44th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference &Amp;amp; Exhibit 2008
DOI: 10.2514/6.2008-4653
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Conjugate Conduction-Convection Heat Transfer for Water-Cooled High-Speed Flows

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
3
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
3
2

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(3 citation statements)
references
References 1 publication
0
3
0
Order By: Relevance
“…It is possible to compare the simulation results calculated in the present study against those found by several authors that used the same experimental data and conclude that the results have excellent compliance. Simulations of the Cases I, III and IV presented deviations respectively of 5.0%, −2.1% and −5.0%, and the Case II presented deviation of 7.3%, all of them corresponding to a difference from the experimental data by at most 1.1 K. According to Shope (6) , the nozzle for Case II has failed before the test reached the steady state, in which case the measured Table 5 Globally scaled residuals of each tested mesh for Case I (7) -model 2 − 7.9 − 6.0 − 12.2 − 17.0 Engblom et al (7) -model 3 12.9 18.7 5.3 2.0 Engblom et al (7) -model 4 1.4 8.7 − 9.0 − 11.5 Engblom et al (8) − 5.8 water temperature rise would be greater if the nozzle had survived, consequently reducing the deviation. Figure 7 shows temperature and heat flux distributions along the gas-side nozzle wall provided by different authors in comparison with those obtained in present study.…”
Section: Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations
“…It is possible to compare the simulation results calculated in the present study against those found by several authors that used the same experimental data and conclude that the results have excellent compliance. Simulations of the Cases I, III and IV presented deviations respectively of 5.0%, −2.1% and −5.0%, and the Case II presented deviation of 7.3%, all of them corresponding to a difference from the experimental data by at most 1.1 K. According to Shope (6) , the nozzle for Case II has failed before the test reached the steady state, in which case the measured Table 5 Globally scaled residuals of each tested mesh for Case I (7) -model 2 − 7.9 − 6.0 − 12.2 − 17.0 Engblom et al (7) -model 3 12.9 18.7 5.3 2.0 Engblom et al (7) -model 4 1.4 8.7 − 9.0 − 11.5 Engblom et al (8) − 5.8 water temperature rise would be greater if the nozzle had survived, consequently reducing the deviation. Figure 7 shows temperature and heat flux distributions along the gas-side nozzle wall provided by different authors in comparison with those obtained in present study.…”
Section: Results and Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Engblom et al (8) reported serious numerical instabilities when computing the sensible heat flux due to the discontinuity in enthalpy as a function of temperature. They solved the problem using a third order polynomial to fit this property, starting at the saturation condition, preserving the original values and slopes at end point set as the saturation temperature plus 100°K.…”
Section: Materials Propertiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation