42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit AIAA 2006-4597

9-12 July 2006, Sacramento, California

Strategic Missile Solid Rocket Motor Cases Qualification

Yves Coste, Solid Rocket Motor Case Program manager, yves.coste@space.eads.net

Jean-Marc. Gautier Solid Rocket Motor Case Technical Responsible

EADS Space Transportation – B.P. 11 - 33165 St Médard en Jalles cédex - France

For more than 40 years, EADS SPACE TRANSPORTATION (EADS-ST) has developed
and manufactured more than 600 solid propellant motor cases, mainly for military
programs. The latest French military strategic missile Program, the M51, required the
development by EADS Space Transportation of two new carbon fiber filament winding Solid
Rocket Motor Cases for the two first stages of the missile. EADS-ST has used all its know-
how and experience to establish the development logic and to perform all the development
tasks for these particular SRM Cases. The success of all the full scale development tests
shows the consistency of such development logic and of EADS Space Transportation in this
technical field.

Nomenclature
EADS-ST = European Aeronautic Defense and Space – Space Transportation
CDR = Critical Design Review
DGA = Déléguation Générale pour l’Armement
FEM = Finite Element Model
PDR = Preliminary Design Review
QR = Qualification Review
SPS = Snecma Propulsion Solide
SRM = Solid Rocket Motor
SRMC = SRM Case
SRMC1 = SRM Case of first stage
SRMC2 = SRM Case of second stage

I. Introduction

T his paper gives an overview of the development of the new SRM cases of the M51 two first stages. This
development started by 2000 and is ending by this year, after the last successful full scale mechanical test.
EADS Space Transportation (EADS-ST) is responsible for this development, with Snecma Propulsion Solide (SPS)
as contractor, the final contractor being the Délégation Générale pour l’Armement (DGA).
For more than 40 years, EADS-ST has developed and manufactured more than 600 solid propellant motor cases,
mainly for military programs (see Fig. 1 the increase of performance versus time). The latest French military
strategic missile Program, the M51, has necessitated the development by EADS Space Transportation of two new
carbon fiber filament winding Solid Rocket Motor Cases for the two first stages of the missile. EADS-ST has used
all its know-how and experience to establish the development logic and to perform all the development tasks for
these particular SRM Cases, as well as to implement the industrial tool.

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2006 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
 These motor cases are used for strategic Carbon
missile which implies strong constraints. After Carbon
a short description of these products and of 50
their particularity among the composite

PERFORMANCE : PV/MG
structures, a short overview of the 40
Kevlar
development plan is given. Then, the paper
provides briefly the rationale used by EADS- 30
ST to design and justify such solid rocket Glass
motor cases, and shows the good results it has 20
proven through the mechanical tests. Some
details are given for both composites parts and 10
Glass Glass

bonding. EADS-ST experience on solid

propellant motor cases is not limited to the
field of composites but also covers each part of 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
YEARS
the structure and especially all the various
structural bonding adapted to this type of Figure 1. EADS-ST SRMC performances during ages.
structures, which are one of the most critical
points as explained by Jean-Marc Gautier in
reference [R1].
A short overview of the industrial tool is then presented, since this topic has also been an important part of the
development plan.
Before the conclusion, the damage assessment is discussed. This important topic is currently in progress.
Although EADS-ST provides insulated SRM cases to SPS, this paper will only focus on the case itself and on
the structural parts.
To tackles such development, EADS-ST developed during ages its own methodology mixing design,
justification, characterizations test and manufacturing in its own entity based at Saint-Médard en Jalles near
Bordeaux taken into account all the parts of the problem since the beginning of the project (see Fig. 2 the global in-
house methodology developed).

Identification of
Requirements
sizing load cases

Design Office
Architecture design
Preliminary sizing
Definition

Laboratory Sizing Office

Manufacturing Dpt
Materials & processes Sizing
Manufacturing of development
structures devoted Justification
Charactérization Tests programs and
to development &
Defect investigations on exploitation
qualification tests
structures

Inspection Dpt
Dimensionnal and
ND Inspection on Tests Dpt
structures devoted Structures
to development & testing
qualification tests

Contacts with Definition and

EADS CRC (labo) Justification Files
& EADS Airbus

Figure 2. In-house competencies developed by EADS-ST for Composite SRMC

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 II. General requirements and SRMC sizing
The requirements of these SRM Cases come from the submarine Strategic missile strong constraints. That
implies mainly:
• Strong safety factors and safety requirements with what concern Nuclear Safety due to nuclear
environment (submarine and payload),
• a lot of constraining frontiers requirements and a great precision in quite all the dimensions of the
structures, a smooth external surface due to the submarine environment,
• very strong structural adhesive bonding between the skirt and the vessel, between the vessel and the
polar bosses, the external composite and the cable duct metallic fastening, capable to sustain the special
loads due to the missile submarine tube phase,
• ageing has to be taken into account in the choice of materials,
• hard loads typical of a submarine missile, with military aggressions, a tube phase, a water phase, and a
high acceleration boost phase.

First of all, the general loads requirements are analyzed so as to keep the most constraining ones that will enable
to perform the design of the SRM cases. A schematic representation of these load cases is given to have an idea of
the type of applied load on these structures (see Fig. 3).

1
Φint

Weight

Φext Pint Φext

Weigh

Thrust

Submarine environment Tube phase Flight

Figure 3. Main Missile load cases.

Figure 3 illustrates the specific loads coming from the submarine environment. It is specially true for the
SRMC1 that sees the Missile ejection pressure at its aft dome. The flight loads are more similar to those of a satellite
launch vehicle with
• Internal pressure and thermal fluxes due to the propellant combustion (the Maximum Expected
Operating Pressure required for such SRMC is greater than 100 bars),
• Thermal fluxes on external part of the SRMC,
• Mechanical loads on each interfaces.

Then, a first choice is made upon the main materials and

technologies, together with a first quick design of the SRM Cases.
This choice is based on the experience of EADS-ST in this field of
activities (see [R2]). Various constraints, due to the in-house
methodology developed, are also taken into account, such as the
imposition to have cohesive failures in the different bonding (see
more details on the bonding in reference [R1]).
This represents the first loop that is ended by an estimation of
the safety factors through FEM analyses (see Fig. 4), that will be
refined several times.
Figure 4. Example of FEM analysis
3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 III. SRM cases General architecture
The architecture of the SRMC is classical, as shown in following Fig. 5.

External thermal insulation

forward skirt Aft skirt

forward skirt
Aft skirt
frame
frame
Shear ply
Case body
Skirt to case body bonding

Internal thermal protection to case body bonding

Polar bosses

Polar boss to case body bonding

Internal thermal insulation

Figure 5. SRMC architecture

The two SRMC have roughly the following size:

• The SRMC1 has a diameter of around 2 meters, and a length of about 6 meters.
• The SRMC2 has the same diameter than SRMC1 but is much shorter.
The following table 1 gives an idea of the different materials and of the way of manufacturing the different parts
of the SRMC.

Component Material Manufacturing mode

Polar bosses Aluminium alloy machining
Skirt frame Aluminium alloy Machining, then bonded and bolded
to the skirt
Cable duct fastening Inox Metal machining
skirts Carbon Prefabric – Epoxy Resin Hand wrapped of prefabric
Case body IM Fiber – EADS-ST Resin Winding helical and hoop layers of
a in-house made prepreg
Skirt to case body bonding Rubber cured
Epoxy adhesive
Polar boss to case body bonding Rubber cured
Epoxy adhesive
Cable duct metallic fastening to Rubber Room temperature
case bonding Epoxy adhesive
Table 1. Main material and manufacturing mode.
The case body fiber and resin system comes from a trade off driven by performance, cost and previous
experience. The in-house made resin has been developed several years ago, but it secured the development of the
SRMC as it was well known for its ability in the manufacturing process and ageing.
SRMC1 and SRMC2 have quite the same technology. The main difference consists in the filament winding
mandrel: It is a classical sand made one for the second stage but the size of the first stage required the use of a
dismountable metallic mandrel.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 IV. Development Plan

The development Plan was established in 2000 based on several full scale mechanical tests as follow:

• Demo1 was the first sample. It was a demonstrator designed with an early definition of SRMC1 and its
goal was to confirm as early as possible the manufacturing process basis. It enabled to authorize the
PDR. After that, the definition and the manufacturing process was refined, but on a basis secured by the
success of the mechanical tests of the Demo1 that demonstrated high safety factors.
• In parallel to the manufacturing of the Demo1, small scale sample of skirt, case body and skirt to case
body bonding were performed in order to secure the full scale tests.
• B2 was a sample of SRMC2 (first definition prior to CDR) dedicated to the validation of the main
bonding and to the SRMC2 loads.
• BH1 was a sample of SRMC1 (first definition prior to CDR) dedicated to the demonstration of the
ability of SRMC1 to sustain successively all tube and the flight mechanical and thermal loads. It ended
with the burst of the case body.
• H2-1 was a sample of SRMC2 (first definition prior to CDR) dedicated to the burst test in first
definition.
• The success of B2, BH1 and H2-1 tests enabled to authorize the CDR. During this PDR to CDR phase,
the manufacturing process and the definition was optimized, that led to the second definition.
• H2-2 was a sample of SRMC2(second definition) dedicated to the burst test in second definition. Its
success confirmed that the changes between the definitions had no impact on the burst performance, and
the same behavior of H2-1 and H2-2 during test proved the manufacturing was repetitive.
• B1 was a sample of SRMC1 (second definition) dedicated to the qualification of the SRMC1 towards
the tube loads. It ended with a test with external pressure applied on the aft dome till failure.
• The success of H2-2 and B1 enabled to authorize the QR1, first part of the Qualification Review
dedicated to the deliverable SRMC without taking into account the ageing of the structure during its
whole life.
• B2A was a sample of SRMC2 (second definition) dedicated to the qualification of SRMC1 and SRMC2
after ageing. The test consist in one year of adapted temperature and humidity conditions in order to
accelerate the humidity ageing so as to simulate the humidity state of the SRMC in end of life
conditions. After that, qualification tests are applied in order to demonstrate the safety factor required
on the main bonding.
• The success of B2A enables to authorize the QR2, second part of the Qualification Review dedicated to
the SRMC including the effects of the ageing.

The similarity in the architecture, definition and manufacturing process of SRMC1 and SRMC2 enabled to test
mechanical loads of SRMC1 on SRMC2 samples and conversely, such as to optimize the mechanical tests Plan and
so the development plan.
Between each phases of tests, ultrasonic inspection were made so as to confirm there was no failure in the
bonding and no damage or delamination in the composite parts.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 For the full scale tests, a dedicated facility (see Fig. 6) was developed in order to apply the different loads such
as:
• Axial compression and tension. The test facility was designed for a
maximum of 2000 tons compression/tension effort.
• Lateral loads.
• Momentum.
• Internal pressure.
• External pressure on aft dome.
• Tension effort on cable tunnel fastening.

The following paragraphs give more details about the development of the
composite parts and of the bonding.

Figure 6. Test facility

V. Composites
The composite parts consist in the vessel and the skirts.

Vessel
The vessel was firstly tested at a small scale. Different small vessel demonstrators were designed dedicated to
the rupture in internal pressure (burst test) and to the rupture in dome with external pressure (buckling).
These vessel demonstrators were used to perform an experimentation plan so as to establish or to confirm the
criteria used to design and justify the full scale case bodies (see examples in Fig 7). The experimentation plan
included tests at ambient temperature as well as tests with the maximum in-flight temperature. It also included tests
with simulated ageing of the case body.

Figure 7. small vessel after internal and external burst test

This small scale tests made us confident in the design of the SRMC1 and SRMC2 vessel, and enabled to predict
their burst tests. FEM analyses are performed in order to predict the behavior of the structure and their results are
compared to the experiment results and a correlation is then realized to make them fit. Thus, using the same
modelization between the reduced scale structures and the 1: scale ones, the criteria obtained on such structures can
be extrapolated to the SRMC.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 As for the one scale tests, The BH1 test campaign was very probative because for the first time at EADS Space
Transportation, we did a burst test after a general loads serial of tests. It demonstrated the ability of the SRMC to
withstand all general loads, and even the flight temperature applied at the front part of the SRMC1 cylinder part,
without any effect on the level of burst pressure.
The rupture occurred were it was predicted, in the aft part of the body case, in the zone of highest stress. The
burst test was covered with a high rate camera (4 ms between two images) that showed the exact rupture
localization, as depicted in Fig. 8.

∆T = 4 ms

Figure 8. BH1 SRMC1 at burst pressure

For what concern the external pressure applied on the aft dome load case, a
test was performed on the B1 structure (sample of SRMC1) till rupture. The
water pressure was applied with a dedicated dome tool mounted on the SRMC
aft done as showed in Fig. 9. The non linearity typical of a buckling occurred
before the rupture and confirmed the prediction (see Fig. 10).
JS 116 - Fond AR - Rupture DPext fond AR - 511 H12 P
0,04000

0,02000

0,00000
-2,00 0,00 2,00 4,00 6,00 8,00 10,00 12,00 14,00 16,00
déformations (%)

-0,02000
P=0
-0,04000

-0,06000 JS 116

JS 216

-0,08000
JS 316

JS 416
-0,10000
pre ssion externe fond AR (bars)
Figure 9. B1 SRMC1
Figure 10. B1 SRMC1 strain during buckling test configuration of buckling test

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 11 shows photographs of the case body aft dome after the test.

Figure 11. B1 SRMC1 aft dome after rupture during buckling test

Skirts
The skirts were firstly tested at a small scale. A reduce scale skirt demonstrator was designed in order to recreate
the stresses that occur on the full scale SRMC skirts during flight as showed by Fig. 12.
These small skirts were also designed
in order to present the same quality of Skirt bending due to case
composite compared with full scale body radius axpansion

SRM. Then they were used in order to Compression

due to flight
evaluate the rupture criteria of the skirts loads skirt
for flight load cases. The rupture tests
Ply
were performed at room temperature as shear
well as at flight temperature. Some were ∆R body case
Capacité
performed after wet ageing that enabled Skirt frame Capacité
to identify the impact on the
performance. ∆L body case
Figure 13 shows some photographs Figure 12. Typical skirt flight sizing loads
of a test before and after rupture.

Figure 13. Small skirt test

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Each one of the full scale tests provided strong loads on the skirts, with compression and case body radius
expansion at room temperature or flight temperature (BH1), or only compression or tension. As they were strongly
designed, they never damaged, as proven by ultrasonic inspection after tests. The destructive inspection
demonstrated a very law porosity rate that participates to the good behavior of these skirts.

VI. Bonding
Skirt to case bonding
The skirt to case structural bonding is certainly the most important one of the SRMC since it contributes to the
Missile behavior to mechanical loads, including dynamic loads. Figure 14 gives an eample of typical mechanical
loads that have to face this bonding.

Compression Compresion
or tension or tension
loads loads Skirt
Skirt

Shear and compression

shear ∆R case body
Capacité
Skirt frame Capacité Skirt frame Case body
Case body

∆L case body

Figure 14. Typical skirt to body case sizing loads

Here again, a dedicated small scale

structure was specifically designed with the
objective of having a failure in the bonding
under applied tension loads on the skirt
leading to shear in the bonding (left case of
Fig. 14). Its design and way of
manufacturing ensured that the right shear
loads in the bonding was applied during the
internal pressure proof test, in order to create
the same conditions as during full scale proof
test. The reduce scale structure was realized
using the same materials and process as the
full scale one. These were the necessary
conditions to declare this small structure
representative and able to give a good
criterion for the bonding rupture level. In
Before test After test order to ensure a failure in the bonding, the
Figure 15. Reduce scale structure skirts were reinforced without modifying the
stress field in the skirt to case body bonding.
The test demonstrated a failure of the junction that was
mainly in the composite of the case body (see Fig. 15) which
insured a cohesive failure at a level expected far above the
dimensioning one.
A larger reduce scale structure was also tested till rupture
with compression loads in order to confirm the effect of
ageing on the skirt to case body strength. This half scale
diameter structure (see Fig. 16) was realized and then
submitted to a hydro proof test. After that it was cut in two,
that made allows the use of the two skirts to case bonding
separately. The first one was tested in compression till rupture
and the second one saw a wet ageing before the same test.
Both test demonstrated a cohesive failure, and they confirmed
the low ageing effect.
Figure 16. Half scale diameter structure

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 As for the one scale tests, the skirt to case body bonding was tested several times at full scale (Demo1, B2, BH1,
B1) with no failure despite the high safety factors demonstrated. Once again, ultrasonic post test inspection and
destructive inspection proved they were neither damage nor delamination in the bonding due to the tests. The
bonding was tested after wet ageing during the B2A test campaign that demonstrated also its good behavior after
ageing since it withdraw the required loads (see Fig. 17) without failure.

Figure 17. Skirt to case bonding full scale tests

An other important point of the skirt to case body is its dynamic behavior. Dedicated laboratory samples were
designed in order to evaluate the dynamic stiffeness of the shear ply. They were firstly tested in static loads and
compared to full scale results, which enabeld to validate there use for the dynamic loads. A dynamic test campain of
these small shear samples made it possible to evaluate the shear stiffeness of the shear ply for the different dynamic
flight loads combined to static loads. These tests were necessary and important since each rubber is different and has
its own dynamic behavior that is quite impossible to predict without experience. The result on the shear ply material
was then used in order to establish the skirt to case body dynamic behavior using FEM analysis.

Polar boss to case body bonding

This bonding has to sustain to the flight loads with shear stress due to the case body deformation with added
stresses due to the nozzle actuating. An other kind of loads comes from the tube phase, with external pressure
applied on the aft dome of SRMC1, which generates traction on the aft polar boss to case body bonding. The
bonding were sized using FEM analysis with criteria coming from samples tested in EADS-ST laboratory. Then,
they were tested at full scale.
For the kind of loads discussed just before, three kind of full scale test were performed:
• The case body internal pressure proof test or burst test: each one of the proof test or of the three burst
tests was a success concerning the polar boss to case body,
• The aft dome external pressure test that was done during B2, BH1, B1 and BA2 test campaigns. The
last one was tested after wet ageing.
Force
• An effort applied on the aft polar
boss in order to create a stress field
sufficient to demonstrate the good
behavior of the bonding. This test
was performed on B1 SRMC1 (see
Fig. 18) and then applied as polar
boss to case body proof test on all
SRMC1.

Figure 18. aft polar boss to case body test

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Cable duct fastening bonding
Same logic as for polar boss to case body bonding
was applied for the fastening bonding. The
particularity of this bonding is the fact curing occurs
at room temperature since fastening are mounted by
the end of the SRM manufacturing cycle.
Nevertheless, this kind of bonding is quite strong
enough as proven during the full scale tests on B2
(see Fig 19), BH1 and B1 test campaigns that
demonstrated safety margin much higher than 2.

Figure 19. Fastening bonding test

VII. Industrial tool

The industrial tool was conceived settled, tested and used during the SRMC development, starting from the
existing one (see Fig. 20 the case body making facility). The SRMC process of realization was identified and
applied very early in the development on Demo1 SRMC1 sample. Then it was refined, and each time, the evolutions
were validated by the successive full scale tests.
A dedicated inspection plan
has been established in order to
ensure the right level of reliability.
This implies mechanical tests of
material chosen for their ability to
highlight potential drift. It also
implies many inspections during
the whole process as well as final
inspections that are of different
kinds (see examples in Fig 21):
• Geometrical inspections, using
Figure 20. Case body manufacturing facility a 3 D controlling machine, so
as to prove the SRMC respect their frontier requirements,
• Proof tests, as discussed below,
in order to prove that the SRMC
can sustain major flight loads,
• Final ultrasonic inspection after
the proof tests, that certify that
no degradation have occurred
that could endanger the
performance of the SRMC.
In complement to the classical case
Ploar boss to case body proof test
body hydro proof test, the following
others proof test have been
developed:
• Skirt and skirt to case body proof
test with a compression load
applied on the aft skirt ring.
• Polar boss to case body bonding
with a load applied on the aft
polar boss.
• Cable duct fastening bonding Automatic ultrasonic inspection facility Skirt to case body proof test
with a tension load applied in
the bonding. Figure 21. Final inspections

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
In complement to the measures performed during these tests that are able to give a first diagnostic of the behavior of
the composites and bonding, an ultrasonic inspection is then performed. A dedicated automatic tool has been
developed, that replace the manual inspection (see Fig. 21). All the SRMC manufactured during the development
demonstrated no default during final inspections, which shows the process is repetitive and the industrial tool is well
designed.

VIII. Damage assessment

Once the design and the first steps of the justification acquired on the composite wound SRMC, it was decided to
work on the damage assessement of the SRMC in order to contribute to the reliability of the SRM and of the
Missile. A logic of activities has been dressed that is based, again, on the progression of the scales: the laboratory
tests, the reduced scale tests, till a full scale test. The hemispheric impactor has been retained so as to keep the
coherence with the aeronautical data base.
These works, that are still ongoing, will enable to conclude on
• The highest impact energy acceptable for each part of the motor Cases, without a substantial loss of their
performance.
• The barely visible impact.
• The role of the external thermal protection (is it a good protection, has it a good impact revealing role, or
does it hinder to see the impacts and does it modify the impact behaviour of the composite)
They should be the subject of a further paper.

IX. Conclusion
The M51 large carbon SRMC development Program was very challenging. Specific new approaches have been
implemented by EADS Space Transportation, more particulary for the bonding which have been carefuly designed
and succesfuly tested. With an adapted development logic based on an early demonstrator and on a multiscale
characterisation, the developement of the SRMC encounterd no major problem. The SRMC full scale tests provided
a very reach feed-back. All of them were a success, that proved the good design of the SRMC and that validates
their industrial process and tool. Different sample of SRMC were manufactured and delivered to SPS customer for
their firing tests. All these SRMC were submited to ultrasonic inspection with success, which proved again the
industrial process and tool is repetitive.
In addition to that, a damage assesment activity is ongoing. It contributes to increase the technical experience
and efficiency of EADS-ST in the field of SRM carbon cases.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge their customers for these products, SPS as their direct customer and G2P then DGA
as higher and final customer, for trusting in EADS-ST for this developement. They would also like to acknowledge all those, in
the EADS-ST industrial team, which contributed to the success of this developement and so to this paper.

References
[R1] Jean-Marc Gautier (EADS Space Transportation)
Rationale to design adhesive bonding on solid rocket motor cases at EADS Space Transportation
Sampe Europe Conference & Exhibition 2003

[R2] Marcel Auberon, Philippe Hermann, Vincent Peypoudat (EADS Space Transportation)
large solid propellant tanks at at EADS Space Transportation
Space Solid Propulsion; Rome 21-24 November 2000

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics