N 7 2- 29 9 5 4 NASA CR-112096

A STUDY OF ANADVANCED CONFINED LINEAR ENERGY SOURCE

By M. C. Anderson and W. B. Heidemann

Prepared under Contract No. NAS1-9984 byExplosive Technology

Fairfield, California 94533

for

NATIONAL AERONAUTICS AND SPACE ADMINISTRATIONLANGLEY RESEARCH CENTER

NASA Technical Monitor - Laurence J. Bement

https://ntrs.nasa.gov/search.jsp?R=19720022304 2018-05-31T07:14:09+00:00Z

SUMMARY

Under Contract NAS1-9984 with the National Aeronautics and Space Administra-tion, Langley Research Center, Explosive Technology has performed a literaturesurvey and a test program to develop and evaluate an Advanced Confined LinearEnergy Source. The Advanced Confined Linear Energy Source is an explosive orpyrotechnic X-Cord (mild detonating fuse) supported inside a confining tubecapable of being hermetically sealed and retaining all products of combustion.The energy released by initiation of the X-Cord is transmitted through thesupport material to the walls of the confining tube causing an appreciablechange in cross sectional configuration and expansion of the tube.

When located in an assembly that can accept and use the energy of the tubeexpansion, useful work is accomplished through fracture of a structure, move-ment of a load, reposition of a pin, release of a restraint, or similar action.The tube assembly imparts that energy without release of debris or gases fromthe device itself. This facet of the function is important to the protection ofmen or equipment located in close proximity to the system during the time offunction.

The program began with a literature survey that led to selection of 2024-0and 2024-T3 aluminum and 304, 17-7 PH and 347 stainless steel tube materials.The selected tube diameter was 3/8-inch, with wall thicknesses of 0.028-, 0.035-and 0.065-inch. Two explosives were selected: HNS and HNS/Ti/KC10, (STA)mixture (ET's "Flashcord"). These support materials were selected: fiberglass,silicone rubber and lead (Pb).

A series of tests was then conducted to determine the rost promising explo-sive, support and tube material combination. The most proiu-sing combination ofmaterials using 3/8-inch-diameter tube was: 304 stainless steel, 0.065-inchwall thickness, STA explosive with maximum core load of 18 gr/ft, lead (Pb)support. Test results and conclusions are presented as baseline information forthe design of future systems for specific end-use applications.

INTRODUCTION

The need for a "clean" actuation system for a wide variety of applications,such as aircraft, satellites and spacecraft, whether manned or unmanned, isbecoming increasingly prevalent. As these missions and vehicles become moresophisticated, the requirement for a system that can perform a function,uniquely suited to an explosive system, without contaminating the immediateenvironment or transferring more shock into the surrounding structure thannecessary to accomplish the function becomes more stringent.

Explosive Technology has an extensive background in development and fabri-cation of this type of a system. Expanding shielded mild detonating cord (X-SMDC),or "expanding tube," assemblies have been fabricated and tested for use in avariety of applications such as:

(1) Separation of joints

(2) Breaking of bolts

(3) Actuation of components

Appendix A describes the concept as used in the F-14 canopy removal system.Appendix B describes the concept as applied to a separation system wherein theenergy release is used to effect a structural separation and impart a velocitybetween the separated sections. Typical results of other in-house programs areincluded in Appendix C.

Those systems were all designed and qualified in accordance with a specifi-cation defining a singular objective in a specific system application. It wasthe purpose of this study, then, to investigate the basic expanding tube conceptand define the various functional characteristics of the concept as certainparameters were varied. The resultant data would then provide designers withbaseline information from which they could incorporate the appropriate designparameters into any end-use application.

DESCRIPTION OF APPARATUS

Expanding Tube Assembly

The expanding tube assembly consists of a length of metal tubing housing alength of X-Cord, which is supported by a material within the tube. The tubesubassembly is fitted with end boosters and is hermetically sealed and fittedwith appropriate hardware for mating with threaded connectors or other devices.The tube assembly is then formed to a flattened cross section and configurationnecessary to meet the end-use application. In the case of this test program,the working section is flattened to fit an adaptor to the energy measuringapparatus.

A list of the tubing materials and sizes, X-Cord types and sizes, andsupport materials tested is given in Table I.

Test Instrumentation

The objective of the program was to evaluate the effect of varying theparameters of the X-SMDC assembly. By measuring the amount of work done by theexpanding tube, an evaluation can be made. This measurement is made by installingthe test specimen (X-SMDC) in a fixture that is adapted to an "energy sensor."The work accomplished when the assembly is functioned is measured by the amountof deformation sustained by a piece of calibrated honeycomb installed in theenergy sensor. The energy sensor operation at Explosive Technology is describedin Appendix D and References 1 and 2.

Figure 1 illustrates the basic test assembly. Figures 2, 3 and 4 depict thethermal conditioning setups used during extreme temperature testing. A DespatchStyle V-29SD 20 kW high temperature chamber was used to condition the hightemperature test assemblies by forced convection. Copper constantan thermocoupleswere used in conjunction with Leeds & Northrup (L&N) potentiometers to measurespecimen temperatures. Low temperature firings were performed in a speciallyconstructed cryogenic cooling shroud utilizing liquid nitrogen (LN«) as an expen-dable refrigerant. The restrained flat was cooled conductively by mounting thespecimen holder in an LN2-cooled heat-sink block. The unrestrained flats, andthe remainder of the specimen, were cooled by radiation and convection in ablack-body thermal shroud, also chilled by LN« (see Figure 2.) Surface-bondedthermocouples were used with L&N potentiometers to measure temperature. Inboth high and low temperature tests, the barrel of the energy sensor and theHoneycomb were protected from temperature extremes.

Minimum and maximum temperature capabilities were -320°F to +850°F. Thermalstabilization at the specified test temperature was reached in approximately20 minutes.

PROCEDURE

Literature Survey

The objective of the literature survey was to ascertain what work of a simi-lar nature may have been accomplished, and to investigate and evaluate materialsthat would have advantages for this particular application. The literature wassurveyed in a general manner to assure that all the latest information was avail-able for this program. References 3 through 24 were reviewed only for guidanceduring the program and do not specifically apply to the end purpose of the workreported herein.

The survey for the confinement structure was primarily oriented toward, andpurposely limited to, metallic tubes. It is believed that, within the state ofthe art, better techniques for affixing end fittings, more reliable sealing andhigher structural integrity are available with metal than with other materials.It is also believed that metallic confinement is the best approach to obtain aminimum envelope. The physical characteristics of metals suitable for thedynamic forces expected were reviewed and the most potentially attractivematerials selected for further evaluation. The availability of the materialin a tubing configuration was then ascertained for the practical aspects ofinclusion into the test program.

The other area of interest involved in the literature survey was chemicalenergy source. It was expected that the characteristic of the energy releaseor application would have an effect on the total system response or function.During the literature survey, various core materials were considered. The datafrom testing previously accomplished was reviewed for an evaluation of thisparameter.

The support material was also an important facet of the energy system andpotential materials were screened for use in the test program. Additionally,historical test data were reviewed for applicability.

Support material was surveyed primarily for its support capabilities underthe expected environments, rather than for its ability to transmit energy.

Tube Assembly Evaluation

A test and evaluation program was designed to test the materials and combi-nations studied during the literature survey which would seem to lend themselvesto the most efficient, practical expanding tube system. Because the system isa complex interrelationship between the strength, density and energy releasecharacteristics of a variety of materials and the geometry and dynamic responsethereof, it appeared to be most practical to test the various combinations andmeasure and evaluate the results.

A matrix of probable combinations was devised for tha initial portion ofthe program. Various combinations were selected for test early in the program

to ascertain gross capabilities. A material combination was assembled with apredetermined quantity of pyrotechnic or explosive per unit length (expressedas core load in grains per foot of core material). The assemblies were tested,the energy output measured and, providing the tubing did not split, the nexthigher increment of core load was tested.

Thi underlying goal was to achieve as much performance from a given combi-nation as possible and still ensure the structural integrity of the assemblyafter functioning. The performance was measured as energy transmitted to theenergy sensor. The structural integrity was evaluated by visual inspection ofthe post-fired tube. It was either split or not (a "Go" or "No-Go" result).

