ML20043D826

Rept on Review of Suitability of Grade 9 Titanium for Legal Weight Truck Cask

ML20043D826
Person / Time
Site:	07109229
Issue date:	06/23/1989
From:	Cooper W, Stephens J, Webster R SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES, TELEDYNE ENGINEERING SERVICES
To:
Shared Package
ML20043D819	List: ML20043D817 ML20043D826
References
NUDOCS 9006110209
Download: ML20043D826 (24)

Text

'

ATTACIDENT TO SE CCLt899198 t

WESTINGHOUSE ELECTRIC CORPORATION NUCLEAR WASTE DEPARTNENT P.O. Box 3912 Pittsburgh, PA 15230 l

REPORT ON THE REVIEW 0F THE SUITABILITY OF GRADE 9 TITANIUM FOR THE LEGAL WEIGHT TRUCK CASK JUNE 23, 1989 I

l T

.h.

o E.#. Stephens IJr.

l W. E. Cooper, Chairman J J Teledyne Engineering Services Sandia National Laboratories i

}

l i

(CMi %

/

D. E. Thomas R. T. Webster RMI Company Teledyne Wah Chang Albany l

M%

S. Yu a

Consultant I

h00"k$bb< N f

C

ATTACHMENT To SE:CCLt89 198 t.0 CONCLU$!0N Bared on the efforts of the members of the Review Team, it is our collective opinion that Grade 9 fitanium is a suitable material for use in transportation casks @tch must meet present NRC requirements and guidance.

The Review Team did, however, identify several areas where the determination of additional infornecion is recommended. These aress are:

Uniform elongation data from tensile tests up to 300'F. (See o

Section4.2.1) o fetite properties of welds and heat affected zones for weldments r A with expected welding practices. (See Section 4.1.1)

Low cycle fatigue data at temperatures to 300'F. (see section o

4.3.1)

(

o Creep data for weld and heat affected zone materials. (See Section 4.1.2)

This additional information has been recommended to supplement the existing body of data for Grade 9 Titanium.

It is the expectation of the Review Team that the information will reinforce our opinion that Grade 9 Titanium is suitable for spent fuel transportation casks.

A potential limitation on the maximus acceptable material thickness results from present interpretations of NRC requirements and of the limited fracture toughness data. As discussed in Section 4.2.2, a maximum thickness of about 3' is presently predicted. However, Section 4.2.2 also identifies alternative approaches which could alleviate the thickness limitation while retaining assurance that any flaws are stable even during accident conditions.

3

ATTAC} DENT TO SE CCL 89:198 3.0 METHOD 3.1 procedures The Review Team was established by Mr. B. R. Mair, Westinghouse. Lud Technical Manager, TITAN Cask Project in consultation with the chairman of the Review Team. The objective was to convene a small group which included two individuals (Cooper and Yukawa) with specific experience in the application of engineering materials to critical structures and knowledge of the Code procedures and philosophy two individuals (Thomas and Webster) with detailed technical knowledge of the properties and application experience with Grade 9 Titaniunt and, an individual (Stephens) from a National Laboratory with experience in the design of transportation casks.

Westinghouse provided each of the seabers of the Review Team with copies of References 1-5.

The first of these is the report on the Alternative Material Feasibility Study and included, in Appendix C. References 6-13 j

which provide detailed material property data.

In addition to these references, one or more of the seabers of the Review Team considered the contents of References 14-23 in their review.

The meeting of the Review Team on which this report is based was held June 21-23, 1989 at the Westinghouse offices. The meeting consisted of sessions attended by both Wertinghouse and Review Team personnel-and of executive sessions attended only by members of the Review Team.

Westinghouse support services were available to assist in appropriate tasks.

Each of the matters included in Section 4.0 of this report were discussed in both types of sessions. Drafts of each of the sections were prepared by individual Review Team members, with assistance from appropriate Westinghouse support personnel. The drafts were reviewed with the other Review Team members and preliminary agreement reached or questions formulated. The drafts were then provided to Westinghouse personnel for their review as to factual content and to provide for the presentation to 4

i, ATTAC10ENT TO SE:CCL 89:198 1' -

the Review Team of additional information considered desirable by the

. Westinghouse personnel. The contents of this report were then prepared by the

. Review Team.

3.2 Limitations The Review Team activity was limited in accordance with the scope stated in 1.0.

In particular:

a.

For this review the alloy, Grade 9 Titanium (Ti-3Al-2.5V), was understood to be in the mill annealed condition.

(Mill annealed meaningheattreatedbetween1100'Fand1450'F). properties obtained from conditions other than mill annealed, such as beta annealed..were not considered by the Review Team.

b.

The review was conducted within the context of differentiating between the containment and the structural functional uses of Grade 9 Titanium. The specific classification of the various parts of the I_

cask with respect to these two functional uses of Grade 9 Titanium was

- not included in the review.

c.

In conducting this review, we have focused on the potential use of Titanium Grade 9 insofar as it has material properties which would require design methodology procedures which differ from current ferrous alloy cask design. We were not requested to conduct a comprehensive review of the cask design. Rather, we have attempted to identify the important materials properties which will affect the use of Grade 9 Titanium in the current TITAN cask desif1. The major materials property areas of concern identified by. the group are covered as major topics in Section 4.

d.

We have not considered the possibility of radiation damage. No data on this effect are available for Grade 9 Titanium. However, we know of no data for other titanium alloys which suggest that this will be a problem in the use of Grade 9 Titanium.

5

ATTACKENT To SE:CCLt89:198 Discussions between Westinghouse and Review Team personnel went beyond

t J

these specific limitations in order that the Review Team understood the application. However, the Review Team reached no conclusf ons on matters not within their scope.

a i

M 4

l m

m.

M T

6 p

-i iimum-si

-i ----ii -i-i---iis.--ii

- -- i

ATTACIDENT TO SE CCL:89:198 E

~

'4.0 DISCUS $10N The objective of this section is to identify the issues considered by the j

Review Team and to sumarize the most important factors affecting the i

L conclusions of the team. The first paragraph under each of the following-subheadings is phrased in the form of the question considered by the team.

I 4.1 Determination of Code-Type Allowable Stresses The Code follows specific procedures in relating certain material properties to the allowable stress values used in the Code design rules.-

These have been considered and the appropriateness of the code procedures and the specific numerical values have been reviewed.

4.1.1 Tensile Test Results Do the trend curves for the yield strength and the tensile strength contained in Attachment 2 to Reference 2 provide-a reasonable interpretation of avsilable datat

(

l' The procedure followed in preparation of the trend curves is that used by the code Committee for establishing allowable design stress values. Tensile data were available from four heats of

)

Grade 9 Titanium and four different product forms which exceed 1

Code requirements for establishing allowable stresses. These data j

are plotted as a function of temperature, a best fit curve is l

drawn to represent the data, and the curve is reduced, everywhere, by the ratio of the specified minimum value at room temperature to j

the fitted curve value at room temperature. The specified minimum-l values are those contained in the applicable ASME specification or L

the ASTM specification if the Code has not adopted the material.

The Code currently has adoption of SB348 containing Grade 9 siellar to to ASTM B348-83 (Reapproved 1987) for bars and billets i

out for letter ballot. This specification establishes minimum l

room temperature values of 70 ksi and 90 ksi, respectively for yield and ultimate strengths; and minimum values of 15% and 25%.

respectively for the elongation in 40 and the reduction of area.

7

)

li

+

.[

i ATTACHMENT TO SE:CCL889 198 The recently revised _ ASTM Product Specifications (which include Grade 9 Titanium) 8381. Forgings: 8337, Seamless and Welded Pipe:

B338. Tubing: and B363. Welding Fittings have been approved for adoption by section II of the Code Committee. 8265, Strip, Sheet and Plate, includes Grade 9 Titanium in the latest revision of the specification which was recently approved by ASTM Society ballot.

Each of the ASTM Product Specifications have the same minimum tensile values as are r,,ecified in $B348.

4.1.2 Creep and Creep r.upture Values Are the available creep and stress rupture data sufficient to assure that neither of these properties will control the Code allowable stresses in the temperature range applicable to the subject cask?

The maximum normal service temperature for the transportation cask 0

is 300 F.

Using available data from the current Section VI!!

Code Case (Reference 8), tensile properties, and not creep or i

rupture properties, have been shown to form the basis for 0

allowable stress values up to a temperature of 600 F.

Representative creep data which support this statement are given in the Appendix to this report. Creep and stress rupture are therefore not important in the determination of allowable stresses for the transportation cask.

The Review Team was, however, concerned with the tendency for titanium alloys, specifically Grade 9 Titanium, to show significant creep strain at stresses greater than 0.75 at room y

temperature or higher. While the bulk of the cask containment system would be designed well below 0.75, it was felt that the y

locally high stresses at the threads used to seal the containment shell could lead to stress relaxation and possibla leakage of the seal. While the design does call for Alloy 718 '.hreaded inserts, which could alleviate the stress concentration, stress relantion of the titanium in the thread area must be specifically treated.

This issue is discussed in Section 4.3.4.

8

ATTACHMENT TO SESCCL 89i198

^

It is recognized that the accident condition sequence postulated for the cask includes exposure to a 1475'F fire for 30 minutes.

a However, the Review Team considers this condition to be outside the scope of the code allowable stresses. Further discussion of this accident condition and its affect on the cask design are given in Section 4.3.3.

4.1.3 Determination of Allowable Stress Values 1

Are the Code,Section III, procedures' for. the determination of allowable stress values appropriate for application to Grade 9?

At temperatures below those where creep or stress rupture values control', as discussed in Section 4.1.2, the general Code procedures establish the allowable stress or stress intensity value as the lower of certain factors on the tensile strength or of two-thirds of the minimum (specified or as determined from the L

trend curve) yield strength. An exception is made for certain materials, such as the austenitic stainless steels which are 4

strongly strain hardening and for which significant service experience is available, in that the factor on yield strength at temperature is~ increased to 90L Based on the yield and tensile strength values as a function of temperaturebeingconsideredtobecorrect,(SeeSection4.1.1).

H the values determined from the tensile strength are controlling.

The Review Team considers the procedures used in the Code to determine allowable stress values, or allowable stress intensity values, from the minimum specified tensile strength or fron'the elevated temperature trend-curve-derived values to be appropriate.

Based on the discussion in Section 4.1.2, the Review Tera considers the allowable values derived from the Codo procedures to be reasonable up to a temperature in exct:s of that to which the Code values are applicable in the design of the cask.

i 9

ATTACHMENT TO SE CCL 89:198 TheCode(Sections 111andVIII)doesnotrequirefracturetoughness a

testing of Grade g Titanium because it is a nonferrous material. However, for regulatory acceptance, it is necessary to demonstrate that the material has acceptable fracture toughness. The Review Team considers the meaningful measures of the fracture toughness of this material in the temperature range of interest to be data obtained from a J integral versus crack extension or a Crack Opening Displacement (C00) test. Such data are useful in determining Jge, Kic-equivalent and tearing modulus values.

Charpy V-notch test data are considered primarily useful as a quality

- control measure. The Drop-Weight Test, as is used in References 4 and 5, and similar tists used to determine a ' Nil-ductility Temperature", is not applicable to this material.

This discussion is not intended to imply that the material property data obtained with respect to fracture toughness must be applied in specific fracture mechanics evaluations in the design of these casks. However, such data are of value in understanding the behavior under accident conditions by comparison with the behavior of other materials.

Y Also, this specific discussion may understate the importance of Charpy V-notch data and notched tensile test data which are available and which indicate that the ductile-to brittle transition temperature, as generally defined based on these properties, is very far below the temperature range of this cask application for Grade 9 Titanium.

4.2.1 Ductility Are there sufficient data available on ductility?

w No specific data are available with respect to the strain at maximum load in the tensile tests.

Such data will become available from the material test programs generally described by Reference 17.

In the Review Team's opinion, the absene: of such data is not considered to be a limiting factor in evaluating the suitabDity of Grade 9 Titanium.

11

L,,

ATTACHMENT 70;$EiCCL:89:198 One of the ma.jor applications of such data is to establish that a ~

plastic instability will not occur as a consequence of the membrane stretching of the material which may result from postulated accident conditions.

Present estimates of such biaxial membrane strains produce values which are small_ when compared _ to values of concern with reasonably anticipated uniform strain values.

The other use of such data is related to permissible multipliers on the tabulated allowable stress values in determining.the allowable value: ::r.:!er accident conditions. These multipliers are the 2.4 factor permitted by Code Appendix F in establishing allowable membrane' stresses and the associated 3.6 multiplier used in determining the limit on primary plus membrane stresses..These limiting values were developed by consideration of such data as.

that in Reference 18. The test results and interpretations of that paper include alloys with Yield / Tensile strength ratios higher than Grade g Titanium.

l 4.2.2 Fracture Toughness Does Grade 9 Titanium have acceptable levels of fracture toughness?

One way of showing thrc Grade 9 Titanium has acceptable fracture toughness is by demonstrating that it meets requirements equivalent to those that have been proposed for ferritic steels.

There are three proposed requirements that can be considered:

l

1. NRC draft Regulatory Guides for ferritic steel shipping b

containers with maximum wall thickness of four inches (Ref.19) and wall thickness greater than four inches (Ref. 20).

b

2. ASME Section III, Division 3, proposed requirements for ferritic steels.

L 12

NRC Draft ASME III, ASME !!!

Regulatory Guide hiv. 3 NC 2000

..ID..,.ksi JTii.

Kgo..,.ksi(E.

Kje..,.kst E.

Thk.,in.

K 5/8 55 42 1

70 55 55 2

101 55 78 2.5 111/

55 87 3

121 60 4

140 70 110 5

157 78 Data presented in References 12 and 13 indicate that the fracture toughness required in all of these criteria up to about 3 inch thickness are attainable in Grade g Titanium at room temperature if dynamic and quasi-static fracture toughness values are similar. However, potential limitations exist at larger thicknesses, lower temperatures, and welds and HAZ's.

Several alternatives are possible to alleviate the potential

(-

li:nitations:

1.

Processing to increase the fracture toughness of the parts where required.

2.

Evaluate tne fracture toughness requirements in terms of J.

values to adjust for elastic modulus differences.

3.

Use the J value at some small amount of crack extension (such as 1 inn. 0.04 inches) for the determination of. the fracture toughness value.

4.

Redefine the requirements by using elastic-plastic instability analysis.

Additional testing is required to better define the properties and to assist in choosing whether or not any of these alternative methods are implemented.

14

ATTACtDENT TO SbCCL:89:198 4.3 '0ther Significant Features of the Material I

The discussions.in sections 4.1 and 4.2 cover specific properties and expected behavior or actions based on that property. This subsection is intended to discuss other matters in which the selection of Grade g Titanium may affect the design or the response of the cask to operating or accident conditions.

4.3.1 Fatigue 4

i Are the available fatigue data sufficient for the present

(

application and sufficient to meet code requirementst L

Sufficient room temperature strain-or stress-controlled fatigue data are available from Reference 13 to assure that a design can be developed with Grade 9 Titanium. Additional data at elevated temperatures must be developed before the proposed Code Case of Reference 2 is complete.

i 4.3.2 Corrosive Environments Are available corrosion resistance data sufficient for the present application?

l Titanium alloys in general, and specifically Grade 9 Titanium, have excellent corrosion resistance to naturally occurring

'- i environments (Reference 23). As such the Review Team does not consider corrosion as an issue in the application of Grade 9 Titanium for the transportation cask.

4.3.3 Fire Accident The postulated event, as discussed in Section 4.1.2, involves exposure to a 1475 F condition for 30 minutes. Are the available data sufficient to assure that there is no significant consequence of the selection of Grade 9 Titanium for cask construction?

15 1

ArrAcipewr To sticitis9:59s~

+

T-Westinghouse analysis of the fire exposure shows that the maximum temperature of the containment vessel and the intermediate structural vessel-will be 350'F and 550 F, respectively.

0 These temperatures are well within the.Section VIII code case (Reference 8)temperaturelimitsandwouldposenothreattothe titanium vessels.

Even if the containment and/or intermediate vessel reached the fire temperature,1475'F no serious degradation of the Grade 9 Titanium would occur. Fire fighting fluids would likewise have little affect since the alloy undergoes no change in properties j

frum 1475'F to ambient temperature.

1 4.3.4 Relaxation of the Bolted Closure Seal Is relaxation of the closure bolt preload a potential limitation to the use of Grade 9 Titanium?

L Previous worP. on the Ti-6Al-4V alloy-(Reference 21) has shown that

'(

stress relaxation at room temperature can occur in this alloy at stresses which are approximately 0.7$y or greatur.

Room 0

0 temperature 200 F and 250 F creep tests should include stresses in the range of 70-90% of the yield stress at a given temperatt!re.

L An estimate of the possible degree of room temperature' stress I

relaxation has been made using the stress and time exponents for Ti-6Al-4V alloy (References 21) and room temperature creep data for Grade 9 Titanita (Reference 22). These results suggest that Grade 9 Titanium is' resistant to stress relaxation at' room temperature in this design.

Similar analyses should be mada at other temperatures.

l 4.3.5 Compatible Plating Materials -

o Are there any plating materials which should be excluded from the cask design due to incompatibility with Grade 9 Titanium?

16 l

r L

ATTAC10ENT '!O SE9CCL5898198

..,y,

It is the opinion.of.the Review Team that Zn, Ag and Cd platings 1

be avoided on components such as the Alloy 718 fasteners >

- ~

b (Reference 23). Use of these platings could possibly lead to-embrittlement of Grade 9 Titanium. Current design calls for use-of Cr-plated Alloy 718 bolts, which should not pose a problem.

17 i

l l

ATTAC10tElft TO SESCCL:89s198

,4

5.0 REFERENCES

s T.I

'1.

" TITAN Legal Weight Track Cask Alternative Material Feasibility Study." Westinghouse NWC-TR-008.- Rev. 0, July 1%8 (Proprietary) 2.

' Request for Approval of Grade 9 Titanium for Use Under the Rules of ASME Code,Section III.' Westinghousc Letter $E:RRM 89:009, January 13, 1989

3. : Westinghouse Structural Design Criteria 4.-

' Recommendations for Protecting Against Failure by Brittle Fracture in Ferritic Steel Shipping Containers Up TO Four Inches Thick,"

NURE8/CR-1815,LLNL,1984 5.

'Recomendations for protecting Against Failure by Brittle Fracture in Ferritic Steel Shipping Containers Greater Than Four Inches Thick," NURE8/CR-3826, LLNL, 1981 6.

Froperties of Ti 3Al-2.5V. extracted from Aerospace Structural Materials handbook 7.

Properties of Ti-3Al-2.5V provided by Timet Corporation 8.

Letter from R. T. Webster Teledyne Wah Chang Albany, to B. R.

Nair, Westinghouse. transmitting proposed ASME Code,Section VIII A1!=able Strn. cata for 3Al-2.5V, May 23,1988 i

9.

Letter from K. Faller, RMI Company, to B. R. Nair Westinghouse, transmitting toughness data for T1 3Al-2.5V, April 6, 1988 10.

" properties of Titanium for Industrial Applications with Fehasis on Ti 3Al-2.5V", P. A. Russo and S. R. Seatlle Industrial Applications of Titanium and Zirconium Th'rd Conference ASTM STP 830, 1984

11. Letter from Dr. Joseph L. Cavallaro, Department of the Navy to 8.

R. Nair, Westinghouse, enclosing References 12 and 13, April-12, 1988' 12.

" Titanium Alloys for Seawater Piping," 1. L. Caplan, David W.

Taylor Naval Ship Research and Deve' opment Center. Technical Report DTNSRDC/SME-78/44, September 1978 (Official Use only) 13.

" Investigation of Ti 3Al-2.5V for Seawater Piping Applications," R.

E. Maerch and I. L. Caplan, David W. Taylor Naval Ship Research and Development Center Technical-Report DTNSRDC/SME-81/18 June 1981 (Official Use Only) 14.

" Packaging and Transportation of Radioactive Material,' Title 10 Code of Federal Regulations Part 71.

15.

" Design Criteria for the Structural Analysis of Sb',pping Cask Containment Vessels,' Regulatory Guide 7.6, REV!510H 1. USHRC 18

i.i..ii.in n

16. " Load Combinations for the structural Analysis of Shipping Casks,0 Regulatory Guide 7.8, USNRC-17.

"RFQ for Development of Grade 9 Titanium Material Properties,'

Attachment to Westinghouse MN96836R, dated April 24, 1989.

18. " Experimental Effort on Bursting of Constrained Disks as Related to the Effective Utilization of Yield Strength," W. E. Cooper E. H.-

Kotteamp, 8. A. Spiering. ASME Paper 71-PVP-49.

19. " Fracture Toughness Criteria for Ferritic Steel Shipping Cask.

Containment Vessels with a Maximum Wall Thickness of Four Inches (0.1 m)", U.S. MRC Draft Regulatory Guide, June 1983.

20.

' Fracture Toughness Criteria for Ferritic Steel Shipping Containers with a Wall Thickness Greater than Four Inches (0.1 m)', U.S. NRC, Draft Regulatory Guide, June 1986.

21.

" Stress Relaxation of a Titanium (T1-6Al-4V) Threaded Joint".

J. J. Stephens, J. W. Munford,_ SAND 87-1918, Sandia National Laboratories. Albuquerque, May.1988.

22. Private coe unication from D. Thomas, RMI Co., to J. J. Stephens, June 21, 1989.

23.

R. W. Schutz, D. E. Thomas, ' Corrosion of Titanium and Titanium Alloys". ASM Metals Handbook Volume 13. ASM International, Metals Park. 0H, 1988.

(.

s 19

ATTACHMENT TO SE CCLS899198 i.

,4-

.I i,

APPDWIX l:

Creep Data for Grade 9 Titanium I

Provided by RMI company tl' l

l L

l 20 l

l l

g

-,a y

.4-,_..m 4

.dimsa e

.d,.

Jr

.a.4..J.

.mr 4--

4mmm-a

1. -em..i.m4a.d., am e a

sAw.,Ama a_.e.w..,.d4#s

,r_we._.

aJ.

,m.a

.4._A

.a I

.g ATTACPMENT TO SE:CCL 89:198-i

~ ' ' ' ' '

t e.

Q o

0 1

0 e

h

'b

%b p'

o o _*

1 8

O O

m O

l f--

0

([J

_ 9^

l I'

W O

F-2 O

g g

CL 0

g Wl

-f D

W 0

1

.t O

o o

D-Q D

o 5

I nn T

_ et C

e k

b M

y i

W 5

C o

f e

o o

21 F N ollyrtW oJ3c t

ATTACHMENT TO SE:CCL:89:198 e

O D5 c

g.

o O

(

=

k E

O

$-l 1

13 g

N D

H.

(f]

.9 y

3 o

y N'

o O

I

(

1 o

g W

o W

Q E

.t O

o o

a a

0 O

't u

O e

y M

6 N

e.

o o

o e.

o o

1. -N011YM Wod30 22

.,.f >.

ATTACHMENT TO SE:CCL 89:198 e

B W

r E

Ri o

=4 9'

w s

E s

i

,g e

9 2

y i

o*

1 d

\\

o o=

-(

e e

. 8k5 3

Moh r4 8o 1

n I

l bY

~

7$2 aaL

}

7 l s-E mu

,c 8

8 8

8 8

se

+

n n

yc 6

d d

e c

% 'uogow;oJSO d8GJD 23

<l

!!I

,.sgRa 8..ge

=*.

0 b

b

[

e u

z 00 M

- ne t

mo 0

i.

0 4

0 o/m1w.

2 rb 7_'mW m

S.

s 1

r u

e 0 o ta 0h r

p 3

e 1

e n

r n

o c

it ar u

o D

0 t

i 0 s s

3. *F k

0 e 1

0 T

50 26 s e Vs r

5. e u o

rt 0

2t a 0

- S r o

5 e

lA pp 3eem e

r e iT CT o

>d

.f o

0 0

0 0

o 0

5*

0 5

o 2

1 1

0 g

O O

0 0

o 11 M. COD 0EeoWeO C0eeo t

- -.. - -.. -... - - - ~. -. -

A'1 TAG.W Ni 10 bt.3LUL:0V1AVO S..

4.

6-

{-

i u

V+

4 i

{

I

\\

\\

e e :

i L

e!

J i'

w Wd I*

I 4

(

Nk j'

l m

.i i.

g e-

'a a

g

~

f.

f.

e e

j i

1.

a f

i i

a e

j y

l i

e r

l 8

l e,,

s i

o 8

8 3

8 g

o e

e e

e 25

. n --

.:'t s.

i-l 0.500 To-3A!-2.SV Creep Stress - 12.4ksi 0.400 Temperature - 700*F x

_c

~

o p

0 0.300 E

t-o 3_

t m

~ ~ '

0 0.200

_7. _ f O,.

ame, seen - 1_7anto erhr W

l L

~

O O.100 Ht# 807531-04-00 f

_~[p AprH 14.1989 l

l i l Mi O.NO t O

2500 5000 7500 1 E4-I l

R:

Test Duration, hours m!

8{

[

a n

.P.

$j

l

$nla 5r 3..*

l 4

E h

1 00

-40

- es 15 s 5i 7

0 i 8 s u.

0 de 0

M 5

h 7

"a s

g r

~

m uo as h

n 4

i n

4 o

0 i

0 t

0 a

e 5

ru D

i sF t

k s

4. *0 e

M 70 T

37 8

8 m

Vs e S. seu r

rt 2t a

- S re lApp 3 em F

e r e iTCT

~

0 o,

0 0

0 0

5 4

3 2

1

.s.O Eto%@O OG)GtO J

M

=