A Dissertation
Presented to
In Partial Fulfillment
Doctor of Philosophy
Nathan Mullenix
May, 2010
FULLY COUPLED MODEL FOR HIGHTEMPERATURE ABLATION AND
Nathan Mullenix
Dissertation
Approved: Accepted:
____________________________ ______________________________
Advisor Department Chair
Dr. Alex Povitsky Dr. Celal Batur
____________________________ ______________________________
Committee Member Dean of the College
Dr. Minel Braun Dr. George Haritos
____________________________ ______________________________
Committee Member Dean of the Graduate School
Dr. Scott Sawyer Dr. George R. Newkome
____________________________ ______________________________
Committee Member Date
Dr. S. I. Hariharan
______________________________
Committee Member
Dr. Gerald W. Young
ii
ABSTRACT
chemical reactions, sublimation and other erosive processes. Ablation absorbs large
quantities of heat, which makes it a desirable process for Thermal Protection Systems
(TPS) used on aerospace vehicles that encounter severe thermal environments, and has
been in use since the beginning of the Space Age. The ablation process consists of
several coupled subprocesses including gas dynamics, heat, and ablative mechanisms at
the surface.
Experimental techniques can reproduce some but not all of the parameters of the
flight environment, and for this reason numerical modeling has been undertaken to
provide greater understanding. The past state of the art has involved modeling only some
predict the thickness of TPS. The computational resources necessary to model all of the
developed within this dissertation. The Reynolds Transport Theorem (RTT) is used to
derive a set of governing equations that takes into account the movement of the ablating
A set of numerical methods has been developed and/or modified from existing
forms. For example, finite volume discretization schemes are modified to allow for
iii
arbitrary composition (solid or gas) within a fixed bodyfitted computational grid, and a
new method called a reactiveRiemann solver is derived to solve the mass transfer across
the ablating surface and its movement. Finally, serial and parallel algorithms are
Individual components of the model and numerical methods are validated against
standard test cases. The full solver is used for ablation problems across a range of free
stream and surface conditions, and these results are shown to agree with experimental
data. The effect of surface defects on the local ablation rate and process are shown for
the first time: a localized defect can greatly enhance the local ablation rate and create a
region of sublimation dominated ablation even if the rest of the surface is ablating
iv
DEDICATION
The author dedicates this dissertation to the three important women in his life:
To his wife Irene who has stood by his side throughout the ups and downs of this
research program;
To his mother Rebecca who raised him through life’s triumphs and tribulations;
To his grandmother Jacqueline who taught him everything he knew until he reached
kindergarten.
v
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The author would like to acknowledge the fellowship provided by the Dayton
Area Graduate Studies Institute (DAGSI) and the Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL)
via their joint AFRL/DAGSI Ohio StudentFaculty Research Fellowship program without
which this dissertation may not have come about, and the sponsors of the research topic
Dr. Datta Gaitonde and Dr. JeanLuc Cambier. The author would also like to
acknowledge the computational time provided by the Ohio Supercomputer Center (OSC).
vi
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................... 1
vii
2.1.5 Transformation of Surface Integrals ............................................................... 38
viii
3.1.5 Scalar Derivative Discretizations.................................................................... 88
ix
4.1.2 Supersonic Flow over a Wedge .................................................................... 134
4.3.1 Test Case 1: Sea level flight with defectfree surface .................................. 145
4.3.2 Test Case 2: Sea level flight with defect at TPS surface .............................. 161
4.3.4 Test case 4: arcjet conditions in sublimation dominant regime .................. 177
x
LIST OF TABLES
Table Page
1.1: Constants for Maahs’ mass flux curve fits for various graphites. ............................. 16
4.2: Freestream conditions for the varying test cases. .................................................... 145
4.4: Data for peak mass fluxes within the defect. ........................................................... 171
C.2: Coefficients for Specific Heat Polynomial Curve Fits ............................................ 218
xi
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure Page
1.3: Scala and Gilbert’s temperature ranges for graphite ablation processes. ................. 10
1.4: Mass flux vs. stagnation point temperature for different types of graphite. ............. 11
3.1: Schematics of a typical TPS ablation problem. (a) Arbitrary ablation problem
(b) Arbitrary grid and associated control volume .......................................................... 76
3.2: Schematic of control volumes associated with point (i, j). ........................................ 78
3.6: Comparison of nearsurface temperature for 1st and 2nd Order Riemann solvers. .. 105
3.7 Boundary conditions and mesh for a typical problem. ............................................. 119
xii
3.8: Domain decomposition for 8 processors. ................................................................ 123
4.1: Results of Grid Refinement for Exact Riemann Solver. .......................................... 130
4.2: Results of Grid Refinement for the StegerWarming Riemann Solver. .................. 131
4.4: Comparison between 1st and 2nd order Riemann solvers. ........................................ 133
4.5: Pressure contours for Mach 3 flow over a 30° wedge. ............................................ 135
4.6: Comparison of Riemann solvers for Mach 3 flow over a 30° wedge. ..................... 135
4.7: Velocity Profiles for Flat Plate Boundary Layer. (a) 0.25 m (b) 0.5 m
(c) 0.75 m. .................................................................................................................... 137
4.8: Driven cavity results for Re=5000. (a) Horizontal velocity profiles along
vertical line through geometrical center (b) Velocity vectors. .................................... 139
4.9: Numerical vs. analytical solution for conduction with a constant heat flux in
a semiinfinite solid. .................................................................................................... 141
4.10: Temperature contours of the converged flowfield in the simplified model. ......... 142
4.13: Predicted vs. actual shock shape for M∞ = 9.5. ..................................................... 148
xiii
4.17: Stagnation line profiles for test case 1 with chemically reacting flow without
ablation......................................................................................................................... 151
4.18: Profiles of mass concentration for test case 1 along the stagnation line with
chemically reacting flow and without ablation. ........................................................... 152
4.19: Contours of temperature and O2 concentration for test case 1 with chemically
reacting flow without ablation. .................................................................................... 153
4.20: Contours of temperature and O concentration for test case 1 with chemically
reacting flow without ablation. .................................................................................... 154
4.21: Tangential velocity profiles along lines normal to the surface for test case 1
with chemically reacting flow without ablation. ......................................................... 154
4.22: Temperature profiles along lines normal to the surface for test case 1
with chemically reacting flow without ablation. ......................................................... 155
4.23: O concentration profiles along lines normal to the surface for test case 1
with chemically reacting flow without ablation. ......................................................... 155
4.24: Solid Temperature. (a) Contours. (b) Surface Profile. ........................................... 157
4.25: Ablative mass fluxes for test case 1. (a) Sublimation (b) Oxidation
(c) Nitridation (d) Comparison to overall. ................................................................... 158
4.26: Surface position in local nondimensional coordinates for test case 1. ................. 160
4.27: Contours of ablation products for test case 1. (a) CO (b) CN (c) C3. .................... 160
4.28: Mass concentration profiles along the stagnation line for test case 1
with ablation. ............................................................................................................... 161
4.31: Velocity vectors in defect region. (a) Overall (b) Upstream top corner
(c) Center region near original surface. ....................................................................... 165
xiv
4.33: Comparison between surface temperatures for test case 1 and 2
prior to ablation. ........................................................................................................... 167
4.34: Comparison between ablative mass fluxes for original and defect surfaces.
(a) Overall (b) Defect region ....................................................................................... 168
4.35: Peak mass fluxes within the defect. (a) Top upstream corner
(b) Downstream side (c) Bottom. ................................................................................ 172
4.37: Temperature contour comparison between test case 1 and 3................................. 174
4.39: Convergence of ablative mass flux for test case 3. ............................................... 176
4.42: Ablative mass fluxes for test case 4 with HertzKnudsen sublimation. ................ 180
4.43: Ablative mass fluxes for test case 4 with Ytrheus sublimation. ............................ 181
4.44: Comparison between HertzKnudsen and Ytrehus models (a) mass fluxes
(b) injection velocities. ................................................................................................ 181
4.45: Comparison of wall conditions for ablative and nonablative test case 4.
(a) Shear stress (b) Velocity profiles (c) Heat flux (d) Temperature Profiles. ............ 183
xv
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
Space vehicles and high speed aircraft are exposed to a severe heating
system (TPS), which serves to keep the underlying structure and payload at an acceptably
low temperature. Several distinct types of TPS have been considered and/or
implemented, which either store this thermal energy, removal of it through some process,
or some combination of the too. One of the earliest and most common forms of TPS is
chemical reaction or other erosive process. In the context of hypersonic and/or high
temperature gas dynamics, this removal of material from the surface also absorbs heat
which otherwise would increase the temperature of the underlying structure of the
aerospace vehicle. Ablators generally fall into two categories: charring and non
charring.
which transforms the solid into a char, and releases a gas, which flows through pores
within the char and interacts with the boundary layer, cooling it; this process is know as
pyrolysis. The char, which serves as an insulator, undergoes chemical reactions and/or
1
sublimation at its surface. Figure 1.1.a shows a schematic of the ablation process for a
charring ablator.
In a noncharring ablator, the TPS material does not undergo pyrolysis. Instead
the only reactions that occur are on the surface of the material. Again material can be lost
due to chemical reactions with the surrounding gas, or sublimation of the solid into gas.
Figure 1.1.b shows a schematic of the ablation process for a noncharring ablator.
Heat Absorbed/Released by Chemical Reactions /Sublimation Heat Absorbed/Released by Chemical Reactions /Sublimation
(a) (b)
Figure 1.1: Schematics of charring and noncharring ablators: (a) charring ablator
(b) noncharring ablator.
Although each type of ablator has its own specific phenomena that must be
considered, there are general phenomena that must be considered regardless of the type of
The combination of convective and radiative heating states are often sufficient to
cause the vehicle’s TPS to degrade through pyrolysis or ablation. The ablation tracks
a heating pulse that generally peaks some time prior to peak dynamic pressure.
Ablation gases react with the atmospheric gases processed by the bow shock. They
may also serve to partially absorb radiation directed toward the vehicle surface.
Furthermore, in the case of massive ablation the vehicle has aerodynamics that are
controlled by a preablative shape early in the trajectory, active shape change during
the heating pulse, and a post ablative shape later in the trajectory. Atmospheric
reconstruction (simulating the flowfield surrounding the vehicle) in these
2
circumstances requires the temporal evolution of the shape change and associated
aerodynamics to be well understood.
This introductory chapter will be divided into several sections and subsections.
Section 1.1 provides a review of the available literature on ablation. Section 1.2
identifies the problem that will be explored by this dissertation and outlines the approach
to its solution.
A review of the available literature on the topic of ablation has been undertaken.
The literature can be organized into several loose groupings: a historical overview of the
Aerospace
In this subsection, several of the programs that have relied on ablation for TPS
context for ablation research as it relates to the development of high speed aircraft and
space craft.
In the 1950’s, research was being conducted into the best way to protect weapons
protection were considered, including a heat sink where a thick metal covering absorbed
the heat flux, a hot structure method which used shingles of insulating material that
radiated away heat, and transpiration cooling technique in which an onboard supply of
3
water would boil from the heat transfer, and be forced through the porous surface by the
resulting pressure, thickening and cooling the boundary layer. All three of these
techniques had difficulties ranging from weight (heat sink), to hotspots (transpiration).
An alternative method was suggested where fiberreinforced plastics would char, and
eventually vaporize. This technique, deemed ablation, would capture heat in the increase
of the temperature of the virgin and charred material, and also in the vaporization of the
material from the surface, with the vaporized material serving to reduce the heat flux
pyrolitic graphite (formed from chemical vapor disposition and having a low thermal
conductivity) was also being investigated. The original test methods involved placing
subscale models in the exhaust of specially designed rocket motors, but methods
requirement that the TPS should be able to withstand a wrench being dropped on it.
Given the demise of the Columbia orbiter, this statement proved to be very prophetic
In the late 1950’s and early 1960’s NASA’s research focused on the development
of TPS for Mercury, Gemini, and Apollo (see for example 4, 5, 6 respectively) . The first
two Mercury flights used a beryllium heat sink for TPS, but the switch was made to
fiberglass reinforced resins. The increasing size and the higher speed reentry for the
Apollo capsule led to different ablative materials being used for the TPS. 3
Also in the late 1950’s and early 1960’s, the Air Force was designing and flight
testing the X15 rocket plane. The X15 was designed for suborbital flight at a maximum
4
speed of Mach 7, and used a nickel alloy as its skin which provided a heatsink TPS 2, 7. A
follow on project, dubbed X152, was to fly faster and required the use of an ablative
TPS 8.
At the same time that NASA was developing the Gemini spacecraft, the Air Force
was designing the DynaSoar, also known as the X20. This program consisted of a
small winged vehicle similar to the space shuttle that was to be launched on a Titan III
booster rocket. The TPS consisted of a reusable system very similar in concept to that
which would be used on the later space shuttle. This program was canceled in 1963 due
Even with no actual spaceflight program of its own, the Air Force continued to
conduct tests of lifting body reentry vehicles. In the early 1960’s a program known as
ASSET was conducted to test the material behavior of advanced TPS materials, but still
used a small amount of ablative Teflon on its leading edges to provide thermal protection
during the boost phase 10. In 1967 and 1968 a follow on program called PRIME was
conducted, which used a simple ablative TPS, because it was more concerned with
aerodynamic behavior of the lifting body design; one of its conclusions was that it was
Although an ablative TPS was originally considered for the space shuttle (see for
example 12, 13) its inability to be reused was one of the factors that led to the nonablative
tiles that reradiated heat and insulated the structure being chosen. Even with this
discontinuation of use for manned vehicles, ablative TPS were still being considered for
unmanned missions14.
5
In the time frame of the 1980’s many aerospace vehicles were being designed or
put into service15. Most of the focus was on the beginnings of flight operations for the
Space Shuttle. One of the interesting programs was the development of socalled
aeroassisted orbital transfer vehicle, which was proposed to interface with other vehicles,
and help them change orbits by dipping into the upper reaches of the atmosphere. One of
the problems involved was that the TPS would be exposed to vacuum for long periods of
time, and have to survive numerous thermal cycles without begin serviced. Also under
development was the proposed National Aerospace Plane16, which had several possible
missions, such as being a follow on vehicle for the space shuttle, and providing high
because the TPS would be exposed to long duration flight at high speed through thicker
portions of the lower atmosphere, which made for a much more severe heating
environment. Ablative TPS materials were considered for these vehicles, but at the time
vehicles that required TPS for reentry and/or high speed flight.15 There were several
proposed space shuttle replacement/follow on programs, such as the X33 17, X34
(which had an ablatively cooled rocket nozzle18), DCX 19, and OSP (orbital spaceplane).
Also under development was an emergency crew return vehicle for the space station.
While none of these manned vehicles ever flew, and only summarily considered ablative
TPS in the design process, several unmanned probes were being developed with ablative
TPS such as the Mars Exploration Rovers20, and the Stardust Probe 21, 22.
6
In recent time, interest has grown within the Air Force and NASA in hypersonic
combustion, there are thermal protection issues within the motor (i.e. flameholders), and
for the airframe (especially the inlet region). Some test programs that have been
conducted include the X43A program, Hyshot, and the HyperX program, which have
all been aimed at gaining flight data on scramjets. Future vehicles that use scramjet
propulsion will fly in denser areas of the atmosphere where TPS conditions will be more
extreme. 2
Finally, the current decade has seen a reemergence of ablative TPS technology for
manned flight with the development of the Constellation Program23. The reentry
trajectories from destinations beyond lowearth orbit require more thermal protection
than the current state ofthe art nonablative heatshields can handle.
Throughout the fiftyplus year history of using ablative TPS, experimental studies
have been conducted to gain understanding of the ablation phenomena, and to verify the
predictions of models. Other studies have been conducted to explore the effects of
As noted by Sutton 3, the original method for investigating ablation was to place a
sample of material within a rocket exhaust plume. This provided a high temperature, but
7
did not provide the velocity or chemical composition that would be encountered in the
In 1959, two test flights were conducted using a system called RVX1 3, which
tested silica and glass reinforced resin ablators. The entry vehicle was launched on a
ballistic trajectory.
Rashis and O’Hare 24 presented the results of flight study of a Teflon heat shield
Scout launch vehicle which fired after the vehicle had begun its descent to increase the
reentry speed. This test attempted to get real time ablation rate data, but the ionized air
According to Walberg and Sullivan14, during the late 1950’s many other
heated wind tunnels, plasma torches, and the archeated wind tunnel, which by 1962 was
established as the most capable experimental facility. These arcjets are still only able to
replicate some aspects of the reentry flight conditions, namely enthalpy and chemistry.
Wick25 provides a detailed explanation of the test procedure for using arc jets to
determine ablation characteristics. Figure 1.2 contains a schematic of the arc jet facility.
nozzle, providing a hot supersonic jet. The test model is placed in this jet, as well as
various other instruments, including calorimeters to determine the heat transfer rate.
8
Figure 1.2: Schematic of a Typical Arcjet Test Facility. 25
For the particular aims of this study, it will be useful to narrow the scope of a
charring ablator. Graphite ablates in air by oxidation (chemically reacting with either
molecular or atomic oxygen), nitridation (chemically reacting with atomic nitrogen), and
sublimation (phase change to gaseous carbon of varying species). Scala and Gilbert 26
present a model of graphite ablation and define several temperature ranges across which
different ablation processes dominate, which are pictured in Figure 1.3. They propose
that at low temperatures, the oxidation rate is controlled by a reaction rate equation which
amount of oxygen that diffuses to the surface. At higher temperatures (depending on the
pressure), the sublimation becomes more important until eventually the mass flux is too
large to allow oxygen or nitrogen to diffuse to the surface. Although not pictured
Metzger, Engel, and Diaconis27 provide details of graphite ablation tests done in
arcjet facilities. Several difficulties were noted, namely adequately reaching flight
conditions (high enough total enthalpy, but subsonic flow), measurement methods to get
rates, and noncontinuum flow. The temperatures fall within a range of ~1500 to 2500 K,
different types of graphite, and compared there response to temperatures between 1600
and 3450K (the latter of which is in the range where sublimation begins to be important).
Mach numbers of the freestream flow ranged from 2 to 9. An important result from this
study is that oxidation of carbon is not diffusion limited within the range of considered
commercially available graphites were used. Figure 1.4 shows that when exposed to the
same test conditions (M∞ = 2.0, h0 = 2.17 MJ/kg, p0 = 5.6 atm), identically sized and
10
shaped models reach different temperatures and ablate at varying rates. The study
of pores, particle size, purity, and thermal conductivity) with ablation performance in an
attempt to determine which graphite was suitable for a given application. One major
observation of the study was that graphites with grain sizes above 0.22mm ablated with
very rough surfaces. Once every graphite with grains larger than this were eliminated,
the ablation performance was correlated to density, purity (ash content), and pore size,
0.05
0.045
time averaged mass flux (g/(cm s))
2
0.04
0.035
0.03
0.025
0.02
0.015
0.01
0.005
0
2000 2050 2100 2150 2200 2250 2300 2350
Temperature (K)
Figure 1.4: Mass flux vs. stagnation point temperature for different types of graphite.
Data from 29
graphite (ATJ), in a temperature range of 2570 to 4030K. These data cover oxidation,
nitridation and sublimation temperature ranges. Figure 1.5 shows the time averaged mass
11
flux rate as a function of surface temperature, for specimens of varying size and shape
and test conditions. They attempted to correlate surface temperature, effective nose
radius and pressure with ablation rates, and then to compare the results with several
available thermochemical ablation theories. They found that the available theories either
over or under predicted the mass flux at a given temperature, especially in the
0.25
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
2500 3000 3500 4000
Temperature (K)
In the early 1970’s an intensive research program called the Passive Nosetip
Technology Program (PANT) was being conducted by the Acurex Corporation on behalf
of the Air Force. This was an attempt to explore shape change, transition to turbulence,
and the effects of surface roughness on ablation characteristics. Figure 1.6 shows the
shape change of a sample with the associated change in the bow shock from a typical test.
12
The final goal of the program was to develop computational tools for reentry vehicle
nosetip design. 31
attempt to verify the predictions of a computational solver. They provide data for a Poco
graphite model that is a 10° half angle sphericallytipped cone with a nose radius of 1.905
cm. Two test series were conducted, with one being in the sublimation temperature
range, and the other in a temperature range where only oxidation would occur.
differing atmospheres on Teflon ablation was conducted by Marvin and Pope 33. They
13
used air, carbon dioxide, molecular hydrogen, molecular nitrogen, and argon in varying
combinations for arcjet testing. The experiments showed that the presence of argon in
either a pure carbon dioxide, or mixed carbon dioxide and molecular nitrogen atmosphere
increased the heat transfer to the surface, resulting in a higher ablation rate.
properties of specific materials, studies have been conducted in order to determine the
to turbulence. They used small scale models launched on a ballistics range. It should be
noted that these were plastic models, and that they were sharp tipped as opposed to most
reentry vehicles which are blunt tipped. They show that the transition Reynolds number
decreases with ablation as the cone angle increases; ablation effects the transition more
on larger coneangle bodies, which could be associated with lower Mach number at the
fired at hypersonic speed at a ballistics range. He found that ablation greatly increased
the dynamic instability, reduced drag by reducing skin friction (interrupting boundary
axisymmetric body entering an atmosphere at an angle of attack. In some cases, this will
lead to one region of the otherwise symmetric vehicle being exposed to higher
temperatures and thus higher ablation rates. The experiment consisted of an originally
14
axisymmetric model being machined to simulate an asymmetric ablated surface, which
was then fired on a ballistics range. The experiment concluded that the model would
have a deviation from its original flight attitude, but that this deviation tended to be stable
phenomena. The most common experimental test method is to place a subscale model in
a heated gas jet (arcjet), which can only reproduce some aspects of the actual flight
loss rate at the stagnation point only (Chen et al.32 provide data at 45° from the original
stagnation point), as well as an averaged heat transfer rate from a similar nonablating
model, with pressures and temperatures at various points occasionally being provided. It
should also be noted that these data are usually a time average over an extended run at a
Throughout the course of ablation research, there have been three main types of
models that have been used to predict ablation rates, including the Q* model, empirical
models based on curve fits for particular materials, and a thermochemical ablation model.
The Q* model was first proposed by Sutton 3. In this model, a heat of ablation
(Q*) is determined for a material through some experimental correlation, and usually
the surface once it has reached the necessary temperature, and the necessary energy has
15
been added. This model is still in use, and was one of the methods considered in the
author’s master’s thesis 37. This model can be used to give a quick estimate of the
amount of ablated material, but does not lend itself to a detailed analysis. Laub 38, states
that this idea came out of Teflon ablation, and the fact that it occurs only over a narrow
temperature range. He also states that it is important to realize that the Q* is a correlation
from a steady state ablation experiment, and should not be used for transient ablation
analysis.
Another technique that has been employed is to take arcjet experimental data, and
find a correlating function for it. For example, Maahs 28 provides a function for graphite:
B
Ae
m T C
pstag ,
where A, B, C are constants listed in Table 1.1, T is the surface temperature, and pstag is
the stagnation point pressure. The coefficients vary with the specific graphite selected,
and have an average residual percentage in the range of 1240%. It should be noted that
these curve fits are only correlated to the mass loss at the stagnation point of a
Table 1.1: Constants for Maahs’ mass flux curve fits for various graphites. 28
Material A B C
LMSC glass like Carbon 0.227 7045 0.458
Vitreous Carbon 0.176 6360 0.453
Pyrolitic Graphite 0.292 8505 0.231
ATJ slow 0.059 3050 0.411
ATJ fast 0.217 6745 0.761
The third choice of ablation model is thermochemical ablation. In this model, the
actual chemical reactions that occur in ablation and their associated chemical reaction
rate are considered. The specific chemical reactions that needed to be considered differ
16
by the ablator material, and also by the amount of accuracy desired. One of the first
models published for graphite was by Scala and Gilbert 26, which included equilibrium
reactions for rate controlled oxidation, diffusion controlled oxidation, nitridation, and
sublimation of C3. Park39, and Park, Jaffe and Patridge40 present parameters necessary
for the solution of nonequilibrium chemical reactionrates, and transport properties, and
include the species that need to be considered in calculating ablation of a charring ablator
of the carbonphenolic type. Zhluktov and Abe41 present a chemical kinetic model for
carbon ablation that involves the intermediate reactions of absorption of gas phase
particles to the solid, and then desorption of the resulting molecule. Havstad and
Ferencz42 provide a review of some of the available surface ablation models of graphite,
and compare the results. Milos and Rasky43 reviewed the models available for predicting
the surface thermochemistry involved with TPS modeling, and noted that the models
were in advance state of development, but they were not being implemented by the
rate that is a function of a difference between the equilibrium and actual pressure or
thermodynamic speed, and a constant rate coefficient. A different type of rate equation
exists that is based on modeling the behavior of the subliming material over the Knudsen
layer, which has the advantage of incorporating a limit on the injection velocity of
subliming material intrinsically. Ytrehus 44, 45 provided the original development of this
model, and recently Pekker, Keidar and Cambier46 have attempted to improve the model
17
to include thermal conductivity across the layer. A comparison between the different
equilibrium. In recent years, it has become apparent … that the flow over an entry vehicle
environment are not available from ground based experimental facilities. Thus, the high
coupled processes, but until recently, the numerical modeling of ablation phenomena
could be generally be divided into two independent camps 43, namely (1) computational
heat transfer in the TPS and (2) computational fluid dynamics (CFD). An overview of
studies within these categories is presented below, as well as studies that contain attempts
at coupling them.
provided to show the current state of the art. A heat flux from the gas is assumed,
18
provided by a rudimentary calculation, or from an existing CFD simulation. Either a Q*
or thermochemical model is used to calculate the ablation rate. Several methods are used
Hogan, Blackwell and Cochran 47 studied the surface recession of a solid during
ablation. They strongly couple the ablation and heat transfer portions of the problem, but
do not account for change in gas dynamics, and use a steadystate boundary layer
prediction for the heat transfer to the surface provided by the gas. They move the mesh
by assuming the ablating material acts like a fictitious elastic material. Two different
models are used for simulating ablation namely a thermochemical model and the
Q* model. The Q* ablation model is used to compare the developed code to the Stefan
problem, which is a moving boundary heat transfer problem. The thermochemical model
is applied to a sphericaltipped cone. They note a 15% change in the overall length of
there model and a blunting of the nose, which would change the surface boundary
conditions.
boundary, and treating ablation as Q*. The ablated material is treated as a fictitious 2nd
phase. This had a very simple boundary condition of a steady heat flux.
The extension of the Heat Balance Integral (HBI) method to problems involving
more realistic ablation was described by Potts49. It requires the assumption of chemical
Chen and Milos50 developed a new material solver for charring ablators to
incorporate with their loosely coupled ablation solution framework called FIAT. This
19
was an attempt to use an implicit time scheme for ablation, whereas the industry standard
CMA uses explicit time steps. There was a tendency for the overall solution to be very
requires the heat fluxes from the surrounding gases and radiation as inputs.
Shih et al. 51 studied charring ablators that form a melt layer, using a deformable
control volume. They use a Q* model for ablation. This study accounts for the pyrolysis
Dec and Braun52 provide another numerical ablation simulation that uses a
stagnation point. The material considered in the study was a corksilicon TPS that was
Amar, Blackwell, and Edwards 53 use a deforming control volume to track surface
recession in a finiteelement scheme. They use both the Q* and thermochemical ablation
Mitchell and Myers54 present a simple onedimensional ablation solver that tracks
the surface of a material using Q* ablation and a constant surface heat flux.
A review of recent CFD studies with applications to ablation shows varying levels
of complexity being employed including boundary layer solutions, viscous shock layer
(VSL) equations, and the full NavierStokes equations. In general, most codes use over
simplified boundary conditions that do not take into account spatial variations in surface
20
Gnoffo 1 presents a review of the gas dynamic issues involved with planetary
entries, and the use of CFD as a design tool. An overview of the use of CFD and other
predictive methods for several recent missions, including Mars Global Surveyor, Mars
Pathfinder, Galileo, and Stardust is presented. In the case of the Galileo probe, the state
of the art computations overestimated surface recession by between 31% and 96% at the
Zhluktov and Abe, use VSL calculations to find the ablation performance around
the MUSESC capsule. The boundary condition for the solid surface uses a simplifying
assumption that the heat flux is quasistationary; it is approximately equal to the mass
flux times the specific heat and wall temperature. This tends to overpredict the wall
temperature.
