Aerotherm

Final

Report

7186-93-15

ASRM

Nozzle Thermal

Analysis

November

1993

For

George National

C. Marshall Aeronautics Space Contract

Space and Space

Flight

Center

Administration AL 35812

Marshall

Flight Number:

Center, NAS8-39611

By

Forrest

Strobel Aerotherm 1500

and

Belinda

King

Corporation Parkway 225 AL 35806

Perimeter Suite

Huntsville,

Forward The work Aerotherm employees Shannon, program described from in this report July was performed 1993. by the Huntsville A number Operations of

Corporation contributed and Forrest was Dallas

1992 to August

of Aerotherm

to this effort, including: Belinda Strobel. The NASA Contracting Clark.

King, Robert Ross, Robert Technical Representative for this

TABLE Forward

OF CONTENTS i iii vi 1 2 8 8 22 22 31 48 49 62 65 65 67 72 73 77 78 79 A 1 B1

......................................................................................................................

List of Figures ............................................................................................................. List of Tables .............................................................................................................. 1.0 INTRODUCTION 2.0 MOTOR 3.0 NOZZLE ................................................................................................. .................................................................................... ANALYSIS Flowfield .................................................................... and Heating Rate Calculation .......................... ........................................................... ........................................................... Rate Calculations ............................ ........................................................... ........................................................... DESCRIPTIONS FLOWFIELD Nozzle 3.1.1 3.1.2 3.2 ASRM 3.2.1 3.2.2

3.1 MNASA

Material Interface Heating Particle Flow Calculations Nozzle Flowfield and Heating Material Interface Heating Particle Flow Calculations

3.3 Surface Thermochemistry .......................................................................... 4.0 NOZZLE MATERIAL RESPONSE CALCULATIONS ....................................... 4.1 Analysis 4.2 MNASA 4.3 ASRM Procedures ................................................................................... Nozzle Erosion ........................................................................... Nozzle Erosion ..............................................................................

4.4 ASRM Flex Seal Response ........................................................................ 5.0 CONCLUSIONS ................................................................................................... 6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS ....................................................................................... References Appendix Appendix .................................................................................................................. A ................................................................................................................. B .................................................................................................................

ii

LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1 MNASA Motor Configuration...................................................................... 2 2 MNASA NozzleConfiguration..................................................................... 3 Figure 3 Figure 3 ASRM Motor Configuration......................................................................... Figure 4 ASRM NozzleConfiguration........................................................................ 4 Figure 5 ChamberPressure MNASA 48-5Motor Firing........................................ for 6 for 7 Figure 6 EstimatedChamberPressure ASRM........................................................ 9 Figure7 MNASA NozzleFlow AnalysisGrid ............................................................ 10 Figure 8 MNASA NozzleFlow Velocities.................................................................. 9 MNASA NozzlePressure Contours ............................................................... 10 Figure Figure 10MNASA NozzleTemperature Contours ...................................................... 11 11MNASA NozzleMach Contours ................................................................. 11 Figure 1 Figure 12MNASA NozzleBoundaryLayerEdgeVelocity......................................... 4 13MNASA NozzleBoundaryLayer EdgePressure ......................................... 4 1 Figure Figure 14MNASA NozzleBoundaryLayer EdgeTemperature .................................. 5 1 15 Figure 15MNASA NozzleCutoff AnalysisGrid ........................................................ Region.......................16 Figure 16 BoundaryLayerEdgeVelocitiesfor theSubmerged 1 Figure 17MNASA NozzleConvectiveHeatingConditions........................................ 7 Figure18 MNASA NozzleConvectiveHeatingConditionsasa Functionof Axial Position....................................................................................................................... 17 Figure 19Submerged RegionConvectiveHeatingConditions....................................19 20 Figure 20 MNASA NozzleThermalAnalysisLocations............................................. 21 AugmentedHeatingRatesatthe Exit ConeMaterial Interface....................24 Figure 24 Figure 22 MNASA ParticleFlow Grid ........................................................................ 7 25 Figure 23 ParticleSizeDistributionsfrom Reference ............................................... . 2 Figure 24 MNASA ParticleFlow Results,Time = 0.0064Second.............................. 7 ............................. 7 2 Figure 25 MNASA ParticleFlow Results,Time = 0.00765Second 26 MNASA ParticleFlow Results,Time = 0.0079Second.............................. 8 . 2 Figure ............................. 8 2 Figure 27 MNASA ParticleFlow Results,Time = 0.00885Second 28 MNASA ParticleFlow Results,Time = 0.0101Second.............................. 9 . 2 Figure . 2 Figure29 MNASA ParticleFlow Results,Time = 0.0103Second.............................. 9 30 ParticleImpactConditionsFor theMNASA Nozzle................................... 0 3 Figure ................................. 2 3 Figure 31 ASRM NozzleAnalysis Grid, Initial GrainGeometry Figure 32 ASRM NozzleAnalysis Grid, FOB GrainGeometry ................................... 2 3 33 Figure 33 ASRM NozzleVelocity Vectors,Initial Grain............................................ Contours,Initial Grain........................................... 34 Figure 34 ASRM NozzlePressure Contours,Initial Grain.................................... 4 3 Figure35 ASRM NozzleTemperature 35 Figure36 ASRM NozzleMach Contours,Initial Grain............................................... 37 ASRM NozzleVelocity Vectors,EOB Grain.............................................. 35 Figure Contours,EOB Grain............................................ 36 Figure 38 ASRM NozzlePressure 39 ASRM NozzleTemperature Contours,FOB Grain...................................... 6 3 Figure 37 Figure 40 ASRM NozzleMach Contours,FOB Grain................................................. Figure 41 BoundaryLayer StartingPoint for ASRM Nozzle....................................... 7 3 Figure 42 ASRM NozzleEdgeVelocity...................................................................... 38 ...................................................................... 39 Figure 43 ASRM NozzleEdgePressure ............................................................... 39 Figure 44 ASRM NozzleEdgeTemperature

°°°

111

Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure

45 ASRM 46 ASRM 47 ASRM 48 ASRM 49 ASRM

Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle

Heat Edge Edge Edge Heat

Transfer Velocity, Pressure, Transfer

Coefficients Submerged Submerged Coefficients,

................................................... Region Region ...................................... ...................................... ................................ Region ................... and EOB

40 40 41 41 42 44

Temperature,

Submerged

Region

Submerged

Figure 50 Comparison of Heat Transfer Coefficients for Initial Grain Geometries .................................................................................................................. Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 0.0090 Figure 0.0116 Figure 0.0343 Figure 0.0086 Figure 0.0104 Figure 0.0195 Figure 0.0082 Figure 0.0110 Figure 0.0163 Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 51 Comparison Submerge Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle 52 ASRM 53 ASRM 55 ASRM 56 ASRM 57 ASRM of Heat Region Transfer Coefficients Locations, Locations, Initial EOB for Initial Grain Geometries,

and EOB 44 45 46 49 51 51 52 54 Time Time Time Time Time Time Time Time = 54 = 54 = 55 = 55 = 55 = 56 = 56 = 56 57 57 57 58 58 59 60 60 61 61 62 63 63

.................................................................................... Analysis Analysis Flow Flow Flow Grid, Grid, Grid, Forward Region ..................... Aft Region ............................. Material Grain Grain Grain Interface .................... ................... ......... = ..................... Time Configuration Configuration

Thermal Thermal Particle Particle Particle

54 Augmented

Heating

Rates

at the Exit Cone

Intermediate

Configuration

58 ASRM Particle Flow Results, Initial Grain 1 mm Particles, Second ............................................................................................................. 59 ASRM Particle Flow Results, Initial Grain 1 mm Particles, Second ............................................................................................................. 60 ASRM Particle Flow Results, Initial Grain 1 mm Particles, Second ............................................................................................................. 61 ASRM Particle Flow Results, Initial Grain 10 mm Particles, Second ............................................................................................................. 62 ASRM Particle Flow Results, Initial Grain 10 mm Particles, Second ............................................................................................................. 63 ASRM Particle Flow Results, Initial Grain 10 mm Particles, Second ............................................................................................................. 64 ASRM Particle Flow Results, Initial Grain 120 mm Particles, Second ............................................................................................................. 65 ASRM Particle Flow Results, Initial Grain 120 mm Particles, Second ............................................................................................................. 66 ASRM Particle Flow Results, Initial Grain 120 mm Particles, Second ............................................................................................................. 67 ASRM 68 ASRM 69 ASRM 70 ASRM 71 ASRM 72 ASRM 73 ASRM 74 ASRM 75 Particle Particle Particle Particle Particle Particle Particle Particle Flow Flow Flow Flow Flow Mass Impact Results, Results, Results, Results, End of Bum End of Burn End of Burn Intermediate

1 mm Particles ......................... 10 mm Particles ........................ 120 mm Particles Grain ...................... ............ 120 mm Particles

Results, Initial Grain, 3.5 mm Particles ...................... Fluxes ........................................................................ Angles ....................................................................

Particle Impact Velocities ................................................................ Mass Fluxes at ASRM Analysis Locations ..................................... Analysis Locations .................................. Analysis Locations .................................. for FM5055 Carbon Phenolic .................. for MX4996 Carbon Phenolic .................

76 Particle Impact Angles at ASRM 77 Particle Impact Angles at ASRM Ablation Rates 78 Non Dimensional Non Dimensional Ablation Rates 79

iv

Figure Figure

80 Non Dimensional 81 Calculated

Ablation

Rates

for FM5939 Depths

Carbon

Phenolic

.................. Nozzle .........

64 69 69 70 70 74 74 75 75 A2 A3 A5 A6 A7 A8 B4 B4 B5 B5 B6

Thermochemical

Erosion

for the MNASA

Figure 82 Combined Thermochemical and Particle Erosion Depths for the MNASA Nozzle .......................................................................................................... Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure 83 Impacting Particle 84 TAD for MNASA Mass Fluxes for the MNASA Nozzle ............................. nozzle ............................................................................

85 Calculated Erosion Depths for the ASRM Nozzle ....................................... 86 Surface Angles for the MNASA and ASRM Nozzles .................................. 87 TAD for ASRM Nozzle ..............................................................................

Figure 88 ASRM Nozzle Flex Seal Recession ............................................................. Figure A- 1 Comparison of Measured and Calculated TGA Data for MX4996 Carbon Phenolic .......................................................................................................... Figure Figure Figure Density Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure Figure A-2 Estimated A-3 Thermal Carbon A-4 Comparison Phenolic Specific Conductivity Heat for MX4996 ........................................................ Char Material ...................................... for FM5939 Low TGA Data of MX4996

of Measured

and Calculated

.............................................................................................

A-5 Estimated Specific Heat of FM5939 Low Density Carbon Phenolic .......... A-6 Thermal Conductivity for FM5939 Low Density Carbon Phenolic ............ B-1 Polyisoprene B-2 Polyisoprene B-3 Polyisoprene B-4 Polyisoprene B-5 ASTHMA Surface Recession In-depth Thermal Analysis Energy Balance ....................................................... ......................................................... .......................................................... Flex Seal Specimen ....................... History .................................................................

Temperatures Conductivity Grid for MNASA

V

LIST Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table Table 1. Propellant 2. Propellant 3 MNASA 4 MNASA 5 MNASA 6 ASRM Formulation Boundary Nozzle Nozzle Nozzle Gas Formulation Layer Heating Particle Heating

OF TABLES 06 08 13 21 31 47 ....... 48 48 52 71 76 A2 A3 A4 A4 A4 A4 A5 A6 A6 A7 A7 Carbon A8

.................................................................................. ........................................................................... Edge Impact Conditions Conditions Conditions .................................................... ................................................... Conditions .............................................................. .................................................................

7 ASRM Flex Seal Heating 8 Comparison of Calculated 9 ASRM 10 Erosion 11 Erosion Nozzle Particle and TAD and TAD

Conditions ............................................................. and Approximated Heat Transfer Coefficients Analysis Cases ........................................................... for the MNASA Nozzle ................................... for the ASRM Nozzle ...................................... for MX4996 for MS4996 Carbon Carbon Phenolic Phenolic .............................. ................................

Summary Summary Kinetics

A-1 Decomposition A-2 Elemental

Composition

A-3 Estimated Specific Heat for MX4996 Carbon Phenolic .............................. A-4 Resin Data .................................................................................................. A-5 Virgin Thermal Conductivity for MX4996 Carbon Phenolic ...................... A-6 Estimated Char Thermal Conductivity ........................................................ A-7 Decomposition A-8 Elemental Kinetics for FM5939 for FM5939 Low Density Low Density Carbon Carbon Phenolic Phenolic Phenolic .......... ........... .......... Composition

A-9 Estimated Specific Heat for FM5939 Low Density Carbon A-10 Resin Data ................................................................................................

Table A- 11 Virgin Thermal conductivity for FM5930 Low Density Phenolic ...................................................................................................................... Table A-12 Char Thermal Conductivity for FM5939 Low Density Phenolic ......................................................................................................................

Carbon

vi

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report NAS 8-39611 which describes results from the Nozzle Thermal Analysis Space (NTA) contract in have to the for

has been performed

for NASA/Marshall

Flight

Center

support of the Advanced emphasis of this program potential thermal

Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM) development. The primary has been to investigate regions of the ASRM nozzle which erosion problems. This study has been performed

or surface

with state

of the art analysis tools developed by Aerotherm Corporation with specific application solid rocket motors. Some of the tools are computer codes which are used throughout industry NASA nozzle 1. 2. 3. 4. and have under become special region interface _ansits standards. attention of the nozzle region region which Other of Integrity during which the tools have recently (SPIP). These Several been developed the Solid Propulsion Program contains exit cone.

areas of the ASRM

have received

this study.

areas include: particle carbon impact phenolic. impacts. MNASA in this to and the and environment. where the exit

The submerged The nozzle The material cone material The aft region Study

the flex seal. This is the region to particle

entrance

is subjected density which

to a severe to low density

in the nozzle exit cone

from standard

of the nozzle nozzle

may be subjected performed motor With

of these

regions ASRM

has been motor. have

for both the subscale which has been taken results and and compare models the ASRM results from have been 2 contains operating have

test motor program measured understand calibrated, critical describes

and the full scale is to perform data. These

The approach been made

calculations comparisons occurring above.

for the MNASA in this motor.

to calibrate

the calculations developed nozzle, used. a description conditions,

the phenomena calculations mentioned the assumptions

were then performed This report and analysis

to evaluate contains which section

especially

regions

these calculations

procedures

The report MNASA describes Section

is organized motors, the thermal conclusions, which need

into six sections; their propellant which have and erosion

of the Section 3

and ASRM the flowfield 4 describes

and chamber calculations

calculations

been performed which

for both of the nozzles, been performed, for aspects of

Section 5 presents the ASRM nozzle

and Section 6 presents additional attention.

recommendations

2.0 MOTOR

DESCRIPTIONS and nozzle configuration used for the MNASA in reference 1. A more detailed schematic of the has a short aft dome The nozzle ASRM is a subscale nozzle. section which diameter of test item with

ASRM nozzle separates many

Figure 1 presents the motor 48-5 test which is described is presented the motor features in Figure chamber

2. This test motor from the nozzle. the full scale

designed

to simulate

The throat

this nozzle is approximately 10 inches. The ASRM 48-5 test was designed materials. The materials of greatest interest

to evaluate

a large variety

of carbon

phenolic standard

for the present

study are MX4996

density carbon phenolic and FM5939 low density carbon phenolic. This nozzle also contained a flexseal insulation specimen which consisted of polyisoprene shimmed with FM5055 submerged ASRM. major 1. 2. 3. There carbon carbon region phenolic. This specimen to simulate was nonfunctional the expected but was placed in the of the nozzle environment motor for the full scale and nozzle. are: The

Figures differences the position the location the size of phenolic

3 and 4 are similar

presentations

for the ASRM to the nozzle

in the two configurations

(i.e., MNASA

vs. ASRM)

of the propellant grain relative of the flex seal, and the two nozzles, other materials, the ASRM less significant the standard

has a 54.488 MX4996

inch throat

diameter. only two FM5939.

are also many

differences. density

The ASRM

utilizes

and the low density

The propellant formulation presented in Table 1 is used by both of these motors. This is an 88/19 (%solids/%aluminum) HTPB propellant. Figures 5 and 6 present the pressure traces for each of these motors. 6 is the estimated Figure chamber 5 is the measured pressure pressure for the ASRM motor. 48-5 firing and Figure for the ASRM

FORWARD DOME

IGNITER

CASE SPOOL

ALTERNATE AFT DOME

J

,

_/

NOZZLE

/

PROPELLANT CARTRIDGE #1

PROPELLANT CARTRIDGE #2

Figure

1. MNASA

Motor

Configuration

2

t
R 4.983 I

3 .oo
I I I I / ,'r!,_ooi c4sDEG_ MX4996 CCP
Forward FM5938 Exit Cone f30 Dev_ Angle.,

.-

Aft inlet MX4989

(75 DetO_ CCP - _

I I / J, [/ \ _t.____/__.

Fwd Inlet (105 • MX4994 CC"1'

Dee_`/_._.-)\---_'- --.__._->'_></_ : _" /'_ (._'_.1t6__...>_30

CCP i• Deg Jolllt

Aft

. Exi( Co.e

,

(22 l)cg]

FM5940 FM5939 FM5055 LDC CCP

COP

/

/ "'_ uC-L-_.__.___-'_ rlug" Steel llousing I J

__

-90 -180 -270 Deg/ -270 -0-90 D /

I I

\

__-._----I
\ Overwra¢ (Bseball Wratfi Glass Cloth Phenolic

Flexseal lnsulalio. S_uecimens Sllim Material: 60 (leg FM5055 CCP 180 deg MXCE 48 RCCP 30l) deg MXCE 58 RCCP

Figure

2. MNASA

Nozzle

Configuration

INSULATION • Improved J-Seal Des_n at Reid Joint • $1dp w _

_
f NOZZLE - Fewer Joints and [ / [

!

-two tr-,m _tee nekt Joints
_ _ Toughness and Stress Corrosion Resistance

• Etmi.atesSaP,
Device Leak Palhs

_uth,o_ _gs • Imlpmved I_OCess ablalivematerials •_ .exseaUthe_aJ
prolector packaflinQ

I PROPELLANT • HrPB Pre_hn*
• Conlk.mus Mix Process

Figure

3. ASRM

Motor

Configuration

/_./

\
N

\
!
i

| \

\

./
.J

o c_

!
a

o

N N

i
f ............. %_

.i

4

Q.

k J

z

o

o

o

[]
r_ o

Z

._,=_

\

5

Table1.Propellant ormulation F ii:iiiiiiiiii iiiiiii!!ii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiii!!!_iii!iiiii!i iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!ii!iiiiiiii!i_! ii!iiiiii!! iii!iiiiiiiii i_;ii_ iiiiiiiiiiii!iil iii!i!ii!iiii iiiii iii ii!_ii!i!iiiiiiiii iiiiiiiii!iiii iii iiiii __i!iiiiiiiiiii!iiiiii!iiiiiiiiii
Ammonium Perchlorate Content Particle Size Distribution 68.93% 180[.t 70% 20_t 30% 19% Size Shape 13l.t Non-Spherical 12% 0.07%

Aluminum

Content Particle Particle

HTPB

Binder

Iron Oxide

700-

090-

5_0 o_ f/) (_. v 400W

Of) 3_0'I Lm, J

269-

100-

S.O SPTA0708

IO.O

IS

9

20.0

25.e

3O.O VER 4. I_gl_ OATE: 12/09/gl TIHE: m!_ST:t2

I_1

TIME
TIME F_OM ENG

(sec)
START CHO -_EC.

_JASA

Figure

5. Chamber

Pressure

for MNASA

48-5 Motor

Firing

6

II_.C
I I I I I I I I I I fI I I "1 I I I r

900.C
i

i i i

i i i ...... T , I ...... L

i i i

i i

i i i

800.¢ ..........

i i._

, 700.0 ......,
.................... Ii_1

--

, ...... , • !' _--___ "l ......
I I I

,...... ,
I ...... '

ii ...... ,
I £ ......

F ..... ,
I '......

-O. v

600.0

,: .... .
! I I

i__,'

,,

,,

t,,
I I

I ...... I

'"
=) 1/1 faq W O.

500.0

......

J I I

......

I. I I

,.-. 400.0

......

"4 ...... I I

300.0

I

,,,,
t I I ...... I ...... I I 4 ...... I,- .... I I I I II I I ...... I ...... I I I 1" ...... I I I I ............ I I | I I I I

-i ...... I

I I I -. .

!

I

200.0 ......

i" ......
I

_.............
I

i......
1 I...... I

i
I a ...... I ! _ I . _ .

I00.0

......

I

.....

I ............

0.0 0.0

i
20.0 40.0 60.0

I
80.0

I
100.0

I
120.0 40.0

TIME Figure 6. Estimated

(SEC) Pressure for ASRM

Chamber

7

3.0

NOZZLE

FLOWFIELD describes

ANALYSIS the flowfield nozzle heating analyses which have been conducted flow analysis. the procedures for the two are for both which by

This section of the motors. will present have been used.

This includes the results Calculations Unless

rate and particle motor

This section

from these calculations for the MNASA stated otherwise

as well as describe procedures

will be presented

first followed

those for ASRM. identical. 3.1 MNASA Nozzle performed computer ACE surface Navier used code.

the analysis

Nozzle

FIowfield heating

and Heating

Rate

Calculations thermochemistry other calculations (NAT, computer Stokes codes. flow have been 2) The The all gas was

flowfield, This code

rate, and surface Nozzle version

with the SPIP developed

AeroThermochemistry of several inputs one dimensional

Reference solutions, solutions.

is a coupled solutions

module Stokes

of the code is used to perform solutions option which were performed in the code. are those increases

isentropic These treats

thermochemistry the "Mollier" species These

and provide With

to the Navier module. the code

with the KIVA this option which

calculations the propellant by the ACE This option

as a single module. equilibrium rocket elemental MNASA

has real gas properties the efficiency to yield effects

are determined equilibrium. calculations. heating Table chamber

properties

for the gas in chemical of the KIVA acceptable gases. Some

used because motors,

it greatly assumption

This chemical for solid the e.g., for the

has been found kinetic

rate results 2 presents pressure

i.e., chemical ignored. and

are insignificant. the average temperature.

composition motor

used for the propellant This table also presents chamber the corresponding Table

of the trace elements,

iron have been

2. Propellant

Gas Composition
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

::: i:i :i::::

i::i:i::: i :: : i'-:"-:::

:::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Hydrogen Carbon Nitrogen Oxygen Aluminum Chlorine Pc = 45.4 atm

41.58 9.55 6.82 27.27 8.06 6.71

T c = 6418 ° R

Figure 7 presents the analysis grid which was used to perform the flowfield calculation for the MNASA nozzle. This flow solution includes the aft dome as well as the nozzle submerged region. The analysis grid has been refined in regions where largest

flow gradients are expected to occur. Results from the one dimensional isentropic flow solutions (ACE) were used as initial conditions and inflow conditions for the KIVA Navier Stokes calculation. The inflow conditions, temperature, density and velocity were applied

8

to the left handsideof the analysisgrid. An ambientpressure 1 atmosphere of was appliedastheoutflow conditionattheright handsideof the grid.

..._m

m

..._

"-

:=V=
[

.-t"

Figure Results presents temperature maximum

7. MNASA

Nozzle

Flow

Analysis in Figures

Grid 8 through 11. Figure of the The cycle throat. Each the KIVA are from did not and 8

from the flow calculations calculated contours, contours respectively.

are shown Each

flow velocities and Mach and minimum nature These

for the nozzle.

Figures figure

9 through identifies A, between stream required 2100

11 present the values

pressure,

as well as the increment, just down nozzle for the MNASA These Stokes solver.

each contour. cycles. because

two dimensional

of the flow is greatest step in time. Navier

of the nozzle

flow calculations

is a small incremental module

steps in time are necessary A calculation

is a time accurate

will require

a greater

number of cycles to reach steady state depending on how far the initial conditions the steady state solution For this computation, the flow in the submerged region completely criteria tends reach steady state conditions. variations 1.0E-04. heating This was due in part to the various region in pressure. A smaller However, conditions The pressure criteria should the magnitude bound convergence needed used in the calculation to oscillate due to small was (The flow in the submerged

convergence criteria to totally is

is very low velocity

used for these calculations eliminate small the observed enough

is probably

flow oscillations.

of these oscillations the actual heating

that the calculated

environments.)

Figure 8. MNASA Nozzle Flow Velocities

__ /_

Pmax Pmin

= 44.65 = 3.29

atm atm

/y

AP = 2.43 atm

Figure 9. MNASA Nozzle Pressure

Contours

10

Tmax Tmin
.,J

= 6315 = 3921 = 140.8 R

R R

///
Figure 10. MNASA Nozzle

AT

Temperature

Contours

t j Mmax Mmin AM = 2.55 = 0.143 = 0.142

Figure

11. MNASA

Nozzle

Mach

Contours

11

The resultsfrom the Navier Stokes solutionwereusedasboundarylayeredge conditionsandthe convectiveheatingrateswerethendetermined with theMEIT module in the code. This moduleuseslawof thewall assumptionsnda momentum a energy integraltechnique (MEIT) to determineconvective transferrates.The boundarylayer edgeconditionsaretakenasthe flow conditionscalculatedfor thecell adjacentto the wall. The boundarylayerstartingpointis specifiedby theNAT userandfor these calculationswastakenasthepoint deepestnto the submerged i region. The edge conditionscalculated with the KIVA moduleareshownin Figures12through14. These figurespresenttheedgevelocity, pressure andtemperature functionof streamlength asa measured from theboundarylayerstartingpoint. A summaryof theseresultsis also presented Table3. This tablepresents in edgeconditionsasa functionof station,axial positionandstreamlength. he nozzlestationswill beidentifiedlaterin Figure20. T A second analysisgrid wasdeveloped moreaccurately to calculatethe flowfield in the submerged regionof the nozzleaswell asthe throatentrance regions. This grid, which is shownin Figure 15, is referredto asthe "cutoff" grid sinceit is terminated immediatelyaft of thenozzlethroat. This gridis significantlyrefinedcompared thegrid to presented Figure7. Calculations in wereperformed with this grid for 3000cycles. Even still, thefluctuatingflows in the submergedegionwerenot completelyeliminated. r Nevertheless, theflow did "steadyout" significantlyso thattheflow conditionsin this regioncould atleastbebounded.Figure 16presents velocitiescalculatedin the submerged regionof thenozzlefor two pointsin time. The velocitiesin the submerged portion of the nozzleareon the orderof 50 to 100ft/sec.

12

Table3. MNASA BoundaryLayerEdgeConditions

Station

Axial Position(in) 3.550 2.477 1.393 0.365 -0.701 -1.923 -2.863 -3.815 -4.232 -3.974 -3.520 -2.361 -1.681 -1.171 0.0 0.981 2.064 2.972 3.882 4.802
5.504 6.172 6.888 7.354 7.782 8.292 9.223 10.182 11.148 12.088 14.966 17.875 20.789 23.756 26.706 29.675 31.005

Streamlength (in)
1.81 2.91 4.03 5.09 6.19 7.44 8.42 9.48 10.50 11.10 11.80 13.30 14.00 14.55 15.65 16.70 18.15 19.17 20.17 21.18 21.96 22.66 23.43 23.93 24.39 24.93 25.92 26.94 27.95 28.94 32.00 34.95 38.00 41.00 44.00 47.00 48.33

Ve

Te

Pe

(ft/sec) 31.52 65.99 72.81 89.03 107.2 182.0 272.5 459.4 1400.0 1305.0 2069.0 3112.6 3981.9 4369.0 5313.0 6381.2 6714.9 7098.1 7389.8 7582.6 7706.7 7810.8 7917.4 7979.5 8033.2 8097.3 8199.6 8298.8 8358.8 8417.3 8651.5 8942.1 9017.3 9123.0 9226.7 9307.7 9346.7

(deg-R) 6401.3 6404.2 6398.2 6394.2 6390.3 6402.6 6409.4 6415.8 6373.9 6339.2 6271.0 6140.1 5990.2 5902.4 5689.8 5143.9 4857.4 4721.9 4592.1 4538.9 4488.4 4444.2 4398.2 4371.2 4342.6 4319.6 4271.2 4222.5 4182.8 4146.7 4028.0 3919.1 3821.3 3751.5 3698.2 3645.8 3621.9

(atm) 44.90 45.00 44.70 44.60 44.40 45.00 45.30 45.70 45.70 40.90 37.50 36.60 29.70 26.28 19.80 12.06 7.281 6.208 5.507 4.923 4.458 4.191 3.890 3.890 3.439 3.439 3.439 3.056 2.732 2.732 2.297 1.965 1.711 1.550 1.471 1.370 1.347

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40

13

10000.0
I I" I .... •1 .... " I I I I"---'1 -'-1" I I I .... I I I I.... I I I "1 .... I I I

, ! I I I ......

i I I I

9000.0

8000.0

....

'
I I I I I I I I

r ....

'
I I I I I I d l I I .4 I I I

'
I I l ....

,....

'

1 ....
I I '--..--

'
I I I i L I I I

I I .

I

I

I

I

' _/'_ J L
I I ....................... /;i I iii ........................ I I I .-I I i I .... I iI I I L I I I t" I I I .... ! I I I .... I I I II

_--_

....

,....
I

-, ....
I

L_:
I

, ....

i
I I I I I I I" I I I

....

....

....

,.--, 7000.0
I iI I I ;i

i

6000.0 ....

....

l I I "I I I I ....

I I 1 JI I I ....

.....

I .... I I I

....

-

"

""

I

I I .... I"

t I ...............................

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I !

3000.0

I .... '1

I

I I .... I'-I'/

I

I

I

l ...................

I

I

I

2000.0

I .... T

....

//

....

/

.

|

.

I

I .... I / ]

I

I

I i I

I I IlL I l

I I i I I

I i I I I

I I ! I

11_.0

....

I I

i LI 1 L ........................... I I I I

O.C 0.0

L.--J
5.0 10.0

I
15.0

I
20.0 25.0

I
30.0

I
35.0

I
40,0

I
45.0 50.0

STREAM Figure 12. MNASA Nozzle

LENGTH Boundary

(in) Layer Edge Velocity

50.0
I I I I I I .... r'-"-1 I I I ........ I I I I .... 1 I I I ......... I I I i .........

1

45.C

....

-t

40.C
I I I I I I I

....
I I I

....
I I I

....
I I . L

....
I t ....

....

%.......
I I

35.0

E 50.0
-t,-

........ i i i
........... I I I I 4 ...... .... I .... I I I I .... f I ! .... .... -1 I ........ r ....

I ....

J

....

I.-

.

.

t.

....

I....

.I

....

I.

-

-

.4 ....

t.

....

I....

,,,. 25.0

.\ , , , ,
I I I I I I I ! ! 4 -• I .... I"I ........ I I I" I I ! .............................. s" ...... I t r" .... I ................ __. L--_1 ! ....

,
I I I ....

,_ 20.0
n

15.0

10.0

5.C

.........

,'.... .

,
I
15.0 20.0

_
I
25.0

t ........ ,
!

"-'-,
I
40.0

0£ 0.0

i
5.0

i
10.0

I
30.0

I
35.0

, '
!

t-

-

-

-

I
45.0 50.0

STREAM Figure 13. MNASA Nozzle

LENGTH

(in) Edge Pressure

Boundary

Layer

14

I

I

I

I

I

I

I

l I I
I

I I I
I

I I I
I

I l I I
I I i i

I l I I
I .... J

I I I I

I l 1 I
.... [ .... I i I i

I I I l

',
I I l I I I I l I I I I I I I I
' ........ I

I I l l

I I l I

: ,,,,,, ,
I I I I l l I I l l l I I O I I I I I I I l I l I l I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I _ _ _ ill I I I I
_ -" ' i _, .... 'l-....

I I l l

I v I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I l

l l

g l

I I I I

I I i I

_l.C

1

JIml

I I I I

I I I I

I l l I

I I l I

I i l I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I

I I I

I I I

I I I

3500.0 0.0

I
5.0 10.0 15.0 20.0 25.0 LENGTH 30.0 (in) STREAM

I
35.0

I
40.0

I
45.0 ;0.0

Figure

14. MNASA

Nozzle

Boundary

Layer

Edge Temperature

Figure

15. MNASA

Nozzle

Cutoff

Analysis

Grid

15

....

500.0
! 0 I ! ! I I I I I ! !

450.0 .....

,....

r ....

r ....

T .............

, ..........

400.0 .............................................

350.0 ..........................................

.............

I

.....

I ..... I I

! ..... I I

k. I I

....

I. I I

....

_ I I

....

250.0

.............
I

, _ ...........,
--,-

,

, /,; -2_o"Y_- , ....... _ 7
3000 CYCLES ,

_

200.0 , 150.0 ..... ,.....
I I

,
I

,
!

,.y__!.
/x , ..... ' ..... ,
I ....

, r ........
I I

, -_....
I

, i "° - - -

T ....
l

i ....
I

, I00.0 ..... 50.0
..................

, , ........,_, .....
I j "_ I

, , ;-L. ....

, , _-t t. ....

,i,//--._jJ.__j _
I L

, J.... ,
t

,.....
t

,

..- r" -"

........

J

....

,4

....

o.o ....
0.0

i
1.0

I
2.0

I
3.0

I
4.0

I
5.0

I
6.0

I
7.0

I
8.0 9.0

STREAM Figure Results throughout convective This figure 16. Boundary Layer Edge

LENGTH Velocities

(in) for the Submerged the heating Region

from two grids were combined As stated above, conditions. Results

in defining module

conditions the 17. It in Figure

the nozzle. heating presents

the MElT

was used to calculate are presented of streamlength.

from these calculations coefficient

the convective

transfer

as a function

appears in this figure that the results from the cutoff grid are shifted slightly to the left. This is due to a slight difference in the streamlength which is calculated for the two grids. Figure 18 presents results as a function of axial position in the nozzle. The zero axial position is taken as the nozzle throat. The results are presented beginning at the nose of the nozzle (i.e., the point located furthest into the motor). The shift is no longer evident in this figure. Results aft of the throat agree precisely for the two grids. cutoff grid calculates slightly lower heating rates in the throat region. 17, the cutoff grid yielded higher heating rates in the submerged region (i.e., streamlengths less than 9 inches). However, the Also, from Figure of the nozzle,

16

1.2
i t l I I I I .... I ! l I I I.... I I I ! I J .... .... I I I l I I ....

_---_u 1.C I 1 '1 ',:ii I_

W m

,
I

I
I .... l l r ! ! I .... ! ........

0.6 ............
W

,I I

o

W

0.4 ...........
Z p-

J .........
I I I I , I I

' ........
I I I I

W ..,?

I

I I

I I

, I

'
L.__
, I I I

-

.--

L___
I I I I

I I I I

I

I

I

0.2 .......
/

/
I

1_-_- : "C]JTO-FF-(;Rib - - r -_I I , I I t I

- i ....
I

,....
I I

o.c"
0.0 5.0

l
10.0

I

I
15.0

I

]
20.0

I

I
25.0

,

l
30.0

l

I
35.0

I

I
40.0

I

I
45.0 50.0

STREAM Figure 17. MNASA Nozzle

LENGTH Convective

(in) Heating Conditions

1.2
I I I ! I I I I I I I I ..... I I ...... ..... J

1.0

_0.8
Z

_t!_
I i i

.........

r

.....

i.......................

i i i I

u. h
W

0.6

....................,
,
, I I

_
r---

r_

_;_ib............,
! I I

o
W

CUTOFF GRID,

m
Z IX

0.4

.......... I I I l I I

/ I I

..................... I I I I I I I ! I I ............. I I !

L ..... , I I I I I I" .....

I .... I I I I I I I ..... I

I I I , ...... l

I

"," 0.2

.....

11" ..... I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I I

I i

I I

o.o
-5.0

]
0.0

I
5.0

I
!0.0 AXIAL

I
15.0 LENGTH

I
20.0 (in)

I
25.0

I
30.0 35.0

Figure

18. MNASA

Nozzle

Convective

Heating Position

Conditions

as a Function

of Axial

17

The sensitivityof the convective heatingconditions,n thesubmerged i regionof the nozzle,to thefluctuatingflow werealsoinvestigated.Resultsfor this comparison are shownin Figure 19. This figureshowsthe convective transferrateasa functionof cycle. Theseresultsaretakenfrom thecalculationwith thecutoff grid. The differencein the calculated ratesis very small. Therefore wasdecidedto usetheresultsfrom the 3000 it cyclesolution as thesteadystatesolution. A summaryof the nozzleheatingconditionsis contained Table4. This tablepresentsheradiantheatflux, Qrad,theradiationview in t factor,F, the recoveryenthalpy,Hr, the convectivetransfer coefficienth/Cp, andthe edge pressure, e,asa functionof nozzlestation. The locationof eachof thesestationsis P shownin Figure20. Nozzleerosionmeasurements havebeenperformedateachof these stations.Erosioncalculations (seeSection4) werealsoperformedat thesesame positions. The radiantheatflux andtheradiationview factorsgiven in the tablewere determined usingempiricaltechniques availablein theNAT code. It shouldbementioned thatthistablealsoincludesinterfaceheatingeffectswhich aredescribed the upcoming in section. Theparticleradiationis calculated with NAT assuming parallelplatemodel. a This modelappliesto aluminizedpropellants andassumes thatthe particle-laden stream of combustion productsis opticallythick andexchangesadiantenergywith the surfaceasif r the stream andwall wereparallelplates.In this way, multiplereflectionsbetweenwall and streamareconsidered.In addition,boththe stream andwall wereassumed behaveas to graybodieswhich emit andreflectradiantenergydiffusely. Basedon the above assumptions, netradiantheatflux is givenas: the

qo. = E ,o(Z4where, effective emmissivity = 1 1/ew +l/e,-1

(1)

_eff

particle-laden wall emissivity Stefan-Boltzmann
Ts Tw = =

stream

emissivity

= l-exp(-C_6

0D )

constant temperature

freestream

(edge)

wall temperature empirical constant = 0.808 species (lb/ft 3) (inch) thermal percentage of aluminum loading local density of propellant combustion local beam length, quantities usually

C
n p

=
= --=

D Table analysis code.

= 3 presents These

taken as the diameter

QRAD and F which are given by:

are input into the CMA

quantities

18

QRAD

= O--is E.

F=_

E_

Ew The convective determined transfer rates based for a given transfer point coefficients chamber presented pressure in the figures and table were Convective expression:

on the average

for the 48-5 f_g.

in time, t, were determined

with the following

(2)

0.6
I I I ! I I I ! I I I ..... I I I I I I ..... ! ! I I I I. ....

0.5 .....................
I

I .....

I

=E
v

5
),,,Z laJ

0,4

..........................................

taJ

OJ ........................
r'I I ! I ......................... I ....

2;to0 -_,C_
3000 iCyClrS
I I I J .... I I l !

-,..... !
i
I I l J I I I j, ..... /I

,..... I
I ! l I .... !.

o

z .< r,.

0.2

I-,.-

I

W -I'O" I
.... ]', ..... Ill

..... *_

/

__ IL. __' ........................... b --

_

-

II'_

!l

--

....

,I

o.o_
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0

I
4.0

I
5.0

I
6.0 7.0 8.0 9.0

STREAM

LENGTH

(in)

Figure

19. Submerged

Region

Convective

Heating

Conditions,

Cutoff

Grid

19

15_11 1314__24"'-

11 _*, " 25

-

II

Figure

20. MNASA

Nozzle

Thermal

Analysis

Locations

20

Table4: MNASA NozzleHeatin Conditions

iii4ii i iiii!ii ii.iiiiiiB iiiiiiiii
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 798.92 798.92 797.57 796.27 794.08 800.31 803.52 806.68 795.13 730.62 677.90 657.60 555.44 468.98 433.77 293.71 190.12 157.57 135.90 116.89 101.98 93.80 84.79 84.79 72.07 72.07 72.07 61.71 53.29 53.29 43.25 36.05 30.56 27.42 25.98 24.65 24.38

iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii@
1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000 0.960 0.935 0.920 0.870 0.835 0.831 0.754 0.657 0.603 0.563 0.521 0.486 0.466 0.444 0.444 0.412 0.412 0.412 0.384 0.366 0.366 0.332 0.310 0.290 0.275 0.265 0.253 0.250

i!iiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iii!!ii iiiiiii!iii!!iiiiiii iiii ii ii iiiiiii iiiiiii ii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii i
1160.00 1160.00 1160.00 1160.00 1150.00 1160.00 1170.00 1180.00 1180.00 1140.00 1120.00 1120.00 1110.00 1065.60 1070.00 1020.00 878.80 886.76 882.14 878.96 874.54 872.51 870.51 870.51 865.24 865.24 865.24 860.50 845.45 845.45 841.47 839.64 836.46 830.37 825.20 810.23 804.47 0.041 0.065 0.069 0.078 0.087 0.136 0.186 0.299 0.436 0.707 0.883 0.903 1.050 0.975 0.936 0.695 0.416 0.381 0.353 0.328 0.309 0.297 0.500 0.460 0.417 0.409 0.372 0.343 0.319 0.301 0.266 0.228 0.199 0.180 0.167 0.151 0.145
asrtn

44.900 45.000 44.700 44.600 44.400 45.000 45.300 45.700 45.700 40.900 37.500 36.600 29.700 26.280 19.800 12.060 7.281 6.208 5.507 4.923 4.458 4.191 3.890 3.890 3.439 3.439 3.439 3.056 2.732 2.732 2.297 1.965 1.711 1.550 1.471 1.370 1.347

21

3.1.1

Material

Interface

Heating known that relatively transfer at the juncture small surface rates. of the standard discontinuities discontinuity and low density can modify is known carbon to

It is commonly flowfields occur and augment in the nozzle

convective

A surface

exit cone

phenolic materials. the two materials.

This surface discontinuity The low density material

is the result of differential ablation rates for ablates at a faster rate than the standard

density material and thus a rearward facing step is formed. This step results in separated flow and boundary layer reattachment just aft of the material interface. Initial attempts were made to model this flow with the KIVA module of NAT in order to determine augmented heating rates. These calculations surface contour, but never yielded satisfactory address this issue using A literature see References calculate reattached using assigning the heating 3 through simplified procedures. and yielded a number of applicable it was decided references, to simply layer by from in 3.1) and Results transfer these documents by assuming contour interface. search was performed 6. After reviewing in this region nozzle point 21. of the material starting used the post test nozzle shape, i.e., eroded results. Therefore, it was decided to

conditions

that the boundary in Section location.

just downstream the boundary layer

This calculation (described interface compares

was performed

the flow results

for the uneroded in Figure

as the material

this calculation

are shown

This figure

the convective

coefficients for the unperturbed and augmented heating conditions. The streamlength this case is measured from the material interface location. The figure presents results beginning boundary at this location layer and continuing position the interface). effect erosion to the exit plane of the nozzle. drastically increases the convective However, this augmentation will be further Starting transfer rapidly How the at the interface 75% nearest

rates,

(approximately

falls off these results in

and there is only a slight are used in subsequent Section 4.

augmentation

at the exit plane location. calculations

thermochemical

described

3.1.2

Particle

Flow

Calculations for the MNASA motor that all of the aluminum These impacts 22. calculations were calculated To perform These parcels with the in the for to with to were found to occur these are the

KIVA

Two phase flow calculations were performed module of NAT. These calculations assumed reacted to form liquid 8 and Based time. A120 3. Several considering surface. computation particles injected 10 I.tm diameter particles.

propellant the nozzle the nozzle decrease computations continuously

initial calculations

were performed

be very time consuming

and additionally on these

no particle

initial experiences in groups as indicated called

a less refined parcels.

grid was developed

This grid is shown

in Figure

are modeled into the flow

in the figure.

Prior to injecting

particles, a steady state 2-D gas flow solution was obtained. First obtaining this steady state gas flow solution is not explicitly required for the particle flow calculation, but was simply the method selected for this study. This method was selected because the KIVA

22

moduleis a time accurate Navier Stokes solver. Because this,it wasdesirednot to of includethetransienteffectsin goingfrom theinitial flow conditionsto the converged gas flow conditions.

23

0.6
0.5
A

O I1)

0.4

E
.£1
m

0.3

1"3

(.)
t-"

0.2

0.1

0 0 5 10 15 (in) 20 25 STREAMLENGTH

30

Figure

21. Augmented

Heating

Rates

at the Exit Cone

Material

Interface

b i

PARTICLE INJECTORS

Figure

22. MNASA

Particle

Flow Grid

24

Basedon dataof Salita(Reference acalculationwasperformedfor a 120p.m 7) particlediameter.Salitaperformedexperiments which showedthatin a motorchambera significantamountof particleswith diameters greaterthan100gm areformed. Particle sizedatafrom Salitais shownin Figure23. This figureshowsthemassfractionof particlessmallerthana givensize. Both thedataandSalita'scurvefit arepresented. Noticethatabout65%of theparticlemassconsists particleswith diameters of lessthan 10 p.m. Nearlyall of the remainingparticlemass,i.e.,35%, is contained particleswith in diametersgreaterthan100gm. This datais takenfrom anexperiment ith a 500 psi w
chamber pressure. The significant quantity of large particle diameters may be inconsistent with particle sizes which are traditionally considered in solid rocket motor nozzle analysis. However, this data is consistent with other studies (References 8) which show that large particles can exist in the motor nozzle much smaller in size. chamber but will breakup in the exit cone and exit the

1 0.9 0.8 •-_ 0.7 E _ 0.6 v u ,,°0.4 _ 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 -0.5

U

f
0

/
0,5 I 1,5 2.5 Log I 0 (AL203 Diameter (Microns))

Figure

23. Particle

Size Distributions

from Reference

7

25

Resultsfrom the 120gm particleflow computationarepresented Figures24 in through28. The total particulatemassflow ratefor themotor is determined from one dimensionalsentropicflow solutions. Thetotal numberof parcels i usedfor the computation thenselected.After determiningthemassof eachparticleit is then is possibleto determinethe numberof particlesperparcelandtherequiredinjectionrate. For this calculationeachparcelrepresents 18,729 particlesandparcelsareinjectedinto theflow at a rateof 748,000parcels/second (thisrateis for a 0.5 degreesectorof the motor). The injectionwasperformed sucha fashionthata uniformparticlemassflux in wasenteringtheflow domain. Because this,a higherparcelinjectionrate is requiredat of thelargerradial positions(because thelargerareain theseregions). Thesefigures of presentparcelvelocityplots asa functionof time. Resultsarepresented only selected for parcelnumbers;1-100,400-500,900-1000,1900-2000, nd2900-3000.Following are a commentsrelative to theseresults: 1. In the entrance regionof thenozzle,particlevelocitiesaregreaterat locationsaway from the nozzlecenterline. 2. Particleimpactsarecalculatedto occurfor boththe aft closureandsubmerged portions of the nozzle. 3. Particlesareacceleratedadiallyinwardin the converging r portion of thenozzleand tendto remainvery tightly groupednearthe nozzlecenterlinethroughtheexit cone. Figure29 presents parcelvelocitiesplottedfor everyfifth parcel. This plot helpsto show the trajectoryof eachparcelsincetheytendto follow oneafteranother.Also identifiedin this figureis the regionwithin thenozzlefor whichparticleimpactsarecalculated.Since parcelsareinjectedatdiscretelocations,impactsalsooccuratdiscretelocations. However,in reality theseimpactscoveranarea just astheparticleinflow, although modeledwith discreteinjectionpoints,coversasarea.The impactconditionsat location 1 (identifiedin the figure)area velocityof 140ft/secandanimpactangleof 46 degrees. The conditionsatlocation2 are154ft/secandanimpactangleof 71 degrees. The massflux of theparticleswasdetermined thetwo locationsby summing for the total numberof parcelimpactsovertime andknowingthemassof eachparcel. Additionally, the areaof impactwastakenasshownin the figure. With this a_proach,he t total particlemassfluxeswerefoundto be 12.4(lbm/ft2-sec) and15.7(Ibm/ftZ-sec)at locations1 and2, respectively. Of course,this assumes thatall particlesare120_tmas usedin this analysis.Thedatafrom Salita suggestshatthe 120gm diameter 7 t particlesis probablyrepresentative 35%of theparticlemass.Basedon this, it wasassumed of that only 35%of themassflux actuallywasimpactingthenozzle(previouscalculations 10 for _tmparticleshadshownno impacts).With this,themassfluxesbecome 4.34(lbm/ft2-sec) and5.495(lbm/ft2-sec)for thetwo locations. This methodof applyingparticlesize effectswasusedin lieu of attemptingflow computations with particlesizedistributions.

26

Figure24. MNASA 120I.tmParticleFlow Results, ime=0.0064Seconds T

Figure25.MNASA 120gm ParticleFlow Results, ime=0.00765 T Seconds

27

Figure26. MNASA 120tamParticleFlow Results, ime=0.0079Seconds T

Figure27. MNASA 120I.tmParticleFlow Results,Time=0.00885 Seconds

28

Figure

28. MNASA

120 _tm Particle

Flow

Results,

Time=0.0101

Seconds

Figure

29. 120 gm MNASA

Particle

Flow

Results,

Time=0.0103

Seconds

29

The next task was the determination nozzle direction measurement and body positions for which 30 were used to determine the angle between this information. surface

of impact particle impact This figure tangent

angle

and velocity particle

for each of the in Figure particle angle is velocity,

occurred. presents in the nozzle.

The curves The body

angle as a function the local nozzle

of axial position

and the nozzle

centerline.

The body

angle plot is simply determined from the nozzle geometry. The velocity plot was constructed by using the velocities at the two impact locations and linearly extrapolating. The particle direction plot was constructed by using the two impacting trajectories and inferring the trajectories for the outer regions of the impacts. These trajectories were inferred based on both the impacting and non impacting particle trajectories. With this data, it was then possible analysis where positions. particle impacts to determine are calculated material the particle is summarized to occur. erosion specimen Obviously, calculations impact conditions information for each of the locations in Table 4. positions contained at axial This information in Table which 5 for measurement are described is experiencing

The impact

4 was used in subsequent It should between impact be noted

in Section particle

that the flexseal

used in these tests is located this specimen heating.

-0.7 inch and 3.55 inches. as well as convective

and radiative

18O 16O 140 q
A

2OO
.-----_,k'---"-_ 1" ;"

150
O

03

120 100 100 _t2. ,.2"
(1) o

I1} r-" I--

8O 60 40 20 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 (in) 1 2 Axial Position I I I I I 0 3 50

-_Velocity -*-Particle

(ft/sec) Direction

(deg)

+Surface

Angle

(deg)

Figure

30. Pardcle

Impact

Conditions

for the MNASA

Nozzle

3O

Table5. MNASA NozzleParticleImpactConditions

iiiiiiiiiiii!i',7,11¢iii',7,¢ iT;7,i77iT',U!iii.{i{.iii.i i}iii!iiii ............ } ...!.! '!!i!il.iiT ii.iii',ii! 77 . {. ',.i i
6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.393 0.365 -0.701 -1.923 -2.863 -3.815 -4.232 10.135 9.863 9.590 9.307 9.044 8.59 7.694 14 14 14 14 17 38 8O 159 156 149 140 131 118 111 35 38 47 54 66 100 149

',..........I .
126 133 139 147 152 157 161 4.34 4.34 4.34 4.34 5.495 5.495 5.495

3.2 ASRM

NOZZLE flowfield,

FLOWFIELD heating rate, nozzle

AND HEATING and surface using

RATE

CALCULATIONS calculations code and the have same

Nozzle been performed

thermochemistry

for the ASRM

the NAT computer

procedures employed for the MNASA nozzle. This motor uses the same utilized in the MNASA motor and therefore the propellant gas formulation 2 was again the propellant gain boundary. used. Figures 31 and 32 present nozzle. Figure two different This figure analysis grids the flow within the ASRM The inflow 31 is the analysis

propellant as given in Table used to calculate i.e., with

grid for time zero, also identifes at the left hand

grain in its initial configuration. conditions

the propellant side of the

were again applied

analysis grid. Figure 32 presents the analysis grid used for the nozzle at the final point in time and will be referred to as the end of burn (EOB) grain. It should be pointed out that the motor motor motor actually attains this configuration out at this point The gridding is greatest of these at about 112 seconds section into the burn. has propellant is similar gradients The aft section is burned to burn. but the forward in regions where remaining are for

and continues expected.

two configurations

to the MNASA

in that grid refinement

the largest

The average chamber Because of the differences of about

pressure of 616 psi was used for both geometries. in the motor grain geometries, the inflow velocities different. whereas The initial grain configuration the EOB grain has an inflow conditions could and heating conditions, in inflow has an velocity potentially especially

the two configurations inflow cause velocity significant 290 ft./sec. the submerged

are drastically 1050 ft/sec

of only in

It was expected differences and the throat

that this difference in the nozzle entrance regions

flowfields

of the nozzle.

31

'i
I I [ I I i

I I I I I i i

I

I

II I I I I I

IIIIIIIIII i I I I I I t I I I I I I I I I ; I I

[llll[lllllllllll]l IIIIIUIlUl IIIIlUlIIII IIIllmlll! iitll iil iliiL IIII1 Ill I111 iilillilqiliL limiiiUlD

N,_.*i.t.

HIHllil

I

] '

|

I

_ i t

I

I

I

i T 1 I ! I

I I I i ! _ I ! i

I I I I I i i II III'' i i i I ! I I !

TIIIIIIIIIIII l i i l I I i i I I I I I I i I

i _ __

Ili
1',1 i

I

III i I_ I I K i

i ii_iiilliiiii !iiiiiii!]iiii '::''';iiii:;;

':
I

iiiiiiiiil:
.....

I

I

I

I

I

[

GRAIN

BOUNDARY

i

Figure 31. ASRM Nozzle Analysis Grid, Initial Grain Geometry

FIll

- -r

- - - -L'_

_

I'-"I---.

p,..,.

i"
Figure 32. ASRM Nozzle Analysis Grid, EOB Grain Geometry

32

Flow These presents Mach which These

results

for the initial vectors.

grain geometry obtained feature 34 through throat.

are presented after a 2800 36 present

in Figures pressure,

33 through Figure gradients temperature,

36. 33 and

are the steady flow velocity contours. Flow results

state flow results Figures

cycle

calculation.

The most significant results required for the EOB 2000 cycles

of these results are presented

is the very large in Figures there

exist just downstream

of the nozzle to reach

grain geometry steady regions

37 through

40. small

state conditions. of the nozzle, grain geometry.

Besides

the obvious

differences differences

in the entrance

and submerged compared

are only very A precise

in the flow results

to the initial

comparison is not easily made because of the slight differences in the value of the contour lines. However, the features and shape of the contours are very similar. This is most evident minimum in the forward temperatures exit cone region. and pressures The slight differences in the maximum of the degree using and of are most likely just a result for the nozzle within

convergence in the solution. Boundary layer solutions described boundary calculated the nozzle point. in Section 3.1. Figure

were performed 41 shows

the same procedures chosen as the

the location

the nozzle

layer starting point. This location was selected for this area, i.e., this appeared to be the initial surface continuously portions until exiting of the nozzle the nozzle. were found

based on the flow direction point where the flow followed The heating rates in the to this starting to be insensitive

conver_ng/diverging

:::':illllllhltllflf
_N _N

Figure

33. ASRM

Nozzle

Velocity

Vectors,

Initial Grain

33

Pmax

= 40.5 atm

Pmin = 2.86 atm AP = 2.21 atm

Figure

34. ASRM

Nozzle

Pressure

Contours,

Initial

Grain

Tmax = 6286 R Tmin = 3919 R

AT 139 R

Figure

35. ASRM

Nozzle

Temperature

Contours,

Initial

Grain

34

Mmax Mmin

= 2.69 = 0.15

Figure

36. ASRM

Nozzle

Mach

Contours,

Initial

Grain

Figure

37. ASRM

Nozzle

Velocity

Vectors,

EOB

Grain

35

Figure 38.ASRM NozzlePressure Contours, OB Grain E

Figure 39. ASRM NozzleTemperature Contours,EOB Grain 36

Mmax Mmin

= 2.74 = 0.152

AM = 0.152

Figure

40. ASRM

Nozzle

Mach

Contours,

EOB

Grain

I
I I
,_,.- .--,-,..._.._ I ..--- _.

!!
---.q)_

:i

I

,-,_,)_.._=(

"---I--.-,i

J

'--4,__

•-i',-,-,

".....,.4.-.,_]

,,,.-.- -_.._,

_-

---t_._

_

_-t_..

l

-,.,.. --._

_

Figure 41. Boundary

Layer Starting Point for ASRM Nozzle

37

The boundary are presented group, Figures 49, the nozzle 46 through

layer

edge

conditions 49.

and heat transfer are presented within the exit cone.

coefficients beginning region

for the nozzle The first at the nose of group, Figures

in Figures 42 through begins

42 through 45, covers downstream

Results through

in two groups. The second

positions

the nozzle

and continuing

at the nose and runs into the submerged

of the nozzle. are

These figures present velocity, pressure, coefficient as a function of axial position

temperature and convective heat transfer within the nozzle. These axial positions

taken from the drawing for the nozzle. The zero point is located at the head end of the motor. The nose of the nozzle is located at an axial position of 421.8 inches. The nozzle throat 1. is located There at 446.6 inches. expansion Following are comments relative to these results: throat. This can be is a sudden of the flow just aft of the nozzle 44 but is most pronounced the heat transfer coefficient off very suddenly. ft/sec in the

seen in Figures 42 through coefficient. In this figure, upstream 2. 3. of the throat

in Figure 45, the heat transfer reaches a maximum just

and then drops

Temperatures and pressures in the submerged region are nearly constant. Flow velocities in the submerged region of the nozzle are about 100-150

aft regions (nearest the nose) but drop off to about 50 ft/sec in the forward region. The heat transfer coefficient follows the same trend. It has a value of about 0.1 (lbm/ft2-sec) and then drops off to about 0.025 (lbrrdft2-sec).

10000.0,

_000.0 ....

F'
I I

I I

I

I

I

,.....

8000.01--

-.

I I !

I I I .... r I ! ! ! I ....

ouuu,u

-,.....

r ....

2000.0

I_0.0

0.0 420.0

Figure

42. ASRM

Nozzle

Edge Velocity

38

40.0jj 35O

I I

,
e ! ! ..... I .....

,
! ! ! l .....

,
i ! I I.......................

30.0

'T..............................

L ....
I I I I

I ....
I I I I

• 25.0 ,--.

_ _ _ I ....
I t I

J ....

I .....
I | I I

i .....
I I I I

i .....
I | I I

i.. ....
I I I I I .....

t. ....
I I I I r" ....

N 20.0
_ n t

I --. _ I i ! i ........

-4 i I I t

....

-t I I i i

.....

I .....

1_.0.....

,I I I I

--r"

....

r

---T

....

1

....................

lU.U.....

,....
I I I

,.....
I I

,.....
I I I

_-....
| I I I . .L

T ....
I I I ....

_-....
I I I I. ....

_-,.... .
I I I J ....

,.....
I i I .-4 ....

_n

I

I

I

-.-

,
I I

,
I

,
1

,
I

,
I

,
l

o.o

420.0

I
440.0 4_.0

I
480.0 AXIAL

I
500.0

I
520.0

I
540.0 (in)

I
560.0

580.0

i

600.0

POSITION

Figure

43. ASRM

Nozzle

Edge

Pressure

6500.0
t I I ! I I I I I I .......... ! I I I I I " I" .... I I I I I I T .... | I I I I I "1 ..... I I l I I I I ..... i b P I I I I ..... I I I L. t t I I I I ! ..... I..... ........

6000.C

......................... I I I I t

5500.C

I

E
_ 5000.0
_1 I l I __

I ! I I

I I I !

I t I I

I I I l

! I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I
I _ I

I I I I I t _
I _

I I I I
__ __ I

I I I I I
I

I I I I I

I I
I I

I I I I I

I I
I

I

I I I

I I I

i--

ttt

.... 4500.0__ _ _ _,__ _ _-_ _ ___,_\_

4000.0 .................
| I I I

.......... ' ' " " i' 'i 'i .....
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I ! I I I

L ....

I ....

J ....

J .....

, ....

T ....
I I I I

_ ....
I I

"_ ....
I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I I I I

I

3500.0 420.0

i
440.0

I
460.0

I
480.0 AXIAL

I
500.0

I
520.0 (in)

I
540.0 560.0

I
580.0 600,0

POSITION

Figure

44. ASRM

Nozzle

Edge

Temperature

39

1.C

.., o.e
I ::E

0.8
Z

o
ta.. t.*J

l I I I I I __

I I I _l l I l l --t ..... ....

I I ! L .... l I ! i r" ....

l ! l J. ........ ! l I l r ........

! I I J l ..... I ! I '1 ....

l I I _ ! ..... I I l -i .....

l I I !l..... l ! l I .....

o ,v 0.4
I,i.. U') Z <[ n., I.,--

I l l iI I .................. ..............

I l l I I i_i_

I I I I I

I I l I I I

I l ! I II .L .... I

I I I ! I I J .... I

I I ! l I I J .... I

_

_

__

,_0.2 --r-

I I I I

I

I I I !

I I I l

I I I I

0.0 420.0

i
440,0 460.0

;
_0.0 AXIAL

I
500.0 520.0 POSITION

I
540.0 (in)

I
560.0

I
580.0 600.0

Figure

45. ASRM

Nozzle

Heat Transfer

Coefficients

1_0.0
I I I l I I ....... rt I ....... I I .............................. ....... I I I I .............. I I I I......

900.0 .......

t I I

800.0

.......

! I"

700.0

.....................

.

......................

,_
v

600.0
..............

II

_

I I

I I JL .......

I I b- ....... I I I ....... I ....... I I I I

I I I ....... l I I "1 ....... ! I I I

I I 4 I I I T ....... I I I I .......

l l

I t I P I I I I

q 40o._....... I.ul
/_iiii ___! l__

I "t ...... I l I I

300.C -I l

"t".......
I I

!.......
I l

i .......
I I

;".......
I I !1 I t

200.0 .......

.......
I ;"} ! l _

.......
II I l I! I

.......

; .......
I I I

100.0

I

i, 0.0
420.0

I

: I
435.0

I

,,_ I
440.0

I

, I
4.45.0 _0.0

I
425.0

I
430.0

AXIAL Figure 46. ASRM Nozzle

POSTITION Edge Velocity,

(In) Submerged Region

4O

40.0 -

35.0

30.0

.--., 25.0

E

_ 20.0
_15.0

I0.C

5°C

B

0.0 420.0

I 425.0

I 4_.0

t ,t35.0

I 440.0

I _5.0

J 450.0

AXIAL POSITION (in) Figure 47. ASRM Nozzle Edge Pressure, Submerged Region

6500.0 -

6000.0

5500.0

_ 5_o.o
Ilg Q.

4500.0

4000.0

3500.O 420.0

l 425.0

I 430.0

I 4,35.0

I 440.0

I 445.0

I 450.0

AXIAL Figure 48. ASRM Nozzle

POSITION (in) Temperature, Submerged Region

Edge

41

0.40

_"

0.2
@ I¢1

I o.._o
_E

0.2'_
Z (,,.3

0.2c
L_I O ¢..)

o.I,
ks. Z

0.10
l..Le.J

0.05

\
I 425.0 I 430.0 AXIAL I 435.0 POSITION I 440.0 (in) I 445.0 I 450.0

0.00 420.0

Figure

49. ASRM which

Nozzle have

Edge

Heat

Transfer

Coefficients,

Submerged

Region

Results

been presented

thus far are for the initial

grain configuration. were relatively 50 shows the heat The initial grain in

As previously mentioned, similar. Just how similar compares the results

the flow results for the EOB configuration can be seen in Figures 50 and 51. Figure and end of bum grain geometries.

transfer coefficients calculated fer ] %%-%_7ayr the nozzle downstream for the initial

of the nose. This figure

geometry appears to have slightly higher convective heating rates in the nozzle entrance region but otherwise the heating rates are nearly identical. Similar results are presented Figure 51 for the submerged portion of the nozzle. Not too surprisingly, the heating conditions are somewhat different. The EOB configuration tends to experience lower heating conditions near the nose of the nozzle (i.e., axial positions around 425). Several locations within the ASRM nozzle were selected for subsequent calculations. These locations Table are identified region 6 presents in Figures the heating conditions 52 and 53. and Figure conditions presented the analysis locations in the entrance of the nozzle thermal Figure calculated are for the 52

and erosion shows the positions

53 identifies

in the exit cone region. positions.

for each of these analysis

All of the heating

initial grain configuration. Only for the submerged region, station 1, were time effects included in the erosion calculations. This table also includes interface heating conditions (beginning at Station 11) which will be discussed in the following section. One area of the nozzle receiving special attention was the flex seal. Tests conducted with the MNASA motor had shown the flex seal specimen to experience significant the ASRM results expected range

a

amount of erosion. Therefore, accurately defining the heating conditions for flex seal was of increased importance. Table 7 presents a summary of the for the flex seal region. very much during over 30 ft/sec to slightly Somewhat the burn. 100 ft/sec. surprisingly, Gas velocities the conditions adjacent heating are rate on the not to change about to the flex seal

calculated from

The convective

42

flex sealis about0.06lbm/ft2-sec.This is only about25%less thantheconditions calculated the MNASA motor. for

43

400

420

440

460

480

500

520 (in)

540

560

580

600

AXIAL POSITION ---END Figure 50. Comparison of Heat OF BURN

--INITIAL

GRAIN I for Initial Grain and EOB

Transfer Coefficients Geometries

0.4

"6"

0.3

E
.£1
D

0.2

1"3 t'-

0.1

0 420

425

430 AXIAL POSITION --- END OF BURN

435 (in)

440

445

-- INITIAL GRAIN J

Figure

51. Comparison

of Heat Transfer Coefficients for Initial Geometries, Submerged Region

Grain

and EOB

44

\

\
o

o_

\ o

o /

°ll_

o

Z

i
e_

o_

45

.o
_LJE) _.)

i

o

.
C_
o1.-,

c_

t/)

"r,'_'_'l ! I I IIrtltlllllJ

c_
m

E-

Z

o

s tt_

t_

\

46

Table

6. ASRM

Nozzle

Heating

Conditions

ii,iiiiiiS_i_iiiii4iiiiiiiii iiii!iiiii!ii!iiii!iii!i!iiii_iiiiiiiii@ii !!_i',_,i'_'_iii',_',i',_i_',i',_i_',',_,l_,_iii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii ilili!iiiiiiiiiiiiii_ i!i!iiiiii!!iiiiiiiiiiiiiiii_i!i iiiiiiii!iii!iiii!ii

iii!iiiiiii',ii!i!',iiiiiiiiiiiii',ii!i
1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.998 0.989 0.964 0.942 0.898 0.841 0.833 0.792 0.783 0.769 1122.2 1186.4 1199.6 1191.2 1177.4 1172.5 1175.7 882.3 865.6 854.O 851.0 842.9 803.9 800.4 800.5 800.5 798.3

',

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

752.81 792.64 794.68 751.00 700.60 653.94 519.34 322.21 282.70 213.24 176.08 127.22 87.36 83.73 72.83 71.22 68.81

0.131 0.071 0.332 0.685 0.769 0.794 0.740 0.376 0.335 0.260 0.370 0.221 0.148 0.145 0.122 0.116 0.109

35.9 39.4 39.6 35.6 31.4 27.7 18.1 7.81 6.45 4.37 3.44 2.36 1.58 1.50 1.27 1.23 1.15
_:_rrn_b

The ASRM course equation boundary comparison. different performed nozzle. ASRM shown excellent of the motor 1 to account layer chamber

Motor burn,

experiences see Figure for another

a relatively 6. Because

large variation

in pressure

during given in

the

of this, the approximation was compared Table calculated 8 presents

for chamber

pressure pressure

variations condition.

to accurate results by NAT were within the 1 is the from for two this

solutions

This table presents pressures, grain for the initial

the heat transfer geometry. Results

coefficient are presented coefficient

616 psi and 910 psi.

Both of these calculations it is the maximum calculated Equation throat

at five locations pressure

The pressure motor for comparison

of 910 psi was selected and the percent heating

because

will experience.

The heat transfer difference conditions

with equation 1 does an but then slightly

is also given.

job of predicting

near the nozzle

underpredicts heating enough that equation

in the exit cone. The differences, however, were considered 1 was used for locations throughout the nozzle.

small

Table

8. Comparison

of Calculated

and Approximated

Heat

Transfer

Coefficients

Throat Entrance Throat Entrance Throat FWD Exit Cone AFT Exit Cone

425.1

0.5820

0.7928

0.7948

.25

442.0

0.7818

1.067

1.0677

.07 -1.61

446.6 454.9

0.6590 0.3543

0.9147 0.4993

0.9000 0.4839 -3.08

489.2

0.2194

0.3043

0.2996

- 1.54

_1:7186eht,do_

3.2.1

Material

Interface interface

Heating heating calculation was performed for the ASRM nozzle using from

A material

the same procedures as described in Section 3.1.1 for the MNASA nozzle. calculation was performed for the location in the nozzle where the material

This changes

48

standard "interface Results interface)

density heating"

MX4996 condition and starting results

carbon

phenolic

to low density by simply solution 54. in Figure layer

FM5939

carbon

phenolic.

The

was determined the boundary are presented (i.e., starting solution. the interface

using the flow results at the material This figure solution interface compares

for the initial location. the of this

grain geometry augmented streamlength Heating effect plane

form this calculation heating to the unperturbed beginning conditions falls off down of the nozzle. nearest

the boundary The results and continuing are increased

layer

at the material of the nozzle. However, 10% at the exit

are presented by nearly

as a function 100%.

at the interface

to the exit plane is only about

the exit cone

until the augmentation

0.5

0.4
A

.........................................

[--, acehea'n0 nte I
-_-w/o interface heating .

O II} ¢q

0.3

E
.Q

0.2 o
t-

0.1

0 20 40 60 (in) Material 80 100 STREAMLENGTH Figure 3.2.2. Particle Particle procedures 54. Augmented Flow Calculations were performed nozzle. the location These to improve for the ASRM nozzle using Heating Rates

120

at the Exit Cone

Interface

flow calculations calculations to determine

the same learned

as for the MNASA

calculations

incorporated and efficiency. were

lessons

from the MNASA were performed surface. To perform

upon accuracy and severity three particle

The calculations on the nozzle These generated.

of particles flow grids

impacting

these calculations,

grids, shown in Figures 55 through 57, are somewhat more coarse the flow solutions. Some degree of grid refinement was maintained nozzle burn. adjacent to the nose. This was done so that particle grids represent grain configuration. into the firing. impacts accurately intermediate calculated. The three three separate

than the grids used for in the regions of the in this region during could be the motor

points

The first grid is for the initial

The second

grid is for an

point in time, 24 seconds

The third grid is the EOB

49

configurationandrepresents motor geometry112 the
different Table performed. particle diameters a summary (1, 3.5, 10, and of the various 9 presents particle

seconds

into the firing. which

Four

120 i.tm) were considered flow calculations

in these calculations. were

50

Figure 55. ASRM Nozzle Particle Flow Grid, Initial Grain Configuration

I

I

I

I I IIII

_t

',_

_

..

--_

-i

i _i

,,,,m

+-_!_

i +---

Figure 56. ASRM Nozzle Particle Flow Grid, Intermediate

Grain Configuration

51

Illllll

;

I

1/31

t

iI]f_l

_

!

]

--_.._
.._,,_

_-_

IIllllllll_.-:--_

Figure

57. ASRM

Nozzle

Particle

Flow

Grid,

EOB

Grain

Configuration

Table

9. ASRM

Nozzle

Particle

Analysis

Cases

iiiii i_:iiiiii_!i_::ii_iiii!ii_iiiiiiiiiiiii_ii_!iii!_i_i_!_iii_iiii!iii_iiiii_iiiii_iiiiiii_ii ii_iiii!iiii!iii!!iiiii !iii::i iii iliiiiiii!!iiiiiiiiii i iliiii iii!i!iii__i!_i_ii!i_:i_i_iiii_ii_!i_ii_:_i_i_i!i_::_ii_i_ i:.!ii ili !
................ _
Initial Intermediate EOB X X

I

_
X

[

_i_ii_i
X

_

_i_o!_',i:,',i_:',',:,_//::/,:,:,i:,' :_ :,i:,_:!i_i_,!i',i',i:,_,i_2o _,_:i:.:,il 2i':_:_
X X X X

52

Figures configuration. are presented velocities develops. develop. EOB developed

58 through Results

66 present size.

parcel Each

velocity

results

for the initial

grain Three figures

are presented parcels.

for particle figure

sizes of 1,10 and 120 gm. represents shows

for each particle that it takes 67 through flowfield. These flow.

a slice in time and shows how the particle flow fields particle lower sizes inflow flow to fully with the velocities the

for selected Notice Figures particle

The sequence 69 present

of figures results because results

less than 0.02 second similar about

for the particle for all three of the much relative entrance 0.04 second

configuration.

For this configuration, This is primarily figures present Following the nozzle do not follow entrance

is required

for a fully

for this configuration. fully developed 1. The very close impacting. 2. The particle

for a single point lines. region

in time and show They both come but turn prior and impact to the

are comments in the throat

to the figures:

1 and 10 gm particles to impacting

tend to follow

the flow stream

120 p.m particles surface

the flow stream region early

lines as closely

nozzle 3.

in the throat

in time and in the submerged follow There the flow stream

region lines

late in time (i.e., at end of bum). The smaller and expand between 4. particles (i.e., the 1 and 10 gm diameters) in the nozzle exit cone. and EOB configurations to near the surface is very little difference

the initial

The 120 gm particles tend to form more of a core in the exit cone and do not even come close to the exit cone surface. This core becomes tighter later in time, i.e., is located Based nearer the centerline. of the impact be necessary results for the initial and EOB flow calculations configurations, for at least

on the diversity that it would

it was determined

to run particle

one additional point in time. This was necessary so that particle impact conditions could be defined as a function of time for the erosion calculations. The grain configuration shown Results in Figure 56, corresponding Calculations to 24 seconds were performed in Figure after motor 70. ignition, was selected size. does as the intermediate point. for only the 120 _tm particle It appears

for this calculation

are presented

that this calculation

a good job of bridging the impact conditions form the initial and EOB grain configurations. Impacts are calculated to occur in both the throat entrance and submerged regions of the nozzle. One final particle was performed explicitly flow calculation to try to produce was performed impacts for the nozzle. This calculation was

in the exit cone.

This calculation

performed for the initial grain geometry and a 3.5 p.m particle diameter. This particle diameter was selected based on information from Eric Wernimont of Aerojet 10- Results from this calculation slightly closer are calculated are given in Figure 71. Particle trajectories are calculated to come

to the exit cone to occur.

than for either

the 1 or 10 lain particles,

but still no impacts

53

Figure58. ASRM ParticleFlow Results,Initial Grain 1 I.tmParticles, Time = 0.0090second

Figure59. ASRM ParticleFlow Results,Initial Grain 1 IxmParticles, Time = 0.0116second

Figure60. ASRM ParticleFlow Results,Initial Grain 1 gm Particles, Time = 0.0343second 54

Figure

61. ASRM

Particle

Flow Results, Initial Time = 0.0086 second

Grain

10 I.tm Particles,

Figure

62. ASRM

Particle

Flow Results, Initial Time = 0.0104 second

Grain

10 lxm Particles,

Figure

63. ASRM

Particle

Flow Results, Initial Time = 0.0195 second

Grain

10 I.tm Particles,

55

It

It

2-_-. _

Figure

64. ASRM

Particle

Flow Results, Time = 0.0082

Initial second

Grain

120 I.tm Particles,

Figure

65. ASRM

Particle

Flow Results, Time = 0.0110

Initial second

Grain

120 l.tm Particles,

Figure

66. ASRM

Particle

Flow Results, Time = 0.0163

Initial second

Grain

120 I.tm Particles,

56

Figure

67. ASRM

Particle

Flow

Results,

End of Burn

1 I.tm Particles

Figure

68. ASRM

Particle

Flow

Results,

End of Burn

10 I.tm Particles

Figure

69. ASRM

Particle

Flow

Results,

End of Burn

120 p.m Particles

57

Figure70. ASRM ParticleFlow Results,ntermediate I Grain 120gm Particles

Figure71. ASRM ParticleFlow Results,Initial Grain,3.5 lamParticles Particlemassfluxes weredetermined theASRM nozzleusingthe same for procedures asfor theMNASA nozzle. The totalnumberof parcelimpactswas determined a periodof time andthentheparticlemassflux perunit areawas for determined.TheSalita7 datawasagainusedto accountfor particlesizedistributions. Basedon Figure23 theimpactingmassflux wastakenas35%of the calculatedamount for the 120gm particles..Thesemass flux resultsarepresented Figure72. This figure in showsthecalculatedmassfluxes asa functionof radialpositionin the nozzle. Resultsare presented threepointsin time, initial (INIT), intermediate for (IN'r), andendof burn (EOB). For reference,he throatradiusis 27.2inchesandthe noseradiusis 40.07inches. t The corresponding impact angleandimpactvelocityresultsarepresented Figures73 in and74. Following arecomments relativeto thesefigures. 1. The greatest ass m fluxes occurearlyin timeandareapproximately five timesgreater thanthosegenerated the MNASA motor. in 2. Theimpactingmassfluxesdropoff significantlywith time andfor theEOB configurationareactuallylessthantheMNASA levels. 58

3. 4. 5.

For the initial approach Impact approach Impact caused Impact angles

grain,

the impact

angles region

are relatively are very

low near the nozzle

throat grain.

and

70 degrees 90 degrees velocities

near the nose. for the EOB early velocities

The

same is true for the intermediate small for the intermediate

for the submerged are highest

time and at the which are bore area

configuration. in time and drop off to around are a result of the high inflow the throat between amount. 100 ft/sec velocities

end of burn. early in time.

The higher These

by the relatively velocities

small difference velocities

area and grain

inflow

drop off significantly

as the grain recedes.

drop off a corresponding

30

I-'-INIT *INT *EOB I........................................
_. 25

E
X

u_
ffl

10 5 0 25 30 35 Radius (in) 40 45 50

Figure

72. ASRM

Particle

Mass

Fluxes

The data in Figures 72 through 74 was used to determine particle impact conditions at each of the affected ASRM nozzle analysis locations. The calculations showed presented impacts to occur velocity only at analysis 77. These as a function locations figures of time. 1 through present 5. These conditions are in Figures 75 through impacting mass flux, incidence

angle and impact

59

100 9O 8O
II1 I11

70 60 5O 40

E

3O 20 10 0 25 Radius (in)

Figure

73. ASRM

Particle

Impact

Angles

1200 I O00
0 G) (/)

8O0 6O0

0 0

400 200

ii!iiiiiii!iiii!!!!!!i! !!
30 35 Radius (in) 40 45 50 Figure 74. ASRM Particle Impact Velocities 60

0 25

25

20

E
X LL ul

15

10

5

0 0 20

m

40

60 Time

80 (sec)

1 O0

120

140

-*-Pt.

1 -_Pt.

2 -=-Pt. 3 +Pt.

4 -e-Pt. 51

Figure

75. Particle

Mass Fluxes

at ASRM

Analysis

Locations

1 O0

A

80

El} Q) "0

_m
E}3

60

40
Q.

E 20

0 0 20 40 60 _me -*-Pt. 80 (sec) 4 -e-Pt. 5J 100 120 140

1 -A-Pt. 2 -=-Pt. 3 -_Pt.

Figure

76. Particle

Impact

Angles

at ASRM

Analysis

Locations

61

1200
0

1000
A

O

800 600

O

o

400 20O 0 0 20 40 60 Time I-*-Pt. 80 (sec) 4 -e-Pt. 51 1O0 120 ......... :._ ....... ?......... ,..................................

140

1 -*-Pt. 2 -=-Pt. 3 +Pt.

Figure

77. Particle

Impact

Velocities

at ASRM

Analysis

Locations

3.3 SURFACE Surface module of NAT. equilibrium combustion isentropic

THERMOCHEMISTRY thermochemistry These calculations the pyrolysis The composition equilibrium for each of the nozzles were performed gases, the charred of the propellant composition was calculated material with the ACE of chemical on an and the propellant was based The

based surface

on the assumption gases

between gases.

combustion

flow chemical

at the location

of interest.

composition of the pyrolysis gases for each of the materials is given in Appendix A. Figures 78 through 80 present representative results for each of the materials considered. These rates, results are presented only for the MNASA Each figure motor since the propellant surface compositions removal of the two motors are identical. presents nondimensional

B' c, as a function of surface temperature. Results are presented for a range of • • " ' " n nondunensxonal pyrolysxs gas rates, Bg. All of these results are typical of carbo phenolics. There is a diffusion limitedplateau up to temperatures of about 5000 R at which point the B' c values begin to increase rapidly with temperature. Larger values of B'g tend to reduce information along analysis codes thermochemical the level of the plateau and therefore result in lower with corresponding surface energy fluxes is supplied energy balance calculations B'c'S This to the thermal

and used in their surface erosion rates.

to determine

62

0.50 -

0.45-

0.40-

0..35 -

0.3C -

_" 0.2'_ -

B'1=.25 B'o=.05 ............ B'1=.025

0.2C -

0.15 -

O.1C-

0.0_ -

/

,::_'=
,if I

.............
I 4000. I 5000. I 6000. I 7000.

