0
Research Papers

Compressibility, Damage, and Age-Hardening Effects of Solid Propellants Using Finite Strain Constitutive Model

[+] Author and Article Information
Nomesh Kumar

Department of Applied Mechanics,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi 110016, India;
Advanced Systems Laboratory,
Defence Research and Development Organisation,
Hyderabad 500058, India
e-mail: nomeshkumark@gmail.com

Badri Prasad Patel

Department of Applied Mechanics,
Indian Institute of Technology Delhi,
New Delhi 110016, India
e-mail: bppatel@am.iitd.ac.in

V. Venkateswara Rao

Advanced Systems Laboratory,
Defence Research and Development Organisation,
Hyderabad 500058, India
e-mail: vemanavrao2005@gmail.com

B. S. Subhashchandran

Defence Research Laboratory,
Defence Research and Development Organisation,
Hyderabad 500058, India
e-mail: Subhash_chandran_bs@rediffmail.com

1Corresponding author.

Contributed by the Materials Division of ASME for publication in the Journal of Engineering Materials and Technology. Manuscript received June 20, 2018; final manuscript received December 15, 2018; published online March 4, 2019. Assoc. Editor: Pradeep Sharma.

J. Eng. Mater. Technol 141(3), 031001 (Mar 04, 2019) (11 pages) Paper No: MATS-18-1183; doi: 10.1115/1.4042661 History: Received June 20, 2018; Accepted December 31, 2018

In this paper, the finite strain viscoelastic constitutive model for particulate composite solid propellants is proposed considering strain rate, large deformation/large strain, thermorheological behavior, stress softening due to microstructural damage, compressibility, and chemical age hardening. The compressible Mooney–Rivlin hyperelastic strain energy density function is used along with the standard model of viscoelasticity. To model the compressibility, the dilatational strain energy is taken as the hyperbolic function of the determinant of deformation gradient. The stress-softening phenomenon during cyclic loading (Mullin's effect) due to microstructural damage is described by an exponential function of the current magnitude of intensity of strain and its previous maximum value. The variation of material properties with time are studied using the isothermal accelerated aging technique through simulation and experimental investigation. The comparison of predictions based on the proposed model with the uniaxial experimental data demonstrates that the proposed model successfully captures the observed behavior of the solid propellants.

Copyright © 2019 by ASME
Your Session has timed out. Please sign back in to continue.

References

Swanson, S. R., and Christensen, L. W., 1983, “A Constitutive Formulation for High-Elongation Propellants,” J. Spacecraft Rockets, 20(6), pp. 559–566. [CrossRef]
Simo, J. C., 1987, “On a Fully Three-Dimensional Finite Strain Viscoelastic Damage Model: Formulation and Computational Aspects,” Comput. Methods Appl. Mech. Eng., 60(2), pp. 153–173. [CrossRef]
Holzapfel, G. A., 1996, “On Large Strain Viscoelasticity: Continuum Formulation and Finite Element Applications to Elastomeric Structures,” Int. J. Numer. Meth. Eng., 39(22), pp. 3903–39. [CrossRef]
Schapery, R. A., 1986, “A Micromechanical Model for Nonlinear Viscoelastic Behavior of Particle-Reinforced Rubber With Distributed Damage,” Eng. Fract. Mech., 25(5/6), pp. 845–867. [CrossRef]
Schapery, R. A., 1990, “A Theory of Mechanical Behavior of Elastic Media With Growing Damage and Other Changes in Structure,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 38(2), pp. 215–253. [CrossRef]
Ozupek, S., and Becker, E. B., 1992, “Constitutive Modeling of High-Elongation Solid Propellants,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 114(1), pp. 111–115. [CrossRef]
Ozupek, S., and Becker, E. B., 1997, “Constitutive Equations for Solid Propellants,” ASME J. Eng. Mater. Technol., 119(2), pp. 125–132. [CrossRef]
Park, S. W., and Schapery, R. A., 1997, “A Viscoelastic Constitutive Model for Particulate Composites With Growing Damage,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 34(8), pp. 931–947. [CrossRef]
Jung, G. D., and Youn, S. K., 1999, “A Nonlinear Viscoelastic Constitutive Model of Solid Propellant,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 36(25), pp. 3755–3777. [CrossRef]
Jung, G. D., Youn, S. K., and Kim, B. K., 2000, “A Three-Dimensional Nonlinear Viscoelastic Constitutive Model of Solid Propellant,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 37(34), pp. 4715–4732. [CrossRef]
Ho, S. Y., 2002, “High Strain-Rate Constitutive Models for Solid Rocket Propellants,” J. Propul. Power, 18(5), pp. 1106–1111. [CrossRef]
Feng, G. F., Peng, W., and Zhang, Y. T. (2011). A Micromechanical Damage Constitutive Model for Solid Propellant. The Second International Conference on Mechanical Automation and Control Engineering, Hohhot, China, July 15–17.
Xu, F., Safronis, P., Aravas, N., and Meyer, S., 2007, “Constitutive Modeling of Porous Viscoelastic Materials,” Eur. J. Mech. A Solids, 26(6), pp. 936–955. [CrossRef]
Xu, F., Aravas, N., and Safronis, P., 2008, “Constitutive Modeling of Solid Propellant Materials With Evolving Microstructural Damage,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 56(5), pp. 2050–2073. [CrossRef]
Yildirim, H. C., and Ozupek, S., 2011, “Structural Assessment of a Solid Propellant Rocket Motor: Effects of Aging and Damage,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 15(8), pp. 635–641. [CrossRef]
Deng, B., Xie, Y., and Tang, G. J., 2014, “Three Dimensional Structural Analyses Approach for Ageing Composite Solid Propellant Grain,” Propell. Explos. Pyro., 39(1), pp. 117–124. [CrossRef]
Wang, Z., Qiang, H., Wang, G., and Huang, Q., 2015, “Tensile Mechanical Properties and Constitutive Model for HTPB Propellant at Low Temperature and High Strain Rate,” J. Appl. Polym. Sci., 132(19), pp. 42104–42113.
Yun, K.-S., Park, J.-B., Jung, G.-D., and Youn, S.-K., 2016, “Viscoelastic Constitutive Modeling of Solid Propellant With Damage,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 80(1), pp. 118–127. [CrossRef]
Tunc, B., and Ozupek, S., 2017, “Constitutive Modeling of Solid Propellants for Three Dimensional Nonlinear Finite Element Analysis,” Aerosp. Sci. Technol., 69(2), pp. 290–297. [CrossRef]
Kumar, N., Patel, B. P., Rao, V. V., and Subhaschandran, B. S., 2018, “Hyperviscoelastic Constitutive Modelling of Solid Propellant With Damage and Compressibility,” Propell. Explos. Pyro., 43(4), pp. 461–471. [CrossRef]
Bergstrom, J. S., and Boyce, M. C., 1998, “Constitutive Modeling of the Large Strain Time-Dependent Behavior of Elastomers,” J. Mech. Phys. Solids, 46(5), pp. 931–954. [CrossRef]
Naumann, C., and Ihlemann, J., 2015, “On the Thermodynamics of Pseudo-Elastic Material Models to Reproduce the Mullins Effect,” Int. J. Solids Struct., 69–70(1), pp. 360–369. [CrossRef]
Bischoff, J. E., Arruda, M. E., and Grosh, K., 2001, “A New Constitutive Model for the Compressibility of Elastomers at Finite Deformations,” Rubber Chem. Technol., 74(4), pp. 541–559. [CrossRef]
Nowak, Z., 2008, “Constitutive Modelling and Parameters Identification for Rubber Like Materials,” Eng. Trans., 56(2), pp. 117–156
Heller, R. A., and Singh, M. P., 1983, “Thermal Storage Life of Solid Propellant Motors,” J. Spacecraft Rockets, 20(2), pp. 144–149. [CrossRef]
Layton, L. H., 1975, “Chemical Ageing Studies on AN HTPB Propellants,” Final Tech. Report, AFRPL-TH-75-13.

Figures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 3

Stress response comparison under pressurization with the data available in the literature [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 4

Stress and dilation response comparison with the data available in the literature [8]

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 9

Stress versus strain curves at a constant strain rate of 0.1852 at different temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig 10

Dilatation responses at a constant strain rate of 0.1852/s at different temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 11

(a) Stress versus time curve for a given relaxation time at a strain rate of 0.1852/s and (b) stress versus strain curve for a given relaxation time at a strain rate of 0.1852/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 12

(a) Stress versus time curve for a given relaxation time at a strain rate of 0.01852/s and (b) stress versus strain curve for a given relaxation time at a strain rate of 0.001852/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 14

(a) Stress versus time response for a cyclic load at a strain rate of 0.1852/s and (b) stress–strain response for a cyclic load at a strain rate of 0.1852/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 15

Stress–strain response for a cyclic load at a strain rate of 0.01852/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 13

(a) Stress versus time response for a cyclic load at a strain rate of 0.001852/s and (b) stress–strain response for a cyclic load at a strain rate of 0.001852/s

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 1

Master Relaxation curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 5

Stress versus strain curves at different strain rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 6

Dilatation response versus strain curves at different strain rates

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 7

Stress versus strain curves at a constant strain rate of 0.01852 at different temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 8

Dilatation responses at a constant strain rate of 0.001852/s at different temperatures

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 20

Stress–strain curves of aged and unaged propellants

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 16

Stress–strain curve for a dual strain history (low strain rate to high strain rate)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 17

Stress–strain curve for a dual strain history (high strain rate to low strain rate)

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 18

Equivalent aging time versus aging temperature curve

Grahic Jump Location
Fig. 19

(a) Variation of percentage change in modulus with aging time and (b) variation of percentage change in elongation with aging time

Tables

Errata

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging and repositioning the boxes below.

Related Journal Articles
Related eBook Content
Topic Collections

Sorry! You do not have access to this content. For assistance or to subscribe, please contact us:

  • TELEPHONE: 1-800-843-2763 (Toll-free in the USA)
  • EMAIL: asmedigitalcollection@asme.org
Sign In