Downloaded 12 times
Senior Project Presentation
- 1. Regenerative Cooling Nozzle Team11 Tom Ransegnola Geoff McMahon Alex Freedman Chris Tjia Georgios Skoufalos Boston University Mechanical Engineering Senior Design Capstone Experience 2014 – 2015 5/1/2015 ENG ME 461 A5
- 2. Presentation Summary 1. Motivation/ Design Statement 2. Relevant Physics 3. Design Decisions and Results 4. Evaluations 5. Moving Forward 5/1/2014 ENG ME 461 A5
- 3. Design Statement Conduct researchand design a regenerative cooling nozzle for BURPG’s MK IIB rocket, while also creating a user friendly model for further research by BURPG ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015
- 4. Regenerative Cooling Nozzle 5/1/2014ENG ME 461 A5
- 5. Requirements • Nozzle HotWall • Temperature along Hot Wall • Heat Transfer Coefficients • Designing for a student group – Limitations in cost and manufacturing – $2000 • Try to use N2O as coolant ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015
- 6. Success Points 1. User-friendlynozzle model 2. Decide on coolant. Is N2O viable? 3. CAD model 4. Functioning prototype ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015
- 7. Background and Benchmarking •Motivation : High thermal loads • Current state of the art – Circular Tubes – Square Tubes – Spiraling Tubes – Corrugated Pathways • Coolants – Oxidizer / Fuel ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015
- 8. Engineering Specifications • NozzleSpecifications – Geometry, area ratio, flame temperature • Tank Conditions – Temperature, pressure • Combustion Chamber Properties – Pressure • N2O / Coolant Conditions – Density, temperature, pressure, specific heat etc. • Other – Burn time ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015
- 9. Relevant Basic Physics •Conduction • Forced and Free Convection • Thermal Stresses • Thermal Circuits ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015
- 10. Relevant Basic Physics ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 11. Relevant Basic Physics ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 12. Relevant Basic Physics ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 13. Relevant Basic Physics ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 14. Relevant Basic Physics ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 15. MATLAB Model ENG ME461 A55/1/2015
- 16. MATLAB Model ENG ME461 A55/1/2015
- 17. MATLAB Model ENG ME461 A55/1/2015 Coolant Channel Geometry Nozzle Body Number of Tubes
- 18. MATLAB Model ENG ME461 A55/1/2015
- 19. MATLAB Model ENG ME461 A55/1/2015
- 20. MATLAB Model ENG ME461 A55/1/2015
- 21. MATLAB Model ENG ME461 A55/1/2015
- 22. Results: FEA/CFD CFD FlowSimulation Thermal Simulation ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015 Max Temperature
- 23. Results: FEA/CFD Thermal SimulationStructural Simulation 5/1/2014 ENG ME 461 A5 Maximum Equivalent Stress
- 24. Comparison with TestCase 5/1/2014 ENG ME 461 A5 Maximum Wall Temperature (k) Model Data 852.2 Test Data 872.5 Percent Error 2.33
- 25. Comparison with TestCase 5/1/2014 ENG ME 461 A5 Maximum Coolant Temperature (k) Model Data 652.9 Test Data 724.0 Percent Error 9.82
- 26. Results Functional Decomposition Functional Decomposition ENGME 461 A55/1/2015 Regenerative Cooling Nozzle Accelerate propellant from combustion chamber to supersonic Cool hot wall Connect to rocket components Converging Diverging hot wall geometry NPT Port Ammonia as a coolant Circular channels Aluminum body
- 27. Design Process • SelectionCriteria – Cost and Manufacturability – Material and Fluid Properties ENG ME 461 A5 Regenerative Cooling Nozzle Cooling Channels Circular Tube Square Tube Spiraling Tube Corrugated Jacket Nozzle Material 6061 Aluminum 110 Copper 360 Brass Coolant N2O Ammonia CO2 5/1/2015
- 28. Design Decisions (ChannelProfile) ENG ME 461 A5 Criteria Weight Circular Tubes Square Tubes Spiraling Tubes Corrugated Jacket Efficiency in Heat Transfer 1 0 1 0 1 Stays Below Super Critical Temperature 2 0 0 -1 0 Cost 1 0 -1 -1 -1 Manufacturability 1 0 -1 -1 -1 Total 0 -1 -4 -1 5/1/2015
- 29. Design Decisions (NozzleMaterial) ENG ME 461 A5 Criteria Weight 6061 Aluminum 110 Copper 360 Brass Cost 1 0 -1 -1 Manufacturability 1 0 0 0 Does Not Deform Under Temperatures of Rocket 1 0 0 0 Weight 1 0 -1 -1 Availability 1 0 -1 0 Can Withstand Thermal Stresses 1 0 0 0 Total 0 -3 -25/1/2015
