Combustion, Explosion, and Shock Waves, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp.

31–42, 2008

Analysis of Unsteady Solid-Propellant

Combustion Models (Review)

L. K. Gusachenko1 and V. E. Zarko1 UDC 536.46

Translated from Fizika Goreniya i Vzryva, Vol. 44, No. 1, pp. 35–48, January–February, 2008.
Original article submitted December 29, 2006.

Recent studies of solid-propellant combustion models are briefly analyzed. The models
are divided into purely one-dimensional (classical and phenomenological models with
various generalizations of the Zel’dovich approach) and non-one-dimensional. The lat-
ter include models with local non-one-dimensionality, which is always accompanied by
local unsteadiness. This all can be eliminated by averaging. The main disadvantage
of unsteady solid-propellant combustion models, which is no fault of their authors, is
the same as in the case of steady-state models: the lack of detailed information on
chemical and physical processes in the condensed phase. Impropriety of extending
the purely one-dimensional approach to the instability region is noted. Possible di-
rections for further development of unsteady (and quasi-steady-state) solid-propellant
combustion models for homogeneous compositions may involve accounting for local
non-one-dimensionality and the unsteadiness due to instability of the subsurface re-
actions zone and verification of the possibility of the existence of chemical instability
capable of causing similar non-one-dimensionality and unsteadiness.
Key words: solid rocket propellant, unsteady combustion, mathematical modeling.

INTRODUCTION (see below, and in [2]). In addition, instability of the

Unsteady combustion regimes of solid propellants
(SPs) capable of self-sustaining burning were found ex-
perimentally immediately after the invention of gun-
powder and rockets: in each ordinary launch, unsteadi-
ness occurs at the beginning and end of combustion,
but in launch failure, it frequently occurs during the
launch process. In some cases, self-oscillatory combus-
tion is performed deliberately [1]. More often, however,
instability impairs steady-state combustion against the
will of developers. Sometimes, instability within the
framework of the Zel’dovich–Novozhilov model occurs.
In many cases, there is local unsteadiness induced by
microinhomogeneities of mixed compositions. Finally,
for almost all homogeneous compositions in the rocket
range of pressure, instability of the subsurface reaction
zone has recently been found which is due to the fact
that the heat release in this zone is higher than is re-
quired to heat the material to the surface temperature
1
Institute of Chemical Kinetics and Combustion,
Siberian Division, Russian Academy of Sciences,
Novosibirsk 630090; gusachen@kinetics.nsc.ru.
0010-5082/08/4401-0031 
c 2008 Springer Science + Business Media, Inc.
gas-phase reaction zone is possible.2
Unsteady combustion models are designed to pre-
dict the behavior of a burning SP after ignition (estab-
lishment of a steady-state regime) and with variation
of the external conditions (pressure, blowing velocity)
and to predict the stability region of the steady-state
regime. For a long time (see reviews [6, 7]), researchers
of unsteady SP combustion have confined themselves
to theoretical or experimental finding of the response
function f of the mass burning rate m with respect to a
2
It has been reported [3] that measurements of electrical
conductivity fluctuations in SP combustion zones prove the
existence of chemical oscillations in the gas phase. For os-
cillatory reactions in chemistry, see reviews [4, 5]. In par-
ticular, ample material on chemical oscillations in gas com-
bustion, especially in cool-flame combustion is presented in
[5]. For a hot gas flame (whose flat front is known to always
have cellular instability) such data are not available, simply
because it is difficult to differentiate between thermokinetic
instability and diffusion-thermal instability in experiments.
In SP combustion models, the possibility of chemical oscilla-
tions has not been verified, as far as we are aware: all models
containing not more than two gas reactions use subroutines
for calculating quasi-steady-state chemical equilibrium.
31
32
small pressure perturbation Δp: f = (Δm/m)/(Δp/p).
However, of practical (and even primary) importance is
information on the unsteady velocity of outflow of the fi-
nal3 products from the SP combustion zone v = m/ρ =
mRT /pM (ρ is the density), which depends on the tem-
perature T and (via the average molecular weight M ) on
the chemical composition of the products. Composition
and temperature can vary significantly under unsteady
conditions — see experiments [8–10] with depressuriza-
tion, and the results of studies of oscillatory instability
due to incomplete combustion [11, 12] and thermal ex-
plosion regimes [13]. In addition to pressure variation,
combustion unsteadiness can be caused by time varia-
tions of other external parameters, first of all, the veloc-
ity of tangential flow of combustion products over the
burning surface (in this case, the term unsteady erosive
combustion is used).
In discussing SP combustion models (in particular,
unsteady models), one should bear in mind their limita-
tions: SPs are designed for use in rocket motors and gas
generators, but in the development of combustion mod-
els, combustion chamber conditions are usually modeled
by specifying only the pressure and (at the best) the
flow velocity. This is almost always justified: combus-
tion modeling allows one to determine the parameters
of the material entering the flow. The further evolution
of this material is the subject of interior-ballistic re-
search. However, it is impossible in practice to differen-
tiate between the two above-mentioned research areas if
something important for the operation of the entire de-
vice is transferred along the burning surface. Of special
interest is the little-understood behavior of the above-
mentioned quantity being transferred after the sudden
expansion of the blowing flow beyond the downstream
boundary of the burning surface.
In the simplest case, the question is the transfer
of the flow vorticity. A plausible model for the interac-
tion of combustion and flow processes in the combustion
chamber should take into account the variation of the
characteristics of the boundary layer along the burning
surface and their influence on the burning rate, and this
has been done for the steady-state case in many papers
on erosive combustion. In addition, this model should
describe vorticity generation, periodic separation of vor-
tices at the site of sudden flow expansion, and feedback.
3
In practice, combustion products are conditionally final;
after escaping from the zone of sharp changes of the pa-
rameters, the combustion products do not reach complete
chemical equilibrium, as is indicated by all thermocouple
measurements in the combustion zone. Combustion com-
pleteness depends on the residence time of the products in
the combustion chamber; this is related to the possibility
of instability or several steady-state operating regimes of a
technical device (see references to [11–13] below).
Gusachenko and Zarko
The destabilizing effect of these separations on SP com-
bustion, or, more precisely, the effect of sonic pertur-
bations that arise during vortex passage through the
nozzle has been considered [14]. It has been shown [15]
by the example of transfer of entropy perturbations that
irregular perturbations are possible near the boundary
of this instability, as in liquid-propellant jet engines.
Thus, combustion models should take into account un-
steadiness, for example, the intermittence effect known
for the boundary layer. As far as we are aware, such
models do not currently exist.
A more complex case is when a propellant has a
thick liquid layer on the burning surface which is blown
over by combustion products. There is a tendency to
use SPs with a significant fraction of relatively low-
melting (compared to ammonium perchlorate (AP) en-
ergetic materials — HMX, RDX, ADN, CL-20, HNF,
etc. The surface temperature in this case is controlled
primarily by evaporation processes and, in the rocket
pressure range, it remains high. Thus, compositions
with a thick liquid layer are being developed, leading to
the necessity of estimating and describing the generally
unsteady behavior of this layer at any site of the blown
burning surface, and in particular, at the site of sudden
flow expansion. The hypothesis of melt tearing down
from the burning particle surface by gas flow was used
for plausible explanation of experimental results [16].
It is even more difficult to estimate the combus-
tion of aluminized SPs in the flow of combustion prod-
ucts. In this case, it is required to take into account
the occurrence on the burning surface of agglomerates
(containing aluminum, its oxide, and, probably, frag-
ments of other propellant components and intermediate
products of their decomposition), their possible motion
along the surface (in particular, in the region of sud-
den flow expansion), detachment, ignition, combustion
and interaction with other agglomerates in the flow. Of
the problems listed above, only for the interaction of
liquid particles in the flow, a detailed computation pro-
cedure [17], identical for any composition, is available.
In the remaining problems, the effect of SP composi-
tion is very significant, and there are only particular
models of steady-state agglomeration regimes for some
compositions (in which the burning rate is assumed to
be known).
All unsteady effects of SP combustion and the mod-
els describing them are conveniently divided into two
groups according to whether the concepts of a one-
dimensional or non-one-dimensional pattern of the pro-
cesses in the combustion zone are used. A non-one-
dimensional pattern can be expected for combustion of
composite SPs with a fairly coarse filler. In addition, the
occurrence of a one-dimensional or non-one-dimensional
Analysis of Unsteady Solid-Propellant Combustion Models (Review)
pattern depends on whether the unsteady phenomena
on the SP burning surface are regular or chaotic in na-
ture. Regularity can occur, in particular, if the above-
mentioned phenomena are caused directly by a rapid
time change of an external parameter, for example, pres-
sure or blowing velocity, in particular, due to acoustic
oscillations. However, it follows from theory [18, 19]
that unsteady combustion can be implemented in a con-
stant pressure device if the values of the parameters ex-
ternal for combustion (first of all, pressure and initial
temperature) fall in the range of combustion instability
of the SP considered. For steady-state combustion of
homogeneous compositions, the stability boundary can
be found using one-dimensional models, but beyond this
boundary, combustion is non-one-dimensional. In addi-
tion, it should be taken into account that, experimen-
tally, such (at p = const) instability can be recorded
only by microfilming or local measurements of micropa-
rameters in combustion zones of small surfaces areas.
There have been only few comparisons of theory
with experiment, which is due to the enormous tech-
nical difficulties arising in measurements of unsteady
burning rate (see a review [20]). We note that a com-
parison with experiment is reasonable only for stable
steady-state combustion because for unsteady regimes,
it is not possible to reliably determine the parameter k,
equal to β(Ts − T0 ), where β = d ln u/dT0 , u = m/ρ,
Ts is the surface temperature, and T0 is the initial tem-
perature (see [21]). In that work, the reaction force for
HMX combustion was measured and periodic nonlin-
ear oscillations were shown to occur at parameter val-
ues k < 1 (measured under the assumption of steady-
state combustion), which fall in the range of combus-
tion regimes that are unconditionally stable under the
Zel’dovich–Novozhilov model.4
A brief analysis of one-dimensional and non-one-
dimensional models for unsteady SP combustion avail-
able in the literature is given below.
ONE-DIMENSIONAL MODELS FOR
UNSTEADY SP COMBUSTION
One-dimensionality significantly simplifies the
analysis; accordingly, one-dimensional models have
been studied much more extensively than non-one-
dimensional models.
4 monly considered homogeneous. The surface rough-
A possible explanation of the contradiction is that the ob-
served oscillations could be of a different nature (not after
Zel’dovich–Novozhilov).
33
Phenomenological Models
Basic Model. Zel’dovich put forward the fruitful
idea [18] of spatial separation of the intricate pattern
of unsteady combustion of homogeneous SPs into an
unsteady region of heat transfer processes in the con-
densed phase with a characteristic relaxation time tp
and a quasi-steady-state region of gas-phase and sur-
face processes with a characteristic time tc . The instan-
taneous value of the linear burning rate u is determined
by the processes in the quasi-steady-state region. Under
quasi-steadiness is meant the satisfaction of the condi-
tion tc /tp  1. Later, in problems of mathematical
physics, this approach was converted to the method of
matched asymptotic expansions. In addition, Zel’dovich
proposed [18] a phenomenological treatment of the zone
of complex gas-phase and surface processes as a black
box: even if it is not known what processes occur in this
zone, they [and their controlling parameters, including
the dependence u(t)] have time to adjust to the condi-
tions external to this zone, according to the condition
tc /tp  1. At each time, these procedures are speci-
fied by the heat flux transferred to the condensed phase
λϕ(t) [λ is the thermal conductivity; ϕ ≡ (∂T /∂x)s ;
the subscript s refers to the cold boundary of the quasi-
steady-state zone] and by the gas-phase pressure p(t).
Thus, the relation u = u(p, ϕ) holds. This unsteady
relation is also valid in the particular case of steady-
state combustion. Therefore, a concrete form of the
dependence u(p, ϕ) can be found by using an empiri-
cal dependence for the burning rate in the steady-state
regime ust (p, T0 ), where T0 is the initial temperature
of the SP. For this, the temperature T0 extracted from
the steady-state heat balance of the condensed phase,
T0 = Ts − æϕst /ust (æ and Ts are the thermal diffu-
sivity and the temperature on the interface of the con-
densed phase with the quasi-steady-state zone) needs
to be substituted into the dependence for ust . In [18],
this temperature is considered constant. Next, the sub-
script “st” can be omitted. The approach described
provides a unique possibility to predict the time varia-
tion in the burning rate even for those compositions for
which nothing is known on the nature and mechanisms
of the processes in the above-mentioned quasi-steady-
state region.
The model was formulated for homogeneous SPs.
We believe that to refine the range of applicability of
the model, it is also necessary to investigate the possi-
ble influence (which was mentioned as early as in [22])
of the inevitable heterogeneities of SPs that are com-
ness of extinguished compositions was measured in [23,
24]. If such roughness also takes place in combustion,
34
then, at a high frequency of, for example, pressure vari-
ation, non-one-dimensionality related to a surface shape
change should be manifested.
In subsequent years, the model [18] has been ex-
tended and elaborated in a number of studies, which
are analyzed below.
Accounting for the Variability of Ts . The
best-known studies are those of Novozhilov [19, 25],
in which allowance is made for the experimentally ob-
served substantial dependence of the burning surface
temperature on pressure and initial temperature. In-
formation on this dependence can be obtained, in par-
ticular, from steady-state experiments with microther-
mocouple measurements [23, 26–43].5 In the absence of
detailed data, one has to calculate Ts using Clausius–
Clapeyron type relations. The model has been widely
used to calculate transition processes after ignition or
with pressure variation and to find the combustion sta-
bility boundary (at constant pressure or in a chamber
with outflow) and the acoustic conductivity of the burn-
ing surface [46].
In addition, the procedure of [19] has been used to
calculate the characteristics of self-oscillatory regimes at
constant pressure [47–49]. For the insufficient validity
of such calculations, see below.
Accounting for Other Time-Varying Exter-
nal Parameters (Different from Pressure). The
ideas of [18, 19] also apply to erosive unsteady SP com-
bustion (see, for example, [50, 51]; this applicability is
also mentioned in [22]). One can also consider a situa-
tion with combustion in a field of unsteady mass (iner-
tia) forces. Rudnev [52] even considered the dependence
of the burning rate on combustion chamber gas temper-
ature varied due to heat losses. It is known that this
dependence occurs for specimens a few millimeters in
diameter.
Accounting for the Variability of the Param-
eter RT . In [53–55], it is noted that the approach of
[19], without additional assumptions, allows one to find
not only the mass burning rate m but also the parame-
ter RT for the products leaving the combustion zone in
the unsteady regime if the dependence of this parameter
on p and T0 for the steady-state regime is known. We
note that experimental determination of the dependence
RT (p, T0 ) may be even simpler than measurements of
Ts (p, T0 ) because the parameters of conditionally final
products vary only slightly at a distance several times
greater than the thickness of the combustion zones, and,
hence, less precise measuring instruments can be used.
5
In [44, 45, 23], based on experiments with ballistites, it was
suggested that instead of the dependence Ts (p, T0 ) one could
use the more universal dependence Ts (u). According to [43],
this is also valid for nitramines in the rocket pressure range.
Gusachenko and Zarko
Accounting for the Effects Introducing Ad-
ditional Characteristic Time to the Model. In
[18, 19] the lag time (the characteristic time of the pro-
cess) was taken into account only for heat conduction
in the solid phase. In all the subsequent generaliza-
tions, allowance is made for the times of other processes
that cannot be considered quasi-steady-state at the fre-
quency of the external action considered or cease to be
such with increasing frequency. In most papers, a posi-
tive effect (improved description of unsteady processes)
is inevitably accompanied by a negative effect: the com-
bustion model becomes increasingly less phenomenolog-
ical because, to take into account the time of a par-
ticular process (not considered earlier), it is necessary
to construct its model based on new hypotheses and
simplifications. The opposite situation is also possible:
the generalized model becomes more phenomenological.
For this, the model is supplemented by additional rela-
tions containing empirical constants and the character-
istic time τ of the process additionally taken into ac-
count, so that the generalized model becomes the basic
model as τ → 0 (see [56]). Below, we briefly consider
models that incorporate melting, transparency, reaction
time, subsurface gasification, and accumulation of one
of the components on the surface of the condensed phase
and the relaxation time and the finite dimensions of the
reaction zone in the gas phase.
Melting. The melting of a homogeneous SP in the
preheated zone can be considered without additional
assumptions (see [57–60]). The characteristic time that
arises in the problem is actually the time of thermal re-
arrangement of the molten zone of the condensed phase.
The ideas of the phenomenological model of unsteady
SP combustion set forth in [18, 19, 53] are preserved,
and the difference in the results is due only to the more
realistic description of the preheated zone. Correspond-
ing changes are made in the steady-state heat balance
and the unsteady heat-conduction equation for the con-
densed phase.
Transparency. The models of [18, 19] are easily
extended to the formulation of the problem with the
transparency of the condensed phase taken into account.
The additional characteristic time that appears in the
problem is the time of thermal rearrangement of the
radiation absorption zone. The radiation absorption is
given by the Bouguer–Lambert law, the corresponding
term is added to the heat-conduction equation for the
condensed phase, and the remaining procedures are the
same as in [18, 19]. The unsteady combustion of trans-
parent SPs exposed to a radiant flux has been inves-
tigated theoretically and experimentally [61–66]. An
analysis of the experimental results shows that there
are difficulties in determining the radiation fraction ab-
Analysis of Unsteady Solid-Propellant Combustion Models (Review)
sorbed by the surface. Nevertheless, such studies are
necessary. Among the set of probable SP components,
some can produce a strong unsteady effect due precisely
to transparency. According to [67], one of such compo-
nents is tetryl, whose flame at p > 8 atm heats the
condensed phase to a depth exceeding the dimension of
the Michelson preheated layer by a factor of 20.
Time Lag of the Subsurface Reaction Zone.
For many compositions, experimentally measured
condensed-phase temperature profiles differ markedly
from the Michelson one, which may be due to the ex-
istence of a relatively wide condensed phase reaction
zone [31, 68] and forces one to take into account their
unsteadiness. In the already mentioned paper [56], it
is shown that the effect can be approximately taken
into account phenomenologically (having no data on the
condensed-phase reaction rate) by introducing the lag
time in the model of [19]. This was substantiated by
comparing the results obtained for the phenomenolog-
ical model with lag and for the exact (having an ana-
lytical solution) model, in which the heat release is uni-
formly distributed in a certain subsurface layer of the
condensed phase. The method can be applied to a real
SP when using data of a single unsteady experiment.
The lag time is calculated from these data and is then
used to calculate the process with any other (arbitrary)
changes of the external action in time.
However, serious difficulties are encountered in at-
tempts to take into account the lag of the reaction zone
using its approximate mathematical description and re-
taining the phenomenological approach [69–71]. In the
unsteady regime, the total mass flow rate of material
through the burning surface does not coincide with the
product of the density of the initial composition by the
linear rate of propagation of this surface over the mate-
rial. This situation cannot be reproduced, as is required
by the phenomenological approach, in a steady-state
regime at a different initial temperature: if the regime
is steady-state, the above-mentioned parameters coin-
cide.
Subsurface Gasification. Using similar formula-
tions, Romanov [72] (model A) and Bukharov and
Gusachenko [73] studied the unsteady combustion of
a quasi-homogeneous two-component SP with subsur-
face gasification of the more volatile component in the
plane in which the gasification temperature is reached.
In this case, the fraction of gas in the total mass flow
rate on the cold boundary of the small-lag zone varies
with time, which can result in a significant variation
in the temperature of the combustion products (if, for
example, the volatile component is an oxidizer). It is as-
sumed that subsurface gasification occurs at the site of
the condensed-phase where the gasification temperature
35
Tg is reached. In the porous zone (from the gasifica-
tion boundary to the above-mentioned cold boundary),
no reactions occur and the heat- and mass-transfer pro-
cesses occurring here are described mathematically (the
equations for them are known). The additional charac-
teristic time is the burnout time of the porous zone. All
complex processes are quasi-steady-state and occur in
the small-lag zone. Information on this zone can be ob-
tained, by analogy with [18, 19], as from a black box.
The construction of the model involves the same diffi-
culties as in [70, 71] (see above). They can be partially
overcome by using a series of SPs of the same type with
different contents of the volatile component. The ef-
fect of the inevitable variation in the surface porosity is
ignored (unfortunately, without mention in the texts).
Accumulation of Material on the Surface. Even
larger differences exist between the original works [18,
19] and the physical picture in the model of [74], where
an attempt is made to extend the method of [18, 19] to
model unsteady SP combustion with accumulation of a
component (metal or catalyst) on the surface. Use is
made of the assumption that a steady-state regime ex-
ists in which an SP component is continuously carried
away from the outside of the layer accumulated on the
SP surface.
Gas Phase Time Lag. This effect can be taken into
account approximately, for example, by introducing the
lag time [75] common for all small-lag zones. In partic-
ular, an example of implementing this method and its
comparison with the analytical solution for a composi-
tion burning in accordance with the Belyaev model [49]
is given in [75].
Use of some phenomenological models to simulate
combustion under acoustic oscillations is described in a
review [46].
Models That Do Not Use
the Phenomenological Approach
The models that do not use the phenomenological
approach include equations which describe processes in
small-lag zones on the basis of appropriate assumptions
on physics and chemical kinetics and contain constants
for matching with experiment. There has been progress
in describing some elements of the models (for example,
allowance for a large number of reactions is possible)
but the validity of such models is always limited by the
crudeness of individual assumptions; see a review [2].
For unsteady burning rate at constant and har-
monically varying pressure, analytical expressions us-
ing the method of small perturbations have been ob-
tained [56, 75–78] and numerical calculations have been
performed [49, 79–82]. In the papers cited, assumptions
36
were made about equilibrium evaporation without reac-
tions on the surface [49, 56, 75, 80, 82], concrete reac-
tion kinetics in a narrow zone (or on the surface) of
the condensed phase [76, 79, 81], concrete kinetics of
gas reactions [49, 56, 75–82], and localization of gas re-
actions in a narrow zone [56, 76, 77]. We note that,
according to [23, 28–43], the last assumption does not
hold for combustion of all compositions for which the
thermocouple measurements described in these papers
were performed (the temperature profile is convex ev-
erywhere in the gas phase), which indicates distributed
heat release). Three gas reactions are formally intro-
duced in [81] (a side effect was the absence of an ana-
lytical solution due to the considerable complication of
the problem). One gas reaction is taken into account
in [49, 76, 79, 80, 82]. In [79, 81], use is made of the or-
dinary pyrolysis law on the surface m ∼ exp(−E/RTs ),
which, according to [23, 43–45], is valid for some ballis-
tites and nitramines; in [78], this law incorporates the
factor pn . The thermal lag of the post-flame zone is
taken into account in [49, 82]. The assumption that the
molar weight of the gas mixture does not depend on
the coordinate (although, for example, for nitramines,
this quantity can vary by an order of magnitude within
the gas flame zone) is used everywhere. Furthermore,
in [49, 82], allowance is made for a distributed (not
fixed in one plane) subsurface reaction without release
of the gaseous products. They are dissolved in the un-
reacted material, and the low limiting solubility forced
the authors to select input parameters that ensure a low
(<0.0046) degree of subsurface decomposition. Mean-
while, for example, according to [32, 43], nitramines are
characterized by a high degree of subsurface decompo-
sition. We also note that in [49] use is made of the
unjustified (in our opinion) assumption of synchronism
of the oscillations developing over the entire burning
surface (for a similar remark on the phenomenological
models [47, 48], see above).
In calculations [77–81], the real part of the burn-
ing rate response passes through two maxima as the
frequency increases. In [56, 75, 76, 82], this effect was
not obtained. Two maxima in the curve of the real part
the response function versus frequency were obtained in
experiments [83]. In experiments [84], two frequencies
different from the natural acoustic frequencies of the
combustion chamber were observed simultaneously in a
certain range of SP combustion parameters. However,
one cannot say with confidence that results [77–81] are
supported by experiments [83, 84]: similar forms of the
theoretical and experimental dependences could be due
to different physicochemical mechanisms. In particular,
results [83] are explained by radiation absorption at a
finite depth beneath the SP surface and by the presence
Gusachenko and Zarko
of the corresponding relaxation time different from the
relaxation time of the preheated layer. For experiments
[84], convincing arguments were put forward [85] which
attribute the effect to the action of hot-spot pulsating
combustion, and experiments [80] did not show the ex-
istence of the second maximum.
In attempts to compare experimental data and re-
sults of studies [56, 75–81] taking into account subtle
effects, it would be natural to verify for each concrete
composition whether the observed picture is not due to
a more common cause, for example, SP heterogeneity.
This can be manifested as hot-spot pulsating combus-
tion or can give the above-mentioned effects of surface
shape change. Other effects are also possible.
The models mentioned in this section may have in-
dependent significance for combustion of some compo-
sitions and, what is not less important, may be use-
ful as standards for assessing the applicability of other
approximate models of unsteady SP combustion. For
example, a comparative estimate [52] has shown (see
above) that the seemingly old method of introducing
the lag time is still relevant in unsteady combustion
problems.
For information on nonphenomenological one-
dimensional combustion models as applied to acoustic
oscillations, see also [46].
NON-ONE-DIMENSIONAL PHENOMENA
IN UNSTEADY SP COMBUSTION
Homogeneous SPs
Non-one-dimensionality in combustion of homoge-
neous SPs can result from the development of instability
of steady-state regimes. Non-one-dimensional models
for unsteady combustion of homogeneous or quasiho-
mogeneous SPs are known for gasless compositions and
describe phenomena such as spin combustion, for exam-
ple, in the instability region of one-dimensional regimes.
For homogeneous SPs with gaseous combustion prod-
ucts, such models are not available.
Non-One-Dimensionality Due to Instability
under the Zel’dovich–Novozhilov Model. Com-
bustion of homogeneous SPs with time variation of the
external parameters (pressure and blowing velocity) is
adequately described by the phenomenological model
[18, 19]. However, it does not apply to self-oscillations
inside the instability region of steady-state regimes for
constant values of the external parameters.6 In order
for the model to be applied, it is required that the os-
cillations occur and develop synchronously over the en-
tire burning surface. Such synchronism takes place for
6
For attempts at such application, see [47–49].
Analysis of Unsteady Solid-Propellant Combustion Models (Review)
the one-dimensional model but it is unrealistic in prac-
tice. On the contrary, it is easy to imagine disorder-
ing mechanisms. They result in random differences in
the oscillation phase between neighboring regions of the
burning surface, which produce a non-one-dimensional
pattern for the gas outflow above the surface, including
reverse flows. In fact, the gas flow leaving the surface
becomes turbulent with a characteristic pulsation time
of the order of the heated-layer combustion time. At
each time, the picture in the gas phase above the surface
point considered depends not only on the heat feedback
to the condensed phase but also on the velocity of gas
outflow from the neighboring surface areas.7 Thus, to
describe self-oscillations, it is necessary to construct a
non-one-dimensional model. At present, such models
for combustion of homogeneous SP are not available.
Non-One-Dimensionality Due to Instability
of the Subsurface Reaction Zone. According to the
data of [23, 26–43], for all substances studied in these
papers in the rocket pressure range, the heat require-
ments of the condensed phase are almost completely
provided due to heat release in the subsurface reaction
zone (see [2]). In this case, according to [2, 86], in-
stability arises in the subsurface reaction zone, result-
ing in turbulence of the gas outflow with a character-
istic pulsation time of the order of the burnout time
of the subsurface-reaction zone thickness. It can be
shown that this instability does not get in the way of
using the model of [18, 19], in which unsteady burning
rate is calculated for known dependences of parame-
ters for steady-state regimes. However, to construct a
steady-state model (averaged over time), it is necessary
to take into account local unsteadiness in the subsur-
face reaction zone and non-one-dimensionality (with un-
steadiness) in the gas phase. Proposals for approximate
accounting for the indicated non-one-dimensionality in
one-dimensional mathematical formulations are formu-
lated in [2].
Non-One-Dimensionality Due to Dispersion.
It is known that, at subatmospheric pressures, homoge-
neous double-base compositions burn with dispersion
of a significant part of the condensed material on the
surface and that, at higher pressures, this effect disap-
pears [87]. Dispersion is caused by the accumulation of
involatile components or products of partial decomposi-
tion of the condensed phase on the burning surface. The
7
The term turbulence is used here formally, according to
the general definition of turbulence as irregular pulsations
in flow, see, for example: A. M. Prokhorov, Great Encyclo-
pedic Dictionary, 1998, p. 1233. In a detailed consideration
of a narrow zone of the parameter domain near the stability
boundary, the term intermittence is used instead of turbu-
lence.
37
accumulated material should be removed periodically.8
At constant pressure, there is no reason to assume that
dispersion proceeds synchronously over the entire burn-
ing surface; as a result a locally non-one-dimensional
picture occurs on (and, hence, above) the surface. How-
ever, one might expect synchronization of dispersion in
the case of pressure fluctuations with a period close to
the duration of one accumulation–removal cycle [89].
It can be assumed that the cross traveling waves
and flickering spots on the SP surface observed in [24,
68, 85, 90–92] during self-sustaining combustion for
many energetic materials and SPs are manifestations
of any above-mentioned types of instability. However,
it seems unreasonable to formalize the propagation ve-
locity of the above-mentioned waves as a certain funda-
mental quantity that largely determines the combus-
tion mechanism. Unlike in SHS, in SP combustion,
the evolution of hot spots (and the value of the trans-
verse velocity determined by it) depends greatly on the
hydrodynamic picture above the surface. In particu-
lar, the flow of hot combustion products blowing over
the surface (which, as a rule, is the case in rocket mo-
tors) accelerates the ignition of extinguished sites and
thus changes the transverse velocity. Furthermore, even
without blowing, the differences between SHS and SP
combustion are so large that there is no reason to di-
rectly use the results of [93] to describe the evolution of
waves and hot spots on the SP surface. It is believed
that these waves and hot spots are structures produced
on the surface by a play of phase shifts which occur
in the condensed phase and were carried, together with
the material flow, to the surface. Apparently, transverse
waves at the detonation front have a similar nature.
It is known that there are no limitations on the phase
velocity (the velocity of any perturbation wave due to
an oscillation phase change which propagates along the
combustion front); in particular, it can be higher than
the light velocity (see, for example: Physical Encyclope-
dia, Bolsh. Ross. Éncicloped., Moscow (1998), Vol. 5,
p. 266). This implies that traveling transverse waves
do not transfer anything real. For illustration, let us
imagine the front of such a wave as an inclined step on
the burning surface. This is assumed to be the lumi-
nous zone of fast burning. In a Lagrange consideration,
the most probable behavior in the region of the step is
a thermal explosion of exothermic subsurface reactions
after a period of relatively slow heating before the step
approaches the site considered. The total heat transfer
through the step surface in the direction of its motion
(for the short time of travel of the step) is a negligi-
ble fraction of the amount of heat accumulated in the
8
The steady-state regime of continuous removal of involatile
components considered in [74, 88] is unrealistic (unstable).
38
heated layer and does not influence in any way the gen-
eral combustion behavior. Furthermore, an absolutely
fantastic situation is the one where, for a SP with the
burning rate controlled by the gas phase, the heat trans-
fer through the step surface in the direction of motion of
the transverse wave is greater than that into the sample
depth. However, the dimensions, shape, motion char-
acteristics of luminous objects are of significance near
the flammability limits (for example, when the sample
diameters is close to the critical diameter).
Heterogeneous SPs
Surface Shape Change. This non-one-
dimensional unsteady effect for heterogeneous SPs is
the easiest to take into account. In practice, the ef-
fect of the grain size on the burnout dynamics has been
known for a very long time. Even the 1960s models
used the layered frequency u/dAP , and experiments [9]
have shown that relaxation time of the luminosity of the
combustions products after a sharp pressure change is
proportional to dAP (dAP is the AP grain size). A sim-
ple model of the transition process is also given in [9].
In models [94, 95], the surface shape change is taken
into account in the case of coarse-grained SP, which is
the simplest for analysis. The binder surface is consid-
ered flat and parallel to the mean burning surface (the
smallness of the binder fraction on the surface, which
is proportional to its volume fraction, is usually given
as a justification). A correct description of the effect
of the surface shape on the burning rate of individual
elements presents a problem. In [96], this influence (the
interaction of the components through the gas phase)
is taken into account approximately and an attempt is
made to take into account the thermal interaction of
the components in the condensed phase. In [94, 96], a
statistical approach with a number of assumptions on
the burning-surface shape was used.
If some SP components are not capable of self-
sustaining combustion, the unsteady burning rate with
the surface shape change taken into account can be ap-
proximately calculated following [95, 97].
The limiting (with the possibility of very large os-
cillation periods) case of instability of steady-state com-
bustion of a conical SP surface in a semiclosed chamber
is considered in [98, 99]. In this case, the burnout rate
of the apex of the cone is constant (specified externally,
for example, by burnout of an electric-arc torch) and
exceeds the normal burning rate of the SP.
Unsteady SP Combustion with an Active
Fast-Burning Binder. The steady-state combustion
mechanism of such compositions is studied in [100] and
a steady-state combustion model is proposed that takes
Gusachenko and Zarko
into account heat transfer from the combustion zone of
an active binder in the narrow gaps between the grains
of the filler, which is considered inert in this case. The
model plausibly describes the results of experiments
with a number of SPs. An approximate unsteady ex-
tension of the model [100] to the case of pressure fluc-
tuations is reported in [89]. It is shown that these fluc-
tuations can synchronize the previously disordered (at
constant pressure) natural local pulsations of the burn-
ing rate related to the variability of the thickness of the
fast-burning layers.
Unsteady Erosive Combustion. It has been
suggested [101] that a significant unsteady erosive effect
can be observed (due to surface shape changes) even
for SPs for which the steady-state burning rate does
not depend on the intensity of the flow blowing over
the surface. These can be SPs with the burning rate
control by the flame tips (the deepest cavities on the
burning surface, which are hence the least sensitive to
blowing), for example, compositions with fast-burning
binders [100] or compositions with inert binders which
are more volatile than the filler [102]. Formal applica-
tion of the method of [51], which ignores the variability
of the surface shape, to such compositions leads to the
erroneous prediction that the burning rate does not de-
pend on blowing in the unsteady case, too.
Because a review of unsteady combustion models
also includes a discussion of unsteady effects on the
boundaries of existence of steady-state regimes, it is per-
tinent to consider the possibility of the existence of the
adiabatic limits of condensed-system combustion, which
was found in [103]. Unfortunately, all interesting effects
(change of regimes, the adiabatic combustion limits)
were found in [103] for the parameter range in which
a subsurface temperature maximum occurs and, hence,
according to [2], instability is already the case. In addi-
tion, a formal use of the Zel’dovich method in [103] led
to an additional error (it is more appropriate to perform
Frank-Kamenetskii expansion for the subsurface reac-
tion rate at the subsurface maximum temperature but
not at the surface temperature); for details, see [104].
CONCLUSIONS
The main disadvantage of unsteady models of SP
combustion (which is not a fault of their authors) is the
same as for steady-state models, i.e., the lack of knowl-
edge of the chemical and physical processes occurring in
the condensed phase. Data on the subsurface decompo-
sition kinetics usually have to be extracted from experi-
ments on thermal decomposition at temperatures much
lower than the burning surface temperature. However,
the residence time of material at these temperatures is
Analysis of Unsteady Solid-Propellant Combustion Models (Review)
much longer than that in the combustion wave. The
phase transitions due to the heating of the portion of
material considered have to be considered instantaneous
because of the practical absence of data on their kinetics
(only in [105] is the activation energy of the ε → γ tran-
sition for CL-20 given). In all cases where the escape of
material from the burning surface cannot be attributed
to only evaporation does the problem of insufficiency of
information on the surface fracture mechanism arise.
On the other hand, information on the combustion
mechanism can be extracted from a comparison of un-
steady models with unsteady experiments (for example,
depressurization resulting in dispersion or termination
of the action of radiant flux, resulting in bubble forma-
tion). Naturally, in this case, it is desirable to measure
all accessible parameters, and especially unsteady burn-
ing rate characteristics. In particular, helpful informa-
tion can be obtained by recording the reactive force of
the burning specimen.
Possible trends in the development of unsteady
(and quasi-steady-state) combustion models for SP of
homogeneous compositions may involve, in our opinion,
accounting for the local unsteadiness due to instability
of the subsurface reaction zone (the trend noted in [2])
and verification of chemical instability (the trend noted
in [1]).
This work was supported by the International Sci-
ence and Technology Center (grant No. 3305).
REFERENCES
1. N. M. Pivkin, Designing Intrachamber Processes in
Solid Propellant Rocket Motors [in Russian], Institute
of Polymer Materials, Perm’ (1998).
2. L. K. Gusachenko and V. E. Zarko “Combustion mod-
els for energetic materials with completely gaseous Re-
action products,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 41,
No. 1, 20–34 (2005).
3. N. M. Pelykh, “Unsteady combustion of solid propel-
lant charges and their use in industry: Author’s Theses
Doct. Dissertation,” Institute of Applied Mechanics,
Ural Division, Russian Academy of Sciences, Izhevsk
(2002).
4. S. P. Mushtakova, “Oscillatory reactions in chemistry,”
Soros Educational J., No. 7, 31–36 (1997).
5. R. J. Field and M. Burger, Oscillations and Traveling
Waves in Chemical Systems, Wiley, New York (1985).
6. F. E. C. Culick, “A review of calculations for unsteady
burning of a solid propellant,” AIAA J., 6, No. 12,
2241–2255 (1968).
7. M. W. Beckstead, and F. E. C. Culick, “A comparison
of analysis and experiment for solid-propellant combus-
tion instability,” AIAA J., 9, No. 1, 147–154 (1971).
39
8. A. D. Baer, N. W. Ryan, and E. B. Schulz, “Spectra
and temperature of propellant flames during depres-
surization,” AIAA J., 9, No. 5, 869 (1971).
9. V. S. Ilyukhin, A. D. Margolin, I. N. Valeev, and
A. A. Lebedev, “Effect of oxidizer-particle size on the
unsteady-state combustion time of a composite solid
propellant during a pressure drop,” Combust. Expl.,
Shock Waves, 23, No, 3, 332–333 (1987).
10. V. S. Ilyukhin, A. D. Margolin, and E. E. Sverchkov,
“Transition processes in combustion of coarse-grained
composite propellants,” in: Chemical Physics of Com-
bustion and Explosion Processes. Combustion of Con-
densed Systems, Proc. V All-Union Symp. on Combus-
tion, Chernogolovka, (1977), pp. 44–48.
11. H. F. R. Schoyer, “Incomplete combustion: A possible
cause of combustion instability,” AIAA J., 21, No. 8,
1119–1126 (1983).
12. H. F. R. Schoyer and R. T. M. de Bont, “Experimental
verification of temperature fluctuations during combus-
tion instability,” AIAA J., 24, No. 2, 340–341 (1986).
13. L. K. Gusachenko, L. N. Revyagin, and A. V. Filip-
pov, “Fuel combustion in the presence of narrow gaps,”
Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 15, No. 6. 718–723
(1979).
14. V. F. Akhmadeev, G. N. Guseva, L. N. Kozlov,
S. V. Sukhinin, and O. B. Khairullina, Hydrodynamic
Sources of Acoustic Oscillations in Combustion Cham-
bers, Central Research Inst. of Sci. and Eng. Infor-
mation, Conjuncture, and Staff Development, Moscow
(1990).
15. V. N. Bukharov and L. K. Gusachenko “Interaction
of entropy and acoustic waves in plane combustion
within a chamber with outflow,” Combust., Expl.,
Shock Waves, 24, No. 5, 538–541 (1988).
16. V. V. Grigor’yev, L. A. Luk’yanchikov, and
É. E. Pruuél, “Ignition of PETN particles by a gas
detonation wave,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 33,
No 2, 238–242 (1997).
17. I. M. Vasenin, V. A. Arkhipov, V. G. Butov,
A. A. Glazunov, and V. F. Trofimov, Gas Dynamics
of Two-Phase Nozzle Flows [in Russian], Tomsk. Gos.
Univ., Tomsk (1986).
18. Ya. B. Zel’dovich, “Theory of combustion of gunpow-
ders and explosives,” Zh. Éksp. Teor. Fiz., 12, Nos. 11–
12, 498–510 (1942).
19. B. V. Novozhilov, Unsteady Combustion of Solid
Rocket Propellants [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow
(1973).
20. V. E. Zarko and K. K. Kuo, “Critical review of methods
for regression rate measurements of condensed phase
systems,” in: K. K. Kuo and T. Parr (eds.), Non-
Intrusive Combustion Diagnostics, Begel House, New
York (1994), pp. 600–623.
21. V. N. Simonenko, A. B. Kiskin, V. E. Zarko, and
A. G. Svit, “Special features of nitramine combus-
40
tion at atmospheric pressure,” Combust., Expl., Shock
Waves, 33, No. 6, 685–687 (1997).
22. Ya. B. Zel’dovich, O. I. Leipunskii, and V. B. Librovich,
Theory of Unsteady Propellant Combustion [in Rus-
sian], Nauka, Moscow (1975).
23. A. A. Zenin, “Processes in ballistite combustion
zones,” in: Physical Processes in Combustion and Ex-
plosion [in Russian], Atomizdat, Moscow (1980), pp.
69–105.
24. V. N. Marshakov, A. G. Istratov, and V. M. Puchkov,
“Combustion front non-one-dimensionality in single-
and double-base propellants,” Combust., Expl., Shock
Waves, 39, No. 4, 452–457 (2003).
25. B. V. Novozhilov, “Theory of nonstationary combus-
tion of homogeneous propellants,” Combust., Expl.,
Shock Waves, 4, No. 4, 276–282 (1968).
26. V. M. Mal’tsev and P. F. Pokhil, “Estimate of the heat
effect at the initial stage of combustion of propellants
and high explosives,” J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys., No. 2
(1963).
27. A. A. Zenin, V. K. Bobolev, O. I. Leipunskii, and
A. P. Glazkova, “Temperature distribution in ammo-
nium perchlorate combustion,” J. Appl. Mech. Tech.
Phys., No. 3, 154–158 (1964).
28. A. A. Zenin, “Structure of temperature distribution in
steady-state burning of a ballistite powder,” Combust.,
Expl., Shock Waves, 2, No. 3, 40–45 (1966).
29. O. I. Leipunskii, A. A. Zenin, and V. M. Puchkov,
“Effect of catalysts on the combustion characteristics
of the condensed material zone,” in: Combustion and
Explosion (Proc. of the III All-Union Symp. on Com-
bustion and Explosion) [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow
(1972), pp. 74–77.
30. A. A. Zenin, “Temperature distribution in combus-
tion,” Dokl. Akad. Nauk SSSR, 216, No. 3, 603 (1974).
31. A. A. Zenin, “HMX and RDX: combustion mechanism
and influence on modern double-base propellant com-
bustion,” J. Propuls. Power, 11, No. 4 (1995).
32. A. A. Zenin, V. M. Puchkov, and S. V. Finyakov,
“Characteristics of HMX combustion waves at various
pressure and initial temperatures,” Combust., Expl.,
Shock Waves, 34, No. 2. 170–176 (1998).
33. A. A. Zenin, V. M. Puchkov, and S. V. Finyakov,
“Physics of ADN combustion,” AIAA Paper No. 99-
0595 (1999).
34. A. A. Zenin, S. V. Finyakov, and N. G. Ibragimov,
“Physics of nitrozoamine combustion as a monopro-
pellant and as an ingredient of modern propellants,”
in: Proc. of 30th Int. Annu. Conf. of ICT, Karlsruhe
(1999), pp. 51/1–51/13.
35. A. A. Zenin and S. V. Finyakov, “Burning wave
structure and combustion mechanism of glycidil-
azide/nitramine mixtures,” in: Proc. of 31st Int. Annu.
Conf. of ICT, Karlsruhe (2000), p. 132.
Gusachenko and Zarko
36. A. A. Zenin and S. V. Finyakov, “Physics of com-
bustion of HTPB/nitramine compositions,” in: Proc.
of 32nd Int. Annu. Conf. of ICT, Karlsruhe (2001),
pp. 8/1–8/24.
37. A. A. Zenin and S. V. Finyakov, “Physics of combus-
tion of energetic binder-nitramine mixtures,” in: Proc.
of 33rd Int. Annu. Conf. of ICT, Karlsruhe (2002),
pp. 7/1–7/14.
38. A. A. Zenin and S. V. Finyakov, “Combustion mecha-
nism of new polymer/oxidizer compositions,” in: Proc.
of 34th Int. Annu. Conf. of ICT, Karlsruhe (2003),
pp. 54/1–54/13.
39. A. A. Zenin and S. V. Finyakov, “Physics of combus-
tion of solid mixtures with active binder and new oxi-
dizer,” in: Proc. of 35th Int. Annu. Conf. of ICT, Karl-
sruhe (2004), pp. 144/1–144/16.
40. A. A. Zenin and S. V. Finyakov, “Physico-kinetic
combustion mechanism of new solid mixture compo-
sitions,” in: Proc. of 36th Int. Annu. Conf. of ICT,
Karlsruhe (2005), pp. 157/1–157/16.
41. V. P. Sinditskii, V. V. Serushkin, S. A. Filatov, and
V. Yu. Egorshev, “Flame structure of hydrazinium ni-
troformate,” in: K. K. Kuo and L. T. DeLuca (eds.),
Combustion of Energetic Materials, Begell House Inc.,
New York (2002).
42. V. P. Sinditskii, V. Yu. Egorshev, M. V. Berezin,
V. V. Serushkin, Yu. M. Milekhin, S. A. Gusev, and
A. A. Matveev, “Combustion of high-energy caged
nitramine hexaisonitro hexaazaisowurtzitane,” Khim.
Fiz., 22, No. 7, 69–74 (2003).
43. A. A. Zenin and A. S. Finyakov, “Characteristics of
RDX combustion waves at different pressures and ini-
tial temperatures,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 42,
No. 5. 521–533 (2006).
44. A. A. Zenin and B. V. Novozhilov, “Single-valued de-
pendence of the surface temperature of ballistite on the
burning rate,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 9, No. 2.
209–212 (1973).
45. A. A. Zenin, “One model of the reaction layer of the
condensed phase of a ballistite powder,” Dokl. Akad.
Nauk SSSR, 213, No. 6, 1357 (1973).
46. B. V. Novozhilov, “Combustion of energetic materi-
als in acoustic field (review),” Combust., Expl., Shock
Waves, 41, No. 6, 709–726 (2005).
47. V. I. Zemskikh and A. V. Timchenko, “Some charac-
teristics of self-oscillatory combustion regimes of con-
densed systems,” Khim. Fiz., 9, No. 12, 1653–1655
(1990).
48. B. V. Novozhilov, “Chaotization of the unsteady rate
and combustion of propellants,” Khim. Fiz., 23, No. 5,
68 (2004).
49. A. A. Belyaev, Z. V. Kaganova, and B. V. Novozhilov,
“Combustion of volatile condensed systems behind the
stability limit of the stationary regime,” Combust.,
Expl., Shock Waves, 40, No. 4, 425–431 (2004).
Analysis of Unsteady Solid-Propellant Combustion Models (Review)
50. V. N. Vilyunov, A. P. Rudnev, “On the question of the
stability of powder combustion in a half-closed space,”
J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys., 6, 848–852 (1971). 65.
51. A. M. Lipanov and I. G. Rusyak, “Using the phe-
nomenological Novozhilov theory to calculate the un-
steady erosive burning rate of condensed materials,” in:
Combustion of Condensed Systems, Proc. IX All-Union 66.
Symp. on Combustion and Explosion, Chernogolovka
(1989), pp. 53–56.
52. A. P. Rudnev, “Conditions for the low-frequency sta-
bility of the combustion of combined condensed sys-
tems in a semiclosed chamber,” Combust., Expl., Shock 67.
Waves, 16, No. 4, 378–383 (1980).
53. Yu. A. Gostintsev, P. F. Pokhil, and L. A. Sukhanov,
“Complete system of equations for unsteady processes 68.
in powder combustion in a semiclosed volume,” Dokl.
Akad. Nauk SSSR, 195, No. 1 (1970).
54. Yu. A. Gostintsev, P. F. Pokhil, and L. A. Sukhanov,
“Stability of combustion of powder in a phenomenolog-
ical model with nonadiabatic flame,” J. Appl. Mech.
Tech. Phys., 14, No. 6, 803–808 (1973).
69.
55. Yu. A. Gostintsev, L. A. Sukhanov, and P. F. Pokhil,
“Unsteady processes in powder combustion,” in: Com-
bustion and Explosion [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow
(1972), pp. 87–93.
70.
56. B. V. Novozhilov “Theory of unsteady combustion of
condensed systems with lag time taken into account,”
Khim. Fiz., 7, No. 5, 674–687 (1988).
57. V. E. Zarko, L. K. Gusachenko, and A. D. Rychkov,
71.
“Simulation on combustion of melting energetic mate-
rials,” Defence Sci. J., 46, No. 5, 425–433 (1996).
58. L. K. Gusachenko, “Effect of melting on the com- 72.
bustion stability of quasihomogeneous compositions.
The Zel’dovich–Novozhilov method,” Combust., Expl.,
Shock Waves, 34, No. 4, 290–393 (1998). 73.
59. L. K. Gusachenko, V. E. Zarko, and A. D. Rychkov,
“Effect of melting on dynamic combustion of ener-
getic materials,” J. Propuls. Power, 15, No. 6, 816–822
(1999). 74.
60. F. Gozzi, L. T. DeLuca, and B. V. Novozhilov, “Linear
stability and pressure-driven response function of solid
propellants with phase transition,” ibid., pp. 806–815.
61. I. G. Assovskii and A. G. Istratov, “Solid propel- 75.
lant combustion in the presence of photoirradiation,”
J. Appl. Mech. Tech. Phys., 5, 692–298 (1971).
62. A. B. Kiskin, “Stability of stationary powder com- 76.
bustion acted on by a constant light flux,” Combust.,
Expl., Shock Waves, 19, No. 3, 295–297 (1983).
63. S. F. Son and M. Q. Brewster, “Linear burning rate
dynamics of solids subjected to pressure or external
radiant heat flux oscillations,” J. Propuls. Power, 9,
No. 2, 222–232 (1992). 77.
64. S. F. Son and M. Q. Brewster, “Unsteady combustion
solid propellants subject to dynamic external radiant
41
heating,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 29, No. 3,
281–285 (1993).
M. Kono, H. Maruizumi, B. V. Novozhilov, and T. Shi-
mada, “Combustion of highly metallized powders at
harmonically varying pressure,” Khim. Fiz., 15, No. 7,
112 (1995).
V. E. Zarko, V. N. Simonenko, and A. B. Kiskin,
“Radiation-driven, transition process combustion: ex-
perimental results,” in: L. De Luca, E. W. Price, and
M. Summerfield (eds.), Progress in Astronautics and
Aeronautics, Vol. 143, Ch. 10 (1992).
A. D. Margolin and A. E. Fogel’zang, “Combustion of
tetryl,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 2, No. 2, 6–11
(1966).
V. N. Marshakov and A. G. Istratov, “Wave struc-
ture of the solid-propellant combustion front,” in:
A. A. Borisov, S. M. Frolov, A. L. Kuhl (eds.),
Progress in Combustion and Detonation (Int. Conf.
on Combustion and Detonation, Zel’dovich Memorial,
08.30–09.03, 2004, Moscow, Russia), Torus press Ltd.,
Moscow (2004), CD-disk. Paper W2-2.
O. Ya. Romanov and G. G. Shelukhin, “On the the-
ory of propellant combustion stability,” in: Combustion
and Explosion [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow (1972),
pp. 94–99.
V. N. Vilyunov and A. P. Rudnev, “Effect of con-
densed powder phase reactions on the stability of a
steady-state combustion processes,” J. Appl. Mech.
Tech. Phys., 5, 689–693 (1973).
O. Ya. Romanov, “The nonstationary combustion rate
of gunpowder,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 11,
No. 2, 163–171 (1975).
O. Ya. Romanov, “Nonstationary combustion of a two-
component powder,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves,
12, No. 3, 303–313 (1976).
V. N. Bukharov and L. K. Gusachenko, “Nonstationary
combustion in the subsurface gasification of volatiles,”
Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 25, No. 2. 171–175
(1989).
L. K. Gusachenko “Phenomenological model of un-
steady burning of solid fuel with accumulation of a
component on the surface,” Combust., Expl., Shock
Waves, 25, No. 2. 167–170 (1989).
B. V. Novozhilov, “Effect of the gas-phase time lag
on the combustion stability of volatile condensed sys-
tems,” Khim. Fiz., 7, No. 3, 388–396 (1988).
V. L. Belous and B. V. Novozhilov, “Effect of the
gas-phase time lag on the combustion stability of con-
densed systems in an exothermic reaction at the in-
terface,” in: Combustion of Condensed Systems, Proc.
IX All-Union Symp. on Combustion and Explosion,
Chernogolovka (1989), pp. 44–51.
V. N. Vilyunov and O. K. Sabdenov, “On the phe-
nomenological theory of unsteady combustion,” Khim.
Fiz., 11, No. 3, 415–423 (1992).
42
78. P. Clavin and D. Lazimi, “Theoretical-analysis of os-
cillatory combustion of homogeneous solid-propellant
including nonsteady gas-phase effects,” Combust. Sci.
Technol., 83, 1–32 (1992).
79. J. S. T’ien, “Oscillatory combustion of solid propellants
including gas phase time lag,” Combust. Sci. Technol.,
5, 47–54 (1972).
80. C. B. Allison and G. M. Faeth, “Open-loop response
of a combustion liquid monopropellant,” AIAA J., 13,
No. 10, 1287–1294 (1975).
81. I-Te Huang and M. M. Micci, “Unsteady gas phase
analysis of homogeneous solid propellant combustion,”
Combust. Sci. Technol., 75, No. 1–3, 73–88 (1991).
82. A. A. Belyaev, Z. I. Kaganova, and B. V. Novozhilov,
“Burning rate response of volatile condensed systems
to harmonically varying pressure,” Khim. Fiz., 24,
No. 1, 71–78 (2004).
83. V. N. Simonenko, V. N. Fomenko, and A. G. Svit,
“Characteristics of laser-assisted unsteady combustion
of composite solid propellants,” Khim. Fiz., 9, No. 12.
1644–1647 (1990).
84. I. B. Svetlichnyi, A. D. Margolin, and P. F. Pokhil,
“Low-frequency self-oscillatory processes in propellant
combustion,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 7, No. 2,
156–161 (1971).
85. V. N. Marshakov, “Parameters of hot-spot pulsating
combustion of nitroglycerin powder,” Khim. Fiz., 6,
No. 4, 530–537 (1987).
86. L. K. Gusachenko, V. E. Zarko, and A. D. Rychkov,
“Instability of a combustion model with surface vapor-
ization and overheat in the condensed phase,” Com-
bust., Expl., Shock Waves, 33, No. 1, 34–40 (1997).
87. V. E. Zarko, V. V. Chertishev, and V. Ya. Zyryanov,
100. S. S. Novikov, V. Yu. Potulov, and S. V. Chuiko, “In-
“Dispersion of the surface layer during combustion of
homogeneous propellants,” AIAA Paper No. 96-0814
(1996). (34th Aerospace Sciences Meeting, 1996.)
88. A. F. Zhelvakov, V. A. Strunin, and G. B. Manelis,
“Combustion mechanism of hydrazonium nitrate and
101. L. K. Gusachenko and V. E. Zarko, “Possible mecha-
the influences of alkali metal additives,” Combust.,
Expl., Shock Waves, 12, No. 2, 162–167 (1976).
89. L. K. Gusachenko “Action of fluctuating pressure on
characteristic local fluctuations in burning rate of solid
102. N. N. Bakhman and A. F. Belyaev, Combustion of
fuel,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 26, No. 4. 397–
402 (1990).
90. V. N. Marshakov, “Using the hypothesis of hot-spot
103. B. V. Novozhilov, “Adiabatic limits of condensed-
pulsating combustion mechanism to analyze propellant
combustion with a pressure drop,” in: Combustion of
Condensed Systems, Proc. IX Symp. on Combustion
104. L. K. Gusachenko and V. E. Zarko, “Erosive burning.
and Explosion, Chernogolovka (1989), pp. 47–51.
91. A. V. Anan’ev, A. G. Istratov, Z. V. Kirsanova,
V. N. Marshakov, and G. V. Melik-Gaikazov, “Insta-
105. T. P. Russel, P. J. Miller, G. J. Miller, and S. Black,
bility in unsteady combustion of propellants and explo-
sives,” in: Chemical Physics of Combustion and Explo-
sion, XII Symp. on Combustion and Explosion, Part I,
Chernogolovka (2000).
Gusachenko and Zarko
92. A. V. Anan’ev, A. G. Istratov, et al., “Instability
in steady-state combustion of propellants and explo-
sives,” Khim. Fiz., 20, No. 12, 47–52 (2001).
93. S. S. Rybanin, “The propagation velocity of the spin-
ning wave,” in: Proc. of the 4th Int. Symp. on Behavior
of Dense Media under High Dynamic Pressures, Tours,
France (1995), pp. 85–90.
94. L. K. Gusachenko, “Nonsteady-state combustion of
metalless heterogeneous compounds,” Combust., Expl.,
Shock Waves, 24, No. 4, 424–431 (1988).
95. L. K. Gusachenko and I. F. Sadykov, “Nonsteady com-
bustion of a laminar system,” Combust., Expl., Shock
Waves, 27, No. 5, 588–591 (1991).
96. S. A. Rashkovskii, “Theory of nonsteady combustion
of metal-free condensed mixtures,” Combust., Expl.,
Shock Waves, 28, No. 6, 593–600 (1992).
97. A. Hegab, T. L. Jackson, J. Buckmaster, and
D. S. Steward, “Non-steady combustion of periodic
sandwich propellants with complete coupling between
the solid and gas phases,” Combust. Flame, 125, 1055–
1070 (2001).
98. L. K. Gusachenko, “Possibility of oscillations of very
low frequency in a semiclosed volume,” in: Combustion
and Explosion (Proc. III All-Union Symp. on Com-
bustion and Explosion) [in Russian], Nauka, Moscow
(1972), pp. 100–103.
99. V. M. Bobylev, S. V. Bril’, L. K. Gusachenko, and
G. I. Dolmatov, “Study of stability and transition pro-
cesses of formation of burning surface In a semiclosed
volume of with increasing local rate of gas evolution,”
Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 10, No. 3, 309–316
(1974).
teraction of the combustion front of a condensed sys-
tem with heterogeneous inclusions,” in: Combustion
of Condensed Systems, Proc. V All-Union Symp. on
Combustion, Chernogolovka (1977), pp. 56–58.
nism of the unsteady erosive combustion of composite
solid propellants,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves, 31,
No. 4, 437–440 (1995).
Heterogeneous Condensed Systems [in Russian], Nauka,
Moscow (1967).
system combustion,” Dokl. Ross. Akad. Nauk, 378,
No. 3, 359–362 (2001).
Modeling problems,” Combust., Expl., Shock Waves,
43, No. 3, 289–296 (2007).
“Pressure/temperature phase diagram of hexanitro-
hexaazaisowurtzitane,” J. Phys. Chem., 97, No. 9
(1993).