Rocket Propulsion Capstone

Conceptual Design Report

Shannon Comstock: Project Manager, Primary Financial Manager, Primary
Manufacturing Engineer, Secondary Safety Manager, Secondary CAD Manager
Remington Dasher: Primary Test Engineer, Primary CAD Manager, Secondary
Nozzle Design Lead, Secondary Propellant Design Lead, Secondary Website
Developer
Andrew King: Primary Club Liaison, Primary Nozzle Design Lead, Primary
Website Developer, Secondary Test Engineer, Secondary CAD Manager,
Secondary Logistics Managers
Grace Morris: Primary Safety Lead, Primary Propellant Design Lead, Primary
Logistics Manager, Secondary Financial Manager, Secondary CAD Manager,
Secondary Manufacturing Engineer

Fall 2023-Spring 2024

Project Sponsor: Gore

Faculty Advisor: Dr. Carson Pete
Sponsor Mentor: [Note: if any of these categories are the same person, delete the repeats]
Instructor: Dr. David Willy
 DISCLAIMER
This report was prepared by students as part of a university course requirement. While
considerable effort has been put into the project, it is not the work of licensed engineers and has
not undergone the extensive verification that is common in the profession. The information, data,
conclusions, and content of this report should not be relied on or utilized without thorough,
independent testing and verification. University faculty members may have been associated with
this project as advisors, sponsors, or course instructors, but as such they are not responsible for
the accuracy of results or conclusions.

i
 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This project's mission is to design and develop a rocket propulsion system for a high-
power Level Two rocket. To achieve this, the team will develop a unique Ammonium
Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP) formula, with a creative component such as color, to
propel the rocket to its maximum potential altitude. The rocket is intended to achieve a
maximum thrust of 5120 Newton seconds of impulse and is aimed at reaching peak performance
for a single-stage L class rocket.
To ensure the success of this project, the team has coordinated a series of critical steps.
The first is to conduct at least two small-scale motor tests using 38 mm and 54 mm motors to
refine the propulsion formula and ensure its safety and reliability. These preliminary tests will
serve as essential checkpoints in the development process in order to fine-tune the rocket's
performance characteristics. To gather comprehensive data on the rocket's performance, the team
has built a specialized test stand. By collaborating with an Electrical Engineering team, this stand
will allow for calculations of thrust curves, impulse, and burn rates for the developed motors.
These metrics will provide key insights into the performance and efficiency of the rocket’s
propulsion system.
One of the core components of this project involves designing and building a motor
casing capable of withstanding the extreme pressures that the rocket motor will experience. This
casing is critical to the rocket's safety and successful launch for the final 76 mm motor. The team
has developed a MATLAB code which can calculate design components such as motor casing
thickness, allowable stress, and allowable pressures depending on material strength and motor
casing dimensions. The team will ensure the final design of the motor casing can handle the
demands of the high pressures, temperatures, and forces of the motor without compromising
safety.
Currently, the team has completed the rocket motor test stand and is now creating a test
strand burner. A test strand burner is a pressure vessel which will allow the team to burn small
strands of the propellant formula and receive data on the pressures and temperatures during the
burn. From this data, the team can analyze the burn rate and thrust curve in software's such as
RockSim and BurnSim to evaluate the formula. This increases the efficiency of the iteration
process while the team is determining the best propellant formula. This process is scheduled to
occur throughout November and to have a well-tested and optimized formula by mid-December.
Once the unique formula is determined to be optimized, the team will begin casting 54 mm
motors to ensure the formula's scalability. With the current projected timeline, the team will
begin casting 76 mm motors in mid-January 2024 to prepare for a launch date of the final 76 mm
motor in March 2024. This timeline allows for a in depth refining process of the propulsion
formula and time to optimize the rocket's performance to reach its full potential.
The team is excited about the challenges and opportunities this project presents and
committed to pushing the boundaries of rocketry. With the process set in place of testing, data
collection, and design efforts, the team is confident in the ability to achieve the project's
objectives and deliver a successful Level Two rocket launch in March 2024.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS
DISCLAIMER .................................................................................................................................1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................2
TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................3
1 Background.............................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Deliverables .................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Success Metrics ............................................................................................................ 2
2 REQUIREMENTS .................................................................................................................5
2.1 Customer Requirements (CRs) ..................................................................................... 5
2.2 Engineering Requirements (ERs) ................................................................................. 5
2.3 House of Quality (QFD) ............................................................................................... 6
3 Research Within Your Design Space .....................................................................................8
3.1 Benchmarking ............................................................................................................... 8
3.2 Literature Review ....................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Mathematical Modeling .............................................................................................. 20
4 Design Concepts ...................................................................................................................26
4.1 Functional Decomposition .......................................................................................... 26
4.2 Concept Generation – Everyone ................................................................................. 29
4.3 Selection Criterion ...................................................................................................... 37
4.4 Concept Selection ....................................................................................................... 50
5 Schedule & Budget ...............................................................................................................55
5.1 Schedule ...................................................................................................................... 55
5.2 Budget ......................................................................................................................... 56
5.3 Bill of Materials (BOM) ............................................................................................. 56
6 Design Validation & Initial Prototyping ..............................................................................58
6.1 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA) ............................................................ 58
6.2 Initial Prototyping ....................................................................................................... 61
6.3 Other Engineering Calculations .................................................................................. 64
6.4 Future Testing Potential .............................................................................................. 73
7 Conclusions ..........................................................................................................................74
8 References ............................................................................................................................75
9 Appendices ...........................................................................................................................80
9.1 Appendix A: House of Quality (QFD) ....................................................................... 80
9.2 Appendix B: ProPep3 Results .................................................................................... 81
9.3 Appendix C: BurnSim Results9.................................................................................. 83
9.4 Appendix D: FMEA ................................................................................................... 85
9.4.1 Appendix D: FMEA Test Stand .................................................................................. 85
9.4.2 Appendix D: FMEA Nozzle ........................................................................................ 86
9.4.3 Appendix D: FMEA Propellent .................................................................................. 87
9.4.4 Appendix D: FMEA Casing ....................................................................................... 88
9.5 Appendix E: Budget ................................................................................................... 89

iii
1 Background
Northern Arizona University’s Rocket Club has been growing quickly in the past years.
Because of this, the expense for firing these rockets has exponentially increased as the launches
and members continue. In addition to this, many members seek a future in aerospace and
rocketry and being able to learn how solid rocketry works is important. Knowing how to
formulate, cast, test, and show results is an important step in knowing how to design solid rocket
propulsion.
1.1 Project Description
The team’s goal for this project is to construct a high-power level 2 rocket propulsion
system (level 2 rockets have an impulse range of 640.01N-s to 5120.00N-s) and test stand to
collect thrust and impulse data on the rocket motors they build. Their primary objectives include
the formulation and development of an Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant (APCP).
APCP is a solid propellant that utilizes ammonium perchlorate as an oxidizer and a metal such as
aluminum as the fuel. To ensure the safety and efficacy of the propulsion system, a dedicated
rocket test stand has been designed and constructed. Through collaboration with an Electrical
Engineering team responsible for the electrical system connected to a load cell on the test stand,
the test stand will gain the capability to collect force data allowing for the team to understand the
thrust curves and burn rates. These metrics are important as they will show how the motor will
perform during a launch.
The team has been given a budget of $2,000 by GORE and $500 for the electronic
components to complete these tasks. Additionally, the fundraising has currently surpassed $1,000
raised. This will allow the team to make purchases that need to arrive more quickly than the
order process will allow and do a more thorough analysis and design for each component of the
rocket. The team is scheduled to conduct at least two small-scale motor tests of diameters 38 mm
and 54 mm to refine and validate their propellant formula design. During the development of the
propellant formula, the team will also be designing a custom motor casing to be built for the final
76 mm motor. This 76 mm motor is the final goal, with a targeted scheduled launch in March
2024.
This project's research and final products will allow future students at NAU (Northern
Arizona University) to have a distinct path to develop their own propellant formulas and motor
grains. Also, the creation of the motor test stand through this project will be a fundamental tool
for future students to test the motors they create.
1.2 Deliverables
The major deliverables for the first semester of the course include three presentations,
two reports, two rounds of prototyping, a website, and a final CAD. Prototyping will allow the
team to refine the propellant formula and ensure the test stand design is functional. Relative
deadlines for these can be seen in the course schedule below, Table 1.
Table 1. Capstone 1 Schedule

1|Page
 Week Number Deliverable Due Week Number Deliverable Due
1 9 Website Check
2 Team Charter 10 Analytical Analysis
Memo
3 11 Presentation 3
Prototype 1
4 Presentation 1 12
5 13 Report 2
6 14 Final CAD
Final BOM
7 Presentation 2 15 Prototype 2
8 Report 1 16 Website Check

Our client deliverables include a functioning test stand by the end of April 2024. Subscale
testing of the rocket propellent by the end of December 2023. Midscale testing of the rocket
propellent must be completed by roughly mid-semester of spring 2024. Full-scale testing of the
rocket motor, including nozzle and casing, must be completed during March 2024. The client has
stipulated that the rocket must use solid fuel and ammonium percolate oxidizer since this is
cheaper than liquid rocket fuel and meets the safety constraints of the client's rocketry
association.
1.3 Success Metrics
1.3.1 Test Stand Success Metrics
The test stand's success hinges on several key components. First, it must be capable of
effectively accommodating a variety of motor sizes. Specifically, it should securely support
motors of various diameters and from 7 inches to 36 inches in height. Second, the test stand's
performance relies on its ability to accurately capture data such as the force input over time of
the motor in Newtons. The load cell must also be carefully calibrated to the 500 kg maximum
which the load cell allows. Lastly, the structural integrity of the test stand is vital. It must be able
to withstand the maximum stress forces with a safety factor of at least 1.5, ensuring its continued
functionality for future generations of students.
To ensure that the test stand design is successful, a structural analysis must be done to
each of the designs to make sure that the structure can withstand 5120 Newton seconds of
impulse (the limit for a L-class motor). Additionally, for future years of NAU students to use this
test stand, a factor of safety must be incorporated to ensure it can last for many years ahead.
Finally, the material chosen must also be carefully considered to account for the heating process

2|Page
which will occur during testing. The team must analyze the melting temperatures of the chosen
material and determine that heat from the exhaust fumes does not exceed this amount.
Through the integration of the final test stand design into Ansys Mechanical static
structural analysis, the team determined that the maximum stress on the structure will be 381.7
psi for the chosen design. This analysis will be presented later in this paper; however, it is
mentioned now as the maximum stress calculations are a key component to ensuring the final
product is a success. Consequently, the base plate must be designed to withstand the most stress
of the structure and capable of withstanding this maximum stress while maintaining a sufficient
safety margin.
1.3.2 Nozzle Success Metrics
The goal of the nozzle is to convert the chamber pressure into thrust by safely directing
the exhaust gas out of one end of the motor, taking advantage of Newton’s third law of motion.
Experimentally, the amount of impulse that the propulsion system creates will be a metric of
comparison between nozzle shapes. The impulse that the propulsion system must not exceed is
5120 newton-seconds. The nozzle will be designed to achieve an impulse close to 5120 N-s
without exceeding that value. Impulse is calculated by integrating thrust force, F, over time (see
the following equation) [14].
𝑡
𝐼𝑡 = ∫ 𝐹 𝑑𝑡
0

Another useful measurement for determining the relative success of the rocket nozzles is
thrust-to-weight ratio. It is an important metric because its value is useful in determining the
rocket’s stability and speed as it leaves the launch rail, which is important to know for safety
reasons. Thrust-to-weight ratio may also be used to determine the maximum acceleration
possible, which will allow the team to better understand the altitude that the rocket may reach
with any propulsion system configuration. According to simulations performed in Rocksim, a
high-end level 2 motor ranges from 15,000 to 16,000ft in altitude (when loaded into the carbon
fiber rocket that our capstone team will be flying. Trust-to-weight ratio is calculated in
accordance with the following formula:
𝐹
Thrust-to-weight = 𝑤0

Here, the unit F represents the thrust force, and w0 represents the total weight of the rocket (can
be specific to the propulsion system if all non-propulsive weight is neglected).

1.3.3 Propellant
In order for the propellent to be considered successful the rocket must reach the altitude
goals mentioned in section 2.2. This goal depends on various factors in the project as such it
cannot be used to assess the success of solely the propellant. To measure the success of the
propellant the team will run various tests of the different formulation using the test stand we
built. The goal of these tests is to improve the impulse and thrust that the propellant produces as

3|Page
we iterate the design. The calculation to obtain this data will be done with the tools the electrical
engineering team puts together for the test stand. Overall success of the propellant will be judged
by how it improves over multiple rounds of testing.
1.3.4 Motor Casing
The propellant mass fraction (ζ) represents the ratio of the useful propellant mass (mp) to
the initial mass of the propulsion system (m0). Initial mass, m0, consists of the non-propulsive
hardware (motor casing, O-rings, nozzle, etc.) and the useful propellant mass. The propulsion
mass fraction indicates the quality of the propulsion system design. Higher values are desirable
because this indicates that the bulk of the propulsion system weight is propellant. The formula is
shown below. Mf represents the final mass of the propulsion system after burning the propellant.
[11].
𝑚𝑝 𝑚0 − 𝑚𝑓
ζ= =
𝑚0 𝑚0

4|Page
2 REQUIREMENTS
Throughout this chapter, a comprehensive discussion of all project requirements will be
presented. These requirements are based on the specific demands of the client, Dr. Carson Pete,
as well as the needs of the NAU Rocket Club. Additionally, the team will discuss the engineering
requirements of the project which have been determined by the team through an analysis of
design constraints necessary to achieve the desired project objectives. Finally, the team will
provide a visual representation of these requirements in the form of a House of Quality,
illustrating the relation between customer requirements and engineering characteristics.
2.1 Customer Requirements (CRs)
For any engineering project, it is imperative that key customer requirements are well
defined. In this project, there are multiple requirements that must be strictly followed to succeed
in the project and satisfy our clients and potential end users. These customer requirements are
listed below with appropriate explanations.
• Functionality – Our project must satisfy the major engineering requirements that
physically measure the success of our project. These requirements can be found in
Section 2.2.
• Cost – We need to make sure that our project fits well inside of our given budget of
$2000. With fundraising, we can increase our range by another $350, but the replication
of these steps must be done within a budget-friendly manner. Because the results of this
project will be used by future capstones and the NAU Rocket Club, it is important to
keep the budget in-line with their budget as well.
• On-Time – Because this project has a strict time to be complete by (Early March), we
need to make sure that our research, development, and testing is completed by this time
frame. By this time, we need to have our full-scale 76 mm motor done and tested to make
sure the Rocket Club is able to use it in their rocket.
• Scalable – To save resources and room in our budget, our rocket design must be able to
be scaled in standard motor sizes. These sizes range from 29 mm-75 mm. Our testing will
comprise mostly of 38 mm until an appropriate propellant mixture is found.
• Compliance – Complying with the major rocketry association is beyond important to
making sure our team is safe and responsible when working with dangerous chemicals
like the ones we will be using. The Tripoli Rocketry Association has laid out strict safety
standards that we must comply with.
2.2 Engineering Requirements (ERs)
The following engineering requirements are critical to defining and directing the project. Many
of these requirements come from our client's requirements or from the Tripoli requirements.

