SPACE SHUTTLE FILAMENT WOUND CASE SOLID ROCKET MOTOR STATIC TEST RESULTS (DM-6)

C. A. SADERHOLM MORTON THIOKOL, INC./WASATCH DIVISION BRIGHAM CITY, UTAH ABSTRACT The lament wound case solid rocket motor (FWC-SRM) is presently under development to increase the payload capability of Shuttle launches from the Vandenberg Air Force Base (VAFB) by 4,600 pounds. The rst of three static tests (DM-6) to qualify this design for ight was successfully conducted in October 1984. The steady ight steel case and that for the necessary in the state and dynamic thrust performance of DM-6 was similar to that of the current S R M . I n a d d i t i o n , t h e r e w a s l i t t l e d i ff e r e n c e b e t w e e n t h e t h r u s t t r a c e f o r D M - 6 steel case design during ignition and tailoff. This meant no change would be SRM thrust loads used for Shuttle ascent loads analyses.

Overall structural performance of the FWC was excellent. The axial and radial growth during operation met or exceeded design requirements. Bending stiffness was 20 percent less than predicted requiring some adjustment in the FWC dynamic model used for Shuttle dynamic analyses. Performance of the tape wrapped nozzle inlet ablative rings sodium carbon cloth material was superior to the rings in the inlet parts for the two remaining FWC-SRM static tests will be prior to making any decision to incorporate the change in the with the new ply angles and low current ight nozzles. Nozzle fabricated with the new ply angle ight nozzle parts.

INTRODUCTION In May 1982 work was initiated to develop a lament wound case (FWC) for use on the Space Shuttle solid rocket motor (SRM) as a replacement for the lightweight steel case for special missions requiring increased payload capability. The FWC-SRM was designed, developed, and is now being manufactured by Morton Thiokol, Inc. at its Wasatch Division in Utah under a contract managed by the Marshall Space Flight Center of NASA. The FWC design was developed and manufactured by the Hercules-Votaw Joint Venture under subcontract to Morton Thiokol, Inc. At the inception of the FWC development program, the maximum inert weight for the FWC segments was 65,000 lbm. During development, signicant design problems resulted in inert weight increases totaling about 7,000 lbm. As a consequence, about a year after initiating the development program the maximum inert weight was increased to 72,000 lbm. In June 1985, three years after development was initiated, loaded FWC-SRM segments for the r s t i g h t w i l l b e a v a i l a b l e f o r d e l i v e r y t o Va n d e n b e r g A i r F o r c e B a s e ( VA F B ) f o r l a u n c h i n early 1986. The inert weight of these ight motors will be less than the maximum requirement thus providing a weight reduction of about 25,000 lbm compared to the lightweight steel case. This is expected to increase the Shuttle lift capability by 4,600 lbm. DISCUSSION When the lament wound case SRM was selected as a performance improvement option for the Space Shuttle it was necessary to establish ballistic performance and structural design requir ements that would allow it to be used interchangeably with the steel case SRM without signicantly a f f e c t i n g t h e i g h t p e r f o r m a n c e o r s t r u c t u r a l b e h a v i o r o f t h e S h u t t l e v e h i c l e . To p r o v i d e equivalent ballistic performance it was established that the internal dimensions of the FWC would be the same as those of the steel case. To provide acceptable structural properties it was n e c e s s a r y t o e s t a b l i s h r e q u i r e m e n t s t h a t c o n t r o l l e d a x i a l a n d r a d i a l g r o w t h a n d a x i a l s t i ff n e s s o f the FWC-SRM during motor operation. The static test of DM-6 offered the rst opportunity to determine if the full-scale FWC-SRM would meet these design requirements and provide the condence to proceed with the manufacture of the FWC segments for the rst ight motors.

Work completed under contract NAS 8-30490 with Marshall Space Flight Center. Release to government agencies and their contractors; all other inquiries referred to MSFC.

The FWC-SRM design combines three case components from the segmented steel case (forward and aft domes and External Tank attach) with four graphite lament wound cylindrical segments to form four casting segments as shown in Fig. 1. Steel adapter rings are attached to the ends of the lament wound cylinders by a double row of pins that provide either a tang or clevis feature that permits the lament wound cylinders to be attached to each other or to the steel segments during motor assembly. The baseline FWC-SRM design conguration is shown in Fig. 2. An illustration of the typical composite to composite joint construction is shown in Fig. 3 and the construction of a typical composite segment is shown in Fig. 4. The rst FWC segment for DM-6 was delivered to the Morton Thiokol Wasatch Divison in March 1984. Prior to receipt of the FWC segments extreme care was taken to clean and abrade the inside surfaces of the segments to assure a sound and reliable bond would be made between the case internal insulation and the FWC interior during the vulcanization process. This is extremely important because, unlike a metallic case, a lament wound composite material is porous and must be sealed on the inside to prevent any gas leak during motor operation. At the Wasatch Division the FWC components were assembled into casting segments and processed just like the steel case casting segments. By early September 1984, DM-6 was assembled in the test stand with the support chocks removed and all joint leak tests complete. After installing a record number of instruments providing a total of 401 digital and 81 FM channels of data and completing all pretest checkouts, DM-6 was successfully tested on 25 October 1984. D6AC STEEL FORWARD DOME

GRAPHITE/EPOXY COMPOSITE FORWARD SEGMENT CASE CYLINDER D6AC STEEL TANG AND CLEVIS ADAPTER MP35N PINS (JOINT) INCONEL 718 PINS (ATTACHMENT) GRAPHITE/EPOXY COMPOSITE CENTER CASE CYLINDER SEGMENT

IGNITER

GRAPHITE/EPOXY COMPOSITE CENTER CASE CYLINDER SEGMENT D6AC STEEL ET ATTACH SEGMENT GRAPHITE/EPOXY COMPOSITE AFT SEGMENT CASE CYLINDER WITH INTEGRAL STIFFENER RING HPM NOZZLE/EXIT CONE D6AC STEEL AFT DOME

Figure 1. FWC-SRM Conguration

Figure 2. FWC-SRM Design Conguration

JOINT PIN (MP 35N) AND RETAINER BAND -, GRAPHITE COMPOSITE SHELL -\ COMPOSITE PIN/SEAL GROUP (132 PINS/ROW)

CLEVIS -, RING /

COMPOSITE SEAL

ASSEMBLY SEAL CAPTURE FEATURE

Figure 3. Typical Composite-to-Composite Joint Construction

MEMBRANE -OVERWRAP (2 PLACES) HOOP WOUND GLASS

Iregion I
(2 PLACES)

JOINT

SUBSTRATE (2 PLACES) 1.346 in. FWD (1.376 in. OVER 202 in. OF FWD SEGMENT) GRAPHITE CLOTH 1.322 in. CENTERS 1.309 in. AFT SEGMENT JOINT CONSTRUCTION 12 PLIES 90 deg HOOP MEMBRANE CONSTRUCTION 19-22 90 deg HOOP PLIES -TAG END I (TEST SPECIMENS) MATERIAL AS-4 GRAPHITE AND 55A EPOXY RESIN

22 HELICAL LAYERS 33.5 deg 48 LAYERS UNIDIRECTIONAL BROADGOODS GLASS 90 deg HOOP OVERWRAP AND GRAPHITE CLOTH SUBSTRATE

22 HELICAL LAYERS 33.5 deg 3 CUT DOUBLE HELICAL LAYERS GRAPHITE CLOTH SUBSTRATE AS-4 GRAPHITE 3501 EPOXY RESIN GLASS ROVING 55A EPOXY RESIN

Figure 4. Typical Composite Segment Construct

This discussion of the DM-6 test will cover the following four subjects relative to the test objectives considered to be of particular interest: ballistic performance, igniter performance, case performance, and nozzle performance. BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE The DM-6 test motor contained 1,105,486 lbm of propellant and weighed a total of 1,222,560 lbm. The propellant core design and inhibitor patterns were the same as those used on the steel case High Performance Motor (HPM) design. Minor differences did exist in the burn out pattern due to a slightly smaller inside case diameter and an insulation change at the segment joints to cover a capture feature used to restrain the inner leg of the clevis when pressurized. The last steel case HPM (QM-4) was tested in March 1983. Performance summaries for DM-6 and QM-4 are presented on Table I. The specic impulse for DM-6 was 0.3 percent higher than that for QM-4 but very close to that delivered by the rst static test HPM (DM-5). The propellant formulation and raw material vendors for DM-6 and QM-4 were the same excep_ for the burning rate catalyst, iron oxide, which was increased to 0.366 percent to achieve the higher burn rate required to compensate for the lower ambient temperatures at VAFB. The delivered

Table I. DM-6 and QM-4 Performance Summary (Vacuum, 60F)

DM-6
ACTION TIME IMPULSE (Ibf-sec) ACTION TIME lsp (Ibf-sec/lbm) ACTION TIME (sec) BURN TIME (sec) BURN TIME, AVERAGE VACUUM THRUST (Ibf) ACTION TIME, AVERAGE VACUUM THRUST (Ibf) BURN TIME, AVERAGE STAGNATION PRESSURE (psia) ACTION TIME, AVERAGE STAGNATION PRESSURE (psia) MOP (psia) MOF (Ibf) BURN RATE (ips)C) AVERAGE NOZZLE EXPANSION RATIO (1)625 psia AND 60F 296.62X106 268.32 117.90 107.62 2,703,000 2,516,000 649.0 604.5 937.1 3,481,000 0.378 7.44

QM-4
297.53 X 106 267.53 121.28 110.93 2,617,000 2,453,000 645.4 604.7 927.8 3,329,000 0.369 7.48

burn rate for DM-6 was calculated to be 0.378 in./sec at a reference pressure of 625 psia and 60F or about one percent above the target of 0.374 in/sec. This difference was within the experience band from previous static and ight tests as shown in Fig. 5. The full-scale HPM burn rate predictions are made by multiplying the propellant burn rate measured in 5 in. dia ballistic test motors by a scale factor determined from prior full-scale HPM tests. Table II presents a com parison of burn rate scale factors determined for the 17 HPM static and ight tests conducted up to and including DM-6 using both 5 in. test motor and acoustic strand burn rate measurements. Note that the mean values for the two burn rate measuring techniques are different, but both have coefcients of variation of about 0.5 percent.

n
DM-5 QM-4 STS-8

STS-9 STS-11 STS-13

STS-14 STS-17 DM-6

STS-19 STS-20

PLOTTED IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER Figure 5. Difference Between Actual and Target Burn Rates for 17 Static and Flight HPM Tests Ta b l e I I . Burn Rate Scale Factor Comparison Ratio of Full-Scale to Subscale and Strand Burn Rates SUBSCALE*1) NO. OF FULL-SCALE TESTS RANGE MEAN COEFFICIENT VARIATION (%) 17 1.0095-1.0242 1.0138 0.496 ACSBR<2> 17 0.9943-1.0130 1.0033 0.543

<1)5 in. DIA BALLISTIC TEST MOTOR (-7.7 lb) (^ACOUSTIC STRAND BURN RATE (CUT CURED STRAND 1/4 in. x 1/4 in.)

Plots of the measured headend pressure data for DM-6 and QM-4 during the ignition transient are compared on Fig. 6. Both pressure traces exhibited the same characteristics during ignition with the DM-6 trace lagging the QM-4 trace by about 5 milliseconds. The maximum pressure rise rate in DM-6 was lower (86.6 psi/10 msec) than for QM-4 (90.8 psi/10 msec) but within the experience band from previous tests.

800

*m+

g. 600
U J

c c
D

/ // / // / ' //
<yS

< > /
cc 400
Q.

,y

// //
200
tl tl

If If 1 1

/ /

DM-6 QM-4 0 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50

TIME (sec) Figure 6. Comparison of DM-6 and QM-4 Headend Pressure During Ignition A comparison of the DM-6 and QM-4 pressure and thrust traces shows only minor differences when corrected to the same reference burn rate and temperature, as shown on Figs. 7 and 8. The most noticeable differences occurred during the rst 20 sec of operation and several seconds b e f o r e w e b b u r n o u t . T h e d i ff e r e n c e d u r i n g t h e r s t 2 0 s e c i s a t t r i b u t e d t o g r e a t e r r a d i a l expansion of the FWC. The different trace shape at burnout is probably due to the case insulation changes made in the DM-6 FWC. As a further measure of the similarity of the performance delivered by the two motors a comparison of vacuum thrust to headend pressure ratio for both DM-6 and QM-4 is shown on Fig. 9. The maximum difference between the two plots is less than one percent which is well within the normal variation expected due to nozzle throat erosion differences and measurement accuracy. An area of special interest to those in the Shuttle vehicle loads community was the pressure and thrust oscillations generated during the DM-6 test compared with those developed during the steel case HPM tests (DM-5 and QM-4). The frequency range of primary interest was 5 to 20 Hz which spans the rst longitudinal acoustic mode (1-L) in the motor cavity varying about 14 to 15

10

20

6 0 7 0 8 0 3 0 1 0 0 11 0 TIME (sec) CORRECTED TO 0.368 ips BURN RATE AND 60P

30

40

50

120

130

50 60 70 80 30 100 TIME (sec) CORRECTED TO 0.368 ips BURN RATE AND 60F

40

T-

11 0

120

130

Figure 7. QM-4 and DM-6 Pressure Data Comparison* Figure 8. QM-4 and DM-6 Thrust Data Comparison*

4,250 -,
t- C C C> 3 / 3 CO C C C O J X U
UJ

4,000 3,750 3,500 3,250 3,000 0

t i i 1 1 1 r

D D

O Q

Q Z UJ

2< III X

10

20

30

40

50 60 70 TIME (sec)

80

90

100

11 0

Figure 9. Comparison of Thrust to Pressure Ratio Data Fro QM-4 and DM-6 Hz. Activity at the second longitudinal acoustic mode (2-L), which ranges around 29 to 30 Hz, was only of minor interest. To provide a qualitative comparison of the pressure and thrust oscillations measured during the FWC and steel case static tests, data from the dynamic pressure gage (P006) and the F001 axial thrust measurement were used to generate the waterfall plots shown on Fig. 10. Table III presents the maximum pressure and thrust values in the 1-L and 2-L frequency ranges based on the waterfall plots for DM-6 and QM-4. The method used to generate the plots averages the measurements over 4 sec intervals so the magnitude of transient oscillations is attenuated. Comparison of the pressure oscillation data indicates that the overall acoustic characteristics of the two motors are very similar to the oscillations in DM-6, being somewhat larger in magnitude but less organized than those in QM-4. The frequency response of the thrust oscillations at the 1-L and 2-L modes is also similar in both motors with the magnitude of the oscillations in QM-4 being more pronounced around the 1-L mode and in DM-6 more pronounced around the 2-L mode. There was concern before testing DM-6 that the lighter mass FWC would enhance coupling between the 1-L acoustic mode and a test stand dynamic frequency near the end of motor operation. This coupling did not occur to any greater degree in DM-6 than in any previous test.

DYNAMIC PRESSURE (P006)

15 20 25 FREQUENCY (Hz)

10

15 20 25 FREQUENCY (Hz)

30

35

40

DM-6

QM-4

DYNAMIC THRUST (CALCULATED FROM F001 DATA)

10

15 20 25 FREQUENCY (Hz)

30

35

40

10

15 20 25 FREQUENCY (Hz)

30

35

40

DM-6

QM-4

Figure 10. Waterfall Plots Comparing Pressure and Thrust Oscillations in DM-6 and QM-4

Table III. Maximum Pressure and Thrust Oscillations for DM-6 and QM-4 f r o m Wa t e r f a l l P l o t s FREQUENCY (Hz) 15.5 29 14 29.5 15 29.5 15 29.5 TIME (sec) 76 86 93 80 100 76 91 79 MAX VALUE (0-TO-PEAK) 0.51 0.78 0.21 0.41 20,900 40,530 25,900 12,000 psi psi psi psi Ibf Ibf Ibf Ibf

MOTOR DM-6 PRESSURE OSCILLATIONS QM-4 DM-6 THRUST OSCILLATIONS QM-4

MODE 1-L 2-L 1-L 2-L 1-L 2-L 1-L 2-L

In addition there was concern about feedback between the thrust and pressure oscillations near motor burnout resulting in an amplication of the pressure oscillations. This concern also did not materialize resulting in the overall conclusion that the acoustic and structural interaction of the FWC during the DM-6 static test was not signicantly different from that already experienced during steel case tests. IGNITER PERFORMANCE The igniter for the FWC-SRM is the same as that used for the steel case SRM. The main igniter grain is a 30 point design containing about 137 lbm of TP-H1178 propellant. The maximum mass ow rate of the DM-6 igniter was 358 lbm/sec and the maximum pressure at the test temperature of 76F was 1,989 psia. The igniter had been cast 64 months and stored as part of an ageing program before it was red in DM-6. It represented the oldest igniter tested to date in the SRM program. The pressure traces for the DM-6 igniter and four other igniters cast from the same propellant mix are plotted on Fig. 11. The DM-6 performance was found to be within the variation determined from other igniters tested that had been cast from the same mix. Three of the pressure traces plotted on Fig. 11 are from open air tests which allowed the igniter chamber to return to ambient pressure after burnout. It was concluded from the DM-6 test that there was no signicant change in the ballistic performance of the igniter after more than 5 years of storage.

0.4 0.5 TIME (sec) "CORRECTED TO 80F Figure 11. SRM Igniter Pressure TracesAge Life Evaluation Tests CASE PERFORMANCE The overall performance of delaminations in the composite and predicted values for axial their requirements in separate the DM-6 cylinders and radial tables as FWC was excellent. There was no apparent growth of any known to be present before the static test. The measured growth as well as bending stiffness are compared with referenced below:

Axial Growth - Well within the requirement as shown on Table IV. Radial Growth - A requirement existed only for the forward membrane which was well within the requirement as shown on Table V. Bending Stiffness - 20 percent lower than predicted due to joint interaction as shown i n Ta b l e V I .

Table IV. DM-6 Case Axial Growth REQUIREMENT: 0.6-in. NOMINAL AT 1,004 psi (0.56 in. AT 935 psi) MEASURED AT 935 psi (in.) TOTAL AXIAL GROWTH (A) TOTAL AXIAL GROWTH (B + SC) TOTAL AXIAL GROWTH (SD) FWD/FWD-CTR JOINT FWD-CTR/AFT-CTR JOINT FWD-CTR MEMBRANE AFT-CTR MEMBRANE 0.34 0.36 PREDICTED AT 935 psi (in.) 0.41 0.41

0.30 0.10 0.09 -0.085 -0.078

0.41 0.10 0.09 -0.053 -0.053

FWD

FWD-CTR

AFT-CTR
(C) (C) (D)

AFT
(C) (D) (C)

(D)

(D)

+
I

STA

I
601

I
771

I
931 1.251

III

1.530 1,560 1.647 1.687

Table V. DM-6 Case Radial Growth REQUIREMENT: 0.66 in. MAXIMUM AT 1,004 psi (0.61 in. AT 935 psi) MEASURED HOOP STRAIN
(jLcin./in)

PREDICTED HOOP STRAIN (/Jn./in)

MEASURED RADIAL GROWTH (in.)

RADIAL CONSTRAINT REGIONS FORWARD MEMBRANE STA 630 AT 7 sec STA 710 AT 7 sec STA 630 AT 60 sec STA 710 AT 60 sec 7,700 7,550 5,470 5,500 7,595 7,445 5,260 5,260 0.57 0.56

NOTE: ERROR IN PREDICTION DUE TO NONLINEAR HOOP STRAIN RESPONSE. MATERIAL PROPERTIES CALIBRATED TO PREDICT RESPONSE AT PROOF PRESSURE

Table VI. DM-6 Case Bending Stiffness

REQUIREMENT: NOMINAL Ezt = 10.6 x 1Q6 lb/in.* (66% OF STEEL CASE STIFFNESS)
Et COMPARED TO PREDICTION COMPARED TO STEEL CASE

(%)

(%)

TOTAL BEAM TOTAL SAG SAG VS TIME SLOPE BEAM BENDING FREQUENCY
-20 -20 -20 54 54 62

FWC-SRM AXIAL STIFFNESS IS 20% LESS THAN PREDICTED FWC JOINT BEARING COMPLIANCE IS CAUSE INTEGRATED Ezt FOR FWC IS 10.4 X 10 lb/in., BUT IS NOT DIRECT MEASUREMENT OF STIFFNESS-IT NEGLECTS JOINT BEARING COMPLIANCE

A l l j o i n t s e a l s f u n c t i o n e d n o r m a l l y. P l o t t e d o n F i g . 1 2 i s t h e s e a l p r e s s u r e b e t w e e n t h e primary and secondary O-rings measured at the FWC center eld joint compared with a similar measurement made at the center eld joint of the QM-4 steel case. Also plotted is the chamber pressure to illustrate the response of the joint seal pressure to the changes in chamber pressure. The difference between the FWC and steel case seal pressures is due to the volume changes in the cavity resulting from different relative motions of the tang and clevis portions of the joint during motor operation. Tabulated on Table VII is another comparison between the performance of the FWC (DM-6) and a steel case illustrating the greater deection or sag of the FWC compared to the steel case. In summary there was some discrepancy between predicted and measured membrane strains. Axial strains were up to 60 percent less than predicted due to the difference in small value measure ments, and hoop strains were up to 7 percent greater than predicted apparently due to the nonlinear

FC W
18.0 16.0 14.0 12.0 FWC (DM-6)-\ Seal Pressure \/^

Steel Case

11 0 . 0 Q.
2 8.0
3

r 1- V

\i
1

0.

2 6.0 4.0 2.0 0.0 -2.0

^"^^ *- - - - -^^
Chamber-' Pressure (PX 1,000) s s

/ / >^

^ ^ ^

S *

\\

^Steel Case (QM-4) Seal Pressure

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 Time (sec)

Figure 12. Field Joint Seal Pressure Comparison FWC vs Steel Case

Table VII. DM-6 Case Performance Comparison to Steel Case (QM-4) QM 4 SAG AFTER CHOCK REMOVAL (in.) SAG AFTER FIRING (in.) SLOPE OF SAG VS TIME (in/sec) BEAM BENDING FREQUENCY (Hz) TOTAL AXIAL GROWTH (in.) 3.37 0.324 0.0286 1.84 0.791 DM 6
6.0 0.5

0.0525 1.45 0.34

response of the composite material. This can be seen in Fig. 13 where the hoop strain measurement made on a steel case motor is compared with the hoop strain measured on a DM-6 composite membrane at station 805. Both measurements are plotted as a function of the headend chamber pressure and as can be seen, the variation in strain in the steel case is linear after about 20 sec while the variation in strain in the composite membrane is nonlinear. As a result, the strain measurements on the exterior of the composite material cannot be directly related to the internal pressure. Additional analyses are being conducted to develop a method to correct the measured strains for the pressure gradient through the propellant and composite material due to the radial growth of the composite membrane. STATION 805 - FORWARD CYLINDER MEMBRANE 8,000 7,000 6.000 5,000
DM-e FWC-SRM DIVERGENCE FROM LINE)\R RESPONSE "
f y S

*
/
t = 20

a /

. 4,000 Z k 3,000 w z cc 2,000

'

/ p r e SSURE/ rHRUST
B U ILDUP

20 sec

f
^ S T EEEL CAS EHPM

1,000

-1,000.100

10 0

200 300 400 500 600 HEADEND PRESSURE (psig)

700 800 900 1,000

Figure 13. Comparison of Hoop Strain vs Headend Pressure for DM-6 FWC and Steel Case HPM

NOZZLE PERFORMANCE The DM-6 nozzle was fabricated to production nozzle design requirements with the following modications to be evaluated for the rst time during a full-scale nozzle test. The two tape wrapped nozzle inlet ablative rings, the forward nose and aft inlet, incorporate new ply angles and low sodium (150 ppm) carbon cloth material; a new carbon black ller was used in the forward and aft carbon phenolic exit cone liners; and changes were made in the nozzle exit cone severance system. The DM-6 nozzle differences from the high performance motor (HPM) production nozzle are illustrated in Fig. 14. The ply angles of the forward nose and aft inlet rings were changed to eliminate pocketing erosion in the aft inlet ring and spalling between the forward nose and aft inlet rings. The low sodium carbon cloth material was used to improve the erosion performance of the rings. The ply

NEW PLY ANGLE DESIGN LOW SODIUM CARBON CLOTH PHENOLIC K U.S. POLYMERIC, 150 ppm MAX FABRIC \ / NEW U.S. P O LY M E R I C CARBON I \ ^--~~~~ >^ / BLACK SUPPLIER (FWD EXIT CONE) NEW FIBERITE CARBON BLACK SUPPLIER (AFT EXIT CONE) MODIFIED NOZZLE SEVERANCE SYSTEM

^RJPE^Figure 14. DM-6 Nozzle Differences from HPM Production Design CURRENT DESIGN THROAT 53.86 DIA

THROAT INLET RING

NOSE CAP 402

106.1 DIA

DM-6 DESIGN

MODIFIED PLY 75 deg/ J^P ANGLE IN ^'jp& 403 AND 404 /V J7 RINGS 105,deg/

Figure 15. Comparison of Current and DM-6 Nozzle Designs angle redesign is compared to the current production design in Fig. 15. Increased bond gaps were also introduced between the mating rings to reduce interface loads. Structural analyses conclude that high ber strain is the primary cause of pocketing in the current production nozzle design. Studies were conducted to determine the lowest tensile ber strain design that could be fabricated with the existing manufacturing tooling and equipment. As a result, ply angles of 105 and 75 deg were selected for the forward nose and aft inlet rings, respectively. The nozzle aft exit cone severance system was modied to improve propagation of the detonation wave across the linear shaped charge (LSC) segment interfaces and eliminate leakage at the LSC segment end seal. This was accomplished by: (1) increasing the minimum LSC segment end seal gap from 0.0 to 0.04 in.; (2) cutting back the LSC retainer to allow measurement of segment alignment; (3) reducing the maximum internal end seal-to-charge clearance from 0.012 in. to 0.008 in.; and (4) replacing the end seal adhesive with Loctite RC680. The overall performance of the nozzle ablative parts was excellent except for two locations or the nose cap where char material was apparently wedged out at the nose cap-to-forward nose ring interface. Based on this test it was concluded that the performance of the new ply angles used on the forward nose and aft inlet rings was superior to the ply angles on current production rings. In addition, the performance of the exit cone liners with the new carbon black ller was as good or better than with the old ller and the liners are considered to be qualied for use on the production ight nozzles.

Figure 16 presents erosion and char proles of the nose inlet at the two locations (34 and 354 deg) showing the wedged out condition of the nose cap material and the resulting effect it had on the erosion of the adjacent forward nose ring. Close examination of the sectioned parts at 34 deg indicated a 0.5 in. deep and 5 in. long piece of char was wedged out about 80 sec after ignition. The similarity of the erosion prole of the forward nose ring at the 354 deg location indicates a wedge shaped piece of char may have been forced out here also but at an earlier time in the ring. Post-test thermal-structural analyses of the DM-6 nozzle indicate that the charred tape wrapped nose cap plies may have been wedged out as a result of higher cross-ply tensile stresses present due to the higher than design bond gap when combined with the relatively high interlaminar shear stresses present during the entire period of motor operation. Increasing the bond gap between the two rings decreased the potential for char ply delamination in the forward nose ring but increased the potential in the nose cap. Subsequent static test nozzles will be fabricated with decreased bond gaps to reverse this trend.

EROSION CHAR DEPTH FORWARD NOSE RING

354 DEG , AFT INLET v<^ RING^. /\~3-IN.

34 DEG EROSION CHAR DEPTH

SIMILAR WASHOUT AREA IN FORWARD NOSE RING WEDGE OUT IN NOSE CAP

WEDGE OUT OCCURRED EARLY IN TEST

WEDGE OUT OCCURRED ABOUT 80 sec AFTER IGNITION

Figure 16. DM-6 Nozzle Inlet Erosion/Char Depth Proles at Wedge Out Locations

CONCLUSION The rst FWC-SRM (DM-6) was successfully tested in October 1984. Analysis of the test data veried that all test requirements were either met or exceeded resulting in approval to continue to process the FWC-SRM segments for use on the rst ight from VAFB scheduled in early 1986. Two other static tests will be conducted in the FWC-SRM development program before the rst ight. Another development test (DM-7) is scheduled for May 1985 and a qualication test (QM-4) is planned for late 1985. The tape wrapped nozzle inlet rings with the new ply angles tested on DM-6 did not experience the pocketing erosion which has been observed on several recovered ight nozzles. As a result, nozzle inlet rings with the new ply angles will be used on the two remaining FWC-SRM static tests. Any decision to change the current ight nozzles to incorporate the new ply angles will be deferred until the data from the two additional static test nozzles conrm the DM-6 results. The use of the FWC-SRM in the rst Shuttle ight from VAFB will conclude the development program for the last funded SRM performance improvement option. However, due to the cost effectiveness of implementing performance improvements in the SRM, studies are underway to further modify the.SRM to provide additional payload gains for selected Shuttle ights several years in the future.