0
Research Papers

Use of a Quasi-Steady Ablation Model for Design Sensitivity With Uncertainty Propagation

[+] Author and Article Information
R. Anzalone, B. W. Barr, R. R. Upadhyay, O. A. Ezekoye

Department of Mechanical Engineering,
University of Texas at Austin,
1 University Station C2200,
Austin, TX 78712

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF THERMAL SCIENCE AND ENGINEERING APPLICATIONS. Manuscript received November 5, 2014; final manuscript received August 22, 2016; published online October 4, 2016. Assoc. Editor: Dr. Steve Q. Cai.

J. Thermal Sci. Eng. Appl 9(1), 011004 (Oct 04, 2016) (7 pages) Paper No: TSEA-14-1259; doi: 10.1115/1.4034595 History: Received November 05, 2014; Revised August 22, 2016

Sensitivity analysis and design calculations are often best performed using low-order models. This work details work done on adding complementary pieces to a low-order, quasi-steady-state ablation model to facilitate uncertainty propagation. The quasi-steady-state ablation model is a one-dimensional, quasi-steady-state, algebraic ablation model that uses finite-rate surface chemistry and equilibrium pyrolysis-gas-production submodels to predict surface recession rate. The material response model is coupled to a film-transfer boundary layer model to enable the computation of heat and mass transfer from an ablating surface. For comparison to arcjet data, a simple shock heated gas model is coupled. A coupled model consisting of submodels for the shock heated gases, film heat and mass transfer, and material response is exercised against recession rate data for surface and in-depth ablators. Comparisons are made between the quasi-steady-state ablation model and the unsteady ablation code, Chaleur, as well as to other computations for a graphite ablator in arcjet facilities. The simple models are found to compare reasonably well to both the experimental results and the other calculations. Uncertainty propagation using a moment based method is presented. The results of this study are discussed, and conclusions about the utility of the method as well as the properties of the ablation code are drawn.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2017 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

The physics encountered in hypersonic ablation

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

Quasi-steady ablation processes and their equations

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

B′ versus surface temperature for Chaleur and UT ablation code with a graphite ablator, from Ref. [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Bc′ versus surface temperature for Chaleur and UT ablation code with a PICA ablator, from Ref. [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Percent change of the ablation rate with respect to the percent change in the input parameters, from Ref. [9]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Cumulative distribution function for the surface recession rate, using the input PDFs described in Table 3

Tables

Errata

Discussions

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In