Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

Numerical Analysis of the Turbulent Flow and Alumina Particle Trajectories Solid Rocket Motors
Alessandro Ciucci*, Gianluca laccarino CIRA, Italian Aerospace Research Center 81043 Capua (CE), Italy

Abstract numerical analysis two-phase internal flow a solid rocket motor has been carried out employing an Eulerian-Lagrangian approach. The full NavierStokes equations solved numerically phase. The particulate phase is simulated through a Lagrangian deterministic model. Two computational multiblock grids, with different block arrangements in the aft-dome region have been employed. Also, different turbulence models (algebraic, standard Reynolds k-e and modified k-e) have been adopted to investigate their influence flow patterns. Calculations have been performed realistic segmented solid rocket motor. Results show a rather strong effect of the grid on the accuracy of the flow solution. Two-equation turbulence models provide much better results than algebraic models; also, no appreciable difference is observed in the solutions obtained using different low Reynolds formulations adopted to account for wall injection for the motor geometry considered. Alumina droplet trajectories have been computed different diameters; noticeable difference exists only between particle paths calculated from laminar turbulent flow fields. ofthe in are forthegas low onthe ona for a and

in

VT friction velocity y+ " wall coordinate e = turbulence dissipation rate li viscosity p = density Subscripts g - gas inj = injection p particle t turbulent Introduction Slag accumulation molten aluminum oxide inside solid rocket motor combustion chambers has been observed both spin-stabilized space vehicles launcher boosters of large length-to-diameter ratio with segmented grain submerged nozzle. Liquid droplets are produced by the combustion of the aluminized propellant usually employed improve performance and suppress high frequency combustion instabilities. Some these droplets remain motor during its operation and collect in the aft-dome region of the booster. The alumina slag deposition at motor aft-end results in motor performance loss, damage of thermal protection due to overheating, and possible sloshing and ejection of liquid agglomerates through the nozzle, which may cause pressure disturbances thrust imbalance. Accurate prediction of the booster turbulent, two-phase flow field, especially in the motor aftdome, is of great importance to the correct estimation of slag accumulation rate and, ultimately, motor performance. An in-depth analysis of the alumina deposition process is hampered by the complex flow features, involving complex combustion chamber geometry, turbulent flows with mass injection, regions of high recirculation, two-phase flow phenomena; in of and of and inthe to andi

Nomenclature CD = droplet drag coefficient Cf = skin friction coefficient droplet diameter /2,/n damping functions g = acceleration of gravity k = kinetic energy of turbulence Re = Reynolds number / = time T = temperature v = velocity v+ = dimensionless injection velocity
Aerospace Engineer, Propulsion Unit, Head # Aerospace Engineer, Computational Methods Unit Copyright 1997 by CIRA. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. with permission

D=

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

=gas

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

been adopted9. Both k-<10' " and k-e12 turbulence models have been employed; more recently, a modified form of the low Reynolds k-e model has been proposed for injection driven flows13' 14. With regard liquid phase, both Eulerian model8 and, more frequently, Lagrangian approach, either deterministic6' " or stochastic10'13, have been adopted. Some models that incorporate aluminum combustion and particle break-up effects have also been proposed10'15. Most of the simulations have regarded only the motor aft-end region8' 13 in order to save computer time, only computations have solved the full motor domain10' ". Despite these numerous efforts, many uncertainties remain in the flow field computation slag mass prediction because limitations current physical models available droplet data. A numerical analysis booster internal flow has been carried out with the objective to improve the current understanding and modeling capabilities of the complex flow characteristics encountered in many solid motor chambers. particular, simulations have been performed with computational grids different turbulence models. The main focus of the present analysis was not the estimation of the amount of slag deposited, rather investigation effects computational grid turbulence model on the flow patterns. The configuration considered this analysis realistic motor geometry towards combustion time, typical of large segmented solid rocket boosters. The gas phase has been treated with an Eulerian approach solving the full, compressible Navier-Stokes equations with an associated turbulence model. A Lagrangian model has been adopted for the discrete phase simulate internal two-phase flow. Greater details on the numerical model are given in the following.
tohe
a

furthermore, the uncertainties in particle density and particle size distribution represent major problem for a reliable estimation of the deposited slag. Several works concerning the numerical investigation of the internal flow field in a solid rocket motor have been presented in the past years1' 2' 3. More specifically, the problem of alumina slag deposition during motor operation been addressed by many researchers4. many cases flow been assumed as potential5"7 or inviscid rotational8, in other cases compressible viscous flow models have a
In the

approach has been adopted as in Cesco et al. : the continuous phase computations have regarded "equivalent gas", which density includes alumina mass fraction, then particle trajectories determined using flow field derived from computed equivalent field. in the the thegas
Gas flow field The computational tool used (Zonal Euler/Navier-Stokes) Simulation System which four main software packages: a- ZENDoMo (ZEN Domain Modeler): CADlike graphical interface definition computational domain; ! ZENGrid (ZEN Grid generator): a multiblock structured grid generator; ZENFlow (ZEN Row solver): zonal Euler/Navier-Stokes solver with algebraic and two-equation turbulence models; > A set of flow visualization tools including a particle tracer package.