5|Page
 • Reach Minimum Altitude- During the final launch, the rocket must reach an altitude of
10 km, roughly 32,000 ft.
• Stay within Budget of the Project- It is important to our client that we keep the project
within budget. The project in total must cost less than the $2000 provided. If we
fundraise, we can expand the budget. However, we cannot spend more money than we
have.
• Dimensions meet Constraints of the Rocket Size- The rocket motor must fit inside of the
provided NAU Rocket Club rocket. The rocket they have provided for us has a max
internal diameter of 75 mm. So, the propellent and casing must fit within the 75
millimeters of the rocket. It may be slightly smaller but should be close to 75 mm in
diameter since the client requested a motor of that size.
• Test Stand Withstands the Impulse of Rocket Testing- Safety is important to our client.
This applies to various areas of the project, for the test stand this means it must contain
the testing of the rocket motors and be strong enough to use multiple times. The
maximum impulse of a level two rocket motor is 5120N*s. So, the test stand must be able
to perform under that loading and not sustain any permanent deformation.
• Meet Minimum Thrust-to-Weight Ratio set by Tripoli- Another component of
maintaining the safety standards set by Tripoli is ensuring we meet the minimum thrust-
to-weight ratio. This means that the rocket must have 5N of thrust for every 1N of weight
of a 5:1N/N ratio [26]. Means. To meet this requirement the team will have to perform
simulations to obtain thrust and calculate the density of propellent to account for the
weight of the fuel. We plan to apply a factor of safety to account for the fact that the
simulated thrust is larger than the actual thrust will be due to idealizations in the
simulation. This is a one-sided constraint as a thrust-to-weight ratio higher than 5:1 is still
within the standard.
• Complete Final Launch by March 2024- The launch sites only allow launches on specific
days and times. Additionally, the NAU Rocket Club only goes to some of these launches.
The final launch needs to take place for the Club to see so we must align our schedule to
launch with them. This is a binary constraint, but we can also measure it in months. We
must be ready to test 3 months into the new year.
• Casing Material is Non-Ferrous and Ductile- Of the major safety concerns the final one is
that the casing that we design must be made of a non-Ferrous and ductile material [26].
This requirement is because ferrous metals can cause sparks which would create
uncontrolled burning or ignition. The material must be ductile so that if the casing
explodes it does not create projectiles. This is another binary constraint that will affect
our material selection.
2.3 House of Quality (QFD)
The full QFD can be seen in appendix A. The customer requirements (CR) and
engineering requirements (ER) have been explained above in sections 2.1 and 2.2 respectively.

6|Page
This QFD uses a 0,3,6,9 scale. On this scale 0 represents an inverse relationship, a 3 represents a
neutral or no relationship, a 6 represents a slight relationship, and a 9 represents a strong
relationship between the two requirements. This can be seen in the figure below where the
correlation between CR and ER is shown.

Figure 1. QFD, CR and ER Correlation

In appendix A, the results of the QFD show that the most important technical requirement
is that the test stand withstands the impulse, 5120 N*s of rocket testing. The test stand is critical
for the team to iterate the propellant and meet the other engineering requirements. Additionally,
if the test stand could not withstand the impulse, it would be incredibly unsafe.

7|Page
3 Research Within Your Design Space
3.1 Benchmarking
3.1.1 Test Stand Benchmarking
Benchmarking is a critical step in evaluating and comparing different test stand designs
for rocket motors. This process allows the team to make an informed decision about how to
begin designing a unique test stand for the individual needs of this project. The team did a
thorough analysis of three state-of-the-art test stand designs which include the Aerocon Systems
Horizontal/Vertical Test Stand, the FUTEK Rocket Engine Trust Measurement Stand, and
Richard Nakka's STS-5000 Static Test Stand.
To begin, the Aerocon Systems Horizontal/Vertical Test Stand [1], shown in figure 2,
offers several advantages including the flexibility of accommodating various ring sizes for
different diameter motors. Its affordability, priced at approximately $600 with all the necessary
clamps, makes it accessible for smaller projects. However, it has some drawbacks, primarily
related to its material composition. The aluminum body's low melting temperature is not ideal for
applications involving rocket motor testing, as the body may not be able to withstand the high
temperatures from the motor's exhaust during testing. Furthermore, the absence of impulse
measurement integrated into the stand design necessitates additional tools and equipment,
potentially adding complexity to the testing process.

Figure 2. Aerocon Systems Horizontal/Vertical Test Stand [1]

In comparison, the FUTEK Rocket Engine Thrust Measurement Stand [2] shown in
figure 3 has a much sturdier construction, being made from steel and formed sheet metal. It
offers multi-axis sensors, load cells, and wireless capabilities, ensuring safe and accurate
measurements. However, there are challenges associated with this choice. The requirement for a
work order to purchase and the long lead times could pose logistical hurdles for projects with

8|Page
tight schedules or budgets. Additionally, the cost of a single load cell, approximately $6,000, can
quickly escalate when multiple load cells are needed. Purchasing just one of these load cells
surpasses the project's budget.

Figure 3. FUTEK Rocket Engine Thrust Measurement Stand [2]

Finally, Richard Nakka's STS-5000 Static Test Stand for Rocket Motors [3] shown in
figure 4 has its advantages, such as the vertical orientation, which allows for a realistic
positioning during testing. This design stands out for its cost-effectiveness and simplicity,
however, it also presents limitations. Unlike commercial test stands, this design is not available
for purchase. The team would need to source the parts separately and construct the stand
themselves, which can be time-consuming and may demand specialized knowledge. The design
is also described as improvised, raising doubts about its ability to handle the forces generated
during rocket motor tests effectively.

9|Page
 Figure 4. Richard Nakka's STS-5000 Static Test Stand [3]
In addition to these pros and cons, sub-system level benchmarking should also consider
factors like safety features, data acquisition and analysis capabilities, ease of assembly and
disassembly, compatibility with different motor types, and scalability for future testing needs.
The choice of a test stand design should be informed by a thorough evaluation of these factors,
ensuring that it aligns with the project's goals, constraints, and requirements. Ultimately, the
decision should balance performance, cost, and feasibility, as well as the unique demands of the
specific rocket motor testing project.
3.1.2 Propellant Benchmarking
The first benchmark that the team looked at for the propellent was the AeroTech RMS
75/1280 Motor [4]. This motor follows the safety standards set by the manufacture however it is
unclear if these standards are in compliance with the Tripoli standards. This motor meets the size
requirements. Unfortunately, this motor is not affordable as it costs around 500 dollars and a new
one must be purchased for each launch.

10 | P a g e
 Figure 5. AeroTech RMS 75/1280 Motor [4]
The second benchmark the team looked at was the Aerotech High-Power M1350W-P 75
mm shown below [5]. This motor complies with all the Tripoli standards. However, it requires a
level 3 certation to purchase and launch, no one in the NAU Rocket Club has this certification
Mutch like the fist motor we looked at, this motor fulfils the size requirement but is out of budget
with a cost of $800.

Figure 6. Aerotech High-Power M1350W-P 75 mm Motor [5]

The final benchmark that the team looked at was the Aerotech High-Power L875DM-PS
75 mm [6]. This motor follows the Tripoli standards and only requires a level 2 certification,
which some club members have. This motor also meets the size requirements and costs $800.
This is expensive considering this has to be replaced every time the rocket launches. This motor
also requires the club to buy additional tools if they want to make any adjustments.

Figure 7. Aerotech High-Power L875DM-PS 75 mm Motor [6]

3.2 Literature Review
3.2.1 Shannon Comstock: A Focus on Motor Casing and Safety
[7]
"Design and analysis of composite rocket motor casing"
This scholarly article compares different materials for rocket motor casings, specifically
Carbon Fibers and Epoxy. It provides valuable formulas for the calculation of material
properties, which is essential for determining the structural integrity of the rocket motor casing.

11 | P a g e
This reference is highly relevant to our project as it assists in selecting the appropriate material
for the motor casing, considering factors such as strength and weight.

[8]
"Design and structural analysis of solid rocket motor casing hardware used in aerospace
applications"
This scholarly article focuses on the structural analysis of rocket motor casing hardware.
It provides equations for calculating the required thickness of the motor casing to ensure its
integrity during operation. Additionally, it analyzes rocket design to determine the factor of
safety. This reference is crucial in helping us design a rocket motor casing that can withstand the
high pressures and forces generated during testing.

[9]
"Nondestructive Testing of High-Strength Steel Rocket Motor Cases"
This scholarly article explores nondestructive testing methods for high-strength steel
rocket motor cases. It delves into the detection and analysis of crack propagations in motor cases,
which is essential for ensuring their structural soundness. The techniques discussed in this
reference can be valuable in our project to assess the condition of rocket motor cases after testing
and determine whether they can be reused.

[10]
"Shigley's Mechanical Engineering Design"
This textbook provides a comprehensive resource for mechanical engineering design. It
includes formulas for calculating stresses in pressurized cylinders, which is directly applicable to
our project in determining the structural integrity of rocket motor casings under pressure. The
book serves as a valuable reference for mechanical design aspects.

[11]
"Mechanics of Materials"
This textbook covers the analysis of materials, making it a valuable resource for
understanding the properties and behavior of different materials under various loads. It assists in
the selection of materials based on the calculated forces, ensuring that the chosen materials can
withstand the stresses generated during rocket motor testing.

[12]
NASA's "Rocket Laboratory Safety and Design Manual"
This online source discusses safety procedures before test flights in rocket laboratories. It
provides essential guidelines for ensuring the safety of personnel and the environment. It also
discusses health hazards related to chemicals commonly used in rocket assemblies and
propellants, which is crucial for risk assessment in our project.

[13]
"Rocket Safety Plan Template for Recreational Use or for Academic and Outreach Classes"

12 | P a g e
 This online source offers a safety checklist that can be adapted for our specific testing
procedures. It outlines the necessary roles and responsibilities of team members during a test
flight, ensuring that safety protocols are in place. This reference is instrumental in developing a
comprehensive safety plan for our rocket testing project.

[14]
“An approach to selection of material and manufacturing processes for rocket motor cases using
weighted performance index”

This scholarly journal provides a new method for determining the best material and
manufacturing process for the motor casing. This describes a process they have formulated called
“Weighted Performance Index” where the material options are weighted against one another
based on the importance of the design requirements. This allows the team to choose the best
material for the motor casing while learning about the manufacturing process.

[15] “Solid Propellant Burning Rate From Strand Burner Pressure Measurement”

This scholarly journal provides an approach to analyzing the data received from the test
strand burner to obtain a more accurate thrust curve and burn rate. This article provides the
process which the authors take to get these results such as the equations used and their models.
This will allow the team to follow their steps after receiving the data from the strand burner.

[16] “Development of strand burner for solid propellant burning rate studies”

This journal describes a student's method for designing a strand burner which requires a lower
pressure than the normal strand burner. The student uses nitrogen gas to fill the strand burner
which alters the burn of the propellant and lowers the internal pressure. This process and
description of designing a strand burner allows the team to have a clear idea of the design
requirements when building the strand burner.

3.2.2 Andrew King: A Focus on Nozzle Design/Manufacture

[17]
G.P. Sutton and O. Biblarz, “Rocket Propulsion Elements”
Rocket Propulsion Elements is an all-encompassing book that helps with most aspects of
this project. When it comes to nozzle design, the textbook provides performance values,
correction factors, phenomena and losses, boundary layers, and multiphase flow. This textbook
also includes equations for variable trust, which is relevant to this project.

13 | P a g e
[18]
R.C. Hibbeler, “Fluid Mechanics”
R.C. Hibbeler’s, Fluid Mechanics discusses compressible flow in depth. More
specifically, it discusses the characteristics of supersonic flow through converging and diverging
nozzles. Converging and diverging nozzles are extremely prevalent in aerospace applications and
are the design choice of nozzle for this project. The next topic that this source discusses is
shockwave propagation through a compressible fluid, and how they travel through nozzles.

[19]
“Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics”
Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics can help in the Nozzle Design process in
many ways. The first being the fact that it provides equations to help determine basic properties
such as pressure and temperature. It provides info on determining the heat capacity ratio, and
important condition that is used in the design of the diverging portion of the nozzle. It allows for
a better understanding of the motion of gas through nozzles.

[20]
“An Introduction to Aerospace Propulsion”
This textbook source covers aerospace propulsion thermodynamic cycles, which is
helpful in determining performance. The section pertaining to rocket propulsion covers an
extremely wide range of general equations that will help with design and performance. Another
helpful chapter of the book, Solid Propellant Rocket Engines, does a great job explaining how
solid propellant works and how it affects the rest of the motor assembly design.

[21]
“Gas Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Solid-Propellant Rockets”
This textbook contains a large number of equations for many aspects of rocket
propulsion. There are explanations of compression shocks and shock waves, method of
characteristics in the one-dimensional problem of gas dynamics, and many more explanations of
fluids behavior in rocket nozzles. Correction factors are explained, which will aid in accounting
for errors in our project.

[22]
“Short Nozzles Design for Real Gas Supersonic Flow Using the Method of Characteristics”
This source is a scholarly article pertaining to method of characteristics (MOC). It
explains the process of using MOC to develop an axisymmetric nozzle of the shortest possible
14 | P a g e
length. Minimizing the length of nozzles is important in the efficiency of the propulsion system
due to the lower mass. This article also discusses how modeling with MOC changes for ideal vs.
real gases.

[23]
“Design and optimization of aerospike nozzle using CFD”
This scholarly article explains how to design an aerospike nozzle using computational
fluid dynamics (CFD) software (such as Ansys). Although it is catered towards the aerospike
design, this source provides information of using CFD software that can be applied to other
designs. This source also describes how MOC can be used in conjunction with CFD to optimize
nozzle design.

[24]
“Effects of Nozzle Throat and Combustion Chamber Design Variables on Divergent Portion of
the Nozzle”
This source is a scholarly article that explains the importance of the materials chosen for
nozzles. It shows how finite element analysis (FEA) may be used to determine the strength and
safety of the design. It also goes into detain on how the conditions of the combustion chamber
and converging portion of the nozzle affect the geometry of the diverging portion of the nozzle.

[25]
“Short Index of Propulsion Slides”
This is an online source from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(NASA). It contains a wide variety of information pertaining to this capstone. It will help for the
design of rocket nozzles because it has general info and animations explaining thrust equations
and atmospheric conditions. And thermodynamics.

[26]
“NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS)”
This is an online source from NASA. It provides equations for atmospheric conditions of
pressure and temperature at variable altitudes. This will be a great source for nozzle design
because the conditions of the ambient air pressure such as pressure have a large effect on nozzle
performance. The team can use this info to optimize the design for either Flagstaff or Phoenix
elevation.

[27]
15 | P a g e
“Dynamic characteristic modeling and simulation of an aerospike-shaped pintle nozzle for
variable thrust of a solid rocket motor”
This is a scholarly article which describes the process of designing a variable thrust
aerospike nozzle for a solid propellant rocket. This is relevant to the project because it goes into
more detail about the Prandl-Meyer functions, which is something that I need to use. They
perform ground tests on the nozzle, so their research in this aspect will be helpful to consider.

[28]
“Supersonic Several Bells Design of Minimum Length Nozzle Contours for More Altitudes
Level Adaptations”
This scholarly article goes into detail about creating a program to numerically solve for
the geometry of a dual-bell nozzle. Although I am not creating a dual-bell design, this resource
still allows for me to better understand the Prandtl-Meyer function and how to design with MOC.
It also presents a few ways to validate results given by MOC programs. This can be done either
numerically or through hand calculations.

[29]
“Development of Improved Throat Inserts for Ablative Rocket Engines”
This is a NASA Technical Note which goes into detail about the effectiveness of seventy-
five different throat inserts in nine different nozzle designs. This source provides insight on how
ablative cooling works and allows for a better-informed design for this projects rocket nozzle.

3.2.3 Grace Morris: A Focus on Propellent Design and Safety

[27]
“Interactive General Chemistry”
This textbook covers basic chemistry concepts. This will be helpful when thinking about
the propellent composition. The section on combustions and compounds will be the most helpful
since they are most applicable to the project. However, all the sections of the book are important
since a solid foundation in chemistry will be required to develop the propellent formula.

[28]
“Experimental Composite Propellant”
This textbook goes in-depth about the prosses of creating solid propellant and all the
components that must be considered. Additionally, the book contains a list of recommended
minimum safety standards to implement when creating propellant. This textbook also came
recommended to the team by some propellant making mentors we connected with.
16 | P a g e
[29]
“Review on Typical Ingredients for Ammonium Perchloride Biased Solid Propellant”
This scholarly article discusses some of the common ingredients used in solid rocket
propellent. The primary takes away for this paper is the solid propellant made of binder, metal
fuel, oxidizer, and additives. The binder, metal fuel, and oxidizer are more or less set, the only
thing that can be changed is the additives and the ratios.

[30]
“Additive Manufacturing of Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Propellant with High Solids
Loadings”
This scholarly paper goes over a procedure for additive manufacturing of rocket
propellent and how this procedure affects burn rate. Additionally, they discuss how voids within
the propellent negatively affect burn rate.

[31]
“Size and Shape of Ammonium Perchlorate and their Influence on Properties of Composite
Propellant”
This scholarly article covers the experimental set up they used when creating and testing
the different composite propellants. This informs the team as to who we might go about testing
and creating our propellant.

[32]
“Tripoli Rocketry Association Safety Code”
This website is the official safety code from Tripoli. The main sections we need to focus
on are section 7, which talks about general range operation rules. Including but not limited to the
rocket’s constructions and stability. We also need to focus on section 10, which talks about
motor limitations.

[33]
“APCP Solid Propulsion Development”
This details how students at Penn State built their rocket test stand and rocket propulsion
system. Since this is also an engineering capstone project it gives us a good marker of what can
be done for the project and how to start accomplishing it.

17 | P a g e
[34]
“Thermodynamic Investigation of Conventional and Alternative Rocket Fuels for Aerospace
Propulsion”
This is a scholarly article which goes into detail about how different propellant mixtures
influence coefficient of thrust, characteristic velocity, specific impulse, and many other
performance parameters. One of the key takeaways is that for high thrust, instead of high
velocity, propellants with a large molecular mass are preferred.

[35]
“Tensile Behaviors of Thermal Aged HTPB Propellant at Low Temperatures Under Dynamic
Loading”
This is a scholarly article which contains tensile stress-strain curves for HTPB. This article will
be a useful reference for the material properties of the binder that the team is using since it
considers many different loading conditions.

[36]
“Solid Propellants: AP/HTPB Composite Propellants”
This online resource discusses all components of solid rocket fuel. However, the sections on
additives and burn properties will be most useful as other resources have already discussed the
other components. This informs the team farther about additives to consider buying and why.
3.2.4 Remington Dasher: A Focus on Propellent Formulation and Test Stands
[37]
“Solid Propellant Chemistry, Combustion, and Motor Interior Ballistics (Volume 185)”
This textbook goes into key Ammonium Perchlorate decomposition details. The authors
depict pure Ammonium Perchlorate decompositions along with different mixture results. This
data gives us a baseline for what mixtures exist and how they decompose.

[38]
“Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, Sixth Edition”
For any object that passes through a fluid, it is important to understand the effects acting on that
body. In this textbook, fundamental concepts and equations are given for objects passing through
air, which is what we are working with when it comes to rocketry.

[39]

18 | P a g e
“Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Basics”
In this scholarly article, fundamental equations are defined for the combustion of the
rocket. It also shows different grain geometries and their associated burn curves. We can use
these equations along with the grain geometry types/dimensions to calculate our burn rates. It is
important to know these factors so we can numerically ensure our modeling programs are
reaching the correct values.

[40]
“Combustion of Solid Propellants”
In this scholarly article, the author gives multiple important chemical properties of
relevant rocket chemicals. Such chemicals include Ammonium Perchlorate, Atomized
Aluminum, resins, and binders. Being able to deduce the right propellant and additives for our
formula is key to succeeding in the project, so this source should be an important reference.

[41]
“Ammonium Perchlorate as an Effective Additive for Enhancing the Combustion and Propulsion
Performance of Al/CuO Nanothermites”
For the last scholarly article, different Ammonium Perchlorate composites are tested and
plotted to visually see their decompositions. It is important for us to know at what percentage
ammonium perchlorate performs the best, so we know how to optimize our own propellant mix.
Using this source will allow us to dial this in in the cheapest way possible without having to
waste our material on something that has already been tested.

[42]
“APCP Solid Propulsion Development”
For this online resource, the author gives very important information on test stand design
and how to cater it to what forces will be experienced. The source then goes on to describe how
to be safe around testing and how to secure the stand in place. Their example was much larger
than ours, but it is important to keep similarity between the two regardless.

[43]
“Solid Rocket Boosters”
In this online source, we see the space shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters (SRB) chemical
composition. Obviously, this is on a much larger scale than what we are going to test, however,
analyzing other solid rocket formulas and cross-referencing with other formulations can help us
tremendously when it comes to mixing our own specialized batch.
19 | P a g e
[44]
“Aluminum 6061-T6; 6061-T651 Data Sheet”
This source allocates the important material properties of aluminum. This is important because
the casing that has to be designed to accommodate an aluminum casing to ensure the strength to
weight ratio is as ideal as possible. These values are what will be used to make sure the casing is
adequate.

[45]
“Thermal analysis on solid rocket motor casing”
With this source, the major takeaway is the casing Factor of Safety. There are many standards
that we need to adhere to. Unfurtunatly, Tripoli does not have Factors of Safety in their safety
guidelines, so this source makes up for that. This source shows that the Factor of Safety that we
need to model around is 1.5.

[46]
“Design and Structural Analysis of Solid Rocket Motor Casing Hardware used in Aerospace
Applications”
This source defines the Maximum Expected Operating Pressure and its value that should
be than 150 kilograms per cubic centimeter shall be allowed for rocket motor casings. An
analysis will be done with our casing around this metric.
3.3 Mathematical Modeling
3.3.1 Motor Casing – Shannon Comstock
In the motor sub-assembly design, understanding the criteria for the motor casing's
thickness is one of the first variables which should be calculated to begin the design process.
While there are multiple ways for determining the best casing thickness", the scholarly article
presented previously “Design and structural analysis of solid rocket motor casing hardware used
in aerospace applications” [8] describes and efficient way of calculating this value through the
following equation:

𝑃 ∗ 𝐷 ∗ 𝑀𝑖𝑠𝑚𝑎𝑡𝑐ℎ 𝐹𝑎𝑐𝑡𝑜𝑟
𝑡=
𝑏𝑖𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑎𝑙 𝑔𝑎𝑖𝑛 ∗ 2 ∗ (𝑆𝐸 − 0.6𝑃)

Here, "P" represents the pressure in pounds per square inch, and "D" is the inner diameter
of the casing. The "Mismatch Factor" and "biaxial gain" are factoring that account for variations
and uncertainties. The allowable strength "S" is calculated as the ultimate tensile strength
(U.T.S) divided by the factor of safety (F.S), and the weld efficiency "E" is desired to be 90%.
For ASME standards, the biaxial gain value = 1.1 and the mismatch factor = 1.15. Therefore, we
20 | P a g e
need to find the pressure, inner diameter, and ultimate strength of the chosen material to
complete this calculation.
Pressure "P" is determined by the equation:
1
𝑃 = 𝐵(𝐾𝑛 )1−𝑛

In this equation, "B" is a constant specific to the propellant being used, and "n"
corresponds to the pressure or burning rate exponent as defined in the burn rate equation.
As of right now, the team is working on determining the best material to use for the
motor casing which is why the completed calculations could not be made for this section yet.
However, once the material is determined based on affordability and strength, the team can come
back to these calculations to easily complete them and find the required motor casing thickness.
These equations and considerations are crucial for determining the appropriate thickness
of the motor casing, ensuring that it can withstand the internal pressure generated during rocket
motor testing. Proper calculations are essential to guarantee the structural integrity of the casing.

3.3.2 Rocksim / Nozzle MOC - Andrew King

A great program for determining the performance of the team’s propulsion subsystem is
Rocksim. It is a simulation software that provides values related to rocket performance such as
maximum altitude, velocity, acceleration, flight time, stability margin and many more. This
program was helpful as a starting point to the project because it was used to identify how much
total impulse and average thrust sour motor must have. It provides a general benchmark of
performance that we should strive to match in our design.
Rocksim allows for the fine tuning of a variety of environmental properties such as wind
speed range, altitude, relative humidity, temperature, cloud coverage, etc. (Figure 8). It also
allows for the fine tuning of rocket properties such as geometry and weight. It displays a model
of the rocket and indicates where the center of gravity and center of pressure are located. The
distance and order that these points are on the rocket determines the stability margin. See Figure
9 for reference.

21 | P a g e
 Figure 8: Rocksim Simulation Properties

Figure 9: Rocksim Software Display Model. It shows the location of various centers of mass and the
overall center of pressure of the rocket.

As we progress through the design of the propellant formula, its characteristics may be
loaded into Rocksim as a custom motor. This is a required step for launching at the Tripoli
Rocket Association Site in Wickenburg but will also be a helpful step to take to ensure that we
are on the right track to reaching the altitude goals. As shown in figure 10, the team may produce
graphs that show important performance parameters. We can use these graphs to compare how
different propellants affect speed, velocity, acceleration, etc.

22 | P a g e
 Figure 10: Rocksim Graph

Another program that will be helpful with mathematical modeling is MATLAB.

MATLAB will be used to generate the diverging nozzle geometry with the method of
characteristics. MOC utilizes Prandtl-Meyer expansion equations to generate the nozzle contour.
There are many programs that do this available on the MATLAB website. Having an MOC
program is extremely helpful because if there are changes to the propellant formula or number of
grains, the throat diameter and heat capacity ratio parameters can be quickly changed to produce
an entirely new curve. See figure 11 for a representation of what the program outputs.

Figure 11: MOC Nozzle Contour

The importance of utilizing Prandtl-Meyer and MOC for generating the nozzle contour is
because otherwise there may be unwanted shockwave interactions. Such interactions are not
intended and may destroy the nozzle, and subsequently, the rest of the propulsion system.

23 | P a g e
 The points generated by the MOC program may be exported to CAD software such as
SolidWorks, where they can be connected by a spline and swept along the central axis to
generate the complete nozzle shape. This model can then be imported to CFD software such as
Ansys, which can validate the design by simulating supersonic fluid flow through the nozzle.

3.3.3 Propellant - Grace Morris

When determining the propellant grain geometry and formulation the team will run many
simulations prior to testing, since testing is expensive, and the budget is limited. The primary
engineering tool we will use for this is Burnsim. Burnsim creates simulated thrust curve data
biased on the propellent grain geometry and the propellant formula.

Figure 12. Grain Geometry and Thrust curves [Nakka Rocketry]

As seen in the above figure, figure 12, grain geometry has a huge impact on the thrust
that the rocket produces and how this thrusts changes over time. This is primarily due to the fact
that as the motor burns the surface area changes depending on the initial shape of the grain. This
changing surface area affects the burn rate. The changing burn rate affects the thrust and the way
the rocket performs.

24 | P a g e
 Figure 13. Example of BurnSim Thrust Curve
The above figure, figure 13, shows how BurnSim generates various helpful graphs,
including the thrust curve and the pressure curve for the grain geometry. As can be seen in the
upper right of figure 13, BurnSim allows us to input propellant formula data and nozzle
dimensions. In the upper left all the inputs for grain geometry can be seen.
All of this information will help us evaluate our propellant formulation. It will also allow
us to determine the grain geometry we should use to help us reach the altitude goals with the
burn time of our specific formula once we have selected it. BurnSim’s primary is to ensure the
team that the propellant formula is safe to test. After testing all BurnSim results will be verified
and modified biased on tests and true burn equation coefficients.
3.3.4 Burn Rate - Remington Dasher
Burn rate is pivotal in the requirement of altitude. A slow burn rate may only get the
projectile to a few thousand feet, but a longer burn rate can allow for a much higher altitude. A
slower burn rate may not offer enough force to overcome the local gravity, so we need to make
sure that the burn rate is fast enough to keep the rocket straight and on course, but slow enough
to maintain this thrust to get to the required altitude. A key and extremely important equation to
keep in mind is listed below.

25 | P a g e
 𝑟 = 𝑎𝑃𝑐𝑛

This equation is imperative to the success of the motor and thus the project. Here, we
have the variable “r” which is the burning rate of the solid propellant [39]. This burning rate is
defined as the linear consumption rate normal to the burning surface. This factor can range
anywhere from 0.1-2 inches per second [39]. The rate is mostly influenced by the combustion
pressure (Pc). We know the casing pressure from our earlier analysis.
Many of these calculations are experimental based which is why it is so important for us
to be able to test our different designs. Different simulations can give us close results, but until
we do test, we will not have an exact idea on how these geometries and formulations act in the
real world. As these equations get more complicated with different grain sizes and complex
geometries which means a numerical solver like MATLAB can help us greatly. It is important to
be able to compare our real data to the simulations to validate our work and the model we use to
get our data. The plan for this simulation is casting our propellant in-line with the data that was
used to find the burn rate analytically. We would then use the test stand to time the burn and
make sure that the analyical calculation is appropriate with the experimental rate.

4 Design Concepts
4.1 Functional Decomposition
4.1.1 Propulsion System Functional Models
The black box model shown in the figure below depicts the rocket’s propulsion system.
This model allowed the team to track the main inputs and outputs of the system. The main inputs
being the motor itself, chemical energy, and e-matches. All of these are required components to
launch the rocket. This model also helps us understand the kind of signals we should expect from
the system so that we know it is working. Primally, we expect to hear noise and feel heat.
Additionally, when constructing the test stand, we should plan to measure the other expected
outputs, thrust and impulse.

26 | P a g e
 Figure 14. Black Box Model for Rocket Propulsion System
To develop a better understanding of the motor the team created the functional flow
model seen below. This model shows us how the motor will interact with the system and the
processes the motor will undergo. One of the things of note is that the motor needs to be firmly
secured since substantial amounts of various types of energy are moving through the system. The
other main thing that this model brought to our attention was that the motor needs to carry a
significant amount of chemical energy in order for the rocket to lift off.

Figure 15. Functional Flow Model for Rocket Motor

Both of these models help the team to identify key points we need to consider as we
progress through the project. This makes these models critical to consider as we move into the
design phase.
4.1.2 Test Stand Functional Models
The black box model and flowchart for the rocket test stand represent a systematic
approach to understanding the inputs, processes, and outputs of the test stand system. In this
model shown in figure 16, the inputs include a stable structure, rocket motor, load cell, and a
data collection interface. Additionally, figure 18 shows the correlation key between arrow
thickness and the processes characteristics for reference. The primary goal or task of the motor

27 | P a g e
test stand is to collect thrust and impulse data from the rocket motor. The output of the black box
model includes a stable structure, micro deformations in the load cell, and thrust impulse data.
The flowchart shown in figure 17 further details the sequence of events within the
system. It begins with the input of the motor, which is locked into the test stand. As the motor
ignites and applies thrust, it generates a force, which causes the load cell to deform, leading to
micro deformations in the load cell. The load cell's electrical signals and data are collected and
transferred to the data collection interface, where impulse and thrust analysis take place.
This black box model and flowchart are crucial for the project for several reasons. Firstly,
they provide a clear visual representation of the entire testing process, ensuring that all necessary
components and steps are accounted for. This is essential for the project's success, as any
oversight or omission could compromise the quality of data collected and the safety of the testing
process. Secondly, it emphasizes the importance of having a stable structure, as this is the
foundation on which the entire test process relies. Lastly, it highlights the significance of
collecting and analyzing data accurately, as this data is central to understanding the performance
of the rocket motor. In summary, the black box model and flowchart serve as a valuable
blueprint for the project, ensuring that the testing process is well-structured, efficient, and
reliable.

Figure 16. Black Box Model for Test Stand

28 | P a g e
 Figure 17. Functional Flow Model for Test Stand

Figure 18. Model Correlation Key

4.2 Concept Generation – Everyone
4.2.2 Test Stand Concept Generation
First Vertical Test Stand Design:

29 | P a g e
 Figure 19. Vertical Test Stand 1
The first vertical test stand design shown in figure 19 is a pyramidal design that may be
manufactured with materials that the team already owns. Unfortunately, there is a major flow in
this design which makes it a safety hazard. Due to the converging extrusion above the rocket
motor, burning hot exhaust will impact the test stand structure and likely compromise its
structural integrity.
It is possible that the team could change the orientation of the motor or add an exhaust
deflection plate to make this design safer, but that would complicate the design further than our
other design options. It does require less material than other test stands but is not worth the safety
risk that it poses.

Second Vertical Test Stand Design:

30 | P a g e
Figure 20. Isometric View of Vertical Test Stand 2 Figure 21. Top View
The second vertical test stand design is shown in figures 2 and 21. This design secures the
motor in place with 6 different ball bearings. The ball bearing supports will be attached to
adjustable brackets so it can secure different motor sizes. An additional support system is the
cables attached to the top of the test stand frame. These cables attach to the ground surrounding
the test stand, providing stability against forces that want to tip the stand over.
The stand is designed to minimize the amount of material necessary. The triangular cross-
section saves more material than a square cross-section frame. A downside to this design is that
it requires multiple extrusion sizes, which may complicate our orders. It is possible that we
would be required to buy additional hardware or order parts from multiple websites, increasing
the costs of shipping.

Third Vertical Test Stand Design:

31 | P a g e
 Figure 22. Vertical Test Stand 3
The third vertical test stand design concept shown in figure 22 offers several advantages,
the most critical being secure load cell attachment, effective force distribution and multiple
attachment points to the motor. Along with these design features, it also includes low friction
contact points, adjustability for various motor sizes, ease of construction, and structural stability.
However, there are also some disadvantages, such as the need to account for gravity in
calculations and the requirement to design a specialized load cell holder.
The initial design parameters and constraints are aligned with project requirements:
secure the load cell attachment ensuring accuracy and safety, adjustability accommodates
different motor sizes, simplicity aids efficiency, and structural stability is essential for
withstanding testing forces. Nevertheless, addressing gravity effects and designing the load cell
holder are crucial aspects to consider within the project's timeline and budget.

First Horizonal Test Stand Design:

32 | P a g e
 Figure 23. Horizontal Test Stand 1
The first horizontal test stand design concept shown in figure 23 incorporates several key
features for stability and universality. It uses mounting blocks to ensure the stand's stability,
allows for negligible gravity during tests due to horizontal mounting, and simplifies the setup by
directly mounting the load cell to the back plate. Additionally, it accommodates rocket motors of
various diameters which is crucial for the projects' goals of building many sized motors during
testing. However, the drawbacks of this design include potential friction between clamps and the
rocket motor, substantial forces on the plate and supports, and a requirement for a specific motor
body height. These initial design parameters and constraints must be carefully considered to
optimize the concept for reliable rocket motor testing.
The initial design parameters and constraints of this concept highlight the importance of
stability, load cell placement, and versatility for different motor diameters. However, the need to
address issues like friction and structural strength is evident. The constraints involve height
requirements and the potential for high forces, indicating the necessity for careful engineering to
ensure safety and accuracy during rocket motor testing.

Second Horizonal Test Stand Design:

33 | P a g e
 Figure 24. Horizontal Test Stand 2
The second horizontal test stand design shown in figure 24 has several notable
advantages, including the absence of significant friction due to the rail slides and negligible
gravitational effects due to the horizontal mounting. These features greatly assist in the designs'
requirements as they contribute to accurate and reliable testing results. It is a relatively
straightforward and cost-efficient design, making it accessible for various projects. However,
there are certain disadvantages that also come with this design. The design's minimal contact
with the motor may limit its ability to securely hold the motor in place, causing an increase in
potential safety hazards. Additionally, the test stand may exhibit high-stress points due to all
exhaust forces placed on the back wall, increasing the risk of structural failure.
Regarding the initial design parameters and constraints, this concept prioritizes simplicity
and cost-effectiveness. By minimizing friction and gravitational influences, the design can take
more accurate data during testing which the other designs cannot do without altering the data
after testing. However, the trade-off is that this design has limited contact with the motor,
potentially affecting the reliability of the data if the motor is to deviate for its fixed axis. While
this design benefits from its simplicity, the lack of connection to the motor body may lead to
high-stress points in the design, which need to be carefully considered and engineered to ensure
structural integrity and safety. Ultimately, this design concept represents a balance between
achieving the necessary precision and minimizing costs and complexity.

Third Horizonal Test Stand Design:

34 | P a g e
 The third horizontal test stand design is shown in Figure 25. It is a sturdy design that
utilizes materials that the team already owns (aluminum extrusion). The motor is secured by hose
clamps to a linear bearing along the central extrusion. The load cell is secured against a thick
baseplate. The stand is secured via bolts into a sturdy surface. The bolts will be strong enough to
account for the shear of a level two rocket motor.

Figure 25. Horizontal Test Stand 3

Rocket Propellant Formulation Design:

All propellant formulations were generated by looking at benchmarking against common
formulas, such as cherry limeade. Additionally, throughout this generation we ensured that all
percentages fell within the ranges found in the scholarly articles and textbooks form section
3.2.3.
Table 2. Propellant Formula 1, 70% AP
Percent By Weight Component
70% Ammonium Perchlorate
15% Aluminum Powder
14% Binder
1% Additives
The first variation of the propellant formula has 70% ammonium perchlorate (AP) and
15% aluminum powder (Al). During the current round of concept generations and evaluation the
team held the amount of binder and additives constant. Additives will be explored later in the
project once some testing has occurred.
Table 3. Propellant Formula 2, 65% AP

35 | P a g e
 Percent By Weight Component
65% Ammonium Perchlorate
20% Aluminum Powder
14% Binder
1% Additives
The second variation of the propellant has 65% AP and 20% Al. As stated above the
binder and additives are held constant. This allows the team to explore the relationship between
AP, oxidizer, and Al, fuel, while doing the first round of concept generation for the formula.
Table 4. Propellant Formula 3, 60% AP
Percent By Weight Component
60% Ammonium Perchlorate
25% Aluminum Powder
14% Binder
1% Additives

The final variation of the propellant has 60% AP and 25% Al. These percentages are on
the fringes of the acceptable range for the Al, fuel. Due to this the team expects this formula to
burn quickly. This fast burn rate may be helpful; however, it does have the potential to hinder the
rocket Performance.
Propellant Grain Geometry Design:
In this design formulation stage, we are taking a deeper look into different grain
geometries that can be seen in solid rocket motors. Some geometries offer longer burning times
and less thrust while others prioritize a quick burn with low burning times. All this analysis is
shown below. All this analysis was done with MIT’s “Cherry Limeade” propellant to give us a
baseline on our numbers.

Grain Geometry Concept 1: Uniform Concentric BATES

Figure 26. Concept 1: Uniform Concentric BATES Geometry [BurnSim]

For the first grain geometry features the same grain type as all the other grains in the test
with all the same core diameter. This design makes it easy to cast many grains at once and only

36 | P a g e
has us buying a single mandrel to form to. This would be the most cost-effective method, but we
need performance and not only cost-savings.

Figure 27. Concept 2: Different Grain Geometry [BurnSim]

In this grain geometry concept, we attempted to piece together two different types of
grain geometries, three BATES style and two “Finocyl” style geometries. The idea here was to
make grain geometries that move into ideal burning rates for different geometries. The expected
effect of this geometry style is to progressively use grain styles that burn at higher rates as the
web progresses.

Figure 28. Concept 3: Non-Uniform Concentric BATES Grain Geometry [BurnSim]

For the last grain geometry concept, we took the first two concepts and combined the
major factors. From the first generation, we used the same grain geometry type to reduce cost
and casting time. From the second generation, we used the aspect of working around increasing
burn rates and areas. We did this by increasing the core diameter progressively as the burn rate
increases. We can then run each of these simulations and see which one we should choose.
4.3 Selection Criterion
4.3.2 Test Stand Engineering Calculations
First Vertical Test Stand Design:
For the first vertical test stand design, a basic statics analysis was performed to determine
the stability of the test stand in two different scenarios. The first scenario, Case A, assumes that
the motor is perfectly vertical, in line with the test stand. Case B is a worst-case scenario which
assumes that the motor is ten degrees from vertical. See figure 29 for the statics drawings.
37 | P a g e
 Figure 29. Case A (left) and Case B (right), Vertical Stand 1

The equations to solve for the forces are as follows:

𝐼 = 𝐹𝑡 ∗ 𝑡
𝐼
𝐹𝑡 =
𝑡
𝐹𝑥 = 𝐹𝑡 ∗ cos (𝜃)
𝐹𝑓𝑠 = 𝐹𝑅 ∗ 𝜇

It was assumed that the impulse, (I) is 5120 newton seconds, burn time (t) is 4 seconds,
gravitational acceleration (g) is 9.80665m/s2, and the coefficient of friction (𝜇) is 0.56. The
values are shown in table 5.
Table 5. Vertical Stand 1 Reaction Forces
Force Case A Case B
Ft 1280.00 N 1280.00 N
FR 1280.00 N 1260.55 N
Fx - 222.27 N
Ffs - -222.27 N

The conclusion drawn from the data is that if the motor is mounted incorrectly at 10
degrees from vertical, the coefficient of friction between the frame and ground must be greater
than 0.1763. The coarse soul at the test site will most likely keep the motor from slipping
because of this.

Second Vertical Test Stand Design:

38 | P a g e
 The second vertical test stand utilized all the same equations and assumptions as the first
vertical test stand (excluding friction forces). The focus of this analysis was to determine the
tension forces present in the supporting cables. The same cases were used (case A is if the motor
is mounded perfectly vertical, and case B assumes that the motor is mounted incorrectly, 10
degrees from vertical) (see figure 30).

Figure 30. Case A (left), Case B (right), Vertical Stand 2

The results of the calculations are summarized below in table 6:

Table 6. Vertical Stand 2 Reaction Forces
Force Case A Case B
Ft 1280.00 N 1280.00 N
FR 1280.00 N 1260.55 N
Fc - 314.34 N
Fx - 222.27 N

According to the calculations, the tension forces experienced in the cable is 314.337
newtons of force. If the team used steel cables, they would be more than strong enough to
support the test stand. The biggest point of failure would be where the cable stakes into the
ground.

Third Vertical Test Stand Design:

For the third vertical test stand design, the team did a static structural analysis using
Ansys Mechanical and Ansys Space Claim to determine the maximum stresses the structure
would experience. In figure 31, the result of the analysis shows the distribution of stresses, the
highest stresses being red and the lowest being blue.
The engineering calculations for this test stand design play a crucial role in ensuring its
structural integrity and safety during rocket motor testing. The maximum force applied to the

39 | P a g e
load cell, equivalent to 5120 N·s of impulse or 287.8 lbf of thrust, is applied to the load cell as it
would occur during testing. When this force is applied in the -Y direction to the load cell, the
largest stress encountered is calculated to be 381.7 psi. To ensure safety of the structure, the plate
and load cell must be reinforced to support this stress while incorporating a factor of safety
(F.O.S.) to account for uncertainties and potential variations. Assuming a factor of safety of 1.5,
the design must be tailored to withstand a stress of 572.6 psi.
A beneficial feature of this design is that the thrust forces, once applied, will quickly
dissipate into the ground after passing through the plate. This design feature minimizes the
transmission of these forces to the rest of the structure, reducing the likelihood of structural
failures and enhancing overall safety. By allowing the ground to absorb and dissipate the thrust
forces, the design mitigates modes of failure that could impact the entire test stand. This
approach optimizes the efficiency of the test stand while ensuring that the structural elements
primarily affected are adequately reinforced, emphasizing the importance of thorough
engineering calculations in creating a reliable and safe testing platform for rocket motors.

Figure 31. Ansys for Vertical Test Stand 3

This analysis shows the maximum stresses of the structure and how the connection
between the load cell and the base plate would be the most likely location for failure. The small
red spot between the load cell and the base plate shows this maximum stress, indicating that the
design of the connection piece needs to be designed to not deform under this loading. The green
section on the rest of the base plate shows that this would experience stresses but not as much as
the location directly around the load cell. The rest of the structure is blue, indicating that there is
little or no stress in those members.

First Horizontal Test Stand Design:

The engineering calculations provided for this test stand design shown in figure 32
highlight a crucial point regarding the structural integrity of this design. The stress is highest at
point B, which means that member EB needs to be significantly reinforced in order to ensure that

40 | P a g e
this beam will not fail, especially during testing. Reinforcing this member could be difficult as it
would require a plate of steel which would need to intersect at 90 degrees with member EC. This
would then likely need to be welded together and would overall be very difficult to build
compared to the other designs. From the static analysis shown in Figure 33, it is found that the
maximum stress the design would experience is 409.8 lbf. To ensure that the design can handle
loads and variations while maintaining a safety margin, a factor of safety of 1.5 is incorporated.
By multiplying the maximum stress of 409.8 lbf by this factor, we get 614.7 lbf, much higher
than the horizontal design concepts to follow.

Figure 32. Critical Points for Horizontal Test Stand 1

41 | P a g e
Figure 33. Stress Calculations for Horizontal Test Stand 1

42 | P a g e
Figure 34. Shear and Bending Moment Diagrams for Horizontal Test Stand 1

Second Horizontal Test Stand Design:

The engineering calculations for this test stand design shown in Figure 35 involve a
comprehensive analysis of the forces applied to the motor casing mount. Applying a force of
287.8 pounds-force in the negative X-direction to the mount raises concerns regarding the
maximum stress. The calculated force max of 488.5 psi is a significant factor, suggesting that the
design would necessitate multiple steel plates to support the back wall. The risk of failure and the
likelihood of fatigue and deformation become more apparent under such high stress conditions.
To address these concerns, a factor of safety (F.O.S) of 1.5 is incorporated. Multiplying
the initial stress by the F.O.S, the back plate must now be designed to withstand 732.8 psi. This
additional engineering consideration highlights the importance of robust structural design and
materials selection to ensure the test stand's integrity and safety, especially when subjected to
high forces during rocket motor testing.

43 | P a g e
 Figure 35. Ansys for Horizontal Test Stand 2

Figure 36. Close-Up of Figure 35.

Third Horizontal Test Stand Design:

For the third horizontal test stand, a basic static analysis was performed to determine the
magnitude of forces experienced by the design. To begin the process, a total impulse of 5120
newton seconds, and burn time of 4 seconds was assumed. Multiplying these two values together
reveals the average thrust force. The reaction forces and equations can be observed in Figure 37.

44 | P a g e
 Figure 37. Free Body Diagram and Equations for Horizontal Test Stand 3 Analysis

Results are summarized in table 6:

Table 6. Horizontal Test Stand 3 Reaction Forces
Force Force (N)
Ft 1280
FAx -1280
FAy -320
FBy 320

Calculations reveal that point A is a critical point in securing the test stand. Due to
moment forces, there is a vertical force pulling the test stand upwards at point A. In addition, all
the horizontal force caused by thrust is translated to this point. Therefore, the team must be
careful in choosing strong enough bolts. There will be a large amount of shear in those bolts.

Rocket Propellant Formulation Design:

The propellent formula has two important quantities to consider the exhaust velocity and
the specific impulse. The equation for both values is shown in the two figures below and are
strongly related to the altitude the rocket can reach. However, the team uses ProPep 3 to do the
analysis quickly. ProPep 3 also includes many other values that will be helpful when designing
the nozzle and casing. Unfortunately, like any simulation ProPep 3 makes many idealized
assumptions so the velocities, temperatures, and impulses it produces are not accurate to the
actual values. So, some testing will still have to be done.

45 | P a g e
 Figure 38. Exhaust Velocity Equation [31]

Figure 39. Specific Impulse Equation [31]

Figure 40, below, shows the ProPep 3 results for the first formula, 70% AP. The exhaust
velocity for this formula is roughly 5190 ft/s.
Figure 41, below, shows the ProPep 3 results for the second formula, 65% AP. The
exhaust velocity for this formula is roughly 5230 ft/s.
Figure 42, below, shows the ProPep 3 results for the third formula, 60% AP. The exhaust
velocity for this formula is roughly 5080 ft/s.
Full results for all these concepts are shown in 7.2 appendix B. in the same order as they
are listed here.

46 | P a g e
Figure 40. ProPep Results for Formula 1

Figure 41. ProPep Results for Formula 2

47 | P a g e
 Figure 42. ProPep Results for Formula 3
These results show us that 65% AP has the highest impulse and velocities, while 70% AP
has the second highest. The 60% AP formula has a significant drop in these properties.

Propellant Grain Geometry Design:

For the propellant grain geometry concept selection process, BurnSim was used to
generate important metrics like casing pressure, burn time, total impulse, and total propellant
mass. Each of these metrics are important in their own way and a brief description will be given
for each.
• Casing Pressure: The pressure inside the casing is a very important metric to keep in
mind and design around. Too much pressure can cause the gases to leak which reduces
the efficiency of the motor and can also cause the casing itself to fail. This would be an
expensive error which means we need to do everything in our power to make sure this
does not happen.
• Burn Time: We need to make sure that out propellant burns long enough to get us to the
maximum altitude possible, but at the same time, it needs to be fast enough to where it is
still able to overcome the gravitational potential that is being acted on the body. This is
where propellant length and geometry comes into play, but not as important as the total
burn time.

48 | P a g e
 • Total Impulse: This metric is important, not only because of our requirements, but also
because it defines our average thrust per burn time. BATES style grain geometry is
commonly uniform in its thrust curve, so simply dividing the total impulse by the burn
time can give us our average thrust which is something we have to consider when it
comes to rocket height and performance.
• Propellant Mass: The mass of the propellant is key to achieving a high altitude. If our
propellant is too heavy, the propellant will try much harder to get the higher weight off
the ground which will use up energy that could be used to get our rocket further up. This
means that the least number of grains and the less dense the formula is ideal.

From BurnSim, we were given this data from each of the three concept variants. These are
tabulated in tables below.
Table 7. Concept 1 Results
Concept 1: Concept 1:
Properties Results
Max Casing 1791
Pressure (psi)
Burn Time (s) 3.41
Total Impulse 5387
(Ns)
Propellant 3.92
Mass (lbf)
Table 8. Concept 2 Results
Concept 2: Concept 2:
Properties Results
Max Casing 2209.9
Pressure (psi)
Burn Time (s) 3.23
Total Impulse 5007
(Ns)
Propellant 3.637
Mass (lbf)

Table 9. Concept 3 Results

49 | P a g e
 Concept 3: Concept 3:
Properties Results
Max Casing 1724.9
Pressure (psi)
Burn Time (s) 4.02
Total Impulse 5344
(Ns)
Propellant 3.882
Mass (lbf)

4.4 Concept Selection

4.4.1 Test Stand Concept
Selection

Figure 43. Pugh Chart of Test Stands

By creating a Pugh chart of the test stand design concepts, the team was able to analyze
the concepts based on the engineering calculations within the concept selection phase to
determine the best design for the project. By comparing the designs to the datum, chosen to be
the Aerocon Systems Horizontal/Vertical Test Stand, a score was given for each of the designs
based on the project requirements. These requirements were then weighed on the importance of
these in relation to the test stand.
Through this process, it is determined that option three performed the best in comparison
to all other test stand designs. This is due mainly to the very high rating for “dimensions meet the
constraints of the rocket size” and “withstands impulse of rocket testing” along with the single
positive rating for “stay within budget of the project”. Since this design performed the best in the

50 | P a g e
analysis and concept selection, the team has chosen this design to move forward with for the
project.
Below, a first iteration CAD model shown in figures 44 and 45 as well as an engineering
drawing shown in figure 46 is presented. This model shows how the test stand will allow for a
variety of heights and diameters of motor bodies, making it a very versatile design.

Figure 44. View 1 of Final Test Stand Figure 45. View 2 of Final Test Stand

51 | P a g e
 Figure 46. Drawing of Final Test Stand
4.4.2 Propellent Formulation Concept Selection

Figure 47. Pugh Chart for Propellent Formulas

The datum for Pugh chart in the above figure was set by averaging the benchmarking we
used. As can been seen above the 65% AP formula is the best. The next step is to get this
formula checked by one of the mentors who has experience with solid propellent. After that we
plan to begin looking into purchasing chemicals, propellent mixing, and additives.

52 | P a g e
4.4.3 Propellent Grain Geometry Concept Selection

Figure 48. Pugh Chart for Grain Geometries

For the datum, we used a standard competition motor that has been used by the Rocket
Club in the past and has offered decent results. The three concept variants are tested against this
datum. We can see that the third concept variant is the winner. We can see that this wins in the
Pugh chart and it also has superior data in the design selection criterion tables. A full BurnSim
simulation can be shown for each variant in Appendix C. A final CAD drawing is shown below
based on the Pugh chart selection.

53 | P a g e
Figure 49. Drawing of Grain Geometries

54 | P a g e
5 Schedule & Budget
5.1 Schedule

Figure 50. Fall Schedule Gantt Chart

The Gantt chart presented in figure 50 shows the schedule for the current semester and
the progress which has been made. The grey areas indicate the completion of the tasks while the
purple areas indicate the uncompleted tasks. Currently, the team has fallen slightly behind due to
difficulties in designing a pressure vessel to test the propellant strands. Through working with
the team’s mentor, it was determined that creating a strand burner would allow the team to
reduce waste of Creating a pressure vessel able to withstand around 1500 psi can be very
dangerous, as if any part fails, it can explode. Therefore, the team decided to take more time to
design and analyze the pressure vessel before purchasing the materials to build it.
Additionally, the delivery of the chemicals to begin mixing propellant took much longer
than expected. Something the team did not account for was that at this time of year, many
universities are purchasing chemicals to build rockets for competitions, causing certain
chemicals to sell out very quickly. Some chemicals were very difficult to find and took a lot
longer to be delivered than anticipated. The team is still on track for having the test strand burner
built by the end of the semester, however the testing of propellant formulas will likely be pushed
to winter break and early spring semester. This difficulty will cause some setbacks in the
schedule; however the use of a strand burner will increase the efficiency of the propellant
optimization, allowing the team to make up for this delay.

55 | P a g e
5.2 Budget

Figure 51. The Current Project Budget with Expected and Actual Expenses
In figure 51, above, the full budget is shown. The team has fundraised $1000, which
gives the team money to put towards the strand burner. Additionally, the test stand cost slightly
more money than expected, so the extra spending from the test stand will be covered with some
of the new fundraising money. For a more detailed view see appendix E. The Team will continue
to fundraise in order to pay for a stand mixer that is needed for propellant mixing.
5.3 Bill of Materials (BOM)
The major element of the project that the team is defining for the Bill of Materials is the
test stand. Our test stand has been in development since the beginning of the project, and it is
finally at a point where the final CAD and Bill of Materials is completed. The test stand allows
for us to test our full propellant design with our casing created. The test stand is for when we
have full motors to test inside our created casing. The current Bill of Materials is shown below as
Figure 52.

56 | P a g e
 Figure 52. Bill of Materials of Test Stand
The test stand features two different types of supports, 8020 Brand 4040 Lite Extrusion and
recycled extrusion from the “Solar Shack”. This decision was made to reduce costs and recycle
efficiently. T-Nuts are used to secure the extrusions together which are threaded to ¼"-20 bolts.
The different lengths of bolts correspond to which extrusion is being connected to what. 0.5”
bolts are being connected to the “Solor Shack” extrusion and the 0.625” (5/8”) bolts are being
connected to the 4040 extrusions. The base plate is a 10 mm thick plate of aluminum that was
given to the team by professor Dr. Jennifer Wade. The base plate had to be drilled and surfaced,
but the result allowed for increased stability and ensured safety when handling.
The brackets for the extrusions as well as the all-thread brackets were created by the team. The
extrusion brackets allowed the team to manufacture 90-degree brackets much cheaper than we
would have had to buy them for. The all-thread brackets allow us to use a threading to secure the
motor. The parts not pictured are stability wires that are connected to stakes hammered in the
ground. These increase safety as well of the motor is installed unevenly or not level. Ideally,
these cables would never cary any significant loads.

57 | P a g e
6 Design Validation & Initial Prototyping
6.1 Failure Modes and Effects Analysis (FMEA)
6.1.1 FMEA- Test Stand

Figure 53. FMEA for Test Stand

Through the process of defining potential points of failure in the test stand design, the
team has identified issues which may cause deformation or failure of the system which need to
be addressed. The most important failure modes which were most probable include the top
extrusion bars deforming due to temperature fluctuations, while the bottom bars face the risk of
deformation under external forces. In order to address these concerns, practical mitigation
strategies are being considered. One approach involves the application of a thermal shield or
coating to the top extrusion bar, providing a protective layer against temperature-induced

58 | P a g e
deformation. Additionally, the team is exploring various methods for connecting the load cell
plate to the extrusion bar to minimize the risk of force-related deformation.
In order to assess potential risks for the design of the test stand, the team is applying
Ansys static structural and thermal simulations. This analytical approach allows us to evaluate
the structural integrity and thermal resilience of the system under different conditions. In
parallel, a comprehensive testing procedure has been developed to validate the simulations and
identify any real-world issues. This involves conducting tests on the test stand, where motors will
be burned to simulate operational conditions. The assessment includes a thorough check for
deformations in the systems components and an inspection of bolts to ensure they remain
securely fastened.
6.1.2 FMEA- Nozzle

Product Name NAU Rocket Club Capstone Development Team: Shannon Comstock, Remington Dasher, Andrew King, Page No of
System Name Carbon Rocket Grace Morris FMEA Number
Subsystem Name Propulsion Subsystem Date: 11/3/2023
Component Name 75mm Rocket Nozzle
Part # and Severity Potential Causes and Occurance Current Design Detection
Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of Failure RPN Recommended Action
Functions (S) Mechanisms of Failure (O) Controls Test (D)
Pay special attention during
design process, and ensure
Overpressurization of Explosion of motor casing, Measure precise the insert has been
graphite insert for motor casing - Ductile mounting points of nozzle are Cross-sectional area of throat diameter machined to the correct
throat Fracture sheared off 10 throat is too small 3 with micrometers 1 30 diameter
High temp. exhaust, Simulations, and
Throat area experiences Decreased thrust abrasive granules small scale Pick isotropic graphite, pick
extreme erosion performance 5 present in exhaust gas 4 experimental burn 3 60 low-temperature propellant.
Choose temperature
resistant graphite, and
consider adding insulation
to reduce thermal
Ensure proper expansion. Ensure the
Mechanical vailure via Fracturing of graphite insert, fitting, and FEA diameter is the same as the
crack propogation rapid decrease in thrust 8 Thermal expansion 2 simulations 3 48 height
Includeofstep-down
the insert
The insert becomes a high- geometry, precicely
Insert is ejected out of velocity projectile and the If the step-down that holds Perform FEA on machine graphite for a
nozzle due to force of rest of the propulsion the insert in place is too parts to ensure press-fit, Heat up metal
exhaust gas assembly may fail 10 weak 1 required strenth 2 20 nozzle during press fit.
Nozzle diverges at too CFD simulations Pay special attention during

Converging-
Figure
Ductile failure of diverging
54. Major Element of FMEA for Nozzle Design
Explosion of motor casing,
steep of an angle and the
flow separation causes
in Ansys, and
small scale test
design process, and ensure
the nozzle has been
Diverging nozzle section rapid decrease in thrust 10 inintentional side-loading 2 firings 2 40 machined correctly
In this failure mode analysis, severalTheworst-case extreme
scenarios for the nozzle sub-assembly
Heat transfer
Select nozzle material that
has a high thermal
were considered. The first part considered is the graphite throat3 hand
temperatures
9 the design
weakens insert.
simulations andThe purpose of this
calculations 2
conductivity and is resistant
54 to melting
component is to reduce damage from
Increased likelihood of the hot exhaust gasses through a property known as
catastrophic motor failure,
ablative cooling. It is possible for this part to crack apart either due to thermal expansion or be
decrease in thrust
performance, components ensure proper O-
ejected from the nozzle due tomeant
that are not high to chamber pressure. Both cases are dangerous to Choose
ring groove spectators
temperature of
experience extreme dimensions with resistant o-rings or
the rocketForce launch and can
and/or temperature causewill be
temperature a affected
catastrophic failure
Incorrectly of the entire
sized O-rings; propulsion
calipers or system. Toadditional
implement
O-ring Seals deformation by the escape of exhaust gas 10 too small 2 micrometer 1 20 insulation
mitigate these issues extensive calculations/simulations will be Compare doneO-ring
attached as well as insuring high
quality iso-molded graphite is used along with proper insulation.Diameter with
inner diameter of
Ensure that the O-rings fit
securely in the machined
10 Incorrect installation 3 casing 1 30 grooves in nozzle fitting
Chamber pressure will
Next is the copper converging-diverging
escape and have nozzle
Manufacturer defect; didpart. This part can experience mechanical

failure dueChemical
to and thermally
flow
induced corrosion
catastophic effects on motor
separation in
and rocket parts the not cure properly in
supersonic
10 factory region Elastic strength
of the nozzle,
1 tests
Implement quality assurance
and overheating
1 from
10 plan guring the
motor assembly

exhaust gasses. Failure of this part would also be catastrophic, but can be avoided by ensuring
that it has been machined properly (inside surface is smooth), material has high thermal
conductivity (reduces buildup of heat on the inside surface of the nozzle), and simulation in
ANSYS Fluid.

59 | P a g e
 The last part considered in this FMEA analysis are the O-rings. If there are factory
defects causing abnormalities in the material, or the O-ring grooves are not correctly fitted, the
effects are dangerous. An improper fit will allow hot gasses to escape through the motor/nozzle
fitting. These hot gasses will quickly heat up parts that are not designed to be subjected to those
conditions, which may result in a catastrophic failure of the propulsion system.

6.1.3 FMEA- Propellant

In order to ensure that the propellant design is safe the team performed an FMEA
analysis. This analysis considered the propellant grains, the liners, the casting tubes, and the E-
matches. Failures with the liners, casting tubes, and the E-matches would only occur if there is a
manufacturer error, so there is not much mitigation the team can do aside from rough quality
checks. The primary failure concerns of this component occur with the propellant grain. The
most concerning of the FMEA results, which are shown in figure 55 below, is that the propellant
grain would experience force deformation.

Figure 55. FMEA of the Propellant with Focus on the Most Important Failure Modes
If the propellant grain deformed it is possible for some propellant to be ejected from the
rocket uncombusted or for uncombusted propellant to block the nozzle exit. If this happens it
would be dangerous for spectators, and it could greatly increase the casing pressure. If the nozzle
was blocked, then the pressure increase would be beyond the maximum pressure the casing is
designed for. In order to avoid this the team will perform a shear analysis to ensure the propellent
will cure with a high enough strength so that there is no propellant shearing off.
Other failure modes are discussed in appendix D, which contains the rest of FMEA.
6.1.4 FMEA- Casing
The motor casing must be reusable and safe within its operation. A ductile and non-ferrous
casing material must be chosen to mitigate the risks associated with a high-pressure vessel. This
is why a Failure Modes Effect Analysis (FMEA) was conducted to determine where the major
failure point could occur in this part of the project. The major analysis done here was the casing
itself, the bulkhead that keeps the pressure inside the casing, as well as the nozzle which is where
the escaped gasses flow which in turn provides the required thrust to move the rocket. The major
FMEA topic is given below as Figure 56.

60 | P a g e
 Figure 56. Major Element of FMEA For Casing Design
The major element with the casing is a rupture. A rupture would not only destroy the casing but
would also hurt the test stand and create an unsafe situation around the testing site. The primary
cause of this rupture would be either inconsistent manufacturing of the aluminum tube or
incorrect machining of the casing after arrival. The major mitigation to this issue is making sure
that upon arrival, the aluminum tube is within specifications around the circumference of the
tube as well as making sure that the machining is consistent and accurate for our calculations. A
full view of the
6.2 Initial Prototyping
6.2.1 Physical Prototyping
The physical prototype that we had created involves the entirety of the test stand. With
countless hours working on the design, analysis, and construction of stand, the test stand is at a
point where just the load cell and motor mount must be mounted. Once the electrical engineering
team is done with the programming and testing, the test stand will be operational. The major
question that was meant to be answered was if this stand would be our final design. From the
analysis done, the stand passes all major safety requirements as well as being variable for
multiple different sizes of motors. The motor holder even has capability for 96 mm motors. This
consideration was made for future Rocket Club members who may gain Level 3 Certifications to
be able to test on larger structural loadings.

61 | P a g e
Figure 57. View 1 of Final Test Stand

Figure 58. View 2 of Final Test Stand

62 | P a g e
In the Figures above, the test stand is holding a blue tube which acts as what our motor would
look like inside the test stand. The all-threads grip pretty well, but this will be analyzed later on
in the report. All that is left is to secure the load cell and the motor holder and the test stand will
be ready to use and give us accurate data about the burn rates and thrust characteristics.
6.2.2 Virtual Prototyping
The team needs to make sure that testing the propellent formulation would be safe prior
to testing. In order to that the team created virtual prototypes of the propellent in ProPep 3 and
BurnSim, these were then compared the known burn curves for cherry limeade, MIT’s solid
rocket formula. This comparison will inform the team if the propellant behaves in ways that
would be concerning during testing.
The virtual prototype starts with running the formula through ProPep 3. The results of
this are shown in figure 59. This result shows that the exhaust exit velocity, C* is within a
reasonable value, this was confirmed with Joshua Becker who has been kind enough to mentor
and assist the team.

Figure 59. ProPep 3 Results for the Team’s Formula

The second stage of the virtual prototype is to run this formula thought BurnSim and compare
that to BurnSim results for cherry limeade. The BurnSim results for the team's formula is shown
in figure 60. As can be seen on the thrust curve there are no strange drop offs or spikes. The
BurnSim results for cherry limeade are shown in figure 61. The cherry limeade results have a
very similar shape, the only difference being that cherry limeade burns for longer with a lower
mass flux than the team's formulation. The differences between the two formulations are not
enough to warrant any safety concerns which would prevent physical testing. Based on these
results the team is safe to move to strand testing of the propellent once all chemicals have been
ordered.

63 | P a g e
 Figure 60. BurnSim Thrust Curve for the Team’s Formula

Figure 61. BurnSim Thrust Curve for MIT’s Formula

6.3 Other Engineering Calculations

6.3.1 Test Stand Calculations

64 | P a g e
 Figure 62. Ansys Thermal Analysis

In order to analyze if the materials of the structure will deform, the team used Ansys to do
a thermal analysis of the system. By applying a direct heat flux of 230 𝑥 10^4 𝑊/𝑚^2, which is
the approximate heat output of the motors exhaust, a maximum temperature of 844.15 degrees
Fahrenheit is applied onto the aluminum extrusion. This raises concern as aluminum begins to
exhibit warping at temperatures exceeding 400 degrees Fahrenheit. To mitigate the risk of
potential damage, a recommended course of action involves wrapping the aluminum extrusion in
thermal shielding, thereby providing a protective layer to counteract the adverse effects of
elevated temperatures.
Considering the contrasting thermal properties of aluminum and steel, where steel can
withstand higher temperatures before warping (up to 1500 degrees Fahrenheit), the steel brackets
and bolts do not raise concern for the heat it will experience. By proactively implementing
thermal shielding around the aluminum extrusion, the team aims to prevent any thermal fatigue
and ensure that it operates within the safe temperature limits.

65 | P a g e
 Figure 63. Ansys Static Structural Bending Stress Analysis

Figure 64. Ansys Static Structural Shear Stress Analysis

A static structural analysis was then redone in Ansys, spotlighting other aspects not
previously discussed. The equivalent, Von Misses, stress is first presented in figure 63, showing
the underside of the base plate and the distribution of forces on it. From this analysis, the team
66 | P a g e
found that the forces stay very localized to the location of the load cell, preventing the other
structure members from experience stress. This analysis allows the team to understand that the
maximum stress the plate will experience is 22.9 psi and that the plate will be the only member
which needs to be designed to withstand this force.
A shear stress analysis is then presented in figure 64, showcasing how the location
directly around the load cell experiences the most shear stress. However this shear stress is still
quite small at a maximum of 4.19 psi on the baseplate, left of the load cell. Additionally, due to
the loading period for each test being approximately 4 seconds, the fatigue on the material is
very low. From these results, the team was able to determine that a steel plate will be strong
enough to not deform or fatigue during loading due to such a small loading and loading period.

6.3.2 Nozzle Calculations

The calculations performed in section 3.3.2 were directed towards calculating the contour
of the diverging portion of the nozzle. In addition to those calculations, a MATLAB script was
programmed to better understand the performance characteristics of the design. It is based on
example 3-2 of Sutton & Biblarz Rocket Propulsion Elements, 9th Edition [14]. First ideal thrust,
F, and ideal specific impulse, Is, are calculated. Then, cross-sectional area, A, local velocity, v,
specific volume, V, absolute temperature, T, and local Mach number, M0, are plotted with
respect to pressure along the nozzle length.
First effective exhaust velocity is calculated (Equation 1). This variable is represented by
v2 and describes the average velocity of the exhaust gas at the nozzle exit. Equation 3 is true
under the assumptions that the chamber cross-section is large compared to the nozzle throat, and
the flow is isentropic and adiabatic. Typically, the subscript, 3, denotes conditions outside of the
nozzle, or ambient conditions. In this case we set the exit pressure, p2, equal to ambient pressure,
p3. Because of this, the exit pressure is set to atmospheric pressure at sea level (0.1013MPa)
[XX].

(𝑘−1) (Eqn. 1)
2𝑘 𝑝2 𝑘
𝑣2 = √ 𝑅𝑇1 [1 − ( ) ]
𝑘−1 𝑝1

The heat capacity ratio, k, is difficult to solve for mathematically, so this value will be
found via software such as ProPep, Burnsim, or NASA’s Chemical Equilibrium Applications
(CEA). The utilization of software in determining heat capacity ratio is especially useful because
the propellant formulation will be constantly changing throughout the design process. The
propellant formulation directly impacts the properties of its combusted gas.

67 | P a g e
 For ideal expansion, v2 is equal to the effective exhaust velocity, c. With this information,
specific impulse may be calculated (Equation 2). Then, with the mass flow rate (found via
change in mass over time) the ideal thrust is calculated (equation 3).

𝑐 (Eqn. 2)
𝐼𝑠 =
𝑔0

𝐹 = 𝑚̇𝑐 (Eqn. 3)

Next the values that are plotted against pressure are calculated. To simplify the process,
equations are written in terms of py, which represents the variable pressure (ranging from
chamber pressure to atmospheric pressure). The subscript, y, implies that the variable is a
function of the changing pressure along the length of the nozzle and is a vector quantity. The
equations to solve for specific volume, temperature, velocity, cross-sectional area, and Mach
number are shown below in equations 4 through 5. Temperature, cross-sectional area, and Mach
number are shown in equations 6 through 8.
𝑅𝑇1 (Eqn. 4)
𝑉1 =
𝑝1

(1−𝑘) (Eqn. 5)
𝑝1
𝑉𝑦 = 𝑉1 ( )
𝑝𝑦
(𝑘−1) (Eqn. 6)
𝑝𝑦 𝑘
𝑇𝑦 = 𝑇1 ( )
𝑝1
𝑉𝑦 (Eqn. 7)
𝐴𝑦 = 𝑚̇
𝑣𝑦
𝑉𝑦 (Eqn. 8)
𝑀𝑦 =
√𝑘𝑅𝑇𝑦
v2 = ideal rocket exhaust velocity
V = specific volume
k = heat capacity ratio
R = gas constant
T1 = chamber temperature
p1 = chamber pressure
p2 = exit pressure
c = effective exhaust velocity
g0 = gravitational acceleration
F = ideal thrust

68 | P a g e
𝑚̇ = mass flow rate
M = Mach number

With the equations stated above, the following plots were generated:

Figure 65: Specific Volume Vs. Pressure Figure 66: Temperature Vs. Pressure

Figure 67: Velocity Vs. Pressure Figure 68: Cross-Sectional Area Vs. Pressure

6.3.3 Propellant Calculations

As discussed in section 6.1.3 a shear stress analysis must be done, in order to ensure the
propellant does not shear off during launch. A simple drawing of the grain geometry is provided
below, figure 69, for reference throughout this section.

69 | P a g e
 Figure 69. Propellant Grain Geometry
The maximum force will be applied to the inner radius of the grain, so the max shear
stress will be calculated at this location. The shear and bending moment diagrams in figure 70
were drawn biased on a conceptual understanding of the general shear and bending behavior.
Beginning with the general equation for shear stress, equation 9, an equation for
maximum shear stress can be obtained by substituting in the area and force at the location of
maximum shear stress, equation 10. In order to solve the team plugged in the values in table 10
which will give results for a 35 mm motor. The team chose to perform the analysis for a 35 mm
motor since that is where testing will begin, however this same analysis must be done for all
motor sizes the team plans to test.

70 | P a g e
 T

Figure 70. Shown Top to Bottom; Cross Section, Shear Diagram, Bending Moment Diagram for
Propellant Grain

𝐹
𝑇= (Eqn. 9)
𝐴

𝐹𝑎
𝑇𝑚𝑎𝑥 = ⋅ 0.75 ⋅ 𝜋 (Eqn. 10)
ℎ ⋅ 𝑅𝑖

Table 10. Physical Properties for a 35 mm Motor

Variable Value
Ri 7/16 in
h 4.5 in
Fa 280 lbf

71 | P a g e
 Using equation 10 and the values in table 10 Tmax is found to be just under 0.25 Mpa.
Research on the binder shows that the max tensile strength is roughly 1.5 Mpa, although it can be
higher under certain conditions [35]. Assuming that the shear strength is half that of the tensile
strength then the max tensile strength is 0.75 Mpa. This means that the actual stress the grain
would experience is significantly less than the maximum stress that the propellent would be able
to handle.
6.3.4 Motor Casing Calculations
The casing is a pivotal part of the project. It must be designed to withstand multiple
cycles of 76 mm motors. The reusability of the casing ensures that costs remain low, and the club
is able to spend more on chemicals rather than having to fabricate a whole new case. The casing
must also be made from ductile and non-ferrous materials to ensure safety. The common casing
material for rocketry is aluminum based on its ductile behavior as well as its strength-to-weight
ratio. Because 76 mm is just twenty-one thousandths of an inch off from a 3 in OD tube, a 3 in
6061 Aluminum tube with a 0.125 in thickness will be chosen and used to evaluate the maximum
pressures that can be experienced by the vessel.
6.3.4.1 Casing Hoop Stress
Hoop stresses are stresses acting on the circumference of the vessel. The calculations for
these stresses depend on the thickness ratio of the vessel. If this ratio is greater than ten, the
vessel can be evaluated as a thick-walled vessel. This calculation is done below.

𝑟
≥ 10 (Eqn. 11)
𝑡

(3𝑖𝑛 − 2 ⋅ 0.125𝑖𝑛)
( )
2 (Eqn. 12)
≥ 10 ⇒ 11 ≥ 10
0.125
This vessel behaves as a thick-walled vessel, so the following equation (Equation 13) will
be the equation for a thick-walled vessel’s hoop stress [10].

𝑟𝑖2 𝑝𝑖 𝑟𝑜2
𝜎𝑡 = (1 + ) (Eqn. 13)
𝑟𝑜2 − 𝑟𝑖2 𝑟𝑖2
Stress is known by determining the materials yield strength and applying a common
factor of safety used with solid rocketry, the factor of safety being 1.5 [45]. The yield strength of
6061 T6 aluminum is 40 kpsi [44]. With the applied factor of safety, this brings the yield
strength to 26.6 kpsi. Everything else is known besides the pressure. Solving for pressure would
result in the max amount of pressure that the vessel can experience.
6.3.4.2 Casing Axial Stress

72 | P a g e
Since it is known that the vessel behaves as a thick-walled cylinder, the axial stress equation
(Equation 14) can be defined.

𝑝𝑖 𝑟𝑖2
𝜎𝑙 = 2 (Eqn. 14)
𝑟𝑜 − 𝑟𝑖2
In the same manner as with the hoop stress, the equation can be rearranged for pressure to check
how much pressure is allowed for the end caps of the motor.

6.3.4.3 Results and Selection

Table 11: Results of Allowable Casing Pressures
Max Allowable Pressure [psi]
Hoop Stress 2314.465
Axial Stress 4848.485
The pressures experienced within the casing shall not exceed 150 kilogram-force per
square centimeter [46]. In pounds per square inch, this is 2133.5 pounds per square inch. This
means that this casing design is appropriate. Ideally, the casing shall not exceed 1000 pounds per
square inch, so the design passes all the safety factors associated with casing manufacturing.
6.4 Future Testing Potential
6.4.1 Future Testing for Test Stand
Before testing any propulsion system on the stand, the measurement devices must be
calibrated and individually tested to ensure their accuracy. Calibration curves will be created,
which allows the team to minimize any existing systematic error within the device. The
calibration curve is generated by collecting data from our sensors and plotting them against a
measurement device with known accuracy. The slope of the calibration curve is then used to
correct the data output by our devices.
The other element that must be analyzed is motor support. The current design features
four all-thread screws that press into the motor. This may hold the motor too well and not allow
the motor to move enough to get accurate data, or the threads could secure the motor poorly.
This means that the motor could get dislodged and create a major safety hazard, or the structure
could experience damage with offset loading. A potential solution to this problem is using
extrusion which is more rigid than the all-thread screws. This would require more parts but
would minimize some important safety concerns.
6.4.2 Future Testing for Motor and Propellent
Prior to testing and iterating the propellent formula the team must build the testing equipment.
The propellants and motors will be tested on the test stand which is discussed in section 6.4.1
and in a strand burner. A strand burner is a small pressure vessel that collects pressure and
temperature data. This will allow the team to generate burn rate equations for all propellants
73 | P a g e
witches are tested with this device. So, the next step is to create the strand burner then test
propellants. Once the propellant formula is fully tested, including additives, the team will begin
testing full motors, including nozzles on the test stand.

7 Conclusions
In this report, we begin by describing the project we were given, designing, mixing, and
testing our own formulation of a solid rocket motor. Our full-scale 76 mm motor will be tested
on a test stand of our design and creation to make sure it is suitable for use in the rocket for the
NAU Rocket Capstone launch. We then defined our project and derived important requirements
that must be met to succeed in our endeavors. We obtained our customer requirements, which
helped align with our measurable engineering requirements. These demands then were analyzed
in a House of Quality (QFD).
After these different analyses we each found multiple resources that increase our
understanding in this area of focus. It was imperative for the project to research our project’s
area of focus because it offers us key details into what we need to succeed and remain safe while
completing our tasks. We then defined important mathematical models and tools that will help us
numerically solve these problems we are dealing with.
To determine a reasonable design, we created a functional decomposition of our system
which helped us generate potential concepts. We then generated specific selection criterion
which was evaluated within a decision matrix to get us to our final design. Propellant formulas
and geometries were also defined and evaluated which gave us our ideal propellant
characteristics. These selections are already being used further in our project and have promising
results.
To further ensure the safety of our design, the team performed FMEA analyses on each of
the subsystems (test stand, APCP mixture, motor casing/combustion chamber, and nozzle
assembly). Such analyses allowed the team to determine the most likely modes of failure and
how they can be mitigated. Another way the team ensured the safety of the design is through
engineering calculations. For example, the ANSYS FEA simulation performed on the test stand
shows that mathematically, the design is safe. The MATLAB calculations performed on the
nozzle assembly help to validate its performance. The shear force calculations performed on the
solid propellant allow the team to avoid issued identified in the propellant FMEA. The hoop
stress calculations performed on the motor casing allows the team to recognize the maximum
allowable chamber pressure and helps to avoid catastrophic failure of the propulsion system.

74 | P a g e
8 References
[Include here all references cited, following the reference style described in the syllabus. There
should only be one Reference list in this report, so all individual section or subsection reference
lists must be compiled here with the main report references. If you wish to include a
bibliography, which lists not only references cited but other relevant literature, include it as an
Appendix.]
Benchmarking
Test Stands:
[1] “Horizontal/vertical test stand to 1500 lb-F Thrust,” Aerocon Systems Horizontal/Vertical
Test Stand to 1500 LB-f Thrust, https://aeroconsystems.com/cart/motor-test-
stands/horizontal/vertical-test-stand-to-1500-lb-f-thrust/ (accessed Sep. 17, 2023).
[2] “Rocket engine thrust measurement: Motor test stand,”
FUTEK, https://www.futek.com/applications/Rocket-Engine-Thrust-Stand (accessed Sep. 17,
2023).
[3] R. Nakka, “Richard Nakka’s Experimental Rocketry Web Site,” Richard Nakka’s
Experimental Rocketry Site, https://www.nakka-rocketry.net/sts5000f.html (accessed Sep.
17, 2023).

Propulsion:
[4] L. Sirius Rocketry, “Aerotech RMS 75/1280 Motor,” AeroTech RMS 75/1280 Motor [ARO-
7512M] - $377.99: Sirius Rocketry Online Store,
For the Serious Rocketeer!,
https://www.siriusrocketry.biz/ishop/aerotech-rms-75-1280-motor-
886.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwx5qoBhDyARIsAPbMagCoReHMnzQtyWaBR-
ZfqKIePXhwDdmKJdkZ-XMiXdBLKVWZwqhSCeIaAkGvEALw_wcB
(accessed Sep. 17, 2023).
[5] L. Sirius Rocketry, “Aerotech high-power M1350W-P 75 mm dms hazmat - special order,”
Aerotech High-Power M1350W-P 75 mm DMS
HAZMAT - Special Order [ARO-13135P-SO] - $584.25: Sirius Rocketry Online Store, For the
Serious Rocketeer!,
https://www.siriusrocketry.biz/ishop/aerotech-high-power-m1350w-p-75mm-dms-hazmat-
special-order-1584.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwx5qoBh
DyARIsAPbMagDFx_H0N8b7341OseZcTPIa_smTtYCrcjxMofvCjn68zWy89L1RlUcaAoitEA
Lw_wcB
(accessed Sep. 17, 2023).
[6] L. Sirius Rocketry, “Aerotech high-power L875DM-PS 75mm DMS HAZMAT,” Aerotech
High-Power L875DM-PS 75mm DMS HAZMAT
[ARO-12875P] - $759.99 : Sirius Rocketry Online Store, For the Serious Rocketeer!,
https://www.siriusrocketry.biz/ishop/aerotech-high-power-l875dm-ps-75mm-dms-hazmat-
1585.html?gclid=Cj0KCQjwx5qoBhDyARIsAPbM

75 | P a g e
agBcu_87ekCEw_0D9yzfd3lAR1woEgd3QNf2EZ30NEN8PwQvAkdZJXgaAngkEALw_wcB
(accessed Sep. 17, 2023).
Literature Review
3.2.1 Shannon Comstock
Scholarly Articles:

[7] B. Niharika and B. B. Varma, “Design and analysis of composite rocket motor
casing,” IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering, vol. 455, p. 012034,
2018. doi:10.1088/1757-899x/455/1/012034
[8] D. Kumar B and S. Nayana B, “Design and structural analysis of solid rocket motor
casing hardware used in aerospace applications,” Journal of Aeronautics & Aerospace Engineering,
vol. 5, no. 2, 2016. doi:10.4172/2168-9792.1000166
[9] J. A. Hendron, “Nondestructive testing of high-strength steel rocket motor cases,” Symposium
on Recent Developments in Nondestructive Testing of Missiles and Rockets. doi:10.1520/stp44520s

Textbooks:
[10] R. G. Budynas and J. K. Nisbett, Shigley’s Mechanical Engineering Design. New York, NY:
McGraw Hill LLC, 2024.
[11] F. P. Beer, E. R. Johnston, J. T. DeWolf, and D. F. Mazurek, “Chapter 4 Design Concepts,”
in Mechanics of Materials, New York: McGraw-Hill Education, 2020

Online Resources:
[12] Glenn research center | NASA, https://www1.grc.nasa.gov/wp-content/uploads/Rocket-Lab-Safety-
Manual-1959.pdf (accessed Sep. 17, 2023).
[13] EHS – EHS, https://ehs.mit.edu/wp-
content/uploads/2020/01/Rocket_Safety_Plan_Template.docx (accessed Sep. 17, 2023).

Additional Resources:
[14] K. M. Rajan and K. Narasimhan, “An approach to selection of material and manufacturing processes
for rocket motor cases using weighted performance index,” Journal of Materials Engineering and
Performance, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 444–449, Aug. 2002, doi: 10.1361/105994902770343980.
[15] N. Yılmaz, B. Donaldson, W. Gill, and W. W. Erikson, “Solid propellant burning rate from strand
burner pressure measurement,” Propellants, Explosives, Pyrotechnics, vol. 33, no. 2, pp. 109–117, Apr.
2008, doi: 10.1002/prep.200800216.
[16] A. A. Aziz, R. Mamat, and W. K. W. Ali, “Development of strand burner for solid propellant
burning rate studies,” IOP Conference Series, Dec. 2013, doi: 10.1088/1757-899x/50/1/012048.

3.2.2 Andrew King

Textbooks:
[14] G. P. Sutton and O. Biblarz, Rocket Propulsion Elements. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley, 2017.
[15] R. C. Hibbeler, Fluid Mechanics. Hoboken, NJ: Pearson, 2015.
[16] M. J. Moran, H. N. Shapiro et al., Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics. Hoboken, NJ:
Wiley 2014
[17] R. D. Archer, M. Saarlas, An Introduction to Aerospace Propulsion. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Prentice-Hall, inc., 1996
76 | P a g e
[18] R. E. Sorkin, Gas Dynamics and Thermodynamics of Solid-Propellant Rockets. Jerusalem: Israel
Program for Scientific Translations Ltd., 1967
Scholarly Articles:
[19] J. C. Restrepo, A. F. Bolaños-Acosta, and J. R. Simões-Moreira, “Short nozzles design for real gas
supersonic flow using the method of characteristics,” Applied Thermal Engineering, vol. 207, pp.
1–14, May 2022. doi:10.1016/j.applthermaleng.2022.118063
[20] K. N. Kumar, M. Gopalsamy, D. Antony, R. Krishnaraj, and C. B. Viswanadh, “Design and
optimization of aerospike nozzle using CFD,” IOP Conf. Series: Materials Science and
Engineering, vol. 247, 2017. doi:10.1109/icraae.2017.8297246
[21] N. Önder and C. Tola, “Effects of Nozzle Throat and Combustion Chamber Design Variables on
Divergent Portion of the Nozzle,” 2019 9th International Conference on Recent Advances in
Space Technologies (RAST), pp. 223–230, Jun. 2019. doi:10.1109/rast.2019.8767796
Online Materials:
[22] N. Hall, Ed., “Short index of propulsion slides,” NASA, https://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-
12/airplane/shortp.html (accessed Sep. 18, 2023).
[23] “NASA Technical Reports Server (NTRS),” NASA,
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/api/citations/19770009539/downloads/19770009539.pdf (accessed Sep. 18,
2023).
[24] D.-S. Ha and H. J. Kim, “Dynamic characteristic modeling and simulation of an aerospike-shaped
pintle nozzle for variable thrust of a solid rocket motor,” Acta Astronautica, vol. 201, pp. 364–375,
Sep. 2022. doi:10.1016/j.actaastro.2022.09.031
[25] T. Yahiaoui and T. Zebbiche, “Supersonic several bells design of minimum length nozzle contours
for more altitudes level adaptations,” Arabian Journal for Science and Engineering, vol. 46, no. 12,
pp. 11871–11883, May 2021. doi:10.1007/s13369-021-05725-1

[26] Lewis Research Center, J. M. Winter, and D. A. Peterson, Washington, D.C.: National Aeronautics
and Space Administration, 1969, pp. 1–167.

3.2.3 Grace Morris

Textbooks:
[27] J. White, B. Anderson, B. Green, and M. Hall, Interactive General Chemistry. New York:
Macmillan Learning, 2019.
[28] T. W. McCreary, Experimental Composite Propellant an Introduction to Properties and
Preparation of Composite
Propellants - Design, Construction, Testing, and Characteristics of Small Rocket Motors.
Murray, Ky: Eigenverl., 2014.

Scholarly Papers:
[29] A. B. Aziz, R. Mamat, W. K. W. Ali, and M. R. M. Perang, “Review on typical ingredients
for ammonium perchlorate
based solid propellant,” Applied Mechanics and Materials, https://www.scientific.net/AMM.773-
774.470 (accessed Sep. 17,
2023).
[30] Author links open overlay panelM.S. McClain a et al., “Additive manufacturing of
77 | P a g e
ammonium perchlorate composite
propellant with high solids loadings,” Proceedings of the Combustion Institute,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1540748918300531 (accessed Sep. 17, 2023).
[31] S. Jain et al., “Size and shape of ammonium perchlorate and their influence on properties of
composite propellant,”
Defence Science Journal, vol. 59, no. 3, pp. 294–299, 2009. doi:10.14429/dsj.59.1523
Online Sources:

[32] High-power safety information - tripoli rocketry association, https://www.tripoli.org/safety

(accessed Sep. 17, 2023).
[33] “APCP solid propulsion development,” Brandon Fallon, https://brandonfallon.com/apcp-
solid-propulsion-development/ (accessed Sep. 17, 2023).
[34] “Solid Rocket Motor Theory -- GUIPEP,” Richard Nakka’s Experimental Rocketry Site,
https://www.nakka-rocketry.net/th_imp.html (accessed Oct. 12, 2023).
[35] Typical stress-strain curves of the tensile tests for HTPB propellant,
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Typical-stress-strain-curves-of-the-tensile-tests-for-HTPB-
propellant-under-the-test_fig2_331209759 (accessed Nov. 6, 2023).
[36] Author links open overlay panelShalini Chaturvedi and AbstractIn this article we mainly
discuss about AP/HTPB composite solid propellants. Classification, “Solid propellants:
AP/HTPB composite propellants,” Arabian Journal of Chemistry,
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1878535215000106#s0125 (accessed Nov.
28, 2023).

3.2.4 Remington Dasher

Textbooks:
[37] W. Anderson, M. Beckstead, and R. Behrens, Solid Propellant Chemistry, Combustion, and
Motor
Interior Ballistics, vol. 185. Reston, VA: American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
Inc, 2000.
[38] J. D. Anderson, Fundamentals of Aerodynamics, 6th ed. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill
Education, 2017.

Scholarly Articles:
[39] R. R. Sobczak, “Ammonium Perchlorate Composite Basics ,” Journal of Pyrotechnics, no.
3, pp. 1–12,
1993.
[40] G. Lengelle, J. Duterque, and J. F. Trubert, “Combustion of Solid Propellants,” Internal
Aerodynamics
in Solid Rocket Propulsion/STO Educational Notes, pp. 27–31, May 2002.
[41] Ji Dai, Fei Wang, Chengbo Ru, Jianbing Xu, Chengai Wang, Wei Zhang, Yinghua Ye, and
Ruiqi Shen, The Journal of Physical Chemistry C 2018 122 (18), 10240-10247, DOI:
10.1021/acs.jpcc.8b01514

78 | P a g e
Online Resources:
[41] “APCP solid propulsion development,” Brandon Fallon,
https://brandonfallon.com/apcp-solid-propulsion-development/ (accessed Sep. 17, 2023).
[42] B. Dunbar, “Solid rocket boosters,” NASA,
https://www.nasa.gov/returntoflight/system/system_SRB.html (accessed Sep. 17, 2023).
[43] “Aluminum 6061-T6; 6061-T651 Data Sheet,” ASM Aerospace Specification Metals Inc.,
https://asm.matweb.com/search/SpecificMaterial.asp?bassnum=ma6061t6 (accessed Nov. 28,
2023).
[44] “Thermal analysis on solid rocket motor casing,” International Transaction Journal of
Engineering, Management, & Applied Sciences & Technologies,
https://tuengr.com/V12/12A9UM.pdf (accessed Nov. 29, 2023).
[45] D. K. B, S. N. B, and S. S. D, “Design and Structural Analysis of Solid Rocket Motor
Casing Hardware used in Aerospace Applications,” Longdom,
https://www.longdom.org/open-access/design-and-structural-analysis-of-solid-rocket-
motor-casing-hardware-used-in-aerospace-applications-
14012.html#:~:text=Solid%20Rocket%20Motor%20Hardware%20Design&text=Maximu
m%20Expected%20Operating%20Pressure%20(MEOP,obtained%20from%20the%20balli
stic%20design. (accessed Nov. 28, 2023).

79 | P a g e
9 Appendices
9.1 Appendix A: House of Quality (QFD)

80 | P a g e
9.2 Appendix B: ProPep3 Results

81 | P a g e
82 | P a g e
9.3 Appendix C: BurnSim Results9

83 | P a g e
84 | P a g e
9.4 Appendix D: FMEA

9.4.1 Appendix D: FMEA Test Stand

85 | P a g e
9.4.2 Appendix D: FMEA Nozzle
Product Name NAU Rocket Club Capstone Development Team: Shannon Comstock, Remington Dasher, Andrew King, Page No of
System Name Carbon Rocket Grace Morris FMEA Number
Subsystem Name Propulsion Subsystem Date: 11/3/2023
Component Name 75mm Rocket Nozzle
Part # and Severity Potential Causes and Occurance Current Design Detection
Potential Failure Mode Potential Effect(s) of Failure RPN Recommended Action
Functions (S) Mechanisms of Failure (O) Controls Test (D)
Pay special attention during
design process, and ensure
Overpressurization of Explosion of motor casing, Measure precise the insert has been
graphite insert for motor casing - Ductile mounting points of nozzle are Cross-sectional area of throat diameter machined to the correct
throat Fracture sheared off 10 throat is too small 3 with micrometers 1 30 diameter
High temp. exhaust, Simulations, and
Throat area experiences Decreased thrust abrasive granules small scale Pick isotropic graphite, pick
extreme erosion performance 5 present in exhaust gas 4 experimental burn 3 60 low-temperature propellant.
Choose temperature
resistant graphite, and
consider adding insulation
to reduce thermal
Ensure proper expansion. Ensure the
Mechanical vailure via Fracturing of graphite insert, fitting, and FEA diameter is the same as the
crack propogation rapid decrease in thrust 8 Thermal expansion 2 simulations 3 48 height
Includeofstep-down
the insert
The insert becomes a high- geometry, precicely
Insert is ejected out of velocity projectile and the If the step-down that holds Perform FEA on machine graphite for a
nozzle due to force of rest of the propulsion the insert in place is too parts to ensure press-fit, Heat up metal
exhaust gas assembly may fail 10 weak 1 required strenth 2 20 nozzle during press fit.
Nozzle diverges at too CFD simulations Pay special attention during
steep of an angle and the in Ansys, and design process, and ensure
Converging- Ductile failure of diverging Explosion of motor casing, flow separation causes small scale test the nozzle has been
Diverging nozzle section rapid decrease in thrust 10 inintentional side-loading 2 firings 2 40 machined correctly
Select nozzle material that
The extreme Heat transfer has a high thermal
temperatures weakens simulations and conductivity and is resistant
9 the design 3 hand calculations 2 54 to melting
Increased likelihood of
catastrophic motor failure,
decrease in thrust
performance, components ensure proper O-
that are not meant to ring groove Choose temperature
experience extreme dimensions with resistant o-rings or
Force and/or temperature temperature will be affected Incorrectly sized O-rings; calipers or implement additional
O-ring Seals deformation by the escape of exhaust gas 10 too small 2 micrometer
Compare 1 20 insulation
attached O-ring
Diameter with Ensure that the O-rings fit
inner diameter of securely in the machined
10 Incorrect installation 3 casing 1 30 grooves in nozzle fitting
Chamber pressure will
escape and have Manufacturer defect; did
Chemical and thermally catastophic effects on motor not cure properly in Elastic strength Implement quality assurance
induced corrosion and rocket parts 10 factory 1 tests 1 10 plan guring motor assembly

86 | P a g e
9.4.3 Appendix D: FMEA Propellent

87 | P a g e
9.4.4 Appendix D: FMEA Casing

88 | P a g e
9.5 Appendix E: Budget

89 | P a g e