NASA/TM—2004-213189 AIAA–2004–3889

Modeling and Evaluation of Canted

Coil Springs as High Temperature Seal
Preloading Devices

Jay J. Oswald and Robert L. Mullen

Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr. and Bruce M. Steinetz

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

September 2004
 The NASA STI Program Office . . . in Profile

Since its founding, NASA has been dedicated to • CONFERENCE PUBLICATION. Collected
the advancement of aeronautics and space papers from scientific and technical
science. The NASA Scientific and Technical conferences, symposia, seminars, or other
Information (STI) Program Office plays a key part meetings sponsored or cosponsored by
in helping NASA maintain this important role. NASA.

The NASA STI Program Office is operated by • SPECIAL PUBLICATION. Scientific,

Langley Research Center, the Lead Center for technical, or historical information from
NASA’s scientific and technical information. The NASA programs, projects, and missions,
NASA STI Program Office provides access to the often concerned with subjects having
NASA STI Database, the largest collection of substantial public interest.
aeronautical and space science STI in the world.
The Program Office is also NASA’s institutional • TECHNICAL TRANSLATION. English-
mechanism for disseminating the results of its language translations of foreign scientific
research and development activities. These results and technical material pertinent to NASA’s
are published by NASA in the NASA STI Report mission.
Series, which includes the following report types:
Specialized services that complement the STI
• TECHNICAL PUBLICATION. Reports of Program Office’s diverse offerings include
completed research or a major significant creating custom thesauri, building customized
phase of research that present the results of databases, organizing and publishing research
NASA programs and include extensive data results . . . even providing videos.
or theoretical analysis. Includes compilations
of significant scientific and technical data and For more information about the NASA STI
information deemed to be of continuing Program Office, see the following:
reference value. NASA’s counterpart of peer-
reviewed formal professional papers but • Access the NASA STI Program Home Page
has less stringent limitations on manuscript at [Link]
length and extent of graphic presentations.
• E-mail your question via the Internet to
• TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM. Scientific help@[Link]
and technical findings that are preliminary or
of specialized interest, e.g., quick release • Fax your question to the NASA Access
reports, working papers, and bibliographies Help Desk at 301–621–0134
that contain minimal annotation. Does not
contain extensive analysis. • Telephone the NASA Access Help Desk at
301–621–0390
• CONTRACTOR REPORT. Scientific and
technical findings by NASA-sponsored • Write to:
contractors and grantees. NASA Access Help Desk
NASA Center for AeroSpace Information
7121 Standard Drive
Hanover, MD 21076
NASA/TM—2004-213189 AIAA–2004–3889

Modeling and Evaluation of Canted

Coil Springs as High Temperature Seal
Preloading Devices

Jay J. Oswald and Robert L. Mullen

Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, Ohio

Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr. and Bruce M. Steinetz

Glenn Research Center, Cleveland, Ohio

Prepared for the

40th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit
cosponsored by the AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, July 11–14, 2004

National Aeronautics and

Space Administration

Glenn Research Center

September 2004
 Trade names or manufacturers’ names are used in this report for
identification only. This usage does not constitute an official
endorsement, either expressed or implied, by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration.

Available from
NASA Center for Aerospace Information National Technical Information Service
7121 Standard Drive 5285 Port Royal Road
Hanover, MD 21076 Springfield, VA 22100

Available electronically at [Link]

 Modeling and Evaluation of Canted Coil Springs as
High Temperature Seal Preloading Devices
Jay J. Oswald and Robert L. Mullen
Case Western Reserve University
Cleveland, Ohio 44106

Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr. and Bruce M. Steinetz

National Aeronautics and Space Administration
Glenn Research Center
Cleveland, Ohio 44135

