ML19269C407

Preliminary Results of Turbine Missile Casing Tests. Provides Data on Both energy-absorbing Mechanisms of Impact Process &,If Breakthrough Occurred,Exit Conditions of Fragment.Final Rept to Include More Detailed Data

ML19269C407
Person / Time
Site:	Atlantic Nuclear Power Plant
Issue date:	10/31/1978
From:	Schamaun J, Yoshimura H SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES
To:
Shared Package
ML19269C404	List: ML19269C407
References
399, NUDOCS 7902020068
Download: ML19269C407 (31)

Text

. , &tL Preliminary Results of Turbine Missile Casing Tests gg Project 399 Preliminary Report October 1978 t

Prepared by Sandia Laboratories Albuquerque, New Mexico 9

e E.

ELECTRIC POWER RESEARCH INSTlTUTE 7902020068 700:0200

a 8

• O Q

w ,

l l

l

__; ' ,

g

i  ! ) 7 _;i 3 i

e l j 3 a- i-

' t S I C

$ N r o .

I 3 I O C

H @

- D C

o O

+ & 5 O

I .2 i  ! - E

+- o

@ I  !  ! @

l 3 !  ! E

' :R e

- -%i t 5 u, .g 9 Q =

0 5 $c w

$ .-+

v W

vs

.O l '

C

'f '

c i

i i .A "

e ,.

l4Q l ~

n _.

I C a 'O i i  ! a i , ti i . .5

. g n c i

- U

! c4 O O '

O j W ] 8

, ,  ! #' C

" T -le 'IJ

. _ , - m r ~ + Q Y N

' c 5

, +

a I

a L

sv

'r T C.

6 4 e9 4

HIWM1S4CIW 2-14 e

' 8 io i  !

i i

! i j i

,

' i l ,

"~a..nw,

- ~ . +

1 ,

5 k

n

._ .a' l

r 3 l R

! l 2

' 1 3 n t

b I,

. w. ~  ?

o o 8

~3 m 8

%a a

O j

t j

?m E

s 1': 8 m =

8 e OC i D u

hO c

wN j n

==

i C

+---

4

= 3

• J l  ?

, A 5 --~ 5 -

g f m.M 8 n ,

~ g

.[~ y .y i _

j --

~ '

qi f

s r O es fo 4

C t

Q 8 8

' <o 5

IIiU4L59331y 2-15

_ '%eo

E Preliminary Results of Turbine Missile Casing Tests Research Project 399 Preliminary Report October 1978 Tests conducted by SANDIA LABORATORIES Albuquerque, New Mexico Principal Investigators H. Richard Yoshimura John T. Schamaun Tests conducted for Electric Power Research Institute 3412 Hillview Avenue Palo Alto, Califomia 94304 EPRI Project Manager George Sliter Nuclear Power Division

EPRI PERSPECTIVE PROJECT DESCRIPTION

- This report presents preliminary results from initial tests in EPRI's turbine missile program. A detailed final report is scheduled for publication in early 1979. Extensive instrumentation recorded the response of two full-scale, simpli-fied models of an 1800-rpm steam turbine casing, each impacted by a missile repre-senting a fragment from a postulated failure of a shrunk-on disk. A rocket sled was used to launch the 1527-kg (3366-lb) missiles to impact the target ring and shell structure at 150 m/s (492 ft/s).

PROJECT OBJECTIVE The objective was to provide benchmark data on both the energy-absorbing mech-anisms of the impact process and, if breakthrough occurred, the exit conditions of the fragment. The data can be used in assessing the conservatism in present esti-mates of design exit velocities and in validating improved design and analysis methods.

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The tests showed that turbine casings can absorb substantial amounts of energy in slowing down or containing fragments from a pottulated turbine failure. Addi-tional testing and analysis are needed to quantify the energy that can be dissi-pated over a wider range oi potential imoact conditions. It is especially desir-

~

able to examine the effects of missile rotation upon impact. One of the tests showed that even though the missile was not rotating before impact, it was rotat-

- ing after exiting the simulated casing. This rotation suggests that subsequent impacts on concrete structures that protect safety-re' d plant equipment are likely to be off-nomal and not as severe the nonspinning, normal-impact condi-tion of ten assumed for turbine missile design. This reduced severity would be similar to that demonstrated by an off-nomal impact of a steel pipe in the tornado missile program (EPRI NP-440).

iii d

A follow-on test series is under way to examine turDine missile impacts of full-scale concrete structures. Testing will be conducted in 1979.

George Sliter, Project Manager Nuclear Power Division e

G iv

t ABSTRACT Preliminary results are presented from two full-scale tests simulating the impact of turbine disk fragments on simple ring and shell structures that represent the internal stator blade ring and the outer wall of an 1800-rpm steam turbine casing.

The objective is to provide benchmark data on both the energy-sbsorbing mechanisms of the impact process and, if breakthrough occurs, the exit conoitions of the tur-bine missile. A rocket sled is used to accelerate a 1527-kg (3366-lb) segment of a turbine disk, which impacts a steel ring 12.7 cm (5 in) thick and a steel shell 3.2 cm (1.25 in) thick. The impact velocity of about 150 m/s (492 f t/s) gives a missile kinetic energy corresponding to the energy of a fragment from a postulated failure at the design overspeed. Depending on the orientation of the missile at impact, the steel test structure either slowed the missile to 60% of its initial translational velocity with an exit rotational speed of 115 rpm, or brought it almost to rest (an energy reduction of 65 and 100%, respectively). The report includes missile velocity histories and selected strain gage data. Detailed results will be included in the final report, now in preparation.

C V

a

CONTENTS Section age 1 TEST DESCRIPTION l~l 2 TEST RESilLTS "l O

e vi e

ILLUSTRATIONS Figure Page 1-1 Target structure, missile, and impact orientations. 1-4 1-2 Dimensions and mass properties of steel missile segment (120' hub section). 1-5 1-3 Missile, support sled, and rocket pusher sled. 1-6 2-la Overhead photograph of piercing impact (V = 149 m/s, 490 ft/s; w = 0). 2-4 2-lb Overhead photograph of piercing impact (V = 99 m/s, 325 ft/s). 2-5 2-Ic Overhead photograph of piercing impact (V = 07 m/s, 285 f t/s; w = 115 rpm). 2-6 2-2 Displacement history of missile in test with piercing orientation. 2-7 2-3 Strain record near impact point, piercing orientation. 2-8 2-4 Strain record near support, piercing orientation. 2-9 2-Sa Overhead photograph of blunt impact (V = 151 m/s, 495 ft/s; w = 0). 2-10 2-5b Overhead photograph of blunt impact (V = 32 m/s, 105 ft/s). 2-11 2-5c Overhead photograph of blunt impact (V = 8 m/s, 25 f t/s; w ar 0). 2-12 2-6 Displacement history of missile in test with blunt orientation. 2-13

~

2-7 Strain record near impact point, blunt orientation. 2-14 2-8 Strain record near support, blunt orientation. 2-15 vii s

TABLES Table Page 2-1 Missile Energy, Piercing Orientation 2-1 2-2 Missile Energy, Blunt Orientation 2-3 viii e

SLNMARY Two full-scale rocket sled tests have been conducted to provide benchmark data for making more realistic assessments of turbine missile effects in nuclear plant design. The tests simulated the impact of a fragment from a failed shrunk-on turbine disk on the internal stator blade ring and the outer wall of an 1800-rpm low-pressure casing. High-speed photography and strain gages were used to measure data on both the energy-absorbing mechanisms of the impact process and, if break-through occurred, the exit velocity and rotation of the fragment.

In both tests the target structure whs a simplified representation of a casing.

Only the two main semicircular casing components that are expected to absorb most of the energy in a postulated failure were modeled: the internal blade ring or diaphragm, which supports the stationary turbine blades, represented by a steel ring 12.7 cm (51.1) thick; and the outer casing cover, represented by a steel shell 3.2 cm (1.25 cm) thick.

The ring and the shell were bolted to a cassive reinforced-concrete backup struc-ture. The bolted connections simulated as closely as practicable the horizontal joints in an actual turbine.

The missile in ooth tests was a 120* segment of a last-stage, shrunk-on disk weighing 1527 kg (3366 lb). The segment had no blades; it was assumed that the blades would be broken off or crushed during exit.

The nominal impact velocity in both tests was 146 m/s (480 ft/s), which gives the same total kinetic energy as a segment leaving a shaft spinning at 120% of opera-ting speed. Since the orientation of a turbine segment at impact with the inner ring cannot be specified with certainty and since orientation has a great influence on absorbed energy, the missiles in the two tests had " bouncing" orientations. In one test a piercing orientation, with sharp corner impact and minimum projected area, gave a lower bound on absorbed energy. In the other test a blunt orientation, with curved edge impact and maximum projected area, gave an upper bound on absorbed energy.

S-1 s

In the test with a piercing orientation, perforation of both structures slowed the missile to 60% of its initial speed (two-thirds of the missile's energy was abso rbed) . The segment was rotating as it exited the target structure. Designers will be able to take advantage of such off-normal and spinning conditions when calculating the effects of potential missile impacts on concrete walls.

In the test with a blunt orientation, the missile did not perforate either struc-ture and was brought almost to rest.

Data from the tests will be reduced, compared with the results of pretest calcula-tions, and presented in a final report.

P S-2 s

Section 1 TEST DESCRIPTION Two full-scale turbine casing exit tests have been completed at the rocket sled facility of Sandia Laboratories, Albuquerque, New Mexico. The tests simulated the impact of a fragment from a failed shrunk-on turbine disk on the internal stator

- blade ring and outer wall of an 1800-rpm low-pressure casing. The objective was to provide benchmart data on both the energy-absorbing mechanisms of the impact process and, if breakthrough occurred, the exit conditions of the fragment.

Because of wide variations in turbine designs, postulated failure conditions, and missile exit scenarios, the list of potential test parameters was large. The bounding parameters for the two tests were selected to give a first-order simula-tion of prototypical conditions while maintaining the well-characterized condi-tions needed for generating benchmark data.

TARGET STRUCTURE The target structure in both tests was the same (Figure 1-1). The inner struc-ture, representing a last-stage stationary-blade support ring, was 12.7 cm (5 in) thick, 50.8 cm (20 in) wide, and 431.8 cm (170 in) in diameter. The outer shell, representing a casing cover, was 3.2 cm (1.25 in) thick,182.9 cm (72 in) wide, and 635 cm (250 in) in diameter. The ring and the shell were fabricated from ASTM ASIS, Grade 65 cold-rolled steel with a tensile yield of 300 MPa (43.6 ksi), a tensile ultimate of 491 MPa (71.4 ksi), and an elongation of 267, at room tempera-ture.

The ring and the shell were bolted to a massive concrete structure and soil over-burden weighing 1633 metric tons (1800 tons). The bolted connections simulated as closely as practicable the horizontal joints in an actual turbine. Twelve bolts that were 3.8 cm (1.5 in) in diameter held down each end of the ring; these had an ultimate strength of 11.5 MN (2.6 x 106 lbf) and an active length of 25.4 cm (10 in). Fourteen bolts 2.54 cm (1 in) in diameter held down each end of the 6

shell; these had an ultimate strength of 6.7 MN (1.5 x 10 lbf) and an active length of 15.2 cm (6 in). The bolts were fabricated from A490 steel.

1-1 a

The ring was maintained near 38'C (100*F), typical of the temperature in the last-stage region of an operating turbine. Standard Charpy-V specimens from the ring material gave a strength of 20 J (15 f t Ibf) at 38'C.

MISSILE IMPACT CONDITIONS The missile in both tests was a 120' sector of a last-stage shrunk-on disk manu-factured by Westinghouse Corporation. (The missile was selected from among several turbine disk segments provided for the test program by Westinghouse and General Electric Company.) Dimensions and mass properties of the 1527-kg (3366-lb) missile are given in Figure 1-2. The missile was made from high-strength alloy steel (ultimate strength of 896 MFa or 130 ksi). Note that the turbine sector has no blades; it is assumed that the blades break off or are crushed during exit.

The missile was mounted on a lightweight support sled, which was pushed ty a rocket sled (Figure 1-3). Af ter the acceleration stage the rocket sled was braked, allowing the missile and support sled to coast toward the target. Activa-tion of explosive bolts just before impact separated the missile from the support sled, which was diverted by a striker plate beneath the target structure. The missile then traveleo in free flight before its 15.5-cm-wide (6.1-in) edge struck the center of the 50.8-cm-wide (20-in) ring.

As indicated in Figure 1-1, the flight path of the missile's center of gravity was offset 51.3 cm (20.2 in) from the centerline of the track and the structure. This simulated the trajectory of a turbine segment that leaves the shaft translating tangentially from a circle through the segment's center of gravity. The rotation cf the segment, which would be at the rotational velocity of the turbine at failure, was not simulated in the tests. Instead, the total translational and rotational energy of the hypothetical turbine segment was included in the transla-tional energy of the test missile.

The nominal impact velocity in both tests was 146 m/s (480 ft/s). This transla-tional velocity gave the same total kinetic energy (16.4 x 106 J , or 12.1 x 10 6 f t Ibf) as a segment leaving a shaft spinning at 2160 rpm, or 120% of operating speed (the so-called design overspeed condition).

Since the orientation of a turbine segment at impact with the inner casing ring cannot be specified with certainty and since orientation has a large influence on absorbed energy, the missiles in the two tests had " bounding" orientations 1-2

(Figure 1-1), In the first test a piercing orientation, with sharp corner impact and mi .imum projected area, gave a lower bound on absorbed energy. In the second test a blunt orientation, 90* to the first, with curved edge impact and maximum projected area, gave an upper bound on absorced energy.

O 1-3 s

A BLUNT SHELL1 3.2cm wc .- _=

ORI ATION + / PIERCING l f ORIENTATION 51.3cm__l A 515 GRADE 65 12.7Cm RING .- STEEL UW. RETE ( ,

bat,KUP ,jg 3II ICA N

g -)

STRUCTURE p 12 - 3. 8cm DIA. BOLTS 215.9cm

, , _ ,L

,~

h

~

gBASE PLATE

' PLAN VIEW A

.I 3.2cm kROCKET SLED TRACK

- 12.7cm e NE 5. lcm THICK GUSSET 182.9cm g,y y- . _

$ _ TWO 5.Icm THICK t '

/ - GUSSETS j }... -

\

LCENTERLINE OF RING AND IMPACT c

Q e

. ROCKET SLED TRACK REINFORCED CONCRETE BACKUP STRUCTURE _

SECTION A-A Ftgure 1 1. Target structure, missile, and impact orientations (1 cm = 0.3937 in).

1-4 4

6.I IN -*

+A ACTUAL CG l

+Z 0iy X / ' ':'v'" ~ 0 ix S M Ny 4 20.16 IN x

a h Y AXIS ORIGIN 9.61 IN 19.31 IN +4

- 7 18.OIN eR M.M R 7' ' -

m SECTION A-A -t X L

-Z Wei0ht: 3365.8 lb Center of gravity- X = 0; Y =-0.61 in; Z = 20.16 in Mass moment of inertia: IX = 216783 lb-in2 lY = 818410 lb-in2 IZ = 686254 lb-in2 Figure 1-2. Dimenpions and mass properties of steel missile segment (120" hub section) (1 in = 2.54 cm. I lb = 2.20 kO).

j -~

kJ, *deth x:..m b. .

t. .

~ g - s E - Y' ' ' l~b{f.(f.r5'h. O I ,kf, l 'Y 4 .:r \ >M,k{,'9' p..' y , '. '\.s'4'.:p,K.;?;y[ k ';_ Y ' . )',

.

4' i' Q.- e, ' . [g. ' }" ,,',*E,?,,4.a;h a ' \  ? . $cf #. l ,o s , 'g ,... . ^ j~ l ygi .,,, . , o %s g( ? s " ,y % g 5 Do s \ . ,s, - oe. q- ,1 g' a 'Y ',. , ,4 j 1

.

s ,,N' A , e-i i .h g,_ p, . ,,.  ; .s 3 tk.3 . d' y t* 9 'i' ~ c 4 N' 3 5m

r. ,

%y n (N %.s .' .N N_  :. /; ,W 1, \\ ' ~ b , , . . - / 1-6 Section 2 TEST RESULTS In the test with a piercing orientation, the missile penetrated about 10 cm (4 in) into the ring, broke through both the ring and the shell, and exited with a trans-lational velocity of 86.9 m/s (285 f t/s) (Figure 2-la, b, c). After failure of the ring at the impact point, both ends of the ring broke at the edge of the welded gusset plates that connected the ring to its base plate. The bolts connec-ting the base plate to the backup structure did not fail. A plot of missile displacement versus time taken from an overhead high-speed camera is shown in Figure 2-2, and missile velocity and energy at various times are summarized in Table 2-1. In slowing the missile to 58% of its initial speed, the structure absorted two-thirds of the missile's energy; 85% of the absorbed energy was dissipated by ring impact and only 15% by shell impact. Table 2-1 MISSILE ENERGY, PIERCING ORIENTATION Cumulative Measured Kinetic Energy Time Velocity Energy 01ssipation Event ms m/s (ft/s) MJ (106 ft.lbf) t Ring impact 0 149 (490) 17.0 (12.5) 0 Ring fracture to shell impact 2.5-9.5 99 (325) 7.5 (5.5) 56 After shell perforation >20 87 (285) 5.7 (4.2) 66 The segment was rotating at 115 rpm after exiting the simulated casing (Figure 2-ic). The rotational energy imparted to the missile was negligible (0.6%) compared with the total exit energy. However, this rotation suggests that 2-1 an off-nomal impact on a concrete target following exit is a more reasonable simulation of potential impact on buildings than the nomal impact usually assumed for cesign. The missile was only slightly defomed by the impact; the shar;. corner war blunted about 1 in. Samples of the records from 26 strain gages on the ring and the shell are given in Figures 2-3 and 2-4. The gage in Figure 2-3 measured circumferential membrane strain on the midsurface of the ring at a cross section through tre impact point. A tensile strain of about 0.12% was measured before gage failure occurred wi t.hin less than 1 ms (ring fracture occurred between 2.1 and 2.5 ms af ter impact). The maximum strain rate measured was 64 s-1 Strain rates are expected to be much higher at points closer to the impact area. The gage in Figure 2-4 measured circumferential membrane strain at a cross section 12.1* from the support closest to the impact point. The strain peaked at about 2 ms after impact and began oscillating around a small residual strain at about 3 ms, when high-speed photography showed fracture at the nearby support. The peak reaction, estimated from strain measurements, was approximately 14.6 MN (3.3 x 106 lbf). In the test with a blunt orientation, the missile did not perforate either the ring or the shell (Figure 2-Sa, b, c). Instead the momentum transferred to the structures failed all of the support bolts, and the net energy dissipated brought the missile almost to rest. As indicated by the displacement, velocity, and energy histories in Figure 2-6 and Table 2, 95% of the missile's initial energy was dissipated as the ring impact slowed the missile to one-fifth of its initial speed. Missile velocity remained constant until impact with the shell absorbed virtually all of the remaining 5% of its energy. Sample strain records are given in Figures 2-7 and 2-8. The gage in Figure 2-7 reasured circumferential strain in the ring near the impact point (52* from the , suppo rt) . A peak strain of about 0.8% was measured before gage failure occurred at 6 ms. 2-2 a Table 2-2 MISSILE ENERGY, BLUNT ORIENTATION Cumulative Measured Kinetic Energy Time Velocity Energy Dissipation MJ (10 6 ft.lbf) Event ms m/s (ft/s) . Ring impact 0 151 (495) 17.4 (12.8) 0 - Ring bol* failure to shell impact 9-18 32 (105) 0.8 (0.6) 95 Shell bolt failure 55, 8 (25) 0.04 (0.03) 99.7 The gage in Figure 2-8 measured circumferential strain at a cross section 12.1* from the support closest to the impact point. The strain peaked at 7 ms after impact, which is the approximate time that high-speed photography showed bolt failure at the nearby support. The peak reaction, est' imated from strain measure-ments, was approximately 19.0 MN (4.3 x 106 lbf). Detailed data from both tests will be presented and compared with calculations in the final report. The report will include estimates of the amount of energy dis-sipated by various momentum t:ansfer and energy absorption processes. 2-3 s i , -'A' 9 .. . .~ . , p ,% .. 2 ' J' , < ', ., ) * * . 4 . - ,. . 1 .. s , ) . .> c . p . f, ,, ,,. - ~f. . ~ , , . . . .. , . . '.,.. s -. . .Ws. - . .*.r'. .n':. ..e ,  ; ., . . . , n > , . - EME . .....o- - ' -1 ' f EM  % 2 t - ~. . . . . . 88 - EME - ~

j.. -

~ _ . 888 ~

• ~

EME 1, .. .  :. . gSg . - . ~ 'E g g gg, ~ ': '.. ^, ~ '% 4 4 * ' g-j; ,. i, . '.. 3

• e  % . -

~, ' , 4 . t . . . ,a - 1 . ,, 1 - . . p 2 .  ? m . 2 - < ;i d . 3 , f - m . ,

.I  ! .

u ~ Th'. c. .. , T ,#> f . . . . - ' v .:, * - s- c: g , ., lt- sw , 4g - . g ,YM . * . 3 .

• t i .

] . ' - - . , s. '  :. , . . .- ~. - - > + . w -. . , , n '~... .- ' s. ..? - t . k g f c '

• p  %, .- ..

,s , t %. > % .'. :. . v. Figure 2-1a. Overhead photograph of piercing impact (V = 149 m/s,490 ft/s; c) = 0). 2-4 4 4-- , . .;

ggg-- 7 ---- - --m

, yq j.

.) ['

• ** ^

> , , '. ., t -

• a,i '.,

ce p. , e , , y , 4 - [; .~ t .) ge-  :

e. * , p . )/ p a '.

~ , ,3 l 5 l .'n, .e

• i a ;. . _ , _

,s ,, ' , ;' . m >  ;  !.

4 'g, E_. Ec R.- J ' ', ' , ,! 7 .. ----a .. a-4 _ g a a ., 4%  ; 4 ,  ; EE . . .i , . . .: ~ su RE - . , usand,% . 4 ' . > r. . , e .,, m , r . - . s jj. f 9 ~ - - - ~

. 1 -

7 k' 'p4- .z- ,,e. , s ,,

.

~* m g+ s - s v.. '

g. , . ., ,, .

I . .w -

• g 4

,.,a -cr~...- .- ,'  % - -I *** ' 1g "',\, .,a ,S '. * ,e .Q .4 ., .. A if - g' . .; 5 g O b :'~ , . . . s

• ;m[,,. . f f%s ., . .- M B<

. . . , 4 ' ' '* n, .no . = 1

• e

~~ - .; i ' 1, . , ' 6 ,'. - ',  ? '. / ;' v' f Figure 2-1b. Overhead photograph cf piercing impact (V = 99 m/s,325 ft/s). 2-5 < ,r, c. ,,.

+ * ~ .s .y-

A'

'. ,- ~ t - .. . : '~ ,

~ * * , p.* 888 ,, . s 'gSS . . . y ,, ;. .. . . ggr ,,J ,  ; ". gg- ,, 4 ~ ilER s .. j '< Q&rk* .,  ; gi s@ '? - .. u. 2 . r . ' .g. . ' g_, %_ . . .. :L - < , - ~ q.G.y .., . . tm , , , s ~ . ,5 & ,' .- , -* 9; s'N - ,j r+4 ~ A$i; ., - ' - { (*. l L;f f? . ( & ;. } *  ;

- . ,?

, c .' - ~ . e s. .*

.;

^ s s' -

• . < . - + s

,* ~ . .. y .. , . . ', - ? . . . :< / Figure 2-1c. Overhead photograph of piercing impact (V = 87 m/s,285 ft/s; ca = 115 rpm). 2-6 O / i- l l l l l __ 'l

1. I I

/ k! 1 l w l i ,/ / So. l / l i l .  ! l 3  ! h i E  ! /  ! . E, l [! - E / g / s.wumoact ! O l [M I l l l l. I / l l l  ! g ~ 'o _ Rin fracture z bring impact U / I /  ! i pf I / / .osee .oue ..aseo .o .o... TITE Ili SECOND3 Figure 2-2. Displacement history of missile in test with piercing orientation (1 ft = 30.48 cm; 1 ft/s = 0.305 m/s) . 2-7 a i  ! 1 . . . _ . . . _ . _ . . _ . _ _ . . __.a,___. f  ! 8;;3 i  ? a !, i N .o i i i o i i c ...'.. i .. _ s_. _ + D G ' .O O -  ! V =

I C

' i O . . . _ . 'i . . .a_.._. . _ _ . . . .. .

5 C

p . 3 sa .. :.  ;.. . _ . _: 3. . - . ;g g ~ ! i vi i 9 c ...a.._. . . . -_...a... . . . . . . . . . . _ -.s. . . . . . .- j g .Q , , v i ! i ua .e i i o e c o

.._. i .- . . . . . . . , . -. . _ . . . .

_o.33 o 5 ' 'y O i ' -. .5 t-o. 3

• I $ -h

. . 3 a i o a i._......;..._;_.;..__.._.. g __ _..; } .g , i  ! l 8 a l  ! O o _ . . , . 3 S g .5

o w

- . .I._ . . . _ M- h g i E-i ,

---

- ~ c

, t -

i .: m g8 Q

, i

,  ;

i

. ' ~~ H ~" o

,  ! .y C

o**

g-i i

, _ .. .+_ .

ib CO i j i 6

.. .. 1 _ .: . 4 w .._

I C i 3 1

L __

.2 .g

. . . LL-O O e M, 8, . .

4 .6 v4 0

NIh441$4d1!W 2-8 s

I.

~ . _

~... 0

. . 0

.l  !* jj.l4l [ 0

~.

- . 0

)

in

,i , i* 1i[!j!7  ;!jf ke . 1 a

r

_. - t s

.O

' t i

e

- . E s

{iq ti Ic , i I . I[!. 3 'O t l.. '

~

n e

~.

~ -

}i i} .

t to s

e

. n 0 e

. 6 d J IqI I; 7jp i,

'  ;! I 0

0 n

- ig

-. - s

- e v

r -l 1 7!li  ! .j  !

it

[ -

a g

. 0 e

~

- 5 (

n fl

,  ; li  !

- 0

~

0 n o

6 it a

- ~

_ . - E t

,

• 7 . .

7I  !! . I t e n I

~

C i e

E r

. ~

0 S o

~ .

- 4 e r g

,g ! t'

' i{

sp' l f~  !. 0 t n

0 ic

~ E

's

~

_ j  :

1 1

ie r

7 T p

!t  ! t'i .  ; !l l[!i j 1 . .

- t, r

.=

o g

1 .

0 p

. . d(-\

. 3 p u

II '

f l ,.l

,I. y'i l i .

+ I 0

0 s

_ r

. a

~~' .

e n

1' f.j l-- dr o

. 0 c

l . fll i 1-0 e

r

' . 0 n

- iar

'" - t S

t'

. [. I l7i

_. 0 4-1 2 i1 j  !

0 e

4 0 r

u g

i C-

. +

4 F

4 4 . 7k 0 O 0 0

5 q 0 0

1 z = 3 $ ,E mE s

Yf  ?? .

• Tht%4n 2 2._

s . U- _ ~{

- -a

.\ o

.f E l

N e

u _=

Ar%

~

\ "

l il Y pmai ,

7

- 1

{._ _ _

-- -l' ~- t,.

.{ _ ,.

, )

. t.f , , de

\

r C 3~g

- .: ,, g :

Figure 2-Sa. Overhead photograph of blunt impact (V = 151 m/s,495 ft/s; LJ = 0).

2-10 4

i _

- weW t_

l t

._.]

' .9-J E~ -

/_

~

Y

'~

\.

g AM

, 1

,u ** ' z. -4 .

N;;. *- '

0 ~

'~

• _e

\

- 9i m

me "A T.' .1

./,

0 . .

Rgure 2-Sb. Overhead photograph of blunt impact (V = 32 m/s,105 ft/s).

2-11

--.c-.. ..-_-,n..n-~ r .+,. . . . . , . ~, -----n ,

4  :.

+

, y . .- wg_ ^ ,s , _. " " * + 43, : .. ~

-- i , ggghagia p 4, Aw -

,j .

k 5: <w *A Ak; ..QN

• 73)Y .8 h(Q%

___ --"_- _g, _ r-ge.2  %$% [y pgg4j fd%g,$A.p[

__ -qj g ; , , f , ,, , 3. :f, A: =>

m --

3_3,* " '. _. .

M

- -m'M,s.pg* .gpa a '- 6

.- suk%m mc (

r-f L '.Y - ,

1 ,

m -

=

a

p . .; ,

7 '

%WI-

' ._ .? ' .

~~

~

g p T. ,v ,

4 -

i'i * .M- A' _

f. .

4, -

.  ;

s y

~' ta :.y d .l4 f- . .

, .W:1}j

..sn Figure 2-Sc. Overhead photograph of blunt impact (V = 8 m/s,25 ft/s; w:::0).

2-12

s.

I 25WS .

i f

-[* Shell bolt failure -

I l  !

/

//

r g-M . . . - - .

N e Shell impact .

l I i  !

r 3,

[m _,!

! l tLI  : Ring bolt failure W / l i* .

Lk '

%J l

o'. i On 6-e 4

>=

1 to e

• p J '

l Lk I i Ring impact j m .

f 2 .

U _ _ . .

t

=S

-f.

/,

/

I

.0 .0200 .0900 .0600 T3tE It! SFOLPs Figure 2-6. Displacement history of missile in test with blunt orientation (1 ft = 30.48 cm; 1 ft/s = 0.305 m/s) 2-13 a