(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

A01-34303

AiAA

SSSSSSSSS^m SSqSS SSSSSSSSSSim mSSSSSSSSL

AIAA 2001-3598

Status of Army Pintle Technology for

Controllable Thrust Propulsion
S. Burroughs
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command
Bedstone Arsenal, AL

37th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint

Propulsion Conference and Exhibit

8-11 July 2001

Salt Lake City, Utah

For permission to copy or to republish, contact the copyright owner named on the first page.
For AIAA-held copyright, write to AIAA Permissions Department,
1801 Alexander Bell Drive, Suite 500, Reston, VA, 20191-4344.

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.
UNCLASSIFIED

2001-3598
STATUS OF ARMY PINTLE TECHNOLOGY
FOR CONTROLLABLE THRUST PROPULSION
Susan. L. Burroughs
U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command
Propulsion and Structures Directorate
Redstone Arsenal, AL
ABSTRACT
The U.S. Army Aviation and Missile Command
(AMCOM) is developing pintle technology for
controllable thrust propulsion. The technology program
is investigating several technical areas: modeling and
simulation, pintle motor design and performance
prediction, pintle and nozzle design, materials testing,
actuation and control mechanisms, and ammonium
nitrate propellants. The program heavily leverages the
U.S. Army's Small Business Innovative Research
(SBIR) program through multiple on-going efforts.
These efforts have produced modeling and simulation
tools currently being used at AMCOM, as well as pintle
motor hardware for static testing. A twelve-inch
diameter heavywall pintle motor has been successfully
tested at AMCOM, providing a controlled boost-sustain
thrust profile. Recent controlled thrust tests have been
successfully completed on a seven-inch diameter
heavywall pintle motor. Another SBIR program is
currently developing a miniaturized, low cost actuation
and control system for pintle motors. These various
technology areas are being focused for future
generation U.S. Army tactical missiles.
INTRODUCTION
Controllable thrust propulsion technology is being
explored by government and industry as a solution to
the propulsion requirements for the next generation of
U.S. Army missiles. Pintle controlled solid propulsion
is one approach to achieving this goal. Using pintle
technology, a conventional solid propellant rocket
motor can provide variable thrust levels, providing the
capability to decrease missile flight time to target, or to
increase maximum range capability.
To maximize the controllability of thrust with a pintle
motor, a propellant with a high burn rate exponent is
desirable.
The governing equations for rocket
propulsion show that a high burn rate exponent
Release C: "This material is declared a work of the
U.S. Government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States."

propellant will provide a higher change in chamber

pressure than a lower burn rate exponent propellant
with the same change in throat area. This fact, along
with the desire to minimize propulsion system
sensitivity, has directed propellant selection towards
ammonium nitrate based propellants that typically have
high burn rate exponents in the range of 0.7 to 0.9.
One of the first SBIR efforts in pintle technology was
the Axial Pintle Motor (APM) program, which involved
development of a twelve-inch diameter heavywall
pintle controlled motor.1 The scope of the effort was to
develop a fully functional, reusable heavywall pintle
motor for the development and testing of pintle and
nozzle materials, propellants, and pintle control
hardware. The SBIR program encompassed the design,
fabrication, and testing of the pintle motor. This
program has been successfully completed.
A recent SBIR program was the Variable Thrust Motor
(VTM) program, a two-fold program that encompassed
development of a modeling and simulation tool, as well
as a low cost tactical pintle motor test bed in a seveninch diameter configuration.2 The test bed was required
to be of a tactical size for tactical missile applications,
and would be .used for validation of the modeling tool.
The SBIR program encompassed the design,
fabrication, and multiple static firings of the test bed for
validation of the design as well as the modeling and
simulation tool. This program is nearing completion.
Another two-fold SBIR program that also involves
development of a modeling and simulation tool as well
as a test bed for validation is ongoing.3 The modeling
and simulation tool has been developed, and design and
fabrication of the heavywall pintle motor is underway.
An SBIR program just underway involves development
of actuation and control technology. Requirements
include high performance, low cost, and low weight for
a system that will provide for movement of the pintle
upon command, to include the control software and
electronics to interface with the rocket motor. The
program includes the requirement to test the system in a

1
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

UNCLASSIFIED

pintle controlled rocket motor for final validation. As

this program is just underway, no detailed information
is available for publication.
Other work at AMCOM includes pintle motor design
and analysis, as well as materials testing. Materials
testing has focused on lightweight materials for the
pintle. Design and analysis efforts include flight
simulations to determine the effects of pintle motor
designs on missile performance.4 The focus has been
on thrust management optimization schemes and effects
on time of flight and range.
AXIAL PINTLE MOTOR

APM DESIGN

Industrial Solid Propulsion, with Aerojet as

subcontractor, conducted the APM program. The APM
is shown in Figure 1. It consists of a motor chamber 12
inches in diameter and 20 inches in length.
Programmatic decisions drove the selection of a
hydraulic actuation system for the pintle.1 The system
is housed in the actuator and nozzle section. Hydraulic
fluid for the actuation system is housed externally in a
hydraulic power cart. Multiple burst disk assemblies
were used in the motor in the event of an over-pressure
condition. The propellant grain tested in the APM is a
Class 1.3 reduced smoke propellant cast in a hard
phenolic sleeve, and cartridge-loaded into the chamber.
The grain tested was a seventy pound charge in an endburner configuration. Ignition is accomplished with a
"bag" igniter consisting of BKNO3 pellets. The APM
control system consists of a controller, control software,
and required cabling.

TEST RESULTS

Results from the first static firing are shown in Figures

2 and 3. Figure 2 shows pressure versus time, with a
plot of pintle position overlaid for comparison
purposes.
Figure 3 gives the thrust-time trace.
Comparisons of the actual pressure and the predicted
pressure show deviations in performance during both
the boost and sustain phases. As seen in Figure 2, at
2.25 seconds the pintle begins move in towards the
throat. Note that zero on the figure corresponds to zero
pintle position, which corresponds to the minimum
throat area achievable with the hardware as built. The
design is such that the pintle cannot fully block the
throat. At 3 seconds the pintle reached the zero
position, and was held there until approximately 5
seconds, during which time the pressure decreased from
the commanded 1750 psi to just under 1000 psi. This is
indicative of throat erosion that the pintle could not
compensate for. Post test inspection of the hardware in
fact revealed that the nozzle throat experienced
excessive erosion. Figure 2 shows that the pintle and
control system compensated for the throat erosion until
the physical limits of the hardware were reached at 3
seconds. At this time there was not sufficient stroke to
obtain the throat area to hold 1750 psi.

At 5 seconds the correct pressure ramp was obtained by

the pintle, as seen in Figure 2. At this time the pintle
begins to move from the zero position and begins to
correctly control motor pressure again. The 500 psi
sustain pressure is reached at the correct time. Note
that at 5.5 seconds the pintle beings to move towards
the throat, indicating that the nozzle is continuing to
erode significantly.
The pintle successfully
compensates for the erosion until 11 seconds into the
test, at which time the pintle is at zero position. As the
nozzle continues to erode and no pintle stroke is left,
the pressure decreases below the commanded 500 psi.
The motor provided boost and sustain thrust levels of
1700 lbf and 800 lbf. These thrust levels represent a
2.1:1 thrust turndown ratio, with a total impulse of
15,140 lbrsec and a duration of 15 seconds.

Figure 1. Axial Pintle Motor

Despite the anomalies noted above, the test was

considered a success. The overall design of the motor
was successfully validated. The control of motor
chamber pressure to a predetermined duty cycle was
accomplished within the limits of the hardware.
Although unexpected, the extensive nozzle throat
erosion provided a scenario that allowed the pintle
motor to demonstrate the capabilities of the control
system. The test demonstrated that the pintle motor can
adequately compensate for nozzle erosion if the erosion

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

UNCLASSIFIED

2000

"Pressure
"Commanded Pressure
Position
1500

3 1000

500

12

Time, seconds

Figure. 2^ Pressure-Pintle Position: APM Test

2000

1500

1000

500

Time, seconds

Figure 3. Thrust-Time: APM Test

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

18

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

UNCLASSIFIED

rate is known in advance. The system demonstrated its

capability for use as a reusable test bed.
The APM has been turned over to AMCOM for further
work. Near-term efforts with the APM include a test
planned with an aluminized propellant grain at
AMCOM facilities. Other planned efforts include
multiple tests with increased mass flow rates.

The VTM program included the development of a

modeling and simulation tool for pintle motor
performance prediction. Predictions of pressure, pintle
position, thrust, and efficiencies were required. The
software combines computational fluid dynamics with
internal ballistics for a complete package for
performance prediction.2*5
TEST RESULTS

VARIABLE THRUST MOTOR

VTM DESIGN

Colorado Engineering Analysis, with Aerojet as

subcontractor, conducted the VTM program. The VTM
design is shown in Figure 4. It was configured to
provide durability, reusability, and quick assembly and
post-test disassembly. The test bed was also designed
for evaluation of pintle actuation and control concepts,
new propellants, pintle materials, and pintle designs.
The motor's external diameter is seven inches, chosen
for applicability to future tactical missiles. The motor
consists of a motor chamber into which a cartridge
grain is loaded, a forward mounted actuator assembly,
an aft nozzle closure assembly, and the pintle with its
guide and insulation sleeve. The pintle shaft has a
dynamic seal at the forward end of the motor. The shaft
runs the length of the motor chamber, insulated from
the hot gases by a sleeve, and is supported at the aft end
by a pintle guide. Multiple burst diaphragms are used
for pressure release in the event of an over-pressure
condition. An electromechanical actuator and electronic
controller provide pintle actuation and control. The
propellant grain consisted of an ammonium nitrate
based minimum smoke propellant in a 24 pound charge
case-bonded to a cartridge sleeve.
The igniter
assembly, not shown in Figure 4, consists of an
externally mounted igniter with a small propellant
charge for ignition.

Figure 5 shows the results from one of the VTM tests.

The pressure profile is shown with pintle position
overlaid for comparison purposes. The boost pressure
of 3000 psi was attained with a rapid ignition transient.
The sustain pressure of 1400 psi was held constant
throughout the sustain phase of operation until motor
burnout occurred at approximately 23 seconds. The
steady (constant) pintle position during sustain indicates
little- effect of burn surface variations, erosion, or
thermal growth. Figure 6 shows the thrust-time trace
from the test. A boost thrust of 1500 lbf was attained,
followed by a sustain thrust of 110 lbf. Thrust
turndown ratio was 13.6:1 for the test. Both Figures 5
and 6 show calculated values for pressure and thrust
from the modeling and simulation tool developed. The
extremely close agreement between the calculated
values and actual values indicate the fidelity of the
modeling and simulation tool for performance
prediction.

The VTM test provided a total impulse of 5485 Ibrsec.

Figure 7 shows the calculated versus measured total
impulse and specific impulse for the test. The delivered
sea level specific impulse in Figure 7 can be compared
to the average delivered specific impulse of 224 lbr
sec/lbm calculated from the total impulse of 5485 lbr
sec.
Another VTM has been successfully tested
demonstrating a boost thrust of 1350 lbf followed by a
sustain thrust of 200 lbf. Thrust turndown ratio was 7:1
for this test. Total impulse was 5381 Ibf-sec/lbm with
an average delivered specific impulse of 223 Ibfsec/lbm. For the two tests discussed, specific impulse
and thrust efficiencies on the order of 90 to 92.5% for
the boost phase and 89 to 91% for the sustain phase
were achieved.
The testing portion of this program has been
successfully completed. Final work is ongoing in the
validation of the modeling and simulation tool. The
hardware is being turned over to AMCOM for further
testing.

Figure 4. Variable Thrust Motor

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

UNCLASSIFIED
MODELING AND SIMULATION TOOLS

u./
o
A

.......

Measured Pressure
Measured Position
Calculated Pressure
calculated Position

.... 0.6

Pressure (psia)

0.5
aoa '

0.4

Cft

3*ar

iX

0.2

1
0.

0.1
nn

Q.

Y'^ooocooo

0.3

10

20

15

0.0
30

25

Time (sec)

Figure 8 shows the Mach number contour plot for the

APM pintle and nozzle configuration at various pintle
stroke positions relative to the nozzle throat. Figure 8
shows the 0.5 inch and the 1.0 inch pintle positions and
the resulting change in Mach number contours.

Figure 5. Pressure-Pintle Position: VTM Test

.....

S5

'i

Measured Thrust
Measured Position
Calculated Thrust
Calculated Position

"

i
1.
iL
;

1
^T" Tlr-*I*CT^IJ "^

r*9fltor

Pintle Position (in.)

o
A

.......

10

15

^2^Ji

20

25

I 2S

_A

Thrust (Ibf)

_A

In addition to the extensive performance prediction

discussed in the Variable Thrust Motor section, other
work has been done in the area of modeling and
simulation.5'6'7 The modeling and simulation tool
developed by Colorado Engineering Analysis combines
computational fluid dynamics analysis capabilities with
internal ballistics prediction capabilities. The pintle
imbedded internal to the combustion chamber interrupts
the normal gas flow paths seen in conventional solid
rocket motors. Effects of an imbedded pintle on gas
flow, to include Mach number, pressure, and
temperature were investigated with the modeling and
simulation tool.

2.2

30"

1,8

Time (sec)

1 .41
1*

Figure 6. Thrust-Time: VTM Test

O.S
0.2
6000

Figure 8. Mach Number Contour Plots

10

15

20

25

Time (sec)

Figure 7. Isp-Total Impulse: VTM Test

30

Figure 9 shows the 1.5 inch and the 2.0 inch pintle
positions and the resulting change in Mach number
contours.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

UNCLASSIFIED
This tool is an effective means of examining the effects
of the pintle on gas flow. All stroke positions can be
evaluated and pressure and thrust values obtained. The
tool provides a visual means of evaluating any nozzle
flow separations, an important consideration for
optimizing motor performance. Pressure contours as
well as temperature contours can also be obtained for
any condition. The direction of gas flow can be
predicted by the code and displayed visually. This is
useful for determining areas experiencing flow turning.

presented in the figure the nozzle design is the same.

The pintle size varies, however, as does the position.
Both cases were designed to produce the same motor
chamber pressure. The resulting effect on the nozzle
flowfield can be clearly seen. In the second case the
flow turns and the separated zone at the end of the
pintle is more pronounced, as is the series of weak
shocks down the length of the nozzle.

12.2
.8

10. 6

10.2

Figure 10. Mach Number Contour Plots

Figure 9. Mach Number Contour Plots
A second modeling and simulation tool is being
developed by CFD Research Corporation under another
SBIR contract managed by AMCOM.3'8 Work is
ongoing in the development of the tool. Testing will be
conducted with a seven inch diameter heavywall pintle
motor designed by CFD Research Corporation in FY 01
to provide data for validation of the software.
Figure 10 shows the results of an analysis of the
flowfield in the seven inch diameter pintle motor nozzle
using the second code being developed. In both cases

AMCOM is making use of both modeling and

simulation tools for pintle motor design efforts as well
as performance prediction.9 One of the tools has been
successfully validated, while the second is expected to
be completed and validated in the FY 02 timeframe.
Other modeling and simulation efforts at AMCOM are
focusing on the system level in terms of missile
performance. Missile flight simulations are being
conducted using three degree-of-freedom (DOF)
trajectory simulations. Various pintle motor designs are
being evaluated with the focus on thrust management
schemes.
Maximizing missile range is a key
consideration in the flight trajectory studies.

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

UNCLASSIFIED
MATERIALS TESTING

The APM and VTM tests discussed earlier made use of

refractory metal alloys for pintle materials. These
materials experienced minimal erosion, but weight is an
issue with their use. Materials testing at AMCOM has
focused on lightweight, high temperature materials for
pintle applications. Testing of a carbon/silica carbide
(C/SiC) pintle provided by Snecma, France was
recently conducted at AMCOM in a controllable thrust
motor designed by Aerojet.10 The C/SiC pintle was
tested in a non-axial, heavywall pintle motor with an
ammonium nitrate based propellant. The pintle
weighed 5.2 grams, an 82% weight reduction in
comparison with a rhenium-molybdenum pintle. The
propellant grain was an end-burner configuration
cartridge loaded into the motor chamber. Ignition was
provided by a BKNO3 and black powder "bag" igniter.
Figure 11 shows the motor on the test stand.

Figure 11. Non-Axial Pintle Motor

Figure 12 shows the thrust-time profile for the test. The
motor provided a boost-sustain-coast-boost thrust
profile.
CSiC Pintle Test

10

12

14

The C/SiC pintle experienced essentially no erosion

during the test. Pre and post-fire weights show an
increase of 0.1 grams, which is attributed to material
build-up on the pintle that was not fully removed.
There were no dimensional changes between pre and
post-fire examination.

The results of this test make the C/SiC material a viable

candidate for a lightweight, high temperature material
in a pintle application. Additional testing is planned in
the VTM configuration in an extended duration test
with higher mass flow rates. This test should provide
additional performance data for the C/SiC material.
CONCLUSIONS

The various SBIR programs, along with in-house

efforts at AMCOM, represent a multi-pronged approach
to developing pintle technology for controllable thrust
propulsion. Two heavywall, reusable pintle motors
have been successfully developed and tested and are at
AMCOM for further testing. Controllable thrust was
successfully demonstrated in both the 12 inch diameter
and the 7 inch diameter pintle motors. Two modeling
and simulation tools have been developed for pintle
motor design and performance prediction. Validation
of one tool is essentially complete, with work ongoing
with a second. Materials testing at AMCOM with a
C/SiC pintle have demonstrated the material to be a
viable candidate for a lightweight, high temperature
material.
Reductions in weight of 82% were
demonstrated with this material over refractory metal
alloys. Extensive work is beginning on actuation and
control technology to interface with the pintle
technology being demonstrated. Systems work is
ongoing in motor design and missile trajectory
simulations to identify the best methods of thrust
management implementation to maximize missile
performance. These multiple technology areas are
being focused for controllable thrust propulsion.

16

Time, seconds

Figure 12. Thrust-Time: Non-Axial Pintle Motor

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics

(c)2001 American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics or Published with Permission of Author(s) and/or Author(s)' Sponsoring Organization.

UNCLASSIFIED

REFERENCES
1. Burroughs, Susan L., Rosenfield, Gary C, Lynch,
Michael D., Wong, Kent J., McClellan, James A.,
Turner, Tom W., "An Axial Pintle Motor for
Thrust Control of Tactical Rocket Motors," 1999
JANNAF
Rocket
Nozzle
Technology
Subcommittee Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah.

JANNAF
Rocket
Nozzle
Technology
Subcommittee Meeting, Cocoa Beach, Florida.
10. Burroughs, Susan L., McClellan, James A., Lynch,
Michael D., Wong, Kent J., 'Testing of
Carbon/Silicon Carbide in a Controllable Thrust
Pintle Motor," 2001 JANNAF Rocket Nozzle
Technology Subcommittee Meeting, Cocoa Beach,
Florida.

2. Burroughs, Susan L., Luke, Gary D., Lynch,

Michael D, Wong, Kent J., "Controllable Thrust
Propulsion Using Pintle Technology," 2001 AIAA
Missile
Sciences
Conference,
Monterey,
California.
3. Ostrander, Mark J, Bergmans, John L., Thomas,
Matt E., Burroughs, Susan L., "Pintle Motor
Challenges for Tactical Missiles," 2000 AIAA
Joint Propulsion Conference, Huntsville, Alabama.
4. Maykut, Albert R., Burroughs, Susan L., "A
Trajectory Study and Performance Analysis of
Pintle Rocket Motor Designs," 2001 JANNAF
Rocket Nozzle Technology Subcommittee
Meeting, Cocoa Beach, Florida.
5.

Prozan, Robert J., Luke, Gary D., Burroughs,

Susan L., "Effects of Pintle Size and Geometry on
Performance of Pintle Rocket Motors: SBIR Phase
I," 1998 JANNAF Joint Propulsion Meeting, 1998
JANNAF Propulsion Meeting, Cleveland, Ohio.

6. Prozan, Robert J., Luke, Gary D., Burroughs,

Susan L., "Developments in the Automated Pintle
Design Code," 1999 JANNAF Rocket Nozzle
Technology Subcommittee Meeting, Salt Lake
City, Utah.
7. Luke, Gary D., Prozan, Robert J., Burroughs,
Susan L., "Validation of Pintle Design Code Using
Cold Flow and Hot Fire Static Test Data," 1999
JANNAF
Rocket
Nozzle
Technology
Subcommittee Meeting, Salt Lake City, Utah.

8. Ostrander, Mark J., Burroughs, Susan L.,

"Performance Analysis of Pintle Controlled Rocket
Motors Using the Axial Pintle Motor Design
(APMOD) Software," 1999 JANNAF Rocket
Nozzle Technology Subcommittee Meeting, Salt
Lake City, Utah.
9. Densmore, Barry D., Burroughs, Susan L.,
Ostrander, Mark J., "Component Design and
Analysis for a Pintle Controlled Motor," 2001

American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics