39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference von Braun Center Huntsville AL 20 23 July 2003

AIAA-2003-4504

IMPROVEMENTS TO THE SOLID PERFORMANCE PROGRAM (SPP)

D. E. Coats*, J.C. French, S.S. Dunn, D.R. Berker, Software & Engineering Associates, Carson City, NV

Insulation

Copyright 2003 by Software and Engineering Associates, Inc. Published by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc., with permission. * President, Associate Fellow AIAA Senior Engineer, member AIAA Vice President Senior Engineer 1 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

ABSTRACT The Solid Performance Program (SPP) is the JANNAF sponsored design tool for solid rocket motor development. Software and Engineering Associates, Inc. (SEA) has maintained this code, and has recently released version SPP02. This version contains several improvements that are useful for grain design and ballistics analysis, visualization and ease of use. A new segmented motor option allows for a burn rate and multiplier for different axial sections of the grain. A similar dual propellant option allows the user to specify different burn rates for different propellant formulations along the grain, which allows the user to design a motor with different propellant characteristics for boost and sustain. An insulation option allows the user to place insulation on the motor case and alerts the user in the analysis when the insulation is first exposed at an axial location. Three new grain design macros have been included to simplify the input of a burning axial wire embedded in the grain, to carve out an axial slot, and for packing multiple hollow rods of grain (straws) in an empty case. A new perimeter computation yields the total, burning and insulation exposure of the grain surface at consecutive axial stations and web steps. An additional computation connects adjacent perimeters to form a finite element surface mesh, which when displayed for sequential time steps animates the burn-back of the motor grain. A scarfed nozzle option has been added to the nozzle performance module. An ignition transient option is being added to the code along with a threedimensional two-phase flow solver for the motor cavity. Improvements are also being made to the one and three dimensional combustion stability modules. INTRODUCTION SPP provides a framework that allows the nozzle and motor performance of most solid rockets to be analyzed to a reasonable degree of accuracy. The fundamental aspects of solid propellant rocket motor design, including propellant characterization, nozzle design, grain design and ballistics are integrated in a single code. Thus making it is a good starting place for developing new solid rocket motor design capabilities, such as spatially varying grain formulations or unusual grain designs without having to start from scratch. Once new features are incorporated into SPP, they become available to the entire rocket development community.

This paper discusses additional capabilities which have been added since the last open literature discussion of the code1, options which are currently being added and/or are being checked our, and some future plans for the code. Finally, some of the deficiencies of the SPP methodology and code are discussed. Current Improvements to Spp02 Several options have been instituted to allow the user to more accurately define the grain design. A segmented motor option and a similar dual propellant option have been included in SPP02. The segmented motor option allows the user to specify different burn rate tables for each user-defined segment of a motor. In contrast, the dual propellant option allows the user to model a motor with separate boost and sustain propellant formulations with distinctly different combustion properties. The case insulation option has been improved and allows the user to define the 3-D shape and placement of insulation along the motor. This imparts not only the spatial effect of insulation on the grain burn-back, but also alerts the user when it is first exposed. When this option is used in conjunction with the perimeter option, the insulation exposure as a function of both perimeter and surface area is computed. Another facet of SPP02 grain design is the inclusion of new grain design macros, which assist in generating several unusual motor geometries. The straws macro fits a user-defined number of straws of grain into a motor, usually for igniter applications. A wire macro allows the user to define a series of cones that are appropriately delayed to impart the effect of burn rate augmentation due to an axial wire being embedded in the grain. An additional simple macro was included to automatically insert a series of prisms, which hollow out an exterior axial slot along the case of the motor. As there can be on the order of 100 figures defined per macro, if changes were made to the design of a motor, it is much simpler to change a single macro input rather than to have to modify 100 separate geometrical shapes. As a direct result of SEAs Navy SBIR funding for 3-D combustion stability analysis, we have developed several new options that compute the perimeter and surface area exposure of the grain, case and insulation, as well as animate the dynamics of the burning grain. This involves two successive options: first SPP analyzes individual axial cross sections to compute the perimeter, and then SPP connects these perimeters together to yield a FEM surface mesh. The grain design figures that follow were generated using the FEM surface mesh option.

