.’.. CONTRACT REPORT BRL-CR-0600 BRL 1938-Serving theArmyforFifty Years -1988 AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE COMPRESSION SENSITIVITY DATA ON LIQUID GUN PROPELLANTS NEALE A.MESSINA JUNE 1988 APPROVBD FORPUBLIC RELEASE D1STRIBUTION UNLIMITED, U.S: ARMY LABORATORY COMMAND BALLISTIC RESEARCH LABORATORY ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
.’.. CONTRACT REPORT BRL-CR-0600
BRL 1938-ServingtheArmyforFiftyYears-1988
AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE COMPRESSION SENSITIVITYDATA ON LIQUID GUN PROPELLANTS
NEALE A.MESSINA
JUNE 1988
APPROVBDFORPUBLICRELEASED1STRIBUTIONUNLIMITED,
U.S: ARMY LABORATORY COMMAND
BALLISTIC RESEARCH LABORATORY
ABERDEEN PROVING GROUND, MARYLAND
DESTRUCTIONN31’ICE
Cestroy thisrepxt when it is no longerneeded. 03 NOT returnit to theorigtitor. -
AdditionalcopiesofInformationSemite,
The findingsof this
thisrepxt my be obtainsdfrrmthe NationalTechnkdU.S.Dsparmsntof Cmm?rce, Springfield,~ 22161.
repxt are not to k construedas an official Deparhentof the &my pxition, unlessso designatedby otherauthorizeddccmants.
The use of tradenamssor manufacturers’namesh thisrem dqasnot con-stituteindorssmentof any crmwrcialprcduct.
NCLASSIFIED:URITY CLASSIFICATION OF THIS PAGE
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE I FormApproved0M8 No. 070-?-0188
2a.NAME OF RESPONSIBLE INDIVIDUAL 22b. TELEPHONE Oncluds Area CodeJ 22c. OFFICE SYMBOLJohnD. Knapton (301)278-6170 SLCBR-IB-BDForm1473,JUN84 Previous editions are obdete. SECURITY CLASSIFlmTION OF THIS PAGE
UNCLASSIFIED
AN ATTEMPT TO RECONCILE COMPRESSION SENSITIVITY DATAON LIQUID GUN PROPELLANTS
PRINCETON COMBUSTION RESEARCH LABOR.4~RIJ=, INC.4275 u.S.HIGHWAY ONE,MONMOUTH JUNCTION,NEW JERSEY08852 TELEPHONE:(609)452.9200
Final.Report PCRL-FR-98-003April 15, 1988
AN ATTEMPT TO ~CONCILE COMPRESSION SENSITIVITY DATAON LIQUID GUN PROPELLANTS
Princeton Combustion Research Laboratories, Inc.4275 U.S. Eighway One
Monmouth Junction, NJ 08852
in fulfillment ofthe Reporting Requirements on
DAAD05-86-M-M414
U.S. Army Ballistic Research LaboratoryAberdeen Proving Ground, MD 21005-5066
-iii-
TAELE OF CONTENTSPAGE
Title Page ............................................... i
DD Form 1473: Report Documentation Page................. ii
Table of Contents........................................ iii
List of Tables..........................................s iv
List of F’igures.......................................... v
1. Comparison of Features o! PCRL Compress?.onIgnition Sensitivity Test Fixture and EMI Device
2. Summary of Analysis of High Speed CinematographicRecords for EMI Test 18-4-85, for LGP 1845
3. Tabulation of Pressure-Time Behavior for EMI Test18-4-85, for LGP 1845
4. Summary of Comparative Analysis of ?ompress~.onIgnition Tests for LGP 1845
5. Summary of Analysis of High Speed CinematographicRecords for EMI Test 6-4-85, for NOS-365
6. Tabulation of Pressure-Time Behavior for EM1 Test31-4-84, for NOS-365
7. Summary of Analysis of High Speed CinematographicRecords for EMI Test 31-4-84, for NOS-365
8. Summary of Comparative AnalysisIgnition Tests for NOS-365
of Compression
~
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
17
.
-v-
LIST OF FIGURES
Fiqure Title m
1. Schematic Drawing of PCRL Compression Ignition 18Sensitivity Test Fixture
2. Schematic Drawing of EMI-AFB Compression Test 19Fixture
3. Expanded Plot of Pressure-Time Behavior in EMI 20Test 18-4-85, for LGP 1845
4. Volumetric Compression of Individual Bubbles in 21EMI Test 18-4-85, for LGP 1845
5. Plot of Pressure-Time Behavior in EMI Test 2231-4-84, for NoS-365
6. Volumetric Compression of the Individual Bubbles 23.in EMI Test 31-4-84, for NOS-365
,,
-1-
INTRODUCTION
Safe start-up and operation of a liquid prope?.lantgun (LPG)system can be accomplished if the relevant sensitivity parametersof the candidate monopropellant as relates to compressionignition can be identified. I.tis essential that a quantitativecharacterization of the threshold for runaway reaction associat.efiwith compression ignition be established and brought underprecise control in LPG design. Aa a practical approach todefining the domain of safe start-up for LPG operation, it isnecessary to provoke runaway reactions, i.e., explosions, in aspecialized reusable laboratory-scale test fixture. It must alsobe recognized that residual ullage and cavitation bubbles broughtinto the liquid reservoir of a LPG during the pre-firing rapidfill process will influence the sensitization of the liquidmonopropellant to compression ignition. It is thereforeessential that cavitating flow dynamics induced by the rapid fill.process be incorporated into laboratory fixture design, asidefrom a quiescent or static liquid propellant loading with singleor multiple gaa pockets or bubbles.
To thk end, Princeton Combustion Research Laboratories,Inc. designed and fabricated a Compression Ignition SensitivityTest Fixture in 1979 to produce on a systematic basis rapidcompression of a liquid monopropellant charge, with or withoutullage, under rapid fill or quiescent loading conditions (Ref.1). The sensitivity to compression ignition of various liquidmonopropellant has been investigated over the years, includingOtto Fuel II, NOS-365, LGP 1845, and LGP 1846 (Ref. 2-4)..
AS a result of the recognized utility of the PCRGCompression Ignition Sensitivity Test Fixture in establishing thehazards potential of liquid gun propellants to rapid compressionstimulus, Dr. E. Schmolinske of Fraunhofer Institut furPdrzzeitdynamik, Ernst-Mach-Institut, Abteilung fur Ballistik(EMI-AFB) undertook an effort to design and test a windowed, highpressure, rapid compression apparatus modeled after the PCRLdesign (Ref. 5). The ability of the EMI-APB compressionapparatus to provide viewing access to the sample volumeundergoing rapid compression for high speed cinematography of thedynamics of the bubble compression process is a design featurenot present in the PCRL apparatus. Of course, there are otherinherent differences in apparatus design which are addressed inthis report.
The purpose of this report is an attempt to reconcileapParent discrepancies between conclusions drawn from compressionignition sensitivity data of liquid gun propellants obtainedindependently by PCRL and by EMI-AFB.
-2-
DISCUSSION
Figure 1 shows a functional schematic drawing of the PCRLCompression Ignition Sensitivity Test Fixture. The rapid fi?.1sequence is initiated by activating a circuj.tthat opens theSolenoid Valve which releases the driving N2 pressure into the0.5 inch diameter bore of the Pneumatic Load Cylinder toaccelerate the Pneumatic Piston. The rmtion of the PneumaticPiston forces the liquid propellant and any gas ullage past thePoppet Valve. The liquid propellant and gas ullage flow throughthe Flow Guide, possibly resulting in cavitation depending on thenature of the orifice, into the bore of the Compression Chamber.The Projectile $iston is then driven to the right allowing the LPcharge (6.65 cm ) to fill the bore until maximum stroke isachieved. The contact of the Projectile Piston with the contactwire in the End Plug completes a circuit that fires an M52Electric Primer in the Starter Charge Chamber. The resultingpressure generated by the combustion of the tailored smokelesspowder starter charge is sensed by the Compression Piston whichis free to move in the Compression Chamber bore. As the pressurein the Starter Charge Chamber rises, the Compression Pistonaccelerates compressing the liquid propellant charge and theembedded bubbles. If the liquid propellant charge undergoesrunaway reaction at some point in the compression cycle, theproj~tile Piston will shear through the aluminum shear disc whenthe bore pressure exceeds 450-480 MPa (65-70 kpsi). PCB type119A quartz pressure transducers, ruggeaized to withstandhydraulic pressures to 200 kpsi, are mounted in the CompressionChamber to record pressure-timg histories in the liquid during acompression test. PCRL light sensor assemblies are incorporatedin the Compression Chamber for detecting ignition of the liquidpropellant charge.
The EMI-AFB test fixture is sh wn schematically in Figure 2.9The liquid propellant sample (14 cm ) is introduced into the
sample cavity as a quiescent liquid, i.e., static fill. A bubblegenerating device located below the liquid propellant samplecavity introduces discrete bubbles into the sample. Thecompression sequence is then initiated by an electric primerfiring into the upper combustion chamber. The pressure generatedacts on the face of the driving (compression) piston and, oncethe restraining shear pin fails, piston motion ensues,compressing the liquid propellant charge and the embeddedbubbles. The compression piston is of a differential areahydraulic intensifier design. The test fixture is configuredwith optical windows to observe the bubble col?.apsephenomenonthrough high speed cinematography, and with a pressure transducerfor monitoring the pressure-time history in the liquid propellantduring a compression test.
Table 1 presents a comparison of the PCRL device and theEMI-AFB device before and after recent modifications to thelatter fixture. The most striking difference between the twofixtures is the state of the liquid propellant and associatedullage at the onset of rapid compression. In the PCRL
-3-
Compression Ignition Sensitivity Testcondition iS a ure-Pressurized liquid
Fixture, the initialpropellant charge
containing a ho~oge~eously distri~uted-fi~ld of microhubbles withmean bubble diameter less than 0.0025 cm. This is meant tosimulate the pre-firing propellant rapid loading prccess in thegun, prior to the onset of regenerative piston motion. On theother hand, in the EMI device, the initial condition is a l.iquiclpropellant charge at atmospheric pressure in which discretebubbles of initial mean bubble diameter on the order of 0.1 cmare introduced into the LP field.
The conclusions drawn by Dr. Schmolinske based on hisexperimental data were that no ignitions attributable tocompression ignition ware observed at conditions supposedlyduplicating those in PCRL experiments (Ref. 5). The one liquidpropellant initiation ,observed was thought to be a result offriction and viscous heating in the small annular clearance wherethe bubble generating device is located. The question arises:why the apparent discrepancy in results? It is PCRL-S beliefthat no contradictions exist and, in fact, the EMI data supportthe PCRL data.
To summarize the reconciliation of the two data sets, beforegetting into the details of analysis of each test, let us offerthe following explanation. Of paramount importance is the factthat the liquid pressurization rate upon which the PCRLcompression ignition sensitivity data correlates is the ~pressurization rate, not the instantaneous maximum pressurizationrate. Upon inspecting expanded scale press~e plots fromEMI tests, it is observed that the mean pressurization rate isless than that corresponding to TYPE “C’ start-up in PCRLexperiments, i.e., nominally 200 MPa/msec, in which the liquidresponse was benign for NoS-365 and for LGP-1845. So it would beanticipated, based on considerations of mean liquidpressurization rate only, that the response of the bubblypropellant charge in EMI tests would also be benign. However,there is another consideration. The bubble diameter in EMI testsis approximately a factor of 40 larger than in PCRL tests and ithas always been PCRL”S contention that the presence of largerbubbles sensitizes the liquid propellant to hot spot developmentto a greater extent than smaller diameter bubbles. This is stillheld to be true provided that the bubbles undergo collapsewithout significant deformation during pressurization leading tosplitting and shattering. In the EMI experiments the largediameter bubbles introduced into the LP field appearhydrodynamically unstable under the action of the pressure wavemotion, undergoing splitting and shattering for high initialliquid pressurization rates. It is doubtful whether the bubbleinternal (gas and vapor) pressure is maintained in each bubblefragment as splitting and shattering occurs from the parentbubble. It is hypothesized that the bubble shattering mechanismrelieves the internal bubble pressure so that the instantaneousoverpressure across the bubble boundary, delta-p, is relieved.Thermodynamic effects, i.e., average internal temperature,associated with hot spot development due to bubble compression
,. ..
-4-
would be reduced. That is to say, it is speculated that themaximum internal temperature attained is less for a bubble thathas undergone asymmetric collapse, splitting, and shattering,than for one that collapses without shattering.
Thus, the lower mean liquid pressurization rate in EMItests, the bubble shattering mechanism observed in EMI tests withhigh initial liquid pressurization rates, and/or a combination ofboth is responsible for the observed benign response of thebubbly liquid monopropellant subjected to rapid compression inEMI tests. PCRL test results and EMI test results are consistentwhen compared on this basis.
High speed films of EMI tests designated 18-4-85, LPG 1845:6-4-85, NoS-365; and 31-4-84, NOS-365 have been analyzed indetail with the aid of a motion analyzer located at TJ.S. ArmyBRL. Measurements of bubble sizes have been conducted, frame byframe, to the point where measurement was no longer possible dueto resolution limitations. These bubble measurement data werethen correlated with liquid pressure p-t data. The high speedcinematography was conducted with a Hitachi camera with a framingrate of 10,000 fps or 0.10 maec per frame. The exposure time perframe was 1.45 microsec. Although additional high speedcinematography was conducted with a Beckman camera, 4.0 microsecper frame and an exposure time of 300 nanosec, these photographicrecords have not been analyzed.
The EMI high speed bubble collapse photoa provideinformation from one viewing direction only, so that the threedimensional form of the collapse profiles can only be assumedfrom considerations of symmetry. In those cases wher= major andminor axes of the bubble are equal, we assume a sphericallysymmetric bubble. In those cases where major and minor axesdiffer, two different bodies of revolution can be assumed, anoblate spheroid, i.e., rotation about the minor axis, or aprolate spheroid, i.e., rotation about the major axis. Volumesbased on both oblate spheroid gemoetry and prolate spheroidgeometry are presented in the accompanying tables for each test.In general, the side view photographs of ENI show a departurefrom circular profile for rapid liquid pressurization, the bubblecollapse manifesting itself in pronounced asymmetry, followed bybubble splitting and bubble shattering.
Test EMI 18-4-85, LP 1845
Only one set of test data is available for LGP 1845 liquidmonopropellant. Both high speed cinematographic film and liqui?pressure-time data (expanded scale) have been analyzed. Table 2summarizes bubble size data from the motion analyzer. Initially,single, large diameter bubbles are introduced into the LP. Uponintroduction the bubble boundary oscillates somewhat, but theboundary motion damps to produce an ellipsoid-shaped bubble. Atthe starting condition (t = O), five representative bubbles wereidentified and tracked in time. The individual bubble volume isin the range of 0.00645 ~ V [cm31 : 0.01070 for oblate spheroid
-5-
symmetry and in the range of 0.00547 < V [cm31 ~ 0.0086!3 forprolate spheroid geometry. At time t–= 0.0001 sec (secondframe), the collapse of the individual bubbles has begun with thebubble boundary retaining its elliptical shape. Volumetriccompression of the individual bubbles is approximately 1.2 (seeTable 2 for precise numbers). The field pressure, as measuredfrom the expanded pressure-time record of Figure 3, is 20.3 MPa(2.94 kpsi). The field pressure is tabulated as a function oftime in Table 3. At time t = 0.0002 sec (third frame), continualcollapse of the individual bubbles is noted with the bubbleboundary still.retaining its elliptical shape. Volumetriccompression of the individual bubbles is now approximately 3.0.The field pressure is 55.2 NPa (8.01 kpsi). Beyond t = 0.0002see, between t = 0.0002 sec and t = 0.0003 see, continuedcollapse of the individual bubbles occurs but with boundarydistortion. Contrast differences begin to appear in each bubbleinterior. Bubble labeled No. 5, closest to the wall boundary, isno longer a single, well-defined bubble. At t = 0.0003 ~;c;hghefield pressure has increased to 97.7 MPa (14.Zl kpsi).time frame 0.0004 $ t (see) ~ 0.0005 bubble splitting can beobserved with continued distortion of bubble surfaces. Finallyat t = 0.0006 see, with the field pressure equal to 167.6 MPa(24.31 kpsi), shattering of bubbles into”localized “mists”, i.e.,microbubbles, can be observed, persisting for 2.5 to 9.0 msec.During this time interval discrete bubbles are no longer visible.‘l%evolumetric compression of individual selected bubbles as afunction of time is shown plotted in Figure 4. The sequence ofobservations from high speed films is indicated on the expandedpressure-time plot of Figure 3.
The compression process did not lead to an ignition event.A detailed look at Figure 3 explains why. During the timeinterval of maximum pressurization, 420.5 !4Pa/msec (61.0 kpsi/msec), bubble splitting occurs in the pressure range97.7 < p[!~al < 137.4, followed by the bubble shattering fort > O~S msec, ~or liquid pressure in excess of 162.1 MPa.Howaver, during the time to achieve maximum equilibrium pressurein the liquid (p = 228 MPa, 33.1 kpsi), a m- pressurizationrate can be identified through the oscillatory character of thestart-up p-t curve. This mean pressurization rate is equal to108.2 MPa/msec (15.7 kpsi/msec). It is this mean pressurizationrate that PCRL has identified in its compression sensitivityexperiments as one of the important parameters to correlateignition/no-ignition observations, not the maximum pressurizationrate. Table 4 compares tabulated results for EMI test 18-4-85(no ignition) with “equivalent” PCRL tests A1.3ant?A14 whichresulted in no ignition (benign) response of the liquid. Notethat the mean liquid pressurization rate in EMI test 18-4-85 isonly one-half that in “equivalent” PCRL tests. Comparison isalso made with PCRL tests A20, A21, and A24 in which the meanpressurization rate was higher than that in tests A13 and A14(43 kpsi/msec vs. 31 kpsi/msec). In these PCRL tests with higherhigher mean pressurization rate, explosions were observed in twoout of three tests.
-6-
Also tabulated in Table 4 is the maximum liquidpressurization rate. It is interesting to note that the maximumrate for PCRL tests A13 and A14 is approximately a factor of fourgreater than for EMI test 18-4-85, yet no explosion was observed.To demonstrate that the maximum liquid pressurization rate is“not ‘.the correlating factor, PCRL tests A20 and A24 have maximum ratesless than A13 and A14 and yet explosions were observed in theformer tests! Therefore, on the basis of mean pressurizationrate, coupled to the bubble shattering mec~sm in EMI tests,the EMI test results and PCRL test results correlate.
Test EMI 6-4-85, NoS-365
One of the available data sets for NOS-365 liquidmonopropellant is EMI 6-4-85. Seth high speec!cinematographicfilm and liquid pressure-time data have been analyzed.Unfortunately expanded scale p-t data were not made available forthis test, so estimates of maximum and mean pressurization ratefrom the unexpanded record placed these values approximatelyequal to those experienced in Test 18-5-85. Table 5 summarizesbubble size data from the motion analyzer The individual bubblevolume is in the range of 0.000087 ~ V[cm5] ~ 0.000487. Thisindividual bubble volume is a factor of 10 smaller than thebubbles introducti into LGP-1845 in EMI Test 18-5-85. Att=Osingle, spherically-symmetric bubbles in close proximity appearin the immediate vicinity of the bubble generator. At t = 0.0001see, the field pressure has increased to approximately 20.3 MPa(2.94 kpsi). At this time symmetric bubble collapse is evident.At t = 0.0002 see, bubble splitting is observed to occur (pL -55.2 MPa, 8.01 kpsi). At t = 0.0003 see, bubble shattering isevident. No measurable discrete bubbles exist in the field.This localized collection of microbubble “mist” persists forapproximately 1.8 msec. No ignition was observed.
Test EMT 31-4-84, NOS-365
Another available data set for NoS-365 is EMI 31-4-84. Thisdata set differs from Test 6-4-85 in that the mean liquidpressurization rate is reduced by a factor of four, from 420MPa/msec to 106 f4Pa/msec. The liquid pressure-time history jsshown in Figure 5, with mean pressurization rate approximatelyequal to maximum pressurization rate. Table 6 tabulates liquidpressure versus time for the first 1.8 maec of bubble collapse.Table 7 summarizes bubble size data from the motion analyzer. Inthis test the individual bubble volume is in the range of0.000110 ~ v[cm31 ~ 0.000885 for both oblate and Prolate spheroidsymmetry. As Table 7 indicates, each bubble tracked retains itsshape for the duration of the compression prccess, to theresolution limit of the nmtion analyzer projector. Thevolumetric compression of the individual bubbles can be tracke~for many frames, owing to the relatively slow pressurizationstart-up. Volumetric compression factors as high asapproximately 30 are noted from the film. The change inindividual bubble volume with time is shown in Figure 6. Th isfigure should be compared with volumetric compression results for
bubbly
-7-
LGP-1845, test EMI 18-5-85, presented in Figure 4. Thelarger bubble diameter and higher compression rate in Test EMI18-5-85 result in an accelerating col!.apseof the bubble untilsplitting and shattering occurs. Figure 6 demonstrates acompletely different collapse behavior for Test 31-4-84, for thecase of slow pressurization start-up with bubbles which are one-half to one-third the i!iameterof those in Test ENI 18-4-85. Nobubble shattering is observed to occur. No ignition resulted.
Table 8 compares tabulated results for EMI Tests 6-4-85 and31-4-84, both of which resulted in no ignition, with “equivalent”PCRL Tests LP06 and LP07 which resulted in no ignition (benign)response of the liquid. Note that the w liquid pressurizationrate in both EMI tests is only one-half that in “equivalent” pCRLtests. Comparison is also made with PCRL Tests LP15, LP16, LP!.7and LP18 in which the mean pressurization rate was increased.Three out of four tests resulted in an explosive response.
Again we note that the maximum pressurization rate in PCRLTests LP06 and LP07 exceeds that in EMI Tests 6-4-85 and 31-4-84by a factor of approximately 3 for 6-4-85 and a factor in excessof 10 for 31-4-84, yet no explosions were observed in these twoPCRL tests. The correlating factor for ignition/no-ignition isthe m= pressurization rate.
●
●
●
●
SUN14ARY
PCRL compression .ignition sensitivity data correlate basedon mean liquid pressurization rate, not maximumpressurization rate.
The mean pressurization rates in the three EMI testsdiscussed in detail in this report are less than thatcorresponding to TYPE “C” start-up pressurization curve inPCRL tests, nominally 200 kWa/msec (30 kesi/msec), for whichthe liquid response was benign.
The bubble splitting and shattering prccess observed inseveral EMI tests tends to further desensitize the liquid.
Apparent discrepancies betweentest results, as voiced by Dr.reconciled.
EMI test results and PCRLSchmolinske, have been
-P-
REFERENCES
1. N.A. Messina, L.S. Ingram, P.E. Camp, and M. Summerfield,‘Compression-Ignition Sensitivity Studies of LiquidMonopro~ellants in a Dynamic-Loacling Environment”, JANNAFCombustion Meeting, CPIA Publication 308, Vol. I, Pp. 247-284, 1979.
2. N.A. Messina, L.S. Ingram and M. Summerfield, “Sensitivityof Liquid Monopropellant to Compression Ignition”, JANNAFCombustion Meeting, CPIA Publication 347, Vol. II, pp. 269-287, 1981.
3. N.A. Messina, L.S. Ingram, and M. Summerfield, “Sensitivityof Liquid Monopropellants to Compression Ignition,”Princeton Combustion Research Laboratories, Final ReportPCRL-FR-83-004 , June 1983; also, U.S. Army BRL ContractReport ARBRL-cR-O0531, August 1984.
4. N.A. Messina, “Compression Sensitivity of LiquidMonopropellants”, U.S.<erman Visit on Liquid PropellantTechnology at Ballistic Research Laboratory under DEA-106O,1983.
5. E. Schmolinske, “Bubble Compression in Liquid Propellants”,US-German Visit on Liquid Propellant Technology at BallisticResearch Laboratory under DEA-106O, 1983.
EMI-AFB
PCRL DEVICE
RAPID FILL OF LP WITHASSOCIATED ULLAGE THROUGHPOPPET VALVE; FLUID DYNAMICSUBDIVISION OF ULLAGE
Collapse of individualbubbles;tile’ bcnmdaiyretairmellipticalor sfhericalshap
Cuatinualmllapse of bukbles;Prsist9 for 31 frame (3.1msec).
TABLE 7. (Cent’d.)
MFwst18sLE n4DIvmDAL 8US8L2m m. DIMEI!ER
PRJPsLL4Nr(dp/dt)- (@/W ma~ SSSKNSE
an & kpi/msec MP*sec k@/- MPa/msSc
sMI 6-4-85 0.0549s D s 0.0915 8.70X 10-5: V : 4.87X 10-4 61.0 420.5 15.7 108.2 8E!41G4
EM331-4-84 0.0595~ D f 0.1191 1.10X 10-4s V :8.85 X 10-4 15.4 106.1 15.4 106.1 BENIQ4
I
Km LP06 D :0.0025,distributed v~ 8.18x 10-6 200.est 1500.-t 30.e5t Zoo.est 81141a:
Km IP07 D ~ 0.0025,distributed v :8.18 x lo-fJ 2oo.vt 1500.est So.ext Zoo.est sENIQ4
FCRLLP15 D f 0.0025,distributed v :8.18 x 10-6 120.e9t 800.-t bo.est 300.est ExPl&sIa4
KRL LP16 I):0.0025,distribu&d V ~ 818 X 10+ 120.- 800.-t Ao.est 3oo.=t ~IQ4
ECSt,LP17 D ~ 0.0025,distributed v :8.18 x 10-6 lzo.est 800.St bo.est 300.est EXP~I~
K2SL LP18 D ~ 0.0025,distribu&d V ~ 8.18 X 10+ lZO.= 800.=t Ao.est 300.‘t EXPK).SION
TABLE 8. Summary of Comparative Analysis of Compression Ignition Tests for NOS-365.
eMOum.8M PMJou ===:=OL IDInCA’’la” am Al * ,A.m
I \ F@smumt_. .._.
r-l
RLacmIc PelMagJPNWJMATI12
L.P.--m
1-n Flu
PNEIIWULLC- Vuva
. .
1*mlOln (t) r) ““-””
FIGURE 1. Schematic Drawing
Test Fixture.
Of PCRL Compression Ignition Sensitivity
-19-
N
la STEELCORF1N6XE18T
lGNITE!I
on CM14ESR
GAUGE
P1STON
.SHEARPIN
P1Sml
Pwssune GwGE
OP’’1UL d tNOOM
S4MPLS
w ‘U’a”’’’’’’r’o”o’v’c’
FIGUF.S 2. Schematic Drawing of EMI-AFB CompressionTest Fixture.
2500n
2000.mlx~ i500,mu
. .$
,..,.. .~—>,..... ..
,.. .....+:1==.,=
..
.... ..
:._——-—.-—........
... ..,.....
———-..—— ..,..... ..,.. ..
..,..——— —--——... ..
..4
,..
,.. ——— ——— ——.
. .
. . .
. . .
:::
:::
k A A A A
7*A
‘z ‘I
9, 10. 11,
T [F’IS3
-1
FIGURE 3. Expanded Plot of Pressure-Time Behavior in EMI Test 18-4-85, fOrLGP 1845.
. . . .,
o,
0.
0.
0.
0.
00 0.0001 0.0002 0.0003 0.0004
TIME (see) TIME (see)
FIGURE 4. Volumetric Compression of the Individual Bubbles in EM1 Test 18-4-85.fcr LPG-1845. No Measurements Were Made for t>O.0002 sec Due to BoundaryDistortion.
-22-
$u“~aJ
.fgl,:, i , ,.I;l !.
! :\[225.5 ~:”:, :
::
1!— ._.!... ........ ... __2 ..._&--....,._.;_
1::1. — :— .—
;..:;,,.:, i<l
180.4---i ~:“i --”——
““-–
~–!--:-””’ ““””””“’“-—.
135.3
90.2._. — .—
45.1 -
0 -.
TIME (msec)T meumom-mm
~
~.modmw-i. m...!4Zr4
.
FIGURX 5. Plot of Pressure-Time Behavior in EMI Test31-4-84, for NoS-365.
o 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010
TIME [.see)
FIGURE 6. Volumetric Compression of thefor NOS-365. No Measurements
o 0.0002 0.0004 0.0006 0.0008 0.001
TIHS (S~C)
Individual Bubbles in EMI Test 31-4-84,Were Made for t>O.0009 sec.
<
DISTRIBUTION LIST
No. ofConies OrFanizatiOn
12 CommanderDefense Technical Info CenterATTN: DTIC-DDACameron StationAlexandria, VA 22304-6145
1 DirectorDefense Advanced Research
Projects AgencyATTN: H. Fair1400 Wilson BoulevardArlington, VA 22209
1 HQDAD~-ART-MWashington, DC 20310
1 CommanderUS Army Materiel CommandATTN : AMCDRA-ST5001 Eisenhower AvenueAlexandria, VA 22333-0001
13 CommanderArmsment R&D CenterUS Army AMCCOMATTN : SMM-TSS
SMCAR-TDCSMCAR-SCA, B. Brodman
R. YalamanchiliSMGAR-ASE-B, D . Downs
A. BeardellSMCl+R-LCE,N. SlaggSMCAR-AEE-B, W, Quine
A. BracutiJ. Lannon
SMCi+R-CCH,R. PriceSkiCAP.-FSS-A, L. FrauenSMCAR-FSA-S, H. Liberman
M. SUIIIIDerfield475 US HighwayOne North140nmouthJunction,NJ 08852
Brill
Am: AMKSY-DAMKSY-MP, H. Cohen
Cdr,USATECOMATTN : AMSTE -TO-F
Cdr, CRDEC, AMCCOI’SATTN : SMCCR-RSP-A
SMCCR-MUSMCCR-SPS-IL
1 University of ArkansasDept of Chemical EngrAITN : J. Havens227 Engineering BuildingFayetteville, AR 72701
29
,4
,..
USER EVALUATION SHEET/CHANGE OF ADDRSSS
This Laboratory undertakes a continuing? effort to improve the C@ ity ~f thereperts it publishes. Your cOCUWkS/answerS to the it ema/quastions below wi 11aid us in our efforts.
1. BRL Report Number Date of Report
2. Date Report Received
3. t)oes this report satisfy a need? (Cmnt OMPqo$e, related project, orotherareaof interestforwhichthereportwil I be used. )
4. Now specificallY,iSthereWrt bein8u$~? (Informationsource, designdata, procedure, source of ideas, etc. )
s. NSS the information in this report led to any quantitative savings as faras man-hours or dollarssaved,operatingcostsavoidedor efficienciesachieved,etc? If so, please elaborate.
6. General Comaents. Nhat do YOU think should be changed to improve futurereports? (Indicate changes to organization, technical content, format, etc. )
Organization
AODRSSS Addrass
City,State,Zip
7. If indicating a Change of Mdress or AddressCorrection,please provide theNew or Correct Mdress in Block 6 above and the Old or Incorrect sddress below.
(’uADDRSSS organization
(Removethis
Md ress
City,State,Zip
sheet,fold ae indicated, staple or tape closed, and mail. )
—— ——. ——— —FOLOHSRE— ——— — ‘———
DirectorU.S. Army B6.llistic Reeearch LaboratoryATTN: SLCBR-DD-TAberdeeo prmtig Gromds ~ 21005-5066
OFFICIAL BUSINSSS
PCNUTY rem mlvam use, C300 BUSINESSREPLYMAIL-TCLASSPERMIT NO 12062 WASNINOTON,OC
-T- _ ~_ 6YOEPAllyNENTOF TIIE ARMY
Director
U.S. Armp Ballistic Rese6rch Laboratory -Al-TN: SLC21R-DD4Aberdeen ProvingGro~ B ~ 21005-9989