Engel, Farmer and Pike 55 considered equilibrium flow with a Q* ablation model,
and no conduction into the solid. The study was mainly concerned with radiation effects.
The solver was onedimensional, and a solution was only found along the stagnation line.
Komurasaki and Candler56 determined that strong ablation can cause a transition
to turbulence much earlier than expected using a twoequation (k) model and the
RANS. They neglect chemical reactions because their influence on transition is still not
completely modeled, which significantly overestimate the peak temperature. They have
Zhong et al. 57 used DSMC to study the gas surrounding the ablating TPS of the
Stardust mission. They assumed a constant ablation rate of 0.016 kg/m2s, and obtain a
21
Barbante, Degrez and Sarma58, developed a simulation code for the boundary
layer near a nonablating TPS. They included chemical reactions in the gas, and at the
catalytic surface. The wall temperature and the conditions at the edge of the boundary
Ivankov 59 studied radiative heating of the gas near the stagnation region of a
blunt body, and its effect on a Q* model of ablation, without taking into account surface
flux to the surface, and material properties; no limit is place on this velocity.
Candler and MacCormack 60, present a mathematical model and numerical solver
for chemically reacting flow that could be used in conjunction with an ablation solver if
given the proper boundary conditions. They present only nonablating wall boundary
conditions, but they provide comparisons for the chemical flow field around a spherical
tipped cone.
Several codes that are in use for hypersonic flow simulations are described in 15.
LAURA is a solver that incorporates the Roe scheme for inviscid flux calculations at 2nd
models, and has an adaptive grid tool that is used near shocks and surfaces. GASP is a
program that contains more aerothermodynamic data, and uses either Roe or Van Leer
schemes to calculate the inviscid fluxes. GIANTS is a laminar code that allow for
The codes listed above can be used in an ablation simulation by being provided
22
condition into LAURA is provided by Thompson and Gnoffo61, where the boundary
p gas gasvgas
2
pinj injvinj
2
m~ v , (1.1.1)
abl inj inj
which is solved for the unknown values of pinj, inj and vinj when a mass flux and wall
between the conditions at the wall, and the known conditions at some point near the wall,
the second equation is from the definition of mass flux, and the third equation provides
the pressure in terms of the known injection pressure and the unknown injection density
In addition to studies that only concentrate on one portion of the problem, such as
gas dynamics, conductive heat transfer or the actual ablation reactions, there have been
attempts to look at the entire ablation problem, especially in recent years. In order to
better understand the coupled studies, it is useful to propose a definition of the degree of
coupling as either loose or tight. In a loosely coupled scheme, two separate solvers are
used for CFD and computational heat transfer, with a solution being found in each solver,
and then data is exchanged through boundary conditions, and then the solvers are iterated
again with the new boundary condition held as a constant, with this process continuing
until some convergence criteria is met. In a tightly coupled solver, the boundary
conditions are updated with any changes in either solver. According to Gnoffo 1, “One
23
of the most challenging aspects of TPS design is the proper coupling of the material
Current methods used to predict the aerodynamics and heating of reentry vehicles
concentrate attention on some aspects of the problem at the expense of others, partly
due to historical reasons in the development of these methods, and partly to the
limitations of the computing equipment.
As an example of why they thought a coupled solution was needed they stated:
.. the aerodynamic heat flux to the vehicle depends to the first order on its surface
temperature, which is the resultant of a surface energy balance that depends on the
aerodynamic heat flux itself. Thus, the local surface temperature seeks a value that
will satisfy simultaneously the aerodynamic heating and material response processes.
It is therefore desirable to eliminate the artificial separation of these interacting
phenomena by developing a unified model that takes full account of flowfield
features as well as response of the heat shield material, within a single computational
tool.
They note that the in the past that this was looked at as too ambitious given the state of
computer technology. They believed that theirs was the first attempt at a coupled
solution. The gas dynamics portion of their code used the MacCormack flux vector
splitting scheme, and modeled two species, equilibrium air and the ablation product C3,
which were not allowed to react. Turbulent modeling was handled by the Baldwin
Lomax model with “transition derived empirically from experience”. The solid modeling
consisted of heat conduction in the normal direction, with a surface energy balance used
to provide the relevant boundary conditions. The ablation model used was a B’ lookup
table, with assumed equilibrium reactions. The models were tightly coupled with the
solid and gas being computed on separate overlapping grids. Portions of the grid were
24
Bhutta and Lewis63 presented a loosely coupled ablation solver. For the gas
dynamics they use a parabolized NavierStokes solver and use an existing material
response code for Teflon. They do not account for surface recession.
Milos and Rasky43, presented a study with the objective of developing new
existing CFD and CSM methodologies.” In the case of designing the TPS they make the
This problem is of critical importance for optimization of the TPS for future
hypersonic vehicles and spacecraft. TPS are traditionally designed with one and two
dimensional engineering codes. Occasionally a detailed computational solution is
obtained, but these solutions rarely contain the correct CST boundary conditions. To
compensate for the uncertainties in the analyses, a safety margin of extra TPS
material is added to the final design, and the structural weight must also be increased.
The TPS/structural weight is typically significantly larger than the payload
weight, by up to a factor of four. Therefore a reduction in the TPS weight has a
cascade effect: the structural weight is also reduced, resulting in a direct increase in
payload and scientific capability. Clearly there is a need for more accurate, multi
dimensional computational tools which can be used to reduce the uncertainties in TPS
analysis and to optimize the TPS distribution around hypersonic vehicles and
spacecraft.
In an attempt to solve this problem they developed a loose coupling methodology, with
transient solid modeling, several steady state CFD solutions conducted at various times to
get an estimate of the heat flux to the surface, and boundary conditions to couple the two
different solutions regimes. They proposed surface mass and energy balances that would
Olynick, Chen and Tauber 64 describe a TPS prediction methodology used on the
material response code and a radiation prediction code. To their knowledge, this was the
25
first time that a flow calculation involving any coupling was used as a primary tool for
heatshield design. The heatshield material was PICA, which is a charring ablator. They
note that the mass injection at the stagnation point causes a change in the standoff
distance of the bowshock which changed the heating environment around the vehicle.
The surface ablation reduced the surface heat transfer, temperature and shear, but did not
affect the pressure. Also, their model resulted in a 35% drop in the peak heating rate.
The code did not allow for shape change, but the results were used to predict shape
Kuntz, Hassan, and Potter 65 developed an iterative structure for loosely coupling
the ablation problem. The iterative technique was necessary because the use of an
explicit time stepping in the loosely coupled system developed severe numerical
aerodynamic heating environment for the MUSESC capsule, which used a charring
ablator in its TPS. According to them the motivation behind the development of this
technique was:
Their coupling technique involved iterating a solution between a CFD code and a
conditions. Although one of their listed goals in the development of the simulation was
to account for shape change, they postponed its inclusion for a later version.
26
Czybyk et al67developed a methodology that consisted of loosely coupling gas
dynamics and solid material response because after reviewing the existing design
to ablating gas/solid interfaces.” A steady state CFD solution is found using CFD++, and
then the surface values are provided to the material response code which used
equilibrium chemistry. This work did not handle surface recession, but a stated goal was
application. In their study they are trying to determine the pyrolysis of a solid rocket
motor nozzle and its effect on performance. A material response code provides a
blowing correction factor for the CFD boundary conditions, and the solutions are iterated
until converged. In this study shape change is accounted for with the computational grids
being regenerated.
solver. They propose a boundary condition to be used for the coupling, and present
Gosse and Candler70 developed a tightly coupled solver to simulate the needed
TPS for a novel launch system. This launch system consists of a airplane mounted
distance, with the carrier maintaining enough speed through the atmosphere to achieve
orbital height were an additional rocket inserts the payload into orbit. This presents a
severe heating environment for the TPS because the high velocities are achieved in the
27
relatively dense portions of the atmosphere, as compared to the normal reentry case
where the highest velocities occur in the rarefied upper atmosphere. The actual coupling
procedure is not detailed. The surface recession rate is used to move the grid points, and
then the other gird points are adapted as needed. An interesting point is that the solution
is integrated with a simple trajectory solver to find the flight path of the vehicle and
provide input to the solver. The material response code is compared to available
experimental data and is shown to underpredict the recession rate by significant margins
Prakash and Zhong 71, present another attempt at a loosely coupled ablation
solver. Their solver does not account for shape change, but does include nonequilibrium
In the process of the literature review several conclusions can be reached. First,
while experimental studies are useful, the existing test facilities do not capture the entire
ablation is mature, but detailed coupled modeling of the entire process is needed to
improve the accuracy of the predicted TPS performance. Third, research has focused on
defectfree surfaces, while the presence of even small defects may lead to mission failure.
Finally, with the return to ablating TPS for future missions, the development of better
28
1.2 Statement of Problem and Research Objectives
Based on the conclusions drawn from the literature review, a need for a new
solution methodology for the ablation problem was identified. While attempts have been
made to reuse existing computer codes, they have suffered from either inflexibility in the
boundary conditions that are implemented, or form numerical instabilities that are a
product of the interface structure that is being used. Therefore it was the goal of this
research program to develop a solution methodology starting from first principles for the
TPS ablation problem, with care taken to put it in a form that also can be applicable for
other similar problems such as rocket nozzle sublimation or solid fuel combustion. The
the complexity and inconsistencies between theories on the pyrolysis process; however,
the surface reactions between charring and noncharring ablators are similar and future
work could extend the developed method to charring problems. Within the scope of this
First, a comprehensive model for the gasdynamics, heat transfer, and ablation
processes was developed starting from first principles. Within this overall model,
provisions were made for the inclusion of various submodels, such as using the Hertz
Knudsen or the Ytrehus models to determine the sublimation rate. The details of this
the movement of the ablating surface, and accommodating varying levels of surface
detail, such as small defects (cavities), were created or modified from existing forms.
New techniques that were developed include a reactiveRiemann solver for ablation
29
fronts. Existing techniques that required modification include various finitevolume
are described in chapter 3. In particular the critical advantage of bodyfitted grid versus
Next the model was validated against test cases of varying complexity. A
discussion of these results appears in chapter 4. Four ablation test cases were conducted
across a wide range of temperatures, pressures, and ablation conditions. Two of the test
cases were at sea level conditions with one of the cases having a small defect in its
surface from which the data on the cavity dynamics and ablation enhancement were
obtained. The other two test cases were at arcjet conditions of ground experiments with
one having a surface temperature in the oxidation and nitridation dominated temperature
range, and the other being within the sublimation dominated temperature range (see
Figure 1.3).
30
CHAPTER II
THEORETICAL MODEL
developed. Section 2.1 contains the derivation of the conservation equations. In Section
form. Section 2.4 details the auxiliary equations necessary for closing the systems
the noncharring ablator problem is provided. The Reynolds Transport Theorem is used
Consider an arbitrary body of solid material that is immersed within an arbitrary gas.
Now consider that this body of solid material can lose material and deform (change
31
shape) only through some arbitrary reaction that occur at its surface, consistent with the
surface with an injection velocity vector of Vinj, and the surface recedes with a related
velocity vector, Vsurf. The noncharring ablation problem consists of determining the
flowfield of the gas around the arbitrary body, the heat transfer between the gas and solid,
In order to develop the proper form of the conservation equations for the non
charring ablation problem, it is useful to have a relation between the conservation laws,
which are provided for a system, and its equivalent for a controlvolume. The Reynolds’
Transport Theorem (RTT) relates the time rate of change in an extensive property, N, of a
system to the time rate of change of its associated intensive (does not depend on mass)
N m , (2.1.1)
where m is the mass of the system. In order to use the RTT, a set of systems and an
At some initial time t0, an overall system SO is defined to encompass the arbitrary
solid body and some amount of the fluid that surrounds it. A second system, Ssolid is
defined to encompass only the solid body portion of SO. A third system, Sgas contains
32
only the gas portion of SO. For any given extensive property N, the amount of the
where the subscript refers to the particular system. If the time derivative is taken on both
sides of Eq. 2.1.2, a relation between the time rates of changes for each system is found:
dN O dN gas dN solid
(2.1.3)
dt dt dt
If the time rate of change is known for any two of the systems, the other can be found for
dN gas dN O dN solid
. (2.1.4)
dt dt dt
Also at the initial time t0 define an arbitrary fixed (with respect to an inertial
frame of reference) control volume, CvO, such that it contains some arbitrary amount of
SO, and all of Ssolid. The control surface of CvO is denoted by CsO and it has a unit
outward normal denoted nO. Next define an arbitrary deformable control volume Cvsolid,
such that it contains all of Ssolid at t0. The associated control surface, Cssolid, coincides
with the initial surface of Ssolid; it has a unit outward normal denoted by nsolid. The region
of fluid contained within CvO but outside of Cvsolid is denoted by Cvgas. Figure 2.1 shows
33
V
O
s
nO
C
Cvgas
nsolid V surf
Cssolid
V inj Cvsolid
For the overall control volume Cv the RTT is given by72:
dN O
dV V n O dA (2.1.5)
dt t CvO CsO
where V is the velocity vector at any point along Cs0. For an arbitrary deformable
dN solid
t Cv
dV Vr ,solid n solid dA , (2.1.6)
dt solid Cssolid
where Vr,solid is the velocity vector relative to the moving control surface Cssolid, and it is
defined by:
where Vsurf is the velocity vector of the moving control surface. It should be noted that
Vinj and Vsurf are given in the initial inertial frame of reference, and that within the solid
the injection velocity is zero. Using Eq 2.1.4, the RTT for Cvgas can be defined:
34
dN gas
dt
t CvO
dV V nO dA dV Vr ,solid n solid dA . (2.1.8)
CsO
t Cvsolid Cssolid
The volume integral over CvO can be written as the sum of the integrals over Cvgas and
Cvsolid:
dN gas
dt
dV Cs V nO dA Cs Vr ,solid n soliddA .
t Cv
(2.1.10)
gas O solid
In Eq. 2.1.6 and 2.1.10, the surface integral over Cssolid is the flux of material resulting
from the surface reaction. It should be noted that in the above equations the time
derivative must be kept outside of the integral, due to the variability in the volume over
The equations for conservation of mass, momentum and energy are derived in
Appendix B. The global continuity equation for Cvsolid is given by Eq. B.1.2 :
t dV V
Cvsolid Cssolid
surf n solid dA 0 , (2.1.11a)
dV Cs V nO dA Cs Vinj Vsurf n soliddA 0 .
t Cv
(2.1.11b)
gas O solid
35
s dV Cs s V Vs nO dA
t Cv
w dV , (2.1.12)
V Vsurf Vs n solid dA
gas O
s
s inj Cvgas
Cssolid
where w s is the specific mass production in units of mass per unit volume per unit time,
and the vector Vs represents the diffusion velocity of each individual species caused by
gradients in concentration73. The momentum equation for the gas is given by Eq. B.3.7:
VdV Cs VV nO dA
t Cv
fdV p n dA τ n dA 0 0
Cvgas CsO CsO
, (2.1.13a)
VVinj Vsurf n soliddA
gas O
p n solid dA
Cssolid
τ n solid dA
Cssolid
Cssolid
where f is the vector of body forces, and p is the pressure tensor, and the shear tensor
t e dV T kT n solid dA
Cvsolid Cssolid
(2.1.14a)
eT Vsurf n solid dA q
Cvsolid
rad dV q
Cvsolid
gen dV
Cssolid
36
kT n
CsO
O dA kT n
Cssolid
solid dA
e p V n
N
p V n
CsO
O dA τ V n
CsO
O dA
In the developed system of equations the control volume containing the solid can
deform or change in volume. An equation is also necessary for this property. In the RTT
for Cvsolid (Eq. 2.1.6), define N as the mass times the specific volume, v, and as the
specific volume v:
d mv solid
dt
t vdV vV
Cvsolid Cssolid
surf n solid dA , (2.1.15)
Expanding the derivative on the left hand side by the chain rule, and taking into account
the identity that density times specific volume is identically unity yields:
dm dv
v
dt
m
dt solid t
Cv
1dV
Cs
Vsurf n solid dA , (2.1.16)
solid solid
By conservation of mass the first term on the left hand side is identically zero, and
assuming that the density (and therefore specific volume) of a solid remains constant the
second term becomes identically zero, which allows the final form of the solid volume
t 1dV V
Cvsolid Cssolid
surf n solid dA 0 , (2.1.17)
37
2.1.5 Transformation of Surface Integrals
The conservation equations developed above all contain integrals over control
volumes and control surfaces. It is advantageous to convert the surface integrals into
where is an arbitrary vector or tensor. In the current model it is important to note that
if the surface integral is taken over CsO, the resulting volume integral is over CvO, which
and:
t dV V dV
Cvgas Cvgas
0 (2.1.19b)
Cvsolid
Vsurf dV
s dV
t Cv gas
V dV
Cvsolid
s surf
38
The momentum equation (2.1.13a) becomes:
VdV
t Cv fdV
Cvgas
gas
e dV
t kT dV
T
Cvsolid Cvsolid
(2.1.22a)
e V q dV q
T surf rad gen dV
Cvsolid Cvsolid CvII
and:
τ V . (2.1.22c)
1dV Vinj Vsurf dV .
t Cv
(2.1.23)
solid Cvsolid
39
2.2 Conservation Equations in General Orthogonal Coordinates
point P has coordinates of (x1, x2, x3). The derivation of the transformation of equations
written for a Cartesian coordinate system (x, y, z), to this new coordinate system follows
coordinate system for a typical spherical tipped cone geometry, where x1 is tangential to
any point on the surface, x2 is normal, r is the distance to the axis of symmetry, and K is
the curvature.
Figure 2.2: Bodyfitted coordinate system for a typical TPS ablation problem.
given by:
x x x1 , x2 , x3
y y x1 , x2 , x3 . (2.2.1)
z z x1 , x2 , x3
40
The Jacobian of this transformation is:
x, y , z )
, (2.2.2)
x1 , x2 , x3
and if it is nonzero, the transformations from Cartesian to the new coordinate system:
x1 x1 x, y, z
x2 x2 x , y , z , (2.2.3)
x3 x3 x, y, z
can be defined. The metrics of this transformation, h1, h2, h3, are defined as:
2 2 2
x y z
h1 2
x1 x1 x1
2 2 2
x y z
h2 2 . (2.2.4a)
x2 x2 x2
2 2 2
x y z
h3 2
3 3 3
x x x
For the bodyfitted coordinate system in Figure 2.2 the metrics are:
where m is identically zero for twodimensional and m is identically one for two
dimensional axisymmetric. The gradient and divergence operators in the new coordinate
system are:
1 1 1
i1 i2 i3
h1 x1 h2 x2 h3 x3
, (2.2.5)
1
A h2 h3 A1 h1h3 A2 h1h2 A3
h1h2 h3 x1 x2 x3
41
2.2.1 Global and Species Continuity Equations
Using the transformations in Eq. 2.2.5, the global continuity equation for Cvsolid
h2 h3 u1, surf
x1
t dV
1
h1h2 h3 x2
h1h3 u 2, surf dV 0 , (2.2.6)
Cvsolid Cvsolid
h1h2 u3, surf
x3
t dV h2 h3
u1, surf
Cvsolid
1 x1
u1, surf 1
h1h3
h1 x1 u 2, surf
x2
dV , (2.2.7a)
1 u
h x
2, surf
dV
Cvsolid
h1h2 h3
u3, surf h1h2
Cvsolid 2 2 x3
1 u3, surf
h3 x3
where the right hand side can be looked at as a geometrical source term. The same
process can be applied to the global continuity equation (2.1.19b) for Cvgas:
42
h2 h3
u1
x1
dV
t Cv 1
h1h3
gas
u2 dV
1 hh h x2
u1 Cvgas 1 2 3
h1h2
h1 x1 u3
1 x3
u2 dV
h2 x2 h2 h3
1 u1, surf
Cvgas
u3 x1
h3 x3 1 h1h3
u2, surf dV
1 x2
u1,surf hh h
Cvsolid 1 2 3
h1h2
h1 x1 u3, surf
1 x3
h2 x2
u2,surf dV
Cvsolid
1
u3,surf . (2.2.7b)
h3 x3
s dV
t Cv w dV
s
gas Cvgas
1 u1 u1 h2 h3
s s
h1 x1 u1, s u1 , s x1
1 u 1 u2 h1h3
s 2 dV
Cvgas
h2 x2 u2, s
Cvgas 1 2 3
hh h
s
u2, s x2
dV
u3 h1h2
1 u3 s
h3 x3 s u3, s
u3, s x3
1 h2 h3
su1,surf s u1, surf
x1
h1 x1 1
h1h3
1
h2 x2
s u2, surf dV
h1h2 h3
s u2, surf
x2
dV
Cvsolid
1
Cvsolid
h1h2
su3,surf
u
s 3, surf
x3
. (2.2.8)
h3 x3
43
2.2.2 Gas Momentum Equation
The momentum equation contains some terms that are not contained in Eq. 2.2.5.
Terms such as VV can not use the divergence definition above because VV is a
The first term on the right hand side of Eq. 2.2.9 can be written in the new coordinate
system as:
and the second term can be written using Eq. 2.2.5. The right hand side of the
momentum equation contains terms of the form Π , where is a tensor. These terms
44
1
h2 h311 h1h312 h1h213
h1h2 h3 x1 x2 x3 i
h h h h 1
12 1
13 1
22 2
33 3
h1h2 x2 h1h3 x3 h1h2 x1 h1h3 x1
1
h2 h312 h1h3 22 h1h2 23
h h h x x2 x3
Π 1 2 3 1 i . (2.2.11)
h h h h 2
12 2
23 2
11 1
33 3
h1h2 x1 h2 h3 x3 h1h2 x2 h2 h3 x2
1
h2 h313 h1h3 23 h1h2 33
h h h x x2 x3
1 2 3 1 i
h h h h 3
23 3
13 3
22 2
11 1
h2 h3 x2 h1h3 x1 h2 h3 x3 h1h3 x3
The shear stress tensor contains strains eij, which also have an expanded form in the
Using Eq. 2.2.9, the momentum equation (2.1.21) can be rewritten as:
t VdV
Cvgas
fdV
Cvgas
45
The momentum equation is a vector equation, and can be split into separate
equations for each direction x1, x2, and x3. Applying the appropriate transformations,
utilizing that the velocity is zero within the solid, and ignoring body forces, Eq. 2.2.13
u h 1
2 1 h1h3
h1h2 x2 h3 x2
u u3 h1 1 h1h2
1 h h x h2 x3
1 3 3
u1 h2 h3
dV
t VdV Cvgas
h1h2 h3 x1
Cvgas u 2 h2
2
1 u 2
h1h2 x1
1
h1 x1 p 11
u 2 h3
1 u u 3
dV h h x
1 2
h2 x2 12
1 3 1
12 h1 1 h1h3
Cvgas
1 u u
1 3 h1h2 x2 h3 x2
h3 x3 13
13 h1 1 h1h2
h1h3 x3 h2 x3
Cvgas
11 h2 h3 dV
h1h2 h3 x1
22 h2 33 h3
h1h2 x1 h1h3 x1 , (2.2.14a)
46
the momentum equation in the x2 direction can be written as:
u h 1 h2 h3
1 2
h1h2 x1 h3 x1
u u3 h2 1 h1h2
2 h h x h1 x3
2 3 3 dV
VdV u h h
h h h x
Cvgas 2 1 3
t
Cvgas
1 2 3 2
1 u1u 2 2
2
u 1 h 1
u 3 h3
h1 x1 12 h1h2 x2 h2 h3 x2 , (2.2.14b)
1 u 2 p 12 h2 1 h2 h3
2
h2 x2 22
dV
h3 x1
Cvgas h1h2 x1
1 u u
2 3 23 h2 1 h1h2
h3 x3 13
h2 h3 x3 h1 x3
Cvgas
22 h1 h3 dV
h1h2 h3 x2
11 h1 33 h3
h1h2 x2 h2 h3 x2
u h 1 h1h3
2 3
h2 h3 x2 h1 x2
u u1 h3 1 h2 h3
3 h h x h2 x1
1 3 1
dV
VdV u h h
t h h h x
3 1 2
Cvgas
Cvgas
1 2 3 3
1 u u
1 3
u 2
h u 2
h
2 2
1 1
h1 x1 13 h2 h3 x3 h1h3 x3 . (2.2.15)
1 u u
23 h3 1 h1h3
dV
2 3
h2 x2 23
h1 x2
h 2 h3 x 2
Cvgas
2
1 u3
13 h3 1 h2 h3
h3 x3 p 33
h1h3 x1 h2 x1
Cvgas
h h dV
33 1 2
h1h2 h3 x3
22 h2 11 h1
h2 h3 x3 h1h3 x3
47
2.2.3 Energy Equations
The energy equations can also be written in the general orthogonal coordinate
system using the previously defined transformations. The dissipation function, , that
2
2 e11 e22
2
e33
2
e12
2
e13
2
e23
2
2
e11 e22 e33 ,
2
(2.2.16)
3
where the eij’s are defined in Eq. 2.2.12. The energy equation for Cvsolid (Eq. 2.1.22a) can
be transformed to:
k T h2 h3
t eT dV
h1 x1 x1
1 k T h1h3
Cvsolid
eT p u1, surf
dV
h1h2 h3 h2 x2 x2
1
k T h1h2
Cvsolid
h x k T
1 1 h x h3 x3 x3 , (2.2.17a)
1 1
eT p u 2, surf
q rad dV
q gen dV
1 k T
h2 x2 dV
Cvsolid
Cvsolid
h2 h3
Cvsolid 2 2
h x u1, surf
e p u3, surf x1
1 T
eT p u h1h3
k T
h3 x3
h1h2 h3
2, surf
x2
dV
h3 x3 Cvsolid
h1h2
u3, surf
x3
48
and the energy equation for Cvgas (Eq. 2.1.22b) can be transformed to:
k T h2 h3
h1 x1 x1
1 k T h1h3
h1h2 h3 h2 x2 x2
dV
k T h1h2
Cvgas
h3 x3 x3
t e dV T
Cvgas
q rad dV
q gen dV
Cvgas
Cvgas
k T h2 h3
eT p u1 u1
x1
1 h1 x1
h x N eT p h1h3
1 1
s eT s p s u1s
h1h2 h3
u 2
x2
dV
s 1
Cvgas
h1h2
k T u3
e p u 2 x3
1 T h2 x2
N dV N
s eT s p s u1s
h2 h3
2 2
s eT s p s u 2 s
h x
Cvgas
s 1 x1
s 1 N
h1h3
k T 1
eT p u3 s eT s p s u 2 s dV
h3 x3 hh h x2
1 Cvgas 1 2 3 s 1
h x N N h h
3 3
s eT s p s u3s
s 1
s eT s p s u3s 1 2
x3
s 1
1
h h
eT p u1, surf
2 3
u1, surf
h x x1 .(2.2.17b)
1 1
eT p h1h3
1
h x eT p u 2, surf dV
u 2, surf dV
Cvsolid
h1h2 h3 x2
2 2
Cvsolid
1 eT p u3, surf h1h2
h3 x3 u3, surf
x3
dV
Cvgas
Applying the above transformations to the solid volume equation (Eq. 2.1.23),
yields:
t 1dV
Cvsolid h2 h3
1 u1, surf u1, surf
x1
1 h1h3
h1 x1
1 u 2, surf
h1h2 h3 u 2, surf
x2
. (2.2.18)
h
2 x2
Cvsolid
u3, surf h1h2
Cvsolid
1 u3, surf x3
h
3 x3
49
2.3 Governing Equations in TwoDimensional Vector Form
coordinate system, such as that shown in Figure 2.2. This will cause any terms that
the geometrical restriction, the solid phase will be assumed to be of constant density, and
to have a constant composition (i.e. no chemical reactions in the bulk of the TPS
material).
Consider that a noncharring ablation problem is given that contains Nsgas species
in the gas phase, and one species in the solid. The gas portion of the problem is governed
momentum equations in the x1 and x2 directions (Eq. 2.2.14ab), and an energy equation
(Eq. 2.2.17b). The solid portion of the problem is governed by a system of 2 equations:
an energy equation (Eq. 2.2.17a) and the solid volume equation (2.2.18).
The system of equations for the solid portion of the problem can be written in
1 Fsolid 1 G solid
t U
Cvsolid
solid dV h
Cvsolid 1 x1
h2 x2
dV
R
Cvsold
solid S solid dV . (2.3.1a)
e
U solid T . (2.3.1b)
1
50
Fsolid contains the fluxes in the x1 direction and is given by:
k T
eT u1, surf
Fsolid h1 x1 , (2.3.1c)
u1, surf 0
where the first set of terms represent fluxes due to ablation, and the second term contains
heat transfer terms. Gsolid contains the fluxes in the x2 direction and is given by:
k T
eT u 2, surf
G solid h2 x2 . (2.3.1d)
u 2, surf 0
The term Rsolid contains source terms that arise out of the particular choice of coordinate
system:
h2 h3
u1, surf x
eT p 1 T h2 h3
1
h1h2 h3 h1h3 h x x
u 2, surf
x2
k 1 1 1
R solid h1h2 h3 1 T h1h3 . (2.3.1e)
h2 h3
u1, surf x h2 x2 x2
1 1
0
hh h h
1 3
h
1 2 3 u 2, surf
x2
q q gen
S solid rad . (2.3.1f)
0
The system of equations for the gas portion of the problem can be written in
t U gasdV
Cvgas
1 Fgas 1 G gas
R gas S gas dV
Cvgas
h x h x dV . (2.3.2a)
Cvgas 1 1 2 2 R surf dV
1 Fsurf 1 G surf Cvsolid
h x h x
Cvsolid 1 1 2 2
dV
51
The vector Ugas contains the conservative unknowns for the gas problem:
U gas 1, gas s , gas Nsgas u1 u2
eT T . (2.3.2b)
1u1,1
1u1 0
.
. s u1, s
s u1 0
.
Fgas Ns u1 0 Nsgasu1, Nsgas , (2.3.2c)
11
gas
u1 p 12
2 0
0
u1u2 k T N
s eT s ps u1s
e p u
1 h
s 1x
T 1 1
Fgas_ iv F gas _ vh Fgas_ md
which can be split into vectors that contain inviscid fluxes, Fgas_iv, viscous and heat
transfer fluxes, Fgas_vh, and mass diffusion terms, Fgas_md. A similar vector Ggas can be
1u2
0
1u2,1
. .
. 0
su2 u
s 2, s
G gas Nsgasu2, Nsgas . (2.3.2d)
Ns u2 0
gas
12
u1u2 0
u 2 p 22 0
k T
2 N
eT p u2 e
s T s p u
2s
h2 x2 s
s
G gas_ iv
1
G gas_ vh G gas_ md
There are also vectors that contain the effects of the movement of the solid surface, Fsurf
52
1u1, surf 1u2, surf
. .
s u1, surf s u2, surf
.
Fsurf , G surf (2.3.2e)
Ns u1, surf Ns u2, surf
gas gas
0 0
0 0
eT u1, surf eT u2, surf
The geometrical source term Rgas can be split into components for inviscid flow (Rgas_iv),
viscous flow and heat transfer (Rgas_vh), and mass diffusion (Rgas_md), which can be
defined as:
1 h2 h3 h1h3
u1 u2
h1h2 h3 x1 x2
.
s h2 h3 h1h3
u1 u2
h1h2 h3 x1 x2
Nsg a s h h h h
u1
2 3
u2 1 3
h1h2 h3 x1 x2
u h 1 h1h3
2 1
h1h2 x2 h3 x2
u1
u1 h2 h3
R gas_ iv h1h2 h3 x1
u 2
h
2 2
h h x
1 2 1
u h 1 h h
1
2
2 3
h1h2 x1 h3 x1
2
u
u 2 h1h3
h1h2 h3 x2
u 2
h
1 1
h1h2 x2
, (2.3.2f)
e T p h h
2 3 u2
h 1 3
h
h1h2 h3 1 x1
u
x 2
53
0
.
0
0
12 h1 1 h1h3
h1h2 x2 h3 x2
R gas_ vh 11 h2 h3 22 h2 33 h3 , (2.3.2g)
h1h2 h3 x1 h1h2 x1 h1h3 x1
12 h2 1 h2 h3
h1h2 x1 h3 x1
22 h1h3 11 h1 33 h3
h1h2 h3 x2 h1h2 x2 h2 h3 x2
k T
h2 h3 k T h1h3
h1 x1 x1 h2 x2 x2
and
1
u11 h2 h3 u 21 h1h3
h1h2 h3 x1 x2
.
s
u11 h2 h3 u 21 h1h3
h1h2 h3 x1 x2
Nsgas
h1h2 h3 1N x1 2 3
u h h u 2 N h1h3 .
R gas_ md x2 (2.3.2h)
0
0
N
s eT s p s u1s h2 h3
1 s 1 x1
h h h N
1 2 3
s eT s p s u 2 s h1h3
s 1 x
2
54
The geometrical source term resulting from the surface movement, Rsurf can be written
as:
1 h2 h3 h1h3
u1, surf u2, surf
h1h2 h3 x1 x2
.
s h2 h3 h1h3
u1, surf u2, surf
h1h2 h3 x1 x2
h2 h3 h1h3 .
R surf (2.3.2i)
N
1, surf
u u
x1 x2
2 , surf
h1h2 h3
0
0
eT p u
h h u2,surf h1h3
h1h2 h3 1, surf x1 2 3 x2
w 1
.
w s
S gas . (2.3.2j)
w Ns g a s
0
0
q rad q gen
The system of governing equations for the solid contains two equations with six
unknowns. The system of governing equations for the gas contains Nsgas + 3 equations
with 5Nsgas + 10 unknowns. A listing of these unknowns is found in Table 2.1. (The
unknowns denoted as 1,s,Ns come from the species continuity equations with species
velocities and energies coming from the mass diffusion terms.) In order to close the
55
systems, additional equations are needed. In this dissertation the gas composition will be
a mixture of ten species: O2, N2, O, N, NO, NO+, e, CO, CN, and C3. The data necessary
In order to proceed, it will be useful to define several variables that will be used to
Anderson75.
First define Ns as the total number of moles of species s, and N as the total
number of moles present in the mixture. The mass of each mole of s can be denoted as
Ms, and the mass per mole for the mixture is M. The specific gas constant, R, for a
R
R , (2.4.1)
M
where R is the universal gas constant, which has a value of 8314 J/(kg * mol * K) in SI
The molar concentration, Cs, which is the number of moles of species s per unit volume
s
Cs . (2.4.3)
Ms
The mole fraction, Xs, is defined as the ratio between the number of moles of species s
NS
Xs . (2.4.4)
N
The mass fraction, cs, is defined as the mass of species s per mass of mixture:
s
cs . (2.4.5)
The sum of the mass fractions and the sum of the mole fractions must be equal to one:
N N
c
s 1
s 1, X
s 1
s 1. (2.4.6)
M
X s cs . (2.4.7)
Ms
N
R cs Rs , (2.4.8)
s 1
where the individual Rs are found using Eq. 2.4.1, with M replace by Ms. Finally the
57
1
M N
. (2.4.9)
cs
s 1 Ms
The number of particles of species s per unit volume, ns, is found by:
Ns N A
ns , (2.4.10)
1dV
Cv
where NA is Avogadro’s number, which is equal to 6.02 * 1026 particles /(kg * mole).
N
p ps , (2.4.11)
s 1
N
s . (2.4.12)
s 1
A set of equations will now be defined to relate temperature, density, pressure and
energy terms based on thermodynamic principles (see 75, 76). The energy equations for
the solid and the gas both contain the term eT. The density can be found by adding all of
the partial densities up from the species continuity equations (Eq. 2.4.12). The specific
u12 u22
eT e, (2.4.13)
2
where e is the specific internal energy, which can be found in terms of the species
58
N
e cs es . (2.4.14)
s 1
es Cv , s T dT es0 ,
T
(2.4.15)
Tref
temperature, and es0 is the specific energy of formation of species s at Tref. If the only
data given for a species is specific heat at constant pressure, Cp,s(T), and enthalpy of
formation, hs0 , as is often the case, the following relations can be used to obtain the
required data:
Curvefits for the function Cp,s(T) and other thermodynamic data (taken from 76, 77and 78)
Finally, the partial pressure of species s, ps, can be found by the ideal gas equation of
state:
ps s RsT , (2.4.17)
The system of governing equations for the gas phase contains terms sVs which
represent diffusive mass flux. This mass diffusion can be caused by gradients in
concentration, pressure or temperature, with the last two being generally neglected. The
59
s Vs Dscs , (2.4.18)
cs
s u1, s Ds
h1 x1
. (2.4.19)
c
s u 2, s Ds s
h2 x2
hypersonic shock wave are high enough to cause the air to become chemically reactive,
which leads to a mixture of gas that can change significantly in temperature and
composition from point to point; this renders the use of tabular data to look up the
One way to calculate the transport properties for an arbitrary gas mixture is based
on collision integrals76. For a given pair of species, s and r, two collision integrals can be
determined, s1,r,1 , and s2,r, 2 , which can be found in Appendix C.3. Modified versions
1
8
2Ms Mr
T ,
2
T
1
1,1
(2.4.20a)
3 RT Ms Mr
s ,r s ,r
and
60
1
16
2Ms Mr
T ,
2
2s ,r T
1,1
(2.4.20b)
5 RT Ms Mr
s ,r
The thermal conductivity for the gas phase can be found by:
N
k gas k B N k ,
15 Cs Cs
B N (2.4.21)
asr Cr s ,r T Cr 1s ,r T
4 s 1 2 s mol
r 1 r 1
where kB is the Boltzmann constant, Cs is the molar concentration defined in Eq. 2.4.3,
the notation s = mol means the summation is only over species that are molecules, and as,r
is defined as:
ms m
1 0.45 2.54 s
1
mr mr
as , r 2
, (2.4.22)
ms
1
mr
where ms is the mass of one particle of species s. The first term in Eq. 2.4.21 represents
translational energy thermal conductivity, and the second term represents rotational
thermal conductivity. 76
The viscosity of the gas mixture can be written in terms of the modified collision
integrals as 76:
N
msCs
N
. (2.4.23)
s 1
C T
r 1
r
2
s,r
The mass diffusion coefficient for species, Ds, can be determined from binary
61
Ds
1 X s , (2.4.24)
N
Xr
r 1 Ds , r
rs
where Xs is the mole fraction of species s defined in Eq. 2.4.7. The binary diffusion
coefficients are found in terms of the modified collision integrals using 76:
k BT
Ds , r , (2.4.25)
p1s , r T
For the solid, the thermal conductivity is assumed to be a known function of the
temperature:
ksolid k T , (2.4.26)
Consider that the gas phase problem is defined as having Nsgas species, and that these
reacting flow, originating from the hightemperature decomposition of air and the
ablation processes, will be treated with a nonequilibrium model. The chemical reaction
w s Ms s ,r s ,r R f ,r Rb,r ,
Nr
(2.4.27)
r 1
62
where s,r is the stoichiometric coefficient of species s on the product side of reaction r,
s,r is the stoichiometric coefficient of species s on the reactant side of reaction r, Rf,r is
the forward reaction rate for reaction r, and Rb,r is the backward reaction rate for reaction
s ,r
Nsgas
.001 s
R f ,r 1000k f ,r , (2.4.28)
s 1 Ms
where kf,r is the forward reaction rate coefficient. The backward reaction rate is given by:
Nsgas .001 s ,r
Rb,r 1000kb,r s
, (2.4.28)
s 1 Ms
where kb,r is the forward reaction rate coefficient. It should be noted that the factors of
1000 and .001 are necessary to convert the reaction rate to SI from cgs units because
most reaction rate data found in the literature is in cgs units. In general the reaction rates
E f ,r
k f ,r T C f ,rT en k BT
k f ,r T
, (2.4.29)
kb ,r T
K c ,r T
E f ,r
where Cf,r, n, and are constants provided for a reaction, and Kc,r is an equilibrium
kB
occurs:
O2 O
3O . (2.4.30)
63
For this reaction, O2 1 , O 1 , O2 0 , and O 3 , so the chemical reaction source
1000k .001 O 2 .001 O
MO 2 MO
f
w O 2 MO 2
.001 3
1000 k O
b
M
O
. (2.4.31)
1000 k .001 O 2 .001 O
MO 2 MO
f
w O 2MO
.001 3
1000k O
b
M
O
Appendix C.2 contains the details of the chemical reaction models that will be
In noncharring ablation the mass loss occurs only through surface reactions. The
~ , can be defined as the sum of the surface
ablative mass flux vector from the surface, m abl
~ :
production rates of species s, m s
N
~ m
m abl ~s .
s 1
(2.4.32)
The bulk injection velocity, Vinj, can be related to the ablative mass flux by:
~
m
Vinj abl
, (2.4.33)
gas
where gas is the density of the gas at the surface. The velocity of the solid surface
where solid is the solid density. Vsurf and Vinj are taken relative to the inertial reference
frame.
By conservation of mass, the amount of mass leaving the solid phase must be
equal to the amount of mass entering the gas. For each species, this mass balance can be
written as:
s Vinj Vsurf Vs m
~ ,
s (2.4.35)
where the left hand side comes from Eq. 2.1.11b. Expanding the left hand side gives:
~ ,
s Vinj s Vsurf s Vs m (2.4.36)
s
where the first term is convective mass flux, the second term is mass flux due to the
surface movement and the third term is diffusive mass flux. Using Eq. 2.4.18, to rewrite
Finally applying the definition of mass concentration (Eq. ) and the definitions of
~ c gas m
cs m ~ D c m~ , (2.4.38a)
solid
abl s abl gas s s s
~ ~
1 gas cs m abl gasDs cs m s . (2.4.39b)
solid
65
~ gas cs ~
1 gas cs m1, abl Ds m1,s
solid h1 x1
. (2.4.40)
~ gas cs ~
1 gas cs m2 , abl Ds m2 ,s
solid h2 x2
Equation (2.4.39b) is comparable to the surface mass balance provided by Milos and
Rasky 43; Chen and Milos 79 provide the mass balance without accounting for surface
recession as:
~ m
gasDscs csm ~ . (2.4.41)
abl s
In the gas phase of the ablation problem there will be a species mass balance
equation (Eq. 2.4.40) in each direction for each species s. For N species, this yields a
by Eq. 2.4.24. The ablative mass flux is defined by Eq. 2.4.32. If the mixture density is a
given, only N surface reaction rate equations are needed to close the system of equations.
In the case of graphite ablation, three surface reactions will be considered which
have different temperature ranges where they are significant (see Figure 1.3). These
O C solid CO , (2.4.42a)
nitridation which is important in a narrow temperature range between 3000 and 4000K:
N C solid CN , (2.4.42b)
3C solid C3 . (2.4.42c)
66
For the first two reactions, the rate equations are found in 79. The reaction rate for
~ c v MCO ,
m (2.4.43)
MO
CO O O O
1160
O 0.63e Tw
, (2.4.44)
where Tw is the temperature of the solid surface. For the nitridation reaction, the rate is
given by:
~ c v MCN ,
m (2.4.45)
MN
CN N N N
where N is assumed to be a constant 0.3. The kinetic velocity for species s is given by:
k BTw
vs . (2.4.46)
2ms
~ m
~ MO
m , (2.4.47)
MCO
O CO
and
~ m
~ MN
m . (2.4.48)
MCN
N CN
All other surface production rates (with the exception of sublimation of C3) are
identically zero.
67
There are two models of carbon sublimation that will be considered in this
dissertation. In general the sublimation rate is a function of the difference between the
equilibrium value of a property and the actual value (usually concentration, partial
where C3 is unity, and the equilibrium concentration of C3, cC3 ,eq , is given by:
pC3 ,eq
cC3 ,eq . (2.4.50)
p
90845
The Knudsen layer is a very thin region near the surface where an evaporating or
surface mass production rate based on relations developed for the Knudsen layer. First
Vinj
S , (2.4.52a)
2 RC3 T
the pressure ratio between the actual and equilibrium partial pressures, Z:
pC3 ,eq
Z (2.4.52b)
pC3
68
T
. (2.4.52c)
Tcon
The integration of the halfrange Maxwell equations across the Knudsen layer yields the
F (S ) S 1 erf (S ) e S ,
2
(2.4.53a)
G ( S ) 2S 2 1 1 erf S
2
Se S ,
2
(2.4.53b)
and
5 S 2 2 S 2
H (S ) S S 2 1 erf S e . (2.4.53c)
2 2 2
The system of moment equations for the Knudsen layer can be written as:
Z F S 2 S
Z G S 4S 2 2 , (2.4.54)
5
Z H S S S 2
2
4S 2 2 Z
S , Z
G (S ) , (2.4.55)
2 S S , Z F ( S )
S , Z
Z
5
Z S , Z ( S , Z ) H S S , Z S S 2 0 . (2.4.56)
2
For a given pressure ratio, Eq. 2.4.56 can be solved for S, and then the species surface
69
~ 1 pC3 ,eq pC3 S , Z F S ,
m (2.4.57)
2 RC3 Tw
C3
RC3 T
which is similar to the other proposed rate (Eq. 2.4.49) with the exception of a nonlinear
reaction rate coefficient. In order for the Knudsen layer relations that this rate is based on
to be applicable, the injection velocity must be less than or equal to the local speed of
sound.
in a simple ablation problem has been performed80. Figure 2.2 shows the results of a one
dimensional transient sublimation problem with the solid and gas at temperatures of
4000K and 4250K. The simulation was run until the equilibrium state was reached. At
both temperatures the behavior of the two models is both quantitatively and qualitatively
different. Oscillations around zero mass flux (equilibrium), occur in both models but in
the HertzKnudsen they are more severe. These oscillations were also noted in the
author’s previous laser ablation research 37, 81, 82, 83. It should also be noted that Chen and
Milos experienced similar problems with the behavior of charring ablators 50.
70
15 HK 4000
Yt 4000
HK 4250
10
Figure 2.3:
(b)Comparison of Ytrehus and HertzKnudsen Carbon Sublimation
(c)Models at
15 15
4000K and 4250K.
HK 4500 Yt 4500
Mass Flux ((kg/s)/m )
Mass Flux ((kg/s)/m2)
10 10
2.4.7 Surface Energy Balance
At the surface, the heat flux must be balanced. This means that the conduction
5 5
into the gas and the heat flux due to mass diffusion at the surface must be equal to the
enthalpy absorbed by the chemical reactions and the conduction into the solid. The exact
0
0
0 2E05 4E05 6E05 8E05 0.0001
0 2E05 4E05 6E05
form of this equation
Time (s) can be8E05 0.0001
found employing a similar process as the surface
Timemass
(s)
balance:
Nsgas
~ e p e
kT gas eT ,s ps Ds cs kT solid m
abl T
T solid , (2.4.58)
s 1 s abl
hs h0
where the subscript abl refers to the gas being created at the surface. Aside from notation,
the use of the total energy instead of the enthalpy, and the elimination of radiation terms,
this is identical to the energy balance proposed by Milos and Rasky 43.
71
2.4.8 Initial and Boundary Conditions
The governing system of equations (Eq. 2.3.12) need to have initial and
Boundary conditions must be specified for the solid and gas boundaries, with the
exception of the surface between the solid and gas; the boundary conditions are
In the gas portion of the problem, several conditions are needed including inlet,
outlet, and/or symmetry (see Fig. 3.1). At the inlet, the flow variables will generally be
it should be noted that if the inflow is subsonic, some information at the boundary must
come from the interior 84. At the outlet, the boundary condition depends again on the
nature of the flow: if the flow is supersonic, the boundary value depends solely on the
interior behavior of the solution, but if the flow is subsonic one physical condition must
be set. If the coordinate system is chosen such that an axis of symmetry exists, the
boundary condition):
U gas
0, (2.4.60)
n symmetry
For example there could be an axis of symmetry where a condition like (2.4.60) could be
72
given, or if there is some inner boundary to the TPS, a constant temperature or heat flux
could be given.
Initial conditions must also be specified for the problem. These will consist of
setting the entire gas to the freestream conditions and the solid to some initial temperature
2.5 Summary
In this chapter the proposed mathematical model for the noncharring ablation
problem has been presented. This model contains chemicallyreacting multispecies gas
dynamics, and heat transfer within the solid. These two submodels are tightly coupled
by the surface ablation reactions and the resulting movement of the solid surface. This
coupling is implicitly contained within the governing equations, and is not handled by
for their solution have been presented. Various methods for describing the composition
of the gas have been defined. The chemical nonequilibrium model for determining the
species production rates was identified. Boundary and initial conditions were discussed.
The mathematical model for the surface reactions was detailed, and a preliminary
comparison between the HertzKnudsen and the Ytrehus models for sublimation was
given.
73
CHAPTER III
NUMERICAL METHODS
In this chapter the numerical methods that are required for the discretization of the
governing equations presented in the previous chapter are presented. First, these
equations are discretized using a finitevolume method that has been modified to allow
for an arbitrary mixture of solid and gas. Second, the standard and reactive Riemann
This section contains the discretization techniques for the governing equations
that were developed on the previous chapter. Finitevolumes are defined that can be used
for an arbitrary mixture of solid and gas and then the governing equations are discretized
Consider some arbitrary geometry for an ablation problem such as in Fig. 3.1a.
Now consider that an arbitrary, structured, orthogonal grid is overlaid on the problem
corresponding to CvO in the mathematical model that has been developed, can be drawn
74
around any of these points (i, j), with faces corresponding to the halfway points in
between each point that are labeled (i±½, j) and (i, j±½). If the location of each point is
given by ((x1)i,j, (x2)i,j), then the location of the faces can be defined as:
It should be noted that the bodyfitted coordinate requires that no point lies on the
symmetry line. These points are offset by ½x1 so that their faces correspond with the
axis of symmetry
75
M oo
Too
oo
P oo
Solid Body
Axis of Symmetry
(a)
imax, jmax
M oo
Too
oo
poo
i, j
imax, jmin
Solid Body
(b)
Figure 3.1: Schematics of a typical TPS ablation problem. (a) Arbitrary ablation problem
(b) Arbitrary grid and associated control volume
76
Within the overall control volume it will be helpful to define a local coordinate
system, (1, 2), such that point (i, j) is located at (0, 0), faces (i±½, j) are located at (±1,
If this original control volume contains some ablating material, another control
volume is drawn around the ablating material, and corresponds to Cvsolid. The faces of
this control volume will be labeled (i±w, j) and (i, j±w); this notation is used to conform
to the finite volume formulation notation which uses i±½ etc. to denote control volume
faces. The localized coordinates for faces (i±w, j) and (i, j±w) are given by:
x1 i w, j x1 i , j
if x1 i w, j x1 i , j
x1 1 x1
1 i w, j x i 2, j x i , j
1 i w, j 1 i, j
if x1 i w, j x1 i , j
x1 i , j x1 i 1 , j
2
x1 i w, j x1 i , j
if x1 i w, j x1 i , j
x1 1 x1
1 i w, j x i 2, j x i , j
1 i w, j 1 i, j
if x1 i w, j x1 i , j
x1 i , j x1 i 1 , j
2
x2 i , j w x2 i , j
if x2 i , j w x2 i , j
x2 1 x2
2 i , j w x i , j 2 x i , j
2 i, jw 2 i, j
if x2 i , j w x2 i , j
x2 i , j x2 i , j 1
2
x2 i , j w x2 i , j
if x2 i , j w x2 i , j
x2 1 x2
2 i , j w x i , j 2 x i , j
2 i, j w 2 i, j
if x2 i , j w x2 i , j . (3.1.2)
x2 i , j x2 i , j 1
2
The remaining volume is identifiable as Cvgas in the mathematical model. Figure 3.2
77
i,j+1/2
X
Cvgas 2
X
i,j+w
i,j 1
Cvsolid
X
i,jw
X
i,j1/2
x1
Figure 3.2: Schematic of control volumes associated with point (i, j).
2.3.12:
1 Fsolid 1 G solid
dV R solid S solid dV ,
t Cv
U dV
solid
Cvsolid 1
solid
h x1 h2 x2 Cvsold
and
t U gasdV
Cvgas
1 Fgas 1 G gas
R gas S gas dV
Cvgas
h x h x dV .
Cvgas 1 1 2 2 R surf dV
1 Fsurf 1 G surf Cvsolid
h x
Cvsolid 1 1
h2 x2
dV
78
Each of these equations consists of a series of volume integrals taken over Cvsolid or Cvgas.
Now assume that the finite volume that was defined in the previous section is small
enough that each integrand is close to some single, discrete value at every point within
the finitevolume. Also, by definition the volume integral of 1 is equal to VCv, the
amount of volume within the control volume Cv that the integral is taken over:
If the previous assumption holds then the integrands can be taken out of the volume
t
U solid i , j VCvsolid
1 Fsolid 1 G solid R solid S solid i , j VCvsolid , (3.1.2a)
VCvsolid
h1 x1 h2 x2 i , j
and
t
U gas i , j VCvgas
1 Fgas 1 G gas
R gas S gas i , j VCvgas
VCv
h1 x1
h2 x2 i , j gas
R surf i , j VCvsolid
, (3.1.2b)
1 Fsurf 1 G surf
VCv
h1 x1 h2 x2 i , j solid
A volume ratio, , can be defined as the ratio between the solid volume and
VCvsolid
, (3.1.3)
VCvO
which can be calculated from the finitevolume face locations in the local coordinate
Using Eq. 2.1.2, the ratio of the volume of the gas to the overall volume can be written
as:
VCvgas
1 . (3.1.5)
VCvO
Dividing both sides of Eq. 3.1.2ab by VCvO , and using the volume ratio
definitions yields:
t
U solid i , j
1 Fsolid 1 G solid R solid S solid i , j , (3.1.6a)
h1 x1 h2 x2 i , j
and
t
U gas i , j 1
1 Fgas 1 G gas
R gas S gas i, j 1
1
h1 x1
h2 x2 i , j R surf i, j . (3.1.6b)
1 Fsurf 1 G surf
h1 x1 h2 x2 i , j
Applying the chain rule to the time derivative and algebraic manipulation yields:
t
U solid i, j 1 Fsolid 1 G solid
h1 x1 h2 x2 i , j
, (3.1.7a)
U solid i, j
R solid S solid i , j
t
and
80
1 Fgas 1 G gas
h1 x1 h2 x2 i , j
1 Fsurf 1 G surf
1
x1 h2 x2
i, j R gas S gas i, j
h1 i, j
U gas . (3.1.7b)
t
R surf i , j
1
U gas i, j
1 t
RHS
t
n 1 n
RHS n , (3.1.8)
t
n 1 n t * RHS n
where superscript n denotes values taken at the initial time level, superscript n+1 denotes
a value taken after a time t, is an arbitrary vector or variable, and RHS denotes a
generic right hand side. Applying the time discretization in Eq. 3.1.8 to Eq. 3.1.7ab
yields:
1 F 1 G solid
n
solid
h1 x1 h2 x2 i , j
U solid in,j1 U solid in, j t , (3.1.9a)
U
n
and
81
1 Fgas 1 G gas n
h1 x1 h2 x2 i , j
n
1 Fsurf 1 G surf n
h1 x1
h2 x2 i , j 1 n
U gas in,j1 U gas in, j t R gas S gas in, j . (3.1.9b)
R S n
n
surf
surf i , j
1 n
U gas i , j
n
1 t
However other explicit time schemes exist and could be employed with this set of
equations in future research. For example in systems of equations that contain gas phase
scheme with semiimplicit treatment of the chemical species source terms. Park 85
t
I J S dU tRHS
n
2
U U n dU
t , (3.1.10)
I J S dU tRH S
2
dU dU
U n 1 U n
2
where I is the identity matrix, the barred values represent an intermediate value, RHS is
the right hand side of 3.1.7b, and Jw is the Jacobian defined by:
S
J S , (3.1.11a)
U
82
which has the vector of source terms containing only chemical reactions, S :
S w1 w s w Nsgas 0 0 0 .
T
(3.1.11b).
Fgas
Contained within Eq. 3.1.9ab are spatial derivatives, such as . These terms
x1
process for a case of all gas or all solid within the finitevolume, for a case of some
arbitrary mixture, there are 13 possible cases which must be dealt with. These cases
result from the location and extent of the solid. Figure 3.3 shows all of these cases.
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
13
14 15
83
In a typical finitevolume scheme, the spatial derivatives in the x1 direction are
found by 84:
F Fi 1 , j Fi 1 , j
2 2
, (3.1.12)
x1 i , j x1 i 12, j x1 i 12, j
where the flux F are required at the faces. In a mixed solid and gas finitevolume, there
are eight faces, instead of four. In a finitevolume containing an arbitrary located and
sized solid, define four zones, as pictured in Fig. 3.4a for F. The volumes of each zone
1 2 i , j w
VF I
2
1 2 i , j w
VF II
2
1 1 i w, j 2 i , j w 2 i , j w . (3.1.13)
VF III
2 2
1 1 i w, j 2 i , j w 2 i , j w
VF IV
2 2
i,j+1/2 i,j+1/2
X X
FI GIII
X X
i,j+w i,j+w
x2
i,j i,j
X X
i,jw i,jw
FII GIV
X X
i,j1/2 i,j1/2
x1 x1
(a) (b)
Figure 3.4: Zones for flux calculations. (a) F (b) G.
84
The derivative of a flux F in zones FI and FII can be discretized using Eq. 3.1.12. For
F Fi w, j Fi 1 , j
2
. (3.1.14)
x1 F III x1 i w, j x1 i 12, j
F Fi 1 , j Fi w, j
2
. (3.1.15)
1 F IV
x x1 i 1 , j x1 i w, j
2
Finally, the flux for the entire control volume can be written using an averaging
procedure based on the ratio of the volume in each zone to the total volume of gas:
VF I F
x1 F I
F
V
F II
F 1 x F II ,
1
(3.1.16a)
x1 i , j 1 F
VF III
x1 F III
V F
F IV
x 1 F IV
85
1 Fi 1 , j Fi 1 , j
2 i, jw 2 2
2 x x1 i 12, j
1 i 12, j
1 2 i , j w Fi 12, j Fi 12, j
2 x1 1 x1 1
F 1 i , j
2
i , j
2
1 , (3.1.16b)
x1 i , j
1 i w, j
2 i , j w
F F
1 i w , j i , j
1
2 i , j w 2
x1 i w, j x1 i 12, j
2 2
1 1 i w, j 2 i , j w 2 i , j w Fi 12, j Fi w, j
x
2 2 1 i 1 , j x1 i w, j
2
A similar approach can be taken for the fluxes in the x2 direction, G, with the
definition of the zones provided in Fig. 3.4b. The volumes of each zone defined in the
1 1 i w, j
VG I
2
1 1 i w, j
VG II
2
1 2 i , j w 1 i w, j 1 i w, j . (3.1.17)
VG III
2 2
1 2 i , j w 1 i w, j 1 i w, j
VG IV
2 2
The derivative of the flux G in zones GI and GII can be discretized as:
G G i, j 1 G i, j 1
2 2
, (3.1.18a)
2 G I , II
x x
2 i, j 1
2
x
2 i, j 1
2
86
G G i, j 1 G i, j w
2
, (3.1.18b)
2 G III
x x2 i , j 1 x2 i , j w
2
G G i, j w G i, j 1
2
. (3.1.18c)
2 G IV
x x
2 i, j w x
2 i, j 1
2
Using the same averaging procedure as used for F, the derivative for the entire control
VG I G
x2 G I
G
VG II x
G 1 2 G II ,
(3.1.19a)
2 i , j
x 1 G
VG III
2 G III
x
V G
G IV
x 2 G IV
1 G i, j 1 G i, j 1
1 i w, j 2 2
2 x x2 i , j 12
2 i , j 12
1 1 i w, j G i , j 12 G i , j 12
2 x x2 i , j 12
G 1 2 i , j 12
. (3.1.19b)
1
2 i , j 1 2 i , j w 1 i w, j 1 i w, j
x G G
i, j 1 i, jw
2
x
2 2 2 i , j 12 x2 i , j w
1 2 i , j w 1 i w, j 1 i w, j G i , j w G i , j 12
x
2 2 2 i , j w x2 i , j 12
87
In the case of a finite volume containing only gas, the location of the solid faces
are all identically (0,0) in the local coordinate system. This causes the flux equations to
For fluxes taken over the solid portions of a finite volume (designated by solid or
surf), the spatial derivatives of the fluxes can be discretized in a similar manner to that of
Eq. 3.1.15, with the exception that the faces are the solid faces designated by ±¼ . For
Within the flux terms F and G are derivatives of the form or , where is
x1 x2
an arbitrary scalar such as a velocity component or temperature. The discretized form of
these derivatives takes on different forms depending on the face that the derivative is
being taken for, and the particular configuration of the solid. These derivatives are
needed at each face, and for the overall finite volume. Different forms are needed for the
gas side and for the solid side of the surface as well. In general these derivatives take the
form of :
B C , (3.1.21)
xd A xd B xd C
88
where d is an arbitrary direction, and A, B, and C represent arbitrary faces. Full definitions
of the required discrete forms of the derivatives are found in Appendix C.1.
In the discretizations presented in section 3.1.4, values of the fluxes F and G are
needed at the faces of each finitevolume that contains at least some gas. The flux
vectors Fgas and Ggas, defined in Eq. 2.3.2cd contain the inviscid flux vectors:
1u1 1u2
. .
s u1 s u2
Fgas_ iv Ns u1 , G gas_ iv Ns u2 . (3.2.1)
gas
gas
u1 p u1u2
2
u1u2 u22 p
e p u e p u
T 1 T 2
One method of finding the value of these inviscid fluxes at an interface, for example
The standard Riemann problem is an initial value problem that has two states UL
and UR, on either side of a point at some initial time zero. A system of waves composed
of shock fronts, contact discontinuities and/or expansion waves evolves after this initial
time; Fig 3.5a shows a typical set of waves. For the inviscid Riemann problem there are
10 different cases86 that determine the particular combination and properties of the
various wave patterns. The goal of the standard Riemann solver is to find the value of a
specified variable or set of variables at a given point. Standard Riemann solvers fall into
two camps: exact solvers like the method detailed in section 3.2.1, and approximate
solvers such as the StegerWarming Flux Splitting method detailed in section 3.2.2. A
89
firstorder method is described in each of these sections and their extension to second
the left and right states can also interact through a reaction front. Le Metayer et al. 87
used for solving a problem that involves evaporation fronts. In the particular case of the
noncharring ablation problem considered in this derivation, the movement of the solid
surface due to the surface reactions corresponds to the reaction front, which will be
referred to as the ablation front. This reactiveRiemann problem has four more possible
cases resulting from the direction of the reactive front and the location of the solid. Figure
3.5b shows a typical wave pattern for this problem. It should be noted that in the case
where the ablation front is stationary (i.e. reaction rates are zero), the standard wall
Section 3.2.4.
t F an t
ion
ns
e
e
urfac
pa
urfac
n Ex
Fa
sion
act S
act S
n
pa Ab
Ex la
tio
Cont
Cont
n
k
Fr
oc
oc
on
Sh
Sh
(U gas)R t (U gas)R
(U gas)L (U solid)L
i+1/2, j x1 i+1/4, j x1
(a) (b)
Figure 3.5: Riemann Problems. (a) Standard for inviscid gas dynamics
(b) Reactive for noncharring ablation.
90
3.2.1 Exact Riemann Solver
Toro86 provides the details of an exact Riemann solver for a single species gas; a
will be outlined for determination of the flux (Fgas_iv)i+½,j when both sides of the face are
First, vectors of primitive variables WL and WR are defined from (Ugas)i,,j and
W c1 cs cN u1 u2 p T .
T
(3.2.2)
The solution process requires a ratio of specific heats, , for each side:
N
T cs s , (3.2.3a)
s 1
C p T
s T . (3.2.3b)
C p T Rs
A frozen speed of sound, , can then be calculated for each side by:
T
p
. (3.2.4)
The next step involves finding the intermediate values of pressure, p* , and
91
2
p p 1
L L
if p* pL
* L
1
p* L p
L 1 L
f L p* , WL , (3.2.6a)
L 1
L
2 L
1
2 p
*
if p* p L
1 p
L L
2
p p R R 1 if p* p R
* R
R 1
p* p
R 1 R
f R p* , WR , (3.2.6b)
R 1
2 R p* 2 R 1 if p* p R
1 p
R R
p*k 1 p*k
f L p*k , WL f R p*k , WL u1 R u1 L
f L p*k , WL f R p*k , WL ,
(3.2.7)
until a convergence criterion is reached. The first derivatives can be written as:
1
2
2
d d 1
p* pd
if
1 1
p* pd
p* d
2 p* d 1
p
f d p* , Wd p
d 1 d
d 1 d , (3.2.8)
d 1
p* 2 d
1
if p* pd
d d pR
92
where d can be either L or R. Once the pressure is found by Eq. 2.2.7, the contact surface
u1 L u1 R f R p* , WL f L p* , WL
u1 * . (3.2.9)
2 2
S L 0 Wi 1 W*shock
p* pL
,j
2
SL 0 Wi 1 ,j
WL
2
u1 * 0 S HL 0 Wi 1
2
,j
WL
p* pL S HL 0 STL Wi 1 ,j
WL , fan
2
STL 0 Wi 1 ,j
W*fan
L
2
. (3.2.10)
S R 0 Wi 1 W*shock
p* pR
,j
2
SR 0 Wi 1 ,j
WR
2
u1 * 0 S HR 0 Wi 1
2
,j
WR
p* pR S HR 0 STR Wi 1 ,j
WR , fan
2
STR 0 Wi 1 ,j
W*fan
R
2
1
1 p 1 2
S L u1 L L L * L , (3.2.11a)
2 L pL 2 L
1
1 p 1 2
S R u1 R R R * R , (3.2.11b)
2 R pR 2 R
S HR u1 R R , (3.2.11d)
93
the left fan tail speed, STL, can be found by:
L 1
p 2 L
STL u1 L L * , (3.2.11e)
pL
and the right fan head speed, STR, can be found by:
R 1
p 2 R
STR u1 R R * . (3.2.11f)
pR
Assuming that the composition and u2 velocity remain constant behind the contact
c1 L
cs L
c Nsg a s
L
W*shock p* L 1 ,
(3.2.12a)
pL L 1
L
L
1
L 1 p*
L 1 pL
u1 *
u2 L
p*
94
c1 R
cs R
c Nsg a s
R
W*shock p* R 1 ,
(3.2.12b)
pR R 1
R
R
1
R 1 p *
R 1 p R
u1 *
u2 R
p*
c1 L
cs L
c Ns
,
W*fan
gas L
(3.2.12c)
p L
L 1
L *
p L
u
1 *
u 2 L
p*
c1 R
cs R
c Ns
,
W*fan
gas R
(3.2.12d)
p R
R 1
L *
p R
u
1 *
u 2 R
p*
95
c1 L
cs L
c Nsgas
L
2
WL , fan 2 L 1 u L ,
1
(3.2.12e)
L 1 L 1 L
1 L
L
2 L 1
L u
1 L
L 1 2
u2 L
2 L
2 L 1 L 1
pL u1 L
L 1 L 1 L
and:
c1 R
cs R
c Nsgas
R
1
2
WR , fan 2 R 1 u R . (3.2.12d)
L 1 R 1 R
1 R
R
2 1
R R u1 R
R 1 2
u2 R
2 R
2 R 1 R 1
pR u1 R
R 1 R 1 R
The sampled primitive variables can then be used to calculate the flux (Fgas_iv)i+½,j
by plugging the values into Eq. 3.2.1. The species densities can be calculated by
multiplying the sampled concentrations times the sampled density. Calculating the total
energy requires finding the temperature using the ideal gas law and the mixture gas
using this value to calculate the internal energy by applying Eq. 2.4.1415, and plugging
because of the iterative solution of the pressure equation at every point (between three to
eight iterations required at each point for simple test cases 86). In order to avoid this
computational expense, approximate Riemann solvers have been developed. One such
Before deriving this scheme, it is useful to rewrite the fluxes using the chain rule
as:
where AF and AG are the Jacobians of Fgas_iv and Ggas_iv with respect to Ugas_iv:
Fgas_ iv G gas_ iv
AF , AG . (3.2.14b)
U gas U gas
The Jacobians, and the associated eigenvalues and eigenvectors can be found in 76. The
97
u1 1 c1 . c1u1 . c1u1 c1 0 0
. . . . . . . .
cs u1 . u1 1 cs . cs u1 cs 0 0
. . . . . . . .
AF
c Ns u1
~ gas 2
. c Nsgasu1 .
u1 1 c Nsgas cN 0 0
, (3.2.15)
u1 2
~ ~
1 u1 . s u12 . Nsgas u12 u2
u u . u1u2 . u1u2 u2 u1 0
~1 2
u1 1 h ~
. u1 s hT ~
. u1 Nsgas hT hT u12 u1u2 u1 1
and
u2 1 c1 . c1u2 . c1u2 c1 0 0
. . . . . . . .
cs u 2 . u2 1 cs . cs u 2 cs 0 0
. . . . . . . .
AG
c Nsgasu2 . c Nsgasu2 .
u2 1 c Nsgas cN 0 0
,(3.2.16)
p
hT eT , (3.2.17a)
is defined by:
p Rs s
Nsgas
eT
c C T ,
s 1
(3.2.17b)
s v,s
~
and s is defined by:
~ p u 2 u22
s RsT 1 es . (3.2.17c)
s 2
98
1 p . (3.2.17d)
u1 0 0 0 0 0
0 u1 0 0 0 0
ΛF , (3.2.18a)
0 0 u1 0 0 0
0 0 0 u1 0 0
0 0 0 0 u1 0
0 0 0 0 0 u1
and
u2 0 0 0 0 0
0 u2 0 0 0 0
ΛG . (3.2.18b)
0 0 u2 0 0 0
0 0 0 u2 0 0
0 0 0 0 u2 0
0 0 0 0 0 u2
and
99
~ ~ ~
2 c11 c1s c1 Nsgas u1c1 u2c1 c1
cs~1 css
2 ~
~
cs Nsgas u1cs u 2 cs cs
. (3.2.19b)
RG
cNsgas
~ ~ ~
c c Nsgass c Nsgas Nsgas
2
u1cNsgas u2 cNsgas
Nsgas 1
u1 u1 u1 1 0 0
0 0 0 0 0 0
~ ~ ~
1 u2 s u2 Nsgas u2 u1 u2
1 c1
0s 0 0 0
2 2 2
1 cs
0 0 0 0
2 2 2
1 c Nsgas , (3.2.20a)
LF 0 0 0 0
2 2 2
u1 u1 u1 u1
0 0
2 2
2 2 2
u2 u2 u2 u2
1 0
2 2
2 2 2
u12 u22 s u12 u22 Ns
~ ~ ~
u1 u2 1 hT u1
2 2
gas
u2 0
2 2 2
2 2
and
1 c1
0s 0 0 0
2 2 2
1 cs
0 0 0 0
2 2 2
1 c Nsgas . (3.2.20b)
LG 0 0 0 0
2 2 2
u1 u1 u1 u1
1 0
2 2
2 2 2
u2 u2 u2 u2
0 0
2 2
2 2 2
u12 u22 s u12 u22 Ns
~ ~ ~
u1 u2 1 hT u2
2 2
gas
u1 0
2 2 2 2 2
100
The derivation of the StegerWarming Flux splitting scheme can be found for a
74 , 84
single species gas in most CFD textbooks, such as or 86. A similar derivation can
as:
A L* Λ*R . (3.2.21)
For the StegerWarming scheme, the eigenvalue matrix is split into matrixes containing
only positive eigenvalues, + , and matrixes containing only negative eigenvalues, .
By substituting these into Eq. 3.2.21, split Jacobians A+, and A can be found.
F A F U, F A F U
. (3.2.22)
G A G U, G A G U
By applying this process to the fluxes Fgas_iv and Ggas_iv and simplifying, the split fluxes
c1
cs
,
Fgas (3.2.23)
21 cN
_ iv
u1 2 3
u2
2
H 2 1 u1 2 3
and
101
c1
cs
,
G gas_ iv (3.2.24)
21 cN
u1
u2 2 3
H 2 1 u2 2 3
2
1 u1 2 u1 3 u1 , (3.2.26a)
1 u2 2 u2 3 u2 . (3.2.26b)
F
gas_ iv i 1 , j
2
Fgas _ iv
i 1, j
Fgas _ iv i, j
(3.2.27a)
and
G
gas_ iv i , j 1
2
G gas_ iv
i , j 1
G gas_ iv i, j
. (3.2.27b)
By examination it can be assumed that the fluxes can be computed much faster
using this approximate Riemann solver rather than the exact Riemann solver of the
previous section. However, this increase in efficiency comes with a possible decrease in
accuracy. The scheme becomes inaccurate near sonic points when two of the eigenvalues
approach zero (u1±, or u2±. Also, this scheme can be inaccurate in boundary layers
where one eigenvalue (u1, or u2) approaches zero and the others approach each other in
102
absolute value (±). These difficulties can be addressed by using the exact Riemann
solver near these regions, and using the approximate Riemann solver of Steger and
In the course of this research program it was determined that the firstorder
upwind Riemann solvers provide inaccurate solutions near stagnation points, such as the
typical case shown in Figure 3.6. In order to resolve this inaccuracy a secondorder
Conservation Laws) variety was implemented. This implementation follows Toro86, with
the exception of the choice of variables: Toro uses the conservative variables, but for this
case the primitive variables (Eq. 3.2.2) were required. This particular method can be
used with any appropriate Riemann Solver. The details are provided for the fluxes in the
constant value within the finitevolume, each variable has a value that can vary according
to a piecewiselinear function:
1
W 1 Win, j ΔW , (3.2.28)
2
where W is the vector containing the slopes of the primitive variables, defined by:
Δ W i 1 ,j Δ W i 1 ,j
ΔW 2 2
2 . (3.2.29)
Δ W i 1 ,j Win, j Win1, j Δ W i 1 ,j Win1, j Win, j
2 2
In order to make this scheme TVD (total variant diminishing), this slope is modified as:
103
max
0, min Δ W i 1 , j , Δ W i 1 , j ,
, Δ W i 1 , j 0
2 2
min Δ , Δ
2
W i 1 , j W i 1 , j
ΔW 2 2
, (3.2.30)
0, max Δ W i 1 , j , Δ W i 1 , j ,
, Δ
W i 1 , j 0
2 2
min
max Δ W 1 , Δ W 1
2
i , j
2
i , j
2
where = 1 is equivalent to the minmod limiter, and = 2 is equivalent to the superbee
limiter. In this implementation = 1 provides the best results. Once the slopes have
ΔW ΔW
WiR, j Wi , j WiL, j Wi , j , (3.2.31)
2 2
where R represents the right face (i+1/2, j) and L represents the left face (i1/2, j). The
Next, the values at the cell faces are evolved by a halftime step:
~
U iL, j U iL, j
L
t Fiv Wi , j Fiv Wi , j
R
R
iv i , j
2 xh1 i , j
, (3.2.32)
~
U iR, j U iR, j
L
t Fiv Wi , j Fiv Wi , j
R
R iv
2 xh1 i , j
i, j
where the inviscid fluxes are calculated according to their definition (Eq. 3.2.1). The
primitive variables WiR, j, L are then calculated.
Either one of the previous described Riemann solvers can be used to calculate the flux at
104
1st Order
2nd Order
4500
4400
Temperature (K)
4300
4200
4100
4000 4 3 2
10 10 10
X
Figure 3.6: Comparison of nearsurface temperature for 1st and 2nd Order Riemann
solvers.
In the standard Riemann solver, the goal is to determine the values of the flow
variables at a fixed point in space at a given time, which in the current application is the
overall finitevolume face (i+½ , j etc.). The reactiveRiemann solver for this application
differs in that the information is desired only along one of the waves, the ablation front,
A ReactiveRiemann solver for evaporation fronts has been presented in 87, and a
Falcovitz 88. In both of these cases it has been assumed that both sides of the interface
contain compressible fluids, but in the noncharring ablation problem, one side of the
105
As with the standard Riemann solver, the value of one of the flux vectors Fgas_iv or
Ggas_iv is desired at the chosen interface. The derivation will be given for the solver for
Consider that the left side of an interface is occupied by solid material with a
vector of unknowns (Usolid)L, and the right side is occupied by gas with the vector of
unknowns (Ugas)R. The solid undergoes some set of reactions which cause mass to leave
W
gas surf
c1 cs cNsgas gas uinj,1 p T .
T
(3.2.34)
The determination of these values starts with the surface mass balance equations
developed in Section 2.4. The total ablation mass flux rate is equal to the sum of the
N
~ m
m abl ~s .
s 1
The species mass flux rates can be written in a general form as:
~ m
m ~ , c, T , (3.2.35a)
1,s 1,s gas w
where c is the vector of Nsgas species concentrations. It can then be seen that the overall
ablation mass flux rate can be written as a function of the concentrations, mixture density,
~ , c, T m
~1,s gas, c, Tw .
N
mabl gas w (3.2.35b)
s 1
The diffusion coefficient Ds (Eq 2.4.24) can be written in terms of the concentration and
r 1 Ds ,r
rs
The mass balance for each species in x1 (Eq. 2.4. 40) can be rewritten as:
1 c s M
N ~ gas M
s cs ~
1 gas cs m , c, T m1,s gas , c, Tw . (3.2.37)
solid s 1 M x1
1,s gas w
h1
cr
Mr
N
r 1 Ds ,r
rs
Equation 3.2.37 contains a partial derivative of species concentration with respect to x1,
which must be discretized, using relations similar to Appendix C.1. For example, in the
case of a finite volume containing a mixture of solid and gas (i.e 0 < < 1) , the derivative
cs i , j cs i w, j
, (3.2.38)
1
x1 i 12, j x1 i w, j x1 i w, j
2
N
1 gas i w, j c ~ , c, T
m
solid
s i w, j 1,s gas w i w, j
s 1
M
1 c s
gas i w, j
i w, j
Ms
cs i, j cs i w, j m
~ , c, T i w, j . (3.2.39)
1,s gas w
M 1 x
1 i 1 , j x1 i w, j x1 i w, j
h1
N c s i w, j
M 2 2
r 1
r
Ds , r i . j
rs
This equation represents a system of Nsgas equations. The values of the solid and the gas
variables away from the surface are already known. This leaves the values of the
107
concentration vector (ci+w,j) and the mixture density at the surface as unknowns, which
The density of the mixture at the wall is usually assumed to be the same as the
density of the overall finitevolume (see for example 79). For low ablation rates, this
would probably be a safe assumption. However, at rates of large mass flux rate, this
assumption starts to break down. A possible solution can be proposed by the previous
mentioned requirement that the injection velocity remain less than or equal to the local
speed of sound (see Section 2.4.5). For the purposes of this research, it is proposed that
Now that an equation for wall density is found, the resulting system of equations
must be solved. For the purpose of solution, this system (Eq. 3.2.39) can be rewritten as:
f c 0 . (3.2.41)
The method that will be employed is to use Newton’s method for nonlinear systems89,
where the following equations are iterated until some convergence criteria is met:
J f c k δ f c k
, (3.2.42)
c k 1 c k δ
f c
Jf , (3.2.43)
c
and the vector is found by multiplying the inverse of Jf and the right hand side, which
will be handled using the GaussSeidel method which is provided in Appendix C.2.
108
Once the concentration, mixture density, and ablative mass flux rate are known,
the rest of the values of Wgas surf can be found. The injection velocity is found by Eq.
2.4.33:
~
m
u1,inj abl,1
gas i w, j
,
and the surface velocity, which is the ablation wave velocity is provided by Eq. 2.4.34:
~
m
u1, surf abl,1
.
solid
A solution has been determined for the concentration of each species at the
surface. It is assumed that the temperature of the gas at the surface is equal to the
temperature of the gas at the nearest point. From this and the density found by 3.2.40 the
partial pressures of each species can be found using Eq. 2.4.17 and then the mixture
pressure can be found using Eq. 2.4.11 (Dalton’s Law). These values are then used to
It should be noted that this reactiveRiemann solver contains mass diffusion terms
which account for the loss of particles of a species that is involved in the surface
chemical reactions while an ordinary Riemann solver treats diffusion terms as sources 88.
In ordinary Riemann problems, all of the wave forms arise from inviscid fluid dynamics.
In the noncharring ablation problem the diffusive terms are required because the ablation
wave behavior is directly linked to the diffusion of the reacting species to the surface.
Finally, if the ablative mass flux is zero, the reactiveRiemann solver provides the same
conditions at the wall as would be expected for solid wall boundary conditions.
109
3.3 Calculation of Remaining Fluxes
The solution of the governing equations requires the evaluations of other fluxes
on the finitevolume faces, including the viscous/heat transfer fluxes (_vh), mass diffusion
fluxes (_md), solid fluxes (_solid) and surface fluxes (_surf). The methods of calculating
The viscous and heat transfer fluxes, Fgas_vh, and Ggas_vh are given by: 2.3.2cd as:
0 0
.
0 0
Fgas_ vh 0 , and G gas_ vh 0 ,
11 12
12
22
T
k k T
h1 x1
h2 x2
G gas_ vh
where the shear stress terms 11, 22, and 12 can be written using Eq. 2.1.13b and 2.2.12:
2 1 u u h 1 u u h u h u h
11 2 1
2 1
2
2 2
2 3
1 3
3 h1 x1 h1h2 x2 h2 x2 h1h2 x1 h2 h3 x2 h1h3 x1
2 1 u u h 1 u u h u h u h
22 2 2
2 2
1
2 1
2 3
1 3
.(3.3.1)
3 h2 x2 h1h2 x1 h1 x1 h1h2 x2 h2 h3 x2 h1h3 x1
h1 u1 h2 u2
12
h2 x2 h1 h1 x1 h2
The derivatives for the velocities, temperature and metrics (hi’s) are discretized using the
interpolated to the face values using simple linear averaging. The exception is for surface
110
faces (i.e i±w, j ) where the temperature at the interface is taken as the solid temperature,
The viscosity and thermal conductivity k are taken for the finitevolume for
which the flux is being calculated, with the exception of the surface faces, where the
1
ksurf . (3.3.2)
1 1
k gas k solid
The mass diffusion fluxes Fgas_md and Ggas_md are given in Eq. 2.3.2cd:
1u1,1 1u2,1
. .
s u1, s s u 2, s
.
Fgas_ md Nsgasu1, Nsgas , and G gas_ md Nsgasu2, Nsgas ,
0 0
0 0
N N
s eT s ps u1s s eT s ps u2 s
s 1 s 1
G gas_ md
where the diffusion velocities for species s, u1,s and u2,s, can be found in terms of the
cs
s u1, s Ds
h1 x1
.
c
s u 2, s Ds s
h2 x2
111
The spatial derivatives of concentration can be discretized using the formulas contained
in Appendix C.1. The species mass diffusion coefficient Ds, and mixture density r are
taken for the finite volume under consideration. The concentrations at the finitevolume
faces are found by a linear averaging between neighboring finite volumes, with the
exception of the solid surfaces, where the concentration is found using the reactive
Riemann solver.
k T
eT u1, surf
Fsolid
u h1 x1 ,
1, surf 0
and
k T
eT u2, surf
G solid
u h2 x2 .
2 , surf 0
The first set of terms is only needed for calculation of the solid flux at the surface, and
the individual variables are calculated directly from the results of the reactiveRiemann
solver. The conductive heat flux is calculated in two ways. For an interior face, the
temperatures are interpolated using a linear averaging, and the derivative is approximated
using the discretizations of Appendix C.1. However for a surface face, the heat flux is
found using the surface energy balance (Eq. 2.4.58), for example for face i+w ,j:
112
k T k T p D c ~ p
Nsgas
eT ,s s s s m abl,1
eT eT solid , (3.3.3)
h1 x1 solid h1 x1 gas s 1 s h` x1 abl
The surface fluxes Fsurf and Gsurf are calculated by substituting the results of the
The governing system of equations contains geometric and physical source terms
that must be calculated. The values of these terms must be calculated for each finite
equations, with individual components defined by Eq. 2.3.1e, and 2.3.2gi. These contain
113
which are discretized using the appropriate formula of Appendix C.1. The other
variables such as densities, velocities, etc are taken at their value for the entire finite
volume. Depending on the location and extent of the solid, an averaging procedure such
as the one used for averaging the fluxes in Section 3.1.4 may be necessary for finite
The physical source terms S contain the dissipation function , which can be
1 u
2
2
2
2
u h 1 u u h u h u h
1
2 1
2
2 2
2 3
1 3
h1 x1 h1h2 x2 h2 x2 h1h2 x1 h2 h3 x2 h1h3 x1
h u h u 2
1 1 2 2 , (3.4.1)
h2 x2 h1 h1 x1 h2
2
2 1 u1 u2 h1 1 u2 u2 h2 u2 h3 u1 h3
3 h
1 1 x h h x 2 2 h x h h x1 2 3 h h x h h x1
1 2 2 1 2 2 1 3
which can be discretized using the appropriate forms of the equations in Appendix C.1.
Averaging based on the solid location and size might be needed for this term as well.
The source term S also contains terms resulting from the volumetric mass
w s Ms s ,r s ,r R f ,r Rb,r ,
Nr
r 1
114
where s,r is the stoichiometric coefficient of species s on the product side of reaction r,
s,r is the stoichiometric coefficient of species s on the reactant side of reaction r, Rf,r is
the forward reaction rate for reaction r, and Rb,r is the backward reaction rate for reaction
As an example consider the net production rate of atomic oxygen within the 10
Rnet,r R f ,r Rb,r ,
2
O
2
Rnet,1 1000 k f ,1 .001 2 kb,1 .001 O .001 O2 . (3.4.3a)
MO2 MO MO 2
O
2
Rnet, 2 1000 k f , 2 .001 2 .001 N 2 kb, 2 .001
O
.001 N 2 , (3.4.3b)
MO 2 MN 2 MO MN 2
O
3
O
2
N
Rnet, 4 1000 k f , 4 .001 2 .001 N
k .001 O
.001 , (3.4.3d)
MO2 M
b,4
M M
N
O N
115
O
2
Rnet,5 1000 k f ,5 .001 2 .001 NO kb,5 .001 O .001 NO , (3.4.3e)
MO 2 MNO MO MNO
O
2
Rnet,6 1000 k f ,6 .001 2 .001 NO kb,6 .001 O .001 NO , (3.4.3f)
MO 2 MNO
MO MNO
O
2
Rnet,7 1000 k f ,7 .001 2 .001 CO kb,7 .001 O .001 CO , (3.4.3g)
MO 2 MCO MO MCO
O
2
Rnet,8 1000 k f ,8 .001 2 .001 CN kb,8 .001 O .001 CN , (3.4.3h)
MO 2 MCN MO MCN
O
2
Rnet,9 1000 k f ,9 .001 2 .001 C3 kb,9 .001 O .001 C3 , (3.4.3i)
MO2 MC3 MO MC3
N
Rnet, 28 1000 k f , 28 .001 O .001 2 kb, 28 .001 N .001 NO , (3.4.3j)
MO MN 2 MN MNO
O
Rnet, 29 1000 k f , 29 .001 NO .001 O kb, 29 .001 N .001 2 , (3.4.3k)
MNO MO MN MO 2
and
Rnet,30 1000 k f ,30 .001 N .001 O kb,30 .001 NO .001 e . (3.4.3l)
MN MO MNO Me
The production rate is calculated by substituting the values of (s)i,j into the appropriate
net reaction rate equations, and using Ti,j to determine the rate coefficients.
The inclusion of these ordinary differential equations can introduce problems with
the solution of the overall system because the time step requirement for the chemical
reactions might be significantly less than the time steps allowed for the other processes,
116
which is called stiffness 85. This is the reason why the semiimplicit scheme of Eq. 3.1.10
may be required.
3.1.10, a method for determining the time step t is required. There are various stability
and accuracy limits for t arising from the individual processes, such as the inviscid,
viscous, heat transfer, mass diffusion, gasphase chemical reaction and surface reactions.
The current solver allows for varying grid spacing in both the x1 and x2 direction, so the
formulas should be modified to account for this. For the inviscid gas dynamics, the time
x1* x2*
tiv min , , (3.5.1)
imin i imax
jmin j jmax u1 u 2
where x1* and x2* are the distances between face for a given computational cells (so a
finite volume with a mixture of solid and gas may have up to 4 of each to compare). For
1 x12 x22
tvisc min , (3.5.2)
4 ijmin i j imaxj
min max
where = / The time step for conductive heat transfer is found similarly by 90:
1 x12 x22
tcond min , (3.5.3)
4 ijmin i j imaxj
max
diff
min
where diff = k/(Cp). The chemical reaction characteristic time is more complicated
using the terminology developed in Section 2.3.4. Finally, there is a time step
which comes from the fact that the solid volume cannot become negative. The overall
where the CFL (CourantFreidrichsLevy) number is a factor less than one (usually taken
as less than or equal to 0.8). Depending on the particular flow parameters the CFL
2.4.7. The definition of conditions will be for a mesh that has imax points in the x1
direction and jmax points in the x2 direction. The use of second order inviscid flux
approximations requires the use of two ghost volumes on each boundary, so the actual
grid has a range for i of 1 to imax+2, and for j of 1 to jmax+2. The boundary conditions
will be presented for a typical bodyfitted grid such as the one shown in Figure 3.7.
118
Figure 3.7 Boundary conditions and mesh for a typical problem.
For the inlet boundary condition located at jmax, the two ghost volumes are set to
U
gas i , j 1
max
U gas i , j
max 2
U gas freestream . (3.6.1)
It should be noted that the inlet velocity which is typically given as u∞ in Cartesian
coordinates must be transformed into the appropriate u1 and u2 components in the body
119
The gas boundary condition at imax is a supersonic outlet given by:
U gas i 2, j
max
U gas i
max 1, j
U gas i
max , j
. (3.6.2)
The symmetry boundary condition located at i=1 given by Eq. 2.4.60 can be
For the solid boundary condition located at j=1, several boundary conditions can
two ghost volumes are set to the specified temperature. An insulated boundary condition
T
0 Ti ,0 Ti , 1 Ti ,1 . (3.6.4)
x2
3.7 Algorithms
The numerical methods that have been detailed must be integrated into an
algorithm in order to solve the noncharring ablation problem. First, a serial algorithm
will be outlined that can be implemented on a single processor computer. Second, the
120
details of a parallel algorithm that can be implemented on a cluster computer with
The serial algorithm begins with the values of (Ugas)n and (Usolid)n for each point (i,
j) that is not on a boundary. From these values, primitive variables must be calculated at
each point including the species concentrations, mixture density, velocity components u1
and u2, pressure, solid and gas temperatures, values for and , and the speed of sound .
Once these values are found linear averaging is employed to interpolate values to the
finite volume faces. Next, the transport properties are calculated for each point using the
The fluxes and source terms are then calculated. First, the reactiveRiemann
solver detailed in 3.2.3 is implemented to determine the value of the inviscid fluxes at the
surface and to provide the surface velocities (u1,surf, u2,surf), and the primitive variables on
the surface faces. Second, the appropriate Riemann solver, either the exact (Section
3.2.1) or StegerWarming (Section 3.2.2) is chosen for each point based on the
eigenvalues; the exact solver is needed if the velocity is near the speed of sound, or the
velocity is near zero, which in general means the exact solver is used in the boundary
layer, and possibly in small regions of the shock layer. Then the other fluxes are solved
in accordance with Section 3.3. Finally the source terms are calculated using the methods
of Section 3.4.
121
Throughout the previous calculations, the time steps are being calculated as per
Eq. 3.5.16. The new location of the surfaces must be found, for example:
1
t 4
n n
n n
u1, surf i w, j u1, surf i w, j u2,surf i , j w u2,surf i , j w . (3.7.2)
Once these values and all of the fluxes, sources and the time step are calculated, the new
values of (Ugas)n+1 and (Usolid)n+1 are found using 3.1.9ab. The boundary conditions are
applied to the boundary points, and then the process is repeated until some final time is
reached.
The small time steps required by an explicit scheme and number of calculations
involved in each time step cause the serial algorithm running on a single processor to be
can take on the order of days of physical time to complete. In order to achieve
Consider that the problem is to be solved on a grid that has N points in the x1
direction and M points in the x2 direction. The simplest way to decompose this domain
for solution on P processors is to divide it into subdomains in the x1 direction that have
N/P points in the x1 direction and points in the x2 direction. Figure 3.8 shows this grid
122
decomposition for a bodyintrinsic coordinate system (with each color representing the
between the various processors. Once the grid has been decomposed the serial algorithm
is followed within each subdomain until the time step is calculated. Each processor
must send a message containing their individual time step to a processor that has been
designated as the controller processor (see Fig. 3.9a). This processor then determines the
minimum of all the time steps and then sends a message to all of the other processors
containing this new time step. Then each processor determines its values of (Ugas)n+1 and
(Usolid)n+1. Then each processor must send its data to its neighboring processors, as
123
This algorithm was implemented using MPI and FORTRAN90. All
computational runs were completed on the Ohio Supercomputer Center Glenn cluster93.
A typical node on this cluster has four processor cores. Figure 3.10 shows the typical
performance of the algorithm for the fourth test case which will be discussed in the next
chapter. Speedup is the ratio of the computational time required for a given number of
processors to some reference number. Efficiency is the ratio of the actual speedup to the
theoretical speedup (ratio of number of processors to reference number). In this case the
reference number is four processors which corresponds to a single typical node of the
Glenn system. A best practice for parallel computing is to increase the number of
processors until the efficiency drops below fifty percent. For test case four this occurs at
tmin
after
t2
lefttoright
t
3
is complete
in
then
m
m
t
in
0 1 2 3
1 2 3 U imin(1),j U imin(2),j U imax(3),j
(a) (b)
Figure 3.9: Parallel Communication Schemes. (a) Time Step
(b) Subdomain Boundary Data.
124
1.2
1
4
speedup
efficiency
efficiency
speedup
0.8
3
0.6
2
0.4 1
10 20 30 40 50
# of processors
3.8 Summary
This chapter has provided the numerical methods that are proposed to solve the
governing equations of the noncharring ablation problem that were given in Chapter 2.
These numerical methods when combined into an algorithm should provide a means of
The discretization schemes for time and for space operators that have been
provided are based on standard procedures, but have been modified to handle finite
volumes that contain a mixture of solid and gas. These modifications were needed in
order to handle arbitrary location and volume ratios of the solid. A firstorder explicit in
time (Eq. 3.1.9ab) scheme have been provided that accounts for the movement of the
solid faces.
125
An exact Riemann solver and an approximate Riemann solver (StegerWarming
Flux Splitting) are used to calculate the inviscid fluxes at gas faces. They have been
modified to deal with the multiplespecies and high temperature gas dynamics that are
associated with this problem. The exact solver is needed for regions where the flow is
either transonic or near zero due to the inaccuracy of the StegerWarming method at these
areas. The extension of these schemes to second order has also been given, as the use of
A reactiveRiemann solver has been developed in this work that provides the
inviscid gas fluxes at the surface of the solid, and also accounts for the surface recession
velocity. This solver consists of solving the mass balance equation for the surface
chemical reactions, and then calculating the other variable necessary for the flux. It
should be noted that this solver only provides the value on the gas side of the ablation
front, whereas the exact and approximate Riemann solvers provide the value at a
The methods for calculating the diffusive fluxes within the gas flow require the
discretization schemes given in Appendix C.1 for primitive variables. These schemes are
modified from typical forms to account for the possibility of a mixture of solid and gas
within a finitevolume. The variables are interpolated to the faces from the discrete (i,j)
The solid and surface fluxes depend on the surface recession velocity determined
by the reactiveRiemann solver. At the surface, the heat flux to the solid is found using
126
The source terms can be separated into geometrical and physical sources. The
geometrical sources are solved using a similar procedure to the diffusive fluxes, with an
averaging procedure such as the one used in calculating the flux derivatives being applied
when necessary. The chemical source terms require solution of a system of ordinary
differential equations.
The time step requirements for the overall solution depend on the values of the
time step limitation for each separate process. If one of these individual time steps is
much smaller than the others (usually from the chemical reactions), a computational issue
can be used to alleviate this issue. However in the test cases considered in the next
chapter this problem does not occur due to the small grid spacing needed for adequate
resolution of the boundary layer, so only a first order explicit time is required.
A serial algorithm has been presented to show how the various numerical methods
can be combined to achieve the solution of the noncharring ablation problem. The serial
algorithm is of limited practical use because meaningful simulation times take excessive
decrease the computational time required for a given simulation time. A parallel
algorithm is provided that divides the solution domain into several (one per processor)
subdomains on which the serial algorithm is implemented. This parallel algorithm sends
messages between the various processors to communicate the time step and results at
127
CHAPTER IV
In this chapter the computational methods proposed and presented in the previous
chapter will be tested. First, separate parts of the computational methodology will be
validated against test cases. Second, results from a simplified model with a staircase
representation of the surface will be presented to illustrate the necessity of the inclusion
of a body fitted grid and more precise chemistry and gas dynamics. Third, several
ablative test cases in dissociated air will be presented including enhanced ablation in the
possible.
4.1 Validation
The developed computational method couples solver for many different physical
processes such as shock wave gas dynamics, boundary layers, cavity flow and conduction
heat transfer. In the development of the solvers for these various phenomena it was
useful to test them individually and in concert against established test cases.
128
4.1.1 OneDimensional Inviscid Gas Dynamics
A simple but important test case for any CFD code that employs Riemann solvers
for inviscid gas dynamics is the Sod problem86. The Sod problem is essentially a model
of a shock tube with a high pressure and density gas on one side of an interface at the
initial time moment, and a low pressure and density gas on the other side. For testing the
exact and approximate Riemann solvers employed in this research, the domain was taken
as one meter in length with the interface at 0.5 meters from the origin. The initial
conditions for each side of the interface are given in Table 4.1. An analytical solution at a
final time of 7.5*104 seconds was determined for this problem using the techniques
given in86. This solution consists of a rarefaction fan expanding to the left of the initial
interface, and a shock and contact surface moving to the right (see for example Figure
4.1). Each Riemann solver was used to solve the problem with various number of grid
points involved.
129
1
Analytical
100 points
200 250
0.8
400
800
200
0.6
(kg/m3)
u1 (m/s)
150
0.4
100 Analytical
100 points
200
0.2 400
50 800
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1 (m) x1 (m)
100000
Analytical
80000 100 points
200
400
800
60000
p (Pa)
40000
20000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1 (m)
Figure 4.1 shows the density, velocity and pressure profiles for the exact Riemann
solver developed in Section 3.2.1. As the number of grid points increases, the solution
converges to the analytical solution. The solutions at the shock and along the rarefaction
have converged much faster than the solution at the contact surface (middle discontinuity
130
1 300
0.9
Analytical 250
0.8
100 Points
200
0.7 400 200
800
0.6
(kg/m3)
u1 (m/s)
0.5 150 Analytical
100 Points
0.4 200
400
100
0.3 800
0.2
50
0.1
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1 (m) x1 (m)
100000
Analytical
100 Points
80000 200
400
800
60000
p (Pa)
40000
20000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1 (m)
Figure 4.2: Results of Grid Refinement for the StegerWarming Riemann Solver.
Figure 4.2 shows the same profiles for the StegerWarming approximate Riemann
solver developed in Section 3.2.2. Again as the number of grid points increases, the
solution converges to its analytical value. The contact discontinuity is again less
converged than the other waves for the same amount of grid points.
131
1 300
0.9 Analytical
Exact Riemann Solver 250
0.8 StegerWarming Solver
0.7
200
0.6
(kg/m3)
u1 (m/s)
0.5 150
0.4
100
0.3
0.2
50
0.1
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1 x1
100000
Analytical
80000 Exact Riemann Solver
StegerWarming Solver
60000
p (Pa)
40000
20000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1
Figure 4.3 shows a comparison between the solution obtained by each Riemann
solver with 800 grid points and the analytical solution. The performance of each solver is
nearly identical with the exception of the right edge of the rarefaction, where the exact
132
1 300
Analytical 250
0.8 SW 1st order
SW 2nd order
200
0.6
(kg/m )
u1 (m/s)
3
150
0.4
100
Analytical
SW 1st order
SW 2nd order
0.2
50
0 0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1 x1
100000
Analytical
80000 SW 1st order
SW 2nd order
60000
p (Pa)
40000
20000
0
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
x1
Figure 4.4: Comparison between 1st and 2nd order Riemann solvers.
The use of the second order Riemann solver allows a much more accurate
solution for the same number of points. Figure 4.4 shows a comparison between the first
and second order StegerWarming solver for 200 points. The second order solver
reproduces the tail and head of the rarefaction wave almost exactly, and gets much closer
For onedimensional gas dynamics, the Riemann solvers that are implemented in
this study can be seen to reproduce the solution of the Sod problem. They converge to
133
the analytical solution with increasing numbers of grid points. In each solver the contact
discontinuity requires more grid refinement to converge than the shock or the rarefaction
fan. Implementation of the second order solver allows a better solution to be obtained
with a much coarser grid. For this particular case, the approximate Riemann solver of
In order to test the twodimensional gas dynamics and the solid wall boundary
condition provided by the reactiveRiemann solver the supersonic flow over a wedge was
used as a test case. The particular case chosen was a Mach 3 air flow over a 30° wedge.
Figure 4.5 shows the pressure across the shock wave and the shock angle using the
StegerWarming solver and a 50 x 50 grid. The numerical results are almost identically
equal to the theoretical values94 for the pressure after the shock wave (644.01*103 Pa),
and the theoretical angle (52.014°). The numerical results provide the Mach number after
the shock of 1.405, whereas theoretical value is 1.406. Figure 4.6 compares the results
134
P
750000
700000
650000
1.2 600000
550000
500000
450000
1 400000
350000
300000
3 250000
0.8 p1=101.325 *10 Pa
200000
150000
Y
0.6 3
p2=644.150*10 Pa
0.4
= 52
o
0.2
= 30 o
0
0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8
X
Figure 4.5: Pressure contours for Mach 3 flow over a 30° wedge.
0.4
Exact Riemann Solver
0.2 P
650000
600000
550000
500000
Y
0 450000
400000
350000
300000
250000
0.2 200000
150000
0.4
StegerWarming
Figure 4.6: Comparison of Riemann solvers for Mach 3 flow over a 30° wedge.
135
4.1.3 Flat Plate Boundary Layer
In order to ascertain the function of the viscous flux calculation portion of the
solver, the boundary layer resulting from flow over a flat plate was used as a test case.
The numerical results for u1∞ = 100 m/s were compared with the Blasius profile95 at
various lengths along a 1 meter long plate. The exact Riemann solver was used for
inviscid portions of the flux. The solid surface was located at 2 = 0.5 within the first
finite volume. The grid was 50 points in the x1 direction, and 25 points in the x2 direction
with x2 = 1.2*104 m. Figure 4.7a shows the results for 0.25m, Figure 4.7b shows the
results at 0.5m, and Figure 4.7c shows the results for 0.75m. As can be seen the
136
3.0x1003 3.0x1003
2.5x1003 2.5x1003
Numerical
Blasius
2.0x1003 2.0x1003
x2 (m)
x2 (m)
1.5x1003 1.5x1003
1.0x1003 1.0x1003
5.0x1004 5.0x1004
0.0x10+00 0.0x10+00
0 20 40 60 80 100 0 20 40 60 80 100
u1(m/s) u1 (m/s)
(a) (b)
3.0x1003
2.5x1003
2.0x1003
x2 (m)
1.5x1003
1.0x1003
5.0x1004
0.0x10+00
0 20 40 60 80 100
u1 (m/s)
(c)
Figure 4.7: Velocity Profiles for Flat Plate Boundary Layer. (a) 0.25 m (b) 0.5 m
(c) 0.75 m.
Another important test case for the viscous portion of the code is the liddriven
cavity problem. In this case a square cavity has a top wall that is moving at some speed
U∞. Depending on the Reynolds (Re) number of a problem, a particular vortex pattern is
expected to form within the cavity. Ghia, Ghia and Shin96 provide results for the velocity
profiles along the vertical and horizontal center lines of the cavities for various values of
137
Re. For this study, the cavity was chosen to have a grid spacing of x1 = x2 = 2.5*106
m, which is typical of the resolution required for boundary layer resolution. The
temperature is specified at 300K, and the pressure as 101.325 kPa, which provides a
1.6967*105 N*s/m2. The grid was set to 134x134 with 2 solid points on each wall which
yield a gas grid of 129x129. For Re = 5000 the wall velocity is 224.83 m/s. It should be
vertical line passing through the geometrical center of the cavity. As the grid is refined
the solution is trending towards the solution provided by Ghia et al. Figure 4.8(b) shows
the nondimensional velocity vectors for every tenth point in each direction. The location
of the main vortex and the presence of weaker secondary vortices near the corners are as
expected.
This test case is important because it demonstrates the ability of the model to
handle driven cavity flow which is important in the second ablation test case that will be
138
1
0.8
x2
* 0.6
0.2
0
0.4 0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1
*
u1
(a)
(b)
Figure 4.8: Driven cavity results for Re=5000. (a) Horizontal velocity profiles along
vertical line through geometrical center (b) Velocity vectors.
139
4.1.5 Solid Heat Transfer
" t
2qwall
exp x qwall x erfc x ,
2 "
T x, t Tinitial 4t (4.1.1)
k k 2 t
"
where qwall is the heat flux at the wall, is the thermal diffusivity, k is the thermal
conductivity, and x is the distance from the wall. Figure 4.9 shows a comparison between
the analytical solution and two numerical solutions with differing x. The initial
temperature is 300K, the diffusivity is 1.05*104 m2/s, and the thermal conductivity is
357.16 W/(m*K). The analytical surface temperature at a time of 103 s for this case is
310.24K; the coarser grid gives this temperature as 310.12K, and the more refined grid
gives 310.22K. It should be noted that the diffusivity and conductivity are taken to be
constant which differs from the complete ablation numerical model that allows these to
140
310
Analytical
x=10
5
x=2.5*10 6
Temperature (K)
305
300
Figure 4.9: Numerical vs. analytical solution for conduction with a constant heat flux in
a semiinfinite solid.
model was developed80, 97. This model was used to simulate several test cases, and the
results from these tests have provided direction to the enhancement of the final version of
The early model defined as a phase variable, which was either one (solid) or
zero (gas). The governing equations were written such that when was one the equations
reduced to conduction heat transfer within the solid, and when was zero they reduced to
141
Only ablation via sublimation was accounted for. The surface was tracked, but the
ablative flux was calculated at the original interface instead of at the actual location of the
The ratio of specific heats, for the air and ablation product (C3) were assumed
to be constant, and gas phase chemical reactions were not accounted for.
overall length of 3 cm, and cone halfangle of 10°, which is similar to the case given by
Chen and Milos79. The cone was given an initial temperature of 3750K (to be within the
sublimation range for the entire simulation), and the air was given an initial density of
0.235 kg/m3, pressure of 101.325 kPa, and Mach number of 7.0596. The computational
grid was Cartesian, with a staircased region representing the solid (=1). The 160 x160
point grid was structured in such a way as to be fine (r = z = 5*104m) near the
surface, and coarse (r = z = 5*103) away from it. This refinement was an attempt to
0.05
T(K)
20000
18150
16300
0.04 14450
12600
10750
8900
7050
0.03 5200
3350
R (m)
1500
0.02
0.01
0
0.01 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
Z (m)
Figure 4.10: Temperature contours of the converged flowfield in the simplified model.
142
Figure 4.10 shows the temperature contours after the flowfield has been allowed
to converge (ablation was suppressed until this occurs). The temperature near the
stagnation point is on the order of 18000K, and in some near surface regions approached
20000K. These are unrealistic temperatures, which result from the use of constant and
neglecting the gas phase chemical reactions. This led to the inclusion of these into the
Figure 4.11 shows the concentration of the ablation product C3 at various times.
It was expected that the ablation contours would be smooth with higher concentrations
near the stagnation point and the surface. Instead, there are “plumes” of much higher
concentration that are shortlived and vary in location. An investigation into the cause of
these plumes led to several possible culprits. First, the already identified unrealistically
high temperatures cause a corresponding large initial ablative mass flux resulting in a
high concentration which suppresses the mass flux until the high concentration dissipates.
Second, in the staircased approach the surface is not smooth, which does not allow the
near surface gas dynamics to behave correctly; this lead directly to the inclusion of the
general orthogonal coordinates (specifically body fitted coordinate systems) in the current
model. The use of the Ytrehus model of sublimation in place of the HertzKnudsen
model helped to partially suppress these oscillations but they were still present.
143
Figure 4.11: Concentration of C3 at various times within the simplified preliminary
model. (a) 1 ms (b) 5 ms (c) 10 ms.
The ablation test cases for this dissertation consist of varying conditions on the
same basic geometry which consists of a spherical tipped cone with a nose radius of 1.95
cm, a cone angle of 10°, and an overall length of 3 cm. This is similar to the case
presented by Chen and Milos79, and is in the range of the experiments conducted by
Lundell and Dickey30 which will allow comparisons to Figure 1.5 in terms of ablative
Two different sets of freestream conditions were considered which are shown in
Table 4.2. These cases were chosen to represent this model’s capability of handling a
vast range of initial conditions. In each of these cases the initial composition is 22% O2
144
and 78% N2. The first set represents flight at sea level conditions, which would be the
maximum freestream pressure and density that a vehicle could encounter. The second set
represents the arcjet conditions (provided by79) under which TPS materials are usually
tested.
For each of these sets of conditions there are two distinct test cases that are meant
to illustrate the capabilities of this model. Test case 1 has a perfect surface and test case
2 has the same surface with a small defect. In Test case 3 the surface temperature is
within the range where oxidation and nitridation are expected to dominate. Test 4 has
allowed the surface to heat to the point where sublimation is expected to dominate in the
stagnation region.
The first test case checks the functionality of the complete numerical method.
The numerical procedure was implemented as follows: a steady inviscid solution was
obtained with reflective boundary conditions at the TPS surface, then the viscous and
heat transfer portions of the solver is included and the temperature of the solid is allowed
to reach a suitable temperature, after which the hypersonic chemical reactions of the
partially dissociated air and mass diffusion portions are added until the concentrations
stabilize and then finally the ablation solvers including the reactiveRiemann solver and
surface energy balance are turned on. This procedure was required to decrease the
145
amount of computational time needed to reach the point where an ablation solution could
be obtained. For this particular case the viscous and heat transfer terms were run for
1.25*104 s of physical time and then the chemical reaction terms were run for an
Figure 4.12 shows the grid for this test case. The grid has 240 nodes in the x1 (i)
direction and 294 nodes in the x2 (j) direction. The surface is located at j = 208, and has
an initial local coordinate of (2)i,j+w = 0.0. The coarse grid has x1 = 3.466*104 m and
x2 = 3.4*104m. The boundary layer is resolved with 20 points in the x2 direction with a
x2 = 2.5*106m, and this spacing is used for 56 point in the x2 direction below the
surface. There is an exponential expansion factor of 1.1 used to expand between the
146
Figure 4.13 shows the computed location and shape of the shock versus the
location provided by the correlations given by Anderson75. In this correlation the shock
y 2 tan 2
x r rc cot 2 1
rc2
1 , (4.3.1a)
where r is the radius of the spherical tip, is the shock detachment distance at the
3.24
0.143r * exp ,
2
(4.3.1b)
M
rc is the radius of curvature for the shock wave along the stagnation line given by:
1.8
rc 1.143r * exp ,
0.75
(4.3.1c)
M 1
and is the oblique shock angle for the given cone angle. The numerical solution
provides a shock location that corresponds with the experimental correlation near the
spherical tip, and then provides a shock location closer to the surface along the cone
portion of the body. This is as expected because the angle is provided by the oblique
shock relations, not the angle of the shock that would be expected from a cone.
147
Figure 4.13: Predicted vs. actual shock shape for M∞ = 9.5.
148
The addition of gas phase chemical reactions significantly alters the computed
temperature of the flow behind the shock, as can be seen in Figure 4.14. This is
especially true in the stagnation region as can be seen in the inset. The maximum
temperature for the nonreacting case is 4548K, whereas for the reacting case it is 4109K.
Figure 4.15 and 4.16 show this comparison for the density and the pressure. The
maximum density for the nonreacting case is 12.48 kg/m3, and for the reacting case it is
13.18 kg/m3. The maximum pressure for the nonreacting case is 11.85*106 Pa and for
149
Figure 4.15: Comparison of pressure between chemically reacting and nonreacting flow
at M∞= 9.5.
Figure 4.16: Comparison of density between chemically reacting and nonreacting flow
at M∞= 9.5.
150
7
10
12
10
106
Pressure (Pa)
8
(kg/m )
3
5
4 10
4
0 5 4 3 2 10 5 4 3 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
x2(m) x2(m)
3500
4000
3000
3000 2500
Temperature (K)
2000
u (m/s)
2000
1500
1000
1000
500
0 5 4 3 2 0 5 4 3 2
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
x2(m) x2(m)
Figure 4.17: Stagnation line profiles for test case 1 with chemically reacting flow without
ablation.
The profiles along the stagnation line for the chemically reacting flow without
ablation are shown above, with the surface located at x2=0. Thee profiles show that the
second order Riemann solvers capture the shock within a few grid points. The pressure
remains nearly constant after the shock, so as the gas is cooled by heat transfer into the
solid the density increases. This is as expected from the ideal gas equation of state.
151
100
1
10
2
10
mass concentration
103 O2
N2
104 O
N
5 NO
10 +
NO
6
10
107
108
9
10 5 4 3 2
10 10 10 10
x2(m)
Figure 4.18: Profiles of mass concentration for test case 1 along the stagnation line with
chemically reacting flow and without ablation.
In the current test case the most prevalent gasphase chemical reaction is the
dissociation of O2. At the maximum temperature behind the shock wave this is expected,
as Anderson75 states that the dissociation of N2 begins around 4000K, and if the gas were
shows the mass concentration along the stagnation line without ablation. The peak
gas is NO, which is being produced mainly by reaction 28 in Table B.4 which has atomic
oxygen and molecular nitrogen as its reactants. Figures 4.1920 show the contours of
concentration vs. temperature for O2 and O. These are presented in computational space,
152
for ease of display, with an inset that shows the near surface region. In the cooler
temperatures of the boundary layer some of the O has recombined into O2.
Figure 4.19: Contours of temperature and O2 concentration for test case 1 with
chemically reacting flow without ablation.
153
Figure 4.20: Contours of temperature and O concentration for test case 1 with chemically
reacting flow without ablation.
Figure 4.21: Tangential velocity profiles along lines normal to the surface for test case 1
with chemically reacting flow without ablation.
154
Figure 4.22: Temperature profiles along lines normal to the surface for test case 1 with
chemically reacting flow without ablation.
102
x1=
3
1.73E4 10
1.91E3
2.81E3 x2 (m)
5.04E3
9.20E3
1.27E2
1.61E2 4
10
1.96E2
2.31E2
2.65E2
3.00E2
3.35E2
105
6 5 4 3 2
10 10 10 10 10
mass concentration of O
Figure 4.23: O concentration profiles along lines normal to the surface for test case 1
with chemically reacting flow without ablation.
155
Profiles of the tangential velocity, u1, for chemically reacting flow without
ablation are shown in Figure 4.21. Each profile is along a line normal to the surface. At
the shock there is a sharp decrease in the velocity, then it steadily decreases towards the
surface, and then in the boundary layer there is a more rapid decrease to zero at the
surface. The inset shows the profiles very near the surface within the boundary layer.
From this figure it can be seen that the entire volume between the shock wave and surface
Profiles of the temperature are shown in Figure 4.22. The temperature goes from
its free stream value to a much higher temperature at the shock. It then increases due to
aerodynamic heating to some mild maximum and then begins to decrease due to heat
transfer into the surface. Again an inset shows the profiles near the surface.
Figure 4.23 shows profiles of atomic oxygen (O) concentration along lines normal
to the surface for various positions along the surface. As the temperature undergoes a
jump at the shock the molecular oxygen (O2) beings to dissociate, and the concentration
156
3000
Solid
Gas
2500
Temperature (K)
2000
1500
1000
(a) (b)
Figure 4.24: Solid Temperature. (a) Contours. (b) Surface Profile.
Figure 4.24. The contours in computational space are shown in Figure 4.24a. The
temperature of the solid surface at the stagnation point has reached 3155 K. The profile
157
1.5x1003 0.30
0.25
Sublimation Oxidation
mass flux (kg/(m s)
2
0.15
5.0x1004
0.10
0.05
+00
0.0x10
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03
x1(m) x1(m)
(a) (b)
2.0x1006
1
10
2
10
1.5x1006
Nitridation
mass flux (kg/(m2s)
06
104
1.0x10
Overall
5
10 Oxidation
Nitridation
Sublimation
5.0x10
07 106
107
0.0x10+00 10
8
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.02 0.03
x1(m) x1(m)
(c) (d)
Figure 4.25: Ablative mass fluxes for test case 1. (a) Sublimation (b) Oxidation (c)
Nitridation (d) Comparison to overall.
The ablative mass fluxes are shown in Figure 4.33 at 7.66*106 s after the ablation
portion of the solver was implemented. At this point the mass flux results have reached a
quasistable solution for the current conditions. The peak flux is at the stagnation point
and has a value of 0.276 kg/(m2s) or 0.0276 g/(cm2s), of which 0.274 kg/(m2s) is from
158
sublimation. The area averaged flux is 0.113 kg/(m2s). These results are compared to the
Figure 4.26 shows the position of the surface at each point in the local non
dimensional coordinate 2. The initial surface was set to (2)i,j+w = 0.0 for each point. At
the stagnation point, the wall has receded to (2)i,j+w = 7.5*104. This translates to a
surface recession rate of .016 cm/s, which falls within the range predicted by 30. This rate
(~1 cm/min) means that significant shape change would occur over the course of a flight
at these conditions.
Figure 4.27 shows contours of the mass concentration of the ablation products
CO, CN, and C3. The contours show that the products have started to diffuse and convect
Figure 4.28 shows the profile of the gas species along the stagnation line. Near
the surface the N and O profiles have steep drops, which correspond to the production of
CN and CO at the surface. This can be compared to the nonablative case shown in
Figure 4.18. The concentration of NO rises near the surface because there is less O to
159
0.0x10+00
2.0x1004
04
4.0x10
(2)i,j+w
6.0x1004
04
8.0x10
03
1.0x10
0.01 0.02 0.03
x1(m)
Figure 4.26: Surface position in local nondimensional coordinates for test case 1.
5.0x1005
5.0x1005
c(CO) c(CN)
4.0x1005 4.0x1005 1.2x1007
0.03 07
0.028 1.1x10
07
0.026 1.0x10
0.024 9.0x1008
0.022 05 8.0x1008
3.0x10
05 3.0x10 7.0x1008
0.02 08
6.0x10
x2(m)
0.018
x2(m)
08
0.016 5.0x10
08
0.014 4.0x10
08
0.012 3.0x10
2.0x1005 0.01 2.0x1005 2.0x10
08
08
0.008 1.0x10
0.006
0.004
0.002 05
05
1.0x10 1.0x10
+00 +00
0.0x10 0.0x10
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0 0.01 0.02 0.03
x1(m) x1(m)
(a) (b)
5.0x1005
c(C3)
4.0x1005 6.5x1005
05
6.0x10
05
5.5x10
5.0x1005
05 4.5x1005
3.0x10 4.0x1005
05
3.5x10
x2(m)
05
3.0x10
05
2.5x10
05
2.0x10
2.0x1005 1.5x10
05
05
1.0x10
5.0x1006
05
1.0x10
+00
0.0x10
0 0.01 0.02 0.03
x1(m)
(c)
Figure 4.27: Contours of ablation products for test case 1. (a) CO (b) CN (c) C3.
160
100
101
2
10
mass concentration
3
10
O2
N2
104 O
N
105 NO
+
NO
6 CO
10
CN
C3
7
10
108
109 5 4 3 2
10 10 10 10
x2(m)
Figure 4.28: Mass concentration profiles along the stagnation line for test case 1 with
ablation.
4.3.2 Test Case 2: Sea level flight with defect at TPS surface
One of the motivations behind this study was to be able to ascertain the effects of
a small surface defect in the overall performance of an ablative TPS. Preliminary results
in our study97 had indicated that the ablative mass fluxes would have an order of
magnitude increase near the upstream and downstream edges of the defect. However
these results were obtained on a coarse staircase grid with the same issues noted in the
preliminary results section. In the current version of the model the grid for test cases 1
and 2 was designed to allow for adequate resolution of a defect. It should be noted that
The defect was taken to have a length of 1.25% of the overall surface length in the
x1 direction and an aspect ratio (length/depth) of ~2. Table 4.3 contains details of
location of the defect and Figure 4.29 shows a comparison between the original surface
161
and the surface with the defect. The defect extends from i = 41 to 115 and j = 123 to 208
(74 x 85 nodes) with varying grid spacing ensuring adequate boundary layer resolution
near the surfaces. Excluding the corner grid points the upstream side of the defect is
given an initial location in the local coordinate system of (1)i+w,j = 0.0, the downstream
side is given (1)iw,j = 0.0, and the bottom is given (2)i,j+w = 0.0. This corresponds to
these finite volumes having an initial volume fraction = 0.5. The upstream top corner
has an initial top surface located at (2)i,j+w = 0.0 and a right side given by (1)i+w,j = 0.0,
which corresponds to = 0.25. The downstream top corner is given the same surface
coordinates and volume fraction with the exception of the surface being on the opposite
side. Finally the bottom corners are initialized as all solid as current version of the
numerical methods can only deal with convex surfaces within a given finitevolume.
.
Figure 4.29: Original and defect surfaces.
162
The numerical procedure to reach the point of simulating ablation was similar to
that in case 1 with each portion of the simulation being run until the solution has reached
a quasisteady state. In this case, the simulation starts with a preconverged solution from
test case 1 and then the defect is added. This is necessary to prevent the development of
complex shock patterns and interactions within the defect that would occur if the
simulation was initialized with every gas point at the freestream conditions. The
ablationfree simulation is run until the vortex within the defect has had sufficient time to
Figure 4.30 shows the contours of temperature for the region of the defect, with
(a) showing the overall defect, and (b) and (c) showing the region near the top corners.
These results are shown in computational space. The overall defect shows a structure of
high temperature at the top that results from the boundary layer being disturbed by the
defect and hotter air from the shock layer being pulled into the defect where it is
impinges on the downstream side of the crack a small distance below the original surface.
This gas is also being heated by shear dissipation. There is another region along the
downstream side that has a higher temperature. Examination of the velocity vectors (see
Figure 4.31) in this region shows that this is where the main vortex detaches from the
wall and interacts with a weaker vortex in the lower downstream corner. The bottom of
the defect and the majority of the upstream side of the defect have been cooled by
conduction into the surrounding solid. The upstream top corner has a region of hotter gas
three peaks in the ablative mass fluxes that correspond to these regions of elevated gas
163
temperature (greater than 3500K) once the ablation portion of the solver is enabled.
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 4.30: Temperature contours in the defect preablation. (a) Overall (b) Upstream
Top Corner (c) Downstream Top Corner
164
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 4.31: Velocity vectors in defect region. (a) Overall (b) Upstream top corner (c)
Center region near original surface.
165
Figure 4.31 shows the velocity vectors in the region of the defect. Figure 4.31(a)
shows vectors at every point in the i direction and every third point in j direction. The
secondary vortex in the bottom downstream corner with a center located at x1 = 3.15*10
3
m and x2 = 1.7*104 m. Figure 4.31(b) provides the velocity vectors near the upstream
top corner and illustrates how the flow reemerging from the cavity disrupts the boundary
layer. Figure 4.31(c) shows the flow in middle of the x1 range of the defect near the
original surface.
Figure 4.32 provides the mass concentration of atomic oxygen in the defect
region. From this data, it can be expected that significant ablative mass fluxes due to
oxidation will occur near the top corners of the defect, along the downstream side, on the
c(O)
0.0002 0.034
0.032
0.03
0.028
0.026
0.0001 0.024
0.022
0.02
0.018
0.016
0 0.014
x2(m)
0.012
0.01
0.008
0.006
0.004
0.0001 0.002
0.0002
166
Away from the defect the surface temperature of the solid at a given point for test
case 2 is lower than the temperature of the same point in test case 1 by about 100K as can
be seen in Figure 4.33. This is due to the shorter amount of physical time that was
simulated at each stage of the solution; additional amount of time was required to run the
computations for test case two because the defect increases the number of points at which
a gas solution is needed which takes a significantly longer time than a solid solution. For
example the ablation portion of the solver was run to simulate 1.5*107 s of physical time
for the surface with the defect compared to 7.66*106 s for the original surface. Multi
time step simulations based on the use of different time steps for refined and coarse girds
time required.
While an exact quantitative comparison between the two test cases is not available
3500
Defect
3000 Original
Surface Temperature (K)
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
Figure 4.33: Comparison between surface temperatures for test case 1 and 2 prior to
ablation.
167
0
10
101
2
3
10
4
10
105
6
10 Overall (defect)
Overall (original)
10
7 Oxidation (defect)
Oxidation (original)
Sublimation (defect)
108
Sublimation (original)
(a)
0
10
101
ablative mass flux (kg/(m s))
2
10
2
3
10
4
10
105
6
10
Overall (defect)
7 Overall (original)
10 Oxidation (defect)
Oxidation (original)
108 Sublimation (defect)
Sublimation (original)
(b)
Figure 4.34: Comparison between ablative mass fluxes for original and defect surfaces.
(a) Overall (b) Defect region
168
Figure 4.34 shows a comparison between the overall, oxidation and sublimation
ablative mass fluxes for the original surface in test case 1 and the same surface with a
defect in case 2. Near the stagnation point the oxidation ablative mass flux for the two
cases are of the same order: 0.275 kg/(m2s) for test case 1 vs. 0.207 kg/(m2s) for test case
2, with the difference due to the temperature difference. The sublimation ablative mass
flux has a much larger difference, with 5.4*103 kg/(m2s) for test case 2 and 1.4*103
kg/(m2s) for test case 1; the difference results from the concentration of C3 not having
enough time to develop in test case 2. Despite these differences and away from the
defect the ablative mass fluxes for the two cases exhibit the same behavior with the peak
at the stagnation point and a steady decline with temperature. Away from the defect the
oxidation flux is several orders of magnitude larger than the sublimation flux.
Figure 4.35 and Table 4.4 detail the behavior of the ablative mass flux in the
region of the defect. These illustrate the ablation environment occurring along the
surface of the defect. The gas entering the defect has an original concentration of atomic
oxygen that is not replenished. This affects the oxidation rate along the entire surface of
the defect.
Figure 4.35(a) shows the mass fluxes and temperature along the upstream side of
the defect, near the top corner. The sublimation flux is negligible compared to the
oxidation flux except very near the corner at which point sublimation reaches the same
order of magnitude as oxidation and even becomes larger, as the surface temperature
exceeds 3500K.
Along the downstream side of the defect the peak mass flux is occurring at the
location predicted when examining Figure 4.30. The concentration of O has dropped
169
from the .02 shown in Figure 4.32 to the 3.15*104 provided by Table 4.4. This is due to
both the increase in the concentration of C3 from sublimation and the reaction of the
Figure 4.35(c) shows the ablation profile along the entire bottom surface. Again
the sublimation rate is negligible compared to the oxidation flux. The peak oxidation and
sublimation rates occur at different locations, with the oxidation occurring farther away
from the corner. This can be accounted for the flowfield within the defect. The location
of the peak oxidation is where the main and secondary vortexes interact. As the
secondary vortex travels away from this point towards the downstream corner the atomic
oxygen content is decreasing via the oxidation reaction, and the surface temperature is
170
Table 4.4: Data for peak mass fluxes within the defect.
Top Peak on
Peak on
Location Upstream downstream
bottom
Corner side
x1 2.733E03 3.176E03 3.109E03
x2 0.000E+00 7.500E06 2.125E04
x*1 0.000 1.000 0.847
x*2 0.000 0.035 1.000
T(K) 3675.4 3595.0 2760.8
c(O) 2.15E04 3.15E04 2.24E05
ablative mass overall 2.185 2.171 9.715E02
fluxes(kg/(m2s)) oxidation 0.951 1.574 9.686E02
sublimation 1.234 0.597 2.940E04
171
Tsolid(K) Tsolid(K)
1500 2000 2500 3000 3500 1500 2000 2500 3000 3500
0.0x10+00 0.0x10+00
Overall
2.0x1006 Oxidation 1.0x1005 Overall
Sublimation Oxidation
Temperature Sublimation
Temperature
06 05
4.0x10 2.0x10
x2(m)
x2(m)
6.0x1006 3.0x1005
06 05
8.0x10 4.0x10
05 05
1.0x10 5 4 3 2 1 0 5.0x10 2 1 0
10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10 10
2 2
ablative mass flux (kg/(m s)) ablative mass flux (kg/(m s))
(a) (b)
Overall
Oxidation
ablative mass flux (kg/(m2s))
Sublimation
Temperature 2500
102
Tsolid(K)
2000
103
1500
104
0.0028 0.0029 0.003 0.0031
x1(m)
(c)
Figure 4.35: Peak mass fluxes within the defect. (a) Top upstream corner
(b) Downstream side (c) Bottom.
This test case has shown that a small defect in a surface can drastically alter the
ablation environment in its vicinity. Based on the data of test case 1 it would seem that in
ignore sublimation. However the current simulation shows that the increase in the
temperature near a defect can cause a sublimation rate that is of the same order as the
172
The higher local rates will begin to alter both the size and shape of the defect,
which has a feed back loop to the local rates. The evolution of the defect and its ablation
rates over a long time can be explored in future studies when the computational
efficiency of the solver will be enhanced by using implicit schemes and multiple time
regime
The third test case consists of the same basic geometry exposed to conditions
similar to the typical conditions found in an arcjet test. The inlet conditions are the same
as those provided by Chen and Milos79 with the exception of the composition; at the inlet
temperature of 1428K they report a composition that has a significant portion of the O2
dissociated. In this test case the surface temperature at the stagnation point has reached
2473K.
Figure 4.36 shows the grid that was used for test cases 3 and 4. It has 121 points
in the x1 direction and 308 in the x2 direction, of which 4 points in each direction are
ghost points used for the boundary conditions. The surface is again located at j = 208,
and the boundary layer is resolved using the same refined grid spacing and transition as
173
Figure 4.36: Grid for test cases 3 and 4.
174
Figure 4.37 shows a comparison between temperature contours for test cases 1
and 3. The peak temperature behind the shock wave for test case 3 is ~9800K compared
to ~4100K for test case 1. The shock displacement distance d for test case 3 can be seen
to be slightly larger than that of test case 1 which is as expected given the lower Mach
number (see Eq. 4.3.1b). The maximum pressure behind the shock wave is 125kPa
which is two orders of magnitude lower than test case 1. The density behind the shock
wave is 0.147 kg/m3, which is also much lower than the density obtained in test case 1.
100 10000
1
10
Temperature(K)
2
10 8000
mass concentration
3
10
104 6000
5
10
6 O2
10 4000 N2
O
10
7 N
NO
+
NO
108 2000 e

CO
109 CN
5 4 3 2
10 10 10 10 C3
x2(m) T
Figure 4.38: Profiles of species mass concentration and temperature along the stagnation
line for test case 3.
At the shock the sudden increase in temperature causes the molecular oxygen and
nitrogen to begin to dissociate. Figure 4.38 shows the profiles of the species mass
concentrations and temperature along the stagnation line. At the shock the molecular
oxygen and nitrogen undergo chemical reactions and their concentrations undergo
175
significant decreases with the O2 dropping from 0.22 to 2.5*105. In this case enough
products CO, CN and C3 have diffused throughout the boundary layer and then decrease
1e6 s
2e6 s
3e6 s
0.3
4e6 s
5e6 s
6e6 s
0.25 7e6 s
ablative mass flux (kg/(m 2))
8e6 s
9e6 s
2
1e5 s
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
0.005 0.01 0.015
x1(m)
Figure 4.39 shows the profiles of the ablative mass flux for various times. After
105s have elapsed with the ablation portion of the solver enabled the flux appears to have
Figure 4.40 shows the ablative mass flux profiles for this converged curve. The
overall stagnation point mass flux is 0.198 kg/(m2s), of which 0.132 kg/(m2s) is due to
oxidation, 0.066 kg/(m2s) is due to nitridation and a miniscule 4.76*106 kg/(m2s) is due
to sublimation; The areaaveraged rate is 0.142 kg/(m2s). The low sublimation rate is due
176
to the fact that the surface temperature is still relatively low despite the high gas
temperature.
The final test case is at a stagnation point surface temperature (3850K) where
sublimation should be the dominant contributor to the ablative mass flux. The freestream
conditions are the same as those under test 3. Under the given conditions the equilibrium
partial pressure of the C3 is higher (293.4 kPa) than the actual mixture pressure (125
kPa), which provides a very strong test for the sublimation model. The simulation is run
with ablation enable for 107 s after when the mass flux rates have begun to converge.
177
100 10000
1
10
Temperature(K)
2
10 8000
mass concentration
3
10
104 6000
5
10
6 O2
10 4000 N2
O
10
7 N
NO
+
NO
108 2000 e

CO
109 CN
5 4 3 2
10 10 10 10 C3
x2(m) T
Figure 4.41: Profiles of species mass concentration and temperature along the stagnation
line for test case 4 using HertzKnudsen.
Figure 4.41 shows the profiles of the gas temperature and mass concentrations
along the stagnation line. As can be seen the sublimation has released enough C3 to make
the concentration at the surface equal to 0.98. There are only trace amounts of O, and N
which mean that the oxidation and nitridation reactions do not have enough reactants to
Figure 4.42 shows the ablative mass fluxes for test case 4 and the surface
temperature of the solid using the HertzKnudsen equation for sublimation (Eq. 2.4.49).
The stagnation point mass flux is 22.77 kg/(m2s), of which 22.75 kg/(m2s) is from
sublimation, .015 kg/(m2s) is from oxidation and the remainder from nitridation.
Downstream the oxidation and nitridation fluxes increase until the oxidation and
sublimation fluxes are equal after which the oxidation begins to dominate and the
178
sublimation quickly drops to a negligible amount. The ablative flux averaged over the
surface area is 1.95 kg/(m2s). In this severe case the stagnation flux is 11.7 times greater
than the average surface flux. Further downstream the local ablative flux is almost 40
times less than the average. Clearly using the average rate to design a graphite TPS
Figure 4.43 shows the ablative mass fluxes using the Ytrehus sublimation mass
flux (Eq. 2.4.57). The overall ablative mass flux has increased to 36.40 kg/(m2s), which
is almost entirely from sublimation. The average mass flux has also increased to 2.82
kg/(m2s).
Figure 4.44(a) compares the sublimation flux provided by the HertzKnudsen and
Ytrehus equations. The Ytrehus provides a higher rate across the entire temperature
range, especially in the hotter region. An examination of the two equations shows that in
the Ytrehus equation the term that deals with the actual partial pressure of C3 present at
the surface is multiplied by a coefficient that is less than unity under the current
conditions. Figure 4.46 in the next section compares the results of this test case with
experimental data, which shows that the HertzKnudsen rate is closer to the experimental
data. Nevertheless the Ytrehus model has been shown (see Figure 2.2) to eliminate
oscillations in the mass flux rate as it approaches zero, which would occur in strong
sublimation situations where the mixture pressure is larger than the equilibrium pressure
of C3.
Figure 4.44(b) compares the injection velocities at the surface versus and the
speed of sound. The injection velocities remain subsonic, but as the mass flux increases
at higher temperature they could approach the speed of sound (which may occur if there
179
were a surface defect similar to the defect found in test case 2). The Ytrehus model also
implicitly contains the requirement that the injection velocity not become supersonic
while this restriction must be added in as a separate condition on the HertzKnudsen rate.
Tsolid
Overall
Oxidation
102 Nitridation 4000
Sublimation
Area Average
101
ablative mass flux (kg/(m s))
3500
2
100
Temperature (K)
101
3000
102
103
2500
104
5
10 2000
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
x1(m)
Figure 4.42: Ablative mass fluxes for test case 4 with HertzKnudsen sublimation.
180
Tsolid
Overall
Oxidation
102 Nitridation 4000
Sublimation
Area Average
101
Temperature (K)
101
3000
2
10
103
2500
104
5
10 2000
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
x1(m)
Figure 4.43: Ablative mass fluxes for test case 4 with Ytrheus sublimation.
1500
Sublimation mass flux (kg/(m s))
30 HertzKnudsen
2
Ytrehus
Velocity (m/s)
1000
20
HertzKnudsen
Ytrehus
10 500
Speed of Sound
0 0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
x1(m) x1(m)
(a) (b)
Figure 4.44: Comparison between HertzKnudsen and Ytrehus models (a) mass fluxes
(b) injection velocities.
Figure 4.45(a) shows a comparison of the shear stresses at the wall for the
conditions of test case 4 with and without ablation. The presence of ablation reduces the
shear stress especially near the stagnation point. The drag due to skin friction can be
181
found by integrating the shear stress over the surface area. For the non ablative case this
provides a drag force of 5.27N, and the ablative case provides a drag force of 4.28N
which is a reduction of 23%. This observation agrees with the experimental results of
The reason for this decrease in drag can be shown by examining Figure 4.45(b)
which contains profiles of the tangential velocity (u2) near the wall at various x1
coordinates along the wall. The profiles nearest the stagnation point (x1 = 0) have slopes
that have been significantly flattened close to the wall due to the large injection velocity.
Away from the region of high ablative mass fluxes the velocity profiles return to their
nonablative behavior.
182
2000
04
1.0x10
w/o ablation
ablation
1500 8.0x1005
wall(N/m2)
6.0x1005
x2(m)
1000 x1 =
0.176E03 (abl)
0.176E03 (w/o abl)
4.0x10
05 0.721E02 (abl)
0.721E02 (w/o abl)
0.107E01 (abl)
500 0.107E01 (w/o abl)
0.213E01 (abl)
2.0x1005 0.213E01 (w/o abl)
0.353E01 (abl)
0.353E01 (w/o abl)
0
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0 500 1000 1500
x1(m) u1(m)
(a) (b)
100
05
1.0x10
150 8.0x1006
w/o ablation
q"wall(MW/m2)
ablation 06
6.0x10
x2(m)
200
4.0x1006
250
2.0x1006
+00
300 0.0x10
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 2000 2500 3000 3500 4000 4500
x1(m) Temperature (K)
(c) (d)
Figure 4.45: Comparison of wall conditions for ablative and nonablative test case 4.
(a) Shear stress (b) Velocity profiles (c) Heat flux (d) Temperature Profiles.
Figure 4.45(c) shows a comparison of the wall heat fluxes between the ablative
and nonablative cases. At the stagnation point the ablative case shows the gas providing
a heat flux of 272 MW/m2 compared to 289 MW/m2 for the non ablative case. It should
be noted that in addition to this reduction, two of the ablation process also absorb large
amounts of heat (22.7 MJ/kg for sublimation, and 16.7 MJ/kg for nitridation) which
reduces the heat flux going into the solid even more. The oxidation reaction releases 3.9
183
MJ/kg but this is small compared to the reduction in heat flux being provided. The exact
contribution of these reactions to the overall heat flux entering the surface can be found
by multiplying the MJ/kg values by the ablative mass fluxes for each process. It is
interesting to note that downstream the heat flux for the ablative case becomes larger than
the nonablative case, although it remains below the peak stagnation point flux.
Figure 4.45(d) displays profiles of the temperature near the wall. The wall
temperature has increased as time has elapsed during the ablation simulation, so the
temperatures at the point nearest the wall do not coincide between the ablative and non
ablative cases. The green profiles are within the region where the flux is higher, and as
can be seen the temperature gradient is much higher in the ablative case. The exact reason
for this higher gradient in this region is unclear, although it is in the same general
location as where the ablative shear profile in Figure 4.45(a) begins to become parallel to
the nonablative profile. It should be noted that the scales of (b) and (d) are different
because the temperature boundary layer is thinner than the velocity boundary layer.
The four test cases considered in this section have shown that the developed
model is capable of handling a wide range of input conditions, and the ability to resolve
localized peaks in the ablation environment. Even though the flight or experimental data
may correspond to the ablation being primarily oxidation localized regions may transition
to sublimation dominated ablation. Table 4.5 summarizes the stagnation point ablative
mass fluxes and the area averaged mass fluxes for test case 1, 3 and 4.
184
Table 4.5: Stagnation point ablative mass fluxes
2 Area
Stagnation point mass Flux (kg/(m s))
Averaged
T(k) Overall Oxidation Nitridation Sublimation Overall
Case 1 3150.50 0.276 0.274 1.661E06 1.378E03 0.113
Case 3 2473.06 0.198 0.132 6.591E02 4.758E06 0.142
Case 4
3849.00
(HK) 22.769 1.532E02 4.211E04 22.753 1.951
Case 4 (Yt) 3848.91 36.405 1.661E03 3.208E05 36.403 2.818
HK: Hertz Knudsen. Yt: Ytrehus.
0.4
Lundell and Dickey
exponential curve fit
avaerage ablative mass flux (g/(cm s))
0.3
Ytrehus
4
0.2 HertzKnudsen
0.1
3 1
0
2500 3000 3500 4000
Tsolid(K)
Figure 4.46: Comparison between computational results and the experiments of Lundell
and Dickey.
185
Figure 4.46 shows a comparison between the experimental results of Lundell and
Dickey30 and the results obtained in this dissertation. The exact method at which they
arrived at these values and an error analysis are lacking, but enough detail exists to
ascertain that they determined the amount of mass loss, and an average surface area and
then used the overall time of the run to generate an ablative mass flux. The curve fit is:
where the temperature is in K and the ablative mass flux is in g/(cm2s). The conversion
factor is 1 g/(cm2s) = 0.1 kg/(m2s). The area averaged values for the mass flux have
been used to compare to the experimental results. At the lower temperature range where
oxidation and nitridation dominate the numerical results have very good agreement with
dominates and the agreement with the results are not as good, but are still comparable
with the HertzKnudsen model provides a result that is closer to the experiment. The
discrepancy between the numerical and experimental results in the sublimation range is
probably due to the choice in equilibrium pressure function for C3, which is disagreed
4.4 Summary
This chapter has provided results for the numerical methods against a variety of
test cases of increasing complexity. Where possible the obtained computational results
First the various submodels such as inviscid and viscous gas dynamics were
tested against corresponding standard numerical tests. These tests ranged from one
186
dimensional inviscid flow in the Sod problem using first and second order numerical
fluxes, to flat plate boundary layer and driven cavity flow for viscous flow, to a semi
infinite solid solution to test the conduction heat transfer portion of the solver.
Second a variety of test cases were run across a wide range of hypersonic flow
conditions to validate the functionality of the full model. The shock shape has been
shown to follow the experimental correlations and the general behavior of the flow
reactions was shown to be correct by the composition of the gas behind the shock wave.
The model has been shown to handle small defects in the surface and the different
ablation reactions. The results have been compared to experimental results and shown to
agree with the experiment, especially at the relatively lower temperature range where
The results of the validation cases, the agreement of the ablation test cases with
experimental results, and the ability to handle surface defects verifies the functionality
and flexibility of the novel reactiveRiemann solver and the overall numerical model. The
overall models ability to use different submodels such as the different Riemann solvers
demonstrated.
187
CHAPTER V
CONCLUSIONS
In Chapter 1 the existing state of the art in ablation research was detailed. A need
was identified for a computational method that couples all of the various ablation sub
processes in as tight a manner as possible. The objectives for a research program aimed
process based on first principles that takes into account the various gasdynamic,
model with varying levels of resolution that are capable of handling the moving
All of these objectives have been met during the course of this research program.
Starting from first principles and using the Reynolds Transport Theorem, a novel coupled
system of governing conservation equations for the solid and gas is developed that
188
account for the surface chemical reactions (oxidation, nitridation, and sublimation) and
recession of the surface. The final version of these equations is in a form suitable for
coordinates. The associated gas phase thermodynamic relations, transport models, and
hypersonic chemical reaction equations are also provided. Novel forms of the surface
mass and energy balances that account for the ablation of the surface are also presented.
The numerical methods necessary for the solution of the mathematical model are
account for both the overall finite volume associated with a grid point, and the various
configurations of gas and solid contained within a finite volume encompassing the
ablative surface. A first order explicit time discretization for the governing equations is
presented with terms that account for the changing volume of the solid. In order to
calculate the inviscid portion of the fluxes, existing Riemann solvers are modified to take
into account multiple chemical species originating from dissociation of the air and high
presented in both first and second order of approximation and the necessity for second
the ablative surface using the surface mass and energy balances. A time step limitation
resulting from the movement of the solid surface is proposed and is used in conjunction
with the existing time step limitations for other processes to determine the overall
maximum allowable time step. Finally an algorithm that combines these methods is
189
The validation tests for the different subprocesses are presented in Chapter 4
including the onedimensional Sod problem and twodimensional supersonic wedge flow
problem for inviscid gas dynamics, flat plate boundary layer and driven cavity flow for
the viscous gas dynamics, and conduction into a semiinfinite solid. The convergence of
the results to the known solutions with increasing grid resolution is presented.
approximation of the surface are then presented to illustrate the reasons for some of the
choices made in the development of the final version of this model. The use of variable
specificheat and chemical reactions within the gas phase are justified by the non
physical high temperatures of the shock layer. The need for a bodyfitted coordinate
system was also shown. The chief driving force for these enhancements was to eliminate
Finally several TPS ablation test cases were provided that illustrate the
functionality of the model against a range of conditions. The first two cases are at sea
level flight conditions and represent the highest freestream pressures and densities that a
real aerospace vehicle could be expected to encounter. The second set of cases is at arc
jet conditions which are the standard method for testing the performance of TPS
materials.
The first test case is a defectfree surface at sealevel pressure, 300 K temperature
and Mach 9.5 freestream conditions. The choice to use nonequilibrium versus
equilibrium chemical reactions is justified. The shape and offset of the shock wave are
shown to agree with experimental correlations. The ablation results show that as
expected for the surface temperature range that the ablation is primarily via oxidation.
190
The second test case is at the same initial freestream conditions as the first one
with a small cavitytype defect located on the surface. In the region of this small defect
there are locations that have significant increases in surface temperature and ablation
rates. At these locations the ablation process transitions from being oxidation to
sublimation dominated. The developed model has been shown capable of handling the
complex interaction between ablation, surface heat transfer and the behavior of vortexes
The third test case is a defectfree surface under arcjet conditions that has a
surface temperature that is within the oxidation and nitridation range. A comparison is
made between the shock wave location and shape for the arcjet and sealevel flight
conditions. The convergence of the ablative mass fluxes to a quasisteady rate is shown.
The fourth test case is the same as the third with the exception of an elevated
surface temperature that places the stagnation region within the sublimation dominated
temperature range. This provides the most extreme test of the model because of the
strong blowing from the surface. A comparison is provided between the HertzKnudsen
and Ytrehus sublimation rates. It is shown that in this strong sublimation case that the
use of a surface average ablative mass flux for design purposes would severely
underestimate the stagnation region ablation and overestimate the ablation further
downstream. The wall shear stress and heat flux are shown for the ablative and non
ablative cases are compared, which shows that ablation significantly reduces the surface
shear (and therefore drag) and the heat flux within the stagnation region.
The three test cases without surface defects are compared to the experiments of
Lundell and Dickey30, which are interpreted to be equivalent to a surface average. The
191
surface average ablative mass fluxes of the first and third test cases (which fall within the
oxidation and nitridation dominated temperature ranges) agree very well with the
experimental results. The results from the fourth test case are higher than the
experimental results, with the HertzKnudsen result being closer. The models for
oxidation and nitridation are consistent throughout the literature but a function (of the
form of Eq. 2.4.51) for the equilibrium pressure of C3, which is important in both the
Ytrehus and HertzKnudsen models, has not been agreed upon, with a wide range being
reported. The value used in the current study falls in the middle of the range, and was
coupled ablation solver that incorporates the different sub processes that are important for
the noncharring ablation problem. A novel mathematical model for ablation has been
developed starting from first principles that provides the coupling intrinsically. A set of
numerical methods including a novel reactiveRiemann solver has been integrated into an
algorithm for the solution of hypersonic ablation problems. The model and algorithm and
their various components have been validated against test cases of increasing complexity
able to resolve local defects is shown: a defect can produce local regions where the
temperature increases to the point that the sublimation reaction begins to dominate
leading to ablative mass fluxes much higher than the same surface without a defect.
192
The research conducted in this dissertation program is by no means at a deadend.
The current physical model has assumed that the gas phase is in thermal
equilibrium, but more accurate gas dynamics would include the possibility of a two
included in the future especially at the higher temperature ranges where sublimation is
expected to dominate. The physical model could also be expanded to allow for charring
ablators provided a detailed model of the charring process including the composition and
properties of the pyrolysis gas. A variety of the C3 equilibrium pressure functions could
agreement.
due to the explicit time step limitations due to the resolution of the boundary layer. A
multiple time step scheme could be implemented in order to resolve this. Also better
193
REFERENCES
1
Gnoffo, P.A., “PlanetaryEntry Gas Dynamics,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics,
Vol. 31, 1999, pp. 45994.
2
Heppenheimer, T. A., Facing The Heat Barrier: A History of Hypersonics, NASA
History Series, NASA SP20074232, Washington, DC, 2007.
3
Sutton, G. W., “The Initial Development of Ablation Heat Protection, An Historical
Perspective,” Journal of Space Craft and Rockets, Vol. 19, No. 1, 1982, pp. 311.
4
Erb, R. B., and Jacobs, S., “Entry Performance of the Mercury Spacecraft Heat Shield,”
NASA TMX57097, 1964.
5
NASA, “Project Gemini Quarterly Status Report, Period Ending 30 Nov. 1962,” NASA
TMX51176, 1962.
6
Avco Corp., “Apollo Heat Shield Monthly Progress Report,” NASA CR127995, 1964.
7
Houston, R. S., and Hallion, R. P., “Transiting from Air to Space: The North American
X15,” The Hypersonic Revolution: Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic
Technology, Edited by R. P. Hallion, Vol. 1, Air Force History and Museums Program,
Washington, DC, 1998.
8
Price, A. B., “Design Report – Thermal Protection System X15A2,” NASA CR
82003, 1968.
9
Geiger, C. J., “Strangled Infant: The Boeing X20A DynaSoar,” The Hypersonic
Revolution: Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology, Edited by R. P.
Hallion, Vol. 1, Air Force History and Museums Program, Washington, DC, 1998.
10
Hallion, R. P., “ASSET: Pioneer of Lifting Reentry,” The Hypersonic Revolution: Case
Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology, Edited by R. P. Hallion, Vol. 1, Air
Force History and Museums Program, Washington, DC, 1998.
11
Vitelli, J. L., and Hallion, R. P., “Project PRIME: Hypersonic Reentry from Space,”
The Hypersonic Revolution: Case Studies in the History of Hypersonic Technology,
Edited by R. P. Hallion, Vol. 1, Air Force History and Museums Program, Washington,
DC, 1998.
194
12
Chandler, H. H., “Lowcost ablative heat shields for space shuttles,” NASA CR
111800, 1970.
13
Hiltz, A. A., “Exploratory Development of a Flexible Ablative Covering for Space
Shuttle Application,” NASA NAS912067, 1972.
14
Walberg, G.D., and Sullivan, E. M., “Ablative Heat Shields for Planetary Entries – A
Technology Review,” NASA TMX66946, 1970.
15
Gnoffo, P. A., Weilmuenster, K. J., Hamilton II, H. H., Olynick, D. R., and
Venkatapathy, E., “Computational Aerothermodynamic Design Issues for Hypersonic
Vehicles,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 36, No. 1, 1999, pp. 2143.
16
Pallix, J., “HighTemperature Behavior of Advanced Spacecraft TPS,” NASA CR
195832, 1994.
17
Lycans, R. W., “X33 Base Region Thermal Protection System Design Study,” 7th
AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, ASME, New York,
1998.
18
Davis, D., “Thermal Analysis of the MC1 Chamber/Nozzle,” Space Technology and
Applications International Forum 2001, Albuquerque, NM, Feb. 1114, 2001.
19
Smith, D., Carroll, C., Marschall, J., and Pallix, J., “Materials Testing on the DCX and
DCXA,” NASA TM110430, 1997.
20
Steltzner, A., Desai, P., Lee, W., and Bruno, R., “The Mars Exploration Rovers Entry
Descent and Landing and the Use of Aerodynamic Decelerators,” AIAA 20032125.
AIAA ADS Conference, Monterey, CA, May 2022, 2003.
21
Zhong, J., Ozawa, T., and Levin, D., “Modeling of Stardust Reentry Reacting Thermal
and Chemical Ablation Flow,” AIAA2007455, 39th AIAA Thermophysics Conference,
Miami, FL, June 2528, 2007.
22
Olynick, D., Chen, Y.K., and Tauber, M.E., “Forebody TPS Sizing with Radiation and
Ablation for the Stardust Sample Return Capsule,” AIAA19972474, 32nd AIAA
Thermophysics Conference, Atlanta, GA, June 2325, 1997.
23
Ko, W.L., Gong, L., and Quinn, R. D., “Reentry Thermal Analysis of a Generic Crew
Exploration Vehicle Structure,” NASA TM2007214607, 2007.
24
Rahsis, B., and O’Hare, R. J., “FreeFlight Investigation of Reentry Heat Transfer and
Ablation at Velocities up to 22,500 Feet per Second,” NASA TMX970, 1964.
195
25
Wick, B. H., “Ablation Characteristics and Their Evaluation by Means of Arc Jets and
Arc Radiation Sources,” 7th Congress International Aeronautique, Paper 10, Paris, June
1416, 1965.
26
Scala, S. M., and Gilbert, L. M., “The Sublimation of Graphite at Hypersonic Speeds,”
AIAA19641320, AIAA Entry Technology Conference, Williamsburg & Hampton, VA,
October 1214, 1964, pp. 239258.
27
Metzger J. W., Engel, M. J., and Diaconis N. S., “The Oxidation and Sublimation of
Graphite in Simulated ReEntry Environment,” NASA CR60395, 1965.
28
Maahs, H. G., “Ablation Performance of Glasslike Carbons, Pyrolytic Graphite and
Artificial Graphite in the Stagnation Pressure Range 0.035 to 15 Atmospheres,” NASA
TND7005, 1970.
29
Maahs, H. G., “A Study of the Effect of Selected Material Properties on the Ablation
Performance of Artificial Graphite,” NASA TN D6624, 1972.
30
Lundell, J. H. and Dickey, R. B., “Ablation of ATJ Graphite at High Temperatures,”
AIAA Journal, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1973, pp. 216222.
31
Wool, M. R., “Passive Nosetip Technology (PANT) Program. Volume X. Summary of
Experimental and Analytical Results,” SAMSOTR7486, 1975.
32
Chen, Y. K., Milos, F. S., Reda, S. C., and Stewart, D.A., “Graphite Ablation and
Thermal Response Simulation Under ArcJet Flow Conditions,” AIAA 20034002, 36th
AIAA Thermophysics Conference, Orlando, FL, June 2326, 2003.
33
Marvin, J. G., and Pope, R.B., “Laminar Convective Heating and Ablation in the Mars
Atmosphere,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1967, pp. 240248.
34
Williams, M. E., and Chapman, G. T., “Free Flight Determination of Boundary Layer
Transition on Small Scale Cones in the presence of Surface Ablation,” NASA TMX
68867, 1972.
35
Kruse, R. L., “Comparison of the Aerodynamic Characteristics of an Ablating and
Nonablating Blunted Conical Body,” NASA TN D7196, 1973.
36
Kruse, R. L., “The Effect of Asymmetric Ablation on Trim Angle of Attack,” NASA
TM 84309, 1982.
37
Mullenix, N., “A Coupled Gas Dynamics and Heat Transfer Method for Simulating the
Laser Ablation Process of Carbon Nanotube Production,” M.S. Thesis, Mechanical
Engineering Dept., University of Akron, Akron, OH, 2005.
196
38
Laub, B., “Ablator Modeling: Historical perspectives, surface ablation and indepth
modeling,” AFOSR/NASA/SNL Workshop on Future Research Directions for Ablation
and EnvironmentMaterial Interactions, 2008.
39
Park, C., “Review of ChemicalKinetic Problems of Future NASA Missions, I: Earth
Entries”. Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 7, No. 3, 1993, pp. 385398.
40
Park, C., Jaffr, R. L., and Partridge, H., “ChemicalKinetic Parameters of Hyperbolic
Earth Entry,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 15, No. 1, 2001, pp. 76
90.
41
Zhluktov, S. V., and Abe, T., “Viscous ShockLayer Simulation of Airflow past
Ablating Blunt Body with Carbon Surface,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat
Transfer. Vol. 13, No. 1, 1999, pp. 5059.
42
Havstad, M. A., and Ferencz, R. M., “Comparison of Surface Chemical Kinetic Models
for Ablative Reentry of Graphite,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 16,
No. 4, 2002, pp. 508515.
43
Milos, F. S., and Rasky, D. J., “Review of Numerical Procedures for Computational
Surface Thermochemistry,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 8, No. 1,
1994, pp. 2434.
44
Ytrehus, T., “Kinetic Theory Description and Experimental Results for Vapor Motion
in Arbitrary Strong Evaporation,” Technical Note 112, Von Karman Institute for Fluid
Dynamics, 1975.
45
Yrehus, T., and Ostmo, S., “Kinetic Theory approach to Interphase Processes,”
International Journal of Multiphase Flow, Vol. 22, 1996, pp. 133155.
46
Pekker, L., Keidar, M., and Cambier, JL., “Effect of thermal conductivity on the
Knudsen layer at ablative surfaces,” Journal of Applied Physics, Vol. 103, No. 3, 2008,
pp. 03490616.
47
Hogan, R. E., Blackwell, B. F., and Cochran, R. J., “Numerical Solution of Two
Dimensional Ablation Problems Usinag the Finite Control Volume Method with
Unstructured Grids,” AIAA942985, 6th AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat
Transfer Conference, Colorado Springs, CO, June 2023, 1994.
48
Storti M., “Numerical modeling of ablation phenomena as twophase Stefan problem,”
International Journal of Heat and Mass Transfer, Vol. 38, No. 15, 1995, pp. 28432854.
49
Potts, R. L., “Application of Integral Methods to Ablation Charring Erosion, a
Review,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 32, No. 2, 1995, pp. 200209.
197
50
Chen, Y. K., and Milos, F. S., “Ablation and Thermal Response Program for
Spacecraft Heatshield Analysis,” AIAA980273, 36th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit, Reno, NV, Jan. 1215, 1998.
51
Shih, Y. C., Cheung, F. B., Koo, J. H., and Yang, B. C., “Numerical Study of Transient
Thermal Ablation of HighTemperature Insulation Materials,” Journal of Thermophysics
and Heat Transfer, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2003, pp. 5361.
52
Dec, J. A., and Braun, R. D., “An Approximate Thermal Protection System Sizing Tool
for Entry System Design,” AIAA 2006780, 44th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting,
Reno, NV, Jan. 912, 2006.
53
Amar, A. J., Blackwell, B. F., and Edwards, J. R., “OneDimensional Ablation Using a
Full Newton’s Method and Finite Control Volume Procedure,” Journal of Thermophysics
and Heat Transfer, Vol. 22, No. 1, 2008, pp. 7182.
54
Mitchell, S. L., and Meyers, T. G. “Heat Balance Integral Method for One
Dimensional Finite Ablation,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 22, No.
3, 2008, pp. 508514.
55
Engel, C. D., Farmer, R. C., Pike, R. W., “Ablation and Radiation Coupled Viscous
Hypersonic Shock Layers,” AIAA Journal, Vol. 11, No. 8, 1973, pp. 11741181.
56
Konuraskai, K., and Candler, G., “LaminartoTurbulent Transitions over an Ablating
Reentry Capsule,” Acta Astronautica, Vol. 47, No. 10, 2000, pp. 745751.
57
Zhong, J. Ozawa, T., and Levin, D., “Modeling of Stardust Reentry Reacting Thermal
and Chemical Ablation Flow,” AIAA2007455, 39th AIAA Thermophysics Conference,
Miami, FL, June 2528, 2007.
58
Barbante, P. F., Dgrez, G., and Sarma, G. S. R., “Computation of Nonequilibrium
HighTemperature Axisymmetric Boundary Layer Flows,” Journal of Thermophysics
and Heat Transfer, Vol. 16, No. 4, 2002, pp. 490497.
59
Ivankov, A. A., “A Method for Calculating Intense Injection from Surfaces of Blunt
Bodies Entering Planetary Atmospheres at Hypersonic Velocities,” Fluid Dynamics, Vol.
41, No. 1, 2006, pp. 137146.
60
Candler, C. V., and MacCormack, R. W., “The Computation of Hypersonic Ionized
Flows in Chemical and Thermal Nonequilibirum,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat
Transfer, Vol. 5, No. 3, 1991, pp. 266273.
61
Thompson, R. A., and Gnoffo, P. A., “Implementation of a Blowing Boundary
Condition in the LAURA Code,” AIAA20081243, 46th AIAA Aerospace Sciences
Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, Jan 710, 2008.
198
62
Conti, R. J., MacCormack, R. W., Groener, L. S., and Fryer, J. M., “Practical Navier
Stokes Computation of Axisymmetric Reentry Flowfields with Coupled Ablation and
Shape Change,” AIAA1992752, 30th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting. Reno, NV,
Jan. 69, 1992.
63
Bhutta, B. A., and Lewis, C. H., “New Technique for LowtoHigh Altitude
Predictions of Ablative Hypersonic Flowfields,” Journal of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol.
29, No. 1, 1992, pp. 35 50.
64
Olynick, D., Chen, Y. K., and Tauber, M. E., “Forebody TPS Sizing with Radiation
and Ablation for the Stardust Sample Return Capsule,” AIAA19972474, 32nd AIAA
Thermophysics Conference, Atlanta, GA, June 2325, 1997.
65
Kuntz, D. W., Hassan, B., and Potter, D. L., “Predictions of Ablating Hypersonic
Vehicles Using an Iterative Coupled Fluid/Thermal Approach,” Journal of
Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 15, No. 2, 2001, pp. 129139.
66
Suzuki, T., Furudate, M., and Swada, K., “Unified Calculation of Hypersonic
Flowfield for a Reentry Vehicle,” Journal of Thermophysics and Heat Transfer, Vol. 16,
No. 1, 2002, pp. 94100.
67
Cybyk, B. Z., Hunter, L. W., Drewry, D. G., and Van Wie, D. W., “A Unified
Methodology for Simulation of Aerothermochemistry at Gas/Solid Interfaces,” AIAA
021086, 40th AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting & Exhibit, Reno, NV, Jan. 1417, 2002.
68
Daimon, Y., Shimada, T., Tsuboi, N., and Fujita, K., “Predictions of Nozzle Shape
Change Using a Coupled Fluid/Thermochemical Approach,” AIAA 20075778, 43rd
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cincinnati, OH, July
811, 2007.
69
Ayasoufi, A., Rahmani, R. K., Cheng, G., Koomullil, R., and Neerookar, K.,
“Numerical Simulation of Ablation for Reentry Vehicles,” AIAA 20062908, 9th
AIAA/ASME Joint Thermophysics and Heat Transfer Conference, San Francisco, CA, 58
June 2006.
70
Gosse, R., and Candler, G., “Ablation Modeling of ElectroMagnetic Launched
Projectile for Access to Space,” AIAA 20071210, 45th AIAA Aerospace Science
Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 811, 2007.
71
Prakash, A., Zhong, X., “Numerical Simulation of Planetary Reentry Aeroheating over
Blunt Bodies with Nonequilibrium Reacting Flow,” AIAA 2008744, 46th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 710, 2008.
72
White, F. W., Fluid Mechanics, 4th ed., McGraw Hill, Boston, 2000.
199
73
Kee, R. J., Cotrin, M. E., and Glarborg, P., Chemically Reacting Flow: Theory and
Practice, John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2003.
74
Tannehill, J. C., Anderson, D. A., and Pletcher, R. H., Computational Fluid Mechanics
and Heat Transfer, 2nd ed., Taylor & Francis, Washington, DC, 1997.
75
Anderson, J. D., Hypersonic and HighTemperature Gas Dynamics, 2nd ed., AIAA,
Reston, VA, 2006.
76
Gnoffo, P. A., Gupta, R. N., and Shinn, J. L., “Conservation Equations and Physical
Models for Hypersonic Air Flows in Thermal and Chemical Nonequilibrium,” NASA
Technical Paper 2867, 1989.
Esch, D. D., Siripong, A., and Pike, R. W., “Thermodynamic Properties of Polynomial
77
Form for Carbon, Hydrogen, Nitrogen, and Oxygen Systems from 300 to 15000°K,”
NASA CR111989, 1970.
78
NIST, Chemistry WebBook, [online database], URL: http://webbook.nist.gov/.
79
Chen, Y. K, and Milos, F. S., “FiniteRate Ablation Boundary Conditions for a Carbon
Phenolic HeatShield,” AIAA 20042270, 37th AIAA Thermophysics Conference,
Portland, OR, June 28 – July 1, 2004.
80
Mullenix, N., Povitsky, A., “Comparison of HertzKnudsen and Ytrehus carbon
ablation rates using a ReactiveRiemann solver,” AIAA Paper 20081222, 46th AIAA
Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, Jan. 710, 2008.
81
Mullenix, N., and Povitsky, A., “Comparison of 1D and 2D coupled models of gas
dynamics and heat transfer for the laser ablation of carbon,” Journal of Computational
and Theoretical Nanoscience, Vol. 3, No. 4, 2006, pp. 513524.
82
Pathak, K., Mullenix, N., and Povitsky, A., “Combined Thermal and Gas Dynamics
Numerical Model for Laser Ablation of Carbon,” Journal of Nanoscience and
Nanotechnology, Vol. 6, No. 12, 2006, pp. 12711280.
83
Mullenix, N., and Povitsky, A., “Exploration of Pulse Timing for Multiple Laser Hits
within a Combined Heat Transfer, Phase Change, and Gas Dynamics Model for Carbon
Ablation,” Applied Surface Science, Vol. 253, No. 15, 2007, pp. 66366370.
84
Hirsch, C., Numerical Computation of Internal and External Flows. Volume 2:
Computational Methods for Inviscid and Viscous Flows, John Wiley & Sons, Chichester,
England, 1990.
85
Park, C., Nonequilibrium Hypersonic Aerodynamics, Wiley Intersciences, New York,
1990.
200
86
Toro, E. F., Riemann Solvers and Numerical Methods for Fluid Dynamics, Springer
Verlag, Berlin, 1997.
87
Le Metayer, O., Massoni, J., and Saurel, R., “Modeling Evaporation fronts with
reactive Riemann solvers,” Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 205, No. 2, 2005, pp.
567610.
88
BenArtzi, M., and Falcovitz, J., Generalized Riemann Problems in Computational
Fluid Dynamics, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2003.
89
Ortega, J. M., and Rheinboldt, W.C., Iterative Solution of Nonlinear Equations in
Several Variables, Academic Press, New York, 1970.
90
Incropera, F. P., and Dewitt, D. P., Introduction to Heat Transfer, 4th ed., John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 2002.
91
Hoffmann, K, A., Chiang, S. T., Siddiqui, S., and Papadakis, M., Fundamental
Equations of Fluid Mechanics, Engineering Education Systems, Wichita, KS, 1996.
92
Mullenix, N., and Povitsky, A., “Parallel Implementation of a Tightly Coupled
Ablation Prediction Code Using MPI,” IEEE Cluster 2009, New Orleans, LA, Aug. 31
Sep. 4, 2009.
93
The Ohio Supercomputer Center website [online] URL: http://www.osc.edu.
94
Anderson, J. D., Modern Compressible Flow: With Historical Perspective, 2nd ed.,
McGrawHill, Boston, 1990.
95
Kays, W. M., and Crawford, M. E., Convective Heat and Mass Transfer, 3rd ed.,
McGrawHill, New York, 1993.
96
Ghia, U., Ghia, K. N., and Shin, C. T., “HighRe Solutions for Incompressible Flow
Using the NavierStokes Equations and a Multigrid Method,” Journal of
Computatational Physics, Vol. 48, 1982, pp. 397411.
97
Mullenix, N., Povitsky, A., and Gaitonde, D., “Modeling of Local Intense Ablation in
Hypersonic Flight,” AIAA Paper 20082555, 15th AIAA International Space Planes and
Hypersonic Systems and Technologies Conference, Dayton, Ohio, Apr. 28May 1, 2008.
201
APPENDICES
202
APPENDIX A
LIST OF SYMBOLS
Latin
A Jacobian
Ai,s,r Coefficients for polynomial curvefits
c Vector of mass concentrations
Cf,r, Ef,r, nf,r Parameters for forward reaction rate coefficients
CFL CourantFriedrichsLevy number
Cv,s Specific heat at constant volume for species s
Cp,s Specific heat at constant pressure for species s
Cs Molar concentration of species s (moles of s per unit mass of mixture)
cs Mass concentration of species s (mass of s per unit mass of mixture)
Cs Control surface
Cv Control volume
Ds Mass diffusion coefficient of species s
Ds,r Binary mass diffusion coefficient between species s and r
e Internal energy per unit mass
eij Strain
eT Total energy (internal plus kinetic) per unit mass
f Vector of body forces
F Flux vector in the x1 direction
FI, GI Flux calculation Zones
G Flux vector in the x2 direction
h Enthalpy per unit mass
h0 Enthalpy of formation per unit mass
203
h1, h2, h3 Metrics of coordinate transformation
J Jacobian
k Thermal conductivity
kb,r Backward reaction rate coefficient of reaction r
Kc,r Equilibrium constant of reaction r
kf,r Forward reaction rate coefficient of reaction r
L Matrix of left eigenvectors
m Mass
M Molar mass (kg/kmol)
~
m abl Overall ablation mass flux vector (mass/(time*area))
~
m s Species ablation mass flux vector
N Extensive property of a system
n Unit normal to control surface
p Pressure tensor
p Pressure
R Geometrical source term vector
R Specific gas constant
R Universal gas constant
R Matrix of right eigenvectors
Rb,r Backward reaction rate of reaction r
Rf,r Forward reaction rate of reaction r
S Physical source term vector
S Speed ratio in Ytrehus model
SHR Right rarefaction head speed
SL Left shock speed
STR Right rarefaction tail speed
t Time
T Temperature
U Vector of conservative unknowns
ud Velocity component in direction d
ud, inj Component of injection velocity in direction d
204
ud, s Diffusion velocity of species s in direction d
ud, surf Component of surface velocity in direction d
V Velocity vector relative to inertial frame of reference
V Volume
v Specific volume (volume per unit mass)
Vinj Velocity vector of injected gas relative to inertial frame of reference
Vr, solid Velocity vector relative to motion of solid surface
Vsurf Velocity vector of surface relative to inertial frame of reference
W Vector of primitive variables
w s Mass production rate of species s (mass/(time*volume))
x, y, z Cartesian coordinates
x1, x2, x3 General orthogonal coordinates
Z Pressure ratio in Ytrehus model
Greek
Speed of Sound
diff Thermal diffusivity
s, r Stoichiometric coefficient of species s on reactant side of reaction r
Change in pressure with respect to change in total energy
Amplitude function in Ytrehus model
s, r Stoichiometric coefficient of species s on product side of reaction r
Eigenvalue function
1s ,r Modified collision integral
t Time step
Dissipation function
Arbitrary scalar
Ratio of specific heats
Intensive property of a system
Matrix of eigenvalues
Eigenvalue
205
Viscosity
Momentum diffusivity
s1,r,1 Collision integral
Temperature ratio in Ytrehus model
density
Stress Tensor
Shear stress tensor
Ratio of solid to overall volume
Local nondimensional spatial coordinates
Superscripts
±
Variables split with sign of eigenvalues
L
Left side of interface
n
Time level n
n+1
Time level n+1
poly
Polynomial curve fit
R
Right side of interface
Subscripts
_iv Inviscid
_md Mass diffusion
_vh Viscous and heat transfer
chem Gas phase chemical reactions
cond Conduction
d Direction (1, 2, 3)
gas Term is evaluated within the gas
i±w, j±w Solid finite volume faces
i±½, j±½ Overall finite volume faces
L, R Left or right side of interface
r Reaction r
206
s Species s
solid Term is evaluated within the solid
surf Term is evaluated on the solid surface
surf Surface chemical reactions
O Overall
visc Viscous
207
APPENDIX B
The particular forms of the Reynolds’ Transport Theorem (RTT) for the non
charring ablation problem were derived in section 2.1.2. For the solid, the RTT is given
by:
dN solid
t Cv
dV Vr ,solid n solid dA , (2.1.6)
dt solid Cssolid
where
dN gas
dt
dV Cs V nO dA Cs Vr ,solid n soliddA .
t Cv
(2.1.10)
gas O solid
The global continuity equation can be found using the principle of conservation of
mass. Assuming there are no nuclear reactions, this states that the mass of any system
stays constant, or equivalently that the time rate of change of the mass of any system is
zero:
208
dmsys
0. (B.1.1)
dt
The RTT can be used to convert Eq. B.1.1 into a form suitable for use on control
volumes, by setting N equal to m (mass) and = 1 in Eq. 2.1.6 to provide the global
dV Vinj Vsurf n solid dA 0 ,
t Cv
(B.1.2a)
solid Cssolid
dV Cs V nO dA Cs Vinj Vsurf n soliddA 0
t Cv
(B.1.2b)
gas O solid
The materials contained within any of the systems defined above are arbitrary,
and can be composed of many different species. Consider that the overall system, SO, is
composed of Ns species. The total mass of a system is equal to the sum of the different
species:
Ns
msys ms , (B.2.1)
s 1
where the subscript s denotes each individual species. For any system, the conservation
dmsys d Ns
ms 0 , (B.2.2)
dt dt s 1
209
which does not mean that the time rate of change for each individual species is identically
zero.
The RTT can be applied to the time rate of change in mass for each individual
species by setting N equal to ms, and equal to the mass concentration cs (s/which still
has units of 1). A new velocity vector, Vrs, must be defined to account for any variations
Vrs V Vs , (B.2.3)
where Vs is the diffusion velocity for species s. Finally the time rate of change in mass of
dms
w s dV , (B.2.4)
dt Cv
where w s is the specific mass production in units of mass per unit volume per unit time.
s dV s Vinj Vsurf Vs n solid dA 0 ,
t Cv
(B.2.5a)
solid Cssolid
if chemical reactions are assumed to not take place within the solid. For Cvgas the species
s dV Cs s V Vs nO dA
t Cv
w s dV . (B.2.5b)
V Vsurf Vs n solid dA
gas O
s inj CvI
Cssolid
210
B.3 Momentum Equation for Gas
The development of the momentum equation follows from Newton’s 2nd Law,
which states that the change in momentum for a system is equal to the sum of the forces
d mV sys
Fsys . (B.3.1)
dt
The forces acting on a system can be split into body forces and forces acting on the
surface:
The body forces, Fbody, which could include gravity, electromagnetic or other such forces,
where f is a specific force term with units of force per unit mass. The surface forces,
Fsurface, can be written as the dot product of the stress tensor, , with the unit outward
The stress tensor can be split into a pressure tensor, p, and a shear stress tensor, :
p 0 0 11 12 13
σ 0 p 0 12 22 23 , (B.3.5)
0 0 p 13 23 33
p τ
where (under the assumption of a Newtonian fluid), the individual ij can be written as 74:
211
2e11 e22 e33
2
11
3
22 2e22 e11 e33
2
3
33 2e33 e22 e11 ,
2 (B.3.5b)
3
12 e12
13 e13
23 e23
where the eij’s will be defined later. Eq. B.3.4 can then be written as:
The RTT can be used to write the momentum equation for a control volume by
setting N equal to mV (linear momentum), and equal to V. For Cvgas, the momentum
equation is:
VdV Cs VV nO dA
t Cv
fdV p n dA τ n dA
0 0
Cvgas CsO CsO
. (B.3.7)
VV Vsurf n solid dA
gas O
inj
p n solid dA
Cssolid
τ n solid dA
Cssolid
Cssolid
212
B.4 Energy Equations
The derivation of the energy equation begins with the first law of thermodynamics
where ET represents the total energy within the system, Q represents heat added to the
The total amount of heat added to the system is the sum of conduction heat
transfer, Q cond , heat transfer caused by mass diffusion, Q md , radiation heat transfer, Q rad ,
and other heat generation, Q gen . The conduction heat transfer is written for a generic
where k is the thermal conductivity, and T is the temperature. The heat transfer caused by
N N
Q md hs s Vs ndA hs s Vs dV , (B.4.3a)
s 1 Cs s 1 Cv
where hs is the enthalpy of species s. Equation B.4.3a can be rewritten by using the
p
Q md et s s s Vs dV s eT s Vs p sVs dV ,
N N
(B.4.3b)
s 1 Cv s s 1 Cv
where ps is the partial pressure of species s. For now the other two terms will be defined
213
Q rad qrad dV , (B.4.4a)
Cv
and
The rate of work done on a system (neglecting shaft work) can be defined as the
dot product of the velocity vector and stress tensor integrated along the surface of the
Using the above definitions for the time rates of heat addition and work, the RTT
can be used to define the energy equation by setting N equal to ET, and equal to eT. For
kT n
Cssolid
solid dA
e p V n
N
dA
s T s s s solid
t Cv
eT dV s 1 Cssolid
Cssolid p V V n dA
Cssolid
inj surf solid
τ V
Cssolid
inj Vsurf n solid dA
214
and for Cvgas it can be written as:
kT n
CsO
O dA kT n
Cssolid
solid dA
s eT s ps Vs n O dA
N
s 1 CsO
e p V n
N
s T s s s solid dA
eT dV Cs eT V nO dA
t Cv
s 1 Cssolid
Cvgas Cvgas
Cssolid p V n O dA τ V n O dA
CsO CsO
p V
Cssolid
inj Vsurf n solid dA
τ V
Cssolid
inj Vsurf n solid dA
215
APPENDIX C
MATERIAL PROPERTIES
The species that will be considered include O2, N2, O, N, NO, NO+, e, CO, CN,
C3, and (C)solid. Unless otherwise noted the properties for O2, N2, O, N, NO, NO+, and e
come from 76, and for the carbon containing species 78.
216
C.1 Specific Heat Curve Fits
given by 76:
, s T Rs A1, s A2, sT A3, sT A4, sT A5, sT
C ppoly 2 3 4
, (C.1.1)
Ai , s ,1 if T 800 K
T 800 T 800
1 Ai , s ,1 Ai , s , 2 if 800 K T 1200 K
400 400
Ai , s T Ai , s , 2 if 1200 K T 5500 K , (C.1.2)
T 5500 T 5500
1 Ai , s , 2 Ai , s ,3 if 5500 K T 6500 K
1000 1000
Ai , s ,3 if 6500 K T 15000 K
217
Table C.2: Coefficients for Specific Heat Polynomial Curve Fits
s r A 1,s,r A 2,s,r A 3,s,r A 4,s,r A 5,s,r
O2 1 3.6255980E+00 1.8782180E03 7.0554540E06 6.7635130E09 2.1555990E12
2 3.6219530E+00 7.3618260E04 1.9652200E07 3.6201550E11 2.8945620E15
3 3.7210000E+00 4.2540000E04 2.8350000E08 6.0500000E13 5.1860000E18
N2 1 3.6748260E+00 1.2081500E03 2.3240100E06 6.3217550E10 2.2577250E13
2 2.8963190E+00 1.5154860E03 5.7235270E07 9.9807390E11 6.5223550E15
3 3.7270000E+00 4.6840000E04 1.1400000E07 1.1540000E11 3.2930000E16
O 1 2.9464280E+00 1.6381660E03 2.4210310E06 1.6028430E09 3.8906960E13
2 2.5420590E+00 2.7550610E05 3.1028030E09 4.5510670E12 4.3680510E16
3 2.5460000E+00 5.9520000E05 2.7010000E08 2.7980000E12 9.3800000E17
N 1 2.5030710E+00 2.1800180E05 5.4205280E08 5.6475600E11 2.0999040E14
2 2.4502680E+00 1.0661450E04 7.4653370E08 1.8796520E11 1.0259830E15
3 2.7480000E+00 3.9090000E04 1.3380000E07 1.1910000E11 3.3690000E16
NO 1 4.0459520E+00 3.4181780E03 7.9819190E06 6.1139310E09 1.5190700E12
2 3.1890000E+00 1.3382280E03 5.2899320E07 9.5919330E11 6.4847930E15
3 3.8450000E+00 2.5210000E04 2.6580000E08 2.1620000E12 6.3180000E17
NO+ 1 3.6685060E+00 1.1544580E03 2.1755610E06 4.8227470E10 2.7847900E13
2 2.8885490E+00 1.5217120E03 5.7531240E07 1.0051080E10 6.6044290E15
3 2.2141700E+00 1.7760600E03 4.3038600E07 4.1737700E11 1.2828900E15
e 1 2.50E+00 0 0 0 0
2 2.50E+00 0 0 0 0
3 2.5080000E+00 6.3320000E06 1.3640000E09 1.0940000E13 2.9340000E18
CO 1 3.7870000E+00 2.1710000E03 5.0760000E06 3.4740000E09 7.7220000E13
2 3.2540000E+00 9.6980000E04 2.6470000E07 3.0370000E11 1.1770000E15
3 3.3660000E+00 8.0720000E04 1.9680000E07 1.9400000E11 5.5490000E16
CN 1 3.3530000E+00 2.7630000E03 6.8570000E06 5.4130000E09 1.4910000E12
2 3.4110000E+00 4.8970000E04 1.0050000E07 3.4730000E11 2.3610000E15
3 3.4730000E+00 7.3370000E04 9.0880000E08 4.8470000E12 1.0180000E16
C3 1 2.6330000E+00 9.4190000E03 9.5930000E06 5.5800000E09 1.4240000E12
2 4.0020000E+00 3.5450000E03 1.3180000E06 2.0640000E10 1.1440000E14
3 2.2130000E+01 1.4590000E02 5.5650000E06 6.7580000E10 2.8250000E14
Csolid all 2.6896041E+02 4.0723033E+00 2.5273539E03 5.3492230E07 0
77 37
Note: Gas phase species are provided by . Csolid is provided by .
Consider a reduced gas phase model that contains ten species: O2, N2, O, N, NO,
NO+, e, CO, CN, C3. The first two species are present in ambient air, and the next five
are results of dissociation reactions, ionization, and exchange reactions involving NO.
The last three species are products of surface oxidation, surface nitridation, and
sublimation. Thirty reactions are to be accounted for in this model; Table C.4 shows the
reactions and their associated reaction numbers. The coefficients for the forward reaction
218
E f ,r
k f ,r T C f ,rT e
n k BT
, (C.2.1)
are given in Table C.5. The backward reaction rate is found in terms of the forward and
equilibrium rates76:
k f ,r T
kb,r T , (C.2.2)
K c ,r T
A
K c ,r exp
1E
1
4
T
A2 A3 ln 1E 4 A4 1E 4 A5 1E 4
T T
,
2
(C.2.3)
T
219
Table C.3: Reaction Number Designations.
Dissociation
O 2 M 2O M N 2 M 2N M NO M O N M
M r M r M r
O2 1 O2 10 O2 19
N2 2 N2 11 N2 20
O 3 O 12 O 21
N 4 N 13 N 22
NO 5 NO 14 NO 23
NO
6 NO
15 NO 24
CO 7 CO 16 CO 25
CN 8 CN 17 CN 26
C3 9 C3 18 C3 27
Exchange r
O N 2 NO N 28
NO O O 2 N 29
Ionization r
N O NO e 30
O N 2 NO N 40
28 5.70E+12 0.42 42938
NO O O 2 N 40
29 8.40E+12 0 19400
N O NO e 30 5.30E+12 0 31900 40
220
Table C.5: Equilibrium Constant Coefficients
Reaction A1 A2 A3 A4 A5 source
O 2 M 2O M 40
1.578640 2.688744 4.215573 8.091354 0.174260
N 2 M 2N M 40
3.293682 0.998998 8.237028 5.526183 0.582174
NO M O N M 0.792000 0.492000 6.761000 0.091000 0.004000 76
O N 2 NO N 40
3.032189 0.078468 7.693047 1.411299 0.517448
NO O O 2 N 40
1.840133 1.768215 4.759554 1.153812 0.238985
N O NO e 3.429239 7.431449 6.012721 8.276563 0.503539
40
In general, values of log10 srk ,k T at T = 2000K, and 4000K are given in the
These value of log10 srk ,k T are given in Table C.8. Most of the values come from 76,
with the exception of CO, CN, and C3 which come from 40.
221
Table C.6: Values of the Collision Integrals
s O2 s N2
log10 sr T
1,1
log10 sr T
2, 2
log10 sr T
1,1
log10 sr2, 2 T
r 2000 K 4000 K 2000 K 4000 K r 2000 K 4000 K 2000 K 4000 K
O2 14.60 14.64 14.54 14.57 O 2 14.58 14.63 14.51 14.54
N2 14.58 14.63 14.51 14.54 N 2 14.56 14.65 14.50 14.58
O 14.69 14.76 14.62 14.69 O 14.63 14.72 14.55 14.66
N 14.66 14.74 14.59 14.66 N 14.67 14.75 14.59 14.66
NO 14.59 14.63 14.52 14.56 NO 14.57 14.64 14.51 14.54
NO 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50 NO
14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
e 15.52 15.39 15.52 15.39 e 15.11 15.02 15.11 15.02

sO sN
log10 sr1,1 T
log10 sr2, 2 T
log10 sr1,1 T
log10 sr2, 2 T
r 2000 K 4000 K 2000 K 4000 K r 2000 K 4000 K 2000 K 4000 K
O2 14.69 14.76 14.62 14.69 O2 14.66 14.74 14.59 14.66
N2 14.63 14.72 14.55 14.64 N2 14.67 14.75 14.59 14.66
O 14.11 14.14 14.71 14.79 O 14.76 14.86 14.69 14.80
N 14.76 14.86 14.69 14.80 N 14.08 14.11 14.74 14.82
NO 14.66 14.74 14.59 14.66 NO 14.66 14.75 14.67 14.66
NO 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50 NO 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
e 15.94 15.82 15.94 15.82 e 15.30 15.30 15.30 15.30
CO 14.67 14.79 14.62 14.74 CO 14.65 14.78 14.60 14.72
CN 14.66 14.78 14.61 14.73 CN 14.64 14.76 14.69 14.80
C3 14.67 14.79 14.62 14.75 C3 14.65 14.77 14.60 14.72
222
Table C.6: Values of the Collision Integrals. cont.
s NO s NO
log10 sr T
1,1
log10 sr T
2, 2
log10 sr T
1,1
log10 sr2, 2 T
r 2000 K 4000 K 2000 K 4000 K r 2000 K 4000 K 2000 K 4000 K
O2 14.59 14.63 14.52 14.56 O2 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
N2 14.57 14.64 14.51 14.56 N2 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
O 14.66 14.74 14.59 14.66 O 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
N 14.66 14.75 14.67 14.66 N 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
NO 14.58 14.64 14.52 14.56 NO 14.18 14.22 14.38 14.50
NO 14.18 14.22 14.38 14.50 NO 11.70 12.19 11.49 11.98
e 15.30 15.08 15.30 15.08 e 11.70 12.19 11.49 11.98
CO 14.61 14.73 14.56 14.68 CO 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
CN 14.60 14.72 14.55 14.67 CN 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
C3 14.60 14.73 14.56 14.68 C3 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
s e s CO
log10 sr T
1,1
log10 sr T
2, 2
log10 sr1,1 T
log10 sr2, 2 T
r 2000 K 4000 K 2000 K 4000 K r 2000 K 4000 K 2000 K 4000 K
O2 15.52 15.39 15.52 15.39 O2 14.62 14.74 14.57 14.69
N2 15.11 15.02 15.11 15.02 N2 14.59 14.72 14.54 14.66
O 15.94 15.82 15.94 15.82 O 14.67 14.79 14.62 14.74
N 15.30 15.30 15.30 15.30 N 14.65 14.78 14.60 14.72
NO 15.30 15.08 15.30 15.08 NO 14.61 14.73 14.56 14.68
NO 11.70 12.19 11.49 11.98 NO 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
e 11.70 12.19 11.49 11.98 e 15.29 15.06 15.29 15.06
CO 15.29 15.06 15.29 15.06 CO 14.60 14.72 14.55 14.67
CN 15.29 15.06 15.29 15.06 CN 14.59 14.71 14.54 14.66
C3 15.29 15.06 15.29 15.06 C3 14.59 14.71 14.55 14.67
223
Table C.6: Values of the Collision Integrals. cont.
s CN s C3
log10 sr T
1,1
log10 sr T
2, 2
log10 sr T
1,1
log10 sr2, 2 T
r 2000 K 4000 K 2000 K 4000 K r 2000 K 4000 K 2000 K 4000 K
O2 14.61 14.73 14.56 14.68 O2 14.61 14.74 14.57 14.69
N2 14.58 14.70 14.53 14.65 N2 14.59 14.71 14.54 14.66
O 14.66 14.78 14.61 14.73 O 14.67 14.79 14.62 14.75
N 14.64 14.76 14.59 14.71 N 14.65 14.77 14.60 14.72
NO 14.60 14.72 14.55 14.67 NO 14.60 14.73 14.56 14.68
NO 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50 NO 14.34 14.46 14.38 14.50
e 15.29 15.06 15.29 15.06 e 15.29 15.06 15.29 15.06
CO 14.59 14.71 14.54 14.66 CO 14.59 14.71 14.55 14.67
CN 14.59 14.70 14.52 14.64 CN 14.58 14.70 14.53 14.65
C3 14.58 14.70 14.53 14.65 C3 14.58 14.71 14.53 14.66
224
APPENDIX D
NUMERICAL SCHEMES
Section D.1 contains the spatial discretization schemes for primitive variables. Section
D.2 contains the description of the GaussSeidel method which is used extensively to
In the case where the finite volume contains only gas (i,j = 0) the difference
gas i , j gas i 1 2, j
if i 1, j 0
gas x1 i , j x1 i 1 2, j
x1 i 1 2, j
gas i , j gas i 1 w, j
, (D.1.1b)
if i 1, j 0
x1 x1
i , j i 1 w , j
225
gas i , j 1 gas i , j
if i , j 1 0
gas x2 i , j 1 x2 i , j
x2 i , j 1 2
gas i , j 1 w
gas i , j
, (D.1.1c)
if i , j 1 0
x2 x2 i , j
i , j 1 w
gas i , j gas i , j 1
if i1, j 0
gas x2 i , j x2 i , j 1
x2 i1 2, j gas i, j1w
gas i , j
, (D.1.1d)
if i1, j 0
x2 i , j x2 i , j 1 w
gas 1 gas
gas , (D.1.1e)
x1 i , j 2 x1 i 1 2, j x1 i 1 2, j
gas 1 gas
gas , (D.1.1f)
x2 i , j 2 x2 i , j 1 2 x2 i , j 1 2
1 gas gas
if i 1, j 0
2 x2 i 1, j x2 i , j
gas x1 i 1 w, j x1 i 1 2, j gas
, (D.1.1g)
x2 i 1 2, j x1 i 1 w , j
x1 i , j
x2
if i 1, j 0
i 1 w , j
1 i 1 2, j
x x
1 i, j
gas
x
x1 i , j x2 i , j
1 i 1 w, j
1 gas gas
if i 1, j 0
2 x2 i 1, j x2 i , j
gas x1 i 1 2, j x1 i 1 w, j gas
, (D.1.1h)
x2 i 1 2, j x1 i , j
x1 i 1 w , j
x2
if i 1, j 0
i 1 w , j
1 i , j
x x
1 i 1 2, j
gas
x x x
1 i 1 w, j 2 i , j
1 i , j
226
1 gas gas
if i , j 1 0
2 x1 i , j 1 x1 i , j
gas x2 i , j 1 w x2 i , j 1 2 gas
, (D.1.1i)
1 i , j 1 2
x x 2 i , j 1 w
x 2 i , j
x1
i , j 1 w
if i , j 1 0
x
x
2 i , j 1 2 2 i , j gas
x
x2 i , j x1 i , j
2 i , j 1 w
1 gas gas
if i , j 1 0
2 x1 i , j 1 x1 i , j
gas x2 i , j 1 2 x2 i , j 1 w gas
, (D.1.1j)
1 i , j 1 2
x x 2 i , j
x 2 i , j 1 w
x1
i , j 1 w
if i , j 1 0
x x
2 i , j 2 i , j 1 2 gas
x x
2 i , j 1 w x1 i , j
2 i , j
For the more general case when i,j is between zero and one, more terms must be
calculated. The following difference equations can be applied for terms at the faces
(i±½,j±½):
gas i w, j gas i 1 2, j
if i 1, j 0
gas x1 i w, j x1 i 1 2, j
x1 i 1 2, j gas i1 w, j
gas i w, j
, (D.1.2b)
if i 1, j 0
x1 x
i w, j 1 i 1 w, j
227
gas i , j 1 gas i , j w
if i , j 1 0
gas x2 i , j 1 x2 i , j w
x2 i , j 1 2
gas i , j 1 w
gas i , j w
, (D.1.2c)
if i , j 1 0
x2 x2 i , j w
i , j 1 w
gas i , j w gas i , j 1
if i 1, j 0
gas x2 i , j w x2 i , j 1
x2 i 1 2, j gas i, j 1 w
gas i , j w
, (D.1.2d)
if i 1, j 0
x2 x
i, j w 2 i , j 1 w
gas 1 gas
gas , (D.1.2e)
x1 i , j 2 x1 i 1 2, j x1 i 1 2, j
gas 1 gas
gas , (D.1.2f)
x2 i , j 2 x2 i , j 1 2 x2 i , j 1 2
x1 x1
i 1 2, j gas
i 1, j
x1 i 1, j x1 i w, j , j x2 i 1, j
if i 1, j 0
x1 i 1 2, j x1 i w, j gas
gas x1 i 1, j x1 i w, j , j x2 i w, j
, (D.1.2g)
2 i 1 2, j
x x1 i 1 w, j x1 i 1 2, j gas
x
1 i 1 w, j x
1 i w, j , j x 2 i 1 w, j
x if i 1, j 0
1 i 1 2, j x
1 iw
gas
x1 i 1 w, j x1 i w, j x2
i w, j
228
x1 x1 i 1, j gas
i 1 2, j
x1 i w, j x1 i 1, j x2 i 1, j
if i 1, j 0
x1 i w, j x1 i 1 2, j gas
x1 i w, j x1 i 1, j x2 i w, j
gas
, (D.1.2h)
x2 i 1 2, j x1 i 1 2, j x1 i 1 w, j gas
x
1 i w, j x1 i 1 w, j x2 i 1 w, j
x if i 1, j 0
1 i w, j x
1 i 1 2, j
gas
x1 i w, j x1 i 1 w, j x2
i w , j
x2 x2
i , j 1 2 gas
i , j 1
x2 i , j 1 x2 i , j w x1 i , j 1
if i , j 1 0
x2 i , j 1 2 x2 i , j w gas
x2 i , j 1 x2 i , j w x1 i , j w
gas
, (D.1.2i)
x1 i , j 1 2
2 i , j 1 w
x x
2 i , j 1 2
gas
x x1
2 i , j 1 w
x 2 i, jw i , j 1 w
x if i , j 1 0
x
gas
2 i , j 1 2 2 i , j w
x2 i , j 1 w x2 i , j w x1
i , j 1 4
and
x2 x2 i , j 1 gas
i , j 1 2
x2 i , j w x2 i , j 1 x1 i , j 1
if i , j 1 0
x2 i , j w x2 i , j 1 2 gas
gas x2 i , j w x2 i , j 1 x1 i , j w
, (D.1.2j)
1 i , j 1 2
x x2 i , j 1 2 x2 i , j 1 w gas
x
2 i, j w x
2 i , j 1 w
x 1 i , j 1 w
x if i , j 1 0
2 i , j 1 4 x
2 i , j 1 2
gas
x2 i , j 1 4 x2 i , j 1 w x1
i , j w
The following terms that must be calculated for the gas at the solid surface (face denoted
by i±w or j±w):
229
gas i , j gas i w, j
gas if 1 i w, j 1
x1 i 1 2, j x1 i w, j , (D.1.3a)
1 i w, j
x
0 if 1 i w, j 1
gas i w, j gas i , j
gas if 1 i w, j 1
x1 i w, j x1 i 1 2, j , (D.1.3b)
1 i w, j
x
0 if 1 i w, j 1
gas i , j gas i , j w
gas if 2 i , j 1 4 1
x1 i , j x1 i , j w , (D.1.3c)
2 i , j w
x
0 if 2 i , j 1 4 1
gas i , j w gas i , j
gas if 2 i , j w 1
x1 i , j w x1 i , j , (D.1.3d)
x2 i , j w 0 if 2 i , j w 1
I
I I I 0. (D.1.3e)
x2 i w, j x2 i w, j x1 i , j w x1 i , j w
Finally for any case where the derivatives are needed within the solid:
and
The GaussSeidel iteration scheme is used to solve a matrix equation of the form:
Ax b , (D.2.1)
where A is a square matrix with n rows and n columns, x is an unknown column vector
with n rows, and b is the solution vector with n rows. An initial guess vector xk is
i 1
k
Ai , j x j .
n
xi k 1 1
i i, j j
b A x
k 1
(D.2.2)
Ai ,i j 1 j i 1
This equation is iterated until a convergence criterion is met, such as the relative
convergence is that:
n
Ai ,i Ai , j , (D.2.3)
j 1
j i
and for all i, and at least one i the left hand side is greater than the right hand side.
231
Bien plus que des documents.
Découvrez tout ce que Scribd a à offrir, dont les livres et les livres audio des principaux éditeurs.
Annulez à tout moment.