42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit 9 - 12 July 2006, Sacramento, California

AIAA 2006-4671

Fuel Regression Rate Characterization Using a Laboratory Scale Nitrous Oxide Hybrid Propulsion System
Kevin Lohner, Jonny Dyer, Eric Doran, and Zachary Dunn
Stanford University, Stanford, CA, 94305, USA

Greg Zilliac
NASA Ames Research Center, Moett Field, CA

The purpose of this study was to characterize the regression rates of three traditional hybrid rocket fuels along with one novel fuel using nitrous oxide as the oxidizer. In order to complete these tests, a robust test facility was developed for use in this study as well as in future hybrid rocket programs at Stanford University. This stand allowed for rapid successive hot re testing and the capability to test multiple fuel grain congurations. To date it has been used to conduct 40 hot re tests. Performance values and fuel regression rate data are presented for HTPB, PMMA, HDPE, and sorbitol.

Nomenclature
m r a A1 A2 At c Cv D E G Isp L m mf uel n O/F Mass ow rate Regression rate Regression rate coecient Venturi inlet area Venturi throat area Nozzle throat area Characteristic exhaust velocity Coecient of velocity Port diameter Error value Mass ux Specic impulse Fuel grain length Length exponent Fuel mass Flux exponent Oxidizer-to-fuel ratio Pc R tb x Chamber Pressure Final to initial diameter ratio Burn time Port length coordinate

Subscripts f Final f uel Fuel property i Initial ox Oxidizer property Conventions Averaged variable Symbols P Pressure dierence across venturi c c eciency Density

I.

Introduction

original goal this study to develop a motor a nominal thrust level of The pounds and aofburn time of wasOperations, andhybridinrocketproposedwithproject. However,Advanced 15 45 seconds to be used the NASA Ames Mars Technology Airplane for Deployment, Recovery (MATADOR) a lack of
Graduate Graduate

Student, Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford, CA, AIAA Member. Student, Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Stanford, CA, AIAA Member. Research Scientist, NASA Ames Research Center, AIAA Member.

1 of 16
Copyright 2006 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

published hybrid fuel regression data motivated the need to experimentally determine much of this data before a fully-characterized, robust engine system could be built. Nitrous oxide (N2 0) was chosen as the oxidizer for this hybrid motor because it is non-toxic, storable at room temperature, self-pressurizing, inexpensive, and easy to handle. This list of attributes far outweighed the slightly inferior performance of nitrous oxide when compared to liquid oxygen or exotic, more hazardous alternatives. Once oxidizer selection was complete, a literature search was performed in an attempt to determine regression rate data for nitrous oxide hybrid rocket engines. This information would be essential in the design of the MATADOR engine. However the search returned very few results, and in talking with members of industry and the research community it became apparent that such work had either not been completed or at least had not been reported in the open literature despite the wide use of nitrous oxide in the propulsion community. A proper test program was required before an optimized ight weight system could be developed. This test program would also serve to ll the apparent gap in academically published nitrous oxide hybrid fuel rocket regression data. To serve as the backbone of this test program, a portable, self-contained test stand was developed to support system hardware including the combustion chamber, nitrous oxide tank, plumbing, control system, data acquisition (DAQ), and safety equipment. This stand was developed with interchangeability in mind and easily allowed for the testing of many dierent fuel grain congurations. Beyond the MATADOR program, this stand was built to test engines capable of delivering up to 100 pounds of thrust. The oxidizer ux of these larger engines would be on a scale comparable to levels commonly found in industry applications. Regression rate data gathered in this study are not limited to extremely low ux MATADOR-scale engines, but cover a wide-range of practical oxidizer ux values. Fuel selection was the nal step prior to hot re testing. High density polyethylene (HDPE) and polymethyl methacrylate (PMMA), two slower burning fuels were selected along with the faster burning hydroxylterminated polybutadiene (HTPB). In addition to these commonly used diusion-limited fuels, a higher regression rate liquefying fuel, sorbitol, was selected to complement existing work with paran at Stanford University. Sorbitol is a naturally occurring sugar alcohol that has theoretical performance metrics similar to those of sucrose.

