math operations.

ERROR ANALYSIS
The results of the present work are subjected to errors from: the mathematical model, experimental measurement and numerical
solution. Errors from the mathematical model arise from hypotheses that simplify the physical phenomenon; i.e., the assumption
of heat transferring in one-dimension, constant properties, and insulated outer wall. The error from the mathematical model is
very difficult to obtain since the actual heat flux value is unknown. An approximation to the actual heat flux could be obtained if
heat flux was measured precisely. In this case, specifically, the experimental errors should be estimated.
Experimental errors in this work come from temperature measurement. It is expected to contribute toward the majority of
total error (sum of errors from mathematical model, experimental measurement and numerical solution). The calibration reports
gave an approximated idea of range of measurement errors. The thermocouples employed in this work have measurement errors
almost linear, of 0.4 K at 273 K and 1.4 K at 393 K.
Furthermore, numerical errors are also present in the solution. However, it is expected to present a minor contribution to
the total error.
11 0.000195 10240 330.596870730558 0.999919613163
In order to estimate the numerical error, the measured temperature should not be included in simulations. Thus, only the direct
12 9.77E-05 20480 error 330.583830934388 0.999959716249
problem was considered in this analysis. Table 6 shows an estimative of discretization U of the direct problem, obtained
through Richadson estimator (Roache 1998) based in the apparent order Pu. These results were obtained by simulation of the
hypothetic problem, then, the boundary conditions and the physical properties are known as described in Stability Analysis. In
Asproblem
order to achieve an estimative to discretization error, the direct expected, apparent
was considered. orderno converges
Therefore to 1were
experimental errors due to appr
embedded in the results. In addition, the results present no iteration error due to the linear system of equations is solved by TDMA.
As expected, apparent order converges to 1 due derivatives are for
to approximations of derivatives
first order.are Apparent
of first order.order is obtained
Apparent from Eq. 27:
order is obtained
from Eq. 27:
  − 
log  2 1 
Pu =  3 − 2  (27)

log(r )

where ϕ1 is the variable in the most coarse mesh; ϕwhere: ϕ1 is the

is the variable variable
in the medium in theand
mesh; most
ϕ3 iscoarse mesh;
the variable ϕ2 fine
in the is the variable
mesh. in the
2

and ϕ3 is the variable in the fine mesh. The variable ϕ implem

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019

determination was the temperature in the outer surface in the insta

 12 9.77E-05 20480 330.583830934388 0.99995971624
11 0.000195 10240 330.596870730558 0.999919613
12 9.77E-05 20480 330.583830934388 0.999959716
As expected, apparent order converges to 1 due to ap
Theoretical and Experimental Heat Transfer in Solid Propellant Rocket Engine
15/18
xx/xx
derivativesAs
are expected,
of first order. Apparent
apparent orderconverges
order is obtainedtofrom
1 Eq.
due 27:
to

Table 6. Estimative of discretization  (U)

derivatives
error arein of
2 − 1 the first
directorder. Apparent
problem order is obtained from Eq. 27
(D.P.)
log  
 3 − 2 
ϕ ∆t M Numerical solution (K) Pu U
Pu =
log( r)2 − 1 
1 0.2 10
2 0.1 20 log
343.833821320819
Pu =  3 − 2 
3 0.05 40 337.220558396801
where: ϕ1 is log(
the variable
r) in the most coarse mesh; ϕ2 is the variable in t
4 0.025 80 333.901761686173 0.994701998687 –3.34330689
5 0.0125 160 332.238022579065 0.996231040865
ϕ3 isϕ1the
andwhere: variable
is the variableinin the mesh.–1.67246615
fine coarse
the most The ϕvariable
mesh; ϕ imple
2 is the variable i
6 0.00625 320 331.404873509277 0.997782664935 –0.83571599
7 0.003125 640 determination was variable
330.987952798396
and ϕ3 is the the 0.998801609461
temperature in the
in the fine outerThesurface
–0.41761421
mesh. in the
variable ins
ϕ im
8 0.001563 1280 330.779402491387 0.999377604961 –0.20873037
9 0.000781 2560 refinement was applied
330.675104416838
determination intemperature
time variable
0.999682911583
was the in by increasing
–0.10434394
the M volumes
outer surface in the
10 0.000391 5120 330.622949594699 0.999839971494 –0.05216639
11 0.000195 10240 volumes in space
refinement wasdiscretization
330.596870730558 applied was always
in time
0.999919613163 the
variable bysame in all simulations
increasing
–0.02608177 M volum
12 9.77E-05 20480 330.583830934388 0.999959716249 –0.01304052
Factor
volumes r in Eq.
in space 28 is the was
discretization ratioalways
between
thethe coarse
same in allgrid and
simulatio
The variable ϕ implemented in error determination was the temperature in the outer surface in the instant 1.0 s. Grid refinement
medium mesh
was applied in time variable by increasing M volumes. The numberFactor
andr fine
of volumes
mesh.
inin Eq.
space 28
The
is theratio
discretization
r inbetween
ratio thisthe
was always
analysis was
theincoarse
same all
2. grid an
simulations (10 volumes).
h1 medium
h r inThe
r medium
Factor r in Eq. 28 is the ratio between the coarse =
grid = 2 mesh
and and
mesh fine mesh.
or medium mesh The ratio
and fine mesh. this analysis
ratio r in this was 2.
analysis was 2. h2 h3
h1 h2
r
= =
hRichadson
2 h3 estimator (Roache 1998) based in the(28)
apparent orde

Richadson estimator (Roache 1998) based in the Eq. 29: order

apparent Pu is definedestimator
Richadson in Eq. 29: (Roache 1998) based in the apparent or

(3 − 2 )
U RIEq.
= 29: (29)
(r Pu − 1)
( −  )
U RI = 3Pu 2
Figure
(r −15 1) shows the error estimation (U) in relation to variatio
Figure 15 shows the error estimation (U) in relation to variation of time length. ∆t. The estimated error diminishes as the grid
refinement in time variable increases.
∆t. The estimated error
Figure 15 diminishes
shows as estimation
the error the grid refinement in timetovariab
(U) in relation varia

∆t. The estimated error diminishes as the grid refinement in time var
1
Error estimation (U)

0.1

0.01

1E-4 1E-3 0.01 0.1

∆t

Figure 15. Estimative of discretization error of direct problem.

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
 Theoretical analysis can also be worthwhile to compare the theoretical heat flux
flux calculation in this analysis is: radiation heat transfer is minimum and turbulent
and the heat flux obtained by the inverse approach. The hypothesis in theoretical heat
flow.
flux calculation inNDP;
Vicentin ICFS; Marchi CH; Foltran AC; Moro D; Silva thisCampos
analysis is:LK;radiation
MC; Araki Diógenes ANheat transfer is minimum and turbulent
16/18
xx/xx Convection heat transfer coefficient, h, was calculated through Gnielinski
flow.
correlation for turbulent flow in a cylindrical duct section as follows (Eq. 30) (Incropera
Theoretical analysis can also be worthwhileConvectionto heat transfer
compare coefficient,
the theoretical h, was
heat flux calculated
and the heat flux through Gnielinski
obtained by the inverse
et al. 2007):
approach. The hypothesis in theoretical heat flux calculation in this analysis is: radiation heat transfer is minimum and turbulent flow.
correlation for turbulent flow in a cylindrical duct section as follows (Eq. 30) (Incropera
Convection heat transfer coefficient, h, was calculated through Gnielinski correlation for turbulent flow in a cylindrical duct
section as follows (Eq. 30) (Incropera et al. 2007): hD
et al. 2007):
Nu
= =
( ) f (Re − 1000) Pr
8 D
;
3000  Re D  5.106
 (30)
( )
1/2
k f  0,5  Pr  2000
( )
2/3
f (Re 1−+ 12.7
8
(Pr − 1)
hD 8 D 1000) Pr 3000number
 Re D  5.10 6
Nu
= = Reynolds
;  is defined as follows(30) (Eq. 32):
(30)
( )
1/2
k f 0,5  Pr  2000
 Re is the Reynolds number; Pr is the Prandtl number; D
+ 12.7 Nu is Nusselt
1where: 2/3
(Pr − 1) number;
8 4m
is the internalRe D =
duct diameter (m); k is the thermal conductivity of the gases, W/(mK);
where: Nu is Nusselt number; Re is the DReynolds number; Pr is the Prandtl number; D
where Nu is Nusselt number; Re is the Reynolds number; Pr is the Prandtl number; D is the internal duct diameter (m); k is the
and f is the Moody friction factor.
thermal conductivity of the gases,
is theW/(mK);
internaland f isdiameter
the Moody friction
&is isfactor.
km
duct where:
(m); thethermal
the mass conductivity
flow rate (kg/s).
of the gases, W/(mK);
Moody friction factor is described by Colebrook-White correlation (Eq. 31):
Moody friction factor is described by Colebrook-White correlation (Eq. 31):
and f is the Moody friction factor.
Table 7 shows the data achieved for convection heat flux co
1  e 2,51 
Moody friction= −2 log
factor
10  +
is described by Colebrook-White correlation (Eq. 31): (31) (31)
 7 D Re
f The 3, third columnf  shows the source, that is, how that data was achi
1  e 2,51 
= −2 logwhere:
10  e is+ the
was 
calculated
equivalent through
roughness (m), the ratio
in this casebetween
consideredthe –4 (31)
1.10mass
m. of propellant a
f  3, 7 D Re f
 case considered1.10 m.
where e is the equivalent roughness (m), in this –4

Reynolds number is defined as follows (Eq. 32): Reynolds

NRB25 number isPropep
test. Through definedsoftware
as follows (Eq. 32):
(ROCKETWORKBENCH
where: e is the equivalent roughness (m), in this case considered 1.10–4 m.
4mnumber from chemical composition of propellant were ach
RePrandtl
D = (32)
 D
.
utilized to achieve thermal conductivity of combustion gases an
where m is the mass flow rate (kg/s). where: m& is the mass flow rate (kg/s).
roughness
Table 7 shows the data achieved for convection heat flux coefficient(e) and tube
calculation. Thediameter (D)shows
third column was the
Incropera et is,
source, that al. (2007).
how that data was attained. Mass flow rate was calculated through the ratio between the mass of propellant and the burn time
Table 7 shows the data achieved for convection heat flux coeff in
NRB25 test. Through Propep software (ROCKETWORKBENCH 2016) viscosity and Prandtl number from chemical composition
of propellant were obtained. The reference utilized to determine
The the thermal
third column conductivity
shows of combustion
the source, that is,gases
howand thedata
that ratiowas achieve
between roughness (e) and tube diameter (D) was Incropera et al. (2007). Table 7. Data for convection heat flux coefficient calc
was calculated through Data
the ratio between the Value Sou
mass of propellant and
Table 7. Data for convection heat flux coefficient calculation.
𝑚𝑚̇ 5.0029.10 (kg/s)
–2 NRB25
Data NRB25 test. Through Propep
Value µ software1.0465.10
(ROCKETWORKBENCH
Source –4 (Pa.s) 20
Pro
.
m 5.0029.10 (kg/s)
–2
Pr NRB25 burn data
0.7 Pro
µ Prandtl
1.0465.10number
(Pa.s) from chemical
e/D composition
Propep of propellant were achiev
Refe
0.00262
–4

Pr 0.7 k Propep
0.056 Refe
e/D
utilized to achieve thermal conductivity
0.00262
of [W/(mK)]
Reference
combustion gases and t
k 0.056 [W/(mK)] Reference
roughness (e) and tube diameter (D) was Incropera et al. (2007).
Results for Reynolds and Nusselt number are showed in Ta
Results for Reynolds and Nusselt number are showed in Table 8. Moreover, the convection heat transfer was calculated through
Eq. 33: convection heat transfer was calculated through Eq. 33:
Table 7. Data for convection heat flux coefficient calcula
=q h(Ts − T )
Data Value (33) Source
𝑚𝑚̇ 5.0029.10 (kg/s)
–2 NRB25 bur
where: Ts is the temperature of combustion chamber before test (1
µ 1.0465.10 (Pa.s)
–4 Propep
J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
Pr Propep
0.7 given by Propep softwar
temperature of the hot gases (1302.47 °C),
e/D 0.00262 Referen
Heat fluxkby convection 0.056 [W/(mK)]
is listed Referen
in Table 8. This value m
 Theoretical and Experimental Heat Transfer in Solid Propellant Rocket Engine
17/18
xx/xx

where Ts is the temperature of combustion chamber before test (19 °C); and is the temperature of the hot gases (1302.47 °C),
given by Propep software.
Heat flux by convection is listed in Table 8. This value met heat flux obtained trough inverse approach acceptably.

Table 8. Results.

Data Value
Re 15,976.0
Nu 143.36
h 210.72 [W/(m2K)]
q” 271.4 (kW/m2)

It is reasonable to note that the total error contributes to the unstable behavior inherent of ill-posed problems. Thus, it is
important to minimize other sources of errors (not only measurement errors) that could lead to difficulties in the regularization
parameter estimation.
Finally, the method applied in this work, least squares, is of maximum likelihood for measurements errors for the following
assumptions: uncorrelated errors, constant deviation and normal distribution. These assumptions were approximately met.

CONCLUSION

A methodology for heat flux determination using experimental temperature history was tested. This methodology for solution of the
inverse problem is computed from a linear equation; consequently, the solution is given directly. Therefore, the methodology in this work
is not an iterative process, resulting in a simple program code. The essential advantage of the method is to avoid the calculation of the
physical properties of the gases from combustion. Another point to emphasize is that the methodology presented is not very sensitive to
experimental errors.
In order to verify the programming code for solving IP a hypothetic problem was suggested. A program code was developed for solving
IP generated results, which were compared to the results accomplished through analytical correlations from the literature. The results agreed
satisfactorily. Furthermore, the methodology was applied to achieve heat flux from temperature data of static tests accomplished at UFPR. The
maximum heat flux of NRB was estimated in 280 kW/m2 from thermocouple T4 or T5. For Urano, the maximum heat flux was estimated
in 300 kW/m2 from thermocouple T5. The heat flux calculated through theoretical approach showed an acceptable agreement in relation
to inverse method approach. In addition, the results indicate that acquisition frequency does not have any effect in heat flux estimation.

AUTHOR’S CONTRIBUTION

Conceptualization, Vicentin ICFS; Methodology, Vicentin ICFS; Investigation, Vicentin ICFS, Marchi CH, Foltran AC, Silva
NDP, Moro D and Campos MC; Writing – Original Draft, Vicentin ICFS and Marchi CH; Writing – Review and Editing, Vicentin
ICFS, Foltran AC, Silva NDP, Moro D, Araki LK and Diogenes AN; Supervision, Marchi CH.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would acknowledge the “UNIESPAÇO Program” of The Brazilian Space Agency (AEB), CAPES (Coordination
for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel, Brazil) and CNPq (National Counsel of Technological and Scientific

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019
 Vicentin ICFS; Marchi CH; Foltran AC; Moro D; Silva NDP; Campos MC; Araki LK; Diógenes AN
18/18
xx/xx

Development, Brazil) by physical and financial support given for this work. The authors would also acknowledge the journal
editor and reviewers by their suggestions and corrections.

FUNDING

Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CAPES) [https://doi.org/10.13039/501100003593]

Grant No: Finance Code 001, Project n. 20 of Edital Pró-Estratégia 50/2011
Coordenação de Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de Nível Superior (CNPq) [https://doi.org/10.13039/501100002322]
Grant No: 309365/2013-9

REFERENCES

Alifanov OM, Egorov YV (1985) Algorithms and results of solving the inverse heat conduction boundary problem in two-dimensional
formulation. Journal of Engineering Physics 48(4):489-496. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00872080

[ASM] Aerospace Specification Metals (2016) Aluminun 6063-T5. Aerospace Specification Metals; [accessed 2018 June 10]. http://
asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=MA6063T5

Beck JV (1970) Nonlinear estimation applied to the non linear inverse heat conduction problem. Journal Heat Mass Transfer 13(4):703-
716. https://doi.org/10.1016/0017-9310(70)90044-X

Beck JV, Blackwell B, St. Clair Jr. CR (1985) Inverse heat conduction-Ill-posed Problems. New York: Wiley Interscience.

Burggraf OR (1964) An exactsolution of the inverse problem in heat conduction theory and applications. Journal of Heat Transfer 86(3):373-
380. https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3688700

Incropera FP, Dewitt DP, Bergman TL, Lavine AS (2007) Fundamentals of heat and mass transfer. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.

Kacynski JK, Pavli A, Smith T (1987) Experimental evaluation of heat transfer on a 1030:1 area ratio rocket nozzle. (NASA-TP-2726).
NASA Technical Paper.

Kimura AL (1987) Transferência de calor em motor-foguete (PhD Thesis). São José dos Campos: Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica. In
Portuguese.

Maliska CR (2004) Transferência de Calor e Mecânica dos Fluidos Computacional. 2nd ed. Rio de Janeiro: Livros Técnicos e Científicos.

Mehta RC (1981) Estimation of heat transfer coefficient in a rocket nozzle. AIAA Journal 19(8):1085-1086. https://doi.
org/10.2514/3.7846

Ozisik MN (1993) Heat Conduction. 2nd ed. Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.

Ozisik MN, Orlande RB (2000) Inverse heat transfer: fundamentals and applications. New York: Taylor & Francis.

Patire Jr. H (2010) Determinação da carga térmica na parede da câmara de empuxo de propulsores bipropelente usando método inverso
(PhD Thesis). São José dos Campos: Instituto Tecnológico de Aeronáutica. In Portuguese.

Roache PJ (1998) Verification and validation in computational science and engineering. Albuquerque: Hermosa.

ROCKETWORKBENCH (2016) Cpropep-Web. Rocketworkbench; [accessed 2018 October 30]. http://rocketworkbench.sourceforge.net/

equil.phtml

Stolz G (1960) Numerical solutions to an inverse problem of heat conduction for simple shapes. Journal of Heat Transfer 82(1):20-25.
https://doi.org/10.1115/1.3679871

Sutton GP (1992) Rocket Propulsion Elements. 6th ed. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Tikhonov AN, Arsenin YV (1977) Solutions of ill-posed problems. Washinghton: Winston & Sons.

Versteeg H and Malalasekera W (1995) An introduction to computational fluid dynamics: the finite volume method. London: Prentice Hall.

Williams SD, Curry DM (1977) An Analytical and Experimental Study for Surface Heat Flux Determination. Journal of Spacecraft and
Rockets 14(10):632-637. https://doi.org/10.2514/3.27987

J. Aerosp. Technol. Manag., São José dos Campos, v11, e3819, 2019