42nd AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit AIAA 2006-5277

9 - 12 July 2006, Sacramento, California

Ignition Transient Induced Loads Control Strategy for

VEGA Launcher’ Solid Rocket Motors: the “Zefiro9” Static
Firing Test Predictions and Post Firing Analysis.

B. Favini*, M. Di Giacinto†, A. Attili‡

Department of Mechanics and Aeronautics, University of Rome“La Sapienza”, Rome, Italy

D. Scoccimarro§, M.Biagioni**, R. De Amicis††

AVIO GROUP, Colleferro, Italy

A. Neri‡‡, P. Bellomi§§
ELV, Colleferro, Italy

S. Bianchi*** , F. Serraglia.††† and M. Bonnet‡‡‡

VEGA IPT ESA/ESRIN, Frascati (Rome), Italy

In summer 2005, based upon the DMA’s validated experience on the ignition transient of
solid propellant rockets simulation and analysis, a brand new solution to control pressure
oscillations at ignition was proposed for the solid rocket motors of the new VEGA Launcher
of the European Space Agency. This solution, based upon the utilization of Helium instead of
Nitrogen as a chamber pressuring gas, was presented and discussed for the first time during
the last JPC in Tucson (AIAA-2005-4165). Being deeply analyzed and evaluated together
with ESA, ELV and AVIO specialists, the proposed solution has been finally implemented in
the Zefiro9-DM0 motor successfully tested in the Salto di Quirra inter-force missile test
centre in Sardinia on December 21st 2005. Test’s results and experimental measurements
have clearly confirmed what was predicted, not only validating Helium pressurization as a
solution able to completely solve the ignition pressure oscillations issue, but also further
enhancing the confidence on the prediction capabilities of the solid rocket motors internal
ballistics simulation models developed by the DMA.

I. Introduction

I GNITION transient of a solid rocket motor (SRM) can be characterized by strong unsteady phenomena such as
waves propagation and pressure oscillations inside the combustion chamber. Depending on their frequencies and
their amplitude, these oscillations can generate undesirable effects on the launcher, such as thrust fluctuations and
transient loads on structures and-or payload equipments.
From a launcher system point of view, the ignition of a SRM generates low frequency transient vibrations (20-300
Hz as a function of the chamber characteristic lengths) that typically play a significant role in the frame of the
launcher general dynamics environment and characterization. Pressure loads, in fact, act on the motor domes
exciting the launcher vehicle primary structural axial modes, and vibrations are transmitted to equipments as well as

*
Associate professor, DMA, Via Eudossiana 18, 00184 Rome, Italy, favini@dma.uniroma1.it
†
Full professor, DMA, Via Eudossiana 18, 00184 Rome, Italy, maurizio.digiacinto@uniroma1.it AIAA Member
‡
Aerospace Engineer, DMA, Via Eudossiana 18, 00184 Rome, Italy.
§
VEGA Propulsion Engineer, AVIO, Via Garibaldi 22, 00034, Colleferro, Italy.
**
Technical Directorate Manager, AVIO, Via Garibaldi 22, 00034, Colleferro, Italy.
††
Engineering Department Solid Propulsion Manager, AVIO, Via Garibaldi 22, 00034, Colleferro, Italy.
‡‡
AIT Chief Engineer, ELV, Via Garibaldi 22, 00034, Colleferro, Italy. AIAA Member
§§
VEGA Launch Vehicle Chief Engineer, ELV, Via Garibaldi 22, 00034, Colleferro, Italy.
***
VEGA Launch Vehicle Manager, ESA-ESRIN, Via Galileo Galilei 00044 Frascati (RM), Italy AIAA Member
†††
VEGA Propulsion Engineer, ESA-ESRIN, Via Galileo Galilei 00044 Frascati (RM), Italy AIAA Member
‡‡‡
VEGA Launch Vehicle Stages Manager ESA-ESRIN, Via Galileo Galilei 00044 Frascati (RM), Italy

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

Copyright © 2006 by the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. All rights reserved.
to the payload. As a function of the induced vibration frequencies and according to the stiffness and the damping
characteristics of the launcher ‘structures, it is well known that even relatively small pressure oscillation inside the
motor chamber (1-5 bar) could represent a serious issue.
The origin of this behaviour is mostly gas-dynamic. The flow field evolution inside the combustion chamber, in fact,
resembles a Riemann problem like a shock-tube1: the hot gas jets, emanating from the igniter, create compression
waves that eventually may coalesce into a shock wave, followed by a contact discontinuity, separating the region
filled by the cold pressuring gas from the hot igniter gases. The main parameters affecting this phenomenology are
the geometry of the chamber, mass addition from the igniter, the thermo-physical properties of the combustion
products, and the thermo-physical properties of the pressuring gas. It is the interaction among these parameters that
univocally characterizes the unsteady flow field settling inside the motor, that excites the chamber acoustic and
finally generates pressure oscillations.
The aim of this paper is to present a detailed analysis of the gas-dynamic origin of the pressure oscillations that
characterize the ignition of solid rocket motors, with a special interest devoted to the finocyl grain shaped engines
adopted for the VEGA Launcher. Moreover, a suitable solution to restrain these oscillations will be introduced and
discussed, taking advantage of a successful validation obtained by means of a full scale motor firing test.
The article is organized as follows: the first part, paragraph II, is devoted to a very short introduction of SRM’s
ignition transient general phenomenology and its numerical simulation; then, in paragraph III the characteristics of
the unsteady chamber fluid dynamic field will be introduced and discussed, taking into account the Zefiro16 SRM
experience. Paragraph IV is devoted to the analysis of possible technical or design modifications needed to control
the pressure transient: the general baseline of a proposed methodology is discussed and analyzed in paragraph V, as
it has been successfully adopted for the Zefiro9 SRM tested in December. Finally, paragraph VI is devoted to a brief
overview of the VEGA Launcher.

II. SRM ignition transient numerical simulations

The sequence of the main phenomena occurring during the motor start up can be summarized as follows: after
the electric signal application a pyro charge starts the igniter that injects hot gases, liquid and solid particles into the
combustion chamber that impinge on the propellant surface. The heat exchange between igniter gases and propellant
surface, mainly due to convection, increases locally the temperature of the grain bringing it to ignition. Combustion
reactions at the propellant surface generate additional hot gases that, flowing through the chamber, increase the heat
flux (by convection, radiation and conduction) towards the unignited propellant surface. Successive propellant
chunk ignition proceeds along the bore: the so-called flame spreading process.
Hot gases gradually fill the combustion chamber, which is initially completely occupied by an inert pressurizing gas
and closed by a diaphragm seal in the nozzle throat. At a prescribed value of the internal pressure, the throat
diaphragm bursts with the onset of another wave system.
After the breaking of the seal, the gas inside the combustion chamber is accelerated towards the nozzle and, after a
very short time, the choking condition at the throat section is attained; wave propagation phenomena inside the
combustion chamber are significantly damped and the quasi-steady operative condition of the motor is usually
acquired in a short time.
In several works2-9, 11 we presented details of the numerical simulation model called SPIT, developed at DMA to
analyze SRM’s ignition, verified its numerical accuracy and predictive capabilities and singled out the most
significant driving phenomena of the ignition transient, their role and their main functional dependencies. The gas-
dynamic model adopted is based on an unsteady quasi-1D Euler flow approach accounting for cross section and
mass addition variations in space and time. The flow field domain includes the entire nozzle. Furthermore the
hypothesis of single phase, non-reacting mixture of perfect gases (pressurizing gas, igniter and propellant
combustion products) is also made. The usual assumption that chemical reactions are very fast and occur in an ideal
thin layer at the propellant surface is adopted. Moreover, the discretized model is based on an equally spaced finite
volume approximation of the conservation equations recast in integral form. The numerical method here adopted
belongs to the family of the second order accurate ENO (Essentially Non Oscillatory) methods10. The original ENO
approach has been modified in order to deal with strong variations of the source terms in both space and time and
gas mixture.

III. Ignition transient flowfield features: the Zefiro16 SRM experience

In order to introduce the fluid dynamic phenomenology that characterizes the ignition of a solid rocket motor we
will discuss the test case of the Zefiro16 SRM, Fig.1. Zefiro16 was a demonstrative prototype developed, built and

2
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
repeatedly tested by AVIO Group in year 2000 as a precursor engine for the new Zefiro23 and Zefiro9, respectively
adopted as the second and the third stage motors of the new ESA launcher, VEGA.
The main characteristics of Zefiro16 are reported in the following.
• Motor size: medium size engine (3.767 meters, 4.5 meters with the divergent part of nozzle) with a low L/D
ratio of about 2.5.
• Grain design: monolithic grain, finocyl shaped cross-section.
• Propellant grain characteristics: about 16 tons of slow burning composite propellant (HPTB, PA, Al).
• Igniter: high energy pyrogen micro rocket located at the head-end of the motor with three canted nozzles.
The peak value of the mass flow rate is about 16 Kg/s, the total temperature of the combustion products is
about 3200 K.
• Inert pressurizing gas: the bore of the combustion chamber is pre-filled with Nitrogen at a pressure of 1.3
bar.
The sealing diaphragm, located at the throat section of the nozzle, breaks down when the internal pressure reaches
the value of 9 bar.

Figure 1. Zefiro16 combustion chamber geometry

Experimental data coming from the static firing tests of Zefiro16 are useful to evidence the overall behavior of
the motor but does not give a detailed insight of the associated evolution of the internal flow field.
In Fig.2 the time history of the head-end pressure coming from the static fire test data is presented and compared to
the numerical simulation results obtained by means of the SPIT code8, 9. The first pressure oscillation clearly appears
at t = 0.033 s, followed by the second and the third at t = 0.040 s and t = 0.046 s respectively. The rupture of the
seal occurs approximately at t = 0.06 s. The sequence of the pressure oscillations is quite evident: these data show
that in just 0.06 seconds pressure suffers 3 jumps for a total leap of about 10 bar.

Figure 2. Head-end pressure comparison

3
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
By simple visual inspection we can notice a very good qualitative and quantitative agreement between the
experimental results and the numerical ones. The start of the pressure rise is well-captured as well as pressure
fluctuations both in amplitude and frequency. The maximum slopes of both curves are very similar indicating a
correct evaluation of the flame spreading rate.
This overall accuracy means that the analysis of the evolution of the flow field inside of the combustion chamber,
obtained as a result of the numerical simulation, can give a good understanding of the real physical phenomena
inside the motor.
The flow field inside the bore can be considered as a result of the superimposition of two different gas-dynamic
patterns characterized by different time scales. These time scales are function of two different characteristic
velocities: the first is the local flow velocity inside the bore, mostly driven by the igniter discharge mass flow rate
and the cross-section geometry of the chamber, whereas, the second one is the local speed of sound, which
univocally characterizes the pressure signals’ propagation. The evolution of pressure and temperature profiles inside
the combustion chamber during the beginning of the ignition transient (0-0.025s) is shown in Fig.3; each line is
taken at an equally-spaced different time. After the igniter start-up, see also Fig.2 time t1, continuous compression
waves travel along the bore, Fig.3 left. As the gas begins to flow along the chamber, pressure is slowly rising almost
everywhere, for the head-end pressure see Fig.2 time t2, and, at the same time, a complex “quasi-static” gas-
dynamical field is forming at the port section variation at the center of the finocyl region, in Fig.3 left, near cell 200.
(2D) ⏐ 24 Aug 2004 ⏐TIME
(2D) ⏐ 24 Aug 2004 ⏐TIME

2.5 3500
2.4
2.3 3000

2.2
2.1 2500
Temperature (K)
Pressure (bar)

2
2000
1.9
1.8
1500
1.7 (XY) ⏐ 24 Aug 2004 ⏐ (XY) ⏐ 24 Aug 2004 ⏐

1.6 6 6

1000
5 5
1.5
P, Psomm

P, Psomm
4 4

1.4 3 500 3

1.3 2 2

1.2 0.01 0.02

TIME
0.03 0.04
0 0.01 0.02
TIME
0.03 0.04

0 100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400

Chamber length (cells) Chamber length (cells)

Figure 3. Flowfield evolution

As in classical gaseous piston configurations, a contact surface that represents also the boundary between cold
pressurizing gas and hot gas from igniter originates together with the pressure waves and slowly follows, Fig.3 right.
This contact surface represents not only a discontinuity in terms of temperature but also in terms of speed of sound
(1100 m/s vs. 360 m/s). As a matter of fact, an almost standing contact surface appears on the left of the chamber.
Fig.4 shows the evolution of pressure and temperature profiles inside the combustion chamber from t=0.02s to
0.03s.
The contact discontinuity travels slowly and almost undisturbed through the cylindrical part of the bore, Fig.4 right,
but, as soon as it reaches the cross-section variation of the finocyl, it acts like a “trigger” generating other pressure
waves that finally depart from the middle of the chamber, Fig.4 left.
These waves are an expansion/compression wave headed back to the head-end and a compression wave headed to
the nozzle, respectively. The second one is strengthened as it passes through the divergent part of finocyl region
until it reaches the convergent part of the nozzle and the throat section diaphragm where it is reflected. Fig.5 shows
the evolution of pressure and temperature profiles inside the combustion chamber from t=0.025s to 0.04s. The first
wave that reaches the head-end is the expansion/compression originated in the middle of the chamber, its mark on
the head-end pressure time history is reported in Fig.2 as t3.

4
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 (2D) ⏐ 24 Aug 2004 ⏐TIME
(2D) ⏐ 24 Aug 2004 ⏐TIME

3.4 3500

3.2
3000
3

2.8
2500

Temperature (K)
Pressure (bar)

2.6

2.4 2000

2.2
(XY) ⏐ 24 Aug 2004 ⏐ 1500 (XY) ⏐ 24 Aug 2004 ⏐

2 6 6

1.8
5
1000 5

P, Psomm

P, Psomm
4 4

1.6 3 3

2
500 2

1.4
0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04
TIME TIME
100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400
Chamber length (cells) Chamber length (cells)

Figure 4. Flowfield evolution

The strong compression wave reflected from the nozzle travels backward through the bore, Fig.5 left, and reaches
the head-end of the motor; its mark on the head-end pressure time history is reported in Fig.2 as t4.
After that, successive reflections at the chamber boundaries of this compression wave continue until the throat seal
rupture (in Fig.2, t5 and t6). After the throat seal rupture, at time t=0.064s, the pressure oscillations are rapidly
damped.
(2D) ⏐ 13 Oct 2004 ⏐TIME (2D) ⏐ 13 Oct 2004 ⏐TIME
(XY) ⏐ 13 Oct 2004 ⏐ (XY) ⏐ 13 Oct 2004 ⏐

6 0.7 0.7
3500

0.6 0.6
5 3000

0.5 nominal geometry 0.5 nominal geometry

no finocyl geometry no finocyl geometry
Temperature (K)
Port section (m2)

Port section (m2)

2500
Pressure (bar)

4
0.4 0.4
2000
0.3 0.3
3
1500
0.2 0.2

2 1000
0.1 0.1

500
1 00 100 200 300 400
0
0 100 200 300 400
100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400
Chamberlength
Chamber length(cells)
(cells) Chamberlength
Chamber length(cells)
(cells)

Figure 5. Flowfield evolution.

Summarizing, the unsteady flow field evolution affecting the very first part of the ignition transient of this motor is
almost fully driven by the complex interaction among the strong contact surface representing the boundary between
cold pressurizing gas and hot gas from igniter, the compression waves that tend to imbalance in a quasi-static way
the pressure inside the bore and the port section variation of the chamber.
An intense oscillatory field originates from this interaction with its effects manifested on the head-end pressure time
history as major pressure fluctuations. The first acoustic mode of the chamber is excited: the traveling strong
temperature and speed of sound discontinuity continuously shifts the first acoustic mode natural frequency until
finally the whole bore of the motor is completely filled with the hot combustion gas.

IV. Transient pressure oscillations control

In order to better understand and exploit the role of the finocyl geometry on the evolution of pressure
fluctuations the SPIT code has been applied to simulate the ignition transient of a fictitious motor obtained by the
variation of the nominal configuration geometry of the Zefiro16 SRM discussed before9.

5
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The finocyl region has been completely removed maintaining all the other geometrical characteristics unaltered, see
Fig.6 right. As well, all the other parameters characterizing the simulation such as igniter discharge timing and
intensity, thermo physical characteristics of the gaseous species etc. have been kept the same. Moreover, propellant
ignition has been artificially avoided, as it does not give any contribution to this specific phenomenon.
The comparison between head-end pressure time history for the nominal test case and the new simulation for the
motor without finocyl is shown in Fig.6 left.
(XY) ⏐ 14 Oct 2004 ⏐ (XY) ⏐ 13 Oct 2004 ⏐

10 0.7

9 nominal geometry - no ignition

no finocyl geometry - no ignition 0.6

8
0.5 nominal geometry
no finocyl geometry

Port section (m2)

7
Pressure (bar)

6 0.4

5 0.3

4
0.2
3

0.1
2

1 0
0 0.005 0.01 0.015 0.02 0.025 0.03 0.035 0.04 0.045 0.05 0.055 0 100 200 300 400
Time (s) Chamber length (cells)

Figure 6. Finocyl effect

First of all we clearly observe an expected anticipated pressurization due to the smaller chamber volume
corresponding to the new flat grain geometry, but the most important fact lies in the almost complete lack of major
pressure oscillations.
For what concerns the effects on pressure oscillations of the igniter’s mass addition an investigation has been
carried out modifying the mass flow rate time history8. Fig.7 left shows several mass flow rate laws characterized by
different average slopes. The effects of such modifications on the head-end pressure evolution are shown in Fig.7
right: even if there is a clear variation of the overall characteristic time of the phenomenon, the oscillating behavior
exhibits only minor changes.

Figure 7. Igniter discharge effect

Another parameter that can strongly characterize the gas-dynamical flow field evolution is represented by the
thermo-physical properties of the pressuring gas8, 11. A lighter gas, such as Helium, gives higher values of specific
heat ratio and gas constant; this induces different compressibility properties and an higher speed of sound. Figure.8

6
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
shows the time evolution of the pressure field along the combustion chamber of the Zefiro16 SRM, with its nominal
geometry, adopting Helium as pressuring gas.
Helium, at ambient temperature, is characterized by a very high speed of sound (1150 m/s), thus the pressure
signals originating by the igniter mass addition propagate very rapidly along the chamber and there is not enough
time for the compression front to coalesce into a shock. As well, this shorter time scale avoids the formation of a
significant pressure imbalance inside the bore inducing a very quick adaptation of the pressure field that evolves,
practically, as a sequence of quasi steady states. The contact discontinuity, separating Helium from the hot igniter
gas, exists only in terms of temperature and not for the speed of sound, Fig.8 right. Moreover, the interaction
between the cross-section variation and the contact discontinuity occurs in an almost completely uniform pressure
distribution; as a consequence a significant acoustic excitation is completely missing, as confirmed in Fig.9 left
showing the head-end pressure time history.
(2D) ⏐ 15 Nov 2004 ⏐TIME (2D) ⏐ 17Nov2004⏐TIME

5 3500

3000

4
2500

Temperature (K)
Pressure (bar)

2000
3
1500

1000
2

500

1 0
0 100 200 300 400 100 200 300 400
Chamber length (cells) Chamberlength(cells)

Figure 8. Flowfield evolution

The introduction of Helium as pressuring gas seems to have not any counter effect on the ignition transient as a
whole, see Fig.9 right.
(XY) ⏐ 15 Nov 2004 ⏐ (XY) ⏐ 15 Nov 2004 ⏐

10
60
9

8 nitrogen (5 bar seal rupture) 50 nitrogen (5 bar seal rupture)

helium (5bar seal rupture) helium (5bar seal rupture)
Head-end pressure (bar)

Head-end pressure (bar)

7
40
6

5
30
4

3 20

2
10
1

0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.2 0.3
Time (s) Time (s)

Figure 9. Zefiro16 Helium vs. Nitrogen pressurization

7
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 V. Zefiro9 SRM: static firing test predictions, results and post firing analysis
The main characteristics of Zefiro9 are reported in the following.
• Motor size (SFT config.): medium size engine (4.5 meters with the divergent part of nozzle)
• Grain design: monolithic grain, finocyl shaped cross-section.
• Propellant grain characteristics: about 9 tons of slow burning composite propellant (HPTB, PA, Al).
• Igniter: high energy pyrogen micro rocket located at the head-end of the motor with six canted nozzles and
one axial nozzle.
• Inert pressurizing gas: the bore of the combustion chamber is nominally pre-filled with nitrogen at a
pressure of 1.3 bar.
The sealing diaphragm, located at the throat section of the nozzle, is ejected as soon as the local chamber pressure
reaches the value of 6 bar.

Figure 10. Zefiro9 SRM

This was the first Zefiro9 firing test, so there were not previous experimental data available for this motor. The
reference experimental data were the ones obtained by means of the Zefiro16 firing tests. In the performance
prediction phase, some uncertainties had to be taken into account. Some of these were dealing with the difficulty to
evaluate the scale-down effects with respect to the experimental data coming from the Zefiro16 firing tests.
Convective and radiative heat fluxes depend on the geometrical characteristics of the chamber, and a correct
evaluation of these fluxes is crucial to formulate proper predictions. Zefiro9 grain configuration is similar to Zefiro
16’s one, but the proportion between the cylindrical and the star-shaped regions is quite different, and this influences
the ignition sequence and the flame spreading along the chamber, as well as the wave propagation dynamics.
Another source of uncertainties was the igniter configuration. Zefiro9 igniter consists of 6 radial canted nozzles and
1 axial nozzle. This configuration is different from Zefiro16 (3 radial, no axial) and Ariane5 MPS booster (5 radial,
no axial) igniters, and was used just once, in the only DPS4 firing test (DPS4 is an AVIO prototype motor derived
from the Ariane4 SRM booster with a finocyl shaped grain). Moreover, lacking of experimental data for the
characterization of the igniter-grain interaction and the effective amount of energy discharged by the igniter on the
propellant surface raised some uncertainties and dispersions for correct evaluation of the first ignition instant and for
the erosive combustion at the impingement region. Furthermore, Zefiro9 used a new propellant, and in particular in
the firing test a very low burning rate propellant was used.
The SPIT code, used for predictions, consists of a number of numerical models, each dealing with a particular
physical phenomenon occurring during the ignition transient. Due to their semi-empirical nature, these models need
to be tuned by means of some calibration parameters that have to be initialized by the user. Modifying these
parameters means to modify the estimation of critical phenomena, like heat exchange and erosive burning effects.
On the basis of the previous considerations, in order to define the values to assign to the tuning parameters, a
balance was made between the calibration parameters used for Zefiro16 and the ones used for DPS4. Zefiro16 was
the most similar motor from a grain geometry point of view, while DPS4 had a similar igniter configuration.

8
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 Figure 11. Zefiro9 Predictions: Nitrogen-Helium comparison
Concerning the pressure oscillations induced loads, a widespread campaign of simulations was carried out; the
100% Nitrogen pressuring case showed a clear potential worrying situation with an ignition transient characterized
by an highly unsteady flow field generating strong head-end pressure oscillations, Fig.11 left.
As a matter of fact, the results of the numerical simulations for a 100% Helium pressuring case were really
comforting, as reported in Fig.11 right, practically confirming the same potential positive effects on the induced
flow field observed for the Zefiro16 simulations, and discussed above.
Moreover, parametrical studies were performed to investigate the influence of different amounts of residual
Nitrogen in the chamber on the amplitude of pressure oscillations: Fig.12 shows the head-end pressure time-history
obtained for three different compositions of the pressuring gas mixture characterized by an amount of Helium of
0%, 30% and 80% respectively.
It is possible to notice that a quite good restraint of the head-end pressure oscillations can be achieved with a gas
mixture with an amount of Helium higher than the 30%.
After the comparison of all the results obtained, a system level loop of analysis concerning the induced dynamic
loads on the launcher’s overall structures and payload, and having verified the practical technical and technological
issues to be met, it has been decided to use a 70%-30% Helium/Nitrogen mix as a pressuring gas for the Z9 SRM
chamber.

Figure 12. Zefiro9 Predictions: different mixture compositions

9
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The test has been successfully performed in the Salto di Quirra inter-force missile test centre in Sardinia on
December 21st 2005. In Fig.13 a comparison between experimental data and nominal prediction is presented. A
good agreement can be seen in the first part of the transient, up to the nozzle plug ejection (t=0.045 s). After the
opening of the chamber, there is a discrepancy in the mean pressurization ratio. The prediction curve, besides, shows
an overpressure peak (t=0.275 s) that is not present in the experimental data.

Figure 13. Zefiro9 SFT: experimental vs. predictions

Figure 14. Zefiro9 SFT: experimental vs. post firing tuned simulation
For the post-firing analysis, the Spit code was correctly re-initialized and tuned. The experimental firing
temperature was the same used for the predictions, whereas the initial motor chamber pressure needed to be slightly
updated. The nozzle plug ejection pressure was properly tuned (6.75 bar) in order to reproduce the firing test data.

10
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The mass flow rate discharged by the igniter has been reconstructed on the basis of the experimental pressure data
coming from the main part of the igniter and from the combustion chamber, this one used as counter pressure.
Having also a better characterization of the propellant properties, the heat exchange parameters used in the SPIT
code have been slightly updated in order to obtain the right timing of the flame spreading and chamber filling. The
results obtained after the tuning are presented in Fig.14.

Figure 15. Zefiro9 SFT: experimental vs. Helium 60% - 100% simulations
Despite the presence of about 40% of Nitrogen in the combustion chamber, a drastic reduction of pressure
oscillations has been achieved, with respect to Zefiro16, Fig.15 left. The series of oscillations that is visible in
Zefiro16 test data is not present in Zefiro9. Before the nozzle plug ejection, just a small plateau can be seen (t=0.035
s) as it appears in the experimental data as well as a result of the numerical simulation. If compared with the
numerical results obtained for a 100% Helium configuration, Fig.15 right, it is possible to consider it as clear effect
of the mixture composition adopted for the test.

VI. VEGA Launcher

The Vega launch system is currently in development for the European Space Agency. Vega will complete the
range of launch services offered by Europe, with the objective of maintaining independent access to space, as well
as a share of commercial launch service in order to make this access affordable. On the basis of the market needs,
the required in-orbit capability for the reference mission is specified as:
• 1500 kg to a 700 km altitude, circular polar orbit.
In addition to the reference mission, Vega will be able to launch satellites into orbit for a wide range of missions and
applications, with a range of orbital inclinations from 5.2 degrees to SSO, altitude between 300 and 1500 km, and
payload mass between 300 and 2500 kg.
Vega is a single body vehicle composed of three SRM stages, a liquid propulsion upper module, and a Fairing as
shown in Figure 1.

Figure 16. Vega Launch Vehicle

In a single launch configuration, Vega provides a minimum volume allocated to the payload in a cylindrical volume
of 2.35 m diameter and 3.5 m height plus a frustum volume of 2.8 m height.

11
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
The Launcher at lift-off is 30.2 meters high and weights 139 tons. The three SRM stages perform the main ascent
phase while the AVUM, the fourth stage, compensates the solid propulsion performance scattering, circularizes the
orbit and executes the de-orbiting manoeuvres. This module also contributes to provide roll control during the 3rd
stage boost phase, and the 3-axes control during ballistic phases up to the payload separation.

Figure 17 . Vega SRMs

The three VEGA SRM stages use several common concepts and technology:
• CFRP case, with integrated skirts, obtained by filament wounding,
• Low density (internal) thermal protection,
• Igniters with consumable case,
• Low torque flexible joint,
• TVC with electromechanical actuators (EMA).

The first stage is based on the new P80 FW SRM developed through a parallel ESA Program.
The diameter of the first stage (P80 FW) has been set to 3 meters in order to exploit the Ariane 5 SRM casting and
integration facility and tooling. The size of the P80 FW positions it as one of the largest SRM with a filament
winding CFRP motor case.
Table 1 – P80 FW SRM Characteristics & Performances

Characteristics & Performances Values

Overall length [mm] 10560
Outer diameter [mm] 3000
Propellant mass [Kg] 88385
Inert mass [Kg] 7405
Burn time [s] 107
Vacuum specific impulse [s] 280
Nozzle expansion ratio 16
MEOP [Bar] 95

The second stage, designated as Zefiro 23 loads 24 tons of propellant. Main characteristics and performance of
the Zefiro 23 SRM are summarized in Table 2.
Table 2 – Zefiro 23 Characteristics and Performance

Characteristics & Performances Values

Overall length [mm] 7590
Outer diameter [mm] 1905
Propellant mass [Kg] 23900
Inert mass [Kg] 1860
Burn time [s] 72
Vacuum specific impulse [s] 288
Nozzle expansion ratio 25
MEOP [Bar] 106

12
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
 The third stage propulsion is a high mass fraction SRM called Zefiro 9, with 10 tons of propellant.
Main characteristics and performance of the Zefiro 9 SRM are summarized in Table 3.

Table 3 – Zefiro 9 Characteristics and Performance

Characteristics & Performances Values

Overall length [mm] 3860
Outer diameter [mm] 1905
Propellant mass [Kg] 10115
Inert mass [Kg] 835
Burn time [s] 110
Vacuum specific impulse [s] 295
Nozzle expansion ratio 56
MEOP [Bar] 83

The specific orbital precision of a commercial LV based on solid rocket motors can be reached only with the
help of a specific upper module based on liquid mono or bipropellant propulsion, in order to achieve a fine tuning of
the final velocity. Different solutions can be adopted such as an upper stage based on liquid propulsion, or an
additional propulsion module capable of the scattering compensation. For the Vega LV an intermediate approach
has been chosen using a reduced performance stage in term of overall contribution of delta velocity with respect to a
classical stage, even if more versatile. This is the AVUM (Vernier Upper Module).
The AVUM propulsion includes a bi-propellant Liquid Propulsion System (LPS) that provides the necessary
delta-velocities for reaching the final launcher orbit control, and a cold gas Attitude Control System (ACS) covering
the following main functions:
• Attitude recovery during second stage separation;
• Roll control during third stage flight;
• Attitude control during coasting phases;
• Orbit control for the Collision Avoidance Manoeuvre;
• Payload pointing manoeuvre.
The main characteristics of the AVUM upper stage are presented in the Table 4.
Table 3 – AVUM Characteristics and Performance

Characteristics & Performances Values

AVUM stage dry mass [Kg] 440
Propellant loading [Kg] 550
Pressuring (GHe) gas loading [Kg] 3.7
Main engine thrust [N] 2450
LPS total impulse [kN.s] 1634
Restart capability 5

VII. Conclusions
The ignition of a SRM generates low frequency transient vibrations that typically play a significant role in the frame
of the launcher general dynamics environment and characterization: a brand new solution for the control of the
pressure oscillations at ignition was proposed for the solid rocket motors of the new VEGA Launcher of the
European Space Agency. This solution is based upon the utilization of Helium instead of Nitrogen as a chamber
pressuring gas. The ignition transient of a SRM with finocyl grain in its very first phase has been studied and
critically investigated by means of both numerical simulations and experimental data, taking advantage of the
performed static firing tests of the Zefiro16 SRM. The flowfield evolution in space and time inside the motors
chamber has been reconstructed in terms of primitive variables as, for instance, pressure and temperature. By
carefully inspecting the computed flow fields it has been possible to clarify the origin and the following dynamics of
pressure oscillations appearing in the experimental head-end pressure time history. Helium, at ambient temperature,

13
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics
is characterized by a very high speed of sound, thus the pressure signals originating by the igniter mass addition
propagate very rapidly along the chamber and there is not enough time for the compression front to coalesce into a
shock. As well, this shorter time scale avoids the formation of a significant pressure imbalance inside the bore
inducing a very quick adaptation of the pressure field that evolves, practically, as a sequence of quasi steady states;
as a consequence a significant acoustic excitation is completely missing.
Helium pressurization has been successfully implemented in the Zefiro9-DM0 motor, third stage of the VEGA
Launcher, tested in the Salto di Quirra inter-force missile test centre in Sardinia, on December 21st 2005. Test’s
results and experimental measurements have clearly confirmed what was predicted. Moreover, Helium has been
adopted also for the Zefiro23 SRM, second stage of the VEGA Launcher, successfully tested in Sardinia just a few
days ago: the post-processing of the test‘s measurements is still in its very preliminary phase, nevertheless a rough
investigation seems to confirm again Helium pressurization as a solution able to completely solve the ignition
pressure oscillations issue.

VIII. References
1
M. Salita, "Modern SRM Ignition Transient Modeling (Part1): Introduction and Physical Models", AIAA Paper N° 2001-
3443, 37th Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, July 2001.
2
M.Di Giacinto, “Modeling of Ignition Start-up”, 2nd European Conference on Launcher Technology: Space Solid
Propulsion, Rome, Italy, November 2000.
3
M. Di Giacinto, F. Serraglia, "Modeling of Solid Motor Start-up", AIAA Paper N° 2001-3448, 37th Joint Propulsion
Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, July 2001.
4
M. Di Giacinto, F. Serraglia, "Modeling of SRM Ignition Transient: Role of the Main Phenomena", Paper 136-P, Atti XVI
Congresso Nazionale AIDAA, Palermo, Italy, September 2001.
5
M. Di Giacinto, “Numerical Simulation of Solid Motor Ignition Transient”, in Combustion of Energetic Materials, Kuo K.
K. and De Luca L. T. Eds., Begell House inc., pp. 673-688, New York, 2002.
6
M. Di Giacinto, B. Favini, F. Serraglia, “Solid Rocket Motor Ignition Transient Revisited”, Proc. of the 8th Int. Workshop
on Combustion and Propulsion, Pozzuoli 16-20 June, 2002. Also in Rocket Propulsion: Present and Future, revised book, Ed. by
L.T. De Luca, September 2003.
7
B. Favini, M. Di Giacinto, F. Serraglia, “Modeling of Flow field Features during Ignition Transients of Solid Rocket
Motor”, AIAA Paper N° 2002-3753, 38th Joint Propulsion Conference, Indianapolis, Indiana, 7-10 July 2002.
8
B. Favini, F. Serraglia, M. Di Giacinto, A. Neri, “Pressuring gas effects on pressure oscillations during the ignition transient
of SRM”, 1st European Conference for Aerospace Science EUCASS, Moscow, July 2005.
9
F. Serraglia, B. Favini, M. Di Giacinto, A. Neri, “Gas dynamic features in solid rocket motors with finocyl grain during
ignition transient”, The Fifth European Symposium on Aerothermodynamics for Space Vehicles, ESA/DLR Cologne, 8-11
November 2004.
10
A. Harten, B. Engquist, S. Osher, S.R. Chakravarthy, “Uniformly High order Accurate Essentially Non-Oscillatory
Schemes”, Journal of Computational Physics, Vol. 71, pp. 231, 1987.
11
B. Favini, M. Di Giacinto and F. Serraglia “Ignition Transient Pressure Oscillation in Solid Rocket Motors”, AIAA Paper
N° 2005-4165, 41st Joint Propulsion Conference, Tucson, Arizona, July 2005.

14
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics