Experimental rocket motor design and construction

The Rocketry Forum

Help Support The Rocketry Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
View attachment 151137

Thank you for the info. Here is how I calculate the chamber pressure this case can endure... View attachment 151137

View attachment 151138

Am I doing this incorrectly?
I would use the classical Barlow Formula for calculating the cylinder burst strength. https://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/barlow-d_1003.html

To do the calculation for cylinder burst, use a design factor of 1 (it is frequently and incorrectly referred to as a safety factor). Tensile strength, not yield strength is used for the bursting calculation. This value should be much higher, at least a factor of 2, greater than the actual failure pressure.

The method I use to predict where a casing will fail in a hydrostatic test is to analyze the closure attachment. For a threaded closure, joint will release either by thread failure in shear, or the reduced casing thickness in tensile failure. One limit that is easy to calculate is to use the minimum casing thickness at the threads and the above formula for a rough estimate of the failure pressure. This will predict approximately where the casing will fail in a hydrostatic test, but it will most likely be lower in operation because the metal will be heated.

Bob
 
Bob, your points are both correct. I understand the limitations of failure theories to homogeneous systems; I was specifically looking at only the cylindrical portion of the tube, which must be designed to a higher factor of safety than the ends.

The Barlow Formula is equivalent to the method used by the OP, and equivalent to my method. However, I have never seen the ultimate tensile strength used; 304 stainless steel is a ductile material that fails by yielding(I thought), and failure strength for ductile materials is best described by the maximum distortion energy method, which is the same as what I used; that analysis of continuum yielding relies on the yield strength.

Is that wrong?
 
Ultimate tensile strength is used for burst calculations according to my references. Yours results may be different.

Bob
 
STATIC TEST UPDATE:

Last night was a failure only because the propellant wouldn't ignite. It was about 49 degree's and for some stupid reason I brought along only the weakest igniters I had. It was an extremely anticlimactic event as many of you have surely felt. As soon as you hit ignition you ears become super-tuned and your mind starts a timeclock. About a half of second in I didn't hear the tell-tale "PHFFFSSS" sound of a motor starting its day, my heart began to sink. About a full second to 1.5 seconds in I already knew it was all over. I tried 4 more weak igniters but nothing happened.

GOOD NEWS:
Tonight I am trying again... with igniters that could ignite the polar ice-cap. I have also thought much about safety over the last 24 hours. First and foremost I don't want anyone getting hurt, and I don't want to damage any property. I don't want to and will not be the idiot who brings rocketry a bad reputation or even bans it.... Here is what happened last night and what I will do today to make this as safe as possible.

1. I will be attempting to test the EX motor again today at 6:30 pm. The sun sets at 6:15 in Richmond so lighting conditions should be good enough to see the exhaust flame and smoke but not so dark that it washes everything out.
2. I've thought about how I could improve safety since I am conducting this test in a local park. Last night just before my first attempt at igniting the rig, a park employee rolled up in a marked pick-up truck and as he began to process what he was looking at his face contorted with concern. I approached him immediately and explained everything and that this is not the kind of thing I can do when there are people around during the day. I asked if he wanted to inspect the set-up and asked permission to proceed with the test. He sat in his truck and considered it for a few seconds then told me to go ahead and do it. He then drove away.
3. Here is the thing though... I didn't even have a fire extinguisher on hand, in hindsight that seems very irresponsible, so tonight I will have a fire extinguisher with me.
4. In the not so likely event that the casing ruptures violently I am taking precautions to mitigate the potential shrapnel and fall-out of burning propellant by wrapping several layers of fiberglass cloth around the entire motor body. Of course I won't epoxy it but the multiple layers will reduce and help contain shrapnel and burning propellant.
So the countdown starts now, T-111 minutes.
 
Ultimate tensile strength is used for burst calculations according to my references. Yours results may be different.

Bob

For those of you not in the research thread, Bob Krech and I were having a similar discussion over there. The essential result (as is always the case when Bob Krech and I end up arguing about something, if you've noticed) was a difference in language. Hobby motors are spec'ed to 'bursting strength', which means the pressure at which the casing tears apart from hoop stress, while I was assuming that they were rated against yield, which would be the pressure where the casing permanently balloons outward. For some ductile metals there is a substantial difference in those values.

[PHYSICIST MODE] there was also a minor issue with a numerical modifier that I had neglected; a factor of 1/2 converting between diameter and radius which I had approximated as being of order unity and so had dropped. [/PHYSICIST MODE]

Including that petty detail, I get a yield pressure of about 2300PSI for Lazlo's case here, with the caveat that it is the yield pressure for the tube part only, not the ends. Hopefully the ends have a lower release point.
 
The test was a success, here is a quick clip, I will upload more details, photos, and video soon.

[video=youtube_share;nqH97BMj0RM]https://youtu.be/nqH97BMj0RM[/video]
 
Binder Design said:
Any time I've used both a load cell and pressure transducer, the output curves look almost exactly the same. So if you just use the pressure transducer by itself, you can get a close enough estimate of the thrust by just scaling the curve properly.
Using non-eroding graphite nozzles, that first sentence would be true Mike, but Laszlo is using glass phenolic nozzles. The pressure and thrust curves won't necessarily follow each other depending on the amount of throat erosion and a progressive/neutral/regressive grain geometry.

Binder Design said:
Knowing the pressure is much more important than knowing thrust IMO.

Absolutely
 
Using non-eroding graphite nozzles, that first sentence would be true Mike, but Laszlo is using glass phenolic nozzles. The pressure and thrust curves won't necessarily follow each other depending on the amount of throat erosion and a progressive/neutral/regressive grain geometry.



Absolutely

I agree pressure is everything. Nakka has characterized this particular propellant pretty well and if I had pressure date then thrust data could be extrapolated. Unfortunately all I have is video, and nothing for analog or digital sensors. I haven't taken apart the case yet but what I can say is that there was a LOT of nozzle erosion (initial 12mm to final 18mm), and I expected this. The propellant was the most difficult to ignite in my experience. Even 0.4 grams of BP failed to ignite. I finally succeeded with a micromax motor, it's like 1/2A or something but burns for about a 1.0-1.5 seconds. In the video the initial flame and fizzle is just the small ignition motor. At about 1.5 or 2.0 seconds does the propellant actually kick in, and it burns nicely for about 2.0 to 2.5 seconds before ramping down slowly.

I think the nozzle erosion is mostly responsible for increasing the burn time obviously because pressure did not build up as expected. The Kn ratio fell below what was designed. I wish I had the resources to optimize nozzles with respect to specific propellant characteristics. SRM Rocket nozzles/ Liquid Rocket engine nozzles are the most fascinating things to me.
 
You found out why most research motors use graphite nozzles, which are very easy to machine, or why professionals design their propellant grains to be progress and compensate for nozzle erosion.

You also need to use real APCP motor starters......which are really easy to make.......

Bob
 
Yield Strength
This discussion has been good in a number of ways, our budding rocket scientist, learned a lot, hate to use the cliché, but ‘when it comes to learning, ‘Failure IS an option’, provided that there is the proper safety provisions in place where failure doesn’t hurt anyone. Or as they say, live and learn.

Yield vs Tensile
When it comes to failure of a metal tube, one piece of information that I think needs to be clarified is yield vs. tensile strength. Lots of mis information has been put out there. Bottom line, for rocket motors, yield strength = failure NOT tensile strength.

Changing the Yield Strength
There are many ways of increasing the yield strength of a part to get it up close to the tensile strength. These involve temperature and mechanical work hardening of materials. For example, way back at the day job we would form a motor tube and then using water or oil pressurize the tube past yield but below ultimate. Without going into the mechanics of it (there are some really good books on this) we raised the yield strength of the tube. Really important, if we tried that with gas not water the tube would have burst once we hit yield, this is the difference between compressible and incompressible fluids.

Heat Treatment / Temper
Other ways of increasing yield strength are with heat treatments. Often at work we remove all the thermal stresses (called annealing ) to make the part easy to form and machine, and then using heating and rapid cooling induce thermal stresses increasing the yield strength (again some really good books on this stuff). Here is the problem, if you heat it up to high you lose the temper. This can be done by machining the tube without sufficient coolant or by getting the inside of the motor too hot.

How the tube is made can change the yield strength
How the tube is made can change the yield for steel tubing one way to make it is start with a flat plate, roll it, weld the seam, and then cold form it into the final diameter by forcing it over a mandrel. This is called DOM tubing. All of this ‘cold work’ increases the yield strength. Other processes cold roll the tubing and then weld it without the drawing step, hot rolled is easier to make, but has lower yield. Aluminum can be extruded to shape or extruded and then drawn, again resulting in different yield strengths. Even the difference between cutting threads and rolling threads can change the local strength

So, for rocket motors,
Understand what allow and temper you have when you start. Different manufacturing methods will give different properties even with the same alloy.

Make sure you don’t change the yield without knowing it, change it for better if you know what you are doing.

Use yield strength as your upper limit WITH A FACTOR OF SAFETY

Testing a motor tube can be done BUT NEVER WITH GAS only with incompressible fluids.

If you have a case with evidence of heat damage, don’t use it until you ask the manufacturer.

Mike K

P.S. Just for fun
6061 aluminum with a T-6 temper (heat treatment) has a yield of 40ksi, and an ultimate strength of 45ksi. If you a remove the heat treatment the yield decreases to 18ksi
 
Just keep in mind to use elevated temperature numbers not room temperature numbers. They can be quite different. Case failures will not be room temperature events.

Gerald
 
Bob,

I agree with everything you say. I don't think anybody here said that it was okay to fire a steel-cased motor at a hobby rocket launch, and I think the OP is clear on that.

I completely understand the need to promote our safety code and to clarify where hobby rocketry stops and amateur rocketry begins. But as an educator, I have a very low tolerance for misinformation. When threads like this one pop up, I hate to see the OP scared off by discouraging-toned comments from HPR folks who may or may not have amateur rocketry knowledge or experience. We should be helpful to folks who show an interest in rocketry of any sort, shouldn't we? I think that "The Rocketry Forum" as it appears at the top of a Google search for rocketry information implies that we should be helpful. We can't expect everyone to know up front about NAR or Tripoli or the finer point of NFPA 1127. All I'm saying is that we should educate people, not scare them away!

DeeRoc29,

Thank you so much for it is certainly true that I do not know what I do not know. And that is true for everybody in many fields despite the number of areas of knowledge "mastered."

cecil
 
Hate to say it, but you'll be unlikely to get to fly it at a TRA launch. We're not allowed to use Stainless, though I wish we could.

Gerald

Are you allowed to use stainless nozzles / bulkheads or can 0% of research motors be steel?
 
Are you allowed to use stainless nozzles / bulkheads or can 0% of research motors be steel?

Only minor parts such as washers, spiral rings, snap rings, and bolts may be steel. Here’s the portion of the Research Safety Code covering this:
7.2. Prohibitions
7.2.1. Research motors shall not be used for certification flights.
7.2.2. Research motors shall not be fabricated of steel or other frangible materials (e.g. PVC).
7.2.2.1. Cases (including hybrid cylinders), front and rear closures, and nozzles shall not be fabricated of steel.
7.2.2.2. Screws, washers, compression rings and related closures, and sealing devices shall be exempt from requirement 7.2.2.1.

Here’s where you can read the Research Safety Code for yourself:
https://www.tripoli.org/SafetyCode
 
(Working my way through this thread and heaven't read it all yet.)

Laszlo mentioned that machining graphite is problematic because it "tends to gunk up a standard lathe". Has anyone tried this on a wood lathe? Or with wood turning tools on a metal lathe? Graphite is certainly soft enough for those tools, and surprisingly good precision can be achieved with practice.
 
(Working my way through this thread and heaven't read it all yet.)

Laszlo mentioned that machining graphite is problematic because it "tends to gunk up a standard lathe". Has anyone tried this on a wood lathe? Or with wood turning tools on a metal lathe? Graphite is certainly soft enough for those tools, and surprisingly good precision can be achieved with practice.
I've drilled out the opening on a 75mm graphite nozzle on a wood lathe. It worked but the powdered graphite that results gets everywhere. Wood lathes turn at higher speeds than metal lathes and so it tosses that powder farther and makes a bigger mess.
 
You don't want to breathe the graphite dust. If it is getting everywhere, you are doing something seriously wrong and should reconsider the approach.

Gerald
 
He did; he's not doing it that way any more. It was just a thought on my part (that wood turning tools may not be gummed up the way metal turning tools are) and Aaron says it's been tried and rejected.
 
(Working my way through this thread and heaven't read it all yet.)

Laszlo mentioned that machining graphite is problematic because it "tends to gunk up a standard lathe". Has anyone tried this on a wood lathe? Or with wood turning tools on a metal lathe? Graphite is certainly soft enough for those tools, and surprisingly good precision can be achieved with practice.

More a matter of the fact that graphite is electrically conductive and can short out a motor in jig time. Ask me how I know. Go ahead, ask. On second thought, I'd rather not expound on my stupidity... :-/

Best -- Terry
 
Back
Top