~LEYELIs

NPS N'
7-80-06

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL

Monterey, California

r~
AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OF THE DUAL CHAMBER ROCKET MOTOR,

J. F./cFillin

Jr.0 S. T. Van Brocklin

J. E.Aeakley/D. W./Netzer

July 1f80'

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

-"'Prepared I

for: Naval Weapons Center China Lake, CA

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL Monterey, California Rear Admiral J. J. Ekelund Superintendent Jack R. Borsting Provost

The work reported herein was supported by the Naval Weapons Center, China Lake, CA., under contract t46053078WR30023.

Reproduction of all or part of this report is authorized.

This report was prepared by:

0. W. NETZER

Associate Profess/or of Aeronautics

Released as a

Reviewed by:

Technical Report by:

M. F. PLATZER, Chairman Department of Aeronautics

W. Dean of Research

_______

UNCLASSIED~t

___

SECURITY CLA SSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE (Whenl Dole Entered)

REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE

I REPORT NUMBER

BEFORE COMPLETING FORM

3. RECIPIENT'S CATALOG NUMBER

-8-0

2. GOVT ACCESSION NO.

NPS67-006-6
4 TITLE (and Su~buitle) S YEO EOT&PRO OEE

AN EXPERIMENTAL INVESTIGATION OFFIA

THE DUAL CHAMBER ROCKET MOTOR
7. AUTHOR(#)

6.
I.

PERFORMING ORG. REPORT NUMBER

CONTRACT Ott GRANT NUMBER(@)

J. F. McFillin, Jr., S. T. Van Brocklin, J. E. Beakley, D. W. Netzer

g. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS 10.

N6053O7*R30023
PROGRAM ELEMENT. PROJECT. TASK AREA 6 WORK UNIT NUMBERS

NAVAL POSTGRADUATE SCHOOL MONTEREY, CA 93940

11.
CONTROLLING OFFICE NAME AND ADDRESS 12. REPORT DATE

NAVAL WEAPONS CENTER

July 1980
13. NUMBER OF PAGES
____ ___ ___ ___ ___47

CHINA LAKE, CA 93555

____ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ___ ____

14

MONITORING AGENCY NAME II ADDRESS(if differenlt from Controlling Office)

1S. SECURITY CLASS. (of this report)

UNCLASSI FIED
1S0. OECLASSIFICATION/DOWNGRADING SCNHEDUL E

16.

DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT (of this Report)

Approved for public release; distribution unlimited.

17. DISTRIBUTION

STATEMENT (of (he abstract entered in Block 20, If different froemReport)

I0.

SUPPLEMENTARY

NOTES

I9S KEY WORDS (Con tinue ori revere* side It necessay and Identify by block number)

Rocket Dual Chamber Experimental

20.

ABSTRACT (Continue on reverse side It necessay and identify by block f

neprmna

netgto

was conducted to further determine the operating characteristics of the dual chanter rocket motor. Axisyninetric and two-dimensional apparatuses were used with air flow to simulate the actual flow. Without special design considerations the sustainer exhaust was found to always shockdown within the booster cavity except for very short booster lengths. Thrust was found to be insensitive to booster cavity length. With nozzle throat area ratios and booster diameters sized

DD

N7

1473

EDITION OFl I NOV 65S1S OBSOLETE IIA S/N 01102-014-6601

Ff
qIFIF SECURITY CLASSIFICATION Of THIS PAGE

r01en

Dae

Rflnteed)

... UULASSIFIED.

properly supersonic flow could be maintained within the booster cavity. Practical designs for actual motors appear quite feasible, especially for a nozzieless booster.

Acesio ForS~
Unazx,u.-.c.c d

lE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION I II

PAGE NO. INTRODUCTION.................. SCHLIEREN STUDY OF SHOCKDOWN MODE OF OPERATION ... 7

A. Description of Apparatus and Test Conditions

B. III

Results and Discussion..............9

SUPERSONIC FLOW IN BOOSTER CAVITY..........12 A. B. In troduct ion...................12 Description of Apparatus and Test Conditions 1. 2. C. Axisynuetric Apparatus...........13 2-D Schlieren Apparatus...........15 13

Results and Discussion.............15

IV

TANDEM RAMJET COMBUSTOR FLOW WITH BOOSTER BLAST-TUBE REMOVED....................19 A. B. Introduction and Description of Apparatus Results and Discussion............19
. .

19

CONCLUSIONS.................21 .......... 22

LIST OF REFERENCES......... INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST..................

LIST OF FIGURES PAGE NO. 1. 2. Schematic of 2-D Schlieren Apparatus for Shockdown Mode of Operation ......... ........ . Schlieren Photograph, Test 8i, Converging Nozzle, L= 2.68 in .......... ....... Schlieren Photograph, Test B2, Converging Nozzle, ............ LB - 5.68 in......... Schlieren Photograph, Test B3, Converging Nozzle, LB - 8.68 in .......... .......... Schlieren Photograph, Test B4, Converging-Diverging ...... ....... Nozzle, LB - 2.55 in Schlieren Photograph, Test B5, Converging-Diverging ...... . ... Nozzle, LB = 5.55 in.... Schlieren Photograph, Test 86, Converging-Diverging Nozzle, LB = 8.55 in ...... ...... ... Schlieren Photograph, Test Cl, Converging Nozzle, .. . LB = 2.68 in. Schlieren Photograph, Test C2, Converging Nozzle ..... .... LB = 5.68 in. ...... Schiieren Photograph, Test C3, Converging Nozzle La = 8.68 in. ............ .... .26 26

23 24

. . .24

3. 4.