//
/I 2000. 3000.

0.00 1000.

TwA_(*R) Figure 78. Non Dimensional Ablation Rates for FM5055 Carbon Phenolic

0.50 0.4_ 0.4C 0.3' 0.30

--

0.250.20 0.15 0.1C 0.0.' 0.00 1000.

B_g=.25 B'j=.05 ............ 8_o=.025

_)
1/ i 4000. TwA,,(°R) I 5000. I SO00. I 7000.

/I 2000.

I 3000,

Figure

79. Non Dimensional

Ablation

Rates

for MX4996

Carbon

Phenolic

63

0.SO

0.45

0.40

0.35

0._

-....

_."o.2:
0.2C

Wo:,4 W,=.25 W,:.I

0.15

0.10
1

0.05 I 6000. I 7000.

0.00 1000.

It

I

I

Tw._.(°R)

Figure

80. Non Dimensional

Ablation

Rates

for FM5939

Carbon

Phenolic

64

4.0 NOZZLE

MATERIAL presents heating

RESPONSE results

CALCULATIONS response These calculations calculations which include nozzle and have been surface

This section performed erosion analyses compare and in-depth have

from material materials.

for both the MNASA been to predict data.

and ASRM

nozzles.

of the nozzle erosion

The procedures for the MNASA to validate

used in these the analysis were then performed

and char depths

to the measured

This comparison

was made

procedures and material models which had been used. Calculations for the ASRM nozzle to evaluate the adequacy of the design. 4.1 ANALYSIS Thermal Ablation Transient considered specimen computer Heating PROCEDURES and ablation and Material positions motor calculations reference Ablation where have been performed 11) and the Aerotherm computer code code

with the Charring Axi-Symmetric reference

Material 12). CMA was with the boundary code and analyses

code (CMA,

(ASTHMA,

was used in all nozzle

a one dimensional

heat conduction

response

a valid assumption. in the MNASA

The ASTHMA

was used only to analyze was performed in Appendix B). Surface with the NAT computer which

the flex seal

tests (This analysis

in conjunction

development of a polyisoprene conditions and thermochemistry described MX4996 based in the previous in Appendix and FM5939 are described A.

model and is described tables were generated The material should models It should phenolics be pointed

section. carbon

were used in these preliminary materials.

out that the models phenolic

used for the since they are Additional

be considered

on laboratory

data and inferred

from other carbon

testing in the Southern Research are needed to fully characterize high level of confidence. decomposition calculations.

Analog Facility and the Aerotherm Arc Plasma Generator the material and develop a model which can be used with a true for the in-depth surface erosion occurs rates heating would and not be expected interface in the

This is especially The calculated

to change significantly with a modified model. To account for the augmented heating which exit cone the augmented the differential recession differential recession

at the material

heating rates presented in Figures 21 and 54 were was calculated to exceed the local boundary layer based on unaugmented rates.

applied when thickness. The

was calculated

For the MNASA

nozzle, this condition (i.e., differential was calculated to occur at 8.8 seconds at the material the augmented because therefore interface heating greater location conditions layer amount

recession greater than boundary layer thickness) into the motor firing. The boundary layer thickness to be 0.010 inch. For the ASRM into the firing. erosion to be 0.068 nozzle This is until 48 seconds is calculated

was calculated

were not applied for this nozzle of time must elapse erosion

the boundary a much A model

thickness

inch and to exceed under

for the differential

the boundary this program.

layer thickness. to predict the surface was developed of the polyisoprene the surface was developed rates of the This model to match erosion

polyisoprene sample in the MNASA motor. This model treats the material as a surface sublimer. A more detailed description of the model is contained in Appendix B. Again,

65

this modelis based a limited amount f dataandanycalculations thepolyisoprene on o for shouldbeconsidered preliminary. An erosionmodel,described Reference wasusedto accountfor material in 9, removaldueto particle impacts.This modelwasdeveloped graphitebut wasusedfor for thecarbonphenolicmaterialsin theMNASA andASRM nozzles.It wasnecessary use to this graphitematerialmodelsincenoparticleerosiondataexistsfor carbonphenolic. The procedure modelingtheerosion,described Reference treatsmaterialremovaldue for in 9, to bothchemicalandmechanical ffectsof theparticulates.Mechanicaleffectsare e modeledwith anexpression the form: of Gmech= a Db Vc (since) d (3)

where,
a

ratio of mass = =
=

of target

material

removed

to

mass of incident V D
O_

particles

particle

velocity to the surface constants expression for graphite mechanical
(4)

particle diameter angle of impact relative empirically 9 developed = 5.342 determined

a,b,c,d

=

The study in Reference erosion. Gmech

the following x 10 -7 D 0.799

V 1.24 (sin o00.299

The units for D and V are lam and ft/sec, The Reference expression 9 study also found

respectively. removal can occur due to chemical attack with an

that material particles.

of either aluminum

or alumina

(A1203)

This attack

was characterized

of the form: Gchem = a'(DVsino0b' and alumina. The correlation for aluminum

(5)

where particles

a' and b' are different was:

for aluminum

Gchem and for alumina: Gchem These expected same expressions were

= 1.113 x 10 -5 (DVsinc00-8

(6)

= 386.7(DVsino0-1.13 the chemical erosion erosion of carbon incident), phenolic. phenolic,

(7)

used to model mass rates

and

since they are based

on relative

(i.e., mass removed/mass for carbon

they are

to do a reasonable

job of predicting

This is because

66

therelativemassrateseffectivelyaccountfor densitydifferences betweenthe graphiteand charred carbonpenolic(i.e.,this expression predictgreater aterialremovalfor will m carbonphenolicthanfor graphite). For this study,all particleswithin thetwo motors wereassumed bealumina. This may berealisticfor theMNASA motor because the to of largedistance betweenthepropellantandthenozzle ( andthereforesufficient time for the aluminumto reactwith oxygento form alumina). However,this maynot be representative the ASRM wherethepropellantis packednearthe submerged for nozzle region.

4.2 MNASA

NOZZLE

EROSION thermochemical erosion depths for the MNASA to the measured nozzle values are 4 13

The calculated presented in Figure

81. These

results

are compared

at locations 4, and of the

through 40. Following are comments relative to these results: 1. The calculated and measured erosion depths compare very well at locations through 2. 3. 4. 33. The exceptions to the good comparison appear region to be in regions nozzle where particle impacts are occurring. The calculated and measured erosion in the throat The calculated erosion The method calculating conservative the discussion characteristic length presented Erosion erosion levels just aft of the nozzle of accounting throat (location 18). heating appears to do a very

compare

exceptionally drop good in

well.

do a very good job of matching

the rapid

for the interface

job of

the increase in erosion at the material interface. (or this could be partly due to the conductivity below) but it does seem of the erosion results 82. considering The particle aft of the interface, combined erosion i.e., gradually

It appears to be slightly model for FM5939, see the off down erosion 12 and presented in the are falling

to do a good job of matching

of the exit cone. thermochemical effects and particle 5 through in Figure only stations

stations 34 through 40. Therefore, the remaining thermochemical erosion and the results at those Figure 1. 2. 81. The calculated values. Several impacts erosion features at stations measured

stations experience stations are identical 12 compare are important:

only to those

5 through

very well with the 12 in the nozzle values. This is could were in to

of this comparison to effect consistent

The particle entrance especially possibly impacts The magnitude

are calculated

only stations

5 through

region.

This is completely of the erosion better locations 5 through

with the measure

results.

compares

very well with the measured 10. At stations calculated. grid had been further The impact method"

true for stations be much at those

11 and 12 the comparison refined described conditions

if the NAT analysis more accurately based

and the

extrapolated section 3. 3. Based update

from the results good

on the "area effected with measured from Reference

on the relatively or modify

agreement

data no attempt 9.

was made

the G law correlations

67

The matchingof the particleerosioneffectsin the nozzleexit conewasbased on backingout particleimpactconditions.Recallfrom section3 thatno particleimpacts werecalculated occurin thenozzleexit cone. Therefore,theimpactingmassflux was to backed to matchtheerosiondata. The impactingparticlediameterwasassumed be out to 3.5 _tm. Sincethis is sucha smallparticlesizetheparticlevelocitywasassumed be to equalto the local gasvelocity. The impactinganglewasassumed be 5 degrees.Based to on all of theseassumptions, impactingmassfluxes,shownin Figure83, were the determined.This figureshowstheparticlemassfluxes asa functionof streamlength. he T largevaluesof 4-5.5lbm/ft2-secoccurin the nozzleentrance region. Massfluxes in the exit conearecalculatedto beonly about0.2 lbm/ft2-secandincrease slightly nearesthe t exit planeof thenozzle. Figure84presents total affecteddepth(TAD) calculatedfor the MNASA the nozzleandcompares to measured it results. TAD is thesumof theerosiondepthandthe posttestmeasured chardepth. A summary themeasured of andcalculatederosionand TAD resultsis alsopresented Table10. TAD's arepresented theendof the motor in at burnandfollowing two minutesof cooldown. This two minutecooldown allowedfor heatto continueto soakinto thematerialandadditionalcharringto occur. The cool downenvironmentwasnot known andthereforeit is assumedhatonly a smallamountof t heatleavesthe nozzlesurfacedueto radiation. A radiationview factorof 0.05 wasused at all stationswithin the nozzle. The TAD predictionsfor stations4 through24 do a goodjob of boundingthe data. This is the bestthatcanbeexpected based the unknowncooldown environment. on However,beginningat station26 (thisis thelocationwheretheFM5939materialbegins) the predictedTAD's arebelow themeasured valuesevenwith thecool down effects. This is probablydueto the materialmodelfor FM5939. Theconductivitymodelfor the MX4996 wasmodified (i.e.,theconductivitieswereincreased from the laboratory measured values) to be similar tootherstandard densitycarbonphenolicmaterialmodels. This wasnot donefor the low densityFM5939carbonphenolic. Basedon theseresults moredatais needed do a reasonable of predictingthechardepthfor the FM5939. to job Basedon the TAD resultsthethermalconductivity wouldbeexpected be greaterthan to thevaluesusedin the analysis.It is interestingto notethatanincreasein conductivity wouldresultin reducedlevelsin thecalculated thermochemical erosion. This would improvethe agreement etween b measured andcalculatederosionfor theFM5939,see Figures81 and82.

68

0.6

I
Thermochemical Measured 1

0.5
A C

o
O.

0.4

o.3
c

.o

./
./"/ 0.1 / / 4O

10

15

20 Slation

25

30

35

Figure

81. Calculated

Thermochemical

Erosion

Depths

for the MNASA

Nozzle

0.6

0.5
A ¢-

Measured

_O.

0.4

0.3
C

._o 0.2

__

_

Thermochemical

+ PodJcles

0.1

10

15

20 Slotion

25

30

35

40

Figure

82. Combined

Thermochemical

and Particle Nozzle

Erosion

Depths

for the MNASA

69

6.0

--

5.5 _ -

5.04.5-

4.0I 3.5-

5
X

3.0L5-

t/1

2.0..s 1.5-

1.00.5P 0.0 0.0 I 5.0 I 10.0 I 15.0 I 20.0 I 25.0 I F 30.0 (in) I 35.0 I 40.0 I 45.0 I 50.0

STREAMLENGTH

Figure

83. Impacting

Particle

Mass

Fluxes

for the MNASA

Nozzle

0.9 ¢...,/_., 0.8 0.7 _" 0.6
a

.... "_

--'_

Measured

/_/

-.- coo,oo,

0.s
0.4 'B __ 0.3 0.2 O.l I 5 I I0 I 15 I 20 Station I 25 I 30 I 35 I 40

Figure

84. TAD

for MNASA

Nozzle

70

Table 10.Erosion andTAD Summary theMNASA Nozzle for
Thermoeheartical Erosion Thermochemical Erosion Station Axial Position {in) Radial Position (in) Erosion Depth (in) Char (in) EOB 0.295 0.300 0.301 0.302 0.304 0.315 0.513 0.543 0.571 0.623 0.654 0.655 0.676 0.586 0.560 0.465 0.365 0.345 0.328 0.312 0.298 0.278 0.365 0.357 0.346 0.344 0.333 0.325 0.319 0.313 0.302 0.288 0.277 0.269 0.263 0.256 0.253 Depth Cool_ 0.592 0.595 0.595 0.596 0.596 0.601 0.818 0.842 0.861 0.881 0.887 0.883 0.875 0.750 0.730 0.630 0.523 0.499 0.476 0.454 0.431 0.437 0.443 0.437 0.427 0.398 0.390 0.410 0.373 0.398 0.386 0.371 0.358 0.348 0.340 0.331 0.326 0.008 0.018 0.174 0.192 0.214 0.256 0.344 0.416 0.434 0.298 0.377 0.384 0.439 0.397 0.367 0.235 0.107 0.094 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.065 0.186 0.170 0.154 0.150 0.135 0.122 0.113 0.106 0.147 0.130 0.130 0.126 0.124 0.150 0.137 Erosion Depth (in) Char (in) EOB 0.295 0.300 0.349 0.356 0.366 0.389 0.615 0.661 0.679 0.623 0.654 0.655 0.676 0.586 0.560 0.465 0.365 0.345 0.328 0.312 0.298 0.278 0.365 0.357 0.346 0.344 0.333 0.325 0.319 0.313 0.326 0.310 0.302 0.294 0.288 0.289 0.281 Depth Cool_ 0.592 0.595 0.602 0.602 0.603 0.614 0.867 0.899 0.918 0.881 0.887 0.883 0.875 0.750 0.730 0.630 0.523 0.499 0.476 0.454 0.431 0.437 0.443 0.437 0.427 0.398 0.390 0.410 0.373 0.398 0.395 0.377 0.365 0.355 0.347 0.339 0.333 0.02 0.05 0.11 0.15 0.20 0.28 0.38 0.59 0.55 0.28 0.42 0.41 0.40 0.40 0.33 0.22 0.09 0.07 0.07 0.06 0.06 0.04 0.15 0.14 0.13 0.12 0.10 0.09 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.11 0.12 0.12 0.12 0.14 0.13 0.360 0.370 0.390 0.440 0.460 0.520 0.600 0.840 0.840 0.700 0.780 0.750 0.710 0.680 0.650 0.590 0.460 0.440 0.430 0.430 0.430 0.530 0.580 0.590 0.590 0.580 0.550 0.560 0.560 0.580 0.600 0.600 0.600 0.610 0.600 0.600 0.580 Erosion (in) + Particle Measured Depth Char (in)

4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ,lf_

3.550 2.477 1.393 0.365 -0.701 -1.923 -2.863 -3.815 -4.232 -3.974 -3.520 -2.361 -1.681 -1.171 0.0 0.981 2.064 2.972 3.882 4.802 5.504 6.172 6.888 7.354 7.782 8.292 9.273 10.182 11.148 12.088 14.966 17.975 20.789 23.756 26.706 29.675 31.005

10.681 10.408 10.135 9.863 9.590 9.307 9.044 8.590 7.694 6.830 6.224 5.647 5.309 5.055 4.983 5.149 5.629 6.045 6.458 6.857 7.145 7.430 7.712 7.893 8.070 8.245 8.584 8.912 9.229 9.534 10.386 11.154 11.838 12.457 13.010 13.499 13.701

0.008 0.018 0.021 0.025 0.029 0.054 0.045 0.102 0.171 0.298 0.377 0.384 0.439 0.397 0.367 0.235 0.107 0.094 0.084 0.076 0.069 0.065 0.186 0.170 0.154 0.150 0.135 0.122 0.113 0.106 0.091 0.075 0.063 0.054 0.048 0.042 0.040

71

4.3 ASRM

NOZZLE depths erosion

EROSION calculated depth location. relative for the ASRM Results nozzle are presented in Figure 85. This

Erosion figure erosion Following 1. 2. 3. those presents thickness

as a function

of station.

The figure erosion.

also includes

the material throat. with

at each analysis and combined are comments predicted

are presented

for both thermochemical Station erosion 6 is the nozzle are consistent

thermochemical

and particle

to these results. of the thermochemical nozzle. interface does not appear severe to cause in the MNASA

The magnitude

and characteristics and measured

The augmented heating excessive erosion. The particle excessive. erosion

at the exit cone material entrance regions

in the throat

is extremely

and probably

4. The particle erosion in the nozzle exit cone is not calculated to be excessive. This erosion was calculated based on the 'backed out" mass fluxes from the MNASA nozzle. Figure 86 compares the shape for the two nozzles. This figure presents surface angle as a function of normalized axial position. The surface angle is presented beginning at the nozzle throat and continuing to the exit plane of the nozzle. The axial position is normalized contours based on the axial length the mass from the throat flux results to the exit plane. Since the nozzle nozzle based are not identical, were applied to the ASRM

on the local surface angle, i.e., an MNASA exit cone mass flux level was applied at the location in the ASRM nozzle which had the same surface angle. This figure shows that the ASRM would be expected would occur further aft. Figure 87 presents to experience less severe erosion than the MNASA nozzle. Again and it are

the TAD's

calculated

for the ASRM

results

presented at the end of the motor firing and after two minutes of cool down. This plot also includes the local material thickness for comparison. A summary of the calculated erosion margin margin and TAD calculated is defined results is presented in Table 11. This table also includes For these calculations the safety the safety for each of the analysis as follows: positions.

safety

margin

=

tt 2xe + 1.25xc + di .} - 1

where, liner thickness
= =

tg e c

erosion depth char depth at the end of burn depth depth to the 100 ° F isotherm to the 350 ° F isotherm margin, it appears for analysis for analysis the design regions stations stations 1 through 14 through 13 and 17.

di

=

Based

on this definition

of safety

is inadequate where

throughout particle

the nozzle.

This is especially

true in the entrance

of the nozzle

72

impacteffectswerecalculatedto bethemostsevere.For the majorityof the remaining analysis positionsthe safetymarginis only a smallnegativenumber(or positivein some cases) ndis thereforenot asgreatof a concern. a
4.4 ASRM FLEX SEAL RESPONSE nozzle was analyzed heating using the

The response polyisoprene described effects model in section

of the flex seal for the ASRM described in Appendix phenolic 3. As described in Appendix

B and the convective configuration

conditions conduction significant.

B, the two dimensional do not appear

of the polyisoprene/carbon

Therefore, these material response code rather than with ASTHMA. This figure phenolic. calculation 1. presents shows the recession the polyisoprene is probably model The polyisoprene

calculations were performed Results from this calculation response should to recede ablate in several present.

with the CMA computer are presented in Figure 88. and the carbon In fact, the in about 80 seconds.

for both the polysioprene at very rapid rates. completely respects: motor through

is calculated conservative erosion

This calculation

The polyisoprene there was probably ASRM be somewhat

was developed

from the MNASA Particle less. impact

data for which for the may

particle

conditions in a pure

flex seal location conservative

should be significantly environment.

Because recession

of this, the model

and tend to over predict does not account the polyisoprene phenolic heating the carbon

convective/radiative 2. The modeling recession difference into account In spite of these potential problem recommendations which

heating will occur

of the polyisoprene between can allow and radiative analyses. aspects

for the substantial and the carbon to shield This effect

differential phenolic. This from

in recession in these conservative

the polyisoprene

both the convective

environments.

was not taken

of the calculation, attention.

it is obvious Section

that the flex seal is a some

area and needs for addressing

additional

6 provides

the flex seal.

73

5 4.5 4 3.5 ¢1 2.5
C

/;

/

i \

..7

!

--=-'--

Thermochemical Particle + Then-nochemical Thickness

_---T\
--.--

Material

L__7-'f ---_,,\ // ._----_

",,,,.__

_o

2 1.5 I 0.5

i T ----_ I
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Station 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 t7

Figure

85. Calculated

Erosion

Depths

for the ASRM

Nozzle

2s'° _ I
I r '-G
I

,
'
I

,
'
I

,
'
I

,
'
I

,
'
I

,
'
I

;
'
I

,
i

'
I

---__._n.01---l- _,_. _ _ __--' _ _-¢_ _,:_____

......

t ....
I

, ....
! I I

.s ....
I I I

t
I ! I

....

, ....

tfi'
,,IT ,i to.oH _ ! ' ! , ' , ' ,

' ,

' ,

II

5.0

_ri ! -L!
I I ! I I I I I I I I I I I ! I

l !i !i i, !i ii i i i , ii;:, , ,
I I I ! I I I I I I l I ! I I I I I I I I I I I I I I

:

:

I

!

!

_

"¢"0-.2.-. , , -'_ , - - ; - - - -'i-_-_s; ....

'

'

"" "-e -e_
....

---_

....

....

....

....

....

....

....

I I I I

i i i i
I I I I I I I I I I I ! I I I I

o._-_
I I I I ! I I I t I I I ! I I

....................

0.0

0.1

0,2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1.0

NORMALIZED Figure 86. Surface Angles

AXIAL

LENGTH and ASRM Nozzles

for the MNASA

74

5 4.5

--//_/T_--! 1 /_'-_"--..I

I !

I t

__2_' ' ' EoB

3.5 3 2.5 2


•_ 1.5

i\

\_===

I

_-_--._

T-

I

- _!

/

....

l

!

.

0.5 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Slatiofl 10 ll 12 13 14 15 16 17

Figure

87.TAD

for ASRM

Nozzle

2.5

-/ / / / / /

Z0
/ / / / / /

/

--CARBON -

PHENOUC POLYISOPRENE

_"
Z O

1.5/ / / / /

/

r,D

/

1.0
/ / / / / /

/

O.5
/ / / / /

/

0.0 0.0

20.0

4o.0

no
TIME

eo.o
(sec)

1®.o

J,__l t 20.0

140.0

Figure

88. ASRM

Nozzle

Flex Seal Recession

75

S ©

Z

<

.

_

__----

ddddd

ddddd

0 0 0 ¢°,.._

0

d

d

d

....

d

dddodoooo
0 0

0

©

0 ,-_ cq ¢_ "_" u_ _ r_ _ _ 0 _ t_ ¢,_ "_- _ _ t_

76

5.0 CONCLUSIONS In conclusion, understanding ASRM 1. 2. 3. motor. Several this study has been extremely motor and applying of the MNASA key aspects beneficial its results calculations these analysis in increasing include: do an excellent job of the of the

of the MNASA

to the development

The analytical

procedures

used in performing

predicting the heating The method developed material represent industry. interface The particle

and material response for the MNASA to account for the augmented heating job of predicting erosion procedures results and mechanical over standard particle

nozzle. at the exit cone material response. motor with the used in this study to impact the nozzle

does an adequate

the measured predictions

flow calculations the larger

an improvement Only entrance data. impacts

used in the solid rocket were found

sizes (120 gm) are calculated

in the throat the measured 4. No particle measured 5.

region.

The calculated to occur

to be consistent However,

were calculated impacts

in the nozzle

exit cone.

data suggests

do occur.

To account

for this modeling

deficiency

an empirical approach The TAD's calculated values for the MX4996 FM5939 material.

was used to "backout" impacting for the MNASA motor compare material. The TAD's

particle mass fluxes. very well to the measured underpredicted for the

are significantly

6.

A material

response

model

was developed

for the polyisoprene

flex seal material

from the MNASA motor firing data. This model treats the polyisoprene as a surface sublimer. However, because of uncertainties in the MNASA environment, this model may be somewhat Using analysis, calculations 1. 2. 3. 4. Particle the models analyses the following erosion conservative developed conclusions when applied to the ASRM learned from motor. the MNASA Based nozzle

and the lessons can be drawn: material of safety. material negative

similar

were conducted

for the ASRM

nozzle.

on these

will cause large negative (based

excessive margins

removal interface safety

in the throat will cause erosion completely

entrance

region

and therefore, Augmented excessive Particle about

heating erosion

at the exit cone on small

only slightly (safety margins of

margins).

impacts zero).

in the exit cone will not cause in the flex seal is calculated to be a significant

excessive to ablate

The polyisoprene 80 seconds

through

in only

and appears

problem

area.

77

6.0 RECOMMENDATIONS There needed 1. recommendations, Additional are several quantify effort in order needs aspects margins of the results of safety which suggest areas which understanding that further require studies additional are study.

to better

for the ASRM describe toward

nozzle.

The following the polyisoprene

of importance, to be directed

material response. This should include testing of the polyisoprene in controlled environments so that the material recession mechanisms can be better understood. At this point it is not clear if the material behaves as a surface sublimer or if the shear the role effects is environment plays of thermochemical an important role in the material removal. Additionally, erosion is not known. The best place to quantify these

in arc plasma generator tests where the convective heating and thermochernical environments can be controlled and made to duplicate the environments of the ASRM nozzle. 2. The particle order should respects ASRM erosion of the throat against entrance region needs data. to be better the same This motor environment nozzle understood. procedures in many of the should as so that In to further validate the procedures the RSRM motor. used in this study, motor firing the erosion in the ASRM and FM5939 to char depth

be evaluated does a much deal

better job of duplicating the erosion

than does the MNASA to understanding the accuracy models especially models

Comparing

to data from this motor as well

add a great understanding 3. Material margins predicted.

of the analysis for the MX4996 with regard should

procedures. need to be developed accurately and arc heater can be more

response of safety, These

be developed

with the use of analog

testing so that material response data from representative and well quantified environments are used to understand the material response. This model development is especially needed for the FM5939 since there was such a large calculated and measured TAD's for this material. difference in

78

REFERENCES 1. Tran,Tony, FinalTestReportfor ASRM 48-5Motor (NozzleMaterialEvaluation Test),June18 1992,GencorpAerojetASRM Division, Iuka Mississippi. 2. AerothermCorporation,NozzleAeroThermochemistry (NAT) ComputerCode, Version 1.0,April 1992,AerothermCorporation, untsville,Alabama. H 3. Baker,P.J.andB.W. Martin, "HeatTransferin Supersonic Separated Flow Overa Two DimensionalBackward-Facing Step,"InternationalJournalof HeatandMass Transfer,9:1081-1088, 966. 1 4. Lamb,J.P.andHood,C.G.,"Predictionof Heat-Transfer atesDownstreamof a R Backstepin Supersonic TurbulentFlow", ASME PaperNo. 70-HT/SpT-39(June 1970). 5. Nestler,D.E., et al, "HeatTransferto Steps andCavitiesin HypersonicTurbulent Flow," AIAA Journal,Vol. 7, No. 7, July 1969,pp. 1368-1370. 6. Lamb,J.P.,"ConvectiveHeatTransferCorrelations Planar,Supersonic, eparated for S Flows", Journalof HeatTransfer,Volume 102,May 1980,pp. 351-356. 7. Salita,Mark, "Applicationof IntemalFlow Field ModelingTo Solid RocketMotor Design",Pages -115,CPIA Publication512,JANNAF Combustion 93 Subcommittee Workshop,July 14-15,1988,Boston,Massachusetts. 8. Hunter,S.C.,Cherry,S.S.,Waldman,C.H., Kilegel,J.R.,"OneDimensionalReacting Three-Phase low with MassTransferBetween F Phases, Volume I - Final Technical Report,AFRPL-TR-81-103, pril 1982. A 9. Chiba,Z., Johnson, .A.,Abbett,M.J.,ParticleImpactErosionVolumeI: Recession P PredictionMethodologyfor RocketNozzleEntrance andThroatRegions,May 1983, AFRPL TR-83-013,Acurex Corporation AerothermDivision, 485 ClydeAve., MountainView, CA 94042. 10.Wernimont,Eric, Personal ommunication Teleconon July 20, 1993with Forrest C Strobel. 11."UsersManual:AerothermCharringMaterialThermalResponse ndAblation a Program(CMA87S)", AcurexReportUM-87-13/ATD,November1987. 12. "UsersManual:AerothermAxi-SymmetricTransient eatingandMaterialAblation H Program(ASTHMA88), AcurexReportUrn-88-11/ATD,October1988.

79

APPENDIX INTERIM THERMAL RESPONSE CARBON

A MX4996 AND FM5939

MODELS FOR PHENOLICS

This Appendix developed to model

presents the standard

the interim density

thermal

response carbon

models phenolic

which

have

been

MX4996

and the low density

FM5939 carbon phenolic used in the MNASA ASRM 48-5 nozzle and the full scale ASRM nozzle. These models used thermal conductivity and TGA data generated at Southern Research based Institute (SRD, Birmingham, to other carbon Alabama. phenolic Specific materials. heat of the materials Additionally, was estimated on similarity

chemical composition of the virgin materials was measured under this program. These measurements were made at Galbraith Laboratories in KnoxviUe, Tennessee. The compostion material carbon. of the pyrolysis gases have been inferred from these measurements are composed and that more of vir_n entirely of data needs composition and the assumption that the char materials It should be stressed that these are only interim models

to be gathered before thermal response calculations can be made with a high level of confidence. This data should be in the form of analog tests at Southern Research Institute and arc plasma tests conducted thermal at Aerotherm. model developed for MX4996 carbon phenolic is

The interim

response

presented in Tables A-1 through both tabular and graphical form. estimated similar measured provided based carbon values in Figure The interim on dynamic phenolics. since A-3. thermal These

A-6 and Figures A-1 through A-3. Data is presented in The char thermal conductivities used in this model were conductivities values values determined by Aerotherm thermal for other response is estimated were used in place underpredict of the laboratroy values

thermal

the laboratory

traditionally

data by a significant

amount.

A comparison

of the estimated

and measured

response

model

developed

for the low density

FM5939

carbon

phenolic is presented in Tables A-7 through A-12 and Figures A-4 through conductivities in this case are taken from the SRI measured data. Estimated were not developed from other materials since the low density material was believed for which models were available.

A-6. The conductivities different

to be significantly

A1

TableA- 1.Decomposition Kinetics
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::..:...,. ............... .,.._,,._... . .....:. _-..x: . ::_::+'.._.._'.'_': '

for MX4996

Carbon

Phenolic

......... .._....>-..+.:._,._...'..::.:.:..,..,.:.:_.:.:.....:.:.::.....'.:.,,'ft.:.':.......:...'::._,, _.'.,.'..x

.:.'_.::_¢.'- _v.:.....'::. ,..%.:_._:..::x_', ",%':_.:.:_.':::_-'_._-:,'- _-':..÷ .:.:....,+_.:., "

i_i:'_|""_:_:_:;::_::_i:_:.;.":;.:i:_ ."'_Y" :#_!_.,.'il/ ..................._"i "":'i ......... _i_!_.'.':_!_: _ili:_¥_li_......... ....._' ._4_i,.,,,'" _.......... ::_:_ "[[_:_! .......... ;: : _'"_':' "_:_:

.'..._..:..'...'...-:-.,

.a_x.,_.

.

...,x

.

,. ,,...

....

..

WZERO(I') (Lbm/Ft 3) A B C 3.6202 2.5668 169.45

RR(I) (Lbm/Ft 3) .00000 .00000 146.55

B(I) (1/SEC) 334.19 .51330E+12 15.590

PSI(I) (-) 1.2900 1.5200 1.2200

E(I) (DEGR) 9702.2 39034 12297

TRES(1) (DEGR) 540.00 1008.0 729.00

Initial

Composite

Density

WINTL GAMA

= 87.818 = .500

(Lbm/Ft 3)

TGA Data for MX 4996A
20 Deg C/Min Density (Lbm/Ft^3) Heating Rate

90

85

-- TGA 8O -- Arrhenius

75

70 200

t,,,,l,,,,,l=,,,,l,,,,,l_,_,,l,,,,,l,=,,,l,,,,tl'''''l'

350

500

650

800

950 (K)

1100

1250

1400

1550

Tempem_re Figure

A-1. Comparison of Measured for MX4996 Carbon

and Calculated Phenolic

TGA Data

A2

TableA-2. ElementalComposition MX4996 CarbonPhenolic for
i ================================= ..... _ _ ......... _ _".:: .:::::::!":::::::,.iiiiiiii:_iii_i_i iii_i.`_i?_i:.:.:.::i:i:i:i:i:ii:i:._.::i:i:i:i:i_:i:i_i::._..::i:i:i_:::i:i._i._i ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

% Carbon % Nitrogen % Oxygen % Hydrogen % Undetermined

88.52 0.50 3.65 2.31 5.02

58.94 3.20 23.19 14.67

100

Table 530 824 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 5460

A-3. Estimated

Specific

Heat 0.26 0.35 0.37 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.51

for MX4996

Carbon

Phenolic 0.26 0.31 0.35 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.49 0.51

0.6 0.5 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0

S )ecific Heat (Btu/Lbm-R)

_Virgin - - Char

,

_

_

,

I

,

=

_

,

I

,

,

,

,

I

_

,

,

,

I

,

,

_

,

I

,

,

,

,

0

1000

2000

3000 Temperature (R)

4000

5000

6000

Estimated Values From Similar Materials Figure A-2. Estimated Specific Heat for MX4996

A3

TableA-4. RESIN DATA Type:SC1008 MassFraction:35% (Assumed) ResinHeatof Formation:-1080Btu/Lbm (Assumed) MaterialHeat of Formation:-378Btu/Lbm

460 610 810 935 1410 5460

1.505E-04 1.505E-04 1.505E-04 1.505E-04 1.505E-04 1.505E-04

2.373E-04 2.373E-04 2.732E-04 2.917E-04 2.917E-04 2.917E-04

NOTE 1:The valueslistedabovearemeasured valuesupto a temperature 1000F of

TableA-6. Estimated CharThermalConductivity
.: .:. _ :+:.: : :.:. ==============================================================

ii'?ii iiii!ii!!iii!iiiiii_,i_:i!i!i!!'_i!i',i'_!i!!i!i',i',i _:',i_,i i!i',!!i',i'i',i':!!i!i',i!i':!!',_',_,'_,_,_,',! i'_!',!!ii! i',i!i_':i',i',iii',iiiiiii', !'i',!_!!',_iii " '_i',_'_i_?_e_ --':_ _N_:'_!'_i_!',i_,i :,_}!',',?',i':!i'_ ' !'_i!i'i!iiiiiili!i!!!ili__N_!!',i!i_,!!i!i! _,
46O 685 985 1935 2960 3410 4260 5160 5460 9.64E-04 9.64E-04 1.22E-03 1.27E-03 1.27E-03 1.36E-03 2.09E-03 2.77E-03 3.00E-03 2.33E-03 E-2.3303 2.74E-03 2.63E-03 2.43E-03 2.72E-03 4.67E-03 6.90E-03 7.73E-03

A4

Estimated Dynamic and Standard Measured Values Conductivity * 10000 (Btu/Ft-Sec-R) 80 Conductivity Type -4-Across 60 Ply Measured

---Fill Measured -_ Across Ply Est.

40

-.,- Fill Est.

20

,'_.°',-_,,,,
I

I 2000

, ,

, ,

I

,

,,

I,,,, 4000

i 5000

, ,

,
I

0

1000

3000 Temperature (R)

6000

Figure

A-3. Thermal

Conductivity

of MX4996

Char Material

Table

A-7. Decomposition

Kinetics

for FM5939

Low Density

Carbon

PhenoLic

I

!iii! ii
I

iiii!iii!iii!iii!iiiiiiN
WZERO(I) (Lbm/Ft 3) 2.1890 8.9951 114.74 RR(I) (Lbm/Ft 3) .00000 .00000 100.09

iiiiiiiiiiiii iiiii iiiii
PSI(I) (-) 1.3100 2.2700 1.6600 (Lbm/Ft 3) E(I) (DEGR) 10646. 32106. 19562.

ii iiii iiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiii iii
"IRES(I) (DEGR) 540.00 927.00 927.00

B(D (1/SEe) 917.51 .20191E+10 5026.1 62.962 .500

A B C Initial Composite

Density GAMA=

A5

TGA Data for FM5939 LDC 20 Deg C/Min Heating Rate

70

Density (Lbm/Ft ^ 3)

65 60 _ _TGA

55

5O

lilt

t

I

I

I

_

=

,

T

_

_

_

I

_

_

,

t

_

t

200

400

600

800 Temperature (K)

1000

1200

1400

Figure

A-4. Comparison FM5939

of Measured Low Density

and Calculated Carbon Phenolic

TGA

Data

for

TableA-8.ElementalCompositionforFM5939_w Densir CarbonPhenolic
% Carbon % Nitrogen % Oxygen % Hydrogen % Undetermined 86.39 0.83 5.01 2.83 4.94 55.55 4.23 25.69 14.53 100

Table A-9. ................. 530 824 1000 1500 2000 2500 3000 5460

Estimated

S 9ecific Heat

for FM5939 Low Density .............................. Carbon Phenolic ..................................... ............. 0.26 0.35 0.37 0.43 0.45 0.46 0.48 0.51 0.26 0.31 0.35 0.41 0.44 0.47 0.49 0.51

A6

0.6 0.5 0.4

S )ecilic Heat (Btu/Lbm-R)

.

o

0.3 0.2 0.1 0 0 1000 2000 3000 Temperature Estimated Values From Similar Materials Figure A-5. Estimated Specific Heat of FM5939 Low Density (R) 4000

--Virgin - - Char

Ill

5000

6000

Carbon

Phenolic

Table

A-IO Rc_in Data

Type: 91 LD Mass Fraction:

35%

(Assumed)

Resin Heat of Formation: -1080 Btu/Lbm (Assumed) Material Heat of Formation: -378 Btu/Lbm

Table

A-11.

Virgin

Thermal

Conductivity

for FM5939

Low Density

Carbon

Phenolic

_i_iiiiiiii_:::_:i:i_:i::!:iiii:ii:i:iii:i_:_i:::iii:iii:_i:i:::i:::_:_:_:_:_iiiiiii_iiiiiii iii:`.ii.::iii:ii:i:ii:i;ii:i:ii:ii:.:.`:.:._:i:ii::_i:_._.`_:i_ii:.:i:i!i.`._.i:i_i:i_i_i:i:_.i_iii:iii:_i_:i:i:i:ii!ii iii_i_iii_!!_:._:_:i:.:_:_i?.:.`.:_ii:i:i:i_:i!i_i._.::i_i:i_i:i¢x.`::!:i:iN:::i:i:_:i_::_ii::ii!::i::iiiiii!_iiiiiii

460 590 760 960 1260 1460 5460 NOTE 1: The values listed above

8.102E-05 8.102E-05 9.722E-05 9.954E-05 1.065E-04 1.100E-04 1.100E-04 are measured values

1.331E-04 1.331E-04 1.528E-04 1.713E-04 1.852E-04 1.910E-04 1.910E-04

up to a temperature

of

1000

F

A7

Table A-12.

Char

Thermal

Conductivi_

for FM5939

Low Density

Carbon

Phenolic

.................................................. _ ........................... _i_ :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: $: ?._:¢.,.::

...........-.:".-'._s.,:?.:_:_-'._:.::.."_:.::::_:.:::::::: ..,_ ._,_. _.................. _..,._: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ........ •.... ._,_._,..b_,.. 1 .::::::_::s¢._: • ..... ._ ::¢:_:::_:::: .............. g._.,'. _

460 630 1200 1685 2610 3460 3960 5260 *-Estimated NOTE value values

"5.505E-05 "21.063E-05 "30.862E-05 "34.103E-05 *35.610E-05 * 34.376E-05 "38.732E-05 "57.422E-05

1.331E-04 5.093E-04 6.944E-04 7.639E-04 6.481E-04 6.944E-04 8.333E-04 14.815E-04

]

2: Fill conductivity

were

taken

from measured

data pre-charred

at 3500

F

16 14 12 10 8 6 4

Conductivity

* 10000 (Btu/Ft-Sec-R)

• -

[l_ACross t- Fill

Ply

0

1000

2000

3000 Temperature (R)

4000

5000

6000

Fig-u.re A-6. Thermal

Conductivity

for FM5939

Low Density

Carbon

Phenolic

Char

A8

APPENDIX POLYISOPRENE A material polyisoprene Arrhenius decomposing the NAT code. response model TGA treated

B MODEL to predict treated the behavior which utilized as a module of gas of the an

ABLATION

has been developed data. This model tables

flex seal material. fit of polyisoprene ablator. These tables

An initial model

was developed were generated to eight

the material

Thermochemistry with five moles

with the ACE moles of hydrogen.

the char material of carbon erosion

as pure carbon

and the pyrolysis of 4500 ° R

as an equilibrium a reasonable was used. material match Because model Because abandoned. With the surface expression

mixture

To obtain

of the measured

data, a surface temperatures

fail temperature would model,

of the high fail temperature, high surface

this was not believed

to be a good be calculated. this approach as a surface was sublimer. of rate

in that excessively

of the lack of realism the surface recession

of the fall temperature which treated rate of the material was model

A new model temperature. of the form:

was developed This behavior

the material

this approach

is assumed order

to be a function Arrhenius

with a zeroeth

s = Aexp(-B/T where, s A B Tw For this model material is the surface

w)

recession energy

rate factor

is the pre-exponenfial is the activation is the wall temperature was assumed range expression

,the material

to ablate

between

temperatures

of 1500 ° R and showed the Using this approach

1600 ° R. This temperature the following Arrhenius

was selected at approximately

based

on TGA results

which

to be fully decomposed

these temperatures.

was developed:

s = 1.0037E+29exp(-110,530/T With this expression, pseudo thermochemistry tables

w) were developed which are are to This can

compatible contained calculate general be written

with the CMA computer code. Additional in Reference B-1. CMA still uses a surface recession rate; however, balance as : form it is significantly which is performed The energy

details on this procedure energy balance technique compared is illustrated in Figure B-1.

simplified

to the most

case.

in equation

q,_,,

+ qr_ - (Ps)wHw

-

OeTw4

+ tiac Hc = q_ona

B1

All of these of H w which

terms

are defined by:

as discussed

in the CMA

User's

Manual

with the exception

is given

Hw

-

Hgas + B'Hiso I+B'

where, Hgas = enthalpy of propellant of polyisoprene has been pyrolysis edge gases gases which generates the necessary variable, B' tables. Instead rate is is used in of

His o = enthalpy A separate routine

written

non dimensional

gas rate Bg' being variable.

an independent aspect AH_.

the transfer

h/Cp is the independent the determination/selection determining expression: the enthalpy

The last important

in the model

development

of a heat of formation, of the char material, H c.

The heat of formation by the following

H c is given

H_

=

_'If

+

CpdT

With

this approach,

a heat of formation

was determined

in an iterative

fashion.

A value

of

-4500 BTU/lbm was found to give reasonably erosion data taken from the MNASA ASRM

good agreement with the polyisoprene 48-5 motor firing. Results using this model

are presented in Figures B-2 and B-3. Figure B-2 presents the calculated erosion as a function of time. Total erosion is calculated to be slightly greater than 0.95 inches. This is approximately the amount measured calculated temperature profiles within in the ASRM 48-5 firing. Figure B-3 shows the material at various points in time. Notice the

extremely thin heat affected depth which is calculated. This is because of the conductivity levels selected to model this material. Figure B-4 shows conductivity as a function of temperature. from These B-2. values are for an ASRM conductivity temperatures conduction internal values insulator above (RP7136) about and were taken Reference Of course, 1600 ° R are meaning

less in that these material Two dimensional

are never effects

attained. a possible contributor to the

were considered

polyisoprene material response. model of the flex seal specimen

To investigate their effects, a two dimensional ASTHMA for the MNASA motor was constructed. This model is

presented in Figure B-5. This figure shows the grid used to perform the calculation. The model includes both polyisoprene and carbon phenolic materials. These materials are contained performed 0.969 0.956 in alternating columns of the grid. Thermal and recession results. calculations were yielded than the it was with this grid to calculate the polyisoprene This calculation on this result

inch of recession inch calculated

for the polyisoprene. with the one dimensional

This amount approach.

is only 1.4% greater Based

B2

decidedthattwo dimensionaleffectswereinsignificantandthereforeall remaining calculations the polyisoprene for wereperformed with theonedimensionalCMA code. It shouldbe stressed thatthis modelis a "purefabrication"in thatit is only a best guess this point. Hopefully, this bestguess at modelwill havepropersensitivityto the importantparameters suchthatit canbeusedwith reasonable accuracy the full scale for motor. Again, it should be stressed that this model is merely an interim and in no way
should it replace the material characterization and model this material's behavior. effort which is needed to better understand

References B-1. Kelly, Final R.D., Report Strobel, F.A., "Duroid November 5667M Ablation Model Development", Huntsville, Acurex

86-21/ATD,

1986, Acurex

Corporation,

Alabama. B-2. Pdsch, Solid View, T.K., Rocket Beck, Motor R.A.S., Project Review Internal Insulation for the Advanced Mountain

(ASRM),

August

1992, Aerotherm

Corporation,

California.

B3

BOUNDARY

LAYER.

qconv

(ps)Hw

qrad

4 (rE T w

lot
qcond

I T
mcHc

T

MATERIAL SURFACE

Figure

B-1. Polyisoprene

Surface

Energy

Balance

1°C

/ / /.

0.9/ / ,/

,/

0.8/ /

/ /

0.7/ / /,

/ /

_
Z

0.6
,/ / / / / ,,,,.

/

o o.5
t/! taJ r..)

---

CARBON PHENOUC POLYI$OPRENE

'"

0.4
/ /

,,.,.

02/ / / / / / /

/ /

0._-

0.1/ /

/

0.0 t 0.0

[

"

I 5.0

I 10.0

I 15.0

I 20.0

I 25.0

i
30.0

I
_.0

TIME Figure B-2. Polyisoprene

(sec) Recession History

B4

1800,

•nur _5 --_21 ......

(,_) 13 32

t600,

14Q0.

1200. -

,-. I000.
p-

SILO,

400,

200. L f 0.2 I 0.8 DEPTH I 1.2 (in) I 1.4 1 1.6 t 1.8 l 2.0

O. 0.0

0.4

0.6

I .O

Figure

B-3. Polyisoprene

In-depth

Temperatures

I-t"

tI-

I
1¢,1 I I G(X).O lOOO.O I_O0.O I I I 20QO.O 2301).0 3000.0 TEMP I 3,_.0 ('R) l I 4000.0 4_.0 l I I _lOOO.O_(lO, O 6000.0

Figure

B-4.

Polyisoprene

Thermal

Conductivity

B5

i

i

I r 4 i

r._...._____..-_.
i i

T
i h i : b i

i i

............ "........... F .......... T ..................... _
I,. , i :

T
Carbon Phenol ic Alternating columns of material Polyi soprene

Figure B-5. ASTHMA

Analysis

Grid for MNASA Flex Seal Specimen

B6

NASA
1. Report No.

Report Documentation
2. Go_mment _ No.

.Page
3. Recip,ent', C='_log No.

Final
4. Title end

Report
Subtitkl 6. Report Dete

Final

Technical

.Report

for

ASRM

Nozzle

Thermal

Analysis
6.

November
Plrforrning

1993
Organization Code

7. Author(I) Mr. ForJ:est S_-'_bel & Ms. Bel"inda King

8.

Performing

Organization

Report

No.

10. Work Unit No.

9.

Performing

Orpnizazt_¢t

_

I1_1

Address 11. Contract Of Grant No.

Aerotherm Corporation 150O Perimeter Darkway, Huntsville, AL 35806
12. Sl_onsoring AgenCy Name and Adclm, u

Suite

225
13.

NAS8-39611
TYPe of Reporg and Period Covered

Final
14. Sponsorir_

Technical
Agency Code

Remort

NASA/MSFC _Marshall

Space

Flight

Center,

AL

35812

1S.

Supotemenulry

Noum

16.

AJu:ztn_z

This

report

describes

results

from

the

Nozzle

Thermal

Analysis

contract

which

has

been performed of the Advanced

to support NASA/Marshall Space Flight Center Solid Rocket Motor (ASRM). The emphasis of

in the development this study has been

directed to four potential problem areas of the nozzle. These areas are: i) the su/_nerged nozzle region containing the flex seal, 2) the nozzle entrance region, 3) the material interface regio_ in the nozzle exit cone, and 4) the aft region of the exit cone. This study was limited throughout by inadequate material response models, especially for the polyisoprene flex seal and the low density carbon phenolic used in the exit cone. Thermal response and particle erosion calculations were performed for each of the potential problem areas. Results from these studies showed excessive erosion (large negative safety margins) to occur in the flex seal and nozzle entrance regions. The exit cone was found to be marginally adequate (hear zero not to be a problem. safety margins) and the material interface region was found

i F 17. K_ Word=(Suggutad_ Authodl)} 18. O_Til_tlon Statement

ASRMNozzle, Field

Thermal

Analysis, Models

Flow Unclassified, Unlimited

Analysis,

_terial

19.

S4curity

Ctlmit.

(_

_

mt=orU

20. Secu_

ClI=_. Iof rail ¢"KW)

21.

No.

of

I_ges

22. I=t_

Unclassified
NASA FORM I
TM

Unclassified
OCT !16