See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348240150

Design of a Dual Thrust Solid Motor using Star Grains

Conference Paper · January 2021

DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

CITATIONS READS
0 213

3 authors, including:

Hatem Belal
Independent Researcher
23 PUBLICATIONS   38 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Monopropellant Catalytic Thruster View project

Bipropellant Engine Project View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Hatem Belal on 19 January 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 AIAA SciTech Forum 10.2514/6.2021-1022
11–15 & 19–21 January 2021, VIRTUAL EVENT
AIAA Scitech 2021 Forum

Design of a Dual Thrust Solid Motor using

Star Grains
Mostafa El-Naggar1 , Hatem Belal.2
Egyptian Armed Forces, Cairo, Egypt

Hamed M. Abdalla3
Military Technical College, Cairo, Egypt
Downloaded by 156.213.149.72 on January 5, 2021 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

Dual thrust profile using single chamber offers great opportunity in extending range of
tactical missiles by mitigating the drawbacks of other dual thrust motor arrangements. This
method for achieving dual thrust profile can be implemented using different grains
arrangement e.g. tubular-tubular, star tubular, star-end burning etc. or different propellant
compositions. In this paper, Star-star configuration is presented. The advantage of the
proposed arrangement is higher volumetric loading compared to other arrangement. In
addition, effects of different geometric parameters on dual thrust profile are investigated.
Finally Genetic algorithm optimization module is applied in order to fit the design into
certain objective mission. Results showed that number of star points and star angular
fraction affect only transition phase, while geometry of narrow star affect both booster and
sustainer phase.

I. Nomenclature
A Burning area –with suffix corresponding to the specific surface-
ε Angular fraction.
N Number of star points.
s+f Maximum internal radius.
f Fillet radius.
θ Opening angle of star points.
w Web thickness.
Burnt distance
y1, ymax Distance at end of first phase and maximum allowable burning distance respectively
lg1, lg2 Length of wide star grain and narrow star grain respectively
Rout Outer radius of grain
rin1, rin2 Internal radii. of cavity for wide star and narrow star respectively
D1, D2 Internal diameter of the wide star grain and narrow star grain respectively
DTRMs Dual Thrust Rocket Motors
Vc Chamber free volume
Pc Combustion Pressure
R Universal gas constant
Tc Combustion temperature
Acr Critical area of nozzle
RMSE Root mean square error
1
M.Sc. Student, Egyptian Armed Forces.
2
Ph.D. Egyptian Armed Forces, AIAA Member.
3
Associate Professor. Rocket Department, Military Technical College

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2021 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
 II. Introduction
The objective of dual-thrust profile is to achieve to level of acceleration, one is a high acceleration in order to speed
up the missile from launch velocity (which may be zero when launched from ground or aircraft speed when air
launched), and this is called booster phase. The other level of acceleration is just the value needed to overcome the
aerodynamic drag hence keeping the missile at nearly constant speed. Dual thrust profile can be achieved through
different methods the oldest method is to use two different motors these motors can be separated from the missile
after booster propellant is consumed e.g. the ex- USSR missile SA-2 and SA-3. In some cases , the booster motors
are not separated but will be carried out for the rest of flight and this is done in small tactical motors e.g. BGM-
71(TOW missile ). These two options have drawbacks, as the separation need a complex mechanism and in some
cases the failure in separation endanger all the mission, and on the other hand, carrying a dead weight of the empty
booster has negative impact on range. The more suitable choice for achieving dual thrust profile in tactical motors is
to use a single grain single-chamber configuration. This configuration is a dual thrust rocket motor (DTRM). In this
case a grain with a special design is required: a first phase with large burning surface Fig. 1 or using propellant with
high burning rate Figs. 2., 3, followed by a second phase with smaller burning area or by using propellant smaller
burning rate. The most practical dual thrust motors use, a radial burning grain for boost and end burning grain as
sustain or radial star grain for boost and a tubular grain for sustain[4,5].
Downloaded by 156.213.149.72 on January 5, 2021 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

Fig.1 Cross section in AIM-7F dual thrust motor; using Star-Tubular configuration [1]

Fig.2 Cross section in AGM-45 Shrike dual thrust motor using different propellants [2]

Fig.3 Cross section in Evolved SeaSparrow dual thrust motor [3]

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Star grain has been studied for more than five decades years. The main advantage of star grain is tailorability, as
using different combination of star grain design parameters (angular fraction, number of star points, inner radius )
can achieve different thrust level in addition to higher volumetric loading (defined as the volume of propellant to
volume of combustion chamber ) than the baseline tubular grains[4,6,7]. Star grains have been used in different
classes of motors starting from the 260” SRM which is the largest built, test but not fly solid rocket motor with
number of star points only 3[8] , to the pyrogen igniter of the ex-space shuttle solid rocket booster separation motor
with number of star points 40[9] .
The main goal of the present study is to design a DTRM using only star grains, Fig 4 show the comparison
between achievable volumetric loading -keeping the port dimension nearly the same to avoid erosive burning-for the
two classical case namely tubular -tubular and star-tubular in addition to star-star configuration., Calculation shows
that tubular-tubular can achieve 72 % followed by star-tubular which can achieve 80% and the proposed
configuration can achieve 85%.
Downloaded by 156.213.149.72 on January 5, 2021 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

a) Tubular – Tubular grain [10] ( )

b) Star – Tubular grain [11] ( )

c) Star - Star grain[1]( )

Fig. 4 Cross sections for the different grain configuration for DTRMs

III. Burn-back analysis

A. Burnback analysis with experimental validation

The baseline grain has un-inhibited faces, the numbering of faces with the baseline dimensions are shown in Fig.
5a, due to having un-inhibited faces, the length of grain changes during burning providing progressivity in burnback
analysis. The burn-back of the grains is shown in Fig.5b where the transition section is approximated using sharp
edge to simplify the analytical equation rather than considering an arc of a circle with its center at the original
transition plane.

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 a) b)
Figure 5. Longitudinal section grain geometries with its burnback [4]
Analytical study showed that different configuration exist depending on the relations between of w ,
where w is the web thickness , Is the condition of ending burning of first phase the maximum The
Downloaded by 156.213.149.72 on January 5, 2021 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

maximum allowable burned distance of the propellant both calculated using the Eq.(1) and Eq.(2)

(1)

(2)
There are three types of configurations; configurations 1 with to ( <w), and this is the typical star grain and
most of star grain design fall in this configuration, and Configuration 2 corresponds (w< < ) and finally
configuration 3 with ( > ), Fig. 6

N=7, f= 3 mm, =0.5 , =75 N=7, f= 3 mm, =0.7, =95 N=7, f= 3 mm, =0.7, =105
y1=13.01 mm, ymax=21 mm y1=23.1 mm, ymax=25 mm, y1=25.89 mm, ymax=25 mm
a) Configuration -1 b) Configuration -2 c) Configuration -3

Fig. 6 Configurations of star grains with typical design parameters

The details of these configurations are discussed in a previous publications of the authors [4] with the detail of
derivations are given in appendix in [12]. In order to predict the pressure time curve for the proposed design, a 0-D
internal ballistic module is applied. The basic equation for this module according to [13] is Eq. (3) as follows:

√ (3)
3
where , Pc, , , , , are chamber free volume (m ), Combustion Pressure (Stagnation Pressure), solid
propellant density, universal gas constant, Combustion temperature, Burning area, Critical area of nozzle
respectively, the comparison between the predicted pressure trace and experimental results measured in 6” motor -
which has the space for a grain with total length 277 mm and diameter 152 mm only-., is shown in Fig. 7.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 a) b)
N=7, ε =0.5, f=3 mm, w1=16 mm, w2=51 mm, lg1=120
mm, lg2=157 mm, D1=120 mm, D2=50 mm and =75
Downloaded by 156.213.149.72 on January 5, 2021 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

Fig. 7 Analytical burnback analysis with experimental validation (a)Burnback of the baseline case
with design parameters (b) Comparison between predicted and experimental P-t curve[4]

B. Parametric Study
In order to understand the effect of each parameter on the overall performance, a systematic study of changing one
variable at a time considering all other parameters constant with baseline case is the same as in Fig. 7. These results
in the following figures, where the variables are grouped depending on their effect
a- Parameters affecting transition: Fig.8
These are number of star points (N) and angular fraction (), where increasing N and decreasing  leads to
sharper transition , this is in agreement with analytical studies that show changing these variables affect
sliver area in star grain [13]

a) Effect of angular fraction b) Effect of number of star points

Fig.8 Parametric study for group A: parameters affecting transition;  and N

b- Parameters affecting booster phase only

This group contains only star angle (), as it affect only the booster phase with minor effect on transition
(Fig.9)

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Fig.8 Parametric study for group B: parameters affecting booster only; 
c- Parameters affecting booster and sustainer phases.
This group consists of inner radius of both wide and narrow stars (rin1, rin2) and length of wide star (Lg1)
Downloaded by 156.213.149.72 on January 5, 2021 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

.where increasing length of the wide star and increasing inner radius of the narrow star increases the
burning area at booster phase without affecting the transition point, while increasing inner radius of wide
star, affect both booster burning area and transition point.

a) Effect of wide star b) Effect of narrow star c) Effect of wide star

inner radius inner radius length

Fig.9 Parametric study for group C: parameters affecting both booster and sustainer;
As a conclusion for parametric study, Fig 10 show the effects of main parameters

Fig.10 Effects of main parameters on burnback results;

IV. Case Studies and Optimization

However, the previous design is not optimized, as compared to a typical dual thrust profile. This typical dual
thrust profile should have the sustainer time to be three time booster time, and booster thrust is 4:5 times sustainer

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 thrust [14] , assuming a typical composite solid propellant with pressure index 0.3:0:4, this results in booster burning
area about twice the sustainer burning area (Fig 11a).

a) Objective burnback area b) Objective pressure-time curve

Downloaded by 156.213.149.72 on January 5, 2021 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

Fig. 11 Dual thrust profile objective function

There are many alternatives arises by switching the inhibited surfaces, this results in 4 cases shown
schematically in Fig. 12

a) Case #1 b) Case #2 c) Case #3 d) Case #4

Fig. 12 Different cases arise from inhibiting surface

The cases where surface 3 or 5 may be inhibited is target increasing volumetric loading at the expense of the
available burning area as shown in Fig 13 [15]

Fig. 13 FW-5 Filament Wound Motor [15]

The differences between available burning areas for the different cases are shown in Fig.14. where the effect of
inhibiting surface 5 (case #2, case #4) results in reduction of available burning area in booster phase but results in
more neutral burning in sustainer phase. In contrast inhibiting surface 3 only (case #3) results in large burning area
in booster phase and increase progressivity in booster till the transition point where the available area in case #3 is
larger than that of case #1-which has no inhibited surface except the outer surface-The same trend is observed for
cases #2 and #4.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Fig. 14 Comparison between burnback results for all cases
Due to interaction between the parameters and existence of parameters that affect both booster and sustainer
phase an optimization module is used, where the root mean square error between the objective pressure –time curve
Downloaded by 156.213.149.72 on January 5, 2021 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

and resultant pressure time curve is minimized through usage of MATLAB Genetic algorithm tool as devised in
Fig.15 The genetic algorithm (GA) is a method for solving both constrained and unconstrained optimization
problems that is based on natural selection, the process that drives biological evolution. GA repeatedly modifies a
population of individual solutions. At each step, selects individuals at random from the current population to be
parents and uses them to produce the children for the next generation. Over successive generations, the population
"evolves" toward an optimal solution. The great advantage of genetic algorithm is that it can be applied to solve a
variety of optimization problems that are not well suited for standard optimization algorithms, including problems in
which the objective function is discontinuous, non-differentiable, stochastic, or highly nonlinear [12].

Fig.15 Optimization Module flow chart

Where the error is the root mean square error and calculated as in eq. 4

√ ∑( ) (4)

V. Results and discussions

Applying the optimization module to case #1 and case #2 only as both case #3 and case #4 are similar to them
respectively. The results of optimization module are shown in Fig.16 for case #1 before and after optimization, and
in Fig. 17 for case #2 before and after optimization too.
Inspecting Fig. 16a show that the baseline differs from objective function in many ways, first the time of booster
is larger than desired, second, the transition is long while-the desired transition is a sharp transition -except in some
missile application the design requires a cruise time between booster and sustainer which is not the case here-,

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 finally the sustainer phase show highly regressive behavior. However, From Fig. 16 b which show the expected
pressure-time curve for the optimized case, it is clear that the time of booster operation is in agreement with
objective profile, in addition, the transition complies with the desired transition but the optimized case which has the
minimum RMSE of 39% compared to 260% before optimization, could not get the sustainer neutral profile as
request by the objective function. However the progressivity is less severe than the case before applying the
optimization module.
Downloaded by 156.213.149.72 on January 5, 2021 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

Initial design parameters: Proposed design parameters (After optimization)

N=7, ε =0.5, f=3 mm, lg1=120 mm, lg2=157 mm, N=8, ε =0.23, f=3 mm,, lg1=111 mm, lg2=163 mm,
D1=120 mm, D2=50 mm and =75 D1=127 mm, D2=58.8 mm and =75
Fig (16) Case #1 (a) Initial design (b) Optimized design
For case #2,which differs from case #1 and has surface 5 inhibited, therefore the available burning area is
smaller than in case #1. This is clear from Fig. 17a which shows that the main discrepancies between the analytical
and objective pressure-time curves are lower pressure in booster, longer booster time and finally lower pressure in
sustainer. The optimization module successfully overcome the first and second discrepancies, but failed to overcome
the third discrepancy. However the RMSE is decreased significantly from 290% to only 57%

Initial design parameters: Proposed design parameters (After optimization)

N=7, ε =0.5, f=3 mm, lg1=120 mm, lg2=157 mm, N=3, ε =0.342, f=3 mm, lg1=148 mm, lg2=129 mm,
D1=120 mm, D2=50 mm and =75 D1=128 mm, D2=60 mm and =71
Fig (17) Case #2 (a) Initial design (b) Optimized design

VI. Conclusion
Star grains showed a good tailorability. As with only changes of star grain design parameters, there is good
controllability on both relative durations of booster and sustainer phase, and, the transition between the booster
phase and the sustainer phase. This tailorability comes at the cost of more complicated analytical burn-back where
different configurations with each configuration have multi-zone with different burning regimes. Both The
analytical procedure for predicting burnback analysis for a star-star configuration and a 0D internal ballistic module
were validated against experimental captive firing of a ballistic test motor of 6” size,

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Parametric study showed that the most effective parameters in shaping the transition stage are number of star
points and angular fraction; while internal radii of wide and narrow stars affect only level of thrust with internal
radius of narrow star affect both phases. A GA-module was proposed and successfully reduced the discrepancy
between initial design and objective pressure-time curve but it needs more attention and research to propose a design
modification in order to further decrease such error

References
[1] Colucci, S. E. “Suppression of A Longitudinal Mode Instability In A Boost-Sustain Solid Rocket Motor
“CPIA 261 11th JANNAF Combustion Meeting Vol I P603 1974
[2] Moore,Thomas L. "Solid Propulsion Enabling Technologies and Milestones for Navy Air-launched
Tactical Missiles" AIAA Centennial of Naval Aviation Forum "100 Years of Achievement and Progress"
[3] Moore, Thomas L. "Solid Rocket Development at Allegany Ballistics Laboratory" 35th Joint Propulsion
Conference and Exhibit, 20 June 1999 - 24 June 1999 Los Angeles,CA,USA AIAA 1999-2931
[4] M El-Naggar et al 2020 IOP Conf. Ser.: Mater. Sci. Eng. 973 012001.
[5] G. P. Sutton and O. Biblarz, Rocket Propulsion Elements, Eighth ed.: John Wiley & Sons, 2010.
[6] W. Brooks, Solid propellant grain design and internal ballistics SP- 8076: National Aeronautics and Space
Downloaded by 156.213.149.72 on January 5, 2021 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2021-1022

Administration, 1972.
[7] Stein, S. D. "Benefits of the Star grain Configuration for a Sounding Rocket," ed: United States Air Force
Academy Department of Astronautics, USAFA, CO, 2008.
[8] Crimmins P, Cousineau M, Rogers C, and Shell V “The 260-The largest solid rocket motor ever tested”
36th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AIAA-1999-3690
[9] Adams,I. C. and Call, F. W. " Space Shuttle SRM Development" 1979 JANNAF Propulsion Meeting
Volume I ,CPIA Publication 300,1979
[10] Abdel Gawad, A. R. M. Y. Mohamed, H. M. Abdalla, and M. A. Elsenbawi, "Analytical Prediction of
Dual-Thrust Rocket motors under Uncertainties," in International Conference on Aerospace Sciences and
Aviation Technology, 2015, vol. 16: The Military Technical College, pp. 1-12.
[11] Hashish, A. M. Y. Ahmed, H. Abdallah, and M. Elsanabawy, "Design of Solid Propellant Grain for
Predefined Performance Criteria," in AIAA Scitech 2019 Forum, 2019, p. 2014.
[12] M El-Naggar “Design of Solid Rocket Motor for Predefined Performance Criteria” M.Sc.Thesis ,Military
Technical College , 2020.
[13] M. Barrere, Rocket Propulsion, Second ed.: LTAS, 1960.
[14] Eugene L. Fleeman "Tactical Missile Design" Second Edition AIAA Educational Series, 2006.
[15] Chase, Charles A. "Pioneers in Propulsion A History of CSD,Pratt & Whitney’s Solid Rocket Company "
46th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit 25 - 28 July 2010, Nashville, TN,
AIAA 2010-6909

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

View publication stats