2 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

New Motor Definition Options Segmented Motor Option The motor segment option allows the user to define up to 5 axial segments, which have different burn characteristics. This option is not compatible with the dual propellant option, which is discussed in the following section. Each motor segment can have a separate burn rate definition, which includes the pressure exponent and base burn rate as a function pressure. If values are only input for the first

segment, they will be applied for all segments. In addition, each motor segment has an associated hump factor table. This table modifies the burn rate as a function of both web burn and axial distance. As an example, the ASRM rocket motor SPP test case was modified to include three segments with slightly different burn rate tables. Figure 1 contains several grain burn back steps of this modified ASRM, and Figure 2 demonstrates the effect of the segmented motor option on the head end pressure of the motor.

(a) Initial Grain Design

(b) Mid-way Through Burn Figure 1. ASRM with Segmented Motor Option

(c) Near Burn-Out

Segmented Motor Option 1000 900 800 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 20 40 60 80 Time (s) ASRM ASRM w/Segmented Option 100 120 140 160

Figure 2. Comparison of ASRM Pressure Time History With and Without Segmented Motor Option Dual Propellant Motor Option The dual propellant option is designed to allow the user to model a system that has two completely different propellants. This option is not compatible with the segmented motor option discussed in the previous section. The convention assumes that the system is composed of propellant A and propellant B, which may have different chemical composition and burn characteristics. If both propellants exist at the same axial location, it is assumed that propellant A is initially exposed and propellant A covers propellant B. When the thickness of propellant A burns through, propellant B is exposed. Therefore, the user must specify the thickness of propellant A as a function of axial distance (if the thickness of propellant A at a particular location is zero, it is assumed that propellant B is exposed). In addition, the user must specify the burn characteristics, the density, and

Pressure (psia)

3 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

the chemical composition of both propellants. The REACTANTS input processor has been modified to accept A or B in the Oxidizer/Fuel location, in place of O or F. The properties of the gas flowing down the grain are then calculated based on the relative mass flows of each propellant.

The following boost-sustain sample motor (Figure 3) has a star grain design in the aft end and a radial slot in the middle. The dual propellant option has been used to specify different propellant formulations for two sections of the motor, divided at the axial location of the radial slot. It can be seen that the aft end burns out much more quickly than head end. The pressure history of the burn is shown in Figure 4.

(a) Initial Grain Design

(b) Mid-way Through Burn (c) Near Burn-Out Figure 3. Boost-Sustain Dual Propellant Grain Design

Head Pressure vs. Time

8000

7000

6000

5000 Pressure (psia)

4000

3000

2000

1000

0 0 2 4 6 8 Time (s) 10 12 14 16

Figure 4. Pressure History of Boost-Sustain Motor using Dual Propellant Option

4 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Case Insulation Option The insulation option allows the user to specify an insulation thickness (Ti) as a function of axial length and circumferential angle (i, see Figure 5). This option effectively alters the geometry of the case for the grain design module. It should be noted that the circumferential angle is associated with the input symmetry factor, SYMFAC (i.e., if SYMFAC=12, then the angle variation should be between 0 and 30 degrees). In addition, an output file is written which

displays the web burn at which the insulation is exposed as a function of axial position and angle. The grain is not allowed to burn beyond the insulation. The ballistic module utilizes a Nusselt Number correlation to estimate the heat transfer in the motor for up to five axial stations. This allows the user to calculate the thermal response of exposed insulation.

Ti

Insulation

Figure 5. Insulation Definition The Extended Delta motor is used here as an example. Figure 6 shows the motor burn with no insulation applied. Figure 7 demonstrates the effect of adding insulation to the motor.

(a) Initial Grain Design

(b) Mid-way Through Burn Figure 6. Extended Delta Motor (no insulation)

(c) Near Burn-Out

5 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Insulation

(a) Initial Insulation Exposure

(b) After Burn-Out

Figure 7. Extended Delta Motor (with insulation) New Grain Design Macros SPP allows the user to specify geometric primitives to define the initial motor cavity2. A primitive can be a prism, cone, sphere, or torus, and can be either a grain filled or a void region. The order in which the primitives are specified determines whether a grain filled primitive fills a void primitive, or if the void primitive hollows out the filled primitive. To burn back the grain, SPP then changes the size of the primitives (voids expand, grain filled contract), using appropriate corner rounding, to model the burning surfaces. Hercules Powder Company first implemented this approach for ballistic computations in 19673. A grain design macro allows the user to define a common grain design problem, such as the star or the dogbone cross-section, using a minimal number of inputs. The macro then automatically generates all the geometric primitives required to hollow out the requested shape. This is of great utility when a slight change is made to the design only the macro definition needs to be changed instead of every user entered geometric primitive. Here we present several new grain design macros that are included in SPP02: straws, wires and external axial slots. Multiple Straw-Like Grains This grain design involves utilizing multiple hollow rods of propellant (hence straws), which are inserted loosely into a combustion chamber. The original intent of this grain design was for designing an igniter, and the number of straws added to the chamber directly affects its effectiveness. While the grain design of a single straw is straightforward, the number of straws included can be significantly different. The program computes the tightest hexagonal packing for a given straw and case radius, and places the straws in a 60 symmetry section. If the user specifies a number of straws which is greater than the code determines may be packed into the case, a warning flag is issued. However, the computation is allowed to proceed utilizing the maximum determined number of straws allowed and a cross-sectional area multiplication factor equal to the ratio of the requested number of straws to the maximum allowed number of straws. The usefulness of this macro becomes apparent when one considers having to input over 100 rods definitions in the input file. Figure 8 is a side view of 100 bundled straws, Figure 9 shows the cross-section of how this straw igniter burns, and Figure 10 shows the corresponding pressure history. The amount of propellant burnt as a function of web can be computed analytically:

V = W ( Ro Ri ) [ L + Ro Ri 2W ]

(1)

V is the volume of the propellant burnt, W is the distance the web is burnt back (typically proportional to time), Ro is the outer straw radius, Ri is the inner straw radius, and L is the length of the straw. Note that 2W Ro Ri , as the straw burns on both the inner and outer surfaces. Since the length is typically much longer than the radius, a good approximation can be made by:

V = W ( Ro Ri ) L

(2)

This indicates that the amount of propellant burnt is mainly a linear function (wrt W), which implies that the chamber pressure should be relatively constant and this is shown to be the case in Figure 10.

6 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 8. 100 Straw Grains

Figure 9. Grain Burn-Back Evolution of 100 Straw Grains in Igniter Case

Head End Pressure Time History

1000 900 800 700 Pressure (psia) 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 0 0.05 0.1 Time (s) 0.15 0.2 0.25

Figure 10. Straws Igniter Head End Pressure Time History

7 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Axial Wire Macro While embedding a metal wire axially within the propellant may appear to be an exotic grain design option, it can be quite useful. The metal wire conducts heat into the grain faster than would otherwise be possible. The end effect is that the wire appears to burn faster than the propellant burn rate. In this context, burning implies that the wire material regresses at a faster rate than the surrounding propellant at the same pressure. Simple end-burner grain designs can maintain a constant thrust over an extended period of time, but usually at the cost of a low-pressure chamber design due to the reduced amount of surface area (see Figure 11). When a wire is embedded axially in the end-burning motor and

begins to regress, it changes the flat burning plane into a cone, increasing the exposed burning surface area and thus the pressure also (see Figure 12). Once the tail end of the cone has burnt out to the case, the exposed surface area becomes constant until burn-out, and the constant thrust characteristic of the end-burner is regained, but at a higher pressure (and thrust) and shorter action time. The half-angle of the cone generated by the burning wire can be computed by examining the web step for both the wire and the propellant. The cone angle formed is the arcsine of the ratio of the burn rate of the propellant to the regression rate of the wire. This angle is equivalent to that of Snells law in optics and acoustics.

Figure 11. Web Step of End Burner Wire

w1

w2
Figure 12. Web Step of End Burner with Embedded Axial Wire Modeling this seemingly simple wire in SPP is complicated due to the fashion in which SPP defines outwardly burning cones. The logical procedure would be to place a cone next to the end-burning plane, and allow the cone to grow into end burning plane. Unfortunately, when SPP burns cones outward, all of the sharp corners are rounded, including the tip of the cone. To correctly impart the effect of the cones, it is necessary to establish a series of cones that slightly overlap to account for the rounding at the cone tip. These cones are then filled back in using a large grain filled cylinder. This grain filled cylinder then burns inward at the wire burning rate to expose the cone and end of the burning wire, without exposing the tip of the cone. In the test case of an actual motor that SEA modeled, over 300 cones were required. This denotes the utility of the macro, which only requires knowledge of where the wire is to start (X, Y and Z), and its radius. If any of these parameters changed, without the macro the user would of had to modify all 300 cone definitions by hand. The wire may also be given an overall initial burn delay, in case it is not initially exposed. We could have chosen to modify the SPP geometry code to allow for a non-corner-rounded cone tip, but this would have required a major change to one of the core subroutines, and implementing a macro to generate the same result was deemed a simpler and more robust approach. Two sets of runs similar to the motor in Figure 13 were computed. In the first set of analyses, 2 to 10 cones were

8 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

used, with a ring of wires spaced equally tangentially and at halfway between the centerline and the motor case (see Figure 14a). In the second set of analyses, a cone was placed along the centerline, and a ring of wires was placed equally tangentially but at 2/3s the radius (Figure 13 has a wire along the centerline and 6 wires in a ring about it, and a similar 4 wire crosssection is shown in Figure 14b). The pressure time histories for these two sets of analyses are shown in Figure 15. Most notably, for the period of time of the

burn when the wires effect dominates the grain geometry, the head end (and aft end) pressure not only remains constant, but also is invariant with the number of cones used. An increased number of cones accelerates how quickly the effect of the wires comes to dominate the solution, and also steepens the tail off in the pressure. Including a cone at the center of the grain appears to promote acceleration to a wire dominated burn once seven wires are included, probably due to more efficient hexagonal packing of the wires.

(a) Near ignition

(b) Mid-Burn Figure 13. Grain Burn-Back of a 7 Wire Motor

(c) Tail-Off

(a) 4 cones with no centered wire (b) 4 cones with centered wire Figure 14. Placement of Cones for Test Cases
Pressure History: No Centered Wire
120
120

Pressure History: Centered Wire

10 Wires
100
100

10 Wires

80 Pressure (Bar)
Pressure (Bar)

80

60

60

40

40

20

20

0 0

2 Wires
1 2 3 4 5 Time (s) 6 7 8 9 10

0 0

1 Wire
1 2 3 4 5 Time (s) 6 7 8 9 10

(a) Pressure History Without Center Wire (2-10 wire)

(b) Pressure History With Center Wires (1-10 wires)

9 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 15. Comparison of Motor Pressure History with Varying Numbers of Axial Wires New Grain Design Analysis Features Routines within SPP examine axial cross-sections of the motor at user defined axial stations to determine the area and moments of the cross-section (Figure 16). When a motors grain design has a high degree of axial cross-sectional symmetry, only the symmetry section is required for the ballistics analysis, which accelerates the computational process and simplifies the input. Each cross section is subdivided into a series of lines perpendicular to the y-axis (Figure 17). The intersection of the line with the different primitives is used to determine what portions of each line extend across the grain. Note that at this point the area and moments can be computed using trapezoidal integration. However, the actual grain surfaces are never explicitly evaluated. It is possible to surmise a rough idea of the grain surface by examining the tops and bottoms of each vertical slice (see Figure 17), but there are many potential pitfalls in evaluating the perimeter by simply attaching neighboring tops and bottoms.
4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0

10

12

14

16

18

Figure 16. Axial Cross Sections of Motor Motor designers often begin with previously implemented grain designs as a starting point. The designer can pick and choose from established designs in order to design the motor to fit a desired thrust-time history. There are a number of standard grain design shapes that can be modeled in SPP02 using macros to help the user specify these shapes. Macros are defined for the Star, Wagon Wheel, Dogbone, Dendrite, Finocyl, and Conocyl shapes as shown in Figure 18. The Star, Wagon Wheel, Dogbone, and Dendrite macros include a domes treatment, which allows the head end or aft end of a design to taper from one shape to another. These unusual shapes are also difficult to transform into a

Figure 17. Vertical Slices in y-z Plane (Fixed x) surface mesh using a general procedure. The SPP97 code contains several choices for connecting the ends of lines found during the ballistics computations to compute the perimeter. The choices allow the user to specify how two sequential perimeters should be attached, such as by increasing angles or by percentage of perimeter. These approaches often can fail or incorrectly represent the geometry. These results are primarily used for presentation rather than engineering purposes. The goal here was to create a general algorithm yielding both an accurate perimeter and surface mesh, which could then be transformed into a computational mesh using standard gridding algorithms.

10 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

a) Conocyl

b) Finocyl

c) Dendrite

d) Wagon Wheel Figure 18. Standard Grain Shapes

e) Dogbone

Axial Perimeter Computation One of the benefits of SPPs original design is that for a given axial station it can quickly and accurately examine the full set of geometric primitives for a given x-y location and return several ranges of vertical lines parallel to the z axis where the motor grain or insulation exists. The problem is how to best connect the ends of these lines to form the perimeter. The approach is to first define a region, and then remove everything that is not on the surface of that region, leaving only the surface4. This approach is significantly different from the approach used in SPP97 to compute the perimeter for 3-D plots5. In SPP02, the vertical lines used to perform trapezoidal integration are then used to find the perimeter by attaching the tops or bottoms of the vertical lines. For example, in Figure 19(d), the bottoms of the vertical lines can be attached to form a smooth surface of a star cross-section sector. While this approach works quite well for simple crosssections, choosing the next correct point using logic is difficult for complicated cross-sections. There are several ways to choose which points are connected on the perimeter. For example, one could connect points based on their angular location, or the closeness of the neighboring points, resulting in significantly different perimeters. The following presents an approach that eliminates the logic of choosing the next connecting point on the perimeter. Instead of connecting points, the

perimeter is computed by covering the grain-filled region with boxes and triangles. Once the lines inside this region are removed, only the perimeter remains. One of the main problems in generating a computational grid from the SPP input is that SPP uses trapezoidal integration over each cross-section to compute the propellant volume and surface area for the 1-D ballistics and moments. The integration algorithm does not require a visually attractive cross-section a very rough cross section is sufficient. In order to generate a computational grid, a smooth approximation to the grains surface needs to be determined. The gridding code looks for discontinuous regions, triggering the code to interpolate several new vertical line locations to better approximate the surface. For example, extra lines are inserted at the left upper surface of Figure 19(b) to better resolve the intersection with the boundary. The top and bottom of each line is examined to determine if it is between the top and bottom of the lines to its immediate left and right. This is done to divide the grain into rectangles (see Figure 19(c)). The sharp corners of the rectangle leave a jagged appearance, so each concave corner is checked to see if it is within the grain. If it is, a triangle is added to eliminate the concave corners (Figure 19(d)), smoothing the boundary. When the interior lines are removed, the surface remains (Figure 19(e)). This algorithm handles double valued regions in the y-z plane without modification.

11 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(a) Raw Data from SPP (b) Extra Lines Inserted for Resolution of Boundary (c) Minimum Area Boxes Formed (d) Smoothing Triangles Inserted (e) Interior Lines Removed Leaving Grain Surface Figure 19. Steps Taken to Compute Grain Perimeter (Extended Delta motor) The ability to locate the boundary of the grain also provides the ability to compute the perimeter of the grains burning surface, the case wall and the insulation. From the perimeter at each axial station the exposed surface area (total, burning and Figure 20. Surface Area vs. Time for Extended Delta Motor 3-D FEM Surface Mesh Generation The output from the perimeter algorithm yields a smooth approximation of the grain surface for a given cross-section. A similar algorithm has been developed which connects the perimeters from axially adjacent cross-sections to generate a 3-D FEM surface mesh. The concept behind the 2-D cross-section perimeter algorithm is to take the output of SPP (vertical lines segments in the z direction located at several locations along the y axis and fixed x location) and find the smallest regions that are filled with grain by finding the smallest unions between subsequent vertical lines to form boxes (see Figure 19(c)). The perimeters jagged corners are then smoothed with triangles if they are filled with grain. In a similar manner, 3-D surface planes can be formed by identifying regions that need to be smoothed with axially connecting triangles (Regions II and III in Figure 22). For a realistic example, consider the two dendrite perimeters superimposed in Figure 24. These two figures are similar, and only vary in the bulge near the case wall (due to the domes treatment). To smoothly transition from one planes perimeter to the next, the perimeters that comprise the neck of the dendrite should be directly connected (projected axially), while the disconnected region at the bulge should be smoothly connected using triangles. Generally, in order to accomplish this task, the lines composing the perimeters from two adjacent axial locations are superimposed on a plane. For each perimeter line segment, a perpendicular vector is maintained that points toward the grain, or if the insulation) can be computed using trapezoidal integration. Figure 20 shows the surface area plotted versus time for the Extended Delta motor. Figure 21 shows the effect of adding insulation: the grains burning surface area is reduced as the insulation is exposed (the insulation is included as part of the total surface area). Figure 21. Surface Area vs. Time for Extended Delta Motor with Insulation perimeter line is on the case, the perpendicular vector points out of the case (Figure 23). Lines that are common to both perimeters are combined. A set of nodes is then established to determine which lines are connected to each other. For lines on the symmetry boundary, connections are made to the next node on the boundary in a counter-clockwise fashion. The perimeter lines are then traversed in a counter-clockwise fashion. Each of the lines is traversed twice, once in each direction. When a line is traversed, the cross product of the direction that the line is traversed and a vector associated with the line that points into the grain (or into the motor casing) determines the kind of region that is found for each traversed loop. For example, in Figure 23, Region I has only outward pointing vectors, and as such represents a region that would only be projected from one plane to another. Regions II and III have both outward and inward pointing vectors so these perimeters should be connected using triangles to create a smooth connection between the regions. If a smooth connection is made, the lines used in the smoothing will be removed from the set in Region I, which would otherwise have been projected. In Region IV, there are only inward pointing vectors, indicating that this region is filled entirely with grain. For entirely grain filled regions, any exposed surfaces are already projected or smoothed by the adjacent regions, and thus no additional smoothing or projecting triangles are needed. To simplify this greatly, when the two perimeters are merged, y locations that are within a user-specified tolerance are combined. Likewise, z locations that are within the same user specified tolerance are also combined. A list of points is then kept for each of the y locations, which comprise the z locations where lines connect. To traverse the lines, the next line will be

12 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

attached to a point in the previous, current or next y location node list. By examining the previous and current point, one can then ascertain which point to

move to next for the most counter-clockwise line to which the current line is attached.

Perimeter 1
IV II I

Perimeter 2
III

Figure 22. Two Perimeters Dividing the Motor Section into Four Regions

IV II I

III

Figure 23. Unit Vectors Perpendicular to Perimeter Pointing in Direction of Grain

0.3 0.25 0.2 0.15 0.1 0.05 0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Figure 24. Superposition of Dendrite Perimeters from Growing Domes Treatment The burn-back of a double conocyl motor grain and a dendrite motor grain are shown in Figure 25 and Figure 26. The double conocyl is a particularly interesting case; at an axial location in the middle of the cones there geometrically may be as many as five separate perimeters in a symmetry section that the FEM mesh generator is able to correctly attach. SPP outputs the surface mesh for a user-specified number of sectors. The output can be directly read by the Generalized Mesh Viewer (GMV), a maintained public domain graphics program available at: http://laws.lanl.gov/XCM/gmv/GMVHome.html.

13 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

A second output file can be generated to animate the burn-back using Tecplot, a commercially available

plotting package.

Figure 25. Conocyl Motor Burn-Back

Figure 26. Dendrite with Domes Treatment Burn-Back

AREA SCARFED 6.34193E-03 M**2 FULL AXIAL THRUST SPP02 has been modified to compute the thrust on 2.82369E+02 N a AXIAL THRUST scarfed nozzle. The restriction on this option is that the scarf 1.38715E+02 N angle is less than the Mach angle as measured from the wall LATERAL FORCE point. This restriction is due to the fact that the performance of 6.67937E+02 N the scarfed nozzle is computed after regular nozzle calculation. TOTAL FORCE (RMS) The table below shows the output from the scarfed nozzle 6.82189E+02 N FORCE DIRECTION option. S C A R F E D N O Z Z L E S U M M A R Y78.2678 DEG CENTER OF FORCE (R) 0.01193 M CENTER OF FORCE (Z) 0.12989 M TORQUE ABOUT X-AXIS SCARFING ANGLE 63.7000 DEG 8.84132E+01 N-M 63.7000 DEG 0.08775 0.01914 0.18610 0.02947 FROM Z M R M TO Z M R M 3.45457 0.75338 7.32675 1.16037 IN IN IN IN 3) IN**2 FULL AREA 1.51018E-02 2.34086E+01 M**2 1) 2) The coordinate system is R-Z, with the origin at the throat and the Zaxis along the centerline The region examined is from the most forward intersection of the scarf angle to the exit (i.e., for the above example the SCARF analysis starts at Z=3.45457 in, R=.75338 in, and ends at the exit lip, Z=7.32675 in,R=1.16037 in) The FULL AREA is the entire surface area between the above two points, ignoring the scarfed portion

Scarfed Nozzle Capability

9.83033E+00 6.34822E+01 3.11859E+01 1.50166E+02 1.53370E+02 78.2678 0.46955 5.11381 7.82562E+02

IN**2 LBF LBF LBF LBF DEG IN IN IN-LBF

14 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

4)

The AREA SCARFED is the actual surface area between the Ignition Transient Module(ITM) above two points considering the scarfed portion 5) The FULL AXIAL THRUST is the thrust between the above Many 1D-ignition simulation codes have been written two points, ignoring the scarfed portion 6 6) The AXIAL THRUST is the true thrust between the above twosince the original Peretz et al work. After review, the points considering the scarfed portion Ignition Transient module in SPP was based in part on the 7) The LATERAL FORCE is the true force in the radial direction SHARP1D-IT code of Rozanski7 and the updated NPP between the above two points considering the scarfed portion 8 8) The TOTAL FORCE is the RMS of the AXIAL THRUST & 97 code . Both the Roe and Van Leer upwind flux splitting schemes are used. For the Roe scheme LATERAL FORCE 9) The FORCE DIRECTION is the angle measured from the formulation, the discrete phase is treated as an equivalent centerline where the TOTAL FORCE is acting calorically perfect gas. In the Van Leer scheme, the two10) The CENTER OF FORCE (R) is the radial coordinate where the phase flow equations are solved with the particulate flow torque is acting carried as a separate discrete phase. The combined gas11) The CENTER OF FORCE (Z) is the axial coordinate where the torque is acting particle solution is formulated using the unsteady one12) The TORQUE ABOUT X-AXIS is the total torque about the X dimensional flow equations in strong conservation form axis (Pitching torque)

in order to capture the igniter shock:

WORK IN PROGRESS There are three major works in progress for the SPP code. The first is the addition of a true ignition transient module, the second is the addition of a three-dimensional flow solver for the motor cavity, and the third is the implementation of a multidimensional non-linear combustion stability capability. The ignition transient model is currently being checked out and will be available in the near future. The three-dimensional flow solver has been written and will be integrated into SPP in the current year. The multi-dimensional non-linear combustion stability module is under development and should be completed in 2005. Brief descriptions of these modules follows.

E / t + F / x = W + R / x
where

(3)

E = U A e

U F = U + p A
2

(e + p) U
1 2

where e + p / ( 1) + terms are

U 2 and the source (injection)

pSr W = pdA
1 2

+ m ig U fA w
2 2 + m ig / A

pSrC p Tr Q w A w 0 R= G GU + k g T / x A

+ m ig C pig Tig

G = ( 4 / 3) U / x

and f is a friction coefficient for the bore flow along wetted surface area Aw, and mig is the specified igniter mass flow. These equations are solved in the ITM module using a modern Roe flux vector-splitting technique. The ITM allows the igniter gas to be injected anywhere along the motor bore with a specified injection velocity and direction. This capability is necessary for igniters that are not located at the head end of the bore and/or fire upstream into the bore. The gas/droplet flow emitted by the igniter and later from segments of from propellant that have ignited supply the convective Qc and radiative Qr heat fluxes which heat the 15 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

propellant grain to the point of ignition. It is common to predict when the propellant will ignite by solving the 1-D heat conduction equations and imposing an ignition criterion such as critical surface temperature. Assuming constant thermal diffusivity, , and conductivity, k, in the propellant, the variation of propellant temperature, Tp, with depth, y, and time, t, is determined by either numerically from

( T

/ t ) Y 0 = Q o ( t ) / k

or

Q o ( t ) = h Tg ( t ) Ts ( t )
The ITM has two heat transfer models to calculate the film coefficient, h. The model due to Cohen9 has provisions for calculating the film coefficient for both metallized and non-metallized igniter flows. The other heat transfer option due to Lu and Kuo10 does not. (4) Figure 27 and Figure 28 show the pressure field for the ignition transient for two different motors. The first motor is the Space Shuttle RSRM motor while the second is an annular motor with and aft end igniter which fires forward. The igniter shock and its reflections are clearly seen in both figures. The fit to measured data for the RSRM is very good, Figure 29. The comparison to data for the annular motor, not shown, is good but indicates that more work needs to be done in characterizing this type of igniter.

Tp / t = Tp2 / y 2 R
where

Q 0 ( t ) = Q ( Y = 0, t ) = Q + Q ro
subject to the boundary conditions

R = Q r / y

Q = Qc + Q r

Tp ( y, 0 ) = Tp ( , t ) = Tpo

16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 27. RSRM Ignition Transient Calculated Pressure Field

Figure 28. Annular Motor With Forward Facing Aft Igniter Calculated Pressure Field 17 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 29. RSRM Ignition Transient Comparison Three-Dimensional Chamber Flow Solver The three-dimensional chamber flowfield solver has been written and has been tested as a standalone computer program. It is currently being integrated into the SPP and will allow the user to compute the chamber flowfield in a quasi-steady manner at any point in the burnback. The code is a two phase Euler solver which treats both the gas and discrete phases in an Eulerian manner. The intended uses for the module are for three-dimensional combustion stability calculations and for investigations of three-dimensional effects on motor performance. Figure 30 shows streamline traces for a Minuteman II second stage motor.

Figure 30. 3-D Streamline Traces For Minuteman II Second Stage Motor 18 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

For simple grain geometries, the SPP will have a selfcontained grid generation capability. For the more complicated geometries, the user can export the surface element grid and use one of the many commercially available grid generators to build the computational mesh. Non-Linear Combustion Stability Model SEA is under an SBIR contract to the Navy to develop a multidimensional non-linear combustion stability capability within the SPP code. The nonlinear models being developed are due to Culick and Yang11 and G. Flandro12,13. Dr. J. French is presenting the status of that work in this meeting14. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Herein we have demonstrated the new capabilities incorporated into SPP02: segmented and dual propellant options, case wall insulation, several new grain design macros including axial wires embedded in the grain, and the perimeter and FEM surface mesh computations. In the future we plan to add 3D CFD, automated grid generation and a non-linear combustion stability analysis to predict pressure limit amplitudes. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank the customers who have supported the development of SPP and in particular, Dr. Fred Blomshield of the Naval Air Warfare Center, China Lake, CA for his support of the improvements to the combustion stability module of SPP. REFERENCES Dunn, S. S., Coats, D. E., 3-D Grain Design and Ballistics Analysis Using the SPP97 Code, 33rd AIAA / ASME / SAE / ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA paper 97-3340, Seattle, WA, 1997. 2 Dunn et al. Op cit. 3 Barron, J.G., Jr.; Cook, K. S., Johnson, W.C., Grain Design and Internal Ballistics Evaluation Program (IBM 7094 FORTRAN IV), Program No. 64101 (AD 818321), Hercules Powder Co., Bacchus Works (Magna, UT), July 1967. 4 French, J.C., Mark 90 Grain Design Tangential Mode Stability Analysis: Final Report, Contract Report for Alliant Ammunition & Powder Company, Purchase Order AR0448, August 2000.
1

Coats, D. E., Dunn, S. S., SPP97 Nozzle Performance Users Manual, Software and Engineering Associates, Inc, Carson City, NV, January 1998. 6 Perez, A., Kuo, K. K., Caveny, L., and Summerfield, M., Starting Transient of Solid Propellant Rocket Motors with High Internal Gas Velocities, AIAA Journal, Vol. 11 No. 12, Dec. 1973, pp 1719-27 7 Rozanski, J. D., "SHARP1D-IT A Computer Code For Simulating Ignition Transients Using A One-Dimensional Flow Field', Thiokol TWR-40255, March 1990. 8 Coats, D. E., Dang, A. D., and Dunn, S. S. Nozzleless Performance Program, NPP 97, Software and Engineering Associates, Inc., Carson City, NV, 1997 9 Cohen, N., Ballistic Predictions for Mass-Augmented Solid Rocket Motors, ADRPL-TR-71-133 10 Lu, Y., and Kuo, K. K., Ignition/Thrust Transient Internal Ballistic (ITTIB) Code, Users Manual, Pennsylvania State University, Prepared for Thiokol Corp., Advanced Technologies, May 1992 11 Culick, F. E. C. and Yang, V., Prediction of the Stability of Unsteady Motions in Solid Propellant Rocket Motors, Chapter 18 in Nonsteady Burning and Combustion Stability of Solid Propellants, Progress in Astronautics and Aeronautics, Vol. 1433, 1992 12 Flandro, G. A., Approximate Analysis of Nonlinear Instability with Shock Waves, AIAA-82-1220, 18th Joint Propulsion Conference, Cleveland, OH, June 1982 13 Flandro, G. A., Energy Balance Analysis of Nonlinear Combustion Stability, Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 1, No. 3, pp210-221, May-June 1985 14 French, J., Non-Linear Combustion Stability Prediction of SRMs Using SPP/SSP, AIAA-2003-4668, 39th Joint Propulsion Conference, Huntsville AL, July 2003

19 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics