Chamber pressure

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Reed Goodwin

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 18, 2009
Messages
2,110
Reaction score
0
What is the approximate chamber pressure that Aerotech reloads run at? Does the chamber pressure vary much based on the propellant formulation used? 500psi? 2000psi? Somewhere in the middle?
Thanks,
Reed
 
I believe it's around a thousand psi, but it definitely varies depending on motor size and motor type.
 
By knowing the density of the propellant, the weight, and the thrust. With the nozzle throat diameter. you can back calculate the psi.

This is how some ex'ers know the pressure they are generating without using a pressure transducer.

I dont know how to do that.
 
For any given case size the maximum pressure would be limited by the strength of the case. And apparently they have problems with this sometimes judging by the number of cases that fail during boost.

If the propellant and/or shape of the grain changes to increase burning rate, then the nozzle throat would have to increase also in order to not exceed the maximum pressure capacity of the case.
 
Hokay so I wrote up and e-mailed this example for a friend a while back who was wondering what the max Pc would be if he swapped his 2550 nozzle for a 1750 nozzle in a KBA L2300G. It's relatively a propos -- you can stop at the Excel part to figure out the Pc for any motor, or soldier on to the ratioing bit to finish the problem.

hope it helps! back to hiding under the rock to study...

We know that F = PcAtCf, and we know that the peak thrust of the L2300 is 661 lbf (from ThrustCurve), so to solve Pc, we need a throat area and a Cf. The first one's easy -- the throat diameter is 0.656", and so the throat area is pi/4*0.656^2 = 0.338 in^2.

For Cf, we need a bunch of stuff (see the Cf equation at https://nakka-rocketry.net/th_thrst.html). The exit diameter is approximately 1.35" (scaled from the drawing at https://www.aerotech-rocketry.com/c...sy_dwgs/54mm_kba_ac/54-2550_l2300g-p_assy.pdf ). This gives an expansion area ratio of 1.35^2/0.656^2 = 4.2. From a quick and dirty PEP run for a BaNO3-containing propellant, we get a gamma of 1.2, an exhaust molecular weight of 26, and a chamber temperature of 5000 F. Further, it's reasonable to assume that TRA static tested the L2300 near sea level, so let's guess the external pressure at ~14.7 psi.

We still need the exit pressure and the chamber pressure to solve Cf. Since Pe is a function of Pc (see the isentropic cheat sheet; Pc is the stagnation pressure and Pe is the static pressure at the exit Mach number), and we're actually trying to solve Pc with Cf (which is itself a function of Pc), the solution for Pc is implicit. So, time to pull out Excel and do a couple of goal seeks (or MATLAB and a numerical solution method). The result is around 1250 psi.

Now, to figure out what the new max pressure is, we calculate the Kn difference. Decreasing the nozzle throat size to 0.563 will increase the max Kn by a factor of 1.36. We know that Pc is proportional to Kn^(1/1-n), from the burning rate law. For this propellant, let's guess n at 0.3. This means that the maximum chamber pressure will increase by a factor of (1.36)^(1/(1-0.3)) = 1.55ish. The max Pc we calculated using Excel is ~1250 psi with the 2550 nozzle throat, and so with the 1750 nozzle, the max Pc will be (1250)(1.55) = 1930 psi.
 
What is the approximate chamber pressure that Aerotech reloads run at? Does the chamber pressure vary much based on the propellant formulation used? 500psi? 2000psi? Somewhere in the middle?
Thanks,
Reed

I've measured the chamber pressure of a 29mm AT White Lightening motor at 900 to 1100 psi max, then tapering from there. This is from 3 different burns. Maybe 10 years ago.
 
And apparently they have problems with this sometimes judging by the number of cases that fail during boost.

I don't think that's the whats happening. Even for an item that is intended to be lightweight, few engineers would design a pressure vessel with less than a safety factor of 2. It is likely higher than that. Failures are more apt to occur from improper assembly by the user and at the end closures. If the grain is damaged, the extra burning surface area could raise the pressure beyond the rating and maybe enough to fail the casing. Still, a damaged grain should be noticable to the user.

This isn't to say the manufacturer's are blameless; the more complex the assembly, the more chance there is for user error. I haven't been involved with any of the pressure tests done by NAR S&T but look forward to doing that in the future.
 
I haven't been involved with any of the pressure tests done by NAR S&T but look forward to doing that in the future.

I'd have to dig out the fuzzy old video to be sure but I'm believe we were way over 2000 psi when the end closure let go. Of course that was hydraulic fluid pumped up as fast as I could with a small hand pump so it's not exactly the same thing as actual use.
 
Did you boil the water or add heat to the casing to get a closer to actual figure?
Heat will reduce that psi it can handle...



JD


I'd have to dig out the fuzzy old video to be sure but I'm believe we were way over 2000 psi when the end closure let go. Of course that was hydraulic fluid pumped up as fast as I could with a small hand pump so it's not exactly the same thing as actual use.
 
Did you boil the water or add heat to the casing to get a closer to actual figure?
Heat will reduce that psi it can handle...



JD

It was hydraulic fluid not water and it was done at room temperature.

NFPA doesn't specify how the test is to be done. It just says that the casing has to be tested to twice the working pressure and that when it fails the parts go axially.

The 29 mm Aerotech casing was just past 3000 psi when the end closure let go and the 29mm Kosdon casing was up to 4000 psi when the snap ring rolled out.
 
A gradual hydrostatic test will allow threads to creep and give way. A sudden surge in pressure along with some heat will split the case or shear off the end, leaving the threads intact.
 
A gradual hydrostatic test will allow threads to creep and give way. A sudden surge in pressure along with some heat will split the case or shear off the end, leaving the threads intact.


That's what should happen but, in reality, how many threaded closure casings have you seen fail that way? Most of the failures I've seen (38mm and under) just pop the end closure off leaving the threads mostly intact. I had a 24mm casing fail that way and even though I know better I've used it many times since with no problems.

I'm not really sure how valuable that test is. There's no specification in 1125 of how the test is to be conducted. Since there doesn't seem to be a lot of casing failures that can be attributed to casing problems and not propellant or nozzle problems I don't think anybody is going to be looking at changing things.
 
That's what should happen but, in reality, how many threaded closure casings have you seen fail that way? Most of the failures I've seen (38mm and under) just pop the end closure off leaving the threads mostly intact. I had a 24mm casing fail that way and even though I know better I've used it many times since with no problems.

I'm not really sure how valuable that test is. There's no specification in 1125 of how the test is to be conducted. Since there doesn't seem to be a lot of casing failures that can be attributed to casing problems and not propellant or nozzle problems I don't think anybody is going to be looking at changing things.

I think the NFPA 1125 test is a reasonable way to catch a bad design. But, it's not representative of what generally happens (from my experiences). I've seen AT cases split and shear more often than they crawl off the threads. Only with the hobby 24 and 29mm have I seen the threads let go. Most are likely clogged nozzle due to oversized igniters (after getting frustrated with chuffs and crapperheads). Here's one of my AT 29mm cases (R.I.P.)...
https://thrustgear.com/oldtests/29_180a.jpg

I've only seen the snapring-style cases crawl the snapring off.
 
I think the NFPA 1125 test is a reasonable way to catch a bad design. But, it's not representative of what generally happens (from my experiences). I've seen AT cases split and shear more often than they crawl off the threads. Only with the hobby 24 and 29mm have I seen the threads let go. Most are likely clogged nozzle due to oversized igniters (after getting frustrated with chuffs and crapperheads). Here's one of my AT 29mm cases (R.I.P.)...
https://thrust gear.com/oldtests/29_180a.jpg

I've only seen the snapring-style cases crawl the snapring off.

Has anybody else reading this had the same experience?

Over the last 20 years I've seen thousands of 24 and 29 mm motors and quite a few 38mm at our club launches and I can't recall anything as impressive as that photo.
 
I've seen very similar.

I've seen some 38mm where a closure popped off, but in bigger stuff, I've definitely seen some flattened hardware.

-Kevin
 
I think the NFPA 1125 test is a reasonable way to catch a bad design. But, it's not representative of what generally happens (from my experiences). I've seen AT cases split and shear more often than they crawl off the threads. Only with the hobby 24 and 29mm have I seen the threads let go. Most are likely clogged nozzle due to oversized igniters (after getting frustrated with chuffs and crapperheads). Here's one of my AT 29mm cases (R.I.P.)...
https://thrustgear.com/oldtests/29_180a.jpg

I've only seen the snapring-style cases crawl the snapring off.

Interestingly, I've never seen that happen, but I have seen the threads popped off on both a 38 and a 75mm casing. I had a 75/6400 where the aft closure came out leaving the threads pretty much intact, and the same exact thing happened with my 38/480.
 
You fly/test enough motors and you see it all. Threads popped out, threads stripped, nozzles extruded through nozzle washers, snap rings rolled out and sheet stock made from round stock.

Edawrd
 
You fly/test enough motors and you see it all. Threads popped out, threads stripped, nozzles extruded through nozzle washers, snap rings rolled out and sheet stock made from round stock.
Very true. I've seen an aluminum forward closure shear through 16 gauge steel plate and 1/2" plywood... at the same time.
 
I've had 3 of them lay wide open on me. The one in the pic [1706 case], with part of the G-12 mm still on, I keep in the back of the truck for an emergency shovel.Lol

The other 2 were the 360 case with an I-200 that let go & a 240 case with a red in it.

100_2806.jpg
 
I've seen an AT M 1419 puke it's nozzle a few years ago.
I don't recall what happened to the aft closure ,as I ran to suppress any fires it might have caused when the grains went flying.




JD

Has anybody else reading this had the same experience?

Over the last 20 years I've seen thousands of 24 and 29 mm motors and quite a few 38mm at our club launches and I can't recall anything as impressive as that photo.
 
I've been curious about pressures and the mechanics of how the casings work so I decided to do a little bit of analysis. I pulled my 38/240 case out and took some measurements.

OD = 1.499"
wall thickness = 0.058"
therefore ID = 1.383"

Assuming that the chamber pressure is 1,000 psi, the tensile stress in the casing would be 11,900 psi, which is easy for any reasonable aluminum alloy to resist. The modulus of elasticity of aluminum is around 10x10^6 psi (about 1/3 the value for steel). Under this much tensile stress the diameter of the casing would grow by 0.12 percent, i.e. the diameter would increase to 1.501" which is fairly insignificant.

The area of a closure is 1.50 square inches, and the pressure on the closure is 1,500 pounds. I didn't have a good way to measure the threads but the thread depth appeared to be approximately 0.020". For threaded parts, depending on the configuration of course, the typical case will transfer the force from one part to the other predominately in the first 3 threads (IIRC research into this was done over 50 years ago by a guy named Sopwith). The bearing area of 3 threads would be approximately 0.26 square inches, with bearing pressure of approximately 5,800 psi.

This is a pretty simple static analysis and would not indicate anything in the design and configuration of this case that would make it prone to failure.
 
The one thing to take into consideration is how the heating of the case affects the strength. 6061 rapidly loses strength as it heats.

A quick run through a spreadsheet says that at 1000 lbs/in^2 you have a 2.9 safety factor on the hoop stress and twice that on the axial stress. Should be very easy for that case. When you go to the .083" thick cases you have a 4.3 case hoop safety factor.

Cases are decently simple to do the numbers on. The harder part is making sure your propellant doesn't exceed the limits of them.

Edward
 

Latest posts

Back
Top