25

5. 6. 7. 8.

27 28 28

9.

10.

29

If. Schlieren Photograph, Test C4, Converging-Diverging . ........ Nozzle, LB - 2.46 in..... 12. Schlieren Photograph, Test C5, Converging-Diverging Nozzle, LB - 5.46 in............ .. Schlieren Photograph, Test C6, Converging-Diverging Nozzle, LB - 8.46 in..... . . ....... Variation of Booster Cavity Pressure with Booster Length, 2-D .... .... ........... Theoretical Area Ratios Required for Supersonic Flow in .... ..... Booster Motor .......

29

30 30

13. 14.

31 32

15.

iv

PAGE NO. 16. Schematic of Dual Chamber Motor-- Supersonic Flow in Booster Cavity ..... ........ ... Schematic of 2-D Schlieren Apparatus - Supersonic Flow in Booster Cavity ........ . . ....... Thrust Obtained for Motor with Minimum Theoretically Required Area Ratios .... ..... ... Thurst Obtained with Sustainer Nozzle Truncation
. .

33

17. 18. 19. 20.

34 35 36

Thrust Obtained with Converging Sustainer Nozzle and Nozzleless Booster ....... ....... .37 Thrust Variations with Sustainer Nozzle Area Ratios Schlieren Photographs of Supersonic Flow in Booster Chamber ......... ...... . .. 39 40 .... 41 42
.

21. 22.

38

23. 24. 25. 26.

Schematic of Tandem Ramjet Configuration Tandem Ramjet - Forward Section .... Tandem Ramjet - Nozzle . . .........

..... ..

Thrust Variations with Booster Motor PressureTandem Ramjet . . . ...........

43

LIST OF TABLES PAGE NO. 1. II. Ill. Summary of 2-D Schlieren Configurations for ... Shockdown Mode of Operation.... Sumnmary of 2-D Schlieren Tests in Shockdown ..... ... Mode of Operation....

...... 8 ... 11 14 15

Test Conditions for Supersonic Flow in Axisymmetric ..... ... .. ... Booster Cavity.... Test Conditions for Supersonic Flow in 2-D ... .. Schlieren Apparatus.... .....

IV.

vi

TABLE OF SYMBOLS

A CF d F h L p Po y XNozzle Subscripts: a B,b e N s SD SS Superscr; pts: ,

Area Thrust Coefficient Diameter Thrust Height Length Static Pressure Stagnation Pressure Specific Heat Ratio Divergence Loss Factor

Ambient Conditions Booster Nozzle Exhaust Nozzle Sustainer Shockdown Supersonic Flow

Nozzle Throat Conditions

vii

I.

INTRODUCTION

Tactical missiles most often have utilized solid fuel rockets for their ease of handling and storage, and their light weight. Demands for

higher performance have necessitated new advances in propellants and metallurgy, and pressures have steadily risen. New Inrovations have be-

come necessary in order to improve overall performance for a propulsion system which has become a mature technology. Various thrust-time behaviors obtained with new grain configuration and nozzle combinations have been utilized in an attempt to optimize performance for design goals. Boost-sustain motors have been used to meet

the demand for medium ranged air-launched tactical missiles. Boost motors utilize high pressures, high burn rates, and thus short burn times to accelerate tactical missiles to their normal operating speeds, and to provide rapid separation from the launch vehicle. This

generally has necessitated an internally burning grain and a large nozzle throat area. Sustainer motors, on the other hand, require longer burn

times and operating pressures determined by the desired boost-sustain thrust ratio. Current demands are for thrust ratios up to 20:1. A

particular problem occurs when large thrust ratios are reqt!ired for the boost-sustain motor. If both modes of operation use the same large boost

nozzle, then the sustainer would necessarily operate at very low pressures with often unacceptably low burning rates. To obtain adequate pressures

and flow rates under these conditions often requires internally burning grains with correspondingly shorter burn times.

Several possible alternatives are available.

In principle, the

burning rate of the sustainer motor propellant could be increased enough to allow the use of an end burning grain with small surface area. In

practice, however, high burning rates are difficult to obtain at low pressures. Separate boost and sustain motors could be employed with the This is often done on ground/ship

booster ejected after burnout.

launched missiles, but this would present difficulties for air launched systems which usually utilize one set of aft mounted fins for trajectory control. Another alternative is the variable area nozzle, which requires some form of actuation. This, by itself, leads to increased complexity, weight

and expense, not to mention the technical difficulties associated with the high temperatures involved. future. The dual chamber concept involves some interesting design considerations. A typical design might incoroporate a booster cavity which is From available New technology may permit this concept in the

nearly fifty sustainer exhaust nozzle diameters in length. literature (Refs. 1, 2, 3),

free jets have been observed to shockdown Little is known about the behavior of

within eight to ten diameters. confined jets.

For long booster cavity lengths the sustainer motor exhaust

would enter the booster cavity, shockdown, and merely act as a gas generator for the booster nozzle. This in itself may provide sufficient (one-nozzle) boost-sustain

performance advantages over the conventional design.

However, if the jet impinges on the booster cavity walls, severe This could adversely

problems could arise from high heat transfer rates.

affect thrust performance, with the increased need for insulation and weight.

If the sustainer exhaust could be

made to pass through the boost

cavity without shockdown or only partial shockdown, it may be possible to significantly increase thrust as a result of lower stagnation pressure losses. Benham and Wirtz (Ref. 4) concluded that preventing shockdown did not appear feasible for the tactical dual-chamber concept. was based primarily on observed short shockdown lengths. short shockdown distances might still prove beneficial approach to the integral-rocket-ramjet (IRR), This conclusion However, these

in the tandem

where combustor lengths are

short and the booster exhaust jet may actually pump ramjet air. The above concept requires that the sustainer jet pass through the booster nozzle, either freely or just attaching at the nozzle throat. While this may not be practical, other possible means exist for reducing stagnation pressure losses. This involves designing the nozzles and

booster cavity such that it operates similar to a blow-down supersonic wind turnnel. In this mode of operation the sustainer exhaust would no smocks) to the booster cavity wall and flnw

expand (with minimum o

supersonically into the booster nozzle. In order to operate in this manner, particular values of nozzle area ratio, and booster cavity length are required. These requirements may or To

may not be compatible with particular motor geometry restrictions.

operate in the supersonic mode may also require the sustainer exhaust nozzle to be specially contoured to the booster cavity diameter. may impose severe weight penalties. The approximate area ratios required can be determined using onedimensional theory and assuming that the only losses occur across normal shocks This

(Ref. 5).

The value of the specific heat ratio will significantly affect

the required area ratios. When calculating the necessary area ratios several operating requirements must be met; (a) the sustainer nozzle throat must be small enough to produce the desired high sustainer chamber pressure, (2) the booster throat area must provide adequate booster pressure and loading fraction, (3) the booster throat pressure during sustain operation must be kept greater than ambient pressure to prevent flow separation and to allow "starting" and (4) the booster cavity length probably should be sufficient to allow the sustainer exhaust to expand to the wall. Whether or not the above restrictions together with possible nozzle contour requirements will allow a practical system to operate remains to be determined. Another alternative for the dual-chamber concept employs the ejection of the booster nozzle. Here the sustainer motor may be optimized for exThrust is again provided at sustainer

pansion to atmospheric pressure.

pressures commensurate with long burn times using end burning grains. Expansion of the sustainer exhaust to the booster cavity wall could greatly affect base pressure and thereby cause thrust to vary appreciably with altitude. The purpose of this investigation was to determine the feasibility and practicality of the dual-chamber concept through a systematic investigation of the pertinent design (nozzle shape and size, booster cavity lengths, etc.) and operational (pressure etc.) variables.

An initial experimental

investigation using air flow through the dual

chamber geometry with a telescoping booster cavity length considered operating characteristics in the sustainer exhaust shock-down mode of operation (Ref. 6). Configuration variables considered were booster and sustainer

nozzle throat diameters and area ratios, booster cavity length, and removal of the booster nozzle. In the shockdown mode of operation it was found that jet shockdown occurred in 8 to 11 jet diameters as iL does in free jet conditions. Sustainer nozzle diameter and area ratio did not significantly alter the shockdown length but did alter the rate of subsonic spreading after shockdown (and therefore the length required to obtain full shockdown pressure). For ideal expansion to shockdown pressure of the sustainer in approximately For

exhasut the jet apparently reached the booster cavity wall 20 jet diameters.

This was also evident in the nozzle-off tests.

booster lengths less than 20 jet diameters, jet penetration of the booster nozzle occurred. This resulted in rapidly decreasing booster cavity static

pressure with decreasing cavity length while booster throat static pressure and thrust remaineH constant. In the above mode of operation thrust was insensitive to booster cavity length except for extremely short lengths. The sustainer exhaust

generally cleared the booster throat for lengths of 3 to 7 jet diameters. Booster nozzle-off operation resulted in large changes in base pressure (and therefore thrust) and also significant system vibrations when the booster cavity length was sufficient to allow the expanding jet to reach the wall.

5I

The present investigation had several objectives: (1) To obtain schlieren data in a two-dimensional apparatus to increase the understanding of the results reported in Ref. 6 for operation with sustainer exhaust shockdown. (2) To determine operating characteristics for the booster cavity supersonic flow mode of operation using both the axisymmetric motor and the 2-D schlieren apparatus. (3) To briefly evaluate the effect of rocket booster blast tube removal on the flow within the ramjet combustor for a tandem integral-rocket-ramjet design.

nH

II

IIII lliro

. ..

..

..... . .. .

.. .

II. SCHLIEREN STUDY OF SHOCKDO/

MODE OF OPERATION

A.

Description of Apparatus and Test Conditions The schlieren apparatus was a two-dimensional (2-D) device with glass

sides in which the simulated booster cavity length, sustainer nozzle size and booster nozzle size could be varied. A schematic of the apparatus is

shown in Fig. I. Table I summarizes the configurations which were utilized. Configuration A used a converging sustainer nozzle with The remainder of the configurations had a sustainer Configurations Both

unchoked flow.

throat height of 0,336 in. and operated with choked flow.

B and C used 1.3 in. and 1.681 booster throat heights respectively. configurations B and C were tested with a converging sustainer nozzle (underexpanded) and converging-diverging nozzle with expansion to approximately the booster cavity shockdown pressure. Booster cavity

lengths had nominal values of 3, 6, 9, and 11 in. For each configuration tested sustainer nozzle stagnation pressure (P0 ) and booster cavity wall
S

static pressures were recorded and a schiieren photograph was obtained.

