Mathematical Modelling of Transient Burning of Solid Propellant

Rocket Motors − A Review

Abilashini R (18101002), Akhil K Mathews (18101004), Jothi Mani (18101020),
Vigneshwaran Sankar (18101043), Vijayamanikandan (18101044)

Abstract
In a solid propellant rocket motor, the steady state burning rate is dependent on chamber pressure (Pc ) which
can be modeled using the classical Vieille’s law, r = aPc n while the parameters n and a are determined only by
experimental bases without physical and chemical understanding. It is well known that the burning rate of a
solid propellant during a rapid pressure excursion viz., transient state, is not given by the steady-state relation,
r = aPc n but instead, in general, r = f (Pc (t), Ti , dP
dt
c
, dT
dt
c
, propellant etc.,)[1-8]. The ability to predict the rate
of burning of a solid propellant is of prime importance in the design of high-performance propulsion systems and
serves a number of useful purposes in the scheme of propellant development. Several models are available, so far,
and they are able to, at least qualitatively explain the burn rate characteristics of a wide variety of propellant
interest. However, deficiencies do remain and there is work yet to be done to improve the quantitative aspects
and predictive capability in general. In this term paper, our aim is to discuss two of the available mathematical
models of burn rate along with their origin, advantages, and limitations[2]. First one being, an approximate
theoretical model to define the temperature growth history over the surface of the solid propellant, to predict
transient burn rate in solid rocket motors (SRMs), using a reverse engineering approach. Using the lumped
parameter model approach, the authors arrived at the following ODE from the continuity equation and the ideal
gas equation of state[1]
   
dTc 1 dPc Rω̇A
= Tc − Tc 2 (1)
dt Pc dt Pc
 
Cd At Vc d Pc
r= Pc + (2)
ρp Ab ρp Ab R dt Tc
Second one being,
 an approximate
 analytical model to predict the dynamic burn rate of SRM from its extinction
Pc (t)
compliance  = r0 which can be evaluated by the depressurization test. The author[2] believes that the
unique extinction compliance () will capture the physics and chemistry of the transient burning of the real
motors, which will simplify the performance evaluation with less empiricism. Through this model, a novel
relationship between burn rate and the extinction compliance is established by the author, by effectively using
Laplace transformation[2].

b ti+1
  Z  
1 dP dP
r(t) = Pi + (t − ti ) + Pi + (t − ti ) dζ dt (3)
A dt A ti dζ
P (t)
(t) = = Ae−bt (4)
r0
This term paper is a pointer towards developing a universal model for predicting the transient burn rate of
all class of solid propellant rocket motors.

Nomenclature
ω̇A Average mass flow rate per unit free volume (kg s−1 m−3 )
 Extinction compliance (Pa s m−1 )
ρp Propellant density (kg m−3 )
ζ Dummy variable for time

1
A, b constants obtained from the curve fit of 
Ab Burning surface area(m2 )
At Throat area(m2 )
Cd Mass flow factor
Pc Chamber pressure (Pa)
r Transient/dynamic burn rate(m s−1 )
Tc Chamber temperature (K)
Vc Chamber Volume (m3 )
R Gas constant (J kg−1 K−1 )

1 Introduction
Solid propellant rocket motors belong to the class of
rocket engines, which produce thrust by ejecting mass
out of the nozzle, whose origination dates back to both
ancient and recent. In the recent past, there has been
a continued trend toward the use of larger and more
sophisticated solid propellant rocket motors. Engineers
and scientists are continuously challenged by problems
involving such complicated aerothermochemical pro-
cesses. A solution of these complicated processes re-
quires a fundamental understanding of many branches
of science and engineering, including chemistry, fluid
dynamics, heat transfer, turbulence, thermodynamics,
Figure 1: Typical Solid Rocket Motor
solid mechanics, rocket propulsion, material sciences,
mathematics, and numerical methods for partial and
ordinary differential equations[5]. Since these motors are being used in sensitive areas like propulsion systems etc.,
they require greater accuracy in the prediction and control of the thrust and ignition transients. The ignition tran-
sient is defined as the time interval between the application of the ignition signal and the instant at which the rocket
motor attains its equilibrium or design operating conditions. The igniter in the motor generates the heat and gas
required for motor ignition, which usually lasts for only a fraction of a second (see Fig 2). Solid propellant ignition
consists of a series of complex rapid events that occurs soon after the initiation of ignition signal. Conventionally,
the ignition process divided into three phases viz., the induction interval (time taken for first local propellant igni-
tion). Then follows the flame-spreading phase (time taken to raise the entire surface temperature of the propellant
grain to ignition temperature after induction interval) and finally the chamber-filling phase (during which cham-
ber pressurization occurs due to the addition of energy and mass from the propellant burning and ends when the
chamber pressure reaches the equilibrium value). Figure 2 depicts these series of events clearly in a pressure time
history of a typical solid propellant rocket motor. As stated earlier, due to the increased development towards the
use of sophisticated SRMs, an understanding of the dynamics of ignition is inevitable to the designer for various
reasons. One such reason of primary interest is the probability of pressure overshoot during the ignition transient.
In addition, since the solid propellant grain and many other motor components are viscoelastic in nature, both the
chamber pressure and rate of increase of chamber pressure becomes an important concern. Also, the meticulous
knowledge of thrust especially during the ignition transient may be required for critical trajectory guidance and
control, particularly during the initial phase of motor operation. Hence, the ability to predict and evaluate the
chamber pressure/burn rate during each phase by means of a computational analysis can significantly increase the
efficiency of the preliminary design process with a reduction of both the motor development and operational costs[3].
Fig. 3 demonstrates an unsuccessful mission of a multi-stage rocket, possibly due to pressure overshoot or delayed
choking of the upper spent stage. It can be seen from fig 3 that pressure overshoot can cause motor failure leading
to mission failure or after first stage separation, delayed thrust development of the upper stage, due to insufficient
chamber pressure, can invite recontact between the upper stage and the lower spent stage (t = t6 ) which in turn
leads to mission failure. Hence, the ignition transients is still a problem of interest. In this report, two of the

2
 Figure 3: Demonstrating an unsuccessful stage separation
Figure 2: Typical P vs t trace in an SRM[5] sequences of an multistage rocket[8]

available mathematical models, from open literature, for predicting the dynamic (transient) burning is discussed in
detail. The transient burn rate behavior of solid propellants often occurs under a rapid pressure excursion and is
caused by the finite relaxation time required for the solid and/or gas phases to adjust their temperature profiles[2].

2 Ignition Transient Models : A Review

2.1 Model 1 (1998)
This validated model for predicting the transient burn
rate by including the ignition delay and growth history
of chamber temperature (Tc ) was developed by Sanal
Kumar and Raghunandan. In this analysis, the authors
have made the following assumptions. Pressure distri-
bution in the gas phase is assumed uniform in space but
varies with time and erosive burning is neglected. The
chamber volume and surface area available for burning
at any instant are constant. Propellant grain defor-
mation is negligible during the transient period. The
continuity equation for the gas phase and equation of
state can be written as
dρg
= ω̇A (5)
dt
Pc
ρg = (6)
RTc Figure 4: Transient chamber temperature growth history
Combining both equations, with different ignition delays[1]
     
dTc 1 dPc Rω̇A t = 0, Tc = Ts
= Tc − Tc 2 subjected to (7)
dt Pc dt Pc t → ∞, Tc = Tf

Sanal Kumar and Raghunandan[1] reported that most of the earlier investigators arrived at the solution of
transient properties by making an assumption of constant chamber temperature in an SRM. This assumption is
simply not sufficient owing to the fact that the chamber temperature will follow a definite growth history from
propellant surface temperature (Ts ) to final temperature (Tf ) which is strongly a function of pressure (Pc ) and
pressurization rate ( dP
dt ) in the motor. An approximate analytical solution for Tc by taking the instantaneous value
c

dPc
for Pc and dt ,is obtained by solving Eq.(7):

3
 Figure 5: Validation of model developed in [1] Figure 6: Validation of model developed in [1]

dPc

 1

dt Rω̇A
Tc =   1 dPc
(8)
e−( Pc )t
Tf −Ts
1+ Ts
dt

In this analysis, the authors, using the reverse engineering approach, arrived at an expression for dynamic burn
rate(r),based on the constant volume approximation of the mass conservation inside the chamber.

dPc
r = r0 (1 − c1 e−θt ) + β(1 + c2 e−θt ) (9)
  dt
1 Ti g(Tf − Ts ) V c (Tf − Ts )θ V c Tf − Ts
where, r0 = aPc n ; θ = log ; c1 = ; β= ; c2 = (10)
tig Ts (Tf − Tig ) Cd At RTf Ts ρp Ab RTf Ts

While a and n are the empirical constants that constitutes the steady state burn rate(r0 = aPc n ) . Using the
measured pressure time history obtained from an SRM, a transient burning rate profile can be computed with the
help of Eq.(9). It is a formidable task to measure the burn rate in an SRM during transient period accurately.
Hence this model is verified by incorporating the kernel of the transient burning in a temporal model [P(t) model] to
predict the pressure transient in SRMs. It is evident from the Figure 5,6 that, this model cannot be applied directly
to predict the ignition transient of SRM as experimental measurements such as Pc and dP dt are the required inputs.
c

Still, the crux of the model can be effectively incorporated in any fluid flow solvers, that are capable of predicting
the ignition transient. This has been made possible due to the theoretical modeling of chamber temperature growth
history Eq.(8), which was assumed as constant by the earlier investigators.

2.2 Model 2 (2007)

An approximate analytical model has been developed by Sanal Kumar to predict the dynamic burn rate of SRM
from its extinction compliance which is defined as the ratio of instantaneous chamber pressure and the steady state
burn rate. Extinction compliance can be evaluated from the depressurization test. The author reported that the
depressurization test is relatively unique and will yield repeatable experimental results with much less ambiguity
and scatter.The burn-rate law in unsteady form can be correlated with chamber pressure and pressurization rate
by defining burn rate kernel φ(t) as,
Z t
dP
r(t) = φ(t) dt (11)
0 dt

Since it is a tedious task to formulate the burn rate kernel in a unique functional form, the author adopted burn-
rate superposition principle that states that the sum of the burn rate output resulting from each component of
instantaneous pressure input is equal to that of the burn rate output resulting from the combined pressure input.

4
 Figure 7: Validation of model developed in [2] Figure 8: Validation of model developed in [2]

Defining burn-rate compliance(β) as the ratio of the instantaneous burn rate and the steady-state chamber pressure
then the superposition principle in mathematical form is written as:
m Z t 
X m→∞ ∂P (ζ)
r(t) = ∆Pi (t)β(t − ζi ) ≡ β(t − ζi ) dζ (12)
i=1 0 ∂ζ

where ζ is the dummy variable for time. A similar argument can be applied to the instantaneous pressure and using
the definition of extinction compliance (),
m Z t 
X m→∞ ∂r(ζ)
P (t) = ∆ri (t)(t − ζi ) ≡ (t − ζi ) dζ (13)
i=1 0 ∂ζ

The author has used the Laplace transform effectively to Eq.(12) and Eq.(13) and correlated extinction compliance
with burn-rate compliance, in a powerful relationship, in the transformed variable s as,
1
L()L(β) = (14)
s2
The author had reported that extinction compliance () can be found more accurately than the burn-rate compliance
(β) from the experiments. Hence from the available depressurization results, extinction compliance () of an SRM
was fitted in the form, for instance,  = Ae−bt . Note that the good fit introduces empiricism to this model through
the constant A and b. From the good fit of , β can be found using Eq.(14). Therefore, the dynamic burn rate can
be expressed as,

b ti+1
  Z  
1 dP dP
r(t) = Pi + (t − ti ) + Pi + (t − ti ) dζ dt (15)
A dt A ti dζ

The author also reported that the proposed model is simple and inexpensive, in comparison to the available
techniques, for predicting the transient burn rate, since depressurization tests offer a relatively unique functional
relationship for extinction compliance. The developed model was validated by the author[2] against the experimental
data as shown in Fig.6,7. The extinction compliance required as input was measured experimentally and can be
seen in the inset of Fig.6,7.

3 Concluding Remarks
This report addresses the two of the available transient burn rate models associated with solid propellant rocket
motors. This study also leads to say that although it is a tedious task, it is possible to formulate an approximate
analytical solution for modeling the dynamic(transient) burn rate with simple assumptions for complex systems.
Model 1 uses the reverse engineering approach to predict the transient burn rate of SRM. While Model 2 gives

5
us a novel mathematical technique to predict the transient burn rate of SRM by effectively employing Laplace
transformation. Both of the models discussed here requires experimental inputs such as chamber pressure history
and extinction compliance. Yet they need to be appreciated for its simplicity and efficiency. Through this study,
we infer that transient as well as steady state burn rate in an SRM is a function of numerous parameters such as
igniter flow, ignition delay, flame spreading, Pc , dP c
dt , Tig , propellant chemistry, composition, reaction mechanism,
port dimensions etc,. Hence arriving at a unique analytical formulation for transient burn rate is a tedious task, at
least in the near future. Literature review further reveals that modeling of the propellant burning characteristics
with use of data science methods (Artificial Neural Network) can find wide application for existing as well as
futuristic combustion researches[7].

Acknowledgement
We would like to thank Prof. Navrose for giving us the opportunity to present this report, also we would like to
extend our gratitude to prof. Sanal Kumar for his personal correspondence in this report work.

References
1. V.R.Sanal Kumar, B.N.Raghunandan, A Reverse Engineering Approach to Modelling Transient Burning Rate
of SRMs, AIAA-98-3964.

2. V.R.Sanal Kumar, Evaluation of Dynamic Burn Rate from Extinction Compliance of SRMs, Journal of
Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 44, No. 2, March-April 2007.
3. Herman Krier, Solid Propellant Burning Rate During A Pressure Transient, Combustion Science and Tech-
nology, 1972, Vol. 5, pp. 69-73.

4. K.K.Kuo, R.Aacharya, Applications of Turbulent and Multiphase Combustion, Published by John Wiley &
Sons, Inc., Hoboken, New Jersey, ISBN: 978-1-118-12756-8.
5. Fundamentals of solid propellant combustion, edited by K.K.Kuo, M.Summerfield, Progress in AIAA, Volume
90.
6. Junaid Godil, Ali Kamran, Numerical simulation of ignition transient in solid rocket motor: a revisit, Aircraft
Engineering and Aerospace Technology, Vol. 89 Issue: 6, pp.936-945, https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-04-2015-
0109 (2017).
7. Victor S Abrukov et al., Development of the Multifactorial Computational Models of the Solid Propellants
Combustion by Means of Data Science Methods Phase I & II, 2018 Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA
Propulsion and Energy Forum, (AIAA 2018-4961).

8. VR Sanal Kumar et al., Diagnostic Investigation of Nozzle Flow Choking Time and Stage Separation Sequence
of a Multi-stage Rocket, 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA Propulsion and Energy
Forum, (AIAA 2016-4770).