Combustion Modeling and Stability of Double-Base Solid Rocket Propellants

Luca, L.T. De; Galfetti, L.

doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-0945-4_7

Cited by 5 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In general, the solution of Eqs. (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8) requires numerical methods for both unsteady [q(t)] and steady (q = const) conditions. However, an approximate steady-state analytical solution exists for the case of the large activation energy, EJRT -> oo.…”

Section: Distributed Reaction Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Theory of unsteady combustion of solids - Investigation of quasisteady assumption

Zebrowski

Brewster

1996

Journal of Propulsion and Power

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A numerical model was developed to investigate the applicability of activation energy asymptotics (AEA) in unsteady combustion of solids, and specifically, the quasisteady condensed phase (surface) reaction assumption. It was found that while condensed phase global decomposition activation energies are typically large enough for accurate prediction of steady burning rate and surface temperature by AEA, the criterion for comparable accuracy in predicting unsteady burning rate (e.g., linear response function) is more stringent For realistic material properties the error in the linear response because of the quasisteady condensed phase reaction assumption is significant, both in magnitude and phase. The results also show that at moderate pressures (10-100 atm), condensed phase reaction zone unsteadiness should be considered before, or at least in conjunction with, gas phase unsteadiness. Nonlinear combustion response was also investigated. The primary effect of nonlinearity was to convert low-frequency response (particularly that near the peak) to higher frequencies. Validation of numerical results was accomplished by comparing the linear surface reaction response with the predictions of analysis.C

show abstract

Section: Distributed Reaction Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The surface reaction (QSC) model and (30)] and the distributed reaction (non-QSC) model [Eqs. (3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)] were both solved numerically using explicit fourth-order compact differencing.…”

Section: Surface Reaction Modelmentioning

confidence: 99%