A Computational Tool for Predicting

Hybrid Rocket Motor Performance

B. Genevievea, J.F. Pitot de la Beaujardiereb, M.J. Brooksc
Received 30 March 2017, in revised form 3 August 2017 and accepted 18 August 2017

A model is described to aid in the design of hybrid rockets H enthalpy [J]

and in the prediction of motor performance, specifically 𝐻𝐻 molar enthalpy [J/mol]
with respect to the University of KwaZulu-Natal’s Phoenix- Isp specific impulse [s]
1A vehicle. The Hybrid Rocket Performance Code (HRPC), k specific heat ratio
programmed in MATLAB, is segregated into two individual kc chamber specific heat ratio
models: i) a preliminary motor design code to analyse and Lg grain length [m]
design hybrid rocket motors, and ii) a predictive motor m mass [kg]
performance code to compute the instantaneous motor 𝑚𝑚̇ mass flow rate [kg/s]
performance for a targeted burn time. The predictive motor Mfc fuel mass storage in chamber [kg]
performance code is based on a one-dimensional unsteady Moc oxidiser mass storage in chamber [kg]
gas flow model through the nozzle and, on a zero- MW molecular mass [kg/mol]
dimensional model of the combustion chamber capturing n number of moles [mol], regression rate ballistic
only the filling and emptying dynamics. The zero- coefficient
dimensional model is linked to a self-pressurising delivery 𝑛𝑛̇ number of moles of fluid flow rate [mol/s]
tank model obtained from literature to simulate the changes Ninj number of injector orifices
in physicochemical properties of nitrous oxide in the tank. Np number of grain ports
HRPC is coupled with NASA-CEA equilibrium chemistry P pressure [Pa]
program to determine the thermodynamic properties of the Pa atmospheric pressure [Pa]
combustion products necessary for solving the governing Pc chamber pressure [Pa]
ordinary differential equations. As such, different Pe nozzle exit pressure [Pa]
propellant combinations can be analysed for motor Plosses pressure drop in feed line [Pa]
∗
performances. The HRPC application is validated against 𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 saturated vapour pressure of nitrous oxide [Pa]
hot-fire test data of Phoenix-1A’s PV-1 flight motor and Q heat transfer energy [J]
against reported performance data from the literature. 𝑟𝑟̇ regression rate [m/s]
𝑟𝑟̇𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 classical regression rate [m/s]
Additional keywords: Hybrid rocket propulsion, Rp port radius [m]
nitrous oxide, paraffin-wax, computational model Ru universal gas constant [J/(mol.K)]
T temperature [K]
Nomenclature u specific internal energy [J/kg]
U internal energy [J]
Roman 𝑈𝑈 molar internal energy [J/mol]
a regression rate ballistic coefficient ve nozzle exit velocity [m/s]
Ab burnt surface area [m2] V volume [m3]
Ainj injector orifice cross-sectional area [m2]
𝑉𝑉 molar volume [m3/mol]
Ap grain port cross-sectional area [m2]
cP specific heat capacity at constant pressure [J/(kg.K)] W work done [J]
cV specific heat capacity at constant volume [J/(kg.K)] x axial port distance [m]
c* characteristic velocity [m/s] Greek
Cd discharge coefficient β blowing coefficient
CF thrust coefficient ∆𝐻𝐻 molar heat of vaporisation [J/mol]
𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃 molar heat capacity at constant pressure [J/(mol.K)] εr nozzle expansion ratio
𝐶𝐶𝑉𝑉 molar heat capacity at constant volume [J/(mol.K)] ηeff combustion efficiency
g gravitational acceleration [m/s2] λ nozzle gas flow correction factor
G mass flux rate [kg/(m2.s)] μ combustion gas viscosity [Pa.s]
h specific enthalpy [J/kg] ρ density [kg/m3]
a. Discipline of Mechanical Engineering. University of Subscripts
KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. E-mail: a atmospheric
[email protected] c combustion chamber
b. Discipline of Mechanical Engineering, University of e exit
KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, South Africa. E-mail: f fuel
[email protected] g gas, grain
c. SAIMechE Member. Discipline of Mechanical in inflow
Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Durban, l liquid
South Africa. E-mail: [email protected] noz nozzle
R & D Journal of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2017, 33, 56-65 56
http://www.saimeche.org.za (open access) © SAIMechE All rights reserved.
 A Computational Tool for Predicting Hybrid Rocket Motor Performance

out outflow four trapezoidal fins, machined from 6082-T6 aluminium

ox oxidiser alloy, are located in the stainless steel rail structures secured
ox,d oxidiser discharge to the combustion chamber. The fin arrangement is canted at
ox,l liquid oxidiser an angle of 0.5° to the motor axis. All airframe components
ox,v vapour oxidiser were fabricated from carbon fibre epoxy composite. The total
sp,v supercharge gas length of the rocket, from the nose tip to the boat-tail, is 4.55
t total, throat m and the fully fuelled mass is 95 kg.
T tank This paper describes the development of a simulation tool
v vapour called the Hybrid Rocket Performance Code (HRPC) to
model the propulsion mechanism of hybrid rocket motors,
1 Introduction and reports the successful hot-fire test of the PV-1 flight
The hybrid rocket offers attractive advantages over solid and motor. In particular, the current work consists of the
liquid variants in university-based research programmes. modelling of the nitrous oxide self-pressurising delivery
These include safety, throttling capability, propellant system, regression rate modelling of paraffin-based fuels, and
versatility, design simplicity and lower fabrication cost [1,2]. modelling of the gas dynamics within the combustion
It is classified as a chemical rocket due to the required energy chamber and nozzle. HRPC is an in-house software tool
being generated from the combustion process of the originally intended for use in the design process of PV-1
propellants, which are stored in two distinct states before flight motor. This initiative resulted from a lack of software
undergoing the chemical reaction. In the conventional and tools available for hybrid motors, specifically, for the
most used hybrid rocket motors, the oxidiser and fuel are in performance prediction of nitrous oxide/paraffin-wax
the liquid and solid phases, respectively. propellant combinations. Different mathematical models can
In 2010, the University of KwaZulu-Natal (UKZN) be found in the literature for the modelling of a self-
initiated the Phoenix Hybrid Sounding Rocket Programme to pressurising delivery system [8,9], regression rate
address the lack of an indigenous sub-orbital launch [10,11,12,13], and gas flow dynamics in the combustion
capability and meet the demands of the South African and chamber [14,15,16], but these focus mainly on individual
African scientific research communities. The programme’s sub-components of hybrid rocket propulsion systems. The
long-term objective is to develop a series of sub-orbital coupling of the three sub-components is critical for
hybrid sounding rockets for customers engaged in simulating the overall motor performance.
atmospheric and space physics research, starting with a first In HPRC they are merged to numerically solve for the
low-altitude demonstrator, Phoenix-1A, which was designed power-plant theoretical performance. In addition, HRPC
to deliver a 1 kg payload to 10 km altitude. A paraffin- permits useful analysis and development of a propulsion
wax/nitrous oxide propellant combination was selected as the system for targeted design specifications, that is, designing
propulsion system. To date, the progress in UKZN’s the fuel grain and nozzle configurations by providing the
Programme includes the design and static tests of the PL-1 engine parameters such as targeted thrust, chamber pressure,
lab-scale motor [3], design and static test of the PV-1 flight oxidiser-to-fuel ratio, and oxidiser/fuel combination. The
motor [3,4,5], development of a Hybrid Rocket Performance overall goal is to produce a comprehensive software tool for
Simulation (HYROPS) model [6], development of vehicle the preliminary design and performance prediction of hybrid
rocket motors.

1) Boat-tail, 2) PV-1 Flight Motor, 3) Oxidiser Feed System, 4) Oxidiser Tank, 5) Drogue Parachute Bay,
6) Flight Computer Bay, 7) Main Parachute Bay, 8) Nose-Payload Compartment, 9) Aluminium Nose Tip
Figure 1 Sectional view of Phoenix-1A hybrid sounding rocket. From [4]; reprinted by permission of the
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc.
airframe and internal components [4,5,6], and the launch of
Phoenix-1A [7]. The Phoenix-1A rocket is depicted in the 2 Hybrid Rocket Propulsion System
cross-sectional view in figure 1. Modelling
The vehicle’s airframe consists of an ogive nose cone with
aluminium tip, drogue and main parachute bays, a flight
computer bay, four stabilizing fins, a boat-tail, and a tapered
2.1 Description of the hybrid propulsion
inter-stage section for encasing the feed system. The system physical and chemical models
combustion chamber casing and oxidiser tank were The physicochemical process of a classical hybrid propulsion
manufactured from 6082-T6 aluminium alloy. The motor system can be defined by the three key control volumes
essentially consists of the chamber casing, a grade 431 shown in figure 2, where each one models the change in
stainless steel torispherical injector bulkhead and nozzle thermodynamic properties of the contained propellant or
retainer, a fine grain graphite nozzle, and a fuel grain combustion products. These sub-systems are solved for their
cartridge, as the core of the propulsion system. The rocket’s critical unknown parameters, leading to the solution of

R & D Journal of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2017, 33, 56-65 57
http://www.saimeche.org.za (open access) © SAIMechE All rights reserved.
 A Computational Tool for Predicting Hybrid Rocket Motor Performance

rocket-propulsion fundamental formulae and, hence, to the liquid/vapour system which results in a loss of thermal energy
prediction of general motor performance. and, consequently, reduces the tank pressure. This causes a
noticeable decrease in nitrous oxide flow rate and, thus,
motor thrust during burn time, provided that the feed system
CV 1 is not throttled. By evaluating the mass and temperature
variations of the nitrous oxide in the tank, the change in the
𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑣𝑣 system’s pressure can be predicted. The following
+ mathematical model is based on the work of Fernandez [18]
(𝑁𝑁2 𝑂𝑂)𝑣𝑣 who developed two numerical models for a nitrous oxide self-
pressurising delivery system. The first model is based on the
ideal gas law and, the second model utilises a non-ideal
CV 2 CV 3 equation-of-state. In this paper, the ideal method is adopted
(𝑁𝑁2 𝑂𝑂)𝑙𝑙 𝑚𝑚̇𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 but with some adaptations to the solution structure for the
unknown parameters.
Considering a tank partially filled with two-phase liquid-
vapour nitrous oxide and single-phase helium vapour as the
initial conditions of CV1, figure 3. By applying mass and
energy conservation to the system, the decay in tank pressure
Figure 2 Hybrid propulsion system control volumes can be computed for the initial nitrous oxide mass and
modelling [3]. temperature parameters. The following assumptions were
employed in the model:
In this study, control volume 1 (CV1) models the nitrous
1. The mono-propellant remains in thermodynamic
oxide delivery system supercharged with inert helium gas.
equilibrium throughout the blowdown process.
The delivery system is a blowdown process due to the self-
2. The gas component of the system obeys the ideal gas
pressurising characteristic of nitrous oxide and the omission
law.
of pumps in the feed line. The blowdown process of the tank
3. The oxidiser tank wall is assumed to be adiabatic and
and the back pressure created in the combustion chamber
in thermal equilibrium with the propellant.
determine the oxidiser mass flow rate through the injector.
4. The liquid phase consists of pure nitrous oxide
Control volume 2 (CV2) deals with the multiphysics reaction
whereas the gas phase is a mixture of nitrous oxide
of the propellants, specifically the pyrolysis of the solid-fuel
vapour and helium gas.
grain caused by a diffusion flame zone in the main stream and
5. Evaporation at the liquid-vapour interface is not
the combustion process of the reactants. Control volume 3
influenced by boiling phenomena.
(CV3) computes the gas flow dynamics in the nozzle to
6. Potential and kinetic energies of the propellant are
determine the rocket thrust and related parameters such as
neglected.
specific impulse and characteristic velocity. The solution of
7. The gravitational head in the tank is negligible for
CV3, and hence motor performance, is highly dependent on
both static and flight tests.
the output effects of CV1 and CV2. The NASA-CEA
equilibrium chemistry code [17] is employed to obtain the
thermodynamic properties of the gaseous products in CV2
and CV3 during the burn period. (𝑁𝑁2 𝑂𝑂)𝑣𝑣 + 𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝑣𝑣

2.2 Oxidiser tank pressurisation and 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 , 𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇

blowdown process
The self-pressurising delivery system in this research consists 𝑛𝑛̇ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣
of two-phase liquid-vapour nitrous oxide that is volatile at
room temperature, and a non-condensable single-phase
helium vapour mixture. The insoluble non-reactive helium
gas assists the blowdown process by supercharging nitrous
oxide above its ambient vapour pressure and reinforcing flow Interface
to the combustion chamber. In addition, the system is more
stable as helium gas increases the ignition energy of nitrous
oxide hence minimizing the risk of uncontrolled thermal
(𝑁𝑁2 𝑂𝑂)𝑙𝑙
decomposition.
In CV1, figure 3, the properties of the nitrous oxide
depend on the equilibrium state of the delivery system and
vary as the tank is discharged during the rocket’s powered
phase of flight. The thermodynamic state variation of nitrous 𝑛𝑛̇ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑑𝑑
oxide is dependent on the oxidiser tank environmental
temperature and on the fluid flowing out of CV1. As nitrous Figure 3 Control volume 1 blowdown process [18].
oxide is forced out of the tank, the internal energy of the tank
contents decreases with time. During this period, liquid The main differential equations obtained from applying
nitrous oxide at the interface evaporates to equilibrate the the conservation of mass and energy principles to the

R & D Journal of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2017, 33, 56-65 58
http://www.saimeche.org.za (open access) © SAIMechE All rights reserved.
 A Computational Tool for Predicting Hybrid Rocket Motor Performance

blowdown process are defined below. These are numerically To provide closure of the system, the change in
solved to determine the tank pressure, temperature, and the specific/molar heat capacities at constant pressure (nitrous
number of moles of the liquid and vapour nitrous oxide inside oxide, helium, and oxidiser tank material), the heat of
the tank. By the conservation of mass, the change in number vaporisation and molar specific volume of the liquid nitrous
of moles of the whole system is given by: oxide, and the vapour pressure of the nitrous oxide are
𝑑𝑑 computed using the temperature-dependent formulae
�𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 + 𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 � = −𝑛𝑛̇ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑑𝑑 (1)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 provided in Perry and Green [3,19].
The conventional mass flow rate equation through an
orifice, transformed into molar form is given by: 2.3 Solid-fuel regression rate modelling
2(𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇 −𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 −𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 ) The regression rate of a solid fuel, also known as the burning
𝑛𝑛̇ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑑𝑑 = 𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 � (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙
(2) rate or pyrolysis process, determines the degree of oxidiser-
to-fuel mixture composition in the combustion chamber. The
The rate of change of nitrous oxide mass inside the tank
two most recognised regression rate theories are the classical
is determined by equating equation 2 to 1:
diffusion limited theory by Marxman et al. [10] and the non-
𝑑𝑑𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 2(𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇 −𝑃𝑃𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙𝑙 −𝑃𝑃𝐶𝐶 ) classical liquefying entrainment mass-transfer theory by
+ = −𝐶𝐶𝑑𝑑 𝑁𝑁𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 𝐴𝐴𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 � (𝑀𝑀𝑀𝑀)𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙
(3)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 Karabeyoglu et al. [11,12]. One common characteristic of
Equation 6 below is obtained by substituting Raoult’s both theories is the strong dependency of solid-fuel burning
law, equation 4, into the ideal gas law, equation 5: rate on oxidiser flow rate. However, the non-classical
∗ |
𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇
regression rate theory is based on solid fuels that liquefy as
𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇 = 𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 (4) heat is transferred to the inner surface such as paraffin wax.
� �
𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 +𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠,𝑣𝑣 These fuels form an unstable liquefied layer over the burning
𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇 𝑉𝑉𝑔𝑔 = 𝑛𝑛𝑔𝑔 𝑅𝑅𝑢𝑢 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 (5) surface which is entrained in the form of droplets into the
∗ stream. The regression rate is enhanced by the entrainment
𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑉𝑉𝑔𝑔 = 𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 𝑅𝑅𝑢𝑢 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 (6)
mass transfer of the grain.
𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 = 𝑉𝑉𝑔𝑔 + 𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 (7) In this study, the solid-fuel regression rate is modelled by
where Vg is the gas phase (nitrous oxide vapour + gaseous the semi-empirical expression [1] obtained from the
helium) volume. Substituting equation 6 into 7, and reduction of the classical diffusion limited theory developed
differentiating with respect to time gives: by Marxman et al. [10]. In the classical diffusion limited
theory, the regression rate of a solid-fuel grain is dependent
𝑑𝑑𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 ∗
𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜
∗ on the oxidiser mass flux and heat transfer to the grain:
−𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑥𝑥 + ��𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 − 𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 � −
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑟𝑟̇𝑐𝑐𝑐𝑐 = 0.036�𝐺𝐺𝑡𝑡0.8 �𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 �(𝜇𝜇 ⁄𝑥𝑥 )0.2 𝛽𝛽 0.23 (12)
∗ 𝑑𝑑𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 𝑑𝑑𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑑𝑑𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 𝑑𝑑𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣
𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 � = 𝑅𝑅𝑢𝑢 �𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 + 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 � (8) The diffusion limited theory can be simplified into a semi-
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
empirical expression, whereby, the blowing coefficient β,
An energy balance is taken for the entire CV1 with the combustion gas viscosity μ, and fuel density ρf, are condensed
following simplifications: heat exchange to the environment into one factor, a. The reduced power law expression is
is neglected, 𝑄𝑄̇ = 0, there is no moving boundary work done defined as:
on the system, 𝑊𝑊̇ = 0, and the tank wall and the propellant 𝑟𝑟̇ = 𝑎𝑎𝐺𝐺𝑡𝑡𝑛𝑛 𝑥𝑥 𝑚𝑚 (13)
are assumed to be in thermal equilibrium. With these
assumptions: The three ballistic coefficients are determined by static
𝑑𝑑
hot-fire experiments for different propellant combinations. In
�𝑚𝑚 𝑇𝑇 𝑢𝑢 𝑇𝑇 + 𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 𝑈𝑈𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 + 𝑛𝑛𝑔𝑔 𝑈𝑈𝑔𝑔 � = −𝑛𝑛̇ 𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑑𝑑 𝐻𝐻𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 (9) the literature, the axial position exponent m tends to be much
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
Expanding equation 9 gives: less than 1, hence the space variation can be ignored m=0 [1].
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑇𝑇
In addition, the total mass flux, Gt=Gox+Gf, is replaced by the
�𝑚𝑚 𝑇𝑇 𝑐𝑐𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇 + 𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 𝐶𝐶𝑃𝑃𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 + 𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 𝐶𝐶𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 + 𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠,𝑣𝑣 𝐶𝐶𝑉𝑉𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠,𝑣𝑣 � = oxidiser mass flux, 𝐺𝐺𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 = 𝑚𝑚̇𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 ⁄𝐴𝐴𝑝𝑝 , as the fuel mass entrained
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑑𝑑𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 𝑑𝑑𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 into the combustion zone compared to the burnt fuel in the
�𝑅𝑅𝑢𝑢 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 − ∆𝐻𝐻𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 � + �𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇 𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 � (10)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 mean flow is relatively small. Thus, the semi-empirical
where the heat of vaporisation of nitrous oxide is defined regression rate expression is reduced to:
as the difference between its vapour and liquid phase 𝑛𝑛
𝑟𝑟̇ = 𝑎𝑎𝐺𝐺𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 (14)
enthalpies, ∆𝐻𝐻𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 = 𝐻𝐻𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 − 𝐻𝐻𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 . Equations 3, 8, and 10
The fuel mass flow rate is a function of the oxidiser flow
are solved simultaneously for the three unknown time and the rate at which the solid fuel regresses. For cylindrical
derivatives: number of moles of the liquid nitrous oxide,
ports, the burnt surface area is computed as 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 = 2𝜋𝜋𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝 𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝 𝐿𝐿𝑔𝑔
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 , number of moles of the vapour nitrous oxide,
and the fuel mass flow rate by 𝑚𝑚̇𝑓𝑓 = 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 𝑟𝑟̇ =
𝑑𝑑𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 , and the tank temperature, 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑇𝑇 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑. A fourth order 𝑛𝑛
2𝜋𝜋𝑁𝑁𝑝𝑝 𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝 𝐿𝐿𝑔𝑔 𝜌𝜌𝑓𝑓 𝑎𝑎𝐺𝐺𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 .
Runge-Kutta numerical approach is employed in the HRPC
to integrate the three unknowns and solve for nox,l(i+1),
nox,v(i+1) and TT(i+1) at each time step, i. The tank pressure 2.4 Zero-dimensional combustion chamber
solution is determined by: gas model
The transient behaviour of the hybrid combustion mechanism
�𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 (𝑖𝑖)+𝑛𝑛𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠,𝑣𝑣 (𝑖𝑖)�𝑅𝑅𝑢𝑢 𝑇𝑇𝑇𝑇 (𝑖𝑖)
𝑃𝑃𝑇𝑇 (𝑖𝑖) = (11) is modelled by the filling/emptying gas dynamics of the
𝑉𝑉𝑇𝑇 −𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 (𝑖𝑖)𝑉𝑉𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 (𝑖𝑖)
combustion chamber. A zero-dimensional model is applied to
CV2 to capture the change in thermodynamic properties of
R & D Journal of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2017, 33, 56-65 59
http://www.saimeche.org.za (open access) © SAIMechE All rights reserved.
 A Computational Tool for Predicting Hybrid Rocket Motor Performance

the fluid flow over the burn time with no spatial change 𝑑𝑑𝐻𝐻𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 + 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 (𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 ) + 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 (𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑), assuming
through the combustion chamber. Referring to figure 4, the �𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝 𝑇𝑇�𝑡𝑡 ≈ �𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝 𝑇𝑇�𝑐𝑐 and using equations 15 and 16:
conservation of mass and energy are applied to the single 𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 −1 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐
node control volume 2 to analyse the change in chamber = ��𝑚𝑚̇𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 + 𝑚𝑚̇𝑓𝑓 − 𝑚𝑚̇𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 ��𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝 𝑇𝑇�𝑐𝑐 � − � � +
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
pressure, oxidiser-to-fuel ratio, and other combustion gas 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐
� � (17)
properties. The following assumptions were implemented to 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 −1 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
simplify the model: In the above, a one-sided differencing technique is used
1. The combustion gas product behaves as a perfect gas. to solve for the change in specific heat ratio of the
2. The propellant mass stored in CV2 is non-uniform due combustion: 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = (𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 (𝑖𝑖) − 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 (𝑖𝑖 − 1))⁄∆𝑡𝑡, and the
to the change in chamber volume and gaseous mass instantaneous change in chamber volume is 𝑑𝑑𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 𝐴𝐴𝑏𝑏 𝑟𝑟̇ .
flow out of the nozzle. The change in port radius, and oxidiser and fuel mass storages
3. Uniform regression rate is assumed across the fuel are defined as:
grain. 𝑑𝑑𝑅𝑅𝑝𝑝
4. There is no heat transfer through the chamber wall. = 𝑟𝑟̇ (18)
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
5. There is no pressure drop across the chamber. 𝑑𝑑𝑀𝑀𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜
= 𝑚𝑚̇𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑖𝑖𝑛𝑛 − 𝑚𝑚̇𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 (19)
6. The spatial change in thermodynamic gas properties is 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
not modelled. 𝑑𝑑𝑀𝑀𝑓𝑓𝑓𝑓
= 𝑚𝑚̇𝑓𝑓,𝑖𝑖𝑖𝑖 − 𝑚𝑚̇𝑓𝑓,𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 (20)
7. There is no oxidiser vaporisation lag and no fuel grain 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
gasification lag. Equations 17 to 20 are integrated for their respective state
variables of chamber pressure, port radius, oxidiser mass
CV 2 storage, and fuel mass storage. The HRPC employs a fourth
order Runge-Kutta time marching scheme to solve for the
𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 state vectors. The term �𝑚𝑚̇𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 + 𝑚𝑚̇𝑓𝑓 − 𝑚𝑚̇𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 � in equation 17
𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 determines the filling or emptying of the combustion
𝑚𝑚̇𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 𝑚𝑚̇𝑓𝑓 𝑚𝑚̇𝑐𝑐 𝑚𝑚̇𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛
𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 chamber. The NASA-CEA equilibrium chemistry code is
𝜌𝜌𝑐𝑐 used to obtain the combustion gas properties such as the
flame temperature 𝑇𝑇𝑐𝑐 , specific heat ratio 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 , and specific heat
capacity at constant pressure 𝑐𝑐𝑝𝑝𝑐𝑐 , for the chamber pressure
Figure 4 Combustion chamber model [3]. and oxidiser-to-fuel ratio at each time step.
Applying the 1st law of thermodynamics:
𝑑𝑑𝑈𝑈𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑄𝑄𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑊𝑊𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑚𝑚𝑐𝑐
3 Hybrid Rocket Performance Code
= + +ℎ (15) Using the equations given in Section 2, a hybrid rocket
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
performance model was developed to enable both the design
where 𝑄𝑄̇𝑐𝑐 = 0 (zero heat exchange with the environment),
and theoretical performance prediction of the Phoenix-1A
𝑊𝑊̇𝑐𝑐 = −𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 (𝑑𝑑𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑) (work done by pressure forces), h=cpT
rocket with its propellant combination of paraffin wax and
(specific enthalpy) and 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 = 𝑚𝑚̇𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜 + 𝑚𝑚̇𝑓𝑓 − 𝑚𝑚̇𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛𝑛 (mass
nitrous oxide. The model can also be used to analyse other
stored in the chamber). Using the ideal gas law, and oxidiser/fuel combinations and so has more universal
differentiating with respect to time, the change in combustion application. It is divided into two distinct codes, namely a
enthalpy 𝑑𝑑𝐻𝐻𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 is given as: preliminary motor design code (HRPC Motor Design Code)
𝑑𝑑𝐻𝐻𝑐𝑐 1 𝑑𝑑𝑉𝑉 𝑑𝑑𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐
= �𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 �𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝑐𝑐 + 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 � + 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 �− and a predictive motor performance code (HRPC Predictive
𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 −1 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐 𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝑉𝑉𝑐𝑐 𝑑𝑑𝑘𝑘𝑐𝑐
Motor Performance Code) as shown in figure 5.
�(𝑘𝑘 2 � (16) The design of a hybrid propulsion system is achieved
𝑐𝑐 −1) 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑
through the HPRC Motor Design Code. The code computes,
The time derivative of the chamber pressure is modelled
among other parameters, the optimum nozzle expansion ratio,
from the enthalpy expression of a homogeneous system:
nozzle critical pressure ratios, dimensions of the fuel grain

Figure 5 Flowchart of HRPC.

R & D Journal of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2017, 33, 56-65 60
http://www.saimeche.org.za (open access) © SAIMechE All rights reserved.
 A Computational Tool for Predicting Hybrid Rocket Motor Performance

and oxidiser mass flow rate for a targeted thrust, the chamber molecular formula and enthalpy of the fuel and oxidiser if
and atmospheric pressures, and the oxidiser-to-fuel ratio. absent in NASA-CEA’s thermodynamic library, and running
Moreover, the code has the capability to plot the converging- the ‘only’ and ‘omit’ subroutines of NASA-CEA.
diverging contour for a bell-shaped or conical-shaped nozzle. The main input parameters to the code are the oxidiser
These two-dimensional coordinates can be imported into flow method, fuel grain dimensions and motor specifications.
CAD software. The HRPC Predictive Motor Performance The application can model five types of oxidiser flow
Code is utilized to predict the instantaneous motor methods:
performances with the draining of the oxidiser tank and the 1. Constant oxidiser mass flow rate throughout the burn.
physical change of the solid-fuel grain. Critical outputs from 2. Constant oxidiser mass flow rate with throttling
the Motor Design Code are used as inputs to the predictive sequence employed.
motor performance model. 3. Nitrous oxide self-pressurising delivery system.
4. Constant oxidiser tank pressure throughout the burn.
3.1 NASA-CEA 5. Polynomial curve fit employed for the oxidiser tank
The Hybrid Rocket Performance Code is linked to the pressure (function of time).
combustion and theoretical rocket performance sub-models The oxidiser mass flow rate is calculated at each time step
of NASA-CEA to obtain essential parameters such as the for the selected oxidiser flow method, oxidiser parameters,
thermodynamic properties, characteristic velocity, and feed system inputs and pressure difference (including
specific impulse of a propellant combination. The inputs to expected pressure drop in feed line). The solid-fuel regression
the NASA-CEA application include the oxidiser/fuel rate is calculated using equation 14 with the appropriate user
properties, oxidiser-to-fuel ratio, chamber pressure, and supplied ballistic coefficients for the motor configuration.
nozzle expansion ratio or inverse pressure ratio. HRPC Required inputs for the computation of the fuel mass flow rate
creates an input file with the problem fully stated, runs the are the fuel grain length, number of cylindrical ports (up to
NASA-CEA application, and saves the calculated output data 10 ports), and initial port diameter. The grain outside
into lookup tables. diameter, determined from the Motor Design Code, is used as
Some post-processing of the NASA-CEA output data is one of the stopping criteria for the numerical model.
required to successfully obtain the motor performance. The The Predictive Motor Performance Code determines the
ideal gas exit velocity of NASA-CEA ve,CEA must be corrected type of flow through the nozzle (subsonic, shock wave, or
for the divergence nozzle exit angle as described in equations supersonic) by comparing the instantaneous nozzle pressure
21, 23, and 24. A combustion efficiency is introduced to the ratio with its critical points obtained from the Motor Design
∗
characteristic velocity 𝑐𝑐𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 in equation 22 to model the Code. The motor performance is computed using the rocket
combustion performance of the propellants. propulsion fundamental equations for the current flow regime
(subsonic, shock wave, or supersonic). The changes in
𝑣𝑣𝑒𝑒,𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝜆𝜆𝜆𝜆𝑒𝑒,𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (21)
physical and chemical properties in CV2 provide solutions
∗ ∗
𝑐𝑐𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝜂𝜂𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 𝑐𝑐𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 (22) for the chamber pressure derivative 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑐𝑐 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 , and for CV1, the
Since the NASA-CEA rocket performance sub-model time derivatives of the number of moles of liquid nitrous
assumes that the nozzle gas flow is perfectly expanded (third oxide 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑙𝑙 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑 , the number of moles of vapour nitrous oxide
critical point condition), the difference in exit and 𝑑𝑑𝑛𝑛𝑜𝑜𝑜𝑜,𝑣𝑣 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑, and the tank temperature 𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑇𝑇 ⁄𝑑𝑑𝑑𝑑. The computed
atmospheric pressures must be accommodated for by adding dependent variables are fed back to different sub-models for
the pressure-thrust term to the thrust coefficient CF,CEA and the next time-step solution. Output files containing the
specific impulse Isp,CEA. instantaneous parameters and average rocket motor
𝑃𝑃𝑒𝑒−𝑃𝑃𝑎𝑎 𝐴𝐴 performances are created for inspection at the end of the
𝐶𝐶𝐹𝐹,𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = 𝜆𝜆𝐶𝐶𝐹𝐹,𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 + � � � 𝑒𝑒 � (23)
𝑃𝑃𝑐𝑐 𝐴𝐴𝑡𝑡 simulation. In addition, the code produces a series of graphs
𝑃𝑃 −𝑃𝑃 ∗ and a two-dimensional representation of the burnt fuel grain.
𝜂𝜂𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒𝑒 �𝜆𝜆𝜆𝜆𝑒𝑒,𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 +� 𝑒𝑒𝑃𝑃 𝑎𝑎 �𝜀𝜀𝑟𝑟 𝑐𝑐𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶𝐶 �
𝑐𝑐
𝐼𝐼𝑠𝑠𝑠𝑠,𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻𝐻 = (24)
𝑔𝑔
3.3 HRPC validation
3.2 HRPC data processing and numerical The HRPC Predictive Motor Performance Code was
solution validated against reported hot-fire motor test data and
The Predictive Motor Performance Code is a numerical performance modelling data. Notably, it was compared with
model that couples and solves the three key control volumes the performance modelling data of the second phase of
of the hybrid propulsion system (described in Section 2) to Stanford University’s Stanford Sounding Rocket Programme
predict the performance variation with burn time. Some of the [20], which is advantageous since that vehicle’s motor is not
calculated output parameters from HPRC Motor Design Code dissimilar to Phoenix-1A’s in scale and utilizes an identical
are fed into HRPC as essential inputs. The code computes the oxidiser. Most of the critical propulsion system parameters
governing equations of rocket propulsion until it reaches the were reported in the literature excluding the grain dimensions
maximum pre-set burn time or until other variable set-points and nozzle geometry, which, for the purposes of comparison,
are met. were calculated based on the cross-sectional view of the
Prior to running the Predictive Motor Performance Code, combustion chamber, given initial oxidiser mass flow rate
lookup tables are created through NASA-CEA for the and mass flux and expansion ratio. They are given in table 1
specified propellant combination, nozzle expansion ratio, and below.
nozzle flow composition. Key features of the code include The following assumptions were made for the HPRC
defining a fuel propellant of two compositions, defining the model:

R & D Journal of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2017, 33, 56-65 61
http://www.saimeche.org.za (open access) © SAIMechE All rights reserved.
 A Computational Tool for Predicting Hybrid Rocket Motor Performance

1. The regression rate ballistic coefficient, a, for pure The main discrepancy between the thrust profiles is in the
paraffin wax/nitrous oxide combination was increased predicted consumption of liquid nitrous oxide. This phase-
by 10% to 0.1705×10-3 to account for the higher change is reported to occur at approximately 11.2 s in their
regression rate of the aluminised paraffin-wax fuel model, whereas, HPRC predicts it at 13.8 s. This difference
[21]. Note, for a pure paraffin wax/nitrous oxide may be due to the uncertainty in the loaded nitrous oxide
combination, ballistic coefficients were as follows: a mass and/or a higher oxidiser mass flow rate obtained in their
= 0.155×10-3 and n = 0.5 (𝑟𝑟̇ in m/s and Gox in kg/(m2s)) model due to the difference in tank and chamber pressures.
[21]. Moreover, initial assumptions in the HRPC run may have
2. A fixed atmospheric pressure was assumed at sea- contributed to the difference in predicted performances. In
level. particular, the regression rate ballistic coefficient for
3. Combustion efficiency of 95%. aluminised paraffin-wax/nitrous oxide was approximated as
4. Bell-shaped nozzle with 0.985 correction factor. it was not reported in the paper. In addition, their predictive
5. The feed system was designed for an initial chamber code models the flight dynamics of the rocket, including
pressure of 31×105 Pa, with a discharged coefficient changes in atmospheric pressure, whereas a fixed value is
of 0.8, an orifice diameter of 0.002 m, the number of used for the atmospheric pressure in HRPC. Another possible
orifices 15, and a pressure drop of 8×105 Pa in the feed source of deviation is the determination process of the fuel
line. grain dimensions and nozzle geometry. Overall, though, good
agreement was obtained between the models.
Table 1 Stanford Sounding Rocket Programme phase 2
calculated motor parameters.
3.4 Implementation into the UKZN HYROPS
Grain Length (m) 0.385 software
Initial Port Diameter (m) 0.069 The HRPC application is integrated with UKZN’s Hybrid
Grain Diameter (m) 0.151 Rocket Performance Simulator (HYROPS) software that is a
Nozzle Throat Diameter (m) 0.0375 hybrid rocket trajectory simulation tool intended to predict
the sub-orbital flight performance of a generic multi-stage
Figure 6 shows the difference between the HRPC–derived hybrid sounding rocket, as shown in figure 7. The HYROPS
prediction of Stanford motor performance and the reported software tool links the hybrid motor performance model to
motor thrust data. The thrust profiles follow a similar trend. the flight dynamics model developed by Chowdhury [6]. It is
That is, peak thrust is achieved initially, followed by a programmed in Microsoft Visual C++ programming
gradual decrease in thrust with tank pressure, and a shift in language.
oxidiser-to-fuel ratio. The tail-down stage at the end of the
burn is due to the liquid-vapour phase change of the oxidiser.
It is noted that the peak thrust obtained in HRPC is higher
than the predicted 5000 N from the model of Karabeyoglu et
al. [20]. This may be due to the difference in the assumed
initial conditions and transient combustion modelling of the
two models which includes the filling dynamics of the
chamber.

6000 Figure 7 Coupling of motor performance and flight dynamics

HRPC models to form HYROPS software.
Karabeyoglu et al. [20]
The HYROPS software tool numerically solves the core
5000
six-degree-of-freedom rocket flight dynamics equations,
given initial conditions, a vehicle inertia model, a vehicle
4000 propulsion system model, a vehicle aerodynamic model, a
model for the earth’s gravitation and atmosphere, and a model
Thrust [N]

of the vehicle’s recovery system. The gravitational and

3000 geodetic models include effects for the rotation and shape of
the earth whilst the altitude-dependent atmospheric model is
also used to simulate density changes and winds. The motor
2000 performance outputs such as the momentum-thrust history,
nozzle exit pressure history, oxidiser and fuel consumption
histories, and fuel volumes and dimensions are used in a fully
1000
coupled manner in simulation time to model the high fidelity
operation of a hybrid rocket motor on a sounding rocket. The
0 self-pressurising delivery system model from HRPC
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 application is used to compute the residual oxidiser mass and
Time [s] volume at each time step which in turn determines the length
of the column of oxidiser in the tank. This change in oxidiser
Figure 6 Motor performance validation of HRPC Predictive
Motor Performance Code. characteristics is coupled to the vehicle structural model of
HYROPS to simulate the variation in the vehicle mass

R & D Journal of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2017, 33, 56-65 62
http://www.saimeche.org.za (open access) © SAIMechE All rights reserved.
 A Computational Tool for Predicting Hybrid Rocket Motor Performance

distribution and centre of gravity. Similarly, the motor fuel 40

masses and dimensions are coupled to the HYROPS vehicle Hot-Fire Test
structural model while the thrust vector is determined by the HRPC
35
nozzle exit pressure and momentum-thrust outputs, and the
drop in atmospheric pressure as the vehicle ascends.
30
A graphical user interface is incorporated in the HYROPS

Chamber Pressure [bar]

software tool to enable the input of details related to the
vehicle structure, geometry, and propulsion system. Outputs 25
from the application are available in animated 3D
visualizations including a variety of graphical and tabular 20
formats. The full functionalities and features of HYROPS
software tool are described by Chowdhury [6]. 15

4 Phoenix-1A Static and Flight Tests 10

Phoenix-1A’s PV-1 motor design specification is given in
table 2. The motor was successfully static test-fired on 5
UKZN’s purpose-built Mobile Rocket Launch Platform
(MRLP) in August 2013. The MRLP contains all the required 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
electrical and mechanical ground support equipment to Time [s]
remotely control static tests and launches via a LabVIEW
Figure 8 Hot-fire test and HPRC chamber pressure curves.
application [3].
Table 2 Phoenix-1A’s PV-1 motor design specification.
4000
Fuel Grain Propellant SASOL 0907 Hot-Fire Test
Paraffin-Wax, 3500 HRPC
C50H102
Composition 97% Wax, 3% 3000
Charcoal
Grain Configuration Cylindrical 2500
Number of Ports 1
Thrust [N]

Initial Port Dia. (m) 0.05 2000

Grain Diameter (m) 0.156
Grain Length (m) 0.4 1500
Nozzle Material Graphite
Expansion Ratio 5.99 1000
Throat Dia. (m) 0.0298
Tank Oxidiser Nitrous Oxide 500
Supercharge Gas Helium
Oxidiser Mass (kg) 30 0
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Volume (m3) 0.043 Time [s]
Ullage (%) 10
Figure 9 Hot-fire test and HPRC thrust curves.
Initial Pressure (Pa) 65×105
Referring to the experimental curves, a maximum thrust
The test results are shown in figures 8 and 9, together with of 3156.9 N was recorded at 2.2 s corresponding to a chamber
their respective theoretical curves simulated in HRPC. The pressure of 36.8×105 Pa. Steady-state was sustained for
inputs to the HPRC model are: i) loaded nitrous oxide of 20.8 approximately 10 s until the liquid-phase nitrous oxide was
kg, ii) loaded helium gas of 0.022 kg to raise the initial tank depleted. The significant decrease in chamber pressure and
pressure to 65×105 Pa, iii) fuel-grain density of 930 kg/m3, thrust coincides with the change in phase of nitrous oxide
iv) ballistic coefficients a and n of 0.155×10-3 and 0.5, from liquid to gas. To compare the theoretical model and the
respectively, for 𝑟𝑟̇ in m/s and Gox in kg/(m2s) [21], v) assumed hot-fire test data, the HRPC application was run for a feed
injector discharged coefficient of 0.6, vi) assumed feed system pressure drop of 10×105 Pa, which differs from the
system pressure drop of 10×105 Pa (excluding the injector designed/calculated 6.5×105 Pa, to account for the higher
pressure drop), vii) assumed combustion efficiency of 0.9, pressure drop in the hot-fire test. For the same reason, the
viii) bell-shaped nozzle correction factor of 0.985, ix) theoretical injector discharged coefficient of 0.8 was
atmospheric pressure of 1.0132×105 Pa, and x) equilibrium amended to an assumed value of 0.6. It can be seen that the
nozzle gas flow analysis (NASA-CEA input). theoretical chamber pressure is lower than the hot-fire test
data, probably due to the simplified zero-dimensional model
of control volume 2. The experimental chamber pressure
curve is measured at the pre-combustion chamber which is
essentially being compared with HRPC post-combustion

R & D Journal of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2017, 33, 56-65 63
http://www.saimeche.org.za (open access) © SAIMechE All rights reserved.
 A Computational Tool for Predicting Hybrid Rocket Motor Performance

chamber pressure. Although the pressure drop through a

relatively short fuel-grain is minor, a one-dimensional model
should be employed in HRPC to fully capture the spatial
change in chamber pressure. Similarly to figure 6, HRPC
modelled a prolonged liquid-phase nitrous oxide flow
compared to the test data which is a limitation of the ideal gas
theory employed in the blowdown model. Another source of
error may be the assumed burning rate ballistic coefficients
[21]. In general, the theoretical and experimental curves
matched fairly well considering the possible range of errors.
Figure 10 shows the successful test and indicates the
manner in which the oxidiser tank and PV-1 motor are
secured onto the gantry inclined at a 60° angle (video footage
[22]).

Figure 10 Successful hot-fire test of PV-1 motor, August

2013.
Following the successful static test, Phoenix-1A
demonstrator rocket was launched in 2014 from the Denel
Overberg Test Range (OTR) in South Africa [7]. Due to
severe nozzle damage sustained shortly after ignition the
rocket reached an apogee of 2.5 km, significantly lower than
the predicted apogee of 6 km for the given oxidiser load on
board. It is likely that a hard start at ignition may have caused
the nozzle damage, although no pressure sensors were flown
on the vehicle to confirm this. Post-flight analysis of the
Phoenix-1A test is the subject of another research paper.
Photographs of the vehicle leaving its rail are given in figure
11.

5 Conclusions
The objective of this research was to develop a performance
simulation tool for the design and analysis of the Phoenix-1A
hybrid rocket demonstrator. The approach is sufficiently
general to allow for the modelling of other nitrous oxide and Figure 11 Phoenix-1A flight test, August 2014.
paraffin wax motors, as well as a range of different
Two computational sub-models of the Hybrid Rocket
oxidiser/fuel combinations.
Performance Code (HRPC) are described for: i) general
The performance model rests on classifying a motor into
hybrid motor design (HRPC Motor Design Code), and ii)
three control volumes: i) the nitrous oxide self-pressurising
predicting the instantaneous motor performance (HRPC
delivery system (CV1), 2) zero-dimensional gas dynamics
Predictive Motor Performance Code). Specifically, the Motor
model of the combustion chamber including the multiphysics
Design Code is used for sizing a hybrid motor including its
reaction and regression rate theory (CV2), and 3) the one-
fuel grain and nozzle dimensions, whereas, the Predictive
dimensional gas dynamic flow through the rocket nozzle
Motor Performance Code models actual instantaneous
(CV3).
performance of the motor by solving the unknown equations
of the three control volumes with a 4th order Runge-Kutta
numerical method. The two codes extract essential
thermodynamic properties from the NASA-CEA equilibrium
R & D Journal of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2017, 33, 56-65 64
http://www.saimeche.org.za (open access) © SAIMechE All rights reserved.
 A Computational Tool for Predicting Hybrid Rocket Motor Performance

chemistry code. The hot-fire test data of Phoenix-1A’s PV-1 9. Zimmerman JE, Waxman BS, Cantwell BJ and Zilliac
motor are compared with the HRPC application and GG, Review and Evaluation of Models for Self-
reasonably good agreement was obtained. In addition, the pressurizing Propellant Tank Dynamics, Proceedings:
HRPC application was compared with a predictive model 49th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion
from the Stanford University Sounding Rocket Programme, Conference, San Jose, CA, 2013.
again with reasonably good agreement. 10. Marxman GA, Wooldridge CE and Muzzy RJ,
The Phoenix-1A vehicle development programme has Fundamentals of Hybrid Boundary Layer Combustion,
come to an end with the primary objectives reached. These Progress in Aeronautics and Astronautics, 1964, 15,
included the hot-fire tests of lab-scale motors and the full- 485-522.
scale PV-1 flight motor, the development of a Hybrid Rocket 11. Karabeyoglu MA, Altman D and Cantwell BJ,
Performance Simulation (HYROPS) software tool, the Combustion of Liquefying Hybrid Propellants: Part 1,
integration of the vehicle’s airframe and internal components General Theory, Journal of Propulsion and Power,
with the PV-1 propulsion system, and the launch of Phoenix- 2002, 18(3), 610-620.
1A vehicle from the Denel Overberg Test Range (OTR), near 12. Karabeyoglu MA and Cantwell BJ, Combustion of
Cape Agulhas, South Africa. Both HYROPS and HRPC are Liquefying Hybrid Propellants: Part 2, Stability of
now in use for the development of the second vehicle, Liquid Films, Journal of Propulsion and Power, 2002,
Phoenix-1B, which has a target apogee of 10 km. 18(3), 621-630.
13. Barato F, Bellomo N, Lazzarin M, Moretto F, Bettella A
Acknowledgements and Pavarin D, Numerical Modelling of Paraffin-based
The authors wish to thank Denel Overberg Test Range, Fuels Behaviour, Proceedings: 48th
SASOL, Armscor, the South African Air Force, DST, the AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference,
CSIR, the National Research Foundation, and the South Atlanta, GA, 2012.
African National Space Agency. We are grateful to Seffat 14. Chelaru TV and Mingireanu F, Hybrid Rocket Engine,
Chowdhury, Fiona Leverone, Kirsty Veale, and Udil Theoretical Model and Experiment, Acta Astronautica,
Balmogim for their contributions to this research. 2011, 68(11-12), 1891-1902.
15. Guobiao C, Hao Z, Dalin R and Hui T, Optimal Design
of Hybrid Rotor Motor Powered Vehicle for Suborbital
References
Flight, Aerospace Science and Technology, 2013, 25(1),
1. Sutton GP and Biblar O, Rocket Propulsion Elements,
114-124.
8th ed., John Wiley & Sons, New Jersey, 2010.
16. Barato F, Bellomo N, Faenza M, Lazzarin M, Bettella A
2. Davydenko NA, Gollender RG, Gubertov AM, Mironov
and Pavarin D, Numerical Model to Analyse Transient
VV and Volkov NN, Hybrid Rocket Engines: The
Behaviour and Instabilities on Hybrid Rocket Motors,
Benefits and Prospects, Aerospace Science and
Journal of Propulsion and Power, 2015, 31(2), 643-653.
Technology, 2007, 11(1), 55-60.
17. Gordon S and McBride BJ, Computer Program for
3. Genevieve B, Development of a Hybrid Sounding Rocket
Calculation of Complex Chemical Equilibrium
Motor, MScEng thesis, Discipline of Mechanical
Compositions and Applications, NASA RP-1311, 1994.
Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal, South
18. Fernandez MM, Propellant Tank Pressurization
Africa, 2013.
Modelling for a Hybrid Rocket, MScEng thesis,
4. Pitot de la Beaujardiere JF, Brooks MJ, Chowdhury SM,
Rochester Institute of Technology, USA, 2009.
Genevieve B and Roberts LW, The Phoenix Hybrid
19. Perry RH and Green DW, Perry’s Chemical Engineers’
Sounding Rocket Program: A Progress Report,
Handbook, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill, New York, 2007.
Proceedings: 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
20. Karabeyoglu MA, Zilliac G, Castellucci P, Urbanczyk P,
Propulsion Conference, San Diego, CA, 2011.
Stevens J, Inalhan G, Cantwell BJ and Field M,
5. Genevieve B, Chowdhury SM, Brooks MJ, Pitot de la
Development of High-burning-rate Hybrid-rocket-fuel
Beaujardiere JF, Veale K and Roberts LW, The Phoenix
Flight Demonstrators, Proceedings: 39th
Sounding Rocket Program: A Progress Report 2012,
AIAA/ASME/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference,
Proceedings: 48th Annual AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
Huntsville, Al, 2003.
Propulsion Conference, Atlanta, GA, 2012.
21. McCormick A, Hultgren E, Lichtman M, Smith J, Sneed
6. Chowdhury SM, Design and Performance Simulation of
R and Azimi S, Design, Optimization, and Launch of a 3”
a Hybrid Sounding Rocket, MScEng thesis, Discipline of
Diameter N2O/aluminised Paraffin Rocket,
Mechanical Engineering, University of KwaZulu-Natal,
Proceedings: 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint
South Africa, 2013.
Propulsion Conference, Tucson, Arizona, 2005.
7. Genevieve B, Pitot de la Beaujardiere JF, Brooks MJ,
22. ASReG UKZN, UKZN's Phoenix-1A Hybrid Rocket
Chowdhury SM, Veale K, Leverone F, Balmogim U and
Motor Static Hot Fire Test 1,
Mawbey R, Flight Test of the Phoenix-1A Hybrid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fvpw4bz90Ts.
Rocket, Proceedings: 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint
Propulsion Conference, Orlando, Florida, 2015.
8. Whitmore SA and Chandler SN, Engineering Model for
Self-pressurizing Saturated-N2O-propellant Feed
System, AIAA Journal Propulsion and Power, 2010,
26(4), 706-714.

R & D Journal of the South African Institution of Mechanical Engineering 2017, 33, 56-65 65
http://www.saimeche.org.za (open access) © SAIMechE All rights reserved.