47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit AIAA 2011-5958

31 July - 03 August 2011, San Diego, California

Structural Qualification of P80 Solid Rocket Motor

Composite Case

Michele Biagi1, Alain Mauries2

CNES Centre National d’Etudes Spatiales – Launchers Directorate, 91023 Evry, France

Pierluigi Perugini3
AVIO S.p.A. Propulsione Aerospaziale, 00034 Colleferro, Italy

Bortolino Pin4
EUROPROPULSION, 92150 Suresnes, France
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5958

In the frame of P80 Solid Rocket Motor Development it was developed the world largest
monolithic composite case structure. Manufactured by the Italian company AVIO using
filament winding technology, it achieved its formal qualification end of 2009. This paper
outlines the major milestones of the program, together with the development plan
implemented for this large composite structure. Testing as well modeling activities are
enhanced, with a specific emphasis on the full scale structural qualification tests and the
final burst test which has led to the pronunciation of the final qualification.

Nomenclature
SRM = solid rocket motor
LMC = loaded motor case
IMC = inert motor case
TM = technological model
DM = development model
QM = qualification model
CNES = French Space Agency
ESA = European Space Agency
I/F = interface
PDR = preliminary design review
CDR = critical design review
GQR = ground qualification review
LV = launch vehicle

I Introduction
P80 Solid Rocket Motor was a specific ESA program managed by an integrated project team (CNES, ESA, ASI
staff) based in Evry (France) in order to benefit by the technical support of CNES Launchers Directorate expertise,
with an industrial team led by the French-Italian joint-venture Europropulsion, under delegation from Avio S.p.A of
Italy.
The programme was devoted both to the development & qualification of the VEGA Launcher first stage propulsion
system and to the validation of technological breakthroughs for potential implementation on future upgrades of
ARIANE 5 Solid Rocket Boosters.

1
P80 LMC Project Manager
2
P80 QA Manager
3
Head of Composites Departement
4
SRM Engineering Manager
1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2011 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
 VEGA [1] is the European Launch Vehicle which will be able to place into various low earth orbits payloads masses
range from a minimum of 300 kg up to a maximum of 2500kg, thanks to the versatility of its upper stage. Its
development is being finalized under the responsibility of ESA VEGA Integrated Project team, for a maiden flight
scheduled in the coming months.
ARIANE 5 is the European Heavy Lift Launch vehicle which is able to put 10 tons in geostationary orbit and which
is presently the world market leader in its segment.

VEGA LV

Firing test in
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5958

Kourou

Carbon composite Future

case improvements

Figure 1: Aim of P80 SRM development programme

Several new technologies were selected for the P80 SRM and between them there was the realization of SRM case
with carbon composite, using filament winding process. This technology developed by AVIO has enabled a
significant reduction of mass with respect to the traditional metallic casing as well cost reduction thanks to the
synergies with the other SRM (Zefiro 23 and Z9) manufactured for VEGA launcher using the same technology and
similar materials.

The P80 is presently the world largest monolithic case, with a diameter of 3 meters and a total length of around 9
meters. Its qualification (after extensive testing of the case with pressure and with flight & ground general loads
application) has been achieved through a burst test, successfully realized end of 2009.

II Design and Development of P80 Composite Case

A. Composite case architecture
The P80 composite case structure (Fig. 2) is representative of conventional architecture of a filament wound
composite case. It is composed of a cylindrical vessel, closed with the Forward and Aft Domes, manufactured by
2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 filament winding wet prepreg Carbon/Epoxy roving above a metallic mandrel covered by the internal thermal
protection and cured with temperature.
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5958

I/F to 1/2 skirt I/F to 0/1 skirt

Figure 2: Inert motor composite case main features

The wall thickness is made with helical layers, wound from boss to boss, and alternated with hoop layers, in order to
optimize both the vessel strength and the associated manufacturing cycle.
The dome openings are reinforced by metallic polar bosses which provide the interfaces to the nozzle and igniter
and connected to the composite case by the means of a rubber ply. The vessel is then completed by the two skirts
which are laid up after the case and co-cured with it, in order to strengthen their junction made through a rubber ply.
The mechanical junction to the interstages is performed through metallic flanges which provide the attachment for
Thrust Vector Control actuators and which are connected with the composite skirts by radial bolts.

B. Program milestones
The composite case structure is part of the configured item “Loaded Motor Case”. Its development has followed
traditional rules of space programs[2]. Major milestones of detailed design phase are recalled in figure 3 for SRM,
LMC and composite case.

Figure 3: P80 programme milestones

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 For the SRM, the two firing tests performed in Kourou in 2006 and 2007 represented the two major experimental
verifications, for checking the complete motor behavior in operative conditions and for validation of the
performance analysis mathematical models. On the opposite side, for what concerns the case structure, considering
that P80 is the launcher first stage, flight loads are largely enveloping firing loads and only aft part of the motor had
to sustain loads close to limit levels (due to pressurization and TVC activations). Qualification of the structure has
been therefore obtained through a combination of:

- FEM analysis
- Firing testing
- Full scale structural testing
- Rupture testing

Moreover extensive testing and FEM computations were performed for damage tolerance justification[3] against both
manufacturing defects (i.e. delaminations, cracks,...) and impact damage.

The development plan has been established with the aim to take advantage of synergies with Zefiro motors
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5958

development and therefore only a limited number of items were foreseen. Finally five P80 items were manufactured
by AVIO before the flight model with different objectives which are recalled in the Figure 4.

Figure 4: Development models of P80 Composite Case

C. Composite Case Lifetime and Sizing load case

On ground the nominal life of the P80 composite case starts in Europe after the curing cycle, follows NDI controls
and proof testing before transportation to French Guyana. Once arrived, it follows casting, some handling
operations, integration on SRM, transportation to mobile gantry and integration on VEGA launcher. In launcher

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 configuration, the P80 structure ha to sustain the whole launcher weight with vortex shedding loads on launch pad
once outside the gantry.

During flight, the P80 structure is simultaneously subjected to several loads which include: thrust loads induced by
the engine functioning, motor pressurization, flight general loads (induced by aerodynamics, accelerations…etc),
local loads due to equipments or discontinuities in the neighboring structures as well thermal loads coming from
heat transfers and solar radiation.

All these loads have been considered for selection of the dimensioning cases, representing the cases of critical
loading which lead to a specific failure mode in each area of the structure with low safety margin.
Four sizing load cases where selected in the end:

1) Handling (vertical traction)

2) Stand-by on launch pad (compression)
3) Flight Max pressure
4) Flight Max compression
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5958

The first sizing load case covers when P80 SRM is hoisted
upward in vertical position from handling rings, which are
connected to the forward and aft skirt rings. This case covers all
traction load cases (LMC + tools mass) and is used to verify
flanges connections strength as well rubber ply safety margins.
The second load case foreseen an unpressurized load case, high
compressive and bending fluxes on the structure (induced from
LV upper stages on launch pad). This case is used to compute
safety margins with respect to buckling and strength of rear
composite skirt.
The third and fourth are the two selected sizing flight cases
which show a different mix of pressure and general loads: max
motor pressure appears at the beginning of flight but general
loads are relatively low, where at max qalpha instant, max
pressure is ~30% less but general loads are increased of ~40%.
These cases were used to verify the case strength, rubber ply as
well forward skirt strength and buckling safety margins.

D. Analytical -FEM design

The P80 structure design phase has followed several analysis
and loops[4] with dedicated software (ex. for winding path
definition) and classical FEM tools in order to optimize the
structural mass and to guarantee the required safety factors.
Two global FEM model of the structure have been used by
AVIO to verify its integrity:

- a 3d shell-brick model

- a 2d axy-symmetric model Figure 5: Main load cases

Within the 3D model, composite case wall and skirts have been modeled using “thick” shell elements allowing the
definition of orthotropic material properties layer by layer. Polar-bosses, flanges and TVC attachments were
represented by brick elements to better represent interfaces forces.
Within axysymmetrical model, all layers were modeled with a high mesh refinement which allowed a better
correlation with experimental values, and in particular enabled the computation of interlaminar and peeling stresses
on skirts laminates. Only drawback of this model was the impossibility to apply non axysymmetric phenomena (as
TVC loads or modal geometrical imperfections for buckling analysis).

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5958

Figure 6: Examples of FEM models

Non-linearities due to geometry (large displacements) and load orientation (following force) have been taken into
account, in both models.
Dedicated local models were implemented to analyze the flange to skirt connections as well the effect of
manufacturing defects[3].
Additional models were built at agency level (CNES) in order to cross-check most critical elements[5] and confirmed
results found by the industry.

Allowable values were determined by prepreg tow tests and small vessels burst tests for tensile strength and by a
building block approach for skirt compressive strength which included with a bottom-up approach: prepreg tape,
coupon, element and subcomponent level testing, using specimens and panels cut from real skirt (to include the
effect of manufacturing process).

Safety factors were traditional ones for unmanned vehicle structures (i.e. 1.25 for strength), with additional knock
down factors to cover potential uncertainties on industrial process at the beginning of the development. Higher
safety factors were used for rubber materials and handling operations.

III Full scale structural testing

As already outlined before, the structural qualification campaign with the DM3 model has followed the successful
achievement of two static firing tests. Up to DM3, structural loading has been limited to proof testing (with
compression on forward skirt) and acceptance tests before firing. As it is shown from figure 7, qualification level
was far beyond the explored domain.

The aim of full scale qualification testing was the demonstration of the structure ability to sustain the ultimate flight
loads with minimum resistance characteristics in flight representative conditions.

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5958

Figure 7: Loading history on development models

Tests were performed on the “traditional” facility used by Avio

(Fig. 8) for proof pressure tests of VEGA composite cases in
vertical configuration, which enables the simultaneous
application of pressure, thrust and flight loads. The thrust is
simulated through a sliding piston mounted on nozzle stationary
shell and the correct application of compressive fluxes on skirts
(conservatively enveloping bending & compressive loads) is
obtained trough a system of six actuators with a different load
control (which can respectively push or pull handling rings).
The test set-up even if rather complex needed the introduction of
correction factors in order to obtain the correct pressure and
fluxes to be applied:

(1) Qual _ load = Limit _ load ∗ SF ∗ Kadj ∗ KT ∗ Kσ

The meaning of the factors is the following:

- Flight representative adjacent structures were not Figure 8: Test facility
present, therefore in order to take into account their
flexibility and overfluxes, FEM simulations have been put in place. For this scope, a first calculation was
performed using boundary condition corresponding to the test configuration and a second calculation was
performed using the boundary conditions corresponding to the flight configuration, using the real adjacent
structures. The comparison of these two computations in terms of stresses, buckling load factor and
damage tolerance has led to the correction factor Kadj to be considered for the test.

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 - Room temperature with controlled hygrometry was used, instead of flight temperature maps and humidity
conditions representative of French Guyana environment. Therefore maximum strength decay for
conditioned specimens at this level of temperature and moisture absorption has been evaluated by test
campaign, and the correction factor KT has been introduced.
- DM3 item isn’t representative of minimum resistance characteristics used for sizing, therefore acceptance
properties (influencing relevant failure modes) of the batch of material used for qualification model
manufacturing (DM3) have been compared with the minimum allowable used for design, and Kσ
correction factor has been obtained.

All these correction factors have been combined with the ultimate safety factor required for dimensioning (i.e. 1.25)
and the limit load (established with 99% probability and 90% confidence level from general launcher specification)
to obtain qualification levels.

Testing were live monitored and instrumented with ~30 potentiometers and ~70 strain gauges, for a total of ~190
measurement channels.
Tests were successfully achieved in 2009. No failure was recorded, and a good correlation with FEM strain
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5958

prediction was evidenced (~10-20%), therefore FEM model was considered as qualified for use during exploitation
phase in case of potential manufacturing waivers.

IV Rupture Test
Rupture test have been performed in a dedicated AVIO facility (in horizontal configuration), expressly
manufactured for this scope and which has been designed in order to obtain the simultaneous burst of the vessel with
an overloading on the forward skirt above qualification level. The same item used for full scale qualification test has
been used (DM3).

Test bench has been verified by FEM analysis (Fig. 9) with safety factor higher than 2 for rupture and 1.6 for
yielding. Most critical parts (vertical plates reinforcements and aft vertical plate in the interface position between the
sliding piston and the vertical plate) have been experimentally verified through a dedicated test (Fig. 10) performed
with a metallic mock-up representative of the composite case main interfaces.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 IMC positioning Test rig mounting

Figure 11: Burst test rig installation

Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5958

Overfluxes by design have been limited to less than 5% and deformations of bench during the test have been
controlled with relevant strain gauges positioned along its structure.
Burst test of IMC has been live monitored and instrumented with ~90 strain gauges, for a total of ~210 measurement
channels. Test was video recorded with three cameras to monitor the complete structure, the aft polar boss as well
the forward skirt regions.

Rupture has been achieved with an error of less than 2% with respect to the numerical predictions, in the predicted
zone by design (mid-cylinder). The localization of the rupture has been confirmed both by the strain gages
measurements and by the images of a high speed camera (see figure 12).
Correlation with FEM has shown differences on local stress prediction of less than 10%. The Knock down factor
relevant to scale effect has been evaluated, enabling the confirmation of the allowable hoop stress used for sizing.
A final margin of more than 20% has been demonstrated both on the composite case and on the forward skirt.

Burst

Mid-cylinder at burst

Figure 12: Burst test details

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 IV Conclusions
The main steps for the achievement of the P80 SRM composite case qualification have been described. After two
firing tests performed in French Guyana in 2006 and 2007, full scale structural test and burst test have been
successfully performed in AVIO facilities in 2009 and have confirmed the robustness of the design and of the
modeling activities. Final rupture has been found in line with the numerical predictions and exactly in the predicted
zone by design.
The formal ground qualification was obtained after the relevant review which finally validated all the technologies
developed both for VEGA first stage propulsion system and for future Launchers Solid Rocket Boosters.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all their colleagues from the industrial contractors Avio (Colleferro) and
Europropulsion (Suresnes), and from the agencies CNES, ESA and ASI (team collocated in Evry), who all together
enabled the successful achievement of this challenging development.

References
Downloaded by CARLETON UNIVERSITY LIBRARY on July 30, 2015 | http://arc.aiaa.org | DOI: 10.2514/6.2011-5958

1
Neri, A., Bianchi, S., Pascal, P., Cutroni, M., “An Overview of VEGA Solid Rocket Motors Development and Qualification
Program” AIAA paper 2003-5284, 39th Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Huntsville, Alabama, July 2003.
2
European Cooperation for Space Standardization ECSS-M-30A
3
Mataloni, A., Perugini, P., Biagi, M., “Overview of Damage Tolerance approach for Composite Motor cases of the Vega
family”, Technical Interchange Meeting (TIM) on Fracture Control of Spacecraft, Launchers and their Payloads and
Experiments, ESA/ESTEC Noordwijk, The Netherlands, March 2011.
4
Betti, F., and others, “Design and Development of VEGA Solid Rocket Motors Composite Cases” AIAA paper 2007-5810,
43rd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Cincinnati, July 2007.
5
Biagi, M., Perugini, P. “Non Linear Analysis of Vega Launcher First Stage composite skirt with geometrical imperfection”,
48th AIAA/ASME/ASCE/AHS/ASC Structures, Structural Dynamics, and Materials Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, April 2007.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics