J.

SPACECRAFT

1490

VOL. 3, NO. 10

Mechanical and Chemical Contributions to the Erosion Rates

of Graphite Throats in Rocket Motor Nozzles
V. R. GOWARIKER*

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on June 29, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28682

Imperial Metal Industries (Kynoch) Ltd., Summerfield Research Station,^ Kidderminster, England
The paper presents an analytical approach, substantiated by experimental results, which
predicts throat erosion in a rocket motor nozzle with fair accuracy over a wide range of graphite
grades, pressures, and propellants. Both surface chemical reactions and mechanical removal are assumed to occur; the effectiveness of each depends on the composition of the reacting products in the combustion gases, the temperature, the pressure, the quality of the graphite, and the geometry of the nozzle. A simplified diffusion equation has been solved for the
turbulent boundary layer close to the throat surface, and a suitable expression for the mass
transfer coefficient that considers the geometry of the convergent portion of the nozzle has
been employed to evaluate the chemical contribution. For the mechanical effect, a simple
logarithmic function depending on porosity of the carbon and characteristic velocity of the
propellant gases has been determined using dimensional analysis and experimental data.
The results obtained under a nozzle material evaluation program, from both full-size and
small-scale motors operating under different pressures and using various graphite grades and
propellants, show a fairly close agreement with the theory. A new dimensionless number
based on physical constants of the graphite throat has been defined for the graphical representation of results.

Nomenclature

a, ai, &2
B

C
c*
d, Cs
D
DRP
Dth
e
/
K
k
M
mi, m2, n
NRZ
n\, ri2, Us
P
r
r
rcj rm
Re
Sc
t
x
Xp, XR
XRO
z

throat areas before and after firing, respectively, in. 2

constants
cr(log P) 2 /o-'

total molar concentration, moles /ft 3

characteristic exhaust velocity of gases, ft/hr
constants
varying diam along convergent portion of
nozzle, in.
diffusion coefficient, ft 2 /hr
throat diam (2r) in.
measure of roughness
friction factor
first-order rate constant, ft/hr (also temperature unit Kelvin)
mass transfer coefficient, Ib/ft 2 -hr
mass, Ib
constants
molar flux of R in the z direction, Ib/ft 2 -hr
constants
percentage porosity of carbon choke
throat radius, in.
dr/dt, over-all erosion rate, mils /sec
chemical and mechanical contributions, respectively, to r, mils /sec
Reynolds number
Schmidt number
time, sec
distance along convergent portion of nozzle, in.
mole fractions of products arid reactants, respectively
mole fraction of R in the main stream at throat
distance perpendicular to the surface

Presented as Preprint 65-351 at the AIAA Second Annual

Meeting, San Francisco, Calif., July 26-29, 1965; submitted
August 16, 1965; revision received May 16, 1966. The author
is grateful to G. F. P. Trubridge arid II. M. Darwell for going
through the manuscript and making some useful suggestions; to
A. R. Parkes for preparing Fig. 5; to G. P. Thorp for his help in
the numerical calculations; and M. J. Chase for some advice
in the preparation of the appendixes.
* Senior Technical Officer, Ballistics and Mathematical Services Department.
t An agency establishment of the Ministry of Aviation.

8
M
p
a
a'
TW

=
=
=
=
=
=

boundary-layer thickness, in.

gas viscosity, Ib/ft-hr
gas density, lb/ft 3
bulk density of carbon, lb/ft 3
theoretical (maximum) density of carbon, lb/ft 3
shear stress at wall, lb//ft 2

