D

r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
5
TH
EUROPEAN CONFERENCE FOR AERONAUTICS AND SPACE SCIENCES (EUCASS)
Analysis of Pressure Blips in Aft-Finocyl SRM
M. Di Giacinto

, B. Favini

and E. Cavallini

Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering - Sapienza University of Rome

Via Eudossiana 18, 00184 - Rome, Italy
Abstract
Ballistic anomalies, producing even relevant and unexpected variations of the SRM pressure trace from its
nominal prole, have frequently occurred during the ring of several solid rocket motors (Inertial Upper
Stage, Space Shuttle RSRM and Titan IV SRMU) This paper has the purpose to provide a numerical anal-
ysis of the following possible causes of ballistic anomalies in SRM: inert object discharge, slag ejection
and unexpected increase in the propellant burning rate or in the combustion surface. The SRM cong-
uration under investigation is an aft-nocyl SRM with a rst stage/small booster design. The numerical
simulations are performed with a Q1D unsteady model of the SRM internal ballistics, properly tailored to
model each possible cause of the ballistics anomalies. Results have shown that a classication based on
the head-end pressure signature, relating each other, the head-end pressure shape and the ballistic anomaly
cause, can be made. For each cause of ballistic anomalies, a deepened discussion of the parameters driving
the head-end pressure signature is provided.
1. Introduction
Ballistic anomalies in solid rocket motors (SRM) may produce also relevant and unexpected variations of the motor
pressure trace with the respect to its nominal and predicted behavior. These pressure disturbances, also referred to
as blips in the literature may determine also, as a consequence, relevant and important modications of the thrust
delivered by the SRM. The ballistics anomaly can last a time period from few milliseconds to some seconds/tens of
seconds, resulting, in the rst case, only in a temporary modication of the pressure trace of the motor, or, in the second
case, in a complete and relevant deviation of the SRM behavior from their occurrence up to the burn out. In rare cases,
moreover, the cause of the ballistics anomaly may bring about the complete failure of the SRM itself.
In this work, a review of the possible causes for the ballistics anomaly occurrence will be presented and discussed
in details, providing a classication of the pressure blips produced by the ballistics anomalies, as related to each possible
root cause event. Anumerical study will be performed for the dierent possible causes of a pressure blip, considering as
reference conguration an aft-nocyl SRM with a rst stage or booster design, charged with an aluminized propellant.
Each possible cause of the ballistics anomalies will be investigated by means of a parametric analysis with the used
of an unsteady Q1D model of SRM internal ballistic properly tailored to represent each possible cause of a ballistic
anomaly. The aim is to have qualitative and quantitative comparisons among the dierence possible chamber responses
in order to outline a relationship among the dierent shapes of the pressure blips and the dierent possible root causes
for the ballistic anomaly. In particular, the attention will be focused on ballistics anomalies causing a temporary
modication of the nominal pressure trace of the SRM, rather than to ballistic anomalies causing a complete drift of
the SRM behavior.
In general terms, in fact, the main causes for ballistics anomalies in SRMs are the following: 1) a mass ejection,
resulting from a detachment of an object from inner components of the SRMs; 2) a slag ejection phenomenon; 3)
occurrence of high burning rate pockets of propellant; 4) unexpected increase in the burning surface area; 5) combustion
instability. The last cause, combustion dynamic eects, even if of wide interest for basic research activities, will not
be considered in this work, since usually modern SRMs are intentionally designed to not be aected by combustion
instability problems.
This paper discusses the characteristics of each of the possible causes for ballistics anomalies, by performing
a literature survey in section 2, which also describe some real cases in which ballistics anomaly occurred. Then, the
model used for the simulation of the root causes of the ballistic anomalies will be described in section 3, discussing
for each cause the way in which it has been modeled. After, the reference SRM conguration considered in this study
will be depicted in section 4 and, nally, the results of each possible cause for the ballistic anomaly will be discussed
in section 5.
Copyright 2013 by M. Di Giacinto, B. Favini and E. Cavallini
Published by the EUCASS association with permission.
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
M. DI GIACINTO, B. FAVINI AND E. CAVALLINI
2. Literature Survey on Ballistic Anomalies in SRMs
Three main root causes can be identied in the literature studies, which discussed and analyzed ballistics anomalies in
SRMs. A similar classication of them was provided also in the work of Heister and Landsbaum [1], from which this
literature survey has taken some inspiration.
The rst one is the discharge of an inert body which was considered responsible for the failure of the second
stage solid rocket motor of the Inertial Upper Stage (IUS) in the spring of 1983, as discussed in Ref. [2] and one of the
proposed cause for the pressure and thrust anomaly occurred during the ring of rst stage of the IUS motor red in
November 1979, as analyzed in Ref. [1] (in particular, from the igniter, its aluminum housing and internal insulation).
In Ref. [2], in order to reconstruct the experimental thrust anomaly, the investigator simulated the expulsion of single-
multiple inert masses with at-faced cylindrical shape and dierent dimensions, which obstructed the nozzle throat
area, with an unsteady axisymmetric model.
The second one is a slag ejection phenomenon which caused ballistics anomalies in Space Shuttle RSRM for
the ight STS-54 (RSRM-29) on January 13, 1993 and for the Titan IV SRMU. This anomaly was deeply analyzed
by several investigators with both analytical/numerical models and small-scale and full scale cold and hot ring tests
are reported in Ref. [36] and Ref. [7]. The slag ejection phenomenon is related to the transit of a continuous stream
of slag of alumina through the nozzle. This phenomenon may occur at certain times into the ring, because of the
detachment of relevant part of slag from the slag pool, located in the submergence region and at the nozzle back-face,
as a consequence of the nozzle vectoring or the acceleration environment to which the SRM is subjected.
The third one is unexpected sudden increase in the burning rate or in the combustion surface (due to voids in the
grain propellant compound or cracks and debonds), as argued by Heister et al. in Ref. [1] or dynamic burning eects
which may cause pressure spikes during the quasi-steady state of SRMs, as discussed for tactical motors by Blomshield
in Ref. [8].
The rst two, while inferring dierent phenomena (root causes) occurred in the chamber, considered the same
intermediate eect, which, in turn, was responsible for anomalous SRM internal ballistic and performance. This is a
temporary and sudden nozzle throat obstruction by something coming from the inner parts of the SRM, but needs to
be discussed separately, since they describe dierent root causes that can not be treated in the same manner. For the
IUS SRM, it is more or less generically, depending on the author, the expulsion of an inert mass from the nozzle e.g.
an igniter that has come loose for Murdock et al. or the igniter, its insulation and housing for Heister et al. [1, 2].
For Space Shuttle RSRM and Titan IV SRMU, the sudden expulsion of a continuous stream of molten aluminum oxide
from the slag pool present in the submergence region of such SRMs [3, 4, 6, 7].
Even though both the cases consider the same intermediate eect on the SRM internal ballistics (a temporary
obstruction of the nozzle throat), the two phenomena have to be modeled in dierent manner, as also done in the related
references, considering that the passage of an object advected in the nozzle ow and the expulsion of a continuous
stream of slag are very dierent phenomena, with dierent characteristic times of occurrence.
The third class of possible causes, instead, is related to combustion phenomena occurring at the grain propellant
surface: 1) a sudden propellant burning rate anomaly, such as a pocket of propellant which burns at explosive or
even near detonation velocities, as argued by Heister et al. in Ref. [1] for the IUS SRM-2; 2) a sudden increase of
the propellant grain burning surface, as discussed by Heister et al. in Ref. [1], due to the possible presence of voids,
cracks, or debonds in the propellant grain; 3) a dynamic response of the propellant grain, which may cause the onset of
self-sustained (in some cases, bringing to catastrophic failures), or suddenly damped pressure perturbations inside the
combustion chamber [8].
The study of particular cases, involving a combination of the ejection of inert body from the nozzle and the
consequent triggering of a dynamic combustion response has been found in the work of Lovine et al. [9] for a sub-scale
SRM.
3. Model SRM Internal Floweld Model for Ballistic Anomalies Investigation
The model considered for the simulation of all the ballistics anomalies is a Q1D unsteady model of SRM internal
ballistics, properly adapted to account for the dierent possible root causes for the ballistic anomalies. The model is
a derivation of the SPIT model[1015] developed for a simplied study of the uid/structural interaction during SRM
ignition transient, as presented Ref. [16].
The governing equations are the classical Euler set of PDEs 1, with the addition of proper source terms, in
order to account for the presence of cavities (slots, submergence region and oaters), propellant grain mass and energy
addition into the ow, with the addition, in case of the coupling terms due to particle motion in the ow.
2
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BLIPS IN AFT-FINOCYL SRM

(A
p
)
t
+
(uA
p
)
x
= r
b
P
b

p
---
propellant
+
m
s
A
p
V
-
cavities
(uA
p
)
t
+
[{u
2
+ p) A
p

x
p
A
p
x
=
1
2
u
2
c
f
- - -
friction
+ +
(F
D
) A
p
V
- - -
particle
(eA
p
)
t
+
|(e + p) uA
p
|
x
= p
A
p
t
+ r
b
P
b

p
H
f
- - -
propellant
+
m
s
A
p
H
s
V
- --
cavities
(1)
Each of the possible causes of ballistic anomalies is then modeled and hence coupled with the Q1D model, as
will be described in the following.
3.1 Ejection of Inert Object
In order to consider the simulation of object advected in the oweld, the basic hypothesis is that it can be assumed
as an inert particle, locally in thermal equilibrium with the surrounding oweld, so that no energy exchange occurs
among the oweld and the particle itself. As a consequence, the eects of the particle on the carrier ow are only
related to the momentum equation, because of drag force acting on the particle itself and volume eects, because
particle volume is not negligible. A further simplication is that the particle is a sphere with imposed radius.
Under such hypotheses, the motion of the particle can be expressed as given by Eq. (2), using the classical set
of Lagrangian equations for a droplet in a high Reynolds oweld, in which only the drag term is considered, since
virtual mass force, lift force and buoyancy force become negligible for the problem under investigation (big and heavy
particle,
p
] 1 ).

dx
p
dt
= v
p
Re
p
=
|u(x
p
) v
p
| d
p

M
p
=
|u(x
p
) v
p
|

RT
dv
p
dt
=
u(x
p
) v
p

p
=
4
p
d
p
3C
D
|u(x
p
) v
p
|
(2)
Figure 1: Drag Coecient Envelope Denition
For the numerical simulations, the identication of
an upper and lower limit for the drag coecient and for
the particle density is necessary in order to perform a
parametric analysis able to give both a qualitative and
quantitative assessments, with a reasonable margin of un-
certainty, of the eects on the SRM internal ballistics of
particle motion within the oweld. The uncertainties
are primarily related with respect to the aerodynamics
of an object carried within the SRM oweld, for the
determination of the force acting on the object, which
is strongly variable between an almost incompressible
regime, far from the nozzle entrance, and compressible
regime, inside the nozzle, and secondarily with respect
to the density of the object detached from the internal
components of the SRM. In fact, since a strong deviation
from the situation Re
p
= 1 and M
p
1 is expected for
the oweld conditions inside the SRM, a correction to
the classical Stokes solution has to be considered for the
drag coecient (C
D
in Eq. (2)) evaluation and, in turn, to
assess the possible order of magnitude of the drag force
(D). This is done employing the expression of the compressibility/high Reynolds correction provided in Ref. [17], that
is a modication of the Clift-Gauvin drag coecient expression [18]. The margins selected are also necessary consid-
ering that the correlations used for the drag coecient stand in uniform oweld conditions upstream and downstream
the particle itself, which are quite near the conditions of the particle motion inside the SRM oweld, up to around the
nozzle entrance, but not within the nozzle, where the oweld is strongly not-uniform, because of the abrupt expansion
and acceleration of the ow.
3
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
M. DI GIACINTO, B. FAVINI AND E. CAVALLINI
As far as the particle density is concerned, the following upper and lower limits will be considered:
p
= 1500
kg/m
3
, representative the density of a carbon-phenolic thermal protection and
p
= 1900 kg/m
3
, representative the
density of a carbon-carbon thermal protection. Note that this interval contains also the density of the propellant grain,
which is around 1700-1800 kg/m
3
and also the density of the alumina particles at the temperature inside the SRM
(
Al
2
O
3
1600 kg/m
3
[19]), considering valid the JANNAF extrapolation for the alumina density and the experimental
data extrapolated from Titan IV and SICBM SRMs [19], as well as, the density of a high-strength composite material
which constitute, for example, the casing of expendable igniters of SRMs.
3.1.1 Validation against Small-Scale SRM
A validation of the model proposed has been performed with successful results against the experimental data provided
by Lovine, Baum and Levine in Ref. [9], where since no model for the dynamic burning eects is implemented in
this work, the comparison has been limited to the rst strokes caused by the particle transit in the ow. Looking to
the details, in all cases, a very good matching with the experimental data is obtained in terms of shape and amplitude,
especially for the pressure at the nozzle entrance section. Instead, the pressure traces at the head-end of the SRM
show a less good quantitative correspondence with experimental data. Nevertheless, the general very good qualitative
agreement between the numerical simulation and the experimental data can be still appreciated, as well as a very good
matching with the experimental data in terms of shape of the strokes and their extension in time (lasting period of the
pressure strokes).
(a) Test 5 - Pulse 2: Nylon Droplet of diameter 15.24 mm @ 60 bar (b) Test 7 - Pulse 1: Steel Droplet of diameter 11.1125 mm @ 52 bar
Figure 2: Numerical Comparison with Experimental Data from Ref. [9]
The numerical strokes of the head-end pressure show always around the same dierences with respect to the
experimental data: an slight early occurrence in time and a slight underestimation of the peak of amplitude of the stroke.
The rst point is directly due to a non-perfect reconstruction of the experimental test case described in Ref. [9]. In fact,
the slight early occurrence of the head-end stroke is directly due to a approximate reconstruction of the laboratory-scale
acoustics, that can be ascribable to one or the combination of the following uncertainties on the motor: the chamber
head-to-throat length (which can not be extracted in not in a approximate manner from the description of the SRM);
the propellant grain properties, in terms of adiabatic ame temperature, specic heat ratio and molecular weight (the
propellant is generally dened as a AP/HTPB propellant without any other reference to its detailed characteristics); and
the mutual distance among the pressure gauges located at the fore-end and aft-end. Instead, the slight underestimation
of the amplitude of the head-end pressure stroke is supposed to be due to the missing in the simulation model of the
dynamic combustion response of the propellant, which may have been triggered by the pressure stroke generated by
the transit of the particle in the internal oweld.
We recall that, because of the modelling approach chosen for the phenomenon, no assessment or parametric anal-
ysis will be made regarding the possibility that a near spherical particle, in a given simulation set-up (drag coecient,
density, radius, ...), can pass through the nozzle section, or instead, can remain entrapped somewhere inside the SRM,
or hit the nozzle nose.
4
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BLIPS IN AFT-FINOCYL SRM
3.2 Slag Ejection
The slag ejection phenomenon, in principle represents a very dicult event to be modelled, since it involves the
characterization of the slag pool generation along the ring, the simulation of the cause of the detachment from the
slag pool of a ow of alumina, the characterization of the ow of alumina within the SRM oweld and nally its
eects on the SRM internal ballistic. In this work, the approach used is very simplied and also common to the
approach used by the authors who investigated this phenomenon in the literature (refer to section 2). The idea is to
model the slag ejection through only its principal source of perturbation of the SRM internal ballistic: the obstruction
of the nozzle throat available to the gas ow. Hence dierent kind of nozzle throat variations in time have been imposed
to the SRM during the simulation in order to characterize the slag ejection phenomenon: rectangular, triangular and
saw-tooth law. The physical scenario that is intended to be simulated and assessed is a temporary obstruction and,
therefore, a reduction of the nozzle throat for an imposed period of time. In such a manner, for each shape of the
obstruction in time selected, a parametric analysis will be considered the variation of the peak percentage variation of
the throat area (A
t
]A
t
%) and the obstruction duration in time (t).
(a) Rectangular Law (b) Triangular Law (c) Saw-Tooth Law
Figure 3: Imposed Laws of Nozzle Throat Obstruction due to Slag Ejection
3.3 Unexpected Increase in Burning Rate/Combustion Surface
The unexpected propellant burn rate variation, or a burning surface sudden modication can be all modeled as a
variation of the source terms representing the mass addition from the propellant grain, which combines both the case of
an imposed variation of the propellant grain combustion, and the case of a variation of the propellant burning surface.
Consider, in fact, the following expressions:
variation of the coecient of the propellant grain APN combustion law (a):
m
p
=
p
S
b
a_
p
p
re f
_
n
=
p
S
b
a|1 +
a
(t)| _
p
p
re f
_
n
(max|
a
| 1) a perturbed parameter
variation of the exponent of the propellant grain APN combustion law (n):
m
p
=
p
S
b
a_
p
p
re f
_
n
=
p
S
b
a_
p
p
re f
_
n[1+
n
(t)]
(max|(
n
| 1) n perturbed parameter
variation of the propellant burning surface:
m
p
=
p

S
b
a_
p
p
re f
_
n
=
p
S
b
|1 +
S
b
(t)| a _
p
p
re f
_
n
(max|
S
b
| 1)

S
b
perturbed parameter
All the cases can be analyzed considering only the perturbation either of the coecient, or the exponent of the
burning rate law, or of the combustion surface, since the three perturbations are related each other by equating the
expressions for the instantaneous propellant mass addition ((3)).
5
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
M. DI GIACINTO, B. FAVINI AND E. CAVALLINI
1 +
a
(t) =
p
p
re f
n
n
(t)
S
b
= 1 +
S
b
(t) (3)
Based on these simple remarks, in the remainder of the analysis, only the perturbation of the coecient a of the
APN law will be discussed, translating for each case, the variation of the a parameter into the correspondent variation
of the n parameter and of the combustion surface S
b
.
Dierent kind of imposed variation of the propellant mass addition will be imposed, as for the case of the slag
ejection simulation: rectangular and triangular increase.
The possible unexpected increase of the burning surface area will be considered in the frame of ballistics anoma-
lies causing eect for a small period of time during the ring. For this reason, the possible presence of voids and
cracks of propellant grain will be not considered in this work, if not as events which are in some way recovered into the
ring of the SRM, in a very small amount of time (i.e. presence of crack or voids near the burn out of a portion of the
propellant grain). Anyhow, the presence of cracks, voids or debonds can be considered very unlikely events because of
the multiple inspections to which the SRM is subjected for its acceptance. Moreover, they are very simple recognizable
cause of a anomaly during the SRM ring, considering that they imply a modication of the SRM pressure trace for
long times into the burn.
4. Numerical Simulations Set-Up: Baseline SRM Conguration
The numerical simulations will be carried out considering a reference conguration that is an aft-nocyl SRM, which
geometry is shown in Fig. 4 in terms of port area and burn perimeter distributions along the SRM axis.
Figure 4: Aft-Finocyl Q1D Geometrical Conguration
The reference SRM conguration of interest is a
SRM with a rst stage or booster design. Therefore, the
SRM baseline conguration is designed approximatively
10 m long, with a typical aft-nocyl geometry similar
to all the VEGA solid stages, a HTPB/AP/Al propellant,
with an initial propellant mass of around 100 tons.
The geometrical conguration is designed inten-
tionally to be not representative for the initial geometrical
conguration, but rather for a possible geometrical con-
guration of interest during the ring of a typical nocyl
rst stage SRM.
The numerical simulations are performed in a pres-
sure range, which is a typical operational range for a rst
stage, from 67 to 82 bar, in order to assess the possible
eects on the phenomena under analysis of a dierent
operating pressure of the SRM.
A preliminary sensitivity analysis has been per-
formed for the identication of the simulation setup able
to provide, with reasonable precision, consistent numeri-
cal results in the limit of the Q1Dunsteady representation
of the problem. Therefore, a grid convergence analysis,
together with a variation of the order of accuracy of the
numerical scheme adopted and of the CFL number has
been carried out.
In all the investigated cause for the ballistic anomaly, a parametric analysis will be performed for a variation of
the main model input parameters. For the cases of slag ejection and unexpected increase of burning rate/combustion
surface, the parametric analysis will consider a reference pressure of the blip peak amplitude in order to set the input
parameters of the perturbations.
All the simulations are made allowing the oweld to reach its steady-state conditions for the given simulation
set-up and then applying the source of perturbation of the oweld: release of an inert object in the ow, variation of
the nozzle throat area or variation of propellant grain mass addition.
6
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BLIPS IN AFT-FINOCYL SRM
5. Results
5.1 Discharge of Inert Object
First, a preliminary parametric analysis has been set-up for the motion of the particle in the SRM oweld, in order to
have sensitivity about the input parameters which have a negligible role in the dynamics of the particle in the bore.
The results have shown that on the particle dynamics there is almost a negligible eect of accounting, even for
big sizes of particles, of the gravity and moreover, that the starting abscissa of the particle inuences only the residence
time of the particle in the combustion chamber and not its eects on the SRM oweld.
In fact, within the limit of the experimented set-up (particle sizes, densities and drag coecient range of vari-
ation) and model representation capabilities, the particle motion inside the SRM oweld is mainly dictated by the
abrupt acceleration of the oweld due to the expansion in the nozzle, where the gravity force is completely negligible
in comparison with the drag and hence, the small variations in the particle velocity, for dierent initial conditions are
not so much relevant for the particle dynamics in the nozzle.
Instead, far from the nozzle entrance section, drag and gravity can be of the same order of magnitude and, hence,
gravity term plays a role in the particle dynamics in this zone.
Figure 5(a) shows the head end pressure perturbation (w.r.t. the quasi-steady state head end pressure) for dierent
particle radii (25 50 75 100 mm) and in the range of uncertainty of the drag coecient. The results refer to the
selected range of variation for the drag coecient (C
D
= 0.3 1), for
p
= 1900 kg/m
3
and for a pressure inside the
SRM of 67 bar .
(a) HEP Perturbation for Radii 25-50-75-100 mm (b) HEP Perturbation for Radii 25-35-40-50 mm & C
D
= 0.3
Figure 5: Particle Eects on HEP for Dierent Particle Radii @ 67 bar for
p
= 1900 kg/m
3
Figure 5(b) depicts the perturbation of the HEP considering the same analysis of Fig. 5, with a renement of the
analysis for particle radii of 25 35 40 50 mm, for C
D
= 0.3 1 and
p
= 1900 kg/m
3
.
As expected, the higher is the particle radius, the larger is the induced perturbation in the head end pressure.
Moreover, for small particle radii (25 35 40 50 mm), the head end pressure perturbation shows an eect
on the SRM internal ballistics that is mainly dictated by an oscillatory transient phenomenon, related to pressure waves
traveling back and forth in the chamber, with a variation of the mean pressure in time very low, almost negligible, with
respect to the peak value of the pressure perturbation.
For large particle radii (75 100 mm), instead, a strong excitement of the rst chamber longitudinal mode is
present, slightly dierent from a simpler wave propagation phenomenon, which is superimposed with a moderate, but
present, variation of the mean pressure level of the chamber itself.
In all cases, such oscillatory phenomena are damped in some cycle of the chamber characteristic time, up to the
recovery of undisturbed conditions of the oweld.
Moreover, it is important to underline that the variation of the drag coecient of the particle implies only a
modication of the rst and following peaks amplitude, but not of the qualitative response of the combustion chamber
to the particle, which depends only upon the particle radius.
7
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
M. DI GIACINTO, B. FAVINI AND E. CAVALLINI
(a) Pressure Perturbation Waterfall Plot - Particle r
p
= 25 mm (b) Pressure Perturbation Waterfall Plot - Particle r
p
= 100 mm
Figure 6: Pressure Perturbation for Particle - r
p
= 25 100 mm, C
D
= 1,
p
= 1900 kg/m
3
@ p 82 bar
The analysis of the oweld allowed to point out that, in agreement with the reference which analyzed similar
problems in the literature, the strongest perturbation of the oweld occurs at the nozzle throat since that location
has both the following characteristics: it is the nal section useful for a subsonic conditions of the ow, that allow to
pressure perturbation to move upstream and, in the meantime, it is the zone where the oweld gradient are the most
intense because of the abrupt expansion of the ow.
Considering this last remarks on the mechanism of perturbation of the oweld, the following two main param-
eters can be identied as driving elements of the oweld perturbation. The rst one is the particle radius, as discussed
above, which dictates the two dierent kind of response of the combustion chamber: wave propagations, for small
particles; rst chamber mode activation superimposed with a shift of the chamber mean pressure, for large particles.
The second one is ththat have been e particle velocity at its transit across the nozzle throat, which instead imply a vari-
ation of the pressure peaks generated in the head-end pressure, without any kind of eect on the chamber qualitative
response. In particular, for the same particle radius, the slower is the transit of the particle across the throat, the higher
is the amplitude of the pressure wave generated by the its passage across the nozzle throat.
This fact has been also conrmed by the parametric analysis performed for a variation of the following parameters
for a given particle radius: SRM operating pressure and particle density.
Likewise to the variation of the particle drag coecient, in fact, both these parameter aect the particle dynamics
into the SRM chamber, but in particular the sudden particle acceleration in the nozzle, which in turn characterizes the
particle transit velocity across the nozzle. Hence, for the same particle size, the oweld perturbation can be enhanced
for a particle with high density, and/or for a higher operating pressure of the SRM, since both implies a lower transit
velocity of the particle across the nozzle throat, and vice-versa for the opposite cases.
Another parameter which is investigated and whom eects merits to be discussed, is the shape of the SRM nozzle
at the throat. In fact, as discussed before, the source of the main oweld perturbation is the motion of the particle in a
non-uniform oweld region (the nozzle throat - for the subsonic part in order to allow oweld perturbation to move
upstream). Hence, the result of a nozzle shape modication at the throat is that, as much the the prole of the nozzle
is at, as much it induces less intense gradients in the oweld transiting across the throat and, in turn, this results in a
lower perturbation of the oweld for the particle transiting across the nozzle (and vice-versa for steeper nozzle throat
regions).
Some of the results are resumed in Fig. 7, where the relationship between the particle size and the peak pressure
perturbation at the SRMhead-end is shown, considering the uncertainty on the particle dynamic in the owand dierent
SRM operating pressure and particle densities. Figure 7 shows that, for a given particle size, there is a small eect of
the mean pressure level of the chamber and of the particle density (in the range 1500 1900 kg/m
3
), on the percentage
variation of the head-end pressure (p]p%). The HEP perturbation, for a given particle dimension, mainly varies
because of the uncertainty of the drag coecient of the particle (C
D
= 0.3 1). In the selected range of variation of
the parameters (particle density, drag coecient and mean pressure inside the SRM), Fig. 7 allows assessing the range
of particle sizes which are able to provide a given p at the SRM fore-end. (in order to have e.g. a p 0.1 bar, at a
8
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BLIPS IN AFT-FINOCYL SRM
range of pressure between 67 82 bar, a particle of radius between 38 46 mm has to ow through the nozzle throat).
(a) Percentage Pressure Perturbation Range (b) Percentage Pressure Perturbation Range - Detail for Small Particles
& Percentage Pressure Perturbation
Figure 7: Particle Eects on SRM HEP - Summary of Results
5.2 Slag Ejection
The simulations for parametric analysis have been performed considering dierent time interval for the nozzle throat
blockage (t) and nding the variation of the throat area blocked (A
t
]A
t
%), which to matches the target peak in
the HEP perturbation, for dierent set-up conditions. The results of the simulations for the rectangular and triangular
variation laws and p 0.1 bar @ p 67 bar are shown in terms of HEP perturbation over time in Fig. 8 and Fig. 9.
(a) Overview in 1 s (b) Detail of HEP Perturbation in 0.25 s
Figure 8: Variation of Nozzle Throat Area with Imposed Rectangular Law - p = 0.1 bar @ p 67 bar
Looking at the results, the nozzle throat area variation causes the generation of pressure waves which change
the pressure level inside the chamber, but the response of the chamber can be characterized by dierent phenomena
dependently upon the simulation set-up and three dierent kind of chamber response can be identied. For t]
a
1
(
a
: the rst chamber acoustic period), the pressure response is mainly characterized by wave propagation phenomena,
9
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
M. DI GIACINTO, B. FAVINI AND E. CAVALLINI
which shows an activation of the rst chamber acoustic mode and some more complex wave interaction phenomena,
due to the internal shape of the SRM. This region can be further subdivided in two sub-regions: for very small t]
a
,
the chamber response is characterized by wave propagation phenomena, which do not result in a clean activation of
the rst chamber acoustic mode. Therefore beyond thethat have been rst chamber acoustic mode, also some more
complex wave interactions are present in the HEP trace. The second sub-region is instead characterized only by an
almost clean activation of the rst chamber acoustic mode.
For t]
a
1, the pressure trend is represented by a bulk response of the SRM chamber - which can be
adequately accounted for also by 0D unsteady models. For t]
a
O(1), as border situation, the pressure prole and
chamber oweld is characterized by a combination of a bulk response, with superimposed pressure oscillations due
to waves propagation inside the SRM bore.
In all cases, as expected, the pressure perturbation need some cycles of the chamber characteristic time in order
to recovery undisturbed conditions of the oweld.
(a) Overview in 1 s (b) Detail of HEP Perturbation in 0.25 s
Figure 9: Variation of Nozzle Throat Area with Imposed Triangular Law - p 0.1 bar @ p 67 bar
Looking at Fig. 8 or Fig. 9, the case for t = 1 ms is similar to the head end pressure response to the particle
motion through the nozzle throat (compare with Fig. 5(b)), for a particle radius greater than 25 mm. In fact, the time
of passage of the particle across the throat in these cases is of the order of magnitude of 1 ms, that is of the same order
of magnitude of the imposed variation of the nozzle throat. Remember that for the particle motion inside the SRM
oweld, the most relevant eect on the SRM internal ballistic occurs as the particle moves through the nozzle throat.
This eect can be, therefore, modeled as a temporary reduction of the nozzle throat with imposed law, as made in this
section. This fact answers to the reason for which the chamber pressure response is similar, when similar forcing terms
are imposed to the oweld.
For a given time, the change of the kind of imposed nozzle throat obstruction law changes a little both the amount
of obstruction necessary in order to obtain a given HEP perturbation, as well as the borders of the classication of the
dierent kind of the combustion chamber response (i.e. bulk response, wave propagation response, or a combination
of them). In particular, as also qualitatively expected, as the border of the distinction among the bulk response and the
wave propagation response moves forward, as much as the source of perturbation of the oweld gets more abrupt (i.e.
for the rectangular case) and vice-versa. At the same time, for a more abrupt source of perturbation of the oweld,
the peak value of the nozzle throat obstruction gets lower, for the same time period of the perturbation and target HEP
peak.
5.2.1 Eect of Dierent Pressure Level & Dierent Target p
Several other simulations have been performed for the variation of the nozzle throat area, considering a variation of the
SRM chamber pressure level and the target peak p of variation at the head-end of the SRM, in order to have some
sensitivity on the phenomenon.
10
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BLIPS IN AFT-FINOCYL SRM
In this paragraph, a resume of the achieved results will be provided, discussing the eect of a dierent target
p 0.51 bar, for the same pressure level of 67 bar inside the chamber and analyzing the eects of a higher operating
pressure of the SRM ( 82 bar).
The results have shown that the amplitude of the imposed nozzle throat obstruction, as well as a dierent SRM
operating pressure do not alter at all the classication of dierent kind of the the combustion chamber response, which
is only dependent upon the imposed time interval of the perturbation.
Moreover, the amplitude of the throat obstruction is in a linear relationship with the resulting HEP perturbation,
whereas the operating pressure acts as a scaling eect of the resultant pressure perturbation induced for a given nozzle
throat obstruction law, regardless the chamber response regime (wave-dominated or bulk).
Hence, for the same HEP and for the same t and shape of the nozzle throat variation, in order to obtain a
dierent peak in the HEP variation - e.g. p = 0.5 1 bar (small with respect to the HEP of the SRM) - a linear
relationship stands for the imposed A
t
]A
t
% (e.g. if for the rectangular law, t = 1ms, the nozzle throat variation
necessary to obtain p 0.1 bar is A
t
]A
t
% = 2.10 in order to obtain a p 0.5 bar, a A
t
]A
t
% = 10.5 is needed,
simply ve times the A
t
]A
t
% necessary to get p 0.1 bar).
Figure 10: Variation of Nozzle Throat Area with Imposed Laws - Sum-
mary of Results.
( + Solid Lines: Rectangular Nozzle Throat Law; + Dashed-Dot
Lines: Triangular Nozzle Throat Law; + Dashed Lines: Saw-Tooth
Nozzle Throat Law. Dierent t have dierent colors.)
Whereas, for a dierent HEP of the
simulation and for the same t and shape of
the nozzle throat variation, in order to obtain
a given p (small with respect to the HEP
of the SRM), the imposed A
t
]A
t
% varia-
tion can be assessed considering that a linear
rescaling of the imposed perturbation stands,
in reason of the ratio of the mean pressure
levels in the SRM chamber (e.g. if for the
rectangular law, at the HEP of 67 bar, t =
1ms, the nozzle throat variation necessary to
obtain p 0.1 bar is A
t
]A
t
% = 2.10
in order to obtain the same p, at a pressure
of 82 bar, a A
t
]A
t
% = 1.733 is needed,
simply k 67]82 times the A
t
]A
t
% neces-
sary to get the same p, at a dierent SRM
operating pressure).
Moreover, we stress that for either the
variation of the target peak p or the SRM
operating pressure, the shape of the HEP over
time is only dependent upon the imposed t
and hence it keeps of the same shape, with
only a rescaling of it, based on the rst peak
value of the p.
These facts allow inferring that in the
limit of small p, around the operating pres-
sure analyzed, a linear relationship exists
among the imposed percentage variation of
the nozzle throat area (A
t
]A
t
%) and the
peak value of achieved percentage variation
of the head-end pressure perturbation (p]p%), as reported in Fig. 10, which summarizes all the simulations per-
formed. Note that all reduction curves t quite well the constraints that for a null variation of the A
t
, a null variation
of pressure perturbation is obtained. These observations coming from the data reduction of the numerical simulations
performed allows, in fact, to extend the validity for the existent relationship between an obstruction of the nozzle throat
and the induced perturbation of the SRM oweld, beyond the cases analyzed.
5.3 Unexpected Increase in Burning Rate/Combustion Surface
Some tests have been performed in order to get some sensitivity of the eects on the SRM internal ballistics due to a
dierent choice for the location of the imposed variation of the mass addition. These tests have shown that, excluding
a very much concentrated set-up - i.e. very few cells - the results are qualitatively and quantitatively around the ones
for case of an uniform variation of the whole combustion surface, when the appropriate rescaling of the mass addition
perturbation is considered (e.g. if

