objective - develop a test method that is: representative of actual conditions repeatable and...

Objective - Develop a test method that is:

•Representative of Actual Conditions

•Repeatable and Consistent

•Obtainable by All Labs in All Parts of the World

Test Method Co-Developed With NPRM

...Test Method Perfection

...Release NPRM

Delay Implementation Process

Discrepancies in Calibration and Requirements

Cold-Side Heat Flux: 1.5 or 2.0 Btu/ft2 sec?

Air Inlet Velocity: 2000, 2100, or 2200 ft/min??

Burner Heat Flux: 13.5 +/-0.5, 15.2 +/- 0.8, or 16.0 +/- 0.8???

Requirements have changed as more is learned about the equipment

Chance for industry to participate in the development of the requirements

Objective of Testing, Research, & Round Robin:

• Establish Similar Calibration Procedure

• Produce Similar Exposure From Burner

• Achieve Similar Test Results

Factors That Can Influence Calibration

• Air Intake Velocity

• Air Intake Temperature

• Fuel Flowrate

• Fuel Temperature

• Instrumentation (type/size of thermocouple, calorimeter type)

• Other Adjustments (position of igniters, static disc, tabs)

• Fuel Type (Jet A, Diesel, Fuel Oil)

• Environmental Conditions (relative humidity, barometric pressure)

Latest Calibration Procedure

Temperature: (1850 +/- 100oF)

Adjust Fuel Flowrate to 6.0 +/- 0.2 gal/hr

Adjust Burner Intake Air Velocity to 2100 +/- 100 ft/min

Heat Flux: (16.0 +/- 0.8 Btu/ft2 sec)

•After 2-minute warm-up, swing burner into position, •allow 1 minute stabilization, •take reading for 30 seconds (once per second) and average, •swing burner away from flame

•After 2-minute warm-up, swing burner into position, •allow 1 minute stabilization, •take reading for 30 seconds (once per second) and average, •swing burner away from flame

Air Velocity/Airflow Measurement

Reasons for measuring airflow at intake location:

•Allows for continuous monitoring

•Prevents removal/disruption of tabs

•Eliminates need to remove burner cone

•Intake velocity = Outlet velocity/

Intake Airbox Holding Air Velocity Meter

Intake Airbox

Data Collection Procedure is Critical

Effect of Soot Buildup on Calorimeter Performance(2 minute warm-up away from calorimeter surface)

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

0 2 4 6 8 10 12

Time (minutes)

He

at

Flu

x (

Btu

/ft2 s

ec

)

1900 ft/min2000 ft/min2100 ft/min2200 ft/min2400 ft/min2600 ft/min

Date: 11/24/99

Average Rake Temperature Vs. TimeAt Various Air Velocity Settings

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

0 2 4 6 8 10

Time (minutes)

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)

1900 ft/min

2000 ft/min2100 ft/min

2200 ft/min2400 ft/min

Data Collection Procedure is Critical

Temperature Profile Bias

Backside Heat Flux MeasurementsCalorimeters Mounted at 4 Inches from Centerline

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

9.0

0 60 120 180 240 300 360

Time (seconds)

He

at F

lux

(Btu

/ft2

se

c)

Cal #1 Baseline

Cal #2 Baseline

Cal #1 Nextel Test

Cal #2 Nextel Test

Location of Flame Enhancement Tab

Static Disc Mounted to Igniter Assembly

Material 1

Material 2

Material 3

Material 4

Round Robin Test Results (Initial)

Material 5

Material 6

Material 7

Material 8

Round Robin Test Results (Initial)

Burnthrough Round Robin Test ResultsFAA Lab

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Material

Fa

ilure

Tim

e (

Se

co

nd

s)

Not

Tes

ted

Material 1 Comparison (Initial)

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilure

Tim

e (

Se

co

nd

s)

Lab A Lab B Lab C Lab D Lab E Lab F Lab G Lab H Lab I Lab J

Red

uced

Bur

ner

Out

put


0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilure

Tim

e (

Se

co

nd

s)


Red

uced

Bur

ner

Out

put


0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilure

Tim

e (

Se

co

nd

s)


No

Dat

a Red

uced

Bur

ner

Out

put


0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilure

Tim

e (

Se

co

nd

s)


No

Dat

a

Red

uced

Bur

ner

Out

put


0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilure

Tim

e (

Se

co

nd

s)


No

Dat

a

No

Dat

a

Red

uced

Bur

ner

Out

put


0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilure

Tim

e (

Se

co

nd

s)


No

Dat

a

Red

uced

Bur

ner

Out

put

Material 1 Comparison (Final)

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilure

Tim

(S

ec

on

ds

)


Red

uced

Bur

ner

Out

put


0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilure

Tim

e (

Se

co

nd

s)


Red

uced

Bur

ner

Out

put

Correlation Using 6 GPH Burner (Full Scale vs. Lab Scale)

0

30

60

90

120

150

Fa

ilure

Tim

e (

Se

co

nd

s)

1:24

1:361:38

2:14

1:24 Avg

1:54 Avg

2000 ft/min 2100 ft/min 2200 ft/min

Full Scale Testsin 707

Lab Scale Tests with Burner.0

63

-Inc

h A

lcla

d +

3 L

aye

r A

ero

cor

.06

3-I

nch

Alc

lad

+ 4

Lay

er

Ae

roco

r

1:22 Avg

1:37 Avg

Correlation Using 4 GPH Burner (Full Scale vs. Lab Scale)

0

30

60

90

120

150

Fa

ilure

Tim

e (

Se

co

nd

s)

2000 ft/min 2200 ft/min

.06

3-I

nch

Alc

lad

+ 3

Lay

er

Ae

roco

r

.06

3-I

nch

Alc

lad

+ 4

Lay

er

Ae

roco

r

1:24

1:361:36 Avg

1:42 Avg

1:29 Avg

1:35 Avg

Full Scale Testsin 707

Lab Scale Tests with Burner

4 GPH Calibration Data

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

Intake Air Velocity (ft/min)

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

He

at

Flu

x (

Btu

/ft2 s

ec

)

1800 2000 2200

6 GPH Calibration Data

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

Intake Air Velocity (ft/min)

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

He

at

Flu

x (

Btu

/ft2 s

ec

)

2000 2100 2200

Temperature Profile Comparison (Final Calibration)

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)


Temperature Profile Comparison (Initial Calibration)

1000

1100

1200

1300

1400

1500

1600

1700

1800

1900

2000

2100

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)


Heat Flux Comparison

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

He

at

Flu

x (

Btu

/ft2 s

ec

)


Minimum Burner Heat Flux Maximum Burner Heat Flux

objective - develop a test method that is: representative of actual conditions repeatable and...

Documents