COMPARISON OF ORBITER PRCS PLUME FLOW FIELDSUSING CFD AND MODIFIED SOURCE FLOW CODES

Win. C. Rochelle,* Robin E. Kinsey,** and Ethan A. Reid**Lockheed Martin, Houston, TX

Philh'p C. Stuart+ and Forrest E. Lumpkin+NASA/JSC, Houston, TX

_) //_

A_tr_

The Space Shuttle Orbiter will use Reaction Control

System (RCS) jets for docking with the plannedIntenm_onalSpace StationflSS). During aplxoa_ andbackout maneuvers, plumes from these jets could camehigh pressure, heating, and thermal loads on ISScomponents. The object of this paper is to presentcomparisons of RCS plume flow fields used to calculatethese ISS environments. Because of the complexitiesof 3-D plumes with variable scarf-angle and multi-jetcombinations, NASA//SC developed a plume flow-fieldmethodology for all of these Orbiter jets. The RCSPlume Model (RPM), which includes effects of sc_fednozzles and dual jets, was developed as a modifiedsource-flow engineering tool to rapidly generate plumeproperties and impingement environments on ISScomponents. This paper presents flow-field im3pertiesfrom four PRCS jets: F3U low scarf-_mglesingle jet,F3F high scarf-angle single jet, DTU zero scarf-angledual jet, and F1F/F2F high scarf-angle dual jet. TneRPM results compared weft with plume flow fieldsusing four _ programs: General AerodynamicSimulation Program (GASP), Cartesian (CART),Unified Solution Algorithm (USA), and Reacting taxiMulti-phase Program (RAMP). Good comparisons ofIxedicted Ixessures me shown with STS-64 ShuttlePlume impingement Flight Experiment (SPlFEX) data.

Introduction

In May 1998 the first segment of the InternationalSpace Station (ISS), the Russian Ftmctionalni GmznoiBlok (FGB), is scheduled to be launched. About 5 yearslater, the entire 110 m x 75 m x 40 m ISS will be

completely assembled. During build-up of this spacestation. Orbiter Primary mui Vernier Reaction ControlSystem (PRCS and VRCS, respectively)jet plumeswill impinge upon ISS components while the Orbiter is

docking, possibly causing high pressure and heatingenvironments on critical components. One such build-up configuration is seen in Fig. 1 which shows theOrbiter docking at Pressurized Mating Adapter (PMA)-2

during ISS Flight 6A. High impingementenvironments could arise with the F1F/F2F plumeimpinging on the bottom of the P6 +x radiator or theF3U plume impinging on the P6 solar an'ay and theSpace Station Remote Manipulator System (SSRMS).

The methodology for evaluating Orbiter plumes mdimpingement effects on both Mir Space Station and ISScomponents has been tmdetway at NASA/JSC for thepast three years. This includes plume flow-field_tic tests in the JSC Chamber A vacuum

chamber_ and development of the RCS Plume Model(RPM? "sand the higher-fidelity CFD/DSMC model, eFor validation of the analytical models, plmneimpingement pressure, force, and heat flux data wasobtained from Orbiter RCS jet fnings from ShuttlePlume Impingement Flight Experiment (SPIFF.X). TM

Plume impingement heating environments to spedficISS components have been lxesented recently) TM Anupdated plume healing model for the continuum regimewas Ixesemed a few mouths ago 12 using the plumes

disaxssed in the present paper. These heatingenvironmentswere shown to varyas a function ofdistance between ISS docking ports, location in Orbiterapproachcone, location along component,radiusof

component,and forsolararrays,thearrayfe.a_erangle.

The present paper focuses on the plume flow-fieldproperties used to obtain the heating environments.These plumes were generated by both the engineeringmodel (RPM) as well as by more exact CFD solutions.The remainder of the paper will include a description ofthe Orbite_ jet locations md the PRCS jet cocxdinamsystem. A discussion of the SPIFEX configuration onwhich plume flow field and heating models werevalidated is also described. The flow-field methodologyof the five types of plume programs considezed will bebriefly stmunarized, and results, including flow-fieldproperty contours and comparisons of propertiesbetween the methods, will be presented. In addition,comparisons of impingement pressure with SPIFEXdata at the location of specific test points will be given.

*GroupLead, AdvancedSystems Group**CooperativeEngineering Student, Adv. Sy$. Grp.+Aerospace Engineer, Aeroscience Branch ii-I

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19970040122 2020-03-21T21:50:06+00:00Z

Qrbiter Jet Locations and PRCS Coordinate S_tem

A sketch of the Orbiter RCS jot locations and plumecenterline firing directions is presented in Fig. 2. Theeme 38 870-1b thrust PRCS jets and six 24-1b thrustVRCS jots on the Orbiter (all using N2OJmonomethylhydrazine as the propellan0, as seen in this figure.Several of the PRCS jets on the forward module have alarge scarf angle to conform to the contour of theOrbiter. These include the fc_vard-fifing jets (F1F0F2F, and F3F) with a nominal scarf angle of 65° andthe downward-firing jets (FID-F4D) with a nominalscarf angle of 59°. The upward-firing PRCS jets in theforward module (FLU, F2U, and F3U), together withtwo of the side-firing jets in this module (F1L and F2R)have a nominal scarf angle of 23°. The other two side-firing PRCS jets on the forward module (F3L and F4R)and the left and tight-firing jets on either side of the tail(L1L-IAL and R1R-R4R) have a nominal scarf angle of16". The up-firing, down-firing, and aft-firing PRCSjets in the aft module all have a zero scarf angle.

The ixincipal PRCS jet used for docking maneuve_is the F3U single jet. Whenever the forward-firing jetsme used, they always rue together, producing theF1F/F2F dual-jet plume. Also, the up-firing, down-f_ring, or aft-firing jets on either side of the vertical tailfire together (e.g., R1U/L1U), Inoducing a dual-jetplume. When the up-firing jets fire, this is nffm'cd toas the Dual-Tail-Up (DTU)jet. In addition, if the F3Ujet fires while the DTU jet is firing, the jets fire in the"norm-z" mode with three intersecting plumes.

In Fig. 3, the Orbiter PRCS comdinate systems ateshown for:. (a) the single-jet, unscaffed nozzle; Co)thedual-jet, anscarfed nozzle; (c) the single-jet scarfednozzle; and (d) a schematic of the Orbiter forwardmodule showing the multiple-jet scarfed nozzles. Fromthese figures, the scarf angle, _; distance, r, from nozzleexit to an object in the plume; azimuth angle, 0, fromthe centerline; clock angle, _, avund the nozzle; and

thrust vector angle, ¥, may be seen.

SpIFEX ConfiLmration

Figure 4 presents a sketch of the equipment used furthe SPIFEX operation. The experiment arm wasmounted at the end of a 10-m long boom which wasattached to the end of the Shuttle Remote ManipulatorSystem (RMS). This figure shows the general positionof the arm above the F3U jet plume. Two plates wereon the experiment arm containing instrumentation -

Load Measuring System (LMS) plate and Plume

Impingement _ System (PICS) plate.Four heat flux sensors were on the LMS plate and threeon the PICS plate. The PICS plate omtained fo_pressure sensors (absolute and differential capacitaz:emancmete_ and Sentran and Kistler gages). Pressuremeasurements could also be deduced by dividing theforce measurement by the plate area. This SPIFEX datawill be ccmpmed with impingement pressmes obtainedfrom plume flow fields discussed below.

Plume Flow-Field Methodology

This section discusses the plume flow-fieldmethodology for the RPM codex4 and the CFDixograms: Genaal Aerodynamic Simulation Program(GASP)) 3 Cartesian (CART) code, Unified Solution

Algorithm (USA) t4 program, and the Reacting andMulti-phase Program (RAMP)? 5 Plume runs weremade with the RPM0 GASP, CART, and RAMP codes,

while the results of the USA code weze furnished byRock-_ell)' The F3U plume was genenm_ by the

RPM, GASP, and RAMP codes, the F3F plume wastun for the RPM and GASP codes, the DTU plume waspredicted by RPM and GASP, and the FIF/F2F plumewas gcmeratedby RPM, CART and USA.

The RPM code uses modified source flow relations to

predict plume dynamic pressm-efor a nozzle for a give_value of _ as a function of r, 0, _b, chambex pressm-e,ratio of specific heats, combustion effidency, andlimiting sueanfline angle. The relation betweendistances and angles is seen in Fig. 3. In RPM, theplume velocity is constant with azimuth angle in theinviscid axe until the limiting streamline is n_hed,which divides the inviscid core and viscouslayer. _ velocity decreases across the boundary layexto account for energy losses. Inside the shockinteraction region of dual-jet plumes, RPM dynamicpressures are amplified by factors obtained from fits ofCFD and DSMC solutions for the DTU plume. Forthe F1F/F2F plume, RPM dual-jet amplification factorswere ftwt_ adjusted based on SPIFEX data. The RPM

model uses velocity and static wessure curve fits in theshock interaceon region to envelope the region pn_tiaedby the CFD solutions (described below).

The GASP code was used for the nozzles and plumesof the F3U zero scarf.angle (axisymmetric) jet, the F3U22.7 ° scarf-angle jet, the F3F 65.0 ° scarf-angle jet, the

11-2

zero scarf-angle DTU jets, and the nozzle of the 64.8 °scarf-ingle F1F/F2F dual jet. Because of the extr_nescarf angle coupled with the proximity of the nozzles tothe Orbiter centerline, problems occurred in lXOdUcingagrid of adequatequality using GASP for the F1F/F2Fplume. Thus, the JSC CART code, a purely Cartesianflow solver that automatically clusters grid points togradients in the flow field, was used for this plume.

The thin-layer Navier-Stokes equations were solvedwith the Baldwin-Lcmax t6 turbulence model using a500 K constant wall temperalme. A finite-rate

chemistry model with eleven species (CO, H2, N2, NO,02, OH, CO2, H20, H, N, and O) was used with 86reactions and vibrational equilibrium. By the time theflow had reached the nozzle exit, it was chemicallyfrozen; hence, in the plume, the chemical reactions weredisabled, and the flow was frozen along streamlines.

The initial conditions in the combustion

using GASP were based on results of the NASA/LewisChemical Equilibrium Composition (CEC) code _ witha 2-tempetanae range curve-fit inside the nozzle and asingle harmonic oscillator model in the plume for thethermodynamic properties. The flow solver used a Roe-averaging 3rd-a'd_ Monotone Upsm_n-centetedScheme for Conservation Laws (MUSCL) technique,tsThe models used with the CART plume solution weesimilar to those used with GASP in the plume, exceptthat the Van Leer19flux calculation was used.

USA

With the USA code, the Navier-Stokes equations weresolved with a fmim volume scheme (same as withGASP). These equations result in five independentvariables for 3-D calculations and four variables fcf

axisymme_c/2-D calculations. The same 11 species_md86 reactions as used by GASP we_ used with theUSA code with finite-rate chemistry in the nozzle andfrozen flow in the plume. A modified Baldwin-Lomaxuubulence model was used for the flow inside the

axisymmetric and scarfed nozzles. For plumecalculatiouswithsingleand dualscarfednozzles,

USA codeusedsecond-on_accuracy(whiletheGASP

codeusedthird.ord_acoaracy).The USA codcuseda 1-

temperatme curve-fit for thermodynamic properties forboth the nozzle and plume. For the scarfed nozzle, theUSA code had a 65 ° inclined plate blending into theOrbiter contour and turning 90° downward at the nose.This was in contrast to the 65° continuous fiat plate forthe CART and GASP solutions which did not followthecontouroftheOrbiternearthenose.The flow-field

output of the USA code was in Plot3d _ format.However, to be compatible with the CART solutions,the Plot3dformatwas changedtoTecplota_format.

RAMP

The RAMP nozzle and plume code has the capabilityto run a reacting, 2-phase (gas-particle) solution using ashock-capturingfinite-differencenumericaloper_r witha variable oxidiz_to fuel (O/F) distribution. For theaxisymmeuic PRCS solution for the F3U jet, anequilibrium/frozen single-phase (gas only) solution wasusedwiththe flowchemicallyfrozenalongstreamlinesdownm'eam of thethroat(similarto the GASP and

USA solutions). A transonic solution with the wall

gecmeuT input both upsu'eam and downstream of thethroat, including throat radius of curvatme, was used. Avariable O/F ratio distribution was assumed in the

nozzle and plume with an 11-point variation from O/F= 2.2 along the nozzle centerline to O/F = 0.8 at thewall where the MMH fuel is dumped.

The NASA/Lewis CEC code 17was run initially to

obtain thermochemical properties for the RAMP nozzlesolution. Then RAMP was run for inviscid flow inside

the nozzle. The Boundary Layer Integral MatrixProcedtee - Version J (BLIMPJ) code" was then runinside the nozzletoobtainthe viscous boundary layex

flowincludingdisplacementthicknessalongthewall.An assumedwalltemperaturedistributionvaryingfium

1303K atthethroatto1234K attheexitplane(0.236

m from the throat) was used. The RAMP code wasthen run for a modified nozzle wall with the BLIMPJ

displacement thickness subwact_ off the wall ToeBLIMPJ code was run a second time to further adjustthe wall boundary layer, m_l a axnbinedinviscid/boundury layer start line at the exit plane wasused for input to the RAMP plume run. Thisaxisymmetricplume was thususedforthe F3U plumecomparisonwithRPM andGASP solutions.

Results

Plume Flow-field Contours

Figure 5 presents RPM-predicted dynamic pressurecontours for the F3U single-jet plume with a 22.7 ° scarfangleasa functionofdistancealongtheZ-axis.InFig.5(a)thecontoursareshown fortheX-Z plane,andin

Fig.5 Co),theyareshown fortheY-Z plane.Itisseen

that the X-Z plane contours are symmetric with respeato the X = 0 axis, while in Fig. 5 Co), the Y-Z contoursareshiftedslightly downward.Because of the closeness

11-3

of the flow-field properties in the two planes, Im3purtiesfrom this RPM plume were _ with those ofaxisymmetric GASP and RAMP plumes. In Fig. 5 Co)several of the SPIFEX test points are shown, at whichmeasured impIngement pressures wc_ used to comparewith predicted values (discussed later).

In Fig. 6 the dynamic pre_ure contours are presentedfor the DTU deal-jet plume as computed by the RPMcode. The X-Z view of Fig. 6 (a) shows the shock-interaction region in between these jets, the axes ofwhich me separated by a distance of6.g m. The Y-Zview of Fig. 6 Co)shows a stagnation region, but not ashock interaction region. No significant SPIFEX datawas taken for this plume.

Figure 7 pt,esonts the RPM contours of dynamicpressure for the F1F/F2F dual-jet plume. In Fig. 7 (a)the X-Z view shows the shock interaction regionbetween these jets, the axes of which are separated by adistance of only 0.74 m. 'me effect of the high scarfangle may be seen in Fig. 7 (b) showing the thrustvector sloping downward to the righL In this plot, theactual Y-axis is the negative value of that shown inFigs. 3 (c) end 3 (d) such that the thrust vector issloping upward, away from the Orbiter body. SeveralSPIFEX test points are also shown in this figure.

In Figs. 8 and 9 the RAMP and GASP F3U

axisymmetric PRCS plume dynamic pressure contoursare shown, respectively. A continuum flow line limitsthe GASP solution to about Z = 18 m on the axis. R

is seen that the contour values are fairly close betweenthe GASP and RAMP values, especially along the axisand compare well with the RPM contours in Fig. 5 (asdisoussed later). The pvesem_ of a _ shock maybe seen in both the RAMP and GASP plots.

Figure 10 presents the DTU plume contours ofdynamic presstae in the Y-Z plane as computed by theGASP code. This plot relaesents a cut across theplume in the Z-direction at 12 m. The shock contour is

shown in this figure, with a minimum value at Y = 0,increasing in the X-direction for higher values of Y.This dual-jet plume has two unscarred nozzles; hence,the flow variables for Y < 0 are the same as those for Y

> 0. The center of a single jet may be seen at X = 3.4

m. The shock location compares favorably with that ofthe RPM DTU plot of Fig. 6 at the same location.

In Figs. 11, 12, and 13, F3F single-jet and F1F/F2F

dual-jet plume contours are shown of density, velocity,and molecular weight, respectively, at Z = 2.0 m as a

function of Y and X. The contours were ccemputedby

GASP for the F3F jet and by CART for the F1F/F2F

jet. Both jets have the same high scarf angle (65°), andthe F3Fjet axis has been shifted over to X = 0.37 m toput it at the same location as the axis of one of theF1F/F2F jets. Figure 11 shows the shock location ofthe F1F/F2F dual jet which has a similar pattern to thatof the DTU dual jet shown in Fig. 10. However, the

F1F/F2F contours are not symmetric with respect tothe Y = 0 axis like those of the DTU contours because

of the high scarf angle of the F1F/F2F jet Thecontours in Figs. 12 and 13 show the maximum values

of velocity and molecular weight occmring at the axis(X-O.37m). Inall three figures, the contours of theF3F and F1F/F2F plume (outside the shock) mecomparable, in spite of the difference in the two codes.

Distribution of Flow Properties

In Fig. 14 the distribution of the F3U dynamiclaessures along the plume axis is shown with acomparison of the RPM, RAMP, and GASP restflts

interpolated from Figs. 5, 8, and 9, respectively. Forvalues of Z > 1 m, the RPM dynamic pressmes areslightly lower than the GASP values, which areslightly lower than the RAMP values. The RAMP mdGASP cm'ves show a shock slrucUne for Z < 0.5 m

(alsoseeninFigs.g and 9, respectively). This shockstructure cannot be obtained from the RPM code since it

is a modified source-flow code, and its solution actuallystarts atZ = 1 m.

The distribution of dynamic pressures across the F3Uplume computed from GASP, RAMP, and RPMsolutions is shown in Fig. 15 at Z = 10 m from theexit plane. All three predictions arc dose at low valuesof Y, with a deviation occurring at larger values of Ywhere the plume is more rarefied.

Figure 16 presents the GASP and RPM distribution

of density across the F3F plume in the X-direction at Z= 12.5mandY= 1.0m. The GASP and RPM valuesare very close for Z < 2 m, with GASP values abovethose of RPM from 2 to 9 m. The mind reverses itself

at larger values of X. In Figs. 17 and 18, the GASPand RPM dynamic IXessure and velocitydistributionaround the F3F plume is shown as a function of clockangle, 0, at Z = 12.5 m and 0 = 36 °. It is seen that the

dynamic pressures are fairly close between the twomethods, and the velocities are very close.

Figure 19 presents a comparison of density from theDTU plume as a function of X at Z = 18 m from the

exit. It is seen that the RPM-predicted location of the

11-4

dual-jet shock at X = 1.7 to 2.2 m is very close to thelxediction from GASP. The GASP values of densityare slightly higher than those of RPM inside the shockand me slightly lower than those of RPM outside theshock (for X > 2.2 m).

In Fig. 20 the dynamic pressures from the CART,USA, and RPM codes are plotted for the FIF/F2F dual-jet plume as a function of Z along the X-Z plane ofsymmetry. All three of the curves are fairly close for Z> 2 m, with RPM generally the highest. 1"hereis alarge difference between RPM and both CART and USAfor Z < 2 m; however, no component of the ISS wouldbe within 3 - 4 m of the exit of this plume because ofthe high heating rates at this distance.*' In the range ofZ from 9 - 15 m, all three methods show very goodcorrelation with SPIFEX dam (described below).

Figure 21 shows a distribution of dynamic lxessureacross the F1F/F2F plume at Z = 2 m vs. X usingCART, USA, and RPM. The CART and USA valuesare close inside the shock (X < 0.5 m), while the RPMpredictions are generally in between the USA and GASP

values for X > 1.5 m. In Fig. 22 a comparison ofCART and RPM dynamic pressure for the F1F/F2F

plume at Z = 5.0 m is shown as a function of Y alongthe plane of symmetry. The CART values me slightlyhigher than those of RIM except for Y < -4 m wherethe two methods are very close. The CART flow fieldwas terminated for values of Y > 2.3 m.

SPIFEX Data Comgarisons

Figure 23 presents a bar chart showing thecomparison of impingement pressures measured bySPIFEX for the F3U jet with RPM, RAMP, andGASP predictions. In this and the next two figures, theSPIFEX pressures are the measured loads divided by thearea of the LMS plate. Distances fi'om the nozzle exitplane to the sensor, r, of 12.2 to 23.2 m are included inFig. 23 at nominal azimuth angles, 0 of 2° and 15°. TheRPM values show excellent agreement with data. The

RAMP and GASP values are siighfly higher than thedata. These impingement pressures me computed byadding the static pressure to the product of pressurecoefficient times dynamic pressure. For GASP mdRAMP, the pressure coefficient was taken to be 2.0; forRPM it is calculated and is always somewhat less than2.0. No values for GASP are shown for r = 18.3 and

23.2 m since this is outside the computational domain.

In Fig. 24 a bar chart is presented showing thecomparison of RPM and GASP predictions of

impingement pressure with SPIFEX data for the F1Fplume (same as F3F plume) as a function of clockangle, _, around the nozzle. For most cases the RPMand GASP values axe in good agreement with the da_

Test points 56 and 126 show the SPIFEX data higherthan either RPM or GASP predictions.

Figure 25 presents the RPM, CART, and USApredi_d impingement Im_ssures with SPIFEXmeasured pressure data fox the F1F/F2F dual jet as afunction of 0 fore = 180 °. Three values ofr are shown

from 9.15 to 15.2 m. In most all cases, there is verygood agreement between data and prediction by RPMand the two CFD codes.

Conclusions

This paper has presented sample plume flow fieldsfrom Orbiter PRCS jets. Examples were shown ofplumes from low scarf-angle single jets, high scarf-angle single jets, zero scarf-angle dual jets, and highscarf-angle single jets. It was seen that results fi-om the

JSC RPM engineering model compare well with theflow fw.lds generated from the higher-fidelity GASP,CART, USA, and RAMP CFD codes. The RPMpredictions of impingement pressure were shown tocompare very well with measured SPIFEXimpingement pressures for the low scarf-angle F3U jetsand reasonably well with the high scarf-angle FIF andF1F/F2F SPIFEX data. In summary, the plume flowfields fi'om the RIM code appear to be validatedsatisfactorily to use in prediction of pressure and heatingenvironments to space station components.

aclmx,_:dmm_

The authors wish to acknowledge the support of JeffArend of the JSC Space Station Ofl'_e on this project.Thanks me also extended to Jay LeBean and SteveFitzgerald of NASA/JSC for plume solutions andcomments and to Ruston Hughes and Start Bouslog(formerly with Lockheed Martin) who helped developthe RPM code.

References

1. Fitzgerald, S. M., Rocha, A. R., Bouslog, S. A.,Hughes, J. R., and Leahy, K. S., "Far-Field PlumeCharacterization Testing in Support of Space StationPlume Impingement Methodology Validation," Paper94-2636 presenl_l at 18th AIAA Aerospace GroundTesting Conference, Colorado Springs, CO, June 20-23, 1994.

11-5

2. Stueber, M. J., "Plume Characterization Test Reportfor the NASA/JSC Chamber A Vacuum Facility: Vol.I," JSC-32321, Oct. 1994.

3. Fitzgerald, S. M., Bouslog, S. A., and Hughes, J.R., _¢Iodel for Predicting Orbiter PRCS ImpingementLoads and Heating," JSC-26507, Rev. A, June 1995.

4. Fitzgerald, S. M. and Bouslo8, S. A., "orbiterPRCS Plume Impingement Toolkit: RPM Version3.0.1," JSC-26583, Rev. A, Sept. 1996.

5. Rochelle, W. C., Hughes, J. R., aad Leahy, K. S.,"Model for Predicting Orbiter PRCS Plume Heating toInternational Space Station Alpha (ISSA)," Lod_eedAS-107-94, Aug. 25, 1994.

6. Lumpkin, F. E., Stuart, P. C., and LeBean, G. J.,"Fnhsn,-ed Analyses of Plume Impingement During aCombined CFD and DSMC Methodology," Paper 96-1877 lxesented at 31st AIAA ThermophysicsConference, New Orleans, LA, June 17-20, 1996.

7. Machin, R. A., Stueber, M. J., Rocha, A. R.,Leahy, K. S., Hughes, J. R., White, M. K., Rochelle,W. C., and Fitzgerald, S. M., "Shuttle PlumeImpingement Flight Experiment (SPIFEX) DamReduction, Vol. I - Test Description and Results," JSC27030, June 1995.

8. Rochelle, W. C., Hughes, J. R., Leahy, K. S., and

Fitzgerald, S.M., "Shuttle Plume Impingement FlightExperiment (SPIFEX) - Heat Flux Measurement andPredictions," Pap_ 9643349 lx_nted at AIAA 34th

Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 15-18,1996.

9. Fitzgerald, S. M., Hughes, J. R, and Leahy, K. S.,"Shuttle Plume Impingement Flight Experiment(SPIFEX) - Pressm and Load Plate Measmements,"

Pape_ 96-0611 Ixe_nted at AIAA 34th AerospaceSciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 15-18, 1996.

10. Rochelle, W. C., Hughes, J. R., DeVenezi& J.,Bonslog, S. A., Leahy, IC S., and Fitzgerald, S. M.,"Plume Impingement Healing to International SpaceStation (ISS)," Paper 95-2132 presented at 30th AIAAThermophysics Confea'ence, San Diego, CA, June 19-22, 1995.

11. Rochelle, W. C., Hughes, J. R., Kinsey, R. E.,Caram, J. M., "Heat Tmmfer from Space Shuttle

PRCS Plumes to Components of International SpaceStation," Paper 96-3965 presented at 1996

AIChE/ASME/ANS/AIAA National Heat Trm_ff

Conference, Houston, "IX, Aug. 3-6, 1996.

12. Rochelle, W. C., Kinsey, R. E., Ruby, D. G.,Stuart, P. C., and Lumpkin, F. E., "Orbiter Exhaust

Plume Impingement Effects on International SpaceStation," Paper lxesented at 23rd JANNAF ExhaustPlume Technology Meeting, Sunnyvale, CA, April 8-11, 1997.

13. McCm3ry, W. D., Stack, D. C., Applebaum, M.P.,and Walthe_s,R. W, "GASP Version2.2 - "lhe

General Aen3dynamic Simulation Program," AefoSoft,Inc., 1993.

14. Dominik, D., Fu, T., eL al., "Space Shuttle RCS

Plume Flow Field," Rockwell Intcmatkmal ReportSSD95D0163, April 1995.

15. Smith, S. D., "Utxtate to the RAMP2 ComputerProgram," SECA-FR-93-19, December 1993.

16. Baldwin, B. S. and Lomax, H., "Thin Lay_Aplxoximation and Algebraic Model for SeparatedTurbulent Flows," Paper 78-257 lxesented at 16thAIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting, Reno, NV, Jan. 16-18, 1978.

17. Gordon, S. and McBride, B. J., "ComputerProgram for Calculation of Complex ChemicalEquilibrium Compositions, Rocket Performance,Incident and Refleoed Shocks, and Chapman-JouguetDetonations," NASA SP-273, March 1976.

18. Roe, P. L., "ApproximateRiemaun Solver,

ParameterVectors,andDiffetunceSchemes:"Journalof

ComputationalPhysics,Vol.43,pp.357-372.

19. Van Leer, B., "Towards the Ultimate Ccmservative

Difference Scheme V. A Second Order Sequel toGodunov's Method," Journal of Computational

Physics, VoL 32, 1979, pp. 101-136.

20. Walatlm, P. P. and Buning, P. G., "PLOT3DUser's Manual," NASA TM 101067, March 1989.

21. "TecplotUsc_"sManual - Version7," Amtec

Engineering,Inc.,Aug. 1996.

22. Evans, R. M. and Morse, H. L., "Boundary LayerIntegral Matrix Procedure BLIMP-J User's Manual,"

Aerotherm UM-75-64, July 1975.

11-6

Fig. 1 X-Z lm.m,eView of ln_ticnml Space Station for Flight 6A

l OIREGTIONOFPLUME

t DIREGTION OF

I VEHICLE MOTION

G - GI:K)UP NO. AFT RIGHT _,_"_mu__B. ORBITER BOGY FRAME . • _' o.7

SR - STRUCTURAL REFERENCE FRAME o-lo mA _ _R"--_*A

-q--_- _ _ 2. _uu t_u

I_-_ nc'-T II_'-_'J_' I _'__ II ..,,-r.D, x¥x a'.m.Te_ •I ,=eo_u..,_=,,,,o.oI g'leo_(.a •

_ m,,IMUL=RS_I I"HIWXJOI4Sl--' " I

Fig. 2 Orbiter RCS Jet Locations and Plume Directions

11-7

.. /_rr *Y

Side View Top View

o_X

Side View Top View

a) _ S3_em for Ax/symme_ic Jet

+Y

+X

c) Coord_ Sys_ for Sc_ ;et

b) Coordinate System for Dual Jets

F3U _ F2_F

F4R

t __ -V 'd) Schematic of Orb_er Ferwanl Module

Fig. 3 Orbiter PRCS Jet Coordinate System

+Z

ARM

%%

ItbACS

BOOMRMS

PGSCHEd Obk

RCS Hand Conlrofler,57S CPG

Fig. 4 Overview of Equipment Used fro"SPIFEX Operations

11-8

I+-11

A n.aii.o_ _." ,J9 $._i0 i

6 I.OlltlO I 0 • •

' W.,.) "4 3.oo_io _

$ I.r,_-iO I

I0$ I0 15 20 25 $ I0 LI il

Distance Along Z-Axis (m) Distance Along Z-Axis (in)

a)X-Z Plane b) Y-Z Plane

Fig. 5 RPM Dynamic Pressure Contours for F3U Single-let Plume

9 9 1.59z10 _

8 8 8.45x10 °

x o_--._-" ± _ ' "_ _" V/J_ _-_'''t" i \ I, ,-,_i.mio_ _ o ..... _...................:................ i.._t,l@=-l,'-f/_._._. _-+_- ',-,,o, Ik__-) ......1'

4 &.69lift I

• - - s "#.'#_lo"_ l\\'z _ _i _ ! / 4 ,L 3..._1o-_

kX.'_._. 77.7,1 ° ' '_, ! {

$ I0 15 20 S I0 IS 20

Distance Along Z-Axis (m) Distance Along Z-Axis (In)

a) X-Z Plane b) Y-Z Plane

Fig. 6 RPM Dynamic Pressure Contours for DTU Dual-Jet Plume

+! iNil

• A i.OailO i

9 $.00ii# i

I t._OillO i

7 2.(_t I0 I

6 LO0_IO n

, _.ao,_lo_. 3 1.00zlP

2 $._OxlO .I "

I I.OllilO "i

$ I0 I$ _0 ?q $ I0 I$ _0 25

Distance Along Z-Axis (m) Distance Along Z-Axis (m)

a) X-ZPlane b) Y-Z Plane

Fig. 7 RPM Dynamic Pressure Contours for F1F/F2F Dua14et Plume

11-9

2O

I / _ TM

/ |

-_ /,

5

o .... oT. ,".-: .1,.... ,,..,,AXIALDml"ANCEFROeIPgOG_LElxrr Iq.ANE,10B) 5 10 15 29 25

• ._. _ AXIAL DIIFrANCE FROtl NOZZLE EXIT PLANE, Z(V)

Fig. 8 RAMP Dynamic Prepare Contours (N/m 2) for rig. 9 GASP Dynamic Pressure Contours (N/m 2) for

_o F3U,_Axisymmouic Plume in Y-Z Plane F3U Axisymmca_: Plume in Y-Z Plane

F I._4

1 6 4.mE*4

o,MI \ ::=

: ,%' k'i // , ,--,

5 10 15 2O0.0 05 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0

x (rvmorn) x (mews)Fig. 10 GASP Dynamic Pressure Contours (Nlm 2) for Fig. 11 Density Contours (N/m _) for F3F from GASP

DTU Dual-Jet Plume in Y-X Plane (Z=I2 m) and for FIF/F2F flora CART (7-.=12.0 m)

F 1.0 ',. : 21.m

4 21.18

: 1' 20.13

• '. "*" ' " E _ 7,1 $ 1111_

3 "" ", ! • o am,_ 4 s_._

i : A 2S31.1 II 1 18.(12

• $ fill.e8

' _ / ' e

, ' . 7 1"1t,73 tI

• o S II_,T/

• . - " l IU0.81 " 1

O .' '" . 4. - " .... 2 IS_m.*s -0.5

• "" ." ," " ,., • .- I _14_',8_ _ OOll_i.llw=_4llPlqFldldlms " " " " "

IMid l.J_• G*Kr FlRFIF

• I .... I .... i . , , , I .... ! • - • i l

'1 2 $ 4 6 0 7 II 0.5 1,0 1.6 2,0 2.5 3.0

Fig. 12 Velocity Contours'(/_Tm _) for F3F from GASP x (metm_)

and for F1F/F2F _om CART (7_.=12.0m) Fig. 13 Molcc. WL Contoursfor F3F _rom GASP ardfor F1F/F2F from CART (Z=I2.0 m)

11-10

10'

I0'

4=,

100 2 4 | 8 10 0

B_r_ RmOM _J_ E)aT _LNE _ _ AX_ Z M)

Fig. 14 GASP, RAMP, and RPM F3U PlumeDynamic Pressure vs Z Along Plume Axis

10 4 , , ................

!

10-I

ILl

104 • . . , ..... , ....

2 4 $ 8 10 12

RN)IN. DJs'rANCE FFK)U PLANE OF S_mdETRY, X(M)

Fig. 16 GASP and RPM F3F Hume Density vs X forZ= 12.5 m and Y=I.0 m

3.500

3000

2500

UJ

Isoo

tu 1000

5OO

0 ' ' '

0 50 100 150 2OO

C4.OCK ANGLE AI_UND NOZ21.E, PHI O

Fig. 18 GASP and RPM F3F Flume Veloci[y vs _ atZ=12,5 m and 0=36 °

....... I I

2 4 II 0 10

RAOIN. DBTAN_ m PLtJME NCS, YM

Hg. 15 GASP, RAMP, and RPM F3U Plume

Dynamic Prcssm_ vs Y for Zffil0 m

• . , , ,

0 5O 100 150

CLOC_ ANGLE AFIOUNO NO221.E. P_ O

Fig. 17 GASP and RPM F3F Plume DynamicPressure vs _ a[ Z=12..5 m and 8=36 °

2OO

oo.O

4 _.......°° I°°°'°

,/ I..." ......... HPM 3,0& :L!

2

!

0 ............. " ....

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.8 3

RADIAL DISTANCE FROM PLANE OF b_IMIETRY, X (M)

Fig. 19 GASP and RPM DTU Plume Density vs X atZ=I8 m

11-11

I0 j ........

,o" i'_

_1_o.

10 • • '

o 2

• " " ' " " " ' ....... r .......

f

N( _: X-0.1M

4 6 8 10 12 14 16

AXlN. DISTANCE FROM NOZZLE sxn'o Z (M)

Fig.20 CART. USA, and RPM FIF/F2F Plume

Dynamic PressurevsZ AlongPlume Axis

i--c#rrcmi..... USA CFD I-...._u_1 Ib,. m

-" :.:......-.._

0 1 2 3 4 S 6 7

RADUU- BST_J_CE FR(Xa PLANE OF SYMMETRY, X (M)

Fig. 21 CART, USA, and RPM F1F/F2F PlumeDynamic Pressure vs X at Z = 2.0 m

300 ......

!. i,o.,. i--

200 , 25

2OSS0

15

• . , , , '_soj '\ s

0 ...... 0

_ST_.CEAU_ _.E OFsvuu_r_,v (.) osrN_ m0U.OZ_ BC_TOSSmO_n_

Fig. 22 CART and RPM F1F/F2F Plume Dynamic Fig. 23 SPIFEX, RPM, RAMP, and GASP F'3UPressm_ vs Y at Z : 5.0 m Impingement_ vsr for 0 : 2oand 15o

14

12

10

tM

tu 4

(k

• 2

0

10 45 90 102 134 164 180

CLOCK ANGLE AROUND NOZ2LE. PHIC)

Fig. 24 SPIFEX, RPM, and GASP FIF ImpingementPressure vs _ for I-=-15m, e = 36"

ss

_ 120 _l CART

[] USA

100 _ PI-_N NC_L OSNOI_ TL=ST _O.

rrAUC NOS. _F.NOT_

_u

o' .., ..,_-

8 8 38 8 23 38 49

A2SMUTHk_GLE, THETA O

Fig.25 SPIFEX,RPM, CART, and USA FIF/FRF

Plume Impingement Pressure vs 0 forr=9.2,12.2, and 15.2 m

11-12