Document Type : ResearchPaper


1 Assistant Professor, Aerospace Research Institute, Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Tehran, Iran

2 MSc., Aerospace Research Institute, Ministry of Science, Research and Technology, Tehran, Iran



The Monopropellant Hydrazine Propulsion system is one of the most widely used types of single-agent propulsion systems to control the position or correction of satellites in orbits. This system consists of combustion chamber subsystems (catalyst bed, catalyst, nozzle, and cap), fuel and fuel tank, high-pressure tank, control valves, and interface pipes. In this paper, the MPHP system (as a case study) is described in detail, and then critical risks are identified by creating FMECA tables on the case study in the design phase. Based on the proposed FMCEA flowchart, potential failure modes are identified. In the next step, decisions and corrective actions are formulated regarding the inherent failures of the system. Finally, the necessary measures to reduce the risks will be taken according to the system's failure modes, and the reduction of the identified risks to an acceptable level is presented. The attained results show that the catalyst decomposition chamber, catalyst bed, inlet flow control valve, and propellant management facilities units have the highest risk index values (RPN), respectively. For this purpose, corrective measures have been suggested for each of these.


Main Subjects

  1. Herrmann, T. and D. Akin, A critical parameter optimization of launch vehicle costs, in Space 2005. 2005. p. 6680.
  2. Koelle, D.E., Launch vehicle evolution-from multi-stage expendables to single-stage reusables. Acta Astronautica, 1986. 14: p. 159-166.
  3. Wertz, J.R. Economic model of reusable vs. expendable launch vehicles. in IAF, International Astronautical Congress, 51 st, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil. 2000.
  4. Logsdon, J.M., L.J. Lear, and R.D. Launius, Exploring the unknown: Selected documents in the history of the US civil space program. Vol. 1. 1995: NASA.
  5. Stampfl, E. and L. Meyer, Assessment of existing and future launch vehicle liquid engine development. Acta Astronautica, 1988. 17(1): p. 11-22.
  6. Hueter, U., Access-to-space: Potential future united states launch vehicle transportation systems. Acta Astronautica, 1995. 35(9-11): p. 753-761.
  7. Charania, A., et al. A Method For Strategic Technology Investment Prioritization For Advanced Space Transportation Systems. in IAF-01-U. 2.06, 52nd International Astronautical Congress. 2001. Citeseer.
  8. Chaplain, C., NASA: Assessments of Selected Large-Scale Projects. 2009: DIANE Publishing.
  9. Negri, M., Replacement of hydrazine: overview and first results of the H2020 project Rheform. 2015.
  10. Morgan, O. and D. Meinhardt. Monopropellant selection criteria-hydrazine and other options. in 35th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit. 1995.
  11. Sackheim, R.L. and R.K. Masse, Green propulsion advancement: challenging the maturity of monopropellant hydrazine. Journal of Propulsion and Power, 2014. 30(2): p. 265-276.
  12. Spores, R.A. GPIM AF-M315E propulsion system. in 51st AIAA/SAE/ASEE Joint Propulsion Conference. 2015.
  13. Nosseir, A., A. Pasini, and A. Cervone. Modular impulsive green-monopropellant propulsion system for micro/nano satellites high-thrust orbital maneuvers (MIMPS-G). in Proceedings of the International Astronautical Congress, CyberSpace Edition. 2020.
  14. Rovey, J.L., et al., Review of multimode space propulsion. Progress in Aerospace Sciences, 2020. 118: p. 100627.
  15. Adami, A., et al., Multidisciplinary design optimization and analysis of hydrazine monopropellant propulsion system. International Journal of Aerospace Engineering, 2015. 2015.
  16. Nadjafi, M., M.A. Farsi, and H. Jabbari Khamnei, Dynamic fault tree analysis using fuzzy LU bounds failure distributions. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2017. 33(6): p. 3275-3286.
  17. Oveisi, S., et al., Design Software Failure Mode and Effect Analysis using Fuzzy TOPSIS Based on Fuzzy Entropy. parameters, 2020. 10: p. 14.
  18. Price, C.J. Effortless incremental design FMEA. in Proceedings of 1996 Annual Reliability and Maintainability Symposium. 1996. IEEE.
  19. Nadjafi, M. and P. Gholami, Bayesian inference of reliability growth-oriented weibull distribution for multiple mechanical stages systems. International Journal of Reliability, Risk and Safety: Theory and Application, 2021. 3(1): p. 77-84.
  20. Nadjafi, M., et al., Fault trees analysis using expert opinion based on fuzzybathtub failure rates. Quality and Reliability Engineering International, 2018. 34(6): p. 1142-1157.
  21. Nadjafi, M. and M.A. Farsi, Reliability analysis of system with timing functional dependency using fuzzy-bathtub failure rates. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 2021. 12(5): p. 919-930.
  22. Nadjafi, M., M.A. Farsi, and H. Jabbari, Reliability analysis of multi-state emergency detection system using simulation approach based on fuzzy failure rate. International Journal of System Assurance Engineering and Management, 2017. 8(3): p. 532-541.
  23. Nadjafi, M., M.A. Farsi, and H. Jabbari Khamnei, Quantitative based fault tree analysis: An integrated fuzzy Monte Carlo and its application on launch escape emergency detection system. Journal of Intelligent & Fuzzy Systems, 2018. 35(1): p. 845-859.
  24. Karimaei, H., et al., Design of Physical Configuration of a 10N Monopropellant Hydrazine Thruster. Journal of Space Science and Technology, 2019. 12(1): p. 13-22.
  25. Karimaei, H., Design and Simulation of Fuel Injector of a 10N Monopropellant Hydrazine Thruster. Journal of Space Science and Technology, 2018. 11(3): p. 9-19.
  26. Abdelgawad, M. and A.R. Fayek, Risk management in the construction industry using combined fuzzy FMEA and fuzzy AHP. Journal of Construction Engineering and Management, 2010. 136(9): p. 1028-1036.
  27. Chanamool, N. and T. Naenna, Fuzzy FMEA application to improve decision-making process in an emergency department. Applied Soft Computing, 2016. 43: p. 441-453.
  28. Liu, H.-C., et al., Risk assessment in system FMEA combining fuzzy weighted average with fuzzy decision-making trial and evaluation laboratory. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing, 2015. 28(7): p. 701-714.

29. Stamatis, D.H., Failure mode and effect analysis: FMEA from theory to execution. 2003: Quality Press.