has

has

gas

istheZEN

the

forthe

an

ofthe

The code based multiblock16, structured grid, finite volume approach with Jameson-like adaptive dissipation model using a TVD switch; residual averaging, multigrid, local time stepping and semi-implicit treatment turbulence source terms available features code17' ls. Both vectorized parallel version code is ona
are ofthe

and

afew

ofthe

inthe

andithe

and

ofthe

ofthe

and

ofthe

available. The code has been fully validated and applied in a variety of applications19'20. The present model is based on the Reynolds Averaged Navier-Stokes equations for a non reacting thermodynamic equilibrium. algebraic Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model21 lowReynolds two-equation model Myong Kasagi22 (MK) available code. Furthermore, modified two-equation, k-e, turbulence model has been added to account for the wall turbulent injection; following Sabnis al.23 standard damping functions used model have been suitably modified to account for the mass injection effects at the wall. The turbulence intensity of the incoming flow is accounted for by simply assigning a prescribed value of turbulent kinetic energy porous surface. More details given in the next section.
The

two

In

and

gasin

are

k-e

of

andthe

but

an

ofthe

are

ofthe

andofthe

inthe

et

and

in

thendof

isa

athe

inthek-

to

the

Turbulence modeling injecting walls

turbulent flow over surface subjected mass a

has an

The

for

Numerical Model two-phase flow been simulated with combined Eulerian-Lagrangian approach. The full Navier-Stokes equations have been solved numerically to compute the continuous phase flow field; a discrete particle model based on the calculation alumina droplet trajectories been used discrete phase analysis. quasi-coupled

injection received increasing attention

last years from both experimental numerical scientific community. From a physical point view necessary distinguish between weak strong injection defining nondimensional blowing ratio, v+, as the injection velocity vlnj over the friction velocity VT. When v+ is up to 0(1/10) the two-layer structure of the turbulent the
of its

The

has

and

by

to

of

forthe

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

has

andthe

inthe

to

are

the

has

are

an

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

injection case has been deeply analyzed; Cebeci29 proposed modification Driest viscous damping with accounting reduction of the laminar sublayer. The same modification has been introduced by Sabnis et al.23 into a Low Reynolds k-e model. More recently Piomelli et al.30
a oftheVan theaimof forthe
presented some results that proved existence of the two-layer formulation and the distortion near-wall turbulent structures. The strong injection case need to be more carefully analyzed because, best authors knowledge, theoretical results data available now. viscous damping terms have to be reformulated in order to apply the MK Low Reynolds model simulation flow over an injecting wall. weak injections easy introduce a modification following the work by Cebeci fashion similar Sabnis al.; proposed functions are: DNSandLE the

boundary layer retained existence universal law of the wall (even if modified) has been proved Stevenson28; particular, laminar sublayer thinner than corresponding solid surface. In this case, the turbulence intensity of the incoming flow can be neglected. On the other hand, when v* 0(1) turbulent fluctuations near the injecting wall must taken into account, leading to a different structure of the boundary layer. From modeling point view, weak is andthe by in is theon the toa ofa
is the a be of the

This new function has been reported in Fig. 1 together with the modified /2 function for weak injection and the original MK damping function. Note that the /^ has not been modified because a damping is provided even high v~. /2 function correct behavior wall maximum damping effect is reached region (the viscous sublayer) that displaced from the wall and thinner than the corresponding over a solid wall. It necessary outline that /a function and, eventually the new function /a, must be tuned and correlated experimental data

at

Thenw

athe

ina

andthe

haste

is

to

toDNSr

thenw

available today.
Particle trajectory The booster two-phase flow is simulated by following the motion discrete particles inside combustion chamber. model adopted here, particles assumed have spherical shape, non-rotating and no collisions between particles and breakups occur. Furthermore, distributed combustion considered, alumina droplets assumed injected from propellant surface. Also, mass and heat transfer occurs between the two-phases. For the sake of simplicity, and being the main emphasis of
of Inthe the the to a are are

ofthe

tohe

ofthe

not

no

orDNS

are

and

are

upto

The

the

k-e

tohe

ofthe

this work on the gas flow field characteristics, a deterministic approach has been adopted, that is the turbulent dispersion on particle trajectories is not accounted for. With these assumptions, the particle momentum equation can be integrated to determine the droplet trajectory:

For

its

andi

to

et

the

to

no

tobe

dt
worth noting that turbulent fluctuations zero wall asymptotic behavior turbulent quantities same that obtained solid surfaces32 and, therefore, asfrthe are athe ofthe the areth
for

"

Itis

behavior fa /2 y->0 modified (/u=O(l/y) and f2=O(y)). For strong injections the of and for arenot
/p. function is only slightly affected, its behavior being dominated by the hyperbolic tangent, while the proposed function /2 longer effective returns isno
2

where pg, pp, vg, vp are the gas and particle densities and velocities, respectively, g is acceleration of gravity, droplet diameter CD drag

as

the

Disthe

and

coefficient spherical droplet calculated from following correlation24' 10: fora

24

isthe

Rep<1000

always 1) damping provided. However, low Reynolds effects are not negligible; in fact, in our computations, the turbulent Reynolds number of wall can be estimated as 0(10) and, therefore, the high Reynolds assumption applicable31. Furthermore, the study of the asymptotic behavior of the turbulent quantities shows that/u=0(l) /2=0(1). order Reynolds formulation ando is the isnot
and

(it

Cn =0.438 isthe

Re^MOOO by:

where Rep particle Reynolds number, given

some new damping functions must be designed; in particular, a new /2 function is here proposed as:

Rep =
velocity directly obtained from computed flow field, whereas density derived from computed value after adjustment the alumina mass fraction. droplet bulk density is
thegas

In

touseaLw

k-e

Thegas

the

the

is

The

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

is

for

the

isnot

is

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

assumed to vary with temperature according to the correlation10: pp 5632 -1.127 = T

where pp Kg/m3 isn

Results and Discussion numerical model been applied simulate typical solid rocket motor internal flow, focusing on the influence of the computational grid on the

solution, effects turbulence modeling the ofthe

figure generated ONERA using blocks about 18000 cells; this grid will referred grid because solution adopted mesh generation aft-end region. grid shown the upper part of Fig. 3 was developed by CIRA using the same block decomposition as the ONERA grid except motor aft-dome where C-type decomposition was adopted, yielding a total number of blocks 21000 cells. This grid generated after obtaining first results with grid which showed reattachment point located region of highly skewed cells. Hence, in the attempt to was by ten be and ofthe inthe The forthe forthe 13 and a

The

has

andTiK.

to

the

was

in

theH-

toasH-

on

the flow features and, finally, their impact on the

particle trajectories.
Case description solid rocket motor geometry selected reference configuration in the present investigation is shown in Fig. 2. This is representative of a large segmented solid rocket motor; should noticed that the entire motor domain has been considered. It is assumed that the burn out of the first segment has already occurred and an axisymmetric configuration can be considered, with mass addition only from the second third segments. This motor geometry presents main flow features encountered an actual solid rocket motor, including both entire combustion chamber and the submerged nozzle, and ablated inhibitor rings first second intersegments; particular, static deformation thermal protection (second inhibitor) has been taken into account25, alumina pool motor aft-end has been included10 (as indicated by the vertical straight line closing aft-end cavity Fig.
asthe

improve quality solution, C-type grid was chosen, which indeed led to more regular, bodyconforming cells. Furthermore, a stronger clustering of grid nodes at the walls in the aft-dome and nozzle regions employed satisfy requirements the turbulence models. On the other hand, in order to keep the number of grid cells at an acceptable level, in the other regions of the motor the grid was constructed in a fashion similar to the H-grid, except for increased clustering inhibitor walls. Both laminar turbulent computations were carried out with the two grids. The main results are discussed in the following. the ofthe

The

was

to

the

the

it

be

an

alofthe

and

in

Flow field results main emphasis present investigation

the accurate determination of the gas flow field and an assessment of the effects of such important elements of the numerical simulation as the computational grid and the turbulence model adopted on the solution.
Computational grid effects

CFD activity grid sensitivity very the isa

important issue and must be adequately addressed.

Simulations conducted in the preliminary phase of this study27 has indicated a certain influence of the computational grid solution, especially aft-end region of the motor and within the nozzle where complex flow patterns high gradients flow variables occur. Therefore, decided perform detailed study grid effects flow solution; this end, different multiblock grids were employed, which differed mainly in the topology adopted in the motor aft-dome. The different block decomposition together with some details computational grids shown Fig. grid illustrated lower part this

Laminar flow The convergence history laminar cases are shown in Fig. 4. A one-dimensional isentropic solution adopted initial flow field. quite different convergence is achieved with the two grids; the C-grid yields smooth convergence, where residual oscillations are progressively damped; on the contrary, stable limit cycle appears after about 45000 iterations with H-grid, implying periodic oscillatory behavior flow. attempt reach a steady solution, first the CFL number was decreased, with appreciable beneficial effects, then the artificial dissipation of the numerical scheme was increased, again with no improvements. Thus, a steady state attained flow solution 50000 iterations (just before increasing number) chosen comparison. Mean flow oscillations were observed behind second inhibitor with the H-grid; on the contrary, a steady solution obtained with C-grid. flow structure motor aft-end revealed greater detail by the streamlines depicted in Fig. 5. These streamlines clearly reveal differences between C-grid H-grid solutions; reattachment point is located at the same position along the back face of the nozzle, but the large recirculation has a somewhat different structure, with the core of the vortex having approximately the same axial position smaller radial position (closer the nozzle back face) in the C-grid case. Also, a secondary recirculation lower right corner obtained with the H-grid, but not with the C-grid; this
was forthe forthe
a

the

at

in

the

and

ofthe

the

and

athe

andthe

at

of
a

the

in

2).

ofthe

the

Inthe

The

ofthe

was

wasnot

no

andthe

at

to

was

Inay

for

theCFL

the

inthe

was

the

inthe

is

onthe

inthe

and

ofthe

the

and

itwas

ofthe

to

two

onthe

to

buta

the

the

in

The

athe

ofthe

are

3.The

inthe

of

American Institute Aeronautics Astronautics of and

in

is

to

the

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

is probably different node wall clustering between grids, being stronger C-grid. A comparison between u-velocity profiles obtained with H-grid with C-grid three axial locations in the third segment of the motor is reported Fig. agreement good first cross section behind inhibitor ring, significant discrepancy exists second cross section toward third segment; injecting flow is captured well with both grids but a thewo duetoh inthe

Turbulence model effects In order assess influence turbulence model on the flow solution, the numerical results obtained for laminar computations and turbulent computations using the Baldwin-Lomax turbulence model, the standard low Reynolds k-e model and the

to

the

the

and

the

the

in

6.The

is

athe

at

velocity deficiency at the motor axis is attained with the H-grid, reflecting unsteady, oscillatory behavior which gives rise to the residual history of Fig. Large differences seem exist also within motor aft-dome, being the velocity magnitude higher with H-grid; should noticed, however, that the velocity recirculation region case
the

very low.

Turbulent flow The evaluation of the effects of the computational grid been completed comparing the flow solutions obtained with H-grid with C-grid under assumption turbulent flow, employing two-equation, Reynolds turbulence model standard form. turbulent computations were started from the corresponding converged laminar solutions (solution 50000 iterations for the H-grid) and a full convergence was achieved both cases. Convergence problems with and were initially experienced with H-grid wall of divergent part of the nozzle, probably due to the poor grid resolution this region. order overcome this difficulty, a slip boundary condition was adopted for the nozzle divergent wall only; this does not affect the solution upstream within the motor combustion chamber. Overall, flow fields appear very similar. However, some differences observed aftend region of the motor. The streamlines for the Cgrid and H-grid turbulent solutions are shown in Fig. reattachment point moved closer nozzle nose in the H-grid solution, and the main recirculation different shape with different position center cases; secondary recirculation is observed in either solution. To locate the reattachment point with greater accuracy, the distributions of the skin friction coefficient along the nozzle back face for both the Hgrid and the C-grid are illustrated in Fig. 8; the corresponding C/ laminar distributions are also reported for comparison. The turbulent H-grid and Cgrid distributions very different, with former having much higher C/values latter being very close laminar distributions. This expected, other than different node clustering the wall (higher in the C-grid) no explanation has been found.

