Development of Ballistic performance

prediction code for nozzle less booster

for project SFDR

submitted in the requirements of research internship by

MADHARA DHANUSH (21MEB0B38)

Guided by Prof A.Veeresh Babu

DEPARTMENT OF MECHANICAL ENGINEERING

NATIONAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, WARANGAL
2023-2024
 I .Abstract:
Nozzle Booster Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet (SFDR) is an advanced propulsion system that has
gained prominence in missile technology for its ability to deliver high performance, long range, and
high speed capabilities. Different from general rocket boosters Nozzleless boosters rely on
controlled grain geometry for this. An innovation that doesn't require a real injector. This simplifies
the design, reduces weight and increases the structural integrity of the booster. In the SFDR, a
nozzle-free booster works with a ramjet to maintain thrust. to achieve supersonic speeds over long
distances This article explores the principles of injectorless booster SFDR technology. By focusing
on design Operational dynamics and advantages over general systems Important challenges include
grain formation and heat management. It was also discussed alongside possible applications in
next-generation missile systems.

II. Introduction:

Missile propulsion systems have undergone significant advancements to meet the demands
of modern warfare, including increased speed, extended range, and enhanced
maneuverability. Among these innovations, the Solid Fuel Ducted Ramjet (SFDR) has
emerged as a transformative technology, combining the high initial thrust of a solid
booster with the sustained propulsion of a ramjet. A critical component of the SFDR is the
nozzleless booster, which eliminates the traditional nozzle, instead relying on controlled
combustion of solid propellants within a carefully designed grain structure.
The nozzleless booster serves as the initial stage in the SFDR system, rapidly accelerating
the missile to supersonic speeds where the ramjet becomes effective. By removing the
nozzle, the booster achieves reduced manufacturing complexity, lower weight, and
improved reliability. However, the absence of a nozzle introduces unique challenges in
thrust optimization and thermal control, requiring innovative design approaches.
This paper investigates the principles behind nozzleless boosters and their integration into
SFDR systems, emphasizing their operational characteristics and potential for future
defense applications. A comparative analysis with traditional propulsion systems
highlights the advantages and trade-offs associated with this technology.

 Report on Literature survey

Literature Survey

The following are the observations after thorough search of the literature related to ‘Development of
Ballistic performance prediction code for Nozzleless booster for project SFDR’.:
1. Harry, 1977:
This research paper brings out the status of a computer program to analyze nozzleless motors with
emphasis on distinction between theoretical analysis and experimental evaluation. The most obvious
difference in the ballistics of a nozzleless booster when compared to conventional solid motors is the
formation of aerodynamic throat. The throat is located in the flexible propellant and may move upstream
or downstream during the burn. Consequently, transient aerodynamics and port pressure drop, erosive
burning, combustion efficiency, transient deflection of the grain and two-phase flow losses vary. The
approach followed for a theoretical-empirical calculation of six or seven phenomena when two channels
of data usually represent the observed results, namely head pressure and thrust. A brief review of recent
changes in the program to evaluate internal ballistics.
Aerodynamics
Gas flow in the port is calculated using one dimensional momentum and continuity equations, an energy
relation and state equation. The continuity equation is used with a transient capacity term
𝜕 𝜕
𝜕𝑡 𝜌𝐴 + 𝜕𝑥 𝜌𝐴𝑢 = 𝑚̇𝑒

Where ρ is the mixture density, 𝐴 is port area, 𝑢 the local velocity and 𝑚̇𝑒 is the mass added in an
increment δx. As implemented, the equation appears in the form

Where the barred quantities are averaged over the increment. The transient term is significant to results
for nozzleless motors, but other transient terms in the gas dynamics are negligible.
Ignition
The computational limits on minimum time steps, discussed in the previous section, make calculation
of the ignition pressure rise highly questionable. A method used to avoid the difficulty, based on the
assumption that at the peak pressure, the transient capacity term tends to vanish as shown in fig. 1. Given
the time increment to peak pressure (as input) the first point is readily calculated. The rise time is usually
obtained from experimental motor firings and is repeatable.

Fig. 1. Ignition calculation logic Fig.2: Base burn-rate input requirement

Erosive burning
A representative curve of burning rate is shown in fig.2. Conventional motors may operate over a
limited range, Whereas the nozzleless boosters operate over the entire range; possibly from 2000 PSI to
below ambient temperature. Unless the base burn rate is accurately represented it becomes essentially
impossible to reconcile experimental firings. Erosive burning has a strong effect on instantaneous
parameters (head pressure P and Thrust T). However, if P and T are matched within reasonable level,
the influence on integral parameters: Specific impulse and total impulse are small. Grain deflection
The calculation of grain deflection involves input from stress analysis in terms of radial strain as a
function of motor length, based on initial pressure distribution as shown in the fig. 3.
 Fig.3:
Grain deflection input
The input data may be refined by using the stress calculations at a series of web fractions and updated
pressure distributions, with trivial change in the nozzleless booster prediction model.
2. Procinsky & Smith, Nozzleless Boosters for Integral Rocket Ramjet Systems, 1980:
This research paper evaluates the performance of nozzleless booster. Experience with both subscale
and full-scale motor designs shows that with grain length to diameter ratio of greater than 3.5, a
nozzleless booster will match the performance of an ejectable nozzle system and that at larger ratios,
the nozzleless motor can be configured to produce up to 15% more performance. Authors have brought
out clearly advantages of Nozzleless boosters w.r.t conventional rocket motors for Integral Ramjet
rocket motors. These advantages include elimination of debris hazard, simplicity of design, reliability
and performance.
The below mentioned fig. 4 shows average motor pressure w.r.t normalized specific impulse for
different propellant combinations. It can be seen that as the average chamber pressure increases, the
specific impulse increases.

Fig. 4: Normalized specific impulse vs Average motor Fig. 5: Effect of propellant pressure on nozzleless
pressure IRR booster chamber
Also, the effect of pressure index is seen in fig. 5. As the pressure index is higher, the peak pressure is
more and also, burn time is more. With lower pressure index, burn time is less and peak pressure is less
which is preferable for missile applications.
The effect of pressure index is seen in fig. 6 with lower pressure index, the thrust time profile is better
and more suitable for missiles (fig.6). The thrust goes up w.r.t time.
 Fig. 6: Effect of propellant pressure
exponent on nozzleless IRR booster thrust
3. Yerushalmi & Glick, 1982:
This paper presents the prediction of idealized performance of spin stabilized nozzleless solid rocket
motors in the line of a quasi- steady flow of an ideal, in-viscid gas. The analysis was approximate
(integral method), including velocity, pressure and restricted to motors with constant diameter ports.
Results (fig. 7 & 8) show that spin increases head end pressure, thrust and specific impulse.

Fig. 7: Effect of spin on pressure variation along the Fig. 8: Effect of spin on burning rate along the port
port
4. Swanson, Geyer, & Wilson, 1982:
A hydraulic analog of a nozzleless solid rocket motor with uniform port area and mass addition was
constructed and employed to determine velocity profiles and sonic line contours. These results (fig. 9 &
10) were compared with an integral methodology solution. The comparison showed that the integral
methodology depicts both velocity profiles and the sonic line contour with qualitative accuracy.
The major defect in the analysis carried by Glick and Orr are the effects of compressibility on the axial
velocity profiles and the one dimensionality brought by the integral method. Relative to the later, note
that the sonic line is actually curved and does not intersect the burning propellant so that choking is
spread over a finite length of the motor.
 Fig. 9: Axial variation of Mach number and static Fig. 10: Comparison of measures and predicted sonic
pressure lines
5. Mikkelsen & Roys, 1982:
This paper demonstrates the ability of the Saderholm erosive burning model, when coupled with the
AFRPL Nozzleless Rocket program, to predict the ballistic performance of six nozzleless rocket motors
of three designs loaded with three non-aluminized HTPB Propellants. The paper describes the
Saderholm erosive burning model, the six nozzleless test motors and the ballistics prediction
methodology. The results show that the model predicts the ballistic performance better than the previous
models. Propellant burning rate in a solid propellant Rocket motor can be significantly different from
that measured with small strands burning in a closed vessel at identical conditions of pressure and
temperature. This phenomenon usually called “erosive burning” is caused by the passage of combustion
gases over the burning propellant surface.
For high subsonic Mach numbers starting at about 0.5, the full erosive regime, the burn rate was
independent of the ballistic burn rate and given by the equation
𝑟 = (4.44599)10−7(𝑀𝑃)0.71
Where r = burn rate (m/s); M = Local Mach number; P =
Local static pressure (Pa) 𝑢 0.5
𝑟 = 𝑟0 + 𝑎(𝐺𝑚̇ − 𝐺0𝑚̇) [ 𝑔]
𝑐
Where r = burn rate (m/s); r0 = ballistic burn rate (m/s);
G = mass flux parallel to propellant surface (kg/s - m2); C = Gas sonic velocity (m/s)
Ug = Gas velocity parallel to propellant surface (m/s);
G0 = Threshold value of mass flux (kg/s - m2); a = constant; m = constant
The three constants G0, a, and m are known to be highly dependent on the propellant formulation and
motor conditioning temperature, though Atlantic Research Corporation has recommended values of
G0 = 140.614; a = (6.13171)10-4; m = 0.095
It is found that within the limitations of the ballistics prediction methodology and the AFRPL
nozzleless Rocket motor internal ballistic computer program for six nozzles rocket motors, the
Saderholm erosive burning model which was originally developed for nozzle rocket motors predicts the
ballistics performance of nozzleless rocket motors as well as or better than the erosive burning model
developed specifically for nozzleless rocket motors. The comparison is shown in fig. 11 & 12.
 Fig. 11: TX715/T943-1 Head-end pressure history Fig. 12: TX715/T943-1 thrust pressure history

6. Procinsky & Yezzi, 1982:

This paper represents a status review of the Nozzleless performance program to develop and
demonstrate a practical and more accurate computer model to predict ballistics of Nozzleless solid
rocket motors. It is designed to produce accurate a priori predictions of performance for any nozzleless
motor configuration, propellant type, and operating condition currently being developed. The accuracy
goals are 5% in thrust, pressure and burn time and 2% impulse values.
This work was an effort to advance the state of the art of what is a relatively new area of technology,
prediction of nozzleless rocket motor performance. New models were developed for configuration of
the grain, erosive burning, grain deflection, ignition, two phase flow and combustion efficiency.
7. Coats, Dang, & Nickerson, 1982:
This publication presents the computerized model which computes the internal flow field in nozzleless
solid propellant rocket motor for geometry shown in fig. 13. Comparison with motor firing data (fig.
14, 15 & 16) indicates good agreement between calculated and measured values (fig. 17 & 18).
The initial results from the nozzleless performance program were quite encouraging. Total impulse and
peak pressures were computed to within 1% of measured values while instantaneous values of pressure
and thrust held generally within + 5% tolerance set as a goal.

Fig. 13: Typical Nozzleless solid propellant rocket motor geometry

 Fig. 14: Head end igniter pressure trace Fig.15: Middle igniter pressure trace

Fig.16: Aft End igniter pressure trace Fig.17: comparison of calculated and measured head end
pressure

Fig.18: Comparison of calculated and measured thrust

8. King, 1982:
In this paper, an algorithm, for nozzleless motor performance for prediction of propellant burning rate
as a function of pressure, cross flow velocity, port diameter and time derivatives of pressure and cross
flow velocity under conditions of high product cross flow has been developed.
This algorithm was developed to calculate propellant burn rates at various locations and times in
nozzleless motors. This algorithm allows for the effects of erosive burning and for transient effects.
Scaling effects reflecting observed decreases in erosive burning effects with increasing grain port
diameter are included. A modified P-dot equation is used to correct for transient effects accompanying
rapid changes in pressure and cross flow velocity which can occur in nozzleless motor operation.
9. Glick, 1983:
in this article, a general theory for predicting the maximum performance of nozzleless booster was
developed. The profile correction factors are dependent on cross sectional geometry for cylindrical
grains.
This work has developed a general methodology for predicting the maximum performance of solid
rocket motors (Fig. 19). The theory has been applied to nozzleless Rocket motors with dA = 0. This
application shows that, although performance trends follow the Glick/Orr results, performance
improvements relative to the one-dimensional case are smaller and profile correction factors are not
sensitive to cross sectional geometry.
Fig. 19: Axial Variation of Profile parameters
10. NAHON, 1984:
Experimental and theoretical investigations are carried out on nozzleless booster development. Various
propellant combinations and parametric variations of geometrical features have been studied and
reported for the better performance.
Two grains, named, GASPARD and SANTUY were tested. Fig. 20 shows geometry shape of
GASPARD. In fig. 21, the two different propellant compositions tested were shown with thrust
variations and pressure exponent. The burning rate laws for the two propellants considered were
depicted in fig. 22. Fig. 23, 24 shows effect of grain length, grain initial temp. on pressures and fig. 25
reveals effect of divergent shape (1. Conical divergent and 2. Contoured divergent) on thrust for two
sample propellants.
In this paper, the motor firings have shown that the concept of nozzleless solid propellant rocket motor
is very reliable. The following points are to be noted.
a. The prediction of pressure recovery or thrust history is very sensitive to the accurate assessment
of input data. This sensitivity is much higher for a nozzle motor.
b. The maximum pressure may occur within a grain having the lower initial temperature. This
unusual fact was actually observed during a firing and it seems to be due to the combined effect of
erosive burning and grain deflection.
c. The average specific impulse of nozzleless motor is easy to compute bt the difficulty arises if
one tries to associate an average pressure and an average expansion ratio. Nevertheless, it is useful to
note that the ratio of nozzleless specific impulse to a reference specific impulse at 7 MPa is
approximately 0.8.
Fig. 26 & 27 indicates the variations of experimetal and theoretical results for the grains considered.

Fig.20: Nozzleless Gaspard Grain Fig. 21: Effect of pressure exponent on nozzles
thrust shape
 Fig. 22: Burning rate laws Fig. 23: Effect of grain length on maximum pressure

Fig. 24: Effect of grain initial temperature on Fig. 25: Effect of divergent shape on thrust
maximum pressure

Fig. 26: Comparison of experimental and Fig. 27: Comparison of experimental and
theoretical results for SANTUY theoretical results for GASPARD
11. King, 1984:
A numerical analysis procedure which was developed for examination of two-dimensional flow effects
on straight cylindrical - bore nozzleless rocket motor performance. It is assumed that there are no radial
variations in static pressure along each stream tube and that flow is isentropic along each stream tube.
Performance predictions from this analysis are compared with those calculated by a standard
onedimensional flow influence coefficient approach. It is found that the two-dimensional flow effects
on performance are considerably less than predicted by earlier analysis, with a maximum increase
vacuum throat specific impulse as calculated by the two-dimensional analysis of only 2% above that
calculated from one dimensional consideration (fig. 28–30). Moreover, as expansion ratio
considerations are brought in, this difference decreases, with the maximum increase in performance
accompanying twodimensional flow effects being only 0.7% for matched expansion to the atmospheric
ambient pressure.
 Figure 28: Typical Two-Dimensional versus One- Figure 29: Two-Dimensional ISP/One-Dimensional
Dimensional performance comparison – Burn rate = ISP vs. expansion ratio
0.6

Figure 29: Two-Dimensional ISP/One-Dimensional ISP Figure 30: Two-Dimensional ISP/One-Dimensional

ratio vs. expansion ratio ISP ratio vs. expansion ratio

12. Traineau & Kuentzmann, 1984:

This research paper describes direct measurements of burning rates at several axial locations along the
grain of sub scale nozzleless motors. The chosen method is based on the measurement of the
instantaneous thickness of propellant by ultrasonic transducers (Fig. 31).
The ultrasonic measurement method has been applied to erosive burning rate measurements in two sub-
scale nozzleless motors and original results have been obtained under realistic operating conditions.
Besides, complementary information, with regard to nozzleless booster grain deflection during ignition
has been deduced from the ultrasonic measurements. A single test gives data complete enough to
compute the whole zero cross flow burning rate law and erosive components for various values of the
mean flow velocity, in a wide range of pressure and for several dimensions of the port (fig. 32 & 33).
Comparison with standard strand burner data in no erosive conditions has proven that the data scattering
is reduced enough to attribute a good degree of confidence to these results.
 Fig. 31: Experimental two-dimensional setup

Fig. 32: Two-dimensional nozzleless setup test Fig. 33: Axisymmetric nozzleless motor tests
pressure-time history reproducibility of results
13. Albert, 1988:
This publication presents the concept of low cost castable nozzle for large solid rocket motors (SRMs),
and the progress which has been achieved to date towards the concept on the nozzleless booster
hardware demonstration program. The approach uses a high strength, low burn rate propellant to form
a nozzle and provide choked flow of the combustion products in an SRM. The concept offers the
potential of improved reliability and SRM cost reductions of 10 to 20%. Successful testing of 6 inch
and 30-inch diameter motors has demonstrated the approach and provided nozzle regression data needed
for motor scale-up, performance and cost predictions. Test results indicated that nozzle regression rates
were higher than predicted; however, motor performance was above the level required to achieve a
projected cost saving of 16% in this configuration. These tests also provided background necessary to
develop improved castable materials that exhibit reduced weight, regression rates and cost. The
successful testing of Erosive burning motor and sub-scale motors have demonstrated that the nozzleless
motor approach is feasible.
Fig.34 shows EBM Design considered, and fig. 35 shows the sample of results obtained for pretest
condition and post test correlations for the two-test no.1 and 2. The following table 1 list out the
properties of VTP-28, 214 propellant properties
 Figure 34: Erosive burn rate
Table 1: VTP-28, 214 Propellant properties
Description Requirement Actual
0
Burn rate at 400 psia and 70 F, in/sec 0.07 0.07
Burn rate exponent <=0.37 0.25
Propellant density, lb/in3 0.060 0.054
Viscosity at 1400 F, Kp <=6 4.14
Pot life, hr 8 8
Maximum stress, psia 180 187
Initial modulus, psia 1200 1322
Strain at maximum stress, % >= 12 21

Figure 35: EBM pressure vs. time curves

14. Gonthier & Hiss, 1994:

The ballistic anomaly called hump effect was studied on a composite propellant nozzleless booster
using a mandrel-in-place injection process. The methodical analysis of the properties of the propellant
sampled in various places of the grain made it possible to highlight two phenomena. Far from being
homogenous, the grain proved to be composed of three zones depending on the burning web (radially),
named A, B and C and 8 sectors in the axial direction (created at the time of the injection of the grain,
using an injector located in the front part of the bore and composed of eight cylindrical ports). Compared
to the average properties of the propellant, Zones A and C are characterized by a material that has a
lower burning rate (by approximately 4%), while in zone B the rate is increased by 7%. This was
correlated with local modifications in the composition of the propellant: in zone B, the aluminum
content is below the average value, whereas an increase in the binder and ammonium perchlorate content
is recorded (especially for the ammonium perchlorate). The second phenomena noted is an alteration of
the mechanical properties in the 8 sectors: a substantial loss of the strain capacity of the propellant was
evidenced in the middle of each sector. The ballistic anomaly is probably due to the flowing of the
propellant between 2 fixed walls during filling; for this reason, it is difficult to prevent this anomaly.
However, a modification of the design of the injector should make it possible to eliminate the second
phenomenon.
Fig. 36 shows the pressure and thrust variations w.r.t time and fig. 37 shows the correlations between
test specimen firings and grain firings

Figure 36: Pressure/Time & Thrust/Time curves of Figure 37: Correlation between test specimen firings
the grain and grain firing
15. Krishnan & Ramakrishnan, 1999:
Experimental results are presented for four nozzleless motors of different length-diameter (L/D) ratios
using two different composite propellants (Fig. 38). A simple one-dimensional numerical scheme is
presented to predict the performance of a nozzleless solid motor. Erosive burning, elastic grain
deformation and L/D ratio dependent combustion efficiency are considered in the scheme.
The nozzleless booster using a faster burning propellant can attain its peak performance with a shorter
length. The tendency for the propellant to extinguish under a highly negative pressure gradient
environment and the premature un-choking due to insufficient L/D ratios, both peculiar to nozzleless
operation are demonstrated.
A relatively simple one-dimensional prediction procedure for nozzleless motors is presented. This takes
in to account the effects of erosive burning, grain deflection and combustion efficiency variation. The
predicted results are in reasonable agreement with the experimental values.
For a given composite propellant the burning rate combustion index n can significantly vary with
pressure; this has been reported by many studies. The application of this fact plays a very important role
on accurately predicting the nozzleless motor performance.
In the present numerical scheme, the erosive burning characteristics under transonic and supersonic
cross flow Mach numbers are assumed to follow the Lenoir-Robillard equation. While this equation is
known to truly represent the erosive burning characteristics up to a high subsonic cross flow Mach
numbers, its applicability under transonic and supersonic cross flow Mach numbers will improve the
performance prediction of nozzleless motors.
Fig. 39 & 40 shows the comparisons of the predicted and experimental values for the formulation I with
L/D ratios of 7 and 9. Similarly fig. 41 shows for formulation II.
 Figure 38: Nozzleless motor assembly Figure 39: Predicted and experimental pressure -
time traces of nozzleless motors with propellant of
formulation I

Figure 40: Predicted and experimental pressure - time Figure 41: Predicted and experimental pressure -
traces of nozzleless motors with propellant of time traces of nozzleless motors with propellant of
formulation I formulation II
16. Farinaccio & Lessard, 2000:
In this article, a formulation based on HTPB/AP propellant with FEOOH/CuPht co-catalysts was
developed as a potential candidate for use as a nozzleless booster propellant. This propellant exhibited
qualities of high burn rate and good combustion stability with high volumetric specific impulse
necessary to cause exhaust gases to choke downstream in a cylindrical grain. The pressure exponent
was low enough to give a more uniform burn rate across a large pressure regime.
The development of a high burn rate propellant for a nozzleless booster for applications associated to
ducted rocket technology yielded a propellant formulation that required burn rate enhancement by the
use of co-catalysts. To meet the requirement of booster, the propellant formulation included a coarse
grade AP particle size and the addition of FeOOH and CuPht co-catalysts to enhance burn rate values.
The presence of CuPht was significant in lowering the slope of the pressure exponent; this allowed for
a more consistent burn rate over a larger pressure regime. Although the addition of finer 3.7 µm AP gave
a marked increase in burn rate, it was found to also increase the slope of the pressure exponent which
was found to be un-acceptable to applications of this kind. The decision to compromise with a balanced
FeOOH / CuPht co-catalyst and an increased binder content for improved processing gave a final
formulation with an increase of 15% burn rate at 6.89 MPa over a previous HTPB/AP formulation and
an acceptable pressure exponent of 0.412.
The motor bodies were made of a thick walled, mild steel casing of various lengths and was internally
lined with an insulating material to protect the casing and prevent as venting through instrument
openings as shown in fig. 42.
 This work also encompassed a parametric study of the propellant in actual rocket configurations where
propellant length to diameter was altered. The ballistic performance showed an increase in thrust with
increased L/D for similar head end pressures. It was also noted that static pressure along the length of
the grain decreased and revealed that the burn rate was non-uniform for all motors fired. This indicated
that burn rate was location and burn time dependent and was acknowledged by thermocouple
measurements at both the aft head end of the motor. This denoted some erosive burning along the surface
of the propellant. A 1-D model was compared to the test results and shows that it is comparable as an
initial tool for calculating the ballistic performance. However, the model overestimates the performance
due to its neglect of erosion and non-uniform burn rates along the axial length of the grain.
Variations of propellant formulation, strand burn rate results are shown in fig. 43 & 44. Fig. 45 & 46
shows the experimental results for different L/D ratios

Figure 42: Metal casing filled with propellant and showing location gauges

Figure 43: Baseline propellant formulation, strand Figure 44: Variations of baseline propellant burn rate
results formulation, strand burn rate results

Figure 45: Experimental values of head-end pressure Figure 46: Experimental values of thrust at different
at different motor L/D motor L/D

Raju, Babu, & Charyulu, 2017:

Air launched tactical missiles based on ramjet propulsion systems require nozzleless booster for
boosting the missile from launch Mach number to ramjet take over Mach number. Evolution of
nozzleless booster over a period of time, advantages of nozzleless booster has been reviewed. In-house
development activity of nozzleless booster is discussed.

 Scheme of numerical simulation:

Nozzleless Booster propulsion system is used to boost air launched vehicle from launch Mach number
to Ramjet Mach number which is greater than 2.0
Thermodynamic throat is created where sonic conditions are obtained
Experience with both subscale and full-scale motor designs shows that with grain length to diameter
ratio of greater than 3.5, a nozzleless booster will match the performance of an ejectable nozzle
system and that at larger ratios, the nozzleless motor can be configured to produce up to 15% more
performance (IM Procinsky & WR Smith)
spin increases head end pressure, thrust and specific impulse (YS Yerushalmi, RL Glick)
It is designed to produce accurate a priori predictions of performance for any nozzleless motor
configuration, propellant type, and operating condition currently being developed. The accuracy goals
are 5% in thrust, pressure and burn time and 2% impulse values (IM Procinsky & CA Yezzi)
Design of Nozzleless Booster
A Nozzleless Booster grain along with rocket motor initially planned for the following specifications.

Total Impulse: > 9500 kgf-sec: Duration: < 3 sec (at ambient temperature) Length of the
Rocket Booster: > 1m (approx.): Diameter of the booster motor: < 200 mm

Parameter Config. -1 Config. -2 Config. -3

Length / Diameter (L/D) 8.9 6.86 6.86
Outer Diameter / inner Diameter (D/d) 3.28 3.08 3.08
Propellant composition:

Ammonium Perchlorate: 77 % 77 % 75%

Hydroxyl Terminated Poly Butadiene Rubber: 16 % 16 % 15%
Aluminum: 5% 5% 5%
Properties

Burn rate: 36 mm/sec @ 36 mm/sec 39 mm/sec

100 ksc @ 100 ksc @ 100 ksc
Pressure Index: 0.53 0.53 0.38
Duration: 2.7 sec 4.7 sec 3.0 sec
Observations from literature:
• Combination of burn rate and pressure Index is very critical for optimum performance of
Nozzleless booster.
• Higher L/D is preferable to get better performance.
• Lower pressure index will reduce the operation time of the booster and increases the
performance in terms of peak pressure and specific impulse.
• Higher burn rate and lower pressure index (<0.4) is preferable.
 • Material of construction of motor casing: Steel
• Insulation material: Rubber Material
• Insulation of Ramjet Nozzle: Silica Phenolic
• Igniter: Gun Powder
• Burst Diaphragm: Poly Urethane Foam
• Initiating Device: Pyro Technic
• Propellant: Low Aluminium Composite propellant
The continuity equation is used with a transient capacity term
𝜕 𝜕
𝜌𝐴 + 𝜕𝑡 𝜕𝑥 𝜌𝐴𝑢 = 𝑚̇𝑒

Burn Rate
Law:
Values of ‘a ’ and ‘n’ are generated for every pressure interval of 10 bar
b

Assumptions in Performance Prediction:

• Internal flow is quasi one-dimensional flow
• There are no heat or viscous losses occurring anywhere within the motor.
• Mass addition is an instantaneous process by burning of propellant within the motor.
• There is no momentum contribution parallel to the motor axis because of the mass addition
from burned grain surface.
• Grain regression is in radial direction only, grain port is divided into discrete number of cells
which move only radially outwards
Governing equations

• Static pressure, 𝑃𝑠 𝑃

= 𝛾 −1
( 1+ 2 ∗𝑀 2 ) 𝑇0
• Static temperature, 𝑇𝑠
• Mass generated in each cell, 𝑚̇ 𝑖 = 𝜌𝑃 ∗ 𝐴𝑏 ∗ 𝑟𝑖

• Density of gas at each cell, 𝜌𝑔 = 𝑅 𝑃∗𝑠𝑇𝑠

• Mass generation rate from the whole burn surface area of nozzle less booster at given time
instant:
 𝑛

𝑚̇ 𝑔 = ∑ 𝑚̇ 𝑖
𝑖=1

• Velocity, 𝑉𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 = 𝑀𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡

• Mass flow rate at the exit of motor, 𝑚̇ 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 = 𝜌𝑔,𝑒 ∗ 𝐴𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 ∗ 𝑉𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 Error, 𝜀 = 𝑚̇ 𝑒𝑥𝑖𝑡 − 𝑚̇ 𝑔

Formulation of Equations:
1. Conservation of mass
𝜕
𝜕𝑡 (𝜌𝐴∆𝑥)𝑖 = 𝜌𝑢𝐴|𝑖− − 𝜌𝑢𝐴|𝑖+ + 𝜌𝑝𝐴𝑏𝑟|𝑖−
2 2 2
2. Conservation of momentum
𝜕
𝜕𝑡 (𝜌𝑢𝐴∆𝑥)𝑖 = (𝑝 + 𝜌𝑢2)𝐴|𝑖− − (𝑝 + 𝜌𝑢2)𝐴|𝑖+ + 𝑝𝑖 (𝐴𝑖+ − 𝐴𝑖− )
2 2 2 2
3. Conservation of energy:
𝑢2
𝐶𝑝𝑇0 = 𝐶𝑝𝑇 +
2
4. Equation of state:
𝑝 = 𝜌𝑅𝑇

5. In differential form (considering interface)

𝜕𝜌
| =[𝜌𝑢𝐴| − 𝜌𝑢𝐴|𝑖+1 + 𝜌𝑝𝐴𝑏𝑟|𝑖]
𝜕𝑡 𝑖 𝐴 𝑥|𝑖 𝑖−2

𝜕𝑡𝜕 𝐴𝑥 2)𝐴|+ (𝑝 +
2 2 2 2
2 𝜌𝑢2)𝐴|+ 𝑝𝑖 (𝐴𝑖+− 𝐴𝑖−)]
𝑢
𝜌𝑢|𝑖 = |𝑖 [(𝑝 + 𝜌𝑢 𝑖− 𝑖+

T
𝐶𝑝
P RT
𝑟
𝐶𝑝 𝑅
𝑟 𝑎𝑝𝑛
V
Governing Equations Used

⁄𝑛

𝑃𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 ----1
𝑃
𝑃 -----2
 𝑇
𝑇 ----3

𝜌
V
If M
_𝑀 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 (𝑀𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 |𝑀𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡|)

𝑀−𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 |𝑀𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡|)
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑆𝐼𝐺𝑁(1, 𝑀))----8

𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒−𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒 𝑆𝐼𝐺𝑁(1, 𝑀))----9

If M<1.0
Mleft (Mleft
Mleft
Pressureleft Pleft(Mleft Mleft)
𝑃𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑃𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡(𝑀𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑀𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡)
Minterface left right
Pinterface Pressureleft Pressureright
If Minterface > 0.0

left aleft Mach Ainterface

(𝜌𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑢𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑎𝑙𝑒𝑓𝑡 𝑀𝑎𝑐
If Minterface
aright Mach Ainterface
right uright aright Mach

A x|i UA|i pAbr| i

]

𝑉
𝑇
𝐶𝑝 P

V
M
RT

Solution Methodology
• First of all, the linear Mach number profile along the length is generated.
– M = 0 at head end
– M = 1.0 at corner
– M = f(area ratio) at exit
• Internal surface is divided into cells along the length.
• Initial pressure at head end is assumed.
• Static pressure and temperature is calculated at each grid point.
• Mass generated from each cell is calculated using burn rate law.
• Mass flow rate at the exit is calculated using density, velocity and area at the exit.
• Initial pressure is iterated till the difference between Mass generated and mass flow rate at
the exit is within allowable limits.
• After convergence of iteration, the flow parameters are recorded.
• Each cell is regressed radially outwards on the basis of displacement calculated for the given
time step and local burn rate.
• The above method is repeated till propellant is burnt out completely.
• If grid point of any cell reaches the outer surface of propellant, then the mass flow generation
from that cell is taken as zero.

References
Albert, L. (1988). Nozzleless Booster Hardware Demonstration Progress to date.
AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 24th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-10). Boston, Massachusetts: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Coats, D. E., Dang, L. D., & Nickerson, G. R. (1982). Interior Ballistics calculations for Nozzleless Solid
Propellant Rocket Motors. AIAA/SAE/ASME 18th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-11). Cleveland,
Ohio: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Farinaccio, R., & Lessard, P. (2000). Experimental Investigation of High Burn Rate Propellant for use in
Nozzleless Boosters. AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 36th Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit (pp. 01-12).
Huntsville, Alabama: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Glick, R. (1983). On the Performance of Nozzleless Rocket Motors. AIAA/SAE/ASME 19th Joint
Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-08). Seattle, Washington: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astonautics.
Gonthier, B., & Hiss, A. (1994). Ballistic Anomaly Study in a composite Propellant Nozzleless Booster.
AIAA/SAE/ASME/ASEE 30th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-09). Indiana Polis, IN: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Harry, D. (1977). Status of Nozzleless Solid Rocket Motor Internal Ballistic Analysis. AIAA/SAE 13th
Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-04). Orlando, Florida: America Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
King, M. K. (1982). Prediction of Solid Propellant Burning rates in Nozzleless motors. AIAA/SAE/ASME
18th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-08). Cleveland, Ohio: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
King, M. K. (1984). Performance, Consideration of two Dimensional Flow effects on Nozzleless Rocket.
AIAA/SAE/ASME 20th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-08). Cincinnati, Ohio: American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics.
 Krishnan, S., & Ramakrishnan, R. (1999). Effect of Motor length and Propellant formulation on
Nozzleless solid Rocket Performance. Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers, Part G,
Vol 213(1), 35-44.
Mikkelsen, C. D., & Roys, G. P. (1982). Application of the saderholm Erosive Burning model to
Nozzleless Solid Propellant Rocket motors. AIAA/SAE/ASME 18th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp.
0108). Cleveland, Ohio: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
NAHON, S. (1984). Nozzleless Solid Propellant Rocket Motors Experimental and theoretical
Investigations. AIAA/SAE/ASME 20th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-09). Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Procinsky, I., & Smith, W. (1980). Nozzleless Boosters for Integral Rocket Ramjet Systems.
AIAA/SAE/ASME 16th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-10). Hartford, Connecticut: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Procinsky, I., & Yezzi, C. (1982). Nozzleless Performance Program. AIAA/SAE/ASME 18th Joint
Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-10). Cleveland, Ohio: American Institute of Aeronautics and
Astronautics.
Raju, A., Babu, A. V., & Charyulu, B. (2017). Overview of Nozzleless Booster Development for missile
applications . 1st International and 18th ISME Conference (ISME 2017). NIT Warangal, India: ISME
2017.
Swanson, E., Geyer, v., & Wilson, M. (1982). On the axial velocity profile in Nozzleless Solid Rocket
Motor. AIAA/SAE/ASME 18th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-05). Cleveland, Ohio: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Traineau, J.-C., & Kuentzmann, P. (1984). Some measurements of Solid Propellant Burning Rates in
Nozzleless Motors. AIAA/SAE/ASME 20th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-10). Cincinnati, Ohio:
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
Yerushalmi, S., & Glick, R. L. (1982). On the Internal Ballistics of Spin stabilized Nozzleless Rocket
motors. AIAA/SAE/ASME 18th Joint Propulsion Conference (pp. 01-08). Cleveland, Ohio: American
Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.