$$\rightleftharpoonup{xx}$$
$$\longleftharp{xx}$$,
$$\longrightharp{xx}$$,
Solid rocket propellants are used extensively in defense, space, and gas-generating applications. They are relatively reliable fuels that perform many functions extremely well. However, many rocket propellants contain dangerous ingredients such as ammonium perchlorate (AP). Rocket propellants with these oxidizers can explode violently when slowly heated1,2,3. There have been several high-profile accidents with the slow heating of rocket propellant or rocket propellant ingredients that have drawn attention to these issues such as the fire and subsequent cook-off of munitions on the USS Forrestal4 and the PEPCON explosion1. While these are thankfully rare events, they can be devastating because of the personnel and equipment losses that occur. Therefore, there is motivation to understand the violence of these reactions and drive them down whenever possible. One of the main causes of violent cook-off events with rocket propellant is that many of the ingredients partially decompose, leaving reactive product gases behind along with the oxidizer with an enhanced reactive surface area.
One specific example of this is the ionic salt, ammonium perchlorate. The low-temperature decomposition of ammonium perchlorate is drawn out and incomplete, leaving reactive intermediate products within a propellant framework with substantial porosity and surface area available for subsequent reactions5,6,7,8,9. In addition, rocket propellants that contain ammonium nitrate and explosive nitramine compounds can have very violent reactions when heated slowly10,11,12. Slow cook-off violence is an important insensitive munition metric because many rockets are required by law to pass these tests13. Currently, the best way to determine whether a rocket propellant formulation reacts too violently under slow heating conditions is to run a slow cook-off (SCO) test on a full-scale rocket motor. These tests involve taking a full-size rocket motor and heating it slowly in a disposable convection oven.
Temperature traces are provided in multiple locations up until the reaction where the violence is then assessed based on various indicators ranging from container damage and fragmentation to simple overpressure gauges and dynamic pressure sensors for measuring blast pressure. These full-scale tests are often expensive and are not practical for investigating minor changes in propellant ingredients14. A few laboratory-scale tests have been developed that involve heating propellants or explosives in a variety of configurations and assessing container damage after the autoignition event. Although current laboratory-scale tests predict time to cook-off well and sometimes the autoignition temperature15,16,17, they are less able to predict the violence.
One commonly used test is the variable confinement cook-off test18 that slowly heats a cylinder of propellant until it ignites. The violence of the reaction is determined by the fragmentation of the chamber and bolts during the exothermic autoignition reaction. The most common laboratory tests use the final condition of the chamber to rank reaction violence, and there is a degree of subjectivity to the assessment. Small differences in reaction violence are difficult to determine. This assessment of violence is qualitative in nature, and it can be difficult to assess whether a change in a formulation ingredient altered the SCO violence. Furthermore, unlike an actual rocket motor, current laboratory tests do not confine the propellant inside a case. Product gases can easily escape, and this is important because the gases can react with the propellant heterogeneously or be reactive themselves, as in the case of ammonia and perchloric acid if ammonium perchlorate is used.
One of the best efforts in instrumenting a laboratory scale test involved the use of a dynamic pressure sensor on a small-scale cook-off bomb19. This allowed for higher resolution, quantifiable differences in reaction violence to be determined for relatively minor changes in rocket propellant formulation. However, a critical problem with this test is that it did not confine the rocket propellants in the same manner as an actual rocket motor, and numerous modeling and subscale experiments have shown this to be an important factor for consideration20. In addition, the propellant usually does not have the same amount of exposed surface area or the same free volume and is not geometrically confined in the same way as a full-scale test. The Combustion Rate Analysis of a Slowly Heated Propellant (CRASH-P) test was conceived to improve upon these previous tests. Samples between 25 g and 100 g can be tested under similar propellant confinement conditions as a full-scale test21. It also provides a means of measuring the power produced from the reaction event quantitatively through dynamic pressure sensor measurements, which is something current subscale tests do not provide. The results have been found to correlate well with full-scale SCO tests.