THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN RESEARCH INSTITUTE ANN ARBOR, MICHIGAN AN INVESTIGATION OF METAL SPINNING Progress Report on Hand Spun Cones September 30, 1958 B. Avitzur W. D. Carleton So Floreen E. E. Hucke D. V. Ragone Ref~ Contract DA-11-022-ORD-2542 Army Ballistic Missile Agency SPINCRAFT, INC. MILWAUKEE, WISCONSIN November 1958

-.->r v 0C"" J3 k -

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute INTRODUCTION This investigation is concerned with the mechanical properties and deformations in materials which have been hand spun. Essentially this work is a continuation of a previous investigation made of mechanically spun pieces (1 The previous investigation showed that the properties of pieces which are mechanically spun are generally very similar to those produced by cold-rolling to an equivalent reduction. The investigation also showed that the deformatio s found in spun pieces could be explained in an overall way on the basis of the various forces, feed rates, etc., that were used to fabricate the pieces. In this investigation a series of pieces were spun by hand to the same dimensions as the mechanically-spun pieces. Hand spinning is what the name implies. The shaping of the metal is done by a skilled craftsman who used a specially-designed instrument called a spinning tool to form the sheet over the pattern. Hand spinning is' different from mechanical spinning in two important respects. In the first place the applied force and rate of feed used by the man doing the spinning are not kept constant, as is usually the case in mechan - cally spinning. Secondly, the hand spinner may make a number of passes on the same piece until he believes the deformation is correct, while in mechanical spinning only one pass is commonly used to fabricate the piece. The hand spinner can use whatever force, feed rate, and number of passes that he feels is necessary to form the piece. Because of this freedom any mathematical analysis of the plastic deformation, such as is possible in mechanical spinning, is out of the question. An investigation of this type therefore, must of necessity be confined to an general evaluation of hand spun pieces in terms of the mechanical properties and types of deformations. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE In the present investigation a number of the experimental procedures were identical with those used for the mechanically spun cones (1). For a more complete description of these procedures the reader should refer to that section of the report. For the sake of convenience however, the entire procedure will be briefly described. 1

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute 1 - Materials. The materials used were 1100 aluminum and cartridge brass (70cCu)o The materials were purchased in the form of annealed sheets. The thickness of the brass sheets were,081", Two thicknesses of aluminum sheet were used, 081" and 125". Previous tests (1) showed that these were no significant differences in mechanical properties between sheets of the same alloy, and also that the anisotropy in the sheets was negligible 2 - Spinning Procedure. The pieces were spun by the Spincraft Corp, of Milwaukee, Wisconsin. All of the pieces were spun by the same man and on the same machine. The pieces were spun into the form of truncated cones having the same dimensions as the mechanically spun cones. The three cone angles that were used were the same as for the mechanically spun cones. A sketch showing the general shape of the spun cones is presented in Figure 1, and a photograph of a typical cone is given in Figure 2. All of the cones were spun to completion. As was previously done, grids were placed a number of the sheets before they were spun. The sheets were then spun so that the grids were located on the inner side of the cones; that is on the side that was opposite to the side on which the spinning tool was applied A sketch showing the grids that were used is given in Figure 3 A listing of the cones that were spun to date together with the spinning procedures that were used is presented in Table I. Several different sizes and shapes of spinning tool were used. These tools are shown schematically in Figure 4. The number of passes that were used varied from 1 to 24. The comments in the table are those made by the man who performed the spinning. 3 - Testing of Spun Cones. The tensile properties were determined by machining tensile specimens from some of the cones. Four specimens were taken from each cone, as shown in Figure 5. The tensile specimen that was used is shown in Figure 6. This specimen has dimensions that are one-half those of the standard 8" ASTM tensile specimen for sheet materials, Previous tests (1) showed that the 4" and 8" s-ecimen gave approximately the same tensile properties. Thus the measured tensile properties should approximate those obtained using the standard 8" specimens 2

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute Hardness tests were made on. the spun surfaces of all the cones. Several of the cones were cross-sectioned and microhardness measurements were made across the thickness of the sheet. Thickness measurements were made on the spun regions of all the cones, The grid deformations in the cones were measured before the cones were sectioned. The measurements consisted in locating the grid points with a divider and then measuring the divider points on a scale. The deformations found in the grids were rather complicated. The various measurements that were made will be discussed.more fully in the next section. RESULTS 1. Mechanical Properties. The tensile properties of the spun cones are listed in Table II. Because of the negligible anisotropy in the as-received sheet, the original rolling direction should not have any significant effect on the tensile properties. For this reason the tensile properties of the two specimens taken parallel and perpendicular to the original rolling direction are averaged in the table. The results show, as would be expected, that the tensile and yield strength increase with increasing reduction, and that the elongation decreases. The scatter in the tensile data is large however, much more so than was found for the mechanically spun cones (1). The hardness measurements on the spun surfaces of the cones also showed considerable scatter. In many cases the curvature and surface roughness of the pieces made accurate measurements difficult. Because of these variations only the average hardness values have been reported. These values are listed in Table III. The results show that the hardness increases with reduction, as would be expected. The average variation in microhardness in the cross sections of some of the cones is shown schematically in Figure 7. It was found in general that the microhardness was fairly constant over the cross-section, as shown in the Figure. This result is rather surprising. Since the spinning tool is applied to only one surface of the sheet one might expect to find a decrease in hardness from the spun surface to the opposite surface. This latter type of hardness gradient was encountered in the mechanically-spun pieces. However no such gradient was encountered in the present case. 3

- The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute In general the mechanical properties of the hand-spun cones showed less work hardening than the mechanically-spun coneso No doubt this reflects the differences in modes of deformation in the two cases. 2, Deformations. The thicknesses of the spun regions of the cones as a function of the distance from the bend are plotted in Figure 8. The results show that there may be distinct variations in thickness in hand-spun pieces. Similar thickness variations were also found in the'mechanically spun pieces.'In some of the present cones however, for example the 1080 angle aluminum cones, the thickness variations were much less than those found in the mechanically-spun coneso The result is not too surprising when one considers that any number of passes can be made on a hand spun piece until the operator feels that the thickness is uniform. Wten the operator was not primarilly concerned with producing a uniform thickness, as shown by the comments in Table I, there are much greater variations in thickness. The grid distortions in the cones are shown schematically in Figure 9. In general three types of.distortions were found, an elongation of the grid, a tangential displacement, and a decrease in the width of the grid.(Figure 9) The magnitudes of these various distortions in the cones are summarized in Figures 10 tQo 12, It is very interesting to compare the grid distortions in the hand-spun cones with those found in the mechanically-spun ones. The radial elongations of the grids for example, show that the elongations near the bend were small, increased sharply to fairly high value, dropped slightly, increased to another peak, and finally fell off to low values near the outer edges of the cones. This uniformity in behavior is quite different from the mechanically spun cone In the latter case the elongations varied widely from cone to cone, in some cases being quite large near the bend, in others quite small, and so on. It would be expected that there should be a direct relationship between the thickness and the elongation values. These relationships are shown in Figure 13. The results show that there is a general relationship, but with a gooddeal of scattero The tangential displacements in the hand spun cones are in some cases entirely different from those found in the mechanically spun cones. In a number of the hand spun cones having a 630 cone angle a negative displacement was found in the region near the bend. No negative displacement was found in any of the mechanically-spun conesO

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute Finally a decrease in the width of the grids was found in some of the 63~ cones, which was not found in the mechanically-spun cones. Only those cones showing a significant decrease in grid width (greater than.01 inches) are plotted in the figureso Once again, only the 63~ cone angle pieces show this behavior. While the 63 cones showed these new types of deformation, the other cones displayed deformations that were more similar to the deformations in the mechanically-spun cones. No decrease in the width of the grids or negative tangential displacements were observed. The only striking characteristics of these cones are, as mentioned, the uniform thicknesses in some of them and the consistent way in which the radial elongations vary. DISCUSSION It would be very desirable to make some generalizations concerning the properties of hand spun pieces. To some extent this is possible. The results show that the mechanical properties, such as tensile strength and hardness, are increased by increasing amounts of reduction, In the mechanically spun pieces these properties after spinning were very close to the properties produced by cold rolling to the same reduction (1)o The hand spun pieces do not show this agreement, in most cases being lower than the cold-rolled properties. Also the hand spun pieces show a good dal more scatter in the measured values. Thus one might conclude that hand spinning does in general work harden a piece, but that an accurate estimate of the resultant properties cannot be made. Some of this same scatter in data is also found in the deformation measurements. For example in the 63~ cones the width of the grids was decreased and the tangential displacements were negative in some regions6 As was pointed out, these results are un:Lque. No such deformations were found in any of the mechanically-spun cones, or in the cones hand spun to other cone angles. Because of the lack of information concerning the applied forces, feed rates, and so on, it is difficult to make any analysis of the deformationso Both the grid width and the tangential displacements should be dependent upon the tangential force applied to the cone during spinning; that is, upon the force acting along the circumference of the cone. If this force were quite large it could decrease the width of the g:rids. The negative tangential displacements are harder to explaino This displacement should be due to the shearing of the metal, and si:ce the piece is always revolving in the same direction one would expect the shear to always be in the same direction. It might be possible however, if the tangential force were very large at the 5

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute outer edge of the cone, for the region near the bend to be bent back in the reverse direction. This is because the piece is clamped to the pattern at the center of the cone. The net effect of the force revolving the cone at the center and the retarding force at the outer edge would be to produce a flow in the negative direction between these two forces. Thus one would expect to find a negative displacement near the bend, and a decrease in the grid width near the outer edge, which is generally the case in these cones. Whether this is actually what happened is difficult to sayo It is interesting to note however, that these distortions were only found in the 630 angle cones, where the total applied force and therefore the tangential force would be greater. Although the deformations in some cones were rather unusual, in others they were what might be expected and also quite uniform. The radial elongations for example, all showed the same general behavior. This uniformity probably reflects the consistent way in which the spinner formed the pieces. The thicknesses of some of the pieces were also very uniform, as was pointed out in the case of the 108 aluminum coneso This uniformity in thickness could be a very desirable property in many spun pieces, and it is significant that while hand spinning may produce more scatter in mechanical properties, it also may produce more uniformity in dimensionso It is difficult to assess the influence of the various spinning tools that were used to produce the cones. With mechanical spinning the shape of th spinning tool appears important. In the present case however, variations in the force, feed rate, and so on would probably hide the influence of the tool shape. One important factor which has not been studied however, is the surface condition of the piece. To some extent' the surface condition will depend on the shape of the tool and thus to some extent dictate the prope tool for the job. From an overall point of viewIit would seem that the one distinct feature of hand spinning, as opposed'to mechanical spinning is the greater range of properties it produceso This greater range can be either helpful or harmful, depending on what is desired in the finished piece. Thus if uniform mechanical properties are desired, hand spinning is probably inferior to mechanical. spinning. On the other,, hand, because of the greater freedom in operation, it.may be easier to produce uniform dimensions by hand spinning. Economic considerations must also enter into any comparison of the two processes. It would probably be more economical to produce a small number of pieces, or pieces having more intricate shapes, by hand spinning. A full evaluation of this is beyond scope of this report, however. _____________________ 6 _____

- The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute Finally it should be pointed out that there are several important factors which have not been evaluated in this investigation, but which must be considered in evaluating hand-spun pieces. The most important one of course is the man doing the spinning. In the present investigation all of the spinning had been done by one man. Naturally'if another man did the spinning the results would be different to some degree, depending upon the skill of the man. In the present case the man who did the spinning was a skilled spinner who has spent a number of years in the trade. Talent is very hard to evaluate however, and it is impossible to tell whether the results represent the work of an average spinner or not. The important thing is to note that at least slightly different results would be expected from each man who performs the worko Other factors are the material being spun, and the shape and dimensions of the piece. Both the materials used in this investigation might be considered as being fairly easy materials to spin. In the same way the cones represented shapes that were quite easy to fabricate. The skill of the spinner also enters in here, but with more difficult materials and shapes eve; the most skillful spinners might have trouble producing uniform results.. CONCUJSIONS To date this investigation of hand spun pieces has shown the following: 1 - The mechanical properties such as tensile and yield strength and hardness are somewhat lower than those found in mechanically spun pieces. 2 - The scatter in properties is greater than for the mechanically spun pieces. 3 - The deformations in hand spun pieces are similar to those in mechanically spun pieces in most cases. Two new deformations which wtre found in some of the hand spun pieces which have not been detected before. A tentative reason has been advanced for this behavior. --------------- 7

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute 0 3 H H u2 o 0 4- rd cr0 H 0 * 0)*H 0 4O' 40 P < 0,Q. 0 d rd -P 0 0 O H f rd 0 S 0 < OH h h:> r O N > z e e hH 0 0 4.H ) 5 X v o 0 kk: e' O;:: Ht C 0 H O 0 H ft O P 0 02'H 0, O c rC34',.. CU c4C -P I3 3 4' 0)cr3hg C) C JN*. 0 P CO3 4P (D) 4' nQ 0, 0 d is > >s0 2 Q H^ 4'44 4 - 44H 4 4 O-40 4 r3 tQa 0Q O.c 4 O Pi o c ~a 002Rfs1 04'> 0) 00C) ^ 4' H0I 0 4Q O 1 P CXQP. 4F- ^ 0 Q.S r- -. -o no3 oi o t a.o~ a O r a H d0 e- 4)0 P 3 - H 10 o ed Pi 3 0 rd m 0 o 0 w OP - h O e H e 4r* H H 0 H ) p 0; @ H 0)0 *r 3 0C)0 0 c r3 O O 0 qH CH 0 0 A H H pRH - 0A OO R pr3H pi-P U) P4 R C0 C H 0H2 H *H H H H $ S d 0 H ) cr *ri d ( 0) H c). H 4 0 0 0rl O *H Hcr * H H P4 0H r0 c 0 c0 Pi c.CH O co3'.H H4' P40 P40 P40 P0 P4 o. c r H HH0 0H pL H H O H X c; a I QH aI a. S eI I I cr3. b uz h tn h m b uz h uz fs: f h c50 0 H >C?'~X H0- H>- ( P U O fA a0 H H H 0 ( 0 I A 0 H:; ro O *3 ( C3 U 3u' *3 < ~ *' oH 3 cU Q rH W CU O c. H O C15 _ 8 0 0H410 I! rIO I I I * H a 0 E-i Q3 r; PI eH i p F p S U) I t t H ) X _HOJ ~ )-H OJ OJ HI P O..) _ _0 H H H H H H H

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute r-g l k C-r 0 H ~^ z 0 CH ~H *( Q t H - O 0 oQ *-H t- rd U Q O Q 4Q 0H) EC CU )4 4 U ) H -O 0Ua) 4-. O v0 0 U) U) U) 0 0) U )0 40 C - aO Q U S. v X X S m e Xeo o t O Oh 0O OH) up - p ~r - C d O 44 rdt U 0 8 b.0 0 0 0 0- U) P4 4 CP Oh O p O o 0* M O O, S O O ~ O. OX hD5|~~~~~~O CO ~H E 0 * ) 0 Q) H *H 0 -P l U2 l - Q) O0 O ) 0 C ) 0 C) ) U ) U )0 04 044 U: a) *r: * a CQ*CO O3 i B E 3 *O c C O O U?f *H P }H 4 U Pi 4O R & o S o * 0 CO 0 a E3 eq h3 e 3 3 U 3 e (D 5 D X g X O ts P4 c0 -d a) CC ON O O o o Hr1 C)CJ Hi H H H H O 0A HH0 H P^ {SP; rl rl rl tH ( 1 F) I I oI *J HC C, H H H H O O * fII O|g I CQ \1000 V CQCJ C0 1 0 O\ O CJ I —---------- 9 ----------------

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute E' I H -I H ~! C0'U U) r-1 o C r- a i o P -P JO 3 4-P -t O Ca O 0 *rl S *rl 0 H o o H0 r *H P 0) r 0 o M 0 c * d rDSZ C t' 4 U H U) O a4 > ic i ~d,, 0P r' csO~~~~~~~~sF F 0 w. ) 40 0 0 4 -- ) O aQ ) rO -l CIc 0-' r 0 co C 0 c r- 4 43 Sri q P4 PiP c 0 04 0 o 0 o o ~hDi) ~ ~ ~ ~') U) ) U Pc A cq c4 c- cU )3 cU) ^H H *rl *H *r r \ p I~ a a - o L c~ c~ c O O* o:1:: oo ro ro o H PCPtp4 CQ (CCQ CMt z I e * I I I I Ir I uO c. 3. c'5 cN eC: O u3 o C CC CM O CO Oa CM, 1 0o~~ H~ 1 CQ OJO O 0 CUj OJ 00 CO O I —---------------— 10 —--------

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute ro b.0 0 9i tid r H o o u Ta) r-1 Q a)o 0 0 cO 0 *rl -P 0) CQ) a O1 S h O c Sri, H 0 O) O 0 co - -I CH +3 X.rl rdo X d 0 Et Cl)~~~~~1.H CHU 4^ 1) O 0 C 0i cor-1 rd -prd VH I e d E ^0 OS *H co $ t U A P ( O *r 1^ *rl e -Ii -' r= - co 8ed ~~~~ a Cl) F- a) 4-> a, o ( S V) C pi aH co t (P CO co ~~P4Z; f~ ~~1 k^g C\ r ^ ni ~ I 11~~~^r1C

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute TABLE II Tensile Properties of Hand Spun Cones Each value is average of two specimens, one parallel and one perpendicular to the original rolling direction of the sheet. rad = radial direction - direction from center of cone to outer edge. tan = tangential direction - direction parallel to outer edge of cone, or perpendicular to radial direction. 630 Angle Cones Cone- Tensile Strength Yield Strength %Elongation (psi).2 offset (psi) _ Brass 8FiD rad 73,700 57,000 7.2 tan 66,700 49,000 7 9 Brass 6FiC rad 64,000 48,800 12o5 tan 55,000 41,000 29.0 Brass 6K1F rad 64,800 45,200 15.7 tan 63,400 42,400 16.5 Brass 6K1E rad 76,000 53,800 6.8 tan 61,500 40,200 14.0 Brass 6R1G rad 73,800 50,600 408 tan 63,400 48,900 11.8 081 Al 2F1A rad 15,300 13,200 16.8 tan 14,800 12,800 16.4 081 Al 3R1A rad 17,100 15,600 10.8 tan 17,400 15,800 8o8 081 Al 3R1B rad 15,300 13,200 16.5 tan 15,000 12,800 17.4 081 Al 2F1B rad 15,600 13,600 15.6 tan 15,100 13,000 13.6 125 Al 4R1C rad 14,600 12,200 21.6 tan 14,400 12,400 20.8 12

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute 850 Angle Cones Cone Tensile Strength Yield Strength % Elongation..._____..... Psi.2% offset (Psi) Brass 9F2C rad 70,800 68,200 13.3 tan 65,300 64,700 16.4 Brass 9F2D rad 70,100 63,000 17.2 tan 60,200 57,600' 23.4 Brass 9R2C rad 70,300 68,500 14.8 tan 65,600 65,400 14.8 Brass 9R2D rad 67,200 65,700 12.5 tan 61,200 58,400 25.0 Al 2F2A rad 16,900 16,600 18.7 tan 16,500 16,200 17.2 Al 2F2B rad 18,500 18,200 12.5 tan 17,200 17,100 12.5 Al 2R2A rad 18,100 17,500 12.3 tan 17,500 16,700 14.9 Al 2R2B rad 16,200 15,500 19.6 tan 15,700 15,000 21.9 13

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute 108~Cone Angles Cone Tensile Strength Yield Strength %Elongation (psi).2% offset (psi)____ Brass 8R3A rad 64,800 85,000 13.1 tan 59,000 49,000 24.0 Brass 8F3A rid 64,800 58,000 14.0 tan 58,400 49,600 21.1 Brass 8F3B rad 59,100 39,000 15.2 tan 60,500 51,700 16.1 Brass 8R3B rad 61,800 55,000 18.7 tan 58,800 47,800 12.2 081 Al 2R3B rad 14,200 13,200 14.7 tan 13,700 12,500 16o3 081 Al 2R3A rad 15,400 14,000 12.3 tan 15,500 13,500 16.6 081 Al 2F3A rad 14,900 12,600 15.1 tan 14,600 12,500 1503 081 Al 2F3B rad 15,700 14,200 15.5 tan 15,100 13,900 14.8 14

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute H rrd Q d eOO 0 Q tQ m m0 fl It 0 (Q HW 0 (U CO OJ CUI CV Od a) ~CO rl C)l o o ~~~~~H 0 Q H H 0) Ei. o L-I H - C: 0 0 0 ~C)Q~~~1 O 0 54 0 c H drA i Ed d 112 0 CQ 0

The University of Michigan * Engineering Research Institute REFERENCES 1. ERI Progress Report June 30, 1958. An Investigation of Metal Spinning. Summary Report on Mechanically Spun Cones. ---------------------— 16 —-----------

/ \ APEX ANGLE THIS REGION NOT SPUN / \ A. —— ~ ~\ 63~ SPUN REGION i/ 85~ -\ 1080 SCHEMATIC VIEW SHOWING CONE ANGLES FIG. 1

Fig. 2. Photograph of spun cone.

- 1/2" T LAYOUT OF GRIDS ON BLANKS BEFORE SPINNING FIG. 3

K -- via - - LU luu a. o 5 0 n U 0 UJ 0 I-. z - vina s - z S1. c ci ^4 oc E V I..- vIa uS -..,_.11 lIB 4% f C3'

RADIAL SPECIMENS ORIGINAL / / ROLLING DIRECTION O! AS-RECEIVED SHEET FIG TANGENTIAL SPECIMENS LOCATIONS WHERE TENSILE SPECIMENS WERE CUT FROM CONES FIG. 5

T LU L u.E.LU Z 1 - - U. 40 ad0 L U kO CII

0 LU Z 0 V Z z 0 U- m uu zZ a_~~~0 0\ -- \ OZ- Z ~- I ~ LU V Z LWI (D v z 0 LU UI Xs~~~~~~~~~ ~L0 U 0 Ia~nN INQH IlkNi 0 (0 A a0 ^I l SS3N\VH dOON ^ ^ Q s~~~~~~~~3 $ ^7>~~~ v <^w~~~~~~~~a ^ ^-0~~~~ oY \: o So V oo$ <S O O~ C ^

0 ma. LL. -. u9 0^ -* ^^ u~0 LU Z 0 LU uJ Z 0 * V LU Z z U. z Z \\~~ Y^< \ SI/~~I~'4 0 ( N 00'4 0J W N 0 0 ~I00 0 \0. X (0 (0 I)':N4II (100'0 x N1)'SS3N IHI

C S c, c 0 0 C wo I00'0'NI- S3N OIH.I. 0\1 \. \L I * > oLLt o LL 7!LL N O OD 0 O 0o (O J Nc 0 00 00 OD P.*. m h t( 0D 0 (0 (D 1000 *NI - SS3NID31H1

LU z O^VsA^000 Z O 0 0 V \ z I 0 z U LL D. 0 V L NI'c N) I \ I \o ~o o~~~~~_'A\T\-^^S^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~: [, ) \c:?< g ai>\p ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~uo s-4 \S \nii:~ D t^< DQ a-~~~~ Ia U'3 0 (D ~M O ^ O U><0 I1 <D I^ ^ U) <O U~~~~~~~~tf~~~t0 ^t ^ ^t~~~u

LU 0 IM CIO) uu z X\ w U."414 0 aY)'S53N\D 1 o ^ v r \cv, z o0 z \ I (,Au n 0 0 * ^ 0 ^ Z Z 0 *Pi~~ 9u.r N1 1SS,,DIH Ad- cU v 1 ~ 1

CY U. <1<-^ co.. 0 U) Go/ ^.o~~~~~~~~~~~ to'' 4) N 0 i a0 q NO - ~ N x 0^ *I b-l- tE. D. 000 N\1 -SSN>TIHJ0 II,,I.,fIII, I, [ I I I (0 / " ^. ^ - O C00 J 00 o0h O I,,.(D c. ~ lOO'0'NI - SS3N::31H'.

LU 0 Z un, C\O z t D D 0 Nu u a 0 U1 2i, Z _~d - U 6*NI'S D: 5Z | Z 0'-z 0 LL Z U 16 IM Z 0 0 0 0 0 ANI'SS3N)IH t

LU z 00 u Z oz M LU ~ID -r ( Z 0- u 0 In ffNI~~'~~~S3N>131H~I — 0 0 0 0 0 -- -0 Q 0 *NI'SS3N)DIHL

UNSPUN CENTER REGION BEND SPUN REGION THIS LINE SCRIBED _i o - ON CoNE AFTER e -/e SPINNING GRID WIDTH. / / RADIAL ELONGATION TANGENTIAL DISPLACEMENTf OUTER EDGE OF CONE /,/ GRID DISTORTIONS IN CONES FIG. 9

80 70 60 50 0 Oft z 0 S 40 0 ~y3083A I0O 10 o I I I 1.0 2.0 3.0 DISTANCE FROM BEND, IN. RADIAL GRID ELONGATION - 63~ BRASS CONES FIG. 10a

70 60 50 040z 40 0 30- 9R2D 10 O I 0I 0 I 2 3 DISTANCE FROM BEND - IN. Rodial Grid Elongation - 85~ Brass Cones Fig. 0oa. (Cont.)

80 70 60 8FID 50 0 40 ------'- - --- O 40-A ----— L - - --- \ \ uJ - 20' zo L I0 o I I I I1 1.0 2.0 3.0 DISTANCE FROM BEND, IN. RADIAL GRID ELONGATION - 108~ BRASS CONES FIG. 10a (CONT.)

70 60 2FIB 50 0 // /\ \ ^.\^3RIB z ~0 10 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DISTANCE FROM BEND, IN. RADIAL GRID ELONGATION 63~ ALUMINUM CONES FIG. 10b

70 60 - v —d I,0 2F2B 40 i *.A \ 2 0 - A ^ 2 ~ ^2R 2 B -0 I0 0.... I, I I I,i I, 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 DISTANCE FROM BEND-IN. Radial Grid Elongation 85 Aluminum Cones FIG. 10 b (Cont.)

70 60 50 Z z 0 0 40 z 0 UJ 2R3B 2F3B 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 DISTANCE FROM BEND, IN. RADIAL GRID ELONGATION 108~ ALUMINUM CONES FIG. lOb (CONT.)

90 80 70 60 S 50' ~0 a 4RIC (174222) ~ 40 30,020 3O 100 2 3 4 5 6 7 DISTANCE FROM BEND, IN. RADIAL GRID ELONGATION- HAND-SPUN.125-IN. ALUMINUM CONES FIG. 10c

2FIB.08.06 i.04 <.02- / /D -1 0 r I 2 3 I DISTANCE FROM BEND, IN. TANGENTIAL GRID MOVEMENT 630 BRASS CONES FIG. Ha

020;.15 Q. co / _.05 o/-.. of ~9R20 / v 9F20 E>0 B 0 Onentia GiNCE FRM BENDFRM 3 -'"ucv;t 85* Bs' FIG. II'o. (Cont ) orCones

2F3B/ / 2R3B.08.06 /.04 uj w s.02 -O -.02-.04 -L- I.I. I Il 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 DISTANCE FROM BEND, IN. TANGENTIAL GRID MOVEMENT - 108~ BRASS CONES FIG. 11a (CONT.)

t.08 8FID t.06 t.04 If- 6FIC +.02 -D02 -.04 6RIF 0 2 3 4 DISTANCE FROM BEND, IN. TANGENTIAL GRID MOVEMENT 63~ ALUMINUM CONES FIG. llb

.500.40 % 0.20 Z.\, /o\ a >a A n R2B,J' FROM BENDIN ol- --— DISTANCE FR~lMidurn cones6 Tongertial Grid Mntement bo>6 (Coon^ ~~~~\ \b Cn~

8F3A 8R3B +.08 +.06 +.04 z V +.02 0.. C:L -020 0 -.02 --- -.04 0 I 2 3 4 DISTANCE FROM BEND, IN. TANGENTIAL GRID MOVEMENT 108~ ALUMINUM CONES FIG. 11b (CONT.)

FIG. 11c.07.06 CONE 4RIC.05.04 z 0 Co.03 z Q o u 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 I,.01.00 ---.01 I DISTANCE FROM BEND, IN. TANGENTIAL GRID MOVEMENT-HAND-SPUN.125-IN. ALUMINUM CONES

LL. iZ / 00 0 1 Z 4 0 u_ 0 Z'NI'SI NIOd N3:M:DNVISIG I7 5 I *Nl'SINIOd N33M13a 33NV1lSIO

Q-. U: i -:: o! z - I-. I z -- Z; n CO I ce~ 00 0 C)00 Z C_ / SI'NI- d -I I // 0'N1'SINIOd N33M13g 33NV1SIG

02 z oo z N o / - z Z Q U z Z z I 00 /~~ Z'N'S. 2NIOd N:M.:::INV.Sl ^ /' s <~~~~~ ~ / S z S~~~~~~ Z /< - ^- 0 m *v 0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~rr / v u y6 u- - E~~~~~ X "* _ X u z~~~~ y 2 3~~~~~~C O 00 tO ~~~~t C\y < a IC)~~~~~~~~y *- udId'NI~~~~ -S~~ N3M3 33 aSI

0 0 0 0 * z zg / 5 <N10 o - io ~~~~~~~~~~~~U.__m z 0 0 ~/..... II 0 /)0 LU co 0 0 CD N

0 - O o o. 0 / z o o0noCo 0 z O 0'0 00 oz ^O7 H z a O O )i I: I I I I I I I IIr:' )I-I Iu, 0 I9 Z z iI I 00/0NOIIV ZN013.0 %'NOIIVON013

UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN 3 9015 02499 5329