Sci. Technol. Energ. Mater., Vol. 82, No.

1, 2021   1

4
Research
paper 3
7

Study on maximum pressure rise with igniter mass

in tubular grain rocket motor

Balesh Ropia *†, Rakesh Kalal*, Himanshu Shekher**, and Dineshsingh G. Thakur***

*Testing and Evaluation Group, High Energy Material Research Laboratory, Sutarwadi, Pune- 411021, Maharastra, INDIA
Phone: +91-9422356491
†
Corresponding Author: baleshropia@rediffmail.com
**Office of Director General (ACE) Armament Post, Pashan, Pune-411 021, INDIA
***Department of Mechanical Engineering, Defence Institute of Advanced Technology, Khadakwasla, Girinagar, Pune-
411025, A Maharastra, INDIA

Received: February 28, 2020, Accepted: July 1, 2020

Abstract
The igniter in the rocket motor is used to give sustained combustion to the propellant. This research paper focused on
experimental and numerical investigation of effect of the igniter mass on the maximum pressure rise in single grain solid
propellant rocket motor. Experiments are carried out with varying igniter mass by approximately ±15 % of calculated
igniter mass. The experimental results are in good agreement and compared with numerical results. A linear relationship
between igniter mass and maximum pressure is also established numerically. The present investigation reveals that, the
igniter mass contributes in maximum pressure rise along with propellant. The maximum pressure can be retained within
required range by optimizing the igniter mass for safe working with rocket motor.

Key words: igniter mass, solid propellant rocket motor, maximum pressure, single grain

analysis for the various grain configurations. This analysis

1. Introduction
Igniter is used to give sustained burning of propellant in
rocket motor. Theoretically, in a rocket motor, there is a
clear correlation between the chamber pressure (P c) and
burn surface area (A b) 1)-4). The theoretical expression
predicts shapes of the pressure-time and thrust-time curves
which are very similar to the shape of the burn surface area
curve. Prediction of the expected maximum pressure rise of
a given solid-propellant rocket motor under transient
conditions is very crucial for rocket motor safety. Research
in predicting and quantifying various factors leading to
overall behavior of rocket, especially the maximum
pressure rise observed during firing of rockets necessitates a
comprehensive experimental and numerical study for
tubular single grain solid propellant rocket motor. The
propellant grain burn back analysis is also discussed in
many research papers. Stalin 5) and similar study by Reddy
and Pandey 6) reported that performance prediction of the
solid rocket motor can be done easily if the burn back steps
of the grain are known. The author investigated grain burn
back analysis for 3-D star grain geometries for solid rocket
motor. Shekhar 7)-9) investigated regression and burn back
is carried out for the various types of grain configurations
i.e. taper convex star grain 7), funnel port tubular grain 8),
high volumetric loading single-grain dual-thrust rocket
propellant configuration 9) and mathematical formulations
for all types of grains. Ata 10) has carried out research of the
burn back analysis of various three-dimensional grain
configurations, while Püskülcü and Ulas 11) reported a
mathematical formulation for partially inhibited cylindrical
propellant grain with central blind hole to evolve burning
surface area with web burnt.
Junaid Godil et al. 12) discussed about numerical
simulation, to analyze the ignition transient in solid rocket
motor and performed the numerical simulations with and
without erosive burning. His results revealed that numerical
results calculated without erosive burning are not in good
agreement with experimental results. Bernardino et al. 13)
studied that ignition and flame-spread modelling is critical
for accurate analysis of the violent starting transients.
Author developed a model, to predict ignition directly based
on fundamental physics. Giacinto et al. 14) in his research
provides a detailed study of the effects on the ignition
transient of the main design parameters of solid-propellant

© Copyright Japan Explosives Society. All rights reserved.

2   Balesh Ropia et al.
motors. Author developed a quasi-one-dimensional unsteady
model of solid rocket ignition transient and it is extensively
validated. Hu and Wang 15) has developed various simplified
numerical models for 1) a mass-added igniter, 2) a grain-
propellant combustion, 3) the opening of nozzle closure,
and 4) the enhancement of heat transfer on the surface of
the solid propellant. The individual influence of the input of
igniters (energy strength and input time), the physical and
chemical properties of propellants (critical burning
temperature, burning rate, thermal conductivity, and initial
temperature), and the breaking pressure of closure on the
ignition transient are systemically compared. Johnston 16)
presented a numerical procedure for the analysis of the
internal flow in a solid rocket motor (SRM) during the
ignition transient period of operation. Similarly, Luke et
al. 17) developed a computer model to predict the ignition
transient for solid rocket motors (SRMs) with high L/D
ratios. Krier and Gokhale 18) predicted the pressure wave
propagation and flame spreading in a porous propellant
mass ignited at one end. It is observed that the magnitude of
the initiator mass discharge rate determines the convective
flame front speed and the pressure wave propagating into
the propellant bed.
Lowe and Toro 19) performed the modelling of the solid
propellant ignition and results are compared with the
experimental results. In this study, a model for two-stage
reaction process is described. It is involving endothermic
gasification of the solid, to produce a source of reactant gas,
followed by a very exothermic gas-phase ignition reaction.
Dargaud et al. 20) has carried out research on solid rocket
motor ignition overpressure waves by scale-down model of
rocket motor. The author emphasis on the start-up phase of
an SRM during which is emitted the ignition over pressure
(IOP), driven by the high pressure rise rate in the motor
chamber. Venkatraman et al. 21) studied about ignition over
pressure in scale-down rocket motor deals with the
occurrence of such ignition over pressure blast waves
during the testing of various scaled-down solid rocket
motors. Adams et al. 22) reported analytical predictions for
the effect of mass discharge rate from single or multiple
pellet mode pyrotechnic igniter elements. Comparison of
several of the predictions to corresponding experimental
pressure-time histories showed reasonable agreement.
Significant information is obtained about the cause of
ignition pressure spikes and the requirements for proper
igniter size. Jonathan et al. 23) discussed about transient
phenomena, i.e. erosive burning and ignition transient
during combustion in solid rocket motor. A model using 1D
quasi-steady state ballistic code as well as 3D CFD Navier-
Stokes solver is developed and its results are compared with
experimental.
As reported in the literature, igniter mass is one of the
influencing parameters for maximum pressure rise. In this
paper, an attempt is made to investigate the effects of igniter
mass on maximum pressure rise in tubular single propellant
grain rocket motor. For this purpose, igniter mass is varied
in step of ∼15 % of calculated igniter mass. The nominal
calculated igniter mass is ∼35 g. The experimental results
are compared with the numerical analysis results and a
relationship is established. The variations in the results are
studied in this paper for optimization of the igniter mass.
2. Experimental analysis
The main purpose of an experiment is to study the
maximum pressure in the rocket motor. The pressure is
measured at head end of the rocket motor. The experiments
are carried out statically with varying igniter mass, i.e. 25 g,
30 g, 35 g, 40 g and 45 g. For each igniter mass, two static
experiments are carried out. The experimental set-up
consists of motor casing, head end, nozzle end, nozzle
closure, retainer ring, propellant, igniter, pressures sensor
etc. A 10 ton thrust capacity test bed is used for all static
experiments.
2.1 Igniter details
2.1.1 Igniter composition
A gun powder-based igniter was used to ignite double
base propellant as it gives sufficient heat and pressure. The
sustained combustion pressure for double base propellant
reported 3-4 MPa 24). Hence, igniter was selected with
following properties.
Density of gun powder = 1100 kg･m −3
Burn rate of gun powder = 15 mm･s −1
2.1.2 Calculation of the gun powder-based igniter mass
For the present rocket motor igniter mass was estimated
using Equation (1) 24) to give sustain burning of propellant
in solid rocket motor.
Vc × Pc (ig)
mig ≥ (1)
(1 − α) × (R0 /Mig ) × T ig
Where
m ig = Mass of igniter [kg]
V c = Initial free volume in rocket motor [m 3]; for
single grain motor, it is 2500 × 10 −6 m 3
P c(ig) = Pressure for sustained combustion of propellant
(3.5 × 10 6 Pa)
R 0 = Universal gas constant (8314 J･kmol −1･K −1)
M ig = Average molecular weight of combustion
products for gunpowder (34.8 kg･kmol −1)
T ig = Isochoric combustion temperature of the
combustion products (2590 K)
α = fraction of the condensed particles in the
combustion products or solid residue in
combustion products of igniter. For gunpowder, it
is taken to be 0.6
Using Equation (1), the calculated igniter mass for single
propellant grain is 34.7 g. Hence, the igniter mass chosen is
35 g.
2.2 Rocket motor components
The main components of rocket motor consist of motor
casing, head end, nozzle end, nozzle closure, retainer ring,
propellant, igniter, pressures sensor, etc. All components are
made from mild steel of IS-2062 grade. Various components
of the rocket motor are shown in Figures 1 (a)-(g).
2.3 Assembly of the rocket motor
The assembly of the complete rocket motor is carried out

Figure 1 (a) Igniter, (b) Head end with igniter, (c) Nozzle end, (d) Nozzle end metal grid, (e) Nozzle closure, (f)
Extruded propellant grain, (g) Motor casing with propellant.
(a) Cut model of assembly of rocket motor.
Figure 2
in the controlled enviroment. The motor casing is cleaned
and checked for any defect in casing before assembly. Only
those extruded propellant grains are selected for assembly
which are free from any defect, i.e. void, crack, porosity,
etc. and cleared by X-ray radiography. The cut model of
assembly of rocket motor and assembled rocket motor is
shown in Figures 2 (a) and (b).
2.4 Static trial of the rocket motor
The chamber pressure was measured with a pressure
gauge of 0-15 MPa capacity which is fitted at head end of
rocket motor. The performance of the assembled ballistic
evaluation motor was being evaluated by the static testing.
The head end of the assembled rocket motor is kept towards
thrust block and nozzle end is directed towards atmosphere.
The schematic arrangement of the firing set up is shown in
Figure 3. To stop the movement of the motor the head end
is set towards the thrust block. For the expansion of the
burnt gases, nozzle end is exposed to the environment.
Sci. Technol. Energ. Mater., Vol. 82, No. 1, 2021   3
4
3
7
(b) Assembled rocket motor.
3. Numerical analysis
Numerical analysis is performed to predict the maximum
pressure. It is also possible to calculate maximum pressure
from 1D mass flow balance equation 24). For better
visualization and understanding the phenomenon of
pressure rise in the nozzle, numerical analysis is done with
Ansys software.
3.1 Burn area calculation of the igniter mass
The density of igniter composition is 1100 kg･m −3 and
average size of the igniter particle is taken as 6 mm.
Considering cubical grain, sample calculation for number
of particle and burn area of 35 g mass is given below.
Burn area of single particle
= 6×6×6 (total 6 numbers of faces)
= 216 mm 2
Total numbers of particle (n) in 35 g (35×10 −3 kg) of
4   Balesh Ropia et al.

The web of tubular propellant grain is 13.5 mm and for

burn rate of 7 mm･sec −1, total burning time is ∼2 s. The
average particle size of the igniter is 6 mm. The average
igniter particle size is 6 mm and it burns from all direction,
hence its web is 3 mm. Igniter burn rate is 15 mm･s−1, so
the total burning time for the igniter mass is 0.2 s or 200
ms.
The mass of the propellant is ∼5600 g and igniter mass
is ∼35 g, so igniter mass is less compared to the mass of
the propellant. Igniter mass is consuming fast compared to
the propellant due to its higher burn rate. The contribution
in the pressure rise due to igniter mass is in first 100 ms of
burning (as very few igniter mass will remain after this
time). After 100 ms, pressure rise because of igniter mass is
almost negligible, and pressure rise in the rocket motor is
only because of the propellant. Total mass flow rate of
Figure 3 Firing set up. igniter mass and the propellant is required for numerical
analysis. The total mass flow inside the rocket motor
(M total) is sum of the igniter mass flow (M ig) and propellant
Table 1 Burn area calculation for igniter mass. mass flow (M prop) is given in Equations (2) and (3).
Numbers of igniter
Igniter mass [g] Burn area [m 2] Mtotal = Mig + M prop (2)
particle
25 105 0.022680 Mtotal = ρign Abign rign + ρ p Abprop r prop (3)
30 127 0.027432
35 147 0.031752 Where, ρ ign and ρ p are densities of igniter mass and the
40 168 0.036288 propellant, respectively, A bign and A bprop are the burn area of
45 189 0.040824 the igniter and burn area of propellant, respectively, and
r ign, r prop are the burn rate of igniter composition and
propellant, respectively.
igniter mass The burn area of igniter and propellant are calculated at
n × weight of single particle each time step. This total burn area (igniter mass and
= Total number of particles in 35 g (35 × 10 −3 kg) of propellant) is used to calculate total mass flow rate at each
igniter mass time step using Equation (4).
n × density × volume of single particle [m 3]
dMtotal dAbign dAbprop
= 35 × 10 −3 kg = ρign rign + ρ prop r prop (4)
dt dt dt
n × 1100 × 6 × 6 × 6 × 10 −9 = 35 × 10 −3
n = 147 The specified delay for igniter firing is less than 50 ms,
For a single grain, the burn area for a total number (147) of for calculation, a delay of 20 ms is considered. At this time,
particle = 147 × 6 × 6 × 6 × 10 −6 [m 2] igniter mass flow is contributing along with propellant mass
= 31752 × 10 −6 [m 2] flow rate and provide maximum pressure rise. At each time
Similarly, calculations for the other igniter mass are carried step, the burn area of igniter mass and propellant mass
out and it is given in Table 1. reduces continuously. The predicted mass flow rate vs time
curve for igniter mass and propellant is shown in Figure 4.
3.2 Formulation of burn area calculation for propellant
and igniter mass 3.3 Numerical analysis: Methodology and
The uninhibited tubular propellant grain (length: 830 mm, implementation
ID: 23 mm and OD: 77 mm) burns from all directions. The rocket motor is of short length (less than 1 m) and
Burning of propellant grain gives near neutral burning the drop of pressure along this length is not very much 24). A
profile for pressure- time curve. 2-D model of only nozzle is generated in Ansys software 25)
The propellant grain burning is near neutral, the variation for ease of calculation. The calculated mass flow rate is
in burning rate is negligible and so a constant value of given as input at inlet. The pressure is measured at inlet.
burning rate is taken for propellant and igniter mass. In The 2-D model of the nozzle is shown in Figure 5.
present analysis, measured burn rate values for propellant The various design parameters for the nozzle geometry,
and igniter that are 7 mm･s −1 and 15 mm･s −1, respectively as shown in Figure 5 are
are used. Prediction of burn area of propellant grain was
Inlet diameter (D i) 88 mm
carried out by burn back analysis by offsetting the grain
Throat diameter (D t) 28 mm
dimension. The offsetting distance for the propellant is
Exit diameter (D e) 43 mm
calculated as 0.014 mm for 1 ms.
 Sci. Technol. Energ. Mater., Vol. 82, No. 1, 2021   5

4
3
7

Figure 4 Predicted mass flow rate vs time curve for numerical analysis.

Figure 5 Nozzle geometry.

Exit pressure (P e) 1 atm.

Table 2 Experimental results for various igniters mass.
The quadrilateral meshing is adopted for all cases of
Average
numerical studies. Average of
Peak ignition
Igniter Ignition maximum
pressure transient
3.4 Solution mass [g] delay [s] pressure
[MPa] pressure
At the solid wall, no-slip condition is enforced together [MPa]
[MPa]
with adiabatic wall condition. The different mass flow rate
25 7.798 0.032
with respect to time for various igniter mass i.e. 25 g, 30 g, 7.897 2.907
25 7.996 0.041
35 g, 40 g, 45 g and propellant is given as input. The
density-based solver is used. In solution method, implicit 30 8.092 0.039
8.045 3.155
formulation is used and flux type considered is Roe flux- 30 7.997 0.028
difference splitting (Roe-FDS). 35 8.594 0.024
8.563 4.311
The shear-stress transport (SST) k- ω model is employed 35 8.532 0.043
to effectively blend the robust and accurate formulation. 40 8.834 0.049
The CFD solution is done for 100 ms, as the maximum 8.885 4.472
40 8.937 0.035
pressure rise is observed in first 100 ms experimentally.
45 8.859 0.043
8.835 5.651
4. Results and discussions 45 8.810 0.041
Igniter is used to produce sufficient temperature and
pressure inside the combustion chamber of the rocket motor igniter mass is varied by ∼15 %.
for sustained burning of the propellant grain. The calculated
igniter mass is estimated to be ∼35 g. To study the effect of 4.1 Experimental results
igniter mass on maximum pressure rise in rocket motor the The experimental results (10 in total) of the two firings at
6   Balesh Ropia et al.
Figure 6 Experimental pressure- time profile for various igniter mass.
Figure 7 Pressure profile for 35 g igniter mass.
each igniter mass are shown in Table 2. In an experiment,
pressure is measured at head end of the rocket motor. The
experimental maximum pressure results for 100 ms are
shown in Table 2. Two static tests are carried out for each
igniter mass. The average value of the two-maximum
pressure for each igniter mass is used for comparing with
numerical results.
Pressure variation with respect to time for 100 ms for
each igniter mass is shown in Figure 6. For clarity and easy
understanding purpose, one curve for each igniter mass is
discussed in Figure 6.
From Figure 6, the following inferences can be drawn.
1. There is no relation between the ignition delay and the
igniter mass. At lower igniter mass, the ignition delay
may be more and vice versa. In all static firings, it is
observed that ignition delay takes less than 50 ms
which is the maximum limit of the ignition delay.
2. It shows that as the mass of igniter mass is increasing,
pressure at the ignition transient is also increasing. The
ignition transient is shown as pressure fluctuation in
Figure 6. At the time of the igniter burning, propellant
also start burning. After ignition transient, the drop in
pressure is observed for all igniter mass cases. This
drop-in pressure is due the nozzle closure burst. Due to
Table 3 Numerical analysis results for maximum pressure of
various igniter mass.
Igniter mass Calculated Maximum pressure
Sr. no.
[g] value [MPa]
1. 25 8.322
2. 30 8.449
3. 35 8.578
4. 40 8.718
5. 45 8.862
a burst of nozzle closure, sudden pressure release
occurs and due to this, drop of pressure is observed in
rocket motor which is shown in Figure. 6. The
sustained burning of propellant is observed only after
ignition transient die down in the rocket motor. Further,
it is also observed that higher is the ignition transient
pressure, higher is the maximum pressure in the rocket
motor. However, this observation is not true for the
igniter mass above ∼15 % of calculated igniter mass.
Above ∼15 %, more igniter mass the pressure drops is
observed in rocket motor. The probable reason of this
phenomenon is attributed at higher igniter mass, nozzle
closure burst very fast. Due to fast opening of the
nozzle closure, the excess quantity of igniter mass
along with propellant gases is thrown out from rocket
motor. The thrown-out igniter mass is not contributing
to the rise of maximum pressure in rocket motor. These
thrown out of excess quantity of igniter mass will
increase velocity of gases, and due to this, a pressure-
drop is observed. The maximum pressure obtained
through the numerical analysis is given in Table 2.
Pressure profile for different igniter mass is shown in
Figure 6.
4.2 Numerical results
The numerical analysis is carried out for each igniter
charge mass along with propellant. The sample pressure
profile for the 35 g igniter mass is shown in Figure 7. The

Figure 8 Curve for igniter mass and ratio of P max.
Table 4 % Variation of the numerical and experimental maximum pressure.
Numerical Experimental
Igniter
results results
mass [g]
[MPa] [MPa]
25 8.322 7.898
30 8.449 8.045
35 8.578 8.563
40 8.718 8.885
45 8.862 8.835
maximum pressure is achieved at ∼20 ms. The other igniter
mass pressure profile is the same as that of 35 g igniter
mass.
The numerical analysis results for maximum pressure for
different igniter mass are shown in Table 3.
There is continuous increase of maximum pressure with
increase of igniter mass is observed. The numerical analysis
results also show that maximum pressure is achieved at
nearly 0.02 s in all cases.
4.3 Comparison of experimental and numerical results
The comparison of the experimental and prediction
results for maximum pressure is done to discuss difference.
For both cases, the maximum pressure with different igniter
mass is compared and shown in Figure 8.
From Figure 8, following results inferences can be drawn.
1. In Figure 8, it is found that at calculated value of
igniter mass, i.e. 35 g, both the numerical and
experimental maximum pressure intersect at one point
(8.588 MPa). This gives a good approximation of the
experimental results with the numerical.
2. It is also found that at lower igniter mass (less than
calculated value 35 g), the ignition transient pressure is
less, that is just sufficient to give the sustained burning
of the propellant. Because of lower ignition transient
pressure (3.2 MPa for 30 g igniter mass and 2.9 MPa
for 25 g igniter mass), the realized maximum pressure
is also less (8.045 MPa for 30 g igniter mass and 7.898
MPa for 25 g igniter mass). As we lower igniter mass,
Sci. Technol. Energ. Mater., Vol. 82, No. 1, 2021   7
4
3
7
% variation of the results
Numerical−Experimental
×100
Numerical
5.093
4.787
0.182
−1.918
0.304
slope of the curve is not very sharp while numerical
analysis shows that the drop of pressure is linear. It
shows that for lower ignition mass, drop of pressure is
not appreciable. But igniter mass reduces further, then
it is possible that propellant may not ignite.
3. As the igniter mass is increasing, the numerical
analysis shows constant rise of the maximum pressure.
While for the experimental results, the maximum
pressure rise is not there after ∼15 % excess igniter
mass, although the realized ignition transient pressure
is higher for higher igniter mass (4.472 MPa for 40 g
and 5.651 MPa for 45 g igniter mass). In fact, it is
observed that beyond 15 %, higher igniter mass
maximum pressure is reducing which is explained in
section 4.1. This shows that the excess igniter mass is
not contributing to the maximum pressure rise in the
rocket motor. It is possible that at higher igniter mass,
the excess igniter quantity may be thrown out of the
rocket motor as already discussed in results of Figure
6.
Form the above discussions, it is clear that the igniter mass
is playing a crucial role in controlling the maximum
pressure rise in the rocket motor. The mass approximately ±
15 % of the calculated igniter mass is giving nearly straight
rise and drop of pressure in both experimental and
numerical analysis. It is observed that beyond these bounds,
the results are not as per numerical analysis where it gives
liner relationship with various igniter mass.
The percent variation of results between the numerical
8   Balesh Ropia et al.
and experimental pressure is given in Table 4.
The following results inference can be drawn from the
above Table 4
1. The maximum percent variation is observed for the
lowest igniter mass is for 25 g (5.093 %) and at
calculated value of igniter mass (35 g), the error is
minimum (0.181 %).
2. At igniter mass of 40 g, the percent variation is in
negative direction (−1.918 %), which means that the
experimental value is higher than the numerically
calculated pressure value. It is also observed that
further increase of the igniter mass (45 g), the
experimental value is lower than numerical value. At
higher igniter mass that is more than calculated value
(35 g), the rise of the pressure is not significant,
whereas for lower mass that is less than calculated
mass (35 g), the sharp drop in pressure is observed.
That can be seen by percent variation in the results
shown on Table 4.
5. Conclusions
The study reveals that the proper estimation of the igniter
mass is very important. The drop and rise of maximum
pressure is following linear relationship up to ±15 % of
calculated igniter mass (35 g). If reduction of igniter mass
beyond 15 % of igniter mass is done, then there are chances
that propellant may not ignite. It is found that for sustaining
combustion the igniter mass should be kept between ±15 %
of calculated igniter mass. By proper estimation of igniter
mass, the maximum pressure can be kept low for safe
working of the rocket motor. If more test beyond ±30 % of
the calculated igniter mass is carried out, than more light
can be cast on maximum pressure rise in the rocket motor.
This study confirms that igniter mass estimation of ±15 %
of calculate igniter mass is suitable for proper ignition of
propellants.
Acknowledgements
The authors thank Director, HEMRL, Pune for his
support and encouragement during the course of this study.
References
1) G. Sutton and O. Biblarz,“Rocket Propulsion Elements”, 7th
ed., America John Wiley & Sons, 45-75, 417-453, 520-526,
doi: 10.1017/CBO9781107415324.004 (2001).
2) B. Zeller, Solid Rocket Propuls. Technol., 35-84, doi:
10.1016/B978-0-08-040999-3.50007-2 (1993).
3) R. I. Reis, W. K. Shimote, and L. C. Pardini, J. Aerosp.
Technol. Manag., doi: 10.5028/jatm. v8i4.663 (2016).
4) N. Gligorijevi , M. A. Boulahlib, S. Živkovi , S. Suboti , S.
Kozomara, and M. Nikoli , Sci. Tech. Rev., 64, 3-13 (2016).
5) P. Stalin, Y. N. V. Santosh Kumar, and SK. Nazumuddin,
International Journal of Engineering Development and
Research, 2, 3417-3427 (2014).
6) K. O. Reddy and K. M. Pandey, Int. J. Adv. Trends. Comput.
Sci. Eng., 2, 215-223 (2013).
7) H. Shekhar, Def. Sci. J., 50, 207-211, doi: 10.14429/
dsj.50.3429 (2000).
8) H. Shekhar, Def. Sci. J., 59, 494-498, doi: 10.14429/
dsj.59.1550 (2009).
9) H. Shekhar, Def. Sci. J., 61, 165-170, doi: 10.14429/
dsj.61.41 (2011).
10) Y. Ata,“Numerical Burnback Analysis of Three Dimensional
Solid Propellant Grains”, Thesis on degree of Master of
Science, Department of Aerospace Engineering, Middle East
Technical University, Feb, Report no 383030 (2015).
11) G. Püskülcü and A. Ulas, Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 12, 579-584,
doi: 10.1016/j.ast.2008.02.001 (2008).
12) J. Godil and A. Kamran, Aircraft Engineering and Aerospace
Technology, https://doi.org/10.1108/AEAT-04-2015-0109
(2015).
13) M. Salita, 37th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.2001-3443 (2001).
14) M. Di Giacinto, E. Cavallini, B. Favini, and J. Steelant, J.
Propuls. Power, 31, 1117-1126, doi: 10.2514/1.B35494
(2015).
15) B. Hu and B. Wang, J. Propuls. Power, 32, 1333-1342, doi:
10.2514/1.B36024 (2016).
16) W. A. Johnston, J. Propuls. Power, 11, 489-496 (1995).
17) G. D. Luke, M. A. Eagar, and H. A. Dwyer, 32nd Joint
Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, AIAA, https://doi.
org/10.2514/6.1996-3273 (1996).
18) H. Krier and S. S. Gokhale, AIAA Journal, 16, 2, https://doi.
org/10.2514/3.60874 (1978).
19) C. Lowe, J. F. Clarke, and E. F. Toro,“CFD modelling of
solid propellant ignition”, PhD thesis, College of
Aeronautics, Cranfield University (1996).
20) J. Dargaud, J. Troyes, and C. Bailly, 4th European Conference
for Aerospace Sciences, Saint Petersbourg, Russie, 4-8 Juillet,
1-13 (2011).
21) R. Venkatraman, S. Sankaran, G. Krishnaiah, R. P. Malleswara,
P. K. Vivekanand, and T. Sundararajan, Indian J. Sci.
Technol.; 8: 481-488, doi: 10.17485/ijst/2015/v8i5/61709
(2015).
22) D. M. Adams, Engineer S. by Huntsville, Alabama rocket
motors. 2nd Propulsion Joint Specialist Conference, AIAA,
https://doi.org/10.2514/6.1966-680 (1966).
23) J. Sivan, Y. Solomon, and O. Peles, Sci. Technol. Energ.
Mater., 80, 5, 159-170 (2019).
24) B. M. A. Jaumotte, B. F. de Veubeke, and J. Vandenkerckhove,
“Rocket Propulsion”, Elsevier Publishing Company,
Amsterdam, London-New York-Princeton, 1-858 (1960).
25)“Ansys Fluent User s Guide”, 2019, FLUENT ® help files and
related documentation, FLUENT ® is a trade mark of ANSYS
Company.