applied

sciences
Article
Experimental Investigation of a H2O2 Hybrid Rocket with
Different Swirl Injections and Fuels
Manuel Stella 1 , Lucia Zeni 1 , Luca Nichelini 1 , Nicolas Bellomo 1 , Daniele Pavarin 1,2 ,
Mario Tindaro Migliorino 3 , Marco Fabiani 3 , Daniele Bianchi 3 , Francesco Nasuti 3 , Christian Paravan 4 ,
Luciano Galfetti 4 , Attilio Cretella 5 , Rocco Carmine Pellegrini 6 , Enrico Cavallini 6 and Francesco Barato 2, *

1 Technology for Propulsion and Innovation S.p.A. (T4i), Via Emilia 15, 35043 Monselice, Italy;
[email protected] (M.S.); [email protected] (L.Z.); [email protected] (L.N.);
[email protected] (N.B.); [email protected] (D.P.)
2 Department of Industrial Engineering (DII), University of Padova, Via Venezia 1, 35131 Padova, Italy
3 Centro di Ricerca Aerospaziale Sapienza (CRAS), Sapienza University of Rome, Via Eudossiana 18,
00184 Rome, Italy; [email protected] (M.T.M.); [email protected] (M.F.);
[email protected] (D.B.); [email protected] (F.N.)
4 Space Propulsion Laboratory (SPLab), Politecnico di Milano, Via La Masa 34, 20156 Milan, Italy;
[email protected] (C.P.); [email protected] (L.G.)
5 AVIO S.p.A., Via Latina, 00034 Colleferro, Italy; [email protected]
6 Italian Space Agency (ASI), Via del Politecnico s.n.c., 00133 Rome, Italy; [email protected] (R.C.P.);
[email protected] (E.C.)
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +39-0498079523

Abstract: Hybrid rockets have very interesting characteristics like simplicity, reliability, safety, thrust
modulation, environmental friendliness and lower costs, which make them very attractive for
several applications like sounding rockets, small launch vehicles, upper stages, hypersonic test-
beds and planetary landers. In recent years, advancements have been made to increase hybrid motor
performance, and two of the most promising solutions are vortex injection and paraffin-based fuels.
Moreover, both technologies can be also used to tailor the fuel regression rate, in the first case varying
the swirl intensity, and in the second case with the amount and type of additives. In this way, it is
Citation: Stella, M.; Zeni, L.; Nichelini,
possible not only to design high-performing hybrid motors, but also to adjust their grain and chamber
L.; Bellomo, N.; Pavarin, D.;
geometries to different mission requirements, particularly regarding thrust and burning time. In
Migliorino, M.T.; Fabiani, M.; Bianchi,
D.; Nasuti, F.; Paravan, C.; et al.
this paper, the knowledge about these two technical solutions and their coupling is extended. Three
Experimental Investigation of a H2 O2 sets of experimental campaigns were performed in the frame of the Italian Space Agency-sponsored
Hybrid Rocket with Different Swirl PHAEDRA program. The first one investigated a reference paraffin fuel with axial and standard
Injections and Fuels. Appl. Sci. 2024, vortex injection. The second campaign tested vortex injection with low values of swirl numbers down
14, 5625. https://doi.org/ to 0.5 with a conventional plastic fuel, namely polyethylene. Finally, the last campaign tested another,
10.3390/app14135625 lower regressing, paraffin-based fuel with the same low swirl numbers as the second campaign.
Academic Editor: Wei Huang
Keywords: hybrid rockets; vortex injection; paraffin-based fuels; regression rate tailoring; low swirl
Received: 15 May 2024 numbers
Revised: 23 June 2024
Accepted: 24 June 2024
Published: 27 June 2024

1. Introduction
Hybrid rocket motor technology has advanced over the past decades, mainly trough
Copyright: © 2024 by the authors.
ground research [1–3] but also flight testing [4], and it is now recognized as a potential
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. alternative to the standard liquid and solid ones for multiple aerospace applications, for
This article is an open access article example sounding rockets [5], small launch vehicles [6,7] and suborbital space tourism [8].
distributed under the terms and Safety, reliability, architecture simplicity, throttleability [9–11] and re-ignition capability
conditions of the Creative Commons are the main advantages compared with the more conventional rocket motor technolo-
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// gies [12,13]. Moreover, the possibility of using green propellants (e.g., high-test peroxide,
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ HTP) makes hybrid rockets an eco-friendly option compared with solid rocket motors and
4.0/). classical storable toxic liquids, increasing their attractiveness [14,15].

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625. https://doi.org/10.3390/app14135625 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/applsci

Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 2 of 22

As a result of these advantages, hybrid rocket engines are expected to be increasingly

adopted in the future. Furthermore, recent research addressed the main drawbacks (i.e.,
low fuel regression rate and low combustion efficiency) typical of the use of hybrid motors,
and different effective solutions have been developed to improve performance to acceptable
levels [16,17], at least for some applications.
For instance, the use of paraffin-based fuels has been proposed to considerably increase
the regression rate values [18]. These types of fuels, called liquefying fuels, melt on the
surface, and form a thin liquid layer where droplets are detached and entrained by the
oxidizer gas flux, as described by the theory [19–21] and confirmed by experiments [22].
This added mass transfer mechanism leads to a higher regression rate [23] compared with
classical diffusion-limited fuels [24–26] (e.g., hydroxyl-terminated polybutadiene, HTPB,
or high-density polyethylene, HDPE). Additionally, recent studies examined the effects of
additives to paraffin-based fuels, and the findings demonstrate the possibility of increasing
the fuel thermo-mechanical properties (tensile strength increase over 40%) and tailor the
fuel regression rate level (reductions up to over 50%) [27–29].
Devices such as post chambers (PC) [30], mixers and diaphragms [31–33] have been
studied to enhance the mixing of the reactants by increasing the turbulence level in the
combustion chamber, thus improving the combustion efficiency (above 90%).
One of the most effective means to improve both the regression rate and combustion
efficiency is through vortex injection [34,35]. This type of injection forces the oxidizer flux
to enter the combustion chamber with both tangential and axial velocity components, hence
generating unique helical streamlines through the grain port. The vortex oxidizer injection
can be placed at the head-end of the motor [36] or at the aft-end [37]. The resulting flow
field increases the convective heat flux and the turbulence magnitude inside the combustion
chamber. Thus, much higher values of the regression rate (several times’ increase) and
efficiency (above 90%) can be achieved [38–40].
The vortex intensity inside the chamber is quantified by the swirl number (SN). In each
cross-section, the SN is defined as the ratio between the axial flux of the swirl momentum
and the axial flux of the axial momentum [41].
R
ρvz vθ rdA
SN = R (1)
Rmax ρv2z dA
Since both the fuel regression rate and the combustion efficiency are related to the
vortex intensity inside the combustion chamber, these variables are, likewise, linked to the
SN parameter. Hence, vortex injection provides an additional advantage: the possibility of
tailoring the fuel regression rate by adjusting the SN inside the grain port.
Regression rate tailoring is of particular importance as it permits varying the fuel
radial ablation velocity, and thus the optimization of the combustion chamber design.
Generally, the design objective is to maximize the volume loading (defined as the fuel
volume divided by the chamber envelope volume), avoiding solutions that lead to a fuel-
grain-length-to-diameter ratio (L/D) too low or too high [42–44], which negatively affects
packaging and inert mass.
Regression rate tailoring has been investigated by using computational fluid dynamics
(CFD) tools and by performing experimental tests [45], showing the possibility of changing
grain consumption by over 50% by varying the injection swirl number while keeping high
combustion efficiencies.
The most advanced hybrid rocket simulations are able to estimate the regression rate
directly from the internal flowfield through mass, species and heat balances at the fuel
surface, both for classical fuels [46,47] and also the more complex liquefying fuels [48–50].
Swirl injection has been also simulated numerically [51], confirming its peculiar flowfield
and characteristics. CFD simulations are an effective tool to rapidly analyze multiple
scenarios, providing detailed comparisons of the results. However, their reliability is highly
dependent on the associated validation tests [52], which limit results generalization to
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 3 of 22

different parameters, propellants and/or configurations. Thus, experimental tests are still a
necessary parallel choice, although more time consuming and expensive.
The experimental variation of the SN is enabled by the geometrical swirl number
(SNg ). The SNg is defined as the reference swirl number at the injection, and it depends
only on the geometrical characteristics of the swirl injector plate. It is calculated using the
following formula [53]:
Rinj ( Rinj − Rh )
SNg = (2)
NR2h
The SNg is a useful parameter to perform the regression rate tailoring in vortex hybrid
motors as it permits an easy and direct test results comparison just considering the injector
plates’ geometry and requires no difficult and intricate measurements of the internal
flow field velocity components. In addition, previous works proved the existence of an
approximately linear-like relation between the geometrical swirl number and the surface
regression rate [45].
This work is part of the PHAEDRA (Paraffinic Hybrid Advanced Engine Demonstrator
for Rocket Application) project coordinated by the Italian Space Agency [54]. The project
aim is to develop a hybrid motor demonstrator for upper stage as reference application
in order to investigate and exploit hybrid rocket engine (HRE) re-ignition capabilities,
thus bringing hybrid motor technology to a large scale [55]. This paper focuses on the
experimental investigation performed on a hybrid lab-scale motor to obtain the desired
values of the regression rate and performance. These parameters were identified by the
prime contractor Avio during the preliminary analysis phase.
The study reported hereafter investigates the regression rate obtained coupling differ-
ent swirl injectors with different fuel types. The experimental setup consists in a lab-scale
HTP hybrid rocket motor with a single-port grain. Two different fuels blend formulations
based on paraffin (named as F8 and F5) and a third HDPE classical plastic fuel are tested;
one of the former (F8) is coupled with a SNg greater than 2, while the latter (F5 and the
HDPE) are coupled with low swirl numbers (between 0.5 and 1.0). The two paraffin blend
fuels were provided by Politecnico di Milano, a partner of the project, and they were
developed in previous phases of PHAEDRA.
The results retrieved from the test campaign are reported in the following chapters.
This study shows the great potential of having two variables (i.e., fuel formulation and SNg )
to tailor the fuel regression rate and optimize the combustion chamber design. Eventually,
high values of combustion efficiency were obtained, even with the use of a lower SNg ,
compared with the ones found in previous literature.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Motor Design and Configurations
The lab-scale hybrid motor used during the test campaigns is composed of four main
components: (1) a catalyst bed containing catalytic material, where the HTP is decomposed
producing high-temperature O2 and H2 O vapor; (2) a swirl injector imposing a rotation
to the oxidizer flow along the motor axis; (3) a combustion chamber where the reactions
between the oxidizer and the fuel grain (i.e., HDPE and paraffin-based fuels) occur; and
(4) a nozzle holder encasing the graphite nozzle insert.
The catalyst bed and the combustion chamber metal case are connected by a clamp-
type joint with a graphite braid providing gas sealing. The combustion chamber structural
case is made of steel and consists of two flanges and a hollow cylinder between them. A set
of eight M16 rods close the flanges against the cylinder.
The vortex injection plate is placed inside the inlet flange of the motor case. The
combustion chamber parts (e.g., fuel grain, post chamber and thermal protection, TP) are
bonded together using a silicone filler. These assembled consumables form the so-called
motor cartridge, which can be easily integrated and removed from the cylindrical metal
case. The nozzle holder is screwed to the outlet flange with a silicon O-ring, ensuring the
sealing from the combustion gases.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 4 of 22

The aft part of the catalyst assembly is connected to the fluidic line once the motor is
placed on the test bench (Figure 1).

Figure 1. The lab-scale hybrid motor assembled and installed on the test bench.

The catalyst bed, nozzle and metal flanges were kept unchanged across the campaign,
while the swirl number and the combustion chamber configuration varied. In the combus-
tion chamber, this was done either by changing the fuel type (i.e., F5, F8 and HDPE), or
the fuel length and initial port diameter, or by adding a post-combustion chamber. These
changes were necessary to ensure an optimal oxidizer-to-fuel (O/F) ratio and combustion
efficiency, which could decrease when using a low SNg .
The oxidizer injection SNg was altered by changing the vortex injector cup. This metal
part is installed on the flange between the catalyst bed and the combustion chamber. For
an axial oxidizer injection, a metal ring is assembled in place of the swirl injector.
Figure 2 shows the vortex injector position and the motor configurations with and
without the addition of the post chamber and with different grain initial port diameters.

2.1.1. Vortex Injector

The vortex injector controls the swirl flowfield intensity inside the combustion chamber.
Thus, the design of this component is strictly related to the regression rate achieved.
The design of the injector consists in sizing the geometric dimension and the number
of the tangential holes, and the cup internal radius, as indicated in Figure 3.
The fuel regression rate could be adjusted during the motor design stage based on the
vortex intensity imposed by the injector geometrical characteristics. Using Formula (2), it is
possible to obtain the desired SNg , where Rinj is the injector internal radius, Rh is the hole
radius and N is the holes number.
These parameters make the vortex injector geometry a powerful degree of freedom for
the regression rate tailoring, as already proven in [45].
There are 6 injectors used in this experimental campaign; they are made of 316L
stainless steel and their geometrical swirl numbers are 0.50, 0.75, 1.00, 2.00, 2.50, 3.33.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 5 of 22

(a) Wider fuel port. (b) Post-combustion chamber.

(c) HPDE fuel grain.

Figure 2. The different internal motor configurations used during the experimental test campaign.
(a) Configuration with a paraffin-based fuel grain and a wider grain port. (b) Configuration with a
paraffin-based fuel grain and the combustion post chamber. (c) HDPE fuel motor configuration. No
fuel jacket is needed to accommodate the grain.

(a) (b)
Figure 3. The vortex injector. (a) The geometrical parameters characterizing the vortex injector SNg .
Reprinted with permission [45]. (b) A three-dimensional injector view.

2.1.2. Combustion Chamber

The combustion chamber includes the injection insert, the fuel grain, the post chamber
and the thermal protections. An exploded view of these consumables is displayed in
Figure 4.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 6 of 22

Figure 4. The exploded view of the motor cartridge with the consumables named.

All the thermal protections components (ochre-coloured) are made of cotton phenolic.
The convergent and the upstream flanges protect the motor case metal flanges from the
high temperature of the combustion gases. Moreover, the upstream flange holds a graphite
injection ring. The insert shields the internal hole of the upstream flange, which otherwise
would be excessively eroded by the swirled high oxidizing flow.
The cotton phenolic erosion rate is fairly low compared with the fuel grain consump-
tion. In addition, the surfaces exposed to the flame are minor, and thus the contribution to
the fuel mass burned is lower than 10%. Moreover, the TP characteristic velocity is only
slightly lower than that of the fuel.
The fuel grain jacket is not present in motor configurations using the HDPE as the
fuel grain material. The tests performed with HDPE do not entirely use the fuel grain. The
residual thickness acts as a jacket, preventing the heating of the cylindrical metal case.
The post-combustion chamber is used in some tests with paraffin-based fuels. Gener-
ally, this element is not needed in a vortex hybrid motor, since a high combustion efficiency
is already achieved thanks to the swirled flowfield. Nonetheless, in our investigation, it
has been useful for increasing the combustion gases’ residence time inside the chamber in
particularly compact motor configurations. The post chamber is a hollow cylinder with
an internal diameter of 100 mm, while the cylindrical length (L PC ) varies. The L PC /L grain
ratio is used to determines the post chamber length. The tested values of this parameter are
23%, 30% and 42%.
A simple side-burning grain with a circular port, whose dimension is constant along
the motor axis, serves as the fuel. Then, to fully define its shape, three measurements are
required: the length, the external diameter and the initial port diameter. Every paraffin-
based fuel grain has an exterior diameter of 125 mm, while the HDPE fuels measure 140 mm,
due to the absence of the cotton phenolic jacket. For each of the examined grains, a different
combination of the other two geometrical factors is used. Regression rate coefficients
from earlier experimental data or from the experimental data retrieved in the actual test
campaign are used to define both the internal diameter and the length.
The initial port diameter ranges from a minimum of 15 mm to a maximum of 65 mm.
The minimum value allows to not exceed the threshold of 950 kg/m2 s for the oxidizer
mass flux (Gox ). The maximum allowable value depends on the estimated grain thickness
burned during the test. In tests where the port diameter is increased, the objective is to
lower the average Gox value over the burning time, i.e., to reduce the combustion gases’
velocity inside the chamber, thus increasing their residence time. The length of the grain is
adjusted from test to test to obtain the desired oxidizer-to-fuel ratio (O/F). In the case of
paraffin or HDPE hybrid engines, the optimal O/F value is between 6.5 and 7.5.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 7 of 22

The influence of the fuel grain material is the other important parameter investigated in
this study. The possibility of using distinct fuel types with calibrated amounts of additives
in the fuel mixtures allows the achievement of different regression rate levels. Moreover,
coupling this feature with the opportunity to change the SNg in hybrid vortex motors gives
two degrees of freedom to extend the regression rate tailoring, and hence to optimize more
easily the hybrid rocket motor design.
A total of three fuel types are investigated in this research. Two of them are paraffin-
based fuel mixtures with additives, and they are named F5 and F8. These blend formu-
lations were chosen during the previous steps of the PHAEDRA project and they are
produced by the partner Politecnico di Milano. The third fuel type is made of conven-
tional HDPE.
To be representative of the large-scale application, the corresponding lab-scale motor
requirements are:
• Maximum expected operating pressure (MEOP) of the combustion chamber (Pcc ) in
the range of 30–35 bar;
• Burning time of 17 s;
• Combustion efficiency (ηc∗ ) greater than 95%.
The pressure inside the combustion chamber can be estimated by the following formula:

ṁox (1 + 1 ∗
O/F ) c
Pcc = (3)
At

where ṁox is the oxidizer mass flow, c∗ is the characteristic velocity of combustion gases
and At is the nozzle throat area.
The theoretical vacuum performance of 95% HTP with paraffin wax at O/F = 7.5, an
expansion ratio of 60 and 30 bar chamber pressure include a specific impulse of 327 s, a c∗
of 1632 m/s, an average density of 1314 kg/m3 and an impulse density of 4200 kNs/m3 .
The target ṁox value is set to 0.156 g/s and it remains unchanged for the entire test
campaign. Then, the NASA thermo-chemical code Chemical Equilibrium with Applications
(CEA) is used to predict the c∗ of the chemical species that is produced during the combus-
tion of the hydrogen peroxide with the corresponding fuel inside the combustion chamber.
The model implemented to simulate the fuel grain port diameter variation during the
burning time, to estimate the O/F, is based on the Marxman law:
n
ṙ = aGox (4)

where the constant a is determined in the post-processing analysis, and the second con-
stant n, which is related to the fuel/injection type, is assumed to be equal to 0.5. This
assumption has been already demonstrated to be acceptable for paraffin and HDPE fu-
els in the literature [42,56] and corroborated in a similar experimental setup tested in the
internal facility.

2.1.3. Nozzle
The nozzle insert is made of graphite, and it is placed inside the nozzle holder
(Figure 5). The throat diameter is fixed, specifically equal to 11.0 mm. With an exit pressure
of 1 atm, the exit diameter of 21.0 mm is designed to achieve nearly perfect adaptation. The
calculated expansion ratio is 3.6.

2.2. Experimental Setup

The experimental set-up is composed of the fluidic line, which regulates the oxidizer
mass flow, the mobile test bench, where the lab-scale hybrid motor is fixed, and the
measurement system, necessary to monitor and collect the sensors data during the testing
activity. In the following, a more detailed description of each component is given.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 8 of 22

Figure 5. The graphite nozzle insert placed within the nozzle holder.

2.2.1. Fluidic Line

The pressurization system is the first component of the fluidic line and is a pressure-
fed system providing the amount of gas needed to drive the oxidizer from the tank to the
combustion chamber. The combustion chamber has a pressure ranging between 25 and
30 bar. Thus, a pressure higher than 30 bar is required to impose a forced motion of the
oxidizer from the tank to the combustion chamber. Particularly, the pressurization system is
composed of high-pressure (i.e., 100–200 bar) nitrogen (N2 ) cylinders, a pressure-regulating
system, in-line filter, control valves, and rigid and flexible connections. Thanks to the
manual spring-loaded regulator, different pressures can be used inside the pressuriza-
tion line. The pressure regulator is linked to a 1/2′′ pipework with various manual and
pneumatic valves.
Then, the fluidic line continues with the propellant feeding line composed of the
hydrogen peroxide tank, the cavitating venturi (CV), and a series of tubes and ball valves
in AISI 316L stainless steel. The oxidizer tank has a volume of 20 L and can withstand a
pressure of 120 atm. The upper shell is equipped with a rupture disk that breaks before the
pressure can reach the tank maximum operative pressure. This is a safety system in case of
HTP unexpected decomposition taking place in the propellant feeding line.
The CV is the element used to control the oxidizer mass flow. In a CV, the operating
fluid reaches the saturation pressure at the throat section, and thereby the flow is limited
by the onset and growth of vapor pockets. The choice of the CV throat area depends on
the oxidizer tank pressure and on the desired oxidizer mass flow, related to Equation (5)
defined in [57]: q
ṁox = Ath cd 2ρ HTP ( P0,up − Psat ) (5)

2.2.2. Mobile Test Bench

The bench is made up of a tubular steel structure that can be forked with a forklift,
allowing its movement from the workshop to the testing area. At the base of the bench
there are perforated brackets to fix the structure to the test container floor by means of
dowels, to avoid any kind of tipping. Above the structure, a steel plate acts as the main
plane. On this plate, a pair of parallel linear guides are fixed. Over these guides, a further
plate is capable of sliding in the axial direction by means of linear rail bearings.
The motor supports are connected to the sliding plate, and their position can be
adapted depending on the motor configuration length. The plate is placed at one end in
touch with a load cell to measure the thrust during the test. The cell is placed on a structure
that acts as a thrust bearing. To prevent the plate from slipping off, a blocking screw is
positioned on the opposite side of the cell. Figure 6 shows the lab-scale hybrid motor
mounted on the mobile test bench.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 9 of 22

Figure 6. Cross section of the lab-scale hybrid motor.

2.2.3. Measurement System

The core of the measurement system is a data logger. The logging system collects
the sensor signal with an acquisition frequency of 1 kHz. To monitor pressures and
temperatures during the tests, several gauges and thermocouples (type K) are installed
along the fluidic line and on the hybrid motor. The quantities collected are upstream and
downstream N2 pressure regulator (PR) pressures, oxidizer tank pressure and temperature,
CV upstream pressure, catalyst bed inlet pressure and temperature, catalyst bed outlet
pressure and temperature, and combustion chamber pressure. Due to their importance for
the motor performance analysis, the combustion chamber pressure sensors are redundant.
The oxidizer mass flow to the combustion chamber can be measured directly thanks to
a Coriolis mass flow meter, which is positioned near the outlet of the oxidizer tank. The
motor thrust is measured by means of a load-cell. The sensor list is reported in Table 1.

Table 1. List of the gauges used to monitor the pressures, temperatures, oxidizer mass flow and
motor thrust. These data are collected to be analyzed and post processed after the experimental test.

Position Measured Variable Range Accuracy

Upstream PR Pressure 0–250 bar ±1.25 bar
Downstream PR Pressure 0–160 bar ±0.8 bar
Oxidizer tank Pressure 0–250 bar ±1.25 bar
Upstream CV Pressure 0–100 bar ±0.5 bar
Inlet catalyst bed Pressure 0–100 bar ±0.5 bar
Outlet catalyst bed Pressure 0–60 bar ±0.3 bar
Combustion chamber Pressure 0–100 bar ±0.5 bar
Combustion chamber Pressure 0–60 bar ±0.3 bar
Oxidizer tank Temperature 0–1100 °C ±2.2 °C or ±0.75% 1
Inlet catalyst bed Temperature 0–1100 °C ±2.2 °C or ±0.75% 1
Outlet catalyst bed Temperature 0–1100 °C ±2.2 °C or ±0.75% 1
Oxidizer mass flow Mass flow 0–5 kg/s ±0.75%
Motor thrust Thrust 0–1000 kg ≤0.03%
1 Thermocouple true accuracy is the lower of the two values, according to the measurement.

The measurement system also includes the instruments necessary to measure the
physical dimensions of the motor’s consumables. A scale, with an uncertainty of 1 g, is
used to weigh each component of the combustion chamber both before and after the test.
Additionally, a dimensional control of the components is performed with a vernier caliper
(uncertainty of 0.05 mm) to ensure that the dimensions meet the tolerances specified in the
technical drawings.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 10 of 22

2.3. Test Matrix

To better understand the fluidodynamic behavior at low values of the SNg , a pre-
liminary numerical analysis was carried out prior to define the experimental test matrix.
CFD numerical simulations were performed by Sapienza University of Rome, a PHAE-
DRA project partner, to examine the combustion chamber internal flowfield with low
swirl numbers, two fuel formulations (including the F5) and various post chamber lengths
(Figures 7 and 8 from [50]). The results were encouraging for the proceeding of the work.
The length of the grains in the initial tests and the length of the post chambers were two
examples of the parameters that were defined using the results.

Figure 7. Temperature flowfield with varying swirl intensities (F2 formulation). Adapted, with
permission, from [50].

Figure 8. Temperature flowfield with varying post chamber configurations. Adapted, with permis-
sion, from [50].

The F8 blend was the first fuel type tested. This formulation was chosen as the
reference paraffin-based fuel for the PHAEDRA project. This paraffin combines a relatively
high regression rate and good mechanical properties. Thus, it was decided to test F8
paraffin throughout an extensive spectrum of the SNg . The geometrical swirl number of
the tests extended from zero, or axial flow, up to the value of 3.33. During the course of the
investigation, the grain length was adjusted to be closer to the ideal O/F value based on
the findings of earlier trials.
A total of ten fire tests were executed. Only one F8 paraffin grain was tested with a
different initial port diameter (F8_008), while two other configurations included the post
chamber (F8_001–F8_002). Most of the tests performed had durations of 10 s and 15 s,
which allowed us to perform regression assessments and performance calculations for two
distinct average oxidizer mass flux values. Since the initial test main goal was to confirm
that the fuel would ignite, it was scheduled for a shorter period.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 11 of 22

The second phase of the test campaign focused on vortex injectors with low swirl
number values. Along with evaluating the regression rate, the goal was to confirm how
efficiency changes when the vortex intensity inside the chamber decreases. It has been
possible to compare the collected data with those found in the literature thanks to the
utilization of a standard polyethylene fuel. Furthermore, HDPE is less susceptible to post-
burn effects (such as grain port surface melting and thermal deformations), which makes it
possible to quantify and observe the fuel consumption rate more accurately.
A total of six tests were performed: each of the three vortex injectors, with the SNg
equal to 0.50, 0.75 and 1.00, were tested twice, varying the oxidizer mass flow running
time, 15 s and 20 s, respectively. Throughout the experiments, the fuel initial port diameter,
which was set at 20 mm, did not change. Otherwise, to reach the desired O/F value, the
grain length was varied.
The final leg of testing was carried out using formulation F5. This paraffin blend has
a composition different from F8, and produces a comparatively lower regression rate. In
addition to investigating a different blend, this campaign completed the results gained in
prior tests, and, indeed, it examined the low swirl numbers coupled to a paraffin-based
fuel. At this point, it was also possible to focus on the variation in combustion efficiency as
the chamber volume changed.
There were nine tests run, three of which (F5_002, F5_003 and F5_004) had a SNg equal
to 1, and the remaining six had a value of 0.75. The grain length of 95.1 mm varied only in
the first and last sample of this series (F5_001 and F5_009). The F5_003 test was the only
one with a varied experimental duration with respect to 15 s; it fired indeed for 20 s. The
post chamber was added to F5_005 and to the last three tests. Initial fuel port diameters of
15 mm, 50 mm and 65 mm were examined.
In Table 2, the entire test matrix is displayed together with the key data from each test
individually.

Table 2. List of salient features of the firing tests performed for this investigation.

SNg Test Duration PC-to-Grain-Length Ratio

Test Fuel Type
[-] [s] [-]
F8_001 F8 paraffin 3.33 5.5 22.0%
F8_002 F8 paraffin 2.00 10.5 22.0%
F8_003 F8 paraffin 0.00 17.0 -
F8_004 F8 paraffin 2.00 17.0 -
F8_005 F8 paraffin 2.00 10.0 -
F8_006 F8 paraffin 2.00 10.0 -
F8_007 F8 paraffin 2.00 17.0 -
F8_008 F8 paraffin 2.00 10.0 -
F8_009 F8 paraffin 2.00 10.0 -
PE_001 Polyethylene 1.00 20.0 -
PE_002 Polyethylene 1.00 20.0 -
PE_003 Polyethylene 0.50 20.0 -
PE_004 Polyethylene 0.50 15.0 -
PE_005 Polyethylene 0.75 15.0 -
PE_006 Polyethylene 0.75 20.0 -
F5_001 F5 paraffin 0.75 15.0 -
F5_002 F5 paraffin 1.00 15.0 -
F5_003 F5 paraffin 1.00 20.0 -
F5_004 F5 paraffin 1.00 15.0 -
F5_005 F5 paraffin 0.75 15.0 23.0%
F5_006 F5 paraffin 0.75 15.0 -
F5_007 F5 paraffin 0.75 15.0 23.0%
F5_008 F5 paraffin 0.75 15.0 42.0%
F5_009 F5 paraffin 0.75 15.0 30.0%
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 12 of 22

2.4. Data Post Processing

At the end of each test session, the regression rate law a value, and the combustion
efficiency (ηc∗ ) were estimated. a is the first constant in the Marxman law Equation (4)
that models the grain port regression. This number is calculated by assessing the radial
thickness of the fuel consumed throughout the burning period. ηc∗ is defined by:

c∗exp
ηc ∗ = (6)
c∗th

where c∗th is retrieved from the NASA CEA code and c∗exp is computed using the following
equation:

Pcc At
c∗ = 1
(7)
ṁox (1 + O/F )

The experimental c∗ value is calculated using both the data collected during the tests
and the internal component measurements.
To do so, the lab-scale hybrid motor is disassembled at the end of each test to assess
the engine consumables, namely, fuel grain, thermal protections and nozzle insert. Figure 9
illustrates the parts after the disassembly. Then, the mass of each component is evaluated
to estimate the amount of material involved in the combustion. The sum of the burned
mass contributions is called the fuel mass (m f ).

Figure 9. Disassembled parts of the lab-scale hybrid motor after the firing test.

Also, at the conclusion of each test, both the fuel grain and the nozzle insert are
measured by means of the vernier caliper. By measuring the throat diameter of the graphite
insert, the erosion value of the throat area at the end of the test may be computed (Ath− f in ).
The grain web thickness burnt during the test is computed using the measurement of
the fuel final port diameter (Φ port− f in ). However, the degradation of the grain port is not
constant along the longitudinal axis. Furthermore, also the rear face is consumed, especially
in the cases where the post chamber is present. So, along the grain port, the diameter
is measured in three different points; moreover, in the case of rear face consumption, its
diameter and depth are taken. It is important to emphasize that the average of the diameters
along the grain port and the quantity of fuel burned less the mass calculated from the face
consumption are utilized during post processing to obtain the regression rate constant a.
Consequently, rear face consumption is seen as a continuous fuel injection during the burn
that is independent of port diameter erosion.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 13 of 22

Figure 10 depicts the fuel grain measurements collected.

Figure 10. The fuel grain geometrical measurements. Grain port non-uniform longitudinal regression
and rear face consumption.

Once the sensor data have been collected, the estimation of the ignition and burning
time can be computed by analyzing the combustion chamber pressure plot.
The ignition time is considered as the time spanned between the first change in the
outlet catalyst bed pressure plot (after the V_test opening electric input) and the achieve-
ment of 90% of the combustion chamber pressure. The burning time (tb ) spans from the
end of the ignition time and the V_test closing electric input. These two time intervals are
highlighted in Figure 11. Average engine performance parameters are evaluated referring
to the burning time just defined.

Figure 11. Ignition and burning times identified on the pressure plot of a F5 15-second test. The
logged pressure signal has been filtered.

Once the burning time is retrieved, it is possible to compute the average O/F as:

ṁox
O/F = (8)
ṁ f uel

where ṁ f uel = m f uel /tb .

An iterative approach is used to perform the regression rate analysis and simulate
the Marxman law over the burning time span. The initial conditions are (1) the initial Gox ,
calculated from the measured Φ port−in and the collected oxidizer mass flow; and (2) the first
guess value of a. Then, the code will calculate the grain port regression during the burning
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 14 of 22

time and the fuel mass burned. At every iteration, the a constant of the regression rate is
updated until it converges to a final value that matches the fuel grain consumption gathered
from the weighted burned mass (amass ) or the final port average diameter measures (a phi ).
The loop is schematized in Figure 12.
Motor performance is computed by another iterative algorithm. The burning time is
divided into 100 points, and the equations for calculating the experimental and theoretical
c* are employed at each point. At each step the inputs are (1) oxidizer mass flow and com-
bustion chamber pressure from the data acquisition; (2) O/F, nozzle throat area and grain
port diameter from the measurements; and (3) c∗th from CEA routine. The instantaneous
throat diameter is calculated considering a linear erosion during the burn, while the port
diameter comes from the previous calculations. As a code result, there is a combustion
efficiency vector for the entire fire test duration. Thus, the average combustion efficiency
of the test analyzed is the resultant vector average (see Figure 12). This average is strictly
correct only in the absence of mixture ratio shift during the burn, which is justified by a
constant oxidizer flow and the assumption of an n exponent equal to 0.5.

Figure 12. A visual summary of the recursive methods, gathered sensor data and geometrical
measurements implemented in the output computation scheme. The blue boxes represent the input
data. The iterative loop that determines the a constant and models the fuel regression rate is indicated
by red boxes and arrows. In comparison, the second method, which iterates over the burning time
vector, is represented in the central portion of the upper part and denoted by k subscript. The output
variables of the calculation scheme are in green boxes.

3. Results
This section outlines the experimental campaign results for the tested SNg values and
the three fuel types. In each subsection is reported:
• the results of the pertinent test campaign calculated during the post-processing analysis;
• the experimental curves of the constant a plotted against the SNg .
Concerning the constant aexp , its value is equivalent to the amass computed in the regres-
sion rate modeling algorithm. The different longitudinal unevenness of the consumption
between the experiments, which was strongly dependent on the fuel type, the grain length and
the vortex injector geometry, prevented the possibility of identifying a consistent and reliable
method to approximate a phi . For this reason, this value has been excluded from the results.
For each test, an average of the diameters measured in the post-burn analysis weighted on the
grain length should be implemented in order to improve the a phi estimation.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 15 of 22

3.1. F8 Test Results

Using the F8 paraffin formulation, nine fires were executed in a wide range of SNg
values from 0 (axial) to 3.33. There were very few differences in the oxidizer mass flow
between tests. A technical error in the oxidizer tank pressure regulator setting caused the
mean value of test number F8_006 to unexpectedly increase to 163 g/s. It had no effect on
the regression rate computation, though.
The regression rate in the first test (SNg = 3.33) was extremely high. This fuel con-
sumption caused the O/F ratio to decrease too much, which made the combustion unstable.
As a result, the motor ignition took longer than usual. The zero SNg (i.e., axial flow) test
revealed the effect of the additives; in fact, the regression rate obtained is lower than the
pure paraffin reference rate tested in the past (0.139 vs. 0.15). The post chamber was no
longer used for the remaining SNg tests since it generated pressure instabilities noticeable
through pressure peaks on the combustion chamber sensor graph during the burn phase.
For this swirl number of 2, the average value of a was 0.4.
The combustion efficiency with a high SNg is acceptable (greater than 93%), but it is
slightly lower than usual. The most plausible explanations are that, in certain tests (F8_001
and F8_002), the O/F ratio was significantly off from ideal (i.e., O/F approximate to 3)
and, in other tests, the chamber volume was significantly lowered as a result of the grains’
shorter length. The combustion efficiency of test F8_003 was low (lower than 90%), even
with an optimal O/F, because no device was installed to increase the turbulence level
inside the chamber.
A linear relationship can be reasonably assumed by plotting the values of the constant
a and the related SNg on a graph (Figure 13). Then, two least squares lines are drawn
within its equations, with one of them having its intercept fixed to 0.139 (axial a value).

aexp vs SNg of F8 fuel

0.8

aexp = 0.1734 · SNg + 0.0726

0.6
R2 = 0.90
aexp = 0.144 · SNg + 0.139
aexp 0.4
R2 = 0.87

0.2

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5
SNg
Figure 13. The values of the aexp constant are plotted against the corresponding SNg . The black dots
correspond to the values obtained through experiments. The blue dashed line is the least squares
line, and likewise the red dashed line, where the intercept is set to the value 0.139.

3.2. HDPE Test Results

The HDPE fuel was used in six experiments. The tests were performed using low swirl
numbers, ranging from 0.50 to 1.00. These SNg provide longer fuel grains than paraffin
ones when combined with HDPE fuel; hence, with the same Gox , the residence time of the
combustion gases is significantly higher.
Indeed, the motor efficiency was greater than 96.6%, except for the first test, where it
reached a value of 92.6%. This anomaly could perhaps be related to the fact that the value
of the mixture ratio during combustion was less close to the optimal if compared with the
other results (i.e., O/F equal to 5.5 versus values ranging between 6.0 and 6.5).
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 16 of 22

With the exception of the initial test, the oxidizer mass flow consistently measured
around 156 g/s. A little particle that passed through the cavitating venturi throat is
likely what caused the abrupt downturn and upturn in the mass flow meter curve of the
PE_001 trial.
It is reasonable to presume the existence of a linear relationship by inserting the values
of the constant a and the related SNg on a graph. Next, a least squares line is sketched and
its equation is given (Figure 14).

aexp vs SNg of HDPE fuel

·10−2
8

6
aexp = 0.02 · SNg + 0.05

aexp R2 = 0.80
4

0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
SNg
Figure 14. The values of the aexp constant are plotted against the corresponding SNg . The black dots
correspond to the experimental points. The blue dashed line is the least squares line and the relation
is reported in the graph.

3.3. F5 Test Results

Nine tests were conducted on the F5 paraffin fuel formulation. The vortex injectors
SNg used in this campaign were 0.75 and 1.00. The mass flow curves of the oxidizer
exhibited no anomalies.
The combustion efficiency was above 90% but less than 95% in the majority of tests,
although it exceeded this threshold in tests F5_004, F5_008, and F5_009.
The impact of the post chamber was examined in the concluding three tests of the
campaign, for values of the L post /L f uel ratio of 23%, 42% and 30%, respectively. Efficiency
increased, although not linearly, as the L post /L f uel factor increased. The regression rate
stayed consistent with the other experiments at a swirl number of 0.75, even though the
grain rear face remained more exposed during the burning time.
Test F5_004 yielded a very high efficiency (greater than 95%) even though it lacked
the post chamber and operated with a very unfavorable O/F value. The employment of a
higher swirl and a very low Gox (i.e., a greater initial fuel port diameter), which raises the
motor volume and the residence time, is what probably accounts for the efficiency gain.
The positive impact of these variables is also evident in those tests where inserting the post
camera or widening the grain port diameter resulted in a higher efficiency than the first
three experiments.

4. Discussion
This work had several goals: (1) demonstrate that vortex injection can be used success-
fully with liquefying fuels; (2) investigate how low swirl numbers (SNg < 1) affect hybrid
motor performance; (3) exhibit the potential of playing with two design variables (fuel
composition and swirl number) to perform regression rate tailoring; and (4) identify the
optimal set of parameters to fulfill the PHAEDRA project requirements.
The first objective, the effective use of vortex injection together with liquefying fuels,
has been confirmed. In fact, the first and third test campaigns have demonstrated:
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 17 of 22

- Rapid fuel ignition, with the burning time almost corresponding to the oxidizer valve
opening time;
- Stable combustion for the majority of cases, with no anomalies from the graphs of the
two pressure sensors in the motor.
- An approximate straight line correlation between swirl number and regression rate,
proving the possibility of tailoring the grain geometry by selecting the proper fuel-SNg
combination.
This has been verified for two very different paraffin formulations and four different
swirls numbers (i.e., 0.75, 1.00, 2.00, 3.33). It is important to underline that the relation
between the regression rate and the swirl number can be approximated with a straight line
that intersects the Y-axis with a positive bias, and therefore the behavior of the regression
rate with the swirl number is sub-linear, i.e., doubling the swirl number provides a much
lower increase in fuel consumption. Moreover, the real behavior of the regression rate with
the swirl number should be more accurately approximated by a relation like (1 + SNg2 )m [10],
so the fits shown in this paper should be used with caution, particularly outside the ranges
from which they were inferred.
For the high regressing F8 paraffin with a SNg > 2, the regression rates achieved are up
to 5 times higher than usual for paraffin, and even 15 times higher than classical fuels with
axial injection. These impressive results could pave the way for the effective utilization of
single port hybrid rocket motors at larger scales (rule of thumb > 100 kN) and/or shorter
burning times than usually considered. Unfortunately, the lab scale involved in the tests
is on the opposite spectrum of size with respect to these favorable cases, producing very
short, stubby fuel grains (L/D < 1) and small combustion chamber volumes. The short
residence time probably negatively affected the vaporization of the entrained droplets.
The fact that the efficiency with vortex injection is already above 90% level at this small
scale is a promising indication that very high levels should be possible to be achieved at
the targeted larger scales where the residence time is longer and the grain geometry is
more appropriate, allowing better vaporization and mixing of the fuel in the oxidizing
stream. An exception to the general trend occurred in the first test of the campaign, F8_001,
where the ignition occurred later than expected, due to the very unfavourable O/F value
and the initial high Gox . Generally, the oxidizer-to-fuel ratio has a strong influence on the
combustion reactions, both in the transient phase of the flame ignition and in the nominal
operating phase. Efficiency is also dependent on the O/F ratio; however, in the performed
experiments, higher mixture ratios were also related to shorter fuel grains and smaller port
volumes, thus further contributing to the final results.
Regarding the second objective of the test campaign, i.e., the possible use of low swirl
numbers down to 0.5, the results are encouraging. The tests with HDPE, with a longer grain
and no droplet entrainment, showed very high efficiency at small scale. This proves the
possibility of using moderately low values of swirl numbers in order to boost the efficiency
considerably without an excessive increase in the regression rate, although this finding
was not replicated as equally well in the subsequent tests with the F5 paraffin formulation,
probably again due to shorter grain and combustion chamber lengths. Adding a post-
chamber increased the performance by few percent, as expected from the CFD analyses.
A benefit has been also observed in operating at lower oxidizer fluxes, i.e., larger port
volumes. It is again expected that larger (and more useful from an application perspective)
scales should provide better results. The use of low swirl numbers with a conventional
fuel is optimal on the other side of the spectrum compared with the previously mentioned
case, i.e., this time at lower scales and long burning times, where high efficiency values
remain paramount but the regression rate is kept at moderate levels. In the intermediate
range of scales and burning times, more solutions overlap, like higher regressing fuels
with lower swirl numbers and lower regressing fuels with higher swirl numbers. The final
choice will be thus dictated by other affected aspects like nozzle erosion and blocking,
injector size and pressure drop, fuel thermo-mechanical properties and so on. In any
case, the combination of all test campaigns proved the third stated goal of the work, the
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 18 of 22

possibility of playing with two different design variables in order to properly optimize the
grain and chamber geometries for a wide range of possible different mission requirements,
spanning large variations in size, burning times and motor envelopes, always keeping high
performance levels.
A relation that was not specifically studied but was inferred from the data is the one
between the regression rate and the average Gox value of the tests. In particular, for identical
fuel type and SNg , experiments with lower average Gox , that is, with larger average fuel
port diameters, measure a comparably higher regression value, as shown in Figure 15. The
effect is related to the progression of the port diameter during firing, or, more specifically,
the time-varying ratio of Φ port /Φinjection , and this was confirmed for all three types of
fuel used. The inferred a constant calculated with the procedure shown earlier shifts
slightly upward as Φ port /Φinjection increases. This occurrence may explain why pressure
graphs (especially those with longer durations) indicate slightly growing pressure in the
chamber, which correlates with an n exponent <0.5 and should be examined further in
future investigations. Thus, this phenomenon must be considered when designing hybrid
motors with long burning times, where the diameter of the grain port may vary greatly
between the ignition and the tail off, while the injection diameter remains constant.
During the design phase of the PHAEDRA program, Avio established the requirements
for the DEMO test-bed, including a minimum efficiency threshold, a target regression rate
level, and the number and timing of the re-ignitions. These parameters are fulfilled by a
proper combination between the tested paraffin blends and swirl numbers. The target O/F
is then achieved by adjusting the length of the fuel grain accordingly.
The next step of the PHAEDRA program will be the testing of the 7.5 kN DEMO test-
bed with the selected configuration to validate all predictions and confirm the fulfillment
of the target performance goals.
Figure 16 provides a qualitative summary of the main outcomes reported in this article.

aexp vs SNg of F5 fuel

0.3

0.25
aexp = 0.15 · SNg + 0.0675
0.2
R2 = 0.75
aexp 0.15

0.1
aexp = 0.15 · SNg + 0.025
5 · 10−2
R2 = 0.89
0
0 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 1.25
SNg
Figure 15. Plotting the values of the aexp constant versus the associated SNg . Experimental points
with an average Gox value greater than 80 kg/m2 s are highlighted in violet. Black dots correspond
to experimental values with an average oxidizer mass flux values between 20 and 60 kg/m2 s. The
graph illustrates the equations of the blue and red dashed lines, which are the least squares lines
computed considering, respectively, the black and the violet experimental dots.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 19 of 22

Figure 16. The graphic illustrates how different mission profiles commonly encountered in space
applications may be accomplished by hybrid motor technology. In particular, it relates them to the
values of regression rates achieved by coupling different types of fuels with different swirl number
values. The potential of selecting alternative configurations for the same regression rate values is
shown by the overlaps between different fuel compositions.

5. Conclusions
The PHAEDRA program, funded by the Italian Space Agency, aims at improving the
understanding and the technology readiness level of hybrid propulsion, with a specific
focus on paraffin-based fuels and re-ignitability. The final target is the development and
testing of a medium size, scaled-down demonstrator (DEMO) of a reference larger upper
stage motor using hydrogen peroxide as an oxidizer. In the frame of this program, a series
of preliminary tests campaigns have been performed at lab-scale in order to characterize
the behavior of different paraffin blends and vortex injections.
In the first campaign, a strengthened paraffin has been tested with swirl numbers
from 0 (axial) to 3.33, showing regression rates up to 15 times higher than classical ones.
These notable regression rates are ideal for single port boosters’ applications at larger
scales and/or shorter burning times than previously considered. Vortex injection provides
also high efficiencies (>90%) even at the very small chamber volumes tested, with the
expectation to obtain further improvements at the scales of real applications.
In the second campaign, swirl numbers lower than previously investigated have been
tested with a conventional plastic fuel, i.e., HDPE. The results confirmed the possibility of
raising combustion efficiency to optimal values (>96%) without excessive increase in heat
transfer, limiting the effect on the regression rate and nozzle erosion. This combination is
instead ideal for smaller sizes and/or longer burning times. Therefore, the two campaigns
together proved the possibility of extending the range of applications where hybrid rockets
can perform effectively.
The final test campaign combined the low swirl numbers with another paraffin blend
loaded with more additives and was able to provide an intermediate regression rate
between the plastic fuel and the baseline paraffin. The results confirmed the findings
obtained with HDPE, even if with slightly lower efficiencies (generally > 93%), again with
the expectation that the results should improve at the targeted sizes.
Concluding, the combination of all the test campaigns have proven the possibility of
using two different design variables, namely the swirl number and fuel composition, to
optimize hybrid rocket performance and envelope in a wide range of different scenarios.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 20 of 22

Moreover, the explored range of combinations between swirl numbers and paraffin
types should allow the possibility of fulfilling the requirements set by Avio for the reference
upper stage motor and the corresponding scaled-down DEMO test-bed. However, this
expectation has to be confirmed by following tests at the increased scale.

Author Contributions: Conceptualization, M.S. and F.B.; Writing, M.S. and F.B.; Resources (paraffin
grains), C.P. and L.G., Investigation, M.S., L.Z. and L.N.; Software (CFD), M.T.M., M.F., D.B. and F.N.;
Project administration, A.C. and N.B.; Supervision, D.P., R.C.P. and E.C. All authors have read and
agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Agenzia Spaziale Italiana, grant: 2019-5-I.0.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets presented in this article are not readily available because
the data are classified within the PHAEDRA Consortium. Requests to access the datasets should be
directed to the Italian Space Agency.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations
The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:

ASI Agenzia Spaziale Italiana (Italian Space Agency)

CEA Chemical Equilibrium with Applications
CFD Computational fluid dynamics
CV Cavitating Venturi
HDPE High-density polyethylene
HRE Hybrid rocket engine
HTP High-test peroxide
MEOP Maximum expected operating pressure
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration
O/F Oxidizer-to-fuel ratio
PC Post chamber
PHAEDRA Paraffinic Hybrid Advanced Engine Demonstrator for Rocket Application
SN Swirl number
SNg Swirl number (geometric)
TP Thermal protection

References
1. Chiaverini, M. Review of solid-fuel regression rate behavior in classical and nonclassical hybrid rocket motors. Prog. Astronaut.
Aeronaut. 2007, 218, 37.
2. Altman, D.; Holzman, A. Overview and history of hybrid rocket propulsion. Prog. Astronaut. Aeronaut. 2007, 218, 1.
3. Story, G.; Abel, T.; Claflin, S.; Park, O.; Arves, J.; Kearney, D. Hybrid propulsion demonstration program 250K hybrid motor. In
Proceedings of the 39th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Huntsville, Alabama, 20–23 July
2003; p. 5198.
4. Story, G.; Arves, J. Flight Testing of Hybrid Powered Vehicles. In Fundamentals of Hybrid Rocket Combustion and Propulsion;
American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics: Reston, VA, USA, 2007; pp. 553–592.
5. Kobald, M.; Fischer, U.; Tomilin, K.; Petrarolo, A.; Kysela, P.; Schmierer, C.; Pahler, A.; Gauger, J.; Breitinger, J.; Hertel, F.; et al.
Sounding Rocket" HEROS"-A Low-Cost Hybrid Rocket Technology Demonstrator. In Proceedings of the 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE
Joint Propulsion Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–12 July 2017; p. 4902.
6. Karabeyoglu, A.; Stevens, J.; Geyzel, D.; Cantwell, B.; Micheletti, D. High performance hybrid upper stage motor. In Proceedings
of the 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, San Diego, CA, USA, 31 July–3 August 2011;
p. 6025.
7. Schmierer, C.; Kobald, M.; Tomilin, K.; Fischer, U.; Schlechtriem, S. Low cost small-satellite access to space using hybrid rocket
propulsion. Acta Astronaut. 2019, 159, 578–583. [CrossRef]
8. Mazzetti, A.; Merotto, L.; Pinarello, G. Paraffin-based hybrid rocket engines applications: A review and a market perspective.
Acta Astronaut. 2016, 126, 286–297. [CrossRef]
9. Ruffin, A.; Paccagnella, E.; Santi, M.; Barato, F.; Pavarin, D. Real-time deep throttling tests of a hydrogen peroxide hybrid rocket
motor. J. Propuls. Power 2022, 38, 833–848. [CrossRef]
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 21 of 22

10. Barato, F.; Toson, E.; Pavarin, D. Variations and control of thrust and mixture ratio in hybrid rocket motors. Adv. Astronaut. Sci.
Technol. 2021, 4, 55–76. [CrossRef]
11. Ruffin, A.; Santi, M.; Paccagnella, E.; Barato, F.; Bellomo, N.; Miste, G.A.; Venturelli, G.M.; Pavarin, D. Development of a
flow control valve for a throttleable hybrid rocket motor and throttling fire tests. In Proceedings of the 2018 Joint Propulsion
Conference, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 9–11 July 2018; p. 4664.
12. Okninski, A.; Kopacz, W.; Kaniewski, D.; Sobczak, K. Hybrid rocket propulsion technology for space transportation revisited-
propellant solutions and challenges. FirePhysChem 2021, 1, 260–271. [CrossRef]
13. Glaser, C.; Hijlkema, J.; Anthoine, J. Bridging the Technology Gap: Strategies for Hybrid Rocket Engines. Aerospace 2023, 10, 901.
[CrossRef]
14. Okninski, A.; Surmacz, P.; Bartkowiak, B.; Mayer, T.; Sobczak, K.; Pakosz, M.; Kaniewski, D.; Matyszewski, J.; Rarata, G.; Wolanski,
P. Development of green storable hybrid rocket propulsion technology using 98% hydrogen peroxide as oxidizer. Aerospace 2021,
8, 234. [CrossRef]
15. Kuo, K.K. Challenges of hybrid rocket propulsion in the 21st century. Fundam. Hybrid Rocket. Combust. Propuls. 2007, 18, 593–638.
16. Pastrone, D. Approaches to low fuel regression rate in hybrid rocket engines. Int. J. Aerosp. Eng. 2012, 2012, 649753. [CrossRef]
17. Carmicino, C.; Orlandi, O.; Sorge, A.; Dauch, F.; De Amicis, R.; de Rosa, M. Basic aspects of the hybrid engine operation. In
Proceedings of the 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Denver, CO, USA, 2–5 August 2009;
p. 4937.
18. Karabeyoglu, A.; Zilliac, G.; Cantwell, B.J.; DeZilwa, S.; Castellucci, P. Scale-up tests of high regression rate paraffin-based hybrid
rocket fuels. J. Propuls. Power 2004, 20, 1037–1045. [CrossRef]
19. Karabeyoglu, M.; Altman, D.; Cantwell, B.J. Combustion of liquefying hybrid propellants: Part 1, general theory. J. Propuls. Power
2002, 18, 610–620. [CrossRef]
20. Karabeyoglu, M.; Cantwell, B.J. Combustion of liquefying hybrid propellants: Part 2, stability of liquid films. J. Propuls. Power
2002, 18, 621–630. [CrossRef]
21. Barato, F.; Bellomo, N.; Lazzarin, M.; Moretto, F.; Bettella, A.; Pavarin, D. Numerical modeling of paraffin-based fuels behavior.
In Proceedings of the 48th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Atlanta, GA, USA, 30 July–1 August
2012; p. 3750.
22. Paccagnella, E.; Santi, M.; Ruffin, A.; Barato, F.; Pavarin, D.; Misté, G.A.; Venturelli, G.; Bellomo, N. Testing of a long-burning-time
paraffin-based hybrid rocket motor. J. Propuls. Power 2019, 35, 432–442. [CrossRef]
23. Karabeyoglu, A.; Cantwell, B.; Stevens, J. Evaluation of the homologous series of normal alkanes as hybrid rocket fuels. In
Proceedings of the 41st AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Tucson, AZ, USA, 10–13 July 2005;
p. 3908.
24. Marxman, G.; Wooldridge, C.; Muzzy, R. Fundamentals of hybrid boundary-layer combustion. In Progress in Astronautics and
Rocketry; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 1964; Volume 15, pp. 485–522.
25. Netzer, D.W.; Bae, W.E. Hybrid Rocket Internal Ballistics; Chemical Propulsion Information Agency: Laurel, MD, USA, 1972.
26. Marquardt, T.; Majdalani, J. Review of classical diffusion-limited regression rate models in hybrid rockets. Aerospace 2019, 6, 75.
[CrossRef]
27. Galfetti, L.; Merotto, L.; Boiocchi, M.; Maggi, F.; DeLuca, L. Experimental investigation of paraffin-based fuels for hybrid rocket
propulsion. Prog. Propuls. Phys. 2013, 4, 59–74.
28. Paravan, C.; Galfetti, L.; Maggi, F. A critical analysis of paraffin-based fuel formulations for hybrid rocket propulsion. In
Proceedings of the 53rd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Atlanta, GA, USA, 10–12 July 2017; p. 4830.
29. Weinstein, A.; Gany, A. Investigation of Paraffin-based Fuels in hybrid Combustors. Int. J. Energetic Mater. Chem. Propuls. 2011,
10, 277–296. [CrossRef]
30. Mechentel, F.S.; Cantwell, B.J. Experimental findings on pre-and post-combustion chamber effects in a laboratory-scale motor. In
Proceedings of the AIAA Propulsion and Energy 2019 Forum, Indianapolis, IN, USA, 19–22 August 2019; p. 4336.
31. Bettella, A.; Lazzarin, M.; Bellomo, N.; Barato, F.; Pavarin, D.; Grosse, M. Testing and CFD simulation of diaphragm hybrid rocket
motors. In Proceedings of the 47th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, San Diego, CA, USA, 31
July–3 August 2011; p. 6023.
32. Bellomo, N.; Lazzarin, M.; Barato, F.; Bettella, A.; Pavarin, D.; Grosse, M. Investigation of effect of diaphragms on the efficiency of
hybrid rockets. J. Propuls. Power 2014, 30, 175–185. [CrossRef]
33. Grosse, M. Effect of a diaphragm on performance and fuel regression of a laboratory scale hybrid rocket motor using nitrous
oxide and paraffin. In Proceedings of the 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Denver, CO,
USA, 2–5 August 2009; p. 5113.
34. Yuasa, S.; Shimada, O.; Imamura, T.; Tamura, T.; Yamoto, K. A technique for improving the performance of hybrid rocket engines.
In Proceedings of the 35th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 20–24 June 1999; p. 2322.
35. Takashi, T.; Yuasa, S.; Yamamoto, K. Effects of swirling oxidizer flow on fuel regression rate of hybrid rockets. In Proceedings of
the 35th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Los Angeles, CA, USA, 20–24 June 1999; p. 2323.
36. Jones, C.; Myre, D.; Cowart, J. Performance and analysis of vortex oxidizer injection in a hybrid rocket motor. In Proceedings of
the 45th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference & Exhibit, Denver, CO, USA, 2–5 August 2009; p. 4938.
Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 5625 22 of 22

37. Knuth, W.; Chiaverini, M.; Gramer, D.; Sauer, J. Experimental investigation of a vortex-driven high-regression rate hybrid rocket
engine. In Proceedings of the 34th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Cleveland, OH, USA,
13–15 July 1998; p. 3348.
38. Paccagnella, E.; Barato, F.; Pavarin, D.; Karabeyoğlu, A. Scaling parameters of swirling oxidizer injection in hybrid rocket motors.
J. Propuls. Power 2017, 33, 1378–1394. [CrossRef]
39. Paccagnella, E.; Barato, F.; Pavarin, D.; Karabeyoglu, A.M. Scaling of hybrid rocket motors with swirling oxidizer injection-Part 2.
In Proceedings of the 52nd AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Salt Lake City, UT, USA, 25–27 July 2016; p. 4750.
40. Bellomo, N.; Barato, F.; Faenza, M.; Lazzarin, M.; Bettella, A.; Pavarin, D. Numerical and experimental investigation of
unidirectional vortex injection in hybrid rocket engines. J. Propuls. Power 2013, 29, 1097–1113. [CrossRef]
41. Gupta, A.K.; Lilley, D.G.; Syred, N. Swirl Flows; Abacus Press: Tunbridge Wells, England, 1984; ISBN 978-0996100427
42. Toson, E.; Karabeyoglu, A.M. Design and optimization of hybrid propulsion systems for in-space application. In Proceedings of
the 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference, Orlando, FL, USA, 27–29 July 2015; p. 3937.
43. Barato, F.; Paccagnella, E.; Pavarin, D. Explicit analytical equations for single port hybrid rocket combustion chamber sizing.
J. Propuls. Power 2020, 36, 869–886. [CrossRef]
44. Barato, F. Challenges of Ablatively Cooled Hybrid Rockets for Satellites or Upper Stages. Aerospace 2021, 8, 190. [CrossRef]
45. Franco, M.; Barato, F.; Paccagnella, E.; Santi, M.; Battiston, A.; Comazzetto, A.; Pavarin, D. Regression rate design tailoring
through vortex injection in hybrid rocket motors. J. Spacecr. Rocket. 2020, 57, 278–290. [CrossRef]
46. Rampazzo, A.; Barato, F. Modeling and CFD Simulation of Regression Rate in Hybrid Rocket Motors. Fire 2023, 6, 100. [CrossRef]
47. Bianchi, D.; Leccese, G.; Nasuti, F.; Onofri, M.; Carmicino, C. Modeling of high density polyethylene regression rate in the
simulation of hybrid rocket flowfields. Aerospace 2019, 6, 88. [CrossRef]
48. Leccese, G.; Bianchi, D.; Nasuti, F. Modeling and Simulation of Paraffin–Based Hybrid Rocket Internal Ballistics. In Proceedings
of the 2018 Joint Propulsion Conference, Cincinnati, OH, USA, 9–11 July 2018; p. 4533.
49. Di Martino, G.D.; Carmicino, C.; Mungiguerra, S.; Savino, R. The application of computational thermo-fluid-dynamics to the
simulation of hybrid rocket internal ballistics with classical or liquefying fuels: A review. Aerospace 2019, 6, 56. [CrossRef]
50. Migliorino, M.T.; Fabiani, M.; Bianchi, D.; Nasuti, F.; Barato, F.; Bellomo, N.; Pavarin, D.; Pizzurro, S.; Pizzarelli, M.; Pellegrini,
R.C.; et al. Numerical Simulations of a Paraffin-Hydrogen Peroxide Hybrid Rocket with Swirl Injection. In Proceedings of the
AIAA SCITECH 2023 Forum, National Harbor, MD, USA, 23–27 January 2023; p. 2350.
51. Motoe, M.; Shimada, T. Numerical simulations of combustive flows in a swirling-oxidizer-flow-type hybrid rocket. In Proceedings
of the 52nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting, National Harbor, MD, USA, 13–17 January 2014; p. 310.
52. Cheng, G.; Farmer, R.; Jones, H.; McFarlane, J. Numerical simulation of the internal ballistics of a hybrid rocket motor. In
Proceedings of the 32nd Aerospace Sciences Meeting and Exhibit, Reno, NV, USA, 10–13 January 1994; p. 554.
53. Syred, N.; Beer, J. Combustion in swirling flows: A review. Combust. Flame 1974, 23, 143–201. [CrossRef]
54. Reina, A.; Frezzotti, M.; Mangioni, G.; Cretella, A.; Battista, F.; Paravan, C.; Nasuti, F.; Pavarin, D.; Pellegrini, R.; Cavallini, E.; et al.
Hybrid propulsion system for future rocket applications. In Proceedings of the Space Propulsion Conference, Estoril, Portugal,
9–13 May 2022; pp. 1–11.
55. Karabeyoglu, A. Challenges in the development of large-scale hybrid rockets. Int. J. Energetic Mater. Chem. Propuls. 2017, 16.
[CrossRef]
56. Hopkins, J.; Skinner, M.; Buchanan, A.; Gulman, R. Overview of a 4-inch OD Paraffin-Based Hybrid Sounding Rocket Program
In Proceedings of the 40th AIAA/ASME/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, FL, USA, 11–14
July 2004.
57. Randall, L. Rocket applications of the cavitating venturi. J. Am. Rocket. Soc. 1952, 22, 28–38.

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.