Future reusable launch vehicles will require advanced structural seals. This includes
propulsion seals along edges and hinge lines in hypersonic engines, and control surface seals
for movable flaps and elevons on proposed reentry vehicles. Seals must remain in sealing
engagement with opposing surfaces, for multiple missions, even though the seal gap may be
opening and closing due to thermal and structural loads. To meet this requirement either the
seals themselves must be resilient or there must be a resilient structural element behind the
seals. Case Western Reserve University is working with NASA’s Glenn Research Center to
develop more resilient high temperature seal components and preloading devices. Results
are presented for a finite element analysis of a canted coil spring that is being considered as
a high temperature seal preloading device. This type of spring is a leading candidate due to
its ability to provide nearly constant force over a large deflection. The finite element analyses
were verified by comparing them to experimental results of canted coil springs of three
different stiffnesses, measured at Glenn Research Center. Once validated the parameterized
model was combined with a scripting algorithm to assess the effects of key spring design
variables (wire diameter, coils per inch, cant amplitude, eccentricity, and spring width) on
spring stiffness and maximum Von Mises stress to aid in subsequent design.

I. Introduction

High temperature structural seal preloading devices are required to meet the needs of future reusable launch
vehicles. Control surface seals are required to seal the edges and hinge lines of movable flaps and elevons on future
reentry vehicles,1 (Fig. 1). Propulsion system seals are required along edges and hinge lines of movable panels in
hypersonic engines as shown in Fig. 2.
Both of these seal types must remain in contact with their opposing surfaces under multiple missions as the seal
gap opens and closes due to thermal and structural loads. An approach to improve the resiliency of these seals is to
use structural elements behind them that provide a positive preload force across a range of seal displacement. This
force ensures requisite seal contact during operation while accommodating deformation of the seal (Fig. 3). Several
concepts considered in previous studies to improve seal resiliency are knitted spring tubes,2 Si3N4 compression
springs,3 and ceramic leaf springs.4 Unlike typical compression springs that generate increasing amounts of force as
they are compressed, the force produced by a canted coil spring is nearly constant over a large range of deflection as
shown in Fig. 4. The spring is loaded transversely and upon compression, the angle between the coils and the
vertical axis increases. Canted coil springs can be produced in long segments that are ideal for installation in a
groove as a seal preloading device. This configuration would require very few canted coil springs to accomplish
what otherwise could require hundreds of compression springs.
Several commercially available canted coiled springs were tested experimentally at Glenn Research Center. The
results of these tests are used to verify the predictions from the analytical model. The stiffness of each spring is
classified as light, medium or heavy.5 The parameters of each spring design are presented in Table 1. Spring height,
width, and wire diameter are taken from the manufacturer’s specifications. The front and back angles are measured
quantities, and the remaining parameters are calculated. The spring material is a 302 Stainless steel with significant
cold working. The yield strength of this material can be upwards of 250 ksi.

NASA/TM—2004-213189 1
NASA/TM—2004-213189 2
 Table 1. Canted coil spring parameters.
Light Medium Heavy
Height (in.) 0.450 0.450 0.450
Width (in.) 0.518 0.508 0.510
Cant amplitude (in.) 0.248 0.232 0.230
Wire diameter (in.) 0.031 0.041 0.051
Coils per inch (in.–1) 14.47 9.213 8.297
Front angle (°) 34 35 36
Back angle (°) 27 23.5 23
Eccentricity (n/a) 0.510 0.483 0.494

NASA/TM—2004-213189 3
A. Design Requirements
High temperature preloading devices must endure temperatures above 2000 °F in an oxidizing environment and
remain resilient enough to endure multiple loading and temperature cycles to maintain a positive force resisting
compression. Table 2 summarizes the performance requirements of a seal preloading device.
The primary analysis variables being considered in this study are the maximum Von Mises stress and the
resulting load at 50 percent compression. Although this compression is beyond the design goal, a compression of
50 percent is nearly at the point of coil binding. A spring that did not yield at the point of coil binding could survive
a sudden complete gap closure without sustaining permanent damage. Stroke length and load variance over stroke
are not investigated in this study.

Table 2. Summary of preloading device design requirements.

Performance metric Goal
Temperature range 2000+ °F in oxidizing environment
50+ heating cycles
Life
100+ mechanical loading cycles
Deflection/stroke 20 percent of height
Permanent set Less than 20 percent of stroke
Load range 2 to 10 lb per linear inch
Accommodate structural non-conformities
Flexibility
and seal around corners

II. Computational Model Description

A. Geometry
The centerline of a single coil of a canted coil spring can be given by the parametric equations

x ( t ) = ( rx − rw ) ( sin ( 2πωt ) )

( )
y ( t ) = ry − rw (1 − cos ( 2πωt ) )
c
z (t ) = t +
2
(1 − cos ( 2πωt ) )
1
t ∈ (0, )
ω
where
rx coil half width, (edge to edge)
ry coil half height, (edge to edge)
rw spring wire radius
ω number of coils per unit length
c axial distance the top coil is shifted compared to a helical spring

As t varies from zero to ω–1, the inverse of the number of coils per unit length, the centerline of the spring is
swept out through a single coil. The parameters are further defined in Fig. 5.
Some manufacturers define the front and back angles rather than coils per inch, (ω), and cant amplitude (c). The
following set of equations equates these two sets of parameters

⎛ 1 ⎞
⎜ c ± 2ω
−1
⎟
θ f ,b = tan ⎜ ⎟
(
⎜⎜ 2 ry − rw ) ⎟⎟
⎝ ⎠
where
θf front angle
θb back angle

NASA/TM—2004-213189 4
 Another parameter used in this analysis is the eccentricity of the spring. This parameter varies from zero to one,
zero indicating a circular cross section, and one indicating a spring whose height is infinitesimal compared to its
width. As the eccentricity increases, the spring becomes more elliptical. The eccentricity of the spring is defined in
the following equation, taken from the definition of eccentricity of an ellipse and assuming that the spring height is
always the minor diameter.

( ry − rw )
2

e≡ 1−
( rx − rw )2

B. Boundary Conditions
A finite element model is created to predict the behavior of
different canted coil spring designs and to estimate spring behavior
under loading. This model represents the properties of a single coil at
the center of an infinitely long spring. Periodic symmetry is
implemented by coupling nodes at the end faces of a coil to reduce the
number of elements required to accurately model stress distributions
across the spring. Boundary conditions are imposed on the bottom and
top cross sectional faces of the spring as shown in
Fig. 6. Displacements are prescribed as a ramp function applied to the
center of the top face of the spring in the vertical direction. Since the
top face of the spring is unconstrained in the axial direction, this model
assumes negligible frictional forces. Stresses are calculated as
percentages of the elastic modulus of the material at operating
conditions, so the operating temperature does not influence the model
behavior under the assumptions taken. At each load step, the reaction
force at the displaced top node is recorded to estimate the spring
stiffness as a function of displacement.

C. Finite Element Mesh

The parametric geometry representing the canted coil spring is meshed with 20-node solid elements with a
commercial finite element code,6 (ANSYS v7.1). The density of the mesh is controlled by the number of sections
along the wire and the number of elements per section face. The layout of the elements in each section is shown in
Fig. 7 for two different mesh densities.

NASA/TM—2004-213189 5
 III. Results and Discussion

A. Mesh Refinement Study

To determine whether or not the finite element mesh is sufficiently refined, results are compared between two
models with identical geometries but with different mesh densities. If the results for each model are similar then the
density of nodes in either mesh is sufficient to accurately determine the stresses within the model. The finite element
mesh of each coil is refined by two parameters, the number of sections per coil and the number of elements per
section. The number of sections is varied between 50 and 500, while the number of elements per section is either
5 or 20. This allows for models with 250 to 10,000 elements per coil.
Two models of the medium weight spring geometry are created with the cross sections as shown in Fig. 7. The
first model is made of 300 total elements (5 elements per section and 60 sections per coil). The second model
contains 2000 elements (20 elements per section and 100 sections per coil.) Load versus displacement results for
both models are calculated with the same geometry and boundary conditions and are presented in Fig. 8. The results
show a minimal difference between the two models and indicate, as expected, that the lower density mesh slightly
over predicts the stiffness of the coil. Since the difference in results between the higher and lower density mesh
models is negligible, the lower density model is used for the remainder of the analysis. Typical run times for the
300 and 2000 element meshes are 3 and 100 minutes respectively on a Pentium III machine with 1 GB of ram.

NASA/TM—2004-213189 6
B. Comparison of Computational and Experimental Results
It is suspected that the behavior of a canted coiled spring is dependent on its length. A simplifying assumption
used in the analyses is that the spring is long enough such that, (1), the variation of load between coils is negligible,
(2), end effects are negligible to global spring behavior, (3), and there are enough coils to provide adequate frictional
load to prevent the spring from compacting axially while under load. Axial compression under transverse loading is
observed but does not yet have adequate theoretical explanation. The experimental results presented are all with
spring samples of 4.5 in. in length (roughly 40 coils of spring), which did exhibit axial compacting while being
compressed. The testing was limited to samples which would fit between the loading platens. The experimental
procedures and results of canted coil spring performance can be found in Dunlap et al.7 Experimental results from
the heavy, medium, and light springs are compared against computational predictions in Fig. 9. The computational
results offer a good approximation to the behavior of the three tested springs. For reference purposes, the peak
Von Mises stress for the medium duty spring at 0.200 in. compression was 200 ksi which is within the yield strength
of a cold worked 302 stainless steel.

C. Canted Coil Spring Behavior

In this analysis, we assume that when the spring is deformed the top of the coils slide against the contact surface
and the bottom coils rotate about their axis. This represents a configuration where the bottom of the spring is
constrained axially or where the coefficient of friction is greater at the contact between the spring and bottom
surface than between the spring and the top surface. We found the results to be identical if the bottom of the spring
was allowed to slide and the top was constrained to only rotation, so the motion of the spring is chosen solely as a
convention.
As a canted coil spring is deformed, each coil rotates about the centerline of the wire at the bottom of the coil as
shown in Fig. 10(a). Both sides of the coil can be approximated as semi-elliptic beams (A and B) rotating about their
bottom ends and joined at their top ends. Since the beams have different centers of rotation and lengths, the circular
paths (paths A and B) traced by their rotations are not coincident, and both beams deform such that their ends share
a common path (path C). The exact position of path C is dependent on the relative stiffness of beams A and B.
Beam A must stretch and beam B must be compressed as their ends follow the same path. Under this
deformation the outer surface of B and the inner surface of A will be in tension, and the inner surface of B and the
outer surface of A will be in compression as shown in Fig. 10(b). These predictions are verified by the finite element
analysis results of the stress distribution on the inside and outside of the coil, presented in Fig. 10(c) and (d).

NASA/TM—2004-213189 7
 Table 3. Summary of design parameter variations from baseline design.
Parameter Baseline Min Max Increment
Eccentricity (n/a) 0.526 0.264 0.782 0.052
Wire diameter (in.) 0.041 0.026 0.056 0.005
Coils per inch (in.–1) 9.213 8.713 9.713 0.250
Cant amplitude (in.) 0.232 0.132 0.332 0.050
Width (in.) 0.4 0.300 0.500 0.050

D. Spring Parameter Design Study

To determine the effect of varying spring design parameters, a study is conducted where several parameters are
varied and the response of the spring recorded. Table 3 lists the baseline design and the design parameters that are
varied in the study as well as the limits of variation. In this study, each parameter is exercised through the limits
listed in the table while all other parameters are held constant. The five independent parameters are spring
eccentricity, wire diameter, coils per inch, cant amplitude, and width.
The results of this study are summarized in Figs. 11 to 15. Each figure shows the force required to compress the
spring to 50 percent of its height and the maximum Von Mises stress at 50 percent compression. The Von Mises
stress is presented non-dimensionalized as a percentage of the elastic modulus of the material. The x-axis gives the
parameter being examined, and is centered on the baseline parameter value.

NASA/TM—2004-213189 8
1. Eccentricity
To model different spring eccentricities,
the height of the spring is adjusted while
holding all other parameters constant. Since
minor diameter is controlled by height an
increase of height results in a decrease in spring
eccentricity. Figure 11 shows the influence
of changes in eccentricity from the baseline
spring model on stress and force at 50 percent
compression. As the spring becomes more
elliptical, (i.e., eccentricity increases),
maximum stresses decrease sharply while the
stiffness of the spring increases. The drawback
of this manipulation is that as the eccentricity
increases, the length of the available spring
stroke will decrease with the height of the
spring.

2. Wire Diameter
Figure 12 shows that the stiffness of a
canted spring is proportional to a higher power
order of the wire diameter. It also shows that
the maximum Von Mises stress is linearly
proportional to the wire diameter. This
relationship allows a large change in stiffness
with a relatively small change in the maximum
stress for a given spring design by making
small changes to the wire diameter. The higher
order relationship to stiffness is related to the
second moment of area about the neutral axis
of a round beam which is proportional to the
fourth power of its diameter.

3. Coils Per Inch

When the number of coils per inch
decreases from the baseline geometry the
stiffness of each coil increases as shown in
Fig. 13. As the coils move farther apart, the
ratio between the cant amplitude and the
distance between coils decreases, which
changes the behavior of the deformation from
a rotation of each coil to crushing of the coils.
For the geometry considered in Table 3, the
force per inch of spring also increases as the
number of coils per inch decreases. This
indicates that the stiffening induced by
reducing the angles the coils make with the
vertical axis has a greater impact on stiffness
than the number of coils per linear inch of
canted coil spring in the parameter ranges that
are considered.

NASA/TM—2004-213189 9
4. Cant Amplitude
Figure 14 shows that as the top coil is
shifted farther axially from the position it
would have in a helical spring, the stiffness
of the spring decreases, as well as the
maximum Von Mises stress. Increasing the
cant amplitude causes the front and back
angles of the spring to increase, which results
in a larger moment load about the bottom of
each coil when the spring is loaded.

5. Spring Width
The width of the spring has a linear
influence on the maximum Von Mises stress
and a higher order influence on the spring
force (Fig. 15). Both values decrease as the
spring becomes wider. If the approximate
model of two semi-elliptic beams is used,
then increasing the width of the spring is
analogous to increasing the offset of loading
on an eccentrically loaded column, which
acts to soften the structure.

IV. Concluding Remarks

The finite element model approximation of a long spring gives good approximation to the shape and magnitude
of the force vs. load response measured for a canted coil spring segment under transverse compression loading. This
model is useful in predicting the influence of changing any of several parameters, as well as estimating the values of
stress in the spring which can not be easily measured. Additionally the model shows that several parameters have
different order relationships between the variation of force and maximum Von Mises stress. Varying these different
parameters can be advantageous when optimizing a design to meet performance goals without exceeding material
limitations. Based on these results, the following conclusions are noted:

NASA/TM—2004-213189 10
 1. The behavior of a canted coil spring under compression depends on its length. While a theoretical model of
an infinitely long spring does not account for the effects of unconstrained ends, predictions made from this
model are in good agreement in both magnitude and functional shape to experimental testing of 4.5 in. long
spring segments.
2. Unlike helical compression springs, that store energy in shear strains, the energy storage mechanism in
canted coil springs is primarily one of bending of the semi-elliptic segments. The loading behavior is
similar to that of an eccentrically loaded column, where after a critical force, displacement is
unconstrained. Coil binding, or contact between adjacent coils bounds the displacement for a force above
the critical load level.
3. The stiffness of the spring is highly dependent on the wire diameter and the front and back angles that the
coils make with the vertical axis. Another factor in the spring stiffness is the amount of deformation
required in the semi-elliptic beam segments to allow for the rotation of each coil. This deformation can be
approximated by the amount that the arcs of the semi-elliptic segments would diverge from each other if
they were not constrained to follow the same path. Combining the load versus displacement relationship of
a curved buckling column with the kinematics of the spring deformation may yield an analytic solution to
the behavior of the spring.
4. The behavior cannot fully be described by a model with independent parameters. Any optimization strategy
should take into account the effect of combined variation of parameters in a multi-factor analysis.

