Tiré à Part

Recent advances in the prediction of SRM thrust oscillations

P. Le Breton*, J.-F. Guéry**, F. Vuillot, M. Prévost

Premier Colloque Européen sur la Technologie des Lanceurs "Vibration des Lanceurs"
Toulouse (France), December 14-16, 1999

TP 2000-5
 Recent advances in the prediction of SRM thrust oscillations

Progrès récents dans la prévision des oscillations de poussée des moteurs à propergol solide

par

P. Le Breton*, J.-F. Guéry**, F. Vuillot, M. Prévost

* SNPE, BP 57, F-33106 Saint Médard en Jalles, France

** SNPE, BP 2, F-91710 Vert le Petit, France

Premier Colloque Européen sur la Technologie des Lanceurs "Vibration des Lanceurs"
Toulouse (France), December 14-16, 1999

Résumé : Un programme de recherche, alliant les aspects numériques et expérimentaux, a été

mené à échelle réduite, pour améliorer notre connaissance des phénomènes d'oscillations de
pression déclenchées par détachement tourbillonnaire, dans les moteurs fusées à propergol solide
segmentés. Des simulations numériques, par résolution des équations de Navier-Stokes, ont permis
d'obtenir des amplitudes d'oscillations de pression comparables à celles mesurées sur un
propulseur à échelle réduite, pour un propergol non métallisé et pour différentes configurations de
protections thermiques de la face avant du segment arrière. Un scénario original a été proposé. Ce
scénario est fondé sur un phénomène de détachement tourbillonnaire pariétal prenant naissance à
la surface du propergol en combustion. Le phénomène est particulièrement présent dans les
configurations sans protections thermiques. Dans les configurations avec protections thermiques, la
forme du restricteur métallique représentant la protection thermique (déformé ou non déformé) est
apparue comme un paramètre très influent. Des premières simulations numériques de l'ensemble
du fonctionnement d'un moteur, à l'aide du code MOPTI de la SNPE, ont retrouvé des zones
d'instabilités proches des zones observées expérimentalement. Un scénario nouveau a été proposé
par l'ONERA et pourrait expliquer les niveaux d'oscillations relativement plus élevés obtenus à
l'échelle 1, par la combustion distribuée de l'aluminium présent dans le propergol.

Ce Tiré à part fait référence au Document d’Accompagnement de Publication DSNA9948

 Recent Advances in the Prediction of SRM Thrust Oscillations
P. Le Breton*, J.F. Guéry**
† ‡
F. Vuillot , M. Prevost

*SNPE, B.P. 57, 33166 St-Médard-en-Jalles, FRANCE

**SNPE, Centre de Recherche du Bouchet, B.P. 2, 91710 Vert le Petit, FRANCE
†
ONERA, 29 av. de la Division Leclerc, 92322 CHATILLON CEDEX, FRANCE
‡
ONERA, Centre du Fauga Mauzac, 31410 Mauzac, FRANCE

Abstract

A subscale experimental and numerical program has been carried out in order to improve the
knowledge of vortex shedding driven pressure oscillations phenomena in segmented solid rocket
motors. Full Navier-Stokes simulations have provided pressure amplitudes in the same range than the
experimental ones, for different configurations of non-metallized propellant subscale motors having
metallic restrictors or no restrictor on the last segment forward face. An original scenario has been
proposed which rely mostly on surface vortex shedding originating on the burning surface of the
propellant. This phenomenon is particularly present in the no-restrictor configuration but also in some
configurations with metallic restrictors whose shape (bended versus non bended) has been identified
as an influent parameter. First numerical computations of all the firing of a motor, done with SNPE
MOPTI suite, shows instabilities zones very close to experimental ones. A new scenario proposed by
ONERA relying on aluminum distributed combustion in surface vortex-shedding area is proposed to
explain the levels of pressure oscillation obtained at full scale.

Introduction

It has been widely reported in the open literature that the large segmented Solid Rocket Motors
(SRM) are subject to pressure oscillations caused by vortex shedding at annular restrictors and
acoustic feedback resulting from impingement of the vortices on the nozzle or other restrictors. All
1 2
the SRMs having annular inhibitors (Titan 34D SRM , Titan IV SRM, Space Shuttle SRB and
3
Ariane 5 MPS ) have demonstrated such pressure oscillations, whatever the number of segments was.
All these motors have a length over diameter (L/D) ratio in the range [9-12]. An exception seems to
be the motor developed for the Japanese H-II vehicle, for which pressure oscillations have not been
4
reported in the available literature . But this motor is a smaller motor and has an outside diameter
5
limited to 1.8 m compared to more than 3 m for the others. A recent publication makes a review of
the pressure oscillation data available and shows that the Titan IV SRMU which does not have
inhibitors also exhibits pressure oscillation phenomena with unsteady pressure levels lying in the
same range than the former "inhibited" motors. The analysis based on the approach first proposed by
6
Rossiter for airflow over rectangular cavities indicates that acoustic feedback also defines the
pressure oscillations and that the excitation is provided by the vortices shed around the cavity
between the center and aft segments of the motor.

These observations on a fullscale segmented motor comfort the observations made on a basic
subscale motor in the frame of the Ariane 5 development program. The results reported in a 1996
7
paper indicate that subscale motors, with representative L/D ratio, but without inhibitors and even
without intersegment cavity also exhibit pressure oscillations. In the experiments, five different motor
configurations were used, three of them with metallic restrictors instead of elastomeric inhibitors, the
fourth one without inhibitor on the aft segment forward face and the fifth one with central and aft

1
segments merged (no cavity). All configurations with metallic restrictors do not show pressure
oscillations while the two last configurations do show high level pressure oscillations on the first
8
acoustic mode. A full Navier-Stokes numerical simulation of the two last configurations has shown
that what was named parietal (or surface) vortex shedding was the cause of these pressure
oscillations. It comes finally that pressure oscillations in large L/D ratio SRM could be due to three
different vortex shedding phenomena :
1) Vortex shedding from annular restrictors.
2) Vortex shedding over intersegment cavities.
3) Surface vortex shedding.

A research program has thus been proposed in order to improve the understanding of these basic
phenomena in relationship with what could occur in a real the Ariane 5 MPS.

Definition of the Experimental Configuration

The first part of this program was to find configurations of an experimental subscale motor that are
representative enough to exhibit the elementary phenomena that are supposed to occur in a three-
segment motor but basic enough to permit confrontation with numerical simulation. For this last point
a very good estimate of the internal geometry of the motor at the computed time must be known. This
imposes that no ablative elements should be put inside the motor or that the ablation law for these
elements should be perfectly known. The four basic configurations that have been finally retained use
metallic restrictors instead of real thermal protection on the aft segment forward face or no protection
at all. It has also been assumed from the fullscale Ariane 5 MPS firings that the vortex shedding
phenomena occurs only after the complete burning of the head-end star-shaped grain and that there is
no influence of the thermal protection on the second segment face.
The four basic configurations are presented in Figure 1. Configuration E features a motor without
protection on the third segment face while configurations H, I and J feature motors with metallic
protections providing different protrusions in the flow. All motors have an axisymmetric first
segment to preclude three-dimensional effects on the expected phenomena. The LP6 motor is very
close to the MPS geometry (grains conicity, submerged nozzle profile similar to these of a
preliminary version of the MPS) except for the head-end and aft-end closures that are flat for easier
installation of the propellant grains. The three segments are casted apart by SNPE and bonded in the
heavy wall case with an external liner which fills the 3-mm gap between the grain and the case. The
propellant is a non-metallized AP/HTPB propellant containing non-active stabilizing additives to
preclude tangential instability modes.
A detailed description if the experimental configuration and data reduction analysis if given in Ref.
23.

Experimental Program

The four configurations presented in Figure 1 have been used only once except configuration E
without inhibitor which has been used three times at room temperature conditions (20°C).
Configurations I and J have been defined according to the following fullscale MPS observations :
1) The elastomeric thermal protection on the third segment exhibits a substantial ablation which
limits its protrusion in the flow as the propellant burns.
2) The pressure difference between both sides of the thermal protection progressively leads to a large
bending of this elastomeric disk in the flow.
Configuration J has been defined as being representative of the Ariane 5 MPS one, when the
maximum level of pressure oscillations occurs (approximately 95 s during the firing). The geometry
has been estimated by SNPE using a propellant regression code and a coupling between a two-
dimensional Navier-Stokes solver and a grain deformation code for the thermal protection.
Configuration I simply used a straight metallic restrictor having the same protrusion in the flow than

2
the bended one defined for configuration J. Therefore comparison of results between configurations I
and J is relevant to the influence of the estimated bending of the thermal protection, excluding any
possible coupling between the flow oscillations and the vibration of the thermal protection, as it is
replaced by a rigid metallic part.

Figure 1 : The four basis configurations of the LP6 motor

LP6 Experimental Results

The firings of the LP6 motor have been performed on a static test bench at Le Fauga-Mauzac Center
of ONERA. A special care has been put on data reduction in order to generate a complete data base
that could serve as a reference for further confrontation to numerical simulations. Each unsteady
pressure has been reduced on 1024 data point windows on which Hamming tapered Power Spectral
Density (PSD) has been performed over three overlapping segments of 512 data. A typical set of
results is presented on Figure 2 to Figure 5 for the four configurations. These figures present :
1) The head-end pressure time histories for the absolute and the unsteady pressures.
2) The head-end pressure amplitude time histories for the three first acoustic modes (integration
windows : [200, 350] Hz for the first axial mode ; [450, 600] Hz for the second axial mode ; [800,
950] Hz for the third axial mode).
3) A time versus frequency location of the four first maximum for the head-end pressure amplitude.
3) A waterfall plot of the DSP for the head-end pressure.
A comparison of these four figures clearly indicates that :
1) All firings give satisfactory steady-state results. The first axisymmetric segment burns smoothly
about 2.5 s generating a pressure growing from about 3 to 4 MPa and providing a sharp decrease
at the end of its combustion. The submerged nozzle is freed from propellant between 5.5 and 6 s
depending on the exact slope of the aft-part of third segment. A smooth end of the burn provided
by the conicity of segments 2 and 3 is observed between 8 and 10 s.
2) The unsteady pressure traces reveal the time periods during which particular unsteady phenomena
occur : after 6 s for configuration E, at 4 and 5 s for configuration I and at 7 s for configuration J. It is
not possible to detect any particular unsteady regime for configuration H on these curves. These
unsteady periods do not seem to be linked to the time where the propellant surrounding the nozzle is
completely burned.
3) The acoustic modes excited during the firings are clearly different from one configuration to the
other.

3
Figure 2 : Congiguration E – Typical set of experimental result

Figure 3 : Congiguration H – Typical set of experimental result

4
Figure 4 : Congiguration I – Typical set of experimental result

Figure 5 : Congiguration J – Typical set of experimental result

5
Table I makes a summary of the amplitudes obtained on the three first axial modes (time interval, 0-
to-peak value), before the end of combustion starts.

Configuration 1L (#280 Hz) 2L (# 560 Hz) 3L (# 840 Hz)

6-9 s
E / /
0.010 MPa
3-4 s
H / /
0.003 MPa
6 and 7 s 4 and 5 s
I /
0.002 MPa 0.004 MPa
6.5-7.5 s 7.5 s
J /
0.005 MPa 0.002 MPa
Table I : Summary o f the amplitudes on the three first axial modes

Comparison of configurations H and I demonstrates that a straight metallic restrictor refrains the first
and second axial modes to occur but provides oscillations on the third mode earlier in the firing,
starting at 3 s for maximum protrusion (conf. H) and at 4 s for reduced protrusion (conf. I) in the
flow. A very interesting element comes from comparing configurations I and J. The simple bending
of the restrictor dramatically modify the unsteady behavior, giving a strong first axial mode between
6.5 s and 7.5 s. As configuration J is based on the internal geometry of the Ariane 5 MPS at 95 s, it
should be representative only at this equivalent time for the subscale motor, which is effectively
about 7 s, after correction due to the difference in the propellant burning rates. Having no restrictor at
all, configuration E is clearly different of the other configurations and gives meanwhile the largest
instability amplitude on the first axial mode between 6 and 9 s. This result confirms what was
5 7
previously observed on the SRMU and on the LP3-E motor . The color waterfall plots of the head-
end pressure DSP that are presented in Figure 8 clearly show all the different behaviors. Here again,
comparison between configurations I and J demonstrates how the simple bending of the restrictor
provides a slip in the unsteady flow pattern from the high modes to the lower modes.

Comparison with numerical simulation

Based on previous confidence on the ability of capturing vortex shedding phenomena with full
8-9
unsteady Navier-Stokes simulation for subscale segmented motors , each experimental configuration
has been retained as a candidate for computation. The time at which the simulation was realized had
been selected as follows :
1) 6.6 s in the firing for conf. E, which corresponds to the maximum amplitude on the first axial
mode.
2) 4 s in the firing for conf. H, which corresponds to the maximum amplitude on the third axial mode.
3) 7 s in the firing for conf. J, which corresponds to the maximum amplitude on the first axial mode.
4) 7 s also for conf. I, in order to make a direct comparison to conf. J simulation results.

Description of codes

Three different codes have been used for the simulations. SIERRA is a multi-domain code developed
by ONERA that solves the two-dimensional compressible unsteady Navier-Stokes equations by
means of an explicit finite volume original Mac Cormack scheme (1969). This code has been
thoroughly validated for SRM internal flows and for unsteady regimes including acoustics and vortex
10-12 13-15
shedding . PATRIC is the SNPE computer code for CFD inside SRM . It solves the two and three
dimensional compressible unsteady Navier-Stokes equations for turbulent, reactive, multi-species,
two-phase flows. It uses a cell-centered finite volume method on an unstructured mesh with triangular
and quadrilateral control cells in 2D and with hexahedrons, pentahedrons, pyramids and tetrahedrons

6
in 3D. Only the two-dimensional version has been used in the present study, even if three-
20
dimensional parallel computations of vortex-shedding have already been done . MOPTI is a SNPE
code which manages exchanges between two principal computational modules :
- A varying burning rate surface burnback module,
®
-The CFD code PATRIC
MOPTI has been precisely described in reference 25. The surface burnback module has been
developed, on the basis of the work published by R. Abgrall, to be able to simulate non-isotropic
21-22
propellant combustion .
®
Combustion chamber pressure field is computed with SNPE CFD code PATRIC . In MOPTI
simulations, until now, only the laminar Navier-Stokes option is used. The global structure of MOPTI
is presented on Figure 6.

Combustion Chamber
Manufactoring geometry
Surface Burnback
Process

Automatic
Burning Rate mesh generation

Pressure Field 2d Aerodynamical

computation

Performance Prevision

Figure 6 : Structure of MOPTI

PATRIC and SIERRA computations are done in fixed geometries (the time scale related to the
moving boundary is larger that the time scale for instabilities). The pressure signal is exploited on a
time-window long enough to permit spectral analysis with sufficient frequency resolution, after
stabilization of the average pressure and of the unsteady regime. MOPTI computes the unstable
behavior of a motor during the whole firing.

Influence of grid refinement has been analyzed. For these subscale motor configurations,
computations on two successive grids, the second being two times finer that the first one, have shown
that the unsteady amplitudes obtained on both grids had the same order of magnitude. The finer grids
were finally adopted for better resolution of the vortices.

Main results (PATRIC and SIERRA)

A comparison between numerical and experimental pressures is proposed in Figure 7 for all
configurations. In this figure, the spectra for the head-end (HE) and aft-end (AE) pressures are plotted
using the same scale for all computations and experiments and roughly the same frequency
resolution. This major figure calls for the following comments :
1) For conf. E, the first axial mode is clearly observed on both numerical and experimental spectra.
The level for the simulation is higher than for the experiment (18000 vs. 7000 Pa for the HE pressure)
but the ratio between HE and AE pressures is roughly the same. The simulation also exhibits higher
axial modes (2L to 5L) that are not present in the test.
2) For conf. H, the agreement between simulation and experiment is rather poor, the computation
generating levels that are higher than the experimental ones, particularly for the AE pressure. The
frequency content is much more complex than for configuration E in both simulation and test and in
both cases the AE pressure amplitudes are much higher than the HE amplitudes.
3) For conf. I, which is supposed to be almost stable at this time, the simulation finds levels on the
two first axial modes of about 2000 Pa at the HE and a large difference between the HE and the AE
which is not visible on the experiments.

7
4) For conf. J, the agreement between simulation and test is excellent on the HE pressure for the first
axial mode (4000 Pa) even if the second mode is too high in the simulation. Here again the levels on
the AE pressure are much higher on the numerical simulation than on the experiment.

The color vorticity contours presented in Figure 9 indicates that conf. E is only subject to surface
vortex shedding generated on the burning surface of segment 3 and giving strong (red) vortices on the
very aft part of the motor. No vorticity seems to be directly generated in the second intersegment slot.
A comparison between conf. I and J shows that the bending of the metallic restrictor probably allows
a stronger coupling between the vortices generated at the tip of the restrictor and the surface vortices,
thus providing a stronger excitation of the first axial mode. For configuration H the vortices generated
at the tip of the full restrictor seem to be effectively very strong, but the emission of these vortices
occur at a high frequency which finally creates almost no coupling with the surface shedding and
finally no level on the first axial mode. A detailed examination of the experimental pressures
effectively indicates that the excitation at the second intersegment slot occurs at 2000 Hz only for
conf. H, a frequency which does not match any acoustic mode frequency.

Proposed scenario for vortex shedding

From information provided both by numerical vorticity contours and by numerical and experimental
pressure amplitudes, the following scenario can be finally proposed :
1) The main phenomenon giving high level vortex shedding driven pressure oscillations seems to be
the surface vortex shedding with strong coupling with the first acoustic axial mode.
2) A short restrictor protruding in the flow at the second intersegment slot limits the amplitude of the
phenomenon and is also influent by its geometry as long as the shearing created by the obstacle is
modified (smoother behind a bended restrictor).
3) A full restrictor seems to preclude the surface vortex shedding phenomenon and only gives tip
vortices that do not seem to interact with any axial acoustic mode (in this configuration).
4) No vortices coming from the second intersegment slot seem to be present in all four
configurations.
As long as the main phenomenon is the surface vortex shedding (conf. E), the ratio between the aft-
end and head-end pressure amplitudes is well restored by the numerical simulation even if the
absolute level is too high and if upper modes appear which are not observed in the firings. An
explanation can be searched through the lack of physical modeling in the numerical simulation. At
least, four major physical phenomena are known to have an influence on instabilities and are not
accounted for yet :
1) the turbulence in the flow field.
2) the dynamic response of the motor.
3) the pressure-coupled response of the propellant.
5) the two-phase flow effects.
16-18
The first topics is currently studied in frame of the French ASSM research program . The second
19
one has been the object of a preliminary study which is not reported here but indicates that the
dynamic response of the motor is sensitive only for the higher modes (second axial mode and upper
modes). The third topic has been studied on configurations E and J, using an unsteady combustion
model developed by ONERA and implemented in both codes SIERRA and PATRIC. The influence is
23
very limited for the range of frequencies studied . For the last one, the influence of energy liberation
of reacting condensed phase on thrust oscillation levels will be assessed later in the paper.

8
Figure 7 : Comparison of numerical and experimental pressure amplitudes for all configurations

9
Figure 8 : Waterfall plots of dsp contours for all configurations

Figure 9 : Numerical vorticity contours for all configurations

10
The MOPTI suite computations

A MOPTI simulation of the LP6 subscale motor has been performed in the J configuration. This
simulation has been carried out on the basis of a constant burning rate burnback surface computation.
The performance simulation is carried out using 60 time steps, 0.13s each.

On Figure 10 numerical vorticity fields are presented. They show that the flow becomes unstable after
t≅5s. Before this time step the pressure signal is stable. This numerical result is in good agreement
with experimental observations.

t=5s t=6s

t=7s t=8s

Figure 10 : Numerical vorticity fields

The computational results have been more precisely analyzed. The pressure signal computed for each
time step is 50ms long, that is to say a spectral resolution of 20Hz for each computation. Head-end
pressure Power Spectral Density (PSD) contours are plotted on Figure 11.
Those figures show a very good agreement between numerical and experimental results. The first
oscillations occur after t≅5s. We observe a first waterfall on the first longitudinal acoustic mode
between 5 an 6.5s. The levels are stronger on computational results but the global form is similar. The
principal waterfall occurs between 6.5 and 8s, and a last one in the combustion tail off between 8 and
10s. For both waterfalls the numerical and experimental results are in really good agreement. The
same comparison may be done on the second acoustic mode.

10

9 10

8 9
8
7
7
Time (s)

6
6
Time (s)

5
5
4
4
3 3
2 2
Simulation Experience
1 1

0 0
0 200 400 600 800 1000 0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

Frequency (Hz) Frequency (Hz)

Figure 11 : PSD contours - Comparison of experimental and computational results

It’s necessary to remain that in MOPTI simulation, only Euler or Laminar Navier-Stokes equations
are solved in order to decrease computation times. When the goal is to obtain instabilities level at a
given time, MOPTI may be used as a tool to choose the simulation time to be looked at more

11
precisely. At this given time, a more complex CFD simulation on an adapted mesh can be done with
all the required physical models (turbulence, multiphase models...).
Configuration E computations have been done recently with MOPTI. The computed results are again
in good agreement with experimental results. On Figure 12, the computed evolution of pressure
oscillations levels on the first acoustic mode is compared to the experimental one.

12000

10000 Experience
Mopti simulation
Amplitude (Pa)

8000

6000

4000

2000

0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60
Web (m m )

Figure 12 : LP6 – Configuration E – Pressure oscillation levels on first acoustic mode

The MOPTI suite has shown capabilities in predicting the global stability of non metallized
AP/HTPB SRM in conditions where the geometry was well determined (no fluid-structure coupling
possible) and at subscale range. A validation work is still in progress for applicability on the real
motor.

Aluminum distributed combustion

Despite the very encouraging results obtained on the sub-scale, non metalized, motor, some results
did not fit in the proposed scenario. These results are summarized below :

1) Some numerical simulations were performed at the full scale by SNPE and did not provided good
agreement, especially on the oscillatory levels. The simulations were state of the art simulations but
did not include burning aluminum as this was beyond the current capabilities of the codes, while the
actual propellant does contain aluminum
2) The metallized propellant was first used on the subscale motor LP6 but turned out to yield a stable
firing, while, as described above, non-metallized propellant did yield significative oscillatory levels,
despite these levels were lower than the full scale levels.

From these results, ONERA suggested that distributed aluminum combustion could be a very active
phenomenon on the resulting oscillatory levels.
It has been known from many years that aluminum burns away from the propellant surface implying a
distributed energy release inside the core of the flow. Of course, the size of the aluminum droplet is
the key parameter in defining the extent of this distributed effect. Studies performed on the Ariane 5
propellant concluded that although the initial aluminum particle size is centered around 30 µm, a
significative portion of the aluminum enter the combustion chamber in an agglomerated form (due to
near surface process, where individual aluminum particle are agglomerated in pockets created by
larger AP particles). The average size of these agglomerate is close to 125 µm. Such large particles
burn away from the propellant surface, typically several centimeters, in a region where surface
vortices begin to form when oscillations are driven by this mechanism. It was then anticipated that
some relation between the size of the distributed combustion zone and the volume occupied by the

12
surface vortices could explain the higher observed oscillatory levels at full scale. Of course, scaling
down the motor without scaling down the aluminum particle size would destroy this relation.
It was thus believed that strong interaction between distributed burning aluminum and surface vortex
shedding could be the clue to explain the above described discrepencies. Indeed at subscale, the
conditions prevailing at full scale no longer hold unless some scaling s applied to the aluminum
droplets.
To illustrate the possible importance of this mechanism, a very simple simulation was proposed.
Starting with the LP6 configuration E simulation, a two-phase flow simulation was performed. Some
form of particulate combustion was added to the simulation, using the simplest possible combustion
model. The retained model was as follows :
2
A simple particle diameter regression law (d law) was adopted. Then the interphase exchange terms
(mass, drag force and convective heat transfer) are given by (for one droplet of diameter d) :
(
C p T − Tp + rsY0 x Q )
ω& = 2πd
k
Cp
( )
1 + 0 ,3 Re1p 2 Pr 1 3 ln(1 + B ) où B =
lv
r  24 
π C r r r r
FD = ρd 2 D u − u p u − u p
8 1+ B
( ) où CD = max 
 Re p
( )
1 + 0 .15 Re p0 .687 ; 0 ,445 


Qv = πdk
Nu
1+ B
(
T − Tp ) où Nu = 2 + 0 ,6 Re p1 / 2 Pr 1 / 3

where : Q = 9,53 106 J/kg

lv = 10,90 106 J/kg
rs = 1 et Yox = 1

(u − u p ) + (v − v p )
2 2
ρd
The particulate Reynolds number is given by : Re p =
µ
Then the corresponding source terms (mass momentum and energy) in the gas equations are (for one
droplet) :
sm = ω&
su = ω& u p − FDx
sv = ω& v p − FDy

( ) 

1
2
( 
sE = − FDx u p + FDy v p − Qv + ω&  lv + Cs Tp + Q + u 2p + v 2p 
 )
The following notations are used :
B : Spalding number
CD : particle drag force Q : heat released by the combustion
Cp : gas specific heat at constant pressure Qv : convective heat transfer
Cs : particle specific heat rs : mass stoechiometric coefficient
d : droplet diameter T : temperature
r r
FD : particle drag force u : velocity
k : gas thermal conductivity Y0x : oxydizing species mass fraction
lv : latent heat of vaporization µ : gas laminar viscosity
Nu : Nusselt number ρ : gas density
Pr : Prandtl number ( )p : particle property
This simplified model was introduced in the SIERRA code and validated in the simple case of a
propagating acoustic wave. During combustion, the particle temperature was held at the vaporizing

13
temperature. The combustion can be stopped at a given size (corresponding to a residual aluminum
oxide droplet) then the particle temperature was computed via the particulate phase energy equation.
Several computations were performed for several aluminum/residual size and only the most
significant results will be reported below. These concerns subscale (LP6) computations with two
different aluminum loading :
a) 6% (in mass) of 30 µm aluminum droplets with 3 µm residues (as if the propellant was scaled
down).
b) 6% (in mass) of 125 µm aluminum droplets with 60 µm residues (as if the propellant was not
scaled down).

Figure 13 : Vorticity and gas temperature fields as well as head end pressure signals (compared to Navier-
Stokes simulation, far left) for two cases described.

14
The propellant scaling law was based on the Stokes number analogy : St = ω τ, where ω is the
acoustic angular frequency and τ the particulate characteristic time. If τ is the particulate dynamic
relaxation time, τ = ρsd /18µ or if τ is the combustion time τ≈d ,with the model used here, the same
2 2

1/2
scaling law is obtained as : d proportional to 1/ω
Thus at the LP6 scale (1/15), 125 µm corresponds to roughly 30 µm.

The results are summarized in the following tables and illustrated by Figure 13.

NS 6%, 30µm, r3µm 6%, 125µm, r60µm

PHE (bar) 41,03 47,54 46,68
∆PHE (Pa) 9204 16789 2100
∆PAE (Pa) 12552 18810 3598
Fr (Hz) 297 315 302

When aluminum burns, the mean pressure increases due to the increase in the chamber temperature.
When expressed in relative amplitudes the results are as given in the table below.

6%, 30µm, r3µm 6%, 125µm, r60µm

RPHE 1,57 0,20
RPAE 1,29 0,25

It is interesting to note that, in these subscale computations, large particles considerably reduce the
levels of oscillatory levels, in good agreement with the results of LP6 firings with the full scale
aluminized propellant, while smaller (scaled down) aluminum particles lead to oscillatory levels close
to the full scale levels. This shows that distributed aluminum combustion plays an important role on
the resulting oscillatory levels. This open the way to further simulations of full scale motors when
aluminum distributed combustion is present. It also open the way to control of the oscillatory levels
through control of the aluminum droplet size, considering the agglomeration process which is
responsible of the active large particles.

Conclusion

Confrontation between experimental and numerical results for vortex shedding driven pressure
oscillations phenomena in segmented subscale motor has given new insight on this very complex
issue. A complete data base for both experimental and numerical results has also been generated
which will be very useful for further work and will be progressively completed as long as new results
are available. From the four different configurations tested, a new vision can be proposed which
mainly rely on surface vortex shedding as the main driver for pressure oscillations. No evidence of
vortices shed around the cavity between center and aft segments has conforted the recent scenario
proposed for the SRMU. The configuration which provides the highest pressure amplitudes on the
first axial acoustic mode does not feature inhibitor on the last segment while the others using metallic
restrictors demonstrate low amplitude higher modes particularly if the annular restrictor protrudes
deeply in the flow. The influence of the restrictor shape has also been assessed, a bended shape giving
more acoustic response on the first axial mode than a non-bended shape for the same protrusion in the
flow. Up to now, the computation of thrust oscillation was only possible on condition that were
experimentally fired. The development of the MOPTI suite enlarges the possibilities.
A true limitation in this subscale program is that the results can not be directly extrapolated to
fullscale segmented SRM. This is due first to the current limitation of the codes used for the
simulation, that requires very fine grids particularly for those configurations having restrictors
protruding in the flow, for which the resolution mandatory for fullscale applications is still out of
reach. Meanwhile some hope comes from the fact that the proposed surface vortex shedding driver is
really less sensitive to the grid refinement as long as it is generated all along the burning surface

15
(region not dominated by viscous effects) rather than behind an obstacle (region dominated by
viscous effects).
Aluminum distributed combustion was shown to be a good candidate to explain the levels got at full
scale.
The exact role played by the elastomeric inhibitors placed on the forward faces of the fullscale
segments still has to be investigated. Are these inhibitors really deeply bended in the flow ? Do they
mechanically interact with the flowfield oscillations ?
The answers to all these very complex issues still require more research in order to enhance the
physical models in the numerical tools on basic phenomena as turbulence and two-phase flow. But
subscale programs will remain very fruitful as long as they permit to improve the knowledge and as
long as they could serve as experimental test benches to check solutions proposed to reduce the
pressure oscillations as for instance passive (geometrical, work on the propellant) or active control.

Acknowledgment

This work financially supported by CNES is the result of a large cooperative effort in the French
community involved in solid rocket propulsion. The authors want to thank contributors from
Aerospatiale and SEP for valuable discussion in frame of the POP program.

References
1
Brown, R. S., Dunlap, R., Young, S.W., and Waugh, R.C., "Vortex Shedding as a Source of Acoustic
Energy in Segmented Solid Rockets", Journal of Spacecraft, Vol. 18, No. 4, 1981, pp. 312-319.
2
Nesman, T., "RSRM Chamber Pressure Oscillations : Full Scale Ground and Flight Test Summary
and Air Flow Test Results", Proceedings of the AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE Solid Rocket Motor
Combustion Instability Workshop, 31st Joint Propulsion Conference, San Diego, CA, AIAA Solid
Rocket Technical Committee, AIAA, Washington, DC, 1995, pp. 27-48.
3
Scippa, S., Pascal, P., and Zanier, F., "Ariane 5 MPS - Chamber Pressure Oscillations Full Scale
Firings Results Analysis and Further Studies", AIAA Paper 94-3068, June 1994.
4
Fukushima, Y., "H-II Launcher Propulsion Experience", Proceedings of the 5th Symposium
International on Propulsion in Space Transportation, AAAF, pp. 5.9-5.20, May 1996.
5
Dotson, K. W., Koshigoe, S., and Pace, K.K., "Vortex Shedding in a Large Solid Rocket Motor
Without Inhibitors at the Segment Interfaces", Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 13, No. 2,
1997, pp. 197-206.
6
Rossiter, J.E., "Wind-Tunnel Experiments on the Flow over Rectangular Cavities at Subsonic and
Transonic Speed", Aeronautical Research Council, Ministry of Aviation, Reports and Memoranda
3438, London, Oct. 1964.
7
Prévost, M., Vuillot, F., and Traineau, J.C., "Vortex Shedding Driven Oscillations in Subscale
Motors for the Ariane 5 MPS Solid Rocket Motor", AIAA Paper 96-3247, July 1996.
8
Lupoglazoff, N., and Vuillot, F., "Parietal Vortex Shedding as a Cause of Instability for Long Solid
Propellant Motors. Numerical Simulations and Comparisons with Firing Tests", AIAA Paper 96-
0761, January 1996.
9
Tissier, P.Y., Godfroy, F., and Jacquemin, P., "CFD Analysis of Vortex Shedding inside a Subscale
Segmented Motor", AIAA Paper 94-2781, June 1994.
10
Vuillot, F., and Avalon, G., "Acoustic Boundary Layers in Solid Propellant Rocket Motors using
Navier-Stokes Equations", Journal of Propulsion and Power, Vol. 7, No. 2, 1991, pp. 231-239.
11
Vuillot, F., "Numerical Computation of Acoustic Boundary Layers in Large Solid Propellant Space
Booster", AIAA Paper 91-0206, January 1991.
12
Lupoglazoff, N., and Vuillot, F., "Numerical Simulation of Vortex Shedding Phenomenon in 2D
Test Case Solid Rocket Motors", AIAA Paper 92-0776, January 1992.

16
13
Tissier, P.Y., Godfroy, F., and Jacquemin, P., "Three Dimensional Simulation of Unsteady Inviscid
Flows using a Second Order Finite Volume Method. Application to Flows inside Solid Propellant
Motors.", Computing Methods in Applied Sciences and Engineering, Glowinski (Ed.), Paris (1992).
14
Godfroy, F., Jacquemin, P., Tissier, P.Y., and Jouve, F., "Simulation of Three-Dimensional Flows
Inside Solid Propellant Rocket Motor Using a Second Order Finite Volume Method. Application to
the Study of Unstable Phenomena", AIAA Paper 92-3275, July 1992.
15
Morfouace, V., and Tissier, P.Y., "Two-Phase Flow Analysis of Instabilities Driven by Vortex
Shedding in Solid Rocket Motors", AIAA Paper 95-2733, July 1995.
16
Traineau, J.C., Vuillot, F., and Robert, E., "The French Research and Technology Program on the
Aerodynamics of Segmented Solid Motors : ASSM", IAF Paper 95-S-1.08, October 1995.
17
Dupays, J., Prévost, M., Tarrin, P. and Vuillot, F., "Effects of Particulate Phase on Vortex Shedding
Driven Oscillations in Solid Rockets Motors", AIAA Paper 96-3248, July 1996.
18
Vuillot, F., Dupays, J., and Lupoglazoff, N., "2D Navier-Stokes Stability Computations for Solid
Rocket Motors : Rotational, Combustion and Two-Phase Flow Effects", AIAA Paper 97-3326, July
1997.
19
Piet-Lahanier, N., Barthe-Batsalle, L., “Programme POP : Modèle ASTRAL-2D du propulseur LP6
et calcul de réponse harmonique", ONERA Internal Report, June 1997.
20
Mombelli, C., Guichard, A., Godfroy, F., Guery, J.F., “Parallel Computation of Vortex-Shedding in
Solid Rocket Motors”, AIAA Paper 99-2510, June 1999
21
Abgrall, R., “Numerical discretization of boundary conditions for first order Hamilton Jacobi
equations” Comm. in Pure and Applied Math.
22
Abgrall, R., “Numerical Discretization of First Order Hamilton Jacobi Equations on Triangular
Meshes”, Comm. Pure Appl. Math, XLIX : 1339-1373, December 1996
23
Traineau, J.C., Prévost, M., Vuillot, F., Le Breton, P., Cuny, J., Preioni, N., Bec, R., “A Subscale
Test Program to Assess the Vortex Shedding Driven Instabilities in Segmented Solid Rocket Motors”,
AIAA 97-3247 July 1997
24
Ribéreau, D., Le Breton, P., “Simulation Numérique des Instabilités de Fonctionnement Observées
sur un Propulseur à Propergol Solide de Type Axisymétrique”. Colloque Ecoulements Propulsifs
dans les Systèmes de Transport Spatial, Bordeaux 11-15 Sept. 1995.
25
P. Le Breton, D. Ribéreau, F. Godfroy. “SRM Performance analysis by coupling bidimensional
Surface Burnback and Pressure Field Computations” AIAA 98-3968 July 13-15, 1998/Cleveland.

17