PEAK PRESSURES DUE TO STEAM BUBBLECOLLAPSE-INDUCED WATER HAMMER

by

GARRY WAYNE PERKINS

SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENTOF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF

BACHELOR OF SCIENCE

at the

MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY

MAY 1979

Signature of Author . . . . . . . .DeP!jr7tment or!echanwa1 Engineering, 5-11-79

Certified by . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Thesis Supervisor

Accepted by - Ca i . r a e . iq', . eChairman, D Committee on Thesis

ARCHIVESMASSACHUSETTS NSTiTUTZ

OF TECHNOLOiGY

JUN 2 6 19t9

LIBRARIES

-2-

PEAK PRESSURES DUE TO STEAM BUBBLECOLLAPSE-INDUCED WATER HAMMER

by

GARRY WAYNE PERKINS

Submitted to the Department of Mechanical Engineeringon May 11, 1979 in partial fulfillment of the requirements

for the Degree of Bachelor of Science.

ABSTRACT

Experiments were conducted, trying various methods

of producing inertia and heat transfer controlled steam

bubble collapse in a straight pipe geometry of 0.62 inches

I.D. A maximum pressure value of 500 psig was observed. It

was concluded that, in general, induced water hammer pres-

sure decreases as the water temperature increases to that

of saturated vapor. It was also concluded than an inertia

controlled, or low water temperature collapse contribu-

ted to greater hammer pressures while heat transfer controlled

decreased the water hammer effect.

Peter Griffith, Professor of Mechanical Engineering

-3-i

I. TABLE OF CONTENTS_Pagei

Abstract - - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - 2

List of Figures - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -4

Introduction - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 5

Theoretical AnalysisA. Water Hammer (General Equations) - - - - - - - - - 6B. Inertia & Heat Transfer Controlled Water Hammer -- 7

Experimental ProcedureA. Experimental "Banger" ----------- --- -9B. Measuring Water Temperature & Hammer Pressure --- 9C. Testing Modes - - - - - - w- -- - ------- -- I11

Results and DiscussionA. Pressure Trace Variation (one temperature) - - -12B. Pressure Traces & Varying Time SweeDs d- ----- 17C. Pressures Comparing Initial Water Height ---- -17D. Peak Pressure versus Temperature ------ --- -20E. Discussion of Errors -- - - - - - - - - - - - --27

Conclusions and Recommendations - - - - - - - - - - - - 28

Acknowledgements - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -31

References - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -31

AppendixA: Transducer Operating Specifications - - - - - - - 32B: Thermocouple Calibration Plot - - - - - - - - - - 33C: Sample Data Points for Figure H - - - - - - - - - 34D: Sample Data Points for Figure G - - - - - - - - - 37E: Sarple Data Points for Figure F - - - - ----- 38

-r4-

II. LIST OF FIGURESPage

Figure 1: Generation of Water Hammer PressureIncrease - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 6

Figure 2: Inertia and Heat Transfer ControlledWater Hammer - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 7

Figure 3: Schematic of Experimental "Banger" - - - - - -- 11

Figures 4-7: Mode I, Low Temperature Scope Traces - - - 13-14

Figures 8&9: Mode I, Varying Time Sweep Traces - - - - -19

Figure 10i Mode II, Varying Time Sweep Trace - - - - - -20

Figures 11-141 Mode II, Peak Pressure vs. TemperatureTraces - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 21-22

Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

As

B:

C:

Dt

Figure Es

Figure

Figure

Figure

F:

Ga

H:

Experimental "Banger" - - - - - - - - - - - 10

Plot of Mode I, Low Temperature Data ---- -15

Plot of Mode I, Room Temperature Data - - - - 16

Plots of Mode II, Pressure as a Functionof Water Height in Reservoir - - - - - - - - -18

Plots of Mode I, Low Temperature & RoomTemperature Peak Pressures - - - - - - - - - -23

Mode I, Pressure vs. Temperature - - - - - - -24

Mode II, Pressure vs. Temperature - - - - - - 25

Mode II, Pressure vs. Temperature - - - - - - 26

-5-

III. INTRODUCTION

During certain operating transients, such as a main

feedwater pump trip, the feedwater sparger in a steam

generator can lose its normal liquid cover. Cold auxil-

iary feedwater continues to be supplied at low flow rates to

the steam generator through the sparger. A liquid/steam

interface can then exist in the. sparger feedpipe, creating

the potential for a water hammer in the pipe if a steam

bubble becomes trapped by the liquid. Steam discharges

into Boiling Water Nuclear Reactor (BWR) pressure suppres-

sion pools involve similar phenomena. During the routine

actuation of safety relief valves, steam is discharged

into a water pool through a load-mitigation device. The

violent collapse of the steam bubbles can produce water

hammer type loads on the pool boundaries that can cause

damage to containment walls. Similar problems would be

encountered during a Loss of Coolant Accident (LOCA) in a

BWR when steam discharges through the downeomer pipes.*

The aim of this experimental investigation is to

study the evolution of a water hammer pressure "signature"

as a bubble-collapse source signal is transmitted through

a piping system of known geometry and properties. Varia-

tion of a single parameter in the system will yield peak

pressures as a function of the input temperature of the

steam-condensing water. The results should be of use as

*Taken from P. Huber's, "Proposal on Thermal Hydraulic As-pects of Reactor/Plant Eng. & Safety Analysis,"(MIT,1978,p.2).

-6-

a baseline reference for further investigation involving

the variance and measurement of multiple parameters.

IV. THEORETICAL ANALYSIS

A. Water Hammer(General Equations)

A Water hammer is a series

of shocks, sounding like ham-

mer blows, produced by sud-

B denly reducing the flow of

a fluid in a pipe. Hammer

occurs when a wall of waterC

in a pipe must pass through

a constriction such as aD

partially open valve or

when it is brought to a

FIG. 1-Generation of Water complete stop by a fully-Hammer Pressure Increase

closed valve.

Figure 1 represents a vertical section of steel pip-

ing. Section A-B of the diagram contains a continuous col-

umn of moving water with an initial velocity, uinitial

Section C-D contains a stationary volume of water. Upon

impact with the stationary water, the moving column will

generate a water hammer pressure rise at C given by the

following equation:

AP c A u (1)

where /2= mass density of waterAu = for the water in A-B, velocity at impact less

initial velocity(u - u )final initial

-7-

c = speed of sound in water.

The value of 4860 feet/second is used when the pipe or

tubing containing the water is assumed to be inelastic.

When the ratio of the wall thickness to internal diameter

is much less than one, the value of c must be modified

to account for the elastic stretching of the wall:

C' B (2)c* [1+(B)DO+Di

where B Bulk modulus of water/= mass density of waterE = Elastic modulus of steelDo= outside diameter of pipeDi= inside pipe diameter

The time, t, for a pressure wave, produced by the water

hammer effect, to travel the length of pipe L and return

is given by:

t = (2L)/ c (3)

B. Inertia and Heat Transfer-Controlled Water Hammer

Steam bubble collapse oc-

curs when superheated water uE

is trapped within subcooled V 7water. Consider a volume of cY

steam in a pipe between a -

moving column of water and a G

stationary column of water.

Figure 2 illustrates this

phenomenon. A volume of steamFIG. 2-Inertia & Heat Trans-

is injected at F above a fer Controlled Water Ham-mer

-8-

stationary column of water at G. A moving column of water

contacts the steam at E. The steam can affect the velocity

of the fluid slug sufficiently to reduce the pressure in-

crease that will occur when the water is stopped at G.

Vapor bubble collapse can be classified into three

categories: (I) liquid inertia controlled, (Ui) heat trans-

fer controlled, and (iii) the intermediate case where both

effects are of importance. If collapse is caused by a

coupling of heat transfer and inertia effects, collapse

rate analysis becomes complex. A dimensionless quantity

can be defineds

B = e AT 2 / ()

[7.j L Ro P

where /,= density of liquid= equilibrium vapor density= reference volume of latent heat

c = specific heat of liquidT = saturation temperature at final system pressure

less system temperaturek = thermal conductivity of liquidR = initial vapor bubble radius

= final system pressure less initial equilibriumvapor pressure

When B is sufficiently small, the vapor pressure becomes

nearly equal to the system pressure. This is the situation

where heat transfer controls the collapse. The collapse

rates are relatively slow and decrease as the collapse pro-

ceeds. When B is large enough, the vapor pressure will re-

main close to its initial value and the collapse will be

essentially controlled by liquid inertia effects. The col-

lapse rates are high and continue to increase as the col-

-9-

lapse proceeds. The values, B=O.30 and B=0.036, are values

representing inertia dominated and heat transfer dominated

collapse, respectively. The value, B=0.10, illustrates

what might be termed an intermediate case where neither

the heat transfer nor the liquid inertia effect is dominant;

both effects play a comparable role.

V. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE

A. Expgrimenta_ "Banxer"

Figure A is the design drawing of the "banger" used

to obtain data. It is essentially a two and a half gal-

lon steel reservoir supported by three legs in the man-

ner of a tripod. Extending directly beneath it is a five

foot length of half inch steel pipe. The floor of the re-

servoir (attached to the first four inches of pipe is de-

signed to be removable and can be replaced by a drain or-

fice of another diameter if desired. The two longest pipe

sections are joined by a specially-made cross. It allowed

a pressure transducer to be placed in a 1-3/4" plug and posi-

tioned the transducer within a half inch of the pipe's sta-

tionary internal column of water. A steam inlet to the

reservoir assists in controlling the bubble-collapsing

water temperature.

B. M-asurinsg WateTgemrature_and Hammer Pressure

A Kristal series 6606 piezoelectric pressure trans-

ducer was inserted into the banger's special cross, lo-

cating it 1-9/16" below the surface of the stationary wa-

-10

1 I A T 1 : S L E -

/ IE

Ii3IILL

-' ----, --

IIi

//

I

I

ii

[I! Li

_

__

/

- to-

-11-

ter column. Transducer specifications are included in Ap-

pendix A.

A copper/constantan thermocouple was positioned near

the drain at the bottom of the reservoir. An ice bath was

used as a reference junction. The use of a thermocouple

allowed easy temperature measurement of the reservoir wa-

ter. A characteristic voltage/temperature calibration curve

for the thermocouple was established and is reproduced in

Appendix B. A schematic of the set-up is shown in Figure 3.

thermo-

E couple

D0bath 0 0

C ch ch

B Asteam in

ransduc ramp

PJ

drain

FIG. 3-Schematic of Experimental Set-up

C._TestingModes

Experimental data was collected and recorded from two

-12-

methods or modes. The following descriptions refer to Figure

3.

1. MODE I:

This procedure has water contained from B to F. Low

pressure steam is blown in at A. Valves B and D are then

closed and C is opened. E is filled with water of a desired

temperature. A and C are then closed, D is opened and a pres-

sure trace is obtained on an oscilloscope.

2. MODE II:

Tn this mode, all valves are closed except D. E is

again filled with water of a desired temperature and valve

A is opened for approximately four seconds, then closed.

Again, a pressure trace is obtained.

VI. BESULTS AND DISCUSSION

A._Pressure Trace Variation for One Te~mpftrat~ur Condition

To obtain low-temperature traces, a mixture of ice and

water was prepared in the banger reservoir. At first glance,

the traces in Figures 4 through 7 exhibit similar charac-

teristics. They are nearly all of the same magnitude, posi-

tive pressure rise Indicated downward. All four traces are

outlined by rough, erratic oscillations. This is particu-

larly noticeable at the peak of Figure 5. The only signi-

ficant pattern discernable is that all four traces are more

sharply erratic on their initial pressure rise side. All

of the traces have secondary reflections. Their outlines are

less rough and jagged.

-13-

FIG. 5-MODE I, LowTemp. Trace

Temp=2-80C

scope scale:horz=2ms/divvert=O .1V/div

FIG. 4-MODE I,Low Temr. Trace

Soc

Scope scale:horz=2ms/divvert=O.1V/div

-14-

FIG. 7-MODE I, LowTemp. Trace

Temp=2-80 C

scope scale:horz=2ms/d ivvert=O.1V/div

FIG. 6-MODE I,Low Temp. Trace

Temp=2-8 0 C

Scope scale:horz=2ms /divvert=O. 1V/div

-15-

FIGURE B-Mode I,Low Temperature(2-80C)

7

500 -

Average:356psi

4

~1

Consecutive Bi

5 6 7 8

uns

9110

11 12 13 14

400

P40

P24

200 -

100

01 2 3; 110

450-

400--

350-

300

250

A4 200

150

100

50

0

-16-

FIGURE C-Mode I,Room Temperature(25-30 0 C)

7-1

~[.~I U

61

Av

Consecutive Runs

T 819 101112 131415 1>' B19 a 2MI

erage i193ps I

-17-

Figure 6 represents the largest peak pressure ob-

tained during any of the recorded runs for any temperature

in either experimental mode. Using the following pressure/

voltage conversion factor;

1 psig = 1 millivolt (5)

the value of that pressure is 500 psi. Figures B and C

illustrate the variation in peak pressure for consecutive

runs for Mode I low-temperature(2-80C) and room tempera-

ture(25-300C) data.

B._Pressure Traces With VarinS Time Sweeps

Figures 8, 9, and 10 are illustrative of the detail ob-

tainable by varying the oscilloscope time sweep speed.

Figure 10 allows reasonable detail in secondary reflection

traces(not detectable in Figures 4-7). However, increasing

the sweep speed can overlap enough traces to become con-

fusing. Figure 9 reduces this overlap problem, and two secon-

dary reflections are detectable. But once again, decreas-

ing the sweep speed can entirely wipe out detail as in

Figure 8.

C. PRESSUREVARIATION VS. INITIAL_RESERVOIR WATER HEIGHT_

Figure D seems to indicate that there is a variation in

peak pressure resulting from initial water height in the

banger reservoir(at least at room temperature). In Mode II

operation, a reservoir water height of 7*" generated a

majority of pressure values above 150 psi. With an initial

height of 2", the pressure generated was, generally, less

FIGURE D-Mode II,Pressure variationas a function ofwater hgt in res-ervoir.Room Temperature.

5-

4o...

2 .

1

0

101-150 151-200 201-250

Peak Pressure (psi)

1 51-100 1 101-150 1151-200 1 201-250 1

Peak Pressure (psi)

-18-

I I

0-50

L z~4ii

51-100I

4..-

2,

2...

1-

010-50

74

I I

F

-19.-

FIG. 8-MODE I,Pressure TracesMf Varying Time-weeps

Room Temp

scope scaleshorz=O. 1sec/divvert=O. 1V/div

FIG. 9-MODE I,Pressure Tracesof Varying TimeSweeps

Room Temp

scope scale:horz=20ms/divvert=O.1V/div

- 20-

FIG. 10-MODE II,Pressure Tracesof Varying Time

.... .... Sweeps

Room Temp

scope scale:horz=O. lms/divvert=O. 1V/dv

than 150 psi.

D. Peak Pressure VS. Temperature

Figures 11 through 14 illustrate the decreasing peak

pressure with increasing temperature. This is shown graphi-

cally in Figure E as well. Two other characteristics are

also noticeable:

1) Secondary reflections die out and become non-existent

at higher temperatures.

2) The jagged pressure-trace outlines become more rounded

and blunt. This phenomenon begins to occur around 600C.

In both experimental modes, it was observed that the time

between the water hammer bang and initial reservoir wa-

ter contact with the steam became longer and longer at

higher temperatures.

-21-

1 H--14--

FIG. 11-MODE II,temp=220C

Peak Pressure vs TempScale: horz=2ms/div

vert=O. 1V/div

FIG. 12-MODE II,temp=310C

Peak Pressure vs TempScale: horz=2ms/div

vert=O. 1V/div

44 +-

-22-

FIG. 13-MODE II, Peak Pressure vs Temptemp=360C Scale: horz=2ms/div

vert=O. 1V/div

FIG. 14-MODE II,temp=720C

Peak Pressure vs TempScales horz=5ms/div

vert=O .IV/div

-23-

FIGURE E-Mode ILow Temperature ( 2-80C)

5~

4

2

1 0- ~~-_-~

0 1 51 101 151 201~ 251 301 351 4011 4511-50 -100 -150 -200 -250 -300 -350 -400 -450 -500

Peak Pressure (psi)

5 Mode IRoom Temperature(25-300c)

4

0 --- -

-0 -51 1011 1511 -300 350 40 45-50 -100 -150 -200'-250' 30-3 400 40-

Peak Pressure (psi)

FIGURE F-Mode I Pres-sure versus Tempera-ture. Refer to Appen-dix E for data.* = two points at thesame location

7*,,

X

350-

300-.

10-

4

100-

P4

15-

100"

50

"K

I, X

8b

Temperature (0C)

-24-

x

xx

40 "

XX

00o

-25-400.-

FIGURE G-Mode II Pres-sure versus Temperature.Refer to Appendix D fordata,* = two points at the

350- same location

2}"

300 T

P4

150

X X

X ,100 X X X

X Xx+

50

0 10 o 1A

Temperature ( 0 CO

FIGURE H-Mode II Pressureversus Temperature.Refer to Appendix for data

~ J 71"

)N

(

150 .

100 .

50 -

06b 8 J I100

Temperature (OC)Intervals of 4 0 C

400 "

350

)

0

(

(

)

4

0 0

I4

I

-27-

Figures F and G are Pressure vs. Temperature plots for

Modes I and II. The corresponding scatter in pressure values

is indicated. Figure H is a representation of over 300 Mode II

data points. To assemble them in a meaningful manner, the

data has been plotted at intervals of 4 degrees Celsius.

The bars indicate the two most extreme values for that par-

ticular interval. The dots are the arithmetic means of the

data contained in the interval.

E. Discussion of Errors

1. Thermocouple readings:

The scope values could only be read to 0.05 divisions on a

2mV/div scale, thus making possible an error of + 0.lmV.

This corresponds to a + 20C conversion. Adding on the pos-

sibility of error from determining the thermocouple cali-

bration slope and ice bath temperature variation;

temperature error = + 30 C

2. Peak pressure values:

Temperature transients in the pressure transducer acted to

trace over the start-up points of the peak pressures. This

can contribute to an uncertainty of + 0.2 div on a scale of

0.1V/div. This, in turn, implies that peak pressure values

can be off by + 20 psi.

3. Mode errors:

In Mode I, several errors can arise. Referring back to Figure

3, while blowing steam from A to C(with all other valves

closed), the four inch section above D heated up more rapidly

-28-

than did the water at E. The thermocouple measurements did

not account for this four inch column of water. More im-

portantly, this volume of water was what the steam first

encountered when Dr was opened. Therefore, Mode I temperatures

recorded are probably about 100 C higher. Also, the line

pressure of the steam inlet at A was 14 psig. Since the

maximum static pressure head at D used in the reservoir was

less than 14 psig, the steam pressure had to be reduced by

closing C after A. The time delay in closing C varied dur-

ing Mode I runs. In Mode II, better data was obtained if

valve A was held open longer.

VII. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

In equation (4), it can be shown that as the differ-

ence between the steam temperature and reservoir tempera-

ture becomes less and less, the value of B decreases.

This, in turn, signifies that heat transfer-controlled

steam bubble collapse is the dominating mechanism. Since

collapse rates for this mechanism are relatively slow

and decrease as collapse proceeds, the value of u in equa-

tion (1), or water velocity, must decrease. This gives rise

to a smaller generation of water hammer peak pressures.

This corollates extremely well with observations and the

results plotted in Figure H. When the temperature differ-

ence between steam and reservoir water increases, B is

large (signifying inertia controlled collapse). The col-

lapse rates are high and continue to increase as collapse

-29-

proceeds. A larger u will be generated, leading to lar-.

ger water hammer pressures. This agrees with Figure H also.

Evidence was found in both Mode I and II that indi-

cate peak pressure to be a function of initial reservoir

height. Comparisons of Figures F and H to Figure G show

that all three graphs are similar above 60 0 C (with Figure

F shifted to the right slightly to account for temperature

errors previously discussed). Only at lower temperatures are

the pressures of Figures F and H much higher than Figure G

(which contains only 2*" height of water in reservoir).

This does not seem peculiar when one considers that at the

lower temperatures, inertia collapse dominates. More mass

produces more inertia.

The values obtained from both methods indicated fair-

ly good reproducability. Aside from low start-up values in

Figures B and C (probably due to trapped air bubbles), the

scatter variation was reasonable-.

Using equation (3), one is able to determine the dura-

tion of a positive pressure state. Referring to the largest

pressure obtained, Figure 6, the maximum width of the large

trace is approximately 1.8 divisions or 3.6 milliseconds. If

the drain valve at the bottom of the vertical pipe is shut,

it can be modeled as a "closed end." The reservoir can be

considered an "open end." Recalling that the pressure re-

sulting in a wave reflection from an open end is opposite

in sign and reflection from a closed end retains its sign,

-30A-

one can follow the history of the pressure trace. The

length of pipe below the transducer is 23 inches and the

length above it is approximately 35 inches. The steam bub-

ble-collapsing water impacts above the transducer and as the

wave travels downward, there is a large rise in pressure

seen at the transducer. This wave rebounds off the closed

end, encounters the transducer again and increases the pres-

sure to 500 psi. The wave hits at the open end and reflects

a -500 psi pressure wave. This reduces the pressure at the

transducer to zero. If the preceeding history is valid, then

the wave travels a distance of 2 x (23" + 35") or 116 inches.

Plugging into equation (3) yieldst

L = (3.6 ms)(1/1000)58,3201n/see = 104 inches.2

This value is reasonably close to the correct value. Also,

since the distance from the transducer to the closed end is

shorter than the distance to the open end, the slope of the

trace on the increasing pressure side should be steeper

because of the smaller amount of time required. Figures 4

through 7 all exhibit this asymmetry. For 3.6 milliseconds,

the piping system was under an induced hammer pressure.

If the piping system were even longer, as in an actual nu-

clear piping system configuration, the piping would have to

be designed to sustain high pressures during even longer

periods of loading time. Also, the secondary reflected peaks

ranged from j to * of the value of the initial hammer peaks.

In larger systems, this can be a significant loading.

-31-

Suggestions for future investigations are as follows:

1) Reduce the length of the four inch pipe section beneath

the reservoir. Also, construct a reservoir with enough height

capacity to generate a higher pressure at the quick-acting

reservoir valve than the steamline pressure for Mode I runs.

2) Remove valve and unnecessary pipeline obstructions for

Node II runs.

3),Collect data at the extreme temperature points (i.e.

00C and 1000C).

VIII. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I wish to express my thanks and appreciation to the

following people for their time and assistance:

Fred JohnsonBob Gruel

Prof. P. Griffith

IX. REFERENCES

1. Florschuetz, L, Chao, B., "On the Mechanics of VaporBubble Collapse," ASME 64-HT-35, 1964.

2. Gwinn, J., Wender, P., "Start-up Hammer in ServiceWater Systems," ASME 74-WA/Pwr-8, 1974.

3. Parmakian, John, Waterhammer Analysis, Dover Publications,Inc., New York, 1963.

4. Tong, L.S., Boiling Heat Transfer and Two-phase Flow,R. Krieger Publishing Co., New York, 1975.

SPECIFICATIONS:

Range Designator Al 000 A2000 A5000 A10000

Calibrated measuring range* psi 0 ... 1000 . 0 ... 2000 0 ... 5000 0... 10000

Extended measuring range psi 0... 1400 0.. .2800 0.. .7000 0...14000(linearity ! 1.5% FSO)

Max. pressure psi 4000 8000 20000 22000

Sensitivity 2% max. at FS mV/psi -5 -2.5 -1 -0.5

Threshold (noise 250 pVpp) psi 0.05 0.1 0.25 0.5pp

Time constant (room temp.) nominal s 140 280 690 1400

TC of sensitivity over entiretemp. range %/*F -0.015

Power supply current (constantcurrent source) nominal mA 4min/max mA 1/18

Output impedance 0 -100Output voltage

for increasing pressure decreasingCircuit return housingWeight with mounting nipple oz 0.2Housing material stainless steelMounting torque . in-lb 44Seal, housing hermetic

Linearity (BFSL through zero) %FSO s IHysteresis % FSO :51Natural frequency, nominal kHz 160Rise time 10 ... 90% )sS 3Acceleration sensitivity

7 .. .7000 Hz; 1Ogaxial/transversal, max. psi/g 0.015

Acceleration, vibration; max. g 2000Acceleration, shock 1 ms;

axial/transversal; max g 20000Operating temp. range,

supply current 4 mA OF -65 ... 250Output bias V 9 ... 14

*Calibration - supply current 4 mA- dynamic pressure signal (half sin wave of 0.02 ... 0.12s

impulse duration repetition freq. 2Hz)

10-32 UNFWcrodot

-Type 1143

hex %Ie.

551

Type 6425min..374 M7 x 0.75

- /-or 5 -24UNP

Type 6426

.24

J - 185 Dia.

-2 Da -

Ct

(DO

0

0 O'

OH

0 0Ct V

00

0 (D

*M

1 0

9D

CtI

ci

i0 CD

CO

":1txJzI-I

8 0 PE = 55 X/o

:x

-3

4t'd1Iv I

1 I II - - - -- I a - I

70cc

-,A'- -L/K7&/

"IA L 1061pz, Z-

7 A Z. 9

ux

rI

/1' i l7v -

i

30b0c17O

1 1'9 ItI I

APPENDIX C

Mode II Pressure vs. Temperature Datas plotted on Fig H

Scope scales2mV/div

ThermocoupleVoltae_ _

0.60.8o,.450.550.750.91.11.21.351*551.71.91.91.851.951.9522.12.12.10.40.50.650.750.850.850.911.11.21.251.351.41.51.551*651.751.81.851.9522.052.1

0.1V/div

TransducerVoltage1.8 -2.050.722.121.81.91.-91.511.31.210.90.70.20.70.40.31.611.31.72.11.31.81.21.81.321.81.61.21.41.80.90.80.80.60.60.3o.6

2mV/div

Thermocouple- Voltage_

0.750.40.50.650.811.21.31.51.651.71.951.81.91*9522.0522.12.20.450.60.650.750.80.90.951.11.151.21.31.41.451.51.61.71.751*851.91.9522.052.1

0.1V/div

TransducerVoltage-

2101.91.92221.91.81.61.81.41.11.20.80.60.60.30.40.80.41.82.11.41.621.71.71.61.51.821.51.21.71.80.90.81.10.70.50.50.40.5

-35-

APPENDIX C (con't)

Mode II Pressure vs. Temperature Data: plotted on Fig H

Scope scale:2mV/div

ThermocoupleVoltage0.450.550.650.70.80.91.11.151.251.351.451.551.651.71.81.92220.40.50.650.750.850.951.11.21.251.41.51-551.651.71.81.920.550.650.750.850.95

0.1V/div

TransducerVoltage

2.322.22.21.41.91.62.91.91.91.61.51.51.20.910.90.60.932.12.622.2221.81.91.41.71.51.21.61.10.70.71.91.6231.8

2mV/div 0.1V/div

ThermocoupleVoltage _

0.50.60.650.750.851.051.11.21.31.41.51.61.651.751.851.95220.30.450.60.70.80.911.151.251.31.451.51.61.71.751,851.*950.50.60.70.80.91

Transducer- Voltage

2.12.42.21.6

1.92.91.81.91.71.70.91.11.21.20.80.8

1.52-522.522221.91.91.61.21.40.90.90.9o.62.71.41.91.83.21.6

-36-

APPENDIX C (con't)

Mode II Pressure vs. Temperature Data: plotted on Fig H

Scope seal2mV/div

ThermocoupVoltag1.051.151.251.31. 41.51.61.61,651.71.81.81.92.2.052.10.40.450.550.650.70.70.80.850.9511.051.11.151.21.251.31.351.41.451.51.551.61.71.751.851.92

0.1V/div

le TransducerVoltag

2321.22.41,51.41.20,91.11.110.50.40.60.41.321.61.6221.521.2211.91.71.11.10.81.21.10.810.80.81.310.60.80.2

e:2mV/div

ThermocoupleVol ta.ge. _

1.21.31.351.451,551.551.651.71.751.81.851.9522.12.10.450.50.60.650.70.80.850.90.951.051.11.151021.251.31.351.41.41.451.51.61.651.71.81.81.92.05

0.IV/div

TransducerVoltase_

1.71.21.61.41.61.311.90.90.90.90.70.80.50.50.421.81.61.11.91.41.40.71.2211.31.21.11.311.220.80.910.90.80.60.60.20,3

-37-APPENDIX D

Mode II Pressure vs. Temperature Data2 plotted on Fig G

Scope scale:2mV/div

ThermocoupleVolta.e0.350.550.80.850.951.11.251.31.451.551.651.751.751.81.92.052.15

0.1V/div

TransducerVoltage -

1.810.81,52.221.81011.40.91.10.70.80.80.70.20.1

2mV/div

ThermocoupleVolta e.

0.50.70.80.91.051.21.31,41,51.61,71.751.81.8522.12.15

0.1V/div

TransducerVoltage -0.810.81.51,21.40.91,81.410.60.70.70.60.40.20.1

-.38 -

APPENDIX E

Mode I Pressure vs. Temperature Datat plotted on Fig F

Scope scale:2mV/div

ThermocoupleVoltage0.71.11.93.13.42.20.71.41.82.23.13.33.60.61.21.61.82.12.42.52.833.43.6

0.1V/div

TransducerVoltage1.93.82.10.70.12.41.41.51.953.251.0510.12.551.30.84.12.50.61.10.80.90.10.1

2mV/div

Thermocoup- Voltage

0.81.83.31.72.10.71.31.92.12.43.13.43.811.51.722.22.52.733.23.5

0.IV/div

le TransducerVoltage

13.30.72.10.91.60.61.311.60.80.50.11.40.61.51.73.71.60.90.80.90.1