0
Research Papers: Thermal Systems

A Simplified Thermal Model and Comparison Analysis for a Stratospheric Lighter-Than-Air Vehicle

[+] Author and Article Information
Wei Zheng

Qian Xuesen Laboratory of Space Technology,
China Academy of Space Technology,
P. O. Box 5142-221,
Beijing 100094, China
e-mail: zhengwei@qxslab.cn

Xiangyi Zhang

Qian Xuesen Laboratory of Space Technology,
China Academy of Space Technology,
P. O. Box 5142-221,
Beijing 100094, China
e-mail: zhangxiangyi@qxslab.cn

Rong Ma

Qian Xuesen Laboratory of Space Technology,
China Academy of Space Technology,
P. O. Box 5142-221,
Beijing 100094, China
e-mail: marong@qxslab.cn

Yong Li

Qian Xuesen Laboratory of Space Technology,
China Academy of Space Technology,
P. O. Box 5142-221,
Beijing 100094, China
e-mail: liyong@qxslab.cn

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Heat Transfer Division of ASME for publication in the JOURNAL OF HEAT TRANSFER. Manuscript received June 21, 2016; final manuscript received June 19, 2017; published online August 29, 2017. Assoc. Editor: Laurent Pilon.

J. Heat Transfer 140(2), 022801 (Aug 29, 2017) (9 pages) Paper No: HT-16-1409; doi: 10.1115/1.4037194 History: Received June 21, 2016; Revised June 19, 2017

Transient thermal behavior modeling and simulation is a key issue in predicting flight performance of stratospheric lighter-than-air (LTA) vehicles, such as airships or balloons. To reduce computational load of the transient thermal model without significant loss of accuracy, first this paper adopted an analytical model of view factor from the element surfaces to the Earth and constructed a full distributed parameter transient thermal model. Then, the full model was validated by comparing the predictions obtained from the full model with the flight experimental data. The comparison results show that the divergence of the predicted average internal gas temperatures from the flight data is about 0.4%, and the divergence of the predicted envelop temperatures from the flight data is less than 2.4%. Furthermore, considering that the effect of the net radiation heat transfer among the inner surface enclosure on average internal gas temperature is far less than radiation heat transfer of the outer surfaces, the full model was simplified by omitting radiant heat exchange within the inner surface enclosure. The accuracy of the simplified model was investigated by comparing the predictions of average internal gas temperature and skin temperature distribution between the simplified model and full model under various conditions, such as flight time, altitude, and different external skin thermal properties. The comparison results indicate that the simplified model agrees well with the full model. The discrepancies of the predicted average internal gas temperature between the two models are less than 0.3% under most conditions, and the discrepancies of the predicted temperature distribution between the two models are also acceptable when the LTA vehicle, especially with low absorptivity/emissivity ratio coatings, operates at about 20 km altitude.

FIGURES IN THIS ARTICLE
<>
Copyright © 2018 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Heat loads acting on the stratospheric LTA vehicle

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 2

View factor comparison of the analytical method and numerical method (at 20 km altitude)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Comparison of the envelop temperature distribution and average internal gas temperature between the simulation and flight data: (a) night and (b) day

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Comparison of the diurnal average gas temperature variations (at 20 km altitude): (a) coating A and (b) coating B

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Comparison of the diurnal average gas temperature variations (at 30 km altitude): (a) coating A and (b) coating B

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Temperature distribution of the envelope (at 20 km, coating A): (a) 2:00 a.m. and (b)12:00 a.m.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Temperature distribution discrepancies between the two models (at 20 km, coating A): (a) 2:00 a.m. and (b) 12:00 a.m.

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Temperature distribution discrepancies between the two models (at 30 km, coating A): (a) 2:00 a.m. and (b) 12:00 a.m.

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