energies
Article
Extended Application and Experimental Verification of a New
Erosive Burning Model Coupled Heat Transfer between Gas
and Grain Based on a Star-Grain Solid Rocket Motor
Lin Sun , Yanjie Ma * , Futing Bao






Citation: Sun, L.; Ma, Y.; Bao, F.; Liu,
Y.; Hui, W. Extended Application and
Experimental Verification of a New
Erosive Burning Model Coupled
Heat Transfer between Gas and Grain
Based on a Star-Grain Solid Rocket
Motor. Energies 2022, 15, 1564.
https://doi.org/10.3390/en15041564
Academic Editor: Rob J.M.
Bastiaans
Received: 5 January 2022
Accepted: 16 February 2022
Published: 20 February 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Energies 2022, 15, 1564. https://doi.org/10.3390/en15041564
, Yang Liu and Weihua Hui
Science and Technology on Combustion, Internal Flow and Thermo-Structure Laboratory, School of Astronautics,
Northwestern Polytechnical University, Xi’an 710072, China; sunlin@nwpu.edu.cn (L.S.);
ftbao@nwpu.edu.cn (F.B.); liu-yang@163.com (Y.L.); zhongyuancao@163.com (W.H.)
* Correspondence: mayanjieallen@163.com; Tel.: +86-17782862673
Abstract: The estimation of erosive burning is of great importance for the internal ballistics compu-
tation of a solid rocket motor (SRM) with a large aspect ratio. Because of the variety of parameters
affecting erosive burning, most of the erosive burning models developed in earlier years usually
contain unknown constants that need to be identified by a trial-and-error procedure for each SRM.
Based on an SRM with a cylindrical grain, a new erosive burning model, which coupled the heat
transfer between the gas and grain, was proven to be effective previously. To expand the scope
of application of this model, in this paper, earlier and new erosive burning models were used in
the transient one-dimensional internal ballistics computation, to obtain the internal ballistics for a
star-grain SRM. A comparison between the computational and experimental results indicated that
both the earlier and new erosive burning models can obtain results with good accuracy for a star-grain
SRM. The paper shows that with no constants to be identified, the Ma model is easy to use and has
the potential to predict the erosive burning rate before a firing test.
Keywords: erosive burning; internal ballistics simulation; solid rocket motor; coupled heat transfer;
experimental verification
1. Introduction
To obtain good performance, a large aspect ratio is often used in different SRMs. In
these SRMs, the augmentation of the burning rate, due to erosive burning, may affect the
internal ballistics dramatically, and can sometimes even cause catastrophic consequences.
For decades, many models on erosive burning have been proposed. In the simplest
models [1–4], it is considered that there is a linear relationship between the erosive burning
ratio (the ratio between the total burning rate and normal burning rate) and a key variable,
such as velocity, Mach number, mass flux through the port, and so on. The erosive burning
rate can be written as follows:
z < z∗

1,
ε(z) = (1)
1 + k z ( z − z ∗ ), z ≥ z ∗
where kz and z* are two constants that vary with the propellants and SRMs. When such a
model is used for internal ballistics computation, the two constants need to be identified
by a trial-and-error procedure. Another erosive burning model, the L-R model [5], is a
very popular model, modified and used by many researchers [6–10]. In the L-R model, the
erosive burning rate is assumed to be proportional to the heat transfer coefficient at the
propellant surface. During the estimation of the heat transfer coefficient, two unknown
constants are introduced. As in the linear relationship model, the constants also make the
L-R model inconvenient to implement.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/energies
Energies 2022, 15, 1564 2 of 12

To overcome the obstacle induced by the unknown constants, Mukunda [11,12] pro-
posed a universal model. In Mukunda’s model, the two constants were determined by
comparing the model with plenty of experimental data. Mukunda’s model was validated
by Ref [13]. Now, this model has received more and more attention. Slvan [14] carried out
ignition simulation based on Mukunda’s model, and obtained results with good agreement
with the experiments. Ropia [15] used Mukunda’s model in an SRM with a cluster of seven
grains. Greatrix [16] compared the results from Mukunda’s model to some classical studies,
and indicated that the roughness of the propellant surface should also be considered. Ma
and coauthors [17] proposed another erosive burning model. By evaluating the heat flux
using the heat transfer model of Gnielinski [18], the model of Ma released all the unknown
constants, making it another universal model to estimate the erosive burning rate.
The computation of internal ballistics involves the numerical computation procedure
of the histories of different parameters in the solid rocket motors (SRMs). With internal
ballistics computation, a number of tests and experiments can be reduced dramatically, as
well as the time and financial expenses. In addition, the numerical computation of internal
ballistics can reveal, or explain, some characteristics of SRMs that are difficult to measure
directly. With the development of computer technology and numerical methodologies,
two-dimensional (2D) and three-dimensional (3D) computations are now popular for the
evaluation of internal ballistics [19–21]. Yet, because of their efficiency and acceptable
accuracy, one-dimensional (1D) models are still vastly used and developed [8–10,22–24].
Thus, in this paper, a 1D model is used to compute the internal ballistics.
The ignition model plays an important role in the internal ballistics computation of
SRMs. A popular and simple ignition model used by many researchers assumes that the
propellant begins to burn once the propellant surface reaches a critical temperature [22]. To
evaluate the temperature of the propellant surface, two methods can be used. In the first
method, a 1D solid domain, perpendicular to the propellant surface, is initially created.
Then, numerical 1D heat transfer computation, using the finite element method or finite
volume method, can be carried out to evaluate the surface temperature. This method can
obtain the propellant surface temperature history for each fluid cell of the 1D fluid domain
with quite good accuracy. Yet, because of the great difference between the temperatures of
the ignition gas and the propellant surface, the temperature gradient at the surface is very
large. Thus, this method requires a very small mesh size to obtain credible results. Since the
1D heat transfer computation should be conducted for each corresponding fluid cell, this
method would require huge computing resources. In the other method, the temperature
at the propellant surface is expressed as a function of time. Based on this, an ordinary
differential equation (ODE) is established, and the Runge–Kutta method is all that is needed
to compute the surface temperature. This makes the method very efficient and widely
used [8,25].
In this paper, the code the authors developed in Ref. [17] is extended to a star-grain
SRM, with a large aspect ratio, to obtain the internal ballistics results. The Ma model and
Mukunda model are used for erosive burning evaluation. The computational results met
the experimental results well. This validates the two universal erosive burning models and
the code, and proves that the Ma model has the potential to predict internal ballistics before
a firing test of real SRMs.

2. Models
In this paper, a transient 1D CFD program was implemented on a star-grain SRM, with
the erosive burning considered. The main assumptions used in this paper are listed below:
(1) All the variables at the same cross section are assumed to be uniform (1D assumption).
(2) The chemical reaction is ignored. Once the propellant is ignited, the surface is treated
as a surface where combustion gas flows directly into the fluid domain.
(3) The combustion gas is assumed to be a perfect gas of a single species.
(4) The ignition gas has the same properties as the combustion gas, but a lower temperature.
 treated as a surface where combustion gas flows directly into the fluid domain.
(3) The combustion gas is assumed to be a perfect gas of a single species.
(4) The ignition gas has the same properties as the combustion gas, but a lower tem-
perature.
Energies 2022, 15, 1564
(5) The velocity of the combustion gas generated from the grain is vertical to the axis
3 of 12
of SRM.

2.1. Governing Equations

(5) The velocity of the combustion gas generated from the grain is vertical to the axis
The typical control volume of the 1D domain is depicted in Figure 1. Based on the
of SRM.
Reynolds transport theorem, the governing equations, consisting of the three conservation
lawsGoverning
2.1. for mass,Equations
momentum and energy, can be derived, and are listed below:
The typical control volume of ∂ the 1D domain ∂ is depicted in Figure 1. Based on the
Reynolds transport theorem, the governing
∂t
( ρ Ap ) +equations,
∂x
( ρ uAp ) =consisting
ρ p rs (2)
of the three conservation
laws for mass, momentum and energy, can be derived, and are listed below:
∂ ∂ ∂p
∂∂t ( ρ uA
p ) + ∂∂x ( ρ u A
p ) = − Ap ∂x
2
(3)
ρA p + ρuA p = ρ p rs (2)
∂t ∂x
∂  u 2   ∂   u2  
 ρ Ap∂ CvT +
  +∂  ρ2uAp  C pT + ∂p   = ρ p rsC pT f (4)
∂t  ρuA p2 +   ∂x∂x ρu
 A p  = − A2p ∂x
∂t  (3)

u2 u2
     
In addition
∂ to these equations, the ∂following state equation is also needed:
ρA p Cv T + + ρuA p C p T + = ρ p rsC p T f (4)
∂t 2 ∂x p = ρ RT 2
(5)

Figure 1. Schematic of the control volume.

Figure 1. Schematic of the control volume.

2.2. Erosive Burning

In addition to these equations, the following state equation is also needed:
In this paper, two different erosive burning models are used for comparison pur-
poses. The first is the Ma model [17]. In pthis = ρRT
model, the total burning rate comprises (5) the
following two components: the normal burning rate and the erosive burning rate. The
2.2. Erosive Burning
normal burning rate refers to the burning rate when the velocity of gas flow is low. The
In this
erosive paper,rate
burning twoisdifferent
assumederosive burning models
to be proportional are heat
to the usedflux
for comparison purposes.
at the propellant sur-
The first is the Ma model [17]. In this model, the
face. The total burning rate can be written as follows: total burning rate comprises the following
two components: the normal burning rate and the erosive burning rate. The normal
burning rate refers to the burning rrate (T − Ts )
= apwhen
n
+ the∞ velocity hof gas flow is low. The erosive(6)
burning rate is assumed to be proportional ρtop Cthe Ts − Tflux
p , p (heat i) at the propellant surface. The
total burning rate can be written as follows:
In Equation (6), h is the heat transfer coefficient at the propellant surface. Considering
the effect of transpiration flow, h cannbe computed( T∞ − Tusings) the following expression:
r = ap + h (6)
ρ C ( T − Ti )
h p p,pβth s
= (7)
In Equation (6), h is the heat transfer exp ( βth ) at
h0 coefficient − 1the propellant surface. Considering
the effect of transpiration flow, h can be computed using the following expression:

h β th
= (7)
h0 exp( β th ) − 1

where β th = ρv g C p /h0 = ρ p rC p /h0 , and h0 denotes the heat transfer coefficient without
transpiration, computed by the Gnielinski correlation [18]. The burning rate r appears in
Equation (7), thus it should be computed iteratively.
Energies 2022, 15, 1564 4 of 12

The second erosive burning model used for comparison in this paper is Mukunda’s
model [11]. In Mukunda’s model, the erosive burning ratio is computed by the follow-
ing correlation: 
r 1, g < gth
= (8)
1 + K1 g0.8 − gth
0.8 , g > g


r0 th

where g = g0 (Re0 /1000)−0.125 , g0 = G/ρ p r0 , and Re0 = ρ p r0 Dh /µ. The value of the
two constants K1 = 0.023 and gth = 35 are determined in Ref. [11], by a trial-and-error
procedure with plenty of experimental data.
Using the erosive burning model, the burning rate r is computed for each cell during
the computation.

2.3. Ignition Model

The ignition criterion used in this paper is the critical-temperature model. This model
is the simplest ignition model and has been vastly used [8,22–24]. In this model, the
details of complex chemical reactions are ignored. The propellant begins to burn once the
surface temperature reaches a critical value (ignition temperature). To evaluate the surface
temperature before the ignition, the same equation as that in Ref. [8] was used, which is
as follows:
dTs 4αh2 ( T − Ts )3
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW = 2 6 of(9)13
dt 3λ ( Ts − Ti )(2T − Ts − Ti )
Equation (9) provides a relationship between surface temperature and time. During the
computation described in this paper, at each time step, the propellant surface temperature
 is computed using the fourth-order  π   the
for each fluid cell
 D 2  π
Runge–Kutta method. l sin ε Once
(1 − ε ) +the
e + r  2
 π
ε corresponding
D n   to
ignition temperature   is reached, arcsin
propellant + Rofthe − arcsin + arcsin 
fluid cell begins
burn. The sources of2 mass,
  n momentum and 2 RCenergy
 fornthe corresponding
4 RC + r are
fluide cell   then
p = n
computedAaccording to the burning rate and burning  area.   (17)
 
π  π   e + r D
2
 π  
+l sin ε n  l cos ε n + ( e + r ) −  l sin ε n   − l 2 R 2
2
2.4. Geometric Correlations 
  
The SRM studied  in this paper uses a star grain. For this Ckind of grain, theburn
perimeter s and the port area Ap can be analytically expressed as functions of the burned
where RC is the radius of the circumcircle of the triangle OO’A,
web e [26,27]. Figure 2 depicts a schematic for the star section. In Figure 2, D stands for the
l (e + r ) D 2
RC =diameter of the grain. The points of
outer the star
, and ( l +represented
m = are ( e + r ) + D 2by) / 2n.. Th web of the grain
4 m as
is denoted ( m −angle
( me−1 .l )The ) ) ( m − D the
( e + r between 2 ) two adjacent star edges is θ. The transition arc has
a radius r,
In each time step of the internalatballistics
and the radius of the arc tip is r1 . For simplicity,
the star computation, the burnedthe web characteristic
e is updated
length of the grain l is defined as l = D/2 − ( e 1 + r )
for each fluid cell, according to whether the propellant of the cell is ignited., and y is defined as y = (e + rgeomet-
Then, )/l. At
the moment when the star edge disappears, the burned web is denoted as e ∗ , and the value
ric evaluation is implemented, providing the correct values of burn perimeter s and port
of the corresponding y is y∗ = (e∗ + r )/l.
area Ap needed to solve Equations (1)–(3).

Figure2.2.Schematic
Figure Schematicofofthe
thestar-grain
star-grainsection.
section.

3. Numerical Procedure
The governing equations are solved using the finite volume method (FVM). The code
used in this paper evolved from the code developed by the authors in Ref. [17], to accom-
modate the star grain in the SRM studied in this paper. During the computation, the SRM
Energies 2022, 15, 1564 5 of 12

For the star grain with an arc at the star tip, the burning process of the grain can be
divided into four stages. Different expressions for the burn perimeter s and port area Ap in
different stages are given as follows [26,27]:
In the first stage, the arc at the star tip holds (0 ≤ e ≤ r1 ).
" #
sin ε πn r1 − e π
 
s π r + r1 π π θ θ
= 2n + (1 − ε ) + + − − cot − (10)
l sin 2θ n l 2 n 2 2 l n
 
sin ε πn
h  i
Ap
l2
=n (1 − ε) πn + sin ε πn cos ε πn − sin ε πn cot θ
2 + 2ny + (1 − ε) πn
sin 2θ
   2   (11)
+ny2 π
2 + π
n − 2θ − cot 2θ + n r1 −
l
e
2 − cot 2 −
θ θ π
2

In the second stage, the arc at the star tip has burned out, and the star edge holds
(r1 < e ≤ e∗ ).
" #
sin ε πn

s π π π θ θ
= 2n + (1 − ε ) + y + − − cot (12)
l sin 2θ n 2 n 2 2
h  i
Ap
l2
= n (1 − ε) πn + sin ε πn cos ε πn − sin ε πn cot 2θ
(13)
 
sin ε πn
 
+2ny θ + (1 − ε ) n
π
+ ny2 π2 + πn − 2θ − cot 2θ
sin 2

In the third stage, the star edge has burned out, and the transition arc holds (e∗ < e ≤
e1 ).
sin ε πn
   
s π π
= 2n (1 − ε) + y + arcsin (14)
l n n y
 q  
2 2 − sin2 ε π + cos ε π
( 1 + y ) ( 1 − ) π
+ sin π
y
 
Ap  ε n ε n n n

=n (15)
l2 π i
h 
2 π
 +y ε + arcsin
 sin ε n 

n y

In the fourth stage, only the sliver remains (e1 < e ≤ e f , where
r  2
e f = l 2 + D2 − Dl cos ε πn − r).

l sin ε πn
 
π D
s = 2nR ε − arcsin + arcsin (16)
n 4RC e+r
  2  
l sin ε π
  
 D2

n (1 − ε )
π e +r
+ arcsin 2R + D
R2 ε πn − arcsin 4R + arcsin e+r n 

C C
Ap = n q (17)
2 π 2 e +r D



 +l sin ε n l cos ε n + (e + r ) − l sin ε n
π π
− l 2R 2 C



where RC is the radius of the circumcircle of the triangle OO’A,

l (e+r ) D/2
RC = √ , and m = (l + (e + r ) + D/2)/2.
4 m(m−l )(m−(e+r ))(m− D/2)
In each time step of the internal ballistics computation, the burned web e is updated
for each fluid cell, according to whether the propellant of the cell is ignited. Then, geometric
evaluation is implemented, providing the correct values of burn perimeter s and port area
Ap needed to solve Equations (1)–(3).

3. Numerical Procedure
The governing equations are solved using the finite volume method (FVM). The
code used in this paper evolved from the code developed by the authors in Ref. [17], to
accommodate the star grain in the SRM studied in this paper. During the computation, the
SRM is divided into a cluster of 1D cells, from the head end of the combustion chamber
down to the exit of the nozzle. The SIMPLE algorithm is used to decouple velocity and
 Energies 2022, 15, 1564 6 of 12

pressure. A TVD category scheme, the MUSCL scheme, is used for the discretization of
convection term. More details can be found in [28]. For each cell in the fluid domain, the
temperature of the propellant surface before ignition is computed by solving Equation (9),
using the fourth-order Runge–Kutta method. After ignition, the geometric computation is
carried out for the burn perimeter and port area. Since erosive burning plays an important
role in the operation of SRMs with a large aspect ratio, as the SRM studied in this paper,
erosive burning is considered in the code. The total burning rate at each cell of the 1D
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13
domain is computed using the erosive burning model, to obtain the mass source and energy
source caused by combustion of the propellant grain. For comparison purposes, different
erosive burning rate models, the Ma model and Mukunda model, are used.
condition is implemented,
Grid independence with all thefor
is guaranteed variables
both theatspace
the boundary extrapolated
and time fields, from the
with a uniform
interior
1D mesh cells.
grid (size 0.5 mm and time step 10 −6 s). At the head end, when the igniter
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 13
works, a mass flow rate inlet condition is implemented. The mass flow rate history of the
igniter is shown in Figure 3. Once the ignition mass flow drops to zero, an adiabatic wall
condition is implemented at the head end. For the nozzle exit, a pressure outlet condition
condition is implemented,
is implemented until the with all the
velocity variables
of sound at the boundary
is approached. After extrapolated from outlet
that, a supersonic the
interior cells.
condition is implemented, with all the variables at the boundary extrapolated from the
interior cells.

Figure 3. Igniter mass flow history.

4. Results and Analysis

Figure 4 depicts the schematic of the SRM studied in this paper. The SRM has a six-
pointed
Figure star grain,
3. Igniter masswith
flow ahistory.
length of 201.5 mm and outer diameter of 37.5 mm. The diameter
Figure 3. Igniter mass flow history.
of the nozzle throat is 8 mm. A composite propellant, comprising 83% AP, 12% HTPB and
4.5%
Results
Al, wasandused.Analysis
The properties of the combustion gas were computed using the Chemical
4. Results and Analysis
Figure 4 depicts
Equilibrium with Applicationsthe schematic
(CEA) ofpackage
the SRM studied
[29]. More in this of
details paper.
the SRMThecan
SRM be has a
found
Figure
six-pointed
in [30]. 4 depicts
star the
grain, schematic
with a of
length the
of SRM
201.5studied
mm in
and this
outer paper. The
diameter SRM
of 37.5has a
mm. six-
The
pointed starof
diameter
The grain,
igniter with
the nozzle a length
throat of
was mounted isat8201.5
mm.
the mm and of
outer
A composite
head end the diameter
Theof
propellant,
SRM. 37.5 mm.rate
comprising
mass flow The83%
diameter
of AP,
the 12%
igniter
of HTPB
the nozzle
and in
is shown throat
5%Figure is
Al, was 8 mm. A
3. used. composite
The properties
It is worth propellant,
noting that,of the comprising
combustion
besides 83% AP,
gas the
this study, were 12% HTPB
computed
firing and
using
test was also
5%theAl,Chemical
used was
to used.
evaluateThetheproperties
Equilibrium SRM’swithofApplications
the combustion
performance at(CEA)gas package
a high were computed
initial using
[29]. More
temperature. thethe
details
So, Chemical
of SRM
the SRM
was
Equilibrium
can be with
found in Applications
[30]. (CEA)
fired after being kept at 50 °C for 48 h. package [29]. More details of the SRM can be found
in [30].
The igniter was mounted at the head end of the SRM. The mass flow rate of the igniter
is shown in Figure 3. It is worth noting that, besides this study, the firing test was also
used to evaluate the SRM’s performance at a high initial temperature. So, the SRM was
fired after being kept at 50 °C for 48 h.

Figure4.4.Schematic
Figure Schematicof
ofthe
theSRM.
SRM.

Using
The Equations
igniter (9)–(16),
was mounted at the
the burn perimeter
head end and the
of the SRM. Theport
massarea,
flowasrate
functions of the
of the igniter
isburned
shown web, were3.computed.
in Figure It is worth The results
noting that, are shown
besides thisinstudy,
Figure
the5.firing
The burn perimeter
test was also usedin-
creases in the first stage, until the arcs at the star tips burn out. Then, in the second stage,
Figure 4. Schematic
it decreases of the SRM.
slightly. After the star edges burn out, the third stage begins, and the burn
perimeter increases to the maximum value. When the burned web reaches e1, the regres-
Using Equations (9)–(16), the burn perimeter and the port area, as functions of the
sion procedure enters the fourth stage, in which the sliver burns and the burn perimeter
burned web, were computed. The results are shown in Figure 5. The burn perimeter in-
quickly reduces to zero. The port area increases at a relatively steady rate until the fourth
creases in the first stage, until the arcs at the star tips burn out. Then, in the second stage,
 Energies 2022, 15, 1564 7 of 12

to evaluate the SRM’s performance at a high initial temperature. So, the SRM was fired
after being kept at 50 ◦ C for 48 h.
Using Equations (9)–(16), the burn perimeter and the port area, as functions of the
burned web, were computed. The results are shown in Figure 5. The burn perimeter
increases in the first stage, until the arcs at the star tips burn out. Then, in the second stage,
it decreases slightly. After the star edges burn out, the third stage begins, and the burn
perimeter increases to the maximum value. When the burned web reaches e1 , the regression
procedure enters the fourth stage, in which the sliver burns and the burn perimeter quickly
reduces to zero. The port area increases at a relatively steady rate until the fourth stage. In
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 13
the fourth stage, the rate of increment becomes smaller and smaller. After all the propellant
burns out, the port area reaches the maximum value (determined by the inner diameter of
the SRM’s combustion chamber).

Figure 5. Burn perimeter and port area as functions of burned web.

Figure 5. Burn perimeter and port area as functions of burned web.
The pressure history results of computations with different erosive burning treatments
Thearepressure
shownhistory
in Figureresults of computations
6, along with different
with the experimental erosive
data. When burning
erosivetreatments
burning is not
areconsidered,
shown in Figure 6, along with the experimental data. When
the computed pressure history was mainly controlled by the burn erosive burning is perimeter.
not
considered, the computed
After ignition, the pressure pressure historya was
experiences smallmainly
peak, controlled by the
then increases burn
to the perimeter.
maximum value
justignition,
After before the
thetail off. The
pressure trend is similar
experiences a small topeak,
the burn
thenperimeter
increasescurve
to theshown
maximum in Figure 5.
Because
value of thethe
just before erosive burning,
tail off. the experiment
The trend is similar to gives a very
the burn different
perimeter curve.
curve The pressure
shown in
peak at the early stage, just after ignition, is much higher than
Figure 5. Because of the erosive burning, the experiment gives a very different curve. that of the computational
Theresults
pressurewhenpeakerosive
at the burning is not
early stage, justconsidered. In is
after ignition, this
muchstage, because
higher thanof theofsmall
that the port
area, the gas velocity in the port is very high, leading to severe
computational results when erosive burning is not considered. In this stage, because of erosive burning, which,
in turn, brings a much higher burning rate (especially near the aft end of the grain) and
the small port area, the gas velocity in the port is very high, leading to severe erosive
pressure. As the propellant burns, the port area increases, and the erosive burning becomes
burning, which, in turn, brings a much higher burning rate (especially near the aft end of
weaker and weaker. Thus, the pressure drops, even when the burning area increases, until
thethe
grain)
endand pressure.
of the As theFrom
first stage. propellant
then on, burns, the portburning
the erosive area increases,
becomes andsothe
weakerosive
that the
burning becomes weaker and weaker. Thus, the pressure drops, even when
experimental data are not significantly different from the non-erosion results, except for the burning
areathe
increases, until the end
earlier transitions of thedifferent
between first stage. From
stages then
and theon, the erosive
longer tail off burning
stage. becomes
so weakWith that the experimental
erosive burning data are notusing
considered significantly
the twodifferent
erosive from
burningthe non-erosion
models, the com-
results, exceptresults
putational for the meet
earlierthe
transitions
experimental betweendatadifferent
well. Asstages
shown andin the longer
Figure tail off
6, both the Ma
stage.
model and Mukunda model obtain good results. The time and value of the pressure peak,
just after the ignition, are well computed. The value of the ignition peak pressure in the
experimental data is 11.85 MPa. The value of the Ma model is 11.71 MPa, 1.2% lower, and
of the Mukunda model, it is 11.98 MPa, 1.1% higher. After the ignition, both the erosive
burning models predict the pressure drop during the first stage of propellant burning.
The results of the Ma model are a little higher than those of the experimental data, with a
relative error of about 4.0%. The Mukunda model gives better results, and the relative error
is about 1.0%. In the second and third stage of propellant burning, the pressure curves,
predicted by the two different models, are very close. Compared with the experiment, the
relative errors of both models are within 4.0%. Because of the relatively higher erosive
 computational results when erosive burning is not considered. In this stage, because of
the small port area, the gas velocity in the port is very high, leading to severe erosive
burning, which, in turn, brings a much higher burning rate (especially near the aft end of
the grain) and pressure. As the propellant burns, the port area increases, and the erosive
Energies 2022, 15, 1564 burning becomes weaker and weaker. Thus, the pressure drops, even when the burning8 of 12
area increases, until the end of the first stage. From then on, the erosive burning becomes
so weak that the experimental data are not significantly different from the non-erosion
results, except
burning for the earlier
predicted by the transitions
Ma model inbetween
the firstdifferent stages
stage, the andweb
burned theof
longer tailmodel
the Ma off is a
stage.
little larger than that of the Mukunda model, leading to slightly higher pressure and earlier
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW
transitions between different stages, as well as an earlier tail off stage. 9 of 13

experimental data is 11.85 MPa. The value of the Ma model is 11.71 MPa, 1.2% lower, and
of the Mukunda model, it is 11.98 MPa, 1.1% higher. After the ignition, both the erosive
burning models predict the pressure drop during the first stage of propellant burning.
The results of the Ma model are a little higher than those of the experimental data, with a
relative error of about 4.0%. The Mukunda model gives better results, and the relative
error is about 1.0%. In the second and third stage of propellant burning, the pressure
curves, predicted by the two different models, are very close. Compared with the experi-
ment, the relative errors of both models are within 4.0%. Because of the relatively higher
erosive burning predicted by the Ma model in the first stage, the burned web of the Ma
model is a little larger than that of the Mukunda model, leading to slightly higher pressure
and earlier transitions between different stages, as well as an earlier tail off stage.
Figure 6. Pressure history results.
FigureFor the ignition
6. Pressure analysis,
history results. the temperature distributions of the propellant surface at
differentFor
times before the whole grain
the ignition analysis, is ignited aredistributions
the temperature shown in Figure of the7. It can be observed
propellant surface at
that,Withthe erosive
igniter burning
begins considered
to work, the using
ignitionthe two
gas erosive
flows into burning
different times before the whole grain is ignited are shown in Figure 7. It chamber
as the models,
combustion thebe
can compu-and
observed
tational
raises results
the
that, meet
aspropellant the experimental
the ignitersurface gradually.
begins to data well.
work, theBecause As shown
ignitionofgas
theflows in Figure
smallinto
sizethe 6, both
of combustion the Ma
the SRM andchamber model
the highand
and Mukunda
gasraises
velocity, model
the the obtain
temperature
propellant good
surfacevaluesresults.
from the
gradually. The timeend
head
Because ofand
thetovalue
the aftof
small theofare
end
size pressure
theclose.
SRMThe peak, justhigh
andwhole
the
after thevelocity,
propellant
gas ignition,
should are
thebe well computed.
ignited
temperaturein 14 The
ms tofrom
values value
15 ms,
thefrom ofthe
head thehead
end ignition
end
to the peak
aftto theare
end pressure
aft end. The
close. in the
whole
propellant should be ignited in 14 ms to 15 ms, from the head end to the aft end.

Figure 7. Propellant surface temperature at different times.

Figure 7. Propellant surface temperature at different times.
Figure 8 depicts the velocity of the aft end of the grain as a function of time. At the
Figure 8 depicts
beginning the velocity
of the operation of the
of the SRM,aftdue
endto ofthe
theignition
grain asgas a function of time. At
and combustion gasthe
from
beginning of the operation of the SRM, due to the ignition gas and
the propellant grain, the velocity of the aft end rises rapidly and reaches the maximum combustion gas from
thevalue
propellant
(304 m/s)grain,atthe velocity
0.015 of the aftthe
s. Afterwards, endvelocity
rises rapidly and reachesThe
drops gradually. thedrop
maximum
is caused
value (304 m/s) at 0.015 s. Afterwards, the velocity drops gradually. The
by the increase in the area ratio between the port at the aft end of the grain and the throat drop is caused
by the increase
of the nozzle. inThe
the area
Erosiveratio between
burning theshows
ratio port atathe aft end
similar of the
trend grain
as the and theasthroat
velocity, Figure 9
of the nozzle. The Erosive burning ratio shows a similar trend
depicts. Once the aft end of the grain begins to burn, the erosive burning ratio as the velocity, as Figure 9
increases.
depicts. Once the aft end of the grain begins to burn, the erosive burning
The maximum value of 1.64 is reached at 0.029 s. The maximum erosive burning ratio does ratio increases.
Thenot
maximum
appear at value of 1.64
the same is reached
time at 0.029does,
as the velocity s. Theindicating
maximumthat erosive burningisratio
the velocity does
not the only
notfactor
appearthatat the samethe
affects time as theburning.
erosive velocity does,
During indicating that of
the ignition thethe
velocity
SRM, is not
the the only
temperature,
factor that affects
pressure and otherthe erosive
parametersburning.
changedDuring the ignition
violently. These offactors,
the SRM, the temperature,
together with velocity,
pressure and the
determine other parameters
erosive burning. changed violently.
After 0.029 s, the These
erosivefactors,
burningtogether
ratio at with
the aftvelocity,
end drops
determine the erosive burning. After 0.029 s, the erosive burning ratio
gradually as the port area grows. At about 0.36 s, the erosive burning ratio at the aft at the aft end drops
end of
gradually
the grainasisthe portthan
lower area1.01.
grows.TheAt about
effect of 0.36
erosives, the erosive
burning onburning ratioballistics
the internal at the aftbecomes
end
of the grain is small.
negligibly lower than 1.01. The
The results of effect of erosive
the velocity andburning
erosiveon the internal
burning ballistics
ratio can explainbe-the
comes negligibly small. The results of the velocity and erosive burning ratio can explain
the pressure history in Figure 6, and validate the erosive burning model and the CFD
program used in this paper.
 Energies
Energies 15, x15,
2022,
2022, FOR1564
PEER REVIEW 10 of 913of 12

Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 13

pressure history in Figure 6, and validate the erosive burning model and the CFD program
used in this paper.

Figure 8. History of gas velocity at the aft end of the grain.

Figure 8. History of gas velocity at the aft end of the grain.
Figure 8. History of gas velocity at the aft end of the grain.

Figure 9. History of erosive burning ratio at the aft end of the grain.
Figure 9. History of erosive burning ratio at the aft end of the grain.

Figure 9.The portofarea

History results
erosive at different
burning times
ratio at the areofshown
aft end in Figure 10. At the beginning, all
the grain.
The
the port area
sections haveresults at different
the same times
port area. are shown
After in Figure
the ignition, 10. Atat
the grain the beginning,
the rear end of allthe
the combustion
sections have the
chamber same port area. After the ignition, the grain at the rear end of the
The port area resultshas a larger burning
at different times are rate because
shown of the 10.
in Figure erosive
At the burning, leading
beginning, all to
combustion chamber has a larger burning rate values
because of the erosive burning, leading to
the sections have the same port area. After the ignition, the grain at the rear end of the at
quicker regression. Thus, different port area at different positions can be observed
quicker regression.
0.2 s. As the Thus,
port area different port area values at different positions can be observed
combustion chamber hasincreases gradually,
a larger burning thebecause
rate erosive burning becomes
of the erosive weakerleading
burning, and weaker,
to
at 0.2 s.then
As the port areaafter increases gradually, the erosive burning becomes weaker and
quicker regression. Thus, different port area values at different positions can be observedrate.
and disappears, which the propellant regresses at the local normal burning
weaker,
Since and then disappears,
the the
pressure onlyafter
is theincreases whichtothe
parameter propellant
affect the normal regresses
burning atrate,
the and
localthe
normal
at 0.2 s. As port area gradually, the erosive burning becomes weakerpressure
and
burning rate.
drop from Since
the headthe pressure
end to the is the
aft end only parameter
is small to affect
during thisregresses the normal
period, the burning rate,
weaker, and then disappears, after which the propellant atvalues of the
the local burning
normal
andrate
theatpressure
differentdrop fromare
positions theclose.
head This
end situation
to the aftlastsenduntil
is small
aboutduring this period,
1.0 s, when the
the transition
burning rate. Since the pressure is the only parameter to affect the normal burning rate,
values of the burning rate at different positions are close. This situation
from the third stage to the fourth stage occurs, and the tail off begins (see Figure 6). After lasts until about
and the pressure drop from the head end to the aft end is small during this period, the
1.0 that,
s, whenthe the
burntransition
perimeter from
nearthethethird stage
aft end to the fourth
becomes stage occurs,
much smaller, causing andthethepressure
tail off to
values of the burning rate at different positions are close. This situation lasts until about
begins
drop(see Figure
in the whole 6).SRM.
AfterTherefore,
that, the theburn perimeter
regression nearwhole
of the the aft endbecomes
grain becomes muchand
slower
1.0 s, when the transition from the third stage to the fourth stage occurs, and the tail off
smaller,
slower causing thes. pressure
after 1.0 At 1.4 s, theto drop
graininatthe
thewhole
rear endSRM. Therefore,
(behind aboutthe0.18regression
m) has burnedof theout
begins (see Figure 6). After that, the burn perimeter near the aft end becomes much
whole grain becomes
completely. slower continues
The pressure and slower to after
drop,1.0 s. At
until the1.4 s, thegrain
whole grainburns
at theout.
rear end (be-
smaller, causing the pressure to drop in the whole SRM. Therefore, the regression of the
hind about 0.18 m) has burned out completely. The pressure continues to drop, until the
whole grain becomes slower and slower after 1.0 s. At 1.4 s, the grain at the rear end (be-
whole grain burns out.
hind about 0.18 m) has burned out completely. The pressure continues to drop, until the
whole grain burns out.
Energies 2022, 15, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 13
Energies 2022, 15, 1564 10 of 12

Figure 10. Port area at different times.

Figure 10. Port area at different times.
From the port area history, we can observe the erosive burning’s effect on the internal
From the
ballistics of anport areaAt
SRM. history, we can observe
the beginning of the the
SRM erosive burning’s
operation, effect
erosive on the raises
burning internal the
ballistics of an SRM. At the beginning of the SRM operation, erosive
burning rate near the aft end of the SRM, and combines with the ignition gas results burning raises thein
burning
a pressureratepeak
near inthethe
aftSRM.
end of the SRM,
Despite the and
fact combines with the
that the erosive ignition
burning gas results
disappears in a
quickly
pressure peak in
after ignition SRM. as
of the grain, Despite thearea
the port factincreases
that the erosive
and gas burning disappearsinquickly
velocity decreases the port,
after ignition
its effect ofto
lasts the grain,
the veryas theofport
end the area
SRMincreases
operation. and gas velocity
Erosive burningdecreases
changesinthe theoriginal
port,
itsrelationship
effect lasts to the very
between theend of the area
burning SRMand operation.
burnedErosive burningregression,
web in parallel changes theand original
makes
relationship
the burningbetween the burning
area history area and
become more burned
complex andweb in parallel
difficult regression,
to predict, andincreases
and, thus, makes
thetheburning
difficultyarea history become
of evaluating more complex
the internal ballistics.and
When difficult to predict,
the grain begins toand,
burn thus,
out,in-
the
creases the difficulty
grain near the aft end of evaluating
will burn out thefirst,
internal ballistics.
leading to an When
earlierthe
andgrain begins
gentler tail to
offburn
stage.
out, the grain
Besides near the and
the pressure aft end will burn
thruster out first,
deviation from leading to anintent,
the design earlierthe
andlong
gentler tailstage
tail off off
would
stage. let the the
Besides aft end part of
pressure thethruster
and shell (ordeviation
thermal insulation
from the layer)
designbeintent,
exposedthetolong
combustion
tail off
gas, would
stage introducing
let thea hidden
aft end danger
part of to theshell
the whole(or SRM.
thermal insulation layer) be exposed to
combustion gas, introducing a hidden danger to the whole SRM.
5. Conclusions
In this paper, a transient 1D CFD computation model is implemented to evaluate the
5. Conclusions
internal
In thisballistics
paper, afor a star-grain
transient SRM.
1D CFD In the computation,
computation ignition and to
model is implemented erosive burning
evaluate the
are the two main elements considered. A critical temperature model is used
internal ballistics for a star-grain SRM. In the computation, ignition and erosive burning for ignition
simulation.
are the two main Twoelements
differentconsidered.
universal models,
A criticalthe Ma modelmodel
temperature and Mukunda
is used formodel, are
ignition
used for the erosive burning evaluation. Combined with the geometric
simulation. Two different universal models, the Ma model and Mukunda model, are used computations
forthe
for a star-shaped
erosive burninggrain, both the Combined
evaluation. models lead to results
with that have
the geometric good agreement
computations with
for a star-
the experimental
shaped grain, both thedata. The lead
models port to
area shows
results thatthat,
havealthough the erosive
good agreement withburning only
the experi-
occurs at the beginning of the SRM’s operation, its effect can last until the tail off stage.
mental data. The port area shows that, although the erosive burning only occurs at the
This paper validates the two erosive burning rate models, indicating that the Ma model
beginning of the SRM’s operation, its effect can last until the tail off stage. This paper
could be a promising universal erosive burning model. The research can also be used for
validates the two erosive burning rate models, indicating that the Ma model could be a
convenient and quick internal ballistics predictions for star-grain SRMs, and, with suitable
promising universal erosive burning model. The research can also be used for convenient
modifications, for SRMs of other categories.
and quick internal ballistics predictions for star-grain SRMs, and, with suitable modifica-
tions, for SRMs of other categories.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, L.S.; methodology, Y.M.; validation, Y.L. and W.H.; super-
vision,Contributions:
Author F.B. All authorsConceptualization,
have read and agreed
L.S.;tomethodology,
the publishedY.M.;
version of the manuscript.
validation, Y.L. and W.H.; su-
pervision, F.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by the Shanghai Academy of Spaceflight Technology Innovation
Fund (Program
Funding: No. SAST
This research was2019-107)
funded byandthe
Natural
ShanghaiScience Basic Research
Academy Program
of Spaceflight of Shaanxi Innova-
Technology (Program
No. 2020JQ-172).
tion Fund (Program no. SAST 2019-107) and Natural Science Basic Research Program of Shaanxi
(Program no.2020JQ-172).
Data Availability Statement: As most of the data in this manuscript were related to trade secrets, I
cannot
Data provide them
Availability completely.
Statement: In the
As most of future,
the dataifin
necessary, I can share
this manuscript weresome datatowith
related reviewers
trade secrets, Ior
readers.
cannot provide them completely. In the future, if necessary, I can share some data with reviewers
or readers.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Energies 2022, 15, 1564 11 of 12

Abbreviations
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
FVM Finite volume method
ODE Ordinary differential equation
SRM Solid rocket motor

Nomenclature
a Proportionality coefficient in Saint Robert’s law
Ap Port area
Cp Specific heat at constant pressure
Cv Specific heat at constant volume
D Outer diameter of the grain
Dh Hydraulic diameter
e Burned web
h Heat transfer coefficient
l Characteristic length of a star grain
n Exponent in Saint Robert’s law; number of star points in star-grain section
kz Proportionality coefficient in linear erosive burning models
p Pressure
r Burning rate; radius
R Gas constant
s Burn perimeter
T Temperature
Tf Combustion temperature of the propellant
u Velocity
x Axial coordinate of the SRM
z Variable determining erosive burning in linear erosive burning models
α Thermal diffusivity of propellant
ε Erosive burning ratio; angle coefficient of a star grain
λ Thermal conductivity
θ Angle of two adjacent line segments of star (star edges)
ρ Density
Subscripts and Superscripts
0 Value without transpiration; value of normal state (no erosive burning)
∞ Core gas flow
* Threshold value
i Initial value
p Propellant; port
s Propellant surface

References
1. Crawford, B.; Kershner, R. Rocket Fundamentals; NDRC Division: Washington, DC, USA, 1944; Volume 3.
2. Vandenkerckhove, J.A. Erosive Burning of a Colloidal Solid Propellant. J. Jet Propuls. 1958, 28, 599–603. [CrossRef]
3. Razdan, M.K.; Kuo, K.K. Measurements and Model Validation for Composite Propellants Burning under Cross Flow of Gases.
AIAA J. 1980, 18, 669–677. [CrossRef]
4. Arkhipov, V.A.; Zarko, V.E.; Zharova, I.K.; Zhukov, A.S.; Kozlov, E.A.; Aksenenko, D.D.; Kurbatov, A.V. Solid propellant
combustion in a high-velocity cross-flow of gases (review). Combust. Explos. Shock Waves 2016, 52, 497–513. [CrossRef]
5. Lenoir, J.; Robillard, G. A mathematical method to predict the effects of erosive burning in solid-propellant rockets. Symp. (Int.)
Combust. 1957, 6, 663–667. [CrossRef]
6. Deverall, L. The Experimental and Theoretical Comparison of the Erosive Burning Characteristics of Composite Propellants. In
Proceedings of the 3rd Solid Propulsion Conference, Atlantic City, NJ, USA, 4–6 June 1968.
7. Nickerson, G.; Coats, D.; Dang, A.; Dunn, S.; Berker, D.; Hermsen, R.; Lamberty, J. The Solid Propellant Rocket Motor Performance
Prediction Computer Program (SPP), Version 6.0; Air Force Astronautics Laboratory: Wright-Patterson AFB, OH, USA, 1987; Volumes
I–VI.
8. Peretz, A.; Kuo, K.K.; Caveny, L.H.; Summerfield, M. Starting Transient of Solid-Propellant ocket Motors with High Internal Gas
Velocities. AIAA J. 1973, 11, 1719–1727. [CrossRef]
9. Willcox, M.A.; Brewster, M.Q.; Tang, K.-C.; Stewart, D.S.; Kuznetsov, I.R. Solid Rocket Motor Internal Ballistics Simulation Using
Three-Dimensional Grain Burnback. J. Propuls. Power 2007, 23, 575–584. [CrossRef]
Energies 2022, 15, 1564 12 of 12

10. Cavallini, E.; Favini, B.; Di Giacinto, M.; Serraglia, F. SRM Internal Ballistic Numerical Simulation by SPINBALL Model. In
Proceedings of the 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Denver, Colorado, 25–28 July 2009.
11. Mukunda, H.; Paul, P. Universal behaviour in erosive burning of solid propellants. Combust. Flame 1997, 109, 224–236. [CrossRef]
12. Mukunda, H.; Paul, P.; Javed, A.; Chakraborty, D. Extension of the universal erosive burning law to partly symmetric propellant
grain geometries. Acta Astronaut. 2014, 93, 176–181. [CrossRef]
13. Javed, A.; Chakraborty, D. Universal erosive burning model performance for solid rocket motor internal ballistics. Aerosp. Sci.
Technol. 2015, 45, 150–153. [CrossRef]
14. Sivan, J.; Solomon, Y.; Peles, O. Ignition Delay, Erosive Burning and Other Animals-Lessons Learnt about Transient Phenomena.
Sci. Technol. Energetic Mater. 2019, 80, 159–170.
15. Ropia, B.; Upadhyay, J.; Kalal, R.; Shekhar, H.; Thakur, D.G. Study of Maximum Pressure Rise with Erosive Burning in Multi-Grain
Tubular Solid Propellant. Propellants Explos. Pyrotech. 2020, 45, 1398–1406. [CrossRef]
16. Greatrix, D.R. Erosive Burning Model Predictions and Laboratory Test Data: A Retrospective. In Proceedings of the AIAA
Propulsion and Energy 2020 Forum, American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics Virtual event. 24–28 August 2020.
17. Ma, Y.; Bao, F.; Sun, L.; Liu, Y.; Hui, W. A New Erosive Burning Model of Solid Propellant Based on Heat Transfer Equilibrium at
Propellant Surface. Int. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2020, 2020, 1–9. [CrossRef]
18. Gnielinski, V. On heat transfer in tubes. Int. J. Heat Mass Transf. 2013, 63, 134–140. [CrossRef]
19. Johnston, W.A. Solid rocket motor internal flow during ignition. J. Propuls. Power 1995, 11, 489–496. [CrossRef]
20. Cho, I.H.; Baek, S.W. Numerical Simulation of Axisymmetric Solid Rocket Motor Ignition Transient with Radiation Effect. J.
Propuls. Power 2000, 16, 725–728. [CrossRef]
21. Unnikrishnan, C.; Sana, V.; Raghunandan, B. Internal flow simulation of solid rockets using an unsteady Navier Stokes solver. In
Proceedings of the 37th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Salt Lake, UT, USA, 8–11 July 2001.
22. Salita, M. Modern SRM Ignition Transient Modeling (Part 1): Introduction and Physical Models. In Proceedings of the 37th Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Salt Lake, UT, USA, 8–11 July 2001.
23. Caveny, L.; Kuo, K.; Shackelford, B. Thrust and ignition transients of the Space Shuttle solid rocket motor. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 1979,
17, 489–494. [CrossRef]
24. Luke, G.; Eagar, M.; Dwyer, H. Ignition transient model for large aspect ratio solid rocket motors. In Proceedings of the 32nd Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Lake Buena Vista, FL, USA, 1–3 July 1996.
25. D’Agostino, L.; Biagioni, L.; Lamberti, G. An ignition transient model for solid propellant rocket motors. In Proceedings of the
37th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Salt Lake, UT, USA, 8–11 July 2001.
26. Bao, F.; Hou, X. Design of Solid Rocket Motor; China Astronautic Publishing House: Beijing, China, 2016.
27. Hartfield, R.; Jenkins, R.; Burkhalter, J.; Foster, W. A Review of Analytical Methods for Solid Rocket Motor Grain Analysis. In
Proceedings of the 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Huntsville, Alabama, 20–23 July
2003.
28. Moukalled, F.; Mangani, L.; Darwish, M. The Finite Volume Method in Computational Fluid Dynamics: An Advanced Introduction with
OpenFOAM® and Matlab; Springer International Publishing: Cham, Switzerland, 2016.
29. Gordon, S.; McBride, B.J. Computer Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and Applications; Part 1:
Analysis; Publication NASA-RP-1311: Cleveland, OH, USA, 1994.
30. Ma, Y.; Zhan, M.; Bao, F.; Sun, L.; Wei, R. Numerical Simulation of Ignition Transient for Solid Rocket Motors with Large Aspect
Ratio. In Proceedings of the 2021 12th International Conference on Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering (ICMAE), Institute of
Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Athens, Greece, 16–19 July 2021; pp. 66–71.