Jeppiaar Engineering College
Propulsion II
Engine Cooling The heat created during combustion in a rocket engine is contained within the exhaust gases. Most of this heat is expelled along with the gas that contains it; however, heat is transferred to the thrust chamber walls in quantities sufficient to require attention. Thrust chamber designs are generally categorized or identified by the hot gas wall cooling method or the configuration of the coolant passages, where the coolant pressure inside may be as high as 500 atmospheres. The high combustion temperatures (2,500 to 3,600o K) and the high heat transfer rates (up to 16 kJ/cm2-s) encountered in a combustion chamber present a formidable challenge to the designer. To meet this challenge, several chamber cooling techniques have been utilized successfully. Selection of the optimum cooling method for a thrust chamber depends on many considerations, such as type of propellant, chamber pressure, available coolant pressure, combustion chamber configuration, and combustion chamber material. Regenerative cooling is the most widely used method of cooling a thrust chamber and is accomplished by flowing high-velocity coolant over the back side of the chamber hot gas wall to convectively cool the hot gas liner. The coolant with the heat input from cooling the liner is then discharged into the injector and utilized as a propellant. Earlier thrust chamber designs, such as the V-2 and Redstone, had low chamber pressure, low heat flux and low coolant pressure requirements, which could be satisfied by a simplified "double wall chamber" design with regenerative and film cooling. For subsequent rocket engine applications, however, chamber pressures were increased and the cooling requirements became more difficult to satisfy. It became necessary to design new coolant configurations that were more efficient structurally and had improved heat transfer characteristics. This led to the design of "tubular wall" thrust chambers, by far the most widely used design approach for the vast majority of large rocket engine applications. These chamber designs have been successfully used for the Thor, Jupiter, Atlas, H-1, J-2, F-1, RS-27 and several other Air Force and NASA rocket engine applications. The primary advantage of the design is its light weight and the large experience base that has accrued. But as chamber pressures and hot gas wall heat fluxes have continued to increase (>100 atm), still more effective methods have been needed. One solution has been "channel wall" thrust chambers, so named because the hot gas wall cooling is accomplished by flowing coolant through rectangular channels, which are machined or formed into a hot gas liner fabricated from a high-conductivity material, such as copper or a copper alloy. A prime example of a channel wall combustion chamber is the SSME, which operates at 204 atmospheres nominal chamber pressure at 3,600 K for a duration of 520 seconds. Heat transfer and structural characteristics are excellent. In addition to the regeneratively cooled designs mentioned above, other thrust chamber designs have been fabricated for rocket engines using dump cooling, film cooling, transpiration cooling,
Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering
Jeppiaar Engineering College
Propulsion II
ablative liners and radiation cooling. Although regeneratively cooled combustion chambers have proven to be the best approach for cooling large liquid rocket engines, other methods of cooling have also been successfully used for cooling thrust chamber assemblies. Examples include:
Dump cooling, which is similar to regenerative cooling because the coolant flows through small passages over the back side of the thrust chamber wall. The difference, however, is that after cooling the thrust chamber, the coolant is discharged overboard through openings at the aft end of the divergent nozzle. This method has limited application because of the performance loss resulting from dumping the coolant overboard. To date, dump cooling has not been used in an actual application. Film cooling provides protection from excessive heat by introducing a thin film of coolant or propellant through orifices around the injector periphery or through manifolded orifices in the chamber wall near the injector or chamber throat region. This method is typically used in high heat flux regions and in combination with regenerative cooling. Transpiration cooling provides coolant (either gaseous or liquid propellant) through a porous chamber wall at a rate sufficient to maintain the chamber hot gas wall to the desired temperature. The technique is really a special case of film cooling. With ablative cooling, combustion gas-side wall material is sacrificed by melting, vaporization and chemical changes to dissipate heat. As a result, relatively cool gases flow over the wall surface, thus lowering the boundary-layer temperature and assisting the cooling process. With radiation cooling, heat is radiated from the outer surface of the combustion chamber or nozzle extension wall. Radiation cooling is typically used for small thrust chambers with a hightemperature wall material (refractory) and in low-heat flux regions, such as a nozzle extension.
Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering
Jeppiaar Engineering College
Propulsion II
Solid Rocket Motors Solid rockets motors store propellants in solid form. The fuel is typically powdered aluminum and the oxidizer is ammonium perchlorate. A synthetic rubber binder such as polybutadiene holds the fuel and oxidizer powders together. Though lower performing than liquid propellant rockets, the operational simplicity of a solid rocket motor often makes it the propulsion system of choice. Solid Fuel Geometry A solid fuel's geometry determines the area and contours of its exposed surfaces, and thus its burn pattern. There are two main types of solid fuel blocks used in the space industry. These are cylindrical blocks, with combustion at a front, or surface, and cylindrical blocks with internal combustion. In the first case, the front of the flame travels in layers from the nozzle end of the block towards the top of the casing. This so-called end burner produces constant thrust throughout the burn. In the second, more usual case, the combustion surface develops along the length of a central channel. Sometimes the channel has a star shaped, or other, geometry to moderate the growth of this surface.
The shape of the fuel block for a rocket is chosen for the particular type of mission it will perform. Since the combustion of the block progresses from its free surface, as this surface grows, geometrical considerations determine whether the thrust increases, decreases or stays constant. Fuel blocks with a cylindrical channel, (1) develop their thrust progressively. Those with a channel and also a central cylinder of fuel (2) produce a relatively constant thrust, which reduces to zero very quickly when the fuel is used up. The five pointed star profile
Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering
Jeppiaar Engineering College
Propulsion II
(3) develops a relatively constant thrust which decreases slowly to zero as the last of the fuel is consumed. The 'cruciform' profile 4) produces progressively less thrust. Fuel in a block with a 'double anchor' profile (5) produces a decreasing thrust which drops off quickly near the end of the burn. The 'cog' profile (6) produces a strong inital thrust, followed by an almost constant lower thrust. Burn Rate The burning surface of a rocket propellant grain recedes in a direction perpendicular to this burning surface. The rate of regression, typically measured in millimeters per second (or inches per second), is termed 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. Propellant burning rate is influenced by certain factors, the most significant being: combustion chamber pressure, initial temperature of the propellant grain, velocity of the combustion gases flowing parallel to the burning surface, local static pressure, and motor acceleration and spin. These factors are discussed below.
Burn rate is profoundly affected by chamber pressure. The usual representation of the pressure dependence on burn rate is the Saint-Robert's Law,
Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering
Jeppiaar Engineering College
Propulsion II
where r is the burn rate, a is the burn rate coefficient, n is the pressure exponent, and Pc is the combustion chamber pressure. The values of a and n are determined empirically for a particular propellant formulation and cannot be theoretically predicted. 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. Example a, n values are 5.6059* (pressure in MPa, burn rate in mm/s) and 0.35 respectively for the Space Shuttle SRBs, which gives a burn rate of 9.34 mm/s at the average chamber pressure of 4.3 MPa. * NASA publications gives a burn rate coefficient of 0.0386625 (pressure in PSI, burn rate in inch/s).
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 lower than "normal" launch conditions. 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. 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). 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 in a motor. For a hollow-cylindrical grain, this is the crosssection area of the core. As a rule of thumb, the ratio should be a minimum of 2 for a grain L/D ratio of 6. A greater Aport/At ratio should be used for grains with larger L/D ratios.
In an operating rocket motor, there is a pressure drop along the axis of the combustion chamber, a drop that 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 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 counter-effect of erosive burning. 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 60-90o with the acceleration vector are prone to increased burn rate.
Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering
Jeppiaar Engineering College
Propulsion II
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 short burn duration. Reducing the burning rate would be beneficial. There are a number of ways of modifying the burning rate: decrease the oxidizer particle size, increase or reduce the percentage of oxidizer, adding a burn rate catalyst or suppressant, and operate the motor at a lower or higher chamber pressure. These factors are discussed below.
The effect of the oxidizer particle size on burn rate seems to be influenced by the type of oxidizer. Propellants that use ammonium perchlorate (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 in the combustion process. The burn rate of most propellants is strongly influenced by the oxidizer/fuel 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. 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 for the sole purpose of tailoring the burning rate. 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 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. 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.
Chamber Pressure The pressure curve of a rocket motor exhibits transient and steady state behavior. 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 with associated burn rate variation. Other factors may play a role, however, such as nozzle throat erosion and erosive burn rate augmentation.
Dept. of Aeronautical Engineering