TABLE I.

Summary of 2-D Schlieren Configurations for Shockdown Mode of Operation

DESIGNATION

NOZZLE CONFIGURATION C (unchoked

h*s(in)

he (in) s

hAB(in)

A* /A* s

AB/A* s

LB(in

.75

.75

1.3

1.73

5.33

10.75, 7.75

B-I

.336

.336

1.3

3.87

11.9

8.68, 5.68,
2.68 8.55,

B-2

C-D

.336

.404

1.3

3.87

11.9

5.55,

2.55
C-1 C .336 .336 1.681 5.0 11.9 8.68,

5.68, 2.68
C-2 C-D .336 .453 1.681 5.0 11.9 8.46,

5.46,
2.46
F C -

converging

C-D = converging-diverging

B. Results and Discussion

A summary of the test results are presented in Table II with corresponding -chlieren photographs in Figures 2 through 13. For those tests

in which the sustainer exhaust jet did not penetrate the booster nozzle a sketch of the "window print" (from small amounts of water and oil in the Fig. 14 presents

air) is also presented with the schlieren photograph.

the fraction of shockdown pressure obtained in the booster cavity as a function of booster cavity length expressed In sustainer nozzle exit heights. Also shown are the data obtained with the axisymnetric appaThese latter data are for configu-

ratus which are presented in Ref. 6. ration I (Figures 11-13, Ref. 6)

which was the closest in operating In some tests a small amount of

conditions to the 2-D tchlieren tests.

leakage into the booster cavity occurred at the upstream corners. Results obtained from these tests were: (1) The length required for the sustainer exhaust jet to shockdown to subsonic flow was 8-lH nozzle exhaust diameters for all tests conducted. for axisymmetric flow. (2) Tne jet penetrated the booster throat for booster cavity lengths less than approximately 17 sustainer nozzle exit diameters (16-20 for axisymmetric flow). It also This result was the same as was obtained

penetrated when a converging-diverging sustainer nozzle was used with the large booster nozzle (run #C6). (3) When jet penetration of the booster throat occurred the booster cavity wall static pressures were pumped down in a manner similar to that obtained for axisymmetric flow.

(4)

When booster cavity length was sufficient to prevent jet penetration of the booster throat a normal 2-D jet behavior occurred, i.e., the jet would "flip" to one side and oscillate slightly in position with time. When the jet

behaved in this manner (Runs 03, B6, and C3) booster cavity wall static pressure reached the shockdown pressure near the end of the chamber. Wall static pressures generally

decreased toward the sustainer exhaust nozzle although some variations occurred. The latter apparently resulted from the jet

impingement on one wall and then on the other (see Fig. 7).

(5)

The core

of the expanding subsonic p,.rtion of the jet never

reached the booster cavity wall (except when the whole jet flipped to one side) for the lengths investigated.

10

0=

I-a

CV

"N

m~~. fn~

m-

C0

0 ;-

CLLA

cn 0
C. 00 LA 0 L^ 00 UN ;C ULA Ln m~ mv 0000 mv WN C mv m

La. 0i
.-

a
-C

0 W rw

-T

m
m~ m -T

Lr% 0

-T

0 a%~ r m
*0

-T
-T

%.0
-T

O 00

O'i 0

lw LA\

C* LA LN 0

~ ~
0C)0

c C"ON0

LAn

04 &n~~

CL-C

GoMEi
.:E T_ C
_ _

7
rLLA

ii

I-

%00

0N a.

LA\

fLA

LA CC 0. 0 1 UI

~~0
LA

04 0

r" 1A co 0

C L)

a
U,i c

M.
-4

-:T

04

.Ma

-T

\.

LA

OD

r-

LA

cc

.-

-0

LA

LA I

0m

%.0

cncan CL

C4 m

r, m

LaLJW

cc~-. V) X L7C 40 =W -

LA N-

LA t-0

0D 0 0 %.0 %.0 %.D C4 LA\ M

LAUNL LA LA LA LA\ LA\ N LA 0. N

0 \. 0 LA

0 'D 0

%D0 '0 -4 -T N A

%0 -T

0
0.00
co

r-c
-T
-T~

-.
-T

a.
-T -T

r'. %
-T -T -T

-r
-T

-.. %C! -.
-T -T

CN

-N 0

In 00 m

-7

LA%

0.0 N

-T L .)

LA UI

%D

cc

<L'w

L>

III.

SUPERSONIC FLOW IN BOOSTER CAVITY

A.

Introduction The primary purpose of this portion of the study was to determine

the effects of the sustainer and booster nozzle geometries on the maintenance of supersonic flow within the booster cavity. No attempt was

made in this initial study to examine a wide range of booster/sustainer throat area ratios or booster cavity length/diameter ratios. The speci-

fic area ratios and flow rates selected where chosen to be as near a "practical design" as possible within the air flow rate/pressure limitations of an existing blow-down air supply system. 2-D schlieren tests were conducted. The booster/sustainer nozzle throat area ratio required to maintain supersonic flow in the booster cavity depends upon the sustainer nozzle area ratio and the stagnation pressure etc.) throughout the apparatus. losses (shocks, wall friction, Both axisymmetric and

In addition, sufficiently low ambient The

pressure (or sufficiently high sustainer pressure) must be present. minimum area ratio requirements are readily calculated (pp. 5). 1.2. Figure 15 presents the minimum required area ratios for

394-399, Ref.
y =1.4 and

Increasing losses (oblique shocks, longer booster cavity, etc.). In an actual dual-chamber design

would increase the required area ratios. A*/A*

B s

would be primarily dictated by motor operating requirements In

(thrust ratios, etc.) and available propellant ballistic properites. this investigation only air flow was utilized. actual propellant exhaust products sustainer throat diameter,

Figure 15 shows that for

(y closer to 1.2) and a specified

larger booster cavity and booster throat

12

diameters are required. nozzle contraction ratio.

This also results in a larger required booster Thus, actual motor designs would have more

favorable geometry for high propellant loading than those required in this investigation which used air flow. B. Description of Apparatus and Test Condition 1. Axisymmetric Apparatus The same air supply system was employed as reported in Ref. 6. This system was limited to approximately 2.5 ibm/sec. motor simulator was also employed. The same sustainer

However, in order to reduce the

booster cavity Mach number to 3.0 its diameter was reduced to 1.0 inch. This reduction was required in order to be able to "start" and maintain supersonic flow within the booster cavity while remaining within the flow rate limitations (i.e., schematic of the apparatus. p* > pa and p
B

> 0.5 pa )

Figure 16 is a

A 150 half-angle cone was installed to allow

the sustainer nozzle flow to expand smoothly to the booster cavity diameter. This nozzle was truncated for subsequent tests until only a Table III summarizes the geometric varia-

converging nozzle remained.

tions and test conditions employed for each configuration investigated. Equations employed for calculating the theoretically obtainable thrust with shockdown and full supersonic flow are also presented in Table II.

13

r-.

ar

0 %.D
a

A
C-W
a

*z4

.--

co co LA
ao a(

.
aaz

0' -T O I'T r

ONak0
a

'.0
a -

0
C..

0
mV

-T

Oa

mv.

NO

LA

M
s

-r

-7

~I LA% r~ m=a

LA%
0 GO

LA%

LA

LA

LAC
T

LL.

aL

I-

N.

in

f-)

U-

U)4

LA

LA

LA

U LA

LA

(A
m

0n-0 04~ 04 o 0 0

CD
-A

-2)

-m

L.

cr#~-~-

-T 00
-)%

~oI
-

0..

ON
-

-cn ---

cr,

La.. Z

4(A
U)

LA%
<t

~ C

Or% N4
-T

mi 0 N4 -T

(31 N

N -T

N1

U.. u -

0 )

0.

U..

oi

C-

-T

o:

I~

C).

L.

fn

-:r

I-

3c

14

Configuration

1 had the theoretically (Fig.

15)

required area ratios.

The

booster throat area was increased by 13% for configurations 2 through and by 39% for configuration 6. 2. 2-D Schlieren Apparatus

The apparatus employed was the same as presented above in Section [IA. However, to limit booster cavity Mach number (2.52) and to insure (p* > pa
)

that full supersonic flow could be attained

the cavity height

was reduced to 2.0 in. A schematic of the test configuration is shown in Fig. 17. Test conditions are presented in Table IV. Configuration I For configura-

employed the theoretically required (Fig. 15) area ratios. tion 2 the booster throat area was increased by 17%.

TABLE IV.

Test Conditions for Supersonic Flow in 2-D Schlieren Apparatus

CONFIG.

h*(in.)

hW(in)

I s
1

A /A*

A*/A*

A /A*

.75 .75

1.53 1.79

2.67 2.67

2.036 2.386

1.31 1.12

C.

Results and Discussion Fig. 18 presents measured thrust as a function of sustainer pressure Also shown on the

for Configuration I with axisymmetric flow (Table III). figure are the theoretical values for flow and with shockdown, (b) (a)

thrust with full supersonic (c)

booster cavity shockdown pressure, and

booster cavity pressure for full supersonic flow with no losses. values of booster cavity pressure presented. P2 (p 1 and P2 :

Measured

see Fig. 16) are also The pressure and thrust

was nearest the booster nozzle.

results indicate that full shockdown occurred with the theoretically required area ratios.

15

Fig.

19 presents similar results for Configurations 2 through 5 As the sustainer nozzle was truncated in increments the

(Table III).

booster cavity flow transitioned from nearly shock free supersonic flow to a full shockdown behavior. In configuration 2, small increases in

booster cavity static pressure above that for full supersonic flow would result from the shock formed at the junction of the sustainer nozzle cone and the booster cavity wall. Reflection of this shock further downstream that P2 > pl ) . The shock

would further raise the static pressure (note

plus frictional losses were not great enough to prevent "starting" of the supersonic flow through the enlarged (13%) booster nozzle throat.

As the sustainer nozzle was truncated the shocks increased in strength, thrust. and P2 ) increasing the booster cavity static pressure and reducing the Configuration 4 apparently maintained supersonic flow (low p1

in the booster cavity but the shock losses reduced the thrust to When the sustainer nozzle was convergIn this case the

near theoretical shockdown values.

ent, full shockdown conditions were apparently obtained.

shock losses were apparently too great to allow "starting" of the flow through the booster throat. For Configuration 6 the booster throat area was again increased (39% greater than theoretical and 23% greater than Configurations 2 through 5) to allow for "starting" with the larger shock losses obtained with the converging sustainer nozzle. Fig. 20 shows that supersonic flow was again

attained in the booster cavity, although with losses large enough to significantly reduce thethrust.

16

L~Jl

The thrust obtained with

Po
s

= 600 psia

and

A*

13%

larger than

theoretical ratio.
"near

is shown in Fig. 21 as a function of sustainer nozzle area

Data from the previous figures have been used by "correcting" the

600 psia" runs to 600 psia.

Configuration I (Table IV) for the 2-D schlieren tests also employed

the theoretically required area ratios and also resulted in full shockdown (near normal shock close to sustainer nozzle throat) in the booster cavity. Configuration 2 (with A*

increased 17% above the theoretically required) Figure 22 presents schlieren

resulted in supersonic booster cavity flow.

photographs obtained with two different sustainer pressures. These results indicate that full supersonic flow can be obtained in the booster cavity of the dual chamber rocket configuration. Maximizing

the obtainable thrust required increasing the area ratio (and therefore weight) of the sustainer nozzle. With a converging sustainer nozzle

supersonic flow can be maintained and thrust increased above shockdown values. However, the booster throat area required becomes quite large.

A nozzleless booster would probably be required in this case. The configurations tested in this study were of limited scope. It

should be noted that shockdown dual chamber configurations that have been tested to date (Ref. 7) have employed A*/A*

values only slightly However, much

greater than those used in Configuration 6 (Table III).

longer and larger diameter booster cavities have been employed in the actual motors. The larger diameter would result in slightly higher booster rvity y = 1.2) and the longer lengths

Mach numbers (approximately 4.5 with would increase losses.

These changes would require further increases in

17

the booster nozzle throat area above that theoretically required.

Shock

impingement on the booster cavity wall may also require local increases in insulation material. However, a nozzleless booster cavity with a Mach AB/A* to be as large as

number of approximately 3.5 would allow approximately 21 (y = 1.2)

and would have a theoretical booster cavity = 1500 psia).

s

pressure of 8.5 psia (with Po

Shock and friction

losses

would increase this pressure somewhat, providing a reasonable exhaust pressure at sea level for the supersonic flow.

18

IV.

TANDEM RAMJET COMBUSTOR FLOW WITH BOOSTER BLAST-TUBE REMOVED

A.

Introduction and Description of Apparatus The tandem integral-rocket-ramjet configuration employs a short annu-

lar ramjet combustor.

The solid rocket booster exhausts through a blast In this con-

tube which passes down the center of the ramjet combustor.

figuration booster nozzle and inlet port cover ejections are not required. If the blast tube could be removed a considerable weight savings could be attained. However, the effects of this truncation are not known and are The effects will depend upon the and the flight Mach

very difficult to predict analytically. specific geometry employed, number (ram air).

the booster flow rate,

The investigation was very limited, being restricted to looking at a scaled-down model of one current tandem design. The purpose of the tests

was to determine whether or not the booster exhaust would aspirate or eject air through the ramjet inlets. This would have design implications No

with regard to shock positions within the ramjet inlet during boost.

attempt was made to have ram air into the inlets and the inlets were simply simulated using four holes drilled normal to the motor centerline. A schematic of the configuration is shown in Fig. 23 and detailed drawings are presented in Figs. 24 and 25. Small tufts were attached to

the ramjet chamber inlet ports for flow visualization purposes. B. Results and Discussion The apparatus was mounted on the thrust stand and operated with booster cavity pressure from 500 to 1500 psia. In all tests air was

aspirated into the booster cavity as evidenced by the motion of the tufts.

19

Figure 26 presents the thrust obtained.

Also shown for comparison the booster

are the values of theoretical thrust for two limiting cases:

without the ramjet attached and the thrust obtained if shockdown occurred in the ramjet cavity and no air were aspirated. The ramjet cavity was only approximately three booster nozzle exit diameters in length. Based upon the results presented in Reference 6

and above for the dual chamber rocket configuration, the booster exhaust probably passed freely through the ramjet nozzle throat before shockdown could occur (in 8 to 10 jet diameters). The ramjet cavity was therefore causing air to aspirate through

pumped to less than atmospheric pressures, the four radial inlets.

These results imply that blast tube removal probably would not have large adverse effects on ramjet operation during the boost phase.

20

V.

CONCLUSIONS

A.

Sustainer exhaust shockdown occurs within 8 to 11 jet diameters within the booster cavity as it does in free jet conditions.

B.

Sustainer exhausts begin to penetrate the booster nozzle (for the geometries tested) throat for booster chamber lengths less than approximately 17 jet diameters, resulting in rapid decreases in booster cavity static pressure with decreasing cavity length while thrust remains unaffected.

C.

Sustainer exhaust jets will generally clear the booster throat for booster chamber lengths between 3 and 7 jet diameters.

D. 2-J schlieren results generally confirmed the behavior found in the axisymmetric apparatus. E. Sizing the booster nozzle throat slightly greater than theoretically required allows supersonic flow to be maintained within the booster cavity and results in significant gains in thrust over the shockdown behavior. F. Sustainer exhaust nozzle truncation increases shock losses and reduces the obtainable thrust but supersonic flow can be maintained with a converging sustainer nozzle. G. Practical designs appear feasible for an actual motor in which supersonic flow is maintained within the booster cavity. would enhance the obtainable performance gains. H. Shock impingements on the booster cavity walls may significantly damage insultation and requires investigation in actual motor fringes. Nozzleless boosters

21

LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Donaldson, C. and Gray, K., "Theoretical and Experimental Investigation of the Compressible Free Mixing of Two Dissimilar Gases," AIAA J., Vol. 4, No. 11, pp. 2017-2025, November 1966. 2. Tufts, L. W. and Smoot, L. D., "A Turbulent Mixing Coefficient Correlation for Coaxial Jets with and without Secondary Flows," J. of Spacecraft and Rockets, Vol. 8, No. 12, pp. 1183-1190, December 1971. Morris, P. J., "Turbulence Measurements in Subsonic and Supersonic Axisymmetric Jets in Parallel Stream," AIAA J., Vol. 14, No. 10, pp. 1468-1475, October 1976. Benham, C. B. and Wirtz, D. P., "Dual-Chamber Performance Analysis," NWC Memorandum to J. Andrews 3245/CBB: CAS, Reg. 3245-40-77, 5 May 1977. Zucrow, M. J. and Hoffman, J. D., Gas Dynamics, Vol. and Sons, 1976. I, John Wiley

3.

4.

5.

6.

McFillin, Jr., J. F. and Netzer, D. W., "An Experimental Investigation of the Dual Chamber Rocket," Naval Postgraduate School Report NPS67-79001, January 1979. Fling, M., Atchley, R. D., Dual Chamber Rocket Motor Analytical Model, Mission at 1980 JANNAF PropplIsion Stokes, B. B., Fry, P., Netzer, D. W., "The and Its Advantages in Tactical Propulsion: Analysis and Demonstration Testing", presented Meeting, Monterey, Ca.

7.

22

00

c;
0 0 1.
0i

w
_________

1* 1.0
IN

ONr W-

Ul)

10

0)

0i
I(C~y
N

a..N
U~Lfl, t)2
G)

23

Figure 2. Schfleren Photograph, Test Bi 2.68 in. Converging Nozzle, LS

Schlieren Photoqraph, Test B2 Figure 3 Convercninn Nozzle, L =5,63 in. B

--

Figure 4.

Schileren Photograph,

Test B3,

Converging Nozzle,

L.

8.68 in.

25

Fi qure
Con ve r;

).
n

SG~ I cl
Li Df(

rtf
I

'1
)Y

,tr;

nf

S hIicr tn f Fi (Iure b Conve r' f ; ,) L

Figure 7. Schlieren Photograph, Test B6, Converginq-Diverging Nozzle, LB = 3.5 in.

27

Sch II e ren Photcm(iraph, Te'- t CI, Figure 3 2.6 8 in. Converging Nozzlec, L

Fioure j.Scnl Cconv.' r< I

icren Ph~~
I

iT,

t C2

Figure 1u. Scnlieren Piiotograph Tes t Convercjinq Nozzle, L 8.68' in.

C3

F igure I I. ichlIieren Ptiotograph, Conv e rq ini- 0i ve r in No z lIe., L

Test C4 2.46 in. z

S ch Iiercn~Pt)r F igure 12. L, kz1 i invugDive rcir Conve rq

Test C5, 46 in.

ure 13. Fi ci
Convc ri r-

Ie( c 1 ren F'v(. tt i

r2)(

, -

x,,t C6
> in.

(0 CL0 0 0

0 0

C)

0)

0-m
o o

-C

0.a

0I

0
w I
o 0

c-

0 W
4

-)

0l

c-"
aso

d-

Q31..

.d

MINIMUM
0

AB/A
u

0 0

EE
E S~

FE

.u-

w0
44c >1 W o

>1o

iU

m a,
*10

w
0

0 0

00
0.

00

C0

f~4) 0.

c;

CD
L)

0b

4~

U)
z
-

E
0

z o
LA.

33

I*NI

00 040

IN

1.2

4)
n

34J

150SUPERSONIC SHNOCKDOWN

100o
5D0

0300

400

500 ps (psia)

600

700

Theoret icalI P0s(psia) 305 487 F(lb f 68 115 p I(psia) 49.0 80.4. P2 (Psia) 73.2 118.9 PB 8.3 13.3 p0S 100.2 160.0

Figure 18.

Thurst Obtained for Motor with Minimum Theoretically Required Area Ratios ( (onfig. ],Table 1.11)

35

~~~15o

. -SUPERSONIC

oo

.50

SHOCKDOWN

--

I
300

I
400
P

I
500
(psia)

I
600

I
700

Config. (Table III)

d
s

P s (psia) 495 585 302 410 486 619 708 328 407 506 606 711 299 390 499 615 711

F (Ibf) 127 153 72 99 125 158 181 73 94 121 146 172 63 83 111 140 165

P1 (psia) 13.5 15.9 9.0 11.8 14.2 16.7 20.2 10.4 12.8 15.9 18.9 22.1 65.9 84.8 108.5 133.9 153.3

P2 (psia) 20.2 23.9 12.8 15.8 20.6 25.3 30.0 13.6 16.9 21.0 25.0 29.2 70.2 90.2 115.2 142.2 165.6

(in.) 2 3 1.00 .872

Theoreti cal P SD ss (psia) (psia) PB 13.5 15.9 8.2 11.2 13.2 16.9 19.3 9.0 11.1 13.8 16.5 19.4 8.2 10.6 13.6 16.8 19.4 144.3 170.6 88.1 119.6 141.7 180.5 206.5 95.6 118.7 147.5 176.7 207.3 87.2 113.7 145.5 179.3 207.3

.667

.486

Figure 19.

Thrust Obtained with Sustainer Nozzle Truncation

36

150

-I000
U)

z
50

zx

0-1
200

'

I I
300
Pos F P1

111 1111I
Fo (puia)
400 500 600
Theoretical

700

Config.

P2

PB

P0 (psiaP 46.5 70.2 92.6 116.5 136.5 161.8

(Table 111)
6

(in.)
.486

(psia)
197 297 392 493 578 685

05

(lbf)
40 64 91 i15 140 168

(psia)
12.7 19.4 25.4 31.8 38.0 44.8

(psia)
12.2 18.5 24.3 30.4 36.1 42.8

(psia)
5.4 8.1 10.7 13.4 15.7 18.7

Figure 20.

Thrust Obtained with Converging Sustainer Nozzle and Nozzleless Booster

37

160

SUPERSONIC

7)
0'
140 -1/

600 puio

SHOCKDOWN

I2

3 (As/A% 1

Figure 21.

Thrust Variations with Sustainer Nozzle Area Ratios 38

(a)

Os

= 42

psia

(b) Po

=215

psia

Figure 22.

in Booster Chamber Schlieren Photoqraphs of Supersonic Flow

39

(0 w~
zI wL 0

-,

4-

40~

4t*

u (D

IL-

Z491C

41

C','

fl?

LL

NJN

42

w
0,I

-0

z
V)

00

0
x%

0-

* Li0 ,
o U
cr w

w
C0

4A

t0

( 0

-C

4-1

U)U

'U
41,

C-4,

'0

0
0

Ujq;) .LsnHH1

43

INITIAL DISTRIBUTION LIST NO. OF COPIES

1.

Library Code 0142 Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93940 Department of Aeronautics Code 67 Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93940 M. F. Platzer, Chairman D. W. Netzer Dean of Research Code 012 Naval Postgraduate School Monterey, CA 93940 Defense Technical Information Center Cameron Station Alexandria, VA 22314 Commanding Officer Naval Air Systems Command Department of the Navy Washington, DC 20360 (AIR-03B, 03P2, 30212, 320, 340B, 503, 510B, 5105, 5203C, 5312, 532,

2.

I 12

3.

4.

5.

13

5366)
6. Chief of Naval Material Department of the Navy Washington, DC 20360 (MAT-030B, 032, NSP-27, 2731) Commanding Officer Naval Sea Systems Command Headquarters Washington, DC 20362 (ATTN: Code 6542D) Commanding General Marine Corps Development and Education Command Quantico, VA 22134 (ATTN: Director, Marine Corps Landing Force Development Center) 44 3 4

7.

8.

NO. OF COPIES

9.

Comman de r
Air Test & Evaluation Squardron

5-VX-5
Naval Air Facility

China Lake, CA
10.

93555

Officer in Charge Fleet Analysis Center Naval Weapon Station, Seal

Corona, CA
11.

91720

Commanding Officer Naval Ammunition Depot Hawthorne, NV 89415 (Code 05, Robert Dempsey) Commanding Officer Naval Explosive Ordnance Disposal Facility

12.

Indian Head, MD
13.

20640

Commanding Officer Naval Intelligence Support Center

4301 Suitland Road Washington, DC 20390

(Attn: 14. OOXA, CDR Jack Darnell) Commanding Officer Naval Ocean Systems Center San Diego, CA 92152

(ATTN:
15.

Code 133)

Commanding Officer Naval Ordnance Station

Indian Head, MD
(Attn16. Code PM)

20640

Naval Surface Weapons Center Dahlgren Laboratory

Dalgren, VA
17.

22448
C. L. Dettinger)

(Code DG, Attn:

Commanding Officer Naval Surface Weapons Center White Oak Silver Spring, MD 20910 (Attn: Code WR)

45

NO. OF COPIES 18. Commanding Officer Naval Intelligence Support Center I

Liaison Officer 4301 Suitland Road Washington, DC 20390 (Attn: LNN) 19. Commanding Officer Army Armament Material Readiness Command Rock Island, IL 61201 (Attn: DRSAR-LEM) Commanding General Army Ballistic Research & Development Center Dover, NJ 07801 (Attn: SMD, Concepts Branch) Commanding Officer Army Ballistic Research Laboratories Aberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005 (Attn: DRDAR-TSB-S (STINFO)) Headquarters Air Force Systems Command Andrews Air Force Base Washington, DC 20334 (Attn" DLFP, SDW) Commanding Officer Air Force Armament Laboratory Eglin Air Force Base, FL 32542 (Attn: DLJW, DLR) Commanding Officer Air Force Rocket Propulsion Lab. Edwards AFB, CA 93523 (Attn: MKP) Commanding Officer Foreign Technology Division Wright-Patterson AFB, OH 45433 (Attn: Code PDXA, James Woodard, Code XRHP) Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency 1400 Wi Ison Blvd. Arlington, VA 22209 2 2 4

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

46

NO. OF COPIES 27. Chairman Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board Room 856-C, Hoffman Bldg. I 2 461 Eisenhower Avenue Alexandria, VA 22331 (Attn: 6-A-145) George C. Marshall Space Flight Center Huntsville, AL 35812 (Attn: S&E-ASTN-PJ, Ken Reed) Naval Weapon Center China Lake, CA 93555 (Attn: Code 3205) Thiokol Corporation, Huntsville Division (Attn: B. B. Stokes) Huntsville, Alabama 35807 37

28.

29.

30.

47