Development and Performance Characterization of an

Advanced Solid Propellant Cast and Cure Process

Chris Karpurk1, Evan Olson,2 and Marjorie Rima3

Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, 85281

In order to improve upon existing experimental composite rocket propellant

performance, members of the ASU rocketry group Daedalus Astronautics developed
and began testing on both a new propellant formulation and curing system. Existing
casting methods employ hand-packing propellant and then air curing. The new
method developed was a vacuum casting system, the Encased Propellant Curing
Chamber (EPCC), with the goal of increasing density and consistency of solid rocket
motor grains. Initial testing showed that propellant sample densities varied 4.3%
from the achievable densities via legacy cast and cure methods. Additionally, a new
propellant formulation, Crazy Pants 4 (CP4), was derived with the desire to achieve
an increase in burn time and improve castability. Initial testing of the CP4 produced
extremely noisy results and further testing is necessary before coherent inferences
can be made.

Nomenclature
EPCC = encased propellant curing chamber
HDPE = high density polyethylene
r = regression rate
a = temperature coefficent
P = pressure
n = burn rate exponent
CATO = catastrophic failure

I. Introduction

A S Daedalus Astronautics moves into more ambitious rocketry, a certain level of progression in
propellant quality is required. The introduction of EPCC is the latest maturation in this endeavor. The
legacy propellant production process used by Daedalus did not provide the desired consistency. High levels
of direct human involvement create a source of random error and the utilization of EPCC seeks to
ameliorate this. By using the EPCC, successive rocket motors will be more quality controlled in density,
homogeneity, and curing conditions. Upon a successful final design, EPCC will produce a better motor
with overall improvements in structure, regression rate, geometry, and ultimately a lower motor fail rate.
The track record for Daedalus experimental rocket motors is already excellent, but integrating EPCC will
ensure this trend continues as the rocket applications become larger and more significant from a scientific
and engineering standpoint. The projected map for the future of Daedalus Astronautics includes achieving
higher altitudes, implementing hybrid rocket motors in staging applications, and aiming to guarantee over
95% successful launch rate potential for smaller rockets (used especially for educating younger student
members and testing scaled prototypes of larger rockets).
The implementation of the EPCC will also help to forward the “Daedalus Way” of being at the forefront
of collegiate-level experimental rocketry. The use of a curing chamber for making solid rocket motors with
exemplary performance is not a new idea. The benefits seen by other rocket groups have been substantial;
the result is a more controlled curing process and an environment that is more conducive to the science of

1
Undergraduate Student, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, AIAA Student Member
2
Undergraduate Student, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, AIAA Student Member
3
Undergraduate Student, Department of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, AIAA Student Member
propellant formulation. Because of the success of programs that utilize curing chambers, our pursuit of
EPCC is justified.
Traditionally, the Daedalus CP line of propellant is well known for being a very fast burning propellant.
This has worked fine for past rockets, but future rockets will need a slower burning propellant in order to
obtain higher altitudes. We are currently on our fourth iteration of the CrazyPants formulation. CP3 made
some minor adjustments to the CP2 formula, mainly concerning the quality of the grain. The aluminum
percentage was also decreased in order to reduce the residual slag found in the grains after burn. In CP4 the
main focus was removing the burn rate modifiers in order to better characterize the propellant and to
decrease the regression rate. A lower regression rate will yield a longer burn time and also result in a higher
altitude for a given impulse class. Additionally, the new CP4 formulation is being designed to be less
viscous before it cures. This allows the propellant to be more readily used in the EPCC.

II. Theory
When developing a composite propellant formulation there are several aspects that need to be taken into
account. The major quantifiers of propellant quality are the burn rate and performance. The performance of
a solid propellant is characterized by Eq. (1), which is known as St. Roberts Law1.

r = aPcn (1)

This equation relates the regression rate to the pressure through two empirical constants. The first is the
temperature coefficient, a, and is dependent upon the ambient temperature of the propellant. The second is
the burn rate exponent, n. This is also known as the combustion index. This coefficient is an indication of
the pressure dependence of the propellant. These coefficients are propellant and condition specific; they
also govern how sensitive a given propellant is when fired under different ambient conditions.
With an improved propellant formulation, research was done into how to best cast it. Previous testing
done on vacuum casting solid propellant motors experienced “essentially no collapse on breaking volume”
and therefore little air entrapment2. But, although there are many benefits to vacuum curing, special
attention must be paid during the utilization of the vacuum, as undesirable voids in the solid grain can be a
direct cause of CATO.
Additionally, it was found that mixing and casting propellant at temperatures between 145-150°F
ensures good flow characteristics, but keeping the propellant stored in a high temperature environment
becomes detrimental2. Chemical reactions begin to take place within the propellant when subjected to high
heating and they lead to polymeric chain scissions, which greatly reduce the hardness and structural
integrity of the propellant grains. For this reason, the grains that will be cast and cured in EPCC will be cast
with heat, cured with heat, but not subjected to heating for more than 24 hours for preliminary testing.
Shaking the propellant during casting will help it to settle and release air before it cures. No detrimental
effects of shaking propellant during the casting process have been reported, but after casting, the propellant
is once again subject to loading which causes grain relaxation and degrades the propellant integrity from a
physical standpoint.

III. Design
The setup of EPCC is relatively simple. It essentially consists of a vacuum-sealed chamber that is
heated and shaken to encourage air bubbles to escape from the propellant before and during the curing
process. The first EPCC consisted of an aluminum tube, 6” in diameter that was TIG welded to an
aluminum base plate. The exterior of the steel tube was wrapped in a heating element and then insulated to
create radiant heat inside the chamber. The chamber was sealed off with ½” thick Makrolon lid that was
installed with two ports, one leading to the vacuum and the other serving as a bleed valve. Below the
Makrolon lid, a thermometer was installed as well. A third port was machined to serve as the propellant fill
port. The initial design had propellant placed in a thick plastic bladder that was connected to the fill port
and supported by a funnel, but the initial EPCC use only employed its curing abilities and so this function
was not utilized. The last external element was the shaker, installed on the steel base plate, which
transferred kinetic energy to the propellant and encouraged the propellant to settle as it poured into the
casting chamber. The only internal element to EPCC was the actual motor casing and the core rod setup.
Inside EPCC, a silicone core rod was connected via a screw to a silicone base. This would allow for
 Figure 1. Solidworks Render of EPCC
This is a rendered image of the EPCC system in SolidWorks.

interchangeability and ease of motor removal after cast and cure. Additionally, a small circular channel was
machined out of the silicone base plate to create a seat for holding the motor casing in place during the cast
and cure process.
Before getting started with mixing a new propellant, the EPCC heating element was powered on and a
pre-heat was initiated. To use EPCC, the propellant casing was then placed in its seat on its interior silicone
base plate, all seals were checked, and the silicone core rod was installed. Then, mixed propellant was
moved into the plastic bladder once preheating was completed. A vacuum was now induced inside EPCC
and once the desired negative pressure was attained, the shaker was turned on and the propellant fill port
was opened. The propellant was shaken down into the cast and allowed to settle. The new formulation of
propellant used in EPCC, CP4, had fewer burn-rate modifiers and a much lower viscosity that improved its
“pourability”. When the propellant cast completed, the fill port was closed and the propellant was allowed
to cure under heat for 24 hours. The vacuum was relieved as soon as the cast was completed and the shaker
was left on for only 15 minutes after the fill port was closed. The shaker was then turned off for the
duration of the cure time.
The CP4 reformulation was rather simple due to the simple objective of removing the burn rate
modifiers. These modifiers include Iron Oxide, Strontium Chromate, and Copper Oxide. The next step was
to determine which components should be increased to make up a full 100%. The aluminum was increased
by one percent due to the addition of an additional grain.(REF) This makes up for the removal of the
modifiers.

IV. Results and Analysis

 For the initial test with CP4 in the EPCC,
the propellant was mixed in the traditional
KitchenAide mixer and then hand packed
into 1” diameter motor casings. The sample
grains were placed in the EPCC and the
plastic lid was set in place. The vacuum was
induced and the grains were allowed to cure
once the samples were repacked after 15
minutes. The curing took place under
vacuum, with heat, and lasted for 24 hours.
After they had cured, the samples were cut
into individual grains. It was then realized
that the propellant samples should be cast
under vacuum, but not cured under vacuum.
It was determined that when propellant is
allowed to cure under vacuum, the propellant
itself is subject to the same forces as the air
bubbles and was indeed pulled apart. This
resulted in a motor grain with no net
improvements over the legacy method.
The lack of desirable results after
preliminary testing is to be expected. The
design of the EPCC, while based on proven Figure 2. Encased Propellant Curing Chamber
methodologies, is still experimental in phase This is an image of the EPCC System after assembly
and being subjected to redesign and
continued testing. Once the propellant produced via the EPCC process is perfected, the finalized EPCC
design will be arrived upon; but until that point, the EPCC is still in its experimental phase and subject to
many iterations of re-design.
On the first day of casting, an additional EPCC benefit was realized; the weather that day was cold and
rainy, and not conducive to casting rocket motor grains. The ability to still cast motors in an
environmentally controlled environment was paramount, since ambient temperature, pressure, and humidity
would have caused any legacy motor mixing to be delayed until the weather permitted more suitable
conditions.

V. Conclusion
When mixing and casting large scale motors it is desirable to have a consistent mixture and density of
propellant throughout each grain. Previously, members of Daedalus cast each grain independently by hand
and then cured the grains in ambient conditions. This methodology is not conducive to enhancing
propellant quality in large-scale rocket motor applications, so the implementation of EPCC was pursued.
Initially, the vacuum seal pulled the propellant up and out of the motor casing. The propellant was then
repacked, but needed to be fully off-gassed prior to repacking. Additionally, after initial testing it was
determined that the EPCC needed to be supplemented by a vacuumed mixer. Essentially, the propellant
components need to be mixed under vacuum to reduce the amount of air mixed in and would greatly reduce
the amount of air bubbles that need to be removed by the EPCC.
To boost the vacuum efficiency, shaking the propellant samples is effective for helping the air bubbles on
their way to the surface. The shaker was not employed during the initial testing due to monetary constraints
during construction, but its integrated use will prove to be beneficial in future motor castings.
The addition of heat accelerated the curing process; after the first test it was discovered that in order to
maximize the use of EPCC for improving propellant quality, the motor segments needed to be vacuum-
mixed, then vacuum-casted with heat for one hour. During that first hour the samples needed to be re-
packed if they experienced expansion. After the first hour, the vacuum needs to be released, and the curing
can continue under heat but not under vacuum.
Due to the disadvantageous propellant density results from using EPCC to cast and cure motor grains,
test fires of CP4 have yet to be completed. Due to safety precautions, hot fire testing of defective propellant
 grains is not allowed, and the full testing for the development and performance characterization of
advanced solid propellant cast and cure process will take more time. It has been concurred that many more
tests need to be conducted and future considerations have been noted.

When determining the effectiveness of any improvement to a production method, the initial capital
investment and subsequent continuous maintenance must be weighed against the effectiveness or cost
savings of the improvement. For the EPCC the cost of the initial materials and construction totaled $220,
not including the vacuum pump, well within the budget of a university rocketry group. For a non-
commercial university application, the cost of the EPCC system was weighed against repeatability and
uniform grain casting. An increase in the repeatability of the grains also serves to decrease the possibility of
a motor CATO event. Such events can be, and have been caused by large air cavities in the propellant
matrix due to improper casting techniques. The cost of a single replacement motor casing is in excess of
$300; ignoring the costs of associated hardware, test equipment, and containment system. This cost alone is
justification for the expense of the EPCC system. Decreasing the probability of motor failure also serves to
increase the reusability of existing equipment, further decreasing overall system costs.

To ensure the reusable nature of EPCC, completely reusable solid-state materials for the vacuum
chamber itself coupled with an off the shelf vacuum pump maximizes the cost effectiveness and
adaptability. Furthermore the use of a chemically inert, low friction mandrel allows easy removal from a
cured grain. When mixing and pouring the reformulated propellant, CP4 consumed fewer additives and
leaved a much thinner residue on exposed surfaces of mixing and pouring equipment. This thinner residue
is easier to clean than CP3 and allows less aggressive solvent to be used, further increasing the useful life
of the EPCC system.

Although the EPCC system improved upon the original casting method, further improvements are likely
in the near future. Chief among the improvements is modifying EPCC for use with a pull-down casting
apparatus. A pull-down system is the next logical step for the EPCC system as it greatly increases the
surface area of the propellant when being cast under a vacuum. The pull-down casting system also removes
the need for hands-on packing of the propellant grain, significantly improving safety and repeatability. This
process can be achieved simply by modifying the existing EPCC system to ensure a more uniform and
repeatable pour for large-scale grain casting.
Utilizing the ball valve coupled with a funnel
system can permit the pull-down operation to
be achieved with minimal investment and
effort.

An additional improvement option for

Figure 3. Setup
EPCC setup prior to initial testing.
simultaneously will permit Daedalus to reduce total motor casting time by half, given enough material and
mixing can be performed in an assembly line fashion.
EPCC is to isolate the vibration to only the
apparatus. Through the use of a dampened
spring system or a vibration absorption
material akin to silicon mounting feet
prevents a majority of the vibrations from
being absorbed by the floor or workbench of
the facility. Localizing the vibration to the
pull-down system will permit more vigorous
extraction of air in the propellant mix, further
decreasing the time requirement of casting
propellant grains. Finally, investment in
duplicate EPCC apparatus will greatly
decrease the time requirement for total motor
propellant production. Curing multiple grains

In conclusion, further testing of the EPCC will be required to ensure that estimated and predicted
performance of the curing will match delivered values. Restructuring the casting process to take advantage
of the new system will also be required to further improve casting efficiency and repeatability. The design
and construction of the EPCC system has proven valuable in refining the mixing and curing processes for
Daedalus, and further expansion of EPCC will increase the density of the propellant by ensuring all
entrapped air is evacuated from the propellant matrix.

References
1
Sutton, G., and Biblarz, O., Rocket Propulsion Elements, 7th ed., Wiley-Interscience, New York, 2001,
Chaps. 11-14.
2
Depree, D. O., “Demonstration of a Sterilizable Solid Rocket Motor System,” NAS1-10086, 1971.
3
Humble, R., Henry, G. and Larzon, W., Space Propulsion Analysis and Design, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill,
New York,1995, Chap 6.
4
NASA, “Solid Propellant Processing Factors in Rocket Motor Design,” SP-8075, 1973.
J., and Villarreal, J., “A Primer for University Level Solid Rocket Motor Research and Development,”
Arizona State University.