Introduction

HROAT erosion can affect the ballistic performance of

rocket motors, and it is important to be able to predict
erosion rates at the design stage for various nozzle materials
under the attack of combustion gases from different propellants. From among various materials, graphite is used
on a wide scale for rocket motor nozzle throat inserts, due
to its excellent shock resistance, high vaporization temperature, and low density. The main disadvantage of the material is its poor erosion resistance, especially at high gas temperatures and long burning times. The complexity of the
problems associated with erosion and the lack of adequate
knowledge as to the relative importance of different factors
that influence the erosion mechanism renders a rigorous
mathematical treatment beyond practical conception. In
the state of the present art however, a simplified model can
be proposed which, although being essentially mathematical,
would utilize the experimental evidence to further the model
toward perfection and in turn help to smooth out the apparent
contradictions in the available data.
This paper considers erosion problems associated with
graphite inserts. The analysis assumes that the erosion is
attributable to both surface chemical reactions and some
kind of mechanical scrubbing at the carbon surface. The
degree of effectiveness of each of these factors will depend on
the composition, temperature and pressure of the reacting
products in the combustion gases, and the quality of carbon.
Generally, as gas temperatures and C02 and water contents
in the exhaust products increase, chemical effect becomes
more significant, and a point is reached at which little error
is introduced by ignoring the mechanical contribution.
An attempt has been made in this analysis to include the
pertinent parameters so that, under a set of existing conditions in a rocket motor, the relative importance of chemical

EROSION OF GRAPHITE NOZZLE THROATS

OCTOBER 1966

and mechanical effects can be predicted and the calculations

thereof can be performed to give the over-all erosion rate.
The results from firings of small-scale motors at different
pressures using various cast-double-base propellants and
employing several grades of graphite for the throats check
closely with the theory. No claim is made as to the universal
applicability of this treatment, which clearly warrants a more
detailed investigation over a wider range of pressures and
propellants, but it is believed that the paper suggests a general pattern of the future analytical work on the problem.

1491

Eq. (6) can be solved1 to give

NRZ = k ln[(l + XRO)/(l +

k = 0.0288 -e

Model

(8)

where k is the mass transfer coefficient C DRp/d. For

erosion calculations therefore, the expressions for mass
transfer coefficient and first-order reaction rate constants
must be known. For the former, a choice must be made of
a suitable relation out of the existing many. The following
relation for the turbulent boundary layer2 is employed here
for k:
X

General

Assuming that the total erosion rate can be expressed as

the sum of the chemical and mechanical contributions, then
Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on June 29, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28682

r = fc + rm

(1)

It will be shown later that rc depends on the composition of

exhaust gases, the flame temperature, Reynolds number and
Schmidt number of the flow, density of the graphite throat,
and the geometry of the nozzle; fm is a function of the characteristic velocity of the gases and porosity of the throat.

Out of the mixture of gases resulting from the burning of

the solid propellant, the reactions of only three reactants
with carbon are considered to be significant1:

Solid
Gas
Gas
C + C02 -* 2CO

2C

In the propellants under study the temperature at the

throat is in the region of 2500K. There seems to be some
uncertainty as to the correct correlation of the first-order
reaction rate data at this temperature, when carbon reacts
with C02 and H20. However, since this temperature is near
enough to the one for which Khitrin's data3 are reported,
the same equation as was used by Jones et al.1 for the
CC02, CH20 reactions is employed:

InK - 19.96 - 2.12 X 104/T

Effect of Chemical Reactions

(9)

(2)

+ H20 -> CO+H2

(3)

-}- H2 > C2H2

(4)

The atmosphere in the motor being generally oxygen negative,

reactions with 02 are omitted, but may be considered in high
energy propellants.
It is assumed of course that the reactants diffuse through
the turbulent boundary layer to come into contact with the
carbon surface and reciprocate, and that the products of reactions do not accumulate in the boundary layer but diffuse
through to mix with the gas mixture. These assumptions
appear to be reasonable considering the high gas speed and
the nature of flow at the throat. Because of different mass
fractions of the main chemical elements in the gas mixture,
there may exist different shaped concentration profiles for each
of the products along the normal to the surface of the nozzle
material; the state of chemical aggregation of the fluid does
not need to be known in detail, however, if the laws of the
concentration of individual chemical elements are not
violated.
From Eqs. (2) and (3), it follows that each mole of the reacting gas evolves two moles of gas. Therefore,

NP = -2NR

(5)

The equation for the mass transfer rate at a distance z from

the free-stream-boundary layer interface, when diffusion of
one species toward the carbon surface and one product
away from the surface is taking place, may be written as
NRZ = -C DRP dXR/dz

- XRNRZ

(6)

Without introducing significant error, Eq. (6) may be

applied to the multicomponent diffusion case. Applying
the^boundary conditions

at z = 0

XR = XRQ

at z = d

XR = NBZ/CK

(10)

where T is the temperature in K.

Regarding the contribution due to reaction (4) to the
chemical erosion as negligible at the temperature considered,
the final expression for the molar flux of R in the z direction
is obtained by combining Eqs. (8-10). This is

NRZ = 0.0288 -f- X

/Ah

1 + X

Re-8 c--667 In
C exp(19.96 - 2.12 X 104/T)_

(ID

D
N RZ appears on both sides and the computation has to be
done in an iterative manner. The final rate of carbon loss
due to chemical reactions is obtained by adding the effects
of C02 and H20 reactions on carbon, which are obtained by
applying Eq. (11) for R = C02 and H20. The chemical
contribution is then given by

fc = 2 NRZ/ a-

(12)

where or is the density of the graphite (see Appendix 1).

Mechanical Contribution

The experience with different grades of graphite used in

6-in. motor firings at Summerfield indicates that the surface
reactions discussed previously account for only a part of the
total erosion. At pressures and temperatures generally attained in rocket motors, the mechanical effect is also important with a number of propellants. The graphite used for
nozzle inserts of the same density seems to vary widely in
porosity (apparent percentage porosity, which bears no simple
relation with bulk density; see Appendix 1) and it has been
found that for a given propellant and operating conditions,
the erosion rate varies with the throat porosity. A possible
explanation for this phenomenon may be given by introducing
an analogy with turbulent flow in a rough pipe. For instance, Hopf's equation4 relating the friction factor (/) and
the surface roughness is

where e is a dimensionless number based on the pipe radius

1492

V. R. GOWARIKER

J. SPACECRAFT

Table 1 Predicted and experimental0 erosion rates

lb/ft

Material

Mz

M,
M,
M6

M7
M8
M,
M10
Mu

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on June 29, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28682

M17

M18
M19-

and the average height of roughness projections and ci and

c-2 are constants, von Karman5 gives an expression for f(e)
that has been satisfactorily tested for a wide range of e.
In their studies, the roughness was created artificially on the
surface in a predetermined manner so that it could be accurately measured and the friction factor would be expressed
as a function of the roughness. If the porosity of the graphite is taken as a measure of natural intra-molecular roughness at the surface, the resistance to the gas flow will vary
directly with the porosity, and the erosion rate will vary too.
Let the mass eroded off per unit area in time 8t be 5M. This
corresponds to an increase in throat radius from r to r +
5r in time 8t, so that the mass eroded per unit area is a dr.
Therefore

The flow of gases creates shear stress at the wall TWJ and from
dimensional and experimental analyses one may show the
linear relationship6 between rm and the usual group in fluid
dynamics, viz. rw/(pc*) where p is the average density of
gases and c* is their characteristic exhaust velocity. Expressing the shear stress at the wall in terms of the friction
factor/, one gets

fm = aic*f

(13)

where a\ is a constant of proportionality.

If the porosity (P) of carbon is taken as a measure of
structural resistance, then within the limits of throat diameters used in rocket nozzles of this program, a relation similar
to von Karman's may be taken as follows:

= o,(logF)'-

(14)

f, mils/sec
Predicted
Actual
2.9
2.1
2.4
1.9
1.6
3.0
2.6
2.7
2.5
2.4
2.5
2.9
2.9
1.2
2.0
1.3
2.0
2.4
2.0

5.5
13.8
11.2
11.3
10.4
9.7
10.1
13.3
13.5
3.5
7.5
4.2
7.3
9.6
7.1

3.4
2.7
2.7
1.6
1.5
3.3
2.4
3.2
2.6
2.0
2.3
2.6
2.8
1.3

1.7
1.5
1.6
2.0
2.4

a
The data are for a chamber pressure of 1600 psia and an average burning time of 20 sec. The "actual" value is the mean of two measurements
that differ by around 15% in some cases. The typical irregularity in throat
enlargement is shown in Fig. 1.

where a2 is a new constant.

Combining (13) and (14),

rm = ac*(logP)2

(15)

wiiere a is a final constant to be determined using a set of

experimentally determined over-all erosion rates. It is
found that a = 3.2 X 10~8 is satisfactory for all the propellants tested. The over-all erosion rate is obtained by
combining Eqs. (12) and (15).

= M/a

dM = adr

13.1
7.9
9.3
6.8

112.4
111.7
111.7
111.7
115.5
106.8
106.1
116.1
116.1
116.1
116.1
109.9
116.7

M12
M13
Mu
M13
M16
Fired choke of graphite.

Porosity, %

109.3
113.0
112.4
115.5
116.7
110.5

Ml
M*

Fig. 1

Theoretical Predictions and Comparison with

Experiment
The theoretical calculations may be performed through
the following steps:
1) From the percentage composition of different gases in
the exhaust mixture, the molar concentration of an individual gas can be determined at the required pressure and
temperature. The results for each species are then added to
getC.
2) For both CCO, and CH20 reactions, the value of
K is obtained at the flame temperature considered from
Eq. (10). This, in conjunction with (1), gives CK.
3) From motor pressure, throat diameter, characteristic
velocity, and viscosity of gas mixture, Re can be determined;
M and Sc for both CO-2 and H-20 are obtained from the standard
tables.
4-O

4-O-

3-0-

Fig. 2 Over-all erosion rate against

density.

2-0-

o
o i-Or-

IO5

Fig. 3 Over-all erosion rate against

percentage porosity.

2-0-

O I
OL

IIO~

115

DENSITY, LB / FT 3

120

IO

PERCENTAGE POROSITY

15

EROSION OF GRAPHITE NOZZLE THROATS

OCTOBER 1966

4) X for both C02 and H20 are again obtained from their
percentage compositions in the exhaust gases.
5) After evaluating the geometrical quadrature of the
convergent portion of the nozzle, with the knowledge of the
nozzle semiangle, k for both CO-2 and H20 can be calculated,
Re, Sc, ju, Dth, etc., all being known [Eq. (9)].
6) As a result of calculations in steps (1) to (5), the complicated expression (11) for NRZ reduces to the following simple
equation:

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on June 29, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28682

NRZ = n,\n[n,/(n, + NRZ)]

where n^ n-2, and n$ are known numerical constants. NRZ
can then be determined by iteration, separately, for R =
C02 and R = H20.
7) NRZ being known for C02 and H-20, rc is obtained from
Eq. (12) if the density of the choke is known.
8) With the knowledge of characteristic exhaust velocity
of the gases and porosity of the throat, rm can be calculated
fromEq. (15).
Several 6-in. motors were fired using propellant A and various grades of graphite for the nozzle material and the actual
erosion rates determined. (See also Appendix 2.) The
calculations for the theoretical prediction for this propellant
were worked through the given steps, and gave the following
results:
= 0.0163 Ib moles/ft 3
= 9.550 X 104 ft hr: CK = 1557 Ib
moles/ft 2 hr
fie 0 - 8
= 9.032 X 104
r-:>.667 f o r CQo
= 1.028; Sc-- 667 forH,0 = 1.406
= 0 . 1 2 Ib/ft-hr for both CO-> and H2O
M
X for C02 and H,0 = 0.0059 and 0.01020, respectively
k for C02 and H20 - 8939 and 12204 Ib ft' 2 -hr, respectively
2 NRZ
= 21.91b/ft 2 -hr
C
K

losing c* = 4728 fps for this propellant, one obtains from

Eqs. (1, 12, and 15)

r = 0.073/0- + 1.816 X 10-3(logP)2

(16)

It may be noted that the coefficient of cr~ depends on

the characteristics of the combustion gases (composition,
temperature, etc), motor pressure, and the geometry of the
nozzle, whereas the coefficient of (logP)2 is a straight function of the characteristic velocity of the gases.
Comparison with Experiment

Table 1 summarizes the erosion rates predicted by Eq.

(16) and measured \vhen throats of different grades of graphite were used in 6-in. firings with propellant A.
The predicted erosion rates for some other propellants
burning at different pressures in both small and full-size
motors also show a good agreement with the actual values.
For instance, in the case of one oxygen-balanced propellant
burning at a pressure of 800 psia in a 6-in. motor, the predicted
380:

i
~ --/

34O;
-fel^ 2601
b

I8O

IOO
O-2

-'

"

0/

6 /-<"

O-4

b-6
(LOG

O 8

QI

Fig. 4

Bulk density X over-all erosion rate against a

diniensionless number.

1493
I2O

MO

IOO

_lb/cuft

Fig. 5 Nomograph
connecting porosity,
density, and over-all
erosion rate.

MILS/SEC

10

4-5 5O

35

2-5

O-5

15

2O

25 3O

and actual values were 3.3 and 3.7 mils/sec, respectively. In

two other motors (a 16-in.-diam motor employing a sulphated
propellant and a lO-in.-diam motor using an aluminized propellant), the predicted erosion rates at 560 and 1400 psia
were 1.3 and 3.7 mils/sec compared to actual mean values
of 1.6 and 3.2, respectively.
Implication of Eq. (16)

It appears from Eq. (16) that, for a particular propellant

and a set of operating conditions in a rocket motor, both
density and porosity of the nozzle insert determine the extent
of throat erosion. As such for any rocket motor, a plot of
erosion rate vs either of these parameters, which is a common
approach for the representation of data, will be expected to
result in a wide scatter. This is seen in Figs. 2 and 3, where
actual erosion rate is plotted against density and porosity.
For the proper representation therefore, a new parameter
must be formed that will combine the effects of these two
variables. As illustrated by the derivation of Eq. (16), for
any propellant burning at a particular pressure, the equations for the chemical and mechanical effects reduce to the
following general form to give the over-all erosion rate:
ra2 (logP)2

(17)

where m\ and m-i depend on gas composition, temperature,

pressure, velocity, etc., but are constants for any given
conditions.
Equation (17) gives
- ???, o-(logp)2
+ W 2 cr / (o-/o- / )(logP) 2

or cr r =

. +

7M2' ((7/OrO(logP)

(18)

where a' is the maximum (theoretical) density and is introduced to make (o-/cr')(logP) 2 a diniensionless quantity; a',
being a constant, is absorbed in a new constant ra2'.
It will be seen that a plot of cr r vs (<7/cr')(logP) 2 should
give a straight line of slope mS'. This manner of plotting
implies the dependence of r on both cr and P, and seems appropriate for the representation of results for any propellant
and operating conditions. Theoretical erosion rates based
on Eq. (16) for the propellant A are plotted in Fig. 4 as cr dr/dt
vs the diniensionless number B[= (<j/cr')(logP) 2 ]; the actual
values are also plotted for comparison. These results can
be put in the form of nomograph (Fig. 5) from which the
erosion rate can be determined from the intersection of the
straight line joining the density and porosity points with the
erosion rate axis.

Conclusions
The conclusions may be summarized as follows:
1) In predicting erosion rates, mechanical and chemical

V. R. GOWARIKER

1494
FORWARD
END
CLOSURE

This is calculated as

DURESTOS.
BODY

J. SPACECRAFT

END
CLOSURE

bulk density
ity__\
X 100
apparent solid density/
The word "apparent" is used since some pores may be
totally enclosed in the graphite.

Appendix 2:
PRIMED CAMBRIC/
IGNITER

Downloaded by UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI on June 29, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/3.28682

Fig. 6

CHQKE

Test motor assembly.

effects have to be separately considered for close agreement

with data. Under a set of existing conditions in a rocket
motor, the two effects can be calculated to give the over-all
erosion rate.
2) With the same propellant and at the same pressure,
graphite throats of the same density but different porosity
give different erosion rates. The porosity mainly affects the
mechanical contribution, and the degree of its influence has
been determined. The chemical effect depends largely upon
such characteristics of the exhaust gases as the composition,
the temperature, and the conditions of the flow.
3) A dimensionless number based on the physical constants of the choke material is defined for the representation
of theoretical and actual erosion rates.

Appendix 1: Porosity and Bulk Density

of Graphites
The refractory grades of graphite are made by mixing
petroleum cokes from various sources and binding with a
resinous material. This mix is then carbonized and graphitized. Intermediate resin or gas impregnations may be used
to increase the density. As the material is porous to varying
degrees, it is possible to obtain a denser graphite with a
higher proportion of pores that still has the same bulk
density as another graphite that is less porous. The term
density used in this paper refers to bulk density, and, because
of methods of manufacture, it bears no simple relation to
porosity. It is defined as the weight of the sample divided
by the volume of its external shape, and it is determined as
follows: The pores of the sample are filled with white
spirit by vacuum impregnation. Excess liquid is wiped off
and the sample is weighed in air and also weighed immersed
in white spirit. The difference between these weights is the
weight of the liquid displaced. The volume displaced is
calculated knowing the density of the white spirit.
The "apparent solid density" is defined as
____________weight of the sample____________
(volume of external shape) - (volume of open-ended pores)
The difference in weight (between sample and sample with
pores impregnated and weighed in white spirit) gives the
weight of liquid displaced. The volume displaced is calculated knowing the density of the liquid.
The apparent porosity is defined as
volume of open pores
X 100
volume of external shape

Nozzle Material Evaluation

Program (NMEP)

Potential nozzle throat materials were evaluated in the

form of small inserts in a 6-in.-diam rocket motor incorporating the most advanced propellant system available in quantity at the time. The components were examined before
and after firing, and efforts were made to determine the reason
for success or failure where appropriate.
Four typical propellants, one with low flame temperature,
two with high temperatures (aluminized and nonaluminized)
and the last oxygen-balanced, burning for 20 sec, 13-15 sec,
26-30 sec, and 20 sec, respectively, have been employed with
different pressures; throat diameters ranged between 0.4
and 0.575 in. From thermodynamic calculations, the percentage composition of different products in the combustion
gases is known; these propellants give a fair cross section of
the products resulting from most existing propellants.
The experimental motor used for these trials consisted of a
6-in.-diam, thick-walled steel tube fitted with a forward end
closure and containing the solid cylindrical charge. An aft
end closure carried the test insert. Figure 6 shows the general assembly in diagrammatic form. Both the forward
and aft end closures were drilled and tapped to allow pressure
transducers to be fitted, enabling chamber pressures to be
recorded continuously during firing. Each insert was inspected before and after firing and its performance was assessed by:
1) Comparison of throat diameters before and after firing.
2) Pressure variations during firing, which indicated the
course of erosion.
3) General appearance, e.g., crack formation, evidence of
spalling or chemical attack, etc.
4) Structural examination. Most components were examined metallographically and in many cases evidence of
failure mechanisms was furnished.

References
1

Jones, W. H. and Delaney, L. J., "An analysis of the material

problems for throat inserts of high energy solid propellant
rockets/' Institute for Defence Analyses, Wash. D. C., TR 62^.
19, UBG 62-559 (October 1962).
2
Ambrok, G. S., "Approximate solution of the equation for
the thermal boundary layer with variations in boundary layer
structure," Sov. Phys. Tech. Phys. 2, 1979 (1957).
3
Khitrin, L. N., "Fundamental problems of carbon combustion and factors intensifying the burning of solid fuels,r'
Sixth Intern. Symp. Combust. 565-573. (1956).
4
Hopf, L., "Die messung der hydraaulischen rauhigkeit," Seit,
Angew Math. U Mech. 3, 329 (1923); summarized in Knudsen,
L. G. and Katz, D. L., "Fluid Dynamics and Heat Transfer,"
Eng. Res. Bull. 37 (September 1953).
5
von Karman, T., "Mechanical similitude and turbulence,"
NACATM611 (1931).
6
Garner, F. H., private communication, Univ. of Birmingham,.
England (1961).