Because the nature of this type of testing is time consuming, i.e., thesubsequent test configuration depends upon the result of the previous test,some assemblies were assembled before testing was complete on previous ordeciding tests. As the testing progressed, the materials and tube sizes thatappeared to offer the best potential for an efficient system were more exten-sively tested to develop data to define the characteristics of the "best" system.Because of the large number of possible combinations, many combinations wereeliminated by early results and therefore not tested.

As the best combination evolved by evaluation of test results, the capa-bility of that combination to function at high and low temperature was measured.With all test results in, the best combination of tube material and core loadwas the one that provided the greatest expansion without rupture of the tube.

The most promising combination of materials was selected to evaluate whatchange in energy could be expected at +300°F and -300°F and the effect on structuralintegrity. Assemblies were stabilized for 1 hour before functioning.

Movement of the tube wall as it was functioned was also of great interest.A high-speed (streak) photographic record of this phenomenon was made.

RESULTS

Literature Survey

A significantly large and diverse body of technical literature was screenedduring this program (as delineated in the References). Those publications withmerit were further reviewed in detail to determine those factors most importantto the development of an optimum linear energy source (expanding tube) system.

A review of expansion mechanisms indicated that there were essentially twocategories of considerations: metallurgical (local) and structural (tube respondsas a pressure vessel). In review of both considerations, a face centered cubic(FCC) metallurgical lattice appeared to be optimum, in that certain FCC matrixalloys, notably the austenitic steels, demonstrated increased tensile and yieldstrengths and greater ductility at high strain rates. Further, austenitic steelswere susceptible to strain hardening, which enhanced the uniformity of radialexpansion of the tube under optimum conditions.

In consideration of the hydrodynamic impulse to be imparted to the wallof the tube to effect optimum energy transfer, a review of theorized data indi-cated that a rectangular impulse, in which the magnitude of the "effective load"(peak impulse divided by twice the mean time of the pulse) slightly exceeded thedynamic yield strength of the metal, should approach the optimum impulse for non-rupturing expansion of thin-wall tubes. It was further seen that this preferredimpulse may be accomplished by the use of either a conventional high-explosive-loaded detonating cord jacketed with an attenuating media, with a detonatingcord loaded with a less brisant detonating compound, or by a combination of thetwo.

After an extensive review of static and dynamic physical characteristics ofabout 100 metals (data on 55 listed in Table II), and in further consideration ofdata previously obtained from tests conducted by ET on other programs, sevencandidate metals were chosen. In consideration of maximum ET data utilization,a tube diameter of 3/8-inch was chosen as standard. Similarly, previous ET dataindicated that tube wall thicknesses of 0.035- and 0.065-inch were satisfactorychoices to fully investigate the practical range of energy output.

An attempt was therefore made to find procurement sources for best availablealloys in the two wall thicknesses of the 3/8-inch diameter tube. The extendedsearch ended in the compromise choice of five alloys; 17-7 PH steel, 304 stain-less steel, 347 stainless steel and 2024-T3 and 2024-TO aluminum.

General considerations. - An optimized linear energy source (expandingtube) system, as was considered in this program, is defined as that system whichprovides the maximum energy output (work) while retaining minimum weight andsize, and while retaining the integrity of the tube wall during unconstrainedexpansion.

In general, it may be said that there are two major considerations thatgo into the design of an optimized expanding tube system: the energy thatis delivered to the wall of the tube, and the capability of the wall to with-stand the application of energy and subsequently perform the intended work.The physical counterparts of these considerations are the linear explosivecharge and the confining tube.

In the explosive charge, consideration was given to its size (explosivequantity), geometry, and performance characteristics. In the tubing, considera-tion was given to its alloy, condition, size, and physical makeup. The ensuingdiscussions will consider these parameters, both individually and in combination,in consideration of the theoretical optimum combination of materials that wereeventually tested.

Tube expansion mechanisms. - As the expanding tube system approaches thetheoretical optimum, i.e., lightest system yielding the greatest net energy,knowledge of the mechanisms by which the energy is transmitted by virtue of anexpanding metal tube becomes increasingly important. These expansion mechanisms

must be considered in two ways: the localized metallurgical mechanisms, and themechanisms of the tube as a pressure vessel. Both of these mechanisms werestudied individually and jointly to the extent that each was applicable to thisprogram.

Metallurgical considerations: The metallurgical mechanisms encounteredin high strain-rate metal deformation are not precisely understood. A greatdeal of study of these mechanisms has been undertaken in recent years; however,many of the theorized metallurgical response characteristics have failed tocorrespond to empirical demonstrations.

Similarly, a great deal of empirical demonstration has been performed, butmany times with sporadic results and often without thorough or convincing sub-stantiation by metallurgical studies. As a result it was possible only togeneralize in these two areas, and to postulate the suspected optimum combina-tions for further study.

It is well recognized that the physical properties of materials are usuallyconsiderably different under conditions of high-rate loading than under staticloading. Metallurgically, certain metals with FCC grain boundary matricesdemonstrate increased ductility, tensile strength, and yield strength as therate of strain application is increased. Conversely, metals with a body centeredcubic (BCC) lattice demonstrate brittleness at high deformation rates. Alloyswith hexagonal close-packed (HCP) lattice seem to fall midway between these twoextremes, some showing increased and some showing decreased ductility at highloading rates.

It has therefore been generally conceded that metals with an FCC latticeare more probable candidates for high-rate deformation applications, where ducti-lity, yield, and tensile strength are critical. Such is the expanding tubesystem.

Mechanical considerations: Within the context of detonation hydrodynamics,the optimum expanding tube system may properly be considered as a pressurevessel, inasmuch as the flattened tube will normally (when fired unconstrained)revert to a round cross section having a diameter greater than the originalbefore flattening, thereby indicating that the yield strength of the metal hasbeen exceeded.

Certain of the FCC alloys, notably the austenitic steels, demonstrateovert strain hardening characteristics. In consideration of a radially expandingtube system, this characteristic is advantageous in that the uniform wall ofthe tube will (during expansion) transmit the stress to the adjacent fiber asthe localized stress acts on the immediate fiber, thereby increasing the local-ized yield strength. The result is a uniform radial expansion that is minimallyaffected by non-uniformity of tube-wall characteristics e.g., thickness vari-ations, flaws, metallurgical inconsistencies.

In this regard, the dynamic response to the metallurgical effects resultantfrom the production of tubing by the welding and drawing technique are notknown, whereas the quality and uniform response to dynamic loading in seamlesstubing has been verified at ET and elsewhere. For that reason, seamless tubingwas used wherever possible in this program.

Pressure impulse mechanisms. - As mentioned previously, one of the two primaryconsiderations in the design of a linear energy system is the energy source(detonating cord in this instance). In consideration of the preceding discussionof expansion mechanisms, the consideration is more properly defined as thepressure impulse delivered to the wall of the tube during detonation of the cordthat will ultimately result in a given deformation or strain rate in the tube.

The significance and importance of defining this pressure profile is wellrecognized in the field of high-rate forming, where a variety of explosive typesare utilized in combination with a variety of buffer materials to produce adesired impulse at the work piece. These systems range in pressure intensityfrom direct contact of explosives to the work piece to essentially hydroformingof the piece through air or water coupling. The important factor in any caseis knowing the approximate desired impulse at the work piece. Production ofthat desired impulse is then normally arrived at by a combination of theoreticalconsiderations and empirical analysis.

Tube expansion has been used for some time as a means of determining theformability of various metals by explosive impulse. This work has normallybeen conducted using pure high explosives such as KDX, PETN, or TNT, althoughthe transfer coupling medium has varied considerably, generally ranging betweenair and a dense fluid. It was therefore difficult to determine the desiredimpulse geometry for an optimum system from this data to any degree muchgreater than might be postulated by experienced intuition.

Youngdahl (ref. 25) has conducted an extensive computerized analysis on thesusceptibility of nuclear reactors to tube rupture. Youngdahl1s analysis isdirected toward predetermination of the unique impulse geometry that would resultin rupture of the reactor tubes. His analysis, however, while revealing theworst impulse configuration, also reveals the most desirable impulse for non-rupturing expansion of the reactor tubes.

