1 / 8

Whackometry data

Whackometry data. HCAT Program Review Long Beach April 2001. Whackometer. Simulate FOD (hammers, rocks, F-8’s, etc.) 1 lb (1 7/8” dia) 52100 ball Drop down tube Flattens rod surface about 0.003” Cracks around periphery of flattened area 100x optical examination. 2 - 8’. FOD for thought.

fallon
Download Presentation

Whackometry data

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Whackometry data HCAT Program Review Long Beach April 2001

  2. Whackometer • Simulate FOD (hammers, rocks, F-8’s, etc.) • 1 lb (1 7/8” dia) 52100 ball • Drop down tube • Flattens rod surface about 0.003” • Cracks around periphery of flattened area • 100x optical examination 2 - 8’ FOD for thought

  3. Impact crater - 5’ drop onto WC-CoCr 0.010”

  4. Work done so far • Drop tests done on 0.005” and 0.010” EHC, WC-Co, WC-CoCr • Heights 24 - 103” • Damage small - need microscopy • Some multiple-drops, but confusing and no obvious additional damage • This is not same as done by Don Parker • dropped coating on 3lb fixture onto 1” ball • did drops near edge of coating • could not get visible failure otherwise (cf ice cracking) • counted drops to visible failure

  5. EHC - 0.010”, 102” drop Circumferential cracks Longitudinal cracks away from flat Longitudinal cracks away from flat

  6. WC-Co, 0.010”, 102” drop Circumferential cracks

  7. WC-CoCr, 0.010”, 102” drop Circumferential cracks

  8. Conclusions • Damage not greatly different • chrome shows both circumferential and longitudinal cracks (along rod), while HVOF only shows circumferential cracks • more cracks visible for EHC than for HVOF (but also depends on contrast, surface reflectivity, roughness, etc.) • Damage at lower drop height still to be analyzed • So far HVOF is better than or equal to chrome • This is same conclusion as for Gravelometry

More Related