Tim Marker

Round Robin 5 Test Results forProposed Insulation Burnthrough Test Standard

FAA Technical Center

Special Thanks to the following contributors:

Orcon Corportion

TexTech Industries

Johns-Manville

Osaka Gas

Facile Holdings

Dupont

The Mexmil Company

Objective: To identify problems with the test and equipment through systematictesting of identically-prepared samples.

Progress: Several problems have been identified, analyzed, and corrected

Burner components (stators and fuel nozzle)

Burner configuration (angle of stator, distance between stators)

Method of calibration (timing)

Impact of altitude

Round Robin Testing

Goal: Perfect correlation between all labs

Round Robin 5

(Material A) Fiberglass, 2 Layers, 0.60 lb/ft3

(Material C) Fiberglass, 2 Layer/Pre-Ox PAN felt, 1 Layer

(Material D) Oxidized PAN, 2 Layers, 0.47 lb/ft3

(Material B) Fiberglass, 2 Layer/Aramid Felt, 2 Layers

(Material E) Heat Stabilized, OPF, 2 Layers, 0.60 lb/ft3

(Material F) Heat Stabilized, OPF, 3 Layers, 0.42 lb/ft3

A1 B1 C1 D1 E1 F1

B2 C2 X E2 F2 A2

C3 X E3 F3 A3 B3

X X X A4 B4 C4

X X A5 B5 C5 X

X A6 B6 C6 X X

Fifth Calibration

Final Calibration

Initial Calibration

Second Calibration

Third Calibration

Fourth Calibration

RR5 Testing Sequence

RR5 Calibration Heat Flux Comparison

0.0

2.0

4.0

6.0

8.0

10.0

12.0

14.0

16.0

18.0

Ca

lib

rati

on

He

at

Flu

x (

Btu

/ft2 s

ec)

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

72% of Heat Flux Within Range

RR5 Initial Calibration Temperature Profile

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)

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

RR5 Second Calibration Temperature Profile

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)

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

RR5 Third Calibration Temperature Profile

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)

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

RR5 Fourth Calibration Temperature Profile

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)

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

RR5 Fifth Calibration Temperature Profile

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)

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

RR5 Final Calibration Temperature Profile

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

Te

mp

era

ture

(oF

)

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

91% of Temperatures Within Specified Range

RR5 Material A Comparison

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fai

lure

Tim

e (S

eco

nd

s)

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

RR5 Material B Comparison

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilu

re T

ime

(S

eco

nd

s)

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

RR5 Material C Comparison

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilu

re T

ime

(S

eco

nd

s)

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

RR5 Material D Comparison

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilu

re T

ime

(S

eco

nd

s)

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

RR5 Material E Comparison

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilu

re T

ime

(S

eco

nd

s)

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

RR5 Material F Comparison

0

60

120

180

240

300

360

Fa

ilu

re T

ime

(S

eco

nd

s)

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

Summary

First test series since recalibration of all heat flux transducers by FAATC;interlab calibration heat flux data correlation increased over previous RR.

However, actual test results indicate no correlation between calibrated heat fluxand measured burnthrough time (i.e., high HF does not equal short BT time)

First test series since request for recalibration of air velocity meters; how manywere actually recalibrated?

Initial results indicate higher than expected data scatter. Possible cause(s) ofthis include:

1. Differences in burner air flow as a result of measurement technique

2. Characteristic of certain types of materials

3. Equipment-related malfunction

4. Operational-related malfunction (interpretation of failure)