For the purposes of his analysis, Youngdahl defines the impulse shape interms of geometry and "effective-load," which he further defines as the peakimpulse divided by twice the mean time of the pulse. His analysis shows thatfor tubular materials of a rigid plastic nature, the final plastic deformationis almost completely determined by the impulse and the effective load associa-ted with the pulse. He also has shown in his analysis the effect of four dif-ferent pulse shapes on final deformation of the tube. These include, indescending order of effectiveness: rectangular impulse, triangular impulse,linear decay impulse, exponential decay impulse.

Without overemphasizing the applicability of Youngdahlfs work to thisprogram, it was concluded that the most desirable pulse shape for the purposeof tube expansion without rupture would be one having a rectangular pulsegeometry, and an attending effective load that slightly exceeded the yieldstrength of the tube material, regardless of what that material might happen tobe.

Actual measurement of the impulse delivered to the wall of the tube wassomewhat difficult and not within the scope of this program/ Shock levels andtube extension precluded the use of standard electrical strain gages in thisapplication. It appeared that it might be feasible to apply a birefringentphotoelastic coating to the tube exterior, and to photographically observestress initiation and propagation. Correlation of ,"xtial strain onset, earlyexpansion strain rates, and terminal tube diameter «.- mansion rates could givea reasonable approximation of impulse geometry and effective load of the pulsearriving at the tube wall. This correlation was not done, however, but isrecommended for further study.

The pressure impulse received at the tube wall may be modified by severalmethods. First, the detonating compound may be formulated so that its detonatingcharacteristics meet the desired impulse. This might be done by the use ofvarious pure high explosives such as RDX, HNS, nitroguanidine, etc., or by the useof a high explosive modified by the addition of a low explosive or deflagratingmaterial. Explosive Technology's "Flashcord" is typical of the latter type ofdetonating cord, and consists of HNS, potassium perchlorate, and titanium powder.

Another method of obtaining the proper impulse at the tube wall is toplace an attenuating material around the detonating cord prior to insertion inthe tube so that the impulse of the detonation is modified by normalization ofthe peak impulse. Typically, this may be accomplished through the use of afiberglass jacket braided over the detonating cord, or by the use of a metal orrubber sleeve over the cord.

A third approach is through the combination of methods one and two, thatis, the use of an attenuating media in conjunction with a Flashcord-type deto-nating cord.

Preferred Tubing Materials. - Several factors governed the choice ofcandidate tubing materials. These were generally as follows:

a. Apparent metallurgical suitability under high loading rates.

b. Availability and cost in various sizes.

c. Compatibility with production processes.

d. Corrosion resistance (untreated).

e. Availability of other data on the material (for data extrapolation).

As noted previously, the desired properties of the tubing material whenunder high dynamic loading conditions are high tensile strength, high yieldstrength, and high ductility or elongation.

Almost all work to date at ET and most of the known work of other confinedenergy system ivvestigators has centered on the use of various alloys of 300series stainless steel seamless tubing in the fully annealed condition. Thework at ET has centered specifically on 304 stainless steel in view of itsapparent satisfaction of the greatest number of the aforementioned criteria.

During this program, dynamic response data were reviewed on approximately50 different alloys. It should be noted that many of these data were inassociation with explosive forming of difficult-to-fabricate parts (large rocketmotor domes) and, for that reason, many were of the more exotic alloys. Aconsiderable percentage, however, were the more common alloys.

In addition to these materials, a review of the static or quasistaticproperties of approximately 50 additional alloys was performed on the assump-tion that, in FCC lattice alloys, dynamic properties would improve over thenoted static properties. From this review, the following alloys were deemedsuperior by virtue of their fit to the aforementioned criteria:

a. 17-7 PH Steel

b. Haynes 25 Steel

c. Rene 41 Steel

d. A-286 Steel

e. 304 Stainless Steel

f. 304 N Stainless Steel

g. 347 Stainless Steel

h. 2024-T3 Aluminum

i. 2024-TO Aluminum

The aluminum alloys were added in an effort to explore the full spectrumof linear energy output. After an exhaustive survey of tubing producers in theU.S., it was determined that the final choice of candidate materials wouldnecessarily be made on the basis of availability and cost.

A small quantity of 17-7 PH' tubing (clearly the leading candidate material)was located for initial evaluation. The second candidate chosen was 304 stain-less steel, due primarily to its general suitability as well as to the factthat ET has considerable prior data on expanding tube systems employing thisparticular alloy (e.g., F-14 aircraft and Manned Orbiting Laboratory). Thethird material chosen was 2024-T3 aluminum in view of its potential applica-bility to low energy systems and due to the availability of dynamic responsedata on this alloy.

It should be noted that type 304 N stainless steel had just been intro-duced on the market and was not yet available in seamless tubing. Its charac-teristics however, are clearly superior to 304. It is therefore recommendedthat this alloy be considered at a later date, if possible.

10

The choice of tube diameter was primarily predicated on work previouslyconducted by ET which had established a significant data base. For that reason3/8-inch diameter tubing was standard throughout the study. The wall thicknessfor the tubing was again predicated on previous ET data. The range of wall thick-nesses previously ascertained by ET to be the practical limits were 0.035- and0.065-inch. Therefore, the candidate alloys were procured in 3/8-inch diameterseamless tubing with 0.035- and 0.065-inch wall thicknesses.

Historical data.- Explosive Technology has developed several expanding tubeseparation systems and has conducted a significant number of tests under a varietyof conditions, although not necessarily in a mode that would result in obtainingquantative data such as obtained with an energy sensor. Nevertheless, the datafrom other ET expanding tube programs are included in the Appendices.

Tube Assembly Evaluation

The preliminary tests conducted at the outset of the program were designedto expeditiously define the maximum energy output without tube rupture. Theenergy sensor fixturing experienced severe wear during these tests. As a result,these early test results exhibited a wider variability than was desirable. Newholders of hardened tool steel were procured for the remainder of the testprogram. This modification eliminated significant wear. The early tests thatwere conducted with the degrading tooling are noted in the test result tabulation("preliminary tests"). The energy values of these tests are believed to be sub-ject to a variable error and are not considered in the conclusions.

A variety of tubing, explosive core loading and support material was incor-porated into the evaluation test series of this program. Table I lists thetest conditions and post-fire results of each test. The tube material analysisis graphically compared in Figure 5. Considering the same fixed parameters,the best energy output from each of the materials is plotted. This displaydescribes the general energy-core load relationship and notes the fixed para-meters. The relationship between optimum wall thickness for each tube materialand diameter is shown in Figure 6 for 2024 aluminum alloy and in Figure 7 for Type304 stainless steel for two wall thicknesses, 0.035-inch and 0.065-inch.

The optimum explosive core material had been determined by ET in previous tests(reference Figure 8 and Tables C-I and C-II, Appendix C). This core is HNS/Ti/KC10, (STA) explosive.

The direct comparison of support materials is shot in Figures 9 and 10.

The most promising combination of materials was evaluated at high (+300°F)and low (-300°F) temperatures. The results of these tests are listed in TableIII. A plot showing the trends is shown in Figures 11 and 12.

A setup was arranged using a Fastax camera in the streak mode to record on16 mm film the X-SMDC tubing as --.t expands during functioning. The prism inthe camera was removed and a 0.005 slit mask (aperture) was installed. This givesa continuous record at one point on the tube. Figure 13 illustrates the testsetup. Figure 14 presents the results.

11

The plot at the left of the Figure is a graphical descripcion of the dynamiccondition of the tube before, during and after function. Time is on the verticalaxis and tube surface location is on the horizontal axis.

CONCLUSIONS

The program to develop and evaluate an Advanced Confined Linear Energy Sourceinvolved a literature search followed by test evaluation of tube materials andsizes, support materials and explosive type.

Although, theoretically, some of the tube materials evaluated for use inan expanding tube concept appeared to offer an outstanding selection of charac-teristics, the practical limitation of availability precluded their incorporationinto the test program. The materials that were tested were the best that wereavailable at the time.

Because of the extremely large number of parameters, a single or very fewtests at each selected level and combination were conducted. With some inherentvariation in test results, the comparative data gives trends and energy valueswithout a high statistical confidence level. The data may be used as a guidewith the final development taking place in the specific application.

The results of tube material testing indicate the severe limitation ofaluminum compared with a stainless steel (9.1 in.-lb vs. 91.1 in.-lb). It alsoindicates the superiority of Type 304 (91.1 in.-lb) over 347 (67.1 in.-lb) and17-7 (25.0 in.-lb).

In addition to the tube material itself, the wall thickness was of impor-tance. There will be an optimum wall thickness for each material and diameter.The heavier wall (0.065-inch) in the aluminum produced 9.1 in.-lb, whereas thethinner-wall (0.035-inch) aluminum tube assembly only produced 5.15 in.-lb at thecore load increment below the rupture level. The 0.035-inch wall Type 304 stainlesstube allowed 91.1 in.-lb energy output before rupture, whereas the 0.065-inchwall ruptured just after reaching a maximum output of 25.0 in.-lb.

Another parameter that effects the capability of the system is the supportmaterial between the X-Cord and the tubing. Several materials were tested andevaluated. Other programs conducted at ET using fiberglass have shown thatother materials are superior for this purpose. Although directly comparativetest results are not available, the best energy output obtained with 3/8-inchstainless steel tubing and the STA explosive core with fiberglass supportmaterial was a comparatively low 62.7 in.-lb.

The best support material tested was lead (Pb) for maximum energy output.Lead and silicone rubber were used extensively during the program. With 0.035-inch wall Type 304 tubing, the maximum energy attained with silicone rubber was91.1 in.-lb compared with 155.4 in.-lb with the lead support material. Asimilar, but more dramatic, relationship holds true with 0.065-inch wall Type 304

12

stainless tubing. A maximum of 25.0 in.-lb was attained using silicone rubber,whereas 165.0 in.-lb resulted from using lead as the support material.

Before the actual testing phase of the program was underway, other in-housework indicated that the HNS/Ti/KCIO (STA) explosive cord provided increasedenergy when compared with straight HNS (SA) cord. The peak energy is somewhatreduced and the energy is released during a longer period of time. The HNScord generates 140 in.-lb at 15 gr/ft core load whereas the STA mixture gener-ates 155 in.-lb at 15 gr/ft in a 3/8- x 0.049-inch wall Type 304 stainlesssteel tubing. Further, at 18 gr/ft the STA mixture generates 198 in.-lb withouttube rupture; the SA mixture ruptures the tubing at 19 gr/ft. The majority ofthe program was conducted with STA cord because of this advantage.

The effects of temperature on the functioning characteristics were studied.Generally, the -300°F environment decreases.the energy output in both aluminumand stainless, and the +300°F environment allows a greater energy output but alsoincreases the tendency toward rupture.

In conclusion, the optimum system based on these test results comprisesHNS/Ti/KCIO, explosive in an aluminum sheath, a lead support, and a 3/8-inchdiameter 0.065-inch wall Type 304 stainless steel tube.

13

^ •

cu -o3 OH U

p>

pi

o

>. 4-> £>60 3 r-lH P. 1CU 4-) >C 3 CW O -H

Po

st-

Te

st

Dim

ensio

nin

ch

1 1 p>,

co e fccu cu oH H

Support

-aooX

Tube M

ate

rial

f,oC•H

CUN-HW

CU,0

H

*j ^J kJ t^t Kf< t^J S{*PS PS ?S PS •*« ?S **S

x x x x . x x x x x x x x x x x x x x x X X X X X X X X X

( r | i n ^ - s f o o r » - o o c o t ^ c M i o o r ~ O v O Q O c M > o r ^ r-» o f^- r- i r^ -cr icoooiovoi r ico-a ' ty*-^

o \ , _< r ^cMo \cn io r ^c j \ iACMao<» i» - ( i— t < r > » * O i — ( e> •— i \o r - ( i r 1 i t ^ONsfc3>oooo iOf r ) 'H tocor-l

C O C O C O C O C O C N C M C M C O C O C ^ C O C O C O C O C ' I C O C O C O t ? <? <? < ? C M C M C M P > I C M C M C M C S C M C N t N C M

o o o o o o o o o

^ a j 3 J 3 J 3 X > ^ ^ 3 ^ ^l-^llll^ll

o o o o o o o o o o

J 3 f l J 2 £ > & f l & j Q J Z f

miiiini

O O O O O O O O O O O O

lilllllllllllllli-H<: ||

PH

•HC/3

»

COO

Q) -

O 00o

01Pu

H

HCOCO

er-l

r-lrHcrj

o0

4J •co oo01 -HH P-i

X X X X X X

X X X X xS< XX X>ry

X X X >! X X X X X X > - X ) X X X X X X X X

m o o o o o o o o

........

H H H H H H H H H

O O O O O O O O O

o o o o o o o o o oO O C M C M C M C M C M X O V O V O V O

H H H H H H H H H H

o o o o o o o o o o

ooooin iou^ io»ooin inooiom

CM CM CM CM

H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H H

-*<)•«*-*O O O 0

I CO f1** CO CO CO COO O O O O O H H H H H H

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

O O O O O O O O O O O OC M C v l C M C N l C M C M C N C N I C N C N C M C N j

O O O O O O O O O

O O O O O O O O O

* * * * * * * *o o c o o o c o o o o o o o o o o o

o o o o o o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o

* * * * *o o c o o o c o o o o o o o o o o o c o

o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o oo o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o

o o c o o o c o o o o o c o o o o o o o o o c o o o o o o o o o

*

(D

Extr

ustio

n havin

g

sam

e cro

ss

se

ctio

na

l a

rea as

0

.29

0 O

.D.

x

0.0

93 I.D

.,

but

tria

ngula

r in

sh

ap

e.

14

•oQ)gIC

O

HCO

wPi

HCOwH•ZOMH•§,IW><*1aCO

to<HElg

Q)

T3

.0 C

3

0

CX

Pi

o

>, 4

J ,0

60 3

i-l

Vi

CX

1

0) 4-1

•

C

3

CW

O

-H

Post-TestDimension

inch

4-1

CX

co E

f 3-

CU CU o

H H

4JoCX

CX3CO13O1Tube Materialoc•H0)N•Hto<0

,0H

3PM•HCO60

CO0fJ 4->M

-l0)

-V

l 1-1

0 60

cuCX

HHCOtoE3i-tcfl

QO

W

600)

-rlH

Pn

X

XX

X

XX

XX

X

X

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

X

X

XX

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

oo

vo

inc

aio

en

inro

inv

Os

tini^

r^o

^o

*<

*v

oo

vo

.HO

vo

oN

e^

<fs

r^.H

c*c

^c

ov

or-c

n^

<rs

rin

<ro

ov

oc

oc

o^

fot-o

go

oS

jno

cn

|-S

S^

pro

vo

o;H

2.*,-|^

5o

o^

^3

O^ O

^ O^ O

^ O^ O

^ f"^ r***

^^ ^^

^O ^3

O

^ ^J ^3

t—

OO

CO

CO

CO

ttJ OJ ^J

wj

t*j uj

r^ \*J

w/

VA

^ i +*j u

» w

w

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

CD

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

lllillllllllillllllillllllHllliilll

.

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x x

x

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

x

o^

^o

om

mm

mm

mo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

^^

,-4

1-liH

i-H

rM

CM

iHr-l^

lCN

rH

i-l i-l

i-H i-l

iH rH

C/!) tO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

Cf.

- -

>^ -

-

%- ^~

*3* "

*^~ -

*^~

d* "^" *^ *^

*^" ^" ^"

*f ^d" *^" *J

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

c

CO

HO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

O1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

1 1

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oC

MC

NlC

NC

NC

MC

Nr

gtN

CN

CN

CN

CM

CM

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

* -K

* *

* *

oo

co

co

oo

co

co

oo

TO

Oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

co

co

cn

oo

oo

oo

co

oo

oo

oo

co

oo

oo

co

^c

oO

T

CO

f

fO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

CO

C*

*

'

15

CD "X3

f>

C3 0

_|

QJ

fX3erf

o

>% 4

J

J3W

) 3

.H

0)

4J

• H

C

3

CW O

i-l |

Post-TestDimension

inch

4J

Pi

w

e fi,

Q)

0)

0H

H

4-1

O{X

COO1Tube MaterialC

Jc•HN-HCO(UH

t-l

PM•HMCOO

U-|

Q)

~^

0 M

O

^^

^^

.jx

;^

.^

j^

^.^

^.^

5^

x;x

XX

X

XX

XX

X

XX

XX

X

GO -

co co

t** 10 O

co

r

co rn

to

fO

f

to

c\i 10 r

» ^

co 01

co co

tj to

C

NJ

»~i co

fsi ^~

r^« co vo r*^ O

N I-H

CTV c>i r^» to *^

co i—

i co CM

c^ co vo o> C

j *^* ^"^ ^^

CJ w

^ t~icsl

CO

CT\ C

T\ C

O ^O

O

N *

* °

OJ

CN

°

ON

ON

C

O vO

C

NJ O

4

vO

VO

lO

vO

C

O C

O C

O C

O C

O

\O

coCN

<

?-c

> <?

o,£J

ft J3

fi

1411

^IsB^S

sssSS

SS

SS

SIS

ssSO

OO

O

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

j*j}

&&

&j*

j}&

&&

£>

j*-n

&&

-2

'2'2

-B

'£-£

'$-£

'Qlli-

iiimiiiiiii

iiiiii.

X X

X

X

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

xx

o o

o o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

r-IC

NS

cN

CN

CN

JC

NC

Mi-

lr-lr

-IC

MC

NC

MC

NC

N

i-H

t-(rH

r-lC

MC

MrH

rH

CN

CM

&

H H

H H

HCO

COe1-1cOoo

4-1 •

U)

00(U

t-l

H fn

<r <>• <)• <»•

o o

o o

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

•<r si- -*

-* T

1

I

I i

1 I

ir--r-.r~r-~

r-.r>.r-r^

r--r-r^r-

vO

^D

\&

vDo o

o o

O 0

O

O

* *

CO

C

O

CO

C

O

\D

\O

vO

vD

vO

^O

*»O ^O

^O

vD

vO

vO

C

O C

O C

O C

O C

O C

O C

O C

O vO

vO

vD

vO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

co

co

oo

co

oo

co

oo

co

cx

)co

oo

co

cx

>c

oo

oc

oc

oc

oc

o<

x)c

oc

oc

oc

o

*

16

TABLE II. - TUBE MATERIALS SURVEYED

Mechanical Properties

No.

123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839

Material

304 Stainless17-7 PH17-10 PHAM-350HMNTenelonL-605Inconel 600Nickel 200Cartridge BrassCartridge BrassMonelHastelloy BHastelloy BHastelloy BNickel D201 Stainless202 Stainless301 StainlessNickel 200309 StainlessRene 41A-28617.5% Cr, 4.3% Ni, 5.4% MnHaynes 25304-N Stainless211 Stainless216 Stainless304 Stainless18-18-2 StainlessE-Brite 26-1 Stainless304-N Stainless (Cond. CW)Custom 450 Stainless21-6-9 StainlessAM-350 StainlessInconel 600 Nickel-Base AlloyInconel 601 Nickel-Base AlloyAlmar 362 StainlessPH-15-7 Mo Stainless

TensileStrength(1,000 psi)

851308916011612513180804752701211721358611510511055100

—146138155105891001158171150196150195100

—180240

YieldStrength(1,000 psi)

354037555670613030152025578360345555401550

—100417069365595355212318512517050

—160225

at 70°F

Elongation(% in 2 in.)

556170405745495035655550635850405555605050

—2565555059452554302214232240

—186

17

TABLE II.- TUBE MATERIALS SURVEYED - Continued

Mechanical Properties at 70°F

Tensile YieldNo. Material Strength Strength Elongation

(1,000 psi) (1,000 psi) (% in 2 in.)

40 Inconel X-750 Nickel-Base Alloy 180 136 2441 IN-744 Stainless 112 92 2042 Hastelloy X Nickel-Base Alloy 130 70 4043 Inconel 625 Nickel-Base Alloy 130 70 4544 Commercially Pure Titanium 90 75 1245 Hastelloy C Nickel-Base Alloy 128 68 4946 Hastelloy B Nickel-BAse Alloy 121 • 56 6347 Waspalloy Nickel-Base Alloy 185 115 2548 Inconel 718 Nickel-Base Alloy 200 165 2249 Haynes 25 Cobalt-Base Alloy 144 66 5850 3/2.5 Titanium 135 110 1251 TD Nickel 65 45 1552 Columbium 45 35 3053 Tantalum 50 45 4054 6/4 Titanium 135 - 125 1255 Beta Titanium 220 ' 207 8

18

•

CO X»

4i

C3 0

H U

P.

5t40

>.

4->

J360 3

«-l

H

(X

1CU

4-1C

3

C

W

O -H

r.

Post-TestDimension

inch

4-> (X

CO g fit.

CU Q

) o

H H

4JVI

OPL,

a.3CO•aviooX

Tube Material

,noC•H

*\

(UN•Hc/3CU433H

r-H<U3

PU

XX

* X

X

X

XX

X

XX

X

XX

X

X

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

X

CN

C

Mo

\cN

CT

»c

r>iH

vo

oo

a>

oo

cT

iiHin

r~-p

^c

no

o<

HO

vO

irivo

cT

»-a

-i-i-vrn

iHr*.

(X3

rH^

\OiH

cn

cN

i-*cN

i^rH

cv

ir~i-iiriu

-i(Nr^

{Nio

oo

oro

vo

ir(r^.o

r-.o\

^H

^

CM

iHtH

inO

OO

CM

O^

Cn

TH

CM

CM

CN

im-*

^4

rHC

V4

«H

CM

C

M

o^

-iF-ic

>iv

oc

oo

ov

oc

^O

vo

vo

om

mc

y>

ion

>a

-oc

MO

mv

o«

*o

oin

rH'

oo

cr>

OO

r^i^

-a^

oo

oo

cy

.oo

o<

y.o

oo

r-~o

o^

irHm

cM

-4-r^

r^r^

r>.r--c

oc

MC

Nc

^rnc

Nic

vic

Nic

\icM

CN

icn

<N

cg

co

cn

f^cM

cs

roro

roc

nc

oc

sic

MC

Nc

siC

Nic

No

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

§§

§8

§§

S§

§§

S§

§§

§8

|8§

8§

§§

§§

§§

§§

r> e

n c

nfn

rn

Mc

oc

nc

oc

nro

cn

cn

co

co

cn

<ro

ro

cn

(7

)ro

cn

cn

cn

en

ro

on

co

I+

I+

I+

I+

I+

+I

+I

+I

I+

I+

I+

I+

I+

I+

@

X X

X

X

X

X

X

w

XX

XX

XX

XX

JX

X!

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

XX

00C

n |

TU~

rtOnJ 4->M

-lCU

^~V

M

O

60

C_>CD&>.

HHtoto

•

iH<:^<tHtd&

•

OO

4J

•CO

COCU

-rlH

P4

iou

-)u

iinm

inm

mo

oo

oo

oo

oo

inin

oo

oo

in"in

oo

oo

(^c

s4

rorn

tnc

nin

ino

oo

oc

NC

Nj<

r<fv

Dv

ov

oin

ino

oo

oc

NC

Niin

inc

oe

oc

Nic

NrH

iHi-

HrH

^H

i-H

f-l

<H

fH

iHi-l

<i<

!<

d<

:<

l<J

<ti<

l<3

<<

<!<

3<

i<)<

l<

]J<3

<^

<!

<t'

<i<'<<

<<

<<

<'?

I<?

t'^

gg

gP

^H

HH

HH

^H

H^

HiH

HH

E-

iH

HH

HH

HH

HH

ww

ww

wc

rt

co

wc

ow

cn

wc

ow

ai

ww

ww

wc

ow

wc

ow

MC

rt

co

M

-d-<

r~a

--*-*<r<

f <

--*<

r<r<

r<t<

t-^'<

r-*<

i"-:i'

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

ofo

cn

mc

nro

rorn

c

oc

ofo

roc

nc

nc

ofo

roro

roro

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

1 1

1 1

1 1

I 1

1 1

•3--*»

*-3->

*«*-3

'-vr-*-*

CM

CN

CN

CN

ICN

CM

CN

CM

CN

CN

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

CS

f^C

MC

Sie

NC

NC

MC

NC

MC

M

mm

inin

mm

inio

m'n

mtn

inm

irim

io

mm

mm

iriiou

^io

inm

u-iin

ro

ro

mm

vD

vO

vD

vD

vD

vD

fO

rO

mro

ro

cn

n

cO

fOm

co

ro

rn

vO

vO

vO

vO

vO

vO

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

co

oo

co

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

co

co

oo

oo

co

oo

oo

OO

OO

CXD

OO

OO

OO

OO

CXD

CO

OO

CO

OO

rnc

oc

^c

nc

nfo

tnro

roc

oro

co

roc

oc

oc

nro

c

nc

om

roro

roro

roro

mrO

fO

•

co

-J'fO

-a-m

-^fO

-a-m

-crv

rro-s

J-rO

^rro

cn

<-ro

-j-ro-*

ro^

co

<rr

r>>

*

tac

aia

ca

ca

iav

a«

a-^

a«

a«

«'a

'a'^

»'^

«^

'-i <

#t&

<#

>#

<J

i<#

'Ji<

&*a

<*<#

'&j-I^

HM

rH

^-lrH

rH

rH

rH

^fH

i-lrH

iH

t-H

r-l

^H

rH

^H

rH

rH

rH

tH

^H

rH

rH

^H

i-l

B3iHCO

in\oH10cdoexp.3

19

TUBE

FLATTENED CLOSED

X-CORD

SUPPORT

Section A-A. Typical Section ThroughFlattened Area

-CORD

TABULATION

TUBE OD

1/4

5/16

3/8

1/2

"X" DIM.

0.176/0.181

0.224/0.229

0.267/0.272

0.360/0.365

"Y" DIM.

0.285/0.295

0.365/0.375

0.440/0.450

0.585/0.595

Figure 1. Open End Test Configuration for Tube Assembly Evaluation

20

SENSORCOOLING COIL

FOAM INSULATION\ AROUND SPECIMEN

,\r> \ n n \n o>* \ * * * *

U O\ O XJ O

ZINSULATION SPECIMENHOLDER

BRASS MANIFOLD(FLOWING LN2)

LOW TEMPERATURE TEST SETUP(SEE FIGURE 3)

MICARTA DISC

-SMDC SPECIMEN

SPECIMEN WRAPPED INFOAM INSULATION

SPECIMEN HOLDER WRAPPED.IN FOAM INSULATION

//6 EEC

HIGH TEMPERATURE TEST SETUP(SEE FIGURE 4)

NOTES: (1) Sensor assembled in setup after temperaturestabilization.

(2) LN2 flow through low temperature setup for30 minutes for specimen to reach -300°F.

Figure 2. Temperature Conditioning Setups

21

Figure 3. Low Temperature Test Setup

.*!. ".

, -

.

Figure 4. High Temperature Test Setup

X-CordGr/Ft

18-

16-

14-

12-

10-

8_

6-

4-

2-

0

0

17-7

2024-0

I10

l20

l4030 40 50

Energy, inch-pounds

Fixed Parameters

I60

I70 80 90 100

STARoom Temp.3/8 O.D.

Silicone Rubber Support2 Data Point Average

FIGURE 5. - OPTIMUM OUTPUT ENERGY FOR VARIOUS TUBE MATERIALS

23

X-CordGr/Ft

10 -

9 -

8 .

7 .

6 .

5.

4.

3 .

2 .

1-

00

i1

JSplit

0.035 Wall

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 0

Ener gy, inch-pounds

Fixed Parameters

STA 2024 Tubing3/8 O.D. Sllicone Rubber SupportRoom Temp. 2 Data Point Average

FIGURE 6. - OUTPUT ENERGY FOR VARIOUS WALL THICKNESSES, 2024 AL ALLOY

24

X-CordGr/Ft

20-

18-

16-

14-

12-

10-

8-

6-

4-

2.

0

Split

0 10 20

0.035 Wall

Split

80 90 10030 40 50 60 70

Energy, inch-pounds

Fixed Parameters

STA 304 Tubing3/8 O.D. Silicone Rubber SupportRoom Temp. 2 Data Point Average

FIGURE 7. - OUTPUT ENERGY FOR VARIOUS WALL THICKNESSES, 304 SST

25

X-CordGr/Ft

20 -

18 -

16 -

14 -

12 -

10 -

8 -

6 -

4 -

2 -

0

Split

0

SA

STA

20 40 60 80i

100I I I I I

120 140 160 180 200

Energy, inch-pounds

Fixed Parameters

3/8 O.D. 304 TubingRoom Temp. 0.049 Wall

Lead (Pb) Support2 Data Point Average

FIGURE 8. - COMPARISON OF EXPLOSIVE CORE MATERIAL, ENERGY OUTPUT

26

X-CordGr/Ft

20-

18-

16-

14-

12-

10-

8-

6-

4-

2-

00

, Split Split

I20 40 8060 80 100 120 140

Energy, inch-pounds

Fixed Parameters

160 180 200

STA3/8 O.D.Room Temp.

304 Tubing0.065 Wall2 Data Point Average

FIGURE 9. - OUTPUT ENERGY FOR VARIOUS SUPPORT MATERIALS

27

20-

18-

16-

14-

X-Cord 12-

10-

8-

6-

4-

2-

00 20

Split

SiliconeRubber

Lead (Pb)

.Split

40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200

Energy, inch-pounds

Fixed Parameters

STA 304 Tubing3/8 O.D. 0.035 WallRoom Temp. 2 Data Point Average for Silicone

Single Test Data Point for Lead

FIGURE 10. - OUTPUT ENERGY FOR VARIOUS SUPPORT MATERIALS

28

Temp., °F

+300 H

0 .

-300

5.5 gr /f tX-Cord

1 2 3 4 5

Energy, inch-pounds

Fixed Parameters

STA3/8 O.D.0.065 Wall2024-0 Tubing

Silicone Rubber SupportSingle Test Data Point

FIGURE 11. - OUTPUT ENERGY AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES

29

+300-

Temp., °F 0 -

-30010 20 30 40 60

Energy, inch-pounds

Fixed Parameters

70I80

STA3/8 O.D.0.035 Wall304 Tubing

Silicone Rubber Support12 gr/ft X-CordSingle Test Data Point

+300 -I

Temp., °F 0 -

-3000 10

i40 50

i70

Energy, inch-pounds

Fixed Parameters

STA3/8 O.D.0.065 Wall304 Tubing

Silicone Rubber Support12 gr/ft X-CordSingle Test Data Point

FIGURE 12. - OUTPUT ENERGY AT VARIOUS TEMPERATURES

30

ELECTRIC BLASTING CAP

X-SMDC SPECIMEN

PLAN VIEW

END VIEW

SLIT MASK LOCATION

SHIELD

TUBE SECTION ANALYZED

Figure 13. - Streak Camera Setup for Dynamic Tube Expansion Record

31

T T = Start of Event

m

T =

Point of MaximumExpans ion

Approximate Midpointof Event

T = Completion of Event

m

Tabulation

Location

ToTmTPTc

Elapsed Time

Start

35.3 ysec

82.2 ysec

160.1 ysec

Dimension

0.270

0.577

0.405

0.458

3/8 O.D. x 0.035 WALL304 ST. STEEL

SILICONS SUPPORT

X-CordSTA-16-X

Cross Section of Specimen Tested

Figure 14. - Data Reduction of X-SMDC TubingDuring Expansion

32

APPENDIX A - F-14 TEST DATA

The F-14 aircraft incorporates an expanding tube system used in the removalof the canopy in an abort situation. This system was developed at ET and ispresently in the qualification program.

Basically, the system incorporates a saddle and hook arrangement at sevenlocations on each side of the aircraft structure. A mating hook is attached tothe canopy. Upon initiation of the system the X-SMDC expands, failing a specialfastener in tension. The hook disengages, allowing the removal of the canopy.Expansion data from this system is delineated in Figure A-l.

33

LATCH LOAD

0 TO 8500 LBI X-SMDC ASSEMBLY(3/8 OD X 0.035 WALL304 STAINLESS STEEL)

TBI(CLOSED SYSTEM)

FRANGIBLE BOLT

6 EEC

SMDC TESTASSEMBLY

-AIRCRAFT STRUCTURE

NO. OFTESTS3

2

2

125d

150d

125d

4

4

X-SMDC CONFIG.

X-CORD

TYPE

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

SA

CORE LOAI

8b

8°

10

10

10

10

13C

FRANGIBLEBOLT

STRENGTH(LB TENSILE;

3200

3200

3750

3750

3750

3750

3750

TESTTEMP.(°F)

-65

+200

-65

Arab.

+200

+350

+200

NOTES: 3No tubing ruptures were encountered. ALL BOLTS WERE BROKEN.

To demonstrate performance at 75-percent nominal core load.A

To demonstrate structural integrity at 125-percent nominalcore 'load.

For 300 observations, minimum expansion over temperature rangeof -65° to +200°F under varying latch loads from 0 to 8500 Ibis 0.291-inch at 2o limit.

A-l. Test Configuration of Fxn?ndir><» TuHe Used for F-14 Canonv Removal

34

APPENDIX B - SEPARATION TEST DATA

ET has evaluated the X-SMDC for application as a structural severancedevice. One application considered was removal of a nose cone or booster.In this application shear pins were used and a mass-simulating separationweight was incorporated in the test. See Figure B-l for setup and test results.The other application considered was separation of an integral structure wherefasteners may not be able to be used. See Figure B-2 for setup and test resultsof this application.

35

•SIMULATED SEPARATION MASS (8.3 LB)^(SEPARATION VELOCITY = APPROX. 7 FT/SEC)

2.00

TBI (CLOSED SYSTEM)

2.00

#6 EEC

C TESTASSY

TUBE, 3/8 0:X 0.035 WALL304 SST

Pb SUPPORT

PRE-TEST 0.447

POST-TEST 0.435

PRE-TEST 0.271

—POST-TEST 0.303

X-CORDSA-10-X

.1/8 DIA. SHEAR PIN (3)6061-T651

(ALL PINS SHEAREDDURING FUNCTIONINGOF THE X-SMDC)

Figure B-l. X-SMDC Shear Pin Separation Application

36

TBI (CLOSED SYSTEM)

O 0 O O O O O

A

12.000

O O O O O O O

1/8-INCH.2024-T351 ALUM.

NOTE (1)

TUBE, 3/8 O.D.x 0.035 WALL304 SST

1/4-INCH7075-T651 ALUM.

0.015-INCH [NOTE (2)]

77777T~

Pb SUPPORT

X-CORD, SA-10-X

NOTES: (1) Weight of separated mass = 1.25 pounds. Separationvelocity = 27 feet per second.

(2) Static tensile strength of joint assembly = 1350 poundsper linear inch.

(3) No ruptures were encountered.

Figure B-2. Structural Joint Separation Application

37

APPENDIX C - DATA FROM OTHER ET PROGRAMS

There have been numerous independent test firings of expanding tube systemsat Explosive Technology. They have incorporated a variety of tube sizes, X-Cordconfigurations and various X-Cord support materials. The results of these testsare tabulated in Table C-I and Table C-II.

38

W

Q«

£> O

H U

X X

!

PQ>-" H

.J

O P

I

Pi

P-i

•W

HS

3

£>

W

W

O *~

f

co

vo

vo

co

oo

oo

oo

o

co r~

« in

co

m co

en m

c*">

w ^

c*5 •

M 2!

fo M

N—X

H •

w S

O M

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo

W W o

H H

IlllllliilllllllllllllllPiOP-iwpq

4J -U 4J

X K X

X X X

X

X X X X X X

OX!

XH H H

OH

in

r^

oo

oo

oo

oo

mo

oi^

-o

io

oo

oo

oo

oo

oWP

PiO

u

P-.Hc/1CO

ooooooooooooooooooocooooo

WHWPQWCO

wpq

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooo

vo vD

co O

W M

H Pn

39

W

C

H C

. •£

5 erf

35

^/

O^-sCO

S£^C

tf 0, .

gg

gU

O

v-'

W ^-N

P«S •

M a

fa M

H

•co

Xo

£••

H

PU

f~

\to

S fa

W

W o

H H

OPw3CO

W»HgOO1XnJ

<cM(XWHWMCDHM**^

WMCO

W3H

^*

^f)

PM•HCO

Oa§£|sWHCO•J_J

•hJ<^Q0

H

•C

O

C5

W

MH

fa

XX

X!X

XX*

X XX

X XX

XX

XX

XXXXXXXXX X X X X X

X

CN

i-t rH

o

CT>CT> ^

Oi-i

-3-v

o^H

^r»3- m

m

in >3-«*

oooo

o oo o oo oo oo ooooooooo oooo o

<(| <q

-<I5 ^ <q 2 q . . <q q ^

X!

X

jo-7* X X X <f

oor^oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

oocsr^«*csvovocM<-oocooc^cootNcoo(N<i-oocsi>a-tNva-oo-a-oo«*oooocg-a-^

rH

i-li-

li-li-

liHt-

li-|iH

i-lrH

iH

iH

.-liHi-H

iH

i-lr-li-Hi-liH

rHrH

rHc

MC

V|C

NC

N|fM

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

E-iH

HH

HE

-iH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

vO vO vO

\OvO vO

vO

vD vO

40

T30)

•X300Oc_>wp.'.OSIVE C

P-l

Xw-d-Ob

T

UWMHCO"ZWOMCOt3COHCOwHCO£3

OwJhJwuCO

MSi•MMC_>

WgeS

W

Cw

si-3

C

H C

>< E-

Q -

frf C

w e

2; Ew

cwPiMfnH</>OPLI

H E

w

SH

LH

E

£OPM(X.

EDCO

$C3

HQK!

0^>J<MCrf

WHWCQH

-N•

S3

MWN]

MWWPQEDH

HCOtl

H

*£

*, &

i*os~\

M-I J0 !

M

'-i ZD

M3

^-N

SM*~s•

sMQ•L,

s-*

a fed o

H ^-^

rH<^QCM

•HCOOp^a<v

.O

H.

TfT

,

rTlr^

PdO

o^^

o

wPLI

KcoCO•

3nJ

nJ

§QO•

Otn

X

K

><

{X

XX

XJ

«X

!X

!X

X«

X!X

!X

!X

!X

«X

X!X

XX

Xt«

! X

X

X

X X

X

X

X

i^rO

OO

r^O

iT)r

r»r^

vl-iH

rHO

vO

vO

i-IO^

OO

CT

>->

fi/^O

\OQ

O«

3-O

Oc

7%

r^c

r)iA-*

-*c

O«

*

C>

jen

mv

O

»-H

fs|

^IC

vJ

iHC

MC

VJ

CO

rH

rH

tHC

Sr-'—

it-IC

NP

>jr

On

cO

vO

ir|t

n<

fO

CT

>i—

1 i— 1 i—

t r-i

<S

r- 1

oo

ov

oo

oc

s<

rcs

r>.v

oo

oo

r^o

r^o

vo

r^o

oC

T»

tMo

oc

r>o

o

%O

I^IOIA

IOIO

CT

*ON

CT

>o

OtH

oo

oo

cr<

cr>

oo

oo

cT

> o

oo

\a\o

oo

co

oo

oo

co

oo

oo

cT

»a

»

OO

OO

CT>CTICT>CTICT>O>

CM

CO

CO

fOC

MC

NJ

CN

JC

NJ

CM

tMC

SI

1 £

MC

MC

NlC

OC

gC

MC

MC

4ts

|OIC

MtM

CM

|C

MC

MC

N|C

NJ

CS

ICN

CV

)C>

J

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

oo

oo

oo

oo

tf*

rffr

^Q

[)|Q

jQ

tQ

J3

^Q

rQ

^Q

fjQ

^Q

fO

i_

Q ff

fjQ

^Q

^Q

jQ

,

,Q

^Q

FQ

,0

,jO

,0

,Q

,J

D p

O pO

,O

&

pQ

rQ

§ M

M^

sa

^l5

5

MJ

IaJ

3j3

J;lJ

JJ

lJjJ

3jJ

iJ;3

jiJiJ

iJiJ

3J

3j;lJ

iJ^C

^2

^1

^5

^1

^C

^5 ^C

^5

^5

^C ^3

^5

^C

^Q ^5

^5

^^

^5

^^ ^^

^^ ^5

^3

^5

^^

^5

^^ ^^

^4 '

C ^5

^5

^^

X! X

X

X

X

X

*^

^^

xx

xx

^(3

«T

A3

3T

s ssB

T§

j3qT3 g

o sw

toT

Z)^

x

x

OO

OV

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

O

oo

<jo

oc

sio

oo

cs

i^o

oo

cN

i>*c

\i-*vo

oo

eN

i-*vo

cx

>-c

rvo

oo

oo

cv

icN

ivr-<

j--d-v

ov

oc

oo

o

<j<

;<<

t!<!<

fi<<

!<!<

;<;<

<j<

<ij<

j<<

;<!<

j<j<

j<j<

;<ij<

!<:<

!<;<

:<:<

;<:<

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

HH

co

co

co

wc

ow

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

to

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

co

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

c^

e^

mc

^c

^c

^^

mf^

c^

c^

c^

f^

f^

c^

me

^r^

c^

^m

c^

mm

c^

^c

^c

^^

^f^

f^

if^

^i

OO

CT

><

TlC

T<

vO

^\O

^O

OO

OO

OO

OO

OO

TU

^lO

^in

CT

>C

T\<

y»

Cy

>lO

inC

TN

ON

CT

iCT

iCT

\Cy

iCT

iCT

ic

>l<

T>

a-s

fiHH

tHi^

c\ic

siC

NiC

NiC

Nic

x)C

N)C

N4

Co

ro<

nc

o^

^-d

--d-f

r>ro

<r-d

--vl'-^

'<f-*

<J

'-*o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

o

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

co

co

cx

jco

co

oo

co

oo

oo

co

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

co

co

oo

oo

oo

oo

co

oo

oo

oo

oo

oo

co

co

co

co

co

co

rtmrtm

^mt^C

^C^m

mcn^C

^^tt^^<^C

^^^^C^C

r}CrlC

r)Cf)P

~>

F~

>F

~l( r)C

f)( f)

1 '

s*

41

APPENDIX D - ENERGY SENSOR OPERATION

For the uninitiated reader, a description of the energy sensor test setupis in order. First, to provide a relative comparison of energy output betweendifferent configurations and size of tubes, and in fact between tubes of thesame type, a test setup using a known "energy sensing" value is necessary.

This known value is provided by a square piece of honeycomb aluminum whichis pretested for strength. Explosive Technology calibrates each honeycomb squarein a Tinius Olsen Tension/Compression Tester. The honeycomb is precrushedapproximately 0.100-inch to determine its strength in pounds of force.

The honeycomb square is then placed in the test setup as shown below.

TORQUED TO 15 IN.-LBIMPULSE TRANSMITTER

X-SMDC

-TEST FIXTURE SPECIMEN HOLDER

42

A pre-fire measurement is made to determine the iniinside piston, which covers the honeycomb square.

.al distance to the

The expanding tube is placed in the energy sensor apparatus. A torqueof 15 inch-pounds is applied to the set screw on the holding block to ensureintimate contact of all components.

The expanding tube is fired, the setup disassembled, and a post-firemeasurement of honeycomb crush is made.

The difference between pre-fire and post-fire measurements is multipliedby the strength value of the honeycomb square, previously tested. This calcu-lation is (X - Y) K = E, where X is the pre-fire measurement in inches, Y isthe post-fire measurement in inches, K is the strength of the honeycomb squarein inch-pounds, and E is the energy output in inch-pounds per inch.

A typical piece of honeycomb before and after a test is shown below.

44

REFERENCES

1. Bement, L. J.: Application of Temperature Resistant Explosives to NASAMissions. NASA-Langley Res. Center, June 1970.

2. Bement, L. J.: Monitoring of Explosive/Pyrotechnic Performance. Presentedat the Seventh Symposium on Explosives and Pyrotechnics, Philadelphia,Pennsylvania, September 8-9, 1971.

3. Anon: ASME Metals Handbook. Vol. 1 - Properties and Selection of Metals.Vol. 4 - Metal Forming. Eighth ed., 1969.

4. Berman, I., et al: Development and Use of Explosive Forming for Commercial' Applications. Int. Conf. for High-Energy Forming. Univ. of Denver,June 1967.

5. Braun, W. H. : High-Performance Tubing. Machine Design, October 15, 1970.6. Butcher, B. M. ; Karnes, C. M.: Strain-Rate Effects in Metals. J. of Appl.

Phys., January 1966. p. 402.7. Clark, D. S.; Wood, D. S.: The Tensile Impact Properties of Some Metals and

Alloys. Calif. Inst. of Tech., Pasadena, February 1949.8. Duvall, G. E.; Jbwles, G. R.: Shockwaves, High Pressure Physics and Chemistry

2. ch. 9. Academic Press, 1963.9. Gluckman, I. B.: Evolution of Linear Separation Systems for Missile and Space

Applications. Sixth Symposium of Electro-Explosive Devices. San Francisco,1969.

10. Goforth, R. E.: Criteria for Fonnability, High-Velocity Forming of Metals.ch. 8. Prentice-Hall, 1964.

11. Hogatt, C. R.; Orr, W. R.; Recht, R. F.: The Use of an Expanding Ring forDetermining Tensile Stress-Strain Relationships as Functions of StrainRate. Int. Conf. for High-Energy Forming. Univ. of Denver, June 1970.

12. Kawata, K., et al: Some Analytical and Experimental Investigations On HighVelocity Elongation Of Sheet Metals by Tensile Shock. Behavior of DenseMedia Under High Dynamic Pressures. Symp. H. D. P. Paris. September1967. Gordon and Breach, 1968.

13. Kumar, A., et al: Survey of Strain-Rate Effects. Int. Conf. for Hig" -EnergyForming. Univ. of Denver, June 1967.

14. Metallurgical Society Conf., Colorado: Response of Metals to High VelocityDeformation. Interscience Publishers, 1961.

15. Noland, M. C., et al: High-Velocity Metalworking - A Survey. NASA ReportSP-5062, 1967.

16. Orava, R. N.: The Effect of Dynamic Strain Rates on Room Temperature Ductility.Int. Conf. for High Energy Forming, Univ. of Denver, June 1967.

17. Perrone, N.: On a Simplified Method for Solving Impulsively Loaded Structures ofRate - Sensitive Materials. J. Appl. Phys., September 1965.

18. Rinehart, J. S.; Pearson, J.: Explosive Working of Metals. Pergamon Press,1963.

19. Roth, J.: Deformation of Sheet Metal and Metal Tubes by Explosives. Trans.Quart., December 1963.

20. Schimmel, M. L.; Drexelius, V. W.: Measurement of Explosive Output. Proc. of5th Ann. Symp. of EED's, Franklin Inst., June 1967.

21. Smith, C. S.: Metallographic Studies of Metals After Explosives Shock. Trans.of Metall. Soc. of AIME, October 1958. p. 574.

22. Tennyson, R. C.: Application of High Speed Photography to the PhotoelasticAnalysis of Structural Stability Problems. S.P.I.E. Journal, July 1970.

45

23. Wilde, A. F., et all Dynamic Birefringence and Strain Produced in Two Trans-parent Polymers by Mechanical Impact. The Rheology of Solids, Interscience,1967.

24. Otto, H. E.; Mikesell, R.: The Shock-Hardening of Structural Metals. Int.Conf. for High-Energy Forming, Univ. of Denver, June 1967.

25. Youngdahl, C. K.: The Dynamic Plastic Response of a Tube to an Impulsive RingLoad of Arbitrary Pulse Shape. Argonne National Lab. Report ANL-7562,April 1969.