Aerotherm Chemical Equilibrium (ACE) and Charring Material

Thermal Response and Ablation Programs (CMA) Tutorial

Presented By: M. O’Malley
Virtual NESC Academy Lesson - Thermal Control & Protection Discipline
 ACE/CMA Analysis Introduction

• Introduction
– The main thermal design considerations in a solid rocket motor (SRM) nozzle are
erosion and char of the insulation liner and the bondline temperature between the liner
and overwrap
– The bondline between the liner and overwrap usually has a temperature limit it must not
exceed by end of burn (EOB)
– A typical solid rocket motor nozzle is shown on Figure 1
– The ACE/CMA code calculates the thermal erosion and char of the carbon phenolic in
the nozzle exit cone at each station and the heat conduction into the aft exit cone which
provides bondline temperatures used for requirement validation
– The ACE/CMA model results can be validated by data obtained from a static motor test
– With the validated model, bondline temperature predictions can be made using 3σ
erosion and char
– Figure 2 shows a typical eroded exit cone, post test, also indicating the location of the
char line and bondline
2
 Rocket Nozzle

Figure 1: Typical SRM Nozzle

3
 Static Test

Bond
Line

Figure 2: Static Test Motor Aft Exit Cone Post Test

4
 ACE/CMA Analysis
• ACE/CMA Thermochemistry/Heat Transfer Analysis Overview
– The procedure is as follows
» Nozzle geometry provides area ratios for each station and insulation and part thicknesses
» The propellant gas properties at various temperatures and motor gas temperature as a function of
pressure are calculated by using the Chemical Equilibrium and Applications (CEA) code
» The Mach number, velocity, static pressure and temperature, recovery temperature and finally heat
transfer coefficients are calculated with an Excel spreadsheet using 1-D isentropic formulas
» The Bartz heat transfer coefficient is calculated for each station for each time increment in the burn
transient
» Next, the ACE code calculates the dimensionless pyrolysis gas and char rates for a table of
pressures for each station location down the nozzle
» The ACE code also calculates the static enthalpy for each station for various pressures
» Finally a CMA deck for each station is created
» Inputs include the heat transfer coefficient, the recovery enthalpy, the radiation to the surface,
decomposition kinetic data, nodal data, material properties of virgin and char, pyrolysis gas enthalpy
and surface thermochemistry tables obtained from running the ACE code
» The average erosion and char for each station and the measured bondline temperature is matched
by adjusting the heat transfer coefficient and other variables
» The 3σ erosion is then matched and the required isotherm examined to see if it reaches the bondline
by the end of the burn

5
 Analysis Procedure
CEA Nozzle
Combustion and Temperature/Pressure CEA models Rocket Equilibrium models Geometry
Inputs: Inputs: Inputs: Drawings
1. Propellant formulation including chemical formulas 1. Area ratios down the nozzle Outputs:
mass fractions and heats of formation for each constituent 2. Motor pressure trace, propellant formulation 1. Area ratios for each
Outputs: Outputs: station
1. Mole fraction data used to determine the chemical 1. Mass fractions of Al2O3 to motor gas at each station 2. Insulation and part
species to include in the ACE models, for the CMA model calculation of radiation heat flux thicknesses
2. Physical properties, as a function of temperature,
of the gas obtained by the combustion of solid propellant
3. Motor gas temperature as a function of pressure

Excel Isentropic Calculations spreadsheet

Inputs:
1. Area ratios down the nozzle
2. Motor pressure trace
3. Nozzle Throat Erosion Data
4. Motor Gas temperature as a function of pressure
5. Physical properties of the combustion gas Mach number
Outputs for each station in the nozzle exit cone: Code
1. Mach number, Density, Heat Capacity
2. Heat Transfer Coefficient, Recovery Temperature
3. Static pressure, Static Temperature

ACE CMA
Inputs: Inputs as a function of time:
1. Mole fraction data used to determine the chemical 1. Radius at each station
species to include in the ACE models 2. Nodal data at each station
2. Mass fraction of the chemical constituents in the 3. Radiation flux to the surface
propellant formulation 4. Gas Density, Gas Heat Capacity
3. Static pressure, Static temperature function of time
5. Heat transfer coefficient, Recovery Temperature
Outputs:
6. Static pressure, Static Temperature
1. B'g, the dimensionless pyrolysis gas rate, and B'c, the
7. B'g, and B'c as a function of pressure and temperature
dimensionless char rate, as a function of pressure and temperature
8. Heat of formation, decomposition kinetic data for carbon phenolic
2. Prandtl Number and Schmidt Number to calculate the
9. CM/CH
ratio of mass to heat transfer coefficient (CM/CH) for CMA models
10. Static Enthalpy
3. Static enthalpy as a function of time needed in the CMA models
11. Pyrolysis gas and recovery enthalpy
Outputs:
1. Erosion and char at each station 6
2. Temperature transients for each node
 Nozzle Geometry

• Nozzle Geometry
– Either an existing CAD drawing of the nozzle is used, or one is created using available
information
– Using the drawing, the liner, bondline, overwrap and cork thickness at each station is
obtained
– The area ratio at each station and the distance between the stations along the nozzle
surface is also obtained
– The drawing is also used to determine how the ply angle changes as you go aft
– This is important later when calculating the thermal conductivity of the liner insulation
– A CAD drawing of a typical nozzle is shown in Figure 3

7
 Nozzle Geometry

Thermal Protection System

(Cork)

Exit Cone Overwrap

(GrCE) STA 15
STA 14

Nozzle Shell STA 13

(Titanium)
STA 12

Throat Support Insulator

STA 11
(Standard Cured CCP)
Exit Cone Liner
(Vacuum Cured Carbon Cloth Phenolic (CCP))
STA 10
STA 9b
STA 9a
STA 9
STA 8
STA 6 STA 7 STA 7a
ITE (Integrated Throat Entrance)
(3D C-C )
Figure 3: Drawing of a Typical Nozzle Exit Cone showing Station Locations

8
 CEA Analysis
• CEA (Chemical Equilibrium and Applications) Models
– CEA obtains chemical equilibrium compositions for assigned thermodynamic states and
calculates theoretical rocket performance for a finite or infinite area combustion chamber
– When obtaining chemical equilibrium compositions, these states may be specified by
assigning two thermodynamic state functions as follows: temperature and pressure, tp;
enthalpy and pressure, hp; entropy and pressure, sp; temperature and volume, tv;
internal energy and volume, uv; and entropy and volume, sv.
– To support the ACE/CMA analysis, three types of models are created and run,
combustion (hp), temperature/pressure (tp), and rocket (tp and sp)
– The combustion runs require propellant formulation information, including chemical
formulas, mass fractions of the solid propellant and heats of formation for each
constituent
» A range of pressures, up to 26, one being the Maximum Expected Operating Pressure (MEOP) are
included in the input deck
» The more typical number of pressures is seven
» One of the outputs is motor temperature versus motor pressure which is used with the motor
pressure versus time trace to predict the motor temperature versus time which is used in the
isentropic flow spreadsheet
» The other output is the mole fractions of the chemical species in the combustion gas at MEOP
which is converted to mass fractions and used as an input to the Temperature/Pressure model and
used to determine the chemical species to include in the ACE model
9
 CEA Analysis

• CEA (Chemical Equilibrium and Applications) Models

– The temperature/pressure runs required mass fractions of the major components of the
chemical species in the combustion gas
» A range of temperatures, up to 26, one being the temperature at MEOP are included in the input
deck
» The more typical number of temperatures is seven
» The outputs are physical properties of the gas resulting from the combustion of propellant, as a
function of temperature which are used in the isentropic flow spreadsheet
» The physical properties include heat capacity, conductivity, Prandtl number, specific heat ratio, and
molecular weight as a function of motor temperature
– The rocket equilibrium CEA model requires the motor pressure, the area ratios down the
nozzle and all the inputs required in the combustion model
– The rocket runs provide the mass fractions of Al2O3 to motor gas at each station for the
radiation flux to the surface calculation used in the CMA models

10
 Isentropic Spreadsheet

• Isentropic Calculations Spreadsheet

– An Excel spreadsheet tool is created to calculate the Mach number, static pressure,
static temperature, recovery temperature and the heat transfer coefficient for each station
in the nozzle exit cone
– The spreadsheet starts with the motor pressure trace from a test motor
– Thirty time increments are used to describe the transient because that is the limit in CMA
– The motor temperature versus motor pressure from the CEA model run is used with the
motor pressure versus time trace to predict the motor temperature versus time
– As mentioned previously, the propellant gas properties, i.e. the heat capacity,
conductivity, Prandtl number, specific heat ratio, and molecular weight as a function of
motor temperature come from the CEA model run
– The area ratio changes during the firing due to erosion of the nozzle
– Erosion data from the test motor is used, assuming a linear erosion rate, to calculate the
area ratio as a function of time at each station in the nozzle

11
 Isentropic Spreadsheet

• Isentropic Calculations Spreadsheet

– Since the isentropic Mach number equation has Mach number on both sides of the
equation, a FORTRAN code using Newton’s method is written to solve for the root
– With the Mach number known, the static pressure and static temperature is calculated
using isentropic equations
– With the static temperature and the static pressure, the gas density is calculated
– With the static temperature and the Mach number, the recovery temperature is calculated
– Since the Bartz correlation heat transfer coefficient is widely known in the rocket industry,
it is chosen for use in the CMA models
– After calculating the Characteristic Velocity, C*, the correction factor for the Bartz
correlation is calculated using the Mach number, recovery temperature and other
properties
– Lastly, the Bartz correlation heat transfer coefficient is calculated using the radius, C*,
area ratio, correction factor and other properties
– Spreadsheet equations 1-6 are shown on the next two pages

12
 Isentropic Equations
(γ+1)
𝛾𝛾−1
1 1+ 2 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀2 2(γ−1)
𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀 = 𝐴𝐴 𝛾𝛾+1 Eq.(1):
𝐴𝐴∗ 2

𝑃𝑃0
𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 = 𝛾𝛾 Eq.(2):
𝛾𝛾 − 1 𝛾𝛾−1
1+ 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀2
2
Where:
𝑇𝑇0 A* = Throat area, in2
𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠 = Eq.(3):
A = Area at Station, in2
𝛾𝛾 − 1 Ma = Mach Number
1+ 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀2 Ps = Static Pressure, lb/in2
2 Pr = Gas Prandtl Number
Tw = Wall or Recovery Temperature, ºR
Ts = Static Temperature, ºR
144𝑃𝑃𝑠𝑠 T0 = Stagnation Temperature, ºR
𝜌𝜌 = γ = Specific heat ratio
𝑅𝑅𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢𝑢 Eq.(4): Runiv = Universal Gas Constant, 1545.35 Ft-Lbf/Lbmole-ºR
𝑇𝑇
𝑀𝑀𝑤𝑤 𝑠𝑠 Mw = Molecular Weight, Lb/Lbmole

𝛾𝛾 − 1
𝑇𝑇𝑤𝑤 = 𝑇𝑇𝑠𝑠 1 + 𝑃𝑃𝑃𝑃1/3 𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀2 Eq.(5):
2

13
 Bartz Correlation

 0.026  µ 0.2 Cp  P g  0.8  D 0.1

 A∗  
0.9
Throat 
h =  0.2  0
0.6
0
 ∗  
 C
0
   σ Eq.(6)
 Dthroat  Pr0    rcurvature   A  

Where, Where:
Cp = Gas Heat Capacity, Btu/lbºR
Pr = Gas Prandtl Number
1
σ = 0.65
Dthroat = Throat Diameter, in
0.15 μ0 = Gas Viscosity at T0, Lbm/Ft-Sec
 1  Tw  γ − 1  1  γ −1 0.2  Cp0 = Gas Heat Capacity at T0, Btu/lbºR
  1 + Ma 0.2  +  1 + 2 Ma  Pr0 = Gas Prandtl Number at T0
 2  T0  2  2 P0 = Stagnation Pressure, Psia
g = Gravitational Constant, 32.2 Lbm-Ft/Lbf-sec2
rcurvature = Radius of Curvature, Ft
and, A* = Throat area, in2
A = Area at Station, in2
Tw = Wall or Recovery Temperature, ºR
 RUniv T g T0 = Stagnation Temperature, ºR
 Mw  0
C∗ =   γ = Specific heat ratio
γ +1 Ma = Mach Number
Runiv = Universal Gas Constant, 1545.35 Ft-Lbf/Lbmole-ºR
 2  γ −1 Mw = Molecular Weight, Lb/Lbmole
γ  
 γ + 1 

14
 ACE Analysis

• ACE (Aerotherm Chemical Equilibrium) Models

– The Aerotherm Chemical Equilibrium (ACE) computer program is used for modeling
thermochemical processes
– The thermochemical processes treated are divided into two categories; closed systems
and open systems
» Closed systems are those for which the relative amounts of each chemical element in the system
are prespecified
» Open systems are those for which the relative amounts of each chemical element depend on
various mass transfer rates due, for example, to boundary layer convection or solid surface
degradation
– For this application, the code is being used to create boundary layer edge state tables,
which are a closed system calculation
– It is also being used for calculating the thermodynamic state at the surface of an ablating
material and outputting that information in a surface thermochemistry table for
subsequent input to CMA
– That is an open system calculation

15
 ACE Analysis
• ACE (Aerotherm Chemical Equilibrium) Model Input
– Elemental Mass Fractions of Propellant
» The mass fraction of the chemical constituents in the propellant formulation are used to calculate
the mass fraction of each element in the edge gas (H, C, N, O, Al, Cl)
» First the molecular weights of the propellant constituents are calculated
» With the mass fraction of the chemical constituents in the propellant formulation, the number of
moles of each constituent is calculated
» Then, using the molecular weight of H, C, N, O, Al, and Cl, the mass amount of H, C, N, O, Al, and
Cl in each of the chemical constituents in the propellant formulation, is found
» Then the mass amounts of H, C, N, O, Al, and Cl are summed to arrive at the elemental mass
fractions in the propellant formulation and the edge gas
» However, because according to the CEA model, 32% of the gas stream is liquid aluminum oxide
and the aluminum and oxygen to form it came from the propellant, it must be subtracted out
» The molecular weight of aluminum oxide is calculated and using the mass fraction of liquid
aluminum oxide in the gas stream, the moles of Al2O3 are determined
» Then, using the molecular weight of Al and O, the mass amount of Al and O is found
» These amounts of aluminum and oxygen are subtracted from the elemental mass fractions
calculated above to arrive at the final elemental mass fractions in the edge gas
» Pyrolysis gas mass fractions are not available for this analysis, so values from a similar propellant is
used
» The char is assumed to be pure carbon

16
 ACE Analysis

• ACE (Aerotherm Chemical Equilibrium) Model Input

– Determination of ACE model chemical species
» The mole fraction data from the CEA model combustion run is used to determine the chemical
species to include in the ACE models
» There are 43 species with mole fractions greater than 0.00001 and 195 species with mole
fractions less than 0.00001
» Of the main 43 species, 9 are not included in the JANNAF table of thermochemical properties, so
are not included in the ACE decks
» Of the other 195 minor species, 115 are not included in the JANNAF table of thermochemical
properties, so are not included in the ACE decks
» Eleven species, all aluminum compounds, that are solid or liquid, are taken out of the ACE decks
when they caused the code to produce unbelievable results
» The species are ordered such that the higher mole fraction species came first in the deck, the
manual advises this to make the code run better

17
 ACE Analysis

• ACE (Aerotherm Chemical Equilibrium) Model Input

– A series of six ACE decks, one each for six different times in the motor pressure trace for
each station, 7 through 15, are created for a total of 78 decks
» Models for six different times allowed a plot of static enthalpy versus time to be created for each
station
– Static pressure and static temperatures for each station for the six times needed by the
models are obtained from the isentropic flow spreadsheet tool
– To cover the expected temperature range, values of 500 to 4500K, incremented by 500K,
totaling nine temperatures, are used to create the boundary layer edge state tables
– A matrix of 15 B'g’s and 19 B'c’s, shown in Table 1, are used to specify the pyrolysis and
char rate tables
– The CMA model limited the pyrolysis gas rates to 15 and the char rates to 24

18
 ACE Analysis
• ACE (Aerotherm Chemical Equilibrium) Model Output
– For the CMA model, if diffusion coefficients are not equal, or if the ratio CM/CH is not unity,
then the surface energy balance requires data about the edge gases of the boundary
layer
– These data are provided by the ACE model in a special ‘edge table’
– CH is the heat transfer Stanton number and CM is the mass transfer Stanton number
– Edge gas table
» The independent variables for the edge gas table are pressure and temperature
𝑇𝑇
» The dependent variables are hew and the sum ∑𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖=1 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑒𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤
𝑇𝑇
» Hew is the enthalpy of the gas at the outer edge of the boundary layer and ∑𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖=1 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑒𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤 represents the
transport of chemical energy associated with chemical reactions in the boundary layer
– Table 2 shows a sample of the edge gas enthalpy table for one pressure
– Each of the 78 decks produce one edge gas enthalpy table for a particular pressure and
station location
𝑇𝑇
– Figure 4 shows a typical plot of hew and the sum ∑𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖=1 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑒𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤 versus TW
– A plot like this is created for each ACE model to make sure the code is producing
reasonable results. This is for station 7

19
 ACE/CMA Analysis

Table 1: Chosen B'c and B'g

Table 2: Sample of Edge Gas Enthalpy Table
B'c B'g
0.001 0.001 𝐼𝐼
0.005 𝑇𝑇
Unequal Diffusion � 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑒𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤 Hew Minus Means
0.01 Pressure B'g B'c Surface Tw Exponent 𝑖𝑖=1 Edge Table
0.025 31.111 0 0 4500 0.667 1882.708 982.027 -1 CHAR
31.111 0 0 4000 0.667 1534.862 734.62 -1 CHAR
0.05 0.05
31.111 0 0 3500 0.667 1192.305 490.403 -1 CHAR
0.1 31.111 0 0 3000 0.667 856.047 250.007 -1 CHAR
0.15 0.15 31.111 0 0 2500 0.667 529.371 15.786 -1 CHAR
0.25 0.25 31.111 0 0 2000 0.667 214.694 -210.404 -1 CHAR
0.3 0.3 31.111 0 0 1500 0.667 -87.572 -428.165 -1 CHAR
0.35 0.35 31.111 0 0 1000 0.667 -376.186 -636.295 -1 CHAR
31.111 0 0 500 0.667 -644.949 -828.795 -1 CHAR
0.425 0.425
0.5 0.5
0.6 0.6
0.7 0.7
0.8 0.8
0.9 0.9
1.25 1.25
2 2
3 3

20
 ACE/CMA Analysis
𝑇𝑇
Figure 4: hew and the sum ∑𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖=1 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑒𝑒 ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤 versus TW

21
 ACE Analysis
• ACE (Aerotherm Chemical Equilibrium) Model Output
– Table 3 shows a sample of the surface thermochemistry table for one pressure and B'g
– Each model outputs a table like this for each of the 15 pyrolysis gas rates
– Surface thermochemistry table
» The surface thermochemistry table describes the thermodynamic state at the surface of an ablating
material in the form of dimensionless pyrolysis gas rates, B'g, and dimensionless char rates, B'c, as
a function of pressure and temperature, normalized with respect to mass transfer coefficients
» The table has two subsections
» Above the ablation temperature
• The independent variables are B'c, B'g and pressure
𝐼𝐼 𝑇𝑇
• The dependent variables are surface temperature, hw and the sum ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑤𝑤 ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤
» Below the ablation temperature
• The independent variables are B'g, pressure and temperature
𝐼𝐼 𝑇𝑇
• The dependent variables are hw and the sum ∑𝑖𝑖=1 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑤𝑤 ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤
𝑇𝑇
» Hw is the enthalpy of the gas at the wall and ∑𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖=1 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑤𝑤 ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤 represents the transport of chemical energy
associated with chemical reactions at the wall
𝑇𝑇
» 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑤𝑤 represents the unequal diffusion driving potential for element i and ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤 represents the enthalpy
of chemical species i with respect to a base temperature equal to the surface temperature
𝑇𝑇
– Figure 5 shows a typical plot of B'c versus the sum ∑𝐼𝐼𝑖𝑖=1 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑤𝑤 ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤 for each B'g
– A plot like this is created for each ACE model to make sure the code is producing
reasonable results. This is for station 7
22
 ACE Analysis
Table 3: Sample of Surface Thermochemistry Table
𝐼𝐼 Plus Means Surface
𝑇𝑇
Unequal Diffusion � 𝑍𝑍𝑖𝑖∗𝑤𝑤 ℎ𝑖𝑖 𝑤𝑤 Hew Thermochemistry
Pressure B'g B'c Surface Tw Exponent 𝑖𝑖=1 Table
31.111 3 3 3930.0905 0.667 5072.719 3830.56 1 C*
31.111 3 2 3783.6758 0.667 4533.696 3239.576 1 C*
31.111 3 1.25 3609.3656 0.667 3951.666 2657.762 1 C*
31.111 3 0.9 3493.9036 0.667 3598.681 2328.036 1 C*
31.111 3 0.8 3454.8023 0.667 3484.882 2224.899 1 C*
31.111 3 0.7 3412.2031 0.667 3364.229 2117.092 1 C*
31.111 3 0.6 3365.4812 0.667 3235.872 2004.075 1 C*
31.111 3 0.5 3313.7988 0.667 3098.784 1885.179 1 C*
31.111 3 0.425 3271.1068 0.667 2989.402 1791.615 1 C*
31.111 3 0.35 3224.3284 0.667 2873.561 1693.747 1 C*
31.111 3 0.3 3190.4442 0.667 2792.253 1625.794 1 C*
31.111 3 0.25 3154.0096 0.667 2707.254 1555.398 1 C*
31.111 3 0.15 3071.5928 0.667 2524.087 1405.932 1 C*
31.111 3 0.1 3024.2624 0.667 2424.472 1325.931 1 C*
31.111 3 0.05 2971.5139 0.667 2318.087 1241.509 1 C*
31.111 3 0.025 2942.643 0.667 2261.88 1197.335 1 C*
31.111 3 0.01 2924.4019 0.667 2227.083 1170.131 1 C*
31.111 3 0.005 2918.1764 0.667 2215.328 1160.957 1 C*
31.111 3 0.001 2913.086 0.667 2205.771 1153.526 1 C*
31.111 3 0.001 2500 0.667 1615.23 807.708 0 CHAR
31.111 3 0.001 2000 0.667 972.208 376.651 0 CHAR
31.111 3 0.001 1500 0.667 254.116 -144.93 0 CHAR
31.111 3 0.001 1000 0.667 -963.288 -1090.71 0 CHAR
31.111 3 0.001 500 0.667 -1621.502 -1633.12 0 CHAR

23
 ACE Analysis
I

Figure 5: B'c versus ∑ Z

i =1
* TW
h
iw i for each B'g

24
 ACE Analysis

• ACE (Aerotherm Chemical Equilibrium) Model Output

– For each model, the static enthalpy as a function of time is obtained
– The static enthalpy is used in the calculation of the recovery enthalpy which is needed in the
CMA models
– Running models for six different times allowed a plot of static enthalpy versus time to be
created for each station
– Shown in Figure 6, this is curve fit for use in the CMA models
– The ratio of mass to heat transfer coefficient (CM/CH) needed in the CMA models is obtained
from the Prandtl Number and Schmidt Number which both come from the ACE output

25
ACE Analysis
Figure 6: Static Enthalpy

26
 CMA Analysis
• CMA (Charring and Material Ablation) Models
– The CMA models are run to calculate predicted erosion of the carbon phenolic in the
nozzle during the firing
– Description and Features of the Code
» The CMA code is an implicit, finite-difference computational procedure for computing the one-
dimensional transient transport of thermal energy in a three-dimensional isotropic material which
can ablate from a front surface and which can decompose in-depth
» Decomposition reactions are based on a three-component model
» The program permits up to eight different back-up materials of arbitrary thickness, five of which can
decompose
» The back wall of the composite material may transfer energy by convection and radiation
» The ablating surface boundary conditions may take one of three forms
• Option 1: General convection-radiation heating with coupled mass transfer, using a transfer coefficient approach,
including the effects of unequal heat and mass transfer coefficients and unequal diffusion coefficients
• Option 2: Specified surface temperature and surface recession rate
• Option 3: Specified radiation view factor and incident radiation flux, as functions of time, for a stationary surface
» Any combination of options may be used for a single computation
» Option 3 is appropriate to cool down after termination of convective or radiative heat input and is
often useful in conjunction with Options 1 and 2

27
 CMA Analysis
• CMA (Charring and Material Ablation) Model Input
– The models required heat of formation of carbon phenolic, radius at each station,
decomposition kinetic data for carbon phenolic, nodal data at each station, pyrolysis gas
enthalpy, and recovery enthalpy, radiation flux to the surface, heat transfer coefficient and
static pressure at each station as a function of time
– Also required are density, heat capacity, and thermal conductivity for standard and
vacuum cured carbon cloth phenolic, graphite epoxy overwrap, titanium alloy, adhesive
and cork as a function of temperature, if possible
– As mentioned before, the CMA models also required the B’g and B’c tables, and the ratio
of mass to heat transfer coefficient from the ACE models
– The heat of formation of standard and vacuum cured carbon cloth phenolic used is the
same as the Shuttle RSRM motor CCP
– The radius at each station is obtained from the nozzle CAD drawing
– Table 8 shows how the various materials are divided into individual nodes in the CMA
model
– The different colors correspond to different materials
– “1” signifies the ablating material in CMA, the other numbers indicate to the model which
material the node is made of
– The code limits the number of nodes to fifty
28
 CMA Analysis
NODAL DATA
Number Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station Station
6 7 7a 8 9 9a 9b 10 11 12 13 14 15
1
2
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
0.0010
0.0020
Table 4: Nodal Data
3 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040 0.0040
4 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060 0.0060
5 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080 0.0080
6 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100 0.0100
7 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120 0.0120
8 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 0.0140 1 Green carbon carbon for station 6
9 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 0.0160 1 Blue SC carbon phenolic 30° ply angle for station 7, 7a
10
11
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
0.0180
0.0200
1 Purple VC carbon phenolic 4° ply angle for stations 8 and greater
12 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 0.0300 4 Grey titanium
13 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 0.0400 5 Orange glass overwrap
14
15
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
0.0500
0.0600
6 Yellow adhesive
16 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 0.0700 7 Black cork
17 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800
18
19
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
0.0900
0.1000
Note “1” signifies the ablating material in CMA
20 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
21 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
22 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000
23 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0800 0.0800 0.0900 0.1000 0.1000
24 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0600 0.0600 0.0800 0.1000 0.0800
25 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0500 0.0400 0.0600 0.1000 0.0700
26 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0800 0.0400 0.0200 0.0400 0.0800 0.0600
27 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0600 0.0200 0.0090 0.0200 0.0600 0.0400
28 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0400 0.0190 0.0125 0.0070 0.0400 0.0200
29 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0800 0.0400 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0140 0.0120
30 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0600 0.0200 0.0125 0.0500 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125
31 0.0221 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0900 0.0400 0.0150 0.0500 0.0500 0.0500 0.0125 0.0125
32 0.2000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.1000 0.0800 0.0200 0.0125 0.0500 0.3650 0.0500 0.0500 0.0500
33 0.2000 0.1000 0.0800 0.0800 0.0800 0.0600 0.0140 0.0125 0.3650 0.3650 0.3650 0.0500 0.0500
34 0.2000 0.1000 0.0600 0.0600 0.0400 0.0400 0.0125 0.0583 0.3650 0.3650 0.3650 0.3650
35 0.2000 0.1000 0.0400 0.0300 0.0200 0.0200 0.0125 0.0583 0.3650 0.3650
36 0.2000 0.1000 0.0160 0.0140 0.0110 0.0140 0.0667 0.3650
37 0.2000 0.0800 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0667 0.3650
38 0.2000 0.0600 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.0125 0.3650
39 0.2000 0.0400 0.1130 0.0734 0.0750 0.0750 0.3650
40 0.2000 0.0300 0.1130 0.0734 0.0750 0.0750
41 0.1991 0.0230 0.4000 0.3900 0.3650 0.3650
42 0.0125 0.0125 0.4000 0.3900 0.3650 0.3650
43 0.0125 0.0125
44 0.2619 0.1607
45 0.2619 0.1607
46 0.4104 0.4430
47 0.4104 0.4430

29
 CMA Analysis
• CMA (Charring and Material Ablation) Model Input
– Decomposition kinetics
» Since many decomposing char-forming materials appear to behave as three independently
pyrolyzing components, the program uses a three-component decomposition model for the main
material and for any decomposing back-up materials
» The resin filler is presumed to consist of two components which decompose separately, while the
reinforcing material is the third component which can decompose. The instantaneous density of the
composite is given by:
ρ = Γ(ρ A + ρ B ) + (1 − Γ )ρ C Eq. (7)
Where:
Γ = Resin volume fraction
ρA, ρB = Density of resin filler,
ρC = Density of reinforcing material
» Each of the three components can decompose following the relation:
ϕi
∂ρ   − E ai   ρ i − ρ ri 
 = − Bi exp  ρ oi  
∂θ  y   ρ 
 RT   oi  Eq. (8)
Where:
ρri = Residual density of component i,
ρoi= Initial density of component i,
Bi = Pre-exponential factor,
Eai= Activation energy,
𝜙𝜙 i = Decomposition reaction order

30
 CMA Analysis
• CMA (Charring and Material Ablation) Model Input
» The decomposition kinetic data for standard and vacuum cured carbon cloth phenolic is needed for
the model
» This includes the pre-exponential factor, B, for reactions A, B and C (1/Sec), density factor exponent,
𝜙𝜙, for reaction A, B and C, activation energy factor, E/R, for reaction A and B (°R) and minimum
reaction temperature for reaction A, B and C (°R)
» The activation energy factor, E/R, for reaction C is obtained from RSRM CCP
» The virgin and char density for standard cured CCP is available for this analysis, however the initial
and residual density of component i for reaction A, B and C (Lb/Ft3) is not
» The CMA manual (Ref. 4) had a example problem using carbon phenolic in a rocket nozzle with
reactions A, B and C
• The example CCP had a virgin and char density of 89.8425 and 73.0755 Lb/Ft3 with a resin content of 0.345
Lb/Ft3
• The standard cured carbon cloth phenolic had a virgin and char density of 93.01 and 75.35 Lb/Ft3 and an
unknown resin content
• The decision is made to use the virgin and char resin densities of the example problem for the A and B reactions
and increase the density of the reinforcing material of the example problem (94.5 Lb/Ft3) to account for the greater
density of standard cured CCP
• The resin content of the example problem CCP would also need to be lowered slightly to help increase the overall
density
• Using equation 7, a reinforcing material virgin density of 99.0 Lb/Ft3 and a resin content of 0.333 is determined
• Using equation 7 and a resin content of 0.333, a reinforcing material char density of 96.8 Lb/Ft3 is determined

31
 CMA Analysis

• CMA (Charring and Material Ablation) Model Input

» The virgin and char density for vacuum cured carbon cloth phenolic is available, however the initial
and residual density of component i for reaction A, B and C (Lb/Ft3) is not
» The virgin and char density for vacuum cured CCP is 78% of the virgin and char density for
standard cured CCP
» To obtain the initial and residual density of component i for reaction A, B and C (Lb/Ft3) for vacuum
cured CCP the values for standard cured CCP are multiplied by 0.78
» This results in a resin content of 0.351 by use of equation 7
» Table 5 shows the results for the decomposition kinetic data

32
 CMA Analysis
Table 5: Decomposition Kinetic Data

DECOMPOSITION KINETIC DATA

MX4926N Carbon Phenolic
Standard Vacuum Cure
NG NG
75.35 58.932 CHAR DENSITY
93.01 72.292 VIRGIN DENSITY
0.333 0.351 RESIN CONTENT
20.2500 15.7950 INITIAL DENSITY OF COMPONENT i FOR REACTION A (LB/FT3)
0.0000 0.0000 RESIDUAL DENSITY OF COMPONENT i FOR REACTION A (LB/FT3)
5.0120E+21 5.0120E+21 PRE-EXPONENTIAL FACTOR, B, FOR REACTION A (1/SEC)
4.3000 4.3000 DENSITY FACTOR EXPONENT, ψ, FOR REACTION A
52620.0000 52620.0000 ACTIVATION ENERGY FACTOR, E/R, FOR REACTION A (DEG RANKINE)
671.6000 671.6000 MINIMUM REACTION TEMPERATURE FOR REACTION A (DEG RANKINE)
60.7500 47.3850 INITIAL DENSITY OF COMPONENT i FOR REACTION B (LB/FT3)
32.4000 25.2720 RESIDUAL DENSITY OF COMPONENT i FOR REACTION B (LB/FT3)
1.2590E+07 1.2590E+07 PRE-EXPONENTIAL FACTOR, B, FOR REACTION B (1/SEC)
3.1800 3.1800 DENSITY FACTOR EXPONENT, ψ, FOR REACTION B
27240.0000 27240.0000 ACTIVATION ENERGY FACTOR, E/R, FOR REACTION B (DEG RANKINE)
671.6000 671.6000 MINIMUM REACTION TEMPERATURE FOR REACTION B (DEG RANKINE)
99.0000 77.2200 INITIAL DENSITY OF COMPONENT i FOR REACTION C (LB/FT3)
96.8000 75.5040 RESIDUAL DENSITY OF COMPONENT i REACTION C (LB/FT3)
4.6470E+16 4.6470E+16 PRE-EXPONENTIAL FACTOR, B, FOR REACTION C (1/SEC)
4.5000 4.5000 DENSITY FACTOR EXPONENT, ψ, FOR REACTION C
34800.0000 34800.0000 ACTIVATION ENERGY FACTOR, E/R, FOR REACTION C (DEG RANKINE)
671.6000 671.6000 MINIMUM REACTION TEMPERATURE FOR REACTION C (DEG RANKINE)

33
 CMA Analysis
• CMA (Charring and Material Ablation) Model Input
– Material Properties
» With and across ply thermal conductivity, density, and heat capacity for standard and vacuum cured
carbon cloth phenolic, graphite epoxy overwrap, titanium alloy, adhesive and cork as a function of
temperature are obtained
» For this model, carbon phenolic thermal conductivity is a function of ply angle
» The ply angle and the inner flame surface x,y points from the CAD drawing are used to calculate the
ply angle at each station
» With the ply angle and the with and across ply thermal conductivity, Equation 9 is used to calculate
the thermal conductivity for each station

  K
K = C × K 0 1 +  90
K   [
 − 1 (sin Θ )n 
 ] Eq. (9)
  0  
where,

K = through thickness conductivity

C = conductivity multiplier
K0 = cross-ply conductivity
K90 = with-ply conductivity
n = power law exponent, 1.0 used for original Aerotherm model, 2.0 used for more conventional angle dependence.
θ = angle between plies and surface in radians

34
 CMA Analysis

• CMA (Charring and Material Ablation) Model Input

– The pyrolysis gas enthalpy for standard and vacuum cured carbon cloth phenolic is
obtained from references
– Surface boundary conditions
» Table 6 shows the surface boundary conditions
• To calculate the recovery enthalpy, the motor gas heat capacity, static and recovery temperature, needed, comes
from the isentropic flow spreadsheet tool and the static enthalpy as a function of time comes from the ACE model
• To calculate the radiation flux to the surface, static temperature and the motor gas density, needed, comes from
the isentropic flow spreadsheet tool
• The Bartz correlation heat transfer coefficient needed to calculate the Stanton number and the static pressure also
come from the spreadsheet tool
• The code allows a maximum of 30 entries
» The recovery enthalpy is obtained from this equation:
H r − H s = C p (Tr − Ts ) Eq. (10)

where,

Hr = Recovery enthalpy
Hs = Static enthalpy
Cp = Motor gas Heat Capacity
Tr = Recovery temperature
Ts = Static temperature

35
 CMA Analysis
• CMA (Charring and Material Ablation) Model Input
» The radiation flux to the surface is calculated by:
Q Eq. 11)
= σε g Tg4
A
Where:
σ = Stefan-Boltzmann Constant
εg = Gas emissivity
Tg = Static gas temperature

» The gas emissivity is calculated from eq. 17-143 from Siegel and Howell Ref.(5):
1
ε = 1− 4
1 +  kCS T 
 C2  
Eq. (12)
 
Where:
k = Experimental constant (0.05)
C = Average volume of particles per unit volume of cloud
S = Mean path length (nozzle diameter at station location)
C2 = Constant in Planck’s spectral energy distribution (1.4388 cmK)
T = Particle temperature (static temperature)

• The C variable uses the grams of Al2O3 to grams of motor gas ratio from the CEA runs multiplied by the gas
density and divided by the Al2O3 density to arrive at the average volume of particles per unit volume of cloud

36
 CMA Analysis
Table 6: Surface Boundary Conditions
Motor Gas Heat Recovery Static Enthalpy from Radiation to the Bartz
Time Capacity, Cp Temperature Static Temperature Static Temperature ACE Recovery Enthalpy Density Density Emissivity Surface corellation h Stanton Number Static Pressure Static Pressure
Siegel And
Howell
Equation (17-
SEC Btu/Lbm-R R R K Btu/LB Btu/Lb Lb/Ft3 Gr/Cm3 143) Btu/ft2-sec Btu/Ft2-sec-R Lb/ft2-sec Lbf/In2 Atm
0.0 0.198414548 546.2583275 420.0190664 233.3439258 279.8181818 304.8659 0.020848584 3.33962E-04 0.037079455 0.0005 0.006009677 0.0303 3.054292855 0.2078
0.1 0.494137872 5678.096978 4908.141597 2726.745332 281.9336364 662.3977 0.009930127 1.59065E-04 0.186089092 51.4159 0.053560594 0.1084 17.39311574 1.1835
0.3 0.491953384 6126.04717 5306.371413 2947.984118 286.1645455 689.4068 0.095905062 1.53625E-03 0.827449086 312.3491 0.345838813 0.7030 184.7177957 12.5693
0.400 0.491618315 6147.711474 5325.665841 2958.703245 309.9615409 714.0942 0.107106932 1.71569E-03 0.854173122 327.1522 0.378655302 0.7702 207.2579104 14.1031
0.7 0.491233288 6170.822854 5346.467692 2970.259829 310.3998694 715.3506 0.120521875 1.93058E-03 0.87981241 342.2679 0.417114725 0.8491 234.3916558 15.9494
0.8 0.491019436 6182.957052 5357.456708 2976.364838 310.5451269 715.8818 0.128232465 2.05409E-03 0.892048614 349.8900 0.438807726 0.8937 250.0501991 17.0149
1.1 0.489961346 6236.927517 5405.67667 3003.153706 310.978343 718.2591 0.168994142 2.70703E-03 0.936247669 380.6268 0.550191033 1.1229 333.4232277 22.6881
1.2 0.489898899 6239.863743 5408.324809 3004.624894 311.1218963 718.4919 0.171555037 2.74805E-03 0.938195269 382.1665 0.557038038 1.1370 338.6940275 23.0468
1.5 0.489826673 6243.297727 5411.698924 3006.499402 311.55 718.8893 0.174610907 2.79700E-03 0.940430039 384.0337 0.56509949 1.1537 345.0035075 23.4761
2.0 0.489840203 6242.823809 5411.894354 3006.607975 312.2549855 719.2776 0.17421253 2.79062E-03 0.940158549 383.9783 0.563900361 1.1512 344.2173721 23.4226
4.0 0.489863285 6242.316635 5413.728766 3007.627092 314.968419 720.8632 0.173852448 2.78485E-03 0.939948966 384.4135 0.562489243 1.1483 343.6028348 23.3808
6.0 0.489806009 6245.535359 5418.894114 3010.49673 317.5114388 722.4053 0.176834214 2.83261E-03 0.942097669 386.7648 0.569905726 1.1635 349.878678 23.8078
12.0 0.489537679 6259.344357 5437.851645 3021.028692 324.1180162 726.2697 0.190073512 3.04469E-03 0.950515931 395.7101 0.603272446 1.2323 377.6345107 25.6965
13.0 0.489520867 6260.414111 5440.104839 3022.280466 325.0700005 726.6285 0.191172642 3.06229E-03 0.951158993 396.6345 0.605771428 1.2375 379.9909063 25.8569
24.0 0.489707879 6255.052684 5447.711962 3026.506646 332.7300016 728.0911 0.186512189 2.98764E-03 0.94870209 397.8274 0.591031802 1.2069 371.0785228 25.2504
26.0 0.489945775 6244.366321 5439.503637 3021.946465 332.1071429 726.4462 0.176648057 2.82963E-03 0.94242062 392.8169 0.564935803 1.1531 350.7188041 23.8650
28.0 0.490284618 6228.073791 5425.071253 3013.928474 331.4842858 725.1841 0.162542245 2.60368E-03 0.931644695 384.2204 0.527621426 1.0762 321.5821061 21.8824
30.0 0.490492405 6217.68683 5415.897462 3008.831923 330.8614286 724.1330 0.154148705 2.46923E-03 0.924042667 378.5141 0.505122282 1.0298 304.2965415 20.7062
40.0 0.491155572 6182.193059 5384.816599 2991.564777 327.7471429 719.3830 0.128634608 2.06053E-03 0.89355737 357.6963 0.435158188 0.8860 252.0193113 17.1489
42.0 0.491217181 6178.688843 5381.771783 2989.873213 327.1242858 718.5836 0.126359636 2.02409E-03 0.890160853 355.5314 0.428790032 0.8729 247.3790348 16.8332
73.7 0.491210868 6179.405578 5383.853282 2991.029601 317.2520001 708.0359 0.126867731 2.03223E-03 0.890979027 356.4090 0.429378353 0.8741 248.474277 16.9077
74.0 0.491226009 6178.530318 5383.056283 2990.586824 317.1585715 707.9161 0.126302493 2.02317E-03 0.890121014 355.8550 0.427815476 0.8709 247.3199644 16.8291
76.0 0.491338755 6172.033241 5377.546925 2987.52607 316.5357144 706.8976 0.122197728 1.95742E-03 0.883647989 351.8232 0.416235844 0.8471 238.9599579 16.2603
80.0 0.491435238 6166.33913 5372.635469 2984.797483 315.2900001 705.3439 0.118708518 1.90153E-03 0.877769617 348.2077 0.406369601 0.8269 231.8595854 15.7771
82.0 0.491624052 6154.809557 5362.44904 2979.138356 282.1466664 671.6902 0.111940964 1.79312E-03 0.865278692 340.6568 0.387215593 0.7876 218.1043555 14.8411
88.0 0.49431359 5777.62282 5024.068113 2791.148952 182.7166664 555.2090 0.016569874 2.65424E-04 0.2921634 88.6250 0.080552623 0.1630 29.79399745 2.0274
90.0 0.493399115 5542.697567 4812.021298 2673.345165 149.573333 510.0884 0.005080174 8.13766E-05 0.09931595 25.3535 0.030412533 0.0616 8.690752919 0.5914
94.0 0.485304768 4878.044905 4210.544661 2339.191478 83.28666635 407.2277 0.000182113 2.91717E-06 0.003317388 0.4964 0.001937796 0.0040 0.269735855 0.0184

37
 CMA Analysis

• CMA Model Results

– The first step is to validate the model by matching the thermocouple response, erosion
and char data from a static motor
– The static motor used was instrumented with 20 thermocouples
– Figure 36 shows thermocouple locations in relation to station locations
– If the figures are overlaid it shows:
» ECT0N36, ECT90N36, ECT180N36 and ECT270N36 are located at station 8
» ECT3N09 and ECT183N09 are located at station 9
» ECT01 and ECT2701 are located at station 9a
» ECT028 and ECT18028 are located at station 12
» ECT040 and ECT18040 are located at station 13
– Station 9 is at the location of the spring pin where the insulation is thinner, resulting in
the quicker rise rate shown in Figure 9

38
 CMA Analysis
Figure 7: Thermocouple locations in relation to station locations

39
 CMA Analysis

• CMA Model Results

– Post fire Measurements
» To evaluate the erosion and char condition in the nozzle ablatives, the nozzle exit cone liner is
sectioned at 0°, 20°, 60°, 100°, 140°, 180°, 220°, 260°, and 300°, 340° azimuths
» Both the erosion and char are measured from either the nozzle shell metal or the overwrap,
depending on the station location.
» Erosion is calculated by subtracting the eroded thickness from the nominal thickness
» Char is calculated as the nominal thickness of the nozzle minus the remaining virgin material
» Char thickness is calculated as the eroded thickness minus the remaining virgin material
» Digital char and erosion data for stations 3-15 was made available for analysis in the form of a
spreadsheet
» The data from each angular location on either side of the cut is used to calculate the average and
standard deviation for each axial station location that is then used to calculate the 3σ char and
erosion at each station

40
 CMA Analysis

• CMA Model Results

– Six variables were chosen to be adjusted to facilitate data matching:
» The heat transfer coefficient multiplying factor
• Increasing the heat flux usually increases the erosion the most, speeds up the thermocouple response, with a
lesser effect on char depth
» The CM/CH, the ratio of mass to heat transfer coefficients
• Raising this gives you more erosion for the same amount of heat flux with a lesser effect on char depth
» The blowing reduction parameter which is a measure of the cooling effect of pyrolysis gases in the
boundary layer
• Raising this lowers the erosion and char but to a lesser degree than changing the CM/CH
» The minimum reaction temperature for reactions A and B (resin components)
• This is mainly used to affect the char depth, the lower the minimum reaction temperature the higher char depth
» Virgin and char heat capacity for the CCP
• Only used for stations 8 and 9a, a 20% increase resulted in a slower rise rate to match the thermocouple
response
» Radiation exchange post burn
• Stations nearer the throat are effected by the post burn quench but stations 9a and aft required re-radiation from
the nozzle surfaces to keep the nozzle from cooling off faster than the thermocouple data indicated
– A trial and error process is employed because changing a variable to effect, say the
erosion or char, would affect the temperature response
– The model results, Figures 8 through 12, show an acceptable match of thermocouple
data while matching erosion and char depth
41
 CMA Analysis

CMA matching of Thermocouple data

Figure 8: Station 8 Figure 9: Station 9

42
 CMA Analysis

CMA matching of Thermocouple data

Figure 10: Station 9a Figure 11: Station 12

43
 CMA Analysis

CMA matching of Thermocouple data

Figure 12: Station 13

44
 CMA Analysis

• CMA Model Results

» Figure 13 shows the erosion prediction matches the test motor erosion at all stations
• The largest difference between prediction and measurement is 0.0012 in.
• The heat transfer coefficient multiplier shown on the plot starts increasing at station 12 to 2.5 due to the
augmentation of the chemical erosion by particle erosion due to the nozzle turn back angle
• The plot also shows the CM/CH ratio increasing after station 13 for the same reason
» Figure 14 shows the char prediction matches the test motor char at all stations
• The largest difference between prediction and measurement is 0.028 in.
• The chart also shows the char depth is less than the liner thickness
» Figures 15-16 shows the average erosion bondline temperature prediction for Stations 8, 9a, 9b, 10,
11,12,13 and 14
» The plots are grouped together based on whether the liner thickness is decreasing or increasing
» For example, Figure 15 shows the temperature response rising faster as you go aft down the nozzle
» This is due to the liner thickness reducing from station 8 to 12 shown on Figure 14
» The trend reverses on Figure 16 because the liner thickness increases from station 12 to 14
» There is only 5 stations with measured data and 7 predicted by the model, plotting them up together
and seeing them lineup reasonably with the measured data increases confidence in the predicted
temperatures
» The 250°F isotherms are plotted for each station to demonstrate the bondline never exceeds the
required temperature limit until significantly after EOB
» As an example, Figure 17 and 18 show the 250°F isotherm for stations 10 and 11
45
 CMA Analysis

CMA matching of test motor Average Erosion and Char

sta 9
sta 9a
sta 8
sta 9 sta 9a sta 7a
sta 8 sta 7 sta 9b
sta 7a sta 10 sta 11 sta 12 sta 14
sta 13 Sta15
sta 9b
sta 10 Sta15
sta 14
sta 7 sta 11 sta 12 sta 13

Figure 13: Average Erosion Figure 14: Average Char

46
 CMA Analysis

CMA Average Erosion Bondline Temperature Prediction

Figure 15: Station 8, 9a, 9b, 10, 11, 12 Figure 16: 12,13,14

47
 CMA Analysis
CMA Average Erosion Isotherm Prediction

Figure 17: Station 10 Figure 18: Station 11

48
 CMA Analysis

• CMA Model Results

– With the model validated, a bondline temperature prediction is made assuming 3σ erosion
and 3σ char occurring at the same location, a very conservative assumption
– In order to boost the erosion and char from the average case to the 3σ case the, heat
transfer coefficient multiplying factor is raised to 3 for stations 14 and 15, the CM/CH, the
ratio is raised about 10%, the blowing reduction parameter is lowered, the minimum
reaction temperature for reactions A and B is lowered to 400°F for all stations and the
radiation exchange post burn is increased

49
 CMA Analysis

• CMA Model Results

– Results
» Figure 19 shows the erosion prediction matches the test motor 3σ erosion at all stations
• The largest difference between prediction and measurement is 0.0044 in.
» Figure 20 shows the char prediction matches the test motor char at all stations except 12 and 15
because the 3σ char depth exceeds the liner thickness and the code can only char to the liner
thickness
• The largest difference between prediction and measurement is 0.0043 in.
» Figures 21-22 shows the 3σ erosion bondline temperature prediction for Stations 8, 9a, 9b, 10, 11,
12, 13 and 14
» As in the average erosion cases, Figure 21 shows the temperature response rising faster as you go
aft down the nozzle due to the liner thickness reducing from station 8 to 12
» The trend reverses on Figure 22 because the liner thickness increases from station 12 to 14
» Plotting them up together and seeing them lineup reasonably increases confidence in the predicted
temperatures
» Figure 21 and 22 show the 250°F isotherm for stations 12 and 15
» These plots demonstrate the bondline never exceeds the required temperature limit at any station
» This result stands out because the 3σ char depth exceeds the liner thickness at stations 12 and 15
» Burning through the liner would obviously make the bondline exceed 250°F
» The analysis shows this happens at 160 and 150 seconds respectively, substantially after the 94
second burn time
50
 CMA Analysis

CMA matching of 3σ Erosion and Char

sta 9
sta 7
sta 7a sta 9a
sta 9b
sta 9 sta 14 Sta15
sta 9a sta 10 sta 11 sta 12 sta 13
sta 8
sta 7a
sta 7 sta 9b Sta15
sta 10 sta 14
sta 12 sta 13
sta 11

Figure 19: 3σ Erosion Figure 20: 3σ Char

51
 CMA Analysis

CMA 3σ Erosion Bondline Temperature Prediction

Figure 21: Station 8, 9a, 9b, 10, 11 Figure 22: Station 12,13,14

52
 CMA Analysis

CMA 3σ Erosion Isotherm Prediction

Figure 23: Station 12 Figure 24: Station 15

53
 Conclusions
• Conclusions
– Even though this effort is very complicated and time-consuming it fully models the complex
thermochemistry involved with an ablating and charring material
– Other so called ablation models usually just allow for the input of an erosion rate to change the
thickness of the material during the burn
– Without a way to model the chemical reactions the thermal gradient can’t be correctly modeled
– The model demonstrated it can match test data accurately and then be used to predicted worst
cases without the need for additional, very costly testing
– For this example, the significant conclusion is, even with a predicted 3σ char depth exceeding
the liner thickness at stations 12 and 15, the bondline temperature remains below the required
temperature during motor burn

54
 References

Reference Document Document Title

Number number
1 “Computer Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and
Applications, Part 1 Analysis”, NASA Reference Publication 1311, Sanford Gordon and Bonnie
McBride, Oct. 1994
2 “Computer Program for Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium Compositions and
Applications, Part 2 Users Manual and Program Description”, NASA Reference Publication
1311, Sanford Gordon and Bonnie McBride, June. 1996
3 “User’s Manual for Aerotherm Chemical Equilibrium (ACE) Computer Program”, Charles A.
Powars and Robert Kendall, May 1969
4 “User’s Manual Non-Proprietary Aerotherm Charring Material Thermal Response and Ablation
Program”, Acurex Corporation Aerotherm Division, November 30, 1987
5 “Thermal Radiation Heat Transfer”, 2nd Edition, Siegel and Howell, Hemisphere Publishing
Company, McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1981 Pages 658-672

55