Adiabatic Compression of Oxygen

THERMAL PROFILE OF A NEAR-ADIABATIC
COMPRESSION PROCESS IN A CYLINDRICAL TUBE

AND ESTABLISHMENT OF CRITICAL CONTROL
ELEMENTS FOR REPEATABLE PROCESS CONTROL
Barry Edward Newton, BSME
Presented to:
Professor Theodore Steinberg
Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

Doctor of Philosophy
Faculty of Built Environment and Engineering
Queensland University of Technology
2011
Thermal Profile of a Near-Adiabatic Compression Process in a Cylindrical Tube and Establishment of Critical
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page i
Keywords
Adiabatic Compression, BAM Testing, Compression Heating, Driven Gas, Driving Gas, Fast-
Response Temperature Measurement, Gaseous Fluid Impact, Gaseous Oxygen, Ignition
Probability, Logistic Regression, , Near-Adiabatic Compression, Pneumatic Impact, Pressure
Surge, Rapid Compression, Severity Index, Thermal Profile, Thermocouple Array
Page i
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page ii
Summary
The compressed gas industry and government agencies worldwide utilize

“adiabatic compression” testing for qualifying high-pressure valves, regulators, and other
related flow control equipment for gaseous oxygen service. This test methodology is
known by various terms including adiabatic compression testing, gaseous fluid impact
testing, pneumatic impact testing, and BAM testing as the most common terms. The test
methodology will be described in greater detail throughout this document but in summary
it consists of pressurizing a test article (valve, regulator, etc.) with gaseous oxygen within 15
to 20 milliseconds (ms). Because the driven gas1 and the driving gas2 are rapidly
compressed to the final test pressure at the inlet of the test article, they are rapidly heated
by the sudden increase in pressure to sufficient temperatures (thermal energies) to
sometimes result in ignition of the nonmetallic materials (seals and seats) used within the
test article. In general, the more rapid the compression process the more “adiabatic” the
pressure surge is presumed to be and the more like an isentropic process the pressure
surge has been argued to simulate.
Generally speaking, adiabatic compression is widely considered the most efficient
ignition mechanism for directly kindling a nonmetallic material in gaseous oxygen and has
been implicated in many fire investigations. Because of the ease of ignition of many
nonmetallic materials by this heating mechanism, many industry standards prescribe this
testing. However, the results between various laboratories conducting the testing have not
always been consistent. Research into the test method indicated that the thermal profile
achieved (i.e., temperature/time history of the gas) during adiabatic compression testing as
required by the prevailing industry standards has not been fully modeled or empirically
verified, although attempts have been made.
This research evaluated the following questions:
1) Can the rapid compression process required by the industry standards be
thermodynamically and fluid dynamically modeled so that predictions of the
thermal profiles be made,
1
Atmospheric pressure oxygen originally in the system piping or tubing upstream of the test article;
2
Oxygen gas originally contained in a high-pressure accumulator and separated from the driven gas by a fast
operating valve.
Page ii
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page iii
2) Can the thermal profiles produced by the rapid compression process be

measured in order to validate the thermodynamic and fluid dynamic models;
and, estimate the severity of the test, and,
3) Can controlling parameters be recommended so that new guidelines may be
established for the industry standards to resolve inconsistencies between
various test laboratories conducting tests according to the present standards?
Chapter Summary
Chapter 1 outlines the background of the test methods widely used and the
importance of understanding the thermal profiles that are produced by the various test
systems. This chapter also describes the inconsistent data that is sometimes observed
between the laboratories that routinely conduct this testing. The thermal profiles
produced during testing and whether they differ from one test system to another is
discussed as being of primary interest as the subject of both measurement and modeling in
this research.
Chapter 2 outlines the historical development of the adiabatic compression test
method (or gaseous fluid impact test method) from approximately 1921 to the present and
discusses some of the thermodynamic and fluid-dynamic processes thought to be involved.
This chapter also outlines some of the considerations that were evaluated during the
testing and modeling to estimate the temperature and energy developed during a pressure
surge.
Chapter 3 summarizes the approach taken in this research for estimating the
thermal profiles developed during a rapid pressure surge and presents a technique for
estimating the severity of the pressure surge based on the change in enthalpy estimated
and measured for the driven gas. The severity indices derived in this chapter will be used in
Chapter 5 to rank the performance of the test systems. In order to measure the gas
temperatures in real time, a specialized fixture called a Thermal Profile Test Fixture (TPTF)
was developed that utilized thermocouple arrays comprised of 3 sizes of fine-wire exposed-
bead thermocouples at each of 4 measurement positions. This chapter describes the test
approach used at six different laboratories and the method of gathering the thermal profile
data. This chapter also describes two methods of estimating the true gas temperature from
the measured temperatures.
Chapter 4 examines a simplified one-dimensional model for predicting the
temperature and energy produced during rapid compression of oxygen in a dead-ended
tube. The compression process is usually examined by considering only the energy gain
Page iii
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page iv
from the work done by the driving gas on the driven gas, modeled as a piston, and by
assuming that this energy gain is isentropic (adiabatic and reversible). Further, the energy
gain is usually simplified by considering only ideal gas behavior. In contrast to these usual
assumptions, the model developed here attempted to estimate the losses associated with
heat transfer by forced convection and energy loss by gas friction during the pressure surge
since virtually every reported attempt to measure the temperatures produced have
resulted in temperatures significantly lower than the theoretical values calculated by
conventional means. The model developed herein incorporated real gas behavior to better
predict the actual temperature rise and considered heat transfer by forced convection
processes while the mass wave was moving and natural convection during the period of
cooling after the compression surge was over.
Chapter 5 presents the thermal profile test data that was obtained at six (6)
different laboratories that routinely perform adiabatic compression testing. The thermal
profiles were obtained at 100-bar, 200-bar, and 275-bar at each laboratory. This chapter
presents the method used to reduce the data for analysis and presents the estimations of
the thermal profiles that were achieved at each laboratory. Finally, the severity indices
discussed in Chapter 3 were utilized to develop rankings of severity for each of the
laboratories and to develop conclusions pertaining to some of the controlling variables in
the test.
Chapter 6 presents the results of ignition testing of a non-metallic material at 4 of
the 6 laboratories that was conducted to further evaluate the system-to-system severities
that were derived in Chapter 5.
Chapter 7 presents a summary of the conclusions of the research and outlines the
primary variables that should be controlled in future industry standards to better specify
the testing methodology.
Page iv
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page v
Table of Contents
Keywords .................................................................................................................................................. i
Summary ................................................................................................................................................. ii
Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................... v
List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ vii
List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ x
List of Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................... xi
Pressure Conversion .............................................................................................................................. xii
Statement of Original Authorship ........................................................................................................ xiii
Acknowledgments ................................................................................................................................ xiv
CHAPTER 1: BACKGROUND AND DESCRIPTION OF ADIABATIC COMPRESSION TESTING .................. 1
1.1 Introduction .................................................................................................................................1
1.2 Testing Background ......................................................................................................................3
1.3 Statement of Industry Problem ...................................................................................................4
1.4 Test Method Background .............................................................................................................6
1.5 Variability Among Test Systems .................................................................................................10
CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT OF ADIABATIC COMPRESSION TESTING AND EVALUATION
OF FLUID DYNAMIC PROCESSES INCLUDING SHOCK-WAVE CONSIDERATIONS ............................... 17
2.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................17
2.2 Historical Development and Background of Adiabatic Compression Testing ............................17
2.3 Shock Wave Heating or Isentropic Compression Heating ..........................................................24
2.4 Real Gas Considerations.............................................................................................................34
2.5 Summary and Conclusions from Background Research.............................................................36
CHAPTER 3: ESTIMATING GAS TEMPERATURE AND SYSTEM SEVERITY .......................................... 39
3.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................39
3.2 Methodology and Experimental Approach ................................................................................39
3.2.1 Experimental Objective ..................................................................................................40
3.2.2 Relevance of the Thermal Profile ...................................................................................40
3.2.3 Specification of Severity .................................................................................................41
3.3 Temperature Measurement ......................................................................................................45
3.4 Measurement Apparatus – Thermal Profile Test Fixture (TPTF) ...............................................48
3.4.1 Description of Thermal Profile Test Fixture ....................................................................51
3.4.2 Data Acquisition System .................................................................................................51
3.4.3 Uncertainty Analysis .......................................................................................................52
3.5 Approach to Estimation of Gas Temperature at Six Laboratories .............................................55
3.5.1 True Gas Temperature Estimation ..................................................................................56
3.5.2 Moffat Approach to Temperature Estimation ................................................................57
3.5.3 Faeth Approach to Temperature Estimation ..................................................................60
3.6 Summary ....................................................................................................................................64
Page v
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page vi
CHAPTER 4: THERMODYNAMIC AND FLUID DYNAMIC MODEL OF THE TEMPERATURE AND ENERGY
RISE DURING A RAPID PRESSURE SURGE IN A DEAD END TUBE ...................................................... 65
4.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................65
4.2 Process Derivation .....................................................................................................................66
4.3 Development of Equations for Temperature Prediction ...........................................................72
4.3.1 First Law Analysis ............................................................................................................74
4.3.2 Heat Transfer Losses .......................................................................................................75
4.3.3 Evaluation of Heat Transfer Variables ............................................................................76
4.3.4 Internal Energy Relationships .......................................................................................79
4.3.5 Evaluation of Momentum Relationships ........................................................................80
4.3.6 Energy Gain Relationships ..............................................................................................82
4.3.7 Estimation of Enthalpy Change through Residual Functions ..........................................84
4.4 Outline of Calculational Procedure to Estimate Gas Temperature ............................................87
4.5 Results of the Temperature Estimations ...................................................................................90
4.6 Summary ....................................................................................................................................92
CHAPTER 5: RESULTS OF THERMAL PROFILE TESTING AT SIX DIFFERENT LABORATORIES AND
COMPARISON OF SYSTEMS BY THERMAL PROFILES ....................................................................... 94
5.1 Introduction ...............................................................................................................................94
5.2 Analysis of Thermal Profile Data from Six Laboratories .............................................................94
5.2.1 Comparison of System Data .........................................................................................101
5.2.2 Discussion of System Test Data ....................................................................................110
5.2.3 Presentation of Calculated Severity Indices .................................................................114
5.2.4 Estimates of Enthalpy Changes Used on Severity Index Calculations ...........................122
5.3 Summary ..................................................................................................................................124
CHAPTER 6: ADIABATIC COMPRESSION IGNITION TESTING ......................................................... 126
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................126
6.2 Ignition Testing Reaction Fixture .............................................................................................127
6.3 Ignition Testing Protocol and Results ......................................................................................128
6.4 Discussion and Summary .........................................................................................................130
CHAPTER 7: CONCLUSIONS, APPLICATION AND FUTURE WORK .................................................. 134
7.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................................134
7.2 Conclusions and Applications of the Research ........................................................................134
7.3 Future Work .............................................................................................................................138
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................................................................................................. 140
APPENDIX A – OXYGEN PROPERTIES ............................................................................................ 146
APPENDIX B – DATA SUMMARIES FOR EACH LABORATORY ......................................................... 167
Page vi
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page vii
List of Figures
Figure 1 – Simulated Adiabatic Compression against Closed Valve ........................................................3

Figure 2 – Regulator Fire Investigated by WHA (left – typical regulator attached to cylinder; middle –
ignition site in ambulance; right – regulator burnout pattern) ......................................................5
Figure 3 – WHA Adiabatic Compression Test system and Test Cycle ......................................................7
Figure 4 - Idealized Temperature Rise of Small Plastic Sample Due to Heat Content in Compressed
Slug Originally in 5-mm 1 m long Impact Tube (k = 1.4 for oxygen) ...............................................8
Figure 5 - Flow Characteristics of Valve Configurations (percent flow vs. percent open) [13] .............12
Figure 6 – Typical Ball Valve (WHA) and Globe Valve (BAM) Pressure-Temperature Profiles ..............13
Figure 7 – Idealized T-S Diagrams..........................................................................................................14
Figure 8 – Idealized T-S Diagrams (Including conditions upstream of valve) ........................................15
Figure 9 – Response of Under-damped Transducer to Step Change [49] (63% value represents a time
constant, as is typical) ..................................................................................................................25
Figure 10 – WHA Test (180 bar, Test 13, Cycle 1) .................................................................................26
Figure 11 – Simplified Illustration of Shock Tube Processes Related to Rapid Compression ................27
Figure 12 – Illustration of Shock Formation after Diaphragm Rupture [46] .........................................29
Figure 13 – Temperature – Pressure Relationships, Leslie [56] ............................................................35
Figure 14 – Temperature – Pressure Relationships (Leslie and Barrigan Approaches [56, 59]) ...........36
Figure 15: System Specific Thermal Profiles Allow for System Characterization ..................................41
Figure 16 – Enthalpy-Entropy Mollier Diagram Illustrating Stagnation State .......................................43
Figure 17 – Illustration of the Effect of Time Constant on the Measurement of Rapid Temperature
Changes [67] .................................................................................................................................45
Figure 18 – Comparison of NANMAC and Omega® Thermocouple Responses (left – red and blue
traces represent wedge (red) and concave (blue) end shapes; right – red, blue, and green traces
represent 0.025 mm, 0.051 mm, and 0.076 mm wire-size beaded thermocouples) ...................48
Figure 19: Thermocouple Array – End View ..........................................................................................49
Figure 20: Thermocouple Array Configuration (20X left; 63X right) .....................................................50
Figure 21 - Thermal Profile Test Fixture (transparent view) .................................................................50
Figure 22 - Thermal Profile Test Fixture Installed on WHA Test System ...............................................51
Figure 23 – Simplified Connection Diagram ..........................................................................................52
Figure 24 - Hot Air Calibration Fixture...................................................................................................54
Figure 25 – Thermocouple Array Characterization by Application of Pulses of Hot Air (50 ms pulse on
left and 250 ms pulse on right).....................................................................................................54
Figure 26 – Temperature Profile in WHA System at 4 Positions ...........................................................55
Figure 27 – Estimated True Gas Temperatures Using Moffat Approach (Actual – dotted lines;
Adjusted – Solid lines) ..................................................................................................................59
Figure 28: Extrapolation Method (top) and Results (bottom) (Actual – dotted lines; Solid red, green,
blue lines – Moffat approach; Maroon line – Faeth approach) ...................................................62
Page vii
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page viii
Figure 29 – WHA 200 bar Test with a 0.013 mm Thermocouple (solid line) compared to Prediction by
the Moffat Approach (dotted line) ...............................................................................................63
Figure 30 – WHA Test Configuration, Valve to Dead End (Cross-Sectional View) .................................66
Figure 31 - Flow Characteristics for WHA Ball Valve .............................................................................68
Figure 32 – Pressure (bar) vs. Time (sec) Measured on a 200 bar WHA Test .......................................69
Figure 33 – Conservation of Energy and Momentum applied to a fixed mass element in a dead-end
tube (Figure 33a represents a uniform diameter; Figure 33b represents a non-uniform diameter)72
Figure 34 - Constant pressure specific heat of oxygen (J/gm-K) as a function of temperature (K) ......78
Figure 35 - Thermal conductivity of oxygen (W/m-K) as a function of temperature (K).......................79
Figure 36 – Dynamic viscosity of oxygen (Pa-s) as a function of temperature (K) ................................79
Figure 37 – Calculational path for estimating the state change of a real gas from Tinitial and Pinitial to
Tfinal and Pfinal (total or static properties may be used) .................................................................86
Figure 38 – Flow Chart Summary of Numerical Procedure for Calculation of Mass Element
Temperatures ...............................................................................................................................88
Figure 39 – Temperature Profile for Original Volume to Tenth Mass Element ....................................91
Figure 40 –Position and Path for Original Volume to Tenth Mass Element Entering the Impact Tube
(990 mm to 1100 mm represents the TPTF) ................................................................................92
Figure 41 – Enthalpy Change for Original Volume and Ten Mass Elements .........................................93
o
Figure 42 – Scatter Plot of Aligned Data for HTT1 on all WHA 200 bar Cycles (Amplitude ( C) to Time
(milliseconds)..............................................................................................................................101
Figure 43 – Average, 95%, and 2-Standard Deviations for HTT1 Temperatures for all WHA Cycles at
o
200 bar (Amplitude ( C) to Time (milliseconds) .........................................................................102
Figure 44 – Lab #1a, Ball valve tests at 200-bar; a) Position 1 Averages, b) Positions 1-4 Predicted
Temperature Profiles ..................................................................................................................103
Figure 45 – Lab #1b, Globe valve tests at 200-bar; a) Position 1 Averages, b) Positions 1-4 Predicted
Figure 46 – Lab #2, Globe valve tests at 200-bar; a) Position 1 Averages, b) Positions 1-4 Predicted
Figure 47 – Lab #3, Globe valve tests at 200-bar; a) Position 1 Averages, b) Positions 1-4 Predicted
Figure 48 – Lab #4, Ball valve tests at 200-bar; a) Position 1 Averages, b) Positions 1-4 Predicted
Figure 51 – Comparison of Laboratory 1a and 2 Pressure Rise Profiles ..............................................113
Figure 52 – Ideal Gas Indices for Adiabatic Conditions .......................................................................116
Figure 53 – Real Gas Indices for Adiabatic Conditions ........................................................................116
Figure 54 – Real Gas TSI for Non-Adiabatic Conditions at the Pressure Peak .....................................117
Figure 55 – Real Gas TSI for Non-Adiabatic Conditions after 100-ms .................................................117
Figure 56 – Comparison of TSI Estimations for Globe Valve Systems .................................................119
Figure 57 – Comparison of TSI Estimations for Ball Valve Systems .....................................................119
Page viii
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page ix
Figure 58 – Severities for Laboratories Meeting a 15-20 ms Pressurization Time ..............................120

Figure 59 – Laboratory 1 Enthalpy Change Estimates .........................................................................121
Figure 60 – Laboratory 2 Enthalpy Change Estimates .........................................................................122
Figure 61 – Lab 1 System Adaptor Fitting and Reaction Chamber (top); Labs 2 and 3 System Adaptor
Fitting and Reaction Chamber (bottom).....................................................................................127
Figure 62 – Laboratory 1a Ignition Testing with PTFE Samples ...........................................................131
(Ball Valve Probability, 20 ms Pressurization Time for the Ignition Tests) ..........................................131
Figure 63 – Laboratory 1b Ignition Testing with PTFE Samples ..........................................................131
(Globe Valve Probability, 16 ms Pressurization Time for the Ignition Tests) ......................................131
Figure 64 – Comparison of Ignition Probabilities for PTFE with Globe Valve and Ball Valve Installed in
the Laboratory 1a and 1b Test Systems .....................................................................................132
Figure 65 – Comparison of PTFE Ignition Probabilities between Four Test Systems; Laboratory 1 (Ball
and Globe), Laboratory 2 (Globe), Laboratories 4 and 6 (Ball)...................................................132
Figure 66 – Recommended Specification for Pressurization Time Control .........................................137
Page ix
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page x
List of Tables
Table 1 – Laboratories That Carry Out Adiabatic Compression Testing ..................................................4

Table 2 – International Standards that Include Adiabatic Compression Test Requirements (not
exhaustive) ...................................................................................................................................11
Table 3 – Shock Waves in Oxygen (k = 1.4) for Different Pressure Ratios ............................................33
Table 4 – Estimated Time Constants for Exposed Bead Thermocouples ..............................................48
Table 5 – Random Error for Devices Collecting Temperature Data ......................................................53
Table 6 – Response Time and Systematic Error Estimate for Thermocouple Arrays ............................55
Table 7 – Laboratories Participating in Thermal Profile Testing ...........................................................56
Table 8 – Estimated Time Constants for Exposed Bead Thermocouples Subjected to Pressure Surge
Conditions.....................................................................................................................................58
Table 9 – True Gas Temperature by Moffat Approach .........................................................................60
Table 10 – TPTF Measurement Positions and Estimated Temperatures ..............................................91
Table 11 – WHA 200 bar Data Summary ...............................................................................................95
Table 12 – Maximum Temperatures (measured and estimated) on 0.025-mm TC Derived from
o
“Average Test Cycle” for each Measurement Position ( C) ........................................................111
o
Table 13 – Maximum Predicted Temperatures for Positions 1 - 4 ( C) ...............................................111
Table 14 – Pressure and Pressure Rise Rate Comparison ...................................................................112
Table 15 – Estimated Severity Indices Based on Estimated Enthalpy Change For Laboratories 1 - 6 .117
Table 16 – Typical Ignition (Fail) & No-Ignition (Pass) Data Set for a 20-Sample Series .....................129
Page x
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page xi
List of Abbreviations
ASTM ASTM International (formerly, American Society for Testing Materials)

ASTM G04 Committee on Flammability of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres
BAM Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und – prüfung (Federal Institute for
Materials Research and Testing; Berlin, Germany)
CTE Centre de Technologie et d’Expertises (Air Liquide Corporation, France)

CGA Compressed Gas Association
DIN German Institute for Standardization
ISO International Standards Organization
MSFC Marshall Space Flight Center (NASA-MSFC, Alabama, USA)
NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration (USA)
NIST National Institute for Standards Technology
PTFE Polytetrafluoroethylene
QUT Queensland University of Technology
TPTF Thermal Profile Test Fixture (designed for this research)
USA United States of America
WHA Wendell Hull & Associates, Inc. (New Mexico, USA)
WSTF White Sands Test Facility (NASA-WSTF, New Mexico, USA)
Page xi
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page xii
Pressure Conversion
In this research the typical pressure unit was “bar” rather than Mega-Pascal (MPa).
This unit is preferred since it is the common unit used in the industry standards for this type
of testing and among the many laboratories responsible for the test methods. Since the
laboratories in the USA typically commonly use “pounds per square inch” (psi) and the
European laboratories use “bar”, the following conversion table was developed for
convenience of the reader.
bar psi (absolute) MPa

1 14.5 0.1
5 72.5 0.5
10 145.04 1
20 290.08 2
30 435.11 3
40 580.15 4
50 725.19 5
60 870.23 6
70 1015.26 7
80 1160.30 8
90 1305.34 9
100 1450.38 10
110 1595.442 11
120 1740.45 12
130 1885.49 13
140 2030.53 14
150 2175.57 15
160 2320.60 16
170 2465.64 17
180 2610.68 18
190 2755.72 19
200 2900.76 20
210 3045.79 21
220 3190.83 22
230 3335.87 23
240 3480.91 24
250 3625.94 25
260 3770.98 26
270 3916.02 27
280 4061.06 28
290 4206.09 29
300 4351.13 30
Page xii
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page xiii
Statement of Original Authorship
The work contained in this thesis has not been previously submitted to meet
requirements for an award at this or any other higher education institution. To the best of my
knowledge and belief, the thesis contains no material previously published or written by
another person except where due reference is made.
Signature: _________________________
Date: November 07, 2011
Page xiii
Control Elements for Repeatable Process Control Page xiv
Acknowledgments
I want to thank my family, friends, co-workers, and colleagues for their support and
encouragement. I would especially like to thank the following:
My wonderful wife, Renee, who has been an unbelievable encouragement and

supporter to me, giving up many evenings and weekends with patient understanding to
allow me to complete this research. Renee, you are now and always have been an
incredible blessing to my life.
Dr. Wendell Hull, for his encouragement and support, without whose commitment
this research would not have been possible.
Professor Theodore Steinberg, my supervisor, friend, and treasured colleague for

his insights and contributions, encouragement, patience, and much help throughout this
process. Professor Steinberg and the QUT Research Department have been a joy with
which to work.
All my co-workers at WHA but especially Stanna Porter (my sister) who has never
failed to be an encouragement, Dr. Chiffoleau whose encouragement and insights have
been invaluable, Greg Odom and Josh Edwards who patiently conducted test after test, and
for Nic Linley who insightfully developed many of the electrical system and data handling
tools that were so important to this project.
Jack Stradling, my mentor in oxygen technology who first introduced me to the

adiabatic compression test method and always contributes valuable insight.
Alexis Tallman, who spent many tedious hours plotting the hundreds of tests so
that the data could be further analyzed.
My Parents, Stanley and Eula Newton, to whom I will be forever thankful for their
love, mentoring and unfailing support.
All of the laboratories that contributed valuable time and data including BAM, CTE-
Air Liquide, NASA-WSTF, NASA-MSFC, and Western Enterprises. I would especially like to
thank Dr. Christian Binder and his colleagues at BAM who allowed me to conduct much
testing and collaborated so willingly to this research.
Page xiv
Chapter 1: Background and description of adiabatic compression testing Page 1
Chapter 1: Background and description of

adiabatic compression testing
1.1 INTRODUCTION
The compressed gas industry and government agencies worldwide utilize “adiabatic
compression” testing for qualifying high-pressure valves, regulators, and other related flow control
equipment for gaseous oxygen service. This test methodology is known by various terms including
adiabatic compression3 testing, gaseous fluid impact4 testing, pneumatic impact testing, and BAM5
testing as the most common terms. The test methodology will be described in greater detail
throughout this document but in summary it consists of pressurizing a test article (valve, regulator,
etc.) with gaseous oxygen within 15 to 20 milliseconds (ms). Because the driven gas6 and the
driving gas7 are rapidly compressed to the final test pressure at the inlet of the test article, they are
rapidly heated by the sudden increase in their internal energy to sufficient temperatures (thermal
energies) to sometimes result in ignition of the non-metallic materials (seals and seats) used within
the test article. In general, the more rapid the compression process the more “adiabatic” the
3
While various terms are used for the type of testing discussed herein, adiabatic compression testing is the term that
will be used most frequently in this document. This term is chosen not because it is an accurate description, but
because it is used most widely within the industry. It is actually the methodologies irreversibilities and non-
adiabacity that this research program is evaluating.
4
Gaseous Fluid Impact” is the officially balloted description in ASTM International Test Method G74 “Standard Test
Method for Ignition Sensitivity of Materials to Gaseous Fluid Impact:”[11]
5
BAM stands for Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und – prüfung and is the German Federal Institute for
Materials Research and Testing where the test methodology dates back to the 1950s. The test method was also
implemented by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), in a somewhat different form, after the
1970s; and by such companies as AIRCO, RegO, AGA, and Circle Seal as discussed in Chapter 2.
6
Atmospheric pressure oxygen originally in the system piping or tubing upstream of the test article;
7
Oxygen gas originally contained in a high-pressure accumulator and separated from the driven gas by a fast
operating valve.
Page 1
pressure surge has been presumed to be and the more like an isentropic8 process the pressure
surge has been argued to simulate.
Generally speaking, adiabatic compression is widely considered the most efficient ignition
mechanism for directly kindling a non-metallic material in gaseous oxygen and has been implicated
in many fire investigations. The temperature rise by near-adiabatic compression has commonly
been calculated by assuming ideal gas behaviour through the polytropic equation9 considering
isentropic behaviour (reversible and adiabatic). However, the adiabatic compression process as
required by the industry standards have never been fully thermodynamically modelled and
empirically verified, although attempts have been made.
This research evaluated the following questions:
1) Can the compression process required by the industry standards be

thermodynamically and fluid dynamically modelled so that predictions of the
thermal profiles produced in the test system be made (see Chapter 4),
2) Can the thermal profiles produced by the rapid compression process be measured
in order to validate the thermodynamic and fluid dynamic models; and, estimate
the severity of the test (see Chapters 3 and 5), and,
3) Can more rigorous controls for a new industry standard be outlined to help resolve
inconsistencies between various test laboratories conducting tests according to the
present standards (see Chapters 6 and 7)?
8
It is noteworthy that while shock wave processes are not discussed until Chapter 2, the faster the pressurization the
more likely that shock processes could develop during a pressure surge. Faeth [16] argues that if the time of the
event (pressure rise time) is not much slower than the tube length divided by the local speed of sound, (i.e., t rise >>
length/soundspeed) then shock processes are more likely and localized pressure disturbances can be expected.
9
The temperature produced by adiabatic compression is usually calculated using isentropic relationships assuming
that the oxygen behaves like an ideal gas and that the compression process is sufficiently rapid that heat transfer
does not occur during the short time of the pulse (i.e., essentially adiabatic). The form of the equation normally
used to calculate the final temperature is as follows:
 k 1
Tf  Pf  k
(1)  
Ti  Pi 
where: Tf = Final Temperature (abs)

Ti = Initial Temperature (abs)
Pf = Final Pressure
Pi = Initial Pressure
k = ratio of specific heats (Cp/Cv ~ 1.4 average, for oxygen)
Page 2
Figure 1 – Simulated Adiabatic Compression against Closed Valve
This chapter outlines the background of the current test methods that are widely used and
the importance of understanding the thermal profiles that are produced by the various test
systems. It also introduces a measurement scheme for measuring the thermal profiles that are
produced by different test systems and compares the state processes for systems that use ball
valves compared to globe valves. The thermal profiles and whether they differ from one test
system to another was of primary interest and will be the subject of both measurement and
modelling in this research. Historically, the oxygen safety community has focused its attention on
the heating that occurs in the driven gas (i.e., gas being compressed by the high-pressure slug); and,
has considered this process to be isentropic. This assumption will be evaluated herein.
1.2 TESTING BACKGROUND

Historically adiabatic compression processes are often depicted by the illustration shown in
Figure 1. In sequence 1, as illustrated, a volume of low pressure gas at an initial pressure (P1) and
temperature (T1) is isolated from a volume of high pressure gas by a valve (or other isolating
element). Another closed valve provides a dead-end to the low pressure volume. If the upstream
valve is opened rapidly, as illustrated in sequence 2, then the low pressure gas, hereafter defined as
Page 3
the driven gas, suddenly undergoes a compression process by the high pressure gas, hereafter
defined as the driving gas, which flows through the newly opened valve. The “P-dV” work done by
the driving gas causes a temperature rise in the driven gas, as illustrated in sequence 3. This
temperature rise is often considered to be “adiabatic” as long as the pressure rise rate is sufficiently
rapid, as compared to the development time for conduction and convective heat transfer. During
the compression process, the driving gas also goes through state changes, both expansion and
recompression. Therefore an increase in temperature also develops in the driving gas, especially in
the gas that flows into the impact tube in the early stages of the compression process. The degree
of mixing between the driving and driven gases is an important element influencing the maximum
temperature achieved by the compression process. Therefore, the test is performed to evaluate
whether the temperature rise could result in ignition of non-metallic materials (e.g., seals).
Table 1 – Laboratories That Carry Out Adiabatic Compression Testing

High-Speed Valve Pressurization Rate
Test Laboratory Location
Design Control
BAM Berlin, Germany Globe Valve 3.5 mm Orifice
CTE (Air Liquide) Paris, France Proprietary Globe Style 4.3 mm Orifice
Apragaz Brussels, Belgium Proprietary Globe Style Unknown orifice size
DNV Norway Unknown Unknown
WHA System 1 Las Cruces, NM USA Ball Valve Valve Opening Speed
WHA System 2 Las Cruces, NM USA Globe Valve 2.6 to 2.9-mm Orifice
NASA - WSTF Las Cruces, NM USA Ball Valve Valve Opening Speed
NASA - MSFC Huntsville, AL USA Ball Valve Valve Opening Speed
1.3 STATEMENT OF INDUSTRY PROBLEM

The test laboratories who commonly conduct this testing worldwide are indicated in Table
110. While each test laboratory meets the requirements of the predominant standards currently in
use, subtle differences exist in the test equipment operated at the different laboratories (discussed
further below) which is believed to produce variations in the test results. Significantly, these
variations have been argued to result in some components passing the tests at one laboratory while
10
It is noteworthy that Western Enterprises, Victor Equipment Company (United States) and the Cavagna Group
(Italy) also have the capability of conducting adiabatic compression testing on the components they manufacture.
To our knowledge, however, their test systems are not commercially available.
Page 4
Figure 2 – Regulator Fire Investigated by WHA (left – typical regulator attached to

cylinder; middle – ignition site in ambulance; right – regulator burnout pattern)
failing at another. This disparity in results is of great concern to the industry since the adiabatic
compression test is fundamentally a test to ensure that safe and reliable components are placed
into the public marketplace.
Figure 2 shows a component that “passed” the current test method but was withdrawn
from the marketplace by a “safety recall” instituted by the United States Food and Drug
Administration’s Center for Devices and Radiological Health due to ignitions in service. It is
important to understand, however, that the ignitions that occurred in the field were attributed
more to design problems on this device than to adiabatic compression testing problems. However,
this example does illustrate the importance of high fidelity in the testing methodologies.
One problem with properly defining the test methodology is the lack of a thorough
understanding of the state processes that the driving and driven gases go through during actual
service conditions or during the testing. To our knowledge, while several attempts have been
made, no thermodynamic or fluid dynamic model has been validated by testing that specifies the
state conditions of the gas and predicts the thermal profile (e.g., temperature versus time profile) of
the driving and driven gases during the compression process.
As a consequence, calculation of the thermal energy in the compressed gas has not been
utilized in the design of the test method to establish the safety margins provided by the test results.
Further, no testing has been able to confirm the thermal energies produced within the cylindrical
tube sections upstream of a test article due to the very rapid pressurization rates (~ 15 to 20 ms to
full pressure) encountered in this testing, and then relate that thermal profile to the potential for
ignition including statistical variations between test laboratories.
Page 5
An important outcome of this research shall be to utilize the results in the preparation of an
ASTM International test standard that will specify the critical control elements for test laboratories
conducting adiabatic compression testing worldwide11.
1.4 TEST METHOD BACKGROUND

The testing of interest here is conducted in different ways by different test laboratories but
the fundamental system requirements are few. For illustration purposes the WHA test system
utilized most in this research is depicted in Figure 3 along with the pressure profile that is generally
specified by the predominant industry standards.
The test is typically conducted by pressurizing a test article (valve, regulator, etc.) very
rapidly by opening a high-speed valve (impact valve), simulating a sudden pressurization that might
occur in service. When the impact valve is opened, high pressure oxygen stored in an accumulator
at 1.2 times the test article working pressure and pre-heated to 60 oC pressurizes a test article
positioned at the end of an impact tube within 15 to 20 ms. According to the standards, the impact
tube (volume of oxygen to be compressed upstream of the test article) is either a 5 mm-ID tube
that is 1 m long or a 14 mm-ID tube that is 0.75-meter long depending on whether the test article is
intended for use on a cylinder or on a manifold.
As shown in Figure 3, after the rapid pressurization, the test article is held at the test
pressure for at least 10 seconds to allow ignition and propagation to develop if the test article non-
metallic materials are vulnerable by this method. After this hold period, the test article is vented to
ambient pressure and allowed to cool for a minimum of 3 seconds before the test cycle is repeated
within 30 seconds. According to most standards, 20 test cycles are typically performed with the test
article closed (regulator reduced or valve closed) and another 20 with the test article open
(regulator increased or valve opened) and the discharge port plugged. Successful completion of the
20 cycles in each configuration completes the test series.
11
ASTM International Committee G04 formed a task group to develop a standard that will specify the way adiabatic
compression testing is conducted in the future. Most of the test laboratories listed in Table 1 have agreed to
participate in this evaluation and in the development of a standard to specify the test system controls to be
implemented. Several industry working groups such as the ISO/TC 58/SC 2/WG 6 subcommittee responsible for
adiabatic compression testing of compressed gas cylinder valves and their counterparts from the Compressed Gas
Association in the United States have requested that the ASTM International standard development efforts be
coordinated with these ISO and CGA committees.
Page 6
Figure 3 – WHA Adiabatic Compression Test system and Test Cycle
Figure 4 shows the relationship between the sensible heat developed by the compression
process (Qcal in the driven gas) and the temperature rise that might develop by a small mass of a
non-metallic material (considering an isentropic process); assuming that all the sensible heat is used
to uniformly raise the temperature of the plastic. While near-adiabatic compression is known to
readily kindle most flammable non-metallic materials in oxygen, the overall energy content in the
gas is small and the actual temperature-rise rate and maximum temperature achieved in the gas
has never been verified in real time.
Page 7
Figure 4 - Idealized Temperature Rise of Small Plastic Sample Due to Heat Content in
Compressed Slug Originally in 5-mm 1 m long Impact Tube (k = 1.4 for oxygen)
Recently some effort to correlate real-gas behaviour to the compression process has been
made; but, empirical measurements have not been successful in large part due to the temperature
rise occurring over such a small time increment (< 20-ms). Further, since empirical measurements
have been largely unsuccessful, no methodology has been developed to compare pressure surges
produced by two different test systems that utilize different components to produce the pressure
surge. So, the actual correlation of the temperature-rise rate in any test system to the behaviour
shown in Figure 4 is unknown.
Since adiabatic compression is such a common ignition mechanism in gaseous oxygen
systems and has routinely been implicated as the primary reason for component ignition failures,
Page 8
many industry groups including the International Standards Organization (ISO), the United States
Compressed Gas Association (CGA), Australian Standards Organization, and ASTM International
require the performance of adiabatic compression testing to qualify non-metallic materials and
pneumatic components (primarily high-pressure valves, regulators, flexhoses, etc.) intended for use
in high-pressure oxygen systems, as illustrated by Table 2. Table 2 is a summary of some of the
international standards that historically required adiabatic compression testing of components.
This table is not exhaustive and several more standards could be included. As is evident, however,
this test methodology has very wide subscription throughout the world. It has become one of the
most important test methodologies for high-pressure component validation in the oxygen industry.
The historical development of the test method is traced in Chapter 2 (also in reference [1]);
but it is noteworthy that early work was performed by USA companies such as AIRCO, RegO and
Circle Seal. The German Federal Testing Institute, BAM, developed a test capability in the 1950s
and early 1960s [1-3]. The first German standard in which it was included was DIN 477: 1963-11,
which involved conducting 50 repetitive pressure surge (pneumatic impact) cycles. Each pneumatic
impact cycle was repeated every 10 seconds and exposed the component to a pressure surge from
ambient to its maximum working pressure.
The test method was modified by the Air Liquide Corporation in the 1980’s [4-6] for
component testing, which led to changes in the way in which adiabatic compression testing was
performed. The most important of these changes was the requirement to use a 5-mm internal
diameter impact tube of 1 m in length. The Air Liquide contributions to the test methodology also
led to the incorporation of test criteria into many international standards described in Table 2.
Presently, all prevalent test standards except ASTM G74 require 20 pressure surge cycles be
performed. Two test configurations are generally required for each component: closed and
open/plugged and generally the test (i.e., required number of cycles in each of two configurations)
is repeated with three test articles. The same two configurations are required on cylinder valves
with the exception that the pressure surge is applied to the outlet of the cylinder valve, instead of
its inlet, to evaluate the potential for ignition during filling operations.
In the 1970’s NASA-WSTF conducted adiabatic compression testing of components in
oxygen and was responsible for all qualification of oxygen components for ground support and
space shuttle operations. During the 1980s and up to the present, NASA required that all gaseous
oxygen handling components be qualified by passing adiabatic compression testing [7-10]. The
NASA-WSTF test system configuration was used as an example of a suitable system in 1982 by the
Page 9
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM, now known as ASTM International) in ASTM
Standard G-74, “Standard Test Method for Ignition Sensitivity of Materials to Gaseous Fluid Impact”
[11, 12]. However, ASTM G74 did not mandate design criteria for any specific system and allowed
some variation in the specific configuration.
In 1989, Wendell Hull & Associates, Inc, (WHA) who conducts forensic investigations of fires
and explosions, including oxygen equipment fires developed an adiabatic compression test system
similar to the NASA-WSTF system; but, was also consistent with the predominant compressed gas
industry adiabatic compression test methods that were gaining wide subscription in the industry
[13]. At that time, WHA was the only commercially available test laboratory in the United States for
this testing.
1.5 VARIABILITY AMONG TEST SYSTEMS

A recent effort has begun within standards organizations to generate commonality
between all the test methodologies within each of the various test standards. One of the test
parameters being changed is the requirement for 50 test cycles for cylinder valves, which is in the
process of being reduced to 20 test cycles to be consistent with the regulator requirements.
However, the predominant test laboratories that conduct this testing (see Table 1) report variations
in the pass/fail performance of identical test articles. In other words, test articles that pass the
testing at one laboratory sometimes fail the test at another laboratory. Consequently, the
statistical reliability and validity of the test results has been questioned.
In an effort to better understand the test variances, the author visited all of the test
laboratories except DNV to evaluate whether the test methodology varied from laboratory to
laboratory. While all of the laboratories meet the standardized requirements for conducting this
test, such as pressurization rate and impact tube configuration (length/diameter), significant
differences were observed in the hardware utilized and in the system configurations. Some of the
more important differences were the high-speed valve designs and the pressurization rate controls,
as indicated in Table 1.
One important difference observed was the design of the high-speed impact valve utilized
to produce the pressure surge (see Table 1). This valve is very rapidly opened at the start of a test
cycle to suddenly pressurize a test article (either a non-metallic material or a component). Most
importantly, the pressurization profile could be very different due to the way in which the valve
opens, as shown in Figure 5.
Page 10
Table 2 – International Standards that Include Adiabatic Compression Test Requirements (not exhaustive)
Impact
Test Press. Gas Failure/ Cycle Impact
Standard Title of Standard Date Line
Pressure Rate Temp. Cycles Interval Line ID
Length
Pressure regulators for gas cylinders used in welding, cutting o
ISO 2503 1983 20 MPa 20 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s
and allied processes
Gas welding equipment - Pressure regulators for gas cylinders o
EN 585 1994 24 MPa 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s 1m 5 mm
used in welding, cutting and allied processes up to 200 bar
1.2 times o 5 or 12
CGA E-4 Standard for gas pressure regulators 1994 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s 1m
MWP mm
Pressure regulators and pressure regulators with flow- o
ISO 10524 1995 24 MPa 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s 1m 5 mm
metering devices for medical gas systems
Pressure regulators for use with industrial compressed gas o >3
AS 4267 1995 MWP 20 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s 1m
cylinders mm
Transportable gas cylinders - Cylinders valves - Specification 1.2 times o
EN 849 1996 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/50 30 s 1m 5 mm
and type testing MWP
Pressure regulators for use with medical gases - Part 1:
o
EN 738-1 Pressure regulators and pressure regulators with flow 1997 24 MPa 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s 1m 5 mm
metering devices
Transportable gas cylinders - Cylinders valves - Specification 1.2 times o
BS-EN 849 1997 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/50 30 s 1m 5 mm
and type testing MWP
ISO/DIS Gas welding equipment - Pressure regulators for gas cylinders 1.2 times o
1997 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s 1m 5 mm
2503 used in welding, cutting and allied processes up to 300 bar MWP
Pressure regulator for use with medical gases Part 1: Pressure 1.2 times o
AS 3840.1 1998 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s 1m 5 mm
regulators and pressure regulators with flow-metering devices MWP
Pressure regulators for use with medical gases - Part 3: o
EN 738-3 1999 24 MPa 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s 1m 5 mm
Pressure regulators integrated with cylinder valves
Standard Test Method for Evaluating the Ignition Sensitivity
ASTM
and Fault Tolerance of Oxygen Regulators Used for Medical 2003 Specifies use of ISO 10524 for adiabatic compression testing
G175
and Emergency Applications
Compressed Gas Association Standard for Compressed Gas 1.2 x o
CGA V-9 2004 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s 1m 5 mm
Cylinder Valves MWP
Gas cylinders - Refillable gas cylinder valves - Specification and 1.2 times o
ISO 10297 1999 20 +0,-5 ms 60 ±3 C 0/20 30 s 1m 5 mm
type testing MWP
Standard Test Method for Ignition Sensitivity of Materials to To 69 o 0/20 or 0.238 7.9
ASTM G74 1982 50 +/- 3 ms 20 C 12 s
Gaseous Fluid Impact MPa 1/60 m mm
Page 11
Figure 5 demonstrates the variability in the percent of flow for different valve
configurations and illustrates that since the different laboratories do not use similar valve
configurations that the pressurization profiles downstream of the valve should exhibit different
pressurization profiles. Further, since the flow coefficients and flow turbulence of these valve
types also varies (Fully open ball valve of typical sizes: Cv ~27; Fully open globe valve of typical
sizes: Cv 4.7 to 8.5), the pressurization dynamics for these two systems would also be expected
to be different and produce different thermal events as a function of turbulence and mixing
effects.
Figure 6 demonstrates the effect of these influences. The pressurization profiles
recorded by the dynamic pressure transducers do exhibit differences and the effect on the
thermal profiles produced upstream of the test article is the subject of this research. Figure 6
depicts the results of testing performed in this research to compare the typical thermal profiles
for ball and globe valve systems and also shows the respective pressure profiles for a 200 bar-g
pressure surge obtained on a typical test cycle with a high-speed dynamic (quartz crystal)
pressure transducer. The valve used by WHA System 1 was a ball valve. The valve used by BAM
was a globe valve. Other test systems have also been characterized and the final results of
those evaluations are reported in Chapter 5. Figure 6 also demonstrates the typical
temperatures that were obtained at four different positions by the WHA Thermal Profile Test
Fixture (TPTF) described fully in Chapter 3.
Figure 5 - Flow Characteristics of Valve Configurations (percent flow vs. percent open) [13]
A – Ball Valve Configuration B – Poppet/Globe Valve Configuration C – Butterfly Valve Configuration
(Note that the valve cross-sections are for illustration only and are not intended as accurate engineering drawings)
Page 12
The temperatures plotted in Figure 6 were obtained by Type K (chromel-alumel)

thermocouples of 0.025-mm (0.001-inch) diameter. It is noteworthy that most globe valve
systems utilize an orifice to control the pressurization rate whereas ball valve systems use a
variable speed valve to control pressurization rate. The influence of these two approaches will
be more thoroughly discussed in Chapters 4, 5, and 6.
As is depicted in Figure 6, the temperatures obtained during the pressure surge may
vary from system to system and do not seem to obtain the temperatures calculated by the
classical means using isentropic relationships (1241 oC) [3-6, 13, 15-16]. It is, of course,
recognized that the thermocouple response times may not be sufficient to fully represent the
transient temperatures present in the pressure surge (another subject of this research) and will
Typical WHA Temperature, Positions 1-4 (0.025-mm dia TCs)

500 250
400 200
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
300 150
WHA Position 1
200 100
WHA Position 2
WHA Position 3
100 WHA Position 4 50
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
Time (sec)
Typical BAM Temperature, Positions 1-4 (0.025-mm dia TCs)

500 250
400 200
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
300 150
BAM Position 1
200 100
BAM Position 2
BAM Position 3
100 BAM Position 4 50
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7
Time (sec)
Figure 6 – Typical Ball Valve (WHA) and Globe Valve (BAM) Pressure-Temperature Profiles
(Test method and thermocouple positions described in Chapter 3)
Page 13
be evaluated in Chapter 3 so that actual temperature predictions may be approximated from

this data and the associated temperature rise profiles.
As mentioned above, a parameter that varies among the test systems is the method for
controlling the pressurization rates (Table 1). WHA-1, NASA-WSTF, and NASA-MSFC use a
variable speed ball valve to control flow rate. BAM, CTE and WHA-2 use an orifice (of different
dimensions) to control the pressure rise. The thermodynamic states developed in the driving
gas and driven gas was of interest because of these differences, as illustrated in Figure 7 for ball
valve and globe valve systems. Figure 7 presents an idealized depiction of the state processes
(Temperature – Entropy) that the ball valve and globe valve driving and driven gases undergo
during a pressure surge, if the flow differences between the valves are ignored and only state
processes considered.
The ball valve state processes are relatively straight forward. If it is assumed that the
perfect gas laws hold, that no heat is transferred in the valves and no mass is stored, then the
gas from the accumulator can be idealized to enter the downstream pipe at its stagnation state
and at the pressure of the downstream pipe (P3, 1-atm). It is then recompressed to its original
pressure (P0) and undergoes a corresponding isentropic temperature rise shown from state 2 to
state 3. The final idealized temperature is shown at position 3 on the temperature-entropy
diagram for the state process in Figure 7.
The globe valve systems, by comparison, go through a similar state change through the
Figure 7 – Idealized T-S Diagrams
Page 14
valve but recompresses to a new intermediate pressure (state 3) at the orifice before expanding
again while flowing through the flow control orifice (states 3 to 4), as observed by Faeth [16].
The recompression process at state 3 could be expected to increase the temperature of the
driving gas before it expands through the orifice to recompress again to its original pressure.
The final state change is reflected in Figure 7 at position 5 for the state processes. As shown in
the idealized diagrams, the temperature increase by the adiabatic compression process in a
system utilizing an orifice could be expected by this analysis to be greater than in the ball valve
system, even though the pressurization rate requirement is met by both systems.
Another system difference between many systems, also discussed by Faeth, is the
length of the tubing between the accumulator and the high speed impact valve. Some systems
included a long length of tubing (as much as 6-meters) between the accumulators and the
impact valve. Other systems, such as the WHA system, were more closely coupled to the
impact valve and incorporated a length of tubing no more than 0.5-meters long. Faeth [16]
Figure 8 – Idealized T-S Diagrams (Including conditions upstream of valve)
Page 15
observed that if the gas entering the impact valve decreased in pressure during compression
process, due to pressure expansion down the tubing run from the accumulator, then the state
changes for the driving gas entering the impact valve could be idealized as shown in Figure 8
(dotted line). If the pressure were to drop at the inlet to the impact valve then the state
processes shown by the red dotted line in Figure 8 and final recompressed temperature of 5’
would be expected, which could lower the final temperature overall for any mixing of the driven
and driven gases.
This research attempted to assess these state changes by measurement and modelling
since the potential differences in the outcome of an adiabatic compression test is readily
evident by these simplified temperature predictions. Therefore, the aim of this research was to
model and measure the thermal profiles and to evaluate whether they differ from one test
system to another so that better controls could be recommended to the industry. It is
important to note that no test standard presently available specifies the test system
configuration requirements such that these potential thermal differences would be controlled.
Page 16
Chapter 2: Historical development of adiabatic compression testing and evaluation of fluid dynamic processes
including shock-wave considerations Page 17
Chapter 2: Historical development of

adiabatic compression testing and evaluation
of fluid dynamic processes including shock-
wave considerations
2.1 INTRODUCTION
As introduced in Chapter 1, the compressed gas industry and government agencies
worldwide have utilized one primary test methodology for qualifying high-pressure valves,
regulators, and other related flow control equipment for gaseous oxygen service. Generally
speaking, adiabatic compression is widely considered the most important ignition mechanism
for directly kindling of a non-metallic material in oxygen and has been implicated in many fire
investigations. The temperature rise by near-adiabatic compression has commonly been
calculated by assuming ideal gas behaviour through the polytropic equation presented in
Chapter 1, considering isentropic behaviour (reversible and adiabatic).
The predominant test methodology that is normally utilized and a means of evaluating
the thermal profiles (i.e., temperature vs. time) for various test systems has been discussed in
Chapter 1 [see also, ref. 17]. This chapter broadly outlines the historical development of the
test method and discusses some of the fluid dynamic processes that are being considered in an
effort to fully describe the test. This chapter also discusses the approaches that have been used
by practitioners to estimate the temperatures produced during a pressure surge cycle when the
test is conducted. This temperature profile and whether it differs from one test system to
another was of primary interest and will be the subject of both measurement and modelling in
this research.
2.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND BACKGROUND OF ADIABATIC

COMPRESSION TESTING
The hazard associated with compression heating of oxygen in components and systems
has long been known in the industry. The 1983 keynote address by Robert Neary [18] during
ASTM G04’s first technical symposium celebrated the release of ASTM Standard Guideline G63
[19], which was a guide for selecting materials for oxygen service. Mr Neary celebrated ASTM
Page 17
Guide G63 as, “the industry’s first guide” for evaluating materials for oxygen service. In this
paper Neary reports that the Compressed Gas Manufacturers Association (CGMA, later
shortened to the Compressed Gas Association or CGA) formed an Oxygen Regulator Research
Committee in 1921 due to fires caused by adiabatic compression of oxygen. Neary reported
that the first product of the newly formed CGMA industry committee in 1923 was a report on
oxygen regulator fires that recommended two principal test methods, “the combustion
(autoignition) test”, and “the heat of (adiabatic) compression” test. Neary indicates that after
the 1980 release of ASTM Guide G63, the ASTM committee’s focus shifted to the release of
ASTM Standard Test Method G72, “Determination of Autogenous Ignition Temperature of
Liquids and Solids in a High-Pressure Oxygen-Enriched Environment” [20] and ASTM Standard
Test Method G74, “Test to Determine Ignition Sensitivity of Materials to Gaseous Fluid Impact”
[21]. These standards essentially became the first industry-wide implementation of the 1923
recommendations of the CGMA Oxygen Regulator Research Committee. However, while the
standards were a positive step toward the implementation of test methods to improve oxygen
safety, the discussions in the standards do not go beyond the common isentropic relationship
(Equation 1) for specifying the temperature of the compressed gas.
Werley [22] provides an insightful review of adiabatic compression testing in his 1993
paper, “A Perspective on Gaseous Impact Tests: Oxygen Compatibility Testing on a Budget”. In
the background section of this paper Werley describes the substance of the ASTM G04
committee discussion pertaining to ASTM Standard G74’s development. He indicates that in
the early 1980’s when the committee was drafting G74, the members were aware of test
apparatus utilized by companies such as AIRCO, RegO, AGA, and Circle Seal as well as
government testing agencies such as BAM and NASA. He points out that some practitioners felt
that adiabatic compression testing “ignited everything” and other practitioners felt that the test
was insensitive and only ignited the more tolerant materials like polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)
at elevated pressures. Werley indicates that in the early 1980’s the only active members of the
ASTM G04 committee that conducted this test were NASA, AGA, and Circle Seal and that among
these institutions NASA had conducted more extensive work. As a result, the ASTM G04
committee chose to depict the NASA apparatus in the standard; but, the test parameters were
selected to be consistent with the other apparatus capabilities as well.
Adiabatic compression ignition was alleged in many fires in the industry throughout the
years and was an ignition mechanism utilized in much material and component testing. In 1993
Ulrich Koch reported in a paper on Oxygen System Safety [23] the results of five different fire
investigations. He admits in this paper that, “the primary emphasis is on adiabatic compression,
which has been identified as a significant but often overlooked cause of oxygen fires.” In Koch’s
Page 18
opinion, adiabatic compression should have been implicated in even more fires than it had
been. In this paper he provides the common methodology for calculating the theoretical
maximum temperature by use of the isentropic relationship. In 1997 Koch [24] remembered
the Robert Neary reference to the 1923 CGMA paper that implicated adiabatic compression as
a “common cause” of fires. Koch goes on to identify adiabatic compression as the ignition
source in several other fires including the US Navy training facility dating to the 1970s and
opines that adiabatic compression as an ignition source must be “century-old knowledge” since
Linde, Hampton and their peers, who developed air-separation technology to produce oxygen,
must have “understood the essentials of what would cause an oxygen fire”.
The ASTM G 74 test system was heavily utilized by NASA-WSTF [25], who at that time
was the only NASA Center that conducted adiabatic compression testing consistent with G 74.
In the early 1990’s, at the request of the Circle Seal Corporation, Wendell Hull & Associates, Inc.
(WHA) developed a similar test system patterned after the NASA system but also consistent
with the predominant industry standards [26] in Europe. In Europe, at that time, the test
systems of prominence were operated by BAM [27, 28] and Air Liquide (CTE) [29-32]. Dr.
Binder at BAM provides a good description of his test system in his 1995 paper [28] and includes
the statement that, “This method has been well established in evaluating oxygen equipment
and is required in Germany by DIN, CEN standards, and even by ISO standards.” Wegener and
Binder [27] describe the temperature rise in the compressed gas and the influence on ignition
as follows:
“A compression of oxygen at 20oC from 0.l to 2.5 MPa yields a temperature rise to 410oC
(this can easily be calculated according to Poisson’s equation). This temperature is higher than
the ignition temperature of most organic substances, so that gaskets (as seat gaskets, stuffing
boxes and piston rings), lubricants, hydraulic fluids, and so forth are ignited and can burn in an
explosive manner if exposed to an adiabatic compression of oxygen. Such oxygen impacts may
happen, for example, in pipes if shut-off fittings under pressure are opened too rapidly or in
reciprocating compressors. In general, however, such compression processes do not take place
adiabatically so that temperature peaks are obtained that lie between the initial temperatures
and theoretically calculated maximum temperatures.”
The temperatures indicated by Wegener and Binder are easily obtained through use of
Equation 1, as provided earlier.
Air Liquide has made significant contributions to the way in which adiabatic
compression testing is currently being carried out and to the development of criteria to increase
the test severity and improve the reliability [27-32]. Barthelemy et.al, report in 1988 while
discussing flexible hose ignitions that, “Another (ignition) explanation proposed was an
Page 19
"adiabatic compression" process; when a gas is compressed rapidly, it increases in temperature.

The theoretical final temperature when oxygen is compressed, assuming the process is adiabatic
(for example, assuming no mixing with hose gases, no shock waves, and no heat transfer to the
hose or containers walls), is calculated from the (familiar isentropic relationships).” The
assumptions provided by Barthelemy are commonly assumed and considered valid for very
rapid compression processes. However, the assumption of “no shock waves” is important and
will be further discussed later. Indeed, Air Liquide performed a shock wave analysis of the
compression process in 2000 [33] that will be discussed later in this chapter.
Air Liquide recognized in 1989 that results could differ between test laboratories and
therefore altered its internal test procedures to be more severe than the predominant
standards and achieve more conservative results [29]. The work reported in this paper was
foundational to several changes that were eventually incorporated in the predominant
International Standards [34] and European Norm Standards [35] including a test pressure of 1.2
times the working pressure of the component and installation of the test article downstream of
an impact tube of specific dimensions12. This research along with the advocacy of Air Liquide
led to the very wide subscription of the industry standards to these provisions. Today, most
industry standards that require adiabatic compression testing (see Table 2 in Chapter 1) utilize
the test parameters that originally appeared in the 1983 version of ISO 2503 as modified by the
recommendations of Air Liquide after this work was published. The only other industry
standard that was not modified with these provisions was ASTM G74, which was maintained by
NASA-WSTF. Further, no industry standard provided any guidance pertaining to the calculation
of the temperature or thermal energy in the compressed gas other than the isentropic
relationship (Equation 1).
Adiabatic Compression testing has been utilized heavily by NASA [36-39]. NASA-WSTF
used the ASTM G74 test methodology for individual non-metallic materials and valves for both
material selections, batch qualification of non-metallic materials, and to evaluate components
such as regulators and Teflon®-lined flexible hoses [25, 37, and 38]. Stradling [25] provides an
early (1983) discussion of the NASA uses for ASTM G74 and as the NASA designer/originator of
the test method provides his insights into the usefulness of pneumatic impact testing13. Hirsch
12
Test articles normally installed on a cylinder are tested at the end of a 5-mm inside diameter tube that is 1 m
long. Test articles normally installed on a manifold are tested at the end of a 14 mm diameter tube that is 0.75
m long.
13
Stradling was a charter member of the ASTM G04 committee and worked alongside Robert Neary and others
to propel this ASTM committee and its standards into worldwide prominence in oxygen.
Page 20
et.al, [37, 39] provide a history of how NASA used the test method between the mid-1970s up
through 2003. While the statistical approach utilized within NASA for testing non-metallic
materials has been questioned (discussed below), Hirsch points out that as long as statistically
rigorous methods are utilized in the collection of ASTM G74 data, the results are not only
meaningful; but, even produce a strong correlation between the 50% reaction pressure14 and
the Autogenous Ignition Temperature (AIT) [20] of the material being tested [39].
As mentioned above, variability observed in the non-metallic material test data
produced by ASTM G74 in the late 1980s and early 1990s caused NASA-WSTF to conduct
several test programs to study the statistical aspects of quantal (go/no-go; ignition/no-ignition)
type testing [40-44]. This testing changed the way that NASA utilized ASTM G74 testing due to
its clarification of the statistically low confidence produced by the manner in which the tests
were being performed. Normally, the ASTM G74 testing was performed to rank a material
according to the pressure at which a non-metallic material achieves zero (0) reactions in 20
successive pneumatic impacts15. Hirsch summarizes the problem well, “An analysis of the
cumulative binomial probabilities for the ASTM G74 procedure indicated that for a probability of
reaction of 0.05 (assumed) for a single trial, the probability of obtaining zero reactions in the 20
trials prescribed by the standard logic is about 36 percent [39]. As a result, the lack of precision
with the G 74 test logic could be potentially misleading when results were used to rank or qualify
materials for oxygen service.”
For the purposes of this background, however, the statistical aspects of ignition are not
as interesting as the thermodynamic principles discussed in this research. In 1988 Schmidt et.al,
[42] attempted to evaluate the test methodology by using an instrumented test chamber. In
this instrumented test chamber (pressure surge volume) they included a fast response pressure
transducer to record the pressure rise rate, a photocell to record the light emission from an
ignition, and a special fast-response thermocouple called an “eroding bead thermocouple16”
14
The 50% Reaction Pressure is the pressure at which 50% of the test samples react as determined by a
statistically rigorous methodology known as the Bruceton Up-Down method [23-24]. This principle will be
discussed in Chapter 5.
15
In reality, a “passing” pressure level was achieved by either zero (0) reactions in 20 successive pneumatic
impacts OR a maximum of 1 reaction in 60 pneumatic impacts.
16
This type of thermocouple is made by the NANMAC Corporation and is fabricated of very fine films of two
metals, such as chromel and alumel films for Type K, encased in an aluminium-oxide and stainless sheath. The
thermocouple sheaths are open at the end so that the end can be polished thereby “smearing” the two metal
films together to form a junction. The film thickness once polished develops a junction with a time constant
proportional to the polished film thickness. In certain applications the time constant is in the microseconds
according to NANMAC. They are referred to as “eroding bead thermocouples” since in an application measuring
combustion temperatures they will erode or burn but will continuously re-make their junction. Based on WHA
Page 21
[45] for measuring the temperature produced in the pressure surge. Schmidt proposed the
following ignition mechanisms might be active during the pressure surge to ignite a non-metallic
material located at the dead end of the pressure system:
1) Adiabatic compression of the oxygen in the test chamber before impact,

2) Adiabatic compression of a bubble of gas trapped within the test material,
3) Heating of the test material by mechanical compression or mechanical shear,
4) Interaction of shock waves with the test specimen,
5) A combination of several of the above mechanisms.
For the purpose of this research, the potential for shock wave development during the
compression process was of interest since the gas velocity and temperature are not the same
behind a shock wave as behind a compression wave having the same pressure ratio [46].
Indeed, shock processes are fundamentally different from isentropic compression and would
lead to different features of a model seeking to define the state conditions of the test gas. The
NASA interest in shock wave development within the compressed gas was heightened during
the testing by Jannoff et.al, [38], Pedley et.al, [47], and Forsyth et.al, [48] who had all observed
brief flashes of light within tubes undergoing a compression process sometimes one or two-
hundred ms before a combustion event developed17. In 1987 Pedley discounted these flashes
as ignition due to inadvertent contamination in the tubes they were testing. Jannoff and
Forsyth18 however evaluated the phenomenon further due to the unusual nature of the light
emitted when the installation of pre-cleaned, empty, tubes also produced light emission on
several occasions. Forsyth theorized that the light emission could be due to the emittance of
sodium or potassium spectra, in visible wavelengths, from the pre-cleaned stainless tubes. He
indicated that, “a related cause is a phenomenon known as “double electron transfer”, or the
experience and discussions with Dan Nanigian, who holds the patent for these thermocouples, they do not work
well in the application envisioned since a film of cold gas forms over the junction interfering with the sensation
of heat in the compressed gas. The WHA tests with these thermocouples included different shapes (i.e.,
spherical ends and wedge shaped ends) in an effort to resolve this problem. However, results similar to NASA-
WSTF were achieved where only a small temperature rise in the gas was measured. The principle of
measurement for these thermocouples is provided in reference 34.
17
Usually the lower the pressure the longer the period between the flash of light and the development of a
visually observed combustion front.
18
Personal communication with Mr Forsyth revealed that he had performed such rigorous cleaning and cleaning
verification of his test tubes that he was confident that the phenomenon was not due to combustion of a
contaminant within the tube.
Page 22
release of energy in the form of photons resulting from electrons in the closely packed oxygen
molecules changing states”. He goes on to indicate that this phenomenon has been theorized
to occur in oxygen at pressures above 69 bar. He said that, “despite exhaustive efforts to
characterize the emittance, including installation of band pass filters of various wavelengths in
front of the photocell, the detection of the phenomenon was too inconsistent to characterize”.
Jannoff et.al, [38] theorized that the light flashes resulted from shock ionization of the
oxygen and used band-pass filters corresponding to the ionization wavelengths of 410 nm, 440
nm, and 480 nm which corresponded to transitions in the molecular structures of 01, 011, and
O2+, respectively. They captured the flash on high-speed film and provided a series of frames
that demonstrate a flash lasting about 24-ms in the visible-light spectrum. Their use of the
three band-pass filters indicated above along with a high-pass, > 700-nm, infrared filter resulted
in his concluding that the flash of light contained all three wavelengths expected from the shock
ionization of oxygen. They further indicated that the flash event contained little, if any, infrared
emission and contained only wavelengths of 700-nm and below. They ultimately opined that
the flash could be attributed to the shock ionization of oxygen during the compression process
where pressurization rates are fast. They theorized that the shock ionization of the oxygen may
play a role in the ignition process lowering the required activation energy for ignition and
making the oxygen more active. The pressurization rates where these flashes were studied
were on the order of 14-ms, the fastest attainable with the WSTF system. By comparison, the
pressurization rate where the light flash was observed by Forsyth was 20-ms. Since Jannoff’s
research involved the ignition of flexhoses by rapid compression, and since ignition of flexhoses
by pneumatic impact was also observed at pressurization rates of 200-ms, Jannoff et.al,
concluded that adiabatic compression of the gas probably provided the primary thermal energy
for the ignition process and they related the temperature rise to the isentropic relationships.
The NASA-WSTF G74 evaluations [42-44] all ultimately concluded that the thermal
energy in the compression process was produced by a standard isentropic compression of the
gas rather than by shock wave influences. Schmidt et.al, state that, “Because the ignition occurs
late in the pressurization cycle, shock waves, of which there is evidence only in the first 5-ms of
pressurization, are probably not responsible. Further evidence for this conclusion comes from
the actuation pressure study that suggests that relatively rapid pressurization does not favour
ignition.” Schmidt et.al, had observed that “the pressure-time curve measured by the dynamic
pressure transducer was always steepest in the first 3 to 5-ms, indicating possible incipient shock
wave formation”. Thus they evaluated the influence on the valve opening time on the ignition
frequency and ultimately concluded that “the frequency of ignition in the instrumented chamber
was higher when the valve opening speed was slower”. However, the range of opening speeds
Page 23
for the impact valves they used were 1.6 to 6.85-ms19, which are not considered substantially
different when compared to the ~50-ms pressurization time normal to the ASTM G74
procedure and assumed to have been used by Moffett based on the pressure rise graphs shown
in his paper.
Jannoff et.al, [44] observed that by increasing the volume of compressed gas between
the high-speed valve and the test sample significantly increased the probability of ignition of the
test sample by a pressure surge. He also showed the ignitions were achieved reliably at 180-ms
pressurization rates even though the reaction frequency decreased from the higher frequency
at 18-ms pressurization rates. These observations were related by Jannoff to the theoretical
temperatures produced by isentropic compression of the gas.
2.3 SHOCK WAVE HEATING OR ISENTROPIC COMPRESSION HEATING

The role of shock waves in a pressure surge consistent with the predominant test
systems will be further discussed in Chapter 4. Further, the NASA project funding was limited
and did not allow for detailed research to be conducted much beyond that stated above.
However, the fact that light emission was observed on at least three separate projects in pre-
cleaned, empty stainless tubes, and that band-pass filters detected the emission at wavelengths
consistent with shock-ionization of oxygen, indicates at a minimum that further evaluation of
shock processes would be appropriate.
The present research presents pressure measurements to further evaluate this
question empirically in Chapter 4. However, since the influence on the thermal profile applied
to a test article could be substantial, depending on whether the shock is weak or strong, the
following brief background on shock wave processes pertaining to temperature rise in the gas
was developed. Whether a fully coalesced shock wave can be produced in the process under
consideration is doubtful; but, based on the NASA experiences, consideration of even weak
shock processes was evaluated as part of this research. Indeed, the question of shock processes
was raised by other oxygen practitioners, as indicated by Ducrocq et.al. [33].
19
Later studies by Moffett et.al [26] reported valve opening times from 7.8 to 16.4-ms. The actual pressurization
times were not reported. Jannoff et.al, [27] reported pressurization times of 18 to 180-ms. Jannoff also
reported that, “In the method currently used by NASA, the pressurization time is between 50 and 60-ms.” He
indicated that the 18-ms pressurization time was the fastest that could be achieved in the system, although the
system Jannoff used was larger in volume than the one used by Moffett or Schmidt. The 180-ms pressurization
time was accomplished by placing a metering valve in the line between the high-speed valve and the test
specimen. He showed the ignitions were achieved reliably at 180-ms pressurization rates even though the
reaction frequency decreased from the higher frequency at 18-ms pressurization rates. The metering valve
would be expected to significantly degrade a coalescing shock wave and disrupt compression waves.
Page 24
In 2000 Air Liquide presented a fluid flow analysis of the gaseous impact test conducted
at CTE [33] which considered the system as a shock tube. In this research the investigators used
both one and two-dimensional numerical computer codes to evaluate the reason for the
pressure overshoot observed so frequently in the pressure-time data for these tests (see Figure
6 discussed in Chapter 1; note the pressure oscillation on each test system). The most common
explanation for this overshoot is an under-damped transducer responding to a step input, as
shown in Figure 9 (reproduced from reference 49).
The Air Liquide researchers sought to explain the behaviour of these pressure
transducers instead through the use of flow processes considering the superposition of running
compression/shock wave(s) and reflected expansion or rarefaction wave(s), as in a typical shock
tube analysis. They used a one-dimensional numerical simulation code and successfully
predicted the general shape of the oscillating pressure pulse both in the overshoot amplitude
and the order of the oscillation frequency. Their simulation predicts the overall shape of the
pressure oscillation through superposition of multiple compression/expansion wave
interactions. Significantly, this approach considers the entire system design including the
150
Overshoot
Percent Output Change
100
Final Output
Value
63%
50
Initial
Output
Value
0
2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Time (units)
Figure 9 – Response of Under-damped Transducer to Step Change [49] (63% value
represents a time constant, as is typical)
Page 25
driving gas accumulator, the tube connecting the accumulator to the high-speed valve, and the
impact tube to predict the transient pressure history in the system from a step change (i.e.,
opening of the high-speed valve). They point out that differences in the pressure oscillation
should be observed for differently designed systems. By reference to Figure 6, this is exactly
what this research has observed during its testing at the different laboratories [17]. In fact, the
pressure-time history appears to be unique for each system tested thus far.
The Air Liquide approach also allowed for a temperature history to be predicted
utilizing one-dimensional shock tube theory; however, very steep temperatures (> 2500 K) were
predicted as a result of the propagation of the normal shock. Temperatures of this magnitude
are not expected; otherwise, ignition of non-metallic test samples would occur during testing
with much higher frequency. Further, the Air Liquide researchers attempted to measure the
temperature rise with standard thermocouples and measured peaks of approximately 520 K
(247 oC). Because of the lower temperature measured with thermocouples, they also used a
two-dimensional simulation program to study the influence of mixing due to vortex generation
during the reflection of a shock wave at the end of the impact tube. They theorized that this
condition would mix the hot “shocked” gas with the cooler gas along the boundary layer of the
tube. The result of this simulation, for their conditions (200:1 pressure ratio), predicted that the
gas moving along the axis was cooled to approximately 600 K while the gas in the hot plug
moving along the wall was still approximately 1357 K. These temperatures are greater than
those measured; but, were reduced as expected.
Figure 3:
Figure 10WHA
– WHA Test
Test (180barg,
- 180 bar, Test
Test13,
13 Cycle 1) 1
- Cycle
600 300
540
480 240
420
Temperature (C)
Pressure (psig)
360 180
300
240 120
180
1-0.013-mm TC
120 60
1-0.025-mm TC
60
1-0.051-mm TC
Pressure (barg)
0 0
0 0.056 0.111 0.167 0.222 0.278 0.333 0.389 0.444 0.5
Time (sec)
Page 26
Certainly, a shock wave analysis might be capable of explaining some features of the
transient process such as the pressure-time history of the system; and, if valid, would contribute
to the thermal energy of the compressed gas. WHA has observed that the pressure oscillation
causes temperature fluctuations as shown in Figure 10 (see Chapter 3 for measurement
details). This figure depicts the response of a thermocouple array having exposed-bead
diameters of 0.013-mm (0.0005-inch), 0.025-mm (0.001-inch), and 0.051-mm (0.002-inch)
placed at the dead end of a volume being rapidly compressed. Each of these thermocouples, to
varying degrees, seems to exhibit a tendency to respond thermally to the pressure oscillation
being recorded by the dynamic pressure transducer. This is especially true for the 0.013-mm
diameter thermocouple. Clearly, if the oscillation on the pressure transducer were merely an
under-damped response of the transducer to the step pressure input, the thermocouples would
not be expected to record a corresponding temperature oscillation that rises and falls
somewhat in general agreement with the pressure oscillation. While this does not indicate that
a shock wave produced the thermal variations, it does support the conclusion that the pressure
oscillation may be a fluid dynamic process and that an explanation for this profile should be part
of the overall physical model that is considered.
Figure 11 – Simplified Illustration of Shock Tube Processes Related to Rapid Compression

Reflected Expansion Contact Reflected
Waves Surface Shock
(2) C
(6) (3) (5)
(6) (5)
t Shock
t1
(3) (2)
(4) (1)
(2)
x
(3)
Expansion Contact
Waves Surface Shock
(4) (3) (2) (1) B

(4) (1)
T2
T4 T3 T1
P4
P3 P2 Reflected P5
P1 Shock
P2, P3
P6
Driving Gas Section Driven Gas Section

(4) (1)
High Pressure Low Pressure P1
P4 A
Diaphragm
P1 C
Page 27
A review of shock-tube processes was undertaken to evaluate the nature of the

physical phenomenon that might develop during an adiabatic compression test [46, 50 – 55].
The adiabatic compression test system may be envisioned as a simple shock tube with the high-
speed valve acting as the diaphragm separating the high-pressure driving gases from the low-
pressure driven gas. In this case, however, the diaphragm opening time would be considered
much longer and on the order of 10-15 ms as compared to diaphragm rupture times of 600
microseconds common to shock tubes [46].
In a simple shock tube the processes may be envisioned as shown in Figure 11 [50, 53].
These processes may be imagined, to some extent, for the adiabatic compression test. In a
shock tube, when the diaphragm ruptures both a shock and expansion wave are generated.
The shock wave travels into the low pressure gas (driven gas section) and the expansion wave
travels into the high pressure gas (driving gas section). A contact surface is also formed across
which the pressure and velocity are considered constant, but the temperature and density
(hence the Mach number) are different. In Figure 11, illustration “A” shows the condition just
prior to diaphragm rupture. Illustration “B” shows the condition at time = t1, where the shock
wave and contact surface have travelled a distance into the driven gas section and have
influenced the gas properties according to the generalized temperature and pressure graphs
shown. In illustration B the movement of the expansion waves is also shown as the pressure is
disturbed in the driving gas section to depress the total pressure somewhat. The expansion
waves move into the driving gas chamber at the velocity of sound for the undisturbed medium,
region 4. The shock wave moves into the driven gas, region 1, and depending on the initial
pressure ratio across the diaphragm may accelerate to speeds greater than the speed of sound
of the undisturbed driven gas.
When the shock wave encounters the end of the tube section it will reflect at more
than twice the magnitude of the incident pressure step. The expansion waves will also reflect
when they encounter the end of the driving gas section and will travel at the velocity of sound
of the medium plus the medium velocity. The conditions for reflection and the resulting change
in pressure are illustrated in “C” in Figure 11.
It was the superposition of some of these dynamics that Air Liquide argued caused the
pressure oscillation observed. However, since the high-speed valves do not open as rapidly as a
diaphragm rupture, these processes cannot be imagined to proceed completely as described.
White [46] indicates that in reality even the rupturing of a diaphragm, fast though it is, would be
expected to produce a series of compression waves which must coalesce into a shock wave at
some distance from the diaphragm rupture. If that is true for a diaphragm rupturing in 600
Page 28
Contact
Surfaces
4 Shock Wave
3 E 2
Time C
1 Coalesced Shock
Pressure Driver
Section
Driven Section
Distance
Figure 12 – Illustration of Shock Formation after Diaphragm Rupture [46]
microseconds, then it is certainly of greater influence for a valve opening in 10-15 ms. The
process described by White is illustrated in Figure 12.
If it is assumed that a shock wave is formed by the coalescence of multiple compression
waves that have been formed by the rupturing of the diaphragm or the opening of a valve, then
White argues that the shock will form at a point as shown in Figure 12. White argues that as
the diaphragm is rupturing a series of compression waves are sent out, each one heating the
gas by compression as the individual disturbances are traveling into the driven gas section.
Since each compression wave heats the gas slightly, the speed of sound for the next
compression wave is higher and therefore that compression wave will have a slightly higher
velocity. Each compression wave produced as the diaphragm is rupturing travels at a slightly
faster velocity than the last. Eventually each of these compression waves will coalesce with the
first and if the magnitude of the initial pressure ratio across the diaphragm is great enough and
as long as the driven section is long enough, a shock wave will form, according to White’s
analysis.
Figure 12 illustrates White’s process in a 3-dimensional depiction. The driver and driven
sections are shown along with their respective initial pressures. The time axis increases into the
page showing the change that occurs after the diaphragm ruptures. Each time step is illustrated
along with the associated change in pressure and movement of individual compression waves
into the driven section. The development of a contact surface and the movement of the
expansion into the driver section are also illustrated starting at the time the diaphragm is
caused to rupture. The individual compression waves are imagined to coalesce as shown in the
diagram after several time steps have occurred. Each compression wave is moving faster than
the last due to the increase in local gas temperature caused by the previous compression wave.
Page 29
Over time, these compression waves catch the first and strengthen it until a fully developed
shock forms, if the driven section is long enough. Once the shock wave coalesces a new contact
surface and expansion wave are formed as new disturbances in the driven gas. At this point in
the flow system, the usual properties as illustrated in Figure 11 again apply where, with
reference also to Figure 12, p2 = pe just as p3 = pc; but, T2 ≠ Te and Tc ≠ T3. At this point in time, T1
= T4 but T2 ≠ Tc and now P2 ≠ P3. After the shock wave coalesces, the process is no longer
considered isentropic since part of the mechanical energy is converted irreversibly to heat by
the shock wave.
White’s model allows for the calculation of the time required for the shock wave to
build up through successive compression waves, one catching the other; if the temperature of
the compressed gas is calculated in small pressure steps by Equation 1 and the sonic velocity is
calculated by means of the usual relationship for local gas properties:
2 k p
(2) a

where: a = local speed of sound,

k = ratio of specific heats (Cp/Cv)
p = local gas pressure
ρ = local gas density
The model discussed by White is essentially that which Becker developed, described in
detail by Lewis and von Elbe20 [52] in the formation of a shock wave in a long tube. The
relationships developed here will allow a comparison of the temperature from a shock to be
compared directly to isentropic compression. In the shock wave there appear entirely different
relationships of temperature and pressure than those governing the usual adiabatic (isentropic)
compression.
If the unit of mass is compressed in an ordinary isentropic manner, which may be
envisioned as Becker did by enclosing it in a cylinder and moving an imaginary piston against it
sufficiently slowly so that the pressure, p, throughout the gas is at each moment equalized and
smaller than the pressure on the face of the piston by an infinitesimal amount; then the
20
The discussion which follows pertaining to the Becker analysis is taken from the excellent material presented
by Lewis and Von Elbe [52] which discusses the model and analysis originally presented by R. Becker in Z. Physik
Journal in 1922 (Z. Physik 8,321) and later Z. Elektrochem Journal in 1936 (Z.Elektrochem. 42, 457). The
discussion by Lewis and von Elbe was found to be very helpful in considering shock wave processes and has
been utilized extensively in the discussion and calculations that follow.
Page 30
increase in the internal energy, ΔEu, by the change in specific volume, dυ, would be shown as in
Equation 3 [52]:
1

(3) E u  p d 

2
This is the usual relationship for energy change in a unit volume by “p-dυ” work
assuming conditions are adiabatic. Therefore the energy change in the gas (ideal) and the
temperature developed by compression are easily found by these familiar terms.
However, for a shock wave the different relationships of temperature and pressure
must be considered and it was useful to evaluate the temperature differences that might exist
as compared to isentropic compression. Becker developed his equations by considering a unit
mass of gas in front of the wave having the volume υ1 and pressure p1 before the shock wave
passes and υ2 and p2 after being compressed by the wave, as explained by Lewis and Von Elbe
[52]. In this case the work done is p2 (υ1 – υ2), since after the establishment of the wave the
pressure on the piston is always p2. This work would both increase the internal energy of the
unit mass and impart to it kinetic energy so that the change in internal energy is expressed as:
2
(4) E u 
p2  1   2   V
2
where: ΔV = the velocity change of the disturbed gas (V1 – V2) to an observer moving
with the wave. To this observer, the gas enters the wave with velocity V1 and leaves at a
smaller velocity V2.
Becker then developed his mass, momentum and energy relationships using
fundamental steady state relationships [52] as:
V1 V2
(5)
1 2
2 2
V1 V2
(6)  p1  p2
1 2
2 2
(7) V1 V2
E1   p1 1 E2   p2  2
2 2
As can be seen, the change in energy from Equation 7 is very different from Equation 3
and is not applicable to flow in which the pressure and volume changes are isentropic
(reversible). Becker derived Equation 7 from the energy theorem for flow where resistance
Page 31
occurs. By substituting values of V12 and V22 from Equations 5 and 6 in to Equation 7, one can
obtain the famous Hugoniot equation for which this type of compression replaces the integral
in Equation 3 for isentropic compression [52].
(8) E2  E1 E
1
2
  
 p1  p2   1   2
Lewis and Von Elbe [52] point out that the physical interpretation of the mechanism by
which the gas entering the wave front is compressed according to Equation 8, and not
according to the ordinary adiabatic relationship, is valid as long as it is remembered that during
an isentropic compression process the compression takes place so slowly that the pressure in
the unit mass control volume is at all times equal (i.e., the external force on the piston imagined
above is only infinitesimally larger than the opposing force exerted by the gas). This will be the
case as long as the piston velocity is small compared to the average molecular velocity
(therefore the piston velocity can be quite high in actuality as long as these conditions hold).
However, when the piston velocity becomes on the order of the magnitude of the molecular
velocity, the degradation of the kinetic energy of the piston into random molecular velocities
(i.e., thermal energy) contributes to the internal energy of the compressed gas. For very small
volume changes the Hugoniot equation reduces to the differential form of the isentropic
equation, dE = -pdυ.
Faeth [16], in an excellent discussion of isentropic compression, related this condition
to the wave relaxation time, L/a, where L is the length of the driven gas section and a is the
velocity of sound. For isentropic processes to be valid, the rate of compression must be slow
p
enough that the differential change in pressure with distance ( ) is negligible. Faeth indicated
x
that the time of compression tc must be much longer than the quotient L/a (tc >> L/a) otherwise
the pressure in the driven gas section cannot be assumed to be isentropic and the pressure
varies with position in the tube.
From equations 4, 5, and 6 the velocity of shock propagation into the gas at rest, V1,
and the velocity, ΔV, of the gas behind the wave, often referred to as the particle velocity, is
found from equations 9 and 10. Equation 11 is the ideal gas law, where n = the number of
moles per unit mass and R is the molar gas constant, and equation 12 relates the internal
energy of an ideal gas to its change in temperature, with Cv being the average specific heat at
constant volume (between T1 and T2), as follows:
p2  p1
V1  1
(9)
1  2
Page 32
p  p 
(10) V 1  2 2  1 
1 2
(11) p  nRT
(12) E 
Cv  T2  T1 
Table 3 – Shock Waves in Oxygen (k = 1.4) for Different Pressure Ratios

V V1 T2_shock T2_isentropic
p2/p1 υ1/υ2
(m/s) (m/s) (K) (K)
2 1.63 175 452 336 330
5 2.84 452 698 482 426
10 3.88 725 978 705 515
50 6.04 1795 2150 2260 794
100 7.06 2590 3020 3860 950
1000 14.3 8560 9210 19100 1710
2000 18.8 12210 12900 29000 2070
Reference [52] points out that the values of Cv used by Becker in these calculations are not accurate at very high
temperatures, but, the essential trend is the same. This table allows comparison of the temperatures developed at
the leading edge of a shock wave compared to isentropic compression and does not suggest that shock waves are
formed in the research considered herein. Indeed, the shock temperatures well exceed those even imagined.
From these relationships, Table 3 was presented by Lewis and Von Elbe [52] and
provides the comparison between shock temperatures and isentropic temperatures that we
were seeking. As can be observed, a true shock wave produces a temperature that is very
different from ordinary isentropic compression for the same pressure ratio. At low pressures
the magnitude is similar but for higher pressure ratios the difference is significant. Therefore, as
a minimum, this research will consider the presence and strength of any shock wave that might
develop from the rapid opening of the high-speed valve. It is considered probable that because
the high-speed valve opens in a time which is an order of magnitude slower than a diaphragm
ruptures that shocks do not fully coalesce before the compression waves reflect at the dead end
of the driven gas section. However, some compression waves may be expected to catch and
strengthen the leading compression front and thereby create a pressure disturbance in the
driven gas that might be similar to a weakly formed shock. Leslie [56] points out that for a 1 m
long tube and for a sonic velocity of 350 m/s the wave relaxation time, ta = 2.8 ms. So, for a 15
to 20-ms target pressurization time as required by the present standards, tc ~ ta, and the
condition for isentropic compression may be questioned. Based on this consideration, the
presence of weakly formed shock conditions (i.e., strong compression waves) will be considered
further in the predictions of the thermal profile produced by the compression process.
Page 33
2.4 REAL GAS CONSIDERATIONS

One final adjustment to the temperatures estimated for the compressed gas in a
pressure surge has been suggested by several researchers. It has been recognized that
temperatures predicted by the polytropic equation (Equation 1) and shown in Table 3
(T2_isentropic) are based on ideal gas behaviour and overestimate the actual temperature if real gas
properties were considered. Since an accurate prediction of the thermal energy in the
compressed gas tube (driving gas recompression + driven gas compression) was desired in this
research, then evaluation of the state of the gas during the compression process utilizing real
gas relationships and equations of state would be useful. Recently, several researchers [56-58]
have adjusted the polytropic exponent (p*υn = constant) by empirical measurements or by
considering the compressibility and change in specific heats of oxygen (Leslie [56]) to predict the
temperature rise using the polytropic relationship adjusted for some real gas properties. By
adjusting the exponents, under very specific conditions, these researchers have shown that the
temperature developed by compression of a real gas may be calculated using this simple
relationship. However, the exponent derived by this approach is only valid for the specific
conditions under which it was developed and is not a true equation of state for the real gas
properties. Its use must be confined to the circumstances in which it was developed. For
instance, Leslie reports that for the form of the polytropic equation shown in Equation 13, three
values of the polytropic exponent may be derived for Tinitial = 300 K and Pinitial = 100 kPa, as
follows:
n
 Tfinal   Pfinal 
(13)
 Tinitial  Pinitial
   
Leslie Eqn. 1: n = 0.2829 Ideal Gas – Ordinary Isentropic Value, k = 1.4
Leslie Eqn. 2: n = 0.2599 Ideal gas with variable specific heats
Leslie Eqn. 3: n = 0.2632 Real gas (van der Walls), variable specific heats
The resulting calculations, starting from the initial conditions given above, are shown in
Figure 13, on a log-log chart to linearize the behaviour. This figure compares different
approaches to calculating the compressed gas temperature compared to the normal isentropic
approach using Equation 1. As is evident in this figure, the results of the calculation show that
the polytropic exponent for ideal gas with variable specific heats and a real gas model using van
der Walls’ relationship with variable specific heats result in very similar temperatures, for the
Page 34
2500
2000
Temperature (K)
1500
1000
500 Ideal Gas - Constant Specific Heat

Ideal Gas - Variable Specific Heat
Real Gas (van der Waals) - Varible Specific Heat
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pressure (MPa)
Figure 13 – Temperature – Pressure Relationships, Leslie [56]
starting conditions chosen. At high pressures, the real gas temperatures predicted diverge from
the ideal gas, isentropic, predictions.
Barragan, Wilson and Stoltzfus [59] have also derived closed form equations-of-state
for oxygen from thermodynamic principles utilizing the Peng-Robinson equation of state and
the general entropy equation. Figure 14 compares the temperatures calculated by Barragan
[59] and Leslie [56] for isentropic compression of oxygen considering real gas behaviour and
variable specific heat to the familiar isentropic relationship for ideal gas (Equation 1). Thus,
Figure 14 directly compares the van der Walls equation of state (Leslie [56]) to the Peng-
Robinson equation of state (Barragan [59]).
The van der Walls equation of state is probably the best known and the oldest such
modification to the ideal gas law being originally presented in 1873 as a semi-theoretical
improvement to the ideal gas relationship [60]. However, the van der Walls equation can
deviate from real gas behaviour at temperatures significantly over the critical temperature and
pressure. The Peng-Robinson equation of state was developed in 1976 to provide better
accuracy above the critical point, especially for calculations of the compressibility factor. As can
be seen in Figure 14, the two approaches deviate from one another by about 3% to 7%
between 20 MPa and 60 MPa, respectively. However, the temperature predicted by Equation 1
significantly over-predicts the theoretical gas temperatures due to a pressure surge by 14% to
19% between 20 MPa and 60 MPa, respectively. Barragan, et.al, argue that the calculation of
Treal by using the general entropy equation and adjusting for the heat capacity variation with
Page 35
2500
2000
Temperature (K)
1500
1000
500
Ideal Gas - Constant Specific Heat
Real Gas - Barragan Approach
Real Gas - Leslie Approach
0
0 20 40 60 80 100
Pressure (MPa)
Figure 14 – Temperature – Pressure Relationships
(Leslie and Barrigan Approaches [56, 59])
temperature and pressure provides the best value that can be obtained by thermodynamic
analysis. This approach, using residual energy equations, will be used in Chapter 4 to describe
the state changes that occur.
2.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FROM BACKGROUND RESEARCH

This chapter sought to outline the historical development of the gaseous fluid impact
(or adiabatic compression) test method and discussed some of the fluid dynamic processes
involved. The chapter also outlined some of the considerations that were evaluated during this
testing and research to estimate the temperature and energy developed during a pressure
surge. The temperature versus time profile (i.e., thermal profile) in the compressed gas and
whether it differs from one test system to another was of primary interest.
Chapter 3 presents a measurement technique for the determination of the thermal
profile in a typical pressure surge and two independent methods of estimating the actual
transient temperatures in the compressed gas from the real-time measurements. These
techniques were used for seven different test systems at six different laboratories, including
both the WHA ball valve and globe valve systems, to determine and compare the thermal
profiles to each other. Chapter 3 also introduces the techniques that were used to estimate the
severity of the different test systems from the thermal profiles that were measured.
Page 36
Based on consideration of the background discussed above, the following general

conclusions pertaining to the estimation of temperature in the compressed gas have been
developed:
1) No research was identified that has empirically measured the thermal energy
in the driven gas section for the methodology required today by the
predominant standards. Several researchers have attempted measurement
including NASA-WSTF, Air Liquide, WHA, and Faeth [16] but temperatures do
not compare favourably (temperatures are significantly lower) to the
temperatures estimated by either isentropic or shock methods. Faeth used a
unique approach, further discussed in Chapter 3, and has produced
measurements much closer to those expected than other researchers;
however, his test systems were larger and pressurized much more slowly than
the systems under consideration here.
2) An industry consensus has not been developed as to what thermodynamic
and/or gas flow processes are that cause the increase in thermal energy and
leads to ignition of a non-metallic material by this test. Heating by frictionless-
adiabatic (isentropic) compression and shock wave dynamics are both alleged
as the predominant processes involved. However, neither the presence of
shock waves nor the irreversibility’s of the compression process have been
defined so that the temperatures actually produced have been determined.
3) The fact that light emission was observed on at least three separate NASA
projects in pre-cleaned, empty stainless tubes, and that band-pass filters
detected the emission at wavelengths consistent with shock-ionization of
oxygen, indicates, at a minimum, that further evaluation of shock processes
should be considered. On the other hand, the relatively long opening time for
the valves commonly used in this test, as compared to diaphragm rupture
times for shock tubes, calls into question whether a fully coalesced, or even
strong, shock wave could develop in the distance between the valve and a test
article. Since the existence and/or strength of a shock wave in a typical
pressure surge cycle could not be settled from the available literature, testing
was performed to evaluate the presence of shock processes in order to
determine the influence (if any) on the temperature produced in the
compressed gas. These tests will be discussed in Chapter 4 as part of the
assumptions made for modelling the fluid dynamic processes.
Page 37
4) The discussions pertaining to the temperature increase in the compressed gas

slug that predominates in the open literature can be summarized as follows:
a. Isentropic compression calculations using ideal-gas properties produce
much higher temperatures than have been confirmed by any reported
measurement,
b. Isentropic compression calculations using real gas properties also produce
much higher temperatures than have been confirmed by measurement.
c. Adiabatic compression of oxygen using a real-gas equation of state derived
from thermodynamic properties predicts much higher temperatures than
have been confirmed by measurement.
d. Shock process calculations derived from first principles predict
temperatures well in excess of those measured and also exceed the
predictions from any form of isentropic compression.
e. One-dimensional numerical methods considering shock processes and used
to predict the temperatures produced in the test system by superposition
of reflected compression waves and expansion waves predict
temperatures much higher than have been confirmed by measurement.
f. Two-dimensional numerical methods considering shock processes and used
to predict the temperatures produced by superposition of reflected
compression waves and expansion waves that include mixing predict
temperatures higher than measured but closer than the one-dimensional
models.
g. Only the predictions by Faeth [16] which adjusted the temperature of the
compressed gas by losses due to heat transfer approximated the transient
temperatures that were measured; and then, only by a unique approach to
estimating the true temperature. The Faeth approach will be further
discussed in Chapter 3 and was expanded on in this research to develop a
new technique to measure and model the actual temperatures developed.
5) Empirical data supports that the pressure oscillation observed in the pressure-
time measurements is not due to instrumentation characteristics such as an
under-damped transducer. Instead, the oscillation can be shown to produce a
thermal response in the WHA thermocouples (Figure 10). Therefore, a proper
understanding of the test system influence on the thermal energy should help
explain the pressure-time “fingerprint” developed by the test system.
Page 38
Chapter 3: Estimating gas temperature and system severity Page 39
Chapter 3: Estimating gas temperature and

system severity
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter summarizes the approach taken in this research for estimating the thermal
profiles developed during a rapid pressure surge and the resulting severity of the pressure surge
based on the change in enthalpy compared to isentropic predictions. In order to measure the
gas temperatures in real time, a specialized fixture called a Thermal Profile Test Fixture (TPTF)
was developed that utilized thermocouple arrays comprised of 3 sizes of fine-wire exposed
bead thermocouples at each of 4 measurement positions. This chapter describes the test
approach used at six different laboratories and the method of gathering the thermal profile
data using the TPTF. This chapter also describes two methods of estimating the true gas
temperature from the measured temperatures.
3.2 METHODOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

This research recognized that the thermal energy developed during a rapid pressure
surge in oxygen can generate sufficient sensible heat to ignite non-metallic materials; and,
therefore that measurable properties, such as those derived from temperature, should be
sufficient to characterize the pressure surge itself and the equipment used to create the
pressure surge. The experimental approach described herein sought to measure in real-time
the temperature changes in a pressure surge (as a function of time, referred to as the thermal
profile) and then derive the energy gain and loss from those measurements. Since several
investigators had been unsuccessful in measuring the temperature of the pressure surge during
such a short time interval (~20-ms), a new method for measuring the transient temperature rise
and loss was desired. The thermal profile derived from the temperature measurements was
considered sufficient to characterize the system and equipment used to produce the pressure
surge and would provide a means of comparing the nominal severity of one test system to
another. The severity of a system was derived from a comparison of the measured energy gain
and loss to an idealized pressure surge modelled from thermodynamic and fluid dynamic
principles, to be described later. Thus, based on this outline, the experimental objective was
stated in the following:
Page 39
3.2.1 Experimental Objective

The experimental objective was to measure and characterize the thermal profile
produced during an “adiabatic compression” pressure surge by different laboratory systems
and to specify and compare the severity of the different systems.
3.2.2 Relevance of the Thermal Profile

Characterization of the thermal energy in a pressure surge can in principle be achieved
by measuring the temperature vs. time changes during the process, if the maximum
temperature can be measured or estimated. Considering oxygen to be an ideal gas for the time
being21, it can be shown that the enthalpy change during a rapid compression is a function of
temperature only and therefore that the measurement of temperature should be sufficient to
characterize the energy gain. Using the definition of enthalpy and the equation of state of an
ideal gas [60], equation 14 can be developed. From equation 14 it is easy to observe that since
R is a constant and since it can be shown that the internal energy of an ideal gas is a function of
temperature only [60], then it must follow that the enthalpy of an ideal gas is also a function of
temperature only, h = f(T). From this relationship the relation for constant volume specific heat,
Cp = (∂h/∂T)p, of an ideal gas allows the relationship derived in equation 15 to be written.
Therefore, the energy gain in a pressure surge should be quantifiable based on relationships
between temperature and enthalpy, if the temperature of the gas being compressed can be
measured or estimated in real time, as illustrated in Figure 15.
h = specific enthalpy
u = specific internal energy
P = Pressure
(14) h = u + Pυ = u + RT
υ = specific volume
R = gas constant
T = temperature
dh = Cp*dT
Ordinary differentials are used since for an ideal gas
(15) or, for a given mass (m)
the specific heat, Cp, is a function of temperature only
dH = m*Cp*dT
Figure 15 illustrates the thermal profile for two different test systems and illustrates the
derived energies associated with the systems up to the point of ignition of a non-metallic
21
Note that a more rigorous real-gas treatment will be presented in Chapter 4.
Page 40
Figure 15: System Specific Thermal Profiles Allow for System Characterization
Tmax 2
Tmax 1
Temperature
Temperature
Energy At
Energy At Ignition
Ignition
Tignition Time Tignition Time
material. The severity of a pressure surge can be specified on the basis of the energy difference
between the two systems. Figure 15 illustrates graphically what is observed during testing, that
the temperature rises to a maximum and then falls rapidly as heat is transferred from the
system. The maximum gas temperature, the temperature rise rate during the energy gain
period (while pressure is rising) and the temperature loss period (after temperature stabilizes)
are all important to the overall energy in the gas at the point of ignition. Experience indicates
that ignition generally develops ~50 ms to 100 ms after the pressure surge (or, ~2 to 5 times
after the period of energy gain, 15-20 ms) and therefore it must be recognized that heat
transfer processes have developed sufficiently to raise the temperature of the non-metallic (or
a portion of its surface) to its ignition temperature.
3.2.3 Specification of Severity

Specifying the energy gain or loss using the enthalpy change of a compressed gas
suggests that the efficiency of the process can be used to quantify the severity of a pressure
surge. When a small, fixed, volume of gas undergoes a compression process, work is done on
the fluid to raise its pressure and temperature, which increases its internal energy. Further, in
the case of normal systems subject to heat transfer, because of the temperature difference
with the surroundings, heat crosses the system boundaries (heat rejection), which acts as a loss
in the internal energy of the system. In order to connect these internal energy changes with the
changes in the properties of the gas, the first law of thermodynamics can be used.
For the case of a small, fixed, volume of gas undergoing a compression process, the first
law of thermodynamics for conservation of energy can be written as shown in equation 16.
This form for the first law has been transformed using the enthalpy relationship, Equation 14,
and employs the sign convention that positive values indicate that the internal energy increases
Page 41
(i.e., heat transfer into the gas or work performed on the gas are considered positive since they
increase the internal energy).
The form for the first law shown in Equation 16 indicates that the heat losses in the
compression process are specified by ΣQ, and are negative since heat is transferred out of the
system. The work term represents an energy gain due to the pressure forces acting on the ends
of the fixed volume and is specified by ΣW (i.e., work done on the fixed volume). The change in
enthalpy (ΔH for total enthalpy or Δh for specific enthalpy) provides a quantification of these
changes. Since it is common to specify the efficiency of a compression or expansion process by
the ratio shown in Equation 17 [60], the derivation of an enthalpy change in the gas during the
compression process provides a very convenient way to quantify a test systems efficiency, or for
the purposes of this research the severity of the pressure surge itself.
First Law of Thermodynamics specified in terms of the enthalpy

ΔH = ΣW – ΣQ change (ΔH for total enthalpy or Δh for specific enthalpy). Work
(16) or per unit mass, (W or w) and heat transfer (Q or q) use the sign convention
Δh = Σw – Σq discussed above. More specific information involving this
derivation will be discussed in Chapter 4.
H actual η = compression efficiency, or severity index for the pressure
(17)   1 surge as compared to an isentropic compression. This equation
H isentropic
could also be written in terms of the specific enthalpy (h).
Stagnation enthalpy (Ht) = flow enthalpy (H) plus ½ times the
(18) Ht = H + ½ V2
flow velocity squared (V2), neglecting potential energy.
In equation 17, the severity is specified by taking the ratio of the enthalpy change for an
isentropic (adiabatic and reversible) pressure surge to the actual enthalpy change as measured
by the thermal profile. By this means several informative severity indices can be derived to
describe the severity of a test system. The Mollier diagram shown in Figure 16 is useful to
illustrate the severity index concept and the important concept of the isentropic stagnation
state. As defined by van Wylen and Sonntag [60], “The isentropic stagnation state is the state a
flowing fluid would attain if it underwent a reversible adiabatic deceleration to zero
velocity…the actual stagnation state is the state achieved after an actual deceleration to zero
velocity, and there may be irreversibilities associated with the deceleration process.” As a
consequence of irreversibility in the actual deceleration of a fluid, the actual fluid stagnation
state may include an entropy increase and a shift in the actual fluid state, as compared to a true
isentropic change. The actual process achieves the same enthalpy change and velocity change
(equation 18, Figure 16), and would therefore achieve the same theoretical temperature rise (in
the absence of heat losses), but the actual stagnation pressure may be less than the isentropic
stagnation pressure, as required by the increase in entropy. Considering these conditions, the
Page 42
usual calculation for the theoretical temperature rise for an isentropic compression, as
described by equation 1, is only an idealized, theoretical, estimate at best. But, this approach
does provide a means of deriving the “best case” energy change possible and allows for an
efficiency index, or in our case, a severity index, to be derived to rank the energy change for the
actual pressure surge, as shown in equation 17. We have identified this ratio as the Test
Severity Index (TSI) based on the difference in the actual enthalpy change compared to an
imagined isentropic enthalpy change.
In reality, the actual fluid dynamics in a pressure surge are highly turbulent and
inherently irreversible, subject to strong heat transfer in most actual system installations. Due
to the relatively low mass of the gases being compressed and their relatively low heat
capacities, the temperature change is greater in the gas for a given energy loss than for a fluid
having a higher viscosity (more massive) and greater heat capacity (equation 15). Further, the
high turbulence during a pressure surge strongly increases the convective heat losses.
Therefore, heat losses should be expected in most systems, for even a rapid pressure surge, and
therefore an actual stagnation state that is non-adiabatic can be imagined and would further
shift the stagnation condition to the right again indicating a further entropy increase and a
Isentropic Stagnation Pressure (P2t)

Actual Adiabatic Stagnation State (P2a)
H
Actual Non-Adiabatic Stagnation State (P2b)
P2t Isentropic Condition
P2a k 1
Tt  Pt 
2 k
V
ΔHisentropic  
P2b
2 ΔHactual T  P 
Test Severity Index (TSI)

Initial Condition (P1)
H actual
 1
P1 H isentropic
ΔS S
Figure 16 – Enthalpy-Entropy Mollier Diagram Illustrating Stagnation State
Page 43
reduced enthalpy gain. This condition would be expected to produce a lower gas temperature
than the isentropic or actual adiabatic stagnation states and would therefore produce a lower
enthalpy rise. It is this state change that our experiment sought to measure, which will naturally
allow for derivation of the severity indices previously discussed. By this means several severity
indices were defined to compare test systems and test conditions to one another, as indicated
below:
Idealized Severity Index (ISI) – The idealized severity index is an index (ratio) calculated
to compare purely adiabatic and reversible (i.e., isentropic) compression of a mass of
compressed gas to the thermodynamic and fluid dynamic predictions when real-gas properties
are considered. This index will establish an idealized limit for the potential thermal energy
expected from an isentropic pressure surge in a test system.
H isentropic_real_gas
(19)  1 Idealized Severity Index (ISI)
H isentropic_ideal_gas
Test Severity Index (TSI) – From actual temperature measurements a “Test Severity
Index” (TSI) can be derived (as already described) so that the actual thermal energies developed
(i.e., enthalpy change) by different test systems can be compared to each other on the basis of
how closely they achieve the isentropic conditions. By this index, a particular test system can be
compared to the idealized behaviour and then to other test systems that have been evaluated
in the same way. The TSI will provide a way to directly compare one test system to another. It
is noteworthy that Equation 20 below is the same as equation 17; but, it should be observed
that the isentropic condition for the comparison can be developed from the perspective of
either an ideal gas or a real gas.
H actual
 1
Test Severity Index (TSI), ideal gas (ΔHisentropic_ideal) or
(20)
H isentropic real gas (ΔHisentropic_real)
Service Severity Index (SSI) – A “Service Severity Index” (SSI) can also be developed by
measuring the temperature rise and deriving the thermal energy of actual service conditions,
such as the opening of a cylinder valve with a regulator connected. This is the most common
service condition for which the adiabatic compression testing is intended to qualify valves and
regulators. The SSI for this application, and potentially others, can be compared to both the ISI
and the TSI to help with the prediction of the statistical reliability of an adiabatic compression
test by any particular system. Once the SSI and TSI are specified for a given service
Page 44
configuration and test system, then a confidence interval for a “passing” result can be more
readily derived. Clearly, the higher the severity of the test, the more likely that the test will
result in ignition, and therefore, fewer test cycles and fewer passing results are required to
achieve the desired statistical confidence in the test result.
H service_conditions
(21)  1 Service Severity Index (SSI)
H actual_test_conditions
3.3 TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT

As was described above, characterization of the thermal energy in a pressure surge can
in principle be achieved by measuring the temperature vs. time changes during the
compression process, if the maximum gas temperature can be measured directly or estimated
from the measurements. Accurately measuring the gas temperature in this research was
complicated by the highly transient nature of the pressure surge, which was usually over within
20-ms. The temperature measurement technologies available were not capable of an
instantaneous response and lagged the true gas temperature. As specified by Beckman [67],
“The rate at which a thermocouple responds to a temperature change in its environment and
the equilibrium temperature which a thermocouple maintains in contact with an environment
is determined by the rate at which the environment exchanges heat with the hot junction and
by the thermal capacity of the hot junction.” This limitation is usually referred to as the “time
constant” or the “characteristic time”, which is defined as the time required for a sensing
element to reach 63.2% of an instantaneous temperature change [66, 67, 68], and is illustrated
Temp τ = time constant, τ1 < τ2 < τ3
τ1 τ2
τ3
Step change
in temp
Time
Figure 17 – Illustration of the Effect of Time Constant on the Measurement of Rapid
Temperature Changes [67]
Page 45
for convenience in Figure 17. Five time constants are generally required for stabilization at the
actual temperature [49], which is frequently referred to as the sensor’s “response time”,
specified as the time required to reach 98 to 99% of the actual temperature.
Figure 17 illustrates the importance of the time constant on the measurement of
temperature. For a highly transient temperature change, such as was the case in our research,
only a temperature sensor with a very short time constant would be capable of reproducing the
actual thermal profile of a pressure surge. As shown in Figure 17, if the time constant is too
long, the sensing element could never reproduce the temperature of the event (τ3). For a
sensing element having a very fast time constant, the peak temperature might be reproduced
accurately (τ1) if fast enough, but would still not exactly reproduce the rate of change for an
event that approached a step change in temperature. If the peak temperature was also very
transient in nature (i.e., does not remain at the maximum for long, unlike Figure 17), then even
a sensor with a fast time constant would have difficulty reaching the peak due to the dynamic
nature of the change. The temperature of a sensing element will always lag behind a rapid
change in the temperature of its environment since heat must be transferred between the
environment and the sensing element to accomplish a change in the junction temperature. For
a sensing element whose time constant was between these values (τ2), the maximum
temperature may be reproduced but only after a sufficient time of equilibrium temperature
was achieved. The time constant also influences the time required for a sensor to respond to a
negative temperature change and return to a common low temperature. This is shown in
Figure 17 as the temperature step returns to the baseline level.
For this research, the temperature rise rate (i.e., how quickly the temperature rises to a
maximum), the maximum or peak temperature, and the temperature loss rate after the peak
was achieved were all important to the specification of the energy associated with a pressure
surge. Further, the temperature was not expected to stabilize at a peak value; but, rather due
to heat transfer and fluid dynamic influences was expected to fall rapidly after the energy gain
period for the pressure surge was over. A rule of thumb for dynamic measurements is to prefer
a time constant at least 5 times faster than the event producing the change. If it is assumed that
the energy gain rate is equivalent to the pressurization rate (~15 to 20 ms) then this rule of
thumb would require a sensing device having a time constant at least 5 times faster than rate of
change of the pressure rise, if a transient peak temperature were to be reproduced.
Research was undertaken to evaluate technologies for real-time temperature
measurement. Several different types of fast-response temperature sensors were initially
evaluated for use in this research including the NANMAC fast-response (“eroding bead”)
thermocouple [61], the Paul Beckman Company micro-miniature thermocouples [62], and
Page 46
Omega® Engineering fine-wire exposed bead thermocouples. The NANMAC thermocouple

employs a very thin film sensing element that is prepared by polishing two dissimilar metal films
together to form the junction. These “film” junctions are capable of low millisecond,
sometimes even microsecond, response times under the right conditions. In harsh
environments such as rocket exhausts, the thin film at the junction is capable of self-renewing
as the junction erodes leading to its name as the eroding bead thermocouple. The Beckman
thermoelements are fabricated from small wire gauges typically between 0.013-mm to 0.025-
mm diameters. In the micro-miniature elements the bead is flattened to increase the sensing
area.
The NANMAC and Beckman fast response thermocouples were compared to small
diameter 0.013-mm, 0.025-mm, 0.051-mm, and 0.076-mm diameter exposed bead
thermocouples. When subjected to a rapid pressure surge, the exposed bead thermocouples
consistently provided faster rise times and higher peak temperatures than the NANMAC
thermocouple and similar responses to the Beckman thermocouples. Figure 18 shows a
comparison of the NANMAC thermocouples to the Omega® exposed bead thermocouples for
the conditions of this research. The Beckman thermocouples responded to the pressure pulse
with a similar response to the Omega® thermocouples but had the disadvantage of only being
suitable for use as single elements, whereas the exposed bead thermocouples provided as fast
response and could be arranged in an array of several sizes for simultaneous measurement (to
be further discussed later). Thus, the exposed bead thermocouples were preferred for this
research.
Figure 18 shows two styles of NANMAC thermocouples, wedged shape (red) and
concave (blue). These two geometries were considered by the engineers at NANMAC to be
most suitable for the WHA system application. The lower response on these thermocouples
was believed by the NANMAC engineers to be due to a boundary layer of cooler gas stagnating
around the sensing junction during the pressure surge. The NANMAC foil junction is embedded
in a ceramic insulator which stagnates the flow immediately at the junction. Despite attempting
to configure these thermocouples in various arrangements in the pressurization tube, it was
eventually concluded that for these experiments, the NANMAC thermocouples were limited by
the specific configuration of the test and the flush mounting of the foil in the ceramic. The
exposed bead thermocouples provided faster response and higher peak temperatures as long
as the bead was not flush mounted against its feed through and was positioned at least 3-mm
away from the mounting surface.
The exposed bead thermocouples shown in Figure 18 were 0.025-mm (red), 0.051-mm
(blue), and 0.076-mm (green) diameter respectively. These thermocouples were configured in
Page 47
NANMAC Thermocouple Response Exposed Bead Thermocouple Response

400 130 400 120
320 104 320 96
Temperature (C)
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Pressure (bar)
240 78 240 72
160 52 160 48
80 26 80 24
0 0 0 0
9.8 9.9 10 10.1 10.2 0.75 0.875 1 1.125 1.25
Time (sec) Time (sec)
Figure 18 – Comparison of NANMAC and Omega® Thermocouple Responses (left – red and
blue traces represent wedge (red) and concave (blue) end shapes; right – red, blue, and green
traces represent 0.025 mm, 0.051 mm, and 0.076 mm wire-size beaded thermocouples)
an array for simultaneous measurement at the same location and will be described more fully
later in this chapter. The time constants published by Omega® for the exposed bead
thermocouples utilized are shown in Table 4. For the research being conducted these time
constants appeared to be the fastest that were available; but, were still not considered
sufficient to reproduce the actual peak temperatures. The pressure rise rate in some tests
exceeded 10,000 bar/s, and as shown in Figure 18 the peak measured is highly transient and is
sustained for only 2 or 3 ms by the thermocouple with the fastest time constant. The similarity
in the response functions shown in Figure 17 compared to Figure 18 further calls into question
whether these thermocouples would be able to reproduce the actual peak temperatures.
Therefore, an experimental approach was devised as described below to allow estimation of
the actual temperature from the output of an array utilizing exposed-bead fine-wire
thermocouples of different sizes.
Table 4 – Estimated Time Constants for Exposed Bead Thermocouples
Wire Size Still Air (sec) 18.3 m/s Air (sec) Still Water (sec)
(mm) (427 oC to 38 oC) (427 oC to 38 oC) (93 oC to 38 oC)
0.013 0.03 s 0.003 s 0.001 s
0.025 0.05 s 0.004 s 0.002 s
0.051 0.16 s 0.013 s 0.006 s
0.076 0.36 s 0.029 s 0.014 s
0.125 1.0 s 0.08 s 0.04 s
The entries for 0.025-mm and 0.125-mm were published by Omega®. The other entries were calculated
using a non-linear regression of the published Omega® results.
3.4 MEASUREMENT APPARATUS – THERMAL PROFILE TEST FIXTURE (TPTF)

The experimental approach that was utilized in this research was first attempted by
Faeth [16] on systems of larger size and slower pressurization rates than those studied herein;
but was used with good success. Faeth assumed that the temperature response of a
Page 48
Figure 19: Thermocouple Array – End View
Bead Sizes:
• 0.025-mm
• 0.051-mm
• 0.076-mm
0.013-mm sometimes used, but, very fragile and
tended to break during repeated testing
0.076-mm
0.051-mm 0.025-mm
thermocouple (rise time) could be considered to be infinitely fast if the thermocouple bead had
essentially a zero mass. His approach used was to take repeated measurements with two
different sized thermocouples and then extrapolate the temperatures measured in the
compression process to a zero diameter. This approach was successful in his tests and
compared favourably to an isentropic model that included heat transfer influences. However,
Faeth utilized a linear extrapolation between two differently sized thermocouple beads (0.025
mm (0.001 inch) and 0.076 mm (0.003 inch)); each utilized on different test runs. No
simultaneous measurements were made and no explanation of the extrapolation order (i.e.,
linear, first order) was provided.
A similar approach was utilized in this research except that a thermocouple array was
designed (Figures 19, 20, and 21) to allow for simultaneous measurements of the temperature
in the driving and driven gas at three locations (in the same plane) along at least four different
positions in the gas being compressed. Typical thermocouple array configurations are shown in
Figures 19 and 20. Each array comprised three thermocouples of 0.025 mm (0.001 inch), 0.051
mm (0.002 inch), and 0.076 mm (0.003 inch) bead diameters. Testing was also conducted with
thermocouple arrays having 0.013 mm (0.0005 inch), 0.025 mm (0.001 inch), and 0.051 mm
(0.002 inch); but, due to the fragile nature of the 0.013 mm diameter thermocouples, the 0.025
mm, 0.051 mm, and 0.076 mm arrays were preferred for most of the testing. The different
sized beads provided different response times to the thermal profile at almost the same
Page 49
Figure 20: Thermocouple Array Configuration (20X left; 63X right)
0.051-mm
0.076-mm
0.025-mm
0.025-mm wire, 57 micron diameter bead (avg.)
Figure 21 - Thermal Profile Test Fixture (transparent view)
location; and, indeed, the 0.013 mm (0.0005 inch) and 0.025 mm (0.001 inch) thermocouples
provided the fastest response and thus measured highest temperatures.
Page 50
Position 4: 108 mm
Position 2: 6.4 mm
Position 1 – Dead end

Position 3: 31.8 mm
Figure 22 - Thermal Profile Test Fixture Installed on WHA Test System
3.4.1 Description of Thermal Profile Test Fixture

The Thermal Profile Test Fixture (TPTF) designed for these arrays is shown in Figures 21
and 22. Each measurement position was designed to collect temperature data on each
thermocouple in real time. Two positions were also provided to collect dynamic pressure data
with a quartz-crystal piezoelectric transducer (1-microsecond rise time) during the short time of
the pressure surge, one immediately at the dead end and one at the entrance to the TPTF.
Idealized pressure volume calculations indicated that the driven gas will occupy approximately 2
cm at the end of the TPTF, if mixing is ignored. Therefore, Positions 1 and 2 (Figure 22) should
provide data pertaining to the driven gas and Positions 3 and 4 (31.8 mm and 108 mm
upstream of the dead end) should provide data pertaining to the driving gas. Mixing of the
driving and driven gases was expected to influence the output especially at Position 3.
3.4.2 Data Acquisition System

A data acquisition system was developed capable of taking data at least every 70 to 100
microseconds on each temperature and pressure channel (total of 12 temperature channels
and two pressure channels). All exposed-bead thermocouples were K-Type manufactured by
Omega® Engineering, Inc. and exhibited time constants reported by Omega® as indicated in
Table 4. The thermocouples were sealed into the TPTF using a pressure feed-through and were
protected using a ceramic potting compound (Figure 20). Cold junction compensation and
Page 51
Figure 23 – Simplified Connection Diagram
signal amplification was with an Analog Devices AD595 Type-K Monolithic Thermocouple
Amplifier. The AD595 had a 15 kHz 3 dB bandwidth making it suitable for measurements at
speeds faster than the thermocouple response times. No low-pass filtering was provided.
Data was captured using a computer PCMCIA Data Acquisition (DAQ) Card from
National Instruments®, DAQCard-6024E. Data was generally captured at a rate of 10kS/s per
channel using a LabVIEW™ based software interface developed at WHA. Figure 23 shows a
simplified connection diagram of a single thermocouple and PCB pressure transducer.
3.4.3 Uncertainty Analysis

Each thermocouple channel was calibrated using a Fluke® Thermocouple Calibrator
(Fluke 714). The calibrator simulated K-Type signals. Signal simulation was done in-place of the
TPTF to ensure that systematic errors22 were minimized prior to testing.
Random error23 was specified by all devices except for the thermocouples by Omega®.
A checkout of the thermocouples was done using an ice bath and boiling water. The response
of the thermocouples was found to be consistent with K-Type calibration for this checkout. The
22
Following ASME 19.1 [70], systematic errors (also referred to as bias) were defined as the portion of the total
error that remains constant in repeated measurements and is the sum of the contributions of many elemental
systematic errors, such as imperfect calibration corrections, imperfect measurement methods, and imperfect
data reduction techniques.
23
Also following ASME 19.1 [70], random errors (also referred to as precision) are the portion of the total error
that varies randomly in repeated measurements and is usually the sum of the contributions of several elemental
random error sources such as non-repeatability in the measurement system or uncontrolled test conditions.
Page 52
other random errors specified are presented in Table 5. Because the random errors specified
are independent from one another, they were combined using a root-mean-square approach
(RMS) as specified by ASME 19.1 “Test Uncertainty” [70]. The result of this calculation indicates
that a steady state temperature measurement24 had an error of about ± 2.291 °C with 95%
confidence.
Table 5 – Random Error for Devices Collecting Temperature Data

Specified Random Approximate Random
Device Manufacturer
Error Error in Application
AD595 Thermocouple
Analog Devices 1°C 1°C
Amplifier
Fluke 714
Thermocouple Fluke 0.3°C + 10 µV < 0.5°C
Calibrator
NI DAQCard-6024E National Instruments 19.012 mV < 2°C
Another source of systematic error was considered to be the variability in the

fabrication of each thermocouple array. Each thermocouple was soldered onto 0.76-mm
diameter posts (to provide stability) and the fine-wire exposed bead was positioned in the
approximate center of the larger wire-gauge posts, at least 10-diameters from either post and
at least 3-mm from the base of the ceramic potting material (Figures 19 and 20). These
fabrication complexities were considered to potentially add systematic error to the
measurements and therefore a quality control or calibration system was developed that was
capable of supplying short bursts of hot air at a known temperature to a thermocouple array
(Figure 24). In this way the consistency between arrays and the responses of each
thermocouple comprising the arrays could be evaluated. After fabrication, each array was
mounted as shown in Figure 24 and subjected to bursts of hot air (pulses at ambient pressure)
for various time intervals ranging from 50 ms to 500 ms to evaluate the transient response of
the arrays. The pulse duration was based on the time at which the gate was commanded open
until the time in which it was commanded closed. The arrays were re-worked if the response
times and maximum temperatures did not reasonably overlap one another on successive trials
for both the short and long-duration air pulses. Figure 25 shows the typical response of an
array to a 50 ms and a 250 ms pulse.
24
After five time constants the thermocouple response is less than 1% of the measurand which was considered
steady state for the calibration [49].
Page 53
Isometric View
Reference TC
Inserted into Heat Band Heater
Exchanger and Heat
Exchanger
Fixture with Array Mounted
Air Cylinder
Mounted to
Sliding Gate
TC Array Mounted to
Receive Hot Air Burst
To Air Supply
after Gate Actuation
Figure 24 - Hot Air Calibration Fixture

550 550
440 440
Temperature (C)
Temperature (C)
330 330
220 220
0.025-mm TC 0.025-mm TC
0.051-mm TC 0.051-mm TC
110 110
0.076-mm TC 0.076-mm TC
Reference TC Reference TC
0 0
0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3 0.9 1 1.1 1.2 1.3
Figure 25 – Thermocouple Array Characterization by Application of Pulses of Hot Air

(50 ms pulse on left and 250 ms pulse on right)
Table 6 shows the response times (for the quality control evaluations, ignoring the time
of mechanical movement for the sliding gate) and the systematic error estimated for each
thermocouple averaged for all arrays. The error calculation was based on a 95%-confidence
interval around the mean value of all arrays using a Student’s-T test. Since this error, and the
random errors already discussed are independent, a total error of ±2.8 oC was calculated based
on the root-mean-square of these errors. It is noteworthy that this estimated error does not
include the uncertainty associated with the lack of repeatability from one pressure surge cycle
Page 54
to another. This uncertainty is almost certainly greater than the total error estimated above
and will be discussed later during the presentation of the data from each system.
Table 6 – Response Time and Systematic Error Estimate for Thermocouple Arrays
Fabrication
Wire Size Response Time Time Constant
Repeatability Error
(mm) (sec) (sec)
(oC)
0.025 0.05 0.01 +/- 1.6
0.051 0.109 0.022 +/- 1.6
0.076 0.168 0.034 +/- 1.6
3.5 APPROACH TO ESTIMATION OF GAS TEMPERATURE AT SIX LABORATORIES

The TPTF described here was utilized to characterize the thermal profiles of six different
laboratories capable of pressure surge testing consistent with the standards described in Table
2. The test systems participating in this testing are listed in Table 7. Testing was conducted in
each laboratory with the TPTF and data acquisition system described above. Pressure surge
tests were conducted with the TPTF attached at the test article interface for each system (as in
WHA 200 bar - Test Cyc le 9 (Position 1) WHA 200 bar - Test Cyc le 9 (Position 2)
500 250 500 250
400 200 400 200

Temperature (C)
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Pressure (bar)
300 150 300 150
200 100 200 100

0.025-mm TC 0.025-mm TC
0.051-mm TC 0.051-mm TC
100 50 100 50
0.076-mm TC 0.076-mm TC
Pressure (bar) Pressure (bar)
0 0 0 0
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
WHA 200 bar - Test Cyc le 9 (Position 3) WHA 200 bar - Test Cyc le 9 (Position 4)
500 250 500 250
400 200 400 200

Temperature (C)
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
Pressure (bar)
300 150 300 150
200 100 200 100
0.025-mm TC 0.025-mm TC
0.051-mm TC 0.051-mm TC
100 50 100 50
0.076-mm TC 0.076-mm TC
Pressure (bar) Pressure (bar)
0 0 0 0
0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75 0.25 0.35 0.45 0.55 0.65 0.75
Figure 26 – Temperature Profile in WHA System at 4 Positions
Page 55
Figure 22). Pressure surge cycles (usually 20 cycles per pressure) were carried out at 100-bar
(gauge), 200-bar, and 275 bar and the thermal profile data was collected at each of these
conditions. The actual data from each laboratory will be presented in the next chapter.
However, one pressure cycle, conducted at 200 bar on the WHA test system is shown, for
example, in Figure 26.
Due to the highly transient nature of the pressure surges the true gas temperatures
were not believed to be reproduced by the thermocouple readings, despite the relatively short
time constants for the thermocouples utilized. Any recording element that contains mass
requires a finite time to respond to the changing conditions at the element, and depends on its
heat capacity, mass, and the energy gain rate. The pressure rise rate for these tests, ranging
from 5000 to 20,000 bar/s (depending on conditions), produced an energy gain rate to change
the gas temperature that was considered faster than the thermocouples could respond.
Therefore, two independent techniques were developed for estimating the true gas
temperatures based on the readings obtained on each array.
Table 7 – Laboratories Participating in Thermal Profile Testing

High-Speed Valve Pressurization Rate
Test Laboratory Location
Design Control
BAM Berlin, Germany Globe Valve 3.5 mm Orifice
CTE ( Air Liquide) Paris, France Globe Style Valve 4.3 mm Orifice
Western Enterprises Cleveland, OH USA Ball Valve Valve Opening Speed
NASA - WSTF Las Cruces, NM USA Ball Valve Valve Opening Speed
NASA - MSFC Huntsville, AL USA Ball Valve Valve Opening Speed
WHA System 1 Ball Valve Valve Opening Speed
Las Cruces, NM USA
WHA System 2 Globe Valve 2.9 mm Orifice
3.5.1 True Gas Temperature Estimation

Beckman [67] develops equation 22 to describe the energy balance for heat transfer at
a thermocouple junction. For a thermocouple having a low emissivity and leads exceeding 10
bead diameters of smaller cross section, the instantaneous losses by conduction and radiation
can be ignored to simplify the analysis, and equation 22 can be reduced to Qstored = Qconvection.
Equation 23 can now be written describing the rate of heat addition to the junction by
convection compared to the rate at which energy is stored in the junction during a short time
interval. The collection of terms shown in equation 24 are commonly associated with the time
constant (τ) for a thermocouple. Moffat [66] defines these terms for τ as “the number of
degrees of lag, per-degree-per-second temperature change”. With this definition for τ,
equation 25 describes the relationship between the true gas temperature (Tg) for a time interval
Page 56
as the indicated junction temperature (Tj) plus the product of τ times the rate of change in the
indicated temperature at the junction.
Qradiation+ Qconduction+ Qconvection = Qstored

(22) Energy balance at thermocouple junction
Qstored = Qconvection (simplified)
hc = coefficient of convective heat transfer
As = surface area of bead
Tg = true gas temperature
T j Tj = thermocouple junction temperature
(23) 
h c  A s  Tg  Tj  m Cp 
t m = mass of junction
Cp = specific heat of junction material
ΔTj = change in junction temperature
Δt = change in time during ΔTj
   D3  Thermocouple time constant (τ) by
m Cp     Cp  D Cp common terms then solved in terms of
(24) 
 6 
h c A s 
h c   D
2  6 h c
bead diameter (ρ = density). ρ times V
(volume) replaces the mass term (m).
T j Energy balance solved for Tg [66,67]
(25) Tg Tj   
t (τ = time constant (eqn. 24))
Tg ( slope)  D  Tj
  Cp T j Rearranging equation 25 to be explicit in

(26)
slope   diameter (D).
 6 hc t 
3.5.2 Moffat Approach to Temperature Estimation

Equation 25 is classified as a linear differential equation where the independent
variable (Tj) and its derivatives are of the first order. The time constant (τ) in this equation
represents the slope of a linear function and is constant for a given bead diameter and a given
heat transfer coefficient (hc). In other words, for a short time interval and at a particular
location in the flow stream, the heat transfer coefficient can be considered constant and
equation 25 can be used to predict the true gas temperature from the temperature indicated by
the thermocouple readout, assuming no other corrections such as for radiation and conduction,
are required. Moffat [66] explains that, “it is by use of this relationship that raw data…can be
corrected to yield the gas-temperature history. Given a temperature-time record, the true
temperature at any instant can be found by adding to the indicated value, point by point, a
correction equal to τ times the rate of change of temperature.”
Moffat’s approach, of course, assumes that the time-constant (τ) can be specified for
the conditions that existed at the junction during the test. It is noteworthy that based on
Moffat’s definition of τ, the time constant is not a constant; but, is influenced by the mass
velocity and fluid dynamics of the environment. Therefore, thermocouples of different wire
Page 57
diameters were measured to determine the average bead diameters and then a computer
program was prepared to estimate the time-constants for each thermocouple diameter during
a pressure surge. The solution approach and the system of equations will be described in a later
chapter, but, the method of determining the convection coefficient, hc, from the fluid dynamics
predicted by the program was based on the relationships shown in equation 27 through 30 [71].
The Nusselt number formulation was developed for flow over a sphere with Reynolds numbers
widely varying from laminar to highly turbulent. The results of these calculations are shown in
Table 8.
Nusselt number as a function of

Reynolds Number (Re), Prandtl
½ 2/3 0.4
(27) Nu=2+(0.4Re +0.06Re )Pr (µg/µs) Number (Pr) and ratio of the viscosity
of the gas at the film conditions to the
viscosity at the surface temperature.
D V 
Reynolds number (Re) as a function of
(28) Re diameter (D), local velocity (V), local

density (ρ), and local viscosity (µ)
Prandtl number as a function of
Cp  specific heat at the local conditions
(29) Pr
 (Cp), local viscosity (µ), and thermal
conductivity of the gas (κ)

Usual relationship between the
(30) hc Nusphere  convection coefficient (hc) and Nusselt
D
number (Nu)
Table 8 – Estimated Time Constants for Exposed Bead Thermocouples Subjected to

Pressure Surge Conditions
100 and 200 bar 100 and 200 bar
Wire Size Bead Diameter
Time Constants Time Constant
(mm) (mm)
Flowing (sec) No Flow (sec)
0.025 0.057 ± 0.008 τ = 0.009 ± 0.002 s τ = 0.019 ± 0.004
0.051 0.083 ± 0.013 τ = 0.017 ± 0.005 s τ = 0.041 ± 0.011
0.076 0.106 ± 0.018 τ = 0.026 ± 0.011 s τ = 0.066 ± 0.028
The time constants calculated for pressure surge conditions to 100-bar and 200-bar are
shown in Table 8 based on the estimated fluid dynamics expected for the predicted flow
conditions in the tube. The average time constants are only slightly less than those derived
from the hot air pulse tests shown in Table 6 and have adjusted downward (i.e., faster) as would
be expected for the more efficient heat transfer resulting from the higher density gas as
pressure increased. The range shown is primarily a result of the variability in the diameter of
Page 58
the beads, which were approximated as spheres. The time constants calculated under the
turbulent flowing conditions are lower than those calculated after the flow has stopped, as
would be expected since the heat transfer coefficient would have transitioned from forced to
natural convection. The elevated pressure and density though would be expected to increase
the efficiency of both forced and natural convection.
Utilizing the average time constants and equation 25, then applying Moffat’s technique
of point-by-point adjustment of the temperature recorded by each thermocouple in an array (τ
times the rate of temperature change) results in the estimated true gas temperature shown in
Figure 27 for the array at position 1 (actual measurements of all arrays shown in Figure 26).
The adjusted temperatures shown in Figure 27 indicate a peak temperature at the
position 1 array as shown in Table 9, with a surprisingly good convergence of the peak
temperatures predicted by the three thermocouples. The weighted average of these 3
predictions for the true gas temperature is 506 ± 23 oC. The uncertainty associated with the
estimate based on the uncertainty in the calculated time constants are also shown. The 0.025-
mm thermocouple (wire size) provides the best estimate since this thermocouple had the
fastest response and is estimated to have exhibited a time constant of about half the time of
the pressure rise. The uncertainty in this estimate is also tighter than the other thermocouples
due to the lower variability in its time constant. The other thermocouples exhibited greater
WHA 200 bar - Test Cyc le 9 (Position 1)

600 250
478 200
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
356 150
234 100
112 50
 10 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5
Time (sec)
Figure 27 – Estimated True Gas Temperatures Using Moffat Approach
(Actual – dotted lines; Adjusted – Solid lines)
Page 59
variability in their estimated time constants and greater variation in the estimated
temperatures. The time constant for the 0.051-mm thermocouple is of the same magnitude as
the pressure rise time but the 0.076-mm thermocouple exhibited a time constant greater than
the pressure rise time and is the most uncertain in its predictions.
Table 9 – True Gas Temperature by Moffat Approach

Wire Size Measured Peak Adjusted Peak
(mm) Temperature (oC) Temperature (oC)
0.025 mm 398 515 ± 29
0.051 mm 314 484 ± 40
0.076 mm 279 523 ± 81
Weighted average/uncertainty of temperatures 506 ± 23
The consistency of the peak temperature predictions for all three thermocouples, by
using the average time constant, was quite good. Since the 0.025 mm wire thermocouple had
the fastest time constant and would be expected to reproduce the real temperature with
greater accuracy, a weighted average was used to combine the three temperatures into a single
estimate of the true temperature and uncertainty, using the principle of maximum likelihood.
This approach led to an estimate of 506 ± 23 oC for the estimate of the true temperature for this
test. Since each thermocouple was responding to the same true gas temperature and the same
fluid dynamics (for a given position) this approach provides a check on the predictions of each
thermocouple and a means to converge on a temperature estimate.
3.5.3 Faeth Approach to Temperature Estimation

Faeth [16] provides another estimation approach for the true gas temperature by
assuming that the temperature response of a thermocouple could be considered to be infinitely
fast if the thermocouple bead had essentially a zero mass. Faeth used a linear regression model
but did not establish the validity of his approximation. However, the extrapolation order can be
established based on the system of equations already developed. Equation 25 can be rewritten
as equation 26 by rearranging the terms to be explicit in diameter (D) with a linear functional
form (y = mx + b), with the slope of the function being as indicated in equation 26.
In contrast to Faeth’s approach of taking separate measurements on different tests, the
thermocouple arrays used in this research allowed for simultaneous measurement on all three
thermocouples in each array at each measurement position. Since for any individual array,
three measurements of the true gas temperature were obtained by three different bead
Page 60
diameters, all the slope determining elements for equation 26 can be considered constant for
each time step, with the exception of hc25. However, it should be noted that each
thermocouple (for a given array) is being influenced by the same gas flow conditions and is
responding to the same true gas temperature. Therefore, proper evaluation of equation 26 for
each thermocouple should result in an estimation of the same gas temperature for the
conditions that existed at the array during a particular time interval.
Since the functional form to predict the true gas temperature from each thermocouple
is linear, dependent on bead diameter, and since each thermocouple should predict the same
true gas temperature, only one line should satisfy the predictions from all three thermocouple
when evaluated together. Therefore, Faeth’s linear regression of the three readings to zero
diameter should satisfy equation 26 and provide an estimate of the true gas temperature that is
consistent with the fluid dynamics and heat transfer at each thermocouple junction. As with
the Moffat approach, this extrapolation to zero must be performed point-by-point for each time
interval and each recorded reading.
Figure 28 graphically illustrates the extrapolation procedure for the Faeth estimate of
the true gas temperature assuming an imaginary “zero-diameter” (infinitely fast response)
thermocouple. The extrapolation uses the reading of each thermocouple at each time
increment to derive a temperature based on an instantaneous rise time from a pseudo zero-
mass thermocouple. Figure 28 also shows this procedure applied to the data taken at position 1
(the dead end) for the WHA test results originally shown in Figure 27 and overlays the Faeth
approach with the Moffat approach. As shown, by this procedure the maximum temperatures
estimated and the rate of change of the temperatures are consistent between the two
approaches and the Faeth approach predicts a peak temperature of 532 oC.
The Faeth approach when combined with the Moffat approach predicts an average
maximum temperature of 519 oC, however it should be recognized that the Moffat prediction
for the 0.025 mm thermocouple is probably a better estimate than the other two diameters
based on the rationale already discussed. The Faeth and Moffat approaches predict very similar
temperature profiles and true gas temperatures and are independent of each other in their
predictions. One advantage of the Faeth approach is that it does not require specification of
25
hc in equation 26 should vary by the ratio of the diameter effect on the Reynolds number to the diameter
(-1/2)
effect on hc as determined from the Nusselt number. This variation is roughly proportional to (D1-D2) + (D1-
(-1/3)
D2) , which ranges from about 12% to 17% for the bead diameters utilized. While this variation in hc is not
trivial, the same effect is occurring at each thermocouple and if the local conditions were accurately specified,
should allow prediction of the same true gas temperature from the data associated with each thermocouple.
Page 61
WHA 200 bar - Test Cyc le 9 (Position 1)

600 250
540
480 200
420
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
360 150
300
240 100
180
120 50
60
0 0
0.25 0.27 0.29 0.31 0.33 0.35
Time (sec)
Figure 28: Extrapolation Method (top) and Results (bottom)
(Actual – dotted lines; Solid red, green, blue lines – Moffat approach; Maroon line – Faeth approach)
either the heat transfer coefficient or the time constants for the thermocouples as does the
Moffat approach. The Moffat approach has the advantage of treating each thermocouple
individually so that the predictions of all three thermocouples in the array provide for a
convergence to the true gas temperature, especially if all three diameters exhibited time
constants less than the event being measured. Taken together, both approaches are
considered a reasonable estimate of the true gas temperature since they are independent.
It is important to note that at best these predictions are only estimates of the true gas
temperature and a means to verify by actual measurement is still being sought. The NANMAC
Page 62
thin-foil thermocouples are considered to provide the best chance of success since they have
demonstrated very low millisecond responses if a configuration for the end condition of the
thermal element can be established that will minimize boundary layer development around the
sensing junction.
An effort to validate the temperature predictions was made as shown in Figure 29. On
a few tests, the 0.013 mm (0.0005 inch) wire size thermocouple survived the pressure surge.
One such test is shown in Figure 29 however data was not obtained on the other
thermocouples in the array due to an instrumentation problem. The 0.013 mm diameter
exposed bead thermocouple had a bead diameter of 0.033 mm and an estimated time constant
of 0.003 s for the 200 bar test conditions. The peak temperature predicted by this
thermocouple was 506 oC (solid line), within reasonable agreement to the other predictions for
the WHA system pressure surge to 200 bar. Interestingly, the peak predicted by the Moffat
approach was 498 oC (dotted line) which slightly under-predicts the temperature for this
thermocouple and may indicate that the time constant of this thermocouple was close to that
necessary to capture the true temperature. Only a few successful tests were performed with
this size thermocouple due to its fragile nature and the great difficulty in fabricating the arrays
repeatedly with such a small wire size. One interesting observation from the test was that the
0.013 mm diameter (wire size) thermocouple also followed the pressure oscillation recorded by
WHA 200 bar - 0.013-mm TC

600 300
480 240
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
360 180
240 120
120 60
0 0
0 0.04 0.08 0.12 0.16 0.2
Time (sec)
Figure 29 – WHA 200 bar Test with a 0.013 mm Thermocouple (solid line) compared
to Prediction by the Moffat Approach (dotted line)
Page 63
the quartz-crystal pressure transducer. This indicates that the pressure oscillations produce a
thermal effect on the gas and are probably a fluid dynamic effect rather than due to
instrumentation or vibration effects.
3.6 SUMMARY
This chapter has summarized the methodology and apparatus used to measure the
thermal profiles and estimate the true gas temperatures in six different laboratories. The next
chapter will outline the fluid dynamic and thermodynamic processes that were utilized to
numerically simulate a pressure surge in order to derive estimations of the maximum expected
temperatures for a non-adiabatic and transient circumstance. The temperature estimates
developed in the next chapter were compared directly to the temperatures measured at the
different laboratories by the methods described herein.
Page 64
Chapter 4: Thermodynamic and fluid dynamic model of the temperature and energy rise during a rapid
pressure surge in a dead end tube Page 65
Chapter 4: Thermodynamic and fluid

dynamic model of the temperature and
energy rise during a rapid pressure surge in a
dead end tube
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This chapter examines a simplified one-dimensional model for predicting the
temperature and energy that is produced during rapid compression of oxygen in a dead-ended
tube. The compression process is usually examined by considering only the energy gain from
the work done by the driving gas on the driven gas, modelled as a piston, and by assuming that
this energy gain is isentropic (adiabatic and reversible). Further, the energy gain is usually
simplified by considering only ideal gas behaviour resulting in the temperature prediction of
Equation 1 (Chapter 1).
In contrast to these usual assumptions, the model developed here attempted to
estimate the losses associated with heat transfer by forced convection and energy loss by gas
friction during the pressure surge since virtually every reported attempt to measure the
temperatures produced have resulted in temperatures significantly lower than the theoretical
values calculated by Equation 1. The model developed herein incorporated real gas behaviour26
to better predict the actual temperature rise and considered heat transfer by forced convection
processes while the mass wave was moving and natural convection during the period of cooling
after the compression surge was over.
The configuration modelled was the WHA valve and tubing assembly as shown in Figure
30, although once developed the model could be adjusted for the other system configurations.
The WHA configuration comprised a ball valve that was specially designed to fully open within
10-ms to ensure pressurization of the downstream volume within the 15 to 20 ms time required
by the predominant standards. Downstream of the rapid opening valve was a manifold block
26
Real gas relationships were shown by Leslie [56] and Barragan [59] to yield temperatures only slightly less than
those predicted by Equation 1, as shown in Figures 13 and 14 (Chapter 2).
Page 65
Figure 30 – WHA Test Configuration, Valve to Dead End (Cross-Sectional View)
that incorporated a vent valve and static pressure transducer (slow response time). This block
was designed with an 11 mm through diameter (inside diameter) but the porting to the vent
valve and static pressure transducer included reduced diameter snubber orifices to substantially
hinder the gas flow rates into these volumes during the time of compression. The 11 mm
diameter block also allows for a 14 mm diameter tube to be installed replacing the 5 mm tube
on tests where the larger impact tube is required. The 5 mm inside diameter impact tube was
installed downstream of the transducer block, as required by the predominant standards, and
transfers the pressure surge to the Thermal Profile Test Fixture (TPTF) where normally a
component (valve, regulator, etc.) would be installed. The total length of the assembly,
including the TPTF, was 1100 mm between the valve and the TPTF dead end. The model was
complicated due to the four diameters that had to be considered as the gas flowed from the
valve through the manifold block and tubing to the dead-end of the system in the TPTF. These
diameter changes provided locations where mass flow rates, gas momentum and velocity, and
turbulence would be expected to change during a pressure surge.
4.2 PROCESS DERIVATION

The model was developed considering the geometry of Figure 30, with the following
simplifying assumptions:
1) The flow in the tube downstream of the valve was considered to be unsteady
and one-dimensional. The initial mass inside the tube was held constant and not
allowed to mix with mass elements that entered through the valve. The original
volume downstream of the valve could be divided into several mass segments or
treated as a single mass element. It was found that subdividing the mass downstream
of the valve into only a few mass elements acted as a means of averaging the energy
Page 66
gain and temperature losses similar to the influence of mixing. Once the number of
mass elements downstream of the valve was established, these mass elements were
held constant (fixed) throughout the compression process and were required to
compress and move down the tube until their final pressure, volume, and density was
achieved.
2) For simplicity, the processes at the valve were modelled as an isentropic nozzle,
where the flow is only influenced by the pressure drop and where the total entropy of
the flow through the valve remained constant. These simplifications were considered
minor since the primary influence on the energy gain in the mass elements
downstream of the valve resulted from the flow work done by the mass elements
flowing through the valve. This approach was consistent with the approach employed
by Faeth [16]. The flow rates were calculable using accepted isentropic principles.
For flow through an isentropic nozzle conservation of energy may be reduced
to the form of Equation 31 by neglecting the potential energy term and assuming that
no work is done by the flow through the valve and no heat losses occur at the valve.
Equations 32 through 35 are the common isentropic relationships for compressible gas
flow [73]. Equation 36 specifies the mass flow rate through the valve which can be
derived from the isentropic flow relationships. The estimates of flow area change of the
valve with time (Av(t)) are discussed below.
In this form, conservation of energy indicates that the
velocity change for the process (ΔV) through an
V 2 isentropic nozzle is related to the change in enthalpy
(31) h  0 (Δh) from the conditions upstream of the valve,
2
assumed equivalent to the stagnant conditions in the
accumulator, to the conditions at the valve throat.
k
Stagnation pressure to static pressure ratio (Pt/P) as a
(32) P k 1 function of Mach number (M) and specific heat ratio (k
t 1  k  1 M2
  = Cp/Cv)
P  2 
T Stagnation temperature to static temperature ratio
t k1 2
(33) 1 M (Tt/T) as a function of Mach number (M) and specific
T 2 heat ratio (k)
1
 k 1
t  1  k  1  M2 Stagnation density to static density ratio (ρt/ρ) as a
(34)   function of Mach number (M) and specific heat ratio (k)
  2 
h
t k1 2 Stagnation enthalpy to static enthalpy ratio (ht/h) as a
(35) 1 M function of Mach number (M) and specific heat ratio (k)
h 2
Page 67
Valve Flow Area vs. Time
80

m   v  Av (t ) 2  h
Flow Area (mm^2)

60
Flow Area (mm )

2
Aiv( t )
40
2
mm
20
0
0 0.002 0.004 0.006 0.008 0.01
Timet(s)
Time (sec)
A (left) – Ball Valve %-Flow vs %-Open [14]
B (right) – Flow Area change with time,
WHA ball valve opens fully in 10 ms
Figure 31 - Flow Characteristics for WHA Ball Valve
Mass flow rate as a function of time (ṁ); ρv = density at

 the valve; Av(t) = valve flow area that changes with time
(36)
m   v  Av (t ) 2  h (Figure 31); Velocity change is specified through the
change in enthalpy (Δh) from Equation 31.
These isentropic relationships allow for the conditions and mass flow rate at
the valve to be calculated so that the rate of mass increase downstream of the valve
can be estimated. The stagnation properties are taken to be those that exist within the
high-pressure accumulator just prior to the opening of the valve; and, are considered to
be constant throughout the compression process since the pressure and temperature
in the accumulators essentially remain constant.
The only remaining parameter to be specified to estimate the mass flow rate
through the valve is the flow area. Since the WHA valve is a ball valve, having a variable
area during opening, the flow area changes with time each instant until it is fully open,
as indicated in Figure 31. Inset A depicts the percent of flow for a ball valve as a
function of the percent open and was taken from the Aerospace Fluid Component
Designer’s Handbook [14]. The WHA ball valve was measured to fully open in 10-ms for
the tests that were conducted and the flow area was estimated from a curve fit of this
relationship. The flow area of the WHA valve as it changed during the 10-ms opening
time was plotted in Figure 31b. The mass flow rate (ṁ) could then be calculated from
Equation 36. It is noteworthy that if a globe valve and orifice flow control was being
modelled, the flow was considered to almost instantly be controlled by the orifice used
Page 68
on these systems (BAM, CTE, etc.), due to the flow profile and high rate of opening for
such valves as illustrated in Figure 5 (Chapter 1).
3) The processes downstream of the valve were considered as isentropic-like
processes, rather than shock driven processes. This assumption resulted from a series
of tests that were performed to evaluate whether shock disturbances could be
measured as described in Chapter 2. These tests measured the simultaneous time rate
of change of pressure at 3 different locations in the system. A typical test result from
this series of tests is shown in Figure 32. Two quartz-crystal fast-response pressure
transducers were located downstream of the high-speed valve, one at the immediate
outlet of the valve and another about 1-meter downstream near the dead end, in the
TPTF (see Figure 30). Another fast-response pressure transducer was located
immediately upstream of the high-speed valve to evaluate the rate of resupply of gas
pressure from the accumulator to the valve during a pressure surge.
These tests provided a measure of the dynamic pressure changes within the
WHA test system during a sudden pressure surge in the dead-ended tube. As shown in
Figure 32, the pressure downstream of the valve exhibited approximately the same rise
time and dynamic oscillation frequency even though the two transducers were
separated by approximately 1-meter. The rise time of the transducers were specified
to be at least 1-microsecond and capable of registering the pressure disturbance of a
Pressure Profile for 200-bar Test on WHA Sy stem (Ball Valv e)

240 250
Pressure Downstream of High-Speed Valve (bar)

Pressure Upstream of High-Speed Valve (bar)
228 200
216 150
204 100
192 50
180 0
0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45
Time (sec)
(left ax is) Upstream Pressure
(right ax is) Downstream Pressure (dead end)
(right ax is) Downstream Pressure (near valve)
Figure 32 – Pressure (bar) vs. Time (sec) Measured on a 200 bar WHA Test
Page 69
shock front. The pressure change at the dead-end occurred at the same rate (slope) as
that just downstream of the valve except that it lagged the upstream pressure change
by about 2-3 ms, which is consistent with the time necessary for pressure information
to be conveyed to the end of the impact tube at the local sonic velocity. The pressure
changes observed occurred smoothly and on the order of 10’s of milliseconds
exhibiting pressure rise slopes consistent with isentropic-like processes, rather than the
step change in pressure expected of a shock disturbance propagating in the tube (see
Figure 11, Chapter 2).
It was noteworthy that the pressure oscillation was observed to be greater in
amplitude at the dead end than near the valve. This effect was considered to result
from pressure piling of the mass wave at the dead end as the flow stagnates. This
effect is discussed and predicted by Kentfield [72], who shows that a pressure peak
(transiently) can develop from the mass wave that can dynamically exceed the starting
pressure in the accumulator. The pressure oscillation period was on the order of 16-17
ms, much slower than the time required for a compression wave to travel down the
tube at the local sonic velocity (2-3 ms), and was more consistent with the oscillation of
the mass wave producing a pressure influence. The corresponding effect on the
measured temperatures, as previously observed (see Figure 29), strongly support the
conclusion that the oscillation is part of the fluid dynamics in the system and is
consistent with the mass wave acting as a dynamic spring27, which would reverse the
direction of the mass vector as the pressure at the dead end increases to a level slightly
greater than the accumulator pressure. The oscillation is also observed upstream of
the valve, at the same approximate frequency as observed downstream, indicating that
the accumulator pressure and mass conditions participate in the oscillation. While the
overall pressure changes upstream of the valve were small (<10-bar amplitude change),
the mass and pressure wave oscillation are clearly observed. Since the ball valve can be
considered an open section of tubing at near the tube diameter, once fully opened, the
27
Consultation with Dr. Richard Morgan of Queensland University led to the suggestion that these oscillations
could result from the Helmholtz resonance in the test systems and be similar to a “gas spring” that oscillates
from the mass wave first moving to the dead-end and developing a high stagnation pressure and then reflecting
to change the direction of fluid motion toward the accumulator and vice versa until the fluid dynamics settle.
This observation recognizes that the dynamic transducer may be recording the movement of the mass wave
which would lag the compression (pressure) event, but still produce an internal pressure transient until fully
dampened.
Page 70
damping of the mass and pressure waves included the entire system from the
accumulator to the dead end.
From these tests it can be concluded that the fluid dynamic processes that
occur during a pressure surge are more consistent with isentropic-like processes than
shock processes, and therefore the modelling described herein assumed those
conditions. Further, the oscillation of the pressure pulse in the different test systems,
while different from one another, were considered to result from the system
configurations and their influence on the mass-spring that develops when the valve
opens. This observation will be further discussed in the next chapter; but, it was
noteworthy that the systems using ball valves exhibited similar pressure oscillations
whereas the systems that utilized globe valves and orifice controls exhibited distinctly
different oscillation waveforms. These waveforms were considered to be a fingerprint
of the fluid dynamics in each system as related to the resistance of movement of the
mass wave in each system.
4) The model presented herein did not incorporate wave dynamics. Instead it was
developed from principles that apply for a compression process that is sufficiently
slower than the local sonic velocity that wave dynamics28 do not play a significant role.
The model assumed that the gas pressure throughout the volume downstream of the
valve was constant at any instant of time and that the conditions within any differential
mass element (dm = ρAdx) was constant throughout its volume.
From the assumptions discussed above a series of equations were developed to

describe the flow and energy change processes that were expected downstream of the high-
speed valve. Since the equations, presented below, were highly nonlinear, the temperature
changes for the mass elements were calculated numerically through an iterative process
described at the end of this chapter. The pressure in the tube was measured during each test
28
Wave dynamics during adiabatic compression processes have been discussed by several authors [16, 56] and
represent a technique where the flow is managed by tracking individual pressure waves transmitted and
reflected in a system. Wave dynamics are especially treated well by Kentfield [72] and Emanuel [74]. The path
and position of pressure waves, including reflections from surfaces and their compression/expansion
characteristics when fully defined would represent the flow. The procedure and method is very rigorous and
unreasonably complicated without a computer program for tracking the waves beyond the first two or three
that are produced during a transient circumstance. Faeth [16] and Leslie [56] observe that for a circumstance
where the wave velocity is substantially faster than the time of the event under consideration (e.g., in this
analysis wave time ~2.9 ms vs pressurization time ~20 ms) that wave dynamics can be ignored. Although the
time difference in the case of interest here is less than a factor of 10 different, this recommendation was
followed especially considering the approximate nature of the analysis.
Page 71
that was conducted, as shown in previous figures such as Figure 26 (Chapter 3). The pressure-
time measurement was used as an input to the model to specify the pressure change and
pressure rise rate during each time increment. For each time increment, the pressure change
was read from the recorded data file and the mass flow through the valve was calculated as
describe above so that the changes in density, position, and temperature for each mass
element downstream of the valve could be estimated from the relationships described below.
4.3 DEVELOPMENT OF EQUATIONS FOR TEMPERATURE PREDICTION

The goal of the following was to specify a method of calculating the temperature of
each mass element that existed downstream of the rapid opening valve for each time
increment during the rapid pressurization process. Figure 33 illustrates a free body diagram for
a system of mass elements moving along the tube during a compression process and focuses
attention on mass element 3 for analysis.
τ
F1 = P1A -F2=P1A+∂(P∙A)
D Mass6 Mass5 P1A1 Mass3 Mass1
dx
(-) q(x,t)
A1+∂A dx -F2=P1A+∂(P∙A) dx
F1 = P1A1 ∂x ∂x
A1
h1, PV11A, P
1
1, ρ1
Mass4
h1+Δh, V1+ΔV, P1+ΔP, ρ1+Δρ
Φ, dS = π*D*dx/cosΦ, Annular Surface Area
dx
Figure 33 – Conservation of Energy and Momentum applied to a fixed mass element in a

dead-end tube (Figure 33a represents a uniform diameter; Figure 33b represents a non-
uniform diameter)
The mass element or fluid particle is an elemental slice of material that based on the
assumptions previously described constitutes a closed system for which the 1st Law of
Thermodynamics applies. This holds even when the particle is moving and has translational
kinetic energy and is gaining or loosing energy by compression, friction and heat transfer.
Therefore the equations for conservation of mass, momentum and energy may be applied to
each mass element and tracked as a function of time.
Page 72
Figure 33a and 33b illustrates the pressure forces (F1 and F2) that act on the fluid
element as it translates down the tube. It is noteworthy that F2 is illustrated as being negative
since it is oriented in the negative x direction. The pressure forces act against the cross-
sectional areas on either side of the fluid element and represent the mass elements interacting
as they translate down the tube. Even though the tube is illustrated as a straight section, the
actual geometry of interest incorporated area changes so the term for F2 in Figure 33b was
developed to allow for area changes within a duct of non-uniform diameter (D). The interaction
of the adjacent mass elements acts to change the mass element enthalpy (h), mass element
speed or velocity (V), mass element pressure (P), and mass element density (ρ). Because the
mass element density changes with position and time, the mass element’s volume also changes
with both position and time. In this model energy is gained by the flow and compression work
and energy is lost through heat transfer (q) out of the tube and a shear stress (τ) that applies a
surface force on the fluid element opposing the flow (i.e., friction, τ = ½ ρ V2 f, f = skin friction
factor).
In order to derive the necessary equations for unsteady flow (flow that is changing with
both position and time) the concept of the Substantial Derivative was used. Kentfield [72] and
Emanuel [74] utilize this concept heavily in their developments of the equations for unsteady
flow and their derivation concepts were followed in the development of the following
equations. The substantial derivative provides a shorthand notation for derivations of terms
that are changing with both position and time. For instance, taken from Emanuel [74], since in
unsteady flow a quantity such as density (ρ) is a function of both position and time and can be
written as,
ρ = ρ(x,t) – density as a function of position (x) and time (t)

which, can be differentiated using the chain rule as,
 
d   dx   dt
x t
dividing by dt and rearranging yields,
d  dx  dt  
     V 
dt x dt t dt t x
by definition, the expression on the right, for a variable (•), is the substantial derivative
Page 73
D() () (  )
 V 
Dt t x
Emanuel explains the meaning of the terms by pointing out that the substantial
derivative provides a shorthand notation for derivations that are unsteady. He explains that the
first term provides the unsteady variation of density (ρ) at a fixed location. The second term
provides the convective change, which consists of the gradient of density times the speed with
which the fluid particle moves past a fixed location. The substantial derivative will be used in
deriving the necessary equations of motion for the mass elements.
4.3.1 First Law Analysis

In the following, the general trend of the Emanuel derivation was utilized to develop
the relationships presented; however, an unsteady form of the momentum equation was
incorporated into the energy equation to provide a unique relationship for the total energy gain
of a mass element undergoing both a compression process and momentum changes while in
motion. Starting with the differential form of conservation of energy, the internal energy of a
mass element being compressed may be specified in its simplest form as in Equation 37.
First Law of a mass element written in unsteady form as a

   function of position and time:
u( x, t )  w ( x, t )  q( x, t )
u = internal energy of a mass element
(37) w = work performed on (+) the mass element
Du Dw Dq q = heat gain (+), or loss (-), from a mass element
 
Dt Dt Dt
First Law written in terms of the substantial derivative
These terms represent the internal energy, work, and heat loss per unit of mass
(specific internal energy, etc.) for unsteady flow. As was defined in Chapter 3, when “w” is
positive, work is performed on the mass element and when “q” is positive, heat is transferred
into the mass element. For this analysis, since the energy gain by work on the mass element
generally increased its temperature above the surroundings, the “q” term was negative and
indicated that heat would be transferred out of the mass element. The work term represents
the rate of energy gain by a mass element due to the pressure forces on the element while it is
being compressed from an initial volume to a final volume during the time of compression. The
work done on the mass element, or the energy gain per unit mass, may be written with the
substantial derivative as shown in Equation 38.
Page 74
The work (w) done on a mass element (m) can be

defined as the force (F) applied times the change in
the mass segment length (dx), which for
compression is a negative change. The change in
Dw D P D segment length is derived from the change in
(38) P  
Dt Dt 2 Dt volume (dV = m*dv) divided by the cross-sectional

area (A).
F PA  d  m 

w  dx  Pd
m m  A 
The energy gain in the mass element (dm = ρAdx) implied in Equation 38 considers only
the pressure forces acting on the ends of the mass segment. The friction forces, or surface
forces, will be considered later in the momentum equation; but, at this point are ignored.
Further, at this point in the derivation the substantial derivative has not been expanded.
Expansion of this derivative and cancellation of terms will be performed later. At this point, it is
more convenient to leave the unsteady terms incorporated into the substantial derivative.
4.3.2 Heat Transfer Losses

The third term in Equation 37 represents the heat loss from the mass element as it is
pushed along the tube during the compression process. During the early stages of compression
the heat transfer is largely due to forced convection from the high turbulence and high gas
velocity. These factors are considered to be substantial due to the very rapid, 15-20 ms,
pressurization time that is required by the test standards. During the later stages of the
compression process and especially after the system reaches its final pressure, the heat transfer
from the pressurized gas is expected to largely be due to natural convection. The heat transfer
considerations here derived did not incorporate the substantial derivative since the important
convection coefficient (h) was based on empirical data provided by the National Aeronautics
and Space Administration (NASA) [74, 75], as shown in Equation 40. Therefore, the usual forms
for the heat transfer relationships were utilized, in a manner consistent with Faeth [16], and
applied to the mass element at each time step, as shown in Equation 39.
Equation 39 requires that the heat transfer from a mass element moving along the tube
be forced by the temperature difference between the tube wall and the bulk temperature of
the mass and by the resulting convection coefficient for the contact surface area of the mass.
The tube wall temperature for this derivation was considered to remain constant29.
29
Experience indicates that for any single pressure surge, the temperature of the tubing and metallic elements
remain very close to their original temperature; therefore the assumption of constant wall temperature was
considered valid.
Page 75
q = heat transfer from mass element; For differential

h  As  T length element dx, q is replaced with dq
q h = convection coefficient (forced convection for Reynolds
m
numbers, Re > 2500 and natural convection for Re< 2500)
As = surface area or perimeter of mass element (changes
(39) As  dx    D during each time increment during compression; As =
dx*πD, where D = equivalent diameter and dx = differential
length element)
h ΔT = difference between the average mass element
dq   As  T
m temperature (at the end of the time increment) and the
tube wall temperature
Since the contact surface area, or perimeter, of the mass element changes with the
temperature of the mass element (i.e., temperature change leads to density change and
therefore volume change for a specific pressure rise), the interrogation of the integral was
accomplished through numerical iteration in the model taking very small pressure rise steps30
with correspondingly small time steps and taking the surface area and heat transfer coefficient
to be constant during these small steps.
4.3.3 Evaluation of Heat Transfer Variables

The convection coefficient (h) in Equation 39 plays a significant role in the overall heat
loss from the mass element. Emanuel [74] and Humble et al., [75] provide correlation formulas
(Equation 40) which were empirically determined by NASA for turbulent airflow in a smooth
circular duct of high length (L) to diameter (D) ratio. The correlation formula was developed for
conditions of both heating and cooling of the gas and is highly similar to the usual Nusselt
equation for forced convection in horizontal pipes [76]. The experiments that provided this
correlation relationship utilized inlet and outlet geometries that resulted in high velocities with
sonic flow at the exit geometry and turbulent subsonic flow within the piping. The more
common formulation of the Nusselt equation is shown in Equation 41, and is provided for
comparison; however, Equation 40 was preferred since it was empirically determined for
conditions generally consistent with this research.
Since the thermal conductivity (κ), constant pressure specific heat (Cp) and dynamic
viscosity (µ) are each functions of temperature, the thermodynamic properties for oxygen were
compiled from the National Institute for Standards Technology (NIST) data for pressures ranging
from 1 bar (0.1 MPa) to 690 bar (69 MPa) and temperatures ranging from 100 K to 1000 K. This
30
The pressure measurements utilized in the model were taken at a rate of approximately 1 data point every
150 microseconds.
Page 76
compilation of data is provided for reference in Appendix A. From this data the functional
forms for these parameters were developed by curve fitting the data and were used to predict
the required values as a function of temperature.
hconv = convection coefficient as a function of

0.8 0.4  0.1
0.034 Re  Pr  L

Reynolds number (Re), Prandtl number (Pr), tube
(40) hconv  diameter (D), and thermal conductivity (κ). This
D  D correlation was used to estimate the coefficient
 for forced convection for Re > 2500
0.8 0.3 Nusselt equation for forced convection

0.023 Re  Pr
(41) hconv coefficient, hconv (common form, reference 76), for
D
Re > 2500

0.25 Nusselt equation for natural convection

0.55 ( Gr  Pr )
(42) hnat coefficient, hnat (common form, reference 76), for
D
Re < 2500

Reynolds number as a function of density (ρ),

D V diameter (D), velocity (V), and dynamic viscosity
(43) Re
 (µ). Each parameter is evaluated at the film
temperature (Tg+Tw)/2.
Prandtl number as a function of constant pressure

Cp   specific heat (Cp), dynamic viscosity (µ), and
(44) Pr
 thermal conductivity (κ). Each parameter is
evaluated at the film temperature (Tg+Tw)/2
Grashoff number as a function of diameter (D),
(45)
2

   Tg  Tw D g  3 density (ρ), isothermal compressibility (β),
dynamic viscosity (µ), and gravitational constant
Gr
2 (g). Each parameter is evaluated at the film

temperature (Tg+Tw)/2
Figures 34 – 36 depict the results of this analysis and plot the functional forms of the
derived relationships with temperature. Each graph shows values ranging from 300 K to 1000 K
for 100 bar, 275 bar, combined values between 1 bar and 300 bar, and the function derived
from this data (solid line). The constant pressure specific heat graph, Figure 34, also shows the
functional form of the molar heat capacity Cpo for low pressure, in the ideal gas state, taken
from Van Wylen and Sonntag [77].
Page 77
These figures show that the curve fit (function or line on each figure) correlated well at
low pressure and low temperature as well as at high temperatures and high pressures and
converged as temperature and pressure both increased. At lower temperatures and a pressure
of 275 bar, the correlation diverged. For the constant pressure specific heat (Figure 34) the
correlation diverged at lower temperatures for both 100 bar and 275 bar pressures. Since the
purpose of the data correlation was to predict the necessary values of κ, µ, and Cp as the
pressure and temperature both increase during a compression process, and since the
correlation was good when the temperature and pressure were both low as well as when the
temperature and pressure were both high, which is parallel to the process undergone by
oxygen in a compression process, the functional relationships were judged to converge
appropriately where needed (as temperature and pressure rise simultaneously) and were
utilized for the numerical predictions described later in this chapter.
1.5
Cp10 0bar
J
gm K
1.3
Cp27 5bar
J
gm K
CpT 1.1
J
gm K
Cpfu nct TT  
0.9
J
gm K
 TT  1
Cpo 
 K  MWO2 0.7
J
gm K
0.5
3
25 0 40 0 55 0 70 0 85 0 110
T10 0barT27 5barTT TT TT
Temperature (K)
Figure 34 - Constant pressure specific heat of oxygen (J/gm-K) as a function of temperature (K)
Page 78
0.1
0.08
 10 0bar
 27 5bar 0.06
T
0.04
 
 fu nct TT
0.02
0
3
20 0 36 0 52 0 68 0 84 0 110
T10 0barT27 5barTT TT
Temperature (K)
Temperature
Figure 35 - Thermal conductivity of oxygen (W/m-K)(K)
as a function of temperature (K)
5
610
5
100bar 510
275bar
5
410
T
 
funct TT
5
310
5
210
3
200 360 520 680 840 110
T100barT275barTT TT
Temperature (K)
Temperature (K)
Figure 36 – Dynamic viscosity of oxygen (Pa-s) as a function of temperature (K)
4.3.4 Internal Energy Relationships

The first term in Equation 37 represents the change in internal energy of the mass
element with both position and time. In order to evaluate this term the definition of enthalpy
(h = u + Pν) was combined with the relationship for stagnation enthalpy (ht = h + ½ V2) to
develop a function for internal energy using the substantial derivative as shown in Equation 46.
Unsteady form of internal energy (u) as function of

D V 
2
Du P stagnation enthalpy (ht) and pressure-volume work (Pv or
(46)  ht   
Dt Dt   2  P/ρ) and the mass element velocity (V) in the positive “x”
direction down the tube toward the dead end.
Page 79
Equation 46 provides a relationship for the total change in the internal energy of the
mass element in both position and time during the pressure surge and incorporates the work
done by compressing the mass (-∫Pdv work) as well as the kinetic energy gained by the mass
element as it accelerates down the tube. Emanuel explains that this relationship considers that
enthalpy transport across a transvers surface is related to the rate of mass flow times the
stagnation enthalpy (mrate*ht = ρ*A*V*(u+ Pν + ½ V2)). Here, ρ*A*V and u+ ½ V2 represent the
mass flow rate and the energy transport across the surface, respectively. The term Pν (or
written in terms of density, P/ρ) represents the work needed to move the mass across the
surface. Expansion of the right side of Equation 46 is as follows:
Dh t 2
D ( P ) 1 DV
 
Dt Dt 2 Dt Expansion of the right side of Equation 46 maintaining
the substantial derivative notation. Note that by
definition,
Dh t DP D DV
(47)    P V
Dt Dt Dt Dt
D
 P D 
1
 
 1 DP
  P
  1 DP
  P  
1  D

Dt  Dt Dt  Dt 2  Dt
Dh t P D
1 DP DV  
    V
Dt  Dt 2 Dt Dt

 h t h  1  P P  P  ρ ρ   V V 
(48)   V  t    V   2   V    V  V 
 t x  ρ  t x  ρ  t x   t x 
Equation 48 provides the full expansion of the substantial derivative for the terms
derived in Equation 47. Thus, Equation 48 provides the unsteady flow relationships for the
changes in internal energy for a mass element undergoing compression during a pressure surge.
The term in Equation 47 for the unsteady change in velocity (DV/Dt) suggests
introducing the momentum equation, which will be evaluated next.
4.3.5 Evaluation of Momentum Relationships

Newton’s second law provides that the time rate of change of momentum equals the
net external force on a fluid element. This law may be written using the substantial derivative
as shown in Equation 49.
Page 80
Note that by conservation of mass,

D ( V  dm)
dF
Dt D ( dm)
(49) 0
Dt
DV D ( dm) DV
dF dm  V   A  dx Also, note that ρ*A*dx = dm = mass
Dt Dt Dt
The evaluation of the net external force in Equation 49 is complicated by several terms,
not the least of which is the surface forces associated with friction on the tube walls. In the
following these external forces will be evaluated for those components of force in the x-
direction (along the axis of the tube). The forces applied to the surfaces of the mass element
perpendicular to the axis of the tube (see Figure 33, Mass 3) may be written as shown in
Equations 50 – 52.
(50) F1  P  A F1 and F2 are the forces applied to the ends of

the mass element as shown in Figure 33,
considering a non-uniform tube cross-section.
  P  A  
F2   P  A  
F2 is negative since it is applied in the negative
(51)  dx 
 x  x-direction.
dF3 represents the annular area shown in

A Figure 33 and was derived consistent with
(52) dF3  P   dx
x Emanuel [76].
The surface force (dFs) that develops from the viscous shear stress on the tube wall may
be evaluated for a non-uniform diameter tube by noting that the force is equivalent to the
shear stress in the x-direction times the annular surface area, dFs = -τ*cosΦ*dSs, shown in Figure
33. In this formulation “τ” is the mean shear stress along the tube wall and dSs is the annular
surface area. The force is negative since it opposes the direction of flow and is applied in the
negative x-direction. As usual, the following relationships apply where circumference, c = π*D,
cos Φ = dx/dL (where dL is the length of the mass segment along the wall), and τ = ½ ρ*V2*f
(where “f” is the Fanning friction factor and ½ ρ*V2 is the dynamic pressure applied to the tube
wall). Using these relationships, the Friction force (dFf) may be written as shown in Equation 53.
Equation 54 expresses the sum of forces in the x-direction (dF = F1-F2+dF3-dFf). Equation 55
presents the unsteady form of the momentum equation, which can be simplified as shown in
Equation 56, and solved for DV/Dt.
Page 81
Frictional force (dFf) as a function of the

friction factor (f), equivalent diameter (D) of
 D f   V  dx
(53) 1 2
dFf the mass segment, density (ρ) and mass
 2   segment velocity (V) along the axis of the tube.
  A   A    P  1 
(54) dF  P  A  P  A    P     dx  P     dx   A     dx  π  D  f    ρ  V 2   dx
 
 x 
  
x 
 x  2 
Momentum equation by
P 1  DV
(55) dF   A  dx   π  D  f    ρ  V 2   dx  ρ  A  dx  simplification of Equation
x 2  Dt 54 and combination with
Equation 49.
DV  1   P  2 Simplified form of Equation

      f V
2
Dt  ρ   x  D 55 solved for DV/Dt. Note
that DV/Dt is also shown
(56)
expanded but it is more
DV V  V  convenient to leave this term
  V  
Dt t  x  in the unsteady notation.
4.3.6 Energy Gain Relationships

Each of the terms for a first law analysis of a mass element undergoing a pressure surge
has now been developed and Equation 37 can be fully evaluated. The terms for work in
Equation 38 and heat transfer in Equation 37 may be combined with the terms for internal
energy in Equation 47, as shown in Equation 57, which utilizes the substantial derivative
notation.
Dh t 1 DP P D DV P D
(57)     V   q ( x t)
Dt  Dt 2 Dt Dt 2 Dt
 
Substituting the momentum terms derived in Equation 56 into Equation 57 for DV/Dt
and solving for the unsteady form of stagnation enthalpy (Dht/Dt) yields Equation 58, after
expanding each of the substantial derivative terms. Finally, Equation 59 is developed by
cancelling terms in Equation 58 and using the terms from Equation 39. This is the preferred
form of the First Law, combined with momentum influences, for the conditions considered in
this research.
Dh  
t  1  P   P  Dρ  P  Dρ    V  P  V  P   2  f  V 3  q(x, t)
(58)
Dt ρ t  ρ 2 Dt ρ 2 Dt   ρ x ρ x  D
 
Page 82
This equation relates the change in enthalpy

of a fixed mass to the energy gain (ν∙dP)
Dh
(59) t  1  P  2  f  V 3  1 h  A  ΔT  minus the friction loss while the mass is
ρ t D
s moving minus the heat transfer loss. In this
Dt m
equation “h” in the heat transfer term is the
convection coefficient.
Equation 59 equates the change in the enthalpy of a mass undergoing a pressure surge
to the energy gained by compressing the mass element minus the energy losses from friction
and heat transfer. The energy gain is complicated by two rate terms, the pressure rise rate,
(∂P/∂t), and the heat transfer rate. The heat transfer rate is forced by the temperature
difference (ΔT) between the mass element and the tube wall. The rate of pressure rise directly
influences the rate of temperature rise in the mass element; but, the higher the temperature
increases the higher the rate of heat transfer. Therefore, as should be expected, the energy
gain and heat transfer rates compete in their influence on the temperature of the mass
element. It is also noteworthy that the influence of velocity is not trivial. The frictional losses
are influenced significantly by the cubic term on the mass velocity. The frictional losses are
present due to the momentum changes in the mass element and are most significant in the
early stages of the pressure surge while the mass segments accelerate toward the dead end and
disappear after the mass element velocities start to dampen as they reach the end boundary.
The rate of heat transfer is also strongly influenced by the mass velocity, which increases the
heat transfer coefficient (h) at high velocity due to the correspondingly higher turbulence.
Therefore, the friction losses and heat transfer losses are greatest during the early stages of the
pressure surge when the mass velocity is high. Finally, it is noteworthy that the tube diameter
(D) effects both loss terms such that as the diameter is smaller, both loss terms are greater. As
the tube diameter increases, for a given pressure rise rate, the influence of both loss terms
decrease. For the friction losses the greater the diameter the lower the influence of the velocity
term by the ratio, V3/D. For the heat transfer term, the influence of a greater diameter is to
decrease the influence of heat transfer by approximately the ratio of the perimeter surface area
(As=πDdx) to volume (V= ¼ πD2dx) of the mass segment. The energy loss from heat transfer is
applied to the perimeter surface area but the energy gain is being stored in the volume of the
mass element. Therefore, the influence of the loss terms should be greater for smaller
diameter tubes.
Due to the highly non-linear nature of Equation 59 and the difficulty in isolating the
terms to derive a solution, a numerical approach for solving the equation was chosen. The
solution approach will be described later in this chapter. However, ultimately it was the
temperature change in the compressed mass that was desired so that comparisons could be
Page 83
made with the measurements made with the Thermal Profile Test Fixture (TPTF) already
described. Equation 59 implies that the temperature (and therefore enthalpy change) which
satisfies the equality, for a given pressure rise rate and heat transfer rate represents the
temperature of the mass segment. Therefore, an estimate of the total change in enthalpy of
the mass segment was necessary before Equation 59 could be evaluated.
4.3.7 Estimation of Enthalpy Change through Residual Functions

Since δQ31 = TdS and δW = PdV for a reversible process, and using the definition of
enthalpy, the first law can be written as shown in Equation 60 in terms of the state variables,
enthalpy (H) and entropy (S). The following discussion presents derivations in terms of the total
enthalpy and total entropy; however, the relationships are easily converted to the forms for
specific (per unit mass) enthalpy and entropy.
First Law for a reversible process specified

(60) T∙dS = dH - V∙dP or V∙dP = dH - T∙dS in terms of total enthalpy change dH and
total entropy change dS (state variables)
Since the properties of a substance depend only on the state of the substance, and
since the change in the properties for a given change of state are the same for either a
reversible or irreversible process, the relationships in Equation 60 can be applied to any change
of state [60]. Therefore, the relationship of Equation 60 specifies the energy gain for any V∙dP
process as long as the change in enthalpy and change in entropy can be specified. For the
treatment of oxygen as a real gas undergoing a compression process, a calculational path had to
be devised to connect the initial and final states, so that the change in total enthalpy could be
estimated, through the use of residual ΔHres and ΔSres functions (also called departure
functions).
Residual functions are defined by the generic equation (ΔM’res = M’ – M) where the M’s
represent any extensive thermodynamic property [78]. The residual function ΔM’res represents
the departure of the property of interest from the ideal gas state, M’, and the actual state of the
real gas, M. Property changes for ideal gases are given by straight forward relationships and the
use of residual functions allow for the actual property change for a real gas to be estimated by
calculating the change of state as if it were an ideal gas and then adjusting for the departure of
the initial and final conditions by use of the residual function. Since the property changes ΔH
31
δ, symbol is used to represent a path dependent, inexact, differential
Page 84
and ΔS are independent of path, the choice of the calculational path may be chosen solely on
the basis of convenience. Abbott and Van Ness offer the following convenient calculational
approach:
1) Imagine the real gas in its initial state to be transformed into an ideal gas at the same
conditions of Tinitial and Pinitial by calculating the departure in the properties by ΔH’initial
and ΔS’initial. Abbott and Van Ness provide the following expressions for ΔH’ and ΔS’
derived from the Van der Walls equation of state:
T  RO2 a
Pvdw  Van der Wall’s equation of state written
 b 2 first in the common form explicit in

Pressure and then written in the form
V a provided by Abbott and Van Ness in
Zvdw  terms of the compressibility factor (Z),
(61) Vb RO2  T  V
specific volume (v), and specific gas
constant (RO2). The constants, “a” and
2 2
27 RO2  Tc O2 RO2 Tc O2 “b” are provided in terms of the critical
a  b temperature and pressure for oxygen.
64 Pc O2 8 Pc O2
Residual enthalpy (ΔHres or ΔH’res) by

H res RO2  T 
 a
 ( 1  Z)
 integration and transformation of Van
(62)  1  der Walls as a function of Temperature
RO2 T   (T), density (ρ), compressibility (Z) and
specific gas constant (RO2).
  RO2 T  Residual entropy (ΔSres or ΔS’res) by

S res RO2  ln 
 P    b
(63) integration and transformation of Van
1 der Walls
2) Then, the ideal gas is allowed to undergo the change of state from Tinitial and Pinitial to
Tfinal and Pfinal and associated with this step are the common relationships for enthalpy
and entropy change for an ideal gas, as indicated by Equations 64 – 66.
3) Finally, imagine the ideal gas to be transformed back into a real gas at Tfinal and Pfinal.
Associated with this step are the property changes –ΔH’final and –ΔS’final. The minus sign
is required since the change of state is from ideal to real, so that, the following
transformation formulas (Equations 67 and 68) complete the estimation of the change
of state.
Change in enthalpy of an ideal gas
T as a function of temperature
 final
(64) H ideal  Cp ideal dT
change. The functional form for
 Cpideal is shown in Equation 66,
T
initial taken from Van Wylen and
Sonntag.
Page 85
T
 final
 1  Pfinal  Change in entropy of an ideal gas as
(65) S ideal Cp ideal dT   RO2  ln   a function of temperature change

T
initial
T
 Pinitial  and pressure change.
 1.5  1.5
T  
2
(66) Cp ideal( T ) 37.432  0.020102 T   178.57 T  
 236.88    
kJ
  100  100  100  kmol K
(67) H Hres initial  H ideal  Hres final Change in enthalpy for a real gas from
Tinitial and Pinitial to Tfinal and Pfinal
Sres initial  S ideal  Sres final

Change in entropy for a real gas from
(68) S Tinitial and Pinitial to Tfinal and Pfinal
-ΔHres and -ΔSres

-Δhres and -Δsres
Tfinal and Pfinal
ΔHideal or Δhideal
ΔSideal or Δsideal
ΔHres and ΔSres
Δhres and Δsres

Tinitial and
Pinitial
Figure 37 – Calculational path for estimating the state change of a real gas from
Tinitial and Pinitial to Tfinal and Pfinal (total or static properties may be used)
Figure 37 depicts the calculational path just described and shows the transformations
just discussed using residual functions. The value of this approach is that a final state can be
calculated if Tfinal and Pfinal are known; or, if the assumption is that the process was isentropic,
then the final temperature is that temperature satisfying the condition that ΔS = 0. For use with
Equation 59, the residual functions and mass element temperature was determined through an
iterative process until the equality was satisfied, as described in the next section.
Page 86
4.4 OUTLINE OF CALCULATIONAL PROCEDURE TO ESTIMATE GAS

TEMPERATURE
The system of equations previously described allow for an estimation of the
temperature rise for a mass element undergoing a pressure surge process. Due to the
nonlinear character of the system of equations, the solution to Equation 59 was evaluated
numerically. A computer program was prepared to estimate the changes in properties for very
small time increments where the pressure was known from the test measurements taken (i.e.,
Figure 32) and the values could be considered constant at some average. Figure 38 provides a
summary of the flow of the calculations and the following describes the calculational approach
that was utilized:
1) The initial conditions (pressure, temperature, volume, and locations of geometry

changes) within the accumulator and also downstream of the valve were established
and the property states for oxygen at these conditions were taken directly from the
NIST database.
a) The calculations, once started by flow through the valve, did not allow for mixing of
the mass elements downstream of the valve since no method of calculating a
mixing factor was found. However, it was recognized that the fewer the mass
elements that were initially established downstream of the valve, the greater the
averaging that occurred for the temperature prediction of the mass elements. In
this way the averaging provided a way of estimating the effect of the masses mixing
downstream of the valve.
b) The geometry downstream of the valve was defined so that the valve was at
position-zero (X=0 mm) and the dead-end was position-1100 (X=1100 mm), which
represented the total internal length of the WHA system with the TPTF installed.
This established a unique position (diameter and length) for every millimetre
downstream of the valve.
2) The iterative calculations started with the opening of the valve, which for the WHA ball
valve was simulated by a variable orifice following the function depicted in Figure 31.
Therefore, for the first 10 ms of iteration, the valve was considered an “adiabatic
nozzle” with a changing flow area. After the first 10 ms, the valve was considered fully
open and was managed as a constant area orifice. For each time increment, the mass
that passed through the valve, and its conditions entering the downstream volume
were calculated based on Equations 31-36. The pressure downstream of the valve was
Page 87
Figure 38 – Flow Chart Summary of Numerical Procedure for Calculation of Mass

Element Temperatures
assumed to follow the measurements taken during the various tests and was set by the
value read from a data file of interest. As is customary for isentropic analysis, the
pressure throughout the assembly downstream of the valve was assumed to be
constant for each time increment and wave dynamics were not considered (discussed
previously).
3) Once a mass element entered the system downstream of the valve during a time
increment its mass was maintained constant (i.e., it became a new “fixed” mass
element that was tracked by the program). However, its volume varied with the local
pressure and its temperature was iteratively calculated by the procedure below:
a) Equation 59 provided the governing relationship that was utilized with Equation 69
providing the friction estimate while the mass wave was moving (e.g., until the
mass momentum dropped to near zero). Equation 69, is Haalands Equation, and
allows calculation of the friction factor for mass flow down the tube as a function of
the Reynolds number and diameter of the tube. After the mass momentum
Page 88
dampened, then Equation 59 provided the energy gain and heat transfer losses
without momentum influences. For each increment of time, the temperature was
initially calculated using an isentropic assumption (ΔS = 0) based on the pressure
rise, which initially overestimated the temperature. Then iterations were
conducted on each mass element to calculate new densities, volumes, positions,
velocities, heat transfer coefficients, total enthalpy (etc.) and the equality of
Equation 59 was re-checked. The iterations for each time increment and each mass
element continued until the equality required by Equation 59 was satisfied.
b) For each estimation of temperature during an iteration step, a new density was
calculated using the Redlich-Kwong cubic equation of state, Equation 7032.
Equation 70 is explicit in pressure but a subroutine was developed to calculate the
density for any pressure-temperature condition. Therefore, once an estimate of
the density was established, since the mass was maintained constant for each mass
element, it’s volume and relative front and back position were easily determined.
Since mixing was not allowed, its velocity was also easily determined based on its
new position and degree of compression for the time increment.
2
   
1 .1 1  Haalands Equation [79] for friction
(69)     factor (f) as a function of Reynolds
f 1.8 log D
 
6.9
 number (Re), tube diameter (D), and
  3.7  Re surface roughness (ε).
Redlich-Kwong cubic equation of state

RO2  T ark ( T) as a function of temperature (T) and
(70) Prk  specific volume (ν). For oxygen, u=1
  brk 2 2
  urk  brk    wrk  brk and w=0. Constants “a” and “b” are
defined below.
2 2.5
0.42748 RO2  TcO2
ark ( T)
0.5
PcO2  ( T) Redlich-Kwong constants based on
(71) specific gas constant (R) and critical
temperature (Tc) and Pressure (Pc)
0.08664 RO2 Tc O2
brk
Pc O2
32
The Redlich-Kwong equation of state was used for estimation of the density changes, rather than van der
Waals, since its estimates for density more closely approached the values provided in the NIST data for oxygen
as temperature and pressure increased. The van der Waals provided the relationships for transformation to
residual functions. However, Redlich-Kwong provided a better estimate of the density needed for the volume.
Page 89
c) Since the heat transfer for a mass velocity depended heavily on the geometry of
the assembly, functions were defined so that the surface area and cross-sectional
area could be tracked for each mass element during each time increment. In order
to simplify the calculations, for each time increment, the beginning and ending
positions for the front and the back of each mass element was calculated and by
evaluation of the geometry functions an “average equivalent diameter” and
“average equivalent perimeter” were calculated, based on the volume and
movement of each mass element.
d) Iterations generally following 3-a through 3-c continued adjusting all parameters
until the equality of Equation 59 was satisfied. For each iteration, the ΔH and ΔS
were calculated by residual functions as described (Figure 37).
4.5 RESULTS OF THE TEMPERATURE ESTIMATIONS

The procedure just described was carried out on the WHA configuration in order to
predict typical temperature, flow, and energy profiles during a pressure surge. The calculated
temperature profiles were necessary as a comparison to the measured thermal profiles and for
prediction of the influence of heat losses during the period of energy gain. Each mass element
downstream of the valve and each mass element entering through the valve, as determined by
the time increments, were tracked throughout the pressure surge and therefore their
temperature and position could be followed in time.
Figures 39 and 40 shows the results of these calculations for the original volume in the
tube divided into two mass segments and for ten mass elements entering the tube downstream
of the valve. The volume #1 mass element was the half of the original mass nearest the end of
the tube. The volume #2 mass element was the half nearest the valve. The maximum
temperature at the dead end was estimated to range from approximately 579 oC to 701 oC at
the moment the pressure reached a maximum, and to extend from 1087 mm to the dead end
(Figure 40, original volumes 1 and 2). These maximum temperatures were estimated to be very
transient, as observed in the figures, and the original mass elements dropped to between 435
o
C and 464 oC within the first ¼ second. The temperature loss is also observed on Figure 40 by
the oscillation in the temperature-distance profile. These figures indicate that the original
volume of the tube and approximately 10 mass elements occupy the TPTF volume as the
pressure reaches the peak value of approximately 220-bar. The temperature of these 10 mass
elements is estimated to range from 190 oC to 490 oC. Therefore, these calculations suggest
that the temperature throughout the TPTF should range from 190 oC to as high as 701 oC as the
pressure surge reaches a maximum pressure, for the pressurization profile used in the
Page 90
Temperature vs . Tim e
800 250
700
200
600
500
150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
400
100
300
200 Original V olume #1

Original V olume #2
1st Mass Entering 50
3rd Mass Entering
100 5th Mass Entering
7th Mass Entering
10th Mass Entering
Pressur e (bar)
0 0
0 0.025 0.05 0.075 0.1 0.125 0.15 0.175 0.2 0.225 0.25
Time ( sec)
Figure 39 – Temperature Profile for Original Volume to Tenth Mass Element
simulation. These temperatures can be directly compared to the measurements taken during
the testing, with the positions as indicated in Table 10.
Table 10 – TPTF Measurement Positions and Estimated Temperatures

Measurement Distance from Valve Estimated Max
Location (mm) Temperature (oC)
Position 1 1100 701
Position 2 1092 579
Position 3 1067 341
Position 4 991 163
Based on the temperature estimations, the change in enthalpy for each of the mass
elements within the TPTF were estimated through the calculational path that was described
earlier in this chapter. Figure 41 shows the results of those calculations. These enthalpy
changes provided the basis for an estimation of the severity factors described in Chapter 3.
Figure 41 represents the estimated enthalpy change for a non-adiabatic condition, where heat
transfer influences are in effect both during and after the pressure rise. The pressure rise time
that was used in this simulation was a 15 ms time for the pressure to rise from 10% of the peak
to 90% of the peak, as is shown in the WHA data in Figure 26. A 10/90% calculation of rise time
Page 91
Temperature vs . Distance From Valve

800
Original V olume #1
Original V olume #2
1st Mass Entering
700 3rd Mass Entering
5th Mass Entering
7th Mass Entering
500
Temperature (C)
400
300
200
100
0
990 1001 1012 1023 1034 1045 1056 1067 1078 1089 1100
Distance from V alve (mm)
Figure 40 –Position and Path for Original Volume to Tenth Mass Element Entering the
Impact Tube (990 mm to 1100 mm represents the TPTF)
is a very common methodology and will be used in the remainder of the discussions a way of
comparing the performance of one system to another on a similar basis.
4.6 SUMMARY
This chapter has provided the theoretical basis for the estimation of the temperature
that should be expected to develop in the WHA TPTF during a pressure surge. Due to the losses
by frictional influences and heat transfer the temperatures predicted to develop are
substantially lower than those calculated by traditional means (Equation 1, Chapter 1). For a
completely reversible pressure surge from 1-bar to 220 bar, the temperature would be
estimated to reach 1283 oC for an ideal gas and 1051 oC for oxygen treated as a real gas. The
maximum temperature predicted by the methodology of this research is 701 oC, for the
conditions and configuration of the WHA system. Further, this maximum temperature is only
developed within a few millimetres near the dead end and rapidly declines moving upstream.
The temperature distribution within the internal volume of the TPTF (~ 109 mm) was estimated
Page 92
Change in Enthalpy vs. Time

700 250
600
200
500
Change in Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
Pressure (bar)
150
400
300
100
Original Volume #1
Original Volume #2
200 1st Mass Entering
3rd Mass Entering
5th Mass Entering 50
10th Mass Entering
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25
Time (sec)
Figure 41 – Enthalpy Change for Original Volume and Ten Mass Elements
to range from 163 oC to 701 oC. This extreme in maximum temperature for such a short
distance is not apparent from calculations performed by traditional means.
Another important difference between the methodology developed here, and that
traditionally used, is that the heat transfer that would be expected after the pressure surge is
over, which was based on natural convection processes, would be expected to cool the
compressed gas at a very rapid rate. The compressed gas at the dead end, where the highest
temperatures developed, cooled quickly and was estimated to drop by 238 oC in the first 200
ms after the pressure surge was over. This cooling would occur in the early stages after the
pressure reached its peak level and would be expected to strongly influence whether a
vulnerable material might attain a temperature sufficient to ignite.
The next chapter will further discuss and extend the predictions made here and will
provide comparisons to the measurements taken in each laboratory. The severity of the test
systems, calculated by the enthalpy changes, will also be presented.
Page 93
Chapter 5: Results of thermal profile testing at six different laboratories and comparison of systems by thermal
profiles Page 94
Chapter 5: Results of thermal profile testing at

six different laboratories and comparison of
systems by thermal profiles
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Thermal profile testing was conducted at the six laboratories indicated in Table 7 to
evaluate the differences in the data produced. At each laboratory the thermal profiles were
obtained for a series of test cycles at each of three different pressure levels (100 bar, 200 bar, and
275 bar). This chapter, however, presents and discusses only the data obtained at the 200 bar
pressure level and provides the methodology for ranking the test system severities. The same
procedure can be carried out for the other pressure levels but it was observed that the 200-bar
pressure level provided a good comparison of the systems that didn’t change with the different
pressures tested. This chapter shows the data reduction techniques, using the WHA system as an
example, which was used for all the systems. The cycle-to-cycle summary statistics shown in this
chapter for WHA are also shown for all the laboratories in Appendix B for completeness. However,
the laboratories have been identified as Laboratories 1 through 6 in order to maintain privacy.
5.2 ANALYSIS OF THERMAL PROFILE DATA FROM SIX LABORATORIES

Typical 200 bar data from the WHA system has already been shown in Figure 26 (Chapter
3), but, the thermal profiles for each test system exhibited a slight variation in the maximum
temperatures produced from one test cycle to another for a given pressure. Further, even though
each laboratory had agreed to conduct the testing at the approximate pressures previously
indicated, and at the required 15-20 ms pressurization rates, the testing revealed that the final
stabilized pressures and the pressurization rates varied from one test system to another. For
illustration, Table 11 shows a summary of 18 test cycles performed by WHA at the 200 bar pressure
level.
Page 94
Chapter 5: Results of thermal profile testing at six different laboratories and comparison of systems by thermal profiles Page 95
Table 11 – WHA 200 bar Data Summary

o o o o
WHA 200 bar cycles Position 1 ( C) Position 2 ( C) Position 3 ( C) Position 4 ( C) Peak Pressure
Max Value HTT1 HTT2 HTT3 HTT4 HTT5 HTT6 HTT7 HTT8 HTT9 HTT10 HTT11 HTT12 (bar)
Cycle 1 384.77 281.25 268.55 280.76 240.72 229.00 254.39 259.28 223.14 136.72 136.72 129.39 221.58
Cycle 2 386.72 304.20 261.72 279.79 237.30 225.10 250.00 248.05 218.75 133.79 138.18 132.32 219.89
Cycle 3 382.32 279.30 269.04 286.62 244.14 232.91 246.09 251.46 218.75 143.55 140.63 135.74 222.93
Cycle 4 378.91 297.36 284.18 276.37 235.84 227.05 244.14 250.49 208.01 137.21 137.70 133.30 220.57
Cycle 5 379.39 310.55 278.81 293.95 243.16 226.07 243.16 249.51 210.94 139.16 138.67 135.25 221.58
Cycle 6 387.70 292.48 291.50 288.57 244.63 232.42 247.07 247.56 216.80 138.67 139.16 133.79 220.57
Cycle 7 376.46 304.20 298.34 284.18 245.12 228.52 250.00 255.37 222.17 138.18 137.21 131.35 219.22
Cycle 8 385.74 297.36 281.74 283.20 250.49 228.03 247.07 256.35 225.10 139.65 140.63 132.81 220.23
Cycle 9 398.44 314.45 279.30 290.53 250.98 233.89 247.07 251.46 223.14 138.18 140.14 133.79 219.89
Cycle 10 391.11 292.97 266.11 293.95 249.02 233.89 251.46 250.00 222.17 135.74 139.16 134.77 221.24
Cycle 11 381.35 301.27 276.86 283.20 242.19 231.93 241.70 250.49 221.68 141.11 138.18 134.77 220.57
Cycle 12 369.14 288.57 284.67 302.25 250.49 233.40 242.68 249.02 223.63 137.70 138.18 131.35 219.89
Cycle 13 357.91 291.02 279.79 282.23 251.95 235.84 245.61 252.93 221.68 142.09 143.55 134.77 219.89
Cycle 14 368.65 299.32 280.76 284.18 257.32 236.82 254.39 251.95 226.56 142.09 138.67 136.23 220.57
Cycle 15 390.63 294.43 283.20 294.92 252.44 234.38 249.51 252.44 227.05 139.16 140.63 134.77 218.55
Cycle 16 432.62 321.29 272.46 289.55 243.65 233.40 249.51 253.42 225.59 138.18 139.65 134.28 220.91
Cycle 17 380.37 300.78 288.09 303.22 255.86 235.35 257.32 254.39 227.05 142.58 144.53 137.70 220.57
Cycle 18 386.23 288.09 288.57 276.86 246.09 228.52 253.42 260.74 229.00 143.07 142.58 135.74 221.58
Average 384.36 297.72 279.65 287.46 246.74 231.47 248.59 252.50 221.73 139.27 139.68 134.01 220.57
St. Deviation 15.26 10.85 9.41 7.85 5.98 3.58 4.44 3.63 5.50 2.69 2.14 2.01 1.00
Rise Time (10% to 90%) HTT1 HTT2 HTT3 HTT4 HTT5 HTT6 HTT7 HTT8 HTT9 HTT10 HTT11 HTT12 Pressure
Cycle 1 0.0097 0.0135 0.0164 0.0083 0.0156 0.0161 0.0124 0.0145 0.0157 0.0080 0.0123 0.0134 0.0142
Cycle 2 0.0103 0.0149 0.0165 0.0096 0.0152 0.0159 0.0108 0.0131 0.0158 0.0078 0.0119 0.0136 0.0141
Cycle 3 0.0135 0.0132 0.0153 0.0096 0.0153 0.0167 0.0099 0.0142 0.0156 0.0144 0.0126 0.0151 0.0138
Cycle 4 0.0108 0.0158 0.0183 0.0111 0.0162 0.0177 0.0115 0.0149 0.0168 0.0105 0.0132 0.0149 0.0147
Cycle 5 0.0125 0.0169 0.0181 0.0116 0.0150 0.0166 0.0113 0.0151 0.0178 0.0132 0.0127 0.0162 0.0149
Cycle 6 0.0094 0.0134 0.0199 0.0110 0.0151 0.0162 0.0097 0.0135 0.0157 0.0111 0.0124 0.0145 0.0145
Page 95
Cycle 7 0.0091 0.0146 0.0216 0.0093 0.0158 0.0169 0.0104 0.0149 0.0157 0.0087 0.0116 0.0132 0.0144
Cycle 8 0.0101 0.0158 0.0197 0.0104 0.0165 0.0173 0.0111 0.0151 0.0164 0.0101 0.0136 0.0154 0.0147
Cycle 9 0.0100 0.0175 0.0185 0.0112 0.0167 0.0179 0.0108 0.0154 0.0173 0.0079 0.0128 0.0154 0.0155
Cycle 10 0.0118 0.0145 0.0186 0.0097 0.0154 0.0168 0.0113 0.0142 0.0169 0.0076 0.0119 0.0153 0.0148
Cycle 11 0.0136 0.0156 0.0166 0.0114 0.0161 0.0171 0.0094 0.0151 0.0168 0.0091 0.0127 0.0159 0.0152
Cycle 12 0.0115 0.0139 0.0171 0.0111 0.0166 0.0174 0.0100 0.0146 0.0168 0.0083 0.0120 0.0133 0.0151
Cycle 13 0.0104 0.0158 0.0181 0.0098 0.0166 0.0186 0.0104 0.0151 0.0174 0.0125 0.0137 0.0153 0.0151
Cycle 14 0.0104 0.0168 0.0183 0.0100 0.0161 0.0176 0.0128 0.0148 0.0175 0.0142 0.0121 0.0158 0.0154
Cycle 15 0.0143 0.0150 0.0179 0.0103 0.0161 0.0174 0.0104 0.0149 0.0178 0.0085 0.0130 0.0154 0.0154
Cycle 16 0.0159 0.0183 0.0164 0.0117 0.0159 0.0175 0.0104 0.0140 0.0159 0.0080 0.0119 0.0138 0.0150
Cycle 17 0.0094 0.0170 0.0194 0.0121 0.0160 0.0168 0.0119 0.0146 0.0177 0.0102 0.0148 0.0153 0.0152
Cycle 18 0.0094 0.0150 0.0184 0.0095 0.0165 0.0183 0.0116 0.0162 0.0174 0.0105 0.0128 0.0146 0.0152
Average 0.0112 0.0154 0.0181 0.0104 0.0159 0.0171 0.0109 0.0147 0.0167 0.0100 0.0127 0.0148 0.0149
St. Deviation 0.0020 0.0015 0.0015 0.0010 0.0005 0.0007 0.0009 0.0007 0.0008 0.0022 0.0008 0.0009 0.0005
Page 96
profiles Page 100
Table 11 provides the maximum temperatures at each measurement location, peak

pressures indicated by the piezoelectric transducer at the end of the TPTF, and the rise times
calculated by the time difference between 10% of the peak pressure to 90% of the peak pressure.
For these test conditions the 10% to 90% pressurization rate was 14.9 + 0.5 ms, which was
considered a very tight repeatability on pressure. The normal procedure at WHA was to set the
pressurization rate on the basis of a 5% to 95% pressurization profile, which falls between 15 and 20
ms, compared to the 10% to 90% times shown in Table 11. Each laboratory had a different method
of setting the pressurization rate with some laboratories using a baseline to peak time, other
laboratories using a baseline to the time where the pressure crossed the desired test pressure (as it
was rising to the peak), and other laboratories using a 10% to 90% calculation. Since the 10% to
90% calculation is the recommended methodology for calculating the rise time for dynamic
processes [49], the 10% to 90% calculation has been used herein for all the data analysis, regardless
of how each laboratory set the pressure rise rate during the conduct of the test cycles.
Table 11 also shows that the rise time associated with the 0.025-mm wire thermocouple
(HTT1, HTT4, HTT7, HTT10; first column for each position) exhibited a rise time to its peak reading
faster than the pressure rise rate. In general, these thermocouples reached their peak reading in
approximately one time constant (estimated). The variation around the average (384.4 oC) for this
thermocouple, at Position 1 (HTT1), was 15.3 oC. The deviation of the maximum temperatures was
greatest at the dead-end position and for these tests; the measurements varied the least at the
most upstream position (Position 4), where the mixing influence was less significant.
The data for cycle 9 has already been shown in Figure 26. The cycle exhibiting the highest
temperature was cycle 16, but this cycle did not exhibit the highest peak pressure or the fastest
pressurization rate. The variation was believed to be due to undefined systematic error in the
repeatability of the testing including fluid dynamic and heat transfer influences on the
temperatures measured. Because of this variability, it was difficult to directly compare the different
test systems and therefore a method of looking at the data on the basis of the “average test cycle”
was developed. In order to produce a representative average, a data handling program was
developed to align each test cycle on the basis of the pressure record. The time where the
maximum pressure was achieved on each cycle was selected to represent the common point for
each cycle. This point provided a common alignment point to correlate the time scales for all the
cycles. For illustration purposes, the scatter plot for the HTT1 thermocouple for the WHA 200 bar
tests (i.e., Position 1, 0.025-mm wire size) is shown in Figure 42 with the cycles aligned for statistical
Page 100
profiles Page 101
Figure 42 – Scatter Plot of Aligned Data for HTT1 on all WHA 200 bar Cycles
(Amplitude (oC) to Time (milliseconds)
analysis. Cycle 16 is the only distinguishable cycle on the scatter plot since the maximum for that
cycle was above the maximums for the other cycles. The validity of the alignment and the data
overlays can be observed best from the tight alignment of the rising profile for the thermocouple
plots.
Next, the temperatures for each thermocouple at a particular time increment were
averaged and statistics were calculated. In this way for each average temperature, at each time
increment, a 95% confidence interval (based on a two-tailed Student’s-t test) was calculated and a
band based on two standard deviations was calculated. The 95% confidence interval around the
average and the standard deviation bands around the average were considered to represent the
behaviour of a test system. Figure 43 depicts the results of these calculations at two scales. The
entire HTT1 data set for the WHA 200 bar tests is shown in the top plot and a 100 ms zoomed
image is shown on the bottom plot to allow additional detail to be seen in the time surrounding the
peak. The average cycle, 95% band, and 2-standard deviation bands are shown.
5.2.1 Comparison of System Data

The approach just described allowed all of the thermal profile data for each test system to
be evaluated on a similar basis and for the performance of the test systems to be compared. The
average cycles, and the true gas temperature estimates associated with the average cycles, could
then be estimated and compared directly with each other. Once the true gas temperatures were
Page 101
profiles Page 102
predicted on the basis of the averages, severity indices for each test system were calculated to
provide a system-to-system ranking.
The reduced 200-bar data for each test system’s “average test cycle” is shown in Figures 44
through 50 along with the predictions of the true gas temperature developed from the Moffat and
Faeth approaches described in Chapter 3. In the following, the laboratories have been identified as
Labs 1-6 to help maintain privacy. Laboratory 1 conducted tests with a ball valve (designated Lab
1a) and globe valve (Lab 1b).
Figure 43 – Average, 95%, and 2-Standard Deviations for HTT1 Temperatures for all WHA
Cycles at 200 bar (Amplitude (oC) to Time (milliseconds)
Page 102
profiles Page 103
Lab #1 Ball Valve, 200 bar: Position 1 Averages

700 250
630
560 200
490
Temperature (C)
420 150
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
0.025-mm TC (avg)
210 0.025-mm TC (+2sigma)
0.025-mm TC (-2sigma)
140 50
0.051-mm TC (avg)
0.076-mm TC (avg)
70
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)
Lab #1 Ball Valve, 200 bar: Positions 1-4 Predictions

700 250
630
560 200
490
420 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
210
Position 1
Position 2
140 50
Position 3
70 Position 4
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)
Figure 44 – Lab #1a, Ball valve tests at 200-bar; a) Position 1 Averages, b) Positions 1-4 Predicted
Temperature Profiles
Page 103
profiles Page 104
Lab #1 Globe Valve, 200 bar: Position 1 Averages

700 250
630
560 200
490
Temperature (C)
420 150
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
0.025-mm TC (avg)
210 0.025-mm TC (+2sigma)
140 50
0.051-mm TC (avg)
0.076-mm TC (avg)
70
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Time (sec)
Lab #1 Globe Valve, 200 bar: Positions 1-4 Predictions

700 250
630
560 200
490
420 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
210
Position 1
140 Position 2 50
Position 3
70 Position 4
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Time (sec)
Figure 45 – Lab #1b, Globe valve tests at 200-bar; a) Position 1 Averages, b) Positions 1-4
Predicted Temperature Profiles
Page 104
profiles Page 105

700 250
630
560 200
490
Temperature (C)
420 150
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
0.025-mm TC (avg)
210 0.025-mm TC (+2sigma)
140 50
0.051-mm TC (avg)
0.076-mm TC (avg)
70
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)

700 250
630
560 200
490
420 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
210
Position 1
Position 2
140 50
Position 3
70 Position 4
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)
Figure 46 – Lab #2, Globe valve tests at 200-bar; a) Position 1 Averages, b) Positions 1-4
Page 105
profiles Page 106

700 250
630
560 200
490
Temperature (C)
420 150
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
0.025-mm TC (avg)
210 0.025-mm TC (+2sigma)
140 50
0.051-mm TC (avg)
0.076-mm TC (avg)
70
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)

700 250
630
560 200
490
420 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
210
Position 1
Position 2
140 50
Position 3
70 Position 4
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)
Figure 47 – Lab #3, Globe valve tests at 200-bar; a) Position 1 Averages, b) Positions 1-4
Page 106
profiles Page 107

700 250
630
560 200
490
Temperature (C)
420 150
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
0.025-mm TC (avg)
210 0.025-mm TC (+2sigma)
140 50
0.051-mm TC (avg)
0.076-mm TC (avg)
70
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)

700 250
630
560 200
490
420 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
210
Position 1
Position 2
140 50
Position 3
70 Position 4
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)
Page 107
profiles Page 108

700 250
630
560 200
490
Temperature (C)
420 150
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
0.025-mm TC (avg)
210 0.025-mm TC (+2sigma)
140 50
0.051-mm TC (avg)
0.076-mm TC (avg)
70
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)

700 250
630
560 200
490
420 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
210
Position 1
Position 2
140 50
Position 3
70 Position 4
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)
Page 108
profiles Page 109

700 250
630
560 200
490
Temperature (C)
420 150
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
0.025-mm TC (avg)
210 0.025-mm TC (+2sigma)
140 50
0.051-mm TC (avg)
0.076-mm TC (avg)
70
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)

700 250
630
560 200
490
420 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
350
280 100
210
Position 1
Position 2
140 50
Position 3
70 Position 4
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.275 0.3 0.325 0.35 0.375 0.4 0.425 0.45 0.475 0.5
Time (sec)
Page 109
profiles Page 110
5.2.2 Discussion of System Test Data

The thermal profiles depicted in Figures 44 – 50 were derived from the “average test cycle”
(graph “a” in each figure) and the estimated maximum temperatures (graph “b” in each figure)
were derived from the best correlation between the Moffat and Faeth approaches, as discussed in
Chapter 3. For each laboratory the data was processed to provide the most consistency between
these two estimation methods. The time constant for the Moffat approach was generally set at the
average calculated (Chapter 3) but was occasionally adjusted within the range of its uncertainty to
provide the best correlation among the 3 differently sized thermocouples as well as to the Faeth
estimation for each measurement position. Due to the approximate nature of the estimation
methodology, only the average temperature profiles were used in the predictions; however, the
standard deviations were used to predict the uncertainty in the predicted temperatures (shown in
Table 13). The dotted lines in the top graph (graph “a”) for each figure show the actual processed
data for the “average test cycle” at Position 1 along with the estimated uncertainty based on a 2-
sigma standard deviation for the 0.025-mm thermocouple (TC), which produced the greatest
variation due to its greater rate of change.
Table 12 shows the results of the actual temperature measurements as well as the Moffat
and Faeth estimations of maximum temperature. The Moffat and Faeth estimates of maximum
temperature are only shown for Position 1 to illustrate the typical degree of consistency in these
estimates. Table 14 provides the final estimates at the other positions in the TPTF. As was
previously discussed, Laboratory 1 provided data on both a ball valve and a globe valve for the same
test system configuration in order to provide a direct comparison for this variable.
Figures 44-50 illustrates that the rates of change during both the heating and cooling
periods were quite variable between the laboratories. However, Table 12 shows that the maximum
temperatures recorded by the thermocouples at a given position in each system were not
substantially different. Since the energy from Equation 59 is clearly influenced by the rate of
change for the pressure rise, greater differences in the actual temperature achieved should be
expected. This observation suggests that the actual temperatures were transient and best analyzed
by considering the time rate of change of the temperature profile, which is the objective of the
Moffat and Faeth methods.
The correlation between the Moffat and Faeth methods was good for all measurement
locations at each laboratory, except the Faeth method did not correlate well for laboratories 4 and
6 (Table 12). The Faeth estimation seemed to underestimate the temperature for laboratories 4
Page 110
profiles Page 111
and 6 due to the unusually high pressurization times (8-ms and 11-ms respectively) for these two
systems. For these two systems, the Moffat estimates were preferred since the estimates for each
thermocouple in the array correlated well by this approach. Except for laboratories 4 and 6, the
procedure was to require correlation between the Moffat and Faeth estimates; and, once achieved,
the Moffat estimates were plotted in graph “b” on Figures 44-50 and used for the severity
calculations discussed later in this chapter.
Table 12 – Maximum Temperatures (measured and estimated) on 0.025-mm TC Derived from

“Average Test Cycle” for each Measurement Position (oC)
Laboratory 1a-Ball 1b-Globe 2-Globe 3-Globe 4-Ball 5-Ball 6-Ball
(Measured maximum temperatures for each laboratory at all four TPTF positions)
Position 1 369 345 351 327 382 322 349
Position 2 283 No Data 298 281 312 262 290
Position 3 246 262 272 246 277 231 258
Position 4 138 139 177 153 No Data 127 155
(Moffat and Faeth estimates of max temperature for each laboratory at Position 1)
o
Faeth ( C) 489 495 518 497 542 400 421
o
Moffat ( C)
494 518 548 514 661 416 594
(0.025-mm)
Moffat (oC)
470 498 545 498 659 368 566
(0.051-mm)
Moffat (oC)
506 495 563 494 656 410 582
(0.076-mm)
Table 13 – Maximum Predicted Temperatures for Positions 1 - 4 (oC)

Lab 1a Lab 1b Lab 2 Lab 3 Lab 4 Lab 5 Lab 6
Lab/Valve (Ball) (Globe) (Globe) (Globe) (Ball) (Ball) (Ball)
Position 1 494 ± 50 518 ± 35 548 ± 38 514 ± 32 661 ± 32 416 ± 40 594 ± 27
Position 2 372 412 441 426 614 313 503
Position 3 371 384 402 404 505 269 422
Position 4 256 198 332 318 394 138 291
Note: The uncertainty is estimated on the basis of 2 standard deviations around the average temperature prediction
from the “average test cycle”. Since the predicted temperature is estimated from the rate of change of the
temperature record, and since the standard deviation band closely follows the same rate of change, the calculations
indicated that the greatest estimated deviation in temperature was the difference between the average and 2 standard
deviations for the Position 1 measurement of the 0.025-mm thermocouple.
Page 111
profiles Page 112
Table 14 – Pressure and Pressure Rise Rate Comparison

Lab 1a Lab 1b Lab 2 Lab 3 Lab 4 Lab 5 Lab 6
Laboratory/Valve
(Ball) (Globe) (Globe) (Globe) (Ball) (Ball) (Ball)
Peak Pressure (bar) 221 202 196 187 240 237 234
Pressure Rise Rate
12366 9181 10251 7892 25464 9309 18550
(bar/s)1
10/90% Average (sec) 0.015 0.018 0.015 0.020 0.008 0.021 0.011
(St. Dev.) (±0.0005) (±0.0003) (±0.0006) (±0.0001) (±0.0004) (±0.0002) (±0.0001)
1
This rate is calculated from the slope of the line that passes through the 10% and 90% points.
Table 14 provides pressure rise data for the actual test conditions at each laboratory which
resulted in the temperatures shown in Figures 44-50 and Tables 12 and 13. While the laboratories
were instructed to run a 200-bar test according to the predominant standards, these data show
that the peak pressure and slope of the pressure –time curve (pressure rise rate) that was actually
achieved were very different. Based on Equation 59 derived in Chapter 4, these differences would
be expected to produce variations in the thermal profiles and the severities to which a test article
would be exposed.
Table 14 shows that the slope of the pressure rise curves ranged from 7892 bar per second
(bar/s) to 25464 bar/sec between the different test laboratories. Only Laboratory 4 failed to meet
the intent of the standards pertaining to pressure rise rate. It must be remembered that the
predominant standards do not provide a specific instruction for how to measure the pressure rise
rate and therefore this parameter is largely uncontrolled by the predominant standards and subject
to the wide interpretation shown in Table 14. Except for Laboratory 4, the different measurement
methods used by the various laboratories were judged to meet the intent of the predominant
standards. Even if the Laboratory 4 data is ignored, however, the pressure rise rate was quite
variable even when the laboratories conducted the test according to their interpretation of the
prevailing standards. For these systems, the pressure rise rate varied from 7892 bar/s to 18550
bar/s and produced an estimated maximum temperature ranging from 416 ± 40 oC to 594 ± 27 oC
(Tables 13 and 14). Table 14 also shows that the peak pressure recorded, for an intended 200-bar
test, varied from 187-bar to 240-bar. The ball valves consistently produced a pressure overshoot on
the peak pressure that was at least 10% over the pressure overshoot for the globe valves.
The globe valve pressure rise rates were consistently lower than the ball valve
pressurization rates for similar pressure rise times (Table 14, compare Laboratories 1 (ball valve)
and 2 (globe valve) which both exhibited 15-ms pressure rise times). However, the temperature
Page 112
profiles Page 113
rise rates for the globe valve systems were steeper for the globe valves and achieved generally
higher temperatures for similar pressure rise times.
Figure 5 (Chapter 1) illustrates that the opening profile for a ball valve is very different from
the opening profile for a globe valve. The ball valves all exhibited a time lag (“ramping up period”)
in their opening profile that required several milliseconds before the pressure rise was detected on
the system instrumentation. The globe valve systems did not demonstrate this opening time lag
but instead revealed a pressure rise slope that quickly achieved an almost linear rising profile that
was probably associated with the orifice flow control used by the globe valve systems and the very
small opening stroke required before the globe valve opened to maximum flow area. Figure 51
illustrates this difference and compares the pressure rise profile for the ball valve used in
Laboratory 1 (15-ms cycle) to the globe valve used at Laboratory 2 (15-ms cycle).
The steeper temperature rise profiles and higher maximum temperatures for similar
pressure rise times achieved by globe valve systems may indicate that this valve type provides a
smoother pressurization profile and less mixing in the driving and driven gases. Table 13 predicts
that Laboratory 2 achieved a higher maximum temperature at all positions than Laboratory 1, even
though the pressure rise time was approximately the same. The retention of temperature (i.e.,
Ball Valv e and Globe Valv e Pressure R ise Comparison

250
225
200
175
150
Pressure (bar)
125
100
75
Lab 1 Pressure (Ball)
50
Lab 1 Rise Slope
25
Lab 2 Pressure (Globe)
Lab 2 Rise Slope
0
0.28 0.29 0.3 0.31 0.32 0.33 0.34 0.35
Time (sec)
Figure 51 – Comparison of Laboratory 1a and 2 Pressure Rise Profiles
Page 113
profiles Page 114
thermal energy) in the upstream gas (Positions 2-4) was considered consistent with this observation
and suggested that the globe valve systems do not produce as much mixing of the driving and
driven gasses to dampen the temperature during the compression process.
The pressure oscillations shown in the Figures 44-50 almost provide a type of fingerprint for
the test systems, especially when comparing systems with ball valves (Laboratories 1a, 4, 5, and 6)
to systems with globe valves (Laboratories 1b, 2, 3). The pressure oscillations vary somewhat with
each system and are slow (i.e., cycling at about ~20 to 25 ms or approximately 40 Hertz) compared
to the microsecond natural frequency of the dynamic pressure transducer. It can also be observed
from every thermal profile that the pressure oscillation produces a temperature response in the
thermal profile (Figures 44-50). One artifact of the Moffat approach to the temperature estimation
method is that these fluctuations become more evident in the temperature predictions when this
approach is applied to the data. This can be clearly seen by the temperature oscillations for the ball
valve system thermal profiles (Laboratories 1a, 4, 5, and 6) coinciding with the pressure oscillation.
The globe valve systems also show the influence of the pressure oscillation on the thermal profiles
but to a lesser degree (Laboratories 1b, 2 and 3). Based on the temperature estimates, these data
all indicate that the pressure oscillation is a result of fluid dynamics processes and not pressure
transducer damping33. The Laboratory 3 profile is most interesting due to the clear temperature
fluctuation that is evident at all measurement positions just prior to 0.4 seconds, where the
oscillation period begins to repeat its cycle.
5.2.3 Presentation of Calculated Severity Indices

The thermal profiles (Figures 44-50) provide an indication of the energy in the pressure
surge and can be observed to vary from system to system. While the test systems were
constructed of different components all the temperature and pressure measurements were made
utilizing the WHA TPTF and therefore the energy losses should have been similar, except for fluid
dynamic processes such as mixing. Each of the graphs in Figures 44-50 were scaled from 0.25-s to
0.5-s for consistency; and, the differences in energy are clear by observing the thermal responses
33
Consultation with Dr. Richard Morgan of Queensland University speculated that these oscillations could result from
the Helmholtz resonance in the test systems and be analogous to a “gas spring” that oscillates from the mass wave
first moving to the dead-end and developing a high stagnation pressure and then reflecting to change the direction
of fluid motion toward the accumulator and vice versa until the fluid dynamics settle. This observation recognizes
that the dynamic transducer may be recording the movement of the mass wave which would lag the compression
(pressure) waves, but still produce a pressure transient.
Page 114
profiles Page 115
for each system, especially between the systems that varied most in pressure rise rates. For
instance, the Laboratory 4 system (Figure 48), exhibited a very steep temperature rise to
approximately 661 oC and then a sharp temperature loss by more than 400 oC within the 25 ms
after the initial temperature peak. By comparison, the Laboratory 2 system exhibited a
temperature rise to approximately 548 oC but only decreased by about 273 oC in the same time
interval. It is recognized that the heat transfer rate will be proportional to the temperature
difference between the driven gas and the surroundings (i.e., the TPTF) but the mixing of driving
and driven gases should also be influenced by the turbulence produced by the valve type and the
strength of the mass wave produced by the very rapid opening rate of the Laboratory 4 ball valve
(~8-ms 10/90% pressure rise). Therefore, it was considered likely that the temperature loss rate
was influenced significantly by the mixing and heat transfer influences produced by the valve types.
These observations provided some qualitative conclusions about the differences in the test systems
but a severity ranking was considered only subjective without further quantification. Therefore, the
systems were analyzed on the basis of their thermal profiles to estimate the enthalpy changes so
that the severity indices discussed in Chapter 3 could be calculated.
Estimation of the severity indices for the adiabatic cases (“ideal” gas and “real” gas
conditions) were straight forward and are shown in Figures 52 and 53. These indices were
calculated from the enthalpy changes associated with the estimated maximum temperatures
developed in each system divided by the ideal-gas (Figure 52) or real-gas (Figure 53) enthalpy
changes that would be expected for adiabatic conditions. The enthalpy changes were estimated
through the residual energy functions and calculational path that was described in Chapter 4. Table
15 presents all the calculated severity indices (as percentages) for the different laboratories.
Figures 52 and 53 demonstrate that none of the test systems achieved a severity greater than
59% of that expected for adiabatic compression of oxygen treated as an ideal gas; or, greater
than 71% of that expected for oxygen treated as a real gas. For the least efficient system
(Laboratory 5), the severity did not exceed 35% of the Ideal gas condition or 43% of the real gas
condition. These observations are for Position 1 but the severities at the other positions
exhibited similar trends. Thus, a very wide variation in the energy per unit mass (kJ/kg) was
observed between the laboratories that ranged from 35% to 59% for the ideal gas condition
and 43% to 71% for the real gas condition. A noteworthy observation was the performance of
Laboratory 4, which because of its rapid pressurization time (~8-ms), exceeded the
Page 115
profiles Page 116
Ideal Gas TSI

(Adiabatic, 1st Pressure Peak)
1.00 Lab 1 (Ball)
0.90
Test Severity Index

0.80 Lab 1 (Globe)
0.70
Lab 2 (Globe)
0.60
0.50 Lab 3 (Globe)
0.40
0.30 Lab 4 (Ball)
0.20 Lab 5 (Ball)
0.10
0.00 Lab 6 (Ball)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Position
Figure 52 – Ideal Gas Indices for Adiabatic Conditions
Real Gas TSI

(Adiabatic, 1st Pressure Peak)
1.00 Lab 1 (Ball)
0.90
Test Severity Index
0.80 Lab 1 (Globe)

0.70
0.60 Lab 2 (Globe)
0.50 Lab 3 (Globe)
0.40
0.30 Lab 4 (Ball)
0.20
0.10 Lab 5 (Ball)
0.00 Lab 6 (Ball)
0 1 2 3 4 5
Position
Figure 53 – Real Gas Indices for Adiabatic Conditions
performance of all other systems by nearly 10%, but still did not approach isentropic
compression by closer than 59%.
Figures 54 and 55 present the estimated non-adiabatic Test Severity Index (TSI) for each
laboratory. This severity index was considered more informative since it included the heat losses
already discussed. For these TSI calculations, gaseous oxygen was treated as a real gas undergoing
a pressure surge where heat transfer was active and heat was rejected both during the period of
compression and for 100-ms after. Experience indicates that ignition of a non-metallic material will
usually occur between approximately 50-ms and 100-ms after the pressure surge. Therefore, the
energy changes in the gas around the material during this time period were considered to be
important to the overall severity.
Page 116
Table 15 – Estimated Severity Indices Based on Estimated Enthalpy Change For Laboratories 1 - 6
Position 1 (%) Position 2 (%) Position 3 (%) Position 4 (%)
Peak Indices by Lab 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6 1a 1b 2 3 4 5 6
ISI (Real/Ideal) 82 83 83 83 82 82 82 82 83 83 83 82 82 82 82 83 83 83 82 82 82 82 83 83 83 82 82 82
TSI, Real (adiabatic) 51 54 57 53 71 43 62 37 42 45 43 65 32 52 37 38 40 40 52 24 43 24 18 32 31 39 10 25
TSI, Ideal (adiabatic) 42 44 47 44 59 35 51 30 34 37 36 53 26 43 30 31 33 33 43 20 35 20 15 27 26 32 9 21
TSI, Real (non-adiabatic) 69 72 76 71 95 57 83 49 56 60 58 87 42 69 49 51 54 54 70 33 57 32 24 43 42 53 14 34
100 ms Indices
ISI (Real/Ideal) 83 83 79 83 83 82 83 83 83 79 83 83 82 83 83 83 79 83 83 82 83 83 83 79 83 83 82 83
TSI, Real (adiabatic) 19 20 19 16 18 21 18 14 18 16 15 12 13 12 12 10 16 12 11 11 9 3 2 5 4 0 4 3
TSI, Ideal (adiabatic) 15 17 16 14 15 17 15 11 15 13 12 10 11 10 10 8 13 10 9 9 7 3 2 4 3 0 3 3
TSI, Real (non-adiabatic) 29 32 26 26 28 33 28 21 28 22 23 19 20 19 19 16 21 19 17 17 14 5 4 7 6 0 6 5
NOTE: Lab 1a = Laboratory 1, Ball Valve; Lab 1b = Laboratory 1, Globe Valve
Real Gas TSI Real Gas TSI

(Non-Adiabatic, 1st Pressure Peak) (Non-Adiabatic, 100 ms)
1.00 1.00
0.90 0.90
0.80 0.80
Test Severity Index
Test Severity Index

0.70 0.70
0.60 0.60
0.50 0.50
0.40 0.40
0.30 0.30
0.20 0.20
0.10 0.10
0.00 0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5 0 1 2 3 4 5
Position Position
Lab 1 (Ball) Lab 1 (Globe) Lab 2 (Globe) Lab 3 (Globe) Lab 1 (Ball) Lab 1 (Globe) Lab 2 (Globe) Lab 3 (Globe)
Lab 4 (Ball) Lab 5 (Ball) Lab 6 (Ball) Lab 4 (Ball) Lab 5 (Ball) Lab 6 (Ball)
Figure 54 – Real Gas TSI for Non-Adiabatic Conditions at the Pressure Peak Figure 55 – Real Gas TSI for Non-Adiabatic Conditions after 100-ms
Page 117
profiles Page 118
Figure 54 presents the TSI for the maximum temperature achieved and Figure 55
presents the TSI after 100-ms of heat transfer. These indices were calculated on the basis of the
enthalpy changes derived from the estimated maximum temperatures for each system (Figures
44-50) divided by the enthalpy changes that were predicted by the numerical methods
discussed in Chapter 4, applied to the expected temperature rise in the driven gas for a
“standardized system”. The Laboratory 2 system configuration was selected as the standard
configuration for the calculations based on its long-term successful history with this type of
testing. Therefore, these severity indices provide a direct ranking of the system-to-system
performances for actual test conditions (e.g., non-adiabatic), as compared to the fluid dynamic
processes expected for the Laboratory 2 configuration. Typical results of the numerical
modelling used in the severity calculations will be presented in the next section of this chapter.
Figure 54 and Table 15 indicate that differences did exist in the severity (TSI) of the test
systems when the first pressure peak occurred (estimated time of maximum energy gain),
ranging from 57% of the expected energy available for Laboratory 5 to 95% for Laboratory 4, at
Position 1. This result indicates that if the heat transfer anticipated by the numerical model
(Chapter 4) is accounted for, then the system in Laboratory 4 achieved 95% of the anticipated
energy available in the standardized system, for an 8-ms pressure rise time. The non-adiabatic
TSI also indicates that Laboratory 4 achieved 87%, 70%, and 53% of the energy expected at
Positions 2, 3, and 4 respectively, as compared to a pressure surge that allows no mixing
between the driving and driven gases. Laboratory 5, on the other hand, only achieved 57%,
42%, 33% and 14% of the energy expected at Positions 1 – 4, respectively. It should be
remembered that Laboratory 5 was operated with a 10/90% pressurization time of 21-ms.
However, since the predominant test standards do not specify this variable tightly, the
operational controls for Laboratory 5 would have met the pressurization rate requirements of
the standard. Since the Laboratory 4 pressure rise time has already been discussed as
exceeding the requirements of the standards, comparison with Laboratory 6 is probably more
realistic since by the methods used by the laboratory operators it did meet the pressurization
rate requirements. Thus, for all the systems that met the requirements of the standards
(Laboratories 1-3 and 5-6), the non-adiabatic severity at Position 1 varied by approximately 26%
on an energy per unit mass basis (kJ/kg) at the moment of maximum energy gain.
Figure 55 depicts the state after only 100 ms. By this time, all the systems had rejected
significantly more energy than was expected by the numerical model and had retained at
position 1 only 26% to 33% of the energy predicted to be available. Interestingly, all the
systems exhibited a nearly equivalent severity condition at all 4 positions, after just 100-ms.
This result suggests that the heat transfer rates after the pressure surge was over were greater
Page 118
profiles Page 119
Real Gas TSI (Globe Valves)

(Non-Adiabatic, 1st Pressure Peak)
1.00
0.90
Test Severity Index

0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 Position3 4 5
Lab 1 (Globe, 18-ms) Lab 2 (Globe, 15-ms)
Lab 3 (Globe, 20-ms)
Figure 56 – Comparison of TSI Estimations for Globe Valve Systems

Real Gas TSI (Ball Valves)
1.00
0.90
Test Severity Index
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Position
Lab 1 (Ball, 15-ms) Lab 4 (Ball, 8-ms)
Lab 5 (Ball, 21-ms) Lab 6 (Ball, 11-ms)
Figure 57 – Comparison of TSI Estimations for Ball Valve Systems

than the numerical modelling predicted. The numerical model assumed that only natural (not
forced) convection processes were active after the mass wave reached the end of the tube and
that heat losses out the axial end of the impact tube were minimal. The actual heat rejection,
based on the temperature measurements, was greater on all systems than the model predicted
and may indicate that the mass wave oscillation in the impact tube lengthens the time
associated with forced convection. Further, the systems exhibiting the highest severity for the
peak energy gain, Laboratories 4 and 6, lost energy the fastest and were essentially equivalent
to the other systems after the first 100-ms. These substantial heat transfer rates must influence
the ignition probability of a material or component during any particular test.
Since the indices cluster in Figure 54, Figures 56 and 57 were developed so that the
trends might be better visualized between the systems with globe valves (Figure 56) and the
systems with ball valves (Figure 57). Figure 56 demonstrates that the globe valve systems
exhibited a much tighter severity distribution than did the ball valve test systems. At Position 1,
Page 119
profiles Page 120
the overall difference in the globe valve systems varied by only 5% as compared to the ball valve
systems which varied by 38% between all the systems and by 26% if Laboratory 4 is ignored.
Interestingly, the severity of the Laboratories 1b, 2 and 3 systems were largely equivalent even
though their pressure rise times varied from 15 to 20 ms, which is the range allowed by the
standards. The loss of energy at Position 4, on Laboratory 1b, is thought to relate to an increase
in mixing of the driving and driven gases for this laboratory leading to greater cooling for the gas
at this position. Since Position 4 was 109-mm upstream of the normal test article or test
material interface position, the conditions at this position were judged to be of less importance
than the other positions, especially Positions 1 and 2, which were within 10-mm of the test
article interface. Of the ball valve systems, only Laboratory 1a, operating with a pressure rise
time of 15-ms, compared favourably to the ball valve systems. Laboratory 5 was more severe
but if the pressurization time requirements were tightened to a 10/90% requirement, then this
laboratory would exceed the severity anticipated by the standards. Therefore, only
Laboratories 1a, 1b, 2, and 3 would have provided comparable severities and only the globe
valve systems would have exhibited an equivalent behaviour (at least for Positions 1-3).
Figure 58 depicts the severities of the test systems that generally met a 15-20 ms
pressurization time requirement, when calculated by the 10/90% rise time method. Laboratory
5, which exhibited a 10/90% rise time of 21-ms, is included in the graph since it was just outside
the requirement and is useful to demonstrate the overall range of severities that the 5 –ms
variation would allow. Laboratories 1a and 5 represent the highest and lowest severity that
could be expected of a ball valve system that would generally meet the 15-20 ms pressurization
Real Gas TSI

1.00
0.90
0.80
Test Severity Index
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
0 1 2 3 4 5
Position
Lab 1 (Ball, 15-ms) Lab 1 (Globe, 18-ms) Lab 2 (Globe, 15-ms)
Lab 3 (Globe, 20-ms) Lab 5 (Ball, 21-ms)
Figure 58 – Severities for Laboratories Meeting a 15-20 ms Pressurization Time
Page 120
profiles Page 121
Enthalpy Change Estimates f or Laboratory 1 (Ball V alve)

1500 250
1350
1200 200
1050
900 150
Enthalpy (kJ/kg)
Pressure (bar)
750
600 100
450
Ideal
Real
300 Original Volume at End 50
Position 1
Position 2
150 Position 3
Position 4
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Time (seconds, after initiation of pressure surge)
Figure 59 – Laboratory 1 Enthalpy Change Estimates
time requirement that is required by the standard (using a 10/90% calculation). Laboratories
1b, 2, and 3 represent the same severities for globe valve systems. The globe valve systems
provided a higher severity than either of the ball valve systems, even if operated at the slowest
rate allowed (20-ms). Further, the globe valve systems did not exhibit the variation in severity
over the 15-20 ms pressurization time than did the ball valve systems. From these comparisons,
it is concluded that the pressurization time requirement of the prevailing standards may need
to either consider the type of valve, or else tighten the pressurization time requirement for the
ball valve systems. Perhaps a better requirement would be to require a calibration that
demonstrates a severity equivalent to the globe valves systems for a system that uses a ball
valve.
Page 121
profiles Page 122
5.2.4 Estimates of Enthalpy Changes Used on Severity Index Calculations

Representative enthalpy calculations for Laboratories 1 and 2 are shown in Figures 59 -
60. These figures demonstrate how the indices discussed in the previous section were derived
and also show how the Laboratory 1 ball valve system compared to the Laboratory 2 globe
valve system. These figures were based on the model described in Chapter 4 and used the
pressurization profile derived for the average test cycle for these two test systems. The results
shown in Figure 60, for Laboratory 2, were those used to derive the severity indices since this
system was selected as the “standard system”. The enthalpy changes were calculated through
the numerical processes previously described and for each time step included the following:
1) The estimated enthalpy change for oxygen treated as an ideal gas undergoing an
isentropic pressure surge,
Enthalpy Change Estimates f or Laboratory 2 (Globe)

1500 250
1350
1200 200
1050
900 150
Enthalpy (kj/kg)
Pressure (bar)
750
600 100
450
Ideal
Real
300 Original Volume at End 50
Position 1
Position 2
150 Position 3
Position 4
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 0.05 0.06 0.07 0.08 0.09 0.1
Time (seconds, after initiation of pressure surge)
Figure 60 – Laboratory 2 Enthalpy Change Estimates
Page 122
profiles Page 123
2) The estimated enthalpy change for oxygen treated as a real gas undergoing an
isentropic pressure surge,
3) The estimated enthalpy change for oxygen treated as a real gas undergoing a
pressure surge where heat transfer was included (non-adiabatic).
The top three solid lines in each graph show these three conditions (ideal, real, original
volume (i.e., driven gas) with heat loss). These figures both show that the real-gas energy gain
is always about 82-83% of the ideal-gas energy gain, as also demonstrated in the Idealized
Severity Index (ISI) percentages in Table 15. The ideal or real isentropic conditions provide a
maximum target for discussion and modelling purposes; but, as was discussed in Figures 52 and
53, no system tested by this research approached this performance, and, indeed, all performed
well below this severity.
The driven gas state changes (i.e., original volume, solid red line) provide the best
current estimates of the expected conditions that might be achieved in actual practice, for the
heat transfer rates that were modelled. The enthalpy gain during the pressure surge, including
estimated heat transfer, as well as the heat transfer after the pressure surge out to 100-ms is
shown in these figures. These figures show that when heat transfer is included, the losses are
significant and behaviour approaching either the real-gas or ideal-gas behaviour is unrealistic.
The decline in the enthalpy for the driven gas (original volume) after the peak is
achieved was associated with the estimated heat transfer. As was discussed in the previous
section, the model required that forced convection give way to natural convection once the
mass wave reached the dead end of the impact tube and the mass velocities were calculated to
drop to near zero. This assumption seems to underestimate the actual heat transfer, as
indicated in Figure 55, and shown by the dotted lines in Figures 59 and 60. The oscillatory
behaviour depicted by the pressure record may indicate that the mass continues to move
within the impact tube, possibly back toward the impact valve since the pressure at the dead
end momentarily exceeds the driving pressure (accumulator pressure). Mass movement in the
impact tube after the first pressure peak would cause a lengthening of the time that forced
convection dominated the heat transfer rates.
The dotted lines in Figures 59 and 60 represent the enthalpy change derived from the
temperature estimates for each position as described previously (Table 13). At each time step,
the enthalpy ratio was estimated from the enthalpy changes. Thus, in Figures 54 through 58
the actual value of the ratios are based on the enthalpy change indicated by the estimated
temperatures for each system divided by one of the enthalpy estimates of Figure 60 (ideal, real,
non-adiabatic) since Laboratory 2 was selected as the standard system.
Page 123
profiles Page 124
5.3 SUMMARY
This chapter has presented the data obtained for six different test systems at the 200-
bar pressure level. The same procedure can be carried out for the other pressure levels but it
was observed that the 200-bar pressure level provided a good comparison of the systems that
didn’t change with the different pressures tested. Several significant conclusions were
developed on the basis of the data analysis presented in this chapter:
1) The data indicated that heat losses are very significant both in the pressure rise period
and in the time after the pressure reaches a peak. Since ignition requires heat transfer
and these systems clearly ignite non-metallic materials, it is not surprising that in the
short time of the pressure surge that significant heat transfer is occurring. The
turbulence in the system during the pressurization transient is very high and mass
velocities are estimated to approach sonic conditions for a very brief time. Both of
these conditions increase the convection rates and increase the heat losses. Previous
studies have estimated much higher temperatures than those specified here, primarily
due to the assumption that the system could be considered adiabatic because of the
rapid pressure rise rate. However, based on this research this customary assumption is
questioned and the temperatures produced by a 15-20 ms pressure surge are believed
to be significantly lower than usually expected.
2) The influence of mixing in decreasing the maximum temperature and increasing the
retention of energy at the dead-end has been suggested by this research but has not
been fully understood or quantified. Systems with ball valves were shown to be
capable of very different maximum temperatures/energies based on increasing the
pressure rise rate (speed of ball valve opening) but the increase in turbulence in the
system due to this process may have as yet uncertain detrimental influences. The
systems utilizing globe-style valves required lower pressure rise rates to achieve similar
maximum temperatures and provided more heat retention, believed to be due to less
mixing between the driving and driven gases, than did systems with ball valves. These
considerations suggest that a globe-style valve with a sharp-edged orifice for
pressurization rate control may provide more controlled fluid dynamics and greater
severity in the system with fewer energy loss variables.
Page 124
profiles Page 125
3) The severity indices presented herein are new to this field of research and exhibited a
very useful discriminating power for characterizing different test systems. The
differences between the systems were largely subjective from the data but the severity
indices exhibited a method of separating the performances and comparing them on a
common basis. On the basis of the severity indices, it is possible to state that the
energy developed in the system is not only related to the pressure rise rate; but, that
the system valves and their influence on the fluid dynamics are equally crucial. The
pressure rise rate is certainly important, and can adjust the ignition effectiveness of the
system as demonstrated by the Laboratory 4 and 6 performances, but a system utilizing
a ball valve that produces a pressure rise rate greater than a system utilizing a globe-
style valve, may not be more severe and may not produce higher maximum
temperatures.
4) The Moffat and Faeth methods of estimating the true gas temperatures were very
useful, especially when used together for convergence, and provided information
about the temperature-time records that were present in the original data but were
otherwise lost before applying the estimation technique. The temperature estimations
provided a means of generating the important severity indices. The usefulness and
importance of these estimation methods indicates the need for additional research to
attempt real-time measurement of the temperatures or at least measurement by
sensing elements having very low millisecond or microsecond time constants.
5) This research suggests that differences do exist between the test systems and that the
predominant industry standards do not sufficiently control the conditions, especially
the pressure rise rate, for this important test.
The next chapter will compare the severity indices developed in this chapter to ignition
data obtained on polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE) samples as a means of evaluating the severity
predictions presented here.
Page 125
Chapter 6: Adiabatic compression ignition testing Page 126
Chapter 6: Adiabatic compression ignition

testing
6.1 INTRODUCTION
In order to further evaluate the validity of the severity indices presented in Chapter 5,
an ignition test was conducted between the laboratories. The ignition tests were considered to
provide an independent indication of the system severity as long as a rigorous statistical
methodology for the data analysis could be employed. Historically, the statistical evaluation of
ignition data by these systems has been problematic [42, 44] due to scatter in the data; but,
recently an approach to evaluating binary data through logistic regression analysis was
introduced by Suvorovs et.al. [80]. Data sets having only two possible outcomes (i.e., in this
case, ignition/no-ignition) can be considered to be consistent with a Bernoulli trial as long as the
outcome for each sample is independent of the outcome of all other samples. Under these
circumstances, where the results of the testing can be characterized by one of two possible
outcomes (i.e., binary) and the testing is not dependent on any previous result (Bernoulli trial),
then Suvorovs et.al. show that a statistical analysis method referred to as logistic regression
may be applied to the outcomes of the testing to predict a probability of ignition against an
independent variable.
The utility of this statistical methodology allowed each laboratory to conduct a series of
tests on the same non-metallic material and to convert the ignition data into a probability of
ignition against increasing pressure. This transformation of the data allowed the probability of
ignition in one laboratory to be compared to the probability of ignition in another laboratory. In
this way a ranking of the severity of the test systems by ignition could be compared to the
ranking obtained by the severity indices.
The data obtained by each laboratory was analyzed by the method described and
outlined by Suvorovs et.al., where logistic regression was used to describe the effect of the
“explanatory variable”, pressure, on the “response variable”, burn (success, p) or no-burn
(failure, 1-p). Suvorovs shows that for data of this type the logistic regression model takes the
form shown in Equation 72. The probability statistics for the ignition/no-ignition data were
calculated from the logistic probability density function and curve fit to the logistic distribution
function.
Page 126
 0  1 x
e Logistic regression probability function (P) where the
(72) P independent variable (x = pressure); β0 and β1 are the
 0  1 x
1 e intercept and slope values.
6.2 IGNITION TESTING REACTION FIXTURE

In order to conduct the ignition tests a reaction chamber was designed to contain the
test sample during a pressure surge, as shown in Figure 61. Since each test system was
constructed from different types of components, a unique adaptor, or interface, fitting had to
be fabricated for each of the test laboratories. The Laboratory 1 adaptor (interface) fitting is
shown in the top diagram of Figure 61 and the Laboratory 2 and 3 adaptor fitting are shown in
the bottom diagram of Figure 61. These fittings and similar fittings for the other laboratories
allowed the reaction chamber assembly to be attached to each test system. The reaction insert
(sample cup) itself was identical for each system and was designed to hold a 5-mm diameter
disk of PTFE which was placed inside the brass sample cup and inserted into the reaction
chamber. The reaction chamber was equipped with a heating collar and a control
Figure 61 – Lab 1 System Adaptor Fitting and Reaction Chamber (top);

Labs 2 and 3 System Adaptor Fitting and Reaction Chamber (bottom)
Page 127
thermocouple which was embedded in the housing to ensure that the starting temperature for
each sample was the same, at approximately 60 oC at the beginning of each pressure surge. The
thermocouple also provided feedback to discern when the sample ignited.
Approximately 100 PTFE samples were prepared from the same sheet of material and
provided to each of the laboratories. Approximately 100 sample cups were also fabricated for
each laboratory. These sample cups were intended to be used only once and discarded to
ensure that the ignition of a sample didn’t contaminate the reaction chamber for the next
sample. All components and test samples were cleaned for oxygen service and packaged to
maintain the cleanliness prior to shipping the materials to the individual laboratories.
6.3 IGNITION TESTING PROTOCOL AND RESULTS

To prepare for a test, a PTFE sample was randomly selected and inserted into a sample
cup and then the sample cup was inserted into the reaction chamber. The assembly was then
secured to the test system and the heating collar was energized to bring the reaction chamber
and sample to approximately 60 oC. Once the required temperature level was achieved, each
sample was subjected to a rapid pressure surge with gaseous oxygen. Five pressure surges of
the same pressure level were applied in 30-second intervals before the next sample was
installed and the test repeated. This particular methodology is common for this type of
material testing.
Each laboratory was instructed to conduct the testing using a pressure rise time of 15-
20 ms measured by the 10% to 90% criteria already described. Each laboratory agreed to
conduct testing on 20 samples by performing a specified procedure and then to repeat the 20-
sample series 5 times, for a total of 100 samples tested. Each 20-sample series was conducted
according to the Bruceton Up-Down criteria [81, 82, 83], which seeks to establish the pressure
at which 50% of the samples ignite with the fewest number of trials. It is noteworthy that
because the ignition testing was conducted several months after the original thermal profile
testing that was described in the last chapter, the pressure rise times did not exactly replicate
the rise times from the thermal profile testing. However, the rise times were reported and are
indicated herein with the data sets for each laboratory.
In order to ensure that the test was conducted according to the same procedure at
each laboratory, a data sheet and step-by-step procedure were provided to each laboratory.
Each repetition of the 20-sample series was started at the 100-bar pressure level. The
procedure required that if the first sample ignited during any of the 5 pressure surges, then the
pressure was reduced by 50-bar and a second sample was tested. If the first sample survived
Page 128
the 5 pressure surges, then the pressure was increased by 50-bar and a second sample was
tested. If the second sample ignited then the pressure was lowered by 25-bar and a third
sample was tested. If the second sample survived, then the pressure was raised by 25-bar and a
third sample was tested. The increasing/decreasing criteria continued to be applied until the
pressure increment or decrement was 10-bar. At that point, the pressure was raised by 10-bar
when the sample ignited and lowered by 10-bar when the sample survived and this was
continued up to the 20th sample. A typical data set following this procedure is shown in Table
16.
Table 16 – Typical Ignition (Fail) & No-Ignition (Pass) Data Set for a 20-Sample Series
Pressure Sample Number
(Bar) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
155 F
150 F
145 P P F
140
135 P F
130
125 P F F
120
115 F P F
110
105 P F F P
100 P
95 P P
The Pass/Fail behaviour shown in Table 16 is typical of adiabatic compression testing of

non-metallic samples by this test method. The sample-to-sample behaviour appears confusing
with some samples igniting at the same pressure level where another sample failed. It is
recognized that some data scatter could be related to variables such as slight differences in the
diameter of samples so that some samples fit tightly in the sample cup and others more loosely.
Other random variables could be associated with smooth edges for some samples and rougher
edges on other samples. However, each laboratory was provided samples from the same sheet
of material and all samples were prepared by the same procedures/tooling at the same time.
Each laboratory was also instructed to randomly select samples for testing during each of the
20-sample series. By this approach, random variables should have been present at each
laboratory in a similar manner, as long as the procedure described was followed.
After each 20-sample test series was completed, the data for all 100 samples was
compiled into ignitions and no-ignitions by pressure level and the Suvorov procedure was
Page 129
applied to the data to generate predictions of the ignition probability as a function of pressure
level. Only four of the laboratories completed the ignition testing in time to be included in this
research.
Figures 62 and 63 depict the results of the ignition testing by Laboratory 1. The ball
valve results are shown in Figure 62 and the globe valve with sharp-edged orifice in Figure 63.
The calculated ignition probability was different for these two valves in the Laboratory 1 system,
with the globe valve exhibiting a 50% ignition probability of 140-bar (16-ms 10/90% pressure
rise) and the ball valve exhibiting a 50% ignition probability of 160-bar (20-ms 10/90% pressure
rise). A side by side comparison of the two valves for the Laboratory 1 system, with 95%
confidence intervals is shown in Figure 64. The ignition data is consistent with the observations
previously made pertaining to the increased severity of the globe valve configuration. Even
though the pressure rise time for the globe valve was lower than the ball valve (16-ms as
opposed to 20-ms), both configurations met the 15-20 ms criteria of the prevailing standards.
At a 95% confidence interval, a Student’s-t test indicated that the ignition probabilities around
the 50% ignition level were significantly different between the Laboratory 1 ball valve and globe
valve.
Figure 65 depicts a comparison of the ignition probability data for the four laboratories
that completed this testing. The differences in the ignition probabilities are clear from this
figure with the three systems incorporating ball valves being outside of the ignition probabilities
of the two globe valve configurations. The two globe valve systems were closely aligned to each
other and exhibited similar ignition probabilities. The Laboratory 4 and 6 systems utilized
pressure rise times of 8 and ~10 ms respectively; both below the required 15-20 ms 10/90%
requirements, and exhibited logistic regression probability curves that were shifted to the left of
the other three. From this data it is clear that the pressure rise time significantly influences the
ignition probability as it did the temperature. The Laboratory 1a configuration with the ball
valve was the only ball valve configuration that met the 15-20 ms pressure rise time; but, the
probability curve was shifted well to the right of the globe valve configurations.
6.4 DISCUSSION AND SUMMARY

The rankings derived from the ignition probability curves shown in Figure 65 were
consistent with the previously discussed severity indices of Chapter 5 (see Figures 54 and 55).
Laboratory 4 and 6 systems exhibited higher ignition probabilities on the PTFE samples for a
given pressure level than the other systems. A Student’s-t test confirmed that the ignition
probabilities were statistically different, at a 95% confidence interval, between Laboratories 4 or
6 compared to Laboratories 1b or 2. The results obtained in the ignition testing provided a
Page 130
confirmation that the severity indices, which were energy based, correctly imply that
differences in the probability of ignition of a non-metallic material should be expected.
Lab 1a PTFE Material Testing Logistic Regression

(Ball Valve)
1 14
Number of Ignitions/No-Ignitions
0.9
12
0.8
0.7 10
Probability
0.6 Logistic Regression Fit 8

0.5
95% Upper 6
0.4
95% Lower
0.3 4
0.2 Ignition Data
2
0.1 No-Ignition Data
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Pressure (bar)
Figure 62 – Laboratory 1a Ignition Testing with PTFE Samples

(Ball Valve Probability, 20 ms Pressurization Time for the Ignition Tests)
Lab 1b PTFE Material Testing Logistic Regression

(Globe Valve)
1 6
0.9
Number of Ignitions or No-Ignitions

5
0.8
0.7
4
Probability
0.6
0.5 3
0.4 Logistic Regression Fit

95% Upper Limit 2
0.3
95% Lower Limit
0.2
Ignition Data 1
0.1 No Ignition Data
0 0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Pressure (barg)
Figure 63 – Laboratory 1b Ignition Testing with PTFE Samples

(Globe Valve Probability, 16 ms Pressurization Time for the Ignition Tests)
Page 131
PTFE Material Testing Logistic Regression

(Globe Valve and Ball Valve Comparison)
1
0.9
0.8
0.7
Probability
0.6
0.5
Globe Valve Logistic Fit
0.4
95% Upper Limit
0.3 95% Lower Limit
0.2 Ball Valve Logistic Fit
Ball Valve 95% Upper Limit
0.1
Ball Valve 95% Lower Limit
0
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350
Pressure (barg)
Figure 64 – Comparison of Ignition Probabilities for PTFE with Globe Valve and Ball Valve
Installed in the Laboratory 1a and 1b Test Systems
PTFE Probability of Ignition by Logistic Regression
0.9
0.8
0.7
Probability
0.6
0.5
0.4 Lab 1a - Ball Valve (20-ms)

Lab 1b - Globe Valve (16-ms)
0.3
Lab 2 - Globe Valve (15-ms)
0.2
Lab 4 - Ball Valve (8-ms)
0.1
Lab 6 - Ball Valve (9.5-ms)
0
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 220 240 260 280 300 320 340
Pressure (barg)
Figure 65 – Comparison of PTFE Ignition Probabilities between Four Test Systems;

Laboratory 1 (Ball and Globe), Laboratory 2 (Globe), Laboratories 4 and 6 (Ball)
Page 132
The Laboratory 6 logistic regression curve indicated a seemingly greater ignition

probability than Laboratory 4. However, a Student’s-t test around the 50% reaction pressure
indicated that the data would not statistically support a difference of ignition probability in
these two systems without additional testing to further narrow the confidence intervals.
The higher severity of the Laboratory 4 and 6 systems was believed to be largely due to
the faster rate of pressurization (8 and 9.5-ms respectively), which was well outside of the range
required in the industry standards. The lower severity of the Laboratory 1a ball valve
configuration was believed to be due to the slower rate of pressurization (20 ms), which would
have met the standard requirements. Therefore, only the Laboratory 1 and 2 systems met the
15-20 ms criteria in the ignition testing when measured by the 10/90% method. If the results of
the severity indices discussed in Chapter 5 are considered with the results of the ignition testing
discussed above, it may be concluded that only the globe valve configurations were capable of
producing ignition probabilities consistent with one another for a 10/90% pressurization time of
15-20 ms.
As previously discussed, ball valve systems typically control the pressure rise rate
through varying the opening speed of the valve. Globe valve systems typically control the
pressurization rate by utilizing a sharp-edged orifice immediately downstream of the valve that
is sized to precisely control to the required pressure rise time. The ignition data indicates that
the ignition probability can be shifted left or right (along the pressure axis) by changing the
pressurization rate; but, the waveform of the logistic regression curve (i.e., the slope and
intercept values) are unlikely to match. The ignition probability may be matched at the 50%
ignition probability, but at lower and higher pressures the probabilities are likely to be different
as shown in the graphs above. The waveforms for the globe valve/orifice configurations exhibit
a steeper slope than the ball valve systems and therefore suggest that less scatter in the ignition
data is present for these systems.
Because no ignition test data was obtained for a ball valve configuration exhibiting a 15-
ms pressurization time or a ball valve system using an orifice to control pressurization rate,
additional testing could be performed to further evaluate the severities for these systems
compared to globe valves. However, both the Chapter 5 severity indices and the Chapter 6
logistic regression curves suggest a preference for a globe valve over a ball valve for overall
consistency in the test. On the basis of this testing, Laboratory 1 has implemented a globe valve
for its standard test configuration and frequently repeats the thermal profile testing and ignition
testing to ensure that the severity is consistent with the Laboratory 2 “standard” severity.
Page 133
Chapter 7: Conclusions, application and future work Page 134
Chapter 7: Conclusions, application and

future work
7.1 INTRODUCTION
This research was conducted to evaluate whether differences existed in the energy
delivered by various test systems that are capable of producing near-adiabatic compression of
gaseous oxygen. These systems are commonly used by industry groups to qualify materials and
components for use in gaseous oxygen; but, reports of variability in results have been raised in
the industry. The approach taken in this research was to measure the thermal profiles
produced during a rapid pressure surge of 15-20 ms, thought to be near-adiabatic, and then to
estimate the energy gain rate and total energy produced by the system. The estimated energy
gain produced by each system was then compared to the energy estimated through a
numerical model for both adiabatic and non-adiabatic idealized conditions. The idealized
conditions provided a comparison basis for evaluating the efficiency of the energy developed in
each individual system through the creation of a severity index (actual energy/idealized energy)
for each system.
This chapter presents the conclusions developed from the research and also discusses
the changes that are recommended to the industry standards, some of which require changes
to the test systems themselves. Some of the important observations from the data were
discussed in the summary sections of Chapters 5 and 6, since the observations directly related
to the content of those chapters. Therefore the conclusions drawn here will be restricted to the
implications of the research on the test method itself which will provide a basis for
recommended changes in the standards.
7.2 CONCLUSIONS AND APPLICATIONS OF THE RESEARCH

1) The testing and analysis indicated that differences do exist in the severity produced
by the different test systems, even among those that meet the testing
requirements of the predominant industry standards. The standards almost
universally require a 15-20 ms pressurization time as the primary control on the
energy delivered by the gaseous fluid impact. But the thermal profiles indicated
Page 134
that for these pressurization times, even when measured by a common method,
different temperatures were produced by the systems and the severity indices
confirmed that an energy difference existed between the test systems even though
they were conducting the pressure surges according to the requirements of the
standards. The ignition testing confirmed that the differences in energy severity
could lead to differences in the ignition probability for PTFE samples. These results
are of concern since they imply that a component or material tested at one
laboratory could potentially achieve a different outcome if tested at another
laboratory.
2) The previous conclusion leads directly to the conclusion that if the test systems are
functioning in a manner that is consistent with the requirements of the
predominant standards, and in most cases they do (and all can), then the
inadequacy leading to variability in the test results is largely due to inadequate
controls required by the standards themselves. It is clear from this research that
additional controls should be provided by the standardizing organizations in order
to ensure that the tests performed by the different laboratories are comparable to
one another. In some cases this can be achieved through procedural requirements
but in other cases test system changes may be necessary, as in the change from a
ball valve to a globe valve coupled with the use of a precision orifice to control the
pressure rise rate.
Because of the previous two conclusions, several industry standardization

committees are actively following the outcomes of this research for possible
application of the “lessons learned” to their standardization efforts. ASTM
International, especially, has initiated efforts to revise its Standard G74, “Standard
Test Method for Ignition Sensitivity of Materials to Gaseous Fluid Impact” [11] to
include the necessary test system requirements to better control the test
methodology. The work outlined herein is being used heavily to guide the new
standardization efforts by the ASTM G04 Committee on Flammability and
Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Environments. Further, the
International Standards Organization (ISO), TC-58 task group responsible for ISO
10297 on cylinder valves and the Compressed Gas Association (CGA) subcommittee
for CGA V-9 also on cylinder valves are closely following and supporting the ASTM
Page 135
standard development. The ISO and CGA committees have expressed interest in
incorporating the ASTM guidelines, where they apply, into their standards.
3) The required 15-20 ms pressurization rate was interpreted in different ways by the
test laboratories and therefore measured by different criteria, which resulted in a
range for 10% to 90% pressurization times from about 10 ms (excluding Laboratory
4) to 21 ms in this research. Each of the participating laboratories, except for
Laboratory 4, was conducting the tests by their interpretation of the predominant
standards. Therefore, as a minimum, it has been recommended to the
standardizing organizations to incorporate the following figure (Figure 66,
submitted to ISO TC58 and ASTM G04) into their standards to immediately tighten
this crucial control. Figure 66 specifies that the pressurization rate should be
calculated from the time where the pressure passes 10% of the first pressure peak
to the time where it passes 90% of the first peak. The first pressure peak was
chosen to provide a consistent point of reference. This is especially important for
systems like that of Laboratories 2 and 3, which exhibit a pressurization profile that
achieves a maximum pressure after the first peak. Based on the thermal profiles
reported herein, the primary energy gain time for the pressure surge develops
during the pressure rise to the first peak and the pressurization rate controls are
recommended to be applied to this profile.
Figure 66 specifies that the pressurization time be 15-20 ms as a result of the

current bias by the standardization committees. It has been, however,
recommended that this pressurization time be tightened, to a range of ± 1-ms. As
was shown in Table 14, no laboratory exhibited a standard deviation in
pressurization time that exceeded ± 600 microseconds. Experience indicates that
once the pressurization rate controls are set, that the pressure rise time is very
repeatable. This recommendation was based not only on the ability of the
laboratories to achieve repeatedly of the tight pressure rise time, but, also on the
results of the severity indices, where the Laboratories 1a, 1b, 2 and 3 systems were
shown to exhibit different severities even though each laboratory achieved a
10/90% pressurization time between 15-20 ms. Based on the severity indices, the
15-20 ms pressurization time is believed to be too wide especially for ball valve
systems.
Page 136
Figure 66 – Recommended Specification for Pressurization Time Control
4) From the standpoint of the test laboratories, the question of whether to use a ball
valve or a globe valve as the primary pressurization rate control is difficult since the
choice of the valve has already been made and implemented in their present
systems. Therefore, to recommend changes to a system of the primary valve is
received with significant concern. However, the severity indices indicated that the
systems utilizing globe valves and orifice controls exhibited a higher overall Test
Severity Index (TSI) at the pressure peak than did the ball valve systems, for similar
pressurization rates. It is unclear whether or not a ball valve coupled with an orifice
control would lead to a similar severity as a globe valve with an orifice control, but,
it is clear from this research that the ball valve alone must utilize pressure rise times
faster than the 15 ms allowed by the standards to achieve an equivalent severity to
a globe valve and orifice calibrated for 15 ms pressurization times. As a
compromise with the test laboratories, the recommendation to the ASTM and
ISO/CGA committees has been for the specific standards to require that a pre-
determined severity level and ignition probability profile be achieved by each
laboratory rather than to require that a specific type of valve be utilized. In this
way the crucial severities could be required by the standards; but, the laboratories
Page 137
will be free to implement the necessary componentry to meet the severity

requirement.
5) The variability in the performance of the test systems has led to the conclusion that
a certification or “qualification” criteria be specified for laboratories that are
recognized by the standards organizations as being certified to conduct this testing
on behalf of the industry. As a result, the ASTM Standard G74, currently in
preparation for ballot this year, will incorporate performance/calibration criteria
based on a pre-determined TSI or ignition test requirement to establish
certification criteria for the laboratories. The ISO and CGA standardization
organizations are expected to require that these ASTM G74 guidelines be met by
“qualified” laboratories and that the laboratories offering the tests be certified
before publishing test results characterized as meeting the requirements of the ISO
and CGA standards. Further, as an immediate outcome from this research, the
laboratories that participated in this research are now preparing for a second
“round-robin” ignition test series in an effort to “calibrate” their system
performances to meet an agreed upon “standard performance” prior to the release
of ASTM G74.
7.3 FUTURE WORK

Since the severity indices provided such utility in postulating the differences between
the test systems, and since the indices were based on 1) the estimated true gas temperatures,
and 2) the adiabatic and non-adiabatic energy gain predictions from a pressure surge in an
idealized system, further validation and research into these two areas would greatly improve
the application and force of this research. The following two areas of research are seen as
immediately important:
1) Estimations of the true gas temperatures were based on the Moffat and Faeth
approaches, which at best were only estimations of the actual temperatures.
Validation of the predictions made herein is considered crucial to the full
application of this research. Technologies are believed to exist, if carefully
controlled, to measure in real time the temperatures developed in an actual
pressure surge that occurs in a dead-end tube. The efforts described herein were
unsuccessful and therefore the estimation approaches were utilized, but, real-time
measurement would lead to greater confidence and greater understanding of the
Page 138
fluid dynamic processes and especially of the energy gain during a pressure surge in
a real test system.
2) The energy gain expected from a “standard idealized system” would provide a
baseline for all future severity indices to be calculated so that comparisons and
certifications could be made. The standard utilized for the severity indices
discussed herein was the Laboratory 2 system undergoing idealized adiabatic and
non-adiabatic processes. The technique to predict the energy gain was by iterative
calculation using common one-dimensional flow relationships and thermodynamic
processes. More sophisticated methods such as a rigorous Computational Fluid
Dynamics (CFD) model would enhance the understanding of the fluid dynamics
processes and provide a better baseline for the establishment of a “standard”
performance and energy gain criteria.
Page 139
Bibliography Page 140
Bibliography
1 Newton, B.E. and Steinberg, T.A.; “Adiabatic Compression Testing I – Historical

Development and Evaluation of Fluid Dynamic Processes Including Shock-Wave
Considerations; ASTM Twelfth International Symposium on Flammability and
Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres; October 2009.
2 Information obtained provided by BAM, Federal Institute for Materials
Research and Testing
3 Wegener, W., Binder, C., Hengstenberg, P., Herrmann, K.-P., and Weinert, D.,
“Tests to Evaluate the Suitability of Materials for Oxygen Service,” Flammability
and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Third Volume,
ASTM STP 986, D. W. Schroll, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 268-278.
4 Barthelemy, H., Delode, G., Vagnard, G., “Oxygen Compatibility of Pressure
Regulators for Gas Cylinders”; Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in
Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1040, ASTM 1989,
pg 267-285
5 Barthelemy, H. Vagnard, G., “Ignition of PTFE-Lined Hoses in High-Pressure
Oxygen Systems: Test Results and Considerations for Safe Design and use”;
Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres:
Third Volume, ASTM STP 986, ASTM 1988, pg 289-304
6 Vagnard, G., Barthelemy, H., Delode, G., “Test Methods and Result
Interpretation for Selecting Non-metallic materials for Oxygen Service”,
Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1111, ASTM 1991, pg 289-304
7 NASA Johnson Space Center, “Nonmetallic Materials Design Guidelines and Test
Data Handbook”, JSC-02681
8 NASA Handbook, NHB 8060.1B, Test 14, “Gaseous Oxygen Pneumatic Impact
Test”
9 NASA Reference Publication RP 1113, “Design Guide for High Pressure Oxygen
Systems”, August 1983
10 Stradling, J. S., Pippen, D. L., and Frye, G. W., “Techniques Employed by the
NASA White Sands Test Facility to Ensure Oxygen System Component Safety,”
Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres,
ASTM STP 812, B. L. Werley, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials,
1983, pp. 97-107
11 ASTM International Test Method G74 “Standard Test Method for Ignition
Sensitivity of Materials to Gaseous Fluid Impact:” ASTM Committee G4 on
Compatibility and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen Enriched Atmospheres
Subcommittee G04.01 on Test Methods; Current edition approved Sept. 10,
2001. Published January 2002. Originally published in 1982. Last previous
edition G74–82(1996)
12 Neary, R. M., “ASTM G 63: A Milestone in a 60-Year Safety Effort,” Flammability
and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres, ASTM STP 812, B.
L. Werley, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1983, pp. 3-8.
13 Newton, B., Porter, A., Hull, W.C., Stradling, J., and Miller, R., “A 6000 psig
Gaseous Oxygen Impact Test System for Materials and Components
Compatibility Evaluations,” Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-
Page 140
Enriched Atmospheres: Eighth Volume, ASTM STP 1319, W.T. Royals, T.C. Chou,
and T.A. Steinberg, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1997.
14 Aerospace Fluid Component Designers’ Handbook, Volume 1, Revision C; TRW
Systems Group, Redondo Beach, California, November 1968; Air Force Contract
04(611)-8385 and 04(611)-11316
15 ASTM International Guide G 63 – 99 (originally published 1980), “Standard
Guide for Evaluating Nonmetallic Materials for Oxygen Service”, ASTM G04
Committee on Compatibility and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched
Atmospheres.
16 Faeth, G.M. and Meyer, W.E., “Spontaneous Ignition during Charging Processes
in Pneumatic and Hydraulic Systems”, The Pennsylvania State University,
Department of Mechanical Engineering, 1963
17 Newton, B., Chiffoleau, G., Steinberg, T., Binder, C., “Adiabatic Compression
Testing II – Background And Approach To Estimating Severity Of Test
Methodology”; ASTM Twelfth International Symposium on Flammability and
Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres; October 2009
18 Neary, R. M., “ASTM G 63: A Milestone in a 60-Year Safety Effort,” Flammability
and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres, ASTM STP 812, B.
L. Werley, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1983, pp. 3-8.
19 ASTM International Guide G 63 – 99 (originally published 1980), “Standard
Guide for Evaluating Nonmetallic Materials for Oxygen Service”, ASTM G04
Committee on Compatibility and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched
Atmospheres.
20 ASTM International Test Method G 72 – 96 (Originally published in 1982),
“Standard Test Method for Autogenous Ignition Temperature of Liquids and
Solids in a High-Pressure Oxygen-Enriched Environment”; ASTM G04 Committee
on Compatibility and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres.
21 ASTM International Test Method G74 “Standard Test Method for Ignition
Sensitivity of Materials to Gaseous Fluid Impact:” ASTM Committee G4 on
Compatibility and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen Enriched Atmospheres
Subcommittee G04.01 on Test Methods; Current edition approved Sept. 10,
2001. Published January 2002. Originally published in 1982. Last previous
edition G74–82(1996)
22 Werley, B. L., "A Perspective on Gaseous Impact Tests: Oxygen Compatibility
Testing on a Budget," Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-
Enriched Atmospheres, Sixth Volume, ASTM STP 1197, Dwight D. Janoff and
Joel M. Stoltzfus, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1993.
23 Koch, U. H., "Oxygen System Safety," Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials
in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: 6th Volume, ASTM SIP 1197, Dwight D.
Janoff and Joel M. Stoltzfus, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1993.
24 Koch, U.H., “Oxygen Piping Code-Where Knowledge Becomes Practice: Keynote
Address,” Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched
Atmospheres: Eighth Volume, ASTM STP 1319, William T. Royals, Ting C. Chou,
and Theodore A. Steinberg, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
1997.
25 Stradling, J. S., Pippen, D. L., and Frye, G. W., “Techniques Employed by the
NASA White Sands Test Facility to Ensure Oxygen System Component Safety,”
Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres,
ASTM STP 812, B. L. Werley, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials,
1983, pp. 97-107
Page 141
26 Newton, B., Porter, A., Hull, W.C., Stradling, J., and Miller, R., “A 6000 psig
Gaseous Oxygen Impact Test System for Materials and Components
Compatibility Evaluations,” Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-
Enriched Atmospheres: Eighth Volume, ASTM STP 1319, W.T. Royals, T.C. Chou,
and T.A. Steinberg, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, 1997.
27 Wegener, W., Binder, C., Hengstenberg, P., Herrmann, K.-P., and Weinert, D.,
“Tests to Evaluate the Suitability of Materials for Oxygen Service,” Flammability
and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Third Volume,
ASTM STP 986, D. W. Schroll, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1988, pp. 268-278.
28 Binder, C., Kieper, G., Herrmann, P., “A 500 Bar Gaseous Oxygen Impact Test
Apparatus for Burn-Out Testing of Oxygen Equipment”, Flammability and
Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Seventh Volume,
ASTM STP 1267, ASTM 1995, pg 23-35
29 Barthelemy, H., Delode, G., Vagnard, G., “Oxygen Compatibility of Pressure
Regulators for Gas Cylinders”; Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in
Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1040, ASTM 1989,
pg 267-285
30 Barthelemy, H. Vagnard, G., “Ignition of PTFE-Lined Hoses in High-Pressure
Oxygen Systems: Test Results and Considerations for Safe Design and use”;
Third Volume, ASTM STP 986, ASTM 1988, pg 289-304
31 Vagnard, G., Barthelemy, H., Delode, G., “Test Methods and Result
Interpretation for Selecting Non-metallic materials for Oxygen Service”,
Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1111, ASTM 1991, pg 289-304
32 Barthélémy H., Delode G., and Vagnard G., "Ignition of Materials in Oxygen
Atmospheres: Comparison of Different Testing Methods for Ranking Materials"
Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres;
Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1111, Joel M. Stoltzfus and Kenneth McIlroy Eds,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1991.
33 Ducrocq, J., Barthelemy, H., and Roy, D., "A Fluid Flow Analysis of the Gaseous
Impact Test," Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched
Atmospheres: Ninth Volume, ASTM STP 1395, T. A. Steinberg, B. E. Newton, and
H. D. Beeson, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, West
Conshohocken, PA, 2000.
34 ISO 2503, “Gas welding equipment - Pressure regulators for gas cylinders used
in welding, cutting and allied processes up to 300 bar”; International Standards
Organization
35 EN 585, “Gas welding equipment - Pressure regulators for gas cylinders used in
welding, cutting and allied processes up to 200 bar”; European Norm Standard.
36 Bryan, C. J., "A Review of Test Methods Used in the Selection of Materials for
Oxygen Service: Keynote Address," Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in
Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Ninth Volume, ASTM STP1395, T. A. Steinberg,
B. E. Newton, and H. D. Beeson, Eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.
37 Hirsch, D., Peyton, G., Hshieh, F.-Y., and Beeson, H., “Review of Pneumatic
Impact Sensitivity Data Obtained on Selected Polymers for Aerospace
Applications,” Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched
Atmospheres: Tenth Volume, ASTM STP 1454, T. A. Steinberg, H. D. Beeson,
and B. E. Newton, Eds., ASTM International, West Conshohocken, PA, 2003.
Page 142
38 Janoff, D., Bamford, L. J., Newton, B. E., and Bryan, C. J., "Ignition of PTFE-Lined
Flexible Hoses by Rapid Pressurization with Oxygen", Symposium on
Fourth Volume, ASTM SPT 1040, Joel M. Stoltzfus, Frank J. Benz, and Jack S.
Stradling editors, American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia,
1989.
39 Hirsch, D., Skarsgard, E., Beeson, H., and Bryan, C., "Predictability of Gaseous
Impact Ignition Sensitivity from Autoignition Temperature Data," Flammability
and Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Ninth Volume,
ASTM STP 1395, T. A. Steinberg, B. E. Newton, and H. D. Beeson, Eds., American
Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.
40 Blackstone, W. R. and Ku, P. M., "An Assessment of Impact Test Techniques for
Determining the Fire or Explosion Hazards of Materials Exposed to Liquid
Oxygen," Materials Research and Standards, Vol. 11, No. 6, American Society
for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, PA, 1971, pp 30-35.
41 Blackstone, W. R., Baber, B. B., and Ku, P. M, "New Test Techniques for
Evaluating the Compatibility of Materials with Liquid Oxygen under Impact,"
ASLE Transactions, Vol. 11, ASLE 23rd Annual Meeting, Cleveland, OH, May 6-9,
1968, pp 216-227.
42 Schmidt, N., Moffett, G. E., Pedley, M. D., and Linley, L. J., "Ignition of
Nonmetallic Materials by Impact of High-Pressure Oxygen II: Evaluation of
Repeatability of Pneumatic Impact Test," Symposium on Flammability and
Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Fourth Volume,
ASTM STP 1040, Joel M. Stoltzfus, Frank J. Benz, and Jack S. Stradling editors,
43 Moffett, G. E., Schmidt, N. E., Pedley; M. D., and Linley, L. J., ,"An Evaluation of
The Liquid Oxygen Mechanical Impact Test”, Symposium on Flammability and
Sensitivity of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Fourth Volume,
ASTM STP 1040, Joel M. Stoltzfus, Frank J. Benz, and Jack S. Stradling editors,
American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1989
44 Janoff, D., Pedley, M. D., and Bamford, L. J., "Ignition of Nonmetallic Materials
by Impact of High-Pressure Oxygen III: New Method Development”,
Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1111, Joel M. Stoltzfus and Kenneth McIlroy, Eds.,
45 A Unique Thermocouple To Measure The Temperatures Of Squibs, Igniters,
Propellants And Rocket Nozzles; SPIE Paper 6222-3; Jacob Nanigian, Daniel
Nanigian Nanmac Corporation, 11 Mayhew St., Framingham, Ma USA 02701
46 White, Donald R.; “Influence of diaphragm opening time on shock-tube flows”;
General Electric Research Laboratory; Journal of Fluid Mechanics Digital
Archive, 4, pp 585-5999, May 1958, doi:10.1017/S0022112058000677
47 Pedley, M. D., Pao, J., Bamford, L., Williams, R. E., and Plante, B., “Ignition of
Contaminants by Impact of High-Pressure Oxygen,” Flammability and Sensitivity
of Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Third Volume, ASTM STP 986, D.
W. Schroll, Ed., American Society for Testing and Materials, Philadelphia, 1987,
pp. 305-317.
48 Forsyth, E. T., Durkin, R. J., and Beeson, H. D., "Evaluation of Contaminant-
Promoted Ignition in Scuba Equipment and Breathing-Gas Delivery Systems,"
Ninth Volume, ASTM STP 1395, T. A. Steinberg, B. E. Newton, and H. D. Beeson,
Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials, West Conshohocken, PA,
2000.
Page 143
49 Harry N. Norton, “Sensor and Analyzer Handbook”,; Prentice Hall Inc.,

Englewood Cliffs, NJ 07632
50 Schweppe, J. L.; “Shock Tube Methods”; Department of Mechanical
Engineering, The University of Houston
51 Schafer, J. H. and Frohn, A; “Ionization behind Shock Waves in Nitrogen-Oxygen
Mixtures”, AIAA Journal, Volume 10, No. 8, August 1972
52 Lewis and Von Elbe; “Combustion, Flames, and Explosion of Gases”; Chapter
VIII, “Detonation Waves in Gases”, 2nd Edition, Academic Press, 1961
53 Hughes and Brighton; ”Fluid Dynamics”, Chapter 7, “One-Dimensional
Compressible Flow – The Shock Tube”; McGraw-Hill Book Company, 1967
54 Griffin, D. K, “Performance Characteristics of Free Piston Shock Tunnels”;
Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of Queensland for the
degree of Doctor of Philosophy, 26 January 1996
55 Kendall, M, “A Study of High-Enthalpy, Entropy Raising Drivers for Impulse
Facilities”; Department of Mechanical Engineering, The University of
Queensland for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy, January 1998
56 Leslie, I. H., "Thermodynamic and Fluid Mechanic Analyses of Rapid
Pressurization in a Dead-End Tube", Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in
Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Fifth Volume, ASTM STP 1111. Joel M. Stoltzfus
and Kenneth McIlroy, Eds., American Society for Testing and Materials,
Philadelphia, 1991.
57 Thorncroft, G., Patton, J, Gordon, R, “Modeling Compressible Air Flow in a
Charging or Discharging Vessel and Assessment of Polytropic Exponent”,
California Polytechnic State University, AC 2007 – 2695.
58 Dutton, J. and Coverdill, R., “ Experiments to Study the Gaseous Discharge and
Filling of Vessels”, International Journal of Engineering, Volume 13, No. 2, p.
123-134, 1997
59 Barragan, M., Wilson, D. B., and Stoltzfus, J. M., "Adiabatic Compression Of
Oxygen: Real Fluid Temperatures," Flammability and Sensitivity of Materials in
Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Ninth Volume, ASTM STP 1395, T. A. Steinberg,
B. E. Newton, and H. D. Beeson, Eds., American Society for Testing and
Materials, West Conshohocken, PA, 2000.
60 van Wylen, G. and Sonntag, R; “Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics”;
Wiley & Sons, 1978, SI Version
61 A Unique Thermocouple To Measure The Temperatures Of Squibs, Igniters,
Propellants And Rocket Nozzles; SPIE Paper 6222-3; Jacob Nanigian, Daniel
Nanigian Nanmac Corporation, 11 Mayhew St., Framingham, Ma USA 02701
62 Paul Beckman Company, 300 Series Microminiature Thermocouple Probe
specification sheet; 2727 Philmont Ave.; Suite 101; Huntingdon Valley, PA
19006; 215-663-0250; www.pbeckman.com
63 Moffat, R.; “Notes Concerning Temperature Measurement for ISA –
Thermocouple Theory and Practice”, 28th International Instrumentation
Symposium, May 3-6, 1982; Department of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford
University
64 Moffat, R., “Gas Temperature Measurement”; Temperature – It’s Measurement
and Control in Science and Industry, Vol. 3, Part 2, 1962
65 Moffat, R., “Gas Temperature Measurement: Direct Design of Radiatoin
Shielding”, Associate Professor of Mechanical Engineering, Stanford California
66 Moffat, R., “Designing Thermocouples for Response Rate”, Transactions of
American Society for Mechanical Engineers, 1958
67 Paul Beckman Company, “Millisecond Response Thermocouples – Basic Theory”;
38 Township Line Road, Elkins Park, PA, 19117
Page 144
68 Steinberg, T. A., “Temperature Measurement (with thermocouples)”, ME698,

New Mexico State University, April 19, 1990
69 Omega® Engineering, Inc.; Stamford, CT, 06907-0047 USA; www.omega.com
70 American Society of Mechanical Engineers, ASME PTC 19.1-2005 “Test
Uncertainty”
71 Incropera, F.P and Dewitt, D.P.; “Fundamentals of Heat Transfer”; John Wiley
and Sons; 1981
72 Kentfield, J.; “Nonsteady, One-Dimensional, Internal, Compressible Flows –
Theory and Applications”; Oxford Engineering Science Series 31; Oxford
University Press, 1993
73 Zucker, R.; “Fundamentals of Gas Dynamics”; Matrix Publishers, Inc., 1977
74 Emanuel, G.., “Gasdynamics: Theory and Applications”, American Institute of
Aeronautics and Astronautics, Inc. (AIAA Education Series), 1986
75 Humble, L.V., Lowdermilk, W.H., Desmon, L.C, “Measurements of Average
Heat-Transfer and Friction Coefficients for subsonic Flow of Air in Smooth
Tubes at High Surface and Fluid Temperatures”, NASA Lewis Flight Propulsion
Laboratory, Cleveland, OH, Rept, 1020, 1951
76 Lindeburg, M.; “Mechanical Engineering Reference Manual”, 9th Edition,
Professional Publications, Inc., 1994
77 Van Wylen, G. and Sonntag, R.; “Fundamentals of Classical Thermodynamics”;
2nd Edition; Wiley & Sons, 1978
78 Abbott, M. and Van Ness, H.; “Theory and Problems of Thermodynamics”;
Schaum’s Outline; McGraw-Hill, 1972
79 Bar-Meir, G.; “Fundamentals of Compressible Fluid Mechanics”; 2009
80 Suvorovs, T., Ward, N. Steinberg, T, Wilson, R.; “Statistical Analysis of Promoted
Ignition Test Data”; Journal of ASTM International
81 Moffett, G., Schmidt, N., Pedley, M., Linley, L; “An Evaluation of the Liquid
Oxygen Mechanical Impact Test”, Symposium on Flammability and Sensitivity of
Materials in Oxygen-Enriched Atmospheres: Fourth Volume, ASTM STP 1040,
1989
82 Natrella, M.G., Experimental Statistics, National Bureau of Standards Handbook
91, U.S. Department of Commerce, Washington, D.C., 1966
83 Dixon, W.J. and Mood, A.M., “A Method for Obtaining and Analyzing Sensitivity
Data”, Journal of American Statistical Association, Vol. 43, No. 241, march 1948.
Page 145
Appendix A – Oxygen Properties Page 146
Appendix A – Oxygen Properties
Appendix A – Oxygen Properties

United States National Institute for Standards Technology
(NIST) Oxygen Properties Data for pressures ranging from
0.1 MPa (1 bar) to 69 MPa (690 bar) and temperatures
ranging from 100 K to 1000 K
Page 146
Appendix A - Oxygen Properties Page 147
Internal Joule-
Temp Pressure Volume Enthalpy Entropy Cv Cp Sound Spd. Viscosity Therm. Cond.
Density (g/ml) Energy Thomson Phase
(K) (MPa) (ml/g) (kJ/kg) (J/g*K) (J/g*K) (J/g*K) (m/s) (Pa*s) (W/m*K)
(kJ/kg) (K/MPa)
100 0.1 0.003941 253.73 63.612 88.99 5.405 0.653 0.935 188.4 18.48 7.746800E-06 0.00931 vapor
110 0.1 0.003563 280.70 70.248 98.32 5.494 0.654 0.932 198.1 15.75 8.486400E-06 0.01027 vapor
120 0.1 0.003252 307.46 76.870 107.62 5.575 0.654 0.928 207.4 13.54 9.215900E-06 0.01121 vapor
130 0.1 0.002994 334.06 83.473 116.88 5.649 0.654 0.925 216.2 11.74 9.934400E-06 0.01215 vapor
140 0.1 0.002774 360.54 90.056 126.11 5.718 0.653 0.922 224.6 10.29 1.064100E-05 0.01307 vapor
150 0.1 0.002585 386.93 96.624 135.32 5.781 0.652 0.920 232.7 9.10 1.133700E-05 0.01399 vapor
160 0.1 0.002420 413.25 103.180 144.50 5.841 0.652 0.918 240.5 8.12 1.202100E-05 0.01489 vapor
170 0.1 0.002275 439.52 109.730 153.68 5.896 0.652 0.917 248.1 7.30 1.269500E-05 0.01579 vapor
180 0.1 0.002147 465.75 116.260 162.84 5.949 0.651 0.916 255.4 6.61 1.335700E-05 0.01667 vapor
190 0.1 0.002033 491.94 122.800 171.99 5.998 0.651 0.915 262.5 6.02 1.400800E-05 0.01754 vapor
200 0.1 0.001930 518.11 129.330 181.14 6.045 0.651 0.915 269.3 5.51 1.464900E-05 0.01840 vapor
210 0.1 0.001837 544.26 135.860 190.29 6.090 0.651 0.914 276.1 5.07 1.528100E-05 0.01926 vapor
220 0.1 0.001753 570.39 142.390 199.43 6.132 0.652 0.914 282.6 4.67 1.590200E-05 0.02010 vapor
230 0.1 0.001676 596.50 148.920 208.57 6.173 0.652 0.914 289.0 4.32 1.651400E-05 0.02094 vapor
240 0.1 0.001606 622.60 155.450 217.71 6.212 0.652 0.915 295.2 4.01 1.711700E-05 0.02177 vapor
250 0.1 0.001542 648.69 161.990 226.86 6.249 0.653 0.915 301.3 3.73 1.771100E-05 0.02260 vapor
260 0.1 0.001482 674.77 168.540 236.02 6.285 0.654 0.916 307.2 3.47 1.829700E-05 0.02342 vapor
270 0.1 0.001427 700.84 175.090 245.17 6.320 0.655 0.916 313.0 3.24 1.887500E-05 0.02423 vapor
280 0.1 0.001376 726.91 181.650 254.34 6.353 0.656 0.917 318.7 3.03 1.944400E-05 0.02504 vapor
290 0.1 0.001328 752.96 188.230 263.52 6.385 0.657 0.919 324.3 2.83 2.000600E-05 0.02585 vapor
300 0.1 0.001284 779.02 194.810 272.71 6.416 0.659 0.920 329.7 2.65 2.056100E-05 0.02666 vapor
310 0.1 0.001242 805.06 201.410 281.92 6.447 0.660 0.921 335.1 2.49 2.110800E-05 0.02746 vapor
320 0.1 0.001203 831.10 208.030 291.14 6.476 0.662 0.923 340.3 2.33 2.164900E-05 0.02827 vapor
330 0.1 0.001167 857.14 214.670 300.38 6.504 0.664 0.925 345.5 2.19 2.218300E-05 0.02907 vapor
340 0.1 0.001132 883.17 221.320 309.64 6.532 0.666 0.927 350.5 2.06 2.271000E-05 0.02987 vapor
350 0.1 0.001100 909.20 228.000 318.92 6.559 0.668 0.929 355.5 1.93 2.323100E-05 0.03067 vapor
360 0.1 0.001069 935.23 234.700 328.22 6.585 0.671 0.931 360.4 1.82 2.374600E-05 0.03148 vapor
370 0.1 0.001040 961.26 241.420 337.55 6.611 0.673 0.934 365.1 1.71 2.425500E-05 0.03228 vapor
380 0.1 0.001013 987.28 248.170 346.90 6.635 0.676 0.936 369.9 1.60 2.475900E-05 0.03308 vapor
390 0.1 0.000987 1013.30 254.940 356.27 6.660 0.678 0.939 374.5 1.51 2.525700E-05 0.03388 vapor
400 0.1 0.000962 1039.30 261.750 365.68 6.684 0.681 0.942 379.1 1.42 2.574900E-05 0.03469 vapor
410 0.1 0.000939 1065.30 268.570 375.11 6.707 0.684 0.944 383.5 1.33 2.623600E-05 0.03549 vapor
420 0.1 0.000916 1091.30 275.430 384.57 6.730 0.687 0.947 388.0 1.25 2.671900E-05 0.03630 vapor
430 0.1 0.000895 1117.40 282.320 394.06 6.752 0.690 0.950 392.3 1.18 2.719600E-05 0.03711 vapor
440 0.1 0.000875 1143.40 289.240 403.57 6.774 0.693 0.953 396.6 1.11 2.766800E-05 0.03791 vapor
450 0.1 0.000855 1169.40 296.180 413.12 6.795 0.696 0.956 400.9 1.04 2.813600E-05 0.03872 vapor
460 0.1 0.000837 1195.40 303.160 422.70 6.816 0.699 0.960 405.0 0.98 2.859900E-05 0.03953 vapor
470 0.1 0.000819 1221.40 310.170 432.31 6.837 0.702 0.963 409.2 0.92 2.905800E-05 0.04033 vapor
480 0.1 0.000802 1247.40 317.220 441.95 6.857 0.706 0.966 413.3 0.86 2.951300E-05 0.04114 vapor
490 0.1 0.000785 1273.40 324.290 451.63 6.877 0.709 0.969 417.3 0.81 2.996300E-05 0.04194 vapor
500 0.1 0.000770 1299.40 331.390 461.33 6.897 0.712 0.972 421.3 0.75 3.041000E-05 0.04275 vapor
510 0.1 0.000754 1325.40 338.530 471.07 6.916 0.715 0.975 425.2 0.71 3.085200E-05 0.04356 vapor
520 0.1 0.000740 1351.40 345.700 480.84 6.935 0.718 0.979 429.1 0.66 3.129100E-05 0.04436 vapor
530 0.1 0.000726 1377.40 352.900 490.64 6.954 0.722 0.982 433.0 0.61 3.172500E-05 0.04516 vapor
540 0.1 0.000713 1403.40 360.130 500.47 6.972 0.725 0.985 436.8 0.57 3.215700E-05 0.04596 vapor
550 0.1 0.000700 1429.40 367.400 510.34 6.990 0.728 0.988 440.5 0.53 3.258400E-05 0.04676 vapor
560 0.1 0.000687 1455.40 374.690 520.23 7.008 0.731 0.991 444.3 0.49 3.300800E-05 0.04756 vapor
570 0.1 0.000675 1481.40 382.020 530.16 7.026 0.734 0.994 448.0 0.46 3.342900E-05 0.04836 vapor
580 0.1 0.000663 1507.40 389.380 540.12 7.043 0.737 0.997 451.6 0.42 3.384600E-05 0.04915 vapor
590 0.1 0.000652 1533.40 396.760 550.10 7.060 0.740 1.000 455.3 0.39 3.426000E-05 0.04995 vapor
600 0.1 0.000641 1559.40 404.180 560.12 7.077 0.743 1.003 458.9 0.36 3.467100E-05 0.05074 vapor
610 0.1 0.000631 1585.40 411.630 570.17 7.094 0.746 1.006 462.4 0.33 3.507900E-05 0.05153 vapor
620 0.1 0.000621 1611.40 419.110 580.25 7.110 0.749 1.009 466.0 0.30 3.548400E-05 0.05231 vapor
630 0.1 0.000611 1637.40 426.610 590.35 7.126 0.752 1.012 469.5 0.27 3.588600E-05 0.05310 vapor
640 0.1 0.000601 1663.40 434.150 600.49 7.142 0.755 1.015 473.0 0.24 3.628500E-05 0.05388 vapor
650 0.1 0.000592 1689.40 441.710 610.65 7.158 0.758 1.018 476.4 0.22 3.668100E-05 0.05466 vapor
660 0.1 0.000583 1715.40 449.300 620.84 7.173 0.760 1.020 479.9 0.19 3.707400E-05 0.05543 vapor
670 0.1 0.000574 1741.30 456.920 631.06 7.189 0.763 1.023 483.3 0.17 3.746500E-05 0.05620 vapor
680 0.1 0.000566 1767.30 464.570 641.30 7.204 0.766 1.026 486.6 0.15 3.785300E-05 0.05697 vapor
690 0.1 0.000558 1793.30 472.240 651.57 7.219 0.768 1.028 490.0 0.13 3.823800E-05 0.05774 vapor
700 0.1 0.000550 1819.30 479.940 661.87 7.234 0.771 1.031 493.3 0.11 3.862100E-05 0.05850 vapor
710 0.1 0.000542 1845.30 487.660 672.19 7.248 0.774 1.034 496.6 0.09 3.900200E-05 0.05926 vapor
720 0.1 0.000534 1871.30 495.410 682.54 7.263 0.776 1.036 499.9 0.07 3.938000E-05 0.06001 vapor
730 0.1 0.000527 1897.30 503.190 692.92 7.277 0.779 1.039 503.2 0.05 3.975500E-05 0.06077 vapor
740 0.1 0.000520 1923.30 510.980 703.31 7.291 0.781 1.041 506.4 0.03 4.012900E-05 0.06152 vapor
Page 147
750 0.1 0.000513 1949.30 518.810 713.73 7.305 0.783 1.043 509.6 0.01 4.050000E-05 0.06226 vapor
760 0.1 0.000506 1975.30 526.650 724.18 7.319 0.786 1.046 512.8 0.00 4.086900E-05 0.06300 vapor
770 0.1 0.000500 2001.30 534.520 734.65 7.333 0.788 1.048 516.0 -0.02 4.123500E-05 0.06374 vapor
780 0.1 0.000493 2027.30 542.410 745.14 7.346 0.790 1.050 519.1 -0.04 4.160000E-05 0.06448 vapor
790 0.1 0.000487 2053.20 550.320 755.65 7.360 0.792 1.052 522.3 -0.05 4.196200E-05 0.06521 vapor
800 0.1 0.000481 2079.20 558.260 766.18 7.373 0.795 1.055 525.4 -0.07 4.232200E-05 0.06593 vapor
810 0.1 0.000475 2105.20 566.220 776.74 7.386 0.797 1.057 528.5 -0.08 4.268100E-05 0.06666 vapor
820 0.1 0.000469 2131.20 574.190 787.31 7.399 0.799 1.059 531.6 -0.09 4.303700E-05 0.06738 vapor
830 0.1 0.000464 2157.20 582.190 797.91 7.412 0.801 1.061 534.6 -0.11 4.339100E-05 0.06809 vapor
840 0.1 0.000458 2183.20 590.210 808.53 7.425 0.803 1.063 537.7 -0.12 4.374400E-05 0.06880 vapor
850 0.1 0.000453 2209.20 598.250 819.17 7.437 0.805 1.065 540.7 -0.13 4.409400E-05 0.06951 vapor
860 0.1 0.000447 2235.20 606.300 829.82 7.450 0.807 1.067 543.7 -0.14 4.444300E-05 0.07022 vapor
870 0.1 0.000442 2261.20 614.380 840.50 7.462 0.809 1.068 546.7 -0.15 4.479000E-05 0.07092 vapor
880 0.1 0.000437 2287.10 622.480 851.19 7.474 0.810 1.070 549.7 -0.17 4.513500E-05 0.07161 vapor
890 0.1 0.000432 2313.10 630.590 861.90 7.486 0.812 1.072 552.7 -0.18 4.547800E-05 0.07231 vapor
900 0.1 0.000428 2339.10 638.720 872.63 7.498 0.814 1.074 555.6 -0.19 4.582000E-05 0.07300 vapor
910 0.1 0.000423 2365.10 646.870 883.38 7.510 0.816 1.076 558.5 -0.20 4.616000E-05 0.07368 vapor
920 0.1 0.000418 2391.10 655.030 894.14 7.522 0.817 1.077 561.5 -0.21 4.649800E-05 0.07437 vapor
930 0.1 0.000414 2417.10 663.220 904.93 7.534 0.819 1.079 564.4 -0.22 4.683500E-05 0.07504 vapor
940 0.1 0.000409 2443.10 671.420 915.72 7.545 0.821 1.081 567.2 -0.23 4.717000E-05 0.07572 vapor
950 0.1 0.000405 2469.10 679.630 926.54 7.557 0.822 1.082 570.1 -0.24 4.750300E-05 0.07639 vapor
960 0.1 0.000401 2495.00 687.860 937.37 7.568 0.824 1.084 573.0 -0.24 4.783500E-05 0.07705 vapor
970 0.1 0.000397 2521.00 696.110 948.21 7.579 0.825 1.085 575.8 -0.25 4.816600E-05 0.07772 vapor
980 0.1 0.000393 2547.00 704.370 959.08 7.590 0.827 1.087 578.7 -0.26 4.849500E-05 0.07838 vapor
990 0.1 0.000389 2573.00 712.650 969.95 7.601 0.828 1.088 581.5 -0.27 4.882200E-05 0.07903 vapor
1000 0.1 0.000385 2599.00 720.940 980.84 7.612 0.830 1.090 584.3 -0.28 4.914800E-05 0.07969 vapor
Page 148
Internal Joule-
(kJ/kg) (K/MPa)
100 1 1.093000 0.91 -117.020 -116.10 3.115 0.896 1.731 826.9 -0.27 1.536600E-04 0.13801 liquid
110 1 1.037200 0.96 -99.441 -98.48 3.283 0.867 1.800 738.6 -0.20 1.234100E-04 0.12302 liquid
119.62 1 0.976340 1.02 -81.661 -80.64 3.438 0.844 1.921 645.2 -0.09 1.020600E-04 0.10799 liquid
119.62 1 0.038456 26.00 67.696 93.70 4.896 0.740 1.268 189.4 15.12 1.020200E-05 0.01238 vapor
120 1 0.038246 26.15 68.031 94.18 4.900 0.736 1.257 190.0 14.99 1.022100E-05 0.01240 vapor
130 1 0.033715 29.66 76.256 105.92 4.994 0.696 1.121 203.1 12.37 1.077000E-05 0.01308 vapor
140 1 0.030390 32.91 83.919 116.82 5.075 0.685 1.066 214.2 10.61 1.135900E-05 0.01385 vapor
150 1 0.027779 36.00 91.292 127.29 5.147 0.677 1.030 224.4 9.26 1.196500E-05 0.01466 vapor
160 1 0.025648 38.99 98.469 137.46 5.213 0.671 1.005 233.7 8.20 1.258000E-05 0.01548 vapor
170 1 0.023861 41.91 105.510 147.42 5.273 0.666 0.987 242.5 7.33 1.319600E-05 0.01631 vapor
180 1 0.022333 44.78 112.450 157.22 5.329 0.663 0.974 250.8 6.61 1.381200E-05 0.01715 vapor
190 1 0.021007 47.60 119.310 166.91 5.381 0.661 0.964 258.8 6.00 1.442400E-05 0.01798 vapor
200 1 0.019842 50.40 126.120 176.52 5.431 0.659 0.957 266.3 5.47 1.503100E-05 0.01881 vapor
210 1 0.018808 53.17 132.890 186.05 5.477 0.658 0.951 273.6 5.02 1.563400E-05 0.01963 vapor
220 1 0.017883 55.92 139.620 195.54 5.521 0.657 0.946 280.6 4.62 1.623000E-05 0.02045 vapor
230 1 0.017050 58.65 146.330 204.98 5.563 0.657 0.943 287.4 4.27 1.681900E-05 0.02127 vapor
240 1 0.016295 61.37 153.020 214.39 5.603 0.657 0.940 294.0 3.96 1.740300E-05 0.02208 vapor
250 1 0.015607 64.08 159.700 223.78 5.642 0.657 0.938 300.4 3.67 1.797900E-05 0.02288 vapor
260 1 0.014977 66.77 166.370 233.14 5.678 0.657 0.936 306.6 3.42 1.854900E-05 0.02369 vapor
270 1 0.014397 69.46 173.040 242.50 5.714 0.658 0.935 312.6 3.19 1.911200E-05 0.02449 vapor
280 1 0.013863 72.14 179.700 251.84 5.748 0.659 0.934 318.5 2.98 1.966900E-05 0.02529 vapor
290 1 0.013367 74.81 186.370 261.18 5.780 0.660 0.934 324.3 2.78 2.021900E-05 0.02609 vapor
300 1 0.012907 77.48 193.050 270.52 5.812 0.661 0.934 329.9 2.61 2.076300E-05 0.02688 vapor
310 1 0.012479 80.14 199.730 279.86 5.843 0.662 0.934 335.4 2.44 2.130100E-05 0.02768 vapor
320 1 0.012078 82.79 206.420 289.21 5.872 0.664 0.935 340.8 2.29 2.183200E-05 0.02847 vapor
330 1 0.011703 85.45 213.120 298.57 5.901 0.666 0.936 346.0 2.15 2.235800E-05 0.02926 vapor
340 1 0.011352 88.09 219.840 307.93 5.929 0.668 0.937 351.2 2.02 2.287800E-05 0.03006 vapor
350 1 0.011021 90.74 226.570 317.31 5.956 0.670 0.939 356.2 1.90 2.339200E-05 0.03085 vapor
360 1 0.010709 93.38 233.330 326.71 5.983 0.672 0.940 361.2 1.78 2.390000E-05 0.03165 vapor
370 1 0.010415 96.02 240.100 336.12 6.009 0.674 0.942 366.1 1.67 2.440300E-05 0.03245 vapor
380 1 0.010136 98.66 246.900 345.55 6.034 0.677 0.944 370.8 1.57 2.490000E-05 0.03324 vapor
390 1 0.009873 101.29 253.720 355.01 6.058 0.680 0.946 375.5 1.48 2.539300E-05 0.03404 vapor
400 1 0.009623 103.92 260.560 364.48 6.082 0.682 0.949 380.1 1.39 2.588000E-05 0.03484 vapor
410 1 0.009385 106.55 267.430 373.98 6.106 0.685 0.951 384.7 1.31 2.636300E-05 0.03564 vapor
420 1 0.009159 109.18 274.320 383.50 6.129 0.688 0.954 389.1 1.23 2.684000E-05 0.03644 vapor
430 1 0.008944 111.81 281.250 393.05 6.151 0.691 0.956 393.5 1.16 2.731400E-05 0.03724 vapor
440 1 0.008739 114.43 288.200 402.63 6.173 0.694 0.959 397.9 1.09 2.778200E-05 0.03805 vapor
450 1 0.008543 117.06 295.180 412.23 6.195 0.697 0.962 402.2 1.02 2.824600E-05 0.03885 vapor
460 1 0.008356 119.68 302.190 421.86 6.216 0.700 0.965 406.4 0.96 2.870600E-05 0.03965 vapor
470 1 0.008177 122.30 309.230 431.52 6.237 0.703 0.967 410.5 0.90 2.916100E-05 0.04046 vapor
480 1 0.008005 124.92 316.290 441.21 6.257 0.706 0.970 414.6 0.84 2.961300E-05 0.04126 vapor
490 1 0.007841 127.54 323.390 450.93 6.277 0.709 0.973 418.7 0.79 3.006000E-05 0.04206 vapor
500 1 0.007683 130.16 330.520 460.68 6.297 0.713 0.976 422.7 0.74 3.050400E-05 0.04286 vapor
510 1 0.007532 132.77 337.680 470.46 6.316 0.716 0.979 426.6 0.69 3.094300E-05 0.04367 vapor
520 1 0.007386 135.39 344.880 480.27 6.335 0.719 0.982 430.6 0.64 3.137900E-05 0.04447 vapor
530 1 0.007246 138.01 352.100 490.10 6.354 0.722 0.985 434.4 0.60 3.181200E-05 0.04527 vapor
540 1 0.007111 140.62 359.350 499.97 6.373 0.725 0.988 438.2 0.56 3.224000E-05 0.04607 vapor
550 1 0.006982 143.23 366.640 509.87 6.391 0.728 0.991 442.0 0.52 3.266600E-05 0.04687 vapor
560 1 0.006857 145.85 373.950 519.80 6.409 0.731 0.994 445.8 0.48 3.308800E-05 0.04766 vapor
570 1 0.006736 148.46 381.290 529.75 6.426 0.735 0.997 449.5 0.45 3.350600E-05 0.04846 vapor
580 1 0.006619 151.07 388.670 539.74 6.444 0.738 1.000 453.2 0.41 3.392200E-05 0.04925 vapor
590 1 0.006507 153.68 396.070 549.76 6.461 0.741 1.003 456.8 0.38 3.433400E-05 0.05004 vapor
600 1 0.006398 156.29 403.510 559.80 6.478 0.744 1.006 460.4 0.35 3.474300E-05 0.05083 vapor
610 1 0.006293 158.91 410.970 569.88 6.494 0.747 1.009 464.0 0.32 3.514900E-05 0.05162 vapor
620 1 0.006191 161.52 418.460 579.98 6.511 0.749 1.012 467.5 0.29 3.555200E-05 0.05240 vapor
630 1 0.006093 164.12 425.980 590.11 6.527 0.752 1.014 471.0 0.26 3.595200E-05 0.05318 vapor
640 1 0.005998 166.73 433.530 600.27 6.543 0.755 1.017 474.5 0.24 3.635000E-05 0.05396 vapor
650 1 0.005905 169.34 441.110 610.45 6.559 0.758 1.020 478.0 0.21 3.674500E-05 0.05474 vapor
660 1 0.005816 171.95 448.710 620.66 6.574 0.761 1.023 481.4 0.19 3.713600E-05 0.05551 vapor
670 1 0.005729 174.56 456.340 630.90 6.590 0.763 1.025 484.8 0.16 3.752600E-05 0.05628 vapor
680 1 0.005644 177.17 464.000 641.17 6.605 0.766 1.028 488.2 0.14 3.791300E-05 0.05705 vapor
690 1 0.005563 179.77 471.690 651.46 6.620 0.769 1.030 491.5 0.12 3.829700E-05 0.05781 vapor
700 1 0.005483 182.38 479.400 661.78 6.635 0.771 1.033 494.9 0.10 3.867800E-05 0.05857 vapor
710 1 0.005406 184.99 487.130 672.12 6.649 0.774 1.035 498.2 0.08 3.905800E-05 0.05933 vapor
720 1 0.005331 187.59 494.890 682.48 6.664 0.776 1.038 501.5 0.06 3.943500E-05 0.06009 vapor
Page 149
730 1 0.005258 190.20 502.670 692.87 6.678 0.779 1.040 504.7 0.04 3.980900E-05 0.06084 vapor
740 1 0.005187 192.81 510.480 703.29 6.692 0.781 1.043 508.0 0.02 4.018100E-05 0.06159 vapor
750 1 0.005117 195.41 518.310 713.73 6.706 0.784 1.045 511.2 0.01 4.055100E-05 0.06233 vapor
760 1 0.005050 198.02 526.170 724.19 6.720 0.786 1.047 514.4 -0.01 4.091900E-05 0.06307 vapor
770 1 0.004985 200.62 534.050 734.67 6.734 0.788 1.049 517.5 -0.03 4.128500E-05 0.06381 vapor
780 1 0.004921 203.23 541.950 745.17 6.747 0.790 1.052 520.7 -0.04 4.164800E-05 0.06454 vapor
790 1 0.004858 205.83 549.870 755.70 6.761 0.793 1.054 523.8 -0.06 4.201000E-05 0.06527 vapor
800 1 0.004798 208.44 557.810 766.25 6.774 0.795 1.056 527.0 -0.07 4.236900E-05 0.06600 vapor
810 1 0.004738 211.04 565.770 776.82 6.787 0.797 1.058 530.0 -0.08 4.272700E-05 0.06672 vapor
820 1 0.004681 213.65 573.760 787.41 6.800 0.799 1.060 533.1 -0.10 4.308200E-05 0.06744 vapor
830 1 0.004624 216.25 581.770 798.02 6.813 0.801 1.062 536.2 -0.11 4.343600E-05 0.06815 vapor
840 1 0.004569 218.85 589.790 808.64 6.826 0.803 1.064 539.2 -0.12 4.378700E-05 0.06886 vapor
850 1 0.004516 221.46 597.840 819.29 6.838 0.805 1.066 542.3 -0.14 4.413700E-05 0.06957 vapor
860 1 0.004463 224.06 605.900 829.96 6.851 0.807 1.068 545.3 -0.15 4.448500E-05 0.07028 vapor
870 1 0.004412 226.67 613.980 840.65 6.863 0.809 1.070 548.3 -0.16 4.483100E-05 0.07098 vapor
880 1 0.004362 229.27 622.080 851.35 6.876 0.811 1.071 551.2 -0.17 4.517500E-05 0.07167 vapor
890 1 0.004313 231.87 630.200 862.07 6.888 0.812 1.073 554.2 -0.18 4.551800E-05 0.07236 vapor
900 1 0.004265 234.47 638.340 872.81 6.900 0.814 1.075 557.1 -0.19 4.585900E-05 0.07305 vapor
910 1 0.004218 237.08 646.490 883.57 6.912 0.816 1.077 560.1 -0.20 4.619800E-05 0.07374 vapor
920 1 0.004172 239.68 654.670 894.35 6.923 0.818 1.078 563.0 -0.21 4.653600E-05 0.07442 vapor
930 1 0.004127 242.28 662.860 905.14 6.935 0.819 1.080 565.9 -0.22 4.687200E-05 0.07510 vapor
940 1 0.004084 244.89 671.060 915.95 6.947 0.821 1.082 568.8 -0.23 4.720700E-05 0.07577 vapor
950 1 0.004041 247.49 679.280 926.77 6.958 0.822 1.083 571.6 -0.24 4.754000E-05 0.07644 vapor
960 1 0.003999 250.09 687.520 937.61 6.969 0.824 1.085 574.5 -0.25 4.787100E-05 0.07711 vapor
970 1 0.003957 252.69 695.770 948.46 6.981 0.826 1.086 577.3 -0.26 4.820100E-05 0.07777 vapor
980 1 0.003917 255.29 704.040 959.33 6.992 0.827 1.088 580.2 -0.26 4.852900E-05 0.07843 vapor
990 1 0.003878 257.90 712.320 970.22 7.003 0.829 1.089 583.0 -0.27 4.885600E-05 0.07908 vapor
1000 1 0.003839 260.50 720.620 981.12 7.014 0.830 1.091 585.8 -0.28 4.918200E-05 0.07973 vapor
Page 150
Internal Joule-
(kJ/kg) (K/MPa)
100 10 1.116300 0.90 -120.610 -111.65 3.078 0.914 1.672 877.1 -0.31 1.685500E-04 0.14580 liquid
110 10 1.067400 0.94 -104.150 -94.78 3.239 0.883 1.704 803.0 -0.26 1.367900E-04 0.13234 liquid
120 10 1.015000 0.99 -87.363 -77.51 3.389 0.857 1.755 727.0 -0.20 1.139800E-04 0.11881 liquid
130 10 0.957540 1.04 -70.036 -59.59 3.533 0.835 1.835 647.9 -0.10 9.656100E-05 0.10525 liquid
140 10 0.892470 1.12 -51.845 -40.64 3.673 0.819 1.966 564.5 0.06 8.229900E-05 0.09170 liquid
150 10 0.815200 1.23 -32.207 -19.94 3.816 0.810 2.197 475.1 0.32 6.953200E-05 0.07840 liquid
160 10 0.716010 1.40 -9.910 4.06 3.970 0.814 2.659 379.7 0.83 5.670500E-05 0.06606 supercritical
170 10 0.577010 1.73 17.335 34.67 4.156 0.827 3.493 291.5 1.86 4.246100E-05 0.05503 supercritical
180 10 0.423270 2.36 46.729 70.35 4.360 0.816 3.312 250.9 3.13 3.041400E-05 0.04274 supercritical
190 10 0.329850 3.03 68.239 98.56 4.512 0.780 2.394 250.6 3.64 2.508200E-05 0.03520 supercritical
200 10 0.277640 3.60 83.705 119.72 4.621 0.751 1.895 259.0 3.68 2.292800E-05 0.03193 supercritical
210 10 0.243970 4.10 96.206 137.19 4.706 0.730 1.625 268.7 3.55 2.195900E-05 0.03038 supercritical
220 10 0.219880 4.55 107.090 152.56 4.778 0.715 1.462 278.2 3.37 2.153300E-05 0.02962 supercritical
230 10 0.201460 4.96 116.970 166.61 4.840 0.705 1.355 287.2 3.17 2.139700E-05 0.02929 supercritical
240 10 0.186720 5.36 126.210 179.76 4.896 0.697 1.280 295.8 2.98 2.143600E-05 0.02923 supercritical
250 10 0.174540 5.73 134.970 192.27 4.947 0.692 1.224 303.9 2.80 2.158700E-05 0.02934 supercritical
260 10 0.164230 6.09 143.410 204.29 4.995 0.688 1.183 311.6 2.62 2.181400E-05 0.02957 supercritical
270 10 0.155350 6.44 151.580 215.95 5.039 0.685 1.150 319.0 2.46 2.209400E-05 0.02989 supercritical
280 10 0.147590 6.78 159.560 227.32 5.080 0.683 1.124 326.1 2.31 2.241300E-05 0.03028 supercritical
290 10 0.140710 7.11 167.380 238.45 5.119 0.682 1.103 332.8 2.17 2.276000E-05 0.03072 supercritical
300 10 0.134570 7.43 175.080 249.39 5.156 0.681 1.086 339.4 2.03 2.312800E-05 0.03120 supercritical
310 10 0.129040 7.75 182.680 260.18 5.192 0.681 1.072 345.6 1.91 2.351200E-05 0.03169 supercritical
320 10 0.124020 8.06 190.200 270.84 5.225 0.681 1.060 351.7 1.80 2.390800E-05 0.03226 supercritical
330 10 0.119440 8.37 197.660 281.39 5.258 0.681 1.051 357.6 1.69 2.431300E-05 0.03285 supercritical
340 10 0.115230 8.68 205.070 291.85 5.289 0.682 1.043 363.3 1.59 2.472500E-05 0.03346 supercritical
350 10 0.111350 8.98 212.440 302.24 5.319 0.683 1.036 368.9 1.49 2.514200E-05 0.03408 supercritical
360 10 0.107760 9.28 219.770 312.57 5.348 0.685 1.030 374.3 1.40 2.556200E-05 0.03472 supercritical
370 10 0.104420 9.58 227.080 322.85 5.376 0.686 1.026 379.5 1.32 2.598500E-05 0.03538 supercritical
380 10 0.101310 9.87 234.380 333.09 5.404 0.688 1.022 384.6 1.24 2.641000E-05 0.03604 supercritical
390 10 0.098397 10.16 241.660 343.29 5.430 0.690 1.019 389.6 1.17 2.683500E-05 0.03672 supercritical
400 10 0.095666 10.45 248.940 353.47 5.456 0.692 1.017 394.5 1.10 2.726000E-05 0.03741 supercritical
410 10 0.093097 10.74 256.220 363.63 5.481 0.695 1.015 399.3 1.03 2.768600E-05 0.03810 supercritical
420 10 0.090677 11.03 263.490 373.77 5.506 0.697 1.014 404.0 0.97 2.811000E-05 0.03881 supercritical
430 10 0.088391 11.31 270.770 383.91 5.529 0.699 1.013 408.6 0.91 2.853400E-05 0.03952 supercritical
440 10 0.086227 11.60 278.060 394.03 5.553 0.702 1.013 413.1 0.85 2.895700E-05 0.04024 supercritical
450 10 0.084176 11.88 285.360 404.16 5.575 0.705 1.012 417.6 0.80 2.937800E-05 0.04096 supercritical
460 10 0.082229 12.16 292.670 414.28 5.598 0.707 1.013 421.9 0.75 2.979800E-05 0.04169 supercritical
470 10 0.080376 12.44 299.990 424.41 5.619 0.710 1.013 426.2 0.70 3.021500E-05 0.04242 supercritical
480 10 0.078611 12.72 307.330 434.54 5.641 0.713 1.014 430.4 0.65 3.063100E-05 0.04316 supercritical
490 10 0.076928 13.00 314.690 444.68 5.662 0.716 1.014 434.6 0.61 3.104500E-05 0.04390 supercritical
500 10 0.075320 13.28 322.060 454.83 5.682 0.719 1.015 438.7 0.57 3.145700E-05 0.04465 supercritical
510 10 0.073782 13.55 329.450 464.99 5.702 0.722 1.017 442.7 0.53 3.186700E-05 0.04539 supercritical
520 10 0.072310 13.83 336.870 475.16 5.722 0.725 1.018 446.7 0.49 3.227500E-05 0.04614 supercritical
530 10 0.070899 14.11 344.300 485.35 5.741 0.728 1.019 450.6 0.46 3.268100E-05 0.04689 supercritical
540 10 0.069545 14.38 351.750 495.55 5.761 0.730 1.021 454.5 0.42 3.308400E-05 0.04764 supercritical
550 10 0.068245 14.65 359.230 505.76 5.779 0.733 1.022 458.3 0.39 3.348600E-05 0.04840 supercritical
560 10 0.066995 14.93 366.730 515.99 5.798 0.736 1.024 462.1 0.36 3.388500E-05 0.04915 supercritical
570 10 0.065793 15.20 374.250 526.24 5.816 0.739 1.026 465.8 0.33 3.428200E-05 0.04990 supercritical
580 10 0.064635 15.47 381.790 536.51 5.834 0.742 1.028 469.5 0.30 3.467600E-05 0.05066 supercritical
590 10 0.063519 15.74 389.360 546.79 5.851 0.745 1.029 473.2 0.27 3.506900E-05 0.05141 supercritical
600 10 0.062443 16.02 396.950 557.09 5.869 0.748 1.031 476.8 0.24 3.545900E-05 0.05217 supercritical
610 10 0.061404 16.29 404.560 567.42 5.886 0.751 1.033 480.4 0.22 3.584700E-05 0.05292 supercritical
620 10 0.060401 16.56 412.200 577.76 5.902 0.753 1.035 484.0 0.19 3.623300E-05 0.05367 supercritical
630 10 0.059432 16.83 419.860 588.12 5.919 0.756 1.037 487.5 0.17 3.661700E-05 0.05442 supercritical
640 10 0.058494 17.10 427.540 598.49 5.935 0.759 1.039 491.0 0.15 3.699800E-05 0.05517 supercritical
650 10 0.057587 17.37 435.240 608.89 5.952 0.761 1.041 494.4 0.13 3.737800E-05 0.05592 supercritical
660 10 0.056708 17.63 442.970 619.31 5.967 0.764 1.043 497.8 0.11 3.775500E-05 0.05667 supercritical
670 10 0.055857 17.90 450.720 629.75 5.983 0.767 1.045 501.2 0.09 3.813000E-05 0.05741 supercritical
680 10 0.055032 18.17 458.490 640.20 5.999 0.769 1.047 504.6 0.07 3.850400E-05 0.05815 supercritical
690 10 0.054232 18.44 466.290 650.68 6.014 0.772 1.049 507.9 0.05 3.887500E-05 0.05889 supercritical
700 10 0.053456 18.71 474.100 661.17 6.029 0.774 1.050 511.2 0.03 3.924400E-05 0.05963 supercritical
710 10 0.052702 18.98 481.940 671.69 6.044 0.777 1.052 514.5 0.01 3.961100E-05 0.06037 supercritical
720 10 0.051970 19.24 489.800 682.22 6.059 0.779 1.054 517.8 0.00 3.997700E-05 0.06110 supercritical
730 10 0.051258 19.51 497.680 692.77 6.073 0.782 1.056 521.0 -0.02 4.034000E-05 0.06183 supercritical
740 10 0.050566 19.78 505.580 703.34 6.088 0.784 1.058 524.2 -0.03 4.070100E-05 0.06256 supercritical
Page 151
750 10 0.049894 20.04 513.500 713.93 6.102 0.786 1.060 527.4 -0.05 4.106100E-05 0.06328 supercritical
760 10 0.049239 20.31 521.450 724.54 6.116 0.788 1.062 530.6 -0.06 4.141900E-05 0.06400 supercritical
770 10 0.048602 20.58 529.410 735.16 6.130 0.791 1.063 533.8 -0.08 4.177500E-05 0.06472 supercritical
780 10 0.047982 20.84 537.390 745.81 6.143 0.793 1.065 536.9 -0.09 4.212900E-05 0.06544 supercritical
790 10 0.047377 21.11 545.390 756.47 6.157 0.795 1.067 540.0 -0.10 4.248100E-05 0.06615 supercritical
800 10 0.046788 21.37 553.420 767.14 6.170 0.797 1.069 543.1 -0.12 4.283200E-05 0.06686 supercritical
810 10 0.046214 21.64 561.460 777.84 6.184 0.799 1.070 546.1 -0.13 4.318000E-05 0.06757 supercritical
820 10 0.045654 21.90 569.510 788.55 6.197 0.801 1.072 549.2 -0.14 4.352800E-05 0.06827 supercritical
830 10 0.045108 22.17 577.590 799.28 6.210 0.803 1.074 552.2 -0.15 4.387300E-05 0.06897 supercritical
840 10 0.044575 22.43 585.690 810.03 6.223 0.805 1.075 555.2 -0.16 4.421700E-05 0.06967 supercritical
850 10 0.044055 22.70 593.800 820.79 6.236 0.807 1.077 558.2 -0.17 4.455900E-05 0.07036 supercritical
860 10 0.043547 22.96 601.930 831.56 6.248 0.809 1.079 561.2 -0.18 4.490000E-05 0.07105 supercritical
870 10 0.043051 23.23 610.070 842.36 6.261 0.811 1.080 564.2 -0.19 4.523900E-05 0.07174 supercritical
880 10 0.042566 23.49 618.240 853.16 6.273 0.812 1.082 567.1 -0.20 4.557600E-05 0.07242 supercritical
890 10 0.042092 23.76 626.420 863.99 6.285 0.814 1.083 570.0 -0.21 4.591200E-05 0.07310 supercritical
900 10 0.041629 24.02 634.610 874.83 6.297 0.816 1.085 572.9 -0.22 4.624700E-05 0.07378 supercritical
910 10 0.041177 24.29 642.820 885.68 6.309 0.817 1.086 575.8 -0.23 4.658000E-05 0.07445 supercritical
920 10 0.040734 24.55 651.050 896.55 6.321 0.819 1.088 578.7 -0.24 4.691100E-05 0.07512 supercritical
930 10 0.040300 24.81 659.290 907.43 6.333 0.821 1.089 581.6 -0.25 4.724100E-05 0.07579 supercritical
940 10 0.039876 25.08 667.550 918.33 6.345 0.822 1.090 584.4 -0.26 4.757000E-05 0.07645 supercritical
950 10 0.039461 25.34 675.820 929.24 6.356 0.824 1.092 587.2 -0.27 4.789700E-05 0.07711 supercritical
960 10 0.039055 25.61 684.110 940.16 6.368 0.825 1.093 590.1 -0.27 4.822300E-05 0.07777 supercritical
970 10 0.038657 25.87 692.410 951.10 6.379 0.827 1.094 592.9 -0.28 4.854800E-05 0.07842 supercritical
980 10 0.038267 26.13 700.730 962.05 6.390 0.828 1.096 595.7 -0.29 4.887100E-05 0.07907 supercritical
990 10 0.037886 26.40 709.060 973.01 6.401 0.830 1.097 598.4 -0.30 4.919300E-05 0.07972 supercritical
1000 10 0.037511 26.66 717.400 983.99 6.412 0.831 1.098 601.2 -0.30 4.951300E-05 0.08036 supercritical
Page 152
Internal Joule-
(kJ/kg) (K/MPa)
100 20 1.138300 0.88 -123.900 -106.33 3.043 0.931 1.630 924.0 -0.34 1.853400E-04 0.15343 liquid
110 20 1.094500 0.91 -108.260 -89.99 3.198 0.900 1.641 859.5 -0.31 1.516100E-04 0.14104 liquid
120 20 1.049000 0.95 -92.552 -73.49 3.342 0.874 1.661 795.4 -0.27 1.274200E-04 0.12886 liquid
130 20 1.001200 1.00 -76.708 -56.73 3.476 0.851 1.691 731.9 -0.21 1.092100E-04 0.11695 liquid
140 20 0.950690 1.05 -60.661 -39.62 3.603 0.831 1.732 669.0 -0.14 9.488500E-05 0.10538 liquid
150 20 0.896850 1.12 -44.343 -22.04 3.724 0.814 1.786 607.3 -0.04 8.309700E-05 0.09432 liquid
160 20 0.839150 1.19 -27.693 -3.86 3.841 0.800 1.853 547.8 0.09 7.296900E-05 0.08398 supercritical
170 20 0.777280 1.29 -10.689 15.04 3.956 0.789 1.928 492.1 0.27 6.395200E-05 0.07464 supercritical
180 20 0.711710 1.41 6.592 34.69 4.068 0.780 1.999 442.9 0.49 5.579900E-05 0.06656 supercritical
190 20 0.644460 1.55 23.877 54.91 4.178 0.772 2.036 403.2 0.74 4.855300E-05 0.05980 supercritical
200 20 0.579320 1.73 40.685 75.21 4.282 0.764 2.012 375.0 1.00 4.245400E-05 0.05423 supercritical
210 20 0.520250 1.92 56.514 94.96 4.378 0.754 1.929 357.5 1.22 3.767500E-05 0.04973 supercritical
220 20 0.469500 2.13 71.081 113.68 4.465 0.743 1.812 348.4 1.38 3.415900E-05 0.04628 supercritical
230 20 0.427180 2.34 84.376 131.19 4.543 0.733 1.692 344.8 1.48 3.167500E-05 0.04374 supercritical
240 20 0.392170 2.55 96.559 147.56 4.613 0.724 1.584 344.8 1.53 2.995600E-05 0.04192 supercritical
250 20 0.363060 2.75 107.840 162.92 4.676 0.717 1.493 347.0 1.53 2.878100E-05 0.04063 supercritical
260 20 0.338590 2.95 118.400 177.46 4.733 0.711 1.418 350.4 1.52 2.799300E-05 0.03974 supercritical
270 20 0.317760 3.15 128.390 191.33 4.785 0.706 1.357 354.6 1.48 2.747900E-05 0.03913 supercritical
280 20 0.299800 3.34 137.930 204.64 4.833 0.703 1.307 359.2 1.44 2.716600E-05 0.03874 supercritical
290 20 0.284130 3.52 147.110 217.50 4.878 0.700 1.266 364.1 1.38 2.700100E-05 0.03851 supercritical
300 20 0.270330 3.70 156.000 229.99 4.921 0.698 1.232 369.1 1.33 2.694800E-05 0.03841 supercritical
310 20 0.258060 3.88 164.660 242.16 4.961 0.696 1.204 374.2 1.27 2.698000E-05 0.03834 supercritical
320 20 0.247060 4.05 173.120 254.07 4.999 0.695 1.180 379.4 1.21 2.707900E-05 0.03850 supercritical
330 20 0.237130 4.22 181.420 265.77 5.035 0.695 1.160 384.4 1.15 2.723000E-05 0.03873 supercritical
340 20 0.228100 4.38 189.590 277.27 5.069 0.695 1.142 389.5 1.09 2.742200E-05 0.03902 supercritical
350 20 0.219860 4.55 197.650 288.62 5.102 0.695 1.128 394.4 1.03 2.764800E-05 0.03936 supercritical
360 20 0.212290 4.71 205.620 299.83 5.133 0.696 1.115 399.3 0.98 2.790000E-05 0.03973 supercritical
370 20 0.205310 4.87 213.520 310.93 5.164 0.697 1.105 404.2 0.92 2.817500E-05 0.04015 supercritical
380 20 0.198850 5.03 221.350 321.93 5.193 0.698 1.095 408.9 0.87 2.846800E-05 0.04059 supercritical
390 20 0.192840 5.19 229.130 332.84 5.221 0.700 1.088 413.6 0.82 2.877500E-05 0.04106 supercritical
400 20 0.187240 5.34 236.870 343.68 5.249 0.701 1.081 418.2 0.77 2.909400E-05 0.04156 supercritical
410 20 0.182000 5.49 244.570 354.46 5.276 0.703 1.075 422.7 0.73 2.942300E-05 0.04209 supercritical
420 20 0.177080 5.65 252.250 365.19 5.301 0.705 1.070 427.2 0.68 2.976100E-05 0.04263 supercritical
430 20 0.172460 5.80 259.900 375.87 5.326 0.707 1.066 431.5 0.64 3.010500E-05 0.04319 supercritical
440 20 0.168100 5.95 267.540 386.51 5.351 0.709 1.063 435.8 0.60 3.045500E-05 0.04376 supercritical
450 20 0.163990 6.10 275.170 397.13 5.375 0.712 1.060 440.1 0.56 3.081000E-05 0.04436 supercritical
460 20 0.160100 6.25 282.790 407.71 5.398 0.714 1.058 444.3 0.52 3.116800E-05 0.04496 supercritical
470 20 0.156410 6.39 290.410 418.28 5.421 0.717 1.056 448.4 0.49 3.152900E-05 0.04558 supercritical
480 20 0.152900 6.54 298.020 428.83 5.443 0.719 1.054 452.4 0.45 3.189200E-05 0.04621 supercritical
490 20 0.149560 6.69 305.640 439.36 5.465 0.722 1.053 456.4 0.42 3.225700E-05 0.04685 supercritical
500 20 0.146390 6.83 313.270 449.89 5.486 0.724 1.052 460.4 0.39 3.262300E-05 0.04749 supercritical
510 20 0.143350 6.98 320.890 460.41 5.507 0.727 1.052 464.3 0.36 3.299100E-05 0.04815 supercritical
520 20 0.140460 7.12 328.530 470.93 5.527 0.730 1.051 468.1 0.33 3.335900E-05 0.04881 supercritical
530 20 0.137690 7.26 336.180 481.44 5.547 0.732 1.051 471.9 0.30 3.372700E-05 0.04948 supercritical
540 20 0.135030 7.41 343.840 491.95 5.567 0.735 1.052 475.7 0.27 3.409600E-05 0.05015 supercritical
550 20 0.132490 7.55 351.510 502.47 5.586 0.738 1.052 479.4 0.25 3.446400E-05 0.05083 supercritical
560 20 0.130040 7.69 359.200 512.99 5.605 0.741 1.052 483.1 0.22 3.483200E-05 0.05151 supercritical
570 20 0.127700 7.83 366.900 523.52 5.624 0.743 1.053 486.7 0.20 3.519900E-05 0.05220 supercritical
580 20 0.125440 7.97 374.610 534.05 5.642 0.746 1.054 490.3 0.18 3.556600E-05 0.05289 supercritical
590 20 0.123270 8.11 382.340 544.59 5.660 0.749 1.054 493.9 0.15 3.593200E-05 0.05358 supercritical
600 20 0.121180 8.25 390.090 555.14 5.678 0.752 1.055 497.4 0.13 3.629800E-05 0.05428 supercritical
610 20 0.119160 8.39 397.850 565.69 5.695 0.754 1.056 500.9 0.11 3.666200E-05 0.05497 supercritical
620 20 0.117210 8.53 405.630 576.26 5.713 0.757 1.057 504.3 0.09 3.702600E-05 0.05567 supercritical
630 20 0.115330 8.67 413.430 586.84 5.729 0.760 1.059 507.8 0.07 3.738800E-05 0.05637 supercritical
640 20 0.113520 8.81 421.250 597.43 5.746 0.762 1.060 511.2 0.06 3.774900E-05 0.05707 supercritical
650 20 0.111760 8.95 429.080 608.03 5.763 0.765 1.061 514.5 0.04 3.810900E-05 0.05777 supercritical
660 20 0.110060 9.09 436.930 618.65 5.779 0.767 1.062 517.9 0.02 3.846800E-05 0.05847 supercritical
670 20 0.108420 9.22 444.810 629.28 5.795 0.770 1.063 521.2 0.00 3.882600E-05 0.05918 supercritical
680 20 0.106820 9.36 452.690 639.92 5.811 0.772 1.065 524.4 -0.01 3.918200E-05 0.05988 supercritical
690 20 0.105280 9.50 460.600 650.57 5.826 0.775 1.066 527.7 -0.03 3.953700E-05 0.06058 supercritical
700 20 0.103780 9.64 468.530 661.24 5.841 0.777 1.067 530.9 -0.04 3.989100E-05 0.06128 supercritical
710 20 0.102330 9.77 476.470 671.92 5.857 0.779 1.069 534.1 -0.06 4.024300E-05 0.06197 supercritical
720 20 0.100920 9.91 484.430 682.61 5.872 0.782 1.070 537.3 -0.07 4.059400E-05 0.06267 supercritical
730 20 0.099544 10.05 492.410 693.32 5.886 0.784 1.072 540.5 -0.08 4.094300E-05 0.06337 supercritical
740 20 0.098212 10.18 500.400 704.05 5.901 0.786 1.073 543.6 -0.10 4.129200E-05 0.06406 supercritical
Page 153
750 20 0.096917 10.32 508.420 714.78 5.915 0.788 1.074 546.7 -0.11 4.163900E-05 0.06476 supercritical
760 20 0.095656 10.45 516.450 725.53 5.930 0.791 1.076 549.8 -0.12 4.198400E-05 0.06545 supercritical
770 20 0.094430 10.59 524.500 736.30 5.944 0.793 1.077 552.9 -0.13 4.232800E-05 0.06614 supercritical
780 20 0.093237 10.73 532.570 747.07 5.958 0.795 1.079 556.0 -0.14 4.267100E-05 0.06682 supercritical
790 20 0.092074 10.86 540.650 757.87 5.971 0.797 1.080 559.0 -0.16 4.301200E-05 0.06751 supercritical
800 20 0.090941 11.00 548.750 768.67 5.985 0.799 1.081 562.0 -0.17 4.335200E-05 0.06819 supercritical
810 20 0.089837 11.13 556.870 779.49 5.998 0.801 1.083 565.0 -0.18 4.369100E-05 0.06887 supercritical
820 20 0.088761 11.27 565.000 790.32 6.012 0.803 1.084 568.0 -0.19 4.402800E-05 0.06955 supercritical
830 20 0.087711 11.40 573.150 801.17 6.025 0.805 1.085 571.0 -0.20 4.436400E-05 0.07023 supercritical
840 20 0.086687 11.54 581.310 812.03 6.038 0.807 1.087 573.9 -0.21 4.469900E-05 0.07090 supercritical
850 20 0.085687 11.67 589.490 822.90 6.051 0.809 1.088 576.8 -0.22 4.503200E-05 0.07157 supercritical
860 20 0.084711 11.81 597.690 833.79 6.063 0.810 1.089 579.8 -0.23 4.536400E-05 0.07224 supercritical
870 20 0.083758 11.94 605.900 844.68 6.076 0.812 1.091 582.6 -0.23 4.569500E-05 0.07290 supercritical
880 20 0.082826 12.07 614.130 855.60 6.088 0.814 1.092 585.5 -0.24 4.602400E-05 0.07357 supercritical
890 20 0.081916 12.21 622.370 866.52 6.101 0.816 1.093 588.4 -0.25 4.635300E-05 0.07423 supercritical
900 20 0.081027 12.34 630.620 877.46 6.113 0.817 1.094 591.2 -0.26 4.667900E-05 0.07488 supercritical
910 20 0.080157 12.48 638.890 888.40 6.125 0.819 1.096 594.1 -0.27 4.700500E-05 0.07554 supercritical
920 20 0.079306 12.61 647.180 899.37 6.137 0.821 1.097 596.9 -0.27 4.732900E-05 0.07619 supercritical
930 20 0.078474 12.74 655.480 910.34 6.149 0.822 1.098 599.7 -0.28 4.765200E-05 0.07684 supercritical
940 20 0.077659 12.88 663.790 921.32 6.161 0.824 1.099 602.5 -0.29 4.797400E-05 0.07748 supercritical
950 20 0.076862 13.01 672.110 932.32 6.172 0.825 1.100 605.3 -0.30 4.829500E-05 0.07813 supercritical
960 20 0.076081 13.14 680.450 943.33 6.184 0.827 1.101 608.0 -0.30 4.861500E-05 0.07876 supercritical
970 20 0.075317 13.28 688.800 954.35 6.195 0.828 1.103 610.8 -0.31 4.893300E-05 0.07940 supercritical
980 20 0.074568 13.41 697.170 965.38 6.207 0.830 1.104 613.5 -0.32 4.925000E-05 0.08003 supercritical
990 20 0.073835 13.54 705.540 976.42 6.218 0.831 1.105 616.2 -0.32 4.956600E-05 0.08067 supercritical
1000 20 0.073116 0.07 713.930 987.47 6.229 0.833 1.106 618.9 -0.33 4.988100E-05 0.08129 supercritical
Page 154
Internal Joule-
(kJ/kg) (K/MPa)
100 27.5 1.153000 0.87 -126.020 -102.17 3.019 0.942 1.606 955.4 -0.35 1.981700E-04 0.15863 liquid
110 27.5 1.112000 0.90 -110.830 -86.10 3.172 0.912 1.609 895.8 -0.33 1.628700E-04 0.14679 liquid
120 27.5 1.069900 0.93 -95.679 -69.98 3.312 0.885 1.618 837.6 -0.30 1.374800E-04 0.13532 liquid
130 27.5 1.026600 0.97 -80.523 -53.74 3.442 0.862 1.632 780.8 -0.26 1.183900E-04 0.12419 liquid
140 27.5 0.981830 1.02 -65.337 -37.33 3.564 0.841 1.651 725.6 -0.22 1.035100E-04 0.11348 liquid
150 27.5 0.935430 1.07 -50.104 -20.71 3.679 0.823 1.674 672.5 -0.15 9.148000E-05 0.10331 liquid
160 27.5 0.887350 1.13 -34.821 -3.83 3.787 0.808 1.701 622.1 -0.08 8.144100E-05 0.09379 supercritical
170 27.5 0.837690 1.19 -19.507 13.32 3.891 0.795 1.729 575.3 0.02 7.282000E-05 0.08508 supercritical
180 27.5 0.786810 1.27 -4.214 30.74 3.991 0.783 1.753 533.0 0.13 6.526800E-05 0.07733 supercritical
190 27.5 0.735410 1.36 10.963 48.36 4.086 0.773 1.768 496.2 0.25 5.860600E-05 0.07062 supercritical
200 27.5 0.684580 1.46 25.881 66.05 4.177 0.764 1.768 465.7 0.38 5.277600E-05 0.06497 supercritical
210 27.5 0.635640 1.57 40.376 83.64 4.263 0.755 1.747 441.8 0.51 4.777700E-05 0.06029 supercritical
220 27.5 0.589850 1.70 54.298 100.92 4.343 0.747 1.707 424.3 0.63 4.360900E-05 0.05647 supercritical
230 27.5 0.548050 1.82 67.549 117.73 4.418 0.739 1.653 412.1 0.73 4.023000E-05 0.05339 supercritical
240 27.5 0.510610 1.96 80.097 133.95 4.487 0.732 1.592 404.2 0.81 3.755700E-05 0.05093 supercritical
250 27.5 0.477450 2.09 91.968 149.57 4.551 0.726 1.530 399.7 0.86 3.548100E-05 0.04901 supercritical
260 27.5 0.448230 2.23 103.220 164.57 4.610 0.720 1.472 397.6 0.89 3.389000E-05 0.04750 supercritical
270 27.5 0.422490 2.37 113.930 179.02 4.664 0.716 1.419 397.3 0.91 3.268600E-05 0.04634 supercritical
280 27.5 0.399750 2.50 124.180 192.97 4.715 0.712 1.372 398.3 0.91 3.178500E-05 0.04545 supercritical
290 27.5 0.379570 2.63 134.030 206.48 4.762 0.709 1.331 400.2 0.90 3.112300E-05 0.04478 supercritical
300 27.5 0.361570 2.77 143.550 219.61 4.807 0.706 1.295 402.8 0.88 3.064800E-05 0.04426 supercritical
310 27.5 0.345430 2.90 152.790 232.40 4.849 0.705 1.264 405.9 0.86 3.032200E-05 0.04379 supercritical
320 27.5 0.330870 3.02 161.790 244.90 4.888 0.703 1.237 409.2 0.83 3.011400E-05 0.04365 supercritical
330 27.5 0.317660 3.15 170.580 257.15 4.926 0.703 1.214 412.8 0.80 3.000200E-05 0.04361 supercritical
340 27.5 0.305630 3.27 179.210 269.19 4.962 0.702 1.194 416.6 0.77 2.996600E-05 0.04365 supercritical
350 27.5 0.294620 3.39 187.690 281.04 4.996 0.702 1.176 420.5 0.73 2.999300E-05 0.04376 supercritical
360 27.5 0.284490 3.52 196.060 292.72 5.029 0.703 1.161 424.4 0.70 3.007200E-05 0.04394 supercritical
370 27.5 0.275140 3.63 204.310 304.26 5.061 0.703 1.148 428.4 0.66 3.019300E-05 0.04416 supercritical
380 27.5 0.266480 3.75 212.480 315.68 5.091 0.704 1.136 432.4 0.63 3.034900E-05 0.04443 supercritical
390 27.5 0.258430 3.87 220.580 326.99 5.121 0.705 1.126 436.5 0.59 3.053600E-05 0.04474 supercritical
400 27.5 0.250920 3.99 228.610 338.21 5.149 0.707 1.117 440.5 0.56 3.074700E-05 0.04509 supercritical
410 27.5 0.243890 4.10 236.590 349.34 5.177 0.708 1.110 444.5 0.53 3.097900E-05 0.04548 supercritical
420 27.5 0.237310 4.21 244.520 360.40 5.203 0.710 1.103 448.4 0.49 3.122900E-05 0.04589 supercritical
430 27.5 0.231120 4.33 252.420 371.40 5.229 0.712 1.097 452.4 0.46 3.149300E-05 0.04633 supercritical
440 27.5 0.225280 4.44 260.280 382.35 5.254 0.714 1.092 456.3 0.43 3.177100E-05 0.04679 supercritical
450 27.5 0.219780 4.55 268.130 393.26 5.279 0.716 1.088 460.2 0.40 3.205900E-05 0.04728 supercritical
460 27.5 0.214570 4.66 275.950 404.12 5.303 0.718 1.085 464.0 0.37 3.235700E-05 0.04778 supercritical
470 27.5 0.209630 4.77 283.760 414.95 5.326 0.721 1.081 467.8 0.35 3.266200E-05 0.04830 supercritical
480 27.5 0.204940 4.88 291.560 425.75 5.349 0.723 1.079 471.6 0.32 3.297500E-05 0.04884 supercritical
490 27.5 0.200480 4.99 299.350 436.52 5.371 0.725 1.077 475.3 0.29 3.329300E-05 0.04939 supercritical
500 27.5 0.196230 5.10 307.140 447.28 5.393 0.728 1.075 479.0 0.27 3.361500E-05 0.04996 supercritical
510 27.5 0.192180 5.20 314.930 458.02 5.414 0.730 1.073 482.7 0.24 3.394200E-05 0.05054 supercritical
520 27.5 0.188320 5.31 322.720 468.75 5.435 0.733 1.072 486.3 0.22 3.427200E-05 0.05113 supercritical
530 27.5 0.184620 5.42 330.510 479.46 5.455 0.736 1.071 489.9 0.20 3.460600E-05 0.05173 supercritical
540 27.5 0.181070 5.52 338.300 490.17 5.475 0.738 1.071 493.5 0.17 3.494100E-05 0.05233 supercritical
550 27.5 0.177680 5.63 346.100 500.88 5.495 0.741 1.070 497.0 0.15 3.527900E-05 0.05295 supercritical
560 27.5 0.174420 5.73 353.910 511.58 5.514 0.743 1.070 500.5 0.13 3.561800E-05 0.05357 supercritical
570 27.5 0.171290 5.84 361.730 522.28 5.533 0.746 1.070 504.0 0.11 3.595900E-05 0.05420 supercritical
580 27.5 0.168280 5.94 369.560 532.98 5.552 0.749 1.070 507.4 0.09 3.630000E-05 0.05484 supercritical
590 27.5 0.165390 6.05 377.400 543.68 5.570 0.751 1.070 510.9 0.08 3.664200E-05 0.05548 supercritical
600 27.5 0.162600 6.15 385.260 554.38 5.588 0.754 1.071 514.2 0.06 3.698500E-05 0.05613 supercritical
610 27.5 0.159910 6.25 393.120 565.09 5.606 0.757 1.071 517.6 0.04 3.732800E-05 0.05677 supercritical
620 27.5 0.157320 6.36 401.000 575.80 5.623 0.759 1.072 520.9 0.02 3.767100E-05 0.05743 supercritical
630 27.5 0.154820 6.46 408.890 586.52 5.640 0.762 1.072 524.2 0.01 3.801400E-05 0.05808 supercritical
640 27.5 0.152400 6.56 416.800 597.25 5.657 0.764 1.073 527.5 -0.01 3.835700E-05 0.05874 supercritical
650 27.5 0.150060 6.66 424.720 607.98 5.674 0.767 1.074 530.7 -0.02 3.870000E-05 0.05940 supercritical
660 27.5 0.147800 6.77 432.660 618.72 5.690 0.769 1.075 534.0 -0.04 3.904300E-05 0.06006 supercritical
670 27.5 0.145610 6.87 440.610 629.47 5.706 0.772 1.076 537.2 -0.05 3.938500E-05 0.06073 supercritical
680 27.5 0.143490 6.97 448.580 640.23 5.722 0.774 1.077 540.3 -0.07 3.972600E-05 0.06139 supercritical
690 27.5 0.141430 7.07 456.560 651.00 5.738 0.776 1.077 543.5 -0.08 4.006700E-05 0.06206 supercritical
700 27.5 0.139440 7.17 464.560 661.78 5.754 0.779 1.079 546.6 -0.09 4.040700E-05 0.06272 supercritical
710 27.5 0.137500 7.27 472.570 672.57 5.769 0.781 1.080 549.8 -0.10 4.074600E-05 0.06339 supercritical
720 27.5 0.135620 7.37 480.600 683.37 5.784 0.783 1.081 552.8 -0.12 4.108500E-05 0.06406 supercritical
730 27.5 0.133800 7.47 488.650 694.18 5.799 0.786 1.082 555.9 -0.13 4.142300E-05 0.06472 supercritical
740 27.5 0.132020 7.57 496.710 705.01 5.814 0.788 1.083 559.0 -0.14 4.176000E-05 0.06539 supercritical
Page 155
750 27.5 0.130300 7.67 504.790 715.84 5.828 0.790 1.084 562.0 -0.15 4.209600E-05 0.06605 supercritical
760 27.5 0.128620 7.77 512.880 726.68 5.843 0.792 1.085 565.0 -0.16 4.243100E-05 0.06672 supercritical
770 27.5 0.126990 7.87 520.990 737.54 5.857 0.794 1.086 568.0 -0.17 4.276500E-05 0.06738 supercritical
780 27.5 0.125400 7.97 529.110 748.41 5.871 0.796 1.087 571.0 -0.18 4.309800E-05 0.06804 supercritical
790 27.5 0.123850 8.07 537.250 759.28 5.885 0.798 1.088 574.0 -0.19 4.343000E-05 0.06870 supercritical
800 27.5 0.122350 8.17 545.400 770.17 5.898 0.800 1.090 576.9 -0.20 4.376100E-05 0.06936 supercritical
810 27.5 0.120880 8.27 553.570 781.07 5.912 0.802 1.091 579.8 -0.21 4.409100E-05 0.07002 supercritical
820 27.5 0.119440 8.37 561.760 791.99 5.925 0.804 1.092 582.7 -0.22 4.442000E-05 0.07068 supercritical
830 27.5 0.118050 8.47 569.950 802.91 5.938 0.806 1.093 585.6 -0.23 4.474800E-05 0.07133 supercritical
840 27.5 0.116680 8.57 578.170 813.85 5.952 0.808 1.094 588.5 -0.24 4.507500E-05 0.07199 supercritical
850 27.5 0.115350 8.67 586.390 824.79 5.965 0.810 1.095 591.4 -0.25 4.540100E-05 0.07264 supercritical
860 27.5 0.114050 8.77 594.640 835.75 5.977 0.811 1.096 594.2 -0.25 4.572600E-05 0.07328 supercritical
870 27.5 0.112780 8.87 602.890 846.72 5.990 0.813 1.098 597.0 -0.26 4.605000E-05 0.07393 supercritical
880 27.5 0.111540 8.97 611.160 857.70 6.003 0.815 1.099 599.9 -0.27 4.637300E-05 0.07458 supercritical
890 27.5 0.110330 9.06 619.440 868.69 6.015 0.817 1.100 602.7 -0.28 4.669400E-05 0.07522 supercritical
900 27.5 0.109150 9.16 627.740 879.69 6.027 0.818 1.101 605.4 -0.28 4.701500E-05 0.07586 supercritical
910 27.5 0.107990 9.26 636.050 890.71 6.039 0.820 1.102 608.2 -0.29 4.733400E-05 0.07649 supercritical
920 27.5 0.106860 9.36 644.380 901.73 6.051 0.822 1.103 611.0 -0.30 4.765300E-05 0.07713 supercritical
930 27.5 0.105750 9.46 652.710 912.76 6.063 0.823 1.104 613.7 -0.31 4.797000E-05 0.07776 supercritical
940 27.5 0.104660 9.55 661.060 923.81 6.075 0.825 1.105 616.5 -0.31 4.828700E-05 0.07839 supercritical
950 27.5 0.103600 9.65 669.420 934.86 6.087 0.826 1.106 619.2 -0.32 4.860200E-05 0.07902 supercritical
960 27.5 0.102560 9.75 677.800 945.93 6.099 0.828 1.107 621.9 -0.32 4.891600E-05 0.07964 supercritical
970 27.5 0.101540 9.85 686.180 957.00 6.110 0.829 1.108 624.6 -0.33 4.923000E-05 0.08027 supercritical
980 27.5 0.100550 9.95 694.580 968.09 6.121 0.831 1.109 627.3 -0.34 4.954200E-05 0.08089 supercritical
990 27.5 0.099568 10.04 702.990 979.18 6.133 0.832 1.110 629.9 -0.34 4.985300E-05 0.08150 supercritical
1000 27.5 0.098610 10.14 711.410 990.29 6.144 0.833 1.111 632.6 -0.35 5.016300E-05 0.08212 supercritical
Page 156
Internal Joule-
(kJ/kg) (K/MPa)
100 30 1.157600 0.86 -126.680 -100.76 3.011 0.946 1.600 965.3 -0.35 2.024900E-04 0.16027 liquid
110 30 1.117400 0.89 -111.620 -84.77 3.164 0.916 1.600 907.1 -0.34 1.666700E-04 0.14860 liquid
120 30 1.076300 0.93 -96.617 -68.74 3.303 0.889 1.606 850.5 -0.31 1.408500E-04 0.13733 liquid
130 30 1.034200 0.97 -81.645 -52.64 3.432 0.866 1.616 795.4 -0.28 1.214400E-04 0.12640 liquid
140 30 0.990860 1.01 -66.680 -36.40 3.552 0.845 1.631 742.2 -0.23 1.063300E-04 0.11592 liquid
150 30 0.946250 1.06 -51.710 -20.01 3.665 0.827 1.649 691.2 -0.18 9.415600E-05 0.10597 liquid
160 30 0.900350 1.11 -36.740 -3.42 3.773 0.811 1.669 642.9 -0.12 8.405100E-05 0.09667 supercritical
170 30 0.853280 1.17 -21.788 13.37 3.874 0.797 1.689 598.0 -0.04 7.543400E-05 0.08813 supercritical
180 30 0.805360 1.24 -6.901 30.35 3.971 0.785 1.706 557.3 0.06 6.793900E-05 0.08048 supercritical
190 30 0.757140 1.32 7.848 47.47 4.064 0.775 1.716 521.6 0.16 6.135400E-05 0.07380 supercritical
200 30 0.709450 1.41 22.353 64.64 4.152 0.765 1.715 491.4 0.27 5.558100E-05 0.06811 supercritical
210 30 0.663250 1.51 36.493 81.73 4.235 0.756 1.699 467.0 0.38 5.058400E-05 0.06335 supercritical
220 30 0.619520 1.61 50.152 98.58 4.314 0.748 1.669 448.1 0.48 4.634500E-05 0.05943 supercritical
230 30 0.579000 1.73 63.248 115.06 4.387 0.741 1.627 434.3 0.57 4.282800E-05 0.05623 supercritical
240 30 0.542090 1.84 75.742 131.08 4.455 0.734 1.577 424.7 0.65 3.997100E-05 0.05364 supercritical
250 30 0.508870 1.97 87.638 146.59 4.519 0.728 1.525 418.5 0.70 3.769100E-05 0.05157 supercritical
260 30 0.479180 2.09 98.972 161.58 4.577 0.723 1.473 414.8 0.74 3.589400E-05 0.04993 supercritical
270 30 0.452710 2.21 109.800 176.07 4.632 0.718 1.425 413.1 0.76 3.449600E-05 0.04863 supercritical
280 30 0.429100 2.33 120.180 190.09 4.683 0.714 1.381 412.9 0.77 3.341800E-05 0.04761 supercritical
290 30 0.407990 2.45 130.170 203.71 4.731 0.711 1.342 413.7 0.77 3.259800E-05 0.04682 supercritical
300 30 0.389050 2.57 139.840 216.95 4.776 0.709 1.307 415.4 0.76 3.198400E-05 0.04619 supercritical
310 30 0.371980 2.69 149.210 229.86 4.818 0.707 1.277 417.7 0.74 3.153600E-05 0.04560 supercritical
320 30 0.356530 2.80 158.350 242.49 4.858 0.706 1.250 420.4 0.72 3.122200E-05 0.04537 supercritical
330 30 0.342470 2.92 167.280 254.87 4.896 0.705 1.227 423.4 0.70 3.101500E-05 0.04525 supercritical
340 30 0.329630 3.03 176.030 267.04 4.933 0.704 1.206 426.7 0.67 3.089800E-05 0.04521 supercritical
350 30 0.317860 3.15 184.620 279.01 4.967 0.704 1.188 430.1 0.64 3.085300E-05 0.04526 supercritical
360 30 0.307020 3.26 193.090 290.81 5.001 0.705 1.173 433.7 0.61 3.086700E-05 0.04536 supercritical
370 30 0.297000 3.37 201.450 302.47 5.032 0.705 1.159 437.3 0.58 3.093200E-05 0.04553 supercritical
380 30 0.287700 3.48 209.720 313.99 5.063 0.706 1.147 441.1 0.55 3.103800E-05 0.04574 supercritical
390 30 0.279060 3.58 217.900 325.41 5.093 0.707 1.136 444.8 0.52 3.118000E-05 0.04600 supercritical
400 30 0.270990 3.69 226.020 336.73 5.122 0.708 1.127 448.6 0.50 3.135000E-05 0.04631 supercritical
410 30 0.263440 3.80 234.080 347.96 5.149 0.710 1.119 452.4 0.47 3.154600E-05 0.04664 supercritical
420 30 0.256360 3.90 242.090 359.11 5.176 0.711 1.112 456.1 0.44 3.176300E-05 0.04701 supercritical
430 30 0.249700 4.00 250.060 370.21 5.202 0.713 1.106 459.9 0.41 3.199800E-05 0.04741 supercritical
440 30 0.243420 4.11 258.000 381.24 5.228 0.715 1.101 463.6 0.38 3.224800E-05 0.04784 supercritical
450 30 0.237490 4.21 265.900 392.22 5.252 0.717 1.096 467.4 0.35 3.251200E-05 0.04829 supercritical
460 30 0.231880 4.31 273.790 403.16 5.276 0.719 1.092 471.1 0.33 3.278700E-05 0.04876 supercritical
470 30 0.226570 4.41 281.660 414.07 5.300 0.722 1.089 474.8 0.30 3.307100E-05 0.04925 supercritical
480 30 0.221520 4.51 289.510 424.94 5.323 0.724 1.086 478.4 0.28 3.336400E-05 0.04976 supercritical
490 30 0.216710 4.61 297.360 435.79 5.345 0.727 1.083 482.0 0.25 3.366500E-05 0.05028 supercritical
500 30 0.212140 4.71 305.200 446.61 5.367 0.729 1.081 485.6 0.23 3.397100E-05 0.05082 supercritical
510 30 0.207780 4.81 313.030 457.42 5.388 0.731 1.080 489.2 0.21 3.428300E-05 0.05137 supercritical
520 30 0.203610 4.91 320.860 468.20 5.409 0.734 1.078 492.7 0.19 3.459900E-05 0.05194 supercritical
530 30 0.199620 5.01 328.700 478.98 5.430 0.737 1.077 496.3 0.16 3.491900E-05 0.05251 supercritical
540 30 0.195810 5.11 336.530 489.75 5.450 0.739 1.076 499.7 0.14 3.524300E-05 0.05310 supercritical
550 30 0.192150 5.20 344.380 500.51 5.470 0.742 1.076 503.2 0.12 3.556900E-05 0.05369 supercritical
560 30 0.188640 5.30 352.230 511.26 5.489 0.744 1.075 506.6 0.10 3.589700E-05 0.05430 supercritical
570 30 0.185270 5.40 360.080 522.01 5.508 0.747 1.075 510.0 0.09 3.622800E-05 0.05491 supercritical
580 30 0.182020 5.49 367.950 532.76 5.527 0.750 1.075 513.4 0.07 3.656000E-05 0.05552 supercritical
590 30 0.178900 5.59 375.820 543.51 5.545 0.752 1.075 516.8 0.05 3.689300E-05 0.05615 supercritical
600 30 0.175900 5.69 383.710 554.26 5.563 0.755 1.075 520.1 0.03 3.722700E-05 0.05678 supercritical
610 30 0.173000 5.78 391.600 565.01 5.581 0.757 1.076 523.4 0.02 3.756300E-05 0.05741 supercritical
620 30 0.170210 5.88 399.510 575.77 5.598 0.760 1.076 526.7 0.00 3.789800E-05 0.05805 supercritical
630 30 0.167510 5.97 407.430 586.53 5.616 0.762 1.076 529.9 -0.01 3.823500E-05 0.05869 supercritical
640 30 0.164900 6.06 415.370 597.30 5.633 0.765 1.077 533.1 -0.03 3.857100E-05 0.05933 supercritical
650 30 0.162380 6.16 423.320 608.07 5.649 0.767 1.078 536.3 -0.04 3.890700E-05 0.05998 supercritical
660 30 0.159940 6.25 431.280 618.85 5.666 0.770 1.078 539.5 -0.06 3.924400E-05 0.06063 supercritical
670 30 0.157580 6.35 439.260 629.64 5.682 0.772 1.079 542.7 -0.07 3.958000E-05 0.06128 supercritical
680 30 0.155290 6.44 447.250 640.44 5.698 0.775 1.080 545.8 -0.08 3.991600E-05 0.06193 supercritical
690 30 0.153070 6.53 455.260 651.24 5.714 0.777 1.081 548.9 -0.10 4.025200E-05 0.06258 supercritical
700 30 0.150920 6.63 463.280 662.05 5.729 0.779 1.082 552.0 -0.11 4.058700E-05 0.06324 supercritical
710 30 0.148840 6.72 471.310 672.88 5.745 0.782 1.083 555.1 -0.12 4.092200E-05 0.06389 supercritical
720 30 0.146810 6.81 479.360 683.71 5.760 0.784 1.084 558.2 -0.13 4.125600E-05 0.06455 supercritical
730 30 0.144840 6.90 487.430 694.55 5.775 0.786 1.085 561.2 -0.14 4.158900E-05 0.06520 supercritical
740 30 0.142930 7.00 495.510 705.40 5.790 0.788 1.086 564.2 -0.15 4.192200E-05 0.06586 supercritical
Page 157
750 30 0.141070 7.09 503.610 716.27 5.804 0.790 1.087 567.2 -0.16 4.225400E-05 0.06652 supercritical
760 30 0.139260 7.18 511.720 727.14 5.819 0.792 1.088 570.2 -0.17 4.258500E-05 0.06717 supercritical
770 30 0.137500 7.27 519.850 738.02 5.833 0.795 1.089 573.2 -0.18 4.291600E-05 0.06782 supercritical
780 30 0.135790 7.36 527.990 748.92 5.847 0.797 1.090 576.1 -0.19 4.324600E-05 0.06848 supercritical
790 30 0.134120 7.46 536.140 759.82 5.861 0.799 1.091 579.1 -0.20 4.357400E-05 0.06913 supercritical
800 30 0.132500 7.55 544.320 770.74 5.874 0.801 1.092 582.0 -0.21 4.390200E-05 0.06978 supercritical
810 30 0.130910 7.64 552.500 781.67 5.888 0.803 1.093 584.9 -0.22 4.422900E-05 0.07043 supercritical
820 30 0.129360 7.73 560.700 792.60 5.901 0.804 1.094 587.8 -0.23 4.455500E-05 0.07108 supercritical
830 30 0.127860 7.82 568.920 803.55 5.915 0.806 1.095 590.6 -0.24 4.488100E-05 0.07173 supercritical
840 30 0.126390 7.91 577.140 814.51 5.928 0.808 1.096 593.5 -0.25 4.520500E-05 0.07237 supercritical
850 30 0.124950 8.00 585.390 825.48 5.941 0.810 1.098 596.3 -0.26 4.552800E-05 0.07302 supercritical
860 30 0.123550 8.09 593.640 836.46 5.954 0.812 1.099 599.1 -0.26 4.585000E-05 0.07366 supercritical
870 30 0.122180 8.18 601.910 847.45 5.966 0.814 1.100 601.9 -0.27 4.617200E-05 0.07430 supercritical
880 30 0.120840 8.28 610.200 858.45 5.979 0.815 1.101 604.7 -0.28 4.649200E-05 0.07494 supercritical
890 30 0.119530 8.37 618.490 869.46 5.991 0.817 1.102 607.5 -0.29 4.681100E-05 0.07557 supercritical
900 30 0.118260 8.46 626.800 880.49 6.004 0.819 1.103 610.3 -0.29 4.713000E-05 0.07620 supercritical
910 30 0.117010 8.55 635.120 891.52 6.016 0.820 1.104 613.0 -0.30 4.744700E-05 0.07684 supercritical
920 30 0.115780 8.64 643.460 902.56 6.028 0.822 1.105 615.8 -0.31 4.776300E-05 0.07747 supercritical
930 30 0.114590 8.73 651.810 913.62 6.040 0.823 1.106 618.5 -0.31 4.807900E-05 0.07809 supercritical
940 30 0.113420 8.82 660.170 924.68 6.052 0.825 1.107 621.2 -0.32 4.839300E-05 0.07872 supercritical
950 30 0.112270 8.91 668.540 935.75 6.063 0.826 1.108 623.9 -0.33 4.870700E-05 0.07934 supercritical
960 30 0.111150 9.00 676.930 946.84 6.075 0.828 1.109 626.6 -0.33 4.901900E-05 0.07996 supercritical
970 30 0.110050 9.09 685.330 957.93 6.087 0.829 1.110 629.3 -0.34 4.933100E-05 0.08058 supercritical
980 30 0.108970 9.18 693.730 969.03 6.098 0.831 1.111 631.9 -0.34 4.964100E-05 0.08119 supercritical
990 30 0.107920 9.27 702.150 980.14 6.109 0.832 1.112 634.6 -0.35 4.995100E-05 0.08180 supercritical
1000 30 0.106880 9.36 710.590 991.27 6.120 0.834 1.113 637.2 -0.35 5.025900E-05 0.08241 supercritical
Page 158
Internal Joule-
(kJ/kg) (K/MPa)
100 40 1.174800 0.85 -129.070 -95.03 2.983 0.960 1.578 1002.7 -0.37 2.200800E-04 0.16651 liquid
110 40 1.137300 0.88 -114.450 -79.28 3.133 0.929 1.572 949.3 -0.36 1.820600E-04 0.15542 liquid
120 40 1.099500 0.91 -99.962 -63.58 3.270 0.903 1.569 897.8 -0.34 1.544900E-04 0.14475 liquid
130 40 1.061200 0.94 -85.583 -47.89 3.395 0.879 1.570 848.3 -0.32 1.337100E-04 0.13452 liquid
140 40 1.022400 0.98 -71.304 -32.18 3.512 0.858 1.572 800.9 -0.29 1.175400E-04 0.12474 liquid
150 40 0.983140 1.02 -57.124 -16.44 3.620 0.840 1.576 756.0 -0.26 1.046100E-04 0.11549 liquid
160 40 0.943460 1.06 -43.050 -0.65 3.722 0.823 1.581 713.8 -0.22 9.400400E-05 0.10683 supercritical
170 40 0.903480 1.11 -29.100 15.17 3.818 0.809 1.585 674.5 -0.17 8.511500E-05 0.09883 supercritical
180 40 0.863420 1.16 -15.297 31.03 3.909 0.796 1.587 638.7 -0.12 7.752200E-05 0.09154 supercritical
190 40 0.823540 1.21 -1.677 46.89 3.994 0.784 1.586 606.4 -0.06 7.094400E-05 0.08501 supercritical
200 40 0.784200 1.28 11.720 62.73 4.076 0.774 1.580 578.0 -0.01 6.519800E-05 0.07927 supercritical
210 40 0.745780 1.34 24.849 78.48 4.153 0.764 1.570 553.5 0.06 6.016700E-05 0.07429 supercritical
220 40 0.708690 1.41 37.666 94.11 4.225 0.756 1.554 532.8 0.12 5.577500E-05 0.07004 supercritical
230 40 0.673280 1.49 50.132 109.54 4.294 0.749 1.532 515.8 0.17 5.196700E-05 0.06645 supercritical
240 40 0.639840 1.56 62.224 124.74 4.359 0.742 1.506 502.1 0.22 4.869400E-05 0.06344 supercritical
250 40 0.608550 1.64 73.928 139.66 4.419 0.736 1.477 491.5 0.27 4.590900E-05 0.06092 supercritical
260 40 0.579470 1.73 85.247 154.27 4.477 0.731 1.446 483.3 0.30 4.355900E-05 0.05884 supercritical
270 40 0.552610 1.81 96.195 168.58 4.531 0.727 1.415 477.3 0.33 4.159400E-05 0.05712 supercritical
280 40 0.527870 1.89 106.790 182.57 4.582 0.723 1.384 473.1 0.35 3.996400E-05 0.05569 supercritical
290 40 0.505130 1.98 117.070 196.26 4.630 0.720 1.354 470.3 0.37 3.862100E-05 0.05451 supercritical
300 40 0.484230 2.07 127.060 209.66 4.675 0.717 1.327 468.7 0.38 3.752300E-05 0.05352 supercritical
310 40 0.465010 2.15 136.780 222.80 4.718 0.715 1.301 468.0 0.38 3.663200E-05 0.05258 supercritical
320 40 0.447320 2.24 146.270 235.69 4.759 0.713 1.278 468.1 0.38 3.591600E-05 0.05204 supercritical
330 40 0.431000 2.32 155.560 248.36 4.798 0.712 1.257 468.9 0.37 3.534800E-05 0.05162 supercritical
340 40 0.415920 2.40 164.660 260.83 4.835 0.712 1.237 470.1 0.36 3.490500E-05 0.05132 supercritical
350 40 0.401940 2.49 173.600 273.12 4.871 0.711 1.220 471.7 0.35 3.456800E-05 0.05112 supercritical
360 40 0.388970 2.57 182.400 285.24 4.905 0.711 1.205 473.6 0.34 3.432000E-05 0.05100 supercritical
370 40 0.376890 2.65 191.080 297.21 4.938 0.711 1.191 475.8 0.32 3.414800E-05 0.05095 supercritical
380 40 0.365620 2.74 199.650 309.05 4.969 0.712 1.178 478.2 0.31 3.404200E-05 0.05097 supercritical
390 40 0.355080 2.82 208.130 320.78 5.000 0.713 1.167 480.7 0.29 3.399100E-05 0.05104 supercritical
400 40 0.345200 2.90 216.520 332.40 5.029 0.714 1.157 483.4 0.27 3.398800E-05 0.05117 supercritical
410 40 0.335920 2.98 224.850 343.92 5.058 0.715 1.148 486.2 0.25 3.402600E-05 0.05134 supercritical
420 40 0.327190 3.06 233.110 355.37 5.085 0.717 1.141 489.1 0.24 3.409900E-05 0.05155 supercritical
430 40 0.318950 3.14 241.320 366.74 5.112 0.718 1.134 492.0 0.22 3.420300E-05 0.05180 supercritical
440 40 0.311170 3.21 249.490 378.04 5.138 0.720 1.127 495.0 0.20 3.433400E-05 0.05209 supercritical
450 40 0.303800 3.29 257.620 389.29 5.163 0.722 1.122 498.0 0.18 3.448900E-05 0.05241 supercritical
460 40 0.296810 3.37 265.720 400.48 5.188 0.724 1.117 501.1 0.16 3.466300E-05 0.05275 supercritical
470 40 0.290180 3.45 273.780 411.63 5.212 0.726 1.113 504.2 0.15 3.485600E-05 0.05312 supercritical
480 40 0.283870 3.52 281.830 422.74 5.235 0.728 1.109 507.3 0.13 3.506400E-05 0.05352 supercritical
490 40 0.277860 3.60 289.860 433.82 5.258 0.730 1.106 510.4 0.11 3.528500E-05 0.05393 supercritical
500 40 0.272130 3.67 297.880 444.86 5.281 0.733 1.103 513.5 0.10 3.551900E-05 0.05437 supercritical
510 40 0.266660 3.75 305.880 455.88 5.302 0.735 1.101 516.6 0.08 3.576300E-05 0.05482 supercritical
520 40 0.261430 3.83 313.870 466.88 5.324 0.737 1.099 519.7 0.06 3.601600E-05 0.05529 supercritical
530 40 0.256420 3.90 321.860 477.86 5.345 0.740 1.097 522.9 0.05 3.627800E-05 0.05577 supercritical
540 40 0.251620 3.97 329.850 488.82 5.365 0.742 1.096 526.0 0.03 3.654700E-05 0.05627 supercritical
550 40 0.247020 4.05 337.830 499.77 5.385 0.745 1.094 529.1 0.02 3.682200E-05 0.05679 supercritical
560 40 0.242600 4.12 345.820 510.70 5.405 0.747 1.093 532.2 0.00 3.710300E-05 0.05731 supercritical
570 40 0.238350 4.20 353.810 521.63 5.424 0.750 1.092 535.2 -0.01 3.738800E-05 0.05784 supercritical
580 40 0.234260 4.27 361.800 532.55 5.443 0.752 1.092 538.3 -0.03 3.767800E-05 0.05839 supercritical
590 40 0.230320 4.34 369.800 543.47 5.462 0.755 1.091 541.4 -0.04 3.797200E-05 0.05894 supercritical
600 40 0.226530 4.41 377.800 554.38 5.480 0.757 1.091 544.4 -0.05 3.826900E-05 0.05950 supercritical
610 40 0.222870 4.49 385.810 565.29 5.498 0.760 1.091 547.5 -0.07 3.856900E-05 0.06007 supercritical
620 40 0.219340 4.56 393.830 576.20 5.516 0.762 1.091 550.5 -0.08 3.887200E-05 0.06064 supercritical
630 40 0.215920 4.63 401.860 587.11 5.533 0.765 1.091 553.5 -0.09 3.917700E-05 0.06122 supercritical
640 40 0.212630 4.70 409.900 598.02 5.551 0.767 1.091 556.5 -0.10 3.948400E-05 0.06181 supercritical
650 40 0.209440 4.77 417.950 608.94 5.568 0.769 1.092 559.5 -0.11 3.979200E-05 0.06240 supercritical
660 40 0.206350 4.85 426.010 619.85 5.584 0.772 1.092 562.5 -0.13 4.010200E-05 0.06299 supercritical
670 40 0.203360 4.92 434.080 630.77 5.601 0.774 1.092 565.5 -0.14 4.041300E-05 0.06359 supercritical
680 40 0.200460 4.99 442.160 641.70 5.617 0.777 1.093 568.4 -0.15 4.072500E-05 0.06419 supercritical
690 40 0.197650 5.06 450.250 652.63 5.633 0.779 1.093 571.3 -0.16 4.103700E-05 0.06480 supercritical
700 40 0.194930 5.13 458.360 663.56 5.649 0.781 1.094 574.3 -0.17 4.135100E-05 0.06540 supercritical
710 40 0.192280 5.20 466.470 674.50 5.664 0.783 1.095 577.2 -0.18 4.166500E-05 0.06601 supercritical
720 40 0.189710 5.27 474.600 685.45 5.679 0.786 1.095 580.1 -0.19 4.197900E-05 0.06663 supercritical
730 40 0.187210 5.34 482.750 696.41 5.694 0.788 1.096 582.9 -0.20 4.229400E-05 0.06724 supercritical
740 40 0.184790 5.41 490.900 707.37 5.709 0.790 1.097 585.8 -0.21 4.260800E-05 0.06785 supercritical
Page 159
750 40 0.182430 5.48 499.070 718.34 5.724 0.792 1.097 588.7 -0.21 4.292300E-05 0.06847 supercritical
760 40 0.180130 5.55 507.260 729.32 5.739 0.794 1.098 591.5 -0.22 4.323800E-05 0.06909 supercritical
770 40 0.177890 5.62 515.450 740.30 5.753 0.796 1.099 594.3 -0.23 4.355300E-05 0.06970 supercritical
780 40 0.175720 5.69 523.660 751.30 5.767 0.798 1.100 597.1 -0.24 4.386700E-05 0.07032 supercritical
790 40 0.173600 5.76 531.880 762.30 5.781 0.800 1.101 599.9 -0.25 4.418100E-05 0.07094 supercritical
800 40 0.171530 5.83 540.110 773.31 5.795 0.802 1.102 602.7 -0.25 4.449500E-05 0.07155 supercritical
810 40 0.169510 5.90 548.360 784.33 5.809 0.804 1.102 605.5 -0.26 4.480900E-05 0.07217 supercritical
820 40 0.167550 5.97 556.620 795.36 5.822 0.806 1.103 608.3 -0.27 4.512200E-05 0.07279 supercritical
830 40 0.165630 6.04 564.890 806.39 5.836 0.808 1.104 611.0 -0.28 4.543500E-05 0.07340 supercritical
840 40 0.163760 6.11 573.180 817.44 5.849 0.809 1.105 613.7 -0.28 4.574700E-05 0.07402 supercritical
850 40 0.161930 6.18 581.470 828.49 5.862 0.811 1.106 616.5 -0.29 4.605900E-05 0.07463 supercritical
860 40 0.160150 6.24 589.780 839.56 5.875 0.813 1.107 619.2 -0.30 4.637000E-05 0.07525 supercritical
870 40 0.158400 6.31 598.110 850.63 5.888 0.815 1.108 621.9 -0.30 4.668000E-05 0.07586 supercritical
880 40 0.156700 6.38 606.440 861.71 5.900 0.816 1.109 624.6 -0.31 4.699000E-05 0.07647 supercritical
890 40 0.155030 6.45 614.790 872.80 5.913 0.818 1.109 627.3 -0.32 4.730000E-05 0.07708 supercritical
900 40 0.153400 6.52 623.150 883.89 5.925 0.820 1.110 629.9 -0.32 4.760800E-05 0.07769 supercritical
910 40 0.151810 6.59 631.520 895.00 5.938 0.821 1.111 632.6 -0.33 4.791600E-05 0.07829 supercritical
920 40 0.150250 6.66 639.900 906.12 5.950 0.823 1.112 635.2 -0.33 4.822400E-05 0.07890 supercritical
930 40 0.148730 6.72 648.290 917.24 5.962 0.824 1.113 637.9 -0.34 4.853100E-05 0.07950 supercritical
940 40 0.147230 6.79 656.700 928.37 5.974 0.826 1.114 640.5 -0.35 4.883700E-05 0.08010 supercritical
950 40 0.145770 6.86 665.110 939.52 5.985 0.827 1.115 643.1 -0.35 4.914200E-05 0.08070 supercritical
960 40 0.144340 6.93 673.540 950.66 5.997 0.829 1.115 645.7 -0.36 4.944700E-05 0.08130 supercritical
970 40 0.142940 7.00 681.980 961.82 6.009 0.830 1.116 648.3 -0.36 4.975000E-05 0.08190 supercritical
980 40 0.141560 7.06 690.430 972.99 6.020 0.832 1.117 650.8 -0.37 5.005300E-05 0.08249 supercritical
990 40 0.140220 7.13 698.890 984.16 6.032 0.833 1.118 653.4 -0.37 5.035600E-05 0.08308 supercritical
1000 40 0.138900 7.20 707.360 995.35 6.043 0.834 1.119 656.0 -0.38 5.065700E-05 0.08367 supercritical
Page 160
Internal Joule-
(kJ/kg) (K/MPa)
100 50 1.190400 0.84 -131.170 -89.17 2.957 0.972 1.562 1037.3 -0.38 2.381100E-04 0.17226 liquid
110 50 1.155100 0.87 -116.890 -73.61 3.105 0.941 1.551 987.6 -0.37 1.978300E-04 0.16164 liquid
120 50 1.119700 0.89 -102.800 -58.15 3.240 0.915 1.543 940.0 -0.36 1.684400E-04 0.15142 liquid
130 50 1.084300 0.92 -88.857 -42.74 3.363 0.891 1.538 894.5 -0.34 1.461700E-04 0.14170 liquid
140 50 1.048700 0.95 -75.064 -27.39 3.477 0.870 1.534 851.3 -0.33 1.288100E-04 0.13243 liquid
150 50 1.013100 0.99 -61.419 -12.06 3.583 0.851 1.531 810.5 -0.30 1.149500E-04 0.12368 liquid
160 50 0.977390 1.02 -47.927 3.23 3.681 0.835 1.528 772.2 -0.28 1.036300E-04 0.11547 supercritical
170 50 0.941790 1.06 -34.597 18.49 3.774 0.819 1.525 736.6 -0.25 9.420900E-05 0.10785 supercritical
180 50 0.906410 1.10 -21.446 33.72 3.861 0.806 1.520 703.9 -0.22 8.623900E-05 0.10084 supercritical
190 50 0.871400 1.15 -8.489 48.89 3.943 0.794 1.514 674.1 -0.18 7.939700E-05 0.09448 supercritical
200 50 0.836960 1.19 4.255 64.00 4.020 0.783 1.506 647.4 -0.15 7.346000E-05 0.08877 supercritical
210 50 0.803280 1.24 16.763 79.01 4.094 0.773 1.496 623.7 -0.11 6.826900E-05 0.08371 supercritical
220 50 0.770580 1.30 29.018 93.90 4.163 0.765 1.483 603.1 -0.07 6.371300E-05 0.07927 supercritical
230 50 0.739040 1.35 41.004 108.66 4.229 0.757 1.468 585.2 -0.04 5.971200E-05 0.07541 supercritical
240 50 0.708830 1.41 52.707 123.25 4.291 0.750 1.450 570.1 0.00 5.620500E-05 0.07208 supercritical
250 50 0.680070 1.47 64.122 137.64 4.349 0.744 1.430 557.4 0.03 5.314100E-05 0.06924 supercritical
260 50 0.652830 1.53 75.249 151.84 4.405 0.739 1.409 547.0 0.06 5.047600E-05 0.06682 supercritical
270 50 0.627160 1.59 86.092 165.82 4.458 0.734 1.387 538.5 0.08 4.816900E-05 0.06476 supercritical
280 50 0.603050 1.66 96.663 179.57 4.508 0.730 1.365 531.7 0.10 4.618100E-05 0.06301 supercritical
290 50 0.580460 1.72 106.970 193.11 4.555 0.727 1.343 526.4 0.12 4.447700E-05 0.06153 supercritical
300 50 0.559330 1.79 117.040 206.44 4.601 0.724 1.322 522.4 0.13 4.302200E-05 0.06025 supercritical
310 50 0.539580 1.85 126.890 219.55 4.644 0.722 1.302 519.5 0.14 4.178700E-05 0.05906 supercritical
320 50 0.521130 1.92 136.530 232.47 4.685 0.720 1.283 517.4 0.14 4.074400E-05 0.05826 supercritical
330 50 0.503890 1.98 145.980 245.21 4.724 0.718 1.265 516.2 0.14 3.986700E-05 0.05761 supercritical
340 50 0.487770 2.05 155.270 257.78 4.761 0.717 1.248 515.5 0.14 3.913600E-05 0.05709 supercritical
350 50 0.472670 2.12 164.400 270.18 4.797 0.717 1.233 515.5 0.14 3.853100E-05 0.05668 supercritical
360 50 0.458530 2.18 173.400 282.44 4.832 0.717 1.219 515.8 0.14 3.803600E-05 0.05637 supercritical
370 50 0.445250 2.25 182.270 294.57 4.865 0.717 1.206 516.6 0.13 3.763600E-05 0.05615 supercritical
380 50 0.432770 2.31 191.040 306.57 4.897 0.717 1.195 517.6 0.12 3.731900E-05 0.05600 supercritical
390 50 0.421030 2.38 199.710 318.47 4.928 0.718 1.184 519.0 0.11 3.707400E-05 0.05592 supercritical
400 50 0.409960 2.44 208.290 330.26 4.958 0.719 1.175 520.5 0.10 3.689300E-05 0.05590 supercritical
410 50 0.399500 2.50 216.810 341.96 4.987 0.720 1.166 522.3 0.09 3.676700E-05 0.05593 supercritical
420 50 0.389620 2.57 225.250 353.58 5.015 0.721 1.158 524.2 0.08 3.669000E-05 0.05601 supercritical
430 50 0.380260 2.63 233.640 365.13 5.042 0.722 1.151 526.2 0.07 3.665500E-05 0.05613 supercritical
440 50 0.371380 2.69 241.980 376.61 5.068 0.724 1.145 528.4 0.06 3.665700E-05 0.05630 supercritical
450 50 0.362960 2.76 250.270 388.03 5.094 0.726 1.139 530.7 0.05 3.669300E-05 0.05650 supercritical
460 50 0.354940 2.82 258.530 399.40 5.119 0.727 1.134 533.0 0.03 3.675800E-05 0.05674 supercritical
470 50 0.347310 2.88 266.750 410.72 5.143 0.729 1.130 535.4 0.02 3.684900E-05 0.05700 supercritical
480 50 0.340030 2.94 274.950 421.99 5.167 0.731 1.126 537.9 0.01 3.696200E-05 0.05729 supercritical
490 50 0.333080 3.00 283.120 433.23 5.190 0.734 1.122 540.5 0.00 3.709600E-05 0.05761 supercritical
500 50 0.326440 3.06 291.280 444.44 5.213 0.736 1.119 543.0 -0.02 3.724800E-05 0.05796 supercritical
510 50 0.320090 3.12 299.410 455.62 5.235 0.738 1.116 545.6 -0.03 3.741700E-05 0.05832 supercritical
520 50 0.314010 3.18 307.540 466.77 5.257 0.740 1.114 548.3 -0.04 3.759900E-05 0.05870 supercritical
530 50 0.308170 3.24 315.650 477.90 5.278 0.743 1.112 550.9 -0.05 3.779500E-05 0.05911 supercritical
540 50 0.302580 3.31 323.760 489.01 5.299 0.745 1.110 553.6 -0.06 3.800200E-05 0.05952 supercritical
550 50 0.297200 3.36 331.860 500.10 5.319 0.747 1.109 556.3 -0.07 3.821900E-05 0.05996 supercritical
560 50 0.292030 3.42 339.960 511.18 5.339 0.750 1.107 559.0 -0.09 3.844600E-05 0.06041 supercritical
570 50 0.287050 3.48 348.060 522.24 5.358 0.752 1.106 561.8 -0.10 3.868000E-05 0.06087 supercritical
580 50 0.282260 3.54 356.160 533.30 5.378 0.755 1.105 564.5 -0.11 3.892200E-05 0.06135 supercritical
590 50 0.277640 3.60 364.260 544.35 5.397 0.757 1.104 567.2 -0.12 3.917100E-05 0.06183 supercritical
600 50 0.273180 3.66 372.360 555.39 5.415 0.759 1.104 570.0 -0.13 3.942600E-05 0.06233 supercritical
610 50 0.268880 3.72 380.470 566.42 5.433 0.762 1.103 572.7 -0.14 3.968600E-05 0.06283 supercritical
620 50 0.264720 3.78 388.580 577.46 5.451 0.764 1.103 575.5 -0.15 3.995000E-05 0.06335 supercritical
630 50 0.260710 3.84 396.700 588.48 5.469 0.767 1.103 578.2 -0.16 4.021900E-05 0.06387 supercritical
640 50 0.256820 3.89 404.820 599.51 5.486 0.769 1.103 580.9 -0.17 4.049200E-05 0.06440 supercritical
650 50 0.253060 3.95 412.960 610.54 5.503 0.771 1.103 583.7 -0.18 4.076800E-05 0.06493 supercritical
660 50 0.249410 4.01 421.100 621.57 5.520 0.774 1.103 586.4 -0.19 4.104800E-05 0.06548 supercritical
670 50 0.245880 4.07 429.250 632.60 5.537 0.776 1.103 589.2 -0.19 4.133000E-05 0.06602 supercritical
680 50 0.242460 4.12 437.400 643.63 5.553 0.778 1.103 591.9 -0.20 4.161400E-05 0.06658 supercritical
690 50 0.239140 4.18 445.570 654.66 5.569 0.780 1.104 594.6 -0.21 4.190100E-05 0.06713 supercritical
700 50 0.235910 4.24 453.750 665.70 5.585 0.783 1.104 597.3 -0.22 4.218900E-05 0.06769 supercritical
710 50 0.232780 4.30 461.940 676.74 5.601 0.785 1.104 600.0 -0.23 4.247900E-05 0.06826 supercritical
720 50 0.229740 4.35 470.140 687.78 5.616 0.787 1.105 602.7 -0.24 4.277100E-05 0.06883 supercritical
730 50 0.226780 4.41 478.350 698.83 5.632 0.789 1.105 605.4 -0.24 4.306400E-05 0.06940 supercritical
740 50 0.223900 4.47 486.570 709.89 5.647 0.791 1.106 608.1 -0.25 4.335800E-05 0.06997 supercritical
Page 161
750 50 0.221100 4.52 494.800 720.95 5.661 0.793 1.106 610.8 -0.26 4.365300E-05 0.07055 supercritical
760 50 0.218370 4.58 503.050 732.01 5.676 0.795 1.107 613.5 -0.26 4.394900E-05 0.07112 supercritical
770 50 0.215720 4.64 511.300 743.08 5.691 0.797 1.108 616.2 -0.27 4.424500E-05 0.07170 supercritical
780 50 0.213130 4.69 519.570 754.16 5.705 0.799 1.108 618.8 -0.28 4.454200E-05 0.07228 supercritical
790 50 0.210610 4.75 527.850 765.25 5.719 0.801 1.109 621.5 -0.29 4.484000E-05 0.07287 supercritical
800 50 0.208160 4.80 536.140 776.34 5.733 0.803 1.110 624.1 -0.29 4.513800E-05 0.07345 supercritical
810 50 0.205760 4.86 544.440 787.44 5.747 0.805 1.110 626.7 -0.30 4.543600E-05 0.07403 supercritical
820 50 0.203420 4.92 552.750 798.54 5.760 0.807 1.111 629.4 -0.30 4.573500E-05 0.07462 supercritical
830 50 0.201140 4.97 561.070 809.66 5.774 0.809 1.112 632.0 -0.31 4.603300E-05 0.07520 supercritical
840 50 0.198910 5.03 569.410 820.78 5.787 0.810 1.112 634.6 -0.32 4.633200E-05 0.07578 supercritical
850 50 0.196740 5.08 577.750 831.90 5.800 0.812 1.113 637.2 -0.32 4.663100E-05 0.07637 supercritical
860 50 0.194610 5.14 586.110 843.04 5.813 0.814 1.114 639.8 -0.33 4.692900E-05 0.07695 supercritical
870 50 0.192530 5.19 594.480 854.18 5.826 0.816 1.115 642.4 -0.33 4.722800E-05 0.07753 supercritical
880 50 0.190500 5.25 602.860 865.33 5.839 0.817 1.115 644.9 -0.34 4.752600E-05 0.07812 supercritical
890 50 0.188510 5.30 611.250 876.48 5.852 0.819 1.116 647.5 -0.35 4.782400E-05 0.07870 supercritical
900 50 0.186570 5.36 619.650 887.65 5.864 0.820 1.117 650.1 -0.35 4.812200E-05 0.07928 supercritical
910 50 0.184670 5.42 628.070 898.82 5.876 0.822 1.118 652.6 -0.36 4.841900E-05 0.07986 supercritical
920 50 0.182810 5.47 636.490 910.00 5.889 0.824 1.118 655.1 -0.36 4.871700E-05 0.08044 supercritical
930 50 0.180990 5.53 644.920 921.18 5.901 0.825 1.119 657.7 -0.37 4.901400E-05 0.08102 supercritical
940 50 0.179210 5.58 653.370 932.38 5.913 0.827 1.120 660.2 -0.37 4.931000E-05 0.08160 supercritical
950 50 0.177460 5.64 661.820 943.58 5.924 0.828 1.121 662.7 -0.38 4.960600E-05 0.08217 supercritical
960 50 0.175750 5.69 670.290 954.79 5.936 0.829 1.121 665.2 -0.38 4.990200E-05 0.08275 supercritical
970 50 0.174070 5.74 678.770 966.00 5.948 0.831 1.122 667.7 -0.38 5.019700E-05 0.08332 supercritical
980 50 0.172430 5.80 687.250 977.23 5.959 0.832 1.123 670.2 -0.39 5.049200E-05 0.08390 supercritical
990 50 0.170820 5.85 695.750 988.46 5.971 0.834 1.123 672.7 -0.39 5.078700E-05 0.08447 supercritical
1000 50 0.169240 5.91 704.250 999.70 5.982 0.835 1.124 675.1 -0.40 5.108000E-05 0.08504 supercritical
Page 162
Internal Joule-
(kJ/kg) (K/MPa)
100 60 1.204800 0.83 -133.020 -83.22 2.933 0.983 1.549 1069.7 -0.39 2.565800E-04 0.17763 liquid
110 60 1.171200 0.85 -119.030 -67.81 3.080 0.952 1.535 1023.0 -0.38 2.140000E-04 0.16738 liquid
120 60 1.137900 0.88 -105.250 -52.52 3.213 0.925 1.523 978.5 -0.37 1.827300E-04 0.15755 liquid
130 60 1.104600 0.91 -91.650 -37.33 3.334 0.902 1.514 936.2 -0.36 1.589100E-04 0.14818 liquid
140 60 1.071500 0.93 -78.226 -22.23 3.446 0.881 1.507 896.1 -0.35 1.402800E-04 0.13932 liquid
150 60 1.038500 0.96 -64.975 -7.20 3.550 0.862 1.500 858.3 -0.34 1.253700E-04 0.13093 liquid
160 60 1.005600 0.99 -51.899 7.76 3.647 0.845 1.493 822.9 -0.32 1.132100E-04 0.12306 supercritical
170 60 0.973100 1.03 -39.004 22.65 3.737 0.829 1.485 789.9 -0.30 1.031300E-04 0.11573 supercritical
180 60 0.940910 1.06 -26.298 37.47 3.822 0.816 1.478 759.5 -0.28 9.463300E-05 0.10895 supercritical
190 60 0.909180 1.10 -13.789 52.21 3.901 0.803 1.469 731.7 -0.26 8.738300E-05 0.10273 supercritical
200 60 0.878020 1.14 -1.487 66.85 3.976 0.792 1.460 706.4 -0.23 8.112300E-05 0.09709 supercritical
210 60 0.847570 1.18 10.600 81.39 4.047 0.782 1.449 683.6 -0.21 7.566900E-05 0.09201 supercritical
220 60 0.817920 1.22 22.463 95.82 4.114 0.773 1.437 663.4 -0.18 7.088500E-05 0.08747 supercritical
230 60 0.789210 1.27 34.094 110.12 4.178 0.765 1.423 645.5 -0.16 6.667100E-05 0.08345 supercritical
240 60 0.761510 1.31 45.491 124.28 4.238 0.758 1.409 629.8 -0.13 6.295200E-05 0.07991 supercritical
250 60 0.734920 1.36 56.651 138.29 4.296 0.751 1.393 616.3 -0.11 5.966800E-05 0.07682 supercritical
260 60 0.709480 1.41 67.576 152.14 4.350 0.746 1.377 604.6 -0.09 5.677000E-05 0.07413 supercritical
270 60 0.685240 1.46 78.270 165.83 4.401 0.741 1.360 594.8 -0.07 5.421700E-05 0.07180 supercritical
280 60 0.662200 1.51 88.740 179.35 4.451 0.737 1.343 586.5 -0.06 5.197300E-05 0.06979 supercritical
290 60 0.640350 1.56 98.995 192.69 4.497 0.733 1.326 579.6 -0.04 5.000600E-05 0.06804 supercritical
300 60 0.619670 1.61 109.050 205.87 4.542 0.730 1.310 573.9 -0.03 4.828700E-05 0.06653 supercritical
310 60 0.600120 1.67 118.910 218.89 4.585 0.727 1.293 569.3 -0.02 4.678900E-05 0.06511 supercritical
320 60 0.581660 1.72 128.590 231.74 4.626 0.725 1.278 565.7 -0.02 4.548700E-05 0.06408 supercritical
330 60 0.564230 1.77 138.110 244.45 4.665 0.724 1.263 562.8 -0.01 4.436000E-05 0.06322 supercritical
340 60 0.547780 1.83 147.470 257.01 4.702 0.722 1.249 560.7 -0.01 4.338900E-05 0.06251 supercritical
350 60 0.532240 1.88 156.700 269.43 4.738 0.722 1.236 559.2 -0.01 4.255500E-05 0.06192 supercritical
360 60 0.517550 1.93 165.800 281.73 4.773 0.721 1.224 558.3 -0.01 4.184200E-05 0.06144 supercritical
370 60 0.503670 1.99 174.790 293.92 4.806 0.721 1.213 557.7 -0.01 4.123700E-05 0.06106 supercritical
380 60 0.490530 2.04 183.680 305.99 4.839 0.721 1.202 557.6 -0.02 4.072800E-05 0.06077 supercritical
390 60 0.478090 2.09 192.470 317.97 4.870 0.722 1.193 557.9 -0.02 4.030300E-05 0.06055 supercritical
400 60 0.466300 2.14 201.180 329.85 4.900 0.722 1.184 558.4 -0.03 3.995300E-05 0.06040 supercritical
410 60 0.455110 2.20 209.810 341.65 4.929 0.723 1.176 559.2 -0.03 3.966900E-05 0.06031 supercritical
420 60 0.444480 2.25 218.380 353.37 4.957 0.724 1.169 560.2 -0.04 3.944400E-05 0.06028 supercritical
430 60 0.434360 2.30 226.890 365.03 4.985 0.726 1.162 561.4 -0.05 3.927200E-05 0.06030 supercritical
440 60 0.424740 2.35 235.350 376.62 5.011 0.727 1.156 562.7 -0.05 3.914600E-05 0.06036 supercritical
450 60 0.415560 2.41 243.770 388.15 5.037 0.729 1.151 564.3 -0.06 3.906200E-05 0.06046 supercritical
460 60 0.406810 2.46 252.140 399.63 5.062 0.730 1.146 565.9 -0.07 3.901500E-05 0.06060 supercritical
470 60 0.398440 2.51 260.480 411.07 5.087 0.732 1.141 567.7 -0.08 3.900100E-05 0.06078 supercritical
480 60 0.390450 2.56 268.790 422.46 5.111 0.734 1.137 569.5 -0.09 3.901700E-05 0.06098 supercritical
490 60 0.382800 2.61 277.070 433.81 5.134 0.736 1.134 571.5 -0.10 3.906000E-05 0.06122 supercritical
500 60 0.375470 2.66 285.330 445.14 5.157 0.738 1.131 573.5 -0.10 3.912700E-05 0.06148 supercritical
510 60 0.368440 2.71 293.580 456.43 5.180 0.740 1.128 575.6 -0.11 3.921500E-05 0.06177 supercritical
520 60 0.361690 2.76 301.800 467.69 5.201 0.743 1.125 577.7 -0.12 3.932200E-05 0.06207 supercritical
530 60 0.355210 2.82 310.020 478.93 5.223 0.745 1.123 579.9 -0.13 3.944700E-05 0.06240 supercritical
540 60 0.348980 2.87 318.220 490.15 5.244 0.747 1.121 582.1 -0.14 3.958800E-05 0.06275 supercritical
550 60 0.342990 2.92 326.420 501.35 5.264 0.749 1.119 584.4 -0.15 3.974300E-05 0.06312 supercritical
560 60 0.337220 2.97 334.610 512.54 5.284 0.752 1.118 586.7 -0.16 3.991100E-05 0.06350 supercritical
570 60 0.331650 3.02 342.800 523.71 5.304 0.754 1.117 589.1 -0.17 4.009000E-05 0.06390 supercritical
580 60 0.326290 3.06 350.980 534.87 5.324 0.756 1.115 591.4 -0.17 4.028000E-05 0.06431 supercritical
590 60 0.321110 3.11 359.170 546.02 5.343 0.759 1.115 593.8 -0.18 4.048000E-05 0.06474 supercritical
600 60 0.316110 3.16 367.350 557.16 5.361 0.761 1.114 596.2 -0.19 4.068800E-05 0.06518 supercritical
610 60 0.311270 3.21 375.540 568.29 5.380 0.763 1.113 598.7 -0.20 4.090400E-05 0.06562 supercritical
620 60 0.306600 3.26 383.730 579.42 5.398 0.766 1.113 601.1 -0.21 4.112700E-05 0.06608 supercritical
630 60 0.302070 3.31 391.920 590.55 5.416 0.768 1.112 603.6 -0.21 4.135700E-05 0.06655 supercritical
640 60 0.297690 3.36 400.120 601.67 5.433 0.770 1.112 606.0 -0.22 4.159200E-05 0.06703 supercritical
650 60 0.293450 3.41 408.320 612.79 5.451 0.773 1.112 608.5 -0.23 4.183300E-05 0.06752 supercritical
660 60 0.289340 3.46 416.530 623.90 5.467 0.775 1.112 611.0 -0.24 4.207900E-05 0.06801 supercritical
670 60 0.285340 3.50 424.750 635.02 5.484 0.777 1.112 613.5 -0.24 4.232900E-05 0.06851 supercritical
680 60 0.281470 3.55 432.970 646.14 5.501 0.779 1.112 616.0 -0.25 4.258300E-05 0.06901 supercritical
690 60 0.277710 3.60 441.210 657.26 5.517 0.782 1.112 618.5 -0.26 4.284000E-05 0.06953 supercritical
700 60 0.274060 3.65 449.450 668.38 5.533 0.784 1.112 621.0 -0.26 4.310100E-05 0.07004 supercritical
710 60 0.270510 3.70 457.700 679.50 5.549 0.786 1.112 623.5 -0.27 4.336500E-05 0.07057 supercritical
720 60 0.267060 3.74 465.960 690.63 5.564 0.788 1.113 626.0 -0.28 4.363100E-05 0.07109 supercritical
730 60 0.263700 3.79 474.220 701.75 5.580 0.790 1.113 628.5 -0.28 4.390000E-05 0.07162 supercritical
740 60 0.260430 3.84 482.500 712.89 5.595 0.792 1.113 631.0 -0.29 4.417100E-05 0.07216 supercritical
Page 163
750 60 0.257250 3.89 490.790 724.02 5.610 0.794 1.114 633.5 -0.30 4.444400E-05 0.07269 supercritical
760 60 0.254150 3.93 499.080 735.16 5.624 0.796 1.114 636.0 -0.30 4.471900E-05 0.07323 supercritical
770 60 0.251130 3.98 507.390 746.31 5.639 0.798 1.115 638.5 -0.31 4.499600E-05 0.07378 supercritical
780 60 0.248190 4.03 515.710 757.46 5.653 0.800 1.115 641.0 -0.31 4.527300E-05 0.07432 supercritical
790 60 0.245320 4.08 524.040 768.62 5.668 0.802 1.116 643.5 -0.32 4.555200E-05 0.07487 supercritical
800 60 0.242520 4.12 532.370 779.78 5.682 0.804 1.116 645.9 -0.32 4.583300E-05 0.07542 supercritical
810 60 0.239790 4.17 540.720 790.94 5.696 0.806 1.117 648.4 -0.33 4.611400E-05 0.07597 supercritical
820 60 0.237120 4.22 549.080 802.11 5.709 0.808 1.118 650.9 -0.34 4.639600E-05 0.07652 supercritical
830 60 0.234520 4.26 557.450 813.29 5.723 0.809 1.118 653.4 -0.34 4.667900E-05 0.07707 supercritical
840 60 0.231980 4.31 565.830 824.48 5.736 0.811 1.119 655.8 -0.35 4.696300E-05 0.07763 supercritical
850 60 0.229490 4.36 574.220 835.67 5.749 0.813 1.119 658.3 -0.35 4.724700E-05 0.07818 supercritical
860 60 0.227060 4.40 582.620 846.86 5.763 0.815 1.120 660.8 -0.36 4.753100E-05 0.07873 supercritical
870 60 0.224690 4.45 591.030 858.07 5.775 0.816 1.121 663.2 -0.36 4.781600E-05 0.07929 supercritical
880 60 0.222370 4.50 599.450 869.28 5.788 0.818 1.121 665.7 -0.37 4.810200E-05 0.07985 supercritical
890 60 0.220090 4.54 607.880 880.49 5.801 0.819 1.122 668.1 -0.37 4.838700E-05 0.08040 supercritical
900 60 0.217870 4.59 616.320 891.71 5.813 0.821 1.123 670.6 -0.37 4.867300E-05 0.08096 supercritical
910 60 0.215700 4.64 624.770 902.94 5.826 0.823 1.123 673.0 -0.38 4.895900E-05 0.08151 supercritical
920 60 0.213570 4.68 633.230 914.18 5.838 0.824 1.124 675.4 -0.38 4.924500E-05 0.08207 supercritical
930 60 0.211480 4.73 641.700 925.42 5.850 0.826 1.124 677.8 -0.39 4.953100E-05 0.08262 supercritical
940 60 0.209440 4.77 650.180 936.66 5.862 0.827 1.125 680.2 -0.39 4.981700E-05 0.08317 supercritical
950 60 0.207440 4.82 658.670 947.92 5.874 0.829 1.126 682.6 -0.40 5.010300E-05 0.08373 supercritical
960 60 0.205470 4.87 667.170 959.18 5.886 0.830 1.126 685.0 -0.40 5.038900E-05 0.08428 supercritical
970 60 0.203550 4.91 675.680 970.45 5.898 0.831 1.127 687.4 -0.40 5.067500E-05 0.08483 supercritical
980 60 0.201670 4.96 684.200 981.72 5.909 0.833 1.128 689.8 -0.41 5.096000E-05 0.08538 supercritical
990 60 0.199820 5.00 692.730 993.00 5.921 0.834 1.128 692.2 -0.41 5.124600E-05 0.08593 supercritical
1000 60 0.198010 5.05 701.260 1004.30 5.932 0.835 1.129 694.6 -0.42 5.153100E-05 0.08648 supercritical
Page 164
Internal Joule-
(kJ/kg) (K/MPa)
100 69 1.216800 0.82 -134.520 -77.81 2.913 0.992 1.540 1097.4 -0.39 2.735900E-04 0.18217 liquid
110 69 1.184600 0.84 -120.750 -62.50 3.059 0.961 1.523 1052.9 -0.39 2.289100E-04 0.17221 liquid
120 69 1.152700 0.87 -107.200 -47.34 3.191 0.934 1.510 1010.7 -0.38 1.958900E-04 0.16266 liquid
130 69 1.121100 0.89 -93.848 -32.30 3.311 0.910 1.498 970.7 -0.38 1.706400E-04 0.15357 liquid
140 69 1.089700 0.92 -80.689 -17.37 3.422 0.889 1.488 932.9 -0.37 1.508000E-04 0.14498 liquid
150 69 1.058500 0.94 -67.717 -2.53 3.524 0.870 1.479 897.3 -0.36 1.348900E-04 0.13686 liquid
160 69 1.027700 0.97 -54.931 12.21 3.619 0.853 1.470 863.9 -0.35 1.219100E-04 0.12923 supercritical
170 69 0.997250 1.00 -42.333 26.86 3.708 0.837 1.460 832.8 -0.33 1.111500E-04 0.12210 supercritical
180 69 0.967210 1.03 -29.928 41.41 3.791 0.823 1.451 804.1 -0.32 1.021100E-04 0.11549 supercritical
190 69 0.937660 1.07 -17.718 55.87 3.869 0.811 1.441 777.6 -0.30 9.441300E-05 0.10939 supercritical
200 69 0.908690 1.10 -5.710 70.22 3.943 0.799 1.430 753.4 -0.28 8.778700E-05 0.10381 supercritical
210 69 0.880380 1.14 6.095 84.47 4.012 0.789 1.419 731.4 -0.27 8.203100E-05 0.09873 supercritical
220 69 0.852800 1.17 17.691 98.60 4.078 0.780 1.407 711.6 -0.25 7.699100E-05 0.09415 supercritical
230 69 0.826020 1.21 29.079 112.61 4.140 0.771 1.395 693.9 -0.23 7.255200E-05 0.09004 supercritical
240 69 0.800110 1.25 40.257 126.50 4.200 0.764 1.382 678.1 -0.21 6.862700E-05 0.08637 supercritical
250 69 0.775110 1.29 51.226 140.24 4.256 0.757 1.368 664.2 -0.20 6.514800E-05 0.08312 supercritical
260 69 0.751080 1.33 61.989 153.86 4.309 0.751 1.354 652.0 -0.18 6.205800E-05 0.08025 supercritical
270 69 0.728030 1.37 72.551 167.33 4.360 0.746 1.340 641.4 -0.17 5.931500E-05 0.07773 supercritical
280 69 0.705980 1.42 82.918 180.65 4.408 0.742 1.326 632.2 -0.16 5.687900E-05 0.07551 supercritical
290 69 0.684920 1.46 93.098 193.84 4.455 0.738 1.311 624.4 -0.14 5.472000E-05 0.07357 supercritical
300 69 0.664840 1.50 103.100 206.88 4.499 0.735 1.297 617.7 -0.13 5.280700E-05 0.07186 supercritical
310 69 0.645730 1.55 112.930 219.79 4.541 0.732 1.284 612.0 -0.13 5.111600E-05 0.07028 supercritical
320 69 0.627540 1.59 122.610 232.56 4.582 0.730 1.271 607.3 -0.12 4.962300E-05 0.06906 supercritical
330 69 0.610250 1.64 132.140 245.21 4.621 0.728 1.258 603.4 -0.12 4.831000E-05 0.06803 supercritical
340 69 0.593820 1.68 141.530 257.73 4.658 0.726 1.246 600.3 -0.11 4.715600E-05 0.06715 supercritical
350 69 0.578200 1.73 150.790 270.13 4.694 0.725 1.235 597.7 -0.11 4.614500E-05 0.06640 supercritical
360 69 0.563360 1.78 159.940 282.42 4.729 0.725 1.224 595.8 -0.11 4.526300E-05 0.06578 supercritical
370 69 0.549250 1.82 168.990 294.61 4.762 0.725 1.214 594.3 -0.11 4.449600E-05 0.06527 supercritical
380 69 0.535830 1.87 177.930 306.70 4.794 0.725 1.205 593.3 -0.11 4.383100E-05 0.06485 supercritical
390 69 0.523050 1.91 186.790 318.71 4.825 0.725 1.196 592.7 -0.11 4.325900E-05 0.06452 supercritical
400 69 0.510890 1.96 195.570 330.63 4.856 0.725 1.188 592.4 -0.12 4.276900E-05 0.06427 supercritical
410 69 0.499290 2.00 204.280 342.48 4.885 0.726 1.181 592.4 -0.12 4.235300E-05 0.06408 supercritical
420 69 0.488240 2.05 212.930 354.25 4.913 0.727 1.174 592.6 -0.12 4.200300E-05 0.06395 supercritical
430 69 0.477680 2.09 221.510 365.96 4.941 0.728 1.168 593.1 -0.13 4.171300E-05 0.06388 supercritical
440 69 0.467600 2.14 230.050 377.61 4.968 0.730 1.162 593.8 -0.13 4.147600E-05 0.06386 supercritical
450 69 0.457960 2.18 238.540 389.21 4.994 0.731 1.157 594.7 -0.14 4.128800E-05 0.06388 supercritical
460 69 0.448740 2.23 247.000 400.76 5.019 0.733 1.153 595.8 -0.14 4.114200E-05 0.06395 supercritical
470 69 0.439910 2.27 255.410 412.26 5.044 0.735 1.148 596.9 -0.15 4.103600E-05 0.06405 supercritical
480 69 0.431440 2.32 263.800 423.73 5.068 0.736 1.145 598.3 -0.16 4.096400E-05 0.06418 supercritical
490 69 0.423320 2.36 272.160 435.15 5.091 0.738 1.141 599.7 -0.16 4.092500E-05 0.06435 supercritical
500 69 0.415520 2.41 280.490 446.55 5.114 0.740 1.138 601.2 -0.17 4.091400E-05 0.06455 supercritical
510 69 0.408030 2.45 288.810 457.91 5.137 0.742 1.135 602.9 -0.18 4.092900E-05 0.06477 supercritical
520 69 0.400830 2.49 297.110 469.25 5.159 0.744 1.133 604.6 -0.18 4.096800E-05 0.06502 supercritical
530 69 0.393890 2.54 305.390 480.57 5.181 0.747 1.130 606.3 -0.19 4.102800E-05 0.06530 supercritical
540 69 0.387220 2.58 313.670 491.86 5.202 0.749 1.129 608.2 -0.20 4.110700E-05 0.06559 supercritical
550 69 0.380780 2.63 321.930 503.14 5.222 0.751 1.127 610.1 -0.20 4.120400E-05 0.06590 supercritical
560 69 0.374570 2.67 330.190 514.40 5.243 0.753 1.125 612.0 -0.21 4.131700E-05 0.06623 supercritical
570 69 0.368590 2.71 338.440 525.64 5.263 0.756 1.124 614.0 -0.22 4.144500E-05 0.06658 supercritical
580 69 0.362800 2.76 346.690 536.88 5.282 0.758 1.123 616.1 -0.22 4.158600E-05 0.06694 supercritical
590 69 0.357210 2.80 354.940 548.10 5.301 0.760 1.122 618.1 -0.23 4.173900E-05 0.06732 supercritical
600 69 0.351810 2.84 363.180 559.31 5.320 0.762 1.121 620.3 -0.24 4.190300E-05 0.06771 supercritical
610 69 0.346580 2.89 371.430 570.52 5.339 0.765 1.120 622.4 -0.24 4.207800E-05 0.06811 supercritical
620 69 0.341510 2.93 379.670 581.72 5.357 0.767 1.120 624.6 -0.25 4.226100E-05 0.06853 supercritical
630 69 0.336610 2.97 387.920 592.91 5.375 0.769 1.119 626.7 -0.26 4.245300E-05 0.06895 supercritical
640 69 0.331860 3.01 396.180 604.10 5.392 0.772 1.119 629.0 -0.26 4.265300E-05 0.06939 supercritical
650 69 0.327250 3.06 404.440 615.29 5.410 0.774 1.119 631.2 -0.27 4.286000E-05 0.06983 supercritical
660 69 0.322780 3.10 412.700 626.47 5.427 0.776 1.118 633.4 -0.27 4.307300E-05 0.07028 supercritical
670 69 0.318430 3.14 420.970 637.65 5.444 0.778 1.118 635.7 -0.28 4.329200E-05 0.07074 supercritical
680 69 0.314220 3.18 429.240 648.84 5.460 0.780 1.118 638.0 -0.29 4.351700E-05 0.07121 supercritical
690 69 0.310120 3.22 437.520 660.02 5.477 0.783 1.118 640.3 -0.29 4.374700E-05 0.07169 supercritical
700 69 0.306140 3.27 445.810 671.20 5.493 0.785 1.118 642.6 -0.30 4.398100E-05 0.07217 supercritical
710 69 0.302270 3.31 454.110 682.39 5.508 0.787 1.119 644.9 -0.30 4.421900E-05 0.07265 supercritical
720 69 0.298500 3.35 462.410 693.57 5.524 0.789 1.119 647.2 -0.31 4.446100E-05 0.07315 supercritical
730 69 0.294830 3.39 470.730 704.76 5.540 0.791 1.119 649.5 -0.31 4.470700E-05 0.07364 supercritical
740 69 0.291260 3.43 479.050 715.95 5.555 0.793 1.119 651.8 -0.32 4.495600E-05 0.07414 supercritical
Page 165
750 69 0.287780 3.47 487.380 727.15 5.570 0.795 1.120 654.2 -0.33 4.520700E-05 0.07465 supercritical
760 69 0.284390 3.52 495.720 738.35 5.585 0.797 1.120 656.5 -0.33 4.546200E-05 0.07516 supercritical
770 69 0.281080 3.56 504.070 749.55 5.599 0.799 1.120 658.8 -0.34 4.571900E-05 0.07567 supercritical
780 69 0.277860 3.60 512.420 760.75 5.614 0.801 1.121 661.2 -0.34 4.597800E-05 0.07618 supercritical
790 69 0.274710 3.64 520.790 771.96 5.628 0.803 1.121 663.5 -0.35 4.623900E-05 0.07670 supercritical
800 69 0.271640 3.68 529.170 783.18 5.642 0.805 1.122 665.8 -0.35 4.650200E-05 0.07722 supercritical
810 69 0.268640 3.72 537.550 794.40 5.656 0.806 1.122 668.2 -0.36 4.676600E-05 0.07774 supercritical
820 69 0.265720 3.76 545.950 805.62 5.670 0.808 1.123 670.5 -0.36 4.703300E-05 0.07827 supercritical
830 69 0.262860 3.80 554.350 816.85 5.683 0.810 1.123 672.9 -0.36 4.730000E-05 0.07879 supercritical
840 69 0.260060 3.85 562.770 828.09 5.697 0.812 1.124 675.2 -0.37 4.756900E-05 0.07932 supercritical
850 69 0.257330 3.89 571.190 839.33 5.710 0.813 1.124 677.5 -0.37 4.783900E-05 0.07985 supercritical
860 69 0.254660 3.93 579.620 850.57 5.723 0.815 1.125 679.9 -0.38 4.811000E-05 0.08038 supercritical
870 69 0.252050 3.97 588.070 861.82 5.736 0.817 1.125 682.2 -0.38 4.838200E-05 0.08091 supercritical
880 69 0.249490 4.01 596.520 873.08 5.749 0.818 1.126 684.6 -0.39 4.865400E-05 0.08144 supercritical
890 69 0.246990 4.05 604.980 884.34 5.762 0.820 1.127 686.9 -0.39 4.892800E-05 0.08197 supercritical
900 69 0.244550 4.09 613.450 895.61 5.775 0.821 1.127 689.2 -0.39 4.920200E-05 0.08251 supercritical
910 69 0.242150 4.13 621.930 906.88 5.787 0.823 1.128 691.5 -0.40 4.947600E-05 0.08304 supercritical
920 69 0.239800 4.17 630.420 918.16 5.799 0.825 1.128 693.9 -0.40 4.975100E-05 0.08357 supercritical
930 69 0.237500 4.21 638.920 929.45 5.812 0.826 1.129 696.2 -0.41 5.002700E-05 0.08410 supercritical
940 69 0.235250 4.25 647.430 940.74 5.824 0.827 1.129 698.5 -0.41 5.030300E-05 0.08464 supercritical
950 69 0.233040 4.29 655.950 952.03 5.836 0.829 1.130 700.8 -0.41 5.057900E-05 0.08517 supercritical
960 69 0.230880 4.33 664.480 963.34 5.847 0.830 1.131 703.1 -0.42 5.085500E-05 0.08570 supercritical
970 69 0.228760 4.37 673.010 974.64 5.859 0.832 1.131 705.4 -0.42 5.113100E-05 0.08623 supercritical
980 69 0.226670 4.41 681.560 985.96 5.871 0.833 1.132 707.7 -0.42 5.140800E-05 0.08676 supercritical
990 69 0.224630 4.45 690.110 997.28 5.882 0.834 1.132 710.0 -0.43 5.168500E-05 0.08729 supercritical
1000 69 0.222630 4.49 698.670 1008.60 5.894 0.836 1.133 712.3 -0.43 5.196200E-05 0.08782 supercritical
Page 166
Appendix B – Data summaries for each laboratory Page 167
Appendix B – Data summaries for each

laboratory
Page 167
Appendix B - Data summaries for each laboratory Page 168
Laboratory1a(ballvalve)200barcycles
Position1(oC) Position2(oC) Position3(oC) Position4(oC) PeakPressure
MaxValue HTT1 HTT2 HTT3 HTT4 HTT5 HTT6 HTT7 HTT8 HTT9 HTT10 HTT11 HTT12 (bar)
Cycle1 384.77 281.25 268.55 280.76 240.72 229.00 254.39 259.28 223.14 136.72 136.72 129.39 221.58
Cycle2 386.72 304.20 261.72 279.79 237.30 225.10 250.00 248.05 218.75 133.79 138.18 132.32 219.89
Cycle3 382.32 279.30 269.04 286.62 244.14 232.91 246.09 251.46 218.75 143.55 140.63 135.74 222.93
Cycle4 378.91 297.36 284.18 276.37 235.84 227.05 244.14 250.49 208.01 137.21 137.70 133.30 220.57
Cycle5 379.39 310.55 278.81 293.95 243.16 226.07 243.16 249.51 210.94 139.16 138.67 135.25 221.58
Cycle6 387.70 292.48 291.50 288.57 244.63 232.42 247.07 247.56 216.80 138.67 139.16 133.79 220.57
Cycle7 376.46 304.20 298.34 284.18 245.12 228.52 250.00 255.37 222.17 138.18 137.21 131.35 219.22
Cycle8 385.74 297.36 281.74 283.20 250.49 228.03 247.07 256.35 225.10 139.65 140.63 132.81 220.23
Cycle9 398.44 314.45 279.30 290.53 250.98 233.89 247.07 251.46 223.14 138.18 140.14 133.79 219.89
Cycle10 391.11 292.97 266.11 293.95 249.02 233.89 251.46 250.00 222.17 135.74 139.16 134.77 221.24
Cycle11 381.35 301.27 276.86 283.20 242.19 231.93 241.70 250.49 221.68 141.11 138.18 134.77 220.57
Cycle12 369.14 288.57 284.67 302.25 250.49 233.40 242.68 249.02 223.63 137.70 138.18 131.35 219.89
Cycle13 357.91 291.02 279.79 282.23 251.95 235.84 245.61 252.93 221.68 142.09 143.55 134.77 219.89
Cycle14 368.65 299.32 280.76 284.18 257.32 236.82 254.39 251.95 226.56 142.09 138.67 136.23 220.57
Cycle15 390.63 294.43 283.20 294.92 252.44 234.38 249.51 252.44 227.05 139.16 140.63 134.77 218.55
Cycle16 432.62 321.29 272.46 289.55 243.65 233.40 249.51 253.42 225.59 138.18 139.65 134.28 220.91
Cycle17 380.37 300.78 288.09 303.22 255.86 235.35 257.32 254.39 227.05 142.58 144.53 137.70 220.57
Cycle18 386.23 288.09 288.57 276.86 246.09 228.52 253.42 260.74 229.00 143.07 142.58 135.74 221.58
Average 384.36 297.72 279.65 287.46 246.74 231.47 248.59 252.50 221.73 139.27 139.68 134.01 220.57
St.Deviation 15.26 10.85 9.41 7.85 5.98 3.58 4.44 3.63 5.50 2.69 2.14 2.01 1.00
RiseTime(10%to90%) HTT1 HTT2 HTT3 HTT4 HTT5 HTT6 HTT7 HTT8 HTT9 HTT10 HTT11 HTT12 Pressure
Cycle1 0.0097 0.0135 0.0164 0.0083 0.0156 0.0161 0.0124 0.0145 0.0157 0.0080 0.0123 0.0134 0.0142
Cycle2 0.0103 0.0149 0.0165 0.0096 0.0152 0.0159 0.0108 0.0131 0.0158 0.0078 0.0119 0.0136 0.0141
Cycle3 0.0135 0.0132 0.0153 0.0096 0.0153 0.0167 0.0099 0.0142 0.0156 0.0144 0.0126 0.0151 0.0138
Cycle4 0.0108 0.0158 0.0183 0.0111 0.0162 0.0177 0.0115 0.0149 0.0168 0.0105 0.0132 0.0149 0.0147
Cycle5 0.0125 0.0169 0.0181 0.0116 0.0150 0.0166 0.0113 0.0151 0.0178 0.0132 0.0127 0.0162 0.0149
Cycle6 0.0094 0.0134 0.0199 0.0110 0.0151 0.0162 0.0097 0.0135 0.0157 0.0111 0.0124 0.0145 0.0145
Cycle7 0.0091 0.0146 0.0216 0.0093 0.0158 0.0169 0.0104 0.0149 0.0157 0.0087 0.0116 0.0132 0.0144
Cycle8 0.0101 0.0158 0.0197 0.0104 0.0165 0.0173 0.0111 0.0151 0.0164 0.0101 0.0136 0.0154 0.0147
Cycle9 0.0100 0.0175 0.0185 0.0112 0.0167 0.0179 0.0108 0.0154 0.0173 0.0079 0.0128 0.0154 0.0155
Cycle10 0.0118 0.0145 0.0186 0.0097 0.0154 0.0168 0.0113 0.0142 0.0169 0.0076 0.0119 0.0153 0.0148
Cycle11 0.0136 0.0156 0.0166 0.0114 0.0161 0.0171 0.0094 0.0151 0.0168 0.0091 0.0127 0.0159 0.0152
Cycle12 0.0115 0.0139 0.0171 0.0111 0.0166 0.0174 0.0100 0.0146 0.0168 0.0083 0.0120 0.0133 0.0151
Cycle13 0.0104 0.0158 0.0181 0.0098 0.0166 0.0186 0.0104 0.0151 0.0174 0.0125 0.0137 0.0153 0.0151
Cycle14 0.0104 0.0168 0.0183 0.0100 0.0161 0.0176 0.0128 0.0148 0.0175 0.0142 0.0121 0.0158 0.0154
Cycle15 0.0143 0.0150 0.0179 0.0103 0.0161 0.0174 0.0104 0.0149 0.0178 0.0085 0.0130 0.0154 0.0154
Cycle16 0.0159 0.0183 0.0164 0.0117 0.0159 0.0175 0.0104 0.0140 0.0159 0.0080 0.0119 0.0138 0.0150
Cycle17 0.0094 0.0170 0.0194 0.0121 0.0160 0.0168 0.0119 0.0146 0.0177 0.0102 0.0148 0.0153 0.0152
Cycle18 0.0094 0.0150 0.0184 0.0095 0.0165 0.0183 0.0116 0.0162 0.0174 0.0105 0.0128 0.0146 0.0152
Average 0.0112 0.0154 0.0181 0.0104 0.0159 0.0171 0.0109 0.0147 0.0167 0.0100 0.0127 0.0148 0.0149
St.Deviation 0.0020 0.0015 0.0015 0.0010 0.0005 0.0007 0.0009 0.0007 0.0008 0.0022 0.0008 0.0009 0.0005
Page 168
Laboratory 1a (Ball Valve) Average Cycle Measurements (Position 1)

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P1 - TC1
P1 - TC2
50
P1 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 169

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P2 - TC1
P2 - TC2
50
P2 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 170

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P3 - TC1
P3 - TC2
50
P3 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 171

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P4 - TC1
P4 - TC2
50
P4 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 172
Laborato
ory1a(ballvvalve)Cycleto
oCycleStatisstics
mTC(HTT1)Teemperaturess(oC)
Position1,0.025mm
Position1,0.051mm
Position1,0.076mm
Page 173
Laboraatory1a(ballvvalve)Cycleto
oCycleStatistiics
Positio mTC(HTT4)Teemperatures(oC)
on2,0.025mm
on2,0.051mm
on2,0.076mm
Page 174
oCycleStatistiics
on3,0.025mm
on3,0.051mm
on3,0.076mm
Page 175
oCycleStatistiics
Position mTC(HTT10)Teemperatures((oC)
n4,0.025mm
n4,0.051mm
n4,0.076mm
Page 176
Laboratory1b(globevalve,200bartests)
Position1(oC) Position2(oC) Position3(oC) Position4(oC) PeakPressure(bar)
MaxValue HTT1 HTT2 HTT3 HTT4 HTT5 HTT6 HTT7 HTT8 HTT9 HTT10 HTT11 HTT12 PCB12bar
Cycle1 360.35 293.46 250.49 NoData 270.02 250.98 248.54 227.54 205.57 137.70 126.95 NoData 197.41
Average 352.79 303.52 268.46 269.02 240.68 265.23 237.00 215.03 140.86 130.09 198.34
StDev 14.58 9.81 8.31 3.36 5.09 7.21 4.73 4.37 1.69 1.89 0.64
RiseTime(1090) HTT1 HTT2 HTT3 HTT4 HTT5 HTT6 HTT7 HTT8 HTT9 HTT10 HTT11 HTT12 PCB12
Average 0.0160 0.0202 0.0221 0.0197 0.0229 0.0155 0.0199 0.0222 0.0147 0.0182 0.0182
StDev 0.0028 0.0012 0.0020 0.0012 0.0014 0.0010 0.0007 0.0008 0.0009 0.0006 0.0003
Page 177
Laboratory 1b (Globe Valve) Average Cycle Measurements (Position 1)

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P1 - TC1
P1 - TC2
50
P1 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Time (sec)
Page 178

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P2 - TC1
P2 - TC2
50
P2 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Time (sec)
Page 179

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P3 - TC1
P3 - TC2
50
P3 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Time (sec)
Page 180

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P4 - TC1
P4 - TC2
50
P4 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75 0.8 0.85 0.9 0.95 1
Time (sec)
Page 181
Laborattory1b(globevalve)CyclettoCycleStatisttics
on1,0.025mm
on1,0.051mm
on1,0.076mm
Page 182
Therm
mocoupleFaileed
on2,0.025mm
on2,0.051mm
on2,0.076mm

Page 183
on3,0.025mm
on3,0.051mm
on3,0.076mm
Page 184
n4,0.025mm
n4,0.051mm
Therm
mocoupleFaileed
n4,0.076mm
Page 185
Laboratory2(globevalve)200barcycles
o o o o
Position1( C) Position2( C) Position3( C) Position4( C) PeakPressure
MaxValue HTT1 HTT2 HTT3 HTT4 HTT5 HTT6 HTT7 HTT8 HTT9 HTT10 HTT11 HTT12 PCBbar
Cycle1 386.72 311.04 284.18 292.48 255.86 247.07 267.58 261.72 239.75 179.20 162.60 161.13 193.63
Cycle2 338.87 298.83 278.32 282.23 254.88 238.77 266.11 262.21 234.38 177.25 160.64 162.11 194.98
Cycle3 392.58 322.75 288.09 300.78 265.14 252.44 270.51 268.55 240.23 177.25 161.13 161.62 194.98
Cycle4 357.91 306.64 290.53 295.90 263.18 246.58 277.34 269.53 239.75 176.76 166.02 165.04 195.31
Cycle5 374.51 324.22 285.64 294.92 259.77 248.05 271.00 264.16 238.77 180.18 166.02 163.57 195.65
Cycle6 359.38 312.50 291.02 300.78 262.70 249.51 269.53 267.58 236.82 178.71 162.60 162.60 195.99
Cycle7 339.84 306.15 288.57 305.66 269.53 250.98 274.41 265.14 239.26 178.71 162.11 163.57 195.65
Cycle8 371.09 323.24 291.50 308.59 264.65 252.44 277.83 268.55 243.16 178.71 162.60 163.57 195.99
Cycle9 361.82 316.41 279.79 296.39 264.16 253.42 266.60 260.25 239.75 179.69 161.62 162.11 195.99
Cycle10 359.86 308.59 286.62 300.29 257.81 246.09 283.69 267.58 240.23 176.76 165.53 164.06 195.65
Cycle11 350.59 317.87 292.48 304.20 264.16 244.14 274.90 270.51 243.16 180.66 163.09 164.06 196.32
Cycle12 347.17 308.59 294.92 310.06 271.97 257.32 275.39 267.09 236.33 180.66 164.06 163.09 195.65
Cycle13 365.23 312.01 299.80 295.41 265.14 258.30 277.34 266.60 240.23 177.73 166.02 164.06 196.32
Cycle14 356.93 312.01 282.71 302.25 268.55 249.51 271.00 260.25 238.28 176.27 164.55 166.02 196.32
Cycle15 357.42 311.52 280.76 306.64 264.16 251.46 285.64 268.07 241.21 182.62 164.55 166.02 195.65
Cycle16 373.54 313.48 274.90 304.69 265.14 252.93 271.97 265.63 238.28 180.66 165.04 164.55 195.65
Cycle17 377.93 332.52 295.90 312.01 261.72 251.95 275.39 269.53 243.16 186.52 165.04 164.55 196.32
Cycle18 348.63 313.96 281.25 297.36 262.21 247.07 283.20 272.46 245.12 181.15 165.04 165.53 195.65
Cycle19 352.05 298.83 286.13 302.73 261.72 249.51 279.79 269.53 247.56 180.18 163.57 165.53 195.65
Average 361.69 313.22 287.01 300.70 263.29 249.87 274.70 266.58 240.29 179.46 163.78 163.83 195.65
StDev 14.74 8.43 6.51 7.05 4.29 4.54 5.74 3.50 3.13 2.44 1.72 1.46 0.63
RiseTime(1090) HTT1 HTT2 HTT3 HTT4 HTT5 HTT6 HTT7 HTT8 HTT9 HTT10 HTT11 HTT12 PCB_1
Cycle1 0.013473 0.014519 0.016918 0.008782 0.01658 0.01921 0.009574 0.013698 0.017333 0.007024 0.013888 0.013211 0.015534
Cycle2 0.007936 0.01236 0.01861 0.008126 0.016354 0.018287 0.009634 0.014242 0.016803 0.006921 0.013473 0.014334 0.01543
Cycle3 0.01121 0.014521 0.018633 0.008888 0.016622 0.020255 0.008324 0.013992 0.016149 0.005985 0.013085 0.01377 0.015238
Cycle4 0.009369 0.012792 0.017087 0.010055 0.01699 0.019979 0.010447 0.013996 0.01658 0.006373 0.013992 0.013427 0.01538
Cycle5 0.009547 0.013527 0.017187 0.009324 0.015668 0.018656 0.009528 0.01297 0.016931 0.006328 0.014268 0.01276 0.015442
Cycle6 0.008695 0.013188 0.019276 0.009341 0.015995 0.018871 0.008992 0.013677 0.015507 0.006042 0.012942 0.012458 0.01538
Cycle7 0.007602 0.013938 0.018733 0.009401 0.016126 0.019056 0.009696 0.013381 0.016787 0.006146 0.01315 0.013484 0.015411
Cycle8 0.009348 0.015726 0.018348 0.012233 0.016753 0.019471 0.010724 0.013502 0.015905 0.005736 0.012596 0.013342 0.015418
Cycle9 0.008273 0.014182 0.016733 0.009397 0.015488 0.017872 0.00914 0.013296 0.016791 0.006669 0.012827 0.012977 0.015365
Cycle10 0.009068 0.013951 0.01786 0.009309 0.015768 0.018133 0.010615 0.013611 0.016687 0.005716 0.013642 0.013104 0.015335
Cycle11 0.009689 0.01498 0.018925 0.010038 0.01538 0.017364 0.010233 0.014103 0.017287 0.0062 0.01255 0.013058 0.015357
Cycle12 0.008113 0.013996 0.019825 0.010023 0.016487 0.018871 0.009055 0.013709 0.015908 0.006187 0.012858 0.014073 0.015334
Cycle13 0.011868 0.013996 0.022839 0.009632 0.015811 0.019456 0.010535 0.013659 0.017352 0.005979 0.013811 0.013454 0.015386
Cycle14 0.00844 0.014765 0.018129 0.009451 0.016537 0.018425 0.009516 0.013942 0.016487 0.005669 0.014142 0.013919 0.015298
Cycle15 0.009965 0.013509 0.01597 0.009751 0.015472 0.016472 0.010704 0.013541 0.016549 0.006394 0.012796 0.013342 0.015322
Cycle16 0.009993 0.013742 0.015001 0.009298 0.016272 0.019563 0.00909 0.014236 0.015795 0.005989 0.013473 0.013211 0.015372
Cycle17 0.008692 0.015677 0.018405 0.010612 0.016518 0.017622 0.009488 0.013804 0.017345 0.006383 0.013334 0.01206 0.015382
Cycle18 0.008307 0.01528 0.017995 0.009689 0.015826 0.018548 0.009993 0.013909 0.016118 0.006008 0.012858 0.013019 0.015284
Cycle19 0.008157 0.01258 0.01884 0.009574 0.015399 0.018218 0.011743 0.014252 0.017253 0.006231 0.012919 0.014107 0.015349
Average 0.0094 0.0141 0.0182 0.0096 0.0161 0.0186 0.0098 0.0138 0.0166 0.0062 0.0133 0.0133 0.0154
StDev 0.0015 0.0010 0.0016 0.0008 0.0005 0.0009 0.0008 0.0003 0.0006 0.0004 0.0005 0.0006 0.0001
Page 186
Laboratory 2 (Globe Valve) Average Cycle Measurements (Position 1)

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P1 - TC1
P1 - TC2
50
P1 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 187

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P2 - TC1
P2 - TC2
50
P2 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 188

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P3 - TC1
P3 - TC2
50
P3 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 189

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P4 - TC1
P4 - TC2
50
P4 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 190
Laboraatory2(globevvalve)Cycleto
oCycleStatistics
on1,0.025mm
on1,0.051mm
on1,0.076mm
Page 191
oCycleStatistics
on2,0.025mm
on2,0.051mm
on2,0.076mm
Page 192
oCycleStatistics
on3,0.025mm
on3,0.051mm
on3,0.076mm
Page 193
oCycleStatistics
n4,0.025mm
n4,0.051mm
n4,0.076mm
Page 194
Laboratory3(globevalve)200barcycles
Position1(oC) o
Position2( C)
o
Position3( C)
o
Position4( C) PeakPressure
Cycle1 350.59 295.41 271.48 273.44 235.84 220.21 248.54 236.33 213.38 149.41 125.98 NoData 193.63
Cycle2 330.57 286.13 246.58 272.95 232.91 223.14 256.84 247.56 216.80 154.30 126.46 NoData 194.98
Cycle3 355.47 285.16 255.86 283.20 250.00 233.40 243.16 242.19 218.75 156.25 130.86 NoData 196.32
Cycle4 334.47 297.36 263.18 272.95 236.82 225.59 253.42 237.79 219.73 153.32 122.56 NoData 196.66
Cycle5 322.75 272.95 256.35 284.67 236.33 223.14 241.21 233.40 211.43 148.44 125.00 NoData 197.33
Cycle6 343.26 285.64 262.21 271.97 242.68 227.05 249.51 245.61 220.70 155.27 130.86 NoData 197.67
Cycle7 332.52 296.88 265.63 285.16 240.23 225.59 257.32 240.72 221.68 155.27 126.95 NoData 197.67
Cycle8 326.66 275.39 258.79 303.22 249.02 227.05 249.51 243.65 219.24 159.18 125.98 NoData 197.33
Cycle9 361.82 288.57 259.77 299.32 253.42 235.35 240.72 236.33 216.31 156.25 128.42 NoData 197.67
Cycle10 351.56 300.29 284.67 284.18 246.58 228.03 260.25 243.65 221.68 159.67 129.39 NoData 197.67
Cycle11 356.45 308.11 286.62 274.90 247.56 229.49 247.56 241.21 219.24 156.25 130.86 NoData 197.33
Cycle12 333.01 305.18 278.32 298.83 271.48 245.12 255.37 237.30 213.87 152.34 130.86 NoData 198.01
Cycle13 344.24 294.92 258.79 283.20 251.95 235.84 244.63 234.38 211.91 153.81 127.44 NoData 197.33
Cycle14 339.36 291.02 265.63 278.32 244.63 225.10 246.58 243.16 217.29 158.20 125.98 NoData 197.33
Cycle15 329.10 311.04 265.14 294.92 246.58 229.49 244.63 240.72 217.29 155.76 127.44 NoData 197.33
Cycle16 328.13 270.51 246.09 289.06 242.68 232.91 241.21 234.86 216.31 154.30 130.86 NoData 197.33
Cycle17 313.96 280.76 254.39 286.13 248.54 229.98 247.07 232.91 212.89 155.27 125.98 NoData 197.33
Cycle18 335.94 312.01 271.48 291.99 259.77 235.35 248.05 238.77 218.26 155.76 129.88 NoData 197.33
Cycle19 322.75 284.67 252.44 284.67 248.05 232.42 255.37 241.21 215.33 153.32 132.81 NoData 197.33
Cycle20 580.57 218.75 173.83 56.15 41.50 220.70 281.25 176.76 965.82 184.08 117.19 NoData 4.38
Average 349.66 288.04 258.86 273.46 236.33 229.25 250.61 236.43 254.39 156.32 127.59 NoData 187.40
StDev 55.83 20.27 22.85 51.99 46.69 6.05 9.24 14.64 167.48 7.09 3.57 NoData 43.09
Cycle1 0.0081 0.0144 0.0239 0.0070 0.0165 0.0186 0.0063 0.0122 0.0163 0.0033 0.0098 NoData 0.0203
Cycle2 0.0075 0.0142 0.0166 0.0060 0.0157 0.0179 0.0076 0.0121 0.0166 0.0034 0.0098 NoData 0.0204
Cycle3 0.0080 0.0140 0.0147 0.0066 0.0158 0.0198 0.0063 0.0112 0.0171 0.0035 0.0094 NoData 0.0206
Cycle4 0.0083 0.0138 0.0168 0.0063 0.0144 0.0184 0.0071 0.0109 0.0180 0.0035 0.0079 NoData 0.0203
Cycle5 0.0074 0.0113 0.0158 0.0073 0.0155 0.0186 0.0062 0.0110 0.0162 0.0033 0.0091 NoData 0.0203
Cycle6 0.0077 0.0118 0.0155 0.0061 0.0141 0.0169 0.0062 0.0130 0.0178 0.0035 0.0103 NoData 0.0204
Cycle7 0.0070 0.0143 0.0185 0.0070 0.0158 0.0168 0.0070 0.0112 0.0164 0.0034 0.0086 NoData 0.0203
Cycle8 0.0066 0.0113 0.0166 0.0071 0.0155 0.0162 0.0066 0.0126 0.0178 0.0035 0.0076 NoData 0.0202
Cycle9 0.0086 0.0113 0.0142 0.0086 0.0140 0.0167 0.0066 0.0109 0.0161 0.0034 0.0091 NoData 0.0203
Cycle10 0.0070 0.0132 0.0177 0.0069 0.0150 0.0182 0.0072 0.0115 0.0179 0.0036 0.0095 NoData 0.0202
Cycle11 0.0076 0.0146 0.0190 0.0068 0.0157 0.0177 0.0064 0.0121 0.0168 0.0034 0.0096 NoData 0.0202
Cycle12 0.0076 0.0169 0.0209 0.0067 0.0164 0.0170 0.0074 0.0116 0.0169 0.0035 0.0103 NoData 0.0203
Cycle13 0.0080 0.0141 0.0172 0.0067 0.0179 0.0192 0.0064 0.0106 0.0156 0.0034 0.0091 NoData 0.0202
Cycle14 0.0075 0.0116 0.0173 0.0065 0.0157 0.0182 0.0066 0.0123 0.0173 0.0034 0.0076 NoData 0.0201
Cycle15 0.0059 0.0140 0.0168 0.0061 0.0144 0.0165 0.0070 0.0121 0.0168 0.0035 0.0090 NoData 0.0201
Cycle16 0.0079 0.0117 0.0155 0.0063 0.0163 0.0206 0.0068 0.0110 0.0175 0.0035 0.0104 NoData 0.0202
Cycle17 0.0066 0.0129 0.0165 0.0068 0.0146 0.0184 0.0065 0.0108 0.0164 0.0034 0.0087 NoData 0.0201
Cycle18 0.0076 0.0152 0.0194 0.0074 0.0149 0.0179 0.0063 0.0106 0.0170 0.0035 0.0104 NoData 0.0202
Cycle19 0.0062 0.0133 0.0167 0.0062 0.0147 0.0182 0.0069 0.0126 0.0168 0.0035 0.0099 NoData 0.0202
Average 0.0074 0.0134 0.0173 0.0068 0.0154 0.0180 0.0067 0.0116 0.0169 0.0034 0.0093 NoData 0.0203
StDev 0.0007 0.0015 0.0023 0.0006 0.0010 0.0011 0.0004 0.0008 0.0007 0.0001 0.0009 NoData 0.0001
Page 195

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P1 - TC1
P1 - TC2
50
P1 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 196

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P2 - TC1
P2 - TC2
50
P2 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 197

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P3 - TC1
P3 - TC2
50
P3 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 198

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P4 - TC1
P4 - TC2
50
P4 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 199
oCycleStatistics
on1,0.025mm
on1,0.051mm
on1,0.076mm
Page 200
oCycleStatistics
on2,0.025mm
on2,0.051mm
on2,0.076mm
Page 201
oCycleStatistics
on3,0.025mm
on3,0.051mm
on3,0.076mm
Page 202
oCycleStatistics
n4,0.025mm
n4,0.051mm
Therm
mocoupleFaileed
n4,0.076mm

Page 203
Laboratory4(ballvalve)200barcycles
Position1(oC) Position2(oC) Position3(oC) Position4(oC) PeakPressure
Cycle1 383.79 320.31 282.23 319.82 272.95 245.12 264.16 234.38 217.77 NoData 114.75 110.84 239.69
Cycle2 368.65 304.20 275.39 304.69 260.25 234.86 280.76 239.75 217.29 NoData 118.65 113.77 240.79
Cycle3 413.09 337.89 291.50 307.62 270.02 242.68 278.81 244.63 226.07 NoData 115.72 110.84 241.34
Cycle4 386.72 337.89 294.43 311.04 271.00 242.68 279.79 243.65 225.59 NoData 115.72 111.82 238.77
Cycle5 370.12 344.24 288.09 314.94 262.70 240.72 284.67 239.75 221.68 NoData 115.23 112.30 239.87
Cycle6 394.04 338.38 279.79 322.27 271.00 246.09 278.81 243.65 217.29 NoData 116.70 114.75 238.03
Cycle7 404.79 339.36 297.85 309.08 252.93 235.84 289.06 247.56 225.59 NoData 116.21 113.28 240.05
Cycle8 369.14 321.78 280.76 327.15 263.18 242.19 280.76 251.95 225.59 NoData 118.65 114.26 240.79
Cycle9 391.11 322.27 284.67 297.36 252.44 227.05 281.25 241.21 220.21 NoData 117.68 113.77 239.13
Cycle10 378.91 312.99 276.37 328.13 271.48 241.21 280.27 250.98 226.56 NoData 117.19 112.30 240.60
Cycle11 389.16 331.05 288.57 307.62 261.23 236.33 283.20 250.00 230.96 NoData 118.65 114.26 238.95
Cycle12 419.43 325.20 292.97 321.78 265.63 236.33 282.23 241.21 220.21 NoData 119.14 112.79 241.15
Cycle13 372.07 327.64 292.97 327.15 263.67 244.63 284.18 242.19 215.82 NoData 116.70 113.28 238.58
Cycle14 416.99 333.98 294.43 314.94 275.88 244.63 285.16 250.98 224.12 NoData 122.07 115.23 245.19
Cycle15 382.32 319.34 289.06 320.80 261.72 244.63 268.07 238.28 219.24 NoData 122.07 113.77 238.58
Cycle16 407.23 329.10 282.23 317.87 269.53 240.72 284.67 245.12 215.82 NoData 122.07 114.26 240.60
Cycle17 395.51 324.71 290.53 330.08 264.16 240.23 278.32 240.23 220.70 NoData 121.58 113.28 238.95
Cycle18 389.65 336.43 304.69 323.73 263.67 238.77 281.74 243.65 224.12 NoData 122.07 114.75 240.79
Cycle19 372.07 309.57 285.16 315.43 270.51 246.09 273.44 240.72 215.82 NoData 122.56 115.23 238.40
Cycle20 388.18 320.31 285.16 327.64 266.11 245.61 275.39 244.63 223.14 NoData 122.56 115.23 240.79
Cycle21 381.35 310.06 274.90 320.80 266.60 246.58 282.71 243.16 224.61 NoData 121.58 113.28 238.95
Cycle22 386.72 330.08 297.85 318.36 262.21 239.26 290.04 247.07 224.12 NoData 120.61 115.23 240.60
Average 389.14 326.22 287.71 317.65 265.40 241.01 280.34 243.85 221.92 NoData 119.01 113.57 240.03
StDev 15.31 10.88 7.88 8.63 5.95 4.78 6.01 4.51 4.20 2.73 1.34 1.54
Cycle1 0.0049 0.0097 0.0103 0.0044 0.0077 0.0100 0.0044 0.0084 0.0095 Nodata 0.0040 0.0048 0.0080
Cycle2 0.0046 0.0080 0.0087 0.0040 0.0088 0.0103 0.0052 0.0081 0.0093 Nodata 0.0044 0.0049 0.0081
Cycle3 0.0066 0.0099 0.0112 0.0043 0.0093 0.0105 0.0049 0.0078 0.0100 Nodata 0.0042 0.0046 0.0080
Cycle4 0.0051 0.0093 0.0106 0.0054 0.0092 0.0102 0.0048 0.0086 0.0102 Nodata 0.0041 0.0046 0.0080
Cycle5 0.0052 0.0093 0.0098 0.0042 0.0082 0.0095 0.0053 0.0081 0.0089 Nodata 0.0043 0.0046 0.0081
Cycle6 0.0059 0.0101 0.0104 0.0050 0.0092 0.0106 0.0049 0.0086 0.0089 Nodata 0.0041 0.0050 0.0081
Cycle7 0.0068 0.0098 0.0110 0.0048 0.0078 0.0101 0.0049 0.0080 0.0094 Nodata 0.0040 0.0048 0.0080
Cycle8 0.0051 0.0088 0.0101 0.0054 0.0081 0.0098 0.0044 0.0084 0.0091 Nodata 0.0041 0.0048 0.0081
Cycle9 0.0051 0.0092 0.0110 0.0044 0.0087 0.0103 0.0050 0.0081 0.0097 Nodata 0.0042 0.0048 0.0081
Cycle10 0.0048 0.0082 0.0102 0.0050 0.0082 0.0095 0.0056 0.0087 0.0094 Nodata 0.0039 0.0046 0.0081
Cycle11 0.0055 0.0099 0.0102 0.0043 0.0084 0.0102 0.0049 0.0088 0.0099 Nodata 0.0041 0.0050 0.0081
Cycle12 0.0060 0.0096 0.0107 0.0046 0.0078 0.0093 0.0046 0.0078 0.0089 Nodata 0.0041 0.0046 0.0081
Cycle13 0.0045 0.0094 0.0107 0.0054 0.0077 0.0095 0.0045 0.0078 0.0085 Nodata 0.0038 0.0049 0.0081
Cycle14 0.0064 0.0085 0.0102 0.0043 0.0088 0.0101 0.0048 0.0083 0.0093 Nodata 0.0042 0.0046 0.0082
Cycle15 0.0060 0.0082 0.0098 0.0048 0.0081 0.0108 0.0041 0.0083 0.0098 Nodata 0.0041 0.0048 0.0080
Cycle16 0.0055 0.0107 0.0116 0.0042 0.0079 0.0095 0.0049 0.0079 0.0087 Nodata 0.0040 0.0047 0.0081
Cycle17 0.0054 0.0103 0.0123 0.0047 0.0089 0.0108 0.0042 0.0079 0.0088 Nodata 0.0040 0.0047 0.0081
Cycle18 0.0047 0.0088 0.0112 0.0044 0.0080 0.0099 0.0050 0.0081 0.0096 Nodata 0.0039 0.0049 0.0080
Cycle19 0.0051 0.0081 0.0103 0.0047 0.0081 0.0094 0.0045 0.0080 0.0088 Nodata 0.0040 0.0048 0.0081
Cycle20 0.0049 0.0089 0.0108 0.0053 0.0089 0.0104 0.0046 0.0082 0.0088 Nodata 0.0040 0.0047 0.0081
Cycle21 0.0056 0.0083 0.0101 0.0043 0.0081 0.0102 0.0046 0.0082 0.0093 Nodata 0.0040 0.0043 0.0081
Cycle22 0.0054 0.0089 0.0114 0.0044 0.0083 0.0095 0.0053 0.0075 0.0087 Nodata 0.0040 0.0047 0.0080
Average 0.0054 0.0092 0.0106 0.0047 0.0084 0.0100 0.0048 0.0082 0.0093 0.0041 0.0047 0.0081
StDev 0.0006 0.0008 0.0007 0.0004 0.0005 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0005 0.0001 0.0002 0.0000
Page 204
Laboratory 4 (Ball Valve) Average Cycle Measurements (Position 1)

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P1 - TC1
P1 - TC2
50
P1 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 205

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P2 - TC1
P2 - TC2
50
P2 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 206

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P3 - TC1
P3 - TC2
50
P3 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 207

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P4 - TC1
P4 - TC2
50
P4 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 208
Laborratory4(ballvalve)CycletoCycleStatisticcs
on1,0.025mm
on1,0.051mm
on1,0.076mm
Page 209
on2,0.025mm
on2,0.051mm
on2,0.076mm
Page 210
on3,0.025mm
on3,0.051mm
on3,0.076mm
Page 211
Therm
mocoupleFaileed
n4,0.025mm
n4,0.051mm
n4,0.076mm

Page 212
Position1(oC) o
Position2( C)
o
Position3( C)
o
Cycle1 339.36 266.11 264.16 262.70 247.56 227.54 240.23 224.12 207.03 128.91 130.86 125.49 235.02
Cycle2 327.64 258.30 279.30 258.79 241.70 226.07 234.38 221.19 208.50 130.86 130.37 125.98 237.04
Cycle3 359.38 286.62 280.76 257.81 236.33 221.68 237.79 224.61 209.96 128.42 129.39 124.51 237.23
Cycle4 331.54 270.51 291.50 265.14 255.37 229.98 235.35 224.12 207.03 130.37 128.42 126.95 237.59
Cycle5 337.89 265.14 275.88 264.65 242.68 227.54 241.21 222.66 209.96 133.79 132.81 128.42 237.59
Cycle6 362.30 264.65 273.93 267.58 239.26 220.70 234.86 227.54 208.50 126.95 128.42 126.46 237.59
Cycle7 318.85 269.53 286.13 259.77 250.00 228.52 241.21 226.56 221.19 131.35 130.86 129.39 237.23
Cycle8 317.38 273.44 268.07 264.16 248.05 228.03 232.91 223.14 208.50 128.42 127.93 125.49 237.04
Cycle9 327.64 283.69 290.04 263.67 251.95 229.00 239.75 228.03 215.33 132.81 132.32 130.86 237.59
Cycle10 333.98 266.11 279.30 283.20 259.28 232.42 238.77 223.63 210.94 129.39 131.84 126.95 237.41
Cycle11 328.61 261.23 284.67 271.97 249.02 229.98 237.30 221.68 212.89 132.81 133.30 129.39 237.59
Cycle12 349.12 250.00 281.74 276.86 253.42 236.82 234.86 221.19 212.40 128.91 131.35 127.44 237.23
Cycle13 335.94 270.51 285.16 259.28 248.05 226.56 243.65 226.56 211.43 135.25 134.77 132.32 236.86
Cycle14 329.59 273.44 287.11 261.72 251.95 231.45 241.21 225.10 212.89 132.32 136.72 129.88 237.23
Cycle15 341.31 259.77 283.20 261.72 251.95 229.49 246.09 227.05 209.96 130.86 133.30 126.95 237.41
Cycle16 337.40 264.16 271.48 262.21 247.56 229.98 234.86 225.10 215.33 134.28 134.28 131.35 237.59
Cycle17 309.57 265.14 271.00 266.60 259.77 239.26 232.91 222.66 209.47 132.81 135.74 130.37 236.86
Cycle18 366.21 275.88 285.64 263.18 246.09 225.10 244.63 230.96 213.38 132.81 135.74 130.37 237.59
Cycle19 352.05 259.77 271.97 270.51 250.49 232.42 240.72 226.07 208.50 134.28 135.25 130.86 237.78
Cycle20 360.84 261.23 275.39 258.79 245.61 226.56 237.30 226.07 210.94 134.28 136.72 129.88 237.41
Average 338.33 267.26 279.32 265.01 248.80 228.96 238.50 224.90 211.21 131.49 132.52 128.47 237.25
StDev 15.78 8.62 7.59 6.45 6.00 4.37 3.88 2.52 3.38 2.40 2.80 2.28 0.59
Cycle1 0.0177 0.0264 0.0225 0.0190 0.0246 0.0264 0.0222 0.0253 0.0260 0.0300 0.0277 0.0269 0.0206
Cycle2 0.0167 0.0237 0.0248 0.0204 0.0231 0.0263 0.0206 0.0244 0.0255 0.0329 0.0283 0.0278 0.0213
Cycle3 0.0272 0.0258 0.0234 0.0206 0.0244 0.0257 0.0221 0.0255 0.0262 0.0331 0.0280 0.0287 0.0215
Cycle4 0.0183 0.0259 0.0255 0.0199 0.0244 0.0248 0.0207 0.0259 0.0261 0.0320 0.0278 0.0280 0.0214
Cycle5 0.0176 0.0243 0.0263 0.0221 0.0241 0.0265 0.0209 0.0245 0.0263 0.0323 0.0287 0.0286 0.0210
Cycle6 0.0230 0.0261 0.0225 0.0214 0.0242 0.0266 0.0204 0.0246 0.0264 0.0312 0.0269 0.0286 0.0214
Cycle7 0.0166 0.0263 0.0251 0.0209 0.0244 0.0250 0.0213 0.0255 0.0295 0.0313 0.0276 0.0288 0.0213
Cycle8 0.0166 0.0265 0.0227 0.0206 0.0243 0.0271 0.0203 0.0248 0.0263 0.0325 0.0261 0.0271 0.0213
Cycle9 0.0190 0.0279 0.0247 0.0204 0.0244 0.0264 0.0220 0.0250 0.0262 0.0324 0.0278 0.0296 0.0214
Cycle10 0.0171 0.0268 0.0240 0.0220 0.0242 0.0264 0.0221 0.0246 0.0255 0.0319 0.0271 0.0272 0.0213
Cycle11 0.0174 0.0247 0.0263 0.0214 0.0252 0.0270 0.0213 0.0240 0.0260 0.0308 0.0282 0.0281 0.0211
Cycle12 0.0196 0.0254 0.0230 0.0232 0.0235 0.0245 0.0193 0.0245 0.0274 0.0294 0.0266 0.0276 0.0214
Cycle13 0.0168 0.0239 0.0239 0.0186 0.0241 0.0269 0.0211 0.0248 0.0266 0.0324 0.0284 0.0294 0.0215
Cycle14 0.0217 0.0245 0.0231 0.0196 0.0235 0.0269 0.0221 0.0242 0.0265 0.0313 0.0305 0.0284 0.0215
Cycle15 0.0192 0.0228 0.0234 0.0197 0.0237 0.0271 0.0207 0.0235 0.0247 0.0325 0.0261 0.0261 0.0208
Cycle16 0.0234 0.0259 0.0227 0.0182 0.0233 0.0265 0.0205 0.0249 0.0270 0.0300 0.0278 0.0274 0.0210
Cycle17 0.0154 0.0274 0.0237 0.0229 0.0232 0.0258 0.0194 0.0252 0.0265 0.0294 0.0308 0.0267 0.0212
Cycle18 0.0263 0.0241 0.0233 0.0217 0.0239 0.0260 0.0209 0.0262 0.0263 0.0283 0.0272 0.0266 0.0210
Cycle19 0.0187 0.0230 0.0221 0.0195 0.0231 0.0252 0.0198 0.0233 0.0249 0.0287 0.0265 0.0285 0.0210
Cycle20 0.0189 0.0227 0.0211 0.0203 0.0233 0.0259 0.0187 0.0251 0.0260 0.0314 0.0302 0.0283 0.0212
Average 0.0194 0.0252 0.0237 0.0206 0.0239 0.0261 0.0208 0.0248 0.0263 0.0312 0.0279 0.0279 0.0212
StDev 0.0033 0.0015 0.0014 0.0014 0.0006 0.0008 0.0010 0.0007 0.0010 0.0014 0.0013 0.0010 0.0002
Page 213

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P1 - TC1
P1 - TC2
50
P1 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 214

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P2 - TC1
P2 - TC2
50
P2 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 215

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P3 - TC1
P3 - TC2
50
P3 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 216

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P4 - TC1
P4 - TC2
50
P4 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 217
on1,0.025mm
on1,0.051mm
on1,0.076mm
Page 218
on2,0.025mm
on2,0.051mm
on2,0.076mm
Page 219
on3,0.025mm
on3,0.051mm
on3,0.076mm
Page 220
n4,0.025mm
n4,0.051mm
n4,0.076mm
Page 221
Position1(oC) Position2(oC) Position3(oC) o
Cycle1 334.96 282.71 262.21 295.41 252.44 233.89 245.61 227.54 207.52 148.93 149.41 141.11 232.16
Cycle2 358.89 300.78 278.81 281.25 244.14 225.59 255.86 236.33 213.87 154.30 150.88 138.67 235.28
Cycle3 382.32 300.78 273.44 286.13 255.86 236.33 257.32 235.35 213.87 151.37 151.37 142.09 233.63
Cycle4 357.91 288.09 263.67 285.64 250.49 232.42 256.35 238.77 217.77 150.88 149.41 141.11 235.10
Cycle5 348.63 290.04 263.67 295.90 253.42 231.93 257.81 237.30 216.31 153.32 152.34 138.67 234.36
Cycle6 351.56 294.43 274.41 288.09 254.39 239.75 245.12 232.91 215.82 152.83 153.32 142.58 234.55
Cycle7 368.16 298.83 270.51 297.36 250.49 236.82 261.23 242.19 220.70 153.32 154.30 144.04 233.63
Cycle8 348.14 285.64 264.16 313.48 260.74 242.19 260.25 243.65 219.73 154.30 152.34 143.07 233.45
Cycle9 342.29 292.97 265.14 286.62 255.37 231.45 267.58 244.63 218.75 159.67 156.74 147.46 234.18
Cycle10 357.91 305.18 272.46 297.85 249.51 232.91 264.16 242.68 219.24 157.71 153.81 146.97 234.18
Cycle11 349.61 290.53 270.51 307.13 256.84 245.12 259.77 239.75 216.31 159.67 156.25 144.04 234.00
Cycle12 364.75 282.71 271.00 294.92 259.77 240.23 256.35 238.28 217.29 158.20 157.71 142.58 233.45
Cycle13 370.12 297.85 282.71 288.09 256.35 234.86 269.53 244.63 224.12 158.69 156.74 148.44 235.10
Cycle14 345.70 307.62 281.25 300.78 268.55 242.19 265.14 243.65 224.61 160.64 157.71 149.90 235.46
Cycle15 373.54 301.76 277.83 290.04 253.42 232.42 266.11 245.61 226.07 158.69 158.69 145.51 234.00
Cycle16 352.05 306.15 282.71 291.50 254.88 234.86 262.70 243.65 222.66 160.64 157.71 147.95 234.36
Cycle17 354.00 293.46 266.11 308.59 264.16 242.68 269.04 255.86 228.03 161.62 160.16 150.88 233.63
Average 356.50 295.27 271.80 294.63 255.34 236.21 260.00 240.75 218.98 156.16 154.64 144.42 234.15
StDev 12.17 7.94 7.01 8.93 5.75 5.15 7.09 6.23 5.12 3.96 3.35 3.70 0.82
Cycle1 0.0074 0.0117 0.0126 0.0079 0.0112 0.0127 0.0075 0.0114 0.0122 0.0061 0.0098 0.0107 0.0110
Cycle2 0.0082 0.0142 0.0130 0.0068 0.0118 0.0130 0.0078 0.0114 0.0124 0.0066 0.0092 0.0096 0.0111
Cycle3 0.0077 0.0133 0.0133 0.0076 0.0124 0.0137 0.0078 0.0105 0.0121 0.0061 0.0092 0.0101 0.0112
Cycle4 0.0072 0.0117 0.0118 0.0068 0.0116 0.0135 0.0073 0.0107 0.0127 0.0059 0.0087 0.0100 0.0111
Cycle5 0.0075 0.0118 0.0134 0.0067 0.0112 0.0121 0.0077 0.0113 0.0130 0.0060 0.0090 0.0094 0.0109
Cycle6 0.0074 0.0129 0.0122 0.0072 0.0111 0.0126 0.0068 0.0107 0.0126 0.0059 0.0091 0.0100 0.0110
Cycle7 0.0084 0.0124 0.0126 0.0075 0.0121 0.0133 0.0074 0.0110 0.0126 0.0060 0.0097 0.0099 0.0111
Cycle8 0.0078 0.0121 0.0117 0.0074 0.0116 0.0124 0.0073 0.0112 0.0121 0.0061 0.0088 0.0098 0.0110
Cycle9 0.0083 0.0121 0.0120 0.0066 0.0118 0.0128 0.0077 0.0107 0.0131 0.0067 0.0092 0.0101 0.0108
Cycle10 0.0077 0.0139 0.0135 0.0071 0.0107 0.0132 0.0074 0.0111 0.0124 0.0060 0.0086 0.0104 0.0110
Cycle11 0.0066 0.0127 0.0132 0.0073 0.0114 0.0134 0.0072 0.0111 0.0126 0.0064 0.0092 0.0094 0.0110
Cycle12 0.0076 0.0110 0.0125 0.0068 0.0110 0.0132 0.0069 0.0107 0.0118 0.0060 0.0091 0.0088 0.0110
Cycle13 0.0079 0.0118 0.0125 0.0065 0.0112 0.0133 0.0073 0.0099 0.0121 0.0057 0.0089 0.0099 0.0109
Cycle14 0.0068 0.0126 0.0124 0.0071 0.0123 0.0130 0.0072 0.0108 0.0122 0.0059 0.0091 0.0104 0.0109
Cycle15 0.0079 0.0124 0.0120 0.0068 0.0110 0.0128 0.0075 0.0110 0.0121 0.0059 0.0091 0.0096 0.0109
Cycle16 0.0065 0.0121 0.0133 0.0065 0.0112 0.0135 0.0071 0.0105 0.0128 0.0057 0.0090 0.0098 0.0108
Cycle17 0.0076 0.0116 0.0129 0.0067 0.0113 0.0129 0.0074 0.0109 0.0127 0.0061 0.0088 0.0097 0.0110
Average 0.0076 0.0124 0.0126 0.0070 0.0115 0.0130 0.0074 0.0109 0.0124 0.0061 0.0091 0.0099 0.0110
StDev 0.0006 0.0008 0.0006 0.0004 0.0005 0.0004 0.0003 0.0004 0.0004 0.0003 0.0003 0.0004 0.0001
Page 222

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P1 - TC1
P1 - TC2
50
P1 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 223

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P2 - TC1
P2 - TC2
50
P2 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 224

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P3 - TC1
P3 - TC2
50
P3 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 225

500 250
450
400 200
350
300 150
Temperature (C)
Pressure (bar)
250
200 100
150
100 50
P4 - TC1
P4 - TC2
50
P4 - TC3
Pressure (bar)
0 0
0.25 0.3 0.35 0.4 0.45 0.5 0.55 0.6 0.65 0.7 0.75
Time (sec)
Page 226
on1,0.025mm
on1,0.051mm
on1,0.076mm
Page 227
on2,0.025mm
on2,0.051mm
on2,0.076mm
Page 228
on3,0.025mm
on3,0.051mm
on3,0.076mm
Page 229
n4,0.025mm
n4,0.051mm
n4,0.076mm
Page 230

Adiabatic Compression of Oxygen

Încărcat de

Informații document

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Adiabatic Compression of Oxygen

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

THERMAL PROFILE OF A NEAR-ADIABATIC

COMPRESSION PROCESS IN A CYLINDRICAL TUBE

Barry Edward Newton, BSME

Submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of

The compressed gas industry and government agencies worldwide utilize

2) Can the thermal profiles produced by the rapid compression process be

Figure 1 – Simulated Adiabatic Compression against Closed Valve ........................................................3

Figure 58 – Severities for Laboratories Meeting a 15-20 ms Pressurization Time ..............................120

Table 1 – Laboratories That Carry Out Adiabatic Compression Testing ..................................................4

ASTM ASTM International (formerly, American Society for Testing Materials)

CTE Centre de Technologie et d’Expertises (Air Liquide Corporation, France)

bar psi (absolute) MPa

Statement of Original Authorship

Date: November 07, 2011

My wonderful wife, Renee, who has been an unbelievable encouragement and

Professor Theodore Steinberg, my supervisor, friend, and treasured colleague for

Jack Stradling, my mentor in oxygen technology who first introduced me to the

Chapter 1: Background and description of

1) Can the compression process required by the industry standards be

where: Tf = Final Temperature (abs)

Figure 1 – Simulated Adiabatic Compression against Closed Valve

1.2 TESTING BACKGROUND

Table 1 – Laboratories That Carry Out Adiabatic Compression Testing

1.3 STATEMENT OF INDUSTRY PROBLEM

Figure 2 – Regulator Fire Investigated by WHA (left – typical regulator attached to

1.4 TEST METHOD BACKGROUND

Figure 3 – WHA Adiabatic Compression Test system and Test Cycle

1.5 VARIABILITY AMONG TEST SYSTEMS

The temperatures plotted in Figure 6 were obtained by Type K (chromel-alumel)

Typical WHA Temperature, Positions 1-4 (0.025-mm dia TCs)

Typical BAM Temperature, Positions 1-4 (0.025-mm dia TCs)

be evaluated in Chapter 3 so that actual temperature predictions may be approximated from

Figure 7 – Idealized T-S Diagrams

Figure 8 – Idealized T-S Diagrams (Including conditions upstream of valve)

Chapter 2: Historical development of

2.2 HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT AND BACKGROUND OF ADIABATIC

"adiabatic compression" process; when a gas is compressed rapidly, it increases in temperature.

1) Adiabatic compression of the oxygen in the test chamber before impact,

2.3 SHOCK WAVE HEATING OR ISENTROPIC COMPRESSION HEATING

Figure 11 – Simplified Illustration of Shock Tube Processes Related to Rapid Compression

(4) (3) (2) (1) B

Driving Gas Section Driven Gas Section

A review of shock-tube processes was undertaken to evaluate the nature of the

where: a = local speed of sound,

Table 3 – Shock Waves in Oxygen (k = 1.4) for Different Pressure Ratios

2.4 REAL GAS CONSIDERATIONS

Leslie Eqn. 1: n = 0.2829 Ideal Gas – Ordinary Isentropic Value, k = 1.4

Leslie Eqn. 2: n = 0.2599 Ideal gas with variable specific heats

500 Ideal Gas - Constant Specific Heat

Figure 13 – Temperature – Pressure Relationships, Leslie [56]

2.5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS FROM BACKGROUND RESEARCH

Based on consideration of the background discussed above, the following general

4) The discussions pertaining to the temperature increase in the compressed gas

Chapter 3: Estimating gas temperature and

3.2 METHODOLOGY AND EXPERIMENTAL APPROACH

3.2.1 Experimental Objective

3.2.2 Relevance of the Thermal Profile

Tignition Time Tignition Time

3.2.3 Specification of Severity

First Law of Thermodynamics specified in terms of the enthalpy

Isentropic Stagnation Pressure (P2t)

P2t Isentropic Condition

Test Severity Index (TSI)

3.3 TEMPERATURE MEASUREMENT