- 30. Design Decisions (Coolant) ENGME 461 A5 Criteria Weight N2O Ammonia CO2 Remains Below Super Critical Temperature 2 0 1 1 Used by BURPG 1 0 0 -1 Oxidizer / Fuel 1 0 0 0 Total 0 2 1 5/1/2015
- 31. Final Design ENG ME461 A55/1/2015
- 32. Final Design ENG ME461 A55/1/2015
- 33. Coolant Travel Path ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 34. FEA Joint Stress 5/1/2014ENG ME 461 A5
- 35. Process Flow Chart ENGME 461 A55/1/2015 00:15:00
- 36. Machining the Channels ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 37. Physical Prototype ENG ME461 A55/1/2015
- 38. Budget Analysis ENG ME461 A5 Part Cost Total Cost $346 Clear Acrylic Rod $125 6061 Aluminum Rod $105 Misc $116 5/1/2015
- 39. Production Cost Estimate Process BodyManifold Turn Drill Mill Turn Fixturing 4.00 0.00 Setup 1.00 2.00 0.25 0.25 Run Time 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.75 GibbsCAM/Solidworks Edits 0.50 2.00 TOTAL TIME 9.5 3.75 ENG ME 461 A5 Processing Times for First Nozzle (hours) 5/1/2015
- 40. Production Cost Estimate Nozzle# Processing Materials Total Aluminum O-Rings 1 $1,275 $30.00 $2.00 $1,307 2 $675 $30.00 $2.00 $707 3 $534 $30.00 $2.00 $565 4 $459 $30.00 $2.00 $491 ENG ME 461 A5 Cost Estimates for Four Nozzles 5/1/2015
- 41. Moving Forward • Testing •Design Iteration – Gasket – Manifold – Optimal diameter / aerodynamics – Rocket interface ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015
- 42. Success Points 1. User-friendlynozzle model 2. Decide on coolant. Is N2O viable? 3. CAD model 4. Functioning prototype ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015
- 43. Acknowledgements ENG ME 461A5 Name Role BURPG Customer Group David Armor Harris Principal BURPG Contact and Advisor William Hauser Section Instructor Ray Nagem Guidance in Thermodynamics Gerald J. Fine Guidance in Material Selection Caleb Farny Testing Procedure Robert Sjostrom Guidance in Manufacturing Joseph Estano Guidance in Manufacturing 5/1/2015
- 44. Thank you foryour time Questions, comments or concerns ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015
- 45. Relevant Basic Physics ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 46. Relevant Basic Physics ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 47. Relevant Basic Physics ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 48. Relevant Basic Physics ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 49. Relevant Basic Physics ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 50. MATLAB Model ENG ME461 A55/1/2015
- 51. MATLAB Model ENG ME461 A55/1/2015 Coolant Channel Geometry Nozzle Body Number of Tubes
- 52. Results: FEA/CFD CFD FlowSimulation Thermal Simulation ENG ME 461 A55/1/2015 Max Temperature
- 53. Results: FEA/CFD Thermal SimulationStructural Simulation 5/1/2014 ENG ME 461 A5 Maximum Equivalent Stress
- 54. Coolant Travel Path ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 55. FEA Joint Stress 5/1/2014ENG ME 461 A5
- 56. Process Flow Chart ENGME 461 A55/1/2015 00:15:00
- 57. Machining the Channels ENGME 461 A55/1/2015
- 58. Production Cost Estimate Process BodyManifold Turn Drill Mill Turn Fixturing 4.00 0.00 Setup 1.00 2.00 0.25 0.25 Run Time 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.75 GibbsCAM/Solidworks Edits 0.50 2.00 TOTAL TIME 9.5 3.75 ENG ME 461 A5 Processing Times for First Nozzle (hours) 5/1/2015
- 59. Production Cost Estimate Nozzle# Processing Materials Total Aluminum O-Rings 1 $1,275 $30.00 $2.00 $1,307 2 $675 $30.00 $2.00 $707 3 $534 $30.00 $2.00 $565 4 $459 $30.00 $2.00 $491 ENG ME 461 A5 Cost Estimates for Four Nozzles 5/1/2015
Editor's Notes
- #2 George Introduce project, team, BURPG, Hauser
- #3 George Presentation contents
- #4 George Discuss BURPG and Armor Say Design Statement Talk about open ended nature of presentation but that we have tangible success points Explain what it means to regenerative cool a nozzle
- #6 Alex Discuss what BURPG gave us to start with (first 3 pts) We are designing for a student group and not an institution like NASA which limits us in cost and manufacturing capabilities. If BURPG were to use our methods they should only have to spend $2000 or less BURPG also asked that we try to use N2O as a coolant because it is the propellant and will add no extra weight to the rocket
- #7 Alex These are our success points. They were made so we use our time productively.
- #8 Alex Our motivation for this project is that high heat causes damage to the nozzle interior and forces BURPG to use new nozzles every time Discuss material damage We did a lot of research on current art and the way people use this technology differently. We found four dominant designs for passing the fluid over the nozzle We want to use oxidizer or fuel as coolant
- #9 Alex Discuss eng specs we find to be relevant to our project. Make this brief. No need to go into everything specifically. Stick to nozzle specs, tank conditions, combustion prop, N20/coolant conditions and burn time
- #10 Alex Talk about how all these physics relate to our project
- #11 George Explain the model Discuss previous idea (lumped)
- #12 George
- #13 George
- #14 Tom. This is the circuit you saw previously but organized
- #15 Tom. Take your time and make it clear. Explain what they are seeing and why its important. Orient the listener
- #16 Tom. Make sure to just focus on user input and model output, but not so much on every box bc that’s hard to follow for the listener
- #17 Tom, briefly introduce. Highlight that left side is plots and right side is user input
- #18 Tom discuss what the user can vary in this model using this input module
- #19 tom
- #20 Tom
- #21 tom
- #22 tom
- #23 alex
- #24 alex
- #25 Chris In addition to using ANSYS simulations, to corroborate the Matlab model, we also did a comparison to a test case on a larger scale. The rocket nozzle was approximately 1m in length and used kerosene as the coolant. The channel geometry was a rectangle that was 4mm in height and 3mm in width. Shown here in the graph on the left is the temperature of the wall along the normalized position of the nozzle, the line we are interested in is the on that spikes as the nozzle converges shown in blue, this corresponds to the temperature of the hot wall. The maximum temperature reached was 852 kelvin, about 20 kelvin off from the test data. Which corresponds to an error of 2%. This is highly promising because it shows that the model is accurate, even on different scales.
- #26 Chris Shown here is the temperature of the coolant along the normalized position of the nozzle. The maximum temperature reached was 653 kelvin, about 70 kelvin off from the test data. Which corresponds to about a 10% error. This is still a small margin, and the error may be due to not having as high a resolution while inputting the test data to the model, this results in the interpolated data being less accurate.
- #27 George
- #28 George Discuss our selection criteria. Remind people we are working for a student group We have BURPG limitations (cost and manuf.) We also have physical limitations
- #29 George Discuss practicality too. Square is hard. Spiral doesn’t work. Corrugated is hard.
- #30 george
- #31 george
- #32 Geoff Explain the pictures
- #33 Geoff Explain the pictures
- #34 Geoff. Make sure to mention that there are 12 channels around the hotwall
- #35 geoff
- #36 Geoff. Discuss drilling in next slide as a transition. Listener has something more tangible to look at
- #37 geoff
- #38 geoff
- #39 Chris. This table shows the total cost of materials for the two prototypes. It comes out to $346, which is within the Senior design budget, as well as the additional budget available to the BURPG. The bulk of the cost comes from the stock material, and the miscellaneous items include the sealants, screws, and different sized o-rings
- #40 geoff
- #41 geoff
- #42 george
- #43 george These are our success points which will be further discussed later Briefly, we have to create user friendly model, decide on whether N2O is viable, create a CAD model of the nozzle and prototype it for testing
- #44 george
- #45 george
- #46 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #47 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #48 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #49 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #50 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #51 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #52 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #53 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #54 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #55 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #56 geoff
- #57 Geoff. Discuss drilling in next slide as a transition. Listener has something more tangible to look at
- #58 geoff
- #59 This slide is here in case questions arise
- #60 This slide is here in case questions arise