modified form model were compared. application of the algebraic turbulence model in this case is questionable due to the large recirculations regions and the complex geometry in the motor aftdome, where length scale cannot uniquely defined; criterion adopted here take distance from nearest wall grid node. All computations were performed using same, C-type grid. This grid is certainly well suited for laminar conditions; at the same time, it is sufficiently clustered normal direction) injection walls, being the first inner node at y+~10, but probably suitable capture turbulent near wall effects slip surfaces. However, these effects were beyond the scope of the present activity. A first comparison made among laminar results, solution obtained with Baldwin-Lomax model and the solution computed using the standard Reynolds model. Successively, flow fields determined with different forms turbulence model (standard low Reynolds, modified Reynolds weak injection, modified Reynolds strong injection) compared discussed. The details of the aft-dome flow field computed under laminar, Baldwin-Lomax hypothesis revealed streamlines shown Figs. large differences flow structure appear quite evident: the laminar and k-e results show a similar shape of the recirculation, but with a different position of the reacttachment point and of the recirculation center. The Baldwin-Lomax solution is significantly different, presenting a fairly complex flow structure with additional, secondary recirculations, most likely due to the inaccuracy of an algebraic turbulence model. u-velocity profiles three axial locations third segment shown Fig. agreement quite satisfactory cross section 1, except for a small discrepancy in the region behind second inhibitor ring. differences more pronounced cross section laminar turbulent k-e profiles agree well in the injection region motor centerline, exhibit different behavior within shear layer; BaldwinLomax profile looks similar fully developed turbulent profile, with clear evidence shear layer, incorrect distribution approaching wall and a lower value axial velocity at motor axis. The velocity profiles in the recirculation region are very similar in shape despite the different flow structures observed in Figs. 5,7 and 9; the velocity magnitude is highest for laminar flow and lowest for the Baldwinoftheka

the

buta

ofthe

thendof

the

athe

the

wasto

the

4.

to

the

atny

the

be

The

the

it

inthe

be

isnay

(inthe

not

to

has

by

atno

is

the

the

and

the

the

the

low

of

k-e

low

k-e

the

ints

The

the

at

low

for

for

are

in

the

athe

the

of

In

to

are

bythe

in

andk-e

and9.The

thewo

are

inthe

inthe

7.The

has

tohe

two

The

5,7

and

low

ofthek-

the

atl

inthe

are

has

10.The

is

ofits

inthewo

no

the

The

at

at

2;the

andthe

but

the

no

toa

are

the

an

ofthe

the

tohe

andthe

and

wasnot

American Institute Aeronautics Astronautics of and

at

the

and

are

in

at

the

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

Lomax solution; case, their absolute values very small. contour turbulent kinetic energy computed using model) reported Fig. 11; highest values attained the wake second inhibitor that impinges aft-end region. visualization entire flow field is provided using a LIC (Line Integral Convolution) technique Fig. 12; details recirculation the aft-dome region clearly evidenced Fig. sensitivity flow solution nearwall modeling turbulence analyzed comparing inay
The mapofthe

the standard MK k-e model with two modified

versions designed for weak and strong injection. In the latter case, the turbulent fluctuations at the injection wall taken into account assigning

value corresponding turbulent intensity (with respect to the injection velocity) of 10%. The result of this investigation shows that no significant differences are obtained among the computations in terms mean flow quantities; this shown and v-velocity profiles third segment reported in Fig. 14. The turbulent kinetic energy profiles at the same location, illustrated in Fig. 15, ofkande toa
of is bytheuathendof
show small alterations due to the different damping functions adopted: highest values close to the

computed by means of the standard MK k-e model are reported; only limited number injection points located towards the end of the grain has been considered. Close to the propellant surface, larger particles less dragged mean flow than lighter particles, but they tend to remain trapped in the aft-dome region; in particular, for a diameter of 20 ujn all the particles exit through the nozzle, while for 140 urn all of them impinge on the nozzle back face, as clearly shown in Fig. 18. The comparison of the particle trajectories different flow fields discussed above is reported in Fig. 19 for a diameter of 20 u,m; the trajectories corresponding to the turbulent flow fields are practically overlapped, while those corresponding laminar solution differ only slightly. These discrepancies are clearly evidenced in Fig. where particle trajectories three diameters considered are computed using the laminar a are 20, tohe
forthe

are

(as

theMKk-

in

the

are

is

ofthe

inthe

in

in

the

ofthe

ofthe

is

in

in

The

ofthe

of

are

is

tohe

by

13.

bythe

turbulent (standard model) flow field. MKk-e

andthe

propellant surface are obtained using the model for strong injection. must pointed that inhibitor wake dominates flow field and, particular, aft-dome region; peak reached within shear layer attains values much higher than level klnj assumed wall. further evidence small sensitivity solution turbulence model, contour lines turbulent kinetic energy reported Fig. 16. conclusion, differences in the mean flow and turbulent quantities induced by the different modeling of the turbulent structures near the wall are not very significant in this case. Further analysis is required using a simpler geometry before any definite conclusion can be drawn on role turbulence modeling injecting walls.
It be out the the in

Conclusions A numerical investigation turbulent flow typical solid rocket motor been carried this work. The continuous gas phase has been simulated solving the full Navier-Stokes equations. The particulate phase is simulated using a Lagrangian deterministic model. First, grid sensitivity analysis been performed using two computational multiblock grids, with different block arrangements in the aft-dome region. Laminar turbulent computations have been carried with both grids. Considerable differences in the flow solutions have been attained. In a second phase, different turbulence models (algebraic and two-equation) have been adopted to investigate their influence flow patterns.

ofthe

forthe

of

has

the

thek

the

the

of

and

athe

Asa

is

ofthe

ofthe

are

in

In

ofthe

tohe

out

and

onthe

has

outin

particular, three Reynolds models have been low

employed: standard Myong-Kasagi, a modified form for weak injection proposed form strong injection. Two-equation turbulence models provide more realistic results than algebraic models.

andew

k-e

the

ofthe

for

The different low Reynolds formulations adopted to

Droplet trajectory results

The lack of accurate particle data represents one of the major limitations for realistic alumina droplet trajectory simulation. As far as the particle size distribution is concerned, the work of Traineau et al.26 has been considered here. According to their results the particles are distributed following a bi-modal law, with a first peak at 1 Jim and a second peak around 70 Urn; therefore, three different particle diameters have been considered: 140 (im. Furthermore, assumed that droplets injected perpendicular propellant surface speed m/sec. alumina particle trajectories predicted using computed flow field employing Lagrangian deterministic approach. Fig. trajectories obtained using the turbulent flow field
20,8and it

account wall injection yield significant changes solution motor geometry considered. This is most likely due to the fact that the for

inthe

flow field dominated near wall effects. These models should applied more simpler isnot be by
configurations and a comparison with DNS or experimental data should be performed before any conclusion on the validity of these formulations may drawn. Finally, alumina droplet trajectories have been

forthe

dont

is

the

are

be

computed to assess the effects of the gas field on the

slag deposition different diameters. certain for

to

tohe

athe

of1

difference in particle paths exists between laminar and

turbulent computations.

The

the

are

In

American Institute Aeronautics Astronautics of and

17,

for

In

ina

Copyright 1997, American Institute Aeronautics Astronautics, Inc. of and

Acknowledgements The authors would like to acknowledge the support of ONERA which provided computational grid Y. Fabignon for his useful input. Many thanks are due to M. Amato for his precious contribution in the development of the computer code, to P. Leoncini for his help with particle tracker and to B. Sikorsky for contribution generation LIC images.

Rocket Motor Internal Flows", Propulsion and Power, Vol. 1989 13.R. Madabhushi, Sabnis, Jong, Gibeling, "Calculation Two-Phase AftDome Flowfield in Solid Rocket Motors", J. of Propulsion Power, Vol. 1991 14.R. H. Whitesides, R. A. Dill, and D. C. Purinton, Sambamurthi, "Design Subscale
K. J.S

andMr.

5,No.6

F.Jde

H.J

and

his

inthe

ofthe

J.K

References
1. Salita, "Vorstrem: Simple Versatile Viscous Solver Chamber Flow Solid Rocket Motor", AIAA Paper AIAA-94-2779, 30th Joint Propulsion Conference, Indianapolis, IN, June 1994 Johnston, Computational Fluid Dynamics Analysis of the Internal Flow in a Titan SRMU", AIAA Paper AIAA-90-2079, 26th Joint Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, July 1990 3. Ciucci, R. M. Jenkins, W. A. Foster Jr., "Analysis a and
for ina

Propellant Slag Evaluation Motor Using TwoPhase Fluid Dynamic Analysis", AIAA Paper 2780, 32nd Joint Propulsion Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, July 1996 15.Liaw, and Chen, "Numerical Investigation of Slag Behaviour with Com/Breakup/VOF models solid Rocket Motors", AIAA Paper 95-2726, 31st Joint Propulsion Conference, San Diego, CA, July 1995
2D

ofa

7,No.2

ofthe

and

J.of

2.

"A

16. Amato, G. laccarino, L. Paparone, "Adaptive

Local Grid Refinement Multiblock Solvers", Proc. 1996ICAS Conference, Sorrento (I), 8-13 Sept. 1996 Amato, laccarino, "Mathematical-Numerical Modeling for a Multiblock RANS Flow Solver", CIRA Internal Report TR-95140, 1995 18. Amato, laccarino, Two-Equation Turbulence Model Multiblock Navier-Stokes Flow Solver", CIRA Internal Report TR-96077, 1996 19. Amato, G. laccarino, M. Marini, "A Contribution to T5-95 ELAC Delta Wing Problem", 1SI USEurope High Speed Flow Field Database Workshop, Houston (USA), Nov. 1995 20.Grasso, laccarino, Influence Crossflow and Turbulence on the Vortex Flow Around a Supersonic Missile", accepted for publication on the J. of Spacecraft and Rockets, April 1997 21. Baldwin B. S., Lomax, H., "Thin-Layer G. G.

of Ignition and Flame Spreading in the Space Shuttle Head-End Star Grain", AIAA Paper 923272, 4. 28th Joint and Propulsion inthe Conference,

Nashville, TN, July 1992

Salita, "Deficiencies Requirements Modeling Slag Generation Solid Rocket of

17.

of

Motors", J. of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 11, No. 1,1995

5. Boraas, "Modeling Slag Deposition in the Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor", Spacecraft Rockets, Vol. 1,1984. 6. V. E. Haloulakos, "Slag Mass Accumulation in Spinning Solid Rocket Motors", Propulsion and Power, Vol. 7, No. 1,1991 Smith-Kent, R., Perkins, Abel, R., Potential Two-Phase Model for Predicting SRM Slag", AIAA Paper 93-2307, June 1993 Johnston, Murdock, Koshigoe, Than, "Slag Accumulation in the Titan Solid Rocket Motor Upgrade", J. of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 11, No. 5,1995 9. Golafshani, M. And Loh, H.-T., "Computation of Two-Phase Viscous Flow Solid Rocket Motors Using a Flux-Split Eulerian-Lagrangian Technique", AIAA Paper 89-2785, July 1989

J.

in

21,No.

and

fora

"A

for

J.of

G.

"Onthe

6-9

7.

F.And

8.

J.W

S.

P.T

"A

Approximation

Algebraic

and

of

Model

Separated Turbulent Flows", AIAA Paper 78-257, 16th Aerospace Science Meeting, Huntsville, AL, January 1978 Myong, H., Kasagi, N., Approach
and "ANew

in

2.

the Improvement of k-e Turbulence Model for

Wall-Bounded Shear Flows", JSME international journal, *er/e2,33(l):63-72,1990

10. Cesco, Lavergne, Estivalezes, N. G. J.L

"Simulation Two-Phase Solid Rocket Motors", AIAA Paper 96-2640, 32nd Joint Propulsion Conference, Lake Buena Vista, FL, ofthe Howin

23. Sabnis, Madabhushi, Gibeling, McDonald, "On the Use of k-e Turbulence Model J. R. H.
for Computation Solid Rocket Internal Hows", AIAA Paper 89-2558, 25th Joint Propulsion

July 1996
11.L. Jacques, T. Pevergne , V. Vatel, "Prevision du

Depot d'Alumine dans les Propulseurs a Propergol

Solide d'Ariane Colloque Ecoulements

Conference, Monterey, CA, July 1989

24. R. Clift, J. R. Grace, and M. E. Weber, Bubbles, drops and particles, Academic Press, NewYork, 1978 25. Brunei, Godfrey, Quidot, "Couplage Huide/Structure au Sein de FEcoulement des Boosters d'Ariane V. Modelisation Numerique Etat Actuel et Perspectives", Colloque
P. F. M.

Propulsifs dans Systemes Transport Spatial, Bordeaux, France, September 1995 les
12.J. Sabnis, Gibeling, McDonald, "Navier-Stokes Analysis Solid Propellant S. H.J andH.

5",

of

de

American Institute Aeronautics Astronautics of and

of

andH.

to

for

for

96-

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

Ecoulements Propulsifs dans les Systemes de Transport Spatial, Bordeaux, France, September
1995

Traineau, Kuentzmann, Prevost, Tarrin, " Particle Size Distribution Measurements in a Subscale Motor for the Ariane 5 Solid Rocket Booster", 28th Joint Propulsion Conference, Nashville, TN July 1992 Ciucci. laccarino, Amato, "Development of Numerical Tool Investigation Turbulent Flow Field Solid Rocket Motor Application to the Ariane5-95 sec Test Case", CIRA Technical Report CIRA-TR-96-149, December 1996 28. T. Stevenson, "A Law of the Wall for Turbulent Boundary Layers with Suction or Injection", The College of Aeronautics, Cranfield, Rept. Aero. No. 166,1963. P. M. andP. G. a M. forthe ina ofthe -

29. Cebeci, "Behavior Turbulent Flow near Porous Wall with Pressure Gradient", AIAA J., Vol.8, 12,1976, 2152-2156. 30. Piomelli, Moin, Ferziger, "Large Eddy Simulation of the Flow in a Transpired Channel", J. Thermophysics, Vol. 5, No. 1, 1991, pp. 124T. of No. U. P.
128.

26.JC

31.F. Nicoud, B. Chaouat, "Turbulence au Voisinage d'une Paroi Debitante", Journee R&T CNES, 2628 June 1995. 32. B. Chaouat, "Modelisation et Simulation des Ecoulements Turbulents dans les Propulseurs a Propergol Solide", PhD Thesis, 1994, Onera Tech. Note 1995-2.

27.A

American Institute Aeronautics Astronautics of and

J.

p.

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

1.4

Solid Wall Weak Injection (V+-0.05) Strong Injection (v+-l)

1.2

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

10

05

152034

Wall Units

Fig. 1 - Damping functions for the k-e models

First Segment

Second Segment

Third Segment

Fig. Geometry solid rocket motor 2ofthe

C-grid H-grid
Fig. Computational grids 3-

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

10000

20000

30000

40000 50000 Iteration*

60000

70000

80000

90000

Fig. 4 - Convergence history (laminar calculations)

C-Grid

H-Grid

r/R
0.75

0.86

0.87

0 . 8 8

0.89

0 . 9 0

0.91

0 . 8 6

0 . 8 7

0.88

0.90

0.91

x/L

x/L

Fig. 5 - Streamlines (laminar calculations)

(j)

06

Fig. 6 - U-velocity profiles (laminar calculations)

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

C-Grid

H-Grid

r/R
0.75

0.86

0.87

0.88
Tt/L

0.90

0.91

0.86

0.87

0.88

0.90

0.91

x/L

Fig. Streamlines (turbulent calculations MK k-e model) 7-

o H

0.877

0.865

0.86

O.B7

0.88

jj/L

0.89

0 . 9 0

0 . 9 1

Fig. 8 - Skin friction on the nozzle back face

Fig. 9 - Streamlines (turbulent calculations - BL model)

(2)

0.04

0.05 <X<*

0. 10

Fig. 10 - U-velocity profiles (turbulent and laminar calculations)

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

_ _j

.J

Fig. 11 Turbulent kinetic energy distribution -

12
American Institute Aeronautics Astronautics of and

Copyright 1997, American Institute Aeronautics Astronautics, Inc. of and

Fig. 12 LIC flow visualization solid rocket motor ofthe

Fig. 13 - LIC flow visualization of the solid rocket motor - Close up view of aft-dome region

Standard k-spsk-eps lor weak injectionsMps for strong injections-

k-eps lor weak injections k-eps lor stag fojections-

Standardtops -

0.02

0 . 0 4

x-voJotily component

0 . 0 6

0.1 O.OS 0 . 1 2 0.14

-0.006

-0.005

0.004

l^vekicity component

4.003

-0.002

Fig. 14 - U- and V-velocity profiles at x/L=0.83 (turbulent calculations)

13
American Institute Aeronautics Astronautics of and

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

Standard k-eps k-eps for weak injections k-eps strong injections -

for

k-ot>ndiKl - k- modltod tor weak Injection

- k-*modlla1oritrongln)ctlon

O.SH

tia o.eso

0.397
0.02

o.se

o*n
UL

Turbufcnt KkieBc ElMrjy 1000

0 . 0 3

0 0.05 . 0 4

0 . 0 6

Fig. 15 - Turbulent kinetic energy profile at x/L-0.83

Fig. 16 - Turbulent kinetic energy isolines

D-20 D-80 D- 140

0.84 x/L

0 . 8 6

Fig. 17 - Alumina particle trajectories (turbulent flow field)

0.875 x/L

Fig. 18 - Alumina particle trajectories - Close up (turbulent flow field) 14

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright 1997, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.

k-c for weak injection K-efot strung injection ' Laminar -

..

Fig. Alumina particle trajectories 20nm (laminar/turbulent flow field) 19-

0.876

0.878 X/L

Fig. 20 - Alumina particle trajectories (laminar/turbulent flow field)

15
American Institute Aeronautics Astronautics of and