% is the imposed variation on the whole combustion surface, the case with 2

%
11
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
M. DI GIACINTO, B. FAVINI AND E. CAVALLINI
imposed on a half of the combustion surface gives the same results, independently fromthe location of the perturbation).
Therefore, this choice has been considered for the simulations in the following.
(a) Head End Pressure Perturbation (b) Head End Pressure Perturbation - Detailed View
Figure 11: Eect of Variation of Coecient of Combustion Law APN - Rectangular Perturbation
In case that the variation of the mass addition from the propellant is imposed in a very small region of the
combustion surface, the response of the combustion chamber diers a little from a simple scaling rule given above,
dependently upon the region location and the percentage of mass addition variation (this last can be seen, in a given
region, either as the percentage of variation of the burning rate, or as the percentage of burning surface subjected to
the given variation). Both these parameters (location of the region interested in the variation for the mass addition
perturbation and percentage of variation of the mass addition) change a little the chamber response in terms of head-
end pressure prole. In particular, for the same percentage variation of the propellant mass addition, the location of
the region interested in the mass addition variation modies a little the timing at which its eect are felt at the SRM
head-end (because of its distance from the SRM fore-end). Whereas, the percentage variation of the mass addition
more (or less) localized in a given region of the combustion surface implies a higher (or lower) perturbation of the
oweld, which in turn causes a non-scaling rule for obtaining the given p, which is brought about the non-linearity
of pressure waves generated by the perturbation itself.
Similarly to the case of the imposed variation of the nozzle throat area, the imposed variation on the propellant
grain mass addition has two parameters to be set: the time (t) and the percentage (%) of variation of the mass ow
rate coming from the propellant grain. As for the case of the variation of the nozzle throat area, the simulations have
been performed imposing the t and selecting the percentage variation %, which matches a given target p.
The results of the simulations for a target p 0.1 bar are shown in Fig. 11, for the rectangular variation law
and in Fig. 12, for the triangular variation law.
The results are qualitatively similar with respect to the ones obtained for the imposition of a nozzle throat area
variation (slag ejection), though the forcing of the oweld is completely dierent from that case. Really, the dier-
ences among the results are ascribable and explainable directly as due to the dierent kinds of oweld perturbations
imposed in the two dierent cases. In fact, since the source of the perturbation is less localized for the mass addition
perturbation, in comparison with the one of the throat area variation, for the same time window of imposition of the
perturbation, the response to the m
p
variation brings about less organized - more distributed pressure waves along
the chamber, than the case of nozzle throat variation. The result in term of head-end pressure perturbation is, for the
same t, a less oscillatory trend of the HEP, in comparison with the same t for the nozzle throat area variation.
The main result of this fact is that the classication of the HEP response, on the basis of the time period of the
imposed oweld perturbation in three dierent regions (bulk response, oscillatory response or a combination of both)
still stands. However, each region limit, characterized in terms of the t]
a
parameter, occurs for lower values of this
parameter, so that, for example, the sub-region characterized by wave propagation phenomena, not organized in an
almost pure acoustic excitement of the rst chamber mode, can be no more detected.
12
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BLIPS IN AFT-FINOCYL SRM
(a) Head End Pressure Perturbation (b) Head End Pressure Perturbation - Detailed View
Figure 12: Eect of Variation of Coecient of Combustion Law APN - Triangular Perturbation
Figure 13: Variation of Propellant Grain Mass Addition with Imposed
Laws - Summary of Results.
( + Solid Lines: Rectangular Law; + Dashed-Dot Lines: Triangular
Law. Dierent t have dierent colors.)
As for the case of the oweld pertur-
bation due to the nozzle throat variation, a
parametric analysis have been performed for
a dierent SRM operating pressure and for
dierent target HEP perturbation. The re-
sults have conrmed that a scaling rule and
a linear relationship among the amplitude of
the source and the HEP perturbation stand for
respectively, the dierent operating pressure
and a dierent target p, regardless the dif-
ferent regimes of response of the combustion
chamber, as dictated by the t]
a
parameter.
The results of all the simulations per-
formed are resumed in Fig. 13, where the
obtained peaks value of the HEP percentage
perturbation are plotted against the variation
of the peak of the propellant grain mass ad-
dition imposed (for all the cases: rectangular
and triangular variation laws, for the dierent
t and mean pressure of the simulations).
Note that, as for the case of variation
of the nozzle throat area, the straight lines
which are tting the data, t also with good
agreement the trivial solution that for null
perturbation, no pressure variation is induced
inside the oweld.
13
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
M. DI GIACINTO, B. FAVINI AND E. CAVALLINI
6. Conclusions
The study of dierent possible causes of ballistic anomalies in SRMs has been performed by means of a wide numerical
parametric analysis. The possible sources of ballistics anomalies in SRM, which result in unpredicted pressure blips in
the SRM pressure trace, are the following: ejection of inert object, slag ejection and unexpected increase in the burning
rate or in the combustion surface. Each possible cause of the pressure blips has been reasonably modeled in a simplied
manner in the framework of a Q1D unsteady model of the SRM internal ballistics. The reference conguration for the
study is an aft-nocyl SRM, representative in terms of design of a rst stage/small booster.
A literature survey has shown the importance of assessing the possible cause of the ballistic anomaly in order
to aid in uncovering motor design deciencies or unique motor characteristics, in real applications where ballistics
anomaly occurred and brought about minor/major anomalies in the SRM operative life, but even catastrophic failures.
For these reasons a numerical/theoretical investigation is proposed for a SRM conguration of interest.
The results of the simulations have allowed to acquire a feeling of the physics underlying each cause of the
pressure blips. Moreover, and above all, the analysis of the numerical simulations have shown that the ballistics
anomalies can be classied by means of the footprint they cause in the head-end pressure of the SRM.
For the motor type under analysis, the ejection of inert objects from the SRM nozzle leads more reasonably to a
pressure wave dominated head-end pressure traces, with a very small/negligible variation in the chamber pressure mean
value. Only for very big particles, a relevant mean chamber pressure modication superimposed with intense pressure
waves, which show the activation of the rst chamber acoustic mode, can be observed. The analysis has shown that
these two regimes for the combustion chamber response are only dependent upon the particle dimension Whereas the
peak values of the pressure oscillations induced at the motor head-end are mainly dependent upon the velocity of the
particle transiting across the nozzle throat. In fact, the main and strongest source of perturbation of the SRM oweld
is represented by the transit of the particle across the nozzle throat, where the oweld spatial gradient are the highest
and the generated disturbances of the oweld can propagate upstream. Therefore, a modication of the pressure peak
due to the particle transit across the nozzle throat can be achieved for a variation of these two parameters: the nozzle
prole around the nozzle throat (a reduction of the pressure peak is obtained for atter proles) and the particle transit
velocity at the throat (slowest particles brings to higher amplitude pressure uctuations). In particular, for the same
particle size, the oweld perturbation can be enhanced for a particle with high density, and/or for a higher operating
pressure of the SRM, since both implies a lower transit velocity of the particle across the nozzle throat.
Within the limits of the model used for the slag ejection, that is represented as an imposed obstruction of the
nozzle throat (as done by other authors in the literature), a similar discussion can be outlined for the slag ejection and
the increase in the burning rate or in the combustion surface. In fact, in both cases, the head-end pressure trace can
be characterized by two dierent regimes of response, by a transition region where a combination of the two can be
observed: a pressure waves dominated response and a bulk response. These two dierent regimes for the fore-end
pressure response are dependent upon the ratio of characteristic time period of the disturbance (slag ejection, or the
increase in the propellant grain mass addition) and the chamber rst acoustic mode. Moreover, in both cases, in the
limit of the small disturbances considered of the SRM head-end pressure (due to a nozzle temporary obstruction for a
slag ejection, or a modication of the propellant mass addition), a linear relationship between the peak of the source
of perturbation and the peak of the fore-end pressure obtained. Finally, for the same perturbation cause (nozzle throat
obstruction, or propellant grain mass addition), in the limit of the considered cases, the peak of the pressure disturbance
at the head-end scales linearly with the operative pressure of the SRM, regardless the regime of the combustion chamber
response.
References
[1] S.D. Heister and E.M. Landsbaum. Analysis of Ballistic Anomalies in Solid Rocket Motors. Journal of Propul-
sion and Power, 7(6):887893, 1991.
[2] J.W. Murdock. Rocket Thrust Perturbation from Discharge of an Inert Body. Journal of Propulsion and Power,
2(2):117123, 1986.
[3] R.H. Whitesides and D.C. Purinton. Eects of Slag Ejection on Solid Rocket Motor Performance. AIAA 95-2724,
July 1995. 31st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit.
[4] J.K. Sambamurthy, A. Alvarado, and E.C. Mathias. Correlation of Slag Expulsion with Ballistic Anomalies in
Shuttle Solid Rocket Motors. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 12(4):625631, 1996.
[5] C.B. Hopson. Space Shuttle Solid Rocket Motor Slag Expulsion Mechanisms. AIAA 95-2725, July 1995. 31st
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit.
14
D
r
a
f
t
-
n
e
e
d
r
e
v
i
e
w
ANALYSIS OF PRESSURE BLIPS IN AFT-FINOCYL SRM
[6] T.P. Kibbey. One-dimensional, Two-phase Flow Modeling Toward Interpreting Motor Slag Expulsion Phenom-
ena. AIAA 2012-3885, July-August 2012. 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and
Exhibit.
[7] K.W. Dotson, J.W. Murdock, and D.K. Kamimoto. Launch Vehicle Dynamic and Control Eects from Solid
Rocket Motor Slag Ejection. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 15(3):468475, 1999.
[8] F.S. Blomshield. Pulsed Motor Firings. Technical Report NAWCWD TP 8444, Naval Air Warfare Center
Weapons Division, China Lake, CA 93555-6100, August 2000.
[9] R.L. Lovine, J.D. Baum, and J.N. Levine. Ejecta Pulsing of Subscale Solid Propellant Rocket Motors. AIAA
Journal, 23(3):416423, 1985.
[10] M. Di Giacinto and F. Serraglia. Modeling of Solid Motor Start-up. AIAA Paper 2001-3448, July 2001. 37
th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT.
[11] M. Di Giacinto and F. Serraglia. Modeling of SRM Ignition Transient: Role of the Main Phenomena. AIDAA,
September 2001. XVI Congresso Nazionale AIDAA, Palermo, Italy.
[12] Maurizio Di Giacinto. Numerical Simulation of Solid Motor Ignition Transient. Number 5-ISICP-027-8-pp-
MDG. Begell House Inc., New York, 2001, June 2002. 5
th
International Symposium on Special Topics in Chem-
ical Propulsion, Stresa, Italy.
[13] B. Favini, M. Di Giacinto, and F. Serraglia. Solid Rocket Motor Ignition Transient Revisited. In Proc. of the 8
th
Int. Workshop on Combustion and Propulsion, June 2002. Pozzuoli, Italy.
[14] B. Favini, F. Serraglia, and M. Di Giacinto. Modeling of Floweld Features During Ignition of Solid Rocket
Motors. AIAA Paper 2002-3753, July 2002. 38
th
AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Indi-
anapolis, Indiana.
[15] B. Favini, M. Di Giacinto, and F. Serraglia. Acoustic Phenomena During SRM Ignition Transient. IN-SPACE
PROPULSION I-19032, September 2003. 10-IWCP 10
th
International Workshop on Combustion and Propulsion,
21-25 September 2003, Lerici, La Spezia, Italy.
[16] E. Cavallini, B. Favini, M. Di Giacinto, and J. Steelant. A simplied coupled structural-oweld analysis of solid
rocket motors ignition transient. In 7th European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, 9 May
- 12 May 2011, Brugge, Belgium. ESA Publications, 2011.
[17] E. Loth. Compressibility and rarefaction eects on drag of a spherical particle. AIAA journal, 46(9):22192228,
2008.
[18] R. Clift and W. H. Gauvin. Proceedings of chemeca 70. volume 1.
[19] M. Salita. Deciencies and Requirements in Modeling of Slag Generation in Solid Rocket Motors. Journal of
Propulsion and Power, 11(1):1023, 1995.
15