II.
A. Test Stand

Test Facility

To carry out the required testing in a relatively short 2:00:00 time frame, a completely self-contained mobile test facility was developed. The safety features and small 1:40:00 scale of the facility allowed testing to be conducted locally. Oxidizer and pressurization tanks with suf1:20:00 cient capacity for several tests were mounted directly to the test stand. The stand had an inte1:00:00 gral power supply utilizing 12 volt lead-acid batter0:40:00 ies, and all instrumentation and control was handled over a single USB cable. Set-up time was minimized 0:20:00 by mounting the test stand on pneumatic tires so that the entire system could be rolled to the test 0:00:00 site in ready conguration. The test article design and plumbing allowed for a simple sang procedure and minimal reassembly time between tests. This enabled up to 16 hot re tests on a typical day with turn-around times as low as 20 minutes. Figure 1 Figure shows a chart of test turn-around times for a number of tests and Figure 2 shows a photo of the test stand.
Time (hr:min:sec)

Average Time Between Tests: 47:44 (min:sec)

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

Tests

1. Turn-around Time Between Hot Fire Tests

2 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 2. Test Stand for a 100 lb Thrust, Supercharged Nitrous Oxide Hybrid Rocket

B.

Test Article

The test article was designed to be robust, allowing multiple fuel congurations and ease of fuel grain replacement. The main combustion chamber consisted of a cylindrical center section and two square end caps, all machined from 6061T6 grade aluminum. The center body had an outer diameter of 2 inches and a 0.25 inch wall thickness. The assembly was compressed axially using four high strength threaded steel rods with bore seals between the mating parts. Pre- and post-combustion chamber insulation inserts for the fore and aft end caps were manufactured from graphite. The layout of the test article assembly is shown in Figure 3.

Igniter

Main Combustion Chamber

Nozzle Post-combustion Chamber

Injector Pre-combustion Chamber

Fuel Grain

Phenolic Insulation

Figure 3. Section View of Test Article

The test article accommodated fuel grains of dierent lengths by replacing the center section. Chambers with lengths of 6, 7, and 10 inches were manufactured to t 5, 6, and 9 inch fuel grains, respectively. This

3 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

versatility enabled adjustment of oxidizer-to-fuel (O/F) mass ratios for a given oxidizer mass ow rate. The aft end cap contained the nozzle insert. The standard nozzle had a throat diameter of 0.250 inches, a contoured convergent section, and a conical divergent section with a half angle of 15 degrees and an expansion ratio of 4. Molybdenum (Mo) was used as the nozzle material due to its ability to withstand a high temperature oxidizing environment with little-to-no throat erosion. This served to eliminate chamber pressure decay - a common problem in graphite nozzles. The injector was designed to cavitate the liquid nitrous oxide, thus controlling the oxidizer mass ow rate while isolating the test article from the feed system. Multiple showerhead injectors were fabricated by drilling 0.025 inch diameter holes through a standard Swagelok brass cap. Depending on the ow rate required for each test, injectors with 1 to 6 holes were installed. C. Feed System

The feed system was composed of a main nitrous oxide feed line and an auxiliary helium system. The helium provided supercharging capability, pneumatic pressure for valve operation, and high and low pressure combustion chamber purges. The plumbing and instrumentation diagram (P&ID) is shown in Figure 4.
TV-2 TV-1

T1
T

DP1

OV-4 OV-3 CV-1

P-2

OV-2

RV-1

P-1 OV-5

CV-2

CV-3 P-3

PV-4 RV-2 PV-0 R-1 PV-1 R-2 PV-2 OV-1 OV-0 OV-0 - Ox Press Iso OV-1 - Ox Main Iso OV-2 - Ox Pre-Valve OV-3 - Ox Main Valve OV-4 - Ox Bleed valve OV-5 - Ox Vent Valve He N2O R-1 - Helium Regulator 1 R-2 - Helium Regulator 2 PV-3

PV-5

RV-1 - Ox Tank Relief RV-2 - Low Press Relief TV-1 - Pre-Valve Actuator Throttle TV-2 - Main Valve Actuator Throttle CV-1 - Main Ox Check Valve CV-2 - Low Purge Check Valve CV-3 - Hi Purge Check Valve

PV-0 - Helium Bottle Iso PV-1 - Press/Purge Iso PV-2 - Low Pressure Iso PV-3 - Low Purge Throttle PV-4 - Low Purge Solenoid PV-5 - Hi Purge solenoid

Figure 4. Plumbing and Instrumentation Diagram for the Test Facility

The nitrous oxide feed system was supercharged 100-150 psi above N2 0 vapor pressure to extend the liquidous range of the oxidizer. This helped prevent cavitation in the feed line to ensure accurate mass ow rate measurements through the sub-critical venturi. Helium was chosen as the pressurant due to its inert properties and its insolubility in nitrous oxide. The helium pressurant was introduced through a port at the top of the nitrous oxide tank and liquid nitrous oxide was extracted from a separate port through a dip tube extending to the bottom of the tank. The main oxidizer feed line was plumbed using 0.25 inch diameter stainless steel tubing with 0.030 inch wall thickness. Two pneumatically actuated ball valves in series were used to control the oxidizer ow. A high point bleed upstream of the main oxidizer valve was used to vent any gaseous nitrous oxide in the feed line before testing. D. Ignition System

The ignition system was a simple electrically-initiated pyrotechnic igniter housed within a standard Swagelok union tting. External lead wires were passed through a crimped section of tubing, which was lled with

4 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

epoxy to create a pressure seal. A 24 gauge nichrome bridge wire was used as the initiator. Each igniter contained 0.5 grams of the following mixture: 60% potassium nitrate (KNO3 ), 20% magnesium (Mg), and 20% epoxy binder (based on percent mass). A schematic of the igniter is shown in Figure 5.

Figure 5. Igniter Design

E.

Instrumentation

For temperature measurement, Omega type K grounded thermocouples were used with cold-junction compensated signal conditioning integrated circuits from Analog Devices (AD595C). This chip had a calibration error of 1 C at 25 C and a gain error of 0.75%. Nitrous oxide tank temperature and nitrous oxide line temperature just upstream of the sub-critical venturi were measured. Two Senstronics Storm type 0 to 2000 psia pressure transducers (P/N: OL01 10840-002) with an accuracy of 0.25%FS were used to measure the nitrous oxide tank pressure along with the nitrous oxide pressure upstream of the combustion chamber injector. These transducers have built-in temperature sensors, and the nitrous oxide tank pressure transducers temperature output was used to verify line temperature. In addition to the two Storm pressure transducers, a Measurement Specialties, Inc. 0 to 1000 psia MSP-600 pressure transducer with an accuracy of 0.25%FS was utilized to measure the combustion chamber pressure just downstream of the injector. The ow rate was measured using a sub-critical venturi with a throat diameter of 0.096 inches and an entrance diameter of 0.190 inches. The convergent and divergent sections were conical, with half angles of 11 degrees and 7 degrees, respectively. Pressure taps of 0.040 inch diameter were drilled at the throat and upstream of the convergent section. The pressure dierence across the pressure taps was measured using a Stellar Technology, Inc. dierential pressure transducer with a range of 30 psid (P/N: DT400-30BD-119). A schematic of the venturi is shown in Figure 6.

(a) Venturi Body Figure 6. Venturi Design Schematic

(b) Throat Section

The density of the nitrous oxide passing through the venturi was calculated using the pressure measured

5 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

at the oxidizer tank and the temperature measured in the main oxidizer feed line. This calculation was carried out using data for nitrous oxide from the National Institute of Standards and Technology1 (NIST). Using the calculated density, ox , and the measured pressure dierence across the venturi, P , the oxidizer mass ow rate was calculated using Eq. (1). mox = Cv A2 2ox P 1
A2 A1 2

(1)

The venturi was calibrated by experimentally determining the velocity coecient of the venturi, Cv . Nitrous oxide was owed through the feed line while measuring P and calculating ox . The Cv was determined by comparing the measured change in tank mass with the integrated mass ow calculated assuming a Cv of 1. Several tests were conducted in order to conrm the results and minimize the error. F. Control System and Data Acquisition

The test sequence was controlled remotely and executed via a National Instruments LabVIEW interface. To facilitate hot-re tests in which timing was critical, the order and timing of operations was pre-programmed into an auto test re sequence, ensuring a repeatable testing procedure. Burn times were set for each test based on expected regression rate and initial port diameter of the fuel grain. The main oxidizer valve was adjusted to have an opening slew rate of approximately 1 second to reduce the possibility of compression heating of nitrous oxide in the line. Igniter ring occurred 0.5 seconds before the opening of the main oxidizer valve. After the predetermined burn time had elapsed, the oxidizer main valve was closed and a high pressure gaseous helium purge was opened. This swept out all remaining nitrous oxide downstream of the main valve through the test article. A typical test sequence is represented in Figure 7.

High He Purge

Event

Main Ox Valve

Igniter

Low He Purge -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Time, seconds

Figure 7. Nominal Test Sequence for 10 Second Burn Time

testagg.xls (6/14/2006 2:55 PM)

All valves and the igniter relay were actuated remotely using an EasyDaq USB8SR eight channel USB relay control board interfaced with LabVIEW. The test computer was linked to the test stand via a 100 foot USB connection. A Data Translations 9804 USB board was used for data acquisition. Data was sampled at 800 Hz and passed through a rst order, low pass RC lter with a cut-o frequency of 320 Hz prior to analog-to-digital conversion.

III.

Fuel Characteristics and Processing

The NASA thermochemical program CEA (Chemical Equilibrium with Applications) was used to characterize specic impulse (Isp ) as a function of O/F . The results for the four fuels used in this study are plotted in Figure 8. Sorbitol is a naturally occurring sweetener used as a sugar substitute in products such as diet drinks and toothpaste. While often classied with sugars due to its sweetening uses, sorbitol is actually a sugar
6 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

260

240

220

Isp(s)

200

180 Nitrous/Sorbitol Nitrous/HDPE Nitrous/HTPB Nitrous/PMMA

160

140 0

5 O/F

Figure 8. Isp vs. O/F Assuming Equilibrium Combustion at 500 psia Expanding to Sea Level Pressure

alcohol with the chemical formula C6 H14 O6 . It has a density of 1.489 g/cm3 ,2 melting point of 96.8 degrees Celsius,3 a resistance to caramelization, and an enthalpy of formation of -1353.7 kJ/mol.4 From Figure 8, sorbitol has a maximum Isp value of 232 seconds at an O/F of 3. Granular sorbitol was melted and a small amount of carbon black was added as an opacifying agent. The melt was cast in a 2 inch diameter 0.063 inch thick paper phenolic tube liner with a 0.75 inch mandrel to form a single port. The casting was allowed to cool for 36 hours to ensure complete solidication. The mandrel was removed and the grain was machined to length. HTPB is a rubber commonly used as a binder in solid rockets and as a fuel in hybrids. It is a polymer of butadiene (C4 H6 ) terminated at each end with a hydroxyl functional group (-OH). Properties of HTPB are dependent on the the mixture and curing of the specic blend, therefore standard properties are not available and must be determined for each individual blend. The HTPB composition consisted of 83% polybutadiene resin (Sartomer R-45HTLO), 15% isocyanate curative (Desmodur E 744), 1% antioxidant (CAO-5), and 1% carbon black by mass. These chemicals were obtained from RCS Rocket Motor Components, Inc. The ingredients were mixed together under vacuum and poured into a 2 inch diameter phenolic liner with a 0.75 inch mandrel. The casting was cured for 24 hours at 38 degrees Celsius. PMMA, commonly known as acrylic, is a transparent thermoplastic with the chemical formula C5 H8 O2 and a density of 1.19 g/cm3 . Grains were machined from clear cast 2 inch diameter PMMA rod stock that was obtained from McMaster-Carr (www.mcmaster.com). HDPE is an opaque thermoplastic that is created through the polymerization of ethene (C2 H4 ) and has an average density of 0.948 g/cm3 . Grains were machined from extruded 2 inch diameter HDPE rod stock obtained from McMaster-Carr.

IV.

Hot Fire Testing

Four rounds of hot re testing, comprised of 40 individual tests, were performed during the months of April to June 2006. The initial round (tests 1-4) was a facility check-out series. Subsequent tests were

7 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

performed to characterize the burn rate of the fuels over a range of oxidizer ow rates, O/F ratios, and chamber pressures. Figure 9 shows the test parameter envelope for each of the four types of fuel. As can be seen, tests were performed at O/F ratios both rich and lean of stoichiometric at chamber pressures ranging from 300 psia to over 650 psia. Individual tests can be cross-referenced to Table 2 containing test conditions. Test durations were varied from 3 to 15 seconds in order to achieve steady-state burns at targeted conditions.

Figure 9. Hot Fire Test Parameter Envelope

The fuel grains were made to dierent lengths depending on the fuel mass ow target for each test. Port diameters were nominally 0.75 inches, however smaller ports were used for some tests to achieve a higher average oxidizer mass ux. All fuel grains were measured dimensionally and massed before and after test. These values, combined with the data from the instrumentation, were used to determine the average fuel mass ow rate, O/F ratio, c eciency, oxidizer mass ux, and regression rate (see Table 3). A pressure-time trace for a typical hot re test (#30) is shown in Figure 10. Chamber pressure uctuations were less than 5% for PMMA, HDPE, and HTPB tests, while sorbitol tests had uctuations as high as 10%. A photograph of a typical hot re test (#12) is shown in Figure 11.

V.
A. Space and Time Averaging

Regression Rate Analysis

The classic hybrid regression rate formula derived by Marxman5 r = aGn xm (2)

expresses the instantaneous time derivative of port radius as a function of total mass ux in the port, G, port length coordinate, x, and three ballistic coecients, a, n, and m. Regression rate analysis aims to determine these coecients for a given fuel and oxidizer combination. It is generally easier to deal with the regression rate formula in the form r = aGn xm (3) ox where Gox is the oxidizer mass ux in place of the total mass ux. In order that the data be widely applicable, it is important to choose data analysis and regression methods that are consistent and reliable. Due to the discrete nature of fuel mass measurements in a hybrid rocket, averaging in both space and time is necessary to obtain time derivatives for regression rate analysis. In this section longitudinal variation in regression rate will be ignored by assuming a simple average value in space making m = 0. Karabeyoglu et al.6 have shown
8 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 10. Pressure-time Trace for Hot Fire Test #30

Figure 11. Photograph of Hot Fire Test #12

9 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

that space-averaged regression rate, r, can be recast with Gox as the independent variable in the following form. aGn Lm (1 n) ox r= (4) 1 (1 + m) 1 + O/F O/F Although determining r from measurements is trivial using Eq. (5), space-averaged oxidizer mass ux is not uniquely determined due to its non-linear relationship to port diameter. Diameter averaging using Eq. (6) produces the smallest averaging induced error when calculating space-averaged oxidizer mass ux.6 Df Di r = 2tb Gox = (5)

16mox (6) (Di + Df )2 Initial diameter, Di , is easily measured prior to test. Determining the space-averaged Df is more dicult, as it involves measuring the port diameter as a function of chamber longitudinal coordinate and taking an average value. Alternatively, one can use the density, change in mass and initial diameter to determine nal diameter according to Eq. (7), which is the method used in this analysis. Df = 4(mf ueli mf uelf ) 2 + Di f uel L (7)

B.

O/F Correction

It is very dicult to completely isolate mass ux as the independent variable, holding other variables like chamber pressure and O/F ratio constant across all tests. Classic diusion-limited hybrid regression theory states that regression rate is not a function of pressure over most of the useful range of oxidizer mass uxes. However, space-averaged regression rate from Eq. (4) is a function of O/F ratio as well as the traditional ballistic coecients a, n and m. To reduce regression scatter, Karabeyoglu6 suggests recognizing that the O/F dependent terms in Eq. (4) can be isolated such that r aGn Lm ox = (1 n) (1 + m) 1 +
1 O/F

= fo (O/F ) O/F

(8)

which is a function of O/F only. By choosing a standard (O/F )0 when performing a regression analysis one can correct the raw space-averaged regression rate for changes in O/F by applying rcorrected = rraw fo (O/F )i fo (O/F )0 (9)

repeatedly until the mass ux coecient n converges. The (O/F )0 was chosen at the peak Isp of each propellant: 3 for sorbitol, 4.4 for PMMA, 6.5 for HTPB, and 8.1 for HDPE. C. Least Squares Regression Analysis r = aGn ox and Eq. (8) to: r= aGn (1 n) ox 1+
1 O/F

Taking m = 0, Eq. (3) reduces to (10) (11)

O/F

= aGn fo (O/F ) ox

To obtain the least squares t the O/F correction term is initially ignored and Eq. (10) is manipulated as follows: ln r a = n ln Gox = ln a +n ln Gox

ln r ln Gox

10 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Recasting as a standard matrix equation, A = b, results in: x 1 1 ln Gox 1 . . ln a . . = . . n 1 1 ln Gox j

ln r ln Gox 1

(12)

. . .

ln r ln Gox j

Applying the linear least squares solution x = (AT A)1 AT b gives the ballistic coecients n and ln a as the components of x. The regression rate curves are shown in Figure 12 and ballistic coecients are listed in Table 1 for each of the four fuels. One can see the relative range in regression rate with HDPE being the slowest and sorbitol being the fastest burning fuel. Note that the data represent a work in progress and the coecients are only applicable within the illustrated range of Gox values. In particular, the correlation for sorbitol is weak and the regression rate curve plotted is purely notional as more data points are needed to rene the curve.
Table 1. Ballistic Coecients for Four Fuels Using N2 0 as the Oxidizer

Fuel HDPE PMMA HTPB Sorbitol

* To

a* 0.104 0.111 0.198 0.286

n* 0.352 0.377 0.325 0.310

be used when r is in mm/s and Gox is in g/cm2 -s. Coecients are approximate due to weak correlation.

D.

Averaged c* Method

Another technique for obtaining regression rate coecients, termed the averaged c method, has been suggested by Wernimont.7 This method assumes that c remains constant over the course of a test run to determine the time-resolved fuel ow rate. At
tb 0 tb 0

c mf uel (t)

= =

Pc (t)dt

mox (t)dt + mf uel (13)

Pc (t)At mox (t) c Using Eq. (13) and assuming m = 0, the instantaneous regression rate is: r(t) = mf uel (t) f uel LD(t)

(14)

An explicit discrete approximation can be dened as: rj Dj Finally, Goxj can be calculated as: Goxj = 4moxj 2 Dj (17) Pcj At 1 moxj f uel LDj c Dj1 + 2rj1 dt = (15) (16)

The method outlined in Eq. (12) can be used to nd the least squares coecient ts from the rj and Goxj . Figure 13 shows the regression rate curve calculated using average c method for a typical test. As can be seen, the ballistic coecients match quite well to those determined using the space and time averaging method.
11 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

1.6 HDPE
31

1.4

20

PMMA HTPB Sorbitol

24 23

32

a = 0.286, n = 0.310

Regression Rate (mm/s)

1.2
4

34 33 19 22

35

27 a = 0.198, n = 0.325 21 17 30

a = 0.111, n = 0.377 28

0.8
37

12 36 13 14

15

25

26

29 a = 0.104, n = 0.352

0.6
8 10 9 7

16 18

0.4

65

0.2 0

10

Gox (g/cm2-s)

15

20

25

30

Figure 12. Regression Rate Curves Obtained Using Least Squares Fit of all Tests Performed

E.

Error Analysis

It is essential to understand and quantify the error, both systematic and random, in calculating the regression rate parameters for each fuel in this study. As previously stated, diameter-averaging was used to minimize the systematic error inherent to the time-averaged oxidizer mass ux calculation. However, there are many sources of measurement error that are present in any test set-up that must be accounted for to determine the random error. Based on the error analysis methodology presented by Karabeyoglu,6 the formulas for regression rate error, Er , and oxidizer mass ux error EGox , are: Er = R E Df R1 2R E Df R1
2

+
2

1 E Di R1 2 E Di R1

1/2

+
2

2 Etb 1/2

(18)

EGox

2 Emox

(19)

Equation (18), derived from Eq. (5), shows that the regression rate error is a function of the web thickness of fuel burned (where R = Df /Di ) and the individual errors in the burn time (Etb ), initial diameter of the fuel grain (EDi ), and nal diameter (EDf ). The burn time error accounts for the eect of the igniter and the start-up and shut-down transients. The initial diameter error simply accounts for caliper accuracy. As the fuels in this study were either machined or cast around a center mandrel, the initial port diameters were relatively consistent. The nal diameter is a calculated parameter (see Eq. 7), therefore the error in this value is a function of the measured grain length, the initial diameter, the measured fuel density, and the change in fuel grain mass before and after test. For a representative test (#30) the relative random error in regression rate was found to be 0.044, corresponding to an absolute error value of 0.04 mm/s. The calculation for determining the random error in oxidizer mass ux, Eq. (19), is similar to that of regression rate in that it is also a function of R, EDi , and EDf - except instead of being dependent on burn time error, it is also a function of error in oxidizer mass ow rate. This is due to the relationship presented
12 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Figure 13. Regression Rate Using Averaged c Method for PMMA Test #25

in Eq. (6). Determining the error in the mass ow rate, a calculated parameter, begins with quantifying the individual errors in the measured values that go into the mass ow rate calculation according to Eq. (1). These values include the diameter of the venturi, the discharge coecient of the venturi, the pressure drop across the venturi, and the upstream temperature and pressure of the nitrous oxide uid (used to determine uid density). The mass ow rate is therefore quite sensitive to the Cv , which was known to within 1% based on repeated calibrations of the venturi. Thus, again for test #30, the relative error in mass ow rate was determined to be 0.019, yielding an overall relative random error of 0.057 in oxidizer mass ux. This corresponds to a absolute error value of 0.77 g/(cm2 s).

Acknowledgments
Financial support for the MATADOR project was provided by Stanford Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics Gift Funds. NASA Ames Research Center and Pratt & Whitney Rocketdyne generously loaned equipment that was instrumental for this project. The authors wish to thank Stanford Consulting Professor Arif Karabeyoglu for his advice in test operations and analysis.

References
1 Lemmon, E. W., McLinden, M. O., and Friend, D. G., Thermophysical Properties of Fluid Systems, NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69 , edited by P. J. Linstrom and W. G. Mallard, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg MD, 20899 (http://webbook.nist.gov), June 2005. 2 Physical Constants of Organic Compounds, CRC Handbook of Chemistry and Physics, edited by D. R. Lide, CRC Press, 86th ed., June 2005. 3 Gombs, A., Szab-Rvsz, P., Regdon, G., and Ers, I., Study of Thermal Behaviour of Sugar Alcohols, Journal of a o e e o Thermal Analysis and Calorimetry, Vol. 73, 2003, pp. 615621. 4 Afeefy, H. Y., Liebman, J. F., and Stein, S. E., Neutral Thermochemical Data, NIST Chemistry WebBook, NIST Standard Reference Database Number 69 , edited by P. J. Linstrom and W. G. Mallard, National Institute of Standards and Technology, Gaithersburg MD, 20899 (http://webbook.nist.gov), June 2005.

13 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

5 Marxman, G. A., Wooldridge, C. E., and Muzzy, R. J., Fundamentals of Hybrid Boundary Layer Combustion, Progress in Aeronautics and Astronautics, Vol. 15, 1964, pp. 485522. 6 Karabeyoglu, M. A., Cantwell, B. J., and Zilliac, G., Development of Scalable Space-time Averaged Regression Rate Expressions for Hybrid Rockets, 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, AIAA, Tucson, AZ, July 2005. 7 Wernimont, W. J. and Heister, S. D., Combustion Experiments in Hydrogen Peroxide/Polyethylene Hybrid Rocket with Catalytic Ignition, Journal of Propulsion and Power , Vol. 16, No. 2, 2000, pp. 318326.

14 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 2. Test Conditions

Test

Fuel Grain PMMA-1 SP1A-1 SORB-1 SORB-1 HDPE-1 PMMA-2 HDPE-2 PMMA-3 HDPE-3 PMMA-4 SORB-4 SORB-3 PMMA-5 HDPE-4 PMMA-6 HDPE-5 PMMA-7 HDPE-6 HTPB-1 SORB-8/5 HTPB-2 HTPB-3 SORB-6 SORB-10 PMMA-8 HDPE-7 HTPB-6 PMMA-9 HDPE-8 HTPB-7 SORB-7/9 SORB-13 SORB-14 SORB-11 SORB-12 HTPB-4 HTPB-5

Test Duration (s) 5.4 3.5 3.0 4.6 9.9 14.9 10.0 9.8 9.5 9.7 4.2 7.2 7.2 14.7 9.9 12.8 9.7 12.8 6.8 4.0 6.8 6.8 4.9 4.8 9.8 9.8 4.9 6.8 9.9 5.8 2.8 4.8 6.9 7.9 4.9 7.8 9.8

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Injector Open Area (mm2 ) 0.950 0.633 0.633 0.633 0.317 0.317 0.633 0.633 0.633 0.633 0.633 0.950 0.633 0.633 1.267 1.267 1.267 1.267 1.267 1.267 1.267 1.267 1.267 1.267 1.583 1.583 1.583 1.900 1.900 1.900 1.900 1.900 1.583 1.267 1.267 0.950 0.633

Throat Diameter (mm) 3.56 5.56 5.56 5.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 3.56 5.56 3.56 3.56 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35 6.35

mf ueli (g) 255.9 245.6 299.9 299.9 208.7 311.4 209.1 312.1 210.1 259.2 187.1 307.6 341.0 272.2 506.7 405.3 502.6 400.8 382.7 558.1 218.6 217.1 309.1 310.3 505.1 403.5 402.8 512.4 413.9 396.9 555.5 548.0 539.7 306.2 310.9 211.4 212.3

L (cm) 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 15.2 12.7 15.2 12.7 12.7 7.6 12.7 15.3 15.3 22.9 22.8 22.9 22.8 22.8 22.9 12.7 12.7 12.7 12.7 22.9 22.8 22.9 22.8 22.7 22.6 22.9 22.9 22.3 12.7 12.7 13.0 12.8

Di (cm) 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.92 1.91 1.97 1.91 1.94 2.03 1.91 1.33 1.33 1.34 1.35 1.34 1.35 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.91 1.33 1.28 1.92 1.27 1.16 1.93 1.89 1.90 1.90 1.91 1.90 2.24 2.13

15 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Table 3. Test Results

Test 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37

Fuel Grain PMMA-1 SP1A-1 SORB-1 SORB-1 HDPE-1 PMMA-2 HDPE-2 PMMA-3 HDPE-3 PMMA-4 SORB-4 SORB-3 PMMA-5 HDPE-4 PMMA-6 HDPE-5 PMMA-7 HDPE-6 HTPB-1 SORB-8/5 HTPB-2 HTPB-3 SORB-6 SORB-10 PMMA-8 HDPE-7 HTPB-6 PMMA-9 HDPE-8 HTPB-7 SORB-7/9 SORB-13 SORB-14 SORB-11 SORB-12 HTPB-4 HTPB-5

Pc * (atm) 19.6 22.4 23.8 43.5 45.5 43.7 44.4 26.5 40.6 40.5 26.8 24.6 24.9 24.7 29.8 34.0 31.0 26.6 36.3 34.6 33.1 32.7 35.8 40.2 37.0 37.1 42.6 43.5 37.3 38.0 34.7 25.8 19.3

Mean-to-Peak Pc Roughness 6.0% 1.8% 1.5% 1.6% 1.0% 1.2% 1.6% 5.1% 0.8% 0.7% 1.0% 1.1% 1.1% 1.0% 0.5% 3.3% 2.3% 2.4% 6.5% 4.7% 1.6% 1.5% 1.6% 2.0% 2.6% 1.8% 5.1% 5.5% 4.1% 0.3% 9.6% 4.1% 1.7%

mox * (g/s) 21.6 12.6 12.1 23.9 23.3 23.9 24.0 38.4 19.2 23.3 44.2 41.0 39.1 42.8 46.9 47.2 53.1 44.8 59.2 55.7 57.5 57.6 57.5 72.3 67.4 63.7 64.1 65.5 57.9 53.6 63.0 47.8 33.6

mf uel * (g/s) 15.0 3.4 5.7 3.3 6.0 3.2 4.9 11.0 6.8 4.9 13.6 8.8 13.6 8.8 17.0 35.9 8.7 8.1 17.8 19.4 12.3 9.1 16.3 13.1 8.7 14.8 35.1 35.9 28.4 18.2 16.1 8.3 7.7

O/F * 1.4 3.7 2.1 7.2 3.9 7.4 4.9 3.5 2.8 4.8 3.2 4.7 2.9 4.9 2.8 1.3 6.1 5.5 3.3 2.9 4.7 6.4 3.5 5.5 7.8 4.3 1.8 1.8 2.0 2.9 3.9 5.8 4.3

Gox rf uel 2 (g/cm s) (mm/s) Test Facility Checkout Test Facility Checkout Igniter failure 96% 4.8 1.11 92% 3.2 0.39 92% 2.5 0.40 96% 5.8 0.38 96% 5.1 0.44 97% 6.0 0.38 96% 5.4 0.44 Failed to ignite 86% 7.3 0.79 99% 7.4 0.66 90% 6.8 0.51 92% 12.5 0.76 99% 11.4 0.61 96% 11.3 0.77 95% 11.9 0.61 98% 9.0 0.98 99% 9.5 1.43 95% 10.4 0.92 95% 9.2 0.87 98% 11.6 1.26 95% 11.0 1.35 94% 17.6 0.71 94% 19.0 0.68 97% 12.2 1.00 94% 26.4 0.84 93% 25.0 0.70 91% 13.4 0.91 94% 15.0 1.50 94% 12.5 1.38 92% 10.6 1.09 - 8.6 1.15 92% 13.0 1.16 88% 7.5 0.76 91% 5.4 0.72 c

* Averaged

over a steady-state portion of the test. Diameter averaged over test duration. Length averaged over test duration. Value not available due to malfunctioning P transducer. c

16 of 16 American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics