NASA NTRS2014
This paper makes no attempt to comprehensively review erosive burning models or the data collected in pursuit of them; the interested reader could begin with Landsbaum for a historical summary. However, a discussion and comparison to recent work by McDonald and Rettenmaier and Heister will be included, along with data generated by Strand, et. al. Suffice it to say that the search for a way to predict erosive burning in any size motor with formulas cleanly applicable to a typical 1D ballistics analysis has been long thwarted. Some models were based on testing that failed to adequately simulate the solid rocket motor environment. In most cases, no real‐time burn rate measurement was available. Two popular models, even when calibrated to recent motor‐like real‐time burn rate data obtained by Furfaro, were shown by McMillin to be inadequate at modeling erosive burning in the Space Shuttle Reusable Solid Rocket Motor (RSRM), the Space Launch Systems' Five‐Segment RSRM (RSRMV), and the five‐segment Engineering Test Motor (ETM)‐3. Subsequently to the data cited from Strand and Furfaro, additional motors of the same kind as Furfaro's were tested with RSRMV propellant, utilizing 7 segments per motor and 3 throat sizes. By measuring propellant web thickness with ultrasonic gages, the burn rate was determined at cross‐flow Mach numbers up to Mach 0.8. Furthermore, because of the different throat sizes in otherwise identical motors, this provides a unique look at the effect of pressure and base burn rate on the erosive response. Figure 1 shows example of the data pertaining to the high Mach motor, where the port area is initially less than the throat area. The burn rate data was processed using a smoothing method developed to reduce the noise without too severely introducing end effects that limit the range of useful data. Then, an empirical ballistics scheme was used to estimate the flow condition based on the burn rate measurements and pressure measured between each segment.