Hostname: page-component-54dcc4c588-2bdfx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-12T13:44:29.693Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Strength Analysis of a Micro-Rocket Combustion Chamber

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 March 2011

Erin E. Noonan ,
Christopher S. Protz ,
Yoav P. Peles  and
S. Mark
Erin E. Noonan
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
Christopher S. Protz
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
Yoav P. Peles
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
S. Mark
Affiliation:
Department of Aeronautics and Astronautics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge, MA 02139
Get access

Abstract

This paper presents the fabrication, testing and analysis of the MIT micro-rocket combustion chamber structure. The structure is a rocket chamber with a closed throat and pressure feeds. It is fabricated with the same processes as the full micro-rocket builds. Mechanical test results are correlated with inspection of failed devices for flaws and with finite element modeling of the test condition. This analysis provides recommendations for modifications to improve the strength of the micro-rocket chamber. These recommendations are discussed in the context of the current status of the micro-rocket.

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

1. Epstein, A.H. et al. , Proc. IEEE Transducers '97, (IEEE, New York, 1997), pp. 753–756.Google Scholar
2. Epstein, A.H. et al. , AIAA Paper 97–1773, 1997.Google Scholar
3. London, A.P., Ph.D. dissertation, Massachusetts Inst. of Technology, Cambridge, MA, 2000.Google Scholar
4. Chen, K.-S., Ayon, A., and Spearing, S.M., J. Am. Ceram. Soc. 20, 1476–84 (2000).Google Scholar
5. Fitzgerald, A.M., Dauskardt, R.H., and Kenny, T.W., Sensors and Actuators 83, 194–199 (2000).Google Scholar
6. Yi, T., Li, L., and Kim, C.-J., Sensors and Actuators 83, 172–178 (2000).Google Scholar
7. London, A.P., Epstein, A.H., and Kerrebrock, J.L., Journal of Propulsion and Power 17 (4), 780–787 (2001).Google Scholar
8. Roark, R.J. and Young, W.C., Roark's Formulas for Stress and Strain, 6th ed. (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1989), p. 464.Google Scholar
9. Peterson, R.E., Stress Concentration Factors (Wiley, New York, 1974), p. 98.Google Scholar
10. Ashby, M.F. and Jones, D.R.H., Engineering Materials 2 (Pergamon Press, New York, 1992), pp. 169–173.Google Scholar
11. Nemeth, N.N., Jadaan, O., Palko, J.P., Mitchell, J., and Zorman, C.A., Proc. of the MEMS: Mechanics and Measurements Symposium, Portland Oregon, 2001, pp. 46–51.Google Scholar
12. Rice, R.W., in Fractography of Ceramic and Metal Failures, ASTM STP 827, edited by Mecholsky, J. J. Jr., and Powell, S. R. Jr., (American Society for Testing Materials, 1984), pp. 5–103.Google Scholar