Sei sulla pagina 1di 6

1

Fantasy Heat Transfer Article (Gauss Seidel, Implicit Method)

ABSTRACT

A heat transfer study of two different materials is presented. These two materials were developed by UNAM and FIMEE. One of them has to be chosen in order to build a space rocket cover that will resist the high temperatures of the rocket fuel combustion. Two different computational approaches derive a solution for this problem. Special attention is given to the materials behavior against fuel combustion.

I.

INTRODUCTION

AMEXAE (Agencia Mexicana para la Aeronáutica y el Espacio) is currently developing a space rocket to get Mexican satellites into space. They left to UNAM and FIMME the work of developing resistant materials for around the rocket that will handle the high temperatures produced by rocket fuel combustion. These two materials have the following properties:

 

UNAM

FIMEE

Thermal conductivity k, Btu ft/(hr ft 2 o F)

13

22.9

Thermal Diffusion α, ft 2 /hr

0.1775

0.298

Fusion Temperature o F

2570

2770

Table 1. Materials Properties

The active live of the rocket has to be at least 8 seconds and due to building specifications its thickness will be 0.5inch. FIMEE’s material has a bigger cost than UNAM’s one.

We will consider only one direction to simplify the study. This will not compromise on the performance of the materials because it is very thin compared to its length.

The convective characteristics of the system will remain constant if the combustion is highly stable. In the side of the combustion, the convective coefficient is :

hi=1000 BTU/(hr ft 2 o F), in the other side (Common Air) it is :

ho=3 BTU/(hr ft 2 o F) In case something goes wrong with the combustion, the convective coefficient tends to increase by 50%.

Rocket fuel burns at 4700 o F so the materials have to be able to resist for 8 seconds this constant temperature.

Figure 1 shows how the problem will be treated.

temperature. Figure 1 shows how the problem will be treated. Fig. 1 General system In conclusion,
temperature. Figure 1 shows how the problem will be treated. Fig. 1 General system In conclusion,
temperature. Figure 1 shows how the problem will be treated. Fig. 1 General system In conclusion,
temperature. Figure 1 shows how the problem will be treated. Fig. 1 General system In conclusion,

Fig. 1 General system

In conclusion, this problem will be considered as transitory, one-dimensional, with constant properties and negligible radiation.

To know the variation of T(x,t), two different computational approaches will be considered, the implicit method and the explicit method. They are both based on finite differential solutions.

II.

DEFINITIONS

A. Formulas for the explicit method

Interior

nodes

= 1 − 2 +

+

Exterior

= 2 + + 1 − 2 − 2 +

nodes

 

Fo

 

 

Bi

 

ℎ∆

 
 

Stability

1 + ≤ 1/2

 

Criterion

 

B. Formulas for the implicit method

Interior

= 1 + 2 +

nodes

Exterior

2 + = 1 + 2 + 2 − 2

nodes

*Fo and Bi are the same as in the explicit method

2

III. RESULTS AND METHOD ANALYSIS

Now that we have programmed all the algorithms, we get the following results:

UNAM’s Material = 0.001 = 50 Stability.- Fo*(1+BiotH)=0.0726

= 0.001 = 50 ℎ Stability.- Fo*(1+BiotH)=0.0726 Fig. 2 Time vs Temperature with explicit method and

Fig. 2 Time vs Temperature with explicit method and UNAM’s Material

vs Temperature with explicit method and UNAM’s Material Fig. 3 Distance vs Temperature with explicit method

Fig. 3 Distance vs Temperature with explicit method and UNAM’s Material

UNAM’s Material = 0.01 = 50

Material UNAM’s Material ∆ = 0.01 = 50 ℎ Fig. 4 Time vs Temperature with implicit

Fig. 4 Time vs Temperature with implicit method and UNAM’s Material

vs Temperature with implicit method and UNAM’s Material Fig. 5 Distance vs Temperature with implicit method

Fig. 5 Distance vs Temperature with implicit method and UNAM’s Material

3

FIMEE’s Material = 0.001 = 50 Stability.- Fo*(1+BiotH)= 0.1187

= 0.001 = 50 ℎ Stability.- Fo*(1+BiotH)= 0.1187 Fig. 6 Time vs Temperature with explicit method

Fig. 6 Time vs Temperature with explicit method and FIMEE’s Material

vs Temperature with explicit method and FIMEE’s Material Fig. 7 Distance vs Temperature with explicit method

Fig. 7 Distance vs Temperature with explicit method and FIMEE’s Material

FIMEE’s Material = 0.01 = 50

Material FIMEE’s Material ∆ = 0.01 = 50 ℎ Fig. 8 Time vs Temperature with implicit

Fig. 8 Time vs Temperature with implicit method and FIMEE’s Material

vs Temperature with implicit method and FIMEE’s Material Fig. 9 Distance vs Temperature with implicit method

Fig. 9 Distance vs Temperature with implicit method and FIMEE’s Material

4

We can easily see in all the solutions that both, implicit and explicit method give us really nice curves and they are exactly the same differing for a few decimals of temperature. Apart from that, we get the same values.

To show that the explicit method doesn’t work if the stability criterion fails and that the implicit method does work, we will show more graphs with a bigger delta t.

FIMEE’s Material = 0.005 = 50 Stability.- Fo*(1+BiotH)= 0.5937

= 0.005 = 50 ℎ Stability.- Fo*(1+BiotH)= 0.5937 Fig. 6 Time vs Temperature with explicit method

Fig. 6 Time vs Temperature with explicit method and FIMEE’s Material

vs Temperature with explicit method and FIMEE’s Material Fig. 7 Distance vs Temperature with explicit method

Fig. 7 Distance vs Temperature with explicit method and FIMEE’s Material

FIMEE’s Material = 0.1 = 50 Stability.- Fo*(1+BiotH)= 11.8731

= 0.1 = 50 ℎ Stability.- Fo*(1+BiotH)= 11.8731 Fig. 8 Time vs Temperature with implicit method

Fig. 8 Time vs Temperature with implicit method and FIMEE’s Material

vs Temperature with implicit method and FIMEE’s Material Fig. 9 Distance vs Temperature with implicit method

Fig. 9 Distance vs Temperature with implicit method and FIMEE’s Material

5

As we can see, although the implicit method stability criterion is much bigger than the one used for the explicit method, the results are much more satisfactory on the first one. This tells us that the implicit method is much more precise. Nevertheless this method takes more time to be executed because it has to solve tons of times the Gauss Seidel iteration.

If we consider that the fuel combustion is not perfect, we will have a dramatic increase of 50% in the convection coefficient. If that is the case:

FIMEE’s Material = 0.1 = 50

the case: FIMEE’s Material ∆ = 0.1 = 50 ℎ Fig. 8 Time vs Temperature with

Fig. 8 Time vs Temperature with implicit method and FIMEE’s Material

vs Temperature with implicit method and FIMEE’s Material Fig. 9 Distance vs Temperature with implicit method

Fig. 9 Distance vs Temperature with implicit method and FIMEE’s Material

UNAM’s Material = 0.01 = 50

Material UNAM’s Material ∆ = 0.01 = 50 ℎ Fig. 4 Time vs Temperature with implicit

Fig. 4 Time vs Temperature with implicit method and UNAM’s Material

vs Temperature with implicit method and UNAM’s Material Fig. 5 Distance vs Temperature with implicit method

Fig. 5 Distance vs Temperature with implicit method and UNAM’s Material

6

IV.

CONCLUSIONS

Now that we can see on the graphs the behaviors of both the materials we can take a decision.

In normal conditions both the materials behave pretty well but in the last 0.5 seconds, the first layers of the UNAM’s material are already melted and the FIMEE’s material begin to melt in the last 0.3 seconds and just for a really small layer.

In contrast, when the combustion is unstable and h goes up to 1.5 of its normal value, things change. FIMEE’s material begins to melt at second 6 but UNAM’s material melts at second 2, so if that is the case, thing can be really dangerous.

With that said, I would choose FIMEE’s material. Not only because in normal conditions it behaves more safely than UNAM’s one, but because in case that something goes wrong, FIMEE’s material would probably be fine in those hard conditions. As many people say, “Safety is First”, and a much more resistant material (FIMME’s material) can save lives and tons of money in case combustion doesn’t occur properly.

V.

CODE

1. Explicit Method Algorithm

longft=longinch/12;

pasos=8/deltat;

Matriz=zeros(pasos,N);

Matriz(1,:)=TO;

deltax=longft/(N-1);

deltathora=deltat/3600;

Fo=deltathora*alfa/(deltax^2);

BiotH=HH*deltax/conductividad;

BiotO=HO*deltax/conductividad;

for i=2:pasos for j=1:N if j==1 Matriz(i,j)= 2*Fo*(Matriz(i- 1,j+1)+BiotH*TH) + (1-2*Fo -

2*BiotH*Fo)*Matriz(i-1,j);

elseif j==N Matriz(i,j)= 2*Fo*(Matriz(i-1,j- 1)+BiotO*TO) + (1-2*Fo -2*BiotO*Fo)*Matriz(i-

1,j);

else

Matriz(i,j)=Matriz(i-

1,j)+Fo*(Matriz(i-1,j+1)-2*Matriz(i-

1,j)+Matriz(i-1,j-1));

end

end

end

2. Implicit Method Algorithm

longft=longinch/12;

pasos=8/deltat;

Matriz=zeros(pasos,N);

Matriz(1,:)=TO;

deltax=longft/(N-1);

deltathora=deltat/3600;

Fo=deltathora*alfa/(deltax^2);

BiotH=HH*deltax/conductividad;

BiotO=HO*deltax/conductividad;

for i=2:pasos

matrizitera=zeros(N,N+1);

for j=1:N

if j==1

matrizitera(j,1)=1+2*Fo+2*Fo*BiotH;

matrizitera(j,2)=-2*Fo;

matrizitera(j,N+1)=2*Fo*BiotH*TH+Matriz(i-

1,j);

elseif j==N

matrizitera(j,N)=1+2*Fo+2*Fo*BiotO;

matrizitera(j,N-1)=-2*Fo;

matrizitera(j,N+1)=2*Fo*BiotO*TO+Matriz(i-

1,j);

else

matrizitera(j,j)=1+2*Fo;

matrizitera(j,j-1)=-Fo;

matrizitera(j,j+1)=-Fo;

matrizitera(j,N+1)=Matriz(i-

1,j);

end

end

probables=(zeros(1,N)+1)*Matriz(i-1,5);

Res=gausseidel(matrizitera,probables,50);

Matriz(i,:)=Res;

end

3. Gauss Seidel Algorithm

aux=size(Resultados);

N=aux(1,2);

for j=1:Iteraciones for i=1:N

Valor=0;

for k=1:N

if k==i

else

Valor=Valor+Resultados(k)*Matriz(i,k);

end

end

Resultados(i)=(Matriz(i,N+1)-

Valor)/Matriz(i,i);

end

h=Resultados;

end

#