tim marker
DESCRIPTION
Round Robin 5 Test Results for Proposed Insulation Burnthrough Test Standard. Tim Marker. FAA Technical Center. Special Thanks to the following contributors:. The Mexmil Company. Orcon Corportion. TexTech Industries. Johns-Manville. Facile Holdings. Osaka Gas. Dupont. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
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)