Propellant Grain

The propellant utilized in amateur experimental rocket motors may be

simple in composition, being comprised of two main constituents -- fuel
and an oxidizer. Such is the case with the "sugar" based propellants.
Experimental composite propellants, on the other hand, may have a
composition that is fairly complex, and may contain oxidizer of various
mesh sizes, polymer binder, and even metals such as aluminum or
magnesium. Curing agents, phase stabilizers, and solvents may be other
additives included in small percentages.
For any propellant, additives may control the burnrate, either to
accelerate or to slow the rate. An opacifier may be added to absorb heat
that may otherwise be transmitted through a translucent grain resulting in
unpredictable burning.
Regardless of the composition, however, all propellants are processed into
a similar basic geometric form, referred to as a propellant grain. As a
rule, propellant grains are cylindrical in shape to fit neatly into a rocket
motor in order to maximize volumetric efficiency. The grain may consist of
a single cylindrical segment (Figure 1), or may contain many segments.
Usually, a central core that extends the full length of the grain is
introduced, in order to increase the propellant surface area initially
exposed to combustion.

Figure 1 -- Hollow cylindrical grain

The core may have a wide variety of cross-sections such as circular, star,
cross, dog-bone, wagon-wheel, etc., however, for amateur motors, the
most common shape is circular. The core shape has a profound influence
on the shape of the thrust-time profile, as shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2 -- Core shapes and influence on thrust curve
Click for more...

How does the core shape influence the thrust-time curve? The thrust (and
chamber pressure) that a rocket motor generates is proportional to the
burning area at any particular instant in time. This is referred to as
the instantaneous burning area. The burning surface at any point recedes
in the direction normal (perpendicular) to the surface at that point, the
result being a relationship between burning surface and web distance
burned that depends almost entirely on the grain initial shape and
restricted (inhibited) boundaries. This important concept is illustrated in
Figure 3, where the contour lines represent the core shape at successive
moments in time during the burn. Notice that the shape of the thrust-time
curve changes, with the vertical lines corresponding the the same
successive moments during the burn. As can be seen , the star grain
provides an approximately neutral burn, as the surface area remains fairly
constant throughout the burn duration. A neutral burn is usually desirable
because it provides for greater efficiency in delivery of total impulse, as a
nozzle operates most efficiently at a constant chamber pressure.
Figure 3 -- Grain regression

It is important to recognize that the burning area of a propellant grain

is a key parameter in determining the performance of a rocket
motor. The primary function of a propellant grain is to produce
combustion products at a prescribed flowrate defined by:

where p is the propellant mass density, Ab is the burning area, and r is

the propellant burn rate. A complete discussion on burn rate is provided in
the Propellant Burn Rate web page. The total burning area consists of all
propellant surfaces that are exposed to combustion (and thus not
inhibited from burning by some means). The grain burning area is
dependant upon:

 Grain geometry, as described above

 Use of inhibitors

An inhibitor is a material or coating that is sufficiently heat resistant such

that any propellant surfaces protected by the inhibitor do not combust
during the entire operating duration of the motor. Inhibitors for amateur
experimental motors are typically paper or cardboard, or a coating such
as polyester or epoxy resin.
For the design of a motor, we are most interested in
the maximum burning area, since it is this area that determines
the maximum chamber pressure that the motor will experience. The
maximum chamber pressure is used to size the motor casing. For a
completely unrestricted-burning grain (e.g. A-100, B-200 & C-400 motors),
all surfaces are exposed to the heated gases and thus burning proceeds
from all surfaces commencing at the beginning of the burn. A "BATES"
grain (Figure 4), which is multiple-segment, hollow cylindrical grain that is
case bonded or otherwise has the external surface inhibited, the initial
burning surface is that area of the core and segment ends.
The Kappa rocket motor utilizes such a grain configuration, with a total of
four segments.

Figure 4 -- BATES grain

BATES grain configurations are often employed in amateur motors, as

such a grain can be made to have approximately neutral burning, by
choice of the appropriate Lo/D and D/do ratios. A more complete
discussion on burning area and its relationship to grain geometry, and its
influence on chamber pressure, is given in the Rocket Motor Design Charts
-- Chamber Pressure web page.

The surface areas of a cylindrical grain with frustum (such as A-100, B-200
& C-400) are given in the Grain Area web page.

An important physical property of the propellant grain is the Mass

Density, which is used in performance calculations. If a propellant is
comprised of two constituents, and oxidizer and a fuel, the ideal density is
given by

where the symbol (rho) designates density, f is the mass fraction, and
subscripts o and f refer to oxidizer and fuel , respectively. If a propellant is
comprised of more than two constituents, then the ideal density is given
by (where a, b, c... denote the individual constituents):
In Table 1, the density for some oxidizers and some fuels is given, as well
as a worked example. The actual density can be obtained by accurately
weighing a grain to determine its mass, and by measuring its volume, with
the density expressed as

The actual density will usually be some percentage less than the ideal
density (typically 94%-97%), owing to tiny voids in the grain, and is
dependant upon manufacturing technique. Volume is best obtained by the
Archimedes principle, which involves immersion of the grain in an
appropriate liquid, and measuring the displaced volume.

The Volumetric Loading Fraction is defined as the fraction of grain

volume to available chamber volume, and relates the volumetric
efficiency of the motor, as well as a measure of performance efficiency:

where Vp is the grain volume, Va is the available chamber volume, It is

the total impulse (deliverable), and Isp is the propellant specific impulse.

The Web Fraction is the ratio of propellant web thickness to grain outer
radius, and is given by:

where tb is the motor burn time. Clearly, to maximize burn duration, it is

necessary to maximize the web fraction (i.e. thickness). The "price" for
maximizing web thickness is reduction of the grain core diameter. This
must be carefully considered, as explained below.

The Port-to-Throat area ratio is given by the flow channel cross-sectional

area to the nozzle throat cross-sectional area:

where Ap is the flow (channel) area of the grain and At is the throat cross-
sectional area. Gas velocity along the length of the flow channel is
influenced significantly by the magnitude of the port-to-throat area
ratio. Choked flow occurs when the ratio is 1.0, with flow velocity through
the port being equal to the flow velocity through the nozzle throat (sonic).
Severe erosive burning (core stripping) may occur under such a condition,
and is generally avoided in design. The criticality of the port-to-throat
ratio, however, depends upon the mass flowrate at a given location. In
fact, a ratio of 1.0 (or less) may be used at the forward end of the grain
where mass flowrate is minimum. The port-to-throat area ratio is often
used as an index from which erosive burning tendencies are established.
For those propellants where this has not been established, a ratio of 2.0 to
3.0 (dependant upon grain L/D ratio) is suggested.

Length-to-Diameter ratio is the grain overall length in relation to the

grain outer diameter. This parameter is very significant in motor design,
as larger L/D values tend to result in greater erosive burning effects
(including negative erosive burning). High L/D values tend to generate
high mass flow rate differentials along the grain length, and may be best
served with a tapered core or stepped core diameters (largest nearer the
nozzle).

Propellant Combustion

A rocket motor operates on the basic principle of

converting heat energy, from chemical reactions, to kinetic
energy. In other words, the heat liberated by the
combustion of propellant supplies the heat energy; the
high velocity exhaust products exiting the motor have
gained kinetic energy. This is why the exhaust experiences
a significant drop in temperature as it flows through the
nozzle (as is shown later), a requirement of the
thermodynamics law of "conservation of energy".

Combustion is "simply" an exothermic chemical reaction.

To get the 'ball rolling', an external heat source is required
(igniter) to supply the necessary energy to
a threshold level. This combustion is represented by a
chemical equation. For example, for 65/35 O/F KN/Sucrose
propellant, the combustion equation is given by (reactants
-> products):
C12H22O11 + 6.29 KNO3 -> 3.80 CO2 + 5.21 CO + 7.79 H2O + 3.07
H2 + 3.14 N2 + 3.00 K2CO3 + 0.27 KOH

where the following compounds are symbolized as:

C12H22O1
sucrose solid
1

potassium nitrate solid KNO3

carbon dioxide gas CO2

carbon monoxide gas CO

steam gas H2O

hydrogen gas H2

nitrogen gas N2

potassium liqui
K2CO3
carbonate d

potassium liqui
KOH
hydroxide d

Trace quantities of other compounds form, such as KH, and

CH4, but these can be ignored with little consequence.

Derivation of the complete combustion equation is

potentially the most complex step in the analysis of a
rocket motor. The propellant is burned, at (assumed)
constant pressure, and forms a set of molecular products
that are in thermal and chemical equilibrium with each
other. The first step is to assume what the products of
combustion might be. For propellants containing only
carbon, oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen (C,H,O & N) there
are (at least) twelve possible products -- carbon, carbon
dioxide, carbon monoxide, hydrogen, steam, oxygen,
nitrogen, nitric oxide as well as the dissociation products H,
O, N and OH. If the propellant contains metallic elements
such as potassium (K), sodium (Na), or aluminum (Al), or
contains Chlorine (Cl) , this will result in condensed (liquid
or solid) products of combustion, such as potassium
carbonate, (or sodium equivalents), aluminum oxide or
potassium chloride (KCl).

Once a set of possible products has been arrived at, the

next step is to determine the mole numbers (or fractions)
that will result. The mole numbers are the coefficients in
the chemical equation. For the example above, the mole
numbers are 3.67, 5.19, 7.91, 3.09, 3.14 and 3.14 for CO2,
CO, H2O, H2, N2 and K2CO3, respectively, for the combustion
of the reactants, being 1 mole sucrose and 6.29 moles of
KNO3.

Determining the mole numbers is accomplished by

simultaneously solving a set of equations relating the
reactants and products with respect to the conditions of :

 Mass balance

 Chemical equilibrium conditions

 Energy balance

Mass balance is straightforward, and refers to the principal

of conservation of mass. The number of moles of any given
element (e.g. C,H,O,N) before a chemical reaction must be
equal to that after a chemical reaction. In the example
above, the number of moles of atoms in the reactants are:

12 C atoms, 22 H atoms, 3*6.29=29.87 O atoms, 6.29 K

atoms, and 6.29 N atoms,

and in the products:

3.67+5.19+3.14=12 C atoms, 2*7.91+2*3.09=22 H

atoms, 3*6.29 + 11 =29.87 O atoms, and
2*3.14=6.29 (rounded) K & N atoms. The requirement of
mass balance is met.

Many reactants, when mixed in definite quantities, react to

form products only, in a so-called irreversible reaction. An
example is the burning of a propellant (hence the "->"
symbol in the equation). In a reversible reaction, however,
the process goes both ways. Reactants form into products
at the same rate that products form into the original
reactants. This is the type of reaction with which chemical
equilibrium conditions of hot combustion products are
concerned. For example, the reaction

2 H2 + O2 <-> 2 H2O is a reversible reaction

see Note 1

But what determines the relative concentration of these

constituents (i.e. whether the reaction will proceed more to
the left or to the right in this equation)? For each equation
like this, there is an equilibrium constant (Kp) associated
with it that determines this. This constant is a function of
the temperature at which the reaction is occurring, and is
essentially independent of other physical conditions, such
as pressure. Values for various Kp can be found in
thermochemical tables, such as the JANAF tables.
For the general reversible reaction:

the chemical equilibrium equation is of the form:

where y is the equilibrium mole fraction of the A,B,C and D

constituents, is the coefficient for each constituent (2,1,
and 2 in the above example for the constituents H 2, O2, and
H2O).

The term P/Po represents the ratio of pressure at which the

reaction occurs, and the reference (standard state)
pressure. It should be noted that the equilibrium of the
combustion gases is very sensitive to temperature.
Products existing at a high combustion temperature are
very different from those existing at a lower combustion
temperature. At high temperatures (above 3000
K), dissociation of the products occurs, as thermal energy
causes the products to break up into simpler and
monatomic constituents, such as
H2O <-> HO + 1/2 H2

O2 <-> 2 O

H2 <-> 2 H

At lower combustion temperatures, negligible quantities of

these constituents form (e.g. for KN/Sucrose combustion).
Dissociation consumes energy that would otherwise be
available for conversion to kinetic energy of the exhaust,
and tends to limit the combustion temperature.

With the stated assumption of adiabatic combustion (no

heat is lost to the surroundings) and well as the
assumption of no changes in potential or kinetic energy,
the law of conservation of energy states that the enthalpy
of the reactants is equal to the enthalpy of the products:

HR = H P

Enthalpy can be looked upon as the heat involved in a

chemical reaction. Put in another way, consider a reaction
involving n moles of each reactant (represented by
subscript i), and n moles of each product (subscript e)

The above equation states that the sum of the enthalpy of

formation (hf ) plus the change of enthalpy ( ), times the
number of moles (n) for each constituent, is equal for both
the reactants and the products. Note that represents the
change in enthalpy from a reference temperature, typically
298K (25C). For this reason, is equal to zero for the
reactants if the initial temperature of the propellant is
assumed to be at this temperature.
Both, hf and for reactants and products may be found in
thermochemical tables, for example, the JANAF tables or
the NIST Chemistry WebBook.

The above equation is particularly useful, as it allows us

the means to calculate the combustion temperature, which
is usually referred to as the adiabatic flame
temperature (AFT). Also, from this equation, it can be seen
that a larger heat of formation of the reactants (per unit
mass) is desirable, as is a smaller heat of formation of the
products, since this will result in greater available for the
products (thus higher AFT). Indeed, the presence of
diatomic gases (e.g. H2, N2) in the products is generally
desirable simply because the heat of formation of these
gases is zero.

A worked example of calculating the combustion

temperature for KN/Sucrose, 65/35 O/F ratio, is given
in Appendix A

The above describes a complete set of information that is

necessary in order to determine the complete combustion
process. We now have a series of unknowns parameters,
and equations that will allow for solution of the unknowns.
In summary, the unknown parameters are:

1. The mole numbers (coefficients) in the mass balance

equation

2. The mole fractions in the chemical equilibrium

equations

3. The Adiabatic Flame Temperature

4. values, these being a function of temperature

5. The (chamber) pressure at which the reaction occurs

Needless to say, this is not a simple task. The only

practical way to solve the combustion problem is a
computer solution, that is, to utilize an iterative procedure.
This involves first assuming a chamber pressure at which
the combustion occurs (the results are only weakly
dependant upon pressure). The iterations of solving the
equations begin at an assumed combustion temperature
(AFT). These two assumptions allow the mole numbers and
mole fractions to be determined for those initial conditions.
Based on these determined values, a new AFT is computed
 using the energy equation. This value of AFT is then used
in the next iteration to compute mole numbers and mole
fraction, and so on. Eventually, convergence is (hopefully)
reached and the final solution obtained. In fact, several
years ago I wrote such a computer program tailored to
analyze the combustion of the KN/Sucrose propellant, at
varying O/F ratios. Indeed, it was not a small undertaking,
but worked out well in the end.

Fortunately, it is no longer necessary for the interested

amateur rocketry enthusiast to have to write such a
program for the combustion analysis of a particular
propellant, as there is software available that will do this
job admirably and with great flexibility -- such as
PROPEP, GUIPEP, or CET, which will be discussed later.

Rocket Motor Thrust and theThrust Coefficient

The thrust that a rocket motor generates is the most fundamental

yardstick of performance. Without a doubt, this parameter is foremost in
the mind of any amateur rocket motor designer. Thrust, being
the force that a motor exerts, is what propels a rocket into (and beyond)
the "wild blue yonder"!
Thrust is generated by the expelling of mass (the exhaust) flowing
through the nozzle at high velocity. The expression for thrust is given by

equation 1

where the left hand term in the equation represents the integral of the
pressure forces (resultant) acting on the chamber and nozzle, projected
on a plane normal to the nozzle axis of symmetry, as shown in the figure.

The internal pressure is highest inside the chamber and decreases

steadily in the nozzle toward the exit. External (atmospheric) pressure is
uniform over the outside surfaces.
In the first term on the right-hand side of the equation, m is the mass
flowrate of the exhaust products and ve is the exhaust velocity. The
second term on the right-hand side is the so-called pressure thrust, which
is equal to zero for a nozzle with an optimum expansion ratio
(Pe=Pa); Ae is the nozzle exit area.

Considering continuity (conservation of mass) at the nozzle throat,

equation 1 may be rewritten as

equation 2

This expression can now be modified using some equations that were
presented in the Nozzle Theory Web Page, that is, the expressions for

 Fluid density ratio (noting that at the throat M=1), o / (eqn.

7)

 Critical (throat) flow velocity, v* (eqn. 3, noting that v*=a)

 Nozzle exit velocity, ve (eqn.12)

 and the equation of state for an ideal gas,

gives

equation
3

Derivation of Eqn.3 is given in the Appendix below.

This equation shows that, if the pressure thrust term is zero, thrust is
directly proportional to throat area, A*, and is nearly directly
proportional to chamber pressure, Po.

This is particularly interesting. This means that if the throat size is

doubled, the thrust will be doubled (if the chamber pressure is
maintained). The same holds for the chamber pressure -- if it is doubled,
thrust is approximately doubled. In reality, things are not so simple, as
throat size and chamber pressure are tied together, as will be explained in
the Theory Page on Chamber Pressure. This means that doubling a throat
size would likely involve significant design changes, such as an increase in
grain burning area. Likewise, if pressure is to be increased, the casing
would have to be made stronger.
Thrust is also seen to be proportional to

 Pressure thrust (additive term, may be positive or negative)

  Ratio of specific heats, k. The sensitivity to k is quite low. For
example, the difference in calculated thrust for k=1.4, compared to
k=1.0, is a decrease of 14% (for a pressure ratio of Po/Pe=68).

 Pressure ratio across the nozzle, Pe/Po, as shown in the chart:

This chart plots the thrust

ratio, F/Fmax, to the
pressure (or expansion)
ratio, where Fmax is the
thrust that could be
obtained with an infinite
expansion ratio (i.e.
expanding into a vacuum,
with Pe=0). In the chart,
the indicated thrust, F,
excludes the pressure
thrust [Link] total
thrust produced is given by
Ftotal = F + (Pe-Pa) Ae.

The pressure ratio of the nozzle is determined solely by the area ratio,
A*/Ae, as given by equation 14 of the Nozzle Theory page. What does
this plot tell us?

 If the pressure ratio (and thus expansion ratio) is 1, then F = 0. The

only thrust produced by such a nozzle is the pressure thrust, or
Ftotal = (Pe-Pa)Ae. Such a nozzle, of course, would have no
divergent portion, since A*/Ae=1, and would be a badly designed
rocket nozzle!

 The slope of the curve is very steep initially, then begins to flatten
out beyond Po/Pe = 5. This is significant, as it indicates that even a
nozzle provided with a minimal expansion will be of significant
benefit. With such a pressure ratio of 5, the resulting thrust is about
60% of maximum theoretical. From equation 14, it is found that the
required area expansion ratio is only Ae/A* = 1.38 (for k=1.2), which
translates to a required nozzle exit-to-throat diameter ratio of less
than 2 !

The degree to which the thrust is amplified by the nozzle is quantified by

the Thrust Coefficient, Cf, and is defined in terms of the chamber
pressure and throat area:

F = Cf A* Po equation 4
The Thrust Coefficient determines the amplification of thrust due to gas
expansion in the nozzle as compared to the thrust that would be exerted if
the chamber pressure acted over the throat area only. Equation 4 is
useful, as it allows for the experimental value of Cf to be obtained from
measured values of chamber pressure, throat diameter, and thrust. The
ideal value of Cf is calculated from equations 3 & 4, and shown below as
equation 5:

equation
5

A KN/Sucrose motor equipped with a well designed nozzle will deliver a

Cf of about 1.5 under steady-state conditions. Ideal Cf for the same motor
would be around 1.65. A large fraction of the loss is due to two-phase flow
inefficiencies.

As a final note, it should be pointed out that the equations for thrust and
Cf (eqns. 3 & 5) require that k be corrected for two-phase flow.

Total Impulse

Although thrust is an important yardstick for characterizing the lift

capability of a rocket motor, it provides no indication of the how high the
rocket will be propelled. For this, one needs a measure of the total
output in terms of propulsion [Link] essential yardstick for for this
is the Total Impulse
of the rocket motor, which incorportates the essential element of time, or
thrust duration.

Total Impulse is defined as the time integral of the thrust over the
operating duration of the motor:

equation 1

and is represented by the area under the thrust-time curve:

Figure 1 -- Thrust -time curve for a typical motor

Units are those of force multiplied by time, typically pound-seconds (lb-s)

or Newton-seconds (N-s).
It is important to note that the Total Impulse only a tells part of the story
regarding a motor's capacity to propel a rocket skyward. For example, a
motor that delivers a Total Impulse of 200 lb-s may provide an average
thrust of 100 lb. for 2 seconds (100 lb. x 2 s = 200 lb-s), or may deliver a
thrust of 25 lb. for 8 seconds (25 lb x 8 s = 200 lb-s), as shown in Figure 2.
Both deliver the same Total Impulse, which is usually abbreviated It.

Figure 2 -- Two thrust-times curves with identical total impulse

The altitude achieved will differ to some extent, with this effect being
more significant as the thrust/mass ratio drops. The more pronounced
difference will be with the rocket's acceleration, since initial acceleration is
given by:

a = F/m - g equation 2

where F = thrust, m = rocket liftoff mass, and g = acceleration of gravity.

With lower acceleration, the longer it takes for the rocket to achieve a
velocity at which the fins provide effective stability. And in the extreme
case, if the thrust is less than the liftoff weight, the rocket will not even
leave the launch pad, regardless of the motor's Total Impulse!

Characteristic Velocity

The characteristic velocity, also called c-star or simply c*, is a figure of

thermochemical merit for a particular propellant and may be considered
to be indicative of the combustion efficiency. The expression for ideal c-
star is given in equation 3, and is seen to be solely a function of the
products of combustion (k, M, To).

equation 3

The value used for k should be that for the mixture of gases and
condensed phase, as shown in the 2-Phase Flow Web Page.

The delivered Specific Impulse is related to c-star as follows:

Isp = c* Cf / g equation 4

where c* accounts for the influence of the combustion and Cf (thrust

coefficient) accounts for the influence of the nozzle. As such, c* may be
considered to be analagous to the specific impulse with a Cf =1.

The delivered c-star may be obtained from a rocket motor's pressure-time

trace, being given by time integral of chamber pressure over the burn,
multiplied by the ratio of throat area to propellant mass, as shown:

equation 5

For the KN-Sugar motors, the deliverd c-star has been found to be in close
agreement with the calculated value, indicating high combustion
efficiency.

Specific Impulse

The Specific Impulse that a propellant is capable of producing (either

theoretical or "delivered") is the key "yardstick" of performance potential.
In its basic form, Specific Impulse can be considered to relate the thrust
produced by a unit mass (e.g. 1 lb or kg) of propellant over a burning time
of one second. As such, the units of Specific Impulse would be lb-s/lb or N-
s/kg. In the former set of units, the "lb" can be considered to cancel,
giving the more conventional units of "seconds". For the latter set of units,
division of Specific Impulse in N-s/kg by the accleration of gravity, g
(9.806 metre/s) results in the more conventional "seconds".

Delivered Specific Impulse produced by a motor, for example from static

test measurements, is obtained from the expression:

Isp = It/ wp equation 6

where wp is the propellant weight (lb or kg x g).

Delivered specific impulse has a dependancy upon:

 mass flowrate, and thus on motor size

 available combustion energy of the propellant

 nozzle efficiency

 ambient pressure conditions

 heat loss to the motor hardware

 two-phase flow losses

 combustion efficiency

These factors are discussed in detail the Corrections for "Actual" Rocket
Motors Theory Web Page.

The Ideal Specific Impulse of a rocket propellant is calculated

using equation 12 of the Nozzle Theory Web Page, which expresses
exhaust velocity, Ve, in terms of the flow properties and the pressure ratio.
Since Ve = c* Cf, ideal Isp can be determined from equation 4:

equation 7

where k, M, To, Pe and Po are all defined in the Nozzle Theory Web Page.
This equation is utilized to calculate the Ideal Specific Impulse for the
KN/Sugar propellants, as shown in the Technical.

Chamber Pressure

The Chamber Pressure that a rocket motor develops is of crucial

importance with regard to the successful operation of a rocket motor. Not
only does Chamber Pressure strongly influence propellant burn rate,
thermodynamic efficiency and thrust, the Chamber Pressure structurally
loads the rocket motor casing and closures to a critical extent.
Understanding the nature of Chamber Pressure generation, and accurate
prediction of such, is one of the keys to successful rocket motor design.

What causes pressure to develop inside the chamber of a rocket motor?

What determines the magnitude of this pressure? Intuitively, the pressure
buildup is a result of the combustion of the propellant grain, whereby the
gases produced hasten to escape through the nozzle throat. If the throat
is sufficiently small, the gases cannot escape quickly enough and the
accumulation of gases in the chamber results in pressurization.

In actuality, the intuitive explanation is essentially correct. However, an

important factor that determines the magnitude of chamber pressure is
not at all intuitive -- the concept of choked flow. This concept provides for
a convenient means to calculate chamber pressure, and is valid for both
transient and steady-state modes of motor operation, as discussed below.

By looking at a plot of Chamber Pressure over the operating duration of a

rocket motor (Figure 1), one sees that there are three distinct and
important phases of operation:

Figure 1 -- Motor chamber pressure

The pressure curve of the rocket motor exhibits transient and steady-
state behaviour. The transient phases are when the pressure varies
substantially with time -- during the ignition and start-up phase, and
following complete (or nearly complete) grain consumption, when the
pressure falls down to ambient level during the tail-off phase. The
variation of chamber pressure during the steady-state burning phase is
due mainly to variation of grain geometry (burning surface area) with
associated burn rate variation. Other factors may play a role, however,
such as nozzle throat erosion and erosive burn rate augmentation.

First of all, the start-up and steady-state pressure phases will be

considered. The start-up phase is hypothetically very brief, although in
reality, ignition of the complete grain does not occur instantaneously. The
actual duration of the start-up phase is strongly dependant upon the
effectiveness of the igniter system employed.
The steady-state phase clearly dominates the overall performance of the
motor, and as such, constitutes the design condition.
In determining the start-up pressure growth, and the steady-state
pressure level, it is first noted that the rate of combustion product
generation is equal to the rate of consumption of the propellant grain,
given by:

equation 1

where p is the propellant density, Ab is the grain burning area, and r is

the propellant burn rate (surface regression rate).
It is important to note that the combustion products may consist of both
gaseous and condensed-phase mass. The condensed-phase, which
manifests itself as smoke, may be either solid or liquid particles. Only the
gaseous products contribute to pressure development. The condensed-
phase certainly does, however, contribute to the thrust (overall
performance) of the rocket motor, due to its mass and velocity, as shown
in equation 1 of the Thrust Theory Web page.

The rate at which combustion products are increasingly stored within the
combustion chamber is given by:

equation 2

where o is the instantaneous gas density in the chamber, and uo is the

instantaneous gas volume (which is equal to the free volume within the
chamber).

The change in gas volume with respect to time is equal to the change in
volume due to propellant consumption, given by duo/dt = Ab r. This leads
to:

equation 3
The rate at which combustion products flow through the nozzle throat is
limited by the condition of choked flow. As described in the Nozzle
Theory Web Page, the flow achieves sonic (Mach 1) velocity at the
narrowest portion of the convergent-divergent nozzle (throat). Flow
velocity, at this location, can never exceed the local speed of sound, and
is said to be in a choked condition. This allows us to determine the rate at
which the combustion products flow through the nozzle is given by
equation 4: (for derivation, see Theory Appendix D )

equation 4

Note that R = R'/ M, where R' is the universal gas constant, and M is
the effective molecular weight of the combustion products. Mass flow rate
through the nozzle is seen to be a function of the chamber pressure
(which determines the flow density), throat area, and the gas properties
(which establish sonic velocity).

The principle of mass conservation requires the balance between mass

generation rate and the sum of the rates at which mass storage in the
chamber and outflow through the nozzle:

equation 5

Substituting equations 1 & 3 into equation 5 gives:

equation 6

Propellant burn rate may be expressed in terms of the chamber pressure

by the Saint Robert's law (see Propellant Burn Rate Web Page):

r = a Po n
equation 7

where a and n are the burn rate coefficient and pressure exponent,
respectively. Substituting equations 7 & 4 (mass flowrate through nozzle)
into equation 6 leads to the following equation:
 equatio
n8

From the ideal gas law, the density derivative in the above equation may
be expressed as:

equation 9

As well, considering that chamber temperature, To, is essentially

independent of chamber pressure, equation 8 may be re-written as:

equation 10

This is a particularly useful equation, as it allows us to determine the rate

of change of chamber pressure (dPo/ dt ) during the transient start-
up phase of motor operation, where the chamber pressure is rapidly
climbing up to the operating steady-state level. Once the steady-state
phase is reached, when the outflow of combustion gases is in equilibrium
with the production of gases from propellant consumption, dPo/ dt = 0,
and the left-hand side of equation 10 vanishes. The steady-state chamber
pressure may then be expressed as:

equation 11

Note that the combustion product density term has been dropped, as it is
small in comparison to the propellant density.
Equation 11 may be greatly simplified by use of equation 7, letting Kn =
Ab /A* and by noting that the characteristic exhaust velocity (c-star) is
given by:
This leads to the simplified expression for steady-state chamber
pressure:

equation 12

where r is the burn rate at the chamber pressure, Po and noting that Kn =
Ab/A*. It is important to note that burn rate, r, is a function of chamber
pressure. As such, chamber pressure is not a direct function of K n, rather
for a given propellant, the relationship is:

equation 12a

where C is a constant relating the propellant properties:

equation 12b

The third and final phase of the pressure curve, the tail-down phase,
ideally occurs immediately after the propellant grain has been completely
consumed. In actuality, slivers or fragments of propellant grain remain
once the bulk of the grain has been consumed. This results in a pressure
tail-down that is more gradual than for the ideal case. However, it is
impractical to account for this effect, and the tail-down pressure is
determined on the assumption that the grain has been fully depleted.
After burnout , when Ab = 0, equation 10 becomes

equation 13

This differential equation may then be solved to express tail-off chamber

pressure as a function of bleeddown time for choked flow:

equation 14

where Pbo is the chamber pressure at burn-out and t is the time from
burn-out. The pressure is seen to exhibit exponential decay.
In addition to the consequence of sliver burning during tail-off, nozzle
slagging will tend to make the pressure decay more gradual than
predicted by equation 14. Nozzle slagging is the tendency of condensed-
phase (in particular liquid matter) to accumulate around the throat,
effectively reducing the diameter. Slagging is more significant during tail-
off due to the dropping pressure level and lower exhaust velocity.

Introduction

The burning surface of a rocket propellant grain recedes in a direction

perpendicular to this burning surface. The rate of regression, typically
measured in inches per second (or mm per second), is termed burning
rate (or burn rate). This rate can differ significantly for different
propellants, or for one particular propellant, depending on various
operating conditions as well as formulation. Knowing quantitatively the
burning rate of a propellant, and how it changes under various conditions,
is of fundamental importance in the successful design of a solid rocket
motor. This web page discusses the factors that influence burn rate, how it
may be modified, how the burn rate can be determined experimentally,
and the physical processes that occur at the burning surface of a
propellant that governs the burning rate.

What Influences Burning Rate?

An illustration of the concept of burning surface regression is given in

Figure 1, for a section of a hollow cylindrical grain, with an inhibited outer
surface ( "inhibited" means that the propellant surface is protected from
the heat of combustion and as such, burning does not occur). Burning
commences along the length of the central core, with the burning surface
receding radially outward (shown at arbitrary times t1, t2, t3). Note that
the burning surface area (represented by the arc length of the red lines in
this figure) is continually increasing. Also note that the surface regression
rate (burn rate) is not constant. These two events are, in fact, directly
related, as will be discussed shortly.
Figure 1 -- Burning surface regression

Propellant burning rate is influenced by certain factors, the most

significant being:

1. Combustion chamber pressure

2. Initial temperature of the propellant grain

3. Velocity of the combustion gases flowing parallel to the burning

surface

4. Local static pressure

5. Motor acceleration and spin

These factors are discussed below.

1. Burn rate is profoundly affected by chamber pressure. For example,

KNSU has a burning rate of 3.8 mm/sec. at 1 atmosphere. However,
at 68 atmospheres (1000 psi), the burn rate is about 15 mm/sec., a
four-fold increase. The usual representation of the pressure
dependance on burn rate is the Saint Robert's Law (a.k.a. Vieille's
Law):

r = ro + a Pc n
where r is the burn rate, ro is a constant (usually taken as zero), a is the
burn rate coefficient, and n is the pressure exponent. The values
of a and n are determined empirically for a particular propellant
formulation, and cannot be theoretically predicted. Various means may be
employed to determine these parameters, such as a Strand Burner or
Ballistic Evaluation Motor (BEM). It is important to realize that a single set
of a, n values are typically valid over a distinct pressure range. More than
one set may be necessary to accurately represent the full pressure regime
of interest, as illustrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2 -- Saint Robert's model of burn rate v.s. pressure (example)

When plotted on log-log scales, the Saint Robert's function is a straight

line.
Certain propellants (or with additives) deviate from this behaviour, and
exhibit sharp changes in burn rate behaviour. These type of propellants
are termed plateau or mesa propellants, as illustrated in Figure 3. Both
the KNDX and KNSB propellants exhibit this behaviour, the former plateau,
and the latter, mesa (see KNDX & KNSB Propellants -- Burn Rate
Experimentation). Plateau and mesa effects may be the result of different
rates of surface regression (as a function of pressure) of the binder
compared to the oxidizer particles. Another explanation is that the
condensed phase combustion products may "pool" and retard heat
transfer to the surface at elevated pressure levels.
Figure 3 -- Plateau and mesa behaviour

Burning rate can be particularly sensitive to the value of the pressure

exponent, n (the slope of the log-log curve in Fig.3). High values of n can
produce large changes in burning rate with relatively small changes in
chamber pressure, with potentially catastrophic consequences, as higher
burning rate leads to even greater chamber pressure. Another reason why
a high pressure exponent may be undesireable (at least for amateur
motors) is due to the low sensitivity of burn rate, due to pressure, at
the low end of the pressure regime. This can result in difficult starting,
with the motor simply refusing to "come up to pressure". This low
sensitivity to pressure, for high pressure exponents, becomes more clear if
we consider a pressure exponent of unity (n=1). This implies burn rate
beinging directly, or linearly, proportional to chamber pressure. The slope
of the burn rate v.s. pressure curve is a straight line. Figure 4 illustrates
the pressure profile for various values of n. It can be seen that with a low
value of pressure exponent, for example n=0.2, the burn rate changes
very rapidly at low pressure, providing excellent motor start-up capability.
Figure 4 -- Effect of various pressure exponents on burning rate sensitivity
to pressure

If the value of the exponent is close to zero, the burning rate is largely
insensitive to pressure, and unstable combustion may result. For these
reasons, the pressure exponent for a practical propellant should have a
value between 0.3 and 0.6 in the regime of the motor steady-state
operating condition.

2. Temperature affects the rate of chemical reactions and thus

the initial temperature of the propellant grain influences burning
rate. If a particular propellant shows significant sensitivity to initial
grain temperature, operation at temperature extremes will affect
the time-thrust profile of the motor. This is a factor to consider for
winter launches, for example, when the grain temperature may be
20 or more degrees (C.) lower than "normal" launch conditions. Both
the KNDX & KNSB Propellants seem to show minor sensitivity to
temperature over the range of 0oC to 40oC. (see KNDX & KNSB
Propellants -- Burn Rate Experimentation).

3. For most propellants, certain levels of local combustion gas velocity

(or mass flux) flowing parallel to the burning surface leads to an
increased burning rate. This "augmentation" of burn rate is referred
to as erosive burning, with the extent varying with propellant type
and chamber pressure. The mechanism of increased convective
heat transfer to the propellant surface due to turbulence is most
likely responsible for this augmentation. For many propellants,
a threshold flow velocity exists. Below this flow level, either no
 augmentation occurs, or a decrease in burn rate is experienced
(negative erosive burning). This is illustrated in Figure 5.

Figure 5 -- Erosive burning phenomenon

In Figure 5, propellant "A" exhibits a threshold flow velocity of about 240

ft/sec. Propellant "B" (AP/polyurethane) exhibits a lower threshold velocity
with higher chamber pressures. Below this threshold level, an interesting
phenomenon occurs -- the burn rate decreases relative to the zero flow
level. This is referred to as negative erosive burning, and is possibly the
result of changing physical processes of heat transfer that controls the
burning rate. At low flow velocity, mass transfer dominates, but as the
flow velocity increases, the mechanism of convection becomes
increasingly more significant (Figure 5).
Figure 6 -- Heat transfer processes that influence burning rate

An alternative explanation suggests that this effect may be due to partial

coverage of the oxidizer (particle) surfaces by the melted binder under the
effect of shear stresses in the boundary layer of combustion flow.
The KNSB Propellant appears to be particularly susceptible to negative
erosive burning.

The effects of erosive burning can be minimized by designing the motor

with a sufficiently large port-to-throat area ratio (Aport/At). The port area
is the cross-section area of the flow channel(s) in a motor. For a hollow-
cylindrical grain, this is the cross-section area of the core. As a rule of
thumb, the ratio should be a minimum of 2, for a "typical" grain L/D ratio
of 6. A greater Aport/At ratio should be used for grains with larger L/D
ratios.
To relate the erosive burning rate to the gas flow in the combustion
chamber, various empirical laws are used:

r = a Pc n
[1 + k(G - G*) ] multiplicative law

where k is a constant, and G is the specific mass flow rate of the main
flow, and G* is a threshold flow rate.

r = a Pc n
+ ku additive law

where k is a constant, and u is the velocity of the main flow.

4. In an operating rocket motor, there is a pressure drop along the axis

of the combustion chamber, a drop which is physically necessary to
accelerate the increasing mass flow of combustion products toward
the nozzle. The static pressure is greatest where gas flow is zero,
that is, at the front (bulkhead) of the motor. Since burn rate is
 dependant upon the local pressure, the rate should be greatest at
this location. However, this effect is relatively minor and is usually
offset by the countereffect of erosive burning.

5. Burning rate is enhanced by acceleration of the motor. Whether the

acceleration is a result of longitudinal force (e.g. thrust) or spin,
burning surfaces that form an angle of about 60-90 o with the
acceleration vector are prone to increased burn rate. As the majority
of the burning surface of most grain configurations is perpendicular
to the motor axis, spin (rather than longitudinal acceleration) has a
far more profound effect on burning rate. There are three main
reasons why spin increases burn rate:

1. Rotation reduces the mass flux (flow) at the nozzle throat. This
reduction in mass flux has the same effect as a decrease in
throat area, thus increased chamber pressure (and
consequently higher burning rate) may result.

2. Viscous flow patterns are set up in the motor, increasing heat

transfer to the propellant surface through greater mass
transfer.

3. The radial acceleration forces can cause greater retention of

the solid phase combustion products near the propellant
surface.

For composite motors, a spin induced acceleration of at least 10g's is

required before appreciable burn rate augmentation results. Is this a
concern for spin-stabilized amateur rockets, then? A simple calculation
shows that for a motor with a diameter of 4 inches (10 cm), a spin of 420
RPM is required to develop a 10g acceleration normal to the motor axis.
Such a high spin rate is well beyond that required for stabilizing, so for
amateur rockets, acceleration augmented burn rate is not a concern.

Modification of Burning Rate

It is sometimes desirable to modify the burning rate such that it is more

suitable to a certain grain configuration. For example, if one wished to
design an end burner grain, which has a relatively small burning area, it is
necessary to have a fast burning propellant. In other circumstances, a
reduced burning rate may be sought after. For example, a motor may
have a large L/D ratio to generate sufficiently high thrust, or it may be
necessary for a particular design to restrict the diameter of the motor. The
web would be consequently thin, resulting in a short burn duration.
Reducing the burning rate would be beneficial.
There are a number of ways of modifying the burning rate:

1. Decrease the oxidizer particle size

2. Increase or reduce the percentage of oxidizer (greater O/F ratio)

3. Adding a burn rate catalyst or suppressant

4. Operate the motor at a lower or higher chamber pressure

These factors are discussed below.

1. The effect of the oxidizer particle size on burn rate seems to be

influenced by the type of oxidizer. Propellants that use AP as the
oxidizer have a burn rate that is significantly affected by AP particle
size. This most likely results from the decomposition of AP being the
rate-determining step (see below) in the combustion process.
Propellants that use KN as the oxidizer, however, have a burn rate
that is not strongly influenced by the KN particle size. A comparison
of burn rate (at ambient pressure) for the KNDX propellant is
provided in Figure 7.

Figure 7 -- Effect of oxidizer particle size on burn rate. Click for table.

The "fine" oxidizer grind was obtained by the usual means of milling the
"as obtained" potassium nitrate in an electric coffee grinder, for 20-25
seconds per scoopful. The "superfine" grind was obtained by milling the
"as obtained" granules in a rock-tumbler, together with several small
rocks, for a period of 24 hours. The resulting powder was extremely fine.
The increase in average burn rate was about 16%. Bear in mind that this
result is valid at ambient pressure (1 atmosphere). Under elevated
pressure, the result may well be different, depending on whether the
increased burn rate is due to a modified burn rate coefficient, or
modified pressure exponent. If the former is modified, then the same
effect will occur at elevated pressure. Not so, if the pressure exponent is
modified.
Reducing the burn rate by utilizing larger oxidizer particles is not a good
means. Characteristic Velocity (c*) measurements of the KNSU propellant
were taken with the propellant prepared with as obtained oxidizer
granules, and for comparison, with the propellant prepared with "fine"
oxidizer particles. The c* measurements were 850 m/s and 911 m/s,
respectively. Thus, preparation of the propellant with the larger oxidizer
particles resulted in a 7% potential performance loss. Note that the
maximum particle size for as obtained granules was about 250 microns.
For the "fine" grind, the maximum particles were about 100 microns, and
for "superfine", about 20 microns.

2. The burn rate of most propellants is strongly influenced by the

oxidizer/fuel ratio (O/F). A compilation of strand test data conducted
at ambient pressure for various O/F ratios for the KNDX and KNSU
propellants is given in Figure 8.

Figure 8 -- Burn rate as function of O/F ratio.

Unfortunately, modifying the burn rate by this means is quite restrictive,

as the performance of the propellant, as well as mechanical properties,
are also greatly affected by the O/F ratio.

3. Certainly the best and most effective means of increasing the burn
rate is the addition of a catalyst to the propellant mixture. A catalyst
is a chemical compound that is added in small quantities (typically a
few percent or less of the total mass) for the sole purpose of
tailoring the burning rate. A catalyst's action is possibly due to a
 number of means (or combination of means) and probably varies
with specific propellant and catalyst type:

o Enhancing fuel decomposition

o Enhancing oxidizer decomposition

o Accelerating vapourized fuel reactions in the gas phase in the

combustion zone

o Increasing heat transfer at the propellant surface layer

Some catalysts increase burn rate by increasing the burn rate coefficient,
others tend to increase the pressure exponent (making the propellant
more sensitive to pressure changes).

Some examples of burn rate catalysts are:

o Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3), copper oxide (CuO), Manganese Dioxide

(MnO2) are commonly used catalysts in AP based composite
propellants, as is copper chromate (Cu2Cr2O5 or 2CuO
Cr2O3).

o Potassium dichromate K2Cr2O7 or ammonium dichromate

(NH4)2Cr2O7 for AN based mixtures.

o Ferric Oxide (Fe2O3), Iron sulphate (FeSO4) and potassium

dichromate for KN-Sugar propellants

o Lampblack (carbon) may slightly increase the burn rate of

most propellants through increased heat transfer from the
combustion flame to the propellant surface.

The effect of iron compounds on the burning rate of an AP/PBAN

propellant is shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 -- Increase in burn rate from catalyst additives

A recent experiment indicates that ferric oxide may be a particularly
effective burn rate catalyst for KNSU. A trial batch of experimental
propellant was prepared with 1% ferric oxide (64.4/34.7/1.0
KN/Sucrose/FO), and burn rate measurements of strands taken under
ambient conditions. The strands burned vigorously, at an average rate of
6.0 mm/sec. This represents about a 60% increase in burn rate compared
to the standard 65/35 KN/Sucrose formulation (see Figure 8). Such a rapid
burn rate makes the feasibility of an end-burner grain configuration
worthy of investigation.

It should be noted that the addition of a burn rate catalyst not only makes
a propellant burn more rapidly, but also makes it easier to ignite. This is a
double-edged sword, as motor start-up is enhanced, which leads to more
efficient use of propellant, and a thrust-time profile more closely matching
design curve. However, greater care and precautions must be taken when
handling a propellant with a significant amount of catalyst to avoid
inadvertent ignition.

A burn rate suppressant is an additive that has the opposite effect to that
of a catalyst -- it is used to decrease the burn rate. For AP based
propellants, oxamide (NH2 CO2)2 is particularly effective in reducing burn
rate, without sacrificing performance. Other potential burn rate
suppressants include calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate, ammonium
chloride, and ammonium sulphate.
For KNDX, an interesting burn rate suppressant is moisture. If the
propellant is prepared with the hydrated fuel, dextrose monohydrate
(C6H12O6 . H2O), and minimally heated during casting, the resulting
propellant has a moisture content approaching 3.5%. The burn rate (at
ambient pressure) is reduced significantly. Experimental measurements
showed an average burn rate of 1.42 mm/sec., compared to an average
1.95 mm/sec. for the propellant prepared in the same manner, but with
anhydrous dextrose (see Figure 7). This represents a 27% burn rate
reduction, with a theoretical performance loss of only about 1%. It is worth
noting that the residual moisture has a significant effect upon the
mechanical properties of the propellant, producing a "waxy" and rather
flexible (albeit viscous, not elastic) grain.
All burn rate suppressants make the grain more difficult to ignite,
necessitating an enhanced pyrotechnic or pyrogen ignition system.

4. For a propellant that follows the Saint Robert's burn rate law,
designing a rocket motor to operate at a lower chamber pressure
will provide for a lower burning rate (see Figure 2). This effect is
more pronounced for a propellant with a higher pressure exponent.
 If a propellant exhibits plateau or mesa behaviour, this means of
obtaining a lower burning rate would be less effective.
Due to the nonlinearity of the pressure-burn rate relationship, it may
be necessary to significantly reduce the operating pressure to get
the desired burning rate. The obvious drawback is reduced motor
performance, as specific impulse similarly decays with reducing
chamber pressure.

Combustion Process

Solid propellant combustion is a very complex phenomenon, and

understanding and modeling the actual processes involved is difficult.
Propellants, in their simplest forms, consist of a dispersion of varying sized
oxidizer particles within a matrix of fuel/binder. The combustion process
involves a magnitude of subprocesses, or steps. In order to begin to
understand the burning rate mechanism it is important to identify the key
processes that control the burning. Some of these processes include
heating of the solid phase, decomposition of the oxidizer and binder
(which burn at different temperatures), possible melting and
vapourization, mixing and reactions in the vapour phase, and gas-phase
combustion.
A number of theoretical models have been proposed to describe the
combustion process, including the Beckstead-Derr-Price (BDP) model and
the Petite Ensemble Model (PEM). The BDP model proposes that the flame
structure of a composite propellant is not homogeneous, but consists of
multiple flames and three combustion regions: two kinetics-dominated
(reaction) flames and one diffusion flame. The oxidizer breaks down in one
reaction flame and sends oxygen into the diffusion flame. Binder
decomposition products pre-react in the other reaction flame then rush
into the diffusion flame, where they react further with the oxygen. The
influential parameters affecting burning rate in these models include the
heat of vapourization, the heat conduction into the solid phase, and the
flame standoff distances.
One shortcoming of the BDP model is that it considers a single particle
size of oxidizer. The PEM model recognizes that most composite
propellants contain a wide dispersal of oxidizer particle sizes. Such a
scattering is desirable because propellants with a single oxidizer particle
diameter are limited to slightly more than an 80% theoretical maximum
oxidizer mass fraction. Small oxidizer particles are necessary to fit in
between the large ones in order to have a high oxidizer percentage.
The combustion process upon which these models are based is shown in
Figure 10.
Figure 10 -- Simplified model of propellant burning

A key part of the combustion process that determines the burning rate of
a propellant is the rate-determining step. As mentioned above, the
combustion process is complex and consists of multiple steps. The overall
rate at which the burning of a propellant occurs is governed by the
slowest step, or rate-determining step. This is usually the decomposition
of either the oxidizer or decomposition of the fuel (binder). For ammonium
perchlorate (AP) based propellants, it is usually the former. This is why AP
particle size plays a big role in burn rate of AP based propellants. For
potassium nitrate (KN) based propellants, it would seem to be the latter,
or decomposition of the binder that is the rate determining step. This
is evidenced by the relatively mild effect of KN particle size on burn rate
(Fig. 7). Conversely, a profound difference in burn rate is observed with
different binders. KNSU (sucrose binder) burns much more rapidly, in all
pressure regimes, than KNSB (sorbitol binder). Epoxy-based potassium
nitrate propellants (such as RNX series) burn at a rate far slower than any
of the sugar-based propellants.

As it is difficult to theoretically predict a propellant's burn rate with

sufficient engineering accuracy, the only recourse is to measure burn rate
utilizing any number of proven techniques.

Burn Rate Measurement

There are a number of ways to experimentally determine (or estimate) the

burn rate of a particular propellant, and importantly, its relationship to
chamber pressure. Three ways will be covered here:
 1. Crawford type Strand Burner apparatus

2. Burn rate analysis using the Pressure-Time curve obtained from a

motor firing

3. Burn rate Ballistic Evaluation Motor

These methods are discussed below.

1. With the Crawford Strand Burner method of burn rate measurement,

a small sample of propellant is burned in a closed firing vessel at a
certain constant (or approximately constant) pressure. Each
propellant sample, called a strand, is in the form of a thin stick. The
strand is electrically ignited at one end, and the time duration for
the strand to burn along its length (cigarette fashion) is measured.
The strands are usually inhibited along their whole length to ensure
that burning only occurs perpendicular to the surface. Various
means are used to measure the time duration, such as lead wires
embedded in the strand which melt when contacted by the flame
front, or by use of thermocouples. The burn rate is obtained by
knowing the burning distance as well as the burning time between
the lead wires (or thermocouples). Nitrogen is used to pressurize the
firing vessel. To effectively characterize the burn rate versus
pressure relationship for a particular propellant, 10 or more tests
may be performed , at pressures ranging from a few atmospheres,
to 100 atmospheres (1500 psi) or more. Complete details of a
Strand Burner that I have constructed, and used to characterize the
"sugar" propellants, is given in the Strand Burner for Burn Rate
Measurements web page.

More recently, I have developed an apparatus that I refer to as a "Delta-P

Strand Burner". This is similar to the Crawford strand burner, but is
simpler in means of operation. Instead of using thermocouples to sense
the time duration that a strand takes to burn a given length, the time
duration is measured by monitoring the pressure within the vessel. A
strand, of known length, is burned within the pressure vessel, with the
pressure being continuously recorded (the pressure rises due to
combustion gas generation). The time duration that the strand takes to
burn is then taken as the duration over which the pressure changes
("delta P"). This technique has been used with great success in
characterizing the Epoxy based propellants.
( View example of Pressure-Time trace)

2. The instantaneous burning rate of a propellant may be estimated

from the pressure-time trace obtained from a motor firing. This
method is based on the knowledge that motor chamber pressure
 and burn rate are directly related in terms of Kn, c* and the
propellant density. The burn rate coefficient and the pressure
exponent may also be estimated. This method is described in detail
in the Burn Rate Determination from a Pressure-time Trace web
page.

3. The third method of determining burning rate of a propellant is by

use of a Ballistic Evaluation Motor (BEM). Such a motor is illustrated,
in concept, in Figure 11, together with two grain types that may be
used in the motor. The principle is simple, with grain ignition
occurring on one end (or side, as with the slab grain), and burning
along the length of the web. Note that all surfaces are inhibited from
burning, except one surface. As the surface area remains constant,
the steady-state operating pressure of the motor is constant, and
the burning rate is obtained from the web length (L web) divided by
the motor burn time.
For a slow burning propellant, the end-burning grain configuration
may not be practical (required throat diameter may be too small) to
produce the desired pressure. In this case, the slab grain may be the
solution, as it allows for a significantly greater burning area.

Figure 11 -- Burn rate evaluation motor and grain types

Combustion efficiency and heat losses through the chamber wall both
tend to produce a lower chamber pressure than predicted by theory. Solid
propellant, however, typically has a high combustion efficiency if well
mixed and the oxidizer particle size is very fine. A measure of the
combustion efficiency of a propellant can be taken by comparing the
measured (delivered) value of characteristic velocity (cee-star) to the
ideal value:

The delivered value of cee-star can be obtained from pressure

measurements of static test results:

or measured by "closed vessel" combustion of propellant samples.

For well-prepared sugar-based propellants, the combustion efficiency has
been measured to be between 98 and 99%. To some degree, the
combustion efficiency is a function of the motor size. Motors with longer
combustion chambers provide more time for the chemical reactions to
occur before dispelling through the nozzle.

Heat loss through (or into) the chamber walls is also dependant upon
motor size, as well as casing material and wall thickness. For example, a
larger sized motor with a thin-walled steel casing would have much less
heat loss than a small motor with relatively thick walled aluminum casing.
However, the overall detrimental effect is probably insignificant for both.

The chamber pressure has a pronounced effect upon the propellant

specific impulse, particularly at the lower pressure regime, as shown in
the figure below:

As amateur experimental rocket motors typically have short burn times, a

significant portion of the total impulse may result from the pressure start-
up or tail-off phases of the burn, when the chamber pressure is well below
the steady-state operating pressure level. As a result, the
total delivered specific impulse suffers. This is one reason why delivered
specific impulse can be lower than ideal, which is based on constant
steady-state pressure (usually referenced at 1000 psi). The extent of loss,
designated Vp, is highly dependant upon the motor burn time and
pressure-time profile, but may be 5% or greater. Thus a typical pressure
correction factor would be Vp = 0.95.

Nozzle Corrections

The flow through a real nozzle differs from that of an ideal nozzle because
of frictional effects, heat transfer (particularly at the throat), imperfect
gases and incomplete combustion, non-axial flow, nonuniformity of the
fluid, and particle velocity and thermal lag.
Conical nozzles are used almost exclusively for amateur motors, due to
the relative simplicity in manufacturing such a nozzle. In nozzle theory,
flow is assumed to be one-dimensional (axial). In a conical nozzle, the flow
is two-dimensional, with the extent of the non-axial velocity dependant
upon the divergence cone half-angle, a. The correction factor for non-axial
flow is given by:

l = ½ (1 + cos a)

This loss is usually quite small, with typical values being l = 0.99 for a 12
degree half-angle and l = 0.97 for a 20 degree half-angle.

The discharge correction factor is used to express how well the nozzle
design permits the mass flow rate through the throat to approach the
theoretical rate, and is given by the ratio of delivered mass flow rate to
ideal mass flow rate:

The most significant design parameter which determines the discharge

factor is the contour at the entrance region of the throat. A well rounded
contour tends to maximize the actual flow rate. For propellants that have
a significant fraction of particles in the exhaust, good contouring
minimizes acceleration of the flow at the entrance, thus minimizing the
two-phase flow loss associated with particle velocity lag.
Certain factors tend to increase the actual mass flow rate in comparison
to the idealized mass flow rate. These factors include

 heat transfer of the fluid to the nozzle walls, tending to decrease the
flow temperature, increasing the density.
  the specific heat ratio and other gas properties change through the
nozzle in such a way as to increase the discharge factor.

Consequently, for a rocket motor that has no condensed-phase products in

the exhaust, the discharge correction factor may be close to unity.
However, for a rocket motor that utilizes a propellant with a large fraction
of condensed-phase products (such as the KN-Sugar), the losses can be
quite significant, even with a well contoured nozzle entrance. The value of
the discharge correction factor would typically be Vd = 0.90 for this
propellant with a well designed nozzle with smooth flow surfaces and
minimal heat loss.

Corrections for Specific Impulse

The Ideal Specific Impulse must be corrected to obtain the Delivered

Specific Impulse of an actual rocket motor, by applying the correction
factors discussed above:

As an example, the Kappa-DX rocket motor, powered by the KN/Dextrose

propellant, has the following correction factors:

 Combustion efficiency correction factor h* = 0.98

 Chamber pressure correction factor Vp = 0.95 (estimated)

 Nozzle discharge correction factor Vd = 0.91 (estimated)

 Nozzle divergence correction factor l = 0.99

As the Ideal Specific Impulse is Isp = 164 sec. (@1000 psi), the Delivered
Specific Impulse is given by:

Proposal for a KN-Dextrose Model Motor

Study
Purpose

This proposal requests materials for a small chemistry-focused solid

propellant study based on a KN-dextrose (KN-DX) motor concept modeled
in OpenMotor. The attached simulation screenshot shows a representative
configuration with a total simulated propellant mass of 150g, a burn time
of 1.29 s, an impulse of 118.67 Ns, and a peak chamber pressure of
353.73 psi.

Chemistry Background

Potassium nitrate functions as the oxidizer by supplying oxygen for rapid

redox decomposition, while dextrose serves as the organic fuel that
undergoes oxidation to form gaseous products and condensed residue
during combustion.[cite:44][cite:47] In practical KN-dextrose systems, the
exact products depend on temperature, pressure, and oxygen balance, so
the chemistry is better represented by approximate overall reactions than
by a single perfectly balanced universal equation.[cite:44][cite:47]

Representative simplified combustion relationships are often written in

generalized form as:

Fuel + KNO3 → CO2 +CO+ H2 O+N2 +K 2 CO 3+ other condensed products

For dextrose, a simplified redox representation may be written

qualitatively as:

C 6 H 12 O6+ KNO 3 → gaseous

These equations are intentionally schematic and are included to frame the
project as a chemistry study of oxidizer-fuel balance, gas generation, and
residue formation rather than as a predictive formulation model.

Requested Materials

The project requests the following chemicals as a bulk allotment for

formulation trials, density checks, and comparative casting studies:

Material Requested Role in

quantity formulation

Potassium nitrate 150 g Oxidizer

(KN)

Dextrose 52.5 g Fuel/reductant

The requested 300 g to 195 g split corresponds to a 60.6:39.4 mass ratio,

which is richer in fuel than the common 65:35 oxidizer-to-fuel benchmark
often cited for KN-dextrose systems.[cite:44] If the intention is to preserve
a 65:35 ratio, then 300 g of potassium nitrate would pair with about 161.5
g of dextrose, while 195 g of dextrose would pair with about 362.1 g of
potassium nitrate.

Simulated Motor Summary

The attached OpenMotor result indicates a BATES-style grain arrangement
with three 40 mm grains, a 10 mm core, a 7 mm throat, and a total
propellant length of 120 mm.[cite:43] The same screenshot lists an
average chamber pressure of 321.82 psi, a peak Kn of 205.02, and an
average delivered thrust in the G-class range, which supports using the
setup as a chemistry and combustion-analysis case study rather than as a
finalized hardware build specification.

Preparation and Casting Overview

At a high level, the chemistry workflow consists of reagent verification,

particle-size control, mass-ratio selection, homogeneous blending,
controlled thermal processing, casting into a defined grain geometry, and
post-cure dimensional inspection. Because energetic compositions create
fire, pressure, and burn hazards, any real preparation should occur only
under qualified supervision, within applicable law, and using institutionally
approved laboratory safety procedures; this document therefore keeps the
process at a conceptual level rather than providing an operational recipe.

A chemistry-oriented study can still compare:

 Oxidizer-to-fuel ratio effects on oxygen balance.

  Particle size effects on burn behavior.

 Density differences between poured and compacted samples.

 Residue composition before and after heating.

 Simulated versus measured mass-loss behavior.

Risk and Compliance Note

KN-sugar-type propellants are energetic mixtures, and heating or casting

them can create ignition, pressure, thermal-burn, and legal-compliance
risks. Any laboratory use should be reviewed under local law,
organizational approval, and formal safety controls before materials are
procured or handled.

Proposed Academic Framing

This proposal is best framed as a chemistry mini-project on the

relationship between composition, oxygen balance, and theoretical motor
performance. Suitable analytical sections include stoichiometric
discussion, oxidizer/fuel mass balance, density estimation, combustion-
product analysis, and comparison of modeled versus nominal composition.

After making this we will be able to simulate real time values of :

After building and static-testing your KNdx motor (safely, with proper thrust stand,
sensors, and compliance), you can measure a wide range of performance, chemistry, and
mechanical parameters to validate against your OpenMotor sim. Here's a full categorized
list of standard measurements from amateur rocketry testing.

Thrust & Performance Metrics

Measurement Expected Value How to Measure

Peak thrust 118-120 N Load cell peak reading

Average thrust 90-95 N Total impulse ÷ burn time

Total impulse 116-120 Ns Thrust-time curve area

 Measurement Expected Value How to Measure

Burn time 1.25-1.35 s Video timing or pressure drop

Specific impulse 140-160 s Impulse ÷ (prop mass × 9.81)

Thrust coefficient 1.05-1.10 Measured vs theoretical

Pressure Parameters

Measurement Expected Value How to Measure

Peak chamber pressure 340-360 psi Chamber transducer max

Average chamber pressure 310-330 psi Time-averaged pressure

Initial chamber pressure 180-190 psi First 0.1s reading

Kn value 195-210 s/m² P² ÷ mass flux

Mass & Efficiency

Measurement Expected Value How to Measure

Pre-burn propellant 124.6 g Scale grains before loading

Post-burn residue 8-12 g (7-10%) Weigh motor case after

Mass consumption rate 92-100 g/s Propellant ÷ burn time

Propellant density 1.82-1.86 g/cm³ Grain volume ÷ mass

 Measurement Expected Value How to Measure

C* efficiency 75-85% Measured vs theoretical

Geometry & Dimensions

Measurement Expected Value Tool

Grain length (pre) 40 mm each Calipers

Core diameter (pre) 10 mm Micrometer

Core diameter (post) 11.5-12.5 mm Micrometer

Throat erosion 0.2-0.4 mm Bore gauge

Web burned 4.5-5.5 mm Calipers

Temperature Profile

Measurement Expected Value Sensor

Chamber wall 800-1100°C K-type thermocouple

Nozzle surface 1200-1500°C IR pyrometer

Exhaust plume 1800-2200°C Optical pyrometer

Chemical/Combustion Analysis
 Measurement Expected Value Method

Char residue 7-12% mass Weigh residue

CO2 in exhaust 8-12% vol Gas analyzer

CO in exhaust 4-7% vol Gas analyzer

O2 excess 2-5% vol Combustion analyzer

Validation Metrics

Parameter Sim Value Target Measured Tolerance

Total impulse 118.67 Ns 112-125 Ns ±5-6%

Burn time 1.29 s 1.22-1.36 s ±5%

Avg pressure 321.82 psi 305-338 psi ±5%

Peak pressure 353.73 psi 336-371 psi ±5%