References
1
DeMange, J.J., Dunlap, P.H., and Steinetz, B.M., “Advanced Control Surface Seal Development for Future Space Vehicles,”
NASA/TM—2004-212898, January 2004.
2
Taylor, S.C., Dunlap, P.H., DeMange, J.J., and Steinetz, B.H., “Evaluation of High Temperature Knitted Spring Tubes for
Structural Seal Applications,” AIAA–2004–3890, July 2004.
3
Dunlap, P.H., Steinetz, B.M., and DeMange, J.J., “High Temperature Propulsion System Structural Seals for Future Space
Vehicles,” NASA/TM—2004-212907, January 2004.
4
Final Report for Base Package of Contract NAS3–03114 with Refractory Composites, Inc.
5
Balseal Reciprocating Seal Catalog – DM-6, seal part numbers (109–LB–(84)L–2, 109MB–(84)L–2, and 109–HB–(84)L–2).
6
ANSYS MECHANICAL, Ansys, Inc. ([Link]
7
Dunlap, P.H., Steinetz, B.M., DeMange, J.J., and Taylor, S.C., “Toward an Improved Hypersonic Engine Seal,” NASA/TM—
2003-212531, July 2003.

NASA/TM—2004-213189 11
 Form Approved
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE OMB No. 0704-0188
Public reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 1 hour per response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this
collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burden, to Washington Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports, 1215 Jefferson
Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302, and to the Office of Management and Budget, Paperwork Reduction Project (0704-0188), Washington, DC 20503.
1. AGENCY USE ONLY (Leave blank) 2. REPORT DATE 3. REPORT TYPE AND DATES COVERED
September 2004 Technical Memorandum
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. FUNDING NUMBERS

Modeling and Evaluation of Canted Coil Springs as High Temperature Seal

Preloading Devices
WBS–22–794–40–4V
6. AUTHOR(S)

Jay J. Oswald, Robert L. Mullen, Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr., and Bruce M. Steinetz

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION

REPORT NUMBER
National Aeronautics and Space Administration
John H. Glenn Research Center at Lewis Field E–14688
Cleveland, Ohio 44135 – 3191

9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME(S) AND ADDRESS(ES) 10. SPONSORING/MONITORING

AGENCY REPORT NUMBER
National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASA TM—2004-213189
Washington, DC 20546– 0001 AIAA–2004–3889

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

Prepared for the 40th Joint Propulsion Conference and Exhibit cosponsored by AIAA, ASME, SAE, and ASEE,
Fort Lauderdale, Florida, July 11–14, 2004. Jay J. Oswald and Robert L. Mullen, Case Western Reserve University,
10900 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, Ohio 44106–4901; Patrick H. Dunlap, Jr. and Bruce M. Steinetz, NASA Glenn
Research Center. Responsible person, Jay J. Oswald, organization code 5950, 216–433–6411.
12a. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT 12b. DISTRIBUTION CODE

Unclassified - Unlimited
Subject Category: 37 Distribution: Nonstandard
Available electronically at [Link]
This publication is available from the NASA Center for AeroSpace Information, 301–621–0390.
13. ABSTRACT (Maximum 200 words)

Future reusable launch vehicles will require advanced structural seals. This includes propulsion seals along edges and
hinge lines in hypersonic engines, and control surface seals for movable flaps and elevons on proposed reentry vehicles.
Seals must remain in sealing engagement with opposing surfaces, for multiple missions, even though the seal gap may
be opening and closing due to thermal and structural loads. To meet this requirement either the seals themselves must
be resilient or there must be a resilient structural element behind the seals. Case Western Reserve University is working
with NASA’s Glenn Research Center to develop more resilient high temperature seal components and preloading
devices. Results are presented for a finite element analysis of a canted coil spring that is being considered as a high
temperature seal preloading device. This type of spring is a leading candidate due to its ability to provide nearly constant
force over a large deflection. The finite element analyses were verified by comparing them to experimental results of
canted coil springs of three different stiffnesses, measured at Glenn Research Center. Once validated the parameterized
model was combined with a scripting algorithm to assess the effects of key spring design variables (wire diameter, coils
per inch, cant amplitude, eccentricity, and spring width) on spring stiffness and maximum Von Mises stress to aid in
subsequent design.
14. SUBJECT TERMS 15. NUMBER OF PAGES
17
Seals; Canted coil; Spring; High temperature; Finite element method 16. PRICE CODE

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 19. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 20. LIMITATION OF ABSTRACT
OF REPORT OF THIS PAGE OF ABSTRACT
Unclassified Unclassified Unclassified
NSN 7540-01-280-5500 Standard Form 298 (Rev. 2-89)
Prescribed by ANSI Std. Z39-18
298-102