NASA NTRS2010
A recent proposal submitted for an ESA mission required that models be delivered in ESARAD/ESAT AN formats. ThermalDesktop was the preferable analysis code to be used for model development with a conversion done as the final step before delivery. However, due to some differences between the capabilities of the two codes, a unique approach was developed to take advantage of the edge node capability of ThermalDesktop while maintaining the centroid node approach used by ESARAD. In essence, two separate meshes were used: one for conduction and one for radiation. The conduction calculations were eliminated from the radiation surfaces and the capacitance and radiative calculations were eliminated from the conduction surfaces. The resulting conduction surface nodes were coincident with all nodes of the radiation surface and were subsequently merged, while the nodes along the edges remained free. Merging of nodes on the edges of adjacent surfaces provided the conductive links between surfaces. Lastly, all nodes along edges were placed into the subnetwork and the resulting supernetwork included only the nodes associated with radiation surfaces. This approach had both benefits and disadvantages. The use of centroid, surface based radiation reduces the overall size of the radiation network, which is often the most computationally intensive part of the modeling process. Furthermore, using the conduction surfaces and allowing ThermalDesktop to calculate the conduction network can save significant time by not having to manually generate the couplings. Lastly, the resulting GMM/TMM models can be exported to formats which do not support edge nodes. One drawback, however, is the necessity to maintain two sets of surfaces. This requires additional care on the part of the analyst to ensure communication between the conductive and radiative surfaces in the resulting overall network. However, with more frequent use of this technique, the benefits of this approach can far outweigh the additional effort.